Now after her deposition Aaron should interview Fiona Hill. I would like to see how she would lose all the feathers of her cocky
"I am Specialist in Russia" stance. She a regular MIC prostitute (intelligence agencies are a part of MIC) just like Luke Harding. And
probably both have the same handlers.
Brilliant interview !
Harding is little more than an intelligence asset himself and his idea of speaking to "Russians" is London circle of Russian emigrants
which are not objective source by any means.
He's peddling a his Russophobic line with no substantiation. In fact, the interview constitutes an overdue exposure of this pressitute.
Notable quotes:
"... He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. ..."
"... This interview is a wonderful illustration of everything that is horribly wrong with corporate media. I hope it goes viral. ..."
"... Very well put! Everything that is labeled as "conspiracy theory" when aimed towards the West, is "respectable journalism" when aimed at Russia. ..."
"... Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman "all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil. ..."
"... Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises '' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling the postal service company for transportation costs. ..."
"... Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate to The Real News. ..."
"... GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC server was hacked. ..."
"... Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking. ..."
"... NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election. Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller? LIAR!!!! ..."
"... Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here. ..."
"... His logic seems to be: Putin does things we don't like -> Trump getting elected is something we don't like -> Putin got Trump elected. ..."
That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence
(something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch
of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. That's not how you're going to
get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on
"oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season.
Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really,
its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations
of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding
for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering
journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course
if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were
to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
That is the video about fire arm legalization "cockroaches ", even if you are not Russian speaking it's pretty graphic to understand
the idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ILxqIEEMg
And FYI - Central Asian workers do the low-wage jobs in Moscow, pretty like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans in US. Yet, that "future
president" is trying to gain some popularity by labeling and demonizing them. Sounds familiar a bit?
"definitelly ddissagree with that assertation about Alexei he's had nationalist views but he's definitely not far right and
calling him a tool of US intelligence is pretty bs this is the exact same assertation that the Russian state media says about
him."
I disagree that there is any evidence of Navalny being tool of US intelligence, but you are wrong for not recognizing
that Navalny is ultranationalist. His public statements are indefensible. He is a Russian ultra nationalist, far right and a racist.
Statements about cockroaches, worse than rats, bullets being too good etc - there is no way to misunderstand that.
Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman
"all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always
cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil.
Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises
'' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling
the postal service company for transportation costs.
@trdi I am a Russian. And I remember the early Navalny who made me sick to my stomach with absolutely disgusting, RACIST, anti-immigration
commentaries. The guy is basically a NEO-NAZI who has toned down his nationalist diatribes in the past 10 or so years. Has he
really reformed? I doubt it.
MrChibiluffy, Navalny became relatively popular in Russia precisely at that time, especially during the White Ribbon protests
in 2011/2012. I remember it very well myself.
I am Russian and I lived in Moscow at that time and he was the darling of the Russian opposition. He publicly defined his views
and established himself back then and hasn't altered his position to this day.
What's more important is that around 2015 or so he made an alliance with the far-right and specifically Diomushkin who is a
neo-nazi activist. I understand that people change their views, it's just that he hasn't.
Nikita Gusarov it still feels like the best chance for some form of populist opposition atm. Even though they just rejected
him he has a movement. Would you rather vote for Sobchak?
Lets not forget that one reason many voted for Trump was his rhetoric about improving the peace-threatening antagonism towards
Russia, especially in order to help resolve the situation in Syria. It's not like it was secret he was trying to hide. He only
moderated his views somewhat when the Democrat-engineered anti-Russian smear campaign took off and there was a concerted effort
to tie him to Russia.
Is it crime surround yourself with people that will help you fullfill your pledges?
Yep, when he talked about murdering journalists, I paused the video and told my girlfriend about the murder of Michael Hastings.
Oh an PS the USA puts journalists in Guantanamo. We play real baseball.
Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths
or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate
to The Real News.
GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other
issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC
server was hacked.
Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know
if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever
you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase
that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking.
NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would
not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election.
Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller?
LIAR!!!!
Wow Aaron Matte NICE JOB. I'm only half through, I hope you don't make him cry. Do u make him cry? Did I hear this guy say
he's ultimately a storyteller? Lol.
It may seem like Trump has an alarming amount of associations with Russia, because he does.. that's how rich oligarchs work.
But it's all just SPECULATION still. Why publish a book on this without a smoking gun to prove anything? Collusion isn't even
a legal term, it's vague enough for people to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. People investigating and reporting on
this are operating under confirmation bias. Aaron, you're always appropriately critical and you're always asking the right questions.
You seem to be one of the few sane people left in media. Trump is a disgrace but there still is no smoking gun.
Omg a bunch of unproven conspiracy crap.. Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here..
How would anyone in the years before his candidacy have thought Trump would gain any political relevance. I mean even the pro
Hillary media thought until the end, their massive trump coverage would only help to get him NOT elected, but the opposite was
the case. This guy is a complete joke as are his theses. Actually reminding me of the guardian's so called report about Russian
Hacking in the Brexit referendum. Look here if you want to have a laugh
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/how-097-changed-the-fate-of-britain-not.html
Collusion Rejectionist! Ha Ha. Funniest interview ever. Well done Aaron. The Real News taking a stand for truth. So what's
in the book if there's no evidence? Guardian journalism? Stop questioning the official narrative, oh and have you heard of Estonia.
:)) ps that smiley face was not an admission of my working for the Kremlin.
Best interview ever. Aaron held him to his theories and asked what evidence or proof he had and he didn't come up with one
spec of evidence only hearsay and disputed theories. What a sad indictment this is on America. 1 year on a sensationalized story
and still nothing concrete. What a joke and proof of gullibility to anyone who believes this corporate media Narritive. I guess
at least they don't have to cover policies like the tax theft or net neutrality. This is why we need The Real news.
I'd rather have American business making business deals with Russia for things like hotels, rather than business deals with
the Pentagon to aim more weapons at the Russians. When haven't we been doing business with Russians? We might as well investigate
Cargill, Pepsi, McDonald's, John Deere, Ford, and most of our wheat farmers.
Looks like Chalupa was an important player in Steele dossier. That suggests Ukrainian diaspora, and possibly Ukrainian SBU links.
Notable quotes:
"... Just worth noting that in the hand-written notes taken by Bruce Ohr after meetings with Chris Steele, there is the comment that the majority of the Steele Dossier was obtained from an expat Russian living in the US, and not from actual Russian sources in Russia. ..."
"... That would tend to work against theories that involve Skripal in a significant role in generating the dossier; though it would not rule him out in a more peripheral role ..."
"... We can also conclude neither bruce ohr, or the expat russian living in the us are neutral players in any of this too.. Was someone paid a fee to say something?? ..."
"... Steele is a stranger to the truth in any event so I wouldn't set much store by it – though if the dossier is third hand material at best it certainly explains why it is such rubbish. Steele's ability to get cash by selling steaming nonsense to the gullible is amazing. ..."
"... "A Ukrainian political consultant has revealed to Sputnik that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele sought and paid for researchers in Ukraine to concoct fake stories about Donald Trump prior his election as US president to use in the now-infamous dossier that supposedly contained damning evidence of Russia-Trump collusion. ..."
"... Radio Sputnik's Lee Stranahan spoke previously with Ukrainian political consultant and former diplomat Andrii Telizhenko about his connections to a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative named Alexandra Chalupa who also worked for clients in Ukrainian politics. Chalupa told Politico in January 2017 that beginning in 2015, she pulled on a network of sources she'd established in Kiev and Washington to try and turn up dirt on Trump, once his star began to rise in the Republican primary campaign." ..."
Just worth noting that in the hand-written notes taken by Bruce Ohr after meetings with Chris Steele, there is the comment
that the majority of the Steele Dossier was obtained from an expat Russian living in the US, and not from actual Russian sources
in Russia.
That would tend to work against theories that involve Skripal in a significant role in generating the dossier; though it
would not rule him out in a more peripheral role.
We can also conclude neither bruce ohr, or the expat russian living in the us are neutral players in any of this too..
Was someone paid a fee to say something?? your last comment-conclusion is very shaky at best..
Could you give a link to the source of that info? Steele is a stranger to the truth in any event so I wouldn't set much
store by it – though if the dossier is third hand material at best it certainly explains why it is such rubbish. Steele's ability
to get cash by selling steaming nonsense to the gullible is amazing.
"A Ukrainian political consultant has revealed to Sputnik that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele sought and paid for
researchers in Ukraine to concoct fake stories about Donald Trump prior his election as US president to use in the now-infamous
dossier that supposedly contained damning evidence of Russia-Trump collusion.
Radio Sputnik's Lee Stranahan spoke previously with Ukrainian political consultant and former diplomat Andrii Telizhenko
about his connections to a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative named Alexandra Chalupa who also worked for clients in
Ukrainian politics. Chalupa told Politico in January 2017 that beginning in 2015, she pulled on a network of sources she'd established
in Kiev and Washington to try and turn up dirt on Trump, once his star began to rise in the Republican primary campaign."
A foreign intelligence asset was used to justify surveillance of Trump[ and some of his associates
Notable quotes:
"... What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent? ..."
"... The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA) and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant"). ..."
"... The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their hand on the scale. ..."
"... Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power. ..."
"... I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors. ..."
"... if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know? ..."
"... Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost. ..."
"... Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance. ..."
"... From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. ..."
"... He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI. ..."
"... its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered. ..."
"... Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this? ..."
"... A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as 'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies. ..."
"... It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries ..."
"... If, as seems likely, both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary. ..."
"... An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him ..."
"... A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the supposed termination ..."
"... 'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence probes in American history.' ..."
"... I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief. ..."
"... Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it. ..."
"... Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense. So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs. ..."
"... Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly: ..."
"... Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. ..."
"... One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get 'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt on Trump...how is this not the same...? ..."
"... What role did Stefan Halper and Mifsud play as Confidential Human Sources in all this? ..."
"... Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation that may have already begun? ..."
"... British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete), his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy. ..."
"... British Intelligence is verifiably the foreign source with the most extensive and effective meddling in the 2016 election. Perfidious Albion. ..."
"... Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws they have that prohibits spying on their people. ..."
"... still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources ..."
"... I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia. ..."
"... Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these people think they are. ..."
"... It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things ..."
The revelations from US Government records about the FBI/Intel Community plot to take out Donald Trump continue to flow thanks
to the dogged efforts of Judicial Watch. The latest nugget came last Friday with the release of FBI records detailing their recruitment
and management of Britain's ostensibly retired Intelligence Officer, Christopher Steele. He was an officially recruited FBI source
and received at least 11 payments during the 9 month period that he was signed up as a Confidential Human Source.
You may find it strange that we can glean so much information from
a document dump that is almost
entirely redacted . The key is to look at the report forms; there are three types--FD-1023 (Source Reports), FD-209a (Contact
Reports) and FD-794b (Payment Requests). There are 15 different 1023s, 13 209a reports and 11 794b payment requests covering the
period from 2 February 2016 thru 1 November 2016. That is a total of nine months.
These reports totally destroy the existing meme that Steele only came into contact with the FBI sometime in July 2016. It is important
for you to understand that a 1023 Source Report is filled out each time that the FBI source handler has contact with the source.
This can be an in person meeting or a phone call. Each report lists the name of the Case Agent; the date, time and location of the
meeting; any other people attending the meeting; and a summary of what was discussed.
What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive
contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent?
The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA)
and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps
who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant").
We can be pretty sure this predates any alleged Russian "hacking" (unless it occurred as a result of alleged Russian hacking
of the DNC in 2015).
This needs to be pinned down if anyone is to be successfully prosecuted for creating this treasonous hoax.
A very closely related topic, Victor Davis Hanson is onto something but it is darker than he suggests,
https://www.nationalreview.... Paraphrasing, he gives the typical, rally around the flag we must stop the Russians intro but
then documents how govt flaks abused their power to influence our elections and then makes the point, 'this is why the public
is skeptical of their claims'.
The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their
hand on the scale.
Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are
trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the
mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't
support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power.
I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in
the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors.
What I can't figure out is: if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the
Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance
with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know?
Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them
to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost.
Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie
that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance.
From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole
thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews
by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. And of course the media narrative that Rep. Nunes, Goodlatte and others were endangering "national
security" by casting aspersions on the "patriotic" law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got
their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI.
Of course, he had most likely already done so and its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered
to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered.
Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was
not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this?
The point is not merely a quibble. A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law
enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as
'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies.
It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of
agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries.
Another related matter has to do with the termination of Steele as a 'Confidential Human Source.'
It has long seemed to me that it was more than possible that this was not to be taken at face value. If, as seems likely,
both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately
involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information
to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary.
An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back
channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him.
A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the
supposed termination.
When on 31 January 2017 – well after the publication of the dossier by BuzzFeed – Ohr provided reassurance that he could continue
to help feed information to the FBI, Steele texted back:
"If you end up out though, I really need another (bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can't allow our guy to be
forced to go back home. It would be disastrous."
At that point, Solomon tells us that 'Investigators are trying to determine who Steele was referring to.' This seems to me
a rather important question. It would seem likely, although not certain, that he is talking about another Brit. If he is, would
it have been someone else employed by Orbis? Or someone currently working for British intelligence? What is the precise significance
of 'forced to go back home', and why would this have been 'disastrous'?
Another crucial paragraph:
'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in
London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence
probes in American history.'
The earlier contacts may be of little interest, but there again they may not be.
As it happens, it was following Berezovsky's arrival in London in October 2001 that the 'information operations' network he
created began to move into high gear. It is moreover clear that this was always a transatlantic operation, and also fragments
of evidence suggest that the FBI may have had some involvement from early on.
I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large
measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures
close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication
which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief.
The original attempt came in a radio programme broadcast by the BBC – which was to become known to some of us as the 'Berezovsky
Broadcasting Corporation' – on 16 December 2006, presented by Tom Mangold, a familiar 'trusty' for the intelligence services.
(A transcript sent out from the Cabinet Office at the time is available on the archived 'Evidence' page for the Inquiry, at
http://webarchive.nationala... , as HMG000513. There is an interesting and rather important question as to whether those who
sent it out, and those who received it, knew that it was more or less BS from start to finish.)
The programme was wholly devoted to claims made by the former KGB operative Yuri Shvets, who was presented as an independent
'due diligence' expert, without any mention of the rather major role he had played in the original 'Orange Revolution.'
Back-up was provided by his supposed collaborator in 'due diligence', the former FBI operative Robert 'Bobby' Levinson. No
mention was made of the fact that he had been, in the 'Nineties, a, if not the lead FBI investigator into the notorious Ukrainian
Jewish mobster Semyon Mogilevich.
The following March Levinson would disappear on the Iranian island of Kish, on what we now know was a covert mission on behalf
of elements in the CIA.
Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether
the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson
were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important
issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it.
Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including
McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense.
So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs.
Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem
to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly:
Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with
the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted
his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation
culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. His initial contact with old friends at the FBI Eurasian
Crime Task Force is awfully similar to his contacting these same friends in 2016 after deciding his initial Trump research was
potentially bigger than mere opposition research.
One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get
'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously
I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt
on Trump...how is this not the same...?
Even worse is that the FBI was using this same foreign agent that a presidential
candidate had hired to get dirt on an opponent... Even knowing nothing about legalities this just doesn't look very good...
Stupid question? As the Col. has explained, the President can declassify any document he pleases. So, why doesn't Donaldo unredact
the redacted portions of these bullcrap docs? What is he afraid of? That the Intel community will get mad and be out to get him?
Isn't time for him to show some cojones?
Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this
have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence
source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation
that may have already begun?
British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete),
his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated
desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting
others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has
not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too
big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy.
Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing
agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? And therefore without having to mess about with any formal FISA warrant
thingy's ... But, then use what might be found (or plausibly alleged) to try to get a proper FISA warrant later on (July 2016)?
'Parallel Discovery' of sorts; with Fusion GPS also a leaky cut-out: channelling media reports to be used as confirmation of Steele's
"raw intelligence" in the formal FISA application(s)?
Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they
would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates,
" Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching
him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, "
That's a good question, could it legally enable an end run around the FISC until enough evidence was gathered for a FISC surveillance
authorization?.
I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the
NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws
they have that prohibits spying on their people.
Only a matter of time until someone figured out the same method could be used to "meddle" in national affairs.
I understand, but still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources such as Steele about
a very high profile American citizen and businessman -- aren't our intelligence services competent enough to have known and discovered
as much if not more about Trump than other countries' intelligence services? I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years
ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In
my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia.
Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them
are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these
people think they are.
It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things.
This "shadowy Russian" might well be Sergey Skripal. This suggests that Steele dossier was CIA operation with British MI6 as transfer mechanism and
Steele as a cover. And implicates Brennan. So this is next level of leaks after "Stormy Daniel"...
Another NYT leak out of a set of well coordinated leans from anonymous intelligence officials ;-) Poor Melania...
Notable quotes:
"... But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to a fascinating report from The New York Times. ..."
"... If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7 during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries. ..."
"... More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia is still being stoked no matter what. ..."
"... Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine, McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down. ..."
"... the CIA has to turn America into a criminal totalitarian regime in order to make the world safe for democracy ..."
"... How much you wanna bet that Brennan, Obama's CIA Director, was behind ..."
"... You mean the same Brennan who is the godfather of ISIS? ..."
"... "U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can call off the hounds. ..."
"... Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it... ..."
"... Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big bad russkies tricked us. ..."
"... 'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope. Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a long shot. ..."
"... i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds. this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to trump. ..."
"... Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a cloth." ..."
"... And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works ..."
"... So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers for procurers of hosebags for him to screw? ..."
When they said "Russian collusion", few expected it to be between the CIA and a "shadowy
Russian operative." And yet, according to a blockbuster NYT report, that's precisely what
happened.
* * *
The CIA paid $100,000 last year to a Russian operative who claimed to have derogatory
information about President Trump, including a video tape of the Republican engaged with
prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. If the video showed Trump, it would support claims made in
the infamous Steele dossier, the salacious opposition research report financed by the Clinton
campaign and DNC.
But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other
information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to
a fascinating report from The New York Times.
American spies made contact with the Russia early in 2017 after he offered to sell the Trump
material along with cyber hacking tools that were stolen from the NSA that year, according to
The Times. U.S. intelligence officials told The Times they were so desperate to retrieve those
tools that they negotiated with the operative for months despite several red flags, including
indications that he was working in concert with Russian intelligence.
Another red flag was the Russian's financial request. He initially sought $10 million for
the information but dropped the asking price to $1 million.
After months of negotiations, American spies handed over $100,000 in cash in a brief case to
the Russian during a meeting in Berlin in September.
The operative also offered documents and emails that purported to implicate other Trump
associates, including former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But The Times viewed the
documents and reported that they were mostly information that is already in the public
domain.
The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers, showed the video
purported to be Trump to a Berlin-based American businessman who served as his intermediary to
the CIA. But according to the Times, the footage and the location of the viewing raised
questions about its authenticity.
The 15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was
Trump, and there was no audio. The Russian also showed the video to his American partner at the
Russian embassy in Berlin, a sign that the operative had ties to Russian intelligence.
The Russian stonewalled the production of the cyber tools, and U.S. officials eventually cut
ties, according to The Times. After the payout in Berlin, the man provided information about
Trump and his associates of questionable veracity.
The Americans gave him an ultimatum earlier in 2018 to either play ball, leave Western
Europe, or face criminal charges. He left, according to The Times, which interviewed U.S.
officials, the American intermediary and the Russian for its article.
The Times' U.S. sources -- who appear to paint the American side in a positive light -- said
that they were reluctant to purchase information because they did not want to be seen buying
dirt on the president.
The officials also expressed concern that the Russian operative was planting disinformation
on behalf of the Russian government. U.S. officials were worried that the Russian government
has sought to sow discord between U.S. intelligence agencies and Trump. The revelation that the
CIA purchased dirt on him would likely do the trick.
The Times report also has other new details.
Four other Russians with ties to the spy world have surfaced over the past year offering to
sell dirt on Trump that closely mirrors allegations made in the dossier, according to the
article. But officials have reason to believe that some of sellers have ties to Russian
intelligence agencies.
The Times also provides new details on Cody Shearer, a notorious operative close to the
Clintons. Shearer was recently revealed to have shopped
around a so-called "second dossier" prior to the campaign which mirrored the sex allegations of
the Steele report.
According to The Times, he has criss-crossed Europe over the past six months in an attempt
to find video footage of Trump from the Moscow hotel room. Shearer claimed to have information
from the FSB, Russia's spy service, that a video existed of Trump with prostitutes in a Moscow
hotel room.
He shared a memo making the allegations with his friend and fellow Clinton fixer, Sidney
Blumenthal. Blumenthal in turn passed the memo to his friend, Jonathan Winer, a Department of
State official. Winer then gave the information to Steele who provided it to the FBI in October
2016.
Steele also provided information to Winer, who wrote up a two-page memo that was circulated
within the State Department.
Trump has denied allegations that he used prostitutes in Moscow. He has called the dossier a
"hoax" and "crap."
* * *
On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted that "according to the @nytimes, a Russian sold phony
secrets on "Trump" to the U.S. Asking price was $10 million, brought down to $1 million to be
paid over time. I hope people are now seeing & understanding what is going on here. It is
all now starting to come out - DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Of course, if Trump really wants to "drain the swamp", any such decision would have
originate with him. Tags PoliticsCommercial Banks
Release the pee pee video now! No one pee peed in the $100,000 video in question. The
15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was Trump,
and there was no audio. And how can anyone be more fascinated by the prospect of pee pee than
by the fact that US intelligence agencies were buying bad information from extremely shady
foreigners in an attempt to overthrow the President of the United States?
Trump is starting to assume that the people are dumber than Obowel did. Earth to Don, you
sir have the drain pump, you sir have surrounded yourself with Swamp creatures.... You sir
are.............
According to this, the Russians stole the hacking tools needed to cut through the Swamp
levee, which were developed by the NSA, and now the CIA cannot buy them back. Now, since the
USA wanted its Swamp, the Russians are more than happy to let the USA drown in its swamp.
Anyone have a link for the Qanon posts. I haven't seen them in a couple of weeks since he
left 8chan where he was posting. I don't want the Youtube BS, I just want the link... anyone
got one. Its strangely not googleable... LOLZ.
If you think that the CIA is a U.S. intelligence agency working on the best interests of
the United States, you better wake up and smell the treason. They only work for the best
interests of themselves.
Here is a question. Why does the CIA not come out and clear the air re: Trump?
I mean they were even paying people to come up with dirt. He is now your president and the
country is a fucking mess. Should the CIA not come out and say we tried but we got nothing?
They do have the ability to fix all this Trump shit and yet crickets.
And the best interests of clients. The CIA started out is the muscle for the Dulles
Brothers clients who were being booted out of various countries they were super-exploiting.
The Agency hasn't looked back since.
Nobody got whizzed on. That lurid fantasy came soley out of the head of Hillary Clinton,
given to Blumenthal, passed around and made to look like it came from Russia.
It IS remarkable the stuff people believe when all logic goes against it. Like Oswald
firing magic bullets from an old Italian Carcano...and jet fuel melting steel beams...and a
building collapsing through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint after NOT
being hit by an airplane...and Kennedy being shot from behind, but his head snapping
backwards from the impact...and Oswald picking the worst possible shooting location, but in
front of Kennedy were two intersecting highways going in any direction...and terrorist
passports floating gently down from the sky.
RFK and Nixon knew immediately the assassination of JFK was a CIA hit job because they had
CHAIRED those hit squad operations themselves for Cuban Operations. They saw the CIA- Cuban
hit squad fingerprints all over the kill. RFK had personally fired Wm Harvey, Dulles' chief
of assassinations. However, RFK was silenced because he and Jack had been tag-teaming Marilyn
Monroe.
The reason JFK was killed was a) his openly stated determination to shatter the CIA into a
thousand pieces so they could no longer operate as a dangerous, renegade private army; and b)
in the Spring of '63 JFK delivered his famous American U address calling for the end of the
Cold War...
Oswald was always a patsie... the WC documents how his rifle was inoperable... scope
needed parts just to be be sited and take aim... even after parts installed the rifle
attributed to Oswald remained highly inaccurate... Military sharpshooters couldn't even hit
stationary targets reliably.
Drain the swamp! Townsquare justice for Odumbo and Hitlery! George Soros to bathe in the
Amazon River with 1 million Piranha Fish until it completely disappears. Drain the evil
Dumorat swamp. Drain the banana republic CIA and FBI. Our tax dollars and constitution did
not pay for this shit.
With today's technology, the CIA is most likely working on a fake video for you right now.
They might release it on Vimeo or Netflix to cover the costs and give themselves plausible
deniability. To add a finishing touch they will make a fake video of Julian Assange claiming
he is releasing it. You'll be in hog heaven. Which is where folks like you go just before
being slaughtered by your owners and turned into spam.
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help
themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia
is still being stoked no matter what.
Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does
that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine,
McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to
Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the
rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down.
Good point in the last sentence. If someone is going to "drain the swamp" it is going to
have to be the president of the United States. I think I'm correct that he can fire anyone
that works in the executive department for cause. He can also order investigations or hire
people who will launch real investigations.
Mr. President, if you want to "drain the swamp," drain it.
If there was a video it would of been leaked during the election, they have nothing that
sticks on the guy.
All the evidence thus far states
Obama Hillary the FBI, DNC, CIA all spied on Trump and colluded with foreign governments
(U.K. , Ukraine , Russia) to try and dig up dirt to use against Trump (and they more or less
failed).
They turned over every rock they could, look at that stupid hot-mic video in the bus, how
many hours of video did they have to go through to dig up that crumb? they went back
searching through 30+ years of content and thats all they could come up with.... some locker
room talk lol
People have to just face it.
Your government was and still is corrupt and its a weaponized system of control, Your
government colluded with the enemy in a desperate attempt to stop Trump from becoming
president. Your government started a sham "Russia investigation" to cover up its own crimes.
Your government applied a different standard of justice to the clintons than it would have to
you or anyone else.
To date ZERO evidence has been brought forward that Trump or anyone in his campaign did
anything wrong, and the only people that have done anything wrong so far were picked by "the
swamp" to fill positions..... all the others fell into petty perjury Traps on meaningless
topics and insignificant factoids.
Isn't it lovely to find out that your money and mine is being used by government agents to
give us the government they want?
It's sort of like a thug robbing you and using part of your money to pay another thug to
rough you up from time time to time if you ask any questions with the thugs believing it's
for our own good.
Thanks, Hillary, for looking out for us. You and your best buds are the best. Such
bighearted givers! Meanwhile, give our regards to your partner in slime Obama, although it
must pain you to have been bested by 'Beavis' who thinks so much of himself to balance out
how little he impresses anyone who knows him.
"U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can
call off the hounds.
Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of
power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this
himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it...
As taxpayers can we sue the CIA for misusing our funds? Pretty sure that buying sex videos
for commercial release isn't part of the CIA's lawful mandate even at bargain prices.
Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US
intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on
their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own
treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big
bad russkies tricked us.
my sauces tell me that pink pussyhat wearing hollywood types have been called in because
they have a doppelganger for trump and access to 30,000 sexually abused victims that can act
as Russian prostitutes for just ten bucks each. snapchat has a trump emoji that can be transplanted onto any porn video star - male or
female - thus confirming that trump is a serial (serious?) user of ladies of the night
my sauces also tell me that the CIA offers a reward of 100,000 bucks (or 10 BTC) for every
photo-shopped (snap-shopped or porn-shopped) material.
of course, the CIA already owns many many porn movie studios and films, but it would
prefer third "party" movies - not from epstein's island where its operatives choose to rela
with a pizza.
the CIA "pink" budget for such movies is limited to just 5,000 clips or 5 billion of
taxpayers funds, whichever is the higher.
'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the
Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it
hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly
elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope.
Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a
long shot.
i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds.
this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to
trump.
Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I
copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a
cloth."
And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but
my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works.
So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and
more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers
for procurers of hosebags for him to screw?
I mean if they're so concerned about Trump and a couple of hookers... Better put some ice on that, CIA.
You all are so ridiculous and fooled with your "drain the swamp" bs. It's a great idea but
Trump doing it is a joke, I mean just look at who he has hired, what's wrong with you all are
you blind?!!
He can't even fill 1/3 of the government positions he's supposed to and the ones he has
have no business holding the positions given to them and are so incompetent, downright
criminal or just personally horrendous humans that they can't stay in office more than a few
months. All their blatant and moronically concocted lies are backing them into corners every
day that they just try and lie out of again. America is over if we really have gotten to the
point that a group like Trump's has support, it's just astonishing.
The public's tax dollars were spent on creating fake "evidence" to tie Trump with Russia, a false narrative that
put the planet at heightened risk for nuclear war, for the sake of the Clinton's hurt feelings.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, the public's tax dollars were spent on creating fake "evidence" to tie Trump with Russia, a false narrative that put the planet at heightened risk for nuclear war, for the sake of the Clinton's hurt feelings. ..."
"... Even more interesting is the close relationship Isikoff had with the DNC during the 2016 Presidential election. According to an email from the DNC released by Wikileaks , Isikoff attended the "Open World Society's forum" as the guest of DNC official Ali Chalupa. In the email, Chalupa states that she was invited to the forum to speak specifically about Paul Manafort, the former campaign manager for Donald Trump. Chalupa goes on to state that she has been working with Isikoff for the past few weeks and that at the event, she was able to get him "connected him to the Ukrainians." She adds: ..."
"... "I invited Michael Isikoff whom I've been working with for the past few weeks and connected him to the Ukrainians. More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on you should be aware of." ..."
On Friday, the much anticipated
"Nunes Memo"
was finally released to the general public.
Disobedient
Media previously reported on the push to prevent the memo from being released. While there is much contained in the four pages,
the most glaring issue contained in the memo is the FBI's willful concealment of pertinent details of which they were required by
law to turn over to the FISA court when seeking the initial surveillance warrant on
Carter Page , a former volunteer foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign.
According to the memo, former director James Comey signed three FISA applications on behalf of the FBI. Additionally, Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, and acting Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein, each signed one or more applications on behalf of the DOJ.
Under 50 U.S.C. § 1805(d)(1) , a FISA order on
an American citizen must be renewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) every 90 days. In order to protect the
rights of Americans, each subsequent renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. This means that the in order to be granted
a renewal, the government is required to produce all material and relevant facts to the court, including any information which may
be potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application.
On four separate occasions the Obama administration essentially claimed before the FISA court that Page had betrayed his country
by working for a hostile foreign nation, and therefore it was necessary that the government violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
However, in this case, the government purposely withheld relevant information from the government not once, but four separate times.
According to the memo, at no time during the initial application process for the warrant to surveil Page, or in any of the three
renewals of that application, did the government disclose to the FISA Court the nature of their relationship with Christopher Steele,
his relationship with the Democratic National Committee (DNC), or his relationship with the Clinton campaign. Instead, the memo simply,
yet vaguely states that, "Steele was working for a named U.S. person."
Instead, the government purposefully withheld information from the court that the "dossier" compiled by Steele was done so on
behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. It was further withheld from the court that the DNC had paid Steele over $160,000
for his work in compiling this "dossier", and that the money was
funneled to Steele through the law firm Perkins Coie,
which represents both the Hillary Clinton campaign as well as the DNC in legal matters. According to the
National Review , the Clinton campaign and the DNC
paid at least $9.1 million to Perkins Coie from mid-2015 to late 2016.
The government further held from the court the fact that the FBI had authorized payments to Steele. According to the
New York Post , in October 2016 the FBI contracted
to pay Steele $50,000 to "help corroborate the dirt on Trump."
In March of 2017, CNN also reported that the FBI had entered into an
arrangement with Steele, whereby they agreed to
cover all of his expenses.
While it is extremely disconcerting that the government willfully concealed the existence of their financial relationship with
Steele, a foreign national, what is more troubling is the fact that the government used tax payer dollars to do so. In other words,
every single American who did not vote for Hillary Clinton, whether they voted for Trump or a third party candidate or did not vote
at all – were forced to finance the Clinton campaign-funded opposition research.
In other words, the public's tax dollars were spent on creating fake "evidence" to tie Trump with Russia, a false narrative that
put the planet at heightened risk for nuclear war, for the sake of the Clinton's hurt feelings.
Why the media refuses to mention or cover this fact, this author does not know. But this is an extremely important fact that every
American, whether left, right, up, down, should remember, as it is the perfect example of the corruption which exists within our
tax payer-funded institutions, which we are told to have nothing but the utmost respect for.
According to the memo, in an effort to corroborate Steele's dossier, the FBI extensively cited a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News
article by Michael Isikoff, titled " U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump
adviser and Kremlin ", which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. However, when presenting this article to the court the
FBI falsely assessed that Steele did not provide this information directly to Isikoff. Meaning that the FBI was aware that the article
they presented to the court was not corroborating evidence from a separate source, because the information in the article was provided
to Isikoff by Steele himself. In fact, as the memo points out, Steele himself has stated in British court filings that in September
2016 he met with Yahoo News , as well as several
other outlets including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker.
What's more, in an article published on January 12, 2017, Isikoff reports
on a story by the Wall Street Journal in which Christopher Steele is identified as the author of the infamous dossier, and even notes
that Steele was an " FBI asset ". However, what is
most striking about this article is the fact that despite receiving the underline information which served as the basis for his own
article in September, Isikoff pretends have not known that Steele was the source of the dossier.
Even more interesting is the close relationship Isikoff had with the DNC during the 2016 Presidential election. According
to an email from the DNC released by Wikileaks ,
Isikoff attended the "Open World Society's forum" as the guest of DNC official Ali Chalupa. In the email, Chalupa states that she
was invited to the forum to speak specifically about Paul Manafort, the former campaign manager for Donald Trump. Chalupa goes on
to state that she has been
working with Isikoff for the past few weeks and
that at the event, she was able to get him "connected him to the Ukrainians." She adds:
"I invited Michael Isikoff whom I've been working with for the past few weeks and connected him to the Ukrainians. More
offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something
I'm working on you should be aware of."
According to the memo, Steele's relationship with the FBI as a source continued until late October 2016, when he was terminated
for what the FBI defines as the most serious violations, "an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI".
This unauthorized disclosure occurred in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones
article by David Corn, the reporter who broke the infamous Mitt Romney
"47 Percent" story.
Again, the FBI did not notify the court that Steele was leaking information to media outlets, or that he was terminated by the
FBI after doing so for the second time.
Before and after his termination, Steele maintained contact with then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, whose wife,
Nellie Ohr, was employed by Fusion GPS. Ohr would later tell the FBI in an interview in September 2016, that Steele had stated that
he, "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president."
Lastly, the memo also reveals that the Steele dossier was so crucial to the investigation, that Deputy Director McCabe testified
in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information. This admission
by the former Deputy Director is damning, as it proves that, if it were not for the Clinton campaign and DNC funded dossier created
by a foreign national, there would have been no surveillance of Page, and ultimately there would have never been a special counsel
appointed.
At the end of the day, every American, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, should be worried about the fact
that the FBI and DOJ sought and were granted a warrant to spy on an opposing political campaign based on a document that the FBI
itself had neither verified or corroborated. If the FISA court does in fact employ strict "safeguards" and procedures in order to
ensure that the rights of American citizens are not being systematically violated, how is it that the FBI and DOJ were able to obtain
a surveillance warrant based on unverified allegations? And why did Congress overwhelmingly vote to
reauthorize
Section 702? Vote up! 15 Vote down! 0
This whole ball of wax should be in the public hands. Straight up clear cut case for a real civilian grand jury. As far removed
from the government control as possible. Its a corruption issue. Nobody in government has clean hands.
This is a problem because across the 5-eyes intel agencies are being given extra-judicial powers to do basically whatever they
want without oversight and without legal boundaries. This assumes the agencies will never become politicised, and that no individual
within the agencies will ever have an axe to grind against an ex, or a petty hatred to pursue, or political agendas of their own.
What FISA-gate shows is that this is clearly not the case. We need the reimposition of free speech, transparency and of civilian
rule of government.
Only an informed public can really be in charge of its elected government. We need to be in charge again because civilians
are fast being kettled into a snare where we have no say in the decisions that our governments take. It's being decided by the
deep state bureaucracy
"... Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years. ..."
"... Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to carry this out? ..."
"... Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet services. ..."
"... This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line. The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans. ..."
"... If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff. ..."
"... How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election in a new direction. ..."
"... According to Esquire.com , Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the measures taken were directly because of his work. ..."
"... Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016. ..."
"... According to Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign. ..."
"... What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland Security? ..."
"... Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers. ..."
"... When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. ..."
"... Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other? ..."
"... Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network ..."
"... In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency." ..."
"... Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list. ..."
"... This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves and not draw unwanted attention. ..."
"... Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike? ..."
"... What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US intel efforts. ..."
"... The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated. ..."
"... According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I have." ..."
"... While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine. ..."
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing the
2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing substantial
to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security firm Crowdstrike
that is clearly not on par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is
an "as is" statement showing this.
The difference between Dmitri Alperovitch's claims which are reflected in JAR-1620296 and
this article is that enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of specific
parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors that need to
be investigated for real crimes.
For instance, the malware used was an out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one
other interesting point is that the Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe
is from Ukraine . How did Crowdstrike miss this when it is their business to know?
Later in this article you'll meet and know a little more about the real "Fancy Bear and Cozy
Bear." The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution.
The article is lengthy because the facts need to be in one place. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking America to
trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of Russian
involvement?
The December 29th JAR adds a flowchart that shows how a basic phishing hack is performed. It
doesn't add anything significant beyond that. Noticeably, they use both their designation APT
28 and APT 29 as well as the Crowdstrike labels of Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear separately.
This is important because information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of
rumor or unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to
be free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's that
every private actor in the information game was radically political.
The
Hill.com article about Russia hacking the electric grid is a perfect example of why this
intelligence is political and not taken seriously. If any proof of Russian involvement existed,
the US would be at war. Under current laws of war, there would be no difference between an
attack on the power grid or a missile strike.
According
to the Hill "Private security firms provided more detailed forensic analysis, which the FBI
and DHS said Thursday correlated with the IC's findings.
"The Joint Analysis Report recognizes the excellent work undertaken by
security companies and private sector network owners and operators, and provides new indicators
of compromise and malicious infrastructure
identified during the course of investigations and incident response," read a statement. The
report identities two Russian intelligence groups already named by CrowdStrike and other
private security firms."
In an interview with Washingtonsblog , William Binney, the creator of the NSA global
surveillance system said "I expected to see the IP's or other signatures of APT's 28/29 [the
entities which the U.S. claims hacked the Democratic emails] and where they were located and
how/when the data got transferred to them from DNC/HRC [i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton]/etc. They
seem to have been following APT 28/29 since at least 2015, so, where are they?"
According to the latest Washington Post story, Crowdstrike's CEO tied a group his company
dubbed "Fancy Bear" to targeting Ukrainian artillery positions in Debaltsevo as well as across
the Ukrainian civil war front for the past 2 years.
Alperovitch states in many articles the Ukrainians were using an Android app to target the
self-proclaimed Republics positions and that hacking this app was what gave targeting data to
the armies in Donbass instead.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with McAfee.
Asked to comment on Alperovitch's
discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his
experience, McAfee does not believe that Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic
National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
As he told RT, "if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the
Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is probably,
maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "
Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin
'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks."
The public evidence never goes beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or
using facts, Crowdstrike insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian
losses. NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC.
According to NBC the story reads like this."
The company, Crowdstrike, was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report
publicly attributing it to Russian intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is
Shawn Henry, a former senior FBI official who consults for NBC News.
"But the Russians used the app to turn the tables on their foes, Crowdstrike says. Once a
Ukrainian soldier downloaded it on his Android phone, the Russians were able to eavesdrop on
his communications and determine his position through geo-location.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian intelligence
agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers call Cozy Bear, is
believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other, known as Fancy Bear, is
believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called the GRU."
The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to be."
According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post adds that
"intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin
'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks."
Because Ukrainian soldiers are using a smartphone app they activate their geolocation to use
it. Targeting is from location to location. The app would need the current user location to
make it work.
In 2015 I wrote an article that showed many of the available open source tools that
geolocate, and track people. They even show street view. This means that using simple means,
someone with freeware or an online website, and not a military budget can look at what you are
seeing at any given moment.
Where Crowdstrike fails is insisting people believe that the code they see is (a) an
advanced way to geolocate and (b) it was how a state with large resources would do it. Would
you leave a calling card where you would get caught and fined through sanctions or worse? If
you use an anonymous online resource at least Crowdstrike won't believe you are Russian and
possibly up to something.
If you read that article and watch the video you'll see that using "geo-stalker" is a better
choice if you are on a low budget or no budget. Should someone tell the Russians they
overpaid?
According to Alperovitch, the smartphone app
plotted targets in about 15 seconds . This means that there is only a small window to get
information this way.
Using the open source tools I wrote about previously, you could track your targets all-day.
In 2014, most Ukrainian forces were using social media regularly. It would be easy to maintain
a map of their locations and track them individually.
From my research into those tools, someone using Python scripts would find it easy to take
photos, listen to conversations, turn on GPS, or even turn the phone on when they chose to.
Going a step further than Alperovitch, without the help of the Russian government, GRU, or FSB,
anyone could
take control of the drones Ukraine is fond of flying and land them. Or they could download
the footage the drones are taking. It's copy and paste at that point. Would you bother the FSB,
GRU, or Vladimir Putin with the details or just do it?
In the WaPo article Alperovitch states "The Fancy Bear crew evidently hacked the app,
allowing the GRU to use the phone's GPS coordinates to track the Ukrainian troops'
position.
In that way, the Russian military could then target the Ukrainian army with artillery and
other weaponry. Ukrainian brigades operating in eastern Ukraine were on the front lines of the
conflict with Russian-backed separatist forces during the early stages of the conflict in late
2014, CrowdStrike noted. By late 2014, Russian forces in the region numbered about 10,000. The
Android app was useful in helping the Russian troops locate Ukrainian artillery positions."
In late 2014,
I personally did the only invasive passport and weapons checks that I know of during the
Ukrainian civil war.
I spent days looking for the Russian army every major publication said were attacking
Ukraine. The keyword Cyber Security industry leader Alperovitch used is "evidently."
Crowdstrike noted that in late 2014, there were 10,000 Russian forces in the region.
When I did the passport and weapons check, it was under the condition there would be no
telephone calls. We went where I wanted to go. We stopped when I said to stop. I checked the
documents and the weapons with no obstacles. The weapons check was important because Ukraine
was stating that Russia was giving Donbass modern weapons at the time. Each weapon is stamped
with a manufacture date. The results are in the articles above.
Based on my findings which the CIA would call hard evidence, almost all the fighters had
Ukrainian passports. There are volunteers from other countries. In Debaltsevo today, I would
question Alperovitch's assertion of Russian troops based on the fact the passports will be
Ukrainian and reflect my earlier findings. There is no possibly, could be, might be, about
it.
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment . Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine would have
been in deep trouble.
How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this wrong on easily checked detail and
still get this much media attention? Could the investment made by Google and some
very large players have anything to do with the media Crowdstrike is causing?
According to Alperovitch, the CEO of a $150 million dollar cyber security company "And when
you think about, well, who would be interested in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern
Ukraine who has interest in hacking the Democratic Party, Russia government comes to mind, but
specifically, Russian military that would have operational over forces in the Ukraine and would
target these artillerymen."
That statement is most of the proof of Russian involvement he has. That's it, that's all the
CIA, FBI have to go on. It's why they can't certify the intelligence. It's why they can't get
beyond the threshold of maybe.
Woodruff then asked two important questions. She asked if Crowdstrike was still working for
the DNC. Alperovitch responded "We're protecting them going forward. The investigation is
closed in terms of what happened there. But certainly, we've seen the campaigns, political
organizations are continued to be targeted, and they continue to hire us and use our technology
to protect themselves."
Based on the evidence he presented Woodruff, there is no need to investigate further?
Obviously, there is no need, the money is rolling in.
Second and most important Judy Woodruff asked if there were any questions about conflicts of
interest, how he would answer? This is where Dmitri Alperovitch's story starts to unwind.
His response was "Well, this report was not about the DNC. This report was about information
we uncovered about what these Russian actors were doing in eastern Ukraine in terms of locating
these artillery units of the Ukrainian army and then targeting them. So, what we just did is
said that it looks exactly as the same to the evidence we've already uncovered from the DNC,
linking the two together."
Why is this reasonable statement going to take his story off the rails? First, let's look at
the facts surrounding his evidence and then look at the real conflicts of interest involved.
While carefully evading the question, he neglects to state his conflicts of interest are worthy
of a DOJ investigation. Can you mislead the federal government about national security issues
and not get investigated yourself?
If Alperovitch's evidence is all there is, then the US government owes some large apologies
to Russia.
After showing who is targeting Ukrainian artillerymen, we'll look at what might be a
criminal conspiracy.
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary Clinton the
election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in Ukraine. If Dimitri
Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing intelligence to 17 US
Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years.
Using facts accepted by leaders on both sides of the conflict, the main proof Crowdstrike shows
for evidence doesn't just unravel, it falls apart. Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a
reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to
carry this out?
Real Fancy Bear?
Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian
positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they
didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and
most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet
services.
These are normal people fighting back against private volunteer armies that target their
homes, schools, and hospitals. The private volunteer armies like Pravy Sektor, Donbas
Battalion, Azov, and Aidar have been cited for atrocities like child rape, torture, murder, and
kidnapping. That just gets the ball rolling. These are a large swath of the Ukrainian
servicemen Crowdstrike hopes to protect.
This story which just aired on Ukrainian news channel TCN shows the SBU questioning and
arresting some of what they call an army of people in the Ukrainian-controlled areas. This news
video shows people in Toretsk that provided targeting information to Donbass and people
probably caught up in the net accidentally.
This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line.
The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target
the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans.
The first person they show on the video is a woman named Olga Lubochka. On the video her
voice is heard from a recorded call saying " In the field, on the left about 130 degrees. Aim
and you'll get it." and then " Oh, you hit it so hard you leveled it to the ground.""Am I going
to get a medal for this?"
Other people caught up in the raid claim and probably were only calling friends they know.
It's common for people to call and tell their family about what is going on around them. This
has been a staple in the war especially in outlying villages for people aligned with both sides
of the conflict. A neighbor calls his friend and says "you won't believe what I just saw."
Another "fancy bear," Alexander Schevchenko was caught calling friends and telling them that
armored personnel carriers had just driven by.
Anatoli Prima, father of a DNR(Donetsk People's Republic) soldier was asked to find out what
unit was there and how many artillery pieces.
One woman providing information about fuel and incoming equipment has a husband fighting on
the opposite side in Gorlovka. Gorlovka is a major city that's been under artillery attack
since 2014. For the past 2 1/2 years, she has remained in their home in Toretsk. According to
the video, he's vowed to take no prisoners when they rescue the area.
When asked why they hate Ukraine so much, one responded that they just wanted things to go
back to what they were like before the coup in February 2014.
Another said they were born in the Soviet Union and didn't like what was going on in Kiev.
At the heart of this statement is the anti- OUN, antinationalist sentiment that most people
living in Ukraine feel. The OUNb Bandera killed millions of people in Ukraine, including
starving 3 million Soviet soldiers to death. The new Ukraine was founded
in 1991 by OUN nationalists outside the fledgling country.
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If it's
done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be investigated? If
unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side isn't enough, we should
look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia influencing the election and DNC
hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch
and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the
skills, motivation, and reason are exposed.
In the last article exploring the
DNC hacks the focus was on the Chalupas . The article focused on Alexandra, Andrea, and
Irene Chalupa. Their participation in the DNC hack story is what brought it to international
attention in the first place.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "
After Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter
to a meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns within
the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the Russians,"
said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal probe into the
hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her to stop her
research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister
Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking
investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the
work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and
obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror
Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should
have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election
in a new direction.
According to Esquire.com ,
Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the
past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said
the measures taken were directly because of his work.
Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with
the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state
supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that
tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
In my
previous article I showed in detail how the Chalupas fit into this. A brief bullet point
review looks like this.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard to start
a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other statements
were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera
wing) called for" What is OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform
that was developed in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera. When these people go to a Holocaust
memorial they are celebrating both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed
There is no getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and
want an authoritarian fascism.
Alexandra Chalupa- According
to the Ukrainian Weekly , "The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following
the initial Twitter storms. Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra
Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money
for the coup. This was how the Ukrainian
emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi, Dima
Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan and
Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper
Massacre" on the Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows
clearly detailed evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that
show who created the "heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital
Maidan by both Chalupas is a
clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25
year prison sentence attached to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa described
Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young activist that
founded Euromaidan
Press . Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say is who he actually is. Sviatoslav
Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian
nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy Director
position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev .
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He became the
foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni Yatsenyuk, and Oleh
Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet Dimitri Yurash you had
to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense of Ukraine
under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen either behind Yarosh on
videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to reporters. From January 2014 onward, to
speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an appointment with Yurash.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice is Irene
Chalupa. From her bio – Irena
Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center.
She is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has
worked for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the
Atlantic Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the
news anchor for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian
emigre leader.
According to
Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in
a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the
CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with
Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict
of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton
needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland
Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that could
change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked heavily to
groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it opens up criminal
conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants a
major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic Council and
clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of his work affects
the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri Alperovitch's case, he
found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups
is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet
for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of
a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm
and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other?
Crowdstrike is also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC
hack. It closely resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon Overwatch and
Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service Crowdstrike offers?
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network.
Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network
In an interview with
Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA
amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a
quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon
Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets
site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. This is something you do when you don't
want to be too obvious. Here is another example of that.
Ukrainian Intelligence and the real Fancy Bear?
Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA Intelligence)
tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the Ukrainian
Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter.
Trying to keep it hush hush?
This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of
Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him
and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared.
If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared
heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves
and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through the
portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded and
directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and with to
promote the story of Russian hacking.
Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike?
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article, one of the
hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor members by the Pravy
Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor admitted to killing the people at the
Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say" Let's understand that
Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very powerful group. Ukrainian
hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of the USA I don't know, why would we
need it? We have all the talent and special means for this. And I don't think that the USA or
any NATO country would make such sharp movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out
for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian
language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the
tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US
intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war
between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst.
Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he
and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the
government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal
in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have,
the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I
have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is
not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict
with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests.
He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for conflict of
interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these hackers are the real
Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in international politics.
By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment of an outgoing President of
the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of rumor.
From the Observer.com , " Andrea
Chalupa -- the sister of DNC
research staffer Alexandra Chalupa -- claimed on
social media, without any evidence, that despite Clinton
conceding the election to Trump, the voting results need to be audited to because
Clinton couldn't have lost -- it must have been Russia. Chalupa hysterically
tweeted to every politician on Twitter to audit the vote because of Russia and claimed the TV
show The Americans
, about two KGB spies living in America, is real."
Quite possibly now the former UK Ambassador Craig Murry's admission of being the involved
party to "leaks" should be looked at. " Now both Julian
Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia . Do we credibly
have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access
to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access.
After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for
truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has
released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for
inconvenient truth telling."
This was clearly an attempt to entrap Trump in connections to Russia and fuel anti-Russian hysteria and defense spending. Both goals
were accomplished under Trump without much resistance. Still Russiagate persists. Why?
Notable quotes:
"... 05/03/16 Email from DNC contractor Ali Chalupa states she connected Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News "to the Ukrainians" DNC https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/3962 ..."
"... 05/15/16 Crowdstrike claims it investigated DNC hacking and that Russians were responsible; FBI still denied access to server to confirm Crowdstrike https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ ..."
03/06/16 Former Hillary State Dept. representative George Papadopoulos learns he will join Trump campaign as a low-level
foreign policy adviser DOJ
https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download
"... Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two current FBI agents. Moreover, he has relationships with at least six members of Robert Mueller's team, "some going back more than 10 years." ..."
Felix Sater, the man at the center of a controversial email "tying" President Trump to
Russia while trying to work a business deal, has come forward in a comprehensive
BuzzFeed News Exposé, which if Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Anthony Cormier and
co-author Jason Leopold hadn't verified - nobody would believe.
Sater went from a "Wall Street wunderkind" working at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, to
getting barred from the securities industry over a barroom brawl which led to a year in prison,
to facilitating a $40 million pump-and-dump stock scheme for the New York mafia, to working
telecom deals in Russia - where the FBI and CIA tapped him as an undercover intelligence asset
who was told by his handler " I want you to understand: If you're caught, the USA is going to
disavow you and, at best, you get a bullet in the head ."
... ... ...
Meanwhile, Sater is still working for the FBI , according to two current FBI agents.
Moreover, he has relationships with at least six members of Robert Mueller's team, "some going
back more than 10 years."
To this day, Sater continues to cooperate with the FBI and Justice Department, he said in
his statement to the House Intelligence Committee. He wouldn't disclose additional details,
except to say that he works on "international matters." Two US officials confirmed Sater
continues to be a reliable asset.
As for his regular life, when he relocated back to the US in 2010, he recalled, "Donald
said, 'Where have you been?'" Sater said Trump asked him to join the Trump Organization.
"That's when I became senior advisor to him," he said. The Trump Organization and the White
House declined to comment. - BuzzFeed
In effect, Sater - at least according to BuzzFeed , is more or less a rockstar opportunist
spy with a shady past, who redeemed himself as an asset for the CIA, the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and the FBI. During the course of his work for the agencies, all unpaid, BuzzFeed
confirmed the following exploits:
He obtained five of the personal satellite telephone numbers for Osama bin Laden before
9/11 and he helped flip the personal secretary to Mullah Omar, then the head of the Taliban
and an ally of bin Laden, into a source who provided the location of al-Qaeda training camps
and weapons caches.
In 2004, he persuaded a source in Russia's foreign military intelligence to hand over the
name and photographs of a North Korean military operative who was purchasing equipment to
build the country's nuclear arsenal.
Sater provided US intelligence with details about possible assassination threats against
former president George W. Bush and secretary of state Colin Powell. Sater reported that
jihadists were hiding in a hut outside Bagram Air Base and planned to shoot down Powell's
plane during a January 2002 visit. He later told his handlers that two female al-Qaeda
members were trying to recruit an Afghan woman working in the Senate barbershop to poison
President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.
He went undercover in Cyprus and Istanbul to catch Russian and Ukrainian cybercriminals
around 2005. After the FBI set him up with a fake name and background, Sater posed as a money
launderer to help nab the suspects for washing funds stolen from US financial institutions
.
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of
civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top
brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of
secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the
USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial
resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover,
the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its
director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned
into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry
Truman (1943-53) reportedly
characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five
decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists
and other public figures, according to
biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid
private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions
so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against
homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist
inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and
freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots
of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is
suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual
tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public
statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the
presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50
Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising
information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would
be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your
career". Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and
extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once
confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made
the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ.
Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ
into the White House.
However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly
anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy
pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt
led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample
evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep
State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald –
a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications
with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968.
Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace
talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize.
LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his
vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on,
and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long
coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was
classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is
possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating
in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and
subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the
people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as
some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion
as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the
media's own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one
individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not
alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not
just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the
Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government
– does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power
through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of
American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of
the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix
the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies,
as the US intelligence chiefs once again
chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American"
agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate
how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of
the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt
by the people.
Junk author, junk book of the butcher of Yugoslavia who would be hanged with Bill clinton by
Nuremberg Tribunal for crimes against peace. Albright is not bright at all. she a female bully
and that shows.
Mostly projection. And this arrogant warmonger like to exercise in Russophobia (which was the
main part of the USSR which saved the world fro fascism, sacrificing around 20 million people)
This book is book of denial of genocide against Iraqis and Serbian population where bombing with
uranium enriched bombs doubled cancer cases.If you can pass over those facts that this book is
for you.
Like Robert Kagan and other neocons Albright is waiving authoritarism dead chicken again and
again. that's silly and disingenuous. authoritarism is a method of Governance used in military.
It is not an ideology. Fascism is an ideology, a flavor of far right nationalism. Kind of
"enhanced" by some socialist ideas far right nationalism.
The view of fascism without economic circumstances that create fascism, and first of
immiseration of middle and working class and high level of unemployment is a primitive
ahistorical view. Fascism is the ultimate capitalist statism acting simultaneously as the civil
religion for the population also enforced by the power of the state. It has a lot of common with
neoliberalism, that's why neoliberalism is sometimes called "inverted totalitarism".
In reality fascism while remaining the dictatorship of capitalists for capitalist and the
national part of financial oligarchy, it like neoliberalism directed against working class
fascism comes to power on the populist slogans of righting wrong by previous regime and kicking
foreign capitalists and national compradors (which in Germany turned to be mostly Jewish)
out.
It comes to power under the slogans of stopping the distribution of wealth up and elimination
of the class of reinters -- all citizens should earn income, not get it from bond and other
investments (often in reality doing completely the opposite).
While intrinsically connected and financed by a sizable part of national elite which often
consist of far right military leadership, a part of financial oligarchy and large part of lower
middle class (small properties) is is a protest movement which want to revenge for the
humiliation and prefer military style organization of the society to democracy as more potent
weapon to achieve this goal.
Like any far right movement the rise of fascism and neo-fascism is a sign of internal problem
within a given society, often a threat to the state or social order.
Still another noted that Fascism is often linked to people who are part of a distinct ethnic
or racial group, who are under economic stress, and who feel that they are being denied rewards
to which they are entitled. "It's not so much what people have." she said, "but what they think
they should have -- and what they fear." Fear is why Fascism's emotional reach can extend to
all levels of society. No political movement can flourish without popular support, but Fascism
is as dependent on the wealthy and powerful as it is on the man or woman in the street -- on
those who have much to lose and those who have nothing at all.
This insight made us think that Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political
ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power. For example, Italy in the 1920s
included self-described Fascists of the left (who advocated a dictatorship of the
dispossessed), of the right (who argued for an authoritarian corporatist state), and of the
center (who sought a return to absolute monarchy). The German National Socialist Party (the
Nazis) originally came together ar ound a list of demands that ca- tered to anti-Semites,
anti-immigrants, and anti-capitalists but also advocated for higher old-age pensions, more
educational op- portunities for the poor, an end to child labor, and improved ma- ternal health
care. The Nazis were racists and, in their own minds, reformers at the same time.
If Fascism concerns itself less with specific policies than with finding a pathway to power,
what about the tactics of lead- ership? My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remem-
ber best were charismatic. Through one method or another, each established an emotional link to
the crowd and, like the central figure in a cult, brought deep and often ugly feelings to the
sur- face. This is how the tentacles of Fascism spread inside a democ- racy. Unlike a monarchy
or a military dictatorship imposed on society from above. Fascism draws energy from men and
women who are upset because of a lost war, a lost job, a memory of hu- miliation, or a sense
that their country is in steep decline. The more painful the grounds for resentment, the easier
it is for a Fascist leader to gam followers by dangling the prospect of re- newal or by vowing
to take back what has been stolen.
Like the mobilizers of more benign movements, these secular evangelists exploit the
near-universal human desire to be part of a meaningful quest. The more gifted among them have
an apti- tude for spectacle -- for orchestrating mass gatherings complete with martial music,
incendiary rhetoric, loud cheers, and arm-
lifting salutes. To loyalists, they offer the prize of membership in a club from which
others, often the objects of ridicule, are kept out. To build fervor, Fascists tend to be
aggressive, militaristic, and -- when circumstances allow -- expansionist. To secure the
future, they turn schools into seminaries for true believers, striv- ing to produce "new men"
and "new women" who will obey without question or pause. And, as one of my students observed,
"a Fascist who launches his career by being voted into office will have a claim to legitimacy
that others do not."
After climbing into a position of power, what comes next: How does a Fascist consolidate
authority? Here several students piped up: "By controlling information." Added another, "And
that's one reason we have so much cause to worry today." Most of us have thought of the
technological revolution primarily as a means for people from different walks of life to
connect with one another, trade ideas, and develop a keener understanding of why men and women
act as they do -- in other words, to sharpen our perceptions of truth. That's still the case,
but now we are not so sure. There is a troubling "Big Brother" angle because of the mountain of
personal data being uploaded into social media. If an advertiser can use that information to
home in on a consumer because of his or her individual interests, what's to stop a Fascist
government from doing the same? "Suppose I go to a demonstra- tion like the Women's March,"
said a student, "and post a photo
on social media. My name gets added to a list and that list can end up anywhere. How do we
protect ourselves against that?"
Even more disturbing is the ability shown by rogue regimes and their agents to spread lies
on phony websites and Facebook. Further, technology has made it possible for extremist
organiza- tions to construct echo chambers of support for conspiracy theo- ries, false
narratives, and ignorant views on religion and race. This is the first rule of deception:
repeated often enough, almost any statement, story, or smear can start to sound plausible. The
Internet should be an ally of freedom and a gateway to knowledge; in some cases, it is
neither.
Historian Robert Paxton begins one of his books by assert- ing: "Fascism was the major
political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain." Over the
years, he and other scholars have developed lists of the many moving parts that Fascism
entails. Toward the end of our discussion, my class sought to articulate a comparable list.
Fascism, most of the students agreed, is an extreme form of authoritarian rule. Citizens are
required to do exactly what lead- ers say they must do, nothing more, nothing less. The
doctrine is linked to rabid nationalism. It also turns the traditional social contract upside
down. Instead of citizens giving power to the state in exchange for the protection of their
rights, power begins with the leader, and the people have no rights. Under Fascism,
the mission of citizens is to serve; the government's job is to rule.
When one talks about this subject, confusion often arises about the difference between
Fascism and such related concepts as totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny,
autocracy, and so on. As an academic, I might be tempted to wander into that thicket, but as a
former diplomat, I am primarily concerned with actions, not labels. To my mind, a Fascist is
someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is
unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary --
including violence -- to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be
a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist.
Often the difference can be seen in who is trusted with the guns. In seventeenth-century
Europe, when Catholic aristocrats did battle with Protestant aristocrats, they fought over
scripture but agreed not to distribute weapons to their peasants, thinking it safer to wage war
with mercenary armies. Modern dictators also tend to be wary of their citizens, which is why
they create royal guards and other elite security units to ensure their personal safe- ty. A
Fascist, however, expects the crowd to have his back. Where kings try to settle people down,
Fascists stir them up so that when the fighting begins, their foot soldiers have the will and
the firepower to strike first.
Hypocrisy at its worst from a lady who advocated hawkish foreign policy which included the
most sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, when, in 1998, Clinton began almost daily
attacks on Iraq in the so-called no-fly zones, and made so-called regime change in Iraq
official U.S. policy.
In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeleine Albright, who at the time was
Clinton's U.N. ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, in connection with
the Clinton administration presiding over the most devastating regime of sanctions in history
that the U.N. estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of
them children. , "We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that's more
children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think
the price is worth it.
While I found much of the story-telling in "Fascism" engaging, I come away expecting much
more of one of our nation's pre-eminent senior diplomats . In a nutshell, she has devoted a
whole volume to describing the ascent of intolerant fascism and its many faces, but punted on
the question "How should we thwart fascism going forward?"
Even that question leaves me a bit unsatisfied, since it is couched in double-negative
syntax. The thing there is an appetite for, among the readers of this book who are looking
for more than hand-wringing about neofascism, is a unifying title or phrase which captures in
single-positive syntax that which Albright prefers over fascism. What would that be? And, how
do we pursue it, nurture it, spread it and secure it going forward? What is it?
I think Albright would perhaps be willing to rally around "Good Government" as the theme
her book skirts tangentially from the dark periphery of fascistic government. "Virtuous
Government"? "Effective Government"? "Responsive Government"?
People concerned about neofascism want to know what we should be doing right now to avoid
getting sidetracked into a dark alley of future history comparable to the Nazi brown shirt or
Mussolini black shirt epochs. Does Albright present a comprehensive enough understanding of
fascism to instruct on how best to avoid it? Or, is this just another hand-wringing exercise,
a la "you'll know it when you see it", with a proactive superficiality stuck at the level of
pejorative labelling of current styles of government and national leaders? If all you can say
is what you don't want, then the challenge of threading the political future of the US is
left unruddered. To make an analogy to driving a car, if you don't know your destination, and
only can get navigational prompts such as "don't turn here" or "don't go down that street",
then what are the chances of arriving at a purposive destination?
The other part of this book I find off-putting is that Albright, though having served as
Secretary of State, never talks about the heavy burden of responsibility that falls on a head
of state. She doesn't seem to empathize at all with the challenge of top leadership. Her
perspective is that of the detached critic. For instance, in discussing President Duterte of
the Philippines, she fails to paint the dire situation under which he rose to national
leadership responsibility: Islamic separatists having violently taken over the entire city of
Marawi, nor the ubiquitous spread of drug cartel power to the level where control over law
enforcement was already ceded to the gangs in many places...entire islands and city
neighborhoods run by mafia organizations. It's easy to sit back and criticize Duterte's
unleashing of vigilante justice -- What was Mrs. Albright's better alternative to regain
ground from vicious, well-armed criminal organizations? The distancing from leadership
responsibility makes Albright's treatment of the Philippines twin crises of gang-rule and
Islamist revolutionaries seem like so much academic navel-gazing....OK for an undergrad
course at Georgetown maybe, but unworthy of someone who served in a position of high
responsibility. Duterte is liked in the Philippines. What he did snapped back the power of
the cartels, and returned a deserved sense of security to average Philippinos (at least those
not involved with narcotics). Is that not good government, given the horrendous circumstances
Duterte came up to deal with? What lack of responsibility in former Philippine leadership
allowed things to get so out of control? Is it possible that Democrats and liberals are
afraid to be tough, when toughness is what is needed? I'd much rather read an account from an
average Philippino about the positive impacts of the vigilante campaign, than listen of
Madame Secretary sermonizing out of context about Duterte. OK, he's not your idea of a nice
guy. Would you rather sit back, prattle on about the rule of law and due process while
Islamic terrorists wrest control over where you live? Would you prefer the leadership of a
drug cartel boss to Duterte?
My critique is offered in a constructive manner. I would certainly encourage Albright (or
anyone!) to write a book in a positive voice about what it's going to take to have good
national government in the US going forward, and to help spread such abundance globally. I
would define "good" as the capability to make consistently good policy decisions, ones that
continue to look good in hindsight, 10, 20 or 30 years later. What does that take?
I would submit that the essential "preserving democracy" process component is having a
population that is adequately prepared for collaborative problem-solving. Some understanding
of history is helpful, but it's simply not enough. Much more essential is for every young
person to experience team problem-solving, in both its cooperative and competitive aspects.
Every young person needs to experience a team leadership role, and to appreciate what it
takes from leaders to forge constructive design from competing ideas and champions. Only
after serving as a referee will a young person understand the limits to "passion" that
individual contributors should bring to the party. Only after moderating and herding cats
will a young person know how to interact productively with leaders and other contributors.
Much of the skill is counter-instinctual. It's knowing how to express ideas...how to field
criticism....how to nudge people along in the desired direction...and how to avoid ad-hominem
attacks, exaggerations, accusations and speculative grievances. It's learning how to manage
conflict productively toward excellence. Way too few of our young people are learning these
skills, and way too few of our journalists know how to play a constructive role in managing
communications toward successful complex problem-solving. Albright's claim that a
journalist's job is primarily to "hold leaders accountable" really betrays an absolving of
responsibility for the media as a partner in good government -- it doesn't say whether the
media are active players on the problem-solving team (which they have to be for success), or
mere spectators with no responsibility for the outcome. If the latter, then journalism
becomes an irritant, picking at the scabs over and over, but without any forward progress.
When the media takes up a stance as an "opponent" of leadership, you end up with poor
problem-solving results....the system is fighting itself instead of making forward
progress.
"Fascism" doesn't do nearly enough to promote the teaching of practical civics 101 skills,
not just to the kids going into public administration, but to everyone. For, it is in the
norms of civility, their ability to be practiced, and their defense against excesses, that
fascism (e.g., Antifa) is kept at bay.
Everyone in a democracy has to know the basics:
• when entering a disagreement, don't personalize it
• never demonize an opponent
• keep a focus on the goal of agreement and moving forward
• never tell another person what they think, but ask (non-rhetorically) what they think
then be prepared to listen and absorb
• do not speak untruths or exaggerate to make an argument
• do not speculate grievance
• understand truth gathering as a process; detect when certainty is being bluffed;
question sources
• recognize impasse and unproductive argumentation and STOP IT
• know how to introduce a referee or moderator to regain productive collaboration
• avoid ad hominem attacks
• don't take things personally that wrankle you;
• give the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation
• don't jump to conclusions
• don't reward theatrical manipulation
These basics of collaborative problem-solving are the guts of a "liberal democracy" that
can face down the most complex challenges and dilemmas.
I gave the book 3 stars for the great story-telling, and Albright has been part of a great
story of late 20th century history. If she would have told us how to prevent fascism going
forward, and how to roll it back in "hard case" countries like North Korea and Sudan, I would
have given her a 5. I'm not that interested in picking apart the failure cases of
history...they teach mostly negative exemplars. Much rather I would like to read about
positive exemplars of great national government -- "great" defined by popular acclaim, by the
actual ones governed. Where are we seeing that today? Canada? Australia? Interestingly, both
of these positive exemplars have strict immigration policies.
Is it possible that Albright is just unable, by virtue of her narrow escape from Communist
Czechoslovakia and acceptance in NYC as a transplant, to see that an optimum immigration
policy in the US, something like Canada's or Australia's, is not the looming face of fascism,
but rather a move to keep it safely in its corner in coming decades? At least, she admits to
her being biased by her life story.
That suggests her views on refugees and illegal immigrants as deserving of unlimited
rights to migrate into the US might be the kind of cloaked extremism that she is warning us
about.
Albright's book is a comprehensive look at recent history regarding the rise and fall of
fascist leaders; as well as detailing leaders in nations that are starting to mimic fascist
ideals. Instead of a neat definition, she uses examples to bolster her thesis of what are
essential aspects of fascism. Albright dedicates each section of the book to a leader or
regime that enforces fascist values and conveys this to the reader through historical events
and exposition while also peppering in details of her time as Secretary of State. The climax
(and 'warning'), comes at the end, where Albright applies what she has been discussing to the
current state of affairs in the US and abroad.
Overall, I would characterize this as an enjoyable and relatively easy read. I think the
biggest strength of this book is how Albright uses history, previous examples of leaders and
regimes, to demonstrate what fascism looks like and contributing factors on a national and
individual level. I appreciated that she lets these examples speak for themselves of the
dangers and subtleties of a fascist society, which made the book more fascinating and less of
a textbook. Her brief descriptions of her time as Secretary of State were intriguing and made
me more interested in her first book, 'Madame Secretary'. The book does seem a bit slow as it
is not until the end that Albright blatantly reveals the relevance of all of the history
relayed in the first couple hundred pages. The last few chapters are dedicated to the reveal:
the Trump administration and how it has affected global politics. Although, she never
outright calls Trump a fascist, instead letting the reader decide based on his decisions and
what you have read in the book leading up to this point, her stance is quite clear by the
end. I was surprised at what I shared politically with Albright, mainly in immigration and a
belief of empathy and understanding for others. However, I got a slight sense of
anti-secularism in the form of a disdain for those who do not subscribe to an Abrahamic
religion and she seemed to hint at this being partly an opening to fascism.
I also could have done without the both-sides-ism she would occasionally push, which seems
to be a tactic used to encourage people to 'unite against Trump'. These are small annoyances
I had with the book, my main critique is the view Albright takes on democracy. If anything,
the book should have been called "Democracy: the Answer" because that is the most consistent
stance Albright takes throughout. She seems to overlook many of the atrocities the US and
other nations have committed in the name of democracy and the negative consequences of
capitalism, instead, justifying negative actions with the excuse of 'it is for democracy and
everyone wants that' and criticizing those who criticize capitalism.
She does not do a good job of conveying the difference between a communist country like
Russia and a socialist country like those found in Scandinavia and seems okay with the idea
of the reader lumping them all together in a poor light. That being said, I would still
recommend this book for anyone's TBR as the message is essential for today, that the current
world of political affairs is, at least somewhat, teetering on a precipice and we are in need
of as many strong leaders as possible who are willing to uphold democratic ideals on the
world stage and mindful constituents who will vote them in.
The book is very well written, easy to read, and follows a pretty standard formula making
it accessible to the average reader. However, it suffers immensely from, what I suspect are,
deeply ingrained political biases from the author.
Whilst I don't dispute the criteria the author applies in defining fascism, or the targets
she cites as examples, the first bias creeps in here when one realises the examples chosen
are traditional easy targets for the US (with the exception of Turkey). The same criteria
would define a country like Singapore perfectly as fascist, yet the country (or Malaysia)
does not receive a mention in the book.
Further, it grossly glosses over what Ms. Albright terms facist traits from the US
governments of the past. If the author is to be believed, the CIA is holier than thou, never
intervened anywhere or did anything that wasn't with the best interests of democracy at
heart, and American foreign policy has always existed to build friendships and help out their
buddies. To someone ingrained in this rhetoric for years I am sure this is an easy pill to
swallow, but to the rest of the world it makes a number of assertions in the book come across
as incredibly naive. out of 5 stars
Trite and opaque
We went with my husband to the presentation of this book at UPenn with Albright before it
came out and Madeleine's spunk, wit and just glorious brightness almost blinded me. This is a
2.5 star book, because 81 year old author does not really tell you all there is to tell when
she opens up on a subject in any particular chapter, especially if it concerns current US
interest.
Lets start from the beginning of the book. What really stood out, the missing 3rd Germany
ally, Japan and its emperor. Hirohito (1901-1989) was emperor of Japan from 1926 until his
death in 1989. He took over at a time of rising democratic sentiment, but his country soon
turned toward ultra-nationalism and militarism. During World War II (1939-45), Japan attacked
nearly all of its Asian neighbors, allied itself with Nazi Germany and launched a surprise
assault on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, forcing US to enter the war in 1941. Hirohito
was never indicted as a war criminal! does he deserve at least a chapter in her book?
Oh and by the way, did author mention anything about sanctions against Germany for
invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland? Up until the Pearl Harbor USA and
Germany still traded, although in March 1939, FDR slapped a 25% tariff on all German goods.
Like Trump is doing right now to some of US trading partners.
Next monster that deserves a chapter on Genocide in cosmic proportions post WW2 is
communist leader of China Mao Zedung. Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural
history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic
torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants compares to the Second World
War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in
China over these four years; the total worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55
million.
We learn that Argentina has given sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, but she forgets to
mention that 88 Nazi scientists arrived in the United States in 1945 and were promptly put to
work. For example, Wernher von Braun was the brains behind the V-2 rocket program, but had
intimate knowledge of what was going on in the concentration camps. Von Braun himself
hand-picked people from horrific places, including Buchenwald concentration camp. Tsk-Tsk
Madeline.
What else? Oh, lets just say that like Madelaine Albright my husband is Jewish and lost
extensive family to Holocoust. Ukrainian nationalists executed his great grandfather on
gistapo orders, his great grandmother disappeared in concentration camp, grandfather was
conscripted in june 1940 and decommissioned september 1945 and went through war as
infantryman through 3 fronts earning several medals. his grandmother, an ukrainian born jew
was a doctor in a military hospital in Saint Petersburg survived famine and saved several
children during blockade. So unlike Maideline who was raised as a Roman Catholic, my husband
grew up in a quiet jewish family in that territory that Stalin grabbed from Poland in 1939,
in a polish turn ukrainian city called Lvov(Lemberg). His family also had to ask for an
asylum, only they had to escape their home in Ukraine in 1991. He was told then "You are a
nice little Zid (Jew), we will kill you last" If you think things in ukraine changed, think
again, few weeks ago in Kiev Roma gypsies were killed and injured during pogroms, and nobody
despite witnesses went to jail. Also during demonstrations openly on the streets C14 unit is
waving swastikas and Heils. Why is is not mentioned anywhere in the book? is is because
Hunter Biden sits on the board of one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies called
Burisma since May 14, 2014, and Ukraine has an estimated 127.9 trillion cubic feet of
unproved technically recoverable shale gas resources? ( according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA).1 The most promising shale reserves appear to be in the
Carpathian Foreland Basin (also called the Lviv-Volyn Basin), which extends across Western
Ukraine from Poland into Romania, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the East (which borders
Russia).
Wow, i bet you did not know that. how ugly are politics, even this book that could have been
so much greater if the author told the whole ugly story. And how scary that there are
countries where you can go and openly be fascist.
To me, Fascism fails for the single reason that no two fascist leaders are alike. Learning
about one or a few, in a highly cursory fashion like in this book or in great detail, is
unlikely to provide one with any answers on how to prevent the rise of another or fend
against some such. And, as much as we are witnessing the rise of numerous democratic or
quasi-democratic "strongmen" around the world in global politics, it is difficult to brand
any of them as fascist in the orthodox sense.
As the author writes at the outset, it is difficult to separate a fascist from a tyrant or
a dictator. A fascist is a majoritarian who rouses a large group under some national, racial
or similar flag with rallying cries demanding suppression or exculcation of those excluded
from this group. A typical fascist leader loves her yes-men and hates those who disagree: she
does not mind using violence to suppress dissidents. A fascist has no qualms using propaganda
to popularize the agreeable "facts" and theories while debunking the inconvenient as lies.
What is not discussed explicitly in the book are perhaps some positive traits that separate
fascists from other types of tyrants: fascists are rarely lazy, stupid or prone to doing
things for only personal gains. They differ from the benevolent dictators for their record of
using heavy oppression against their dissidents. Fascists, like all dictators, change rules
to suit themselves, take control of state organizations to exercise total control and use
"our class is the greatest" and "kick others" to fuel their programs.
Despite such a detailed list, each fascist is different from each other. There is little
that even Ms Albright's fascists - from Mussolini and Hitler to Stalin to the Kims to Chavez
or Erdogan - have in common. In fact, most of the opponents of some of these
dictators/leaders would calll them by many other choice words but not fascists. The
circumstances that gave rise to these leaders were highly different and so were their rules,
methods and achievements.
The point, once again, is that none of the strongmen leaders around the world could be
easily categorized as fascists. Or even if they do, assigning them with such a tag and
learning about some other such leaders is unlikely to help. The history discussed in the book
is interesting but disjointed, perfunctory and simplistic. Ms Albright's selection is also
debatable.
Strong leaders who suppress those they deem as opponents have wreaked immense harms and
are a threat to all civil societies. They come in more shades and colours than terms we have
in our vocabulary (dictators, tyrants, fascists, despots, autocrats etc). A study of such
tyrant is needed for anyone with an interest in history, politics, or societal well-being.
Despite Ms Albright's phenomenal knowledge, experience, credentials, personal history and
intentions, this book is perhaps not the best place to objectively learn much about the risks
from the type of things some current leaders are doing or deeming as right.
Each time I get concerned about Trump's rhetoric or past actions I read idiotic opinions,
like those of our second worst ever Secretary of State, and come to appreciate him more.
Pejorative terms like fascism or populism have no place in a rational policy discussion. Both
are blatant attempts to apply a pejorative to any disagreeing opinion. More than half of the
book is fluffed with background of Albright, Hitler and Mussolini. Wikipedia is more
informative. The rest has snippets of more modern dictators, many of whom are either
socialists or attained power through a reaction to failed socialism, as did Hitler. She
squirms mightily to liken Trump to Hitler. It's much easier to see that Sanders is like
Maduro. The USA is following a path more like Venezuela than Germany.
Her history misses that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist, and Nazism in
Germany was a reaction to Wiemar socialism. The danger of fascism in the US is far greater
from the left than from the right. America is far left of where the USSR ever was. Remember
than Marx observed that Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. The USA with ready
made capitalism for reform fits Marx's pattern much better. Progressives deny that Sanders
and Warren are socialists. If not they are what Lenin called "useful idiots."
Albright says that she is proud of the speech where she called the USA the 'Indispensable
Nation.' She should be ashamed. Obama followed in his inaugural address, saying that we are
"the indispensable nation, responsible for world security." That turned into a policy of
human rights interventions leading to open ended wars (Syria, Yemen), nations in chaos
(Libya), and distrust of the USA (Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Israel, NK). Trump now has
to make nice with dictators to allay their fears that we are out to replace them.
She admires the good intentions of human rights intervention, ignoring the results. She says
Obama had some success without citing a single instance. He has apologized for Libya, but
needs many more apologies. She says Obama foreign policy has had some success, with no
mention of a single instance. Like many progressives, she confuses good intentions with
performance. Democracy spreading by well intentioned humanitarian intervention has resulted
in a succession of open ended war or anarchy.
The shorter histories of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Venezuela are much more
informative, although more a warning against socialism than right wing fascism. Viktor Orban
in Hungary is another reaction to socialism.
Albright ends the book with a forlorn hope that we need a Lincoln or Mandela, exactly what
our two party dictatorship will not generate as it yields ever worse and worse candidates for
our democracy to vote upon, even as our great society utopia generates ever more power for
weak presidents to spend our money and continue wrong headed foreign policy.
The greatest danger to the USA is not fascism, but of excessively poor leadership
continuing our slow slide to the bottom.
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
"... now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods: tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping). ..."
"... Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can't have it, because a cohesive society must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary. Perhaps that's what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not working. ..."
"... Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex. ..."
"... my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking for empires. ..."
"... War is Good for Business and Organized Crime. Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin Addiction in the US Afghanistan's opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin addiction in the US. ..."
"... Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S. European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it's budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other "three letter organizations" in the U.S. and similar operations in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating. ..."
"... This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when the lunatics take over the asylum. ..."
"... Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting back with horrible consequences for world peace. ..."
"... Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further: ..."
Most recently, a dissident economist and failed California politician named Peter Navarro has parlayed his hostility toward China
into the role of key architect of Donald Trump's "trade war" against Beijing. Like his Russian counterpart Alexander Dugin, Navarro
is another in a long line of intellectuals whose embrace of geopolitics changed the trajectory of his career.
Raised by a single mom who worked secretarial jobs to rent one-bedroomapartments where he slept on the couch, Navarro went to
college at Tufts on a scholarship and earned a doctorate in economics from Harvard. Despite that Ivy League degree, he remained an
angry outsider, denouncing the special interests "stealing America"
in his first book and later, as a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, branding San Diego developers "punks
in pinstripes." A passionate environmentalist, in 1992 Navarro plunged into politics as a Democratic candidate for the mayor of San
Diego, denouncing his opponent's husband as a convicted drug-money launderer and losing when he smirked as she wept during their
televised debate.
For the next 10 years, Navarro fought losing campaigns for everything from city council to Congress. He detailed his crushing
defeat for a seat in the House of Representatives in a tell-all
book , San Diego Confidential,
that dished out disdain for that duplicitous "sell out" Bill Clinton, dumb "blue-collar detritus" voters, and just about everybody
else as well.
Following his last losing campaign for city council, Navarro spent a decade churning out books attacking a new enemy: China. His
first "shock and awe" jeremiad
in 2006 told horror stories about that country's foreign trade; five years later, Death By China was filled with
torrid tales of "bone-crushing, cancer-causing, flammable, poisonous, and otherwise lethal products" from that land. In 2015,
a third book turned to geopolitics, complete with carefully drawn maps and respectful references to Captain Mahan, to offer an
analysis of how China's
military was pursuing a relentless strategy of "anti-access, area denial" to challenge the U.S. Navy's control over the Western Pacific.
To check China, the Pentagon then had two competing strategies -- "Air-Sea Battle," in which China's satellites were to be blinded,
knocking out its missiles, and "Offshore Control," in which China's entire coastline was to be blockaded by mining six maritime choke
points from Japan to Singapore. Both, Navarro claimed, were fatally flawed. Given that, Navarro's third book and a companion
film (
endorsed by one Donald Trump) asked: What should the United
States do to check Beijing's aggression and its rise as a global power? Since all U.S. imports from China, Navarro suggested, were
"helping to finance a Chinese military buildup," the only realistic solution was "the imposition of countervailing tariffs to offset
China's unfair trade practices."
Just a year after reaching that controversial conclusion, Navarro joined the Trump election campaign as a policy adviser and then,
after the November victory, became a junior member of the White House economic team. As a protectionist in an administration initially
dominated by globalists, he would be excluded from high-level meetings and,
according toTime Magazine , "required to copy chief
economic adviser Gary Cohn on all his emails." By February 2018, however, Cohn was on his way out and Navarro had become assistant
to the president, with his new trade office now the co-equal of the National Economic Council.
As the chief defender of Trump's
belief that "trade wars
are good and easy to win," Navarro has finally realized his own geopolitical dream of attempting to check China with tariffs. In
March, the president slapped
heavy ones on Chinese steel imports and, just a few weeks later,
promised to impose more of them on $50 billion of imports. When those started in July, China's leaders
retaliated against what
they called "typical trade bullying," imposing similar duties on American goods. Despite a
warning from the Federal
Reserve chairman that "trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy," with Navarro at his elbow,
Trump escalated in September,
adding tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese goods and threatening another $267 billion worth if China dared retaliate.
Nonetheless, Beijing hit
back, this time on just $60 billion in goods since 95% of all U.S. imports had already been covered.
Then something truly surprising happened. In September, the U.S. trade deficit with
China
ballooned to $305 billion for the year, driven by an 8% surge in Chinese imports -- a clear sign that Navarro's bold geopolitical
vision of beating Beijing into submission with tariffs had collided big time with the complexities of world trade. Whether this tariff
dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking havoc on global supply chains and the
world economy, none of us can yet know, particularly that would-be geopolitical grandmaster Peter Navarro.
The Desire to be Grandmaster of the Universe
Though such experts usually dazzle the public and the powerful alike with erudition and boldness of vision, their geopolitical
moves often have troubling long-term consequences. Mahan's plans for Pacific dominion through offshore bases created a strategic
conundrum that plagued American defense policy for a half-century. Brzezinski's geopolitical lunge at the Soviet Union's soft Central
Asian underbelly helped unleash radical Islam. Today, Alexander Dugin's use of geopolitics to revive Russia's dominion over Eurasia
has placed Moscow on a volatile collision course with Europe and the United States. Simultaneously, Peter Navarro's bold gambit to
contain China's military and economic push into the Pacific with a trade war could, if it persists, produce untold complications
for our globalized economy.
No matter how deeply flawed such geopolitical visions may ultimately prove to be, their brief moments as official policy have
regularly shaped the destiny of nations and of empires in unpredictable, unplanned, and often dangerous ways. And no matter how this
current round of geopolitical gambits plays out, we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be
grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
Alfred W. McCoy, a
TomDispatch
regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of
Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert
operations over 50 years, and the recently published
In the Shadows of the American Century:
The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power ( Dispatch Books).
Dugin, regardless of what minor success he had ten years ago, is not influential in the Kremlin. He did not orchestrate Russia's
absorption of Crimea. Simple strategic needs demanded that Crimea be absorbed, and a flawless Russian execution of an ambitious
plan won the day.
Peter Navarro is correct w/r/t China. Our trading relationship with China has been a disaster for our economy (to which I mean
our ability to have an economy absent financial shenanigans) and USG has effectively funded China's rise. There is no strategic
benefit to offshoring productive capacity. I don't really care if Navarro has failed at other tasks in his life. He is correct
on this one.
we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive
concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
Damn! Sounds just like me. Anyway, the US has made a lot of mistakes. It transferred much of its manufacturing base to China
and much of its technology. The Chinese see a chance to break away from the US economically and in technology.
The US invested in China's future. China invested in its future. Which is why China has a future.
Seeing geography as a decisive factor in the course of human history can be construed as a bleak view of the world, which
is why it is disliked in some intellectual circles. It suggests that nature is more powerful than man, and that we can only
go so far in determining our own fate.
Splitting the globe into ten distinct regions, former Sky News Diplomatic Editor Tim Marshall redresses our techno-centric
view of the world and suggests that our key political driver continues to be our physical geography. Beginning with Russia
(and its bewildering eleven time-zones), we are treated to an illuminating, border-by-border disassembly of what makes the
world what it is; why, for instance, China and India will never fall into conflict (the Himalayas), or why the Ukraine is such
a tactical jewel in the crown. With its panoptic view over our circumstance, Prisoners of Geography makes a compelling case
around how the physical framework of the world itself has defined our history. It's one of those books that prompts real reflection
and one that on publication absolutely grasped the imagination of our customers, ensuring it as a guaranteed entrant to our
2016 Paperbacks of the Year.
'One of the best books about geopolitics you could imagine: reading it is like having a light shone on your understanding.'
– Nicholas Lezard,
"There is no strategic benefit to offshoring productive capacity. "
Quite right. However – that horse has long bolted. And now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods:
tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping).
Unfortunately, circumstances demand a radical & imaginative response & even harder, a realisation that the horse has
bolted.
Now that you're here, you should read the Saker more. I'll pose this question though, If Russia and China are hell bent on
imperial expansion, why don't they show any interest in Mongolia? Fertile land, rich mineral resources, a tiny population incapable
of resistance it would be a no brainier. The reason they don't is because they are not imperial powers. Also, is empire a good
thing? In every historical example it has followed the same pattern and failed. Civilisations however endure through the ages.
" Vladimir Putin seeks to shatter the Western alliance with cyberwar " was where I noted this essayist is a fool and stopped
reading. Russians! Russians! Russians everywhere!
But since then has gone on to muse how it might be extended. My argument is that the Empire does not serve the American people
and is leading to the destruction of the republic and the American people. The sooner it ends the better, and if Trump can speed
up its demise, then he is our guy.
A very interesting article, for me, but, I suppose, for quite other reasons than most here expect. The essence of interest
is in the last two paragraphs.
In the first of these two those men are mentioned who by geopolitical ideas caused world wide disasters. If they did, I do not
know. The question 'did Napoleon make history or did history make Napoleon' still is a difficult one among historians, and will
remain difficult, is my idea. The man not mentioned in this paragraph is Hitler.
Then we get the ominous last paragraph, someone grabbing world wide power for geopolitical reasons, a great menace.
The essence of good propaganda is not telling lies, but telling just half truths. Not mentioned is that the area that now is
Germany for maybe hundreds of years could not feed the population, had to import food. In order to be able to import one must
export, a country with not enough agricultural production naturally must export industrial products, to fabricate these one needs
raw materials.
Not for nothing both WWI and WWII had geopolitical causes, German economic expansion to the SW and E, economic expansion that
threatened, in the British view, the autarcic British empire.
The implication of the last paragraph for me is clear, beware of the next Hitler. If the author has someone in mind who will
unleash the last world war is not clear to me.
Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can't have it, because a cohesive society
must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary. Perhaps that's what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not
working.
It's like the Federal German republic trying 90 year old people who were drafted as teenagers to be concentration camp guards
in late WW II, when the Reich was scraping through the bottom of the manpower barrel, or like the British digging up Cromwell's
bones (see Wikipedia, "Oliver Cromwell", section: "Death and posthumous execution"). Not convincing.
Alfred McCoy isn't the exact polar opposite of Bill Kristol who is wrong about everything , but McCoy does have a pretty
good track record of being mostly correct about the issues he covers, nevertheless, he still reads like an opinion column. He
also seems bonded by how he sees the American empire being some sort of force of benevolence when it acts and reacts in the same
manner as any other empire that's come and gone – and of course he loathes the idea of the next empire simply by default(they'll
brag about freedom too Alfred). And of course, in the realm of geopolitics, he never really mentions the bastard child; which
leaves a gaping hole in his analysis.
My guess is McCoy's basically on the right track. Not exactly, but he'll get you out of the woods.
For the past decade, he has been a forceful advocate for Russian expansionism
It gets a bit boring reading about how aggressive Putin is and how he wants to reconquer all the territories that were voluntarily
given up by his predecessors. How exactly would Russia benefit by reaquiring the Baltic States or Poland? These countries are
on life-support. Poland get $20bn annually in direct and indirect subsidies from the EU. As for Ukraine, what possible benefit
to Russia would it be to have an extra 35 million people who are broke. Ukrainians today spend half their income on food and that
other half on heat – and that in a country with a very cold winter.
Let's not forget that there would not have been a "Berlin Crisis" if Stalin had not given parts of Berlin to the USA, the UK
and France. Can you imagine the USA doing something similar? This whole article is a real let down. I am disappointed. I guess
every barrel has to have a rotten apple or two.
I would add that in my life, Henry Kissinger was the other supreme geopolitical theorist who attempted to establish a multipolar
geopolitics over a bipolar one. Keep in mind that it was he who essentially argued that China must be recognized in order to blunt
the USSR. Nixon thus became the one who opened China to the US, so that in theory the world was to be divided into the Russia
pole; the China pole; the American/NATO pole, and the "Third World" pole. With a dash of Mahan added to the mix, all would be
balanced and stable, or so Kissinger argued. Hmmmm, maybe not!
Are you for real? Have you looked at where these two respective areas are geographically? Hell, their borders aren't even adjacent.
As for China's interest in Tibet: what was once's part of the Empire will always be part of the Empire. Tibets been part of
the empire twice now, first under Genghis' Yuan Dynasty and again during under the Qing. That simple fact means from now until
the sun goes supernova, for China to be considered unified, Tibet must be a part of it. No ifs or buts.
That's not to mention the strategic considerations of occupying the high ground vis a vis the sub-continentals as well as the
area being the source of several great rivers. You'd have to be a madman to give that kind of advantage up.
@Anon Ghandi was of the opinion that the people of India, forgot the number, 100 million or more ?, served 400.000 rich Britons.
The Roman empire, I'd say 1% rich, 99% poor.
The tsarist empire, not much better.
The German empire again the exception, nowhere else at the end of the 19th century were common people in comparable living conditions.
The EU empire, EP members tax free incomes of some € 200.000 a year, plus an extravagant pension system.
Verhofstadt, additional income, not tax free, of at least € 450.000 a year.
Declarations, Schulz has been accused of spending € 700.000 in a year, among other things he liked a glass of wine.
When it suits their purpose, writers on economics–I won't call them Economists–praise the tiger-like speed and agility with
which Capitalism responds to the vagaries of pressures and demands that arise in world markets. But when they're engaging in public
relations we get this:
"Despite a warning from the Federal Reserve chairman that " trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global
economy ," .. Whether this tariff dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking
havoc on global supply chains and the world economy
which throw a protective cloak over a poor, picked-upon capitalism which is, apparently, incapable of getting out of its own
way.
Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin. No, there is no Russian cyberwar.
Putin's aims are Russia's recovery from the disasters of communism (a road to a blind alley as he has called it) and defending
Russia against NATO's expansion, colour revolutions and numerous false accusations.
Beijing is the place to look today for big strategic thinking.
@Puzzled reasons would be the last. Because the Europeans would find of other sources and shut out Russia as being an unreliable
business partner. Moreover, Russia is now the largest exporter of wheat and is developing export levels of production in soybeans
and pork. You can't sell to countries that you have wrecked militarily.
It's the U.S., not Russia that is playing the 800 pound Global Cop Gorilla with its war-mongering, economic warfare and global
subversion.
Like Puzzled, when I read that stupid, irrational line by Alfred McCoy, I simply stopped reading. Because nobody that dense
about obvious geo-political reality deserves to be read.
Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin.
No kidding. This is what happens when you get your Russian news from the Times and the Beeb. I mean, if Dugin were such a Kremlin
favorite, how could he have lost his job at Moscow State University? You'd think he could just pick up the phone, call 'Uncle
Vova', and get his job back!
Of course Putin is a Eurasianist, but that's not because Dugin told him to be one. It's because every Russian ruler has been
a Eurasianist for centuries now. Why? Just look at a map: Russia is located in Eurasia. Would we therefore expect the Russians
to be Pan-Africanists or something else? Naturally they're going to be Eurasianists. They learned long ago that if they don't
dominate Eurasia, somebody else will -- and that will cause security problems for Russia. I can't say I hold that against them.
It's not as though the US would take kindly to some foreign empire coming on over to the Western Hemisphere and setting up shop,
say, in Latin America. In fact, just consider how Washington reacted when the Soviets concluded an alliance with Cuba. There was
no talk about the 'sovereignty of small nations' coming from the wallscreen then!
What financial shenanigans? And how has the US effectively funded China's rise? And how do tariffs destroy China ? (tariffs
are like shooting yourself in the foot)
The cause for poverty is located at the Pentagon because they own the national debt! When if ever will the Joint Chiefs be
put on trial for these treasonous Wars and lost trillions?
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military
bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the *Pentagon* one of
the *largest* landowners worldwide.
Dec 21, 2013 Black Budget: US govt clueless about missing Pentagon $trillions
The Pentagon has secured a 630 billion dollar budget for next year, even though it's failed to even account for the money it's
received since 1996. A whopping 8.5 trillion dollars of taxpayer cash have gone to defence programmes – none of which has been
audited.
@Ilyana_Rozumova between other countries and with its own colonies. As the Dutch comparative advantage was frozen out, their
military aggression declined with it. America sitting on its hands while China becomes a giant Hong Kong and countries all over
Eurasia fall under its sway would by likely to lead to a very nasty war that America would loose and loose badly. It is better
to try now to stop China growing that big and dangerous by declining to trade with them under conditions that will inevitably
make them grow too large to fight. Will trade barriers to China work well enough? Probably not because they are past the lift
off stage now (Carter did too good a job), but it is worth a try.
There is opportunity for an American renaissance and really the only practical solution for its people – that is to swiftly
and decidedly push its pathetic government aside – and begin rapidly re-educating, re-training, re-tooling, and re-building a
next-generation manufacturing base.
Everything about this CIA agent's history lesson sounds fake. The blood sucking military runs the White House. ISIS or ISIL
or whatever the CIA calls itself today poses no threat. Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably
going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich
who own the military industrial complex.
@Sean ised an efficient military staff, efficient in planning. The Prussian army was the first to make extensive use of railways,
first time after the French 1870 attack. Very capable people, Germans. Red Army use of railways even in 1941 was a mess.
The GB preparations for the occupation of neutral Norway in April 1940, also a mess.
Pity quoted book is in German and with gothic letters, Ludendorff shows with extensive map material how the Germans in WWI fought
a two front, sometimes even three front war. Just possible through detailed transport planning.
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
As I said before, rhetorics such as 'USG has effectively funded China's rise' are just over-exaggeration if not BS. Facts:
–Foreign investments only constitute a small % of Chinese domestic investment,
–The majority of foreign Investment in china are NOT from US.
–Total investment in China in recent years amount to $trillions per year
If one cares to examine the major industrial sectors in China , like hi-speed rail, steel, photovoltaic panels, electricity,
energy,.. automobiles Only in the auto sector the americans have a sizable role because the yanks want market access.
we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive
concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more
empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking
for empires.
empires, traditional ones, are now altogether too costly, especially approaching their end. the world wont tolerate that anymore.
the credit empire is working so far but the people have cottoned on to that. to end global banking power simply take over the
banks, and recuse all debt for they were fraudulently accrued.
all banking will then by need be worker co-ops able to deal with all the financial services required by society..no conglomerates
required
the capitalists will probably try a desperate military gambit to try maintain their empire but that wont work. they are already
outgunned unless they decide to take the world down with them.
but I don't think we will have to worry about such trade 'grandmasters' farting around with the world for too much longer.
the end of imperialism will make such work redundant
and if the democracy does not replace capitalism and the elite wins, it's a Brave New World we looking at. Brilliant geneticist
bent on engineering humans. brilliant mind controllers, psychiatrists and such would be useful job qualifications to have, not
trade specialist.
Brave New World also makes the trade 'genius' redundant
December 31, 2018 War is Good for Business and Organized Crime. Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin
Addiction in the US Afghanistan's opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin
addiction in the US.
It's always fun to read articles and history. This article was fun and perhaps thought provoking. But at least some parts of
it make no sense to me.
Take for example the "heartland" theory. Yes it probably made sense over a century ago when strategist -always looking in the
rear view mirror- judged the situation based on the Roman empire or Napoleons conquest. And their thoughts grounded in traditional
territorial wars.
Today with nuclear weapons, fast long range missiles and in very different economic reality, I don't think the "Heartland"
is the key to control the world, Eurasia, Europe or indeed anything else than possibly the "Heartland" it self. Control from the
Heartland over nuclear France or the U.K?
Annexing small part of land on your own borders whose inhabitants overwhelmingly welcome you with open arms, like Russians
did in Crimea, is totally different from conquering unwilling, hostile neighbors. The latter is extremely costly and difficult
exercise with just about zero upside but gaping black hole on the downside. Remember Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam? So the former
isn't indication of the latter!
I dont't see anything that supports the theory the Russians are playing by the book of the Heartland theory. In current political
situation it's outlandish idea. Perhaps the idea is to paint Russia's leaders as lunatics?
Yes the Russians are probably engaged in cyber-war. They seem to have the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg – as reported
by European media it's amateur operation costing perhaps few million dollars per year with 80 people from the unemployment list's
hammering on laptops working shifts creating and nurturing social media accounts. No experts in politics or advanced computing
in sight, no supercomputers, artificial intelligence. Like I said, amateur operation hardly indicating state-sponsored efforts.
Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S.
European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it's budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount
to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other "three letter organizations" in the U.S. and similar operations
in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating.
The press? R.T and few other outlets versus the western MSM who has in recent years acted like a pack of rabid dogs against
Russia. Investigative journalism into international affairs is replaced by publishing official statements and "analysis" from
"experts". This is war propaganda – nothing less. And the Russians are playing desperate defense most days.
This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing
them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens
is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when
the lunatics take over the asylum.
Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting
back with horrible consequences for world peace.
It was a nice history essay, but there isn't much of a logical relationship between Mahan, Haushofer, et al. and the present
trade confrontation.
Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side
is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens
conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further:
It seems the New York banks would gladly trade the SV engineering jobs for a bigger share of the China banking business,
a la the Cleveland and Detroit auto industry jobs of the past.
A possible break with Britain is something even bigger to watch, as their involvement in China is even more finance-related.
@Anon ng, which far exceeded direct investments into China by any other country.
If we take a look at the Santander report on Hong Kong FDI, most of it seems to come from the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman
Islands (both offshore banking locations, with the funds coming from who knows where) and the UK.
At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political
distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which
has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.
And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up
of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was
without substance, if not a joke.
Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.
One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates
that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was
appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.
In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video.
And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal
establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the
basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.
But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the
Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants
to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of
them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.
This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two
evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.
We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the
narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to
money and power.
Is this shadow of Integrity Initiative in the USA ? This false flag open the possibility that other similar events like
DNC (with very questionable investigation by Crowdstrike, which was a perfect venue to implement a false flag; cybersecurity area is
the perfect environment for planting false flags), MH17 (might be an incident but later it definitely was played as a false flag), Skripals
(Was Skripals poisoning a false flag decided to hide the fact that Sergey Skripal was involved in writing Steele dossier?) and Litvinenko
(probably connected with lack of safety measures in the process of smuggling of Plutonium by Litvinenko himself, but later played a
a false flag). All of those now should be re-assessed from the their potential of being yet another flag flag operation
against Russia. While Browder was a MI6 operation from the very beginning (and that explains
why he abdicated the US citizenship more convincingly that the desire to avoid taxes) .
Notable quotes:
"... Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior. ..."
"... Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election (not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign). ..."
"... By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were, actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people who have a vested interest in convincing us its true). ..."
For over two years now, the concepts of "Russian collusion" and "Russian election meddling" have been shoved down our throats
by the mainstream media (MSM) under the guise of legitimate concern that the Kremlin may have installed a puppet president in Donald
Trump.
Having no evidence of collusion aside from a largely unverified opposition-research dossier fabricated by a former British spy,
the focus shifted from "collusion" to "meddling" and "influence." In other words, maybe Trump didn't actually collude with Putin,
but the Kremlin used Russian tricks to influence the election in Trump's favor. To some, this looked like nothing more than an establishment
scheme to cast a permanent spectre of doubt over the legitimacy of President Donald J. Trump.
Election meddling "Russian bots" and "troll farms" became the central focus - as claims were levied of social media operations
conducted by Kremlin-linked organizations which sought to influence and divide certain segments of America.
And while scant evidence of a Russian influence operation exists outside of a handful of indictments connected to a St. Petersburg
"Troll farm" (which a liberal journalist
cast serious doubt ov er), the MSM - with all of their proselytizing over the "threat to democracy" that election meddling poses,
has largely decided to ignore actual evidence of "Russian bots" created by Democrat IT experts, used against a GOP candidate in the
Alabama special election, and amplified through the Russian bot-detecting "Hamilton 68" dashboard developed by the same IT experts.
Democratic operative Jonathon Morgan - bankrolled by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, pulled a Russian bot "false flag" operation
against GOP candidate Roy Moore in the Alabama special election last year - creating thousands of fake social media accounts designed
to influence voters . Hoffman has since apologized, while Morgan was suspended by Facebook for "coordinated inauthentic" behavior.
As Russian state-owned RT puts
it - and who could blame them for being a bit pissed over the whole thing, "it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy
by "Russian bots." Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly responsible
for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection. "
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout
by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household name.
Described by the
New York Times
as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies.
Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agenc y. His partner,
Ryan Fox, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for the Joint Special Operations
Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company
in 2018 alone.
...
On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names,
and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded
voters to support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea
that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by Mother Jones, which based its story
on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious creation, Hamilton 68. -
RT
Moore ended up losing the Alabama special election by a slim margin of just
In other words: In November 2017 – when Moore and his Democratic opponent were in a bitter fight to win over voters – Morgan
openly promoted the theory that Russian bots were supporting Moore's campaign . A year later – after being caught red-handed orchestrating
a self-described "false flag" operation – Morgan now says that his team never thought that the bots were Russian and have no idea
what their purpose was . Did he think no one would notice? -
RT
Disinformation warrior @ jonathonmorgan attempts to control
damage by lying. He now claims the "false flag operation" never took place and the botnet he promoted as Russian-linked (based
on phony Hamilton68 Russian troll tracker he developed) wasn't Russian https://www.
newknowledge.com/blog/about-ala bama
Even more strange is that Scott Shane - the journalist who wrote the New York Times piece exposing the Alabama "Russian bot" scheme,
knew about it for months after speaking at an event where the organizers bragged about the false flag on Moore .
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement Technologies, a group run by Mikey
Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar. Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to
suppress Republican votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hrt Moore. He dubbed it "Project
Birmingham." - RT
Shane told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, though hid behind a nondisclosure agreement at the request of American
Engagement Technologies (AET). He instead chose to spin the New Knowledge "false flag" operation on Moore as "limited Russian tactics"
which were part of an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 - and which had no effect on the election.
New Knowledge suggested that the false flag operation was simply a "research project," which Morgan suggested was designed "to
better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media disinformation."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard
to give his "false flag" more credibility – misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was fake.
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which
announced last week that five
accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
- RT
They knew exactly what they were doing
While Morgan and New Knowledge sought to frame the "Project Birmingham" as a simple research project, a leaked copy of the operation's
after-action report reveals that they knew exactly what they were doing .
"We targeted 650,000 like AL voters, with a combination of persona accounts, astroturfing, automated social media amplification
and targeted advertising," reads the report published by entrepreneur and executive coach Jeff Giesea.
The rhetorical question remains, why did the MSM drop this election meddling story like a hot rock after the initial headlines
faded away?
criminal election meddling, but then who the **** is going to click on some morons tactic and switch votes?
anyone basing any funding, whether it is number of facebook hits or attempted mind games by egotistical cuck soyboys needs a serious
psychological examination. fake news is fake BECAUSE IT ISNT REAL AND DOES NOT MATTER TO ANYONE but those living in the excited misery
of their tiny bubble world safe spaces. SOCIAL MEDIA IS A CON AND IS NOT IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT TO ANYONE.
far more serious is destroying ballots, writing in ballots without consent, bussing voters around to vote multiple times in different
districts, registering dead voters and imperosnating the corpses, withholding votes until deadlines pass - making them invalid.
Herdee , 10 minutes ago
NATO on behalf of the Washington politicians uses the same bullsh*t propaganda for continual war.
Mugabe , 20 minutes ago
Yup "PROJECTION"...
Yippie21 , 21 minutes ago
None of this even touches on the 501c3 or whatever that was set up , concerned Alabama voters or somesuch, and was funneled
a **** load of money to be found to be in violation of the law AFTER the election and then it all just disappeared. Nothing to
see here folks, Democrat won, let's move on. There was a LOT of " tests " for the smart-set in that election and it all worked.
We saw a bunch of it used in 2018, especially in Texas with Beto and down-ballot races. Democrats cleaned up like crazy in Texas,
especially in Houston.
2020 is going to be a hot mess. And the press is in on it, and even if illegal or unseemly things are done, as long as Democrats
win, all good... let's move on. Crazy.
LetThemEatRand , 21 minutes ago
The fact that MSM is not covering this story -- which is so big it truly raises major questions about the entire Russiagate
conspiracy including why Mueller was appointed in the first place -- is proof that they have no interest in journalism or the
truth and that they are 100% agenda driven liars. Not that we needed more proof, but there it is anyway.
Oldguy05 , 19 minutes ago
Dimz corruption is a nogo. Now if it were conservatives.......
CosineCosineCosine , 23 minutes ago
I'm not a huge fan, but Jimmy Dore has a cathartic and entertaining 30 minutes on this farce. Well worth the watch:
Really the bigger story is here is that these guys convincingly pretended to be Russian Bots in order to influence an election
(not with the message being put forth by the bots, but by their sheer existence as apparent supporters of the Moore campaign).
By all appearances, they were Russian bots trying to influence the election. Now we know it was DNC operatives. Yet we
are supposed to believe without any proof that the "Russian bots" that supposedly influenced the 2016 Presidential election were,
actually, Russian bots, and worthy of a two year long probe about "Russian collusion" and "Russian meddling."
The whole thing is probably a farce, not only in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia had any influence at all
on a single voter, but also in the sense that there is no evidence that Russia even tried (just claims and allegations by people
who have a vested interest in convincing us its true).
dead hobo , 30 minutes ago
I've been watching Scandal on Netflix. Still only in season 2. Amazing how nothing changes.They nailed it and memorialized
it. The MSM are useful idiots who are happy to make money publicizing what will sell the best.
chunga , 30 minutes ago
The media is biased and sucks, yup.
The reason the reds lost the house is because they went along with this nonsense and did nothing about it, like frightened
baby chipmunks.
JRobby , 33 minutes ago
Only when "the opposition" does it is it illegal. Total totalitarian state wannabe stuff.
divingengineer , 22 minutes ago
Amazing how people can contort reality to justify their own righteous cause, but decry their opposition for the EXACT same
thing. See trump visit to troops signing hats as most recent proof. If DJT takes a piss and sprinkles the seat, it's a crime.
DarkPurpleHaze , 33 minutes ago
They're afraid to expose themselves...unlike Kevin Spacey. Trump or Whitaker will expose this with one signature. It's
coming.
divingengineer , 20 minutes ago
Spacey has totally lost it. See his latest video, it will be a powerful piece of evidence for an insanity plea.
CosineCosineCosine , 10 minutes ago
Disagree strongly. I think it was excellent - perhaps you misunderstood the point? 6 minutes Diana Davidson look at it clarifies
"... Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his $25 million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his
$25
million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe.
The claim, according to The Hill was contained within a court filing by Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting - one of
three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for election meddling.
In the Thursday court
filing accusing Mueller's team of illegally withholding information in the case, Concord attorney Eric Dubelier made mention
of the "nude selfie," asking " Could the manner in which he collected a nude selfie really threaten the national security of the
United States? "
"... Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his $25 million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gone so far down the rabbit hole in his
$25
million (taxpayer funded) Russia investigation -- going so far as to have "collected a nude selfie " to satisfy his probe.
The claim, according to The Hill was contained within a court filing by Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting - one of
three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for election meddling.
In the Thursday court
filing accusing Mueller's team of illegally withholding information in the case, Concord attorney Eric Dubelier made mention
of the "nude selfie," asking " Could the manner in which he collected a nude selfie really threaten the national security of the
United States? "
" ....The oligarchs have been destroyed in the early 00s: Gusinsky (the media oligarch),
Berezovsky (the political broker oligarch), Khodorkovsky (the oil oligarch). These people
were real oligarchs, i.e. they were using their wealth to control political processes
through black media propaganda, having their own MPs/Ministers/Governors, etc..." @85
I'm inclined to agree. And this is why there is so much anger against Putin, in
particular, in the 'west': the Russian oligarchs wield enormous power through the media
which is at the service of anyone with money. Bill Browder being a prime example.
The oligarchs were the tools that the City of London and Wall St employed to plunder
Russia's socialised wealth and resources.
The hate campaign against Putin, who is in many ways a very conservative economist pursuing
the sort of neo-liberal policies that capitalist financiers approve of, is inexplicable
unless we understand that the end game is a return to the looting that took place under the
Empire's anointed, Boris Yeltsin.
I don't understand the people here who write that VVPutin is in thrall to the Zionists,
the Oligarchs, or that he's lining his own pocket etc etc. IMHO his strategy has always been
clear and direct, since the beginning. He values first of all stability - time for Russia to
rebuild herself. Secondly, he performs a clever balancing act between the competing centres
of power in Russia.
His mistake, however, when he became president, was to believe quite sincerely that the
West - and particularly Washington (the important one) - shared a desire for peaceful
partnership with Russia. Doubts emerged in 2011 - he realised that he was being played - and
the doubts became certainties in 2014, since when some fairly radical reorganisations has
been taking place. Russia is - again, IMHO - now ready to take its real place in the
international order.
I take great pleasure in reading and listening to his - and Sergei Lavrov's - words, at
the same time regretting the low standard of our own representatives.
Many thanks to b and all of you who continue always to inform me and sometimes enchant
me.
When we reported last week that Imran Awan and his wife had been indicted by a grand jury on
4 counts, including bank fraud and making false statements related to some home equity loans,
we also noted that those charges could simply be placeholders for further developments yet to
come. Now, according to a new report from the
Daily Caller , the more interesting component of the FBI's investigation could be tied to
precisely why New York Democrat Representative Yvette Clarke quietly agreed in early 2016 to
simply write-off $120,000 in missing electronics tied to the Awans.
A chief of staff for Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke quietly agreed in early 2016 to sign
away a $120,000 missing electronics problem on behalf of two former IT aides now suspected of
stealing equipment from Congress, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned. Clarke's
chief of staff at the time effectively dismissed the loss and prevented it from coming up in
future audits by signing a form removing the missing equipment from a House-wide tracking
system after one of the Awan brothers alerted the office the equipment was gone. The
Pakistani-born brothers are now at the center of an FBI investigation over their IT work with
dozens of Congressional offices.
The $120,000 figure amounts to about a tenth of the office's annual budget, or enough to
hire four legislative assistants to handle the concerns of constituents in her New York
district. Yet when one of the brothers alerted the office to the massive loss, the chief of
staff signed a form that quietly reconciled the missing equipment in the office budget, the
official told TheDCNF. Abid Awan remained employed by the office for months after the loss of
the equipment was flagged.
If true, of course this new information would seem to support previously reported rumors
that the Awans orchestrated a long-running fraud scheme in which their office would purchase
equipment in a way that avoided tracking by central House-wide administrators and then sell
that equipment for a personal gain while simultaneously defrauding taxpayers of $1,000's of
dollars.
Meanwhile, according to the Daily Caller, CDW Government could have been in on the
scheme.
They're suspected of working with an employee of CDW Government Inc. -- one of the Hill's
largest technology providers -- to alter invoices in order to avoid tracking. The result
would be that no one outside the office would notice if the equipment disappeared, and
investigators think the goal of the scheme was to remove and sell the equipment outside of
Congress.
CDW spokeswoman Kelly Caraher told TheDCNF the company is cooperating with investigators,
and has assurance from prosecutors its employees are not targets of the investigation. "CDW
and its employees have cooperated fully with investigators and will continue to do so,"
Caraher said. "The prosecutors directing this investigation have informed CDW and its
coworkers that they are not subjects or targets of the investigation."
Not surprisingly, Clarke's office apparently felt no need whatsoever to report the $120,000
worth of missing IT equipment to the authorities... it's just taxpayer money afterall...
According to the official who talked to TheDCNF, Clarke's chief of staff did not alert
authorities to the huge sum of missing money when it was brought to the attention of the
office around February of 2016. A request to sign away that much lost equipment would have
been "way outside any realm of normalcy," the official said, but the office did not bring it
to the attention of authorities until months later when House administrators told the office
they were reviewing finances connected to the Awans.
The administrators informed the office that September they were independently looking into
discrepancies surrounding the Awans, including a review of finances connected to the brothers
in all the congressional offices that employed them. The House administrators asked Clarke's
then-chief of staff, Wendy Anderson, whether she had noticed any anomalies, and at that time
she alerted them to the $120,000 write-off, the official told TheDCNF.
Of course, the missing $120,000 covers only Clarke's office. As we've noted before, Imran
and his relatives worked for more than 40 current House members when they were banned from the
House network in February, and have together worked for dozens more in past years so who know
just how deep this particular rabbit hole goes.
Also makes you wonder what else Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Awans might be hiding.
Certainly the decision by Wasserman-Shultz to keep Awan on her taxpayer funded payroll, right
up until he was arrested by the FBI while trying to flee the country, is looking increasingly
fishy with each passing day.
The 911 protection swamp is deep, and profiteers and drug, human traffic, NGO, Body part,
war mongers runs deep.
Please stop calling it building 7 It was the Solomon building.. While you are at it look
at the 1991 Solomon bond scandal which gave the Citi Clinton Mafia all power.... Oh yea
Bush/Clinton cabal did get Saudis to buy Citi stocks and GE plastics. Swampy enough?
120k write off ! You are kidding me?
south40_dreams , 1 year ago
Blackmail was where the real money was at
pissantra , 1 year ago
The real problem here is being completely ignored -- and that is this: the Awan bros were
likely spies (with Wasserman either forced to allow them to spy or the spymaster selling
intel to Pakistan). This would mean that 21+ congress-critters have been completely
compromised. THIS is important NOW, after Trumps Afghan speech -- if he plans to lean on
Pakistan with an "either you stop helping the Taliban or we will destroy you (economically
and/or physically) along with them...."--- these compromised congress-critters will defund
Trumps war.
Freddie , 3 weeks ago
No. Pakistan is the smokescreen. Wasserscum, like Scott Israel, are dual shitizens. This
is, as is Broward County, a MO$$$$ad op. Broward County for vote theft, fraud, attorney
killings, false flags, etc. I would guess a lot more in Congress are owned.
Just watched Congress during Bibi and even ko$$her Porschenko addressing Congrez-zio. They
jump up like circus trained animals to give standing ovations for every word.
Awans and Wasserscum will get passes. George Webb on youtube appears to be doing good work
but it is probably another smoke screen because George has said he is a zioni$$t.
Ban KKiller , 1 year ago
Gee Michelle....you used the Pakistanis for your IT work? What, you like filthy muslims?
Guess so.... When will you confess that you have NO IDEA where your confidential information is? Michelle Lynn Lujan Grisham is an American lawyer and politician who is the U.S.
Representative for New Mexico's 1st congressional district, serving since 2013.
mtanimal , 1 year ago
I didn't know espionage and extortion were tax deductible. Who's her accountant?
Cardinal Fang , 1 year ago
I regret that we may never know the extent of the duplicity of our government with this
ISI stooge.
pc_babe , 1 year ago
with Jeff Session at the helm, you can rest assured you never will
Loanman26 , 1 year ago
My spidy senses are flaring. It was the Russians who stole the equipment. It was comrade Sergei Awan
Blazing in BC , 1 year ago
To whoever is "in charge"....THE STENCH IS UNBEARABLE
runnymede , 1 year ago
Institutionalized unaccountability is what makes the systemic corruption function. As long
as Wasserman's brother is in charge of D.C. prosecutions, nothing will happen. He is the
gatekeeper, which is why DWS, the DNC and the Clinton Crime Machine have not only acted with
impunity, but with extreme contempt. They know they are untouchable. Honest prosecution would
expose D.C. itself as the professional criminal operation that it is, including most Repubs.
There will never be allowed a real look into the rabbit hole, George Webb's outstanding
efforts notwithstanding.
One of We , 1 year ago
President Not Hillary needs to lock some bitches up and expose the Clinton Crime Family
Foundation. Definitely lowering the bar from my lofty hopes but I'd be happy with a partial
roto rootering of the swamp if that's all he has to show for his term.
SRV , 1 year ago
The Awans were working for DWS and The Crook... this fruad is the tip of the
iceberg...
How about doping Blackberry's for 80 House Dems to sync with servers around the Capital
(remember DWS threatening the Capital Police Chief with "consequences" if he didn't give her
back her laptop found in a Capitol Hill building. The Awans were selling the access to most
of the secrets in congress since 2004... this was a spy ring (he has serious ties to
Pakistani ISI).
JiminyCrickets , 1 year ago
As long as Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Brother Steven Wasserman is running the Seth Rich
murder investigation this wont go any where.
gregga777 , 1 year ago
Unfortunately, the Anglo-Zionist FAKE NEWS Media won't cover this story, especially the
links to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. It's anti-Semitic to discuss her criminality or to
criticize her in any other way.
JiminyCrickets , 1 year ago
George Webb's detailed 300+ day investigation indicates the Awans were shipping stolen
high end cars to foreign diplomats and depleted uranium weapons using DNC Diplomatic
Containers.
no surprise that demonRat politicians throughout all legislatures have been guilty of
defrauding the tax payer for decades - in much the same way that demonRat politicians
directly legislate for welfare benefits, free insurance and tax cuts for their family and
friends - at the expense of tax payers - and who also extract tax payer funds via the gravy
train of internships, federal grants etc for their family and friends.
this is how libtard demonRat politicians infect the swamp and then infest it with their
filth and cronyism.
aided and abetted by the MSM.
if only iy was just the demonRats, there might be a chance - however, corrupt republicRats
have been just as guilty.
one day, all this will be out in the open and perhaps demonRat and republicRat voters will
see how they have been voting for corruption all these years.
are we there yet , 1 year ago
Because you are one of the little people.
NoPension , 1 year ago
We are below " little people". We are irrelevant. Just keep paying, slave. Someone correct
me if I'm wrong..... This country was founded on the principle that the individual had
sovereign rights, imbued from God...and was the vessel of ultimate power. Today...these
illegally elected ( it's almost ALL proven a fraud) cocksuckers go in broke and come out the
other end multimillionaires with legal immunity from anything, up to and including murder.
It's high time to water the ******* tree.
LinkedIn
co-founder 'sorry' for funding fake Russian tweets for Democrats
(RT video). Admiited producing 200 fake Russian twits.
Notable quotes:
"... Reid Hoffman is a Billionaire, who is a member of the Bilderburg Group, & is on the Council of Foreign Relations. Obviously 'above the law'. His sorry apology will be good enough. ..."
"... Oh he is only sorry after he got caught. ..."
Imagine that ?...we knew... They owe Putin and the Russian people a apology....hmmm...would rather send all demoncrats to
Putin for their punishments...
Are you kidding me?! Man and here I was starting to think democrats weren't as bad. As an American I feel bad for how bad
many of my countrymen have tried to make Russia look
bad...
Reid Hoffman is a Billionaire, who is a member of the Bilderburg Group, & is on the Council of Foreign Relations. Obviously
'above the law'. His sorry apology will be good enough.
Nothing will happen to him, & RT is probably the only media outlet
that will even tell Americans about this. THX RT.
How about reposting 'Who owns the Media in less than 30 seconds'?
Are you updating the info because Rupert Murdoch
sold his media corps to Bob Iger?? THAT was your BEST video Ever!!
PLEASE REPOST IT!!
They create fakes themselves, investigate them themselves, and after finding the sources themselves they apologize. And we
are "guilty" of everything ... You look and wonder!
Marxist playbook 101, exactly what the democrats have been using on the American people. Accuse those of the very thing
that they themselves are guilty of!👍
This comes as no surprise of course. But, when you apologise for meddling/interfering in a state and or a federal election,
this is all one has to do, to not be charged for a possible crime, just apologise? Oh, and be a Democrat of course. Im an
American. But why has no other country came out and stated, that the US meddled in their elections? At least have come out
in the last 3 years and stated that? Most know, every country spies on and meddles in one anothers elections. It's not ok
but, we know and it happens.
The "liberal" Left can do whatever they want. ....no worries. All others do not get away with anything. If ever there was a
double standard, there you have it.
Linkedin is also biassed, there is no middle ground...one can establish highly sophisticated network linking each
individual and finding the most influentials...data is worth billions upon billions...and people, mainly highly educated
and skilled do have Linkedin account...so there is no "honest business", the co-founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman, is among
ones that are not "honest"...big money, bigger lies...once one tells a lie, he, or she is alway liar...
Lots of complete morons in the comments who believe in the fake two party paradigm. Both parties believe you should suffer
at the dictates of multinational corporations and the banking industry.
I am getting a lot of SPAM from somebody who disguises himself as "RUSSIAN BOT" including Cyrillic characters in the
message and also in the metadata (!). Does anybody know who this could be?
Defending Roy Moore....lol also anyone see a conflict of interest when the Russian government funds this news program. And
basically is putting a story saying that Russian bots are fake and paid by dems.
When are arrests going to me made? We ALL know that the DNC is a criminal organisation and that the USA is on borrowed
time. The farce of American Democracy is getting more obvious by the day. There just aren't anywhere near enough people,
among the overall pool of American voters, that even know how their government is theoretically supposed to work to have a
functional self-governing nation state. Morons don't pick good government!
This is nothing new. Democrats are using Russian propaganda and Republicans like to use China propaganda. Both parties are
rothschild puppets and love to use propaganda for political agendas.
I can not remember the guy's name, but the guest that was speaking on the MSNBC panel at the
2:11
mark was pro -Trump earlier this year. I remember him saying that he was former Secret Service or something to that effect
on Youtube. Now, we see him on a panel alledging Russian speculation moving it's way to the White House. I guess he
couldn't become famous as pro-Trump, so he's went to the dark side
sorry for creating false evidence in a federal investigation is a huge crime and makes him a conspirator in coup to the
takedown of the presidency of the US.
He isn't a Democrat. But I know that Americans were using fake bots before, during, and after 2016. All Dems aren't Dems.
All GOP aren't GOP. There are a lot of coming out the closet for politicians going on in this day and age. Why now are we
hearing this? 2020. You are not dealing with dummy's just deviants.
What Hoffman did is totally understandable. I myself frequently donate $100,000 amounts to causes about which I know
nothing. Especially when I know that a minuscule amount like that won't really have any real impact on a Congressional
election. Kidding aside, may we look forward to indictments of Hoffman, New Knowledge, Morgan, and Fox in this matter -- a
case of real tampering and collusion? Glad I dumped Facebook AND LinkedIn on the same day last year.
Like anyone really thought it was true, well actually as if anyone who doesn't get the bulk of their news from CNN, MSNBC,
and the like, really thought it was true. Funny part is those idiots (CNN ect. veiwers) were screaming about how Russia was
tearing apart American society, and as though out the history of mankind, you only have yourselves to blame.
RT is funded by the Russian government btw so of course they're saying this I hope you all stop letting hate anger anger
control your life when it should be dragging your nuts across broken glass only to fart in a walkie talkie to have a
spiritual enlightenment experience and see all that is true thank you
This report is not the whole truth of what happened. You should look up the facts of this case before you get all partisan
happy. Or you can just be a traitor and take Russia's (RT) word on election tampering.
Even Gazdiev is fake. RT PLEASE STOP THE INFOTAINMENT. Gazdiev wants to be in theatre. Don't hold him back. Get a
journalist who can deliver the news without all the fake pauses and arm waving.
If you want to destroy the worlds SuperPower and know you can't do it military, then infiltration into the minds of its
people is a perfect way to destroy them when clearly America has a dumbed down population.
Kushner is responsible for setting up fake proTrump republican twitter accounts to help Trump get elected. Why would
democrats want to help Trump? That's another republican lie to fool the sheeple.
The "Resistance" -- the loose affiliation of liberals, progressives and neo-conservatives
dedicated to opposing Donald Trump -- is NOT a grass-roots movement. They don't speak for the
everyman or the poor or the oppressed. They are a distraction, nothing more. A parlor game. The
face
to Trump's heel .
The Resistance is the voice of the Deep State -- Pro-war, pro-globalisation,
pro-Imperialism. It just hides its true face behind a mask of "progressive values". They prove
this with their own actions -- opposing Trump's moves toward peace with North Korea and finding
common ground with Russia.
In fact, though the resistance lives to criticize the Trump administration, they have been
notably quiet -- even in favour of -- three key issues: The bombing of Syria, the tearing up of
the INF treaty and the prosecution of Julian Assange.
They tell us, in clear voices, who they are and what they want and millions of people refuse
to listen. So totally brain-washed by the "Orange Man Bad" hysteria, that they will
side with anyone hitting the same talking points, spouting the right buzzwords, using the same
hashtags.
The painful prose paints a blurry picture of Mueller. Slapping ounces of vaseline onto the
lens of reality. It praises his hair and his clothes and his 35 dollar watch. It declares him a
soldier "forged in combat", regaling us with tales of the bravery of Mueller's marine regiment
-- "The Magnificent Bastards".
Vietnam is reduced to a movie set -- nothing but a backdrop for Mueller's courage under
fire. He won a bronze star, you know. Apparently while "The Magnificent Bastards" strode around
the Vietnamese jungle, burning villages down and watching the napalm fall from the sky, a
couple of angry farmers shot back and Mueller was wounded.
Taking a bullet in the leg from a terrified peasant who just wants you to sod off out of his
country will always win you medals, but it shouldn't.
Voluntarily signing on to enforce Imperial foreign policy in a war of conquest will always
have the media paint you as a hero, but it shouldn't.
What flaws the author does ascribe to Mueller are those we all happily admit to having
ourselves. He's a "micromanager" and he's "too tough".
Yes, and I'm sure he works himself too hard and doesn't suffer fools gladly
and always speaks his mind aswell.
Read the column if you want, but I'd suggest not eating for a few hours first. A more
nauseating panegyric I have not witnessed, at least since Barack Obama left
office .
Far more telling than what it does say is what it does not say. It mentions Mueller's
role as head of the FBI during the launch of the "war on terror", but doesn't go into any of
the abuse of human rights that accompanied (and still accompanies) the increasingly
authoritarian powers granted to US intelligence agencies by the Patriot Act.
Let's be clear: Mueller's FBI was complicit in rendition, torture, Gitmo. All of it.
Given that, it's rather unsurprising that the article doesn't mention the word "Iraq" once.
A breath-taking omission, considering Mueller's testimony in front of congress played a key
role in spreading the lie of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction":
It doesn't matter how many Vietnamese peasants took pot-shots at him, it doesn't matter how
tidy his hair is, or how cheap his watch. It doesn't matter if he looks like
Cooper or speaks like Eastwood or walks like Wayne. He is a proven liar -- a man culpable
in the greatest crime of the 21st century. He is, and always will be, a servant of the Deep
State.
A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance".
Obviously, Trump's administration is dangerous -- it still stokes warlike approaches to Iran
and Russia. It has directly threatened Venezuela and Cuba. But you can't fight the right-hand
of the Deep State by clasping the left. They all join in the middle. They're the same
monster.
Anti-Trumpers, all over the world, need to take a good look at WHO they're fighting
alongside, and ask themselves WHAT they are fighting for.
Kit
Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He
used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of
outrage.
Mueller's FBI named their 9/11 investigation PENTTBOM=Pentagon Twin Towers Bombing
There were also numerous media accounts of explosives being used on 9/11–even ABC's
John Miller
stated initial FBI feedback was that there were additional explosives used at WTC on
9/11.
Did FBI test for explosives?
What were the results?
If no tests were done–why the F not?
Why didn't media or Congress ever follow up and ask FBI about the explosions which were
reported?
i was reading that puff-piece yesterday, thinking "i wonder how long off-g's response to
this journalistic offal will be in coming" you haven't disappointed! Kit..sorry, i sound like
a gushing fanboi. most people outside of america don't realise how deep statey Mueller really
is. he's the Harvey Keitel character from pulp fiction. the mob cleanup guy
the Graun is particularly odious at the moment. today's leader is a blatant opinion piece
where the "writer" is practically rubbing their hand on their thighs with glee, telling us
how trump is facing a subpoena cannon from the dems. good too see they're using their newly
re-minted political capital on the important business of running the country resistance my
arse
And with the anthrax investigation (which of course the Guardian doesn't mention), he's
also a proven incompetent.
Have to say though–I'm looking forward to the day when this investigation is
wrapped, the report comes out, and it's not at all what the Maddows wanted to hear. At that
point Mueller will suddenly be a Russian agent himself; incompetent; compromised, and any/all
other smears to explain why his investigation didn't find their irrational hysteria to be
true.
Then maybe a few months later Trump will fire him and he'll be a hero again and get a
Gofund to help this poor unemployed honorable soul.
Wonder how the Grauniad will explain away the Skripal case when it's revealed that
Mueller's Steele dossier was written by Skripal.
No wonder the British Deep State are panicking to prevent the publication of the documents
ordered by the Orange One.
The so-called anti-Trump Resistance(TM) plays the role of Good Cop to the Trump Regime's
Bad Cop. Nothing more.
This is the nature of the political shell game that passes for American democracy, which
in reality is an imperial plutocracy.
In all these Anglo imperialist nations in general like America, Britain, or Australia,
there is only one true party: the party of Anglo American imperialism.
The anti-Trump "Resistance" is merely one faction of the Anglo-American Empire, which is
in conflict with another faction of the Anglo-American Empire.
The supposed differences between them are similar to the differences between Coke and
Pepsi, or McDonald's and Burger King.
("A proven liar. A proven killer. An Imperialist. A criminal.
Is this the stuff of which political heroes should be made?
Only in "the Resistance").
-- - ah, there you go again bringing in reason, a rational argument, the historical
record, common sense, and in short objective – "reality" – into the equation. Of
course if you are using these sort of criteria Mueller isn't going to look so good. You have
to understand that the "Resistance" is, well, more of a "feeling" than anything rational or
intellectually defensible.and valorizing Muller certainly isn't based on his "real-world"
behavior. Simply put, Muller stands in opposition to Trump and that "feels" right to the
"resistance." You know, just like it "feels right" to this same segment of the U.S.
population not to let themselves think about the fact that Obama was illegally and immorally
bombing 8 Muslim countries as he left office.
Of course in the end Mueller as "hero" of the "resistance" is simply the deep state's
slight of hand PR campaign to oppose Trump as the impossibly and unacceptably "bad face" for
U.S. empire that he is.
I mean how are Merkel or Macron or May supposed to rally their even half-awake citizenry into
dutifully following our tweet crazed endlessly offensive "Orange One" into the next all
important battle against the newest deep state defined "Hitler" in Iran, or Syria, or . . .
while maintaining any credibility with their own populations?
It's astonishing how many self professed 'Progressives' swallow the Resistance line. There
certainly is a war within the Administration, Dark State v the President. The latest episode
seems to have centred around cutting off the legs of Trump's big partner in the ME and his
son in law's close friend, Crown Prince bin Salman. What promoted Turkey to release the
information they had on the murder in Istanbul? We can be satisfied it wasn't borne out of
humanitarianism! Were they acting in lock step with the American Agencies like the CIA that
now tells Turkey it has intercepts 'proving' the Crown Prince ordered the killing? The
'bloodless' Regime Change that is underway aims to remove an arrogant and reckless not to say
bloodthirsty man from Absolute Power, a position he might have held for 50 years or more. No
wonder Erdoghan would like to see him sidelined. 50 years of Absolute Power in one of the
richest countries on earth is an awful lot of time! For the Americans it is a case of seizing
control of Foreign Policy in the ME from Trump who keeps talking about 'getting out' of
Syria: the Military and the Agencies regard that as not in American interests; they intend to
stay and control the vast oil wells in the NE. But it requires agreement with Turkey so who
knows what the Agencies promise Turkey in return? It sounds like a deal dividing northern
Syria between the Turks and the Americans; no room for the Kurds (again). It's the most
serious blow to Trump's authority akin to the time the American military disobeyed Obama over
the cease fire with Russia in Syria when instead they 'accidently' bombed Syrian soldiers,
killing 80 of them. President's it seems are not allowed their own Foreign Policy and in
reality that has been the case since the CIA was founded. Only Kennedy seriously tried to
break away
Blooming Barricade , Dec 26, 2018 12:18:48 PM |
link
@2
My jaw dropped to the floor when I read that... the fact that they're reverting to the old
name is the final step in the rehabilitation of the Iraq War criminals without liberals and
pseudo left none of which would be possible
Chris Williamson: Private Eye has reported that the #IntegrityInitiative anti-propoaganda
unit is taking tips from the security masterminds who tried to sell the wisdom of going to
war in Iraq!
And this outfit was set up by the Institute for Statecraft that's received £millions
from HM Govt!!! https://mobile.twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1076983080131416066
"... "While the intelligence alliance is central to the Syria fight and has been important in the war against Al Qaeda, a constant irritant in American-Saudi relations is just how much Saudi citizens continue to support terrorist groups, analysts said." ..."
"... On 6 March 2013, Britain's Guardian bannered regarding General Petraeus "From El Salvador to Iraq: Washington's man behind brutal police squads" and reported his having created the death squads in El Salvador and designed the post-Saddam Iraqi torture program for trying to extract from detainees (though the Guardian failed to note this) whatever information they might have about Saddam Hussein's role in the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... With Petraeus's almost unlimited access to money and weapons, and Steele's field expertise in counterinsurgency, the stage was set for the commandos to emerge as a terrifying force ..."
These authors were, however, misguided when they wrote that "While the intelligence
alliance is central to the Syria fight and has been important in the war against Al Qaeda, a
constant irritant in American-Saudi relations is just how much Saudi citizens continue to
support terrorist groups, analysts said." That "support" to jihadists, to the extent that
it was financial, came actually not from "Saudi citizens," but from the Saudi aristocracy,
mainly from the Saud family itself.
Moreover, in a monarchy -- which Saudi Arabia is -- there
are no actual "citizens"; there are only the monarch and his or her "subjects" not "citizens"
(citizens such as exist in a democracy -- even it's only a so-called one). There are only the
monarch and his/her subjects -- especially in an absolute monarchy, such as Saudi Arabia.
So: that term "citizens" was a false and misleading term in that context.
On 6 March 2013, Britain's Guardian bannered regarding General Petraeus "From
El Salvador to Iraq: Washington's man behind brutal police squads" and reported his having
created the death squads in El Salvador and designed the post-Saddam Iraqi torture program for
trying to extract from detainees (though the Guardian failed to note this) whatever information
they might have about Saddam Hussein's role in the 9/11 attacks.
Nothing was mentioned in the Guardian, about 9/11, but only that "The aim: to halt a nascent
Sunni insurgency in its tracks by extracting information from detainees" -- but nothing was
said there about what type of "information" was being sought, or why.
" With Petraeus's almost unlimited access to money and weapons, and Steele's field
expertise in counterinsurgency, the stage was set for the commandos to emerge as a terrifying
force ." But force for what? The Guardian offered nothing on that.
"... On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women, our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign". ..."
"... The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20 candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry. ..."
"... Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an international audience. ..."
"... The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. ..."
"... The choice to announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election. ..."
"... Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military presence in Syria will continue. ..."
"... The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. ..."
"... For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move. Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his friendship to Bibi. ..."
On December 19, Donald Trump announced in a Twitter message: "Our boys, our young women,
our men, they're all coming back and they're coming back now. We won". Shortly thereafter,
Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a statement: "We have started the process of returning
US troops home from Syria as we transition to the next phase of the campaign".
The reasons for Donald Trump's move are many, but they are mainly driven by US domestic
concerns. The temperature is heating up for Trump following the midterms, as the Democrats
prepare to take command of the House of Representatives in January, something that Trump had
always hoped to avert. He surrounded himself with generals, in the forlorn hope that this would
somehow protect him. If the last two years of his presidency were constantly under the cloud of
Mueller's investigation, or insinuations of being an agent of Putin, from January 2019 the
situation is going to get much more complicated. The Democratic electoral base is baying for
the President's impeachment, the party already in full pre-primary mode, with more than 20
candidates competing, with the incumbent of the White House offering the rallying cry.
The combination of these factors has forced Trump to change gears, considering that the
military-industrial-intelligence-media-complex has always been ready to get rid of Trump, even
in favor of a President Pence. The only option available for Trump in order to have a chance of
reelection in 2020 is to undertake a self-promotion tour, a practice in which he has few peers,
and which will involve him repeating his mantra of "Promises Made, Promises Kept". He will list
how he has fought against the fake-news media, suffered internal sabotage, as well as other
efforts (from the Fed, the FBI, and Mueller himself) to hamper his efforts to "Make America
Great Again".
Trump has perhaps understood that in order to be re-elected, he must pursue a simple media
strategy that will have a direct impact on his base. Withdrawing US troops from Syria, and
partly from Afghanistan, serves this purpose. It is an easy way to win with his constituents,
while it is a heavy blow to his fiercest critics in Washington who are against this decision.
Given that 70% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, the more that the
mainstream media attacks Trump for his decision to withdraw, the more they direct votes to
Trump. In this sense, Trump's move seems to be directed at a domestic rather than an
international audience.
The decision to get out of Syria is timed to coincide with another move that will also very
much please Trump's base. The government shutdown is a result of the Democrats refusing to fund
Trump's campaign promise to build a wall on the Mexican border. It is not difficult to
understand that the average citizen is fed up with the useless wars in the Middle East, and
Trump's words on immigration resonate with his voters. The more the media, the Democrats and
the deep state criticize Trump on the wall, on the Syria pull out and on shutting down the
government, the more they are campaigning for him.
This is why in order to understand the withdrawal of the United States from Syria it is
necessary to see things from Trump's perspective, even as frustrating, confusing and
incomprehensible that may seem at times.
The difference this time around was that the decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was
Trump's alone, not something imposed on him by the generals that surround him. The choice to
announce to his base, via Twitter, a victory against ISIS and the immediate withdrawal of US
troops was a smart election move with an eye on the 2020 election.
It is possible that Trump, as is his wont, also wanted to send a message to his alleged
French and British allies present in the northeast of Syria alongside the Syrian Democratic
Forces (SDF) and US soldiers. Trump may be now taunting: "Let's see what you can do without the
US!"
It is as if Trump is admonishing these countries in a more concrete way for not lifting
their weight in terms of military spending. Trump is vindictive and is not averse, after taking
advantage of his opponent, to kicking him once he is down. Trump could be correct in this
regard, and maybe French and British forces will be forced to withdraw their small group of 400
to 500 illegal occupiers of Syrian territory. Macron has for now reacted angrily at Trump's
decision, intensifying the division between the two, and is adamant that the French military
presence in Syria will continue.
There is also a more refined reason to justify the US withdrawal, even if Trump is probably
unaware of it. The problem in these cases is always trying to peer through the fog of war and
propaganda in order to discern the clear, unadulterated truth.
We should begin by listing the winners and losers of the Syrian conflict. Damascus, Moscow,
Tehran and Hezbollah have won the war against aggression. Riyadh, Doha, Paris, London, Tel Aviv
and Washington, with their al Qaeda, Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist proxies, failed to
destroy Syria, and following seven years of effort, are forced to scurry away in defeat.
Those who are walking a tightrope between war and defeat are Ankara and the so-called SDF.
The withdrawal of the United States has confirmed the balance on the ledger of winners and
losers, with the clock counting down for Erdogan and the SDF to make their next determinative
move.
The enemies of Syria survive thanks to repeated bluffs. The Americans of the
military-industrial-intelligence apparatus maintain the pretence that they still have an
influence in Syria, what with troops on the ground, attacking Trump for withdrawing. In fact,
since the Russians have imposed a no-fly-zone across the country, with the S-300 systems and
other sophisticated equipment that integrate the Syrian air-defenses into the Russian air
defenses, US coalition planes are for all intents and purposes grounded, and the same goes for
the Israelis.
Of course the French and British in Syria are infected with the same delusional disease,
choosing to believe that they can count for something without the US presence. We will see in
the near future whether they also withdraw their illegal presence from Syria.
The biggest bluff of all probably comes from Erdogan, who for months threatened to invade
Syria to fight ISIS, the Kurds, or any other plausible excuse to invade a sovereign country for
the purposes of advancing his dreams of expanding Turkish territory as far as Idlib (which
Erdogan considers a province of Turkey). Such an invasion, however, is unlikely to happen, as
it would unite the SDF, Damascus and her allies to reject the Turkish advance on Syrian
territory.
The Kurds in turn seem to have only one option left, namely, a forced negotiation with
Damascus to give back to the Syrian people, in exchange for protection, the control of their
territory that is rich in oil and gas.
Erdogan wants to eliminate the SDF, and until now, the only thing that stood in his way was
the US military presence. He even threatened to attack several times, even in spite of the
presence of US troops. Ankara has long been on a collision course with NATO countries on
account of this. By removing US troops, Trump imagines, relations between Turkey and the US may
also improve. This of course is of little interest to the US deep state, since Erdogan, like
Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is considered unsuitable, and is accordingly branded a
"dictator".
Trump probably believes that with this move, as with his defense of MBS concerning
Khashoggi, that he can try and establish a strong personal friendship with Erdogan. There are
even talks about the sale of Patriot systems to the Turks and the extradition of Gulen.
When Will They Leave, and Cui Prodest?
It remains to be confirmed when and to what extent US troops will leave Syria. If the US had
no voice in the future in Syria, with 2,000 men on the ground, now it has even less. Leaving
behind 200 to 300 special forces and CIA operatives, together with another 400 to 500 French
and British personnel, will, once they are captured with their Daesh and al Qaeda friends, be
an excellent bargaining chip for Damascus, as they were in Aleppo.
The military-industrial-intelligence-media complex considers Trump's decision the worst of
of all possible moves. Mattis even resigned on account of this. The presence of US troops in
Syria allowed the foreign-policy establishment to continue to formulate plans (and spend money
to pay a lot of people in Washington) based on the delusion that they are doing something in
Syria to change the course of events. For Israel, it is a double disaster, with Netanyahu
desperate to survive, seeking to factor in expected elections in a now-or-never political move.
Trump probably understands that Bibi is done for, and that at this point, the withdrawal of
troops, fulfilling a fundamental electoral promise, counts more than Israeli money and his
friendship to Bibi.
Erdogan has two options before him. On the one hand, he can act against the Kurds. On the
other hand, he can sit down at the negotiating table with Damascus and the SDF, in an Astana
format, guided by Iran and Russia. Putin and Rouhani are certainly pushing for this solution.
Trump, on the other hand, would like to see Turkey enter Syria in the place of US forces, to
demonstrate he concluded a win-win deal for everyone, beating the deep-state at their own
game.
Erdogan does not really have the military force necessary to enter Syria, which is the big
secret. He would be against both the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the SDF, though the two not
necessarily in an alliance.
There is a triple bluff going on, and this is what is complicating the situation so much. On
the one hand, the SDF is bluffing in not wanting help from Damascus in case Erdogan sends in
his forces; on the other hand, Erdogan is bluffing in suggesting he is able to conquer the
territory held by the SDF; and finally, the French and British are bluffing by telling the SDF
they will be able to help them against both Erdogan and/or Assad.
Iran, Russia, Syria are the only ones who do not need to bluff, because they occupy the best
position – the commanding heights. They view Trump's decisions and his allies with
distrust. They know very well that these are mostly moves for internal consumption by the
enemies of Syria.
If the US withdraws, there is so much to be gained. The priority then becomes the west of
Syria, sealing the borders with Jordan, removing the pockets of terrorists from the east, and
securing the al-Tanf crossing. If the SDF will request protection from Damascus and will be
willing to participate in the liberation of the country and its reconstruction, Erdogan will be
done for, and this could lead to the total liberation of Idlib. It would be the best possible
outcome, an important national reconciliation between two important parts of the population. It
would give Damascus new economic impetus and prepare the Syrian people to expel the remaining
invaders (ISIS and the FSA/ Turkish Armed Forces) from the country, both in Idlib and in the
northeast in Afrin.
Russia is aware of the risk that Erdogan is running with the choices he will take in the
coming days. Perhaps the reason why Putin chose diplomacy over war with Turkey after the
downing of a Russian Su-24 in 2015 was in order to arrive at this precise moment, with as many
elements as possible present to convince Erdogan to stick with Russia and Iran instead of
embracing Trump's strategy and putting himself on an open collision course with Damascus,
Moscow and Tehran.
Putin has always been five moves ahead. He is aware that the US could not stay long in
Syria. He knows that France and the UK cannot support the SDF, and that the SDF cannot hold
territory it holds in Syria without an agreement with Damascus. He is also conscious that
Turkey does not have the strength to enter Syria and hold the territory if it did. It would
only be able justify an advance on Idlib with the support of the Russian Air Force.
Putin has certainly made it clear to Erdogan that if he made such a move to attack the SDF
and enter Syria, Russia in turn would militarily support the SAA with its air force to free
Idlib; and in case of incidents with Turkey, the Russian armed forces would respond with all
the interest earned from the unrequited downing of the Su-24 in 2015.
Erdogan has no choice. He must find an agreement with Damascus, and this is why he found
himself commenting on Trump's words the following day, criticizing US sanctions on Iran in the
presence of Iranian president Rouhani. The SDF know that they are between a rock and a hard
place, and have already sent a delegation to start negotiations with Damascus.
Trump's move was driven by US domestic politics and aimed at the 2020 elections. But in
doing so, Trump inevitably called out once and for all the bluffs built by Syria's enemies,
infuriating in the process the neoliberal imperialist establishment, revealing how each of
these factions has no more cards to play and is in actual fact destined for defeat.
Anybody who believe that hillary was derailed by Russians is iether idiot or neocon or both.
Notable quotes:
"... Since receiving an $11 million investment from venture capital firm, GGV Capital, in August 2017, New Knowledge has positioned itself as one of the leading private intelligence firms taking on the scourge of Russian disinformation. The outfit made its biggest splash on December 17th when it published one of the two Senate Intelligence Committee-commissioned reports. ..."
"... Of the dozens of conservative Alabamian Facebook pages the Watson campaign messaged, the New Knowledge-run page was the only one that responded to it. "You are in a particularly interesting position and from what we have read of your politics, we would be inclined to endorse you", they wrote. New Knowledge then "asked Mr. Watson whether he trusted anyone to set up a super PAC that could receive funding and offered advice on how to sharpen his appeal to disenchanted Republican voters." While Watson communicated with the deceptive Facebook page, the New Knowledge operators never revealed their identity, and the page disappeared the day after the vote. "It was weird," Watson commented to the New York Times. "The whole thing was weird." ..."
"... New Knowledge then sought to manufacture a link between Roy Moore's campaign and the Kremlin by claiming thousands of his Twitter followers were Russian bots. Mainstream media outlets credulously ran with the narrative, insinuating that the Christian theocrat Moore was secretly backed by Russia. ..."
"... While the impact of the disinformation campaign on the Alabama senate race may never be quantified, the cynicism behind it is hard to understate. A group of Democratic Party operatives with close ties to the national security state waged a cynical campaign of online deception against the American public while marketing themselves as the guardians against foreign interference. Few, if any, Russian hackers could have done as much damage to the already worn fabric of American democracy as they have. ..."
Grayzone Project
-- On December 17, two reports detailing ongoing Russian interference operations commissioned by the
Senate Intelligence Committee were made public. They generated a week's worth of headlines and sent members of Congress and cable
news pundits into a Cold War frenzy. According to the report, everything from the Green Party's
Jill
Stein
to I
nstagram
to
Pokemon
Go
to the
African
American population
had been used and confused by the deceptive Facebook pages of a private Russian troll farm called the
Internet Research Agency.
Nevermind that 56% of the troll farm's pages
appeared
after
the
election
, that 25% of them were seen by no one, or that their miniscule online presence paled in comparison to the millions
of dollars spent on social media by the two major presidential campaigns and their supporters to sway voters. This was an
act
of war
that demanded immediate government action.
According to Sen. Mark Warner, the Democratic chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the reports were "a wake up call" and a
"bombshell" that was certain to bring "long-overdue guardrails when it comes to social media". His Republican counterpart on the
committee, North Carolina Senator Richard Burr,
hailed
the
research papers as "proof positive that one of the most important things we can do is increase information sharing between the
social media companies who can identify disinformation campaigns and the third-party experts who can analyze them."
But the authors of one of the reports soon suffered a major blow to their credibility when it was revealed that they had engaged
in what they called a "Russian style" online disinformation operation aimed to swing a hotly contested special senate election.
The embarrassing revelation has already resulted in one of the authors
having
his Facebook page suspended
.
The well-funded deception was carried out by New Knowledge, a private cyber intelligence firm founded by two self-styled
disinformation experts who are veterans of the Obama administration: Jonathon Morgan and Ryan Fox.
'It may be designed to manipulate you'
Morgan began his
career
as
a product manager at AOL before founding a series of start ups, some with funding from the United States Agency for International
Development and Silicon Valley billionaire Pierre Omidyar's Omidyar Network. Once a Brookings Institution researcher and special
advisor to the Obama White House and State Department, Morgan founded Data for Democracy, a volunteer organization said to use
"public data to monitor the election system for signs of fraud." Morgan also developed technology for the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the arm of the Department of Defense created for basic, applied technological research, and
futuristic war toys.
Rising through the ranks of the national security apparatus, Morgan ultimately emerged as a go-to source for credulous reporters
seeking to blame Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump on Russian disinformation.
In an
interview
with
the local CBS affiliate in Austin, Texas, Morgan told viewers that feelings of discontent were telltale signs that they had been
duped by Russian disinformation.
"If it makes you feel too angry or really provokes that type of almost tribal response, then it
may be designed to manipulate you. People should be concerned about things that encourage them to change their behavior," he
warned.
Fox, for his part, is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency and was a computer analyst for the Joint Special
Operations Command (JSOC) military unit. JSOC is notorious for its spree of atrocities across the Middle East including digging
their bullets out of dead pregnant women's bodies in Afghanistan. Comparatively little information is available about Fox's
background.
Since
receiving
an $11 million investment
from venture capital firm, GGV Capital, in August 2017, New Knowledge has positioned itself as one
of the leading private intelligence firms taking on the scourge of Russian disinformation. The outfit made its biggest splash on
December 17th when it published one of the two Senate Intelligence Committee-commissioned reports.
The report, titled
"The
Tactics and Tropes of the Internet Research Agency,"
was oversseen by Renee DiResta, a former Wall Street trader and tech
specialist who was recruited by Obama's State Department to devise strategies for combating online ISIS propaganda. The New York
Times
described
DiResta
as one among a small group of "hobbyists" who "meticulously logged data and published reports on how easy it was to manipulate
social media platforms."
The hobby lobby of online obsessives converged at New Knowledge this year to sound the alarm on supposed Russian disinformation.
In a New York Times
op-ed
published
as Americans went to cast their votes in the midterm elections, Morgan and Fox alleged that the Kremlin was secretly running
hundreds of propaganda websites in an effort to swing the outcomes. That assertion ran counter to the narrative the two
operatives had been spinning out just months before.
In an interview earlier in the year, Ryan
Fox
suggested
that despite the Trump administration's multiple rounds of sanctions against Russia, Vladimir Putin was so
satisfied with the state of U.S. affairs that the Kremlin had actually cut back on its supposed interference. "Strategically, are
they content with the way things are? Does it play in their favor to do anything right now? That's a valid question," Fox said.
"Keep up the momentum, keep poking away. But do they have to implement drastic measures like hacking the DNC and exposing
thousands of emails? Probably not."
More recently, Fox
claimed
to
have identified hundreds of Russian-controlled Facebook and Twitter accounts active in France's Yellow Vest movement, which has
raged against the country's neoliberal leadership and sparked anxiety among centrist elites across the Atlantic.
"There has been some suspect activity," a French cybersecurity official said. "We are in the process of looking
at its impact."
https://
on.wsj.com/2EzeS5c
However, Fox produced no evidence to support his incendiary accusation, prompting reporters to qualify his assertions as "
very
likely
" and write that he merely "
believes
"
Russian interference took place.
Drafting the dubious bot dashboard
Morgan is also one the developers of the
Hamilton
68 dashboard
, an online project dedicated to inflaming public outrage over online Russian bots. Funded by the German Marshall
Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy – which is itself backed by NATO and USAID – Hamilton 68 claims to track hundreds of
accounts supposedly linked to Russian influence operations. The effort has largely succeeded in drawing positive media attention
despite one of its founders, Clint Watts, admitting that the Twitter accounts it follows may actually be real people who are not
Russian at all.
When Morgan was
asked
what
techniques Hamilton 68 uses to identify Russian influence operations, he offered a confident-sounding but ultimately empty
answer: "We developed some techniques for determining who matters in a conversation Using some of those techniques, we've
identified a subset of accounts that we're very confident are core to furthering the Russian narrative in response to mainstream
events."
Because Morgan and his colleagues have explicitly refused to name the accounts monitored by Hamilton 68, his claims can never be
proven.
In a lengthy
profile
of
the musicologist-turned-New Knowledge "online detective" Kris Shaffer, Foreign Policy described the supposed methodology he
employed to identify Russian disinfo operations: "By working with massive datasets of tweets, Facebook posts, and online
articles, he is able to map links between accounts, similarities in the messages they post, and shared computer infrastructure."
The article added an extraordinarily revealing disclaimer: "This method of analysis is in its infancy, remains a fairly blunt
instrument, and still requires human intervention. It sometimes mistakes real people who post anti-imperialist arguments about
U.S. foreign policy for Kremlin trolls, for example."
It may have been that New Knowledge had no knowledge at all of Kremlin botnets, but their reports were nonetheless treated as
gospel by droves of credulous reporters eager to make their name in the frenzied atmosphere of Russiagate.
"We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation"
According to an internal New Knowledge report
first
seen by the New York Times
, the firm carried out a multi-faceted influence operation designed to undermine a 2017 bid by
right-wing Republican former state supreme court judge Roy Moore for an open Alabama senate seat. By its own admission, New
Knowledge's campaign capitalized on the the sexual assault allegations against Moore to "enrage and energize Democrats" and
"depress turnout" among Republicans.
To accomplish this, the New Knowledge team created a Facebook page aimed at appealing to conservative Alabamians by encouraging
them to endorse an obscure patio supply salesman-turned-write-in candidate named Mac Watson. They hoped the subterfuge would peel
votes away from Moore. It was precisely the kind of tactic that New Knowledge claims Russian troll farms carry out to sow
divisions among the American electorate.
Morgan told the New York Times the effort stopped there. But the New Knowledge report says the Facebook page "boosted" Watson's
campaign and even arranged interviews for him with The Montgomery Advertiser and the
Washington
Post
. At the same time, Watson's Twitter following mysteriously jumped from 100 to about 10,000.
One of the articles New Knowledge took credit for during its disinformation campaign.
Of the dozens of conservative Alabamian Facebook pages the Watson campaign messaged, the New Knowledge-run page was the only one
that responded to it. "You are in a particularly interesting position and from what we have read of your politics, we would be
inclined to endorse you", they wrote. New Knowledge then "asked Mr. Watson whether he trusted anyone to set up a super PAC that
could receive funding and offered advice on how to sharpen his appeal to disenchanted Republican voters."
While Watson communicated with the deceptive Facebook page, the New Knowledge operators never revealed their identity, and the
page disappeared the day after the vote. "It was weird," Watson commented to the New York Times. "The whole thing was weird."
New Knowledge then sought to manufacture a link between Roy Moore's campaign and the Kremlin by claiming thousands of his Twitter
followers were Russian bots. Mainstream media outlets credulously ran with the narrative, insinuating that the Christian theocrat
Moore was secretly backed by Russia.
Today, as can be seen below, Mother Jones is using a bogus story generated by a disinformation campaign to raise funds for more
Russiagate coverage.
As the Russian bot narrative peaked, Moore blamed the Jones campaign for manufacturing the scare. "It's not surprising that
they'd choose the favorite topic of MSNBC and the Fake News outlets -- the Russia conspiracy. Democrats can't win this election on
the issues and their desperation is on full display."
Moore's opponent, Jones, said he had no knowledge of the operation.
Moore was roundly mocked in liberal circles as a conspiratorial crank, but New Knowledge's internal report contained a stunning
admission: "We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on
social media by a Russian botnet," its authors revealed.
While the New York Times says the internal report does not confirm that New Knowledge purchased the bot account themselves, the
accounts' flagrant use of Cyrillic language and profile pictures of famous singers including Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera
and Avril Lavigne strongly suggest that whoever bought them went to extreme lengths to leave the appearance of a Russian hand.
The Alabama disinformation campaign was carried out through a network of Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs and former Obama
administration officials who have joined the private sector to leverage liberal anti-Trump outrage into profits.
Billionaire Reid Hoffman, who co-founded the employment networking site LinkedIn,
provided
$100,000
for the black ops campaign. The money was then pipelined through American Engagement Technologies, which is headed by Mikey
Dickerson, a former Google engineer who founded the United State Digital Service. Dickerson is also Executive Director of the New
Data Project, an organization dedicated to "testing new approaches" and "serving as an advanced technology research lab for
progressives."
A colleague of Hoffman's claimed the purpose of his investments was to "strengthen American democracy."
Since the New York Times' exposé, Facebook released a statement announcing its suspension of "five accounts run by a multiple
individuals for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior," including Morgan's account. The social media platform has opened
an investigation, though it has not revealed what the other pages are or who operated them.
The
headline
of
the New York Times story about the Facebook suspensions appeared to have been crafted to keep the focus on Russia while
deflecting scrutiny from the group of Democratic Party-linked hustlers that orchestrated the disinformation operation. It read:
"Facebook Closes 5 Accounts Tied to Russia-Like Tactics in Alabama Senate Race."
For his part, Sen. Jones has
demanded
an
investigation. "I think we've all focused too much on just the Russians and not picked up on the fact that some nefarious groups,
whether they're right or left, could take those same playbooks and start interfering with the elections for their own benefit,"
he said. "I'd like to see the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department look at this to see if there were any laws
being violated and, if there were, prosecute those responsible."
Facing an inquiry for possible violations of election laws, Morgan issued a mealy-mouthed statement claiming he "did not
participate in any campaign to influence the public and any characterization to the contrary misrepresents the research goals,
methods and outcome of the project."
While the impact of the disinformation campaign on the Alabama senate race may never be quantified, the cynicism behind it is
hard to understate. A group of Democratic Party operatives with close ties to the national security state waged a cynical
campaign of online deception against the American public while marketing themselves as the guardians against foreign
interference. Few, if any, Russian hackers could have done as much damage to the already worn fabric of American democracy as
they have.
Top Photo | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., right, with Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va.,
left, updates reporters on the status of their inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, at the Capitol in
Washington, Oct. 4, 2017. J. Scott Applewhite | AP
Dan Cohen
is
a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine.
Dan is a correspondent at RT America and tweets at @
DanCohen3000
.
"So we go to fallback argument B, which is "containing Iran." "Containment" was a U.S. policy
devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of a powerful and sometimes
aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly seen as a serious
threat."
Seen as a serious threat by some?
"Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic
weakness in the Soviet system. The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and
innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs. An
inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy
that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the
defense budget and the tax load on American citizens."
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the expansion of
a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union, which was rightly
seen as a serious threat.
"which was rightly seen as a serious threat." So it was, was it? That's really the
beginning of the bullshit in American policy. There were a few naysayers back then, since
largely vindicated by the opening of former Soviet archives, who claimed that Stalin's
postwar moves were largely defensive in nature and intended to protect the USSR from the
talked about US preemptive attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin was well aware of all the loose
talk on the American side and his country had just endured the same attempt on the part of
Nazi Germany.
"Containment" was a U.S. policy devised by George Kennan in 1947 to inhibit the
expansion of a powerful and sometimes aggressive soon-to-be nuclear armed Soviet Union,
which was rightly seen as a serious threat.
Could someone explain to me how exactly was the Soviet Union a serious threat to the US,
particularly in 1947? The country was devastated by the war; some regions suffered from
hunger, for goodness' sake; tens of millions were dead or maimed; the worked force was
depleted as million of young men were killed, so the economic burden fell on the shoulders of
women and teenagers; the cost of housing of people left homeless by the war was staggering;
the cost of caring for orphan children, wounded and invalids -- ditto. In contrast, the
United States was getting fatter by the minutes having benefited enormously from the war in
Europe.
The Soviet Union "sometimes aggressive"? I am not aware of any Soviet plans to attack the
US but we all know about the American and British plant to attack the USSR formulated as
early as in 1945. No doubts the Soviet leadership was aware of such plans. The Soviets,
having witnessed a demonstration staged for their benefits in Japans of the power of nuclear
weapons, did everything with one purpose in mind: to prevent an attack, which they were in no
position to withstand. Needless to say, the USSR didn't have nuclear weapons at that time but
even after it had acquired them, it didn't quite catch up with the US in terms on number
until the very end.
It's fair to say that the Soviet Union was never ever a thereat to the US. On the
contrary, the US was a threat to the Soviet Union from the fist till the last day of its
existence, as it remains a treat to Russia today. The problems with the Americans, even the
most reasonable of them (not at all difficult to appear on today's insane background), is
that they don't question the entire narrative they are fed but only the bits of it.
@Tony
H. George Kennan's attitude towards Russia had evolved throughout the 70s-90s, but this
evolution has been carefully obscured by the ziocon warriors and other war-profiteers using
the ZUSA resources for their personal enrichment:
With the end of the Cold War, Kennan continued to emphasize the limits of American power
and the need for restraint in the exercise of it.
He lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war and
characteristically aimed to influence the role that the United States should play in the
new world circumstances.
He objected to plans for North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion and to what he saw
as exploitation of Russian weakness.
"... America's presence in Syria, like Jim Mattis himself, is an artifact of another era, the failed GWOT. As a Marine, Mattis served in ground combat leadership roles in Gulf Wars I and II, and also in Afghanistan. He ran United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, the final years of The Surge in Iraq and American withdrawal afterwards. There is no doubt why he supported the American military presence in Syria, and why he resigned to protest Trump's decision to end it: Mattis knew nothing else. His entire career was built around the strategy of the GWOT, the core of which was to never question GWOT strategy. Mattis didn't need a reason to stay in Syria; being in Syria was the reason. ..."
"... So why didn't Trump listen to his generals? Maybe because the bulk of their advice has been dead wrong for 17 years? ..."
"... The war on terror failed. It should have been dismantled long ago. Barack Obama could have done it, but instead became a victim of hubris and bureaucratic capture, and allowed it to expand. His supporters give him credit for not escalating the war in Syria, but leave out the part about how he also left the pot to simmer on the stove instead of removing it altogether. ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
"... . He is permanently banned from federal employment and Twitter. ..."
"... The GWOT was not only a failure, it was a fraud. Saddam's Iraq was secular and had nothing to do with terrorism. The same can be said for Libya and Syria. We armed and trained jihadis for the purpose of overthrowing Assad. How is that fighting terrorism? The war on terror was a deception, to cover for wars which were aggressive and unjustified. These wars were not just a failure, they were criminal and should be a source of shame and sorrow for our country. The men who orchestrated these wars did so by lying to the American people every step of the way, with the media repeating their every lie and distortion with robotic consistency. The neocon planners and all their willing accomplices deserve a special place in hell for the death and destruction they have wrought. Thank God the neocon era seems to be coming to a close. Thank God for Donald Trump, with all his flaws, for having the guts and decency to put an end to this prolonged military outrage. ..."
"... It's strange that Mr. van Buren celebrates the exit of Mattis as symbolizing the end of a long-discredited policy when Mattis was hired less than 2 years ago, many years after that policy became discredited, and after Mattis's hirer ran for President on a platform diametrically opposed to the discredited policy while denouncing the discredited policy. Now we find out belatedly that the only reason President Trump hired Mattis was because Mattis was fired for insubordination by former President Obama which incumbent President Trump hates, and for which a strong motivating factor is doing everything opposite of Obama. So now incumbent President Trump finds to his dismay that Mattis is insubordinate to himself as well. And yet Mr. van Buren thinks the important focus of this development is Mattis ..."
"... "The raw drive to insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful people. So let's try a new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced the waste of America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was driven by people who agreed with his critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose sons and daughters had served, or, given the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the president has pulled U.S. troops back from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Congress may yet rise to do the same for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been started It is time for some old ideas to move on." ..."
"... The GWOT was a repudiation of the Powell Doctrine. Almost 20 years on, Powell looks like genius and the neocons like a bunch of morons. ..."
"... The retreat from Syria does not mean a U.S. retreat from its role as the Global Cop Gorilla. The Pentagon is merely changing its primary target set from the GWOT actors to the "revisionist powers". ..."
"... The National Defense Strategy Commission's report, ironically and perversely released by the "United States Institute of Peace", validates the fear-monger claims and also the claims to more TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to feed the Gorilla as it marauds around the perimeter of Asia. ..."
"... "There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a bureaucratic dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift." ..."
"... "Don't make me have to kill you" ..."
"... It's no coincidence that Netanyahu's government fell apart today. Another good riddance. May the Israelis elect a new PM who actually wants peace in the Mideast. ..."
"... The War Party is still The War Party -- which is why so many of us who are strong Trump supporters have never joined the Republican Party and have no plans to join. This moment in history is particularly instruction. The Democrats have blown their cover. The Democratic Party is as much The War Party as the Republican Party. ..."
The New York Times , its journalists in mourning over the loss of a war,
ask , "Who will protect America now?" Mattis the warrior-monk is juxtaposed with the
flippant commander-in-Cheeto. The Times sees strategic disaster in an "abrupt and
dangerous decision, detached from any broader strategic context or any public rationale, [that]
sowed new uncertainty about America's commitment to the Middle East, [and] its willingness to
be a global leader."
"A major blunder," tweeted Senator Marco Rubio.
"If it isn't reversed it will haunt America for years to come." Senator Lindsey Graham called
for congressional hearings. And what is history if not irony? Rubio talks of haunting foreign
policy decisions in Syria seemingly without knowledge of previous calamities in Iraq. Graham
wants to hold hearings on quitting a war Congress never held
hearings on authorizing.
That's all wrong. Jim Mattis's resignation as defense secretary (
and on Sunday , Brett McGurk, as special envoy to the coalition fighting ISIS) and Trump's
decision to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan are indeed significant. But that's because they
mark the beginning of the end of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the singular, tragic, bloody
driver of American foreign policy for almost two decades.
Why does the U.S. have troops
in Syria?
To defeat the Islamic State? ISIS's ability to hold ground and project power outside its
immediate backyard was destroyed somewhere back in 2016 by an unholy coalition of American,
Iranian, Russian, Syrian, Turkish, and Israeli forces in Iraq and Syria. Sure, there are
terrorists who continue to set off bombs in ISIS's name, but they are not controlled or
directed out of Syria. They are most likely legal residents of the Western countries they
attack, radicalized online or in local mosques. They are motivated by a philosophy, which
cannot be destroyed on the ground in Syria. This is the fundamental failure of the GWOT: that
you can't blow up an idea.
Regime change? It was never a practical idea. As in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, there was
never a plan for what to do next, for how to keep Syria from descending into complete chaos the
day Assad was removed. And though progressives embraced the idea of getting rid of another
"evil dictator" when it came through the mouthpiece of Obama's own freedom fighter Samantha
Power, the same idea today has little drive behind it.
Russia? Overwrought fear of Moscow was once a sign of unhealthy paranoia satirized on The
Twilight Zone . Today, Russia hate is seen as a prerequisite to patriotism, though it still
makes no more sense. The Russians have long had a practical relationship with Syria, having
maintained a naval base at Tartus since 1971, which they will continue to do. There was never a
plan for the U.S. to push the Russians out -- Obama in fact saw the Russian presence are part
of the solution
in Syria. American withdrawal is far more of a return to status quo than anything like a win
for Putin. (Elsewhere at TAC , Matt Purple
pokes more holes in Putin paranoia.)
The Kurds? The U.S.-Kurd story is one of expediency over morality. We've used them only
because, at every sad turn, there's been no force otherwise available in bulk. The Kurds have
been abandoned many times by America: in 1991 when it refused to assist them in breaking away
from Saddam Hussein following Gulf War I, when it insisted they remain part of a "united Iraq"
following Gulf War II, and most
definitively in 2017 following Gulf War III when the U.S.
did not support their independence referendum, relegating them to Baghdad's forever
half-loved stepchild.
After all that, America's intentions toward the Kurds in Syria are barely a sideshow-scale
event. The Kurds want to cleave off territory from Turkey and Syria, something neither nation
will
permit and something the U.S. quietly understands would destabilize the region. Mattis, by
the way, supported NATO ally Turkey in its fight against the Kurds, calling them an "active
insurgency inside its borders."
Iran? Does the U.S. really have troops in Syria to brush back Iranian influence? As with
"all of the above," that genie got out of the bottle years ago. Iranian power in the greater
Middle East has grown dramatically since 2003, and has been driven at every step by the
blunders of the United States. If the most powerful army in the world couldn't stop the
Iranians from essentially winning Gulf Wars II and III, how can 2,000 troops in Syria hope to
accomplish much?
The United States, of course, wasn't even shooting at the Iranians in Syria; in most cases
it was working either with them or tacitly alongside them towards the goal of killing off ISIS.
Tehran's role as Assad's protector was set as America rumbled about regime change. Iran has
since pieced together a
land corridor to the Mediterranean through Iraq and Syria, which it will not be giving up,
certainly not because of the presence of a few thousand Americans.
What remains is that once-neocon, now progressive catch-all: we need to stay in Syria to
preserve American credibility. While pundits can still get away with this line, the rest of the
globe already knows the empire has no clothes. Since 2001, the United States has spent some $6
trillion on its wars, and killed multiple 9/11s worth of American troops and foreign civilians.
The U.S. has
tortured , still maintains its gulag at Guantanamo, and, worst of all credibility-wise, has
lost on every front. Afghanistan after 17 years of war festers. Nothing was accomplished with
Iraq. Libya is a failed state. Syria is the source of a refugee crisis whose long-term effects
on Europe are still being played out. We are the "indispensable nation" only in our own minds.
A lot of people around the world probably wish America would just stop messing with their
countries.
So why does the U.S. have troops in Syria? Anyone? Bueller? Mattis?
America's presence in Syria, like Jim Mattis himself, is an artifact of another era, the
failed GWOT. As a Marine, Mattis served in ground combat leadership roles in Gulf Wars I and
II, and also in Afghanistan. He ran United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, the final
years of The Surge in Iraq and American withdrawal afterwards. There is no doubt why he
supported the American military presence in Syria, and why he resigned to protest Trump's
decision to end it: Mattis knew nothing else. His entire career was built around the strategy
of the GWOT, the core of which was to never question GWOT strategy. Mattis didn't need a reason
to stay in Syria; being in Syria was the reason.
So why didn't Trump listen to his generals? Maybe because the bulk of their advice has
been dead wrong for 17 years? Instead, Trump plans a dramatic
drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. presence in Iraq has dwindled from combat to
advise and assist. Congress seems poised to end U.S. involvement in Yemen
against Mattis's advice.
There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a bureaucratic
dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift. But to see this all as another Trump versus the
world blunder is very wrong. The war on terror failed. It should have been dismantled long
ago. Barack Obama could have done it, but instead became a victim of hubris and bureaucratic
capture, and allowed it to expand. His supporters give him credit for not
escalating the war in Syria, but leave out the part about how he also left the pot to
simmer on the stove instead of removing it altogether.
The raw drive to
insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful people. So let's try a
new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced
the waste of America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was
driven by people who agreed with his critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose
sons and daughters had served, or, given the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the
president has pulled U.S. troops back from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Congress may yet rise to do the same for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been
started. Though the results are far from certain, for the first time in nearly 20 years,
negotiations are open again with North Korea. Mattis's ending was clumsy, but it was a long
time coming. It is time for some old ideas to move on.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan . He is permanently
banned from federal employment and Twitter.
I'm about as left wing as they come and have had a distain for Trump for decades. But, if he
can put an end to the GWOT and truly pull America out of those disasters I protested against
back in 2001-2002 (not to mention Libya and Yemen) then he will be my favorite modern
president. Granted, that's a low bar. I've not had one in my lifetime that was worth
admiring, but would be a welcome change.
I have my doubts he'll be able to pull it off but even if he manages to just not start any
new wars that would be a novel new direction for us.
It's good for Van Buren to remind people that our relationship with the Kurds has long been one
of support when it is convenient and abandonment when it is not. For left and right to feign
concern now is quite hypocritical.
Reading this offers some hope though the bulk of coverage on the Syria withdrawal from left
and right has been most depressing. May Mattis (and his ilk) go far and may it be soon!
Amen to everything in this article. I voted for Trump because of the way he strongly denounced
the Iraq war and our policies of interventionism and nation building in general. It has taken
two full years, but finally he is delivering what I hoped for. The media is trying to turn this
into another Trump smear issue, but I expect them to fail at this. At this point in time how
many people take the news channel narrative seriously? Especially if Trump removes our troops
from Afghanistan, I expect his popularity to soar.
The GWOT was not only a failure, it was a fraud. Saddam's Iraq was secular and had
nothing to do with terrorism. The same can be said for Libya and Syria. We armed and trained
jihadis for the purpose of overthrowing Assad. How is that fighting terrorism? The war on
terror was a deception, to cover for wars which were aggressive and unjustified. These wars
were not just a failure, they were criminal and should be a source of shame and sorrow for our
country. The men who orchestrated these wars did so by lying to the American people every step
of the way, with the media repeating their every lie and distortion with robotic consistency.
The neocon planners and all their willing accomplices deserve a special place in hell for the
death and destruction they have wrought. Thank God the neocon era seems to be coming to a
close. Thank God for Donald Trump, with all his flaws, for having the guts and decency to put
an end to this prolonged military outrage.
It's strange that Mr. van Buren celebrates the exit of Mattis as symbolizing the end of a
long-discredited policy when Mattis was hired less than 2 years ago, many years after that
policy became discredited, and after Mattis's hirer ran for President on a platform
diametrically opposed to the discredited policy while denouncing the discredited policy. Now we
find out belatedly that the only reason President Trump hired Mattis was because Mattis was
fired for insubordination by former President Obama which incumbent President Trump hates, and
for which a strong motivating factor is doing everything opposite of Obama. So now incumbent
President Trump finds to his dismay that Mattis is insubordinate to himself as well. And yet
Mr. van Buren thinks the important focus of this development is Mattis
"The raw drive to insta-hate everything Trump does is misleading otherwise thoughtful
people. So let's try a new lens: during the campaign Trump outspokenly denounced the waste of
America's wars. Pro-Trump sentiment in rural areas was driven by people who agreed with his
critique, by people who'd served in these wars, whose sons and daughters had served, or, given
the length of all this, both. Since taking office, the president has pulled U.S. troops back
from pointless conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Congress may yet rise to do the same
for American involvement in Yemen. No new wars have been started It is time for some old ideas
to move on."
The President made the right decision. I WISH it had been reached in a more traditional manner
-- going thru the NSC and such, but we had no achievable strategic goals and were really only a
bit player. The very real danger was that we were dancing around the Russians like two
porcupines making love with the current "Russia!Russia!Russia!" political freakout preventing
what could have been a genuine opportunity for cooperation in at least one area. Syria will not
be any more chaotic for our departure, infact given less scrutiny and no danger of accidental
WW III, the Russians/Iranians/Syrian gov't may be able to wrap this up more faster.
Russia also has interest in Kurdish welfare and as 15% of Israelis ARE Russians, their
wellfare as well. In an administration that needed to project credibility, SEC Mattis was a
good choice and has done some great things cutting alot of uneeded red tape & worthless
'training' and giving clear priorities for the services. But, he's opposed almost everything
the President including the Trans ban so it was 'when not if'.
It all makes sense once you understand that by "restraint" they mean "leave American soldiers
as hostages to fortune in Syria!" and "unlimited mulligans for failed generals in Afghanistan!"
and "let's provoke Erdogan into releasing two or three million refugees into Europe!"
The Times sees strategic disaster in an "abrupt and dangerous decision, detached from any
broader strategic context or any public rationale, [that] sowed new uncertainty about
America's commitment to the Middle East, [and] its willingness to be a global leader."
Geez. I can also come up with something like this artwork by the Times journalists.
Here: "The lack of correlation between convergences caused an unwanted bifurcation of
idiosyncratic dichotomies". Twaddle? But how badass is sounds! Just read it aloud -- and you'll
see the credibility glittering like Swarovski crystals all over the place.
Merry Christmas to the MSM. I wish them to start writing something meaningful next year.
The retreat from Syria does not mean a U.S. retreat from its role as the Global Cop
Gorilla. The Pentagon is merely changing its primary target set from the GWOT actors to the
"revisionist powers".
Mattis fronted the updated National Defense Strategy. It again fear-mongers out the wazoo
about Russia and China with the only solution being "more, more, more" for the War Machine.
The National Defense Strategy Commission's report, ironically and perversely released by
the "United States Institute of Peace", validates the fear-monger claims and also the claims to
more TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to feed the Gorilla as it marauds around the perimeter of
Asia.
Re: "There is no pleasure in watching Jim Mattis end his decades of service with a
bureaucratic dirty stick shoved at him as a parting gift."
Au Contraire , there is much pleasure watching that sanctified War-Monger and
Pentagon Hack with his contrived "Don't make me have to kill you" schtick ride off
into the sunset.
Unfortunately for those of us not deluded into the Cult of Military Exceptionalism, Mattis
will no doubt segue to Fox News as yet another "Wizened Sage" of Pentagon wisdom and insight,
where he'll live very large for simply gas-bagging his "Warrior Hero" script. And perhaps Mad
Dog will even meander back to General Dynamics to pimp yet again for the Merchants of
Death.
Make no mistake, Mattis and his General pals are enemies of the taxpayers and rank apostates
of the Founders' principles. Mattis may soon be gone, but unfortunately, he won't be
forgotten.
It's good to see Trump finally realizing that he is the president, and not his generals and
"advisors" that no one elected. Goodbye and good riddance to Mattis, Haley et al. Next to go
should be John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner.
It's no coincidence that Netanyahu's government fell apart today. Another good riddance.
May the Israelis elect a new PM who actually wants peace in the Mideast.
"'A major blunder,' tweeted Senator Marco Rubio. 'If it isn't reversed it will haunt America
for years to come.' Senator Lindsey Graham called for congressional hearings. And what is
history if not irony? Rubio talks of haunting foreign policy decisions in Syria seemingly
without knowledge of previous calamities in Iraq. Graham wants to hold hearings on quitting a
war Congress never held hearings on authorizing."
The War Party is still The War Party -- which is why so many of us who are strong Trump
supporters have never joined the Republican Party and have no plans to join. This moment in
history is particularly instruction. The Democrats have blown their cover. The Democratic Party
is as much The War Party as the Republican Party.
Article of interest at link below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Send the Mad Dog to the Corporate Kennel
by Ray McGovern Posted on December 22, 2018
No wonder Mr. Van Buren is banned from federal employment and Twitter. His clarity and surgical
observations of American interventionism are indeed enlightening. Deep State forces must cringe
when reading his missives.
I don't agree with everything Trump does, but I have high hopes for his intent to extract
American military forces from the Middle East. Having cost trillions of dollars and countless
lives, these profit-motivated, failed expeditions could never be morally justified even if they
were successful.
Being the world's policeman does not make America a benevolent, inspiring global leader. The
opposite is true, as much of the world now perceives America to be a disruptive force,
conspiring against global peace for the benefit of the military industrial complex and
multinational corporations.
Let's pray for a changing tide that steers us further from the brink.
"Now Trump, the guy everyone expected to start new wars"
Hillary supporters said that. The rest of us knew that she was the danger of more and bigger
wars. That was a prime reason to defeat her. Too bad the only way to defeat her was to elect
Trump, but that is on the DNC, since they offered her, and every other Republican was even
worse (Cruz!).
He has announced his order to withdraw US troops from Syria.
His Defense Secretary James Mattis has resigned. There are rumors National Security
Adviser John Bolton may go too. (Please take
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with you!)
He announced a start to withdrawing from Afghanistan.
He now says he will veto a government funding bill unless he gets $5 billion for his
Wall, and as of 12:01 AM Washington time December 22 the federal government is officially
under partial shutdown.
All of this should be taken with a big grain of salt. While this week's assertiveness
perhaps provides further proof that Trump's impulses are right, it doesn't mean he can
implement them.
Senator Lindsey Graham is demanding
hearings on how to block the Syria pullout . Congress hardly ever quibbles with a
president's putting troops into a country, where the Legislative Branch has legitimate
Constitutional power. But if a president under his absolute command authority wants to pull
them out – even someplace where they're deployed illegally, as in Syria – well hold
on just a minute!
This will be a critical time for the Trump presidency. (And if God is really on his side, he
soon might get
another Supreme Court pick .) If he can get the machinery of the Executive Branch to
implement his decision to withdraw from Syria, and if he can pick a replacement to General
Mattis who actually agrees with Trump's views, we might start getting the America First policy
Trump ran on in 2016.
Mattis himself said in his resignation letter, "Because you have the right to have a
Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these [i.e., support for
so-called "allies"] and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my
position."
Right on, Mad Dog! In fact Trump should have had someone "better aligned" with him in that
capacity from the get-go. It is now imperative that he picks someone who agrees with his core
positions, starting with withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, and reducing confrontation with
Russia.
Former Defense Secretary
Chuck Hagel complains that "our government is not a one-man show." Well, the "government"
isn't, but the Executive Branch is. Article II,
Section 1 : "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America." Him. The President. Nobody else. Period.
Already the drumbeat to saddle Trump with another Swamp critter at the Pentagon is starting:
"Several possible replacements for Mattis this week trashed the president's decision to pull
out of Syria. Retired Gen. Jack Keane called the move a "strategic mistake" on Twitter.
Republican Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) signed a letter demanding
Trump reconsider the decision and warning that the withdrawal bolsters Iran and Russia." If
Trump even considers any of the above as Mattis's replacement, he'll be in worse shape than he
has been for the past two years.
On the other hand, if Trump does pick someone who agrees with him about Syria and
Afghanistan, never mind
getting along with Russia , can he get that person confirmed by the Senate? One possibility
would be to nominate someone like Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney specifically
to run the Pentagon bureaucracy and get control of costs, while explicitly deferring
operational decisions to the Commander in Chief in consultation with the Service Chiefs.
Right now on Syria Trump is facing pushback from virtually the whole Deep State
establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, as well as the media from Fox News , to NPR ,
to MSNBC . Terror has again gripped the establishment that the Trump who was elected president
in 2016 might actually start implementing what he promised. It is imperative that he pick
someone for the Pentagon (and frankly, clear out the rest of his national security team) and
appoint people he can trust and whose views comport with his own. Just lopping off a few heads
won't suffice – he needs a full housecleaning.
In the meantime in Syria, watch for another "Assad poison gas attack against his own
people." The last time Trump said we'd be
leaving Syria "very soon " was on March 29 of this year. Barely a week later, on April 7,
came a supposed chemical incident in Douma, immediately hyped as a government attack on
civilians
but soon apparent as likely staged . Trump, though, dutifully took the bait, tweeting that
Assad was an "animal." Putin, Russia, and Iran were "responsible" for "many dead, including
women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack" – "Big price to pay." He then for the
second time launched cruise missiles against Syrian targets. A
confrontation loomed in the eastern Med that could to have led to war with Russia. Now, in
light of Trump's restated determination to get out,
is MI6 already ginning up their White Helmet assets for a repeat ?
Trump's claim that the US has completed its only mission, to defeat ISIS, is being compared
to George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner following defeat of Iraq's army and the
beginning of the occupation (and, as it turned out, the beginning of the real war). But if it
helps get us out, who cares if Trump wants to take credit? Whatever his
terrible, horrible, no good, very bad national security team told him, the US presence in
Syria was never about ISIS. We are there as Uncle Sam's Rent-an-Army for the Israelis and
Saudis to block Iranian influence and especially an overland route between Syria and Iran (the
so-called
"Shiite land bridge" to the Mediterranean ).
For US forces the war against ISIS was always a sideshow, mainly carried on by the Syrians
and Russians and proportioned about like the war against the Wehrmacht: about 20% "us," about
80% "them." The remaining pocket ISIS has
on the Syria-Iraq border has been deliberate ly left alone, to keep handy as a lever to
force Assad out in a settlement (which is not going to happen). Thus the claim an American
pullout will
lead to an ISIS "resurgence " is absurd. With US forces ceasing to play dog in the manger,
the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Iraqis will kill them. All of them.
If Trump is able to follow through with the pullout, will the Syrian war wind down? It needs
to be kept in mind that the whole conflict has been because we (the US, plus Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, UAE, the United Kingdom, etc) are the aggressors. We sought to use
al-Qaeda and other jihadis to effect regime change via the tried and true method. It
failed.
Regarding Trump's critics' claim that he is turning over Syria to the Russians and Iranians,
Assad is nobody's puppet. He can be allied with a Shiite theocracy but not controlled by it;
Iran, likewise, can also have mutually beneficial ties with an ideologically dissimilar
country, like it does with Christian Armenia. The Russians will stay and expand their presence
but unlike our presence in many countries – which seemingly never ends, for example in
Germany, Japan, and Korea, not to mention Kosovo – they'll be there only as long and to
the extent the Syrians want them. (Compare our eternal occupations with the Soviets' politely
leaving Egypt when Anwar Sadat asked them, or leaving Somalia when Siad Barre wanted them out.
Instead of leaving, why didn't Moscow just do a " Diem " on them?) It
seems that American policymakers have gotten so far down the wormhole of their paranoid
fantasies about the rest of the world – and it can't be overemphasized, concerning areas
where the US has no actual national interests – that we no longer recognize classic
statecraft when practiced by other powers defending genuine national interests (which of course
are legitimate only to the extent we say so).
Anyway, if this week's developments are the result of someone putting something into
Donald's morning Egg
McMuffin , America and the world owe him (or her) a vote of thanks. Let's see more of
the wrecking ball we Deplorables voted for !
Trump thought that by bringing the swamp into his fold he might be able to defang it. He
bent the knee, played nice and kissed the ring but still they kept at him. I think Trump has
had enough of giving a mile for getting an inch. I like Trump when he presents himself as a
human wrecking ball to all the evil plans of the Washington establishment and if he continues
like this I honestly believe he will be reelected in 2020, and one day will be acknowleged as
a true chapion for every day Americans but if he shrinks back into his shadow and gives the
likes of Bolton and Pompeo free reign to **** all over the globe with their insane scheming
he will be a one term failure.
Don't get too excited about the possibility that there may be more kinds of viagra to try
out, Jattras. If Trump recently seems to be more like the candidate we voted for, the real
reason for his reversion back is because the midterm elections are over and Trump kept the
Senate.
Check with me before you start making a lot of crack-pot statements
America's
trade policy is in incoherent shambles. Decades of neoliberal "free trade" pacts -- which as
often as not simply gave corporations an end run around the state, or their very own rigged,
pseudo-legal system -- have created terrible social carnage around the world and a furious
political backlash. And President Trump's incoherent, haphazard response has done little to
change the system, let alone reform it in a sensible fashion.
Overhauling such a gargantuan, world-spanning system is a dizzying task. But Timothy Meyer
and Ganesh Sitaraman at the Great Democracy Initiative have a
new paper that presents a solid starting point for developing a fundamental reform of
American trade structure.
Meyer and Sitaraman identify three large problems with the status quo, and propose policy
solutions for each:
The complicated and unbalanced structure of the bureaucracy that oversees trade
policy
The enormous pro-rich bias that is built into trade deals
How the inequality resulting from trade routinely goes totally unaddressed
Let's take these in turn.
The extant trade bureaucracy -- as usual for the American state -- is highly fragmented and
bizarrely structured. There is the Department of Commerce, the United States Trade
Representative, the Export-Import Bank, and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, plus the
International Development Finance Corporation coming soon. Then there are a slew of other
agencies that have some bearing on trade-related security or economic development.
Meyer and Sitaraman logically suggest combining most of these functions into a single
Department of Economic Growth and Security. The point is not just to streamline the trade
oversight structure, but also to make it consider a broader range of objectives. Neoliberals
insist that trade is simply about making the self-regulating market more "efficient," but trade
very obviously bears on employment, domestic industry, and especially security.
For instance, for all its other disastrous side effects, Trump's haphazard tax on aluminum
has dramatically
revived the American aluminum industry . Ensuring a reasonable domestic supply of key
metals like that is so obviously a security concern -- for military and consumer uses
alike -- that it wouldn't have even occurred to New Deal policymakers to think otherwise. It
takes a lot of ideological indoctrination to think there's no problem when a small price
disadvantage causes a country to lose its entire supply chain of key industrial
commodities.
Then there is the problem of pro-rich bias. Put simply, the last few decades of trade deals
have been outrageously biased towards corporations and the rich. They have powerfully enabled
the growth of
parasitic tax havens , which allow companies to book profits in low-tax jurisdictions,
starving countries of rightful revenue (and often leading to companies piling up gargantuan
dragon hoards of cash they don't know what to do with).
Corporations, meanwhile, have gotten their own fake legal system in the form of
Investor-State Dispute Settlement trade deal stipulations. As I have written before ,
the point of these arbitration systems is to create a legal system ludicrously slanted in favor
of the corporation -- allowing them not just to win almost every time, but to sue over
nonsensical harms like "taking away imaginary future profits."
Meyer and Sitaraman suggest renegotiating the tax portions of trade deals to enforce a
"formulary" tax system -- in which profits are taxed where they are made, not where they are
booked. This would go a considerable distance towards cracking down on tax havens -- who knows,
perhaps Luxembourg might even develop some productive business.
Finally, there is the problem of distributive justice. Again contrary to neoliberal dogma,
trade very often creates winners and losers -- witness the wreckage of Detroit and the fat
salaries of the U.S. executive class. Meyer and Sitaraman suggest new mechanisms to consider
the side effects of trade deals (and ways to compensate the losers), to take action against
abusive foreign nations (for example, by dumping their products below cost, or violating
environmental or labor standards), and finally directly taxing the beneficiaries.
Something the authors don't discuss is the
problem of trade imbalances . When one country develops a surplus (that is, it exports more
than it imports), another country must of necessity be in a deficit. The deficit country in
turn must finance its imports, usually by borrowing. That can easily create a severe economic
crisis if the deficit country suddenly loses access to loans -- which then harms the exporting
country, though not as much. This has been a disastrous problem in the eurozone.
The U.S. does have extremely wide latitude to run a trade deficit, because it controls the
global reserve currency, meaning a strong
demand for dollar-denominated assets so other countries can settle their international
accounts. But this creates its own problems, as discussed above.
To be fair, this is not exactly an omission for a paper focused on domestic policy. Creating
a specifically international trade architecture would require an entire paper of its own, if
not a book or three. But it would be something future trade policymakers will have to
consider.
At any rate, it's quite likely that trade policy will be a major topic of discussion in 2020
-- if for no reason other than Trump's ridiculous shenanigans in the area. However, even that
demonstrates an important fact: The U.S. president has a great deal of unilateral authority
over trade. Democrats should be thinking hard about how they would change things.
This paper is a great place to start.
In response to proposed Senate legislation that would target Russia's state-controlled banks
by freezing their access to dollars -- a step which could genuinely damage the Russian economy
-- Moscow issued a new threat. "If we end up we end up with something like a ban on banking
activities or the use of certain currencies, we can clearly call this a declaration of economic
war," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
stated , emphasizing that Moscow would "respond to this war. By economic means, by
political means and if necessary by other means."
... ... ...
Putin doesn't even need to rely on his military to harm American interests either. He could
choose to openly increase economic and political support for North Korea, thereby weakening
Washington's ability to pressure North Korea to curtail its nuclear program. Given that North
Korea remains on the cusp of being able to reach the continental United States with a ballistic
missile this would constitute a significant setback for American interests.
... ... ...
To be clear, Medvedev's threats may be mere bluster, and Moscow could respond to dollar
sanctions by hunkering down even further and try to ride out the economic and political storm.
However, if harsh sanctions were on the verge of causing the Russian economy to collapse --
especially if this resulted in unrest which threatened the stability of the Putin regime --
Moscow might well end up lashing out in unpredictable ways. American policymakers should be
forewarned and prepared.
Josh Cohen contributes to a number of media outlets including National Interest, Foreign
Policy, Reuters, Washington Post and others.
There are so many painful places in the US foreign politics: North Korea, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Latin America, North Africa, Yemen. All this weaknesses could be used
by the US foes and Russia knows it. I won't be surprised if Russia pushes this weakspots.
Yes, the US politicians have to be ready to aggresive and success reaction of Russia. And
they have to make an informed decisions. Very cautiously.
Can someone cite just one instance of American government imposing "sanctions" on a
foreign government where it actually worked to USA interests? Don't cite Iran, Trump scrapped
that deal - so much for negotiation with USA - think Boeing happy about all those lost
airplane orders?
"Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov" - really? Why the author did
not mention that Ukraine made 2(!) acts of piracy against Russian vessels before Russia
answered? Vessels "Nord" and "Mehanik Pogodin" are still seized by Ukraine against of law,
while Russia inspects vessels in INTERNAL waters of Azov according to law.
Because it is not popular opinion in US massmedia. Ukraine is always right, Russia is
always evil. Nobody want to pay you if you defend Russians. But if you will blame them in all
sins - you have a chance to recive few dollars from Dems or from military corporations.
If you have another opinion - you are russian troll.
Inspection of ships in the Azov Sea is carried out in accordance with the agreement on
economic activities in the Sea of Azov, Russia and Ukraine signed in 2012, Russia did not
inspect Ukrainian ships until 2018, but after threats to blow up the Crimean Bridge, Russia
began using the right to inspect all vessels in the Azov Sea seas
In the Ukraine there is a civil war, Russia's involvement in the poisoning of the "former
Russian spy" has not been proven by anyone, and the holy belief in "election meddling" looks
like a sign of idiocy.
I agree with you, too much lie. These american authors live in their own cloud castle
which has no relations with reality. Only money from military corporations who need
enemy.
Many inconsistencies and blatant lies on this article, but I wish to focus on this
particular one.
The author claims "Russia provoking an armed confrontation in the Sea of Azov that could
serve as a pretext for a significant Russian military escalation in the region -- a step
right out of Moscow's 2008 playbook for its war in Georgia."
The 2008 South Ossetia war has been internationally recognized to be instigated by Georgia
itself (even the official EU report on the subject admitted this clearly). In what way did
Russia provoke the Georgian attack according to the author?
What evidence can he present to support this thesis? Or is he merely lying out of his
teeth?
Russia has attacked many countries, including Afghanistan in 1979 and Ukraine in 2014.
Luckily your terrorist colleague Zakharchenko has been dealt with.
Russia never attacked Ukraine. This propaganda bullshit lives only in someones damaged
brains and on papers of some mass media.
Zakharcheko never made any terror act. He defended his people from Ukraine nazis, who shelled
civil homes, kindergardens and schools from all possible guns. He never harmed any civil
human being. Vice versa - Kiev's bandits shell civil citizens of Donbass every day. There is
"Alley of angels" in Donetsk - the cemetry of kids killed by Kiev's terrorists.
In 1979 USSR entered Afghanistan by REQUEST OF LEGAL GOVERNEMENT of Afganistan. Because US
sponsored and supplied with weapons antigovernment bandits in Afgahnistan. CIA never hided
this. And waht do US do today in Syria? Who asked them to kill people and government forces
in Syria? And why did US sponsored putch in Kiev in 2014?
President Donald Trump is planning on using his executive powers to cut food stamps for more
than 700,000 Americans.
The United States Department of Agriculture is proposing that states should only be allowed
to waive a current food stamps requirement -- namely, that adults without dependents must work
or participate in a job-training program for at least 20 hours each week if they wish to
collect food stamps for more than three months in a three-year period -- on the condition that
those adults live in areas where unemployment is above 7 percent,
according to The Washington Post . Currently the USDA regulations permit states to waive
that requirement if an adult lives in an area where the unemployment rate is at least 20
percent greater than the national rate. In effect, this means that roughly 755,000 Americans
would potentially lose their waivers that permit them to receive food stamps.
The current unemployment rate is 3.7 percent.
The Trump administration's decision to impose the stricter food stamp requirements through
executive action constitutes an end-run around the legislative process. Although Trump is
expected to sign an $870 billion farm bill later this week -- and because food stamps goes
through the Agriculture Department, it contains food stamp provisions -- the measure does not
include House stipulations restricting the waiver program and imposing new requirements on
parents with children between the ages of six and 12. The Senate version ultimately removed
those provisions, meaning that the version being signed into law does not impose a conservative
policy on food stamps, which right-wing members of Congress were hoping for.
"Congress writes laws, and the administration is required to write rules based on the law,"
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told The New York Times (Stabenow is the top Democrat on the
Senate's agriculture committee). "Administrative changes should not be driven by ideology. I do
not support unilateral and unjustified changes that would take food away from families."
Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from
Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His
work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
"... In his just published book, War With Russia? ..."
"... To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless repetition." ..."
"... Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared. ..."
"... The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned. ..."
Throughout the long Cold War Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University was a
voice of reason. He refused to allow his patriotism to blind him to Washington's contribution to the conflict and to criticize only
the Soviet contribution. Cohen's interest was not to blame the enemy but to work toward a mutual understanding that would remove
the threat of nuclear war. Although a Democrat and left-leaning, Cohen would have been at home in the Reagan administration, as Reagan's
first priority was to end the Cold War. I know this because I was part of the effort. Pat Buchanan will tell you the same thing.
In 1974 a notorious cold warrior, Albert Wohlstetter, absurdly accused the CIA of underestimating the Soviet threat. As the CIA
had every incentive for reasons of budget and power to overestimate the Soviet threat, and today the "Russian threat," Wohlstetter's
accusation made no sense on its face. However he succeeded in stirring up enough concern that CIA director George H.W. Bush, later
Vice President and President, agreed to a Team B to investigate the CIA's assessment, headed by the Russiaphobic Harvard professor
Richard Pipes. Team B concluded that the Soviets thought they could win a nuclear war and were building the forces with which to
attack the US.
The report was mainly nonsense, and it must have have troubled Stephen Cohen to experience the setback to negotiations that Team
B caused.
Today Cohen is stressed that it is the United States that thinks it can win a nuclear war. Washington speaks openly of using "low
yield" nuclear weapons, and intentionally forecloses any peace negotiations with Russia with a propaganda campaign against Russia
of demonization, vilification, and transparent lies, while installing missile bases on Russia's borders and while talking of incorporating
former parts of Russia into NATO. In his just published book, War With Russia? , which I highly recommend, Cohen makes a
convincing case that Washington is asking for war.
I agree with Cohen that if Russia is a threat it is only because the US is threatening Russia. The stupidity of the policy toward
Russia is creating a Russian threat. Putin keeps emphasizing this. To paraphrase Putin: "You are making Russia a threat by declaring
us to be one, by discarding facts and substituting orchestrated opinions that your propagandistic media establish as fact via endless
repetition."
Cohen is correct that during the Cold War every US president worked to defuse tensions, especially Republican ones. Since the
Clinton regime every US president has worked to create tensions. What explains this dangerous change in approach? The end of the Cold War was disadvantageous to the military/security complex whose budget and power had waxed from decades of
cold war. Suddenly the enemy that had bestowed such wealth and prestige on the military/security complex disappeared.
The New Cold War is the result of the military/security complex's resurrection of the enemy. In a democracy with independent media
and scholars, this would not have been possible. But the Clinton regime permitted in violation of anti-trust laws 90% of the US media
to be concentrated in the hands of six mega-corporations, thus destroying an independence already undermined by the CIA's successful
use of the CIA's media assets to control explanations. Many books have been written about the CIA's use of the media, including Udo
Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalism," the English edition of which was quickly withdrawn and burned.
The demonization of Russia is also aided and abetted by the Democrats' hatred of Trump and anger from Hillary's loss of the presidential
election to the "Trump deplorables." The Democrats purport to believe that Trump was installed by Putin's interference in the presidential
election. This false belief is emotionally important to Democrats, and they can't let go of it.
Although Cohen as a professor at Princeton and NYU never lacked research opportunities, in the US Russian studies, strategic studies,
and the like are funded by the military/security complex whose agenda Cohen's scholarship does not serve. At the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, where I held an independently financed chair for a dozen years, most of my colleagues were dependent on
grants from the military/security complex. At the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where I was a Senior Fellow for three
decades, the anti-Soviet stance of the Institution reflected the agenda of those who funded the institution.
I am not saying that my colleagues were whores on a payroll. I am saying that the people who got the appointments were people
who were inclined to see the Soviet Union the way the military/security complex thought it should be seen.
As Stephen Cohen is aware, in the original Cold War there was some balance as all explanations were not controlled. There were
independent scholars who could point out that the Soviets, decimated by World War 2, had an interest in peace, and that accommodation
could be achieved, thus avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen must have been in the younger ranks of those sensible people, as he and President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet
Union, Jack Matloff, seem to be the remaining voices of expert reason on the American scene.
If you care to understand the dire threat under which you live, a threat that only a few people, such as Stephen Cohen, are trying
to lift, read his book.
If you want to understand the dire threat that a bought-and-paid-for American media poses to your existence, read Cohen's accounts
of their despicable lies. America has a media that is synonymous with lies.
If you want to understand how corrupt American universities are as organizations on the take for money, organizations to whom
truth is inconsequential, read Cohen's book.
If you want to understand why you could be dead before Global Warming can get you, read Cohen's book.
"... Robert Mueller is mentioned where he covered up an investigation tying important government people to the BCCI bank while Poppy Bush was president. ..."
From what I have understood ( and as well you will, by extensive reading ) this, and other
till now seeminlgy unknown initiatives, is the source
of the whole Russian meddling campaign,
and Skripal and other "poisonings" issue,
the rise of neonazis in Ukraine and the rest of Europe,
the provocations in the Kerch Strait,
various "colour revolutions" along European history,
"independentist movements" and last wars in Europe and the Middle East,
or money laundering schemes for unconfessable activities, with special chapter
dedicated to the recruiting, conditioning and military trainning of Muslim youth from
disadvantaged outcomes/neighborhoods to alleged "increase of opportunities",
which has all the look of the formation of our well know "proxy" army to use in the
Middle East and various "terrorist attacks" in European soil, where the perpetrators always
resulted having a close relation, or were "well known" with the intelligence services.
So at the moment when everybody assumed that Trump lost control of the foreign policy, he
does this. It's a real surprise. Kind of Christmas gift to his voters. And that's with neocon
Pompeo as his State Secretary and neocon Bolton as his national security advisor.
The War Party project of regime change in Tehran suffered a severe setback with the U.S.
pullout from Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip Erdogan. ..."
"... And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that was to end with his assassination. ..."
"... The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria. ..."
"We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there," wrote President Donald
Trump as he ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Syria, stunning the U.S. foreign
policy establishment.
Trump overruled his secretaries of state and defense, and jolted this city and capitals
across NATO Europe and the Middle East.
Yet Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do in his campaign. And what his decision
seems to say is this:
We are extricating America from the forever war of the Middle East so foolishly begun by
previous presidents. We are coming home. The rulers and peoples of this region are going to
have to find their own way and fight their own wars. We are not so powerful that we can fight
their wars while also confronting Iran and North Korea and facing new cold wars with Russia and
China.
As for the terrorists of ISIS, says Trump, they are defeated.
Yet despite the heavy casualties and lost battles ISIS has suffered, along with the collapse
of the caliphate and expulsion from its Syrian capital Raqqa and Iraqi capital Mosul and from
almost all territories it controlled in both countries, the group is not dead. It lives on in
thousands of true believers hidden in those countries. And like al-Qaeda, it has followers
across the Middle East and inspires haters of the West living in the West.
The U.S. pullout from Syria is being called a victory for Vladimir Putin. "Russia, Iran,
Assad are ecstatic!" wailed Senator Lindsey Graham.
Graham was echoed by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse who called the withdrawal a "retreat" and
charged that Trump's generals "believe the high-fiving winners today are Iran, ISIS and
Hezbollah."
But ISIS is a Sunni terrorist organization. And as such, it detests the Alawite regime of
Bashar Assad, and Hezbollah and Iran, both of which are viewed by ISIS as Shiite heretics.
"Russia, Iran, Syria are not happy about the US leaving," Trump tweeted, "despite what the Fake
News says, because now they will have to fight ISIS and others, who they hate, without us."
If Putin, victorious in the Syrian civil war, wishes to fight al-Qaeda and ISIS, the last
major enemies of Assad in Syria, why not let him?
The real losers?
Certainly the Kurds, who lose their American ally. Any dream they had of greater autonomy
inside Syria, or an independent state, is not going to be realized. But then, that was never
really in the cards.
Forced to choose between Turkey, with 80 million people and the second-largest army in
NATO, which sits astride the Dardanelles and Bosphorus entrance to the Black Sea, and the
stateless Kurds with their Syrian Democratic Forces, or YPG, Trump chose Recep Tayyip
Erdogan.
And Erdogan regards the YPG as kinfolk and comrades of the Kurdish terrorist PKK in
Turkey. A week ago, he threatened to attack the Kurds in northern Syria, though U.S. troops are
embedded alongside them. What kind of deal did Trump strike with Erdogan? Turkey will purchase
the U.S. Patriot anti-aircraft and missile defense system for $3.5 billion, and probably forego
the Russian S-400. Trump also told Erdogan that we "would take a look at" extraditing Muslim
cleric Fethullah Gulen whom the Turkish president says instigated the 2016 coup attempt that
was to end with his assassination.
National security advisor John Bolton, who said U.S. troops would remain in Syria until all
Iranian forces and Iran-backed militias have been expelled, appears not to have been speaking
for his president. And if the Israelis were relying on U.S. forces in Syria to intercept any
Iranian weapons shipments headed to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Damascus, then they are going
to have to make other arrangements.
The war party project, to bring about regime change in Tehran through either crippling
sanctions leading to insurrection or a U.S.-Iranian clash in the Gulf, will suffer a severe
setback with the U.S. pullout from Syria.
However, given the strength of the opposition to a U.S. withdrawal -- Israel, Saudi Arabia,
the GOP foreign policy establishment in Congress and the think tanks, liberal interventionists
in the Beltway press, Trump's own national security team of advisors -- the battle to overturn
Trump's decision has probably only just begun.
From FDR's abandonment of 100 million East Europeans to Stalin at Yalta in 1945 to the
abandonment of our Nationalist Chinese allies to Mao in 1949 and of our South Vietnamese allies
in 1975, America has often been forced into retreats leading to the deaths of allies. Senator
Sasse says Trump is risking the same outcome: "A lot of American allies will be slaughtered if
this retreat is implemented."
But is that true?
Trump's decision to pull out of Syria at least has assured us of a national debate on what
it will mean to America to extricate our country from these Mideast wars. It is the kind of
debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into invading Iraq.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com .
I believe "Syria" is a war crime planned and plotted by some western governments and their
allies. They are even reportedly financing and assisting terrorists. Which is criminal and
treasonous
-- -- --
"With their command and control centre based in Istanbul, Turkey, military supplies from
Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular were transported by Turkish intelligence to the border
for rebel acquisition. CIA operatives along with Israeli and Jordanian commandos were also
training FSA rebels on the Jordanian-Syrian border with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.
In addition, other reports show that British and French military were also involved in these
secret training programmes. It appears that the same FSA rebels receiving this elite training
went straight into ISIS – last month one ISIS commander, Abu Yusaf, said, 'Many of the
FSA people who the west has trained are actually joining us.'" Nafeez Ahmed http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/how-the-west-created-the-islamic-state/
-- -- -- -- --
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda,
ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or
ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for
years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and
other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to
overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- --
There is further abundant evidence available at links below: http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-christmas-report-on-crimes-of-war.html
"At the very least, America will have its first serious debate on its Mideast wars since 2003
. It is the kind of debate we have not had in the 15 years since we were first deceived into
invading Iraq."
Finally Mr Buchanan and I agree on something of substance. And I cannot believe I am in
agreement with Trump on this too (even though it was quite clumsy). Will wonders never
cease?
I hate that Trump will probably throw the Kurds under the bus since they acted as our
allies and suffered for it. And if I was Mr Fethullah Gulen I would be packing my bags for
Canada.
However, well done, sir. Now let the debate begin.
I think what is to be accomplished by the US staying in the Middle East? Hasn't over 17 years
and $600 billion spent and over a million dead been price enough? Hopefully, Syria is the 1st
step in ending American military involvement in the Middle East. America has enough to do in
taking care of serious issues here at home. As for the Middle East, let Israel, Saudia
Arabia, Turkey, Iran and other countries and ethnic groups who reside there solve their own
damn problems.
As a European it feels strange to feel this pro-Trump all of a sudden. Before you know it,
I'll order a MAGA cap (I'm always safe with that because carnaval is coming).
Russia just landed a nuclear bomber in Venezuela. Russia and China are making SIGNIFICANT
inroads in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and Africa.
If Israel comes under serious threat, the US will be there to assist in its defense but
the time has come when the US has to admit that the parasite freeloader nations like Europe
and Israel are coming at to high a cost a cost that is both distracting and obstructing the
US from being where it is really needed to deal with China and Russia.
People sit on their collective fat asses inside The Beltway within the confines of some book
lined conference room and make decisions involving the lives of thousands of young men and
women–other people's sons and daughters (never their own)– who may be dispatched
to take a bullet in anger. And over what? Making the MidEast "free for democracy"?
I dislike Trump even though I reluctantly voted for him only to keep the Congenital Liar
out of the White House. One of the few positives he exhibited was a desire to extricate the
United States from that MidEast hell-hole. For once at least he has delivered. Whether he
will succeed, however, remains to be seen. After all, the Beltway is swarming with chicken
hawks.
Very zero sum gain way of thinking. How can the US not spending hundreds of billions on a
lost cause be a win for Russia? Sounds more like a win for the US. I think the Syrian
government with Russia and Iran should be enough to demolish the physical caliphate.
Destroying ISIS ? Good luck with that suppress it OK but destroy easier said then done. How
have we done against, the Mafia? the IRA? drug cartels and so on and so forth. For those who
want to stay is there ever a set of conditions which would be satisfied allowing you to
leave? We are still in Germany, I think the Nazis are gone you can relax, if it was the
Soviets you worry about also gone by about 3 decades. If we can't accept that Germany is
sufficiently stable to no longer be blessed with our presence when oh when would Syria be
viewed as stable?
I have regretted voting for trump for many reasons. I concede that IF USA military leaves
Syria, this is a very positive development. He should now do the same for Afghanistan and
many other places around the world.
Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the Syrian military have done a fine job of keeping IS on the
run. Let's hope they can finish the job.
In this issue at least I support Trump a hundred percent, and I think a lot of Americans
agree.
He's finally doing what he promised to do during the campaign.
I have been very unhappy with him, but if he follows through on this I'll give him credit.
Given the lock that the elites and establishment have on the media, it took guts. It's good
to see he has some.
While I didn't vote for this excrescence in The White House, I will give credit where credit
is due. Hillary's neocon impulses would have been infinitely worse here.
Still, looking at this past week, I can't help thinking about that whole Flight 93 thing.
But two years into The Trump presidency, it's starting to look more like that disaster movie
camp-fest Airport 1975, where we have crossed-eyed stewardess Karen Black trying to land the
stricken 747. In her immortal words to flight control: "Something hit us! There's no one left
to fly the plane! HELP US! OH MY GOD HELP US!!!"
ISIS was created by the US as a part of its divide and conquer strategy. General Flynn blew
the whistle on it which is why he has been vilified. Flynn spoke the truth on ISIS and lied
to the FBI! Horrors.
Now ISIS has been "defeated" and the US Quixote can focus on other windmills.
Except now comes the Syria encore, Afghanistan. Chalk up another loss for team USA.
"... What Are the Democrats Hiding?" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/what-are-the-democrats-hiding-by-publius-tacitus.html "Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) demanded that Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa return equipment belonging to her office that was seized as part of the investigation -- or face "consequences." ..."
"... "FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately tried to get the hard drives back." ..."
"... This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers. Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning and Assange? ..."
Virtually no one [from MSM] is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani
Muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large
number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this
matter."
"FBI agents seized smashed computer hard drives from the home of Florida Democratic
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's information technology (IT) administrator, according to two
sources with knowledge of the investigation. Pakistani-born Imran Awan, long-time right-hand
IT aide to the former Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, has since desperately
tried to get the hard drives back."
This is not your phony Russia-gate or McCain-commissioned funny dossier on Trump. This
is the documented "serious, potentially illegal, violations of the House IT network," which
is a case of a free access to classified information by a group of the proven blackmailers.
Would this matter be treated with the same urgency of "patriotism" as the cases of Manning
and Assange?
One of the participants in the scheme, Jonathan Morgan, is the CEO of cybersecurity firm
New Knowledge. Morgan wrote a blistering account of Russian social media operations during
the 2016 election released this week by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Another angle to this big @nytimes story... Guess who participated in using a Russian
style disinformation campaign to influence the Alabama Senate election AND hoped to frame
Russia for it? The CEO of the company that wrote the Senate Intel report on 2016 election
meddling. https://t.co/uSu8HYCl15
-- Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) December 20, 2018
As I wrote a comment on the German magazine"Die Zeit"praising Trump's decision to retreat
from Syria my comment was deleted.I denounced the European whining and letting do the
Americans their dirty work.Now the Europeans show their true colors.In Germany's MSM it
doesn't seem to be allowed to take Trump's side.By the way -it's very good and well
researched article.Thank you.
". If you want to blame "the Jews" for all the problems in the world, just remember that
your doing so in this language actually strengthens the position of the Zionists. And you may
want to consider that at least *some* of these Jew-bashing critiques of Israel on sites like
Unz and others are most certainly written by paid propagandists of the state of Israel." WJ@
14
Absolutely right. The routine way in which, all over the internet, the tired and
discredited themes of the anti-Semites and, their soul sisters, the anti-Communists infect
every serious discussion or sensible discourse is maddening.
There is not the tiniest doubt who benefits from this idiocy and it isn't the people of
Palestine or the working people.
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. ~ Ian Fleming
Notable quotes:
"... We believe that in all three cases Guccifer 2 was unlikely to anticipate that this Eastern timezone setting could be derived from the metadata of the documents that he published. However, one vocal critic with significant media reach objected to our East Coast finding as it related to our analysis of the ngpvan .7z file. This critic concluded instead that Guccifer 2 deliberately planted that clue to implicate a DNC worker who would die under suspicious circumstances a few days later on July 10, 2016. ..."
"... Now, we have this additional East Coast indication, which appears just one day after the ngpvan.7z files were collected. This new East Coast indication is found in a completely different group of files that Guccifer 2 published on his blog site. Further, this East Coast finding has its own unique and equally unlikely method of derivation. ..."
"... If we apply our critic's logic, what do we now conclude? That Guccifer 2 also deliberately planted this new East Coast indication? To what end? We wonder: Will this new evidence compel our out-spoken critic to retract his unsubstantiated claims and accusations? ..."
Editorial Note: The Forensicator recently published a report, titled " Guccifer
2 Returns To The East Coast ." Forensicator provided the following introduction to his
latest findings, reproduced here with the permission of the author.
In this post, we announce a new finding that confirms our previous work and is the basis for
an update that we recently made to Guccifer 2's Russian
Breadcrumbs . In our original publication of that report, we posited that there were
indications of a GMT+4 timezone offset (legacy Moscow DST) in a batch of files that Guccifer 2
posted on July 6, 2016. At the time, we viewed that as a "Russian breadcrumb" that Guccifer 2
intentionally planted.
Now, based on new information, we have revised that conclusion: The timezone offset was in
fact GMT-4 (US Eastern DST) . Here, we will describe how we arrived at this new, surprising
conclusion and relate it to our prior work.
A month/so after publication, Stephen McIntyre ( @ClimateAudit ) replicated our analysis. He ran a few
experiments and found an error in our
original conclusion.
We mistakenly interpreted the last modified time that LibreOffice wrote as
"2015-08-25T23:07:00Z" as a GMT time value. Typically, the trailing "Z" means " Zulu Time ", but
in this case, LibreOffice incorrectly added the "Z". McIntyre's tests confirm that LibreOffice
records the "last modified" time as local time (not GMT). The following section describes the
method that we used to determine the timezone offset in force when the document was saved.
LibreOffice Leaks the Time Zone Offset in Force when a Document was Last Written
Modern Microsoft Office documents are generally a collection of XML files and image files.
This collection of files is packaged as a Zip file. LibreOffice can save documents in a
Microsoft Office compatible format, but its file format differs in two important details: (1)
the GMT time that the file was saved is recorded in the Zip file components that make up the
final document and (2) the document internal last saved time is recorded as local time (unlike
Microsoft Word, which records it as a GMT [UTC] value).
If we open up a document saved by Microsoft Office using the modern Office file format (
.docx or .xlsx ) as a Zip file, we see something like the following.
LibreOffice , as shown below, will record the GMT time that the document components were
saved. This time will display as the same value independent of the time zone in force when the
Zip file metadata is viewed.
For documents saved by LibreOffice we can compare the local "last saved" time recorded in
the document's properties with the GMT time value recorded inside the document (when viewed as
a Zip file). We demonstrate this derivation using the file named
potus-briefing-05-18-16_as-edits.docx that Guccifer 2 changed using LibreOffice and then
uploaded to his blog site on July 6, 2016 (along with several other files).
Above, we calculate a time zone offset of GMT-4 (EDT) was in force, by subtracting the last
saved time expressed in GMT (2016-07-06 17:10:58) from the last saved time expressed as local
time (2016-07-06 13:10:57).
We've Been Here Before
The Eastern timezone setting found in Guccifer 2's documents published on July 6, 2016 is
significant, because as we showed in Guccifer 2.0
NGP/Van Metadata Analysis , Guccifer 2 was likely on the East Coast the previous day, when
he collected the DNC-related files found in the ngpvan.7z Zip file. Also, recall that Guccifer
2 was likely on the East Coast a couple of months later on September 1, 2016 when he built the
final ngpvan.7z file.
We believe that in all three cases Guccifer 2 was unlikely to anticipate that this Eastern
timezone setting could be derived from the metadata of the documents that he published.
However, one vocal critic with significant media reach objected to our East Coast finding as it
related to our analysis of the ngpvan .7z file. This critic concluded instead that Guccifer 2
deliberately planted that clue to implicate a DNC worker who would die under suspicious
circumstances a few days later on July 10, 2016.
Further, this critic accused the Forensicator (and Adam Carter ) of using this finding to amplify the
impact of Forensicator's report in an effort to spread disinformation. He implied that
Forensicator's report was supplied by Russian operatives via a so-called "tip-off file." The
Forensicator addresses those baseless criticisms and accusations in The Campbell
Conspiracy .
Now, we have this additional East Coast indication, which appears just one day after the
ngpvan.7z files were collected. This new East Coast indication is found in a completely
different group of files that Guccifer 2 published on his blog site. Further, this East Coast
finding has its own unique and equally unlikely method of derivation.
If we apply our critic's logic, what do we now conclude? That Guccifer 2 also deliberately
planted this new East Coast indication? To what end? We wonder: Will this new evidence compel our out-spoken critic to retract his
unsubstantiated claims and accusations?
Closing Thought: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action. ~ Ian Fleming
It is curious how those running vpn's often don't bother appropriately setting their
device time zones.
Regarding the closing thought, that was my thinking regarding the Byzantine Vegetable
'ally' at /qr in a non-American time zone who repeatedly attacked me.
Perhaps I have shared some harsh words with you and William, but I do sincerely care for
your well being and my appreciation for the work you both have done remains. The Optics have
been understandably difficult to swallow for many, but I hope that in your own time, you both
will be willing to take another look at Q.
Interesting to see Fleming -- as time goes on, it is pretty clear that he was telling us a
few things about how power really works--psychopathic oligarchs with private wetworkers. Of
course now we have governments competing to hire the same mercenaries -- and the uniformed
mercenaries working oligarchs with government complicity.
Images remove. to view then please to to the original artilce.
Notable quotes:
"... In July 2017, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote an article titled " No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes " in which the author details the not-so-perfect history of both Mueller and Comey, suggesting that those lionizing the pair may be suffering from amnesia. ..."
"... Rowley explains that Mueller and Comey presided over post-9/11 cover-ups, secret abuses against the Constitution, enabled Bush/Cheney fabrications used as the pretext for waging war and demonstrated incompetence. The article also references Mueller's attempts to mislead everyone following 9/11 and Rowley's efforts to challenge Mueller on his silence about what he knew . ..."
"... Going further, Rowley covers Mueller's bungled Amerithrax investigation that targeted an innocent man , violations of privacy , infiltration of non-violent anti-war groups and also references Mueller's history before being director of the FBI ..."
"... (discovered in 2017 and 2018 but largely ignored by the press), ..."
However, history shows us that Mueller investigating anything may, inherently, come with
disadvantages when it comes to the pursuit of truth.
Mueller's Not-So-Stellar Past
According to whistleblowers, under Mueller's leadership, crimes and scandals involving
both government officials and the private-sector were ignored or covered-up by the FBI, and
there are questions about further cover-ups before he became the agency director.
In July 2017, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote an article titled " No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes " in
which the author details the not-so-perfect history of both Mueller and Comey, suggesting
that those lionizing the pair may be suffering from amnesia.
Rowley explains that Mueller and Comey presided over post-9/11 cover-ups, secret abuses
against the Constitution, enabled Bush/Cheney fabrications used as the pretext for waging war
and demonstrated incompetence. The article also references Mueller's attempts to mislead
everyone following 9/11 and Rowley's efforts to challenge Mueller on his silence about what he knew .
Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S.
Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the
FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who
committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through
intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a
$100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI operated)
Bulger gang.
The revelations continue, from Mueller being OK with CIA conducting torture programs that
his agents warned against and systematically covering up torture through to working on the
prosecution of NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed illegalities and abuse.
Another article published a few months after Rowley's piece, by author Jeffrey Marty,
titled " Robert Mueller: Dirty Cop
" highlights the list of failures to investigate and bring justice to those responsible of
several high-profile crimes and corruption cases.
The article goes further, highlighting how the FBI and DOJ handled money laundering at
HSBC involving hundreds of billions of dollars (for which they were fined and allowed to
enter a deferred prosecution agreement
) and how Comey joined their board of directors a few months later, followed by Mueller
becoming a partner in the law firm that represented HSBC after he left the FBI.
These whistleblowers are prepared to testify under oath that Mueller committed perjury
and other crimes in his effort to conceal massive off-the-books citizen surveillance
programs rolled out in succession by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The article covers various statements made by Chuck Marler who had previously worked for
the Special Surveillance Group (SSG) at the FBI.
Earlier this year, Republican congressman Louie Gohmert also highlighted various issues in
a report titled " Robert
Mueller Unmasked " that opened with a bold assertion:
"Robert Mueller has a long and sordid history of illicitly targeting innocent people
that is a stain upon the legacy of American jurisprudence. He lacks the judgment and
credibility to lead the prosecution of anyone."
The report covers Mueller and his team's history of indicting innocent parties as well as
FBI abuses under Mueller's leadership and his efforts to punish whistleblowers while
retaining agents that provide false information.
Gohmert's report explains that Mueller and members of his team have various conflicts of
interest and argues that they should have recused themselves. It concludes with covering the
abuse of FISC, the Steele dossier and other aspects of RussiaGate that Mueller's probe seems
to lack interest in.
CrowdStrike is a high-profile cybersecurity firm that worked with the DNC (Democratic
National Committee) in 2016 and was called in due to a suspected breach. However, CrowdStrike appears to have first started working with the DNC approximately five
weeks prior to this and approximately just five days after John Podesta (Hillary Clinton's
campaign manager for the 2016 election) had his Gmail account phished. Nothing was mentioned about this until after the five weeks had passed when the DNC
published a press
release stating that CrowdStrike had been at the DNC throughout that period to investigate
the NGP-VAN issues (that had occurred three months before Podesta was phished).
Upon conclusion of those five weeks, CrowdStrike was immediately called back in to
investigate a suspected breach. CrowdStrike's software was already installed on the DNC network when the DNC emails were
acquired but CrowdStrike failed to prevent the emails from being acquired and didn't publish
logs or incident-specific evidence of the acquisition event either, the latter of which is
odd considering what their product's
features were advertised to be even if they were just running it in a monitoring capacity
.
Mueller's probe was never set up to find the truth about the DNC leak or the Guccifer 2.0
persona. The objective was to find evidence to support the RussiaGate conspiracy theory
rather than to thoroughly investigate all evidence no matter where it leads.
Even if finding the truth was Mueller's objective, there's little reason to believe that
he could have investigated this impartially due to his associations, little reason to expect
him to get conclusive results due to his history and little reason to think he would have the
inclination to investigate fully due to his inaction and lack of interest in what was reported to him over a year ago .
For all we know, Mueller and company could have simply taken names obtained from
intelligence on the OPCW hacking bust
that actually occurred three months prior to the indictment and attributed names of GRU
officers on a 'best-fit' basis to roles identified in their investigation
The bottom line is that Mueller's investigation has not fully investigated RussiaGate and
it appears that his investigation has avoided certain paths including those that would result
in CrowdStrike being investigated or that relate to evidence that contradicts the specific
conspiracy theory he has been tasked to investigate.
There is no point expecting the whole truth to arise from a restrictive probe that only
seeks evidence supporting a single specific conspiracy theory from someone who presided over
a decade of reported cover-ups at the FBI (and alleged framing of Assange), whose personal
associations introduce conflicts of interest and who seems to have selectively disregarded
evidence where it conflicts with the theory being pursued.
If you want the whole truth about what happened in 2016, it seems that an independent
commission may be the only way you'll get close to it.
CrowdStrike is a high-profile cybersecurity firm that worked with the DNC (Democratic
National Committee) in 2016 and was called in due to a suspected breach. However, CrowdStrike
appears to have first started working with the DNC approximately five weeks prior to this and
approximately just five days after John Podesta (Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the
2016 election) had his Gmail account phished. Nothing was mentioned about this until after the
five weeks had passed when the DNC published a press release stating that
CrowdStrike had been at the DNC throughout that period to investigate the NGP-VAN issues
(that had occurred three months before Podesta was phished).
Upon conclusion of those five weeks, CrowdStrike was immediately called back in to
investigate a suspected breach. CrowdStrike's software was already installed on the DNC network
when the DNC emails were acquired but CrowdStrike failed to prevent the emails from being
acquired and didn't publish logs or incident-specific evidence of the acquisition event either,
the latter of which is odd considering what
their product's features were advertised to be even if they were just running it in a
monitoring capacity .
"... "Tim Canova, independent candidate in Florida's 23rd Congressional District, has filed a motion for a court to invalidate the results of the 2018 general election and declare that a "new election shall proceed with hand-marked paper ballots that are counted by hand in public and reported immediately and publicly at the local precinct level." ..."
"... "Unfortunately, this is only the most recent instance of what is now a pattern of misconduct by Snipes regarding paper ballots, as it follows barely a year after Snipes unlawfully destroyed hundreds of boxes of all paper ballots cast in Broward County in the 2016 Democratic primary for Florida's 23rd Congressional district between Canova and Schultz, in violation of state and federal law and while Canova's prior lawsuit to inspect those ballots was pending, as already determined on summary judgment by the Florida Circuit Court." ..."
"... "In addition to Snipes' failure to safeguard the integrity of the paper ballots in the 2018 general election for FL-23, the certification of the purported results is based on inadequate and incomplete information, and it is therefore an invalid certification of those results. More specifically, approximately 98,000 votes are reported by Snipes to have been cast for Schultz without any indication as to how and when those votes were cast. To date, Snipes still has not provided this information about the "98,000 votes from nowhere." These votes alone are enough to change the results of this election, or at the very least to place in doubt these results." ..."
"... "Florida Gov. Rick Scott suspended Broward County elections supervisor Brenda Snipes on Friday and installed a close ally to lead an office that could play a pivotal role in the next presidential election. Peter Antonacci, president and CEO of the state's business-recruitment agency Enterprise Florida, will serve for the remainder of Snipes' term until a replacement can be chosen by voters in November 2020, the governor's office announced." ..."
Canova Contests The Results Of Congressional Race Against Wasserman-Schultz, Calls For Revote
December 1, 2018
December 1, 2018
Elizabeth Vos
Earlier today, former Congressional candidate Tim Canova announced that his legal team
filed a complaint
officially contesting the results of last month's congressional race, in which Canova
faced off against former DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
"Tim Canova, independent candidate in Florida's 23rd Congressional District, has filed a motion for a
court to invalidate the results of the 2018 general election and declare that a "new election shall proceed
with hand-marked paper ballots that are counted by hand in public and reported immediately and publicly at
the local precinct level."
" In the details of Canova's court filing, Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes [is
alleged to have] "engaged in misconduct that was sufficient to change or place in doubt the results of the
2018 election." Canova cites Snipes, Dozel Spencer, the SOE Director of Voting Equipment, and other deputy
supervisors "violated their oaths to faithfully perform their duties, engaged in repeated misconduct and
violations of state and federal laws, including criminal statutes."
Highlights of the
complaint
, via the Canova Campaign website, include:
"Unfortunately, this is only the most recent instance of what is now a pattern of misconduct by Snipes
regarding paper ballots, as it follows barely a year after Snipes unlawfully destroyed hundreds of boxes of all
paper ballots cast in Broward County in the 2016 Democratic primary for Florida's 23rd Congressional district
between Canova and Schultz, in violation of state and federal law and while Canova's prior lawsuit to inspect
those ballots was pending, as already determined on summary judgment by the Florida Circuit Court."
"In addition to Snipes' failure to safeguard the integrity of the paper ballots in the 2018 general
election for FL-23, the certification of the purported results is based on inadequate and incomplete
information, and it is therefore an invalid certification of those results. More specifically, approximately
98,000 votes are reported by Snipes to have been cast for Schultz without any indication as to how and when
those votes were cast. To date, Snipes still has not provided this information about the "98,000 votes from
nowhere." These votes alone are enough to change the results of this election, or at the very least to place in
doubt these results."
This latest news comes under 24 hours after the
Sun Sentinal
reported that Florida's Governor Rick Scott had fired Brenda Snipes, effective immediately.
The report states:
"Florida Gov. Rick Scott suspended Broward County elections supervisor Brenda Snipes on
Friday and installed a close ally to lead an office that could play a pivotal role in the next presidential
election. Peter Antonacci, president and CEO of the state's business-recruitment agency Enterprise Florida,
will serve for the remainder of Snipes' term until a replacement can be chosen by voters in November 2020, the
governor's office announced."
Disobedient Media
previously covered the disastrous aftermath of last month's midterm elections,
specifically concerning the race between Canova and Wasserman-Schultz. On election night, the official vote
count awarded a mere 5% of votes to Canova, despite a previous poll revealing the independent was tied with the
former DNC Chairwoman.
This glaring discrepancy prompted vocal calls for the invalidation of the race. Given Snipes's history of
illegal ballot destruction
which benefitted Wasserman-Schultz's interest, as well as the fact that Snipes
was photographed campaigning with Wasserman-Schultz days before voters went to the polls, it would be ludicrous
if Canova and the public failed to question the validity of the results.
In a previous appraisal of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's career,
Disobedient Media
noted her central role in seeing Bernie Sanders cheated out of the Democratic Party
nomination in 2016, as well as her probable involvement in bizarre event surrounding the
DNC Fraud lawsuit
(voice-modulated phone calls including the phrase
"okey-dokey"
),
and the grossly underreported
Awan
scandal
.
Disobedient Media
additionally noted the furor that erupted after the
publication
of video evidence of a digital scanner voting machine sending results wirelessly. Some have also
accused
Snipes
and her affiliates of falsifying ballots 'as needed,' dubbing the practice the
'Brenda Snipes Process,'
which was allegedly used routinely in order to ensure a desired election outcome.
Independent journalist and progressive activist Niko House also set the internet on fire when he published a
video of purported ballots being illegally and improperly transported. House discussed what he witnessed in
Florida on election day with Lee Camp on RT's
Redacted Tonight
.
Tim Canova
has
also called for the resignation of Snipes's Director, Dozel Spencer. As noted by this author and others, Brenda
Snipes is merely the public face of a deeply corrupt political system, and without a massive overhaul, business
will most likely continue as usual in Southern Florida – at the expense of its constituents.
Prosecution of those involved in documented, home-grown election interference is also essential moving
forward. However, one should be under no illusion that such measures are likely in the near term without
massive public pressure.
Regardless, the
significance of Canova's two races
against Wasserman-Schultz, as well as his campaign's quest for
transparency, should not be forgotten. He is one of the very few progressive candidates who has opted to fight
corruption head-on, from outside the DNC, rather than concede and meekly
endorse
the perpetrators
of it from within the Democratic Party.
Unlike the faux "
#Resistance
"
against fictional Russian-collusion or Russian-hacking, Canova is the singular example of real resistance
against actual US election rigging in one of the most corrupt political fiefdoms in the country.
It is for all of these reasons, many believe, that the discrepancy between polling and election results was
so extreme in Canova's latest race. It wasn't about "safely" beating Canova, it was about making an example of
him to such an extent that no one else would follow in his footsteps. With all of this in mind, it is critical
that the public support Tim Canova's efforts in contesting last month's election results. Donations can be made
via the
Canova campaign website
.
Disobedient Media will continue to report on the corrupt dealings surrounding Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, as
well as the efforts of Tim Canova and his campaign.
The Guardian's latest attack on Julian Assange was not only a fallacious smear, it
represented a desperate attempt on behalf of the British intelligence community to conflate the
pending US charges against the journalist with Russiagate. The Guardian's article seeks to
deflect from the reality that the prosecution of Assange will
focus on Chelsea Manning-Era releases and Vault 7, not the DNC or Podesta emails.
We assert this claim based on the timing of the publication, the Guardian's history of
subservience to British intelligence agencies, animosity between The Guardian and WikiLeaks,
and the longstanding personal feud between Guardian journalist Luke Harding and Assange. This
conclusion is also supported by Harding's financial and career interest in propping up the
Russiagate narrative
"... " The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S. government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa." ..."
"... 2014 Ecuador's Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns." ..."
"... "There is also evidence that the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and replaced with a version with this evidence removed)." ..."
"... " This video from the news wire Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." ..."
"... One of my greatest journalistic experiences was working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @ somos_lafuente " ..."
"... The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims, or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador. ..."
"... The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and fabricated stories. ..."
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." ..."
"... That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez , raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad sources who duped them, as claimed by some. ..."
Regular followers of WikiLeaks-related news are at this point familiar with the multiple
serious infractions of journalistic ethics by Luke Harding and the Guardian, especially (though
not exclusively) when it comes to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. However, another individual at
the heart of this matter is far less familiar to the public. That man is Fernando
Villavicencio, a prominent Ecuadorian political activist and journalist, director of the
USAID-funded NGO Fundamedios and editor of online publication FocusEcuador .
Most readers are also aware of the Guardian's recent publication of claims that Julian
Assange met with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on three occasions. This has now
been
definitively debunked by Fidel Narvaez, the former Consul at Ecuador's London embassy
between 2010 and 2018, who says Paul Manafort has never visited the embassy during the time he
was in charge there. But this was hardly the first time the outlet published a dishonest smear
authored by Luke Harding against Assange. The paper is also no stranger to publishing stories
based on fabricated documents.
In May,
Disobedient Media reported on the Guardian's hatchet-job relating to 'Operation Hotel,' or
rather, the normal
security operations of the embassy under former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. That
hit-piece ,
co-authored by Harding and Dan Collyns, asserted among other things that (according to an
anonymous source) Assange hacked the embassy's security system. The allegation was promptly
refuted by Correa as "absurd" in an interview with The Intercept , and also by WikiLeaks as an "anonymous libel" with which the
Guardian had "gone too far this time. We're suing."
How is Villavicencio tied to The Guardian's latest smear of Assange? Intimately, it turns
out.
Who is Fernando Villavicencio?
Earlier this year, an independent journalist writing under the pseudonym Jimmyslama penned a
comprehensive report
detailing Villavicencio's relationships with pro-US actors within Ecuador and the US. She sums
up her findings, which are worth reading in full :
" The information in this post alone should make everyone question why in the world the
Guardian would continue to use a source like Villavicencio who is obviously tied to the U.S.
government, the CIA, individuals like Thor Halvorssen and Bill Browder, and opponents of both
Julian Assange and former President Rafael Correa."
As most readers recall, it was Correa who granted Assange asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London. Villavicencio was so vehemently opposed to Rafael Correa's socialist government that
during the failed 2010 coup against Correa he falsely accused the President of "crimes against
humanity" by ordering police to fire on the crowds (it was actually Correa who was being shot
at). Correa sued him for libel, and won, but pardoned Villavicencio for the damages awarded by
the court.
Assange legal analyst Hanna Jonasson
recently made the link between the Ecuadorian forger Villavicencio and Luke Harding's Guardian
stories based on dubious documents explicit. She Tweeted : 2014 Ecuador's
Foreign Ministry accused the Guardian of publishing a story based on a document it says was
fabricated by Fernando Villavicencio, pictured below with the authors of the fake
Manafort-Assange 'secret meeting' story, Harding and Collyns."
Jonasson included a link to a 2014 official Ecuadorian government statement which reads in part:
"There is also evidence that
the author of this falsified document is Fernando Villavicencio, a convicted slanderer and
opponent of Ecuador's current government. This can be seen from the file properties of the
document that the Guardian had originally posted (but which it has since taken down and
replaced with a version with this evidence removed)."
The statement also notes that
Villavicencio had fled the country after his conviction for libeling Correa during the 2010
coup and was at that time living as a fugitive in the United States.
It is incredibly significant, as Jonasson argues, that the authors of the Guardian's latest
libelous article were photographed with
Villavicencio in Ecuador shortly before publication of the Guardian's claim that Assange
had conducted meetings with Manafort.
Jonasson's Twitter thread also states: " This video from the news wire
Andes alleges that Villavicencio's name appeared in the metadata of the document originally
uploaded alongside The Guardian's story." The 2014 Guardian piece, which aimed a falsified
shot at then-President Rafael Correa, would not be the last time Villavicencio's name would
appear on a controversial Guardian story before being scrubbed from existence.
Just days after the backlash against the Guardian reached fever-pitch, Villavicencio had the
gall to publish another image of himself
with Harding and Collyns, gloating : "
One of my greatest journalistic experiences was
working for months on Assange's research with colleagues from the British newspaper the
Guardian, Luke Harding, Dan Collins and the young journalist Cristina Solórzano from @somos_lafuente " [Translated from Spanish]
The tweet suggests, but does not specifically state, that Villavicencio worked with the
disastrous duo on the Assange-Manafort piece. Given the history and associations of all
involved, this statement alone should cause extreme skepticism in any unsubstantiated claims,
or 'anonymously sourced' claims, the Guardian makes concerning Julian Assange and Ecuador.
Astoundingly, and counter to Villavicencio's uncharacteristic coyness, a recent video posted
by WikiLeaks via Twitter does show that
Villavicencio was originally listed as a co-author of the Guardian's Manafort-Assange
allegations, before his name was edited out of the online article. The original version can be
viewed, however, thanks to archive services.
The two photographs of Villavicencio with Harding and Collyns as well as the evidence
showing he co-authored the piece doesn't just capture a trio of terrible journalists, it
documents the involvement of multiple actors associated with intelligence agencies and
fabricated stories.
All of this provoke the question: did Villavicencio provide more bogus documents to Harding
and Collyns – Harding said he'd seen a document, though he didn't publish one (or even
quote from it) so readers might judge its veracity for themselves – or perhaps these
three invented the accusations out of whole-cloth?
Either way, to quote WikiLeaks, the Guardian has "gone too far this time" and its
already-tattered reputation is in total shambles.
Successful Propaganda, Failed Journalism
Craig Murray calls Harding an " MI6
tool ", but to this writer, Harding seems worse than an MI6 stooge: He's a wannabe-spook,
hanging from the coat-tails of anonymous intelligence officers and publishing their drivel as
fact without so much as a skeptical blink. His lack of self-awareness and conflation of
anecdote with evidence sets him apart as either one of the most blatant, fumbling propagandists
of our era, or the most hapless hack journalist to stain the pages of printed news.
To provide important context on Harding's previous journalistic irresponsibility, we again
recall that he co-authored the infamous book containing the encryption password of the entire
Cablegate archive, leading to a leak of the unredacted State Department Cables across the
internet. Although the guilty Guardian journalists tried to blame Assange for the debacle, it
was they themselves who ended up on the receiving end of some well-deserved scorn.
In addition to continuing the Guardian's and Villavicencio's vendetta against Assange and
WikiLeaks, it is clearly in Harding's financial interests to conflate the
pending prosecution of Assange with Russiagate. As this writer
previously noted , Harding penned a book on the subject, titled: " Collusion: Secret
Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." Tying Assange to
Russiagate is good for business, as it stokes public interest in the self-evidently faulty
narrative his book supports.
Even more concerning is the claim amongst publishing circles, fueled by recent events, that
Harding may be writing another book on Assange, with publication presumably timed for his
pending arrest and extradition and designed to cash in on the trial. If that is in fact the
case, the specter arises that Harding is working to push for Assange's arrest, not just on
behalf of US, UK or Ecuadorian intelligence interests, but also to increase his own book
sales.
That Harding and Collyns worked intensively with Villavicencio for "months" on the "Assange
story," the fact that Villavicencio was initially listed as a co-author on the original version
of the Guardian's article, and the recent denial by Fidel Narvaez
, raises the likelihood that Harding and the Guardian were not simply the victims of bad
sources who duped them, as claimed by some.
It indicates that the fake story was constructed deliberately on behalf of the very same
intelligence establishment that the Guardian is nowadays only too happy to take the knee
for.
In summary, one of the most visible establishment media outlets published a fake story on
its front page, in an attempt to manufacture a crucial cross-over between the pending
prosecution of Assange and the Russiagate saga. This represents the latest example in an
onslaught of fake news directed at Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ever since they published the
largest CIA leak in history in the form of Vault 7, an onslaught which appears to be building
in both intensity and absurdity as time goes on.
The Guardian has destroyed its reputation, and in the process, revealed the desperation of
the establishment when it comes to Assange.
"... As always, Mr Buchanan's problem is that what he wants is to maintain US global hegemony indefinitely into the future. That isn't going to happen, not because of any fault on the part of the US but quite simply because that's march of human history. ..."
"... So to initiate and inflate the New Cold War, the Nitwits in DC have militarized every economic development initiative fronted by Russia and China. Under that pathological rubric, all economic activity by Russia and China is a "threat to U.S. national security". Once those economic threats have been miraculously transformed into military threats, they can only be addressed by U.S. military "Power Projection". Taxpayers, hold onto your wallets. ..."
"... "So, for the sake of this country and our children, stop listening to anti-China propaganda like this article." ..."
As always, Mr Buchanan's problem is that what he wants is to maintain US global hegemony
indefinitely into the future. That isn't going to happen, not because of any fault on the
part of the US but quite simply because that's march of human history.
An interesting detail is how those Russian bombers got to Venezuela. Military aircraft
cannot overfly countries without their permission and flying only through international
airspace would impose a rather roundabout journey.
The question should be: "Can the Global Cop Gorilla, (the U.S.) instigate two Cold Wars? And
the answer is yes.
The Washington Wrecking Crew has started a new Cold War with Russia and is dragging the
Europeans along. Even though Russia's obvious strategic objectives involve economic growth,
not a return to Soviet hegemony over Central/Eastern Europe.
China is insisting on regional hegemony but has not demonstrated any inclination to invade
its neighbors. Because it would be bad for business. And like Russia, China is focused on
business, not military conquest.
So to initiate and inflate the New Cold War, the Nitwits in DC have militarized every
economic development initiative fronted by Russia and China. Under that pathological rubric,
all economic activity by Russia and China is a "threat to U.S. national security". Once those
economic threats have been miraculously transformed into military threats, they can only be
addressed by U.S. military "Power Projection". Taxpayers, hold onto your wallets.
Pat Buchanan, if you read these comments to your TAC entries, you should note that the
American Exceptionalism Monster is still roaring and the continuation of the great taxpayer
fleecing to pay for the incoherent cacophony will continue unabated.
As as usual the Washington Elites will always walk away rich from their wreckage.
BTW, I see that General Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. What a
Warrior-Hero Dope. Anybody who talks to a cop is nuts.
A typical anti-Chinese laundry list of hypocritical or unsubstantiated charges. I will just
counter several random points:
1. China conducted cyber attack: so do US, and many nations.
2. China sends students allegedly engaged in espionage: Majority of those students are
legitimate students. Further US also sends spy to China for espionage.
3. China keeps her currency below market value to maintain her trade advantage: False,
China is more interested in keeping her currency STABLE than below market value. And talking
about currency manipulation, please take a look at Federal Reserve. What did QE1, QE2, and
below-inflation short-term rate do to the exchange rate?
4. China established internment camps for the Uighur minority: unsubstantiated charge. No
Muslim countries seem to agree with this western-sourced charge.
and so on.
The foundation of China's rise is a peaceful world, and Chinese are smart to understand
that. Their country is also not kidnapped by the military-industrial complex, like us. For
example, even though they regard Taiwan as part of China, they are willing to withhold
military solution for over 80 years, and even 100 years if necessary. Same for the South
China Sea – despite all the charges against China, not a SINGLE bullet was fired in
South China Sea for decades, unlike US, where thousands of bombs are dropped on several
countries every year.
So, for the sake of this country and our children, stop listening to anti-China propaganda
like this article.
Re: david, "So, for the sake of this country and our children, stop listening to
anti-China propaganda like this article."
David, I have a more nuanced take on the Manichean model of China. I see Xi serving 2
masters. One is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The other is the technocratic state.
Since communism has been effectively abandoned in China, Xi has turned over economic
governance to the technocrats, many educated in the West with Western sensibilities. However,
Xi recognizes that the CCP Nomenklatura wants two things – social stability and their
cut of the action.
So the current socio-economic mixed model. I.e., regularized indoctrination and repression
applied selectively to minimize dissent running in parallel with the massive economic engine
managed using a mostly Western business and technical development regime. Xi will allow
cronyism, graft and corruption within that market-based regime sufficient to keep the
Nomenklatura happy.
The subtext then is that the Chinese are probably not going to invade anybody but they are
not exactly nice guys either when it comes to managing the civilian population.
Should the U.S. actively engage in trying to coercively change domestic political
conditions in China? President George Washington would no doubt have said no.
The current DC leadership composed of arrogant numbskulls and half-wits would probably beg
to differ with the Founding Fathers.
Look at Google maps. Those Chinese ports are in each case small container ship docks. They
have a narrow channel, and berths for just a couple of container ships alongside cranes and
parking areas for containers.
There is no "port" nor room for a port in the military sense. There is no space for
military ships to dock or anchor, no support for military ships to re-supply or repair.
The Chinese are no doing what this fears. They are not creating what the Americans
created, naval bases ringing the world.
What they are doing is what they say they are doing, the belt and road linking their trade
to the world. More exactly, opening the Western less developed regions of China to markets so
that can develop too. Right now, those regions must ship East to that coast, before ships
take thing all the way around back again the long way. This opens a short cut to
development.
This is not good news for those fearing China's rise. China is already very big, and this
would enable it to become very much bigger as an economy.
However, American fears as phrased in this article are looking in the wrong direction to
see the danger.
"... He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard. Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the slammer. ..."
Former FBI Director James Comey appeared December 17th, 2018, for a
second round of questions by a joint House committee oversight probe into the DOJ and FBI
conduct during the 2016 presidential election and incoming Trump administration.
The Joint House Committee just released the transcript online (full pdf below).
Trey Gowdy grilled Comey on his vastly different handling of comments by Trump and Obama.
When Trump asked Comey whether he could see his way clear to easing up on Flynn, Comey
memorialized the conversation in a memo and distributed it to his leadership team, including
Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
However, when President Obama on 60 Minutes publicly exonerated Hillary Clinton's
mishandling of classified information -- setting the stage for true obstruction of justice --
Comey did nothing. He never talked to the president about potential obstruction, he never
memorialized his observations, and he didn't leak anything to the press. These were all things
he did with Trump.
He might call it a "higher loyalty", but it looks to us peons like a true double-standard.
Democrats get Wall Street Bankster treatment, while the rabble get tossed in the
slammer.
2. According to Comey, Flynn had no right to counsel
This is interesting:
Mr. Gowdy. Did Mr. Flynn have the right to have counsel present during that interview?
Mr. Comey. No.
Oooooooookay.
3. Comey confirmed McCabe called Flynn to initiate "entrapment";
contradicts himself on counsel
And:
Mr. Gowdy. Why not advise General Flynn of the consequences of making false statements to
the FBI?
Mr. Comey. ...the Deputy Director [McCabe] called him, told him what the subject matter
was, told him he was welcome to have a representative from White House Counsel there...
So Comey is saying that Flynn didn't have the right to counsel (item 2), and then states
that he does have the right to a White House counsel attending the meeting.
The lies are getting harder and harder to keep straight with this egregious
individual.
4. Comey lied about McCabe's conversation with Flynn
When asked whether McCabe was trying to set Flynn up by asserting no counsel was needed in
the interview, Comey claimed he was unaware of that critical fact. But McCabe, in a written
memo, asserted that he told Flynn, "[i]f you have a lawyer present, we'll need to involve the
Department of Justice".
In other words, McCabe was trying to ensure Flynn had no counsel present during the
interview.
5. Comey still falls back on the Logan Act scam to justify his actions
Yes, the Logan Act. When former secretary of state John Kerry meets with various Mullahs
while President Trump is unwinding the disastrous Iran deal, there's no crime there !
But let Flynn, a member of the Trump transition team, have a perfectly legitimate
conversation with a Russian diplomat, we get:
Mr. Comey. And I hesitate only with "wrong." I think a Department of Justice prosecutor
might say, on its face, it was problematic under the Logan Act because of private citizens
negotiating and all that business.
What a lying sack of gumbo. At the time, Flynn was not a private citizen. He was a member of
the incoming administration, and had anyone bothered to prosecute prior transitions for similar
"crimes", the entire Obama and Clinton posses would be breaking rocks at Leavenworth.
6.
Comey Throws James Clapper Under the Bus
When asked by Jim Jordan about his private meeting with the President to brief him on a very
tiny portion of the "salacious and unverified" (Comey's words under oath) dossier, Comey
claimed ODNI James Clapper had orchestrated the entire fiasco.
Mr. Comey. ...ultimately, it was Clapper's call. I agreed -- we agreed that it made sense
for me to do it and to do it privately, separately. So I don't want to make it sound like I
was ordered to do it.
He wasn't ordered to do it, but it was Clapper's call.
Oooooooookay.
7. Jordan Torches Comey Over His Dossier Comments
I'll just leave this here. Comey may need to put some ice on that.
Mr. Jordan. So that's what I'm not understanding, is you felt this was so important that
it required a private session with you and the President-elect, you only spoke of the
salacious part of the dossier, but yet you also say there's no way any good reporter would
print this. But you felt it was still critical that you had to talk to the President-elect
about it. And I would argue you created the very news hook that you said you were concerned
about...
...it's so inflammatory that reporters would 'get killed' for reporting it, why was it so
important to tell the President? Particularly when you weren't going to tell him the rest of
the dossier -- about the rest of the dossier?
8. Comey Concealed Critical National Security Concerns About Flynn From the
President
This is quite unbelievable: in a private dinner with the president, Comey neglected to
mention that just three days earlier he had directed the interview of Trump's ostensible
National Security Advisor.
Mr. Comey. ...at no time during the dinner was there a reference, allusion, mention by
either of
us about the FBI having contact with General Flynn or being interested in General Flynn
investigatively.
Mr. Jordan. That was what I wanted to know. So this is not just referring to the President
didn't bring it up. You didn't bring it up either.
Mr. Comey. Correct, neither of us brought it up or alluded to it.
Mr. Jordan. Why not? He's talking about General Flynn. You had just interviewed him 3 days
earlier and discovered that he was lying to the Vice President, knew he was lying to the Vice
President, and, based on what we've heard of late, that he lied tyour agents. Why not tell
his boss, why not tell the head of the executive branch, why not tell the President of the
United States, "Hey, your National Security Advisor just lied to us 3 days ago"?
Mr. Comey. Because we had an open investigation, and there would be no reason or a need to
tell the President about it.
Mr. Jordan. Really?
Mr. Comey. Really.
Mr. Jordan. You wouldn't tell the President of the United States that his National
Security Advisor wasn't being square with the FBI? ... I mean, but this is not just any
investigation, it seems to me, Director. This is a top advisor to the Commander in Chief. And
you guys, based on what we've heard, felt that he wasn't being honest with the Vice President
and wasn't honest with two of your agents. And just 3 days later, you're meeting with the
President, and, oh, by the way, the conversation is about General Flynn. And you don't tell
the President anything?
Mr. Comey. I did not.
Mr. Meadows. So, Director Comey, let me make sure I understand this. You were so concerned
that Michael Flynn may have lied or did lie to the Vice President of the United States, but
that once you got that confirmed, that he had told a falsehood, you didn't believe that it
was appropriate to tell the President of the United States that there was no national
security risk where you would actually convey that to the President of the United States? Is
that your testimony?
Mr. Comey. That is correct. We had an --
The more we learn, the dirtier a cop Comey ends up appearing.
9. Gowdy Destroys the
Double Standard of Clinton vs. Flynn
Check this out:
Mr. Gowdy. ...we are going to contrast the decision to not allow Michael Flynn to have an
attorney, or discourage him from having one, with allowing some other folks the Bureau
interviewed to have multiple attorneys in the room, including fact witnesses. Can you see the
dichotomy there, or is that an unreasonable comparison?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to comment on that. I remember you asking me questions about that
last week. I'm happy to answer them again.
Mr. Gowdy. You will not say whether or not it is an unreasonable comparison to compare
allowing multiple attorneys, who are also fact witnesses, to be present during an interview
but discouraging another person from having counsel present?
Mr. Comey. I'm not going to answer that in a vacuum...
10. Comey May Have Been Involved With the Infamous Tarmac Meeting
Another interesting vignette, this time from John Ratcliffe :
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So it would appear from this that there had been some type of
briefing the day before, with reference to yesterday, June 27, 2016, where you had requested
a copy of emails between President Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Comey. I see that it says that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...The significance of that is, as we talked about last time, June 27th of
2016 was also the date that Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton met on a
tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. Do you recall whether or not this briefing was held at the FBI
because of that tarmac meeting, or was it just happened to be a coincidence that it was held
on that day? Mr. Comey. It would have to have been a coincidence. I don't remember a meeting
in response to the tarmac meeting.
Muh don't know!
11. Comey confirms Obama knew Hillary Clinton was using a compromised,
insecure email server
Well, spank me on the fanny and call me Nancy!
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama were communicating via email
through an unsecure, unclassified server?
Mr. Comey. Yes, they were between her Clinton email.com account and his -- I don't know
where his account, his unclassified account, was maintained. So I'm sorry. So, yes, here were
communications unclassified between two accounts, hers and then his cover account.
Mr. Ratcliffe. ...Did your review of these emails or the content of these emails impact
your decision to edit out a reference to President Obama in your July 5th, 2016, press
conference remarks?
If Trump had done 1/1,000,000th of this crap, he'd be -- yes -- breaking rocks in
Leavenworth right now.
But there's no double-standard, rabble! Just keep buying iPhones and playing Call of Duty
!
...Aaaaaaaaand I'm spent.
Okay, done for now.
But let's recap the activities of Dr. "Higher Loyalty" Comey:
Did not investigate the felony leak to the press of the conversation between the Russian
Ambassador and Flynn.
Did not advise Congress of the "investigation" into Trump-Russia collusion as required by
statute.
Lied to the FISA court -- another felony -- about Carter Page being "an agent of a
foreign power".
Wrote an exoneration memo for Hillary Clinton before more than a dozen witnesses,
including Clinton herself, had been interviewed.
But, no, there's no double-standard for the aggressiveness of law enforcement when it comes
to Democrats like Clinton and Obama.
"... These intercepted communications provided the means to identify George Papadopoulos as a potential target. ..."
"... British intel was worried about Trump's stated positions in 2015 on Syria and NATO, which were inimical to British interests. ..."
"... Meanwhile, back in my country, Jim Clapper at DNI and John Brennan at CIA started to conspire against Trump. ..."
"... if I may add this also proves an imperial mindset. Anyone dangerous to the influence of the Imperium must destroyed. Right now primarily through Justizmord, but as things turn south (and they will) physically too. ..."
"... My apologies if I missed this in the article, but WHY do these US gov't agencies want to take Donald down? I didn't vote for him, but it seems like he is doing things the GOP wants. ..."
"... IMO they have sensed from the beginning that because of his egomania he would never be truly controllable. As TTG and I have stated before we would never have tried to recruit this man as an intelligence asset. To be worthwhile such an asset must be controllable. Trump is demonstrating now in the Syria matter that he is NOT controllable. He is likely to withdraw from Afghanistan in spite of the "counsel" of the generals' club and the waning influence over him of the neocons. With regard to Syria I think that Natanyahu has already abandoned regime change in Syria. The Russians are probably responsible for this. ..."
"... Excellent summary, Mr Johnson! It is extremely concerning that this information is known but no one has the balls to start nailing some people. I read that it is all about timing, release will be in response to demo atks, etc. I read that x number of sealed indictments are out there but no progress seems to be forthcoming. You are correct, no one is defending the Constitution, it is all personalized against trump, who seems to disengaged from the active fight. ..."
"... Chuck Schumer: "You take on the intelligence community, they have 6 ways from Sunday of getting back at you." Play Hide ..."
On the threshhold of the second anniversary of Donald Trump's inauguration, the details of
the coup to force him from the Presidency are emerging and should alarm all Americans
regardless of political party affiliation. Although many facts remain to be discovered, what
has emerged paints a shocking picture of criminal activity by FBI and CIA officials. That
explains in part why both agencies are going to great lengths to hide documents that provide
indisputable proof of their malfeasance.
When American law enforcement and officials, who carry Top Secret clearances and authority
to collect intelligence or pursue a criminal investigation, decide to employ lies and
intimidation to silence those who worked for Donald Trump's Presidency, our Republic is
endangered.
My interest is not in protecting or defending Donald Trump. I am talking about defending the
rule of law and ensuring that the Constitutional limitations on the powers of the Federal
Government are protected.
What evidence do I offer of the attempted coup? Here is what we know for certain:
Foreign
intelligence entities started collecting intelligence on Donald Trump and his associates in
2015. The names of more than 200 people connected to the Trump campaign listed in those reports
were unmasked by the Obama Administration. The FBI used two paid informants -- Christopher
Steele and Stefan Halper -- to target Trump and members of his team and coordinated this effort
with British MI-6 and the CIA. The FBI had additional informant with direct access to Trump who
specialized in targeting Russian spies and Russian mobsters. His name? Felix Sater. Yet, Sater
appears never to have been tasked to provide any incriminating information on Donald Trump.
Bill Priestrap, the FBI Assistant Director for Counter Intelligence since December 2015, relied
on Felix Sater in a major operation against Russian spies and then had oversight of the
investigation into Donald Trump. So far, no indictment has surfaced from Special Prosecutor
Mueller's efforts implicating Trump with the Russian government.
The operation against Donald Trump is pure and simple covert action. But it is covert action
on a massive scale and has involved coordinated actions between U.S. law enforcement, U.S.
intelligence agencies and foreign intelligence agencies, including both the British Government
and the Australian Government.
There are eight major components to this covert action. This is not a confirmed complete
list. More elements may surface in the coming days. But these are what we know for certain:
British and other foreign intelligence services were collecting on persons working with and
for Donald Trump. GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between
figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK
intelligence said. Thisintelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of
information, they added. Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western
agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians,
sources said. This "intelligence" was then used by the Obama Administration to "unmask"
Americans named in the intelligence who were working with Donald Trump. The European
countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included
Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, a member of the "Five Eyes" spying alliance that also
includes the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand, also relayed material, one source said. (Luke
Harding, Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Nick Hopkins Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US
agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015 Thu 13 Apr 2017 09.39 EDT, THE
GUARDIAN)
February/March 2016--George Popadopoulus was specifically targeted by a combined MI-6/CIA
operation. GCHQ started collecting on the Trump team in the summer of 2015. These
intercepted communications provided the means to identify George Papadopoulos as a potential
target. But this was more than a mere GCHQ routine collection. MI6 also was involved.
British intel was worried about Trump's stated positions in 2015 on Syria and NATO, which
were inimical to British interests.
Meanwhile, back in my country, Jim Clapper at DNI and John Brennan at CIA started to
conspire against Trump. They did not believe that Trump would be elected but still
decided to take steps to discredit him using the Russia meme. I have this solidly sourced. In
other words, US intel and British intel started working against Trump independently at the
outset. This effort subsequently was coordinated through the JIC. What is alarming is that
despite the targeting of Trump NO intel of any value on the Trump/Russian angle was ever
produced. I thank you for the excellent piece you did on Mifsud. Mifsud's "arrival" at the
London Center for International Law Practice (LCILP) was not, in my view, a mere coincidence.
Papadopoulos was then recruited, unwittingly, to join LCILP as part of a broader intel op
intended to compromise him as a Russian enthusiast.
May 6, 2016--DNC Computer supposedly was hacked by Russian government agents and an outside
firm, Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity firm that was brought in at the recommendation of Mark
Elias (the same attorney who had hired Fusion GPS) is on the record claiming it started
working in early May to counter the Russian threat. It was Crowdstrike, not the FBI, that
claimed in mid-June that the email theft from the DNC was carried out by Russian hackers.
However, the available forensic evidence clearly shows that the information was downloaded by
someone with access to the DNC computers. At no time was the FBI given forensic access to the
DNC computer to conduct an independent investigation.
A "retired" MI-6 officer, Christopher Steele, was hired by Fusion GPS (which had been
retained by a lawyer acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign) to assemble a "dossier" on
Trump and his relationship with Russia. However, turns out that Steele also was a fully
signed up FBI informant since 2013. He was fired in October 2016 by the FBI for leaking to
the media. Despite being funded by a political opponent of Trump, the dossier was a major
justification for seeking a FISA warrant against Carter Page, who was affiliated with the
Trump campaign. ( https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/14/russia-dossier-fbi-trump-obama-1066643
)
Summer 2016--Carter Page targeted by the FBI and collected on by NSA and CIA. Page had no
relationship with Trump other than being named as an advisor to a group of foreign policy
experts. He never met Trump and never spoke with Trump. But the Steele Dossier fingers Page
as playing a lead role in bringing Russian influence into the Trump campaign. This unproven
allegation the major impetus for obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page.
August/September 2016--FBI Informant Stefan Halper was used to try to entrap at least three
people associated with Donald Trump. Halper, the son-in-law of a retired famous CIA officers,
also was known to work with the CIA and MI-6 on other matters. In September Halper sought a
meeting with George Papadopoulus to pitch him on writing a policy paper for $3000 and then
traveling to London at Halper's expense. Towards the end of the meeting Halper asked
Papadopoulos: 'George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?'" Papadopoulus
denied any knowledge of such activity.
DNI Jim Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan both engaged in continuous leaks to feed the
meme that Trump was colluding with the Russians even though they knew they had no relevant
intelligence to support their claims. They engaged in a deliberate covert information
operation to poison the media against Trump. A retired FBI agent writing in the Wall Street
Journal noted that, "Robert Hannigan, then head of Britain's Government Communications
Headquarters, to pass information to Mr. Brennan. With only these suspicions, Mr. Brennan
pressured the FBI into launching its counterintelligence probe."
The FBI had an informant with expertise about the Russians planted inside the Trump
organization since 2003, but apparently did not use him. FBI Informant Felix Sater, who
started working with the Trump organization since 2003 and a boyhood friend of Trump's
lawyer, Michael Cohen, had worked with the FBI in making several cases against Russian
intelligence officers and Russian mobsters. Yet, during the 12 years he worked with the Trump
organization, not a single indictment was ever brought against Trump or his employees prior
to the start of his campaign for President. Even though Sater played a key role in the failed
Moscow project, his role with the FBI only involved providing evidence that Michael Cohen
lied to the Senate about the project.
The effort to destroy Donald Trump remains active. Trump, unfortunately, is proving to be
quite feckless in defying this threat and protecting himself. But this should not be about
protecting Trump and his reputation. This goes to something more profound and fundamental --
are those charged with collecting foreign intelligence and investigating crime permitted to act
with impunity against someone they define as a political foe. Such actions and attitudes
reflect an authoritarian government, not a Republic.
Likbez
An excellent narrative of this special operation. I would call it a color resolution against
Trump, as methods are the same. Thank you.
In other words, US and British intelligence started
working closely against Trump very early. May be from the very beginning.
The role of the British Intelligence here deserves more attention. I think you are right that
pursuing UK geopolitical interests (which are similar to US neocons) required derailing of Trump
and that's why they jumped into action. It might be that the idea to hire Steele by Fusion GPS was
injected from overseas.
They also might well push the Brennan faction of CIA into action by feeding his faction the
required disinfo. And Brennan required very little pushing, if any at all.
In this sense DNC "post-hack" investigation looks more and more like a false flag operation
were Crowstrike people were patsies in a bigger game assigned a predetermined task.
The Eastern timezone setting found in Guccifer 2's documents published on July 6, 2016 is
significant, because as we showed in Guccifer 2.0 NGP/Van Metadata Analysis, Guccifer 2 was likely
on the East Coast the previous day, when he collected the DNC-related files found in the ngpvan.7z
Zip file. Also, recall that Guccifer 2 was likely on the East Coast a couple of months later on
September 1, 2016 when he built the final ngpvan.7z file.
There are four additional episodes that can be added to the provided outline:
Michael Rogers intervention to save Trump transition team from surveillance in the Trump
tower and subsequent attempt by Brennan and Co. to fire him.
A very interesting and unexplainable episode is Avan brothers and their connection to Debbie
Wassermann. Theoretically that provided Debbie capability of conduct her own false flag operation.
It is clear that nobody wants to prosecute them. But why ?
The "insurance" folder on Wiener laptop (and probably some other interesting dat on it) and
Comey treatment of this information: https://www.theamericancons...
if I may add this also proves an imperial mindset. Anyone dangerous to the influence of
the Imperium must destroyed. Right now primarily through Justizmord, but as things turn south
(and they will) physically too.
You say: I am talking about defending the rule of law and ensuring that the Constitutional
limitations on the powers of the Federal Government are protected... And I can tell you with
absolute certainty that the US government has engaged in extrajudicial political
assassinations with total impunity, and this is repulsive way beyond what you outlined
here...
Trump is a criminal and has been all his adult life. He's been a liar since he was old enough
to tell a lie. Maybe no more or more less than others; the difference being dumb enough to
expose himself by running for the presidency and getting caught. It's on him.
My apologies if I missed this in the article, but WHY do these US gov't agencies want to take
Donald down? I didn't vote for him, but it seems like he is doing things the GOP wants. And I
was aware even before he ran for office that his past business dealings were shady. Are these
agencies going to try to bring him down using his past business dealings poss. involving the
Russians? Also, what does Mueller get out of this situation? Not a troll, just someone with
an OPEN mind.
IMO they have sensed from the beginning that because of his egomania he would never be truly
controllable. As TTG and I have stated before we would never have tried to recruit this man
as an intelligence asset. To be worthwhile such an asset must be controllable. Trump is
demonstrating now in the Syria matter that he is NOT controllable. He is likely to withdraw
from Afghanistan in spite of the "counsel" of the generals' club and the waning influence
over him of the neocons. With regard to Syria I think that Natanyahu has already abandoned
regime change in Syria. The Russians are probably responsible for this.
Bad: The "deep state" exists and will do whatever it takes to preserve its self-important and
self-enriching place in the Imperial City (the swamp).
Good :The "deep state" is composed mainly of inept blunderers, bureaucratic drones.
My favorite example is Strzok - the FBI "star" - who carried on his "plotting" (and adultery)
through texting on a government phone which apparently this "star" didn't know was being
archived.
Could this dimwit spell "OPSEC?"
As for Trump, two things:
The Clinton crime family is not in the WH.
Two Supreme Court Justices NOT appointed by a Democrat.
Excellent summary, Mr Johnson! It is extremely concerning that this information is known but no one has the balls to
start nailing some people. I read that it is all about timing, release will be in response to
demo atks, etc. I read that x number of sealed indictments are out there but no progress
seems to be forthcoming. You are correct, no one is defending the Constitution, it is all personalized against
trump, who seems to disengaged from the active fight.
Then there is the business of Q, whatever the hell that means-we read, trust the plan,
trust Sessions, trust Rod, trust Mueller. This may be counter productive to the 4th level of
chess but it seems like it is about time to haul some of these bastards off in a perp
walk.
Flynn "treason" is not related to Russia probe and just confirm that Nueller in engaged in witch hunt.
I believe half of Senate and House of Representative might go to jail if they were dug with the ferocity Mueller digs Flynn's past.
So while Flynn behavior as Turkey lobbyist (BTW Turkey is a NATO country and not that different int his sense from the US -- and you
can name a lot of UK lobbyists in high echelons of the US government, starting with McCabe and Strzok) is reprehensible, this is still a witch hunt
When American law enforcement and intelligence officials, who carry Top Secret clearances and authority to collect intelligence
or pursue a criminal investigation, decide to employ lies and intimidation to silence or intimidates those who worked for Donald
Trump's Presidency, we see shadow of Comrage Stalin Great Terror Trials over the USA.
Former U.S. national security adviser Michael Flynn passes by members of the
media as he departs after his sentencing was delayed at U.S. District Court in
Washington, U.S., December 18, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
By Jan Wolfe and Ginger Gibson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge fiercely criticized President Donald
Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn on Tuesday for lying to
FBI agents in a probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and
delayed sentencing him until Flynn has finished helping prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan told Flynn, a retired U.S. Army
lieutenant general and former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
that he had arguably betrayed his country. Sullivan also noted that Flynn had
operated as an undeclared lobbyist for Turkey even as he worked on Trump's
campaign team and prepared to be his White House national security adviser.
Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about his December 2016
conversations with Sergei Kislyak, then Russia's ambassador in Washington,
about U.S. sanctions imposed on Moscow by the administration of Trump's
Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, after Trump's election victory but before
he took office.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, leading the investigation into possible
collusion between Trump's campaign team and Russia ahead of the election, had
asked the judge not to sentence Flynn to prison because he had already
provided "substantial" cooperation over the course of many interviews.
But Sullivan sternly told Flynn his actions were abhorrent, noting that
Flynn had also lied to senior White House officials, who in turn misled the
public. The judge said he had read additional facts about Flynn's behavior
that have not been made public.
At one point, Sullivan asked prosecutors if Flynn could have been charged
with treason, although the judge later said he had not been suggesting such a
charge was warranted.
"Arguably, you sold your country out," Sullivan told Flynn. "I'm not hiding
my disgust, my disdain for this criminal offense."
Flynn, dressed in a suit and tie, showed little emotion throughout the
hearing, and spoke calmly when he confirmed his guilty plea and answered
questions from the judge.
Sullivan appeared ready to sentence Flynn to prison but then gave him the
option of a delay in his sentencing so he could fully cooperate with any
pending investigations and bolster his case for leniency. The judge told Flynn
he could not promise that he would not eventually sentence him to serve prison
time.
Flynn accepted that offer. Sullivan did not set a new date for sentencing
but asked Mueller's team and Flynn's attorney to give him a status report by
March 13.
Prosecutors said Flynn already had provided most of the cooperation he
could, but it was possible he might be able to help investigators further.
Flynn's attorney said his client is cooperating with federal prosecutors in a
case against Bijan Rafiekian, his former business partner who has been charged
with unregistered lobbying for Turkey.
Rafiekian pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to those charges in federal court
in Alexandria, Virginia. His trial is scheduled for Feb. 11. Flynn is
expected to testify.
Prosecutors have said Rafiekian and Flynn lobbied to
have Washington extradite a Muslim cleric who lives in the United States
and is accused by Turkey's government of backing a 2016 coup attempt. Flynn
has not been charged in that case.
'LOCK HER UP!'
Flynn was a high-profile adviser to Trump's campaign team. At the
Republican Party's national convention in 2016, Flynn led Trump's
supporters in cries of "Lock her up!" directed against Democratic candidate
Hillary Clinton.
A group of protesters, including some who chanted "Lock him up,"
gathered outside the courthouse on Tuesday, along with a large inflatable
rat fashioned to look like Trump. Several Flynn supporters also were there,
cheering as he entered and exited. One held a sign that read, "Michael
Flynn is a hero."
Flynn became national security adviser when Trump took office in January
2017, but lasted only 24 days before being fired.
He told FBI investigators on Jan. 24, 2017, that he had not discussed
the U.S. sanctions with Kislyak when in fact he had, according to his plea
agreement. Trump has said he fired Flynn because he also lied to Vice
President Mike Pence about the contacts with Kislyak.
Trump has said Flynn did not break the law and has voiced support for
him, raising speculation the Republican president might pardon him.
"Good luck today in court to General Michael Flynn. Will be interesting
to see what he has to say, despite tremendous pressure being put on him,
about Russian Collusion in our great and, obviously, highly successful
political campaign. There was no Collusion!" Trump wrote on Twitter on
Tuesday morning.
After the hearing, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters
the FBI had "ambushed" Flynn in the way agents questioned him, but said his
"activities" at the center of the case "don't have anything to do with the
president" and disputed that Flynn had committed treason.
"We wish General Flynn well," Sanders said.
In contrast, Trump has called his former long-time personal lawyer
Michael Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to separate charges, a "rat."
Mueller's investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election and
whether Trump has unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe has cast a shadow
over his presidency. Several former Trump aides have pleaded guilty in
Mueller's probe, but Flynn was the first former Trump White House official
to do so. Mueller also has charged a series of Russian individuals and
entities.
Trump has called Mueller's investigation a "witch hunt" and has denied
collusion with Moscow.
Russia has denied meddling in the election, contrary to the conclusion
of U.S. intelligence agencies that have said Moscow used hacking and
propaganda to try to sow discord in the United States and boost Trump's
chances against Clinton.
Lying to the FBI carries a statutory maximum sentence of five years in
prison. Flynn's plea agreement stated that he was eligible for a sentence
of between zero and six months.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Ginger
Gibson; Additional reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Kieran Murray and
Will Dunham)
Matt o'Brien and Barbara Ortutay, AP Technology Writers
,
Associated Press
•
December
17, 2018
<img alt="Key takeaways from new reports on Russian disinformation" src="https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/9VGA29inJ83dPeqC.cvqTg--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2lsPXBsYW5l/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/images/US_AHTTP_AP_HEADLINES_BUSINESS/e66de17c8e1a4cecaf1da81f2bf87093_original.jpg" itemprop="url"/>
Some suspected Russian-backed fake social media accounts on Facebook.
Russians seeking to influence U.S. elections through social media had their
eyes on Instagram and the black community.
These were among the findings in two reports released Monday by the Senate
intelligence committee. Separate studies from University of Oxford researchers
and the cybersecurity firm New Knowledge reveal insights into how Russian
agents sought to influence Americans by saturating their favorite online
services and apps with hidden propaganda.
Here are the highlights:
INSTAGRAM'S "MEME WARFARE"
Both reports show that misinformation on Facebook's Instagram may have had
broader reach than the interference on Facebook itself.
The New Knowledge study says that since 2015, the Instagram posts generated
187 million engagements, such as comments or likes, compared with 77 million
on Facebook.
And the barrage of image-centric Instagram "memes" has only grown since the
2016 election. Russian agents shifted their focus to Instagram after the
public last year became aware of the widespread manipulation on Facebook and
Twitter.
NOT JUST ADS
Revelations last year that Russian agents used rubles to pay for some of their
propaganda ads drew attention to how gullible tech companies were in allowing
their services to be manipulated.
But neither ads nor automated "bots" were as effective as unpaid posts
hand-crafted by human agents pretending to be Americans. Such posts were more
likely to be shared and commented on, and they rose in volume during key dates
in U.S. politics such as during the presidential debates in 2016 or after the
Obama administration's post-election announcement that it would investigate
Russian hacking.
"These personalized messages exposed U.S. users to a wide range of
disinformation and junk news linked to on external websites, including content
designed to elicit outrage and cynicism," says the report by Oxford
researchers, who worked with social media analysis firm Graphika.
DEMOGRAPHIC TARGETING
Both reports found that Russian agents tried to polarize Americans in part by
targeting African-American communities extensively. They did so by campaigning
for black voters to boycott elections or follow the wrong voting procedures in
2016, according to the Oxford report.
The New Knowledge report added that agents were "developing Black audiences
and recruiting Black Americans as assets" beyond how they were targeting
either left- or right-leaning voters.
The reports also support previous findings that the influence operations
sought to polarize Americans by sowing political divisions on issues such as
immigration and cultural and religious identities. The goal, according to the
New Knowledge report, was to "create and reinforce tribalism within each
targeted community."
Such efforts extended to Google-owned YouTube, despite Google's earlier
assertion to Congress that Russian-made videos didn't target specific segments
of the population.
PINTEREST TO POKEMON
The New Knowledge report says the Russian troll operation worked in many ways
like a conventional corporate branding campaign, using a variety of different
technology services to deliver the same messages to different groups of
people.
Among the sites infiltrated with propaganda were popular image-heavy services
like Pinterest and Tumblr, chatty forums like Reddit, and a wonky geopolitics
blog promoted from Russian-run accounts on Facebook and YouTube.
Even the silly smartphone game "Pokemon Go" wasn't immune. A Tumblr post
encouraged players to name their Pokemon character after a victim of police
brutality.
WHAT NOW?
Both reports warn that some of these influence campaigns are ongoing.
The Oxford researchers note that 2016 and 2017 saw "significant efforts" to
disrupt elections around the world not just by Russia, but by domestic
political parties spreading disinformation.
They warn that online propaganda represents a threat to democracies and public
life. They urge social media companies to share data with the public far more
broadly than they have so far.
"Protecting our democracies now means setting the rules of fair play before
voting day, not after," the Oxford report says.
4 hours
ago
so where's the evidence that Russian
facebook or twitter posts changed a single vote?
"... christophere steele admitted before a british court today that he was hired by the clintons/obama/DNC to make up the dossier as a weapon to use against trump as a backup plan in case he won the election.. this proves the DNC lied, paid for a fake dossier, and comey admitted he knew the fake dossier was false before using it to get a FISC warrant and to spy on trump, which was used as an excuse for the mueller investigation.. yahoo news and leftwing media arent covering the story.. educate yourselves ..."
1 hour ago
When I read articles like this I look to see who wrote it, printed it etc. When I see
Bloomberg, Yahoo, HuffPo I approach it as fake news. Now I no longer watch any of Fox news
as they are fast becoming just like the rest of the propaganda outlets. This is just
inflammatory anti Trump drivel with no basis in fact.
O 1 hour
ago Was this the interview report that was written 7 months after the interview?
R 44 minutes ago
Actually this story is not accurate. Mueller released copies of the 302 memos, which are in
effect official documentation to a case file. The 302 was dated seven months after the
interview, when the FBI policy requires such reports to be filed within five days. The
judge will ask tomorrow for copies of agent's contemporaneous interview notes and any other
documents supporting what is written in the 302, as well as an explanation for the delay in
filing the memo. 1
hour ago You mean the notes the FBI, in the person of one Peter Strzok, (yes that Strozk)
made seven months after he was interviewed? with the required 302 documents that are either
to be taken extemporaneously or done within days of the interview being dated months later?
You mean those notes?!!!! Nice try Bloomberg, but no amount of yellow journalism spin will
stop this case from being thrown out! 15 minutes ago christophere steele
admitted before a british court today that he was hired by the clintons/obama/DNC to make
up the dossier as a weapon to use against trump as a backup plan in case he won the
election.. this proves the DNC lied, paid for a fake dossier, and comey admitted he knew
the fake dossier was false before using it to get a FISC warrant and to spy on trump, which
was used as an excuse for the mueller investigation.. yahoo news and leftwing media arent
covering the story.. educate yourselves 1 hour ago Not so bias garbage news .. they
entrapped him what 302 form you want to go with .. FBI doctored the original.. FBI
curuption runs rampant.. comey lied so much about knowing about fake dossier.. then what
the hell was he doing.. comey the tall guy phony
On Friday, 14 December 2018, the office of "special counsel" Robert Mueller filed a reply to Gen. Michael Flynn's sentencing
memorandum by the court's deadline, as noted on the court clerk's docket sheet--
"12/14/2018 56 REPLY by USA as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN to Defendant's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing (Attachments: # 1 Attachment
A, # 2 Attachment B)(Van Grack, Brandon) (Entered: 12/14/2018)".
Judge Emmet Sullivan in an order on 12 December stated: "In 50 defendant's memorandum in aid of sentencing, the
defendant quotes and cites a 'Memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2017.' See page 8 n. 21, 22. The defendant also quotes and cites a 'FD-302
dated Aug. 22, 2017.' See page 9 n. 23-27. The defendant is ORDERED to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and FD-302.
The Court further ORDERS the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on
pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2018."
In response to Judge Sullivan's order, the Mueller group attached to its reply memo two noticeably blacked out (redacted) documents,
which turned out to be the same ones that were referred to in Flynn's memo raising the issue of FBI conduct surrounding his interview,
and were nothing additional or new!
The government's reply and two documents that were filed are here--
The two redacted documents are the "January 24, 2017" memo and the "FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017", which were cited in the court's
order and which Flynn's lawyers apparently already had, or knew what they were about. Judge Sullivan ordered the Mueller
group to produce "any 302s or memoranda relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9
of the defendant's sentencing memorandum", not just the two that were already known [emphasis added]. The "Attachment B"
is not the form 302 by an agent who interviewed Flynn on 24 January 2017, but rather is a 302 report by an unknown person of an
interview of now former FBI agent Peter Strzok on 20 July 2017, in which Strzok allegedly talks about some things that happened
on 24 January.
Unless the "special counsel" filed a complete set of unredacted documents with a motion (request) for leave to file them under
seal, the reply is on its face a violation of the court's disclosure order.
As 'blue peacock' said in a comment to the posting
on this issue of 14 December, it will be interesting to see what Judge Sullivan does about the response by the Mueller group.
Both documents are heavily blacked out. The form 302 does include the language that the agents at the Flynn interview
"had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying". Since this had already been
revealed in news and mass media reports, they basically had to disclose that little part, otherwise it probably would have
been redacted as well.
On the bottom right corner of each page is a number, which is usually referred to as a "Bates stamp", after the name of
the numbering machines that are often used to number and identify documents that are produced in a lawsuit [1]. The pages
on the form 302 are numbered DOJSCO-700021201 to 05. The one-page typed paper (Attachment A) has number DOJSCO-700021215.
There are nine pages between those pages, but what those might be is not disclosed.
The Justice Department, FBI, and other federal departments are capable of trying to play semantic word games with requests
for information, such that if the exact name or abbreviation of the document or class of documents is not requested, they will
leave them out of their response. In this instance, the judge asked for "any 302s or memoranda" relevant to the circumstances.
The FBI has guidelines about the different types of records it keeps and they can have different names, such as LHM (letterhead
memorandum), EC (electronic communication), original note material, the FD-302, and so forth. There are also different
types of files and records systems. Thus, there may be some ducking and dodging of the court's order on the theory that
the exact types of records were not in the order.
Documents and records may also be generated when any investigative activity is started or requires approval, such as an
assessment, preliminary investigation, or a full investigation. Furthermore, an interesting issue is the type of authorized
activity the Flynn interview was part of: an assessment, preliminary investigation, or full investigation. Although
it is significantly redacted (in this instance whited out instead of blacked out), the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations
Guide contains some useful information for trying to figure out what is going on with this issue [2].
If this problem with disclosure is not bad enough, on 11 December the Justice Department Inspector General (OIG) issued
a report with the bland title, "Report of Investigation: Recovery of Text Messages from Certain FBI Mobile Devices"-- https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/i-2018-003523.pdf
The OIG investigation began when it was discovered that there was a "gap in text message data collection during the period
December 15, 2016, through May 17, 2017, from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mobile devices assigned to FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page relevant to a matter being investigated by the OIG's Oversight and Review Division". Those
names are familiar. Thousands of the text messages were recovered.
In addition, the report states: "In view of the content of many of the text messages between Strzok and Page, the
OIG also asked the Special Counsel's Office (SCO) to provide to the OIG the DOJ issued iPhones that had been assigned to Strzok
and Page during their respective assignments to the SCO".
The result? After Strzok was forced to leave the special counsel's office, his iPhone was given to another FBI agent
and reset, wiping out the data. The Mueller group's "records officer" told the inspector general's office that "as part
of the office's records retention procedure, the officer reviewed Strzok's DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO
and determined it contained no substantive text messages". In other words, after the Strzok and Page scandal erupted
because of text messages while Strzok was at the special counsel's office, the Mueller group decided itself that his other
cellular phone issued to him by the Department of Justice for the special counsel's office had no "substantive" messages on
it.
Strzok's paramour, Lisa Page, also had an iPhone issued to her by the Justice Department while she was at the special counsel's
office. The Mueller group said it could not find her phone, but it eventually was located at the DOJ's Justice Management
Division. It had been reset, wiping out the data, on 31 July 2017.
"...the officer reviewed Strzok's DOJ issued iPhone after he returned it to the SCO and determined it contained no substantive
text messages"..."
So what is the officer's name, what criterea was used in the review and just what relationship to the extended cast of characters
does this individual have?
It seems to me that this is very big news. Can it be that the Straight Arrow is bent, after all? This is amazing. There is
an article in the Daily Caller: "Powell: New Facts Indicate Mueller Destroyed Evidence..."
dailycaller.com/2018/12/16/...
As a former/retired Agent, I have combed through every piece of information regarding Mike's case, as if I was combing through
evidence in the hundreds of cases I have successfully handled while in the FBI.
The publicly reported Brady material alone, in this case, outweighs any statement given by any FBI Agent (we now know
at least one FD-302 was changed), Special Prosecutor investigator report, and any other party still aggressively seeking
that this case remain and be sentenced as a felony. Quite simply, I cannot see justice being served by branding LtG. Michael
Flynn a convicted felon, when the truth is still being revealed while policies, ethics, and laws have been violated by those
pursuing this case.
We now know all FBI employees involved in Mike Flynn's case have either been fired, forced to resign or forced to retire
because of their excessive lack of candor, punitive biases, leaking of information, and extensive cover-up of their deeds.
Michael Flynn has always displayed overwhelming candor and forthrightness.
Trump never ceases to crack me up. While his (terrible) current lawyer, declares on TV
that there was collusion but it just didn't last long, Trump calls his former lawyer/fixer at
"Rat".
This is just too funny, I mean this is the President of the United States calling his
former personal lawyer a "Rat" which of course is a common mob term for a witness testifying
against you.
Of course it never happened, just like Manafort didn't make 3 trips to London to meet
Julian Assange. These fictions were just used as a pretext for diving into the backgrounds of
Trump's political supporters and find crimes to charge them with.
The Cohen raid was particularly egregious, a likely violation of attorney-client
privilege. Not suprisingly the American Bar Association is silent.
So, Manafort never laundered money and failed to report taxes? Did Flynn never fail to
report his work as a foreign agent? Did he also not report income taxes?
Look at all these poor crooks, unfairly being prosecuted for cheating and stealing.
All that could have been prosecuted by a district attorney. They looked at all of
Manafort's dealings 10 years ago and passed because he was working with the Podesta Group at
the time and thus protected by Hillary Clinton's influence.
Corsi, the former Washington bureau chief of Alex Jones' controversial site, InfoWars, filed
a lawsuit on Sunday which claims that special counsel Robert Mueller threatened him with prison
unless he agreed to falsely confess to being a liaison between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
and Republican political strategist Roger Stone, who was an adviser to Trump's presidential
campaign.
The suit, which seeks $100 million in actual damages and $250 million in punitive damages,
also accuses the FBI, CIA and NSA of having placed Corsi under illegal surveillance "at the
direction of Mueller."
"... Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation program !!! ..."
"... the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global elites? ..."
"... Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they are fighting the commies. ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... From his curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth. ..."
"... He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's Stabilisation Unit which is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI). ..."
"... This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine. ..."
"... That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia" ..."
"... In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested Military measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea: ..."
"... Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia? ..."
"... Yes, Putin really believes his own propaganda ..."
"... Putin's paranoia is driving his foreign adventures ..."
"... Russian information warfare - airbrushing reality ..."
"... Distract, deceive, destroy: Putin at war in Syria ..."
"... Russian penetration in Germany ..."
"... Russian conspiracy theory and foreign policy ..."
"... The most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the Initiative commissioned such research (pdf) and paid for it. ..."
"... Here is an interesting look at how little the Russia-linked entities spent on advertising on Google during the 2016 election: https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/12/google-russia-and-4700-in-advertising.html Slowly but surely, the Russian meddling narrative is falling apart. ..."
"... McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow vest protesters. ..."
"... Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would have responded with force. ..."
"... It looks like one of the decision was to get closer to France (after getting very close friends in Homs and Aleppo?) See the list of people in the French II cluster dumped yesterday by Anonymous: half the names work at the fr Min of F Affairs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_House_Treaties and http://www.gmfus.org/publications/frances-defense-partnerships-and-dilemmas-brexit ..."
"... This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state. ..."
"... it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy. ..."
"... It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes fascism. ..."
"... Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art. ..."
"... Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller? ..."
"... Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. " Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11, with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians. ..."
"... Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM ..."
"... The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism (Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque (less defensible) reasons and missions. ..."
"... right after 2016 US elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation. Seems that veil has been dispensed with ..."
"... Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking, setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry. That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise of free markets and democracy. ..."
"... 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation Designed To Create A New Enemy ..."
Sounds to me like that Integrity initiative dude needs to go on a 'de-radicalisation
program !!! How many billions is that guna save us all ! not to mention lives saved.
Wrong JR. It seems quite the obvious that the big boy in the west, the US, would seem to be
the one spearheading the whole globalist agenda.
But this is a retarded proposition.
The US is nothing more than a Golem. It has been reduced to somnambulism and hijacked,
utilized for the ends of these Non-National elites. Sure, like many posters here, it feels good
to blame the US for everything. But the powerbrokers have always been in London and now its
hypercentralized endgame in Brussels. You can say that it is the US through and through, but
ask yourself who has more to gain from US FP abroad: average Americans or the global
elites?
Those former-Eastern Bloc countries, i.e. Poland and Ukraine, do not count as power
brokers. They have and will always be pawns in the game. So what if they still worship Icons of
Americanism which is a remnant culture of their F*ed up narrative where they still believe they
are fighting the commies.
Muntadhar al-Zaidi was arrested and tortured for it...
"They broke my teeth, my nose, my leg, they electrocuted me, lashed me, they would beat me,
they even broke a table or a chair over my back. I don't know, they had my eyes covered,"
al-Zaidi recalled. "This was one thing I never experienced before. Torture by the
authorities, by the rule of law."
I wish it had been a hand grenade.
The British government financed Integrity Initiative is tasked with spreading
anti-Russian propaganda and with influencing the public, military and governments of a number
of countries. What follows is an incomplete analysis of the third batch of the Initiative's
papers which was
dumped yesterday.
Christopher Nigel Donnelly (CND) is the co-director of The Institute for Statecraft and founder of its offshoot
Integrity Initiative . The
Initiative claims to "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation".
Both, the Institute as well as the Initiative, claim to be independent Non-Government
Organizations. Both are financed by the British government, NATO and other state donors.
Among the documents
lifted by some anonymous person from the servers of the Institute we find several papers
about Donnelly as well as some memos written by him. They show a russophobe mind with a lack of
realistic strategic thought.
There is also
a file (pdf) with a copy of his passport:
From his
curriculum vitae (pdf) we learn that Donnelly was a long time soldier in the British Army
Intelligence Corps where he established and led the Soviet Studies Research Centre at RMA
Sandhurst. He later was involved in creating the US Army's Foreign Military Studies Office
(FMSO) at Ft. Leavenworth.
He worked at the British Ministry of Defence and as an advisor to several Secretaries
General of NATO. He is a director of the Statecraft Institute since 2010. Donnelly also advises
the Foreign Minister of Lithuania. He is a "Security and Justice Senior Mentor" of the UK's
Stabilisation Unit which
is tasked with destabilizing various countries. He serves as a Honorary Colonel of the
Specialist Group Military Intelligence (SGMI).
During his time as military intelligence analyst in the 1980s Donnelly wrote several books
and papers about the Soviet Union and its military.
Our problem is that, for the last 70 years or so, we in the UK and Europe have been living in
a safe, secure rules-based system which has allowed us to enjoy a holiday from history.
... ... ...
Unfortunately, this state of affairs is now being challenged. A new paradigm of conflict
is replacing the 19th & 20th Century paradigm.
... ... ...
In this new paradigm, the clear distinction which most people have been able to draw
between war and peace, their expectation of stability and a degree of predictability in life,
are being replaced by a volatile unpredictability, a permanent state of instability in which
war and peace become ever more difficult to disentangle . The "classic" understanding of
conflict being between two distinct players or groups of players is giving way to a world of
Darwinian competition where all the players – nation states, sub-state actors, big
corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and so on – are constantly striving with each
other in a "war of all against all". The Western rules-based system, which most westerners
take for granted and have come to believe is "normal", is under attack from countries and
organisations which wish to replace our system with theirs. This is not a crisis which faces
us; it is a strategic challenge, and from several directions simultaneously.
In reality the "Western rules-based system", fully implemented after the demise of the
Soviet Union, is a concept under which 'the west' arbitrarily makes up rules and threatens to
kill anyone who does not follow them. Witness the wars against Serbia, the war on Iraq, the
destruction of Libya, the western led coup in Ukraine and the war by Jihadi proxies against the
people of Syria and Iraq. None of these actions were legal under international law. Demanding a
return to strict adherence to the rule of international law, as Russia,
China and others now do, it is not an attempt to replace "our system with theirs". It is a
return to the normal state of global diplomacy. It is certainly not a "Darwinian
competition".
In October 2016 Donnelly had a Private
Discussion with Gen Sir Richard Barrons (pdf), marked as personal and confidential. Barrons
is a former commander of the British Joint Forces Command. The nonsensical top line is: "The UK
defence model is failing. UK is at real risk."
Some interesting nuggets again reveal a paranoid mindset. The talk also includes some
realistic truthiness about the British military posture Barrons and others created:
There has been a progressive, systemic demobilisation of NATO militarily capability and a run
down of all its members' defences
...
We are seeing new / reinvented ways of warfare – hybrid , plus the reassertion of hard
power in warfare
...
Aircraft Carriers can be useful for lots of things, but not for war v China or Russia, so we
should equip them accordingly. ...
The West no longer has a military edge on Russia. ...
Our Nuclear programme drains resources from conventional forces and hollows them out. ...
The UK Brigade in Germany is no good as a deterrent against Russia. ...
Our battalion in Estonia are hostages, not a deterrent. ...
The general laments the lack of influence the military has on the British government and its
people. He argues for more government financed think tank research that can be fed back into
the government:
So, if no catastrophe happens to wake people up and demand a response, then we need to find a
way to get the core of government to realise the problem and take it out of the political
space. We will need to impose changes over the heads of vested interests. NB We did this in
the 1930s
My conclusion is that it is we who must either generate the debate or wait for something
dreadful to happen to shock us into action. We must generate an independent debate outside
government .
...
We need to ask when and how do we start to put all this right? Do we have the national
capabilities / capacities to fix it? If so, how do we improve our harnessing of resources to
do it? We need this debate NOW. There is not a moment to be lost.
This was an order from the core of the British thinking to Donnelly to get even deeper
into the inner-British influence business. Hype Russia as a threat so more money can be taken
from the 'vested interests' of the people and dumped into the military machine.
That particular advise of General Barrons was accepted. In 2017 the Integrity Initiative
bid for funding from the Ministry of Defence (pdf) for various projects to influence the
public, the parliament and the government as well as foreign forces. The bid lists "performance
indicators" that are supposed to measure the success of its activities. The top indicator for
the Initiative's proposed work is a "Tougher stance in government policy towards Russia"
.
Asking for government finance to influence the government to take a "tougher stand towards
Russia" seems a bit circular. But this is consistent with the operation of other Anglo-American
think tanks and policy initiatives in which one part of the government, usually the hawkish
one, secretly uses NGO's and think-tanks to lobby other parts of the government to support
their specific hobbyhorse and budget.
Here is how it is done. The 'experts' of the 'charity' Institute for Statecraft and
Integrity Initiative
testified
in the British parliament. While they were effectively paid by the government they lobbied
parliament under the cover of their NGO. This circularity also allows to use international
intermediates. Members of the Spanish cluster
(pdf) of the Initiative
testified in the British Parliament about the Catalan referendum and related allegations
against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. (It is likely that this testimony led to the change
in the position of the Ecuadorian government towards Assange.)
Unfortunately, or luckily, such lobbying operations are mostly run by people who are
incompetent in the specific field they are lobbying for. Chris Donnelly, despite a life long
experience in military intelligence, has obviously zero competence as a military strategist or
planner.
In March 2014, shortly after Crimea split from the Ukraine, Donnelly suggested
Military
measures (pdf) to be taken by the Ukraine with regards to Crimea:
If I were in charge I would get the following implemented asp
Set up a cordon sanitaire across the Crimean Isthmus and on the coast N. of Crimea with
troops and mines
Mine Sevastopol harbour/bay. Can be done easily using a car ferry if they have no
minelayers. Doesn't need a lot of mines to be effective. They could easily buy some
mines.
Get their air force into the air and activate all their air defences. If they can't fly
the Migs on the airfield in Crimea those should be destroyed as a gesture that they are
serious. Going "live" electronically will worry the Russians as the Ukrainians have the
same electronic kit. If the Russians jam it they jam their own kit as well.
Ukraine used to have some seriously important weapons, such as a big microwave
anti-satellite weapon. If they still have this, they should use it.
The government needs a Strategic communication campaign-so far everything is coming
from Moscow. They need to articulate a long-term vision that will inspire the people,
however hard that is to do. Without it, what have people to fight for?
They should ask the west now to start supplying Oil and gas. There is plenty available
due to the mild winter.
I am trying to get this message across
Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of Sevastopol harbor, the
frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in Crimea. Those "guestures"
would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear power which were legally
stationed in Crimea. And how was the west to immediately supply gas to Ukraine and Ukraine's
pipeline network is designed to unidirectionally receive gas from Russia?
Such half-assed thinking is typical for the Institute and its creation of propaganda. One of
its employees/contractors is Hugh Benedict Nimmo who the Initiative paid to produce
anti-Russian propaganda that was then disseminated through various western publications.
According to the (still very incomplete) Initiative files Ben Nimmo
received a monthly consultancy fee of £2.500 between December 2015 and March 2016. In
August 2016 he sent an invoice
(pdf) of £5,000 for his "August work on Integrity Initiative". A
Production Timetable (pdf) for March to June 2016 lists the following Nimmo outputs and
activities:
17 March Atlantic Council: Yes, Putin really believes his own propaganda , Ben
Nimmo
21 March Newsweek: Putin's paranoia is driving his foreign adventures , Ben
Nimmo
22 March, UK House of Commons: Russian information warfare - airbrushing
reality , Jonathan Eyal and Ben Nimmo
Mid May: Atlantic Council: Distract, deceive, destroy: Putin at war in Syria .
Ben Nimmo et al (Major study)
Early May timeframe: Russian penetration in Germany , Harold Elletson, Ben
Nimmo et al - 10,000 words
June timeframe: Atlantic Council, major report on Russian conspiracy theory and
foreign policy , Ben Nimmo (potential launch events in London and / or
Washington)
End-June: Mapping Russia's whole influence machine , Ben Nimmo - 10,000
words
One wonders how often Ben Nimmo double billed his various sponsors for these copy-paste
fantasy pamphlets.
In late 2017 Ben Nimmo and Guardian 'journalist' Carole Cadwalladr disseminated
allegations that Russia used Facebook ads to influence the Brexit decision. Cadwalladr even
received a price for her work. Unfortunately the price was not revoked when Facebook revealed
that "Russia linked" accounts had spend a total of 97 cents on Brexit ads. It is unexplained
how that was enough to achieve their alleged aim.
Cadwalladr is listed
as a speaker (pdf) at a "skill sharing" conference the Institute organized for November 1-2
under the headline: "Tackling Tools of Malign Influence - Supporting 21st Century
Journalism".
This year Ben Nimmo became notorious for claiming that
several real persons with individual opinions were "Russian trolls". As we
noted :
Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is
a Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian
troll' accounts:
One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then
retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account
joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.
Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have
know that @ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous
American- Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans
in Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide
performances on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a
'Russian troll' and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll'
opinions.
The
Institute for Statecraft Expert Team (pdf) list several people with military intelligence
backgrounds as well as many 'journalists'. One of them is:
Mark Galeotti
Specialist in Russian strategic thinking; the application of Russian disinformation and
hybrid warfare; the use of organised crime as a weapon of hybrid warfare. Educational and
mentoring skills, including in a US and E European environment, and the corporate world.
Russian linguist
Galeotti is the infamous inventor of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' and of the propaganda about
Russia's alleged 'hybrid' warfare. In February 2013 the Russian General Valery Gerasimov, then
Russia's chief of the General Staff, published a paper that analysed the way the 'west' is
waging a new type of war by mixing propaganda, proxy armies and military force into one unified
operation.
Galeotti claimed that Gerasimov's analysis of 'western' operations was a new Russian
doctrine of 'hybrid war'. He invented the term 'Gerasimov doctrine' which then took off in the
propaganda realm. In February 2016 the U.S. Army Military Review
published a longer analysis of Gerasimov's paper that debunked the nonsense (pdf). It
concluded:
Gerasimov's article is not proposing a new Russian way of warfare or a hybrid war, as has
been stated in the West.
But anti-Russian propagandist
repeated Galeotti's nonsense over and over. Only in March 2018, five years after Galeotti
invented the 'Germasimov doctrine' and two years after he was thoroughly debunked, he finally
recanted
:
Everywhere, you'll find scholars, pundits, and policymakers talking about the threat the
"Gerasimov doctrine" -- named after Russia's chief of the general staff -- poses to the West.
It's a new way of war, "an expanded theory of modern warfare," or even "a vision of total
warfare."
There's one small problem. It doesn't exist. And the longer we pretend it does, the longer
we misunderstand the -- real, but different -- challenge Russia poses.
I feel I can say that because, to my immense chagrin, I created this term, which has since
acquired a destructive life of its own, lumbering clumsily into the world to spread fear and
loathing in its wake.
The Institute for Statecraft's "Specialist in Russian strategic thinking", an expert of
disinformation and hybrid warfare, created a non-existing Russian doctrine out of hot air and
used it to press for anti-Russian measures. Like Ben Nimmo he is an aptly example of the
quality of the Institute's experts and work.
One of the newly released documents headlined CND Gen list 2
(pdf) (CND= Chris Nigel Donnelly) includes the names and email addresses of a number of
military, government and think tank people. The anonymous releaser of the documents claims that
the list is "of employees who attended a closed-door meeting with the white helmets". (No
document has been published yet that confirms this.) One name on the list is of special
interest:
Pablo Miller was the handler and friend of Sergej Skripal, the British double agent who was
"novichoked" in Salisbury. When Miller's name was mentioned in the press the British government
issued a D-Notice to suppress its further publishing,
Pablo Miller, a British MI6 agent, had
recruited Sergej Skripal. The former MI6 agent in Moscow, Christopher Steele, was also
involved in the case. Skripal was caught by the Russian security services and went to jail.
Pablo Miller, the MI6 recruiter, was also the handler of Sergej Skripal after he was released
by Russia in a spy swap. He reportedly also lives in Salisbury. Both Christopher Steele and
Pablo Miller work for Orbis Business Intelligence which created the "Dirty Dossier" about
Donald Trump.
At the very beginning of the Skripal affair, before there was any talk of 'Novichok', we
asked
if Skripal was involved in creating the
now debunked "Dirty Dossier" and if that was a reason for certain British insiders to move
him out of the way:
Here are some question:
Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about
Trump dirt?
Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
If there is a connection between the dossier and Skripal, which seems very likely to me,
then there are a number of people and organizations with potential motives to kill him. Lots
of shady folks and officials on both sides of the Atlantic were involved in creating and
running the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign. There are several investigations and some very
dirty laundry might one day come to light. Removing Skripal while putting the blame on Russia
looks like a convenient way to get rid of a potential witness.
The
most recent release of Integrity Initiative documents includes lots of in-depth
reports (pdf) about foreign media reactions to the Skripal affair. One wonders why the
Initiative commissioned
such research (pdf) and paid for it.
After two years the Muller investigation found zero
evidence for the 'collusion' between Russia and the Trump campaign that the fake Steele
dossier suggested. The whole collusion claim is a creation by 'former' British intelligence
operatives who likely acted on request of U.S. intelligence leaders Clapper and Brennan. How
deep was the Russia specialist Chris Donnelly and his Institute for Statecraft involved in this
endeavor?
Checking through all the released Initiative papers and lists one gets the impression of a
secret military intelligence operation, disguised as a public NGO. Financed by millions of
government money the Institute for Statecraft and the Integrity Initiative work under a charity
label to create and disseminate disinformation to the global public and back into the
government and military itself.
The paranoia about Russia, which does way less harm than the 'western' "rules based system"
constantly creates, is illogical and not based on factual analysis. It creates Russia as an
"enemy" when it is none. It hypes a "threat" out of hot air. The only people who profit from
this are the propagandists and the companies and people who back them.
The Initiatives motto "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation" is a truly Orwellian
construct. By disseminating propaganda and using it to influence the public, parliament, the
military and governments, the Institute actively undermines the democratic process that depends
on the free availability of truthful information.
It should be shut down immediately.
---
Note: There have already been attempts to delete the released files from the Internet. A
complete archive of all Integrity Initiative files published so far is here . Should
the public links cease to work, you can contact the author of this blog for access to private
backups.
Aside from the fact that the government itself funds this organization, the creepiest thing
about it is that the "non-governmental individuals" that help fund it are the same people
that run the think tanks: a bunch of Rhodesians.
"Such half-assed thinking...Think for a moment how Russia would have responded to a mining of
Sevastopol harbor, the frying of its satellites or the destruction of its fighter jets in
Crimea. Those "gestures" would have been illegal acts of war against the forces of a nuclear
power which were legally stationed in Crimea."
It sure seems like this half-assed thinking isn't just the domain of a fringe element, but
is increasingly mainstream among the elites. Doesn't bode well.
Thank you B. It is truly amazing to watch the UK elites unravel as they have become truly
unhinged by their own connivances. It is a bad joke at the commoner's expense that they
propagandize and demonize in the name of the 'Western rules based system' even as they are
busy shooting themselves in both feet by committing Brexit. Although there are legitimate
grievances with the EU, it is clear that Brexit is a Tory power play that is all politics and
zero governance. Alas, Perfidious Albion has succumbed to Mad Cow disease.
What remains mysterious (not really) is why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save
and strengthen democracy-- they aren't proudly proclaimed and advertised, in the open,
transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to
stand for might want to debate and form an opinion on.
The fact that it isn't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and
totalitarian streak that runs in between every two lines that they put on paper.
McCarthyesque smear campaigns to discredit opponents and squash dissent has become normal
practice. Integrity Initiative tweets against Corbyn is a stark example, but there have been
MANY other people and groups that have been tarred with claims of being
sponsored/led/influenced by Russia, including Catalonian independence activists and Yellow
vest protesters.
Every time one scratches the surface of such smears, it seems there is a connection to
US/British MIC, Ukraine, or Israel - essentially, those who benefit (financially or
otherwise) from greater tensions with Russia.
At what point does neocon doubling-down on failed foreign policy become more than just
picking our pockets and warping our minds? At what point do they start killing our kids in
another unnecessary war?
Cold War has been over for nearly 30 years. It's time enough for Western countries to send
into real retirement every single cold-warrior, their time is over, their mindset is quaint
and useless, if not downright dangerous and counter-productive.
Thank you 'b'
I'll just say -- - there is safety in numbers ! Already valuable information, important to
the public good and democracy has been spread wide enough to be certain, this gene won't go
back in the bottle ! D notice or no ! And by doing that, has made the fearless journalists
and investigators lives all the safer ! Safety in numbers, spread this wide everyone?
Thanks for the continued exposition of this story b.....may it go viral
I want to comment on some of the wording you quote Donnelly as writing
" .....is giving way to a world of Darwinian competition where all the players
– nation states, sub-state actors, big corporations, ethnic or religious groups, and
so on – are constantly striving with each other in a "war of all against all".
"
This is Donnelly's characterization of a world in which finance is a public utility
instead of the private jackboot that it currently is. This is the delusion these people have
been led to believe.
So instead of his "war of all against all" that some might call human cooperation on the
basis of merit we have a mythical God of Mammon religion that continues to instantiate the
private finance led world of the West with it parasitic elite and fawning acolytes.
Dear god, what has gotten into the minds of the military and political "elite" within the
UK! Mining Sevastopol would have been an obvious act of war against Russia and Russia would
have responded with force.
Thankfully it wasn't done but the fact this was even discussed by senior figures confirms
that there was at least a sizable minority pushing for it. 30 years after the fall of the
Soviet Union, the Western elite have truly abandoned all sense of reality and embraced a
consequence free view of the use of force. After Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya they haven't
learned a thing! I'm becoming more and more certain that a peaceful transition to the
multipolar world is impossible and that it will only happen after the US or one of its'
vassal states blunder into a proxy war and get utterly and comprehensively defeated, forcing
a radical world realignment, but with nuts like John Bolton and the neocons in the Whitehouse
it could easily lead to a nuclear war
This group may have officially formed in 2015, but its work is no different from the
British propaganda that swamped the MSM when MH17 was downed. Tied into the Steel dossier and
Russian collusion in the US. This is the anglosphere or five eyes permanent state.
exiled off mainstreet , Dec 15, 2018 2:22:39 PM |
link
As an aside this happens to be "Bill of Rights Day", the anniversary of the passage of the
Bill of Rights as amendments to the yankee constitution. This reveals again how far from the
rule of law the yankee imperium, now the key element of the British Empire they supposedly
seceded from, has strayed, since it is apparent that this "Integrity Initiative" was
engaged in to ensure that the regime was in the safe hands of the harpy.
It has also ensured that the victorious candidate has been neutered and faithfully follows
the world control line put forward by the five eyes spy-masters making up the empire in its
present iteration. This also shows what a farce the regime, based on the rule of law, now
presents.
It is interesting that Trudeau, the Canadian figurehead, clothes his country's
kidnapping of the Chinese business figure as "in defence of the rule of law." All in all, it
is now apparent we would be far better off if the Kaiserreich, with all of its militaristic
and bombastic flaws, had triumphed in the Great War. No Hitler, no Stalin, no five eyes
fascism.
The "Western-based rules system" described in this article reminds me of a game called
"Calvin Ball" which appeared in the former comic strip "Calvin and Hobbes." In the strip
Calvin a wildly imaginative adolescent boy who plays a free-form of football with his
imaginary pet toy tiger (Hobbes). Rules of the game are made up as the game is played to
suit the players. There you have it real life imitates art.
b, I downloaded the zip file, and had also downloaded all the PDF's from pdf-archive
yesterday. There are more files in the zip, but the following were on pdf-archive and are NOT
in the zip:
integrity-france.pdf (this is a dud, looks like html, prob. response from a failed
attempt to put a file up on pdf-archive)
Better yet, can anyone name an NGO, any NGO ever, that's not closely if not directly
linked to "a secret military intelligence operation." Anyone? Mueller?
Thank you very much for this terrific analysis. Donnelly: "... it is we who must either
generate the debate or wait for something dreadful to happen to shock us into action. "
Numerous American publications featured very similar language in the years ahead of 9/11,
with "Islamic terrorist threat" substituted for the Russians.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 4:21:51 PM |
link
The transcript of his conversation with the general shows very starkly that we would last
about two minutes in a nuclear exchange, but about half a day in a conventional one. No
reserves, no equipment stockpiles, a navy consisting of two fat targets, neither of which has
any aircraft and some destroyers which have propulsion problems, a smallish air force and
very small numbers of troops. The tripwire force in Estonia is wholly sacrificial. In fact he
lays bare the whole fallacy of biting the bear. With the armed forces in the state he
describes, and with the recruitment and retention problems, wouldn't it be better, as one
defense minister said, 'to go away and shut up'...
Thanks b and especially the link to Valentina Lisitsa who I had tinkling in the background as
I read your grand expose. These people are seditious morons, parasites infesting the state
apparatus. Shut these fools down. Nice touch publishing the passport image. I can just
imagine the frenzied aftermath of Kit's visit to the basement. Big thanks to anonymous and
Craig Murray too. Their IT personel are probably visiting Devil's Island or Diego Garcia as
we read.
Vesti News has published an excellent documentary on how "clusters" work....not only to
spread Russophobia...but also on continuous intends to overthrown Russian legitimate
government... https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=E8-Stfrl5aM
The British and US connections to loot and evade Russian riches and funds are exposed, as
well as the origin of sanctions, supposed "alt-media" "truth-seakers" like Meduza...or
supposed "pro-Russian" US intelligence operatives married to Russian women....
Amongst the many issues he usually passes over trying to make himself the fool, while at
the same time trying to convince us of the oustanding intellectual capacities, honesty and
classy stance of him and his "comittee"...
For that travel, to end bluntly and in such public view siding with the nazis of the "Azov
Regiment" and other criminals of war, there was no need of so many saddlebags, so as
pretending that the people who supported Trump as if there was no tomorrow, were enlightened
people who only wanted to rescue "America" for the "Americans", as if there would not be a
sign of blatant exceptionalism in appropriating of the term "Americans" for themselves in
such a huge continent....
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of
chicken with Russia.
The FP pre-Soviet collapse consisted of one MO: GET THE COMMIES!
Since then, Neocons and Neolibs which are frontmen for this Non-National Globalized Elite,
have hijacked our country's military and have steered it to a Global agenda where dominance
in the ME means either superiority for these EURO elites or Vassal-hood.
The last two periods of the US FP could be understood thusly: (1) Pre-Soviet collapse
which was marked by a horrifically tragic and misplaced ideal of defending against communism
(Good guys v. Bad Guys); and (2) Post-Soviet collapse which has been a period of coup d'etats
where our hijacked military has been used for a Globalist Agenda for increasingly opaque
(less defensible) reasons and missions.
The average American could care less about the ME and the US would be 1000x better-off
reverting to an isolationist stance.
But this will not happen so long as Nationalism in the US and UK is repeatedly put-down.
It seems as though there is going to be another Brexit vote. Does anyone doubt that
miraculously the people by then will have second-guessed their will to Brexit and so will
vote against it given another crack at a vote?
Import IT workers and staff science faculties from abroad w dual citizens while kkr
buys wafer labs that outsource to mainland for manufacturing
Cry boo hoo hoo to wake up with indigenous capacity decades behind world players like
Russia, China, India, etc who operate on fractional budgets...
But this drama also exposes ashura/emigods intra necine warfare: right after 2016 US
elections there was a facade of split between military and intelligence differentiation.
Seems that veil has been dispensed with , but it invites other questions, insofar as UK
is Her Majesty's Service, so are we to read this with Prince Harry or Philip's culture, or a
"consent by silence") in mind? Defending crown or EU "Saturnus Sattelitus"?
Yeah, they hijacked a few other countries too, including Russia. Or if not hijacking,
setting the mood right for some shenanigans in the near future... I think you're quite right
about the cheif host of the globalist neolib parasite. Hijacked near fully. Being bled dry.
That unaccounted for 21 Trillion at the pentagon is a bit of a giveaway. All under the guise
of free markets and democracy.
Good to see Trump finally give it a face... 'you need freedom and security now pay up
bitches'
In my view, the USA's FP has been undermined by EURO elites which is forcing a game of
chicken with Russia.... Globalist Agenda
I think the opposite is true.
The US-led Empire and their globalist sycophants seek to weaken Europe so that it can not
act independently in its own best interests. They will do what ever they can to ensure that
the vassals never join with Russia/China and the SCO.
Russian scare-mongering and immigration have been effective in furthering this agenda.
Also note: what USA has termed "new Europe" - eastern European states like Poland and Ukraine
- are solidly pro-American.
CIA democrats are still determined to sink Tramp, and continues to beat the dead cat of
"Russian collision". What is interesting is that Jacob Schiff financed Bolsheviks revolution in
Russia.
Yahoo comments reflect the deep split in the opinions in the society, which is positioned
mainly by party lines. Few commenters understadn that the problem is with neoliberalism, not
Trump, or Hillary who represent just different factions of the same neoliberal elite.
Notable quotes:
"... Schiff said Deutsche Bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to the state of New York for laundering Russian money, and that it was the one bank willing to do business with the Trump Organization. ..."
"... In an interview with the New Yorker that was posted on line on Dec. 14, Schiff said the Intelligence Committee is "going to be looking at the issue of possible money laundering by the Trump Organization, and Deutsche Bank is one obvious place to start." ..."
"... A Senate investigation, which Warren and Van Hollen want to see followed by a report and a hearing, could put further pressure on the lender. The written request from the senators, sent Dec. 13, cites Deutsche Bank's "numerous enforcement actions" and a recent raid by police officers and tax investigators in Germany. ..."
"... Schiff, a target of Trump's on Twitter, also referred to reported comments by the president's sons some years ago that they didn't need "to deal with U.S. banks because they got all of the cash they needed from Russia or disproportionate share of their assets coming from Russia." He said Sunday he expects to learn more about that claim through financial records. ..."
The incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee joined Democratic colleagues in
questioning ties between Deutsche Bank AG and President Donald Trump's real estate
business.
Representative Adam Schiff of California said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that any type
of compromise needs to be investigated. That could add his panel's scrutiny to that of
Representative Maxine Waters, who's in line to be chair of the House Financial Services
Committee and has also focused on the bank's connections to Trump.
Schiff's comments came three days after Wall Street critic Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
and fellow Senate Democrat Chris Van Hollen called for a Banking Committee investigation of
Deutsche Bank's compliance with U.S. money-laundering regulations.
Schiff said Deutsche Bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines to the state
of New York for laundering Russian money, and that it was the one bank willing to do business
with the Trump Organization.
"Now, is that a coincidence?" Schiff said. "If this is a form of compromise, it needs to be
exposed."
In an interview with the New Yorker that was posted on line on Dec. 14, Schiff said the
Intelligence Committee is "going to be looking at the issue of possible money laundering by the
Trump Organization, and Deutsche Bank is one obvious place to start."
More Pressure
A Senate investigation, which Warren and Van Hollen want to see followed by a report and
a hearing, could put further pressure on the lender. The written request from the senators,
sent Dec. 13, cites Deutsche Bank's "numerous enforcement actions" and a recent raid by police
officers and tax investigators in Germany.
It also notes the lender's U.S. operations being implicated in cross-border money-laundering
accusations such as in a recent case involving Danish lender Danske Bank A/S and the movement
of $230 billion in illicit funds.
"The compliance history of this institution raises serious questions about the national
security and criminal risks posed by its U.S. operations," the senators said in their letter.
"Its correspondent banking operations in the U.S. serve as a gateway to the U.S. financial
system for Deutsche Bank entities around the world."
Troy Gravitt, a Deutsche Bank spokesman, responded that the company "takes its legal
obligations seriously and remains committed to cooperating with authorized investigations."
Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, had questioned the Federal Reserve earlier this year about
how it would keep the White House from interfering with oversight of the lender, which had been
a major lender to Trump's real estate business.
Schiff, a target of Trump's on Twitter, also referred to reported comments by the
president's sons some years ago that they didn't need "to deal with U.S. banks because they got
all of the cash they needed from Russia or disproportionate share of their assets coming from
Russia." He said Sunday he expects to learn more about that claim through financial
records.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jesse Hamilton in Washington at
[email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jesse Westbrook at
[email protected], Mark Niquette, Ros Krasny
55 seconds ago A
special Special Prosecutor must be appointed with a billion dollar budget. Where will the
money come from? Fines, penalties, and restitution by the Godfather.
U 46 seconds ago With
all these investigations, who should die hard Republicans vote for in 2020? Should it be
Donald Trump or Individual 1 or David Dennison? Gonna' be a hard choice next year.
F 1
minute ago Investigations of Trump are just getting started! hahaha
A 7 minutes ago Don
the Con is certainly getting a lot of probes of his illegal, criminal business deals. He
was a total idiot to become president and draw all this attention considering all the
crimes he has committed.
W 3 minutes ago
"Shifty" Schiff....doing everything to bring America together again!
D 17 minutes ago Lets investigate SLIMEY SHIFTLESS SCHIFF for leaking to
the News Media and running faster than a speedy bullet to a microphone and running his
loose lips !
B 3 minutes ago One of
the problem is that politicians, like schiffhead, have never had a real job and only have
scammed their donors and havent a clue how the real world works.
The decision to indict Flynn ruins " esprit de corps " in the USA intelligence community. So
Partaigenosser Mulkler trying to depose Trump oversteped the "norms" of intelligence community.
And if CIA allied with FBI against DIA that's a bad sign. It looks like the US elite was split
into two warring camps that will fight for power absolutely ruthlessly.
As for "In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn 'clearly saw the FBI agents
as allies.' " the question arise how he got the to position of the head of DIA with such astounding level of naivety.
If anyone from FBI does not want your lawyer to be present you should probably have a lawyer present.
Notable quotes:
"... "The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo says. ..."
"... According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely affect the rapport." ..."
"... McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the initial meeting with the FBI agents. ..."
"... On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017 time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart, which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a supervisor and who approved them." ..."
"... Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this one count of lying. ..."
"... In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of "subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues. ..."
"... It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court. ..."
"... Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire? ..."
The Special Counsel's Office released key documents related to former National Security
Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn Friday. Robert Mueller's office had until 3 p.m. to get the
documents to Judge Emmet Sullivan, who demanded information Wednesday after
bombshell information surfaced in a memorandum submitted by Flynn's attorney's that led to
serious concerns regarding the FBI's initial questioning of the retired three-star general.
The highly redacted documents included notes from former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
regarding his conversation with Flynn about arranging the interview with the FBI. The initial
interview took place at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017.
The documents also include the FBI's "302" report regarding Flynn's interview with
anti-Trump former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka when they met with him at
the White House. It is not, however, the 302 document from the actual January, 2017 interview
but an August, 2017 report of Strzok's recollections of the interview.
Flynn's attorney's had noted in their memorandum to the courts that the documents revealed
that FBI officials made the decision not to provide Flynn with his Miranda Rights, which
would've have warned him of penalties for making false statements.
"The agents did not provide Gen. Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false
statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 before, during, or after the interview," the Flynn memo
says.
According to the 302, before the interview, McCabe and other FBI officials "decided the
agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they
wanted Flynn to be relaxed , and they were concerned that giving the warnings might adversely
affect the rapport."
McCabe, who has since been fired for lying to the DOJ's Office of Inspector General about
leaking information to the media, also asked Flynn not to have his lawyer present during the
initial meeting with the FBI agents.
The July 2017 report, however, was the interview with Strzok. It described his interview
with Flynn but was not the original Flynn interview.
Apparent discrepancies within the 302 documents are being questioned by may former senior
FBI officials, who state that there are stringent policies in place to ensure that the
documents are guarded against tampering.
On Thursday, FBI Supervisory Agent Jeff Danik told SaraACarter.com that Sullivan must also request all the
communications between the two agents, as well as their supervisors around the August 2017
time-frame in order to get a complete and accurate picture of what transpired. Danik, who is an
expert in FBI policy, says it is imperative that Sullivan also request "the workflow chart,
which would show one-hundred percent, when the 302s were created when they were sent to a
supervisor and who approved them."
He stressed, "the bureau policy – the absolute FBI policy – is that the notes
must be placed in the system in a 1-A file within five days of the interview." Danik said that
the handwritten notes get placed into the FBI Sentinel System, which is the FBI's main record
keeping system. "Anything beyond five business days is a problem, eight months is a disaster,"
he added.
In the redacted 302 report Strzok and Pientka said they "both had the impression at the time
that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying." Information that Flynn was not lying
was first published
and reported by SaraACarter.com.
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI. Supporters of Flynn have
questioned Mueller's tactics in getting the retired three-star general to plead guilty to this
one count of lying.
In the report, the two agents describe Flynn as being very open and noted said Flynn
"clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." Flynn is described as discussing a variety of
"subjects." The report includes his openness regarding Trump's "knack for interior design," the
hotels he stayed at during his campaign, as well as other issues.
"Flynn was so talkative, and had so much time for them, that Strzok wondered if the
national security adviser did not have more important things to do than have a such a
relaxed, non-pertinent discussion with them," it said.
The documents turned over by Mueller also reveal that other FBI personnel "later argued
about the FBI's decision to interview Flynn." Tags Law Crime
Basically McCabe and others in his unit are totally discredited. He should have this
quashed and the case thrown out of court. No Miranda rights, therefore no lying to FBI.
Why didn't Flynn demand his day in court? He would have won. I am not buying the ********
argument about him being run into bankruptcy. Hell, he could have represented himself and
still won the case at trial. In addition, I am not buying this ******** argument that he
agreed to plead guilty because he was afraid the Mueller would go after his son. Does anyone
know what Flynn's son does for a living? Why would he be afraid?
Flynn was found guilty by Mueller on one count of lying to the FBI.
No! Flynn was not f ound guilty by Mueller on one count of lying. The FBI is an
investigative body (at best) not a judicial body. Only a jury or a judge acting in lieu of a
jury can find someone guilty of anything.
Flynn plead guilty to one count of lying because to have plead innocent would have
bankrupted him in legal fees. However, it's interesting that this ZH article stated that
Mueller found Flynn guilty. In federal courts these days, once you're charged with a crime
you will be found guilty. FBI, DEA, BATF, IRS...whoever, you do not get a fair trial. Federal
judges are hard-wired to find guilt. Vicious and ambitious federal prosecutors have only one
interest, to rack up successful prosecutions. Federal juries are intimidated by the brute
force of the federal system and, I suspect, fear that if they don't bring in a verdict
satisfactory to the prosecutor, they may be investigated themselves. "Investigation" in the
federal sense means that they will be relentlessly harassed forever by the federal
government
My small experience as a juror is that state prosecutors and judges are no different than
what you describe for the federal system. We found a guy non-guilty (not a close call either)
that the judge wanted convicted, and he came back and questioned us about our logic. Casually
of course. I just said the guy was innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge wasn't
pleased.
Flynn is an idiot.... why agree to talk to the FBI at all.... as Martha Stewart found
out.... if they can't make the case for what they're investigating... they'll just find some
statement in your "interview" that they claim was not true.... no matter if it was your
intention to lie or just a recollection that was wrong... and charge you with that!
Simple answer is that if law enforcement wants to "talk" to you they're looking to get
information to charge you.... simple reply.... FU... I want a lawyer!
The compromise of classified docs was really sort of candy-assed, everybody knew it . .
.
Rewind the tape, and you will find the contrite Petreaus in front of any and all
microphones confessing to his affair with Broadwell, which he repeatedly stated began on some
certain date . . .conveniently AFTER his confirmation as CIA director . . .
. . .certainly Petreaus was asked in his FBI background interview if he was involved in
any affairs. And he certainly said no.
So, Paula, since I'm on all the networks at the moment, I know you can hear me, our affair
started on X date, in case the FBI gets a notion to ask you (which they did not.)
See, the FBI takes lying seriously. But somebody must have said something along the lines
of: hey, Petreaus is a good guy, I hope you can find a way to let him off easy.
But when faced with financial destruction, your kids being threatened, and false evidence
against you, you sometimes admit to the charges to make a deal...
The military is realizing they are not on the same team with FBI, CIA, DOJ.
Why do you think they have tried so hard to keep NSA under military leadership? Wink,
wink...
Leguran
It would appear that the branch of government that may be out of control (by the Supreme Court) is the judiciary. It
is the court rules and failure of the Supreme Court to act and weed its subordinate courts, that allowed much of this to
happen. The FISA Court has been a rubber stamp. No judge is held accountable for failure to obtain justice in their court.
The Chief Justice has refused to accept that judges can employ personal poliltical beliefs in court. All courts are
subordinate to the US Supreme Court and therefore the Supreme Court has a duty to ensure justice not just to decide whether
cases are 'sufficiently mature' to come before the Supreme Court. In other words, the Judiciary needs to be disturbed from
their lifetime appointments and made conditional appointments. The Supreme Court needs to deal with incapacity within its own
ranks. All told, this shocking miscarriage of justice came about because the Judicial Branch of government allowed it to
happen. The Judicial Branch has run amok.
lizzie dw
IMO, Judge Emmet Sullivan needs to demand and receive the original UNREDACTED 302 about the Strzok/Pientka interview with
General Flynn. But, really, just by reading the pre-interview discussions of the FBI members involved, the whole thing sounds
fishy.
Caloot
Hedge headline:
Could Mueller's whole appointment be meant to protect the Clinton empire?
Like Trump or not, there are serious cracks appearing in the Clintons foundation.
Two days ago, federal judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington D.C.
ordered the "special counsel" Robert Mueller group to do the following by 3:00 p.m. eastern
time today, as shown on the court clerk's docket sheet--
"12/12/2018 MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. In 50 defendant's memorandum in aid of
sentencing, the defendant quotes and cites a 'Memorandum dated Jan. 24, 2017.' See page 8 n.
21, 22. The defendant also quotes and cites a 'FD-302 dated Aug. 22, 2017.' See page 9 n.
23-27. The defendant is ORDERED to file on the docket FORTHWITH the cited Memorandum and
FD-302. The Court further ORDERS the government to file on the docket any 302s or memoranda
relevant to the circumstances discussed on pages 7-9 of the defendant's sentencing memorandum
by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December 14, 2018. Should the parties seek to file such material
under seal, the parties may file motions for leave to do so. The government is also ORDERED to
file its reply to the defendant's sentencing memorandum by no later than 3:00 p.m. on December
14, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 12/12/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 12/12/2018)"
Judge Sullivan is a Black lawyer who came up the hard way, going to Washington D.C. public
schools and Howard University and its law school. Howard University has been a reputable
university with a full curriculum as it provided education to Black Americans from the time of
segregation. He was appointed by three different U.S. presidents to judicial positions, by
Reagan, Bush sr, and Bill Clinton [1].
The actions and investigation regarding Gen. Michael Flynn (ret.) beginning when he was
removed as National Security Advisor to president Trump have seemed odd and not to square with
past behavior and the normal course of things. With little information available publicly it is
very difficult to look at the issue and pick through information, since it has been mainly
hidden behind the skirts of the Mueller "investigation", which was supposed to look at
"interference" by the Russian government in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Flynn's sentencing is set for next Tuesday, 18 December. However, that is subject to change,
depending on what is filed today. I will try to provide some relevant items from the court
clerk's file that you can read to bring yourself up to date about the court case from what is
available; some items are still filed under seal, and the probation office presentence
investigation report (PSI) is kept private as a matter of federal judicial policy.
That defense would be more effective if Flynn was a bewildered youth or someone with
diminished mental capacities being badgered in a police interrogation room.
Flynn certainly acted like a bewildered, naive person.
Did he think that the FBI was showing up to ask about his health?
Was he really the Director of DIA......or did he just stay in a Holiday Inn?
Thank you Robert. It's good to have someone like judge Sullivan presiding over this case.
We'll have to wait and see, but a lot of what I have gathered so far suggests Gen. Flynn is a
man of honorable character who has been raked over for mostly political reasons.
In the meantime, has anyone investigated the leak that supposedly caught Flynn talking to the
Russian Amb?
That apparently did harm sources and methods.
But,noooooooooo, no investigation.
The swamp cares not a whit for national security, but yet constantly lectures us
"deplorables" about their great talent and dedication - they'd all be Fortune 500 CEO's if
they weren't so dedicated.
There are probably a few dedicated talented people trying to do the right thing, but the
bureaucracy - including the Intel. agencies/FBI (VERY important people "risking" their lives,
BTW) - has shown over and over to be populated mostly by self-enriching slugs.
The leak was that USI and LE were listening in on the Russian Ambassador's conversations by
turning his smartphone into a hot mic by exploiting well-known SS7 vulnerabilities. This
hardly reveals anything new about sources and methods. Any one who wants to keep secrets
shouldn't be carrying a smartphone and any ambassador who thinks the host government doesn't
keep him under surveillance is hopelessly naive.
Was it a leak or was it just an assumption of the obvious surveillance of Kislyak? Pence is
the one who confirmed Flynn talked to Kislyak about lifting sanctions and lied to him about
it.
Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz has asked SaraACarter.com to post her letter to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan
in support of her friend and colleague retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who will be
sentenced on Dec. 18. The Special Counsel's Office has requested that Flynn not serve any
jail time due to his cooperation with Robert Mueller's office. Based on new information
contained in a memorandum submitted to the court this week by Flynn's attorney, Sullivan has
ordered Mueller's office to turn over all exculpatory evidence and government documents on
Flynn's case by mid-day Friday. Sullivan is also requesting any documentation regarding the
first interviews conducted by former anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka
-known by the FBI as 302s- which were found to be dated more than seven months after the
interviews were conducted on Jan. 24, 2017, a violation of FBI policy, say current and former
FBI officials familiar with the process. According to information contained in Flynn's
memorandum, the interviews were dated Aug. 22, 2017.
Read Gritz's letter below... (emphasis added)
The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan. December 5, 2018 U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001
Re: Sentencing of Lt. General Michael T. Flynn (Ret.)
Dear Judge Sullivan:
I am submitting my letter directly since Mike Flynn's attorney has refused to submit it as
well as letters submitted by other individuals. I feel you need to hear from someone who was an
FBI Special Agent who not only worked with Mike, but also has personally witnessed and reported
unethical & sometimes illegal tactics used to coerce targets of investigations externally
and internally.
About Myself and FBI Career
For 16 years, I proudly served the American people as a Special Agent working diligently on
significant terrorism cases which earned noteworthy results and fostered substantial
interagency cooperation. Prior to serving in the FBI I was a Juvenile Probation Officer in
Camden, NJ. Currently, I am a Senior Information Security Metrics and Reporting Analyst with
Discover Financial Services in the Chicago Metro area. I have recently been named as a Senior
Fellow to the London Center for Policy Research.
While in the FBI, I served as a Special Agent, Supervisory Special Agent, Assistant
Inspector, Unit Chief, and a Senior Liaison Officer to the CIA. I served on the NSC's Hostage
and Personnel Working Group and brought numerous Americans out of captivity and was part of the
interagency team to codify policies outlining the whole of government approach to hostage
cases.
In November 2007, I was selected over 26 other candidates to become the Supervisory Special
Agent, CT Extraterritorial Squad; Washington Field Office (WFO) in Washington, DC. At WFO, I
led a squad of experts in extraterritorial evidence collection, overseas investigations,
operational security during terrorist attacks/events, and overseas criminal investigations. I
coordinated and managed numerous high profile investigations (Blackwater, Chuckie Taylor,
Robert Levinson, and other pivotal cases) comprised of teams from US and foreign intelligence,
military, and law enforcement agencies. I was commended for displaying comprehensive leadership
performance under pressure, extensive teamwork skills, while conducting critical investigative
analysis within and outside the FBI.
In December 2009, I was promoted to GS-15 Unit Chief (UC) of the Executive Strategy Unit,
Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate (WMDD). While the UC, I codified the WMDD five-year
strategic plan, formulated goals and objectives throughout the division, while translating the
material into a directorate scorecard with cascading measurements reflecting functional and
operational unit areas. This was the only time in Washington, DC when I did not work with of
for McCabe.
From September to December 2010, I was selected as the FBI's top candidate to represent the
FBI, and the USG in a rigorous, intellectually stimulating; 12 week course for civilian
government officials, military officers, and government academics at the George C. Marshall
Center in Garmisch, Germany, Executive Program in Advanced Security Studies. The class was
comprised of 141 participants from 43 countries.
I have received numerous recommendations and commendations for my professionalism, liaison
and interpersonal ability and experience . Additionally, I have been rated Excellent or
Outstanding for my entire career, to include by Andrew McCabe when I was stationed at the
Washington Field Office. Further, other awards of note are: West Chester University 2005 Legacy
of Leadership recipient, Honored with House of Representatives Citation for Exemplary record of
Service, Leadership, and Achievements: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Awarded with a framed
Horn of Africa blood chit from the Department of Defense and Office of the DASD (POW/MPA/MIA)
for my work in bringing Americans Out of captivity, "Patriot, Law Enforcement Warrior, and
Friend."
Length of Association with Flynn, McCabe, and Mueller
I met Michael Flynn in 2005, while working in the Counterterrorism Division (CTD) at FBI
Headquarters (FBIHQ).
I met then Supervisory Special Agent Andrew McCabe, when he reported to CTD at FBIHQ, around
the same time. McCabe subsequently was the Assistant Section Chief over my unit, my Assistant
Special Agent in Charge at the Washington Field Office, and the Assistant Director (AD) over
CTD when I encountered the discrimination and McCabe spearheaded the retaliation personally
(according to documentation) against me.
I have known both men for 12-13 years and worked directly with both throughout my career.
They are on the opposite spectrum of each other with regard to truthfulness, temperament, and
ethics, both professionally and personally.
I regularly briefed former FBI Director and Special Prosecutor Mueller on controversial and
complex cases and attended Deputies meetings at the White house with then Deputy Director
Pistole. I got along with both and trusted both. Watching what has been done to Mike and
knowing someone on the 7th floor had to have notified Mueller of my situation (Pistole had
retired), has been significantly distressing to me.
Lt.G. Michael T. Flynn:
Mike and I were counterparts on a DOJ-termed ground-breaking initiative which served as a
model for future investigations, policies, legislation and FBI programs in the Terrorist Use of
the Internet. For this multi-faceted and leading-edge joint operation, I was commended by Gen.
Stanley McChrystal, Gen. Keith Alexander (NSA Director), and LtG. Michael Flynn as well as
others for leading the FBI's pivotal participation in this dynamic and innovative interagency
operation. I received two The National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation (NIMUC) I for my
role in this operation. The NIMUC is an award of the National Intelligence Awards Program, for
contributions to the United States Intelligence Community.
Mick Flynn has consistently and candidly been honest and straightforward with me since the
day I met him in 2005. He has been a mentor and someone I trust to give me frank advice when I
ask for his opinion. His caring nature has shown through especially when he saw me being torn
apart by the FBI and he felt compelled to write a letter in support of me. He further took the
extra step to comment on my character in an NPR article and interview exposing the wrongdoings
in my case and others who have stood up for truth and against discrimination/retaliation.
Senator Grassley also commented on my behalf. NPR characterized this action against me as a
"warning shot" to individuals who stood up to individuals such as McCabe.
The day after I resigned from the FBI, while I was crying, Mike reached out and
congratulated me on my early retirement. I really needed to hear that from someone I respected
so much. His support for the last 13 years has been unparalleled and extremely valuable in
helping me get through the trauma of betrayal, unethical behavior, illegal activity executed
against me and to rebuild my life. Additionally, his support has helped my family in dealing
with their painful emotions regarding my situation. My parents wanted me to pass on to you that
they are blessed that I have had a compassionate and supportive individual on my side
throughout this trying time.
Mike has been a respected leader by his peers and by FBI Agents and Analysts who have
interacted with him. I personally feel he is the finest leader I have ever worked with or for
in my career. Our continued friendship and subsequent friendship with his family has helped all
of us cope with the stress a situation like this puts on individuals and families.
It is so very painful to watch an American hero, and my friend, torn apart like this. His
family has had to endure what no family should have to. I know this because of the damaging
effect my case had on my parent's health, finances, and emotional well-being. Mike and I both
had to sell our houses due to legal fees, endured smear campaigns (mostly by the same
individual, McCabe). I ended up being deemed homeless by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was
on public assistance and endured extensive health and emotional damage due to the retaliation.
Mike kept in touch and kept me motivated. He has always reached out to help me with whatever he
could.
The Process is the Punishment
Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch commented to me that the "Process is the punishment." This
is the most accurate description I have heard regarding the time Mike has gone through with
this process and the year and a half I was ostracized and idled before I resigned. This process
is one which many FBI employees, current, retired and former, feel was brought to the FBI by
Mueller and he subsequently brought this to the Special Prosecutor investigation.
It also fostered the behavior among FBI "leadership" which we find ourselves shocked at when
revealed on a daily basis. Is this the proper way to seek justice? I say no. I swore to uphold
the Constitution while protecting the civil rights of the American people. I believe many
individuals involved in Mike's case have lost their way and could care less about protection of
due process, civil and legal rights of who they are targeting. Mike has had extensive
punishment throughout this process. This process has punished him harder than anyone else
could.
Andrew McCabe
I believe I have a unique inside view of the mannerisms surrounding Andrew McCabe, other FBI
Executive Management and Former Director Mueller, as well as the unethical and coercive tactics
they use, not to seek the truth, but to coerce pleas or admissions to end the pain, as I call
it. They destroy lives for their own agendas instead of seeking the truth for the American
people. Candor is something that should be encouraged and used by leadership to have necessary
and continued improvement. Under Mueller, it was seen as a threat and viciously opposed by
those he pulled up in the chain of command.
I am explaining this because numerous Agents have expressed the need for you to know
McCabe's and Mueller's pattern of "target and destroy" has been utilized on many others,
without regard for policies and laws. I, myself, am a casualty of this reprehensible behavior
and I have spoken to well over 150 other FBI individuals who are casualties as well.
I am the individual who filed the Hatch Act complaint against McCabe and provided
significant evidentiary documents obtained via FOIA, open source, and information from current,
former, and retired Special Agents. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) asked why my filing of
the complaint was delayed from the actual acts. I said I personally thought I was providing
additional information to what should have been an automatic referral to OSC by FBI OPR. I was
notified I was the only complainant. This illustrates not only a fatal flaw in OPR AD Candice
Will not making the appropriate and crucial referral, but also shows the fear of those within
the FBI to report individuals like McCabe for fear of retaliation.
While serving at the CIA, detailed by the FBI in January 2012, I was responsible for
overseas investigations, as opposed to Continental United States-based (CONUS) cases.
Unfortunately, during my assignment at the CIA, I encountered extensive discrimination by two
FBI Special Agents and subsequently, in 2012, I filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
complaint. Instead of addressing the issues, then CTD Assistant Director Andrew McCabe chose to
authorize a retaliatory Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation against me,
five days after my EEO contact. The OPR referral he signed was authored by the two individuals
I had filed the EEO complaint against. In his signed sworn statement, McCabe admitted he knew I
had filed or was going to file the EEO.
Numerous members of my department at the CIA requested to be spoken with by CTD executive
management, regarding my work ethic and accomplishments. However, CTD, Inspection Division, and
OPR disregarded the list of names and contact numbers I submitted. This is an example of
knowing you are being targeted and the truth is not being sought.
Although my time at this position was short, I was commended by my CIA direct supervisor
for: "having already contributed more than your predecessor in the short time you have been
here." My predecessor had been assigned to the post for 18 months; I had been there four
months.
In contrast and showing lack of candor, McCabe wrote on official documents the following
statement, contradicting the actual direct supervisor I worked with daily:
"SA Gritz had to be removed from a prior position in an interagency environment, due to
inappropriate communications and general performance issues"
This is one of many comments McCabe used to discredit my reputation and to ostracize me.
McCabe knew me as someone who told the truth, worked hard, got results, and was always willing
to be flexible when needed. He was also acutely aware of the excellent relationships I had
formed in the USG interagency due to comments made by individuals from numerous agencies. Yet,
he continued to make false statements on official documents. He has done this to numerous other
very valuable FBI employees, destroying their careers and lives. He used similar tactics of
lies against Flynn. It should be noted, McCabe was very aware of my professional association
with Mike Flynn.
In July 5, 2012, I was involuntarily pulled back to CTD from the CIA. I was told McCabe made
the decision. A year and a month later, I resigned from the job I absolutely loved and was good
at. All because of the lack of candor of numerous individuals within the FBI.
Unethical and
dishonest investigative tactics
Throughout the last year, I have kept abreast of the revelations surrounding anything
related to Mike's case. I believe, from my years at the FBI and in exposing corruption and
discrimination, the circumstances surrounding the targeting, investigation, leaking, and
coercion of him to plea are all consistent with the unethical process I and many others have
witnessed at the FBI. The charge which Mike Flynn plead to was the result of deception,
intimidation, and bias/agenda. Simply, Mike is being branded a convicted felon due to an
unethical and dishonest investigation by people who were malicious, vindictive, and corrupt.
They wished to silence Mike, like they had once silenced me.
The American people have read the Strzok/Page text messages, the conflicting testimony and
lack of candor statements of former Director Comey, the perceived overstepping of the
reasonable scope of the Special Prosecutor's investigation, the extensive unethical,
untruthful, and outright illegal behavior of Andrew McCabe, to include slanderous statements
against Flynn, and the facts found within FOIA released documents and Congressional testimony.
As a former/retired Agent, I have combed through every piece of information regarding Mike's
case, as if I was combing through evidence in the hundreds of cases I have successfully handled
while in the FBI.
The publicly reported Brady material alone, in this case, outweighs any statement given by
any FBI Agent (we now know at least one FD-302 was changed), Special Prosecutor investigator
report, and any other party still aggressively seeking that this case remain and be sentenced
as a felony. Quite simply, I cannot see justice being served by branding LtG. Michael Flynn a
convicted felon, when the truth is still being revealed while policies, ethics, and laws have
been violated by those pursuing this case.
We now know all FBI employees involved in Mike Flynn's case have either been fired, forced
to resign or forced to retire because of their excessive lack of candor, punitive biases,
leaking of information, and extensive cover-up of their deeds.
Summation
Michael Flynn has always displayed overwhelming candor and forthrightness. One of the main
individuals involved in his case is Andrew McCabe, who used similar tactics against me in my
case, of which Mike Flynn defended me by penning a letter of character reference and is a
witness. Seeing McCabe was named as a Responding Management Official in my case, he should have
recused himself with anything having to do with a character witness on my behalf against him
and DOJ.
I'm told by numerous people, but have been unable to confirm, that McCabe was asked why he
was so viciously going after Flynn; my name was mentioned. I do know, from experience with
McCabe, he is a vindictive individual and I have no doubt Mike's support of me fueled McCabe's
disdain and personally vindictive aggressive unethical activities in this case . It matches his
behavior in my case.
Reliable fact-finding is essential to procedural due process and to the accuracy and
uniformity of sentencing. I'm unsure if the fact-finding in this case is reliable, nor do I
think we currently have all the facts.
The punishment which LtG. Flynn has already endured this past year, due to the nature of the
case, legal fees and reputation damage, is punishment enough. He is a true patriot, a loving
husband and father, a devoted grandfather, a trusted friend, and has a close knit family made
up of compassionate and honest individuals. To be branded a felon, is a major hit to a hero who
protected the American people for 33 years. I do not think society would benefit from Mike
Flynn going to jail nor being branded as a convicted felon. Not knowing the sentencing
guidelines for this charge but if there is any chance that the case can be downgraded to a
misdemeanor, this would be an act of justice that numerous Americans need to see to stay
hopeful for further justice.
This lady is seriously brave. She confirms one more reason i strongly support our Second
Amendment; it's to protect us from tyrants and corrupt people like McCabe, Ohr, Comey and
Mueller. Oh yes. I almost forget Rosenstein who should be hung for treason also.
WOW...all this time I had been asking where are the whistle blowers and kept saying,
certainly not all the FBI are this corrupt -and further asked are they being threatened to
not come forward?"
Well, the later sure seems true when you consider Ms. Gristz statements, particularly "
the fear of those within the FBI to report individuals like McCabe for fear of retaliation.
"
This is the level of corruption that ought to bring this entire cabal to their knees and
place them behind bars. Hopefully Judge Sullivan's intuitions will be bolstered by Ms.
Gristz' letter.
The FBI is corrupt to the core...from top to bottom. If she joined the FBI to "uphold the
Constitution" or "serve the American People" or some other horseshit then that was her first
mistake. The FBI is a completely corrupt & unconstitutional organization that protects
only the (((globalists))) and other enemies of freedom. The Hoover Buliding should be
padlocked and all of the agents of evil put on trial for treason.
Flynn was an example to the rest of the Trump supporters. His guilt or innocense was/is
meaningless and irrlevant to the Prog Attack Dogs. The message was/is clear:
"We are the Power. Resistance is futile. Bend your knee or we will destroy you."
It is prudent for reasonable people to believe that the Progs have spent the past couple
years destroying evidence that can be used against their gods (Obama, Clinton, Soros, etc.)
and their cohorts.
There is no penalty or negative consequence for the Mueller team who engaged in
"unethical" activity. None of them will have to answer to anyone or disgorge the millions of
dollars in "fees" they have been paid by the Sheeple.
All Progs must hang.
Christopher Wray must hang next.
"... Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview: ..."
Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of
re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the
kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world wars - into a
renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of
past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the
accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of
his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign
history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it
essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to
follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician,
perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for
example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter
denunciation and discrediting of the former policy would be necessary to shift the National
mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further Imperial
adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."
Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who
came up through intelligence positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush
administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create the self-proclaimed
Islamic State, or ISIS.
"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German
newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.
"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on
to say. "The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The
historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and
should not be kind with that decision."
When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic
State would not "be where it is now without the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without
reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."
Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American
military response following 9/11 was not well thought-out at all and based on significant
misunderstandings.
Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were
some curiously framed explanations of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.
Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual
notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special
counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:
from the comments:
Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors
investigated for criminal actions they took in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some
on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor committed
suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge
dismissed the ethics conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after
taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether the
government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for
criminal wrongdoing.
Mueller was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted
Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for this group of prosecutors. He smells a
rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will not
hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong
doing.
Looks like Partigenosse Mueller went a little bit too far.
Notable quotes:
"... Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page were recovered by the OIG, many indicating that both agents in charge of investigating Donald Trump absolutely hate him. ..."
Mueller Destroyed Messages From Peter Strzok's iPhone; OIG
Recovers 19,000 New "FBI Lovebird" Texts
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 12/15/2018 - 14:25 8.3K SHARES
The Justice Department's internal watchdog revealed on Thursday that special counsel Robert
Mueller's office scrubbed all of the data from FBI agent Peter Strzok's iPhone, while his FBI
mistress Lisa Page's phone had been scrubbed by a different department, according to a
comprehensive
report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released on Thursday.
After Strzok was kicked off the special counsel investigation following the discovery of
anti-Trump text messages between he and Page, his Mueller's Records Officer scrubbed Strzok's
iPhone after determining "it contained no substantive text messages," reports the
Conservative Review 's Jordan Schachtel.
Mueller's team was unable to locate Page's iPhone, however the DOJ's Justice Management
Division (JMD) similarly scrubbed her phone - resetting it to factory settings.
Meanwhile, the OIG recovered approximately newly found 19,000 Strzok-Page texts from their
Galaxy S5 phones . The messages span a "gap" in text messages between December 15, 2016 and May
17, 2017.
OIG digital forensic examiners used forensic tools to recover thousands of text messages
from these devices, including many outside the period of collection tool failure (December
15, 20 I 6 to May 17, 2017) and many that Strzok and Page had with persons other than each
other. Approximately 9,311 text messages that were sent or received during the period of
collection tool failure were recovered from Strzok's S5 phone, of which approximately 8,358
were sent to or received from Page .
Approximately 10,760 text messages that were sent or
received during the period of collection tool failure were recovered from Page's S5 phone, of
which approximately 9,717 were sent to or received from Strzok .
Thus, many of the text
messages recovered from Strzok's S5 were also recovered from Page's S5. However, some of the
Strzok-Page text messages were only recovered from Strzok's phone while others were only
recovered from Page's phone . -OIG Report
Thousands of text messages between Strzok and Page were recovered by the OIG, many
indicating that both agents in charge of investigating Donald Trump absolutely hate him.
In August 2016, Strzok and Page discussed an "insurance policy" in the event that Trump won
the election which many believe to be in reference to operation Crossfire Hurricane - the DOJ's
counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign.
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's
no way he [Trump] gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." wrote Strzok, adding
" It's like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."
In the
home stretch of the 2016 US election, Strzok is fuming at Trump - texting Page: " I am riled
up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer." He then texts "I CAN'T
PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!," to which Page replies "I
don't know. But we'll get it back."
More than two years later, the anti-Trump FBI agents may not have gotten their country back
- but the special counsel's office continues to cast a shadow of doubt Trump's legitimacy.
Democrats could care less about the facts. They are very happy to be ignorant of them.
They don't care about the law or due process. They don't stand for anything except that vague
meaningless concept called "social justice."
They are throwbacks to an era where party is everything and the individual is expendable
in service of that party. History is of no consequence, traditions are junk and highest goal
is to feel good, ramifications are of no concern.
Every little fact that Mueller thinks he has is now tainted. He has engaged in evidence
tampering and ALL OF IT is fruit of the poisoned tree.
This human piece of excrement in a suit, this worthless deep stater and his henchmen
should be hung - but they won't be. Thirty years in a real prison should do the trick.
Confiscate every nickel he charged the citizens of this county and charge him at the same
rate for a year of wasted time.
Like I have said over and over on this blog "Democrats are unfit to govern."
"... It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers. ..."
"... In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after the Russia Gate was played up following the election. ..."
"... Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump. Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme. ..."
"... As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics. ..."
"... The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. ..."
"... Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture. ..."
"... Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the "blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot. ..."
"... karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for this.. ..."
"... This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good". ..."
"... And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018. ..."
"... Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014. Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015). ..."
"... The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all. ..."
"... One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then. ..."
"... Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy. Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects - and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part. ..."
"... Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for). ..."
"... The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet. When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India as well). ..."
"... If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column. ..."
"... i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much... i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'.. ..."
"... as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site. ..."
"... the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest ..."
"... "MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In short, 'MAGA'." ..."
"... Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. ..."
"... Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy. The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through. If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign positions, such as the border wall, for example. ..."
"... Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn; and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview: ..."
The person(s) who first published documents of the shady UK organization Integrity Initiative decided that the discussion is about
the Initiative is not yet sufficient and published more documents.
The
first dump on the Cyberguerilla site happened on November 5. We discussed it
here . A smaller
dump on November 29 revealed more about the UK government paid Integrity Initiatives influence work in Germany, Spain and Greece.
A
third dump followed today.
The leaker, who uses the widely abused Anonymous label, promises to publish more:
Well-coordinated efforts of the Anonymous from all over the world have forced the UK politicians to react to the unacceptable
and in fact illegal activity of the British government that uses public money to carry out misinformation campaigns not only in
the EU, US and Canada but in the UK as well, in particular campaigns against the Labour party.
The Integrity Initiative is now under first official investigation. We promise to give close scrutiny to the investigation that
we believe should be conducted honestly, openly and absolutely transparently for the society, rather than become an internal and
confidential case of the Foreign Office.
To show our expertise in the investigation as well as to warn the UK government that they must not even try to put it all down
to the activity of some charity foundations and public organizations we reveal a part of documents unveiling the true face of
The Institute for Statecraft and some information about its leadership.
...
As the scandal in the UK is gaining momentum, it is ever so striking that European leaders and official representatives remain
so calm about the Integrity Initiative's activity in their countries. We remind you that covert clusters made up for political
and financial manipulation and controlled by the UK secret services are carrying out London's secret missions and interfering
in domestic affairs of sovereign states right in front of you.
...
This is another part of documents that we have on the Integrity Initiative. We do not change the goals of this operation. When
we return with the next portion of revelations, names and facts depends on how seriously the UK and EU leaders take our intentions
this time.
The dump includes invoices, internal analyses of international media responses to the Skripal affair, the Initiative's operations
in Scotland, France and Italy, some strategy papers and various other stuff. There are some interesting bits about the cooperation
of the Initiative with British Ministry of Defense. It will take me a while to read through all of it.
A "strictly confidential" proposal by the French company Lexfo to spread
the Integrity Initiative's state-sponsored propaganda through an offensive online influence campaigns for a monthly pay per language
of €20-40.000. The proposal also includes an offer for "counter activism" through "negative PR, legal actions, ethical hack back,
etc." for €50,000 per month.
The offer claims that the company can launch hundreds of "news" pieces per day on as many websites. It notably also offers to
"edit" Wikipedia articles.
In short: This proposal describes large disinformation operations under the disguise of fighting alleged Russian disinformation.
It is at the core what the Integrity Initiative, which obviously requested the proposal, is about.
But as we saw in the information
revealed yesterday there is more to it. The Initiative, which has lots of 'former' military and intelligence people among its
staff, is targeting the political left in Britain as well as in other countries. It is there where it becomes a danger to the democratic
societies of Europe.
I'd bet a weeks wages on it that this is where Craig Summers came from and what he was ! This blog is the antidote to the official
spin! It was good to here from Craig Murray very thought provoking regards tactics.we all need our own method ! But not be gagged.
I respect others ways we are on the same side .being united is the defence against devide and rule.
I wonder what the Tory's
think of this scandal they must be angry at this attack on democracy, nah only joking! It'l be the dog that did'nt bark ! just
like the media oh and the police ! One rule for them 'no rule' opression for us 99%
thanks b.... aside from wondering if this is Russia accessing and sharing this, i think the sticking point is in this "Unintegrity
initiative" going after the uk political left... that is where i think this is going to get traction as more folks are going to
wake up if they see how deep and ugly this goes in targeting their own..
i could be wrong, but if this news catches on, or the uk MP women keeps hammering away on this, i think we will see some results..
i opened the pdf... here is a quick list of their objectives..
investigate sources of disinformation, perform threat assessment, and identify opportunities to combat false narratives
debunk fake news and black PR operations
discredit and intimidate the platforms broadcasting fake news
promote democratic principles and criticize the Russian illiberal model in the public debate, online. This plan should
be implemented in every targeted country and language, including Russian.
In Australia the scale of tendentious anti-Chinese propaganda is absurd . Australia is flailing around trying to cope with changing
circumstances . Already at a disadvantage in 'reading ' the world because of her geographical isolation the clear bias of information
she now faces from the Anglo/ U S media and government systems puts her at a disadvantage in forming intelligent policies .
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Dec 14, 2018 4:38:49 PM |
link
Can anyone make a zip with all dumps and files? For sharing and archiving this would be much easier.. As i believe it will not
last long till the scribd uploads etc are DMCAed.. My LUKS+Veracrypt secured storage system would be a safe bet for archiving,
so i would volunteer..
Much appreciated!
Note that this document --and I've seen more-- presumes there is a large scale Russian disinformation campaign going on. Other
documents presume Skripal was poisoned by Russia.
Once you run with these documents, beware that you are making those presumptions yours . That may be the objective here.
Integrity Initiative got a lot of scrutiny because they used their Twitter account to attack Corbyn. In it's latest info dump,
Anonymous describes additional UK political manipulation, writing that the Director of The Institute for Statecraft Christopher
Donnelly:
... lobbied the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for an inquiry into Russia's interference in
the Catalan referendum. He invited members of the Integrity Initiative Spain cluster Francisco de Borja Lasheras and Mira Milosevich-Juaristi.
At that moment they were receiving funds from the Foreign Office, i.e. the UK intelligence paid its own agents for fake
proof of Russia's interference in the Catalan referendum and later told them to lie to the Parliament to convince it to take
anti-Russian steps .
"Simon Bracey-Lane: Currently runs the IfS "Integrity Initiative" network communications and network development process; deep
experience in democratic election campaign processes in UK and especially in USA, viz: Regional Campaign Organiser: John Wisniewski
for Governor of New Jersey, USA. January - May 2017; Statewide Campaign Organiser: Bernie Sanders for President 2016, USA. Sept
2015 – May 2016; special study of Russian interference in the US electoral process."
Whatever the truth of the matter, he can definitely multitask. Running the II network communications and development process
(cultivating, recruiting, handling?) while also being a research fellow at the II's 'parent organization' Institute for Statecraft?
I wonder how many hours he has left in a day to sleep!
Then again he seems to have form in this regard. 'Special study of Russian interference in the election process' simultaneously
as being a key organizer in Sanders' campaign. Maybe he did his 'special study' in his free time?
Pure brazen depravity. And how will the average UK citizen become informed of what seems treasonous activity? Seems venders with
broadsheets in the style of yesteryear standing on street corners yelling EXTRA! need to return so the public can be informed
of its government's activities--Social Media is not sufficient.
Bevin and other UK citizens: What do you call your Swamp?
Any thoughts as to why exactly Russia became the chief demon? It seems the hysterical propaganda was focused exclusively on ISIS
until Putin spoke at the UN announcing Russia's intervention in Syria. Then the propaganda shifted, first directed at Putin, then
generally at Russia and Putin together. Is it anger over the prevention of imperialist design in the Middle East?
It seemed to start with Bill Browder being kicked out of Russia. So I would assume that the main reason is that the west
became aware that Russia was (had been) taking back control of their economy and resources and kicking out the western carpet-baggers.
This belated realisation, that the prize that the west had gained and plundered in the '90s (from the collapse of the Soviet
Union) had managed to wriggle free, seems to be something that the west can't accept.
In June of 2016 a bill named Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 was introduced into the house by Congressmen
Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu. H.R. 5181 sought a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign
disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability." A similar bill was introduced in March in the Senate long before Russia gate. It was passed signed by Obama in December after
the Russia Gate was played up following the election.
Like I said US and UK are basically one entity on such matters. Soon after being passed we saw Prop or Not introduce its hit
list of alt media sites. Sadly over the last 2 years alt media has been decimated. Engdahl seems to be the latest to fall, helped
no doubt by Soros suit for 1 million against him for calling out his daughters NGO. Now he has fallen into line and backing Trump.
Maybe next he will support the Climate Change meme.
Oh well, looks like its almost over for Truth, although some truth probably gets allowed if enough of the lies are also presented. So my take is the anti Russia hysteria was just a clever way of getting support for a war on Truth (fake news).
Russia now has a similar initiative said to combat fakes news from US which will likely be used against Putin critics (US agents).
The law allows them "to block online content, including social media websites, whose activities are deemed "undesirable" or "extremist."
Maybe Putin is part of the Fake Wrestling game. Heel or Face, your choice.
I see the EU has set up a rapid alert system to help EU member states recognize disinformation campaigns, and increase the
budget set aside for the detection of disinformation from . It will also press technology companies to play their part in cracking
down on fake news. Major social media platforms have already signed up to a code of conduct. One minister said the EU would not
stand for "an internet that is the wild west, where anything goes".
Macron introduced a bill recently seeking to get " judges and the media sector's regulator involved in the fight against fake
news. A fact-checking state-run website would be created and social media would have to pitch in by warning users when a post
is sponsored -- or when someone pays to give it better visibility in a feed."
I suppose the War on Truth has gone global. I wont bother to mention China as they are the role model the West
follows.
As I posted on an earlier thread, the demonization of Russia by Anglos began with the First Afghan War in the late 1830s and
has continued at differing degrees of intensity ever since always due to geopolitics.
@14 What do you call your Swamp? "The Establishment", coined, I believe, by the historian AJP Taylor.
The founder of modern journalism William Cobbett used to call it "The Thing"
The US State Department gives the title "public diplomacy" to its propaganda. Robert Parry wrote about it, and its contrast with
truth, a couple years ago.
The idea of questioning the claims by the West's officialdom now brings calumny down upon the heads of those who dare do it.
"Truth" is being redefined as whatever the U.S. government, NATO and other Western interests say is true. Disagreement with
the West's "group thinks," no matter how fact-based the dissent is, becomes "fake news."
So, we have the case of Washington Post columnist David Ignatius having a starry-eyed interview with Richard Stengel, the State
Department's Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, the principal arm of U.S. government propaganda.
Entitled "The truth is losing," the column laments that the official narratives as deigned by the State Department and The
Washington Post are losing traction with Americans and the world's public.
Stengel, a former managing editor at Time magazine, seems to take aim at Russia's RT network's slogan, "question more," as
some sinister message seeking to inject cynicism toward the West's official narratives.
"They're not trying to say that their version of events is the true one. They're saying: 'Everybody's lying! Nobody's telling
you the truth!'," Stengel said. "They don't have a candidate, per se. But they want to undermine faith in democracy, faith
in the West." . . here
Just ask John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who was sent to prison for telling the truth about US torture.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 14, 2018 8:47:12 PM |
link
@15
Thanks, that looks great and should be reposted across alternative media- most of these groups use "anti-Russia" as a front
to dismantle dissent and left-wing politics on behalf of the Multinationals and the Neoliberal Establishment- let's call it the
"blob," and let's call that list Counter-Propornot.
@ 15 jayc, @18 ADKC and @21 karlof1... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with
the advent of Ukraine dynamics and Russia commitment to going into Syria.. around that time it all really picked up steam.. now
you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available for
this..
... now you have think tanks and etc. etc. profiting from the sale of anti-russia spin.. there appears to be endless money available
for this..
Posted by: james | Dec 14, 2018 9:19:09 PM | 26
This is an incomplete narrative, think tanks are basically mercenaries who relieve the population from the need to think about
the complicated matters, letting the folks to believe what is either true or should be believed to be true for the "common good".
And the "common good" is decided by paymasters. Somewhere in between are mass media populated by folks particularly averse to
thinking -- again, they were selected by the employers not to think but to write and talk "correctly". But the press/TV lords
will not chisel all details of what is true and important, and what is false, unimportant or both, so journalists can absorb it
from think tanks and briefing from government informed sources. There are also astro-turfs and so on.
And indeed, Russian danger was identified ca. 2014 as the major worthy theme in the central parts of that nexus. So who are
the paymasters? In part, "capitalists", wealthy individuals with means and motivation to set the course for the West and all forces
of good. In part, intelligence agencies. Here Integrity Initiative seems an erratic creature: apparently, run by spooks on military
and intelligence payroll, and yet also benefiting from a government grant that makes them a quango, "a semipublic administrative
body outside the civil service but receiving financial support from the government, which makes senior appointments to it." In
other words, they double dip. The total amount is relatively modest, so rather than getting fat on taxpayer money they merely
double or triple they spare official salaries thus reaching "upper middle class" level. Therefore the morale in the outfit was
mediocre and we can see one of the more amusing leaks of 2018.
... my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics
and russias commitment to going into syria..
I think we can surmise that the Russian objection to US bombing Syria in September 2013 was countered with a two-prong strategy:
> doubling down in Syria via ISIS;
> pushing hard for overthrow of Ukrainian government to: a) punish Russia, and b) keep Russia busy so that the Russians
refrain from any further support for Syria
It was a superb and well-thought out strategy . . . that failed miserably. The coup in Ukraine succeeded and ISIS came within
weeks of defeating Assad BUT Russia managed to secure the best parts of Ukraine -and- intervened in Syria anyway (along with Iran).
Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained.
History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course
. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.
So the strategy changed once again. MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan. Obama's devious faux peacefulness
that used covert action and proxy forces could not succeed against determined opposition from Russia/China. To prevail, Empire
strategists recognized that USA needed to be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that
required re-developing nationalism. In short, "MAGA".
My reading is that Kissinger is asserting that the US can and should do whatever it takes to keep the US preeminent – even
if that means ignoring allies and/or the post-war international structure (UN, UNSC). That exceptional! message comes through
loud and clear despite his 'triage' formalism. And it is a message that is comforting to the elite who read the WSJ (before
a holiday weekend), though it should give Joe Sixpack nightmares if fully understood.
There is a lot more there which would take much longer to unpack. But I'll point to one more thing: Note how he forms
an equivalence between all the troubles that the 'West' now face, and ignores US/Western actions that have contributed to these
conflicts by conflating them. NC readers understand this via Merschemer's (in today's links) work on Ukraine and many links
regarding ISIS (like this one).
This comforting message [from Kissinger] is needed because the Ukraine gambit has failed miserably – as many independent
obeservers [sic] predicted– and a deeper conflict with Russia (possibly extending to others) is now in the cards. Like
the true neocon that he is, Kissinger has doubled down on Nuland's obnoxious and misguided "f*ck the EU" with an exceptional!
"f*ck the World".
Note: Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed was published on August 29, 2014.
Within weeks of its publication, the Obama Administration was in full anti-Russia swing. Trump would enter the race for Republican nomination 9 1/2 months after Kissinger's Op-Ed (June 15, 2015).
Trump was the ONLY populist, out of 19 contenders, in the Republican race. Hillary told Democratic-friendly media to focus
on Trump and did things during the Presidential race that call into question her desire to actually win. Trump is a MUCH better
choice for a MAGA nationalist than Hillary.
You were right then, and you are right now. My one beef with your 2016 election analysis is that it seems to me you shortchange
slightly the evidence of a real conflict and possibly fissure within the oligarchic elite, only certain segments of which seem
convinced that now is the time for MAGA. Others among the actual power brokers would I think have preferred HRC and 4-8 more years
of neoliberal internationalist interventionist grift a la Obama before having to finally turn to the MAGA nationalist strategy
(which given the resource struggles that will emerge over the next decades was always inevitable once the Project for the New
American (Israeli) Century collapsed, as it was bound to once Russia called its bluff in Syria.) But this is a minor point. What
is much more important is that behind MAGA is an envisioned world war on the scale of WWI and WWII in which "The West" takes on
China-Russia leading to the death of probably everybody.
"..my impression is the anti russian meme got real traction somewhere about 2014-2015 with the advent of ukraine dynamics and
russias commitment to going into syria..."
I think that the proper context begins with the failure of Medvedev's Russia to veto the UNSC motion establishing a No Fly
zone over Libya. Inter alia this led to a real reverse for and an humiliation of China which had large financial investments as
well as large numbers of personnel involved in Ghadaffi's imaginative schemes.
My guess, and it is not a particularly well informed one, is that after the Libyan disaster-the worst sort of imperialist over
reach and brutality not only did China realise that Imperialism was reverting to its nightmarish type, but Russians leaders saw
that a permanent alliance-until the defeat of the empire- was the only alternative that it and China had to 'hanging separately'.
And that the same went for Iran and Syria-nobody could trust the west any longer and it would be foolish, and dangerous, to continue
to do so.
The hate campaign against Russia is just the old campaign, against any country resisting the Empire's hegemony, focused on the
one power that had resisted since 1917 and was able to do so, returning to its old role of saying 'Niet' when all the rest of
the world said either 'Aye Aye,Sir' "If you insist" or kept quiet and said nothing at all.
Of course, 2011 was the last in a long series of increasingly stupid US aggressions, all of which Russia knew very well were aimed
at it as much as the selected sacrificial victim.
Those who say that Saddam was about oil could not be more wrong: he was a human sacrifice, slaughtered ritually on the corpses
of a million of his fellows, to demonstrate that the USA can do what it chooses when it wishes.
Karl Rove was wrong: not even Empires can create their own realities. The extravagant and bloody theatre of decades swaggering
around the middle east finds the US not only poorer but weaker than it was in 1980.
"It notably also offers to "edit" Wikipedia articles." b
Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago.
Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.
Wikipedia stopped being a reliable source for accurate information a long time ago.
Finding reliable alternatives is a bit more effort; but worth it for accurate information.
Posted by: V | Dec 14, 2018 11:37:12 PM | 32
It is more complicated. Wikipedia is sprawling and manipulations happen on entry basis, and it often leaves "controversies".
I also discovered that it is worth to brush up on language skills, if there are any. For example, on recent events in Crimea there
is an entry "Crimea Crisis" with Russian and Polish versions, and Polish "pro-Westerners" somehow left few traces of activity.
I wonder how is it in German and French Wikipedias. In English, think tanks and deep states indeed lack sufficient counter-activity.
Why didn't you make an archive yourself? Meanwhile the leakers account at Scribd has been slashed and all the files with it. Anyway - here is a Mediafire zip created yesterday of (allegedly) all files published so far.
IntegrityInitiative.zip
. Save it as long as it is available.
@ jackrabbit, I've heard other observers make the link with Kissinger's op-ed, but your demonstration is very convincing. William
Engdahl made the same call, Hillary's not a suitable player to pull off MAGA with masses of deplorables. Unfortunately for
Anglo-American
strategists, Trump with his linear cretinism lacks the necessary wherewithal to implement and execute a comprehensive geopolitical
strategy. Kissinger comes from another era, and probably cannot grasp how far devolution has taken American elites in the cesspit
of post modern hedonism.
Blooming Barricade , Dec 15, 2018 12:54:41 AM |
link
@V
It's illuminating to see this NATO-backed operation looking at a PR firm to edit Wikipedia because this brings to mind the
notorious "Philip Cross," which, for those not in the know, was uncovered by Craig Murray and others (
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/)
as having edited the pages of prominent left wing people and Labour Party people. In Germany, Left Party Bundestag member Diether
Dehm has highlighted a similar figure in German language Wikipedia, "Feliks," targeting socialists in that country. The similarities
of both to the proposals made by the PR firm above are eerie.
Can't speak for the French version of Wikipedia but with the German edition it is as bad as anywhere else when it comes to
social and political issues, particularly so if geopolitics (the West, ME, Russia ..) is concerned.
Two people, a biologist and a journalist, independently investigated networks on a senior editor and admin level active within
WikipediaG. What they found is rather shocking. One can't just edit a Wikipedia article, no matter how fact-based. It will almost
immediately be retracted if it doesn't follow the 'official' narrative. If said person then tries to reestablish that content
or tries to engage in a discussion with the admins, in many cases, they simply get banned then.
These guys can also be found on Youtube: Gruppe42 (group42)
Unfortunately their main documentaries are only available in German language but there's some other content 'Geschichten aus Wikihausen'
- 'The Tales of Wikihausen' with English subtitles.
Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlgGx9LM5cM
It's about a former female STASI-employee turned fighter for freedom and democracy.
Currently she is the head of the Antonio-Amadeo-Foundation dedicated, to put it bluntly, to doing the bidding for the usual suspects
- and to add insult to injury taxpayer funded to a large part.
The BBC won't taalk about it but when it is in the House of Commons they have to
Sole result of a search "Integrity Initiative" on the BBC news website https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bv9zxj
(12/12 when then question was raised in the house of commons)
Posted by: Soft Asylum | Dec 15, 2018 4:36:27 AM | 39
Such people might be some of the worst examples of humans, but that doesn't mean they're trolls. In fact, plucking some
kind of motivations out of their psychopathic minds might be a good thing for the rest of us. If people such as them are posters
here, this would allow an opportunity to study them.
You feel you lack opportunities to study them? Pick up a newspaper, or turn on the cable news.
B: this info is astounding! Or perhaps not? Maybe the fact that the spooks are notoriously inept is what's astounding? I mean
you would think that what with all dweebs working for the state (eg GCHQ), they would be able to protect their own excreta? The earlier disinfo (it's a Russian plot etc) makes sense but it didn't work!
Old Microbiologist , Dec 15, 2018 7:09:31 AM |
link
Jay @15
Sorry, I didn't read any of this until this morning. Russia is the go to enemy when you need to bump up your purchasing of very
expensive military equipment and to pour money into various security projects to achieve to goals (1 is to lock down infrastructure
etc. but the other is to suppress the US citizens so a two-for).
Asymmetrical wars against tiny nations without air support are
hard to justify spending Trillions of dollars forever. That dog just won't hunt after 18 years of a no-win war in Afghanistan
(or anywhere else). So, Russia and now just to make it even more critical, China are enemies that demand massive military buildups
of equipment that won't ever actually (hopefully) be put to use. This is to fight a two theater war against two nuclear superpowers.
Basically, it is insanity but it will make a few people very rich.
The long game plan, which continues unabated regardless of which party or who is in power, is American hegemony of the planet.
When you consider the US has military bases in 155 countries (who essentially have become colonies) it seems like the goal is
nearly completed unless you consider that major nuclear armed nations are resisting (Russia, China and maybe Pakistan and India
as well).
If you take a look at Russia during Yeltsin the US companies nearly bought everything in the country and the raping
was in full vigor. Someone at DoS or the CIA very badly miscalculated letting Putin come into power. He was, after all, a minor
minion and basically came out of no where. I am assuming they thought he would continue the raping and disarmament of all former
Soviet weapons and Russian businesses. Sadly for them he turned out to be a patriot and actively resisted everything the US was
trying to do to Russia. I believe the Yukos deal was the final straw which would have given nearly all Russian oil and gas to
Exxon/Mobil. So, Putin has been battling the US successfully since and is very slowly eliminating all the oligarchs the US put
into power and draining his swamp of Atlantacists and 5th column.
That is the over simplified view but it sums it up enough to explain what we are seeing. It is as always all about money. So,
Putin has resisted aggressively all US encroachments into the Russian sphere of influence. The sanctions actually help Russia.
A devalued ruble is great for oil exports which are only 12% of Russia's GDP. More self sufficiency is also a huge benefit. A
partnership with China ensures the US cannot ever achieve their goals of global domination. The US military has proven for the
past 70+ years they are incapable of any meaningful fighting and that the military is woefully incompetent. The ABM test results
even when cheating heavily are only roughly a 50% hit rate. That is against "normal" ballistic missiles. Russia's new systems
already circumvent this system by mid-flight course corrections.
The biggest problem is the neocon elites really believe all their own propaganda. That is very scary.
Jayc: you ask why Russia and specifically Putin? Cast your mind back to 1991 and the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin's coup and
the theft of billions of Russia's capital resources by Goldman Sachs et al. The Empire figured what was left of the former USSR
was a pushover and its vast natural resources, highly educated population, ripe for plucking and along comes the Tatar Putin,
a descendent of Genghis Khan! Whoops!
And only just in time. Then think about the invasion of Iraq in 1991 and later in 2003 and then Libya. The Russians stood by.
But Syria was a step too far and too near!
Jayc, it's Western, racist hubris. The Russkies are just a bunch of jumped up peasants (Hitler made the same mistake), so when
they asserted their right to resist, and it really started in 2015 with the Western financed 'revolution' against Assad, it came
as a real shock to the system to see that Russia actually did have real guns that fired and real jets and satellites to watch
it all. After all, it was those peasant Russians who went into space first (Duck agogo Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the genuine father
of space exploration).
It must have rocked the bastards back on their heels. So they hate Putin! He restored Russia's faith in itself and that is
simply not permissible! And do it with a military budget a small fraction of the Empire's and one that Putin CUT by 10% this year!
Wakey-wakey!
Okay, this is a vastly simplified explanation and I'm not going to deal with the internal contradictions of Russia, that's
for the Russians to do. But it seems that once more, the Russkies are saving our tired, sorry Western arses.
Bill
Emmanuel Goldstein , Dec 15, 2018 9:29:46 AM |
link
William Bowles @ 57
I commented at the Saker at the time of the first Ukrainian war that it looks like Mother Russia is being set up to defeat
fascism for the second time in 100 years. History may not exactly repeat itself but it does rhyme.
If I were the West I would tread very carefully, after the catastrophes of the 1990's the Russians are in no mood to roll over
for anyone. The West was surprised at the weapons and operational arts displayed in Syria, and that was just the conventional
stuff....
karlofi - Britain doesn't have swamps (environmental sort), but it does have lots of Bogs. And Bog is also another term for lavatory/toilet
- so one might describe Westminster, the City of London and the rest of the bourgeois British world as one Big Bog (if only someone
would flush it).
Well, I was excited about the supposed "lots on Skripal" and thought maybe there would be a smoking gun. Disappointed (mediafire
zip linked by b)! All I opened was the files with the word skripal in the name - nothing but ultra-boring newspeak from what seem
like spotty adolescents trying their best to feed their paymasters with the propaganda they want. The only one of any interest at all was the one reporting on skripal news coverage in Greece: the author was relatively normal,
and coverage in Greece was pretty neutral and sceptical of the UK propaganda.
There were only 100 documents in the zip which was supposed to be everything released so far (i.e. all three dumps).
Is there any evidence to confirm that all three dumps were done by the same person/people? I can't help wondering whether the
third dump might have been damage control from the Integrity Initiative themselves, to try to show that there is not much there.
As I said though, I didn't open anything except the files with skripal in the filename, so maybe there is something interesting
somewhere else. It may be that by specifically looking for skripal I failed to find any files with policy or analysis. All the
files I looked at seemed to be reports from the clusters in various countries (often addressed to Simon), or pure propaganda (spotty
teenagers) with no analysis.
ZH has a posting up about the Integrity Initiative and gives MoA a hat tip for being early onto the issue. This should insure that it won't be buried but I suspect it is time for another big shiny thing to appear to distract the masses
See also Namebase, the original collection of intelligence agents.
NameBase - Wikipedia
Founder Daniel Brandt began collecting clippings and citations pertaining to influential people and intelligence agents in the
1960s and especially in the 1970s after becoming a member of Students for a Democratic Society, an organization that opposed US
foreign policy.
[Search domain en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spybase
Posted by: William Bowles | Dec 15, 2018 11:16:15 AM | 67
That piece sums it up well, especially NATO's increasingly aggressive posture. And how self-righteously stupid the US is being.
I think 70% might be optimistic. This situation is even more like 1914 than 1914 was, in that the reallywantingwar-to-bluster
ratio looks even worse. Meanwhile Trump, with his self-indulgent saber-rattling, is like a twitter-empowered Kaiser. Imagine that
back then.
Another commenter up above says this'll be Russia's second go-round with fascism. Yup, and they can send US/NATO where they
sent Hitler, Napoleon, Charles XII.
Russ, I wish I could be that optimistic. Yes, madmen they may be but they're madmen with tactical nukes! And judging by another
End of Days scenario, they actually seem to be contemplating their use, gambling that the Russians wont call their bluff! More
like the Cuban Missile Crisis than Sarevevo. So which side will blink first?
And then of course, we have Global Heating, which the Empire figures will 'take care' of that surplus to requirement population,
whilst the 1% wait it out in their bunkers.
I'm glad I'm at the other end of my life, rather than the beginning.
" we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can
ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation,
the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it". -- Frederick Engels, from the introduction
to 'The Dialectics of Nature', 1883.
thanks everyone for giving a response to either my comment, or @jayc's initial comment on what started this russiaphobia... i
think many of the answers are relevant and there is no one answer...
i recall how quickly 'cambridge analytica' came and went, in spite of the strength of the data on them manipulating much...
i imagine a similar story hee with 'integrity initiative'..
as for wikipedia - everyone knows it's a full on propaganda site masquerading as a neutral info site... the fact that it is
mentioned in this integrity initiative data dump shows just how mainstream and 'go to' in the world of propaganda it is viewed
by the intel services and anyone else trying to get in on some of the gov't money handouts for this type propaganda.. it would
be very cool if the wikipedia site made a statement saying we no longer need donations, as the intel services of the west have
been paying us to continue... at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue
to try to hide this when it is so apparent??
"at what point does wikipedia become an official and open arm of western propaganda?? why continue to try to hide this when
it is so apparent??"
That's one of neoliberalism's refinements over classical fascism: Just as they figured out you don't need to kill dissenters
since no one listens to us anyway, so you also don't need formal Gleichshaltung under a de jure Geobbels ministry since
the MSM will happily "coordinate" itself and really doesn't need to be told what to do. They already know since theirs is the
same ideology.
Well, I'm only optimistic about that last part if they really can keep it to just shooting and not let the missiles fly.
On the other hand I'm not at all optimistic about that. Though even then I suspect it'll hit the West worst, precisely because
any such leveling is hardest on the most complex, most high maintenance, most just-in-time, least robust, least resilient, most
top-heavy Tower of Babel. That would be the US, Europe, and their dependencies.
from the link in b's post: As we see it, the main weakness in the Russians' disinformation campaign is their embrace of a quantity
- over quality and credibility - strategy as shown by their lack of credible spokespeople, their publication of a high volume
of "easily" identifiable propaganda and "fake news", and their heavy reliance on a few biased partisan sites, dubious social media
pages and uninspired trolls. Their stories are hard to believe,...
That sounds so much like a self-description of the US-UK MSM it is uncanny. (Bellingcat anyone? for ex.) Which, imho, shows
a complete lack of creativity, suppleness, or even a low-level semi-efficient approach to the general problem of information
/ narrative control. Because that is what it is all about: much of the discourse around it is waffle, which masquerades as
'new' as it invokes 'new info' double-speak: social circuits, fake news, distribution, deep learning, connectivity, targetting,
etc. (and other terms that are less readily comprehensible..)
Hah! I think it was Goebbels who said that the biggest mistake a propagandist can make is to believe his own propaganda and
I think your quote exemplifies it! But note it always has to contain an element of truth eg, 'as shown by their lack of credible
spokespeople'. Yes, the Russians, just like the North Koreans ain't very good at spin and thank goodness. It was a lesson that
Nixon never learned, the Emperor really is naked!
on the newest thread bjd make what i thought was an exceptional comment, which is easy enough to gloss over, but i think worth
repeating on this thread... here it is
"...why --if these initiatives are truly meant to save and strengthen democracy-- (aren't they) proudly proclaimed and advertised,
in the open, transparent, for everyone one to see and judge, like an adult democracy that they claim to stand for..."
The fact that they aren't, is testimony to the nefarious anti-democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian streak that runs in between
every two lines that they put on paper."
I'm sure Bernard is going to ban me soon but before he does, you have to read this from Ron Unz on the Huawei debacle:
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly [Sheldon] Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest,
he surely must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps
he should not be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters
who do exist are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed
a single phone call to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the 15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on
his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in Macau, China. In effect, the Chinese government currently has
its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions
largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political
leverage.(my emph.
Averting World Conflict With China
The PRC Should Retaliate by Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos
"MAGA was as much a policy change as it was a campaign slogan....To prevail, Empire strategists recognized that USA needed to
be able to call on regular troops and a deep sense of patriotism and righteousness that required re-developing nationalism. In
short, 'MAGA'."
@28 Jackrabbit
I highlight these lines of your interesting post because, in the context of the Kissinger Op-Ed you refer to, they capture
an angle I had not considered and have to a degree nudged my thinking off what had been a steady course of assumptions and beliefs
relating to MAGA that go in the opposite direction from your hypothesis.
Trump's invocation of MAGA on the campaign trail was presented in such a way as to seem to overwhelmingly favour a pullback
from Imperialism in order to make things right at home. It drew from, and fed on, the angst and diminishing prosperity of the
segment of the population that had been hit hardest by Globalization of the economy, to which Imperial adventures can be, and
after are, associated. The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions
in a disenfranchised segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war
effort in two world wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of
past Imperial adventures such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was
a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy.
Doing it smarter and better than Obama did seems to the ticket to legitimacy for whatever Trump does in the foreign policy
realm. Replacing ISIS with actual American troops (while protecting a core capacity to revive ISIS if needed) is an example of
doing it differently from Obama, but the net result – with parts of Syria denied to the legitimate government – still supports
stark Imperialist, interventionists goals in a different way. The Russians and Syrians have free reign to attack ISIS, but do
not have the same liberty against American troops. The flip-side is that the American troops do not have the freedom of action
of ISIS to attack Syria. This creates a static line that serves the purpose of a partitionist goal. (ISIS is being allowed to
survive to enable an element of proxy action, for harassment purposes).
I find I can no longer dismiss Trump's appointments, in particular Pompeo and Bolton to key positions directing and shaping
US foreign policy, as some kind of 5-D chess move. They are signs that he is either a hostage President, or he is in on the act.
There is so much that remains unknown, but the clear outward indicators are that nothing really has changed when it comes to US
foreign policy objectives, only the methods and approaches are different.
Remember Obama's 'Change' meme? We don't understand that behind all these guys, and they are mostly men, stands industry and
its skills; advertising, marketing, statistics, psychology, pr, on and on it goes. And billions, billions, to spend! We are the
amateurs! Remember Saatchi & Saatchi's campaign to have Thatcher elected?
A new extremely lucrative 'industry' has sprung up.
a) to exploit hugely massive data sets (Facebook's trove and money earner..) and influence ppl => attitudes, behavior, votes,
etc. For ex. Cambridge Analytica. Much of this stuff is for now on the level of a scam. E.g. Trump was not elected due to any
type of manipulation or meddling by anyone, excepting those who financed him (other story, hard bucks and bribes - not! internet
detritus or subliminal messages) and imho the US MSM - TV specially - who care more about ratings and the money it brings than
anything else.
These efforts have got a lot of press, imho it is all smoke. If anyone has a good ex. of success ? (The model is built on about
200 years of advertising lore.)
b) Further upstream is to control the information that goes out / the audiences who are allowed to see whatever info, react
to it, communicate it - other. With the corollary of repressing dissident, unwelcome, contradictory, info, etc. Been going on
since say the Upper Paleolithic.
Today, what has to be managed is the extreme free-flow (internet): the only way this can be done is:
- to limit the channel, block info or some proportion of it, make the channel too expensive / unusable / forbid, repress
- to limit or corral the users (via propaganda / coercion / permission / certification / numbers / privilege / cost, etc.)
- to triage the information, the 'news', the narratives, the opinions, the appeals, etc. which represents the ultimate control
and is the choice made by the US-UK to mention only those.
Noirette, yuo want proof? Check out 'Programming of the President' by Roland Perry, Aurum Books, 1984. It's About Richard Wirthlin
and the Mormons. Can a computer be used to elect a president? Wel it elected Ronald Reagan. It's only a coupleof quid on Abe Books.
Essential reading IMHOP.
Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised
segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world
wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of past Imperial adventures
such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."
Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who came up through intelligence positions
in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create
the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.
"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.
"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar
Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History
will not be and should not be kind with that decision."
When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic State would not "be where it is now without
the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."
Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American military response following 9/11 was
not well thought-out at all and based on significant misunderstandings.
Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were some curiously framed explanations
of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.
Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn;
and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:
from the comments:
Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors investigated for criminal actions they took
in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor
committed suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction
of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate
whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.
Mueller
was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for
this group of prosecutors. He smells a rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will
not hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong doing.
On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury
before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've
never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case.
. . .
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury
convicted Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former
Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted
that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation.
He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial
team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
12-13-18 Following the allegations, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan yesterday ordered that both the Mueller investigation and
the Flynn team turn over all documents [the "302s"] relating to the fateful interview, including all contemporaneous notes, before
3pm Friday.
In recent days we have discovered that Flynn was advised not to have counsel present during his FBI interview and that the
FBI is withholding the actual interview notes. The same FBI cabal that has dogged Trump - but AFAIK, Trump has said nothing about
the Flynn case.
Yet another reason to believe that Trump is not a "populist" savior but yet another agent of the establishment/Deep State.
Michael Flynn's a well known islamophobe who'd gladly defend zionist interests to the last american soldier. He'd fit right
in with Bolton on the NSC council. Flynn in his own words: "Islam is not a real religion, but a political ideology masked behind
a religion," While campaigning for Trump in 2016: ''Islamism a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people that has to
be excised "
I wonder how he planned on excising the cancer ? Deploying more stormtroopers to the levant to fight Iran ?
As Trump assumed control of the executive in early 2017, it didn't take long for Flynn to push for direct military involvement
in Yemen and confrontation with Iran: "Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling
emboldened... As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice."
Michael Flynn was also a fellow at the foundation for defence of democracies a well known den of zionists and universal fascists
such as Michael Ledeen. In fact they both wrote a book together The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War against Radical
Islam and Its Allies, where we find such nuggets as:
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Putin has declared the United States (and NATO generally) to be a national security threat
to Russia, and "Death to America" is the official chant of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both the Putinists and the radical Iranian
Muslims agree on the identity of their main enemy. Hence, one part of the answer is surely that their alliance is simply the logical
outgrowth of their hostility toward America.''
"The Russians and Iranians have more in common than a shared enemy. There is also a shared contempt for democracy and an agreement
-- by all members of the enemy alliance -- that dictatorship is a superior way to run a country, an empire, or a caliphate."
Flynn's angle was to exploit any potential fissure to pry Russia away from Iran and China. Presumbably after having dealt with
Iran and the middle Kingdom, the hegemon could then strike a final blow to defeat and contain an isolated Russia. https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250131626
One problem with this fat warmonger (and his wife Victoria Nuland) is that nether he not his children were ever forced to take M16
and fight for the policies he promotes. In other words he is a typical chickenhawk, a lobbyist of MIC on good salary. In some
way this fat pig bellicosity is aside effect of abolishing universal draft. He also probably was not a fighter and never
was severely beaten by super fighters in school or university. A typical nice Jewish kid.
Attempt to build global neoliberal empire reserving for the USA dominant position ("Full spectrum dominance") cost dear to
the common Americans and now it is clear that this initiative of neocons and their paymasters (financial oligarchy and military industrial
complex -- the neoliberal elite in other words) failed.
Kagan might be a talented propagandist of "full spectrum dominance" neoconservative policies, but it is important to understand
that intellectually he is a lightweight: he believes his own propaganda.
From comments: "When one sees Pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is Kagan talking with his neo con
war mongering."
Notable quotes:
"... Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC. ..."
"... The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two. ..."
"... The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people. ..."
"... "the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient, excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict. ..."
"... Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor of the people of this country, period. ..."
"... One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility of true liberalism spreading. ..."
"... When one sees pompeo's lips move about a new American world order, it is kagan talking with his neo con war mongering. ..."
Today, Kagan is an influential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a columnist at The Washington Post , and a member
of the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and
ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms
of electoral loyalties.
As a writer and public intellectual, Kagan has skillfully crafted historical narratives and strategic assessments supporting his
overarching neoconservative vision for U.S. foreign policy. His 1996 Foreign Affairs article with Bill Kristol, "
Toward a Neo-Reaganite
Foreign Policy ," still resonates today as a concise hallmark statement of that approach to America's role in the world. With
a long list of prominent books and articles following in that vein, it is little wonder that Andrew Bacevich called him "the chief
foreign policy theorist of the neoconservative movement."
Kagan's newest book,
The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World , fits nicely into his corpus. It is a spirited defense of the
"American-led liberal world order" by one of its most cogent and articulate advocates. It is part curated history, part philippic
for his preferred strategic vision for the United States. In this small volume, Kagan argues that the enlightened order America created
after World War II has allowed for much progress in the world. But this order is not natural, and its great benefits have been "made
possible by the protection afforded liberalism within the geographical and geopolitical space created by American power." To Kagan,
this liberal order is "fragile and impermanent," requiring constant care by its architect and beneficiary, the United States. He
sees the liberal order as being "like a garden, artificial and forever threatened by the forces of nature." Thus "preserving it requires
a persistent, unending struggle against the vines and weeds that are constantly working to undermine it from within and overwhelm
it from without." Otherwise, the jungle will "grow back and engulf us all."
The problem with the book is its reliance on some questionable historical and contemporary assessments, not to mention that it
fails to really make the case for the necessity and desirability of the liberal order in today's world.
Kagan begins The Jungle Grows Back by noting that the last 70 years of peace, prosperity, and the expansion of democracy
and respect for individual rights have been an exception to the historical norm. Far from being the natural course or inevitable,
this progress required something special and unique: that a liberal democratic country like the United States, with so many geopolitical
and economic advantages, rose to international prominence after World War II. Not only that, but, as Kagan argues, American leaders
were willing to use their great power at this special moment in history to act differently and to create a new and unique world order.
Rather than merely defend its narrow national interests, the United States created a liberal international order that it would
take responsibility for upholding and protecting. Kagan argues that this approach wasn't, as some might argue, directed at the Soviet
Union or anyone else in particular (though he admits the rise of the Soviet threat made it easier for Americans to accept it even
as the strategy became more difficult to implement). Instead, "its chief purpose was to prevent a return to the economic, political,
and strategic circumstances that had given rise to the last war." Thus, Kagan believes this internationalist approach was rooted
in a realism about the nature of geopolitics in the 20th century and a realization that the world was a jungle that required "meeting
power with greater power." American leaders had learned from World War II that they had to adopt a new approach to the world, one
that created, in Dean Acheson's words, "an environment for freedom." To do otherwise would be to let disorder reign or for others
to order the international system to the detriment of American interests and values.
Call a spade a spade: This guy has been part of and feeding the political class with the arguments to continue performing
the 'Crime of Aggression' and doing that as part of preserving US primacy doesn't excuse him from the 'Crime of Aggression' part
of the ICC mandate. Most of those guys are very much aware of that as demonstrated by Bolton's attack on the ICC.
"Despite being known as a neoconservative, his appeal spans party and ideological divides. Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support
for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral loyalties."
The Obama administration's point person for the overthrow of an elected government in Ukraine was Victoria Nuland, Kagan's
wife. Even as the administration's duplicity was intercepted by the recording of her discussing who the U.S. would install as
the new leaders, it would be interesting to hear the pillow talk of these two.
The theory they embrace is that of an American New World Order, and a bipartisan practice of economic and military Full
Spectrum Dominance of the planet to enforce that hegemony against the democratic aspirations of others – and to maintain support
domestically for it, necessarily against democratic accountability for war to the American people.
Given that the liberal cultural order in the Homeland is so quickly degrading, the imposition of it internationally is likely
to become increasingly infected by poor judgment as well as resistance to it increasing.
It used to be in popular entertainment that the villains were interested in ruling the world, madmen with megalomania. That
enemy is now within.
"the willingness to apply that power, with all the pain and the suffering, the uncertainties and the errors, the failures
and follies, the immorality and brutality, the lost lives and the lost treasure." One can feel his depraved, almost prurient,
excitement at the wretchedness he would inflict.
Skip the geopolitical arguments. What I see in the photo is an obviously well-fed desk jockey from the Swamp exhorting us
to waste yet more blood and treasure on his grandiose political vision.
"Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life
in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't
want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether
it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives,
and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)
"Indeed, Kagan's 2016 support for Hillary Clinton showed his willingness to cross these divides himself in terms of electoral
loyalties."
It is probably due to the fact that most people at that time thought Clinton was going to win. So his support for Clinton proved
2 things: warmongers are opportunists, and democrats are as supportive of war efforts as GOP. This guy is a traitor
of the people of this country, period.
One should understand that committing to trillions of dollars in military spending each decade pretty much eliminates any possibility
of true liberalism spreading.
"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not
spilling over from Iraq into US ally nations: "
Had there never been an Iraq War – Muslim revolution could never have spilled over from Iraq to any other nations – because
Saddam wasn't going to allow any Muslim revolution from happening within his borders.
..to his emergence in the post-Cold War era as arguably the leading intellectual advocate for a foreign policy of "benevolent
global hegemony" -- what scholars call "primacy."
An "intellectual" war monger? A "benevolent" Imperialist? ...
"The same containment strategy appears to be what the Iraq War was about: contain the Iranian Muslim Revolution from not spilling
over from Iraq into US ally nations: Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan. Afghanistan is just another buffer country to fight the
Iranian stealth war."
I presume that history started in 2003 and that you have never heard of Saddam Hussein (the guy who fought a long war with
Iran aided by the US) or the Sunni Taliban who ruled Afghanistan and were opposed to Shia Iran. Except for the fraud and deceit
done by the neocon controlled US regime of the time, these illegal wars would not have been possible. Pick up some real history
books for a change. Don't learn about the Soviet Union from the Pravda.
"... MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam worked like this: ..."
"... They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA court a spying campaign on Trump ..."
"... the Obama regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the record to the right people ..."
"... They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama. ..."
"... The government takes CCTV footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2) laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much worse. ..."
"... And don't forget the Skripals' affair and the relationships (via M16) between Mr. Steele and Mr. Skripal: https://thedeepstate.com/steele-skripal/ ..."
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."
MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of
John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael
Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam
worked like this:
They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such
files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to
launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then
funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA
court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document);
they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they
tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once
passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help
Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for
his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset
attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama
regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele
leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress
about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements
of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the
record to the right people
They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the
document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the
British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as
Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to
take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump
policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama.
They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the
mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's
identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at
least not in recent history.
To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:
The government takes CCTV footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an
attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and
finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims
that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your
workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then
the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were
in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible
people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2)
laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it
elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much
worse.
"... Having said that, still worrying that the CIA devotes time to finding out what Maureen Dowd might write! ..."
"... It is true that Mazzetti's emails with the CIA do not shock or surprise in the slightest. But that's the point. With some noble journalistic exceptions (at the NYT and elsewhere), these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as "watchdogs" over them." ..."
"... A few years ago the New York Times reported that there had been a successful coup in Venezuela - toppling Chavez. The story turned out to be inaccurate. The NY Times finally revealed their source - US State Dept... who were using NYT to give critical mass and support to their dream end to a thorn in their side. ..."
"... The New York Times-all the news the CIA decided is fit to print. ..."
Great column. The NYT does do some good things, such as give us Paul Krugman three times a
week, some important reporting and articulate editorial opposition to the republican
nightmare, but they are much, much too close to the government, as evidenced by their asking
for permission to print news the White House disapproves of.
They are also devoted to denying their readers an accurate picture of American foreign
policy. I frequently comment on threads there and my contributions nearly always get posted,
except when I use the word empire. I have never succeeded in getting that word onto their
website , nor have I seen it make it into anyone else's comment. It is like the famous
episode of Fawlty Towers. "Don't mention the empire.'' Stories and commentaries sometimes
describe specific aspects of US policy in negative terms, but connecting the dots is
obviously forbidden.
Bill Keller is like a character from The Wire. The perfect example of the kind of
authority-revering careerist that butt-kisses his way to the top in institutions.
most of the story seems to come down to the usual kind of thing we see from Judicial
Watch - manufactured outrage over almost nothing
I think part of the outrage here is the extent to which it's almost hard to muster the
energy because it's become so much the norm for the NYTimes to be in bed with whoever is in
power in Washington at any given time. It's the sort of thing that should be "they did
what!!!!?" but instead it's "yeah, well, Judith Miller, Wen Ho Lee, etcetc ... >long
drawn-out sigh<." So, perhaps there is some manufacturing of outrage, but not unreasonably
so if you take a step back and look at what's going on.
Having said that, still worrying that the CIA devotes time to finding out what Maureen
Dowd might write!
"This cynicism – oh, don't be naive: this is done all the time – is precisely
what enables such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged.
It is true that Mazzetti's emails with the CIA do not shock or surprise in the slightest.
But that's the point. With some noble journalistic exceptions (at the NYT and elsewhere),
these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger –
between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as
"watchdogs" over them."
Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as commonplace, then it is transformed
in people's minds from something objectionable into something acceptable. Indeed, many
people believe it demonstrates their worldly sophistication to express indifference toward
bad behavior by powerful actors on the ground that it is so prevalent. This cynicism
– oh, don't be naive: this is done all the time – is precisely what enables
such destructive behavior to thrive unchallenged.
This is extremely important, and manifestly true. One runs into such people all the
time.
I haven't read any comments yet, but it would not surprise me to find some of them already
here.
Even worse, I've done it myself on occasion, most recently just the other day on a Cif
thread. Though I will say this; this kind of bullshit is not so much "transformed in people's
minds from something objectionable into something acceptable ", as grudgingly
transformed into something unstoppable , but still toxic and objectionable.
That's mighty thin gruel as an alibi, but the reality for a lot of ordinary working people
is they get fucking tired of it, and yes, they do get discouraged, then cynical and hardened
to it all.
That, of course, is part of the plan.
I'm unaware of a "source" being a person who requests documents from the reporter for doing
damage control on behalf of the boss. (Not that I'd worry about Dowd either.) How exactly is
this secret national intel? I'm glad this came out. We are being manipulated by the govt.
through its minions in the media. The entire incident, from the glorious movie to this
revelation is a fraud.
I found this interesting example of media manipulation at nakedcapitalsim.org:
"Pro-marijuana group endorses Obama The Hill. This purported group, which claims 10,000
members, appears to be just one guy with a PO Box and a press list. But don't count on your
average reporter digging deeper than the news release.":
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/links-82812.html#717LX1oL7dfPsb7I.99
The breadth and depth of propagandizing of citizens is astounding. I wonder what it's like
to have so little integrity. What kind of person so readily sells out their fellow citizen
with lies? It's scary because people read these things and they have no idea they are lies.
People are making decisions based on manufactured "facts". It's very difficult to find actual
information and I can tell you from personal experience, Obama supporters cling desperately
to "authorities" like the NYTimes to maintain their belief in the goodness of dear
leader.
This weird big-brother relationship goes both ways.
A few years ago the New York Times reported that there had been a successful coup in
Venezuela - toppling Chavez. The story turned out to be inaccurate.
The NY Times finally revealed their source - US State Dept... who were using NYT to give
critical mass and support to their dream end to a thorn in their side.
Nice investigative journalism. A couple of years ago the NYTmade a big deal of publicly
firing a low level writer for making up articles from his NY apt when he was supposed to be
in the field. He was hardly the worst of the bunch.
Great article and thankfully I do not trust big newspapers in the USA especially the New York
Times since it has being caught lying about Weapons of Mass Destructions in Iraq to justify
the Iraq War. Judith Millar was the liar then.
Read CounterPunch and smaller publications for the truth.
The NYT is all about selling ads on a Sunday. It really is a corrupt rag.
"this didn't come from me and please delete after you read." -- Mazzetti
This could serve as the epitaph for our times. This (Shock and Awe, drones, the Apache
Massacre, Guantanamo, killing children, etc.) didn't come from US (even though it did)
because ...our crimes can be deleted through that magical "we're too big and bad to fail"
button.
See, nothing to worry about.
(Except future historians who will not be blindfolded and gagged and who will
therefore have some choice things to say about the journalists who were fully complicit
in the crimes of this lawless era.)
They are not only presstitutes, they are degenerative presstitutes...
Notable quotes:
"... I love how the NYT mentions how no public evidence has emerged, to skirt around the fact that if there were internal evidence (from some gov agency or private citizen) it would've leaked by now. There is no such thing as evidence which hasn't been leaked in an alleged scandal of this size. ..."
"... Further, the corporate news media gave Trump something like $2 billion dollars worth of advertising in free airtime. That's a much larger impact -- around 20 times Clinton's campaign costs IIRC -- than any alleged hacked e-mails (though the e-mails were leaked not hacked, and that played a role. As well as the FBI's investigation into Clinton's illegal email server which was public fact at the time) or social media interference. ..."
"... Banks, defense contractors and oil companies decide who the President is and what their Cabinet will look like (see Obama's leaked CitiBank memo "recommending" executives to his 2009 Cabinet). Russians and the American people do not. ..."
"... John Pilger's essay: Hold the Front Page, the Reporters are Missing appropriately describes this BigLie media item b dissected, while also observing, "Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has changed in recent years," prior to providing Why this is so. ..."
"... but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. ..."
"... The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo. [My emphasis] ..."
"... on journalism and it being usurped by social media behemoths google, facebook, twitter and etc - i found this cbc radio) interview last night worth recommending.. ..."
"... That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best! ..."
"... Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence. ..."
"After the security briefing and everyone cleared out, McCabe shut the door to
Priebus's office. This is very weird, thought Priebus, who was standing by his
desk.
"You know this story in The New York Times?" Priebus knew it all too well.
McCabe was referring to a recent Times story of February 14 that stated, "Phone records
and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016
presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the elections, according to four
current and former American officials."
The story was one of the first bombs to go off about alleged Trump-Russian
connections after Flynn's resignation.
"It's total bullshit," McCabe said. "It's not true, and we want you to know
that. It's grossly overstated."
Oh my God, thought Priebus.
"Andrew," he said to the FBI deputy, "I'm getting killed."
The story about Russia and election meddling seemed to be running 24/7 on
cable news, driving Trump bananas and therefore driving Priebus bananas.
"This is crazy," Trump had told Priebus. "We've got to stop it. We need to
end the story."
McCabe had just walked in with a big gift, a Valentine's Day present. I'm
going to be the hero of this entire West Wing, Priebus thought.
"Can you help me?" Priebus asked. "Could this knockdown of the story be
made public?"
"Call me in a couple of hours," McCabe said. "I will ask around and I'll let
you know. I'll see what I can do."
Priebus practically ran to report to Trump the good news that the FBI would
soon be shooting down the Times story
Two hours passed and no call from McCabe. Priebus called him."I'm sorry, I can't," McCabe
said.
"There's nothing I can do about it. I tried, but if we start issuing comments on individual
stories, we'll be doing statements
every three days." The FBI could not become a clearinghouse for the accuracy of news stories.
If the FBI tried to debunk certain stories, a failure to comment could be seen as a
confirmation.
"Andrew, you're the one that came to my office to tell me this is a BS story,
and now you're telling me there's nothing you can do?"
McCabe said that was his position.
"This is insanity," Priebus said. "What am I supposed to do? Just suffer, bleed out?"
"Give me a couple more hours."
Nothing happened. No call from the FBI. Priebus tried to explain to Trump,
who was waiting for a recanting. It was another reason for Trump to distrust and
hate the FBI, a pernicious tease that left them dangling.
About a week later on February 24 CNN reported an exclusive: "FBI Refused
White House Request to Knock Down Recent Trump-Russia Story." Priebus
was cast as trying to manipulate the FBI for political purposes.
The White House tried and failed to correct the story and show that McCabe
had initiated the matter.
Four months later on June 8, Comey testified under oath publicly that the
original New York Times story on the Trump campaign aides' contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials "in the main was not true."
The Mueller Hoax is unraveling.
Posted by: Sid2 | Sep 20, 2018 3:03:44 PM | 3
The Mueller Hoax is unraveling, and concommittently the NYT is digging in; ergo ,
the NYT is also unravelling! The NYT will permanently damage its reputation with its own
readers.
I love how the NYT mentions how no public evidence has emerged, to skirt around the
fact that if there were internal evidence (from some gov agency or private citizen) it
would've leaked by now. There is no such thing as evidence which hasn't been leaked in
an alleged scandal of this size.
Further, the corporate news media gave Trump something like $2 billion dollars worth of
advertising in free airtime. That's a much larger impact -- around 20 times Clinton's
campaign costs IIRC -- than any alleged hacked e-mails (though the e-mails were leaked
not hacked, and that played a role. As well as the FBI's investigation into Clinton's illegal
email server which was public fact at the time) or social media interference.
Banks, defense contractors and oil companies decide who the President is and what their
Cabinet will look like (see Obama's leaked CitiBank memo "recommending" executives to his
2009 Cabinet). Russians and the American people do not.
John Pilger's essay: Hold
the Front Page, the Reporters are Missing appropriately describes this BigLie media
item b dissected, while also observing, "Although journalism was always a loose extension of
establishment power, something has changed in recent years," prior to providing Why this is
so.
Want to highlight this additional bit from Pilger:
"Journalism students should study this [New book from Media Lens Propaganda Blitz ]
to understand that the source of "fake news" is not only trollism, or the likes of Fox news,
or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal
journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects
it, and colludes with it.
The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has
failed to rehabilitate, is its echo. [My emphasis]
IMO, the bolded text well describes BigLie Media. I wonder what George Seldes would say
differently from Pilger if he were alive. Unfortunately, Pilger failed to include MoA as a
source in his short list of sites having journalistic integrity.
on journalism and it being usurped by social media behemoths google, facebook, twitter and
etc - i found
this cbc radio) interview last night worth recommending..
That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and
other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best!
Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion
argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix
Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the
KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence.
Documents leaked by internet hackers of Anonymous reveal how a supposedly independent think-tank based in the UK is a government
funded and controlled operation of misinformation and fake news.
At the same time that the Western powers were accusing Russia of interference in democracy, the UK government and its intelligence
services MI5 and MI6 were busily preventing the nomination of a Spanish official to Director of National Security, one of Spain's
top advisory roles.
Details of the operation carried out by the Integrity Initiative (II), a project launched in 2015 by the Institute of Statecraft,
have been published by the web site CyberGuerilla.org. It is a trove of documents allegedly hacked from II, showing carefully worked
out campaigns, costs and internal guidelines, as well as names of individuals cooperating with the network.
Anonymous shows that the network:
1. Is mainly funded by the UK government through the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
2. Cost Ł1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year.
3. Has received Ł168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and Ł250,000 from the US State Department.
4. Is controlled by figures in the UK who manipulate "clusters" of politicians, high-ranking military officials, academics and
journalists.
5. Clusters are said to operate in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, and Montenegro.
6. Its activities are carried under absolute secrecy via named intelligence services operatives in British embassies.
The Integrity Initiative poses as "Defending Democracy against Misinformation," but does exactly the opposite, spreading fake
news against Russia in order to defend the national interests of the UK and its imperialist allies, influence Russian speakers in
Europe and North America and "change attitudes in Russia itself".
An example of II's activities was the operation launched last June against the nomination of Army reserve colonel Pedro Bańos
as Spain's Director of National Security. Attached to La Moncloa, the official residence and workplace of the prime minister of Spain,
the director's role is to advise the PM on existing and potential threats to the country and possible responses.
II's operation started after it was warned that the new Socialist Party (PSOE) government under Pedro Sánchez, which had just
been elected in parliament through a no confidence vote, was considering Bańos and was about to confirm his appointment on June 7,
2018.
Immediately, newspapers like El Mundo and El País published articles accusing Bańos of "sympathy for Russia."
Proof of this for El País was his "regular presence" on Russia Today and Sputnik , media outlets funded
by the Putin government. Further "evidence" was his tweet in response to a survey showing a domestic popularity rating of 74 percent
for Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Wouldn't we love to have a political leader half as popular right here in the European Union!!!"
Bańos was also quoted as saying, "Which country has everything that we lack? Russia does. We will not gain anything by provoking
Russia. So Russia wants to have its own sphere of influence? Of course it does, just like the United States or China do. It also
wants to have its markets and like-minded countries nearby."
Numerous articles also put in doubt Bańos' sanity for his participation in the popular offbeat TV show Cuarto Milenio that often
investigates topics such as conspiracy theories, ufology and parapsychology.
Bańos reflects a minority realpolitik opinion within the Spanish ruling class which opposes provocative military actions and sanctions
against Russia. He sees the need to defend Spain's imperialist interests through a European army and closer relations with Russia
-- positions also held by sections of the German and French ruling elite.
The UK-sponsored II, however, saw Bańos as a threat to British national interests and an obstacle to its anti-Russia campaign.
According to the hacked documents, at midday on June 7, 2018, the Spanish Cluster, obviously through informants at the highest levels
of the PSOE, "hear that a well-known pro-Kremlin voice, Pedro Bańos, is to be appointed at the weekend (09.06.2018) as the Director
of the National Security Department (DSN), which works closely with the Spanish PM's office (La Moncloa) and is very influential
in shaping policy."
An action plan is drawn up laying out how Institute of Statecraft Fellow and Spain Cluster leader Nicólas de Pedro will alert
"the rest of the cluster members and prepare[s] a dossier to inform the main Spanish media. The cluster starts a Twitter campaign...
trying to prevent an appointment."
Spanish Cluster members also include Borja Lasheras and Quique Badia-Masoni, writers and journalists well known for their hysterical
anti-Russian positions. They are supported by II Team UK members Chris Hernon, Simon Bracey-Lane and Ben Robinson, and StopFake Spanish
Desk members Alina Mosendz and Serbian Cluster member Jelena Milic.
At 15:45, "The head of the Spanish cluster urgently contacts the British cluster, which activates the II network in order to create
international support for the Twitter campaign. The British Cluster creates a group in the WhatsApp messenger... to coordinate the
reaction on Twitter, gets contacts on Twitter to spread concerns and encourage people to 'retweet' the material. He publishes material
written by the head of the Spanish cluster Niko de Pedro on the Spanish version of the StopFake website, which is also 'retweeted'
by key influential figures."
The Spanish cluster then sends material to El País and El Mundo to publish. On the same day, El País
publishes, "Spanish PM taps Russia supporter for National Security Director."
The documents reveal that by 19:45, barely eight hours after the start of the operation, the "campaign [had] raised significant
noise on Twitter Contacts in the Socialist Party confirmed that this information reached the Prime Minister. Some Spanish diplomats
also expressed their concern. In the end, both the People's Party and the Civil Party (Ciudadanos) asked the Prime Minister to stop
the appointment."
The following day, the government drops Bańos and nominates general Miguel Ángel Ballesteros instead.
The operation against Bańos is a graphic illustration of the inner workings of the intelligence services in collaboration with
alleged "independent" journalists and academics. The same forces that accuse Russia of meddling in European nations' internal affairs
are themselves meddling to stop elected governments from nominating officials when it conflicts with their interests. They use social
media in the same way they accuse the Kremlin of using it.
By showing the real sources of information on which they rely, newspapers like El País or El Mundo are exposed
as conduits of the intelligence services to support the suppression of maverick political viewpoints, in this case, Bańos' call for
closer relations with Russia.
Last year, El País carried out a
frenzied and paranoid campaign claiming that the Catalan crisis was not sparked by the Popular Party government's violent repression
of the secessionists, but was the result of Moscow and its "fake news." It quoted experts and specialists working for Spanish think
tanks like Instituto Elcano and Barcelona Centre for International Affairs (CIDOB), and the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The leaked documents show that many members of these think tanks are members of the "Spanish Cluster" of the Integrity Initiative.
The most notorious is Senior Analyst for Instituto Elcano, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi who testified last year in parliament to claim
that Russia was promoting fake news.
The Bańos case is just one of the highlighted campaigns of Integrity Initiative, but according to Anonymous, similar operations
have been carried out in numerous other EU states.
"... Because once we go from "corruption is getting more and more common; something must be done" to "meh," we are crossing from a flawed democratic republic to outright tyranny and oligarchy with little way back. ..."
"... Why would anyone expect anything different from the Times, or any major U.S. Newspaper or media outlet? They are organs of the intelligence community and have been for many years. ..."
"... I think the ridiculous and pathetic explanations by NYT in this case are, in part, due to the fact that they simply don't care enough to produce better answers. In their view, these CIA connections and those with other Govt. agencies are paramount, and must be maintained at all costs. ..."
"... It is likely that the relationship is a little more formal than mere collusion ..."
"... "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few" [George Bernard Shaw" ..."
"... Has been since Judith Miller told us there were WMD in Iraq in 2003. They don't plan anticipations of crises, but the actual crises themselves. In a moral world, the NYT is as guilty of genocide as Bush and Blair. ..."
The more important objection is that the fact that a certain behavior is common does not negate its being corrupt. Indeed,
as is true for government abuses generally, those in power rely on the willingness of citizens to be trained to view corrupt
acts as so common that they become inured, numb, to its wrongfulness. Once a corrupt practice is sufficiently perceived as
commonplace, then it is transformed in people's minds from something objectionable into something acceptable.
Because once we go from "corruption is getting more and more common; something must be done" to "meh," we are crossing
from a flawed democratic republic to outright tyranny and oligarchy with little way back.
Besides, they don't all do it ... there are honorable reporters out there, some few of whom work for the Times and the Post.
Another great article Glenn. The Guardian will spread your words further and wider. Salon's loss is the world's gain.
Why would anyone expect anything different from the Times, or any major U.S. Newspaper or media outlet? They are organs
of the intelligence community and have been for many years. That these email were allowed to get out under FOIA is indicative
of the fact that there are some people on the inside who would like to get the truth out. Either that, or the head of some ES-2's
Assistant Deputy for Secret Shenanigans and Heinous Drone Murders will roll.
Scott Horton quote on closely related Mazzetti reporting (in this case regarding misleading reporting on how important CIA/Bush
torture was in tracking down and getting bin Laden, the focus of this movie):
"I'm quite sure that this is precisely the way the folks who provided this info from the agency [to Mazzetti] wanted them to
be understood, but there is certainly more than a measure of ambiguity in them, planted with care by the NYT writers or their
editors. This episode shows again how easily the Times can be spun by unnamed government sources, the factual premises of whose
statements invariably escape any examination."
I think the ridiculous and pathetic explanations by NYT in this case are, in part, due to the fact that they simply don't
care enough to produce better answers. In their view, these CIA connections and those with other Govt. agencies are paramount,
and must be maintained at all costs.
If you don't like their paper-thin answers, tough. In their view (imo) this will blow over and business will resume, with the
all-important friends and connections intact. Thus leaving the machinery intact for future uncritical, biased and manipulative
"spin" of NYT by any number of unnamed govt. sources/agencies...
In what conceivable way is Mazzetti's collusion with the CIA an "intelligence matter" that prevents the NYT's managing
editor from explaining what happened here?
That one is easy, as we learned in the Valerie Plame affair. It is likely that the relationship is a little more formal
than mere collusion.
Just another step down the ladder towards despotism. "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment
by the corrupt few" [George Bernard Shaw"
The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these
emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.
Has been since Judith Miller told us there were WMD in Iraq in 2003. They don't plan anticipations of crises, but the actual
crises themselves. In a moral world, the NYT is as guilty of genocide as Bush and Blair.
The humor seems to go completely out of the issue when 100,000 people are dead and their families and futures changed forever.
"... It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." ..."
"... The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed, despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle class that constitute the target audience of the Times ..."
The New York Times published a fraudulent and provocative "special report" Thursday titled "The plot to subvert an election."
Replete with sinister looking graphics portraying Russian President Vladimir Putin as a villainous cyberage cyclops, the report
purports to untangle "the threads of the most effective foreign campaign in history to disrupt and influence an American election."
The report could serve as a textbook example of CIA-directed misinformation posing as "in-depth" journalism. There is no news,
few substantiated facts and no significant analysis presented in the 10,000-word report, which sprawls over 11 ad-free pages of a
separate section produced by the Times.
The article begins with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City
and Washington in October and November of 2016, one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker,"
and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye Murderer."
It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin,
it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory
laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." The article begins with an ominous-sounding
recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016,
one bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye
Murderer."
It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin,
it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory
laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Why does it "appear" to be the Kremlin? What is the evidence to support this claim? Among the 8.5 million inhabitants of New York
City and another 700,000 in Washington, D.C., aren't there enough people who might despise Obama as much as, if not a good deal more
than, Vladimir Putin?
This absurd passage with its "appeared" and "may well have" combined with the speculation about the Kremlin extending its evil
grip onto "United States soil" sets the tone for the entire piece, which consists of the regurgitation of unsubstantiated allegations
made by the US intelligence agencies, Democratic and Republican capitalist politicians and the Times itself.
The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed,
despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle
class that constitute the target audience of the Times , polls have indicated that the charges of Russian "meddling" in
the 2016 presidential election have evoked little popular response among the
"We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed
under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few."
Notable quotes:
"... bin laden gave terror a face. how conveeeenient for warmongers everywhere! ..."
"... CIA in collusion with mainstream newspaper NYT. And you call this news ? ..."
"... collusion between the us media and the us government goes back much, much further. Chomsky has plenty of stuff about this... ..."
"... The NYTimes has its own agenda and bends the news that's fit to print. Journalistic integrity? LOL. No one beat the war drums louder for Bush's Neocons before the Iraq war. Draining our nation's resources, getting young Americans killed (they didn't come from the 1%, you see). The cradle of civilization that's the Iraqi landscape wiped out. Worst, 655,000 Iraqis lost their lives, said British medical journal Lancet, creating 2.5mn each internal & external refugees. ..."
"... The NYT never dwelled on the numbers of Iraqis killed. Up to a few weeks ago, its emphasis on the current Syrian tragedy is to inform us on the hundreds or thousands who've lost their lives. ..."
"... World financial meltdown? When Sanford Weill of Citi pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall late 1990's, the FDR era 17-page law separating commercial from investment banks, a measure that's preserved the nation's banking integrity for over half a century, the Nyt added its megaphone to the task, urging Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin to comply, editorializing In 1988: "Few economic historians now find the logic behind Glass-Steagall persuasive" . In 1990, that "banks and stocks were a dangerous mixture" "makes little sense now." ..."
"... just off the top of my head I recall the editor of one of a British major was an MI5 agent; this is in the public domain. ..."
"... We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few. ..."
"... The NYT has been infiltrated for decades by CIA agents. Just notice their dogged reporting on the completely debunked "lone-gunman" JFK theory---they will always report that Oswald acted alone---this is the standard CIA story, pushed and maintained by the NYT despite overwhelming evidence that there was a conspiracy (likely involving the CIA). ..."
I've often wondered what you think of the journalism of someone like Seymour Hirsch. (sic) He broke some very important
stories by cozying up to moles in the MIC.
You'e confusing apples with oranges. Hersh seeks information on issues that outrage him. These do not usually include propaganda
for the intelligence agencies, but information they would like to suppress. He's given secret information because he appears to
his informers as someone who has a long record of integrity.
It's straight outta that old joke about the husband being caught by his wife in flagrante delicto with the pretty young lady neighbour,
who then tells his wife that he and his bit on the side weren't doing anything: "And who do you believe-- me, or your lying eyes?"
The NYTimes has its own agenda and bends the news that's fit to print. Journalistic integrity? LOL. No one beat the
war drums louder for Bush's Neocons before the Iraq war. Draining our nation's resources, getting young Americans killed (they
didn't come from the 1%, you see). The cradle of civilization that's the Iraqi landscape wiped out. Worst, 655,000 Iraqis lost
their lives, said British medical journal Lancet, creating 2.5mn each internal & external refugees.
Following the pre-Iraq
embellishment, NYT covered up its deeds by sacrificing Journalist Judith Miller. As Miller answered a post-war court case, none
other than Chairman & CEO Arthur Sulzberger jr. locked arms with her as they entered the courtroom.
The NYT never dwelled on the numbers of Iraqis killed. Up to a few weeks ago, its emphasis on the current Syrian tragedy is
to inform us on the hundreds or thousands who've lost their lives.
World financial meltdown? When Sanford Weill of Citi pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall late 1990's, the FDR era 17-page
law separating commercial from investment banks, a measure that's preserved the nation's banking integrity for over half a century,
the Nyt added its megaphone to the task, urging Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin to comply, editorializing In 1988: "Few economic
historians now find the logic behind Glass-Steagall persuasive" . In 1990, that "banks and stocks were a dangerous mixture" "makes
little sense now."
NYT, a liberal icon? In year 2000, when I lived in NYC, New York Daily News columnist A.M. Rosenthal used to regularly demonize
China in language surpassing even Rush Limbaugh. I told myself nah, that's not the Rosenthal-former-editor of the NYT. Only when
I read his obituary a few years later did I learn that it was indeed the same one.
We pledge subservience to the Owners of the United Corporations of America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands, one Greed
under God, indivisible, with power and wealth for few.
NOAM CHOMSKY _MANUFACTURING CONSENT haven't read it? read it. read it? read it again.
thought totalitarianism and the ruling class died in 1945? think again. thought you wouldn't have to fight like grandpa's generation
to live in a democratic and just society? think again.
Would that we could hold these discussions without reference to personal defamations -- "darkened ignorance" and "educate yourself"
which sounds like "f___ yourself". Why can't we just say "I respectfully disagree"? Alas, when discussing political issues with
leftists, that seems impossible. Why the vitriol?
Greenwald's more lengthy posts make it clear that he believes that people who differ with him are "lying" and basing their
viewpoint upon "a single right wing blogger". He chooses this explanation over the obvious and accurate one -- legal rationales
developed by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration. The date of Greenwald's archive is February 19, 2006.
Oddly, he bases all of his contentions upon whatever he could glean up to that date. But the legal rationale for warrantless wiretaps
was based upon memos written by John Yoo at the OLC that Greenwald did not have access to in 2006. The memos were not released
until after Obama took office in 2009.
Obama released them in a highly publicized press conference staged for maximum political impact. Greenwald could not possibly
have understood the legal rationale for the program since he had not been privy to them until March 2009 if, indeed, he has bothered
to acquaint himself with them since then. Either way, nobody was "lying" except those who could have understood the full dimension
and willfully chose to hide or ignore the truth. It's not exactly like I am new to this subject as you seem to imply. I wrote
a 700 page book about Obama administration duplicity in this same vein. An entire chapter is devoted to this very topic.
Warrantless wiretaps were undertaken after a legal ruling from OLC. And after Obama took office, warrantless wiretaps were
continued. Obviously since they were based upon OLC rulings, since no prosecutions have ever been suggested and since they have
continued uninterrupted after Obama took office, the Justice Department under both administrations agrees with me and disagrees
with Greenwald. We arrive at this disagreement respectfully. Despite Obama's voluminous denunciations of the Bush anti-terror
approach on the campaign trail, he resurrected nearly every plank of it once he took office.
But this is a subsidiary point to a far larger point that some observers on this discussion to their credit were able to understand.
Despite all of these pointless considerations, the larger point of my original post was that Greenwald missed the "real" story
here, which was that the collusion between NYT and CIA was not due to institutional considerations as Greenwald seems to allege,
but due to purely partisan considerations. That, to me, is the story he missed.
I find that people who are losing debates try to shift the focus to subsidiary points hoping that, like a courtroom lawyer,
if they can refute a small and inconsequential detail raised in testimony, they will undercut the larger truth offered by the
witness. It won't work. Too much is on the record. And neither point, the ankle-biting non-issue about legality of warrantless
wiretaps or the larger, salient point about the overt partisan political dimension of NYT's collusion with a political appointee
at CIA who serves on the Obama reelection committee, has been refuted.
Joseph Toomey
Author, "Change You Can REALLY Believe In: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies"
Conspiracy theorists, have been, of course, telling you this for years (given media's motive is profit and not honesty). I suppose
the exact same conspiracy theorists other guardian authors have been too eager to denounce previously?
The NSA wiretap program revealed by Risen was not illegal as Greenwald wrongly asserts. As long as one end of the intercepted
conservation originated on foreign soil as it did, it was perfectly legal and required no FISA court authorization.
Mr. Toomey, in 2006 Greenwald
published a compendium of legal arguments defending the Bush Admin's warrantless wiretapping and the (sound) rebuttals of
them. It is exhaustive, and covers your easily dispensed with argument. By way of introduction to his many links to his
aggregated, rigorous analyses of the legal issues, he wrote this:
I didn't just wake up one day and leap to the conclusion that the Administration broke the law deliberately and that there
are no reasonable arguments to defend that law-breaking (as many Bush followers leaped to the conclusion that he did nothing
wrong and then began their hunt to find rationale or advocates to support this conclusion). I arrived at the conclusion that
Bush clearly broke the law only by spending enormous amounts of time researching these issues and reading and responding to
the defenses from the Administration's apologists.
He did spend enormous time dealing with people such as yourself, and all of his work remains available for you to educate
yourself with, at the link provided above.
Maybe you'd like to explain that to Samuel Loring Morison who was convicted and spent years in the federal system for passing
classified information to Janes Defence Weekly. I'm sure he'd be entertained. Larry Franklin would also like to hear it. He's
in prison today for violating the Espionage Act.
Courts have recognized no press privilege exists when publishing classified data. In 1971, the Supreme Court vacated a prior
restraint against NYT and The Washington Post allowing them to publish the Pentagon Papers. But the court also observed that prosecutions
after-the-fact would be permissible and not involve an abridgement of the free speech clause. It was only the prior restraint
that gave the justices heartburn. They had no issue with throwing them in the slammer after the deed was done.
Thomas Drake, a former NSA official, was indicted and convicted after revealing information to reporters in 2010. The statute
covers mere possession which even NYT recognized could cover reporters as well. There have been numerous other instances of arrests,
indictments and prosecutions for disclosure to reporters. It's only been due to political calculations and not constitutional
limitations that have kept Risen and others out of prison.
The NYT has been infiltrated for decades by CIA agents. Just notice their dogged reporting on the completely debunked "lone-gunman"
JFK theory---they will always report that Oswald acted alone---this is the standard CIA story, pushed and maintained by the NYT
despite overwhelming evidence that there was a conspiracy (likely involving the CIA).
What outrages me the most is the NYT's condescending attitude towards its readers when caught in this obvious breach of journalistic
ethics.
Both Baquet and Abramson, rather than showing some humility or contrition, are acting as if nothing bad has happened, and that
we are stupid to even talk about this.
This article misses the elephant in the room. Namely, that the NYT only plays footsies with Democrats in positions of power.
With the 'Pubs, it's open season.
Not true. There are many examples of the NYT colluding with the Bush administration, some of which Glenn has mentioned in this
article. Take, for example, the fact that the NYT concealed Bush's wire-tapping program for almost a year, at the request of the
White House, and didn't release details until after Bush's re-election.
"... The Government leaks classified material at will for propaganda advantage, but hunts Assange and tortures Private Manning for the same. ..."
"... these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger – between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as "watchdogs" over them. ..."
"... The issue under discussion here, however, is the extent to which the media is an eager partner in the message-sending, rather than an unwitiing tool. ..."
The New York Crimes. The seamless web of media, government, business: a totalitarian system.
Darkly amusing, perhaps, unless one begins to tally the damage.
USA Inc. Viva Death,
Did you hear the one about the investment banker whose very expensive hooker bite off his
crank?
I'm not sure what's scarier--that the CIA is spending taxpayer dollars spending even a split
second worrying about what a two bit hack like Maureen Dowd writes, or that the NY Times
principals are so institutionally "captured" that they parrot "CIA speak".
Or maybe that our purported public servants in the legislature are bipartisanly
and openly attempting to repeal portions of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign
Relations Authorization Act in 1987 banning domestic propaganda.
America is becoming a real sick joke. And the last to know will be about 65% of the
populace I like to call Sheeple.
Very depressing. I thought we would get a smart bunch over here. The major trend I've noticed
instead? Blind support for the empire and the apparatus that keeps it thriving. Unable to be
good little authoritarians and cheer for the now collapsing British Empire, they have to
cheer for it's natural predecessor, the American Empire. This includes attacking all those
who might question the absolute infallible of The Empire. Folks like.. Glenn. It is
fascinating to watch, if not disheartening.
So all cozying up to spooks is not always a bad thing, huh?
Just my point.
I see. I thought your point was that there was some sort of equivalence between Hersh's
development of sources to reveal truths that their agencies fervently wished to keep secret
and Mazzetti's active assistance in protecting an agency's image from sullying by fellow
journalists.
And that ended his career in government service, as it should have...or not:
From Wikipedia: John O. Brennan is chief counterterrorism advisor to U.S. President
Barack Obama; officially his title is Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security
and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.
Unfortunately this is nothing new for Mazetti or the New York Times, nor is it the first time
Glenn Greenwald has called Mazetti out on his cozy relationship with the CIA:
The CIA and its reporter friends: Anatomy of a backlash
The coordinated, successful effort to implant false story lines about John Brennan
illustrates the power the intelligence community wields over political debates.
Glenn Greenwald Dec. 08, 2008 |
...Just marvel at how coordinated (and patently inaccurate) their messaging is, and --
more significantly -- how easily they can implant their message into establishment media
outlets far and wide, which uncritically publish what they're told from their cherished
"intelligence sources" and without even the pretense of verifying whether any of it is true
and/or hearing any divergent views:
Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, New York Times, 12/2/2008:
Last week, John O. Brennan, a C.I.A. veteran who was widely seen as Mr. Obama's likeliest
choice to head the intelligence agency, withdrew his name from consideration after liberal
critics attacked his alleged role in the agency's detention and interrogation program. Mr.
Brennan protested that he had been a "strong opponent" within the agency of harsh
interrogation tactics, yet Mr. Obama evidently decided that nominating Mr. Brennan was not
worth a battle with some of his most ardent supporters on the left.
Mr. Obama's search for someone else and his future relationship with the agency are
complicated by the tension between his apparent desire to make a clean break with Bush
administration policies he has condemned and concern about alienating an agency with a
central role in the campaign against Al Qaeda.
Mark M. Lowenthal, an intelligence veteran who left a senior post at the C.I.A. in 2005, said
Mr. Obama's decision to exclude Mr. Brennan from contention for the top job had sent a
message that "if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted," and
had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency's clandestine service.
...The story, by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, noted that John O. Brennan had withdrawn
his name from consideration for CIA director after liberal critics attacked his role in the
agency's interrogation program, even though Brennan characterized himself as a "strong
opponent" within the agency of harsh interrogation techniques. Brennan's characterization was
not disputed by anyone else in the story, even though most experts on this subject agree that
Brennan acquiesced in everything that the CIA did in this area while he served there.
"these emails reflect the standard full-scale cooperation – a virtual merger –
between our the government and the establishment media outlets that claim to act as
"watchdogs" over them."
Glenn - the only objection I have to your column and all your previous columns on this
matter is that I am not sure the establishment media actually claim to be watchdogs, at least
not any more, and certainly not since Sept 11. They really are more like PR reps.
The media is another tool in the [government, in this case] arsenal to help send a
message, as are speeches before think tanks and etc.
Yes. The issue under discussion here, however, is the extent to which the media is an
eager partner in the message-sending, rather than an unwitiing tool.
Did everyone forget the Judith Miller article? The usage of Twitter and other social media
during the Iranian election of 2009? The leaks about the Iranian nuclear program in the
Telegraph? ARDA?
The U.S. government, along with every other government in the world, uses the media to
influence public opinion and send geopolitical messages to others that understand the message
(normally not the masses). The media is another tool in the arsenal to help send a message,
as are speeches before think tanks and etc.
We use social media to create social unrest if it aligns with our interests. We use the
media to send political messages and influence public opinion. The vast majority of reporting
in the N.Y. Times, WSJ, Guardian, Telegraph, and etc. do not reflect this, but every now and
then "unnamed sources" help further a geopolitical message.
In this country, it has been that way since before the founding fathers and the Republic.
Remember the Federalist, Anti-Federalist, Sam Adams as Vtndex, and etc.? Newspapers used for
"propaganda" purposes.
Upthread I asked him for his comments on the reporting of Seymour Hirsh. He is someone
who cozied up to all kinds of people - and wound up busting some extremely important
stories in the process.
I think a modest amount of review of Sy Hersh's work will demonstrate that his "cozying
up" hasn't included running interference for the spooks' official PR flacks.
"... For one thing, Marzetti apparently passed a draft of a Maureen Dowd column for vetting by the CIA . Her importance, or not, as a columnist or pundit aside, why would a NYT employee slip material to a gov't agency? That's the skillset of an informant, not a journalist. ..."
"... Today, the Wall Street-Security-Military Industrial Complex is unchallenged. Exaggerated respect is shown to the Military. Many of the Reporters who called in question the Political-Military establishment during Vietnam were muted during the second invasion of Iraq. None of lessons that Vietnam should have taught them about the lengths the Government would go to such as out right lies, and covert deceit were learned. Perhaps they were cowed into cooperation. ..."
"... Unprincipled and disingenuous - both the Obama Administration and the New York Times. Doesn't come as a surprise though ... ..."
"... I'd be worried about anyone going to the CIA for their fact-checking too... ..."
"The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried
to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration."
I would have answered just as OnYourMarx has done. Most every story Hersh broke was from a series of well-developed relationships
within CIA and/or MIC.
In terms of its relevance, it seems to me that any real journalist worth their salt does this. And so rather than deride those
who have relationships with government sources, we need to dig a bit deeper and ask ourselves what distinguishes the kind Hersh
developed from those that are problematic.
Excuse me for thinking that perhaps in the context of a discussion about the relationship between the media and government, it
might be helpful to talk about how journalists can actually use their relationships with people in the government to break important
stories. So I noted my thoughts about Hersh and asked for his.
Contrary to "gotcha," I thought it might be an opportunity to take the conversation a bit deeper. As with what I said about
humor, its no skin off my nose if no one takes me up on it. The only reason I brought it up later is because someone suggested
perhaps I should attempt to engage on a more substantive level...which I had done.
I've been completely upfront about the fact that I disagree with Glenn on most things (although I'll just point out that I
did comment about how much I agreed with his article on authoritarianism). So please also excuse me while I try to learn all the
rules about what is ok and not ok to talk about and how I'm supposed to do that properly in order to satisfy someone like you.
But thanks for ultimately getting back to the point in talking about the difference being what emerges from the "cozy relationship."
I actually disagree with that though. I think it depends on the journalist's ability to do critical thinking and questioning.
If they're merely stenographers or are simply set on finding something negative - either way they corrupt what the real story
might be.
Let's clear up one thing...Maureen Down is not a journalist OR a reporter. She is opinion columnist.
You can suggest that there's a qualitative difference between journalists and reporters, but Dowd is neither one. So to
me, the distinction when it comes to her is meaningless.
If that is so, then why would the CIA be so interested in what she wrote? And why would a NYT employee pass an unpublished
draft to them without, presumably, checking with an editor? "See, nothing to worry about," indeed.
Frankly, I don't even understand what your hang up is. Was Marzetti supposed to violate this woman's trust? Is he not supposed
to talk to government officials in order to report the news, which is the whole raison d'etre of his career.
For one thing, Marzetti apparently passed a draft of a Maureen Dowd column for vetting by the CIA . Her importance,
or not, as a columnist or pundit aside, why would a NYT employee slip material to a gov't agency? That's the skillset of an informant,
not a journalist.
I didn't think Ms. Dowd was that important to our nation's security, but that aside, why pass company material to outsiders?
"This song was known to everybody. A book was afterward printed, with a regular license He happened to select and print
in his journal this song ... He was seised in his bed that night and has been never since heard of. Our excellent journal
de Paris then is suppressed and this bold traitor has been in jail now three weeks Thus you see, madam, the value of energy
in government; our feeble republic would in such a case have probably been wrapt in the flames of war and desolation for want
of a power lodged in a single hand to punish summarily those who write songs."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in Paris, to Abigail Adams, June 21, 1785
Right, and I knew some of that. However I was after the other commenter's notions of what he meant by saying Hersh "cozyd
up" to CIA and MIC ppl, with an eye to figuring out why s/he thinks Hersh and his sources have relevance to the article being
discussed.
I've often wondered what you think of the journalism of someone like Seymour Hirsch. He broke some very important stories
by cozying up to moles in the MIC.
And I assumed Glenn supported Hirsh's work.
It's been kind of a long day. And, it's possible that I either need another drink, or to simply hit the sack. So, apologies
if this comes off sounding less than supportive. While you're busy wondering and assuming , you might better advance
your case if you also did a little Googling . And, pro tip, it wouldn't hurt to spell Hersh's name correctly. Lends credibility,
methinks.
I'd suggest that you were ignored because of the gotcha flavor to the way you tried to engage. I would also suggest
that if Glenn thought you were asking your question with some sincere intent, he might answer that it depends on how that coziness
is conducted, and what emerges from that "cozy relationship." Dan Gillmor's piece - to which Glenn links - on this subject
may add some additional insight.
In other words, if you're gonna do gotcha it helps not to show your hand too soon, or be quite so transparent. One could
do a little research first and bring their best game.
@MonaHot: Hersh's New Yorker piece about Bush regime ramping up against Iran in 2008. Robert Baer of the CIA was at least one
of his sources for that piece. In fact the film Syriana based Clooney's character on Baer.
Richard Armitage is the other MIC dude that comes to mind when thinking back on Hersh's stories. There must be countless of
them, though, including Saudis and Israelis who work to provide info to the MIC.
And I assumed Glenn supported Hirsh's work. That's why I brought him up. He cozys up to MIC folks as well. So its important
to make a distinction between cozying up to break important stories and cozying up to get access to power...a distinction that
Glenn didn't make.
What do you mean by claiming Hersh "cozys up" to MIC ppl? And what would be a specific example of a story he broke after
doing that?
The American Mega-Media has long been in the bag of Corporatism. Long gone are the days of reporters challenging the Military.
During the Vietnam War the Military Briefings were Derisively called the Five O' Clock Follies.
Today, the Wall Street-Security-Military Industrial Complex is unchallenged. Exaggerated respect is shown to the Military.
Many of the Reporters who called in question the Political-Military establishment during Vietnam were muted during the second
invasion of Iraq. None of lessons that Vietnam should have taught them about the lengths the Government would go to such as out
right lies, and covert deceit were learned. Perhaps they were cowed into cooperation.
Julian Assange who should be seen as a hero to the free press was vilified by our corporate press. Assange did the work a free
press and a real reporter should perform.
Let's clear up one thing...Maureen Down is not a journalist OR a reporter. She is opinion columnist.
You can suggest that there's a qualitative difference between journalists and reporters, but Dowd is neither one. So to me,
the distinction when it comes to her is meaningless.
And I assumed Glenn supported Hirsh's work. That's why I brought him up. He cozys up to MIC folks as well. So its important
to make a distinction between cozying up to break important stories and cozying up to get access to power...a distinction that
Glenn didn't make.
Finally, I have no need whatsoever for anyone to laugh with me. I just found the juxtaposition of Dowd and reporting to be
funny. Someone said something similar and I added my agreement. If its not funny to you - ignore it. Not sure why you'd think
I'd expect anything else.
Mr. Grenwald, let's not make more of this than it's worth. I see nothing wrong with newspapers working with government agencies
in order to report their news to their readership. Frankly, I don't even understand what your hang up is. Was Marzetti supposed
to violate this woman's trust? Is he not supposed to talk to government officials in order to report the news, which is the whole
raison d'etre of his career.
Mr Greenwald, please don't pretend that journalism has only just 'degraded'
If the sub-header had read "Mark Mazzetti's emails with the CIA expose the degradation of journalism that has only just
lost the imperative to be a check to power" then you would have a case.
It doesn't, and you don't.
Next time read past the sub-header. You might get more out of it.
Exactly. Not coming from the so-called socialistic/communistic Democrat party either. In fact, the only reference I have seen
to poverty since John Edwards in 2008 (he who shall not be named!) is on the front page of HuffPo, where there are Shadow Conventions,
one of which concerns Poverty in America. There was a book in 1962, The Other America by Michael Harrington. We are well
on our way to having that be The Only America , at least for the vast majority of us.
I'd agree that the comment Glenn responded to was pretty superficial. I was just laughing with another commenter at the
idea of Dowd doing any actual reporting.
What's interesting to me is that's the one Glenn responded to. And yet when I asked what I believe was a pretty substantive
question about where the reporting of someone like Seymour Hirsh [sic] fits into his critique of journalism, he ignores it.
Superficial? He responded because, intentionally or not, you misrepresented what he said. While you may not have appreciated
the difference, "reporting" and "journalism" are qualitatively (there's that word you don't like) different things.
It takes very little in the way of courage, skill or talent to work as a "reporter" for a major mainstream newspaper like the
New York Times. For most pieces that the government has an interest in spinning (like the one under discussion), this is how it
works: 1. Type up the words of anonymous officials, 2. Submit your article to those same officials for "fact-checking," censorship
and approval, 3. Retire for the day.
Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer, and not a trained journalist, on the other hand, is doing real journalism, and putting
most reporters to shame in the process. I can count on a single hand the number of reporters in the U.S. who deserve, like Greenwald,
to have the term of art "journalism" applied to their work. Hersh is one of them, and in this context, there isn't any more to
say with regards to a "critique."
As far as Glenn's own position goes, you can read any number of articles where he has praised Hersh's work. Just Google it.
That said, by joining the Guardian, Greenwald has graduated to a milieu where he rightly expects higher standards, in both
professional practice and in the quality of his readership. That doesn't mean you leave levity at the door, but it does mean that
you leave your whiny, self-entitled attitude ("But why won't he answer the question I really want him to answer?").
There are serious issues at stake here. I have a genuine question for you: if you disagree with Greenwald so much, why would
you expect him (or most of his readers) to laugh along with what you find funny?
Think about that, and get back to me if you come up with something plausible.
The USA has become so engrossed in itself that it doesn't even pretend to be a judicial state. Here we have a man called Osama
Bin Laden who is innocent of any crime yet the President of the United States of America brags about having him murdered.
This means that a precedent has been set that the President can order the murder of anyone even you.
The reason I said that perhaps I'd need to leave off the levity is that it was my superficial comment finding some humor in
all this that Glenn responded to and suggested that I was a complainer lacking in quality. It wasn't meant as anything but a half-baked
half-assed jab at the lightweight known as Maureen Dowd.
But as I said above, when I attempted to engage with some substance, I got ignored. I have no doubt that Glenn has a sense
of humor. But I'm afraid I'm not a good enough humorist to combine a laugh with in-depth engagement.
I'm counting on you being right on the idea that Glenn thrives on well reasoned dissent. That's why I'm here.
Indeed. Horse-hooey is a pleasant alternative to this steaming load of self-congratulatory manure.
About those fabled "handouts" ...where are they? Not in evidence when I see the local homeless vets in their wheelchairs...Nowhere
to be found when I see children shivering at bus stops without proper coats...can't quite see it in my overcrowded library...one
of the hottest tickets in town because it's literally a warm place to go. I'm sure parents who've lost homes because they were
craven enough to have a sick child and went bankrupt caring for them would love to find this fabled place where those generous
hands, stuffed full of money and goodies, are vying with each other to make things right.
If only we could find it.
-------------
"As of March 2012, 46.4 million Americans were receiving on average $133.14 per month in food stamps. "
According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, there was a payment error rate of 4.36% of food stamps
benefits down from 9.86% in 1999. A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker,
not the participant. ("Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges
Remain GAO report number GAO-10-956T, " July 28, 2010)
Wow, let's go wild on $33.25 a week! And then be accused of being "lazy," "pigs," "welfare queens," "parasites," "scum," etc.
[Pay no attention to the fat man behind the curtain busy purchasing his third home, or paying his lawyer to find another tax
loophole in the Virgin Islands; that pure industrious Republican bloke is too busy to stick his neck out and see the world as
he's helped make it for others.]
As if the National Transportation Safety Board didn't have enough to worry about.
Oh, and Glenn, here's a Salon story from 2010 titled
The NYT spills key military secrets on its front page .
Your lede: "In The New York Times today, Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins expose very sensitive classified government secrets
-- and not just routine secrets, but high-level, imminent planning for American covert military action in a foreign country ..."
This didn't come from me, and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about. -- Guardian story
Update 5: Cohen has been sentenced to 36 months in prison for his crimes, far below the
guideline of 51 - 63 months laid out by New York prosecutors. The Judge noted that the
guidelines aren't binding and had the ability to issue a lesser sentence.
Cohen has also been hit with forfeiture of $500,000, restitution of $1.4 million and a fine
of $50,000. He will be allowed to voluntarily surrender on March 6 .
Update 4: Judge Pauley has responded following Cohen's statement, saying "Mr. Cohen's crimes
implicate a far more insidious crime to our democratic institutions especially in view of his
subsequent plea to making false statements to Congress," adding that Cohen's crimes warrant
"specific deterrence."
Update 3: Cohen has spoken, telling the Judge: "Recently the president tweeted a statement
calling me weak and it was correct but for a much different reason than he was implying. It was
because time and time again i felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds." Judge William
Pauley, meanwhile, noted that Cohen pleaded guilty to a " veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent
conduct ," which was motivated by "personal greed and ambition."
Update 2: Petrillo, Cohen's attorney, continues to reference Cohen's desire to cooperate
further with prosecutors to answer future questions - however Manhattan prosecutors don't
appear to care, according to Bloomberg banking reporter Shahien Nasiripour. In a memo last week
to the court, they said that Cohen's promise to cooperate further is worthless - especially
since there would be nothing requiring him to do so once he's already been sentenced.
Meanwhile, Jeannie Rhee - an attorney with Robert Mueller's office, told the court that
while Cohen lied to the special counsel's team during his first interview in July, he has been
truthful since.
Manhattan Assistant US Attorney Nicolas Roos, however, says that any reduction in sentence
"should be modest."
Roos added that Cohen "has eroded faith in the electoral process and compromised the rule of
law," and that he engaged in " a pattern of deception of brazenness and greed ."
Update: Cohen's attorney, Guy Petrillo, says Cohen thought that President Trump would shut
down the Mueller probe, and has argued that his client's cooperation warrants a lenient
sentence.
"Mr. Cohen's cooperation promotes respect for law and the courage of the individual to stand
up to power and influence," said Petrillo.
"His decision was an importantly different decision from the usual decision to cooperate,"
added Petrillo. "He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in our
country. He did so not knowing what the result would be, not knowing how the politics would
play out and not even knowing that the special counsel's office would survive."
"The special counsel's investigation is of the utmost national significance... Not seen
since 40 plus years ago in the days of Watergate." -Guy Petrillo
Petrillo has asked the judge to "consider Cohen's "life of good works" in his decision,
adding that Cohen's cooperation stands in "profound contrast" to others who havern't cooperated
and who "have continued to double-deal while pretending to cooperate."
***
Michael Cohen, former longtime personal lawyer for President Trump, has shown up to a New
York courthouse where he will be sentenced on Wednesday for a laundry list of crimes - some of
which implicate Trump in possible wrongdoing, but most of which have nothing to do with the
president. Judge William Pauley, meanwhile, noted that Cohen pleaded guilty to a " veritable
smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct ," which was motivated by "personal greed and ambition."
Update 2: Petrillo, Cohen's attorney, continues to reference Cohen's desire to cooperate
further with prosecutors to answer future questions - however Manhattan prosecutors don't
appear to care, according to Bloomberg banking reporter Shahien Nasiripour. In a memo last week
to the court, they said that Cohen's promise to cooperate further is worthless - especially
since there would be nothing requiring him to do so once he's already been sentenced.
Meanwhile, Jeannie Rhee - an attorney with Robert Mueller's office, told the court that
while Cohen lied to the special counsel's team during his first interview in July, he has been
truthful since.
Manhattan Assistant US Attorney Nicolas Roos, however, says that any reduction in sentence
"should be modest."
Roos added that Cohen "has eroded faith in the electoral process and compromised the rule of
law," and that he engaged in " a pattern of deception of brazenness and greed ."
Update: Cohen's attorney, Guy Petrillo, says Cohen thought that President Trump would shut
down the Mueller probe, and has argued that his client's cooperation warrants a lenient
sentence.
"Mr. Cohen's cooperation promotes respect for law and the courage of the individual to stand
up to power and influence," said Petrillo.
"His decision was an importantly different decision from the usual decision to cooperate,"
added Petrillo. "He came forward to offer evidence against the most powerful person in our
country. He did so not knowing what the result would be, not knowing how the politics would
play out and not even knowing that the special counsel's office would survive."
"The special counsel's investigation is of the utmost national significance... Not seen
since 40 plus years ago in the days of Watergate." -Guy Petrillo
Petrillo has asked the judge to "consider Cohen's "life of good works" in his decision,
adding that Cohen's cooperation stands in "profound contrast" to others who havern't cooperated
and who "have continued to double-deal while pretending to cooperate."
***
Michael Cohen, former longtime personal lawyer for President Trump, has shown up to a
New York courthouse where he will be sentenced on Wednesday for a laundry list of crimes - some
of which implicate Trump in possible wrongdoing, but most of which have nothing to do with the
president.
Cohen, who went from claiming he would "take a bullet" for President Trump to stabbing his
former boss in the back, faces sentencing on nine federal charges , including campaign finance
violations based on a hush-money scheme to pay off two women who claimed to have had affairs
with Trump, as well as making false statements to special counsel Robert Mueller.
Prosecutors alleged that Cohen paid off two women at the "direction" of "Individual-1,"
who is widely assumed to be Trump.
Prosecutors said the payments amounted to illegal campaign contribution s because they
were made with the intent to prevent damaging information from surfacing during the 2016
presidential election, which Cohen pleaded guilty to in August.
Legal experts view the filing as an ominous sign for Trump , suggesting prosecutors have
evidence beyond Cohen's public admissions implicating the president in the payoff scheme.
While the Justice Department has said previously that a sitting president cannot be indicted,
that would not stop prosecutors from bringing charges against Trump once he leaves office. -
The Hill
New York prosecutors have recommended that Judge William Pauley impose "a substantial term
of imprisonment" on Cohen - which may be around five years. Cohen's attorneys, meanwhile, have
asked Pauley for a sentence which avoids prison time - citing his cooperation with the Mueller
probe and other investigations which began prior to his guilty plea last summer. Mueller said
that Cohen had "gone to significant lengths to assist the Special Counsel's investigation,"
having met with Mueller's team seven times where he reportedly provided information useful to
the Russia investigation. The special counsel's office has recommended that any sentence Cohen
receives for lying to Congress should run concurrently with the charges brought by the
Manhattan federal prosecutors.
Cohen, 52, pleaded guilty in August to tax evasion,
lying to banks and violating campaign finance laws - charges filed by the US Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York.
The campaign finance charges relate to his facilitation of two hush-money payments to porn
star Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal shortly before the 2016 presidential
election. Both women say they had sex with Trump in the prior decade. The White House has
denied Trump had sex with either woman.
Prosecutors say the payments were made "in coordination with and at the direction of"
Trump, who is called "Individual-1" in a sentencing recommendation filed last week.
Cohen's crimes were intended "to influence the election from the shadows," prosecutors
wrote. -
CNBC
In November Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Organization's
ill-fated plans to develop a Trump Tower in Moscow - a project floated by Cohen and longtime
FBI asset who had been in Trump's orbit for years, Felix Sater. Cohen claims he understated
Trump's knowledge of the project. He also lied to Congress when he said that the Moscow project
talks ended in early 2016, when in fact he and the Trump Organization had continued to pursue
it as late as June 2016.
On Wednesday, Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti - who is in attendance at Cohen's
sentencing, said in a Wednesday tweet that Cohen "thought we would just go away and he/Trump
would get away with it. He thought he was smart and tough. He was neither. Today will prove
that in spades."
Trump's paying around $280,000 in " hush money " .. out of his own pocket is
dwarfed into virtual insignificance by Obama's Presidential Campaign in 2008..,.
BEING FOUND "GUILTY" OF ILLEGAL USE OF 2 MILLION IN CAMPAIGN MONEY
barely reported by the media that saw THE OBAMA DOJ decide not to prosecute Obama and
instead quietly dispose of this
"REAL CRIME" with a fine of 375 thousand dollars by the US FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISION.
Welcome to the two tier Justice System we all live under..
One for the Deeeep State Globalist Elite and .. the other...
"... this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire. ..."
"... This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship. ..."
"... If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world may stand a chance. ..."
"... Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost gone. ..."
"... Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"! ..."
"... Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL ! ..."
"... Canada may be the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society? ..."
"... and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face. ..."
As most readers know, I'm not a casual political blogger and I prefer producing lengthy research articles rather than chasing
the headlines of current events. But there are exceptions to every rule, and the looming danger of a direct worldwide clash with
China is one of them.
Consider the arrest last week of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, the world's largest telecom equipment manufacturer. While flying
from Hong Kong to Mexico, Ms. Meng was changing planes in the Vancouver International Airport airport when she was suddenly detained
by the Canadian government on an August US warrant. Although now released on $10 million bail, she still faces extradition to a New
York City courtroom, where she could receive up to thirty years in federal prison for allegedly having conspired in 2010 to violate
America's unilateral economic trade sanctions against Iran.
Although our mainstream media outlets have certainly covered this important story, including front page articles in the New
York Times and the Wall Street Journal , I doubt most American readers fully recognize the extraordinary gravity of
this international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history. As one scholar noted, no event since America's
deliberate 1999 bombing of China's
embassy in Belgrade , which killed several Chinese diplomats, has so outraged both the Chinese government and its population.
Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs correctly
described it as "almost a US declaration of war on China's business community."
Such a reaction is hardly surprising. With annual revenue of $100 billion, Huawei ranks as the world's largest and most advanced
telecommunications equipment manufacturer as well as China's most internationally successful and prestigious company. Ms. Meng is
not only a longtime top executive there, but also the daughter of the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei, whose enormous entrepreneurial
success has established him as a Chinese national hero.
Her seizure on obscure American sanction violation charges while changing planes in a Canadian airport almost amounts to a kidnapping.
One journalist asked how Americans would react if China had seized Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook for violating Chinese law especially
if Sandberg were also the daughter of Steve Jobs.
Indeed, the closest analogy that comes to my mind is when Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia kidnapped the Prime Minister
of Lebanon earlier this year and held him hostage. Later he more successfully did the same with hundreds of his wealthiest Saudi
subjects, extorting something like $100 billion in ransom from their families before finally releasing them. Then he may have finally
over-reached himself when Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was killed and dismembered by a
bone-saw at the Saudi embassy in Turkey.
We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would clearly have the most insane government
anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely tied for first.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World
Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their
leading corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps such actions can still be taken
against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that
of the US several years ago and is now substantially
larger , while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media regularly obscures this
reality, but it remains true nonetheless.
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and imprisoning one of its leading technology executives
reminds me of
a comment
I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the rabies virus. The virus may have no
brain and its body-weight is probably less than one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central
nervous system, the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to bite all the other animals it can reach.
Its friends and relatives are saddened by its plight but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens,
and poor Fido finally collapses dead in a heap.
Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded
shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and
famously engaged in a heated
"kitchen debate"
with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction
if Nixon had been immediately arrested and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"?
Since a natural reaction to international hostage-taking is retaliatory international hostage-taking, the newspapers have reported
that top American executives have decided to forego visits to China until the crisis is resolved. These days, General Motors sells
more cars in China than in the US, and China is also the manufacturing source of nearly all our iPhones, but Tim Cook, Mary Barra,
and their higher-ranking subordinates are unlikely to visit that country in the immediate future, nor would the top executives of
Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, and the leading Hollywood studios be willing to risk indefinite imprisonment.
Canada had arrested Ms. Meng on American orders, and this morning's newspapers reported that
a former Canadian diplomat
had suddenly been detained in China , presumably as a small bargaining-chip to encourage Ms. Meng's release. But I very much
doubt such measures will have much effect. Once we forgo traditional international practices and adopt the Law of the Jungle, it
becomes very important to recognize the true lines of power and control, and Canada is merely acting as an American political puppet
in this matter. Would threatening the puppet rather than the puppet-master be likely to have much effect?
Similarly, nearly all of America's leading technology executives are already quite hostile to the Trump Administration, and even
if it were possible, seizing one of them would hardly be likely to sway our political leadership. To a lesser extent, the same thing
is true about the overwhelming majority of America's top corporate leaders. They are not the individuals who call the shots in the
current White House.
Indeed, is President Trump himself anything more than a higher-level puppet in this very dangerous affair? World peace and American
national security interests are being sacrificed in order to harshly enforce the Israel Lobby's international sanctions campaign
against Iran, and we should hardly be surprised that the National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of America's most extreme pro-Israel
zealots,
had personally given the green light to the arrest. Meanwhile, there are credible reports that Trump himself remained entirely
unaware of these plans, and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President
Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron, multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon
Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy
and hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival.
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely
must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not
be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist
are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call
to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the
15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in
Macau, China . In effect, the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible
for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully
aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.
Over the years, Adelson's Chinese Macau casinos have been involved
in all sorts of political bribery scandals
, and I suspect it would be very easy for the Chinese government to find reasonable grounds for immediately shutting them down, at
least on a temporary basis, with such an action having almost no negative repercussions to Chinese society or the bulk of the Chinese
population. How could the international community possibly complain about the Chinese government shutting down some of their own
local gambling casinos with a long public record of official bribery and other criminal activity? At worst, other gambling casino
magnates would become reluctant to invest future sums in establishing additional Chinese casinos, hardly a desperate threat to President
Xi's anti-corruption government.
I don't have a background in finance and I haven't bothered trying to guess the precise impact of a temporary shutdown of Adelson's
Chinese casinos, but it wouldn't surprise me if the resulting drop in the stock price of
Las Vegas Sands Corp would reduce Adelson's personal
net worth were by $5-10 billion within 24 hours, surely enough to get his immediate personal attention. Meanwhile, threats of a permanent
shutdown, perhaps extending to Chinese-influenced Singapore, might lead to the near-total destruction of Adelson's personal fortune,
and similar measures could also be applied as well to the casinos of all the other fanatically pro-Israel American billionaires,
who dominate the remainder of gambling in Chinese Macau.
The chain of political puppets responsible for Ms. Meng's sudden detention is certainly a complex and murky one. But the Chinese
government already possesses the absolute power of financial life-or-death over Sheldon Adelson, the man located at the very top
of that chain. If the Chinese leadership recognizes that power and takes effective steps, Ms. Meng will immediately be put on a plane
back home, carrying the deepest sort of international political apology. And future attacks against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese
technology companies would not be repeated.
China actually holds a Royal Flush in this international political poker game. The only question is whether they will recognize
the value of their hand. I hope they do for the sake of America and the entire world.
This is no surprise. Anyone who follows political events knows that John Bolton is insane, so no surprise that he devised this
insane idea. The problem will be corrected within a week, and hopefully Bolton sent to an asylum.
However, this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire.
Canada provides soldiers for this empire in Afghanistan even today, and in Latvia. Most Canadians can't find that nation on a
map, but it's a tiny unimportant nation in the Baltic that NATO adsorbed as part of its plan for a new Cold War.
This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete
loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome
back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship.
I hope someone in China is reading this article. I would love to see Adelson and his cohorts go down in flames. This would fit
right in with China's current anti-corruption foray. Xi has a reputation for hanging corrupt officials. Shutting down Adelson's
casinos would be consistent with what Xi has been doing and increase his popularity, not least of all, right here in the US.
If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world
may stand a chance. The future will suffer once China's debt traps collapse and like America it begins placing military globally.
America would be the one country who could work towards a Western future but this will never be the case. Better start learning
Mandarin lest we end up like the Uyghurs.
@Anonymous Use your
brain. The Chinese elite want to use the political clout that Adelson and the other big casino Jews have with the US government.
To gain lobby power from a proven expert, Shelly Adelson, they are willing to allow him to make the big bucks in Macao. They expect
quid pro quo.
The Chinese are pussies and will always back down. The U.S. laughed in their face after they bombed and killed them in Belgrade
and got crickets from the Chinamen. China can't project much power beyond its borders. They can't punch back. The Chinese (and
East Asians) are only part of the global business racket because they are efficient worker bees facilitating the global financial
system. They have no real control over the global market. And if they start to think they do they'll get a quick lesson. Like
they're getting with Meng, who is being treated like coolie prostitute. LMAO.
I always enjoy fresh writing from Mr. Unz. Clarity of thought is a fine thing to witness in language. It should be stated, America
is not in any danger.the empire is and is in terminal decline. As Asia's economic might grows in leaps ad bound, so does the empire
scramble to thwart losing its global grip.
As Fred Reed once pointed out, declining empires rarely go quietly. Will America's leadership gamble on a new war to prevent asia's
ascendancy?
I think it's possible.
But what do I know. As my father once said, "I'm just a pawn in a game."
To his credit he had the wherewithal to see that. Alas, most Americans are asleep.
The call for Ms. Meng's arrest had to come from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. They enforce every thing related
to sanctions, which they claim is what Meng was arrested for– sale of phones and software to Iran.
But they also say they had been on her company's case since 2013 so their timing is rather suspect.
What else I don't understand is her company has research and offices in Germany, Sweden, the U.S., France, Italy, Russia, India,
China and Canada ..So if what they sold or attempted to sell to Iran wasn't outright 'stolen' intellectual property from the US
or even if it was why not transfer it to and or have it made in China or some country not signed onto the Iran sanctions and then
sell it to Iran. I haven't boned up on exactly what kinds of phone software they were selling but I think it has something to
do with being able to bypass NSA and others intercepts.
You are assuming Meng is not a sacrificial pawn in some larger game.
It would be priceless for Xi to shut down Adelson's operations in Macau for a few days or weeks, but I'm afraid Xi is very
much akin to Capitain Louis Renault in Casablanca , and after walking into a Macau casino and uttering the phrase, "I am
shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here!" might admit in the next breath, "I blow with the wind, and the prevailing
wind happens to be from Jerusalem."
Half a century or so propaganda like 'the USA policing the world' of course had effect.
Not realised is that in normal circumstances police is not an autonomous force, but has to act within a legal framework.
The illusion of this framework of course exists, human rights, democracy, whatever
She's out on bail. Agree that Bolton blindsided Trump. Trump is going to try to turn this into some sort of PR gesture when he
pardons her. No way he will let this mess up his trade deal. Which is beached until she exonerated.
What is true
of these stories of course cannot be known with certainty, but it is asserted that USA military technology is way behind China
and Russia.
Several examples exist, but of course, if these examples tell the truth, not sure.
PISA comparisons of levels of education world wide show how the west is intellectually behind the east.
Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost
gone.
"I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage".
I very much doubt whether that is the case. As far as I know, most Chinese people are distinguished by their intelligence,
thoroughness and diligence. What do the thousands of people employed by China's foreign ministry and its intelligence services
do all day, if they are unaware of such important facts?
However I also doubt if China's leaders are inclined to see matters in nearly such a black and white way as many Westerners.
Jewish people seem to get along very well in China and with the Chinese, which could be because both have high levels of intelligence,
culture, and subtlety. As well as being interested in money and enterprise.
It's certainly an interesting situation, and I too am waiting expectantly for the other shoe to drop.
Yes, whatever your bias is, China is a "normal" country. In the sense of being closer to the ideal than most countries – not of
being average.
You may bewail some of the "human rights" issues in China, although I believe they may be somewhat magnified for PR purposes.
But when did China last attack another country without provocation and murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens, level its
cities, or destroy the rule of law? (Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya )
The Chinese seem to be law-abiding, sensible, and strongly disposed to peace. Which is something the world needs a lot more
of right now.
@Dan Hayes "why hasn't
anyone before thought of it.. "
" WHY HASN'T ANYONE BEFORE THOUGHT OF IT !!"
You must be kidding me.
For over three years I have been issuing comment after comment after comment .Like a crazed wolf howling in a barren forest
.That the "number one" priority of the American people should be demanding the seizure of ALL the assets of Neocon oligarchic
class.
Why ?
Not because they are "oligarchs." ..or some might own "casinos" but because they "deliberately" Conspired to Defraud the American
People into illegal Wars of Aggression and have nearly bankrupted the nation in the process.
That's why.
And it is the worlds BEST REASON to seize the assets a thousand times better than "bribery charges." I have issued statement after statement to that affect ,on Unz Review, in the hope that at some point it might, at least subliminally,
catch on.
What I have witnessed over the past six years, is a lot of intelligent, thoughtful people "correctly diagnosing" the issues
which plague the nation But no one had any idea of what to do about it. I have been pointing out, that if people really want to do something about it then do whats RIGHT: Seize the assets of the defrauders.!
Of course we can. Of course we can Its the LAW! Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"!
(If you don't think so, go ask your local Police Officer. He will tell you FLAT OUT ..it is the Worst crime "Conspiracy to Defraud
into Mass Murder! .Not good ! You can even ask him if there is a statute of limitations. He will probably say something like "
Yeah .When the Sun collapses!")
And they are GUILTY as charged There is no doubt , .. not anymore. We all know it and can "prove" it ! Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until
the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL !
The keys to the kingdom are right there, right in front of your noses. If you want to change things ."take action" the law is on YOUR side. We don't need China to do a damn thing ..We just need the American People to rise up,"apply the law" and take back their country
and its solvency.
Canada may be
the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the
orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society?
An article with the identical take as Ron Unz, including the idea that China has its key lever via Sheldon Adelson's casinos,
was published on the Canadian
website of Henry Makow also noting that USA political king-maker Adelson, is a major force behind the anti-Iran obsessions
that partly grounded the arrest of Ms Meng, and so well-deserves consequences here...
In the Jeffrey Sachs article linked above, Sachs lists no less than 25 other companies which have been 'violating US sanctions'
and admitted guilt via paying of fines, but never suffered any executive arrests, including banks including JP Morgan Chase, Bank
of America, PayPal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Wells Fargo.
The principle against 'selective, arbitrary, and political prosecutions'
The principle that one state cannot take measures on the territory of another state by means of enforcement of national laws
- 'proportionality of law', which demands that penalty for any said 'crime' needs to be proportionate to the offence, and not
draconian, 'cruel and unusual' Ms Meng is threatened with decades in prison
This is also a significant humiliation of President Trump personally, his own advisors apparently colluding to render him powerless
and uninformed
The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess
master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).
Born in Chicago, Illinois, USA, Fischer impressed the world with his genius, but, like Ms Meng became criminally indicted by
the USA regime, for the 'crime' of playing chess in Yugoslavia when the Serb government was under USA 'sanctions'. Harassed across
the globe, Fischer was jailed in Japan in 2004-05 by embarrassed Japanese leaders, for this fake 'crime' which few people in the
world thought was wrong. Fischer had been using his celebrity voice to strongly criticise the USA & Israeli governments, making
him also a political target, much as Ms Meng is a political target due to her being a prominent citizen and quasi-princess of
China.
The Japanese, loath to be the instrument of Fischer's USA imprisonment, finally allowed Bobby to transit to Iceland where he
was given asylum and residency. Living not far from Iceland's NATO military base, Fischer became quickly and mysteriously struck
with disease, and Fischer died in Reykjavik, perhaps a victim of a CIA-Mossad-Nato assassination squad.
The Chinese government, I am told, directly understands the power and role of Sheldon Adelson here, and Chinese inspectors
are perhaps inside Adelson's Macau properties as you read this. Perhaps Chinese officials may show up soon in Adelson's casinos,
and repeat the line of actor Claude Rains' character in the 1942 film 'Casablanca' -
"I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here!"
What we have to realize is that just as there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans because they are both
owned by the same people, so must we realize that in reality there is little difference between the leaders of the worlds countries
because they are all owned by the same central banks. This is why Nate Rothschild famously stated "give me control of a countries
money supply, and I care not who makes its laws" . All the world's central banks are tied together by BIS, WB and IMF and
the US marines. This is the reason Syria, Libya, NK and Venezuela have been taken down: Rothchild central bank control.
So this Huaiwei arrest almost certainly has nothing to do with the "trade war", and is with certainly a hit by one side of
the Kabal against the other. Zionist Nationalists versus Chabad Lubbovitz perhaps?
Jared Kushner has been lying pretty low lately and recently was stripped of his security clearance. He was linked to Kissilev
the Russian ambassador, plus he was pushing Trump to help protect MBS in SA. I would bet that he is at the center of this storm.
I'm honestly shocked no one has stated the obvious: very, very few Americans would be likely to care if Sheryl Sandberg were arrested
on dubious charges in China. I cant say I would be one of those few people.
I also should note that the crown prince of KSA is Mohammad bin Salman. Salman is his father, the king. The crown prince is
Mohammad, son of (aka "bin") Salman.
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
In many ways China does deviate from international norms, but of course so does the United States. As Tom Welsh pointed out, Chinese
foreign policy is downright angelic compared to the US, even if you consider Tibet and Xinjiang to be illegitimately occupied
territories (an argument I'm sympathetic to). Perhaps China would act as belligerently as the US does if China were the sole global
superpower, but it's not, so it's fair to judge China favorably compared to the US.
@Craig Nelsen Trump
deserves it for hiring Bolton at all. Perhaps one might argue Trump was blackmailed into doing so but he doesn't seem to be acting
like a blackmailed man.
Mr. Unz, at no time since Ms. Wanzhou's arrest have I felt myself in a position to judge that this was a strategically unwise
or incautious act. It might be, but apparently I'm to be contrasted from so many of your readers, and you, simply for understanding
myself to have an inadequate handle on the facts to make the call. That would be true, that my handle on the facts would be inadequate,
even if I didn't have personal knowledge of Huawei's suspicious practices or their scale.
I worry that you don't seem to evidence the presence of someone trusted who will go toe to toe with you as Devil's Advocate.
Too often, on affairs of too great a consequence, you come across too strongly, when the data doesn't justify the confidence.
A confident error is still an error and Maimonides' advice on indecision notwithstanding, a confident error is a candidate for
hubris, the worst kind of error. All of this, of course, assumes you make these arguments in good faith because if not the calculus
changes mightily.
Too many of your readers evidence that they interpret this event and form an opinion of it based on nothing but this higher order
syllogism:
Because I distrust the US government
[or because I distrust those I believe to control the US government]
It follows that this was an unjustified act or else a dangerous strategic error
After this higher order syllogism is accepted without due critique, evidence is sought to justify it and no further consideration
of the possibilities is tallied.
At minimum you need to have run a permutation where you seriously consider that : it is well know to US operatives, if not
to US citizens, you, and your readers, that Huawei is actively, constantly and maliciously waging covert war on the USA. You should
at least consider this possibility. If true, this act may merely be a shot across the bow that notifies China of a readiness to
expose things China may not wished exposed, and might stop endangering US citizens, if it were made aware such things stand to
be exposed.
If that's true, not only are you a fishing trawler captain causing distraction with a loudspeaker yelling at the captain of
the destroyer that just fired the warning shot across the bow of a Chinese vessel that is likely covert PLA/N, but now you may
be positioning your trawler to block the destroyer.
Do you really have enough information to know this is wise? Do you really know as much as the destroyer captain?
I will be away today, in the off chance you reply and I don't immediately answer it is because I can't.
Superb, as always, Ron Unz!
For someone who says he has no background in economics you you put your finger dead center on the money nexus of this "puppet
run by another puppet controlled by another puppet dangling from the strings of a still bigger puppet" chain from hell.
I wish someone would read out the entire article, may be with photos of the culprits, on Youtube with subtitles in Chinese.
@Craig Nelsen Nobody
is suggesting that "the order" came from Bolton or that he could indeed give any such order. True his not telling Trump about
what was about to happen bears a sinister interpretation.
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
I think what he means by normal are countries whose leaders are interested in the well being of their nation and the people they
rule. No divided or corrupted loyalties to another nation.
By this standard the United States is clearly not a normal country.
One angle you did not mention, Cisco (U.S. company) of course until not too many years ago had a near-monopoly on the kind
of network systems Huawei is selling as number one now (actually, I did not know of Huawei's success there, thought of it as a
handset maker), that may be a factor here.
There are a few Chinese or U.S. people of that descent on this site, mainly PRC-sympathetic, it would be very amusing if they
were able to ignite a big discussion of your hypothetical reprisals
During the bombing of Belgrade a missile fell on the Chinese Embassy. A local tv reporter approached a Chinese Embassy official
and asked him. What are you going to do now? The answer was.
The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess
master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).
Fischer was another victim of Zionist controlled American imperialism. Yugoslavia, the child of Woodrow Wilson, became the
victim of the Imperialist war Against Russia. Russia's brother, and ally, Yugoslavia, was destroyed by the kind democrat gang
administration of Wm (that was not sex), Clinton.
Excellent article, and an ingenious suggestion regarding the Adelson casinos. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a casino
shutdown. Having worked in the marketing end of the casino industry myself, I can tell you the most coveted demographic lists
were always the Chinese players, words like fanatical and obsessive don't even come close to describing their penchant for gambling.
I could literally see casino shutdowns in China causing a national Gilet Jaune moment followed by the overthrow of the Communist
Party LOL.
I would definitely welcome seeing more Ron Unz articles on current topics.
@Carlton Meyer Any chance
this is Democrat, Deep State types at State and Justice manufacturing this cluster-f in order to make Trump look unaware? This
is a President that respects casinos. And business. If Bolton and Company pulled this from behind the scenes without Executive
knowledge or authorization, is that even legal? More treason? But given the circumstances, how does all this even GET to Iran,
hurt Iran at all? What was supposedly illegal was done in 2010. Are we certain bags of cash from the Chinese and Russians and
Iran weren't traveling about Democrat-ruled DC back then? Grabbing this chick helps the case against Iran? I'm at a loss as to
how.
And so the thought of a more local political benefit/purpose, stirring a diplomatic shit-storm on Trump's watch, something
he'd have to take responsibility for. To start a near war, sort of like the Bay of Pigs. Operatives, pulling tricks, writing checks
the President then has to cover, looking like an unelectable mook throughout.
I'm happy to give the AIPAC kiddies full credit, I just don't see the damage to Iran in all this. For crying out loud, we carted
$500 billion cash over to Iran under Obama's watch, what, 2013 or 2014ish? I don't know how we skip over THAT, to get to trade
shenanigans in 2010, also taking place under Obama's watch. What was Holder doing when he was AG after all, why no action then?
If it's Israeli-driven today, why wasn't Israel pushing Holder to take action against Huawei back in 2010?
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
How is the USA a "normal" country in any sense of the word? It once was truly great among the nations of the world but that ship
sailed looooong back.
We invade for fake "freedom", inject the poison of homo mania into nations that do not do the bidding of the homos and/or bend
to the will of the chosen ones, pretend it's all for some good cause then invite the survivors to displace the founding stock
of this country. You call that "normal"??
We are nothing more than a vehicle for every kind of degenerate (((loser))) with cash to use our men and women as their private
mercenaries. We spread filth around the place, destroy nations and proclaim ourselves as the peace-makers with the shrill voice
of a worn out street prostitute on kensingtion ave (philly).
We are like that hoe, living out the last days of her aids infested body, with a grudge on the world for something that was
completely of our (((own))) making. Philly might have been the birthplace of this country but camden is where we are all headed.
And looking at China, we are dysfunctional beyond repair. Of course we still have quite a few things the Chinese might want to
emulate (no the SJW versions but the read deal) but looking at our other maladies, they probably won't who'll blame them?
@Anon Yes it was s Portuguese
colony. Interesting that Persian traders including Jews were in Macau going back st least to 500 AD probably more.
Ron, have you sent this article to the Chinese ambassador in DC yet?
Strange that the Chinese let Adelson in. The Macau casinos have thrived for a long time. The Portuguese left valuable casinos
and the Chinese let the Jews in soon after the Portuguese left.
It makes sense that foreign casino operators would want to move into Macau, but why would China let foreigners in?
Could it be that one of the largest investors in China since the mid 1970s Richard Blum husband of Dianne Feinstein has something
to do with it??
She's as much the Senator representing China as a Senator representing California.
Another interesting aspect of all this is the "suicide" of Physics Professor Zhang Shoucheng at Stanford just a few hours after
Meng was arrested on Dec 1. According to reliable Chinese sources and widespread reporting on social media Zhang was the conduit
to China from Silicone Valley. He was richly rewarded by Chinese investment in his US companies. IMHO the Chinese understand the
role of Israel and Adelson in US politics but are cautious in going this far. The Chinese are taking the light touch approach
with Trump and his Adelson selected neocons. A Chinese businessman Guo WenGui with the highest connections to the Chinese elites
and security services has sought political asylum in the USA. On the internet he daily speaks to the Chinese diaspora (in Mandarin)
on the complex developments in Chinese official corruption. The NY Times has now started to take him seriously (good idea ) and
reports that he and Steve Bannon have formed an alliance to expose Chinese government activities. You can read all this in the
NY Times. Unz should translate Guo Wengui into English and publish his commentaries. In my analysis he is usually right about
China and has shown remarkable predictive powers. He knows how and what the Chinese think, where the bones are buried and what
comes next. He and Bannon plan to reveal the facts about the recent suicide in France of another prominent Chinese businessman
Wang Jian who was Chairman of Hainan Airlines parent company.
This article by Mr. Unz is a good example of why people should read and support the Unz Review. No one is better equipped to shed
light on otherwise unmentioned interests behind mainstream news events like this one.
Kudos for making a smart suggestion that no doubt will be heard by people who could carry it out.
Good article, but it is only scratching the surface.
Many things would be explained if somebody would find out what is the volume of US investment in China, and what percentage of
it is Jewish.
That would shed light why the rabid Jewish press in US so bestially attacking Trump, after Trump started to impose tariffs on
Chinese goods.
I do not know, but I could guess that Trump reached deep into Jewish profits.
We have no choice than wait what will happen to tariffs after Trump will be replaced.
@Carlton Meyer Canada
declared an end to participating in combat operations in Afghanistan in July 2011 and withdrew its combat forces, leaving a dwindling
number of advisors to Afghan forces. The last Canadian soldier departed Afghanistan in March 2014. You are spot on regarding Bolton's
certifiability.
Trump has been totally phagocyted by the Neo-Cons in the foreign policy. The two pillars of the neocons foreign policy are now
Saudi Arabia and Israel. Trump is benefitting from the neo-cons intelligence and their powerful financial network that he is convinced
would help in his reelection.
Once he is re-elected then he may decrease his reliance on them but for the next few years the jewish lobby will prevail in Trump's
foreign policy. Unless they are not able to protect Trump from falling under the democrats assaults or been eliminated from power,
they are on for more wars, more troubles and more deaths. History will place Trump near Bush junior as neo-cons puppets responsible
for the largest destruction of countries since WWII.
@Brabantian Interesting
that she was arrested in the Chinese colony of Vancouver BC. Maybe the Canadian government is asserting sovereignty over Vancouver
at long last.
That must have been frightening. There she was sitting in the VIP lounge surrounded by deferential airline clerks as usual
and suddenly she's under arrest.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme
World Hegemon.
More delusional than when in 1957 the US government gave Iran a nuclear reactor and weapons grade uranium? In his latter years
Khashoggi 's relative, the weapons dealer Adnan Khashoggi, much later mused on what the US was trying to achieve by giving Iran
vast amounts of armaments, when all it did was set off an arms race in the region. America then switched to Iraq as its cop on
the beat and gave them anything they asked for, and were placatory of Saddam when he started talking crazy. This was under the
US government least attentive to Israel. Yes things should be more balanced as Steven Walt suggests
Averting World Conflict with China, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review If it wants to create the conditions for a final settlement
of the Palestinian problem, then America should be more even handed but it must also be very cautious about Iran. We don't know
who will be in power there in the future and history shows that once those ME counties are given an inch they take a mile.
Saudi Arabia seems quite sensible, its liking for US gov bonds that even Americans think offer too low a rate of interest is
easily explained as payment for US protection. Killing Khashoggi that way was a dreadful moral and foreign policy mistake from
someone who is too young for the amount of authority he has been given, but the victim did not beg for death like more than a
few Uygurs are doing right now. The CIA agent China rounded up with the help of it's network of double agents in the US were doubtless
glad to have their interrogation terminated.
Some sweeteners from Adelson are likely in the Tsunami of dirty Chinese money, which are amusingly being laundered in Canadian
casinos. As Walt points out the Chinese elite want bolt holes and bank accounts in north America. By the way most of the ill gotten
gains are from sale of opiates such as fentanyl.
Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos
Yes that will work, especially when added to what China is already doing in targeting farmers who supported Trump, so he is
definitely not going to be reelected now you have explained all this to them, and you are also opening up Harvard to their children,
which can only redound to the detriment of white gentiles. Deliberate pouring of the vials of wrath or just accidentally spilling
them? I am begining to wonder.
Thank you, Ron, for a clear-headed and insightful article.
There are however, two tiny infelicities, which I would not want for them to distract from the article's merit.
First, I think the Saudi Arabian Prince you are referring to is Prince Mohammed bin Salman, not "Prince Salman". "Prince
Mohammed" would be the abbreviated form of his name. "Bin" is of course the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew "ben" indicating paternity,
rather than a middle name, so "Salman" is not his surname. "Prince Salman" would refer to the current Saudi King before he was
King, rather than to the current Prince.
Second, maybe the hypothetical of China seizing Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook is not the best analogy since I, and I suspect
others who are aware of her key role in empowering and enriching a deceptive and parasitical industry, would not be terribly troubled
if China seized her. Indeed, we might consider it a public service. Admittedly, it is hard to find a good analogy for a prominent
female executive of a US national champion company since so many of our prominent companies are predatory rather than productive
and scorn their native country rather than serve it.
and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some
have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
@Baxter"America
is not in any danger." America is in very great danger, but only from within.
Almost half of all millenials believe that Capitalism is evil and that the Socialism should be the guiding economic principle
of this nation. When you point out that it has failed for every nation in history that has tried it, notably the Soviet Union
and more recently Venezuela, they retort that it is because those countries "did it wrong" and that "we will do it right."
When you ask for specifics as what they "did wrong" that we will "do right" they stare at you wordlessly as if you
are the one who is an idiot.
It should also be pointed out that a vast majority of Democrats think that Ocasio-Cortez is brilliant and that we need more
legislators like her.
What if Ms. Meng, was giving Iranian dissidents phones and other equipment to undermine the Government of Iran, starting another
color revolution, that sucks in America and Israel? What if the Trump administration asked that this not be done in order to end
the endless "revolutions" that have been happening and bankrupting our country and threatening Israel? What if the sanctions are
benefiting Iran's government too? China was allowed to become so large at our expense when we opened up trade and moved businesses
over there, but this was to keep them from being too cozy with Soviet Russia, just ask Nixon.
Part of the Zionist plan for a Zionist NWO was laid by David Rockefeller when he sent Kissinger to China to open up Chinas slave
labor to the NWO types like Rockefeller and the Zionist controlled companies in the U.S. and part of the plan was the deindustrialization
of America thus bringing down the American standard of living while raising the standard of living in China.
I will never believe the fake disagreement between the Zionist controlled U.S. and the Chinese government as long as G.M and
Google and the other companies that have shut down their operations in the U.S. and opened operations in China, it is all a NWO
plan to bring down we Americans to third world status and then meld all of us into a Zionist satanic NWO.
The enemy is not at the gates, the enemy is in the government and its name is Zionism and the Zionist NWO!
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
"... Yes, he (and I) read the filings. They are merely the assertions of overzealous Democrat prosecutors in the SDNY that used to work for Preet Bharara and have political/personal axes to grind. Witness past much more egregious instances of what they claim as a felony that have been resolved without charges by fines – most recently, Barak Obama's campaign finance violations. ..."
We last
looked at what Mueller had publicly -- and what he didn't have -- some 10 months ago, and I
remained skeptical that the Trump campaign had in any way colluded with Russia. It's worth
another look now, but first let's give away the ending (spoiler alert!): there is still no real
evidence of, well, much of anything significant about Russiagate. One thing that is clear is
that the investigation seems to be ending. Mueller's office has
reportedly even told various defense lawyers that it is "tying up loose ends." The moment
to wrap things up is politically right as well: the Democrats will soon take control of the
House; time to hand this all off to them.
Ten months ago the big news was Paul Manafort flipped; that seems to have turned out to be
mostly a bust, as we know now he lied like a rug to the Feds and cooperated with the Trump
defense team as some sort of mole inside Mueller's investigation (a heavily-redacted memo about
Manafort's lies, released by Mueller on Friday, adds no significant new details to the
Russiagate narrative.)
George Papadopoulos has already been in and out of jail -- all of two weeks -- for his
sideshow role. Michael Avenatti is now a woman beater who is just figuring out he's
washed up. Stormy Daniels owes Trump over $300,000 in fees after losing to him in court.
There still is no pee tape. And if you don't recall how unimportant Carter Page and Richard
Gates turned out to be (or even who they are), well, there is your assessment of all the
hysterical commentary that accompanied them a few headlines ago.
The big reveal of the Michael Flynn sentencing memo on Tuesday was that he will likely do no
prison time. Everything of substance in the memo was redacted, so there is little insight
available. If you insist on speculation, try this: it's hard to believe that something really
big and bad happened such that Flynn knew about it but still wasn't worth punishing for it, and
now, a year after he started cooperating with the government, still nobody has heard anything
about whatever the big deal is. So chances are the redactions focus on foreign
lobbying in the U.S.
This week's Key to Everything is Michael Cohen, the guy who lied out of self-interest
for Trump until last week when we learned he is also willing to lie, er, testify
against Trump out of self-interest. If you take his most recent statements at face
value, the sum is the failed negotiations to build a Trump hotel in Moscow, which went on a few
months longer than was originally stated, and that we all knew about already.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York submitted a
sentencing memo Friday
for Cohen, recommending 42 months in jail. In a separate filing, Mueller made no term
recommendation but praised Cohen for his "significant efforts to assist the special counsel's
office." The memos reveal no new information.
Call it sleazy if you want, but looking into a real estate deal is neither a high crime nor
a misdemeanor, even if it's in Russia. Conspiracy law requires an agreement to commit a crime,
not just the media
declaiming that "Cohen was communicating directly with the Kremlin!" Talking about meeting
Russian persons is not a crime, nor is meeting with them.
The
takeaway that this was all about influence shopping by the Russkies falls flat. If Putin
sought to
ensnare Trump, why didn't he find a way for the deal to actually go through? Mueller has to
be able to prove actual crimes by the president, not just twist our underclothes into weekly
conspiratorial
knots . For fun, look here at the
creative writing needed to even suggest anything illegal. That doesn't sound like Trump's
on thin ice with hot shoes.
Sigh. It is useful at this point of binge-watching the Mueller mini-series to go back to the
beginning.
The primordial ooze for all things Russiagate is less-than-complete intelligence alleging
that hackers, linked to the Russian government, stole emails from the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) in 2016. The details have never been released, no U.S. law enforcement agency
has ever seen the server or scene of the crime, and Mueller's dramatic indictments
of said hackers, released as Trump met with Putin in
Helsinki, will never be heard of again, or challenged in court, as none of his defendants
will ever leave Russia. Meanwhile, despite contemporaneous denials of the
same, is it somehow now accepted knowledge that the emails (and Facebook ads!) had some
unproven major effect on the election.
The origin story for everything else, that Trump is beholden to Putin for favors granted or
via blackmail, is opposition research purchased by the Democrats and carried out by an MI6
operative with complex
connections into American intelligence, the salacious
Steele Dossier . The FBI, under a Democratic-controlled Justice Department, then sought
warrants to
spy on the nominated GOP candidate for president based on evidence paid for by his
opponent.
Yet the real spark was the media, inflamed by Democrats, searching for why Trump won
(because it can't be anything to do with Hillary, and "all white people and the Electoral
College are racists" just doesn't hold up). Their position was and is that Trump must have done
something wrong, and Robert Mueller,
despite helping
squash a Bush-era money-laundering probe, lying about the Iraq
War, and
flubbing the post-9/11 anthrax investigation, has been resurrected with Jedi superpowers to
find it. It might be collusion with Russia or Wikileaks, or a pee tape, or taxes, packaged as
hard news but reading like Game of Thrones plot speculation. None of this is journalism
to be proud of, and it underlies everything Mueller is supposedly trying to achieve.
As the New York Times said in a rare moment of candor, "From the day the Mueller
investigation began, opponents of the president have hungered for that report, or an indictment
waiting just around the corner, as the source text for an incantation to whisk Mr. Trump out of
office and set everything back to normal again."
The core problem -- at least that we know of -- is that Mueller hasn't found a crime
connected with Russiagate that someone working for Trump might have committed. His
investigation to date hasn't been a search for the guilty party -- Colonel Mustard in the
library -- so much as a search for an actual crime, some crime, any crime. Yet all he's
uncovered so far are some
old financial misdealings by Manafort and chums, payoffs to Trump's mistresses that are not
in themselves
illegal (despite what prosecutors simply assert in the Cohen sentencing report ,
someone will have to prove to a jury the money was from campaign funds and the transactions
were "for the
purpose of influencing" federal elections, not simply "protecting his family from shame"),
and a bunch of people lying about unrelated matters.
And that's the giveaway to Muller's final report. There was no base crime as the starting
point of the investigation. With
Watergate , there was the break-in at Democratic National Headquarters. With Russiagate you
had Trump winning the election. (Remember too that the FBI concluded
forever ago that the DNC hack crime was done by the Russians, no Mueller needed.)
Almost everything Mueller has, the perjury and lying cases, are crimes he created through
the process of investigating. He's Schrodinger's Box : the
infractions only exist when he tries to look at them. Mueller created most of his booked
charges by asking questions he already knew the answers to, hoping his witness would lie and
commit new crimes literally in front of him. Nobody should be proud of lying, but it seems a
helluva way to contest a completed election as Trump enters the third year of his term.
Mueller's end product, his report, will most likely claim that a lot of unsavory things went
on. But it seems increasingly unlikely that he'll have any evidence Trump worked with Russia to
win the election, let alone that Trump is now under Putin's control. If Mueller had a smoking
gun, we'd be watching impeachment hearings by now.
Instead, Mueller will end up concluding that some people may have sort of maybe tried to
interfere with an investigation into what turned out to be nothing, another "crime" that exists
only because there was an investigation to trigger it. He'll dump that steaming pile of legal
ambiguity into the lap of the Democratic House to hold hearings on from now until global
warming claims the city of Benghazi and returns it to the sea. That or the 2020 election,
whichever comes first.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan .
As the American people are dragged through the media hysteria, one has to know, millions of
Americans have other issues on their minds, and be it right or wrong, don't care about about
Mueller's investigation. Simply put, our political system is far from holier than thou, as
they say. For numerous reasons, people had to decide, of the two personalities we had to
choose from, were a reflection of where our politics is. Clintons or Trumps.
@Kevin – (1) Most campaign finance violations are treated as minor offenses with fines.
Obama's campaign got a fine for a $2 million campaign finance violation. Why is this one, if
it is a crime at all, being treated as a felony?
(2) No court has ever held, and no court will ever hold, that paying your mistress for
silence is a campaign finance violation. Mixed motive payments can't be campaign finance
violations. How about a politician who gets cosmetic surgery before an election? If one of
her purposes is to appear younger and appeal to voters, is that a campaign finance violation
if she doesn't report to the government her payments to the surgeon? No court is going to
accept that theory.
"Good Grief. Did you read the filings? Directing someone to commit a felony?"
Good grief, do you know the difference between a prosecutor trying to make a case in a
one-sided filing versus actually bringing a case to a jury and having to prove elements of a
crime with evidence?
You don't give specifics (typical) but you're presumably referring to the payoffs to keep the
women quiet right? Thing is, that's not illegal unless it was provably for political reasons.
If he was trying to save his marriage, there was no crime. Besides, John Edwards did worse
and skated scot-free. You going to condemn him? If not, you're a hack so be quiet.
Mueller was FBI Director when Hillary was committing national security violations in using
her private server and other unauthorized devices. His conflicts of interest in overseeing an
investigation originating from a case involving those emails are obvious. He was either
incompetent, derelict of duty, and/or complicit in shielding Hillary from prosecution then
and and definitely now given the conspiracy surrounding the Steele dossier by her campaign
proxies, foreign operatives (including Russians), and corrupt Obama administration officials
who engaged in official misconduct to clear her and initiate a campaign to inflence the
election, illegally surveil Trump associates, and illegally circulate salacious, unverified
innuendos or unmasked names.
Mueller is involved in protecting his own reputation. He has obvious conflicts of interest
and was involved in possible official misconduct. He should not be given immunity from
examination, accountability, and disciplinary action. No official should be above the law. Is
he now the American Sulla or Marius?
There were crimes committed by those Mueller is shielding – officials he worked with in
the Obama administration, Clinton and her proxies, and foreign operatives (including
Russians.)
It's not a "felony" unless you prove it the money came from campaign funds, which it didn't.
And Trump only "directed" it according to a known liar trying to get a lighter sentence for
his own financial crimes.
Yes, I do remember who Carter Page is. He is an American citizen -- a bit of a doofus
American citizen I'll admit but still an American citizen -- and he was attacked by the
American Gestapo led by Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama, Podesta, the women that unmasked
other American citizens, and Crapper like no American citizen has ever been attacked before.
Carter Page is me and the same can happen to me if it can happen to Carter Page.
The criminal laws in the United States are broad and far reaching enough that an aggressive
prosecutor can always find a crime to charge anyone with. This is especially true for anyone
involved in higher level business or politics.
Even if the charges cannot be made to stick (and usually they can), the expense and hassle
of fighting the case will ruin most of us who are not very rich or married to a team of
criminal defense attorneys with loads of leisure time.
At the same time, even the FBI does not have the resources to charge every crime that it
comes across or could bring an indictment for.
This is entirely intentional. There is always a perfectly legal pretext to punish those
whom the establishment want to punish, and a means to keep everyone else in line.
This is not to suggest that the 1% hold a secret email vote every month to decide whom to
kick off the island. Rather, most prosecutors are glorified politicians, and they know whom
to please.
If, for instance, a prosecutor were to bring charges against HRC (and there are numerous
bases on which to do so), the howls of establishment outrage would be deafening. So nothing
was done. In fact, the FBI was very careful to interview her associates in a group (so that
they could get their stories straight) and to avoid interviewing The Queen at all, so as to
avoid a perjury trap, or forcing Her Majesty to have to lie, and thus putting the FBI in an
embarrassing position as to why it did not prosecute.
By contrast, Trump probably has also committed numerous crimes, even if they don't rise to
the breathless speculation of russiagate conspiracy theorists, nor will any crimes charged
relate to Trump's real crimes in foreign policy (because those crimes are the DC consensus).
However, the establishment didn't want the man in the first place, and it sure wants Trump
gone now.
Therefore, Trump will not enjoy the same protection. "Rule Of Law" and all that.
For my part, I will not be sorry to see him go. As I indicated, the man is a criminal, as
were his predecessors in office.
To all the commenters pointing out the Stormy Daniels payoff. What has that to do with
Russian collusion? The Mueller investigation went way off track finding unrelated crimes in
order to get flip leverage. Its been a "show me da man, I'll find the crime" exercise. In
other words, a witch hunt. If Trump is removed by any means other than an election, it will
be viewed as a coup, and the destruction of our democratic republic.
Yes, he (and I) read the filings. They are merely the assertions of overzealous Democrat
prosecutors in the SDNY that used to work for Preet Bharara and have political/personal axes
to grind. Witness past much more egregious instances of what they claim as a felony that have
been resolved without charges by fines – most recently, Barak Obama's campaign finance
violations.
As was said in the article, those claims would have to be proven in court –
according to the letter of the law – and it is a very high bar for the SDNY to get over
to get a conviction. You can indict a ham sandwich, but if it turns out to in fact be a steak
or cheese and crackers your case isn't worth anything.
Finally, as pointed out, contracting for a NDA is not illegal. It is, point of fact, a
contract that parties willingly enter into. Trump is a business and a brand, so trying to
prove that protecting that brand by spending his own money was NOT the purpose of the NDA is
pretty darn difficult.
Paying off mistresses isn't a felony. Even if it used campaign dollars and even if someone
else involved pleads guilty. Ask John Edwards Kevin.
I also concur that if Mueller could prove that Trump colluded with the Russians, Paul Ryan
(who f*cking hates Trump's guts) would have absolutely started impeachment hearings.
"... One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here? ..."
I believe you are spot on in your analysis of the Trump methods. No doubt based on your
personal observations up close of similar sole proprietor business hustlers. I think one
problem that Trump methods face is that he needs people around him who can make things happen
despite the byzantine ways of the vast federal bureaucracy who have their own agenda.
One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch
hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications
among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here?
"... I've come to believe that Trump's role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the
Congress and then does. I don't think he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the
system. I don't think the Congress is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that. ..."
"... I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. ..."
"... Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should we sign a trade agreement and let the other side
cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but
they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions that no one could answer. ..."
"... I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really on
our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you need to
be wise. ..."
"... it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't
really feel the crisis. ..."
"... If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
..."
"... That's kind of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does
not work in a democracy... ..."
"... If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of average people is now the party of the rich. ..."
"... He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing
them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was this large group of voters who had no one representing them
and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still ongoing. ..."
"... In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
..."
"... I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our voters and we're going to represent them
whether we want it or not. ..."
"... I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely,
there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque
to me. It would've been grotesque to them. ..."
"... The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. ..."
"... We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed beneath its wheels. ..."
"... Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change. ..."
"... In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again. ..."
"... Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime? ..."
"... How close to a revolution is your country? ..."
"... The country is getting redder and bluer. ..."
"... Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration? ..."
The Swiss are very suspicious of anybody who is boastful. That's why I have a question about Trump
I hate that about him. I hate that it's not my culture. I didn't grow up like that.
In your book you speak a lot about people who attack Trump, but you actually don't say very much about Trump's record.
That's true.
Do you think he has kept his promises? Has he achieved his goals?
No. He hasn't?
No. His chief promises were that he would build the wall, de-fund planned parenthood, and repeal Obamacare, and he hasn't done
any of those things. There are a lot of reasons for that, but since I finished writing the book, I've come to believe that Trump's
role is not as a conventional president who promises to get certain things achieved to the Congress and then does. I don't think
he's capable. I don't think he's capable of sustained focus. I don't think he understands the system. I don't think the Congress
is on his side. I don't think his own agencies support him. He's not going to do that.
I think Trump's role is to begin the conversation about what actually matters. We were not having any conversation about immigration
before Trump arrived in Washington. People were bothered about it in different places in the country. It's a huge country, but
that was not a staple of political debate at all. Trump asked basic questions like' "Why don't our borders work?" "Why should
we sign a trade agreement and let the other side cheat?" Or my favorite of all, "What's the point of NATO?" The point of NATO was
to keep the Soviets from invading western Europe but they haven't existed in 27 years, so what is the point? These are obvious questions
that no one could answer.
Apart from asking these very important questions has he really achieved nothing?
Not much. Not much. Much less than he should have. I've come to believe he's not capable of it.
Why should he be not capable?
Because the legislative process in this country by design is highly complex, and it's designed to be complex as a way of diffusing
power, of course, because the people who framed our Constitution, founded our country, were worried about concentrations of power.
They balanced it among the three branches as you know and they made it very hard to make legislation. In order to do it you really
have to understand how it works and you have to be very focused on getting it done, and he knows very little about the legislative
process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't and surrounded himself with people that can get it done, hasn't done all the things you
need to do so. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things. I'm not in charge of Trump.
The title of your book is "Ship of Fools". You write that an irresponsible elite has taken over America. Who is the biggest
fool?
I mean let me just be clear. I'm not against an aristocratic system. I'm not against a ruling class. I think that hierarchies
are natural, people create them in every society. I just think the system that we have now the meritocracy, which is based really
on our education system, on a small number of colleges has produced a ruling class that doesn't have the self-awareness that you
need to be wise. I'm not arguing for populism, actually. I'm arguing against populism. Populism is what you get when your leaders
fail. In a democracy, the population says this is terrible and they elect someone like Trump.
When did you first notice that this elite is getting out of touch with the people?
Well, just to be clear, I'm not writing this from the perspective of an outsider. I mean I've lived in this world my whole life.
Which world exactly?
The world of affluence and the high level of education and among-- I grew up in a town called La Jolla, California in the south.
It was a very affluent town and then I moved as a kid to Georgetown here in Washington. I've been here my whole life. I've always
lived around people who are wielding authority, around the ruling class, and it was only after the financial crisis of 08 that
I noticed that something was really out of whack, because Washington didn't really feel the crisis.
If you leave Washington and drive to say Pittsburgh, which is a manufacturing town about three and a half hours to the west,
you drive through a series of little towns that are devastated. There are no car dealerships, there are no restaurants. There's nothing.
They have not recovered. I remember driving out there one day, maybe eight or nine years ago and thinking, boy, this is a disaster.
Rural America, America outside three or four cities is really falling apart. I thought if you're running the country, you should
have a sense of that. I remember thinking to myself, nobody I know has any idea that this is happening an hour away. That's kind
of strange since we're the capital city in charge of making policy for everybody else... Massive inequality does not work in a democracy...
You become Venezuela.
You write about vanishing middle class. When you were born over 60 % of Americans ranked middle class. Why and when did
it disappear?
If you make above a certain income, or if you live in my neighborhood, you have zero physical contact with other Americans.
In other words, the elite in our country is physically separated in a way that's very unhealthy for a democracy, very unhealthy.
The Democratic Party is out of touch with the working class.
Well, that's the remarkable thing. For 100 years the Democratic Party represented wage earners, working people, normal people,
middle class people, then somewhere around-- In precisely peg it to Clinton's second term in the tech boom in the Bay Area in Francisco
and Silicon Valley, the Democratic Party reoriented and became the party of technology, of large corporations, and of the rich. You've
really seen that change in the last 20 years where in the top 10 richest zip codes in the United States, 9 of them in the last election
just went for Democrats. Out of the top 50, 42 went for Democrats. The Democratic Party, which for 100 years was the party of
average people is now the party of the rich.
Donald Trump, who is often seen as this world-changing figure is actually a symptom of something that precedes him that I sometimes
wonder if he even understands which is this realignment. He served the purpose of bringing the middle class into the Republican
Party, which had zero interest, no interest in representing them at all. Trump is intuitive, he felt, he could smell that there was
this large group of voters who had no one representing them and he brought them to the Republican side, but the realignment is still
ongoing.
In other words, the Democratic Party used to represent the middle class, it no longer does, it now hates the middle class.
The Republican Party which has never represented the middle class doesn't want to. That is the source of really all the confusion
and the tension that you're seeing now. I do think, going forward the Republican Party will wake up and realize these are our
voters and we're going to represent them whether we want it or not.
They have to, or they will lose.
They have to, or they will die. Yes.
You're writing in an almost nostalgic tone about the old liberals? People like Miss Raymond, your first-class teacher. You
describe her wonderfully in the book. You say that they have vanished. What happened?
I find myself in deep sympathy with a lot of the aims of 1970s liberals. I believe in free speech, and I instinctively side with
the individual against the group. I think that the individual matters, I am deeply suspicious of foreign adventurism, voluntary
wars, wars of self-defense are not controversial, I'm for them completely, there's an invasion repellent. The idea that you would
send 100,000 troops to a country to improve its political system is grotesque to me. It would've been grotesque to them.
The Vietnam War was horrifying to them because it was a voluntary war, waged for theoretical reasons, geostrategic reasons
which they rejected, and I do too. They were also suspicious of market capitalism. They thought that somebody needed to push
back against the forces of the market, not necessarily because capitalism was bad, capitalism is not bad, it's also not a religion.
We don't have to follow it blindly. We can make autonomous choices about how we respond to market forces. People get crushed
beneath its wheels.
Capitalism drives change, innovation change, the old ways give way to new ways of doing things, and in the process of change
the weak get hurt always, this was true in industrialization 100 years ago and it's true in the digital revolution now. What's changed
is that nobody is standing up on behalf of the people who are being crushed by the change.
Is that really so? Look at the grassroot movement on the left: Alexandra Ocasio Cortez and her socialist group. It is probably
a 100 years ago when Americans last saw a socialist movement of substance emerging?
Yes. You're absolutely right. That's the future.
In your book, you say they've vanishing but they seem to come back again.
Well, you're absolutely right. You're incisive correct to say that the last time we saw this was 100 years ago, which was another
pivot point in our economic and social history. Where, after 10,000 years of living in an Agrarian society, people moved to the cities
to work in factories and that upended the social order completely. With that came huge political change and a massive reaction.
In the United States and in Western Europe labor unions moderated the forces of change and allowed us to preserve capitalism in
the form that we see it now... You're seeing the exact same dynamic play out today, we have another, as I said, economic revolution,
the digital age, which is changing how people work, how they make money, how families are structured. There is a huge reaction to
that, of course, because there always is, because normal people can't handle change at this pace. People are once again crying out
for some help. They feel threatened by the change. What bothers me is that there is no large group of sensible people asking, how
can we buffer this change? How can we restrain it just enough, not to stop it, but to keep people from overreacting and becoming
radical?
Talking about radical. Recently, a radical left-wing group have threatened to storm your Washington home. How is your wife?
How is your family?
They are fine, they're pretty tough. They're rattled.
The Antifa-mob came right to the door of your home?
Yes, they did and threatened my wife.
Which must have been absolutely scary?
Yes, it was. My wife was born in the city, my four children were born here, we're not moving.
Your attackers have a goal, they're trying to silence you.
Of course. I would never, of course, that's a cornerstone of Western civilization is expression and freedom of conscience. You
can tell me how to behave, you can force me not to sleep or take my clothes off in public, that's fine. Every society has the right
to control behavior. But no one has the right to control what you believe. You can't control my conscience, that's mine alone. Only
totalitarian movements do that, and that's what they're attempting. Of course, I would die first I'm never going to submit to that.
Have you ever seen this amount of discontent and aggression here in your lifetime?
No, I've never seen anything like this. What's so striking is that [chuckles] this is really... The radicalism is not on behalf
of people who are actually suffering, fellow Americans who are suffering, on behalf of the 70,000 people who died of drug ODs last
year, or on behalf of the people displaced by automation in GM, or whatever, on behalf of those dying American low class, it's really
on behalf of theoretical goals.
They're saying that I [Tucker Carlson] am saying naughty things that shouldn't be allowed to be expressed in public. Basically,
it's a totalitarian movement. Totally unhelpful. I would say childish. What they're really doing is defending the current order.
They're the shock troops of the elites actually. Actually, what you're seeing is something amazing, you're seeing for the first time
in history a revolution being waged against the working class. When does that happen?
Your way of debating is very tough. You're sitting there, hammering your guests. Sometimes we have a bit of a problem to
understand that. For us it's a bit disturbing.
Of course, it is. It's disturbing for me too!
How tough do you need to be nowadays to have an audience?
Less, I think than sometimes we put into it or I put into it. I'm actually, in my normal life, I think a pretty gentle person.
I've never had a yelling fight with my wife in 34 years. I mean, I've never yelled at my children. No, I don't ever.
Never?
Not one time. No, it's not how I communicate. I never want to be impolite. I have been impolite. I've lost my temper a couple
times, but I don't want to. I don't like that. I believe in civility.
... ... ...
How close to a revolution is your country?
By revolution, let me be clear, I don't think that we're anywhere near an outbreak of civil war, armed violence between two sides
for a bunch of different reasons... Testosterone levels are so low and marijuana use is so high that I think the population is probably
too ... What you don't have, prerequisite fall revolution, violent revolution, is a large group of young people who are comfortable
with violence and we don't have that. Maybe that will change. I hope it doesn't. I don't want violence for violence. I appall violence,
but I just don't see that happening. What I see happening most likely is a kind of gradual separation of the states.
If you look at the polling on the subject, classically, traditionally, Americans had antique racial attitudes. If you say, "Would
you be okay with your daughter marrying outside her race?" Most Americans, if they're being honest, would say, "no, I'm not okay
with that. I'm not for that." Now the polling shows people are much more comfortable with a child marrying someone of a different
race than they are marrying someone of a different political persuasion.
"I'd rather my daughter married someone who's Hispanic than liberal", someone might say. That is one measure. There are many measures,
but that's one measure of how politically divided we are and I just think that over time, people will self-segregate. It's a continental
country. It's a very large piece of land and you could see where certain states just become very, very different. Like if you're
Conservative, are you really going to live in California in 10 years? Probably not.
Orange County is now purely Democrat.
That's exactly right. You're going to move and if you're very liberal, are you really going to want to live in Idaho? Probably
not.
The country is getting redder and bluer.
Exactly.
This revolution you are warning about - What needs to be done to stop it from happening?
Just the only thing you can do in a democracy which is address the legitimate concerns of the population and think more critically
and be more wise in your decision making. Get a handle on technology. Technology is the driver of the change, so sweep aside the
politics, the fundamental fact about people is they can't metabolize change at this pace because as an evolutionary matter, they're
not designed to, they're not. If you asked your average old person what's the most upsetting thing about being old? You expect them
to say, "Well, my friends are dead". But that's not what they say. Or "I have to go to the bathroom six times a night". That's not
what they say.
You know what they say? "Things are too different. This is not the country I grew up in. I don't recognize this." All people hate
that. It doesn't mean you're a bigot, it means you're human. Unless you want things to fall apart, become so volatile that you can't
have a working economy, you need to get a handle on the pace of change. You have to slow it down.
How important is migration in terms of change?
It's central because nothing changes the society more quickly or more permanently than bringing in a whole new population and
that's not an attack on anybody. There are lots of populations- there are lots of immigrants who are much more impressive than I
am. I have no doubt about that. I'm not attacking immigrants. I'm merely saying that the effect on the people who already live here
is real and they're not bigots for feeling that way.
You come from an ancient country with a series of ancient cultures within it and if you woke up one morning and everyone was speaking
Amharic and you didn't recognize any of your surroundings, that would be deeply upsetting to you.
What you saying, it's necessary to slow it down, control it?
You have to slow it down. Look at the Chinese. I abhor, I despise the Chinese government. However, I'm willing to acknowledge
wise behavior when I see it. The Chinese would never accept this pace of demographic change not simply because they're racist, though
of course, they are, but that's not the point. The point is because they don't want their society to fall apart because they're in
charge of it.
The childlike faith that we have in America, and America is the worst at this, that all change is good and that progress is inevitable
and if something is new and fresh and more expensive, it's got to be better.
It is kind of refreshing for Europeans that even Hillary Clinton tells Europeans, "You have got to stop this. You've got
to get control of migration or you disintegrate."
John Kerry said the same thing, amazingly. They're telling the truth.
Do you think Europe is going to be able to get in control of that? We have 28 countries in the EU. And Switzerland is not
a member?
So smart, so smart... You know why? Because they're mountain people. Love them. You know why? Because they're suspicious, that's
what I like about them.
[laughter]
Do you think that Europe will get in control of the migration?
The EU has been doomed since the first day because it's inconsistent with human nature. The reason we have nation states is because
people wanted them, it's organic. A nation-state is just a larger tribe and it's organized along lines that make sense. They evolved
over thousands of years. To ignore it and destroy it because you think that you've got a better idea, is insane!
[And with that, our interview concludes. It has already run far past the allotted 40 minutes. I offer to take Carlson, who seems
to be very passionate about Switzerland, on a ski run in our Alps soon. Perhaps a smoke in one of the outdoor saunas I tell him smell
like rotten eggs. Ambassador Grenell is on the phone line patiently waiting.]
We have obtained a large number of documents relating to the activities of the
'Integrity Initiative' project that was launched back in the fall of 2015 and
funded by the British government. The declared goal of the project is to counteract
Russian propaganda and the hybrid warfare of Moscow. Hiding behind benevolent
intentions, Britain has in fact created a large-scale information secret service in
Europe, the United States and Canada, which consists of representatives of
political, military, academic and journalistic communities with the think tank in
London at the head of it.
As part of the project Britain has time and again intervened into domestic
affairs of independent European states. A most demonstrative example is operation
'Moncloa' in Spain. Britain set to prevent Pedro Baños from appointment to the
post of Director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took the Spanish
cluster of the Integrity Initiative only a few hours to accomplish the task.
London's near-term plans to create similar clusters include Latvia, Estonia,
Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Armenia, Ukraine, Moldova, Malta, Czechia,
countries of the Middle East and North Africa, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Georgia, Hungary, Cyprus, Austria, Switzerland, Turkey, Finland, Iceland, Denmark,
and the USA.
All the work is done under absolute secrecy via concealed contacts in British
embassies, which gives rise to more suspicion that Britain uses plausible excuse to
create a global system of information influence and political interference into
affairs of other countries.
Covert structures for political and financial manipulative activities under control
of British secret services are created not only in the EU countries but also on
other continents. In point of fact, quiet colonization of both former British
neighbors in the EU and NATO allies is taking place.
The government of Great Britain has to come out of the dark and declare straight
its intentions and unveil the results of the Integrity Initiative activities!
Otherwise, we will do it!
Today, we make public a part of the documents we have available. In case London
gives no response to our demands during the following week, we will reveal the rest
of the documents that contain many more secrets of the United Kingdom.
Isn't this interesting? A UK program to propagandize US and European audiences is set up to demonize Russia around the same time
GCHQ and MI6 are busy spying on US presidential candidates and then ultimately doing their best to throw an election over
here... while trying to frame Russia... for trying to throw an election over here. Cute right?
The head of MI6, the UK's intelligence service, hopes to recruit a new generation of
tech-savvy spies, with a passionate speech urging graduates to protect the homeland against the
arch nemesis who subverts the UK way of life.
"The era of the fourth industrial revolution calls for a fourth generation of espionage," Alex
Younger will say at St. Andrews University on 3rd December.
To lure young Brits into the spy agency who otherwise might not have seen themselves in MI6,
Younger paints an image of a clever arch nemesis –Russia– which can only be stopped
with the help of brilliant young minds from all sorts of backgrounds, not just by the snobbish
Oxbridge graduates typically associated with the service.
Fresh blood is needed to defend UK web domains against cyber-attacks, the spread of fake
news and interference in domestic politics, Alex Younger will say, at the same time praising
the old guard for "exposing" Russia in the highly-controversial Salisbury attack.
Russia, or any other UK adversary, better "not underestimate our determination and our
capabilities, or those of our allies," Younger's speech warns.
Hardly historic friends and bitter Cold War rivals, the UK and Russia have seen their
relations slip to new lows in March, following the poisoning of ex-Russian double agent Sergei
Skripal and his daughter Yulia. London immediately pinned the blame for the Salisbury incident
directly on the Kremlin, and rejected any idea of an open joint investigation with Russia,
insisting its own probe would suffice to make the case and then punishing Moscow with
sanctions.
Moscow is also perpetually facing accusations of cyberwarfare against other states and
attempts to undermine democracy and to influence the political process within those countries.
And despite multiple reassurances that Moscow could not care less about the internal political
struggles in foreign states, London and British mass media continue to vilify Russia with
bizarre reports, like half of London's Russian community are spies for the Kremlin.
Claims of 'Russian meddling' look particularly hypocritical in the wake of a leak that
exposed the Integrity Initiative – a group that claims to be fighting back against
'Russian misinformation' – being a clandestine network of influencers that manipulate
European politics with the British government's backing.
The anti-Russia paranoia in the UK arguably reached its peak over the weekend, when military
bases across the nation issued security alerts after a Russian TV crew was accused of spying
outside the army's secret cyber warfare headquarters.
International hacker group Anonymous went ahead with its efforts to counter what it calls
Britain's interference with the domestic affairs of sovereign states. In a second dump of
secret documents within two weeks, the hacktivists disclose more details on the ongoing
UK-funded, anti-Russia information campaign spreading across Europe. The second batch of
documents leaked by Anonymous unravels more information on the activities of the Integrity
Initiative (II), a UK-based NGO ostensibly founded to counter disinformation and defend
democratic processes from malign influence. According to
the first documents leaked by the hacktivist organization last month, the project was in
fact a "large-scale information secret service" sponsored and created by London to tackle
'Russian propaganda.'
However, the latest leak suggests that "the British government goes far beyond and exploits
the Integrity Initiative to solve its domestic problems inside the United Kingdom by defaming
the opposition."
Discrediting UK Opposition
Anonymous refers to a "scorching" article that surfaced in
The Times on November 25 and was dedicated to Seumas Milne, director of strategy and
communications under Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Times' official Twitter account promoted
the piece three times within 24 hours on social media -- the only case for all of its articles,
Anonymous says. The hacktivists add that the Integrity Initiative retweeted the "defamatory"
article right after its publication (the post is now unavailable, but Anonymous provided a
screengrab of the retweet).
The group announced in November that the II constituted a network of clusters across Europe,
which sought to tamper with domestic affairs of several European countries such as France,
Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, Spain, and Montenegro.
Countering Russia on German Soil
Another part of the leak is an interim report on the
establishment of a German cluster, which was purportedly written by Hannes Adomeit, a German
political expert specialising in Russian foreign policy. According to the uncovered documents,
the German cluster is coordinated by suspected MI6 agent Harold Elletson.
The report focuses mainly on research of Germans' attitudes toward Russia. Adomeit says that
the so-called "Russian narrative" on the origins of the crisis in Moscow's relations with the
West is "widely accepted by German public opinion." He adds that further research would be
carried out to examine "the reasons for the great receptivity of the Russia narrative" in
Germany.
He also addresses the case of Andrei Kovalchuk, a Russian arrested in Germany on suspicion
of smuggling cocaine to Moscow from Argentina. Kovalchuk was extradited to Russia in late July
-- much to the dissatisfaction of Adomeit, who suggests that German prosecutors could have
"made an effort" to question him and dig up some dirt on Russia.
Watching Russia's Reaction to Catalan Events
The activities of the Integrity Initiative's Spanish cluster were partly revealed by
Anonymous in the first leak on the project. However, a newly unveiled document titled
"Cluster
Breakdown" identifies people associated with the Spanish chapter.
The list includes territorial minister Jose Ignacio Sanchez Amor, MEP Fernando Maura, head
of Spain's peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic Dionisio Urteaga Todo, European
Commission Speaker Dimitri Barua, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Fernando Valenzuela
Marzo, head of Spanish delegation to NATO PA Ricardo Blanco Torno, former defence minister
Eduardo Serra Rexach. Other affiliates include foreign affairs reporters and pundits from
Spanish think tanks: the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs, the European Council on
Foreign Relations, and the Elcano Royal Institute.
The Spanish cluster was apparently closely watching Russia's reaction to the movement in
support of Catalan independence in 2016. According to another leaked
interim report , the project's members were disappointed with Russia's moderate position on
the situation in Spain. However, they claimed, while Vladimir Putin insisted that the issue of
Catalan sovereignty was Spain's internal affair, he was happy to watch Europe "take its own
medicine" (a reference to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence).
This is why, they said, the Russian media took advantage of the 2016 developments in
Catalonia to portray the European Union as "declining, undemocratic and troubled". They went on
to link the media coverage of the Catalan events in Russia to Russia's alleged disinformation
campaign against the West.
The authors contend that given that Catalonia has become part of Russia's "big narrative
about the West," Russian meddling has also become part of the debates in Spain. "This
represents a clear window of opportunity" for promoting anti-Russia sentiment, they
conclude.
Skripal Case Coverage in Greece
The Integrity Initiative's Greek cluster was keeping a close eye on the
media coverage of the Salisbury poisoning in local newspapers. They went to considerable
lengths, studying 193 articles across six major media outlets. It seems, however, that the
result of all the hard work was rather unsatisfactory: the authors confess that the majority of
Greek newspapers adopted a neutral stance towards the Skripal case.
They claim that the Greek media were influenced into not taking sides and remaining
unbiased. "The strong pro-Russian sentiment in the Greek public opinion seems to have
influenced the Greek newspapers not to emphasize Russia's involvement."
The Integrity Initiative has yet to comment on this information dump. Anonymous claimed that
it released the second batch of documents after the EU leaders and international organisations
had ignored its first disclosure. The group accused the II and its sponsors of failing to "give
assurances that the network of clusters will only be used to counter Russia's disinformation
policy."
The "special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom is often assumed
to be one where the once-great, sophisticated Brits are subordinate to the upstart, uncouth
Yanks.
Iconic of this assumption is the mocking of former prime minister Tony Blair as George W.
Bush's "poodle" for his riding shotgun on the ill-advised American stagecoach blundering into
Iraq in 2003. Blair was in good practice, having served as Bill Clinton's dogsbody in the no
less criminal NATO aggression against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999.
On the surface, the UK may seem just one more vassal state on par with Germany, Japan, South
Korea, and
so many other useless so-called allies . We control their intelligence services, their
military commands, their think tanks, and much of their media. We can sink their financial
systems and economies at will. Emblematic is German Chancellor Angela Merkel's impotent ire at
discovering the Obama administration had listened in on her cell phone, about which she –
did precisely nothing. Global hegemony means never having to say you're sorry.
These countries know on which end of the leash they are: the one attached to the collar
around their necks. The hand unmistakably is in Washington. These semi-sovereign countries
answer to the US with the same servility as member states of the Warsaw Pact once heeded the
USSR's Politburo. (Sometimes more. Communist Romania, though then a member of the Warsaw Pact
refused to participate in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or even allow Soviet or other
Pact forces to cross its territory.
By contrast, during NATO's 1999 assault on Serbia, Bucharest allowed NATO military aircraft
access to its airspace, even though not yet a member of that alliance and despite most
Romanians' opposition to the campaign.)
But the widespread perception of Britain as just another satellite may be misleading.
To start with, there are some relationships where it seems the US is the vassal dancing to
the tune of the foreign capital, not the other way around. Israel is the unchallenged champion
in this weight class, with Saudi Arabia a runner up. The alliance between Prime Minister Bibi
Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) – the ultimate Washington
"power couple" – to get the Trump administration to destroy Iran for them has American
politicos listening for instructions with all the rapt attention of the terrier Nipper on the RCA
Victor logo . (Or did, until the recent disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Whether this portends a real shift in
American attitudes toward Riyadh remains questionable .
Saudi cash still speaks loudly and will continue to do so whether or not MbS stays in
charge.)
Specifics of the peculiar US-UK relationship stem from the period of flux at the end of
World War II. The United States emerged from the war in a commanding position economically and
financially, eclipsing Britannia's declining empire that simply no longer had the resources to
play the leading role. That didn't mean, however, that London trusted the Americans' ability to
manage things without their astute guidance. As Tony Judt describes in Postwar , the
British attitude of "
superiority towards the country that had displaced them at the imperial apex " was "nicely
captured" in a scribble during negotiations regarding the UK's postwar loan:
In Washington Lord Halifax
Once whispered to Lord Keynes:
"It's true they have the moneybags
But we have all the brains."
Even in its diminished condition London found it could punch well above its weight by
exerting its influence on its stronger but (it was confident) dumber cousins across the Pond.
It helped that as the Cold War unfolded following former Prime Minister Winston
Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain speech there were very close ties between sister agencies
like MI6 (founded 1909) and the newer wartime OSS (1942), then the CIA (1947); likewise the
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, 1919) and the National Security Administration
(NSA, 1952). Comparable sister agencies – perhaps more properly termed daughters of their
UK mothers – were set up in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This became the so-called
"Five Eyes" of the tight Anglosphere spook community, infamous
for spying on each others' citizens to avoid pesky legal prohibitions on domestic
surveillance .
Despite not having two farthings to rub together,
impoverished Britain – where wartime rationing wasn't fully ended until 1954 – had
a prime seat at the table fashioning the world's postwar financial structure. The 1944 Bretton Woods
conference was largely an Anglo-American affair , of which the
aforementioned Lord John Maynard Keynes was a prominent architect along with Harry Dexter
White, Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Treasury and Soviet agent.
American and British agendas also dovetailed in the Middle East. While the US didn't have
much of a presence in the region before the 1945 meeting between US President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and Saudi King ibn Saud, founder of the third and current ( and hopefully last ) Saudi state – and didn't
assume a dominant role until the humiliation inflicted on Britain, France, and Israel by
President Dwight Eisenhower during the 1956 Suez Crisis – London has long considered much
of the region within its sphere of influence. After World War I under the Sykes-Picot agreement with
France , the UK had expanded her holdings on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, including
taking a decisive
role in consolidating Saudi Arabia under ibn Saud. While in the 1950s the US largely
stepped into Britain's role managing the "East of Suez," the former suzerain was by no means
dealt out. The UK was a founding member with the US of the now-defunct Central Treaty
Organization (CENTO) in 1955.
CENTO – like NATO and their one-time eastern counterpart, the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization (SEATO) – was designed as a counter to the USSR. But in the case of Britain,
the history of hostility to Russia under tsar or commissar alike has much deeper and longer
roots, going back at least to the
Crimean War in the 1850s . The reasons for the longstanding British vendetta against Russia
are not entirely clear and seem to have disparate roots: the desire to ensure that no one power
is dominant on the European mainland (directed first against France, then Russia, then Germany,
then the USSR and again Russia); maintaining supremacy on the seas by denying Russia
warm-waters ports, above all the Dardanelles; and making sure territories of a dissolving
Ottoman empire would be taken under the wing of London, not Saint Petersburg. As described by
Andrew
Lambert , professor of naval history at King's College London, the Crimean War still echoes
today :
"In the 1840s, 1850s, Britain and America are not the chief rivals; it's Britain and
Russia. Britain and Russia are rivals for world power, and Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, which
is much larger than modern Turkey -- it includes modern Romania, Bulgaria, parts of Serbia,
and also Egypt and Arabia -- is a declining empire. But it's the bulwark between Russia,
which is advancing south and west, and Britain, which is advancing east and is looking to
open its connections up through the Mediterranean into its empire in India and the Pacific.
And it's really about who is running Turkey. Is it going to be a Russian satellite, a bit
like the Eastern Bloc was in the Cold War, or is it going to be a British satellite, really
run by British capital, a market for British goods? And the Crimean War is going to be the
fulcrum for this cold war to actually go hot for a couple of years, and Sevastopol is going
to be the fulcrum for that fighting."
Control of the Middle East – and opposing the Russians – became a British
obsession, first to sustain the lifeline to India, the Jewel in the Crown of the empire, then for
control of petroleum, the life's blood of modern economies. In the context of the 19th and
early 20th century Great Game of empire, that was understandable. Much later, similar
considerations might even support Jimmy Carter's taking up much the same position, declaring in
1980 that "outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an
assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be
repelled by any means necessary, including military force." The USSR was then a superpower and
we were dependent on energy from the Gulf region.
But what's our reason for maintaining that posture almost four decades later when the Soviet
Union is gone and the US doesn't need Middle Eastern oil? There are no reasonable national
interests, only corporate interests and those of the Arab monarchies we laughably claim as
allies. Add to that the bureaucracies and habits of mind that link the US and UK
establishments, including their intelligence and financial components.
In view of all the foregoing, what then would policymakers in the United Kingdom think about
an aspirant to the American presidency who not only disparages the value of existing alliances
– without which Britain is a bit player – but
openly pledges to improve relations with Moscow ? To what lengths would they go to stop
him?
Say 'hello' to Russiagate!
One can argue whether or not the phony claim of the Trump campaign's "collusion" with Moscow
was hatched in London or whether the British just lent some "
hands across the water " to an effort concocted by the Democratic National Committee, the
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and their collaborators at
Fusion GPS and inside the Obama administration. Either way, it's clear that while evidence of
Russian connection is nonexistent that of British agencies is unmistakable, as is the UK's hand
in a sustained campaign of demonization and isolation to sink any possible
rapprochement between the US and Russia .
As for Russiagate itself, just try to find anyone involved who's actually Russian. The only
basis for the widespread assumption that any material in the Dirty Dossier that underlies the
whole operation
originated with Russia is the claim of Christopher Steele , the British "ex" spy who wrote
it, evidently in collaboration with people at the US State Department and Fusion GPS. (The
notion that Steele, who hadn't been in Russia for years, would have Kremlin personal contacts
is absurd. How chummy are the heads of the American section of Chinese or Russian intelligence
with White House staff?)
Andrew Wood , a
former British ambassador to Russia Stefan Halper , a dual US-UK citizen. Ex-MI6 Director
Richard Dearlove . Robert Hannigan , former director of GCHQ; there is
reason to think surveillance of Trump was conducted by GCHQ as well as by US agencies under
FISA warrants. Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ soon after the British government denied
the agency had engaged in such spying. Alexander Downer , Australian diplomat (well, not
British but remember the Five Eyes!). Joseph Mifsud , Maltese academic and suspected British
agent.
At present, the full role played by those listed above is not known. Release of unredacted
FISA warrant requests by the Justice Department, which President Trump ordered weeks ago, would
shed light on a number of details. Implementation of that order was derailed after a request by
– no surprise – British Prime Minister Theresa May . Was she seeking
to conceal Russian perfidy, or her own underlings'?
It would be bad enough if Russiagate were the sum of British meddling in American affairs
with the aim of torpedoing relations with Moscow. (And to be fair, it wasn't just the UK and
Australia. Also implicated are Estonia,
Israel, and Ukraine .) But there is also reason to suspect the same motive in
false accusations against Russia with respect to the supposed Novichok
poisonings in England has a connection to Russiagate via a business associate of Steele's,
one Pablo Miller , Sergei
Skripal's MI6 recruiter . (So if it turns out there is any Russian connection to the
dossier, it could be from Skripal or another dubious expat source, not from the Russian
government.) Skripal and his daughter Yulia have disappeared in British custody. Moscow
flatly accuses MI6 of poisoning them as a false flag to blame it on Russia.
A similar pattern
can be seen with claims of chemical weapons use in Syria : "We have irrefutable evidence
that the special services of a state which is in the forefront of the Russophobic campaign had
a hand in the staging" of a faked chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018. Ambassador
Aleksandr Yakovenko pointed to the so-called White Helmets, which is closely associated with
al-Qaeda elements and considered by some their PR arm: "I am naming them because they have done
things like this before. They are famous for staging attacks in Syria and they receive UK
money." Moscow warned for weeks before the now-postponed Syrian government offensive in Idlib
that the same ruse was being prepared
again with direct British intelligence involvement, even having prepared in advance a video
showing victims of an attack that had not yet occurred.
The campaign to demonize Russia shifted into high gear recently with the UK, together with
the US and the Netherlands,
accusing Russian military intelligence of a smorgasbord of cyberattacks against the World
Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and other sports organizations, the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Dutch investigation into the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine, and
a Swiss lab involved with the Skripal case, plus assorted election interference. In case anyone
didn't get the point,
British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson declared : "This is not the actions of a great
power. This is the actions of a pariah state, and we will continue working with allies to
isolate them."
In sum, we are seeing a massive, coordinated hybrid campaign of psy-ops and political warfare
conducted not by Russia but against Russia, concocted by the UK and its Deep
State collaborators in the United States. But it's not only aimed at Russia, it's an attack
on the United States by the government of a foreign country that's supposed to be one of
our closest allies, a country with which we share many venerable traditions of language, law,
and culture.
But for far too long, largely for reasons of historical inertia and elite corruption, we've
allowed that government to exercise undue influence on our global policies in a manner not
conducive to our own national interests. Now that government, employing every foul deception
that earned it the moniker Perfidious Albion , seeks to embroil us
in a quarrel with the only country on the planet that can destroy us if things get out of
control.
This must stop. A thorough reappraisal of our "special relationship" with the United Kingdom
and exposure of its activities to the detriment of the US is imperative.
James George Jatras is an analyst, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to
the Senate GOP leadership.
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who does
not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign against
Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but seems to be
part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal,
academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to
take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
---
Update - The Integrity Initiative
confirms the release of its documents. - End Update
---
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed by
Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and promises
that:
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany
Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland
Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands
Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler,
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland,
Todd Leventhal
UK
Chris Donnelly,
Amalyah Hart, William Browder, John Ardis,
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham, Deborah Haynes,
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon, Mungo Melvin,
Rob Dover Julian Moore, Agnes Josa, David Aaronovitch, Stephen Dalziel, Raheem Shapi, Ben
Nimmo,
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede
Alan Riley [email protected] Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
I see that the cluster of UK journalists to receive propaganda from the Integrity Initiative
includes Guardian writer and former Le Monde chief editor (run out by her senior editors for
her "Putinesque" leadership style) Natalie Nougayrede. As if The Guardian needs any more
persuasion or encouragement to recede deeper into its labyrinthine network of rabbit-holes.
Jonathan Freedland must be jumping up and down in an infantile tantrum that Nugget-head got
such privileged access.
@ #2 pretzelattack Thanks for the Robert Mueller Guardian article link.
Am I the only one not to know that "As acting deputy attorney general, he [Robert Mueller]
was in charge of the investigation and indictment of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan
convicted of the terrorist attack that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in
Scotland just before Christmas 1988.
Seems every new article I read on Robert Mueller, he was carrying out another CIA covert
plan.
Britain has been a US dog for years, most overtly in Blair's time over Iraq and Afghanistan,
but things haven't really changed. Britain's military has become more and more dependent on
the US. There is no longer an independent nuclear deterrent - the weapons are rented from the
US, and I'm certain that they couldn't be used without US approval (sure to be a backdoor
somewhere in the electronics which would enable the US to turn them off, if the US
disagreed). The F35s they've insisted on buying are probably in the same situation.
They're not slaves, or rather 'vassals' - the current word of sensitivity about the EU.
More active collaborators, which implies initiatives also stemming from Britain.
One should also recall Britain's function as US agent in the European Union. They were
opposed to many EU proposals, obviously to fit in with US desires. The most recent example is
the Galileo GPS system - they were opposed to it for years, but as Ivan Rogers told us
(former Brit ambassador to the EU), the opposition he was instructed to make failed.
It's all gone off a bit recently though. Trump is not interested in Britain in the way
Obama was. Brexit is a nativist movement, not what America wants. If Brexit goes through
finally, the interest of the US will be even less, as we can no longer intervene on the US's
behalf in Europe.
French agents of inluence according to leak: France
Francoise Thom Jusin Vaisse Thomas Bertin Caroline Gondaud Guillaume Schlumberger Raphael de
Lagarde Roland Galharague
Martin Briens Jean-Christophe Noel Laurent Rucker Alexandre Escorcia Nikola Guljevatej David
Behar Claire le Flecher Remy Bouallegue Paul Zajac Nicolas Roche Manuel Lafont Rapnouil
Laurent Rucker Patrick Hardouin Etienne de Durand
Janaina Herrera
I just knew if I scrolled down far enough the name Anne Applebaum would appear - Queen of the
Dual-Loyalists; but Wm. Browder!?
From her Wikipedia page: "She is a visiting Professor of Practice at the London School of
Economics, where she runs Arena, a project on propaganda and disinformation." I reckon she
"Practices" at the Post.
@7 "...things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the
soviet union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia
fully, as they'd intended..."
Crimea is the one that really hurts. NATO was all set to build a shiny new base.
@18 russ... yes - that pretty well sums it up... as for putin falling into the neoliberal
order - at this point it does look that way.. i am curious how russia could move forward at
this moment in some alternative way? what would the alternative way look like?
@zanon... thanks, but the list given for usa/canada has only one person on it that appears
to be a canuck - glen howard.. and unless it is a different glen howard, the guy is some
curling wiz, but no mention of his anti-russian credentials... his e mail address is given as
jamestown.org which is connected to the jamestown foundation.. turns out, he is not a canuck
either - "Glen Howard President
Mr. Howard is fluent in Russian and proficient in Azerbaijani and Arabic, and is a
regional expert on the Caucasus and Central Asia. He was formerly an Analyst at the Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Strategic Assessment Center. His articles have
appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, and Jane's Defense
Weekly. Mr. Howard has served as a consultant to private sector and governmental agencies,
including the U.S. Department of Defense, the National Intelligence Council and major oil
companies operating in Central Asia and the Middle East."
one of the people on the usa-can list - john nevado appears to be an equadorian...
bottom line - as a sensitive canuck, i think someone needs to change the list to say usa
and remove canada, as no canucks are on the list from the small research i did...
that is the sad thing about canada - it gets lumped in with the usa for good and bad on a
regular basis... maybe they could put crystia freelands name on this list... i think she
would qualify as a rabid anti-russia canuck...
reply to Plantman 13
re:
"Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by
internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have
been resolved and funding should now flow."
I don't think it was the Republican party that was the source of the deadlock.
I think it may have been Tillerson. He had close ties to Russia and in March 2018, he was
forced out of State and Pompeo came in.
"President Donald Trump nominated Pompeo as Secretary of State in March 2018, with Pompeo
succeeding Rex Tillerson after his dismissal."
"The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who receives (pdf) £8,100 per month
..."
That's a decent salary. He probably can work from home too - like Bellingcat. A fake NGO
operating with fake "integrity" to identify "fake news". Everything is rather upside-down
these days. Good to have all those names attached. Where's C Summers on the list? - maybe he
never realized till now the monthly salaries available.
Central Europe
Anne Bader Eduard Abrahayman Mitar Kuyundzic Plamen Pantev Solomon Passy Jaroslav Hajecek
Jakub Janda Frantisek Vrabel Peter Kreko Jan Strzelecki Mario Nicolini Austria
Harold Elletson Susan Stewart
Baltic section according to the leak:
Tomas Tauginas Asta Skaisgiryte Saulius Guzevicius Eitvydas BAJARŪNAS Renatas Norkus
Vytautas Bakas Laurynas Kasciunas Dr Povilas Malakauskas Ainis Razma Mantas Martisius Linas
Kojala
Major Jane Witt Claire Lawrence James Rogers Andriy Tyushka Viktorija Urbonaviciute
reply to dh 31
"Crimea is the one that really hurts. NATO was all set to build a shiny new base."
True that!
I was blown away by their arrogance when I saw the US had bids out to remodel the existing
Russian buildings in the Crimean port to for a school, housing.
It clearly never occurred to them that they could/would lose, nor did they even bother to
think that Russia may keep an eye out for such mind blowing acts of stupidity such as these
bids?
Craig Oliphant is Senior Advisor, Peaceful Change Initiative (PCI), based in London, and
Senior Research Associate at the Foreign Policy Centre. Until the end of 2010, he worked in
the diplomatic service and was Head of the Eastern Research Group in the Foreign Office,
dealing with Russia and Eastern Europe.
In the first half of the 1990s, Craig held posts in Brussels at NATO as an advisor on
Russia/Eastern Europe and was then at the OSCE in The Hague, as a regional advisor to the
OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. Before that he was at the UK Ministry of
Defence (MOD), as a senior lecturer at the Conflict Studies Research Centre at RMA
Sandhurst; he also worked for several years in the 1980s at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
in Munich, Germany. Craig has published widely on Russia/FSU affairs. He is a member of
IISS; RUSI; a Fellow of Royal Society of Arts; and is a Vice Chairman of the British
Georgian Society.
Independent Conflict Research & Analysis (ICRA) was founded in May 2010 as a
not-for-profit organisation providing objective conflict analysis and training. It is led by
Christopher Langton OBE, who spent 32 years in the British Army. During this time he served
in Northern Ireland, Russia, the South Caucasus where he was Deputy Chief of UNOMIG and held
defence attaché appointments in Russia, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia.
Subsequently he worked at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) for 9
years where he was the focus on Afghanistan. At IISS he held appointments as the Head of
Defence Analysis, Editor of "The Military Balance" and Research Fellow for Russia before
being appointed Senior Fellow for Conflict & Defence Diplomacy.
He has worked as an independent expert on the international investigation into the
Russia-Georgia conflict of August 2008 and on the Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission investigating
the violence that occurred in Southern Kyrgyzstan in 2010. Christopher was Advisor to the
UK-China Conflict Prevention Working Group 2014-2015 under the aegis of Saferworld and
supported by DFID.
reply to:
This cureemt state of affairs cannot last longer. Right?
Posted by: PacoRepublicano | Nov 24, 2018 3:02:15 PM | 37
That may be why the globalists seem to be a bit off the rails.
I read in an article on the present French fuel tax protests/riots that a recent poll of
world millennials found that 50 percent would go along with a change of govt, it was 75
percent in France. Concurrent with these riots the French govt is trying to bring back
mandatory military service for those in the 3rd year of high school.
Indoctrination camps ala China is my guess.
i do think it is better to ignore the local shill... they say the same stupid shit on a
regular basis.. out of the kindness of b, it is unlikely to stop... quoting jamestown.org is
more of the same stupidity that i have come to expect from our resident shill..
https://www.cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation-integrity-initiative-british-informational-war-against-all/
New I hope, from Murray's blog.
Note that Ben Bradshaw a Labour MP, famous forbeing the first MP who married a man, a fellow
BBC reporter, and a Blairite is one of the scum on the UK list. So is 'Prof' Alan Riley, a
lawyer with extensive interests in oil.
These people are constantly being wheeled out in the media as independent experts.
Talking of Murray's blog the latest piece laments the death of the Al Nusra spokesman who was
killed yesterday, by fellow salafists, as a democrat, secular etc etc.
Check the propaganda organization's twitter account: https://twitter.com/initintegrity
They have been in a retweeting spam mode since they got exposed. Quite hilarious.
"The Initiatives Guide to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It
lists the downing of flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in
Khan Sheikhoun and the Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation"."
This following document explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a Dirty Trick
operation against Russia. It also mentions the use of aspects of Russian culture to be used
as a weapon against it (eg the church)
It lists tream members, funding for specificic tasks and this statement:
"Code of Conduct (Greg to commence with internet etiquette)
Anonymity of the team remains paramount. As our activity increases we will, no doubt, attract
unwanted attention."
That directly contradicts the official UK government statement to the Russians that the
Integrity Initiative is a public domain program.
the secret to all good propaganda: accuse the other side of doing what you're guilty of
so people believe that anonymous collective managed to gain access, via 'hacking'to the
FCO computer system? really? seriously? you think that the second, or third most
critical/secure UK govt. system can be either 'spearfished' or accessed by some other
means?
I will say this. I had always assumed Ed Lucas was ex -UK intel. He worked at the Moscow
embassy for the FCO and has stuck to the "save the baltics from the evil empire" line ever
since. There is a surprisingly tight network of folk (Yes Ann Applebaum) who have been
together hating the commies and now the non-commie Russians since the 90s. Some of them are
very prominent now (Yes Chrystia) despite having backgrounds which might suggest an
irrational agenda driven outlook (Nazis?). They meet up at conferences discussing the
Soviet/Russian menace and never mention that on raw spend, Nato outspends their hated Russia
by 10x or 20x.
Still, for some reason these people are considered angels of light and the rest of us need
to follow their barely literate lead (actually Ed Lucas is very literate, as is Peter
Pomerantsev). Anders Aslund a lot less so.
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Luke "The Plagiarist" Harding and the other Guardian hacks must be really pissed off that
they weren't considered to be worthy of even a sub-cluster.
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
No, not really. MI6 have demonstrated even greater levels of stupidity in the past. For
example, supporting the salafist Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and then being surprised at
the blowback that was the Manchester Arena suicide bombing by one of its followers
Greek group according to leak: Despina afentouli ELIAMEP Thanos Dokos Ioannis Armakolas
George Tzogopoulos Dimitris Xenakis Katerina Oikonomakou Ioannis Goranitis Tasos Telloglou
Katerina Chryssanthopoulou Sissy Alonistiotou
i remain agnostic for now on the authenticity of the 'integrity initiative, but is has a
definite Gladio/NATO feel to it, so it's entirely plausible.
but as i was pasting together a new diary on the ever-increasing increased jeopardy to
julian assange by way the Wikileaks account on twitter, they had these tweets up:
'Ecuador's president has signed a decree terminating the ambassador to the United Kingdom,
Carlos Abad. All diplomats known to Assange have now been terminated to transferred away from
the embassy.'
@ Willie Wobblestick with the righteous poem....very nice, may it go viral with b's piece
@ wendy davis with the status of julian assange...thanks
I think these actions reek of desperation and lack of understanding of what exposure may
ensue from julian going down in some way. Julian may be holding old news but I expect that
there are depths of it that will be new to many.
The circus tent is starting to burn and the animals are freaking out, ready to
stampede.
Can we evolve away from the private finance motivated world soon, please and thank
you?
the first wikitweet was to the anon 'operation integrity initiative'; the second one says:
"We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being
fabrications."
assange attorney hannah jonnason (@AssangeLegal) had been looking carefully at them,
parsing them in belief, but finally had re-tweeted wikileaks take. the 'portion' as i took it
by way of the subtweets was 'fabricated emails'. she's gret, plus brilliant, but on one
thread i'd posted she'd called marcy wheeler 'fbi informant MW', lol.
Golly gee-whiz! Why am I not surprised? Gotta have complementary sources of disinformation
operating in tandem with BigLie Media! Indeed, the synchronicity of so much fairly well
proves BigLie Media is part of this system. The Tower of Immorality being built primarily by
the Outlaw US Empire and its UK sidekick is like a Ponzi Scheme in that for it not to fall it
must have ever more lies continually added where eventually everything said by them will be
100% false.
It is getting tedious to have to type my personal information in every time I want to
comment. B has written that he is working on issues but I may forgo the web site link if this
continues....lazy as I am
@ wendy davis with the marcy wheeler as fbi informant claim....marcy seems well
intentioned but seems to have some way weird bias blinders in her thinking. I have stopped
following her because her signal to noise ratio got too bad. There are lots of folks like her
I am sorry to write. Well intentioned but drinking some koolaid that has them mixed up in
strategic ways.....almost like it was planned.....maybe more lists will come out now of other
organizations that are paying folk to build and/or maintain certain narratives like GWOT,
etc.
And yes, we can take the truth. It will set many free.
The chemical attack on Aleppo earlier today wasn't accompanied by immediate synchronized
media and NATO political leader accusations against the terrorists like we've seen associated
with the FFs. I've yet to see any, nor have any been reported on Twitter.
@ 68 pscychohistorian.. ditto your comments on marcy wheeler... all the folks at emptywheel
have gone off the rails, led by lead bozo - bmaz... i used to enjoy reading her, but the hate
russia memo they all swallowed is tedious slogging and i am not up for it..
James @70 i'm right there with ya. Watching how the Russian Derangement Syndrome has
afflicted otherwise sane and smart people has been disillusioning to say the least.
Blessings, b and comment support on this - it takes me back to the days when Five Eyes was
unravelling, and I can't but think that dastardly plot to surveil and snoop by means of
developing technology was going to be a worldwide instrument of torture and oneupmanship that
many thought would make that consortium top dog for all time.
So, they smashed the Guardian's computers, and they co-opted or blackmailed where they
could, but the genie was out. And out for good. It would make a good spy novel if it weren't
for the very real deaths and destruction that have happened in the wake of the revelations.
And that will happen before this sorry historical episode is over. I simply believe, however,
that thanks to nearly everyone contributing to this forum, such possibilities are
diminishing. Thank you,b and everyone.
I'm not well versed enough myself but I am baffled by this whole mess. All sides of this
are entities I don't trust at all: Intelligence agencies, Facebook, Trump and his crooked
playmates... seems there are no sides to trust or root for in this whole game of
espionage.
Ghost Ship @ 58: There is a Guardian writer in that UK journalist sub-cluster list and that
is Natalie Nougayrede. No surprise there ... over at Off-Guardian.org, commenters have their
own unprintable names for her. And you thought the bar at Integrity Initiative wasn't low
enough for Fraudian hacks.
It is important to note that Wikileaks questioned the authenticity of these documents. We
should be cautious before drawing any conclusions and wait for more information.
"We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of
being fabrications."
iv> Jelena Milić is actually doing very good job of making people sick
of NATO and the UKUS governments. She's a laughing stock in Serbia. Idk why are they paying her
in the first place. She could easily be Kremlin lobbyist the way how she's doing her job :) If
they are all incapable like her I wouldn't be worried too much about this
Jelena Milić is actually doing very good job of making people sick of NATO and the UKUS
governments. She's a laughing stock in Serbia. Idk why are they paying her in the first
place. She could easily be Kremlin lobbyist the way how she's doing her job :) If they are
all incapable like her I wouldn't be worried too much about this
So Facebook is s co sponsor ? Social media not just about bringing people together but
manipulator and subversion .
If they were targeting Jews this would be called antisemitism , as iybisvtheytecyargetumg
russians ,
What role did they play In the novichok hoax ?
'Clusters established in each country' reads an awful lot like subversion and treachery
Should this be a matter for country police and national security ?
@Zanon 28
Même pour les Français, l'information est aujourd'hui en anglais... Ceci dit,
l'hystérie et l'"activité" anti-russe n'est pas très effective en
France... Trop d'Histoire et d'histoires partagées pour adhérer à cette
soupe servie pour les peuples anglo-saxons... Mais enfin, pas besoin d'avoir lu Hegel pour
comprendre que toute cette agitation-propagande sert in fine l'ennemi désigné,
la Russie; et précipite encore un peu plus, si c'est possible, la fin de l'empire.
Purported internal documents, from a UK government "counter-Russia" influence network
targeting mostly Europe and US, appear on site often alleged to be used by Russian state
hackers. cyberguerrilla.org/blog/operation
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of
being fabrications.
I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in the
stash. There are some small but explainable inconsistencies (i.e. between budget plan and
approved budget?) and the whole stash is likely bigger than the published one. But all the
details I could check seem to fit.
"I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in the
stash."
Who's running the show at Wikileaks by now? (I assume Assange can't do so from his
hideout.) My memory's hazy, but I recall there being some kind of internal struggle there,
and that a pro-Wall Street faction opposed the release of the Bank of America files and
destroyed them.
Are they now trying to turn and appease their system enemies? Wouldn't be the first such
sell-out. Maybe they're jealous of the prestige, lucre, and system respectability of the
Snowden/Greenwald/Intercept industrial complex.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Nov 25, 2018 4:01:51 AM |
link
This has everything...right down to FCO email addresses. For FCO read MI6. Either this is
colossal disinfo from Anonymous or a significant operation is truly blown. To resort to
something like this, on this scale, showa that they are worried about something. Perhaps RT
is getting wore viewing and hits in the UK and Europe than their outlets are. Once the
internet was invented this was bound to happen. In some societies this would be regarded as
espionage and subversion and these shills would be rounded up for a little chat. Great
journalism b, stay safe......at least we now know who the provocateurs for the next false
flag are....
Zero Hedge also striking similar skeptical notes. They retweet Assange from 2016 stating
anonymous to be an FBI cutout organisation. These anti-Russian organisations are real and
their aim is to fight Russian propaganda, they will say by publishing truth while Russia says
with lies. Of course they are funded. So is Russian propaganda. What the Russians are doing
is classic "Spy vs Spy" and Barflies of course lap up the kool-aid just as easily as every
kool-aid drinker we deride. The constant state of confirmation bias and psychological
projection on the internets isn't even newsworthy but it's interesting sociology. Wash.
Rinse. Repeat. Same as it ever was. Whatever gets us through the night. It's alright. But is
Assange only speaking truth when he confirms our biases? I have more respect for him.
Thanks b for posting Wikileak's skeptical take even as you wish to believe otherwise. That's
integrity. And to those who say Assange is only doing so to suck up belatedly to the US as a
possible defense strategy I can only SMH. More projection. This is what you might do maybe if
you were in his shoes.
This is so big of a news but the western media do not say a word about it!
This screams subversion, Gladio from the very top/deep state of western society.
Posted by: donkeytale | Nov 25, 2018 4:12:41 AM | 92
"And to those who say Assange is only doing so to suck up belatedly to the US as a
possible defense strategy I can only SMH. More projection. This is what you might do maybe if
you were in his shoes."
Who said that, donkeydumbass? Learn to read. I asked if the post-Assange Wikileaks might
be trying to do that. Of course I don't know what Assange himself might or might not do, any
more than you do.
The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from
President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious
Russian hacking group behind the attack.
In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said
the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically
anyone."
He said they found no trace that the Russian hacking group known as APT28, blamed for
other attacks including on the U.S. presidential campaign, was responsible.
Poupard is director general of the government cyber-defense agency known in France by its
acronym, ANSSI. Its experts were immediately dispatched when documents stolen from the Macron
campaign leaked online on May 5 in the closing hours of the presidential race.
Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who
did this alone. They could be in any country."
Some commentators claim that 'Anonymous' is an FBI operations and that lets them doubt
this issue.
Actually 'Anonymous' has been used as a cover by various shady agencies and individuals.
Everybody can publish whatever they want under the 'Anonymous' moniker. The moniker has no
credibility or meaning.
As always one has to distinguish between the source of information and the actual content
of the information.
Here the source is obviously shady. But the content, as far as I can tell, seems to be
real.
---
Also - don't feed the house troll. Craigsummers is allowed to comment here solely for our
amusement. There is no need to discuss whatever he posts.
It's crystal clear to me that the so-called "British" anti-Russia project is really
sponsored by the CIA. Most everything is. I think. How else are they keep their VERY
lucrative racket going?
In countries that may be hostile to this programme (Serbia, Spain, Italy for example), the
exposed cluster members should be immediately arrested as foreign spies and tried for
treason, and the exposed British Embassy contacts should be immediately expelled.
Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by
internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow.
Interesting isn't it, that from March 2018 the Trump Administration is no longer blocking
this programme! When was Trump's first meeting with President Putin, wasn't that in March?
Immediately afterwards of course he was lambasted. Was he turned at that point?
"Edward Snowden accused an Israeli cybersecurity firm of developing and selling surveillance
software to Saudi Arabia, enabling the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi":
It's crystal clear to me that the so-called "British" anti-Russia project is really
sponsored by the CIA. Most everything is. I think. How else are they keep their VERY
lucrative racket going?
Nah. like Skripal this is a home grown effort. After backing that loser Clinton with the
Steele file, the British Conservative government which likes to have its head even further up
Washington's arse than Tony Blair's is scared shitless that Trump will shit on them from a
great height for backing his rival. I suspect he will wait for Brexit to go through and then
take a dump on them when they turn up with their begging bowl in Washington looking for a
"free trade deal". They're hoping that with these attacks on Russia they will ingratiate
themselves with the Washington foreign policy establishment (Pat Lang's Borg) enough to
reduce the incredible volumes of shit Trump would dump on them. It looks like it's working at
the moment, but then Trump is known to be capricious so its anybody's guess what happens
later. Bear in mind that if the Conservative government make enough mistakes, it's that
socialist Corbyn who replaces it which is its Worst. Nightmare. Evah.
The bottom line as Al Gore said is there is no overriding authority. Sites like Above Top
Secrect are obviously run by people who want things kept top secrect. Snopes revealed itself
with its take on the White Helmets in Syria. Remember when the Greenpeace guy turned out to
be a shill for Nuclear Energy.
Thank you. Very good covering of the 'event', written in clear accessible language.
I am afraid that what was discovered is only a small part of the ocean of lies in which they
are trying to force us to swim.
I am amazed how these people can sleep well. Rotten and lying through and through...
In fact, nothing "surprising" or "unbelievable" was found. Specialists, experts, as well
as ordinary people, who have been interested in the topic, have long understood that it is
about a targeted propaganda, which operates according to its laws. This propaganda calls
truth a lie, and a lie truth, it calls white black and black it calls white. The work of this
propaganda is also clearly visible, for example, when, on the eve of some important event,
the "world community" suddenly (mean, "suddenly") finds out something "sensational", while
MSM all start writing the same thing with a certain bias (often anti-Russian). The Russian
Foreign Ministry has repeatedly pointed out the obvious coordination of the work of the
Western media when it comes to 'anti-Russian news'. All these info are in briefings and
statements of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which are publicly available on the
Ministry's website.
Especially clearly a targeted coordinated work of propaganda was visible during the events
in Syria, in particular, during the liberation of Aleppo. Remember all these "the last
hospitals". Even high-ranking representatives of the UN, many of whom are essentially Western
protégés, were also participating in this propaganda. For those who are
interested in how this worked during the liberation of Aleppo, I recommend reading this in full. A
lot of interesting details.
One thing is good - that such info become publicly known. Maybe more people will wake up
and think about what is going on.
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being
fabrications.
This particular story might originate within MI6. If MI6 knew that the Russians had
gathered compromising information on this operation, MI6 would put out a story favourable to
them to capture the narrative before the Russians could. Like all black propaganda, they
would have to include some of the real truth to make the fake "truth" appear reliable. It
also allows the supposedly devious twats at MI6 to demonstrate their steadfastness in
"fighting" the Russians.
BTW, it's entirely possible that the Skripal incident was by the Russians but only
designed to incapacitate Skripal pere as a warning to him or MI6 to behave themselves and not
do stupid things in future but the Conservative government rather stupidly decided to put out
a bullshit narrative about what happened. Furthermore, don't forget that Churchill, the hero
of the Conservative Party used chemical weapons against the Russians/Soviets. Most Brit's
probably never knew or have forgotten but I doubt the Russians have or ever will.
We have analyzed these documents and assess that a portion of them show hallmarks of being
fabrications.
I have no idea what the Wikileaks folks mean. I did not notice any signs of fakery in
the stash.
Posted by: b | Nov 25, 2018 2:25:31 AM | 87
The best way the elite can undermine wikileaks is to infiltrate it and undermine it from
within, as they did to Amnesty International, and later Human Rights Watch, both of which are
completely controlled by US and UK intelligence services. I think it is a given that they
will have successfully infiltrated wikileaks - because I think it is impossible that
wikileaks could have avoided it completely, but lets hope that wikileaks keep up sufficient
defences to isolate the infiltration and limit its damage. With the current threats to
Assange that will be a big challenge!
If, as I suspect, this claim that the documents were fake was being pushed by an
infiltrator, then that infiltrator is raising flags to himself, so it is a high risk action
and emphasises the desperation the elite are in, that they are willing to burn a key
asset.
The docs are fakes? I don't think so, there's just too much detail and the names it exposes,
Aaronovich, Marcus (BBC), the financing. It's an awful lot of exposing in order to mislead us
don't you think? And if it was, it was one, gigantic failure!
The best way is to see how the MSM deal with it, if at all, so today for example, there's
been no mention on the BBC's RSS feed and there was none yesterday. I'd say that judging by
the nature and structure of the 'Institute of Statecraft', it's straight out of
Whitehall.
my apologies for my truncated response. what i'd meant to say is that we're talking past
one another. my fault entirely, as i never should have brought wheeler into the discussion,
and derailed my larger point. but i got in a hurry, and that was that.
but to those wondering why 'assange' would have noted that 'some portions have been
fabricated', asange notably has been incommunicado for the past seven months, and any
'visitors' (really just his legal team) are forced to surrender all their communication
device before entering the embassy. so who on the Wikileaks team had decided that is
unknowable, of course. but on one of the subtweets where b had noted jakub janda's pride in
being part of the organization (nice catch, by the way, b) one idiot linked to his home
website noting that assange is a Mossad operative.
when i'd been contemplating writing some of up, i will say that my favorite part was the
handbook, most especially this great psyop:
"What funding do they have/have access to/need? Caution! This is always a very sensitive
issue. NB 1 If asked about money for funding activities of a cluster, always be firmly vague
and helpfully uninformative and at all costs avoid making any funding commitments until we
have discussed it! NB 2 When talking about the Institute, be sure you can explain clearly
what we are and what we do. NB 3 if asked about our funding, be very clear: the Integrity
Initiative is funded by the Institute for Statecraft. The IfS gets its funding from multiple
sources to ensure its independence. These include: private individuals; charitable
foundations; international organisations (EU, NATO); UK Govt (FCO, MOD"
one commenter on the cyber guerilla doc dump page had noted: 'Propagandist Stephen Dalziel
is a given a regular platform by Monocle 24 in the UK and rebroadcast around the world.
Dalziel shills for the fraud "Bellingcat".'
And what is the difference between the MbS treatment of "unpleasant" Khashoggi and the US/UK
treatment of "unpleasant" Assange?
The absolute majority of the "progressives" and "liberals" in both the US and the UK are
sheepishly quiet when the most important journalist of our times, Julian Assange, has been
smeared and his life endangered by the kangaroo courts of the western corrupt judiciary.
mike k: "The US Mafia Government kangaroo court gathers it's phony "legal" forces,
salivating in anticipation of Assange as a choice morsel for it's evil appetite. Their
"logic" goes like this, "if we say you are guilty, then you are guilty".
And where is the zionized MSM? -- With the kangaroo courts, of course, working in a accord
with the mega war profiteers and other big-time criminals.
In France, last Pres. election, the favored candidate from the right (Républicains)
was Alain Juppé. As the F establishment likes to mimic the US in all ways, they
instored 'primaires' - primaries, to 'elect' 'the most popular candidate' from the two main
parties. As the French don't glom the depth of corruption of the US system and how to do
that, and just love - for all kinds of reasons - such gadgets, the vote at the
Républicain table (even the name is a tribute) turned out surprise to be for Francois
Fillon - who was (is) Catholic, pro-Russia, while your standard right-wing F-flavored stooge.
He was brought down speedily in a corruption scandal, for hiring his wife and children
amongst others to do no work or symbolic stuff. One third of F Parliament members do this
(off the cuff nos., but attested to ..), it is completely accepted. An allowed 'perk' - a way
to spend the budgets > 'favored' 'loyal' ppl.
The effiency and speed of this attack surprised me. Fillon - no fool - 'withdrew' so to
speak and made no waves beyond the acceptable i.e. stalwart opposition / defense at first,
then went to work for a Financial Co. All the hype about suing the wife, about getting money
back, whatever, died pronto.
I have no idea how this was organised. (The left was conveniently split.. between the
entrenched "Socialists" and "Mélenchon," France Insoumise ) and so the end-run
was between the vilified National Front (renamed now) Marine Le Pen, party which survives
only as they play their puppet role to guarantee they collect low-class opposition to then
always lose facing either the Socialists or the Républicains.
Syria Urges U.N. to Condemn Rebels After Apparent Chemical Attack
Syria accused rebel forces of launching an attack in Aleppo that sent scores of choking
victims to hospitals. Medical officials suspected chlorine had been used.
Characteristically, the attack is "apparent", but almost strangely, NYT reported Reuters
news providing an inconvenient story rather fast.
If some at least of the documents are fabrications, the plan of the Western intelligence
agencies may be to expose some false details in the documents to discredit the whole story.
So, what several posters here are now stating or at least implying is the @wikileaks account
is basically the same as "Anonymous"? That is, it is merely a cover used by shadowy
individuals and therefore no longer possesses any credibility unless it posts something with
which we can all agree?
And the thoughts it expressed do not necessarily bear any relationship to Julian
Assange?
Unless, of course, we agree with those thoughts?
Blooming Barricade , Nov 25, 2018 10:50:38 AM |
link
The Integrity Initiative is now trying to smear and attack Seumas Milne, Jeremy Corbyn's
communications director and a key voice on the anti-war, anti-capitalist left, tweeting a
Times article that appears to have been contributed to by them. They also retweeted Michael
Weiss on Milne, who they appear to want to remove from a future Corbyn government in the vein
of that Spanish minister This should be a HUGE scandal given that this is funded by the UK
government and thus the Tory administration and is thus GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA against the
leader of the opposition, paid for by the taxpayer and in line with big business/military
Euro-Atlanticist lobby. Thanks to the digital urban guerrilla site for exposing this assault
on socialism and the public. https://twitter.com/InitIntegrity/status/1066691553350086656
Best MoA blockbuster yet!!! Somewhere down there Joseph Goebbels is gazing upward at all this
exposed chicanery, eyes shining with delight, and also green with envy.
Goebbels was a rank amateur and grossly overrated - he could do white propaganda when
things were going well for the Nazis which wasn't difficult, otherwise he was useless. When
things started to go bad for the Nazis, the British, particularly Sefton Delmer, started
running rings around him. The Americans really never understood black propaganda but why
should they, and the British are still trying to fight World War 11 with their black
propaganda and are still losing.
These kind of propaganda campaigns end up as own goals for the establishment. Peons and serfs
don't need to know what is going on, but the Dear Leaders' functionaries do need accurate
info in order to make correct decisions that further establishment goals. With all the smoke
and chaos of conflicting stories, can bureaucrats keep their lies straight? I think not.
As I understand it, glowing but inaccurate fabricated reports submitted to the former
German Democratic Republic (East Germany) Dear Leaders left them unable to comprehend just
how unhappy the GDR citizens actually were, so the collapse came as a surprise. [1] We can
see this happening in Afghanistan today. The Pentagon insists they are "winning" while the
Taliban-controlled territory continues to increase. When Uncle Sam is finally driven out, it
will come as a complete surprise to the DC Dunces who believe their own phony reports.
[1] Fulbrook, Mary; Anatomy of a Dictatorship: Inside the GDR 1949-1989; Oxford University
Books; 1995
Just imagine the response and publicity if this was a Russian government funded organization,
having a network of agents of influence groups of people in western europe...
reply to Russ 89
"Who's running the show at Wikileaks by now?"
Good question. Do you recall when Assange's attorney was killed when pushed in front of a
train at the time the Wikileaks founder Gavin Macfadyen died?
The staff roster at Wikileaks then went through an almost total turnover and there were
reports that someone was escorted from the building with a bag over their head and there were
reports that Assange's deadman switch was activated but stopped. All this occurred back in
2016.
The reason no one who knows Assange is being allowed physical contact may be because someone
else is in his place.I have a sad feeling that he is in a Langley basement.
on sept. 26, 2018 julian assange had named Kristinn Hrafnsson of iceland as the new
editor-in-chief of wikileaks. at that time julian had been cut off from communicating for six
months.
an hour ago wikileaks had tweeted:
@wikileaks: WikiLeaks Retweeted Integrity Initiative 'UK government backed anti-Russian
influence network account for "Integrity Initiative" confirms release of documents.'
@InitIntegrity 'Here is our statement on the recent publication by Russian media of hacked
Integrity Initiative documents.'
they offered some caveats, among them:
"We have not yet had the chance to analyse all of the documents, so cannot say with
confidence whether they are all genuine or whether they include doctored or false material.
Although it is clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or
Institute systems, much of it is dated and was never used. In particular, many of the names
published were on an internal list of experts in this field who had been considered as
potential invitees to future cooperation. In the event, many were never contacted by the
Integrity Initiative and did not contribute to it. Nor were these documents therefore
included in any funding proposals. Not only did these individuals have nothing to do with the
programme – they may not even have heard of us. We are of course trying to contact all
named individuals for whom we have contact details to ensure that they are aware of what has
happened."
now my guess, fwiw, is that the WL knows chapter and verse how the CIA vault 7 revelations
can be used to create false email addresses, etc., so perhaps they'd spotted some.
but assange's attorney jennifer robinson did get to see him on nov. 16.
Thus is an extraordinary article. It describes distilled hypocrisy on the part of the U.S.
and U.K. who have conniptions over Russian "meddling," that has proved to be thin gruel
indeed, but who organize a vast, expensive enterprise of their own to implement
disinformation and smear campaigns to influence the internal affairs of other countries and
friendly ones at that. Russia purchases a modest message on Twitter (?) and that is an attack
on "our democracy."The attack on the now oddly-sequestered Skripals is an epic East Asian
fire drill with Theresa May written all over it and it sure as hell has nothing "made in
Moscow" about it.
Anne Appelebaum and the other "journalists" have some 'splainin' to do about what
independent, unbiased journalists are doing as players in government propaganda
organizations.
Look y'all, @craigsummers is a paid troll. So all your responses are earning him or her
income. Trolling is an art form. b, you could regularly remined new readers to ignore mwn.
Anton from Russia , Nov 27, 2018 5:14:22 AM |
link
I am Russian, live in Russia.
This is the most interesting journalistic investigation I've read in the last six months.
Thanks.
Most of all I am surprised, the whole world is in economic crisis, people in developed
countries are becoming poorer. Britain has an external debt of 7.5 trillion-314% of GDP. But
all useless garbage the money is. And most importantly, Why?
We all (USA, Russia, Britain, EU) are just village losers who fight in a roadside ditch,
proving that "I am good, they are bad".
And at this time past us at full speed is a huge Chinese train.
Anton from Russia , Nov 27, 2018 5:42:03 AM |
link
And the destruction of the MH-17 Boeing by the Russians is also disinformation.
Do you know what the official version of the investigation is?
"Once upon a time. One air defense "Buk" secretly arrived from Russia, shot once, one rocket,
in one civil plane, and left back to Russia" (facepalm). Seriously, I'm not kidding, this
nonsense is the official version.
The involvement of several dozen Ukrainian air defense " Buk " located in the area of the
disaster, not even considered.
No one knows what they were doing.
All photos of "wandering, mad Russian "Buk" were false.
But sanctions imposed by the EU after the disaster, no one is going to cancel. And to
assume aloud "that" new authorities" of Ukraine at which hands on an elbow in blood " can be
guilty of accident, it is impossible, taboo.
Emmanuel Goldstein , Nov 27, 2018 5:45:32 AM |
link
Gateside Mills in rural Fife is the official headquarters of the controversial
Institute for Statecraft (IFS) – a "think tank" set up to combat Russian
disinformation.
For the tiny number of people aware of its existence, Gateside Mills is a derelict building
in rural Fife without any obvious signs of life.
Anyone curious enough to carry out further investigation might find a seemingly small
Scottish charity is registered there.
But the Sunday Mail can reveal the crumbling Victorian mill is actually the official
headquarters of the controversial Institute for Statecraft (IFS) – a shadowy "think
tank" whose Integrity Initiative programme has been set up to combat Russian
propaganda.
Leaked documents prove the organisation received hundreds of thousands of pounds of
funding from the British Government via the Foreign Office.
...
The manager of the Integrity Initiative appears to be Christopher Donnelly.
A website biography states he is a graduate of Manchester University and reserve officer
in the British Army Intelligence Corps who previously headed the British Army's Soviet
Studies Research Centre at Sandhurst.
Between 1989 and 2003, he was a special adviser to Nato Secretaries General and was
involved in dealing with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and reform of newly
emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.
He left NATO in 2003 to set up and run the UK Defence Academy's Advanced Research and
Assessment Group. In 2010, he became a director of IFS.
Russia are the problem along with China, because they both oppose their NWO agenda! This
agenda has been getting pushed from UK for decades now. It first started back in 1800's, but
now is world wide. The Corporate & Bankers want complete control of all economies &
jobs.
This way they control everything, where and who manufactures what and how much, all
controlled by Corporations. Governments become non existent, as do the Electorate. This would
have been obvious IF all TPP-TTIP-CETA Treaties had been signed. We'd have had one huge
Single Market that excluded BRICS, who'd have been forced in by war!
To their end, 'deep state; then attacked Rouseff in Brazil, had her 'impeached' and placed
their puppet Temer in charge, as an 'anchor' to BRICS, as well as creating problems in ME,
where China's One Belt One Road [New Silk Road] crosses continents.
The more people become aware of their intentions, the harder it becomes for them to win, as
they are now losing ground all round the world. The last two, Israel & UK are about to
fall. Netinyahoo has been charged with Corruption and May in UK, is on the verge of being
brought down, after being the first PM to be charged and found guilty of Contempt for
Parliament! Next to fall, the corrupt EU.
"... This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion. ..."
"... Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25, Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the "Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding world war! ..."
"... These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush. ..."
We are in a showdown moment. At this week's Group of 20 Summit -- only three days away, in
Buenos Aires, there is the potential for Great Power diplomacy in the direction of a New
Paradigm of foreign relations, as an outcome of the sideline meetings of heads of state and
government of the United States, China, Russia, India and others.
The growing momentum for New Paradigm economic development is seen in high-level events this
month in six Western European nations: in Germany, the "Hamburg Summit: China Meets Europe"
(Nov. 26-27); in France, the Lyon "Franco-Chinese Forum" (Nov. 26-28); in Spain, President Xi
Jinping's state visit (Nov. 27-29); in Portugal, Xi's visit (Dec. 4-5); in Italy, a new
Xinhua-associated Italian financial media service will be set up (Nov. 6 agreement); in Norway,
the first Polar Route icebreaker delivery of Yamal LNG, for transshipment from the northern
port of Honnigsvag.
This is the context in which to see the blatant, dangerous gambits to wreck the Buenos Aires
gathering of leaders, and any other such future opportunity, coming from the British Empire
crowd, in the form of staged confrontations, lies and subversion.
Look at recent destabilizing events: the Nov. 24 chemical weapons attack on Syrians in
Aleppo; the stoking of suffering and strife at the Mexico-U.S. border; and on Nov. 25,
Ukraine's naval provocation against Russia in the Black Sea. The British government asset, the
"Integrity Initiative" is fully deployed to goad the U.S. and Western Europe to launch an
offensive against Russia over the Ukraine incident, blaming Russia for "aggression" against
Ukraine. The British imperialists are making a habit of exposing their own role in demanding
world war!
These provocations are not a sign of power, but of desperation, desperation to stop the
spreading success of the New Paradigm of collaborative development expressed in the Belt and
Road Initiative, and what lies ahead if the U.S. joins up. Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga
Zepp-LaRouche today emphasized that each time the British Imperialist apparatus steps forward
in its own name to sabotage world peace, it works to the detriment of their dying system. The
Empire is dangerous, but all the easier to crush.
The Nov. 25 Ukrainian naval breach of Russian territorial waters was long pre-planned. As
the Italian military journal Difesa Online wrote on Nov. 25, "it was evident to all
those who follow local events that for some days already, the Poroshenko government in Ukraine
was trying to provoke an armed confrontation with Moscow in the Crimean waters." Russian
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, said the same yesterday, adding a warning. "We
are talking about a pre-planned, deliberate, and now realized large-scale provocation.... I
think everybody should be careful next time. I think there will be a next time, considering
what is happening now."
President Donald Trump's first response to the Ukraine incident, Nov. 26, was to express
concern, and hopes for settlement. "We do not like what's happening, either way; ... hopefully,
it will get straightened out." President Vladimir Putin will issue his statement on this
incident in a few days.
From London, however, comes a raving "script" of what Trump and the West must do against
Russia. It is the featured item on the website of the Integrity Initiative, which is a British
intelligence black war propaganda operation. Its funding is from the U.K. Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. Its Nov. 26 posting is titled, "West Is Once Again Failing Test Set by
Russian Aggression," by Edward Lucas, formerly of The Economist , and a longtime
Russia-hater, who wrote such books as Deception: Spies, Lies and How Russia Dupes the
West (2012) and The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West (2nd
ed., 2014). Lucas calls for "kinetic, symbolic, and financial measures" against Russia. This is
to include, the West sending military aid to Ukraine, running a NATO flotilla to the Ukrainian
port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, putting sanctions on Russian officials and businessmen
present in the West, and cutting Russia off from Western finance. Lucas says that the West
didn't act against Nazi Germany's 1939 invasion of Poland, but they must act now against
Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
Lucas is part of the British "cluster" of Integrity Initiative's operatives, which also
includes former British Ambassador to Russia Sir Andrew Wood of Orbis Business Intelligence,
the firm of "former" MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who fabricated the infamous anti-Trump
dossier. These figures are at the heart of the coup operations against Trump, and before that,
the Obama Administration election subversion.
Zepp-LaRouche nailed the Integrity Initiative in a Sputnik interview published yesterday,
now being run in media internationally. She said that the group's activity displays the "
modus operandi of British intelligence operations, and it very well may turn out, that
it is this network, which is deeply involved in 'Russiagate' and the entire coup against
President Trump."
"... Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.) ..."
Howard Zinn said, in a speech given shortly after the 2008 Presidential election, "If you don't know history, it's like you were
born yesterday. The government can tell you anything." (Speech was played on DemocracyNow www.democracynow.org about Jan. 4, 2009
and is archived, free on the website.)
Being older (18 on my last Leap Year birthday - 72), I recall the NYTimes and CIA have had relationship with, and was caught
having "planted CIA workers" as NYTimes writers. Within my adult lifetime, in fact.
This is what the CIA reflexively does: insists that [...] it is an "intelligence matter".
In a sense the CIA is always going to be right on this one - "Central Intelligence Agency" - but only as a matter of nomenclature,
rather than of any other dictionary definition of the word "intelligence".
Actually the collusion between the CIA and big business is far more damaging. The first US company I worked for in Brussels (it
was my first job) was constantly being targeted by the US media for having connections to corrupt South American and Third World
regimes. On what seemed like an almost monthly basis our personnel department would send round memos saying that we were strictly
forbidden to talk to journalists about the latest exposé.
It was great fun - even the telex operators knew who the spies were.
The line "'The optics aren't what they look like,' is truly an instant classic. It reminds me of one of my favorite Yogi Berra
quotes (which, unlike many attributed to him, is real, I think). Yogi once said about a restaurant in New York "Nobody goes there
anymore. It's too crowded." Perhaps Yogi should become an editor for the Times.
British readers will no doubt be shocked -- shocked! -- to learn of cozy relations between a major news organization and a national
intelligence agency.
"'I know the circumstances, and if you knew everything that's going on, you'd know it's much ado about nothing,' Baquet
said. 'I can't go into in detail. But I'm confident after talking to Mark that it's much ado about nothing.'
"'The optics aren't what they look like,' he went on. 'I've talked to Mark, I know the circumstance, and given what I know,
it's much ado about nothing.'"
How can you have a Party if you don't have Party elites?
And how can a self-respecting member of the Party claim their individual status within the Party without secret knowledge designed
to identify one another as members of the Party elite?
[Proles are] natural inferiors who must be kept in subjection, like animals ... Life, if you looked about you, bore no resemblance
not only to the lies that streamed out of the telescreens, but even to the ideals the Party was trying to achieve. ... The
ideal set up by the Party was something huge, terrible, and glittering -- a world of of steel and concrete, of monstrous machines
and terrifying weapons -- a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts
and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting -- 300 million people all with the same
face. The reality was decaying, dingy cities, where underfed people shuffled to and fro in leaky shoes... [
1984 ,pp 73-74]
It makes no difference if an imagined socialist England, a collapsing Roman city-state empire, an actual Soviet Union, or a
modern American oligarchy.
Party members thrive while those wretched proles flail in confused and hungry desperation for something authentic (like a George
Bush) or even simply reassuring (like a Barack Obama.)
Non-elite members of the Party -- functionaries -- mistake their "secret" knowledge as professional courtesy rather than
as perquisite and status marker. (I don't suppose it's a secret to anyone that the US CIA regularly plants stories in the NYTimes
and elsewhere... unless you weren't paying attention in the strident disinfo campaign prior to the Iraq invasion.)
Manzetti has "no bad intent" because he is loyal to the Party.
Like all loyal (and very well compensated) Party members, he would never do anything as subversive as reveal Party secrets.
"Today, just like in 1911, Russia needs internal and external peace more than anything
else, and that is not what she would get if she got involved in some foreign military
adventure! In fact, attacking an alliance which includes three nuclear power would be
suicidal, and the Russians are anything but suicidal."
The practice of DoD "violates Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution, which stipulates
that, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made
by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public
Money shall be published from time to time." ... The status quo has been generating
ever-higher DoD budgets for decades...
The losers in this situation are everyone else. The Pentagon's accounting fraud diverts
many billions of dollars that could be devoted to other national needs: health care,
education, job creation, climate action, infrastructure modernization, and more. Indeed, the
Pentagon's accounting fraud amounts to theft on a grand scale -- theft not only from
America's taxpayers, but also from the nation's well-being and its future."
There also has to be some consideration the encounter with the Russians on the Kerch
Strait was contrived by Poroshenko with the assistance of a gaggle of American
neoconservative and Israeli advisers who have been actively engaged with the Ukrainian
government for the past several years. The timing was good for Poroshenko for his own
domestic political reasons but it was also an opportunity for the neocons warmongers that
surround Trump and proliferate inside the Beltway to scuttle any possible meeting between a
vulnerable Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 gathering in Argentina.
I came to the exact same conclusion.
Putin wants to normalize relations with the west but, inexplicably, he provokes and
alienates the West just prior to every scheduled meeting with Trump. Of course, that doesn't
make any sense. These events only makes sense if the provocations are coming from agents in
the West who wish to derail any rapprochement between the US and Russia. Then it makes
sense.
If this is true (as it appears to be) one can reasonably predict that any time Trump and
Putin are about to meet, that a Skripal/Ukraine or other Russia-is-evil event will be staged
to derail the meeting.
Let's watch in 2019 and see if this prediction comes true.
If it does, we will know that someone, behind the scenes, is staging these events.
The ongoing campaign to vilify Vladimir Putin & the Russian Federation, is a
complete failure, with conservatives, evangelicals, and republicans.
I'll keep an open mind until Mueller's report is released, but Cohen's connections are
allegedly with the mainly Jewish Russian mob. It is unclear what their agenda may have been,
but Trump has been a lot nicer to Israel than to Russia.
"... The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now). ..."
"... Ukrainian and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it. ..."
Short overview as it looks from my current perch: Piggy Poro will go down in history , way
down, that's for sure.
1. The British, most directly, and then the US Brennan-Hayden (ok, he is no longer
operational) CIA-Deep State are launching myriad ops to wedge Trump in (Khashoggi, current CentCom terror ops in Syria, and Ukraine now).
If the Trump-Putin meeting a G20 falls
through, it would not necessarily be a definitive signal; if it does not fall through, that
would be a definitive signal. Yes, MI-6 and the US cohorts are anxious about the
"declassification" of FISA and other documents, both because of Russiagate as well as the
definitive disenfranchisment it entails. That makes the timing of Piggy's Kerch fiasco
important.
2. At the moment, the European or NATO response is not what the British or CIA expected or
wanted.
a. Yesterday Ursula von der Leyen, German Defense Minster, spoke at a security conference
covered by Sputnik (German): "Russia has Europe in check" was the headline, "check" as in
chess, which in a chess game sometimes means not just a single check, but chasing the
opponent with "checks" over the board until finally declaring "checkmate."
b.
https://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/jack-laurenson-in-this-dark-hour-where-are-ukraines-allies.html?cn-reloaded=1
In this dark hour, where are Ukraine's allies?, "The Kremlin wants to know how much it can
get away with. If the response so far, in the last day or so, is a measure of that, then
Moscow will likely feel emboldened to push even further. There is still time for NATO and the
West to respond, but the question on everyone's lips is how and whether the political will
and strength to do so exists." The end: "At Ukrainian Week in London this October, Ukrainian
and British officials all agreed that a safe and secure Ukraine is necessary for the safety
and security of Europe. The time for talk from Ukraine's so-called allies is long over. It's
time to act." -- The article is otherwise full of juicy nonsense: I highly recommend it.
c. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-putin-is-in-control/
'Putin is in control' Europe stands by as Russian president goes after Ukraine. "BERLIN --
Chalk another one up for Vlad." "To be perfectly honest, we don't have many options," a
senior European official said. "We don't want to risk war, but Putin is already waging one.
That makes us look weak." Given Europe's dearth of options, its leaders revert to hackneyed
pronouncements about the importance of dialogue and, as German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
put it, "de-escalation on both sides."
d. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/27/ukraines-new-front-is-europes-big-challenge/
Ukraine's New Front Is Europe's Big Challenge -- There's plenty Europe should do to push back
against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine.
There's plenty Europe should do to push back against Russia's latest attack on Ukraine. By
Carl Bildt, Nicu Popescu. -- Juicy nonsense galore, a plea sent into the winds.
f. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/why-is-the-sea-of-azov-so-important
-- Atlantidc Council -- Stephen Blank -- Why Is the Sea of Azov So Important? "Moreover, even
a casual examination of Russian actions reveals the deep and continuing parallels with
China's equally illegitimate actions in the South and East China Sea. In the Asian case, the
United States has mounted and continues to stage numerous Freedom of Navigation Operations to
demonstrate to China that it will uphold the time-honored principle of the freedom of the
seas. This principle is no less at stake in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Ideally, NATO,
at Kyiv's invitation, should send a fleet to Mariupol to shatter the pretense of Russian
sovereignty and show Putin that the invasion of Ukraine has brought NATO into Ukraine. This
is precisely the outcome Russia aimed to avert."
And that is what, at the moment, "NATO" of "the Europeans" apparently do not want. Send a
fleet to Mariupol? -- Ask the Germans: they have a few speed boats that might not get
stuck.
Poroshenko seems to be on the way to demonstrating that NATO is irrelevant.
"... The psychological reason behind this trick has to do with "pattern recognition". Human beings – through evolution – have learned to identify a phenomenon as real and true because it repeats again and again and again ..."
"... The American knee-jerk reaction to the recent Kerch bridge incident is a case in point. Ignoring facts, people automatically placed Russian behavior in the "aggressive" category because they have been programed by constant repetition for many years to think this way. Not having been taught this trick of the mind even educated people buy into the narrative unaware that their schemata dictate that the belief must be reinforced. All experiences regarding Russia are simply put into one box labeled "aggressive behavior". ..."
"... Another psychological cause of why Americans buy into the "Russia is aggressive" narrative is due to "confirmation bias". For a variety of reasons many Americans demonize Russians. Part of this is due to the fact that people actually enjoy having a "bad guy" to hate. This is why outlaw cowboys and mafia gangsters are so popular in American culture. We love our "anti-heroes" as much if not more than our heroes. Putin, of course, is the prototypical "baddie". He's a real-life Boris from the Bullwinkle cartoon who satisfies our need to boo and hiss the proverbial bad guy. ..."
The main reason so many Americans buy into the anti-Russian craze is not only due to what people are told by
the government and media, but by how they think and process information. For if Americans were taught how to
analyze and think properly they would not fall for the blatant propaganda.
For example, we are told that the Nazis discovered the secret of repetition as a means of programming people
into believing something to be true, but we are not taught why this practice is so effective.
The psychological reason behind this trick has to do with "pattern recognition". Human beings – through
evolution – have learned to identify a phenomenon as real and true because it repeats again and again and
again. After a while, the mind interprets this consistent pattern as proof of truth value. In psychological
terms, "schemata" are created by a layering of memories similar in nature over time so that all events
associated with the phenomenon are perceived through a prism of previous repetitions. In other words, even if
a certain type of behavior is different from the norm it will still be identified as belonging to the typical
pattern regardless. It is literally a trick of the mind.
The American knee-jerk reaction to the recent Kerch bridge incident is a case in point. Ignoring facts,
people automatically placed Russian behavior in the "aggressive" category because they have been programed by
constant repetition for many years to think this way. Not having been taught this trick of the mind even
educated people buy into the narrative unaware that their schemata dictate that the belief must be reinforced.
All experiences regarding Russia are simply put into one box labeled "aggressive behavior".
Another psychological cause of why Americans buy into the "Russia is aggressive" narrative is due to
"confirmation bias". For a variety of reasons many Americans demonize Russians. Part of this is due to the fact
that people actually enjoy having a "bad guy" to hate. This is why outlaw cowboys and mafia gangsters are so
popular in American culture. We love our "anti-heroes" as much if not more than our heroes. Putin, of course,
is the prototypical "baddie". He's a real-life Boris from the Bullwinkle cartoon who satisfies our need to boo
and hiss the proverbial bad guy.
To a certain extent, pattern recognition comes into play as well because in America TV shows and films over
the past two decades evil Russian spies and mafia types have figured prominently. The repeating portrayals
create schemata which then create stereotypes that frame how we think.
Russophobia, however, will not last forever because it is essentially based upon lies. Truth always wins out
over time and fantasy gives way to reality. Despite the censorship on social media and the attempts to silence
RT America the truth will eventually triumph.
For gagging the tongue of truth is always followed by a long-suppressed shout that echoes ever louder
throughout the ages.
===============================
My comment:
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
... ... ...
The most basic form of mind control is repetition.
Well, Dr. Paul Whatshisname is obviously an agent of Putin. Did I even need to say this?
On a serious note, repetition works perhaps shockingly well. I was taught in my childhood that Germans are
bad because Hitler and Russia was good because twice saviors. Simple and effective. However, with no social
media at the time, critical thinking was also available so I could outgrow the propaganda.
On 12/5/2018 at 10:29 AM,
A/Plague
said:
Are you on a salary in "Russia Today" or a volunteer?
I try to gently (and if possible, humorously) nudge people to question the "official narrative".
CNN / WaPo is
far
worse propaganda than RT. RT is clearly biased, but they are open about their
pro-Russia bias. CNN pretends to be objective "journalism".
And sometimes I feel like commenting in the same vein of this little guy, bouncing all over excitedly:
By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations. Shocking,
right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything from RT. I have.
they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know what to think about
that, it's so confusing.
16 hours ago,
Marina Schwarz
said:
By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations.
Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything
from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know
what to think about that, it's so confusing.
16 hours ago,
Marina Schwarz
said:
By the way, did you know RT was nominated for an Emmy this year? It actually has a few nominations.
Shocking, right? I suspect a lot of the people who say "Ew, RT, propaganda," have never read anything
from RT. I have. they regularly republish Reuters and the FT as well as major U.s. outlets. I don't know
what to think about that, it's so confusing.
When I read their articles I am mindful that they are Russian. Having said that, they seem to publish a lot
of good content, and much of it is from Reuters and other (mostly) reputable sources. Editorials are free for
anyone to research for themselves. Pretty much the same as other pubs.
Laying conspiracy theories aside for one moment (and I do so love a good conspiracy theory), let's chat about
this Russia panic.
I am not one to panic in general. Sure, I have a food, guns, and water stash in my basement. I'm generally
well prepared. There are Russia-is-the-boogeyman theories, and then there are
Russia-boogey-man-theories-are-silly theories. Of course they both can't be right.
But where do these theories come from?
I am sure I'm not going to do a very good job explaining my self in the rant that follows. But I'm going to
give it a good college try.
I want to talk about the Russia Boogeyman theory. First, there's no way to explain this other than to
divulge my age. So I'm just going to spit it out right here and get that out of the way. I'm 40. I've been 40
for approximately 5 years, stubbornly refusing to go further than that. There. I said it. Now that that's out
of the way, it's important to note that children are sponges. As such, they are impressionable and in young
childhood, traumatic events can have a profound and lasting effect, and even change how someone thinks.
When I was about 10ish, in about 1983, a movie came out. If you lived in America, and likely even if you
didn't, and you're over the age of 40 (or if you've been 40 for a while), you've seen it. It's a movie called
"The Day After". It was a huge production and it aired on television. The most watched TV movie ever. And
ranked as one of the top 10 movies ever by several sources. You millennial whippersnappers will have no clue
what I'm talking about. Read on anyway, if you'd like. I'm all inclusive.
The movie was about nuclear warfare, and most importantly, the aftermath. The setting was a small town in
Kansas, I think. A small town that very closely resembled my home town, making it particularly impactful (I
know that's not a word. Sue me.) to me at the time. In the movie, which although was a complete work of fiction
was very realistic, Russia unleashed nuclear weapons. It was freaky. So eerily unsettling was it that I
obsessed about it after I saw it. I thought about it every night. I remember being so afraid that in the event
of a nuclear blast, I might be separated from my family. I remember pondering if I would rather be obliterated
in the blast immediately, or whether I would prefer to be spared instant death only to survive without my
family under horrid conditions. I also remember drills at school around that same time that were designed to
get people prepared in the event of such a disaster. While it may have done so, it also solidified in my mind
that there was a real possibility these events would unfold.
Nearly two years post-freaky-movie, Sting released it's "Russia" song, about Russians loving their children
too. Although it was not talked about much at the time, since life proceeded as normal, in my mind I remember
thinking that I didn't much care if the Russians loved their children, because they were looking to wipe us off
the map. And I lived near the Soo Locks, and I distinctly remember knowing (but I don't have any idea where I
came by this information) that the Locks would be a nuclear target in the event of a strike, since it is a main
thoroughfare for ships.
You can't undo that kind of fear, no more than you can undo my fear of spiders. I know in my head that
spiders, at least where I live, are not poisonous and they cannot harm me. I know it. But my head cannot
eradicate the intense creepiness that even thinking about spiders conjures up. Likewise, no rational thought
about Russia can completely undo a fear that was borne as a child.
There you have it. My Russia hysteria may be founded or unfounded--I know not. But I do not have the power
within me to change this mindset.
Okay Russia-boogeyman-theories-are-silly promoters: fire away.
Great description of what life was like back then, er, so I was told, by older people. Not those of us born in
the 60's, er, I mean the 70's, er, the 80's. Yeah, that's it, the 80's!
We had attack training at school in the 80s -- complete with gas masks and stuff -- on the other side of the
Iron Curtain for when the imperialists invaded, what can I say. I was too distracted by everything to pay
attention, though.
@Rodent
, your story tells me your propaganda was better than our propaganda, perish the thought. The Cold
War was a blast, right?
P.S. Stephen King has done a really good overview of this stage in the U.S. entertainment industry, by the
way. The stages of horror in movies. behind the curtain we only had heroic movies about the Second World War. I
shall now hypothesize that the Soviet bloc lost the Cold War because its entertainment industry was absent. End
of hypothesizing. Thank you for your attention.
8 hours ago,
Marina Schwarz
said:
We had attack training at school in the 80s -- complete with gas masks and stuff -- on the other side of
the Iron Curtain for when the imperialists invaded, what can I say. I was too distracted by everything to
pay attention, though.
@Rodent
, your story tells me your propaganda was better than our propaganda, perish the thought. The
Cold War was a blast, right?
P.S. Stephen King has done a really good overview of this stage in the U.S. entertainment industry, by
the way. The stages of horror in movies. behind the curtain we only had heroic movies about the Second
World War. I shall now hypothesize that the Soviet bloc lost the Cold War because its entertainment
industry was absent. End of hypothesizing. Thank you for your attention.
Makes sense. Not surprisingly the movie makers (supposedly) did not want to have Russia be the first striker
in the movie, but they needed to borrow some footage from the DoD, and the govt. refused to play ball unless
Russia struck first. The guy who made the movie, while he was making it, reportedly would go home at night
literally sick to his stomach at the horrific nature of the movie. It went rounds and rounds with the censors
who thought it might not be suitable for families.
Also interesting, speaking of Russia-led propaganda, and coming from someone who has dabbled a tiny bit in
white-hatishness, if you google "The Day After Russia" as I did to inquire about the movie, there is actually a
Russian movie titled "the day after" about zombies. Yup, let's just bury those search results! It's a
conspiracy!!!
There is another interesting thread here about the different search results showing up for different people.
What shows up when YOU google "The Day After"?
You know, speaking of conspiracies, there is a fairly logical opinion that that movie was designed to scare the
bajeezus out of people so they wouldn't vote for Reagan a second term.
"... Rather, they seem to appear to reveal a plot by the British intelligence and security services working in collusion with then CIA Director John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out? ..."
And there are other friends in unlikely
places. Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly
against a Trump threat
to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate. The real problem is that
the documents apparently don't expose anything done by the Russians.
Rather, they seem to appear to reveal
a plot by the British intelligence and security services
working in collusion with then CIA Director
John Brennan to subvert the course of the 2016 election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment
favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that one work out?
So how about it? Teenagers who get in
trouble often have to ditch their bad friends to turn their lives around. There is still a chance for the
United States if we keep our distance from the bad friends we have been nurturing all around the world,
friends who have been convincing us to make poor choices. Get rid of the ties the bind to the Saudis,
Israelis, Ukrainians, Poles, and yes, even the British. Deal fairly with all nations and treat everyone the
same, but bear in mind that there are only two relationships that really matter – Russia and China. Make a
serious effort to avoid a war by learning how to get along with those two nations and America might actually
survive to celebrate a tricentennial in 2076.
You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections. Why, if the
beneficiary was anyone other than a Democrat, much less one named Clinton, someone might
actually appoint a Special Counsel to look into it, not to mention the misdeeds of the
various agencies and departments who aided and abetted it.
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."
MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of
John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael
Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam
worked like this:
They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such
files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to
launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then
funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA
court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document);
they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they
tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once
passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help
Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for
his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset
attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama
regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele
leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress
about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements
of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the
record to the right people
They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the
document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the
British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as
Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to
take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump
policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama.
They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the
mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's
identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at
least not in recent history.
To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:
The government takes cctv footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an
attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and
finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims
that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your
workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then
the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were
in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible
people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2)
laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it
elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much
worse.
a plot by the British intelligence and security services to subvert the course of the 2016
election in favor of the Deep State and Establishment favorite Hillary Clinton. How did that
one work out?
Deep State and Establishment stooge Donald Trump.
There is still a chance for the United States if we
Greetings. We are Anonymous. We have obtained a large number of documents relating to the
activities of the 'Integrity Initiative' project that was launched back in the fall of 2015 and
funded by the British government.
The declared goal of the project is to counteract Russian
propaganda and the hybrid warfare of Moscow. Hiding behind benevolent intentions, Britain has
in fact created a large-scale information secret service in Europe, the United States and
Canada, which consists of representatives of political, military, academic and journalistic
communities with the think tank in London at the head of it.
'UK Integrity Initiative is Meddling in The Affairs of Other Nations'26.11.2018
A leaked hybrid warfare plan of the British government, known as the
"Integrity Initiative," published by the hacker group Anonymous, has become a theme of
discussion among scholars in Europe. Sputnik spoke to Professor David Miller of the University
of Bristol on a plan allegedly adopted by London to counter "Russian propaganda." Sputnik: It
[Integrity Initiative] states that its main aim is to counter Russian disinformation, however,
what was happening with the Moncloa Campaign' in Spain suggests other motives does it not? Read
more at https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811261070148913-uk-integrity-russia-propaganda/
Statement on Russian media publication of hacked II documents26 November 2018
EU-wide 'anti-Russian psy-ops' program
confirms UK govt funding, Anonymous denies leak26 Nov, 2018
A network exposed by
leaked documents as a Europe-wide PR operation aimed at curbing "Russian propaganda" has
confirmed receiving money from the British government, while Anonymous has denied on Twitter
that it's behind the leak. The Integrity Initiative (II) is a network claiming to fight
disinformation that threatens democracy. A trove of alleged II documents, which purports to
show costs and internal guidelines as well as names of individuals cooperating with it, has
been published by people claiming to be part of the Anonymous collective. A major
Anonymous-linked Twitter account has denied it was linked to the leak. Read more at
https://www.rt.com/news/444899-uk-psyop-leak-reaction/
"... Everything Flynn had to say implicated Obama, Clapper & Brennan but the corrupt cabal isn't subject to the laws of unwashed inbreds like you and I and the other 320 million Americans (including those who THINK they're part of the club because they virtue signal so well). ..."
You realize 2 years of Flynn under Mueller's microscope yielded nothing? And the fact he's
facing sentencing means he's not going to be called as a witness to anything.
Everything Flynn had to say implicated Obama, Clapper & Brennan but the corrupt cabal
isn't subject to the laws of unwashed inbreds like you and I and the other 320 million
Americans (including those who THINK they're part of the club because they virtue signal so
well).
Says Summer Sausage who was of course not in the room. You think you know stuff? You know
stuff from the koolaide you've swallowed for the past 20 years...
"We must confront Russian cheating on their nuclear obligations," Pompeo said at the
conclusion of the NATO meeting, claiming the U.S. has warned Russia to re-enter compliance
about 30 times over the past five years. He urged the West to increase pressure, arguing it can
no longer "bury its head in the sand" over repeat violations.
But for the first time Pompeo signaled it's not too late to salvage the treaty, despite
Trump already saying the US it taking steps to pull out: he said Washington "would welcome a
Russian change of heart."
On Oct. 20 President Trump first announced the United States' planned withdrawal from the
historic treaty brokered by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan
in 1987. At the time Russia's Foreign Ministry
slammed the move as "a very dangerous step" which is ultimately part of "continuing
attempts to achieve Russia's concessions through blackmail". Russian officials have issued the
counter-charge that it is the US that's out of compliance with the treaty.
The US is waging unconstitutional war in Syria without authorization of the UNSC but
Pompeo has the effrontery to lecture the Russians on their "lawlessness."
Is there ONE freaking day out of the year when some senior official of the USG is not
acting like an utter horse's ***?
Putin should just have the SVR make some fake "proof" Trump is a Russian agent and feed it
to the democratic-isis-******-lover party and let them tear Trump a new *******.
Considering it was the democrats who first pushed this muh russian meddlings, can't even
see how will the US be able to pull itself out of this (****)hole they dug for
themselves...
So the US with a big lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistic missiles, wants to blow
that up to promote the development of long range stealth cruise missiles, well, I guess there
must be a massive profit in it.
The normal rule in a arms race though, the big losers are the countries with the biggest
lead in current war technologies, when new technologies enter the fray, negating existing
investments and bankrupting that country as the right off their existing lead and having to
race to play catch up and take the lead again.
It's like the crazy, the US leads in space, great lets that it into a battlefield and
eliminate that lead, why, just ******* why would you be stupid enough, banning war in space
protects you lead, promoting war in space ends it. Blocking long range cruise missiles
protects the US lead in ballistic missiles and anti-ballistics missile systems, allowing it
ends that lead.
Now in the most idiotic fashion, the US has declared it will arbitrarily leave that treaty
without any evidence of anything, now setting the precedent, that any country can withdraw
from any treaty with the US for any arbitrary reason because that is the behaviour the US
government has set precedent for, why hold any treaty with the US, when they will pull out at
any time for any reason. The probable message from the rest of the world to the US, yeah ****
off America, we are not Native Americans who exist for you to abuse us
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/18/368559990/broken-promises-on-display-at-native-american-treaties-exhibit
(we know it is in the American government nature but **** off anyhow).
What a pompous *** Pompeo is. After his lies about MbS how can I trust him on this issue.
Is the US clean? They are certainly not in compliance with the chemical weapons treaty having
destroyed no stockpiles as they agreed to do....almost 2 decades after the treaty was
signed.
Treaties are ******** unless the parties to them actually implement them and follow the
rules. The US seems to believe they have an inherent right to ignore the treaties they sign
up to. Why anyone deals with them I have no idea.
Where did Trump get these Bush 2,Zionist pig holdovers?
After Bush 2 dumped ABM treaty NATO/US have been creeping up to Russias border.
Then in 2014, Obama & Nuland decided it would be a good idea to effect regime change
in Ukraine and put neonazi thugs on Russia's border.
EU Israhelli clients all know this is ******** about Russia. But Russia pissed off the
Zionist entity in interfering with Yinon/7countries in five years plan.
How LONG are we going to put up with this Zionist attack on our country?
They are asking why Russia not keeping treaty while we violate it?
Secretary of war Mike Pompeo
Washington Seeks 'Pretext' to Abandon INF Treaty - Russian Envoy to US
"...We are accused of violating the Treaty by allegedly possessing a certain 9M729
missile that violates the accord's provisions. However, we do not see any clear facts or
arguments that could lead to conclusions of violations,"
Sputnik Here
Russia, China, Iran challenging global US leadership: Pompeo
"..US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has targeted Russia, China and Iran for opposing
Washington's "leadership role". PressTv
Just accuse without any specific evidence.
another
China has simply made no effort to halt its ongoing pattern of aggressive
, predatory trade .
US always blaming others while violating every law and treaty known to man.
" I regret that we now most likely will see the end of the INF Treaty," North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...
Fixed: " I'm ecstatic that our fabricated accusations allows us to finally see the end of
the INF Treaty, which really benefits Russia far more than NATO," North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared ...
The whole point of the US strategy is to use short-range cruise missiles to take out
Russian retaliatory capability in a first strike, thereby destroying all of those hypersonic
weapons, and using their ABM systems to "clean up" any missiles that survived the initial
onslaught. The "advantage" of the short-range cruise missiles is that they greatly reduce
Russia's available response times - it basically must decide to annihilate the US within 5
minutes of notice of an attack, or face being wiped out with no retaliatory capabilities. (It
is worth noting that, in the past, false alarms have lasted for longer than 5 minutes.)
This is by far the most destabilizing, dangerous move, ever - any false blip on a Russian
radar can lead to an all-out nuclear exchange. It is infinitely more threatening to humanity
than "global warming". Brought to you by the Evil Drumfpster.
The Dead Man Hand only allows you to respond with capabilities that have survived and that
are not eliminated by the ABM. The 5 minutes notice is until the vast majority of your
nuclear arsenal is decimated - dead hand (i.e., ability to retaliate if the leadership is
entirely decapitated) or not.
Is Mike Pompeo Starting to Look Like Kim Jong Un? He is talking like communist leader at
Communist party congress.
Mike Pompeo argued that Trump's reassertion of national sovereignty through his "America
First" policy would make those institutions function better. "In the finest traditions of our
great democracy, we are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order
that prevents war and achieves greater prosperity for all," Pompeo said at a speech at the
German Marshall Fund thinktank. "We're
supporting institutions that we believe can be improved; institutions that work in American
interests – and yours – in service of our shared values."
He listed a series of current international institutions, including the EU, UN, World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund, that he said were no longer serving their mission they
were created.
The remarks were frequently punctuated with praise for Trump, who is referred to 13 times
in the text. Pompeo portrayed his president as restoring an era of triumphal US leadership in
the world, for the first time since the end of the cold war.
"This American leadership allowed us to enjoy the greatest human flourishing in modern
history," the secretary of state said. "We won the cold war. We won the peace. With no small
measure of George HW Bush's effort, we reunited Germany. This is the type of leadership that
President Trump is boldly reasserting."
President [George H. W.] Bush used to talk about a new world order, based on shared rules
and on cooperation among free nations. I was at high school at the time, and I remember
perfectly well the sense of hope and of opening that one could breathe in Europe over these
years.
He imagined - and I quote - "a world where the rule of law supplants the role of the
jungle; a world in which nations recognise their shared responsibility for freedom and
justice; a world where the strong respect the rights of the weak."
My generation believed in this vision, believed in the possibility for this vision to turn
into reality, to become true, especially in Europe - a continent divided by the Cold War. We
hoped that after the Cold War a more cooperative world order would indeed be possible and
indeed be built.
Today, I am afraid we have to admit that such a new world order has never truly
materialised and worse, there is a real risk today that the rule of the jungle replaces the
rule of law. The same international treaties - so many in which we are together - that ended
the Cold War are today put into question.
Instead of building a new order, we have to today invest a huge part of our energy in
preventing the current rules from being dismantled piece by piece.
Like many people, I do not find what is known as the concept of Mutual Assured
Destruction, or MAD to be reassuring. Spurring the creation of more ways to use nuclear
weapons is what ending the INF Treaty will do. Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister, and
Vice-Chancellor from 1998-2005 writes;
In this new environment, the "rationality of deterrence" maintained by the United
States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War has eroded. Now, if nuclear proliferation
increases, the threshold for using nuclear weapons will likely fall.
The nuclear deterrent we hold is a hundred times larger than needed to stop anyone sane or
rational from attacking America, and for anyone else, an arsenal of any size will be
insufficient. What we are talking about is the Intermediate-range Nuclear-Forces treaty also
known as the INF Treaty which limits short-range missiles. The article below explores the
insanity of a new arms race.
China and Russia don't want a military arms race but they will get one. The funny part is
they will confide in Trump about their woes and he will mimic their desires but not agree
with them.
"We are either going to have a REAL DEAL with China, or no deal at all - at which point we
will be charging major Tariffs against Chinese product being shipped into the United States.
Ultimately, I believe, we will be making a deal - either now or into the future....
The author is tried to deceive: Flynn lobbed Russians on behave of Israel.
Muller dirty trick with Flynn (entrapment during the FBI interview) will eventually backfire
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December 2016 ..."
"... But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel. ..."
All of that, plus Flynn's "substantial assistance," early cooperation, and acceptance of "responsibility for his unlawful conduct,"
led Muller's team to ask the court to grant Flynn a lenient sentence that doesn't include prison time, according to
a highly anticipated sentencing memo the special counsel's office filed Tuesday night.
And there wasn't much more than that in 13 concise and heavily redacted pages that let down anyone expecting the document to be
another public narrative fleshing out lots of fresh detail about Mueller's investigation. Still, the filing, and some new details
in it, should give pause to members of Trump's inner circle -- especially the president's son-in-law and senior White House adviser,
Jared Kushner.
Mueller's memo noted that federal investigators' curiosity about Flynn's role in the presidential transition seemed to have
been sparked by a Washington Post account of a conversation he had with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December
2016 . The filing also detailed a series of lies Flynn told about his contacts with and work for the Turkish government while
serving in the Trump campaign. (Given that Trump and a pair of his advisers had been pursuing
a real estate deal in Moscow during the first half of 2016, Flynn might mistakenly have seen wearing two hats as noncontroversial.)
But the meat of what should worry Team Trump is in Mueller's disclosure that Flynn has provided firsthand information about
interactions between the transition team and Russian government officials -- including, as was already known, several conversations
with Kislyak in December 2016. Those included a discussion about lifting economic sanctions the Obama administration had imposed
on Russia and about a separate matter involving a United Nations resolution on Israel.
Flynn lied to federal agents who questioned him about those chats on Jan. 24, 2017, and that was a crime (as, possibly, were his
efforts as a private citizen to meddle with a sitting government's foreign policy). The former general
acknowledged lying ,
pleaded guilty a year ago, and
then began cooperating with Mueller's
probe.
The timeline around Flynn's conversations
is crucial because it shows what's still in play for the president and Kushner -- and why Mueller may have been content to lock
in a cooperation agreement that carried relatively light penalties, as well as why Flynn's assistance seems to have subsequently
pleased the veteran prosecutor so much.
Kushner's actions are also interesting because the Federal Bureau of Investigation has examined
his
own communications with Kislyak -- and Kushner reportedly encouraged Trump to fire his FBI director,
James Comey , in the
spring of 2017, when Comey was still in the early stages of digging into the Trump-Russia connection.
Comey, and his successor, Mueller, have been focused on possible favor-trading between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. We
know that Russian hackers directed by Russian intelligence operatives penetrated Democrat computer servers in 2016 and gave that
information and email haul to WikiLeaks to disseminate as part of an effort to undermine Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Trump
was also pursuing that
business deal in Moscow in 2016 and had other projects over the years
with a Russian presence . What might the Kremlin have been expecting in return? A promise to lift U.S. economic sanctions?
Kushner also had personal financial issues weighing on his mind at the time. He had spent much of 2016 trying to bail out his
family from his ill-considered and pricey purchase of a Manhattan skyscraper,
666 Fifth
Avenue .
After a meeting in Trump Tower with Kislyak on Dec. 1, 2016, which Flynn and Kushner
attended together ,
the ambassador arranged another gathering on Dec. 13 for Kushner and a
senior Russian
banker with Kremlin ties, Sergei Gorkov. The White House has
said that meeting was
innocent and part of Kushner's diplomatic duties. In a
statement
following his testimony before Congress in the summer of 2017, Kushner said that his interactions with Flynn and Kislyak on Dec.
1 only involved a discussion of Syria policy, not economic sanctions. He said that his discussion with Gorkov on Dec. 13 lasted less
than 30 minutes and only involved an exchange of pleasantries and hopes for better U.S.-Russian relations -- and didn't include any
discussion of recruiting Russians as lenders or investors in the Kushner family's
real estate business .
Kislyak enjoyed continued lobbying from the White House after his meetings with Kushner. On Dec. 22, Flynn asked Kislyak to delay
a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in Palestinian territory. Flynn later told the FBI that
he didn't ask Kislyak to do that, which wasn't true.
Court documents filed last year
said that a "very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team" directed Flynn to make an overture to Kislyak about the sanctions
vote. According to reporting from my
Bloomberg Opinion colleague Eli Lake and
NBC News , Kushner was that "senior member."
Bloomberg News reported that former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus also pushed Flynn to lobby Kislyak on the
U.N. vote. (Kushner didn't discuss pressing Flynn to contact Kislyak in his statement last summer and instead noted how infrequent
his direct interactions were.)
Kushner's role in these events isn't discussed in Mueller's sentencing memo for Flynn. The absence of greater detail might cause
Kushner to worry: If Flynn offered federal authorities a different version of events than Kushner -- and Flynn's version is buttressed
by documentation or federal electronic surveillance of the former general -- then the president's son-in-law may have to start scrambling
(a possibility
I flagged
when Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017).
Other portions of the 2016 and early 2017 timelines still matter, too.
On Dec. 28, less than a week after Flynn called Kislyak about the U.N. vote, the ambassador contacted Flynn, according to court
documents. The Obama administration had just imposed economic sanctions on Russia because of the Kremlin's effort to sabotage the
2016 election. Kislyak apparently told Flynn that Russia would retaliate because Flynn asked him to "moderate" Russia's response.
Flynn
reportedly discussed these conversations with a former Trump adviser, K.T. McFarland, on Dec. 29.
In the weeks that followed, Sally Yates, then acting U.S. attorney general, warned the Trump administration about Flynn's duplicity
and said he was a national security threat. She was fired days after that for refusing to enforce Trump's executive order seeking
to ban immigration from seven Islamic nations. The White House forced Flynn out in February of last year, and Trump fired Comey three
months later. The president subsequently began using "witch hunt" to describe the investigation that Mueller inherited from Comey.
Since then, as the White House and Trump have surely absorbed and as Flynn's sentencing memo reinforces, Mueller's hunt has now
ensnared a number of witches.
Guardian is just a propaganda outlet. That sad fact does not exclude the possibility of publishing really good articles,
thouth. That still happens occasionally.
The fact that they follow MI6 and Foreign Office talking points in all foreign events coverage a is just a testament the GB is
a "national security state". Nothing more, nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not going to debunk the Guardian article here. It has been debunked by better debunkers than I (e.g., Jonathan Cook , Craig Murray , Glenn Greenwald , Moon of Alabama , and many others). ..."
"... The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well, absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended like they had never published it. ..."
"... By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of critical thinking), Politico posted this ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and "leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion of Assange. ..."
"... And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this story. ..."
"... It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. ..."
"... Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so. ..."
"... The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative. ..."
"... It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution." ..."
"... The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11 or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts. ..."
"... Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on. Here is where the trouble starts . ..."
The short version is, The Guardian 's Luke
Harding, a shameless hack who will affix his name to any propaganda an intelligence agency
feeds him, alleged that Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, secretly met with
Julian Assange (and unnamed "Russians") on numerous occasions from 2013 to 2016, presumably to
conspire to collude to brainwash Americans into not voting for Clinton. Harding's earth-shaking
allegations, which The Guardian prominently featured and flogged, were based on well,
absolutely nothing, except the usual anonymous "intelligence sources." After actual journalists
pointed this out, The Guardian quietly revised the piece ( employing the subjunctive mood
rather liberally ), buried it in the back pages of its website, and otherwise pretended
like they had never published it.
By that time, of course, its purpose had been served. The story had been picked up and
disseminated by other "respectable," "authoritative" outlets, and it was making the rounds on
social media. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, in an attempt to counter the
above-mentioned debunkers (and dispel the doubts of anyone else still capable of any kind of
critical thinking), Politico posted this
ass-covering piece speculating that, if it somehow turned out The Guardian 's story
was just propaganda designed to tarnish Assange and Trump well, probably, it had been planted
by the Russians to make Luke Harding look like a moron. This ass-covering piece of speculative
fiction, which was written by a former CIA agent, was immediately disseminated by liberals and
"leftists" who are eagerly looking forward to the arrest, rendition, and public crucifixion
of Assange.
At this point, I imagine you're probably wondering what this has to do with manufacturing
"truth." Because, clearly, this Guardian story was a lie a lie The Guardian got
caught telling. I wish the "truth" thing was as simple as that (i.e., exposing and debunking
the ruling classes' lies). Unfortunately, it isn't. Here is why.
Much as most people would like there to be one (and behave and speak as if there were one),
there is no Transcendental Arbiter of Truth. The truth is what whoever has the power to say it
is says it is. If we do not agree that that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to
appeal to. We can argue until we are blue in the face. It will not make the slightest
difference. No evidence we produce will make the slightest difference. The truth will remain
whatever those with the power to say it is say it is.
Nor are there many "truths" (i.e., your truth and my truth). There is only one "truth" the
"official truth". The "truth" according to those in power. This is the whole purpose of the concept
of truth. It is the reason the concept of "truth" was invented (i.e., to render any other
"truths" lies). It is how those in power control reality and impose their ideology on the
masses (or their employees, or their students, or their children). Yes, I know, we very badly
want there to be some "objective truth" (i.e., what actually happened, when whatever happened,
JFK, 9-11, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Schrödinger's dead cat, the Big Bang, or
whatever). There isn't. The truth is just a story a story that is never our story.
The "truth" is a story that power gets to tell, and that the powerless do not get to tell,
unless they tell the story of those in power, which is always someone else's story. The
powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third alternative.
They either parrot the "truth" of the ruling classes or they utter heresies of one type or
another. Naturally, the powerless do not regard themselves as heretics. They do not regard
their "truth" as heresy. They regard their "truth" as the truth, which is heresy. The truth of
the powerless is always heresy.
For example, while it may be personally comforting for some of us to tell ourselves that we
know the truth about certain subjects (e.g., Russiagate, 9-11, et cetera), and to share our
knowledge with others who agree with us, and even to expose the lies of the corporate media on
Twitter, Facebook, and our blogs, or in some leftist webzine (or "fearless adversarial" outlet
bankrolled by a beneficent oligarch), the ruling classes do not give a shit, because ours is
merely the raving of heretics, and does not warrant a serious response.
Or all right, they give a bit of a shit, enough to try to cover their asses when a
journalist of the stature of Glenn Greenwald (who won a Pulitzer and is frequently on
television) very carefully and very respectfully almost directly accuses them of lying. But
they give enough of a shit to do this because Greenwald has the power to hurt them, not because
of any regard for the truth. This is also why Greenwald has to be so careful and respectful
when directly confronting The Guardian , or any other corporate media outlet, and state
that their blatantly fabricated stories could, theoretically, turn out to be true. He can't
afford to cross the line and end up getting branded a heretic and consigned to Outer Mainstream
Darkness, like Robert Fisk, Sy Hersh, Jonathan Cook, John Pilger, Assange, and other such
heretics.
Look, I'm not trying to argue that it isn't important to expose the fabrications of the
corporate media and the ruling classes. It is terribly important. It is mostly what I do
(albeit usually in a more satirical fashion). At the same time, it is important to realize that
"the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their slumber" and inspire them to throw off
their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake up," "see the truth" and start "the
revolution." People already know the truth the official truth, which is the only truth there
is. Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because it
is safer and more rewarding to do so.
And this is why The Guardian will not be punished for publishing a blatantly
fabricated story. Nor will Luke Harding be penalized for writing it. Luke Harding will be
rewarded for writing it, as he has been handsomely rewarded throughout his career for loyally
serving the ruling classes. Greenwald, on the other hand, is on thin ice. It will be
instructive to see how far he pushes his confrontation with The Guardian regarding this
story.
As for Julian Assange, I'm afraid he is done for. The ruling classes really have no choice
but to go ahead and do him at this point. He hasn't left them any other option. Much as they
are loathe to create another martyr, they can't have heretics of Assange's notoriety running
around punching holes in their "truth" and brazenly defying their authority. That kind of stuff
unsettles the normals, and it sets a bad example for the rest of us heretics.
#
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Good piece. I think there's another layer, though.
The truth or falsehood of individual facts about the physical world can often be
determined with near-certainty. But when it comes to history, or "news" about current events/
politics, reality is much too complex to address directly. Too many individual facts to be
comprehensible, let alone useful.
We must pick, choose, emphasize, or ignore particular elements, and arrange them into some
kind of structure, in order to form a useful narrative. Or in the case of "news," the legacy
media oligarchy largely performs this function for us -- we simply passively accept/ adopt
their narrative. Or, in many cases, "choose" between the closely-related variants of that
narrative offered by the "liberal" vs. "conservative" press.
This process of abstraction, simplification, and organization inevitably involves data
loss. So no narrative is "true" in the same sense that individual facts about the real world
are true. But some narratives incorporate large amounts of "facts" that are demonstrably
false, and some are more useful/ descriptive/ predictive than others. No one engaged in this
process is "objective." They -- or we -- are all in some way part of the story. It should be
self-evident that some narratives are more useful to the perceived interests of owners of
major media outlets than others, and that these will assume a much more prominent place in
their coverage than ones that are deleterious to those interests.
Ideally, most people would take these factors into account when evaluating the "news," and
maintain a much more skeptical attitude than they typically do. But there are several factors
that prevent this.
One is simply time/ efficiency. These individual narratives, taken together, support --
and are supported by -- our overall worldview. There aren't enough hours in the day to be
constantly skeptical about everything, especially since the major tools of distortion
involved in constructing mainstream narratives tend to be selection bias/ memory-holing, with
obvious lies about known facts (like the Guardian story referenced here) used only sparingly.
It's simply not practical to to constantly consider potentially "better" narratives, and to
reevaluate one's worldview based on these.
And which narrative we believe often has more to do with perceived social pressure/ social
acceptability than with "truth." As you put it,
Those who are conforming to it are doing so, not because they are deceived, but because
it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Mass media pushing a common narrative creates an artificial perception of social
consensus. Creating, or even finding, alternative narratives means fighting the inertia of
this perceived consensus, and potentially suffering social costs for believing in the "wrong"
one. The social role of narratives is largely independent of their "truth" -- if what you're
"supposed" to believe is highly implausible, that actually gives it higher value as a signal
of loyalty to the establishment.
It's probably best to maintain a resolutely agnostic attitude toward most "news" items,
unless one is particularly interested in that particular event. " Why are they pushing
this particular story?" "Why now ?" and " What are they trying to accomplish
here?" are often more useful questions than "Is it true?"
It's not a new issue -- only exacerbated by the advent of mass visual media:
"Propaganda" -- Edward Bernays (1928)
"The Free Press"– Hilaire Belloc (1918)
I get what Hopkins is trying to do here, but redefining terms (i.e., "truth") doesn't do what
he thinks it does.
The truth is not ' what most people think '; it's not ' what we are told to
believe '; it's not ' the official narrative '.
There is a useful cautionary tale embedded in Hopkins' piece, but he doesn't tease it out
properly.
Take this excerpt:
The truth is what whoever has the power to say it is says it is. If we do not agree that
that "truth" is the truth, there is no higher court to appeal to. We can argue until we are
blue in the face. It will not make the slightest difference. No evidence we produce will
make the slightest difference. The truth will remain whatever those with the power to say
it is say it is.
With significant caveats, it is a reasonable description of the way the political world
works: if the political class decides that its interests are best served by declaring that a
specific narrative X is 'true', it will obtain immediate compliance from about half
the livestock, and can then rely on force (peer pressure; subsidy or taxation; state
coercion) to get an absolute majority of the herd to declare that they accept the 'truth' of
X .
If X is objectively false, too bad.
Try to run a legal argument based on the objective falsity of a thing that the political
class has deemed to be true: you'll be shit outta luck.
This is highly relevant where I am sitting: here are two examples – one really
obvious, one a bit less so (but far more important because of its radical implications).
Obvious Example: Drug Dogs
Recent research has shown that drug sniffing dogs give false positive signals between 60%
and 80% of the time – i.e., in terms of identifying people who are in actual
physical possession of drugs at any point in time, drug sniffing dogs perform worse than
a coin toss.
Note that this is before considering that the dog's handler is often pointing the dog at a
target that the handler thinks is likely to be carrying drugs. (Although in reality, drug
dogs are paraded around at concerts and in public spaces, sniffing every passer-by).
However there is an Act of Parliament (capitalise all the magic words) that asserts that a
signal from a drug sniffing dog is sufficient to qualify as what Americans call "probable
cause" – i.e., reasonable suspicion for a search.
Does anyone think that evidence should be admissible if it results from a search conducted
based on 'probable cause' derived from a method that produces worse outcomes than tossing a
coin?
Judges will tie themselves into absolute epistemological knots to get that evidence
admitted – and they will refuse to permit defence Counsel from adducing evidence about
drug dog inaccuracy because since the defendant actually did have drugs in their
possession, the dog didn't signal falsely.
In other words, the judge conflates posterior probability with prior
probability; the prior probability that the dog is correct, is 10%-40%; this should not
suffice to generate probable cause (or 'reasonable suspicion).
More Interesting Example: 'Representative' Democracy
In general, Western governments assert that their legitimacy stems from two primary
sources: some founding set of principles (usually a constitution – written or
otherwise), and 'representativeness' (including ratification of the constitution by a
representative mechanism, for those places with written foundational documents).
The Arrow Impossibility Theorem [1,2] and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem
[3,4], both show that there is no way of accurately determining group preferences using an
ordinal voting mechanism.
What this boils down to, is that representativeness is a lie – and it's a lie before
any consideration of voting outcomes ; it's a meta -problem (the problem that
ordinal voting cannot do what it is claimed to do – viz ., accurately identify
the 'will of the people'/'social preferences'/'what the people want').
Beyond the meta-problem, there is also the actual counting problem: no government has ever
been elected having obtained the votes of an outright bare majority, i.e., 50%-plus-1
of the entire eligible franchise. (It's more like 25-35% for most parliamentary systems
– for US presidential elections in the full-franchise period, the winner is voted for
by 29% of the eligible population; you would be horrified to look at US Senate
results).
So when the new unhappy lords (and their Little Eichmann bureaucrat enablers)
promulgate laws based on assertions of legitimacy because of a constitutional
Grundnorm and/or the representative nature of government both of those things are
pretty obvious furphies; they are objectively not 'truth' and no amount of heel-clicking and
wishing will make it so.
Which brings us to a key legal aphorism that has a jurisprudential history going back four
centuries: Ratio legis est anima legis, et mutata legis ratione, mutatur ex lex
– which dates from Milborn's case ( Coke 7a KB [1609]).
The reason for a law is the soul of the law, and if the reason for a law has changed,
the law is changed .
What this means – explicitly – is that " no law can survive the
[extinction of the] reasons on which it is founded ".
American courts re-expressed this as " cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex "
(the reason for a law having ceased, the law itself ceases) – e.g., in Funk v. United
States , 290 US 371 (1933) in which Justice Sutherland opined –
This means that no law can survive the reasons on which it is founded. It needs no
statute to change it; it abrogates itself . If the reasons on which a law rests are
overborne by opposing reasons, which in the progress of society gain a controlling force,
the old law, though still good as an abstract principle, and good in its application to
some circumstances, must cease to apply as a controlling principle to the new
circumstances.
(Emphasis mine)
Again: try running this argument in a court: " The asserted basis for all laws
promulgated by the government, is provably false. Under a doctrine with a 4-century
jurisprudential provenance, the law itself is void ."
See how far you get.
So Hopkins makes a good-but-obvious point – power does not respect either rights
or truth; as such it does you no good whatsoever to have the actual truth on your side.
He should have made the point better.
C J Hopkins, despite some good quotes and insights above, regrettably falls into the trap of
peddling Derrida-tier relativistic nonsense, playing a word game about 'truth', as if 'truth'
was not real merely because most people have strong incentives to avoid being devoted to it
Where you stand depends upon where you sit, etc., Karl Marx's dictums about economic and
power positions shaping consciousness, and of course the century-old classic:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
from Upton Sinclair (1878-1968). Hopkins more or less repeats Sinclair when he says
Those who are conforming to [official truth] are doing so, not because they are
deceived, but because it is safer and more rewarding to do so.
Despite selling-out truth to the relativism devil in some passages, Hopkins nevertheless
creates some quotable, including the particularly insightful:
The powerless are either servants of power or they are heretics. There is no third
alternative.
The following notion of Hopkins is seen now and then in the alt-sphere, but always bears
repeating
It is important to realize that "the truth" is not going to "rouse the masses from their
slumber" and inspire them to throw off their chains. People are not going to suddenly "wake
up," "see the truth" and start "the revolution."
Iron and blood are the tools used to force people to accept what isn't true.
(Another way to tell: it was uttered by a fucking politician – a cunt who wanted to
live in palaces paid for by the sweat of other people's brows).
Truth does not need violence to propagate itself: in a completely-peaceful system of free
exchange, bad ideas (of which lies are a subset) will get driven out of the market place
because they will fail to conform to ground truth.
Falsehood requires violence (arguably it is a form of violence: fraud is 'violent'
because it causes its victims to misallocate their resources or to deform their preferences
and expectations).
In a very real sense, truth does not need friends: all it requires is an absence of
powerful enemies.
The distinction is simple. We can't know the truth about distant and complex events like 9/11
or JFK unless we were directly involved, and those people are all dead. For big events we
have to rely on, or ignore, the official accounts.
But we CAN know the truth about our own situation, our own neighborhood, and our own
families. The current riots in France are a concrete ASSERTION of local truth against the
blatant and condescending official lies. The majority of France is getting poorer and
suffering more from migrant crime. Macron insists that starvation is necessary to serve Gaia,
and crime is necessary to serve Juncker. The people would prefer to have a leader that serves
France.
@FB Scientific truth
is limited by two factors – assumptions, and hidden variables. For example,
we might drop a brick in a vacuum and believe that it falls at 9.8 m/s squared. Here, we make
the assumption that the force of gravity is constant. And for most of history we were unaware
of the hidden variable of relativity to the speed of light.
So, assuming (LOL) that we are able to eliminate all assumptions and account for all
hidden variables, there is a scientific truth. That is ASSUMING we are not just a simulation
in someone elses computer!
Given all this, still, we can approach an approximation of truth that some can agree on.
Here is where the trouble starts .
@The scalpel LOL and
then there is the 'observer effect' also especially in good old quantum mechanics in the end
scientific truth does boil down to what 'some can agree on'
@Kratoklastes Strength
is the production of force over distance. That is to say, force is a quantifiable, physical
phenomenon that, deconstruct it as much as you want, will hit you like a tsunami whether you
believe it or not.
Force only works because there is a real world that transcends philosophical bullshit and
marketing.
The subjective piece is will: victory is attained when the enemies will to resist is
crushed. Through the repeated use of physical force, eventually any enemy can be worn down
and vanquished.
The world is finite, desire is infinite, and for every desire and appetite, there is a
will. As multiple wills will that they attain their infinite desires in a finite world, there
will always be a conflict of will, which will always ultimately be resolved by force. Which
means ultimately, despite the rich imaginations and appetites of humans, and their related
striving, physical force will ultimately rule the day, and conquer, condition, and constrain
the mental life of mankind.
Of course, desire and appetite will not take no for an answer, and in their frustration,
they will imagine, fantasize, and conceptualize rationales for why this is not so. This is
the nature of our desires, and in good times of prosperity and peace, they may even bend our
reason in the direction of these appetites and fantasies, until the instincts for self
preservation and endurance rust, and are even forgotten. But like the moon revealed by a
passing cloud, the perpetual war of human existence will inevitably reassert itself, and
those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to daydream
when they should have been preparing.
After reading the article and the aggregate comments, I am strengthened in my belief that
the physics analogy of Schrödinger's cat is among the most useful (and
notwithstanding the otherwise valid criticism of it in the comments). In the same way that
the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, does not purport to define a given word,
per se , but rather gives a detailed description of how the word has in fact been used
over the years and centuries.
I refer to my version of Schrödinger's cat as counter-sense words or
oscillating-contradictions .
Oscillating contradictions and cogno-linguistic manipulation
The primary means by which corporate supremacy, for example, is achieved and maintained in
practice is via the maintenance and use of a small arsenal of about two dozen critical
counter-sense or yo-yo -like words/terms that are asserted or claimed to mean
either "X" or "Minus-X" at the option of the decision-maker.
Among the most important and sui generis (in a class of its own) is the word
person which is held to mean a living, breathing being of conscience (literally
a being of equity) with the rights, powers and privileges of such being ("X"), or else it can
mean a corporate entity which is a notional/inanimate item of property to be bought
and sold and otherwise traded for profit in the stock and financial markets ("Minus-X").
By way of example/demonstration of the ongoing cognitive manipulation process, if someone
had managed to hit the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court with a blast of truth-ray just
before they announced their decision in Citizens United, here is what we may have got
instead:
[MORE]
We here at the Supreme Court are part of what can be fairly and broadly referred to as
an arm of the entrenched-money-power.
At certain times and under certain circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over
you the masses that corporations be natural-persons-in-law with the rights, powers and
privileges of a natural person or living being of conscience.
At other times and other circumstances it is to our enormous advantage over you the
masses that corporations be items of property that can be actively bought and sold and
traded for profit in the stock and financial markets.
Your laughable naiveté is manifest in your expectation that you are going to
receive a definitive answer from this Court, or even that it is possible for us to give you
one. Among the foundational purposes of this Court is to actively prevent that question
from being answered definitively at all. The instant we give a definitive answer, the game
is over.
Whatever answer we give you must perpetuate the systematized delusion that the same
concept (corporate personhood) can mean either X (a living being of conscience), or minus-X
(an item of property), depending on the ever-changing needs of the decider.
So our current answer is that a corporation is a natural-person-in-law with the rights,
powers and privileges of a natural person, except when it isn't. We'll let you know next
time whether that situation has changed in the meantime.
Essentially all counter-sense words/terms follow that same template .
Notwithstanding that the respective concepts are logically and objectively mutually
exclusive , the judges of the Courts (and the broadly-defined
financial-world/social-control-structure) maintain that it can be either or both , and
we'll let you know if and when it becomes important.
So a corporate person has a right of free speech when giving money to
influence political parties, but not to object to itself being sold as a piece of property in
the stock and financial markets or when it is acquired in a merger or takeover financed by
its own assets. If a corporation has the legal capacity and rights of a natural person, then
how can it be owned as the legal property of another? The purpose of the Courts is to ensure
that that question is never presented in that way.
After person , the remaining most significant counter-sense or yo-yo
-like words are (surprise surprise) essentially all money-and-finance-based, and the most
important among these is the word principal and its role in facilitating illegal
front-loading or ex-temporal fraud (interest illegally and unlawfully compounded in
advance).
Is the amount of principal the actual or net amount advanced by the creditor and
received by the debtor for their own use and control?
Or is it the amount that the debtor agrees that they owe regardless of the amount
received?
Is the amount of principal a question of fact ? Or of the agreement of
parties ?
[Here is the premise / offer that is referenced immediately below:]
Lender (e.g., typical second-mortgage lender): "I will loan you $10,000 at 20%
per annum provided that you sign and give to me a marketable security that claims or
otherwise purports to evidence that I have loaned you $15,000 at 10% per annum, plus an
undisclosed and unregistered side-agreement and cheque (check) back to me for a bonus or
loan fee of $5,000 as a payment from the nominal proceeds."
In the process example used above, what is the principal amount of the loan? Is it
$10,000 because that is the factual net amount invested by the creditor and received by the
debtor for their own use? Or is it $15,000 because that is the amount that the debtor is
required to falsely agree that they have received and owe as a condition of the loan? Or is
it $20,000 because that is the total cash-equivalent/money assets ($15,000 mortgage + $5,000
cheque) that the debtor has to give to the creditor?
Is it a noun/fact ? Or is it an adjective/opinion merely pretending to be a
noun? All debt and therefore money in the world today depends on the answer to that question
that theoretically cannot exist.
Principal is a special type (and most significant form) of counter-sense
word or oscillating contradiction where dictionaries normally only give one sense,
while commercial practice defines the contrary. It would be very difficult to put the
Whatever-the-debtor-agrees-that-they-owe sense into a dictionary, because the fraud against
meaning (as well as the criminal law) is manifest in spelling it out, and ever more so in
more specialized financial dictionaries.
So virtually every legal, financial, accounting, and ordinary English dictionary and/or
regulation defines it to the effect "The actual amount invested, loaned or advanced to the
debtor/borrower net of any interest, discount, premium or fees", while virtually every
financial security in the real world at least implicitly incorporates the fraudulent
alternative/contrary meaning.
This in turn allows the academic world to function on the rational/factual
definition, while the markets maintain a wholly contradictory deemed or pretended
reality, while both remain oblivious to the contradiction.
Thus principal means the nominal creditor's actual and net investment, unless it
doesn't .
With this class of counter-sense word where there is a necessary and definitive
answer, the real job of the judges of the Courts becomes to make certain that the question is
never officially asked, and under no circumstances is it to be definitively answered.
With just one of these words you can theoretically steal the Earth . With a
financial system that is relatively saturated with them, such becomes child's play .
With these rules a group of competently-trained chimpanzees otherwise pulling
levers at random could do as well as the so-called wizards of Wall Street .
And significantly, these oscillating contradictions enable the judges to be self-righteous
in the extreme on behalf of the entrenched-money-power, while looting the little
people of the product of their labour.
As in: You have received the principal amount ($10,000) and you are going to pay
back the principal amount ($15,000) plus the ever-accumulating (and super-leveraged)
interest upon it according to your contract, while the meaning of the word oscillates
between fact and opinion – between a noun and an adjective
– according to what the judge needs it to mean (or accommodate) at any given instant in
time.
It seems impossibly obvious in this simple example, but with several of them orchestrated
simultaneously or sequentially, anything can truly be made to mean anything
.
A partial list of the most critical oscillating-contradicitions includes: loan, credit,
discount, interest, rate-of-interest, agreement, contract, security, repay, restitution,
etc., all of which mean either "X" or its conceptual opposite "Minus-X" at the option of the
entrenched-money-power whose vast financial fortunes are founded on such cogno-linguistic
arbitrage .
Here are what I believe to be four essential tools needed to triangulate
reality via congo-linguistic parallax . The first two are mine, and the last two
are from the American and English Courts, respectively.
1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic . We perceive reality very largely as a
function of the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone inherently believes
and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it.
The greater reality is that, above a certain base level of perception and communication, you
have to have the words and language by which to say something before you can think
it .
2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely
believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of the
entrenched-money-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty
mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional schizophrenics
who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who
communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things. They suffer a
cogno-linguistically-induced diminished capacity that renders them incapable of
perceiving reality beyond labels .
3. Their core business model or modus operandi is the systematized delusion
:
"A "systematized delusion" is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process
of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other
aberrations of the mind converge." Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243.
(West's Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).
4.
One must not confuse the object of a conspiracy [to defraud] with the
means by which it is intended to be carried out. Scott v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner [1974] 60 Cr. App. R. 124 H.L.
I have long since abandoned my search for truth, per se, since I came to realize that the
best I can ever do is to constantly strive to move closer to it. With apologies to the
physicists, Truth is the Limit of Infinite Good Faith .
@Tulip " which will
always ultimately be resolved by force."
Right there is where you lost the plot. That statement is just your opinion and it cannot
be proven true. The rest of your argument falls victim to this logical error.
" and those that have prepared for the inevitable will vanquish those who were content to
daydream when they should have been preparing."
Also, just your opinion. For example, the "dreamer" might die still comforted by his/her
dreams, while the "prepper" might waste his life witing for the "inevitable' that never
arrives.
In what can be described as a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11
truth, a United States Attorney has agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to
a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade
Centers.
The Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal
government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive
evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World
Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).
After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that
they will comply with the law.
Some good documentary films here to watch for free:
My question/quibble relates to your objection to the use of sniffer dogs to establish
probable cause for search because it is no better than a coin toss. That seems fallacious
if, according to your figures, the dogs sniff 500 people and get excited by 10 of them of
which 3 are correctly identified and 7 are false positives.
Yeah. The concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative
predictive value might be very helpful in assessing this.
Chinese version of neoliberalism and the USA version do differ.
Notable quotes:
"... I especially encourage the Russians on here to return to their home country. There is little point writing material critical of America in English on fringe media sites while in America contributing to the US economy and paying US taxes. My observation has been that the Russian personality not to mention background doesn't fare terribly well in corporate America. Why waste your energy in a country and system beyond reform that despises you for who you are that only accepts you for your labor. You'll find a better fit in your home country where you'll actually have genuine social belonging, which, unlike China, actually really needs more people. ..."
"... Xi might have stepped up too early, but maybe this wouldn't matter. When the Americans decide to confront China depends on the Americans. In case you believe that US presidents drive US policy, Trump was saying things about China 25 years ago. ..."
"... Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash. ..."
"... @Achmed E. Newman Dictatorships are personality dependent, as opposed to democracies that are ? dependent. Communism came up with a catchy slogan – dictatorship of the proletariat. Why couldn't US – which are, after all, a birthplace of propaganda – come up with a similarly catchy slogan, such as: Democracy – dictatorship of the elitariat? Or maybe, Democracy – dictatorship of the deep state. ..."
"... I worked for Chinese-Filipinos and this is really 100% true. The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are the most heartless capitalists on earth. ..."
"... [You have been repeatedly warned that you leave far too many rambling, vacuous comments, especially since so many of them demonstrate your total ignorance. Fewer and fewer of your comments will be published until you improve your commenting-behavior or better yet permanently depart for another website] ..."
Great, but kinda pedestrian. Lemme use this platform to point out China's flaws from a
Chinese perspective.
Chinese society and Chinese people are too arrogant, materialistic, and hypersensitive to
criticism.
This is a huge problem. One, it alienates pretty much anyone who becomes familiar with
China. Two, it leads to mistake after mistake when no criticism is offered to correct them in
time. Three, it causes society to view things overly in terms of money, falling behind in all
other aspects. Nobody cares how much rich or strong you are if you're a crass, materialistic
asshole. They'll hate you.
All societies have these issues, few are as bad as China. There are Chinese reading this
right now and getting angry and ready to call me a traitor, demonstrating my point
exactly.
A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man
stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand,
confronted the US 10~20 years too early, damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of
Uyghurs, and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead
driving them further into the arms of the Americans.
China does not need more repression right now, it needs to slowly liberalize to keep the
economy growing and competitive. I'm not talking about western style "open society" bullshit,
traitors like multiculturalists and feminists should always be persecuted. But the
heavy-handed censorship, monitoring of everyday citizens is completely unnecessary. If China
does not develop a culture of trust, and genuine, non-money based curiosity, it will not have
the social structure to overcome the west.
Outside of trade and money-related issues, the Chinese citizenry is woefully ignorant of
the outside world. There is no widespread understanding of foreign cultures and ideologies,
how they might threaten us, how to defend against them, or how to work around them. An
overwrought sense of nationalism emphasizes Chinese victimhood to the point of absurdity,
squandering any sympathy onlookers might have, and actually causes some to turn 180 and hate
China instead.
Angry, condescending attitudes towards our neighbors, especially Japan, severely cripple
China's ability to be a world player. Without a network of like-minded friends (actual
friends, not trade partners), China will never be able to match the western alliance. It is
not just America we have to overcome, but an entire bloc of nations. I don't care how much
people hate our neighbors, China must extend the olive branch, present a sincere face of
benevolence, and not act like the big guy with a fragile ego. Racially and culturally similar
East Asians are the best candidates for long-term friendship, it is wrong to forsake them
under the assumption that all we need is Russia or Pakistan.
Despite the trade war, I'm not worried about China's economy, infrastructure, political
system, or innate ability. These are our strengths. I have no love for liberal democracy or
western values. But China must change its attitude and the way it interacts with the outside
world soon, or face geopolitical disaster.
Don't overreact to every insult or criticism. Compete in areas that isn't just money or
materials. Really understand soft power, and what it takes to be liked around the world.
Develop our own appealing ideas and worldview. Listen to well-meaning, nationalistic critics,
and change before the world discovers China's ugly side.
I would say that yes, dictatorships tend to be more efficient than "democracy". The only
major downside to dictatorships are that usually dictators – thanks perhaps to personal
ambitions, lack of accountability, volatile personalities – tend to cause major wars.
That's a reason why someone becomes a dictator – to make it into the history books.
And the easiest way to make it into the history books is to cause a major war(s) and capture
all the glory that comes with causing the deaths of as many people as possible.
But then again, looking at the US, they don't seem to have been disadvantaged by a lack of
dictators at all, as far as starting wars goes. One has to wonder, are dictatorships even
competitive with US in the category of causing wars?
By Tiensen do you mean Tencent, famous now for its WeChat which I use for messaging and
payments. I now also use their cloud storage Weiyun (3 TB on only 10 RMB / month) as well as
their email.
By the way, Nvidia, YouTube, and Yahoo were all founded by ethnic Chinese from Taiwan. I
actually think Nvidia is more impressive than both Microsoft or Google. Its GPU technology is
much higher barrier to entry and as far as I can tell still exclusive to America.
I may well never come back to America ever again, and thus, most of what goes on in
America will no longer be directly relevant to me. I could give pretty much zero of a fuck
about the nonsense on China in the English language press, which I will only look at very
occasionally, and those who create it. It would be rather futile to try to change the views
of the majority of white Americans. Of course, there are a minority of white Americans who
are more informed, reasonable, and open-minded, the ones I tended to interact with back in
America, many of whom are unhappy with the state of American society. They are welcome to
contact me (my email is on my website), and if they use not an American email, I'll be more
willing to share certain information with them and possibly connect them to China-related
business/opportunities.
I especially encourage the Russians on here to return to their home country. There is
little point writing material critical of America in English on fringe media sites while in
America contributing to the US economy and paying US taxes. My observation has been that the
Russian personality not to mention background doesn't fare terribly well in corporate
America. Why waste your energy in a country and system beyond reform that despises you for
who you are that only accepts you for your labor. You'll find a better fit in your home
country where you'll actually have genuine social belonging, which, unlike China, actually
really needs more people.
Main difference is China is about Chinese ruling over Chinese with Chinese pride, whereas
America is about JAG(Jews-Afros-Gays) ruling over whites with 'white guilt', jungle fever,
and homomania.
Problem with China is too much corruption and petty greed.
Many tried to warn the weenies what would happen while our industries were "donated" to China
and got hosed for their trouble. Pat Buchanan's troubles actually started when he wrote
The Great Betrayal , even if they took a little extra time to pull his syndicated
column down.
Did you know about a World War II-era Kaiser steel mill once in California, that was cut
up in blocks like a model kit and shipped in its entirety to China?
It happened right out in the open, under Daddy Bush, and everyone who complained became an
unperson, Orwell-style. Nobody dared object to the glories of free trade. And the Chinese in
California said it was doing so because they had a multi-million ton Plan to fill, and it was
almost the 21st century.
China is now taking the wealth their nation is creating with stuff developed in Europe,
Britain, and the United States. The hole in the donut is they could have done all that under
license and we could have kept on with, and even improved our industrial base.
But in fact our leaders had Gender Reassignment in mind for the 21st century, not actual
productive work that truly builds nations. The Impoverishment of Nations is well known: Send
the real work out, keep the barbarians inside well-fed, sharp-clawed, and morally
depraved.
" its stunning advance in forty years from impoverished Third World to a huge economy"
Bullshit. The stunning advance occurred between 1950-1975. Starting with an industrial
base smaller than that of Belgium's in the 50s, the China that for so long was ridiculed as
"the sick man of Asia" emerged at the end of the Mao period as one of the six largest
industrial producers in the world.
National income grew five-fold over the 25-year period 1952-78, increasing from 60 billion
to over 300 billion yuan, with industry accounting for most of the growth. On a per capita
basis, the index of national income (at constant prices) increased from 100 in 1949 (and 160
in 1952) to 217 in 1957 and 440 in 1978.
Over the last two decades of the Maoist era, from 1957 to 1975, China's national income
increased by 63 percent on a per capita basis during this period of rapid population growth,
more than doubling overall and the basic foundations for modern industrialism were laid and
outpacing every other development takeoff in history.
In Germany the rate of economic growth 1880-1914 was 33 percent per decade.
In Japan from 1874-1929 the rate was 43 percent.
The Soviet Union over the period 1928-58 the rate was 54 percent.
In China over the years 1952-72 the decadal rate was 64 percent.
Bear in mind that, save for limited Soviet aid in the 1950s, repaid in full and with
interest by 1966, Mao's industrialization proceeded without benefit of foreign loans or
investments–under punitive embargoes the entire 25 years–yet Mao was unique among
developing country leaders in being able to claim an economy burdened by neither foreign debt
nor internal inflation.
Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of
Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America's racial diversity, its
cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of
incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street
crime.
Wait, weren't you a supporter of American racial diversity? Weren't the millions of dusty
beaners entering the US a God's gift to the country's rich, colorful, cultural tapestry?
A dictatorship can simply do things. It can plan twenty, or fifty, years down the
road.
So can the Western, globalist (((deep state))). The Chinese dictatorship is simply doing
it for themselves and their nation. Their people's lives are getting better for
decades while we have every reason to envy our grandfathers.
"China has an adult government that gets things done. America has a kaleidoscopically
shifting cast of pathologically aggressive curiosities in the White House."
Well put: I have long argued that the last adult president was Bush the Elder – what
followed was a sorry sequence of adolescents.
There was only one chance to elect a non-preposterous grown-up – Romney. It was
spurned.
But be of good cheer: the White House might currently be occupied by an absurd oaf, but it
might have been Hellary, a grown-up with vices not to my taste. Better the absurd than the
appalling?
As for China – I've never been there. At second-hand I am impressed. But it too
could take a tumble – life's like that.
@Cyrano Having a
dictator is not just a bad idea because of wars, Cyrano. The English spent many centuries
slowly chipping away at the ultimate power of Kings and Queens. I'm pretty sure that if they
hadn't done that, you and I would not be here writing to each other today.
There can be a powerful Monarchy or Dictator, say, like under Queen Victoria or Josef
Stalin. There will be much different outcomes. It would be a shame if the good King or
dictator happens to die and leave the whole nation to a bad one, and your children's lives
are much the worse for it, don't you think?
China is a perfect example, as anyone growing up under Mao had it very rough, even if he
didn't get swept up in the 1,000 lawnmowers campaign or the Cultural Revolution. If you had
been born in 1950, say, that was tough luck for much of your life. If you were born in 1985,
though, well, as one can read in the column above, it's a different story.
Since I brought up Queen Victoria, and now have this song in my head (not a bad thing), I
will move it into Reed's Reeders' heads now. Great stuff!:
@dearieme I agree
with your sentiment, Dearieme, and I completely agree with you about George H.W. Bush* being
the last President to act like one should.. However, that shouldn't matter anyway. Our system
of government is NOT supposed to be about who is president making a big difference in how
things run. It used to work like that too, before the people betrayed the US Constitution and
let the Feral Gov't get out of hand.
The fact is, that Mitt Romney or not, per Mr. Franz above,
the country has been in the process of being given away for > 2 decades now. Yes, no
manufacturing might, no country left. That brings up what is wrong with Mr. Reed's article,
which I'll get to in a minute.
* Politically, I hate the guy, but that's not what your point is.
I am not knocking the observations of how things run economically in America vs. in China. I
think the article does a good job on that. However, the whole analysis part seems kind of
STATIC. I know Fred knows better, as he grew up in what was a different country and BY FAR
the most powerful economically, precisely because it was when the US Feral Gov't still left
private (at least small) business alone for the most part.
You do realize, Mr. Reed, that the US was NOT created to be a democracy, but a
Constitutional Republic? China WAS a totalitarian society, but things only got (WAY) better
after Chairman Deng decided that the central government would start leaving people alone to
do business. The Chinese are very good at business and are very hard workers.
Yes, the Chinese government runs much better, at this point, than the US Feral Gov't after
years and years (say 5 decades) of infiltration by the ctrl-left. All of our institutions
have been infiltrated, governments , big-business , media , universities ,
lower
education all of it. China had it's physical Long March, and 3 decades of hard-core
Communism, but they got over it. America has had it's Long March on the down low, and is
reaping the whirlwind at the present. Will we get over it? Maybe, but it'll take guns. We got
'em.
The winds of change have blown through. They can change direction again. For a place like
America, it's not going to take one powerful man (look how ineffective President Trump has
been), but the people and a movement. Just as some have been unobservant of China over the
last 2 decades, many will miss the changes here too.
Germany in 1880 was much nearer the technological frontier than China was in 1950. The Japan comparison is better, but Japan at the end of the Tokugawa era was about as
developed as Britain in 1700 (and had already for instance substantially displaced China in
the exported silk market).
The Soviet Union suffered certain events in the period from 1941-1945 you may wish to look
up.
More relevant comparisons might be South Korea and Taiwan. Or even postwar Italy, Spain,
Portugal, and Greece.
I think most informed people now are aware that Soviet-style central planning is effective
for the initial industrialization phase. What we dispute is that it is uniquely
effective, as Mazuo and Sovoks insisted. Other systems have matched its performance at lower
human and geopolitical cost.
@dearieme GHW
certainly acted Presidential, but did that help America?
He was the architect of NAFTA (even if signed by Bill Clinton) and signed the Immigration
Act of 1990, which significantly increased the yearly number of immigrant visas that could be
issued and created the disastrous Temporary Protected Status visa.
A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man
stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand,
confronted the US 10~20 years too early, damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of
Uyghurs, and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead
driving them further into the arms of the Americans.
Xi might have stepped up too early, but maybe this wouldn't matter. When the Americans
decide to confront China depends on the Americans. In case you believe that US presidents
drive US policy, Trump was saying things about China 25 years ago.
The Uyghur thing nobody cares about. The western media would find something else to lie
about.
I agree with the things you say afterwards. although I find it difficult to see China
becoming likable to it's neighbors. I believe the big thing will be to see what the CCP does
in the next economic crisis; will they change or will they turtle into bad policy and
stagnate. The challenge after that would be the demographics.
@dearieme Mormons
are idealists, not realists, which puts them outside the grown-up pale in my book. Mormonism
might as well be called American Suburbanism at this point. That lifestyle takes a lot of
things for granted that will not be around much longer. They top out intellectually at the
level of mid-tier management.
To be fair, this applies to most Americans, convinced that inside everybody is a
conformist, suburban American just waiting to get out.
There's a case that can be made that Mormonism is actually the official American
religion.
Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile of
private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has accumulated
debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash.
It would be a shame if the good King or dictator happens to die and leave the whole
nation to a bad one, and your children's lives are much the worse for it, don't you
think?
Sure, but the bad one would run the risk of being overthrown and his bloodline
slaughtered. Everyone would know that the buck ends with him and his family.
Modern "democracies" dilute this responsibility and leave room for a set of hidden kings
and dictators to run the show from the shadows. The plebs are supposed to vent their
frustration by voting out the bad guys but that's useless (a pressure relief valve, really)
if the shadow dictators control the information and the choices.
@Thorfinnsson
"GHW certainly acted Presidential, but did that help America?:
I've no idea but it's not the point anyway. The point is that he presumably arrived at his
decisions by thinking like an adult, instead of being blown around on gusts of adolescent
emotions, like Slick Willie, W, O, and Trump.
@Anonymous He may
run that risk, but with absolute authority, who will stand up to him? You've got to know the
history of Western Civilization (Europe, I mean) is filled with years and centuries of
terrible, evil Kings and Queens in countries far and wide, right?
As far as democracies go, no, it doesn't work in the long, or even medium, run, unless you
withhold the vote for landowners and only those with responsibility. I don't thing that's
been the case here except for the first 50 years or so. You give the vote to the young, the
stupid, the irresponsible, the women, etc., and it goes downhill. In America's case, it took
a long time to go downhill because we had a lot of human and real capital built up.
Now, this is all why this country, as I wrote already above, was not set up to BE a
democracy, Mr #126. It was to be a Constitutional Republic, with powers of the Feral Gov't
limited by the document. However, once the population treats it as nothing but a piece of
paper, that's all it becomes.
Chinese progress is impressive in absolute terms, but it is much more impressive in relative
terms. While the US and all its sidekicks are ruining their countries by losing
manufacturing, running up mountains of debt, and dumbing down the populace by horrible
educational system and uncontrolled immigration of wild hordes with medieval mentality, some
countries, including China, keep moving up. But the achievements of China or Russia wouldn't
look so great without the simultaneous suicide of the West.
Let me give you the example I know best. As a scientist and an Editor of several
scientific journals I see the decline of scientific production in the US: just 20 years ago
it clearly dominated, but now it went way down. There emerged lots of papers from big China.
Quality-wise, most of them are still sub-par, but they are getting into fairly decent
journals because of the void left by the decline of science in the US.
Yes, if current tendencies continue for 20 more years, Chinese science would improve and
China would become an uncontested leader in that field. However, if the US reins in its
thieving elites and shifts to a more sensible course, it still has the potential to remain
the world leader in science. It just needs to cut military spending to 20-30% of its current
crazy unsustainable levels and invest some of the saved resources into science, industry
(real one, not banking that only produces bubbles galore), and infrastructure. Is this
realistic? Maybe not, but hope springs eternal.
@Jason Liu As a
long time China watcher myself I didn't see anything you described with regards to China's
foreign policy, including its dealing with its East Asian neighbors. From what I saw China's
statecraft with respect to its neighbors is mature, friendly, measured, restraint and long
term thinking. May be I am missing something or see something and interpret it in an opposite
way than you did. For example you said
"and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving
them further into the arms of the Americans"
"Angry, condescending attitudes towards our neighbors, especially Japan, severely cripple
China's ability to be a world player. "
I didn't see any of that. Any specific example to illustrate your point?
@DB Cooper Again,
Chinese and Russian foreign policy looks best when you compare it to the US. Both countries
made their fair share of blunders, but next to the rabid dog US they look decidedly sensible
and restrained.
@Jason Liu You
may very well be accurately describing the attitudes of individual Chinamen; but I see
no evidence that the Chinese government is all that guilty of alienating other countries. On
the contrary, they seem to be doing quite well. Even the hated Japs can't seem to invest
enough money into China.
There may be something to this. If you look at centuries of Chinese painting, you will
see that each generation largely made copies of earlier masters. As nearly as I, a
nonexpert, can tell, there is more variety and imagination in the Corcoran Gallery's annual
exhibition of high-school artists than in all of Chinese paining.
There was a point in time when I would have agreed with Fred on this; but seeing what's
become of Western art over the last century, I can't anymore. A few centuries ago, Western
art was surely making progress by leaps and bounds. These days though, it's in swift decline.
All it's got left to offer is pointless pretentiousness. At least traditional Chinese
painting still requires some real craftsmanship and skill.
Chinese progress has been most impressive but the country is sitting on an enormous pile
of private and SOE debt.. There has not been a country in recorded history that has
accumulated debt at the rate China did post the 2008 crash.
This is what happens to your brain on Forbes and the Wall Street Journal .
In reality, China is the world's largest creditor. In fact, it's the US which is the largest
debtor in the world.
All that Chinese debt that the Western presstitutes go on an on about is really just an
accounting gimmick: some state-owned bank in China makes a loan to some state-owned
conglomerate there, and this gets written down as a debt. But the Chinese government (which
owns both of them) is never going to allow either of the two parties to actually go bankrupt,
so the debt isn't actually real. It's no different than ordering your right-pocket to lend
your left-pocket ten dollars: your right-pocket may now record that loan as an 'asset' on a
balance sheet somewhere, while your left-pocket will now record it as a 'liability', but
you as a person aren't any richer or poorer than you were before. You still have ten
dollars–no more, no less. And so it is with China. They merely 'owe' that money to
themselves.
@Achmed E. Newman
Dictatorships are personality dependent, as opposed to democracies that are ? dependent.
Communism came up with a catchy slogan – dictatorship of the proletariat.
Why couldn't US – which are, after all, a birthplace of propaganda – come up
with a similarly catchy slogan, such as: Democracy – dictatorship of the elitariat? Or
maybe, Democracy – dictatorship of the deep state.
I personally prefer elections where there is only one candidate and one voter – the
dictator, it kind of simplifies things. I think it takes a lot of bravery to be a dictator,
you don't delegate glory, but you don't delegate blame either, you take full responsibility
and full credit for whatever is happening in the country.
@Digital Samizdat
The sheer amount of shadow debt outstanding is huge. 250 to 300% of GDP by some estimates.
You reckon the Chinese government have this covered and can rescue failing institutions. They
probably don't even know how many bad loans need to be written off and how badly it will
cause a squeeze on normal lending.
From what I saw China's statecraft with respect to its neighbors is mature, friendly,
measured, restraint and long term thinking.
Do you think that correctly describes China's handling of claims in the South China Sea,
or its attitude toward the independent country of Taiwan, or its promotion of anti-Japanese
propaganda on Chinese television?
but I see no evidence that the Chinese government is all that guilty of alienating other
countries.
Its complete disregard of other nations' entirely legitimate claims in the South China Sea
is evidence to the contrary. It's not as if other nations must completely sever all relations
with China for any alienation to be occurring.
@Jason Liu
Excellent comment, Jason. Certainly if China wishes to again become Elder Brother to East
Asia, it needs to start relating to its neighbors as Little Brothers instead of obstacles to
be rudely shoved aside.
@gmachine1729
gmachine, Glad to hear you are in a place that you like and suits you. That is what nations
are all about. I am also in favor of native peoples contributing their effort (through
commercial, intellectual and spiritual endeavors) to the benefit of their fellow
nation-citizens, as long as those contributions are not wrung out by force of the state.
And Russia will have a lot more people by and by. They will be Chinese or Uyghar (sp?)
perhaps, but that empty space will surely be put to use by someone or someones. Whether the
Russians like that much could be another matter.
@Random
Smartaleck China's handling of the claims in South China Sea has been characterized by
restraint and a lot of patience. Basically a combination of dangling a big carrot with a
small stick. This is the reason the ASEAN has signed up to the SCS code of conduct and the
relation between the Philippines and China is at a all time high since Aquino's engineered
the PCA farce several years ago.
Taiwan considered itself the legitimate government of all of China encompassing the
mainland. It's official name is the Republic of China. Mainland China considered itself the
legitimate the government of all of China encompassing the island of Taiwan. Its official
name is the People's Republic of China. The so called 92 consensus agreed by both sides is
that each side agreed there is only one China and each side is free to interpret its own
version of China. For the mainland that means PRC (Peoples Republic of China). For Taiwan
that means ROC (Republic of China). There is no such thing as the independent country of
Taiwan.
China's tv has world war II drama doesn't constitute propaganda in as much as history
channel in the US has world war II topics all the time.
If the reporting I have read (widely sourced) about infrastructure quality, durability, and
actual utility is even 1/2 correct, quite a lot of government (especially provincial
government) directed development cannot and will not prove to be wise investment. Combined
with the opaque economic reporting, also subject to differing reporting as is infrastructure
rating, there is some good reason t believe that the nation has some huge huge challenges
diretly ahead.
The male overhang in China (and in India, others as well, but much smaller) is another
potential problem that is difficult to assess. Maybe it is a nothingburger, and 50 million
men without any chance to have a single wife will just find something else worthwhile and
rewarding to do with their time. Maybe not. Combine wasted urban investment, financial
chicanery on a gross scale, a narrow authoritarian structure and tens of millions of
unsatisfied, un-familied men, the downside looks pretty ugly.
Maybe that reporting is all bullshit. I don't think so. I think that Chinese leadership is
likely very concerned, hence so many of them securing property and anchor babies in the West.
I do hope for the sake of the Chinese people, and the rest of the globe, that whatever comes
along will not be too bad.
This is why I'm not afraid of China: Chinese are greedy soulless capitalists, or pagans as
another poster calls them. Spot on. A country of 1.3 billion pagans will always stay a low
trust society. Every Chinese dreams of getting rich, so they can get the hell out of China.
As for all the worship of education, no fear there either, the end goal of every single
one of their top students is to go an American university, then once they get here, do
everything they can to stay and never go back.
This is why I fear China: they are invading us, and bringing their dog-eat-dog, pagan ways
with them, slowly but surely turning us into another low-trust, pagan society like the one
they left behind. Also once they get here they instantly start chanting "China #1!", and look
out for interest of China rather than that of the US. If we were wise we would stop this
invasion now, but Javanka can't get enough of their EB5 dollars.
@Digital Samizdat
The problem is neither debt nor bankruptcies, although they are part of what is going on. It
is the artificially elevated level of economic activity and the expectations of the people
depending on that level continuing to sustain their lifestyles. The activity can only be
sustained by expanding credit. If you believe that credit can continue to expand infinitely,
well, we will see.
I notice that the Chinese are reducing their personal consumption in response to the
cracks appearing in the economies of the world. They are wise to do so.
We have the same problem in the US, probably worse, and it exists throughout most of the
"first" world. China has a decided advantage because of the degree of social control of its
people, but China will not be immune when the bubble breaks.
@Anon Fred
probably shouldn't say anything about art, but when has ignorance got in the way of USian
cultural putdowns? Anyway, the very idea that the Chinese merely make copies is nonsense,
pure and simple.
@Digital Samizdat
Well put. The propaganda on US websites is always about the debt as there is a need to
believe that China is going to collapse as it simply can't have achieved what it has without
freedom, democracy and the American way, or more accurately by not employing the disastrous
policy mix known as the Washington Consensus. It is the countries who followed that (likely
deliberately) flawed model of open exchange rates, low value added manufacturing (to enrich
US multinationals and consumers) with western FDI that have given the support for the
otherwise flawed Reinhardt and Roghoff study that everyone (who hasn't actually read it) uses
to justify why debt to GDP is 'a bad thing' over a certain level. As those benighted emerging
economies prospered from their trade relationship they were then offered lots of nice $ loans
for consumption, buying cars and houses and lots of western consumer goods. So current
account deficit, more $ funding, inflation, higher interest rates to control inflation
triggering a flow of hot money that drivers the exchange rate temporarily higher undermining
the export model. Then crash – exchange rate has killed export model, interest rates
cripple domestic demand, financial markets plummet, hot money rushes out, exchange rate
collapses so stagflation. Wall Street comes in and privatises the best assets and the US
taxpayer bails out the banks. Rinse and repeat.
China was supposed to 'act like a normal country' and play this game, but it didn't. It
followed the mercantilist model and built a balanced economy without importing western
consumer goods and financial services. However, unlike Germany, Japan or S.Korea, China does
not have a standing US Army on its soil to ensure that everything gets done for good old
Uncle Sam. Hence the bellicosity and the propaganda. China's debts are owned by China, as are
a lot of America's debts. Raising debt to build infrastructure and assets like toll roads,
airports, electricity grids, high speed railways means that there is an income bearing asset
to offset the liability. Raising debt to maintain hundreds of imperial bases around the world
less so.
@Mark T You are
very perceptive. The reason why China's debts are 'bad' while Uncle Scam's debts are 'good'
is because (((the usual suspects))) are profiting off the latter, but not the former. They
were betting that, if they gave the Chinese our industry, China would repay the favor by
giving them their finance sector in return. But that's not what happened! And now, (((the
usual suspects))) are waking up to the rather embarrassing realization they got played by
some slick operators from the East from wayyyy back East.
The so called 92 consensus agreed by both sides is that each side agreed there is only
one China and each side is free to interpret its own version of China. For the mainland
that means PRC (Peoples Republic of China). For Taiwan that means ROC (Republic of China).
There is no such thing as the independent country of Taiwan.
The "One China Policy" is a diplomatic sham designed to avoid bruising the fragile egos of
the two Chinas, and is insisted on by the PRC to aid in their Finlandization & eventual
absorption of Taiwan. Taiwan has been an independent country in all but diplomatic
nomenclature for 70 years. The PRC's claim that Taiwan is a "renegade province" is laughable.
The island is simply territory that the CCP never conquered. It is only the CCP's mad
insistence on the "China is the CCP, the CCP is China" formulation that convinces it
otherwise.
Likewise, Taiwan's claim of jurisdiction over the mainland -- while justifiable given
history -- is simply delusional. The ROC can do absolutely nothing to enforce this claim,
and, barring something truly extraordinary, will never be the government of the mainland
again. Regardless, this claim does not negate Taiwan's de facto independence because it has
absolutely nothing to do with placing Taiwan under others' control.
China's tv has world war II drama doesn't constitute propaganda in as much as history
channel in the US has world war II topics all the time.
You know better than that. We aren't talking about sober, fair-minded documentaries here.
The Chinese productions are lurid, over-the-top demonizations of the Japanese. These combined
with the National Humiliation curriculum and various museums show that the CCP quite likes
stoking hatred against Japan among the Chinese masses perhaps they hope to exploit it in some
near-future manufactured conflict.
@Random
Smartaleck "The "One China Policy" is a diplomatic sham designed to avoid bruising the
fragile egos of the two Chinas, and is insisted on by the PRC to aid in their Finlandization
& eventual absorption of Taiwan. "
It is insisted on by both sides. The quarrel between the ROC and the PRC is which one is
the legitimate government of China. The 92′ consensus only formalized this
understanding in a documented form.
This "One China Policy" has its root deep into the historic narrative of China when
successive dynasties replaced one after another and which dynasty should be recognized as the
legitimate successor dynasty to the former dynasty. If you read any Chinese history book at
the end of the book there is usually a cronological order of successive Chinese dynasties one
followed another in a linear fashion. But of course in reality very often it is not that
clean cut. Sometimes between transition several petty dynasties coexist each vying for the
legitimacy to get the mandate of heaven to rule the whole of China. This "One China Policy"
is just a modern manifestation of this kind of cultural understanding of the Chinese people
and has nothing to do with Communism, Nationalism or whateverism.
@Random
Smartaleck "These combined with the National Humiliation curriculum and various museums
show that the CCP quite likes stoking hatred against Japan among the Chinese masses perhaps
they hope to exploit it in some near-future manufactured conflict."
These kind of museums are fairly newly built, three decades old at most, many are even
newer and is a direct response to Japan historic revisism. If the CCP want to milk this kind
of anti-Japanese sentiment for its political purpose shouldn't they built this kind of museum
earlier? From what I understand the elaborate annual reenactment of the atomic bombing in
Nagasaki and Hiroshima begin the moment the US retreated from the administration of Japan in
1972. Now this is what I called the milking a victimhood sentiment for its political
purpose.
The largest tourist group to Japan from a foreign country is from mainland. If the CCP is
really stoking hatred to the Japanese then they really suck at it. What Japan did to China in
the last century don't need any stoking. History speaks for itself.
I would not debate Fred on any of the points he makes but I have a point of my own.After they
read Fred's article select any number of Chinese men and women at random and tell them they
are welcome to migrate to the US with no strings attached and at the same time select any
number of American men and women at random and tell them they will likewise be welcomed by
the Chinese. The proof should be in the pudding.
It followed the mercantilist model and built a balanced economy without importing
western consumer goods and financial services.
Agree somewhat. China did and does import a lot of western consumer goods. China is Germany's biggest
trading partner, and Germany has trade surplus with China. And China isn't even the world's largest trade surplus country . Germany is, followed by
Japan.
..
Germany poised to set world's largest trade surplus.
Germany is on track to record the world's largest trade surplus for a third consecutive year.
The country's $299 billion surplus is poised to attract criticism, however, both at home and
internationally. Germany is expected to set a €264 billion ($299 billion) trade surplus this year, far
more than its closest export rivals Japan and the Netherlands, according to research
published Monday by Munich-based economic research institute Ifo.
GM does well in China, selling more cars in China than it does in the US. (Personally I
think GM makes crappy cars. ) It is successful in China, because GM has been doing a
fantastic job of marketing its brand and American brands still enjoy prestige in China. And
Apple certainly wouldn't have become the first trillion dollar company without China's
market.
On a personal note, one of my relatives sells American medical devices to China and makes
decent money. It isn't easy though as competition is fierce. America is not the only country
that makes good medical devices. You have to compete with products from other countries.
With regard to the financial section, China has been extremely cautious of opening it up.
Can you blame China? Given how the Wall Street operates. China just didn't have expertise,
experience or regulations to handle a lot of these stuff. China has been preparing it,
though, and it is ready to reform the market.
Beijing pushes ahead with opening up its financial sector despite trade
tensions.
In "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" , the first sentence of the book is "
話說天下大勢，分久必合，合久必分.
It can be roughly translated as "Under the heaven the general trend is : what is long
divided, must unite; what is long united, must divide".
I believe in my lifetime China and Taiwan will unite again, and North Korea and South
Korea will become One Korea.
Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a 14th-century historical novel attributed to Luo
Guanzhong. It is set in the turbulent years towards the end of the Han dynasty and the
Three Kingdoms period in Chinese history
What is wrong with less 'inventiveness'? Do we really need a software update every 1 or 2
years? Just think, for example, how annoying the 'microsoft office ribbon' is for most of its
adult and serious users who would prefer good-old drop-down menus! Or do we really need to
change our clothes and phones every year and renew our furniture every decade because the
preferred style is changing? The vast majority of the world, especially those areas where
communitarian family models were the norm at some point in time, would embrace a little
stability over coping with each unnecessary 'invention'. For the Anglo-Saxon world, marked by
the 'absolute nuclear family', on the other hand, stability and predictability is a nightmare
and an assault on their precious individuality. Hence, the tension between the US-led bloc of
English-speaking nations and China-Russia-led Eurasia is no surprise, but rather the natural
outcome of the cultural fabric of each bloc. A world succumbing to the Chinese vision would
definitely be more dull, but more stable and foreseeable as well.
This has been an excellent article along with some excellent commentary. It's difficult to
get a clear picture of what's actually happening in China and every little bit helps. Two of
my kids went to Ivy League schools and when we were doing the drive to check them all out,
they were filled with Asians. The Chinese I deal with are very materialistic and appear to
base their importance on wealth and position. One poor Chinese kid I know who works as a
mechanic tells me Chinese girls won't even date him because of his status. Of course I live
in NY where most people are materialistic so it's hard to tell if that's a Chinese trait or
not. They do appear to be a very smart, hard driven people and there's a whole lot of them,
so there's a chance we start seeing them replace our present elite in the near future.
One poor Chinese kid I know who works as a mechanic tells me Chinese girls won't even
date him because of his status.
so it's hard to tell if that's a Chinese trait or not.
Yes that is a trait, Rich, and though somewhat prevalent in America too, the Chinese seem
to have no respect for guys that work with their hands. To me, that's shameful. They respect
the rich conniving businessman over the honest laborer.
I'd like to see one of the China-#1 commenters on here, or even Fred Reed*, argue with me
on that one. The British-descended especially, but all of white American culture has a
respect for honesty. That is absolutely NOT the case with the Chinese, whether living in
China or right here. See Peak Stupidity on DIY's in China vs.
America – Here is Part 1 .
* You're not gonna gain this kind of knowledge in a couple of weeks and without hanging
with Chinese people, though.
Socially China has a great advantage over America in that, except for the Muslims of
Xinjiang, it is pretty much a Han monoculture. Lacking America's racial diversity, its
cities do not burn, no pressure exists to infantilize the schools for the benefit of
incompetent minorities, racial mobs do not loot stores, and there is very little street
crime.
America's huge urban pockets of illiteracy do not exist. There is not the virulent
political division that has gangs of uncontrolled Antifa hoodlums stalking public
officials. China takes education seriously, as America does not. Students study, behave as
maturely as their age would suggest, and do not engage in middle-school politics.
Agreed. China is not burdened by the abomination of cultural and racial strife. The United
States has lost trillions of dollars due to racial and cultural differences.
@DB Cooper I'm
not picking on, or arguing at all with, you in particular, Mr. Cooper, but let me chime in
about this whole Mainland China vs. Taiwan thing. The first thing to remember is, excepting
the original Taiwanese people who've been invaded left and right, these people are ALL
CHINESE. They will eventually get back together, as the Germans have, and (I'm in agreement
with another guy on this thread) the Koreans will.
Even the Chinese widow of Claire Chenault, the leader of the great American AVG Flying
Tigers who supported the Nationalist Chiang Kai-Shek, had worked for years enabling business
between Taiwan and the mainland. There is so much business between the 2 that any kind of war
would seriously impede, and right now, the business of China is business (where have I heard
that before?)
Another thing I can say about it is that it's sure none of America's business, at this
point. The Cold War ended almost 3 decades ago. We are beyond broke, and it does us nothing
but harm in thinking we must "defend" an island of Chinamen against a continent of Chinamen.
Let the Republic Of China and the People's Republic Of China save faces in whatever asinine
ways they see fit to. It's not a damn bit of America's business.
After they read Fred's article select any number of Chinese men and women at random and
tell them they are welcome to migrate to the US with no strings attached and at the same
time select any number of American men and women at random and tell them they will likewise
be welcomed by the Chinese. The proof should be in the pudding.
American propaganda plays a big part here. Plus more Chinese speak English than Americans
speak Mandarin.
What I mean is, you may not have looked at it in a while, but the last bunch of times I've
seen the "History Channel", it was all about one set of guys trying to sell their old crap to
another bunch of guys, and the drama that apparently goes with that the Pawn Stars .
Where history comes in, I have no earthly idea. I'd much rather be watching the Nazi Channel
over this latest iteration of that network. Better yet, though, I don't watch TV.
* I think from the Chongching vs. Chongqing thing (you were right, of course). I hope I am
remembering correctly.
@Simply Simon I
recently did a graduate degree at MIT, where there are a ton of Chinese students. They seem
to be proud of China's progress, but as far as I can tell, almost all of them want to remain
in the U.S.
@Realist
abomination of racial and cultural strife! Incredible! why is such diversity an abomination
and not an advantage?
Because America ripped off all the people who are in strife' currently..and never
addressed what such exploitation did to them socially ..making what could be an advantage a
so-called 'abomination'
if some of the trillions had been spent on the needs of the American people by building
essential physical and social infrastructure to meet popular need, then there would be no
strife, people would have opportunity and structures to do their business..there would be no
social loss and diversity would not be the problem that it is
the American system uses up people and discards them to the wayside when immediate
exploitation needs are met. but we all know this making that comment inaccurate, nonsense
really.
and again the 'strife has been going on so long that the elites should know it inside out
and be able to address it positively. that they have not means that they do not care about
the people period. they are prepared to let the strife go on and exploit that for profit and
social control too
@MIT Handle It's
the proof of the pudding. No matter how progressive China is the students value America's
freedom of speech, movement, and religious liberty to name a few of the things we cherish.
It just needs to cut military spending to 20-30% of its current crazy unsustainable
levels and invest some of the saved resources into science,
An idealist, and way off the mark. Empire's number one goal isn't a scientific one, but
rather a financial one. The entire purpose of the U.S. military is to secure, and shore up
Wall Street(White/Jewish) capitol on a global scale. Smedley Butler wrote about this very
fact in the 1930's, and it still remains just as true. The Cold War/Vietnam war wasn't fought
to battle a weak, retarded economic system such as communism, but rather to shore up
financial dominance – for the same reason the U.S. military is fixated on oil fields,
pipelines and other resources – Money!
Financial weapons(sanctions) can kill way more people than bombs, and(loan sharking-IMF World
Bank) can conquer more territory than armies(Central, South America, Africa, Greece, etc
)
And the goal is not to just remain the the financial dominant system, but more importantly,
to destroy any potential competition – this is what is putting Russia, China,
and the Eurasian economic system in Washington's cross hairs.
The U.S. military strategists have mentioned on many occasions that they are not afraid of
a larger military, but rather they are deathly afraid of a larger economy. If scientists are
needed for stated goals then so be it, but they are not the crucial factor.
@MBlanc46 Why
would China need US investment? They get massive investment from Singapore other wealthy
Asian countries.
There is massive remissions from Chinese in Canada, UK and Australia. China has the money to invest extensively in Africa. Recently the Philippines went to China for investment instead of the United States. The rest of the world has pretty much written the US as declining irrelevant former
Superpower in economic terms. It still has military power as Fred noted but you cannot take
over foreign economies with a military.
You say all that but Fuji Chinese took over the economies of Philippines (A US ally no
less), Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam (Less so because the Vietnamese hate the
Chinese).
If the Koreans or Japanese did not hate the Chinese so much, they would probably take over
their economies as well.
The real Chinese power is not IN China. It is with Fuji Chinese merchants in Southeast
Asia.
Petty greed? And this is not rampant in Israel, US, Russia, Latin America .
@Jason Liu The
most anti-China people I've ever spent time with were the incredibly successful Chinese
diaspora in SE Asia. I found their contempt shocking. Chinese people were made the butt of
their jokes even on seemingly random topics. Your post offers an explanation.
I'm much more positive about your (?) country. I really liked it. But it does give me
pause for thought whenever familiarity breeds contempt.
My own little annoyance came recently. I had reason to download WeChat. It was the easiest
way to coordinate some business. When I later tried to delete my account, I found I could
not. After searching for an answer, I read that I had to email the company and was certainly
not guaranteed a response nor any action. That put the first line of their marketing about
"300 million" users into perspective.
Another anecdotal thing I've noticed. There used to be lots of Chinese restaurants in
London and very few Japanese, Korean, Thai and Vietnamese. There are now more of all of the
latter near me, and the Chinese restaurants are generally very low quality holdouts, probably
surviving by holding long cheap leases. People really like the other cultures, especially
Korea and Japan, not so much the Chinese – a strange fact given the history of East
Asia.
More relevant comparisons might be South Korea and Taiwan
Neither comparisons are exactly relevant. These two countries are tiny compared to
China. But more importantly, America took both of them entirely under its wings, due to
specific geopolitical conditions. Without the Korean and Vietnam wars, China-US thaw might have happened earlier, who
knows. Godfree isn't wrong when he points out that China was under complete embargo. It's not
like they had much of a choice other than central planning.
@Jason Liu
Brilliant, Jason! Now, what does he have to fear from giving the Uigurs and Tibetans the
right of self-determination instead of following the Israeli model and sending swarms of Han
in?
And why the threat of war over every square inch along the Indian border, where the people
are definitely not Han?
Why this greedy insanity, when if the idiot could learn the meaning of reconciliation
China would zoom ahead at record speed! Is he a Jew in disguise?
@Tyrion 2I
worked for Chinese-Filipinos and this is really 100% true.
The ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia are the most heartless capitalists on earth.
China has a government that can do things: In 2008 an 8.0 quake devastated the region
near the Tibetan border, killing, according to the Chinese government, some 100,000 people.
Buildings put up long before simply collapsed
Well what the Chinese government could not do is prevent the corruption that
allowed many of these collapsed buildings to be constructed from poor materials and without
regard for earthquake-related building codes.
That an overall mediocre country like China can be held up as a paragon of efficiency and
achievement to an American audience only speaks to the desperate rot afflicting America
itself. China has not managed to produce any internationally competitive products of any
complexity such as cars or airplanes; and to the extent it is beginning to succeed, this is
due to foreign investment and theft of IP. Meanwhile, South Korea has shown the world how
it's done properly.
In terms of economic systems, the Chinese are clearly superior. China runs a large
economic surplus
Up to now on the backs of poorly paid/overworked peasants. Shot a big hole in your article
right away. Damn and I don't get paid for this?!? (Grin)
PS. Intelectual theft of mostly Western knowledge. Snap! Second hole shot.
I need to get an agent, I'm soooo good I should be in charge of Face the Nation. (Smile) But
I would keep the lovley Margaret Brennan as the host. (Grin)
1. China's one-child policy did not come about as a sort of attempt at eugenics. It came
about because the previous six-child policy ("strength through numbers") was a colossal
failure, and the resulting poverty nearly tore the communist state apart at the seems. So
often governments insist on rapidly growing the population, and then when they get their
wish, they realize that a massive number of hungry and angry people leads not to strength but
to weakness. Just look at what happened when the Syrian government tried that
2. China peaceful? Not hardly. China is peaceful now because most people are doing OK.
Back when population was pushing at the limits – during Mao's early phase, and before
– when people were chronically malnourished and living in mud – no, the Chinese
people were not peaceful.
3. Again, numbers do not always translate into strength. India looks to surpass China in
total population, and they will be lucky just to avoid collapse.
4. Another thought: China is essentially ethnically pure Han Chinese. This might make
revolts possible, as the people find it easy to band together. Not so in India, which is a
massive pastiche of 100′s of different racial and ethnic groups – which are too
busy competing with each other to band together. There is an old saying that the worst
poverty that a people will accept before revolting, is exactly what they will end up with.
Could part of China's strength be the fear of the elites that, if the people are crushed too
much, that things could fall apart?
Regarding economic and scientific advancements with which no one at the time could
effectively compete, China sounds a bit like Germany prior to England, Russia and the United
States combining economic and military resources to destroy it.
@Realist That
isn't true. There are thousands of us now in Asia.
White males are everywhere in Asia doing every kind of business. I've been here for years.
Can some ethnic Han Chinese in the know give us the scoop on this:
Are Han Chinese merchants, bankers getting back on top in places like Vietnam,
Indonesia? There were huge anti Chinese riots in Indonesia in the 1960s and Han Chinese Merchants
were singled out for ethnic cleansing by victorious Vietnamese Communists in ~ 1975 –
the first Vietnamese boat people were Han Chinese merchants.
My take is that the Han Chinese in China and elsewhere in Asia are a lot like Japanese
nationalist in the 1930s and Jewish merchants/bankers forever.
In all of this Chinese sphere of influence ares of Asia I think 2018 USA has pretty much
nothing to offer except maybe playing balance of power to contain China and yes, have
military alliances with all the countries in Asia that are not mainland China – I'm
sure the Vietnamese want us back to militarize the Vietnam/China border – and we're
good at that sort of thing, but we absolutely can not and will not control, protect our own
Southern border.
Nov 28, 2018 Belt & Road Billionaire in Massive Bribery Scandal
The bribery trial of Dr. Patrick Ho, a pitchman for a Chinese energy company, lifts the
lid on how the Chinese regime relies on graft to cut Belt and Road deals in its global push
for economic and geopolitical dominance.
@nickels When was
the last time Western Christianity demonstrated any moral conduct toward other nations? Was
it England and the US fire-bombing German cities filled with civilians, followed by dropping
two nuclear bombs on a defeated nation?
as the US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to
batter the planet into submission via tarifffs, sanctions, embargos, and so on.
"and so on" ? Why not just be honest Fredo? Without tariffs, the lot of the American working class would eventually fall to the level
of the rest of the Third World's teeming billions of near-starving wretches. As the one
percent continued to move all its manufacturing to the slave labor wage rates of China and
Mexico, et al.
By imposing tariffs on the products that the internationalist scumfucks build in China and
elsewhere, it tends to encourage the production of these things domestically, thereby
protecting the ever falling wages of the reviled American working class. Also China engages
in policies that are specifically intended to bolster China, like protectionist economics.
Whereas the ZUS does the opposite, its elite favoring policies that specifically fuck over
the despised American citizen in favor of anyone else.
So Trump's tariffs are one of the few things he's actually doing right. At least if you're
not one of those internationalist scumfucks who despise all things working class
American.
As for
"US tries to garrison the world. Always favoring coercion, Washington now tries to batter
the planet into submission sanctions, embargos,"
That is all being done on behalf of the Zionist fiend who owns our central bank. Duh.
What would be good, is for the ZUS to tell the Zionists to fuck off –
- returned to being the USA (by ending the Fed), and imposed massive tariffs on any
industry that off-shored its manufacturing. Hell, any industry that threatens the well-being
of our domestic industries. That pay domestic taxes and employ Americans.
This is the kind of thing China does, and if though some miracle our treasonous government
scoundrels were all to get hanged by lampposts on the glorious Day of the Rope, perhaps then
we'd do the same.
A wise dictator is great for the country, but Xi is not wise. He is a stubborn old man
stuck in the past who is clearly not listening to advisers. He has overplayed his hand,
confronted the US 10~20 years too early, *
When was the last time China sent gunboats or spy planes to murikka's doorstep ?
[hint] fukus have been doing that since the day of Opium war.]
Who started the trade war anyway ?
*damaged China's image out of some paranoid fear of Uyghurs,*
Tell that to the victims of CIA sponsored Uighurs head choppers
[1]
*and absolutely failed at making friends with our East Asian neighbors, instead driving
them further into the arms of the Americans.*
[sic]
I've posted many times here and MOA, a tally of all panda huggers PM/prez in EA,
SA, SEA .,who were ousted/liquidated by fukus shenanigans. [2]
True to form, fukus turned around to accuse China .of ' driving all its friends into
the arm of the murikkans'
fukus have many sins.
but their vilest depravity must surely be . Robbery crying out robbery.
There's this sanctimonious journo from BBC , who 'boldly' confront a Chinese diplomat,
' Do you realise your assertive/aggressive policies are driving all your friends away/
/ .'
what a prick !
[1]
Ron frowns on image posting,
but very often a picture is worth a thousand words.!
P.S.
YOUR critique might be very PC and earns you hundreds of up votes, but its all a load of
bull.
Trouble is, the mushroom club members have been kept in the dark and fed bullshit so long,
bull is exactly what they enjoy most. hehehheh
@Achmed E. Newman
So Mao's Cultural Revolution to elevate the status of workers and peasants didn't have any
lasting effect?
I seem to remember from Historian David Hackett Fisher how in the British American
colonies craftsmen who work with their hands such as tinsmith/silversmith Paul Revere were
highly regarded and enjoyed status due to recognition of the value of their work to society,
with honest skilled workers enjoying status as a calling equal to religious and government
leaders.
I also remember from somewhere the idea that countries with thriving middle classes were
countries that acknowledged and valued the work of blue collar and even unskilled labor,
while those that don't value the work of the "lower classes" are the ones stuck with a rich
elite, and poverty for the masses.
@Durruti Nah,
humor doesn't come across too well, or you missed my "dictator" signature – your
language, if you will recall. That's where the "or else" came from. You do need to calm down,
as we are pretty much on the same side here.
Don't mind the Commies on here – it was much worse under the previous 2 Fred Reed
posts on China.
OK, pre-emptive apologies here for any more wrong interpretations
Great comments. I can only add (1) Here in Calif the Chinese-Americans I know all seem to
love vegetables, and are lean. I wish I could be more like that. New Year's Resolution. (2)
Harvard downgrades Asian-American applicants because of the "personality" factor of being
decent. I think our culture is in trouble if we are penalizing students for being polite,
genial, decent.
Answer: To replace WW 2, which was the best thing that ever happened to the US economy,
allowing it to recover from an economic depression that would have otherwise been permanent.
The US started the Cold War like they started all other wars in which they've been engaged,
including the current war on terror.
@Random
Smartaleck As I understand it the ROC and the PRC share the view that the South China Sea
islands are Chinese even though they don't entirely agree how to define China.
So Mao's Cultural Revolution to elevate the status of workers and peasants didn't
have any lasting effect?
Noooooo it didn't. [/George Castanza mode]
Actually, wait, it didn't have ANY effect to elevate ANYONE, besides those elevated onto
the stage to get pig blood poured on them sort of a poor man's Carrie scene.
Anyway, Mark, whatever you remember from your David Hackett Fischer (sorry that I'm not
familiar) along with your last paragraph sound like pretty good explanations. Though China
has a pretty large middle class now, it's NOT your father's middle class. I don't know if it
could ever be a very trusting society, no matter how much money the median Chinafamily
has.
If you read Mein Kampf, you'll find that Adolph Hitler held similar views regarding German
citizenship, with the first requirement being that you must be of German blood, followed by
meeting various physical, civic and educational requirements prior to anyone becoming a
citizen of Germany, including those born in Germany. The idea that there could be any such
thing as a Black German struck him as preposterous.
(2) Harvard downgrades Asian-American applicants because of the "personality" factor
of being decent. I think our culture is in trouble if we are penalizing students for being
polite, genial, decent.
If you don't already, SafeNow, you should read the archives (or current writings) of Mr.
Steve Sailer, right here on this very site. He has been all over this stuff for years –
I think that the college admissions/high-school quality/graduation rates/etc by race, IQ etc.
is close to an obsession for him, but the posts are usually pretty interesting.
As to this specific point of yours, my answer is that this is the way Harvard keeps the
black/hispanic/other special people's numbers up where they want them along with Oriental
numbers down where they want them. That personality thing is just a way of putting "vibrant"
young people ahead. I don't like vibrancy a whole lot myself, unless there are kegs of beer
involved and only on the weekends. That is a problem for some of the Oriental young people,
as they can't drink as much as they would like – I'm not sure if it's allergies or
not.
BTW, I'd be remiss in not letting you know that the blog owner himself, Mr. Unz, is
involved in a lawsuit about Harvard admissions and has also written a whole lot about
this.
Oh, on your (1), agreed about the tons of vegetables, but they do not consider anything
without rice a meal. Rice can be OK, but when you eat lots of the white rice, with its very
high Glycemic Loading, you can balloon up fast. Not as many of the Oriental girls I see in
America and China are as slim as the way it used to be.
The sheer amount of shadow debt outstanding is huge. 250 to 300% of GDP by some
estimates.
The amount of shadow debt is probably exaggerated: all that extra cash would either
increase China's inflation rate or else greatly boost the import of goods. The Chinese
inflation rate is reasonable, as is the quantity of imports (nowhere near GDP).
As Digital Samizdat said, China's debt is mostly internal; the country's development was
largely due to her own efforts.
@Godfree Roberts
You continue to use bad statistics. World Bank specialists know more than you do. Ordinary
Chinese know that their living standards lagged terribly under Chairman Mao. The most
important changes came after he died.
Deng Xiaoping traveled to Southeast Asia in November 1978. Rather than telling the
Southeast Asians about China's "incredible advances," he sought to learn from Singapore's
progress and listened intently to Lee Kuan Yew, who told Deng that China must re-open
international trade, move toward privatization, and respect market forces. Farmers were given
greater choice in planting crops and, after meeting production quotas, were allowed to sell
surplus produce on the free market. Starvation deaths declined. Widespread privatization
began in the 1990s. China eventually acceded to the World Trade Organization. Economic growth
took off as economic freedom increased from less than 4 to more than 6 on a 10-point scale.
(Hong Kong and Singapore are close to 9 on this scale, and the US is about 8.) Human capital,
which China has in abundance (more so than the US) is more than important than economic
freedom, once a minimum of economic freedom (at least 6 on a 10-point scale) is attained, but
economic freedom below 4 (as in pre-1979 China or today's Venezuela or North Korea) does not
lead to much improvement in living standards.
@Simply Simon
China is still a developing country: the average per capita income is lower than Mexico's
level. (China is growing faster than Mexico, of course.) However, because China has so many people, the country as a whole can do great things.
tar all whiteys as white trash supremacists, even tho there's an army out there.
what is that? another gratuitous smear? Here's a clue: Not wanting to see your nation- whether it be Chinese or Palestinian or
German – flooded and overcome by foreigners- does not make you a Chinese or Palestinian
or German "supremacist". K? It simply means that you are sane and of sound mind and
psychological health. Only the insane would agitate to fund an army of foreign invaders to
overcome your nation and people. That, or having an ((elite)) that resents, envies and
despises your people, and desires to see them replaced and bred out and overcome.
Being an American, we're acutely aware of the loss suffered by the Amerindian tribes when
whitey overcame them.
But somehow I can't imagine anyone telling an Apache that his desire to preserve the lands
they had conquered – as distinctly Apache lands, suggested that he was a vile and
reprobate "Apache supremacist". I can only imagine the look on Geronimo's face if some SJW
type of the day, were to scold him as an 'Apache supremacist!' for not laying down and
accepting his tribe's marginalization and replacement.
But in the insane world we live in, Germans and N. Americans and others, are all expected
to want to be overcome, or it can only mean that they must be terrible "white trash
supremacists".
It's so laughably deranged that it's literally, clinically insane, but you still hear such
raving nevertheless.
@neutral It's all
relative. Our freedom of speech , movement and religious liberty has been degraded but
obviously not to the degree the MIT students would prefer to return to China.
So you have a better plan than President Xi ? That's pretty fucking funny especially as your plan sounds like the talking points coming
out of some neocon stinktank
The world is moving on your dinosaur thinking where the irrelevant west is still the
reference point doesn't exist anymore except in the fervid imaginations of American
exceptionalists
Basically everything you said is bullshit China's diplomacy is light years ahead of the
west the country is in fact presenting all kinds of benevolence to neighbors, with mutually
beneficial development pulled along by the Chinese locomotive
Even Japan, a country in denial about its massive crimes of the past, is coming around to
the inevitable conclusion that it must live in CHINA'S neighborhood India joined the SCO last
year look up the SCO btw and think about which will be more relevant 10 or 20 years from now
this org or dying bullshit like Nato and the G7
As for supposedly 'challenging' the US that's pretty funny what's to challenge US doesn't
have a pot to piss in
US doesn't even have an industrial base anymore with which to produce weapons in case of a
real war with an actual enemy that doesn't wear sandals look up the Pentagon's 'Annual
Industrial Capabilities' report even the MIC's stuff comes from China, somewhere down the
supply chain that's fucking hilarious
US is is well on its way to finding out the hard way a financialized Ponzi economy that
has figured out how to de-industrialize a previously industrial country for untold riches for
a handful of parasites and actually being a strong and healthy country with actual
capabilities to PRODUCE REAL STUFF are two mutually exclusive goals
Look at the so-called 'trade war' most Americans don't even realize that tariffs on
Chinese goods only means that they will be paying an extra tax Chinese are laughing at this
'trade war' what happens to Walmart and Amazon if China just stops exporting stuff to the US
they can do that you know it will hit some Chinese billionaires but so what 70 percent of the
economy is in government hands and there is enough of a consumer base in China that even
eliminating all US exports is not going to do much damage
In the meantime GM is shutting down factories and cutting 15,000 high paying jobs but
setting up shop in China along with Harley and others LOL
You're obviously some brainwashed Chang Kai-shek acolyte keep on living in your make
believe disneyworld while a socialist and dynamic China grows tall all around you LOL
No amount of tariff will force China to go along with Trump's "fair trade" plan until Trump
does what his brilliant senior advisor Stephen Miller wants him to do -- stop issuing student
visas, plus EB5, H1b, OPT and green cards to Chinese nationals, step up raids of Chinese
birth hotels in CA, NY, WA, and rescind all passports issued to Chinese birth tourist babies.
That will send tens of thousands of Chinese citizens out on the streets protesting as they
are all eager to get the hell out with their ill gotten gains while they still can, and Xi
will bend over backwards in no time.
@FB I think your
diatribe just proved Jason Liu's point about mainland Chinese being thin skin, arrogant and,
I will also add, extremely dishonest and ill-mannered. It's why most people in Southeast Asia, Oz and NZ, including the Chinese diaspora, despise
the mainland Chinese.
@Anon Machine
tools make up a fair percentage of what China imports from Germany. Tools to make tools and
patterns for manufacturing should be considered an investment.
@FB FB gets it.
All the bluster of the disingenuous American billionaire sellouts and their xenophobic,
gullible domestic fanbase will amount to nothing.
Apart from nuking China or bribing their leaders (a la Yeltsin) to follow the Washington
Consensus, China will continue its economic development. And unlike dissolution era Soviet
Union, China isn't broken and desperate to seek the "knowledge" of neoclassical economists.
Unlike Plaza Accord Tokyo, China isn't under American occupation, and unlike Pinochet era
Chile and countless other minnows, the US establishment cannot hope to overthrow the Chinese
government.
Then we get the Anon dude who replied to FB. Way to ignore history and empirical evidence
and bolster yet another dimbulb argument with racism.
Jason Liu is a retard. You resorting to typical racism is acceptable to a number of this
site's resident know-nothings, but resorting to racism to bolster your non-argument is pretty
much the definition of stupidity.
Democracy fails simply because it is basically mob rule, and 51% of the mob isn't anymore
intelligent than the minor 49%. When the Supreme Court passed Citizens United (a misnomer)
which misinterpreted money as speech, the coup, that began with the assassination of JFK, was
complete. The effect has been devastating for the average Joe; completing the transfer of
power from the people to the corporations and the billionaire class, i.e. the bGanksters.
There's much to be said of a dictatorship, but where do we fit in with the selection, and
would the elite ever allow a new JFK? No, they wouldn't even tolerate a new Muammar Gaddafi.
So were stuck with the revolving door wannabes.
No western country allowed itself to be destroyed by its leadership as China did. This
includes Nazi Germany (and I do not consider USSR a western country).
Watch this video and reflect on the fatal flaw in Chinese culture and character.
@anonymous The
ethnic Chinese of Southeast Asia who control the economies of those places are Fuji Chinese,
not Han.
Fuji Chinese actually immigrated to Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia to escape Han
persecution and the Han themselves were escaping the Manchu Chinese by migrating South into
the Fuji Province.
Virtually all the ethnic Chinese of Southeast Asia are from the Fujian Province. This is especially true of the Philippines. Virtually all Chinese-Filipinos are from Amoy
very near to Taiwan on the coast of the Fujian Province.
@someone But he
didn't resort to racism. And if anyone deserves the insulting "retard" it is you and FB for
not seeming to see the lack of relevance to what he said in your purported responses to Jason
Liu.
@Carroll Price
Hitler wrote that in jail before he was taking orders from psychics and astrologers. The
syphilis had not really set in yet at that point.
Black US GI's wreaked a fair amount of havoc in Germany on and off the bases. There were
always rapes, stolen cars, assaults around US army bases.
Of course so did some white American GI's. Dahmer is suspected-though he did not admit
it-of having killed people around the base where he was stationed. Ironically the country most adhering to this policy these days is Israel.
What is it with people whose grasp of Chinese history is limited to the Cultural Revolution?
Why do they comment here, and why are they somehow ignorant of the previous.. say 130 years
of Chinese history? Maybe, just maybe, Chinese society would not have collapsed if it weren't
for Opium traders destroying both China and India under the guise of free trade, de facto
colonization, then outright genocidal invasion and occupation from the Japanese military
regime?
And way to bag on any sort of collective action against the ossified rentier class. Cause
Marx/Engels/Lenin/Mao is a scourge of present-day societies for some reason?
The Cultural Revolution sure has an analogue in the US and its vassal states. The whole
neoliberal/militarist Reagan revolution and similar class war developments have wracked the
US and its minion states for FORTY YEARS. Yet few people seem to be aware of it. And others
correctly note the decline in living standards, then proceed to ignore the oligarchy
beneficiaries of neoliberalism/militarism, and instead are led to demagogues to blame
irrelevant scapegoats.
@FB If you
believe this arrogant rant counts as a responsive reply to Jason Liu then, assuredly you are
the candidate retard. And that is true notwithstanding the presence of intemperately stated
truths in your rant.
@denk And you are
a typical non-American who is obsessed with a country you have never been to because you have
been watching US films your entire life and your perception of reality is formed by
screenwriters in Los Angeles.
You secretly would like to go to the United States but have a distorted perception based
upon second-rate Hollywood films.
Typical of the Chinese Singaporean you are not Chinese and possibly have never been to
China. Your family has been in Singapore for three or four generations.
As a result you see white Americans and are secretly enthralled by them. Their towering
height and self-confidence and loud voices in Orchard Road STARBUCKS.
@Jeff Stryker
Jeff, your history sucks, your political economy sucks.
Filipino Chinese are Fujian, not Fuji–Not written nor pronounced like the Japanese
mountain or film.
Fujianese are Han. Their dialect is distinct, but they are as Han as the other southern
subgroups like the Hakka (who also compose a part of Sino-Filipinos) and Cantonese. Places
like Thailand and Malaysia have large numbers of Teochow and Cantonese, not Fujis or Fujians
or any other of your malapropisms.
What is it with your dipsh!t obsession with (incorrect) demographics and your piss poor
knowledge of EVERYTHING ELSE?
@Carroll Price
Yes, the comparison of late 19th century Germany and China today has been made quite often
with at least some plausibility for non specialist readers. Happily Miranda Carter's
marvellous New Yorker article doesn't seem to have relevance to China's leadership today. See
"What happens when a bad tempered distractible doofus runs an empire".
@Realist I've
already said that no person not born in China can be a citizen.
The only Caucasians who are Chinese citizens are the descendants of Portuguese settlers in
Macau of which there is still a small community.
Philippines in particular would take a huge economic hit if every Western man living there
left. Other Asian countries would feel a similar affect to their economies.
Locals PREFER to work for Western men rather than the Chinese ethnics because Chinese
ethnics treat Malay employees like farm animals and pay a pittance.
I did not mention Thailand because the Chinese-Thai (I'm married to one and we have two
children) are no longer a distinct group and don't have the economy in a stranglehold like
they do in Philippines or Malaysia.
Cantonese have never been the businessmen that Fujian Chinese are in Southeast Asia and
live in piss-poor Chinatowns in Manila or Jakarta.
When we talk about ethnic Chinese economic dominance in Southeast Asia we are talking
about Fujian Chinese shopkeepers.
[You have been repeatedly warned that you leave far too many rambling, vacuous comments,
especially since so many of them demonstrate your total ignorance. Fewer and fewer of your
comments will be published until you improve your commenting-behavior or better yet
permanently depart for another website]
ATTENTION ALL CHINESE POSTERS (OR ETHNIC CHINESE WHO FANCY THEMSELVES AS SUCH)
You may be offended by my views but I have earned them. I've worked with ethnic Chinese in
Asia a long time.
I'm married to one. I have two children with one. They go to Chinese schools.
So I have a right to my cynical opinions.
Most of you see a bunch of loud American tourists in some local Starbucks and you think
you know everything about the West.
You know very little.
I at least have lived in squalor with ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia in the trenches
doing business with them.
Well what the Chinese government could not do is prevent the corruption that allowed
many of these collapsed buildings to be constructed from poor materials and without regard
for earthquake-related building codes.
That an overall mediocre country like China can be held up as a paragon of efficiency
and achievement to an American audience only speaks to the desperate rot afflicting America
itself. China has not managed to produce any internationally competitive products of any
complexity such as cars or airplanes; and to the extent it is beginning to succeed, this is
due to foreign investment and theft of IP. Meanwhile, South Korea has shown the world how
it's done properly.
Those buildings were built in a different era, when China was much poorer. When China gets
richer, the regulations will be strengthened and more effectively enforced. It's the same for
every country.
East Asian countries develop in stages. Today's China is like South Korea 20 years ago. 20
years ago, South Korea was like Japan 40 years ago. The difference is that while Japan and
South Korea can obtain Western technologies without problem, China has been under Western
military embargo since 1989.
You probably did not realize it, but China has burst onto the scene of some cutting edge
technologies such as super computer, the application of quantum physics, and space
technologies including China's own GPS system; not to mention dominating in ship-building,
the manufacturing of solar panel, LCD panel and LED light, cell phone including 5G
technology, electric vehicles and highspeed rail etc etc.
@someone Dude
you're never going to convince the koolaid gulping Unz whackadoodles with actual historical
knowledge and facts
They're Pavlovian reactions is to defend the rentier class that is driving them into the
ground talk about irrational and self-destructive they must love and worship the 0.01 percent
since they are voting for their good which in fact entails the death of the middle class and
ordinary folks by definition
What clowns they only spout what they have been spoonfed to spout marching blindly like
the proverbial lemmings off the cliff believe me, better men have tried to talk sense into
these morons, without effect see PCR
PS notice the flurry of anon retards here and they actually think I'm Chinese LOL
@Simply Simon
Most MIT graduates want to stay in the U.S. because it's a much richer country than China and
much easier to get ahead materialistically. After working 10-15 years in the U.S., you can
easily get a 4-bed room house with 2 nice cars in its garages in a decent neighborhood. What
can you get in China? You probably can only afford an apartment with a semi-decent car with
nowhere to park. It has little to do with free speech or politics.
@Anon You worship
at the altar of that incompetent demagogue Steven Miller. Not only are you a dimbulb racist,
you can't see through the thinnest veneer of an oligarch who harnesses the latent xenophobia
of the masses to ram through yet more regressive policies. His dipsh!t eugenicist immigration
policies are just a reflection of the same color/ethnicity bar which led to the deaths of his
relatives several generations ago.
You think banning individuals of a certain ethnicity are enough to make America Great
Again? That's gullible, even for this site.
Should have followed eugenics and banned your idiot fetus from ever hatching.
@someone Actually
I have to wonder if even the standard narrative about the 'terrible' cultural revolution has
anything to do with reality
I would love to see a Godfree Roberts essay on this subject, since I am far from anything
approaching a China scholar his essays on Mao were absolutely tremendous there can be no
doubt that there could have been no modern Chinese economic miracle had it not been for Mao's
Great Leap Forward
I did not mention Thailand because the Chinese-Thai are no longer a distinct group and
don't have the economy in a stranglehold like they do in Philippines or Malaysia.
According to Amy Chua in her book World on Fire , the Chinese make up 12% of
Thailand's population and they do still by and large control Thailand's economy, it's just
that it's very hard to tell them apart from native Thais because they've changed their names
to local Thai names, but those in the know can still tell because Chinese Thai last names
tend to be very long.
@FB I like
Godfree. He is a contrarian and certainly not afraid of voicing his opinions. He offers some
unique perspective on looking at China and this is very refreshing because I can say most of
the things the MSM on China is just nonsense and Godfree got some but not all of them right,
in my opinion.
As to Mao's Great Leap Forward, or Cultural Revolution for that matter, let's look at it
this way. If you pay attention to China's pundits talking about China in Chinese TV today you
get the impression that the Chinese government is very proud of what it has accomplished in
the last forty years. And it should be. Lifting hundreds of millions of people out of abject
poverty and transforming China to today's situation like what Fred described in such a short
span is no easy feat. These Chinese pundits always talk about 'Reform and Opening Up' all the
time. This is the phrase they used most often. But 'Reform and Opening Up' refers to the
policy Deng implemented when he took over. I have yet to see anybody praising the Great Leap
Forward and Cultural Revolution in Chinese TV. To the extent that it was brought up on very
rare occasion, it was brought up in passing but never elaborated. It is as if the history of
Communist China started in 1979 instead of 1949. May be it has some dirty laundry it doesn't
want to air? The CCP has officially declared Mao's legacy as 70% good and 30% bad. What's
that 30% bad about?
I am convinced that the standard narrative about the 'terrible' cultural revolution is
close to reality. utu posted a video on China's Great Leap Forward on this thread. Do you
think the video is CGI graphics?
@Anonymous Amy
Chau got a good many things about her own Chinese-Filipino people wrong, I place little stock
in what she says about Thailand. Or even about the Philippines.
She is only relevant for touting herself as Chinese when her family has been in the
Philippines for generations-that reflects how at odds Chinese-Filipinos are with the
predominant population and also why the Indonesians and Malaysians have carried out savage
pogroms from time to time.
Worse in the Philippines is Chinese-Filipino involvement in meth. They make it and
distribute it and import it from China. The drug war in Philippines is entirely the result of
Chinese. And Tiger Mom is unlikely to bring that up in her wildly self-congratulatory books
which also focus on German Jews because she is married to one.
Chinese do not control the Thai economy to anywhere near the extent that they control the
economy of the Philippines or other countries. Thailand has actively forced the Chinese to
assimilate to a degree and at any rate they are probably the most clever of the Southeast
Asians.
Chinese immigrants also fair best in countries broken up by colonialism like Philippines
by Spain or Malaysia by Brits where they can slide in during post-colonial confusion.
*And why the threat of war over every square inch along the Indian border, where the
people are definitely not Han?*
Pleeeeze,
Show me ONE instance of China threatening war on India.
*In the NEFA, China seemed tacitly to have accepted the Indian claim and the fact of
indian occupation, even though this meant the loss of a very large and valuable territory
populated by Mongoloid people and which in the past had clearly belonged to Tibet. It had
come into Indian hands only as a result of British expansionism during China's period of
historical weakness, a fact firmly suggested by the very name of the frontier Beijing had
tacitly accepted as the line of control -- the McMahon Line. *
A man President Donald Trump named as a member of his foreign policy team
during the 2016 campaign began his two-week sentence on Monday for lying to the FBI about his
Russian contacts.
George Papadopoulos, the first Trump campaign aide sentenced as a result of special counsel
Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling, was ordered to report to the
Federal Bureau of Prisons after his lawyers' last-ditch motions to delay his sentence were
denied.
Papadopoulos arrived Monday at a minimum-security camp in Oxford, Wisconsin, the BOP
confirmed to USA TODAY. There are currently 153 inmates at the camp, according to the agency's website .
U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss
issued a 13-page ruling Sunday rejecting two motions filed by Papadopoulos' attorneys. Moss
said Papadopoulos' time to file an appeal expired on Sept. 25 and that his hopes of having his
plea deal voided by a case challenging Mueller's appointment were without merit.
The case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit argues that
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did not have the constitutional authority to appoint
Mueller after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from matters dealing with the
Russia investigation. Papadopoulos' lawyers said it would be "unjust" for their client to go to
prison only to see Mueller's investigation declared illegitimate after he served his time.
But Moss said those arguments had been available to Papadopoulos for more than a year. And
he pointed out that two other judges had "issued thorough and carefully reasoned opinions
rejecting the arguments that Papadopoulos now champions."
Moss said the "prospect that the D.C. Circuit will reach a contrary conclusion is
remote."
The judge also said nothing in the Bail Reform Act cited by Papadopoulos' lawyers would
justify suspending a sentence to await "an appeal brought by a different party in a different
case."
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty last year to lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts while
working for the Trump campaign in 2016. In September, he was sentenced to two weeks
in prison , a year of supervised release, 200 hours of community service and a $9,500
fine.
Mueller's prosecutors had sought a six-month sentence for Papadopoulos, who asked the judge
to give him probation. A conviction for lying to the FBI can carry a sentence of up to five years in prison
.
According to Mueller, Papadopoulos "lied to the FBI regarding his interactions with a
foreign professor whom he understood to have significant ties to the Russian government, as
well as a female Russian national."
Papadopoulos identified that
professor as Joseph Mifsud , who introduced him to the Russian woman he knew as Olga.
Mifsud told Papadopoulos Olga was related to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Papadopoulos
later identified her as "Putin's niece" in a campaign email.
When asked about his contacts with Mifsud and Olga, Papadopoulos falsely told the FBI agents
that his meetings with them happened before he joined the Trump campaign.
"He's an energy and oil consultant," Trump said at the time. "Excellent guy."
According to Papadopoulos, he met with Trump, Sessions and other campaign officials at the
Trump Hotel in Washington on March 31, 2016, and told them he could use his new connections to
set up a meeting between Trump and Putin.
"While some in the room rebuffed George's offer, Mr. Trump nodded with approval and deferred
to Mr. Sessions who appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into
it," Papadopoulos' lawyers wrote in a court filing.
"... As for the self-licking ice cream cone that "mainstream media" have become, and how they overlook little peccadilloes like feeding at the government PR trough and helping Cheney and Bush attack Iraq, well – now, now – let's not be nasty. Here's how Jill Abramson, The New York Times Washington Bureau Chief from 2000 to 2003, while the Times acted as drum major for the war, lets Bob Woodward off the hook for his own abysmal investigative performance. ..."
"... Are we to believe that the Abramsons, Woodwards, et al. of the media elite simply missed the WMD deception? ..."
Dishonest (not "mistaken") intelligence greased the skids for the
widespread killing and maiming in the Middle East that began with the Cheney/Bush "Shock and
Awe" attack on Iraq. The media reveled in the unconscionable (but lucrative) buzzword
"shock-and-awe" for the initial attack. In retrospect, the real shock lies in the awesome
complicity of virtually all "mainstream media" in the leading false predicate for this war of
aggression – weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Only one major media group, Knight Ridder, avoided the presstitution, so to speak. It
faced into the headwinds blowing from the "acceptable" narrative, did the investigative
spadework, and found patriotic insiders who told them the truth. Karen Kwiatkowski, who had a
front-row seat at the Pentagon, was one key source for the intrepid Knight Ridder
journalists. Karen tells us that her actual role is accurately portrayed by the professional
actress in the Rob Reiner's film Shock and Awe .
Other members of the Sam Adams Associates were involved as well, but we will leave it to
them to share on Saturday evening how they helped Knight Ridder accurately depict the prewar
administration/intelligence/media fraud.
Intelligence Fraud
More recently, former National Intelligence Director James Clapper added a coda to
pre-Iraq-War intelligence performance. Clapper was put in charge of imagery analysis before
the Iraq war and was able to conceal the fact that there were were no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In his memoir, Clapper writes that Vice President Cheney "was pushing"
for imagery analysis "to find (emphasis in original) the WMD sites."
For the record, none were found because there were none, although Clapper –
"eager to help" – gave it the old college try. Clapper proceeds, in a matter-of-fact
way, to blame not only pressure from the Cheney/Bush administration, but also "the
intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help that we found what wasn't
really there."
Regarding those Clapper-produced "artist renderings" of "mobile production facilities for
biological agents"? Those trucks "were in fact used to pasteurize and transport milk,"
Clapper admits nonchalantly. When challenged on all
this while promoting his memoir at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, Clapper gave not the
slightest hint that it occurred to him his performance was somewhat lacking.
Media: Consequential Malfeasance
As for the self-licking ice cream cone that "mainstream media" have become, and how
they overlook little peccadilloes like feeding at the government PR trough and helping Cheney
and Bush attack Iraq, well – now, now – let's not be nasty. Here's how Jill
Abramson, The New York Times Washington Bureau Chief from 2000 to 2003, while the
Times acted as drum major for the war, lets Bob Woodward off the hook for his own abysmal
investigative performance.
Reviewing Woodward's recent book on the Trump White House, Abramson praises his "dogged
investigative reporting," noting that he has won two Pulitzer Prizes, and adds: "His work has
been factually unassailable." Then she (or perhaps an editor) adds in parenthesis: "(His
judgment is certainly not perfect, and he has been self-critical about his belief, based on
reporting before the Iraq War, that there were weapons of mass destruction.)"
Are we to believe that the Abramsons, Woodwards, et al. of the media elite simply
missed the WMD deception? (Hundreds of insiders knew of it, and some were willing to
share the truth with Knight Ridder and some other reporters.) Or did the media moguls simply
hunker down and let themselves be co-opted into helping Cheney/Bush start a major war? The
latter seems much more likely: and transparent attempts to cover up for one another, still,
is particularly sad – and consequential. Having suffered no consequences (for example,
in 2003 Abramson was promoted to Managing Editor of the NYT ), the "mainstream media"
appear just as likely to do a redux on Iran.
This is why there will be a premium on honest insider patriots, like Karen Kwiatkowski, to
rise to the occasion and try to prevent the next war. Bring along your insider friends on
Saturday; they need to know about Karen and about Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in
Intelligence.
Please do come and join us in congratulating Karen Kwiatkowski and the other SAAII members
who also helped Knight Ridder get the story right. (Those others shall remain unnamed until
Saturday.) And let insiders know this: they are not likely to hear about all this
otherwise.
Date : Saturday, December 8, 2018
Time : 6:30 PM Showing of film, "Shock and Awe" – 8:00 PM Presentation 17th
annual Sam Adams Award – Ceremony will include remarks by Larry Wilkerson, 7th SAAII
awardee (in 2009)
Place : The Festival Center, 1640 Columbia Road, NW, Washington, DC 20009
FREE : But RSVP, if you can, to give us an idea of how many to expect; email:
[email protected]
ALL WELCOME : Lots of space in main conference room
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). William
Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world
military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems
still used by NSA. Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .
Essentially Mueller witch hunt repeat the trick invented by Bolsheviks leadership during
Stalin Great Terror: the accusation of a person of being a foreign agent is a 'slam dank" move
that allows all kind to nasty things to be performed to convict the person no matter whether he
is guilty of not.
Consolidation of power using Foreign Counter Intelligence as a tool is a classic and a very
dirty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway ..."
"... This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. ..."
"... It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does. ..."
"... IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo. ..."
"... In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago ..."
"... Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. ..."
"... Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry. ..."
It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are
sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether
the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas
business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election
law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway .
It certainly does give every appearance, at least from the outside perspective, of an
investigation looking for a crime.
This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by
definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where
a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a
crime has been committed.
It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up
interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to
leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does.
Precisely the same approach could have been taken vis a vis the Uranium mattter or any of
the Clinton Foundation speaker forays into foreign lands and almost certainly a boatload of
1001 violations would have come into port.
IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by
declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released
unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of
that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the
narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant
innuendo.
In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much
most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money
laundering that took place over a decade ago .
There have been no claims from Mueller that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to
steal the 2016 election.
Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't
know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp
rhetoric. With the Democrats gonna run the House come January. I think Trump will come
under increased pressure from all sides. I don't believe the Mueller investigation will ever
wind down until Trump is defeated either via impeachment or loss of the next presidential
election.
There is a particular transparency of motive which becomes clear, and reconciles all inquiry, when an interested observer accepts
a particular media framework:
The media outlet CNN provides for their domestic and international audience, the preferred position for all policy and
points of advocacy from Hillary Clinton's Department of State.
The media outlet The Washington Post serves a similar purpose, however their specialized role is as a conduit for Barack
"Hussein" Obama's Central Intelligence Agency.
"the rout of Sunni jihadists in Syria by the combined forces of the Syrian government, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, it's clear
that Islamic terrorism is no longer a threat that stirs the paranoia necessary to feed big military and intelligence budgets .
For all the money they've spent, intelligence has done a terrible job of either anticipating terrorist strikes or defeating them
in counterinsurgency warfare"
Excuse me,but WTF??
It's the US,NATO, Israhell and Saudis that created ISIS, with the above mentioned spending BILLIONS to combat ISIS in Syria.
The war on terror is a hoax. The lame exploitation of Arabs and Islam to manufacture consent for war on Iraq, starting with
Mossad planting of low yield thermal nuke weapons that brought the Towers down..Saudis were the patsies.
All of this with blessing of Zionists banksters and US Treasury& Fed Reserve.
A timely article. Main Stream Media (MSM) are the biggest tool of passive compliance and
propagandizing by a relatively docile population. I open the CNN URL and it is like reading
the neocon version of 1960's Pravda. The Australian government should be doing more to get
Julian Assange out of his current predicament. The 4th Estate is withering on the vine to
comply with lobby dictates.The Founders had a reason to mention this entity in the
Constitution.
To be fair to the MSM, they know that they are safe from persecution, as they never print a
word that the establishment does not want to see published.
Now here are some purveyors of Fake News, all evidence-free assertions proven totally false:
"But the evidence increasingly points to Assange having made himself a willing tool of
Russian Intelligence. There's a huge difference between pursuing the public's right to know
and and acting as the clandestine agent of an adversarial foreign power."
"He's a spy, a saboteur and a rapist. I'm all in for the free and adversarial press but
when a reporter is an actual criminal, lock him up."
"I don't think that it's the content of his email release that got Assange in hot water. It
was his calculated timing of the release to cause the most harm to a candidate's run for
President."
Right, journalists should always withhold true information about a politician and the
political processes they engage in from the public, so that the voters will remain deceived.
Well, I guess, the politicians YOU favor.
The press does not have to be afraid. The press is Deepstate. The Department of "Justice" is
Deepstate. They are the same machine, working in beautiful synchrony to obliterate
civilization.
Peter the 'press' is obviously not worried about losing their ability to inform the public of
the truth, because they no longer view that as their function. They are tools of propaganda
for the oligarchs that rule America. There are a few people like yourself, who want to inform
the public, but you represent a (shrinking) minority.
It's funny how Ds claim Assange helped seal Hillary's fate by releasing the emails without
recognizing the reality that the emails needed to exist in order to be released.
Why would you vote for someone who admitted to doing the things described?
BTW, should "John Doe" the leaker of the Panama Papers be tracked down?
This conundrum is partially the result of picking and choosing the enforcement of laws based
on political affiliation or beliefs.
We are not a republic now.
The individual has been declared an enemy of GovCo, the EstGOP and the Democrat People's
Parties.
So he screamed in the cafeteria and spilled his morning coffee. We all wondered what
happened to him and so we looked at his friend, and he told us that he must have read the
NYT, as that was his common reaction, a cry of pain and anguish and screams of "all lies, all
lies, all lies" whenever he reads the newspaper or watches the TV, esp. NYT.
Your article and the previous news about Manfort visiting Assange and the funny timing of
the same reminded me of this story.
The Western MSM is a lying scamming neoliberal propaganda machine.
"... I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services. ..."
Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies
The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its
production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6
mouthpiece
Luke Harding of the Guardian.
Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian,
this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified "Russians" to
the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that
Manafort's plea deal was over.
The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor
logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these "Russians" are in the visitor logs.
This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict
Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure
was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was
accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log.
Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained
until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited.
There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the "Russians" would
have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so
exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed
Ecuadorean "intelligence report" of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean
government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is
impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security –
would not know the identity of these alleged "Russians".
Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government
regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they
follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller's
pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the
Presidency.
My friend William Binney, probably the world's greatest expert on electronic surveillance,
former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that
it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a
download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting
a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at
the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC "security consultants"
Crowdstrike.
I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be
established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive "Big
Lie" will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack
of the DNC servers.
Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even
considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a
personal assurance of them.
I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York
Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security
services.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a
particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to
create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the
US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.
Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the
security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange's support prior to expelling
him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of
espionage.
Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and
has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever
be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York
Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are
seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the
"liberal media" no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of
the people, they are an instrument of elite control.
My opinions are conflicted, but I'd rather give Assange a Nobel Peace Prize than a criminal
conviction. He definitely deserves a Nobel Prize more than Obama. I was in an eatery in
Cambridge, MA, when I heard Obama's prize announced, and even there people where aghast and
astounded.
The Guardian was bought by Soros, a few years ago.
Washpost, NYT and CNN, Deep State mouthpieces.
That the USA, as long as Deep State has not been eradicated completely from USA society, will
continue to try to get Assange, and of course also Snowdon, in it claws, is more than
obvious.
So what are we talking about ?
Assange just uses the freedom of information act, or how the the USA euphemism for telling
them nothing, is called.
How Assange survives, mentally and bodily, being locked up in a small room without a
bathroom, for several years now, is beyond my comprehension.
But of course, for 'traitors' like him human rights do not exist.
"I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times
have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services."
These outfits are largely state-run at this point. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff
Bezos, a man with deep ties to the CIA through his Amazon company (which depends upon federal
subsidies and has received security agency "support") and the Guardian is clandestinely
funded through UK government purchases, among other things. MI6 has also effectively
compromised the former integrity and objectivity of that outlet by threatening them with
prosecutions for revealing MI6 spy practices. And the NYT has always been state-run. See
their coverage of the Iraq War. The Israelis have bragged about having an asset at the Times.
The American government has several.
It's amazing to see the obvious progression of the lies as they take hold in an anti-Trump
elite who seem completely impervious to understanding his victory over Clinton. All these
people who claim to be so cosmopolitan and educated seem to think Assange or Manafort would
have any interest in meeting each other. (Let alone in the company of unspecified
'Russians'.)
At first it was that Assange was wrong to publish the DNC leaks because it hurt Clinton
and thus helped Trump.
Then it was that Assange was actively trying to help Trump.
Now it's that Assange is in collusion with Trump and the 'Russians'.
The same thing happened with the Trump-Russian nonsense which goes ever more absurd as
time goes on. Slowly boiling the frog in the public's mind. The allegations are so
nonsensical, yet there are plenty of educated, supposedly cosmopolitan people who don't
understand the backgrounds or motives of their 'liberal' heroes in the NYT or Guardian who
believe this on faith.
None of these people will ever question how if any of this is true how the security
services of the West didn't know it and if they supposedly know it, how come they aren't
acting like it's true. They are acting like they're attempting to smear politicians they
don't like, however.
Luke Harding is particularly despicable. He made his name as a journalist off privileged
access to Wilkileaks docs, and has been persistently attacking Assange ever since the Swedish
fan-girl farce.
Assange did make a mistake (of which I am sure he is all too aware now) in the choice to,
rather than leave the info. open on-line, collaborate with the filthy Guardian, the sleazy
NYT, and I forget dirty name of the third publication.
@anon Since you
are posting as Anon coward, I am not expecting a reply, but would be interested in (and would
not doubt) state funding of the 'Guardian'?
As for the NYT, they are plainly in some sense state-funded, but the state in question is
neither New York nor the U.S.A., but the state of Israel.
@Che Guava
Perhaps he is referring to the sheer volume of ads the British government places for public
sector appointments. As for the paper edition, most of it seems to be bought by the BBC!
So he screamed in the cafeteria and spilled his morning coffee. We all wondered what
happened to him and so we looked at his friend, and he told us that he must have read the
NYT, as that was his common reaction, a cry of pain and anguish and screams of "all lies, all
lies, all lies" whenever he reads the newspaper or watches the TV, esp. NYT.
Your article and the previous news about Manfort visiting Assange and the funny timing of
the same reminded me of this story.
The Western MSM is a lying scamming neoliberal propaganda machine.
"... "The US economy has left large swaths of people behind. History shows that such periods are ripe for demagogues, and here again, deep pockets buy not only the policy set that protects them, but the "think tanks," research results, and media presence that foments the polarization that insulates them further." ..."
"... Stagnation of median wages may have been evident for longer in the US, but the recession has led to declining real wages in many other countries. Partly as a result , we have seen 'farther right' parties gaining popularity across Europe in recent years. ..."
A lot of US blog posts have asked this after the US government came very close to self-inflicted default. It was indeed an extraordinary
episode which indicates that something is very wrong. All I want to suggest here is that it may help to put this discussion in a
global context. What has happened in the US has of course many elements which can only be fully understood in the domestic context
and given US history, like the
enduringinfluence of race
, or cultural wars . But with other, more economic, elements
it may be more accurate to describe the US as leading the way, with other countries following.
"The US economy has
left large swaths of people behind. History shows that such periods are ripe for demagogues, and here again, deep pockets buy not
only the policy set that protects them, but the "think tanks," research results, and media presence that foments the polarization
that insulates them further."
Support for the right in the US does
appear to be correlated with low incomes and low human capital. Yet while growing inequality may be most noticeable in the US,
but it is not unique to it, as the chart below from the Paris School of Economics
database shows. Stagnation of median wages
may have been evident for longer in the US, but the recession has led to declining real wages in many other countries. Partly as
a result , we have seen 'farther
right' parties
gaining
popularity across Europe in recent years.
Yet surely, you might say, what is unique to the US is that a large section of the political right has got 'out of control', such
that it has done significant harm to the economy and almost did much more. If,
following Jurek Martin
in the FT, we describe business interests as 'big money', then it appears as if the Republican party has been acting against big
money. Here there may be a parallel with the UK which could be instructive.
In the UK, David Cameron has been forced to concede
a referendum on continued UK membership of the European Union, in an attempt to stem the popularity of the UK Independence Party.
Much of UK business would
regard leaving the
EU as disastrous, so Cameron will almost certainly recommend staying in the EU. But with a a divided
party, he lost a referendum. So the referendum pledge seems like a forced concession to the farther right that entails
considerable risks. As Chris Dillow
notes
there are
other areas where a right wing government appears to be acting against 'big money'.
While hostility to immigration has always been a reaction to economic decline, it is
difficult to deny that hostility to the
emigration associated with European
Union is a burning issue for the majority of people in the UK. That's why was Cameron forced to make such a dangerous concession over
the referendum.
Nice post, although I fear the causality in the US is exactly the same as in the UK. Politicians love scapegoats that cannot
answer back or that have no votes: immigrants and foreign countries both fit the bill and so end up being lambasted ad infinitum.
I also don't believe this issue is as trivial to the general population as you seem to suggest - if you tell a lie often enough
it becomes the truth.
So when, as you so often point out, the politicians can be seen to be going against all the tenets of sound macroeconomic policy,
perhaps because of their promotion of their almost religiously held ideologies, these policies fail, instead of taking responsibility
they pass the blame onto the last government, the Eurozone, or whoever is handy. Their friends in the press are happy to add petrol
to the flames, and as you say, at some point it all spirals out of control in some kind of right wing transatlantic race of the
copy cats.
When will big business stand up and defend their profits and markets? Only perhaps when the referendum falls due in the next
quarter...
As far as the US debt limit fiasco goes, that's to a significant extent the fault of the economics profession. That is, you
can't blame the average politician (who hasn't studied economics) for thinking that national debts can be treated the same way
as the debt of a microeconomic entity. So politicians think national debts need to be limited.
The reality, as Keynes pointed out is: "Look after unemployment and the budget looks after itself". I.e. we should concentrate
on keeping demand at a level that brings full employment, while leaving the debt to bob up and down (which it will do).
Unfortunately there is new breed of vociferous so called "economists" who don't understand Keynes: Rogoff, Reinhart, Fama,
etc. Thus politicians get mixed messages from economists, and plumb for the simple minded microeconomic view of debt.
Immigration and the EU have become linked. Popular EU support among the 12 started to fall with the rushed expansion eastwards
that expanded it to 27 much poorer countries in a single stroke. Before then we did not see huge movements of labour. Britain
went gung ho into this with immediate and complete liberalisation of labour flows based on a forecast (probably based on a "rigorous"
DSGE model) that said only 13000 would enter the country following this expansion. Virtually overnight over a million entered
from Poland alone. We have no control over this, and in a country in recession, growing income inequality, long term unemployment
despite the Blair boom, pressures on the NHS and education expenditure, and with a moral obligation to allow in refugees to enter
from outside the EU with a genuine need to escape violence, this is political dynamite.
We have seen something similar before in the UK, when after WW1 the Anti-Waste League led by the Daily Mail came into force
to attack Lloyd-George's 'land fit for heroes' welfare policies.
The 1921-2 Geddes Committee was pressured by the Treasury, which wanted Geddes' savings to reduce the debt, while the Cabinet
wanted to use them to reduce taxation. Geddes took as his 'normal year' 1914, but in the end spending on social services remained
above 1914 levels, and the problem was solved with taxation on business profits.
I'm an American. I used to go, long ago in my younger years, to a bar to play pool. I'd play with these two guys who drank
whisky and looked like a Clint Eastwood type. They were poor mechanics, but total libertarians filled with conspiracy theories.
You can't reason with these people. You just nod your head and walk away.
A few years back, the "big business" right in the U.S. (as typified, say, by the Chamber of Commerce lobby) consciously sought
an infusion of energy and numbers by inviting in the Far Right "insurgents" (or "crazies," depending on your point of view).
Now the Far Right faction has slipped its leash.
It is potentially good news that the Right has split. It can be easier to cope with two factions than a single unified party.
Progressive Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912 because Theodore Roosevelt split the Republicans.
But there are too many echoes of other countries and other years -- 1933 comes to mind -- to take much comfort in the situation.
I'm not sure I understand the "mirror to a phenomenon that must be explained" stance of recent conservate media. Rush has been
around for a long time. And he's a babe compared to Pat Buchanan, the 700 Club and the John Birch Society. Anti-other and anti-social
contract have very long track records in the United States. News Corp. simply put large amounts of money into the coming niche
programing in the 90's as cable news became accepted and diversified (fragmented if you like that word better). That gave a concentrated
platform to the likes of Rush. The evolution was Murdoch's removal of religion as the context in which those views were presented
(as was prevalent on cable in the 80s).
I put a comment onto this blog about BBC think-tank reliance, comparing the number of Krugman, Shiller, and Stiglitz references
on their website to IEA, Taxpayers' Alliance, and Adam Smith Institute references (the latter far greater).
The episode of 'Daily Politics' (24th October, minutes 30:19-40:27 on the iplayer for BBC 2 at 12:00) shows what 'centre ground'
really means to the BBC:
1. 364 economists from 30 March 1980 Times letter are said to have been proven wrong by the show's host
2. Vicky Redwood says the UK could be like Greece if Osborne hadn't followed his economic plan
3. Booth from the IEA turns up etc.
4. Will Hutton looks flustered as a man with very slicked hair from the Telegraph mocks him
There is one day left on Feedback on Radio Four episode 18th October, in which Prof. Steve Jones talks about trying to convince
the BBC that their reporting on climate change isn't 'centre-ground' but inadequate. The conclusions he draws so politely about
the BBC couldn't be more germane to their economics coverage.
Simon - thanks for this post - I've been wondering about this issue myself for some time.
I'm not so sure about your conclusion that the media have driven right-wing discontent with the EU. Consider:
1. The Daily Express was the only national paper that called for an EU referendum prior to January (when the PM announced he
would hold one in the next parliament).
2. The rucktions in the Tory party over Europe started in the late 1980s and peaked over Maastrict - please correct me if you
remember differently but I thought that much of the hostility in the press towards the EU came after 1997, with the adoption of
the Social Chapter and large immigration post-2004 from Eastern Europe. This suggests that the popular press at most propogated
discontent that was already there, rather than originated it.
3. With such a large readership, you might expect that anti-EU sentiment in the right-wing press to be reflected across a lot
of people. But as you rightly note, most people don't care. Instead it's a small group of people who care *a lot*, and seem to
be disproportionately powerful in selecting some Tory MPs. This suggests that something else is going on.
I suspect that the key issue is that being a member of the EU involves a loss of soverignty - and it's plausible that a certain
type of Tory voter ("little Englanders") would care a lot about this independent of whether the media was pushing this or not.
The fact that they don't like many of the byproducts of the EU (immigration from Eastern Europe, more regulation) is grist to
the mill.
I agree that the line you suggest is certainly plausible. But even then I do not think you can discount the influence of the
press in reinforcing this group's views. If the press do succeed in getting an out vote, then I think their influence will be
clear.
They are not the only people who like to have their beliefs and prejudices confirmed. Imagine how many economists would be
happy to see examples of rational expectations all over the place.
The US political system is simply basically dysfunctional, but because the way it is designed it is not able to properly adress
that issue.
Go to the 4 major forces (roughly) in US politics (from right to left):
-Teadrinkers (morons that think the 18th century can come back):
-Rest Reps. Maybe not owned by big business but very close (and it is big business not business);
-Right part Demos. Very similar to the left Reps;
-Left Demos. Spendophiles who donot mind going bust in that process as it is other people's money anyway.
Centre being very similar (so effectively there is no choice for the half that votes). This is a system that allowed complete
jokes like Bush and even worse Obama come to power. Probably there were realistically more people pro bombing Congres than there
were pro bombing Syria. You have to shut down the government to be able to have that number of governmentservices that are affordable
on basis of normal tax revenue apparently.
This is a seriously sick system.
If a populist rises who has some appeal (no tea crap as that will never work mainstream anyway even if the policies were realistic
and they would be able to manage things and change) and is a bit clever you could see landslide.
Simply like in most of Europe an Alfa Romeo problem. You can sell a couple of time a crap car and subsequently tell people
that the next generation model has it solved. But if you do that a couple of time in a row, people try something different (whatever
it is). How good the alternative is mainly determines when they will move not if they will move. The latter is a certainty. In
Europe the alternative looks to come from the former Lada and Zastava factories (so put on your safetybelts and have your airbags
checked).
Pretty simple.
EMs and Co have caught up especially on quality of workforce. The middle income (and subsequently average quality) Western workers
are now competing in a world that is overflooded by cheap workers in their part of the market.
Simply means prices (of labour there) will go down.
Top end is not and capital is not. Capital is even 'subsidised' by things as QE.
A lot of the things you see happening can largely be explained by that eg:
-South of EU tanked. They face the EM competition first. Nobody is making stuff in Spain or Italy when it can be done for half
the price in India or China. Even worse effectively except with design the latter 2 make already better stuff than the former
2.
-US was first to get hit as it has the most open economy and the most international and openminded companies. UK will be next
on that list rest of Europe will follow.
-Germany looks to be the next outsource wave. It looks like that say in half a decade their model will not look as great as
they like to believe themselves. They simply havenot got the outsource wave yet in the same way as the US and UK. Chinese can
now make top end stuff and furthermore they have become a large part of the market for that.
Hard to tackle that redistribute income and you will see a lot more outsource. It is mainly in big business which is flexible
anyway. But anyway can now chose between probably 50 or so countries that are able to provide a location for a headoffice, R&D
and similar higher functions. Tax goes up they move.
Simply moronic to think you can tax international companies at rates for individuals 40-50-60%. Their stockvalue will drop with
20-30-40% because of that. Basically the CEO that gets that on his watch will never have any stock bonus because all growth he
will create will be eaten by tax increases. You only can increase taxes for corporate functions that are impossible to move.
And longer term. Of course a factory will not be moved from today to yesterday. But when it goes wrong reversing it is even more
difficult. Not that we won't see it, we probably will. But as said it will not work more likely only create trouble.
Longer term but worldwide the distribution will have to be adressed so way. Looks clear that there is not enough consumption.
However probably completely in the EMs. As the Western mid level worker is still way too expensive for the worldmarket.
And when China becomes too expensive the next way is already in position. Not much help to be expected from that corner.
So better rephrase the question. When will we be hit with this phenomenon?
Soon imho btw, you are probably hit by it already only didnot notice.
Brilliant isn't it - ordinary people taking upon themselves to challenge the domination of 'big money' as you put it. I know
you like big money but me, I'm a victim of the big money and its great mate, Big Government. No-one brainwashed me, no-one had
to tell me my taxes were too high, no one forced me to arrive at the view that big business is anti-market and anti-consumer.
As I said - it's brilliant, absolutely fantastic that people on the right of politics have realised that the establishment
isn't their friend and hasn't been for a generation.
I would let them describe themselves because my thinking about them is too complicated to put into a simple slogan.
I see them as essentially a single issue party - yes, I know they let themselves get contaminated with race and immigration
- and I tend to dislike single issue parties. Single issue parties always have the weakness that their views on other issues are
up for grabs, and they will "sell out" all but their single issue to whoever can put them into power.
However, the UKIP is now a fact. And we ignore facts at our peril. Perhaps worse than ignoring facts is explaining facts away.
If we dismiss the UKIP as just X-kind of party, we won't understand their growth.
So I just don't see right-anything as a useful way to describe them. It's much more complex than that.
As an American observer I believe Simon is correct. No doubt there are many complex factors that led to the ongoing mess in
our Congress but there is little doubt that the tremendous investment made by the right wing business community into buying up
media and "coin operated think tanks" has indeed created the conditions where we have in the U.S. a situation where the rich get
ever richer while the poor and middle class fall farther and farther behind. All the while, with the aid of clever propaganda
combined with a failing education system, the very people who are hurt the most by our skewed economic distribution keep voting
the crazies in. For a look into one of the original stimuli of this state of affairs, see the memo written in 1971 by Lewis Powell,
a Republican corporate attorney and later Supreme Court justice.
Excellent analysis, Professor Wren-Lewis. As a native of the US, your insights into parallels with UK politics come as news
to me, and it helps to gain some global perspective. I am inclined to conclude from your arguments that Bernstein's assertions
about the direction of causality (that income inequality creates fervent groups of voters, thereby leading to right wing media
"reflecting" extreme political views) is wrong, and that the direction of causality in the US is probably the same as it is in
the UK (that elements in the media want to push extreme political views, thereby "leading" the opinions of voters). Rupert Murdoch
is an especially clear example of where a figure in the media uses his influence to sway voters, but I think in the US it is not
uncommon for private citizens with enough resources and connections to manipulate the media in order to "lead" voters. Take for
example the Koch brothers, who, despite normally being associated with business interests, were supposedly instrumental in fomenting
the defund/shutdown strategy. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html )
"So why was Cameron forced to make such a dangerous concession over the referendum? "
That would be because, if you remember all the way back to May, Ukip polled 23% in the last local government elections, just
short of the Tories and far ahead of the Lib Dems.
Of course, just as support for the Tea Party is very strong. But I'm trying to ask why this is. Is it because the Conservative
Party has drifted left - that does not seem credible. So why the move to the right in popular opinion? Some say that is reading
it wrong - UKIP gets it support because its anti-EU. But why is Europe so far down the list of what people say they are worried
about?
I think we can learn from the US here. Obamacare is very similar to Romneycare - so why does the Tea Party see it as such a
threat? Perhaps the information they are getting is completely wrong.
"Perhaps the information they are getting is completely wrong."
The left has long comforted itself with lines like this. Blaming what the public believe on Beaverbrook, Rothermere or Murdoch
(or in the US Limbaugh or Beck).
If only they heard "the truth" they'd agree with us.
Well, the internet age has tested that theory to destruction. Today few people get their news from the press, most get it from
TV and the internet. The internet version of the Daily Mail (by far the most successful version of an internet newspaper) is mainly
gossip, not rightwing propaganda. The influence of the rightwing press in 2013 is negligible. For those who are interested, more
serious high quality information about the world we live in is readily accessible than ever before (for proof, see this very blog).
People vote Ukip because they agree with them. Uncomfortable, but there we are.
Cameron has no choice politically but to try and tack to the right on the issue of Europe. If, say, 10% vote Ukip at the GE
he knows he loses. A referendum promise was simply the least he could do politically.
The appeal of Ukip is probably down to immigration, and not Europe. People have probably cottoned on to the fact that Poles
(and Romanians etc) have freedom of movement so long as we remain in the EU. Arguments by economists that, in aggregate terms,
immigration is a good thing for the UK completely miss why individuals oppose immigration, which is nothing to do with the overall
economic picture.
We have to treat people who disagree with us (eg those voting Republican in the US) as grown ups with a legitimate different
opinion, rather than as children tricked into voting the wrong way by Limbaugh and Beck.
Both euroenthusiasts and eurosceptics have agreed that "Europe" is not a discrete policy area but a comprehensive constitutional
issue.
It certainly wasn't UKIP who laid down the classic sceptic challenge to EU authority - "What power have you got? Where did
you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" It was Tony
Benn (a much demonised left wing hate figure for the conservative press of the day).
The public understand that "Europe" is indivisible from their immigration & welfare concerns, their crime and civil rights
concerns and their prosperity and tax concerns.
Europe is involved in everything on their political agenda. The only question that really divides euroenthusiasts from eurosceptics
is - should it be?
SpinningHugo: I agree that information is much more available, although so is misinformation. But there is good evidence that
people are not well informed on key political issues: see http://timharford.com/2013/07/popular-perceptions-exposed-by-numbers/
This should not be a surprise - getting the correct information takes time.
That problem with democracy, that the polis are, roughly speaking, idiots has been a known problem since Plato. that is why
Plato opposed democracy, and wanted government by Philosopher Kings. Hoping that, given time, we'll have a population of Philosopher
Kings is crying for the moon.
What has changed recently however is not the growing strength of rightwing media, but its decline.
If, even given this, the Tea Party, Ukip and Golden Dawn do better, and not worse, there is no hope that giving it more time
will enable people to see sense.
I am afraid I just think you don't like democracy much. Philosopher Kings don't.
In America the Tea Party began with a large dollop of disgust at a dysfunctional-from-their-POV democracy (too much welfare,
too much crony capitalism) and settled into an American tradition of just hating government and taxes and belief that the solution
is to tear it down. This was quickly co-opted into the Republican Party platform as "don't raise my marginal tax rate," which
is essentially the only thing the party has stood for in three decades. The party ignores the other planks of the Tea Party platform.
It is just possible that as "average Americans" the Tea Party correctly perceives that the Big Money internationalization agenda
results in the hollowing out of the middle class and debt-servitude of the majority to the banks; and they would rather not go
down that path, implicitly being willing to sacrifice some GDP growth for greater equality, a trade-off that the research of Wilkinson
et al. (Equality Trust over there) supports. Between the EU and NAFTA a lot of middle class destruction has taken place. Increasingly
concentrated capital is just way too eager to arbitrage labor anywhere in the world. I don't understand why this is so hard to
see (or perhaps it is still just too taboo to speak; i.e., that Marx was right about some of the long-term dynamics of capitalism).
A nice snapshot of Tea Party demographics is available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx
. They are *very slightly* higher than average income and *entirely average* in education and most other demographics.
Traditionally both Euroenthusiasts and eurosceptics have understood "Europe" as a constitutional issue and not merely as a
particular policy area. It is pointless saying that Europe ranks lower (in public concerns) than immigration when so much immigration
policy is set at EU level. It is pointless for a Greek or Spaniard to say that the economy is the key issue for them when the
commanding economic framework for their economic policy is set in Brussels and Frankfurt.
Therefore the fact that "Europe" is not a policy priority in U.K. public opinion survey's does not mean that the public do
not fully understand the resonance of Europe in all the policy areas that they do care about - energy & environment, policing
and civil rights, immigration & welfare, Economy ad employment.
"Europe" is a constitutional issue - it has a key role (and sometimes a dominant role) in all UK policy areas.
The British public care about Europe precisely because they care a lot about economic policy, welfare policy and all other
policy areas......
Your post-script mentions a poster who was "insulted" by your suggestion that the press are a strong influence on euro-scepticism.
I'm not insulted, but I think that your analysis really misses the point.
We live in a democracy, where the voters are exposed to all kinds of influences. We just have to live with that. The Murdoch
Press is one influence, but the BBC is another.
Most parts of the Press have to make a living, and so they can't afford to take positions that are really unpopular. Over time
they have to follow their readership. ironically, that doesn't apply to either the BBC, which can tax us, or the New Statesman,
which exists on a massive interest free loan.
The real question is whether public opinion on the EU or the rise of the UKIP are paradoxes that need to be explained away,
or if the gradual change in UK public opinion on the topic of the EU is just that, a gradual change in response to the experience
of the average voter. You can argue for either side, but it's unwise to assume.
I tend to distrust the UKIP and yet welcome its influence in politics, since it tends to keep the two - for now - major parties
honest on the subject of the EU.
I also interpret Cameron differently to you. If I were Cameron, I would see my actions less as a "forced concession" and more
as preparing the ground for negotiation with the EU.
The ideal outcome for those negotiations - to me - would be for the UK to stay in the Single Market, but gradually distance
itself from the EU's political institutions. In a sane World, I think this would happen, since it really doesn't cost Europe anything
to re-concede full sovereignty to the UK, but it will cost them quite a bit if the UK leaves the Single Market.
Of course, I am joking because I know perfectly well that we don't live in a sane World, and I think that the EU will come
to the table with a toxic mixture of hurt ego, power hunger, and a foul attitude towards the UK.
To counter this, Cameron will need a powerful lever in the form of a credible threat that if push comes to shove the UK really
will leave the EU, and the rise of the UKIP is exactly that lever.
If Cameron is the student of politics I think he is, he will remember Nixon's dictum that to get what you want, you have to
appear to be capable of insane acts.
"... We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers. ..."
"... Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media, The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war. ..."
"... The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign." ..."
We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but
instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which
is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers.
Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example
was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media,
The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli
for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories
without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war.
The result was a disastrous intervention that led to hundreds of thousands of civilian
deaths and continued instability in Iraq, including the formation of the Islamic State.
In a massive Times '
article published on Thursday, entitled, "A Plot to Subvert an Election: Unravelling the
Russia Story So Far," it seems that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti have succumbed to
the same thinking that doubled down on Iraq.
They claim to have a "mountain of evidence" but what they offer would be invisible on the
Great Plains.
With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with
any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election -- the
central Russia-gate charge -- the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up
of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made -- deceptively presented as though it's
all been proven.
Mueller: No collusion so far.
This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to
believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.
The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then
contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will
be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private
instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American
politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the
Trump campaign."
But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that "no public evidence has emerged
showing that [Trump's] campaign conspired with Russia."
The Times also adds: "There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the
presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved."
This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be "proved or disproved" what is the point
of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of
this very New York Times article?
Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this
piece.
A Banner Day
The 10,000-word article opens with a story of a pro-Russian banner that was hung from the
Manhattan Bridge on Putin's birthday, and an anti-Obama banner hung a month later from the
Memorial Bridge in Washington just after the 2016 election.
On public property these are constitutionally-protected acts of free speech. But for the
Times , "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and
Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most
effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Kremlin: Guilty, says NYT. (Robert Parry, 2016)
Why? Because the Times tells us that the "earliest promoters" of images of the banners were
from social media accounts linked to a St. Petersburg-based click-bait farm, a company called
the Internet Research Agency. The company is not legally connected to the Kremlin and any
political coordination is pure speculation. IRA has been
explained convincingly as a commercial and not political operation. Its aim is get and sell
"eyeballs."
For instance the company conducted pro and anti-Trump rallies and social media messages, as
well as pro and anti-Clinton. But the Times , in classic omission mode, only reports on "the
anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia." Sharing with
"millions" of people on social media does not mean that millions of people have actually seen
those messages. And if they had there is little way to determine whether it affected how they
voted, especially as the messages attacked and praised both candidates.
The Times reporters take much at face value, which they then themselves undermine. Most
prominently, they willfully mistake an indictment for a conviction, as if they do not know the
difference.
This is in the category of Journalism 101. An indictment need not include evidence and under
U.S. law an indictment is not evidence. Juries are instructed that an indictment is merely an
accusation. That the Times commits this cardinal sin of journalism to purposely confuse
allegations with a conviction is not only inexcusable but strikes a fatal blow to the
credibility of the entire article.
It actually reports that "Today there is no doubt who hacked the D.N.C. and the Clinton
campaign. A
detailed indictment of 12 officers of Russia's military intelligence agency, filed in July
by Mr. Mueller, documents their every move, including their break-in techniques, their tricks
to hide inside the Democrats' networks and even their Google searches."
Who needs courts when suspects can be tried and convicted in the press?
What the Times is not taking into account is that Mueller knows his indictment will never be
tested in court because the GRU agents will never be arrested, there is no extradition treaty
between the U.S. and Russia and even if it were miraculously to see the inside of a courtroom
Mueller can invoke states secrets privilege to show the "evidence" to a judge with clearance in
his chambers who can then emerge to pronounce "Guilty!" without a jury having seen that
evidence.
This is what makes Mueller's indictment more a political than a legal document, giving him
wide leeway to put whatever he wants into it. He knew it would never be tested and that once it
was released, a supine press would do the rest to cement it in the public consciousness as a
conviction, just as this Times piece tries to do.
Errors of Commission and Omission
There are a series of erroneous assertions and omissions in the Times piece, omitted because
they would disturb the narrative:
Not mentioning that the FBI was never given access to the DNC server but instead gullibly
believing the assertion of the anti-Russian private company CrowdStrike, paid for by the DNC,
that the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief found in metadata proves Russia was
behind the hack. Only someone wanting to be caught would leave such a clue.
Incredibly believing that Trump would have launched a covert intelligence operation on
live national television by asking Russia to get 30,000 missing emails.
Trump: Sarcastically calls on Russia to get Clinton emails.
Ignoring the possible role of the MI6, the CIA and the FBI setting up Trump
campaign members George Papadopoulos and Carter Page as "colluders" with Russia.
Repeating misleading statements about the infamous Trump Tower meeting, in which Trump's
son did not seek dirt on Clinton but was offered it by a music promoter, not the Russian
government. None was apparently produced. It's never been established that a campaign
receiving opposition research from foreigners is illegal (though the Times has decided that
it is) and only the Clinton campaign was known to have obtained any.
Making no mention at all of the now discredited opposition research dossier paid for by
the Clinton campaign and the DNC from foreign sources and used by the FBI to get a warrant to
spy on Carter Page and potentially other campaign members.
Dismissing the importance
of politicized text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page because the pair
were "skewered regularly on Mr. (Sean) Hannity's show as the 'Trump-hating F.B.I.
lovebirds.'"
Putting down to "hyped news stories" the legitimate fear of a new McCarthyism against
anyone who questions the "official" story being peddled here by the Times .
Seeking to get inside Putin's head to portray him as a petulant child seeking personal
revenge against Hillary Clinton, a tale long peddled by Clinton and accepted without
reservation by the Times.
Pretending to get into Julian Assange's head as well, saying he "shared Mr. Putin's
hatred of Mrs. Clinton and had a soft spot for Russia." And that Assange "also obscured the
Russian role by fueling a right-wing conspiracy theory he
knew to be false."
Ignoring findings backed
by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails were leaked and not
hacked.
Erroneously linking the timing of WikiLeaks' Podesta emails to deflect attention from the
"Access Hollywood" tape, as
debunked in Consortium News by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who worked with
WikiLeaks on those emails.
Distorts Geo-Politics
The piece swallows whole the Establishment's geo-strategic Russia narrative, as all
corporate media do. It buys without hesitation the story that the U.S. seeks to spread
democracy around the world, and not pursue its economic and geo-strategic interests as do all
imperial powers.
The Times reports that, "The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the
so-called color revolutions on Russia's borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004." The
Times has also spread the erroneous story of a democratic revolution in Ukraine in 2014,
omitting crucial evidence of
a U.S.-backed coup.
The Times disapprovingly dismisses Trump having said on the campaign trail that "Russia was
not an existential threat, but a potential ally in beating back terrorist groups," when an
objective view of the world would come to this very conclusion.
The story also shoves aside American voters' real concerns that led to Trump's election. For
the Times, economic grievances and rejection of perpetual war played no role in the election of
Trump. Instead it was Russian influence that led Americans to vote for him, an absurd
proposition defied by a Gallup poll in July that
showed Americans' greatest concerns being economic. Their concerns about Russia were
statistically insignificant at less than one percent.
Ignoring Americans' real concerns exposes the class interests of Times staffers and editors
who are evidently above Americans' economic and social suffering. The Times piece blames Russia
for social "divisions" and undermining American democracy, classic projection onto Moscow away
from the real culprits for these problems: bi-partisan American plutocrats. That also insults
average Americans by suggesting they cannot think for themselves and pursue their own interests
without Russia telling them what to do.
Establishment reporters insulate themselves from criticism by retreating into the exclusive
Establishment club they think they inhabit. It is from there that they vicariously draw their
strength from powerful people they cover, which they should instead be scrutinizing. Validated
by being close to power, Establishment reporters don't take seriously anyone outside of the
club, such as a website like Consortium News.
But on rare occasions they are forced to take note of what outsiders are saying. Because of
the role The New York Timesplayed in the catastrophe of Iraq its editors took the highly
unusual move of apologizing
to its readers. Will we one day read a similar apology about the paper's coverage of
Russia-gate? Tags Politics
"... You might like to report on the recent bill in Congress giving broadcasters "immunity" for spying. The New York Times acquires information from spying on citizens by the CIA twenty four hours a day - aa CIA Wire Service which is unconscionable for a newspaper. Such information allows the Times to keep competitors out of favored industries, scoop other news groups, and enhance revenues by pirated material. The Times isn't a newspaper at all but a clandestine operation run by intelligence units. ..."
"... Interestingly, the NYT revelation itself was illegal, a felony under the Intelligence Act of 1917. ..."
"... Which, ipso facto, makes at least that part of the Intelligence Act of 1917 unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" ( US. Constitution, Amendment I ). This perhaps explains why no newspaper has ever been prosecuted under the Intelligence Act of 1917. Prosecutors would rather have it available as a threat rather than having it thrown out as unconstitutional, and of course the Supreme Court can't rule on its constitutionality unless someone has standing to bring a case against it before them. ..."
"... It's also not surprising that the CIA would take an interest in how it is perceived. I would argue that the CIA was actually preventing or controlling the flow of info the WH was giving to filmmakers. ..."
"... This story only scratches the surface on the extent of corruption in US media and journalism in general over the last 10-15 years. The loss of journalistic integrity and objectivity in US media is on display as many media outlets showcase their one-sided liberal or conservative views. Sadly, the US media has become just as polarized as the government. However, the greatest corruption is not with the govt-media connection; the greatest corruption involves the lobbyists - foreign and domestic. Lobbying groups exert an enormous influence on politicians and the media and it extends to both sides of the aisle. ..."
"... It's no secret that the CIA and State Department have colluded with media since 1950. Public relations is nothing more than propaganda. And if you think the CIA doesn't have it's own PR department, with *hundreds* of employees, dedicated to misinformation, spin, half-truths, and psychological operations, well, consider this your wake-up call. ..."
"... "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - William Colby - Former CIA Director ..."
"... "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director 1981 ..."
"... While you rightly characterize this case as indicating the "virtual merger" of government and media "watchdogs," I think a meta-theme running through your writings illuminates the "virtual merger" of both corporate & state power (esp. after Citizens United), ..."
"... the real issue is not personalities or trivial post deletions, the real issue is that the CIA is tightly bound to the institutions of America ... and that this is not a good thing for everyone ..."
...this is the norm not the exception. It's also representative of a very significant cross
section of the State Department/CIA/Pentagon/DC Beaurcratic Machine, made up of various
Leftists, Statists, academia, and privileged youth with political science degrees from east
coast/DC/Ivy League schools.
I am having a very difficult time wrapping my mind around this story.....we have an alleged
CIA spokesperson purportedly attempting to engage in damage control with a prominent national
newspaper regarding the flow of information between the CIA and film-makers doing a story on
the Bin Laden raid. Ostensibly, the information provided, regarding the raid, was to help
secure the President's reelection bid?
I note that the logo on the phone of the published photo of CIA spokesperson Marie Harf
looks remarkably similar, if not identical, to the Obama campaign logo. A "Twitter" account
profile for M's. Harf references that she is a "National Security Wonk at OFA...." . Could
the "OFA" she makes reference to possibly be "Obama for America"? Her recent tweet history
includes commentaries critical of Romney and his supporters, which appear to be in response
to her observations while watching Republican Convention coverage.
My understanding heretofore was that those engaged in the Intelligence Community,
particularly spokespersons, preferred to keep a low profile and at least appear apolitical.
Based upon the facts as presented, one must reexamine whether a US intelligence agency is
engaging in the most blatant form political partisanship to unduly influence a US
Presidential election.
You might like to report on the recent bill in Congress giving broadcasters "immunity" for
spying. The New York Times acquires information from spying on citizens by the CIA twenty
four hours a day - aa CIA Wire Service which is unconscionable for a newspaper. Such
information allows the Times to keep competitors out of favored industries, scoop other news
groups, and enhance revenues by pirated material. The Times isn't a newspaper at all but a
clandestine operation run by intelligence units.
I'm surprised by the pettiness of it all. And it's this pettiness that makes me think that
such data exchange is not only routine, but an accepted way to enhance a career. After all, who really cares what Dowd writes? I
believe Chomsky called her 'kinda a gossip columnist'. And, that's what she is.
That anyone
would bother passing her column to the CIA is, on the face of it, a little absurd. I don't
say she is a bad columnist, she's probably quite good, but hardly of interest to the CIA,
even when she is writing about the CIA. So basically, someone passed her column along,
because this is normal, and the more ambitious understand that this is how you 'get along'.
This kind of careerism is something I see, on some level, every day: the ambitious see the
rules of the game, and follow them, and the rationale comes later. For most of us, this
doesn't involve the security services. However, the principle that the MSM is, at the least,
heavily influenced by state power is fairly well understood by now in more critical circles:
all forms of media are subject to unusual and particular state pressures, due to their
central import in propaganda and mass-persuasion. The NYT is, in short, an obvious target for
this kind of influencing. And as such should really know much much better.
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that most of what I read, or see on the nightly
broadcasts, is essentially bullshit. I could switch to RT, and in a way its counter-point
would be useful in stimulating my own critical thinking, but much of what RT broadcasts is
also likely to be bullshit. We have a world of competing propaganda memes where nobody knows
the truth. It's like we are all spooks now, each and every one of us. An excellent article,
again.
Interestingly, the NYT revelation itself was illegal, a felony under the Intelligence
Act of 1917.
Which, ipso facto, makes at least that part of the Intelligence Act of 1917
unconstitutional: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press" ( US. Constitution,
Amendment I ). This perhaps explains why no newspaper has ever been prosecuted under the
Intelligence Act of 1917. Prosecutors would rather have it available as a threat rather than
having it thrown out as unconstitutional, and of course the Supreme Court can't rule on its
constitutionality unless someone has standing to bring a case against it before them.
Excellent article, but it's not necessarily a surprise to see a reporter who has developed a
relationship with his source do that source a favor in hopes that the favor will some day be
returned with greater access.
It's also not surprising that the CIA would take an interest in
how it is perceived. I would argue that the CIA was actually preventing or controlling the
flow of info the WH was giving to filmmakers.
This story only scratches the surface on the
extent of corruption in US media and journalism in general over the last 10-15 years. The
loss of journalistic integrity and objectivity in US media is on display as many media
outlets showcase their one-sided liberal or conservative views. Sadly, the US media has
become just as polarized as the government. However, the greatest corruption is not with the govt-media connection; the greatest corruption involves the lobbyists - foreign and domestic.
Lobbying groups exert an enormous influence on politicians and the media and it extends to
both sides of the aisle.
What the commoners fail to understand is that the Public Relations (PR) industry controls 75%
of the information that you are fed from major media outlets. It's an industry that has
artfully masked everything you thought you knew. It's no secret that the CIA and State
Department have colluded with media since 1950. Public relations is nothing more than
propaganda. And if you think the CIA doesn't have it's own PR department, with *hundreds* of
employees, dedicated to misinformation, spin, half-truths, and psychological operations,
well, consider this your wake-up call.
Glenn, thanks for illuminating the insidious, dangerous cynicism pervading American media
& culture, which have become so inured to hypocrisy, corruption & desecration of
sacrosanct democratic values & institutions that has been crucial to the normalization of
formerly intolerable practices, laws & policies eating away at the foundations of our
constitutional democracy. The collective moral, principled "lines in the sand" protecting us
from authoritarian pressures are steadily being washed away, compromised, thanks to media
obsequious complicity.
While you rightly characterize this case as indicating the "virtual merger" of government
and media "watchdogs," I think a meta-theme running through your writings illuminates the
"virtual merger" of both corporate & state power (esp. after Citizens United), and all
the "checks & balances" enshrined in our constitution after 9/11 (e.g. deferential
judiciary, bi-partisan Congressional consensus on increasingly authoritarian, secretive US
executive, propagandistic media, etc.). At least that's my thinking, and I see no significant
countervailing pressure capable of slowing- let alone reversing- this authoritarian
re-ordering of our constitutional order & political culture, though a few exceptions
exist (e.g. Judge Forrest's suprising courage to suspend NDAA provision 1021), and rare
journalists like yourself.
One astounding example of this widespread cynicism facilitating this authoritarian trend,
was the media's rather restrained response to the revelation that elements in the massive
Terrorist/Military Industrial Complex (HBGary) had been plotting military-style
social-engineering operations to discredit & silence progressive journalists,
specifically naming YOU, who I see as one of the rare defenders of the
constitutional/democratic "lines in the sand" under relentless attack. Where was the
overwhelming collective shock & outrage, or media demanding criminal investigations into
US taxpayer-funded attacks on our so-called "free press?"
My question for Glenn, is whether he thinks it would be possible for him to get legal
standing to sue the private (& US??) entities, which proposed the covert
discrediting/repression operations targeting you specifically?
I'm no lawyer, but it seems the documents published by Anonymous, reveal actions
constituting criminal conspiracy. Given the proposed methods included forms of
politically-motivated military warfare & coercion, the guilty parties would likely be
aggressively investigated and charged with some terrorist crimes, if they had been busted
planning attacks on people/entities that trumpeted Obama administration policies or its
corporate backers (i.e. if they were Anonymous). The HBGary proposal to discredit/silence
Wikileaks defenders strongly indicated they had experience with- & confidence in- such
covert operations. Requiring a journalist/academic to be covertly
discredited/destroyed/silenced before they get legal standing would be as absurd as the Obama
administration's argument that Chris Hedges & Co. plaintiffs lack standing because they
hadn't yet been stripped of their rights & secretly indefinitately detained without
charges or trial.
I thought you might be in the unique position to use the US courts to pry open & shine
some light upon the clearly anti-democratic, authoritarian abuses of power, & virtual
fusion of corporate & state powers, which you so eloquently write about.
I glad that foreign journalism is available for me to read our the internet, it's the only
way i can find truthful information about what's going on in my own country (USA). I've known the liberal media bias was a problem for a long time, but articles like this
continually remind me that things are far worse than they appear.
All the actions surrounding the NY Times and the CIA on this issue are atrocious. With this
type of "journalistic independence", why am I paying for a Times account??
As a favor to all readers, following is a summation of all past, present, and future ideas as
articulated by the Fortune Cookie Thinker, John Andersson:
A certain amount of genocide is good because the world is overpopulated.
You should never question authority; after all, you are not an expert on authority.
Everyone wins when we kill terrorists; the more we kill, the more we generate, thus the
more we kill again, which makes us win more.
It is not possible to have absolute power; therefore, power does not corrupt.
Drones kill bad people. Only bad people are killed by drones. Thus, drones are good. We
should have more drones. That is all.
I secretly think he's the real "Jack Handy" from the Deep Thoughts series on SNL.
In my high school history class in 1968 I learned all about how newspapers printed propaganda
stories before WWI and Spanish American war in order to influence the public so they would
want to go to war and it was called "yellow journalism". I also had an English teacher that
taught us about "marketing" and how they use visuals and printed words and film to make us
want to buy a product. My father taught me to NOT BELEIVE everything you read. Now it is
called "critical thinking" and has been added as a general education class in college that
you have to take for a college degree. Critical thinking about what you read and see and hear
should be taught as early as 10 year olds so people can think for themselves. I do not read
main stream newspapers in America but read news sites all over the world.
THANK GOD FOR THE
INTERNET THAT YOU CAN READ WHAT OTHER NEWSPAPERS. I discovered Glenn on Democracy Now and
they are my go to place to read about what is really happening.
the real issue is not personalities or trivial post deletions, the real issue is that the CIA
is tightly bound to the institutions of America ... and that this is not a good thing for
everyone
"... We should not even talk about "conflict of interest" anymore. It is a collusion all the way. We saw it in the phone hacking scandal here, now at the New York Times. I have always wondered about these white tie dinners in Washington DC and how chummy and cozy the reporters looked mingling with the power-holders and -brokers. ..."
"... In what is turning out to be the CIA Century, the American President and major news outlets seem to operate under CIA authority and in accordance with CIA standard operating procedures. ..."
"... Or Afghanistan. Many of the cruise missile libs supported the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq. ..."
"... The press is managed on behalf of what I will call US powers. Those powers seem to be high level military, clandestine agencies, financial industry "leaders", and war contractors. The political parties and the faces they present to the public (with some few exceptions) act as functionaries to keep up the illusion that the US is a democracy. ..."
"... And I am not sure why I associate Washington's bureaucratic CIA with dancing midgets. ..."
If we thought the public trust in journalism is low, then this news only pushes it down further. Do people in journalism care?
Some do very much but for the most the media and the power-holders are in collusion.
We should not even talk about "conflict of interest" anymore. It is a collusion all the way. We saw it in the phone hacking
scandal here, now at the New York Times. I have always wondered about these white tie dinners in Washington DC and how chummy
and cozy the reporters looked mingling with the power-holders and -brokers.
The critical articles are nothing more than smokescreens. We are led to believe how hard-hitting the newspapers are and how
they hold the politicians and other power-brokers to fire. All hogwash. It is better we recognize that the citizens are merely
props they need to claim legitimacy.
Not till this moment did I realize that we are under siege. I thought Julian Assange was the one under siege but he was just trying
to offer us a path to freedom. With Assange neutralized and The New York Times and its brethren by all appearances thoroughly
compromised, how can any one of us stand for all of us against government malfeasance let alone tyranny?
Where would you go if you had dispositive proof of devastating government malfeasance? In what is turning out to be the
CIA Century, the American President and major news outlets seem to operate under CIA authority and in accordance with CIA standard
operating procedures.
It would actually be foolish to take evidence of horrific government behavior to the titular head of the government {who'd
likely persecute you as a whistleblower} or the major news organizations supposedly reporting to us about it {they'd bring it
right back to the government for guidance on what to do}.
Without safe and reliable ways to stand and speak for and to each other on a large scale about the foul deeds of our government,
we are damned to live very lonely vulnerable lives at the mercy of an unrestrained government.
Excerpt from script of Three Days of the Condor --
Higgins: I can't let you stay out, Turner.
Turner slowly stops, leans back against a building, shakes his head sadly.
Turner: Go home, Higgins. They have it all.
Higgins: What are you talking about?
Turner: Don't you know where we are?
Higgins looks around. The huge newspaper trucks are moving out.
Turner: It's where they ship from.
Higgins' head darts upward and he reads the legend above Turner's head. THE NEW YORK TIMES. He is stunned.
Higgins: You dumb son of a bitch.
Turner: It's been done. They have it.
Higgins: You've done more damage than you know.
Turner: I hope so.
Higgins: You want to rip us to pieces, but you damn fool you rely on us. {then} You're about to be a very lonely man,
Turner.
***
Higgins: It didn't have to turn out like this.
Turner: Of course it did.
Higgins: {calling out as they depart separate ways} Turner! How do you know they'll print it?
Turner stops. Stares at Higgins. Higgins smiles.
Higgins: You can take a walk. But how far? If they don't print it.
Several commenters have pointed out that the NYT does do "good" journalism. That is true. It is also true that they tell
absolute lies. See Judith Miller. The best way to sell a lie is to wrap it in the truth.
I know it's late in the comments thread by the time anyone bothers to read THIS minor contribution, but I think it worth mentioning
how this article from Glenn proves just how important are outlets like Democracy Now, RT, Cenk Uyger, Dylan Ratigan, et al. You
really have to turn away from the mainstream media as a source of anything. Far too compromised, by both their embeddedness with
the government, and their for-profit coroporate owners.
Note CNN's terrible ratings problems as of late, and the recent news that they are considering turning to more reality-type
shows to get the eyeballs back. If that isn't proof positive of the current value of corporate news, I don't know what is.
DemocracyNow.org. I think I'm going to donate to them today....
i'm do not understand why so many people are against authority in general, even when the legal & enforcement system is there
to protect your property, life and rights. i understand when corruption exists, it should be seriously addressed, but why throw
out a whole system that is "somewhat working"? why blindly call for revolution?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness."
This is a political officer acting as editor of a major newspaper. I agree this has been going on for some time. Here is my analysis
of that. The press is managed on behalf of what I will call US powers. Those powers seem to be high level military, clandestine
agencies, financial industry "leaders", and war contractors. The political parties and the faces they present to the public (with
some few exceptions) act as functionaries to keep up the illusion that the US is a democracy.
Romney and Obama are functionaries. They do as they're told. Obama is the more useful of the two as fewer people seem able
to look honestly at his policies. They will not oppose Obama for doing the same things and worse as Bush. It is why all stops
are being pulled out to get him, rather than Romney elected. The policies will be the same but the reaction of our population
to each man is vastly different.
So yes, the capture of the media has been going on for quite some time. It appears nearly consolidated at this time. Instead
of using this as a reason to ignore the situation, it is more important than ever to speak out. History is helpful in learning
how to confront injustice. It is not a reason, as I see many use it, to say; "well it's always been that way, so what?" In history,
we learn about corruption but we also learn that people opposed corruption. Is there some reason why we cannot also oppose corruption
right now?
I though Michael Wolff's recent analysis of Apple (here in the Guardian) was in many ways metaphorical for Western leadership,
his article acting in some ways to explain the behavior we see in cultural "elites."
Worth the read.
And somehow, after reading this article, all I can think of is the Wizard of Oz and a dancing midget army singing in
repetitive, high-pitched tones.
And I am not sure why I associate Washington's bureaucratic CIA with dancing midgets.
Who will be the first commenter to leave the classic devastating critique: "The author fails to present a balanced view, showing
only one side. The author's argument has no substance and is not really worth anything."
Don't forget this one: "The author just complains and complains without ever offering a solution or a better approach."
Also, can anyone 'splain me how to do a "response"?
Summary: George Papadopoulos and his wife Simone Mangiante approached in Greece by a known
CIA/FBI operative, Charles Tawil. Mr. Tawil enlists George as a business consultant, under
the auspices of energy development interests, and hands him $10,000 in cash to take back to
the U.S. Upon arrival at the Dulles airport Robert Mueller had FBI agents waiting.
Papadopoulos was stopped and searched; however, he never had the cash because he smartly
left it in Greece with his lawyer. Further:
[W]hen he was arrested at Dulles Airport on July 27 after coming off a flight from
Munich, prosecutors had no warrant for him and no indictment or criminal complaint. The
complaint would be filed the following morning and approved by Howell in Washington.
"... At this time, there is no "factual basis" or "statement of the offense" filed in the clerk's file to support the guilty plea. This is unusual, as normally the factual basis is in writing and filed as part of the plea papers. Thus, as in his earlier criminal case in the same courthouse, the factual basis was probably done orally in open court at the time of the plea, and the only way to find out what it was is to get a transcript of the hearing from the court reporter. ..."
"... Most unusual of all is that Cohen is prosecuted for making a false statement to Congress. During the last 10 years or so, has anyone else made a materially false or misleading or fraudulent statement, or covered up or concealed a material fact to Congress, in violation of any U.S. law? Does anything come to mind causing a person wonder whether or not that has happened, such as Fast and Furious gun running, or maybe on the subject of domestic surveillance ...? ..."
Michael Cohen pleads guilty again, this time to the Mueller group As has by now been
plastered all over the mass media, Michael Cohen, a former attorney for president Donald Trump,
today went into federal court in Manhattan, New York City, to plead guilty as part of a deal in
a second case, filed this time by the "special counsel" Robert Mueller group. Also as before,
the deal was telegraphed by a "John Doe" paper filed yesterday in a U.S. District Court in the
Southern District of New York--
The charging document is once again an "information", since it was agreed to and not the
result of a grand jury indictment. It alleges that Cohen made false statements to the U.S.
Congress directed to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about a "branded property in
Moscow, Russia", obviously referring to a Trump property, and is based on Title 18, U.S. Code,
section 1001(a) and (c), the proverbial false statement statute [1]--
Since he was pleading guilty through the agreed charging paper filed today, he signed a
waiver giving up his right to be charged by an indictment for a felony--
Page 8 of the plea agreement indicates that Cohen talked to the Mueller group at least on 7
August 2018, 12 and 18 September, 8 and 17 October, and 12 and 20 November.
His lawyer filed a letter requesting that this new case be consolidated with his other
criminal case in the Southern District of New York, and be transferred to Judge William Pauley
III, in whose court the earlier case is pending--
Cohen is presently scheduled to be sentenced on 12 December 2018. The request to transfer
the case was granted, as noted on the court clerk's docket sheet--
"11/29/2018 Notice of Case Reassignment as to Michael Cohen, to Judge William H. Pauley,
III. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr no longer assigned to the case. (ma) (Entered:
11/29/2018)".
At this time, there is no "factual basis" or "statement of the offense" filed in the
clerk's file to support the guilty plea. This is unusual, as normally the factual basis is in
writing and filed as part of the plea papers. Thus, as in his earlier criminal case in the same
courthouse, the factual basis was probably done orally in open court at the time of the plea,
and the only way to find out what it was is to get a transcript of the hearing from the court
reporter.
Most unusual of all is that Cohen is prosecuted for making a false statement to
Congress. During the last 10 years or so, has anyone else made a materially false or misleading
or fraudulent statement, or covered up or concealed a material fact to Congress, in violation
of any U.S. law? Does anything come to mind causing a person wonder whether or not that has
happened, such as Fast and Furious gun running, or maybe on the subject of domestic
surveillance ...?
The Manchurian Candidate conspiracy theories stopped being farcical a while ago -- IMO
they are now in a class by themselves, perhaps a class shared with The Protocols of the
Learned Elders of Zion and other massively destructive lies.
The birther thing was awful, but at least it didn't get anyone killed, while this
thing will lead Trump to do stupid things to disprove it and might get us all killed.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around what precisely Trump is supposed to have done --
told Putin that he'd do anything he wanted in exchange for a real estate opportunity in
Moscow? I'm sure that Putin would have paid cash, no real estate required, for such a
privilege.
And yet the vast majority of people I've met believe that Trump is a Russian puppet
and that aggressive action is needed against Russia for the simple reason that
Trump=Russia=bad.
President Trump's ex-longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen worked with an FBI informant
known as "The Quarterback" to negotiate a deal for Trump Tower Moscow during the 2016 US
election, according to
BuzzFeed News .
"The Quarterback," Felix Sater - a longtime FBI and CIA undercover
intelligence asset who was busted running a $40 million stock scheme, leveraged his
Russia connections to pitch the deal, while Cohen discussed it with Putin's press secretary,
Dmitry Peskov, according to BuzzFeed , citing two unnamed US law enforcement
officials.
Sater told BuzzFeed News today that he and Cohen thought giving the Trump Tower's most
luxurious apartment, a $50 million penthouse , to Putin would entice other wealthy buyers
to purchase their own. "In Russia, the oligarchs would bend over backwards to live in the
same building as Vladimir Putin," Sater told BuzzFeed News. "My idea was to give a $50
million penthouse to Putin and charge $250 million more for the rest of the units. All the
oligarchs would line up to live in the same building as Putin." A second source confirmed
the plan. -
BuzzFeed
The Trump Tower Moscow plan is at the center of Cohen's
new plea agreement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller after he admitted to lying to
congressional committees investigating Trump-Russia collusion.
According to the
criminal information filed against Cohen Thursday, on Jan. 20, 2016 he spoke with a
Russian government official, referred to only as Assistant 1, about the Trump Tower Moscow
plan for 20 minutes. This person appears to be an assistant to Peskov, a top Kremlin
official that Cohen had attempted to reach by email.
Cohen "requested assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to
build the proposed tower and financing the construction," the court document states.
Cohen had previously maintained that he never got a response from the official, but in
court on Thursday he acknowledged that was a lie. -
BuzzFeed
While the deal ultimately fizzled, "and it is not clear whether Trump knew of the
intention to give away the penthouse," Cohen has said in court filings that Trump was
regularly briefed on the Moscow negotiations along with his family.
Sater and Cohen "worked furiously behind the scenes into the summer of 2016 to get the
Moscow deal finished," according to BuzzFeed - although it was claimed that the project was
canned in January 2016, before Trump won the GOP nomination.
Sater, who has worked with the Trump organization on past deals, said that he came up with
the Trump Tower Moscow idea, while Cohen - Sater recalled, said "Great idea." "I figured,
he's in the news, his name is generating a lot of good press," Sater told BuzzFeed earlier in
the year, adding "A lot of Russians weren't willing to pay a premium licensing fee to put
Donald's name on their building. Now maybe they would be."
So he turned to his old friend, Cohen, to get it off the ground . They arranged a
licensing deal, by which Trump would lend his name to the project and collect a part of the
profits. Sater lined up a Russian development company to build the project and said that
VTB, a Russian financial institution that faced US sanctions at the time, would finance it.
VTB officials
have denied taking part in any negotiations about the project. -
BuzzFeed
Two FBI agents with "direct knowledge of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations" told
BuzzFeed earlier this year that Cohen had been in frequent contact with foreigners about the
potential real estate project - and that some of these individuals "had knowledge of or
played a role in 2016 election meddling."
Meanwhile, Trump reportedly personally signed the letter of intent to move forward with
the Trump Tower Moscow plan on October 28, 2015 - the third day of the Republican primary
debate.
Cohen is scheduled to be sentenced on December 12. By cooperating with the DOJ, he is
hoping to avoid prison.
In 1998, Sater pleaded guilty to his involvement in a $40 million stock fraud scheme
orchestrated by the Russian Mafia , and became an informant
for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and federal prosecutors, assisting with organized crime investigations.
In 2017, Sater agreed to cooperate with investigators into international money laundering schemes.
Left, right and centre in contemporary USSA politics are rotten and corrupt. Bernie
Sanders proved that even he is susceptible to dodgy business decisions. Trump is no more
rotten and adverse to dodgy/boarderline legally tenuous deals than anybody in politics on
Capitol Hill. Do I care about this? No, because there are far more important issues to be
dealt with by a magnitude of 90000 times.
Both sides on this issue are imbeciles. One side is pushing guilt, when compared to what
Killary and the Clinton foundation got up to, it is a complete non-story. The other side
are completely absolving Orange Jesus of any guilt and making out he has morals beyond
reproach.
I rarely comment on the Trump/Russia angle, because most of it is overblown, the
narrative is distorted and context is deliberately misinterpreted.
President Trump's ex-longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen worked with an FBI
informant known as "The Quarterback" to negotiate a deal for Trump Tower Moscow during
the 2016 US election, according to BuzzFeed News.
There is nothing about this sentence which carries any credibility at all.
Honestly, you might not have bothered writing it, or the rest of the article. No. I
didn't read it, and am not going to waste any of my life doing so either.
Can somebody just give me the short, simple, dumbed-down version of what any of this
means? What does this amount to? Is this any kind of game-changer? Does it change
anything?
" ...an un-named source" ..... another fantastical fairytale from a failed american
media company by yet another un-named source. How very convenient. President Vladimir
living in an american themed cramped badly designed apartment building ? Please, I do not
like to laugh much but this is starting to make me smile. Our President has a State owned
mansion in the best part of our glorious capital ....like me he owns almost nothing and
works all the time ....why would anybody with sanity in their brain believe that he would
make this change, especially to be associated with ANYTHING american. Also no Russian
businessman that I know has ever bought a property in a trump complex .... the build
quality and design is rubbish. Westerners should take time to view some of our exceptional
office and residential towers along the Moskva River to see where wealthy people want to
invest, work and live here. Get real West !!
OK thought experiment, given that he "only" earns perhaps 150k, how is Putin going to
pay for the upkeep of such a White Elephant? Imagine if he had to pay for maintenance of
the complementary hot n cold running whores that inevitable come with such an apartment
.... what if something breaks and needs replaced?
It's like giving a Ferrari to an Amish. Thanks, but no, thanks. Not his style.
Because Putin wants to live in a building with a bunch of mobsters.
And small world - wouldnt you know the Russians who try to do hotel deals are also into
hacking illegal, unsecure servers?
And though this indicates nothing, true or not, about the election - here's the secret :
the judeocorporate media has got the public trained to react to 'Russia' and 'Putin' purely
emotionally - so much so the Maddows of the world will shriek that this proves 'collusion'
- when it does no such thing.
More Deep State smoke and mirrors.
If you havent watched any Dan Bongino speeches on youtube its worth a look.
Crooks and criminals took over worldwide. Now even US-citizens elected one for
President. It´s a shame. How long will it take until the killer squads of Blackstone
financed by Blackrock prowl through the streets to kill anybody who isn´t useful in
their view? They have been practicing for years in foreign countries, paid with taxpayers
money.
Why did the FBI or Muller zero in on this guy Michael Cohen?
Because they got everything on him, Trump and his family and associates, long before any
investigations were initiated.
NSA collected all the phone records, emails, text messages, internet usages, banking
records, library loan records, etc, . . . on EVERY Americans. All they need to do is type
in a name, like you type in a search phrase on Google, and everything associated with that
person would come up, on the screen.
The FBI knew everything they need to know about Michael Cohen, and General Michael
Flynn.
All they need to get them or entrap them is to ask them questions, which they already
knew the answers, and wait for them to "lie" or misrepresent themselves.
BINGO!
They are charged with lying to the FBI.
Trump was smart that he refused to be "interview" with the Muller, the Inquisitor. His
lawyers knew Muller will try to trap into "lying" to the FBI.
"... It is quite clear from the charging document that Sater, not Cohen, was the one who was extending the invitation from Russian officials for Cohen to travel to Russia. What remains unknown is whether Felix Sater was doing this on his own initiative or was acting on instructions from his FBI handler to "bait" Cohen with this opportunity. ..."
"... A criminal complaint filed by the FBI in January 2015 shows that the FBI's Counter Intelligence Division directed a Confidential Source of the FBI, who matches the description of Sater, to use the Trump Organization as bait to go after Russian intelligence officers. ..."
"... CS-1 posed as the representative of a wealthy investor looking to work with Bank-1 to develop casinos in Russia. ..."
"... discussed an email to BURYAKOV regarding the potential development of casinos in Russia ..."
"... Worth noting that this operation was carried out while E. W. "Bill" Priestap was the FBI special agent in charge of the Counterintelligence Division in the New York Field Office. Ten months after the success of this case, Priestap was promoted to assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) in Washington, DC. It was Priestap's Counterintelligence Division that subsequently played a key role in going after the Trump campaign for allegedly working with the Russians in 2016. ..."
"... Yet, Priestap surely knew that the previous contacts between Trump's organization and the Russians had been brokered at the behest of the FBI. ..."
"... Felix Sater was not just some run of the mill snitch. He was a very important informant and asset for both the FBI and the CIA. Don't take my word for it. That is what former Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. When Loretta Lynch was nominated for US Attorney General, she was pressed by Senator Orin Hatch to divulge information on Sater to satisfy all of the people who had been defrauded in the failed Fort Lauderdale Trump Towers venture. Here's Loretta Lynch's response: ..."
"... 'The defendant in question, Felix Sater , provided valuable and sensitive information to the government during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998. For more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors from my Office, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and law enforcement agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies, providing information crucial to national security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra. For that reason, his case was initially sealed.' ..."
"... Was Felix Sater operating as an FBI informant when matters related to Russia were discussed with members of Donald Trump's business enterprise? ..."
"... During the time that the FBI directed Felix Sater to use the Trump business enterprise as bait to entrap foreign spies and mobsters, was Trump witting of this ploy? ..."
"... I reiterate a point I made in my previous post. Felix Sater worked with Trump starting in 2003. At no point prior to Trump's June 16, 2015 announcement that he was running for President did the FBI pursue any criminal charges against Donald Trump or any member of his business organization. There are only two possibilities to explain that. Number one -- Donald Trump did not commit any overt acts that would have met the standard for a criminal indictment. Number two -- Donald Trump also was an informer for the FBI and was granted immunity and all records sealed. I believe the later is highly unlikely. Given the level of animus directed at Trump by many senior FBI officials, I find it improbable that such a secret could be kept. ..."
"... We really need to know what the FBI knew about Trump's Russia contacts that were facilitated by their informant, Felix Sater, and when they knew it. I do not think that the FBI will be eager to provide such answers. ..."
Sater is not named in the charging statement filed by the Special Prosecutor but Felix Sater
matches the description of "Individual 2." The charging statement clearly shows that Sater
played a key role in trying to promote contacts with the Russians, including Vladimir
Putin:
COHEN and Individual 2 discussed efforts to obtain Russian governmental approval for the
Moscow Project. (page 5)
COHEN and Individual 2 discussed on multiple occasions traveling to Russia to pursue the
Moscow Project. (page 5)
On or about May 4, 2016, Individual 2 wrote to COHEN,"I had a chat with Moscow. ASSUMING the
trip does happen the question is before or after the convention . . . Obviously the pre-meeting
trip (you only) can happen anytime you want but the 2 big guys where [sic] the question. I said
I would confirm and revert." (page 6)
On or about May 5, 2016, Individual 2 followed up with COHEN and wrote, "[Russian Official
1] would like to invite you as his guest to the St. Petersburg Forum which is Russia's Davos
it's June 16-19. He wants to meet there with you and possibly introduce you to either [the
President of Russia] or [the Prime Minister of Russia], as they are not sure if 1 or both will
be there. . . . He said anything you want to discuss including dates and subjects are on the
table to discuss."
On or about May 6, 2016, Individual 2 asked COHEN to confirm those dates would work for him
to travel. COHEN wrote back, "Works for me."
From on or about June 9 to June 14, 2016, Individual 2 sent numerous messages to COHEN about
the travel, including forms for COHEN to complete. However, on or about June 14, 2016, COHEN
met Individual 2 in the lobby of the Company's headquarters to inform Individual 2 he would not
be traveling at that time.
The day after COHEN's call with Assistant 1, Individual 2 contacted him, asking for a call.
Individual 2 wrote to COHEN, "It's about [the President of Russia] they called today."
It is quite clear from the charging document that Sater, not Cohen, was the one who was
extending the invitation from Russian officials for Cohen to travel to Russia. What remains
unknown is whether Felix Sater was doing this on his own initiative or was acting on
instructions from his FBI handler to "bait" Cohen with this opportunity.
A criminal complaint filed by the FBI in January 2015 shows that the FBI's Counter
Intelligence Division directed a Confidential Source of the FBI, who matches the description of
Sater, to use the Trump Organization as bait to go after Russian intelligence officers. Felix Sater appears to have played a critical role in taking down three Russian Non Official Cover
officers -- Evgeny Buryakov, Igor Sporyshev and Viktor Podobnyy -- who were charged by the FBI
in January 2015 for espionage. The alleged spying by these Russian NOCs commenced in 2012. We
do not know how the FBI discovered their activities, but the Russians became targets of an FBI
Counter Intelligence Division investigation. The complaint filed by FBI agent Gregory Monaghan,
shows how Confidential Source 1 (who fits the role played by Sater in the Trump organization)
used his relationship with Donald Trump's company as bait:
As set forth below, in the summer of 2014, EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," the defendant,
met numerous times with a confidential source working for the FBI ("CS-1"). CS-1 posed as
the representative of a wealthy investor looking to work with Bank-1 to develop casinos in
Russia. . . BURYAKOV's statements and conduct reflected his strong desire to obtain
information about subjects far outside the scope of his work as a bank employee, and consistent
with his interests as a Russian intelligence agent. These meetings established BURYAKOV's
willingness to solicit and accept documents that CS-1 claimed he had obtained from a U.S.
government agency and which purportedlycontained information potentially useful to the Russian
Federation.
Monaghan's complaint, however, also reveals evidence that the Russians were quite skeptical
of Sater.
On or about July 22, 2014, EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," and IGOR SPORYSHEV, the
defendants, had a conversation. BURYAKOV and SPORYSHEV discussed an email to BURYAKOV
regarding the potential development of casinos in Russia . BURYAKOV stated that the
subject of the email was concerning "some sort of fucking nonsense" relating to casinos.
SPORYSHEV stated, "It's unclear . Casino, Russia, like, some sort of a set up. Trap of some
sort. I cannot understand what the point is." SPORYSHEV added, "You could meet [an associate of
CS-1] if you want - you will look and decide for yourself."
Notwithstanding their doubts, the Russians went ahead with a meeting with Sater in Atlantic
City, where Sater fulfilled his role on behalf of the FBI and set the hook in the Russians by
having them accept a U.S. Government document:
On or about August 8, 2014, CS-1 met with EVGENY BURYAKOV, a/k/a "Zhenya," the defendant,
and Male-2 in Atlantic City. The meeting lasted from around noon to 7:00 p.m. and included a
tour of casinos in Atlantic City. At the end of the day, CS-1 took BURYAKOV and Male-2 to
CS-l's office, where CS-1 gave a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed casino project in
Russia. At the end of the PowerPoint presentation, CS-1 noted that U.S. sanctions against
Russia could have an impact on their project. CS-1 also presented BURYAKOV with a United States
Government document ("Government Document-1"), labeled "Internal Treasury Use Only," which
contained a list of Russian individuals who had been sanctioned by the United States. CS-1
stated that CS-1 had a contact in the United States Government and could get more information
about sanctions if BURYAKOV was interested. BURYAKOV replied that he was interested in such
information. At the end of the meeting, BURYAKOV asked if he could keep Government Document-1,
which CS-1 then handed to BURYAKOV. BURYAKOV took the document with him and left the
meeting.
Worth noting that this operation was carried out while E. W. "Bill" Priestap was the FBI
special agent in charge of the Counterintelligence Division in the New York Field Office. Ten
months after the success of this case, Priestap was promoted to assistant director of the
Counterintelligence Division at FBI Headquarters (FBIHQ) in Washington, DC. It was Priestap's
Counterintelligence Division that subsequently played a key role in going after the Trump
campaign for allegedly working with the Russians in 2016.
Yet, Priestap surely knew that the
previous contacts between Trump's organization and the Russians had been brokered at the behest
of the FBI. The Monaghan affidavit does not paint a picture of "CS-1" acting unilaterally to
cultivate Russian intelligence officers.
So how do we know that Sater really was an FBI registered informant? The answer lies with
the failed Trump Tower in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Michael Sallah, writing for the Miami
Herald, was the first I could find that wrote about Sater and his FBI ties:
When Felix Sater and his partners launched a plan to put up a Trump tower in Fort Lauderdale
-- luring scores of investors -- he had already been charged in an explosive securities scam
with New York mob figures.
He had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing in the $40 million swindle.
But investors in the Trump tower never knew.
Sater had already been prosecuted in secret -- his arrest records shut down and every trace
of his role in the New York stock scandal stripped from public view. . . .
In a rare move, lawyers are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intercede in a bitter debate
over the practice of concealing criminal cases from the public.
For now, Sater -- an FBI informant who owns a $4.8 million Fisher Island condo -- has become
the poster boy of the fight over whether judges have the power to bury all traces of someone's
criminal history. The Miami Herald, July 1, 2012 Sunday by Michael Sallah
Sallah provided the first comprehensive summary of Sater's shady past:
Born in the former Soviet Union and raised in New York, Sater began his rise in financial
circles as a young stock broker in the 1990s.
But his career took a wrong turn when he was arrested after getting into a bar fight where
he stabbed another broker in the face with the stem of a shattered margarita glass.
After a stint in prison, he was released on parole. But he got into trouble again, this time
in the stock fraud with members of the Genovese and Colombo crime families in 1998.
After pleading guilty to racketeering -- and the case sealed -- Sater went on to launch a
new career in real estate that would take him across the country, including South Florida.
After he joined the Bayrock Group in New York as an executive in 2003, the firm unveiled a
series of big developments, while licensing Trump's name.
They announced the stunning 24-story high-rise on Fort Lauderdale's beach that became one of
the biggest condo-hotel deals in Florida. The Miami Herald, July 1, 2012 Sunday by Michael Sallah
Felix Sater was not only an FBI informant, but he did some sensitive work for the CIA.
Sallah also broke this angle of the story about Sater:
Charged in a New York securities scandal, the 46-year-old businessman traveled to his native
Russia where he took on a unique role that went far beyond flipping on dangerous criminals.
He began spying for the CIA.
Tapping into the vast underground of the former Soviet Union, Sater was able to track down a
dozen Stinger missiles equipped with powerful tracking devices on the black market.
With the backing of U.S. agents, Sater agreed to buy the weapons -- keeping them out of the
hands of terrorists. In return, the CIA pledged to keep Sater from going to jail in the stock
scam he concocted with New York organized crime figures. . . .
What remains sealed is the work that Sater performed for the government in the past 14 years
that's now the topic of the court fight.
During one hearing, the judge said the case had reached top members "of a national law
enforcement security agency. I should say agencies -- plural." But he didn't elaborate.
The fight has been taken so seriously the judge is using the name John Doe instead of Sater
to hide his identity and to "protect the life of the person." The Miami Herald, September 8, 2012 Saturday by Michael Sallah
Felix Sater was not just some run of the mill snitch. He was a very important informant
and asset for both the FBI and the CIA. Don't take my word for it. That is what former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch said. When Loretta Lynch was nominated for US Attorney General, she was
pressed by Senator Orin Hatch to divulge information on Sater to satisfy all of the people who
had been defrauded in the failed Fort Lauderdale Trump Towers venture. Here's Loretta Lynch's
response:
'The defendant in question, Felix Sater , provided valuable and sensitive information to
the government during the course of his cooperation, which began in or about December 1998. For
more than 10 years, he worked with prosecutors from my Office, the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York and law enforcement agents from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies, providing information crucial to national
security and the conviction of over 20 individuals, including those responsible for committing
massive financial fraud and members of La Cosa Nostra. For that reason, his case was initially
sealed.'
The FBI and Robert Mueller, who ran the FBI during the time that Sater operated as an FBI
informant, need to answer two key questions.
Was Felix Sater operating as an FBI informant when matters related to Russia were
discussed with members of Donald Trump's business enterprise?
During the time that the FBI directed Felix Sater to use the Trump business
enterprise as bait to entrap foreign spies and mobsters, was Trump witting of this
ploy?
I reiterate a point I made in my previous post. Felix Sater worked with Trump starting
in 2003. At no point prior to Trump's June 16, 2015 announcement that he was running for
President did the FBI pursue any criminal charges against Donald Trump or any member of his
business organization. There are only two possibilities to explain that. Number one -- Donald
Trump did not commit any overt acts that would have met the standard for a criminal indictment.
Number two -- Donald Trump also was an informer for the FBI and was granted immunity and all
records sealed. I believe the later is highly unlikely. Given the level of animus directed at
Trump by many senior FBI officials, I find it improbable that such a secret could be
kept.
We really need to know what the FBI knew about Trump's Russia contacts that were facilitated
by their informant, Felix Sater, and when they knew it. I do not think that the FBI will be
eager to provide such answers.
Summary: George Papadopoulos and his wife Simone Mangiante approached in Greece by a
known CIA/FBI operative, Charles Tawil. Mr. Tawil enlists George as a business
consultant, under the auspices of energy development interests, and hands him $10,000
in cash to take back to the U.S. Upon arrival at the Dulles airport Robert Mueller had
FBI agents waiting. Papadopoulos was stopped and searched; however, he never had the
cash because he smartly left it in Greece with his lawyer. Further:
[W]hen he was arrested at Dulles Airport on July 27 after coming off a flight from
Munich, prosecutors had no warrant for him and no indictment or criminal complaint. The
complaint would be filed the following morning and approved by Howell in
Washington.
On a tangential but related note, earlier today I saw an article at Zero Hedge that
was sourced from this Daily Caller article:
EXCLUSIVE: FBI Raids Home Of Whistleblower On Clinton Foundation, Lawyer Says
https://dailycaller.com/201...
FBI agents raided the home of a recognized Department of Justice whistleblower who
privately delivered documents pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and Uranium One to a
government watchdog, according to the whistleblower's attorney.
The Justice Department's inspector general was informed that the documents show that
federal officials failed to investigate potential criminal activity regarding former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian
company that purchased Uranium One, a document reviewed by The Daily Caller News
Foundation alleges.
The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to
investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian
government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges.
Mueller is now the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with
Russia during the 2016 election.
"The bureau raided my client to seize what he legally gave Congress about the Clinton
Foundation and Uranium One," the whistleblower's lawyer, Michael Socarras, told TheDCNF,
noting that he considered the FBI's raid to be an "outrageous disregard" of whistleblower
protections.
----------------------------
In one of those "it's a small world" scenarios, one of the WalkAway YouTubers (former
SJW turned conservative) that I follow is the sister-in-law of this whistleblower! Here
is her video today about the raid
Witch hunt has its own dynamics and it is not necessary to get any facts to inflict great damage. Mueller, the key person in 8/11
investigation, is first and foremost a loyal neocon/neolib establishment stooge, not so much a lawyer. So the shadow of McCarthyism
fall on the Washitnton, DC.
Felix Sater was FBI asset from the very beginning.
Which such Byzantium politics in Washington and intrigues between almost identical parties worth of Madrid court it is not
accidental that FBI coves with upper hand in its struggle with Russian intelligence, Russians can't get such training in
viciousness, double dealing and false flag operations anywhere.
Notable quotes:
"... Disappearing for the midterms , Russiagate has re-emerged front and center. This week's barrage of developments in the cases of indicted Trump campaign figures Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and George Papadopoulos have renewed long-running declarations of a presidency in peril . ..."
"... They coincide with a fresh round of alarm over the fate of Mueller's investigation following Trump's ouster of attorney general Jeff Sessions and the installation of Matthew Whitaker in his place. ..."
"... Although Mueller's final report has yet to be released, the issue that sparked the FBI investigation he inherited has already been resolved. The FBI began eyeing potential Trump-Russia ties in July 2016 after getting a tip that unpaid campaign aide George Papadopoulos may have been informed that Russia was in possession of stolen Democratic Party emails well before WikiLeaks made them public. But that trail went cold. It turns out that a London-based professor, Joseph Mifsud, told Papadopoulos that the Russian government might possess thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... The Russia probe's other instigating figure, Carter Page, was also a low-level, unpaid campaign official. The information that led to his investigation is even more suspect. ..."
"... But its a key source for that supposition turned out to be the Steele dossier -- the salacious, Democratic Party-funded opposition research compiled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. And while the FBI got Papadopoulos on lying to them, Page has not been accused of any crime... ..."
"... Just as the evidence used in Manafort's bank and tax fraud case underscored that he worked against Russian interests in Ukraine , Flynn's indictment turns up another inconvenient fact for the collusion hopeful: The foreign government that Flynn colluded with on Trump's behalf -- against the US government -- is not Russia, but Israel . ..."
"... Russians never signed on, and Cohen only grew increasingly frustrated with Sater's failure to live up to his lofty pledges. "You are putting my job in jeopardy and making me look incompetent," Cohen wrote Sater on December 31, 2015. "I gave you two months and the best you send me is some bullshit garbage invite by some no name clerk at a third-tier bank." ..."
"... It is also possible that Manafort's alleged lies have nothing to do with a Russia conspiracy; after all, his case, and that of his deputy Rick Gates, pertained not to Russia or the 2016 campaign, but instead to financial crimes during Manafort's lobbying stint in Ukraine. ..."
They coincide with a fresh round of alarm over the fate of Mueller's investigation following Trump's ouster of attorney
general Jeff Sessions and the installation of Matthew Whitaker in his place. Leading Democrats now see the probe as so paramount
that, despite having re-captured the House running on health-care issues, protecting the investigation has been deemed "our top priority"
(Representative Jerry Nadler) and "at the top of the agenda," (Representative Adam Schiff).
There is nothing objectionable about wanting to safeguard the Mueller investigation, nor about concerns that Trump's appointment
of an unqualified loyalist may jeopardize it. Mueller should complete his work, unimpeded. The question is one of priorities. After
all, the fixation on Mueller has not just raised anticipation of Trump's indictment, or even impeachment -- it has also
overshadowed many of
the actual policies that those seeking his political demise oppose him for. At this highly charged moment, it seems prudent to re-consider
whether the probe remains worthy of such attention and high hopes.
Although Mueller's final report has yet to be released, the issue that sparked the FBI investigation he inherited has already
been resolved. The FBI
began eyeing potential Trump-Russia ties in July 2016 after getting a tip that unpaid campaign aide George Papadopoulos may have
been informed that Russia was in possession of stolen Democratic Party emails well before WikiLeaks made them public. But that trail
went cold. It turns out that a London-based professor, Joseph Mifsud, told Papadopoulos that the Russian government might possess
thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails.
The FBI interviewed Mifsud in Washington, DC, in February 2017, but Mueller has never alleged that Mifsud works with the Russian
government. Papadopoulos was ultimately sentenced to just 14 days behind bars for lying to the FBI about the timing and nature of
his contacts with Mifsud. He reported to a federal prison on Monday.
The Russia probe's other instigating figure, Carter Page, was also a low-level, unpaid campaign official. The information
that led to his investigation is even more suspect. In its October 2016 application for a surveillance warrant on Page,
the FBI claimed it "believes that [Russia's]
efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with [the Trump campaign]." But its a key source
for that supposition turned out to be the Steele dossier -- the salacious, Democratic Party-funded opposition research compiled by
former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. And while the FBI got Papadopoulos on lying to them, Page has not been accused of any crime...
With the Russia investigation's catalysts coming up all but empty, there is little reason to expect that the remaining campaign
members who face prison time will reverse that trend. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn awaits sentencing in the coming
weeks on charges similar to Papadopoulos's. Just as the evidence used in Manafort's bank and tax fraud case
underscored that he
worked against Russian interests in Ukraine , Flynn's indictment turns up another inconvenient fact for the collusion
hopeful: The foreign government that Flynn colluded with on Trump's behalf -- against the US government -- is
not Russia, but Israel .
Despite much hoopla to the contrary, Muller's new indictment of former Trump fixer Michael Cohen contains more inconvenient facts.
Cohen has pleaded guilty to a single count for lying to Congress about his role in a failed attempt to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
According to the plea document, Cohen gave Congress false written answers in order to "minimize links," between the Moscow project
and Trump, and to "give the false impression" that it was abandoned earlier than it actually was. Cohen
told the court that
he made these statements to "be loyal" to Trump and to be consistent with his "political messaging."
As I noted in The Nation
in October 2017 , the attempted real-estate venture in Russia "does raise a potential conflict of interest" for Trump, who
"pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trail." But nothing in Cohen's indictment incriminates Trump. Much of
what it details was previously known, and rather than revealing an illicit, transatlantic collusion scheme, it reads more like a
slapstick mafia buddy comedy. As
Buzzfeed News reported in May , Cohen communicated extensively with Trump organization colleague Felix Sater -- identified
in the Cohen plea as "Individual 2″ -- who had promised to secure Russian financing for the proposed Moscow project. But the
Russians never signed on, and Cohen only grew increasingly frustrated with Sater's failure to live up to his lofty pledges. "You
are putting my job in jeopardy and making me look incompetent," Cohen wrote Sater on December 31, 2015. "I gave you two months and
the best you send me is some bullshit garbage invite by some no name clerk at a third-tier bank."
Cohen then took matters into his own hands. As was previously known, he did not have an email address for a Russian contact, so
he wrote to a generic email address at the office of Dmitri Peskov, the press secretary for Vladimir Putin ("Russian Official 1,"
in the indictment). We now learn from Cohen that he managed to reach Peskov's assistant, who asked him "detailed questions and took
notes." But as The New York Times noted when the Trump
Moscow story first emerged: "The project never got [Russian] government permits or financing, and died weeks later." Sater tried
to save the project. He discussed arranging visits to Russia by both Cohen and Trump, but Cohen ultimately backed out after allegations
of Russian email hacking surfaced in June 2016.
According to Buzzfeed , Sater even proposed giving Putin a $50 million penthouse as an enticement, but "the plan never went anywhere
because the tower deal ultimately fizzled, and it is not clear whether Trump knew of "Sater's idea."
Cohen now claims that he spoke to Trump about the project more than the three times that he informed Congress about. For their
part, Trump's attorneys
do not seem concerned, saying that his recently submitted answers to Mueller align with Cohen's account. That Cohen perjured
himself to Congress raises problems for him, but it is hard to see how his lies about a project that failed and a proposed trip to
Russia that never happened can hurt Trump. That could only change if, as part of his new cooperation deal with Mueller, Cohen has
more to give.
As for Manafort, his case took a major turn when Mueller canceled their cooperation agreement and accused him of "crimes and lies."
The crucial questions are what does Mueller allege he lied to him about and what evidence is there to substantiate that charge. Mueller
is expected to provide details in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we can only speculate.
The revelation that
Manafort's lawyers shared information with Trump's attorneys even after the plea deal was struck in September has inevitably
fueled speculation that Manafort is lying to benefit Trump, or even hide evidence of a Russia conspiracy. That is certainly possible.
But theories that Manafort is then banking on a pardon from Trump do not square with the
prevailing
view that his
agreement with Mueller -- which included admitting to crimes that could be re-charged in state court -- was "
pardon proof ."
It is also possible that Manafort's alleged lies have nothing to do with a Russia conspiracy; after all, his case, and that
of his deputy Rick Gates, pertained not to Russia or the 2016 campaign, but instead to financial crimes during Manafort's lobbying
stint in Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal suggests that is the case,
reporting that Manafort's alleged lies "don't appear to be central to the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election
that Mr. Mueller is investigating." Earlier this month,
ABC News claimed , citing "multiple sources," that Mueller's investigators are "not getting what they want" from Manafort's cooperation
deal. When it comes to collusion, perhaps there is just nothing to get.
Watergate had tragic Shakespearean overtones , with Nixon as King Lear, but Russia-Gate -
perhaps the last gate America goes through on its giant slalom run to collapse - is but a
Chinese Fire Drill writ large.
The reason? In 1973, we were still a serious people. Today, the most lavishly credentialed
elite in history believe the most preposterous "stories," or, surely even worse, pretend to
believe them for political advantage.
Now, an epic battle of wills is setting up as Robert Mueller's investigation concludes its
business and its primary target, the Golden Golem of Greatness, girds his loins to push back.
Behind the flimsy scrim of Russia collusion accusations stands a bewildering maze of criminal
mischief by a matrix of federal agencies that lost control of their own dark operation to
meddle in the 2016 election.
The US intel community (CIA, NSA, FBI, etc), with the Department of Justice, all colluded
with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the intel agencies of the UK and Australia, to derail Mr.
Trump as a stooge of Russia and, when he shocked them by getting elected, mounted a desperate
campaign to cover their asses knowing he had become their boss.
The Obama White House was involved in all this, attempting to cloak itself in plausible
deniability, which may be unwinding now, too. How might all this play out from here?
One big mystery is how long will Mr. Trump wait to declassify any number of secret files,
memoranda, and communications that he's been sitting on for months .
My guess is that this stuff amounts to a potent weapon against his adversaries and he will
wait until Mr. Mueller releases a final report before declassifying it. Then, we'll have a fine
constitutional crisis as the two sides vie for some sort of adjudication.
Who, for instance, will adjudicate the monkey business that is already on-the-record
involving misdeeds in the Department of Justice itself? Will the DOJ split into two contesting
camps, each charging the other? How might that work? Does the Acting Attorney General Mr.
Whitaker seek indictments against figures such as Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, et
al. Will he also rope in intel cowboys John Brennan and James Clapper? Might Hillary find
herself in jeopardy -- all the while on the other side Mr. Mueller pursues his targets,
characters like Mr. Manafort, Michael Cohen, and the hapless Carter Page?
Or might Mr. Mueller, and others, possibly find themselves in trouble, as spearheads of a
bad-faith campaign to weaponize government agencies against a sitting president? That might
sound outlandish, but the evidence is adding up. In fact the evidence of a Deep State gone
rogue is far more compelling than any charges Mr. Mueller has so far produced on Trump-Russia
"collusion." An example of bad faith is former FBI Director James Comey's current campaign to
avoid testifying in closed session before the House Judiciary and Oversight committees -- he
filed a motion just before Thanksgiving. Mr. Comey is pretending that an open session would be
"transparent." His claim is mendacious. If he were questioned about classified matters in an
open session, he would do exactly what he did before in open session: decline to answer about
"sensitive" matters on the basis of national security. He could make no such claims in a closed
session. The truth is, his attorneys are trying to run out the clock on the current composition
of the house committees, which will come under a Democrat majority in January, so that Mr.
Comey can avoid testifying altogether.
There are other dicey matters awaiting some kind of adjudication elsewhere.
For instance, who is going to review the chain of decisions among the FISA judges who
approved of warrants made in bad faith to spy on US citizens? Perhaps the shrinking violet, Mr.
Huber, out in the Utah Prosecutor's Office of the DOJ, is looking into all that. He's been at
something for most of the year (nobody knows what). He has to answer to Mr. Whitaker now, or
the permanent AG who replaces him. And why is Mr. Trump dragging his heels on nominating a
permanent AG? I suppose the FISA court matter will fall to the Supreme Court, but how does that
process work, and how long might it take?
The potential for a stand-off exists that will confound any effort to untangle these things,
and I can see how that might lead to an extraordinary crisis in which Mr. Trump has to declare
some form of emergency or perhaps martial law to clean out this suppurating abscess of
illegality and sedition .
That can only be the last and worst resort, but what if the US judicial system just can't
manage to clean up the mess it has made?
If Trump doesn't go on a major offensive within the next couple of weeks he's fucked
because once the new ... House is sworn in on January 3rd he will be dealing with so many
different distractions at the same time it will make his attempt to fight back almost
impossible...
If Kunstler is right in his prediction of collapse. The Deep State is going to go the way
of the Stasi. Systemic collapse will usher in a purge the scope of which none of us can
fathom.
The CIA was running the entire show. The FBI was the CIA's dog.
Stefan Halper has been mislabeled by MSM as an FBI informant. Stefan Halper is a CIA
operative. He is the smoking gun.
Both the CIA and MI6 were colluding to prevent Trump from being elected and then working a
coup after election.
It all leads back to former CIA director Brennan and national security advisor Clapper.
Both worked under the authority of Obama, thus both believe what they were doing was
authorized by Obama, particularly Clapper who took his marching orders from Obama. They both
believed Clinton would win and everything would be brushed under the rug as usual.
Mueller is a cover up man and yes man with plenty of felonies. Rosenstein wrote the memo
Comey needed to be fired, because he wanted to replace Comey with Mueller. Rosenstein worried
Comey would talk, would begin to release data and start investigation to protect himself and
the FBI, so when Trump refused to appoint Mueller to FBI director, Rosenstein appointed
Mueller to take out Trump.
The MSM and everyone says how good Mueller is, but he's committed countless felonies and
no one at the DOJ has honor to be an American. The DOJ is political and is against this
nation, against the truth.
Sessions was cover up man and a yes man. He was also afraid of being indicted by Mueller.
His main purpose was illegal immigration, that's all he cared about. He didn't care what
happened to Trump and figured Pence would let him stay because of his mission on illegal
immigration and cannabis. Sessions believed he would roll back the legalization of cannabis
and Pence would follow him. Sessions believed Trump was soft on cannabis. That seems petty,
but that's the way Sessions thought.
No one follows the law anymore, this has trickled down to the people. These people have
set a bad example and the people have no respect for the system anymore.
The only way to make it respected again is for these criminals like Mueller, must be
killed. But because of the malaise caused by the criminals no one cares about America
anymore. No one cares enough to kill criminals like Mueller. The MSM is responsible for doing
incredible damage to the character of our nation. It's because of them all of this happened
because they will not tell the truth.
Just 6 corporations - all interlocking - own 95% of America's mainstream media. There's
the problem. Evil controls the narrative and fools the public. For example, ANTIFA - who are
they really, what are their roots, where do they come from? None of THIS will you get from
the MSM:
"The potential for a stand-off exists that will confound any effort to untangle these
things... might lead to an extraordinary crisis in which Trump has to declare some form of
emergency or perhaps martial law to clean out this suppurating abscess of illegality and
sedition ..."
The crooks will not give up without a fight and Trump will have to call in the
military?
Crimea was a variation of Kosovo. As the USA destroyed post WWII order, as its position weakens, real chaos can occurs. because
Might is right can work not only for the USA anymore. And in this theater the USA has no advantages, other then their geopolitical weight.
It is too fat from US mainland.
The USA speed up events probably by 20 years or so and coursed considerable suffering of the Ukrainian population. Ukraine was gradually
detaching itself from Russia anyway (which is a natural process for any xUSSR republic after the independence.). Essentially the USA
raped the Ukraine using Ukrainian nationalist as a fifth column of neoliberal globalization.
The net result of the premature and by-and-large successful attempt to break Ukraine from Russia and play Baltic's scenario (which
was possible due to existence of Western Ukrainian nationalists) was drastic impoverishing (already very poor after chaos and
neoliberal economic plunder of 1990th) of the bottom 99% of Ukrainian population which now is the poorest population of Europe.
Ukrainian nationalists now are finding the hard way that bordering with Russia created some problems for their agenda... The
good analogy is Canada and the USA.
In a way, incorporation of Western Ukraine into the USSR looks now like Stalin's geopolitical mistake. Now attempts to colonize
Eastern Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists will face resistance and it already led to civil war in Donbass.
Things became way too complex and unpredictable in this region. Of course, neocons still are pushing their usual might is
right policy, not they might face considerable setbacks in the future. Like they did in Iraq. Which still did not affect much
their paychecks.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian warships fired at the Ukrainian vessels and rammed the tug. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded, and 24 crew taken into custody. Russia's refusal to release the sailors was given by President Trump as the reason for canceling his Putin meeting. Moscow contends that Ukraine deliberately violated the new rules of transit that Kiev had previously observed, to create an incident. ..."
"... For his part, Putin has sought to play the matter down, calling it a "border incident, nothing more." "The incident in the Black Sea was a provocation organized by the authorities and maybe the president himself. (Poroshenko's) rating is falling so he needed to do something." Maxim Eristavi, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, seems to concur: "Poroshenko wants to get a head start in his election campaign. He is playing the card of commander in chief, flying around in military uniform, trying to project that he is in control." ..."
"... Predictably, our interventionists decried Russian "aggression" and demanded we back up our Ukrainian "ally" and send military aid. Why was Poroshenko's ordering of gunboats into the Sea of Azov, while ignoring rules Russia set down for passage, provocative? Because Poroshenko, whose warships had previously transited the strait, had to know the risk that he was taking and that Russia might resist. ..."
"... Why would he provoke the Russians? Because, with his poll numbers sinking badly, Poroshenko realizes that unless he does something dramatic, his party stands little chance in next March's elections. ..."
"... Some Westerners want even more in the way of confronting Putin. Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council urges us to build up U.S. naval forces in the Black Sea, send anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, threaten to expel her from the SWIFT system of international bank transactions, and pressure Europe to cancel the Russians' Nord Stream 2 and South Stream oil pipelines into Europe. ..."
"... If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free of Kiev? ..."
On departure for the G-20 gathering in Buenos Aires, President Donald Trump canceled his planned weekend meeting with Vladimir
Putin, citing as his reason the Russian military's seizure and holding of three Ukrainian ships and 24 sailors.
But was Putin really the provocateur in Sunday's naval clash outside Kerch Strait, the Black Sea gateway to the Sea of Azov?
Or was the provocateur Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko?
First, a bit of history.
In 2014, after the pro-Russian regime in Kiev was ousted in a coup, and a pro-NATO regime installed with U.S. backing, Putin detached
and annexed Crimea, for centuries the homeport of Russia's Black Sea fleet.
With the return of Crimea, Russia now occupied both sides of Kerch Strait. And this year, Russia completed a 12-mile bridge over
the strait and Putin drove the first truck across.
The Sea of Azov became a virtual Russian lake, access to which was controlled by Russia, just as access to the Black Sea is controlled
by Turkey.
While the world refused to recognize the new reality, Russia began to impose rules for ships transiting the strait, including
48 hours notice to get permission.
Ukrainian vessels, including warships, would have to notify Russian authorities before passing beneath the Kerch Strait Bridge
into the Sea of Azov to reach their major port of Mariupol.
Sunday, two Ukrainian artillery ships and a tug, which had sailed out of Odessa in western Ukraine, passed through what Russia
now regards as its territorial waters off Crimea and the Kerch Peninsula. Destination: Mariupol.
The Ukrainian vessels refused to obey Russian directives to halt.
Russian warships fired at the Ukrainian vessels and rammed the tug. Three Ukrainian sailors were wounded, and 24 crew taken
into custody. Russia's refusal to release the sailors was given by President Trump as the reason for canceling his Putin meeting.
Moscow contends that Ukraine deliberately violated the new rules of transit that Kiev had previously observed, to create an incident.
For his part, Putin has sought to play the matter down, calling it a "border incident, nothing more." "The incident in the
Black Sea was a provocation organized by the authorities and maybe the president himself. (Poroshenko's) rating is falling so he
needed to do something." Maxim Eristavi, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, seems to concur: "Poroshenko wants to get a head start
in his election campaign. He is playing the card of commander in chief, flying around in military uniform, trying to project that
he is in control."
Our U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, however, accused Russia of "outlaw actions" against the Ukrainian vessels and "an arrogant act
the international community will never accept."
Predictably, our interventionists decried Russian "aggression" and demanded we back up our Ukrainian "ally" and send military
aid. Why was Poroshenko's ordering of gunboats into the Sea of Azov, while ignoring rules Russia set down for passage, provocative?
Because Poroshenko, whose warships had previously transited the strait, had to know the risk that he was taking and that Russia might
resist.
Why would he provoke the Russians? Because, with his poll numbers sinking badly, Poroshenko realizes that unless he does something
dramatic, his party stands little chance in next March's elections.
Immediately after the clash, Poroshenko imposed martial law in all provinces bordering Russia and the Black Sea, declared an invasion
might be imminent, demanded new Western sanctions on Moscow, called on the U.S. to stand with him, and began visiting army units
in battle fatigues.
Some Westerners want even more in the way of confronting Putin. Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Council urges us to build
up U.S. naval forces in the Black Sea, send anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine, ratchet up sanctions on Russia, threaten
to expel her from the SWIFT system of international bank transactions, and pressure Europe to cancel the Russians' Nord Stream 2
and South Stream oil pipelines into Europe.
But there is a larger issue here. Why is control of the Kerch Strait any of our business? Why is this our quarrel, to the point
that U.S. strategists want us to confront Russia over a Crimean Peninsula that houses the Livadia Palace that was the last summer
residence of Czar Nicholas II?
If Ukraine had a right to break free of Russia in 1991, why do not Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk have the right to break free
of Kiev?
Why are we letting ourselves be dragged into everyone's quarrels -- from who owns the islets in the South China Sea, to who owns
the Senkaku and Southern Kurils; and from whether Transnistria had a right to secede from Moldova, to whether South Ossetia and Abkhazia
had the right to break free of Georgia, when Georgia broke free of Russia?
Do the American people care a fig for these places? Are we really willing to risk war with Russia or China over who holds title
to them?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever."
Michael Cohen To Plead Guilty To Lying About Trump Russian Real-Estate Deal
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 11/29/2018 - 09:19 128 SHARES
Four months after
he pleaded guilty to campaign finance law violations, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen has
copped to new charges of lying to congressional committees investigating Trump-Russia
collusion, according to
ABC . His latest plea is part of a new deal reached with Special Counsel Robert Mueller,
which had been said to be winding down before its latest burst of activity, including an
investigation into Roger Stone's alleged ties to Wikileaks. Stone ally
Jerome Corsi this week said he had refused to strike a plea deal with Mueller's
investigators, who had accused him of lying.
To hold up his end of the deal, Cohen sat for 70 hours of testimony with the Mueller probe,
he said Monday during an appearance at a federal courthouse in Manhattan where he officially
pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements.
According to
the Hill, Cohen's alleged lies stem from testimony he gave in 2017, when he told the House
Intelligence Committee that a planned real-estate deal to build the Trump Moscow Hotel had been
abandoned in January 2016 after the Trump Organization decided that "the proposal was not
feasible." While Cohen's previous plea was an agreement with federal prosecutors in New York,
this marks the first time Cohen has been charged by Mueller.
As part of his plea Cohen admitted to lying in a written statement to Congress about his
role in brokering a deal for a Trump Tower Moscow - the aborted project to build a
Trump-branded hotel in the Russian capitol. As has been previously reported, Cohen infamously
contacted a press secretary for President Putin to see if Putin could help with some red tape
to help start development, though the project was eventually abandoned.
Though, according to Cohen's plea, discussions about the project continued through the first
six months of the Trump administration. Cohen had discussed the Trump Moscow project with Trump
as recently as August 2017, per a report in the
Guardian.
As a reporter for NBC News pointed out on twitter, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman
Richard Burr and ranking member Mark Warner foreshadowed today's plea back in August after
Cohen pleaded guilty to the campaign finance violations.
Also notable: The plea comes just as President Trump is leaving for a 10-hour flight to
Argentina. In recent days, Trump appeared to step up attacks on the Mueller probe, comparing it
to
McCarthyism and questioning why the DOJ didn't pursue charges against the Clintons.
Cohen will be sentenced on Dec. 12, as scheduled. By cooperating, Cohen is hoping to avoid
prison, according to his lawyer. While this was probably lost on prosecutors, Cohen's admission
smacks of the "lair's paradox."
Senate Republicans have offered President Trump a degree of relief from his Mueller-related
anxieties by blocking a bill that would have protected the Mueller probe from being disbanded
by the president, but with the special counsel continuing his pursuit of
Roger Stone and
Jerome Corsi , and Congressional Democrats sharpening their knives in anticipation of
taking back the House in January, President Trump is once again lashing out at Mueller and the
FBI, declaring that the probe is an "investigation in search of a crime" and
once again highlighting the hypocrisy in the FBI's decision to give the Clintons a pass for
their "atrocious, and perhaps subversive" crimes.
Reiterating his claims that the Mueller probe bears many similarities to Sen. Joseph
McCarthy's infamous anti-Communist witch hunt, Trump also blasted the DOJ for "shattering so
many innocent lives" and "wasting more than $40,000,000."
"Did you ever see an investigation more in search of a crime? At the same time Mueller and
the Angry Democrats aren't even looking at the atrocious, and perhaps subversive, crimes that
were committed by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. A total disgrace!"
"When will this illegal Joseph McCarthy style Witch Hunt, one that has shattered so many
innocent lives, ever end-or will it just go on forever? After wasting more than $40,000,000
(is that possible?), it has proven only one thing-there was NO Collusion with Russia. So
Ridiculous!"
As CBS
News' Mark Knoller notes , this is the 2nd day in a row, Pres Trump likening the Mueller
investigation to the Joe McCarthy witch hunt of the 50s , known for making reckless and
unsubstantiated accusations against officials he suspect of communist views. McCarthy was
eventually censured by the Senate in 1954.
Last night, President Trump threatened to release a trove of
"devastating" classified documents about the Mueller probe if Democrats follow through with
their threatened investigations. He also declared that a pardon for soon-to-be-sentenced former
Trump Campaign executive Paul Manafort was still "on
the table.
My suspicion is that the left, since the special counsel was never actually given a
legitimate crime to investigate, will want this left in place permanently. That's just my
guess though.
Without a crime however, it's hard to argue that the special counsel has any legitimacy,
since the law specifies that there must be a crime.
With that said, how can the results of what Mueller does be looked at as anything but
illegitimate?
Yes, and that I can agree with you on, however, the focus of the investigation has been
misplaced on Trump when it should have been on the Clintons. So again I can say that the
legitimacy of the counsel is in question because with Trump there was no crime.
If anything the criminal activity was perpetrated on Trump by the deep state.
The difference is that McCarthy was right about everything. The similarity is that the
press wanted to talk about everything but the contents of McCarthy's folders. It's like the
Podesta emails - "Russia hacked muh emails!" but no one seems to want to discuss their
contents.
My comments here may try to be humorous but this video needs watched to fully understand
the Mueller probe--and forward to friends........... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag
Trump is right that Mueller is trying to create a crime where there is nothing but
politics as it is played today. Listen to former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who now
characterizes the Mueller investigation as 'a clown show', explain in great detail:
The crimes have been found.....and HRC and the democrats and their fbi pals committed
them. Mueller is not "in search of crimes", he's in search of crimes by trump associated
people.
You can see many similarities between the way the Democrats handled the Kavanaugh
nomination and Muellers investigation. If the GOP is smart they will start consolidating all
the facts about the FISA abuse, FBI abuse, IRS abuse, Mueller abuse and start a campaign
about it in time for the 2020 elections. If the Democrats were smart they would drop this
ASAP since it isn't going any where and hope people forget about it. Somehow, I doubt that
the Democrats are that smart... After all there was a movie about Watergate... and seems like
a lot of these people are trying to live Watergate all over again, but it's really about an
abuse of power, by the government and the media.
**** off, the government isnt going to do a ******* thing to these enterprise
criminals.
I find it completely demoralizing and a slap in the face to a country when you have these
enterprise criminals not being indicted and a president threatening to expose them because HE
doesnt like something. This is not about you Trump, this is about THE UNITED STATES.
I mean come-on Trump stop with the BS. DO YOUR ******* JOB.
What in the hell people, I personally find this to be a constant gut punch when these
criminals just commit crimes over and over and it becomes a Hannity or Limbaugh bullet point
for 3 hours.
How ******* stupid of Americans to sit idle while all of this in your face bank robbing
going on. Put another way the bank robber walks from the door of a bank with a sack of cash
to the car and the police say oh look a bank robber, and they turn to their partner and shrug
their shoulders drinking covfeffe
It's the Anglo-zionist entente that meddled in U.S. elections and if Americans don't get
upset about that then they are cucks who deserve their servile fate.
"In his foreword to my book, Alan Dershowitz discusses his time litigating cases in the
old Soviet Union. He was always taken by the fact that they could prosecute anybody they
wanted because some of the statutes were so vague. Dershowitz points out that this was a
technique developed by Beria, the infamous sidekick of Stalin, who said, " Show me the man
and I'll find you the crime ." That really is something that has survived the Soviet
Union and has arrived in the good old USA. "Show me the man," says any federal prosecutor,
"and I can show you the crime." This is not an exaggeration. "
The only reason Mueller exists is for Trump to flog the Dems with. Thats the only reason
Trump keeps him around. The problem is losing the house means losing the power of subpoena,
so this should get interesting. The Repubs have it in for Trump too. Why else would they lose
a supermajority and the power of subpoena while still retaining the power to crush any bill
that the House pushes through? He's doomed, unless he can pull a rabbit out of his ***.
You don't actually believe that, do you? I suppose you still actually believe that they
even bother to count the votes. Trump was INSTALLED, not elected.
To create the illusion of division, which in turn keeps the population divided. It's
theater. Look at everything that's gone down; it's way too stupid to be real and I am
referring to both sides when I say that. The whole thing is custom tailored to stir the
emotions of a population with an average IQ of 100.
The fact that anybody is still clinging to hope in political solutions to anything is
sad and pathetic.
I don't think the political system will solve any of my problems, but Obama made it
abundantly clear that the political system will create plenty of problems.
Does anyone still believe that we have a political solution to our challenges.
1) More invaders than ever flooding our country.
2) Our most notorious criminals still walking our streets.
3) Fed, et al still manipulating our economy.
4) Law abiding citizens still being thrown into jail.
5) Surveillance state becoming ever more all seeing, and all invasive.
6) The push to war stronger than it has ever been in recent times.
7) Over 150 military bases strung across the planet.
8) Open criminality and rampant lies by press and politicians... I realize I already made
mention of the criminals, but thought this deserved emphasis.
9) Big news today... Supremes may limit the degree to which local government can encroach
on eighth amendment... wow... that this is even a debate.
10) The white population is being ordered into silence and obscurity... though no one has
forgotten to collect taxes... while the chimps and thugs are being encouraged to loot what is
left of the asylum...
I could go on... tell me, what is your vote going to accomplish? We are living on borrowed
time, and time has just about run out...
That's why voting is a waste of time because you're simply exchanging one sociopath for
another and I gave up on the notion long ago that we're living in the "land of the free".
That's the biggest line of BS the state has ever pushed but the rubes still believe it.
Progressive income tax, property taxes, central banking and they're all tenet's of communism,
in fact we have attained all ten planks of the communist manifesto. Read the IRS code or the
federal register and you'll see exactly how much freedom you have.
all you need to know about Mueller is his professional position on 9/11/01. From Judicial
Watch:
Under Mueller's leadership, the FBI tried to discredit the story, publicly countering
that agents found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 2001 terrorist
plot. The reality is that the FBI's own files contained several reports that said the
opposite, according to the Ft. Lauderdale-based news group's ongoing investigation . Files
obtained by reporters in the course of their lengthy probe reveal that federal agents found
"many connections" between the family and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks
on 9/11/2001." The FBI was forced to release the once-secret reports because the news group
sued in federal court when the information wasn't provided under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).
Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the
Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears
that the lies were approved by Mueller. Not surprisingly, he didn't respond to questions
about this new discovery emailed to his office by the news organization that uncovered it.
Though the mainstream media has neglected to report this relevant development, it's difficult
to ignore that it chips away at Mueller's credibility as special counsel to investigate if
Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election. Even before the Saudi coverup documents
were exposed by nonprofit journalists, Mueller's credentials were questionable to head any
probe. Back in May Judicial Watch reminded of Mueller's
misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamist organizations as FBI
director.
"... Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad. ..."
"... The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among both supporters and opponents of Trump. ..."
"... everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness... ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF ..."
Trump also floated the idea of removing U.S. troops from the Middle East, citing the lower price of oil as a reason to withdraw.
"Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel ," Trump said. "Oil is becoming less and less
of a reason because we're producing more oil now than we've ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point
where you don't have to stay there."
It is only Israel, it is no longer the oil, says Trump. But the nuclear armed Israel does not need U.S. troops for its protection.
And if it is no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?
Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo disagrees with his boss. In a Wall Street journal op-ed today he claims that
The U.S.-Saudi Partnership
Is Vital because it includes much more then oil:
[D]egrading U.S.-Saudi ties would be a grave mistake for the national security of the U.S. and its allies.
The kingdom is a powerful force for stability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is working to secure Iraq's fragile democracy
and keep Baghdad tethered to the West's interests, not Tehran's. Riyadh is helping manage the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's
civil war by working with host countries, cooperating closely with Egypt, and establishing stronger ties with Israel. Saudi
Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other terrorist organizations.
Saudi oil production and economic stability are keys to regional prosperity and global energy security.
Where and when please has Saudi Arabia "managed the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war". Was that when it
emptied its jails of violent criminals and sent them to wage jihad against the Syrian people? That indeed 'managed' to push
millions to flee from their homes.
Saudi Arabia might be many things but "a powerful force for stability" it is not. Just ask 18 million Yemenis who, after years
of Saudi bombardment, are near to death for lack of
food .
Pompeo's work for the Saudi dictator continued today with a Senate briefing on Yemen. The Senators will soon vote on a resolution
to end the U.S. support for the war. In his prepared remarks Pompeo wrote:
The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot
worse.
What could be worse than a famine that threatens two third of the population?
If the U.S. and Britain would not support the Saudis and Emirates the war would end within a day or two. The Saudi and UAE
planes are maintained by U.S. and British specialists. The Saudis still
seek 102 more U.S. military personal to
take care of their planes. It would be easy for the U.S. to stop such recruiting of its veterans.
It is the U.S. that
holds up an already
watered down UN Security Council resolution that calls for a ceasefire in Yemen:
The reason for the delay continues to be a White House worry about angering Saudi Arabia, which strongly opposes the resolution,
multiple sources say. CNN reported earlier this month that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, "threw a fit" when
presented with an early draft of the document, leading to a delay and further discussions among Western allies on the matter.
There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him
no gain and a lot of trouble.
Trump protected MbS from the consequences of murdering Jamal Khashoggi. He hoped to gain leverage with that. But that is not
how MbS sees it. He now knows that Trump will not confront him no matter what he does. If MbS "threws a fit" over a UN Security
Council resolution, the U.S. will drop it. When he launches his next 'adventure', the U.S. will again cover his back. Is this
the way a super power is supposed to handle a client state?
If Trump's instincts really tell him that U.S. troops should be removed from the Middle East and Afghanistan, something I doubt,
he should follow them. Support for the Saudi war on Yemen will not help to achieve that. Pandering to MbS is not MAGA.
Posted by b on November 28, 2018 at 03:12 PM |
Permalink
Comments Pompeo: "Saudi Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other
terrorist organizations."
Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to
the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize
Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad.
The real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among
both supporters and opponents of Trump.
There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him
no gain and a lot of trouble.
He did get to fondle the orb - although fuck knows what weirdness was really going on there.
thanks b... pompeo is a very bad liar... in fact - everything he says is about exactly the opposite, but bottom line is he is
a bad liar as he is thoroughly unconvincing..
everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial
industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what
they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness...
oh, but don't forget to vote, LOLOL.... no wonder so many are strung out on drugs, and the pharma industry... opening up to
the msm is opening oneself up to the world george orwell described many years ago...
Take a wafer or two of silicon and just add water. The oil obsession has been eclipsed and within 20 years will be in absolute
disarray. The warmongers will invent new excuses.
A hypothetical: No extraordinary amounts of hydrocarbons exist under Southwest Asian ground; just an essential amount for domestic
consumption; in that case, would Zionistan exist where it's currently located and would either Saudi Arabia, Iraq and/or Iran
have any significance aside from being consumers of Outlaw US Empire goods? Would the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes/Picot
Secret Treaty have been made? If the Orinoco Oil Belt didn't exist, would Venezuela's government be continually targeted for Imperial
control? If there was no Brazilian offshore oil, would the Regime Change effort have been made there? Here the hypotheticals end
and a few basic yet important questions follow.
Previous to the 20th Century, why were Hawaii and Samoa wrested from their native residents and annexed to Empire? In what
way did the lowly family farmers spread across 19th Century United States further the growth of its Empire and contribute to the
above named annexations? What was the unspoken message sent to US elites contained within Frederic Jackson Turner's 1893 Frontier
Thesis ? Why is the dominant language of North America English, not French or Spanish?
None of these are rhetorical. All second paragraph questions I asked of my history students. And all have a bearing on b's
fundamental question.
b says, "And it its no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?"
The US has a vital interest in protecting the narrative of 9/11. The Saudis supplied the patsies. Mossad and dual-citizen neocons
were the architects of the event. Hence, the US must avoid a nasty divorce from the Saudis. The Saudis are in a perfect blackmailing
position.
Of course, most Americans have no idea that the U.S. Shale Oil Industry is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme because of the
mainstream media's inability to report FACT from FICTION. However, they don't deserve all of the blame as the shale energy
industry has done an excellent job hiding the financial distress from the public and investors by the use of highly technical
jargon and BS.
S.A. is a thinly disguised US military base, hence the "strategic importance" and the relevance of the new Viceroy's previous
experience as a Four Star General. It's doubtful that any of the skilled personnel in the SA Air Force are other than former US/Nato.
A few princes might fancy themselves to be daring fighter pilots. In case of a Anglo-Zio war with Iran SA would be the most forward
US aircraft carrier. The Empire is sustained by its presumed military might and prizes nothing more than its strategically situated
bases. Saud would like to capture Yemen's oil fields, but the primary purpose of the air war is probably training. That of course
is more despicably cynical than mere conquest and genocide.
Trump is the ultimate deceiver/liar. Great actor reading from a script. The heel in the Fake wrestling otherwise known as US politics.
It almost sounds as if he is calling for an end of anymore significant price drops now that he has got Powell on board to limit
interest rate hikes. After all if you are the worlds biggest producer you dont want prices too low. These markets are all manipulated.
I cant imagine how much insider trading is going on. If you look at the oil prices, they started dropping in October with Iran
sanctions looming (before it was announced irans shipments to its 8 biggest buyers would be exempt) and at the height of the Khashoggi
event where sanctions were threatened and Saudi was making threats of their own. In a real free market prices increase amidst
supply uncertainty.
Regardless of what he says he wants and gets now, he is already planning a reversal. Thats how the big boys win, they know
whats coming and when the con the smaller fish to swim one way they are lined up with a big mouth wide open. Controlled chaos
and confusion. For every winner there must be a loser and the losers assets/money are food for the Gods of Money and War
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. My money is on the US to be in Yemen to protect them
from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis while in reality we will be there to secure the enormous oil fields
in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to
deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF
@ Pft who wrote: "The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order
to feed international finance/IMF"
BINGO!!! Those that control finance control most/all of everything else.
Saudi Arabia literally owns close to 8% of the United States economy through various financial instruments. Their public investment
funds and dark pools own large chunks from various strategic firms resting at the apex of western power such as Blackstone. Trump
and Pompeo would be stupid to cut off their nose to spite their face... It's all about the petrodollar, uncle sam will ride and
die with saudi barbaria. If push comes to shove and the saudis decide to untether themselves from the Empire, their sand kingdom
will probably be partitioned.
The oil certainly still plays an important role, the u.s. cannot maintain the current frack oil output for long. For Tronald's
term in office it will suffice, but hardly longer. (The frack gas supplies are much more substantial.)
Personal interests certainly also play a role, and finally one should not make u.s. foreign policy more rational than it is.
Much is also done because of traditions and personal convictions. Often they got it completely wrong and the result was a complete
failure.
Let us watch what Trump does with this or if the resolution makes it to daylight:
Senate advances Yemen resolution in rebuke to Trump
The Senate issued a sharp rebuke Wednesday to President Trump, easily advancing a resolution that would end U.S. military support
for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen's civil war despite a White House effort to quash the bill.
The administration launched an eleventh-hour lobbying frenzy to try to head off momentum for the resolution, dispatching
Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Capitol Hill in the morning and issuing a veto threat
less than an hour before the vote started.
But lawmakers advanced the resolution, 63-37, even as the administration vowed to stand by Saudi Arabia following outcry
over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"There's been a lot of rhetoric that's come from the White House and from the State Department on this issue," said Sen.
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "The rhetoric that I've heard and the broadcasts that we've
made around the world as to who we are have been way out of balance as it relates to American interests and American values."
[/] LINK
TheHill
But Mattis says there is no smoking gun to tie the Clown Thug-Prince to Kashoggi's killing.
TheHill
And Lyias @ 2 is a bingo. Always follow the fiat.
Soon, without any announcements, if they wish to maintain selling oil to China, KSA will follow Qatar. It will be priced in
Yuan...especially given the escalating U.S. trade war with China.
2019 holds interesting times. Order a truckload of popcorn.
Midwest For Truth , Nov 28, 2018 7:29:46 PM |
link
You would have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that the Saudi "Kings" are crypto-Zionistas. Carl Sagan once said,
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even
to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." And Mark Twain also
wrote "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Gee, not one taker amongst all these intelligent folk. From last to first: 1588's Protestant Wind allowed Elizabeth and her cronies
to literally keep their heads as Nature helped Drake defeat the Spanish Armada; otherwise, there would be no British Empire root
to the USA, thus no USA and no future Outlaw US Empire, the British Isles becoming a Hapsburg Imperial Property, and a completely
different historical lineage, perhaps sans World Wars and atomic weapons.
Turner's message was with the Frontier closed the "safety valve" of continental expansion defusing political tensions based
on economic inequalities had ceased to be of benefit and future policy would need to deal with that issue thus removing the Fear
Factor from the natives to immigrants, and from wide-open spaces to the inner cities. Whipsawing business cycles driving urban
labor's unrest, populist People's Party politics, and McKinley's 1901 assassination further drove his points home.
Nationwide, family farmers demanded Federal government help to create additional markets for their produce to generate price
inflation so they could remain solvent and keep their homesteads, which translated into the need to conduct international commerce
via the seas which required coaling stations--Hawaii and Samoa, amongst others--and a Blue Water Navy that eventually led to Alfred
T. Mahan's doctrine of Imperial Control of the Oceans still in use today.
As with Gengis Khan's death in 1227 that stopped the Mongol expansion to the English Channel that changed the course of European
history, and what was seen as the Protestant Wind being Divine Intervention, global history has several similar inflection points
turning the tide from one path to another. We don't know yet if the Outlaw US Empire's reliance on Saudi is such, but we can see
it turning from being a great positive to an equally potential great negative for the Empire--humanity as a whole, IMO, will benefit
greatly from an implosion and the relationship becoming a Great Negative helping to strip what remains of the Emperor's Clothing
from his torso so that nations and their citizens can deter the oncoming financialized economic suicide caused by massive debt
and climate chaos.
Vico's circle is about to intersect with Hegel's dialectic and generate a new temporal phase in human history. Although many
will find it hard to tell, the current direction points to a difficult change to a more positive course for humanity as a whole,
but it's also possible that disaster could strike with humanity's total or near extinction being the outcome--good arguments can
be made for either outcome, which ought to unsettle everyone: Yes, the times are that tenuous. But then, I'm merely a lonely historian
aware of a great many things, including the pitfall inherent in trying to predict future events.
"The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot
worse." And I'll bet Pompeo said that with a straight face, too. lmfao
And as for "...keep[ing] Baghdad tethered to the West's interests and not Tehran's," I'm guessing the "secretary" would have
us all agree "yeah, fk Iraqi sovereignty anyway. Besides, it's not like they share a border with Iran, or anything. Oh,
wait..."
p.s. Many thanks for all you have contributed to collective knowledge, b; I will be contacting you about making a contribution
by snail mail (I hate PayPal, too).
"... a powerful force for stability in the Middle East."
"Instability" more like it.
Paid for military coup in Egypt. Funding anti-Syrian terrorists. Ongoing tensions with Iran. Zip-all for the Palestinians.
WTF in Yemen. Wahhabi crazy sh_t (via Mosque building) across Asia. Head and hand chopping Friday specials the norm -- especially
of their South-Asian slave classes. Ok, so females can now drive cars -- woohoo. A family run business venture manipulating the
global oil trade and supporting US-petro-$ hegemony recently out of goat herding and each new generation 'initiated' in some Houston
secret society toe-touching shower and soap ceremonies before placement in the ruling hierarchy back home. But enough; they being
Semites makes it an offence to criticize in some 'free' democratic world domains.
Instead of the "rebuke to Trump" meme circulating around, I found
this statement to be more accurate:
"'Cutting off military aid to Saudi Arabia is the right choice for Yemen, the right choice for our national security, and the
right choice for upholding the Constitution,' Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action,
declared in a statement. ' Three years ago, the notion of Congress voting to cut off military support for Saudi Arabia would
have been politically laughable .'" [My Emphasis]
In other words, advancing Peace with Obama as POTUS wasn't going to happen, so this vote ought to be seen as an attack on Obama's
legacy as it's his policy that's being reconsidered and hopefully discontinued.
Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar
as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global
energy dominance.
Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package.
Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA
as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money
is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in
reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about.
The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international
finance/IMF .
@16 karlof1.. thanks for a broader historical perspective which you are able to bring to moa.. i enjoy reading your comments..
i don't have answers to ALL your questions earlier.. i have answers for some of them... you want to make it easy on us uneducated
folks and give us less questions, like b did in his post here, lol.... cheers james
The US Senate has advanced a measure to withdraw American support for a Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.
In a blow to President Donald Trump, senators voted 63-37 to take forward a motion on ending US support.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Jim Mattis had urged Senators not to back the motion, saying it would
worsen the situation in Yemen.
...
The vote in the Senate means further debate on US support for Saudi Arabia is expected next week.
However, correspondents say that even if the Senate ultimately passes the bipartisan resolution it has little chance of
being approved by the outgoing House of Representatives.
That is quite a slap for the Trump administration. It will have little consequences in the short term (or for Yemen) but it sets
a new direction in foreign polices towards the Saudis.
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable
Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Take a look at some of the - informed - comments below the vid to which you linked. Then think again about an 'all electric
civilisation within a few years'. Yes, and Father Christmas will be providing everything that everyone in the world needs for
a NAmerican/European standard of living within the same time frame. Er - not.
'Renewables' are not going to save hitech industrial 'civilisation' from The Long Descent/Catabolic Collapse (qv). Apart from
any other consideration - and there are some other equally intractable ones - there is no - repeat NO - 'renewable' energy system
which doesn't rely crucially on energy subsidies from the fossil-hydrocarbon fuels, both to build it and to maintain it. They're
not stand-alone, self-bootstrapping technologies. Nor is there any realistic prospect that they ever will be. Fully renewable-power
hitech industrial civilisation is a non-deliverable mirage which is just drawing us ever further into the desert of irreversible
peak-energy/peak-everythig-else.
@16 karlof1. I also find your historical references very interesting. We do indeed seem to be at a very low point in the material
cycle, it will reverse in due course as is its want, hopefully we will live to see a positive change in humanity.
For example we know Tesla didn't succeed in splitting the planet in half, the way techno-psychotics fantasize. As for that
silly link, how typical of techno-wingnuts to respond to prosaic physical facts with fantasies. Anything to prop up faith in the
technocratic-fundamentalist religion. Meanwhile "electrical civilization" has always meant and will always mean fracking and coal,
until the whole fossil-fueled extreme energy nightmare is over.
Given the proven fact that the extreme energy civilization has done nothing but embark upon a campaign to completely destroy
humanity and the Earth (like in your Tesla fantasy), why would a non-psychopath want to prop it up anyway?
It is still the oil, even for the US. The Persian Gulf supplies 20% of world consumption, and Western Europe gets 40% of its oil
from OPEC countries, most of that from the Gulf. Even the US still imports 10% of its total consumption.
Peter AU 1 | Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | 20
b | Nov 29, 2018 2:33:04 AM | 23
USD as a world reserve currency could be one factor between the important ones. With non US support the saud land could crash
under neighbours pressure, that caos may be not welcomed.
Humble people around where I live have mentioned that time is speeding up its velocity; there seems to be a spiritual (evolutionary)/physical
interface effect or something...
Tolstoy, in the long theory-of-history exposition at the end of War and Peace, challenges 'the great man' of History idea,
spreading in his time, at the dawning of the so-called: European Romantic period of Beethoven, Goerte and Wagner, when
the unique person was glorified in the name of art, truth, whatever (eventually this bubble burst too, in the 20th C. and IMO
because of too much fervent worship in the Cult of the Temple of the Money God. Dostoyevki's great Crime and Punishment is all
about this issue.)
Tolstoy tries to describe a scientifically-determined historical process, dissing the 'great man of History' thesis. He was
thinking of Napoleon Bonaparte of course, the run-away upstart repulican, anathema to the established order. Tolstoy describes
it in the opening scene of the novel: a fascinating parlor-room conversation between a "liberal" woman of good-birth in the elite
circles of society and a military captain at the party.
...only tenuously relevant to karlofi1's great post touching upon the Theory of History as such; thanks.
Now as to the question: żWhy is Trump supporting Saudi Arabia? Let me think about that...
I'm British and I trust Putin more than any other leader in the world. He's a good
politician and has been at the top longer than any of today's leaders his down to earth
approach is something that reaches out to the masses. There's a new sheriff in town and he's
Russian...
Putin is brilliant intellectually and politically! He is strong and independent but not in
a proud way, but with a strength coming directly from his heart for his Russia! I am
originally Polish and I wish we would have had such a leader in our country. So, many
mistakes in our history could have been avoided! Bravo Putin! American leaders look
impressive but most of them have a plastic personalities
I love the forthrightness of President Putin; he is kind in his choice of words, patient
as ever and manages to add his wonderful humor. A sheer joy to listen to.
What an amazing human being is Putin. His command of the issues, their histories, the big
picture as well as minute details, his ability to express himself, his steeliness and his
humor must impact everyone who meets him and foreign leaders drawn to him who, with this
generation of Russians seem to have a "rendezvous with destiny."
What an amazing human being is Putin. His command of the issues, their histories, the big
picture as well as minute details, his ability to express himself, his steeliness and his
humor must impact everyone who meets him and foreign leaders drawn to him who, with this
generation of Russians seem to have a "rendezvous with destiny."
These days all media is talking is about Russia hacking US elections. Why nobody is
talking about NSA hacked Angela Merkel's phone? Maybe because that's old news not worth
mentioning any more? Or maybe because its because US is democratic country so it doesn't
count. This is quote from The Guardian "Germany has closed its investigation into a report
that the US National Security Agency had hacked Chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone, a
move that appears to be aimed at ending transatlantic friction that threatened intelligence
cooperation between the two countries." Who cares about democracy and truth when higher
interests are threatened.
Putin is just the baddest man on the planet jeez he really rocks like a superstar on stage
such a diplomat but deadly like a stinging bee when you dont treat him seriously how can you
not like this man
A transcript of exchanges between US
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been leaked to National News
Conglomerate by an anonymous source within the Kremlin . We here at NNC have confirmed the
authenticity of this document using the same rigorous verification process we've been using to
authenticate the evidence for all our other reporting on Russia's involvement in the 2016 US
elections over the last two years. These verification methods include hunches, gut intuitions,
and an introspective assessment of the way our feelings feel. The following exchanges revealed
in this transcript provide the clearest evidence yet that the President of the United States
has been in collusion with the Russian government for years.
This introduction has been authored by the editorial board of the National News
Conglomerate. Obey.
11/9/2016
Trump: I have done as you commanded, my dominant and all-powerful lord. I have conspired
with your hackers to steal the election, and now I'm going to be president! I want to thank you
for not releasing that video footage of those Russian prostitutes I hired to urinate on a bed
the Obamas once slept in. If that had come out it would have offended and alienated a lot of
people, which is something I never normally do.
Putin: Yes that is an old KGB tactic called kompromat, a word which only extremely
intelligent people know about. Keep this line of communication open. As long as you do as I
command, your pee pee tape will remain secret.
Trump: One thing I'm curious about though my lord, if you don't mind my asking. If you
already had an army of hackers targeting Democratic Party emails, why did you need my help?
Couldn't you just have hacked the emails and published them on your own? Why did you need me to
interact with them at all?
Putin: Moral support, mainly. We don't need to get into specifics.
Trump: Oh okay.
~
1/20/2017
Trump: I'm in! Whew! I was really worried that leaked dossier would be the end of me! What
are my instructions, my lord?
Putin: Begin introducing racism and division to the United States. America has never
experienced these things before, and it will shock and disorient them. With the US divided
against itself, your nation will be far too weak to stand against my plans of total world
domination.
Trump: That's a really tall order! America has always been a harmonious place where everyone
gets along up until today. I'll try my best though. Anything else?
Putin: Yes, make them distrust your nation's large media outlets and convince them that the
US intelligence community is often dishonest.
Trump: That will be really hard because those institutions have always been trusted for
their unparalleled integrity. But your wish is my command, oh lord.
~
4/7/2017
Putin: Bomb a Syrian airbase.
Trump: What? Really? Aren't they, like, your allies?
Putin: Exactly. This will throw inquisitive minds off the scent. We can't have them finding
out about that pee tape.
Trump: Are you sure? Some people are saying that chemical attack looks like it could have
been perpetrated by the many terrorist factions in Syria and not the government.
Putin: Who cares? Have you seen how relentless they've been in exposing us?? Have you never
watched Rachel Maddow? That woman is a psychic bloodhound, masterfully sniffing out the truth
at every turn! We can't afford to take chances. Do as I say.
Trump: Yes sir.
Putin: And see if you can arrest that WikiLeaks guy.
6/28/17
Trump: Hey do you want me to do anything about Montenegro's addition to NATO?
Putin: No. NATO expansion is good.
Trump: Uhhh okay.
~
6/28/17
Trump: Who do you want tapped for Ukraine envoy?
Putin: Kurt Volker.
Trump: Volker? He hates you! He's like the biggest Russia hawk ever.
Putin: We still need to throw the Russiagaters off the scent. We're playing 3-D chess here.
This is high-level disinformation, or dezinformatsiya as very smart people call it. I want as
many Russia hawks in your administration as possible.
Trump: 3-D chess? Alright. I guess you know what you're doing.
~
8/30/17
Putin: Shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and throw out a bunch of diplomats.
That will confuse the hell out of them.
~
11/21/17
Putin: Now approve the sale of arms to Ukraine. Not even Obama would do that. This will
throw them off the trail for sure.
~
1/1/18
Putin: Happy new year. Force RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents.
~
1/29/18
Putin: Make sure your Nuclear Posture Review greatly escalates its aggressive posture toward
Russia.
~
2/14/18
Putin: Happy Valentine's Day. Don't worry about those Russians your guys killed in
Syria.
~
2/19/18
Putin: Send a fleet of war ships to the Black Sea.
~
3/25/18
Putin: Better expel a few dozen diplomats over the Skripal thing.
~
4/5/18
Putin: Sanction a bunch of Russian oligarchs.
~
4/10/18
Putin: Bomb Syria.
Trump: What?? Again?
Putin: Yes.
Trump: What the hell, man? Why'd you even recruit me if you're just going to have me do
everything all the Russia hawks want?
Putin: Well, you know how I told you we were playing 3-D chess against the Russiagate
investigation?
Trump: Yeah?
Putin: Well that wasn't enough. Now we're playing 4-D chess.
Trump: Fine, whatever, I don't care. Just don't release my pee tape.
~
7/17/18
Trump: Oh man. They're really making a major fuss about that summit. What should I do?
Putin: Play it cool. Don't let them know about our secret diabolical plot.
Trump: Right. Remind me what that was again?
Putin: Make Jim Acosta feel really, really sad.
~
9/2/18
Putin: Have you arrested Julian Assange yet?
Trump: Working on it.
~
10/20/18
Putin: I like John Bolton's idea. Pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty.
~
11/25/18
Putin: Make sure your administration loudly and aggressively backs Ukraine in our Kerch
Strait spat.
Trump: OMFG this is getting too weird. Are you just trolling me? What the hell is this?
Trump: Hello?
Trump: Are you there?
Trump: Answer me!
Putin: 5-D chess.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
Greenwald Goes Ballistic On Politico "Theory" Guardian's Assange-Manafort Story Was
Planted By Russians
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 11/28/2018 - 20:25 105 SHARES
After The Guardian attempted to shovel what appears to be a wholly fabricated story down our
throats that Trump campaign manager met with Julian Assange at the London Embassy - Politico
allowed an ex-CIA agent to use their platform to come up with a ham-handed cover story ever;
Russia tricked The Guardian into publishing the Manafort-Assange propaganda.
To that end, The Intercept 's Glenn Greenwald (formerly of The Guardian ) ripped Politico an
entirely new oriface in a six-part Twitter dress down.
Greenwald also penned a
harsh rebuke to the Guardian 's "problematic" reporting in a Tuesday article titled: "It Is
Possible Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange. If True, There Should Be Ample Video and Other
Evidence Showing This."
In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of
viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly
sketchy aspects to the story.
It is certainly possible that Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and even Donald Trump himself
"secretly" visited Julian Assange in the Embassy. It's possible that Vladimir Putin and Kim
Jong Un joined them.
And if any of that happened, then there will be mountains of documentary proof in the form
of videos, photographs, and other evidence proving it . Thus far, no such evidence has been
published by the Guardian. Why would anyone choose to believe that this is true rather than
doing what any rational person, by definition, would do: wait to see the dispositive evidence
before forming a judgment?
The only reason to assume this is true without seeing such evidence is because enough
people want it to be true. The Guardian knows this. They knew that publishing this story
would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets
would hyperventilate over it , and that they'd reap the rewards regardless of whether the
story turned out to be true or false. It may be true. But only the evidence, which has yet to
be seen, will demonstrate that one way or the other. -
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
In short, The Guardian tried to proffer a load of easily disprovable claims - which if not
true, are pure propaganda. Once it began to blow up in their face, Politico let an
ex-CIA operative try to save face by suggesting Russia did it . Insanity at its finest.
Ever since Alan Rusbridger. left the Guardian as Chief Editor and made room for Assange
and Snowden etc., it seems that they have been infiltrated by the CIA and Luke H. gets
attention for his stories and Russia-hatred. The ENglish have been conditioned to hate Russia
and the Guardian will do anything to discredit Russia with whatever silly stories. Now they
are begging for money to survive: well, NO, because you went along with fake news to get some
money: corrupt, unlike Alan Rusbridger, Assange, Manning and Snowden.
Doesnt matter, 1/2 of our population is convinced, that our governmemt would never do to
the USA. what they do to other countries for the past 60 years.
Yep, the Russian Collusion / interference is so weak. Look at this story, it's breaking
and will be huge. Epstine's dirty details released, Muller looks pretty bad.
Funny stuff happens when a judge tells a plaintiff she has to
pay $341,500 for the legal expenses of a lawsuit she lost. All of a sudden
Stormy Daniels is saying her CPL, Michael Avenatti, was acting against her wishes:
A transcript of exchanges between US
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin has been leaked to National News
Conglomerate by an anonymous source within the Kremlin . We here at NNC have confirmed the
authenticity of this document using the same rigorous verification process we've been using to
authenticate the evidence for all our other reporting on Russia's involvement in the 2016 US
elections over the last two years. These verification methods include hunches, gut intuitions,
and an introspective assessment of the way our feelings feel. The following exchanges revealed
in this transcript provide the clearest evidence yet that the President of the United States
has been in collusion with the Russian government for years.
This introduction has been authored by the editorial board of the National News
Conglomerate. Obey.
11/9/2016
Trump: I have done as you commanded, my dominant and all-powerful lord. I have conspired
with your hackers to steal the election, and now I'm going to be president! I want to thank you
for not releasing that video footage of those Russian prostitutes I hired to urinate on a bed
the Obamas once slept in. If that had come out it would have offended and alienated a lot of
people, which is something I never normally do.
Putin: Yes that is an old KGB tactic called kompromat, a word which only extremely
intelligent people know about. Keep this line of communication open. As long as you do as I
command, your pee pee tape will remain secret.
Trump: One thing I'm curious about though my lord, if you don't mind my asking. If you
already had an army of hackers targeting Democratic Party emails, why did you need my help?
Couldn't you just have hacked the emails and published them on your own? Why did you need me to
interact with them at all?
Putin: Moral support, mainly. We don't need to get into specifics.
Trump: Oh okay.
~
1/20/2017
Trump: I'm in! Whew! I was really worried that leaked dossier would be the end of me! What
are my instructions, my lord?
Putin: Begin introducing racism and division to the United States. America has never
experienced these things before, and it will shock and disorient them. With the US divided
against itself, your nation will be far too weak to stand against my plans of total world
domination.
Trump: That's a really tall order! America has always been a harmonious place where everyone
gets along up until today. I'll try my best though. Anything else?
Putin: Yes, make them distrust your nation's large media outlets and convince them that the
US intelligence community is often dishonest.
Trump: That will be really hard because those institutions have always been trusted for
their unparalleled integrity. But your wish is my command, oh lord.
~
4/7/2017
Putin: Bomb a Syrian airbase.
Trump: What? Really? Aren't they, like, your allies?
Putin: Exactly. This will throw inquisitive minds off the scent. We can't have them finding
out about that pee tape.
Trump: Are you sure? Some people are saying that chemical attack looks like it could have
been perpetrated by the many terrorist factions in Syria and not the government.
Putin: Who cares? Have you seen how relentless they've been in exposing us?? Have you never
watched Rachel Maddow? That woman is a psychic bloodhound, masterfully sniffing out the truth
at every turn! We can't afford to take chances. Do as I say.
Trump: Yes sir.
Putin: And see if you can arrest that WikiLeaks guy.
6/28/17
Trump: Hey do you want me to do anything about Montenegro's addition to NATO?
Putin: No. NATO expansion is good.
Trump: Uhhh okay.
~
6/28/17
Trump: Who do you want tapped for Ukraine envoy?
Putin: Kurt Volker.
Trump: Volker? He hates you! He's like the biggest Russia hawk ever.
Putin: We still need to throw the Russiagaters off the scent. We're playing 3-D chess here.
This is high-level disinformation, or dezinformatsiya as very smart people call it. I want as
many Russia hawks in your administration as possible.
Trump: 3-D chess? Alright. I guess you know what you're doing.
~
8/30/17
Putin: Shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and throw out a bunch of diplomats.
That will confuse the hell out of them.
~
11/21/17
Putin: Now approve the sale of arms to Ukraine. Not even Obama would do that. This will
throw them off the trail for sure.
~
1/1/18
Putin: Happy new year. Force RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents.
~
1/29/18
Putin: Make sure your Nuclear Posture Review greatly escalates its aggressive posture toward
Russia.
~
2/14/18
Putin: Happy Valentine's Day. Don't worry about those Russians your guys killed in
Syria.
~
2/19/18
Putin: Send a fleet of war ships to the Black Sea.
~
3/25/18
Putin: Better expel a few dozen diplomats over the Skripal thing.
~
4/5/18
Putin: Sanction a bunch of Russian oligarchs.
~
4/10/18
Putin: Bomb Syria.
Trump: What?? Again?
Putin: Yes.
Trump: What the hell, man? Why'd you even recruit me if you're just going to have me do
everything all the Russia hawks want?
Putin: Well, you know how I told you we were playing 3-D chess against the Russiagate
investigation?
Trump: Yeah?
Putin: Well that wasn't enough. Now we're playing 4-D chess.
Trump: Fine, whatever, I don't care. Just don't release my pee tape.
~
7/17/18
Trump: Oh man. They're really making a major fuss about that summit. What should I do?
Putin: Play it cool. Don't let them know about our secret diabolical plot.
Trump: Right. Remind me what that was again?
Putin: Make Jim Acosta feel really, really sad.
~
9/2/18
Putin: Have you arrested Julian Assange yet?
Trump: Working on it.
~
10/20/18
Putin: I like John Bolton's idea. Pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty.
~
11/25/18
Putin: Make sure your administration loudly and aggressively backs Ukraine in our Kerch
Strait spat.
Trump: OMFG this is getting too weird. Are you just trolling me? What the hell is this?
Trump: Hello?
Trump: Are you there?
Trump: Answer me!
Putin: 5-D chess.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own
stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Kremlin
critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned
with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe
against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected
investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after
being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in
connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder
accusing Russian officials of killing him.
Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with
Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new
criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his
extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money
laundering.
The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom
died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay
Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November
2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial
detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008
and September 2008, respectively.
Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health
complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a
rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver,
according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been
opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia
didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but
several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.
The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of
Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the
latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his
cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false
statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle
taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.
The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after
obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for
Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.
Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion.
The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The
prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new
criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.
Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of
allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was
prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the
UK seemed like the land of law and order.
He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy,
having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management
fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning
millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail
Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal
wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too
numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader
started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the
foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian
taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances,
was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British
businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been
assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.
The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of
Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for
his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by
Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin
as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic
competition.
Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin
helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed
international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention
in Spain last May.
Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part
of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian
government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was
apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its
architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to
US lawmakers and media outlets.
"... Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. ..."
"... Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. ..."
"... George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address , counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ..."
"... Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country. ..."
"... Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime. ..."
"... Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick it in their face). ..."
"... America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics. ..."
President Donald Trump's
recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign
policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision,
similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not
be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced
a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a
world power.
Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that "Nations have no permanent friends
or allies, they only have permanent interests."The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests.
It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests
of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to "bitch" status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
has artfully put it , are Israel and Saudi
Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the "leader
of the free world."
Trump's memo on the Saudis begins with the headline "The world is a very dangerous place!" Indeed, it is and behavior by the
three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual
American interest is being served by Washington's foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that
sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet
Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible
danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy
tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.
The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East...
... ... ...
All of the White House's actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one
works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive
debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America's interventions are built on
deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where
none exists.
So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of
all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less
safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now
four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive
at George Washington's dictum in his Farewell Address
, counseling his countrymen to "observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." And Washington
might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that " a passionate attachment
of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former
into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly
for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street
has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth
and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And
If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone's
benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money
back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of "threats" by career militarists justifying
the bloated budgets.
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests [email protected]
.
but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal
country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.
Cautious optimism may be better than none, but futile nonetheless. Bullying, dispossession, slavery and genocide constitute
the very bedrock, the essence and soul of the founding of our country.
To expect mutations -- no matter how slow or fast in a
trait that appears deeply embedded in our DNA is to be naive. Add to that the intractable stranglehold Zionists and organized
world Jewry has on our nuts and decision making. A more congruent convergence of histories and DNAs would be hard to come by among
other nations. Truth be told we simply know of no other kinder, gentler alternatives to perpetual war and destruction as the cornerstone
of our foreign policy. Normality? Not in my lifetime.
Your CNI and 'If Americans Knew' informed me about Rand Paul's courageous move. I plan to call his office today to give
him encouragement and call my Senators and Representative to urge them to support him (fat chance of that but I have to stick
it in their face).
Hey, how about a Rand Paul-Tulsi Gabbard fusion ticket in 2024, not a bad idea, IMHO.
Going back to the Administration you can see the slimy Zionist hands of Steven Miller on all of those foreign policy statements.
Trump is allowing this because he has to protect his flanks from Zionists, Christian or otherwise. He might be just giving Miller
just enough rope to jettison him (wishful thinking on my part). Or he doesn't care or is unaware of the texts, a possibility.
1. Because that defies human nature. See all of history if you disagree.
2. America doesn't have a policy because America is no longer a real nation. It's an empire filled with diverse groups of peoples
who all hate each other and want to use the power of the government for the benefit of their overseas co-ethnics.
The beginning of USA foreign policy for me is the 1820 or 1830 Monroe Declaration: south America is our backyard, keep out.
Few people know that at the time European countries considered war on the USA because of this beginning of world domination.
When I told this to a USA correspondent the reply was 'but this declaration still is taught here in glowing terms'.
What we saw then was the case until Obama, USA foreign policy was for internal political reasons.
As Hollings stated in 2004 'Bush promising AIPAC the war on Iraq, that is politics'.
No empire ever, as far as I know, ever was in the comfortable position to be able to let foreign policy to be decided (almost)
completely by internal politics.
This changed during the Obama reign, the two war standard had to be lowered to one and a half.
All of a sudden the USA had to develop a foreign policy, a policy that had to take into consideration the world outside the USA.
Not the whole USA understands this, the die hards of Deep State in the lead.
What a half war accomplishes we see, my opinion, in Syria, a half war does not bring victory on an enemy who wages a whole
war.
Assad is still there, Russia has airforce and naval bases in Syria.
Normally, as any history book explains, foreign policy of a country is decided on in secret by a few people.
British preparations for both WWI and WWII included detailed technical talks with both the USA and France, not even all cabinet
members knew about it.
One of Trump's difficulties is that Deep State does not at all has the intention of letting the president decide on foreign policy,
at the time of FDR he did what he liked, though, if one reads for example Baruch's memoirs, in close cooperation with the Deep
State that then existed.
The question 'why do we not leave the rest of the world alone', hardly ever asked.
The USA is nearly autarcic, foreign trade, from memory, some five percent of national income, a very luxurious position.
But of course, leaving the rest of the world alone, huge internal consequences, as Hinckley explains with an example, politically
impossible to stop the development of a bomber judged to be superfluous.
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
Good luck. A fight over resources with the biggest consumer of resources, the People That Kill People and all their little buddies
in the Alphabet Soup of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Depravity..
That could get a fella hurt. Ask Jack and Bob Kennedy.
"The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War". Classic American
cold warrior mentality. The present-day Russian Federation is assimilated to the former Soviet Union.
Tragically for America, and the West in general, President Trump is unrecognizable from
candidate Trump :
'This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we the people reclaim control over
our government. The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals,
massive illegal immigration and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry Their financial resources are virtually
unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their
immorality is absolutely unlimited.'
"... "clear that much of the material was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or Institute systems." ..."
"... The organization expressed outrage over the publication of emails belonging to its alleged agents, and implied that the Russian intelligence community must have been behind the leak. ..."
"... The leaked documents, if confirmed genuine, expose the II as a semi-secretive operation to coordinate efforts by seemingly independent journalists, academics and experts involved in exposing and countering "Russian propaganda." The documents say the program cost £1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year alone. ..."
A network exposed by leaked documents as a Europe-wide PR operation aimed at
curbing "Russian propaganda" has confirmed receiving money from the British government, while
Anonymous has denied on Twitter that it's behind the leak. The Integrity Initiative (II) is a
network claiming to fight disinformation that threatens democracy. A trove of alleged II
documents, which purports to show costs and internal guidelines as well as names of individuals
cooperating with it, has been published by people claiming to be part of the Anonymous
collective. A major Anonymous-linked Twitter account has denied it was linked to the leak.
Responding to the leak on Monday, the organization
said it did indeed receive funding from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
for the past two years, but insisted that private donors were its primary source of money.
The statement neither confirmed nor denied that the documents were genuine, saying that it
didn't have time to validate them yet. But it said it was "clear that much of the material
was indeed on the Integrity Initiative or Institute systems."
It claimed that many of the published documents were "dated and never used," and
that many of the individuals listed as members of II "clusters of influencers" were
never contacted by the program.
The documents not confirmed. However:
1. Their detail suggests they may be genuine
2. Nobody with knowledge has denied they're genuine
3. Some of those named have confirmed their association
4. Wkileaks hasn't evidenced its concerns
5. A history of some Wiki & Anonymous animosity
The organization expressed outrage over the publication of emails belonging to its alleged
agents, and implied that the Russian intelligence community must have been behind the leak.
Russian news agency RIA Novosti contacted the FCO for comment about the disclosure, but its
representative said that information about the II was "already in the public domain,"
and that the British diplomatic service was "happy for the project to receive greater
exposure."
Interesting to watch Westerners picking up the Kremlin propaganda line that standing up to
Putin's lying, thieving, murdering regime is 'anti Russian'. Putin and his enablers and
appeasers are the true 'Russophobes'.
The leaked documents, if confirmed genuine, expose the II as a semi-secretive operation
to coordinate efforts by seemingly independent journalists, academics and experts involved in
exposing and countering "Russian propaganda." The documents say the program cost
£1,961,000 ($2.5 million) this year alone.
RT, which reported on the leak last Friday, asked a number of alleged participants in the II
program about their contribution. The majority of these have not yet replied, except for
journalist Edward Lucas and Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council Stephen
Blank.
It's been amusing to watch Putin sympathisers in the West who claim to be so adept at
seeing through 'government lies' and 'MSM bias' uncritically swallow and regurgitate the
version of events spread by Kremlin propaganda outlets that are known to relentlessly lie and
distort.
Vesti News
Published on 26 Nov 2018
Subscribe to Vesti News
On Monday, the Russian General Prosecutor's Office announced the initiation of a new criminal case against William Browder,
an international schemer and fraudster. Now Browder is suspected of organizing and leading a criminal community in Russia.
For many years, Browder has been making frantic efforts to avoid going to Russian prison.
Well, lucky for him Interpol can't come after him, now that he almost singlehandedly
prevented a Russian from becoming Director. He's only Assistant Director, so he must be
powerless.
There; you see? The GRU could obviously learn a few lessons from Browder. If you want to rub
someone out, don't use a distinctive nerve agent that everyone will know came from Russia,
you numbskulls. Try to make it something undetectable, but if you can't manage that, at least
make it something so general it might have come from anywhere. Then immediately announce that
Browder did it.
The only war the US will fight with Iran is a nuclear war. A population of 80 million
bordering Pakistan with 197 million is a big effort and the US has been a complete flop with
even 35 million Afghans and $2 Trillion spent. Israel can play the "Polish Card" the one FDR
used to blackmail Chamberlain into declaring war in 1939 – and boy did he apply
pressure ! – but it won't help Israel survive and more than Poland did.
Israel cannot "solve the Palestinian problem" any more than the "Jewish problem" was
solved when Tsarist Russia let them emigrate to USA and USA stopped them emigrating from Nazi
Germany under Johnson-Reed Act 1924 as in case of SS St Louis in 1939 sent back to
Germany.
Israel will never resolve the problem they perceive. The actions of their ally and friend
Mohammed bin Salman will make it nigh on impossible now the crudity of the gangsters running
alongside Israel are plain to see and Trump had better read up on Uncle Remus and the Tar
Baby
A thermonuclear attack on Iran by the USA would probably trigger a response by Russia. The
Russian defence doctrine clearly states that thermonuclear weapons will be used in the event
of an attack on Russia or its allies.
How close an ally Iran is in that context may be debatable; but Russia could not afford to
stand by while Iran was destroyed.
The net effect of marital law for 30 days in those region might surprise Poroshenko and his
handlers
Notable quotes:
"... Russia's FSB says that among the Ukrainian crew members detained are two guys from Ukraine's domestic secret service SBU... ..."
"... I'd also guess that "f*ck the EU" is still the order of the day. These provocations will be used to put more pressure on EU to increase military spending and accept US natural gas. ..."
"... This provocation just seems to be straight out of the FUKUS playbook...i am not sure that poroshenko is smart enough to have laid all this out...he is just a motivated servant(election he is sure to lose) following the orders of his financiers... ..."
"... Well, good luck to Kiev in trying to maintain a police state apparatus in the eastern, southeastern and southern parts of Ukraine. If there's one thing that will break up Ukraine as a political entity, surely it's got to be actions on Kiev's part that punish people in those oblasts just for being next door to Russia or for not being Nazi enough. ..."
"... The current Ukie provocation may well be to take the Aleppo CW attack out of the news. Around 2014 2015 In noticed that when blocked on one front, the US et al (I have started to think in terms of a five-eyes permanent state) would move to another front - Ukraine, Syria, South China Sea. The last couple of years, their attention seems to have been mostly on Syria, Iran and the middle east. ..."
At the UN today, US Ambassador Nikki Haley denounced what she called Russia's "outrageous
violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory".
She didn't say which laws were violated or mention that the ships were Navy vessels:
"Let's be clear about what is known.
Ukrainian ships set sail from one Ukrainian port to another Ukrainian port. They attempted
to do so by the only possible way to go, through the Kerch Strait. Both Russia and Ukraine
use the strait routinely. But this time, Russia decided to prevent passage of the Ukrainian
ships, rammed them, and then opened fire on them.
This is no way for a law-abiding, civilized nation to act. Impeding Ukraine's lawful
transit through the Kerch Strait is a violation under international law." https://usun.state.gov/remarks/8784
This provocation was probably planned by the evil orange clown in the white house and his
handlers, for the express purpose of creating an excuse (look Ma, more "Russian aggression")
that the demonic orange poseur can use to avoid meeting with Vladimir Putin.
The amount of assets Russia put into this operation most likely means there is a lot more
going on than has been reported on.
From the reports I have read, this was an FSB operation. FSB duties according to wikipedia
"Its main responsibilities are within the country and include counter-intelligence, internal
and border security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance as well as investigating some other
types of grave crimes and federal law violations."
"Ukraine's parliament approved late on Nov. 26 the imposition of 30 days of martial law in
10 oblasts located on the Russian border, the border with the Russian-controlled Transnistria
region of Moldova and oblasts located by the Black and Azov seas.
The 276 lawmakers out of 330 present in parliament voted in favor of a bill by President
Petro Poroshenko who proposed it in response to Russian escalation in the Black Sea.Ukraine's
parliament approved late on Nov. 26 the imposition of 30 days of martial law in 10 oblasts
located on the Russian border, the border with the Russian-controlled Transnistria region of
Moldova and oblasts located by the Black and Azov seas.
The 276 lawmakers out of 330 present in parliament voted in favor of a bill by President
Petro Poroshenko who proposed it in response to Russian escalation in the Black Sea. ...
... In an address to the nation that preceded the vote, Poroshenko sad martial law will
take effect at 9 a.m. Kyiv time on Nov. 28. It will include Vinnytsia, Luhansk, Donetsk,
Zaporizhzhia, Mykolayiv, Odesa, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Kherson oblasts.
It will enable the military to take over control over these areas and restrict the civic
and political rights of their residents. The text of the bill is still now published and the
lawmakers voted for it based on the oral presentation of parliament speaker Andriy
Parubiy.
Parliament passed it after 10 hours of backroom discussions and disputes in the meeting
hall, amid swearing and insults.
Many found it odd to impose the martial law in the fifth year of Russia's war against
Ukraine and claimed Poroshenko offered the bill to postpone the presidential elections in
2019. According to recent polls, he has the highest negative rating among all the candidates
and low chances to win.
Under pressure, Poroshenko agreed to limit martial law to 30 days instead the earlier
planned 60 days and restrict its scope to 10 oblasts instead of the entire territory of
Ukraine.
Speaking in parliament, Poroshenko also assured the lawmakers he was going to implement
the martial law "explicitly in case of the Russian aggression on the ground." Otherwise,
there will be no limitations of the human rights in these areas, h said."
@103 https://youtu.be/fZGbkkOOuDA
- video of the questioning in Russian. No new revelations, just a few sailors saying more or
less the same thing - yes, we got the orders to cross into Azov sea and intentionally ignored
Russian commands.
There is also a timeline published by FSB in Russian at http://www.fsb.ru/fsb/press/message/single.htm%21id%3D10438315%40fsbMessage.html
that basically says
* Ukrainian ships approached, stated their intent to cross the straits and said they do not
recognize Russian authority
* Russia blocked the straits, standoff continued for some time
* Russia intercepted radio calls discussing leaving slow tug behind and charging the straits
with two gunboats
* The gunboats uncovered their autocannons; night approached
* at some point FSB decided it might end badly and ordered the ships to surrender. Faced with
overwhelming force, and not being suicidal, they more or less did
@105 laguerre.. i think the issue of some in the usa suggesting to blow up the bridge, not to
mention some loose cannons in the ukraine maybe saying something similar, has put russia in a
different position then otherwise... obviously they can monitor anything moving in the
vicinity via water, very easily.. the tactical nuke story was probably a pile of bs, or we
would have been told more by now, after russia ceased the tug...
however, perhaps the biggest issue is how the west under the leadership of the usa-uk -
have wanted to ramp up the hostility towards russia in all ways... this can't go unnoticed by
ordinary observers, including russia, here.. this is the type of environment that the west
has intentionally cultivated... this event is a byproduct of their indiscretion..
The rumored suitcase nuke likely activated the FSB besides the fact that some sort of
provocation's been expected since the Kerch Bridge construction began. The videos I've seen
show lots of commercial freighters--12-14, perhaps more--and other vessels on a lovely day to
be out on the water. The provocation also conveniently upstaged any mention of the terrorist
chemical attack in Aleppo and further Turkish Khashoggi drips. Although written before the
provocation,
Alastair Crooke's latest is of tangential import as the Il-20 shootdown's stiffening of
Russian resolve wasn't limited to Syria and has likely had ripple effects throughout Russia's
military and security services.
I re-read Point 9 in The Pessimist's comment @ 47 again: Martial law will also allow to cancel diplomatic agreements with the enemy and to seize
the property of the aggressor that is on the territory of Ukraine
In other words, martial law would not only allow Ukraine to continue ignoring Minsk I and
II agreements but also allow it to invade and claim Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
The naval base in Sevastopol is more valuable to the Americans than Crimea and Ukraine
themselves. They also want to get rid of the Turkstream gas pipeline which opened
recently.
Ahhh, got the answer to The Pessimist's query @ 54! If the Ukrainians provoke an incident
with Russia, then Russia (according to their thinking) will retaliate with force, justifying
Poroshenko's call for martial law and the compulsory military draft and putting Ukraine on a
war footing that go with it. (This would "explain" the gas and water stoppages as well.)
Martial law would enable Ukraine (along with assistance from NATO "advisors") to seize Crimea
and Sevastopol. Sevastopol could be delivered to the Americans.
With the naval base transferred to the US military, the Black Sea effectively becomes a US
lake and the Turkstream gas pipeline from Russia to Turkey (which would supply gas to
southeast Europe and Italy) becomes a target for attack.
@ jen... that would be yet another way to start ww3... i am sure the neo cons running
usa-uk-west - foreign policy, are working full time to accomplish this...
'Coming to a blog near us ...... all Ukrainians being subjected to a compulsory military
draft'
Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of young military age men have fled Ukraine....
much like young white men fled the US war of aggression on Viet Nam. Ukraine does not have
millions of young black children to fight their war using the draft. They will need to draft
housewives and broke down farmers.
Seems the best situation for Ukrainians in general who want peaceful relations with Russia
and an end to the UrkoNazi nightmare would be for the Rada to declare war against Russia
then, a la The Mouse That Roared , surrender and allow Russia to gain control so they
could thaw out, drink water and eat decent food again. The polling data presented shows no
one potential leader has anything near to a majority of people having confidence in her/him,
which is the real bankruptcy of Ukraine engineered by UK/US/EU, leading one to wonder what
numbers Putin would garner.
exiled off mainstreet , Nov 26, 2018 6:37:01 PM |
link
Perhaps now that the Poroshenko regime has ordered a general mobilisation, it is time for
Russia to liquidate this regime once and for all. I recognize that this threatens nuclear
war, but the mobilisation order seems to indicate that the Ukrainian regime attacked first
and makes it a bit less likely that nuclear war might ensue if this problem is liquidated
once and for all. Of course, the cost of redevelopment of this failed state will be
humongous.
I'd guess that Porky will try to extend and expand the martial law sometime before it
expires.
I'd also guess that "f*ck the EU" is still the order of the day. These provocations
will be used to put more pressure on EU to increase military spending and accept US natural
gas.
This provocation just seems to be straight out of the FUKUS playbook...i am not sure that
poroshenko is smart enough to have laid all this out...he is just a motivated
servant(election he is sure to lose) following the orders of his financiers... his
willingness to pay for a "full readiness" military operation, when his people are freezing to
death and have no money...seems more like a desperate servant than a leader of the
people...he is expendable as far as everyone is concerned...
The legal paperwork for the martial law was completed weeks before this provocation was
launched...the MSM had their stories all ready to go..
I am not certain where FUKUS is going to take this, but i think they will try to get NATO
embroiled in it...that could be a real problem...
Noticed that Poroshenko's martial law applies to those oblasts that border Russia to the
north and east, the southern oblasts that border Crimea or which have a seaboard, and
Vinnitsya and Odessa oblasts to the southwest because those two oblasts border the
self-proclaimed maverick Transnistria Republic. So there is pressure being applied as well to
Transnistria Republic to swallow its pride and return to Moldova with tail between its legs.
On top of that, the oblasts being subjected to martial law are dominated by Russian-language
speakers and these oblasts are also the oblasts that supported Viktor Yanukovych and his
party in Presidential elections in 2010.
No oblasts in the northwest part of the country bordering EU nations (that is, the
hardcore Banderite-Nazi strongholds) have been subjected to martial law.
Well, good luck to Kiev in trying to maintain a police state apparatus in the eastern,
southeastern and southern parts of Ukraine. If there's one thing that will break up Ukraine
as a political entity, surely it's got to be actions on Kiev's part that punish people in
those oblasts just for being next door to Russia or for not being Nazi enough.
"Looks like Poroshenko ran into some real problems in the Rada. Unsurprisingly, pretty
much all the political parties have immediately understood what this was all about and have
categorically rejected the text Poroshenko submitted. They only adopted a much watered-down
version in which the martial law is introduced only for one month, not two, and the fact that
the elections will take place as scheduled has been re-confirmed ." [Emphasis
mine]
Poroshenko's worse than a lame duck. That the Rada acted somewhat independently is a good
sign.
Thanks for the link to Crooke's article. The Khashoggi killing looks to have been a game
changer for the region and Crooke sums it up well. The current Ukie provocation may well
be to take the Aleppo CW attack out of the news. Around 2014 2015 In noticed that when
blocked on one front, the US et al (I have started to think in terms of a five-eyes permanent
state) would move to another front - Ukraine, Syria, South China Sea. The last couple of
years, their attention seems to have been mostly on Syria, Iran and the middle
east.
Jen@121 yes exactly. The monstrousnes of US foreign policy and its consequences still
staggers and shames me, despite my cynicism. Empowering such people, providing weapons and
encouragement even when they are not more directly involved.
"...Over the past four years over 1,000 Canadian troops (a rotation of 200 every six months)
has deployed to the Ukraine to train a force that includes the best-organized neo-Nazis in
the world. Far right militia members are part of the force fighting Russia-aligned groups in
eastern Ukraine.
Five months ago Canada's military attache in Kiev, Colonel Brian Irwin, met privately with
officers from the Azov battalion, who use the Nazi 'Wolfangal' symbol and praise officials
who helped slaughter Jews during WWII. According to Azov, the Canadian officials concluded
the June briefing by expressing 'their hopes for further fruitful cooperation.'
More generally, Canadians have fundraised for and joined rightist militias fighting inside
Ukraine. For their part, top politicians have spoken alongside and marched with members of
Ukraine's Right Sector, which said it was 'defending the values of White Christian Europe
against the loss of the Nation and deregionalisation.'
Didnt they try to sail a US ship near Crimea a few years back and it wound up having its
electronics quickly disabled and fighter jets flown at it to show it can easily be sunk?
There's provoking these guys with sanctions but if you're going to escalate it and threaten
so sail a fleet into its territory, I'd expect a war. Im sure they've already prepared for
this to potentially happen and that fleet would be hit with missiles from all angles.
Ridiculous
Not just Canada. The five eyes permanent state utilises nazis, wahhabi's and zionists -
zionist's it seems being deeply embedded in the permanent state.
Fernando Martinez , Nov 26, 2018 9:15:52 PM |
link
@121 jen.. thanks for the more detailed analysis on that...
@125 john gilberts.. thanks... have you contacted The Honourable Harjit Singh Sajjan MP
who is the dept. of defense minister on this? here is his e mail.. [email protected]
Not much to see here. The empire's little gas monkeys got off their leash in Syria and did
something stupid and embarrassing, so a diversion was required to avoid all those
uncomfortable questions at the UN. Luckily the embarrassingly half-witted, submissive
Ukrainian leadership is only too happy to help out the empire and sacrifice its soldiers and
national interests. The alphabet agencies must ROFL at the clowns in Kyiv. Local population
not so much.
...
i) A vessel to starboard has right of way.
ii) A larger vessel has right of way over a smaller vessel.
The small Ukrainian tug had the larger Russian vessel to its starboard (rules i and ii
against it). The tug effectively cut across the bow of the larger Russian vessel and slowed
down in front of it. The Russian vessel was turning away to minimise the inevitable impact
arising from the deliberate actions of Ukranian captain of the tug.
So whilst the optics look bad, the rules obliged the tug to get out of the way. Nice.
It's an amplification of the routine pre-race jostling behind the START line before a
yacht race. If your timing is lousy then you'll cross the START line before the gun goes off
and be disqualified unless you go back and cross the START line AFTER the gun fired. A
majority of casual Sunday yacht racers are just there to have fun and are happy to sit well
back from the line with limp sails and yank them tight when the gun has fired, and leave the
jostling to the fanatics.
Apart from the ramming of the tug boat, it seems the Ukie navy vessels were fired on.
Whatever intel Russia had, they were there to stop the pricks rather than just a nice day on
the water.
"... On a more serious note, it was 22 months ago that I challenged Schiff as the "Russian hacking" accusations were proliferating. In the 2-minute clip , Schiff recites language highly relevant today as the Deep State tries desperately to brand Julian Assange a "known participant" – that is, an active conspirator with Russia, and not merely Russia's "useful idiot." ..."
"... Some of our "Justice" officials today apparently think they can detour around 1st amendment hurdles if they can dredge up, or manufacture, "evidence" enabling them to use the Espionage Act of 1917 against Assange. ..."
"... At think tanks like the Center for American Progress, hope springs eternal. Impatience too. As poor Schiff knows, Mueller has been at it for a year and a half – and FBI super-sleuth Peter Strzok for a half-year before that, after which he complained to FBI lawyer/girlfriend Lisa Page that "there is no big there there." But when Schiff takes the chair in January, God knows what they'll find! ..."
Adam Schiff doesn't believe DHS saying ISIS or MS-13 are real threats but he DOES
believe a Russian Oligarch who told him Medvedev was followed everywhere he went by a man
called "The Pillow Carrier" who's job was to smother Medvedev in his sleep if he made Putin
mad.
(hat tip to Rosie Memos @almostjingo for tweeting)
Rep. Adam Schiff, who takes the chair of the House Intelligence Committee in January, has
a nose for hot tips about his bete noire, Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as a
strong bent toward credulousness. On October 23, 2018, Schiff solemnly told a young audience
at the old Hillary Clinton/John Podesta Center for American Progress Action Fund that he had
been told that Putin has one of his henchmen follow Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev
around with a pillow to smother him in his sleep if he ever gets out of line.
No, the video contains no hint that Schiff was speaking tongue in cheek. Perhaps worse, no
one in the audience laughed (where do they recruit such credulous young folks?).
Be sure to scroll down for images of the pillow-carrier caught in action. :-)) He
apparently has no reason to fear "identification," since, according to Schiff's source,
"Medvedev is nothing."
On a more serious note, it was 22 months ago that I challenged Schiff as the "Russian
hacking" accusations were proliferating. In the 2-minute clip , Schiff recites
language highly relevant today as the Deep State tries desperately to brand Julian Assange a
"known participant" – that is, an active conspirator with Russia, and not merely
Russia's "useful idiot."
Some of our "Justice" officials today apparently think they can detour around
1st amendment hurdles if they can dredge up, or manufacture, "evidence" enabling them to use
the Espionage Act of 1917 against Assange.
At think tanks like the Center for American Progress, hope springs eternal. Impatience
too. As poor Schiff knows, Mueller has been at it for a year and a half – and FBI
super-sleuth Peter Strzok for a half-year before that, after which he complained to FBI
lawyer/girlfriend Lisa Page that "there is no big there there." But when Schiff takes the
chair in January, God knows what they'll find!
Meanwhile back at the ranch, President Donald Trump and his chief advisers give no
indication they are aware of what to expect, if Trump continues to allow the Justice
Department to slow-walk his order to declassify crucial documents that could – in a
lawful world – land ex-FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
former CIA Director John Brennan, et al. behind bars.
The stakes are very high. By all indications Trump is afraid – and not only of
pillows.
Those wishing more background on the rudderless Schiff may wish to click on:
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). William
Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world
military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems
still used by NSA. Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .
He's macho. When he takes his photographer along in his "private" moments, it's to show him
wrestling tigers, petting leopards, landing large fish, wearing tough guy headgear, hurling
people around the judo mat. What do our leaders do in their photographed "private" moments?
Golf.
Even the false rumours about him are macho. Affairs with beautiful young women, not
pedophilia or secret homosexuality.
He's got a real army. With air defences, fighter planes, modern tanks, tough special
forces. So a fun little air campaign won't be possible. Besides, Russia hasn't lost many wars,
has it? And they never give up; just ask the Mongols.
He's Russian. And Russians are all horrible. Except for
Pussy Riot .
He's smarter than our team. Well... doesn't he prove this every day?
You can't bully him. Ditto.
He's not going anywhere. He's staying right there in Russia. And that, for the
geographically challenged, is a great big country not very far from anywhere.
And just one more.Russian babes say they like him . Imagine the campaign "Babes for (insert the name of your
wearisome leader)". Didn't think you could imagine it without feeling a bit nauseous. Well, OK,
there was Obamagirl .
But that was
fake .
She thought the investigation might have about six months left, although if Trump refuses a
face-to-face meeting, Mueller could seek a subpoena to put him before the grand jury. That
could be fought all the way to the supreme court.
There is a precedent, US v Nixon, when the justices ruled that the president must deliver
subpoenaed materials to a district court. Sixteen days later, Nixon resigned.
If Mueller decides not to have that fight, he could write a report saying he believed the
president obstructed justice. If he does not reach that conclusion, the Democratic-led House
could issue its own subpoenas.
"It is a chess match," said Milgram. "We'll have to see how it plays out in the next
year."
In Homage to
Catalonia (1938), his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell describes how his
wife was rudely woken by a police-raid on the hotel room she was occupying in Barcelona:
In the small hours of the morning there was a pounding on the door, and six men marched
in, switched on the light, and immediately took up various positions about the room,
obviously agreed upon beforehand. They then searched both rooms (there was a bathroom
attached) with inconceivable thoroughness. They sounded the walls, took up the mats, examined
the floor, felt the curtains, probed under the bath and the radiator, emptied every drawer
and suitcase and felt every garment and held it up to the light. ( Homage to Catalonia , ch.
14)
The police conducted this search "in the recognized OGPU [then the Russian
communist secret-police] or Gestapo style for nearly two hours," Orwell says. He then notes
that in "all this time they never searched the bed." His wife was still in it, you see, and
although the police "were probably Communist Party members they were also Spaniards, and to
turn a woman out of bed was a little too much for them. This part of the job was silently
dropped, making the whole search meaningless."
Orwell's story suggests a new word to me: typhlophthalmism , meaning "the practice
of turning a blind eye to essential but inconvenient facts" (from Greek typhlos
, "blind," + ophthalmos
, "eye"). But it's a long word, so let's call it typhlism for short. Shorter is
better, because the term could be used so often today. Orwell's story is an allegory of modern
Western politics and social commentary, where so many essential but inconvenient facts are
"silently dropped" from analysis.
is how no one really talked about their content, eh? We learned that she rigged the primary
against Bernie and then everyone started talking about Russia ! Just as she and Podesta
wanted.
#1
Amazing how elusive they are (scrubbed from the State Dept website) and how they have never
been picked up on by most of the corporate media.
up 8 users have voted. --
Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this
proudly home-grown comment
The world according to Trump -- notice a trend here?
Reporter: "Who should be held accountable?" [for Jamal Khashoggi's murder]
Trump: "Maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place. The world is a very, very vicious
place. " -- November 22, 2018.
2007:
" The world is a vicious and brutal place. We think we're civilized. In truth, it's a cruel world and people are ruthless.
They act nice to your face, but underneath they're out to kill you." Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald
Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 71.
"Life is not easy. The world is a vicious, brutal place. It's a place where people are looking to kill you, if not
physically, then mentally. In the world that we live in every day it is usually the mental kill. People are looking to put you
down, especially if you are on top. When I watched Westerns as a kid, I noticed the cowboys were always trying to kill the fastest
gun. As a kid, I never understood it. Why would anyone want to go after the fastest gun?
"This is the way it is in real life. Everyone wants to kill the fastest gun. In real estate, I am the fastest gun, and everyone
wants to kill me. You have to know how to defend yourself. People will be nasty and try to kill you just for sport. Even your
friends are out to get you!" Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 139.
2018:
"Well, not all people. But it's a vicious place. The world is a vicious place. You know, the lions and tigers, they
hunt for food, we hunt for sport. So, it can be a very vicious place. You turn on the television and you look at what's happening."
Interview with John Barton, Golf Digest , October 13, 2014.
" This is the most deceptive, vicious world. It is vicious, it's full of lies, deceit and deception. You make a deal
with somebody and it's like making a deal with– that table." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS 60 Minutes , October 15,
2018.
"This is a r– this is a vicious place. Washington DC is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the– the bad mouthing,
the speaking behind your back. –but – you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS
60 Minutes , October 15, 2018.
Karl Kolchak , November 23, 2018 8:54 pm
The world is a vicious place -- that is utterly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and will be until civilization
finally collapses.
ilsm , November 24, 2018 7:19 am
Newly posted DNC democrat Bill Kristol thinks regime change in China a worthwhile endeavor.
The "world is a vicious place" designed, set up, held together, secured by the capitalist "post WW II world order" paid for
by the US taxpayer and bonds bought by arms dealers and their financiers.
The tail wagging the attack dog being a Jerusalem-Medina axis straddling Hormuz and Malacca .
An inept princely heir apparent assassin is far better than Rouhani in a "vicious place".
When McCarthyism ghost is out it is difficult to suppress it. The bottom feeder from
Democratic Party have no other viable agenda that demonizing Russia and presenting it as the the
root cause of 2016 fiasco, which actually are result of their neoliberal transformation under
Bill Clinton. CIA democrats are now married to Russiagate.
The Mueller probe has lost its political potency, as Democrats acknowledged on the midterm
trail. They didn't win House seats by warning of Russian collusion. They didn't even talk about
it. Most voters don't care, or don't care to hear about it. A CNN exit poll found 54% of
respondents think the Russia probe is "politically motivated"; a 46% plurality disapprove of
Mr. Mueller's handling of it.
That hasn't stopped Democrats from fixating on it since the
election, in particular when President Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and named
Matthew Whitaker as a temporary replacement. The left now insists the appointment is
unconstitutional or that because Mr. Whitaker once voiced skepticism on the Russia-collusion
narrative, he is unfit to oversee the Mueller investigation and must recuse himself.
The joke here is that neither Mr. Whitaker nor anybody else is likely to exercise any
authority over Mr. Mueller -- and more's the pity. The probe has meandered along for 18 months,
notching records for leaks and derivative prosecutions, though all indications are it has
accomplished little by way of its initial mandate.
As a practical matter, Mr. Mueller should have been brought to heel some time ago. As a
political matter, that won't happen. The administration has always understood that such a move
would provoke bipartisan political blowback, ignite a new "coverup" scandal, and maybe trigger
impeachment. It's even more unlikely officials would risk those consequences now, as Mr.
Mueller is said to be wrapping up.
Democrats know this, as does the grandstanding Sen. Jeff Flake. Yet they demand a Whitaker
recusal and are again pushing legislation to "protect" the special counsel's probe. Senate
Republicans rightly blocked that bill this week, partly on grounds that it is likely
unconstitutional. They also made the obvious point that if Mr. Trump intended to fire Mr.
Mueller, he'd have done so months ago and wouldn't need to ax Mr. Sessions to do it. And while
the president tweets ceaseless criticism of the probe, he has never threatened to end it.
Democrats are nonetheless doubling down on the probe for political advantage. Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared members of his caucus will demand that language making
it more difficult to fire Mr. Mueller be included in a spending bill that needs to pass before
the end of the current legislative session. Mr. Flake is offering an assist, saying that he
will block any judicial nominees in committee until a Mueller protection bill gets a Senate
floor vote. Over in the House, incoming Democratic committee chairmen, led by soon-to-be
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, are vowing an investigation blitz focused on
collusion with Russia.
Mr. Schumer's last shutdown -- a year ago -- was a bust even though it was waged over the
emotionally compelling issue of Dreamers, illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as children. He
now proposes shutting down the government over a probe few people outside of Washington care
about. Mitch McConnell should be so lucky.
Mr. Flake, should he run for president, will struggle to explain to conservative voters his
obstruction of Trump judicial nominees, who'll be confirmed in 2019 anyway when the Republicans
expand their Senate majority.
Democrats' other problem is that this strategy hinges in large degree on an expectation that
Mr. Mueller ultimately finds something. There's no reason to believe he has turned up any
evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
Sure, he's secured convictions against longtime Beltway bandits for long-ago lobbying. He's
squeezed the ole standby lying-to-investigators plea out of a few targets. He's indicted a
squad of Russian trolls, who will never be brought to trial and who even Mr. Mueller's office
admits had nothing to do with the Trump team. And while it seems likely his report to the
Justice Department will criticize Mr. Trump, it's improbable it will contain proof of
collusion.
And then? The president will have a field day. He will claim vindication and mercilessly
drive home that the investigation was a waste and a witch hunt. And he will have a point. Two
years of Democratic hyperbole will be undercut by the special counsel they've held out as the
ultimate sleuth. They'll have to decide whether to deride Mr. Mueller's findings as
insufficient to justify continuing their own probes.
Maybe Mr. Mueller has something. We'll see. But if the reporting is correct that he's wound
up high and dry, Democrats will end up there with him.
"... The Telegraph adds that the UK's dispute with the Trump administration is so politically sensitive that staff within the British Embassy in D.C. have been barred from discussing it with journalists. Theresa May has also "been kept at arms-length and is understood to have not raised the issue directly with the US president ." ..."
"... In September , we reported that the British government "expressed grave concerns" over the material in question after President Trump issued an order to the DOJ to release a wide swath of materials, "immediately" and "without redaction." ..."
"... Trump walked that order back days later after the UK begged him not to release them. ..."
"... MI6 agents have a reputation for writing fiction. Ian Fleming comes to mind. Its is interesting to reflect on the similarities of fiction and so called intelligence. ..."
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ ..."
"... The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele. ..."
"... The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said. ..."
"... By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade. ..."
"... The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered "poisoned fruit. ..."
"... Add: GCHQ (UK NSA) was in agreement with HilBarry Inc to block the US 2016 election for U.K. candidate Hillary aka Clinton 'Rhodes scholar' Brit colonial agent. Study who 'Rhodes' was. CIA and MI6 are UK siblings. Note nickname for CIA is "Langley" = 'The English' in French L'Anglai. Trump Tower - Russkie atty Natalia met with Simpson GPS Fusion to debrief before & after meeting. Natalia was granted US entry by Mueller Spec Counsel teamster Preet Baharara (conflict in that Preet is compromised witness and also SC "investigator"). Russkie Ahkmedishin met with Obama WH in prep for meeting (see Jan 2016 WH log). The 'translator' at meeting was Obama WH translator. ..."
"... The evidence for false Trump Russkie bank connections is a phony server set up by CIA agent McMullen that robo scammed Russian Alfa Bank to robo talk to the phony server the CIA named with miss-spell Trump OrGAINization. See godaddy domain registration. Hillary slandered Trump with this scam on Twitter Oct 31, 2016 - her witchy day. ..."
"... Obama used the intelligence agencies to spy on all political opponents, not just the Trump campaign and eventually the administration. NSA databases were being queried by Democrat contractors with content feed to Obama's National Security staff where communications were "unmasked" by Rice and others. Rodgers shut down the scheme. So much Marxist criminality and fraud left unpunished. ..."
"... George Papadopoulos was not the reason the FBI opened their 2016 Counterintelligence Investigation into the Trump Campaign. John Brennan was the reason. ..."
"... Brennan was the man pushing the entire Russian Narrative that consumed Washington D.C. – and ultimately led to the Mueller Investigation. He did this based on little or no evidence. The Electronic Communication should prove interesting. John Brennan's Role in the FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation ..."
"... In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, head of Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with then-CIA Head John Brennan regarding alleged communications between the Trump Campaign and Moscow. ..."
"... The Trump Team was being surveiled the entire time by Breanan via the GCHQ. The CIA are Analysts. That's it. They had to involve the FBI to begin the Surveillance & Criminal Investigation into the Counter Intelligence Operation. Thus, Criminal at Large Breanan's trip up to Capital Hill to meet with Harry Reid to brief him on Steele. Brennan the "Puppet Master" has been quarter backing the entire Deep State Intelligence Psychological Operation & Parallel Construction Surveillance from the very start. ..."
"... They've been reverse engineering their lies ever since they lost the election to cover their tracks and use the excuse of "Plausible Deniability" as the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA always claim. ..."
"... Why get a FISA warrant for Cater Paige after he left the Trump Team? Because folks, the FISA Warrant is RETROACTIVE. ..."
The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent
President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling
investigation, according to
The Telegraph , stating that any disclosure would "undermine intelligence gathering if he
releases pages of an FBI application to wiretap one of his former campaign advisers."
Trump's allies, however, are fighting back - demanding transparency and suggesting that the
UK wouldn't want the documents withheld unless it had something to hide.
The Telegraph has talked to more than a dozen UK and US officials, including in American
intelligence, who have revealed details about the row.
British spy chiefs have "genuine concern" about sources being exposed if classified parts
of the wiretap request were made public, according to figures familiar with discussions.
" It boils down to the exposure of people ", said one US intelligence official, adding: "
We don't want to reveal sources and methods ." US intelligence shares the concerns of the
UK.
Another said Britain feared setting a dangerous "precedent" which could make people less
likely to share information, knowing that it could one day become public. -
The Telegraph
The Telegraph adds that the UK's dispute with the Trump administration is so politically
sensitive that staff within the British Embassy in D.C. have been barred from discussing it
with journalists. Theresa May has also "been kept at arms-length and is understood to have not
raised the issue directly with the US president ."
In September , we reported that the British government "expressed grave concerns" over the
material in question after President Trump issued an order to the DOJ to release a wide swath
of materials, "immediately" and "without redaction."
Mr Trump wants to declassify 21 pages from one of the applications. He announced the move
in September, then backtracked, then this month said he was "very seriously" considering it
again. Both Britain and Australia are understood to be opposing the move.
The New
York Times reported at the time that the UK's concern was over material which " includes
direct references to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher
Steele ," the former MI6 agent who compiled the infamous "Steele Dossier." The UK's objection,
according to former US and British officials, was over revealing Steele's identity in an
official document, "regardless of whether he had been named in press reports."
We noted in September, however, that Steele's name was contained within the Nunes Memo
- the House Intelligence Committee's majority opinion in the Trump-Russia case.
Steele also had
extensive contacts with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie , who - along with
Steele - was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump
called for the declassification of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly
reveal more about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within the Department of
Justice for
lying about his contacts with Fusion GPS.
Perhaps the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on the Trump
campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016 . Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos
was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor
that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would
drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to
meet with).
Also recall that CIA/FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper met with both Carter Page
and Papadopoulos in
London.
Halper, a veteran of four Republican administrations, reached out to Trump aide George
Papadopoulos in September 2016 with an offer to fly to London to write an academic paper on
energy exploration in the Mediterranean Sea.
Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a
meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of
Democrats' emails.
Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a
government-sanctioned surveillance operation. - Daily Caller
In total, Halper received
over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for "research," over $400,000 of which was granted
before and during the 2016 election season.
Papadopoulos, who was sentenced to 14 days in prison for lying about his conversations with
a shadowy Maltese professor and self-professed member of the
Clinton Foundation , has publicly claimed he was targeted by UK spies, and told The
Telegraph that he demands transparency. Trump's allies in Washington, meanwhile, have suggested
that the facts laid out before us mean that the ongoing Russia investigation was invalid from
the start .
In short, it's understandable that the UK would prefer to hide their involvement in the
"witch hunt" of Donald Trump since much of the counterintelligence investigation was conducted
on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the operation, it will bolster claims that they
meddled in the 2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a
set-up from the start .
Steele's ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims
asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true.
Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified anti-Trump
dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the FBI for years before the
relationship was severed just before the election because of Steele's unauthorized contacts
with the press.
He shared results of his investigation into Trump's links to Russia with the FBI beginning
in early July 2016.
The FBI relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier to fill out applications for four
FISA warrants against Page. Page has denied the dossier's claims, which include that he was
the Trump campaign's back channel to the Kremlin. - Daily Caller
That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse
focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK
soil, is curious.
Trump talks the talk but so far no walking of the walk. Not falling for it anymore, Tyler. No Swamp Draining from Pres. Cheeto anymore than we got Hope or Change from Superfly
When fraud is coming to light, the cockroaches scramble. The so-called intelligence
agencies have run amuck for way too long and leave a trail of lies, murder and deception.
That is the reason Obama and Clinton went to New Zealand and Australia. They have access
to the Five Eyes network in New Zealand and Australia without their requests being recorded
whereas if they had asked in the US their requests and all documents given to them would have
been recorded. . They are both traitors to not only the sitting President and the US people
but also to the United States.
That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their
excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which
occurred on UK soil, is curious.
MI6 agents have a reputation for writing fiction. Ian Fleming comes to mind. Its is
interesting to reflect on the similarities of fiction and so called intelligence.
I think we all know now that the UK not Russia was the dirtbags working for Obama/HRC to
trap Trump. Release the declass Trump and let's start cleaning up the swamp. Let the SHTF those Brits
have never been friends to freedom.
If they released audio-video evidence of public officials indulging in cannibalistic
pedophilia at their state desks, they would still get off the hook.
Their MSM fiends oops I meant friends would scramble to the rescue and create another AV
to counter the actual one, and their idiot Democrat audiences would fall for it.
No matter what is exposed on 5 December the perps will get off the hook.
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Add: GCHQ (UK NSA) was in agreement with HilBarry Inc to block the US 2016 election for U.K.
candidate Hillary aka Clinton 'Rhodes scholar' Brit colonial agent. Study who 'Rhodes'
was. CIA and MI6 are UK siblings. Note nickname for CIA is "Langley" = 'The English' in French
L'Anglai. Trump Tower - Russkie atty Natalia met with Simpson GPS Fusion to debrief before &
after meeting. Natalia was granted US entry by Mueller Spec Counsel teamster Preet Baharara
(conflict in that Preet is compromised witness and also SC "investigator"). Russkie
Ahkmedishin met with Obama WH in prep for meeting (see Jan 2016 WH log). The 'translator' at
meeting was Obama WH translator.
GPS Fusion wrote the Dossier with UK spy Steele and was paid by Hillary/DNC.
The evidence for false Trump Russkie bank connections is a phony server set up by CIA
agent McMullen that robo scammed Russian Alfa Bank to robo talk to the phony server the CIA
named with miss-spell Trump OrGAINization. See godaddy domain registration. Hillary slandered
Trump with this scam on Twitter Oct 31, 2016 - her witchy day.
Obama used the intelligence agencies to spy on all political opponents, not just the Trump
campaign and eventually the administration. NSA databases were being queried by Democrat
contractors with content feed to Obama's National Security staff where communications were
"unmasked" by Rice and others. Rodgers shut down the scheme. So much Marxist criminality and
fraud left unpunished.
George Papadopoulos was not the reason the FBI opened their 2016 Counterintelligence
Investigation into the Trump Campaign. John Brennan was the reason.
Brennan was the man pushing the entire Russian Narrative that consumed Washington D.C.
– and ultimately led to the Mueller Investigation. He did this based on little or no
evidence. The Electronic Communication should prove interesting. John Brennan's Role in the FBI's Trump-Russia Investigation
April 9, 2018 by Jeff Carlson, CFA
In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, head of Britain's Government Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ) traveled to Washington D.C. to meet with then-CIA Head John Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump Campaign and Moscow.
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA
chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director
level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. The meeting between Hannigan and Brennan appears somewhat unusual.
The US and the UK are two of the so-called Five Eyes -- along with Canada, Australia and
New Zealand -- that share a broad range of intelligence through a formalized alliance.
The GCHQ is responsible for Britain's Signals Intelligence. The NSA is responsible for the United States' Signals Intelligence. Hannigan's U.S. counterpart was not CIA Director Brennan. Hannigan's U.S. counterpart was NSA Director Mike Rogers. Luke Harding of the Guardian originally reported the meeting in an April 13, 2017 article
on Britain's spy agencies early role in the Trump-Russia investigation:
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between figures
connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents. This intelligence was passed to the
US as part of a routine exchange of information
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further
information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians.
See above about phony robot "suspicious communications" set up by CIA McMullen to smear
Trump with Trump Tower falsely named server and data created in robo call response with
Russian Alfa bank.
Russian "communications" was e-data of the Russkie Bank and the non-Trump server named
"Trump OrGAINization". It was just two robo-computers pinging back and forth.
The Trump Team was being surveiled the entire time by Breanan via the GCHQ. The CIA are
Analysts. That's it. They had to involve the FBI to begin the Surveillance & Criminal
Investigation into the Counter Intelligence Operation. Thus, Criminal at Large Breanan's trip
up to Capital Hill to meet with Harry Reid to brief him on Steele. Brennan the "Puppet
Master" has been quarter backing the entire Deep State Intelligence Psychological Operation
& Parallel Construction Surveillance from the very start.
They've been reverse engineering their lies ever since they lost the election to cover
their tracks and use the excuse of "Plausible Deniability" as the Pure Evil War Criminal
Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA always claim.
Feb 13th, Don Bongino Podcast.
"I'll include an article from NPR. NPR, not a by any stretch a right Wing outlet. Ok? But
it's actually a decent piece. Now, it describes the three hop rule. It's from 2013, but it describes it very shortly
& ce scintillating in about 400 words. And it's done well so I'll include it in todays
show notes.
Remember, It's now the "Two Hop Rule" but you just have to know what a "Hop" is to
understand how dangerous this is.
Here's how they explain it.
It says, "testimony before Congress on Wednesday, remember this is written in 2013 Joe.
Showed how easy it is for Americans, with no connection to Terrorism to unwittingly have
their calling patterns analyzed by the Government." This is really wacko stuff. It hinges on
what is known as a "Hop."
Or chain analysis. When the NSA identifies a suspect, it can look not just at his phone
records Joe, but also the records of everyone he calls, everyone who calls those people and
everyone who calls those people." Chain Migration.
You ain't kidding! Right!? Chain spying!
It goes on...though....this is good.
"If the average person Joe, called 40 unique people. "Three Hop Analysts" would allow the
Government to mine the records....this is a staggering number...of 2.5 Million Americans when
investigating one suspected terrorist."
"Holy Moly!" Holly Moly is right.
Why get a FISA warrant for Cater Paige after he left the Trump Team? Because folks, the
FISA Warrant is RETROACTIVE.
All the the emails he sent in the past to Trump Team members, combine that with "Two Hops"
you basically have everybody in the known universe that could of ever contacted the Trump
Team.
Paige sends an email, whatever to Kushner. I don't know who he sends emails to. He
probably didn't. But you get the point. Then you go to another "Hop." Kushner, who'd he send
an email to? Now you got the while Trump Team.
That's the whole point. That's why I constantly say to you that they were trying to put a
legal face on this thing after they realized the election was coming up and they could
lose.
They were like. Man, we've been spying on these people the whole time. We already got most
of their emails and their communications. How do we legally do it now?
Oh, we get a FISA Warrant, we use couple of "Hops" and we're Golden."
"... Operating on a budget of Ł1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists, military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway, Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region ..."
"... The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government agencies." ..."
The hacking collective known as "Anonymous" published a
trove of documents on November 5 which it claims exposes a UK-based psyop to create a " large-scale information secret service
" in Europe in order to combat "Russian propaganda" - which has been blamed for everything from
Brexit to US President Trump winning the 2016 US election.
The primary objective of the " Integrity Initiative " - established
in 2015 by the Institute for Statecraft - is "to provide a coordinated
Western response to Russian disinformation and other elements of hybrid warfare."
And while the notion of Russian disinformation has become the West's favorite new bogeyman to excuse things such as Hillary Clinton's
historic loss to Donald Trump, we note that "Anonymous" was called out by WikiLeaks in October 2016 as an FBI cutout, while the report
on the Integrity Initiative that Anonymous exposed comes from Russian state-owned network
RT - so it's anyone's guess whose 400lb
hackers are at work here.
Operating on a budget
of Ł1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity Initiative consists of "clusters" of local politicians, journalists,
military personnel, scientists and academics. The team is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian interference
in European affairs , while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes, the documents claim.
The UK establishment appears to be conducting the very activities of which it and its allies have long-accused the Kremlin,
with little or no corroborating evidence. The program also aims to "change attitudes in Russia itself" as well as influencing
Russian speakers in the EU and North America, one of the leaked
documents states. -
RT
The Integrity Initiative "clusters" currently operate out of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Montenegro, Serbia, Norway,
Lithuania and the netherlands. According to the leak by Anonymous, the Integrity Initiative is working to aggressively expand its
sphere of influence throughout eastern Europe, as well as the US, Canada and the MENA region .
The work done by the Initiative - which claims it is not a government body, is done under "absolute secrecy via concealed contacts
embedded throughout British embassies," according to the leak. It does, however, admit to working with unnamed British "government
agencies."
The initiative has received Ł168,000 in funding from HQ NATO Public Diplomacy and Ł250,000 from the
US State Department , the
documents allege.
Some of its purported members include British MPs and high-profile " independent" journalists with a penchant for anti-Russian
sentiment in their collective online oeuvre, as showcased by a brief glance at their Twitter feeds. -
RT
Noted examples of "inedependent" anti-Russia journalists:
Spanish "Op"
In one example of the group's activities, a "Moncloa Campaign" was successfully conducted by the group's Spanish cluster to block
the appointment of Colonel Pedro Banos as the director of Spain's Department of Homeland Security. It took just seven-and-a-half
hours to accomplish, brags the group in the
documents .
"The [Spanish] government is preparing to appoint Colonel Banos, known for his pro-Russian and pro-Putin positions in the Syrian
and Ukrainian conflicts, as Director of the Department of Homeland Security, a key body located at the Moncloa," begins Nacho Torreblanca
in a seven-part tweetstorm describing what happened.
Others joined in. Among them – according to the leaks – academic Miguel Ángel Quintana Paz, who wrote that "Mr. Banos is to
geopolitics as a homeopath is to medicine." Appointing such a figure would be "a shame." -
RT
The operation was reported in Spanish media, while Banos was labeled "pro-Putin" by UK MP Bob Seely.
In short, expect anything counter to predominant "open-border" narratives to be the Kremlin's fault - and not a natural populist
reflex to the destruction of borders, language and culture.
"... It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" ..."
"... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
"... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
"... this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war ..."
"... Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK. ..."
"... The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth ..."
"... British hypocrisy publicly called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me ..."
"... It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint does not bode well for such relations ..."
"... A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants? ..."
"... I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins. ..."
"... The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's explicit approval. ..."
"... Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda ..."
"... This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap. ..."
"... Pat Lang posted a report that strongly implies that charges of Russian influence on Trump are a deliberate falsification ..."
"... It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6 meddling ..."
"... As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was the best candidate for the job. ..."
"... The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love? ..."
"... They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass psychological pathology among the elites. ..."
"... The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist "order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation. ..."
"... Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is Strength." The three pillars of political power. ..."
"... Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK government. ..."
British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear CampaignsSteveg , Nov 24,
2018 11:43:44 AM |
link
In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream.
We have already seen
many consequences of this and similar programs which are designed to smear anyone who
does not follow the anti-Russian government lines. The 'Russian collusion' smear campaign
against Donald Trump based on the Steele dossier was also a largely British operation but
seems to be part of a different project.
The ' Integrity
Initiative ' builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military
personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via
social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.
On June 7 it took the the Spanish cluster only a few hours to derail the appointment of
Perto Banos as the Director of the National Security Department in Spain. The cluster
determined that he had a too positive view of Russia and launched a coordinated social media
smear
campaign (pdf) against him.
The Initiative and its operations were unveiled when someone liberated some of its
documents, including its budget applications to the British Foreign Office, and
posted them under the 'Anonymous' label at cyberguerrilla.org .
The Integrity Initiative was set up in autumn 2015 by The Institute for Statecraft in
cooperation with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) to bring to the attention of
politicians, policy-makers, opinion leaders and other interested parties the threat posed
by Russia to democratic institutions in the United Kingdom, across Europe and North
America.
It lists Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council as "partner organisations" and
promises that:
Cluster members will be sent to educational sessions abroad to improve the technical
competence of the cluster to deal with disinformation and strengthen bonds in the cluster
community. [...] (Events with DFR Digital Sherlocks, Bellingcat, EuVsDisinfo, Buzzfeed,
Irex, Detector Media, Stopfake, LT MOD Stratcom – add more names and propose cluster
participants as you desire).
The Initiatives Orwellian slogan is 'Defending Democracy Against Disinformation'. It
covers European countries, the UK, the U.S. and Canada and seems to want to expand to the
Middle East.
On its About page
it claims: "We are not a government body but we do work with government departments and
agencies who share our aims." The now published budget plans show that more than 95% of the
Initiative's funding is coming directly from the British government, NATO and the U.S. State
Department. All the 'contact persons' for creating 'clusters' in foreign countries are
British embassy officers. It amounts to a foreign influence campaign by the British
government that hides behind a 'civil society' NGO.
The organisation is led by one Chris N. Donnelly who
receives (pdf) £8,100 per month for creating the smear campaign network.
To counter Russian disinformation and malign influence in Europe by: expanding the
knowledge base; harnessing existing expertise, and; establishing a network of networks of
experts, opinion formers and policy makers, to educate national audiences in the threat and
to help build national capacities to counter it .
The Initiative has a black and white view that is based on a "we are the good ones"
illusion. When "we" 'educate the public' it is legitimate work. When others do similar, it
its disinformation. That is of course not the reality. The Initiative's existence itself,
created to secretly manipulate the public, is proof that such a view is wrong.
If its work were as legit as it wants to be seen, why would the Foreign Office run it from
behind the curtain as an NGO? The Initiative is not the only such operation. It's
applications seek funding from a larger "Russian Language Strategic Communication Programme"
run by the Foreign Office.
The 2017/18 budget application sought FCO funding of £480,635. It received
£102,000 in co-funding from NATO and the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense. The 2018/19
budget application shows a
planned spending (pdf) of £1,961,000.00. The co-sponsors this year are again NATO
and the Lithuanian MoD, but
also include (pdf) the U.S. State Department with £250,000 and Facebook with
£100,000. The budget lays out a strong cooperation with the local military of each
country. It notes that NATO is also generous in financing the local clusters.
One of the liberated papers of the Initiative is a talking points memo labeled
Top 3 Deliverable for FCO (pdf):
Developing and proving the cluster concept and methodology, setting up clusters in a
range of countries with different circumstances
Making people (in Government, think tanks, military, journalists) see the big
picture, making people acknowledge that we are under concerted, deliberate hybrid attack
by Russia
Increasing the speed of response, mobilising the network to activism in pursuit of
the "golden minute"
Under top 1, setting up clusters, a subitem reads:
- Connects media with academia with policy makers with practitioners in a country to impact
on policy and society: ( Jelena Milic silencing pro-kremlin voices on Serbian TV )
Defending Democracy by silencing certain voices on public TV seems to be a
self-contradicting concept.
Another subitem notes how the Initiative secretly influences foreign governments:
We engage only very discreetly with governments, based entirely on trusted personal
contacts, specifically to ensure that they do not come to see our work as a problem, and to
try to influence them gently, as befits an independent NGO operation like ours, viz;
- Germany, via the Zentrum Liberale Moderne to the Chancellor's Office and MOD
- Netherlands, via the HCSS to the MOD
- Poland and Romania, at desk level into their MFAs via their NATO Reps
- Spain, via special advisers, into the MOD and PM's office (NB this may change very soon
with the new Government)
- Norway, via personal contacts into the MOD
- HQ NATO, via the Policy Planning Unit into the Sec Gen's office.
We have latent contacts into other governments which we will activate as needs be as the
clusters develop.
A look at the 'clusters' set up in U.S. and UK shows some prominent names.
Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to
censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also
includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council
shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person
of interest is Andrew Wood who
handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over
alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah
Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus
of the BBC.
A ' Cluster
Roundup ' (pdf) from July 2018 details its activities in at least 35 countries. Another
file reveals (pdf) the local
partnering institutions and individuals involved in the programs.
The Initiatives Guide
to Countering Russian Information (pdf) is a rather funny read. It lists the downing of
flight MH 17 by a Ukranian BUK missile, the fake chemical incident in Khan Sheikhoun and the
Skripal Affair as examples for "Russian disinformation". But at least two of these events,
Khan Sheikun via the UK run White Helmets and the Skripal affair, are evidently products of
British intelligence disinformation operations.
The probably most interesting papers of the whole stash is the 'Project Plan' laid out at
pages 7-40 of the
2018 budget application v2 (pdf). Under 'Sustainability' it notes:
The programme is proposed to run until at least March 2019, to ensure that the clusters
established in each country have sufficient time to take root, find funding, and
demonstrate their effectiveness. FCO funding for Phase 2 will enable the activities to be
expanded in scale, reach and scope. As clusters have established themselves, they have
begun to access local sources of funding. But this is a slow process and harder in some
countries than others. HQ NATO PDD [Public Diplomacy Division] has proved a reliable source
of funding for national clusters. The ATA [Atlantic Treaty Association] promises to be the
same, giving access to other pots of money within NATO and member nations. Funding from
institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed by internal
disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to have been
resolved and funding should now flow.
The programme has begun to create a critical mass of individuals from a cross society
(think tanks, academia, politics, the media, government and the military) whose work is
proving to be mutually reinforcing . Creating the network of networks has given each
national group local coherence, credibility and reach, as well as good international
access. Together, these conditions, plus the growing awareness within governments of the
need for this work, should guarantee the continuity of the work under various auspices and
in various forms.
The
third part of the budget application (pdf) list the various activities, their output and
outcome. The budget plan includes a section that describes 'Risks' to the initiative. These
include hacking of the Initiatives IT as well as:
Adverse publicity generated by Russia or by supporters of Russia in target countries, or by
political and interest groups affected by the work of the programme, aimed at discrediting
the programme or its participants, or to create political embarrassment.
We hope that this piece contributes to such embarrassment.
Posted by b on November 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM |
Permalink
"The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to
prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election
meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
throughout 2016."
"Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that
Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In
Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling
custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele
dossier..."
For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.
this movement in the west by gov'ts to pay for generating lies, hate and
propaganda towards russia is really sick... it is perfect for the military industrial complex
corporations though and they seem to be calling the shots in the west, much more so then the
voice of the ordinary person who is not interested in war.. i guess the idea is to get the
ordinary people to think in terms of hating another country based on lies and that this would
be a good thing... it is very sad what uk / usa leadership in the past century has come down
to here.... i can only hope that info releases like this will hasten it's demise...
Seems to me that this shows the primacy of the City of London, with its offshore network of
illicit capital accumulation, within Britain. It is a state within a state or even a
financial empire within a state, which, for deep historical reasons isn't subject to the same
laws as the rest of the UK.
The UK's pathological obsession with Russia only makes sense to
me as the city's insistence on continued 90s style appropriation of Russia's wealth
@6 ingrian... things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of Russia after the fall of
the Soviet Union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit Russia
fully, as they'd intended...
Let the Doxx wars begin! Sure, Anonymous is not Russian but it will surely now be targeted
and smeared as such which would show that it has hit a nerve. British hypocrisy publicly
called out. How this all unravels is one to watch. Extra large popcorn and soda for me.
I think we've all noticed the euro-asslantic press (and friends) on behalf of, willingly
and in cooperation with the British intelligence et al 'calling out' numerous Russians as
G(R)U/spies/whatever for a while now yet providing less than a shred of credible
evidence.
It seems to me that the UK has far more to lose from doxxing than Russia does. The
interference in sovereign allied states to 'manage' who the UK thinks they should appoint
does not bode well for such relations.
Meanwhile in Brussels they are having their cake and eating it, i.e. bemoaning Europe's
'weak response' to Russian propaganda:
"A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of
the London Times and Neil Buckley from the FT." Subcluster. Love it. Just how crap do you
have to be to fail to make it to membership of a full cluster of smear merchants?
Yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black when in fact the kettle may not be
black at all; it's just the pot making up things. "These Russian criminals are using
propaganda to show (truths) like the fact the DNC and Clinton campaigns colluded to prevent
Sanders from being nominated, so we need to establish a clandestine propaganda network to
establish that the Russians are running propaganda!"
"In 2015 the government of Britain launched a secret operation to insert anti-Russia
propaganda into the western media stream."
I doubt very seriously that the British launched this operation without the CIA's implicit
and explicit support. This has all the markings of a John Brennan operation that has been
launched stealthily to prevent anyone from knowing its real origins.
The Brits don't act alone, and a project of this magnitude did not begin without Langley's
explicit approval.
Now check out the wording in the above document: "Funding from institutional and national governmental sources in the US has been delayed
by internal disputes within the US government, but w.e.f. March 2018 that deadlock seems to
have been resolved and funding should now flow." Think about that. What would have blocked the flow of USG support for this project?? Why, the allegations of collusion against Trump, of course. Naturally, the Republicans are
not going to provide money to an operation that threatens to destroy the head of their own
party. So, there has been no bipartisan agreement on funding for anti-Russia propaganda
BUT...the author assures us that the "deadlock seems to have been resolved and funding
should now flow" Huh?? In other words, the fix is in. Mueller will pardon Trump on collusion charges but the
propaganda campaign against Russia will continue...with the full support of both parties. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it...
This mob was created in the autumn of 2015, according to their site. That would have been
about the time -- probably just after -- the Russians intervened in Syria. The Brits had
plans for an invasion of Syria in 2009, according to their fave Guardian fish wrap.
A lot of
sour grapes with this so-called 'integrity initiative', IMO. BP was behind a lot of this, I
would also think. When Assad pulled the plug on the pipeline through the Levant in 2009, the
Brits hacked up a fur ball. It's gone downhill for them ever since. Couldn't happen to a
nicer lot. If you can't invade or beat them with proxies, you can at least call them names.
If Trump was taking dirty money or engaged in criminal activity with Russians then he
was doing it with Felix Sater, who was under the control of the FBI... And who was in
charge of the FBI during all of the time that Sater was a signed up FBI snitch? You got it
-- Robert Mueller (2001 thru 2013) ...
It seems quite possible that what is alleged as "Russian meddling" is actually CIA-MI6
meddling, including:
Steele dossier: To create suspicion in government, media, and later the public
Leaking of DNC emails to Wikileaks (but calling it a "hack"):
To help with election of Trump and link Wikileaks (as agent) to Russian election
meddling
Cambridge Analytica: To provide necessary reasoning for Trump's (certain) win of the electoral college.
Note: We later found that dozens of firms had undue access to Facebook data. Why did the
campaign turn to a British firm instead of an American firm? Well, it had to be a British
firm if MI6 was running the (supposed) Facebook targeting for CIA.
As I have said before, MAGA is a POLICY RESPONSE to the challenge from Russia and China. The
election of a Republican faux populist was necessary and Trump, despite his many flaws, was
the best candidate for the job.
The Integrity Initiative's goal is to defend democracy against the truth about Russia. All this is so Orwellian. When will we get the Ministry of Love?
"things didn't go as planned for the expropriation of russia after the fall of the soviet
union.. it seems the west is still hurting from not being able to exploit russia fully, as
they'd intended..."
They shot at an elephant and failed to kill it. So yes, out of the combo of frustration, resentment, and fear they hate the resurgent
Russia and prefer Cold War II, and if necessary WWIII, to peaceful co-existence. Of course
the usual corporate imperative (in this case weapons profiteering) reinforces the mass
psychological pathology among the elites.
The ironic thing is that Putin doesn't prefer to challenge the neoliberal globalist
"order" at all, but would happily see Russia take a prominent place within it. It's the US
and its UK poodle who are insisting on confrontation.
Great article! It reminded me of what I read in George Orwell's novella "1984." He summed it
all up brilliantly in nine words: "War is Peace"; "Freedom is Slavery"; "Ignorance is
Strength." The three pillars of political power.
Since UK has always blocked the "European Intelligence" initiative, on the basis of his
pertenence to the "Five Eyes", and as UK is leaving the European Union, where it has always
been the Troyan Horse of the US, one would think that all these people belonging to the so
called "clusters" should register themselves as "foreign agents" working for UK
government...and in this context, new empowerished sovereign governemts into the EU should
consider the possibility expelling these traitors as spies of the UK....
Country list of agents of influence according to the leak:
Germany: Harold Elletson ,Klaus NaumannWolf-Ruediger Bengs, Ex Amb Killian, Gebhardt v Moltke, Roland
Freudenstein, Hubertus Hoffmann, Bertil Wenger, Beate Wedekind, Klaus Wittmann, Florian
Schmidt, Norris v Schirach
Sweden, Norway, Finland: Martin Kragh , Jardar Ostbo, Chris Prebensen, Kate Hansen Bundt, Tor Bukkvoll, Henning-Andre
Sogaard, Kristen Ven Bruusgard, Henrik O Breitenbauch, Niels Poulsen, Jeppe Plenge, Claus
Mathiesen, Katri Pynnoniemi, Ian Robertson, Pauli Jarvenpaa, Andras Racz
Netherlands: Dr Sijbren de Jong, Ida Eklund-Lindwall, Yevhen Fedchenko, Rianne Siebenga, Jerry Sullivan,
Hunter B Treseder, Chris Quick
Spain: Nico de Pedro, Ricardo Blanco Tarno, Eduardo Serra Rexach, Dionisio Urteaga Todo, Dimitri
Barua, Fernando Valenzuela Marzo, Marta Garcia, Abraham Sanz, Fernando Maura, Jose Ignacio
Sanchez Amor, Jesus Ramon-Laca Clausen, Frances Ghiles, Carmen Claudin, Nika Prislan, Luis
Simon, Charles Powell, Mira Milosevich, Daniel Iriarte, Anna Bosch, Mira Milosevich-Juaristi,
Tito, Frances Ghiles, Borja Lasheras, Jordi Bacaria, Alvaro Imbernon-Sainz, Nacho Samor
US, Canada:
Mary Ellen Connell, Anders Aslund, Elizabeth Braw, Paul Goble, David Ziegler
Evelyn Farkas, Glen Howard, Stephen Blank, Ian Brzezinski, Thomas Mahnken, John Nevado,
Robert Nurick, Jeff McCausland
Todd Leventhal
UK: Chris Donnelly
Amalyah Hart William Browder John Ardis
Roderick Collins, Patrick Mileham Deborah Haynes
Dan Lafayeedney Chris Hernon Mungo Melvin
Rob Dover Julian Moore Agnes Josa David Aaronovitch Stephen Dalziel Raheem Shapi Ben
Nimmo
Robert Hall Alexander Hoare Steve Jermy Dominic Kennedy
Victor Madeira Ed Lucas Dr David Ryall
Graham Geale Steve Tatham Natalie Nougayrede Alan Riley [email protected]Anne Applebaum Neil Logan Brown James Wilson
Primavera Quantrill
Bruce Jones David Clark Charles Dick
Ahmed Dassu Sir Adam Thompson Lorna Fitzsimons Neil Buckley Richard Titley Euan Grant
Alastair Aitken Yusuf Desai Bobo Lo Duncan Allen Chris Bell
Peter Mason John Lough Catherine Crozier
Robin Ashcroft Johanna Moehring Vadim Kleiner David Fields Alistair Wood Ben Robinson Drew
Foxall Alex Finnen
Orsyia Lutsevych Charlie Hatton Vladimir Ashurkov
Giles Harris Ben Bradshaw
Chris Scheurweghs James Nixey
Charlie Hornick Baiba Braze J Lindley-French
Craig Oliphant Paul Kitching Nick Childs Celia Szusterman
James Sherr Alan Parfitt Alzbeta Chmelarova Keir Giles
Andy Pryce Zach Harkenrider
Kadri Liik Arron Rahaman David Nicholas Igor Sutyagin Rob Sandford Maya Parmar Andrew Wood
Richard Slack Ellie Scarnell
Nick Smith Asta Skaigiryte Ian Bond Joanna Szostek Gintaras Stonys Nina Jancowicz
Nick Washer Ian Williams Joe Green Carl Miller Adrian Bradshaw
Clement Daudy Jeremy Blackham Gabriel Daudy Andrew Lucy Stafford Diane Allen Alexandros
Papaioannou
Paddy Nicoll
"... When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also. ..."
"... Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. ..."
"... This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the WEST? This is nuts. ..."
One of the documents lists a series of propaganda weapons to be used against Russia. One is
use of the church as a weapon. That has already been started in Ukraine with Poroshenko
buying off regligious leader to split Ukraine Orthodoxy from Russian Orthodoxy. It also
explicitly states that the Skripal incident is a 'Dirty Trick' against Russia.
The British political system is on the verge of collapse. BREXIT has finally demonstrated
that the Government/ Opposition parties are clearly aligned against the interests of the
people. The EU is nothing more than an arm of the Globalist agenda of world domination.
The US has shown its true colours - sanctioning every country that stands for independent
sovereignty is not a good foreign policy, and is destined to turn the tide of public opinion
firmly against global hegemony, endless wars, and wealth inequity.
The old Empire is in its death throes. A new paradigm awaits which will exclude all those
who have exploited the many, in order to sit at the top of the pyramid. They cannot escape
Karma.
The Western world needs to come to terms with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its
aftermath. Today, Russia is led by Putin and he obviously has objectives as any national
leader has.
Western "leaders" need to decide whether Putin:
Is trying to create Soviet Union 2.0, to have a 2nd attempt at ruling the world thru
communism and to do this by holding the world to ransom over oil/gas supplies. OR
Is wanting Russia to become a member of the family of nations and of a multi-polar world to improve the lives of
Russian people, but is being blocked at every twist and turn by manufactured events like Russia-gate and the Skripal affair
and now this latest revelation of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns being coordinated and run out of London.
Both of the above cannot be true because there are too many contradictions. Which is it??
Yes because imagine that that we lived in 1940 without any means to inform ourselves and
that media was still in control over the information that reaches us. We would already be in
a fullblown war with Russia because of it but now with the Internet and information going
around freely only a whimpy 10% of we the people stand behind their desperately wanted war.
Imagine that, an informed sheople.
Can't have that, they cannot do their usual stuff anymore.... good riddance.
"250,000 from the US State
Department , the documents allege."....... Interesting.
"During the third
Democratic debate on Saturday night, Hillary Clinton called for a "Manhattan-like
project" to break encrypted terrorist communications. The project would "bring the government and the tech communities together" to find a way
to give law enforcement access to encrypted messages, she said. It's something that some
politicians and intelligence officials have wanted for awhile,"........
***wasn't the Manhatten project a secret venture?????? Hummmmm"
Hillary Clinton has all of our encryption keys, including the FBI's . "Encryption keys" is
a general reference to several encryption functions hijacked by Hillary and her surrogate
ENTRUST. They include hash functions (used to indicate whether the contents have been altered
in transit), PKI public/private key infrastructure, SSL (secure socket layer), TLS (transport
layer security), the Dual_EC_DRBG
NSA algorithm and certificate authorities.
The convoluted structure managed by the "Federal Common Policy" group has ceded to
companies like ENTRUST INC the ability to sublicense their authority to third parties who in
turn manage entire other networks in a Gordian knot of relationships clearly designed to fool
the public to hide their devilish criminality. All roads lead back to Hillary and the Rose
Law Firm."- patriots4truth
When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots "psyops", you tend to come up with
plots for "psyops". The word "entrapment" comes to mind. Probably "self-serving" also.
FBI/Anonymous can use this story to support a narrative that social media bots posting
memes is a problem for everybody, and it's not a partisan issue. The idea is that fake news
and unrestricted social media are inherently dangerous, and both the West and Russia are
exploiting that, so governments need to agree to restrict the ability to use those platforms
for political speech, especially without using True Names.
Oilygawkies in the UK and USSA seem to be letting their spooks have a good-humored (rating
here on the absurd transparency of these ops) contest to see who can come up with the most
surreal propaganda psy-ops.
But they probably also serve as LHO distractions from something genuinely sleazy.
Anti-Russian is just a code word for Globalist, Internationalist. Anything that is
remotely like Nationalism is the true enemy of these Globalist/Internationalists, which is
what the Top-Ape Bolshevik promoted: see Vladimir Lenin and his quotes on how he believed
fully in "internationalism" for a world without borders. Ironic how they Love the butchers of
the Soviet Union but hate Russia. It is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY to these people and "the means
justify the ends".
Basically, if one acquires factual information from an internet source, which leads to
overturning the propaganda to which we're all subjected, then it MUST have come from Putin.
This is the direction they're headed. Anyone speaking out against the official story is
obviously a Russian spy.
Better to call it the Anti-Integrity Initiative. UK cretins up to their usual dirty tricks - let them choke on their poison. The judgement of history will eventually catch up with them.
A good 'ole economic collapse will give western countries a chance to purge their crazy
leaders before they involve us all in a thermonuclear war. Short everything with your entire
accounts.
This is such BS. Since when does Russia have the resources to pull all this off? They have
such a complex program that they need the coordinated efforts of all the resources of the
WEST? This is nuts.
Isn't it just as likely someone in the WEST planted this cache, intending Anonymous to
find it?
Any propaganda coming from the UK or US is strictly zionist. EVERYTHING they put out is to
the benefit of Israel and the "lobby". Russia isn't perfect, but if they're an enemy of the
latter, then they should NOT be considered a foe to all thinking and conscientious
people.
Yesterday, the BBC had a thing on Thai workers in Israel, and how they keep dying of
accidents, their general level of slavery etc. Very odd to have a negative Israel story, so I
wonder who upset whom, and what the ongoing status will be.
Thai labourers in Israel tell of harrowing conditions
A year-long BBC investigation has discovered widespread abuse of Thai nationals living
and working in Israel - under a scheme organized by the two governments.
Many are subjected to unsafe working practices and squalid, unsanitary living
conditions. Some are overworked, others underpaid and there are dozens of unexplained
deaths.
England and the U.S. don't like their very poor and rotten social conditions put out for
the public to see. Both countries have severely deteriorating problems on their streets
because of bankrupt governments printing money for foreign wars.
More of the same fraudulent duality while alleged so called but not money etc continues to
flow (everything is criminal) and the cesspool of a hierarchy pretends it's business as
usual.
This isn't about maintaining balance in a lie this is about disclosing the truth and
agendas (Agenda 21 now Agenda 2030 = The New Age Religion is Never Going To Be Saturnism).
The layers of the hierarchy are a lie so unless the alleged so called leaders of those layers
are publicly providing testimony and confession then everything that is being spoon fed to
the pablum puking public through all sources is a lie.
Operating on a budget of £1.9 million (US$2.4 million), the secretive Integrity
Initiative consists of "clusters" of (((local politicians, journalists, military personnel,
scientists and academics))).
The (((team))) is dedicated to searching for and publishing "evidence" of Russian
interference in European affairs, while themselves influencing leadership behind the scenes,
the documents claim.
"... During the preceding Cold War with the Soviet Union, no attempt was made to "isolate" Russia abroad; instead, the goal was to "contain" it within its "bloc" of Eastern European nations and compete with it in what was called the "Third World." ..."
"... The notion of "isolating" a country of Russia's size, Eurasian location, resources, and long history as a great power is vainglorious folly. It reflects the paucity and poverty of foreign thinking in Washington in recent decades, not the least in the US Congress and mainstream media. ..."
"... Nationalism, that is, by whatever name, has long been a major political force in most countries, whether in liberal enlightened or reactionary right-wing forms. Russia and the United States are not exceptions. ..."
Washington's attempt to "isolate Putin's Russia" has failed and had the opposite
effect.
On the fifth anniversary of the onset of the Ukrainian crisis, in November 2013, and of
Washington "punishing" Russia by attempting to "isolate" it in world affairs -- a policy first
declared by President Barack Obama in 2014 and continued ever since, primarily through economic
sanctions -- Cohen discusses the following points:
1. During the preceding Cold War with the Soviet Union, no attempt was made to "isolate"
Russia abroad; instead, the goal was to "contain" it within its "bloc" of Eastern European
nations and compete with it in what was called the "Third World."
2. The notion of "isolating" a country of Russia's size, Eurasian location, resources,
and long history as a great power is vainglorious folly. It reflects the paucity and poverty of
foreign thinking in Washington in recent decades, not the least in the US Congress and
mainstream media.
3. Consider the actual results. Russia is hardly isolated. Since 2014, Moscow has arguably
been the most active diplomatic capital of all great powers today. It has forged expanding
military, political, or economic partnerships with, for example, China, Iran, Turkey, Syria,
Saudi Arabia, India, and several other East Asian nations, even, despite EU sanctions, with
several European governments. Still more, Moscow is the architect and prime convener of three
important peace negotiations under way today: those involving Syria, Serbia-Kosovo, and even
Afghanistan. Put differently, can any other national leaders in the 21st century match the
diplomatic records of Russian President Vladimir Putin or of his foreign minister, Sergei
Lavrov? Certainly not former US presidents George W. Bush or Obama or soon-to-depart German
Chancellor Angela Merkel. Nor any British or French leader.
4. Much is made of Putin's purportedly malign "nationalism" in this regard. But this is an
uninformed or hypocritical explanation. Consider French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently
reproached Trump for his declared nationalism. The same Macron who has sought to suggest
(rather implausibly) that he is a second coming of Charles de Gaulle, who himself was a great
and professed nationalist leader of the 20th century, from his resistance to the Nazi
occupation and founding of the Fifth Republic to his refusal to put the French military under
NATO command. Nationalism, that is, by whatever name, has long been a major political force
in most countries, whether in liberal enlightened or reactionary right-wing forms. Russia and
the United States are not exceptions.
5. Putin's success in restoring Russia's role in world affairs is usually ascribed to his
"aggressive" policies, but it is better understood as a realization of what is characterized in
Moscow as the "philosophy of Russian foreign policy" since Putin became leader in 2000. It has
three professed tenets. The first goal of foreign policy is to protect Russia's "sovereignty,"
which is said to have been lost in the disastrous post-Soviet 1990s. The second is a kind of
Russia-first nationalism or patriotism: to enhance the well-being of the citizens of the
Russian Federation. The third is ecumenical: to partner with any government that wants to
partner with Russia. This "philosophy" is, of course, non- or un-Soviet, which was heavily
ideological, at least in its professed ideology and goals.
6. Considering Washington's inability to "isolate Russia," considering Russia's diplomatic
successes in recent years, and considering the bitter fruits of US militarized and
regime-change foreign policies (which long predate President Trump), perhaps it's time for
Washington to learn from Moscow rather than demand that Moscow conform to Washington's thinking
about -- and behavior in -- world affairs. If not, Washington is more likely to continue to
isolate itself.
... ... ...
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and
Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian
Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com.)
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
Somehow I doubt that this Christmas will win the Bing Crosby star of approval. Rather, we
see the financial markets breaking under the strain of sustained institutionalized fraud, and
the social fabric tearing from persistent systemic political dishonesty. It adds up to a nation
that can't navigate through reality, a nation too dependent on sure things, safe spaces, and
happy outcomes. Every few decades a message comes from the Universe that faking it is not good
enough.
The main message from the financials is that the global debt barge has run aground, and with
it, the global economy. That mighty engine has been chugging along on promises-to-pay and now
the faith that sustained those promises is dissolving. China, Euroland, and the USA can't
possibly meet their tangled obligations, and are running out of tricks for rigging, gaming, and
jacking the bond markets, where all those promises are vested. It boils down to a whole lot of
people not getting paid, one way or the other -- and it's really bad for business.
Our President has taken full credit for the bubblicious markets, of course, and will be
Hooverized as they gurgle around the drain. Given his chimerical personality, he may try to put
on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few grand-scale policy tricks
to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make matters worse -- for instance,
if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that isn't nailed to some deadly
derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing the dollar. Remember, there are
two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of worthless
money.
On the social and political scene, I sense that some things have run their course. Is a
critical mass of supposedly educated people not fatigued and nauseated by the regime of "social
justice" good-think, and the massive mendacity it stands for , starting with the idea that
"diversity and inclusion" require the shut-down of free speech. The obvious hypocrisies and
violations of reason emanating from the campuses -- a lot, but not all of it, in response to
the Golden Golem of Greatness -- have made enough smart people stupid to endanger the country's
political future. A lot of these formerly-non-stupid people work in the news media. It's not
too late for some institutions like The New York Times and CNN to change out their editors and
producers, and go back to reporting the reality-du-jour instead of functioning as agit-prop
mills for every unsound idea ginned through the Yale humanities departments.
Shoehorned into the festivity of the season is the lame-duck session in congress, and one of
the main events it portends is the end of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. The
Sphinx-like Mueller has maintained supernatural silence about his tendings and intentions. But
if he'd uncovered anything substantial in the way of "collusion" between Mr. Trump and Russia,
the public would know by now, since it would represent a signal threat to national security. So
it's hard not to conclude that he has nothing except a few Mickey Mouse "process" convictions
for lying to the FBI. On the other hand, it's quite impossible to imagine him ignoring the
well-documented evidence trail of Hillary Clinton colluding with Russians to influence the 2016
contest against Mr. Trump -- and to defame him after he won. There's also the Hieronymus Bosch
panorama of criminal mischief around the racketeering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation to
consider. Do these venal characters get a pass on all that?
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has announced plans to call Federal Attorney John Huber (Utah
District) to testify about his assignment to look into these Clinton matters. It's a little
hard to see how that might produce any enlightenment, since prosecutors are bound by law to not
blab about currently open cases. The committee has also subpoenaed former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and others who have some serious 'splainin' to
do. But if both Huber and Mueller come up empty-handed on the Clintons it will be one of the
epic marvels of official bad faith in US history.
There is a core truth to the 2016 Russia collusion story, and the Clintons are at the heart
of it. Failure to even look will have very dark consequences for the public interest.
It ought to be obvious to just about everyone who is paying attention and not a
Corporate-Whore Democrat that the "The Russians Did It" delusion and the accompanying Mueller
"investigation" is only a distraction to draw attention away from the obvious and numerous
crimeS of H. Clinton, including running an electronic drop-box for U.S. state secrets using a
server in her basement, charity fraud, pay-to-play bribe-taking, the uranium to Russia case,
etc. And, that's not counting the inexcusable Unprovoked War of Aggression WAR CRIME against
Libya. (Of course, she had an excuse: "Destroy a country in order to save a few
"protesters".
Mueller is the Deep State (Corporations [especially Military Industrial Complex
Death-Merchants, who direct the politicians and foreign policy actions (continual
War-For-Humongous-Profits that has taken and takes multiple trillions of dollars away from
potential domestic programs & Wall Street bankster-fraudsters who bankrupted the country
with the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial fiasco and who sent U.S.
industrial production jobs to other countries] and Oligarchs who reap the profits of such
crimes and their results) operative who apparently was brought in the head the FBI to fail to
prevent and to coverup the real actors and actions that occurred in association with the
downing of buildings at the New York City World Trade center on 9/11.
Sorry, nobodies going to jail and all will be swept under the rug. We will have war to
cover their tracks along with all the other frauds. The political buddy buddy system at the
upper levels is set up to protect the guilty, and nobody has to pay the price lest the whole
thing crumble. It's built that way.
Our only way out is a crash and a reset, with no guarantee what happens on the other
side.
I used to be optimistic, but the level of lies, double speak and university factories
pumping out marxist leftists portends a bleak future. How anyone thinks we can reason our way
out of this situation is fooling themselves about human nature.
Nice to see Kunstler focusing on some serious issues like the Uranium One scandal for a
change. He seems to be on the concluding end of a cold-turkey or other rehab from some
long-term unholy influence. As a result, he has been producing increasingly readable articles
for the past several months. Congratulations are due him but with the warning that recovery
is always one day at a time.
" Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can
have plenty of worthless money". Both pretty much sums up America's predicament. Americans
are deep in debt, and their money is worthless.
Mueller isn't going to touch the Clintons - they have way too much criminal dirt on him.
And Huber is an unknown lightweight with no Malicious Seditious Media support.
Sooooo . . . there is only one thing to do once the new Congress takes its oath: Trump
gets DOJ Acting AG to appoint the long-awaited Special Prosecutor.
There are more than enough recognized felonies to go after - unlike the Mueller fishing
expedition. That will put the Democrat investigation on ice - mainly because lots of Demo
chairs and members will be part of the investigation.
Any serious investigation of the Clinton Foundation would reveal that "Russian Collusion"
has everything to do with distraction from the crimes of the Clinton family. The fact that
Bill and Hillary have escaped accountability for their heinous crimes is one of the greatest
miscarriages of justice in US history. It is truly quite frightening.
There is a reason why the DOJ, Congress (both parties), MSM, the MIC, the Deep State don't
want ANYONE to look into corruption ... because they are ALL ******* guilty as sin and buried
neck deep in ****. Its long past time for the whole ******* thing to come down. We're all
fucked.
Weiner laptop For The Win. Give us that hard drive, Mr. President! We'll have it all
analyzed in one weekend.
Meanwhile, Seth Rich awaits Mueller's OH SO DILIGENT investigation.
Can you believe that the 'core' of Mueller's 'case' ends up being about WIKILEAKS?
What the serious ****.
If he's done zero serious looks at Seth Rich all Mueller's work will just be thrown out
of court anyway.
Ham sandwich my fat turkey-enriched ***.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
This guy is dreaming if he thinks anything is going to happen to the clintons, the MSM/DOJ
is protected those 2 scumbags with the line that if they are investigated trump is going
after his political opponents, just like a banana republic. But truthfully nothing reaks more
of banana repubicism more then letting the high and mighty of on crimes.
If they weren't all on the same side, that of the international bankster cabal, Trump
would order his justice department to prosecute those people you mentioned.
The purpose of the Russia investigation is to fool you into thinking there are two sides,
and to demonized Russia to create public opinion in favor of attacking Russia because it is
not on board with the jwo totalitarian world government. WTFU.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
Mueller long ago gave up the fruitless hunt for Russian collusion involving President
Trump and is now desperately seeking overdue library books or unpaid parking tickets on
anyone remotely connected to President Trump to justify his mooching taxpayer dollars.
Comey knows where all the skeletons are buried and has nothing to fear, apart from a
stitch-up behind closed doors hanging, where nobody gets to see. We all know Comey is a Deep
State puppet. This hearing is all for show, to give the dunces the illusion of a functioning
dumbocracy.
Pretty rich that he's worried about leaks....but then again, he would know.
He is damned worried about private testimony as doing so would open him up to suspicion
from guilty parties concerned he might rat them out to save his hide.
Select leaks, even if untrue (fake news turned against them) could bring great pressure
upon his life.
Former
FBI Director James Comey announced over Twitter on Thursday that he has been subpoenaed by
House Republicans.
He has demanded a public testimony (during which legislators would be unable to ask him
questions pertaining to classified or sensitive information), saying that he doesn't trust the
committee not to leak and distort what he says.
"Happy Thanksgiving. Got a subpoena from House Republicans," he tweeted " I'm still happy to
sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a "closed door" thing because I've
seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion . Let's have a hearing and invite
everyone to see." In October Comey rejected a request by the House Judiciary Committee to
appear at a closed hearing as part of the GOP probe into allegations of political bias at the
FBI and Department of Justice, according to Politico
.
"Mr. Comey respectfully declines your request for a private interview," said Comey's
attorney, David Kelly, in a repsonse to the request.
The Judiciary Committee, chaired by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) didn't appreciate Comey's
response.
" We have invited Mr. Comey to come in for a transcribed interview and we are prepared to
issue a subpoena to compel his appearance ," said a committee aide.
Goodlatte invited Comey to testify as part of a last-minute flurry of requests for
high-profile Obama administration FBI and Justice Department leaders, including former
Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. He threatened
to subpoena them if they didn't come in voluntarily. -
Politico
The House committee has been investigating whether overwhelming anti-Trump bias with in the
FBI and Department of Justice translated to their investigations of the President during and
after the 2016 US election.
Didn't Gowdy deal with this already? "When did the FBI conduct an interview limited to 5
minutes?" "When did the FBI ever conduct an interview in public?" And the rest. Sauce for the
goose is sauce for the gander.
(I happen to think Gowdy is compromised, but the points remain.)
The crook knows a public hearing will allow him to defer answering EVERY question because
it "involves a current investigation", "it's classified", "I don't recall" and every other
dodge under the sun. Put this creep away for good!
Comey knows he can't withstand real questioning. He will be forced to take the 5th. A lot
of desperation showing here. He won't show and time will run out on the House, so Lindsay
Graham needs to take up the cause.
No, you're right; Magnitsky was a tax accountant employed by Firestone Duncan, the auditing
firm in its turn employed by Hermitage Capital Management. I don't know if the 'Duncan' is
still part of the outfit, but Firestone Duncan was headed by Jamison Firestone. He's an
American lawyer, born in Los Angeles and a member of the New York state bar.
I and others have hazarded a guess that Magnitsky was persistently referred to as a lawyer
because testimony between a lawyer and his/her client is protected by attorney-client
privilege; thus, much of what the Russian state might want to know from Magnitsky might fall
under this protection. But of course Russia would not be fooled into thinking he was a lawyer
– the device was likely just for western consumption, so Browder could scream that
Russia was suborning testimony illegally from Magnitsky.
Browder, however, had no real reason to believe Magnitsky was a lawyer, as he admitted
when questioned under oath.
" In a 2015 deposition regarding Prevezon, Browder again described Magnitsky as his
lawyer. He was quickly questioned by opposing counsel. This time, Browder was under oath
(page 25):
Q: Mr. Magnitsky is an attorney; you think that's accurate?
BROWDER: He was my attorney.
Q: I see. And he had a law degree in Russia?
BROWDER: I'm not aware that he did.
Q: I see. And he went to law school?
BROWDER: No.
Magnitsky had been granted power of attorney on several occasions, but he was not a
lawyer. As Browder would detail in his deposition, when there was a 2002 challenge regarding
tax payments, Magnitsky represented Hermitage in court."
That's a very useful source, incidentally; it discusses that Magnitsky never once
mentioned in his testimony the tax fraud which the Russian government supposedly perpetrated
to steal millions, and Hermitage did not lose anything thereby; the Russian treasury absorbed
the loss. And the fraud was discovered by testimony delivered by Rimma Starova, who worked
for one of the shell companies accused. But Magnitsky is regularly and stubbornly credited
with having discovered the theft, and his alleged stubborn investigation is in turn credited
with his arrest, to get him out of the way.
Browder agreed to be deposed in 2015, in an action he initiated against Prevezon, which
firm he accused of using the profits from the alleged tax rebate scheme to purchase New York
real estate. Prevezon was represented in this action by Natalia Veselnitskaya. I'm sure you
will recognize her name.
Here are a couple of my old posts, one of them an excellent one by kovane which drew on
some Russian sources and which demonstrated that Browder – in collusion with Magnitsky
– claimed tax deductions for hiring handicapped employees who either did not perform
the jobs for which they had been hired or did no work at all. Magnitsky signed their
employment books, and Browder himself signed off on the tax deduction application. They
pertain directly to the Magnitsky deception and to Browder's slippery background.
"... Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal Khodorkovsky. ..."
"... Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were. ..."
People should remember, when international institutions continue to falter and crumble after
all the decades of effort to build them, that they were doing what makes Michael McFaul
happy. I hope that's enough.
Oh well, whatever tickles these pathetic people's fantasies Michael McFawl going
buuuuk-buk-buk and Bill Brawder ('cos he's full of electrolytes) must not have very much to
do these days except think about what Vladimir Putin does every early morning.
Realistically, this IS a tactical defeat for Russia. The votes had already been counted, and
Prokopchuk was pretty much a shoo-in. Then the U.S. launched a campaign to stop this, and
must have intimidated a lot of the countries into changing their vote.
Russophiles should just admit that it was a tactical defeat, shrug it off, and continue
the war Because it IS a war. One battle lost Realistically.
As I keep saying, it is a tactical defeat for international institutions. They are exposed as
merely fronts for American influence, with no genuine objectivity. Prokopchuk is already a
Deputy Head of Interpol, and will remain one. Browder was simply exercising self-preservation
disguised as the usual progressive activism, but when people who were in a position to cast
votes see that they are being personally thanked by Michael Mcfaul, then by God any one of
them who does not realize he or she has been had is thicker than most people are who are
allowed out unsupervised.
Russia – and Putin – was never going to 'run' Interpol; in fact, if Prokopchuk
had won, the USA would be tying itself in knots trying to impede every Interpol investigation
after that, just to spite Russia. Washington simply did not want a Russian to win, and it was
successful in scaring enough people to prevent it from happening. But Prokopchuk hasn't gone
away, and will still be as influential as he was before. Nothing has really changed very much
at Interpol, but the USA just publicly turned on a huge influence campaign to change the
decision. Does that mean Interpol is just another political western tool? It surely does. Who
can't see that now? Anyone?
Browder is chuffed to pieces, because it is a big victory for him and his pal
Khodorkovsky. They were the two 'high-profile dissidents' who were cited in a
flood-the-English-speaking newspapers campaign that said Putin was about to get control of
Interpol. They pointed out that the Nazis had control over it in the 1930's, but apparently
that was not as bad as Putin running it. Of course they managed to panic enough voters that
the Russian who had been the favourite was repudiated. But the whole thing is just too
childish for words, because the net effect is to showcase how political international
institutions have become, and undermine confidence in them.
Pretty soon it will be every country for itself, with ad-hoc coalitions forming for
short-term situations, and the whole international system of justice and law will just fall
apart. For which you can thank ruthless crooks like Bill Browder and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. So
Browder might as well have said thanks for being the saps I always knew you were.
Prosecutor General: Magnitsky chemically poisoned as a diversion on Browder's
orders
You dirty Russian rats can't pin that goddam rap on me!!!
A new criminal case has been opened in the Russian Federation against William
Browder, founder of the Hermitage Capital Foundation, international financial speculator,
lobbyist for anti-Russian sanctions and a sponsor of a significant part of the Russian
liberal opposition.
Details revealed at a special briefing organized by the Office of the Prosecutor
General of the Russian Federation.
Browder has been accused of creating a criminal organization (part 1 of article 210 of
the criminal code), which had been operating since 1999, which was formed for "committing
serious economic crimes on Russian territory and that of other countries". Nikolay Atmon'ev,
advisor to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, said that companies in Cyprus,
Latvia and Switzerland had ben established in Browder's interests and had cashed and
laundered hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Office of the Prosecutor General believes it "very likely" that the auditor Sergei
Magnitsky and several other of his accomplices were killed on Browder's direct orders because
they were undesirable witnesses: "Initially, the deaths of Gasanov, Kurochkin and Magnitsky
were considered to have been through natural causes, because of sicknesses that they had; the
death of Korobyeinikov seemed to have been accidental. However, further data was obtained,
indicating the violent nature of the deaths of these persons". The Investigative Committee
opened a murder inquiry into Browder's business partners Oktai Gasanov, Valeriy Kurochkin and
Sergei Korobyenikov. Browder is a suspect as regards the elimination of financier Alexander
Perepelichny, who died in 2012 in the British town of Weybridge (in the Russian immigrant's
stomach were found traces of Asian poisonous plant Gelsemium elegans). According to Atmen'ev,
the Prosecutor's office sent to the Investigative Committee notification of its decision that
an inquiry be opened as regards making a criminal case against Browder because of the
suspicion that he had been involved in the murder of Perepelichny. As for Magnitsky, who died
in 2009 at the hospital of the "Matrosskaya Tishina" remand centre, the Office of the
Prosecutor General believes that he was poisoned "as a diversion and by a chemical substance
consisting of aluminium compounds", which brought about the development of his cardio-hepatic
failure. "What Browder was especially interested in was that Sergei Magnitsky die so as to
avoid his being exposed", said Atmon'ev.
"Amongst the chemicals that pose a hidden threat to humans, there is a group of toxic
aluminium compounds. In Russia, there has not been an investigation targeted at these
substances. Detailed analysis of scientific information shows that for several decades
toxicological studies of aluminium compounds have been carried out previously and there
continues exclusive research into them by organizations in the the United States, France and
Italy. There has been studied particularly closely the acute and chronic toxicity of a number
of hazardous aluminium compounds that are ingested orally or inhaled and their effects on the
human body Analysis of substances obtained from the bodies of Kurochkin, Korobyenikov,
Gasanov and Magnitsky has led to the conclusion that the deceased persons had signs of
chronic poisoning with a toxic water-soluble aluminium compound that had been administered
orally", said a representative of the Office of the Russian Prosecutor, Mikhail
Alexandrov.
In the very near future, the Russian Federation will announce that Browder is on the
international wanted list under the UN Convention against transnational crime. "There is the
possibility of extradition provided for in the Convention, even in cases when between the
countries that decide the issue of extradition,there is no bilateral extradition Treaty",
said Atmon'ev.
They gotta be joking! Trust me! I'm as straight as they come!
RT keeps stating that Magnitsky was employed by Browder. I'm pretty sure he wasn't. He was
employed by an audit company, Firestone Duncan, that advised Browder in his shady,
tax-dodging operations.
Browder has always tried to make out that he was a pal of Magnitsky and how he grieved for
his fate.
Browder not once visited his "friend" Magnitsky when he was held on remand.
At least they have stopped calling Magnitsky a "lawyer".
Browder persisently called him a lawyer, though, in numerous interviews, when he must have
known damned well he was no such thing.
You'd think the British would have tried to sort out the taxation implications of Markly
Meg's marriage to Prince Harry BEFORE they got married. It's not as if this is the first time
someone in the British political establishment has been hit with this issue of being a US
citizen and therefore liable to pay tax to the IRS on income earned outside the US as well as
within the country.
Well, she could always do what Mr. Capitalism Bill Browder did, and renounce her American
citizenship. The US government has demonstrated on more than one occasion that, in his case,
it does not hold that against him although he plainly did it for tax reasons.
" Persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware of the fact that
renunciation of U.S. citizenship may have no effect on their U.S. tax or military service
obligations (contact the Internal Revenue Service or U.S. Selective Service for more
information). In addition, the act of renouncing U.S. citizenship does not allow persons to
avoid possible prosecution for crimes which they may have committed or may commit in the
future which violate United States law, or escape the repayment of financial obligations,
including child support payments, previously incurred in the United States or incurred as
United States citizens abroad "
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html
They still get you even when you're no longer an American citizen.
Oh, bullshit. If a former American like, say, Bill Browder, murders somebody in England, the
USA is going to get nowhere demanding his extradition to be tried as a previous American
citizen for murder. What would be the use of renouncing one's citizenship as an American if
all American rules still apply to you?
I can see the US authorities going after you if you renounced your citizenship just to
escape child support or alimony, providing you have a job in your new country. But I don't
see how the USA could just access your bank account – in another country – and
drain off payments; doesn't sovereignty count for anything?
Presumably, as well, the USA is not going to get into a pissing contest with the British
Royal Family over what it claims as its share of Markle's newfound wealth.
Buffoon Boris of Bullingdon Club notoriety and British Foreign and Commonwealth Office
risability got whacked with a US tax bill because he too was a US citizen. He huffed and
puffed and said he would not pay and would renounce his being one of the Exceptional Nation.
In the end, he coughed up what he owed, but he still renounced his US citizenship.
I assume the passage I quoted is basically saying that renouncing US citizenship will not
automatically wipe out previous or outstanding unpaid tax liabilities, crimes committed in
the past in territories under US jurisdiction or future crimes in the same territories. So
even if the Markly One does renounce US citizenship, any income she receives individually or
jointly with her husband, including gifts, can still be subjected to taxation if she still
owes unpaid tax to the authorities.
Then that's probably reasonable – the United States could recover income from her up to
the amount she has outstanding in US taxes. Unless she has one of those
invisible-but-building student loans, such a sum would probably not amount to much. But the
way the law is worded suggests US citizenship is far more a curse than a gift, in that
renouncing it frees you from none of the responsibilities. It implies that American law
follows you around like a bridal train.
As part of their hissy fit over a Russian in charge of Interpol (a Russian whose brother is a
Ukrainian diplomat lol), Senators wants it so anyone whose name is put on a red notice by
Russia cannot be denied entry or asylum.
Reminds me of when Castro sent all the trash from Cuba to the United States once they made
a similar law.
That'd be awesome. Get the bunting and the confetti ready at O'Hare for the arrival of a
couple of hundred Pavlenskys, who will promptly nail their sacks to the parking lot of the 35
East Wacker Building, a Chicago landmark. Most appropriate. I think you will agree.
Just this morning (Monday 19 Nov) the Russian prosecutor's office opened a criminal case
against William Browder. He is accused of (1) organizing a criminal gang, (2) poisoning his
gang member Sergei Magnitsky, and (3) also killing several other members of the gang. It is
alleged that Browder used military-level "diversionary chemical substances" [whatever that
is] mixed to aluminium, to form the poison.
Browder denies the charges, and also points the finger at Major-General Alexander
Prokopchuk of the Russian Federation police. Prokopchuk is in the running to become head of
Interpol. Which, if he does, he said he will pursue Bill Browder to the ends of the earth,
and nowhere on this planet will it be safe for him any more.
Which is why Browder is worried about Prokopchuk's nomination.
Now we know why the UK staged the Skripal farce. It is a redirection attempt to make Browder
look like a victim. The fallout of Browder being convicted of using chemical weapons from
criminal purposes would make NATzO look bad since NATzO invested itself in his "victimhood"
and elevated the corrupt accountant Magnitsky into a human rights martyr saint.
I imagine they mean the poison was mixed with other substances to conceal the presence of the
poison itself, since he would certainly be autopsied if he died. And poisoning would
certainly explain his very sudden and rapid turn for the worse. But Browder never visited him
– neither did anyone from Hermitage Capital Management or Firestone Duncan, to the best
of my knowledge. Browder's story was always that Magnitsky was the sole employee left behind,
because he – Browder – had pulled everyone else out, for their safety. Who
administered the poison? And in what circumstances – Browder's story also was that
Magnitsky died from beatings and neglect, in that the prison authorities would not let anyone
bring him the medicine he needed for a known condition. In medicine would be the perfect way
to deliver a poison, but Browder's story was that he was denied medicine, and he'd surely be
suspicious of anything else, wouldn't he? Here, Sergey; brought you a nice meat pie, old man.
quite apart from the likelihood that prison authorities would not let non-family visitors
give him any food, since he was the prosecution's star witness.
Of all the fuckers who simply make up scurrilous crap about Russia and Russians, Browder
is the one I'd most like to see them get. My dream is that he would go to prison in Russia,
but we mustn't be greedy, and I think we all know that will never happen.
Could aluminium phosphide have been put into Magnitsky's cell in the form of tablets or
pellets mixed with water, supposedly to get rid of an insect or rat infestation?
Inhaling the compound is as dangerous as consuming it and inhalation could have caused his
fatal heart attack. Water would be an ideal way to transport the poison especially if it is
colourless in that medium.
Come to think of it, my earlier comment was unnecessarily complicated: the poison, if it had
been aluminium phosphide, only had to be given to Magnitsky in a glass of water when he got
thirsty.
Don't need exotic "made only in Russia" chemicals. AlP is not going to leave a trail back to
its source. And both Al and P are found in the body so forensic identification is not
trivial.
Anything is possible, but visitors to the state's star witness would be viewed with the
greatest suspicion if they were not family, you would think, as doubtless the state would
have stressed what a valuable prisoner he potentially was. I would imagine they would be
subjected to a pretty thorough scan and search. And there would be a record of all visits and
visitors. Anyone who was Russian and still living in Russia would doubtless be investigated.
Smoke billows across the battlefield, obscuring the armoured cars ahead of us. A Polish
soldier keels over, then another, and then another. Military hardware is no use here –
this is a chemical attack. Army ambulances race through the acrid fog to evacuate the
casualties. If you'd arrived here unawares, you'd never know this was just a drill – it
all feels frighteningly real. Welcome to Drawsko Pomorskie, the biggest military training
ground in Europe. And welcome to Anakonda 18, Poland's biggest Nato exercise.
Anakonda 18 features 17,500 soldiers from 10 Nato members: 12,500 here in Poland, plus
5,000 more in parallel exercises in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It's no surprise that
these military exercises are happening here. This is the site of Nato's "Enhanced Forward
Presence": four combat-ready battlegroups, stationed in these four eastern European
countries, supporting the defence forces of each of these countries with over 4,000 foreign
troops. The multinational makeup of these battlegroups underlines the significance of Article
5 of Nato's founding treaty, which states that an armed attack against one of its members
constitutes an attack against them all.
I'd tagged along on a couple of these Nato exercises before, and though no two are
alike, one thing never changes: nobody mentions Vladimir Putin, but his malign influence is
everywhere. "Nato exercises are not directed against any country," reads the disclaimer in my
Nato press pack. "They are based on fictitious scenarios with fictitious adversaries." Yet
Putin is omnipresent, the ghost at every feast. A few years ago, he boasted that Russian
troops could be in five Nato capitals in two days. He was too coy to name them, but you can
be sure they included the capitals of Poland and the Baltic states.
However, the Russian threat isn't confined to conventional warfare, and Anakonda 18
bears this out. Putin's invasion of Crimea was overt, but Russian incursions into eastern
Ukraine have been more enigmatic – non-uniformed insurgents operating as so-called
"freedom fighters", what commentators in the Baltic states call "little green men".
Today's drill is preparation for this sort of threat: an improvised assault by covert
operatives using poison gas made from stolen fertilizer. Ukraine isn't a Nato member, so
Russia could occupy Crimea safe in the knowledge that Nato wouldn't be compelled to
retaliate. Here on Nato's eastern flank, Putin needs to be more canny. For Poland, Article 5
is a powerful insurance policy – but like the cyberwar that Russia has waged so
successfully in the Baltic states, there are many ways to destabilise a nation without making
an "armed attack".
And on and on it goes in like manner
Russia currently has soldiers in three countries – Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine
– without the consent of their governments .
Russian aggression along Europe's eastern border has given Nato a much-needed wake-up
call
Next year it'll be 20 years since Poland joined Nato, a real cause for celebration, but
as I headed for home it was the sober, sombre words of Anakonda 18's exercise commander,
Major General Tomasz Piotrowski, which stayed with me. He explained the purpose of the
exercise with the studied neutrality of the career soldier ("hybrid threats emerging along
the eastern flank of Nato and, of course, activation of Article 5 to conduct high intensity
warfare") but when I asked him about the background to this exercise, his comments were more
stark. He talked about cyber-attacks against Estonia, open warfare in Georgia and instability
in eastern Ukraine. He didn't mention Russia – he didn't need to. Everyone at this
press conference knew the name of the elephant in the room. As Nato's press office always
points out, Nato exercises are based on fictitious scenarios with fictitious adversaries.
Here's hoping these exercises are sufficient preparation if that fiction ever becomes
fact.
One comment so far:
The American journalist Paul Jay described, in an interview, meeting representatives of
western arms firms at the 2012 Munich security conference; although NATO, in breach of
undertakings given to Michael Gorbachov, that had expanded eastwards to Russia's borders,
they were in despair. Arms sales were still declining. Shortly afterwards, as boasted by
Victoria Nuland, the US spent four billion dollars 'influencing' Ukraine, leading to the
Maidan protests, the coup and a new government whose Prime Minister Nuland is on (audio)
record as having chosen. At least three new ministers were from the neo-fascist far right.
This led to protests and occupations, particularly in the east; the new far-right government
quickly sent armed troops to quell civil disturbances, leading to civil war.
The EU fact-finding mission on the conflict between Georgia and Russia (suppression of
local indigenous minority, suppression of local language, closure of native-language schools,
attacks on civilians, invasion of the territory and murder of UN-mandated Russian
peace-keeping troops) concluded that Georgia (led by Saakashvili) was to blame.
The far-right, in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary and Georgia,
with support from NATO and the American government, is on the march again in Eastern Europe.
These countries suppress languages other than their own, and continue to deny citizenship to
tens of millions of Russian-speakers who have lived in these countries for
generations.
This article ignores these inconvenient facts. Russia has not created this new cold
war. Printing propaganda pieces for NATO and the big arms companies is not an appropriate
role for an 'independent' newspaper.
The lunatics in NATzO are planning a war on Russia. That is why they are buttering up the
sheeple with transparent rubbish propaganda pieces. For some reason these lunatics believe
they will win the war. For the last 1000 years this has been a standard feature of western
decision making. But in every case they lose. Russia is much more prepared to take on NATzO
today than the USSR was prepared to take on the Nazis in 1940. In fact, in the nuclear
missile era, NATzO has no advantage over Russia whatsoever. There is no "blitzkrieg" that
NATzO could launch. It would be "blitzkrieg"ed in return.
But what I say is considered delusional inanity by YouTube snot nosed "experts". So
perhaps it is not surprising that the NATzO elites think the same way. Apples don't fall far
from trees.
"The most ominous US move is the recent decision to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with the former Soviet Union, which frees the Pentagon to build
up a new arsenal of short and medium-range nuclear missiles that will be targeted primarily
at China. The Pentagon's previous AirSea Battle strategy for war with China, involving a
massive conventional air and missile attack on the Chinese mainland from nearby bases, is now
being supplemented or replaced by plans for a devastating nuclear attack.
The Trump administration is setting course for a catastrophic war with China that will
inevitably involve the deaths of many millions, if not billions, of people. In founding the
Fourth International in 1938, on the eve of World War II, Leon Trotsky warned that humanity
faced only two alternatives: either socialism or barbarism. A new revolutionary
International, opposed to the treacherous Social Democratic and Stalinist leaderships, was
needed to mobilise and unite workers around the world to abolish capitalism and its outmoded
division of the world into rival nation states."
"Putin said on November 19 that Russia responded to the U.S. move by developing new
weapons that he said were capable of piercing any prospective missile shield. The Russian
leader had previously warned that the U.S. plan to withdraw from the INF Treaty could lead to
a new "arms race."
A USA nuclear first strike on China would have to guarantee eliminating almost 100% of
China's offensive nuclear delivery capabilities Including Chinese SSBNs. However as the
following article indicates, China's land based ballistic missile force including mobile
launch systems is already deployed throughout the vast Chinese interior in (possibly
shifting) locations that are far from trivial to detect and neutralize. Furthermore, 'You
close to me then me close to you'.
The missile flight time FROM China to Japan or Australia is how the encirclement door
swings both ways.
Not to mention that Russia need only announce it is selling its new technology to China.
America is maneuvering itself into a place where it cannot be confident any of its weapons
will reach their targets, while there is a strong possibility a retaliatory counter-strike
would kill millions of Americans.
The seabed section of Turkish Stream is complete; the last pipe was laid in place with mutual
direction from Putin and Erdogan. All that remains now is completion of the land section in
Turkey, pressure-testing and cleanup, and then Turkish Stream is ready to deliver gas.
I had a couple of close encounters with mind-blowing pieces of equipment some years back when
doing technical translation work – all the more interesting since I can barely change a
fuse. The gigantic pipe laying ?barge seems inadequate – is awesome. Thanks for that
video.
Sanctions may have knocked as much as 6 percent off Russia's economy over the past four
years and the drag isn't likely to go away anytime soon.
A new study by Bloomberg Economics has found that the economy of the world's biggest
energy exporter is more than 10 percent smaller compared with what might have been expected
at the end of 2013, before the Crimea crisis triggered wave after wave of restrictions by the
U.S. and EU. While some of the blame falls on the slump in oil prices, sanctions are the
bigger culprit .
"The underperformance has been much bigger than crude alone can explain," wrote Scott
Johnson, an analyst at Bloomberg Economics in London. "Part of the gap is likely to
reflect the enduring impact of sanctions both imposed and threatened over the last five
years."..
They admit that part of the 6 percent gap could be attributed to other shocks, such as
the introduction of inflation targeting and a sell-off in emerging markets
####
More anal-cysts at the link & my extra emphasis not to mention more
qualifiers in the article too boot.
Timely 'proof' that USA still runs the world and can punish people? Hardly a surprise but
they could have also pointed to not so great EU economic performance and its effect, but what
would be the point in that? Is it a) keep the sanction up and Russia will collapse/change its
foreign policy etc.? b) no need for more far reaching sanctions that could lead to Boeing/ULA
being stranded etc.? c) filler and fluff? d) Bloomturd shilling for business after their
Supermicro debacle?
Again, what's the point? What's it trying to prove?
If anything, de-dollarization and accelerating ties with the growing Asia-Pacific region
is very good for Russia, even if there is some initial short term pain inflicted by others.
If I do have a problem with Russia, it is that it seems to be cautious and then reactionary
by nature – or is this more institutionally safe behavior?
I smell GDP growth shenanigans at GKS. Hellevig had a piece earlier that debunked the claim
of a 1.3% GDP growth in the first quarter of 2018 and estimated that it was closer to 6%. He
was a bit too optimistic but the point is that 1.5% annual GDP growth (roughly 6%/4years) is
falling through the cracks and likely deliberately.
I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to
GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence. The CIA was not doing
a good job estimating the Russian GDP, so Putin could fake the numbers and NATzO
triumphalists would lap them up with glee. I think this policy was smart and actually worked.
That is why in 2014 Obama was certain the Russia's economy would collapse from the sanctions.
Read the articles in the NATzO MSM from 2014 and even through 2017 which assumed that massive
damage to Russia's economy was a given.
By keeping NATzO ignorant of Russia's actual potential, it could re-arm and regroup in
peace. I think it would have been bad for Russia if the events of 2014 happened in 2004. In
2004, the Russian defense industry physical plant was still in sad shape and collapsing. This
condition was basically rectified by 2014. And Russia was also able to deploy its new
hypersonic wunderwaffen. Anyone who thinks such machinations are tin foil hat nonsense does
not know the history leading up to WWII. The USSR managed to delay the attack of the Nazis by
2 years which allowed it to increase its military potential by 40% and to move defense
factories to the Urals.
Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently
obvious that they are not. This is ***physically*** apparent in Russia as import substitution
occurs on a massive scale. Since every dollar imports saved amounts to two dollars of
domestic production (one for local production and one for not exporting the dollar and
incurring a negative GDP accounting penalty) Russia's GDP growth should be over 4%. But you
would think that nothing was happening in terms of import substitution and that Russia's
economy was running cool and near recession. The employment statistics show that this is not
the reality. If the economy was near stagnation, the unemployment rate would go up. Low
unemployment occurs when the economy runs hot.
The way that Russia's GDP statistics are skewed is through the official CPI and PPI.
Nabiullina at the CBR claims that Russia is has serious inflationary instability. That is why
the prime rate is over three times the actual CPI (7.5% vs 2.3%). I have posted before why
there is no evidence of 1970s style South American inflation in Russia given the extremely
short lived inflation spike after the late 2014 ruble forex devaluation; the spike was
force-damped and did not have any recurring peaks after the initial one. Under real
inflationary conditions a 7.5% prime rate would do didley squat and, in fact, there is no
magic prime rate that controls the inflation. If it is set too high, the inflation actually
increases. Also, if Russia's economy was running cool there would not be any need for a 7.5%
rate since it would push the economy into a recession. So reality indicates that Russia's
economy is actually running hot and this has some inflationary pressure but also means that
1.3% GDP growth numbers are BS.
Today Putin is pretending that NATzO sanctions are actually working when it is patently
obvious that they are not.
I suspect that he is not the only one. There's a whole host of other sanctions that the
West has studiously avoided putting on Russia because of the damage that would be done to
itself, not to mention that it would always like to have a few extra sanctions to dangle
publicly/privately or both at will.
Vis the Bloomturd report, do they expect someone to pay for it? When you click on the link
to the 'report' you get:
The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service
subscribers.
The article you requested is only available for Bloomberg Professional Service
subscribers.
####
Uh-huh. Who exactly is their target audience again?
"I believe Putin introduced a misinformation campaign late in his first term in regards to
GDP growth in Russia to keep NATzO confused about Russia's resurgence."
Well, you could be right with this , Kirill.
Belarus, Armenia ( near 10%) and Kyrgyzstan( countries with economies interlinked heavily
with Russia's of course) all had very strong growth in their economies in the last year.
Russia as the mother economy for those countries would be expected to have a lesser but still
significant growth figures like 3-4%.
Other things like improved health and rapidly improving crime statistics in Russia, plus
public spending could further support your theory ( nearly 60 trillion roubles for the next 3
years is allocated). On the other hand salaries going up is what is needed to substantiate
your theory.
Salaries are determined by what the market perceives. If the Russian government and CBR are
spreading a fake image of Russia's economic health, then that will have negative
consequences. The choice is between those negative consequences and the neo-Reich lunatics
who are openly baying for war on Russia.
GNP is undoubtedly a fairly crude indicator of the health of an economy- I am a little
surprised that both GNP and the size of FIRE are not routinely published. Here is an
interesting bar graph giving some detail as to how the Russian economy managed in
2015-2016
People like Andrei Martyanov (smoothieX12) argue that the (real) US economy is much smaller
than customarily claimed, whilst the Russian economy is much larger. I have copied the above
graph from a comment by smoothieX12 to his article http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2018/11/it-begins-to-sink-finally-but-too-late.html
Interesting. I would have thought there was much more growth in Russian agriculture than
that, but maybe some of the self-sufficiency efforts are still in their early stages, or
perhaps domestic sales are harder to track for effect. Anyway, it puts paid to the nonsense
that American sanctions are crushing the Russian economy.
This calls to mind Russia's deal with Iran, in which Russia will trade food, medicines and
what necessities Iran desires but which American-imposed sanctions make difficult to obtain,
for Iranian oil and gas which Russia will use domestically. Countries are reverting to the
barter system to nullify US sanctions in a way that does not use currency flow the USA might
try to interdict or confiscate. No actual money changes hands, so America can snoop on SWIFT
to its heart's content without seeing evidence of promising targets. Striking, too, is the
prevalence of real sympathy for Iran and an evident desire to help it with its problems. The
USA has apparently bitten off more than it can chew here, and several nations are openly
flouting its rules. If America cannot think of a way to come down hard on them, their example
may become contagious.
This is long overdue for so many reasons, but the corruption is so pervasive that reform
is nigh impossible (which I'm sure will reassure certain hearts).
I've been rolling on the floor with uncontrollable laughter (between episodes of schizoid
lamentation) listening to Russophobes (e.g., David Sanger of the NYT) rant on in alarmism
about the perils of RUSSIAN COLLUSION, all the while ignoring the elephant from Israel
standing right next to their shoulders.
Seriously, who can coherently argue that any hazard to democracy posed by Russia's
election influence was remotely comparable to the interference of Israel and Britain? And why
should the latter 2′s intentions any more than the former's?
"... "He [Browder] is afraid of the Russian probe that has conclusive evidence of his financial crimes and proof that his theory of Magnitsky's death is an absolute fake. That's why Browder is ready to stage any provocation," ..."
"... "influenced by the fact that the entire network of offshore companies that make up his organized criminal group is located on the territory of Cyprus." ..."
"... "the Cypriot government is actively assisting the Russian government in furthering human rights violations through assistance with politically motivated prosecutions, in contravention of its obligations under European conventions," ..."
A group of MEPs have urged Cyprian authorities not to cooperate with Russia on an inquiry
against the man behind the Magnitsky Act, William Browder. Now, a Russian lawyer claims that
Browder himself arranged this petition to hide data on his operations.
Browder, a US-born British investor and the founder of Hermitage Capital Management, fears
that his fraudulent investment schemes involving offshore assets in Cyprus would be revealed to
European authorities if Cyprus continues to cooperate with Moscow on its probe against him,
Natalya Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who conducted her own investigation into Browder's
operations, told RT. She added that Browder is actively trying to paint the investigation
against him as politically motivated.
"He [Browder] is afraid of the Russian probe that has conclusive evidence of his
financial crimes and proof that his theory of Magnitsky's death is an absolute fake. That's why
Browder is ready to stage any provocation," Veselnitskaya said. She went on to say that
the investor's decision to intervene was particularly "influenced by the fact that the
entire network of offshore companies that make up his organized criminal group is located on
the territory of Cyprus."
The incident that Veselnitskaya was referring to took place in late October 2017. At that
time, 17 members of the European Parliament appealed to Cypriot President Nikos Anastasiades in
an open letter, in which they called on him to stop assisting Russia in its investigation
against Browder.
The MEPs particularly expressed their concerns over the fact that "the Cypriot
government is actively assisting the Russian government in furthering human rights violations
through assistance with politically motivated prosecutions, in contravention of its obligations
under European conventions," as reported
by the local Cyprus Mail daily.
"... "The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky." ..."
"... This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders (see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel. ..."
"The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all
of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him
unfolded.
The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a rare
water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths An investigation into four possible murders has
been opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky The prosecutors claim that Browder was the
party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky."
– This is not some funny Skripal affair. This is a real case of several murders
(see four cold bodies) ordered by the known scoundrel.
That Browder (a liar and cheat that made a huge fortune in Russia) has "benefited most
from the death of Magnitsky" is undoubtedly true.
"... Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill. We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do – until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's relentless vilification of Russia and Putin. ..."
"... Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200 million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues. ..."
"... In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber! ..."
"... Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been involved in the 2013 pageant ..."
"... More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier! ..."
Political War! Washington Goes Full Retard on the Russia Hoax
by David
Stockman Posted on
August 08, 2018 August 7, 2018 It's hard to identify anything that's more uncoupled from
reality than the Donald's Trade War and reckless Fiscal Debauch. Together they will soon
monkey-hammer today's delirious Wall Street revilers and send main street's aging and anemic
recovery back into the drink.
Except, except. When it comes to unreality, Trump's crackpot economics is actually more
than rivaled by the full retard Russophobia of the MSM, the Dems and the nomenclatura of
Imperial Washington.
In fact, their groupthink mania about the alleged Russian attack on American democracy is
so devoid of fact, logic, context, proportion and self-awareness as to give the Donald's
tweet storms an aura of sanity by comparison.
Their endless obsession with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian nobody by
the name of Natalia Veselnitskaya proves the point. She was actually in New York doing god's
work, as it were, defending a Russian company against hokey money-laundering charges related
to the abominable Magnitsky Act and its contemptible promoter, Bill Browder.
The latter had pulled off an epic multi-billion swindle during the wild west days of
post-Soviet Russia and was essentially chased from the country in 2005 by Putin for hundreds
of millions in tax evasion. Thereafter he turned the murky prison death of his accountant,
Sergei Magnitsky, who was also charged with massive tax evasion, into a revenge crusade
against Putin.
That resulted in a huge lobbying campaign subsidized by Browder's illicit billions and
spearheaded by the Senate's most bloodthirsty trio of warmongers – Senators McCain,
Graham and Cardin – to enact the 2012 Magnitsky Act.
The latter, of course, is the very excrescence of Imperial Washington's arrogant meddling
in the internal affairs of other countries. It imposes sweeping sanctions on Russians (and
other foreigners) deemed complicit in Magnitsky's death in a Russian jail and for other
alleged human rights violations in Russia and elsewhere.
Needless to say, imperial pretense doesn't get any more sanctimonious than this. Deep
State apparatchiks in the US Treasury Department get to try Russian citizens in absentia and
without due process for vaguely worded crimes under American law that were allegedly
committed in Russia, and then to seize their property and persons when involved in any act of
global commerce where Washington can browbeat local satrapies and "allies" into
cooperation!
Only in an imperial capital steeped in self-conferred entitlement to function as global
hegemon would such a preposterous extraterritorial arrangement be even thinkable. After all,
what happens to Russians in Russian prisons is absolutely none of Washington's business
– nor by any stretch of the imagination does it pose any threat whatsoever to America's
homeland security.
So the irony of the Trump Tower nothingburger is that the alleged Russian agent was here
fighting Washington's meddling in Russia , not hooking up with Trump's campaign
to further a Kremlin plot to attack American democracy.
You could properly call this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but Imperial
Washington and its shills among the ranks of Dem politicians and megaphones in the MSM
wouldn't get the joke in the slightest. That's because Washington is in the business of
meddling in the domestic affairs of virtually every country in the world – friend, foe
and also-ran – on a massive scale never before imagined in human history.
That's what the hideously excessive $75 billion budget of the so-called
17-agency "intelligence community" (IC) gets you. To wit, a backdoor into every access point
and traffic exchange node on the entire global internet, and from there the ability to hack,
surveil, exfiltrate or corrupt the communications of any government, political party,
business or private citizen virtually anywhere on the planet.
And, no, this isn't being done for the noble purpose of rooting-out the terrorist needles
in the global haystack of communications and Internet traffic. It's done because the IC has
the resources to do it and because it has invested itself with endless missions of global
hegemony.
These self-serving missions, in turn, justify its existence, keep the politicians of
Washington well stocked in scary bedtime stories and, most important of all, ensure that the
fiscal gravy train remains loaded to the gills and that the gilded prosperity of the beltway
never falters.
Indeed, if Washington were looking for corporate pen name it would be Meddling "R" Us. And
we speak here not merely of its vast and secretive spy apparatus, but also of its completely
visible everyday intrusions in the affairs of other countries via the billions that are
channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy and the vast NGO network funded by the
State Department, DOD and other organs of the national security complex.
The $750 million per year Board For International Broadcasting, for example,
is purely in the propaganda business; and despite the Cold War's end 27 years ago, still
carries out relentless "agit prop" in Russia and among the reincarnated states of the old
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of
America.
For example, here is a Voice of America tweet from this morning falsely charging Russia
with the occupation of the former Soviet state of Georgia.
In fact, Russia came to the aid of the Russian-speaking population of the breakaway
province of South Ossetia in 2008; the latter felt imperiled by the grandiose pretensions of
the corrupt Saakashvili government in Tbilisi, which had unilaterally launched an
indiscriminate military assault on the major cities of the province.
Moreover, even an EU commission investigation came to that conclusion way back in 2009
shortly after the events that the inhabitants of South Ossetia feared would lead to a
genocidal invasion by Georgia's military.
An investigation into last year's Russia-Georgia war delivered a damning indictment of
President Mikheil Saakashvili today, accusing Tbilisi of launching an indiscriminate
artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinvali that started the war.
In more than 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation and witness statements, the most
exhaustive inquiry into the five-day conflict dismissed Georgian claims that the artillery
attack was in response to a Russian invasion
The EU-commissioned report, by a fact-finding mission of more than 20 political,
military, human rights and international law experts led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi
Tagliavini, was unveiled in Brussels today after nine months of work.
Flatly dismissing Saakashvili's version, the report said: "There was no ongoing
armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation Georgian claims of a
large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive
could not be substantiated
The point is, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statelets and provinces attempting to
sort themselves out after the fall of the Soviet Union, this was all happening on Russia's
doorsteps and was none of Washington business even at the time. But wasting taxpayer money 10
years later by siding with the revanchist claims of the Georgian government is just plain
ludicrous.
It's also emblematic of why the Imperial City is so clueless about the rank hypocrisy
implicit in the Russian meddling hoax. Believing that America is the Indispensable Nation and
that Washington operates by its own hegemonic rules, they are now Shocked, Shocked! to find
that the victims of their blatant intrusions might actually endeavor to fight back.
Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill.
We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was
actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own
business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do
– until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's
relentless vilification of Russia and Putin.
Accordingly, this particular Russian patriot hired a few dozen students at $3-4 per hour
who mostly spoke English as a third-language. Operating on 12-hour shifts, they randomly
trolled Facebook and other US based social media, posting crude and sometimes incoherent
political messages from virtually all points on the compass – messages that were
instantly lost in the great sea of social media trivia and mendacity.
Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin
policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200
million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples
thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues.
In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and
collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether
new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a
lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a
nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Really?
We have no brief for Vlad Putin, but one thing we are quite sure of is that he is anything
but stupid. So would he really send a secret agent to Trump Tower – who neither speaks
nor writes a word of English and has been to America only once – in order to plot a
surreptitious attempt to manipulate the American election?
The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump
campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of
what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber!
Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob
Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was
held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it
comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop
singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been
involved in the 2013 pageant .
Said the London PR flack in an email to Don Jr:
"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting .The
Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered
to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your
father .( this is) "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
And a very big so what!
For one thing, the last "Crown prosecutor of Russia" was assassinated by the Bolsheviks in
1917, suggesting Goldstone's grasp of the contemporary Russian government was well less than
rudimentary.
Secondly, there was neither a crime nor national security issue involved when a campaign
seeks to dig-up dirt from foreign nationals. The crime is when they pay for it, and do not
report the expenditure to the Federal Elections Commission.
Of course, that's exactly what Hillary Clinton's campaign did with its multi-million
funding of the Trump Dossier, generated by foreign national Christopher Steele and
intermediated to the FBI and other IC agencies by Fusion GPS.
And that gets us to the mind-boggling silliness of the whole Trump Tower affair.
Self-evidently, the dirt on Hillary suggestion was a come-on so that Veselnitskaya (through
her Russian translator) could make a pitch against the Magnitsky Act; and to point out that
after 33,000 Russian babies had been adopted by Americans before its enactment, that avenue
of adoption had been stopped cold when the Kremlin found it necessary to retaliate.
Don's Jr. emails to his secretary from the meeting long ago proved that he immediately
recognized Natalia's bait and switch operation, and that he wanted to be summoned to the
phone so he could end what he saw was a complete waste of the campaign's time.
But here's the joker in the woodpile. Its seem that Glenn Simpson, proprietor of Fusion
GPs, had also been hired by Veselnitskaya Russian clients to make a case in Washington
against the Magnitsky Act, and to also dig up dirt on the scoundrel behind it: Bill
Browder.
More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump
Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump
campaign.
So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn
Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier!
It doesn't get any crazier than that – meaning that the Donald could not be more
correct about this entire farce:
This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged
Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is
totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace
to USA!
In truth, the only basis for Natalia Veselnitskaya's alleged Putin ties was through
Russia's prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika.
And exactly why was Chaika interested in making American contacts?
Why, because he was pursuing one Bill Browder, fugitive from Russian justice and the
driving force behind the abominable Magnitsky Act – an instrument of meddling in the
domestic affairs of foreign countries like no other. As one report described it:
Chaika's foray into American politics began in earnest in April 2016. That is when his
office gave Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and three other US representatives a
confidential letter detailing American investor Bill Browder's "illegal scheme of buying up
Gazprom shares without permission of the Government of Russia" between 1999 and 2006, one
month after Rohrabacher returned from Moscow.
As it happened, Veselnitskaya had apparently brought a memo to the Trump Tower meeting
that contained many of the same talking points as one written by Chaika's office two months
earlier.
There you have it.
At the heart of the Russian collusion hoax and the wellspring of the current Russophobia
is nothing more than a half-baked effort by Russians to tell their side of the Magnitsky
story, and to expose the real villain in the piece – a monumentally greedy hedge fund
operator who had stolen the Russian people blind and then conveniently gave up his American
citizenship so that he would neither do time in a Russian jail or pay taxes in America.
Spoiler Alert for next part: When both economic policy and politics have gone full retard
in the Imperial City is there anything which could possibly go wrong – that might
pollute the punch bowl on Wall Street?
The Express UK reports that Russia and Saudi Arabia's 'long-term relationship' will not
only survive, but grow, regardless of geopolitical turmoil and internal Saudi scandal as the
energy interests between both nations bind them together.
... ... ...
But IHS Market vice chairman Daniel Yergin said the decision was unlikely to jeopardise
the relationship between the two allies.
The Saudis have faced significant international criticism in the wake of the killing of
journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Turkey.
Speaking to CNBC, Mr Yergin made it clear that Moscow and Riyadh would continue to be
closely aligned irrespective of external factors.
He explained: "I think it's intended to be a long-term relationship and it started off
about oil prices but you see it taking on other dimensions, for instance, Saudi investment in
Russian LNG (liquefied natural gas) and Russian investment in Saudi Arabia.
"I think this is a strategic relationship because it's useful to both countries."
Saudi Arabia and Russia are close, especially as a result of their pact in late 2016,
along with other OPEC and non-OPEC producers, to curb output by 1.8 million barrels per day
in order to prevent prices dropping too far – but oil markets have changed since then,
largely as a result.
The US criticised OPEC, which Saudi Arabia is the nominal leader of, after prices
rose.
Markets have fluctuated in recent weeks as a result of fears over a possible drop in
supply, as a result of US sanctions on Iran, and an oversupply, as a result of increased
production by Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US, which have seen prices fall by about 20
percent since early October.
Saudi Arabia has pumped 10.7 million barrels per day in October, while the figure for
Russia and the US was 11.4 million barrels in each case.
Mr Yergin said: "It's the big three, it's Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US, this is a
different configuration in the oil market than the traditional OPEC-non-OPEC one and so the
world is having to adjust."
BP Group Chief Executive Bob Dudley told CNBC: "The OPEC-plus agreement between OPEC and
non-OPEC producers including Russia and coalition is a lot stronger than people
speculate.
"I think Russia doesn't have the ability to turn on and off big fields which can happen in
the Middle East.
"But I fully expect there to be coordination to try to keep the oil price within a certain
fairway."
Markets rallied by two percent on Monday off the back of the
Saudi decision to cut production , which it justified by citing uncertain global oil
growth and associated oil demand next year.
It also suggested
waivers granted on US sanctions imposed on Iran which have been granted to several
countries including China and Japan was a reason not to fear a decline in supply.
Also talking to CNBC, Russia's Oil Minister Alexander Novak indicated a difference of
opinion between Russia and the Saudis, saying it was too soon to cut production, highlighting
a lot of volatility in the oil market.
He added: "If such a decision is necessary for the market and all the countries are in
agreement, I think that Russia will undoubtedly play a part in this.
"But it's early to talk about this now, we need to look at this question very
carefully."
Don't hold your breath for it, but there should be an abject apology coming from US
politicians, pundits, media and intelligence agencies.
For months leading up to the midterm elections held last week, we were told that the Kremlin
was deviously targeting the ballot, in a replay of the way Russian hackers allegedly interfered
in the 2016 presidential race to get Donald Trump into the White House.
Supposedly reliable news media outlets like the New York Times and heavyweight Senate panels
were quoting intelligence sources
warning that the "Russians are coming – again".
So what just happened? Nothing. Where were the social media campaigns of malicious
Russian-inspired misinformation "sowing division"? Whatever happened to the supposed army of
internet bots and trolls that the Kremlin command? Where are the electoral machines tampered
with to give false vote counts?
Facebook said it had
deleted around 100 social media accounts that it claimed "were linked" to pro-Russian
entities intent on meddling in the midterms. How did Facebook determined that "linkage"? It was
based on a "tip-off" by US intelligence agencies. Hardly convincing proof of a Kremlin plot to
destabilize American democracy.
If elusive Russian hackers somehow targeted the midterm Congressional elections they
certainly seem to have a convoluted objective. Trump's Republican party lost the House of
Representatives to Democrat control. That could result in more Congressional probes into his
alleged collusion with Russia. It could also result in Democrats filing subpoenas for Trump to
finally disclose his personal tax details which he has strenuously refused to do so far.
Moreover, having lost control of one of the two Congressional chambers, Trump will find his
legislative plans being slowed down and even blocked.
Thus, if Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin are the purported "puppet masters"
behind the Trump presidency, they have a very strange way of showing their support, as can be
seen from the setbacks of the midterms.
A far simpler, more plausible explanation is that there was no Russian hacking of the
midterms, just as there wasn't in the 2016 presidential election. Russian interference,
influence campaigns, malign activity, "Russia-gate", and so on, are nothing but myths conjured
up by Trump's domestic political opponents and their obliging media outlets.
Now that all the dire warnings of Russia hacking into the midterms have been shown to be a
mirage, the US intelligence agencies seem to be adopting a new spin on events. We are told that
they "prevented Russian interference".
In a Bloomberg
article headlined 'One Big Loser of the Midterms – Russian Hackers', it is claimed:
"Security officials believe [sic] they prevented cyberattacks on election day." However, they
added, "it's hard to tell."
In other words, US security officials have no idea if putative Russian hackers were
targeting the elections. The contorted logic is that if there were no hacking incidents, then
it was because US cybersecurity prevented them. This is tantamount to invoking absence to prove
presence. It's voodoo intelligence.
President Trump has a point when he lambastes Democrats and their supportive media for
crying foul only when they lose an election. In various midterm races, it was apparent that
Democrats would protest some alleged electoral discrepancy when their candidate lost against a
Republican. But when Democrats came out on top, there were no irregularities.
One can imagine therefore that if the Democrats had failed to win control over the House of
Representatives, then they and their intelligence agency and media supporters would have been
clamoring about "Russian interference" to help Republicans retain the House.
As it turned out, the Democrats won the House, so there is no need to invoke the Russian
bogeyman. In that case, it is claimed, Russian hackers "did not succeed" to penetrate the
electoral system or pivot social media.
Nonetheless, there was indeed rampant interference in the recent US election. For one thing,
some 28 pro-Israeli Political Action Committees and wealthy individuals spent around $15
million to promote 80 candidates in the Congressional elections, according to the organization If
Americans Knew. This foreign influence on US voters in favor of Israeli interests is nothing
new. It is standard practice in every election.
During the presidential campaign in 2016, the Israeli-American billionaire Sheldon Adelson
reportedly donated $25 million to Trump's campaign. Undoubtedly that legalized bribery is
why Trump on becoming president has pushed such a slavishly pro-Israeli Middle East policy,
including his inflammatory declaration of Jerusalem as the sole capital of the Zionist
state.
But there is no outcry about "Israeli influence campaigns" and "hacking" from the US media
or from Democrats over this egregious interference in American democracy. No, they prefer to
obsess about the phantom of Russian meddling.
Another evident source of electoral hacking was of the homegrown variety. There seem to be
valid grievances among ordinary American voters about gerrymandering of electoral districts by
incumbent parties, as well as voter disenfranchisement, especially among poor African-American
and Latino communities. There were also reported cases of phone canvassers making malicious
calls to discredit candidates, as was claimed by the beaten Democrat contenders in Florida and
Georgia.
Clearly, there are huge flaws in the US electoral system. Most glaringly, the gargantuan
problem of campaign funding by corporations, banks and other representatives of the oligarchic
system.
A further chronic problem is yawning voter apathy. The recent midterms were said to have
seen a "record turnout" of voters. The official figure is that only 48 per
cent of voters exercised their democratic right. That is, over half the voting population view
the ballot exercise as not worth while or something worse. This is a constant massive disavowal
of American democracy expressed in every US election.
The midterm elections demonstrate once again that American democracy has its own inherent
failings. But the political establishment and the ruling oligarchy are loathe to fix a system
from which they benefit.
When the system becomes unwieldy or throws up results that the establishment does not quite
like – such as the election of uncouth, big mouth Trump – then the "error" must be
"explained" away by some extraneous factor, such as "Russian hacking".
However, the latest exercise in American democracy, for what it is worth, gave the salutary
demonstration of the myth of Russian interference – at least for those who care to
honestly see that.
Another valuable demonstration was this: if supposedly reliable news media and an
intelligence apparatus that is charged with national security have been caught out telling
spectacular lies with regard to "Russian hacking", then what credibility do they have on a host
of other anti-Russia claims, or, indeed, on many other matters?
Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama proudly, even imperially, described it when
delivering the Commencement address to America's future generals, at West Point Military
Academy, on
28 May 2014 :
The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation . [Every other nation is
therefore 'dispensable'; we therefore now have "Amerika, Amerika über alles, über
alles in der Welt".] That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the
century to come. America must always lead on the world stage. If we don't, no one else
will...
Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's
economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle
classes compete with us. [He was here telling these future U.S. military leaders that they
are to fight for the U.S. aristocracy, to help them defeat any nation that resists.] ...
In Ukraine, Russia's recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern
Europe. But this isn't the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia
right away. [He was proud of the U.S. Government's effectiveness at
propaganda, just as Hitler was proud of the German Government's propaganda-effectiveness
under Joseph Goebbels.] Because of American leadership, the world immediately condemned
Russian actions; Europe and the G7 joined us to impose sanctions; NATO reinforced our
commitment to Eastern European allies; the IMF is helping to stabilize Ukraine's economy;
OSCE monitors brought the eyes of the world to unstable parts of Ukraine.
No other nation regularly invades other nations that never had invaded it. This is
international aggression. It is the international crime of "War of Aggression" ; and the only
nations which do it nowadays are America and its allies, such as the Sauds, Israel, France, and
UK, which often join in America's aggressions (or, in the case of the Sauds' invasion of Yemen,
the ally initiates an invasion, which the U.S. then joins). America's generals are taught this
aggression, and not only by Obama. Ever since at least George W. Bush, it has been solid U.S.
policy. (Bush even kicked out the U.N.'s weapons-inspectors, so as to bomb Iraq in 2003.)
In other words: a mono-polar world is a world in which one nation stands above international
law, and that nation's participation in an invasion immunizes also each of its allies who join
in the invasion, protecting it too from prosecution, so that a mono-polar world is one in which
the United Nations can't even possibly impose international law impartially, but can impose it
only against nations that aren't allied with the mono-polar power, which in this case is the
United States. Furthermore, because the U.S. regime reigns supreme over the entire world, as it
does, any nations -- such as Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua,
Cuba, and Ecuador -- that the U.S. regime (which
has itself been scientifically proven to be a dictatorship ) chooses to treat as an enemy,
is especially disadvantaged internationally. Russia and China, however, are among the five
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and therefore possess a degree of international
protection that America's other chosen enemies do not. And the people who choose which nations
to identify as America's 'enemies' are America's super-rich and not the entire American
population, because
the U.S. Government is controlled by the super-rich and not by the public .
If one of the five permanent members of the Security Council would table at the U.N. a
proposal to eliminate the immunity that the U.S. regime has, from investigation and prosecution
for any future War of Aggression that it might perpetrate, then, of course, the U.S. and any of
its allies on the Security Council would veto that, but if the proposing nation would then
constantly call to the international public's attention that the U.S. and its allies had
blocked passage of such a crucially needed "procedure to amend the UN
charter" , and that this fact means that the U.S. and its allies constitute fascist regimes
as was understood and applied against Germany's fascist regime, at the Nuremberg Tribunal in
1945, then possibly some members of the U.S.-led gang (the NATO portion of it, at least) would
quit that gang, and the U.S. global dictatorship might end, so that there would then become a
multi-polar world, in which democracy could actually thrive.
Democracy can only shrivel in a mono-polar world, because all other nations then are simply
vassal nations, which accept Obama's often-repeated dictum that all other nations are
"dispensable" and that only the U.S. is not. Even the UK would actually gain in freedom, and in
democracy, by breaking away from the U.S., because it would no longer be under the U.S. thumb
-- the thumb of the global aggressor-nation.
Only one global poll has ever been taken of the question "Which
country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?" and it found
that, overwhelmingly, by a three-to-one ratio above the second-most-often named country, the
United States was identified as being precisely that, the top threat to world-peace . But then,
a few years later, another (though less-comprehensive) poll was taken on a similar question,
and it produced
similar results . Apparently, despite the effectiveness of America's propagandists, people
in other lands recognize quite well that today's America is a more successful and
longer-reigning version of Hitler's Germany. Although modern America's propaganda-operation is
far more sophisticated than Nazi Germany's was, it's not entirely successful. America's
invasions are now too common, all based on lies, just like Hitler's were.
On November 9th, Russian Television headlined "'Very insulting': Trump bashes
Macron's idea of European army for protection from Russia, China & US" and reported
that "US President Donald Trump has unloaded on his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, calling
the French president's idea of a 'real European army,' independent from Washington, an insult."
On the one hand, Trump constantly criticizes France and other European nations for allegedly
not paying enough for America's NATO military alliance, but he now is denigrating France for
proposing to other NATO members a decreasing reliance upon NATO, and increasing reliance,
instead, upon the
Permanent Structured Cooperation (or PESCO) European military alliance , which was begun on
11 December 2017, and which currently has "25 EU Member States participating: Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden." Those are the European nations that are now on the path
to eventually quitting NATO.
Once NATO is ended, the U.S. regime will find far more difficult any invasions such as of
Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria 2012-, Yemen 2016-, and maybe even such as America's bloody coup
that overthrew the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and installed a racist-fascist or
nazi anti-Russian regime there in 2014 . All of these U.S. invasions (and coup) brought to
Europe millions of refugees and enormously increased burdens upon European taxpayers. Plus,
America's economic sanctions against both Russia and Iran have hurt European companies (and the
U.S. does almost no business with either country, so is immune to that, also). Consequently,
today's America is clearly Europe's actual main enemy. The continuation of NATO is actually
toxic to the peoples of Europe. Communism and the Soviet Union and its NATO-mirroring Warsaw
Pact military alliance, all ended peacefully in 1991, but
the U.S. regime has secretly continued the Cold War, now against Russia , and is
increasingly focusing its "regime-change" propaganda against Russia's
popular democratic leader, Vladimir Putin, even though this U.S. aggression against Russia
could mean a world-annihilating nuclear war.
Europe's desire to create its own army and stop relying on Washington for defense is not
only understandable, but would be "positive" for the multipolar world, Vladimir Putin said
days after Donald Trump ripped into it.
" Europe is a powerful economic union and it is only natural that they want to be
independent and sovereign in the field of defense and security," Putin told RT in Paris where
world leader gathered to mark the centenary of the end of WWI.
He also described the potential creation of a European army "a positive process," adding
that it would "strengthen the multipolar world." The Russian leader even expressed his
support to French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently championed this idea by saying that
Russia's stance on the issue "is aligned with that of France" to some extent.
Macron recently revived the ambitious plans of creating a combined EU military force by
saying that it is essential for the security of Europe. He also said that the EU must become
independent from its key ally on the other side of the Atlantic, provoking an angry reaction
from Washington.
Once NATO has shrunk to include only the pro-aggression and outright nazi European nations, such as
Ukraine (after the U.S. gang accepts Ukraine into NATO, as it almost certainly then would
do), the EU will have a degree of freedom and of democracy that it can only dream of today, and
there will then be a multi-polar world, in which the leaders of the U.S. will no longer enjoy
the type of immunity from investigation and possible prosecution, for their invasions, that
they do today. The result of this will, however, be catastrophic for the top 100
U.S. 'defense' contractors , such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon,
because then all of those firms' foreign sales except to the Sauds, Israel and a few other
feudal and fascist regimes, will greatly decline. Donald Trump is doing everything he can to
keep the Sauds to the agreements he reached with them back in 2017 to buy
$404 billion of U.S. weaponry over the following 10 years . If, in addition, those firms
lose some of their European sales, then the U.S. economic boom thus far in Trump's Presidency
will be seriously endangered. So, the U.S. regime, which is run by the owners
of its 'defense'-contractors , will do all it can to prevent this from happening.
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social
currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby
ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war
machine
Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their
country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its
shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.
Every single person who
has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other
than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been
fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for
imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.
I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their
lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered
horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped
apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not
supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic
nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential
economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if
we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears
of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep
saying it.
Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a
deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some
veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:
2. The NFL has taken millions of
dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the
policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which
led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).
3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.
Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded
out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after
watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity
to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable
psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and
then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible
dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?
Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military
aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a
dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's
way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in
wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a
pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.
They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and
profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone
gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.
Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct
designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It
glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be
recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't
wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to
unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure
no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil,
stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it
clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These
bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless
warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.
Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the
Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly
waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to
shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy
coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable
warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.
This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a
war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling
that machine.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
So the USA Congress operates under CIA surveillance... Due to CIA access to Saudi money the situation is probably much
worse then described as CIA tried to protect both its level of influence and shadow revenue streams.
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch, is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing. ..."
"... I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community Inspector General 2014 ..."
"... The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly," wrote Grassley in a statement. ..."
"... According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with "bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper." ..."
"... Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications ..."
"... CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director ..."
"... During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance," said Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016. ..."
CIA intercepted Congressional emails about whistleblowers in 2014
The Inspector General expressed concern about "potential compromise to whistleblower confidentiality" and "chilling effect"
Newly-declassified documents show the CIA intercepted sensitive Congressional communications about intelligence community whistleblowers.
The intercepts occurred under CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The new disclosures
are contained in two letters of "Congressional notification" originally written to key members of Congress in March 2014, but kept
secret until now.
In the letters, then-Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough tells four key members of Congress that during
"routing counterintelligence monitoring of Government computer systems," the CIA collected emails between Congressional staff and
the CIA's head of whistleblowing and source protection. McCullough states that he's concerned "about the potential compromise to
whistleblower confidentiality and the consequent 'chilling effect' that the present [counterintelligence] monitoring system might
have on Intelligence Community whistleblowing."
The idea that the CIA would monitor communications of U.S. government officials, including those in the legislative branch,
is itself controversial. But in this case, the CIA picked up some of the most sensitive emails between Congress and intelligence
agency workers blowing the whistle on alleged wrongdoing.
"Most of these emails concerned pending and developing whistleblower complaints," McCullough states in his letters to lead Democrats
and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees at the time: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Saxby Chambliss
(R-Georgia); and Representatives Michael Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland). McCullough adds that the type
of monitoring that occurred was "lawful and justified for [counterintelligence] purposes" but
"I am not confident that Congressional staff fully understood that their whistleblower-related communications with my Executive
Director of whistleblowing might be reviewed as a result of routine [CIA counterintelligence] monitoring." -- Intelligence Community
Inspector General 2014
The disclosures from 2014 were released late Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "The
fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading Congressional staff's emails about intelligence community whistleblowers
raises serious policy concerns as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly,"
wrote Grassley in a statement.
According to Grassley, he originally began trying to have the letters declassified more than four years ago but was met with
"bureaucratic foot-dragging, led by Brennan and Clapper."
Grassley adds that he repeated his request to declassify the letters under the Trump administration, but that Trump intelligence
officials failed to respond. The documents were finally declassified this week after Grassley appealed to the new Intelligence Community
Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
History of alleged surveillance abuses
Back in 2014, Senators Grassley and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) had asked then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper about the
possibility of the CIA monitoring Congressional communications. A Congressional staffer involved at the time says Clapper's
response seemed to imply that if Congressional communications were "incidentally" collected by the CIA, the material would not be
saved or reported up to CIA management.
"In the event of a protected disclosure by a whistleblower somehow comes to the attention of personnel responsible for monitoring
user activity," Clapper wrote to Grassley and Wyden on July 25, 2014, "there is no intention for such disclosure to be reported
to agency leadership under an insider threat program."
However, the newly-declassified letters indicate the opposite happened in reality with the whistleblower-related emails:
"CIA security compiled a report that include excerpts of whistleblower-related communications and this reports was eventually
shared with the Director of the Office of Security and the Chief of the Counterintelligence Center" who "briefed the CIA Deputy
Director, Deputy Executive Director, and the Chiefs of Staff for both the CIA Director and the Deputy Director."
Clapper has previously come under fire for his 2013 testimony to Congress in which he denied that the national Security Agency
(NSA) collects data on millions of Americans. Weeks later, Clapper's statement was proven false by material leaked by former NSA
contractor Edward Snowden.
"During Director Clapper's tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance,"
said
Wyden upon Clapper's retirement in 2016.
"Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them."
Clapper has repeatedly denied lying, and said that any incorrect information he provided was due to misunderstandings or mistakes.
Clapper and Brennan have also acknowledged taking part in the controversial practice of "unmasking" the protected names of U.S.
citizens - including people connected to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump - whose communications were "incidentally" captured
in US counterintelligence operations. Unmaskings within the US intelligence community are supposed to be extremely rare and only
allowed under carefully justified circumstances. This is to protect the privacy rights of American citizens. But it's been revealed
that Obama officials requested unmaskings on a near daily basis during the election year of 2016.
Clapper and Brennan have said their activities were lawful and not politically motivated. Both men have become vocal critics of
President Trump.
Can you imagine what kind of place the US would have been under Clinton?!!!!!!
All the illegality, spying, conniving, dirty tricks, arcancides, selling us out to the highest bidder and full on attack against
our Constitution would be in full swing!
When intel entities can operate unimpeded and un-monitored, it spells disaster for everyone and everything outside that parameter.
Their operations go unnoticed until some stray piece of information exposes them. There are many facilities that need to be purged
and audited, but since this activity goes on all over the world, there is little to stop it. Even countries that pledge allegiance
and cooperation are blindsiding their allies with bugs, taps, blackmails, and other crimes. Nobody trusts nobody, and that's a
horrid fact to contend with in an 'advanced' civilization.
Forget the political parties. When the intelligence agencies spy on everyone, they know all about politicians of both parties
before they ever win office, and make sure they have enough over them to control them. They were asleep at the switch when Trump
won, because no one, including them, believed he would ever win. Hillary was their candidate, the State Department is known overseas
as "the political arm of the CIA". They were furious when she lost, hence the circus ever since.
From its founding by the Knights of Malta the JFK&MLK-assassinating, with Mossad 9/11-committing CIA has been the Vatican's
US Fifth Column action branch, as are the FBI and NSA: with an institutional hiring preference for Roman Catholic "altared boy"
closet-queen psychopaths "because they're practiced at keeping secrets."
Think perverts Strzok, Brennan, and McCabe "licked it off the wall?"
I agree with you 100%. Problem is, tons of secret technology and information have been passed out to the private sector. And
the private sector is not bound to the FOIA requests, therefore neutralizing the obligation for government to disclose classified
material. They sidestepped their own policies to cooperate with corrupt MIC contractors, and recuse themselves from disclosing
incriminating evidence.
Everyone knows that spying runs in the fam. 44th potus Mom and Gma BOTH. An apple doesn't fall from the tree. If ppl only knew
the true depth of the evil and corruption we would be in the hospital with a heart attack. Gilded age is here and has been, since
our democracy was hijacked (McCain called it an intervention) back in 1963. Unfortunately it started WAY back before then when
(((they))) stole everything with the installation of the Fed.
The FBI and CIA have long since slipped the controls of Congress and the Constitution. President Trump should sign an executive
order after the mid terms and stand down at least the FBI and subject the CIA to a senate investigation.
America needs new agencies that are accountable to the peoples elected representatives.
A determined care has been used to cultivate in D.C., a system that swiftly decapitates the whistleblowers. Resulting in an
increasingly subservient cadre of civil servants who STHU and play ostrich, or drool at what scraps are about to roll off the
master's table as the slide themselves into a better position, taking advantage to sell vice, weapons, and slaves.
What the hell does the CIA have to do with ANYTHING in the United States? Aren't they limited to OUTSIDE the U.S.? So why would
they be involved in domestic communications for anything? These clowns need to be indicted for TREASON!
"... There is something very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies. There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to testify before congress. ..."
"... Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary. ..."
"... "Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it." ..."
"... "While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the Ł4 billion annual license fee." - BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women ..."
"... The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it. ..."
"... While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE. ..."
"... Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony." ..."
"... In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another 'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage] ..."
"... The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945 ..."
"... I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months. The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war. We are in an age of new mccarthyism ..."
"... What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told to! ..."
"... Yes, the "New Pearl Harbour" called for and carried out by the authors of the "Project for a New American Century" worked as planned. ..."
"... Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called it as soon as the buildings imploded! ..."
"... Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form a "Political Revolution against Empire" ..."
"... While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is concerned. ..."
"... As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood. ..."
This is one of the most sensible editorials on the Russia issue I've seen, and it is true, insofar as it goes. There is something
very, very COINTELPRO about the idea of "protecting" Americans from "foreign influence", and that should give liberals the heebie-jeebies.
There is also an ongoing structural witch-hunt effect, unchanged from the McCarthy era, when internet firm heads are called to
testify before congress.
That said, I wouldn't dismiss the effect of the Russian involvement, or the relevance of the charges against Trump and his
people. Bear in mind that the Party of McCarthy has been all about spying on its opponents from the days of HUAC. Nixon's break-in
at the Watergate Hotel didn't singlehandedly decide the election ... but who would believe that was the only underhanded tactic
he used? Republicans believe that if you're not cheating, you're not trying -- holding out for any ethical standard makes you
inherently disloyal and unworthy of support. Something like Kavanaugh's involvement in the hacking of Democrats in 2003 (
http://www.foxnews.com/poli... ) should be no surprise; neither should the "Guccifer" hack that put the Democrats' data in
the hands of Wikileaks. (Their subsequent attempts to demand Wikileaks not publish such a newsworthy leak, of course, is the sort
of thing that undermines their position with me!)
Bottom line - the Russians may have had no more effect on the election than the loose change in your house has on your salary.
But if you go back in your house after the Republicans were minding it, don't be surprised if together with the missing couch
change you notice some missing silverware, your kitchen tap has been sawed off, and the laptop is short half its RAM. By the time
you've catalogued everything missing, the stolen brass part from the gas main downstairs might have blown you to smithereens.
"Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie,
the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it."
There are many reasons the bourgeoisie is unfit to rule. Each one of them is bound up with the lies required to enforce
its rule. The greater its unfitness, "the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.
"While the extortionate salaries commanded by the BBC's biggest stars are justified by "market rates," this underlying premise
is never challenged by the women who are leading the gender pay fight. They don't oppose the capitalist market; they just
want a bigger slice of the pie, with the working class footing the bill via contributions to the Ł4 billion annual license fee."
- BBC gender pay row: Selective outrage of wealthy women
The greater the inequality, the greater the lie to enforce it.
While WSWS was uniquely correct in exposing Bush, Powell, and the ruling-elite structure of the U.S. as using deceit and lies
to start an 'aggressive war' (the ultimate war crime), your description of this corrupt system of global power headquartered in
the U.S. did not fully diagnose and expose it for what it was; a disguised global capitalist EMPIRE.
Your description could have more effectively warned American citizen/'subjects' and the world that "Rather, it is a war of
colonial (Empire) conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources
and the assertion of US global (Empire, not merely) hegemony."
In any case, Andre and Joseph, thanks for reminding readers of this dark and deceitful moment of U.S. history in starting another
'aggressive war' almost two decades ago --- which wars will unfortunately continue until Americans themselves expose and ignite
an essential Second America "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin duRivage]
The Anglo-American-Israelite Empire is globally entrenched and enjoying expansion since 1945. It is time radical critiques of
its values, power and methods should call it by its right name.
I must admit myself I am disturbed by the sheer volume of unchallenged propaganda regarding these claims in the past few months.
The media talking heads and various analysts don't ever really say what the implication of what their claims really mean-war.
We are in an age of new mccarthyism
What was amazing about Powell's charade was that even if Old Bad Ass as I call Saddam had had some Wombars of Mass Destruction
they posed no danger whatsoever! It was obvious 9/11 had put the masses into a tizzy and they would have attacked Mars if told
to!
just because it was a convenient act for them to do what they wanted in conquering iraq is not reason that idiots like that are
capable of planning and concealing the numerous co-conspirators to arrange something like 9..11. imperialism can always count
on blowback to have occasion for further crimes. there is the slim chance that they knew what was being planned and that they
let it happen - except that none of those folks is evil enough for that. not even dick cheney. what i love about all conspiracy
theories of the american kind is that they never nam or show an actual conspirator conspiring. look at one of the truly great
failed conspiracy, that of the 20th july 1944 in germany that was meant to kill hitler and how many people were arrested in no
time at all and executed..
A "conspiracy" is just any two or more people getting together to discuss something affecting one or more other people without
them being party to the discussion. Like a surprise birthday party, for instance. Obviously the "official" version of the 9/11
events is also a "conspiracy theory" that 19 mostly Saudi Arabians led by a guy hiding in a cave in Afghanistan conspired to carry
out co-ordinated attacks that just happened to coincide with most of the USAF being conveniently off in Alaska and northern Canada
on an exercise that day, and another "coinciding exercise" simulating a multiple hijacking being carried out in the northeast
US thereby confusing the Air Traffic Controllers as to whether the hijackings were "real world or exercise", significantly delaying
the response, among other things.
Do you really believe that WTC 7, a steel frame building which was not adjacent to WTC 1 & 2, and was NOT hit by any airplanes,
coincidentally collapsed due to low temperature paper and furniture office fires? Something that has never happened before or
since? Or that such low temperature fires would cause the massive heavily reinforced concrete central core/elevator shaft to collapse
first, pulling the rest of the building inward onto it in classic controlled demolition technique?
It is getting more difficult to find the videos showing that now as Google, as with WSWS articles, is pushing them off the
front pages of results, while Snopes has put out a some very misleading reports that set up false "straw man" claims and then
"disprove" them. Even the "disproofs" are false.
For instance, a Snopes report on the WTC 7 collapse states: "relied heavily on discredited claims, none of which were new,
including:
Jet fuel cannot melt steel beams (This claim is misleading, as steel beams do to not need to melt completely to be compromised
structurally).
A sprinkler system would have prevented temperatures from rising high enough to cause to cause structural damage. (This claim
ignores the fact that a crash from a 767 jet would likely destroy such a system.)
The structural system would have been protected by fireproofing material (similarly, such a system would have been damaged
in a 767 crash). "
Jet fuel, which is Kerosene, burns at around 575ş in open air, which was the case in WTC buildings 1 & 2. Most of it was vaporized
by the impact with the buildings and burned of within minutes. At any rate, 575ş is far below the point at which structural steel
specifically designed to withstand high temperature fires like that used in the World Trade Centre buildings is weakened.
All of which is irrelevant, as are the other "points" made by Snopes, because Building 7 was not hit by an airplane and there
was no jet fuel involved. Something conveniently "overlooked" by Snopes and other similar misleading "disproofs". Not to mention
that the Intelligence establishment is busy putting out false trails constantly which use, for instance, obviously faked photos
or videos of the three WTC buildings collapsing to discredit the real videos and photos by setting up "straw men" they can then
"disprove" and point to as "evidence" that people who don't believe the official version are "creating fake news".
Quite right. My late father was a structural design engineer, specializing in large steel structures like the WTC and he called
it as soon as the buildings imploded!
"The perpetrators and their conspiracy is not a theory since it has been proved."
By "proved" I assume you are referring to "proofs" such as the fantastical claim that Mohammed Atta's passport was allegedly
and fortuitously "found" when it supposedly survived the 600 mph impact of the 767 he was supposedly piloting with a huge steel
and concrete building, survived the huge fireball it was supposedly in the middle of unscorched, and conveniently fluttered to
the ground intact to land at the feet of an FBI agent who immediately realized it must have belonged to one of the hijackers!
Even Hans Christian Andersen couldn't invent Fairy Tales like that.
the best that conspiracy theorist can do is, invariably, to call proven facts "just another theory " which only proves that they
are actually aware that they are full of hot air! zarembas father as a structural engineer unless a fantasy is certainly better
off among the dead than among the living and perpetrating his ignorance of steel and weight and fire onto the world!
Just because all the details aren't known as to who conspired and why there's enough holes in the "official conspiracy theory"
of 19 hijackers to conclude that this could not have been pulled off without some conspiring on the American side. Certainly the
the neocons benefited greatly from these attacks. So motive is there for sure.
Yes, Michael, the 'media/propaganda-sector' of this seven-sectored Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE is currently the most
effective sector --- but the other six; corporate, financial, militarist, extra-legal, CFR 'Plot-Tanks', and of course the dual-party
Vichy-political facade of the 'rougher-talking' neocon 'R' Vichy Party and the 'smoother-lying' neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy Party
are all helping to keep the Empire sound, hidden, and empowered over the only American citizen/'subjects' who could possibly form
a "Political Revolution against Empire"
While it is true that D.C. is run by delusional psychotics that does not mean they are irrational as far as their greed is
concerned.
There is nothing to win in global nuke war, all know it while the outcome would be surely the current global oligarchy loosing
grip on population destroying the system that works for them so well giving chance to what they dread socialist revolution they
would have been much weaker to counter.
Regional conflicts are just positioning of oligarchy for management of global oligarchic country club while strict class morality
is maintained.
What I do not we are conditions for war (split of global ruling elites) while what I see is broad propaganda of war as a excuse
to clamp down on fake enemy in order to control respective populations while there is factual unity among world oligarchy.
As R. Luxemburg pleaded that WWI was not "our" war but war of bunch of aristocrats wanting to divide colonies and bunch
of bankers wanted their bad speculative loans repaid, using working class flesh and blood.
She died abandoned by those on the left who embraced the war for their political aspirations, she was murdered for her true
internationalism i.e. No war fought between working people of one country and working people of another country.
Kalen, it's only effective to use the correct and understandable term 'Empire' in exposing, warning, and motivating average Americans
--- since very few even know what words like; oligarchy, plutocracy, fascism, authoritarianism, corporate-state, or Wolin's 'inverted
totalitarianism' mean --- let alone could ever serve as rallying cries for the coming essential Second American Revolution against
EMPIRE.
As Pat would have shouted if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his call, "Give me Liberty over EMPIRE, or Give me Death!"
"Sweet Carolyn" OH OH OH --- Yes, only a very small percentage of Americans understand that our former country, the U.S. of America,
is categorically, provably, and absolutely a new form of Empire, and is inexorably the first in world history an; 'effectively-disguised',
'truly-global', 'dual-party Vichy', and 'capitalist-fueled' EMPIRE --- an EMPIRE, really just an EMPIRE!
Just do an honest survey, "Sweet Carolyn", yourself, and if you're not a "Sweet Liarlyn", you will have to admit that essentially
ZERO of the first 1000 people you ask, will say --- "Oh ya, Carolyn, of course I know that this whole effin 'system' that others
less informed may still be so stupid that they think they live in a real country, when I (enter their name) do solemnly swear
is just an effin EMPIRE, which is so well disguised, that these few idiots who don't understand that they are just citizen/'subjects'
of this monsterous EMPIRE."
Do the survey, "Sweet Carolyn" and if you don't lie to yourself --- which maybe you do, because HELL, your job is to lie to
others (so it's quite likely that you'll lie about anything) --- you'll find that exactly zero average Americans have the effin
slightest idea in the world that their great 'country' is actually an effin EMPIRE.
HELL, Carolyn, almost half the Americans repeatedly yell, "We're number ONE", "We're number ONE", that their brains would rather
rattle themselves to death than even let logic, history, knowledge, or anything into their addled and propaganda filled heads!
Excellent article, and it did a particularly good job of tying together the foreign policy and domestic policy stratagems of a
major faction of the U.S. ruling class. I, for one, do not doubt that the Russians conduct some sort of cyber warfare against
the U.S.; but that must be understood by considering the fact that every major governmental, political, military, and business
organization on the face of the Earth must now operate in this manner. A friend of mine's son, who was in the Army, pointed out
that the big players, by a wide margin, in spying on and to some degree interfering in the U.S. domestic scene are China and Israel.
Kevin Barrett has written and said on various radio shows that much of what is attributed to the "Russians" are actually the actions
of Russian/Israeli dual citizens, many of whom move freely between the U.S., Russia, and Israel. And, of course, the U.S. runs
major spy and manipulation operations in more countries than any other nation of Earth, and U.S. based corporations are busy both
inside the U.S. and in foreign places in similar activities.
It is clearly a desire of significant sectors, of the Capitalist rulers of the U.S., to repress dissent and political activities
that oppose their agendas. It took them a few years to realize that their old methods using TV, hate radio, magazines, direct
mail, and newspapers were losing their effectiveness. They have been increasing their attacks on leftist websites, hacking into
websites, closing websites using phonied-up "national security" justifications, employing numerous trolls, and establishing and
funding more far right websites, such as Breitbart and Infowars. These efforts are most effective when they are not overpowering
and heavy handed.
The classic book on this was the 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media"
by Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann. Rob Williams has updated the concept for the internet age in
<http:
www.vermontindependent.org ="" the-post-truth-world-reviving-the-propaganda-model-of-news-for-our-digital-age=""/>.
The strategy
is nothing new, the methods are merely updated and use the latest technologies.
I guess the lesson to be learned here is that rigging elections through byzantine electoral laws and billion dollar corporate
slush funds is a thing of the past. All you need now is 13 amateur IT goomba's with a marketing scheme and twitter accounts. Well, sure is a fragile "World's Sole Superpower" we got here. Go Team?
>>Johnstone: The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them<<
Preach!
The military defends Money Power Monopolist Mega-Corporate Fascist Global Empire, not
America, and definitely NOT the Constitution. The New Deal effectively wiped out the
Constitution, which was the "Old Deal."
Syria and Iran aren't threats, they are countries that don't have debt-based money systems
controlled by the Money Power Monopolists.
"In a sense, there is no "future". Currently, you note a consolidation of the few
remaining countries without a "central bank" ...and how rapidly this is occurring. Look for
Syria next to fall, and fall quickly.
North Korea has already cut a deal under the aegis of China...feit accompli. Cuba has also
agreed to the North American integration once Fidel "passes".
That leaves IRAN. And biblical prophesy. The fallout from that conflict sets the stage for
the true new world order as has been broadcast in the media for the last 13 years or so."
~Unnamed Rothschild
The establishment of central banks is ALWAYS a necessary first step of subjugation of
geographically congregated bloodlines. Note that Libya's first official act, before even the
corpses turned stiff...was the establishment of a central bank. Those rebel forces were
certainly well schooled by someone!
~Unnamed Rothschild
Amazing how Libyan rebels took time out of their daily war duties to establish a CENTRAL
BANK! Imagine the paperwork in getting that done on the battlefield!
Those rebels are a well educated lot!
Laughing out Loud!
Seriously, don't the serfs notice things like this?
~Unnamed Rothschild
The financier of the military makes it clear they are attacking Western countries -
monetarily and economically.
"Remember, the equity and bond markets exist only to remove fiat from circulation!"
~Unnamed Rothschild
Our soldiers joined, were trained, given orders. The best way to honor veterans is to quit
putting it on them. This is the government we have because it is the government we
want. It's the government we allow. This is on all of us . I think it's time for
people who are dissatisfied with the treatment of veterans, with the voter fraud, with the
lies and theft of elected officials, local, state, and federal, tired of the media lying to
us and creating fake events... perhaps it's time to peacefully strike. Perhaps it's time to
say No to vote fraud, to say No to lies and deceit.
Perhaps it's time to peacefully petition the government for redress of grievances. That's
a Constitutional Right guaranteed to Citizens of the United States. That requires an active,
constructive peaceful assembly. Everyone has had it up to the eyes with this ******** and
this con-game we're being fed.
I'd rather get stomped to death than live on with this never ending slow coup against We
The People. We hold the power. Just us. We designate that power. It should be here to protect
us. That social contract deserves respect. You may be watching the only chance in your life
that you could do anything about it, given the current President and his attitude. I really
think that. It's not enough to watch the Proud Boys punch an Antifa in the jaw. That doesn't
do it for me. That's theatre.
My girlfriends father is old army security. I'm paying the bill at Dennys and he says, let
me put my military discount on that. So he's behind a guy in an Operation Iraqi Freedom
jacket. He says, hey; I like your jacket. The guy looks at him and he says, nice hat. Army
Security Agency. The military deserves more than a discount at ******* Denny's. They deserve
a country. So do I. So do you. But there's not going to be any country if we don't peacefully
come together to hang every last traitor scumbag lying trasonous seditious bastard by just
saying NO! Arrest these traitors! I don't want my vote raped. I don't want my speach raped.
Or yours! I don't give a **** about illegals or their kids because I take care of my kids
legally and lawfully and didn't put them in that **** expecting a parent of the century
award.
I don't ******* care what you call yourself. But if it's more important than your right to
call yourself whatever you want, you are my enemy and I tell you no.
If it's legal to vote and legal to be off work to vote, to peacefully assemble, it should
be legal to redress government. It's time to show out. It's time to say we want this ********
to stop. We have paid very well for the lifestyles and presidential libraries and foundations
and kept all the traitors in good health. But we reserve the right to cut you off if you
abuse our sacrifice to you and our votes to you. We reserve the right without prejudice to
say NO. That's our right. And until we say NO! our silence equals consent.
I say NO. I say **** THE SEDITIOUS TRAITORS trying to hold on to rape us of all our
Rights. And I say long live Trump for giving our country back to us at inauguration. That's
what's up. Let's peacefully **** these people up. USE IT OR LOSE IT.
And from a movie that says the futility of it all: "We fight because we are here." Imagine
dying in the trenches of WWI or in a shithole like the trenches of Korea.
The least we could do is to learn what really happened and why. I realize I was taught an
endless string of lies about history, especially US History, WWI, WWII, Vietnam war.
Be very careful and informed before joining the military.
Libtards don't really know much about anything, so it seems. Here's the deal:
As long as there are assholes in the world, there will be wars.
I don't have a problem with that. It's the world that I live in. It's been the case
throughout all of human history. A world without wars is pure ******* fantasy. It will never
happen. It's high time that libtards start accepting the world that they live in.
The problem that we're having , is that we're shooting the wrong assholes instead
of the right ones. But you know what? All of human history shows that problems like that are
always remedied as well. And if you're doing some soul-searching, trying to figure out who
the assholes are, they're probably going to be any group of people, who can't leave other
groups of people the hell alone .
Not surprisingly, the 20th century seems to be characterized by assholes fighting each
other.
Our psychopathic dna as a nation comes mainly from england, one of the most, if not the
most murdering countries in history. england cruelly colonized Asia and Africa, and literally
never stopped murdering the innocents. Now as our ALLY, among the other killing nations, such
as France and Germany, we the USA can kill literally any country or countries for any reason
or no reason.
we as the american people will be blamed for all the monstrous destruction and
innocents deaths. separation of our country and our politicians would be necessary if we are
to have a future. looking dim. why are we still dirty, and killing innocents, why are we
allowing saudi and israel to mass murder innocent women and children ?
no one cares enough
yet. you would think by 2018 we all would have banned war and conflict, we have not. this
makes me sick. I am a vet.
I'm actually thinking of not watching football anymore the war propaganda is constant. I
went to a game and it was like walking into an armed camp. Hundreds of cops and military.
Every five minutes they're marching around and everyone has to "honor" them. It's disgusting.
All the players are told to kiss every soldiers ***. The Army are the terrorists. They all
make me want to puke.
In Australia at the moment the suicide rate is a shocker among those coming back from
Afghanistan, Iraq and places unknown, the solution they are proposing is for priority airport
treatment and more medals and other stuff along the model the US has, which is an insult as it
does nothing to financially support or mentally cure, its a cop out.
Very few wars are even about righting some amazing wrong. They merely tend to be about
treasure i.e. nat gas, oil, rare earth materials, diamonds, water, blah blah blah. And, if
there happens to be some fight, ala WWII, then you can bet your *** on it that all corporate
assholes are funding and benefiting from the war....on both sides of the coin i.e. backing
each side until a peace is called.
I don't have an answer to the human condition or our propensity to be violent and fight
etc., but I sure as **** am not cool with sacking places, and killing kids, over *******
things. We're better than this.
I have 2 kids myself. You can all be on notice that if a bomb were to be dropped on my
house, and if my kids were killed, I would likely devolve and start picking off the low
hanging fruit i.e. the zombies shuffling in and out of said bomb makers companies, and
wasting them 1 person as a time. I'd slowly, if still able, work my way up to the execs.
Hopefully, and along the way, I'd be able to wipe shareholders off of the grid, also.
When you go off to fight for "freedom", and arrive home to find that you have little to no
real freedom and essentially live in a police state, it's a shocking blow.
This sounds like something I would write. And even the damn CHURCHES honor the veteran
"serving" his country. What a crock of ****. I tell the pastor that he will be judged harshly
when his time comes. And I tell Christians that because they support the rampant murder of
millions that when they die and are standing before Jesus for judgement they will be soaked
in the blood of the innocent and he will ask you why did you support this? Why did you not
speak out against it? Then I look at them and say "good luck because you're gonna need
it".
The world is not ruled by pure evil yet. In Brazil A nationalist was elected, in Italy and
much of eastern Europe other nationalists were elected. You think the Chinese protected the
Italian and Brazilian right to free and fair elections? You think Russia is the arsenal of
freedom? You think the EU upheld the votes of the people, allowing Britain to vote on leaving
the EU and Italy and eastern Europe? You think the unelected rulers of the EU respected other
peoples right to vote? Look out onto the world, and recognize that as of today, the nations
of the world have A group to join if they chose to fight for liberty, capitalism and all the
other virtues, and that group is grounded and guaranteed by the United States of America. In
G-d I trust.
Hopeful thinking for a hopeless reality. Truth is tyrants never fall by their own swords.
It always takes someone else's. The modern problem is a bit more complex when we make the
tyrants that we later topple. The toppling is where the bucks are... just ask any of the the
last 4 Presidents and their respective Congresses.
So war is just an American problem, something we just invented? Do we read much history or is it all PBS specials now. War has ALWAYS been fucked up. Violence has been a major contributor to immigration for
all of history. Like it or not, we live in dangerous times. We can ASSUME that if America shrank it's
military and ended all interventions that world peace would magically appear....but it won't.
We can pray that while we retreat behind of big screen TVs that China will end their
territorial expansion and military programs, but they WON'T.
I'm all for reigning in our interventions, but let's not pretend that America is to blame
for human evil and aggressive behaviors....just because we are good at it..
There is an endless stream of history illustrating the absolute brutality and evil that
had persisted since the beginning of time. We should avoid embracing it but we should avoid
thinking we have the power to end it. More arrogance to be used for destructive purposes.
Nah, it is just that USA has made forever war such a profitable and ongoing
mega-business. The degenerate banker and royal families of Europe would only fight every generation or
two. You fight all the time and try to start new ones, before you finish off with the old ones,
and print global toilet paper to pay for it all. Because it is good business. **** laws,
lives and human decency.
And then you have Hollywood make ****-for-brain movies about just wars, war comradery and
heroic sacrifice and spread that **** all over the world.
So yeah, you got all the reasons for being hated for your war business.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make
sure no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of
evil, stupid, meaningless violence
A bit too close to the Bone for the average American to appreciate. A well thought out & articulated article.
The machine is not the problem. It's like a gun. Guns are just mechanical devices and
can't kill until people aim them and pull the trigger. It's people that kill by forcing the
machine to do their terrible evil bidding.
It's the business and political leaders that build, guide and enable the machine and
facilitate the infrastructure and culture to wage war.
Democrats love War as we saw with LBJ, Bill Clinton (bombing the hell out of and
destroying Yugoslavia), Obama and Hillary Clinton. Democrat McNamara was one of their finest! McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War
It's both Republicans and Democrats - George Bush I's Desert Storm, Panama; George Bush II
invading Iraq, Afghanistan; Reagan invading GRENADA!, Nixon in Vietnam, assassinating
Salvador Allende in Chile, bombing Laos and Cambodia; Eisenhower started in Vietnam,
installed a dictator in Guatemala in 1954, installed Batista in Cuba, Kennedy was going to
withdraw from Vietnam and part of the reason he was assassinated; and on and on and on.
There has been, from the outset, a second level , too: This entire 'inverted
pyramid' of Middle East engineering had, as its single point of departure, Mohammed bin Salman
(MbS). It was Jared Kushner, the Washington Post
reports , who "championed Mohammed as a reformer poised to usher the ultraconservative,
oil-rich monarchy into modernity. Kushner privately argued for months, last year, that Mohammed
would be key to crafting a Middle East peace plan, and that with the prince's blessing, much of
the Arab world would follow". It was Kushner, the Post continued, "who pushed his
father-in-law to make his first foreign trip as president to Riyadh, against objections from
then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – and warnings from Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis".
Well, now MbS has, in one form or another, been implicated in the Khashoggi murder. Bruce
Riedel of Brookings, a longtime Saudi observer and former senior CIA & US defence official,
notes , "for the first time in 50 years, the kingdom has become a force for instability"
(rather than stability in the region), and suggests that there is an element of 'buyer's
remorse' now evident in parts of Washington.
The 'seamless office process' to which the Israeli official referred with Caspit, is known
as 'stovepiping', which is when a foreign state's policy advocacy and intelligence are passed
straight to a President's ear – omitting official Washington from the 'loop'; by-passing
any US oversight; and removing the opportunity for officials to advise on its content. Well,
this has now resulted in the Khashoggi strategic blunder. And this, of course, comes in the
wake of earlier strategic 'mistakes': the Yemen war, the siege of Qatar, the Hariri abduction,
the Ritz-Carlton princely shakedowns.
To remedy this lacuna, an 'uncle' (Prince Ahmad bin Abdel Aziz)
has been dispatched from exile in the West to Riyadh (with security guarantees from the US
and UK intelligences services) to bring order into these unruly affairs, and to institute some
checks and balances into the MbS coterie of advisers, so as to prevent further impetuous
'mistakes'. It seems too, that the US Congress wants the Yemen war, which Prince Ahmad
consistently has opposed (as he opposed MbS elevation as Crown Prince), stopped. (General
Mattis has called for a ceasefire within 30 days.) It is a step toward repairing the Kingdom's
image.
MbS remains – for now – as Crown Prince.
President Sisi and Prime Minister Netanyahu both have expressed
their support for MbS and "as U.S. officials contemplate a more robust response [to the
Khashoggi killing], Kushner has emphasized the importance of the U.S.-Saudi alliance in the
region", the Washington Post reports . MbS' Uncle (who as a son of King Abdel Aziz, under the
traditional succession system, would be himself in line for the throne), no doubt hopes to try
to undo some of the damage done to the standing of the al-Saud family, and to that of the
Kingdom. Will he succeed? Will MbS accede now to Ahmad unscrambling the very centralisation of
power that made MbS so many enemies, in the first place, to achieve it? Has the al-Saud family
the will , or are they too disconcerted by events?
And might President Erdogan throw more wrenches into this delicate process by further
leaking evidence Turkey has, if Washington does not attend sufficiently to his
demands. Erdogan seems ready to pitch for the return of Ottoman leadership for the Sunni world,
and likely still holds some high-value cards up his sleeve (such as intercepts of phone calls
between the murder cell and Riyadh). These cards though are devaluing as the news cycle shifts
to the US mid-terms.
Time will tell, but it is this nexus of uncertain dynamics to which Bruce Reidel refers,
when he talks of
'instability' in Saudi Arabia . The question posed here, though, is how might these events
affect Netanyahu's and MbS' 'war' on Iran?
May 2018 now seems a distant era. Trump is still the same 'Trump', but Putin is not the same
Putin. The Russian Defence Establishment has weighed in with their President to express their
displeasure at Israeli air strikes on Syria – purportedly targeting Iranian forces in
Syria. The Russian Defence Ministry too, has enveloped Syria in a belt of missiles and
electronic disabling systems across the Syrian airspace. Politically, the situation has changed
too: Germany and France have joined
the Astana Process for Syria. Europe wants Syrian refugees to return home, and that
translates into Europe demanding stability in Syria. Some Gulf States too, have
tentatively begun normalising with the Syrian state.
The Americans are still in Syria; but a newly invigorated Erdogan (after the release of the
US pastor, and with all the Khashoggi cards, produced by Turkish intelligence, in his pocket),
intends to crush the Kurdish project in north and eastern Syria, espoused by Israel and the US.
MbS, who was funding this project, on behalf of US and Israel, will cease his involvement (as a
part of the
demands made by Erdogan over the Khashoggi murder). Washington too wants the Yemen war,
which was intended to serve as Iran's 'quagmire', to end forthwith. And Washington wants the
attrition of Qatar to stop, too.
These represent major unravelings of the Netanyahu project for the Middle East, but most
significant are two further setbacks: namely, the loss of Netanyahu's and MbS' stovepipe to
Trump, via Jared Kushner, by-passing all America's own system of 'checks and
balances'. The Kushner 'stovepipe' neither forewarned Washington of coming 'mistakes', nor was
Kushner able to prevent them. Both Congress and the Intelligences Services of the US and UK are
already elbowing into these affairs. They are not MbS fans. It is no secret that
Prince Mohamed bin Naif was their man (he is still under 'palace arrest').
Trump will still hope to continue his 'Iran project' and his Deal of the Century between
Israel and the Palestinians (led nominally by Saudi Arabia herding together the Sunni
world , behind it). Trump does not seek war with Iran, but rather is convinced of a popular
uprising in Iran that will topple the state.
"... Trump wasn't finished, however, and during the same gaggle, he suggested he could pull press credentials from other reporters who don't show him "respect" two days after the president suspended the press pass of CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta after a contentious exchange during a news conference. ..."
"... "I think Jim Acosta is a very unprofessional man," Trump explained and when asked how long Acosta's credentials will be suspended, the president replied: "As far as I'm concerned, I haven't made that decision. But it could be others also." ..."
"... On this one Trump needs to take a hint from Obozo, stop doing daily press briefings... Hold them once a month ..."
"... the stooge press/talking heads have made a cottage industry off of the press conferences. the msm sends stooges to sell their product. trump is 100% correct- the msm doesn't have the guts to cull their stooge legions- oh dear- the white house will do their job for them. ..."
Having barred his CNN arch nemesis Jim Acosta from the White House,
on Friday the president lashed out at another CNN reporter at the White House over his
appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting AG as well as Whitaker's views towards the special
counsel investigation.
During a Friday morning gaggle with White House reporters before Trump's trip to Paris,
CNN's Abby Phillip asked the president if he was hoping Whitaker, who previously criticized
Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation, would "rein in" the Russia probe. " Do you want
[Whitaker] to rein in Robert Mueller?" Phillip asked.
Trump's response left the stunned reported speechless. "What a stupid question that is,"
Trump said and, just in case it was lost, repeated "what a stupid question."
"But I watch you a lot," Trump continued. "You ask a lot of stupid questions."
Trump then demonstrably walked away, leaving the shocked reporters screaming more questions
in his wake.
Earlier, Trump said he has not spoken to acting AG Matt Whitaker about the Russia
investigation, which Whitaker now oversees. Trump defended Whitaker as a "very well respected
man in the law enforcement community" but claimed he does not know him personally. "I didn't
speak to Matt Whitaker about it. I don't know Matt Whitaker," Trump told reporters at the White
House before leaving for a trip to Paris.
While Trump sought to place personal distance
between himself and Whitaker, he made it clear he stood by his decision to place a loyalist in
charge of the Justice Department, a move many see as an effort to seize control of special
counsel Robert Mueller's probe. The president also rejected suggestions that Whitaker is
ineligible to serve as attorney general, a position held by some legal experts who say the
Justice Department leader must be confirmed by the Senate.
The acting AG has raised eyebrows, and in some cases prediction of a constitutional crisis,
because before joining the DOJ, Whitaker was an outspoken critic of Mueller's investigation and
many Democrats and legal scholars have said he should recuse himself from leading the probe.
Whitaker also claimed there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian
interference efforts in the 2016 election, which is the central question of the Mueller
probe.
Trump lamented the criticism of Whitaker's past commentary, saying "it's a shame that no
matter who I put in, they go after him."
Trump then reiterated his plans to have Whitaker serve in an acting capacity, but declined
to reveal who might be Sessions' permanent replacement. He said he likes Chris Christie, who is
under consideration , but said he has not spoken to the former NJ governor about the post.
Christie was at the White House on Thursday for an event on prison reform but Trump said he did
not speak to him.
* * *
Trump wasn't finished, however, and during the same gaggle, he suggested he could pull press
credentials from other reporters who don't show him "respect" two days after the president
suspended the press pass of CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta after a contentious
exchange during a news conference.
"I think Jim Acosta is a very unprofessional man," Trump explained and when asked how long
Acosta's credentials will be suspended, the president replied: "As far as I'm concerned, I
haven't made that decision. But it could be others also."
Trump also went after April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks as a "loser" who "doesn't
know what the hell she is doing."
Keyser 15 minutes ago
On this one Trump needs to take a hint from Obozo, stop doing daily press briefings...
Hold them once a month, then hand-pick which reporters you want in the room... And if a
reporter publishes a story you don't like, prosecute them... What we have now is what happens
when the lunatics are given free reign...
dcmbuffy 55 minutes ago remove
the stooge press/talking heads have made a cottage industry off of the press conferences.
the msm sends stooges to sell their product. trump is 100% correct- the msm doesn't have the
guts to cull their stooge legions- oh dear- the white house will do their job for them.
"... Mueller's investigation has been at the center of a McCarthyite-style campaign against Russia spearheaded by the intelligence agencies and the Democratic Party, based on fabricated claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in the presidential election to undermine the candidacy of Democrat Hillary Clinton and boost Trump. It has been used as a weapon in the drive by the Democrats and sections of the military/intelligence establishment to force Trump to adopt a more aggressive posture against Moscow and in the war for regime-change in Syria. ..."
"... The aim of shifting the Trump administration to a war footing against Russia has been achieved to the extent that there is now a substantial risk of nuclear conflict between the US and the second-leading nuclear power ..."
"... Though promoted in the media and sponsored by over 50 Democratic Party-linked organizations, including MoveOn.org, the rallies on Tuesday were small, reflecting the lack of support in the general population for the anti-Russia crusade. The protests were notable primarily for their unvarnished right-wing and neo-McCarthyite character. ..."
"... Two of the largest were in Washington DC and New York City, which each drew roughly 1,000 demonstrators, many of whom held hammer and cycle posters with Putin's image. Sessions began his career as a segregationist in Jim Crow Alabama and went on to become a right-wing Republican senator from the state. Mueller, for his part, was director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, during which time he helped institute mass domestic surveillance and other sweeping attacks on democratic rights linked to the so-called "war on terror." ..."
"... At the Washington demonstration, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin led those in attendance in a round of applause for Sessions. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, appealed to the military against Trump, declaring, "You are the defenders of our democracy," and led a chant of "protect Mueller." ..."
The Democrats and their fake "left" allies held war-mongering demonstrations in a number of
cities on Thursday in defense of the fired far-right attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and the
anti-Russia investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Wednesday's ouster of Sessions and his replacement by Trump ally Matthew G. Whitaker has
brought forth a wave of condemnation from Democratic Party figures and their media allies,
including the New York Times and Washington Post , asserting that the move is
the prelude to Trump's closing down of the Justice Department probe into allegations of Russian
"meddling" in the 2016 elections and possible collusion by the Trump campaign.
Trump had repeatedly denounced Sessions for having recused himself from the Russia
investigation in March of 2017, leaving Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a defender of
the investigation, in overall charge of its conduct. Whitaker, a former US attorney and now
acting attorney general and therefore responsible for overseeing the Mueller probe, is on
record criticizing Mueller and suggesting that the Justice Department could cut off funding for
his office.
Mueller's investigation has been at the center of a McCarthyite-style campaign against
Russia spearheaded by the intelligence agencies and the Democratic Party, based on fabricated
claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin interfered in the presidential election to
undermine the candidacy of Democrat Hillary Clinton and boost Trump. It has been used as a
weapon in the drive by the Democrats and sections of the military/intelligence establishment to
force Trump to adopt a more aggressive posture against Moscow and in the war for regime-change
in Syria.
To the extent that the Democrats oppose the right-wing Trump administration, it is on this
entirely reactionary basis. In the lead-up to Tuesday's midterm elections, they not only called
no demonstrations, they were entirely silent on Trump's fascistic attacks on immigrants, his
deployment of troops to the border against the caravan of Central American asylum seekers, and
his pledge to overturn the 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship -- a cornerstone
of the Bill of Rights.
Following the election, in which the Democrats won control of the House of Representatives,
the party leadership called repeatedly for bipartisan unity and collaboration with Trump,
underscoring their essential agreement with his policies of war, austerity and repression. It
was only when Trump fired Sessions, a right-wing anti-immigrant zealot, that they swung into
action, reviving their denunciations of Trump as a stooge of Putin.
The aim of shifting the Trump administration to a war footing against Russia has been
achieved to the extent that there is now a substantial risk of nuclear conflict between the US
and the second-leading nuclear power . War could quickly erupt in a number of flash
points, especially Syria, where Russian soldiers, sailors and airmen carry out combat
operations within miles of their American counterparts, as well as US-allied Islamist proxies
armed by Saudi Arabia.
Though promoted in the media and sponsored by over 50 Democratic Party-linked
organizations, including MoveOn.org, the rallies on Tuesday were small, reflecting the lack of
support in the general population for the anti-Russia crusade. The protests were notable
primarily for their unvarnished right-wing and neo-McCarthyite character.
Two of the largest were in Washington DC and New York City, which each drew roughly
1,000 demonstrators, many of whom held hammer and cycle posters with Putin's image. Sessions
began his career as a segregationist in Jim Crow Alabama and went on to become a right-wing
Republican senator from the state. Mueller, for his part, was director of the FBI from 2001 to
2013, during which time he helped institute mass domestic surveillance and other sweeping
attacks on democratic rights linked to the so-called "war on terror."
At the Washington demonstration, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin led those in
attendance in a round of applause for Sessions. Randi Weingarten, president of the American
Federation of Teachers, appealed to the military against Trump, declaring, "You are the
defenders of our democracy," and led a chant of "protect Mueller."
In defending Sessions, the Democrats and their allies are rallying around the most
right-wingattorneygeneral in
American history, who, prior to joining the Trump cabinet, had won a well-earned reputation as
a bitter opponent of civil rights. As attorney general, Sessions will primarily be remembered
for the persecution of immigrants, most notably the separation of immigrant children from their
parents and their imprisonment in detention camps built in the desert.
The task of spearheading the attack on immigrants and democratic rights will now fall,
pending the installation of a permanent attorney general, to Whitaker, who has boasted that he
interprets the Constitution from a biblical standpoint. His very first act as head of the
Department of Justice was to issue, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, a
directive stripping the right to asylum from anyone who enters the US over the Mexican border
and has not first gained legal status -- a move that is tantamount to abolishing the right to
asylum, which is guaranteed under international and US law.
This move, a new landmark in the attack on immigrants, due process and basic democratic
rights, has been virtually ignored by the media and the Democratic Party. It was not mentioned
in the press release calling Thursday's demonstration, nor by speakers at the demonstrations in
Washington and New York.
"... The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early last year due to his work on Trump's campaign. ..."
President Trump's pick to replace ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to take over
oversight of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
confirmed Wednesday. "The Acting Attorney General is in charge of all matters under the purview
of the Department of Justice," DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement to The
Hill.
The move means that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will no longer oversee the
federal Russia investigation, which he has looked over since Sessions recused himself early
last year due to his work on Trump's campaign.
Trump on Wednesday afternoon announced Matthew
Whitaker, who served as Sessions's chief of staff at the DOJ, as his temporary replacement atop
the department after ousting Sessions.
"... The House dems will create even more severe sanction bills against the Russians looking to gain politically by making Trump and gopers look pro-Putin and anti-patriotic, plus serving business interests in pushing out euro and Russian competitors. ..."
The House dems will create even more severe sanction bills against the Russians looking
to gain politically by making Trump and gopers look pro-Putin and anti-patriotic, plus
serving business interests in pushing out euro and Russian competitors. Domestically
House dems may work with gopers to cut social security and medicare much as Obama tried to
do. Russian xenophobia will go through the proverbial roof.
When people who voted for Obama realized the Obama is a fraud with strong CIA connections it
was too late...
When people who voted for Trump realized that Trump was a fraud with strong Israeli
connections it was too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls. ..."
...And it seems likely, if not certain, that the caravan is a political stunt that will
end in disappointment for the caravan migrants. So I fail to see why you are so angry Debs.
Our discussion doesn't ignore the realities. Nor does the caravan 'fix' or even
illuminate decades of US abuses in Central and South America. It simply gives Trump an
opportunity to grandstand and urge his voters to go to the polls.
We are being played by an establishment that wants to move the country to the right. MAGA!
is a bi-partisan effort fueled by the challenge from China and Russia. This is clear from
Democratic Party priorities and actions as well as what they don't say or do.
Sen. Mark R. Warner (Va.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said
in a statement, "No one is above the law and any effort to interfere with the Special
Counsel's investigation would be a gross abuse of power by the President. While the President
may have theauthority to replace the Attorney General, this must not be the first step in an
attempt to impede, obstruct or end the Mueller investigation."
"... "I am more than happy to deliver the $10,000 in cash I received, as part of what I believe was a sting operation to frame me in summer 2017, to your committee to examine for marked bills. This is in the interest of me being fully transparent," he wrote last week on Twitter to North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows and Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe. ..."
"... Afraid he might be killed if he didn't accept the money, Papadopoulos took the funds and later contacted Tawil - who allegedly told Papadopoulos he didn't want it back. From there, Papadopoulos gave the cash to his attorney in Greece. Upon his return to the United States several days later, Papadopoulos was arrested on July 28, 2017 at Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C., by agents who he believes were looking for the cash. ..."
"... And then when Papadopoulos landed back in America, he was arrested at Dulles International Airport on July 27th. Strangely, he wasn't shown the warrant for his arrest when arrested, and didn't know the reason why until the next day. The $10,000 that Tawil paid Papadopoulos in cash is interesting in this context, as it would be the exact amount of money one would be required to declare at customs. Papadopoulos didn't recall if he was arrested before or after he filled out a customs slip (but didn't have the money on him). - Bongino.com ..."
George Papadopoulos - a central figure and self-admitted dupe in the Obama administration's targeted spying on the Trump campaign,
gave a wide-ranging interview to Dan Bongino on Friday, detailing what he claims to have been a setup by deep state operatives across
the world in order to ultimately infiltrate the Trump campaign.
In March 2016
, Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud told Papadopoulos - an energy consultant who had recently joined the Trump campaign - that
Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, a claim which Papadopoulos repeated in May 2016 to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in
a
London bar . Of note, former FBI Assistant Director of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, reportedly
traveled to London directly before Downer
met with Papadopoulos, while a few months later former FBI agent Peter Strzok met with Downer in London directly before the DOJ officially
launched their investigation into the Trump campaign.
The alleged admission about Clinton's emails officially sparked the Obama administration's counterintelligence operation on Trump
on July 31, 2016 - dubbed Operation Crossfire Hurricane. In September 2016, the FBI would send spy Stefan Halper to further probe
Papadopoulos on the Clinton email allegation, and - according to his interview with Dan Bongino, Papadoplous says Halper angrily
accused him of working with Russia before storming out of a meeting.
Halper essentially began interrogating Papadopoulos, saying that it's "obviously in your interest to be working with the Russians"
and to "hack emails." " You're complicit with Russia in this, isn't that right George " Halper told him. Halper also inquired
about Hillary's hacked emails, insinuating that Papadopoulos possessed them. Papadopoulos denied knowing anything about this and
asked to be left alone. -
Bongino.com
There are two schools of thought on Papadopoulos and his relationship with Mifsud - the first link in the chain regarding the
Clinton email rumor. Notably, Mifsud claimed
last November to be a member of the Clinton Foundation, and has
donated to the charity.
The first theory is that Mifsud and Papadopoulos are Russian agents, and that Papadopoulos was used to try and establish a backchannel
to Putin.
Papadopoulos admits he tried to set up a Trump-Putin meeting - which was flatly rejected by the Trump campaign. Papadopoulos,
however, claims the Putin connection was a woman Mifsud introduced him to claiming to be Putin's niece, who was present at a March
24, 2016 meeting.
The second theory regarding Mifsud is that he was a deep state plant working with the FBI; convincing Papadopoulos that he could
arrange a meeting with members of the Russian government and then seeding Papadopoulos with the Clinton email rumor. From there,
as the theory goes, the "deep state" attempted to pump Papadopoulos for information and set up a case against him - beginning with
Alexander Downer and the "drunken" confession in London.
Papadopoulos told Bongino that he wasn't drunk during his meeting with Downer, and that he was being recorded . Papadopoulos noted
during the Bongino interview that transcripts of his meetings with Mifsud and Dower reportedly exist - which he says proves that
he was set up. According to Papadopoulos, Mifsud's lawyer said that he's not a Russian asset and was instead working for Western
intelligence.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying the FBI about his interactions with Mifsud, and was sentenced to 14 days in federal prison
and a $9,500 fine.
$10,000 cash
Papadopoulos also told Bongino about $10,000 in cash that he was given in an Israel hotel room in July 2017 - which he claims
was another attempt to set him up. He says that he believes the bills were marked, and is looking for a way to bring the cash into
the United States for Congressional investigators to analyze. The cash is currently with his attorney in Greece.
"I'm actually trying to bring that money back somehow so that Congress can investigate it because I am 100 percent sure those
are marked bills, and to see who was actually running this operation against me," Papadopoulos gold Bongino.
"I am more than happy to deliver the $10,000 in cash I received, as part of what I believe was a sting operation to frame me in
summer 2017, to your committee to examine for marked bills. This is in the interest of me being fully transparent," he wrote last
week on Twitter to North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows and Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe.
The two Republicans are members of a congressional task force investigating the FBI's investigation into possible collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russia. The task force interviewed Papadopoulos on Oct. 25.
Papadopoulos acknowledged in his interview with Bongino that his claims about his encounters with an Israeli-American businessman
named Charles Tawil were "an incredible, insane story."
"But it's true," he asserted.
Papadopoulos told Bongino the he believes that Tawil "was working on behalf of Western intelligence to entrap me."
Papadopoulos does not have direct evidence that Tawil was working on behalf of a Western government when they met in March
and July 2017. Instead, Papadopoulos is speculating based on what he says is the peculiar circumstances of his encounters with
Tawil as well as his meetings with at least one known FBI informant. -
Daily Caller
Afraid he might be killed if he didn't accept the money, Papadopoulos took the funds and later contacted Tawil - who allegedly
told Papadopoulos he didn't want it back. From there, Papadopoulos gave the cash to his attorney in Greece. Upon his return to the
United States several days later, Papadopoulos was arrested on July 28, 2017 at Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C.,
by agents who he believes were looking for the cash.
And then when Papadopoulos landed back in America, he was arrested at Dulles International Airport on July 27th. Strangely,
he wasn't shown the warrant for his arrest when arrested, and didn't know the reason why until the next day. The $10,000 that
Tawil paid Papadopoulos in cash is interesting in this context, as it would be the exact amount of money one would be required
to declare at customs. Papadopoulos didn't recall if he was arrested before or after he filled out a customs slip (but didn't
have the money on him). -
Bongino.com
At minimum, one should set aside an hour for the Bongino-Papadopoulos interview if only to hear his version of events.
Perhaps the biggest mystery of all is how George was able to end up with such a hot Italian (not Russian) wife:
It was only an announcement, but think of it as the beginning of a journey into hell. Last
week, President Donald Trump
made public his decision to abrogate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), a
1987 agreement with the Soviet Union. National Security Advisor
John Bolton , a Cold Warrior in a post-Cold War world,
promptly flaunted that announcement on a trip to Vladimir Putin's Moscow. To grasp the
import of that decision, however, quite another kind of voyage is necessary, a trip down memory
lane.
That 1987 pact between Moscow and Washington was no small thing in a world that, during the
Cuban Missile Crisis only 25 years earlier, had reached the edge of nuclear Armageddon. The
INF Treaty led to the elimination of thousands
of nuclear weapons, but its significance went far beyond that. As a start, it closed the books
on the nightmare of a Europe caught between the world-ending strategies of the two superpowers,
since most of those "intermediate-range" missiles were targeting that very continent. No
wonder, last week, a European Union spokesperson, responding to Trump,
fervently defended the treaty as a permanent "pillar" of international order.
To take that trip back three decades in time and remember how the INF came about should be
an instant reminder of just how President Trump is playing havoc with something essential to
human survival.
In October 1986 in Reykjavik, Iceland, the leaders of the United States and the Soviet
Union, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev , briefly came close to fully freeing the planet from the horrifying prospect of
nuclear annihilation. In his second inaugural address, a year and a half earlier, President
Reagan had wishfully called for "the total elimination" of nuclear weapons. At that Reykjavik
summit, Gorbachev, a pathbreaking Soviet leader, promptly took the president up on that dream,
proposing -- to the dismay of the aides of both leaders -- a total nuclear disarmament pact
that would take effect in the year 2000.
Reagan promptly agreed in principle. "Suits me fine," he said. "That's always been my goal."
But it didn't happen. Reagan had another dream, too -- of a space-based missile defense system
against just such weaponry, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also dubbed "Star Wars." He
refused to yield on the subject when Gorbachev rejected SDI as the superpower arms race
transferred into space. "This meeting is over," Reagan then said.
Of the failure of Reykjavik, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze would then
comment :
"When future generations read the transcripts of this meeting, they will not forgive us." At
that point, the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and the USSR had hit a combined 60,000
weapons and were still growing. (Five new American nuclear weapons were being added each
day.) A month after Reykjavik, in fact, the U.S. deployed a new B-52-based cruise missile
system in violation of the 1979 SALT II Treaty. Hawks in Moscow were pressing for similar
escalations. Elites on both sides -- weapons manufacturers, intelligence and political
establishments, think tanks, military bureaucracies, and pundits -- were appalled at what the
two leaders had almost agreed to. The national security priesthood, East and West, wanted to
maintain what was termed "the stability of the strategic stalemate," even if such stability,
based on ever-expanding arsenals, could not have been less stable.
But a widespread popular longing for relief from four decades of nuclear dread had been
growing on both sides of the Iron Curtain. In a surge of anti-nuclear
activism , millions of ordinary citizens took to the streets of cities in the U.S. and
Europe to protest the superpower nuclear establishments. Even behind the Iron Curtain, voices
for peace could be heard. "Listen," Gorbachev pleaded after Reykjavik, "to the demands of the
American people, the Soviet people, the peoples of all countries."
A Watershed Treaty
As it happened, the Soviet leader refused to settle for Reagan's no. Four months after the
Iceland summit, he proposed an agreement "without delay" to remove from Europe all intermediate
missiles -- those with a range well under that of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
When Pentagon officials tried to swat Gorbachev's proposal aside by claiming that there could
be no such agreement without on-site inspections, he said fine, inspect away! That was an
unprecedented concession from the Soviet Union.
President Reagan was surrounded by men like then-Assistant Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz
(later to become infamous for his role in promoting a post-9/11 invasion of Iraq), who assumed
Gorbachev was a typical Soviet "master of deceit." But for all his hawkishness, the president
had other instincts as well. Events would show that, on the subject of nukes (SDI
notwithstanding), Reagan had indeed recognized the threat to the human future posed by the
open-ended accumulation of ever more of those weapons and had become a kind of nuclear
abolitionist. Even if ending that threat was inconceivable to him, his desire to mitigate it
would prove genuine.
At the time, however, Reagan had other problems to deal with. Just as Gorbachev put forward
his surprising initiative, the American president found himself engulfed in the Iran-Contra
scandal -- a criminal conspiracy to trade arms for hostages with Iran, while illegally aiding
right-wing paramilitaries in Central America. It threatened to become his Watergate. It would,
in the end, lead to the indictments of 14 members of his administration. Beleaguered, he
desperately wanted to change the subject. A statesman-like rescue of faltering arms-control
negotiations might prove just the helping hand he was looking for. So the day before he went
on
television to abjectly offer repentance for Iran-Contra, he announced that he would accept
Gorbachev's INF proposal. His hawkish inner circle was thoroughly disgusted by the gesture.
Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger promptly resigned in protest. (He would later be
indicted for Iran-Contra.)
On December 8, 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev would indeed meet in Washington and
sign the INF Treaty, eliminating more than 2,000 ground-based warheads and giving Europe
the reprieve its people had wanted. This would be the first actual reduction in nuclear weapons
to occur since two atomic bombs were built at Los Alamos in 1945. The INF Treaty proved
historic for turning back the tide of escalation. It showed that the arms race could be not
just frozen but reversed, that negotiations could lead the two superpowers out of what seemed
like the ultimate impasse -- a model that should be urgently applicable today.
In reality, the mutually reinforcing hair-trigger nuclear posture of the United States and
the Soviet Union was not much altered by the treaty, since only land-based, not air- and
submarine-launched missiles, were affected by it and longer range ICBMs were off the table.
(Still, Europe could breathe a bit easier, even if, in operational terms, nuclear danger had
not been much reduced.) Yet that treaty would prove a turning point, opening the way to a
better future. It would be essential to the political transformation that quickly followed, the
wholly unpredicted and surprisingly non-violent end to the Cold War that arrived not quite two
years later. The treaty showed that the arms race itself could be ended -- and eventually, it
nearly would be. That is the lesson that somehow needs to be preserved in the Trump era.
A Man for All Apocalypses
In reality, the Trump administration's abandonment of the INF Treaty has little to do with
the actual deployment of intermediate-range missiles, whether those that the Pentagon may now
seek to emplace in Europe or those apparently already being put in place in Russia. In truth,
such nuclear firepower will not add much to what submarine- and air-launched cruise missiles
can already do. As for Vladimir Putin's bellicosity, removing the restraints on arms control
will only magnify the Russian leader's threatening behavior. However, it should be clear by now
that Donald Trump's urge to trash the treaty comes from his own
bellicosity , not from Russian (or, for that matter, Chinese) aggressiveness. Trump seems
to deplore the pact precisely because of what it meant to Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev,
as well as to the millions who cheered them on long ago: its repudiation of an apocalyptic
future. (As
his position on climate change indicates, the president is visibly a man for all
apocalypses.)
Trump has launched a second nuclear age by rejecting the treaty that was meant to initiate
the closing of the first one. The arms race was then slowed, but, alas, the competitors
stumbled on through the end of the Cold War. Shutting that arms-contest down completely
remained an unfinished task, in part because the dynamic of weapons reduction proved so
reversible even before Donald Trump made it into the Oval Office. George W. Bush, for instance,
struck a blow against arms control with his
2002 abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which rekindled Reagan's Star Wars
fantasy. The way Washington subsequently promoted missile defense systems in Europe, especially
in Poland, where a
nearly $5 billion missile contract was agreed to this year, empowered the most hawkish wing
of the Kremlin, guaranteeing just the sort of Russian build-up that has indeed occurred. If
present Russian intermediate-range missile deployments are in violation of the INF Treaty, they
did not happen in a vacuum.
Barack Obama, of course, won the Nobel Peace Prize
in the early moments of his presidency for his vision of a nuclear-weapons-free world, yet
not even he could curb the malevolent influence of nuclear planning in the Pentagon and
elsewhere in Washington. To get approval of the 2010 New START Treaty, which was to further
reduce the total number of strategic warheads and launchers on both sides, from the Republican
Senate, the Peace Laureate president had to agree to an $80 billion renewal of
America's existing nuclear arsenal just when it was ripe for a fuller dismantling. That devil's
bargain with Washington's diehard nuclear hawks further empowered Russia's similarly hawkish
militarists.
All of this reflects a pattern established relatively early in the Cold War years. U.S. arms
escalations in that era -- from the long-range bomber and the hydrogen bomb to the
nuclear-armed submarine and the cruise missile to the "high frontier" of space -- inevitably
prompted the Kremlin to follow in lockstep (and these days, you would need to
add the Chinese into the equation as well). Americans should recall that, since August 6,
1945, the ratcheting up of nuclear weapons competition has always begun in Washington. And so
it has again.
By the time the Obama administration left office, the Defense Department was already
planning to "modernize" the U.S. nuclear arsenal in a massively expensive way. Last February,
with the release of the
Pentagon's 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, the Trump administration committed to that arsenal's
full bore reinvention, big time, to the tune of at least
$1.2 trillion and possibly $1.6 trillion over the next three decades. ICBM silos only
recently slated for closing will be rebuilt. There will be new generations of nuclear-armed
bombers and submarines, as well as nuclear cruise missiles. There will be wholly new nuclear
weapons expressly
designed to be "usable." And in that context, American nuclear strategy is also being
recast. For the first time, the United States is now explicitly threatening to launch those
"usable" weapons in response to non-nuclear assaults.
The surviving lynchpin of arms control is that New START Treaty that mattered so to Obama in
2010. It capped deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 and implied that there would be
further reductions to come. It must, however, be renewed in 2021. Trump is already
on record calling it a bad deal, but he may not have to wait until possible reelection in
2020 to do it in. His INF Treaty abrogation might do the trick first. Limits on long-range
strategic missiles may not survive the pressures that are sure to follow an arms race involving
the intermediate variety.
No less worrisome, the Trump administration's fervent support for the Pentagon's
modernization, and so reinvention, of the American nuclear arsenal amounts to a blatant
violation of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which required nuclear powers to work toward
"the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date." The president's explicit desire to
maintain an ever more lethal nuclear arsenal into the indefinite future violates that
requirement and will certainly undermine that treaty, too.
It's no exaggeration to say that those arms control treaties, taken together, probably saved
the world from a nuclear Armageddon
"... In that remarkable volume, Schell offered a stunning vision of what a ten-thousand-megaton nuclear strike on the U.S. might mean. ("In the ten seconds or so after each bomb hit, as blast waves swept outward from thousands of ground zeros, the physical plant of the United States would be swept away like leaves in a gust of wind.") In the end, after radiation had also taken its toll, he wrote, the United States -- in a phrase that's haunted me ever since -- "would be a republic of insects and grass." ..."
He was the candidate who, while talking to a foreign policy expert, reportedly
wondered "why we can't use nuclear weapons." He was the man who would never rule anything out or take any "cards," including
nuclear ones, off the proverbial table. He was the fellow who, as president-elect, was
eager to expand
the American nuclear arsenal and
told
Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski, "Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all."
I'm referring, of course, to the president who, early on,
spoke with his top national security officials of returning the country to a Cold War footing when it came to such weaponry and
called for the equivalent of a
tenfold expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. I'm thinking of the president who once
threatened North Korea with "fire and fury like the world has never seen" and
proudly
claimed that he had a "bigger nuclear button" than that country's leader, Kim Jong-un.
Given his fascination with nuclear weaponry, it's hardly surprising that the very same president would
decide to
pull the U.S. out of the Cold War-era 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) or that his vice president would
refuse to rule out -- another potentially treaty-busting act -- the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. It's a gesture that,
as TomDispatch
regular and former Boston Globe columnist James Carroll explains today, could not be more devastating when it comes
to creating a new nuclear arms race on this increasingly
godforsaken
planet of ours. Reading Carroll's piece, I thought of a mobilizing nuclear moment in my own life. It was the time in 1982 when
I read Jonathan Schell's bestselling book The Fate of the Earth , which helped create a global anti-nuclear movement, millions
of active citizens desiring a nuke-free world, that prepared the way for the INF Treaty.
In that remarkable volume, Schell offered
a stunning vision of what a ten-thousand-megaton nuclear strike on the U.S. might mean. ("In the ten seconds or so after each bomb
hit, as blast waves swept outward from thousands of ground zeros, the physical plant of the United States would be swept away like
leaves in a gust of wind.") In the end, after radiation had also taken its toll, he wrote, the United States -- in a phrase that's
haunted me ever since -- "would be a republic of insects and grass."
That, in other words, is what it might mean, in the twenty-first century, as in the previous one, for a president to put all those
nuclear "cards" back on the table and "outmatch and outlast them all."
"Phil Collins
The only thing that can stop this ever happening is if the American people stand up to these
psychopaths running their country its called people power and would stop them in their tracks
madmen now run the Whitehouse"
33 Trillion Reasons Why The New York Times Gets It Wrong on Russia-gate
Facebook Said 80,000 Russian Posts Were Buried in 33 Trillion Facebook Offerings Over
Two-Year Period Further Undermining NYT ·s Case
by Gareth Porter Posted on
November 05, 2018 November 3, 2018 Even more damning evidence has come to light
undermining The New York Times ' assertion in September that Russia used social media
to steal the 2016 election for Donald Trump.
The Times '
claim last month that Russian Facebook posts reached nearly as many Americans as actually
voted in the 2016 election exaggerated the significance of those numbers by a factor of
hundreds of millions, as revealed by further evidence from Facebook's own Congressional
testimony.
Further research into an earlier Consortium News
article shows that a relatively paltry 80,000 posts from the private Russian company
Internet Research Agency (IRA) were engulfed in literally trillions of posts on
Facebook over a two-year period before and after the 2016 vote.
That was supposed to have thrown the election, according to the paper of record. In its
10,000-word
article on Sept. 20, the Times reported that 126 million out of 137 million
American voters were exposed to social media posts on Facebook from IRA that somehow had a
hand in delivering Trump the presidency.
The newspaper said: "Even by the vertiginous standards of social media, the reach of their
effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate
images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook
alone." The paper argued that 126 million was "not far short of the 137 million people
who would vote in the 2016 presidential election."
But Consortium News , on Oct. 10,
debunked that story, pointing out that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti failed to
report several significant caveats and disclaimers from Facebook officers themselves, whose
statements make the Times' claim that Russian election propaganda "reached" 126
million Americans an exercise in misinformation.
The newspaper failed to tell their readers that Facebook account holders in the United
States had been "served" 33 trillion Facebook posts during that same period -- 413 million
times more than the 80,000 posts from the Russian company.
What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch testified before the Senate Judiciary
Committee on October 31, 2017 is a far cry from what the Times claims. "Our best
estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served one of
these [IRA-generated] stories at some time during the two year period," Stretch said.
Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established fact. He said
an estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at least one story
from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period, but over 194 weeks during the
two years 2015 through 2017 – including a full year after the election.
That means only an estimated 29 million FB users may have gotten at least one story
in their feed in two years. The 126 million figure is based only on an assumption that they
shared it with others, according to Stretch.
Facebook didn't even claim most of those 80,000 IRA posts were election–related. It
offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million people were.
In addition, Facebook's Vice President for News Feed, Adam Moseri,
acknowledged in 2016 that FB subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the
stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA
stories that actually make it into a subscriber's news feed on any given day are actually
read.
And now, according to the further research, the odds that Americans saw any of these IRA
ads – let alone were influenced by them – are even more astronomical. In his Oct.
2017 testimony, Stretch said that from 2015 to 2017, "Americans using Facebook were exposed
to, or 'served,' a total of over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds."
To put the 33 trillion figure over two years in perspective, the 80,000 Russian-origin
Facebook posts represented just .0000000024 of total Facebook content in that time.
Shane and Mazzetti did not report the 33 trillion number even though The New York
Times ' own coverage of that 2017 Stretch testimony explicitly
stated , "Facebook cautioned that the Russia-linked posts represented a minuscule amount
of content compared with the billions of posts that flow through users' News Feeds
everyday."
The Times ' touting of the bogus 126 million out 137 million voters, while not
reporting the 33 trillion figure, should vie in the annals of journalism as one of the most
spectacularly misleading uses of statistics of all time.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national
security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on
the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. He can be contacted
at [email protected] .
Reprinted from Consortium
News with the author's permission.
by Justin Raimondo Posted on
November 05, 2018 November 4, 2018 After all the screaming headlines and hysterical talk
of "treason," the Russia-gate hoax was almost entirely absent from the midterms. One would
think that the other party being in the hands of a ruthless foreign dictator who has it in
for America would be a major campaign issue – that is, if the Democrats actually
believed their own propaganda. However, we've seen neither hide nor hair of Putin in all
those campaign ads, or at least hardly a glance: that's because Russia-gate has always been a
fraud, a setup, and really a criminal conspiracy to take down a sitting US President on the
basis of a gigantic lie.
As the promulgators of that lie are exposed – the Deep State amalgam that includes
foreign intelligence agencies as well as Trump's domestic opponents – Democrats are
backing away from what has suddenly become, for them, a very messy narrative. For what has
happened is that the narrative has turned on them, and now implicates them in a massive
scheme to embroil the Trump campaign in a web of foreign influencers.
The campaign to penetrate the Trump campaign appears to have been initiated abroad as much
as it was started by the Clinton campaign – who inherited the operation from a very
mysterious Republican donor after the GOP primaries. The "former" MI6 agent Christopher
Steele, now working for an ostensibly independent spy network, didn't consider the job of
digging up dirt on Trump just a normal job: he was passionately dedicated to stopping Trump
from ever reaching the White House. One can easily impute the same motivations to the little
group that took it upon themselves to break into the Trump campaign and put it under
surveillance, all of them attached to British intelligence:
Cambridge professor and foreign policy maven Stefan Halper ,
with longtime connections to MI6 and the CIA, who made a point of approaching the Trump
campaign early on and offering his "services." He later cultivated George Papadoupoulos, a
low-level aide to the campaign then living in London.
Sir Richard
Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who advised the spy ring and helped pass their
information to US government authorities, is very close to Halper.
"Professor"
Joseph Mifsud , a mysterious figure who first introduced target George Pappadoupolos to
the idea that the Russians had incriminating material on Hillary Clinton, and who has since
mysteriously disappeared (although his lawyer seems to know where he is).
Alexander Downer , formerly Australia's ambassador to the UK, arranged to meet a low
level Trump advisor in a London bar and reportedly learned about Mifsud's contention.
Downer went to the FBI, and Operation Regime Change, Washington, was launched.
That's just the tip of the iceberg: the "intelligence community" has its tentacles
everywhere, and while this has always been the case today our spooks are getting more brazen
than ever before. As an indication of their evolution from government agencies charged with
protecting the country into a coherent and very organized political force, a good number of
these former agents ran as Democratic candidates for Congress on a platform of hurt feelings.
"As someone who is from the intelligence community," former spook and Democratic
congressional candidate Elissa Slotkin
whines , "it is worrisome the way that President Trump has demonized the institutions
where people are working hard every day to keep us safe." The American reverence for the
military doesn't extend to the clandestine services: the public knows too much about their
history of dirty tricks, assassinations, and regime-change antics abroad to trust them much
on the home front.
Slotkin's lament is part and parcel of the great ideological shift when it comes to
matters of national security: it is the Democrats who are now the party of militarism, which
is the natural corollary of the globalist mentality that drives the "progressive" agenda.
These candidates, however, are operating at a disadvantage, as Russia-gate proves to be a
mirage and Robert Mueller continues to produce a bunch of low-level indictments that have
nothing to do with Russian "collusion."
The
polling on the Russia-gate "scandal" puts it somewhere between the 49 th and
the 100 th concern of voters, a number that dramatizes the great gulf that has
opened up between ordinary folks and the political class. The former are barely aware of
Russia-gate: even now, all knowledge of it is fading from their memories. The latter have
been obsessed with Russia-gate for two solid years – and now, when the narrative has
all but fallen apart and the only people left at the party are Louise Mensch and some guy who
keeps saying " It's time for some game
theory! ", will once respectable outlets like The New Yorker admit that they have
covered themselves in shame?
A NOTE TO MY READERS: I apologize for this rather short column, but I am still
recovering from an unfortunate relapse that has made it hard for me to do anything, let alone
write. This glitch was due to a change in my medication, which has now been corrected.
However, this also means I'm back to square one: the heavy chemotherapy in addition to the
Keytruda. I'm making a lot of progress recently and I expect to continue to improve.
Meanwhile, bear with me: the best is yet to come.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
It's important to note why the INF Treaty was negotiated in the first place.
In the 1970s, the Soviets developed and began deploying a new "intermediate range" nuclear
missile that threatened Europe, Asia, North Africa, and Alaska. The United States responded by
deploying "Pershing II" missiles to Germany and Ground Launched Cruise Missiles to several NATO
nations in Europe. The Soviet SS-20 and American Pershing II ballistic missiles would have been
particularly destabilizing in a crisis by virtue of their short, six- to eleven-minute flight
times to target.
Recognizing the danger, US and Soviet leaders agreed upon the INF Treaty, which prohibited
the entire class of ground-launched intermediate-range nuclear weapons. The INF entered into
force in 1988, and since then 2,692 missiles have been verifiably removed
or destroyed.
The INF contributed to the end of the Cold War and played a significant role in reducing the
global arms race. The INF also opened the door for other historic nuclear disarmament treaties
to be pursued through diplomatic channels. If the United States unilaterally withdrew from the
INF, it would set a dangerous and woefully irresponsible precedent for all nuclear-armed
nations to renege on their disarmament responsibilities.
In a statement responding to the president's announcement, the European Union declared, "The
world doesn't need a new arms race that would benefit no one and on the contrary would bring
even more instability."
They're not alone. In the days since Trump's announcement, foreign policy experts,
diplomats, former US government officials, and even leaders of other nations have spoken out in
opposition to the proposed United States withdrawal from the treaty. Even Mark Hamill, Luke
Skywalker himself, has weighed in .
The United States must negotiate with all nuclear-armed countries for total elimination of
their nuclear arsenals. In the meantime, it is critical that the INF remain in force, with both
parties fully and demonstrably adhering to the terms of this vital international agreement.
If the Trump administration continues along its present foolhardy course, then Congress
should use the power of the purse and refuse to fund anything that would support new
intermediate-range weapons.
"... Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are 100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of empire. ..."
"... As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is) but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility. ..."
"... The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP. ..."
That is, he started off on the wrong foot. Campaigning as a populist who eschewed accepted
mainstream "progressive" and "conservative" political positions, he completely cratered the
unpopular Republican orthodoxy during the 2016 primaries by promising such heretical ideas as
a non-interventionist foreign policy, protection for Medicare/Medicaid and social security,
improvement on Obamacare, higher taxes on the wealthiest and a massive infrastructure program
to rebuild the decaying facilities of this so-called once grate nation.
These are all ideas that gained the support of enough Obama voters and independents in
just the right flyover states to lead Trump to an improbable victory while being soundly
thrashed in the popular voting nationwide. A stunning, historical accomplishment as much as
and as much in reaction too, the 2008 Obama victory.
Of course, to those of us who understand the modern GOP and the history of the lying-ass
self promotion of the Trump entertainment spectacle its own self, we were neither duped nor
surprised when the initial 2017 legislative agenda items proferred were none of the populist
agenda but instead were the repeal of Obamacare, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the
reversal of all Obama executive orders, most notably in the areas of refugee resettlement and
immigration.
Trump, the so-called change agent who in fact was and still is clueless regarding how to
function as President simply let the craven Obama opposition leaders of the prior 8 years,
McConnell and Ryan set out the typical GOP legislative agenda, which is opposed by a
majority, in some cases overwhelming majority, of Amerikkkans.
Obamacare repeal failed memorably based on but one late night thumb's down taken more out
of personal revenge than the ideology of a very soon to be dead Senator.
Trump's ruling style in large part has substituted for any sense of a coherent agenda in
that he obviously cares only about his base (an obdurate block of 36% of the electorate
consisting almost entirely of white, entitled, racist baby boomers who have devolved into
anti-democratic fascists now that they no longer represent a majority of the US population
and believe (falsely) they have something to protect).
Trump has succeeded in implementing some of his campaign ideas and not all of them are
100% evil or wrongheaded. He has shaken the long term calcification of the US foreign and
trade policy, has introduced tariffs especially to combat clearly unfair Chinese trade
practices while demanding European and Asian allies pay more for their defense of
empire.
While I have my own view of whether any of Trump's policies contain great value from a
long term historical perspective, I do recognize Trump's appeal to certain sectors of the
internet, including most obviously certain useful idiots of the ultra left.
I do not believe his victory to be a fluke of nature but rather in keeping with the
current worldwide trend borne of aging whitebread fear, cyncism and disenchantment with
elitist political/economic establishments and which has been amped to a viral degree by a
staggering wealth disparity, but only as it impacts the formerly entitled feeling, aging
white people situated in western countries.
The natural response to any socially or cultural threat is to band together tribally and
fight back. And the main threat, when it is boiled down, is the fear of overpopulation (and
its accompnaying unstoppable environmental degradation) driven by what is viewed
through the Trump voter political lens as non-white, primitive, illsuited people from
shithole countries who are and will continue to ruin Amerikkka and Western Europe.
As perfectly illustrated by the migrant caravan heading to Tijuana.
Unfortunately, Trump through disinterest or incompetence or both hasn't followed through
either with enough of the promises he made that are actually meaningful to most people,
whether GOP or Democratic. He has been able to bind his tribe to him and conquer the GOP
political apparatus simply because the Party platform was already so badly decayed
(overcooked Reagan leftovers) and out of touch with reality pre-Trump that the Donald could
bend delusional conservative tropes in any way he saw fit to his electoral advantage. As long
as he infotained well, and he has indeed, he would dominate.
As b stated recently, Trump is an astute salesman (unfortunately, that is all he is)
but what is left unmentioned is that he is of the sales school that is totally unmoored for
any sense of ethical, moral or legal responsibility.
In other words, Trump is that quintessential Amerikkkan salesman: the grifter. This
particular breed of business person is not an exception in the US but rather the rule. In
fact, the US system has devolved to the point where laws and regulations now enfranchise what
previously had been considered illegal activity. Amerikkkans are heavily incentivised these
days by the call to a form of monopolistic, crony capitalism and institulionised rigged
gambling ("Wall Street"), which in more quaint times was considered mobsterism.
Institutions have been purposefully compromised so they no longer support whatever
criminal laws still exist. It is not by accident that the IRS is now chronically understaffed
and has no effective way to stop income tax cheating or collection of the minimal taxes now
due.
It is not by accident that Trump's main role as President is to weaken institutions such
as the media, to further debase language and kill whatever generally accepted objective truth
remain extant in the land. He is recognisable to all Amerikkkans as a CEO in support of this
ongoing wave of legal criminality through which the 1% and their lackeys section have
prospered at the expense of the 99%.
The US political system was invested with an ability to self-correct, or self-police
through separation of powers within the tripartite political system. It is hardly news this
system is about dead, starting not with Trump of course, but now reaching its absolute low
point under his rule and the acquiescence of the spineless GOP.
And no, I don't believe the Demotardic Party to be absolved of blame in any way. Rather,
the Demotards have entirely gone along to get along with this same trend because of course
the Party leaders have been able to criminally enrich themselves and their cronies along the
way too.
However, let's be real for minute and drop all pretense of holier than thou keyboard
revolutionism. The ultimate solution of the world's disease is not going to be resolved in
2018 through a political revolution, especially one inspired by the disharmony and fraud of
internet based social media and its acolytes. D'uh.
Look around. Since we have been blogging our lives away the world has only grown further
away from leftism. We live in a fascist police state owned and operated by teh ultra wealthy
who have dropped pretense of any humanitarian or religious concern for those less firtunated
than themselves.
Donald Trump has one more chance to make himself truly into the transformational leader he
believes himself to be in his degraded soul.
The first bill on the 2019 legislative needs to be a bipartisan infrastructure bill of
such scope and magnitude that it will serve not only a political change of direction but also
redirect the economy in such way that wealth is re-directed from the wealthy to the rest of
us, particularly those able bodied non-college educated people who have suffered through the
last several decades without hope or gain.
Trump must dictate to his party that Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security will not only
be maintained but strengthened through improved benefits.
Am I dreaming? Yes, I admit that I am. But I'm also calling out to the criminal conman in
chief: it's not too late to reclaim your own legacy.
To intimidate the Soviet Union and prove to Congress the nuclear program should be
funded, Truman dropped nuclear weapons on Japan to end the war; no scientist came forward
to warn of the dangers to life on earth, says Daniel Ellsberg on Reality Asserts Itself with
Paul Jay
DANIEL ELLSBERG: Yes. You know, a more even controversial episode is that Heisenberg-
the one who had made the estimate on atmospheric ignition as a possibility, but it would take
too long for the bomb- indicated in various ways that he was reluctant to see a bomb coming to
Hitler's hands, even though he had joined the Nazi party and he was a very patriotic German,
did not want to see Germany to lose the war. But when they learned of the bomb they were
discussing being tapped, wiretapped, by the British where they were in custody saying, you
know, we didn't really want to do it. Had we wanted to, we would have seen through these
obstacles and moved ahead.
American physicists took very great exception to the thesis presented by Thomas Powers on
Heisenberg's war, and so forth, that the Germans might have had more qualms than they did, in
effect, than Heisenberg- you know, that was a very offensive idea. And he had gone to see Niels
Bohr, the father of quantum physics, who came over later and helped the bomb project, in
Denmark in a in a quite controversial issue. Heisenberg indicated that he wanted to see if Bohr
could find a way of collaborating with the Western scientists in not bringing this bomb about
at all. Bohr didn't read what he was saying that way. He thought that he was feeling him out to
discover how advanced the Americans were, the British were. Anyway, they were at odds on this
point. And it's definitely not settled as to what Heisenberg's actual motives were on that
point. But it is interesting how offended, how very the Americans just dismissed any idea.
But actually, it isn't that hard to explain, in a way, because two things. From the American
side, the very plausible idea that the Germans were ahead just dismissed virtually all moral
considerations from what they were doing. And that's understandable. I couldn't say that then
or now, as I am now, I would have felt differently on that point in that light, whether they
should move ahead to try to at least match whatever the Germans had. The Germans for that, from
their side, didn't have that consideration. They weren't that afraid. They might or might not
have been concerned about whether Hitler should have it.
But I will say this. Many of the scientists who were early on in this process, in particular
Leo Szilard, fled Nazi Germany right after the Reichstag fire. He went and became an emigre in
London, then in the U.S. because of what he saw Hitler would mean. He was sure that war was
coming at that point. As he said, by the way, because he was sure the Germans would not resist.
Not because they would be enthusiastic about what he was doing, but they wouldn't oppose him
effectively. And so he left Germany.
He had the thought that very year in 1933, the possibility of a chain reaction- the first to
have that notion- that a heavy element being split by neutrons might emit more neutrons in an
explosive, exponential chain reaction, and produce both energy or an enormous explosion. And he
patented that idea and gave it to the Admiralty so that would not be known, he thought, to the
Germans. He was very anxious that Hitler not get that idea. Later, he was- when he concluded,
after uranium had been split. And he concluded with an experiment that he did that it did
release extra neutrons in the course of this. He said he shut off the device that was showing
this process with a sense that the world was sure to come to grief. In other words, he saw and
others saw right from the beginning that this was something that could threaten civilization,
and possibly the existence of humanity.
Two other points. In concern that the Germans would get it first, it was Szilard who drafted
the letter for Einstein to send- his colleague- to send to Roosevelt, asking, telling about the
German possibility, and that we should start a program so that the Germans did not get it
first. So he was the, Szilard was a critical figure in getting the program started. Finally,
working with Enrico Fermi, that I mentioned earlier, in Chicago, at what they called for cover
the Metallurgical Lab, they started the first working reactor, then called a pile, that would
demonstrate that you could control the reaction and produce plutonium. The reactors were
essential to producing the Pu-239 that was eventually used as the core of the Nagasaki bomb.
For most bombs, now. That night, the scientists who were present all celebrated with a bottle
of Chianti, and Szilard stayed behind and said to Fermi, "This day may go down as a black day
in the history of humanity."
So, some say it was evident from the beginning that this had a potential of, you know, the
most, when we say existential threat, literally the case. Not for the globe. Atmospheric
ignition, even that would not destroy the earth. Just all the conditions for life on it. It
would go like a rock through space. But that was, turned out with a number of tests, finally,
that wasn't a big problem. But destroying cities, that's what it was made for, essentially. And
by '42 the British had made their major project in the war, having been thrown off the
continent earlier, the destroying of cities by firebombing.
PAUL JAY: OK. Before we go there, let me just follow up one thing. When Germany loses
the war, and- as you said- there's no other nuclear power, why didn't the American scientists
quit the program?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: They worked harder. When Germany ended the war they were pressed to
redouble their efforts to get the bomb. Basically, people like Gar Alperovitz, but many others
have concluded in the end, in order to have the bomb before the war ended. Which, with the war
ended there'd be no excuse for demonstrating it on a city.
PAUL JAY: No, I get why the American military and the government wanted to keep it
going. But why didn't the scientists quit?
DANIEL ELLSBERG: They don't have a good answer. Many of them have asked later- they
were pressed to do it for national security. And of course, the Japanese too- for all they
knew, like the American public, not knowing that the Japanese were discussing, and discussing
with their ambassadors in Soviet Union and elsewhere, and with the Soviets their desire to end
the war if the Emperor could be kept. There were other conditions that the Army wanted. They
wanted more than that even after the bombs. But the Emperor and the people close to him and in
the foreign ministry were ready to end the war.
Oppenheimer and the others didn't know that. And they knew that the Japanese were fighting
very hard. And the idea of ending the war sooner rather than later- they were actually
contributing, in effect, to keeping the war going. Had there been no program, the- almost
surely, had there been no bomb program, the offer to negotiate with the Japanese would have
been earlier, instead of waiting for the bomb.
PAUL JAY: But the military wanted to be able to prove they had the bomb.
DANIEL ELLSBERG: No, it wasn't the military so much. It was actually Truman and
Burns, his foreign secretary. No, the military were in favor of making the offer, on the
whole.
And in a matter of fact, here is an almost funny thing in retrospect. LeMay, who was in
charge of dropping the bomb in the Pacific, was under Tooey Spaatz, who was in charge of all
the Pacific Air Forces. Neither of them were very enthusiastic about the idea of demonstrating
the bomb. As Spaatz put it later when he heard about the bomb, how could we justify a large Air
Force when the atom bomb exists? Even against Russia, one plane does the work of 300. Now, we
have 300. But how do you justify ever using them day after day to burn cities to the ground?
And we were doing that. And we killed more people that way, by firebombing, on the night of
March 9 and 10, 1945 in Tokyo than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
In the spring- or actually, after May of 1945 when the Germans had surrendered, so now we're
just facing Japan- for the first time, really, a committee was was put together under James
Franck. A Nobel Prize winner who, by the way, regretted his role and Germany's role in
introducing poison gas to the world in the First World War, and concluded in his own mind that
if the occasion ever arose again, he would demand real consideration in his new country, the
U.S., a role, a voice at least, in the policy implications of this scientific development.
So the Franck committee, which included Szilard, and as its rapporteur Eugene Rabinowitz,
who later became the head of the Federation of American Scientists, and the editor of The
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, with its doomsday clock. Rabinowitz was for many years the
editor of that. And they concluded- as I said earlier, the first group really to be looking at
it, thinking, amazingly enough, at the problem of where are we going with this? What are the
implications of it? What does it mean for the world to have this weapon, and what can we do
about it? Should have been done earlier. As I say, I believe if Rotblat had told people they
were not racing Germany, they would have had this process months, six months earlier, in the
fall, and possibly had much more influence on the final decision.
As I say, their recommendations, that the implications of the U.S. using this as a weapon in
war- one bomb, one city- a weapon that would soon become much larger, there would be thousands
of them, and would be supplanted by a weapon that was a thousand times more than this, that
they thought should not be undertaken. That should be an effort in international control, and
that required not having a monopoly of the bomb and using it in warfare. So we should at least,
as Niels Bohr said, bring the Russians in as partners. The alternative being they would get it
as adversaries within a few years in a cold war, which is what did happen.
So the front committee then met and had these conclusions, which did not get up through
channels to the president. Rabinowitz, I learned only in the last couple of years in a thing
that was not really published until quite recently, during the Franck Committee proceedings
after the report was finished made the proposal that they should reveal, they should go beyond
the bounds of security, and reveal to the public, the press and the public, not the details of
bomb making, but the fact that this enormous weapon was in prospect and was about to be used.
He actually put that in writing. I've never seen anything in writing, ever, like that in
government. In effect, a proposal by a government insider to leak.
Obviously, leaks happen all the time. not with much discussion, usually. people don't want
other people to know they might be a source. But in this case, Rabinowitz actually made that
proposal, and nothing came of it. Then, however, he revealed in a letter to the New York Times
in 1971, in June- a time very vivid in my memory because his letter came out in the New York
Times while Patricia and I, my wife and I, were eluding the FBI. We were they say underground
putting out the Pentagon Papers for 13 days while the FBI was searching for us. So I didn't see
this at the time. I wasn't seeing the New York Times. I saw it many years later that while we
were underground, he put out this letter saying, in the matter of Daniel Ellsberg that his
under public discussion now- they were searching for me- he said, I myself spent sleepless
nights in the spring of 1945 considering that I should reveal to the public this prospect- I'm
paraphrasing here a little bit, but I remember the sleepless nights very well. And how his
letter ended: I still believe that had I done so, I would have been justified. It would have
been the right thing to do. Well, indeed, had Americans known about this, as Rabinowitz said
later, I have no illusions that they might have supported the use of the bomb anyway. But at
least they would have responsibility. They would have known what we were getting into.
And Szilard, by the way, was meanwhile putting a petition together, which eventually had
more than 100 scientists, calling at first for not using the bomb even if it would save lives,
and then to get more signers saying at least it should not be done without a demonstration,
without the serious consideration of the moral concerns. None of this got to Truman. And in
fact, Szilard was forbidden to publish the petition, that it had occurred, for decades. And
when they finally did publish that there had a petition, they were unwilling to release the
names of the scientists with the authority. In other words, that there was this
alternative.
The point of all this is that time after time, I think, decisions were made in secret, at
high levels, without real consideration of long-term implications of this or of alternative
paths; without knowledge that the scientists had of what was coming, or where this might lead,
and so forth. And there were people who saw the dangers of this so clearly, that they knew that
civilization was in danger. I could go into the same story with respect to the H bomb. And in
each case, each one decided to keep his clearance- they were all men- at the time. As a matter
of fact, Hans Bethe's wife was one person, who was a physicist, who when Hans told her about
the H bomb they were imagining in 1942 said, do you really want to be part of this? And she's
the one person on record as sort of having told one of the scientists, think again about this.
But Szilard, as I say, they all wanted to say, well, the Germans are in the process, or later
the Russians are in the process, and they put aside moral considerations. But not one of them
took the step of acting on his concerns and fears to bring the public and the Congress into the
picture, and to have a discussion of whether this was the way that we wanted to go.
The bottom line for me is from the time they knew that Germany did not have the bomb- and
I'm saying now the fall of '45 for the British, at least, and Rotblat- the overwhelming
consideration about that bomb should have been how do we keep it from being an instrument of
national policy, by us or anybody? Now, that was far from the minds of the people at the top.
The idea of having a monopoly of it was so irresistible. There was no discussion whatever of
not doing it at that level. They say the Franck notion didn't get to them. And they didn't-
Franck didn't tell them, Rabinowitz didn't tell them, Szilard didn't tell them. By the way, the
FBI were afraid that Szilard, knowing his views, would leak on this, that he was under constant
surveillance. But as far as we know, it didn't occur to him to actually tell. C.P. Snow, who
had been in charge of scientific recruitment at one point- later a novelist in Britain, I've
read all his novels- commented, actually, on my case, in Esquire, after I was indicted for the
Pentagon Papers, along with several other people. And he said, I would not- you know, I had
sworn an oath not to tell secrets. I would not have done what Ellsberg did. However, I do have
the feeling that if Einstein had been made aware of what was coming, he would have found a way
to tell the public and bring them in.
It's very interesting what if- you know, conjecture. Because as a matter of fact, Szilard
did meet with Einstein in '45 to send his report, or his views, to Roosevelt. And before that
was actually set up Roosevelt died, and he was sidetracked over to Burns, who didn't sympathize
with this at all. But he couldn't tell Einstein why he wanted to see Roosevelt, because
Einstein wasn't cleared. Einstein was a pacifist. Not about World War II, not about Hitler. But
he was generally a pacifist; later head of the War Resisters League. And they didn't trust him.
So he didn't get a clearance, and he was never involved in the Manhattan Project, having laid
the theoretical foundations for it himself earlier. Szilard didn't tell Einstein, because that
would have put his own clearance in jeopardy, frankly. And they warned him. Groves and others
warned him. Keep in mind, this stuff is classified. Your clearance is at stake here, and so
forth.
No one actually came out, in the end. Oppenheimer, others who opposed the H bomb, did not
reveal to a totally unwitting and ignorant public or Congress what they knew, having been
persuaded that that would be unpatriotic. It would be not gentlemanly. That's what Dean Acheson
told them. Don't let them know why you are resigning from the General Advisory Commission. In
fact, don't resign at this time, because people will ask you why. Don't tell them the reason is
because an H bomb threatens the existence of humanity.
Fermi, on the General Advisory Commission at that time along with Isidor Rabi, signed a
report saying the super, the thermonuclear weapon, is in itself an evil thing. It should not
exist. And they even with Rabi proposed something like a test ban, moratorium. We won't test
first unless you do. But Truman overruled Fermi, and worked on the bomb; Bethe worked on the
bomb. They all did, you know, patriotically and whatnot. And that's why we're where we are.
Nobody felt, on the one hand, strongly enough to risk their own careers and their own status.
Or to put in a little better light, their own identity as people who were trusted by the
president to keep his secrets, whatever they were, was so important to them that it didn't even
occur to them that the public maybe ought to know about this. Where Rabinowitz is an
interesting exception is he did wrestle with that.
PAUL JAY: OK. In the next segment of our interview we're going to talk about those
firebombings, and how in 1942 the British established the precedent for it. Please join us for
Reality Asserts Itself with Daniel Ellsberg on The Real News Network.
The FBI is looking into claims that women have been asked to make false accusations of
sexual harassment against Special Counsel Robert Mueller in exchange for money -- but all may
not be as it seems. The alleged scheme aimed at Mueller, who has been investigating unproven
ties between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, came to the attention of his
office after several journalists and news outlets, including RT, were contacted by a woman
claiming that she had been approached by a man offering money if she would fabricate claims
against him.
13 days ago I received this tip alleging an attempt to pay off women to make up
accusations of sexual misconduct against Special Counsel Bob Mueller. Other reporters
received the same email. Now the Special Counsel's office is telling us they've referred the
matter to the FBI pic.twitter.com/oqh4Fnel5u
"... Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. ..."
"... Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003. ..."
"... Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years. ..."
On Wednesday, October 17, Vladimir Kara-Murza, a leading Russian liberal oppositionist, was interviewed by Keith Gessen, editor
of the n+1 magazine, in an event hosted by Columbia University's Harriman Institute for the Study of Eurasia, Russia and
Eastern Europe. The event was a stark testimony to the advanced preparations for a US-backed "color revolution" in Russia, i.e.,
an imperialist-orchestrated and funded movement of a section of the oligarchy and upper middle class to topple the Putin regime,
similar to those that have taken place in Ukraine and Georgia.
Vladimir Kara-Murza is one of the many shadowy figures of Russian politics who, while little known to most people inside or outside
Russia, are playing a key role in directing and supporting the US anti-Russia policy and the course of the Russian pro-US liberal
opposition. The son of Vladimir Kara-Murza, Sr., who was a major figure in the oligarch-controlled Russian media under Boris Yeltsin
in the 1990s, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Jr. worked for many years as the right-hand man of Boris Nemtsov, one of Yeltsin's key allies
in the 1990s and a right-wing political opponent of Putin, who was assassinated in 2015 under murky circumstances.
Along with Nemtsov, Kara-Murza was an early backer of the US congressional passage of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which targets
Russian oligarchs and officials who support the Putin regime and are accused of corruption and human rights abuses. He has lobbied
for the adoption of similar legislation by governments throughout the world. Through this work, Kara-Murza also became close to the
late John McCain, one of Washington's foremost supporters of "color revolutions" throughout the territory of the former Soviet Union.
In August, Kara-Murza served as a pallbearer at McCain's funeral, along with former Vice President Joe Biden and the actor Warren
Beatty.
Since 2014, Kara-Murza has worked for the Open Russia Foundation, which was founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who rose to become
one of the most powerful and richest oligarchs of Russia during the 1990s and was imprisoned by Putin in 2003.
In short, Kara-Murza has been at the center of the operations for a color-revolution-type movement in Russia for years. And this
is precisely what he was invited to speak on with the self-styled leftist and Russia expert Keith Gessen, founding editor of the
n+1 magazine, one of the most popular magazines among pseudo-left circles. (Gessen also teaches at Columbia University's
Journalism School and is the brother of Masha Gessen, who has been heavily involved in the anti-Putin media propaganda for many years.)
The event started with Keith Gessen asking Kara-Murza about the
assassination of Boris Nemtsov which the
latter, of course, attributed to the Kremlin. For most of the discussion, however, Kara-Murza detailed his involvement in the preparations
for a color revolution in Russia.
Kara-Murza insisted that "the history of Russia teaches us that big political changes in our country can start quickly and unexpectedly."
He referred to both the 1905 Revolution and the February Revolution of 1917, which, as Kara-Murza pointed out, even took Lenin by
surprise, and then the collapse of the USSR "in three days" in 1991. "This is how things happen in Russia", he insisted, and "the
problem with this is that nobody is prepared. We [at the Open Russia Foundation] see it as our mission to begin those preparations
for future change now. We cannot afford to not be ready again. Most of the things we do inside of Russia is targeted at preparing
for this future transition."
The Open Russia Foundation, he continued, had 25 regional branches and a series of working groups which were already elaborating
plans for political reforms and constitutional changes for the post-Putin period. Furthermore, they were focusing on "work with the
new generation, the people who will be in charge of Russia" through training and education programs. Lastly, they were doing "international"
work, which he himself was in charge of, which included "outreach" directed, again, at preparing the "future transition."
When later asked by an audience member how he saw the future of Russia in the next few decades, he declared that this change would
come not within the next few decades, but within the next few years.
When he was asked from the audience whether the latest pension reform, which is opposed by over 90 percent of the population,
could trigger the kind of "sudden change" he was expecting, Kara-Murza said: "It could but it doesn't have to. There is always the
argument that it's [going to be] something of a socio-economic nature. Actually, if we look at the two decades of Putin, the peak
of the protests was in December 2011 when the middle class was booming. It was about dignity, it had nothing do to with social issues.
The trigger will not be necessarily economic."
He continued, "The only really shaky point [for Putin] was when so many people felt insulted that the government was wiping its
feet over them. I think it's going to be something like that. A color revolution of dignity," like the events in Ukraine in 2014.
In other words, what Kara-Murza and the Open Russia Foundation are working on is the promotion of a right-wing middle-class movement
similar to the Maidan in Ukraine, which would provide the basis for a coup to topple the current government.
The key figures and mechanisms for such a "color revolution" were also addressed at some length. Keith Gessen asked how Kara-Murza
viewed the campaign of the blogger Alexei Navalny, who, as the WSWS has written, is a
far-right, pro-US figure who cloaks his right-wing
program behind murky phrases about corruption. Just how fraudulent and politically calculated this focus is became clear in the discussion
when Keith Gessen asked whether Navalny's focus on corruption as the center of his political platform was "a winning platform." Kara-Murza
responded: "Yes, it is. Corruption is such a widely understandable issue. It's an issue that everybody is aware of."
In the discussion, a graduate student from Harriman asked whether the Open Russia Foundation had a "particular road map" for what
to do when the "sudden event" Kara-Murza expected actually occurred. Kara-Murza replied: "If there were a model, it would be something
like the Polish roundtable [of 1989]. The way we want a transition to happen in Russia is peaceful and smooth. We don't want a violent
revolution. Russia has had enough revolutions. The problem is that the people who are in power today are doing everything for a revolution
to occur."
Then, he went into the figures who would be included in such a roundtable. "Of course, Boris Nemtsov would have been at the roundtable",
but, he assured his audience, there were many others. The figures he named were: Yevgeni Roizman, the mayor of Yekaterinburg, who
is a notorious far-right-winger, with deep ties to the local mafia. In Russia, he became known above all through his alleged "drug"
relief program, which has involved heavy physical abuse of drug addicts.
He also named Galina Shirshina, a member of the liberal opposition party Yabloko (which Nemtsov led until his assassination) as
well as Lev Shlosberg, a local politician in Pskov who is also a leading member of "Yabloko." Finally, Kara-Murza named Dmitri Gudkov,
who is heading the opposition "Party of Changes" with Ksenia Sobchak, the daughter of Putin's mentor Anatoly Sobchak, who
ran as a presidential candidate this year
.
"Navalny and Khodorkovsky would obviously also be at the roundtable", Kara-Murza added. When Gessen asked "What about the Communists?"
Kara-Murza said that Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Stalinist and National Bolshevik "Left Front", may also hope for a seat at
the roundtable. "We have very different views, but we have a good personal relationship. He's a decent human being, politically and
on a human level."
Then, he added, "there are also many nationalists who are not controlled by the Kremlin" and who could join the roundtable. Throughout
the event, Kara-Murza repeated that he and his allies were the true patriots and Russian nationalists, as opposed to Putin and the
oligarchs and officials around him. "I just don't want to bore everyone with a long list of names," he said, as he concluded his
enumeration of prospective of roundtable participants.
Like all Russian liberal oppositionists, Kara-Murza makes a hue and cry about rigged elections under Putin. Yet at no point did
he even mention the possibility of an election before or after such a "roundtable," the participants of which have most evidently
already been discussed and set.
There could hardly be a more open statement about the complicity of the so called opposition forces in Russian in a premeditated,
US-backed plot to overthrow the Putin regime and install another, more pro-US, right-wing government in its place.
Kara-Murza speaks for a section of the oligarchy which not only seeks to gain control over the social and economic wealth of Russia,
but also fears that a continuation of the Putin regime will threaten not only Russia's geopolitical position, but also social revolution.
They see their main goal in making sure that a reshuffling within the oligarchy and upper middle class takes place, to assure both
a reorientation of Russian foreign policy more directly in line with the interests of imperialism, and the ongoing suppression of
the working class.
The complete indifference toward the implications of these policies for the masses of working people in Russia was at full display
when Kara-Murza defended the process of capitalist restoration and the 1990s as time when Russia was actually make headway on the
world stage: Russia was included in the G8 and finally internationally recognized, Kara-Murza stressed.
He contemptuously dismissed any criticism of the 1990s by referring to this decade as the "supposedly horrible 90s." The fact
that the Russian economy experienced the worst collapse recorded in modern history for peacetime; that life expectancy plummeted,
that hundreds of thousands committed suicide and were driven into substance abuse and that workers were going without pay for months
and years, all of this is evidently of no concern to him.
Underlining the recklessness of the whole operation, the question of the potential consequences of a "color revolution" was not
even raised. But anyone who looks at the past three decades of US foreign policy knows where this type of intervention of leads:
civil war, ethnic strife, dictatorial regimes, and decades of economic, social and economic crisis. In the case of Russia, a "color
revolution" would most likely mean the violent break-up of the Russian Federation -- many opposition leaders in fact argue for different
borders of Russia. It would, moreover, raise the very immediate danger of a nuclear catastrophe: what if a section of the military
resorts to the vast nuclear arsenal of Russia to defend its interests? And what will the US military and NATO do if a color revolution
underway in Russia suddenly threatens to go astray? Will they intervene directly militarily?
The involvement of Keith Gessen in this dubious event is revealing. At no point did he raise something akin to a critical question.
His role was nothing but to ask polite questions and provide Kara-Murza with a platform. A self-styled leftist, Gessen has translated
and published the writings of Kirill Medvedev, a leading figure in the Russian Socialist Movement (RSM), a Pabloite formation in
Russia. This year, he published a novel "A Terrible Country" in which he, yet again, promotes the Russian pseudo-left. In 2014, the
RSM fully backed the far-right coup in Kiev. In Russia itself, the RSM has long shifted toward full support for Alexei Navalny's
right-wing "anti-corruption campaign," ignoring or dismissing his history of support for Russian fascism and racism. The role of
Gessen in this event is emblematic of the role of these forces as handmaidens US and European imperialism.
It was befitting for Columbia University's Harriman Institute to host this event: the first interdisciplinary Russia institute
to be formed after the beginning of the Cold War, it has historically been associated with US imperialist plotting against first
the Soviet Union and then Russia. To this day, the Harriman Institute, which is a non-profit, functions primarily as a think tank
as well as an educational and recruiting center for Washington's foreign policy establishment and the CIA.
For much of its existence, the Harriman Institute was dominated by the figure and work of
Zbigniew Brzezinski who, for over half a
century, played a central role in elaborating the world strategy and justifying the war crimes of US imperialism. One of Brzezinski's
political trademarks was his advocacy for fostering political opposition and insurrections in the Soviet Union, to undermine the
regime and thus fight what he saw as one of the US's main competitors for the control of Eurasia. The "color revolution" strategy
of US imperialism since 1991 stands in precisely this tradition. Now as then, far-right forces within the elites and fake left tendencies
are the props of imperialism "on the ground."
Events like the one at Columbia reveal much about the state of world politics. "Color revolutions" which will impact the lives
of hundreds of millions and threaten civil and all-out nuclear war, are being discussed and plotted behind the exclusive doors of
an Ivy League institution with an audience of some 50 people, most of whom are graduate students and professors who, one may assume,
either already are on the payroll of the CIA and the State Department or seeking to get there.
The Putin regime offers no alternative to these imperialist machinations. Like the sections of the oligarchy that Kara-Murza speaks
for, Putin and his cronies have emerged out of and enriched themselves on the basis of the destruction of the Soviet Union which
was carried by the Stalinist bureaucracy hand-in-gloves with imperialism. It considers not imperialism, but the Russian working class
to be its main enemy, and, hence, responds to every imperialist provocation is a response of desperate attempts to find a deal with
imperialism, largely behind closed doors, and the promotion of nationalism and militarism at home.
This sinister event is a warning to the international working class about the advanced preparations for the next step in the efforts
of US imperialism to topple the Putin regime and bring the resources of Russia under its direct control: it is high time for workers
both in the US and in Russia to intervene in politics on an independent basis to put an end to these dangerous conspiracies of imperialism
through the struggle for socialism.
"... War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate ..."
"... undermine American democracy ..."
"... are engaging in an elaborate campaign of 'information warfare' to interfere with the American midterm elections ..."
"... public evidence ..."
"... arsenal of disruption capabilities... to sow havoc on election day ..."
"... Kremlin propaganda ..."
"... portraying Russian and Syrian government forces favorably as they battled 'terrorists' in what US officials for years have portrayed as a legitimate uprising against the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Kremlin propaganda ..."
"... what US officials for years have ..."
"... undermining of American democracy ..."
"... We have met the enemy and he is us ..."
"... This article was originally published by The Nation . ..."
Allegations that Russia is still "attacking" US elections, now again in November, could
delegitimize our democratic institutions. Summarizing one of the themes in his new book, '
War with Russia? From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate ,' Stephen F. Cohen
argues that Russiagate allegations of Kremlin attempts to " undermine American
democracy " may themselves erode confidence in those institutions.
Ever since Russiagate allegations began to appear more than two years ago, their core
narrative has revolved around purported Kremlin attempts to " interfere " in the 2016
US presidential election on behalf of then-candidate Donald Trump. In recent months, a number
of leading American media outlets have taken that argument even further, suggesting that
Putin's Kremlin actually put Trump in the White House and now is similarly trying to affect the
November 6 midterm elections, particularly House contests, on behalf of Trump and the
Republican Party. According to a page-one
New York Times "report," for example, Putin's agents " are engaging in an elaborate
campaign of 'information warfare' to interfere with the American midterm elections ."
Despite well-documented articles by
Gareth Porter and Aaron Mate
effectively dismantling these allegations about 2016 and 2018, the mainstream media continues
to promote them. The occasionally acknowledged lack of " public evidence " is
sometimes cited as itself evidence of a deep Russian conspiracy, of the Kremlin's " arsenal
of disruption capabilities... to sow havoc on election day ." (See the examples
cited by Alan MacLeod .)
Lost in these reckless allegations is the long-term damage they may themselves do to
American democracy. Consider the following possibilities:
Even though still unproven, charges that the Kremlin put Trump in the White House have cast
a large shadow of illegitimacy over his presidency and thus over the institution of the
presidency itself. This is unlikely to end entirely with Trump. If the Kremlin had the power to
affect the outcome of one presidential election, why not another one, whether won by a
Republican or a Democrat? The 2016 presidential election was the first time such an allegation
became widespread in American political history, but it may not be the last.
Now the same shadow looms over the November 6 elections and thus over the next Congress. If
so, in barely two years, the legitimacy of two fundamental institutions of American
representative democracy will have been challenged, also for the first time in history.
And if US elections are really so vulnerable to Russian " meddling ," what does
this say about faith in American elections more generally? How many losing candidates on
November 6 will resist blaming the Kremlin? Two years after the last presidential election,
Hillary Clinton and her adamant supporters still have not been able to do so.
We know from critical reporting and from recent opinion surveys that the origins and
continuing fixation on the Russiagate scandal since 2016 have been primarily a product of US
political-intelligence-media elites. It did not spring from the American people – from
voters themselves. Thus a Gallup poll recently
showed that 58 percent of those surveyed wanted improved relations with Russia. And other
surveys have shown that Russiagate is scarcely an issue at all for likely voters on November 6.
Nonetheless, it remains a front-page issue for US elites.
Indeed, Russiagate has revealed the low esteem that many US political-media
elites have for American voters – for their ability to make discerning, rational
electoral decisions, which is the bedrock assumption of representative democracy. It is worth
noting that this disdain for rank-and-file citizens echoes a longstanding attitude of the
Russian political intelligentsia, as recently expressed in the argument by a prominent Moscow
policy intellectual that Russian authoritarianism springs not from the nation's elites but from
the
"genetic code" of its people .
US elites seem to have a similar skepticism about – or contempt for – American
voters' capacity to make discerning electoral choices. Presumably this is a factor behind the
current proliferation of programs – official, corporate, and private – to introduce
elements of censorship in the nation's " media space " in order to filter out "
Kremlin propaganda ." Here, it also seems, elites will decide what constitutes such "
propaganda ."
The Washington Post recently gave
such an example : " portraying Russian and Syrian government forces favorably as they
battled 'terrorists' in what US officials for years have portrayed as a legitimate uprising
against the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad. " That is, thinking
that the forces of Putin and Assad were fighting terrorists, even if closer to the truth, is "
Kremlin propaganda " because it is at variance with " what US officials for years
have " been saying. This was the guiding principle of Soviet censorship as well.
If the American electoral process, presidency, legislature, and voter cannot be fully
trusted, what is left of American democracy? Admittedly, this is still only a trend, a
foreboding, but one with no end in sight. If it portends the " undermining of American
democracy ," our elites will blame the Kremlin. But they best recall the discovery of Walt
Kelly's legendary cartoon figure Pogo: " We have met the enemy and he is us ."
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.
This article was originally published by The Nation
.
Hitler and Napoleon learned that it is impossible to conquer Russia size of continent of
militarily impossible weather with now a network of underground fortifications, tunnels that
cannot be nuked.
There is no conquering Russia with measly million soldiers west could at best deploy for
their sure deaths. Hence no western strategist plan for that and so the idea of Russia
responding to conventional attack with nuke was a propaganda aim to end the conversation
about that absurd, no sides really considers, but is used to spread fear.
US may attack Russia with nukes but no strategic goal would be achieved by that while
retaliation would have been devastating.
Even conventional attack on Russia is absurd. Poland 50k 5k offensive capability, All
Baltic states 10k, Slovakia 5k, Hungary 9k facing what?
Russian allies: Donbas rebels 40k war hardened rebel soldiers would be hard to beat;
Belarus 250k highly trained soldiers, fully integrated Air, Space, Ground and electronic
warfare with all newest Russian toys, while entire army of 2 millions. Russia 3-5 million
military can call at least 10 millions will maintain air and space superiority over their
territory , digged in while invaders are exposed.
There is will be no invasion of Russia only intimidation of the elites to submit to US
political and economic dictates. Also there is no conquering China as well. Not possible.
The only nuke war can occur when global elite will be losing grip on power and going down
in flames in socialist revolution and only to take entire humanity with them to hell.
If faced with an existential conventional attack, Russian doctrine calls for nuclear
response. It would be silly to think they'd limit it to low yield missiles in staging areas
in E Europe. They WILL hit continental US and the Pentagon whizkids know this.
The US is using every tool to destabilize them for a change of government, and all the
provocations to now are not on a scale of all out war. It does serve to build a compelling
narrative that allows no discussion when laws are finally passed limiting freedom of
information and association.
I see it as the real target being all the natural resources and cheap but skilled labor in
the former USSR (on top of bringing down a competitor), and the US population just stading in
the way because they're not brainwashed enough for the generals taste.
The capitalist economies can't work in autarchy, they need to get more markets, they need to
bring down competitors. or they fall themselves, If you place the control of the population
at the top of their priorities, how do you explain the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq etc ?
How do you explain the mamoth military budget ? is it just in case a whole US city turns
communist and they need to reduce it to ashes ?
First they would have to make sure the rest of the country didn't learn about the one that
went communist. Then instead of reducing it to ashes they would use the association trees
they have built tracking internet and social media to identify and round up the ringleaders.
Rest of the country might never even know what had happened between partial blackouts and
misinformation.
Don't get me wrong, the US would love to replace partial state control of key Russian
industries with Western banking interests and have a free hand with the natural resources.
This is certainly the long term plan. But...in the near term they have to reestablish control
of the narrative.
The military budget is wealth transfer to folks who enjoy and agitate for any war.
Afghanistan was about military contracts, hydrocarbons and opium, the Taliban had to go. Iraq
(and Syria) are a problem for Israel - problem solved. Libya was setting up an alternative
banking system and possessed attractive gold reserves.
Afghanistan was a good occasion for military contracts, but hydrocarbons of the whole region,
(especially the project for a pipeline through the caspian sea that Russia and Iran opposed),
were a bigger reason.
Why israel so important to the US ? because the resources of the whole region, and because
they could threaten the suez canal.
"... Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise." ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... While the present campaign over Russian "meddling" has much in common with the claims about "weapons of mass destruction," the implications are far more ominous. The "war on terror" is exhausted, in part because the US is allied in Syria and elsewhere with the Islamic fundamentalist organizations it was purportedly fighting. ..."
"... The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political dissent effectively treasonous. ..."
"... Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it. The target of the repressive measures is not Russia, but the American working class. The ruling elite is well aware that as it plots war abroad, it stands upon a social powder keg at home. ..."
Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass
demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State
Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was
rapidly stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was
planning to use against the United States.
In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held
up a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides
purporting to show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."
There was only one problem with Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to
end.
The World Socialist Web Site , in an editorial board statement published the next
day, declared the brief for war "the latest act in a diplomatic charade laced with cynicism
and deceit." War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction."
Rather, "it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political
aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global
hegemony."
The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different.
Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the
Iraqi government.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could have
examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations --
some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove
to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without
a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude
otherwise."
The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at
the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that
there "is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has
the capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and
more recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."
Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its media
accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one
million people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.
Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time,
instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once
again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again,
the media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American
government -- which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has
been relentlessly expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.
The argument presented by the American media is that the alleged existence of a
fly-by-night operation, employing a few hundred people, with a budget amounting to a
minuscule fraction of total election spending in the US, constitutes a "a virtual war against
the United States through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda" ( New York
Times ).
In the countless articles and media commentary along this vein, nowhere can one find a
serious analysis of the Mueller indictment of the Russians itself, let alone an examination
of the real motivations behind the US campaign against Russia. The fact that the indictment
does not even involve the Russian government or state officials is treated as a nonissue.
While the present campaign over Russian "meddling" has much in common with the claims
about "weapons of mass destruction," the implications are far more ominous. The "war on
terror" is exhausted, in part because the US is allied in Syria and elsewhere with the
Islamic fundamentalist organizations it was purportedly fighting.
More fundamentally, the quarter-century of invasions and occupations that followed the
dissolution of the Soviet Union is rapidly developing into a conflict between major
nuclear-armed powers. The effort of the American ruling class to offset its economic decline
using military force is leading mankind to the brink of another world war. As the National
Defense Strategy, published less than a month before the release of the indictments,
declared, "Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US
national security."
Russia is seen by dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus as a principal
obstacle to US efforts to control the Middle East and to take on China -- and it is this that
has been at the center of the conflict between the Democratic Party and the Trump
administration.
There have already been a series of clashes in recent weeks between the world's two
largest nuclear-armed powers. On February 3, a Russian close-air support fighter was shot
down by al-Nusra Front fighters, which are indirectly allied with the United States in its
proxy war against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Then, on February 7 and 8, Russian
soldiers were killed in US air and artillery barrages in Deir Ezzor, in what survivors called
a "massacre." Both the US and Russian governments have sought to downplay the scale of the
clash, but some sources have reported the number killed to be in the hundreds.
Even as US and Russian forces clashed in Syria, representatives of the Kremlin and the
Pentagon sparred at the Munich security conference this weekend over the deployment and
development of nuclear weapons. While accusing Russia of violating the Intermediate Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Washington this month issued a nuclear posture review
envisioning a massive expansion of the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons.
The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military
aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext
for censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures
adopted under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed
to believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political
dissent effectively treasonous.
Already, this campaign has led the major US technology firms to implement far-reaching
measures to censor political speech on the Internet. Google is manipulating its search
results and Facebook is manipulating its news feeds, while seeking to turn the social media
platform it has developed into an instrument of corporate-state surveillance.
Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic
principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it.
The target of the repressive measures is not Russia, but the American working class. The
ruling elite is well aware that as it plots war abroad, it stands upon a social powder keg at
home.
The working class must draw the necessary conclusions from its past experiences. In 2003,
the Democratic Party supported the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and provided it
with the necessary political cover. Now, the Democrats, along with their appendages among the
organizations of the upper-middle class, are at the forefront of the campaign for war,
employing neo-McCarthyite tactics to criminalize opposition while seeking to subordinate all
popular opposition to the Trump administration to its right-wing and militarist agenda.
The urgent task is to mobilize the working class, in the United States and
internationally, against the entire apparatus of the capitalist ruling elite. The fight
against war and dictatorship is at the same time the fight against inequality and
exploitation, for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a global socialist
society.
This is a typical projection. France is a member of "dirty four". Macron government is a
typical neoliberal cabinet, not that different from Merkel government. As such it is controlled
by the USA.
"Honestly, to say that we were surprised or upset is to say nothing. I think this condition
could be better described as 'shock' when we heard the spokesman for the French government, Mr.
Griveaux, just recently said the following. I quote: there are two media outlets that I refuse
to see in the press room of the Elysee Palace, they are RT and Sputnik because I do not
consider them to be media, they are not journalists, they are engaged in propaganda," Zakharova
said at a weekly news briefing.
According to Zakharova, such an approach is the result of
"the unwillingness of the French authorities to hear alternative sources of information."
Last month, two French government's think tanks issued a report, which recommended the
country's authorities to abstain from accrediting journalists of the RT broadcaster and the
Sputnik news agency.
Last year, RT reporters were denied entry to the headquarters of then-French presidential
candidate Macron twice in April, and in May, a Sputnik reporter was not allowed to enter the
square in front of Paris' Louvre museum where Macron and his supporters were celebrating the
victory in the presidential run-off. After Macron became French president, he accused RT and
Sputnik of "spreading false information and slander."
The situation around RT and Sputnik in France is not unique for the European Union: in 2016,
the European Parliament adopted a resolution claiming that Russia was waging information
warfare and singled out RT and Sputnik. Russian President Vladimir Putin said the resolution
proved that Western democracy was failing, but expressed hope that common sense would prevail
and Russian media outlets would be able to work abroad without restrictions.
MUST WATCH: Shocking Video by Comedian Bill Maher - Russia Delusion Still Raging Among US
LiberalsRichard
Brandt 10 min ago | 600 words 10
131RussiaHoax Bill Maher outdid
himself recently with this video, but in doing so, he inadvertently showed how out of touch the
Jewish Hollywood liberal elites like Maher are with most of the country, and even more so with
the rest of the world.
Take the 5 minutes to watch the video, it is an eye-opener. Bullet points follow below:
Somehow, Maher managed to pack the following into his monologue:
Republican party has become the party of Putin.
He brings up the pee tape (again)
Trump is a Russian "ho", Putin is his pimp
Compares Putin to Bin Laden
Russia "flipped" the entire Republican party
Russia is a dictator who keeps attacking the US
Putin is a thug
Russians are racists, that's why Conservatives like them
Says how wonderful he thinks it is that the UK, Germany, and France have become
multi-racial countries over the last 20 years. Says Russia bad for not doing the same.
Russia is a "Honkey Oasis"
Russia has "taken over America" by meddling in her elections.
"... What do the Democrats have - Nancy Pelosi, Chuckie Schumer, Billary and Obama? What program are they pitching other than more identity politics? ..."
A Republican win to retain their majority in both the House and Senate will be another
upset. The incumbent party typically loses in a mid-term. Obama and the Democrats got
whipped in his first mid-term. Typically a mid-term is not a national election and instead
many local races with their own dynamics. Trump has made it into a referendum on his first
2 years.
He's got a lot to talk about from tax cuts, to trade - a new NAFTA, tariffs on China,
two supreme court appointments, a quiescent North Korea, and the Mueller witch hunt.
What do the Democrats have - Nancy Pelosi, Chuckie Schumer, Billary and Obama? What
program are they pitching other than more identity politics?
It seems the odds makers are giving the Democrats the probability of winning the House
and losing seats in the Senate. Heck, Nate Silver is giving a 80% probability that the Dems
will win the House. Now, we all recall his 90% probability that Hillary would win the day
before the presidential election.
Trump as he did during the presidential campaign is running hard with well attended
rallies across the battleground states.
If the Republicans retain their majority, Trump will be on top. The vast majority of the
Republican establishment with the exception of Romney will kowtow to him. See the change in
Lindsey Graham since McCain passed on. With guys like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker out, Trump
could emerge even stronger among the Republican caucus. Mueller will be toast in this case
and it is quite possible that the conspirators at the FBI, DOJ, CIA, British &
Australian intelligence could be exposed by a newly invigorated House GOP.
"Trump continues to be an excellent salesman. He knows how to get and
maintain attention. Each day he makes some outrageous claim or acts on some hot button issue.
This has two effects: it is red meat for his base, and it gives major media attention to his
politics."
Spot on, b!
Scott Adams noted this during the presidential election and called it "persuasiveness". He
just pointed out the brilliant move by Trump on birth citizenship for children of illegal
immigrants. Trump knows he can't unilaterally change the constitution with an executive
order. But he's getting a lot of media cycles because of it. Combine that with the sending of
the military to the southern border in response to a threatened "invasion" by an organized
central american horde, allowing him to reinforce his anti-illegal immigration stand that
helped him win the Republican nomination.
In these close House elections he needs a higher GOP turnout. The Republican base is more
interested in issues like immigration and the Fake News media. Of course a currently strong
economy and the chipping away of the overwhelming black support for Democrats by making a big
deal about the lowest black & hispanic unemployment along with Kanye are all examples of
how he's using his media skills to his advantage.
I think you may be right, b. The Dems (Dims?) have done absolutely everything wrong since the
last election. They're now trying to turn this election into a referendum on the last one ...
and I think they're going to lose again. It's time for them to quit obsessing over Trump and
begin the hard work of trying to repair their relationship with 'flyover country'. Otherwise,
it could be a long, long time before they're returned power again.
A tweetstorm consisting of quotes from Israel Shamir's excellent
article on Bill Browder showing how he operated in an entirely Jewish milieu. Jewish ethnic
networking is alive and well in the twenty-first century.
Kevin MacDonald @TOOEdit Jul 27, 2018
What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This probably a uniquely Jewish
quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures,
unz.com/ishamir/the-go...
The Untouchable Mr. Browder?
The Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and
international crime.
Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they
present alleged evidence of money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by
Browder's structures officially to the senators and congressmen in order to promote the
Magnitsky Act
12:04 PM-Jul 27, 2018
Much bigger sums were transferred via good services of Brothers Ziff, mega-rich Jewish
American businessmen, said the researchers in two articles published on the Veteran News
Network and in The Huffington Post.
12:05 PM-Jul 27, 2018
Kevin MacDonald @TOOEdit Jul 27, 2018 # Replying to @TOOEdit
"Beneficiary of Browder's generosity is Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland, the engine
behind Magnitsky Act. Cardin is a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton, also a cold warrior
of good standing. More to a point, Cardin is a prominent member of Israel Lobby.
Kevin MacDonald @TOOEdit
"Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and
international crime. Almost all involved figures appear to be Jewish, not only Browder,
Brothers Ziff and Ben Cardin." Lists other Jews he was involved with: Robert Maxwell, Safra,
Berezovsky,
Russia tried to have resolution passed at the UN in favour of the INF Treaty. It was blocked
by Washington's EU lickspittles including Germany. Never, ever take any pronouncement by
NATzO hyenas at face value. When it comes time to put money where the mouth is, then true
beliefs become apparent. These morons couldn't even support Russia's UN resolution although
they are in harm's way from the death of the INF.
"... Whether Twitter had made an honest mistake, or scrambled to engage in damage control, is sort of immaterial at this point. Some of his posts have been archived , but not responses to them. All that suspending his account accomplished is to make it more difficult to parse the Florida man's motives. By the way, Sayoc's Facebook page was likewise taken down on Friday. ..."
The history of criminal behavior and online threats by Cesar Sayoc, the Florida man charged
with sending suspicious packages to prominent Democrats, somehow went ignored by both
government and social media police.
Sayoc, 56, was arrested on Friday, and stands accused of sending pipe bombs - 14, as of the
last count - to former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, actor Robert De Niro,
billionaire Democrat donors George Soros and Tom Steyer, and several Democrat lawmakers.
Federal authorities have refused to speculate on the suspect's motives, but news outlets
quickly pored over Sayoc's social media
feeds , finding photos and videos of pro-Trump memes, Trump rallies, and abusive language
towards Democrats. A van in which he reportedly lived, after losing his home to foreclosure,
was covered in pro-Trump decals. Twitter #Resistance activists, who had already coined the term
"MAGAbomber" to describe the suspect, rejoiced.
It was Sayoc's prior run-ins with the law that allowed the FBI to find him, matching a
fingerprint and DNA from some of the packages to samples they had on file. His criminal record
shows charges of grand theft, misdemeanor theft, battery, felony steroid possession, and even
threatening a bomb attack in 2002 - leaving an open question of how he kept getting
away with it all, over and over again.
Then there is the matter of Sayoc's social media accounts. Over the past two years, under
intense pressure by Democrats and drummed-up charges of "Russian meddling," Twitter and
Facebook have cracked down on users left
and right . Time and again, people engaging in protected free speech have been " shadowbanned " or
suspended, permanently or until they deleted posts someone reported as "offensive."
Yet when Democratic strategist Rochelle Ritchie actually reported Sayoc's account to Twitter
two weeks ago, over a threat she received from him after appearing on a Fox News show,
Twitter did not find the post
objectionable .
Richie then received an email from Twitter saying
the previous response to her complaint had been "an error."
Whether Twitter had made an honest mistake, or scrambled to engage in damage control, is
sort of immaterial at this point. Some of his posts have been archived , but
not responses to them. All that suspending his account accomplished is to make it more
difficult to parse the Florida man's motives. By the way, Sayoc's Facebook page was likewise
taken down on Friday.
Both Twitter and Facebook claim they are trying to improve "conversations" on their
platforms, and that their purges are nonpartisan. While technically correct, that's misleading.
Establishment figures and outfits somehow always skate, while both critics of Clintonism on the
left and Trump Republicans end up under the banhammer.
Meanwhile, the social media giants continue to insist they are not publishers, and delegate
the dirty work of policing to quasi-NGOs like the National Endowment for
Democracy and the Atlantic Council . They
end up deciding who's a "Russian bot" or "Iranian troll" based on arbitrary criteria, which the
mainstream media repeats uncritically.
That someone like Sayoc ended up under the radar of both the authorities and social media
police suggests that he was either deliberately tolerated, or that their "defense of democracy"
is a sham. It is perhaps fitting that none of Sayoc's bombs actually exploded; the only thing
they blew up in the end seems to be some illusions.
We say Browder, but we mean MI6. He was a part of larger plan concocted by US intelligence agencies to decimate Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
Of which Harvard mafia played even more important role. The fact that he gave up his U.S. citizenship in
1997 points to his association with MI6.
The level of distortions the US neoliberal MSM operated with in case of Magnitsky (starting with the widely repeated and
factually incorrect claim that he was a lawyers, in create a sympathy; their effort to portrait shady accountant involved in tax
fraud for Browder, as a fighter for justice should be described in a separate chapter on any modem book on the power of propaganda;
this is simply classic ) is compatible with lies and distortions of Skripal affair and point of strong interest ion
intelligence services in both.
Browder and Magnistsky affair really demonstrate that as for foreign events we already live "Matrix environment" of
artificial reality created by MSM and controlled by intelligence agencies and foreign policy establishment; and that ordinary people are forced into artificial
reality with little or no chance to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had relied on Browder's version without checking it. ..."
"... The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently investigate some of Browder's claims. ..."
"... In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion. ..."
"... The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud. ..."
"... The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler. ..."
"... A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin helped promote it. ..."
As Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya tells it, she met with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump aides in New York
last summer to press her case against a widely accepted account of Russian malfeasance, one that underpins a set of sanctions against
Russians.
Trump Jr., who agreed to the June 2016 meeting
at the request of a Russian business associate with a promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton , has said he didn't find much to interest
him in the presentation. And little wonder: The subject is a dense and tangled web, hinging on a complex case that led Congress to
pass what is known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposed sanctions on individual Russians accused of human rights violations. It
has nothing to do with Clinton.
But the substance of what the pair of Russian advocates say they came to discuss has a fascinating backstory.
It's an epic international dispute -- one that has pitted the grandson of a former American Communist who made a fortune as a
capitalist in Russia against a Russian leader who pines for the glory days of his country's Communist past.
That dossier,
published by Buzzfeed , made other, more salacious allegations about Trump, and FBI Director James Comey briefed the Republican
about it before he took office. The dossier is not favorable to Putin and the Russian government.
Simpson's role on both sides of the Putin divide is set to be explored in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday examining
the Justice Department's requirements for foreign lobbying disclosures.
Due to testify at the hearing is Simpson's longtime opponent in the Magnitsky dispute, William Browder, an American-born hedge-fund
investor who made millions investing in post-Soviet Russia and gave up his U.S. citizenship in 1997.
Simpson's lawyer said he would defy a subpoena to appear Wednesday because he was on vacation, and that he would decline to answer
questions anyway, citing his right against self-incrimination.
Browder, whose grandfather Earl led the American Communist Party, accuses Simpson of peddling falsehoods as an agent of the Russian
government. The law firm Simpson worked with on the case accused Browder in court papers of perpetrating a web of lies. Both men
dispute the allegations.
The Death of Sergei Magnitsky
The story begins with the November 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax accountant who was working for Browder, and
who later died in prison .
Browder's account of Magnitsky's death triggered international outrage. According to Browder, Magnitsky was a lawyer who had been investigating a theft of $230 million in tax rebates paid to Browder's
companies in Russia. Browder says his companies had been taken over illegally and without his knowledge by corrupt Russian officials.
Browder says Magnitsky was arrested as a reprisal by those same corrupt officials, and then was tortured and beaten to death.
Browder presented documents suggesting that some officials who benefited from the alleged fraud purchased property abroad.
That account led Congress to pass the so-called Magnitsky Act in 2012, imposing sanctions on the Russian officials who were alleged
to have violated Magnitsky's human rights.
The Russian government soon imposed a ban on American adoptions of Russian children, ostensibly for other reasons but done in
response, many experts say, to the Magnitsky sanctions.
Forty-four Russians are currently on the Magnitsky sanctions list maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department, meaning their U.S.
assets are frozen and they are not allowed to travel to the U.S.
Once a Putin supporter, Browder became one of the Russian leader's most ardent foes, spearheading a campaign to draw international
attention to the Magnitsky case. He and his employees at Hermitage Capital Management presented information to governments, international
bodies and major news organizations.
Browder's advocacy marks a shift from 2004, when, as one of Russia's leading foreign investors, he praised Putin so vigorously
that he was labeled Putin's
"chief cheerleader" by an analyst in a Washington Post article. Browder has said that Magnitsky's death spurred him to reexamine
his view of Putin.
The State Department, lawmakers of both parties and the Western news media have described the Magnitsky case in a way that tracks
closely with Browder's account. Browder's assertions are consistent with the West's understanding of the Putin government -- an authoritarian
regime that has been widely and credibly accused of murdering journalists and political opponents.
In 2013, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office sued a Russian company, accusing it of laundering some of the proceeds of the fraud
Magnitsky allegedly uncovered. The complaint incorporated Browder's account about what happened to Magnitsky.
That lawsuit set in motion a process through which that version of events would come under challenge.
The defendant, a company called Prevezon, is owned by Denis Katsyv, who became wealthy while his father was vice governor and
transport minister for the Moscow region, according to published reports. The father, Pyotr Katsyv, is now vice president of the
state-run Russian Railways. Veselnitskaya has long represented the family.
Prevezon hired a law firm, BakerHostetler, and a team that included a longtime New York prosecutor, John Moscow. Also working
on Prevezon's behalf were Simpson, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin.
Simpson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, declined to comment.
Simpson also worked with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in the creation of the dossier that asserts Trump
collusion with Russian election interference. A source close to him said his work on the dossier was kept confidential from his other
clients.
The federal civil lawsuit by the Manhattan U.S. attorney against Prevezon was the first opportunity for the U.S. government to
publicly present whatever evidence it had to support its legal assertions regarding Magnitsky. It was also an opportunity for the
defendants to conduct their own investigation.
Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had
relied on Browder's version without checking it. Browder and the U.S. government disagreed.
The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of
the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently
investigate some of Browder's claims.
In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because
he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion.
The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud.
The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for
a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler.
A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither
Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin
helped promote it.
Russians were robbed by Jewish people both domestic & foreign under Yeltsin & president Putin stopped them starting with Yukos
& Khodorkovsky & others like Berezovski fled to UK.
A similar history we found in the 30th in Germany which caused the rise of Adolf Hitler & his anti-Semitism ultimately ending
in the Holocaust.
Presently we see the same happening in USA where the Democratic establishment in media, industry & banks are fighting back
- using any illegal method in the book -against the white 'Waspy' Republicans of Trump. And let's not forget that the US population
is for 72% White!! That's NOT racism but pure & simple democracy at work.
Among the many untruths told about Donald Trump is the claim that his is not a movement of
ideas. As a candidate in 2016, Trump may not have spoken the language of the policy wonks. But
unlike those Republicans who did, his view of the world was not a stale ideological cliche. It
was instead refreshingly frank: about a foreign policy that couldn't win the wars it waged, an
economy that imperiled middle- and working-class America, and an immigration regime only the
employers of illegal nannies could love. Trump recognized reality, and that drew to his cause
independent-minded intellectuals who had also done so. The Trump movement suffers not from a
dearth of ideas or thinkers, but a dearth of institutions. It has thinkers but no think
tank.
F.H. Buckley, Foundation Professor at George Mason University's Scalia School of Law, is one
of its thinkers. His new book, The Republican Workers Party , comes from a publisher --
Encounter -- led by another, Roger Kimball. Buckley is no relation to William F., who as
writer, editor, and Firing Line host did more than anyone to make conservatism a byword
for eloquence in the latter half of the 20th century. But much as the other Buckley remade the
Right by founding National Review in 1955, this one aims to bring about a profound
change of heart and mind among conservatives. He wants to make good on the promise of the GOP
as a party for American workers.
It was a promise made right from the beginning, when in the mid-19th century the Republicans
were the party of free labor against the slavocracy. But the GOP and the country lost their
way. Today, in Buckley's telling, a self-perpetuating "New Class" of administrators and
mandarins runs the country from perches of privilege in the academy and nonprofit sector, as
well as the media, government, and much of the business world. Republicans of the Never Trump
variety are as much a part of this ruling caste as Clinton-Schumer-Pelosi Democrats are. And if
you might wonder whether someone in Buckley's position isn't part of the same professional
stratum, his answer is that he very much aspires to be a traitor to his class, just as Donald
Trump is.
Trump, writes Buckley, is "unlike anything we've seen before, for the simple reason that
he's up against something that we've never seen before: a liberalism that has given up on the
American Dream of a mobile and classless society." Those who today style themselves as
progressives are nothing of the sort -- they are not revolutionaries but the new aristocrats:
"They are Bourbons who seek to pass themselves off as Jacobins. They have bought into a radical
leftism, while resisting the call to unseat a patrician class that leftists in the past would
have opposed."
This is an eloquent explanation for an inversion that has puzzled many observers. Today's
Left, at least the mainstream Left represented by the Democratic Party, is now
establishmentarian. The Republican Right is now populist, if not downright revolutionary. "When
the upper class is composed of liberals who support socialist measures to keep us immobile and
preserve their privileged position," Buckley argues, "class warfare to free up our economy by
tearing down an aristocracy is conservative and just, as well as popular."
Buckley came to these conclusions before the rise of Donald Trump. They are at the heart of
his last two books, The Way Back and The Republic of Virtue . He recognized in
Trump a force for salutary change. So in early 2016, he signed up as a speechwriter for the
candidate and his family. At one point, this attracted unwanted attention: a speech delivered
by Donald Trump Jr. was found to have plagiarized an article in . Except it wasn't plagiarism:
Buckley was the author of both. I was editor of the magazine at the time, and Buckley is
correct when he says in The Republican Workers Party that I enjoyed the non-scandal --
because it brought attention to an essay I thought deserved a brighter spotlight than it had
initially received.
A further disclosure or two is in order: I also published some of the material that appears
in The Republican Workers Party in the journal I now edit, Modern Age , and I'm
thanked in the book's acknowledgments. My warm words for Buckley's last volume are quoted on
the dust jacket of this one. The review you're reading now is honest, but subjective -- I'm a
part of the story. Only a small one, however: Buckley reveals many details of the Trump
campaign and post-election transition that I had never heard before, including how Michael
Anton came to be hired and fired.
The campaign memoir is intriguing in its own right, but it's in the service of the book's
larger purpose. I've known Buckley to refer to himself as an economic determinist, and he's
also said that the future will be decided by a fight between the right-wing Marxists and the
left-wing Marxists. But those are exaggerations, and The Republican Workers Party isn't
primarily about economics: quite the contrary, it's about solidarity, humanity, and the
Christian spirit of brotherhood. The book is informed by a religious sensibility as much as it
is by policy acumen. But it's a religious sensibility that addresses the soul through material
conditions. Buckley is critical of attempts at a "moral rearmament crusade" that amounts to
shaming the poor and blaming them for their own condition.
On this, Buckley is at odds with what movement conservatism has promoted over the last
30-odd years, which is a pure moralism alongside a theoretically pure free-market economism,
each restricted to its own categorical silo. An economic conservative or libertarian might thus
approach Buckley's book with the trepeditation of a holy Inquisitor fearful that a friend will
be found committing heresy. But there is little in these pages that a free-market conservative
can quibble with at the policy level: rather it is the spirit in which economic conservatives
conduct politics that Buckley criticizes. He is even on the side of conservative orthodoxy,
more or less, when it comes to tariffs. He's a free trader at heart, though not a dogmatic
one.
On immigration, he favors a more Canadian-like, points-based system that would prioritize
skills, with a view toward providing maximum benefit for our current citizens, especially the
least well off among them. The present system "admits people who underbid native-born Americans
for low-skill jobs, while refusing entry to people with greater skills who would make life
better for all Americans." Canada lets in many more immigrants in proportion to its population
than the United States does, but "Canadians see an immigration policy designed to benefit the
native-born, so they don't think their government wants to stick it to them," even when it
comes to generous admission of refugees.
Buckley speaks from experience about immigration and Canada -- he was born, brought up, and
lived most of his life there before becoming a U.S. citizen in 2014. Like Alexander Hamilton,
whose Caribbean origins gave him a view of America's national economy unprejudiced by sectional
interests, Buckley's Canadian background gives him an independent vantage from which to
consider our characteristic shibboleths unsparingly. The separation of powers, for one, is a
dismal failure that "has given us two or more different Republican parties: a presidential
party, which today is the Republican Workers Party, but also congressional Republican parties
rooted in the issues and preference of local members. There's the Freedom Caucus composed of
Tea Party members, the more moderate Main Street Partnership and whatever maverick senators
were thinking this morning." Federalism too is a mixed bag. These are themes touched lightly
upon here but worked out in detail in such earlier Buckley books as The Once and Future
King .
That's not to say there's something alien about Buckley's ideas. He's an heir to Viscount
Bolingbroke, as were many of the Founding Fathers. (He contrasts Bolingbroke's disinterested
ideal of a patriot king, for example, with the identity-driven politics of the Democratic
Party.) But Buckley is also an heir to George Grant and the Anglo-Canadian tradition of Red
Toryism, a form of conservatism that does not bother itself with anti-government formulas that
never seem to reduce the size of government one iota anyway. Buckley's heroes are "leaders such
as Disraeli, Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston's father) and even Winston Churchill himself."
"They were conservative" but "they supported generous social welfare policies."
The policies that Buckley is most concerned about, however, are those that generate social
mobility. Education is thus high on his agenda. He is a strong supporter of vouchers and school
choice and points again to Canada as a success story for private schools receiving public
funds. But America is a rather different country, and as popular as vouchers are on the Right,
some of us can't help but wonder whether they would lead to the same outcome in primary and
secondary education that federal financial aid has produced in higher education. With the money
comes regulation, and usually soaring prices, too.
But Buckley is right that the defects of our present education system go a long way toward
explaining the rise of the new status class, and other countries have found answers to the
questions that perplex American politics -- or some of them at least. More adventurous thinking
is required if anything is to be saved of the American dream of mobility, in place of the
nightmare of division into static castes of winners and losers.
Libertarian economists and blame-the-poor moralizers are not the only figures on the Right
Buckley criticizes. He has no patience for the barely disguised Nietzscheanism of certain "East
Coast" Straussians, who imagine themselves to be philosopher-princes, educating a class of
obedient gentlemen who will in turn dominate a mass of purely appetitive worker bees and cannon
fodder.
Buckley's book is an argument against right-wing heartlessness. Its title may conjure in
some minds phantoms of the National Socialist German Workers Party or America's own penny-ante
white nationalist Traditionalist Workers Party, on which the media has lavished a certain
amount of attention in recent years. But fascists are not traditionalists, workers, or even,
properly speaking, socialists -- they simply steal whatever terms happen to be popular. Buckley
refuses to concede their claims and appease them.
He is eloquent in his American -- not white -- nationalism. "There isn't much room for white
nationalism in American culture," he writes, "For alongside baseball and apple pie, it includes
Langston Hughes and Amy Tan, Tex-Mex food and Norah Jones. You can be an American if you don't
enjoy them, but you might be a wee bit more American if you do." It's populism, not
nationalism, that he considers a toxic term, its genealogy tracing to figures like "Pitchfork
Ben" Tillman, a Jim Crow proponent and defender of lynch mobs.
He is right to defend the honor of nationalism, but Buckley may be mistaken in his animus
toward "populism," a word that for most people is more likely to bring to mind William Jennings
Bryan than the Ku Klux Klan.
Buckley's project in The Republican Workers Party parallels on the Right the task
taken up by Mark Lilla on the Left in last year's The Once and Future Liberal . Like
Lilla, Buckley wants to see a revival of mid-20th-century liberalism. For both, politics is
ultimately class-based, not identity-based. Lilla trains his fire on the identity-parsing Left,
while Buckley rebukes the Right for failing to fight the class war -- or rather, for fighting
on the wrong side, that of the self-serving New Class, the aristocracy of education,
connections, and right-thinking opinion.
This may seem nostalgic, but it's not: Buckley does not expect a return to JFK or Camelot,
even if, like Lilla, he once borrowed a title from T.H. White. The 21st century can only give
us a new and very different Kennedy or Disraeli -- an insurgent from the Right to retake the
center. In Donald Trump, F.H. Buckley found such a figure, but a movement needs a program as
well as a leader, and the program has to be grounded in an idea of humanity and the limits of
politics. The nation defines those limits, and while not every Trump supporter will agree with
Buckley's policy thought in all its specifics, the spirit of Buckley's endeavor represents what
is finest in the Trump moment, and what is best in conservatism, too.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has
released a new audit of a computer network at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Earth
Resouces Observation and Science (EROS) Center satellite imaging facility in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.
OIG initiated an investigation into suspicious internet traffic discovered during a regular
IT security audit of the USGS computer network. The review found that a single USGS employee
infected the network due to the access of unauthorized internet web pages.
Those web pages were embedded with harmful malware, and then downloaded onto a
government-issued laptop, which then "exploited the USGS' network."
A digital forensic team examined the infected laptop and found porn. After further review,
it was determined the USGS employee visited 9,000 web pages of porn that were hosted mainly on
Russian servers and contained toxic malware.
OIG found the employee saved much of the pornographic content on an unauthorized USB drive
and personal smartphone, both of which were synced to the government computer and network.
"Our digital forensic examination revealed that [the employee] had an extensive history of
visiting adult pornography websites" that hosted dangerous malware, the OIG wrote.
"The malware was downloaded to [the employees'] government laptop, which then exploited
the USGS' network."
The forensic team determined two vulnerabilities in the USGS' IT security review: website
access and open USB ports. They said the "malware is rogue software that is intended to damage
or disable computers and computer systems." The ultimate objective of the malware was to steal
highly classified government information while spreading the infection to other systems.
The U.S. Department of the Interior's Rules of Behavior explicitly prohibit employees from
using government networks to satisfy porn cravings, and the IOG found the employee had agreed
to these rules "several years prior to the detection."
The employee was discharged from the agency, OIG External Affairs Director Nancy DiPaolo
told
Nextgov.
However, this is not the first time government workers have been figuratively caught with
their pants down.
Over the last two decades, similar incidents have occurred at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Securities and Exchange Commission, and the IRS.
Last year, a D.C. news team uncovered "egregious on-the-job pornography viewing" at a dozen
federal agencies and national security officials have reportedly found an "unbelievable" amount
of child porn on government devices, said Nextgov.
It seems that porn watching on government devices is so widespread that Rep. Mark Meadows,
R-N.C., introduced legislation banning porn at federal agencies -- three separate times.
Government workers have a porn addiction problem, and it is now jeopardizing national
security.
"... As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners, plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion. ..."
"... Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro poses. ..."
As to your question about who votes for Bolsonaro, I think we can break this down into
three or four categories. His hard core is the sort of middle class of small business owners,
plus members of the police and the armed forces. This would be, I guess, your classic fascist
constituency, if you want to call it that. But you know, that's a very small proportion.
And certainly in terms of his voters, in terms of his voter base, that's a small proportion.
What you have, then, is the rich, amongst whom he has a very significant lead. He polls 60-65
percent amongst the rich. And these people are motivated by what is called [inaudible]machismo,
which is anti-Worker's Party sentiment, which is really a sort form of barely-disguised class
loathing which targets the Worker's Party, rails against corruption, but of course turns a
blind eye to corruption amongst more traditional right-wing politicians.
These are the people who, at the end of the day, are quite influential, and have probably
proved decisive for Bolsonaro. But that isn't to say that he doesn't have support amongst the
poor, and this is the real issue. Bolsonaro would not win an election with just the support of
the reactionary middle class and the rich. He needs the support amongst the broad masses, and
he does have that to a significant degree, unfortunately.
What are they motivated by? They're motivated by a sense that politics has failed them, that
their situation is pretty hopeless. The security situation is very grave. And Bolsonaro seems
to be someone who might do something different, might change things. It's a bit of a rolling of
the dice kind of situation. And you know, here the Worker's Party does bear some blame. They've
lost a large section of the working class. A large section of the poor feel like they were
betrayed by the Worker's Party, who didn't stay true to its promises. The Worker's Party
implemented the austerity in its last government under Dilma, which led to a ballooning of
unemployment. And you know, there's a sense that- well, what have you done for us? A lot of
people don't want to return to the path. They want something better, and kind of roll the dice
hoping that maybe Bolsonaro does something, even though all evidence points to the fact that
he'll be a government for the rich, and the very rich, and for the forces of repression.
GREG WILPERT: So finally, in the little time that we have remaining, what is
happening to Brazil's left? Is it supporting the Haddad campaign wholeheartedly?
ALEX HOCHULI: Yes, absolutely. It's pretty much uniform amongst the left. Certainly
in terms of, you know, in terms of individuals, in terms of groups, in terms of movements.
Everyone, from even the kind of far-left Trotskyist Revolutionary Socialist Workers Party who
hate PT have told its members that they should vote for Fernando Haddad who, it should be
noted, is a figure to the right of that of PT, I guess, within the party. He's a much more
centrist figure. So that's kind of notable.
What hasn't happened is a broad front against fascism. That hasn't really materialized,
because the Brazilian center has failed to defend its democratic institutions against the very
obvious threat that Bolsonaro represents. You know, just to highlight one thing, Eduardo
Bolsonaro, who is Jair Bolsonar's son and a congressman, has threatened the Supreme Court,
saying that you could close down the Supreme Court. All you have to do is send one soldier and
one corporal, and they'll shut down the Supreme Court. I mean, this is a pretty brave threat
against Brazilian institutions. And a lot of the center has failed to really manifest itself,
really failed to take a stand. Marina Silva, who was at one point polling quite high about six
months ago, who is a kind of an environmentalist and an evangelical and a centrist, and who is
known for always in her speeches talking about doing things democratically, even she- it took
her until this week to finally endorse Haddad, lending Haddad critical support.
The center right, which should be the, you know, the Brazilian establishment, the ones
upholding the institutions, have broadly failed to endorse Haddad as the democratic candidate.
Which is really, really striking. I mean, just to give you one example, probably the best known
figure for your viewers outside of Brazil who might not know the ins and outs and all the
players involved, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is a former academic sociologist who was
exiled during the military dictatorship and was president of Brazil in the late '90s. He has
yet to endorse Haddad, despite the fact that Bolsonaro previously said something about 10 years
ago that Fernando Henrique Cardoso should have been killed by the military dictatorship. This
is a real, in my opinion, a real failure of character, a real cowardice from the Brazilian
supposedly-centrist elite to defend democracy against the very obvious threat that Bolsonaro
poses.
GREG WILPERT: Wow. Amazing. We'll definitely keep our eyes peeled for what happens on
Sunday. We'll probably have you back soon. I'm speaking to Alex Hochuli, researcher and
communication consultant based in Sao Paulo. Thanks again, Alex, for having joined us
today.
"... Trump appears to have surrendered to the anti-arms control philosophy of John Bolton, who views such agreements as unduly restricting American power. (Bolton was also behind the 2001 decision by President George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an act the Russians viewed as inherently destabilizing.) ..."
"... By involving China, which was not a signatory to the INF Treaty, into the mix, the president appears to be engaging in a crude negotiating gambit designed to shore up a weak case for leaving the 1987 arms control agreement by playing on previous Russian sensitivities about Chinese nuclear capabilities. ..."
"... Although unspoken, both Bolton and Trump appear to be trying to drive a wedge between Russia and China. They're doing so as those two nations are coming together to craft a joint response to what they view as American overreach on trade and international security. While the Russian concerns over Chinese INF capabilities might have held true a decade ago, that doesn't seem to be the case any longer. ..."
"... The deployment of Pershing II missiles to Europe in the fall of 1983 left the Soviet leadership concerned that the U.S. was seeking to acquire a viable nuclear first-strike capability against the Soviet Union. The Soviets increased their intelligence collection efforts against U.S. targets to be able to detect in advance any U.S./NATO first-strike attack, as well as a "launch on detection" plan to counter any such attack. ..."
"... In November 1983, when the U.S. conducted a full-scale rehearsal for nuclear war in Europe, code-named Able Archer 83, Soviet intelligence interpreted the exercise preparations for the real thing. As a result, Soviet strategic nuclear forces were put on full alert, needing only an order from then-general secretary Yuri Andropov to launch. ..."
"... If the U.S. were ever to make use of the Mk-41 in an anti-missile configuration, the Russians would have seconds to decide if they were being attacked by nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Putin, in a recent speech delivered in Sochi, publicly stated that the Russian nuclear posture operated under the concept of "launch on warning," meaning once a U.S. or NATO missile strike was detected, Russia would immediately respond with the totality of its nuclear arsenal to annihilate the attacking parties. "We would be victims of an aggression and would get to heaven as martyrs," Putin said . Those who attacked Russia would "just die and not even have time to repent." ..."
"... There is no master plan here, no eleven dimensional chess. Trump appears to be weak, stupid, ill-informed and easily manipulated because he in fact is weak, stupid, ill-informed and easily manipulated. ..."
Of course he's not the first president the arch hawk has convinced to ditch a nuke
treaty Declaring that "there is a new strategic reality out there," President Donald
Trump's hardline national security advisor John Bolton announced
during a visit to Moscow earlier this week that the United States would be withdrawing from the
31-year-old Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. "This was a Cold War bilateral ballistic
missile-related treaty," Bolton said, "in a multi-polar ballistic missile world."
"It is the American position that Russia is in violation," Bolton told
reporters after a 90-minute meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Russia's
position is that they aren't. So one has to ask how to ask the Russians to come back into
compliance with something they don't think they're violating."
Left unsaid by Bolton was the fact that the Russians have been asking the U.S. to provide
evidence to substantiate its allegations of Russian noncompliance, something it so far has not
done. "The Americans have failed to provide hard facts to substantiate their accusations," a
Kremlin spokesperson noted last
December after a U.S. delegation was briefed NATO on the allegations. "They just cannot
provide them, because such evidence essentially does not exist."
Bolton's declaration mirrored an
earlier statement by Trump announcing that "I'm terminating the agreement because [the
Russians] violated the agreement." When asked if his comments were meant as a threat to Putin,
Trump responded, "It's a threat to whoever you want. And it includes China, and it includes
Russia, and it includes anybody else that wants to play that game. You can't do that. You can't
play that game on me."
Trump appears to have surrendered to the anti-arms control philosophy of John Bolton,
who views such agreements as unduly restricting American power. (Bolton was also
behind the 2001 decision by President George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, an act the Russians viewed as inherently
destabilizing.)
By involving China, which was not a signatory to the INF Treaty, into the mix, the
president appears to be engaging in a crude negotiating gambit designed to shore up a weak case
for leaving the 1987 arms control agreement by playing on previous Russian sensitivities about
Chinese nuclear capabilities.
In 2007, Putin had threatened to withdraw from the INF Treaty because of these reasons. "We
are speaking about the plans of a number of neighboring countries developing short- and
mid-range missile systems," Dmitry Peskov, Putin's spokesperson, said at the time ,
citing China, India and Pakistan. "While our two countries [the U.S. and Russia] are bound by
the provisions of the INF treaty there will be a certain imbalance in the region."
Although unspoken, both Bolton and Trump appear to be trying to drive a wedge between
Russia and China. They're doing so as those two nations are coming together to craft a joint
response to what they view as American overreach on trade and international security. While the
Russian concerns over Chinese INF capabilities might have held true a decade ago, that doesn't
seem to be the case any longer.
"The Chinese missile program is not related to the INF problem," Konstantin Sivkov, a member
of the Russian Academy of Missile and Ammunition Sciences, recently observed .
"China has always had medium-range missiles, because it did not enter into a bilateral treaty
with the United States on medium and shorter-range missiles." America's speculations about
Chinese missiles are "just an excuse" to withdraw from the INF Treaty, the Russian arms control
expert charged.
Moreover, China doesn't seem to be taking the bait. Yang Chengjun, a Chinese missile expert,
observed
that the U.S. decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty would have a "negative" impact on
China's national security, noting that Beijing "would have to push ahead with the modest
development of medium-range missiles" in response. These weapons would be fielded to counter
any American build-up in the region, and as such would not necessarily be seen by Russia as
representing a threat.
Any student of the INF Treaty knows
that the issue of Russia's national security posture vis-à-vis China was understood
fully when the then-USSR signed on to the agreement. During the negotiations surrounding INF in
the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviets had sought to retain an INF capability in Asia as part of its
Chinese deterrence posture. Indeed, the Soviet insistence on keeping such a force was one of
the main reasons behind the "zero option" put forward by the U.S. in 1982, where a total ban on
INF-capable weapons was proposed. The U.S. knew that the total elimination of INF systems was a
poison pill that Russia simply would not swallow, thereby dooming future negotiations.
Mikhail Gorbachev turned the tables on the Americans in 1986, when he embraced the "zero
option" and called upon the U.S. to enter into an agreement that banned INF-capable weapons.
For the Soviet Union, eliminating the threat to its national security posed by American INF
weapons based in Europe was far more important than retaining a limited nuclear deterrence
option against China.
The deployment of Pershing II missiles to Europe in the fall of 1983 left the Soviet
leadership concerned that the U.S. was seeking to acquire a viable nuclear first-strike
capability against the Soviet Union. The Soviets increased their intelligence collection
efforts against U.S. targets to be able to detect in advance any U.S./NATO first-strike attack,
as well as a "launch on detection" plan to counter any such attack.
In November 1983, when the U.S. conducted a full-scale rehearsal for nuclear war in
Europe, code-named Able Archer 83, Soviet intelligence interpreted the exercise preparations
for the real thing. As a result, Soviet strategic nuclear forces were put on full alert,
needing only an order from then-general secretary Yuri Andropov to launch.
The Soviet system had just undergone a stress test of sorts in September 1983, when
malfunctioning early warning satellites indicated that the U.S. had launched five Minuteman 3
Intercontinental missiles toward the Soviet Union. Only the actions of the Soviet duty officer,
who correctly identified the warning as a false alarm, prevented a possible nuclear retaliatory
strike.
A similar false alarm, this time in 1995, underscored the danger of hair-trigger alert
status when it comes to nuclear weapons -- the launch of a Norwegian research rocket was
interpreted by Russian radar technicians as being a solo U.S. nuclear missile intended to
disrupt Russian defenses by means of an electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear air burst.
Russia's president at the time, Boris Yeltsin, ordered the Russian nuclear codes to be prepared
for an immediate Russian counter-strike, and was on the verge of ordering the launch when
Russian analysts determined the real purpose of the rocket, and the crisis passed.
The Europeans had initially balked at the idea of deploying American INF weapons on their
territory, fearful that the weapons would be little more than targets for a Soviet nuclear
attack, resulting in the destruction of Europe while the United States remained unharmed. To
alleviate European concerns, the U.S. agreed to integrate its INF systems with its overall
strategic nuclear deterrence posture, meaning that the employment of INF nuclear weapons would
trigger an automatic strategic nuclear response. This approach was designed to increase the
deterrence value of the INF weapons, since there would be no "localized" nuclear war. But it
also meant that given the reduced flight times associated with European-based INF systems, each
side would be on a hair-trigger alert, with little or no margin for error. It was the suicidal
nature of this arrangement that helped propel Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan to sign the
INF Treaty on December 8, 1987.
This history seems to be lost on both Trump and Bolton. Moreover, the recent deployment of
the Mk-41 Universal Launch System, also known as Aegis Ashore, in Romania and Poland as part of
a NATO ballistic missile shield only increases the danger of inadvertent conflict. Currently
configured to fire the SM-3 surface-to-air missile, the Mk-41 is also capable of firing
Tomahawk cruise missiles which, if launched in a ground configuration, would represent a
violation of the INF Treaty. The U.S. Congress has authorized $58 billion in FY 2018 to fund
development of an INF system, the leading candidate for which is a converted Tomahawk.
If the U.S. were ever to make use of the Mk-41 in an anti-missile configuration, the
Russians would have seconds to decide if they were being attacked by nuclear-armed cruise
missiles. Putin, in a recent speech delivered in Sochi, publicly stated that the Russian
nuclear posture operated under the concept of "launch on warning," meaning once a U.S. or NATO
missile strike was detected, Russia would immediately respond with the totality of its nuclear
arsenal to annihilate the attacking parties. "We would be victims of an aggression and would
get to heaven as martyrs,"
Putin said . Those who attacked Russia would "just die and not even have time to
repent."
"We'll have to develop those weapons," Trump
noted when he announced his decision to leave the INF Treaty, adding "we have a tremendous
amount of money to play with our military." Nuclear deterrence isn't a game -- it is, as Putin
noted, a matter of life and death, where one split second miscalculation can destroy entire
nations, if not the world. One can only hope that the one-time real estate mogul turned
president can figure this out before it is too late; declaring bankruptcy in nuclear conflict
is not an option.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War
.
"Left unsaid by Bolton was the fact that the Russians have been asking the U.S. to provide
evidence to substantiate its allegations of Russian noncompliance, something it so far has
not done. "
Always the bottom line. And that has been our folly since 9/11. We have not had proof to
justify our actions. And the fact that this executive continues mollywog forward based soley
on the accusations of "knowledgeable advisers"
Laugh -- just makes for bad policy.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
But again the president has no ground. He has acknowledged that Russia sabotaged or
attempted to sabotage the US electoral process and believes as to the record that Russia
engaged in murder and attempted murder at the behest of Pres. Putin.
Anything less than aggressive confrontation makes him appear
1. he distrusts the intel and mil. community
2. he is too weak to stand up to Russia
3. actually colluded with Russia in sabotaging the
election
4. a combination of above
Minus the courage to stand his preferred course – foreign policy with Russia has
been relinquished to others. Even if their leadership has been repeatedly a failure.
Comments on the Yahoo message board (aptly named) capture the true reason quite well. We
bankrupted the Russians in the 1980's and we will do it again. There is an axiom Generals
always prepare for the last war.
Why compromise when you can win? Accusing your opponents of aggression and claiming the
moral high ground is just a bonus. We will break up Russia into even smaller pieces, Crimea
gone for good, Chechnya gone, far east gone, arctic claims gone, ?
Agreed, and what's left out of Trump-Russia discussions is how the Israelis wanted Trump
to do a charm offensive to the Russians over Syria. The idea was at Bibi's orders (from as
early as 2016) the US would relieve sanctions on Russia in exchange for Russia forcing
Iranians to leave Syria. It may also be used as Russia's permission for an US-led Iranian
invasion.
However, Israel just cannot help itself and persistent attacks on Syrians (not merely
Iranians) convinced the Russians they were bad faith actors. This was reported in Haaretz
over the summer but I've lost the link.
There is no master plan here, no eleven dimensional chess. Trump appears to be weak,
stupid, ill-informed and easily manipulated because he in fact is weak, stupid, ill-informed
and easily manipulated.
Trump surrenders to whoever's whispering in his ear. It happens to be Bolton, which is bad.
He surrenders because he has to, which is because he's stone ignorant about important
stuff.
That's all there is, baby. Bolton talks, Trump listens, and next thing you know it's fifty
years ago and we're in a nuclear arms race. This "the President wants" stuff you hear from
Bolton is a joke. It's "John Bolton wants, and the President says".
"... The harsh language may not be exactly diplomatic. What it does is reflect plenty of exasperation towards the US conservatives who peddle the absurd notion of a "limited" nuclear war. ..."
"... The harsh language also reflects a certainty that whatever the degree of escalation envisaged by the Trump administration and the Pentagon, that won't be enough to neutralize Russian hypersonic missiles. ..."
"... So, it's no wonder that EU diplomats, trying to ease their discomfort, recognize that this, in the end, is all about the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and the necessity of keeping the massive US military-industrial-surveillance complex running. ..."
By now it's clear the Trump administration's rationale for pulling out of the INF Treaty is
due, in Bolton's words, to "a new strategic reality". The INF is being dismissed as a
"bilateral treaty in a multipolar ballistic missile world", which does not take into
consideration the missile capabilities of China, Iran and North Korea.
But there is a slight problem. The INF Treaty limits missiles with a range from 500 km to
5,000 km. China, Iran and North Korea simply cannot pose a "threat" to the United States by
deploying such missiles. The INF is all about the European theater of war.
So, it's no wonder the reaction in Brussels and major European capitals has been of barely
disguised horror.
EU diplomats have told Asia Times the US decision was a "shock", and "the last straw for the
EU as it jeopardizes our very existence, subjecting us to nuclear destruction by short-range
missiles", which would never be able to reach the US heartland.
The "China" reason – that Russia is selling
Beijing advanced missile technology – simply does not cut it in Europe, as the
absolute priority is European security. EU diplomats are establishing a parallel to the
possibility – which was more than real last year – that Washington could
nuclear-bomb North Korea unilaterally. South Korea and Japan, in that case, would be nuclear
"collateral damage". The same might happen to Europe in the event of a US-Russia nuclear
shoot-out.
It goes without saying that shelving the INF could even accelerate the demise of the whole
post-WWII Western alliance, heralding a remix of the 1930s with a vengeance.
And the
clock keeps ticking
Reports that should be critically examined in detail assert that US superiority over
China's
military power is rapidly shrinking. Yet China is not much of a military technology
powerhouse compared to Russia and its state of the art hypersonic missiles.
NATO may be relatively strong on the missile front – but it still wouldn't be able to
compete with Russia in a potential battle in Europe.
The supreme danger, in Doomsday Clock terms, is the obsession by certain US neocon factions
that Washington could prevail in a "limited", localized, tactical nuclear war against
Russia.
That's the whole rationale behind extending US first-strike capability as close as possible
to the Russian western borderlands.
Russian analysts stress that Moscow is already – "unofficially" – perfecting
what would be their own first-strike capability in these borderlands. The mere hint of NATO
attempting to start a countdown in Poland, the Baltics or the Black Sea may be enough to
encourage Russia to strike.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov starkly refuted Trump and Bolton's claims that Russia was
violating the INF Treaty: "As far as we understood, the US side has made a decision, and it
will launch formal procedures for withdrawing from this treaty in the near future."
As for Russia's resolve, everything one needs to know is part of Putin's detailed
intervention at the Valdai Economic Forum .
Essentially, Putin did not offer any breaking news – but a stark reminder that Moscow
will strike back at any provocation configured as a threat to the future of Russia.
Russians, in this case, would "die like martyrs" and the response to an attack would be so
swift and brutal that the attackers would "die like dogs".
The harsh language may not be exactly diplomatic. What it does is reflect plenty of
exasperation towards the US conservatives who peddle the absurd notion of a "limited" nuclear
war.
The harsh language also reflects a certainty that whatever the degree of escalation
envisaged by the Trump administration and the Pentagon, that won't be enough to neutralize
Russian hypersonic missiles.
So, it's no wonder that EU diplomats, trying to ease their discomfort, recognize that
this, in the end, is all about the Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and the necessity of
keeping the massive US military-industrial-surveillance complex running.
Even as the clock keeps ticking closer to midnight.
"... Department of Justice and FBI officials in the Obama administration in October of 2016 only presented to the court the evidence that made the government's case to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate ..."
"... The FBI referred to Papadopoulos in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application - however what has been released to the public is so heavily redacted that it's unclear why he is mentioned. ..."
"... As The Hill 's John Solomon notes, based on Congressional testimony by former FBI General Counsel James Baker - the DOJ / FBI redactions aren't hiding national security issues - only embarrassment . ..."
"... President Trump issued an order to declassify the documents on September 17, but then walked it back - announcing that the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two foreign allies asked him to keep them classified. ..."
"... "My opinion is that declassifying them would not expose any national security information, would not expose any sources and methods," said Ratcliffe. "It would expose certain folks at the Obama Justice Department and FBI and their actions taken to conceal material facts from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." ..."
After hinting for months that the FBI was not forthcoming with federal surveillance court
judges when they made their case to spy on the Trump campaign, Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe (R)
said on Sunday that the agency is holding evidence which "directly refutes" its premise for
launching the probe, reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe provided Sunday the clearest picture to date of what the FBI
allegedly withheld from the surveillance court.
Ratcliffe suggested that the FBI failed to include evidence regarding former Trump
campaign adviser George Papadopoulos , in an interview with Fox News.
Ratcliffe noted that the FBI opened its investigation on July 31, 2016, after receiving
information from the Australian government about a conversation that Papadopoulos had on May
10, 2016, with Alexander Downer , the
top Australian diplomat to the U.K. - Daily Caller
While Australia's Alexander Downer claimed that Papadopoulos revealed Russia had "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton, Ratcliffe - who sits on the House Judiciary Committee - suggested on Sunday
that the FBI and DOJ possess information which directly contradicts that account.
"Hypothetically, if the Department of Justice and the FBI have another piece of evidence
that directly refutes that, that directly contradicts that, what you would expect is for the
Department of Justice to present both sides of the coin to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court to evaluate the weight and sufficiency of that evidence," Ratcliffe said,
adding: "Instead, what happened here was Department of Justice and FBI officials in the Obama
administration in October of 2016 only presented to the court the evidence that made the
government's case to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate."
The FBI referred to Papadopoulos in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant
application - however what has been released to the public is so heavily redacted that it's
unclear why he is mentioned.
As The Hill 's John Solomon notes, based on Congressional testimony by former FBI General
Counsel James Baker - the DOJ / FBI redactions aren't hiding national security issues -
only embarrassment .
Other GOP lawmakers have suggested that evidence exists which would exonerate Papadopoulos -
who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Maltese professor (and
self-professed member of the Clinton Foundation), Joseph Mifsud.
Ratcliffe suggested that declassifying DOJ / FBI documents related to the matter "would
corroborate" his claims about Papadopoulos.
Republicans have pressed President Trump to declassify the documents, which include 21
pages from a June 2016 FISA application against Page. House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Devin Nunes has said
that the FBI failed to provide "exculpatory evidence" in the FISA applications. He has also
said that Americans will be "shocked" by the information behind the FISA redactions. -
Daily Caller
President Trump issued an order to declassify the documents on September 17, but then walked
it back - announcing that the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two
foreign allies asked him to keep them classified.
"My opinion is that declassifying them would not expose any national security information,
would not expose any sources and methods," said Ratcliffe. "It would expose certain folks at
the Obama Justice Department and FBI and their actions taken to conceal material facts from the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir
Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's
head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows
in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy,"
Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.
"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has
already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"
About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but
fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through
the MSM.
A couple of reflections:
Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be
widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.
For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a
delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his
native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one
follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.) He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip: https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/
"... Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC. ..."
"... Another case of "Arkancide"? ..."
"... I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air. ..."
"... And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was nothing but an elaborate joke. ..."
If Russia had actually "hacked" the DNC emails then the National Security Agency would have had proof of such activity. In fact,
the NSA could have tracked such activity. But they did not do that. That lack of evidence did not prevent a coordinated media campaign
from spinning up to pin the blame on Russia for the "theft" and to portray Donald Trump as Putin's lackey and beneficiary.
Any effort to tell an alternative story has met with stout opposition. Fox News, for example, came under withering fire after
it published an article in May 2017 claiming that Seth Rich, a young Democrat operative, had leaked DNC emails to Julian Assange
at Wikileaks. The family of Seth Rich reacted with fury and sued Fox, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky, but that suit subsequently
was dismissed.
Now there is new information, courtesy of the National Security Agency aka NSA, that confirms that the NSA has Top Secret and
Secret documents that are responsive to a FOIA request for material on Seth Rich and his contacts with Julian Assange. While the
content of these documents remain classified for now, they may provide documentary proof that Seth Rich "dropped boxed" the emails
to Julian. If these documents are declassified, a big hole could be blown in the claim that Russia hacked the DNC.
PT, thank for the very detailed description of the entire story surrounding the supposed Russian hack of the DNC emails.
I always find myself screaming at the T.V. whenever a supposed reporter mentions the supposed Russian hack of the DNC computers
as if such an event is settled history.
I came to this summary today after I had turned my T.V. off since all the news is now about the "bombs" being mailed to the
Clintons and Obamas. (I was afraid a story line would soon continue that the bombs were from Russia via the White House. I can no longer feel certain that anything reported in the "news" is true and wonder what part of it is made up from thin air.
And I am sad that such a huge number of American citizens simply no longer care what is true or what is not true. They believe
only what they want to believe. Mostly I am sad that Seth Rich lived and died and few seem to want to know the facts surrounding his death.
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir
Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's
head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows
in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy,"
Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.
"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has
already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"
About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but
fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through
the MSM.
A couple of reflections:
Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be
widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.
For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a
delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his
native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one
follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.) He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip: https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/
CHURCH DISPUTE. I dreaded having to write something because I really don't know enough. But
US Secretary of State Pompeo has saved me much study by proving that those who see the hand of
Washington are correct to do so: " We urge Church and government
officials to actively promote these values in connection with the move towards the
establishment of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church ." Who knew an avowedly secular
state like the USA felt competent to make rulings on such esoterica as ethnophyletism or
autocephaly? You've heard Official Washington's opinion (swiftly retransmitted by your
local
news
outlet ), here are others: one ,
two ,
three , four
, five . Their argument
is that Constantinople has arrogated too much to himself and Orthodoxy will split; Washington
& Co talk of "freedom" (but don't show much understanding of who's who). This further
excuse for violence will increase the misery of Ukraine. (And, ironically, the dominant church
in western Ukraine, the home of the Ukrainian nationalism that's driving things, has nothing to
do with this: it's under Rome .)
NUCLEAR DOCTRINE. At Valdai, Putin made a statement on Russia's nuclear
doctrine . No change, but with a twist that caught people's attention: "Our concept is
based on a reciprocal counter strike... any aggressor should know that retaliation is
inevitable and they will be annihilated." The attention-catching part was "And we as the
victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would go to paradise while they will simply perish
because they won't even have time to repent their sins". Don't forget that American spokesmen
have made some stupidly aggressive statements lately.
AGRICULTURE. One of the most surprising developments to me, who remembers farms in the
1990s, has been Russia's agricultural turnaround. This five-minute report gives
an introduction.
STRATEGIC CULTURE FOUNDATION. Let me put in a plug for this site . It has now acquired quite a stable of writers (myself
included) and is a good place to get alternative views to those repeated by the drearily
monotonic Western outlets. There may be Russian government money behind it but my bet is that
the government's effort is still in RT (see below). My guess (and another author's) is that
it's bankrolled by a rich Russian who's tired of the endless anti-Russia coverage. I have never
had anything I have written changed or censored. I recommend you bookmark it.
WESTERN VALUES™. Enjoying the irony, RT introduces New Samizdat to bring you
the news that the Zap
GlavLit (if I may coin a neologism) hides.
NUGGETS FROM THE STUPIDITY MINE. Watch it . Adam Schiff , senior Democrat on
House Intelligence Committee.
INF TREATY. Trump talks of pulling the US out. Is this the loud prelude to re-negotiation
that we saw him do with Korea and NAFTA? Or is he clearing the battlespace for the expected damp squib from
Mueller or a blue dribble ? Tune in
in mid-November.
"... By Dan Smith, Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute . He is also a part-time Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Manchester, affiliated with the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute . Until August, 2015, he was Secretary General of International Alert , the London-based international peacebuilding organization. Originally published at his blog ; cross posted from openDemocracy ..."
At a political rally on Saturday 20 October President Trump announced that the US will
withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty
of 1987. This confirms what has steadily unfolded over the last couple of years: the
architecture of US-Russian nuclear arms control is crumbling.
Building Blocks of Arms Control
As the Cold War ended, four new building blocks of east-west arms control were laid on top
of foundations set by the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of
1972:
1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) reduced the numbers of strategic nuclear
weapons; further cuts were agreed in 2002 and again in 2010 in the New START agreement.
– The 1990 Treaty on
Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty) capped at equal levels the number of heavy
weapons deployed between the Atlantic and the Urals by the then-members of both the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). –
The 1991
Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) were parallel, unilateral but agreed actions by
both the US and the USSR to eliminate short-range tactical nuclear weapons, of which
thousands existed.
Taken together, the nuclear measures – the INF Treaty, START and PNIs – had a
major impact, as this graph from the Federation of American
Scientists shows:
The fastest pace of reduction was in the 1990s. A deceleration began just before the new
century started, and there has been a further easing of the pace in the last six years. But
year by year, the number continues to fall. By the start of 2018 the global total of nuclear
weapons was 14,700 compared to an all-time high of some 70,000 in the mid-1980s. Nuclear
weapons are more capable in many ways than before; the reduction is, nonetheless, both large
and significant.
Cracks Appear: Charge and Counter-Charge
Even while the numbers continued to drop, problems were emerging. Not least, in 2002 the US
unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty. That did not stop the US and Russia signing the
Strategic
Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2002 or New START in 2010 but perhaps it presaged
later developments.
Trump's announcement brings towards its conclusion a process that has been going on
for several years . The US declared Russia to be violating the Treaty in July 2014. That,
of course, was during the Obama administration. The allegation that Russia has breached the INF
Treaty, in other words, is not new. This year the USA's NATO allies also aligned themselves
with the US accusation, albeit somewhat guardedly (cf the careful wording in paragraph 46 of
the July Summit
Declaration ).
The charge is that Russia has developed a ground-launched cruise missile with a range over
500 kilometres. Many details have not been clearly stated publicly but it seems Russia may have
modified a sea-launched missile (the Kalibr ) and combined it with a mobile
ground-based launcher (the Iskander K system). The modified system is known sometimes
as the 9M729 , or t he SSC-8, or the
SSC-X-8 .
Russia rejects the US accusation. It makes the counter-charge that the US has itself
violated the Treaty in three ways: first by using missiles banned under the Treaty for target
practice; second because some US drones are effectively cruise missiles; and third because it
has taken a maritime missile defence system and based it on land ( Aegis Ashore )
although its launch tubes could, the Russians say, be used for intermediate range missiles.
Naturally, the US rejects these charges.
A further Russian criticism of the US over the INF Treaty is that, if the US wanted to
discuss alleged non-compliance, it should have used the Treaty's Special Verification
Commission before going public. This was designed specifically to address questions about each
side's compliance. It did not meet between 2003 and November 2016; it was during that 13-year
interval that US concerns about Russian cruise missiles arose.
Now Trump seems to have closed the argument by announcing withdrawal. Under Article XV of
the Treaty, withdrawal can happen after six months' notice. Unless there is a timely change of
approach by either side or both, the Treaty looks likely to be a dead letter by April 2019.
It could be, however, that the announcement is intended as a manoeuvre to get concessions
from the Russian side on the alleged missile deployment or on other aspects of an increasingly
tense US-Russian relationship. That is what Russian deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov,
implied by calling it "blackmail".
Arms Control in Trouble
Whether the imminence of the INF Treaty's demise is more apparent than real, its plight is
part of a bigger picture. Arms control is in deep trouble. As well as the US abrogation of the ABM Treaty
in 2002,
effectively withdrew
from the CFE Treaty in 2015 arguing that the equal cap was no longer fair when five former
Warsaw Pact states had joined NATO. – The 2010 New START agreement on strategic
nuclear arms lasts until 2021 and there are currently no talks about prolonging or
replacing it. – Russia
claims that the US is technically violating New START because some launchers have been
converted to non-nuclear use in a way that is not visible to Russia so it cannot verify
them in the way the Treaty says it must be able to. The Russian government's
position is that until this is resolved, it is not possible to start work on the
prolongation of New START, despite its imminent expiry date.
It seems likely that the precarious situation of US-Russian arms control will simultaneously
put increasing pressure on the overall nuclear non-proliferation regime, and sharpen the
arguments about the Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons . For the advocates of what is often known as the nuclear
ban, the erosion of arms control reinforces the case for moving forward to a world without
nuclear weapons. For its opponents, the erosion of arms control shows the world is not at all
ready for or capable of a nuclear ban.
The risk of a return to nuclear weapons build-ups by both Russia and the US is visible. We
risk losing the degree of safety we gained with the end of the Cold War and have enjoyed since
then. With US National Security Advisor John Bolton in Moscow as I write, and more importantly
with the well-earned reputation for springing surprises that the US and Russian Presidents both
have, there may be more developments in one direction or another in the coming days or
weeks.
The British author John Wyndham once wrote that 95 per cent of the human race wants to
live in peace while the other 5 per cent was always considering its chances if it should risk
starting anything. It was chiefly because no one's chances looked too good, what with nuclear
weapons, that the lull after WW2 continued. Now it looks like a new generation of wonks who
are not reality-based want to put the US in the position of being able to launch a
pre-emptive nuclear attack on at least Russia with missiles based in Europe. Like with the
old Pershing missiles, tough luck if you live in Europe. Russia has already said that they
will target any European country that houses these missiles with nukes.
Saw a hint on RT that if the US continues these efforts, that Russia may develop missiles
that could set off the Yellowstone Caldera. That would be not good. The Russians are always
ready to negotiate but the problem is that the US now has a reputation of being
agreement-incapable. Remember that Bush was stationing missiles in Europe as a shield against
non-existent Iranian nukes on top of Iranian missiles that did not have the range. Russia
suggested that the missiles be located in Turkey but the US refused. After the Iran treaty
went into effect, the US announced that – surprise, surprise – the missiles were
for use against Russia after all. How do you negotiate with something like that?
In regard to the INF Treaty the Russian newspapers have had some stories that they
consider that particular treaty likely the worst they ever signed. That's because the USSR
gave up many more missiles than the US did. The articles also mention that the Russians feel
they are many counties that have those type of missiles all around them. For example, China,
Pakistan, Iran and Israel are specially mentioned. Lastly the technology has changed so much
in the 30 or so years since that treaty was signed.
In a better time a new series of treaties might be negotiated but these are not better
times.
But there is a larger question here – I think one that applies to both Russia and
the United States – and that's the countries that are producing intermediate range
ballistic missiles and cruise missiles right now, specifically Iran, China and North Korea.
We have this very unusual circumstance where the United States and Russia are in a
bilateral treaty, whereas other countries in the world are not bound by it. Now some of the
successor states to the Soviet Union are bound by it, but it's really only Russia that has
the wherewithal to have this kind of program. So it has been the view of the United States,
in effect, that only two countries were bound by the INF treaty.
It appears that Mr. Trump likes bilateral trade agreements and multi-lateral arms
agreeements.
This is all part of Bolton's war on Russia. Like Trump, he indulges in old score-settling
with Beltway & Pentagon colleagues as well as proving he was right all along to oppose
these and most other treaties. I am highly suspicious of this entire fiasco.
Why are we so preoccupied with a country that has an economy a fifth the size of the US
alone (much less NATO/EU)? Even if allied with China and NATO ally (?) Califwannabe Erdogan,
Russia is more annoying than a threat.
Bolton, on the other hand, scares the crap out me. He's just plain nuts.
I'm very glad this post is up. That this isn't a huge story is a fine example of "The
tyranny of the urgent." (Those who read the transcript of Putin at the Valdai Club may recall
this passage :
[PUTIN] Look, we live in a world where security relies on nuclear capability. Russia is
one of the largest nuclear powers. You may be aware, I have said it publicly, we are
improving our attack systems as an answer to the United States building its missile defence
system. Some of these systems have already been fielded, and some will be put into service
in the coming months. I am talking about the Avangard system. Clearly, we have overtaken
all our, so to speak, partners and competitors in this sphere, and this fact is
acknowledged by the experts. No one has a high-precision hypersonic weapon. Some plan to
begin testing it in one or two years, while we have this high-tech modern weapon in
service. So, we feel confident in this sense.
Naturally, there are many other risks, but they are shared risks, such as environment,
climate change, terrorism, which I mentioned, and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. If we are unable to put an effective end to this, it is not clear where it
will lead to, and in whose hands this deadly weapon may end up.
So, in this sense, nothing has changed. We are not going anywhere, we have a vast
territory, and we do not need anything from anyone. But we value our sovereignty and
independence. It has always been this way, at all times in the history of our state. It
runs in the blood of our people, as I have repeatedly said. In this sense, we feel
confident and calm.
And this:
I have said that our nuclear weapons doctrine does not provide for a pre-emptive strike.
I would like to ask all of you and those who will later analyse and in one way or another
interpret my every word here, to keep in mind that there is no provision for a pre-emptive
strike in our nuclear weapons doctrine. Our concept is based on a reciprocal counter
strike. There is no need to explain what this is to those who understand, as for those who
do not, I would like to say it again: this means that we are prepared and will use nuclear
weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia,
our territory. I am not revealing a secret if I say that we have created a system which is
being upgraded all the time as needed – a missile early warning radar system. This
system monitors the globe, warning about the launch of any strategic missile at sea and
identifying the area from which it was launched. Second, the system tracks the trajectory
of a missile flight. Third, it locates a nuclear warhead drop zone.
Only when we know for certain – and this takes a few seconds to understand –
that Russia is being attacked we will deliver a counter strike. This would be a reciprocal
counter strike. Why do I say 'counter'? Because we will counter missiles flying towards us
by sending a missile in the direction of an aggressor. Of course, this amounts to a global
catastrophe but I would like to repeat that we cannot be the initiators of such a
catastrophe because we have no provision for a pre-emptive strike. Yes, it looks like we
are sitting on our hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear weapons against us. Well,
yes, this is what it is. But then any aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable
and they will be annihilated. And we as the victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would
go to paradise while they will simply perish because they won't even have time to repent
their sins.
I've see a video of a fancy new weapon. Is it real?
The Avangard is in testing or just completed testing. Depending what stories you see it
has been successfully tested at least once. Even successful testing may not mean deployment.
Earliest estimate for deployment is about 2020 in very limited numbers. I'm not sure how big
a deal this thing is as it launched from an ICBM. How much faster than an incoming ICBM
warhead does it move?
The Avangard has nothing to do with the INF.
The Russian nuclear doctrine does allow for the use of nuclear weapons – at least in
fairly narrow circumstances. The wording implies the circumstances would "have to threaten
the collapse of the state". First use in those circumstances might not be considered
preemptive. Putin help write to doctrine when he was Secretary of the Russian National
Security Council Staff .
Just a general thing, for those interested in excellent technical (both scientific and
legal/compliance) commentary on arms control, I highly recommend Arms Control Wonk . The level of discussion is very
high, the kind of level NC readers would appreciate. I'm in no way associated with it except
for being a longtime reader.
The UN was created not to sell Sustainable Development but to prevent Apocalyptic Riot.
During the Cold War & a Bi Polar power balance of separate economics it did the job.
However flawed it was, it did that one job.
Now it sits there selling Sustainable Development, which is great, but not what it was really
made to do.
If the UN, or a new one with an overt and covert armed forces becomes the World's Unitary
Power intent on eliminating nuclear weapons it could negotiate them away and fight a war or
two, and be involved in a permanent level of conflict to keep the fields free of nukes.
In fact the banning of nuclear weapons would give a UN the power to enforce transformational
energy programs. I have strong doubt that the UN as it exists now will prevent apocalyptic
riot.
Human nature being what it is does not get excited and passionate about the environment.
Humans get excited about big new power systems and war.
There has been a demonstrated desire to reduce the likelihood of nuclear war. The Cold War
worked. During that period it was long only the US & the USSR that had nuclear bombs and
delivery systems.
Russia moved into the Ukraine with tanks, took Crimea and got away with it. Pretty much the
situation is that wherever you see tanks move you may see the employment of tactical nuclear
weapons. A conventional ability to stop all tanks then is important for those nations
vulnerable to tank attacks.
In fact I say that you cannot expect to reduce nuclear devices unless you address the reason
for them, and that is to stop tanks. Reducing tanks first is then the right order to do
things. Come to tank treaties first and then tackle nuclear weapons and the rest of the WMDs
is what I say.
'Tactical' nuclear weapons are not the only way to stop tanks. The Russian move into
Crimea is hardly an argument for the superiority of a tank invasion or the need for tactical
nuclear weapons. Tanks are effective in open relatively flat even terrain, and as long as you
have control of the air and sufficient infantry support around them. If the objective is to
stop a tank rather than destroy it there are ways. You could stop a tank by spraying glue
over their weapons sight, or vision blocks, or the camera port for some of the more recent
armored vehicles. Even if you can't stop a tank you can stop parts from coming in to make
repairs or diesel to run the their hungry engines if their supply lines are not well
protected. The tanks will quickly stop on their own. You could also stop tanks with opposing
tanks if you're ready to absorb the costs for building the force and keep it ready to roll
near an attack corridor. Tactical nuclear weapons might save a little money (???) but they
are a hellish invention for increasing the threats to our fragile world as we transition
through Climate Disruptions into the new Anthropocene Climate Regime.
While you're working on those tank treaties, please include ground mines especially those
with plastic casings -- oh! and don't forget to eliminate those nasty spent-uranium
shells.
"Russia moved into the Ukraine with tanks, took Crimea and got away with it" Rather a
warped interpretation of a situation where the USA had overthrown the Ukrainian government
and Crimea had been part of Russia and the population overwhelmingly voted to return. NO
bloodshed at all. The video "Crimea, the way back Home" is worth a look.
While soon-to-be
ex-UN ambassador Nikki Haley might be the talk of the town at the moment -- from chatter she
should run
in 2020 against Donald Trump to replacing Mike
Pence on the GOP ticket all the way to
running against Pence in 2024 -- her many
faults are being glossed over. That's a big problem for someone being floated as the next
leader of the free world -- as recent history has
taught us all too tragically.
Thankfully, reality always has a way of casting doubt on such picture-perfect narratives
before they are ever fully formed. Case in point, buried in a recent
article from Harper's Magazine was the fact that Haley tried out her own amateur
hour version of what can only be described as nuclear poker: telling China's ambassador to the
UN that Trump might invade North Korea.
I had to read the article over and over to make sure I didn't miss something. But alas it
was real -- and terrifying. Such a threat, if relayed to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un,
combined with several other U.S. actions at the time -- and one that almost occurred that we
know of thanks to Bob Woodward's recent book -- could have set in motion a preemptive strike by
Pyongyang that almost certainly would have involved the use of nuclear weapons. And that means
millions of people would have died.
Now ask yourself: is this person really ready to be president? Is this what passes as the
stuff of presidential timber?
Here are the details. Journalist Max Blumenthal recorded Haley's remarks -- her last major
address before she handed in her resignation -- as the only journalist present at a late
September event at the Council for National Policy. In a Q&A session that Blumenthal
described as "an extended series of candid, and at times disturbing, recollections of Trump's
campaign of maximum pressure against North Korea," Haley broke down her opposition to the
president's tough talk at the UN. But the real money shot from Blumenthal's
piece is here:
It was September 2, 2017, and North Korea had just embarked on its sixth nuclear test
launch. Haley's mission was to ram a resolution through the UN Security Council to sanction
the isolated state. This meant that she had to secure abstentions from Russia and China, the
two permanent members that maintained relations with Pyongyang. It was a tall task, but as
she boasted to the rapt audience at the CNP, she had a few tricks up her sleeve.
"I said to the Russians, 'Either you're with North Korea, or you're with the United States
of America,'" Haley recalled. She said she went to the Chinese ambassador and raised the
prospect of an American military invasion of North Korea. "My boss is kind of unpredictable,
and I don't know what he'll do," she said she warned her Chinese counterpart.
Sadly, besides some mentions on social media and a
fewarticles
, her threat received very little mainstream media coverage. Maybe that's a blessing in
disguise. But one can easily construct a scenario where Haley's comment sets off a chain of
events that starts a Second Korean War. For example, we don't know what the Chinese ambassador
did after Haley made the threat, but most likely he promptly reported it back to Beijing. What
the Chinese government did with that information is vital. Did they warn the North Koreans? Did
they react in some other way?
We will never really know. However, if Pyongyang was tipped off by Beijing, seeing three
U.S. Navy aircraft carriers
drilling with South Korean and Japanese warships in November of last year surely must have
terrified them. Such a concentration of firepower would have been a prerequisite for any type
of invasion or attack. In fact, could these have been the reasons the north decided to test
another ICBM in November?
Again, we will never know. However, Trump's very real proposal, as reported in Bob
Woodward's book Fear , of "sending a tweet declaring that he was ordering all U.S.
military dependents -- thousands of the family members of 28,500 troops -- out of South Korea"
definitely would have provoked a response from the Kim regime.
While Woodward does not give specific dates as to when this nearly occurred -- the full text
before this section suggests an early 2018 timeframe -- he still reveals that we did dodge a
potential war. Just two paragraphs down, Woodward notes that on December 4, 2018, "[M]cMaster
had received a warning at the White House. Ri Su-yong, the vice chairman of the [North Korean]
Politburo, had told intermediaries 'that the North would take the evacuation of U.S. civilians
as a sign of imminent attack.'"
If you put it all together -- not to mention the now famous call to give Kim a "
bloody nose " in early January 2018 -- it is easy to see how close to war we came from
roughly September 2017 to early January of this year. If events had occurred just a little
differently -- if North Korea had perceived things in a direr way thanks to a Chinese warning
of a possible invasion, if Trump had acted on his impulses a little further -- our world would
be a very different place. Pyongyang, thinking an invasion was coming, might have decided that
its only chance to survive was to use its vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction before
they were destroyed. That would have meant launching atomic weapons at military bases and
potential ports of entry for U.S. forces in South Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii -- or even
attacking the American homeland itself with nuclear weapons. From simulations I have run over
the years, I can tell you that millions of people
would have died in such an event.
Thankfully, history broke a little different and it never happened -- and thank God for
that. But let's not heap praise on public figures who think they can bluff their way through
the great game of global politics. That's not what great presidents are made of.
Harry J. Kazianis(@Grecianformula) serves as director of
Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by President Richard Nixon.
The views expressed in this piece are his own.
"... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; Zen Cash ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and TheBumperSticker.com . ..."
Gareth Porter is interviewed on his article for Truthdig, " Can Trump Take
Down the American Empire? " Porter talks about revelations in the Bob Woodward book "Fear",
about the Trump presidency, and how they may pertain to the American Empire. Porter also talks
about the Trump presidency, North Korea, and Iran.
Yesterday
the news broke that Swamp Monster-In-Chief John Bolton has been pushing President Trump to
withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the 1988 arms control agreement
between the US and the Soviet Union eliminating all missiles of a specified range from the
arsenals of the two nuclear superpowers. Today, Trump
has announced that he will be doing exactly as Bolton instructed.
This would be the second missile treaty between the US and Russia that America has withdrawn
from since it abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
in 2002. John Bolton, an actual
psychopath who Trump hired as his National Security Advisor in April, ran point on that move as well
back when he was part of the increasingly indistinguishable Bush administration.
"This is why John Bolton shouldn't be allowed anywhere near US foreign policy," tweeted Senator
Rand Paul in response to early forecasts of the official announcement.
"This would undo decades of bipartisan arms control dating from Reagan. We shouldn't do
it. We should seek to fix any problems with this treaty and move forward."
"This is the most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s," Malcolm Chalmers,
the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute,
told The Guardian .
"If the INF treaty collapses, and with the New Start treaty on strategic arms due to
expire in 2021, the world could be left without any limits on the nuclear arsenals of nuclear
states for the first time since 1972."
"A disaster for Europe," tweeted Russia-based journalist
Bryan MacDonald. "The treaty removed Cruise & Pershing missiles, and Soviet ss20's from the
continent. Now, you will most likely see Russia launch a major build up in Kaliningrad &
the US push into Poland. So you're back to 1980, but the dividing line is closer to
Moscow."
"Russia has violated the agreement. They've been violating it for many years and I don't
know why President Obama didn't negotiate or pull out," Trump told reporters in Nevada.
"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and do weapons and we're not
allowed to. We're the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we've honored the agreement
but Russia has not unfortunately honored the agreement so we're going to terminate the
agreement, we're going to pull out."
What Trump did not mention is that the US has indeed been in
violation of that agreement due to steps it began taking toward the development of a new
ground-launched cruise missile last year. The US claims it began taking those steps due to
Russian violations of the treaty with its own arsenal, while Russia claims the US has already
been in violation of multiple arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements.
So, on the one front where cooler heads prevailing is quite literally the single most
important thing in the world, the exact opposite is happening. Hotter, more impatient, more
violent, more hawkish heads are prevailing over diplomacy and sensibility, potentially at the
peril of the entire world should something unexpected go wrong as a result. This is of course
coming after two years of Democratic Party loyalists attacking Trump on the basis that he has
not been sufficiently hawkish toward Russia, and claiming that this is because he is Putin's
puppet.
In response to this predictable escalation the path for which has been lubricated by
McResistance pundits and their neoconservative allies, those very same pundits are now reacting
with horror that Putin's puppet is now dangerously escalating tensions with Putin.
"BREAKING: Trump announces that the United States will pull out of the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty that the US has been in for 31 years," exclaimed the popular
Russiagater Brian Krassenstein in a tweet that as of this writing has over 5,000 shares.
"Welcome back to the Cold War. This time it's scarier And no, It's not Obama, or Hillary or the
Democrat's fault. It's ALL TRUMP!"
"Hilarious to listen to all this alarmed screaming about US withdrawal from INF Treaty
emanating from those who for 2 years have been demanding that Trump get tough with Russia,"
tweeted George Szamuely
of the Global Policy Institute. "Now that they've got their arms race I hope they are pleased
with themselves."
"Are those who have spent the past two years warning of a Trump-Kremlin conspiracy &
cheering confrontation w/ Russia ready to shut the fuck up yet?" asked Aaron Maté, who
has been among the most consistently lucid critics of the Russiagate narrative in the US.
Are they ready to shut the fuck up? That would be great, but this is just the latest
escalation in a steadily escalating new cold war, and these blithering idiots didn't shut the
fuck up at any of the other steps toward nuclear holocaust.
They didn't shut the fuck up when this administration adopted a Nuclear
Posture Review with greatly increased aggression toward Russia and blurred lines between
when nuclear strikes are and are not appropriate.
As signs point to Mueller's investigation
wrapping up in the near future without turning up a single shred of evidence that Trump
colluded with the Russian government, it's time for everyone who helped advance this toxic,
suicidal anti-Russia narrative to ask themselves one question: was it worth it? Was it worth it
to help mount political pressure on a sitting president to continually escalate tensions with a
nuclear superpower and loudly screaming that he's a Putin puppet whenever he takes a step
toward de-escalation? Was it worth it to help create an atmosphere where cooler heads don't
prevail in the one area where it's absolutely essential for everyone's survival that they do?
Or is it maybe time to shut the fuck up for a while and rethink your entire worldview?
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
"... I've come to the realization that the MSM and our government are using a very different definition of "democracy" and "democratic institutions" than the one in the dictionary. Their version of "democracy" is all about national security and financial interests, and have very little to do with elections and popular will. ..."
"... ideas and opinions ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... ideas and opinions ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @enhydra lutris ..."
"... @The Liberal Moonbat ..."
"... , surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges ..."
"... "There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have." ..."
We can soon forget Russia's "meddling" in the 2016 election (or
lack of meddling ), because the Justice Department is already throwing down indictments for
meddling in the
2018 midterm elections.
Russians working for a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin are engaging in an elaborate campaign of "information warfare"
to interfere with the American midterm elections next month, federal prosecutors said on Friday in unsealing charges against a
woman whom they labeled the project's "chief accountant."
Information warfare? That sounds serious. So what exactly is her objectives?
But this time, prosecutors said the operatives appeared beholden to no particular candidate. Russia's trolls did not limit themselves
to either a liberal or conservative position, according to the complaint. They often wrote from diverging viewpoints on the same
issue.
Uh, that's called trolling, and if trolling is against the law then 4Chan should watch out. It seems that trolling now equals
fraud .
It isn't just Russia. China and Iran are
meddling as well.
In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland
Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed any tallies
, but that the campaigns have spread "disinformation" and "foreign propaganda."
"We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies," the statement said. "These activities also
may seek to influence voter perceptions and decision making in the 2018 and 2020 U.S. elections."
So how exactly are they defrauding the American public? As for "undermine confidence in democratic institutions", we already know
that we are an oligarchy
, not a democracy. So I think the burden of evidence is on our government to prove otherwise, not on Russia.
I've come to the realization that the MSM and our government are using a very different definition of "democracy" and "democratic
institutions" than the one in the dictionary. Their version of "democracy" is all about national security and financial interests,
and have very little to do with elections and popular will.
You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this. But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.
@gjohnsit AFAIK, all those facebook posts would be legal if posted by someone in the USA. Are foreign
ideas illegal now? are ideas and opinions illegal?
You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this. But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.
RT aired a documentary about the OccupyWall Street movement on 1, 2, and
4 November. RT framed the movement as a
fight against "the ruling class" and described
the current US political system as corrupt and
dominated by corporations.
RT advertising
for the documentary featured Occupy
movement calls to "take back" the
government. The documentary claimed that
the US system cannot be changed
democratically, but only through "revolution."
After the 6 November US presidential
election, RT aired a documentary called
"Cultures of Protest," about active and often
violent political resistance
RT's reports often characterize the United
States as a "surveillance state" and allege
widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use
RT has also focused on criticism of the US
economic system, US currency policy, alleged
Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT's hosts have compared the United States to
Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and "corporate greed" will lead to US
financial collapse
#1
AFAIK, all those facebook posts would be legal if posted by someone in the USA.
Are foreign ideas illegal now? are ideas and opinions illegal?
Basically, this Russian woman is being indicted for doing the books for a Russian entity that incorporated a number of US businesses.
These businesses had persons write and post under pen names a number of articles dealing with political subjects. That has been
interpreted by the Special Counsel as a conspiracy to violate a federal campaign law that forbids contributions to US election
campaigns. That's right, the indictment construes written opinion to be the same as money contributions.
The case would probably be thrown out -- nobody has been prosecuted for this before -- however the woman indicted will never
be in court to defend herself, as the prosecutor and FBI know. Mueller is getting desperate to come up with indictments to fill
in his jig saw puzzle.
@enhydra lutris@enhydra lutris@enhydra lutris
speech is constitutionally protected and can't be limited by campaign finance legislation. Mueller appears to have decided on
his own to abrogate the Citizens United decision.
That would be okay, if he applied it to prosecute political mouthpieces such as AIPAC, along with corporate fronts owned by
the Saudis, Chinese, British and 100 other countries who similiarly post anonymously.
It's now undeniable: Mueller is the prosecutorial weapon of a very selective political vendetta.
But somewhere on the left, right around the fault line where Barack Obama is deemed to have been a bad president, opinion
turns back again toward skepticism.
It gets worse from there. I'm betting that this was written by someone from the Atlantic Council or maybe Friedman's twin brother.
This person sure went to a lot of work to deride anyone who doesn't believe in Russia Gate didn't he?
Facebook has almost admitted that they are censoring people and websites because of Russia's ads on it that they say affected
the election. BTW. Didn't Obama also use Cambridge Analytics during his campaign and did the same things that Trump did? Pretty
sure that he did. But I guess that was different because of reasons. Yep. That's why.
You would think from the MSM that Russiagate is "liberals" versus Trump, and that everyone on "the left" is OK with this.
But even some in the media have noticed that leftists that don't identify as Democrats are Russiagate skeptics.
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the voting
policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.
Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW.
This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want to
war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.
Months before the 2016 election they were already calling Jill Stein a "Nader spoiler" (
here , here , and
here )
Funny how 3rd parties are demonized in this "democracy"
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the
voting policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.
Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW.
This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want
to war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.
There is so much BS in that article it's hard to choose which one is the worst but I'm going with this one.
But Stein's willingness to praise Russian propaganda outlets and push Kremlin talking points didn't end in Moscow. Indeed,
she challenged – and arguably surpassed – Trump in crafting the most Moscow-friendly campaign of 2016.
For instance, Stein made the strange claim multiple times that NATO had "surrounded" Russia with nuclear weapons. As she
told The Intercept, "This is the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse, on steroids – in fact, on crack." (Less than 10 percent of
Russia's land border touches any NATO member-states.) She also said last year that NATO is only fighting "enemies we invent
to give the weapons industry a reason to sell more stuff."
This is what she actually said about NATO and Russia.
Stein: I think this is an issue where something does need to be said--but it's important to understand where they are coming
from. The United States, under Bush 1, had an agreement when Germany joined NATO--Russia agreed with the understanding that
NATO would not move one inch to the east. Since then NATO has pursued a policy of basically encircling Russia--including the
threat of nukes and drones and so on.
Okay and this one too.
Likewise, Stein claimed that Ukraine's 2014 revolution was, in reality, a "coup" that the U.S. "helped foment." Only two
other leaders have described Ukraine's toppling of former president Viktor Yanukovych as a "coup": Putin and Kazakhstani President
Nursultan Nazarbayev, whose country remains a security ally of Russia. Stein even spent time last year saying that "Russia
used to own Ukraine."
Pretty sure that during Obama's presidency the Ukraine government was overthrown by this country and now we're arming neo Nazis
with some very bad weapons.
ThinkProgress says it's being targeted by ad networks for producing 'controversial political content'. I'm thinking it's more
because they lie their asses off to people who read its website. This is the most blatant lying I've seen from a website. How
many people believed every word written there?
Join us on Sunday 10/28 to meet Jill Stein and Alameda/SF County Green candidates: Laura Wells, Saied Karamooz, Aidan Hill
and Mike Murphy. to support our candidates. People,... https://t.co/EtWyo6fism
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies.
I agree with your whole comment. Just wanted to make sure we don't leave out the monster that is the Dem establishment, aka
the other half of the single body that screws us every chance it gets. Supposed differences are only spoken, especially in election
years. When it gets down to the meat and potatoes, our representatives are one big symbiotic meal -- the kind that gives you the
shits until you're dead.
We are concerned about ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence
in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies,
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by its
gerrymandering and its voter ID policies. Look at what's happening in Georgia (?) where the guy running is in charge of the
voting policies and is kicking thousands of people off the voting rolls.
Influence government policies you say? If millions of Americans can't do that then how could a foreign country do it? BTW.
This is already happening what with all the lobbyists and super PACs. But sure. Let's blame the 3 countries that they want
to war with. Anyone who believes this shit ... well I'll not finish this sentence.
The GOP has made it so that over 10% of the population can't vote this year. I think it's in Georgia where thousands are being
kicked off the voting rolls almost every day by the dude that is in charge of it and he is also running for an office. They have
been gerrymandering the country and other things. Of course the democrats don't seem to be doing much to make it easier for people
to vote. But yeah, both parties are just as corrupt.
Isn't it Brian Kemp who is not only running for office, but he is also in a position to purge the voting rolls? This is a huge
conflict of interest and some judge should have stopped him from being able to do that. I guess that's what people are suing him
for?
Close to 500,000 people were not able to vote in one of the states that Trump won in. Not sure if they were Hillary's or Trump's
voters though.
BTW. People are upset with Jill Stein because they think that her votes cost Hillary the election when the libertarian candidate
got more votes than Jill did. And yet he's not blamed for her loss. I wonder why that is?
Isn't it Brian Kemp who is not only running for office, but he is also in a position to purge the voting rolls? This is
a huge conflict of interest and some judge should have stopped him from being able to do that. I guess that's what people are
suing him for?
Close to 500,000 people were not able to vote in one of the states that Trump won in. Not sure if they were Hillary's or
Trump's voters though.
BTW. People are upset with Jill Stein because they think that her votes cost Hillary the election when the libertarian candidate
got more votes than Jill did. And yet he's not blamed for her loss. I wonder why that is?
First off the GOP is doing a hell of a job undermining confidence in democratic institutions and the voting process by
its gerrymandering and its voter ID policies.
I agree with your whole comment. Just wanted to make sure we don't leave out the monster that is the Dem establishment,
aka the other half of the single body that screws us every chance it gets. Supposed differences are only spoken, especially
in election years. When it gets down to the meat and potatoes, our representatives are one big symbiotic meal -- the kind that
gives you the shits until you're dead.
Robert Mueller's indictment of the Russians who interfered in our election is a milestone in an ongoing investigation. The
charges focus on the Russians who used online social networking platforms to divide voters and disrupt the electoral process.
Changed any votes? Party affiliations? Removed people from the voting rolls? Closed down voting precincts? Didn't supply enough
voting machines for high voting areas? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope. Just placed a few ads on Fakebook and most of them after the
election was over. It's taken Mueller two years to look into this? If he hasn't found any evidence yet then why waste time and
money worrying about China and Iran doing anything? I'm thinking that Mueller is just pretending to be investigating, but he's
really spending his time golfing or whatever his favorite activities are.
@snoopydawg
, its like a nuclear submarine calling the teapot black.
Robert Mueller's indictment of the Russians who interfered in our election is a milestone in an ongoing investigation.
The charges focus on the Russians who used online social networking platforms to divide voters and disrupt the electoral
process.
Changed any votes? Party affiliations? Removed people from the voting rolls? Closed down voting precincts? Didn't supply
enough voting machines for high voting areas? Nope. Nope. Nope and nope. Just placed a few ads on Fakebook and most of them
after the election was over. It's taken Mueller two years to look into this? If he hasn't found any evidence yet then why waste
time and money worrying about China and Iran doing anything? I'm thinking that Mueller is just pretending to be investigating,
but he's really spending his time golfing or whatever his favorite activities are.
we were going to receive at Fitzmas? Hoping the Establishment is going to finally reveal its sausage-making, really is a flight of fancy. McSausage for the McResistance. The Public are to be seen at voting stations, and not heard.
Hell I am surprised they even mentioned that first part.
In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland
Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed any tallies,
At any rate cracked up when I read Caitlin on FB this morning:
Politico Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare To Kiss My Ass
"In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely and spend the rest of their
lives being mocked and marginalized."
#Mueller#TrumpRussiahttps://t.co/eN349xhjG3
We had Great discussion about
Caitlin's article. Lots of good comments.
Hell I am surprised they even mentioned that first part.
In a joint statement, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Justice Department, FBI and Department of
Homeland Security said they "do not have any evidence" that foreign countries have disrupted the voting process or changed
any tallies,
At any rate cracked up when I read Caitlin on FB this morning:
Politico Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare To Kiss My Ass
"In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely and spend the rest of their
lives being mocked and marginalized."
#Mueller#TrumpRussiahttps://t.co/eN349xhjG3
Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it. I have
followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.
There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the
claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made, and
those now are hard to make up.
As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the Western
powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance of
dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All issues
lead to Moscow.
The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan news".
-- John "Squinty Forehead Man" Graziano (@jvgraz)
October 18, 2018
Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it.
I have followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.
There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the
claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made,
and those now are hard to make up.
As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the
Western powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance
of dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All
issues lead to Moscow.
The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan
news".
computer that wasn't even hooked up to the internet. Brennan said that Russia tried to meddle in 21?state's voting rolls, but
the states said that never happened. But just like people are still saying that all 17 intelligence (3) agencies agree that Russia
interfered with the election people still think that the other stuff is true. This is why spreading propaganda is so powerful.
The lies are what they remember, not the retractions if they're ever given.
About those FB ads that swayed the election ...
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered
it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.
https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof
Actually, I am thinking nuclear war with Russia may be the terminus point, but in terms of propaganda we are seeing it.
I have followed the Russia hysteria since 2015 when it was in its infant stage here in the States, but advancing in Europe.
There are still some charges that Russians broke into certain accounts as Microsoft has claimed a few months back, but the
claims go no where as they have to admit they had absolutely no proof. And the story fades away until a new charge is made,
and those now are hard to make up.
As previous posters before in have commented above, basically the terminus point is ascribing all dissent within the
Western powers as Russian created. In this charge it is impossible to to argue as no proof is needed except for the existance
of dissent. No more charges which can be proved such as an actual hack. And that dissent can be for or against an issue. All
issues lead to Moscow.
The huge censorship of various sites done by Facebook and Twitter begin and are justified by the Russia hysteria and "fan
news".
computer that wasn't even hooked up to the internet. Brennan said that Russia tried to meddle in 21?state's voting rolls,
but the states said that never happened. But just like people are still saying that all 17 intelligence (3) agencies agree
that Russia interfered with the election people still think that the other stuff is true. This is why spreading propaganda
is so powerful. The lies are what they remember, not the retractions if they're ever given.
About those FB ads that swayed the election ...
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered
it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election.
https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof
A Washington federal judge on Thursday ordered special counsel Robert Mueller's team to clarify election meddling claims
lodged against a Russian company operated by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to Bloomberg.
Concord Management and Consulting, LLC. - one of three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals
for election meddling , surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges
. Mueller's team tried to delay Concord from entering the case, arguing that thee Russian company not been properly served,
however Judge Dabney Friedrich denied the request - effectively telling prosecutors 'well, they're here.'
*
Concord pleaded not guilty in May. Their attorney, Eric Dubelier - a partner at Reed Smith, has described the election meddling
charges as "make believe," arguing on Monday that Mueller's indictment against Concord "doesn't charge a crime."
"There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office
alleged a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have."
Concord is one of the corporations that Mueller said placed ads on FB to sway people's opinion on Trump and Hillary. The ads
that most were placed after the election.
"... The most distracting game player of all time, Donald Gump, is trying his darndest to weaken the dollar and force lower interest rates by doing everything in his power to destabilise global trade...which of course only serves to strengthen the dollar....because any hint of monetary instability for any reason will always be met with a "flight to safety." Whether the flight is in reality "safe" is beside the point. The flight itself is all that matters. The flight itself is the existential reality. ..."
"... China is onboard out of necessity. Their economy is doldrumic without the US market to sell into. The wealthy Chinese will continue to accept dollar debt notes forever, or so long as they can continue to sell trinkets to USAryans, whichever comes first; Gump's lacklustre trade maneuvres notwithstanding. And the US needs China to keep the consumer culture afloat. This is a pure balancing act but, again, no one of the .002, including those who are of Chinese and Russian descent, will risk any imbalance. ..."
<
"Money Sings and Bullshiite Clings (to the .998)">
In part one we discovered the global world is not what it appears to be, especially to
those of us who believe we have it all figured out from wet nursing on the internets. That
is, there is an interconnected globalist world for "them" and a multipolar, disconnected,
discognitive nationalist world for the rest of "us." And "we" are further subdivided by race,
gender, class, sociopolitical and religious biases as taught to us through "their" media.
The ones who control the information flow of the internets use this control to 1.
facilitate world trade 2. create even greater wealth for "them" 3. evade taxation of that
wealth 4. make even bigger fools out of the rest of "us" who remain year after livelong year
stuck glumly online following our favourite "nation/states" as if they are World Cup
contenders. When our favourite team wins, so the delusional daydreaming goes, the .998 win
too. Rah-rah, go team!
We determined the reason the dollar's acceptance as the international currency is
existential, as it has been since time immemorial. The world's financial oligarchs made that
determination postwar and placed their bets....in fiat dollars during the 1970s. Changing the
international currency system will require a complete re-wiring of that mindset. And for that
to happen Hell will first freeze over. After all, currency is merely a medium of exchange and
the controlling mindset belongs to those who control the wealth expressed in that medium. It
isn't up for popular vote folks. And those .002 controlling are the most conservative people
on earth. They exist in every nation on earth but they aren't playing some World Cup game.
No, their game is entirely different from ours. Our game is team sports.
The most distracting game player of all time, Donald Gump, is trying his darndest to
weaken the dollar and force lower interest rates by doing everything in his power to
destabilise global trade...which of course only serves to strengthen the dollar....because
any hint of monetary instability for any reason will always be met with a "flight to safety."
Whether the flight is in reality "safe" is beside the point. The flight itself is all that
matters. The flight itself is the existential reality.
China is onboard out of necessity. Their economy is doldrumic without the US market to
sell into. The wealthy Chinese will continue to accept dollar debt notes forever, or so long
as they can continue to sell trinkets to USAryans, whichever comes first; Gump's lacklustre
trade maneuvres notwithstanding. And the US needs China to keep the consumer culture afloat.
This is a pure balancing act but, again, no one of the .002, including those who are of
Chinese and Russian descent, will risk any imbalance.
This is Gump's hole card in his silly game of pocket poker.
And whither Russia?
Vladimir now realises what so many other unlucky business partners have.....help out the
Don to achieve his greater goals and sooner than later you will be rewarded with a swift kick
in the [very manly] groin. Vlad surely thought Gump owed him, too. Lol.
In a new article titled " Mueller
report PSA: Prepare for disappointment ", Politico cites information provided by defense
attorneys and "more than 15 former government officials with investigation experience spanning
Watergate to the 2016 election case" to warn everyone who's been lighting candles at their
Saint Mueller altars that their hopes of Trump being removed from office are about to be dashed
to the floor.
"While [Mueller is] under no deadline to complete his work, several sources tracking the
investigation say the special counsel and his team appear eager to wrap up," Politico
reports.
"The public, they say, shouldn't expect a comprehensive and presidency-wrecking account of
Kremlin meddling and alleged obstruction of justice by Trump - not to mention an explanation
of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and amateur Mueller
sleuths," the report also says, adding that details of the investigation may never even see
the light of day.
An obscene amount of noise and focus, a few indictments and process crime convictions which
have nothing to do with Russian collusion, and this three-ring circus of propaganda and
delusion is ready to call it a day.
This is by far the clearest indication yet that the Mueller investigation will end with
Trump still in office and zero proof of collusion with the Russian government, which has been
obvious since the beginning to everyone who isn't a complete fucking moron. For two years the
idiotic, fact-free, xenophobic Russiagate conspiracy theory has been ripping through mainstream
American consciousness with shrieking manic hysteria, sucking all oxygen out of the room for
legitimate criticisms of the actual awful things that the US president is doing in real life.
Those of us who have been courageous and clear-headed enough to stand against the groupthink
have been shouted down, censored, slandered and smeared as assets of the Kremlin on a daily
basis by unthinking consumers of mass media propaganda, despite our holding the philosophically
unassailable position of demanding the normal amount of proof that would be required in a
post-Iraq invasion world.
As I
predicted long ago , "Mueller isn't going to find anything in 2017 that these vast,
sprawling networks wouldn't have found in 2016. He's not going to find anything by 'following
the money' that couldn't be found infinitely more efficaciously via Orwellian espionage. The
factions within the intelligence community that were working to sabotage the incoming
administration last year would have leaked proof of collusion if they'd had it. They did not
have it then, and they do not have it now. Mueller will continue finding evidence of corruption
throughout his investigation, since corruption is to DC insiders as water is to fish, but he
will not find evidence of collusion to win the 2016 election that will lead to Trump's
impeachment. It will not happen." This has remained as true in 2018 as it did in 2017, and it
will remain true forever.
None of the investigations arising from the Russiagate conspiracy theory have turned up a
single shred of evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to rig the 2016
election, or to do anything else for that matter. All that the shrill, demented screeching
about Russia has accomplished is manufacturing support for
steadily escalating internet censorship , a
massively bloated military budget , a hysterical McCarthyite atmosphere wherein anyone who
expresses political dissent is painted as an agent of the Kremlin and any dissenting opinions
labeled "Russian talking points" , a complete lack of accountability for the Democratic
Party's brazen election rigging, a total marginalization of real problems and progressive
agendas, and an overall diminishment in the intelligence of political discourse. The
Russiagaters were wrong, and they have done tremendous damage already.
In a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would apologize profusely
and spend the rest of their lives being mocked and marginalized. In a world wherein pundits and
politicians can sell the public a war which results in the slaughter of a million Iraqis and
suffer no consequences of any kind, however, we all know that that isn't going to happen.
Russiagate will end not with a bang, but with a series of carefully crafted diversions. The
goalposts will be moved, the news churn will shuffle on, the herd will be guided into
supporting the next depraved oligarchic agenda , and almost nobody will have the intellectual
honesty and courage to say "Hey! Weren't these assholes promising us we'll see Trump dragged
off in chains a while back? Whatever happened to that? And why are we all talking about China
now?"
But whether they grasp it or not, mainstream liberals have been completely discredited. The
mass media outlets which inflicted this obscene psyop upon their audiences deserve to be driven
out of business. The establishment which would inflict such intrusive psychological
brutalization upon its populace just to advance a few preexisting agendas has proven that it
deserves to be opposed on every front and rejected at every turn.
And those of us who have been standing firm and saying this all along deserve to be listened
to. We were right. You were wrong. Time to sit down, shut up, stop babbling about Russian bots
for ten seconds, and let those who see clearly get a word in edgewise.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
It's not over until every corrupt "player" who had a material role in the DemoRats'
corrupt scheme to fraudulently frame Trump is brought to justice. Not to do so means there's
absolutely no deterrent to prevent the DemoRats from repeatedly fraudulently weaponizing
government agencies to attack their political opponents (defined as "Obamunism'). After all,
this was the most egregious fraudulent and illegal political conspiracy in our nation's
history. The DemoRat players must spend a decade or more in the big house. You'd think the
MSM would like that, as the trials of the traitors to America would give the MSM fodder for
their endless psycho-babble and shift attention away from the MSM's complicity in
Obamunism.
That ******* **** Maddow is the deep state's Tokyo Rose and should be yanked from the
airwaves and prosecuted for seditious lies and slander. She has plenty of company at the
other major news networks as well.
Can you imagine all of the "Deer-Caught-In-The-Headlights" looks if Mueller were to come
out with an indictment of Hillary, the Decepticrats and the DNC? I can!
All of this Russia ******** has been a diversion to distract the current administration
and to inhibit the discovery of the real crimes that have been committed against the US and
the world since 1991 when GHWB took office... Everything from 9-11 to WMDs in Iraq to
billions of $$$ in cash being airlifted to Iran to Barry Soetoro being a stooge for Saudi
Arabia... They have bought themselves two years in the process, but they cannot stop the
truth coming out...
I spoke to an ex-pat Indian, now an American citizen; settled there for three decades and
more. Well knowledgeable. He praised Pres. Trump but told me, "But Trump did not win fair."
When I told him that this Russia probe is going to wind up, admitting no collusion, he was
surprised. Then I told him that his favourite media are lying to him; he was confused. Then I
asked him to google "Seth Rich"; he was stunned. Finally it dawned on him he was the Truman
without the benefit of a show. By the time I did my talk over, about 20 minutes later, he was
a much chastised man. He had the intellectual integrity to admit that he was wrong, that he
had been fooled and he ought to have been more careful.
Thank you Caitlin, you have been a truth advocate from the beginning. We have been waiting
for #Russiagate ******** to end and embarrass the Democrats. Unfortunately, President Trump
is starting to be hostile towards Russia now. What a pity it was, that Democrats ruined a
chance of Peace !
The entire Mueller probe is based on a lie... Rosenstein called for a special counsel
without evidence of a crime being committed and no, collusion is not a crime on the
books...
Why all of this has taken 2 years to come to light is beyond me.. The only answer is that
the entire affair has been a giant kabuki show on both sides of the aisle to keep the people
distracted and divided...
Not just the Obama admin spying on Trump, but to tie his hands in investigating everything
from billions of $$$ in cash being delivered to Iran, to who controls Barry Soetoro himself,
to Uranium one, to the Clinton Foundation and on and on and on... There is ample evidence
that the US was infiltrated by a Manchurian Candidate that was hell-bent on destroying the
country, but what we have gotten as a by-product is half of the country hating the US... Weak
minded lemmings that want socialism... The US is fucked and has been for decades... All part
of the reason I left...
The best part is, I hope Carter page , George papadopolous, Paul manafort, and myriad
Russian defendants drag their lawsuits out forever and bring unlimited documents into
discovery, pulling these **** head shill lawyers into never ending court circuses and
hopefully sue Mueller's team to recoup the wasted taxpayer millions. BTW much of this is the
fault of shills like McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Sasse, Jeff Flake, and the other neocon
establishment who would rather see Trump taken down by Democrat hoax operations than
legitimately beat them.
This is ridiculous, the result could not be clearer:
If there's any suggestion that Mueller's report cannot be released then we know without a
doubt that the report contains absolutely nothing of consequence.
Otherwise, why would they do so much preparation for disappointment.
I too hope that all the people who have been ruined by this debacle bring countless legal
actions that require public disclosure of alleged 'secret' documents.
In the end Trump will have to, regardless of protest from the UK or anyone else for that
matter, have to declassify the whole lot of it so that his false accusers are laid bare on
the alter of shame for all to see.
They never could win legitimately so they cheated like no other, and of course as the
foundation they used the queen cheater Hillary Clinton herself. I hope she does run for
election in 2020, it will be 3 strikes and the bitch is out. What an embarassement for
Hillary.
Obama was a neocon, Trump is a neocon. what's new ?
Chinese leaders appeared to be acting on the advice of the 6th century BC philosopher and general Sun Tzu, who wrote in The Art
of War, "there is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."
Candidate Trump railed against the invasion of Iraq during his campaign, at one point blaming George W. Bush directly and saying,
"we should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East." As president-elect, Trump continued to promise a very
different foreign policy, one that would "stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be
involved with."
The election of Donald Trump gave the international community pause: Trump appeared unpredictable, eschewed tradition, and flouted
convention. He might well have followed through on his promise to move the U.S. away from its long embrace of forever war. China's
government in particular must have worried about such a move. If the U.S. focused on its internal problems and instead pursued a
restrained foreign policy that was constructive rather than destructive, it might pose more of an impediment to China's rise to global
power status.
But the Chinese need not have worried. With a continued troop presence in Afghanistan and Syria, a looming conflict with Iran,
and even talk of an intervention in Venezuela, Trump is keeping the U.S. on its perpetual wartime footing.
This is good news for Beijing, whose own foreign policy could not be more different. Rather than embracing a reactive and short-sighted
approach that all too often ignores second- and third-order consequences, the Chinese strategy appears cautious and long-ranging.
Its policymakers and technocrats think and plan in terms of decades, not months. And those plans, for now, are focused more on building
than bombing.
This is not to say that China's foreign policy is altruistic-it is certainly not. It is designed to cement China's role as a great
power by ensnaring as many countries as possible in its economic web. China is playing the long game while Washington expends resources
and global political capital on wars it cannot win. America's devotion to intervention is sowing the seeds of its own demise and
China will be the chief beneficiary.
"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement," Trump said Saturday after a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada. "We're
going to terminate the agreement."
"We're not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement," Trump said Saturday after a campaign rally in Elko, Nevada. "We're
going to terminate the agreement."
Russian President Vladimir Putin attends the 15th Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion
Club in Sochi on Thursday, October 18.
The Valdai Discussion Club, established in 2004, has become an internationally recognised
platform for interaction between leading world experts and Russian scholars, politicians and
government officials.
"... It's not that Putin's stance was any different than in the past. Russia will strike back at an aggressor under any circumstance where the future of Russia is at stake. It was his assurance that in doing so 1) it would be just and righteous "dying like martyrs" and 2) so swift and brutal the aggressors would "die like dogs" bereft of the chance to ask for salvation. ..."
"... Notice how there have been no attacks or even harsh language coming out of Israel or the U.S. in the past few weeks. The failure of the British/French/Israeli operation to sucker Trump into an invasion of Syria is now complete. ..."
"... Putin wasn't boasting or grandstanding about Russia's hypersonic weapons capability. He told everyone they are deployed. He did this to shut up the U.S. neoconservative chattering class who he rightly says whisper in President Trump's ear that they can win a nuclear conflict with Russia. ..."
"... They are insane. And you have to treat them that way. ..."
Every year Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the Valdai Economic Forum. And each
year his talk is important. Putin isn't one to mince words on important issues.
With tensions between Russia and the West reaching Cold War levels, Valdai represented the
first time we've heard Putin speak in a long-form discussion since Helsinki and the events
thereafter - IL-20, Khashoggi, etc.
So, this talk is worth everyone's time. And when I say everyone's I mean every single person
who could be affected by the breakdown of the U.S. political system and how that spills over
onto Russia's shores.
In other words, pretty much everyone on the planet.
Because what Putin did at Valdai was to lay down the new rules of conduct in geopolitical
affairs. He put the U.S. and European oligarchs I call The Davos Crowd on notice.
There is a limit to your provocations and attempts to undermine Russia. So don't cross that
line.
Peace Through Strength
The big quote from his talk is the one everyone is focusing on, and rightly so, Russia's
policy about using nuclear weapons.
It's not that Putin's stance was any different than in the past. Russia will strike back
at an aggressor under any circumstance where the future of Russia is at stake. It was his
assurance that in doing so 1) it would be just and righteous "dying like martyrs" and 2) so
swift and brutal the aggressors would "die like dogs" bereft of the chance to ask for
salvation.
Those are strong words. They are the words of a meek man. And the word meek, as Jordan
Peterson reminds us, describes someone who has weapons, knows how to use them and keeps them
sheathed until they have no other option.
The reaction from the audience (see video above) was nervous laughter, but I don't think
Putin was having one over on anyone.
He was serious. This is the very definition of meek.
It is really no different than the attitude of Secretary of Defense James Mattis who said,
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes:
If you f$*k with me, I'll kill you all."
Men like this are not to be tested too hard. And Putin's response to the shooting down of
the IL-20 plane and its crew was to cross a bunch of diplomatic lines by handing out S-300s to
Syria and erecting a de facto no-fly zone over Western Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Notice how there have been no attacks or even harsh language coming out of Israel or the
U.S. in the past few weeks. The failure of the British/French/Israeli operation to sucker Trump
into an invasion of Syria is now complete.
And I'm convinced that Nikki Haley paid the price.
All of this highlights the major theme that came out of Putin's comments.
Strength through resolve. Resolve comes as a consequence of defending culture.
Putin wasn't boasting or grandstanding about Russia's hypersonic weapons capability. He
told everyone they are deployed. He did this to shut up the U.S. neoconservative chattering
class who he rightly says whisper in President Trump's ear that they can win a nuclear conflict
with Russia.
They are insane. And you have to treat them that way.
Culture First
Putin sees himself, quite rightly, as the custodian of the Russian people and, as such, the
Russian state as the reflection of Russian culture. If you are going to have a state and
someone is going to be the head of it, this is the attitude that you want from that person.
In his dialogue with an Orthodox priest Putin wholeheartedly agreed with the idea that "the
state cannot dictate culture" but rather, at best, be the facilitator of it through its
applications of law.
In a back and forth with a very enthusiastic Russian dairy farmer, who was quite proud of
his cheese, Putin reminded the man that while he loved sanctions (from European competition)
protecting his business today he should not get used to them. They will be removed at some
point and the farmer would have to stand on his own wits to survive in the international
market.
Putin understands that subsidies breed sloth. That was a message he made loud and clear.
It's why when the sanctions first went into effect in 2014 over the reunification of Crimea
and during the Ruble crisis Putin shifted state subsidies away from the petroleum sector which
had thrived and gotten soft during years of $100+/bbl oil and shifted that money to
agriculture.
The fruits of that successful policy shift he confronted head on at Valdai. Russia's food
production across all sectors is flourishing thanks to a cheap ruble, which the U.S. keeps
beating down via sanctions, and the Russian state getting out of the way of investment.
At the time he incurred the wrath of Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin and Putin ignored him, much to
everyone's surprise. The message was clear, we'll help you out of your current troubles but
it's time to do business differently. Because it was Rosneft that needed the biggest bailouts
in late 2014/early 2015 having tens of billions in dollar-denominated debt which couldn't be
rolled over thanks to the sanctions.
The Limits of Empire
Ultimately, Putin looked resigned, if confused, to the insanity emanating from U.S. policy.
But it's obvious to him that Russia cannot get caught up in the tit-for-tat nuisances put up to
derail Russia's future.
He mentioned the Empire loses its way because it believed itself invulnerable or as my dad
used to say about certain athletes, "He reads his own press clippings too much."
There is a solipsism that infects dominant societies which creates the kind of
over-reactions we're witnessing today. Power is slipping away from the U.S. and Trump is both
helping the process along while also trying to preserve the core of what's left.
And no interaction during Putin's talk was more indicative of his view of the U.S. empire
than his interaction with a Japanese delegate who asked him about signing a peace treaty with
Japan.
And Putin's answer was clear. It's Japan's pride and political entanglements that preclude
this from happening. Signing the peace treaty is not necessary to solving ownership of the
Kuril Islands. Russia and Japan are both diminished by having this obstacle in the way.
The issue can resolve itself after the peace treaty is signed. The current state of things
is silly and anachronistic and keep the divide between Russians and Japanese from healing.
Create trust through agreement then move forward.
That's what is happening between Russia and Egypt and that is why Putin is winning the
diplomatic war.
And it's why Trump is losing the diplomatic war. Putin knows where Trump is. He was there
himself seventeen years ago, except an order of magnitude worse. The problems Trump is facing
are the same problems Putin faced, corruption, venality, treason all contributing to a collapse
in societal and cultural institutions.
Putin knows the U.S. is at a crossroads, and he's made his peace with whatever comes next.
The question is have we?
"The basic plans of nuclear war today are essentially the same as those developed in the
1960s, which is essentially a system of thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at Russian cities
and military targets ready to be launched at a moment's notice.
The US strategy has always been for a first strike: not necessarily a surprise attack but not
an attack which came "second" in a nuclear war.
Every US president, all the way to Trump, has used the threat of nuclear war as deterrence to
their adversaries.
The US threat of nuclear attack has precluded any "effective nonproliferation campaign" among
other nation-states which have decided to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
US nuclear war plans, and the hypothetical and real scenarios under which they unfold, are
far more extensive than the public can imagine. Ellsberg writes how the public perception of
a "nuclear button" with one finger on it, presumably the President's, is a lie. In fact,
there are many fingers on many buttons, to delegate authority to launch nuclear missiles in
case the President and the leadership were incapacitated. These same systems exist in Russia,
and probably other nuclear-armed powers as well.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was even more dangerous than previously thought, as demonstrated in
a highly classified study in 1964 which was never made public until this book.
The strategic nuclear war systems are much more prone to "accidents" and false alarms than
previously thought, risking the threat of unauthorized launchings.
The potential risk of nuclear war has been systematically covered up from the public,
including the aforementioned graph showing hundreds of millions of deaths, a third of the
planet at the time. Ellsberg notes that in 1961 when the document was made, it was two
decades before the concept of nuclear winter and nuclear famine were accepted, which meant
that in reality most humans would die along with most other large species after a nuclear
war."
As for a non-nuclear war between Russia and USA/NATO waged in Western Europe.
@PO and Mark and other stooges
I don't see how one is possible. Unless Scotty et al with working teleporter equipment are
able to teleport NATO armor and troops into Russia , their columns moving through Belarus
,Ukraine and Poland would be massacred. There wouldn't be much left by the time they got to
the Russian frontier. where waiting Russian armor and artillery would have all routes of
approach thoroughly zeroed in and sighted. Not to mention waves of Iskander and cruise
missile strikes together with attacks from Russian aircraft . The NATO forces would almost
certainly not have the crucial element of air superiority thanks to Russian S-400
systems.
The Russians wouldn't have to actually DO anything on the offensive other than to show up
at the signing of the surrender document by Stoltenberg, Merkel ,Morawiecki ,May and
Bolton.
(France capitulated within 72 hours of the start of hostilities )
I just don't see a NATO conventional attack on Russia as even remotely feasible.
Just my opinion .
Well, the way it is supposed to work, you don't start at Day One with your forces deep inside
enemy territory. You start on your own side, and one attacks the other and each tries to
prevent penetration by the other (if you'll forgive such an image) while achieving
penetration into enemy territory himself, usually only seizing territory which follow-up
forces are available to hold, so as not to be encircled and wiped out. It is demonstrably
quite possible for huge amounts of US forces and armor to be assembled in England and the
Netherlands and France and so forth, because it has already been done once on that scale.
Likewise, Russia would not start out with troops in any of those countries.
Missiles are dandy for wiping out enemy forces at the touch of a button, but you still
have to seize that territory, once vacated, and prevent the enemy from simply flowing into
the vacuum and re-taking it. That sort of doctrine is pretty much like the US vision of air
superiority, where the USAF would simply fly over and bomb the shit out of everything, no
troops required. That's how it was supposed to go in Iraq, except it didn't. Fortunately, I
guess, because otherwise the phrase "Boots on the ground" might never have been coined, and
then what would journalists say when they wanted to appear salty and battle-jaded?
A conventional attack on Russia is not preferred – let's just get that up front. But
I don't see any other way for the west to have a war with Russia (and it has run out of ways
short of war to assert its control) without it going nuclear. And Washington is not quite
that crazy yet. It still wants Europe to be around afterward to be a consumer of American
goods and services.
Washington is concocting ludicrous charges against a Russian national for alleged election
meddling merely to find reasons for new sanctions and to play the 'Russia card' ahead of the
midterms, a top Kremlin official has warned.
The US is bringing up "ludicrous accusations" with a "laughable 'body of proof'" simply to
slap Moscow with a new round of sanctions, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov
said
in a statement on Saturday. He added that "certain" US politicians hope to use charges against
Russia to gain the upper hand in "interparty brawls" ahead of the midterm elections, slated for
November 6.
Ryabkov made his remarks after the US Department of Justice officially leveled charges
against Russian national Elena Khusyaynova, who allegedly served as the chief accountant for
'Project Lakhta.' The officials suspect her of handling the funds used to pay online trolls for
posting comments to "sow discord in the US political system," and to "undermine faith" in US
democracy. These alleged activities were part of what Washington calls Russian strategic
efforts to meddle in the 2016 US presidential race and as well as the upcoming midterms.
... ... ...
Russian official Ryabkov dismissed the charges as "flagrant lies" and yet another element of
the "shameful slanderous campaign" unleashed by Washington against Moscow.
"The US clearly overestimates its capabilities," the deputy foreign minister said.
"While exhibiting hostility towards Russia and looking down on the whole world, they will
only meet tougher pushback."
So intelligence agencies are now charged with protection of elections from undesirable candidates; looks like a feature of neofascism...
Notable quotes:
"... The Department of Justice admitted in a Friday court filing that the FBI used more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller ..."
"... Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele - a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Page. ..."
"... In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half of that coincided with the 2016 US election. ..."
"... In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one. ..."
"... Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of 2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails. ..."
"... Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked through UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums ..."
"... Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. (h/t themarketswork.com ) ..."
The Department of Justice admitted in a
Friday court filing that the FBI used
more than one "Confidential Human Source," (also known as informants, or spies ) to infiltrate the Trump campaign through former
adviser Carter Page, reports the Daily Caller
.
"The FBI has protected information that would identify the identities of other confidential sources who provided information or
intelligence to the FBI" as well as "information provided by those sources," wrote David M. Hardy, the head of the FBI's Record/Information
Dissemination Section (RIDS), in court
papers submitted Friday.
Hardy and Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys submitted the filings in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
for the FBI's four applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page. The DOJ released heavily
redacted copies of the four FISA warrant applications on June 20, but USA Today reporter Brad Heath has sued for full copies of
the documents. - Daily Caller
Included in Hardy's declaration is an acknowledgement that the FBI's spies were in addition to the UK's Christopher Steele
- a former MI6 operative who assembled the controversial and largely unproven "Steel Dossier" which the DOJ/FBI used to obtain a
FISA warrant to spy on Page.
The DOJ says it redacted information in order to protect the identity of their confidential sources, which "includes nonpublic
information about and provided by Christopher Steele," reads the filing, " as well as information about and provided by other confidential
sources , all of whom were provided express assurances of confidentiality."
Government lawyers said the payment information is being withheld because disclosing specific payment amounts and dates could
"suggest the relative volume of information provided by a particular CHS. " That disclosure could potentially tip the source's
targets off and allow them to "take countermeasures, destroy or fabricate evidence, or otherwise act in a way to thwart the FBI's
activities." - Daily Caller
Steele, referred to as Source #1, met with several DOJ / FBI officials during the 2016 campaign, including husband and wife team
Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Bruce was the #4 official at the DOJ, while his CIA-linked wife Nellie was hired by Fusion GPS - who also employed
Steele, in the anti-Trump opposition research / counterintelligence effort funded by Trump's opponents, Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
In addition to Steele, the FBI also employed 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political
veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during
the 2016 US election . Halper received over $1 million in contracts from the Pentagon during the Obama years, however nearly half
of that coincided with the 2016 US election.
Stefan Halper
Halper's involvement first came to light after the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported on his involvement with Carter Page and
George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign aide. Ross's reporting was confirmed by the NYT and WaPo .
In June, Trump campaign aides Roger Stone and Michael Caputo claimed that a meeting Stone took in late May, 2016 with a Russian
appears to have been an " FBI sting operation " in hindsight, following
bombshell reports in May
that the DOJ/FBI used a longtime FBI/CIA asset, Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, to perform espionage on the Trump campaign.
Roger Stone
When Stone arrived at the restaurant in Sunny Isles, he said, Greenberg was wearing a Make America Great Again T-shirt and
hat. On his phone, Greenberg pulled up a photo of himself with Trump at a rally, Stone said. -
WaPo
The meeting went nowhere - ending after Stone told Greenberg " You don't understand Donald Trump... He doesn't pay for anything
." The Post independently confirmed this account with Greenberg.
After the meeting, Stone received a text message from Caputo - a Trump campaign communications official who arranged the meeting
after Greenberg approached Caputo's Russian-immigrant business partner.
" How crazy is the Russian? " Caputo wrote according to a text message reviewed by The Post. Noting that Greenberg wanted "big"
money, Stone replied: "waste of time." -
WaPo
In short, the FBI's acknowledgement that they used multiple spies reinforces Stone's assertion that he was targeted by one.
Further down the rabbit hole
Stefan Halper's infiltration of the Trump campaign corresponds with the two of the four targets of the FBI's Operation Crossfire
Hurricane - in which the agency sent former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and others to a London meeting in the Summer of
2016 with former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer - who says Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted to knowing that the Russians had
Hillary Clinton's emails.
Interestingly Downer - the source of the Papadopoulos intel, and Halper - who conned Papadopoulos months later, are linked
through
UK-based Haklyut & Co. an opposition research and intelligence firm similar to Fusion GPS - founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums .
Alexander Downer
Downer - a good friend of the Clintons, has been on their advisory board for a decade, while Halper is connected to Hakluyt
through Director of U.S. operations Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books. (h/t
themarketswork.com )
Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K. Downer said that in May 2016, Papadopoulos told him during a
conversation in London about Russians having Clinton emails.
That information was passed to other Australian government officials before making its way to U.S. officials. FBI agents flew
to London a day after "Crossfire Hurricane" started in order to interview Downer.
It is still not known what Downer says about his interaction with Papadopoulos, which TheDCNF is told occurred around May 10,
2016.
Also interesting via
Lifezette - " Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives
made large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations ."
Halper contacted Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 according to The Caller - flying him out to London to work on a policy paper
on energy issues in Turkey, Cyprus and Israel - for which he was ultimately paid $3,000. Papadopoulos met Halper several times during
his stay, "having dinner one night at the Travellers Club, and Old London gentleman's club frequented by international diplomats."
They were accompanied by Halper's assistant, a Turkish woman named Azra Turk. Sources familiar with Papadopoulos's claims about
his trip say Turk flirted with him during their encounters and later on in email exchanges .
...
Emails were also brought up during Papadopoulos's meetings with Halper , though not by the Trump associate, according to sources
familiar with his version of events. T he sources say that during conversation, Halper randomly brought up Russians and emails.
Papadopoulos has told people close to him that he grew suspicious of Halper because of the remark. -
Daily Caller
Meanwhile, Halper targeted Carter Page two days after Page returned from a trip to Moscow.
Page's visit to Moscow, where he spoke at the New Economic School on July 8, 2016, is said to have piqued the FBI's interest
even further . Page and Halper spoke on the sidelines of an election-themed symposium held at Cambridge days later. Former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6 and a close colleague of Halper's, spoke at the event.
...
Page would enter the media spotlight in September 2016 after Yahoo! News reported that the FBI was investigating whether he
met with two Kremlin insiders during that Moscow trip.
It would later be revealed that the Yahoo! article was based on unverified information from Christopher Steele, the former
British spy who wrote the dossier regarding the Trump campaign . Steele's report, which was funded by Democrats, also claimed
Page worked with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on the collusion conspiracy. -
Daily Caller
A third target of Halper's was Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, whose name was revealed by the Washington Post on Friday.
In late August 2016, the professor reached out to Clovis, asking if they could meet somewhere in the Washington area, according
to Clovis's attorney, Victoria Toensing.
"He said he wanted to be helpful to the campaign" and lend the Trump team his foreign-policy experience, Toensing said.
Clovis, an Iowa political figure and former Air Force officer, met the source and chatted briefly with him over coffee, on
either Aug. 31 or Sept. 1, at a hotel cafe in Crystal City, she said. Most of the discussion involved him asking Clovis his views
on China.
"It was two academics discussing China," Toensing said. " Russia never came up. " -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Bruce Ohr is still employed by the Department of Justice, and Fusion GPS continues its hunt for Trump dirt after having
partnered with former Feinstein aide and ex-FBI counterintelligence agent, Dan Jones.
It's been nearly three years since an army of professional spies was unleashed on Trump - and he's still the President, Steele
and Downer notwithstanding.
America is going to soon know the name Nellie Ohr. Americans will also learn she was a
communist sympathizer more connected to Russia than President Trump ever will be who did all
she could to overturn the candidacy and Presidency of President Trump.
Diana West, the author of American Betryal , wrote this at the American Spectator on Nellie
Ohr, who they call "the "dossier" spying scandal's woman in the middle." -
To one side of Ohr, there is the Fusion GPS team, including fellow contractor Christopher
Steele. To the other, there is husband Bruce Ohr, who, until his "dossier"-related demotion,
was No. 4 man at the Department of Justice, and a key contact there for Steele.
As central as Nellie Ohr's placement is, her role in the creation of the "dossier" remains
undefined. For example, the House Intelligence Committee memo on related matters vaguely
tells us that Nellie Ohr was "employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of
opposition research on Trump"; the memo adds that Bruce Ohr "later provided the FBI with all
of his wife's opposition research." Senator Lindsey Graham more sensationally told Fox News
that Nellie Ohr "did the research for Mr. Steele," but details remain scarce.
What's more revealing about Nellie Ohr is what she did before the FBI and DOJ
Russia scandal and the men in her life protecting her involvement in the Russia scandal -
Notably, the "dossier" men in her life have tried to shield Ohr from public scrutiny, even at
professional risk. Her husband, as the Daily Caller News Foundation reports, failed to
disclose his wife's employment with Fusion GPS and seek the appropriate conflict-of-interest
waiver, which may have been an important factor in his demotion from associate deputy
attorney general late last year.
Under Senate and House questioning, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson consistently
failed to disclose Nellie Ohr's existence as one of his firm's paid Russian experts, let
alone that he hired her for the red-hot DNC/Clinton campaign Trump-Russia project.
Even Christopher Steele may have tried to keep Nellie Ohr "under cover." Steele, put forth
as the "dossier" author ever since its January 2017 publication in BuzzFeed , does
not appear to have let on to his many media and political contacts that he had
"dossier"-assistance from at least two fellow Fusion GPS Russian experts, Nellie Ohr and
Edward Baumgartner. Baumgartner, interestingly, was a Russian history major at Vassar in the
1990s when Nellie Ohr taught Russian history there.
We know that Steele was a NeverTrumper but Nellie Ohr was an outright communist
sympathizer. Ohr's PhD thesis provides the support -
Nellie Ohr's Ph.D. thesis is titled "Collective farms and Russian peasant society, 1933-1937:
the stabilization of the kolkhoz order"?
"Kolkhoz" order means "collective farm" order, so Ohr's subtitle refers to the
"stabilization" of the collective farm order. The phrasing alone is suggestive of some
silverish lining after the six million or more people were killed by Stalin's
state-created famine, mass deportations, and general war of "de-kulakization."
In the introduction to her 418-page paper, Ohr sets forth her main arguments, citing many
of "revisionism's" leading figures - J. Arch Getty, Roberta Manning, Gabor Rittersporn,
Sheila Fitzpatrick.
Speaking "revisionist" lingo, Nellie Ohr turns the millions killed by Stalin into
"excesses," which, in Ohr's words, "sometimes represented desperate measures taken by a
government that had little real control over the country." (Poor Stalin.) She depicts purges
as representing "to some degree a center-periphery conflict in which the 'state-building'
central government tried to bring headstrong local satraps under control."
Here, in full context, are the "revisionist" trends she says her thesis will
"corroborate":
Recently, Western historians [i.e., "revisionists"] have been using materials from the
Smolensk archive to back up their arguments that power flowed not only from the top down but
also from the bottom up to some degree; that excesses sometimes represented desperate
measures taken by a government that had little real control over the country; that policies
such as dekulakization and the purges of the later 1930s had some social constituency among
aggrieved groups of poorer peasants; and that the purges represented to some degree a
center-periphery conflict in which the 'state-building' central government tried to bring
headstrong local satraps under control.
In later years, Ohr reviewed several books by "revisionists," and offered her
sympathies for Stalin. Her beliefs are in deep contrast to President Trump, who the American
Spectator says "whether he or anyone else realizes it, is the most instinctively anti-communist
president elected in generations."
The American Spectator next presented not only Ohr's but Special Counsel Mueller's ties to
Russia as well -
As FBI Director (2001-2013), Robert Mueller presided over the Bureau's decade-long
counterintelligence operation known as "Ghost Stories," which targeted the deep-cover ring of
Russian "illegals" mentioned above. In June 2010, the FBI netted this ring of covert Russian
Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) operatives, which was successfully boring into elite
circles, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's - and then sent them packing ASAP to
Mother Russia.
Why? All of the available evidence
strongly suggests that this painstaking FBI work of a decade was thrown away to protect
Hillary Clinton , the once and future presidential candidate, who was at risk of being
compromised. As FBI counterintelligence chief Frank Figliuzzi put it: "We were becoming very
concerned they were getting close enough to a sitting US cabinet member that we thought we
could no longer allow this to continue."
Never one to save the republic instead of herself, Hillary Clinton "worked feverishly" to
get these Russian agents deported before they could be adequately debriefed or otherwise
exploited, as J. Michael Waller writes. Remember, June 2010 was a busy month for the
Clintons: Rosatom was initiating its purchase of Uranium One; Bill Clinton was pocketing
$500,000 from that KGB-linked Moscow bank, Renaissance Capital, which was "talking up"
Uranium One shares (even as $145 million was sloshing into the Clinton Foundation); President
Obama was pushing for Russian membership in the World Trade Organization, and all the "reset"
rest. The exposure of a highly trained network of SVR operatives targeting Hillary Clinton
among others could not have been more inconvenient. How do you say, "Get them out of
here on the double" in Russian?
Looking back, I don't recall FBI Director Mueller in a lather over this Russian
"meddling," or "influence" on the Obama administration. Last time I looked, he did not resign
from his FBI directorship in protest of this crude administration cover-up, either. Maybe he
was too busy
hiding evidence from Congress of the so-called Mikerin probe, the investigation into a
Russian bribery scheme to control an American uranium trucking firm, even as U.S. lawmakers
were examining the proposed sale of Uranium One to the Russian government.
Thus, in FBI Director Mueller's treatment of the Russian espionage ring in we see a
funhouse-mirror-image of Special Counsel Mueller's Russian social media indictments. In 2010,
without a single indictment or anything comparable, Mueller's FBI did its part in deporting
from American soil a network of high-value SVR operatives for political reasons; in 2018,
without any expectation of prosecution, Mueller's Special Counsel office indicted a network
of Russian Internet hooligans on Russian soil, also for political reasons.
In both cases, it is our national security that suffers while Mueller's political masters
benefit. In 2010, they wanted Obama-Clinton protected from real Russian exposure; in 2018
they want Trump destroyed by concocted Russian exposure.
Enter the "dossier."
Earlier this month, the Hill reported that "an FBI informant connected to the
Uranium One controversy told three congressional committees... that Moscow routed millions of
dollars to America with the expectation it would be used to benefit Bill Clinton's charitable
efforts while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quarterbacked a 'reset' in U.S.-Russian
relations."
Even if the information-warriors in the MSM won't call it "Russian influence," let's not
kid ourselves: Putin's Russia got what it paid for, from those infamous U.S. uranium stocks,
to Obama's "flexibility," to
hypersonic missile engine technology , to WTO membership and more, all despite that
latter-Obama-second-term chill - in itself a political zig-zag with historically suspicious
resonance.
Then, improbably, along came Trump, and neither Republican nor Democrat could stop him.
When Smash-Mouth Hillary tried to tag him Putin's "puppet" during the final presidential
debate in October 2016, it was an act of desperation, and, perhaps, her own "insurance
policy" for the unthinkable - defeat.
Even as Clinton spoke on the debate stage, Nellie "Terror and Excitement" Ohr was still
laboring in the Fusion GPS Russia shop (working her ham radio?), which was still whipping up
the final installments of DNC/Clinton "opposition research," including the "dossier," to back
up Clinton's wild, Pravda -esque charge.
It didn't stick, of course, not in time to vault Clinton over the Election Day finish line
first.
What a sigh of relief Putin must have drawn inside his palace on November 8, 2016 now that
he finally had a "puppet" to call his own inside the White House; someone who, in addition to
his counter-revolutionary "America First" agenda to restore U.S. manufacturing, prosperity
and sovereignty (joy of Kremlin joys,) strongly believed the U.S. military was "depleted" and
dangerously behind Russia's... someone who, after so many years of neglect, wanted to
modernize and expand, not shrink and mothball, America's nuclear arsenal... Phew! What a
relief! Putin almost had to face a "real" neo-Cold Warrior who wanted to follow and
accelerate Obama's military decline, someone who said on the campaign trail that "the last
thing we need" are next-generation nuclear-armed cruise missiles....
Clearly this last paragraph is satire as the Russians wanted Hillary elected and
were happy to do all they could to prevent a Trump Presidency. The links between Russia and
Nellie Ohr are unknown. The dossier she helped create is a farce.
What we do know is that mean spirited communist sympathizer Nellie Ohr, whose husband helped
run the corrupt DOJ, was involved in slandering candidate Donald Trump and did all she could to
stop him from being President.
"Made up a crime to fit the facts they have" is a normal mode of operation for federal
prosecutors. Hopefully the judge throws out all charges, but unlikely to have a broader
impact on non-stop fabrications by US attorneys.
What this accusation boils down to is saying that the Russian firm's deception is "proof"
that they thought they were violating US law, and that this intention to break a non-existent
law constitutes a framework under which they can be convicted of breaking a non-existent law.
The crazy never stops. Mueller and his minions should be disbarred.
Why is there any requirement to identify oneself beyond an alias, unless there are
obligations of debt involved. Even there, the LLC places a barrier between an individual and
the creditor.
I post with a pseudonym. My pseudonymous identity bears responsibility for its own
reputation.
ELECTION MEDDLING (as defined by Mueller and Kravis): every VPN blogger and/or user with
more than one GMail account.
But NOT multi-million dollar foreign "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation. That have
dried up since November of 2016. Oh no, nothing meddling about over there.
By participation, do they mean like polls that consistently show the USA as the greatest
impediment to global peace and tranquility? Or the numerous opinion sharers that the US
government is depraved? Or like the kind of participation of Victoria "**** the EU" Nuland?
Or like the Western sponsored Jihadi headchoppers hired to interfere in Syrian elections? Or
like the US military fueled aggression against Yemeni sovereignty? Or like the US/Clinton
sponsored destabilization of Libyan democracy? Or like the Obama/US sponsored destabilization
of Egypt? Or like the US/Western sponsored failed coup in Turkey?
Or most crucially, the US/neoconservative never ending direct interference in internal
Russian affairs?
These need to be clarified so folks can understand what meddling/interference/intervention
means. It's not enough to point fingers, when worse activities have been, are being carried
out by the pointers. Any society that abandons basic ethics, is one destined for the scrap
heap of history.
Americans have forgotten what it means to be Americans, and this desperate gambit by the
DOJ highlights viscerally, that the American system of government, one based on ethical
values, is no more! It demonstrates the fragility of the system.
God alone knows if salvage is possible now, the USA has in the blink of an eye, become the
erstwhile USSR, overly sensitive to the unworkability of its sociopolitical system. It is the
end game of unsustainable imperium.
"Rather, the allegation is that the company knowingly engaged in deceptive acts that
precluded the FEC, or the Justice Department, from ascertaining whether they had broken the
law. -
Bloomberg " I didn't know Prof. Irwin Corey worked for the US Attorney's office. By this
explanation whether you break a law or not you can be guilty of precluding these agencies
from determining that you did not break a law, even if whatever you did to prevent such
determination was not illegal.
didn't the Judge in Manaforts trial do something similar when he called out the Mueller
team on their motivation's for bringing Manafort up on old charges the DOJ had previously
declined to prosecute him on?
Amerika is 180 degree turn from my logic. Mueler presented fake evidence and fabricated
Lockerbie trial. He was working with Steele.
So this is great guy to head FBI and bull sheet Russia medling. In normal country, guy
like Mueler is so discredired that can be hapi to have county investigator job, not
government job
LOL, Mueller's investigation is fucked. Indeed, they are going to have to bring forth the
evidence via discovery.
It will come to light they manufactured a crime without the evidence. Also, if they don't
drop the case they're running the risk of exposing even more crimes they committed.
This is where the American people should rise up and repeal prosecutorial immunity and
make the real criminal's pay the price for manufacturing crime's! Care to speculate how many
prosecutor's wouldn't even touch a potential criminal with doubt of innocence, if indeed
prosecutors were held accountable for their own crimes???
Like I've said, people have NO idea how raunchy and corrupt this manufactured Mueller
investigation is, once the unredacted FISA warrant and 302's are released, the people will
realize both the seditious and traitorous behavior that went on in the ObamaSpy ring to frame
Trump!
A Washington federal judge on Thursday ordered special counsel Robert Mueller's team to clarify election meddling claims lodged against
a Russian company operated by Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to
Bloomberg .
Concord Management and Consulting, LLC. - one of three businesses indicted by Mueller in February along with 13 individuals for
election meddling, surprised the special counsel in April when they actually showed up in court to fight the charges. Mueller's team
tried to delay Concord from entering the case, arguing that thee Russian company not been properly served, however Judge Dabney Friedrich
denied the request - effectively telling prosecutors '
well,
they're here .'
Concord was accused in the indictment of supporting the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian 'troll farm' accused of trying
to influence the 2016 US election.
On Thursday, Judge Freidrich asked Mueller's prosecutors if she should assume they aren't accusing Concord of violating US laws
applicable to election expenditures and failure to register as a foreign agent.
Concord has asked Dabney to throw out the charges - claiming that Mueller's office fabricated a crime, and that there is no law
against interfering in elections.
According to the judge's request for clarification, the
Justice Department has argued that it doesn't have to
show that Concord had a legal duty to report its expenditures to the
Federal Election Commission . Rather, the allegation
is that the company knowingly engaged in deceptive acts that precluded the FEC, or the Justice Department, from ascertaining whether
they had broken the law. -
Bloomberg
On Monday, Friedrich raised questions over whether the special counsel's office could prove a key element of their case - saying
that it was "hard to see" how allegations of Russian influence were intended to interfere with US government operations vs. simply
"confusing voters," reports
law.com .
During a 90-minute hearing, Friedrich questioned prosecutor Jonathan Kravis about how the government would be able to show
the Russian defendants were aware of the Justice Department and FEC's functions and then deliberately sought to skirt them.
" You still have to show knowledge of the agencies and what they do. How do you do that? " Friedrich asked.
Kravis, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, argued that the government needed only to
show that Concord Management and the other defendants were generally aware that the U.S. government "regulates and monitors" foreign
participation in American politics . That awareness, Kravis said, could be inferred from the Russians' alleged creation of fake
social media accounts that appeared to be run by U.S. citizens and "computer infrastructure" intended to mask the Russian origin
of the influence operation.
" That is deception that is directed at a higher level ," Kravis said. Kravis appeared in court with
Michael Dreeben , a top Justice Department appellate lawyer on detail to the special counsel's office. -
law.com
Concord pleaded not guilty in May. Their attorney, Eric Dubelier - a partner at Reed Smith, has described the election meddling
charges as "make believe," arguing on Monday that Mueller's indictment against Concord "doesn't charge a crime."
"There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn't," said Dubelier, who added that Mueller's office alleged
a "made-up crime to fit the facts they have."
Dubelier added that the case against Concord Management is the first in US history "where anyone has ever been charged with defrauding
the Justice Department" through their failure to register under FARA .
Although it is almost off topic, I did find one point in Putin's Valdai
speech quite telling. It was his point about the Russian automated system for detection and
tracking of missile launches. Putin tried to boost the credibility of the Russian nuclear deterant by advertising this system for detecting the First Strike launches.
Although I do not believe that this system is as reliable as advertised, I am most
encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not
even likely.
If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as
usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various
reasons which would take a while to explain.
I just hope that the Russian office corps is as prepared as Putin is to be productive
martyrs (no more Arkhipovs please).
UK politicians in Skripal story behaved by cheap clowns. Their story with door knob was pathetic. They tried to invent
the legend with poisoning on the fly and that shows. There is definitely something else brewing here and Shamir proposed his
version with Skripal double dealings or something along those line is quite plausible.
We will never know, but I think British discredited themselves for the whole world in this story. Trump was not better will
using this tory to impose additional sanctions on Russia. This is just another proof that he is another neocon who during election
campaign like Obama played the role of isolationalist and then appointed Haley to UN and hired Pompeo as his Secretary of
state and Bolton as his security advisor -- a typical "bat and switch" operation in US politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly. ..."
"... As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home. ..."
"... There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was. ..."
"... However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services. ..."
"... Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. ..."
"... I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors. ..."
Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that
GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly
matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr
Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the
secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps
he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly.
Two GRU agents, supposedly experts on extraction (they allegedly sneaked the Ukrainian
president Yanukovych from Ukraine after the coup and saved him from lynching mob) were sent to
Salisbury to test the ground and make preparations for Skripal's return. As we had learned from
videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the
beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his
daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home.
There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually
been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if
the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan
Bandera was.
However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to
expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive
expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services.
Still, the Russians had no clue how the West had learned identities of so many diplomats
connected to GRU. They suspected that there was a mole, and a turncoat who delivered the stuff
to the enemy.
That is why Vladimir Putin decided to dare them. As he knew that the two men identified by
the British service had no connection to the alleged poisoning, he asked them to appear on the
RT in an interview with Ms Simonyan. By acting as village hicks, they were supposed to provoke
the enemy to disclose its source. The result was unexpected: instead of revealing the name of a
turncoat, the Belling Cat, a site used by the Western Secret Services for intentional leaks,
explained how the men were traced by using the stolen databases. Putin's plan misfired.
The Russian secret service is not dead. Intelligence services do suffer from enemy action
from time to time: the Cambridge Five infiltrated the upper reaches of the MI-5 and delivered
state secrets to Moscow for a long time, but the Intelligence Service survived. Le Carre's
novels were based on such a defeat of the intelligence. However they have a way to recover.
Identity of their top agents remain secret, and they are concealed from the enemy's eyes.
But in order to function properly, the Russians will have to clean their stables, remove
their databases from the market place and keep its citizenry reasonably safe. Lax, and
not-up-to-date agents do not apparently understand the degree the internet is being watched.
Considering it should have been done twenty years ago, and meanwhile a new generation of
Russians has came of age, perfectly prepared to sell whatever they can for cash, it is a
formidable task.
There is an additional reason to worry. Such a massive operation against Russian agents and
their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal
their full knowledge of enemy agents. It made president Putin worry; and he said this week: we'll
go to heaven as martyrs, the attackers will die as sinners. In face of multiple and recent
threats, this end of the world is quite possible.
Great story. If told many people would believe it. But now it is kind of late. So why it
wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair? Why it is the British media that has
initiative and Russian media is reactive and defensive? The story that Skripal wanted to
return and that two agents were lured in there should have been told right away and that it
turned out be MI5 provocation should have been insinuated. And the two agents should have
been interviewed on Russian media. Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian
reactions.
I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never
know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people
like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director
and actors.
@utu " Instead we get
defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions."
The reaction 'if we want to kill somebody that somebody does not survive' I cannot see as
inept and indolent.
Excellent piece by Israel Shamir which I think gives the correct explanation of the Skripal
poisoning. This was a classic fishing, 'click bait' operation which produced a very valuable
haul for Western Intelligence. The only question is whether Skripal cooperated with it
– which I think he did – not knowing that both he and his daughter were meant to
die. Hence Putin's rage against Skripal a few weeks ago ( calling him a scumbag traitor etc,
etc) after the Russian operatives were identified because retired agents are supposed to stay
retired.
Russia made a very serious mistake with the RT interview with the 2 operatives. Better not
to say anything if you can't give the whole story. The GU weren't happy to show their
incompetence, but compounded the original mistake with obvious lying. That was a propaganda
gift to the Western media and has helped convince original disbelievers of Russian
perfidy.
Russia needs to step up its game especially in the media dept.
@Anatoly Karlin " British
or American human capital, but there are certainly consummate professionals relative to what
passes for today's Russian intelligence services. "
On what this 'certainly' is based, I see no argument whatsoever.
Already a long time ago, I must admit, the CIA director had to admit to senator Moynihan that
he had lied about the CIA not laying mines in Havana harbour.
A professional in espionage does not get caught.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 'Secrecy', New Haven 1998
Anyone acquinted with Sept 11 understands that the USA's secret army, the CIA, was
involved.
Another blunder.
As far as I know British secret services never get caught.
How clever the Russians are, suppose quite clever, I for one do not think that the stupid
stories about for example Skripal have any truth in them.
Until now the asserted Russian meddling in USA elections have not been proved.
Do not know of anything credible that Russian intelligence people are said to have done.
But of course Russian intelligence does exist.
"A related problem is that since there is now a free market economy, with many more
attractive career options for talented people, the high quality people go to work in other
spheres, leaving the intelligence agencies with the dregs;" .
A direct result of erasing ideology so as to erase personality cult towards highly
respected people in former USSR .When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with
your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific
human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible
selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said,
almost everybody has a price .The challenge is finding out where that little bunch who have
not are ..Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage How to overcome this would be part of "what is to be done" ..
If the Russians wanted to kill them they would be dead. Period. It is all FN hoax.
The latest English came up with was that poison was smeared on the door handle and that both
touched the door handle. Give me a break. Such a idiocy. Just imagine the exit procedure
where both are touching the door knob.
And than both Russians went to garbage dump carrying the little bottle and thru it there.
What an exemplary citizen neat behavior by Russians,
All English story is such a stupid idiocy that it turns my stomach.
However, the presence of Russian spies in Salisbury can be explained by its nearness to
Porton Down, the secret British chemical lab and factory for manufacturing chemical weapons
applied by the White Helmets in Syria in their false-flag operation in Douma and other
places. It is possible that a resident of Salisbury (Mr Skripal?) had delivered samples
from Porton Down to the Russian intelligence agents. This makes much more sense than the
dubious story of Russians trying to poison an old ex-spy who did his stretch in a Russian
jail.
If Mr. Skripal has been poisoned by the stuff of which he himself took samples in Porton
Down, this would run completely parallel to the earlier poisoning of Mr. Alexander
Valterovich Litvinenko, who also became ill because of carrying poison (polonium) around.
If [Yulia Skripal] had not had the courage to make this call while slipping the
observance of British intelligence, she would probably be dead by now.
Both Skripals are most likely DEAD, murdered by British "intelligence"
services.
The formulaic and curiously uninterested treatment of the matter in the British media
seems inconsistent with the Skripals still being alive.
The article above suggests that the Skripals were unwitting or witting participants in a
sting to expose Russian intelligence agents. More importantly, Sergey Skripal appears to have
had a role in the creation of the DNC's "dossier" to undermine the Trump presidencey.
Whatever the background, Sergey Skripal became privy to important secrets that the Brits
and their seditious allies in the U.S. Deep State do not want exposed.
In the Skripal case the British have not explained why, after claiming to have found the
closest approach to a smoking gun in the form of traces of novichok in that hotel room, the
hotel was not then immediately quarantined.
And assuredly, with Putin's name on the line, the Russians have to do a better job if they
are to refute the standing accusations – the RT interview was something of a PR
disaster.
The Belloncat data, although superficially convincing, could so easily have been faked by
anybody with reasonable knowledge of Russian internet infrastructure and some proficiency in
Photoshop.
But I did not know about these massive intelligence security breaches in Russia. Wow,
that's huge. Even though it's not clear to me how this indicates Putin's plan misfired. If
anything he got exactly what he wanted: confirmation that the "West" had access to the entire
passport database. Knowing what your enemy has in intelligence is a huge win, now they can
work on correcting it (hard as it may be, it would be impossible without knowing).
But the fact is Russia has not really disputed the results so I am fairly confident that
not only was Belling Cat right, but Israel is right, and now we have the situation where
Russia knows that Western intelligence has full access to Russia's passport database.
@Tyrion 2 Had some
experiences with Chinese and Mossad spies, not to mention Russian Jewish hard-drug dealers.
Here are a few examples.
There was an AMES postdoc at UCSD, a Chinese applied-math brain who had a 10-plus female
handler. She'd stop by occasionally to check up on him. He always get extremely anxious when
she was around. Couldn't figure out if it was fear, sexual excitement, or a combination of
both.
There was an old Chinese man and his foxy young female protege, who enjoyed filming U.S.
military maneuvers along the San Diego coast. I observed their operation for days.
There was a swing-shift cleaning crew in a Southern California high-tech mfg facility that
was all Chinese, in an area that typically employed Latin American crews. Its head honcho was
a beautiful Chinese lady. They made it their job to sort through trash bins and save papers.
The feds busted them.
As far as the Mossad, I spent two years on a rental property in SD county, which was
occupied by them as well. Mostly Israeli kids using the property and a local Israeli-owned
vegetarian restaurant as their "scorpion den." Got fairly familiar with some of their
espionage work and methods.
I don't go looking for this stuff. I'm just able to recognize it. As an empath I can read
people, quite well. It's a natural gift.
Can't stomach Israel's insensitive nature. That's why you'll typically find me pointing
out their self-serving bullshit.
This is a pretty good article but also falls on its face at the end
Mr Shamir's 'inside' information confirms my own take on Petrov and Boshirov which I
published a few days after that RT interview with Ms Simonyan
I wrote this on Col Lang's blog on Sept 14
'Yeah those two 'tourists' do look the part don't they I would say they are probably GRU
or something similar but nobody 'poisoned' the Skripals that's total kabuki theater another
Potemkin village production from the reality masters
Something is afoot here though perhaps these two were lured to Salisbury as part of a
frame up plot, perhaps by Skripal himself or perhaps the Brits caught wind of their plans
to visit [on some standard spying mission, certainly not assassination] and put in motion
the elaborate hoax
Everybody there protested loudly including Andrey Martyanov [Smoothie] I also added
this
' I disagree with everyone here it seems these guys aren't tourists but they also didn't
try to kill anyone that's stupid
It's some sort of spy game
Here's one scenario double agent Skripal makes convincing noises about flipping back
someone at GRU [or some similar outfit] sends these two to Salisbury to check it out a very
stupid move which is why Putin is now miffed enough to display these guys publicly and
their field career surely over also a slap in the face to the silly Limeys for playing
dirty pool even in the cloak and dagger game there are unwritten rules '
This is now exactly the story that Mr Shamir is presenting here but he is a day late and a
dollar short
I also don't agree with his take that this is all somehow a big loss for Russian intel the
Brits are the ones who have painted themselves in a corner their Skripal story is a wet paper
bag waiting to fall apart the fact that they lured the Russians to Salisbury, under whatever
pretext, be it Skripal or Porton Down/white helmets etc was their only small tactical victory
because they could then later expose those two after months of Russian denials in order to
show the Russians were in fact somehow involved
But that exposure came months later all that time the Russians would have known that
Boshirov and Petrov had been captured on candid camera and would have had time to work on
their countermove
Mr Shamir writes this like the game is over that is ridiculous the Brits have no way out
of the Skripal hoax there was never any poisoning the original diagnosis of the Skripals in
the Salisbury hospital was opioid overdose that came out in the first BBC interview with the
hospital staff months after the 'poisoning'
It was not until 48 hours after the Skripals were admitted to hospital and the convenient
intervention of Porton Down that the medical diagnosis was 'changed' to nerve agent
poisoning
BUT this is an unsustainable story that WILL FALL APART the simple reason is medical and
chemical fact both nerve agents and agricultural pesticides are based on the exact
same chemical compound organophosphates
'There are nearly 3 million poisonings per year resulting in two hundred thousand
deaths.'
That is the simple reason why emergency doctors EVERYWHERE are trained to recognize and
treat this kind of poisoning especially in rural, agricultural areas like
Salisbury
That is why it took months for media to gain access to the medical staff at that hospital
the British spooks needed to do a lot of 'persuading' with medical professionals that would
have wanted no part in such trickery and fakery
But this is a ticking time bomb that is bound to blow up in the faces of the very stupid
Brits
So yes they pulled off a minor coup in luring those two to Salisbury but the game is very
very far from over
As for Skripal he is in on it for sure as I speculated in my original comment on the
matter..the Russian intel services are perfectly aware of this, yet Mr Shamir's supposedly
well connected source has zero knowledge of this which tells me this source is actually a
useless clown who 'knows' exactly what an internet commenter [myself] already knew two months
ago
PS the fact that the Brits supposedly have all kinds of database info on the Russian intel
apparatus and personnel files etc doesn't mean anything the author is a making a big deal out
of this, but his story lacks meat on its bones most 'intel' is open source material
anyway
As for sensitive stuff that may have been 'sold' by 'corrupt' bureaucrats one must ask if
such 'info' is actually real or a clever plant providing fake info is the oldest spy trick in
the book and this article simply takes for granted that such a trick would not have been
employed why not ?
@FB How would a fake
database leak include the real data on the two GRU agents that just happened to be sent to
UK? Maybe it was to make the data leak seem real?
In spycraft it is always impossible to know how deep the deception goes. That's why the
very article to which you are responding started with:
It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and
counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the
subterranean battle.
I think that a clear strategy by the western "intelligence" services is starting to emerge
vis-a-vis the Russians. By accusing any Russian that they can get their hands on, of being a
spy, they want to scare the ordinary Russians from visiting the west, so afterwards any
Russian actually caught traveling to the west can be safely assumed to be a spy – since
by the calculations of the clever western intelligence – only someone who is actually a
spy while at the same time being Russian, would dare to travel to the west. How smart is
that?
Joking aside, it really is becoming unsafe for Russian nationals to travel to the west.
Even though the west reserves the generosity of calling somebody equal only for those that
are from the 3rd world – Russians clearly don't deserve such generosity.
Despite this, exceptions can be made and some unfortunate Russian soul could be accused of
being equal with those highly evolved westerners and against their will can be offered
protection from Mother Russia.
Pretty much like it happened to Yulia Skripal. She was only visiting her gastarbeiter
father in GB, who apparently expressed desire to return to Russia, against pretty much
everybody's wishes, and all of a sudden Yulia Skripal found herself bestowed with the western
generosity of being declared equal, and was disappeared from public eye in order to protect
her from those with whom she is clearly not equal – the Russians.
Thank God at least MI-6 proved equal to the task and discovered her equalness in a nick of
time and saved her. The moral of the story: Only democracy has the power to recognize who is
equal and who is not. Then, on the other hand, capitalism can keep acquiring new monikers
such as "democracy" – all they want, Russia still has better quality of equality,
despite ditching socialism.
@CalDre Yes I 'stubbornly'
refuse to take at face value this silly statement
it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean
battle.'
Because it's not backed up by anything other than hot air as for that supposed 'data'
about Petrov and Boshirov
that was put out by Bellingcat
Ie mickey mouse stuff as with everything these clowns do, it is meant only to bamboozle
the most utterly stupid bipeds
A very nice clue is the fact that a Russian website called 'The Insider' is Bellingcat's
acknowledged partner here
If you read the article in English they claim to have 'dug' up a lot of info from various
sources such the central Russian resident database and passenger check in data for their
flight to the UK
Big deal that Shamir is building a mountain out of a molehill is more than clear
In fact this entire Shamir tale appears to have one subtle purpose to publicize and
glorify the Bellingcat outfit
which irredeemably lost any credibility a few weeks back when illiterate poofter Eliott
Higgins refused a debate challenge by the distinguished MIT physicist and former presidential
advisor Ted Postol actually calling Postol an 'idiot' a move that astounded even those
willing to entertain Higgins on a semi-credible level
@Anatoly Karlin Be that as
it may, the "Western side" had (publicly known) Aldrich, Hanssen and Benghazi fiasco.
Boils down to, from the comment below:
When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market
.) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret
service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best
postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has
a price..
and
Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage.
And, on top of it, in West, since the fall of The Wall, we've been having "Cooking the
Intelligence to Fit the Political Agenda".
This commenter begs to differ with M. Karlin's assessment (8) of the relative competence of
Russian sovok and CIA. "consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian
intelligence services"? Mais non.
CIA always gets caught. All they do is step on their crank, again and again. They depend
not on professionalism but on what Russ Baker describes as a strange mix of ruthlessness and
ineptitude. Both stem from impunity in municipal law.
For example: CIA torture and coercive interference got comprehensively exposed, worldwide,
in the '70s. What happened? Don Gregg gave the Church and Pike committees an ultimatum: Back
off or it's martial law. CIA got busted again in the '80s for the criminal enterprises under
the Iran/Contra rubric. By then CIA had installed Tom Polgar, Former Saigon Station Chief, as
chief investigator for the cognizant Senate Select committee, and Polgar assured Gregg that
his hearings would not be a repeat of the abortive Pike and Church flaps.
So CIA are clowns. They can afford to be clowns because they know they can get away with
it. Getting away with it is their only skill, and the only skill they need.
The persistent category error at this site is failing to realize that CIA is the state.
They rule the USA.
'When she was offered the UN role, Haley reportedly recalled, "I told [Trump], 'Honestly, I
don't even know what the UN does,' " to which the crowd "erupted with sympathetic
laughter and applause," Blumenthal writes.
Baturally after saying she doesn't know what UN does Nikki got the job
If you are finding your way out of the dark forest of propaganda there are two speeches by
Putin that I point people toward. First, at the Munich Security Conference in 2007. Video
here : Transcript
here
Second, at the UN General Assembly September 2015, Video here : Transcript here .
I fail to see how any rational person could disagree with the sentiments he expresses.
Warning! You may become a Putin-bot!
"... Russia does not have the concept of a preventive strike in its doctrine for using nuclear arms. We only consider using it in response. That means that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons only when we have hard facts that a potential aggressor is striking on Russia, on Russian territory with nuclear weapons. ..."
"... They tried to do the same by attacking South Ossetia. As a result of those criminal, basically, criminal actions, Georgia has lost significant territories -- as a result of Saakashvili's actions, this is the result of his work. It would be very sad if today's Ukrainian authorities would follow in his footsteps. ..."
One al-Masdar News item I tried to link was about Zionist jets testing the outer envelope
of Syrian airspace earlier today. Clearly they think the Ukrainian S-300 they trained against
differs little from the very upgraded versions employed in Syria, which are much closer to
S-400 in most abilities other than missile performance. I wonder if the Zionist pilots will
draw straws to see which one of them becomes the sacrificial lamb--perhaps it ought to fall
to the top Zionist air force commander.
For all Aussie Barflies, Partisangirl posts an
"Honest #australian government ad about anti-encryption laws," in which they are called "Ass
Access." Excellent short vid that ought to catch fire before YouTube yanks it.
RT has posted the full
video of the annual Valdai Club meeting with Putin. This year they've ditched the
traditional panel discussion in favor of Putin answering questions solo. For those MoA
regulars who don't have the time to watch it, I've transcribed a few of Putin's answers that
I found interesting.
Putin on Crimea school shooting
This is most likely a result of globalization, strange as that may sound. On social media,
on the internet, we see entire communities created. It all started with the well-known tragic
shootings in U.S. high schools, where young people who are mentally unstable create false
idols, false heroes for themselves. And that means that all of us, not only in Russia, but
globally, we don't react promptly to the changing realities around the Globe, we don't create
content that would be helpful and interesting for young people, and so they have to grab this
surrogate of heroic images, and that leads to tragedies like this one.
Putin on nuclear retaliation
In our concept of using nuclear weapons there is no such notion as a preventive strike.
And I would like to request all those present here and all those who will be reporting on
what I'm saying and analyzing every word I say or using what I say for their own narrative,
please take note of this fact, that Russia does not have the concept of a preventive strike
in its doctrine for using nuclear arms. We only consider using it in response. That means
that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons only when we have hard facts that a potential
aggressor is striking on Russia, on Russian territory with nuclear weapons.
Now, this is no
secret, we have prepared an early warning system, we have created it and we keep improving
it. This system analyzes globally, world-wide, where launches are being made, including
oceanic surface, they identify where missiles are being launched from, secondly, their
trajectory and the point of impact. All this is being identified and analyzed within seconds.
And so only if we identify through that system that missiles are being launched at us, only
then will we deliver a retaliatory strike, a strike in response. Only when there are missiles
airborne being launched at Russia.
Of course, that would lead to a global disaster, to a
nuclear catastrophe, but Russia cannot become its instigator or initiator, because we don't
have a preventive strike as part of our military doctrine. Of course, once someone has
launched nuclear missiles at us, it would be maybe too late to stop them, but a potential
aggressor should know that there would be a retaliation, and we will get to heaven as
martyrs, and our enemies will simply simply die as dogs, because they won't even have time to
redeem themselves (repent). (nervous laughter in the audience)
Putin on Ukraine
Currently, the Ukrainian regime is not merely deadlocking the situation. There're
conducting an anti-state and anti-public policy, the same way it was done by Saakashvili in
Georgia. They tried to do the same by attacking South Ossetia. As a result of those criminal,
basically, criminal actions, Georgia has lost significant territories -- as a result of Saakashvili's actions, this is the result of his work. It would be very sad if today's
Ukrainian authorities would follow in his footsteps.
I hope that that would not be the case.
But what has happened over the past time in social sphere, in economics? What's happening
there? What we see is de-industrialization of the Ukrainian economy. There's basically no
investments coming. They're just talking about investments, but nothing is taking place in
reality. How can you work with economy that is always shaken by some kinds of shocks or
undermined by domestic political crises? There is also war hysteria. All things have been
destroyed. Where is that ship-building industry that Ukraine was proud of? Where's the
aircraft-building industry, which was created by the whole Soviet Union throughout decades?
What about spaceship-building? It has also been lost. And the same goes for every part of
Ukrainian pride of the past. And what's happening is what I have been saying. I'm just saying
it outloud here, but I wanted to ask you a rhetorical question. Why did our Western partners
need that, especially the previous leadership of European Commission? Why did they have to
insist on such a hard choice, hard engagement of Ukraine in the European Association? What
did that give to Ukraine? The open market? So they're asking for Ukraine to bring out round
timber. But it's not Siberia -- three or four years of work, and they're going to destroy all
of the forests. And now Western partners are asking for GMO products in agriculture. Then we
will have to close borders, because GMO is prohibited in our country. Now they're going to
take the black earth soil out of Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that today's policy of
Ukrainian authorities is aimed at what, what are they trading in? They're trading in
Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiments, there are no more goods there. And they're being
forgiven for everything for that. Because the nightmare of our Western partners is that
Russia and Ukraine are cooperating in any way, because they think there will be growing
competition in the world as a result of such cooperation. But we don't a claim for that, we
just wanted to have normal work. Why did they have to open up Ukrainian markets without
giving anything in return? And demanding from the Ukrainian government, constantly, to raise
the prices for (natural) gas. They understand that the purchasing power of the population is
not so high, they used to gather just peanuts for the (natural) gas industry before (in
utility payments), and now they're basically gathering nothing -- all benefits, all pensions
are at zero. So we're gonna have to wait for the domestic political cycle to end, and I truly
hope that with a new leadership of the country we'll be capable of building at least some
kind of relations and agree on something. We are prepared for that and we want that.
Oh for the day when a western leader could speak with such intellectual rigour, such
philosophical integrity and with such basic common sense. Russia has a giant, we have a bunch
of pygmies.
Recap of Putin's
remarks at Valdai Club provided by Sputnik covers lots of ground. I'll post a link to the
full transcript when I find it. Yes, he does comment on Khashoggi affair, which I'll post
onto that thread. Haven't seen a recap of Lavrov's remarks yet.
It appears that links to al-Masdar News are now being blocked by TypePad where they weren't
previously.
Medvedev interview
transcript with Euronews TV shows he's learned a few pointers from Putin on not being
cowed. He'll represent Russia at the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). This Summit, which few have
probably heard about, is mainly a talk-shop not a deal-making venue like the G-20, but
Medvedev sees it as a useful forum. No, he wasn't asked about Khashoggi, but was queried
about Skripal affair.
karlof1 , Oct 18, 2018 2:41:08 PM |
linkS , Oct 18, 2018 3:04:23 PM |
link
RT has posted the full
video of the annual Valdai Club meeting with Putin. This year they've ditched the
traditional panel discussion in favor of Putin answering questions solo. For those MoA
regulars who don't have the time to watch it, I've transcribed a few of Putin's answers that
I found interesting.
Putin on Crimea school shooting
This is most likely a result of globalization, strange as that may sound. On social media,
on the internet, we see entire communities created. It all started with the well-known tragic
shootings in U.S. high schools, where young people who are mentally unstable create false
idols, false heroes for themselves. And that means that all of us, not only in Russia, but
globally, we don't react promptly to the changing realities around the Globe, we don't create
content that would be helpful and interesting for young people, and so they have to grab this
surrogate of heroic images, and that leads to tragedies like this one.
Putin on nuclear retaliation
In our concept of using nuclear weapons there is no such notion as a preventive strike.
And I would like to request all those present here and all those who will be reporting on
what I'm saying and analyzing every word I say or using what I say for their own narrative,
please take note of this fact, that Russia does not have the concept of a preventive strike
in its doctrine for using nuclear arms. We only consider using it in response. That means
that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons only when we have hard facts that a potential
aggressor is striking on Russia, on Russian territory with nuclear weapons. Now, this is no
secret, we have prepared an early warning system, we have created it and we keep improving
it. This system analyzes globally, world-wide, where launches are being made, including
oceanic surface, they identify where missiles are being launched from, secondly, their
trajectory and the point of impact. All this is being identified and analyzed within seconds.
And so only if we identify through that system that missiles are being launched at us, only
then will we deliver a retaliatory strike, a strike in response. Only when there are missiles
airborne being launched at Russia. Of course, that would lead to a global disaster, to a
nuclear catastrophe, but Russia cannot become its instigator or initiator, because we don't
have a preventive strike as part of our military doctrine. Of course, once someone has
launched nuclear missiles at us, it would be maybe too late to stop them, but a potential
aggressor should know that there would be a retaliation, and we will get to heaven as
martyrs, and our enemies will simply simply die as dogs, because they won't even have time to
redeem themselves (repent). (nervous laughter in the audience)
Putin on Ukraine
Currently, the Ukrainian regime is not merely deadlocking the situation. There're
conducting an anti-state and anti-public policy, the same way it was done by Saakashvili in
Georgia. They tried to do the same by attacking South Ossetia. As a result of those criminal,
basically, criminal actions, Georgia has lost significant territories -- as a result of
Saakashvili's actions, this is the result of his work. It would be very sad if today's
Ukrainian authorities would follow in his footsteps. I hope that that would not be the case.
But what has happened over the past time in social sphere, in economics? What's happening
there? What we see is de-industrialization of the Ukrainian economy. There's basically no
investments coming. They're just talking about investments, but nothing is taking place in
reality. How can you work with economy that is always shaken by some kinds of shocks or
undermined by domestic political crises? There is also war hysteria. All things have been
destroyed. Where is that ship-building industry that Ukraine was proud of? Where's the
aircraft-building industry, which was created by the whole Soviet Union throughout decades?
What about spaceship-building? It has also been lost. And the same goes for every part of
Ukrainian pride of the past. And what's happening is what I have been saying. I'm just saying
it outloud here, but I wanted to ask you a rhetorical question. Why did our Western partners
need that, especially the previous leadership of European Commission? Why did they have to
insist on such a hard choice, hard engagement of Ukraine in the European Association? What
did that give to Ukraine? The open market? So they're asking for Ukraine to bring out round
timber. But it's not Siberia -- three or four years of work, and they're going to destroy all
of the forests. And now Western partners are asking for GMO products in agriculture. Then we
will have to close borders, because GMO is prohibited in our country. Now they're going to
take the black earth soil out of Ukraine. Therefore, I believe that today's policy of
Ukrainian authorities is aimed at what, what are they trading in? They're trading in
Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiments, there are no more goods there. And they're being
forgiven for everything for that. Because the nightmare of our Western partners is that
Russia and Ukraine are cooperating in any way, because they think there will be growing
competition in the world as a result of such cooperation. But we don't a claim for that, we
just wanted to have normal work. Why did they have to open up Ukrainian markets without
giving anything in return? And demanding from the Ukrainian government, constantly, to raise
the prices for (natural) gas. They understand that the purchasing power of the population is
not so high, they used to gather just peanuts for the (natural) gas industry before (in
utility payments), and now they're basically gathering nothing -- all benefits, all pensions
are at zero. So we're gonna have to wait for the domestic political cycle to end, and I truly
hope that with a new leadership of the country we'll be capable of building at least some
kind of relations and agree on something. We are prepared for that and we want that.
Thanks for doing that work! Transcript at Kremlin website's still incomplete, containing
probably half of entire program. As usual, much of importance was stated. Putin's
matter-of-fact delivery regarding use of nuclear weapons and the nature of those who would
launch a first strike was sobering. The question today's reversed: Do Americans love their
children too? Unfortunately, given what's happening here domestically, the answer provided by
DC Duopoly policy makers is NO, they don't give a damn about their kids or anyone else's!
The President has authority under the Global Magnitsky Act to impose sanctions against
anyone who has committed a human rights violation. Congress has already requested a HR
investigation which Trump must act on and report to them within 4 months
It appears my prediction of Saudi gate may be right. This potentially is good news for
Iran and Russia. Perhaps not so good for Trump and Saidis. Israel may not be happy. Perhaps
his wife's plane troubles were a warning shot to remind him who is boss. Who knows ?
Haleys resignation beginning to make sense now. The House of Trump and House of Saud may
soon fall, and Bibi wont be happy losing Trump and MBS. We all know what they are capable of
to get things back on track
Why did the media held back on this so for so long?
Yemen (and Gaza).
CGTN & Al-Jazeera are the only global news outlets consistently and regularly reporting on the US facilitated
genocides in Yemen and Jewish-occupied Palestine/Gaza.
The never-ending Khashoggi non-mystery mystery keeps Yemen & Gaza out of the Jew-controlled Western Media
headlines. Saudi Barbaria and "Israel" are natural allies because each of them is an artificial Western political
construct with a cowardly and incompetent military apparatus and an anti-heroic penchant for slaughtering undefended
civilians - for psychopathic reasons.
--------
Talking about psychopathy...
Oz's Christian Zionist PM, Sco Mo, is blathering about following Trump's lead and moving Oz's Embassy in "Israel" to
Jerusalem. Sc Mo, who has never had an original idea in his life, still hasn't woken up to the fact that Trump's
Jerusalem gambit was a trap for Bibi. So it's hilarious that Sco Mo The Unoriginal, is planning to take a flying
leap into the same trap!
Anyone with more than half a brain would realise that...
1. No civilised country has followed Trump's lead.
2. Trump can, and will, reverse his (illegal) Jerusalem decision out of a 'new-found respect' for International Law.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 18, 2018 12:14:08 AM |
83
Whoever is ultimately behind this campaign (which I
suspect is a loose association of interest groups spread throughout SA, Turkey, London citi, wall street, whoever)
they will not stop until MbS is paraded through the streets in chains or at least his head at the end of a lance. At
this point the only question how many days will it take to see his head on a pike?
"Their target that night: Anssaf Ali Mayo, the local leader of the Islamist
political party Al-Islah. The UAE considers Al-Islah to be the Yemeni branch of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood,
which the UAE calls a terrorist organization. Many experts insist that Al-Islah, one of whose members won the Nobel
Peace Prize, is no terror group. They say it's a legitimate political party that threatens the UAE not through
violence but by speaking out against its ambitions in Yemen."
The macabre case of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi raises the question: did Saudi rulers
fear him revealing highly damaging information on their secret dealings? In particular,
possible involvement in the 9/11 terror attacks on New York in 2001.
Even more intriguing are US media
reports now emerging that American intelligence had snooped on and were aware of Saudi
officials making plans to capture Khashoggi prior to his apparent disappearance at the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul last week. If the Americans knew the journalist's life was in danger, why
didn't they tip him off to avoid his doom?
Jamal Khashoggi (59) had gone rogue, from the Saudi elite's point of view. Formerly a senior
editor in Saudi state media and an advisor to the royal court, he was imminently connected and
versed in House of Saud affairs. As one commentator cryptically put it: "He knew where all the
bodies were buried."
For the past year, Khashoggi went into self-imposed exile, taking up residence in the US,
where he began writing opinion columns for the Washington Post.
Khashoggi's articles appeared to be taking on increasingly critical tone against the heir to
the Saudi throne, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The 33-year-old Crown Prince, or MbS as
he's known, is de facto ruler of the oil-rich kingdom, in place of his aging father, King
Salman.
While Western media and several leaders, such as Presidents Trump and Macron, have been
indulging MbS as "a reformer", Khashoggi was spoiling this Saudi public relations effort by
criticizing the war in Yemen, the blockade on Qatar and the crackdown on Saudi critics back
home.
However, what may have caused the Saudi royals more concern was what Khashoggi knew about
darker, dirtier matters. And not just the Saudis, but American deep state actors as as
well.
He was formerly a
media aide to Prince Turki al Faisal, who is an eminence gris figure in Saudi intelligence,
with its systematic relations to American and British counterparts. Prince Turki's father,
Faisal, was formerly the king of Saudi Arabia until his assassination in 1975 by a family
rival. Faisal was a half-brother of the present king, Salman, and therefore Prince Turki is a
cousin of the Crown Prince – albeit at 73 more than twice his age.
For nearly 23 years, from 1977 to 2001, Prince Turki was the director of the Mukhabarat, the
Saudi state intelligence apparatus. He was instrumental in Saudi, American and British
organization of the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to combat Soviet forces. Those militants
in Afghanistan later evolved into the al Qaeda terror network, which has served as a cat's paw
in various US proxy wars across the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, including
Russia's backyard in the Caucasus.
Ten days before the 9/11 terror attacks on New York City, in which some 3,000 Americans
died, Prince Turki retired from his post as
head of Saudi intelligence. It was an abrupt departure, well before his tenure was due to
expire.
There has previously been speculation in US
media that this senior Saudi figure knew in advance that something major was going down on
9/11. At least 15 of the 19 Arabs who allegedly hijacked three commercial airplanes that day
were Saudi nationals.
Prince Turki has subsequently been named in a 2002 lawsuit mounted by families of 9/11
victims. There is little suggestion he was wittingly involved in organizing the terror plot.
Later public comments indicated that Prince Turki was horrified by the atrocity. But the
question is: did he know of the impending incident, and did he alert US intelligence, which
then did not take appropriate action to prevent it?
Jamal Khashoggi had long served as a trusted media advisor to Prince Turki, before the
latter resigned from public office in 2007. Following 9/11, Turki was the Saudi ambassador to
both the US and Britain.
A tentative idea here is that Khashoggi, in his close dealings with Prince Turki over the
years, may have gleaned highly sensitive inside information on what actually happened on 9/11.
Were the Arab hijackers mere patsies used by the American CIA to facilitate an event which has
since been used by American military planners to launch a global "war on terror" as a cover for
illegal wars overseas? There is a huge body of evidence that the 9/11 attacks were indeed a
"false flag" event orchestrated by the US deep state as a pretext for its imperialist
rampages.
The apparent abduction and murder last week of Jamal Khashoggi seems such an astoundingly
desperate move by the Saudi rulers. More evidence is emerging from Turkish
sources that the journalist was indeed lured to the consulate in Istanbul where he was
killed by a 15-member hit squad. Reports are saying that the alleged assassination was ordered
at the highest level of the Saudi royal court, which implicates Crown Prince MbS.
Why would the Saudi rulers order such a heinous act, which would inevitably lead to acute
political problems, as we are seeing in the fallout from governments and media coverage around
the world?
Over the past year, the House of Saud had been appealing to Khashoggi to return to Riyadh
and resume his services as a media advisor to the royal court. He declined, fearing that
something more sinister was afoot. When Khashoggi turned up in Istanbul to collect a divorce
document from the Saudi consulate on September 28, it appears that the House of Saud decided to
nab him. He was told to return to the consulate on October 2. On that same day, the 15-member
group arrived from Riyadh on two private Gulfstream jets for the mission to kill him.
Official Saudi claims stretch credulity. They say Khashoggi left the consulate building
unharmed by a backdoor, although they won't provide CCTV images to prove that. The Turks say
their own CCTV facilities monitoring the front and back of the Saudi consulate show that
Khashoggi did not leave the premises. The Turks seem confident of their claim he was murdered
inside the building, his remains dismembered and removed in diplomatic vehicles. The two
private jets left the same day from Istanbul with the 15 Saudis onboard to return to Riyadh,
via Cairo and Dubai.
To carry out such a reckless act, the Saudis must have been alarmed by Khashoggi's critical
commentaries appearing in the Washington Post. The columns appeared to be delivering more and
more damaging insights into the regime under Crown Prince MbS.
The Washington Post this week is
reporting that US intelligence sources knew from telecom intercepts that the Saudis were
planning to abduct Khashoggi. That implicates the House of Saud in a dastardly premeditated act
of murder.
But furthermore this same disclosure could also, unwittingly, implicate US intelligence. If
the latter knew of a malicious intent towards Khashoggi, why didn't US agents warn him about
going to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul? Surely, he could have obtained the same personal
documents from the Saudi embassy in Washington DC, a country where he was residing and would
have been safer.
Jamal Khashoggi may have known too many dark secrets about US and Saudi intel collusion,
primarily related to the 9/11 terror incidents. And with his increasing volubility as a
critical journalist in a prominent American news outlet, it may have been time to silence him.
The Saudis as hitmen, the American CIA as facilitators.
The stunning CSU defeat in Bavaria means that the coalition partner in Angela Merkel's
government has lost an absolute majority in their worst election results in Bavaria since
1950.
In a preview analysis before the election, Deutsche
Welle noted that a CSU collapse could lead to Seehofer's resignation from Merkel's
government, and conceivably Söder's exit from the Bavarian state premiership, which would
remove two of the chancellor's most outspoken critics from power , and give her room to govern
in the calmer, crisis-free manner she is accustomed to.
On the other hand, a heavy loss and big resignations in the CSU might well push a
desperate party in a more volatile, abrasive direction at the national level. That would
further antagonize the SPD, the center-left junior partners in Merkel's coalition, themselves
desperate for a new direction and already impatient with Seehofer's destabilizing antics, and
precipitate a break-up of the age-old CDU/CSU alliance, and therefore a break-up of Merkel's
grand coalition. In short: Anything could happen after Sunday, up to and including Merkel's
fall.
The Financial Times reports that the campaign was dominated by the divisive issue of
immigration, in a sign of how the shockwaves from Merkel's disastrous decision to let in more
than a million refugees in 2015-16 are continuing to reverberate through German politics and to
reshape the party landscape.
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the stunning
Bavarian election defeat of the CSU party, and the message voters sent to Angela Merkel, the
last of the Obama 'rat pack' neo-liberal, globalist leaders whose tenure as German Chancellor
appears to be coming to an end.
United States District Judge S. James Otero issued an order and ruling today dismissing
Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against President Trump. The ruling also states that the
President is entitled to an award of his attorneys' fees against Stormy Daniels. A copy of
the ruling is attached. No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr.
Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today's ruling in any way other than total victory for
President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels. The amount of the award for President
Trump's attorneys' fees will be determined at a later date.
Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti responded to the dismissal, tweeting: "We will appeal the
dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal," while stating
that Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen "proceed unaffected."
Re Judge's limited ruling: Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed
unaffected. Trump's contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration
attendance.
We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a
reversal.
Last week Trump's legal team argued that it made no sense for them to keep fighting in court
over a $130,000 hush payment received by Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, as she
invalidated the non-disclosure agreement she signed with Trump's longtime fixer and lawyer,
Michael Cohen.
The lawsuit is moot because Trump has consented that the agreement, as she has claimed,
was never formed because he didn't sign it and he has agreed not to try to enforce it, Trump
said in his court filing. The company created by Cohen to facilitate the non-disclosure
agreement, which initially said Clifford faced more than $20 million in damages for talking,
said in September that it wouldn't sue to enforce the deal. -
Yahoo
Michael Avenatti's terrible October
This month has not treated Stormy's attorney well. Michael Avenatti went from Democrat
darling during his representation of Daniels, to scapegoat over Justice Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination to the Supreme Court after he introduced an 11th hour claim by a woman who said
Kavanaugh orchestrated gang-rape parties in the early 1980s - an allegation thought by many to
have derailed otherwise legitimate claims against the Judge.
Less than two weeks later Avenatti came under fire after he launched a now-deleted
fundraising page for Texas Democratic Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke.
In the fine print, O'Rourke supporters discovered that half the proceeds went to Avenatti's
Fight PAC , which he formed a little over
seven weeks ago .
Avenatti called the criticism "complete nonsense," noting that Senators Elizabeth Warren and
Kamala Harris "do the same thing." Perhaps sensing he'd made a huge mistake, Avenatti deleted
the page - telling the Daily Beast in a text message: "It wasn't worth the nonsense that
resulted from people that don't understand how common this is."
The question now is; after three strikes, is Avenatti out?
Given his free $50 million in publicity, and the amount of GoFundMe he's gonna get or has
gotten, I'd say "losing" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, lol.
Avenatti is the best thing that has happened to Trump.
It's almost like he is intentionally doing stupid and outrageous things to make the dems
look even more unhinged than they are.
I wouldn't be surprised if we find he has been secretly working for Trump all along. Trump
did run a reality show after all so that would be a great plot twist ;)
The best thing about Avenatti and the Clintons is that they won't stop until they bring
the entire Democratic Party down. It reminds me of Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer,
scumbags who keep coming back and discredit the entire party because of their own glorious
egos.
Fascism is always eclectic and its doctrine is composed of several sometimes contradicting each other ideas. "Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..." (Ideologically speaking,
[the program] was a wooly, eclectic mixture of political, social, racist, national-imperialist wishful thinking..."
)
Some ideas are "sound bite only" and never are implemented and are present only to attract sheeple (looks
National Socialist Program ). he program championed
the right to employment , and called for the institution of
profit sharing , confiscation of
war profits , prosecution of usurers and profiteers,
nationalization of trusts , communalization of department stores,
extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a
national education program of all classes, prohibition
of child labor , and an end to the dominance of
investment capital "
There is also "bait and switch" element in any fascism movement. Original fascism was strongly anti-capitalist, militaristic and
"national greatness and purity" movement ("Make Germany great again"). It was directed against financial oligarchy and anti-semantic
element in it was strong partially because it associated Jews with bankers and financial industry in general. In a way "Jews" were codeword
for investment bankers.
For example " Arbeit Macht Frei " can be viewed as
a neoliberal slogan. Then does not mean that neoliberalism. with its cult of productivity, is equal to fascism, but that neoliberal
doctrine does encompass elements of the fascist doctrine including strong state, "law and order" mentality and relentless propaganda.
The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so often that it lost its meaning. The Nazi Party (NSDAP) originated
as a working-class political party . This is not true about
Trump whom many assume of having fascist leanings. His pro white working class rhetoric was a fig leaf used for duration or elections.
After that he rules as a typical Republican president favoring big business. And as a typical neocon in foreign policy.
From this point of view Trump can't be viewed even as pro-fascist leader because first of all he does not have his own political
movement, ideology and political program. And the second he does not strive for implementing uniparty state and abolishing the elections
which is essential for fascism political platform, as fascist despise corrupt democracy and have a cult of strong leader.
All he can be called is neo-fascist s his some of his views do encompass ideas taken from fascist ideology (including "law and order";
which also is a cornerstone element of Republican ideology) as well as idealization and mystification of the US past. But with Bannon
gone he also can't even pretend that he represents some coherent political movement like "economic nationalism" -- kind of enhanced
mercantilism.
Of course, that does not mean that previous fascist leaders were bound by the fascism political program, but at least they had one.
Historian Karl Dietrich Bracher writes that, "To [Hitler,
the program] was little more than an effective, persuasive propaganda weapon for mobilizing and manipulating the masses. Once it had
brought him to power, it became pure decoration: 'unalterable', yet unrealized in its demands for nationalization and expropriation,
for land reform and 'breaking the shackles of finance capital'. Yet it nonetheless fulfilled its role as backdrop and pseudo-theory,
against which the future dictator could unfold his rhetorical and dramatic talents."
Notable quotes:
"... Fascist politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago. ..."
"... Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals, its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present, these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics. ..."
"... In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence. ..."
"... fascist myths distinguish themselves with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests and civilization-building achievements. ..."
"... The function of the mythic past, in fascist politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity, and struggle. ..."
It's in the name of tradition that the anti-Semites base their "point of view." It's in the name of tradition, the long, historical
past and the blood ties with Pascal and Descartes, that the Jews are told, you will never belong here.
-- Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (1952)
It is only natural to begin this book where fascist politics invariably claims to discover its genesis: in the past. Fascist
politics invokes a pure mythic past tragically destroyed. Depending on how the nation is defined, the mythic past may be religiously
pure, racially pure, culturally pure, or all of the above. But there is a common structure to all fascist mythologizing. In all fascist
mythic pasts, an extreme version of the patriarchal family reigns supreme, even just a few generations ago.
Further back in time, the mythic past was a time of glory of the nation, with wars of conquest led by patriotic generals,
its armies filled with its countrymen, able-bodied, loyal warriors whose wives were at home raising the next generation. In the present,
these myths become the basis of the nation's identity under fascist politics.
In the rhetoric of extreme nationalists, such a glorious past has been lost by the humiliation brought on by globalism, liberal
cosmopolitanism, and respect for "universal values" such as equality. These values are supposed to have made the nation weak in the
face of real and threatening challenges to the nation's existence.
These myths are generally based on fantasies of a nonexistent past uniformity, which survives in the traditions of the small towns
and countrysides that remain relatively unpolluted by the liberal decadence of the cities. This uniformity -- linguistic, religious,
geographical, or ethnic -- can be perfectly ordinary in some nationalist movements, but fascist myths distinguish themselves
with the creation of a glorious national history in which the members of the chosen nation ruled over others, the result of conquests
and civilization-building achievements. For example, in the fascist imagination, the past invariably involves traditional, patriarchal
gender roles. The fascist mythic past has a particular structure, which supports its authoritarian, hierarchical ideology. That past
societies were rarely as patriarchal -- or indeed as glorious -- as fascist ideology represents them as being is beside the point.
This imagined history provides proof to support the imposition of hierarchy in the present, and it dictates how contemporary society
should look and behave.
In a 1922 speech at the Fascist Congress in Naples, Benito Mussolini declared:
We have created our myth. The myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary for it to be a reality. . . . Our myth is
the nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation! And to this myth, this greatness, which we want to translate into a total
reality, we subordinate everything.
The patriarchal family is one ideal that fascist politicians intend to create in society -- or return to, as they claim. The patriarchal
family is always represented as a central part of the nation's traditions, diminished, even recently, by the advent of liberalism
and cosmopolitanism. But why is patriarchy so strategically central to fascist politics?
In a fascist society, the leader of the nation is analogous to the father in the traditional patriarchal family. The leader is
the father of his nation, and his strength and power are the source of his legal authority, just as the strength and power of the
father of the family in patriarchy are supposed to be the source of his ultimate moral authority over his children and wife. The
leader provides for his nation, just as in the traditional family the father is the provider. The patriarchal father's authority
derives from his strength, and strength is the chief authoritarian value. By representing the nation's past as one with a patriarchal
family structure, fascist politics connects nostalgia to a central organizing hierarchal authoritarian structure, one that finds
its purest representation in these norms.
Gregor Strasser was the National Socialist -- Nazi -- Reich propaganda chief in the 1920s, before the post was taken over by Joseph
Goebbels. According to Strasser, "for a man, military service is the most profound and valuable form of participation -- for the
woman it is motherhood!" Paula Siber, the acting head of the Association of German Women, in a 1933 document meant to reflect official
National Socialist state policy on women, declares that "to be a woman means to be a mother, means affirming with the whole conscious
force of one's soul the value of being a mother and making it a law of life . . . the highest calling of the National Socialist
woman is not just to bear children, but consciously and out of total devotion to her role and duty as mother to raise children for
her people." Richard Grunberger, a British historian of National Socialism, sums up "the kernel of Nazi thinking on the women's question"
as "a dogma of inequality between the sexes as immutable as that between the races." The historian Charu Gupta, in her 1991 article
"Politics of Gender: Women in Nazi Germany," goes as far as to argue that "oppression of women in Nazi Germany in fact furnishes
the most extreme case of anti-feminism in the 20th century."
Here, Mussolini makes clear that the fascist mythic past is intentionally mythical. The function of the mythic past, in fascist
politics, is to harness the emotion of nostalgia to the central tenets of fascist ideology -- authoritarianism, hierarchy, purity,
and struggle.
With the creation of a mythic past, fascist politics creates a link between nostalgia and the realization of fascist ideals. German
fascists also clearly and explicitly appreciated this point about the strategic use of a mythological past. The leading Nazi ideologue
Alfred Rosenberg, editor of the prominent Nazi newspaper the Völkischer Beobachter, writes in 1924, "the understanding of and the
respect for our own mythological past and our own history will form the first condition for more firmly anchoring the coming generation
in the soil of Europe's original homeland." The fascist mythic past exists to aid in changing the present.
Jason Stanley is the Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy at Yale University. Before coming to Yale in 2013, he was Distinguished
Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Rutgers University. Stanley is the author of Know How; Languages in Context;
More about Jason Stanley
This could have been such a helpful, insightful book. The word "fascist" is hurled at political / ideological opponents so
often that it has started to lose its meaning. I hoped that this book would provide a historical perspective on fascism by examining
actual fascist governments and drawing some parallels to the more egregious / worrisome trends in US & European politics. The
chapter titles in the table of contents were promising:
- The Mythic Past
- Propaganda
- Anti-Intellectual
- Unreality
- Hierarchy
- Victimhood
- Law & Order
- Sexual Anxiety
- Sodom & Gomorrah
- Arbeit Macht Frei
Ironically (given the book's subtitle) the author used his book divisively: to laud his left-wing political views and demonize
virtually all distinctively right-wing views. He uses the term "liberal democracy" inconsistently throughout, disengenuously equivocating
between the meaning of "representative democracy as opposed to autocratic or oligarchic government" (which most readers would
agree is a good thing) and "American left-wing political views" (which he treats as equally self-evidently superior if you are
a right-thinking person). Virtually all American right-wing political views are presented in straw-man form, defined in such a
way that they fit his definition of fascist politics.
I was expecting there to be a pretty heavy smear-job on President Trump and his cronies (much of it richly deserved...the man's
demagoguery and autocratic tendencies are frightening), but for this to turn into "let's find a way to define virtually everything
the Republicans are and do as fascist politics" was massively disappointing. The absurdly biased portrayal of all things conservative
and constant hymns of praise to all things and all people left-wing buried some good historical research and valid parallels under
an avalanche of partisanism.
If you want a more historical, less partisan view of the rise of fascist politics, I would highly recommend Darkness Over Germany
by E. Amy Buller (Review Here). It was written during World War II (based on interviews with Germans before WWII), so you will
have to draw your own contemporary parallels...but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the
Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou, revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned
from her position as US ambassador to the United Nations, is planning to run for president in
2024.
As Kiriakou said:
I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he
told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of
South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to
endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.
And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted
McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South
Carolina.'
Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley
wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.
So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy
experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to
be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about
foreign policy.
So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's
gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And
then, she's gonna run for president in 2024. During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha
Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou,
revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned from her position as US ambassador to the
United Nations, is planning to run for president in 2024.
As Kiriakou said:
I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he
told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of
South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to
endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.
And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted
McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South
Carolina.'
Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley
wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.
So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy
experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to
be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about
foreign policy.
So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's
gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And
then, she's gonna run for president in 2024.
"... Not sure about that, as at least 2 crucial allies, the UK and Australia, were pressured by the Obama and Hillary camps to set this whole narrative off...and therefore does he seriously damage those international and key security countries with info or does he compromise to keep the peace? ..."
"... I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.... That's that the UK's GCHQ initiated spying on Popadolous and Trump Tower at the request of Obummer and/or Rice and/or Brennan, BEFORE the FBI/Comey said UNDER OATH that they started in May, and were denied a FISA warrant in June 2016.... that's why they needed the 'golden shower dossier.' ..."
Some say that declassifying the documents would expose " sources and methods ".
Others say that the documents are being kept secret to prevent the DOJ and FBI from becoming
embarrassed . I say that both can be true.
If the documents expose the liars and fabrications that went into the entire Russia Gate
fraud, then declassifying the documents will indeed embarrass the DOJ and FBI by
showing that their " sources " are liars and that their " methods " are
fabrications.
Either Trump is constantly threatened, boxed into a corner, or it IS ALL FOR SHOW!
The best example is now, Trump "walking back the release" because of Aussie and UK
complicity. The threatened release of USA dirty laundry, of which there is plenty knowing how
our CIA works. Or we are being played once more.
Frankly, I'm beyond sick of these walk backs! IG report! Rosenstein resigns! FISA
Declas!!
I'm an independent voter. It's high time I WALK BACK my vote for all Republicans on
November 6th UNLESS WE THE People that they represent get a FULL UNREDACTED FISA AND IG
REPORT published .
Tell Trump and the Republican party . Protect NOT ONE Criminal. If UK or Aus threaten
exposing spies or military secrets then threaten back with annihilation should they endanger
Americans.
I'm fed up beyond return with Holder, Brennan et al.
Obama, Hillary and the DNC pressured the UK's M16 as the No.1 instigator via Steele, its
lapdog Australia's intelligence service, then told Alexander Downer to forward "salted" info
to US agencies...and 2.5 years later here we are
It's always something that causes The Never Ending Wait..
and it always makes decent sense in the short term (memory loss)..
and it always; and for years now, happens.
I can't buy that those involved are powerful, savvy, or more importantly, courageous
enough to finally stand the hell UP to the powers that be bullshitting the Citizenry. It's
clearly not the case.
And what does Sundance say of the MIA Sessions? Is he really wearing tights and cape under
those rumpled wee suits of his, and just snarling to leap out, indictments in hand, to read
off tens of thousands of the accused' names? "Stealth Jeff"; actor par excellence? Sessions
as Hero? Any day now to be proved The Truth's Hitman?
A GOP-won Midterms would benefit from the declassification of criminal intent that
supports the US President. -> Before the vote. Afterward, and if the vote gone badly, lol
it'll be as useful as John Brennan's soul. And a "Mueller surprise"; if the declassification
happened before the vote, would be tainted beyond its .. surprise.
So why the wait this time - again?
I'm sorry; I don't mean to come across rudely, but "hoping; forever" is exhausting,
damaging to fact based living, induces apathy and entirely suits those who have so much to
hide, and offers nothing to the targets involved; We, the People.
The factions in the FBI/DOJ who want to keep the Russian collusion hoax going are the same
ones who protected Hillary from the most outrageous violation of the espionage laws ever to
bubble to the surface. Office politics in that axis are a lot like any other large company,
with the exception of sending people to prison. So her supporters are still on the job.
The investigation never made first page news, living out here in the alternate press, and
now that The Donald seems to walk back obvious Donaldesque moves, it might never come to
light. Remember his campaign promise was to prosecute Sec. Clinton, and he settled for firing
Comey. So they may get away with most of this yet.
Any time the US government cooperates with the British, we get stuck. The Austrailians are
colonials and love it. So the paperwork for the Comey-McCabe-Rosenstien conspiracy might
never be published.
When the FBI wants a warrant, its presumed that they are not going to make an even-handed
case to the FISA Court. All they have to do is deny that they had sufficient infomation to
the contrary. Thats what makes this court an abomination to our freedom. This is why the US
Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act are a bunch of crap. We are now finding out that
intelligence services knew who concocted 911 (elements within the Saudi Govt along side the
wealthy dissident near-royals ie. the Khashoggis and the Bin-Ladens, and possibly the
Israelis knew too).
Everyone, none of this matters. Has everyone forgotten about 9/11 and the conspiracy
perpetrated on the American people. Frankly all is not what it seems and most of what we are
seeing is simply theatre for the masses.
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture,
are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle,
so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above
their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
~ Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924), 28th President of the United States
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people
inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret
proceedings...Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are
advancing around the globe...no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are
awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has
never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent...For we are opposed
around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert
means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on
subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by
night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material
resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines
military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its
preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its
dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no
secret is revealed."
― President John F. Kennedy
Anyone else worried that the President keeps doing an about face or being unable or
unwilling to deliver on important issues? Orders papers to be published unredacted then they are not? Hillary walking free. No Wall,
no withdrawal from Afghanistan and now backtracking on punishing Saudi Arabia....
" and now backtracking on punishing Saudi Arabia.."
And you think the Russian's really poisoned the Skripals, or that Assad merrily gassed his
own people just before entering peace talks, or that the White Helmet people being invited
into Canada are not Al Nusra terrorists?
You had better be prepared to believe all that if you think the Saudis are stupid enough
to dismember a Washington Post journalist in a Saudi consulate, and to let it be recorded to
boot. How dumb can you get? But then, maybe I misjudge you. Maybe you do believe all that. Not me, pal.
PS For extra confirmation, just look at who has decided not to attend Davos in the Desert.
Top of the list are the New Yawk banksters.
You want to might ask yourself why the Post ran this story, employed the journalist and
published that John Brennan demand that we "punish" Saudi Arabia. You might ask yourself why the NYT pushed the narrative that RR should be fired before
mid-terms.
i watched a documentary about that. basically, binney was genius who created a genius
system to find terrorists while maintaining the integrity of the constitution (and for
relatively cheap cost!). The deep state was like "piss on that," spent 100x more money than
they had to, and wiped their *** with the constitution.
dont forget that the FBI fabricated evidence about Binney and three of his colleagues.The
criminal case against Binney and his colleagues was then thrown out of court once the
fabrication was revealed. This out of control corruption has been going on a long time...
I've stated for months that rank and file are in the tank w/leadership corruption OR they
have been threatened either with harm to themselves of family members if they didn't go
along. However at this point, no whistleblowers proves the former.
Strzok testifed several CDs of ALL 680K emails that included crimes against children,
classified info was handed over to Comey who merely placed them in his office. Comey has been
gone for over six months, why have those CDs not been reviewed and acted on?
There are a LOT of dots and THEY count on YOU not connecting them. I keep a journal.
Lets suppose its all true. Which we pretty much know if you have been paying attention
that the FBI has gone rogue. Then what? Arrests? Mueller? I don't think that's even close to
what is needed. We are talking major treason from multiple levels and people through out
government.
" the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two foreign allies asked
him to keep them classified. "
refers to the British and Australian governments who would be embarassed because rogue
agents wishing to arrange for the impeachment of Trump would be exposed.
as such, this would represent a threat to the apolitical use of five eyes security pact
for intelligence purposes - a pact intended to detect and prevent EXTERNAL threats to the
five eyes nations - rather than instigate POLITICAL control of INTERNAL affairs of the
democratic functioning of five eyes countries.
treason and sedition has been exposed within the US - aided and abetted by drunks and
sycophants in britain and australia,
My impression is that FIVE EYES exists so that the individual members can ask one of the
other members to spy on their own people without violating constitutional limits on such
activity.
In my humble opinion, politicians and government bureaucrats should be strictly prohibited
from falsely accusing their ideological opponents of criminal activity and then manufacturing
fake evidence to support those claims.
No amount of sanctimonious political-correctness justifies Authoritarian rule squarely in
opposition to the US Constitution.
Exactly @NoDebt. Nearly every day or multiple times a day there's something huge that
radically alters the narrative... people are worn out. This is so huge!
Not sure about that, as at least 2 crucial allies, the UK and Australia, were pressured by
the Obama and Hillary camps to set this whole narrative off...and therefore does he seriously
damage those international and key security countries with info or does he compromise to keep
the peace? Too much is at play here for Trump expose the truth
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.... That's that the UK's GCHQ initiated spying on
Popadolous and Trump Tower at the request of Obummer and/or Rice and/or Brennan, BEFORE the
FBI/Comey said UNDER OATH that they started in May, and were denied a FISA warrant in June
2016.... that's why they needed the 'golden shower dossier.' That's i-l-l-e-g-a-l.
Oh, and Brennan said he pushed the FBI to initiate an investigation but Nunes said there
was no intelligence (EC) which they could base it on. It was a set-up from day 1.
The vast regime of
torture created by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks
continues to haunt
America.
The political class and most of the media have never dealt honestly with the
profound constitutional corruption that such practices inflicted. Instead, torture enablers are
permitted to pirouette as heroic figures on the flimsiest evidence.
Former FBI chief James Comey is the latest beneficiary of the media's "no fault" scoring
on the torture scandal.
In his media interviews for his new memoir,
A Higher Loyalty:
Truth, Lies, and Leadership
, Comey is portraying himself as a Boy Scout who sought only to do
good things. But his record is far more damning than most Americans realize.
Comey continues to use memos from his earlier government gigs to whitewash all of the
abuses he sanctified.
"Here I stand; I can do no other," Comey told George W. Bush in 2004
when Bush pressured Comey, who was then Deputy Attorney General, to approve an unlawful
anti-terrorist policy. Comey was quoting a line supposedly uttered by Martin Luther in 1521, when
he told Emperor Charles V and an assembly of Church officials that he would not recant his sweeping
criticisms of the Catholic Church.
The American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, and other organizations did excellent
reports prior to Comey's becoming FBI chief that laid out his role in the torture scandal. Such
hard facts, however, have long since vanished from the media radar screen.
MSNBC host
Chris Matthews recently declared, "James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He
was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria, in
a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers such as Comey, declared,
"The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful.
Comey believed they were not .
So Comey pushed back as much as he could.
"
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the scandalous religious
practices of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker, found a safer way to oppose
the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values:
he approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the
optics.
Losing Sleep
Comey became deputy attorney general in late 2003 and "had oversight of the legal
justification used to authorize" key Bush programs in the war on terror,
as a Bloomberg
News analysis noted. At that time, the Bush White House was pushing the Justice Department to again
sign off on an array of extreme practices that had begun shortly after the 9/11 attacks. A 2002
Justice Department memo had leaked out that declared that the federal Anti-Torture Act "would be
unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's constitutional power to conduct
a military campaign." The same Justice Department policy spurred a secret 2003 Pentagon document on
interrogation policies that openly encouraged contempt for the law: "Sometimes the greater good for
society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law."
Photos had also leaked from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq showing the stacking of naked
prisoners with bags over their heads, mock electrocution from a wire connected to a man's penis,
guard dogs on the verge of ripping into naked men, and grinning U.S. male and female soldiers
celebrating the sordid degradation.
Legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh
published extracts in the New Yorker from a March 2004 report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba that
catalogued other U.S. interrogation abuses: "Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric
liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle
and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and
perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with
threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee."
The Bush administration responded to the revelations with a torrent of falsehoods,
complemented by attacks on the character of critics.
Bush declared, "Let me make very
clear the position of my government and our country . The values of this country are such that
torture is not a part of our soul and our being." Bush had the audacity to run for reelection as
the anti-torture candidate, boasting that "for decades, Saddam tormented and tortured the people of
Iraq. Because we acted, Iraq is free and a sovereign nation." He was hammering this theme despite a
confidential CIA Inspector General report warning that post–9/11 CIA interrogation methods might
violate the international Convention Against Torture.
James Comey had the opportunity to condemn the outrageous practices and pledge that the
Justice Department would cease providing the color of law to medieval-era abuses. Instead, Comey
merely repudiated the controversial 2002 memo.
Speaking to the media in a
not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004, he declared that the 2002 memo was "overbroad,"
"abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary." He helped oversee crafting a new memo with
different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
Comey twice gave explicit approval for waterboarding
, which sought to break
detainees with near-drowning. This practice had been recognized as a war crime by the U.S.
government since the Spanish-American War. A practice that was notorious when inflicted by the
Spanish Inquisition was adopted by the CIA with the Justice Department's blessing. (When Barack
Obama nominated Comey to be FBI chief in 2013, he testified that he had belatedly recognized that
waterboarding was actually torture.)
Comey wrote in his memoir that he was losing sleep over concern about
Bush-administration torture polices. But losing sleep was not an option for detainees, because
Comey approved sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique.
Detainees could be
forcibly kept awake for 180 hours until they confessed their crimes. How did that work? At Abu
Ghraib, one FBI agent reported seeing a detainee "handcuffed to a railing with a nylon sack on his
head and a shower curtain draped around him, being slapped by a soldier to keep him awake."
Numerous FBI agents protested the extreme interrogation methods they saw at Guantanamo and
elsewhere, but their warnings were ignored.
Comey also approved "wall slamming"
-- which, as law professor David Cole wrote,
meant that detainees could be thrown against a wall up to 30 times. Comey also signed off on the
CIA's using "interrogation" methods such as facial slaps, locking detainees in small boxes for 18
hours, and forced nudity. When the secret Comey memo approving those methods finally became public
in 2009, many Americans were aghast -- and relieved that the Obama administration had repudiated
Bush policies.
When it came to opposing torture, Comey's version of "Here I stand" had more loopholes
than a reverse-mortgage contract.
Though Comey in 2005 approved each of 13 controversial
extreme interrogation methods, he objected to combining multiple methods on one detainee.
The Torture Guy
In his memoir, Comey relates that his wife told him,
"Don't be the torture guy!"
Comey apparently feels that he satisfied her dictate by writing memos that opposed
combining multiple extreme interrogation methods. And since the vast majority of the American media
agree with him, he must be right.
Comey's cheerleaders seem uninterested in the damning evidence that has surfaced since
his time as a torture enabler in the Bush administration.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence
Committee finally released a massive report on the CIA torture regime -- including death resulting
from hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods
on broken legs, and dozens of cases where innocent people were pointlessly brutalized.
Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy the will and resistance of
prisoners. From the start, the program was protected by phalanxes of lying federal officials.
When he first campaigned for president, Barack Obama pledged to vigorously investigate the Bush
torture regime for criminal violations. Instead, the Obama administration proffered one excuse
after another to suppress the vast majority of the evidence, pardon all U.S. government torturers,
and throttle all torture-related lawsuits. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture
scandal was courageous whistleblower John Kiriakou. Kiriakou's fate illustrates that telling the
truth is treated as the most unforgivable atrocity in Washington.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to
abhor, he would deserve some of the praise he is now receiving.
Instead, he remained in
the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that "it was my
job to protect the department and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this
because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted that Comey and two colleagues "have
largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to confer
sainthood.
When Comey finally exited the Justice Department in August 2005 to become a lavishly paid senior
vice president for Lockheed Martin, he proclaimed in a farewell speech that protecting the Justice
Department's "reservoir" of "trust and credibility" requires "vigilance" and "an unerring
commitment to truth." But he had perpetuated policies that shattered the moral credibility of both
the Justice Department and the U.S. government. He failed to heed Martin Luther's admonition, "You
are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say."
Comey is likely to go to his grave without paying any price for his role in
perpetuating appalling U.S. government abuses.
It is far more important to recognize
the profound danger that torture and the exoneration of torturers pose to the United States. "No
free government can survive that is not based on the supremacy of the law," is one of the mottoes
chiseled into the façade of Justice Department headquarters. Unfortunately, politicians nowadays
can choose which laws they obey and which laws they trample.
And Americans are supposed
to presume that we still have the rule of law as long as politicians and bureaucrats deny their
crimes.
Tags
Comey was the hand-picked schlub that was placed in a position of
power to be a firewall... Nothing more and he has been rewarded
handsomely for playing this role... One can only hope that one day he
becomes a liability to his handlers and that there is a pack of
hungry, wild dogs that will rips him apart... Hopefully on PPV...
The Absolute, Complete,
Open, in our Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness began.
Unabated. Like a malignant Cancer.
Growing to Gargantuan proportions.
Irrefutable proof of the absolute, complete, open Lawlessness by
the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC., its CEO & Board of
Directors.
1. Torture .
2. WMD lie to the American People.
3. Lying the American People into War.
4. Illegal Wars of Aggression.
5. Arming, funding & training of terror organizations by the State
Dept. / CIA & members of CONgress.
6. BENGAZI
7. McCain meets with ISIS (Pics available).
8. Clapper lies to CONgress.
9. Brennan lies to CONgress & taps Congressional phones / computers.
10. Lynch meets Clinton on tarmac.
11. Fast & Furious deals with the Sinaloa Cartel.
12. Holder in Contempt of CONgress.
13. CIA drug / gun running / money laundering through the tax payer
bailed out TBTFB.
14. Illegal NSA Spying on the American People.
15. DNC Federal Election Crime / Debbie Wasserman Shultz.
16. Hillary Clinton email Treason.
17. Clinton Foundation pay to play RICO.
18. Anthony Weiner 650,000 #PizzaGate Pedo Crimes.
19. Secret Iran deal.
20. Lynch takes the Fifth when asked about Iran deal
21. FBI murders LaVoy Finicum
At the current moment we're completely Lawless.
We have been for quite some time. In the past, their Criminality
was "Hidden in plain view."
Now it's out in the open, in your face Criminality & Lawlessness.
Complete debachary.
Thing is, the bar & precedent has been set so high among these
Criminals I doubt we will ever see another person arrested in our
lifetime.
Comey thinks he is above the law. He and his associates feel they are
not bound by the rules and laws of the US, they are the ELITE. Comey
should go to JAIL, HARD CORE not Country Club, along with his
associates, Yates, Rosenstein, Brennan, McCabe, Stzrock, Paige and
etc. Lock him up
"... Describing Nikki Haley as a "moderate Republican" is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a moderate meat eater". Besides John Bolton there is nobody within the depraved Trump administration who's been a more reliable advocate for war, oppression and American/Israeli supremacism, no more virulent a proponent of the empire's photogenic version of fascism than she. ..."
"... But because she only advocates establishment-sanctioned mass murders (and perhaps partly because she wears the magical "Woman of Color" tiara), Haley can be painted as a sane, sensible adult-in-the-room by empire lackeys who are paid to normalize the brutality of the ruling class. ..."
"... Haley will be departing with a disgusting 75 percent approval rating with Republicans and 55 percent approval with Democrats, because God is dead and everything is stupid. ..."
Empire Loyalists Grieve Resignation of Moderate Psychopath Nikki Haley
"Describing Nikki Haley as a 'moderate Republican' is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as 'a moderate meat eater'"
Caitlin Johnstone
Thu, Oct
11, 2018
|
820 words
3,560
164
World War Three proponent and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has
announced her resignation
today, to the dismay of establishment bootlickers everywhere.
"Nikki Haley, ambassador to the United Nations, has resigned, leaving the administration with one less moderate
Republican voice,"
tweeted
the New York Times, without defining what specifically is "moderate" about relentlessly pushing for
war and starvation sanctions at every opportunity and adamantly defending the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian
protesters with sniper fire.
"Too bad Nikki Haley has resigned,"
tweeted
law professor turned deranged Russia conspiracy theorist Laurence Tribe. "She was one of the last
members of Trumplandia with even a smidgen of decency."
"Thank you @nikkihaley for your remarkable service. We look forward to welcoming you back to public service as
President of the United States,"
tweeted
Mark Dubowitz, Chief Executive of the neoconservative think tank/
covert
Israeli
war
psyop firm
Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
"Thank you @nikkihaley for your service in the @UN and unwavering support for Israel and the truth,"
tweeted
the fucking IDF. "The soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces salute you!"
I'm not going to go over every single fawning, sycophantic tweet, but if you ever ingest poison and can't
afford to go to the hospital because of America's disastrous healthcare system, you can always try going to
Haley's Twitter page
and looking at all the empire loyalists she's been retweeting who've been falling all over themselves to paint her
as something other than the bloodthirsty psychopath that she is. If that doesn't empty your stomach contents all
over your screen, you are made of stronger stuff than I.
Describing Nikki Haley as a "moderate Republican" is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a moderate meat eater".
Besides John Bolton there is nobody within the depraved Trump administration who's been a more reliable advocate
for war, oppression and American/Israeli supremacism, no more virulent a proponent of the empire's photogenic
version of fascism than she.
Whether it's been blocking any
condemnation
of or
UN investigation
into the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian protesters via sniper fire,
calling for a coalition against Syria
and its allies to prevent them from fighting western-backed terrorist
factions, outright
lying about Iran
to advance this administration's regime change agenda in that nation, her
attempts to blame Iran
for Saudi Arabia's butchery of Yemeni civilians with the help of the US and UK, her
calls for
sanctions against Russia
even beyond those this administration has been willing to implement, her
warmongering against North Korea
, and many, many examples from a list far too long to get into here, Haley has
made death and destruction her life's mission every day of her gore-spattered tenure.
But because she only advocates establishment-sanctioned mass murders (and perhaps partly because she wears the
magical "Woman of Color" tiara), Haley can be painted as a sane, sensible adult-in-the-room by empire lackeys who
are paid to normalize the brutality of the ruling class. While you still see Steve Bannon routinely decried as a
monster despite his being absent from the Trump administration for over a year, far more dangerous and far more
powerful ghouls are treated with respect and reverence because they know what to say in polite company and never
smoked cigars with Milo Yiannopoulos. All it takes to be regarded as a decent person by establishment punditry is
the willingness to avoid offending people; do that and you can murder as many children with explosives and
butterfly bullets as your withered heart desires.
Haley will be departing with a disgusting 75 percent
approval rating
with Republicans and 55 percent approval with Democrats, because God is dead and everything is
stupid. It is unknown who will replace her once she vacates her position (I've got my money on Reaper drone in a
desk chair), but it's a safe bet that it will be someone who espouses the same neoconservative imperialist foreign
policy that this administration has been elevating since the beginning. Whoever it is should be watched closely,
as should the bipartisan beltway propagandists whose job it is to humanize them.
UPDATE: Had to include
this gem
from the New York Times editorial board:
"... They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most Iranians like America. I could never understand that. ..."
Samantha Power was terrible too. Hard to say which is worse. They share the same
discourse. No difference between democrats and Republicans. Both defend the Empire by
resorting to invasions, conspiracies, and murder.
Think Power had slightly more between her ears... but the same warmongering
attitudes.
What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them
become warhawks? Think Power, Haley, Rice (both of them), Clinton, Albrighton, Thatcher,
et al?
And them the feminists tell us that the world would be a more just and peaceful place if
there were more of them in office!
"What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them
become warhawks?"
They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan,
Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how
civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most
Iranians like America. I could never understand that.
Because women in power want to imitate men's behavior. Don't want to differentiate
themselves. Bad news for bad feminism. U.S. feminists adore people like Albright or H
Clinton. They are not credible.
US and its 100,000 Intelligence community working for "Monaco" makes as much sense as
Hitler worked for Luxembourgh.
With 22 new Capitol Hill size buildings in Washington DC for CIA since 2001, they could
house whole Israeli state administration alone
Harry Kazianis reviews
Nikki Haley's record as ambassador to the U.N. and finds it very lacking:
That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a
terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the
experience and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is
not enough to be credible on the world's stage.
Kazianis is right that Haley was ill-prepared for the job, and I would add that she made a
habit of making false claims ,
unreasonable demands, and
unnecessary threats . Whether she was
threatening military action over missile tests, telling lies about the
nuclear deal with Iran , or warning
that the U.S. would be "taking names" of the states that didn't fall in line, Haley proved
herself to be a poor diplomat and an ineffective representative of the United States. Her time
at the U.N. was marked by unwarranted, cruel actions to punish
the Palestinian civilian population, a disgraceful
defense of the massacre of protesters in Gaza, and a misguided decision to
withdraw from the Human Rights Council. While the world's worst humanitarian crisis
intensified in Yemen with U.S. support for the Saudi coalition, Haley was too busy trying to
distract everyone's attention by shouting about Iran.
Haley didn't have a good grasp of substance, and instead relied on talking points to a
fault. Kazianis quotes a Republican consultant's view of the ambassador:
"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at
parroting whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for
anyone who has ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the
land of talking points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was
apparent there was nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."
It is a sign of how little many of her fellow hawks care about substantive knowledge that
several of them greeted news of her resignation with dismay. Max Boot described her resignation as a
"sad moment," and Bill Kristol began fantasizing about a primary challenge
to Trump that will never happen. When these are the people touting Haley's record, it is a safe
bet that the U.S. will be better off being represented by someone else at the U.N.
Following Reagan and Trump, the only reason we don't see actual actors hired for
candidacies and campaigns is because the best Judas Goat for any election rodeo is one that
believes its own BS.
Let's face it. Trump did not have an army of qualified people to fill government and
administration posts. He had to fill positions from the Neocon pool of bureaucrats. Nikki
Haley is a mind-numbed robot, drunk on Neocon Kool-Aid and Premillenial Dispensationalism.
Really sad that Trump picked her for the UN slot. Even sadder is he will replace her with
someone just as bad, but more clever at disguising a rotten foreign policy.
"... Journalist Glenn Greenwald hit out at those on the left who cheered Facebook and Twitter's coordinated 'deplatforming' of right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in August. "Those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political content...are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed," he wrote. "That's what has happened to every censorship advocate in history." ..."
"... "a wider war on dissident narratives in online media." ..."
Alternative voices online are incensed after Facebook and Twitter closed down hundreds of
political media pages ahead of November's crucial midterm elections. Facebook says they broke
its spam rules, they say it's censorship. Some 800 pages spanning the
political spectrum, from left-leaning organizations like The Anti Media, to flag-waving opinion
sites like Right Wing News and Nation in Distress, were shut down. Other pages banned include
those belonging to police brutality watchdog groups Filming Cops and Policing the Police.
Even
RT America's Rachel Blevins found her own page banned for posts that were allegedly
"misleading users."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald hit out at those on the left who cheered Facebook and Twitter's coordinated 'deplatforming' of
right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in August. "Those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political
content...are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed," he wrote. "That's what has
happened to every censorship advocate in history."
In America, Conservatives were the first to complain about unfair treatment by left-leaning Silicon Valley tech giants.
However, leftist sites have increasingly become targets in what Blumenthal calls "a wider war on dissident narratives in
online media." In identifying enemies in this "war," Facebook has partnered up with the Digital Forensics Lab, an
offshoot of NATO-sponsored think tank the Atlantic Council. The DFL has promised to be Facebook's "eyes and ears" in
the fight against disinformation (read: alternative viewpoints).
adopted false US personas online to get
people to attend rallies and conduct other political activities. (An alternative explanation is
that IRA is a purely commercial, and not political, operation.)
Whether those efforts even came close to swaying US voters in the 2016 presidential
election, as Shane and Mazzetti claimed, is another matter.
Shane and Mazzetti might argue that they are merely citing figures published by the social
media giants Facebook and Twitter, but they systematically failed to report the detailed
explanations behind the gross figures used in each case, which falsified their
significance.
Their most dramatic assertions came in reporting the alleged results of the IRA's efforts on
Facebook. "Even by the vertiginous standards of social media," they wrote, "the reach of their
effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate
images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook
alone."
Then, to dramatize that "eventual audience" figure, they observed, "That was not far short
of the 137 million people who would vote in the 2016 presidential elections."
But as impressive as these figures may appear at first glance, they don't really indicate an
effective attack on the US election process at all. In fact, without deeper inquiry into their
meaning, those figures were grossly misleading.
A Theoretical Possibility
What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch actually said in testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee last October was quite different from what the Times reporters
claimed. "Our best estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served
one of these [IRA-generated] stories at some time during the two year period," Stretch
said.
Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established accomplishment.
Facebook was saying that it estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at
least one story from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period but over 194 weeks
during the two years 2015 through 2017. That, figure, in turn, was based on the estimate that
29 million people might have gotten at least one story in their Facebook feed over that same
two-year period and on the assumption that they shared it with others at a particular rate.
The first problem with citing those figures as evidence of impact on the 2016 election is
that Facebook did not claim that all or even most of those 80,000 IRA posts were
election–related. It offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million
people was, in fact, election-related. But Stretch did testify that IRA content over that
two–year period represented just four thousandths (.0004) of the total content of
Facebook newsfeeds.
Thus each piece of IRA content in a twitter feed was engulfed in 23,000 pieces of non-IRA
content.
That is an extremely important finding, because, as Facebook's Vice President for News Feed,
Adam Moseri,
acknowledged in 2016 , Facebook subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the
stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA stories
that actually make it into a subscriber's news feed on any given day are actually read.
Facebook did conduct research on what it calls "civic engagement" during the election
period, and the researchers concluded
that the "reach" of the content shared by what they called "fake amplifiers" was "marginal
compared to the volume of civic content shared during the US elections." That reach, they said,
was "statistically very small" in relation to "overall engagement on political issues."
Shane and Mazzaetti thus failed to report any of the several significant caveats and
disclaimers from Facebook itself that make their claim that Russian election propaganda
"reached" 126 million Americans extremely misleading.
Tiny IRA Twitter Footprint
Shane and Mazzetti's treatment of the role of Twitter in the alleged Russian involvement in
the election focuses on 3,814 Twitter accounts said to be associated with the IRA, which
supposedly "interacted with 1.4 million Americans." Although that number looks impressive
without any further explanation, more disaggregated data provide a different picture: more than
90 percent of the Tweets from the IRA had nothing to do with the election, and those that did
were infinitesimally few in relation to the entire Twitter stream relating to the 2016
campaign.
Twitter's
own figures show that those 3,814 IRA-linked accounts posted 175,993 Tweets during the ten
weeks of the election campaign, but that only 8.4 percent of the total number of IRA-generated
Tweets were election-related.
Twitter estimated that those 15,000 IRA-related tweets represented less than .00008 (eight
one hundred thousandths) of the estimated total of 189 million tweets that Twitter identified
as election-related during the ten-week election campaign. Twitter has offered no estimate of
how many Tweets, on average were in the daily twitter stream of those people notified by
Twitter and what percentage of them were election-related Tweets from the IRA. Any such
notification would certainly show, however, that the percentage was extremely small and that
very few would have been read.
Research by Darren Linvill and Patrick Warren of Clemson University on 2.9 million Tweets
from those same 3,814 IRA accounts over a two year period has
revealed that nearly a third of its Tweets had normal commercial content or were not in
English; another third were straight local newsfeeds from US localities or mostly non-political
"hashtag games", and the final third were on "right" or "left" populist themes in US
society.
Furthermore, there were more IRA Tweets on political themes in 2017 than there had been
during the election year. As a graph of those tweets over time shows,
those "right" and "left" Tweets peaked not during the election but during the summer of
2017.
The Mysterious 50,000 'Russia-Linked' Accounts
Twitter also determined
that another 50,258 automated Twitter accounts that tweeted about the election were associated
with Russia and that they have generated a total to 2.1 million Tweets – about one
percent of the total number election-related tweets of during the period.
But despite media coverage of those Tweets suggesting that they originated with the Russian
government, the evidence doesn't indicate that at all. Twitter's Sean Edgett told
the Senate Intelligence Committee last November that Twitter had used an "expansive
approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account". Twitter considered an account
to be "Russian" if any of the following was found: it was created in Russia or if the user
registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email; the user's display name
contains Cyrillic characters; the user frequently Tweets in Russian, or the user has logged in
from any Russian IP address.
Edgett admitted
in a statement in January, however, that there were limitations on its ability to determine
the origins of the users of these accounts. And a past log-in from a Russian IP address does
not mean the Russian government controls an account. Automated accounts have bought and sold
for many years on a huge market, some of which is located in Russia. As Scott Shane reported
in September 2017, a Russian website BuyAccs.com offers tens and even hundreds of thousands
of Twitter accounts for bulk purchase.
Twitter also observed that "a high concentration of automated engagement and content
originated from data centers and users accessing Twitter via Virtual Private Networks ("VPNs")
and proxy servers," which served to mask the geographical origin of the tweet. And that
practice was not limited to the 50,000 accounts in question. Twitter found that locations of
nearly 12 percent of the Tweets generated during the election period were masked because of use
of such networks and servers.
Twitter identified over half of the Tweets, coming from about half of the 50,000 accounts as
being automated, and the data reported on activity on those 50,000 accounts in question
indicates that both the Trump and Clinton campaigns were using the automated accounts in
question. The roughly 23,000 automated accounts were the source of 1.34 million Tweets, which
represented .63 percent of the total election-related Tweets. But the entire 50,000 accounts
produced about 1 percent of total election-related tweets.
Hillary Clinton got .55 percent of her total retweets from the 50,000 automated accounts
Twitter calls "Russia-linked" and .62 percent of her "likes" from them. Those percentages are
close to the percentage of total election-related Tweets generated by those same automated
accounts. That suggests that her campaign had roughly the same proportion of automated accounts
among the 50,000 accounts as it did in the rest of the accounts during the campaign.
Trump, on the other hand, got 1.8 percent of this total "likes" and 4.25 percent of his
total Retweets for the whole election period from those accounts, indicating his campaign was
more invested in the automated accounts that were the source of two-thirds of the Tweets in
those 50,000 "Russia-linked" accounts.
The idea promoted by Shane and Mazzetti that the Russian government seriously threatened to
determine the winner of the election does not hold up when the larger social media context is
examined more closely. Contrary to what the Times' reporters and the corporate media in
general would have us believe, the Russian private sector effort accounted for a minuscule
proportion of the election-related output of social media. The threat to the US political
system in general and its electoral system in particular is not Russian influence; it's in part
a mainstream news media that has lost perspective on the truth.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national
security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on
the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at
[email protected] . Reprinted from
Consortium News with the author's
permission.
"... What we are seeing now are the consequences of classic imperial over-reach – extending one's power so far and so generally that it hoists itself upon its own petard! The implosion of the USA continues afoot, Hillary Clinton being one of its cheerleaders (according to her recent Amappaling interview). ..."
The whole Magnitsky Act thing was supposed to be a convenient tool of western foreign
policy cloaked in Human Rights sugar to justify punished the usual suspects ad
perpituitam, not for attacking allies. It looks like some US politicians actually think it is
about human rights! They'll need to practice their best acting to explain why some are on the
list and others aren't, along with compliant media and governments.
What we are seeing now are the consequences of classic imperial over-reach –
extending one's power so far and so generally that it hoists itself upon its own petard! The
implosion of the USA continues afoot, Hillary Clinton being one of its cheerleaders
(according to her recent Amappaling interview).
Trump is also promising a rapid USG reaction to India buying S-400s, so it really is time
to stock up on the popcorn. I knew for sure that this year would certainly be more
interesting than last year, but 2019 should be a corker. Woo.
As pointed out elsewhere there is no such agency called the GRU. Like there is no agency
called the KGB. This in itself demonstrates that NATzO is spreading pure propaganda.
It's probably not sloppiness, per se; it's more that Britain has reached a new level of
dazzling investigative brilliance, so that normal GRU tradecraft can no longer withstand its
piercing eye.
Vis the Dutch push for a new sanctions regime for Human Rights abusers, apart from global
sponsors of Islamic terrorism who also happen to have $$$, the obvious takeaway that only
just occurred to me is that the push for a European Magnitsky Act must have failed.
This is exactly the same thing, they just dropped the name. The EU is not united and
I don't see the Netherlands as having enough influence in the EU without the UK.
Or those who hate him – and they are legion – wanted her out, because if Trump
wanted her out her replacement would already have been announced. I saw on one of those
'sponsored content' trash teaser clickbait headlines that it was going to be Ivanka, but not
even Trump would do that. Although you never know – it's not as if Haley brought any
wealth of foreign-policy knowledge to the table, and she was mostly there to be a partisan
spoiler of initiatives the USA did not want to pass. I suppose anyone could do that.
Nikki Haley's resignation as President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations yesterday came
as quite a surprise. Haley seemed pleased to play her imagined role as the world's procurator,
as she used her UN perch to incessantly threaten and condemn all the global enemies of her
fellow neoconservatives. She came to the job with no foreign policy experience and she will be
leaving exactly as she arrived.
If Haley's departure came as a surprise, so too did her appointment in the first place.
During the primaries, she was famously in the "
anyone but Donald Trump " camp of neocons, saying that Trump was "everything a governor
doesn't want in a president."
Trump soon returned the compliment,
Tweeting that, "The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!"
Nevertheless, like many neocons who had been critical of Trump, she found herself rewarded
with a top position in the Administration. From her position she had consistently gotten ahead
of her boss, the President, in policy pronouncements and at almost every turn she appeared to
be pushing a Haley foreign policy rather than a Trump foreign policy.
For example, just as President Trump was returning from his historic summit meeting in
Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where the US President spoke very
optimistically about a new approach to US/Russian relations, Nikki Haley gave an interview in
which she said, "we don't trust Russia, we don't trust Putin; we never will...they're never
going to be our friend...that's a fact."
Last September she acted as if she, rather than Trump, were the commander-in-chief, Tweeting
of North Korea, "we cut 90% of trade and 30% of oil. I have no problem kicking it to Gen.
Mattis because I think he has plenty of options." The idea that she, and not her boss, would
"kick it" to Defense Secretary Mattis was preposterous, but contradicting and countermanding
Trump's disappointingly rare bobs toward diplomacy and disengagement over bluster and bombs was
a chief characteristic of Haley's reign as UN chief finger-wagger.
President Trump had been extremely critical of Syria's Assad, particularly after he fell for
two false-flag rebel gas attacks blamed on Assad, but he had been careful not to explicitly set
US policy as "Assad must go," as had his predecessor. Nevertheless Nikki Haley again got out
ahead of official US policy with her own policy,
stating in September 2017 that, "we're not going to be satisfied until we see a solid and
stable Syria, and that is not with Assad in place."
Nikki Haley had long been associated with neocon warhawk John Bolton and had also benefited
from the largesse of GOP moneybags Sheldon Adelson, the Israel-obsessed casino magnate who
bankrolled Haley's PAC to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars in 2016 alone. Haley was
Adelson's kind of governor: While South Carolina's executive, she signed the nation's first law
making it a criminal offense to support a boycott of Israel.
How did the mainstream media handle the surprise resignation of such an extreme warhawk?
Someone one might consider on the far fringe of US political life? The New York Times mourned
the departure of Ambassador Haley,
Tweeting that it would be "leaving the administration with one less moderate Republican
voice."
"Moderate" voice?
For such a pro-war extremist to be considered "moderate" by the newspaper of record may
strike some as odd, but as Glenn Greenwald so accurately
explained :
The reason NYT calls her "moderate" is because she affirms all of the standard pro-war,
pro-imperial orthodoxies that are bipartisan consensus in Washington. That's why @ BillKristol reveres her. She was a Tea Party candidate, but "moderate" means:
loves US wars & hegemony.
That's it in a nutshell. Because in Washington being extreme pro-interventionist
and pro-war is the orthodoxy. The facade that there are real differences between the Republican
and Democrat party is carefully crafted by the mainstream media to cover the fact that we do
live in a one-party state. Pro-war, pro-intervention, pro-bombing, pro-overthrow, pro-meddling
- these are moderate positions. For Washington and the mainstream media, the extremists are the
ones who wish to abide by the admonitions of our Founding Fathers that we go not abroad in
search of monsters to destroy.
Well, it seems there are plenty of monsters closer to home.
So good riddance to Nikki Haley...but don't hold your breath that it means the end of Nikki
Haley-ism, which is the foundation of US foreign policy. Clearly we have much work left to
do.
Your tax deductible
contributions to the Ron Paul Institute allow us to provide you with real
analysis of breaking issues. Our continued ability to provide a counter-balance
to the mainstream media's false narrative depends on your
financial support . We thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Pat,
" why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning. "
Dunno, but what about the possibility that she herself didn't knew she was to "retire"
until this morning? That she didn' quit but just quietly (which would be very un-Trumpish)
got the boot?
As for firing people, Trump made a TV show out of that, though usually he prefers to "use
megaphones over whispering".
That'd be the sort of retirement that's more frankly called " get the eff out and shut
the eff up on your way out, and don't forget to say thank you! ".
All it needed for that to happen is the orange king having a "fart sit crosswise". As for
Harper's good riddance, indeed.
IMO, at least she knew she is a goner since last week, I also think she agreed to leave on a
non-embarrassing way, meaning not to be fired in mob boss' favorite way as in Apprentice.
Like Colonel suggest
neocons and her Israeli backers like to preserve her for a later day, she is a useful idiot.
IMO, Trump, like the mob boss he think he is, and acts like, believes she was cause of his
embarrassing performance/program at UN, again like mob bosses Don Trump doesn't give a second
chance to anyone.
Trump is a master of political timing. Perhaps for whatever reason he wanted to move on from
the Kavanaugh hubbub to something else--like Haley resigning. It has dominated the news cycle
moreso than if it had been leaked by a staffer. Just my guess.
My latest information is that Haley's neocon and Zionist sponsors and handlers kept her
busy rhetorically pushing Trump toward what they wanted as foreign policy positions but
which he did not want. Somehow he figured that out, and fired her immediately after
finishing up the Kavanaugh affair. The woman herself is a fairly good looking walking
mass of ambition and dumb as a post. Her sponsors will now stuff her pockets with money
and hope they can keep her alive politically until she can be useful again.
Would I be wrong in asking if NH knew she was going to be fired when she went into that
meeting? Could the reception of Trumps UN speech been the proximate cause, assuming NH
saw it in advance and "approved" it (assuming she had been asked for input)? What does
the UN speech say about the worldview of NH's backers (if anything)?
as washington and americas world influence wanes the UN becomes less useful to the point
of being an obstruction for washintons machinations.
back in the day when washington could herd all the liliputians at the general assembly
the UN provided great cover and legitimacy for the USA. since the mask has slipped
revealing to all but the most obtuse amongst us, washingtons lack of moral legitimacy and
soft power, our influence among the GA members is on a downward trajectory.
ergo it no longer really matters who is our UN ambassador because washington simply
bypasses what it doesn't like that goes on at the UN since it can no longer control the
outcome.
we just had captain kangaroo resign we might as well call up Mcdonalds and see if
ronald would like the gig.
for a rapidly declining empire such as ours it makes no damn difference who is
installed at the UN. one cipher is the same as any other so lets at least err on the side
of entertainment for all of us in flyover land.
Of course she can follow the time-tested formula of top politicians and government
officials - make money lobbying after writing the obligatory book with a huge
advance.
I agree with Harper's take...she was 'eased' out...I have to say that no member of this
administration is more repugnant than this harpy...why Trump ever appointed her is a
mystery...as for her future prospects, I doubt she will go far...I think her 15 minutes
are up...
Speculating that this April incident didn't help Haley back than claiming 'I don't get
confused' regarding additional sanctions on Russia by prematurely announcing the
sanctions according to Larry Kudlow. Kind of a terse comment by her and possibly not
appreciated by the Trump team.
https://www.theguardian.com...
Does Nikki think that she can pull an Emmanuel Macron stunt ?
or is it the fact that her family is in a financial hole and she knows that she can
make more $$$$$ in the private sector , trying to mimic Lt Gen Flynn making hundred
thousands at FOX or another network.
Thank god she's gone!!! I liked Haley just fine as the governor of SC. At first I
thought, given her ethnic background, that she might do well her UN role once she learned
the ropes.
But then I heard her first few shrill neocon-style anti-Russia speeches at the UN
shortly after her appointment. I thought this quite odd given Trump's repeated campaign
statements about having better relations with Russia, so I figured the Borg assimilated
her and was using her as an inside tool to obstruct Trump's FP desires.
This got me thinking about which Borgians might be advising/mentoring her. It sure
wasn't any of the realists at Kissinger Associates. So which Borg think tank might it be?
Maybe Kimberley Kagan took her under her wing or someone else at PNAC
Harper, do you know who any of Haley's mentors are?
One other recent intriguing item was Trump's invitation to Rosenstein to accompany on
his flight to that police chiefs speech the other day. That seemed very important... and
symbolic. It was clearly a dominance technique. Wonder what they talked about on Air
Force One. Not going to be able to get away with any secret recordings there.
Trump has had to deal with some pretty shady characters during the course of his
career. I pondered whether Trump might be trying to "turn" Rosenstein to get at the roots
of the coup.
Do any of you have any better info on the Trump-Rosenstein meeting?
Thanks god and congratulations to our planet, that Niki bites the dust, the very
embarrassing day that the egomaniac Trump chaired the UNSC I knew she will be a goner.
People around trump should know, that he wouldn't take it lightly being embarrassed in
front of whole world and will blame it on who ever organized such an event. I remember he
end up leaving that UNSC meeting early with his head down, thinking how and when he will
be embarrassing her in front of the whole world.
Pat,
" why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning. "
Dunno, but what about the possibility that she herself didn't knew she was to "retire"
until this morning? That she didn' quit but just quietly (which would be very
un-Trumpish) got the boot?
As for firing people, Trump made a TV show out of that, though usually he prefers to
"use megaphones over whispering".
That'd be the sort of retirement that's more frankly called " get the eff out and
shut the eff up on your way out, and don't forget to say thank you! ".
All it needed for that to happen is the orange king having a "fart sit crosswise". As
for Harper's good riddance, indeed.
IMO, at least she knew she is a goner since last week, I also think she agreed to leave
on a non-embarrassing way, meaning not to be fired in mob boss' favorite way as in
Apprentice. Like Colonel suggest
neocons and her Israeli backers like to preserve her for a later day, she is a useful
idiot. IMO, Trump, like the mob boss he think he is, and acts like, believes she was
cause of his embarrassing performance/program at UN, again like mob bosses Don Trump
doesn't give a second chance to anyone.
Trump is a master of political timing. Perhaps for whatever reason he wanted to move on
from the Kavanaugh hubbub to something else--like Haley resigning. It has dominated the
news cycle moreso than if it had been leaked by a staffer. Just my guess.
Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon slammed UN ambassador Nikki Haley's decision on
Tuesday to announce her resignation, calling it "suspect" and "horrific," and that it
overshadowed positive news that Trump and the Republicans need to build support going into
midterms, according to
Bloomberg .
The timing was exquisite from a bad point of view ," Bannon told Bloomberg
News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait on Wednesday at the Bloomberg Invest London forum. "
Everything she said yesterday and everything she said about stepping down could have been done
on the evening of November 6. The timing could not have been worse. "
Haley's announcement, according to Bannon, took White House officials by surprise - and
distracted attention from Brett Kavanaugh's first day as a justice on the Supreme Court, along
with headlines over the lowest US unemployment rate in five decades. Haley's decision
undermines Trump's message to Republican voters, said Bannon.
In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said Haley told him six months ago she wanted a break
after spending two years in the post. She'll continue in her role until year-end. Haley said
Tuesday that she was ready for a break after two terms as South Carolina's governor and two
years at the United Nations. -
Bloomberg
Bannon also says that he took Haley at her word that she has no political aspirations -
particularly when it comes to running against Trump in 2020. She says that she looks forward to
campaigning for Trump in two years. That said, Bannon calls Haley "ambitious" and "very
talented," though he said so using a backhanded compliment.
"I think she is incredibly politically ambitious," Bannon added. " Ambitious as Lucifer but
that is probably...I am probably taking Milton out of context."
Trump defended the timing of Haley's departure on Wednesday, saying "there's no good time"
for her to have announced her resignation - and that if she'd waited until after midterms, it
would have raised questions as to whether her motive was based on the results.
Bannon is unhinged. Nikki Haley was horrible in her position! If Bannon payed attention to
voter base of Trump, he'd see Haley was a thorn in the side of the Trump administration.
One of the best appointments Trump has made, is Mike Pompeo. I thought he'd be some crazed
warmonger, but has turned out to be quite the opposite.
He's got this kind of easy going swagger and confidence about him. He's chubby, and his
every day guy, sort of approach, is affable.
Yes sir... her rhetoric is pure deep state war mongering of the most evil kind. She was
told to stir up as much hatred and fear at the UN as possible and try to get the opposition
to do something stupid in response to her remarks. That's not Trump talk for damned sure...
that's deep state talk.
He makes a GREAT point that occurred to me immediately. If you are resigning effective at
the end of the year and everything is awesome, just time to move on.... why the hell are you
publicly announcing it 3 weeks before a VERY contentious midterm election and only a day or
so after a brutal SCOTUS nomination conclusion? Why? Why now? Very curious and a unforced
error.
Her
biggest problem as UN ambassador was simple: she was totally out of her depth. "She was
picked for UN Ambassador for one reason," explained a senior GOP political consultant to me,
reacting to the news that Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, had just resigned
from the Trump administration. "She was supposed to present a feminine, or supposedly softer
version of Trump's America First message. Instead she became the administration's national
security sledgehammer."
"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at parroting
whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for anyone who has
ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the land of talking
points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was apparent there was
nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."
Perhaps I can come up with a better description of Nikki Haley. She was Donald Trump's very
own "Baghdad Bob," the propaganda chief under Saddam Hussein who appeared on TV during the 2003
Iraq invasion and said anything the regime wanted, no matter how inflammatory or wrong. While
Haley was never forced to claim anything so preposterous as that Saddam's Republican Guard was
winning a war against a superpower, her ability to trump even Trump in crazy talk was a rare
talent -- and not a welcome one.
That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a
terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the experience
and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is not enough to
be credible on the world's stage. It would be like asking me to become a plumber: sure, I could
figure it out at some point, but I would leave behind quite a few clogged toilets and busted
faucets along the way.
Haley left behind some busted faucets, that's for sure. If she did make any sort of major
impression, it was thanks to her tough talk on North Korea and Iran. But it was her
hard-hitting rhetoric leveled at the Kim regime that stuck out the most. In an almost comical
attempt to parrot the words of President Trump, who in early September
said at the UN that America "has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend
itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea," Haley stated
in November that "if war comes, make no mistake, the North Korean regime will be utterly
destroyed."
That's just for starters. There were also the clear missteps, when we could see her lack of
expertise and preparation at work. In a primetime interview with Fox News nighttime anchor
Martha MacCallum, Haley was asked about the 2018 Olympics and whether U.S. athletes would
participate. North Korea experts knew this was the question that would have to be asked,
and were keen to see what Haley would have to say.
She blew it, big time. The interview, conducted in January, at a time when some thought a
war with the Kim regime was still very possible, drove headlines the world over, as Haley said
she would not commit to U.S. citizens participating, stating, "there's an open question."
MacCallum pounced on Twitter, and rightly so, writing that "Amb. Nikki
Haley not certain we should send our athletes to the Olympics. Will depend on NK
situation."
Now, to be fair to Haley,
the remarks were more qualified than the press made them out to be. Still, they were
confusing to say the least, and show that she was not ready for what was an obvious question.
In fact, Haley seemed to stumble, adding, "I have not heard anything about that" and "I do know
in the talks that we have -- whether it's Jerusalem or North Korea -- it's about, how do we
protect the U.S. citizens in the area?"
What? As another Republican put it to me just a day later: "She had no idea what the hell
she was talking about."
Haley even scared some very senior diplomats, who wondered exactly what the administration
was planning if Washington would not send its citizens or athletes to the Olympics. "Is America
getting ready to attack North Korea? Is that where this is headed?" asked a senior diplomat
here in Washington minutes after the interview was over.
I could go on, but I think you get my point. President Trump can do far better than
Haley.
Harry J. Kazianis ( @grecianformula ) is director of defense studies at
the Center for the National Interest and executive editor of its publishing arm The National
Interest. Previously, he led the foreign policy communications efforts of the Heritage
Foundation, and served as editor-in-chief of The Diplomat and as a fellow at CSIS:PACNET. The
views expressed are his own.
Immediately after she resigned, Twitter lit up with theories and opinions about the reason,
with many suggesting Haley could be the Trump administration official behind a highly critical
anonymous
op-ed published by the New York Times last month.
"... "It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to see, that I just started yelling at everybody " ..."
"... We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess with the US. ..."
"... As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those who voted against us. ..."
"... We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be our friend. That's just a fact. ..."
"... "They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their place is." ..."
"... "weapon of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it." ..."
"... When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is warfare. ..."
"... We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until [President Nicolas] Maduro is gone! ..."
"... If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them. ..."
"... Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just another instrument of international politics. ..."
"... "Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," ..."
"... We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the South China Sea. ..."
Israel seems to be most upset by Haley's resignation from her UN job, since the envoy for
Washington often ended up championing Israeli interests at the world body. Statements like this
one perfectly explain Tel Aviv's grief:
"It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a
kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to
see, that I just started yelling at everybody "
We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess
with the US.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
"I would like to thank Ambassador @nikkihaley , who led the
uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at the UN, and on behalf of the truth and justice
of our country. Best of luck!" pic.twitter.com/Lr6IvkM5U9
The US envoy was also never shy to pressure the UN member states into voting the way
Washington saw fit. The most notable example of such extortion was the vote on recognition of
Jerusalem as Israel's capital last December.
As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this
vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I
report back on those who voted against us.
The threats did not work, however, as the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly rejected
Washington's unilateral recognition of the disputed city as Israeli capital.
Russia is
'never going to be our friend'
When it came to relations with Moscow, the top US diplomat just wasn't very diplomatic on
many occasions, instead choosing to amplify Russophobic rhetoric put forth by Trump's
opposition.
We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be
our friend. That's just a fact.
"They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they
do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their
place is."
Haley was fully on board with accusations that Moscow meddled in the 2016 US election,
calling them aggression on Russia's part. Election meddling, she said, is Russia's "weapon
of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it."
When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is
warfare.
'Fight until they're gone'
The ambassador showed no sign of awareness that her comments about interference sounded
ironic and hypocritical when placed next to some others she made – regarding places like
Venezuela or Syria.
Last month, Haley joined Venezuelan protesters outside the UN headquarters in New York,
shouting into the megaphone:
We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until
[President Nicolas] Maduro is gone!
The US envoy even showed hints of psychic powers, as she tried to downplay Russia's warnings
that Western-backed terrorists were preparing a false flag chemical attack in Syria in order to
set up Damascus. Gazing straight into the future, she appeared to point her finger at President
Bashar Assad's government.
If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use
them.
In July, the US stunned the international community by withdrawing from the UN Human Rights
Council, and the American ambassador had some strong words to back the move.
Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the
UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just
another instrument of international politics.
"Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships
of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," Haley fumed.
Freedom
fighters of Binomo
When dealing with other states, the US envoy tried her best to uphold an image of an expert
on international affairs including on those nation that... well, didn't even exist.
In a scandalous YouTube recording made by two Russian pranksters, posing as a high-ranked
Polish official, Haley was asked to comment on the aspirations of the nation of Binomo in the
South China Sea.
We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I
think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the
South China Sea.
She also said that Russia "absolutely" meddled in the country's election as well
– a truly extraordinary achievement, given that Binomo was entirely made up.
"... The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model. ..."
"... Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so much mediocrity? ..."
"... BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice ..."
"... How did this woman move herself from the dignified, elected position of Governor to trump underling and Israeli bull horn? The things we do for greed! ..."
"... Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump. ..."
"... She leaves Turtle Bay with no achievements and the sound of jeering delegate laughter at the General Assembly still ringing in her ears. ..."
NBC
News
reports that Nikki Haley will be resigning from her position as ambassador to the United
Nations:
In an unexpected development, President Donald Trump's U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, plans
to resign, NBC News has confirmed.
Haley informed her staff that she plans to resign. The news, first reported by Axios,
comes ahead of an announcement she plans to make with President Donald Trump at the White
House Tuesday morning.
Haley's tenure as U.N. ambassador was fairly brief and not very successful. The Security
Council did approve additional North Korea sanctions during her time there. Otherwise, she was
known
mostly for ineffectively
promoting the administration's Iran
obsession , picking
fights with most other states over Israel, and calling attention to how isolated the U.S.
has become following the withdrawal from the JCPOA. Her last big effort at the U.N. was the
Security Council session last month that was originally supposed to focus on criticizing Iran.
The administration changed the subject of the meeting to nonproliferation, but that still
allowed all of the other members to tout their support for the nuclear deal and criticize U.S.
withdrawal from the agreement. If that was meant to be Haley's crowning achievement before she
left, it didn't work out very well.
Trump's decision to appoint Haley to this position struck me as odd
from the beginning. Haley had no diplomatic or foreign policy experience, and beyond the usual
knee-jerk "pro-Israel" reactions she did not have any record of talking or thinking about
foreign policy. It is taken for granted that she took the job to build up her credentials on
foreign policy, but her stint as ambassador has been so short that I'm not sure that it will do
her very much good in future political campaigns. When she was appointed, I said that "this may
prove to be a rather fruitless detour for the next few years." Haley's resignation after less
than two years in the job suggests that she concluded that there was no point in sticking
around any longer.
The speculation I've seen, that after the election Trump fires Sessions, appoints Graham, and
Haley gets appointed to Graham's Senate seat, makes a ton of sense. She'll be back, and
she'll run for President someday, guaranteed.
One theory I've heard is that Nikki Haley was thought to be the top contender for a potential
primary challenge to Trump in 2020 (if things didn't go well for the Trump administration).
As you previously noted, she was a vocal critic of Donald Trump in the primaries (the
President doesn't easily forgive or forget criticism). So she was dumped into the UN as a way
to keep her from going rogue. The President doesn't like to see figures in his administration
outshining him, so as she began to make a name for herself as being exceptionally tough on
Iran, Trump kicked the legs out from under that policy directive and sent her to haplessly
defend "non-proliferation".
End result? Two years have passed and Nikki Haley has no real accomplishment to show for
it (Sad!), while at the same time by virtue of working within the Trump Administration, she's
been effectively silenced for two years in her once-vocal criticism. Trump: 1, Haley 0.
The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model.
Of course when that Nitwit Hack transitions to the "private sector" she will be invited to
sit on various BoD's to be a potted plant at Board meetings. And she will also live large
from the remuneration for just showing up. And don't forget the honorary degrees Nikki will
be awarded. It's like the Tin Man getting an honorary "Th.D", (Doctor of Thinkology) from the
Wizard of Oz.
Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so
much mediocrity?
BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former
Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD
meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice
Yeah, agreed with all of the above. Although it's unclear to me that anyone associated with
the Trump administration will walk away with a leg up to seek higher office.
By virtue of most folks disinterest in foreign policy or the UN Haley may have the
advantage over the others in the Trump administration. Getting out early is smart.
As for her lack of competence and knee-jerk Israel supporting bent this may not hurt her
in the long run either with a GOP that has proven itself to be on a path of less and less
competence, less and less integrity, and (one can only hope) less and less relevance.
Well said. She is more the ambassador for Isreal than for America. One can only hope that
Trump realizes this and appoints a diplomat with skills and an even keel. Hope he does not
have Jared Kushner in mind?
There are stories that she accepted gifts she wasn't supposed to accept (no, not curtains). I
think she resigned to head those off, as well as to be available for other positions that
might open up (Senator? President?).
Whatever, it's just the latest in an unprecedented amount of people leaving this
administration. If Trump only hires the best people, why do those smart people keep leaving
him?
1. Yes, she has the Trump stench on her. But by resigning now she has two years to try to
wash it off.
2. To a certain segment of the GOP base, being completely ineffectual at the UN will be
seen as a feature, not a bug.
3. She has one huge advantage over some other potential rivals (Flake, for example) in
that by not being in the Senate this past week she played no part in the Kavanaugh fiasco.
Since she never had to vote on it, she can still try to play it both ways.
Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's
stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on
the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump.
Instead, she'll be bankrolled by some rich Zionist creeps, a la Rubio, and turn up again
in 2020 or 2024 offering to keep us bogged down in Middle East wars another four years.
Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical"
mistake by exploiting the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes
that don't bow to its whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
... ... ...
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian
bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar
settlements into other currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the backing of
Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have been readily embraced by China
and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises
in Vladivostok last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to counter
US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think about how to minimise dependence on
the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to
be done and c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
strip away the right of Corprati0ns to have the legal standing of a person in a Court of
Law .
when we could just abolish the institution of incorporation without remorse? This
would like treating a cause of widespread disease with an ounce of inexpensive
prevention.
Buh-bye limited liability parasitism. Buh-bye rootless, world-wandering capital with scant
interest in the hosts' long-term wellbeing.
I suppose that there would be a shrill outcry of protest from the many little fire teams,
squads, and platoons of mind rapists (e.g. A. Cockburn) who have a career interest in
complaining for a living. But so what? It would be fun to watch "social justice" factions
twist and squirm as a chorus of abolitionists asks why the "Resistance" never resisted
"corporatocracy" with abolitionism. The rapists will "spew" much sanctimonious b.s.
defensively between artful meals in nice restaurants, but the chorus will know a real
reason. Lefty humanist finds incorporation very useful for cultivating the intense
concentration of wealth and power which he pretends to oppose.
Eventually the chorus will get around to asking lefty internationalist about his
contemporary plans to merge every firm with government without looking like an old fashioned
commie expropriationist. The chorus might ask the mind rapists still more embarassing
questions:
Righteous Lefty, why would you establish incorporation now if it wasn't a feature of
commerce already? Because you would not then have a little handful of company shares to
trade in a stock exchange? Nor be planning to exploit a stock tip from an ally who is
married to a corporate go-getter with C-level knowledge of plans?
Traditional labor unions, TOO, have been involved with the racketeering of incorporation.
Take the UMWA, for example. Where in the eleven points of its constitution is there any hint
that labor organizers and their Blair Mountain warriors were thinking about abolishing a
pernicious institution which had done so much to slant market power in favor of neverlaboring
mine operators?
It's been obvious for some time that the allegedly right wing "ALT RIGHT" is another
faction with little interest in getting rid of the corporation. It is sympathetic,
however, to old fashioned communist schemes like "Social Security" and communist health care
finance. So what, um, pecuniary interest does its leading lights have in maintaining the
incorporated status quo? Explain, please.
"... There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out in my book The Myth of Homeland Security ..."
"... "The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance. ..."
"... One thing that did ..."
"... US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point. ..."
"... My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection." ..."
"... All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault 7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. ..."
"... the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET -- Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ] ..."
"... It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being prepared for cyberwar. ..."
"... it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools. ..."
"... My observation is that the NSA and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese? ..."
"... The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are much smaller operations? ..."
"... That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other processors have similar backdoors. ..."
"... There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at all. ..."
"... So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order to justify its actions and defend its budget. ..."
"... What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes. ..."
"... Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of same. ..."
Bob Moore asks me to comment on an article about propaganda and security/intelligence. [
article ] This is going to be a mixture of opinion and references to facts; I'll try to be
clear which is which.
Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The
context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar
against NATO's preferred enemy.
On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's
development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is
U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big
motherland.
It is true that the US periodically makes a big push regarding "messaging" about hacking.
Whether or not it constitutes a "propaganda campaign" depends on how we choose to interpret
things and the labels we attach to them -- "propaganda campaign" has a lot of negative
connotations and one person's "outreach effort" is an other's "propaganda." An
ultra-nationalist or an authoritarian submissive who takes the government's word for anything
would call it "outreach."
There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking
to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out
in my book The Myth of Homeland Security (2004) [
wc ] claims such as that the Chinese had "40,000 highly trained hackers" are flat-out
absurd and ignore the reality of hacking; that's four army corps. Hackers don't engage in
"human wave" attacks.
"The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was
presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm
perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the
industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance.
One thing that did happen in 2010 around the same time as the nonexistent
cyberwar was China and Russia proposed trilateral talks with the US to attempt to define
appropriate limits on state-sponsored hacking. The US flatly rejected the proposal, but there
was virtually no coverage of that in the US media at the time. The UN also called for a
cyberwar treaty framework, and the effort was killed by the US. [ wired ] What's
fascinating and incomprehensible to me is that, whenever the US feels that its ability to claim
pre-emptive cyberwar is challenged, it responds with a wave of claims about Chinese (or Russian
or North Korean) cyberwar aggression.
John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence agencies in the
major powers would be the first to "express reservations" about such an accord.
US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to
war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in
advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the
superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to
try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point.
My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other
nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and
Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder
reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of
its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a
war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has
not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US
distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US
power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis
is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection."
The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence
operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military
intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British
Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of
hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly
helped to exaggerate the claims: [ ]
The Netherland [sic] for its part released
a flurry
of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims
that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff
out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is
indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian
officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they,
at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their
travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the
Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real
spies are neither.
There's a lot there, and I think the interpretation is a bit over-wrought, but it's mostly
accurate. The US and the UK (and other NATO allies, as necessary) clearly coordinate when it
comes to talking points. Claims of Chinese cyberwar in the US press will be followed by claims
in the UK and Australian press, as well. My suspicion is that this is not the US Government and
UK Government coordinating a story -- it's the intelligence agencies doing it. My
opinion is that the intelligence services are fairly close to a "deep state" -- the
CIA and NSA are completely out of control and the CIA has gone far toward building its own
military, while the NSA has implemented completely unrestricted surveillance worldwide.
All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault
7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking
the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. While the attribution
that "Fancy Bear is the GRU" has been made and is probably fairly solid, the attribution of NSA
malware and CIA malware is rock solid; the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET --
Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on
Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully
said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA
wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ]
It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US
has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being
prepared for cyberwar. I tend to be extremely skeptical of US claims because: bomber gap,
missile gap, gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMD, Afghanistan, Libya and every other aggressive attack by
the US which was blamed on its target. The reason I assume the US is the most aggressive actor
in cyberspace is because the US has done a terrible job of protecting its tool-sets and
operational security: it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the
NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools.
Meanwhile, where are the leaks of Russian and Chinese tools? They have been few and far
between, if there have been any at all. Does this mean that the Russians and Chinese have
amazingly superior tradecraft, if not tools? I don't know. My observation is that the NSA
and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing
to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA
and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese?
The article does not have great depth to its understanding of the situation, I'm afraid. So
it comes off as a bit heavy on the recent news while ignoring the long-term trends. For
example:
The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the
allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain
manipulation goes
back to 1982 :
A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped
software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas
pipeline, it emerged yesterday.
I wrote a piece about the "Farewell Dossier" in 2004. [ mjr
] Re-reading it, it comes off as skeptical but waffly. I think that it's self-promotion by the
CIA and exaggerates considerably ("look how clever we are!") at a time when the CIA was
suffering an attention and credibility deficit after its shitshow performance under George
Tenet. But the first known cases of computer related supply chain manipulation go back to the
70s and 80s -- the NSA even compromised Crypto AG's Hagelin M-209 system (a mechanical
ciphering machine) in order to read global communications encrypted with that product. You can
imagine Crypto AG's surprise when the Iranian secret police arrested one of their sales reps
for selling backdoor'd crypto -- the NSA had never told them about the backdoor, naturally. The
CIA was also on record for producing Xerox machines destined for the USSR, which had recorders
built into them So, while the article is portraying the historical sweep of NSA dirty tricks,
they're only looking at the recent ones. Remember: the NSA also weakened the elliptic curve
crypto library in RSA's Bsafe implementation, paying RSADSI $13 million to accept their tweaked
code.
Why haven't we been hearing about the Chinese and Russians doing that sort of thing? There
are four options:
The Russians and Chinese are doing it, they're just so darned good nobody has
caught them until just recently.
The Russians and Chinese simply resort to using existing tools developed by the
hacking/cybercrime community and rely on great operational security rather than fancy
tools.
The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts
the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence
agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is
around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are
much smaller operations?
Something else.
That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's
not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel
management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other
processors have similar backdoors.
Was the Intel IME a "backdoor" or just "a bad idea"? Well, that's tricky. Let me put my
tinfoil hat on: making a backdoor look like a sloppily developed product feature would be the
competent way to write a backdoor. Making it as sneaky as the backdoor in the Via is
unnecessary -- incompetence is eminently believable.
&
(kaspersky)
I believe all of these stories (including the Supermicro) are the tip of a great big, ugly
iceberg. The intelligence community has long known that software-only solutions are too
mutable, and are easy to decompile and figure out. They have wanted to be in the BIOS of
systems -- on the motherboard -- for a long time. If you go back to 2014, we have disclosures
about the NSA malware that hides in hard drive BIOS: [
vice ] [
vice ] That appears to have been in progress around 2000/2001.
Of note, the group recovered two modules belonging to EquationDrug and GrayFish that were
used to reprogram hard drives to give the attackers persistent control over a target machine.
These modules can target practically every hard drive manufacturer and brand on the market,
including Seagate, Western Digital, Samsung, Toshiba, Corsair, Hitachi and more. Such attacks
have traditionally been difficult to pull off, given the risk in modifying hard drive
software, which may explain why Kaspersky could only identify a handful of very specific
targets against which the attack was used, where the risk was worth the reward.
But
Equation Group's malware platforms have other tricks, too. GrayFish, for example, also has
the ability to install itself into computer's boot record -- software that loads even
before the operating system itself -- and stores all of its data inside a portion of
the operating system called the registry, where configuration data is normally stored.
EquationDrug was designed for use on older Windows operating systems, and "some of the
plugins were designed originally for use on Windows 95/98/ME" -- versions of Windows so old
that they offer a good indication of the Equation Group's age.
This is not a very good example of how to establish a "malware gap" since it just makes the
NSA look like they are incapable of keeping a secret. If you want an idea how bad it is,
Kaspersky labs' analysis of the NSA's toolchain is a good example of how to do attribution
correctly. Unfortunately for the US agenda, that solid attribution points toward Fort Meade in
Maryland. [kaspersky]
Let me be clear: I think we are fucked every which way from the start. With backdoors in the
BIOS, backdoors on the CPU, and wireless cellular-spectrum backdoors, there are probably
backdoors in the GPUs and the physical network controllers, as well. Maybe the backdoors in the
GPU come from the GRU and maybe the backdoors in the hard drives come from NSA, but who cares?
The upshot is that all of our systems are so heinously compromised that they can only be
considered marginally reliable. It is, literally, not your computer: it's theirs. They'll let
you use it so long as your information is interesting to them.
Do I believe the Chinese are capable of doing such a thing? Of course. Is the GRU? Probably.
Mossad? Sure. NSA? Well-documented attribution points toward NSA. Your computer is a free-fire
zone. It has been since the mid 1990s, when the NSA was told "no" on the Clipper chip and
decided to come up with its own Plan B, C, D, and E. Then, the CIA came up with theirs. Etc.
There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at
all.
From my 2012 RSA conference lecture "Cyberwar, you're doing it wrong."
The problem is that playing in this space is the purview of governments. Nobody in the
cybercrime or hacking world need tools like these. The intelligence operatives have huge
budgets, compared to a typical company's security budget, and it's unreasonable to expect any
business to invest such a level of effort on defending itself. So what should companies do?
They should do exactly what they are doing: expect the government to deal with it; that's what
governments are for. The problem with that strategy is that their government isn't on their
side, either! It's Hobbes' playground.
In case you think I am engaging in hyperbole, I assure you I am not. If you want another
example of the lengths (and willingness to bypass the law) "they" are willing to go, consider
'stingrays' that are in operation in every major US city and outside of every interesting hotel
and high tech park. Those devices are not passive -- they actively inject themselves into the
call set-up between your phone and your carrier -- your data goes through the stingray, or it
doesn't go at all. If there are multiple stingrays, then your latency goes through the roof.
"They" don't care. Are the stingrays NSA, FBI, CIA, Mossad, GRU, or PLA? Probably a bit of all
of the above depending on where and when.
Whenever the US gets caught with its pants down around its ankles, it blames the Chinese or
the Russians because they have done a good job of building the idea that the most serious
hackers on the planet at the Chinese. I don't believe that we're seeing complex propaganda
campaigns that are tied to specific incidents -- I think we see ongoing organic
propaganda campaigns that all serve the same end: protect the agencies, protect their budgets,
justify their existence, and downplay their incompetence.
So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been
consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order
to justify its actions and defend its budget.
The government also engages in propaganda, and is influenced by the intelligence
community's propaganda as well. And the propaganda campaigns work because everyone
involved assumes, "well, given what the NSA has been able to do, I should assume the Chinese
can do likewise." That's a perfectly reasonable assumption and I think it's probably true that
the Chinese have capabilities. The situation is what Chuck Spinney calls "A self-licking ice
cream cone" -- it's a justifying structure that makes participation in endless aggression seem
like a sensible thing to do. And, when there's inevitably a disaster, it's going to be like a
cyber-9/11 and will serve as a justification for even more unrestrained aggression.
Want to see what it looks like? A thousand thanks to Commentariat member [redacted] for this
link. If you don't like video, there's an article here. [ toms ]
Is this an NSA backdoor, or normal incompetence? Is Intel Management Engine an NSA-inspired
backdoor, or did some system engineers at Intel think that was a good idea? There are other
scary indications of embedded compromise: the CIA's Vault7 archive included code that appeared
to be intended to embed in the firmware of "smart" flatscreen TVs. That would make every LG
flat panel in every hotel room, a listening device just waiting to be turned on.
We know the Chinese didn't do that particular bug but why wouldn't they do
something similar, in something else? China is the world's oldest mature culture -- they
literally wrote the book on strategy -- Americans acting as though it's a great
surprise to learn that the Chinese are not stupid, it's just the parochialism of a 250 year-old
culture looking at a 3,000 year-old culture and saying "wow, you guys haven't been asleep at
the switch after all!"
What little I've been able to find out the new
Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive
retribution against (perceived) foes.
Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of
same.
Pierce R. Butler@#1: What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that
it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes.
Yes. Since 2001, as far as most of us can tell, federal cybersecurity spend has been 80%
offense, 20% defense. And a lot of the offensive spend has been aimed at We, The
People.
Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media). I mean, I've seen interviews with retired US intelligence
people since the 90s complain that since the late 1980s, the intelligence agencies have
been crippled by management in love with hi-tech "SIGINT" solutions to problems that never
deliver and neglecting old-fashioned "HUMINT" intelligence-gathering.
The thing is, Kevin Mitnick got away with a lot of what he did because people didn't
take security seriously then, and still don't. On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember
reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of the researchers who helped in the analysis of
the Morris worm
that took down a significant chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a
year or so afterwards and some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it
still hadn't patched the holes that had let the worm infect them in the first
place.
Cat Mara@#3: Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media).
I think that's right, to a high degree. What if Edward Snowden was an agent provocateur
instead of a well-meaning naive kid? A tremendous amount of damage could be done, as well
as stealing the US' expensive toys. The Russians have been very good at doing exactly that
sort of operation, since WWII. The Chinese are, if anything, more subtle than the
Russians.
The Chinese attitude, as expressed to me by someone who might be a credible source is,
"why are you picking a fight with us? We don't care, you're too far away for us to threaten
you, we both have loads of our own fish to fry. To them, the US is young, hyperactive, and
stupid.
The FBI is not competent, at all, against old-school humint intelligence-gathering.
Compared to the US' cyber-toys, the old ways are probably more efficient and cost
effective. China's intelligence community is also much more team-oriented than the CIA/NSA;
they're actually a disciplined operation under the strategic control of policy-makers.
That, by the way, is why Russians and Chinese stare in amazement when Americans ask things
like "Do you think Putin knew about this?" What a stupid question! It's an autocracy; they
don't have intelligence operatives just going an deciding "it's a nice day to go to England
with some Novichok." The entire American attitude toward espionage lacks maturity.
On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of
the researchers who helped in the analysis of the Morris worm that took down a significant
chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a year or so afterwards and
some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it still hadn't patched the
holes that had let the worm infect them in the first place.
That as an exciting time. We were downstream from University of Maryland, which got hit
pretty badly. Pete Cottrel and Chris Torek from UMD were also in on Bostic's dissection. We
were doing uucp over TCP for our email (that changed pretty soon after the worm) and our
uucp queue blew up. I cured the worm with a reboot into single-user mode and a quick 'rm
-f' in the uucp queue.
Thanks. I appreciate your measured analysis and the making explicit of the bottom line:
" agencies, protect their budgets, justify their existence, and downplay their
incompetence."
"... As the hoax unravels, the real story of "foreign collusion" comes out ..."
"... This entire episode has Her Majesty's Secret Service's fingerprints all over it. Steele's key role is plain enough: here was a British spook who was not only hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump but was unusually passionate about his work – almost as if he'd have done it for free. And then there was the earliest approach to the Trump campaign, made by Cambridge professor and longtime spook Stefan Halper to Carter Page. And then there's the mysterious alleged "link" to Russian intelligence, Professor Joseph Mifsud, whose murky British-based thinktank managed to operate openly despite later claims it was a Russian covert operation. ..."
"... It was Mifsud who orchestrated the Russia-gate hoax, first suggesting that the Russians had Hillary Clinton's emails, and then disappearing into thin air as soon as the story he had planted percolated into plain view. Some "Russian agent"! ..."
"... Trump's decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would be declassified tells us almost as much as if he'd tweeted it out, unredacted. For what it tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations with at least one key ally. ..."
"... So here we have it at last, the final truth of Russia-gate: yes, there was indeed foreign collusion in the 2016 election, but it came from the opposite direction than the media are telling us. We weren't attacked by Russia: a few thousand dollars in Facebook ads that nobody saw did not put Trump in the White House. Our democratic process was undermined, not by the supposedly omnipotent Vladimir Putin but by the intelligence agencies of some of our more beloved "allies." We were attacked by a tag -team, both foreign and domestic, intent on ousting a democratically-elected President by any means necessary. ..."
"... When those subsidies, subventions, and special privileges are threatened, as they are by the nationalist cheapskate Trump, who would gladly demolish the whole decrepit, dated, and dangerous cold war architecture with a wave of his hand. A US President who puts America first? They can't allow it. ..."
"... The global Establishment has risen up against the People. ..."
As the hoax unravels, the real story of "foreign collusion" comes out
The
conspiracy to overthrow a sitting US President extends far beyond our own "Deep State." As I've
been
saying in this space for quite some time, it's been an international team effort from the
beginning. Setting aside the British origins of the obscene "dossier" compiled by "ex"-MI6
agent Christopher Steele, we now have further confirmation of foreign involvement in President
Trump's
decision to delay (perhaps indefinitely) the declassification of key Russia-gate documents.
While US intelligence officials were expected to oppose the move, "Trump was also swayed by
foreign allies, including Britain, in deciding to reverse course, these people said. It wasn't
immediately clear what other governments may have raised concerns to the White House."
But of course the Washington Post knows perfectly well which other governments would
have reason to raise "concerns" to the White House. It's clear from the public record that the
following "allies" have rendered the "Resistance" essential assistance at one time or
another:
United Kingdom – This entire episode has Her Majesty's Secret Service's
fingerprints all over it. Steele's key role is plain enough: here was a British spook who was
not only hired by the Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump but was unusually passionate
about his work – almost as if he'd have done it for free. And then there was the
earliest approach to the Trump campaign, made by Cambridge professor and longtime spook
Stefan Halper to Carter
Page. And then there's the mysterious alleged "link" to Russian intelligence, Professor
Joseph Mifsud, whose murky British-based thinktank managed to operate openly despite later
claims it was a Russian covert operation.
It was Mifsud who orchestrated the Russia-gate hoax, first suggesting that the Russians
had Hillary Clinton's emails, and then disappearing into thin air as soon as the story he had
planted percolated into plain view. Some "Russian agent"!
Australia – Why would the former Australian High Commissioner to the UK seek
out George Papadopoulos, a low-level semi-advisor to the Trump campaign, and milk him for
information while getting him drunk?
Israel – So how did Papadopoulos find himself spilling his guts at a bar
with a top Australian intelligence figure? The Times reports that "The meeting at the
bar came about because of a series of connections, beginning with an Israeli Embassy official
who introduced Mr. Papadopoulos to another Australian diplomat in London."
Estonia – The Times and other outlets report that a "Baltic
intelligence agency" was the first to relay "concerns" about Russian influence over the Trump
team. I'm willing to bet it was the Estonians, who have always been the most actively
anti-Russian actors in the region.
Ukraine – Democratic National Committee members actually met with Ukrainian
government leaders in an attempt to uncover dirt on Trump. Working together with the DNC,
Democratic official and Ukrainian lobbyist Alexandra Chalupa received active assistance from
the Ukrainian embassy, which became a veritable
locus of Clintonian campaign operations.
This is part of the price we pay for our vaunted "empire," and the "liberal international
order" the striped-pants set is so on about. As that grizzled old "isolationist" prophet, Garet
Garrett, described the insignia of empire at the dawn of the cold war:
"There is yet another sign that defines itself gradually. When it is clearly defined it may
be already too late to do anything about it. That is to say, a time comes when Empire finds
itself –
"A prisoner of history.
"The history of a Republic is its own history . A Republic may change its course, or
reverse it, and that will be its own business., But the history of Empire is a world history,
and belongs to many people."
A Republic may restrain itself, wrote Garrett, but "Empire must put forth its power" –
on whose behalf? There are many claimants whose wealth, position, and prestige depend on the
Imperial largesse. When that claim is threatened, the "satellites" turn against their
protector. This is what the Russia-gate covert action -- carried out by coordinated action of
our "allies" – is all about. We now have clear evidence of just how far our "client"
states are willing go to ensure that the American gravy train of free goodies continues to
flow.
Trump's decision to walk back his announcement that the key Russia-gate intelligence would
be declassified tells us almost as much as if he'd tweeted it out, unredacted. For what it
tells us is that public knowledge of the contents would constitute a major break in relations
with at least one key ally.
So here we have it at last, the final truth of Russia-gate: yes, there was indeed foreign
collusion in the 2016 election, but it came from the opposite direction than the media are
telling us. We weren't attacked by Russia: a few thousand dollars in Facebook ads that nobody
saw did not put Trump in the White House. Our democratic process was undermined, not by the
supposedly omnipotent Vladimir Putin but by the intelligence agencies of some of our more
beloved "allies." We were attacked by a tag -team, both foreign and domestic, intent on ousting
a democratically-elected President by any means necessary.
Here is the final irrefutable argument against America as the "world leader," designated
champion of the "liberal international order" – we become, as Garrett noted, a prisoner
of history. Indeed, we are no longer entitled to write our own history, but must endure the
lobbying and aggressive interventions of our ungrateful and spiteful "allies," whose welfare
states could not exist without generous US "defense" subsidies.
When those subsidies, subventions, and special privileges are threatened, as they are by the
nationalist cheapskate Trump, who would gladly demolish the whole decrepit, dated, and
dangerous cold war architecture with a wave of his hand. A US President who puts America first?
They can't allow it.
And that's really the essence of the fight, the issue that will determine the woof and warp
of American politics in the new millennium. The global Establishment has risen up against the
People. There's no telling what the outcome will be, but one thing I know for sure: I know what
side I'm on. Do you?
"... The British are conducting an international campaign to smear and militarily and economically confront Russia and China because the City of London financial and imperial order is economically and morally bankrupt and has no plan to build a future for humanity over the course of the next 50 years. ..."
"... A PDF of this petition can be found here. ..."
Former MI6 agent Christopher Steele told his Department of Justice handler, former
Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, that Steele would "do anything" to prevent
Donald Trump's election and was desperate to stop it from happening. Steele was the author of
the notorious fake dossier claiming that Donald Trump, having previously been sexually
compromised by Vladimir Putin, was working with Putin to defeat Hillary Clinton. Steele's
bizarre, amateurish, and totally fake dossier was used by a corrupted FBI to justify steps in
its illegal investigation, despite the fact that this dossier was paid for by the Clinton
campaign and its facts were unverified.
According to multiple published reports, Obama's CIA Director, John Brennan, convened an
illegal intelligence task force at the CIA to launder and investigate fake dirt on Trump,
produced by a British spy circle led by former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove for purposes of
destroying the Trump presidential campaign. Brennan did this because, he said, Donald Trump's
election would jeopardize the "special relationship" between U.S. and British intelligence
agencies. Dearlove played a key role in the faked intelligence which led the United States
into the Iraq War.
LaRouchePAC, through a previous petition to President Trump on August 10, 2017 -- and to
Congress on December 29, 2017 -- called for complete exposure of the British attempt to
nullify the 2016 U.S. election based on British strategic interests. At the time, virtually
no one else thought the British were the source of foreign interference in the 2016
elections. That fact is now widely recognized. The so-called "resistance," both within and
without the government, is stalling further release of key documents to Congressional
committees in order to win the midterm elections and begin impeachment proceedings in the
House of Representatives.
The British are conducting an international campaign to smear and militarily and
economically confront Russia and China because the City of London financial and imperial
order is economically and morally bankrupt and has no plan to build a future for humanity
over the course of the next 50 years. This British campaign is not in the interest of
the United States, and, Mr. President, you were elected in substantial part on the promise to
end America's useless wars on behalf of British strategic objectives.
The complete exposure of the British/Obama Administration subversion of the Trump
presidency represents a unique opportunity for Americans to take our country back: to, once
again, fully embrace the profound difference between the British imperial system and the
American system of political economy created by Alexander Hamilton and advanced by Lyndon
LaRouche. The British system produces the degradation of the majority of the population for
the wealth of the few; the American system produces general prosperity.
Now, therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon you to:
order the declassification of documents referencing all British-spawned
allegations, wherever in our government they may reside, concerning your relationship
or that of your campaign workers to Russia and demand that the British produce the same
from their files;
order the declassification of all documents -- including those held by the CIA,
Director of National Intelligence, NSA, FBI, Department of Justice, Treasury
Department, State Department, Obama White House, and any other relevant agencies --
concerning any alleged ties to Russia by you or individuals associated with your
campaign;
order the declassification of all documents demonstrating, alleging, or suggesting
that the Russians did not provide files they hacked from the DNC or John Podesta to
Wikileaks; and
order the declassification of all documents requested of the Department of Justice
and the FBI by the House Intelligence, Government Oversight, and Judiciary Committees,
and the Senate Judiciary Committee, concerning "Russiagate." This includes the
now-delayed DOJ Inspector General's report concerning the Clinton email investigation.
All such documents should be delivered to the House Intelligence Committee and the
House Judiciary Committee for purposes of producing an unclassified report to the
American people concerning the origins and reasons for the "Russiagate" insurrection
against the Trump presidency.
End the special relationship with the United Kingdom; end the secret government.
That the USSR was an existential threat to Western capitalism and colonialism and war
– of one kind or another – between these two camps was logical and inevitable. But
the Soviet Union is 30 years dead.
Indeed, Gordievsky through Macintyre can – if he's telling the truth – claim
that he helped bring about the (brief) end of history and the "final" victory. His claimed role
in the rise and rise of Gorbachev's relationship with Mrs Thatcher and, by extension, President
Reagan certainly hastened the downfall of the USSR.
But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia was
ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was
passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets.
Why was Britain still fighting the Cold War against Russia in 1996, and why is it still
fighting the Cold War against Russia now?
Just this week, the rather effete British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson – a
former fireplace salesman –
said he was sending 800 shivering British soldiers to the Arctic to be ready to fight
Russia there. Amidst the snow. And the ice.
As both Napoleon and Hitler must have said: " What could possibly go wrong? "
Given the credible evidence of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election,
it's only natural that Americans are concerned about the possibility of further foreign interference, especially
as the midterms draw closer.
But I worry that we're focusing too much on the foreign part of the problem -- in
which social media accounts and pages controlled by overseas "troll factories" post false and divisive material --
and not enough on how our own domestic political polarization feeds into the basic business model of companies
like Facebook and YouTube.
It's this interaction -- both aspects of which are homegrown -- that fosters the
dissemination of false and divisive material, and this will persist as a major problem even in the absence of
concerted foreign efforts.
Consider some telling exchanges from this year's Senate hearings involving
high-level executives from Facebook and Twitter. (Google, which owns YouTube, didn't bother sending a comparable
representative.) In April, Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California, pressed Facebook's chief executive, Mark
Zuckerberg, on how much money the company had made by ads placed by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll
factory. Mr. Zuckerberg replied that it was about $100,000 -- a negligible amount of money for the company.
Advertisement
Last month, Ms. Harris further grilled Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook's chief operating
officer, on this point, demanding to know how much inauthentic Russian content was on Facebook. Ms. Sandberg had
her sound bite ready, saying that "any amount is too much," but she ultimately threw out an estimate of .004
percent, another negligible amount.
The exchange made for good viewing: a senator asking tough questions, chastised
executives being forced to put exact numbers on the table. But the truth is that paid Russian content
was
almost certainly immaterial to Facebook's revenue -- and the .004 percent
figure, though almost certainly rhetorical, does capture the relative insignificance of the paid Russian presence
on Facebook.
Contrast this, however, with another question from Ms. Harris, in which she asked
Ms. Sandberg how Facebook can "reconcile an incentive to create and increase your user engagement when the content
that generates a lot of engagement is often inflammatory and hateful."
That
astute
question Ms. Sandberg completely sidestepped, which was no surprise:
No statistic can paper over the fact that this is a real problem.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have business models that thrive on the outrageous,
the incendiary and the eye-catching, because such content generates "engagement" and captures our attention, which
the platforms then sell to advertisers, paired with extensive data on users that allow advertisers (and
propagandists) to "microtarget" us at an individual level.
Traditional media outlets, of course, are frequently also cynical manipulators of
sensationalistic content, but social media is better able to weaponize it. Algorithms can measure what content
best "engages" each user and can target him or her individually in a way that the sleaziest editor of a broadcast
medium could only dream of.
... ... ...
It is understandable that legislators and the public are concerned about other
countries meddling in our elections. But foreign meddling is to our politics what a fever is to tuberculosis: a
mere symptom of a deeper problem. To heal, we need the correct diagnosis followed by action that treats the
underlying diseases. The closer our legislators look at our own domestic politics as well as Silicon Valley's
business model, the better the answers they will find.
Zeynep Tufekci
(@zeynep)
is an associate professor at the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina,
the author of "Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest" and a contributing opinion
writer.
"... A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty. ..."
"... This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory information favoring the accused corporations. ..."
A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that
Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be
extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that
cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not
Guilty.
This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller
to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory
information favoring the accused corporations.
As any reference to this case can't seem to be found, can anyone help with info as to the
present status of the case?
Vladimir Putin: What I want – and I am completely serious – is that this
nightmare about Russia's alleged interference with some election campaign in the United States
ends. I want the United States, the American elite, the US elite to calm down and clear up
their own mess and restore a certain balance of common sense and national interests, just like
in the oil market. I want the domestic political squabbles in the United States to stop ruining
Russia-US relations and adversely affecting the situation in the world.
thanks b.. excellent information and insights as usual..
of course the USA and coalition of imbeciles are busy projecting onto Russia and China
what they themselves are guilty of.. the use of propaganda has gone into overdrive and is now
an accepted policy of the west.. screw facts.. who needs facts when you have a war to
pursue... and that is just what it looks like to me, as there is no end in sight to any of
this western madness...
the financial sanctions have not worked.. that much is clear.. another approach via
propaganda is to be the new regular feature.. claim all sorts of lies and supposition on
russia, china, iran, north korea, venezuela or any country that dares to get out of line with
the official ''coalition'' and you will be targeted with propaganda and or worse..
Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party
organization within their organization and party members head the mandatory unions in every
company. Indeed some of the designers are no doubt party members. Significant pressure can be
exerted on companies in China by the party, even foreign companies , especially with but not
limited to Joint ventures.
In any other country your skepticism is warranted. Not China.
That said, given how little attention the Bloomberg story received yesterday by MSM web
sites (havent checked today) beyond a denial story by msnbc I think its far more likely
that a friendly foreign intelligence agency or the US had something to do with it. Blame
China not Israel or CIA/NSA
"... I agree with Hoarsewhisperer that the elite are showing desperation but look at the sheer volume of BS they can spew out that is all over the map. ..."
"... The ... West is doubling down on Psychological Projection . Works like a charm with most peoples in the affected areas. ..."
"... A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty. ..."
"... This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory information favoring the accused corporations. ..."
"... Russia has tried to negotiate with the US to avoid cyberspace being turned into another area of conflict. The US has rebuffed these requests. Likely too much money to be made by the MIC in another theater of warfare with that extortion racket called NATO and too much promise of the NSA scooping up even more data and adding it to the data already collected by the 5 eyes. ..."
"... Didn't WikiLeaks disclosed the fact that NSA can disguise any hack to look like some other actor was the culprit? All this shouting that Russia and China did these terrible deeds is to hide the fact that the west does this all the time as disclosed by WikiLeaks? And the Germans complaining? I hope they have improved security for the Chancellor's phone. Russia is a member of OPWC. Why do they have to sit out in cars in the parking lot of OPCW headquarters to hack into OPCW? Why not from the comfort of their office in the building. What is of more importance to me is an upcoming vote in the OPCW about investigation reports laying blame in the future. That will be a game changer in the false flag chemical attack be it Syria or the UK. currently reports don't lay blame. ..."
"... Going by the squealing noises coming out of the US and loyal vassals, the yanks are probably just pissed that they can't get into Russia or China's secure communications. ..."
Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The
context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar
against NATO's preferred enemy.
On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's
development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is
U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big
motherland.
The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence
operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military
intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British
Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of
hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly
helped to exaggerate the claims:
The Foreign Office attributed six specific attacks to GRU-backed hackers and identified 12
hacking group code names as fronts for the GRU – Fancy Bear, Voodoo Bear, APT28,
Sofacy, Pawnstorm, Sednit, CyberCaliphate, Cyber Berku, BlackEnergy Actors, STRONTIUM, Tsar
Team and Sandworm."
The "hacking group code names" the Guardian tries to sell to its readers do not
refer to hacking groups but to certain cyberattack methods . Once such a method is known it
can be used by any competent group and individual. Attributing such an attack is nearly
impossible. Moreover Fancybear, ATP28, Pawn Storm, Sofacy Group, Sednit and Strontium are
just different names for one and the same well known method . The other
names listed refer to old groups and tools related to criminal hackers. Blackenergy
has been used by cybercriminals since 2007. It is alleged that a pro-Russian group named
Sandworm used it in Ukraine, but the evidence for that is dubious at best. To throw out such
a list of code names without any differentiation reeks of a Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD)
campaign designed to dis-inform and scare the public.
The Netherland for its part released
a flurry
of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims
that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff
out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is
indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian
officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they,
at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their
travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the
Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real
spies are neither.
The anti-Russian campaign came just in time for yesterday's NATO Defense Minister
meeting at which the U.S. 'offered'
to use its malicious cyber tools under NATO disguise:
Katie Wheelbarger, the principal deputy assistant defense secretary for international
security affairs, said the U.S. is committing to use offensive and defensive cyber
operations for NATO allies, but America will maintain control over its own personnel and
capabilities.
If the European NATO allies, under pressure of the propaganda onslaught, agree to that,
the obvious results will be more U.S. control over its allies' networks and citizens as well
as more threats against Russia:
NATO's chief vowed on Thursday to strengthen the alliance's defenses against attacks on
computer networks that Britain said are directed by Russian military intelligence, also
calling on Russia to stop its "reckless" behavior.
International organizations like the OPCW have long been the target of U.S. spies and
operations. The U.S. National Security Service (NSA) regularly hacked the OPCW since at
least September 2000 :
According to last week's Shadow Brokers leak, the NSA compromised a DNS server of the
Hague-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in September 2000, two
years after the Iraq Liberation Act and Operation Desert Fox, but before the Bush election.
It was the U.S. which in 2002 forced
out the head of the OPCW because he did not agree to propagandizing imaginary Iraqi
chemical weapons:
José M. Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat who was unanimously re-elected last year as
the director general of the 145-nation Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, was voted out of office today after refusing repeated demands by the United States
that he step down because of his "management style." No successor has been selected.
The U.S. arranged the vote against Bustani by threatening to leave the OPCW. Day's earlier
'Yosemite Sam' John Bolton, now Trump's National Security Advisor, threatened to hurt José
Bustani's children to press him to resign:
"I got a phone call from John Bolton – it was first time I had contact with him
– and he said he had instructions to tell me that I have to resign from the
organization, and I asked him why," Bustani told RT. "He said that [my] management style
was not agreeable to Washington."
...
Bustani said he "owed nothing" to the US, pointing out that he was appointed by all OPCW
member states. Striking a more sinister tone, Bolton said: "OK, so there will be
retaliation. Prepare to accept the consequences. We know where your kids are. "
According to Bustani, two of his children were in New York at the time, and his daughter
was in London.
Russia's government will need decades of hard work to reach the scale of U.S./UK
hypocrisy, hacking and lying.
The propaganda rush against Russia came on the same day as a similar campaign was launched
against China. A well timed Bloomberg story, which had been in the works for over a
year, claimed that Chinese companies manipulated hardware they manufactured for the U.S.
company SuperMicro. The hardware was then sold to Apple, Amazon and others for their cloud
server businesses.
Nested on the servers' motherboards, the testers found a tiny microchip, not much bigger
than a grain of rice, that wasn't part of the boards' original design.
Both Apple and Amazon denied the story with very
strong
statements . The Bloomberg tale has immense problems. It is for one completely
based on anonymous sources, most of them U.S. government officials:
The companies' denials are countered by six current and former senior national security
officials, who -- in conversations that began during the Obama administration and continued
under the Trump administration -- detailed the discovery of the chips and the government's
investigation.
The way the alleged manipulation is described to function is theoretical possible ,
but not plausible . In my learned opinion one would need multiple manipulations, not just
one tiny chip, to achieve the described results. Even reliably U.S. friendly cyberhawks
are
unconvinced of the story's veracity. It is especially curious that such server boards
are still in use in security relevant U.S. government operations:
Assuming the Bloomberg story is accurate, that means that the US intelligence community,
during a period spanning two administrations, saw a foreign threat and allowed that threat
to infiltrate the US military. If the story is untrue, or incorrect on its technical
merits, then it would make sense that Supermicro gear is being used by the US military.
Bloomberg reporters receive bonuses based indirectly on how much they shift markets with
their reporting. This story undoubtedly did that.
When the story came out SuperMicro's stock price crashed from
$21.40 to below $9.00 per share. It now trades at $12.60:
The story might be a cover-up for a NSA hack that was accidentally detected. Most likely
it is exaggerated half truth, based on
an old event , to deter the 'western' industry from sourcing anything from producers in
China.
This would be consistent with other such U.S. moves against China which coincidentally
(not) happened on the same day the Bloomberg story was launched.
Vice President Mike Pence accused China on Thursday of trying to undermine President Donald
Trump as the administration deploys tough new rhetoric over Chinese trade, economic and
foreign policies.
...
Sounding the alarm, Pence warned other nations to be wary of doing business with China,
condemning the Asian country's "debt diplomacy" that allows it to draw developing nations
into its orbit.
Pence also warned American businesses to be vigilant against Chinese efforts to leverage
access to their markets to modify corporate behavior to their liking.
Another move is a new Pentagon report warning against the purchase of Chinese equipment
and
launched via Reuters in support of the campaign:
China represents a "significant and growing risk" to the supply of materials vital to the
U.S. military, according to a new Pentagon-led report that seeks to mend weaknesses in core
U.S. industries vital to national security.
The nearly 150-page report, seen by Reuters on Thursday ahead of its formal release
Friday, concluded there are nearly 300 vulnerabilities that could affect critical materials
and components essential to the U.S. military.
...
"A key finding of this report is that China represents a significant and growing risk to
the supply of materials and technologies deemed strategic and critical to U.S. national
security," the report said.
The Bloomberg story, the Pence speech and the Pentagon report 'leak' on the same
day seem designed to scare everyone away from using Chinese equipment or China manufactured
parts within there supply chain.
The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the
allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain
manipulation goes
back to 1982 :
A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped
software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas
pipeline, it emerged yesterday.
...
Mr Reed writes that the software "was programmed to reset pump speeds and valve settings to
produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to pipeline joints and welds".
The U.S. government under Trump - and with John Bolton in a leading position - copied Trump's
brutal campaign style and uses it as an instrument in its foreign policy. Trump's victory in
the 2016 election proves that such campaigns are highly successful, even when the elements
they are build of are dubious or untrue. In their scale and coordination the current
campaigns are comparable to the 2002 run-up for the war on Iraq.
Then, as during the Trump election campaign and as now, the media are crucial to the
public effect these campaigns have. Will they attempt to take the stories the campaigns are
made of apart? Will they set them into the larger context of global U.S. spying and
manipulation? Will they explain the real purpose of these campaigns?
IMO the US Government's propaganda is structured to along the lines of a
fantasy novel. The propaganda is designed to convince the public of two inherently
contradictory ideas:
1) that the country is surrounded on vast sides by vast hostile empires
that threaten everything we hold dear and
2) despite these dire threats, the country cannot
really be harmed because of "our freedoms."
Like with a fantasy novel, the reader gets all
the thrills of an epic battle while being certain that the evil empires will never triumph.
An attractive form of propaganda, to be certain.
Well, so far the propaganda is having very minor effect on the ordinary people. If you read
the comment section of most of the corporate media you will see that people are just not
buying the BS.
Indifference of the ordinary people does not mean much. Just that there is such
indifference. The arguments against that claimed Chinese hardware hack are
meta-arguments.
... Got to wonder what the end game is here. WW3? Or up they expecting the Russian people to come
begging for an end to sanctions? Posted by: dh | Oct 5, 2018 11:49:07 AM | 11
Good question.
It's not WWIII. Putin has already said that if WWIII goes Nuclear, survival will be a
lottery. Imo the Christian Colonial West, hypnotised by 30 years of its own bs and busily
patting itself on the back and performing Victory Laps on the world stage, has been caught
napping (asleep at the wheel) and now needs time to ponder the downside.
Imo this latest drivel-fest stems from the fact that Russia is now/again militarily
unassailable. That doesn't mean that Russia can't be attacked but it does mean that anyone
who tries it will wish they hadn't.
And it's driving the defunct Masters Of The Universe insaner.
I agree with Hoarsewhisperer that the elite are showing desperation but look at the sheer
volume of BS they can spew out that is all over the map.
The Supreme Court justice debacle is another example of so riling up the forces around the
sex issue so that the rest of his moral standing that effects all of us is ignored.....the
sex issue is marginalized and pop goes the weasel onto the Supreme Court to bring the US
closer to feudalism.
The ... West is doubling down on Psychological Projection . Works like a charm
with most peoples in the affected areas.
Although it is practically a symptom of a deeper sitting mental illness, it is still
treated as some sort of cavalier's delinquency. Like it is to be expected that the rulers of
said West resort to this kind of projection.
The only interesting part though - one that is next to never really understood by the
gullible masses - is the Projection part of it. Because it means nothing else than the
fact that the projector is the one who is perpetrating the crimes and malevolent activities
it accuses the 'enemy'/opposing side of.
The West is mentally ill. Nothing new, the Eastern sages pointed to that a long time ago.
Very much like the Native American Indians were flabbergasted by the moronity and cruelty the
invaders displayed. The one that has adhered to my memory like fusion is: Only paleface
would set a river on fire.
Last but not least, Nazi is as Nazi does. As can be verified perusing the story of this
Nazi that never had to fear repercussions for his crimes against humanity. For the simple
reason that the U.S. protected him to gain his knowledge about advanced biological and
chemical warfare. The Nazi was Kurt Blome .
In early morning broadcasts yesterday, BBC and NPR accused China and Russia of projecting
positive images of their countries, and of acting in accordance with their national
interests.
I am so proud that my own country – USA – would never do either one of those
things!
"On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's development of computer chip
manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut
its ties with its big motherland."
Gen William Looney, first gulf war.... "If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs [surface-to-air
missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace We dictate the way they live
and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when
there's a lot of oil out there we need. [1]"
We'r a rule based system,
Here'r the rules. We decide..... who'r terrorists, who'r 'freedom fighters. Whats a fair election, whats a farce. Whats a genocide, whats legit police action. Whats R2p, whats unprovoked aggression. Who can do biz with whom. Who's the right man for your prez. We own you. MAGA.
[1]
I dont like to use wiki but that's the only place I could retrieve this quote, they'r wiping
the net clean, even images, videos.
Better be mentally prep for the day you wake up in the morning and cant find MOA,
Back to sanctioning Russian under the flimsy pretext of Skripals' poisoning. The US has been poisoning Georgians (some died) and this is well documented. Are the UK
prudes ready to sanction the US for the crime?
"The US Embassy to Tbilisi transports frozen human blood and pathogens as diplomatic cargo
for a secret US military program. Pentagon scientists have been deployed to the Republic of
Georgia and have been given diplomatic immunity to research deadly diseases and biting
insects at the Lugar Center – the Pentagon biolaboratory in Georgia's capital
Tbilisi.
The Pentagon projects involving ticks coincided with an inexplicable outbreak of
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) which is caused by infection through a tick-borne
virus. In 2014 34 people became infected (amongst which a 4-year old child). A total of 60
cases with 9 fatalities have been registered in Georgia since 2009."
The above is an honest journalism and not some presstituting production by the eunuchs
Luke Harding and George Monbiot. And don't forget Luke & George's comrade-in-arms, the
"phenomenal expert" Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies underwear and college dropout)
who has zero training in engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics, ballistics, foreign
languages, biology, history and basically in any field of research. Zero. This is why Higgins
is the best expert at the the ziocon Atlantic Council made of the scoundrels of the same
caliber.
"This is a man who, with his agency Bellingcat, will absolutely always back the position
of western governments, and powerful western organisations."
A few months ago, a dozen Russian individuals were charged with cyber-crime offenses that
Mueller knew would never be tested at trial b/c the charged individuals would never be
extradited. However, the indictment included charges against two Russian corporations that
cleverly hired American lawyers to appear on their behalf, and enter pleas of Not Guilty.
This tactic should have set the pre-trial discovery process to begin, causing Mueller to
be obliged to turn over evidence supporting the charges as well as any exculpatory
information favoring the accused corporations.
As any reference to this case can't seem to be found, can anyone help with info as to the
present status of the case?
Funny how lowkey this topic is handled. It appeard in The Times. As the Times article is
behind a paywall. I am linking to the Irish Times:
MI5 can authorise agents to commit crimes, tribunal told . Maybe the UK should be
sanctioned.
Makes my fantasy go a little wild and wonder if there might be any connection to
Skripal.
For those who missed May's latest Brexit speech (which had zero content), here she is jiving
to Dancing Queen by Abba for her glorified entrance. No need to make caricatures, she
does it herself. Free of charge.
The USA + GB have become totally unhinged. Seeking a 'safe' enemy *without* - as the
Deplorables or Brexiteers *within* don't hit the spot, for many reasons - .. to explain and
cover up Hillary's loss and the ugly Brexit mess with its clueless posturing pols, is one
thing.
To continue to provoke Russia and China, particularly Russia, in this way is now skirting
with danger beyond the .. ? Containable, ignorable, what ..?
Plus, the MSM, lousy as it is and was, has spinned off into even further mad realms,
seemingly forced into a hyper, over-blown anti-Russian hysteria. Often far more strongly so
than the pols. / others they seemingly quote.
This is all becoming seriously alarming. I'm getting very bad feelings.
Seems like another episode of False Friday to bury all the crap made public during the week
while pushing other news aside. Much of it's recycled crap from Obama's term and just as
false.
During the Cold War, the West contolled some 2/3 of the global economy.
If they again bring a "Free World" protective curtain down around themselves in defensive
retrenchment, what percent would they control now? Which countries would be guaranteed to be
inside the tent pissing out, and which would be outide the tent pissing in? And who would be
non-aligned (with the exception of their military purchases.)
Pakistan, India, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela,
Nicaragua, Africa, etc. -- Where would the dominos fall? Is this what they are trying to
accomplish? If you are not with us, you are against us, as the ever eloquent G. W. Shrub
might have said. Any predictions?
thanks b.. excellent information and insights as usual..
of course the USA and coalition of imbeciles are busy projecting onto Russia and China
what they themselves are guilty of.. the use of propaganda has gone into overdrive and is now
an accepted policy of the west.. screw facts.. who needs facts when you have a war to
pursue... and that is just what it looks like to me, as there is no end in sight to any of
this western madness...
the financial sanctions have not worked.. that much is clear.. another approach via
propaganda is to be the new regular feature.. claim all sorts of lies and supposition on
russia, china, iran, north korea, venezuela or any country that dares to get out of line with
the official ''coalition'' and you will be targeted with propaganda and or worse..
is there a way to create an alternative internet??
Looking around the MSM, MH17 also comes into it. Dutch are accusing Russia of trying to hack
the MH17 sham investigation. This propaganda attack comes only a week or two after Russia
tracked the missile parts numbers, supplied by JIT, through records which led to Ukraine.
Russia has tried to negotiate with the US to avoid cyberspace being turned into another area
of conflict. The US has rebuffed these requests. Likely too much money to be made by the MIC
in another theater of warfare with that extortion racket called NATO and too much promise of
the NSA scooping up even more data and adding it to the data already collected by the 5 eyes.
Canada is being pressured into not buying Chinese for its military civilian hardware.
Scare the politicians into buying US goods that have a backdoor for the CIA to use. Canada
shouldn't complain. The Canadian government hacked into the Brazilian government computers
for the benefit of Canadian mining interests.
Didn't WikiLeaks disclosed the fact that NSA can disguise any hack to look like some other
actor was the culprit? All this shouting that Russia and China did these terrible deeds is to
hide the fact that the west does this all the time as disclosed by WikiLeaks? And the Germans
complaining? I hope they have improved security for the Chancellor's phone. Russia is a
member of OPWC. Why do they have to sit out in cars in the parking lot of OPCW headquarters
to hack into OPCW? Why not from the comfort of their office in the building. What is of more
importance to me is an upcoming vote in the OPCW about investigation reports laying blame in
the future. That will be a game changer in the false flag chemical attack be it Syria or the
UK. currently reports don't lay blame.
An element of the Skripal poisoning saga in Britain (the Novichok) was lifted from the TV
series "Strikeback" screening in the country in November 2017 and February 2018. I have seen
something on the Internet (but can't find the link) that said the subplot with the abandoned
perfume bottle that contained poison was also taken from a TV show.
Prepare to be unsurprised then when the people who write propaganda for The Powers That
Should Not Be turn out to be the same people who write scripts for Hollywood films and TV
shows. A lot of these people also write novels or teach creative writing courses.
We really do seem to be living in a society where mythology and fantasy are becoming more
prominent than facts and analysis in decision-making.
Wherever it is the Russian government responsible or not, the UK and the Nederlands are
admitting that they are impotent in front of attacks in the cyberworld. That wifi can be
sniffed so easily at international organizations show total irresponsibility. These
cyberattacks are simply humiliating for these countries as it shows that despite their
military power, they are highly vulnerable. To dispel the humiliation, they respond
aggressively by accusing countries, not to individuals, and they accuse the current
boogeyman, Russia.
Maybe NATO's budget should be cut down on murdering weapons and allocate to Cyber Defense as
this seems to become the new way of war.
In view of the lack of proper cyber defense worldwidee, anybody, any country can hack and
play around with others. I would be surprised if Israel, the USA and the UK China are not
stiffing in other countries organizations. They have not been found because they are the
'good' sniffers while Russia, Iran, China are the "bad' sniffers
Cold war is on with new technology, It is time for countries to realize that.
Considering what the military war has cost in money, death toll and destruction, maybe cold
war would be less costly in human toll.
China has set up quantum internet via optic fiber linking a number of government
departments.
Going by the squealing noises coming out of the US and loyal vassals, the yanks are probably
just pissed that they can't get into Russia or China's secure communications.
For those who missed May's latest Brexit speech (which had zero content), here she is jiving
to Dancing Queen by Abba for her glorified entrance. No need to make caricatures, she
does it herself. Free of charge.
The USA + GB have become totally unhinged. Seeking a 'safe' enemy *without* - as the
Deplorables or Brexiteers *within* don't hit the spot, for many reasons - .. to explain and
cover up Hillary's loss and the ugly Brexit mess with its clueless posturing pols, is one
thing.
To continue to provoke Russia and China, particularly Russia, in this way is now skirting
with danger beyond the .. ? Containable, ignorable, what ..?
Plus, the MSM, lousy as it is and was, has spinned off into even further mad realms,
seemingly forced into a hyper, over-blown anti-Russian hysteria. Often far more strongly so
than the pols. / others they seemingly quote.
This is all becoming seriously alarming. I'm getting very bad feelings.
But in blaming "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" for the sexual misconduct allegations
against him, the Supreme Court nominee is drawing new attention to his time on the Kenneth
Starr team investigating Bill Clinton. And in doing so, he's shown he can deliver a Trump-like
broadside against detractors even if it casts him in a potentially partisan light.
As a young lawyer, Kavanaugh played a key role on Starr's team investigating sexual
misconduct by then-President Bill Clinton, helping to shape one of the most salacious chapters
in modern political history.
Kavanaugh spent a good part of the mid-1990s jetting back and forth to Little Rock,
Arkansas, digging into the Clintons' background, according to documents that were made public
as part of his nomination to the Supreme Court
As Russia is preparing plans to wean its banking system off the dollar, advancing a trend of
de-dollarization among the US's largest economic and geopolitical rivals, Russian President
Vladimir Putin accused Washington of making a "colossal" but "typical" mistake by exploiting
the dominance of the dollar by levying economic sanctions against regimes that don't bow to its
whims.
"It seems to me that our American partners make a colossal strategic mistake," Putin
said.
"This is a typical mistake of any empire," Putin said, explaining that the US is ignoring
the consequences of its actions because its economy is strong and the dollar's hegemonic
grasp on global markets remains intact. However "the consequences come sooner or later."
These remarks echoed a sentiment expressed by Putin back in May, when he said that Russia
can no longer trust the US dollar because of America's decisions to impose unilateral sanctions
and violate WTO rules.
While Putin's criticisms are hardly new, these latest remarks happen to follow a report in
the
Financial Times, published Tuesday night, detailing Russia's efforts to wean its economy
off of the dollar. The upshot is that while de-dollarization may be painful, it is, ultimately
doable.
The US imposed another round of sanctions against Russia over the summer in response to the
poisoning of former double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, and the US Senate is
considering measures that would effectively cut Russia's biggest banks off from the dollar and
largely exclude Moscow from foreign debt markets.
With the possibility of being cut off from the dollar system looming, a plan prepared by
Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian bank VTB, is being embraced by much of the Russian
establishment. Kostin's plan would facilitate the conversion of dollar settlements into other
currencies which would help wean Russian industries off the dollar. And it already has the
backing of Russia's finance ministry, central bank and Putin.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin is also working on deals with major trading partners to accept the
Russian ruble for imports and exports.
In a sign that a united front is forming to help undermine the dollar, Russia's efforts have
been readily embraced by China and Turkey, which is unsurprising, given their increasingly
fraught relationships with the US. During joint military exercises in Vladivostok last month,
Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping declared that their countries would work together to
counter US tariffs and sanctions.
"More and more countries, not only in the east but also in Europe, are beginning to think
about how to minimise dependence on the US dollar," said Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin's
spokesperson. "And they suddenly realise that a) it is possible, b) it needs to be done and
c) you can save yourself if you do it sooner."
Still, there's no question that US sanctions have damaged Russia's currency and contributed
to a rise in borrowing costs. And whether Russia - which relies heavily on energy exports - can
convince buyers of its oil and natural gas to accept payment in rubles remains an open
question. Increased trade with China and other Asian countries has helped reduce Russia's
dependence on the dollar. But the greenback still accounted for 68% of Russia's payment
inflow.
But, as Putin has repeatedly warned, that won't stop them from trying. The fact is that
Russia is a major exporter, with a trade surplus of $115 billion last year. As the FT pointed
out, Russia's metals, grain, oil and gas are consumed around the world - even in the west,
despite the tensions surrounding Russia's alleged involvement in the Skripal poisoning and its
annexation of Crimea.
To be sure, abandoning the dollar as the currency of choice for oil-related payments would
be no easy feat. But China has already taken the first step and show that it can be done by
launching a yuan-denominated futures contract that trades in Shanghai - striking the most
significant blow to date against the petrodollar's previously unchallenged dominance.
That should embolden Putin to continue with his experiment - not that the US is leaving him
much choice.
"... James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according to Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition. ..."
"... Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. ..."
"... According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." ..."
James Baker, a former top FBI lawyer, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that the
Russia probe was handled in an "abnormal fashion" and was rife with "political bias" according
to
Fox News , citing two Republican lawmakers present for the closed-door deposition.
"Some of the things that were shared were explosive in nature," Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.,
told Fox News. "This witness confirmed that things were done in an abnormal fashion. That's
extremely troubling."
Meadows claimed the "abnormal" handling of the probe into alleged coordination between
Russian officials and the Trump presidential campaign was "a reflection of inherent bias that
seems to be evident in certain circles." The FBI agent who opened the Russia case, Peter
Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page and others sent politically charged texts, and have since left
the bureau. -
Fox News
Baker, who worked closely with former FBI Director James Comey, left the bureau earlier this
year.
Lawmakers did not provide any specifics about the interview, citing a confidentiality
agreement signed with Baker and his attorneys, however they said that he was cooperative and
forthcoming about the beginnings of the Russia probe in 2016, as well as the FISA surveillance
warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"During the time that the FBI was putting -- that DOJ and FBI were putting together the
FISA (surveillance warrant) during the time prior to the election -- there was another source
giving information directly to the FBI, which we found the source to be pretty explosive,"
said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
Meadows and Jordan would not elaborate on the source, or answer questions about whether
the source was a reporter. They did stress that the source who provided information to the
FBI's Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators. -
Fox News
According to Fox , Baker "is at the heart of surveillance abuse allegations, and his
deposition lays the groundwork for next week's planned closed-door interview with Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."
As the FBI's top lawyer, baker helped secure the FISA warrant on Page, along with three
subsequent renewals .
Rosenstein is scheduled to appear on Capitol Hill on October 11 for a closed-door interview,
according to Republican House sources, "not a briefing to leadership," and comes on the heels
of a New York Times report that said Rosenstein had discussed secretly recording President
Trump and removing him from office using the 25th Amendment.
Rosenstein and Trump pushed off a scheduled meeting into limbo amid speculation of his
impending firing.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Wednesday the meeting remains in
limbo.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
"... Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure" instead. ..."
"... Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late 2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world). ..."
"... we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War, which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation. ..."
"... the "real" US economy is only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy ..."
"... at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing war. ..."
"... Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution." ..."
"... The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now becoming exponentially worse ..."
"... If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is natural, and to be expected. ..."
It is rather surprising that the Democrats who have demonized Donald Trump at every turn
have voted in favour of the this extremely bloated defense budget, putting even more military
might into the hands of a President and Commander-in-Chief that they seem to despise and who
they are demonizing because of his alleged collusion with Russia.
We've been in WW3 for several years now. Bolton went "Full Monty" with his
declaration that U.S. forces will stay in Syria until Iran vacates. The introduction of a
Yemen War Powers Resolution in the House last week is a hopeful sign. A reason to root
for a Blue Wave in November. Dem leadership, already on record backing the War Powers
Resolution, would be obligated to block U.S. enabling genocide in Yemen.
I disagree with Eric Zusse's belief that USA wants to start WWIII. I think they want to
contain/constrain discontent of allies and citizenry as they attempt to destroy the Russian
and Chinese economies. War is only a last resort. But heightened military tensions mean that
the major protagonists have to divert resources to their military, causing a drag on the
economies.
Along these lines, the Trump Administration has informed Russia in April 2017 that the
period of "strategic patience" is over (well, at least official 'cause being 'patient' didn't
seem to deter regime change and covert ops) . They now employ a policy of "maximum pressure"
instead.
The big concern for me is that "maximum pressure" also means an elevated chance of
mistakes and miscalculations that could inadvertently cause WWIII.
Also note: The Trump Administration has officially labeled Russia and China as enemies
when they called them "recidivist" nations in the National Defense Authorization Act in late
2017. (Note: "recidivist" because Russia and China want to return to a world where there is
not a hegemonic power, aka a "multi-polar" world).
PS IMO Trump election and the Kavanaugh and Gina Haspel nominations are key to the pursuit
of global hegemony.
Most warnings have centered on a financial meltdown, as this article
reviews . As most know, IMO we're already within an ongoing Hybrid Third World War,
which is more readily apparent with Trump's Trade War escalation.
As noted in my link to Escobar's latest, the EU has devised a retaliatory mechanism to
shield itself and others from the next round of illegal sanctions Trump's promised to impose
after Mid-term elections.
In an open thread post, I linked to Hudson's latest audio-cast; here's what he said on the 10th
anniversary of the 2008 crash: "So this crash of 2008 was not a crash of the banks. The banks
were bailed out. The economy was left with all the junk mortgages in place, all the
fraudulent debts."
Another article I linked to in a comment to james averred the "real" US economy is
only 5 Trillion, only 25% of what's claimed as the total economy . Hudson again:
"Contrary to the idea that bailing out the banks helps the economy, the fact is that the
economy today cannot recover without a bank failure ." [My emphasis]
Wh at's clearly happening--and it's been ongoing for quite awhile--for those with open
eyes is the Class War between the 1% and 99%. The domestic battle within the Outlaw US Empire
for Single Payer/Medicare For All healthcare is one theatre of the much larger ongoing
war.
As Hudson's stated many times, the goal of the 1% is to reestablish Feudalism via
debt-peonage. All the other happenings geopolitically serve to mask this Class War within the
Outlaw US Empire. Clearly, the upcoming financial crisis must spark a massive political
upheaval larger than any ever seen before to prevent institution of the 2008 "solution."
Many predict that this crisis will be timed to occur in 2020 constituting the biggest
election meddling of all time.
The crisis will likely be blamed on China without any evidence for hacking Wall Street and
causing the subsequent crash -- a Financial False Flag to serve the same purpose as 911.
Much can occur and be obscured during wartime. The radical changes to USA from 1938-1948
is very instructive--the commonfolk were on the threshold of gaining control over the federal
government for the first time in US history only to have it blocked then reversed (forever?)
by FDR and the 1% who tried to overthrow him in 1933.
Same with the current War OF Terror's use to curtail longstanding civil liberties and
constitutional rights and much more. To accomplish what's being called "Bail-In" within the
USA, Martial Law would need to be emplaced since most of the public is to be robbed of
whatever cash they have, and World War would probably be the only way to get Martial Law
instituted--and accepted by the military which would be its enforcer.
A precedent exists for stealing money from the people--their gold--via Executive Order 6102 , which
used a law instituted during WW1 and still on the books.
The primary dynamic of history is war. This has caused immense suffering. It is now
becoming exponentially worse . Critical graphs are going off their charts. The end is
near.
If we think of humankind as a large complex living entity, then like all such entities
it will expire at some point. So in the larger picture, what we are moving towards is
natural, and to be expected.
Like individual humans, the human population as a whole can pursue activities that
maintain it's health, or it can indulge in activities that create disease and hasten it's
death. Humankind is deep in toxifying behaviors that signal it's demise in the near
future.
Well, I don't know. My sister is an executive assistant. I thought I knew what that meant and
you probably do too. But then one day I sat down with her and we actually talked about her
job, and I quickly realized that not only was my understanding of her job so shallow as to be
effectively meaningless, but it was so shallow that I didn't even understand how much I was
missing. I'd just glanced at the title and said to myself "yep, executive assistant, assist
executives, that's what she does" and at no point had it ever even occurred to me that there
was anything past that. In fact, it was even worse than that, because half the stuff I
imagined she might do wasn't part of her job at all (hint, if you think "executive assistant"
and "secretary" are remotely similar you are just as far off track as I was).
I still don't understand what she does but at least now I know how little I know. If she
came to me for career advice there's no chance I'd be able to offer her anything other than
meaningless platitudes, because I don't even know enough right now to know if her current job
is a good one or a bad one. If she'd asked me before I realized how much I don't know I'd be
in the same boat, only probably rolling my eyes that she would get so worked up over x, y, or
z when her job was so simple and straightforward that there's no possible way it could be
that stressful.
Yeah.
All of this is to say that unless your friends are on a career path similar to yours they
probably not only fail to understand your job, but they probably fail so bad that they don't
even know how far off they are. That's not because your friends are stupid or because IT is
so impenetrably complex that only the chosen few can grasp it; its just that most of us don't
have a lot of expertise in careers outside of our own. Lacking context, we turn to pop
culture for reference. Picture the stereotypical Hollywood "computer guy" (or, if you must,
"hacker"). That's probably what your friends think your job is like. Now imagine that guy
coming to you complaining about how hard and stressful his job is. How hard could it be
anyway? I have a computer at home and don't have to do much to keep it running. These things
all basically run themselves, don't they?
So, point is his friends aren't necessarily assholes or in denial. They probably just
don't know enough to understand how little they know, as is true for all of us, and are
trying to give well-intentioned advice; OP asked, after all, and they want to help their
friend. But you can't give good advice if you don't have all the facts, and especially not if
you don't even know how much you're missing.
The executive assistants I know (to VPs, presidents, CEOs) practically run the company. Not
entirely, but a good chunk of it.
Filter what their executive knows and doesn't know, what meetings that take and don't,
and what their priorities are. If the EA isn't on your side, you're not getting to their
exec.
This influences strategy for the company, which means the EA is often helping direct
strategy.
Because they are spending 100% of their time with the exec (compared to the, say, 2
hours I get every other month as one of the department heads), they have a huge amount of
influence. They are trusted. And they have heard about everything that is happening at the
company. They know more than I do about what's really happening.
As to what they do, on the surface, it does look like secretary work. Schedule
appointments. Schedule venues for meetings/conferences. Book travel. Make sure the exec is
prepared for the appointments (knows what they need to know; has met with the right people in
advance to get briefed; leaves on time to get to the appointment). Answer emails and phone
calls.
But the level of knowledge they need to perform those tasks for an executive is much
higher.
Well, sure, that's an unfortunate commute. You're basically saying "I would take getting paid
for X for y hours of work over getting paid (x - costs of transportation ) for y + 4.5 or
more hours of work.
It's a decent jumping-off point for a middle management role of your own, if one opens up at
the same company. You're playing a huge role in running your exec's department
already, so you've got the lay of the land and you're clearly a competent wrangler of humans.
Who promoted herself from Harvey's legal secretary to the COO in a span of two episodes,
didn't skip a beat, and kept doing exactly what she was doing before.
Well, seeing as my last post was a big long thing about how I don't fully understand what
they do this is a limited view, but a short pithy summary would be that she handles all the
stuff her boss should be doing but doesn't have time to actually do. That's everything from
negotiating phone plans and insurance rates to making sure all the certifications and permits
they need to function are taken care of to planning and booking meetings and seminars. It's
very wide ranging and is a ton of responsibility. As noted elsewhere a good EA practically
runs the company.
I work from home 2 days a week. My wife thought I was nuts when I brought home a gaming
headset and 2nd monitor for the PC I use at home.
She thought I was sitting at home playing minecraft all day.
The reality is I need lots of screen space to doy job and I have conference call meetings
several times a day. I can actually hear and be heard with the headset.
I agree the downside is getting tagged for late day or after hours emergency work because
I can respond quickly.
I ended up buying an egpu so I could hook up a third monitor to my laptop. Currently trying
to figure out how to arrange stuff on my desk to fit a fourth; may have to start mounting
them on swivel arms. I want as much screen space as I can get when I doy job.
I also have an hdmi switch to change the monitors to my gaming machine when it's Minecraft
time. Tax deductible 4k 27 " monitors are good for that too.
Got a stud above/behind your desk? The fourth one on the wall angled down can work pretty
well, throw your notifications bar up there, calendar, anything you rarely glance at but
should be able to see without moving another program or window.
All of these makes sense, but I am just going to add the following: - Your friends should
recognize if you are yourself or if you are frustrated, close to being burned out. That is a
clear indicator if you are at right job or not. - Your friends should also be able to help
you figure out if you are appreciated and in a company with good culture
Good companies/management do everything they can to empower employees, provide adequate
training, and set realistic expectations. All of that increases employees' morale and
confidence. Without those two, company is bound to fail sooner or later.
Your friends should recognize if you are yourself or if you are frustrated, close to
being burned out. That is a clear indicator if you are at right job or not.
Your friends should also be able to help you figure out if you are appreciated and in
a company with good culture
And, as your friend, you might want to listen to us if we point out these things more than
a few times. There are one off vent sessions over a beer then there are long-term, consistent
complaints.
Yes, sometimes you just want to vent, but if someone is pointing out the same thing
constantly, they may have a point and it's up to you to start on a path to changing the
situation.
This. Many resources out there clearly state that your friends either support your success or
place negative labels on your success.
Go check out 7 habits of highly effective peeps. Will give you a completely new
perspective. Not just about friends but yourself and how you interact with others.
Sorry, it seems this comment or thread has violated a sub-reddit rule and has been removed by
a moderator.
Community Members Shall Conduct Themselves With Professionalism.
This is a Community of Professionals, for Professionals.
Please treat community members politely - even when you disagree.
No personal attacks - debate issues, challenge sources - but don't make or take things
personally.
No posts that are entirely memes or AdviceAnimals or Kitty GIFs.
Please try and keep politically charged messages out of discussions.
Intentionally trolling is considered impolite, and will be acted against.
The acts of Software Piracy, Hardware Theft, and Cheating are considered
unprofessional, and posts requesting aid in committing such acts shall be removed.
No, he just needs to understand that people give generic advice that they think sounds good
but they really don't understand your job or have never been in your situation. And he does.
Being able to empathize with your friends concerns, to understand their feelings without
understanding exactly what they're going through, is a talent that not everybody has. Neither
is being self-aware enough to recognize when you lack such a talent and instead say "wow,
that sounds tough, I don't have any advice, but good luck." But these are not the only
attributes that make someone friend-worthy.
On the other hand, not everybody can tolerate having friends that lack empathy and
understanding. So for some the answer "they need new friends" may be true, I just don't think
OP necessarily does. In fact, I think it's the same kind of generic, bad advice that I'm
talking about to say that he does.
Neither is being self-aware enough to recognize when you lack such a talent and instead
say "wow, that sounds tough, I don't have any advice, but good luck."
When I'm in situations like this (I can't advise because I lack context or experience) I
advise flipping a coin. Quit after finding a new job or stay and keep trying to change the
place, heads or tails. After you've flipped the coin and seen the result, examine your
feeling... disappointed or relieved? There's your answer regardless of the coin toss you know
how you really feel, and should trust your gut.
This! When my friend(s) complain about their current workplace/position/etc I always
recommend they get their feelers out and start looking. It may take a while but you'll
eventually find something.
It took me almost a year to find something comparable or better but didn't land the final
interview this past year. But, my old job lost our largest client and I am now working for
said client. Couldn't be happier!
You don't know what someone deals with & those people may want to bend over backward to
help this person if they could. Don't automatically label them shitty friends. You don't even
know them.
No. I trust them and usually come to them when I'm emotionally invested/upset and yelling
about a situation at work. Making decisions in this mindset is always a bad idea. I was
talked off a ledge long enough to make a smart, calculated decision.
You probably figured this out already, but the whole "go hire someone" thing was a ploy to
keep you around a little longer. They gave you permission to recruit, not authority to hire.
They were never going to green light the position.
You also facilitated management's bad behavior by putting too much effort into doing the
right thing. You weren't valued or appreciated, you were just taken advantage of.
Spot on. I was given the illusion of great authority, but in the end - not on the things that
matter. I borderline want to say the word 'budget' doesn't exist here.
This. Why would they hire someone when you're doing it all. IT employees have a much better
stress level, work life balance, and career when they learn how to say no or "that's not my
role". Unless you're trying to get into that area, never volunteer you do work that should be
done by another area. It'll start becoming the norm and will never stop. Good luck on your
next gig though!
Yeah. I learned at my old job that the "what can we do to keep you?" question is bullshit.
It's a way for them to determine what they can lie to your face about to string you along as
far as possible. I asked for a team change, and they managed to string me along saying I was
approved for almost 9 months, until suddenly I'm not approved anymore and there's not even a
spot open for me.
Never again will I attempt to be honest with my manager. You can know that I'm thinking
about leaving when I give you my 2 weeks notice.
Thanks for the story, and the perspective. I'm the sole SA at a smallish entertainment-based
development studio, didn't understand half the tech you reference and I do have a senior
network architect I can (remotely) fall back on, but many days I'm totally overwhelmed. We
had a major product success last year and we've been ramping up like crazy. More office
rollout, more servers, more users, more developers (so like users but worse), more backup
needs, more bandwidth, more "and can you get better teleconference speakers for the meeting
rooms", more baroque software licensing to figure out, also do I have batteries? Mouse pads?
Highlighters? Why are you asking me for highlighters? No I can't fix your chair. Etc etc. And
I'm waiting for that one crucial system to break that I won't know how to fix.
I guess I'm just saying your post gave me some much-needed perspective. Cheers.
The best time to look for a job is when you don't need a job
Hell yeah! I quit about 6 months ago and don't even look. I get sporadic emails from
LinkedIn and other avenues and if things look good, I'll apply, otherwise the hell with it.
I've had a few interviews but sadly most places look like they have issues with
understaffing, overworked, etc.
Ah well, in the next few years I'm sure something good comes up.
Had my jr get assigned 2 more standing desks this week (about 8 installed in the last 2
months and I guess we literally can't trust someone to unplug their 3 cables from the little
NUC...). I wrote him an email discussing the core parts of his job and how no one cares about
how many standing desks are or are not installed at any given time. Focus on doing your job
well, please talk to me or CIO if you are getting stressed by any workload (we all know that
sometimes it feels like the tickets just stream in and you make no headway no matter what you
do). We'll do whatever is needed to either take care of em.
I have also done some stand up desk troubleshooting and installation, if it has a wire in it
or on it, or even holds something with a sufficient number of wires people can claim it is
confusing, it's your problem. 15 years of working in the IT/SA field and I'm unboxing a desk
because 'my computer has all the wires and I'll probably just mess it up if I try to move
everything myself'. Fortunately our users are very reasonable in general.
How about one of those tiny space heaters? A user asked me if I could figure out why it
wasn't working, and all I did was flip a big red switch marked "ON."
Start to say no. Do the hours in your contract and go home. When stuff doesn't get done tell
them you need more people. Either they get more people or you search for a new job. But if
they don't get more people you would search for a new job anyway. Just burned out.
Seems to me like a lot of horror stories here are because people either care too much or
are deeply afraid of looking for a new job. These conditions exist because you let them.
Years ago a manager from a different department (non IT obviously) walked over to us to let
us know a toilet was clogged. We all just looked at him and laughed. I was also yelled at
once for not helping someone move a file cabinet during an office move, while we still had
tons of PC's left to setup.
IT has always been the "well, we don't have above whose responsibility it is to take care
of this, so IT can do it" field.
I'm going through a similar situation to you OP but for a different reason.
I left a good MSP job (busy and at times frustrating) for a larger employer and the job I
was expecting to have is not at all like the one I applied for it's very boring and quite
slow with too much idle time sometimes which is weird since it's an operations roles for a
billion dollar business but probably half of the "work" I'm doing now is "hey sorry to wake
you but we got this alarm and we've raised an incicent can you take a look" when I used to
design and manage environments end to end.
My job for some people would be the jackpot but for me it's awful and I'm considering
leaving to go back to my way more stressful MSP job.
My problem is I have too many resources to call on (multiple teams to escalate to) and I'm
just left watching the screens because of it.
This is what I'm afraid of as well but I need more friggin money. The screen watchers
actually make more because they exist in big companies with lots of money.
We definantely do some automation but maybe not enough.
The alarms are mostly validation checks (is it actually p1? Is that event due to a
change?) and anything that can be automated is and we don't get alerts for it.
Our alarm dashboard is an aggregator of a ton of systems that all send their alarms to
it.
Unfortunately once the infrastructure and databases become self healing we're all out of a
job.
Same boat here. "is this really going to happen again before this system is decommed?" Should
I spend a few hours making a good test that will determine if its really this problem again
and fixing it + reporting the result of the fix? Or should I spend the 6 minutes it takes to
fix this and move on with my life.
Re: Self healing - out of a job. Oh PLEASE! We're not out of a job when stuff is self
healing; we're into a new one. I'm just a regular sys admin and even I am starting to think
about how I can use machine learning to solve issues I face or to improve our business. It'll
be QUITE some time before I actually start doing anthing with ML, let alone something useful.
I'd LOVE to have more time to play with new stuff.
We use ansible for automation. I do love it but it's fairly time consuming to setup (half the
stuff is in a txt doc waiting for a playbook to be built)
Management jobs usually require some management experience and I have a little bit of team
leading experience but not the sort of "manage this budget and this department" management
experience I'm also torn between making that jump to management and getting "off the tools"
or doing a deep dive into a specific set of technical tools.
My dad was an engineer for various semiconductor factories for years. He hit that same point
in his role - but there was a much bigger push to go to management, which he did. after about
5 years of that he quit - he was way to burnt out and hasn't returned to corporate life
since. The money was good but the job wasn't worth it.
Hell, the only job he's had in years was as a general contractor putting in sinks and
stuff making what I do as a help desk monkey.
I'm sort of going into a remote management position. Working for a MSP as problem escalation
for 8 techs. Finding 'teachable moments' (probably all of them!) to train on troubleshooting
process. In my spare time I'll be getting amazon aws certs and I'll eventually move into a
different role. Sounds challenging enough not to be bored :)
Oh I can do their jobs they're like "tier 3" while we're "tier 2" and we can do actual work
(permissions allowing) our team holds the same level of certs they do (MCSA, MCSE etc) were
just in at a different layer of the business which is changing.
I don't just watch for alarms and escalate it's just a small part of the role really but
it's the most prominent part when you're on the graveyards which always makes me a bit
resentful of my own choice to come here.
No, he said he had to sweep snow off a satellite dish because it's heater was broke. He said
nothing about being on the roof. Sweeping dishes after a heavy snowfall is not uncommon. I
had to do the same thing this morning while on-call.
I work in a small environment incredibly similar to OP's, Calix, Metaswitch, etc. We have
a SME for each area; one for voice, one for IP/IT systems (me), one for video, and two
outside plant guys. We cover/triage each others duties during on-call rotation. It works well
enough for us, but sounds like OP is doing it all. It would be one thing if he had to only
deal with the non-IT stuff on occasion, but if all those responsibilities are solely his,
thats untenable.
If it's a small company everyone needs to chip in beyond their official responsibility to
make things work, but they also need to be compensated at the rate of their top skills and
not driven into the ground. IMO
The problem here is that you kept the ship running, even though you told management you
needed help, things were still getting done.
Management will not do anything about thing until they break, so while you bust your ass
keeping things going they don't care how you did it. All they know is things are still
running.
You either have to show them things breaking or put your foot down negotiate a commitment to
hire a hand.
Just out of interest what was their reaction when you handed in your notice? Did they counter
or they simply decided to hire a replacement. They must have been in a world of hurt if it
was the latter and you were the only one doing that role.
Yep, a recruiter bringing someone in will cost 15-25k. Giving someone an internal referral
for 7k is comparative peanuts, AND you get two happy employees because of that.
Heya, I don't know how far into your career you are, but I'm 45, pretty senior level (I've
been a c-level exec) and wanted to tell you:
Don't ever compromise. Ever.
I am in a similar situation at an MSP (I'm in a leadership role) and have the same kinds
of conversations about resources and losing valuable workers because there's no help. The
management above me isn't listening and we are going to lose a very fine employee (like
yourself -- someone with skill who is trying to make it better but is not being
heard -- and it's because management don't know how to run an ITIL-based shop and hire to
that kind of skill set. I put toghether a framework to measure qualifications of our
employees and they all measure up to Tier 1 analysts/engineers (in both experience and quals)
and some of them are considered Tier 3 employees and they can't do something as simple as
read and interpret a Wireshark packet capture. And I keep being told either "we have to make
do with what we have" or "you're not seeing what good they can do". So clearly in my case
there's a division in vision for leadership and I'm giving up and probably moving on. In your
case, you tried, gave your input, and, if they're not gonna listen to you, move on. Your
expectations are NOT too high. Their expectations aren't high enough. Move on to somewhere
there's a fit. You can only help someone from burning their hand on the stove so many times
before you give up and go watch TV.
Yes. They all are 6 months to 1 year out of technical school. They are able to accomplish
SOME tasks. They are unskilled at anything above Tier 1 despite someone saying "you know
about X. Here, go do it."
For instance, a windows admin should be able to implement GPO and know what it's about.
Maybe have an MS cert. but our main windows admin is working towards his CCNA and has been
out of school for 6 months. Not exactly a right fit for that job.
I've been in a similar situation, the problem is not necessarily an issue with vision. More
than likely upper management have been given the mandate to keep costs down or at least
same.
So they will come up with any excuse not to hire more people or if someone of good quality
leaves they will only hire someone lower quality i.e. lower pay.
That is the problem with corporate culture everyone is there looking only after number one,
as long as the job is getting done they don't care how much those doing it care about the
company or that they are doing their jobs efficiently, cost effective or to a high
standard.
All they care about is that the job is getting done.
Stories like this is why I gave up trying. Used to, I would change my plans to do a last
minute cutover on the weekend because you changed the date 3 different times. These days, my
response is always, "I have an opening 3 weeks from now".....because I don't let it fuck up
my life anymore. Frankly, nothing has happened since I started giving those answers. What are
they going to do anyways? Hire someone else? pffft.
Christ, I felt bad for myself when I quit MY job but goddamn, you were in a
shithole! Glad you found something better.
I still hear from people at my old job that nothing has changed. They hire someone else
but never fix the problems. Overworked, understaffed, complaints are listened too with great
concern and then ignored.
It does sound very much like they're, perhaps unwittingly, taking advantage of you and you're
right to want to leave a job that's damaging your life so terribly.
I mean, works sucks most of the time, but it doesn't have to suck ALL the time and there
should be at least enough people to have the work ease off from time to time or you just go
manic from the stress.
Everybody expects different things from their job and not all jobs are right for all
people. IMO, life is too short to spend it doing a job you hate or working in a toxic
environment. I applaud your efforts to try and improve things but ultimately you've got to
draw a line where enough is enough and just move on. Do what's right by you, because your
company is working every day to do what's right by them and not necessarily what's good for
you.
Something sounds off. You talked to the ceo about what they can do, and they have their own
headend, but won't outsource the printers? That's always the first thing that needs to be
sourced out because it's petty shit like toner or pain in ass like the fuser.
Sounds like they needed someone to streamline the processes, and have 2-3 more people on
board. A senior network guy and two more minions eager to learn and take those 'patch cable
broken' or port security tickets.
You were used hard and long and have been fed bad advice. You should have left that place
long ago and hopefully this lesson will stick with you forever.
The same two questions, every time, before you go looking. And then the third, when you have
an offer on the table (sometimes it's one you went looking for, sometimes it's one that just
appeared in your inbox).
Are you happy? If not, why not?
Will a different job make you happier?
Will this opportunity make you happier?
Sometimes the problem is at home, and changing your work life might help (if it brings
more money or a shorter commute), and sometimes it won't. Sometimes the problem is at work,
and you can influence change either within the organization or within yourself (changing your
expectations, adjusting your work schedule to be earlier or later, discussing with your
management group about changes to your role, etc) in order to improve the situation. Or you
improve your work situation by leaving it behind, if there is no way to improve it or the
people who can help improve it are unwilling (or themselves unable) to do so.
Yes, sometimes the easy opportunities for change just aren't there, and you need to make
harder decisions about the change your life needs. In those moments one should be grateful
for what they have, but it doesn't necessarily mean they should accept that this is their lot
in life. Maybe you need to move. Maybe you're looking for a remote position. Maybe you take
the plunge and live off savings for a few months -- though unless you're on the verge of a
breakdown, this can cause complications later; it's generally true that it is easier to find
a job if you have a job. Not universally, but generally. Maybe you give up IT and become a
Birthday Clown, because you enjoy making children happy more than you enjoy clicking buttons
anymore.
Best of luck to you in your new place, hopefully it works out!
Are your friends in IT in any way? I find that most people have no idea what IT means, or the
individual fields. They expect the same person who helps them with spreadsheets also
makes/updates the websites, sets up the phone system, maintains the network.. and may even
think they plug in their power bar. Most people can't discern the difference between
facilities, an electrician and someone in one of the many fields of IT in my experience.
Heck, at my company the executives have no idea what I do. They ask me to do things from
investigate and roll out MDM.. to go to one of our communities and setup one of the
resident's televisions. I've even been asked to install generator power outlets.. I've just
learned to say "no" and explain to them who's responsibility it is. If they are unwilling to
hire someone or even just bring the proper person from within the organization, the problem
can stay a problem.
Your friends may not be crappy, they might just be clueless.
The CEO found out and we sat down ... He puts that responsibility on me.
I've seen my own managers do the same, and still am thinking through if, when and how it's
a mistake. Managers are there to support and enable important things happening. If it's a
small thing then all they need to do is give you permission to do it. But if it's a big thing
then they need to mange it, e.g track it, ask how it's going, ask what you need, get
other people involved, set priorities etc. Not just give a pep talk, say "it's on you now"
and wash hands of it. That basically means, "cheer up, but I don't care". If I wanted someone
to listen carefully and then do nothing about it I'd go to therapy, thanks.
Being that IT is generally a self-taught field, where we can play around with and test things
before doing them in production...
I recommend sticking to jobs where you're doing commonly reproducible/testable software
stuff. i.e. standard Windows/Linux servers + standard software. Basically things that can be
completely learned and tested in virtual machines, without needing any special hardware at
all.
I reckon all the proprietary "black box" / vendor specific devices etc you mentioned make
working in "IT" much much more stressful. You basically have to learn a whole heap of
different systems where what you learn is only applicable to one device. And you can't easily
play around with them like you can with pure software and virtual machines etc. So you're
often learning & testing in production, and even then, only once something has already
failed. And you're likely not going to have spare parts, or even be able to get them easily.
The same goes for network engineers dealing with lots of cisco routers etc to a certain
degree. Basically anything that involves hardware except for standard PCs and servers running
Windows or Linux.
I worked for a post-production company for a while, and yeah it was similar. I was busy as
fuck with the regular standard everyday IT shit, yet still had the responsibly to figure out
all there proprietary devices etc that I'd never even heard of before. And because they're
not commonplace IT stuff, there's fuckall information on the internet to learn about them and
troubleshoot etc. And of course learning about that shit doesn't translate into useful skills
you can take elsewhere in other IT jobs.
So yeah these days, I'm 100% software. I actually do IT consulting part time, and even
when my clients want to buy hardware, I just give them some recommendations and get them to
order it directly from Dell or whoever. I don't want to be responsible for hardware failures,
of which I have zero control over.
OP I'm in the same boat. COO found out that my medial issues I may jump ship. Had a chat and
he said he would do everything to get people hired. My boss has had approval for hiring for
weeks now and not one person has been interviewed. I have also been thinking about getting
medicated because I'm in denial with work. I'm going to jump ship soon take time off and see
what happens.
That is what MSP is. MSP is the environment where self-driven, stoic people survive and other
people crumble. MSP is especially tough in the role like yours as you have no one to rely on
anymore, but everyone else is coming to you to fix a problem they can't figure out. I am
there, been there for awhile. People think you are smarter than them, but all you are is more
persistent and willing to sacrifice your sanity and your free time to figure out a problem by
going to 10th page of google and performing advanced search queries on reddit.
I think MSP life after age of 35 is impossible to do unless you are crazy. :)
You were in an impossible situation with really shit poor management. Don't waste a second
thought. They'll either figure out why they can't keep people or they'll fail in spectacular
fashion. The bottom line is you have to protect yourself and your interests, you owe that
company nothing. The only time you owe a company that isn't your own is if the company makes
significant investment in your and your career, which your former company clearly didn't.
Good for you on recognizing that you had options. In many ways in that former situation you
were the one with the power and its great that you exercised it.
I went through practically the same thing. Found a nice job down the street from my house I
could just walk to. They had a full web team to handle all their websites and web problems,
but their skills were about 20 years old. At first I didn't notice because I would handle IT
/ network problems all day.
Then eventually I started getting web site issues pushed to me, then web design issues.
Eventually I was building all their web sites and running their entire web platform while
everyone else on that team just sat around all day making emails. All this extra work never
came with any pay increase and everyone would always say "You do everything here, if you
leave we're screwed".
A day came when there was a landslide of issues combined with an HR nightmare and nobody
seemed to wanted to handle anything. By the end of the day I realized I had wanted to leave
the job for over a year and I was only staying to keep things together until I got everything
to a stable point. Unfortunately this place could never reach a stable point because their
management was an absolute shit show and never wanted to step up to face any big
problems.
This seems really common after reading some stories here. A good amount of IT people
probably feel obligated to keep things running even when they hate their job.
I also found a remote job with a ridiculous salary increase after going through so many
interviews to the point of utter mental exhaustion. The grass definitely can be greener
sometimes its just much harder to find than you would ever think.
Iberiano says:
September 29, 2018 at 11:47 am GMT 300 Words Looking at that photo of the former primary
contenders, reminded me of all the holier-than-though talk we got from the right-of-center,
about how Trump was too gruff, and crass, about everything, including sexual topics,
interactions with women, etc.
What these hearings demonstrated, that we already knew, was that the Puritan-Jew alliance is
obsessed with all things sexual, perverted, distasteful theirs is a world of, as you
point out, "preppy white boy" fantasies, where the bad guys look like the blond jock in Karate
Kid, and drive around in their Dad's 1982 Buick Regal or their own '79 Camero, looking to
"score" with virginal know-nothing, Red Riding Hoods, that happen to find themselves at 'gang
rape parties' (?), out of nowhere. Who go on to have Leftist careers only to resurrect
repressed memories 35 years later–projected in front of the world
It's a silly framework from which they obsess, but it's similar to Kinsey, Mead and others
of the Left. Sex. Projection, doubling-down, and an absence of due process to punish people for
the very things that actually occupy their minds. Even in her advanced age, you could
tell, Feinstein was enjoying the open air discussions regarding sexual topics.
Let the Right / Never-Trumpers be on notice–Trump is light fare compared to where the
Left will go and has been, regarding women, sex, and all things crass.
"... According to media reports, the Chinese Department purchased the weapons from Rosoboronexport, Russia's principal arms exporter. This violated a 2017 law passed by Congress named, characteristically, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which sought to punish the Russian government and its various agencies for interfering in in the 2016 US election as well as its alleged involvement in Ukraine, Syria and its development of cyberwar capabilities. Iran and North Korea were also targeted in the legislation. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
Perhaps it is Donald Trump's business background that leads him to believe that if you
inflict enough economic pain on someone they will ultimately surrender and agree to do whatever
you want. Though that approach might well work in New York real estate, it is not a certain
path to success in international relations since countries are not as vulnerable to pressure as
are individual investors or developers.
Washington's
latest foray into the world of sanctions, directed against China, is astonishing even when
considering the low bar that has been set by previous presidents going back to Bill Clinton.
Beijing has already been pushing back over US sanctions imposed last week on its government-run
Equipment Development Department of the Chinese Central Military Commission and its director Li
Shangfu for "engaging in significant transactions" with a Russian weapons manufacturer that is
on a list of US sanctioned companies. The transactions included purchases of Russian Su-35
combat aircraft as well as equipment related to the advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile
system. The sanctions include a ban on the director entering the United States and blocks all
of his property or bank accounts within the US as well as freezing all local assets of the
Equipment Development Department.
More important, the sanctions also forbid conducting any transactions that go through the US
financial system. It is the most powerful weapon Washington has at its disposal, but it is
being challenged as numerous countries are working to find ways around it. Currently however,
as most international transactions are conducted in dollars and pass through American banks
that means that it will be impossible for the Chinese government to make weapons purchases from
many foreign sources. If foreign banks attempt to collaborate with China to evade the
restrictions, they too will be sanctioned.
So in summary, Beijing bought weapons from Moscow and is being sanctioned by the United
States for doing so because Washington does not approve of the Russian government. The
sanctions on China are referred to as secondary sanctions in that they are derivative from the
primary sanction on the foreign company or individual that is actually being punished.
Secondary sanctions can be extended ad infinitum as transgressors linked sequentially to the
initial transaction multiply the number of potential targets.
Not surprisingly, the US Ambassador has been summoned and Beijing has canceled several
bilateral meetings with American defense department officials. The Chinese government has
expressed "outrage" and has demanded the US cancel the measure.
According to media reports, the Chinese Department purchased the weapons from
Rosoboronexport, Russia's principal arms exporter. This violated a 2017 law passed by Congress
named, characteristically, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which
sought to punish the Russian government and its various agencies for interfering in in the 2016
US election as well as its alleged involvement in Ukraine, Syria and its development of
cyberwar capabilities. Iran and North Korea were also targeted in the legislation.
Explaining the new sanctions, US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert issued a
statement elaborating that the initial sanctions on Russia were enacted "to further impose
costs on the Russian government in response to its malign activities." She added that the US
will "urge all countries to curtail relationships with Russia's defense and intelligence
sectors, both of which are linked to malign activities worldwide."
As engaging in "malign activities" is a charge that should quite plausibly be leveled
against Washington and its allies in the Middle East, it is not clear if anyone but the French
and British poodles actually believes the rationalizations coming out of Washington to defend
the indefensible. An act to "Counter America's Adversaries Through Sanctions" is, even as the
title implies, ridiculous. Washington is on a sanctions spree. Russia has been sanctioned
repeatedly since the passage of the fraudulent Magnitsky Act, with no regard for Moscow's
legitimate protests that interfering in other countries' internal politics is unacceptable.
China is currently arguing reasonably enough that arms sales between countries is perfect legal
and in line with international law.
Iran has been sanctioned even through it complied with an international agreement on its
nuclear program and new sanctions were even piled on top of the old sanctions. And in about
five weeks the US will be sanctioning ANYONE who buys oil from Iran, reportedly with no
exceptions allowed. Venezuela is under US sanctions to punish its government, NATO member
Turkey because it bought weapons from Russia and the Western Hemisphere perennial bad boy Cuba
has had various embargoes in place since 1960.
It should be noted that sanctions earn a lot of ill-will and generally accomplish nothing.
Cuba would likely be a fairly normal country but for the US restrictions and other pressure
that gave its government the excuse to maintain a firm grip on power. The same might even apply
to North Korea. And sanctions are even bad for the United States. Someday, when the US begins
to lose its grip on the world economy all of those places being sanctioned will line up to get
their revenge and it won't be pretty.
steven t johnson , Sep 28, 2018 5:39:39 PM |
53 ">link
ashley albanese@26 says
Putin wrote about "what Russia could do to protect herself in this new era of
potentially violent struggle for resources."
The violent struggle for resources will not be the impoverished rabble nations mobbing the
rich nations: It will be the rich nations keeping their riches at the expense of the poorer
nations. That is, it will be pretty much the US foreign policy where there is no hegemony but
a glorious free-for-all of independent states supposedly protecting themselves. When Bangla
Desh destabilizes because of sea level rise, it will be India attacking them. Putin is
opposed to any international authority. He wants a world where the strong nations can
exercise their leadership over weaker nations without interference from a hegemonic power.
This is not the problem.
The problem is the US, the current hegemonic power, is the fortress of a decayed empire
that can no longer move forward. It can only maintain itself by looting a series of weaker
nations. The terror of destruction supports the US role in the world. The dollar is based on
blood, not gold the declining economic power of the US cannot earn. But, Putin is not an
enemy of this decadence. He is not even an enemy of the flagrant fascism of the Kyiv
government!
"... My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the media imho to also take heat off Mueller. ..."
Last Friday the New York Times published
a story that reflected negatively on the loyalty of Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein towards President Trump. Rosenstein, the NYT claimed, suggested to
wiretap Trump and to remove him by using the 25th amendment. Other news reports contradicted
the claim and Rosenstein himself denied it.
The report was a trap to push Trump towards an impulsive firing of the number two in the
Justice Department, a repeat of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre . The
Democrats would have profited from such an ' October surprise ' in the November 6
midterm elections. A campaign to exploit such a scandal to get-out-the-votes was already
well prepared .
The trap did not work. The only one who panicked was Rosenstein. He feared for his
reputation should he get fired. To prevent such damage he offered to resign amicably. He
tried this at least three times:
By Friday evening, concerned about testifying to Congress over the revelations that he
discussed wearing a wire to the Oval Office and invoking the constitutional trigger to
remove Mr. Trump from office, Mr. Rosenstein had become convinced that he should resign,
according to people close to him. He offered during a late-day visit to the White House to
quit, according to one person familiar with the encounter, but John F. Kelly, the White
House chief of staff, demurred.
...
Also over the weekend, Mr. Rosenstein again told Mr. Kelly that he was considering
resigning. On Sunday, Mr. Rosenstein repeated the assertion in a call with Donald F. McGahn
II, the White House counsel. Mr. McGahn -- [...] -- asked Mr. Rosenstein to postpone their
discussion until Monday.
...
By about 9 a.m. Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was in his office on the fourth floor of the Justice
Department when reporters started calling. Was it true that Mr. Rosenstein was planning to
resign, they asked.
...
At the White House the deputy attorney general slipped into a side entrance to the West
Wing and headed to the White House counsel's office to meet with Mr. McGahn, who had by
then been told by Mr. Kelly that Mr. Rosenstein was on his way and wanted to resign.
McGhan punted the issue back to Kelly and finally Rosenstein spoke with Trump. Trump did
not fire him nor did he resign. It is now
expected that he will stay until the end of the year or even
longer :
President Trump told advisers he is open to keeping Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
on the job, and allies of the No. 2 Justice Department official said Tuesday he has given
them the impression he doesn't plan to quit.
The trap did not work. Neither did Trump panic nor did the White House allow the panicking
Rod Rosenstein to pull the trigger. The people who set this up, by leaking some dubious FBI
memo to the NYT , did not achieve their aims.
There are only six weeks left until the midterm elections. What other October surprises
might be planned by either side?
Posted by b on September 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM |
Permalink
This account gives an interesting twist, that Trump wants to keep Rosenstein
as leverage.
I think it is not in the interest of Trump to do anything that could look like hampering the
Mueller investigation. It might be in his interest to try to force Mueller to show what he
has bevore the midterm elections, but that could also be seen as a form of hampering.
I think there are already lots of indications that the whole Russiagate collusion story
was fabricated. The messages between Peter Strzok und Lisa Page point towards this direction,
and it seems that different stories that were used for Russiagate were connected.
It seems that the Steele dossier played a crucial role for getting warrants for spying on
the Trump campaign and for starting the media campaign about Trump-Russia "collusion".
Obviously, the Steele dossier is a rather implausible conspiracy theory (allegedly, Russia
made preparations for Trump's candidacy years earlier when hardly anyone thought Trump would
have the slightest chance of being nominated by a major party), contains no evidence for the
allegations, and the elements that can be verified are either banal and don't show collusion
or they are false (e.g. Trump's lawyer going to Prague, it seems he has an alibi, and there
are leaks that there was another person named Michael Cohen, without a connection to Trump,
who flew to Prague, so Steele probably had access to flight data, but did not do further
verifications).
A further strand of "Russiagate" is the story around Papadopoulos. First, it should be
noted that it hardly shows foreknowledge of the DNC leaks when someone may have speculated
that Russia may have e-mails from Hillary Clinton - at that time, the deleted mails from
Clinton's private server were talked about a lot, and one of the concerns that was often
mentioned was that Clinton's private server may have been hacked by Russia or China. None of
the versions of what Papadopoulos was allegedly told by Mifsud and told Downer specifically
mention DNC or Podesta e-mails. Second, the people involved had close connections to Western
intelligence services. Mifsud had close ties with important EU institutions and was connected
with educational institutions used by Western intelligence agencies (mainly Italian, British,
FBI). If he really was a Russian spy, there would have been larger consequences, and the FBI
would hardly have let him go after questioning him. According to a book by Roh and Pastor who
have known Mifsud for a long time, he denies having told Papadopoulos anything about damaging
material about Hillary Clinton (Mifsud also said that in an interview), and Mifsud suspects
Papadopoulos of being a provocateur of Western intelligence services - Papadopoulos
forcefully tried to create connections between the Trump campaign and Russians, but both
sides were not willing to go along (a representative of a Russian think tank which
Papadopoulos asked to invite Trump answered that the Trump campaign should send an official
request, which never followed). Papadopoulos was in (probably frequent) contact with FBI
informer Stefan Halper, and it may be that Papadopoulos was an unwitting provocateur because
of events Stefan Halper arranged. The Australian diplomat Downer has connections to the
Clinton foundation (he helped arranging large payments by Australia) and Western secret
services. Third, what has exactly been said by whom is disputed. As mentioned, Mifsud denies
mentioning anything about damaging material on Hillary Clinton to Papadopoulos (the only one
who claims this is Papadopoulos), and Papadopoulos denies mentioning e-mails to Downer. It
seems, Papadopoulos were only half-willing participants in the setup arranged by Stefan
Halper whose goal was to have some background for the message that could be received from
Downer. Papadopoulos' wife has shared a picture of Stefan Halper and Downer together, which
also fits the idea that this story was set up by FBI informant Halper with Downer.
The visit of the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya was arranged by Fusion GPS, and she met with
him before and after the meeting she met with Glen Simpson.
Of course, we are just in the beginning, there is certainly enough concrete material for
starting an investigation (unlike with the alleged Trump-Russia collusion), but many details
are still open. Those who presumably set up the collusion story went from offensive to
defensive, even if that might not be clear if someone reads particularly biased media. Now,
the time until the midterms certainly is not enough for conducting and concluding such an
investigation. But it should be enough for unclassifying and publishing some documents that
shed further light on these events.
The time for more decisive action against those who set up Russiagate may be after the
midterm elections, and how easy that will be probably partly depends on the election result.
Therefore, I suppose that Trump and other Republicans will strongly press for important
documents being unclassified and published before the elections.
Trump admin and GOP Congress are doing almost everything possible to alienate the majority of
the public on a wide spectrum of issues that's also helped threaten the positions of
Republicans masquerading as Democrats. The fallout from the 2016 Primary and subsequent
disclosures about Clinton and DNC corruption and law breaking--meddling in elections and
caucuses--has emboldened numerous people--particularly women--who were previously politically
apathetic, not just to run for office, but also to work to get like-minded candidates
elected. Sanders called for an insurrection--and yes, he's still sheep dogging--and it's
emerged and isn't totally controlled by the DemParty despite its efforts: The cat's out of
the bag.
Now I expect the usual attacks using the trite adage that voting doesn't matter. Well,
guess what, Trump's election proves that adage to be 100% false. There's only one path to
making America Great and that's by getting the neoliberals and neocons out of government; and
the only way to do that is to run candidates with opposing positions and elect
them--then--once in office, they need to oust the vermin from the bureaucracy--Drain the
Swamp, as Trump put it. I know it can be done as it's been done before during two different
epochs of US History. And the System was just as rigged against popular success than as it is
now.
Karlof1 I agree w you 100%. Voters can make a difference and change is still possible however
unlikely and rare. The problem is voter complacency which is fed by cynicism. Ironically
younger liberal voters tend to be the most complacent especially at the midterm elections.
This year complacency doesn't appear to be an issue so we will probably see a Dem House in
January if not also a Dem Senate.
My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or
fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump
can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the
media imho to also take heat off Mueller.
Trump could shock the world by being on his best behavior for a few weeks. (j/k don't hold
your breath).
Just a little review:
In November, Dems are expected to take the House of Representatives by a modest margin.
The House, not the Senate determines impeachment. Impeachment is like an indictment -- the
Senate would then have a "trial" of sorts, and then to convict, you need 2/3 majority of
Senators. Nobody expects that.
Nixon actually resigned out of shame after being impeached. Clinton didn't. Trump gives
zero f**ks so this outcome isn't even worth discussing.
The Senate is more important. It is just barely within reach for Democrats if everything
goes in their favor. If they win every single seat that is competitive, Democrats get 51/100
seats, plus 2 independents who side with them, but minus a couple of Democrats-in-name-only
who regularly vote with Republicans (West Virginia's Manchin for example). Recall that the
Vice President (Pence) is the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
More realistically, in a still optimistic scenario, Democrats will lose one or more of the
competitive races, and end up with 49-50 votes in the Senate. (they are expected to win big
in 2 years in 2020, due to many more Republicans facing re-election then).
Only someone morbidly partisan within the Corporate One-Party would bother seeking the
impeachment of a fungible geek like a US president. Indeed, those fixated on impeachment
evidently have no rationale beyond Trump Derangement Syndrome. To replace Trump with Pence
would be no improvement and most likely would make things worse. Trump and Pence share the
corporate globalization ideology and goals, but Trump's more chaotic execution is more likely
to lead to chaotic, perhaps system-destructive effects more quickly than a more disciplined
execution. The same is true of any Democrat we could envision replacing Trump in 2020.
That's why it was a good thing that Trump won in 2016: He's more likely to bring about a
faster collapse of the US empire and of the globalization system in general. Not because
these are his goals, but because his indiscipline adds a much-needed wild card to the
deck.
Needless to say, humanity and the Earth have nothing to lose, as we're slowly but surely
being exterminated once and for all regardless.
Is not Soros a CIA asset? He was instrumental in "color revolutions" in Soviet Union and post
Soviet republics.
This is really Byzantium level of political intrigue. A state with such a high level political intrigue might be
eventually replaced by military dictatorship.
Notable quotes:
"... An aide to George Soros, Michael Vachon, has confirmed a February report that the left-wing billionaire financier has funded an ongoing effort by Fusion GPS and ex-Feinstein staffer and former FBI agent, Dan Jones, to privately continue the Trump-Russia investigation, according to the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross. ..."
"... Vachon made the admission to the Washington Post 's David Ignatious - who has previously been accused of being a deep-state conduit. ..."
"... Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was " intimately involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS. " ..."
"... In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50 million war chest just revealed by the House Intel Committee report. ..."
"... An April House Intel Report notes that in March 2017, Jones told the FBI that he was working with Steele and Fusion GPS, with funding to the tune of $50 million. ..."
George Soros has admitted to funding an ongoing private Trump-Russia investigation
conducted by Fusion GPS and a former FBI agent and staffer for Dianne Feinstein
In February, it emerged that Soros and a group of "mystery donors" had funded a $50
million "war chest" - as revealed in a House Intel Committee report
The former FBI agent and Feinstein staffer, Dan Jones, reportedly claimed to be working
with former MI6 agent Christopher Steele as part of the ongoing investigation
An aide to George Soros, Michael Vachon, has confirmed a February report that the
left-wing billionaire financier has funded an ongoing effort by Fusion GPS and ex-Feinstein
staffer and former FBI agent, Dan Jones, to privately continue the Trump-Russia investigation,
according to the Daily Caller 's Chuck
Ross.
Vachon made the admission to the
Washington Post 's David Ignatious - who has previously been accused of being a deep-state
conduit.
Ignatius notes at the end of a
Tuesday article downplaying GOP assertions that the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign actually colluded with Russia to defeat Trump; "Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson
declined to comment for this article. Soros's spokesman, Michael Vachon, told me that Soros
hadn't funded Fusion GPS directly but had made a grant to the Democracy Integrity Project,
which used Fusion GPS as a contractor. "
The Democracy Integrity Project - according to the
Caller, was formed in 2017 by Jones.
The Post column confirms what a Washington, D.C., lawyer named Adam Waldman told The Daily
Caller News Foundation about a conversation he had with Jones in March 2017.
Waldman was an attorney for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. He also worked in some
capacity for Christopher Steele, according to text messages he exchanged with Virginia Sen.
Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence panel.
In what the Post's Ignatius noted was an "incestuous" relationship, Steele, a former MI6
officer, has done work for the Kremlin-linked Deripaska in the past .
Waldman told TheDCNF that Jones approached him on March 15, 2017 through text message
asking to meet.
"Dan Jones here from the Democracy Integrity Project. Chris wanted us to connect," he
wrote, seemingly referring to Steele. At a meeting two days later, Waldman said that Jones
told him that he was working with Steele and Fusion GPS and that their project was being
funded by Soros and a group of Silicon Valley billionaires . - Daily Caller
effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by
The Federalist , after a series of
leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested
that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was " intimately
involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified
memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS. "
In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their
investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50 million war chest just revealed by the House Intel
Committee report.
Jones also runs the Penn Quarter Group - a "research and investigative advisory" firm whose
website was registered in April of 2016, days before Steele delivered his first in a series of
Trump-Russia memos to Fusion GPS . Jones also began tweeting out articles suggesting illicit
ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as early as 2017.
Steele's work during the 2016 election culminated in the salacious and unverified 35-page
"Steele dossier" used to obtain a FISA warrant against then-President Trump (which, as we
reported on Friday, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
leaked the details to CNN 's Jake Tapper prior to the seemingly coordinated publication by
BuzzFeed ).
An April House Intel Report notes that in March 2017, Jones told the FBI that he was working
with Steele and Fusion GPS, with funding to the tune of $50 million.
"In late March 2017, Jones met with FBI regarding PQG, which he described as 'exposing
foreign influence in Western election,'" reads the House Intel report. "[Redacted] told FBI
that PQG was being funded by 7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and
California, who provided approximately $50 million ."
"[Redacted] further stated that PQG had secured the services of Steele, his associate
[redacted], and Fusion GPS to continue exposing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S.
Presidential election," reads the report, which adds that Jones " planned to share the
information he obtained with policymakers and with the press ."
And the Daily Caller 's
Chuck Ross noted at the time, Jones "also offered to provide PQG's entire holdings to the FBI"
according to the report, citing a "FD-302" transcript of the interview he gave to the FBI.
Of note, during Congressional testimony last year when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) asked Glenn
Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS, if he was still being paid for work related to the dossier ,
Simpson refused
to answer . And while the dossier came under fire for "
salacious and unverified " claims, a January 8 New York
Times profile of Glenn Simpson confirmed that dossier-related work continues.
Sean Davis of The Federalist
reported in February that Jones' name was mentioned in a list of individuals from a
January 25 Congressional letter from Senators Grassley and Graham to various Democratic
party leaders who were likely involved in Fusion GPS's 2016 efforts. The letter sought all
communications between the Democrats and a list of 40 individuals or entities, of which Jones
is one.
Still no word on whether Jones and Fusion GPS - funded by Soros - have been able to find a
connection between Trump and Russia, but we're sure they'll keep plugging away.
insanelysane , 8 minutes ago
More fake dossiers? After the Kav fiasco of fake accusations, who the **** is going to
believe in anything else coming from Steele and Fusion and company?
Hyzer , 3 minutes ago
The New York Times for one.
Boscovius , 8 minutes ago
For good or bad, the Founders gave Treason a very strict definition. It probably won't
apply to very many of these fucko's. But yes, Sedition is most certainly on the menu.
medium giraffe , 11 minutes ago
"You underestimate the power of the Dark Side. If you will not fight, then you will
meet your destiny."
-Darth Soros
???ö? , 13 minutes ago
That's probably called SEDITION.
Grumbleduke , 14 minutes ago
are these assholes some kind of an exile government?
Where were they exactly exiled from, then? How about you yanks send some democracy bombs
their way, for a change?
Look at them as sacrificial lambs: the world would cheer, give you props and support like
after 9/11. Meanwhile new psychos with unimaginable wealth and cold-heartedness will quietly
take over. Don't you worry, we'll all get fucked hard.
One way or another - this clown show won't last for long.
You think your/"our" children will ever forgive us?
That's amazing example of contlling the nattarive and suppressing alternative sources. Should
go in all textbooks on the subject
Notable quotes:
"... Magnitsky did not disclose the theft. He first mentioned it in testimony in October 2008. But it had already been reported in the New York Times on July 24, 2008. In reality, the whistleblower was a certain Rimma Starova. She worked for one of the implicated shell companies and, having read in the papers that authorities were investigating, went to police to give testimony in April 2008 – six months before Magnitsky spoke of the scam for the first time (see here and here ). ..."
"... Why, then, did I report that about Magnitsky? Because at the time my sole source for the story was Team Browder, who had reached out to the Cyprus Mail and with whom I communicated via email. I was provided with 'information', flow charts and so on. All looking very professional and compelling. ..."
"... For the second article, I conversed briefly on the phone with the soft-spoken Browder himself, who handed down the gospel on the Magnitsky affair. Under the time constraints, and trusting that my sources could at least be relied upon for basic information which they presented as facts, I went along with it. I was played. But let's be clear: I let myself down too. ..."
"... Titled 'The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes', it does a magisterial job of depicting how the director initially took Browder's story on faith, only to end up questioning everything. The docudrama dissects, disassembles and dismantles Browder's narrative, as Nekrasov – by no means a Putin apologist – delves deeper down into the rabbit hole. ..."
"... The point can't be stressed enough, as this very claim is the lynchpin of Browder's account. In his bestseller Red Notice, Browder alleges that Magnitsky was arrested because he exposed two corrupt police officers, and that he was jailed and tortured because he wouldn't retract. ..."
"... It gets worse for Nekrasov, as he goes on to discover that Magnitsky was no lawyer. He did not have a lawyer's license. Rather, he was an accountant/auditor who worked for Moscow law firm Firestone Duncan. Yet every chance he gets, Browder still refers to Magnitsky as 'a lawyer' or 'my lawyer'. ..."
"... The full deposition, some six hours long, is (still) available on Youtube . As penance for past transgressions, I watched it in its entirety. While refraining from using adjectives to describe it, I shall simply cite some examples and let readers decide on Browder's credibility. Browder seems to suffer an almost total memory blackout as a lawyer begins firing questions at him. He cannot recall, or does not know, where he or his team got the information concerning the alleged illicit transfer of funds from Hermitage-owned companies. ..."
"... According to Team Browder, in 2007 the 'Klyuev gang' together with Russian interior ministry officials travelled to Cyprus, ostensibly to set up the tax rebate scam using shell companies. But in his deposition, the Anglo-American businessman cannot remember, or does not know, how his team obtained the travel information of the conspirators. ..."
Before getting down to brass tacks, let me say that I loathe penning articles like this; loathe writing about myself or in the
first person, because a reporter should report the news, not be the news. Yet I grudgingly make this exception because, ironically,
it happens to be newsworthy. To cut to the chase, it concerns Anglo-American financier Bill Browder and the Sergei Magnitsky affair.
I, like others in the news business I'd venture to guess, feel led astray by Browder.
This is no excuse. I didn't do my due diligence, and take full responsibility for erroneous information printed under my name.
For that, I apologize to readers. I refer to two articles of mine published in a Cypriot publication, dated December 25, 2015 and
January 6, 2016.
Browder's basic story, as he has told it time and again, goes like this: in June 2007, Russian police officers raided the Moscow
offices of Browder's firm Hermitage, confiscating company seals, certificates of incorporation, and computers.
Browder says the owners and directors of Hermitage-owned companies were subsequently changed, using these seized documents. Corrupt
courts were used to create fake debts for these companies, which allowed for the taxes they had previously paid to the Russian Treasury
to be refunded to what were now re-registered companies. The funds stolen from the Russian state were then laundered through banks
and shell companies.
The scheme is said to have been planned earlier in Cyprus by Russian law enforcement and tax officials in cahoots with criminal
elements.
All this was supposedly discovered by Magnitsky, whom Browder had tasked with investigating what happened. When Magnitsky reported
the fraud, some of the nefarious characters involved had him arrested and jailed. He refused to retract, and died while in pre-trial
detention.
In my first article, I wrote: "Magnitsky, a 37-year-old Russian accountant, died in jail in 2009 after he exposed huge tax embezzlement
"
False . Contrary to the above story that has been rehashed countless times, Magnitsky did not expose any tax fraud, did not blow
the whistle.
The interrogation
reports show that Magnitsky had in fact been summoned by Russian authorities as a witness to an already ongoing investigation
into Hermitage. Nor he did he accuse Russian investigators Karpov and/or Kuznetsov of committing the $230 million treasury fraud,
as Browder claims.
Magnitsky did not disclose the theft. He first mentioned it in testimony in October 2008. But it had already been reported
in the New York Times
on July 24, 2008. In reality, the whistleblower was a certain Rimma Starova. She worked for one of the implicated shell companies
and, having read in the papers that authorities were investigating, went to police to give testimony in April 2008 – six months before
Magnitsky spoke of the scam for the first time (see
here
and here
).
Why, then, did I report that about Magnitsky? Because at the time my sole source for the story was Team Browder, who had reached
out to the Cyprus Mail and with whom I communicated via email. I was provided with 'information', flow charts and so on. All looking
very professional and compelling.
At the time of the first article, I knew next to nothing about the Magnitsky/Browder affair. I had to go through media reports
to get the gist, and then get up to speed with Browder's latest claims that a Cypriot law firm, which counted the Hermitage Fund
among its clients, had just been 'raided' by Cypriot police. The article had to be written and delivered on the same day. In retrospect
I should have asked for more time – a lot more time – and Devil take the deadlines.
For the second article, I conversed briefly on the phone with the soft-spoken Browder himself, who handed down the gospel
on the Magnitsky affair. Under the time constraints, and trusting that my sources could at least be relied upon for basic information
which they presented as facts, I went along with it. I was played. But let's be clear: I let myself down too.
In the ensuing weeks and months, I didn't follow up on the story as my gut told me something was wrong: villains and malign actors
operating in a Wild West Russia, and at the centre of it all, a heroic Magnitsky who paid with his life – the kind of script that
Hollywood execs would kill for.
Subsequently I mentally filed away the Browder story, while being aware it was in the news.
But the real red pill was a documentary by Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, which came to my attention a few weeks ago.
Titled 'The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes', it does a magisterial job of depicting how the director initially took Browder's
story on faith, only to end up questioning everything. The docudrama dissects, disassembles and dismantles Browder's narrative, as
Nekrasov – by no means a Putin apologist – delves deeper down into the rabbit hole.
The director had set out to make a poignant film about Magnitsky's tragedy, but became increasingly troubled as the facts he uncovered
didn't stack up with Browder's account, he claims.
The 'aha' moment arrives when Nekrasov appears to show solid proof that Magnitsky blew no whistle.
Not only that, but in his
depositions
– the first one dating to 2006, well before Hermitage's offices were raided – Magnitsky did not accuse any police officers of being
part of the 'theft' of Browder's companies and the subsequent alleged $230m tax rebate fraud.
The point can't be stressed enough, as this very claim is the lynchpin of Browder's account. In his bestseller Red Notice,
Browder alleges that Magnitsky was arrested because he exposed two corrupt police officers, and that he was jailed and tortured because
he wouldn't retract.
We are meant to take Browder's word for it.
It gets worse for Nekrasov, as he goes on to discover that Magnitsky was no lawyer. He did not have a lawyer's license. Rather,
he was an accountant/auditor who worked for Moscow law firm Firestone Duncan. Yet every chance he gets, Browder still refers to Magnitsky
as 'a lawyer' or 'my lawyer'.
The clincher comes late in the film, with footage from Browder's April 15, 2015 deposition in a US federal court, in the Prevezon
case. The case, brought by the US Justice Department at Browder's instigation, targeted a Russian national who Browder said had received
$1.9m of the $230m tax fraud.
In the deposition, Browder is asked if Magnitsky had a law degree in Russia. "I'm not aware that he did," he replies.
The full deposition, some six hours long, is (still) available on
Youtube . As penance for past transgressions, I watched
it in its entirety. While refraining from using adjectives to describe it, I shall simply cite some examples and let readers decide
on Browder's credibility. Browder seems to suffer an almost total memory blackout as a lawyer begins firing questions at him. He
cannot recall, or does not know, where he or his team got the information concerning the alleged illicit transfer of funds from Hermitage-owned
companies.
This is despite the fact that the now-famous Powerpoint presentations – hosted on so many 'anti-corruption' websites and recited
by 'human rights' NGOs – were prepared by Browder's own team.
Nor does he recall where, or how, he and his team obtained information on the amounts of the 'stolen' funds funnelled into companies.
When it's pointed out that in any case this information would be privileged – banking secrecy and so forth – Browder appears to be
at a loss.
According to Team Browder, in 2007 the 'Klyuev gang' together with Russian interior ministry officials travelled to Cyprus,
ostensibly to set up the tax rebate scam using shell companies. But in his deposition, the Anglo-American businessman cannot remember,
or does not know, how his team obtained the travel information of the conspirators.
He can't explain how they acquired the flight records and dates, doesn't have any documentation at hand, and isn't aware if any
such documentation exists.
Browder claims his 'Justice for Magnitsky' campaign, which among other things has led to US sanctions on Russian persons, is all
about vindicating the young man. Were that true, one would have expected Browder to go out of his way to aid Magnitsky in his hour
of need.
The deposition does not bear that out.
Lawyer: "Did anyone coordinate on your behalf with Firestone Duncan about the defence of Mr Magnitsky?"
Browder: "I don't know. I don't remember."
Going back to Nekrasov's film, a standout segment is where the filmmaker looks at a briefing document prepared by Team Browder
concerning the June 2007 raid by Russian police officers. In it, Browder claims the cops beat up Victor Poryugin, a lawyer with the
firm.
The lawyer was then "hospitalized for two weeks," according to Browder's presentation, which includes a photo of the beaten-up
lawyer. Except, it turns out the man pictured is not Poryugin at all. Rather, the photo is actually of Jim Zwerg, an American human
rights activist beaten up during a street protest in 1961 (see
here and here ).
Nekrasov sits down with German politician Marieluise Beck. She was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(Pace), which compiled a report that made Magnitsky a cause celebre.
You can see Beck's jaw drop when Nekrasov informs her that Magnitsky did not report the fraud, that he was in fact under investigation.
It transpires that Pace, as well as human rights activists, were getting their information from one source – Browder. Later, the
Council of Europe's Andreas Gross admits on camera that their entire investigation into the Magnitsky affair was based on Browder's
info and that they relied on translations of Russian documents provided by Browder's team because, as Gross puts it, "I don't speak
Russian myself."
That hit home – I, too, had been fed information from a single source, not bothering to verify it. I, too, initially went with
the assumption that because Russia is said to be a land of endemic corruption, then Browder's story sounded plausible if not entirely
credible.
For me, the takeaway is this gem from Nekrasov's narration:
"I was regularly overcome by deep unease. Was I defending a system that killed Magnitsky, even if I'd found no proof that he'd
been murdered?"
Bull's-eye. Nekrasov has arrived at a crossroads, the moment where one's mettle is tested: do I pursue the facts wherever they
may lead, even if they take me out of my comfort zone? What is more important: the truth, or the narrative? Nekrasov chose the former.
As do I.
Like with everything else, specific allegations must be assessed independently of one's general opinion of the Russian state.
They are two distinct issues. Say Browder never existed; does that make Russia a paradise?
I suspect Team Browder may scrub me from their mailing list; one can live with that.
oncemore1 , 6 minutes ago
Soros and Browder are the same tribe. FULLSTOP.
Slipstream , 6 minutes ago
Wow. That's a big **** up. But at least this guy is a journalist with ethics. He got it
wrong and has said so, to set the record straight. This should be a case taught in every
journalism school in the world. Unfortunately, I don't see the Magnitsky Act being repealed
any time soon.
Usura , 8 minutes ago
Bill Browder is a lying ***
Thordoom , 12 minutes ago
Andrei Nekrasov now has webpage dedicated to The Magnitsky Act Behind the Scenes.
I watched the documentary too. The depositions of Browder were devastating to any notion
of him as truth-teller. And yet, he managed to dupe politicians and media around the
world.
Thordoom , 33 minutes ago
The only good thing Yeltsin did in his miserable life was to say " **** you " to Bill
Clinton in the end when he found out how they wanted to set him up with that 7 billion of IMF
money they stolen in order to put Boris Berezovsky in the charge of Russia as a president for
hire and stole anything that was not welded down. Yeltsin knowing that the only way for
Russia to survive was to put Vladimir Putin in charge to clense the unclean filth that
infested Russia in the 90s
resistedliving , 52 minutes ago
classic agitprop.
Don't trust Browder and his self-interests much but trust this guy less.
Browser knows he'll never see that money again and has spent his own funds on his one man
mission
Thordoom , 40 minutes ago
Stupid moron he is spending Knohorkovsky's money and HSBC bank money. Half of the UK and
US government officials and intl officials and Harward boys are deeply involved in this
looting of Russian people in the 90s.
RationalLuddite , 31 minutes ago
Classic Reverse blockade lie by you Restedliving. Good luck moving the middle on Browder .
He's just not that bright in lying so I suppose your Talmudic exegesis honed Accusatory
Inversion is worth a try.
Please keep it up. Seriously. "Agitprop"😄😄😄😄
You are like a Browder red-pill dispenser with every incoherent mendacious utterance.
Thank you mate :*
WTFUD , 29 minutes ago
Bruiser Browser Browder, ex light-heavyweight champion of La-La Potemkin Village,
Ninnyapolis, USA.
Shouldn't Fakebook be banning the US Government for a plethora of Fake News? Then again
it's a nice fit for these 2 entities, a cosy relationship.
The Paucity of Hope , 54 minutes ago
Nekrasov's movie has been disappeared, but was excellent. Also, look at The Forecaster,
about Martin Armstrong. It talks about Hermatage Capital and was blocked in the US and
Switzerland for several years.
Ahmeexnal , 57 minutes ago
Browder must hang!
chunga , 38 minutes ago
Not a single person in the US gov will even acknowledge this. None. Not one.
At the same time the US domestic affairs revolve around unsubstantiated stories of SC
nominee penis wagging, special prosecutors investigating **** actress affairs/bribery with
POTUS, FBI, DOJ off the rails, while at the same time asserting a moral authority to sanction
and/or attack other countries as though it's an obligation or entitlement.
Disobedient Media has closely followed the work of the Forensicator , whose analysis has shed much light
on the publications by the Guccifer 2.0 persona for over a year. In view of the more recent
work published by the Forensicator regarding potential media collusion with Guccifer 2.0, we
are inclined to revisit an interview given by WikiLeaks Editor-In-Chief Julian Assange in
August of 2016, prior to the publication of the Podesta Emails in October, and the November US
Presidential election.
During the
interview, partially transcribed below, Assange makes a number of salient points on the
differentiation between the thousands of pristine emails WikiLeaks received, and those which
had surfaced in other US outlets by that date. Though Assange does not name the Guccifer 2.0
persona directly throughout the interview, he does name multiple outlets which publicized
Guccifer 2.0's documents.
The significance of revisiting Assange's statements is the degree to which his most
significant claim is corroborated or paralleled by the Forensicator's analysis. This is of
enhanced import in light of allegations by
Robert Mueller (not to mention the legacy media), despite a total absence of evidence, that
Guccifer 2.0 was WikiLeaks's source of the DNC and Podesta emails.
This author previously
discussed the possibility that Assange's current isolation might stem in part from the
likelihood that upon expulsion from the embassy, Julian Assange could provide evidential proof
that the DNC emails and Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks were not sourced from Russia, or
backed by the Kremlin, all without disclosing the identity of their source.
"In the US media there has been a deliberate conflation between DNC leaks, which is what
we've been publishing, and DNC hacks, of the US Democratic Party which have occurred over the
last two years, by their own admission what [Hillary Clinton] is attempting to do is to
conflate our publication of pristine emails – no one in the Democratic party argues
that a single email is not completely valid. That hasn't been done. The head of the DNC,
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, has rolled as a result.
And whatever hacking has occurred, of the DNC or other political organizations in the
United States, by a range of actors – in the middle, we have something, which is the
publication by other media organizations, of information reportedly from the DNC, and that
seems to be the case. That's the publication of word documents in pdfs published by The Hill,
by Gawker, by The Smoking Gun. This is a completely separate batch of documents, compared to
the 20,000 pristine emails that we have at WikiLeaks.
In this [separate] batch of documents, released by these other media organizations, there
are claims that in the metadata, someone has done a document to pdf conversion, and in some
cases the language of the computer that was used for that conversion was Russian. So that's
the circumstantial evidence that some Russian was involved, or someone who wanted to make it
look like a Russian was involved, with these other media organizations. That's not the case
for the material we released.
The Hillary Clinton hack campaign has a serious problem in trying to figure out how to
counter-spin our publication because the emails are un-arguable There's an attempt to bring
in a meta-story. And the meta-story is, did some hacker obtain these emails? Ok. Well, people
have suggested that there's evidence that the DNC has been hacked. I'm not at all surprised
its been hacked. If you read very carefully, they say it's been hacked many times over the
last two years. Our sources say that DNC security is like Swiss Cheese.
Hillary Clinton is saying, untruthfully, that she knows who the source of our emails are.
Now, she didn't quite say "our emails." She's playing some games, because there have been
other publications by The Hill, by Gawker, other US media, of different documents, not
emails. So, we have to separate the various DNC or RNC hacks that have occurred over the
years, and who's done that. The source: we know who the source is, it's the Democratic
National Committee itself. And our sources who gave these materials, and other pending
materials, to us. These are all different questions. "
The core assertion made by Assange in the above-transcribed segment of his 2016 interview
with RT is the differentiation between WikiLeaks's publications from the altered documents
released by Guccifer 2.0 (after being pre-released to US media outlets as referenced by
Assange). This finer point is one that is corroborated by the Forensicator's analysis, and one
which it seems much of the public has yet to entirely digest.
"Ars Technica found "Russian fingerprints" in a PDF posted by Gawker the previous day.
Apparently, both Gawker and The Smoking Gun (TSG) had received pre-release copies of Guccifer
2.0's first batch of documents; Guccifer 2.0 would post them later, on his WordPress.com blog site. Although neither Gawker nor TSG
reported on these Russian error messages, some readers noticed them and mentioned them in
social media forums; Ars Technica was likely the first media outlet to cover those "Russian
fingerprints."
The Forensicator's analysis cannot enlighten us as to the ultimate source of WikiLeaks's
releases. At present, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Guccifer 2.0 was, or was
not, WikiLeaks' source. There is no evidence connecting Guccifer 2.0 with WikiLeaks, but there
is likewise no evidence to rule out a connection.
It is nonetheless critically important, as Assange indicated, to differentiate between the
files published by Guccifer 2.0 and those released by WikiLeaks. None of the "altered"
documents (with supposed Russian fingerprints) published by Guccifer 2.0 appear in WikiLeaks's
publications.
It is also worth noting that, though Assange's interview took place before the publication
of the Podesta email collection, the allegations of a Russian hack based on Guccifer 2.0's
publication were ultimately contradicted by a DNC official, as reported by the Associated
Press. Disobedient
Media wrote:
" Ultimately, it is the DNC's claim that they were breached by Russian hackers, who stole
the Trump opposition report, which directly belies their allegation – because the
document did not come from the DNC, but from John Podesta's emails."
Again: The very document on which the initial "Russian hack" allegations were based did not
originate within the DNC Emails at all, but in the Podesta Emails, which at the time of
Assange's RT interview, had not yet been published.
"The fact the email to which the Trump opposition report was attached was later published
in the Podesta Email collection by WikiLeaks does not prove that Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks
shared a source on the document. However, it does suggest that either the DNC, the operators
of the Guccifer 2.0 persona, or both parties had access to Podesta's emails. This raises
questions as to why the DNC would interpret the use of this particular file as evidence of
Russian penetration of the DNC."
This creates a massive contradiction within the DNC's narrative, but it does not materially
change Assange's assertion that the pristine emails obtained by WikiLeaks were fundamentally
distinct and should not be conflated with the altered documents published by Guccifer 2.0, as
the WikiLeaks publication of the Podesta emails contain none of the alterations shown in the
version of the documents published by Guccifer 2.0.
Though no establishment media outlet has reported on this point, when reviewing the evidence
at hand and especially the work of the Forensicator, it is evident that the Guccifer 2.0
persona never actually published a single email. The persona published documents and even
screenshots of emails – but never the emails themselves. Thus, again, Guccifer 2.0's
works are critically different from the DNC and Podesta email publications by WikiLeaks.
The following charts are included to help remind readers of the timeline of events relative
to Guccifer 2.0, including the date specific documents were published:
Image Courtesy Of The Forensicator
Image Courtesy of the Forensicator
This writer previously
opined on the apparent invulnerability of the Russiagate saga to factual refutation. One
cannot blame the public for such narrative immortality, as the establishment-backed press has
made every effort to confuse and conflate the alterations made to documents published by
Guccifer 2.0 and the WikiLeaks releases. One can only hope, however, that this reminder of
their distinct state will help raise public skepticism of a narrative based on no evidence
whatsoever.
It is also especially important to reconsider Julian Assange's statements and texts in light
of his ongoing isolation from the outside world, which has prevented him from commenting
further on an infinite array of subjects including Guccifer 2.0 and the "Russian hacking"
saga.
Winston S. contributed to the content of this report.
platyops , 22 minutes ago
The name was Seth Rich. They robbed him for his watch and money but forgot to take the
watch and money. Yes that makes as much sense as Dr. Ford and her imagination party!
Dems lie and maybe kill people but they do lie for sure!
Nature_Boy_Wooooo , 33 minutes ago
All signs point to a young Bernie Sanders supporter at the DNC named Seth Rich.
Surftown , 2 hours ago
Brennan is Guccifer 2.0 using NSA Toolkit ( hacked and released) to feign Russia -- to
promote the fake Russia interference narrative leading to the FISA warrant justification, or
better yet, to the Direct Obama FISA approval/override to approve surveillance of Mr
Trump.
Endgame Napoleon , 1 hour ago
There are a bunch of competing smartphone apps, letting you convert Word docs to PDFs,
believe it or not.
Maybe, they only work in limited form, but you can write a resume (or whatever) into the
app, saving it in Word, converting it to PDF and sending it to your email.
Real programmers seem to scoff at the technical precision of those apps, so maybe, they
are not as sophisticated as they appear to non-techies.
The sequencing of this is weird. If I read it right, it sounds like several publications
received the "converted" versions -- the screenshots or PDFs -- of some emails before
Wikileaks released the actual, non-converted emails.
Who released those to the media organizations, and how did they have access to the machine
containing the emails, enabling them to make screenshots, convert them to PDFs or whatever
they did to provide representations of the emails, not the actual emails that Wikileaks later
released?
bh2 , 2 hours ago
Actually, William Binney et al demonstrated the email transfer could not have been
effected outside the four walls of the DNC because the required network speeds did not exist
at that time to any external location, least of all one located outside the US.
The only way that transfer could happen in the time logged was onto a device located on
the DNC LAN.
Seth Rich is the person Assange all but directly named as the source.
These two things, taken together, provide a compelling refutation of the DNC fairy tale
that the emails were pilfered by Russia (or any other outside actor).
JimmyJones , 2 hours ago
Bunny said the download speed was indicating a USB thumb drive was used
medium giraffe , 2 hours ago
IIRC the transfer speed was similar to a USB bus speed, meaning it wasn't even transferred
over a local network, but by a USB flash device directly connected to a DNC PC or laptop.
Endgame Napoleon , 1 hour ago
The US Congress is so unprofessional, allowing this circus about high-school parties to
commandeer a SCOTUS confirmation hearing, but did you ever hear any of them trying to get to
the bottom of this complex stuff, calling in technical experts to explain this evidence to
voters?
"... Steele also had extensive contacts with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie, who - along with Steele - was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump called for the declassification of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly reveal more about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within the Department of Justice for lying about his contacts with Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Perhaps the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016 . Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to meet with). ..."
"... Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of Democrats' emails. ..."
"... Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a government-sanctioned surveillance operation. - Daily Caller ..."
"... In total, Halper received over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for "research," over $400,000 of which was granted before and during the 2016 election season. ..."
"... In short, it's understandable that the UK would prefer to hide their involvement in the "witch hunt" of Donald Trump since much of the counterintelligence investigation was conducted on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the operation, it will bolster claims that they meddled in the 2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a set-up from the start . ..."
"... Steele's ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true. ..."
"... Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified anti-Trump dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the FBI for years before the relationship was severed just before the election because of Steele's unauthorized contacts with the press. ..."
"... That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK soil, is curious. ..."
"... I find it interesting that the Theresa May Govt in UK has the temerity to interfere with US politics (until they got caught out!), yet can't find the spine to stand up to the EU. ..."
"... THE UNITED KINGDOM along with ISRAEL & SAUDI ARABIA have always been the ones behind US Politics making, pulling the strings behind the curtains since the Petrodollar Inception, The Greater Israel project & the NWO initiative - only this time around Trump was not the UK's pick... ..."
"... England dominates the offshore money laundering havens where the super rich hide their money and evade taxes. They need to be brought down. No more African dictators looting their nation's resources and hiding the money first in offshore banks and then in JP Morgan and Brit banks. ..."
"... It is a test. If Trump doesn't go ahead with declassification, we know for sure he is no better than the globalists and neocons whose goal has always been to destroy and depopulate America. ..."
"... 'focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK soil, is curious' ..."
"... Not at all. It's obvious - the problem ISN'T Steele. They're living in fear, as are many in DC and elsewhere, that Trump is going to pry the lid open and reveal at least some of their activities. If killing him would fix the problem, they would. It's too late, considering what Trump is threatening to do. I wonder if he'll back down, at least some? ..."
"... U.K. does not want the jurisdiction. U.S. spies lure you overseas then...compromise you. ..."
"... Duh. This Started In London! Britain is the "foreign country" involved in our elections. Wake up everyone. It's LONDONGATE ..."
"... May gonna owe Vlad an apology when Skripal is revealed to be Steele's source. Steele himself hadn't been to Russian in 15 years. Will he get life in prison for attempted murder? ..."
"... "t's hard to tell who's telling the truth and who isn't in this whole Russia narrative. Fact is, NOBODY is telling the truth. That is what I've determined after doing my own research.": https://youtu.be/2AA5BIfGj3g ..."
"... Trump made promises before being elected, then lied and sold America out, just like every other corrupted assklown politician. he is no different than clinton bush obama, just as arrogant, just as corrupt, and just as much a traitor. ..."
UK Begged Trump Not To Declassify Russia Docs; Cited "Grave Concerns" Over Steele
Involvement
by Tyler Durden
Sun, 09/23/2018 - 11:15 4.6K SHARES
The British government "expressed grave concerns" to the US government over the
declassification and release of material related to the Trump-Russia investigation, according
to the New
York Times . President Trump ordered a wide swath of materials "immediately" declassified
"without redaction" on Monday, only to
change his mind later in the week by allowing the DOJ Inspector General to review the
materials first.
The Times reports that the UK's concern was over material which "includes direct references
to conversations between American law enforcement officials and Christopher Steele," the former
MI6 agent who compiled the infamous "Steele Dossier." The UK's objection, according to former
US and British officials, was over revealing Steele's identity in an official document,
"regardless of whether he had been named in press reports."
We would note, however, that Steele's name was contained within the Nunes Memo
- the House Intelligence Committee's majority opinion in the Trump-Russia case.
Steele also had
extensive contacts with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie, who - along with Steele
- was paid by opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the anti-Trump campaign. Trump called for
the declassification of FBI notes of interviews with Ohr, which would ostensibly reveal more
about his relationship with Steele. Ohr was demoted twice within the Department of Justice for
lying about his contacts with Fusion GPS.
Perhaps the Brits are also concerned since much of the espionage performed on the Trump
campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016 . Recall that Trump aid George Papadopoulos
was lured to London in March, 2016, where Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor
that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. It was later at a London bar that Papadopoulos would
drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who Strzok flew to London to
meet with).
Also recall that CIA/FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper met with both Carter Page
and Papadopoulos in
London.
Halper, a veteran of four Republican administrations, reached out to Trump aide George
Papadopoulos in September 2016 with an offer to fly to London to write an academic paper on
energy exploration in the Mediterranean Sea.
Papadopoulos accepted a flight to London and a $3,000 honorarium. He claims that during a
meeting in London, Halper asked him whether he knew anything about Russian hacking of
Democrats' emails.
Papadopoulos had other contacts on British soil that he now believes were part of a
government-sanctioned surveillance operation. - Daily Caller
In total, Halper received over $1 million from the Obama Pentagon for "research," over
$400,000 of which was granted before and during the 2016 election season.
In short, it's understandable that the UK would prefer to hide their involvement in the
"witch hunt" of Donald Trump since much of the counterintelligence investigation was conducted
on UK soil. And if the Brits had knowledge of the operation, it will bolster claims that they
meddled in the 2016 US election by assisting what appears to have been a
set-up from the start .
Steele's ham-handed dossier is a mere embarrassment, as virtually none of the claims
asserted by the former MI6 agent have been proven true.
Steele, a former MI6 agent, is the author of the infamous and unverified anti-Trump
dossier. He worked as a confidential human source for the FBI for years before the
relationship was severed just before the election because of Steele's unauthorized contacts
with the press.
He shared results of his investigation into Trump's links to Russia with the FBI beginning
in early July 2016.
The FBI relied heavily on the unverified Steele dossier to fill out applications for four
FISA warrants against Page. Page has denied the dossier's claims, which include that he was
the Trump campaign's back channel to the Kremlin. - Daily Caller
That said, Steele hasn't worked for the British government since 2009, so for their excuse
focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on UK
soil, is curious.
StychoKiller , 54 minutes ago
I find it interesting that the Theresa May Govt in UK has the temerity to interfere with
US politics (until they got caught out!), yet can't find the spine to stand up to the EU. If
I were Trump, not only would the shoe be dropping re: UK Govt involvement in US politics, but
said shoe would be making an imprint across her face! (stoopid twat!)
texantim , 1 hour ago
I say release the docs and put sanctions on UK.
BitchesBetterRecognize , 1 hour ago
So the Motherland ******* up with the ex-colony yet again, huh?
THE UNITED KINGDOM along with ISRAEL & SAUDI ARABIA have always been the ones behind
US Politics making, pulling the strings behind the curtains since the Petrodollar Inception,
The Greater Israel project & the NWO initiative - only this time around Trump was not the
UK's pick...
Oh, but those "civilized" Allies backstabbing each other for more power grip on the
USA....
Baron von Bud , 2 hours ago
England dominates the offshore money laundering havens where the super rich hide their
money and evade taxes. They need to be brought down. No more African dictators looting their
nation's resources and hiding the money first in offshore banks and then in JP Morgan and
Brit banks.
Many hedge funds are deep into this game. I'd wager on Carlyle Group and the Bush
clan. Billions of people can't get ahead because the super rich are ******* crooks running
the banks and governments. They don't pay taxes but force a small dry cleaner to pay 45% in
fed/state taxes. These criminals include Hillary Clinton and many members of congress.
Feinstein, Pelosi, Maxine and many more of both parties need to be investigated. How do they
get so rich on a congressman's salary. Deep into tax evasion and payoffs? Release the
documents and let MI6 hang.
Malvern Joe , 3 hours ago
It is a test. If Trump doesn't go ahead with declassification, we know for sure he is no
better than the globalists and neocons whose goal has always been to destroy and depopulate
America. It would represent the biggest sellout of this country since the creation of the Fed
in 1913, He will go down as the biggest fraud ever and his base will deport his *** to the
sums of India where he can defecate in public.
Bricker , 3 hours ago
You dont get to supply a rogue agent, that was probably told to do it in the first place,
and then tell Trump not to do it out of harm, harm is all you BRIT DEEP STATES deserve
Moving and Grooving , 3 hours ago
'focusing on the former MI6 agent while ignoring the multitude of events which occurred on
UK soil, is curious'
Not at all. It's obvious - the problem ISN'T Steele. They're living in fear, as are many
in DC and elsewhere, that Trump is going to pry the lid open and reveal at least some of
their activities. If killing him would fix the problem, they would. It's too late,
considering what Trump is threatening to do. I wonder if he'll back down, at least some?
The sheer corruption of the Global Government is on display here, revealing itself, if you
watch for it. Whether planned or not, the last 6 months or so have been astonishing to watch.
The entire media has been shown to be liars, academia is shown to be an expensive provider of
unprepared students, the corporate world is furiously rent-seeking and finding new ways to
destroy humanity, and government is too busy selling Americans out to write a budget. In all
countries around the world, adjusting for national status. Lawsuits in the west, machetes in
the third world.
Ban KKiller , 4 hours ago
U.K. does not want the jurisdiction. U.S. spies lure you overseas then...compromise you.
John C Durham , 4 hours ago
Duh. This Started In London! Britain is the "foreign country" involved in our elections.
Wake up everyone. It's LONDONGATE .
Anunnaki , 4 hours ago
May gonna owe Vlad an apology when Skripal is revealed to be Steele's source. Steele himself hadn't been to Russian in 15 years. Will he get life in prison for attempted murder?
PeaceForWorld , 4 hours ago
"t's hard to tell who's telling the truth and who isn't in this whole Russia narrative.
Fact is, NOBODY is telling the truth. That is what I've determined after doing my own
research.": https://youtu.be/2AA5BIfGj3g
I really like this woman "Shut the **** up!". She is a former Bernie supporter just like
me. She has turned against Democrats just like me. She doesn't trust any of the Establishment
parties.
Buddha71 , 4 hours ago
Trump made promises before being elected, then lied and sold America out, just like every other
corrupted assklown politician. he is no different than clinton bush obama, just as arrogant,
just as corrupt, and just as much a traitor. he has broken the promises upon which he was
elected, just like all the other fkn liars before him. no different. just a pos. he has not
made america great again, just more of the same, unemployment is a lie, it is closer to
17%.
"... "none of this would in any way exculpate the Israelis for the very simple reason that had the Israelis warned the Russians on time this entire tragedy might have been avoided even if the prime culprits are cowardly Israeli pilots, less than competent Syrian air defense crews or too trusting Russians. " ..."
"... No, none of this would have happened if Putin had refused to allow his bosom buddy Nazinyahu to bomb his ally, Syria, with impunity. ..."
"... It is definitely worth reading not only the quoted article but other commentaries, because the inventors of shutzpah are now collectively dancing on the graves of the 15 Russian officers. ..."
@J Since
the Russians largely control the Syrian antiair defenses, one could also conclude that they
share the responsibility in downing their own aircraft. Maybe the Israelis overestimated
Russian readiness and response capabilities. In Tzahal, one minute is a lot of time. As Putin
said, it was a tragic fuckup.
In Tzahal, one minute is a lot of time.
No, this can not be true!!! I always knew that Tzahal operates on millisecond increments.
In fact, it can also travel back in time. You know, because they are that good.
"none of this would in any way exculpate the Israelis for the very simple reason
that had the Israelis warned the Russians on time this entire tragedy might have been
avoided even if the prime culprits are cowardly Israeli pilots, less than competent Syrian
air defense crews or too trusting Russians. "
No, none of this would have happened if Putin had refused to allow his bosom buddy
Nazinyahu to bomb his ally, Syria, with impunity. Russia is being treated with contempt
by the zionazi pseudostate for the simple reason that the Zios were bombing a "target" right
next to the Russian Hmeimim airbase.
Nor is the loss of the Il 20 something minor. It was a very expensive, highly capable
system manned by extremely well trained, hard to replace, valuable crew, each of whom had
many years of irreplaceable experience. Do *not* attempt to whitewash that.
The Saker needs to stop defending the zionazi stooge and capitalist roader Putin. His
"restraint" is making Russia look like a pushover and emboldening its enemies. What is the
Amerikastani aircraft carrier Harry Truman doing in the Mediterranean right now, a health
cruise?
There is absolutely nothing stopping Putin from ordering his bosom buddy Nazinyahu to
immediately stop all bombing of Syria, on the pain of having his zionazi war criminals being
shot out of the air. What exactly is preventing Putin from doing this, assuming that the S400
actually works as advertised? Can any of the professional Putinite propaganda purveyors, as
despicable a breed as the Trumpets, Obamopologists, and Hillarybots, explain?
First, let me start by a very simple and primitive question:
Why in the world has nobody considered that the Israelis might have truly
screwed-up?
'Careless' is the word I would use. Israelis are being careless, because they
never have to pay a price for their aggressions and their mistakes. Putin encourages this
carelessness , when he refuses to impose costs on Israel. The lesson Israelis are
learning from this incident is that Russia is weak, and Putin has "little choice", but allow
Israelis free hand in Syria. This is what Israelis newspapers are saying, check this out:
https://twitter.com/DanielS22647562/status/1043070311355301889 It is definitely worth
reading not only the quoted article but other commentaries, because the inventors of shutzpah
are now collectively dancing on the graves of the 15 Russian officers. Just as they
placed sofas to watch the destruction of Gaza. Thank you for the link Felix.
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and
Martyanov, at the level of the IDF delegations sent to Moscow, to ensure that the Russian
military does not get any "reserved" ideas (reserve the right to huff & puff).
Here is my favorite piece from this Jewish BS machine above:
unconfirmed sources from Syria have reported that Russian military police abducted and
are brutally interrogating officers and soldiers from the Syrian air-defense battery that
fired the fateful missile
But, but I naively thought that the Russians discovered a secret link which proves that
those now brutally interrogated Syrians did 911 , not the Iraqis accused before.
I do understand that Putin does not have any good option now and that his premature and
dumb commentary about the "accident" was for his own ass-covering not to protect those Jews
who made such a total ass of him. But whenever the Russians die, as when the SU-24 pilot
died, he learned nothing and continues on making and trusting the deals with
the sponsors of terrorism.
Finally, I do note that the smart people, such as Israel Shamir, keep their mouths shut
for now, till the fog clears and the emotions blow-over. I am looking forward to his next
article to understand the feelings in the Russian military regarding Putin.
@Kiza It
is definitely worth reading not only the quoted article but other commentaries, because the
inventors of shutzpah are now collectively dancing on the graves of the 15 Russian officers.
Just as they placed sofas to watch the destruction of Gaza. Thank you for the link Felix.
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and
Martyanov, at the level of the IDF delegations sent to Moscow, to ensure that the Russian
military does not get any "reserved" ideas (reserve the right to ... huff & puff).
Here is my favorite piece from this Jewish BS machine above:
unconfirmed sources from Syria have reported that Russian military police abducted and are
brutally interrogating officers and soldiers from the Syrian air-defense battery that fired
the fateful missile
But, but I naively thought that the Russians discovered a secret link which
proves that those now brutally interrogated Syrians did 911 , not the Iraqis accused
before.
I do understand that Putin does not have any good option now and that his premature and
dumb commentary about the "accident" was for his own ass-covering not to protect those Jews
who made such a total ass of him. But whenever the Russians die, as when the SU-24 pilot
died, he learned nothing and continues on making and trusting the deals with
the sponsors of terrorism.
Finally, I do note that the smart people, such as Israel Shamir, keep their mouths shut
for now, till the fog clears and the emotions blow-over. I am looking forward to his next
article to understand the feelings in the Russian military regarding Putin.
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and
Martyanov
Do you want me to prove, using you as an example, for all other present here hysterical
non-men, that none of you have any idea of what was and is going on by me merely introducing
a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar systems.
I'll give you hint–it is reported to all military radar operating units (from ground to
the sea) and is logged and accounted for (with proper adjustments in procedures) every single
day, sometimes on 12 hour increments. This factor could be of prime importance, especially
against the background of old S-200 AD complex. Are you game? Then we will compare who are
real "armchair strategists" here.
Much better reading Harretz than the awe of our two Armchair Marshals, Saker and
Martyanov
Do you want me to prove, using you as an example, for all other present here
hysterical non-men, that none of you have any idea of what was and is going on by me merely
introducing a simple tactical-technical parameter which defines tactical reality in any radar
systems. I'll give you hint--it is reported to all military radar operating units (from
ground to the sea) and is logged and accounted for (with proper adjustments in procedures)
every single day, sometimes on 12 hour increments. This factor could be of prime importance,
especially against the background of old S-200 AD complex. Are you game? Then we will compare
who are real "armchair strategists" here. This is some irrelevant technical mumbo-jumbo. Kiza
was making a comment about political side of the issue:
Israelis have no respect for Russia and Putin. They feel emboldened by Putin's weak
reaction.
@Felix
Keverich This is some irrelevant technical mumbo-jumbo. Kiza was making a comment about
political side of the issue:
Israelis have no respect for Russia and Putin. They feel emboldened by Putin's weak
reaction.
This is some irrelevant technical mumbo-jumbo.
Well, then I am sure you will treat your future illnesses (God forbids you to become ill,
stay healthy) at Voodoo doctors, since all this medical mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant. I heard
Haiti Voodoo healthcare is great and very-very affordable.
Kiza was making a comment about political side of the issue:
Only few posts here are real comments, most of them is some hysterical weeping in an
adrenaline deprived organisms upon understanding that Israel is not going to be destroyed
immediately by Russians. Hence, your posts included, either hysterical reactions or trolling,
mostly, sorry for being blunt, by people who have zero knowledge of Russia in general, and
her military in particular. So, a wonderful unification of pseudo-patriots and all kinds of
ignorant trolls happened. It is rather interesting to observe.
As if in any other country this situation is different...
Putin priority was avoiding larger confrontation, which if spun out of control can lead to WWIII. And I think he was right
trying to downplay the situation.
This is terribly empty ramble and it is time to stop reading this rambler. But before I stop I will quote myself:
My critique of Putin is not that he did not kill back the Turks, the US military and the Israelis, it is that he keeps making
agreements with the non-agreement capable sponsors of terrorism and then entrusts the lives of his soldiers to such agreements.
In other words, the four Israeli planes should have never been tagged "friendlies", which was obviously the Putin's standing
order to the Russian military based on his agreement with these sponsors of terrorism. The rest in this tragic event for Russia
is what usually happens in war – fear, huge and costly mistakes, and incompetence all around.
Saker, I hope you and Martyanov both, as a reward for your insightful writing about the panicking Israeli pilots, get to
read your recent articles to the 10-year old daughter of one of the Russian officers killed.
You two are the Marshals of all the Armchair Generals that you laugh at. With "intellectuals" such as you, now I understand
why the Russian always die in wars like cattle and win wars by sacrificing the most/only valuable human capital (why do they call
such 'a Pyrrhic victory' when it should be called 'a Russian victory'). I will be watching the Russian Mayday parades with photos
of killed relatives in a totally different light from now on – those people in the photos are the victims of the Russian "elite"
and the self-declared Russian Armchair Marshals.
The unfortunate Syrians are the beggars, so they cannot be choosers who their "friends" are.
Since the Russians largely control the Syrian antiair defenses, one could also conclude that they share the responsibility in
downing their own aircraft. Maybe the Israelis overestimated Russian readiness and response capabilities. In Tzahal, one minute
is a lot of time. As Putin said, it was a tragic fuckup.
"I tried to post a short commentary suggesting that before we jump to conclusions about anything, we ought to wait for the fact
to come out."
Well Putin didn't waste anytime jumping to the conclusion that it was an "accident," right? I blame him for being too quick
to say that.
And I blame him for allowing the Israeli attacks to continue for so long. Something bad (for Russia) was bound to happen eventually.
And they're war crimes, aren't they? It would've been okay with everybody if it was a Syrian plane that went down?
"So why is everybody assuming that the Israelis carefully planned the whole thing?"
King David Hotel, USS Liberty, 9/11, etc.
"First, let me start by a very simple and primitive question: Why in the world has nobody considered that the Israelis might
have truly screwed-up?"
When someone "screws up" during the commission of a crime, a crime "evincing a depraved indifference to human life" and someone
dies because of it, it's known in Western jurisprudence as a "depraved heart murder" not an "accident."
"At this point, I need to ask another question: what would the Israelis gain from shooting down the Il-20?"
You could also ask for example: what did they gain by running over Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer? And the answer would be
the same IMO: They do what they do because they're evil.
Mr. you are a very naďve person. One doesn't have to be a
Putin or Jew hater to see with clarity. In fact we the gojims are the ones
who is in our face is being hated, and planed to be destroyed. They declaring
a new world order. The very word of new implies a departure from what we
have today, a culture of nation states. The very word of order implies Dictatorial slavery.
According to Assange , we are the last generation of free people.
The western countries being overrun by primitives who are the biological
weapons of the elites, one economical crises and everybody is against everybody,
until only the well protected elites remain. The murder of a highly trained
Russian military persons were premeditated planed murder. In earlier
analysis of yours you called this form of warfare " leapfrogging " . And the
hollywooding of the Izraeli leadersip, is a part of deceiveing the gojim.
The did what they do best they draw blood of the gojim, and getting away
with it again with an explanation, playing on our fears of not to escalating further.
Putin calling it an accident, he remind me of an other historic figure
who's name was Marshall Emanuel Grouchy. He was Napoleon's trusted general
in 1815 at waterloo , when he heard the battle drums he started to march with his
units to the opposite direction away from the warzone, so the French army was slathered.
What does it count if they are the best and bravest and have a best missile systems,
if they are being mislead and betrayed? Try to analyzing that.
What's funny is that The Saker wants to stick to the "facts" but all he gives is, when you read his article closely is apologizing
for the failure of Russian policy with regards to the Israelis, a mix of contradictions, Putin-ifallibility and the usual "Russia
good, rest meh"
@hunor Mr. you are
a very naďve person. One doesn't have to be a
Putin or Jew hater to see with clarity. In fact we the gojims are the ones
who is in our face is being hated, and planed to be destroyed. They declaring
a new world order. The very word of new implies a departure from what we
have today, a culture of nation states. The very word of order implies Dictatorial slavery.
According to Assange , we are the last generation of free people.
The western countries being overrun by primitives who are the biological
weapons of the elites, one economical crises and everybody is against everybody,
until only the well protected elites remain. The murder of a highly trained
Russian military persons were premeditated planed murder. In earlier
analysis of yours you called this form of warfare " leapfrogging " . And the
hollywooding of the Izraeli leadersip, is a part of deceiveing the gojim.
The did what they do best they draw blood of the gojim, and getting away
with it again with an explanation, playing on our fears of not to escalating further.
Putin calling it an accident, he remind me of an other historic figure
who's name was Marshall Emanuel Grouchy. He was Napoleon's trusted general
in 1815 at waterloo , when he heard the battle drums he started to march with his
units to the opposite direction away from the warzone, so the French army was slathered.
What does it count if they are the best and bravest and have a best missile systems,
if they are being mislead and betrayed? Try to analyzing that.
One doesn't have to be a Putin or Jew hater to see with clarity
So, you do then, I assume, have now or had in the past Form 1A clearance to know how and what Tactical and Operational Manuals
describe in terms of setting Air Defense systems, establishment of communications networks ah, never mind–I am sure "Jews The
Almighty" bible of yours gives all necessary answers. Including describing issues of angular separation of targets, principles
of development of command decisions from tactical to operational level and other irrelevant crap.
CNN: Former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo weighs in on who he believes wrote the
anonymously authored op-ed published in the New York Times that was highly critical of
President Donald Trump.
Caputo also said the real writer of the piece is a ghostwriter in terms of looking for the
person behind the piece. Caputo said he believes the person is a woman.
"The language of the op-ed is useless to look at because it's a ghostwriter," he said.
"I think, first of all, this person will never admit it. In my mind, the author of this
op-ed believes that she is a hero to the American people," Caputo also said.
MICHAEL CAPUTO, FMR. TRUMP ADVISOR: I'm fairly certain I know who it is. I've been going
through this parlor game like everybody else has and I am also completely 100% certain that
the person who wrote this is on the list of people who said they didn't write it.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: Alright. So who do you think it is?
CAPUTO: I'm not going to go into that. My attorney tells me it's a bad idea. But I can
tell you think...
WHITFIELD: You consulted your attorney. You said I think I know who this is based on
certain language that was and you consulted your attorney and your attorney says don't reveal
it?
CAPUTO: Right. Based on language. Based on the fact that I believe these kinds of people
leave a trail of crumbs when they are trying to deceive people around them. This is the way
it is always is. And if the president looks at key departments of his government that has
been purged of all Trump supporters that is a good place to start, and that actually exists.
Trump supporters have been purged from this government for 18 months. Last week I spent the
evening with several friends of mine from the Trump campaign: all of them have been forced
out of the Trump administration. ...
I don't think this person is in the White House... this person really has to be high up.
It's got to be a deputy, secretary-level, or higher, otherwise The New York Times is
misleading people.
WHITFIELD: Do you believe it is someone who has taken an oath?
CAPUTO: I believe so...
The White House political office and others have kind of shrugged off the idea about
losing the House and maybe being impeached because the Senate won't do anything. They won't
convict the president on the charges of impeachment. But I think when we find out who this
person is, and the president team should find out, we're going to find out this person has
real deep and abiding ties to Congress and this op-ed is one step closer not just to
impeachment but conviction...
I started with this. Who is the person who I believe hates the president the most? Who is
the person in the administration who has screamed about him in their own private office and
gone forward and purged their entire office of Trump people? ...
I think, first of all, this person will never admit it. In my mind, the author of this
op-ed believes that she is a hero to the American people.
Sic Semper Tyrannis has published a response to the Rosenstein fantastic "Indictment of
Trolls" (Part II): "Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU," by Publius Tacitus
http://www.turcopolier.typepad.com
"Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein announced a bizarre indictment against Russian
military intelligence operatives today that, rather than confirming the case of "Russian
meddling" in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election raises more questions. Here are the major
oddities:
1. How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers when the
DNC/DCCC refused to give the Feds access to the servers/computers?
2. Why does Crowdstrike get credit as being a competent computer security firm when,
according to the indictment, they completely and utterly failed to stop the "hacks?
"
3. Why does the indictment refuse to name Wikileaks by name as the Russian collaborator? Here
is the bottomline–if US officials knew as early as April that Russia was hacking the
DNC, why did it take US officials more than six months to stop the activity? The statement of
"facts" contained in the indictment also raises another troubling issue–what is the
source of the information? For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC
servers and computers then how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the
complaint?"
-- Why does the US national security hang on the opinions and concoctions of a visceral
Russophobe Dm. Alperovitch (a ziocon) who is an "expert" (together with the badly uneducated
Elliot Higgins) at the thoroughly corrupted and zionized Atlantic Council?
-- What kind of antisemite has been working hard to make the US Jewry at large suspected in a
massive conspiracy and treason against the United States of America?
Here is the context for the "Indictment of Trolls" (Paty II):
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/62c97j/the_awan_brothers_compromised_at_least_80/
"The Awan brothers compromised at least 80 congressional computers and got paid 5 million to
do it. We may never know the extent of the breach.
After compromising the Congress' networks for 12 years they do a quick cleanup by breaking in
to 20 congressional offices, store data in an off site server before running of to Pakistan
and the D.C. Police are investigating. But wait there's more
Imran Awan has a longtime relationship with some members of Congress, including working for
Meeks and Becerra starting in 2004 and joining Wasserman Schultz's office in 2005. The IT
staffer position expanded to include more than 30 representatives, including work under
congressional members who were members of top secret level congressional committees (DHS,
Foreign affairs, Select intelligence committee).
Although personal office computers are not supposed to be used for Intelligence Committee
business or classified material, accessing these computers is a high priority for foreign
intelligence services because of the information they could glean about the committee's work
from unclassified emails.
• The brothers are suspected of serious violations including accessing members' computer
networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress, over billing congress
for work and parts, transferring data to a remote server, and bypassing normal security
protocols for IT staff. Their Democrat benefactors allowed the breech of policy for the sake
of convenience.
• The Awans operated an external server, which is against all protocols concerning
secured government information.
Further, there were instances where House information was discovered in an external "cloud"
server. The contractors in question reportedly were sending and storing House-related
information in that off-site server.
• The Awans had special access to the White House and for Visas.
• Multiple Democratic lawmakers have yet to cut ties with House staffers under criminal
investigation for wide-ranging equipment and data theft."
– Hey, Mueller! Hey, Rosenstein! Do your job.
A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are
fundamental differences between men and women which are "biologically founded"
Published
Russia now awaits possible new sanctions as a result of its involvement in the United
States election and as a result of the potential nerve agent attack in England.
Who the **** writes this ****? Who believes those baldfaced lies?
Hass C. , 49 minutes ago
A little glimpse into how much influence Putin has on his own economy. Which is not much.
He is trying hard to remove Russia's testicles from the vice of US control but this is a slow
process as the economy and capital market are totally open, except for military production
which is under his own control and pretty much protected from the whims of markets.
The steady increase of sanctions has the objective of forcing Putin's hand into lashing
out and trying a dirigistic neo-stalinist approach, but this would cut Russia from foreign
technology and capital, make the best work force fly abroad, resulting in final
implosion.
Whether Russia survives as an industrial economy till US and the dollar loses its power
over it is anybody's guess. The more Russia is weakened at that time, the more likely China
will flood it with its love.
Ms No , 51 minutes ago
The thing with Putin is that he is a great leader and Patriot. He wishes us no harm and
would like to be our friends (the western population); however, Putin isn't motivated by
saving the world, your nation or you personally. His loyalty is to his people and their
future.
All actions that Putin has taken that ended up saving your *** were simply a benefit
gained by the happenstance of what benefits us benefitting him.
Putin will save his own (hopefully) but you have to save yourself. Remember that.
LaugherNYC , 8 minutes ago
If Putin wants to be friends with the West, then why did he reverse the course of openness
to the EU and NATO, the trend towards normalization, and turn hard right into an
ultra-nationalist despot, starting to spout the diseased philosophy of Ilyin, becoming a
xenophobic tin pot kleptocrat, like some African warlord, funneling funds and assets offshore
through shell companies and his buddies?
It will be interesting to see what happens when/if there is a real global investigation of
Putin's offshored assets, and an expose of how he has plundered his country. He will be the
very last to repatriate - nor should we want him to be forced into it. If you close his
escape hatch, Vlad will be forced to live up to his rhetoric, which is very Rapture-esque,
very nuclear nightmare, very Judgement Day Armageddon
Anonymous IX , 1 hour ago
Where's Billy Browder? What's next on his agenda? Billy, btw, the next time you allow
anyone to film you, have your handlers minimize the obvious drug and/or electronic mind
control over you a little earlier. You seem to "wake up" an awful lot...you know...where your
head snaps up like you didn't realize something...or you're "waking up" from something. Just
a helpful hint. You did so chronically throughout the Magnitsky film. Here's what a mind
looks like on "mind control." Don't look for eggs in a frying pan.
Ms No , 50 minutes ago
So mind control looks something like sleep apnea?
Savvy , 1 hour ago
the desire to keep assets out of the reach of the United States Treasury
Can you say 'capital flight'? I knew you could. Not a country in the world is going to
trust the US with a grain of salt.
Well done Trump and your $864billon/month deficit spending.
Ms No , 49 minutes ago
We really should stop referring to it as the US treasury. Its something else.
opport.knocks , 3 minutes ago
Lendery?
Cashlaudratomat?
Ponzi-prefecture?
The US Usury?
hooligan2009 , 1 hour ago
according to polls aired by tv station "euro news", putin's ratings are down 10% because
he wants to raise the retirement ages of men to 65 from 60 (male life expectancy is 66) and
womens retirement age from 55 to 60 (womens life expectancy is 71).
i guess this is proof that sanctions are working. putin has to raise the retirement age
and russians die 12-15 years earlier than those in the west.
oh, the humanity!
sanctions work: they hurt the bottom 50%, not those better off.
Balance-Sheet , 58 minutes ago
Good to note this and it appears to be correct. Male life expectancy is 65/66 on average
so many will die reaching for their first tiny pension check. I do not know why Putin simply
does not seek to save money by ordering people to be shot at 65 as a humane measure. Russia
has shot 10s of millions over the past 100 years so this will maintain a tradition.
I am interested in your remark on Putin's popularity- he appears to be slipping into
megalomania also typical of Russian leaders so perhaps he will be removed. Raising the
retirement age in Russia is recklessly stupid from a political perspective in an impoverished
country established as Earth's largest resource treasure house.
Ms No , 44 minutes ago
War and sanctions are expensive. Through this evil the world is impoverished. Zionist fiat
currency is also crushingly expensive. We would be exceedingly wealthy without all of this. A
whole different world could exist.
That probably wont happen until the next age (a golden age) though because people now are
inherently stupid and lack any connection. Sticking their appendenges in everything and
sinking completely in dense materialism is more important.
Hass C. , 39 minutes ago
Can you specify why you say he "appears to be slipping into megalomania"? Been observing
him for years and his megalomania index seems stable to me.
Also, Russian demography makes raising the retirement age necessary, they say. Their birth
rate is increasing but so does life expectancy.
opport.knocks , 1 minute ago
He will not be able to run for re-election so now is the time to implement necessary but
unpopular reforms.
Shemp 4 Victory , 38 minutes ago
according to polls aired by tv station "euro news"
Well, if "euro news" said, then so it is. Free European press can't lie.
hooligan2009 , 28 minutes ago
haha.. yes.. i watched it for ten minutes, so the same four headlines scrolled through in
a cycle three times in those ten minutes. pope, a survivor underneath a boat after two days
in lake victoria, blunt brexit and putins popularity.
nothing approcahing any quality whatsoever. i was just making sure the other side of the
house hadn't got past "stupid"!!!
123dobryden , 1 hour ago
Rossia. Davaj
notfeelinthebern , 1 hour ago
Yeah, he's giving the west the proverbial finger. Instead of creating a bridge to trade
and friendship, the west is doing nothing but trying to destroy an imaginary enemy.
Matteo S. , 1 hour ago
It is not imaginary from the anglo-saxon empire's point of view.
The anglo-saxon empire has been playing this game for more than 3 centuries.
It first constantly attacked France until it definitely emasculated it with Napoleon's
downfall.
Then it immediately went to the jugular of Russia. And on this occasion was formulated
Mackinder's gropolitics principles.
Then it went for Germany.
Then in again against USSR/Russia.
This is not due to imagination. This is a deliberate and structural way to interact with
the rest of the world. The anglo-saxon empire hates competition and tries to destroy any
potential competitor instead of agreeing to cooperate with peers.
Ms No , 42 minutes ago
The Anglo Saxon empire was occupied by Zionist money lending. They controlled the British
empire. A lot of those blueblood royal were theirs to begin with also. They were also the
bankers of Rome.
Matteo S. , 27 minutes ago
Forget your fantasies about the Catholic Church and the pope.
It is Protestants who have always dominated the anglo-saxon empire. Protestants from
Britain but also from Netherlands, Germany, France, who allied with the English and Scot
Protestants to build their mammonite empire.
And for one Rothschild family, you had the Astors, Vanderbilt's, Rockefellers, Carnegie's,
Morgans, Fords, ... etc, none of which were jewish.
The Zionists are just the tail of the anglo-saxon dog.
justdues , 1 hour ago
"Russia now awaits possible new sanctions as a result of it,s ALLEGED involvement in the
United States election and as a result of the ALLEGED nerve agent attack in England .
FIFTylers
hooligan2009 , 1 hour ago
quite right. no trial, no evidence and harsh sentences/convictions via trade
embargoes.
russia offered reciprocation so it could try Browder. the west said no, invented crimes
culminating in a Magnitsy act.
if individuals in Europe, the UK or the US were convicted and imprisoned without trial
governments in those places would be thrown out on their ear.
as it is, western governments can bring the entire planet to the brink of war, based on
their political opinions - with no evidence, no trial and no opportunity to argue a case for
a defence of charges.
JibjeResearch , 1 hour ago
lolz ahaha.... a bad choice..., any fiat is a bad choice...
Go phy.gold or cryptos (BTC, ETH, XTZ),
phy.silver is good too...
An Shrubbery , 40 minutes ago
Cryptosporidiosis are no different than fiat, maybe even a little worse. They are NOT
anonymous, and are becoming less and less so and eventually will be co-opted by deep state
operatives such as googoyle, facefuck, Twatter, amazog, etc. for the deep state. There is an
absolute record of your every transaction in the blockchain.
It's just a matter of time. There will be a crypto that we're all forced to use in the
near future, and big brother will have absolute control of it.
my new username , 1 hour ago
This has zero impact on working class Americans. It only affects liberals and rich
people.
DEDA CVETKO , 1 hour ago
Everything has impact on everything else. We are all, in some bizarre ways,
interconnected. Deripaska (pictured above) has a virtual global monopoly on aluminum trade.
Guess who uses aluminum? You guessed it: people like you and I. The airplane industry.
Consumer industry. The military. Medical equipment industry. Construction industry. Food
industry. Everyone!
There is no such thing as isolationism anymore. It wasn't possible even during Warren
Harding's presidency, let alone now. This deranged notion that Donald Trump will somehow
insulate us all from the effects of his aggressive overseas posturing is deranged beyond
description.
"... It is interesting that all the "draconian" election, etc. laws recently put into practice in Russia have to do with foreigners attempted misusing and lying about Russia's elections for "western" advantage. By now we should all know how the Western media will lie in every way to make it appear that their traitorous lackeys being used to destroy some other nation are the true "patriots" of that nation, even when they are not even citizens of it. ..."
At the time that Putin was in the KGB, had it not become a de facto ethnic Russian
organization? Would not Putin's origins have been established prior to his joining?
You ask when Putin has stood up to the 'West'. It was Medvedev as President who was duped
over Libya through the UN, not having been aware of the subtle shift in US policy from
sabre-rattling and shock-and-awe to more discretely aiding 'rebels' to overthrow 'tyrants'
under the guise of promoting the protection of civilians through no-fly zones etc. (Same
policy, different tactics).
The response over Russia to Georgia's attack on S. Ossetia was entirely unequivocal and it
remains to be seen how Putin, now back in the Presidential driving seat plays Syria and
Iran.
Tony B said (January 4, 2013):
Of course, I can't know for certain but this article to me has the now familiar odor of
disinformation to a very high degree. Putin is treated as a God by the majority of the Russian
people but he is daily demonized by the "West." The suffering of the Russian people after the
collapse of the USSR was due to the weakling and drunk Yeltsin. Once the rape of Russia by the
west, including many American "businessmen," that Yeltsin allowed was stopped (mostly by
Putin), life has gradually gotten better for the average Russian.
It is interesting that all the "draconian" election, etc. laws recently put into practice in
Russia have to do with foreigners attempted misusing and lying about Russia's elections for
"western" advantage. By now we should all know how the Western media will lie in every way to
make it appear that their traitorous lackeys being used to destroy some other nation are the
true "patriots" of that nation, even when they are not even citizens of it.
In my lifetime no one on earth, other than Putin, has stood up to the Rothschild empire,
more or less telling them that if they really think they own Russia's oil business to try and
get it. Would that American presidents would be such "Jews!"
Has Russia given up on the West? In a word -- Yes, Yes and Yes.
You can find this from a few sources. The Editor -- in -- Chief of RT and Sputnik News,
Marguerite Simonyan, wrote an article not that long ago, addressed directly to you. To The
"West". To the Anglo Fascist Empire. To America. "We came to you in friendship and
admiration" she said, in effect, "and you have done nothing but abuse us, mock us, spit on us
Well, to hell with you. We used to admire you. Now we dont. We used to want to be like you.
Now, we dont".
In a speech also, although I'm sorry I cannot remember which one, President Putin also
said, in effect "we made every effort to be friends. We thought the Cold War 1 was due to
ideology -- to Communism. When that was dismantled and dropped by Russia, we thought you
would accept our outstretched hand of friendship. To quote a Russian poem , we believed you
"would to us the sword present" But you didn't. You abused our country, destroyed our
industries, our pride, even, for a short while, our sovereignty. [During the 1990's "Shock
and Awe" economic destruction of Russia].
We were prepared to forgive this and still try and work with you, but you have done
nothing but tell lies about us, abuse us, pile on sanctions, and steal our properties. Now,
we have done. We have made our minds up, and there is no going back. We will do what we need
to make our country grow, to be strong and happy. You can do what you want. Frankly, we dont
care any more".
Once a few years back, in a small Russian town, an enterprising garage sold door mats with
the American flag on them, for people to wipe their feet. They sold out in hours. However, it
was a momentary rage and Russians are very decent, kindly people. I think they have not
repeated that moment of anger.
But if you watch Vesti English -- excerpts are on YouTube -- watch "60 minutes", watch
Vecher "or Evening" excerpts, watch Kislyak, the popular presenters. See how they talk to
Russia in that critical hour after workers get home and have diner and watch an evening hour
of current affairs.
They show every lie, every manipulation, every example of American aggression, and they
laugh at every American stupidity.
They are nice people, and if you go there as an American citizen, they will be kind to
you. But when it comes to nations, and international trust -- they've had it with you.
They've turned their back. And you brought it on yourselves. As the Russian saying goes "as
you return my hand extended to you, so will I return your action"
As shown in this article, there is a little-discussed unintended consequence of the
anti-Russia sanctions that could significantly impact some U.S. consumers:
It appears that Putin is impotent to stand up to the Brussels -- Washington D.C. -- Jerusalem
-- Berlin Axis of Evil. Could that be construed as evidence that the Axis is such a
formidable iron fortress that even a tough guy like Putin can't put a dent in it?
If Russia and China don't collaborate soon, then the Axis will have complete, heavy handed
global domination, replete with policies and infrastructure to make certain it is perpetually
unchallenged.
Seems to me that I read something about this in the Bible.
@Isabella
Has Russia given up on the West? In a word - Yes, Yes and Yes.
You can find this from a few sources. The Editor - in - Chief of RT and Sputnik News,
Marguerite Simonyan, wrote an article not that long ago, addressed directly to you. To The
"West". To the Anglo Fascist Empire. To America. "We came to you in friendship and
admiration" she said, in effect, "and you have done nothing but abuse us, mock us, spit on us
Well, to hell with you. We used to admire you. Now we dont. We used to want to be like you.
Now, we dont".
In a speech also, although I'm sorry I cannot remember which one, President Putin also
said, in effect "we made every effort to be friends. We thought the Cold War 1 was due to
ideology - to Communism. When that was dismantled and dropped by Russia, we thought you would
accept our outstretched hand of friendship. To quote a Russian poem , we believed you "would
to us the sword present" But you didn't. You abused our country, destroyed our industries,
our pride, even, for a short while, our sovereignty. [During the 1990's "Shock and Awe"
economic destruction of Russia].
We were prepared to forgive this and still try and work with you, but you have done
nothing but tell lies about us, abuse us, pile on sanctions, and steal our properties. Now,
we have done. We have made our minds up, and there is no going back. We will do what we need
to make our country grow, to be strong and happy. You can do what you want. Frankly, we dont
care any more".
Once a few years back, in a small Russian town, an enterprising garage sold door mats with
the American flag on them, for people to wipe their feet. They sold out in hours. However, it
was a momentary rage and Russians are very decent, kindly people. I think they have not
repeated that moment of anger.
But if you watch Vesti English - excerpts are on YouTube - watch "60 minutes", watch Vecher
"or Evening" excerpts, watch Kislyak, the popular presenters. See how they talk to Russia in
that critical hour after workers get home and have diner and watch an evening hour of current
affairs. They show every lie, every manipulation, every example of American aggression, and
they laugh at every American stupidity.
They are nice people, and if you go there as an American citizen, they will be kind to you.
But when it comes to nations, and international trust - they've had it with you. They've
turned their back. And you brought it on yourselves. As the Russian saying goes "as you
return my hand extended to you, so will I return your action" "They are nice people, and if
you go there as an American citizen, they will be kind to you."
If what you're saying about the Russian people is true -- and I've no reason to dispute it
-- then it may have something to do with their years under Communist rule. The corruption,
the lies, the suppression of dissidence, and all the other harm done to them by their rulers
ingrained a healthy distrust of government and an insight that the subjects of such a system
can still be good people.
Americans aren't there yet. Most of us still find it not only acceptable for the neighbor
kid to die serving Uncle Sam, but something to celebrate as his name goes up on another green
sign along a potholed bridge. This national inclination to identify with one's rulers, a
Washington Syndrome, is pumped into our eyes and ears from birth. Even on this relatively
dissident website, many become invested in the Red v Blue, whose Beltway members when
offstage attend each other's weddings and hold each other up above the rule of law.
Pundits like Mr. Buchanan (especially when writing about international affairs) are
Beltloops who help to keep the bleating within acceptable channels. Read this column again,
and note every "we/us/our" that references Washington. Is pronoun propaganda like that as
prevalent in Russia or, for that matter, anywhere else outside "USA!"?
@KenH
Putin is like a battered wife who keeps making excuses for the abuser. Putin's great at going
through the motions with military parades and boasts about new weapons systems then turns the
other cheek and endlessly whines about violations of international law after every deliberate
provocation.
I'm beginning to think Putin is the wrong man to lead Russia because his policy of
deference, good will and steadfast refusal to retaliate in the face of endless insults and
acts of aggression by (((America))) and Israel is making matters worse, not better, for
Russia. I don't know what more he needs to prove that America is only playing him for a fool,
doesn't respect him and is only teasing him with the prospect of a partnership so he remains
tentative.
It's one thing to exercise restraint but it's quite another to be so suicidal in your
delusions of eventual Western acceptance that it's irreparably harming Russian interests.
There needs to be a countervailing power to check Zio-American-Israeli aggression but
Putin is not up to the task. I never thought I'd wax nostalgic for the old Soviet Union, but
here I am. So Putin must react to every provocation, immediately.
No.
He should wait and accept the provocations, just as he has, and at the same time plan his own
provocations.
If you're the prey in a relationship, you react to stimulus. If you're the predator, you
create the stimulus. Better to be the predator.
The MSM should be ignored since they will blame Putin, no matter what. And, what difference
does that make in Russia.
@Sir
Launcelot Canning It appears that Putin is impotent to stand up to the Brussels -
Washington D.C. - Jerusalem - Berlin Axis of Evil. Could that be construed as evidence that
the Axis is such a formidable iron fortress that even a tough guy like Putin can't put a dent
in it?
If Russia and China don't collaborate soon, then the Axis will have complete, heavy handed
global domination, replete with policies and infrastructure to make certain it is perpetually
unchallenged.
Seems to me that I read something about this in the Bible.
It appears that Putin is impotent to stand up to the Brussels – Washington D.C.
– Jerusalem – Berlin Axis of Evil. Could that be construed as evidence that the
Axis is such a formidable iron fortress that even a tough guy like Putin can't put a dent
in it?
Appearances can be deceiving.
Remember the Wizard of Oz was just a flim flam man behind a curtain.
Axis control is actually in London. Has been for several hundred years.
No, Russia and Russians have not given up on USA and perhaps never will. Don't underestimate
American soft power – the power of McDonalds, Hollywood, music, fashion, Ivy League
prestige, etc. 90% of East Europeans will give an arm and a leg to get to America and so will
perhaps 30% of Russians. Remember, they dismantled a world power state that they had
primarily to become a part of the "West", to be like America and Americans. Where do their
rich send their sons and daughters to study? Where do they stash their wealth? What language
do they wish to learn and acquire? And when they accomplish something, whether a sports medal
or a new scientific breakthrough or a new weapon, whose respect and admiration do they
desperately seek? Read their media (RT and Sputnik) carefully and you will find plenty of
desperation there, from silly chest-thumping to get Western attention to well-argued pleas
for friendship. Their whole media is full of "Look Ma, we can do it too, just like the
Yanks".
And don't underestimate American hard power as well. Behind Putin's perpetual references
to "Our American partners, our Western partners" lies a realistic understanding of military
realities. His fans may talk of his strategic geopolitical skills, the skills of a chess
grandmaster. The man himself never boasts as the complicated and powerful American
geopolitical maneuvers keep the man perpetually puzzled. The man may be clever, but he is
heading an economically and politically weak state. Yes, Russian nationalism is very much
alive; so is Russia's desire to be a part of the West, even as a junior partner.
The US policy towards Russia can be summed up by paraphrasing that famous line from Cool Hand
Luke: What we have here is failure to capitulate. US thought that Russia is going to stay
down. It took them what – less than 10 years under that buffoon Yeltsin to realize with
whom they are dealing in the west and that it's time to get up and fight again.
It cracks me up when they say that the cold war was about the clash of ideologies. Maybe
communism can still qualify as an ideology, but how does creatively ripping off someone out
of their money qualify as an "ideology"?
There is always going to be a rivalry between US and Russia – regardless of the
"ideologies". It never was about communism, it was about eliminating competition and then
inventing a new one – China, because they just didn't see it coming. That's how
clueless they are. They though that China is going to be just a giant Sri Lanka –
source of cheap labor, a sweat shop for the smart folks in the west. Because, let's face it
– who has ever gotten rich by labor alone – right?
@Sir
Launcelot Canning And you know all of this how? Maybe because you wish it were so? You
sound so sure of yourself, you must live in downtown Moscow. And I play short stop for the
White Sox. Nope, I don't know the future, but I do know present reality and facts. Russia's
GDP is 6.78% America's – check it out for yourself. Eastern Europeans line-up, hats in
hand, to get immigration to the US – check out the US immigration statistics. Russia
desire to be "partners" with the west is right out of Putin and Lavrov speeches, not my
imagination. Check out their speeches on RT and Sputnik, which are Russian media BTW.
Putin may be a clever fellow, but he is leading a very weak state. And it shows in several
ways. In his perpetual dithering; in his constant pleas and entreaties to the west to please
show us some respect and kindness; and in his desperate boasts about non-existent
weapons.
American policy, especially now under Trump, is diabolically clever and powerful in a
Machiavellian way. Trump is tightening his grip over both China and Russia – and
winning IMHO. See China caving in under sanctions? If you don't, you need to read the news a
little more carefully. Analyze the items and tariff rates that the two sides have imposed on
each other, they tell their own story.
Should we like the way the world is heading? Of course not. Should we support one side or
the other? Of course not. They are all a bunch of power-mad, ruthless tyrants and other
things besides, which I hesitate to say out of a sense of politeness. Should we think more,
research more, and analyze more? Of course, we must. The last flicker of hope is that people
come to understand the world a little better and try to nudge it towards kinder, more ethical
and more moral directions. Now that is a pipe dream for you and me!
Right, ancient frontiers that go all the way back to the 17th century, or in some cases
(like Crimea or the Baltics ) the 18th. Russians are masters at getting foreign dupes to
believe the propaganda. China has ancient frontiers, Iran has ancient frontiers, even France
has ancient frontiers. Russia as a state is about two centuries older than the United States.
It is an upstart country masquerading as an ancient civilization. True.
Unfortunately, most of our present-day conflicts are a lot more transparent to people with a
minimum of historical knowledge, and, equally unfortunately, even that minimum is sorrowfully
rare.
The letter from the Democrats on the Gang of 8 to Coats, Rosenstein and Wray is
something. Asking them to be insubordinate by refusing the order of the President to
release unredacted documents & communications. What were the verbal assurances these
apparatchiks gave the Democrats? Did they agree to withhold information from their boss?
As Col. Lang has stated numerous times the President is the ultimate classification
authority except for atomic secrets. Coats, Rosenstein & Wray I'm sure know that. If
they disagree with his declassification order they can always resign. Insubordination is
a fireable offense.
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
A new article from the Wall Street
Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian
casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion
dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have
been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst
humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees
scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has
placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are
now eating
leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel
once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King
Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot
operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from
the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to
override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war
plutocrats.
If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this
administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for
days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for
days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.
It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to
hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on
this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the
stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which
end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian
government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at
the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope
of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And
they won't.
The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by
a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and
Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget
since the
height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential
damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal
parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does
not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the
reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them
know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump
because, as Julian Assange once said , they are
Trump.
In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community
which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one
another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell
it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him
into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream
parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give
the illusion of competition.
In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give
their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote
for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of
a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that
government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to
care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video
game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.
The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start
waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them
the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace
whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride
toward war, ecocide and oppression.
If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie
factory, we can wake
the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big
enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
Reprinted with author's permission from
Medium.com .
Journalist Sara Carter told Sean Hannity during his Wednesday radio show that the FBI has
two sets of records in the Russia investigation, and that "certain people above Peter Strzok
and above Lisa Page" were aware of it - implicating former FBI Director James Comey and his #2,
Andrew McCabe.
Hannity : Sara, I'm hearing it gets worse than this–that there is potentially out
there–if you will, two sets of record among the upper echelon of the FBI–one that
was real one that was made for appearances . Is there any truth to this?
Carter : Absolutely, Sean . With the number of sources that I have been speaking with as
well as some others that there is evidence indicating that the FBI had separate sets of
books.
I will not name names until all of the evidence is out there, but there were certain
people above Peter Strzok and above Lisa Page that were aware of this . I also believe that
there are people within the FBI that have actually turned on their former employers and are
possibly even testifying and reporting what happened inside the FBI to both the Inspector
General and possibly even a Grand Jury.
First, let me say I voted for Trump as a "Disrupter" and to that end he has exceeded
expectations.
The book starts out great through the first 5 or 6 chapters, but then becomes a bit
convoluted. The bottom line of the book and reality is that Trump is surrounded by apprentice
scoundrels, and that he is the boss scoundrel.
He demands loyalty but gives none. As a Former Marine I would not follow him into battle;
I would never have the opportunity because he and his sons would never go into harm's
way.
The best of the book was the hinted forthcoming bombshells, that never exploded. Woodward
dropped the ball on this one, and as an author myself, it's nice to see even the big boys,
Simon & Schuster, have editing issues.
"... I still love the theater though. The meaningless political theater that last occurred when Clinton was President. What's most amusing this time is that it's only the hyper-partisans (many of whom are not self-aware enough to realize it) who identify (again, consciously or subconsciously) that even care. The rest of us simply get to see each party's idiotic followers on the "left" and the "right" get sucked into the media's chosen narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the bombings and interventions can continue, Gitmo can remain open (btw, anyone else notice that unlike hurricanes that hit the mainland, nobody ever cares whether Gitmo will be evacuated?), the massive bank bailout can be relegated deeper and deeper into the memory hole and the two parties (including Trump's cabinet) continue to grow closer and closer together where the subjects of domestic surveillance and neocon warmongering are concerned. ..."
"... I love it. I laugh openly at anyone who mentions Russia to me from either angle. "No collusion!" is as entertaining as "Putin got Trump elected!" - Idiots. ..."
"... i do believe the proxy wars are really all about this same salient fact - the usa and us$ can not be challenged.. any challenge will be met with war, covert, or overt.. ..."
The whole nonsense about Russian interference, which was obviously nonsense from Day One
and has never, for a moment looked like anything but nonsense, seems to indicate that we
have entered a post political era in which policy discussions and debates are forgotten and
smears and false accusations take their place.
Currently in the US the Kavanaugh nomination which ought to be about the meaning of the law
and the consequences of having a Supreme Court which will make Judge Taney look like
Solomon at his most impressive. Instead it is about an alleged teenage incident in which
the nominee is said to have caressed a girls breasts at a drunken party when all involved
were at High School. Before that we had a Senatorial election in Alabama in which the
Republican candidate was charged with having shown a sexual interest in teenage girls-
whether this was a 'first' in Alabama is unknown but it is believed to have happened
elsewhere, in the unenlightened past.
Then we have the matter of whether Jeremy Corbyn is such a danger to Jews that they will
all leave the country if he is ever elected to power. This long campaign, completely devoid
of evidence, like 'Russiagate' has the potential of going on forever, simply because there
being no evidence it cannot be refuted.
Which is also the case with the Skripal affair, because of which even as we speak, massive
trade and financial sanctions are being imposed against Russia and its enormous, innocent
and plundered population.
In none of these cases has any real evidence, of the minimal quality that might justify the
hanging of a dog, ever advanced. But that doesn't matter, the important thing is to choose
a side and if it is Hillary Clinton's to believe or to pretend to believe and to convince
others to believe (as Marcy at Emptywheel has been doing for close to three years now) in
the incredible.
Who says that we no longer live in a Christian society in which faith is everything?
I wonder how many time i will see this, See everyone using the meme they want you to use,
For example 'Election collusion' or 'Russian collusion' Etc.
A huge smoke screen allowing the main fleet to escape. The tide of votes going as it did
sure did bring out the liars. From the first moment that the results showed that the huge
behemoth of their interference blew flat and failed, they went all out to cast the loss as
some sort of interference from what ever source, Fact is the entire process is constantly
under attack from within by forces that it's ends in their sights and the loss of control
of that process forced them into damage control, Today we are seeing the lofty heights they
will stack the dung up to direct your attentions away from the FIRST and real interference
in the election process.
Well folks say the Hillary creature as she is, What she was a token place marker for,
The forces looting North America, The forces driving the 'Order out of Chaos' operation.
This operation has been a monkey on the backs of the public outside the halls of modern
powers and their use.
The process, even a rigged process FAILED. What ever the dirt they have on the eventual
choice you made about your course, they will not allow you to subvert their plans even if
you all come together and move the levers of power, I saw the photo that soon came out of
Trump rather depressed looking, You say that photo, You knew exactly what it meant, From
that picture to today everythng is back on THEIR track not YOURS.
The entire process is under their control as long as the many remain in their comfy
places built for them. Fix is a dangerous and frightening path for a very good reason. The
eventual outcome of their process is going to be a very hard place to live. Overcoming
their control and domination is not going to be allowed, History is coming for the evil of
this world and the fix is going to be a very devastating event.
When you have so many heads following your evil ways, It's hard not to have the response
to evil fall on your actions and deal with your ways.
We live in a very interesting times. If you thought 9/11 was bad... You ain't seen
nothing yet.
If you substitute "witches" or "the bogeyman" for "Russia" in most US and European news
articles, you get a better sense for how ridiculous and unfounded they are. But as we
witnessed in Salem, it's not hard to get mass hysteria going with a complete lack of
evidence.
Once people are on the "Trump is a Russian tool" bandwagon it's extremely hard to get
them off, as the absence of evidence is harder to prove--while people find the repeated
assertion of imaginary evidence entirely convincing.
@karlof1 #6: The narrative that has been promoted grows thinner all the time, with the
emphasis switching from collusion to corruption and with that fading in the news on to his
being deranged. Now we have resistance from Rosenstein to the House Investigative Committee
and Trump to release the classified memos showing the shenanigans of Strzok, Comey, et al,
plus emerging voices from inside. I do believe the collusion narrative is withering; more
important "deplorables" don't give a damn anyway.
Well, it's a proven fact that millions of recycled US taxpayer's dollars were used by
Zionists to influence the 2016 and most every previous election going back to 1968, if not
further. Massive documentation of collusion exists between Zionists and US politicos at all
levels of government. Furthermore, there's much publicly available evidence sufficient to
indict and convict Hillary Clinton of numerous felonies along with several high officials
within the DNC for election interference. Why not rant and rail against these very easily
proven crimes?!
Obviously. I still love the theater though. The meaningless political theater that last
occurred when Clinton was President. What's most amusing this time is that it's only the
hyper-partisans (many of whom are not self-aware enough to realize it) who identify (again,
consciously or subconsciously) that even care. The rest of us simply get to see each party's
idiotic followers on the "left" and the "right" get sucked into the media's chosen
narrative.
Meanwhile, the bombings and interventions can continue, Gitmo can remain open (btw,
anyone else notice that unlike hurricanes that hit the mainland, nobody ever cares whether
Gitmo will be evacuated?), the massive bank bailout can be relegated deeper and deeper into
the memory hole and the two parties (including Trump's cabinet) continue to grow closer and
closer together where the subjects of domestic surveillance and neocon warmongering are
concerned. We'll never see the PATRIOT ACT re-debated and the military budget will
increase beyond all imagination while the hand wringing about "deficit spending" on the right
stops so long as there's an "R" after the name of whomever sits in the White House.
I love it. I laugh openly at anyone who mentions Russia to me from either angle. "No
collusion!" is as entertaining as "Putin got Trump elected!" - Idiots.
@11 karlof1.. that also gets me... if one is looking for corruption in the political class,
it is not hard to find! why start and stop only with russia? i think the answer is fairly
obvious.. there has been an ongoing attempt to maintain the unipolar world with us$ and
russia and china potentially interfere with this ongoing status... thus we are back to
psychohistorians ongoing issue over finances - private verses public, and what we wish to see
as a world hopefully moving forward here..
i do believe the proxy wars are really all about this same salient fact - the usa and
us$ can not be challenged.. any challenge will be met with war, covert, or overt..
A brand new ice-strengthened containership is heading straight into the annals of
maritime history. As the first containership ever Venta Maersk is on its way through the
still ice-plagued North East passage north of Russia from Asia to Europe.
Venta Maersk belongs to Seago Line, a shipping company owned by Denmark's A.P. Moller
Maersk A/S, the world's largest container-shipping agency
The first stop in Europe, in Bremerhaven, Germany, is expected to take place in late
September before Venta Maersk continues to St Petersburg, Russia.
Venta Maersk is one of seven ice-strengthened containerships that Maersk is currently
having built in China.
The ships are 200 metres long, 35.2 metres wide and capable of shipping 3,600
containers, six metres long, through one metre of ice. ..
"... As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to our Colonial Overlord, Israel. ..."
There is an ongoing coup against not only Trump, but the entire nation, as this video by
"Project Veritas" proves. This State Department subversive claims to be a Democratic
Socialist, which are just Antifa terrorists in suits. Antifa was too radical for SANE
Americans so they re-branded their putrid form of Communism to call it DSA. They're traitors
& saboteurs and should be treated as such .
As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her
rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the
right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so
look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to
our Colonial Overlord, Israel.
Many Americans labor under the delusion that we're an independent democratic republic,
with a USG that honors the cherished Constitution and serves We the People. But that is a
fiction, created by a motley assortment of gangsters, think tanks, the MSM and their mighty
Wurlitzer organ, Hollywood.
The USA is under Israeli occupation, with our American neoCON & Zionist Jew Overseers
still cracking that whip on our backs, but a digital one, not leather. The NWO Plantation
owner is Israel, aided and abetted by the money power of those Rothschild central banks, like
the FED, which is the biggest counterfeiting outfit on the planet. The only way to fix this sordid mess would be a repeat of what happened back in 1776. Either
that, or resign ourselves–and offspring–to a life of misery, poverty, endless
wars and terror .
That's a bold statement but cancerous growth is typical of any intelligence agency, especially CIA: all of them want more and more
budget money and try to influence both domestic and foreign policy. That's signs of cancel.
FBI actually has dual mandate: suppressing political dissent (STASI functions) and fight with criminals and organized crime.
The fact the President does not control his own administration, especially State Department isclearly visible now. He is more like
a ceremonial figura that is allowed to rant on Twitter, but can't change any thing of substance in forign policy. and Is a typucal Repiblican
in domenstic policy, betraying the electorate like Obama did
Notable quotes:
"... Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based bureaucratic bias and corruption. ..."
Shifting from Sessions to the much-maligned FBI, Trump said the agency was "a cancer" and that uncovering deep-seated corruption
in the FBI may be remembered as the "crowning achievement" of his administration, per
the Hill .
"What we've done is a great service to the country, really," Trump said in a 45-minute, wide-ranging interview in the Oval
Office.
"I hope to be able put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to ... expose something that is truly a cancer
in our country."
Moreover, Trump insisted that he never trusted former FBI Director James Comey, and that he had initially planned to fire Comey
shortly after the inauguration, but had been talked out of it by his aides.
Trump also said he regretted not firing former FBI Director James Comey immediately instead of waiting until May 2017, confirming
an account his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, gave Hill.TV earlier in the day that Trump was dismayed in 2016 by the way Comey handled
the Hillary Clinton email case and began discussing firing him well before he became president.
"If I did one mistake with Comey, I should have fired him before I got here. I should have fired him the day I won the primaries,"
Trump said. "I should have fired him right after the convention, say I don't want that guy. Or at least fired him the first day
on the job. ... I would have been better off firing him or putting out a statement that I don't want him there when I get there."
The FISA Court judges who approved the initial requests allowing the FBI to surveil employees of the Trump Campaign also came
in for some criticism, with Trump claiming they used "poor Carter Page, who nobody even knew, and who I feel very badly for...as
a foil...to surveil a candidate or the presidency of the United States." Trump added that he felt the judges had been "misled" by
the FBI.
He criticizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court's approval of the warrant that authorized surveillance
of Carter Page, a low-level Trump campaign aide, toward the end of the 2016 election, suggesting the FBI misled the court.
"They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used Carter
Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he's been treated very badly. They used Carter Page as a foil in
order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States."
As for the judges on the secret intelligence court: "It looks to me just based on your reporting, that they have been misled,"
the president said, citing a series of columns in The Hill newspaper identifying shortcomings in the FBI investigation. "I mean
I don't think we have to go much further than to say that they've been misled."
"One of the things I'm disappointed in is that the judges in FISA didn't, don't seem to have done anything about it. I'm very
disappointed in that Now, I may be wrong because, maybe as we sit here and talk, maybe they're well into it. We just don't know
that because I purposely have not chosen to get involved," Trump said.
Trump continued the assault on Sessions during a brief conference with reporters Wednesday morning. When asked whether he was
planning to fire Sessions, Trump replied that "we're looking into lots of different things."
To be sure, Sessions has managed to hang on thus far. And if he can somehow manage to survive past Nov. 6, his fate will perversely
rest on the Democrats' success. Basically, if they wrest back control of the Senate (which, to be sure, is unlikely), Sessions chances
of staying on would rise dramatically. But then again, how much abuse can a man realistically endure before he decides that the costs
of staying outweigh the benefits of leaving?
DingleBarryObummer , 19 minutes ago
Sessions works for Trump, because Trump is running the uniparty russia-gate stormy-gate anti-trump show. Sessions was intentionally
placed there to stonewall and make sure the kabuki goes on. Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. This **** garners sympathy for him
as the persecuted underdog, rallies his base; and distracts from the obvious zio-bankster influence over his admin and his many
unfulfilled campaign promises. He's deceiving you. Why do you think Giuliani acts like such a buffoon? It's because that's what
he was hired for. All distractions and bullshit. He will not get impeached, Hillary is not going to jail, nothing will happen.
The zio-Banksters will continue to stay at the top of the pyramid, because that's who trump works for, NOT you and me.
"While Trump's fascination with the White House still burned within him [re: 2011], he also had The Apprentice to deal with--and
it wasn't as easy as you might think. He loved doing the show and was reluctant to give it up. At one point, he was actually thinking
of hosting it from the oval office if he made it all the way to the White House. He even discussed it with Stephen Burke, the
CEO at NBCUniversal, telling Burke he would reconsider running if the network was concerned about his candidacy." -Roger Stone
"To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems evil, asocial, a relic of the past.
They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people,
for while they express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power. They utilize strategies
that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These types, for example, will often display their weakness and
lack of power as a kind of moral virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its
weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a very effective strategy, subtle and deceptive,
in the game of power." -Robert Greene
Sparkey , 31 minutes ago
This is why the 'little' people love President 'The Donald' Trump, he says the things they would like to say, but have no platform
to speak from, Mushroom man The Donald has no fear he has got Mushroom power, and he has my support in what ever he does!
Secret Weapon , 43 minutes ago
Is Sessions a Deep State firewall? Starting to look that way.
TrustbutVerify , 48 minutes ago
Sessions recused himself from the "Russia Collusion" investigation. Now that it is known to have been an extension of Democratic
election rigging, and DC bureaucratic "Resistance," he could be initiate a broad sweep investigation into Washington, DC based
bureaucratic bias and corruption.
I suspect Sessions will last until after the mid-term elections. Then Trump will fire him and bring someone like Gowdy in to
head the DOJ and to bring about investigations.
And, my gosh, there seems to be so much to investigate. And to my mind prosecute.
loop, 49 minutes ago
"I've never seen a President - I don't care who he is - stand up to them (Israel). It just boggles the mind. They always
get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down.
If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.
Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on."
- U.S. Navy Admiral and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Thomas Moorer
mendigo, 59 minutes ago
Cool stuff. But really the cancer goes much deeper. That is the scary part. Trump is now largely controlled by the Borg.
Government employees and elected officials have a choice: can either play along and become wealthy and powerful or have
their careers destroyed, or worse.
Haaretz via Antiwar.com:
Israel's defense chief calls for probe into identity of top official embroiled in Manafort
case
Special counsel Robert Mueller's office tells Haaretz that it cannot reveal more details
regarding individuals who were not accused in the case
Noa Landau, Amir Tibon | Sep. 17, 2018 | 2:45 AM
The document alleges that a senior Israeli government official conspired with Manafort
in 2012 to defame then-Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko by accusing her of
maintaining ties with anti-Semitic groups. Manafort said that, as a result, American Jews
would pressure the Obama administration not to support Yulia Tymoshenko, whose opponent was a
client of Manafort's, the indictment says .
"... Since when have these "Guardians of Our Republic" ever been against the release of more information from our government? Obviously, only when such release might put a dent in the Russia cloud that they have deliberately perpetuated regardless of the drip, drip, drip of evidence implicating high-ranking FBI, CIA and Justice officials in wrongdoing. ..."
"... The actions of former Secretary of State John Kerry in meeting with Iranian ministers -- a country with which we have no diplomatic relations -- are 100 times more troubling, as he is actively undermining the policy of the current administration. ..."
"... So, two years, a trail of ruined lives, shredded constitutional protections, an administration under a cloud, and no collusion. All that's really been uncovered is a single meeting with a Russian lawyer who actually dined the night before and after the Trump Tower meeting with Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS, who testified he didn't speak to her about it, even though she was his client. ..."
"... It's time for the shroud of secrecy around this investigation to be lifted, for everything to be put in public view. The Justice Department -- and even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has brazenly defied congressional subpoenas -- must comply with these very lawful and appropriate orders without delay. It also is time for the media to give full, fair coverage to any and all revelations that come out of these documents, regardless of who it hurts or helps. ..."
"... President Barack Obama once famously said that "elections have consequences," and he was right. But those consequences can't be the weaponization of our intelligence assets and the setting-off of investigations to bring down a newly elected government we don't like. Policy changes should be the consequence. ..."
"... Remember, the ends don't justify the means. It is the means that justify the ends. ..."
Democrats are squawking about President Trump's order to release the material used by the
FBI and the Justice Department to initiate the investigation of his campaign. These minority
committee chairs, soon likely to be in the majority, claim it's unfair, an abuse of power,
one-sided.
Since when have these "Guardians of Our Republic" ever been against the release of more
information from our government? Obviously, only when such release might put a dent in the
Russia cloud that they have deliberately perpetuated regardless of the drip, drip, drip of
evidence implicating high-ranking FBI, CIA and Justice officials in wrongdoing.
This investigation of the Trump campaign, his administration, family and associates has gone
on for more than two years without any serious evidence supporting the Russia-Trump collusion
theory. And, increasingly, it looks like there never was any real evidence to support the
launching of the largest investigation of an administration in history. It's the only known
investigation ever by an outgoing party of the incoming officials of the other party. It was
whipped up by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, former British spy Christopher Steele and
partisans in the Obama administration, creating a vast echo chamber with information that was
never substantiated in any material way and, on the face of it, was preposterous. (No one ever
offered Trump campaign adviser Carter Page $19 billion for anything.)
Now, before Americans go to vote, is precisely the time to unmask publicly this information;
if it favors the current administration, then the originators of the investigation will have
even more explaining to do. Information that was used to start an investigation can't possibly
be exculpatory unless, in the light of day, it appears forced, false or incomplete. After all,
it was used to convince judges that crimes were being committed by Trump and his
associates.
Based on what we see in the prosecutions, there appears to have been three tranches of
allegations behind the investigations -- the "tip" from Australian diplomat Alexander Downer
that George Papadopoulos had some generalized advance information about email hacking, the
Christopher Steele dossier, and the then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates investigation of
Gen. Michael Flynn for potential Logan Act violations. The Mueller probe systematically pursued
all of them to the prosecutorial limits, until every witness was bludgeoned into
cooperation.
The Papadopoulos case yielded tremendous speculation but no collusion -- just a rather
pointless prosecution against him, resolved with 14 days in jail. The best they got from the
former Trump campaign adviser was a nod at a meeting that maybe Trump should meet Vladimir
Putin. It remains unclear whether FBI plants were sent to entrap him, and others, but that may
come out in these documents.
The famous dossier pointed fingers at Page, Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen and
onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort as the collusion masterminds. Page was extensively
spied upon, apparently to no avail. Cohen did not take the fabled trips to Prague or anywhere
else and, yet, his financial life was investigated anyway and he became a victim of the Mueller
probe. He is now part of a Stormy Daniels insurance policy if the main investigation fails to
take down the president.
Manafort quite rightly sought a plea deal after losing part of the first trial, and he
admitted he did not pay taxes or file lobbying reports, but none of the charges against him
include collusion with Russians. I would not hold my breath for any bombshell revelations from
him. He could add more color to a Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer, but that meeting
was not a crime.
Gen. Flynn is set to be sentenced and it's unlikely he will get even 14 days, given his
record of service to the nation. He was deliberately targeted by Yates, an outgoing Obama
official, who intercepted legitimate transition calls with the Russian ambassador and
dispatched the FBI to question Flynn about those, even though she already had a transcript
showing they were benign. The actions of former Secretary of State John Kerry in meeting with
Iranian ministers -- a country with which we have no diplomatic relations -- are 100 times more
troubling, as he is actively undermining the policy of the current administration.
Then there is Roger Stone. He may have texted with one of the hackers of Clinton campaign
emails, but he rejected operatives' efforts to get him to pay for Hillary dirt. Here, Mueller
is having less luck trying the same playbook used on others, of finding something in his
personal or business life to deploy as leverage against him.
Investigating people in this manner is so completely un-American that Congress should pass
legislation to prohibit it in the future, especially when there are political considerations.
We investigate crimes, not people. Here, people were named and then investigated until crimes
of any kind were found.
So, two years, a trail of ruined lives, shredded constitutional protections, an
administration under a cloud, and no collusion. All that's really been uncovered is a single
meeting with a Russian lawyer who actually dined the night before and after the Trump Tower
meeting with Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS, who testified he didn't speak to her about it, even
though she was his client.
It's time for the shroud of secrecy around this investigation to be lifted, for everything
to be put in public view. The Justice Department -- and even Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein, who has brazenly defied congressional subpoenas -- must comply with these very
lawful and appropriate orders without delay. It also is time for the media to give full, fair
coverage to any and all revelations that come out of these documents, regardless of who it
hurts or helps.
President Barack Obama once famously said that "elections have consequences," and he was
right. But those consequences can't be the weaponization of our intelligence assets and the
setting-off of investigations to bring down a newly elected government we don't like. Policy
changes should be the consequence.
We have elections every two years, and that's the right route for Americans to express their
frustrations. Investigations, especially without probable cause, are most often the wrong way
-- and maybe this additional sunlight on what was done here will bring us together around
needed reforms to prevent this from ever happening again.
Remember, the ends don't justify the
means. It is the means that justify the ends.
Mark Penn is a managing partner of the Stagwell Group, a private equity firm
specializing in marketing services companies, as well as chairman of the Harris Poll and author
of "Microtrends Squared." He served as pollster and adviser to President Clinton from 1995 to
2000, including during Clinton's impeachment. You can follow him on Twitter
@Mark_Penn.
What the Putin-Erdogan DMZ decision means is that the 50,000 Turkish troops who now are
occupying Idlib province of Syria will take control over that land, and will thus have the
responsibility over the largest concentration of jihadists anywhere on the planet: Idlib. It
contains the surviving Syrian Al Qaeda and ISIS fighters, including all of the ones throughout
Syria who surrendered to the Syrian Army rather than be shot dead on the spot by Government
forces.
For its part, the U.S. Government, backed by its allies and supported in this by high
officials of the United Nations, had repeatedly threatened that if there occurs any
chemical-weapons attack, or even any claimed chemical-weapons attack, inside Idlib, the U.S.
and its allies will instantaneously blame the Syrian Government and bomb Syria, and will shoot
down the planes of Syria and of Russia that oppose this bombing-campaign to conquer or
'liberate' Syria from its Government. The U.S. has announced its determination to protect what
one high U.S. official -- who is endorsing what Trump is doing there -- "the
largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11." He admits it, but he wants to protect them from
being bombed by Syria and by Russia.
During recent weeks, the U.S. military has increasingly said that even if the jihadists
they've been assisting to assemble the materials for a chemical-weapons attack fail to carry it
out or to stage one, any attempt by Syrian and Russian forces to destroy the jihadists (which
the U.S. side calls 'rebels') in Idlib will be met with overwhelming U.S.-and-allied firepower.
That would spark WW III, because whichever side -- Russia or U.S. -- loses in the Syrian
battlefield will nuclear-blitz-attack the other side so as to have the lesser damage from the
nuclear war and thus (in military terms) 'win' WW III, because the blitz-attack will destroy
many of the opposite side's retaliatory weapons. In a nuclear war, the first side to attack
will have a considerable advantage -- reducing the number of weapons the other side can
launch.
If, on the other hand, the DMZ-plan works, then Turkey's forces will be responsible for
vetting any of Idlib's residents who try to leave, in order to prohibit jihadists and their
supporters from leaving. Once that task (filtering out the non-dangerous inhabitants and
retaining in Idlib only the jihadists and their supporters) is done, the entire world might be
consulted on whether to exterminate the remaining residents or to set them free to return to
the countries from which they came or to other countries. Presumably, no country would want
those 'refugees'. That would answer the question.
America's Arab allies, the oil monarchies such as the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia and the
Thanis who own Qatar, and which have funded Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, would then be
put on a spot, because if they say "Exterminate them!" then their clergy who have provided the
moral imprimatur upon those families' ownership of those nations, will either be in rebellion
or else will themselves become overthrown either by their own followers or else by their
monarch -- overthrown from below or from above.
Alternatively, after Turkey's forces in Idlib will have allowed release from Idlib of all
who will be allowed out, Syria's and Russia's bombers will simply go in and slaughter the
then-surrounded jihadists and take upon themselves the responsibility for that, regardless of
what the leaders of the U.S. and its allied governments might say.
On the night of September 17th in Syria, there were missile-attacks "from the sea" against
several Syrian cities; and those attacks could have come from either Israel's or America's
ships, or from other U.S.-allied ships. Russian Television bannered, "Russian plane disappears from
radars during Israeli attack on Syria's Latakia – MoD" and reported:
A Russian military Il-20 aircraft with 14 service members on board went off the radars
during an attack by four Israeli jets on Syria's Latakia province, the Russian Defense Ministry
said. Air traffic controllers at the Khmeimim Air Base "lost contact" with the aircraft on
Wednesday evening, during the attack of Israeli F-16 fighters on Latakia, said the MOD.Russian
radars also registered the launch of missiles from a French frigate in the Mediterranean on the
evening of September 17. The attack on Latakia came just hours after Russia and Turkey negotiated a partial
demilitarization of the Idlib province
If the missiles were authorized by President Trump, then WW III has already begun in its
pre-nuclear stage. However, if the attacks were launched by Israel's Netanyahu, and/or by
France's Macron, without U.S. authorization, then the U.S. President might respond to them by
siding against that aggressor(s) (and also against what he used to call "Radical Islamic
Terrorists"), so as to prevent a nuclear war.
Late on September 17th, Al Masdar News bannered "NATO
warships move towards Syrian coast" and reported "The NATO flotilla cruising off the Syrian
coast reportedly consists of a Dutch frigate, the De Ruyter, a Canadian frigate, the Ville de
Quebec, and a Greek cruiser, the Elli." Al Qaeda and ISIS have influential protectors.
Ultimately, the decision will be U.S. President Trump's as to whether he is willing to
subject the planet to WW III and to its following nuclear winter and consequent die-off of
agriculture and of everyone, in order to 'win' a nuclear war, such as America's aristocracy has
especially championed since the year 2006. The nuclear-victory concept is called
"Nuclear Primacy" -- the use of nuclear weapons so as to win a nuclear war against Russia,
instead of to prevent a nuclear war. That concept's predecessor, the "Mutually Assured
Destruction" or "M.A.D." meta-strategy, predominated even in the U.S. until 2006. Trump will
have to decide whether the purpose of America's nuclear-weapons stockpiles is to prevent WW
III, or is to win WW III.
In Russia, the purpose has always been to have nuclear weapons in order to prevent WW III.
But America's President will be the person who will make the ultimate decision on this. And
Idlib might be the spark. Netanyahu or Macron might be wanting to drag the U.S. into war even
against Russia, but the final decision will be Trump's.
The propaganda mills of the British and American governments - spokespersons, media, think
tanks - are working overtime churning out 'talking points' to justify the upcoming large scale
bombing of Syria on the pretext of use of prohibited weapons.
Here is a guide from a former insider to the top dozen of these lies.
There are more babies than jihadis in Idlib . As it happens this gem of moral
blackmail is untrue. There are twice as many jihadis (about 100,000) as babies (0-1 year)
(55,000). What is this factoid meant to say anyway? Don't try to free an area of jihadis
because you might harm a lot of children? The Western coalition scarcely heeded that
consideration in razing Mosul and Raqqa in order to crush ISIS. They are still pulling babies
out of the rubble in Raqqa.
The reports [of the imminent chemical weapons 'attack'] must be truebecause Asad has
done it before. False. Since 2013 when Asad gave up chemical weapons under supervision
of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) the OPCW have not visited
the sites of alleged attacks in jihadi-controlled areas but have accepted at face value
'reports' from pro-jihadi organisations like the White Helmets and the Syrian American
Medical Society, along with 'evidence' from hostile intelligence agencies. In the case of the
one site the OPCW did visit, Douma, their report said they found no evidence of sarin, no
untoward traces in any of the blood samples taken from 'alleged victims' (their term), no
bodies and only ambiguous evidence of use of chlorine.
3. The OPCW report on Douma was flawed because the Russians andSyrians caused
delay . False. As documented in the OPCW report delay was caused by UN bureaucracy and
jihadi snipers. The inspectors do not say their findings were to any significant degree
invalidated by the delay.
Asad uses chemical weapons because they frighten large numbers of people into
fleeing . False. They don't. This desperate argument is trotted out to counter the fact
that Asad would have to be stupid to use chemical weapons knowing what the result would be
and that he would derive minimal military benefit. To date not one of the alleged chemical
attacks has precipitated an exodus any greater than flight caused by the legendary 'barrel
bombs'. The inhabitants of Douma by their own testimonies given to Western journalists were
even unaware there might have been an attack until they heard about it in the media.
The OPCW won't be able to investigate because it won't b e safe . A
feeble excuse to preempt calls for establishing facts before bombing. The Turks escort
Western journalists into Idlib. They have hundreds of troops there and the jihadis kowtow to
them because they control all logistics. The Turks could escort OPCW. And wouldn't the
jihadis be keener than anybody for the inspectors to visit if their claims were true?
The upcoming strikes are not aimed at regime change. False. The plan is to
decapitate the Syrian state with attacks on the presidency. Failing that the aim is to make
Idlib a quagmire for the Russians. Anything to deprive Asad and Putin of victory, regardless
of whether it prolongs the war.
It's all Russian disinformation . Yeah, like the arms inspectors before the Iraq
war who said no WMD in Iraq. Reality: the Russians have got great intelligence on what
Western powers with their jihadi clients are up to and are calling out the phoney moves.
There won't be enough time for parliamentary debate. Pull the other one.
Reality: the government are terrified of a rerun of 2013 when Labour and 30 brave Tory MPs
voted against bombing, causing Cameron and then Obama to back off.
MPs can't be told what is planned because it would j eopardise the safety of
service personnel. How low can you stoop? Feigning concern for flyers when it's really
just about keeping the people in ignorance of how big the strikes are going to be.
There are going to be massacres/a bloodbath/genocide. False. We heard all this
hysteria before Aleppo, before Eastern Ghouta and before the campaign in the South. All
vastly exaggerated. The Syrian Arab Army has not been responsible for a single massacre,
while the jihadis have been responsible for many (source: quarterly reports of the UN
Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria).
People have nowhere to go . False. The Russians have opened safe corridors but
the jihadis are not allowing people to leave. They can still leave for the northern border
strip which Turkey controls, where there are camps, and many (including jihadi fighters) will
be able to cross temporarily into Turkey.
We can't tell you which armed groups we support because it would make them targets
for Asad . Really? You think he doesn't know? Isn't it because you are terrified it will
come out that we have been supporting some real head-choppers?
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
-- The Empire Strikes Back
Since Vladimir Putin brought up Bill Browder's name in Helsinki, events have escalated to a
fever pitch. Russia is under extreme attack the U.S./European financial and political
establishment.
Danske's report on these allegations are due on Wednesday.
No matter what they say, however, the die has been cast.
Danske is being targeted for termination by the U.S. and possible takeover by the European
Central Bank.
There's precedent for this but let me lay out some background first.
The Oldest
Trick
Browder's complaint says the money laundered is in connection with the reason why he was
thrown out of Russia and the $230 million in stolen tax money which Browder's cause
célèbre , the death of accountant Sergei Magnitsky, hangs on.
That crusade got the Magnitsky Act passed not only in the U.S. but all across the West, with
versions on the books in Canada, Australia the EU and other places.
Danske's shares have been gutted in the wake of the accusation.
The U.S. is now investigating this complaint and that shouldn't come as much of a shock.
The Treasury Department can issue whatever findings it wants, and then respond by starving
Danske of dollars, known as the "Death Blow" option the threat of which was plastered
all over the pages of the Wall St. Journal on Friday.
Note this article isn't behind the Journal's pay-wall. They want everyone to see this.
Browder filed complaints both in Demmark and in Estonia, and the Estonian government was
only too happy to oblige him.
The Devil Played
To see the whole picture I have to go back a littler further.
Back in March, Latvian bank, ABLV, was targeted in a similar manner, accused of laundering
money. Within a week the ECB moved in to take control of the bank even though it wasn't in
danger of failing.
It was an odd move, where the ECB exercised an extreme response utilizing its broader powers
given to it after the 2008 financial crisis, like it did with Spain's Banco Popular in
2017.
Why? The U.S. was looking for ways to cut off Russia from the European banking system. And
the ECB did its dirty work.
I wrote about this
back in May in relation to the Treasury demanding all U.S. investors divest themselves of
Russian debt within thirty days.
It threw the ruble and Russian debt markets into turmoil since Russian companies bought a lot
of euro-denominated debt after the Ruble Crisis of 2014, having been shut off from dollars.
ABLV was a conduit for many Russian entities to keep access to Europe's banks, having been
grandfathered in as clients when the Baltics entered the Euro-zone.
So, now a replay of ABLV's seizure is playing out through Browder's money laundering
complaint against Danske.
Was Convincing Everyone
The goal of this lawsuit is two-fold.
The first is to undermine the faith in the Danish banking system. Dutch giant ING is also
facing huge AML fines.
This is a direct attack on the EU banking system to being it under even more stringent
government control.
The second goal, however, is far more important. As I said, the U.S. is desperate to cut
money flow between the European Union and Russia, not just to stop the construction of
Nordstream 2, but to keep Russia's markets weak having to scramble for euros to make coupon
payments and create a roll-over nightmare.
Turkey is facing this now, Russia went through it in 2014/15.
So, attacking a major bank like Danske for consorting with dirty Russians and using Mr.
Human Rights Champion Browder to file the complaint is pure power politics to keep the EU
itself from seeking rapprochement with Russia.
Anti-Money Laundering laws are tyrannical and vaguely worded. And with the Magnitsky Act and
its follow-up, CAATSA, in place, they help support defining money laundering to include
anything the U.S. and the EU deem as supporting 'human rights violations.'
Seeing the trap yet?
Now all of it can be linked through simple accusation regardless of the facts. The bank gets
gutted, investors and depositors get nervous, the ECB then steps in and there goes another
tendril between Russia and Europe doing business.
And that ties into Browder's minions in the European Parliament, all in the pay of Open
Society Foundation, issued a threat of invoking Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty to Cyprus over
assisting Russia investigate Browder's financial dealings there.
Why? Violations of Mr. Browder's human rights because, well, Russia!
What's becoming more obvious to me as the days pass is that Browder is an obvious asset of
the U.S. financial and political oligarchy, if not U.S. Intelligence. They use his humanitarian
bona fides to visit untold misery on millions of people simply to:
1) cover up their malfeasance in Russia
2) wage hybrid war on anyone willing to stand up to their machinations.
He Didn't Exist
Because when looking at this situation rationally, how does this guy get to run around
accusing banks of anything and mobilize governments into actions which have massive
ramifications for the global financial system unless he's intimately connected with the very
people that operate the top of that system?
How does this no-name guy in the mid-1990's, fresh 'off the boat' as it were, convince
someone to give him $25 million in CASH to go around Russia buying up privatization vouchers at
less than pennies on the dollar?
It simply doesn't pass a basic sniff test.
Danske is the biggest bank in Denmark and one of the oldest in Europe. The message should be
clear.
If they can be gotten to this way, anyone can.
Just looking at the list of people named in the Magnitsky Act, a list given to Congress by
Browder and copied verbatim without investigation, and CAATSA as being 'friends of Vladimir'
it's obvious that the target isn't Putin himself for his human rights transgressions but anyone
in Russia with enough capital to maintain a business bigger than a chain of laundromats in
Rostov-on-Don.
Honestly, even some in the U.S. financial press said it looked like they just went through
the Moscow phone book.
But, here the rub. In The Davos Crowd's single-minded drive to destroy Russia, which has
been going on now for close to two generations in various ways, they are willing to undermine
the very institutions on which a great deal of their power rests.
The more Browder gets defended by people punching far above his weight, the more obvious it
is that there is something wrong with his story. Undermining the reputation of the biggest bank
in Denmark is a 'playing-for-keeps' moment.
But, it's one that can and will have serious repercussions over time.
It undermines the validity of government institutions, exposing corruption that proves we
live in a world ruled by men, not laws. That the U.S. and EU are fundamentally no different in
their leadership than banana republics.
And that's bad for currency and debt markets as capital always flows to where it is treated
best.
But, it's one that can and will have serious repercussions over time. The seizure of ABLV
and 2017's liquidation of Spain's Banco Popular were rightly described by Martin Armstrong as
defining moments where no one in their right mind would invest in a European banks if there was
the possibility of losing all of your capital due to a change in the political winds
overnight.
Using the European Parliament to censure Cyprus via Article 7 over one man's financial
privacy, which no one is guaranteed in this world today thanks to these same AML and KYC laws,
reeks of cronyism and corruption of the highest degree.
If you want to know what a catalyst for the collapse of the European banking system looks
like, it may well be what happens this week if Danske tries to fight the spider's web laid down
by Bill Browder and his friends in high places.
To support more work like this and get access to exclusive commentary, stock picks and
analysis tailored to your needs join my more than 170 Patrons on Patreon and see if
I have what it takes to help you navigate a world going quickly mad.
hanekhw , 1 minute ago
Browder, the Clintons, Soros and the EU were made for each other weren't they? They've
been screwing us publicly for what, over two generations? And without a condom! We've gotten
how many FTDs (financially transmitted diseases) from these people? They never unzip their
flys.
geno-econ , 1 hour ago
According to Browder, Putin is worth over $100 Billion most of it stashed away in foreign
banks through intermediates and relatives. If true, it will bring down Putin and many western
banks. Perhaps a Red Swan is about to take off exposing an unsustainable .financial system
and corrupt political enterprise on both sides of the divide sur to cause chaos. Ironically,
Putin who represents Nationalism in Russia is under attack by Globalists accusing Putin of
Capitalistic Greed utilizing western banks Suicidal !
hanekhw , 16 minutes ago
Browder, the Clintons, Soros and the EU were made for each other weren't they? They've
been screwing us publicly for what, over two generations? And without a condom! We've gotten
how many FTDs (financially transmitted diseases) from these people? They never unzip their
flys.
zeroboris , 24 minutes ago
They use his humanitarian bona fides
Browder's bona fides? LOL
monad , 8 minutes ago
Minion (((Browder))) snitches on his masters. Nowhere to hide.
Vanilla_ISIS , 18 minutes ago
Someone should just kill this dude. Browder has certainly earned it.
roadhazard , 14 minutes ago
But what about the money laundering.
Panic Mode , 15 minutes ago
You better run. Your buddy McCain is gone and see who else will fight for you.
pndr4495 , 42 minutes ago
Somehow - Mnuchkin's desire to sell his Park Ave. apartment fits into this tale of
intrigue and bullshit.
markar , 47 minutes ago
Send this guy Browder a polonium cocktail. It's on me.
TahoeBilly2012 , 1 hour ago
((Browder)) ??
Clogheen , 37 minutes ago
Yes. Did you really need to ask?
geno-econ , 1 hour ago
According to Browder, Putin is worth over $100 Billion most of it stashed away in foreign
banks through intermediates and relatives. If true, it will bring down Putin and many western
banks. Perhaps a Red Swan is about to take off exposing an unsustainable .financial system
and corrupt political enterprise on both sides of the divide sur to cause chaos. Ironically,
Putin who represents Nationalism in Russia is under attack by Globalists accusing Putin of
Capitalistic Greed utilizing western banks Suicidal !
Max Cynical , 1 hour ago
I watch the banned documentary...The Magnitsky Act - Behind the Scenes.
Only the slimiest rats get into the club of "Can Do No Wrong" and these types of gigs.
Thaxter , 1 hour ago
This documentary is first class, a really absorbing look into the mind of the sociopath
Browder, a pathological, absolutely shameless liar and a very stupid and weak person. To
understand the influence that this insignificant invertebrate yields, look to his father,
Earl Russell Browder, who was the leader of the Communist Party in the United States during
the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.
blindfaith , 22 minutes ago
Look no further than our own political circus to see that mighty hands pull the strings.
Like all strings, they will fray and break...eventually.
Jim in MN , 1 hour ago
Yes well the Big Question for us now is the degree to which the President is in control of
any of this.
Recall, dear ZH fighters, how we worked out a sound strategy for the Trump Administration
in the early days. Key aspects were to leave the generals and the bankers alone for a couple
of years. This would allow immigration, trade, health care and deregulation including tax
reform to form the early core wins, along with Supreme Court nominees of course.
Lo, cometh the Deep State and its frantic attempts to both save and conceal itself.
One key tentacle was to rouse the intelligence community into an active enemy of the
POTUS. This partially fouled up the 'leave the generals alone' strategy.
Another is to try to force war with the emergent Eurasian hegemony comprised of China and
Russia. This is seen all across the 'hinterland' of Russia.
The USA has no vital strategic interests in Eurasia at this juncture of history. Everyone
should be clear on that.
The USA's logical and sane policy stance is to support peace, free and fair trade, and
stable democracy, including border controls and the rule of law through LEADING BY
EXAMPLE.
So for Trump to continue to allow the financial sector Deep State traitors to operate
against a peaceful Eurasia is becoming increasingly intolerable.
Where to from here?
BandGap , 1 hour ago
Keep opening it up to scrutiny.
This article opened my eyes, I did not fully understand why Russia was all over Browder
except the stealing aspect, but bigger yet, why he was being protected by the EU/US.
No wonder Putin wants to work with the Donno. Taking Browder out and exposing this
manipulation works for both sides.
LA_Goldbug , 40 minutes ago
If Browder is a surprise to you then look at Khodorkovsky (there is more of these types
from he came from).
Because when looking at this situation rationally, how does this guy get to run around
accusing banks of anything and mobilize governments into actions which have massive
ramifications for the global financial system unless he's intimately connected with the very
people that operate the top of that system?"
Exactly. He was sent by the Anglo-Zionist Tribe otherwise he would be a nobody.
JacquesdeMolay , 1 hour ago
Also, a very good book on the topic: "suppressed and banned by the CIA's supplier, Amazon,
The Grand Deception: The Browder Hoax is a highly intelligent, frank and entertaining
take-down of one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the US public and the world
– The Magnitsky Act. Krainer's study of Bill Browder's book and actions is a riveting,
unflinching expose of what might end up being pivotal in revealing one of this decade's big
hoaxes."
or, The Dirty Dozen: 12 lies they tell you to anaesthetise you for the upcoming bombing
of Syria
The propaganda mills of the British and American governments - spokespersons, media, think
tanks - are working overtime churning out 'talking points' to justify the upcoming large scale
bombing of Syria on the pretext of use of prohibited weapons.
Here is a guide from a former insider to the top dozen of these lies.
There are more babies than jihadis in Idlib . As it happens this gem of moral
blackmail is untrue. There are twice as many jihadis (about 100,000) as babies (0-1 year)
(55,000). What is this factoid meant to say anyway? Don't try to free an area of jihadis
because you might harm a lot of children? The Western coalition scarcely heeded that
consideration in razing Mosul and Raqqa in order to crush ISIS. They are still pulling babies
out of the rubble in Raqqa.
The reports [of the imminent chemical weapons 'attack'] must be truebecause Asad has
done it before. False. Since 2013 when Asad gave up chemical weapons under supervision
of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) the OPCW have not visited
the sites of alleged attacks in jihadi-controlled areas but have accepted at face value
'reports' from pro-jihadi organisations like the White Helmets and the Syrian American
Medical Society, along with 'evidence' from hostile intelligence agencies. In the case of the
one site the OPCW did visit, Douma, their report said they found no evidence of sarin, no
untoward traces in any of the blood samples taken from 'alleged victims' (their term), no
bodies and only ambiguous evidence of use of chlorine.
3. The OPCW report on Douma was flawed because the Russians andSyrians caused
delay . False. As documented in the OPCW report delay was caused by UN bureaucracy and
jihadi snipers. The inspectors do not say their findings were to any significant degree
invalidated by the delay.
Asad uses chemical weapons because they frighten large numbers of people into
fleeing . False. They don't. This desperate argument is trotted out to counter the fact
that Asad would have to be stupid to use chemical weapons knowing what the result would be
and that he would derive minimal military benefit. To date not one of the alleged chemical
attacks has precipitated an exodus any greater than flight caused by the legendary 'barrel
bombs'. The inhabitants of Douma by their own testimonies given to Western journalists were
even unaware there might have been an attack until they heard about it in the media.
The OPCW won't be able to investigate because it won't b e safe . A
feeble excuse to preempt calls for establishing facts before bombing. The Turks escort
Western journalists into Idlib. They have hundreds of troops there and the jihadis kowtow to
them because they control all logistics. The Turks could escort OPCW. And wouldn't the
jihadis be keener than anybody for the inspectors to visit if their claims were true?
The upcoming strikes are not aimed at regime change. False. The plan is to
decapitate the Syrian state with attacks on the presidency. Failing that the aim is to make
Idlib a quagmire for the Russians. Anything to deprive Asad and Putin of victory, regardless
of whether it prolongs the war.
It's all Russian disinformation . Yeah, like the arms inspectors before the Iraq
war who said no WMD in Iraq. Reality: the Russians have got great intelligence on what
Western powers with their jihadi clients are up to and are calling out the phoney moves.
There won't be enough time for parliamentary debate. Pull the other one.
Reality: the government are terrified of a rerun of 2013 when Labour and 30 brave Tory MPs
voted against bombing, causing Cameron and then Obama to back off.
MPs can't be told what is planned because it would j eopardise the safety of
service personnel. How low can you stoop? Feigning concern for flyers when it's really
just about keeping the people in ignorance of how big the strikes are going to be.
There are going to be massacres/a bloodbath/genocide. False. We heard all this
hysteria before Aleppo, before Eastern Ghouta and before the campaign in the South. All
vastly exaggerated. The Syrian Arab Army has not been responsible for a single massacre,
while the jihadis have been responsible for many (source: quarterly reports of the UN
Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria).
People have nowhere to go . False. The Russians have opened safe corridors but
the jihadis are not allowing people to leave. They can still leave for the northern border
strip which Turkey controls, where there are camps, and many (including jihadi fighters) will
be able to cross temporarily into Turkey.
We can't tell you which armed groups we support because it would make them targets
for Asad . Really? You think he doesn't know? Isn't it because you are terrified it will
come out that we have been supporting some real head-choppers?
The west going on attack mode against Cyprus to protect Browder. Cyprus is cooperating
with Putin on his financial dealings which all flowed through Cyprus. Lots of skeletons there
that implicate many more important people than Browder
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that a
wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it
possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden
interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would seem to me unlikely that Steele was. ..."
"... And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely, without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims. ..."
"... But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts. ..."
"... It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also Christopher Steele and Alex Younger. ..."
"... It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation', while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM. ..."
"... My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate measures to cover their backsides. ..."
"... There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win. ..."
"... The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ. ..."
"... Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. ..."
"... Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. ..."
"... You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. ..."
"... Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's golf course in NJ. ..."
"... In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media personalities for a quid pro quo ..."
"... There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele. Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. ..."
"... At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience in spookdom. ..."
"... I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time. ..."
"... I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised" mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop? ..."
"... I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers. ..."
"... I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media, the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump. Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class. ..."
"... I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history' crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing. ..."
"... In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not binding on the elect. ..."
"... It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse. ..."
"... 'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.' ..."
"... And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain, or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities. ..."
"... So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources, and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin. ..."
"... All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko. ..."
"... All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele. ..."
"... Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017. ..."
"... That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins. ..."
"... To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ. ..."
"... I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner will be very interesting to pursue. ..."
"... The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice. ..."
"... No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's good friend Benjamin Wittes. ..."
"... In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.' ..."
"... Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest' an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See https://nationalinterest.or... .) ..."
"... Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology of Eastward Turn.' ..."
"... I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me, are global. ..."
"... I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and that was that. ..."
"... Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically? If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains? What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their racket? ..."
"... It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated? Was each element separate? ..."
"... Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents. ..."
"... The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was acting as an agent of MI6. ..."
"... An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core. ..."
"... It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor at Orbis and Hakluyt.' ..."
"... That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove. When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries. ..."
"... In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was read. ..."
"... Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it. ..."
"... At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public. ..."
"... Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins. ..."
"... My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it. ..."
"... So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him. ..."
"... 'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgűls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ and state.' ..."
"... This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.' ..."
"... In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards', to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version, the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia. ..."
"... Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations' people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism – makes clear it is justified. ..."
"... Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost of Boris Berezovsky. ..."
"... But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption. ..."
"... The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.' ..."
"... One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report" to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy. ..."
"... I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion was undermined. ..."
"... Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before the election ..."
"... Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate. ..."
"... Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him ..."
"... One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.) ..."
"... I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about the legal ramifications. ..."
"... This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant or fan the media flames. ..."
"... I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS. ..."
"... I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms. ..."
"... If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury. ..."
My strong impression is that nobody on the British side vetted the dossier for publication. A striking feature of the early news
coverage is that there appeared to be total confusion, with some of the reporting suggesting that the sources quoted wanted to hang
him out to dry, others that they wanted to defend him.
An interesting aspect is that not only were anonymous sources linked to MI6 quoted on both sides of the argument -- which could
have been explained by disagreements within the organisation: in different stories, not however far apart in date, its head, Sir
Alex Younger, was portrayed as holding radically different views.
When CNN publicised the existence of the dossier on 10 January 2017, the same day that it was published by 'BuzzFeed', it suggested
that the author was British. The following day, the WSJ named Steele.
On 13 January, Martin Robinson, UK Chief Reporter for 'Mail Online', published a report whose headlines seem worth quoting in
full:
'I introduced him to my wife as James Bond': Former spy Chris Steele's friends describe a "show-off" 007 figure but MI6 bosses
brand him "an idiot" for an "appalling lack of judgement" over the Trump "dirty dossier": Intelligence expert Nigel West says friend
is like Ian Fleming's famous character; He said: "He's James Bond. I actually introduced him to my wife as James Bond'; Mr West says
Steele dislikes Putin and Kremlin for ignoring rules of espionage; Angry spy source calls him 'idiot' and blasts decision to take
on the Trump work; Current MI6 boss Sir Alex Younger is said to be livid about reputation damage.'
On 15 January, however, Kim Sengupta, Defence Editor of the 'Independent', produced a report headlined: 'Head of MI6 used information
from Trump dossier in first public speech; Warnings on cyberattacks show ex-spy's work is respected.'
A great deal of evidence, I think, suggests that practically all those involved in 'Russiagate' were caught totally unprepared
by Trump's victory, that they then went rushing around like headless chickens, and that part of this process involved a decision
being taken to publish the dossier, without consulting British intelligence. If people like Younger were not consulted, then it would
seem to me unlikely that Steele was.
This leads me on to another puzzle about the dossier to which I have been having a difficulty finding a solution. Long years
ago I was reasonably familiar with libel law in relation to journalism. Anyone who 'served indentures', as very many of us did in
those days, had to study it. Later, I got involved in a protracted libel suit -- successfully, I hasten to add -- in relation to
a programme I made, and had the sobering experience of having a top-class libel barrister requiring me to justify every assertion
I had made.
In the jargon then, a crucial question when an article, or programme, was being 'vetted' before publication was whether it represented
a 'fair business risk.' This involved both the technical legal issues, and also judgements as to whether people were likely to sue,
and how if they did the case would be likely to pan out.
On the face of things, one would not have expected that people at 'BuzzFeed' would have gone ahead and make the dossier public,
without having it 'vetted' by competent lawyers. And I have difficulty seeing how, if they did, the advice could have been to publish
what they published.
I have some difficulty seeing how the advice could have been to include the memorandum with the claims about the Alfa Group oligarchs,
unless either these could be seriously defended or it was assumed that contesting them effectively would involve revealing more 'dirty
linen' than these wanted to see aired in public.
And I have immense difficulty seeing how any competent media lawyer would not have recommended, at the minimum, the redaction
of the names of Aleksej Gubarev and his company from the final December 2016 memorandum. This would have made legal action unlikely,
without greatly diminishing the effect of the claims.
Trying to make sense of why such an obvious precaution was not taken, I find myself wondering whether, in fact, the reason may
have been that the people responsible for the dossier may have actually believed this part of it at least.
If that is so, however, the most plausible explanation I can see is that while other claims in the dossier may well be total fabrication,
either by the people at Fusion and Steele or by some of their questionable contacts, this information at least did come from what
Glenn Simpson, Nellie Ohr et al thought were reliable Russian government sources.
But if this was so, and if what they thought was accurate information was actually disinformation, the likely conduit would
not have been through Steele, but from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts.
I think that the cases involving Karim Baratov and Dmitri Dokuchaev and his colleagues may be much more complex than is apparent
from what looks to me like patent disinformation put out both on the Western and Russian sides.
It it is I think material that intelligence agencies commonly include a great variety of people, ranging from very able analysts
and operators to complete dolts. So, the CIA has employed both Philip Giraldi and John Brennan, MI6 both Alastair Crooke and also
Christopher Steele and Alex Younger.
It is however somewhat revealing that one now finds Giraldi and Crooke appearing on a Russian site, 'Strategic Culture Foundation',
while Brennan and Younger are treated as authoritative figures by the MSM.
If you want to get a clear picture of quite how low-grade the latter figure is, incidentally, it is worth looking at the speech
to which Kim Sengupta refers.
A favourite line of mine comes in Younger's discussion of the -- actually largely mythical -- notion of 'hybrid warfare': 'In
this arena, our opponents are often states whose very survival owes to the strength of their security capabilities; the work is complex
and risky, often with the full weight of the State seeking to root us out.'
Leaving aside the fact that this is borderline illiterate, what it amazing is Younger's apparent blindness to clearly unintended
implications of what he writes. If indeed, the 'very survival' of the Russian state 'owes to the strength of [its] security capabilities',
the conclusions, seen from a Russian point of view, would seem rather obvious: vote Putin, and give medals to Patrushev and Bortnikov.
My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising from the fact that key figures in British and American
intelligence have, over a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out of their depth. The unintended
consequences of these have meant that people like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort to desperate
measures to cover their backsides.
There are many aspects to this story that don't make any sense to me if one looks at it from a rational perspective. One
of course being concerns about libel litigation and the related legal discovery that you note. The second being no real contingency
planning in the event Hillary loses the election. Admittedly they must have bought the media line and Nate Silver's forecast of
a greater than 75% probability of a Hillary win.
The purported "arms length" relationships don't make any sense. There's Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson playing a central
role. They hire Nellie Ohr, a possible CIA asset and the wife of Bruce Ohr, the 4th highest ranking official at the DOJ.
Glenn Simpson also hires Christopher Steele who he knows from previous "spook" associations. Steele had numerous and continuous
communications including telephone, Skype, email and personal meetings with Bruce and Nellie Ohr during all this. They even
have discussions about Deripaska and about his visa application to visit the US. Bruce is a conduit to Strzok at FBI. Glenn Simpson
also is part of these discussions with Steele and the Ohrs.
Simpson also arranges for Steele to brief "reporters" like David Corn and others at the NY Times, WaPo, WSJ, Politico and others.
Then there is Mifsud and Halper. Apparently both are CIA and FBI assets. They are communicating with Carter Page and
Papadopolous, who in turn is drinking and yapping with Aussie ambassador Downer.
You have Brennan ginning up concerns giving super secret and individual briefings to the Gang of 8 in Congress. There's
Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the minority leader on the Senate Intelligence Committee texting and calling Adam Waldman, Deripaska's
US attorney about setting up clandestine meetings with Steele. There's Sen. Harry Reid passing on the Steele "dossier" to
Comey.
Not to be left behind there's Sen. McCain doing the same. His top aide even travels to London to meet Steele. And then
there's Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page busily spending every waking moment texting each other about every twist and turn in
all the political games being played. Of course there's Admiral Rogers investigating unusual searches by FBI officials and contractors
on the NSA database. And he briefs President-elect Trump at Trump Tower which prompts the entire transition team to move to Trump's
golf course in NJ.
Oh, there is also Nellie Ohr setting up ham radio to avoid detection in her communications with Steele. Then we have everyone
leaking and spinning to their "cohorts" in the premier media like the NY Times, CNN and WaPo.
Comey even has his buddy a professor and ostensibly his legal counsel on the payroll of the FBI as a contractor with access
to all the sensitive databases leaking to the media.
Andy McCabe has his legal counsel Lisa Page spin stories around his wife's huge campaign contributions from Clinton consigliere
McAuliffe.
In fact the IG report on the Clinton "investigation" states that many at the FBI were accepting "gifts" from various media
personalities for a quid pro quo.
As if all this was not enough there's AG Loretta Lynch, meeting with Bill Clinton on a tarmac ostensibly to discuss their grandkids.
Not to forget there were these "unmaskings" of surveillance information by Susan Rice, Samantha Power.
There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok for Steele.
Of course he knew nothing but signed the FISA application on Carter Page. Then there are the FISC judges who never believed
their mandate required them to verify the evidence before issuing sweeping surveillance warrants. Now all this is what I as an
old farmer and winemaker have read. Those more in tune would easily add to these convoluted machinations.
I don't know how to make sense of all this. All I see is the extent of effort to prevent Donald Trump from being elected and
after he won from governing. The most obvious observation is that the leadership in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies
are so busy politicking spinning and leaking they have neither the time or the inclination let alone competence to do their real
job for which they get paid a handsome wage and sterling benefits.
At this point I don't buy that Christopher Steele dug up real intelligence from his contacts at the highest levels of the
Russian government, which caught Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Lynch's pants on fire, who then launched a formal investigation of
Russia collusion with Trump. Many things just don't pass the smell test. Now of course I have no qualifications nor experience
in spookdom.
If you have any speculative theories that connects some of the dots it would be my great pleasure to read.
I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time.
Confident that their horse is going to win the race and that the media will cover it all up and nobody will ever hear anything
about anything. Now that the unexpected happened, they're just spinning and denying faster hoping the Dems win in Nov and stop
all the investigations. And, they're getting nervous wondering who's going to sell out whom next. Up and down, around and around.
Gerbils -- there really isn't anything very consistent, planned or thought-out.
"I agree that it (and Skripalmania) are almost impossible to make sense of unless you think of a bunch of highly politicised
not very bright people sinking deeper and deeper into what looked like a bright idea at the time."
I believe your summary of what's happening is more accurate than Alastair Crooke's as set out in the article linked to.
But bright or not, what are these people in the IC doing being "highly politicised"? Does that not render them considerably
less efficient?
I ask because, if one tries to look at it in a non-partisan way, the Western IC seemed to be a failure when it came to
predicting Russian reactions in the Donbass, the Crimea, and it seems in Syria. I link this to various comments from Colonel Lang
indicating that true experts were replaced over the years by less experienced and knowledgeable people. Does being "highly politicised"
mean that they're not up to much when it comes to minding the shop?
I thought I detected a protest against the politicisation of the US in the world some years ago. And we must not forget
that Gen Flynn (DIA) and Adm Rogers (NSA) acted strongly against this. Flynn was the first casualty of the Trump/Russia hysteria
and the Clapper claque tried to fire Rogers.
Usually the incumbent party loses the mid-term election. The Democrats lost big in Obama's first mid-term. The Republicans
won the House and gained six senators. While the punditry claims a Blue Wave and Nate Silver is giving the Dems the odds. I'm
not so sure. I think the GOP will increase their majority in the Senate putting any conviction of Trump out of question.
I was born in the Depression and have seen vitriolic politics but never have seen such a massive opposition by the media,
the pundits and the establishment of both parties. Over 500 print publications endorsed Hillary. Only some 20 endorsed Trump.
Yet he confounds the pundits by winning the election. Clearly many voters are at odds with the political media class.
Yeah. My bet is that the Repubs hold onto both. 1) the economy is getting better 2) what do the Dems have to offer other than
this crazy Trump/Russia thing?
Economy will slow down sharply in 2019 but there should be enough momentum to help with the mid-terms. Trump needs to stop
with the endless sanction stuff. The House does look like a close one.
At a very general level, a 'speculative theory' which I have been mulling over for some time was rather well set out in a commentary
in 'The Hill' on 9 August by Sharyl Attkisson, which opens:
'Let's begin in the realm of the fanciful.
'Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the intelligence community and in politics worried that
a wildcard Trump presidency, unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable practices. Disrupt long-established
money channels. Reveal secret machinations that could arguably land some people in prison.
'What exactly might an "insurance policy" against Donald Trump look like?'
And Attkisson goes on to outline precisely the developments that appear to have happened.
I think there is an ideological background to this, on which the piece by Alastair Crooke – himself former MI6 – to which
Patrick Armstrong links, and the piece by James George Jatras to which Crooke links, are both to the point. The 'end of history'
crowd thought they were inhabiting a realised utopia, and cannot cope with the fact that their dream is collapsing.
In relation to the millenarian undercurrents on which Crooke focuses, however, it is also worth noting that a traditional
conservative suspicion has been that millenarianism is naturally linked to antinomianism: the belief that the moral law is not
binding on the elect. And in turn, according to a familiar skeptical view, antinomianism can easily end up in in straightforward
rascality.
On the rascality – to which Attkisson is pointing – I am working on how parts of the picture can be fleshed out. A few preliminary
points raised by your remarks.
As you note, 'There's Rod Rosenstein, Bruce Ohr's direct boss who testifies he knew nothing about Ohr being a conduit to Strzok
for Steele.' So, we know that Ohr and Steele were conspiring together to ensure that the latter could continue to be intimately
involved in the Mueller investigation, despite the FBI termination,
It is obviously possible that Ohr did not report up the chain of command, and if so, he and his wife become pivotal figures
in the conspiracy. Alternatively, it could be that Rosenstein is lying – in which case, we have large questions about who else
is implicated, and specifically whether the termination of Steele by the FBI was anything more than a ruse.
If, as seems to me likely, although not certain, the second possibility is closer to the truth than the former, then before
Ohr testifies on 28 August before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees he will have to consider whether he is prepared
to 'take the rap' for his superiors, or 'sing sweetly.'
The fact that in a report in 'The Hill', I think on the same day as the Attkisson piece, John Solomon was quoting from Ohr's
handwritten notes of a meeting with Glenn Simpson in December 2016 makes me wonder whether he may not already have made a decision.
A key paragraph from the report:
'Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher
Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. "Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes
from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.," Ohr scribbled in his notes.'
There is I think a need for caution here. There is no guarantee that Simpson was telling the literal truth to Ohr, or indeed
the latter reproducing with absolute accuracy with he was told (handwritten notes can be disposed of easily, but they can also
be rewritten.)
One is I think on firmer ground in relation to what it suggests was not the case – that there is any substance whatsoever in
the ludicrous story of someone running a private security company in London sending out hired employees who then gain access to
top Kremlin insiders, with these, of course, telling them precisely what they actually think.
And it confirms my strong suspicion that the dossier is actually a composite product, much of it assembled at Fusion, which
could indeed contain material from a range of people from the former Soviet space, who could living in the United States, Britain,
or elsewhere – Ukraine and the Baltics being obvious possibilities.
So Sergei Skripal and Sergei Millian, neither of whom fit the description by Simpson, have been mentioned as possible sources,
and there is also the very curiously ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin.
All these people, obviously, could simply have fabricated material or retailed gossip, and Steele himself was involved
in fabricating material on an industrial scale to cover up what actually happened to Alexander Litvinenko.
That said, I continue to think it possible that both the second and final memoranda may incorporate some 'glitter', as well
as 'chickenfeed' fed from FSB cybersecurity people to their FBI counterparts, to hark back to George Smiley says to the Minister,
quite possibly included in the hope that the BS involved would be reproduced in contexts where it could provoke legal action.
All this leads me back to the suspicion that Steele's involvement may have been less in crafting the dossier, than making
it possible to conceal its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could also be the case that Nellie
Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with Steele.
It could then be that Steele has been, in effect, hoist with his own petard, in that he is having to sustain the fiction that
he had some kind of grounds for making the claims about Aleksej Gubarev and XBT. How far this matters, at least in relation to
the action bought against 'BuzzFeed' in Florida, remains moot at the moment.
Apparently that organisation is doing rather well in sustaining the claiming that 'fair report privilege' could circumvent
any requirement to prove truth – and a key question now is whether documents which the DOJ is being forced to produce will establish
that the dossier was being used by officials in ways that would trigger the privilege as of 10 January 2017.
That said, what Ohr reports Simpson as telling him raises fundamental questions about how anyone could have relied upon
the dossier for anything – and should push people back to actually asking hard questions about its origins.
Mr Habakkuk, you mention "ambiguous role of Rinat Akhmetshin" - I am not sure if you meant Akhmetov.
I am surprised and curious about you mentioning him - if you meant Akhmetov - because that is one name among all the oligarchs
which has so far not been prominent. Thank you for your posts, these posts and the SST comments could and should serve as help
to the congressional investigations and hearings.
To add: Steele was on the FBI's payroll, in addition to being on Fusion GPS's payroll. And on the payroll of Her Majesty's
Government. After he got caught leaking to the media he was apparently "fired" by the FBI. But he was continuing to communicate
and brief through Bruce Ohr at the DOJ.
I think the circle of Glenn Simpson. Chris Steele, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Adam Waldman. Peter Strzok, and Sen. Mark Warner
will be very interesting to pursue.
The other circle that should be investigated is the Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, Yates, Susan Rice.
No investigation can exclude the active participation of key people from the media complex including people like Comey's
good friend Benjamin Wittes.
Younger isn't the brightest bulb in the box, is he?
"If you doubt the link between legitimacy and effective counter-terrorism, then – albeit negatively – the unfolding tragedy
in Syria will, I fear, provide proof. I believe the Russian conduct in Syria, allied with that of Assad's discredited regime,
will, if they do not change course, provide a tragic example of the perils of forfeiting legitimacy. In defining as a terrorist
anyone who opposes a brutal government, they alienate precisely that group that has to be on side if the extremists are to
be defeated. Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace. The human tragedy
is heart-breaking"
Those were indeed some of the most inane comments in an inane piece.
But then, if you read an interview given to Jay Elwes of 'Prospect' magazine in May last year by Younger's predecessor Sir
Richard Dearlove, who looks to have been a significant background presence in what has been going on, you will find that, although
he is much more coherent than than his successor, it is almost as inane.
As it happens, Dearlove was one of the signatories of the 'Statement of Principles' of something called the 'Henry Jackson
Society.'
This was founded in 2005, in Cambridge, by a group in whom acolytes of an historian called Maurice Cowling were prominent –
Dearlove is himself a graduate in history from that university.
In its original version, the 'Statement of Principles' explained, among other things, that the Society: 'Believes that
only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organization which admits undemocratic
states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.'
Ironically, it was shortly after the publication of the dossier that Anatol Lieven published in the 'National Interest'
an article entitled 'Is America Becoming a Third World Country?' (See
https://nationalinterest.or...
.)
Among other things, he harked back to the way that, in 1648, a century and a half of bloody ideological strife in Europe had
been ended with a recognition that the legitimacy of different state forms had to be accepted, if a kind of 'war of all against
all' was to be avoided.
And Lieven went on to reflect on the way that, at what was then widely seen as the end of the Cold War, the abandonment of
universalisitic pretensions by Russia and China was interpreted as justifying an embrace of these by the the West.
This, he went on to argue, had actually had the paradoxical effect of relegitimising 'régimes' which do not conform to Western
'democratic' models, concluding by noting what appears to our new, quasi-Soviet, preference for not letting experience interfere
with ideological dogma:
'Finally – even after the catastrophes of Iraq and Libya – there is almost no awareness among US policymakers of the fact that
US attempts to change the regimes of other countries are likely to be seen not only by the elites of those countries but also
by their populations as leading to – and intended to lead to – the destruction of the state itself, leading to disaster for its
society and population. When the Communist regime in the USSR collapsed (though only in part under Western pressure), it took
the Soviet state with it. The Russian state came close to following suit in the years that followed, Russia was reduced to impotence
on the world stage, and large parts of the Russian and other populations suffered economic and social disaster. Remembering their
own past experiences with state collapse, warlordism, famine and foreign invasion, Chinese people looked at this awful spectacle
and huddled closer to the Chinese state – one that they may dislike in many ways, but which they certainly trust more than anything
America has to offer – especially given the apparent decay of democracy throughout the West.'
I read with interest your piece back in June entitled 'Putin Once Dreamed the American Dream', reprinting Charles Heberle's
account of the 'Transforming Subjects Into Citizens' project, and the attitude of some people close to Putin to it.
One of the things which struck me was that the question why the American Revolution succeeded, and so many others failed, which
was concerning the intellectuals to whom Heberle talked, is one of the central questions of modern political thought, from Tocqueville
on.
(Indeed, the question of the preconditions for what might be called 'constitutional' government, has been central to 'republican'
thought, ever since it was revived by Italian thinkers, including prominently Machiavelli, when the 'Renaissance' made them reactivate
and rework debates from ancient Rome and Greece.)
However, to hark back to the anxieties expressed by Lieven, nothing in the analysis of the great French thinker necessary guarantees
that the success of 'Democracy in America' is stable and permanent, or indeed that the relatively civilised order of the post-war
'Pax Americana' is necessarily durable in Western Europe.
Also in June, Sergei Karaganov published a piece in 'Russia in Global Affairs', of which he is publisher, entitled 'Ideology
of Eastward Turn.' A paragraph that struck me:
'Russian society should by no means abdicate from its mostly European culture. But it should certainly stop being afraid,
let alone feel ashamed, of its Asianism. It should be remembered that from the standpoint of prevailing social mentality and
society's attitude to the authorities Russia, just as China and many other Asian states, are offspring of Chengiss Khan's Empire.
This is no reason for throwing up hands in despair or for beginning to despise one's own people, contrary to what many members
of intelligencia sometimes do. It should be accepted as a fact of life and used as a strength. The more so, since amid the
harsh competitive environment of the modern world the authoritarian type of government – in the context of a market economy
and equitable military potentials – is certainly far more effective than modern democracy. This is what our Western partners
find so worrisome. Of course, we should bear in mind that authoritarianism – just like democracy – may lead to stagnation and
degradation. Russia is certainly confronted with such a risk.'
Unlike you, I cannot claim serious expertise on Russia. But, as a reasonably alert generalist television current affairs producer,
I took note of the indications which were emerging in the course of 1987 that the Gorbachev 'new thinking' was underpinned by
a realisation that Soviet institutions and ideas had become fundamentally dysfunctional, to which you have referred repeatedly
over the years.
And, after long tedious months trying interest the powers that were in British broadcasting in what was happening, I ended
up producing a couple of programmes for BBC Radio in February/March 1989 in which we interviewed some of the leading 'new thinkers',
among them Karaganov's then immediate superior at the Institute of Europe, Vitaly Zhurkin.
At the Institute for the USA and Canada, by contrast, we did not interview its head, Georgiy Arbatov, but his deputy, Andrei
Kokoshin, and one of the latter's mentors on military matters and collaborators General-Mayor Valentin Larionov, who I later realised
had earlier been one of the foremost Soviet nuclear strategists. (At the Institute for World Economy and International Relations,
we interviewed Arbatov's son, Alexei.)
Talking to these people we got a sense, although it had to be fleshed out later, of the scale of the disillusion with Soviet
models, and indeed – which began to frighten me not long after – of the way many of them were romanticising the West.
What Karaganov now writes is I think a hardly very surprising reaction to the way that the Western powers responded to the
'new thinking.' Moreover, it seems to me that the disillusionment involved is in no sense particular Russian, but rather global.
If one regards 'democracy' as though it were quoted on the stock exchange, before 1914 there were very many buyers, including
among the Russian élite. By 1931, in very many places, including large sections of the 'intelligentsia' in Western countries,
it was a sellers' market, to put it mildly.
After 1945, a kind of long 'bull market' in 'democracy' started: for very good reasons.
The – largely but very far from entirely – peaceful retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to a very significant extent the
product of this. The subsequent behaviour of Western élites has generated a vicious 'bear market', a fact they appear unable to
understand.
I do not think Karaganov's article is simply a reflection of changes in Russian attitudes. The changes, it seems to me,
are global.
I do think that we in the West really blew it. In 1990, we could have said, in all humility, that our way of life (IMO
the key word is pluralism) had proven more survivable. So we should welcome the others into the tent. Instead, we were right and
that was that.
PS, in light of the Henry Jackson society and all Younger's references to "values" this one rather stands out "A vital lesson
I take from the Chilcot Report is the danger of group think."
Yeah. Group think, the very opposite of what I mean by pluralism.
Sharyl Atkinson describes well the conspiracy. When one steps back and look at all the machinations we know now, it seems incredible.
Just as you're asking about the origins of the dossier I wonder if it was orchestrated or something that evolved organically?
If it was orchestrated, then who was the mastermind? Did Brennan, Clapper and Come sit down and hatch it or was Simpson the brains?
What is astounding is the scale. So many people involved. Were they all motivated by ideology or by the need to protect their
racket?
It seems there are many sub-plots. There's the Deripaska, Steele, Waldman, Mueller, Sen. Warner angle. Then there's the
Simpson, Steele, Ohr, Strzok, Page, McCabe angle. There's also the Simpson, Steele, media reporters angle. Then there's the whole
Mifsud, Halper, Carter Page, Papadopolous, Downer bit. There's the Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, Strzok FISA application piece. Then
there's all the stuff happening in the UK including Hannigan's resignation as soon as Trump is elected. Of course the whole Mueller
appointment and the obstruction of justice thread to tie Trump's hand. There are so many elements. Who initiated and coordinated?
Was each element separate?
There's no doubt a political thriller movie could be made.
I guess the comedy part is that there actually exist people with medically functioning brains, who are somehow able to contort
such a worldview...Aleppo as peaceful 'desert' indeed...who knew that having bearded fanatics in charge is somehow 'better'...[and
not 'heart-breaking']...
Some here may find blogpost from March of this year interesting as it speaks to the production of the Steele dossier. I have
not seen it mentioned here before and a site search produced no results.
https://apelbaum.wordpress....
Some sections seem to have gotten David Cay Johnston's hackles up.
I had seen Yaacov Apelbaum's piece referred to by Clarice Feldman in a post on the 'American Thinker' site a few days back,
but not looked at it properly.
It is indeed fascinating, and clearly repays a closer study than I have so far had time to give it. I was however relieved
to find that what Apelbaum writes 'meshes' quite well with my own views of the likely authorship of the dossier.
A question I have is whether the monumental amount of labour involved in producing it can really be the work of a single IT
person – however wide-ranging his abilities and interests. My suspicion is that there may be input from Russian intelligence.
This is not said in order to discredit Apelbaum's work. In matters where I have had occasion critically to examine claims from
official Russian sources, I have found several unsurprising, but recurring, patterns. Sometimes, the information provided can
be shown to be essentially accurate, and it is reasonably clear how it has been obtained.
At other times, claims are made which information from other sources suggests either are, or may well be, true, but the 'sources
and methods' involved are deliberately obscured, making evaluation more difficult.
And then, there are many occasions when what one gets is quite patently a mixture of accurate information and disinformation.
Analysing these can be very productive, if one can both sift out the accurate information, and attempt to see what the disinformation
is designed to obscure.
One thing of which I am absolutely certain is that the networks which are outlined by Apelbaum are precisely those which Russian
intelligence will have spent a great deal of time and ingenuity penetrating.
This will have been attempted by 'SIGINT' and surveillance methods, and also through infiltrating agents and turning people.
(There are often grounds to suspect that some of those most vociferously denouncing Putin are colluding with Russian intelligence.)
Together, these methods are likely to have produced a mass of information. It is important to remember, for example, that
at the time of his mysterious death on 23 March 2013 Boris Berezovsky was negotiating to return to Russia, and that his head of
security, Sergei Sokolov did return, with a 'cache' of documents.
Some of these were used back in April 2016 in a 'Vesti Nedeli' edition presented by Dmitry Kiselyov, who manages Russia's informational
programming resources, and an accompanying documentary on the 'Pervyi Kanal' station.
The purpose was to demonstrate that Alexei Navalny was the instrument of a 'régime change' plot in which William Browder was
acting as an agent of MI6.
There is a good discussion of this, which highlights some of the problems with the documents, by Gilbert Doctorow, and Sokolov
appears to have been involved in some murky activities since.
But whatever the credibility or lack of it of the material, its appearance illustrates a general pattern, where the political
disintegration of the London-based opposition to Putin has meant that more and more people involved in it have been supplying
information to the Russians.
If, as I strongly suspect, there is fire beneath the smoke in those Russian television programmes, and if a great part of a
series of projects of a related kind orchestrated in conjunction by elements in American and British intelligence were actually
large run from this side, this will be creating headaches for people in Washington, as well as London.
An important role in the Apelbaum piece is played by the private security company Hakluyt. A quick look at the entries
on Wikipedia and Powerbase will make clear that, if there is a British 'deep state', this is likely to be at its core.
It is against this background that on has to see a specific claim which Apelbaum makes, for which I do not think any evidence
is produced, about two figures whose role in 'Russiagate' is clearly central. So Luke Harding is described as 'A Guardian reporter
and a Hakluyt and Orbis contractor' (note word.) Meanwhile, Edward Baumgartner is described as 'Co-founder of Edward Austin. Contractor
at Orbis and Hakluyt.'
That Harding is corrupt, as also Sir Robert Owen's 'Inquiry' into the death of the late Alexander Litvinenko, I can prove.
When Owen's report was published in January 2016, a preliminary response by me was posted here on SST, which among other things
listed some of the evidence establishing that the interviews supposedly recorded with Litvinenko by Detective Inspector Brent
Hyatt immediately before his death were blatant forgeries.
If this is the case, then questions are raised about how much of the apparently compelling forensic evidence is forged – and
close examination suggests that key parts of it are.
In relation to that part of the evidence discussed in my January 2016 post which exposes the fumbling attempts by Steele
and his colleagues to cover up the truth about when and how Litvinenko travelled into central London on the day he was supposedly
killed, most of this had been among a mass of material submitted by me to the Inquiry Team, which I have e-mails to prove was
read.
Likewise, also in January 2016, I sent the key relevant evidence on this crucial matter to Harding and senior figures at the
'Guardian', and have reason to believe it was read.
Further study of Owen's report has confirmed my suspicion that a strong 'prima facie case' of conspiracy to pervert the
course of justice exists against very many of those involved in it.
At the same time, materials produced on the Russian side have confirmed my suspicion that the reason why Steele and others
have been able to get away with their cover-up is that the Russian intelligence services are no more enthusiastic than their British
counterparts about having anything like the whole truth about how Litvinenko lived and died made public.
Given the central role which Steele has now assumed in what looks like one of the biggest political scandals in American history,
and the fact that in his book 'Collusion' Harding was again coming out in support of him, it would be of the greatest possible
interest if indeed the latter had combined being a senior 'Guardian' correspondent with being paid by both Orbis and – even more
important – Hakluyt.
And, particularly given the peculiar ambiguities of the role both of Fusion GPS and Baumgartner in the 'Trump Tower' meeting,
it would be of great interest if the latter could be tied not only to Fusion, but to Orbis and – again even more important – Hakluyt.
This in turn might be relevant in trying to make sense of whether the fact that he and Simpson appear to have been working
against Trump and Browder at the same time was or was not part of an elaborate ploy to give credibility to 'information operations'
against the former.
There are accordingly two possibilities. It may be that, while much else in the Apelbaum material can be shown to be accurate,
such accurate information is being used to give credibility to disinformation.
Alternatively, he is being used as a conduit for accurate and really explosive information about the British end of 'Russiagate',
which he is unlikely to have unearthed all by himself, and the actual sources of which are – for very understandable reasons –
being obscured.
Thank you for your reply. You have given me much to think about and I am very grateful that you took the time to respond in
such a comprehensive manner, and that you have provided me and others here with some really compelling information and notions.
In particular, the issue of sources and methods you note seems spot on. The author(s)'s information gathering methodologies
and expertise are certainly not those of the laiety. In fact in the comments below his post YA mentions intelligence work.
Additionally, the text itself displays an odd parallelism with his assertion regarding the Steele Dossier- that is, the
likelihood of multiple authors, of diverse origins.
One thing that did catch my eye was a response he made to David Cay Johnston's pissy request for a retraction about Jacoby
involvement. YA included a quote in Latin from Cicero's accusations against Cataline. Here is the English: What is there that
you did last night, what the night before -- where is it that you were -- who was there that you summoned to meet you -- what
design was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?
While this sort of riposte isn't exactly hyper-erudite, it ain't chopped liver either. What I mean to say is that exceptional
cyber skills, algorithm coding (I'm guessing crawlers) are not commonly coupled with that sort of classical formation. His recourse
to various biblical quotes suggests an unusual level of education as well. And no way is he younger than 38 or so.
At any rate, thank you for the article and your kind and informative reply.
Thanks. I have now read both a good few of Apelbaum's earlier posts, and also the comments on his discussion of the dossier.
Given the importance of his analysis of that document closer study is clearly needed of all this material, but I have some preliminary
reactions.
My curiosity about who Apelbaum might be is reinforced by the fact that the intimations he gives about his background in
his responses to comments, while not incompatible with what he has said in the past, do not sit so easily with it.
In a July 2010 post, he explained that: 'In my previous life, I was a civil engineer. I worked for a large power marine construction
company doing structural design and field engineering.' According to the account he gave then, he subsequently shifted to software
development.
What he now tells us is that: 'As far as how I first started, I do have an intelligence background and have been developing
OSINT/cyber/intelligence platforms for many years.'
That makes sense in terms of the analysis, which – whatever other inputs there may or may not have been – looks to me like
the work of someone who has a serious background in these kinds of methodology, and moreover, is clearly not any kind of 'Fachidiot.'
So, questions naturally arise about Apelbaum's intelligence career, in particular, who he is likely to have been employed
by, and associated with, in the past, and whether he is still involved with any of those agencies which have employed him.
Even if he is not, questions would obviously rise about present connections arising from past work. This is in addition to
the possibility that the logic of events may have provoked him to collaborate with those who might earlier have been his adversaries.
Reading Apelbaum's work, I am reminded of another interesting intervention in an embittered argument relating to the Middle
East and the post-Soviet space, from what turned out to be an unexpected source.
In the period following the 'false flag' sarin attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 an incisive demolition of the conventional
wisdom was provided in the 'crowdsourced' investigation masterminded by one 'sasa wawa' on a site entitled 'Who Attacked Ghouta?'
And then, in December 2016, an Israeli high technology entrepreneur called Saar Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200, that
country's equivalent of the NSA or GCHQ, who had subsequently made a great deal of money when he and his partner sold their company
to Paypal, co-founded a site called 'Rootclaim.'
The site, it was explained, was dedicated to applying Bayesian statistics to 'current affairs' problems. This is a methodology,
whose modern form owes much to work done at Bletchley Park in the war, which is invaluable in 'SIGINT' analysis and also combating
online fraud.
At the outset, 'Rootclaim' posted a recycled version of some of the key material from the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' investigation.
So, it seems likely, if not absolutely certain, that Saar Wilf and 'sasa wawa' are one and the same.
Following the Salisbury incident on 4 March, a blogger using the name 'sushi' produced a series of eleven posts under the title
'A Curious Incident' on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog.
Again, there are some very clear resemblances to 'sasa wawa' and Saar Wilf, which made me wonder whether the same person may
be reappearing under yet another 'moniker.'
While the 'flavour' of Apelbaum seems to be different, the combination of what looks like serious technical expertise in IT
techniques relating to intelligence with broad general intellectual interests looks to me similar.
I was amused by the combination of his quotation of the words from John 8:32 etched into the wall of the original CIA headquarters
– 'And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free' – and the following remarks:
'The June 2016 start date of Steele's contract with Fusion GPS is the start of the "billable" activity, not the beginning of
the research. Steele and Simpson/Jacoby have been collaborating on Trump/Russia going back to 2009.
'Also, there is a large Hakluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the US that regularly services political and
federal agencies and has the power to summon Nazgűls the likes of John Brennan. So Steele is not the new kid on the block, he
has been doing this type of work long before 2016. This is also why he has such a cozy relationship with the brass at the DOJ
and state.'
As it happens, I think that many of the collaborations involved may have started significantly earlier than this. In his response
to David Cay Johnston, Apelbaum links to an April 2007' WSJ' article by Simpon and Jacoby which, among other things, deals with
Semyon Mogilevich.
This is behind a paywall, but, fortunately, the fact that Ukrainian nationalists have had an obvious interest in treating it
as a source of reliable information has meant that it is easily accessible.
It should I think be clear from my January 2016 post why I find this particularly interesting, in that it has to be interpreted
in the context of a crucial 'key' to the mystery of the death of Alexander Litvinenko.
This is that he, the Ukrainian nationalist former KGB person Yuri Shvets, the convicted Italian disinformation peddler
Mario Scaramella, and quite possibly the sometime key FBI expert on Mogilevich, Robert 'Bobby' Levinson, were involved in trying
to suggest that Mogilevich was an instrument of a plot by Putin to equip Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb.'
So, I then come back to the question of whether this notion of a 'large Haluyt/Orbis "commercial intelligence" network in the
US', playing the role of Sauron with Brennan, perhaps, as the 'Witch-king of Angmar', does or does not have substance.
If it does, there would be very good reasons for a variety of people, with a range of different attitudes to events in the
post-Soviet space and the Middle East, to think that they had an interest in collaborating with Russian intelligence against a
common enemy.
If it does not, then there is a real possibility that Apelbaum may be involved in using accurate intelligence to disseminate
inaccurate. (It seems to me that he is much too intelligent to be a plausible candidate for the role of 'useful idiot.')
One further point that may, or may not, be relevant. Many of the most influential American and British Jews, for reasons which
I find somewhat hard to understand, seem to have decided that the heirs of the architects of the Lvov pogrom are nice and cuddly.
So, for example, Chrystia Freeland, the unrepentant granddaughter of the notorious Nazi collaborator Michael Chomiak, has been
able to end up as Canadian Foreign Minister because made a successful journalistic career on the London 'Financial Times', a paper
with a strong Jewish presence.
That the editorial staff of such a paper thought it appropriate to have someone like Freeland as their Moscow correspondent
gives you a good insight into how moronic British élites have become. This may well be relevant, in trying to evaluate claims
about Hakluyt and other matters.
In relation to Apelbaum, it may be quite beside the point that other Jews from a Russian/East European background, both in
Russia, Israel, and the United States, have very different views on Ukraine, Russia, and the dangers posed – not least to Israel
– by jihadists. It is however a fact which needs to be born in mind, when one comes across people whose views cut across conventional
dividing lines in the United States and Britain.
Beside the point in relation to Apelbaum, I am confident, but also needing to be kept in mind, is the possibility that elements
in the United States 'intelligence community', seeing the 'writing on the wall', may think it appropriate to shift from trying
to pass the buck by blaming the Russians to doing so by blaming the Brits.
It seems apparent that Putin's reordering of the Russian economy after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Republic
Bank's difficulites and the death of Edmund Safra left a bitter taste in the mouths of many who had hoped to exercise rentier
rights over the Russian economy and resources. Why so much US resources and energy have been committed to recovering a contested
deed is a real conundrum.
I was unaware of Freeland's grandfather and his lamentable CV. Thank you. It's funny that you mentioned both the Ghouta post
and the Vineyard of the Saker. I recall reading those and thinking- this is not like common fare on the intertubes.
Your last points about failings in the quality of elite decision-making is extremely important. This dynamic of the dumb (US,
UK, EU) at the wheel is, for me, the most frightening feature of the current state of play. In the worst moments I fear we are
all on a bus driven by a drunk monkey, careening through the Andes. It's going to hurt all the way to the bottom.
Again, I am very grateful for your replies and all the great information and thought.
I think the question of why large elements in both American and British élites got so heavily invested, in essence, in supporting
the oligarchs who refused Putin's terms in what turned into a kind of 'bare knuckles' struggle they were always likely to lose
is a very interesting one.
It has long seemed to me that, even if one looked at matters from the most self-interested and cynical point of view, this
represented a quite spectacular error of judgement. And, viewing the way in which 'international relations' are rearranging themselves,
I am reasonably confident that this was one matter on which I got things right.
A central reason for this, I have come to think, is that Berezovsky and the 'information operations' people round him – Litvinenko
is important, but the pivotal figure, the 'mastermind', if you will, was clearly Alex Goldfarb, and Yuri Shvets and Yuri Felshtinsky
both played and still play important supporting roles – were telling people in the West what these wanted to hear.
It is a truth if not quite 'universally acknowledged', at least widely recognised by those who have acquired some 'worldly
wisdom', that intellectually arrogant people, with limited experience of the world and a narrow education, can commonly be 'led
by the nose' by figures who have more of the relevant kinds of intelligence and experience, and few scruples.
This rather basic fact is central to understanding the press conference on 31 May 2007 where the figure whom the Berezovsky
group and Christopher Steele had framed in relation to the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, responded to the Crown Prosecution
Service request for his extradition.
In his prepared statement, Lugovoi claimed that his supposed victim used to say that everyone in Britain were ''retards',
to use the translation submitted in evidence to Owen's Inquiry, or 'idiots', to use that by RT. And according to this version,
the British believed in everything that 'we' – that is, the Berezovky group – said was happening in Russia.
Whether or not Litvinenko expressed this cynical contempt, the credulity with which the claims of the 'information operations'
people around Berezovsky have been accepted – well illustrated by Owen's report and perhaps most ludicrous in Harding's journalism
– makes clear it is justified.
What moreover became very evident, when Glenn Simpson testified to the House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committees,
was that he was once again recycling the Berezovsky's group's version of Putin 'sistema' as the 'return of Karla.'
Given what has been emerging on the ways in which Fusion GPS and Steele were both integrated into networks involving top-level
people in the FBI, DOJ, State Department and CIA, it seems clear that the 'retards'/'idiots' label is as applicable to people
on your side as to people on ours.
Perhaps then, cartoons about Trump as a puppet, with the strings pulled by another puppet representing Manafort, whose
strings are in turn pulled by Putin, should be replaced by ones in which Mueller is seen as a puppet manipulated by the ghost
of Boris Berezovsky.
But that is the irony. The relationship with Berezovsky blew up in the faces of all concerned, when in the wake of the
successsful corruption of the investigation into the death of Litvinenko by him and his 'information operations' people, he attempted
to recoup his fortunes by suing Roman Abramovich, and got taken to pieces by Lord Sumption.
As to what happened next, a recent item on 'Russian Insider', providing a link to and transcript of a more recent piece presented
by Dmitry Kiselyov on 'Vesti Nedeli is a good illustration of where accurate information and disinformation can be mixed in material
from Russian sources.
The piece, which appeared in July, discusses, and quotes from, an interview given the previous month to Dmitry Gordon, who
runs a Ukrainian nationalist site, by Berezovsky's daughter Elizaveta. Among other things, this deals with Berezovsky's death.
(See
https://gordonua.com/public...
. A little manipulation will get you a reasonably serviceable English translation, although
it becomes comic because Berezovsky is referred to as 'pope'.)
The 'Vesti Nedeli' piece uses what Elizaveta Berezovskaya says in support of the claim that Berezovsky was murdered by
British 'special forces', because he was planning to return to Russia, and he 'knew too much about them.'
As it happens, this is a patently tendentious reading of what she says. However, interesting features of the actual text of
the interview are 1. that it does provide what to my mind is compelling evidence that her father was murdered, and 2. while she
clearly suggests that this was covered up by the British, she is not suggesting that they were responsible – but also not making
Putin 'prime suspect.'
Whether the suggestion by his daughter that her father might have been murdered by people who knew that by so doing they might
get control of assets he might otherwise recoup has any merit I cannot say: I doubt it but cannot simply rule the possibility
out.
What remains the case is that at that point there were very many people, including but in no way limited to elements in Western
intelligence agencies, who had strong interests in avoiding a return by Berezovsky to Russia.
And the same people had the strongest possible interest in avoiding his being treated at the Inquest into Litvinenko's death
by a competent barrister representing the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the way he had been treated by
Lord Sumption.
Ironically, it may have been partly because Lugovoi had made a dramatic announcement that he was withdrawing from the proceedings
less than a fortnight before Berezovsky's death that before this happened a lot of people were staring at an absolutely worst-case
scenario.
Time and again, in Owen's report, one finds matters where he recycles patent disinformation, which a well-briefed barrister
acting for the ICRF could have easily ripped to shreds. At the same time, in this situation, the Russians could most probably
have made a reasonable fist of coping with the multiple contradictions in claims made on their own side.
And, crucially, their patent weak suit – the need to obscure the actual role of Russian intelligence in the smuggling of the
polonium into London, which had nothing to do with any murder plot – could have been reasonably well 'covered.'
Precisely because of these facts, the one scenario which can very easily be completely ruled out is that which is basic to
the 'information operations' now coming out of London and Washington. In this, Berezovsky's death is portrayed as a key element
in a systematic attempt by the Putin 'sistema' to eradicate the supposedly heroic opposition, much of it located in London.
That sustaining this fable is critical to defending the credibility of Steele, and therefore of the whole 'Russiagate' narrative,
is quite evident from the 'From Russia With Blood' materials published by 'BuzzFeed' in July last year.
This, however, leads on to a paradox, which is highlighted by a piece posted by James George Jatras on the 'Strategic Culture
Foundation' site on 18 August, entitled 'Have You Committed Your Three Felonies Today?'
Among the points Jatras – who I think is an Orthodox Christian – makes is that the logic of contesting the 'Russiagate' narrative
has had some strange consequences. Among these, there is one on which the actual history of the activities of Berezovsky and his
'information operations' people bears directly:
'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative: Among the President's defenders, on say Fox News, no less than among his detractors,
Russia is the enemy who (altogether now!) "interfered in our elections" in order to "undermine our democracy." Mitt Romney was
right! The only argument is over who was the intended beneficiary of Muscovite mendacity, Trump or Hillary – that's the variable.
The constant is that Putin is Hitler and only a traitor would want to get along with him. All sides agree that the Christopher
Steele dossier is full of "Russian dirt" – though there's literally zero actual evidence of Kremlin involvement but a lot pointing
to Britain's MI6 and GCHQ.'
For reasons I have already discussed, I think what while Jatras is substantially right, 'zero evidence' is only partially correct:
It seems to me that disinformation supplied by elements in Russian intelligence could quite possibly have found its way into the
second and final memoranda.
That said, Jatras has pointed to a fundamental feature of the current situation, which involves multiple ironies.
The total destruction of Steele's credibility could easily be achieved by anyone who was interested in looking at the evidence
about the life and death of the late Alexander Litvinenko seriously. However, because a central tactic of most of those who are
attacking the 'Russiagate' narrative has generally been 'Flipping the "Russians did it" narrative', they are like people who ought
to be able to see Steele's 'Achilles' heel', but in practice, often end up attacking him where his armour is, without being, not
at its weakest.
Meanwhile, as I have already stressed, the ability of the Russian authorities to undermine the 'narrative' produced by the
'information operations' people around Berezovsky, of whom the most important are Alex Goldfarb and Yuri Shvets, is compromised
by their fear of having to 'own up to' their actual role in the smuggling of the polonium into London in October-November 2007.
The person who had a strong interest in blowing this structure of illusion to pieces was actually Lugovoi. But it seems to
me at least possible that there has been a kind of disguised covert conspiracy by elements in Western and Russian intelligence
to ensure there was no risk of him doing so.
One of the things I've never understood about the Trump Dossier story is the lack of any forensic analysis of its content
and style anywhere in the media, even the alt media. Who was supposed to have actually written it? Steele? The style does not
match someone of his background and education, and the formatting and syntax were atrocious. The font actually varied from "report"
to "report." It certainly did not give me the impression of being the product of a high-end, Belgravia consultancy.
I wonder whether it was produced by an American of one sort or another and then "laundered" by being accorded association
with the UK firm. Given that Steele just happened to be hired by the USG to help in the anti-FIFA skulduggery, he and his firm
seem very much to be a concern that does dirty little jobs that need discretely to be done, though in this case, the discretion
was undermined.
Most of the memos were issued before October and Fusion/Simpson authorized Steele to release information to the FBI starting
in July. The question is why the memos were released after the election when a release before the election would have been enough
to sink Trump. Instead the FBI and presumably those paying Fusion on Hillarys behalf sat on it, and Comey comes out days before
the election
Saying he was reopening the HC email investigation.
Kind of looks like they all wanted Trump in office and the disclosure was to give Trump the excuse needed to back track
on his promises to improve relations with Russia and blame that on pressure from the Deep State and Russia Gate.
Looking at Trumps history with Sater (FBI/CIA asset) and his political aspirations that began following his Moscow visit
in 1987 it seems likely Trump has been a Deep State asset for 30 years and fed intelligence to CIA/FBI on Russian oligarchs and
mafia . Indeed he may well have duped Russians into believing he was working for them when in fact it was the CIA/FBI who had
the best Kompromat with US RICO laws that could have beggared him
One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers
murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.)
Now can we imagine that not everyone in a senior position at the FBI knows about that report? I can't. Literally everyone from
the supervisor of the Special Agent or computer forensic investigator who examined Rich's computer right up to the Director HAD
to know that report exists - and covered it up.
That right there is obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Literally everyone at the FBI who can't PROVE he didn't know about
that report will be going to jail. The entire top administration of the FBI is going to go down.
And how many people at the Department of Justice are aware of that report? Did Rosenstein know? Who else in the Obama administration
knew?
That would be motivation for a lot of desperate maneuvering. Add to that who was really behind the Steele Dossier and even
more people are likely to end up in jail.
You haven't heard that yet? It's the infamous audio tape that Hersh was caught on discussing it. He's since obfuscated what
he said, but the tape stands on its own, and he has never said that anything he said on the tape wasn't true, despite that a lot
of Democrats and Trump-bashers claim he has.
I have told you several times and I will tell you again probably hopelessly that Hersh PERSONALLY has told me that the "tape"
was made without his permission or knowledge when he was aimlessly speculating on possibilities.
I am unaware of your explicitly telling me that he personally told you that the tape was "aimless speculation." My apologies
if I missed that response.
Of course the tape was made without his permission. We all know that. It's irrelevant to what he said on the tape.
What I'm saying is that despite what he may have told you, nothing on that tape sounds like "aimless speculation".
When you consider that he has four good reasons for dissembling about the tape, I view it as far more likely that everything
he said was true.
1) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his FBI contact. Not good for his line of work.
2) If what he said is true, compromising that contact may well make all his other contacts wary about talking to him in the
future - a bad deal for a journalist who relies on his contacts.
3) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his ability to get his "long form journalism" article published - a problem
he already has had in the past.
4) If what he said is true, he's accusing the FBI of sitting on that report for two years, which might well make him a target
of retaliation in some way.
If you believe that everything he said on the tape is untrue and that is what he explicitly told you, fine. I'm waiting for
his "long form journalism" report to explain it. So far everything he has said publicly about it has not contradicted what he
said on the tape, but merely waved his hands about it.
Sy Hersh talks a lot both loudly and profanely. He never intended to tell Buttowski that there was more than a possibility
that the FBI held more than a rumor that this might be true. He talked to Buttowski because a mutual friend of him and me asked
him to do so for no good reason. Please go talk to all the other people you pester and not on SST. You are an argumentative nuisance.
I have no stake in the debate about Rich, DNC, wikileaks. But I do notice some loose ends. Hersh may well have engaged in speculation, but it is interesting speculation:
quote: 55. During his conversation with Butowsky, Mr. Hersh claimed that he had received information from an "FBI report." Mr. Hersh
had not seen the report himself, but explained: "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. And I know
this person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy."
56. According to Mr. Hersh, his source told him that the FBI report states that, shortly after Seth Rich's murder, the D.C.
police obtained a warrant to search his home. When they arrived at the home, the D.C. police found Seth Rich's computer, but were
unable to access it.The computer was then provided to the D.C. police Cyber Unit, who also were unable to access the computer.
At that point, the D.C. police contacted the Cyber Unit at the FBI's Washington D.C. field office. Again, according to the supposed
FBI report, the Washington D.C. field office was able to get into the computer and found that in "late spring early summer [2016],
[Seth Rich][made] contact with Wikileaks." "They found what he had done. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some
juicy emails from the DNC." Mr. Hersh told Butowsky that Seth Rich "offered a sample [to WikiLeaks][,] an extensive sample, you
know I'm sure dozens, of emails, and said I want money." . . . "I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."
. . . The clip is definitely worth listening to in its entirety if you haven't already. Hersh is heard telling Butowsky that he had
a high-level insider read him an FBI file confirming that Seth Rich was known to have been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to
his death, which is not even a tiny bit remotely the same as having "heard rumors". Hersh's statements in the audio recording
and his statement to NPR cannot both be true. endquote https://medium.com/@caityjo...
You may very well be right. There may be a large element of 'amateur night out' about this.
But then I come back to the question of who decided that the dossier be published, and who, if anyone, was consulted before
the decision was made. For the reasons I gave, I am reasonably confident that those on this side who had been in one way or another
complicit in its production and covert dissemination were taken aback by the publication.
It is not clear to me whether anything significant can be inferred from the publicly available evidence about whether those
on your side who had been complicit were involved in the decision to publish without taking even elementary precautions, or whether
the 'Buzzfeed' people just had a rush of blood to the head.
I suspect the decision to publish the dossier was political. It was required to enable Clapper, Brennan, and others to
opine on national media and create further media hysteria prior to the vote as well as to justify the counter-intelligence investigations
underway. They were throwing the kitchen sink to sink Trump's electoral chances. I don't think a lot of thought was given about
the legal ramifications.
This seems to be a pattern. Leak information. Then use the leaked story to justify actions like apply for a FISA warrant
or fan the media flames.
And now they are turning on one another. Hayden just slammed Clapper for making too much of losing the security clearance the
he abuse for political reasons.
Looks like both Clapper and Haydon made the same comment about Brennan. they said "his rhetoric was becoming a problem. Ah,
the USAF intel rats are swimming for the shore. Lets see how many others (not all USAF) decide to try to save themselves.
I find it incredulous that former leaders of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies have gained paid access to powerful
media platforms and they have used it to launch vicious attacks on a POTUS.
I find it amazing that McCabe and Peter Strzok are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars on social media platforms.
IMO, everyone on the list that Sarah Sanders noted, should not just lose their clearance but should be testifying to a grand
jury.
Not really incredulous. Just expected behavior from swamp creatures whose self-assumed importance and "rights" (that the rest
of us peasants don't have) are coming under threat.
It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this.
One question. It seems to me that if what seems likely to be true does prove true, a range of these people must have committed
very serious offences indeed.
However, I am too ignorant to know what precisely those offences might be. If you, or anyone else, had a clear understanding,
I would be interested.
"It seems to me absolutely appalling, and I am also appalled that people on this side appear to have been playing a central
role in all this."
That says it all. We got the more discreditable side of the affair outsourced to us. Ugh. Is that all we're fit for now in
the UK? White helmets and Khan Sheikhoun and Steele, all the scrubby stuff? Is that what the famous "Special Relationship" now
consists of? We get to do the scrubby stuff because it's what we're fit for and we can be relied upon to keep it quiet?
Because at least on the American side there are people concerned about the political/PR involvement of parts of their own Intelligence
Community, and seeking to have it looked into. Here - am I right? - it's dead silence.
I've been permitted to say before on SST that I don't think the Americans are going to resolve this affair satisfactorily until
more light is cast on the UK side. But I also think that, for our own sakes, we should be looking at what exactly our IC does,
and in particular, how much UK political involvement there was in what is now clear was a direct PR attack on an American President.
I'm not a lawyer and have no experience with the federal criminal statutes. Having said that I suspect that the following could
be considered crimes:
intentionally misleading FISC
perjury
leaking classified information
launching investigations on the basis of known false information
surveillance of US citizens on the basis of false information
conspiracy to subvert the constitution
sedition/treason
There may also be certain professional agreements with the government that may have been violated. The only way any of these
people will face a grand jury is if Donald Trump chooses to take action. Left to the natural devices of the law enforcement institutions
nothing will happen and they will sweep everything under the rug. The intensity of Trump's tweets and the accusations therein
are rising. If the GOP retains the House and Jim Jordan becomes speaker, then there may be a possibility that Sessions, Rosenstein
and Wray may be fired and another special counsel appointed who will then convene a grand jury.
Considering what has been uncovered by Congressional investigators and the DOJ IG, I am truly surprised that Sessions has resisted
the appointment of a special counsel. But of course that could go the way of the Owens inquiry in your country.
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.
Nellie Ohr will sit for an interview with Congress next week, according to Rep. John
Ratcliffe (R-TX).
Ohr, an expert on Russia who speaks fluent Russian, is a central figure in the nexus between
Fusion GPS - the opposition research firm paid by the Clinton campaign to produce the "Steele
Dossier " - and the Obama Justice Department - where her husband, Bruce Ohr, was a senior
official. Bruce was demoted twice after he was caught lying about his extensive involvement
with Fusion's activities surrounding the 2016 US election.
Notably, the Ohrs had extensive contact with Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 spy who authored
the salacious anti-Trump dossier used to justify spying on the Trump campaign during the
election, and later to smear Donald Trump right before he took office in 2017. According to
emails turned over to Congress and reported in late August, the Ohrs would have breakfast with
Steele on July 30 at the downtown D.C. Mayflower hotel - days after Steele had turned in
several installments of the infamous dossier to the FBI . The breakfast took place one day
before the FBI/DOJ launched operation "Crossfire Hurricane," the codename for the official
counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.
"Great to see you and Nellie this morning Bruce," Steele wrote shortly following their
breakfast meeting. " Let's keep in touch on the substantive issues/s (sic). Glenn is happy to
speak to you on this if it would help," referring to Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson.
No stranger to the US intelligence community, Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source
Works" group in a 2010 " expert working group report on
international organized crime" along with Bruce Ohr and Glenn Simpson .
Nayel , 56 minutes ago
I'd bet she gets up there and denies everything, lust like Strozk. And the DOJ does
nothing, and even allows the perjury to slide.
Sessions is clearly complicit. Loretta Lynch might as well be still running the show...and
perhaps she is...
Seeing as how the Shadow Government seems to be running the "Collusion Investigation"
on themselves...
thebriang , 1 hour ago
Is she going to name the 3 "journalists" that Fusion paid to start pushing the Russia
narrative in the MSM?
I want names, goddammit.
samsara , 1 hour ago
Thread by Thread the garment is unraveled for all to see
" Needless to say, Congress will have no shortage of questions to ask Nellie. "
Like why did she get a ham radio? I guess she didn't trust the NSA?
This is a very weak article, but it raises several important questions such as the role or neoliberal MSM in color revolution
against Trump and which social group constituted the voting block that brought Trump to victory. The author answers incorrectly on
both those questions.
I think overall Tremblay analysis of Trump (and by extension of national neoliberalism he promotes) is incorrect. Probably the largest group
of voters which voted for Trump were voters who were against neoliberal globalization and who now feel real distrust and aversion to
the ruling neoliberal elite.
Trump is probably right to view neoliberal journalists as enemies: they are tools of intelligence agencies which as agents of
Wall Street promote globalization
At the same time Trump turned to be Obama II: he instantly betrayed his voters after the election. His
election slogan "make Ameraca great again" bacem that same joke as Obama "Change we can believe in". And he proved to be as
jingoistic as Obama (A Nobel Pease Price laureate who was militarists dream come true)
In discussion of groups who votes for Trump the author forgot to mention part of professional which skeptically view neoliberal
globalization and its destrction of jobs (for example programmer jobs in the USA) as well as blue color
workers decimated by offshoring of major industries.
Notable quotes:
"... "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. " ..."
"... Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018) ..."
"... "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." ..."
"... This is a White House where everybody lies ..."
"... I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ..."
"... The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. ..."
"... ad hominem' ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones. ..."
"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what
you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "
Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas
City, July 24, 2018)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)
" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President
Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)
" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin (
1706 –
1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of
the Founding Fathers', 2012).
***
In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and
in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious
and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.
The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether
or not he has declared a
war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological
or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.
1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump
There are four groups of one-issue voters to
whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative
judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President
Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition
to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and
deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public
debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including
with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them
and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible
support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing
health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims
can be considered members of the above lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on
hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite
but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does
and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record,
according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his
inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form
of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is
OK to lie
and to ask his assistants to
lie
. In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda.
When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks
' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and
by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly,
on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric
when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a
pet
project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald
Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the
coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times
and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some
'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the
Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio
and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the
mass conglomeration of local broadcasting
in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well
financed, and they have essentially become powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative
facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners
and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also
made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in
his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved.
Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and
he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck
never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical
showman diva , behaving
in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than
a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists
to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First
Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if
he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.
The ABC News network
has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he
have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright
lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, --
an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year,
he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which
are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare
of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by
improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning
for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution
and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump
has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own
Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself.
If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current
administration and for future ones.
There might be criminal connection to Russian oligarchs, but it was for Trump organization which might play a role in Russian oligarchs
money laundering via real estate
Notable quotes:
"... The US and the UK, unlike most Western democracies, permit anonymous ownership of real estate which facilitates money laundering of roughly $300 billion per year in the United States alone, most of it from Russia. As a result, luxury real estate has provided a haven for Russian oligarchs ..."
"... According to a BuzzFeed investigation by Thomas Frank, more than 1,300 condos, one-fifth of all Trump-branded condos sold in the US since the eighties, were sold "in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding their finances and identities." The BuzzFeed article added that the total value of these condo sales -- sales that match the US Treasury's criteria for possible money laundering -- was about $ 1.5 billion, a figure that actually may understate the amount of dirty money in play. ..."
"... Starting in 2006, Donald Jr., executive vice president of development and acquisitions for the Trump Organization, made about half a dozen trips to Russia over the course of a year and a half. "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, ....We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." ..."
"... After a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies, and $4 billion in debt, Trump rose from the near-dead with the help of Bayrock and its alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor ..."
"... Another Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal, oligarch Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship with Semyon Kislin, the Ukranian billionare commodities trader who was tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI, to Vyacheslav Ivankov's Russian mafias gang in Brighton Beach. ..."
"... Mueller has had over a year to investigate. No doubt he can call on vast resources of US govt too. For all that effort, Mueller has not shown direct Russian govt influence (yet). ..."
"... JR, ben was right on that point. I would put it this way: Trump is owned by Zionist Russian Oligarchs with dual citizenship. Haaretz has an article Know your oligarch: A guide to the Jewish billionaires in the Trump Russia probe. ..."
"... Let's just say there's a huge incentive to sell the Trump illusion and push the Trump juice around here. ..."
House of Trump, House of Putin has some interesting stuff.
The US and the UK, unlike most Western democracies, permit anonymous ownership of real estate which facilitates money laundering
of roughly $300 billion per year in the United States alone, most of it from Russia. As a result, luxury real estate has provided
a haven for Russian oligarchs
According to a BuzzFeed investigation by Thomas Frank, more than 1,300 condos, one-fifth of all Trump-branded condos sold
in the US since the eighties, were sold "in secretive, all-cash transactions that enable buyers to avoid legal scrutiny by shielding
their finances and identities." The BuzzFeed article added that the total value of these condo sales -- sales that match the US
Treasury's criteria for possible money laundering -- was about $ 1.5 billion, a figure that actually may understate the amount
of dirty money in play.
Starting in 2006, Donald Jr., executive vice president of development and acquisitions for the Trump Organization, made
about half a dozen trips to Russia over the course of a year and a half. "In terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians
make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, ....We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
After a decade of litigation, multiple bankruptcies, and $4 billion in debt, Trump rose from the near-dead with the help
of Bayrock and its alleged ties to Russian intelligence and the Russian Mafia. "They saved his bacon," said Kenneth McCallion,
a former federal prosecutor
Another Bayrock partner, the Sapir Organization, had, through its principal, oligarch Tamir Sapir, a long business relationship
with Semyon Kislin, the Ukranian billionare commodities trader who was tied to the Chernoy brothers and, according to the FBI,
to Vyacheslav Ivankov's Russian mafias gang in Brighton Beach.
Trumps man Giuliani appointed Kislin to be a member of the New York City Economic Development Corporation
Kushner paid $295 million for some of the floors in the old New York Times building, purchased in 2015 from the US branch of
Israili-Russian oligarch Leviev's company, Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and partner, Five Mile Capital.
Kushner later borrowed $285 million from the German financial company Deutsche Bank, which has also been linked to Russian
money laundering,
The Trumps Taj Mahal had become a favorite destination for the Russian mob because Trump made a point of giving high rollers
"comps" for up to $100,000 a visit, an amenity that casinos often offered big-time gamblers. Later, two other Trump casinos, the
Trump Castle Hotel and Casino, and the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, agreed to pay fines for "willfully failing to report" currency
transactions over $10,000 and failing to comply with laws designed to prevent money laundering.
There is not a major Russian organized crime figure who we are tracking who does not also carry an Israeli passport," said
Jonathan Winer, the former money-laundering czar in the Clinton State Department.
Trump World Tower, one-third of the units on the tower's highest and priciest floors, floors seventy-six to eighty-three,*
had been snatched up, either by individual buyers from the former Soviet Union, or by limited liability companies connected to
Russia or countries that had been part of the Soviet Union. "We had big buyers from Russia and Ukraine and Kazakhstan," sales
agent Debra Stotts told Bloomberg Businessweek. Ukrainian billionaire Semyon "Sam" Kislin assisted the sales effort by issuing
mortgages to buyers of Trump's latest luxury condos.
Trump Tower in Toronto. When it came to financing the skyscraper, Shnaider, a billionaire of Russian extraction, turned to
Raiffeisen Bank International AG in Vienna, a bank whose affiliate has been called "a front to provide legitimacy to the gas company
[US-indicted Russian crime boss Semion Mogilevich] controls, RosUkrEnergo," according to Scott F. Kilner, deputy chief of mission
for the US embassy in Austria. So it followed that it was likely that funds from the Mogilevich-Firtash money pipeline were behind
the Trump project in Toronto.
Then there is the Chabad connection of the Kushners and Putin backed Russian oligarchs, but no time for that
Clarifying: it's good info about the suspicions of Trump-Russian connections. I appreciate you're being helpful in providing
that.
Mueller has had over a year to investigate. No doubt he can call on vast resources of US govt too. For all that effort,
Mueller has not shown direct Russian govt influence (yet).
JR, ben was right on that point. I would put it this way: Trump is owned by Zionist Russian Oligarchs with dual citizenship.
Haaretz has an article Know your oligarch: A guide to the Jewish billionaires in the Trump Russia probe.
It would be great if the Mueller probe exposes how minor Russia collusion is compared to Zionist collusion. Ergo the big prizes
for Israel and status quo for Russia under Trump.
I suspect that most still pushing the Trump illusion here are Zionists who care squat about party and American democracy but
are really pleased with what Trump is doing for Israel i.e. MIGA and the Zionist American collusion that is growing exponentially
with each successive American President.
Trump is their man and he's being well-supported by Zionists even here disguised as Russia lovers, populists and Hillary haters.
Let's not forget how many Russians are Zionists: over one million in Israel, not to mention Soviet Jews from former Soviet territory.
So the numbers are much greater. An army of hasbara on the web.
Let's just say there's a huge incentive to sell the Trump illusion and push the Trump juice around here. It's concealed
hasbara masquerading as Trumpism, plain and simple! Shameless pretense and very transparent.
"... Rather than being a revelatory, shocking look behind the curtain of an administration run by the single dumbest man to ever hold his office, the book just confirms the stories we've already heard, mixing in additional commentary from people in or close to the White House, mostly former employees who clearly still agree with Trump's agenda, even if they could no longer stand the man himself. ..."
"... Woodward presents anecdotes from these individuals--people like Sen. Lindsay Graham, a renown proponent of endless wars in the Middle East, and Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist, an out-and-proud xenophobe and fascist--without commentary or context, which has the odd effect of presenting these people only in contrast and comparison to Trump himself. ..."
A frustratingly neutral collection of accounts from morally questionable people.
Trump is really, really bad at being President. This isn't news to anyone who has been
following the leaks, rumors, announcements, policies, and tweets coming out of the White
House for the last nineteen months.
Rather than being a revelatory, shocking look behind the
curtain of an administration run by the single dumbest man to ever hold his office, the book
just confirms the stories we've already heard, mixing in additional commentary from people in
or close to the White House, mostly former employees who clearly still agree with Trump's
agenda, even if they could no longer stand the man himself.
Woodward presents anecdotes from
these individuals--people like Sen. Lindsay Graham, a renown proponent of endless wars in
the Middle East, and Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist, an out-and-proud xenophobe and
fascist--without commentary or context, which has the odd effect of presenting these people
only in contrast and comparison to Trump himself.
One unfamiliar with Bannon, for example,
could come away from the book thinking that he was a fairly reasonable person (rather than a
racist, white nationalist) because he is only ever shown as a foil to the ongoing circus of
incompetence that is the Trump administration.
This is Woodward's style, of course; he
presents himself as an almost entirely neutral presence, merely transcribing the things he
learned, but when discussing such dangerous and reprehensible people, a paragraph here and
there dedicated to reminding readers what, exactly, these people claim to believe would have
been appreciated additional context.
Essentially, this book is just Michael Wolfe or Omarosa's stories, only drier and with
more footnotes.
The root of the current aggressive policy is the desire to preserve global neoliberal empire the US role as the metropolia
with the rest of the world as vassals.
Notable quotes:
"... The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at the margins. ..."
"... It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end ..."
"... There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. ..."
"... The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world. ..."
"... Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008 financial crash followed. I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one. ..."
"... Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions. ..."
"... The NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live with daily ..."
"... The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime. ..."
"... In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as Russia and the West. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on which the government now in power still depends. ..."
"... If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument -- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around him, as he acknowledged in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they are determined to preserve them. ..."
"... If you valued this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies, a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved. ..."
"... How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few. ..."
"... Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40 percent of the public who opposed the war. ..."
"... "Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the disease which afflicts Washington." ..."
"... I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals. Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations of the World! ..."
"... That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's figure out how to begin. ..."
"... A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the neofeudal/futile system. ..."
"... When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? ..."
"... To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination: "Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the countries it invaded to be "Just like us." ..."
"... Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed, it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual "progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the history of the country squarely. ..."
"... Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski: ..."
"... "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970 ..."
"... Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion, they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any mainstream cause or social movement. ..."
"... What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual benefit." ..."
"... Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a "peace dividend" following the end of WWII. ..."
"... To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/ . ..."
"... The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the "Statement of A. Wess Mitchell Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21 this year. The transcript is at : https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/082118_Mitchell_Testimony.pdf ..."
"... Quote the esteemed gentleman (inter alia): "It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American power. " ..."
"... Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0. In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum between 1990 and 2010. ..."
"... Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between "Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the geopolitical war between the two. ..."
"... Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus, what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948. Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing. ..."
"... There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail. ..."
"... Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off. ..."
"... I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know. ..."
"... +1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. ..."
"... And note (2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks ..."
"... Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy. ..."
"... Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro: "I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration." ..."
"... Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose, he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate. ..."
"... Many of the people involved in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance. ..."
"... Remember when "Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the world than have to share. ..."
"... Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal. Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well. https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/ ..."
"... "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence." ..."
The bitter reality is that U.S. foreign policy has no definable objective other than
blocking the initiatives of others because they stand in the way of the further expansion of
U.S. global interests. This impoverished strategy reflects Washington's refusal to accept the
passing of its relatively brief post–Cold War moment of unipolar power.
There is an error all too common in American public opinion. Personalizing Washington's
regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump,
deprives one of deeper understanding. This mistake was made during the steady attack on civil
liberties after the Sept. 11 tragedies and then during the 2003 invasion of Iraq: namely that
it was all George W. Bush's fault. It was not so simple then and is not now.
The crisis of U.S.
foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with
personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at
the margins.
Let us bring some history to this question of America as spoiler. What is the origin of this
undignified and isolating approach to global affairs?
It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end.
What ensued had various names. There was the "end of history" thesis. American liberalism was humanity's highest
achievement, and nothing would supersede it.
There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market
capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. The
consensus never extended far beyond the Potomac, but this sort of detail mattered little at the
time.
The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual
ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world.
Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted
democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted
in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008
financial crash followed. I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An
economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in
Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one.
The orthodoxy today remains what it was when it formed in the 1990s: The neoliberal crusade
must proceed. Our market-driven, "rules-based" order is still advanced as the only way out of
our planet's impasses.
A Strategic and Military Turn
Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an
assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with
the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions.
The
NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change
operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be
a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed
Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live
with daily.
The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in
policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at
the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a
campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime.
Spoilage as a poor excuse for a foreign policy had made its first appearances.
I count 2013 to 2015 as key years. At the start of this period, China began developing what
it now calls its Belt and Road
Initiative -- its hugely ambitious plan to stitch together the Eurasian landmass, Shanghai
to Lisbon. Moscow favored this undertaking, not least because of the key role Russia had to
play and because it fit well with President Vladimir Putin's Eurasian Economic
Union (EAEU), launched in 2014.
In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and
diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism
and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as
Russia and the West.
Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it
apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that
established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime
change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on
which the government now in power still depends.
That is how we got the U.S.-as-spoiler foreign policy we now have.
If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument
-- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around
him, as he acknowledged in his interview
with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic toward the end of his second term. From
that
"Anonymous" opinion piece published in The New York Times on Sept. 5, we know
Trump is too, to a greater extent than Obama may have feared in his worst moments.
The crucial question is why. Why do U.S. policy cliques find themselves bereft of
imaginative thinking in the face of an evolving world order? Why has there been not a single
original policy initiative since the years I single out, with the exception of the
now-abandoned 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs? "Right now, our job is to create
quagmires until we get what we want," an administration official
told The Washington Post 's David Ignatius in August.
Can you think of a blunter confession of intellectual bankruptcy? I can't.
Global 'Equals' Like Us?
There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony,
the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than
the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all
facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view,
but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques.
As I have argued numerous times elsewhere, parity between East and West is a 21st century
imperative. From Woodrow Wilson to the post-World War II settlement, an equality among all
nations was in theory what the U.S. considered essential to global order.
Now that this is upon us, however, Washington cannot accept it. It did not count on
non-Western nations achieving a measure of prosperity and influence until they were "just like
us," as the once famous phrase had it. And it has not turned out that way.
Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal
adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a
key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each
stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led
order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they
are determined to preserve them.
They signify the shape of the world to come -- a post-Western world in which the Atlantic
alliance must coexist with rising powers outside its orbit. Together, then, they signify
precisely what the U.S. cannot countenance. And if there is one attribute of neoliberal and
neoconservative ideology that stands out among all others, it is its complete inability to
accept difference or deviation if it threatens its interests.
This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many
consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist.
His web site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
If you valued this original article, please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
This really is an excellent analysis. I would highlight the following point:
"There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony,
the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than
the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost
all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my
view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques
"
Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further
cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history
of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist
frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the
disease which afflicts Washington.
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 6:03 pm
You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American
Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world
which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies,
a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to
war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions
of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved.
This focus on war has its roots in the Christian bible and in a sense of manifest destiny
that has occupied Americans since before they were Americans, and the real Americans had to
be exterminated. It certainly (as stated) can't be blamed on certain individuals, it's
predominate and nearly universal. How many Americans were against the assault by the
Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few.
Homer Jay , September 14, 2018 at 10:09 pm
"How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq?
Very few."
Are you kidding me? Here is a list of polls of the American public regarding the Iraq War
2003-2007;
Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of
State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40
percent of the public who opposed the war. You clearly are not American or you would remember
the vocal minority which filled the streets of big cities across this country. And again the
consent was as Chomsky says "manufactured." And it took only 1 year of the war for the
majority of the public to be against it. By 2007 60-70% of the public opposed the war.
Judging from your name you come from a country whose government was part of that coalition
of the willing. So should we assume that "very few" of your fellow country men and women were
against that absolute horror show that is the Iraq war?
Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 11:05 pm
You failed to address my major point, and instead picked on something you're wrong on.
PS: bevin made approximately the same point later (w/o the financial factor).
"Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further
cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history
of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist
frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the
disease which afflicts Washington."
Archie1954 , September 14, 2018 at 2:39 pm
I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals.
Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political
systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for
themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make
those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people
either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations
of the World!
Bob Van Noy , September 14, 2018 at 9:54 pm
Archie 1954, because 911 was never adequately investigated, our government was
inappropriately allowed to act in the so-called public interest in completely inappropriate
ways; so that in order for the Country to set things right, those decisions which were made
quietly, with little public discussion, would have to be exposed and the illegalities
addressed. But, as I'm sure you know, there are myriad other big government failures also
left unexamined, so where to begin?
That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly
independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this
forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time
to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's
figure out how to begin.
So,"Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else?", certainly not
The People
A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is
in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the
hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted
ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the
neofeudal/futile system.
When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful
expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? The Pentagon
consistently calls the shots, yet we consistently hear about unaccounted expenditures by the
Pentagon, losing amounts in the trillions, and never do they get audited.
nondimenticare , September 14, 2018 at 12:18 pm
I certainly agree that the policy is bereft, but not for all of the same reasons. There is
the positing of a turnaround as a basis for the current spoiler role: "What had been an
assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly
with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military
dimensions."
To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the
goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination:
"Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted
democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the
countries it invaded to be "Just like us."
Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR,
I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed,
it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual
"progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the
history of the country squarely.
That is the blindness of intent that has led to the spoiler role.
Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 11:15 am
Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years
of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational
governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski:
"The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and
planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970
"Make no mistake, what we are seeing in geopolitics today is indeed a magic show. The
false East/West paradigm is as powerful if not more powerful than the false Left/Right
paradigm. For some reason, the human mind is more comfortable believing in the ideas of
division and chaos, and it often turns its nose up indignantly at the notion of "conspiracy."
But conspiracies and conspirators can be demonstrated as a fact of history. Organization
among elitists is predictable.
Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they
have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion,
they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any
mainstream cause or social movement.
What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level
narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These
people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as
naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual
benefit."
"In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the
private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is
produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the
resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the
political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the
differences are going to be very slight." ~ Noam Chomsky
Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in
the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a
"peace dividend" following the end of WWII.
To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only
acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of
discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/
.
We live in a country of military socialism, in which military citizens have all types of
benefits, on condition they join the military-industrial-complex. This being so, there is no
need for real "intelligence", there is no need to "understand" what goes on is foreign
countries, there no need to be right about what might happen or worry about consequences.
What is important is stimulate the economy by spending on arms. From Korean war, when the US
dropped more bombs than it had on Nazi Germany, through Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya
etc etc the US policy was a winning one not for those who got bombed (and could not fight
back) but for the weapons industry and military contractors. Is the NYTimes ever going to
discuss this aspect? Or any one in the MSM?
Walter , September 14, 2018 at 9:26 am
The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the
"Statement of A. Wess Mitchell
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21
this year. The transcript is at :
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/082118_Mitchell_Testimony.pdf
Quote the esteemed gentleman (inter alia): "It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to
prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the
administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by
systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American
power. "
Tellingly the "official" State Department copy is changed and omits the true spoken
words
I would propose that the Zionism aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward
Operating Base Israel" look it a map, Comrade The ISIS?Saudi?Zionist games divides the New
Silk Road and the Eurasian land mass and exists to throttle said pathways.
Interestingly the latter essay is attributed to Eldar Ismailov and Vladimir Papava
Brother Comrade Putin knows the game. The US has to maintain the fiction for the public
that it does not know the game, and is consequently obliged to maintain a vast public
delusion, hence "fake news" and all the rest.
OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 1:49 pm
"I would propose that the Zionism aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward
Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade"
Some have an attraction to book-ends. Once upon a time the Eurasian book-ends were Germany and Japan, and the Western Asian
book-ends Israel and Saudi Arabia. This "strategy" is based upon the notion that bookend-ness is a state of inertia which in
any interactive system is impossible except apparently to those embedded in "we the people
hold these truths to be self-evident".
Consequently some have an attraction to book-ends.
Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy
since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0.
In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum
between 1990 and 2010.
Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between
"Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China
however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the
geopolitical war between the two.
Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of
the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to
control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US
must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus,
what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948.
Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing.
Rob Roy , September 15, 2018 at 12:16 am
Mr. Etler,
I think you are mostly right except in the first Cold War, the Soviets and US Americans were
both involved in this "war." What you call Cold War 2.0 is in the minds and policies of only
the US. Russian is not in any way currently like the Soviet Union, yet the US acts in all
aspects of foreign attitude and policy as though that (very unpleasant period in today's
Russians' minds) still exists. It does not. You says there was "merely a 20 year interregnum"
and things have picked up and continued as a Cold War. Only in the idiocy of the USA,
certainly not in the minds of Russian leadership, particularly Putin's who now can be
distinguished as the most logical, realistic and competent leader in the world.
Thanks to H. Clinton being unable to become president, we have a full blown Russiagate which
the MSM propaganda continues to spread.
There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a
false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure
if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from
doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 1:41 pm
"This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many
consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."
Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign
policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the
contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those
regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's
wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off.
Conjuring up Heraclitus..Time is a River, constantly changing. And we face downstream,
unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past.
The attempt has an effect, many effects, but it cannot stop Time.
The Russian and the Chinese have clinched the unification of the Earth Island, "Heartland"
This ended the ability to control global commerce by means of navies – the methods of
the Sea Peoples over the last 500 years are now failed. The US has no way of even seeing this
fact other than force and violence to restore the status quo ante .
Thus World War, as we see
Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China and
Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US
Jeff Harrison , September 13, 2018 at 1:29 pm
I guess I missed this one, Patrick. Great overview but let me put it in a slightly
different context. You start with the end of the cold war but I don't. I could go all the way
back to the early days of the country and our proclamation of manifest destiny. The US has
long thought that it was the one ring to rule them all. But for most of that time the
strength of individual members of the rest of the world constrained the US from running amok.
That constraint began to be lifted after the ruling clique in Europe committed seppuku in
WWI. It was completely lifted after WWII. But that was 75 years ago. This is now and most of
the world has recovered from the world wide destruction of human and physical capital known
as WWII. The US is going to have to learn how to live with constraints again but it will take
a shock. The US is going to have to lose at something big time. Europe cancelling the
sanctions? The sanctions on Russia don't mean squat to the US but it's costing Europe
billions. This highlights the reality that the "Western Alliance" (read NATO) is not really
an alliance of shared goals and objectives. It's an alliance of those terrified by fascism
and what it can do. They all decided that they needed a "great father" to prevent their
excesses again. One wonders if either the world or Europe would really like the US to come
riding in like the cavalry to places like Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. Blindly following
Washington's directions can be remarkably expensive for Europe and they get nothing but
refugees they can't afford. Something will ultimately have to give.
The one thing I was surprised you didn't mention was the US's financial weakness. It's
been a long time since the US was a creditor nation. We've been a debtor nation since at
least the 80s. The world doesn't need debtor nations and the only reason they need us is the
primacy of the US dollar. And there are numerous people hammering away at that.
Gerald Wadsworth , September 13, 2018 at 12:59 pm
Why are we trying to hem in China, Russia and Iran? Petro-dollar hegemony, pure and
simple. From our initial deal with Saudi Arabia to buy and sell oil in dollars only, to the
chaos we have inflicted globally to retain the dollar's rule and role in energy trading, we
are finding ourselves threatened – actually the position of the dollar as the sole
trading medium is what is threatened – and we are determined to retain that global
power over oil at all costs. With China and Russia making deals to buy and sell oil in their
own currencies, we have turned both those counties into our enemies du jour, inventing every
excuse to blame them for every "bad thing" that has and will happen, globally. Throw in
Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and a host of other countries who want to get out from under our
thumb, to those who tried and paid the price. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and
more. Our failed foreign policy is dictated by controlling, as Donald Rumsfeld once opined,
"our oil under their sand." Oil. Pure and simple.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 2:18 pm
I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of
our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank,
and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya
know.
Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 3:33 pm
I agree, Gerald. Along with ensuring access to "our" off-shore oil fields, enforcing the
petro-dollar system is equally significant, and seems to be the mainspring for much of our
recent foreign policy militarism. If this system were to unravel, the dollar's value would
tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases which make the world
safe for democracy? Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.
Anonymous Coward , September 13, 2018 at 10:40 pm
+1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and
Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. Also note that
anyone trying to retain control of their currency and not letting "The Market" (private
banks) totally control them is a Great Devil we need to fight, e.g. Libya and China.
And note
(2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the
entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks
MichaelWme , September 13, 2018 at 12:18 pm
It's called the Thucydides trap. NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) have said they will force
regime change in Syria. Russia says it will not allow regime change in Syria. Fortunately, as
a Frenchman and an Austrian explained many years ago, and NATO experts say is true today,
regime change in Russia is a simple matter, about the same as Libya or Panamá. I
forget the details, but I assume things worked out well for the Frenchman and the Austrian,
and will work out about the same for NATO.
Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't
matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere
he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy.
Truer words were never spoken, and it is the reason why I know, at least, that Russia did
not interfere in the US elections. What would be the point, from his viewpoint, and it is not
only just his opinion. You cannot help but see at this point that that he said is obviously
true.
TJ , September 13, 2018 at 1:47 pm
What an excellent point. Why bother influencing the elections when it doesn't matter who
is elected -- the same policies will continue.
Bart Hansen , September 13, 2018 at 3:43 pm
Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro: "I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the
same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is
elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing
dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones.
These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is
what happens with every administration."
rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 8:02 am
Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to
Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose,
he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between
Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful
expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate.
Great to see Patrick Lawrence writing for Consortium News.
He ends his article with: "This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign
policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.
"
Speaking of consequences, how about the human toll this foreign policy has taken on so
many people in this world. To me, the gravest sin of all.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 8:46 am
I agree with Patric Lawrence when he states "Personalizing Washington's regression into
the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of
deeper understanding." and I also agree that 'Seven decades of global hegemony have left the
State Department, Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think
about other than the simplicities of East-West tension.' But I seriously disagree when he
declares that: "The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are
systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the
next with little variance other than at the margins.'' Certainly the missteps are true, but I
would argue that the "personalities" are crucial to America's crisis of Foreign Policy. After
all it was likely that JFK's American University address was the public declaration of his
intention to lead America in the direction of better understanding of Sovereign Rights that
likely got him killed. It is precisely those "personalities" that we must understand and
identify before we can move on
Skip Scott , September 13, 2018 at 9:35 am
Bob-
I see what you're saying, but I believe Patrick is also right.
Many of the people involved
in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather
than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are
not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance.
Remember when
"Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that
became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy
seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are
embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking
system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the
world than have to share.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 2:42 pm
You're completely right Skip, that's what we all must recognize and ultimately react to,
and against.
Thank you.
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 6:46 pm
I would add that human beings are the key components in this system. The system is built
and shaped by them. Some are greedy, lying predators and some are honest and egalitarian. Bob
Parry was one of the latter, thankfully.
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 6:30 pm
Skip, very good points. For those interested further, here's an excellent talk on the
bankers behind the manufacutured wars, including the role of the Council on Foreign Relations
as a front organization and control mechanism. "The Shadows of Power; the CFR and decline of America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6124&v=wHa1r4nIaug
Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 9:42 am
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 2:51 pm
Many thanks Joe, I admire your persistence. Clearly Bob Woodward has been part of the
problem rather than the solution. The swamp is deep and murky
JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 6:36 pm
Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his
consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal.
Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well.
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/
The document Gary Cohen removed off Trump's desk –
which you can read here – states an intent to end a free trade agreement with South
Korea.
"White House aides feared if Trump sent the letter, it could jeopardize a top-secret US
program that can detect North Korean missile launches within seven seconds."
Sounds like Trump wanted to play the "I am such a great deal maker, the GREATEST deal
maker of all times!" game with the South Koreans. Letter doesn't say anything about
withdrawing troops or missiles.
Funny how ***TOP-SECRET US PROGRAMS*** find their way into books and newspapers these
days, plentiful as acorns falling out of trees.
You're welcome, Joe. These things get confusing. Who knows anymore what is real and what
isn't?
Trump did indeed say something about ending military exercises and pulling troops out of
South Korea. His staff did indeed contradict him on this. It just wasn't in relation to the
letter Cohn "misplaced," AFAIK.
Nobody asked me, but if they did, I'd say the US interfered enough in Korean affairs by
killing a whole bunch of 'em in the Korean War. Leave'em alone. Let North and South try to
work it out. Tired of hearing about "regime change.'
Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's
new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign
a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of
his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one
there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots
to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.
Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that
undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy
knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and
hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war
industries they protected?
The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency,
as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military
purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too
much war means your country is doing something wrong.
Kiwiantz , September 13, 2018 at 8:20 am
Spoiler Nation of America! You got that dead right! China builds infrastructure in other
Countries & doesn't interfere with the citizens & their Sovereignty. Contrast that
with the United Spoiler States of America, they run roughshod over overs & just bomb the
hell out of Countries & leaves devastation & death wherever they go! And there is
something seriously wrong & demented with the US mindset concerning, the attacks on 9/11?
In Syria the US has ended up arming & supporting the very same organisation of Al
QaedaTerrorists, morphed into ISIS, that hijacked planes & flew them into American
targets! During 2017 & now in 2018, it defies belief how warped this US mentality is when
ISIS can so easily & on demand, fake a chemical attack to suck in the stupid American
Military & it's Airforce & get them to attack Syria, like lackeys taking orders from
Terrorist's! The US Airforce is the airforce of Al Qaeda & ISIS! Why? Because the US
can't stomach Russia, Syria & Iran winning & defeating Terrorism thus ending this
Proxy War they started! Russia can't be allowed to win at any cost because the humiliation
& loss of prestige that the US would suffer as a Unipolar Empire would signal the decline
& end of this Hegemonic Empire so they must continue to act as a spoiler to put off that
inevitable decline! America can't face reality that it's time in the sun as the last Empire,
is over!
Sally Snyder , September 13, 2018 at 7:57 am
Here is what Americans really think about the rabid anti-Russia hysteria coming from
Washington:
Washington has completely lost touch with what Main Street America really believes.
Waynes World , September 13, 2018 at 7:37 am
Finally some words of truth about how we want our way not really democracy. A proper way
to look at the world is what you said toward the end a desire to make people's lives
better.
mike k , September 13, 2018 at 7:14 am
Simply put – the US is the world's biggest bully. This needs to stop. Fortunately
the bully's intended victims are joining together to defeat it's crazy full spectrum
dominance fantasies. Led by Russia and China, we can only hope for the success of the
resistance to US aggression.
This political, economic, military struggle is not the only problem the world is facing
now, but is has some priority due to the danger of nuclear war. Global pollution, climate
disaster, ecological collapse and species extinction must also be urgently dealt with if we
are to have a sustainable existence on Earth.
OlyaPola , September 13, 2018 at 4:39 am
Alpha : "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a
post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept
global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence."
Omega: "Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global
stability."
Framing is always a limiter of perception.
Among the consequences of the lateral trajectories from Alpha to Omega referenced above,
is the "unintended consequence" of the increase of the principal opponents, their resolve and
opportunities to facilitate the transcendence of arrangements based on coercion by
arrangements based on co-operation.
Opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to
deny lateral process.
HomoSapiensWannaBe , September 13, 2018 at 8:23 am
John Chuckman,
Wow. Thanks! I have just begun reading your commentaries this week and I am impressed with
how clearly you analyze and summarize key points about many topics.
Thank you so much for writing what are often the equivalent of books, but condensed into
easy to read and digest summaries.
I have ordered your book and look forward to reading that.
"... The myth of BBC being some standard for news reporting died with the advent of the availability of international and independent news in Western countries ..."
"... Ironic when the BBC has been ceaselessly pushing fake news for at least 15 years, with disastrous results. (Iraq; Libya; what caused the deficit and who should be forced to pay it down; Russia/Syria false flags; Corbyn A/S.) ..."
"... I find it impossible to watch BBC News, primarily because most of the editorial staff and senior correspondents seem to be working for MI5/6 and are more interested in disseminating Geo-political propaganda than upholding their journalistic responsibilities as defined in the BBC charter. ..."
"... The book is obviously part of a propaganda campaign. It seems hugely fortuitous that Mark Urban should have had "hours" of interviews with Skripal before the poisoning incident. ..."
"... Isn't it much more likely that the Urban "interviews" would have happened after the event? But Urban can't say that because that would lead to demands from other journalists or news bodies to have access to Skripal. ..."
"... I'm open to alternative hypotheses but right now I think the most likely explanation for Urban's pre-poisoning contact with Sergei Skripal is that, at the time, it was assumed the Orbis dossier would be a key component of the successful takedown of Trump and Urban was putting together a mutually flattering account by interviewing the main players. ..."
"... With regard to your tongue-in-cheek point. Urban could have interviewed Skripal anytime after Trump was gone, unless he believed Skripal might be unavailable (for some reason). The fact he interviewed Skripal before does indicate foresight. If Urban really did interview Skripal before the event then he would be wiser to pull the book and burn every copy in existence (as well as all his notes). ..."
"... Urban pretends to research a book exposing Russia and part of his research is to interview Skripal. His objective is to find dirt on Putin in order to swing the war in Syria in favour of USUKIS bombing Assad to smithereens, bayonets bums etc. ..."
"... Interestingly Mark Urbans' book on Sergei Skripal was available to purchase on Amazon in July. I added it to my Amazon wishlist on 28/7/18. I've just looked at my wishlist and was rather surprised to find it is no longer available. It has been pulled. ..."
"... Can't help thinking that the answer to all this lies in Estonia. Sergei went to Estonia in June 2016, Pablo was in Estonia, the Estonians passed on sigint about Trump-Russian collusion in the summer of 2016. A Guardian article of 13 April 2017 said: ..."
"... No doubt in my mind that the Skripal affair is a planned operation carried out by US/UK intelligence. What has actually taken place is still to be determined, but the propaganda operation itself is clear. ..."
"... I know about Ireland, and I agree, it was NOT a nerve agent. That said, I don't believe anyone was 'attacked', including the Skripals. ..."
"... All foreign correspondents of major newspapers too work with MI6. Nobody who is close to them has any kind of doubt about this. ..."
"... I despise everyone who says that free markets are the solution for the problems of the third world. What they mean is mass starvation and an enormous population cull. There are international "foundations" that pay academics and politicians large amounts of money to spout this obscene line. One of them is called the John Templeton Foundation. They have had their fangs in to British universities for a long time. ..."
"... When the Tories talk about 'free markets', they are talking about markets free from democracy. ..."
BBC is skanky state propaganda. The myth of BBC being some standard for news reporting died with the advent of the availability
of international and independent news in Western countries. The main thing that BBC used to have which propped up the illusion
of it being a respectable news source is that there was no competition or alternative to compare its narratives against. Since
that time is over, so is BBC's masquerading as an impartial or accurate news source.
Agree, Dave. That's what's informing the push to rubbish dissenting sites as fake news and eventually have them removed.
Ironic when the BBC has been ceaselessly pushing fake news for at least 15 years, with disastrous results. (Iraq; Libya;
what caused the deficit and who should be forced to pay it down; Russia/Syria false flags; Corbyn A/S.)
Well I was convinced of fake BBC news during 9/11 and not for the reasons of building 7 coming down too early but the fact
that the female journalist was facing a camera standing in front of a glass window and there was no reflection of her or the camera
person from the glass. Not even a faint shadow.
That's when I knew the BBC were employing vampires and have been ever since.
Green Screen technology I discovered later. All the On the spot reporters are at it apparently. Or repeating Reuters or PA.
I find it impossible to watch BBC News, primarily because most of the editorial staff and senior correspondents seem to
be working for MI5/6 and are more interested in disseminating Geo-political propaganda than upholding their journalistic responsibilities
as defined in the BBC charter. People should not only boycott the BBC but refuse to pay the license fee on the grounds that
it's a compulsory political subscription.
Dear Mark,
In a BBC article on 4 July 2018, you wrote: "I have not felt ready until now to acknowledge explicitly that we had met, but do
now that the book is nearing completion."
Could you please explain that comment? I do not see why your acknowledgement of your meetings with Sergei Skripal should be
delayed until your book is nearing completion.
If you felt that it was right to reveal those meetings in July, then why was it not right to do so in March, soon after the
poisoning occurred? What difference would it have made if you had done so four months earlier?
I cannot think of any negative consequences of an earlier acknowledgement of the meetings. In fact, disclosures of any possible
conflict of interest are generally considered to be desirable in journalism, regardless of whether the conflict of interest is
real.
The book is obviously part of a propaganda campaign. It seems hugely fortuitous that Mark Urban should have had "hours"
of interviews with Skripal before the poisoning incident.
Isn't it much more likely that the Urban "interviews" would have happened after the event? But Urban can't say that because
that would lead to demands from other journalists or news bodies to have access to Skripal.
And that can't happen because either Skripal would be asked about what happened on the day of the poisoning, or can't be guaranteed
to stick to the script, or is no longer alive. And that leads to a suspicion that whatever Skripal is supposed to have said in
his interviews with Urban has really just been made up by the British security services.
I'm open to alternative hypotheses but right now I think the most likely explanation for Urban's pre-poisoning contact
with Sergei Skripal is that, at the time, it was assumed the Orbis dossier would be a key component of the successful takedown
of Trump and Urban was putting together a mutually flattering account by interviewing the main players.
Tongue in cheek, it'd be worth asking Urban if his decision to cover the Skripal poisoning in his new book was made before
or after the Skripals were actually poisoned.
The consensus seems to be that it was an anti-Russia book, but that doesn't conflict with what you say (there is overlap, your
view is just more specific). But, I just find it hard to believe that Urban and the conspirators would waste their time "counting
their chickens ". Not least because such a book would form a handy list of traitors (together with confessions) if Trump were
to prevail and it fell into the right hands. This is "101 – How to Organise a Revolution" (secrecy / don't put anything in writing);
surely British security services know that?
With regard to your tongue-in-cheek point. Urban could have interviewed Skripal anytime after Trump was gone, unless he
believed Skripal might be unavailable (for some reason). The fact he interviewed Skripal before does indicate foresight. If Urban
really did interview Skripal before the event then he would be wiser to pull the book and burn every copy in existence (as well
as all his notes).
Regardless, it looks like the master of the universe are losing their ability to create reality.
Last month, Mark Urban was promoting the reports that the Russian assassins had been identified from CCTV footage:
"There are now subjects of interest in the police Salisbury investigation. ( ) analytic and cyber techniques are now being
exploited against the Salisbury suspects by people with a wealth of experience in complex investigations." https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1020366761848385536
The BBC relies on it's interpretation of the Act because it is held for the purposes of 'journalism, art or literature.' but
this relies on a usually unrelated precedent and the opinions of a number of Judges which contradict this view. I'm in the process
of challenging this with ICO but don't expect anything will change until another supreme court ruling:
I can see the value in asking writers, journalists and artists to pose exactly the same questions as Eccles' original letter
but I'm not convinced about Craig's email.
A quick google shows me that a man named Mark Urban has written a book on the Skripals. Isn't it likely that Urban was keeping
the interviews to himself in order to keep his book alive?
It wouldn't surprise me if Urban cares far more about his writing career than his job at the BBC. I'm sure most journalists
would rather be authors. He's written a number of books on war and military intelligence. If his sources have nothing to do with
the BBC then why should he answer to an on line mob?
" Isn't it likely that Urban was keeping the interviews to himself in order to keep his book alive?"
No, entirely unlikely. a chance to plug his forthcoming book and his Skripal contacts to a massive worldwide televion audience
was eschewed.
The book is now about the Skripal attack. Presumably that was not the original subject he was researching, as it hadn't happened
yet. The book will just be a rehash of the "noble defector – Putin revenge" line and none of the questions I asked about the genesis
of his involvement will be answered in it.
"Presumably that was not the original subject he was researching, as it hadn't happened yet." Or it was prescience ie that
it was part of the planning for the incident?
@BBC, Summer 2017, in an executive office:
"Hey Mark, why don't you go down to have a chat with this guy in Salisbury. I have a hunch that a story might be going to happen
involving him, you know, as an ex-Soviet spy. Spend time with him, get to know him, be able to write in depth about him. Say it's
for a book ."
Urban is never one-sided in his BBC reports on the Middle East. I would rather have him as Foreign Secretary than a bumbling
idiot like Hubris Johnson or a Tory racketeer Hunt, because however clunky the formula of BBC balance Urban is at least pretending
to be governed by normal rules. After Thatcher went anyone with half a brain left the Conservative party, leaving dolts like Johnson
and nasties like May and Cameron to pick up the pieces after Blair and Brown.
There's money to be made from Russian billionaires and tory shit will follow the money like flies on d**t**d.
Urban pretends to research a book exposing Russia and part of his research is to interview Skripal. His objective is to
find dirt on Putin in order to swing the war in Syria in favour of USUKIS bombing Assad to smithereens, bayonets bums etc.
Tory shit Hubris Johnson finds this political research floating around the Foreign Office and decides to twist it into Russia
murders Skripal by Novichok. Unfortunately Johnson is already known to be a liar and gravy-trainer Tory and nobody believes him
at all. Mrs May , realising that Johnson, Fox, Rees-Mogg and Hunt are completely bonkers, does Chequers her own way.
Interestingly Mark Urbans' book on Sergei Skripal was available to purchase on Amazon in July. I added it to my Amazon
wishlist on 28/7/18. I've just looked at my wishlist and was rather surprised to find it is no longer available. It has been pulled.
From memory the books description said that Mark had interviewed Skripal 'extensively' during 2017 and also mentioned the 'new'
spying war now happening between Britain and Russia.
Salisbury poisoning: Skripals 'were under Russian surveillance'
Mark Urban Diplomatic and defence editor, Newsnight
4 July 2018
'My meetings with Sergei Skripal
I met Sergei on a few occasions last summer and found him to be a private character who did not, even under the circumstances
then prevailing, wish to draw attention to himself.
He agreed to see me as a writer of history books rather than as a news journalist, since I was researching one on the post-Cold
War espionage battle between Russia and the West.
Information gained in these interviews was fed into my Newsnight coverage during the early days after the poisoning. I have
not felt ready until now to acknowledge explicitly that we had met, but do now that the book is nearing completion.
As a man, Sergei is proud of his achievements, both before and after joining his country's intelligence service.
He has a deadpan wit and is remarkably stoical given the reverses he's suffered in his life; from his imprisonment following
conviction in 2006 on charges of spying for Britain, to the loss of his wife Liudmila to cancer in 2012, and the untimely death
of his son Alexander (or Sasha) last summer.'
Laughable given that the whole world and virtually all heads of State were under US surveillance by the NSA – at least until
Edward Snowden made all his revelations.
I have pasted and copied your Email regarding the above with a few slight alterations, it will be interesting to see the response
I receive if any being just a concerned citizen of the U.
Is this not a matter for the Police? (Even if you're not too sure if they'd do anything about it) These would be files that
are to do with an attempted murder case. And definitely not Journalism if the story is fabricated.
It feels as if you are moving in the right direction in linking Sergei to Steele. I'm intrigued by the very early media references
to Sergei wanting to return home to see his elderly mother for perhaps the last time. He had apparently written to Putin making
his request but again according to newspapers hadn't received a reply.
I would suggest Julia was bringing the answer via her own secret services contacts, her boyfriend and his mother, apparently
Senior in the Russian Intelligence Agency. Perhaps a sentimental man Sergei was aware his mother couldn't travel so the plea to
Putin was his best bet.
Such a request must have disturbed MI6 if Sergei had anything at all to do with the Steele dossier because inevitably if he
returned to Russia he'd be debriefed by his old colleagues. But how can you rely on a mercenary double agent? If he decided he
might want to stay in Russia with his family that might well have been attractive, away from the lonely existence in a Salisbury
cul de sac with only spies for company. But the Steele dossier has great potential to turn sour on the British.
It's author was a Senior spy and Head of the Russian Desk for some years. It is – perhaps you'd agree? – inconceivable that
he didn't require permission to prepare it, especially as much of it was based on his experience as a spy in Russia. Yet it's
equally inconceivable that the Agency bosses didn't know the identity of the commissioners or the use to which it would be put
in the US election – to boost Clinton's bid. If she'd won everything would have been fine but as it is any discussion of foreign
interference in that election would have to include MI6 leading the list (they probably didn't tell any politician?) To have Sergei
supporting and highlighting that embarrassment would be problematic for US-UK relations. Of course Sergei may have had other nuggets
to expose as well as Steele.
Soon after Julia's arrival the pair fell ill. They both survived but are now locked away, presumably for life and never able
to explain their side of the story.
It was a bodged job with a poor cover story from the start and could only be carried because of D Notices and media complicity.
Is his mother still alive? Would he still like to see her before she dies? Would Russia allow it? Would MI6 allow it? I think
that's 3 yeses and a resounding No.
Following the deaths of 55 Palestinians on the Gaza 'border' and the wounding of thousands, in this video, Urban asks the questions
but the Israeli government spokesman, David Keyes, is allowed to spout all the usual propaganda against Hamas.
Gaza deaths: Who's to blame? – BBC Newsnight
Published on 15 May 2018
Subscribe 256K
Fresh protests against Israel are expected in the Palestinian territories, a day after Israeli troops killed 58 people in the
Gaza Strip.
David Keyes is the spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mark Urban asked him whether it was appropriate
for the US to open their embassy on the 70th anniversary of Israel's creation, a day that is hugely controversial for the Palestinian
people.
Mr Keyes' pronounced American accent was heard. The Occupation was not mentioned. A Palestinian voice was not heard.
This is another of his videos. On the same subject and on the opening of the Israeli Embassy in Jerusalem. This time, Jonathan
Conricus spoke for the IDF.
"Urban asks the questions but the Israeli government spokesman, David Keyes, is allowed to spout all the usual propaganda against
Hamas."
Yes indeed : Urban asked the questions and allowed the interviewee to answer. Perhaps you would have preferred him to interrupt
the interviewee continually 'a la Today programme, or to have shouted at him similarly to the way I understand some people shout
at customers inside or outside supermarkets?
This may or may not be relevant regarding Russia, chemical weapons and BBC/MSM bovine effluent:
"US Poised to Hit Syria Harder: The Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement on Aug. 25 stating that the Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham
militants had brought eight containers of chlorine to Idlib in order to stage a false-flag attack with the help of UK intelligence
agencies. A group of Tahrir al-Sham fighters trained to handle chemical warfare agents by the UK private military company Olive
arrived in the suburbs of the city of Jisr ash-Shugur, Idlib, 20 km. from the Turkish border."
Can't help thinking that the answer to all this lies in Estonia. Sergei went to Estonia in June 2016, Pablo was in Estonia,
the Estonians passed on sigint about Trump-Russian collusion in the summer of 2016. A Guardian article of 13 April 2017 said:
"Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's
inner circle and Russians, sources said. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included
Germany, Estonia and Poland."
Perhaps not the Dossier, as such, but some material on collusion?
No doubt in my mind that the Skripal affair is a planned operation carried out by US/UK intelligence. What has actually
taken place is still to be determined, but the propaganda operation itself is clear.
Catch my last post Doodlebug, sadly MI6 diabolical elements can be traced back to Ireland in the 70's early 80's assassinations
theRealTerror (theRealElvis) understands.
Often it's been open. There was the BBC monitoring station at Caversham Park. The BBC's Foreign Broadcast Information Service
split the world into two parts with the CIA.
All foreign correspondents of major newspapers too work with MI6. Nobody who is close to them has any kind of doubt about
this.
Theresa May says a no deal Brexit "wouldn't be the end of the world".
This is not a negotiating strategy. This is not a pantomime where one giant on the stage can wink to his supporters (using
the British media) without his opponent (EU27) noticing.
The subconscious doesn't work well with negation. Whatever you do, please DON'T imagine an elephant at this time.
I would love to know what the preparations are at Trinity College, Cambridge, for food shortages. They own the port of
Felixstowe, which handles more than 40% of Britain's containerised trade. They also own a 50% stake in a portfolio of Tesco
stores. Soon food distribution will be what everyone is talking about. I am never going to stop making the point that the god
of the Tory party is Thomas Malthus.
" As a Prime Minister who believes both in free markets and in nations and businesses acting in line with well-established
rules and principles of conduct, I want to demonstrate to young Africans that their brightest future lies in a free and thriving
private sector. "
I despise everyone who says that free markets are the solution for the problems of the third world. What they mean is mass
starvation and an enormous population cull. There are international "foundations" that pay academics and politicians large amounts
of money to spout this obscene line. One of them is called the John Templeton Foundation. They have had their fangs in to British
universities for a long time.
They are keen on Prince Philip, the guy who said he wanted to come back as a virus so he could kill a large part of the population.
Never trust anyone who has received a Templeton scholarship or prize or who has anything to do with these people or with the message
that free markets and the private sector are the key to "development"
When the Tories talk about 'free markets', they are talking about markets free from democracy.
May's rhetoric is laughable .basically all her speeches read : 'the sky is green, the snow is black etc etc' -- totally detached
from reality and a spent political force, as their recent membership numbers showed, with more revenues from legacies left in
wills than from actual living members.
I agree with the Skripal relatives that Sergei is dead. He hasn't been seen or heard of and would have called his mother. Mind
boggling deception at all levels and I struggle to believe any of it.
Sergei Skripal could be in US custody, either in the US itself or in a US facility somewhere.
If he is dead, then the rehospitalisation of Charlie Rowley may be to assist with the narrative. "Once you've had a drop of
Novvy Chockk, you may recover but you can fall down ill at any time, and here's an Expert with a serious voice to confirm it."
I follow this blog closely, particularly in relation to the Skripal case, but this is my first comment. I just watched Sky
News piece on 'super recognisers' and couldn't help but wonder why, in an age of powerful facial recognition technology, the police
and security services seem to have drawn such a blank. The surveillance state in the UK is known to be one of the most advanced
in the world but when it comes to this highly important geopolitical crisis our technological infrastructure seems to be redundant
to the point where 'human eyes' are deemed to be more accurate than the most powerful supercomputers available. Psychologically,
all humans have an inherent facial recognition ability from a very young age, but the idea that some police officers have this
ability developed to such an extent that they supercede computer recognition is, i feel, laughable. To me this announcement through
the ever subservient Sky News reeks of desperation on the part of the ;official story'. Are we about to be shown suspects who,
although facial recognition technology fails to identify them, a 'super recogniser' can testify that it actually is person A or
person B and we are all supposed to accept that? Seems either a damning indictment of the judicial process, or a damning indictment
of the ŁŁŁŁŁ's of taxpayers money that is spent on places like GCHQ etc whose technology is now apparently no better than a highly
perceptive human brain. Give me a break !
People do die Trowbridge. I know you haven't, but you have the motivation of outliving your persecutors. With Muckin about
with Isis gone and covert operations isn't social work Kissinger looking as though he's on daily blood transfusions, you have
rejected Trump for some reason. But Trump has undone much of John McCain's worst mischief in one year. If McCain was an example
of a politician, we don't need politicians.
Give me an example, other than the Coopers. of a healthy couple one day that is found dying the next day like the Skripals.
And while i tried on another site to be generous about McCain. he got Navy Secretary John Lehman, Jr. to scare the Soviets
for prevailing in the Vietnam War so much about what NATO was up to in the fallout from shooting Swedish PM Olof Palme that Moscow
gave up the competition for fear that it would blow up the world, helping bring on the crappy one we have.
McCain was a continuing Cold Warrior who we don't need since we still have Trump who is just trying to do it another way.
I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or
President in American parlance.
Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To
which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with
John Bolton in it?"
You see.
I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause
until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your
fervor.
One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for
eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In
fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back.
Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as
they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them
stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.
Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a
wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.
We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you
think?
Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy
proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:
"OK, on the plane. Now ."
If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him
inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped
down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want,
except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the
nearest street corner, or ask your kids.
Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could
have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they
please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours
alone.
Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger
demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire
country.
Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals
airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American
economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet
love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in
Seattle.
Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide
on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't
Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White
House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway
Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international
spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for?
China?
A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing
politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my
campaign.
Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get
rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig
holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and
make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel
have, the less trouble it can cause.
Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?
Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things
should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do
with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will
qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the
American way.
Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.
Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the
vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and
only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot
seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life.
Smallish population, low military budget.
Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the
North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our
problem.
Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have
backhoes.
Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five
percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a
shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and
Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of
martial life without the murder.
Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has
68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many
homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in
Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are
out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?
Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?
Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled
with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at
least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No
federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding
schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will
go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to
localities without exception.
Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a
free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be
inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in
Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme
measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems
to be.
Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their
way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't
spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of
illiberalism in this meritorious list.
Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying
microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism,
any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum
containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.
Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a
helicopter.
In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can
do this. See you at the polls.
... ... ...
Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico
with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.
"... That said, many - including Yahoo News's Michael Isikoff (the guy whose article containing info fed to him by Christopher Steele was used by the FBI to obtain Carter Page's FISA warrant) - have pointed to potential targets on the left. ..."
"... Those people include former Manafort associates Tony Podesta, Vin Weber and Greg Craig - all of whom failed to register as foreign agents in connection with work outside the United States, as well as members of the Obama administration . Of course, the thought of Mueller going after "the untouchables" seems a bit far fetched. ..."
"... The FSB ambition: to choose the least competent Presidential candidate and, unbeknownst to him, smooth his way to the White House. Thus Robert Meuller's inconvenient truth: If Donald Trump were competent enough to be entrusted with collusion, then he would be too competent for the FSB to achieve its ambitions! I bet the FSB people in charge are gobsmacked that The Donald hasn't been impaled on the 25th Amendment yet! ..."
"... I don't understand Dershowitz here. What could Manafort say that Papadopoulos and Flynn haven't already told Mueller? He was Trump's campaign manager for what three months? ..."
"... If anyone had something juicy on Trump it'd be Michael Flynn since he was in the Trump administration if just for a short time. This is about keeping this farce of a charade going as long as humanly possible. ..."
"... My guess -- a guess -- is that Mueller is under a lot of pressure from the Clinton Family including Brennan, Clapper et al to find something, anything, on enough people to make the last 2 years look legit to the Americans who watch CNN. ..."
"... My guess is that the CF has gone from supporting Mueller to making him scared. ..."
"... That should work for continuing the Conspiracy theory... It is all the DOJ, FBI, Sessions and now newcomer Manafort trying to BRING Down the POTUS. All of this is happening to such a great guy like Trump... Sad huh... ..."
"... Jesus you Trumptards are delusional. The average American is no more likely to take up arms against his masters than the North Koreans are. ..."
Harvard Law professor and prominent liberal Alan Dershowitz - who has been shunned by the
liberal elite of late for defending President Trump - now says that the White House should be
alarmed over Paul Manafort's plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller.
" Well of course they should be ," replied Dershowitz - though he added the rather large
caveat that Mueller is "not a credible witness," and would be at best be a corroborating
witness against Trump.
"There's nothing he can testify to that would probably lend weight to impeachment because he
didn't have close contact with President Trump while he was president," said Dershowitz. " What
they are looking for is self-corroborating information that can be used against Trump if they
can make him sing and then there's the possibility of him composing, elaborating on the story
."
Dershowitz added that there is "no doubt" Mueller is trying to flip Manafort against
Trump.
" Once he agrees to cooperate, he has to cooperate about everything , said Dershowitz.
"There's no such thing as partial cooperation."
As for Trump pardoning Manafort? That's now "off the table," and that flipping on the
President "opens up a lot of doors that probably haven't been opened before."
It's a "big win" for Mueller, Dershowitz concludes.
That said, many - including Yahoo
News's Michael Isikoff (the guy whose article containing info fed to him by Christopher Steele
was used by the FBI to obtain Carter Page's FISA warrant) - have pointed to potential targets
on the left.
Those people include former Manafort associates Tony Podesta, Vin Weber and Greg Craig - all
of whom failed to register as foreign agents in connection with work outside the United States,
as well as members of the Obama administration . Of course, the thought of Mueller going after
"the untouchables" seems a bit far fetched.
quintus.sertorius , 19 minutes ago
The Tribe plays both sides: Dershowitz the plant in Trump team has the same real loyalty
as fellow tribesman Haim Saban or Sheldon Adelson. They want to blackmail Trump into fighting
Israel's war in Syria.
radbug , 55 minutes ago
The FSB ambition: to choose the least competent Presidential candidate and, unbeknownst to
him, smooth his way to the White House. Thus Robert Meuller's inconvenient truth: If Donald
Trump were competent enough to be entrusted with collusion, then he would be too competent
for the FSB to achieve its ambitions! I bet the FSB people in charge are gobsmacked that The
Donald hasn't been impaled on the 25th Amendment yet!
ZazzOne , 1 hour ago
"Big Win For Mueller"? Only if he plans on going after the founders of the Red Shoe "Pedo"
Club.....John and Tony Podesta! Though I highly doubt he'll ever go down that rabbit
hole!!!!!
Straddling-the-fence , 2 hours ago
Once he agrees to cooperate, he has to cooperate about everything , said Dershowitz.
"There's no such thing as partial cooperation.
That's asinine. There are terms to a plea agreement. Unless those terms encompass what is
claimed above, then that is simply false.
KekistanisUnite , 3 hours ago
I don't understand Dershowitz here. What could Manafort say that Papadopoulos and Flynn
haven't already told Mueller? He was Trump's campaign manager for what three months?
George
Papadopoulos I don't know how long he was there but if really has nothing of value to offer
then neither would Manafort.
If anyone had something juicy on Trump it'd be Michael Flynn
since he was in the Trump administration if just for a short time. This is about keeping this
farce of a charade going as long as humanly possible.
Econogeek , 3 hours ago
My guess -- a guess -- is that Mueller is under a lot of pressure from the Clinton Family
including Brennan, Clapper et al to find something, anything, on enough people to make the
last 2 years look legit to the Americans who watch CNN.
My guess is that the CF has gone from supporting Mueller to making him scared.
ThePhantom , 4 hours ago
i like to think Mueller is on the plate too, and this is his chance to save his own ass.
Greg Craig and Podesta's names are out in all the papers .... they worked with manafort first
and foremost....
no idea what dershowitz is talking about.. none.
Calvertsbio , 4 hours ago
Yea sure he is, the SPECIAL Counsel running the show to bring down corruption is "ON THE
PLATE" yea, ok...
That should work for continuing the Conspiracy theory... It is all the DOJ, FBI, Sessions
and now newcomer Manafort trying to BRING Down the POTUS. All of this is happening to such a
great guy like Trump... Sad huh...
Doesn't make much difference how much of this BS is posted, no one is buying it anymore...
Even FAUX news has basically given up on him... Everyone know that once it all comes out, it
will be labelled by HIS SHEEPLE that it is all made up BS to take him down...
Hillary did it... no ! Sessions did it, nope, it was RYAN ? McConnell... lets keep the
guessing game going... The Dossier did it...
BigJim, 4 hours ago
"The swamp critters better stop ignoring the Hillary/DNC side of this or the population is going to be marching in with
pitchforks and guillotines."
Jesus you Trumptards are delusional. The average American is no more likely to take up arms against his masters than
the North Koreans are.
"... Mueller is getting bad press for not going after Hillary and the democrats. If his findings are all against Trump it will be portrayed as a partisan hack job given all the dems on his team. ..."
Wait - where is the Special Counsel looking into FBI/DOJ misconduct with regard to falsely
exonerating Hillary ehile fabricating probable cause to spy on Trump??
Seriously, Mueller has been on a fishing expedition for 2 fucking years premised entirely
on what seems to be FBI/DOJ manufactured evidence and lies to the FISA court... steele memo,
the meetings with 'Russians' that were obvious set ups... Sally Yates making what should be a
CRIMINAL abuse of office call in justifying spying on Flynn because as part of an incoming
admin he was (gasp!) talking to Russian diplomats like incoming admins HAVE TO AND ALWAYS
do...
There are more than enough reasons for a special counsel to look into all that because the
Very fucking point Is the FBI and DOJ have been corrupted by political bias, despite the
'nothing to see here' bullshit of the IG Report.
All this while Hillary and Brennan and Comey and Clapper with his phony bullshit DNI
report all walk around free.. and I'll believe McCabe and Rosenstein are going to be indicted
when they are indicted.
Rosenstein tried to hide very relevant texts from Congress and lied about why.
Trump is getting shit advice. He should fire Sessions and Rosenstein right away, let the
media go nuts, and find a couple black or latino guys or women to replace them in 'acting'
status. See - they just need to be honest and teasonably good.
I Claudius, 4 hours ago
Completely disagree w/Dershowitz. Mueller is getting bad press for not going after Hillary and the democrats. If his
findings are all against Trump it will be portrayed as a partisan hack job given all the dems on his team.
My thoughts? Tony Podesta and that Skadden Arps attorney have been selected by the party leaders as the fall guys for the
dems. They are throwing them overboard so the Mueller BS probe can be portrayed as non-partisan. They can claim that Manafort
was not just a "get Trump's associates" hit job by now stating that Manafort got them these two clowns.
Manafort has zero on Trump and Mueller now has a huge dem jizz load on his face for getting nowhere. He now has to
preserve his reputation and going after these two f'wads for some minor issue (don't forget, the Repubs backed themselves
into a corner claiming this Foreign lobbyist thing is a minor infraction). So now they get these two guys on a BS charge . .
.
And they walk and Mueller saves face.
caconhma, 3 hours ago
It is all BS. The Trump affairs are just diversions from his primary assignments:
Utterly promote and advance interests of Zionist Mafia and Israel
Destabilize the US internal situation and use it as a pretext for transforming the USA into a totalitarian police
state
Protect and defend US$ as the only one viable reserve currency
Prevent by any means China from becoming a geopolitical superpower challenging the USA
IMHO, Trump's masters are doing their job very incompetent and their evil game will terribly backfire against them.
In a way Pence is a guarantee that Trump will not be impeached no matter what ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... The Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they may yet get their wish. But not yet. ..."
"... In terms of the current situation, Manafort is simply irrelevant. Cohen is relevant, but paying a porn start off because you are worried your wife might find out that you are a philanderer: it seems a stretch to interpret that as 'trying to influence an election' although I can sort of see the logic (I suppose Bill Clinton's behaviour vis a vis Monica Lewinsky was ultimately political too). ..."
"... It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance violations'. But what do I know. ..."
"... Cohen is a serious problem. He has implicated Trump in criminal conduct. ..."
"... Presumably one of the key reasons that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair was because he thought it would make him look bad and therefore lose him votes in the 2000 elections. And in a sense it did (although others presumably voted for him 'cos they felt sorry for him). But that seems like a weird way to conceptualise his activities. ..."
"... To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was transparently not to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal – the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises. ..."
"... It's intentionally vague . It should be noted that when Johnson was impeached , one of the eleven articles was "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions." ..."
"... And I don't see impeachment as a very useful strategy for the Ds to pursue. Even if successful at removing Trump, that just gets you Pence -- just as public policy irrational, only less politically disorganized. ..."
"... Maybe impeachment comes up as a tactic, to facilitate some other plan of action, but I don't see conviction on impeachment as a useful means of even control of Trump behavior, much less removal. ..."
This is bad for Trump but not unexpected. Despite the fig leaf of 'Russian collusion' the
main brief of Mueller was 'find out bad stuff about Trump and his associates' and of course it
was almost inevitable that he would find such stuff because Trump and his cronies are scumbags
who exist to break the law. This is the reality of capitalism (as has been pointed out 'crony
capitalism' is the only kind of capitalism that has ever existed or ever will exist). Congress
might or might not accept it, but the Senate (even more viciously 'gerrymandered' albeit de
facto) won't yet. So Trump won't go down, not yet.
The only way that Trump will go down, IMHO is if and when the Republican establishment
decide that they have got everything out of him that they're going to get, which means after
the next Presidential election. Assuming he wins it, he may be ditched quickly. The
Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they
may yet get their wish. But not yet.
In terms of the current situation, Manafort is simply irrelevant. Cohen is relevant, but
paying a porn start off because you are worried your wife might find out that you are a
philanderer: it seems a stretch to interpret that as 'trying to influence an election' although
I can sort of see the logic (I suppose Bill Clinton's behaviour vis a vis Monica Lewinsky was
ultimately political too).
It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance
violations'. But what do I know.
Manaforte is a publicity problem, which will get worse with his second trial, and, if the
US Attorney decides to proceed on the hung counts, a third trial.
None of it ties to Trump; it suggests he hangs out with criminals and does not notice or
care about their conduct. That is a publicity issue. Cohen is a serious problem. He has
implicated Trump in criminal conduct.
As he is still facing a state investigations, there is high risk that he will exchange
information for leniency in that investigation. Which will result in more, at least
potentially, statements incriminating Trump. It is not clear to me what the status is
relative to the Mueller investigation -- only that his current deal does not require
cooperation with Mueller.
Having taken this step, I would expect him to work with Mueller as a way to further
leniency in sentencing and to insure no further prosecutions. (I can't tell from news
coverage whether the deal includes all federal investigations or not.) Cohen seems a credible
witness and too close to Trump on the direct political issues for any very successful effort
to wall him off.
His statement also is a big problem for the lawsuits by Daniels, and others, as it shreds
Trump's defenses to date. But none of it will mean that significant numbers of Republicans in
the Congress will back away from Trump. Nixon held most Republicans until he resigned. I
don't see a reason to think the team loyalty now will be less.
Watch what Lanny Davis, Cohen's attorney, says and does. He is not a Giuliani. He is
clearly telling prosecutors his client has valuable information and is willing to provide it
(if not already disclosed).
'The Republicans simply don't care, and nothing will make them care.'
To be fair, I don't care either, and nothing will make me care. Anyway, back in the real world .
'Michael Cohen, who spent a decade as a lawyer for Trump, told a judge Tuesday that he was
directed by Trump to coordinate payments to two women designed to prevent them from
disclosing alleged affairs with the real estate mogul before the presidential election, in
violation of campaign finance law.
Such an explosive assertion against anyone but the president would suggest that a criminal
case could be in the offing, but under long-standing legal interpretations by the Justice
Department, the president cannot be charged with a crime.
The department produced legal analyses in 1973 and 2000 concluding that the Constitution
does not allow for the criminal indictment of a sitting president.
In comments to reporters after Cohen pleaded guilty to eight felony counts in federal
court in Manhattan, Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami said prosecutors were sending a
message that they are unafraid to file charges when campaign finance laws are broken. But he
did not mention Trump or offer any indication that his office planned to pursue action
against the president.'
(Washington Post)
'Despite impeachment talk, it's no easy task to remove a president in such a way. Both
Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate.
President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be removed from office.
There are three impeachable offenses: treason, bribery and the more opaque "high crimes
and misdemeanors," but the House of Representatives has the responsibility to accuse the
president of one of those things. If a majority in the House agrees, a president is then
impeached. The Senate then votes on impeachment, which under the U.S. Constitiution requires
a two-thirds majority.
In Trump's case, starting the impeachment process would currently require a mass revolt by
Republicans against him in the House of Representatives -- controlled by the GOP -- an event
even less likely than normal with midterm elections on the horizon.'
I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors,'
'I am no lawyer, but apparently if you spend that much money covering up your adultery to
avoid damage to your political campaign, that is a crime'.
I sort of see what you are saying, and of course, in a certain sense, what you say is not
only true but self-evidently and obviously true. Any politician engages in activities to gain
him or herself votes. All I am saying is that it doesn't seem like the most obvious way to
conceptualise these activities. CF Bill Clinton.
Presumably one of the key reasons that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair was because
he thought it would make him look bad and therefore lose him votes in the 2000 elections. And
in a sense it did (although others presumably voted for him 'cos they felt sorry for him).
But that seems like a weird way to conceptualise his activities.
Does it not seem more likely that Trump's main concern in paying the hush money was to
avoid his wife, who had just given birth, finding out? Obviously the effect on votes would be
of benefit to him, but I'm not sure that was his main concern.
I too agree with most of what Hidari said here (and there), except for their last
paragraph here.
To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was
transparently not to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal
– the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but
immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital
affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises.
These functioned as
(unreported) in-kind donations, insofar as they were third-party resources expended to for
the explicit purpose of providing electoral support to the candidate.
I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors,'
It's intentionally
vague . It should be noted that when Johnson was impeached , one
of the eleven articles was "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his
aforementioned words and actions."
Again, though, the idea that the payoffs to Ms. Cliffords and Ms. McDougal were made to
prevent Ms. Trump from learning of the affairs defies all credibility when considering that
they occurred in the fall of 2016 rather than ten years earlier.
It would be a strange way to conceptualise the activity if it was based purely on
the fact that the hush money was politically helpful. But:
"He told a judge in United States District Court in Manhattan that the payments to the
women were made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal
office," implicating the president in a federal crime.
"I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the
principal purpose of influencing the election" for president in 2016, Mr. Cohen said."
So I don't really know how you can keep insisting this is an issue of conceptual
analysis
I don't think that a Congressional majority, and certainly not the 2/3 Senate majority
needed for removal, is going to feel much ethical pressure to impeach based on the list of
wrongdoing we know about so far, or that are at all likely to emerge. Quite aside from the
lack of gravity of the crimes on that list, none of them are a clear betrayal of the
electorate that decided he should be president. That electorate already knew he was a
Russophile, had even invited Russians to hack D computers, they knew that he was a
pussy-grabber, and that his privately-owned business was ethically challenged -- yet an
electoral majority voted him in anyway. Removal on impeachment involves the legislature
asserting its will and its judgment over that of the people. Of course the legislature is
also elected by the people to accomplish duties that include holding the president to certain
standards. But I don't see even a 2/3 D Senate (which we would only get by the Rs losing
every race up this year, plus about 15 of them party-switching) having the cojones for such
an assertion, certainly not when the electorate already knew about the crimes when they voted
for the criminal. The Rs have cojones for such enterprises, and in spades, but not our
beloved Ds.
And I don't see impeachment as a very useful strategy for the Ds to pursue. Even if
successful at removing Trump, that just gets you Pence -- just as public policy irrational,
only less politically disorganized.
Maybe impeachment comes up as a tactic, to facilitate some other plan of action, but I
don't see conviction on impeachment as a useful means of even control of Trump behavior, much
less removal.
If the Ds do have control of either house after the election, of course the usual that we
can expect of them is not very much. Even if they control both chambers, they couldn't
possibly have the 2/3 in both needed to run the govt by overriding the vetoes that any actual
program of theirs would be sure to attract from the president. Even with 2/3, because this is
a D 2/3 we're talking about, we can most likely discount the possibility that they would even
try to exercise any oversight over what the govt does in opposition to the president's
control.
An actual political party in this situation of even controlling a bare majority of just
the House could do a whole lot to not only thwart Trump, but to at least make a credible
effort at asserting control over the govt. They could of course block any new legislation, or
the repeal of any existing law, and even the actual Ds are probably up to that. But to go
further, to control or limit how Trump runs the govt under existing law, this D majority of
the House would have to be willing to boldly set sail on the sea of political hardball and
take up a career of budgetary hostage-taking -- so right off we should say that this is
political fanfic, and not even canonic fanfic.
But a girl can dream, can't he, so let's pursue this alternate reality just a bit. Who
knows, if Trump's misrule makes things sufficiently dire, maybe even the Ds will be motivated
to find their inner pirate.
To take ICE as an example, it would go something like this. The House only agrees to pass
the annual appropriations on a 30-day continuing resolution basis, so that their assent is
needed every 30-days to the govt doing anything. They pass all the spending except for the
ICE funding (keeping the funding for whatever ICE spends on housing and otherwise caring for
people already apprehended -- that funding goes with the funding of the rest of the govt),
which they hold back until and unless Senate and president agree to ICE funding that includes
new law that keeps ICE from doing family separations, and whatever else the Ds find
objectionable. After success getting control of ICE abuses, next month when the CRs come due,
they do the same maneuver on their next target of Trump misrule.
The risk is that the Rs, Senate and president, just refuse to agree to the omnibus that
funds everything else the govt does until the Ds let loose the ICE funding. There is a govt
shutdown, and the Ds run the risk of being blamed. It turns into a game of legislative
chicken. Of course, this has to be anti-canon fanfic for such a game to end other than by the
Ds swerving first, so the real world Ds will never actually even start the game, because
whatever their faults, they know their limitations.
Hidari #13: " they 'all' want to get rid of him now?"
The Republican Senate would be happy to throw him overboard tomorrow. His voters are the
problem. They won't wait for his voters to turn on him however, if the Senate receives a
lengthy bill of impeachment from a Democratic House and Mueller has signed off on some of the
charges.
They'd rather have Pence do the sanctimonious messaging and go into 2020 trying to
reconstruct the party with an open primary.
After all, the GOP stands to lose Senate seats in 2020 anyway, just due to the map (the
same problem they have this year, with the House). If the election in 76 days puts the
Democrats in charge of the House, Trump won't make it to the end of his term.
'To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was transparently not to
keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal – the timing of the
payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the election,
make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult entertainers from
turning into October Surprises. '
Oh ok, I didn't really understand that. I haven't to be honest, been following the Stormy
Daniels story too closely for the good reason that I don't care.
So one infers that the FL did in fact know about these things. Could we conceptualise it
thus, then: Trump paid the hush money to ensure that Melania was not publicly humiliated by
these things (I mean, humiliated even more than simply being married to Donald Trump)?
But obviously, in that case, Trump not wanting this to be a big story in the run up to the
election was obviously a 'thing'.
Carter Paige? You mean the guy this time last year was a Russian spy? The guy who hasn't
been charged with anything? The guy that the original FISA warrants were issued against in
order to spy on the trump campaign? Oh yeah that guy.
Is he connected to the Papadopoulos guy? You know... The guy that got 14 days for lying to
meathead?
And now Manafort. Somehow hes bringing Trump down for sure. Even if it doesn't have
anything to do with the Trump campaign.
As looney would say... Looney
Dilluminati ,
From my understanding the unmasking of a national security investigation does make liable
to suit the press by Carter Page, additionally I'm still amazed that people are seeing this
through their preconceptions. How NSL (national security letters) and FISA material made it
consistently from the top echelons of government needs people asking some genuine questions.
If you have followed this carefully, it is evident that despite the non-related charges
brought forth by Mueller that this was a politicized prosecution by the establishment. The
questioning of the narrative of this gets people called all types of names.
Talking about establishment behaving badly:
I finally came across an article where the establishment is calling people "Satan" and the
article was accurate from the standpoint of an "establishment analysis" but of course left
out the actual details of the ongoing criminal racketeering.
I had a person say that they "felt sorry for me" Pity being an expression of disrespect
that I no longer attended Church, and I thought to myself that it wasn't worth the reply that
saying sorry or asking forgiveness cuts it, or that the decision or another or your belief
yourself guarantees you are saved if your repeated heinous crimes boil down to asking
"forgiveness" a mistake, bad judgement.
And the abuse was SEVERE again the details are slowly coming out but you see how the
Demonization process works. The response in both cases identical.
And remember that none of this is new.. simply signs of very corrupt people feeling
non-accountable to anything. I fully expect the abuse at the Church to continue, I expect the
Star Chamber establishment to become more bold.. and in summation I'm predicting very cleanly
and accurately this ends badly. No escaping this.. it ends badly
Uncovered text messages reveal that FBI agent Peter Strzok wanted to use CNN's
"bombshell" report about the infamous "Steele Dossier" to interview witnesses in the
Trump-Russia probe
CNN used leaked knowledge that Comey briefed Trump on the dossier as a trigger to
publish
The FBI knew of CNN's plans to publish, confirming a dialogue between the FBI and
CNN
This is particularly damning in light of revelations of FBI-MSM collusion against the
Trump campaign
Newly revealed text messages between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney
Lisa Page reveal that Strzok wanted to use CNN's report on the infamous "Steele Dossier" to
justify interviewing people in the Trump-Russia investigation, reports CNN . "
Sitting with Bill watching CNN. A TON more out ," Strzok texted to Page on Jan. 10, 2017,
following CNN's report.
"Hey let me know when you can talk. We're discussing whether, now that this is out, we use
it as a pretext to go interview some people ," Strzok continued.
Recall that CNN used the (leaked) fact that former FBI Director James Comey had briefed
then-President-Elect Donald Trump on a two-page summary of the Steele Dossier to justify
printing their
January report .
This is a troubling development in light of a
May report that the FBI knew that CNN was " close to going forward " with the Steele
Dossier story, and that " The trigger for them is they know the material was discussed, "
clearly indicating active communications between CNN and the FBI.
Weeks later, as the Daily Caller 's
Chuck Ross notes, the FBI approached former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos "under
the guise of interviewing him about his contacts with an alleged source for the dossier."
In short, knowledge of the Comey-Trump briefing was leaked to CNN, CNN printed the story,
Strzok wanted to use it as a pretext to interview people in the Trump-Russia investigation, and
weeks later George Papadopoulos became ensnared in their investigation.
And when one considers that we learned of an FBI "
media leak strategy " this week, it suggests pervasive collusion between Obama-era
intelligence agencies and the MSM to defeat, and then smear Donald Trump after he had won the
election.
Text messages discussing the "media leak strategy" were revealed Monday by Rep. Mark Meadows
(R-NC). The messages, sent the day before and after two damaging articles about former Trump
campaign adviser Carter Page, raise " grave concerns regarding an apparent systematic culture
of media leaking by high-ranking officials at the FBI and DOJ related to ongoing
investigations."
A review of the documents suggests that the FBI and DOJ coordinated efforts to get
information to the press that would potentially be "harmful to President Trump's
administration." Those leaks pertained to information regarding the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court warrant used to spy on short-term campaign volunteer Carter Page.
The letter lists several examples:
April 10, 2017: (former FBI Special Agent) Peter Strzok contacts (former FBI Attorney)
Lisa Page to discuss a "media leak strategy." Specifically, the text says: "I had literally
just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about media leak strategy
with DOJ before you go."
April 12, 2017: Peter Strzok congratulates Lisa Page on a job well done while referring
to two derogatory articles about Carter Page. In the text, Strzok warns Page two articles
are coming out, one which is "worse" than the other about Lisa's "namesake"." Strzok added:
"Well done, Page." -
Sara Carter
Recall that Strzok's boss, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, was fired for
authorizing self-serving leaks to the press.
Also recall that text messages released in January reveal that Lisa Page was on the phone
with Washington Post reporter Devlin Barrett , then with the New York Times , when the
reopening of the Clinton Foundation investigation hit the news cycle - just one example in a
series of text messages matching up with MSM reports relying on leaked information, as reported
by the
Conservative Treehouse .
♦Page: 5:19pm "Still on the phone with Devlin . Mike's phone is ON FIRE."
♥Strzok: 5:29pm "You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there's news
on."
♦Page: 5:30pm "He knows. He just got handed a note."
♥Strzok: 5:33pm "Ha. He asking about it now?"
♦Page: 5:34pm "Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now."
At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:
Meadows says that the texts show " a coordinated effort on the part of the FBI and DOJ to
release information in the public domain potentially harmful to President Donald Trump's
administration. "
Revisiting the FBI-CNN connection
Going back to the
internal FBI emails revealed in May by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), we find that McCabe had
advance knowledge of CNN's plans to publish the Steele Dossier report.
In an email to top FBI officials with the subject "Flood is coming," McCabe wrote: " CNN is
close to going forward with the sensitive story ... The trigger for them is they know the
material was discussed in the brief and presented in an attachment." McCabe does not reveal how
he knew CNN's "trigger" was Comey's briefing to Trump.
McCabe shot off a second email shortly thereafter to then-Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates along with her deputy, Matthew Alexrod, with the subject line "News."
" Just as an FYI, and as expected ," McCabe
wrote , " it seems CNN is close to running a story about the sensitive reporting. " Again,
how McCabe knew this is unclear and begs investigation.
Johnson also wanted to know when FBI officials " first learned that media outlets, including
CNN, may have possessed the Steele dossier. "
As
The Federalist noted in May, "To date, there is no public evidence that the FBI ever
investigated the leaks to media about the briefing between Trump and Comey. When asked
in a recent interview by Fox News Channel's Bret Baier , Comey scoffed at the idea that the
FBI would even need to investigate the leak of a secret briefing with the incoming
president."
" Did you or your subordinates leak that? " Baier
asked .
" No ," Comey responded. " I don't know who leaked it. "
" Did you ever try to find out? " Baier asked.
" Who leaked an unclassified public document? " Comey said, even though Baier's question
was about leaking details of a briefing of the incoming president, not the dossier. " No ,"
Comey said.
And now it looks like we have an answer for why the FBI never investigated the leak...
k3g ,
Tell me again how Watergate was impeachable and this - Obamagate, Spygate, Framegate,
ReverseCollusionGate, whatever ya wanna call it - is not .
Watergate was nothing next to this. And Obama's prints are all over it. The guy used govt
resources - FBI, US intel, foreign partner intel - to try to destroy a candidate in order to
throw a US POTUS election, and upon failing continued to try to take the guy out. Methinks
that's why Obama's been looking so gaunt and wan of late. The guy looks terminal.
herbivore ,
There is only one agency in the U.S. government that can put people in prison and it's
called the DOJ. Not only that, there are only a handful of people at the top of the DOJ who
can decide who and who not to prosecute. Therefore, if you're the Clinton/Obama crime family,
you only need a few loyalists at the top of the DOJ and you can get away with pretty much
anything. Clearly, the Clinton/Obama crime family had and STILL have those loyalists on their
side. Trump has done a pathetic job of changing that.
BendGuyhere ,
The good news, if you noticed, is the big swamp creatures (Comey, McCabe, Brennan, et al),
that were SO loud and proud just a few months ago seem to have gotten really quiet
lately.
This could mean that SHIT IS GETTING REAL and their lawyers are telling them to STFU.
So maybe the keebler elf grandpa Sessions is in fact orchestrating a legal checkmate on
all these fuckers as the drip=drip becomes a deluge.
The deep state may try to manufacture a distraction-any ideas?
Anunnaki ,
Since 9/11 the Permanent government is immune from legal responsibility and
accountability
if we lived by the same Laws we used against Chelsea Manning, Snowden, Assange and the
rest Obama, Hellary, Huma, Lynch. Comey, Mueller, Yates, Rice, Jarrett, McCabe, the Ohrs,
Strzok and Page, Glenn Simpson would all get serious jail time
CNN should lose their broadcast license over this
Alas, Rip Van Sessions continues to do nothing and all the Crying Cheetolini can do is
bitch tweet like a eunuch
urhotdogs ,
Obama must be panicking. He is all of a sudden "out of retirement" and campaigning to get
Dems elected to take back the house and the Senate. If that happens, all the corruption from
his Administration can be swept back under the rug and Trump impeached and his ass saved.
G-R-U-N-T ,
The ObamaSpy ring to frame Trump, his family, his campaign and the American people is a
hell of a lot more extensive than most people think. The web not only extends domestically
but internationally, the FVEY's, mainly Great Britain and Australia would appear to have
their hand in this as well.
Yes, treason and espionage, all for a few pieces of silver and the illusion of power. All
the 'gas lighting' propaganda and contempt with NO evidence was and is all a set-up by those
nefarious forces that used to run the cesspool.
'They never thought she would lose' , like Hilary allegedly said: "If that fucking bastard
wins we all hang from nooses", do tell, do tell.
We elected Trump to take back our country and I believe that's exactly what he's
doing!
StarGate ,
Fact that Obama used Britain's GHCQ to spy on the Republican candidate he was trying to
prevent win as Prez - recall Obama said emphatically "Trump will never be President" - so now
we know WHY Obama was so certain;
And fact that UK/ Aussie Ambassador Downer coordinated with FBI conspirators against the
Republican candidate; (recall that the Aussie Prez call with Trump was made public probably
by Aussie Prez Turnbull himself)...
And fact that Obama RENEWED the British GHCQ spy op against Trump as he was Prez; puts the
FBI British spy Dossier caper and all the FBI agents into the TREASON category because they
were working AGAINST USA interests WITH foreign countries - Britain and Australia.
Dan'l ,
So much for the highly anticipated internal FBI investigation by that clown Horowitz, the
Inspector General who said there was "no evidence" of political influence by the FBI
investigators. He said that with a straight face.
thinkmoretalkless ,
Politics is the only thing forestalling swift justice in this sordid mess. The media has
exposed itself as ridiculously complicit in a seditious conspiracy by a group of narcissistic
elite establishment underlings. I am as impatient as anyone else who see the blatant
corruption and little in the way of prosecutorial response, but if this is as some portend a
sophisticated attempt to drain the swamp then there is some hope a significant and honest
reckoning awaits. I don't blame those not optimistic, but personally I'm trying Trumps power
of positive thinking.
Marketing Consultant ,
What a bunch of bad people.
True swamp rats that don't deserve a position in government.
MK ULTRA Alpha ,
Another angle we must consider, the CIA was deeply involved. I believe it was the CIA
managing the coup, the FBI was taking orders from the CIA who was planning and leading the
overthrow of Trump.
Brennan and his WH coordinator Clapper are guilty. The FBI is just an attack dog of what
the CIA set up with help from MI6. Clapper contacted MI6 for electronic intercept, the WH
couldn't use NSA, there would have been a paper trail. And NSA would have told. Clapper is
the one who contacted and used UK MI6 assets. (Steele a former MI6 agent? No, Steele is
working for MI6.)
Everything leads back to Brennan and Clapper from the beginning. Brennan was deep into the
election and re-election of Obama supplying intelligence data during the campaign.
It was Brennan who set up the game plan for the coup. Even his statements from the
beginning indicated this. Will Brennan fall on his sword for Obama? Will Clapper fall on his
sword for Obama? Brennan is a hard core communist, he may take the bullet for Obama, but not
Clapper.
We don't get MSM stating this, is it fear of the CIA. Or is it fear there will be no more
anonymous sources. Remember FBI agents were taking bribes for leaking data to the MSM. I
doubt they're still working for the FBI. There has been a secret purge at the top. It was
stated on MSM several FBI have left the FBI.
Interesting CNN has a former homosexual CIA officer who stated the CIA would kill Trump.
He's a regular CNN employee. It was CNN, the FBI used to leak data to set Trump up.
Should CNN be sued? Should the NYT be sued? It's better to hit them in the pocket
book.
Another point, remember General Flynn? I believe the CIA wanted to take him out. It was
said he didn't lie by the FBI who did the interview, later higher ups, Comey and the like
said he lied.
I believe the CIA wanted to pay him back for exposing Brennan's unlawful operations in
Syria.
Also, remember the Las Vegas hit on Trump kind of supporters, could this have been a
message by the CIA to the WH to expect a hit if Brennan was exposed. Just saying, we have to
review every angle to the equation because the level of corruption in the government is
beyond the belief of the average American. These players are above the law, perhaps this was
a reminder.
Is the FBI going to accept their fate of being the fall guy for the CIA?
freedommusic ,
GCHQ had back door into NSA...
1970SSNova396 ,
The head of GCHQ resigned days before The Don took the keys to the white house so he could
spend more time with the children. The Don knows the deal. Get the new guy on the SC and then
shit will hit the fan. Trump has zero to lose going forward and he is going to rock the
house.
chrbur ,
The Mueller Investigation is a international embarrassment. The search for a Trump/Russia
connection by Inspector Clouseau is turning up over do jaywalking tickets while the glaringly
obvious crimes of the Clinton Crime Family, aka, the Democrat party are ignored. I have to
tell everyone that I am Canadian and I voted for Justin Trudeau.....hey.....it is less
shameful.....
StarGate ,
Those who set up the Mueller Special Counsel (Rosenstein who used to perhaps still does,
work for Hillary) did so, not only to create a false impeachment process against Trump but
also to undermine any of his efforts to take America back for Americans.
Are they succeeding? Yes and No.
Trump already stopped the TTP, Paris nonAccord, Iran nuclear delay, set ups. Trump began
the world Peace engine with outreach to North Korea and Russia. He began an adjustment to the
tax system and regulatory small business chokers. He has made inroads to curb corruption at
the FBI;
But without a Congress that is on the side of America, he has not been able to stop the
not-legal alien criminal inflow and "sanctuary-mafia" protection system - as yet.
1970SSNova396 ,
Trump is up against the NWO/Globalist/Jewish Bankers/Jewish MSM Cabal 24/7/365. He has
cost them billions in his two years. Trump has few friends in congress because they're owned
by the above as well.
There is no doubt Trump has /is bringing everybody out onto the stage and you can see just
how fuking corrupt this country is and has been for 40 years. This is the last chance.
urhotdogs ,
Ryan, McConnell and many Rinos complicit in all of this. Notice they've never come out and
condemn the FBI or DOJ involvement in all this. Only a few Republicans keeping this going
Thom Paine ,
ALSO those given immunity by Meuller may not have immunity , and could have it reversed,
if it can be shown the only reason immunity was given them was to protect them against future
prosecution.
Immunity requires that the person have important evidence for a trial and that they could
be implicating themselves in a criminal act by providing that evidence, ie they were somehow
involved in the commission of the crime, in some relate-able way. Immunity gives them
protection against being prosecuted for related crimes.
You cannot give somebody immunity against Tax Fraud prosecution when they are providing
evidence of a car accident they saw.
Providing immunity for all unrelated crimes is the same power as the POTUS power of
pardon.
SO the DOJ could at some future time challenge the immunity given by Mueller on the basis
that is given only to protect them, and in exchange for nothing tangible. i.e. a fraud.
Which may mean Mueller could be prosecuted for prevision of justice.
Uncovered text messages reveal that FBI agent Peter Strzok wanted to use CNN's
"bombshell" report about the infamous "Steele Dossier" to interview witnesses in the
Trump-Russia probe
CNN used leaked knowledge that Comey briefed Trump on the dossier as a trigger to
publish
The FBI knew of CNN's plans to publish, confirming a dialogue between the FBI and
CNN
This is particularly damning in light of revelations of FBI-MSM collusion against the
Trump campaign
Newly revealed text messages between former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney
Lisa Page reveal that Strzok wanted to use CNN's report on the infamous "Steele Dossier" to
justify interviewing people in the Trump-Russia investigation, reports CNN
.
911bodysnatchers322 ,
So now CNN is complicit in illegal leaking, (dis)information laundering, citizen
targetting, conspiracy against rights, subversion, sedition and treason?
No wonder it's a nonstop Trump hate fest. They aren't just trying to get Trump impeached
in the court of public opinion, they're desperate to get rid of him before he 100% destroys
him
Well it's too late. Impeach away. But we'll still hold CNN for treason. The two things
aren't related. You can't steal from a store just because Trump set the one next to it on
fire
BGO ,
Fatigue is setting in with this charade. Soon the (((pundits))) will respond with the
obligatory ***yawn*** troll to all future allegations.
If Trump cannot or is unable to respond to this non-sense in the harshest terms possible,
he should not be president. It's amazing no one in this drama has met their maker Hitlery
style. If that cunt was in charge and dealing with this shit, bodies would have already hit
the floor.
J Mahoney ,
This whole situation has to piss off anyone that is even 10% objective. How could any
elected representative or senator still spew shit like "Leave Mueller Alone"
BOTTOM LINE -- If we do not get to work quickly to elect non establishment republicans in
the midterms NOTHING will EVER be done and Trump may be forced out if Dems make gains
apocalypticbrother ,
All old news. No one in jail except Manafort. It really seems like Trump is powerless
against agencys. He must hate being a powerless president.
squid ,
If, and I do mean IF, the GOP holds onto both houses of congress.....
Everyone of these fucks has to be indited with sedition, PERIOD.
its slam dunk. And, if the elected houses ever wants to get hold of the CIA, FBI and NSA
and gain some control over those rogue agencies 20-50 agents from each will have to go down
to spend the rest of their lives in Leavenworth.
These uncollected asshats have tried to change the government of the United States.
The only person on the left that appears to understand this is Glen Greenwald.
Squid
Save_America1st ,
the problem is that in my opinion the majority of the GOP is also so fucking corrupt that
I don't think most of them actually want to hold control of the House. They never even wanted
Trump to win in the first place. On top of that, I would say many of those treasonous
scumbags probably actually wanted Hitlery to win the fucking thing even if Trump wasn't going
to be her opponent!
Look at all the resignations. Never seen before in history. Why? Two reasons...Trump is
using the evidence to push many of them out or they end up in Guantanamo for life. And others
in the beginning were quitting in order to give up part of the majority in order to flip the
House to the even more evil, treasonous Demoscums so that it would restrict Trump's full
majority.
Just look how "No Name" McStain acted when voting down against repealing O-Fuck-You-Care,
right???
He was a traitor, plain and fucking simple. We all know it. Fuck their bullshit funeral.
That was a cathedral full of traitors to this country. Psychopaths and sociopaths. Except for
General Kelly and General Mattis keeping a close eye on that room full of demons.
The Mueller investigation has been going on for a very long time - if he had found
anything of any real value it would be out there already, trying to reduce Trump popularity
and hit the GOP mid-terms.
The Mid Terms are very important to Deep State. The Dems must at least get the House back
in order to stop Trump.
That Mueller and Co have virtually have found nothing to put out there to stop Trump and
the GOP means they have fuck all, and are now clutching at Straws.
They are going to have to go the Bullshit path....start inventing. OH and all sorts of
False Flags between now and Mid Terms are guaranteed. ALSO will the neocons dupe Trump into a
Syria mistake that causes the death of many US soldiers? We know Deep State don't care who or
how many they kill, so long as they get what they want.
One wonders if the Censoring of Conservative media, and Political Sites is because Deep
State are planning to Assassinate President Trump , as is stated on Alex Jone's site.
BANNED VIDEOS – PENTAGON INTEL SAYS GLOBALISTS WANT TRUMP DEAD BY MARCH 2019
Watch the clips censored by over one hundred websites
There have probably been several Trump assassination attempts since he was elected.
Knowing what happened to Lincoln when he vetoed the National Bank / Fed Reserve of his
time;
And what happened to JFK when he stated he would shut down the CIA;
Trump is fully aware he performs a death defying act daily. There may be others out there
willing to make the Trump-JFK-Lincoln sacrifice, to take back America, but not Pence, not
Sanders, not any current Democrat prez wanna be.
Thom Paine ,
It would be impossible, or an exercise in suicide by the GOP and or Democrats if they
actually impeached Trump.
Two thirds of the Senate is required for Impeachment, meaning the GOP would have to
vote with the Dems and that would mean total devastation of the GOP at the following
elections.
If the Dems tried impeachment, they would be only signaling to their hardcore base, but
there would be a significant voter backlash against them. It would be a self defeating
act.
If the GOP and Dems voted to impeach Trump in the Senate, Trump can appeal to the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court would deny the Impeachment - unless there was proper legal
cause.
There has to be a legally provable breach of Federal law outside the POTUS exercise of
powers. Extraordinary prosecution requires extraordinary evidence.
You cannot remove a President elected by 62 million people on flimsy hearsay, or 'he said
she said' evidence, or pure circumstantial evidence. It would also set a precedence where
Presidents could be impeached on the drop of a hat.
At the moment the Dems and Deep State want to impeach Trump because he beat Clinton and
fucked up the last step in their plan to own America.
If Trump beat Sanders not many would be whining right now, they wouldn't care.
StarGate ,
Your premise legally appears to be accurate, that the Supreme Court is a failsafe against
a retaliatory political impeachment, based primarily on fact Hillary lost.
However, that means the Supreme Court would have to been beyond corruption and Trump would
have to bring a case.
j0nx ,
No. All the Dems and deep state need to know is that a lot of the deplorable would riot
like mofos if they tried. No dem would be safe. You think they don't know that? Sociology
101.
Saying the deplorables wouldn't riot is like saying Obama's minions wouldn't have if the
shoe were reversed 7 years ago and there was an open coup against him like there is
Trump.
Withdrawn Sanction ,
Sorry to nit pick, but there are 2 steps here: the first is impeachment by the House. Akin
to an indictment. Then there is a trial in the Senate which is presided over by the Chief
Justice of the SC. THEN a 2/3s affirmative vote is required for conviction and removal from
office.
An impeachment just like an indictment is meaningless w/o a conviction. You see how much
"damage" an impeachment did to Slick Willy. Didn't skip a beat
Further to the criminal act perpetrated by the Ukrainian government, namely the cutting off
of water supplies to the Crimea, one has to admit that as regards this matter the foreign
minister of the Ukraine, Pavel Klmkin, is one obnoxious little twat:
It is not the Ukraine that has cut off the Crimea from water: Russia did it, by its
cutting off of the Crimea from the Ukraine by force. In its own right, the occupation of the
Crimea is a terrible violation of international law and the rights of all
Crimeans.
Yes, and they have desalination plants. The water from the canal that runs from Kherson is
chiefly for irrigation. When they first closed the sluice in the Ukraine, the Crimea harvest
suffered. No doubt Crimea-Tatar farmers were very pleased about this.
Crimean water resources are limited, failing to fully meet the drinking and economic
needs of the region. Over 50 years, the problems of water resources in Crimea were solved by
using Dnieper water supplied through North-Crimean Canal; however, after the integration of
Crimea into Russia, Ukraine suspended water supply. At the aggravation of political situation
between Russia and Ukraine, the situation in the water-management sphere in the Republic of
Crimea looks very complicated. The water-management problems of Crimea should be solved based
on its own potential. Groundwater resources are the leading factor of sustainable development
of Crimean Region at the present stage.
My understanding is that in 2015, Russian geologists discovered three aquifers in Crimean
territory so pipelines have been built to connect the aquifers to the North Crimean Canal and
to supply water to people living in eastern Crimea near Kerch. https://sputniknews.com/russia/201504041020474871/#ixzz3WNLsZ6sG
Right. Indulging the will of the very great majority of Crimeans is a terrible violation of
international law, and that same population consequently deserves to be without water even
though the supply they depended upon comes from Ukraine. Pull the other one, Pavlo. Not even
a day-one civil-rights lawyer would buy that argument. The west has never contested that the
decision of Crimeans to sever their ties to Ukraine was that of the majority – not
really, It has danced around with that voting-at-the-point-of-a-Kalashnikov bullshit, but the
vote was not even close. If there were a do-over with the strictest supervision of western
officials, and Kuh-yiv itself got to write the referendum question, Crimea would still vote
to secede, and the west knows it. If it was such a loyal part of Ukraine before, why was it
the autonomous republic of Crimea?
The Ukraine-Crimea affair should stand as a textbook example of how the country that lost
territory did absolutely everything wrong in its attempts to get it back.
This just demonstrates the level of capture of the USA by Israeli lobby. But there is also some geopolitical play for the USA in
this region and in this sense Syria is just a continuation of Iraq and Libya.
The goal of dominance over middle East (which correlates with Israel goals) and its oil is probably one of the driving force of
those wars.
Notable quotes:
"... The issue is not only whether U.S. interests are affected but whether they are affected enough to justify the participation of the U.S. military in a foreign war -- which should entail a higher standard. ..."
"... The Trump administration's Syria policy is just one of many parts of its foreign policy that make a mockery of the idea that Trump puts American interests first. ..."
"... A continued U.S. military presence in Syria has nothing to do with protecting Americans or the citizens of our treaty allies, and so it has nothing to do with self-defense or the defense of allies. There is no international mandate for a U.S. military mission in Syria, and our forces are in Syrian territory in defiance of the Syrian government's wishes. ..."
"... Congress has not voted for any of this, and the public is probably only vaguely aware that there are U.S. forces in Syria. Americans did not vote for any of this, they haven't consented to it, their representatives have never debated or authorized any of it. I doubt that most Americans would support it once they were made aware of it, but the point is that the question has never been put before the voters or their representatives. ..."
No U.S. Interests Are Served by Trump's Endless, Illegal War in Syria
Paul Pillar objects to the Trump administration's
policy of committing the U.S. to oppose Iran's military presence in Syria, and he observes that this decision has been made without
any debate or Congressional authorization:
That shift warrants much more scrutiny and debate than it is getting. U.S. service members are being dispatched to a foreign
war for the purpose of somehow getting one Middle Eastern state that has had a longstanding security relationship with another
Middle Eastern state to remove its personnel from that second state [bold mine-DL].
Exactly how are U.S. interests supposedly
affected by whether those personnel stay or go? The only Americans who might be harmed under one scenario but not the other are
the very soldiers who are being dispatched.
The Syrian-Iranian alliance has existed for decades, going back to when the two states
shared an adversary in the form of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
The issue is not only whether U.S. interests are affected
but whether they are affected enough to justify the participation of the U.S. military in a foreign war -- which should entail
a higher standard.
Pillar's description of the administration's policy shows us how absurd it is. It makes no difference to U.S. vital interests
if Iran keeps some military personnel in Syria, and it certainly isn't something that we should be risking the lives of American
soldiers to change. If Syria's hostile neighbors don't like that, it is not the responsibility of our government to fix it for them.
The Trump administration's Syria policy is just one of many parts of its foreign policy that make a mockery of the idea that Trump
puts American interests first.
No U.S. interests are served by an
endless, illegal war
in Syria , and by risking a larger conflict with the Syrian government and its patrons this policy poses a threat to U.S. and
international security.
A continued U.S. military presence in Syria has nothing to do with protecting Americans or the citizens of our treaty allies,
and so it has nothing to do with self-defense or the defense of allies. There is no international mandate for a U.S. military mission
in Syria, and our forces are in Syrian territory in defiance of the Syrian government's wishes.
Our forces have no legitimate reason
to be there, and there is no legal basis for keeping them there. The Trump administration is risking war with as many as three governments
in order to occupy part of someone else's country indefinitely for the sake of an unachievable goal that has no connection to U.S.
security in the first place.
Congress has not voted for any of this, and the public is probably only vaguely aware that there are
U.S. forces in Syria. Americans did not vote for any of this, they haven't consented to it, their representatives have never debated
or authorized any of it. I doubt that most Americans would support it once they were made aware of it, but the point is that the
question has never been put before the voters or their representatives.
"... What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. ..."
"... Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal -- he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his neoconservative desires. ..."
"... Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with "Russiagate" -- Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted to have Assad killed -- something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object. ..."
What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many anti-Trumpers seem to
celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents were to be believed, it
would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been the main line of attack
against Donald Trump.
As far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals
with issues of style -- it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment
strongly dislike Trump's style -- and about people in important positions in Trump's
surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him -- that is
hardly something new, either.
The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and
dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether
that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he
just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have
said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely
loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is
allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So,
not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the
scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but -- if it
is to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.
I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book -- I doubt it
because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump
for any conceivable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily
promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this
to some degree -- after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and
Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret
services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge
its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of Trump haters
-- this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.
What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most
Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he
threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a
Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I
think that once more demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump
Resistance" (not, of course, of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who
invented Russiagate, they just exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).
Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece.
The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal --
he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not
escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough
Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his
neoconservative desires.
Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with
"Russiagate" -- Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like
Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian
leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In
contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted
to have Assad killed -- something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object.
@Adrian E. What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many
anti-Trumpers seem to celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents
were to be believed, it would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been
the main line of attack against Donald Trump.
As far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals
with issues of style - it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment
strongly dislike Trump's style - and about people in important positions in Trump's
surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him - that is
hardly something new, either.
The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and
dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether
that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he
just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have
said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely
loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is
allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So,
not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the
scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but - if it is
to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.
I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book - I doubt it
because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump
for any conceiveable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily
promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this
to some degree - after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and
Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret
services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge
its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of his haters -
this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.
What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump
haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened
to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet
and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I think that once more
demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump Resistance" (not, of course,
of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who invented Russiagate, they just
exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).
Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The
author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal - he
wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate
tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian
diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his
neoconservative desires. Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least
compatible with "Russiagate" - Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against
countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and
authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative
ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is
that he wanted to have Assad killed - something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly
object. Very good observations. Maybe the "kill Assad" ploy is not intended for domestic
consumption but rather to further undermine Trump's working relationship with Putin –
just as with the of the phoney Russian agent indictment which wast timed precisely to disrupt
the Helsinki summit.
History is very clear who runs the media for those who are in the know.
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance,
and opening of mail.
September 1, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American government
has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but the absolute
worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope for traitors.
Historians know that very few people understand great historical events when they happen.
My idea is that this now is the case.
Never before in history did the leader of an empire understand that that empire could not
survive, and act accordingly.
The British empire was already not sustainable, financially, before 1914. Britain had to
give up the two fleet standard, the situation where the British fleet was superior to the
next two biggest fleets. Obama had to give up the two war standard, the USA went to one and a
half war. What a half war accomplishes one can see in Syria.
The British empire fell apart through WWII, Churchill the undertaker. For this reason, I
suspect, are the peace proposals that Rudolf Hess brought to Scotland in May 1941 still
secret. France got a generous peace, logical to assume that Hitler would propose the same to
Great Britain, the empire he admired.
The British example makes two things clear: what should have been clear prior to 1914 was
not clear, or was ignored, and the price of unwilling, or not capable of understanding
history at the moment it happens becomes clear. Britain did not have a Deep State, one might
say, on the other hand, one can be of the opinion that the British Deep State did exist. A
conflict as now in the USA never existed in Great Britain.
What would have happened if say Chamberlain would have acted as Trump does know, anybody's
guess. Chamberlain did not want war, but he also did not want to end British imagined power,
he belonged to the Thirtyniners, those with the illusion that Great Britain was ready for war
in 1939.
As in 1917, the USA had to rescue Britain, but this time the price was high: opening the
empire to foreign competition, on top of that, FDR's lofty statements, the Atlantic Charter,
in fact the end of all colonial European empires.
@Buckwheat President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the
American government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt
but the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope
for traitors.
President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American
government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but
the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope
for traitors.
The media controls the minds of the mob, and presents itself as vox populi .
Corruption has been exposed, and the media admits to it, endorses it, and encourages
more.
So, whaddya figure? 20 years to total economic collapse? Who's gonna feed the messicans?
Oh! The humanity! Oh, Rome, do not burn!
"Shining city on a hill" and all that bullshit. Turn out the lights.
@Deschutes I didn't like Clinton, but I think Trump is as bad, probably worse. Look at
the EPA under Trump, it's a fucking joke with fossil fuel shills like Pruitt gutting much
needed laws to protect environment and people. Look at Education secretary DeVoss: it does
NOT get any worse: a billionaire christian fundamentalist wacko billionaire who bought her
way into that post funding the GOP/Trump ticket!? She's the epitome of what the 'Trump
voters' ostensibly hate: a billionaire class aka 'Rome on the Potomac' as this author calls
it, the plutocracy who own and run the show while the proletariat slave away at their office
temp jobs, or worse yet amazon.com sweatshop, etc. DeVoss is privatizing education so that
christian fundies can have their kids taught 'gawd made the world in 7 days' instead of
Darwin's evolution. Look at Trumps Atty General Sessions: he's a reactionary fossil from the
1950s who wants to illegalize weed? Roll back sensible drug policy? He's a fucking disaster.
And look at what Trump is doing for Israel!? Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and
Kishner sucking up to Netanyahoo, doing his bidding like an Israel firster? This is all good?
This is what the disenfranchised Trump supporter voted for and had in mind??
Trump is a fucking awful trainwreck. ' Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, '
If this makes Netanyahu happy for some time, at negligible cost to the USA, smart move.
At the same time, Trump can claim 'see how I love Israel'.
For me the same as the fake attacks on Syria.
Show.
@Wizard of Oz You seem to be using language like Alice's Humpty Dumpty. "Zionism" is at
least a little bit constrained in meaning by its being a movement to restore the Jewish
people as currently understood to the land of Israel (Judea and Samaria principally which
creates special difficulties...) with Jerusalem as it's capital, and, I suppose to maintain
them there. You are absolutely correct.
But it also includes protection of Israel.
And what is the best protection of Israel?
..
To control the most powerful country in the world ergo USA
..
And what is even better protection of Israel?
To to rule the world.
..
What is wrong or evil in this plan?
Nothing! it is good plan.
..
So where is the snag?
..
Complications in executing this plan.
According to the Washington Post, Barbara K. Olson called her husband twice on September
11, 2001 in the final minutes of Flight 77. Her last words to him were, "What do I tell the
pilot to do?"
"She called from the plane while it was being hijacked," said Theodore Olson -- 42nd
Solicitor General of the United States. "I wish it wasn't so, but it is."
However, prosecution exhibit P200054 (attached) in United States v.
Zacarias Moussaoui -- http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/
exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html -- shows that Barbara Olson made only one phone
call -- it did not connect, and it lasted for 0 seconds!
Both accounts of Barbara Olson's phone calls -- the Solicitor General's and the
prosecution's in United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui -- cannot be correct.
Media lies and fabrications have been going on ever since there were "journalists" (I use
that term loosely). The difference today, is that "professional journalism" is now blatantly
showing its liberal communistic bias.
From "Remember the Maine" in the Spanish-American war (actually a powder magazine
explosion–not an attack) to walter duranty's extolling the "virtues" of communism while
one of the greatest artificially-engineered (by communists)famines in the Ukraine was taking
place, in order to force the "collectivization" of privately-held farms, to walter cronkite
outright lying about the American military's effectiveness during the 1968 Vietnam "Tet
offensive" (in which much enemy life was lost) journalism has always been a "nasty craft". In
cronkite's case, the North Vietnamese were ready to settle (and capitulate) until cronkite's
lies about the supposed American "defeat" were publicized. Cronkite's lies gave the North
Vietnamese new resolve, as they realized that they had the American "news media" on their
side. There has always been a certain sympathy for communism and totalitarianism in the
so-called "mainstream media". All one has to do is to look at the journalists fawning over
Cuba's Fidel Castro and how wonderful life is in that communist "paradise".
Journalists HATE the internet because it exposes their "profession" for what it really is
with the internet, anyone can be a true journalist. This is why the same "mainstream media"
is calling for the "licensing" of journalists–something that would have been unheard of
(and treasonous) in previous decades
Professional journalism is its own worst enemy
We're surprised the tools of the Oligarch Class remain loyal to their paymasters? Comey and
Müller both received very lucrative board-seat assignments for looking the other way
when appropriate, or digging a little deeper when asked.
"In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our
national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of
national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an
informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic
government. For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free
most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For, without an informed and
free press, there cannot be an enlightened people."
I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or
President in American parlance.
Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To
which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with
John Bolton in it?"
You see.
I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause
until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your
fervor.
One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for
eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In
fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back.
Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as
they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them
stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.
Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a
wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.
We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you
think?
Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy
proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:
"OK, on the plane. Now ."
If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him
inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped
down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want,
except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the
nearest street corner, or ask your kids.
Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could
have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they
please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours
alone.
Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger
demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire
country.
Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals
airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American
economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet
love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in
Seattle.
Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide
on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't
Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White
House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway
Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international
spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for?
China?
A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing
politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my
campaign.
Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get
rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig
holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and
make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel
have, the less trouble it can cause.
Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?
Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things
should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do
with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will
qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the
American way.
Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.
Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the
vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and
only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot
seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life.
Smallish population, low military budget.
Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the
North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our
problem.
Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have
backhoes.
Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five
percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a
shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and
Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of
martial life without the murder.
Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has
68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many
homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in
Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are
out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?
Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?
Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled
with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at
least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No
federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding
schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will
go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to
localities without exception.
Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a
free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be
inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in
Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme
measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems
to be.
Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their
way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't
spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of
illiberalism in this meritorious list.
Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying
microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism,
any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum
containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.
Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a
helicopter.
In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can
do this. See you at the polls.
... ... ...
Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico
with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.
"... Retired USAF Col. Fletcher Prouty revealed that the "Pentagon Papers" were a planned CIA leak to shift blame for the failed war in Vietnam from the CIA to the Pentagon. The documents were real, but only certain documents were released. ..."
"... Nixon was ousted with the help of covert CIA agent Bob Woodward, working undercover as a reporter at the CIA co-founded "Washington Post". Gerald Ford became President, who just happened to be a member of the discredited Warren Commission that engineered the cover-up of the JFK assassination! ..."
He graduated from the CIA university (aka Yale) then went to CIA basic training as a naval
intelligence officer for five years, then to the Washington Post. This is why he was allowed
White House access by the Trump Neocons, despite is record as a back stabber to those who
oppose the Neocon agenda. The Washington Post itself was co-founded by the CIA. Woodward was
a key player in the last CIA coup when Nixon was ousted, not too long after they disposed of
troublesome President Kennedy. I noted some of this in my 2010 blog:
Retired USAF Col. Fletcher Prouty revealed that the "Pentagon Papers" were a planned
CIA leak to shift blame for the failed war in Vietnam from the CIA to the Pentagon. The
documents were real, but only certain documents were released. Prouty wrote the other
reason for this "leak" was to upset the Nixon administration, which it was trying to
destabilize in hopes of ousting Nixon.
That President was upset that the CIA refused to provide him with requested documents
concerning the Bay of Pigs and the JFK assassination. Nixon also angered the "Power Elite" by
withdrawing American troops from their profitable business venture in Vietnam and improving
relations with Red China.
Nixon was ousted with the help of covert CIA agent Bob Woodward, working undercover as
a reporter at the CIA co-founded "Washington Post". Gerald Ford became President, who just
happened to be a member of the discredited Warren Commission that engineered the cover-up of
the JFK assassination!
This piece makes Trump look like a credible president – that is, if he is to be judged
by his campaign promises to the American electorate who voted him in. This is only partly
true. Recall that Trump did make unequivocal promises: "We will stop racing to topple foreign
regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with,". and "We will stop
racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved
with," Not long after such promises, he announced he would be sending more troops to
Afghanistan. His bombing of Syria and illegally keeping American boots in that country surely
flies in the face of such promises especially in light of statements that American troops
will not leave that country any time soon, in keeping with America's zeal for fighting
Israel's wars. This piece portrays Trump as intrepid and true to his word. Yet, like many of
his predecessors, the morbid fear of the pro-Israeli lobby remains a defining feature of US
foreign policy matters. Neither can Trump exonerate himself from the ongoing tragedy in Yemen
emboldening the Saudis and their Emirati allies with the sale of billions of dollars of arms
to these medieval monarchies, not to mention the logistical support given them by the US.
"... From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in Eurasia and the Middle East was "appealing" to America's elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering "regime change" and fostering "color revolutions" in different parts of the World." ..."
"... Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The London Economist has also played an important role. ..."
"... While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010) ..."
"... This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange" ..."
Hmmm ..When the limited hangout truth expose' is found to be MSM vetted lies:
"Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows:
"[Wikileaks will be] an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests
are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance
to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations," CBC News – Website wants
to take whistleblowing online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added).
This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in a June 2010 interview in The New Yorker:
******"Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to
be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations.
(quoted in WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added)*****
Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality
-- including the US administration." (Ibid)
From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in Eurasia and the Middle East was "appealing" to
America's elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team
(which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments, were in tune
with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering "regime change" and fostering "color revolutions" in different
parts of the World."
"The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times
Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly
involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The London Economist has also played an important role.
While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks
releases of embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview
with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)
This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between
several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange"
Prime Minister Teresa May took
to the floor of the Parliament today to report that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police
had issued warrants for two Russian GRU officials who, they claim, had carried out the Skripal
attacks last March. "We were right," she said with a stiff upper lip, "to say in March that the
Russian State was responsible." Mugshots were released of two people whose names, she declared,
were aliases (how they know they are GRU officials if they don't know their names was not
explained). "This chemical weapon attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian
behavior that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the
world," she intoned.
At the same time, dire warnings have been issued to Syria and Russia that there will be a
major military response if Syria uses chemical weapons in Idlib. This is despite the fact that
Russia has presented the proof to the OPCW and to the UN that the British intelligence-linked
Olive security outfit and the British-sponsored White Helmet terrorists have prepared a false
flag chlorine attack in Idlib, to be blamed on the Syrian government, to trigger such a
military atrocity by the US and the UK.
Also at the same time, in the US, Washington Post fraudster Bob Woodward released a book
claiming that numerous Trump cabinet officials made wildly slanderous statements about Trump --
all third hand from anonymous sources, of course. Chief of Staff John Kelly called the claims
"total BS," while Secretary of State Jim Mattis called it typical Washington DC fiction, adding
that "the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump,
or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is
a product of someone's rich imagination."
Worse, the New York Times, apparently for the first time, printed an "anonymous" op-ed by
someone claiming to be a "senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known
to us," under the title: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration -- I work
for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations." Whether this person is or is not who they claim to be, it is clearly
part of the British coup attempt, as proven in the op-ed itself. After calling Trump amoral,
unhinged, and more, and claiming there is discussion within the Administration of using the
25th Amendment to remove him for mental incompetence, it then states: "Take foreign policy: In
public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as
President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little
genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations [read: the United
Kingdom - ed.]. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and
punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than
ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of
Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He
complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further
confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to
impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew
better such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."
And, while news about the British drive for war with Russia and their attempted coup against
the government of the United States fills the airwaves and the press, not a single word --
repeat, not a single word -- has been reported in the US or British media about the truly
historic conference which took place on Monday and Tuesday in Beijing, the Forum on
China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAP). Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared this week that this event will
be recognized in history as the end of the era of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Every
African nation except one was represented at the conference in Beijing (the "one" was
Swaziland, the last holdout on the African continent which still maintains diplomatic relations
with Taiwan rather than Beijing).
All but six were represented their head of state. They reviewed the transformation taking
place across Africa due to the Belt and Road Initiative since the last FOCAP meeting in 2015,
and laid out plans for the even more rapid development over the next three years, and on to
2063 -- the target year for full modernization over 50 years, adopted by the African Union in
2013. One after another the leaders of the African nations described the actual liberation
taking place, finally seeing in China the example that real development and the escape from
poverty is possible. The program launched at the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung,
Indonesia, where the formerly colonized nations met for the first time without their colonial
masters, has finally been realized.
But no one reading the western press would even know that this transformative event had
taken place.
Rather, there is only the new McCarthyism, trying to demonize Russia and China, to revive
the "enemy image" which should have been eliminated with the fall of the Soviet Union and the
recognition of the People's Republic of China.
Trump threatens this new McCarthyism, insisting that America should be friends with Russia
and China. No longer will the U.S. accept Lord Palmerston's imperial dictate for the Empire,
that "nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests." The "special
relationship" is to be no more.
This is the cause of Theresa May's hysterical rant today in the Parliament. Better war, led
by the "dumb giant" America, than to see the Empire destroyed in a world united through a
shared vision of universal development.
Britain's drive for war must be exposed and stopped, along with their Russiagate coup
attempt in the US. A victory for the common aims of mankind is within our grasp, but the danger
is great, and the time is short.
Absolutely. Trump
is being led by the nose into WW3. It's only a matter of time, unfortunately. The issue is
that, while most likely there will be no ww3 after this newest crisis, just as there was no
nuclear war after the April crisis, we never know exactly how close we are to a nuclear war,
because previously both parties tried to stay clear of such situations. How many times can
the US illegally strike at Syrian targets without it leading to some Russian response which
would in turn lead to some US response and so on, until we'll face some kind of situation
where the sweating, nervous and sleep-deprived leadership of one of these nuclear superpowers
will in an underground bunker rightly or wrongly contemplate the possibility that if they
don't use their nukes in 20 minutes, they'll lose most of them..? Since we've rarely been in
such situations, we don't really know what the margin of error is, nor what could lead to the
use of nuclear weapons. We have no idea.
"It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with Russia, which would be
unpredictable "
Quite wrong, and very dangerous. In fact an "open conflict" (or, as we say in English, a
war) against Russia would – very predictably indeed – have one of two possible
outcomes:
1. A catastrophic and decisive defeat for the USA;
All Trump has to do to get rid of the Op Ed guy is to fire all those who want to go to war
withRussia. That would leave him with no staff.
But Trump is not fooling me. You do not make a campaign promise to cooperate with Russia,
and then hire all these people who want to go to war with Russia.
It tells me that Trump was lying during his campaign.
He told us Iraq was the wrong decision, and now he has bombed Syria twice and is ready to
bomb them again; he told us that he wants out of the mid-east; he told us he wanted to
cooperate with Russia.
So I voted for him, but he was lying. I already found out he is a brazen liar. He took
those Clinton women to his debate to humiliate Hillary and Bill Clinton, when all the while
he was doing the same thing with women. That is what I call a brazen liar.
He is a pawn of the State of Israel, nothing more and nothing less. They probably told him
to hire Bolton and all the other war-mongers around him. He's not surrounded by the enemy. He
is surrounded by his friends.
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the
GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them, instead of
putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas of agreement
with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign policy promise
he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences: backing out of the
Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials.
@Admiral
Assbar The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle
against the GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them,
instead of putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas
of agreement with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign
policy promise he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences:
backing out of the Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials. "The biggest mystery of this whole
presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them "
It seems fairly clear that, whenever a new President is sworn in, he immediately receives
a "pep talk" in which he is informed what he will and will not say and do, and what will
happen to him, his family, their pets, and everyone they have ever spoken to if he disobeys.
Probably this "offer that he can't refuse" is concluded by words along the lines of: " and if
you want to get what the Kennedys got, just try stepping out of line".
J. Edgar Hoover used to do something of the kind when he was head of the FBI, but that was
relatively benign – just a threat of blackmail accompanied by kindly advice never to
fight the FBI.
@AlbionRevisited I was
referring to the campaign, of course we're in a different situation now. It's amazing the way
in which they were able to co-oped his administration. AlbionRevisted wrote: "It's amazing
the way in which they (Neoconservatives) were able to co-oped his (Trump)
administration."
Greetings AlbionRevisited!
Many were disappointed with Trump and that might even include a percentage of the voting bloc
known as "Deplorables."
Nonetheless, after honing into candidate Donald Trump's awful 2017 homage to AIPAC, it
becomes dramatically less amazing how Neoconservatives crept into the White House.
Recall how rabid leftist Neoconservatives wanted Hillary, and how suddenly the naysayer,
Extra-Octane Neoconservative, John Bolton, stuck with the phoney populist, "America
First-After-Israeli-Interests," talkin' Donald J. Trump?
The essence of American presidential campaigns/elections boil down to powerful international
Jewry needs & timing, and disemboweled citizens must take-it or leave-it. Uh, support the
immoral wars and pay the bill!
Thanks, AlbionRevisted.
Herald says: September 12, 2018 at 10:53 am GMT • 100 Words
@Tom Welsh
I am not convinced that Trump started out with good intentions but quickly bowed to threats. Trump was never a principled
person and it seems much more likely that he was always a stooge for the Israel lobby and the MIC.
I used to think that things would have been worse under Hillary but these days I'm even beginning to have doubts on that
score.
jacques sheete, September 12, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT • 100 Words
@Admiral Assbar
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them
No mystery at all. It was all campaign rhetoric like the Shrub's promises of "a humble foreign policy" and "compassionate
conservatism," O-bomba-'s "hope and change"and Woody 'n Frankies promises to keep the US out of war.
KenH, September 12, 2018 at 12:20 pm GMT
Trump is now becoming more "patriotic" by the day with his willingness to get us into another no-win, forever war in Syria
for Israel. I say we air drop John Brennan into Idlib so he can fight and die like a real man.
"Leaking Like Mad": FBI-DOJ-MSM Collusion Went Far Deeper Than Previously Known
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 09/12/2018 - 15:30 637 SHARES
The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a "media
leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers."
A December 15, 2016 email appears to discuss a "political" leaking operation, in which
others were " leaking like mad " amid the Trump-Russia probe.
"Oh, remind me to tell you tomorrow about the times doing a story about the rnc hacks,"
Page texted Strzok.
"And more than they already did? I told you Quinn told me they pulling out all the stops
on some story " Strzok replied.
A source told Fox News "Quinn" could be referring to Richard Quinn, who served as the
chief of the Media and Investigative Publicity Section in the Office of Public Affairs. Quinn
could not be reached for comment.
Strzok again replied: " Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and
worried, and political, they're kicking into overdrive. "
In one passage, Strzok apparently misreads a reference to "rnc" as "mc," and then,
realizing his error, blames "old man eyes."
It is unclear at this point to whom Strzok was referring when he used the term "sisters."
-
Fox News
"Sisters" may refer to sister agency.
"Sisters is an odd phrase to use," retired FBI special agent and former FBI national
spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News Wednesday. " It could be any intelligence agency or any
other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI works with all of them because, post 9/11, it's
all about cooperation and sharing. "
The US intelligence community is comprised of 17 agencies, including the CIA, the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI and the National Security Agency.
Fox News notes that the "leaking like mad" reference was texted the same day that several US
news outlets reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved - and
personally approved, Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Then, on January 10, 2017,
The Times published another article which suggested that Russian hackers had "gained
limited access" to the Republican National Committee (RNC) - the same day that BuzzFeed News
published the "Steele Dossier" accusing President Trump of a variety of salacious and unproven
ties to Russia.
Following the text about "sisters leaking," Strzok wrote to Page:
" And we need to talk more about putting C reporting in our submission. They're going to
declassify all of it "
Page replied: "I know. But they're going to declassify their stuff, how do we withhold
"
" We will get extraordinary questions. What we did what we're doing. Just want to ensure
everyone is good with it and has thought thru all implications," Strzok wrote. "CD should
bring it up with the DD."
A source told Fox News that "C" is likely in reference to classified information, whereas
"CD" is Cyber Division, and DD could refer to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March for making an unauthorized
disclosure to the news media, and "lacked candor" under oath on multiple occassions.
It is unclear what "submission" Strzok and Page were referring to. -
Fox News
A source also told Fox News that the messages were part of the newly released batch of
Strzok-Page communications obtained by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who uncovered
them as part of his investigation into the FBI's conduct in the Russia investigation.
LaugherNYC ,
Dead silence in the media about the entire FBI DOJ scandal for months. Only the occasional
piece on conservative blogs. EIther Huber has Grand Jury true bills coming October 1 to slam
on the Dems just before the midterms, or this coverup of Deep State malfeasance will go on
until the Dems get the House and impeach Trump. The plan seems to let them all get away with
their betrayal of the country.
McCabe should already be in prison, yet it seems like there has yet even been a decision
to indict him... he might be in front of a gran d jury, or he might just be chillin waiting
for his grievance with the union to be heard and be awarded back pay and pension vesting, a
if what he did is equivalent to a guy driving his forklift into a wall at Costco after a
beer.,
MrBoompi ,
Now "It's all about cooperation and sharing." What a crock of shit. They still want us to
believe the government agencies didn't communicate with each other, or work together, before
911. That's high level propaganda that's still being used to cover up what happened on 911
and justify the anti-constitutional Patriot Act.
Stan522 ,
"The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a
"media leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers." "
Questions arise....
The media obviously knows who is leaking and they also know who's been in the news
relating to this investigation, yet, they still refuse to connect the dots and write about
the uncontrollable sieve of leaks
The media also refuses to put any focus on the drip by drip bits of information about how
there was bias. The devilcRAT talking heads are in contortions trying to excuse all of this
and the MSM are allowing it.
The Inspector General apparently conducted an investigation on all of this shit's and
concluded there was no bias, yet every day there seems to be more evidence that there was
extreme bias. What more needs to be shown to get the media talking about it?
Last weeks breaking news had shown that Andrew Weisman (yes, the same clown that now works
for Mueller's hit squad) as colluding with Bruck Ohr and Christopher Steele during the
creation of that fake news Dossier and Weisman was feeding information to Mueller. When will
Mueller drop this scam investigation?
There are still republicans that hold the opinion that Mueller must be allowed to finish
his investigation. With the fact that Weisman was part of the hit squad creating dirt about
Trump, at what point are these idiot politicians are going to grow a pair and start talking
about all of this? It seems they are the same lazy thinkers that go along with the man caused
global warming hoax.
Yesterday's breaking news was about what DeGenova stated about the meeting in obama's
office with Rice, Yates, Biden, Comey, and Obama. He says "It was a meeting to discuss how
Sally Yates was going to get Michael Flynn. And the President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was directly involved in these discussions." Yet NOTHING was shown on CNN, MSNBC, NBC,
CBS, ABC and the rest about this.
asscannon101 ,
That first pic in the article- the one of Strzok- that is a 'peyote face'. The crazy eyes
and the grotesque, exaggerated facial grimacing. Mescaline will do that to you. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. Just lucky that he didn't spaz out, shit in his pants, flop
around on the floor squawking like a seagull and start chewing his own lips off. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. A lot of books. Over and over again. A lot of fucking
books.
troutback ,
Get a Fucking Rope and an Oak Tree. That's how I feel. It's fucking Treason!
Sheesh
tb
bobdog54 ,
The swamp aka the deep state is not only not a conspiracy theory but a real seditionous
conspiracy against our Constitutional Laws and Way of Life. And much much deeper than most
can imagine.
Automatic Choke ,
why are they not incarcerated?
this shit is an affront to all of us who follow the laws, respect election results, pay
taxes, and try to be good citizens.
PUT THEM AWAY!!!!!
navy62802 ,
So we already know that these people committed sedition against the government based on
the known evidence. One more tape doesn't prove the crime any more than the other evidence.
All this does is drive home the fact that there were additional conspirators who protected
these criminals from justice. It's fucking sickening.
Call me when someone in the government gets the balls to finally charge these criminals
with the crimes they have obviously committed. Until then, new evidence is moot.
bobdog54 ,
Wish I could give you 100 up arrows!
All Risk No Reward ,
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being
oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
― Malcolm X
The above is true, but only tangentially related to this topic in that it expresses the
media LIES.
The TRUTH is that the BankstObama FBI worked overtime to get BankstoTrump "elected" as one
of the Bankster financed "selections." Banksters "select" based on money and promotion, then
you "vote" on their selection in an "election."
Let freeDUMB rain!
Here's how it worked...
1. Mid 2016, FBI became aware of Hellary's criminal activity.
2. Mid 2016, Comey sent memo stating Hellary would not be prosecuted. He did not say this
is because she's a Money Power Sith Lord front woman who has a KMA card. Nick Rockefeller
explained this to Aaron Russo, as told by Aaron himself when he was interviewed by Alex
Jones. Oh, and Rockefeller told him the details of the post 9/11 Afghanistan invasion in
advance, too. The interview is worth watching.
3. October, 2016, Comey announced an investigation into Hellary's criminal behavior. Uh,
it was already determined she wouldn't be prosecuted, right? Yup. So why publicly imply she
could be charged and convicted IF NOT TO AID AND ABET DONALD "HE'S WORTH MORE TO US
(BANKSTERS) ALIVE THAN DEAD" TRUMP INTO THE WHITE HOUSE?
By the way, that's an accurate and real quote from an attorney that represents something
like 50+ banks against Trump. He said it to describe why the Banksters didn't force Donald
into bankruptcy and take all his stuff. Donald OWES the Banksters FOR EVERYTHING HE HAS TODAY
THAT IS NOT POVERTY!
This is called an October Surprise, and they are rarely good.
4. After the elections, Comey announces that Hellary committed the crimes, was caught red
handed, but wouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't intend to commit the crime. Try that at
your next court date for running a stop sign you didn't see, serfer boys and girls.
5. Propaganda depicting Comey and Trump as enemies ensued immediately, lest the mindless
rabble formulate the most obvious question in their wittle minds...
"Why did the Obama FBI create a phony October Surprise to hurt Hellary and promote
Trump's election as President?"
That's not in the Money Power Matrix programming!
The reason is that the Banksters wanted Trump in office, because their debt-based money
system bubble (largest in human history) is set to implode AND THERE IS NO PERSON ON PLANET
EARTH THAT IS MORE CAPABLE OF MAGNETICALLY TAKING ALL THE BLAME ONTO HIMSELF THAN DONALD J.
TRUMP.
Nobody.
The name of the game is to shield the Banksters and their debt-money system from criticism
as the fraudulent ROOT CAUSE of the debt-money bubble bust cycles that asset strips entire
societies and leads to systematic global oppression of all ordinary people. At least for
those not directly or indirectly murdered by the Bankster anti-ordinary human agendas.
And, being promoted as an outsider, the Banksters get to save their two controlled
privately incorporated "politically parties in the minds of Muppets" from taking full blame,
therefore, all the Muppets will continue to think they have freedom because they get to
"vote" for Bankster quisling #1 or Bankster quisling #2.
Let freeDUMB rain!
PS - The Banksters don't even care that I spill the beans on their plans because they know
the masses, even the ZeroHedge masses, simply lack the imagination to envision the reality
they Banksters have financed into existence.
alfbell ,
Wake me up once the handing out of prison sentences starts. If they never do, I don't want
to wake up.
WarAndPeace ,
Only a politician would not recognize that they are criminals.... ah apply that whichever
way you want.
LaugherNYC ,
Dead silence in the media about the entire FBI DOJ scandal for months. Only the occasional
piece on conservative blogs. EIther Huber has Grand Jury true bills coming October 1 to slam
on the Dems just before the midterms, or this coverup of Deep State malfeasance will go on
until the Dems get the House and impeach Trump. The plan seems to let them all get away with
their betrayal of the country.
McCabe should already be in prison, yet it seems like there has yet even been a decision
to indict him... he might be in front of a gran d jury, or he might just be chillin waiting
for his grievance with the union to be heard and be awarded back pay and pension vesting, a
if what he did is equivalent to a guy driving his forklift into a wall at Costco after a
beer.,
MrBoompi ,
Now "It's all about cooperation and sharing." What a crock of shit. They still want us to
believe the government agencies didn't communicate with each other, or work together, before
911. That's high level propaganda that's still being used to cover up what happened on 911
and justify the anti-constitutional Patriot Act.
Captain Nemo de Erehwon ,
Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. It is what prevents people from doing real
damage. It is the sole hope for the world.
It was not hard-nosed intelligence and legal professionals running a secretive op to
overturn the election. If it were there would not be this trail of text messages describing
each step in detail. The amateurish execution, given all the assets at their disposal
including Australian Ambassadors, mysterious European Professors, and other premiere
intelligence agencies, even perhaps other US government agencies is like spoilt rich kids
ruining their parents' ...hmm is that offensive nowadays? ...legal guardians' ...!@$# it ...
father's company.
All Risk No Reward ,
>>Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. <<
You don't comprehend the milieu.
The agendas include, but are not limited to:
1. Produce more debt - private, corporate, and governmental. Incompetence? On what planet?
They are AMAZING!
2. Prevent the plebs from realizing #1. Again, they have you duped - and you aren't
alone.
3. Pretend inferiority, so that concerted malevolent intent is not discerned. Art of War
101.
The are doing a stellar job at their true agendas.
Dare I say, so good that I can't exclude supernatural guidance.
Muddy1 ,
Why show the attractive pictures of Lisa Page? I liked the ones where she looked like the
dimwit she is.
Pons Asinorum ,
She's more attractive with her mouth shut.
Yog Soggoth ,
"Sisters" may refer to sister agency.
"Sisters is an odd phrase to use," retired FBI special agent and former FBI national
spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News Wednesday. " It could be any intelligence agency or
any other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI works with all of them because, post 9/11,
it's all about cooperation and sharing. " Witches perhaps? Cotton Mather was right!
fulliautomatix ,
There's another William - "it's all about cooperation and sharing." Oh, and telling the
truth.
Remington Steel ,
Treasonous fucks. They should all hang in D.C.'s National Mall.
SnatchnGrab ,
Hang them in the public square so that we may spit on them.
I am Groot ,
They should be staked down to the ground out in the desert, covered in honey and have ants
poured all over them.
SaulAzzHoleSky ,
Strzok's lawyer will say that this refers to problems with his Depends, not the
media.....
WTFUD ,
Down down deeper and down - that's pretty deep.
There's very little deep about the F-uk-us Political Establishment; empty suits,
treasonous filth, cowardly, and yet, wholeheartedly believe they are principled.
S.H.O.C.K.I.N.G
motoXdude ,
Just like enlightened, educated Liberals... those working in these agencies (and most
likely the agencies themselves) are above the law and here to govern the great unwashed and
deplorables! This IS THE DEEP STATE aka THE SWAMP! Time to drain it or drop a high tension
power line in it!
Anunnaki ,
Leaking must not be a crime for Keebler Sessions
Mzhen ,
Wasn't it fortunate that Seth Rich was involved in transporting DNC data to WikiLeaks?
Without the "hacking" link in the chain, the rest of the plan could not have been set into
motion. Characterized as an ardent Bernie supporter, Seth Rich was actually scheduled to go
to work at Hillary's campaign headquarters a few weeks after the date of his murder.
WTFUD ,
The Classic Clinton Foundation ENTRAPMENT.
The job offer being a ruse just in case they didn't get him 1st Time.
SirBarksAlot ,
According to this news clip, there are secret military tribunals going on and John McCain
was executed for his treason.
His 3 remaining brain-cells were targeted with magnetic pulses like the one's going down
at the US Embassy in CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBA.
HominyTwin ,
That's right! Powerful people are taking care of everything, and making sure all will be
right with the USA once again, in the very near future, without effort or sacrifice or
thinking on our part. That is wonderful news!!!!
south40_dreams ,
Build the gallows.
missionshk ,
my understanding is that there were 14 people from various agencies, in a chat room all
committing treason, but dont here about that any more
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the coup is winning.
Prosource ,
Not sure the coup is winning, but it's been almost 2 years and we are only this far in
investigations and prosecutions ???
fulliautomatix ,
Trying to keep some of the legal community alive.
Dickweed Wang ,
Does Lisa Page have tits or are those mutant mosquito bites?
NewHugh ,
In my limited experience flat girls figure out a way to "compensate"...
I am Groot ,
Have you seen her smile ? She's all gums. I'll bet Stzrok loves when the vet takes her
teeth out to clean them and she blows him.
GUMMY ! GUMMY ! GUMMY !
SirBarksAlot ,
It hasn't been determined if she has tits or not.
However, she certainly has balls.
cosmyccowboy ,
she needs the crocodille dundee test... the dept of injustice is trannies on parade!
Collectivism Killz ,
Just in case Qanon is wrong about Keebler Elf Sessions, can someone at least gently remind
him that failure to prosecute will give creeps like Joe Biden a second shot at his
Granddaughters? Not sure if he cares, but I would think an old hound dog such as Sessions
would at least consider his final legacy on earth. All that Fried Chicken and chitlins have
to catch up with him at some point.
Yog Soggoth ,
Everyone up on the Hill feels the fire burning below their feet, those who succumb will
embrace the everlasting heat. Where is Billy? Can you clean this up for me?
Stan522 ,
"The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a
"media leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers." "
Questions arise....
The media obviously knows who is leaking and they also know who's been in the news
relating to this investigation, yet, they still refuse to connect the dots and write about
the uncontrollable sieve of leaks
The media also refuses to put any focus on the drip by drip bits of information about how
there was bias. The devilcRAT talking heads are in contortions trying to excuse all of this
and the MSM are allowing it.
The Inspector General apparently conducted an investigation on all of this shit's and
concluded there was no bias, yet every day there seems to be more evidence that there was
extreme bias. What more needs to be shown to get the media talking about it?
Last weeks breaking news had shown that Andrew Weisman (yes, the same clown that now works
for Mueller's hit squad) as colluding with Bruck Ohr and Christopher Steele during the
creation of that fake news Dossier and Weisman was feeding information to Mueller. When will
Mueller drop this scam investigation?
There are still republicans that hold the opinion that Mueller must be allowed to finish
his investigation. With the fact that Weisman was part of the hit squad creating dirt about
Trump, at what point are these idiot politicians are going to grow a pair and start talking
about all of this? It seems they are the same lazy thinkers that go along with the man caused
global warming hoax.
Yesterday's breaking news was about what DeGenova stated about the meeting in obama's
office with Rice, Yates, Biden, Comey, and Obama. He says "It was a meeting to discuss how
Sally Yates was going to get Michael Flynn. And the President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was directly involved in these discussions." Yet NOTHING was shown on CNN, MSNBC, NBC,
CBS, ABC and the rest about this.
lookslikecraptome ,
Just put up the link to fox news that ran this story. Talk about a cut and paste.
"As Communists, we work in the elections not just for a candidate but strategically to
build and strengthen the movement and our Party for the long term. The situation varies
greatly from one state and election district to the next so tactics have to be developed
locally. The more we share our concrete experiences, the more we can learn and get ideas from
each other. Here are thoughts for consideration:
1. Where to concentrate?
Clubs: the neighborhood or election district where the club is located;
Districts: election districts that can be flipped; election districts where
working-class champions who are incumbents are under attack; election districts with a
progressive primary candidate.
2. What goals?
• build a voter base to change the political balance of forces;
• strengthen relationships with unions, left/progressive electoral forms like Our
Revolution (OR) and Working Famlies Party (WFP), etc;
• raise the level of class consciousness, unity and solidarity;
• enlarge the CPUSA diverse working-class membership and readership of People's
World;
• identify among our members potential candidates for local office.
3. What methods?
Voter registration: laws differ from state to state. Where there is postcard
registration, door-to-door work with voter cards and issue petitions and sign-ups are a great
way to identify people who want to become engaged and who we can follow up with to vote and
get involved. Tabling with voter cards, issue petitions, People's World and literature is
another way, but harder to follow up with people in scattered geography. Increasing voter
turnout in working-class communities can win elections and create the base for organizing to
win a people's program. It is a direct challenge to the corporate right-wing that depends on
depressing and suppressing the vote.
Participate with allies: Unions, progressive community groups and left/progressive
electoral forms are the best way to participate in campaigns and build the movement for the
long term. Organizations vary from place to place. Labor 2018 is the AFL-CIO program and
anyone can take part in phone banks and visits to the homes of union members. Each union also
has its own election program that union members should prioritize. Local issue coalitions or
ballot initiatives are also important venues, for example Jobs with Justice, Planned
Parenthood, Fight for 15, the Poor People's Campaign, Millions of Jobs etc. Left and
progressive electoral organizations that have endorsed candidates with strong programs are a
strategic way to participate such as Our Revolution, Working Families Party, Indivisible,
etc. If you are just getting started this is a great way to reach out.
Chupacabra-322 ,
They really thought Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton
would win.
And, with it. Complete destruction of Conservatism, Libertarian Values, &
Ideology.
Her Crimes would have never been uncovered or bought out into the open as we're
witnessing.
Much was at stake. Everything was lost.
The Presidency LOST.
Weaponized Intelligence Community with Agents, Assets & Operatives. LOST.
Complicit, Criminal Loyal CIA, FBI, DOJ. LOST.
Supreme Court. LOST.
No doubt, the censorship & Gas Lighting would have been turned on fully.
And, with it Tyrannical Lawlessness.
mc888 ,
How about the "Free Press"? Exposed as nothing but a corrupt propganda outlet for the
DS.
"Free Independent Journalism" LOST.
All these MSM propaganda outlets need their FCC licenses revoked for broadcasting false
information and hoaxes.
Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Radio Broadcast 1938 - Complete Broadcast. The War of
theWorlds was an episode of the American radio drama anthology seri...
Operation Mockingbird lives on, just as we, the "conspiracy theorists" said.
And look who was wrong about reality in the end:
The ones pretending nothing was/is wrong, and that we were/are crazy.
Well who's crazy now motherfuckers?
Looks like it's you lot over there, desperately clinging to your MSM/DNC/GOP idols, asking
for FB/Twitter/Google to ban everything too inconvenient for your "reality".
Face the truth for once: the collusion is and has always been between the
MSM/DNC/GOP/Alphabet Agencies and the DEEP STATE. And you perpetuate the oppression by being
party to it.
Yippie21 ,
And to sell the Russia-crap, the Obama administration purposely kicked diplomats out of
the country and laid on sanctions in December. I'm curious enough to wonder how much of the
White-helmet gas attacks in Syria ( that Trump reacted to ) were indirectly done to further
the anti-Russia narrative by Obama folks.... After all, the whole Syria mess has his
fingerprints all over it.
surf@jm ,
Big wow......
Clear and convincing evidence of a crime, obviously isn't a crime in Washington D.C.,
unless, of course, you are a conservative.....
fulliautomatix ,
little wow - Strzok deliberately documented the crimes on his and Page's phones.
thetruthhurts ,
It is unclear at this point to whom Strzok was referring when he used the term
"sisters."
_______________________________
CIA, NSA etc.
PrivetHedge ,
I see what they are afraid of now.
The 'russiagate' stuff is now starting to reveal the very structure and organisation of
the Deep State: once only suspected by the sheep, now it's coming into plain sight for all to
see to the horror of all the pharisee jew vampires who are now seeing the first signs of
dawn.
asscannon101 ,
That first pic in the article- the one of Strzok- that is a 'peyote face'. The crazy eyes
and the grotesque, exaggerated facial grimacing. Mescaline will do that to you. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. Just lucky that he didn't spaz out, shit in his pants, flop
around on the floor squawking like a seagull and start chewing his own lips off. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. A lot of books. Over and over again. A lot of fucking
books.
troutback ,
Get a Fucking Rope and an Oak Tree. That's how I feel. It's fucking Treason!
Sheesh
tb
bobdog54 ,
The swamp aka the deep state is not only not a conspiracy theory but a real seditionous
conspiracy against our Constitutional Laws and Way of Life. And much much deeper than most
can imagine.
Automatic Choke ,
why are they not incarcerated?
this shit is an affront to all of us who follow the laws, respect election results, pay
taxes, and try to be good citizens.
PUT THEM AWAY!!!!!
navy62802 ,
So we already know that these people committed sedition against the government based on
the known evidence. One more tape doesn't prove the crime any more than the other evidence.
All this does is drive home the fact that there were additional conspirators who protected
these criminals from justice. It's fucking sickening.
Call me when someone in the government gets the balls to finally charge these criminals
with the crimes they have obviously committed. Until then, new evidence is moot.
bobdog54 ,
Wish I could give you 100 up arrows!
All Risk No Reward ,
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being
oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
― Malcolm X
The above is true, but only tangentially related to this topic in that it expresses the
media LIES.
The TRUTH is that the BankstObama FBI worked overtime to get BankstoTrump "elected" as one
of the Bankster financed "selections." Banksters "select" based on money and promotion, then
you "vote" on their selection in an "election."
Let freeDUMB rain!
Here's how it worked...
1. Mid 2016, FBI became aware of Hellary's criminal activity.
2. Mid 2016, Comey sent memo stating Hellary would not be prosecuted. He did not say this
is because she's a Money Power Sith Lord front woman who has a KMA card. Nick Rockefeller
explained this to Aaron Russo, as told by Aaron himself when he was interviewed by Alex
Jones. Oh, and Rockefeller told him the details of the post 9/11 Afghanistan invasion in
advance, too. The interview is worth watching.
3. October, 2016, Comey announced an investigation into Hellary's criminal behavior. Uh,
it was already determined she wouldn't be prosecuted, right? Yup. So why publicly imply she
could be charged and convicted IF NOT TO AID AND ABET DONALD "HE'S WORTH MORE TO US
(BANKSTERS) ALIVE THAN DEAD" TRUMP INTO THE WHITE HOUSE?
By the way, that's an accurate and real quote from an attorney that represents something
like 50+ banks against Trump. He said it to describe why the Banksters didn't force Donald
into bankruptcy and take all his stuff. Donald OWES the Banksters FOR EVERYTHING HE HAS TODAY
THAT IS NOT POVERTY!
This is called an October Surprise, and they are rarely good.
4. After the elections, Comey announces that Hellary committed the crimes, was caught red
handed, but wouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't intend to commit the crime. Try that at
your next court date for running a stop sign you didn't see, serfer boys and girls.
5. Propaganda depicting Comey and Trump as enemies ensued immediately, lest the mindless
rabble formulate the most obvious question in their wittle minds...
"Why did the Obama FBI create a phony October Surprise to hurt Hellary and promote
Trump's election as President?"
That's not in the Money Power Matrix programming!
The reason is that the Banksters wanted Trump in office, because their debt-based money
system bubble (largest in human history) is set to implode AND THERE IS NO PERSON ON PLANET
EARTH THAT IS MORE CAPABLE OF MAGNETICALLY TAKING ALL THE BLAME ONTO HIMSELF THAN DONALD J.
TRUMP.
Nobody.
The name of the game is to shield the Banksters and their debt-money system from criticism
as the fraudulent ROOT CAUSE of the debt-money bubble bust cycles that asset strips entire
societies and leads to systematic global oppression of all ordinary people. At least for
those not directly or indirectly murdered by the Bankster anti-ordinary human agendas.
And, being promoted as an outsider, the Banksters get to save their two controlled
privately incorporated "politically parties in the minds of Muppets" from taking full blame,
therefore, all the Muppets will continue to think they have freedom because they get to
"vote" for Bankster quisling #1 or Bankster quisling #2.
Let freeDUMB rain!
PS - The Banksters don't even care that I spill the beans on their plans because they know
the masses, even the ZeroHedge masses, simply lack the imagination to envision the reality
they Banksters have financed into existence.
alfbell ,
Wake me up once the handing out of prison sentences starts. If they never do, I don't want
to wake up.
WarAndPeace ,
Only a politician would not recognize that they are criminals.... ah apply that whichever
way you want.
LaugherNYC ,
Dead silence in the media about the entire FBI DOJ scandal for months. Only the occasional
piece on conservative blogs. EIther Huber has Grand Jury true bills coming October 1 to slam
on the Dems just before the midterms, or this coverup of Deep State malfeasance will go on
until the Dems get the House and impeach Trump. The plan seems to let them all get away with
their betrayal of the country.
McCabe should already be in prison, yet it seems like there has yet even been a decision
to indict him... he might be in front of a gran d jury, or he might just be chillin waiting
for his grievance with the union to be heard and be awarded back pay and pension vesting, a
if what he did is equivalent to a guy driving his forklift into a wall at Costco after a
beer.,
MrBoompi ,
Now "It's all about cooperation and sharing." What a crock of shit. They still want us to
believe the government agencies didn't communicate with each other, or work together, before
911. That's high level propaganda that's still being used to cover up what happened on 911
and justify the anti-constitutional Patriot Act.
Captain Nemo de Erehwon ,
Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. It is what prevents people from doing real
damage. It is the sole hope for the world.
It was not hard-nosed intelligence and legal professionals running a secretive op to
overturn the election. If it were there would not be this trail of text messages describing
each step in detail. The amateurish execution, given all the assets at their disposal
including Australian Ambassadors, mysterious European Professors, and other premiere
intelligence agencies, even perhaps other US government agencies is like spoilt rich kids
ruining their parents' ...hmm is that offensive nowadays? ...legal guardians' ...!@$# it ...
father's company.
All Risk No Reward ,
>>Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. <<
You don't comprehend the milieu.
The agendas include, but are not limited to:
1. Produce more debt - private, corporate, and governmental. Incompetence? On what planet?
They are AMAZING!
2. Prevent the plebs from realizing #1. Again, they have you duped - and you aren't
alone.
3. Pretend inferiority, so that concerted malevolent intent is not discerned. Art of War
101.
The are doing a stellar job at their true agendas.
Dare I say, so good that I can't exclude supernatural guidance.
Muddy1 ,
Why show the attractive pictures of Lisa Page? I liked the ones where she looked like the
dimwit she is.
Pons Asinorum ,
She's more attractive with her mouth shut.
Yog Soggoth ,
"Sisters" may refer to sister agency.
"Sisters is an odd phrase to use," retired FBI special agent and former FBI national
spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News Wednesday. " It could be any intelligence agency or
any other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI works with all of them because, post 9/11,
it's all about cooperation and sharing. " Witches perhaps? Cotton Mather was right!
fulliautomatix ,
There's another William - "it's all about cooperation and sharing." Oh, and telling the
truth.
Remington Steel ,
Treasonous fucks. They should all hang in D.C.'s National Mall.
SnatchnGrab ,
Hang them in the public square so that we may spit on them.
I am Groot ,
They should be staked down to the ground out in the desert, covered in honey and have ants
poured all over them.
SaulAzzHoleSky ,
Strzok's lawyer will say that this refers to problems with his Depends, not the
media.....
WTFUD ,
Down down deeper and down - that's pretty deep.
There's very little deep about the F-uk-us Political Establishment; empty suits,
treasonous filth, cowardly, and yet, wholeheartedly believe they are principled.
S.H.O.C.K.I.N.G
motoXdude ,
Just like enlightened, educated Liberals... those working in these agencies (and most
likely the agencies themselves) are above the law and here to govern the great unwashed and
deplorables! This IS THE DEEP STATE aka THE SWAMP! Time to drain it or drop a high tension
power line in it!
Anunnaki ,
Leaking must not be a crime for Keebler Sessions
Mzhen ,
Wasn't it fortunate that Seth Rich was involved in transporting DNC data to WikiLeaks?
Without the "hacking" link in the chain, the rest of the plan could not have been set into
motion. Characterized as an ardent Bernie supporter, Seth Rich was actually scheduled to go
to work at Hillary's campaign headquarters a few weeks after the date of his murder.
WTFUD ,
The Classic Clinton Foundation ENTRAPMENT.
The job offer being a ruse just in case they didn't get him 1st Time.
SirBarksAlot ,
According to this news clip, there are secret military tribunals going on and John McCain
was executed for his treason.
His 3 remaining brain-cells were targeted with magnetic pulses like the one's going down
at the US Embassy in CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBA.
HominyTwin ,
That's right! Powerful people are taking care of everything, and making sure all will be
right with the USA once again, in the very near future, without effort or sacrifice or
thinking on our part. That is wonderful news!!!!
south40_dreams ,
Build the gallows.
missionshk ,
my understanding is that there were 14 people from various agencies, in a chat room all
committing treason, but dont here about that any more
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the coup is winning.
Prosource ,
Not sure the coup is winning, but it's been almost 2 years and we are only this far in
investigations and prosecutions ???
fulliautomatix ,
Trying to keep some of the legal community alive.
Dickweed Wang ,
Does Lisa Page have tits or are those mutant mosquito bites?
NewHugh ,
In my limited experience flat girls figure out a way to "compensate"...
I am Groot ,
Have you seen her smile ? She's all gums. I'll bet Stzrok loves when the vet takes her
teeth out to clean them and she blows him.
GUMMY ! GUMMY ! GUMMY !
SirBarksAlot ,
It hasn't been determined if she has tits or not.
However, she certainly has balls.
cosmyccowboy ,
she needs the crocodille dundee test... the dept of injustice is trannies on parade!
Collectivism Killz ,
Just in case Qanon is wrong about Keebler Elf Sessions, can someone at least gently remind
him that failure to prosecute will give creeps like Joe Biden a second shot at his
Granddaughters? Not sure if he cares, but I would think an old hound dog such as Sessions
would at least consider his final legacy on earth. All that Fried Chicken and chitlins have
to catch up with him at some point.
Yog Soggoth ,
Everyone up on the Hill feels the fire burning below their feet, those who succumb will
embrace the everlasting heat. Where is Billy? Can you clean this up for me?
Stan522 ,
"The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a
"media leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers." "
Questions arise....
The media obviously knows who is leaking and they also know who's been in the news
relating to this investigation, yet, they still refuse to connect the dots and write about
the uncontrollable sieve of leaks
The media also refuses to put any focus on the drip by drip bits of information about how
there was bias. The devilcRAT talking heads are in contortions trying to excuse all of this
and the MSM are allowing it.
The Inspector General apparently conducted an investigation on all of this shit's and
concluded there was no bias, yet every day there seems to be more evidence that there was
extreme bias. What more needs to be shown to get the media talking about it?
Last weeks breaking news had shown that Andrew Weisman (yes, the same clown that now works
for Mueller's hit squad) as colluding with Bruck Ohr and Christopher Steele during the
creation of that fake news Dossier and Weisman was feeding information to Mueller. When will
Mueller drop this scam investigation?
There are still republicans that hold the opinion that Mueller must be allowed to finish
his investigation. With the fact that Weisman was part of the hit squad creating dirt about
Trump, at what point are these idiot politicians are going to grow a pair and start talking
about all of this? It seems they are the same lazy thinkers that go along with the man caused
global warming hoax.
Yesterday's breaking news was about what DeGenova stated about the meeting in obama's
office with Rice, Yates, Biden, Comey, and Obama. He says "It was a meeting to discuss how
Sally Yates was going to get Michael Flynn. And the President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was directly involved in these discussions." Yet NOTHING was shown on CNN, MSNBC, NBC,
CBS, ABC and the rest about this.
lookslikecraptome ,
Just put up the link to fox news that ran this story. Talk about a cut and paste.
"As Communists, we work in the elections not just for a candidate but strategically to
build and strengthen the movement and our Party for the long term. The situation varies
greatly from one state and election district to the next so tactics have to be developed
locally. The more we share our concrete experiences, the more we can learn and get ideas from
each other. Here are thoughts for consideration:
1. Where to concentrate?
Clubs: the neighborhood or election district where the club is located;
Districts: election districts that can be flipped; election districts where
working-class champions who are incumbents are under attack; election districts with a
progressive primary candidate.
2. What goals?
• build a voter base to change the political balance of forces;
• strengthen relationships with unions, left/progressive electoral forms like Our
Revolution (OR) and Working Famlies Party (WFP), etc;
• raise the level of class consciousness, unity and solidarity;
• enlarge the CPUSA diverse working-class membership and readership of People's
World;
• identify among our members potential candidates for local office.
3. What methods?
Voter registration: laws differ from state to state. Where there is postcard
registration, door-to-door work with voter cards and issue petitions and sign-ups are a great
way to identify people who want to become engaged and who we can follow up with to vote and
get involved. Tabling with voter cards, issue petitions, People's World and literature is
another way, but harder to follow up with people in scattered geography. Increasing voter
turnout in working-class communities can win elections and create the base for organizing to
win a people's program. It is a direct challenge to the corporate right-wing that depends on
depressing and suppressing the vote.
Participate with allies: Unions, progressive community groups and left/progressive
electoral forms are the best way to participate in campaigns and build the movement for the
long term. Organizations vary from place to place. Labor 2018 is the AFL-CIO program and
anyone can take part in phone banks and visits to the homes of union members. Each union also
has its own election program that union members should prioritize. Local issue coalitions or
ballot initiatives are also important venues, for example Jobs with Justice, Planned
Parenthood, Fight for 15, the Poor People's Campaign, Millions of Jobs etc. Left and
progressive electoral organizations that have endorsed candidates with strong programs are a
strategic way to participate such as Our Revolution, Working Families Party, Indivisible,
etc. If you are just getting started this is a great way to reach out.
Chupacabra-322 ,
They really thought Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton
would win.
And, with it. Complete destruction of Conservatism, Libertarian Values, &
Ideology.
Her Crimes would have never been uncovered or bought out into the open as we're
witnessing.
Much was at stake. Everything was lost.
The Presidency LOST.
Weaponized Intelligence Community with Agents, Assets & Operatives. LOST.
Complicit, Criminal Loyal CIA, FBI, DOJ. LOST.
Supreme Court. LOST.
No doubt, the censorship & Gas Lighting would have been turned on fully.
And, with it Tyrannical Lawlessness.
mc888 ,
How about the "Free Press"? Exposed as nothing but a corrupt propganda outlet for the
DS.
"Free Independent Journalism" LOST.
All these MSM propaganda outlets need their FCC licenses revoked for broadcasting false
information and hoaxes.
Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Radio Broadcast 1938 - Complete Broadcast. The War of
theWorlds was an episode of the American radio drama anthology seri...
If the FBI really would have put its muscle behind it HRC would be president.
Instead Comey was waffling, re-opening the email investigation and writing a mealy-mouthed
letter to Congress just before the election.
It's pretty funny to watch the Tyler Kremlin boys try to contort this into a Deep State
conspiracy to prevent Trump and get HRC elected. If so this would have been the most inept
conspiracy ever.
debtserf ,
News Flash: It was (inept).
How else are we finding all this out?
"Trump won therefore there cannot have been a conspiracy" is not a cogent argument.
Paralentor ,
We all knew it. What the Soros owned Social Media and Rothschild AP/Reuters owned
mainstream choose to tell the sleeping public is an entirely different story.
justyouwait ,
So if we didn't live in a banana republic these guys would all be in prison or at least
going through some court proceedings for what they did. Not here though. No sir, we live in a
full blown, first world banana republic where the power elite are truly far better off than
the peons that pay their way but we offer enough distractions on so many levels that most of
the peons don't realize they are being played and many that do throw up their hands and say
ho hum, I have nothing to worry about (as long as they can have their entertainment &
distractions).
The whole FBI has to be tore down and redone from the ground up. Sure the Deep State would
want total control of the national and most powerful police force. This is how you control
government and the peons. It has shown itself to be beyond corrupt. Yes there may be many
good ones still out there but how do we know anymore? Wipe it out and start again. Yes, I
know it won't happen because it is far too huge a labyrinth to dismantle & reassemble but
the point is still valid. I guess the best we can hope for is to take down some at the top
and then make them squeal on the others. Won't happen until we reform the DOJ first
though.
DRTexas ,
What? Sorry, I wasn't listening. I was thinking about the bread, circuses, and the bit of
meat and cake they are allowing me to have.
Mercuryquicksilver ,
Cults have "Sisters".
Chupacabra-322 ,
Mocking Bird, Presstitute, Deep State "Sister" appendages.
chubbar ,
No question these folks are committing treason/sedition and it goes directly to Obama,
that fucking traitor. God, I hope these fuckers swing!
Itdoesntmatter ,
fuck you people are fucking stupid....The people writing this shit are laughing at you
idiot sheeple...
Totin ,
Riiiiiight. You are a dumb phuck if you don't think this kind of news makes a huge
difference.
1970SSNova396 ,
I will have to wait until Strzok's Jew lawyer tells us the real deal. They don't lie for
sure. There is a golden calf joke in there somewhere.
Hadenough1000 ,
Comey will be in jail when this is over
1970SSNova396 ,
That can't happen! The entire US government will be jail if that were to happen including
half the house and 80% of the senate past and present.
NMmom ,
I have no problem with that. Do you?
fulliautomatix ,
They ought to be happy they're only going to jail.
Stan522 ,
Comey was following orders....
A fish stinks starting at the head
No one at the top ever pays the price, they usually find an underling to take the fall, so
don't expect jail time for obama.....
1970SSNova396 ,
Hillary wasn't joking when she said " we all will hang from nooses if the fuking bastard
wins"
To be continued.
Hadenough1000 ,
This is why anyone paying attention KNOWS that this makes watergate look like a
kindergarten party
ISIS Barry weaponized the hell out of our government
just like they do in third world dumps where that Muslim pig was raised
all the felons this time are obamas boys
MedTechEntrepreneur ,
I want these two Yay-hoo's Waterboarded and Propofal'ed tonight! Live streamed nationwide.
I want the truth...all of it!
peippe ,
to learn what? that these lovers loved hillary & thought they were doing 'god's
work'?
please, it's like listening to francis the leader of the catholic church these days.
Gitmo for all of them.
Kosher meals till they quit lying.
All the other detainees get Egg McMuffins.
SHADEWELL ,
Gums and Butter
Page and the balding weirdo dickhead...match made in hell
Strzok has to be the most fucked up individual I have ever seen...a 50 yr old that acts
like an effeminate weirdo
Fucking scary that a weirdo like that can obtain a position that high in
"intelligence"
Truly fucked up...must have been servicing folks like Brennan
topshelfstuff ,
Sure Previously Known, But Not Previously Believed To Be
r0mulus ,
Operation Mockingbird lives on, just as we, the "conspiracy theorists" said.
And look who was wrong about reality in the end:
The ones pretending nothing was/is wrong, and that we were/are crazy.
Well who's crazy now motherfuckers?
Looks like it's you lot over there, desperately clinging to your MSM/DNC/GOP idols, asking
for FB/Twitter/Google to ban everything too inconvenient for your "reality".
Face the truth for once: the collusion is and has always been between the
MSM/DNC/GOP/Alphabet Agencies and the DEEP STATE. And you perpetuate the oppression by being
party to it.
JoeTurner ,
I sometimes lose sleep wondering how horrific things would be if the Clinton Crime Cabal
was in power. All over the TV in New York demorats are running insane political ads for
Cuomo, Nixon, Teachout and all the rest of the wild eyed communist wack jobs. Not one of them
has any proposals to govern better or improve the life of the middle class. Its all about
aggrieved minorities sticking it to whitey for 'mo gimmies'
Hadenough1000 ,
If that fat drunk and her raping Pig hubby had won then
MS13 Killers would be in the streets with their amnesty papers and new welfare checks and
voter Registration
weinstein would be in the cabinet
Rapist clinton and ISIS Barry would be on the Supreme Court
we would be losing 200,000 jobs a week again like with Barry
thank God for Trump
Prosource ,
And Mike Rogers.
And Bill Binney.
And Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan.
1970SSNova396 ,
New York is a shithole country ...a lost cause....JewVille
Zappalives ,
nyc is a parasite on the real America and must be destroyed.
Prosource ,
Babylon will fall..
Count on it..
Just hope we can survive the tumor removal.
Yippie21 ,
And to sell the Russia-crap, the Obama administration purposely kicked diplomats out of
the country and laid on sanctions in December. I'm curious enough to wonder how much of the
White-helmet gas attacks in Syria ( that Trump reacted to ) were indirectly done to further
the anti-Russia narrative by Obama folks.... After all, the whole Syria mess has his
fingerprints all over it.
surf@jm ,
Big wow......
Clear and convincing evidence of a crime, obviously isn't a crime in Washington D.C.,
unless, of course, you are a conservative.....
fulliautomatix ,
little wow - Strzok deliberately documented the crimes on his and Page's phones.
thetruthhurts ,
It is unclear at this point to whom Strzok was referring when he used the term
"sisters."
_______________________________
CIA, NSA etc.
attah-boy-Luther ,
16 more 'sisters eh?
yipper....pedos love like a set of arkansas cousins as well...lol.
PrivetHedge ,
I see what they are afraid of now.
The 'russiagate' stuff is now starting to reveal the very structure and organisation of
the Deep State: once only suspected by the sheep, now it's coming into plain sight for all to
see to the horror of all the pharisee jew vampires who are now seeing the first signs of
dawn.
valerie24 ,
God, I hope you're right.
insanelysane ,
Still want to see the communication between the lovers at the time Seth Rich was
murdered.
So...under the ruse of consolidating agencies under Homeland Security to effectively
coordinate against terrorism, they now are organized to effectively coordinate a battle
against anyone of their choosing.
i think we've been had.
consider me gone ,
It was only a matter of time. Thing is, is that it took almost no time at all. Go figure.
So much for that Constitution thingy. What did Franklin say again, when he left the
Constitution Convention?
Chupacabra-322 ,
The Deep State collects blackmail data on all Democratic & Republican members that are
in positions of power. That is how they are able to keep secrets and control politicians.
The entire Surveillance Infrastructure Is & was being used for one thing. .. To build
blackmail 'Control Files' on thousands if not millions of Americans. ... An Extortion Tool.
.. NOTHING legal about it.
The Awan Case is the biggest Criminal, Treasonous, Seditious Intelligence Political
Espionage Operation of our lifetime.
And, the Awans were let off the Hook. That alone is telling of how far down the Tyrannical
Lawless Espionage rabbit hole it is.
Idiocracy's Not Sure ,
FBI-DOJ-MSM Collusion Went Far Deeper Than Previously Known ..Never Underestimate The
Power Of Stupid People In Large Groups.....NUTPOSPILG
valerie24 ,
Agree, but will the real culprits be convicted? I'm talking about the dual citizens that
have kept us in endless wars in the Middle East, some of whom have active roles in the White
House.
No doubt Rosenstein, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Ohr, Strozk, Page, etc. Should be in jail.
Hell, Sessions should probably be in jail just for failing to act.
What about the rest? The 9/11 conspirators - Silverstein, Bush, Cheney, the CIA and
Mossad, the dancing fucking Israeli's?
What a shit show
conraddobler ,
It's all just a show, even Q says constantly to "Enjoy the show"
I haven't liked this show for about 10 plus years and it wasn't that good before and on
top of all that, the illusion to which I have awoken from about that time seems to have
shattered any illusions that were concurrent to it.
In reality, our country was taken from us at least 100 years ago "if not much more, and if
we ever really had one" and if anyone thinks that they will ever "give it back" then you are
in fact suffering from a severe reality gap.
There are no "good guys" when they want to put the ring on to save us all they still
unfortunately will have to put the damn ring on to do it.
No one is advocating what actually needs to be done, namely finding a band of hobbits to
toss it into the fire from whence it came.
Just because some honorable people want to stop dishonorable people from doing
dishonorable things does not mean when they are elevated to such positions of power that they
won't turn themselves, they always do.
Until the MIC collapses we will forever be slaves to someone, doesn't matter who, bankers
or the military, either way we will not be free.
Restoring the rule of law would mean public trials, not military tribunals, a fact which
people aren't discussing at all.
The way they caught these people was the spying on everyone. The very power that most
threatens our liberties will restore our liberties?
What are the odds of that?
I'm not blind, the world is a dangerous place, maybe liberty is just too tough or
impossible to exercise in the modern world?
Clearly we were nearing a horrible fate and I am grateful for being saved form something
worse even if it only flips us out of one pan to the next the other pan was intolerably
hot.
What I most want to point out above all else is that human freedom is exceedingly fragile
and tough to win, it should be guarded much more closely and absolute power will always
corrupt so anything we do to navigate as a nation needs to adhere to the constitution as
closely as possible.
I don't like being told there have to be secrets, I don't like military tribunals, I'm not
saying that we don't need a military.
We need a military and we need it badly and we need to get out money's worth out of
it.
I can only ask that instead of a show, give me the real damn thing, I want, along with
millions upon millions of other Americans, REAL DAMN LIBERTY!
asscannon101 ,
That first pic in the article- the one of Strzok- that is a 'peyote face'. The crazy eyes
and the grotesque, exaggerated facial grimacing. Mescaline will do that to you. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. Just lucky that he didn't spaz out, shit in his pants, flop
around on the floor squawking like a seagull and start chewing his own lips off. I've read a
lot of books about that shit. A lot of books. Over and over again. A lot of fucking
books.
troutback ,
Get a Fucking Rope and an Oak Tree. That's how I feel. It's fucking Treason!
Sheesh
tb
bobdog54 ,
The swamp aka the deep state is not only not a conspiracy theory but a real seditionous
conspiracy against our Constitutional Laws and Way of Life. And much much deeper than most
can imagine.
Automatic Choke ,
why are they not incarcerated?
this shit is an affront to all of us who follow the laws, respect election results, pay
taxes, and try to be good citizens.
PUT THEM AWAY!!!!!
navy62802 ,
So we already know that these people committed sedition against the government based on
the known evidence. One more tape doesn't prove the crime any more than the other evidence.
All this does is drive home the fact that there were additional conspirators who protected
these criminals from justice. It's fucking sickening.
Call me when someone in the government gets the balls to finally charge these criminals
with the crimes they have obviously committed. Until then, new evidence is moot.
bobdog54 ,
Wish I could give you 100 up arrows!
All Risk No Reward ,
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being
oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing."
― Malcolm X
The above is true, but only tangentially related to this topic in that it expresses the
media LIES.
The TRUTH is that the BankstObama FBI worked overtime to get BankstoTrump "elected" as one
of the Bankster financed "selections." Banksters "select" based on money and promotion, then
you "vote" on their selection in an "election."
Let freeDUMB rain!
Here's how it worked...
1. Mid 2016, FBI became aware of Hellary's criminal activity.
2. Mid 2016, Comey sent memo stating Hellary would not be prosecuted. He did not say this
is because she's a Money Power Sith Lord front woman who has a KMA card. Nick Rockefeller
explained this to Aaron Russo, as told by Aaron himself when he was interviewed by Alex
Jones. Oh, and Rockefeller told him the details of the post 9/11 Afghanistan invasion in
advance, too. The interview is worth watching.
3. October, 2016, Comey announced an investigation into Hellary's criminal behavior. Uh,
it was already determined she wouldn't be prosecuted, right? Yup. So why publicly imply she
could be charged and convicted IF NOT TO AID AND ABET DONALD "HE'S WORTH MORE TO US
(BANKSTERS) ALIVE THAN DEAD" TRUMP INTO THE WHITE HOUSE?
By the way, that's an accurate and real quote from an attorney that represents something
like 50+ banks against Trump. He said it to describe why the Banksters didn't force Donald
into bankruptcy and take all his stuff. Donald OWES the Banksters FOR EVERYTHING HE HAS TODAY
THAT IS NOT POVERTY!
This is called an October Surprise, and they are rarely good.
4. After the elections, Comey announces that Hellary committed the crimes, was caught red
handed, but wouldn't be prosecuted because she didn't intend to commit the crime. Try that at
your next court date for running a stop sign you didn't see, serfer boys and girls.
5. Propaganda depicting Comey and Trump as enemies ensued immediately, lest the mindless
rabble formulate the most obvious question in their wittle minds...
"Why did the Obama FBI create a phony October Surprise to hurt Hellary and promote
Trump's election as President?"
That's not in the Money Power Matrix programming!
The reason is that the Banksters wanted Trump in office, because their debt-based money
system bubble (largest in human history) is set to implode AND THERE IS NO PERSON ON PLANET
EARTH THAT IS MORE CAPABLE OF MAGNETICALLY TAKING ALL THE BLAME ONTO HIMSELF THAN DONALD J.
TRUMP.
Nobody.
The name of the game is to shield the Banksters and their debt-money system from criticism
as the fraudulent ROOT CAUSE of the debt-money bubble bust cycles that asset strips entire
societies and leads to systematic global oppression of all ordinary people. At least for
those not directly or indirectly murdered by the Bankster anti-ordinary human agendas.
And, being promoted as an outsider, the Banksters get to save their two controlled
privately incorporated "politically parties in the minds of Muppets" from taking full blame,
therefore, all the Muppets will continue to think they have freedom because they get to
"vote" for Bankster quisling #1 or Bankster quisling #2.
Let freeDUMB rain!
PS - The Banksters don't even care that I spill the beans on their plans because they know
the masses, even the ZeroHedge masses, simply lack the imagination to envision the reality
they Banksters have financed into existence.
alfbell ,
Wake me up once the handing out of prison sentences starts. If they never do, I don't want
to wake up.
WarAndPeace ,
Only a politician would not recognize that they are criminals.... ah apply that whichever
way you want.
LaugherNYC ,
Dead silence in the media about the entire FBI DOJ scandal for months. Only the occasional
piece on conservative blogs. EIther Huber has Grand Jury true bills coming October 1 to slam
on the Dems just before the midterms, or this coverup of Deep State malfeasance will go on
until the Dems get the House and impeach Trump. The plan seems to let them all get away with
their betrayal of the country.
McCabe should already be in prison, yet it seems like there has yet even been a decision
to indict him... he might be in front of a gran d jury, or he might just be chillin waiting
for his grievance with the union to be heard and be awarded back pay and pension vesting, a
if what he did is equivalent to a guy driving his forklift into a wall at Costco after a
beer.,
MrBoompi ,
Now "It's all about cooperation and sharing." What a crock of shit. They still want us to
believe the government agencies didn't communicate with each other, or work together, before
911. That's high level propaganda that's still being used to cover up what happened on 911
and justify the anti-constitutional Patriot Act.
Captain Nemo de Erehwon ,
Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. It is what prevents people from doing real
damage. It is the sole hope for the world.
It was not hard-nosed intelligence and legal professionals running a secretive op to
overturn the election. If it were there would not be this trail of text messages describing
each step in detail. The amateurish execution, given all the assets at their disposal
including Australian Ambassadors, mysterious European Professors, and other premiere
intelligence agencies, even perhaps other US government agencies is like spoilt rich kids
ruining their parents' ...hmm is that offensive nowadays? ...legal guardians' ...!@$# it ...
father's company.
All Risk No Reward ,
>>Moral of the story: Cherish incompetence. <<
You don't comprehend the milieu.
The agendas include, but are not limited to:
1. Produce more debt - private, corporate, and governmental. Incompetence? On what planet?
They are AMAZING!
2. Prevent the plebs from realizing #1. Again, they have you duped - and you aren't
alone.
3. Pretend inferiority, so that concerted malevolent intent is not discerned. Art of War
101.
The are doing a stellar job at their true agendas.
Dare I say, so good that I can't exclude supernatural guidance.
Muddy1 ,
Why show the attractive pictures of Lisa Page? I liked the ones where she looked like the
dimwit she is.
Pons Asinorum ,
She's more attractive with her mouth shut.
Yog Soggoth ,
"Sisters" may refer to sister agency.
"Sisters is an odd phrase to use," retired FBI special agent and former FBI national
spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News Wednesday. " It could be any intelligence agency or
any other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI works with all of them because, post 9/11,
it's all about cooperation and sharing. " Witches perhaps? Cotton Mather was right!
fulliautomatix ,
There's another William - "it's all about cooperation and sharing." Oh, and telling the
truth.
Remington Steel ,
Treasonous fucks. They should all hang in D.C.'s National Mall.
SnatchnGrab ,
Hang them in the public square so that we may spit on them.
I am Groot ,
They should be staked down to the ground out in the desert, covered in honey and have ants
poured all over them.
SaulAzzHoleSky ,
Strzok's lawyer will say that this refers to problems with his Depends, not the
media.....
WTFUD ,
Down down deeper and down - that's pretty deep.
There's very little deep about the F-uk-us Political Establishment; empty suits,
treasonous filth, cowardly, and yet, wholeheartedly believe they are principled.
S.H.O.C.K.I.N.G
motoXdude ,
Just like enlightened, educated Liberals... those working in these agencies (and most
likely the agencies themselves) are above the law and here to govern the great unwashed and
deplorables! This IS THE DEEP STATE aka THE SWAMP! Time to drain it or drop a high tension
power line in it!
Anunnaki ,
Leaking must not be a crime for Keebler Sessions
Mzhen ,
Wasn't it fortunate that Seth Rich was involved in transporting DNC data to WikiLeaks?
Without the "hacking" link in the chain, the rest of the plan could not have been set into
motion. Characterized as an ardent Bernie supporter, Seth Rich was actually scheduled to go
to work at Hillary's campaign headquarters a few weeks after the date of his murder.
WTFUD ,
The Classic Clinton Foundation ENTRAPMENT.
The job offer being a ruse just in case they didn't get him 1st Time.
SirBarksAlot ,
According to this news clip, there are secret military tribunals going on and John McCain
was executed for his treason.
His 3 remaining brain-cells were targeted with magnetic pulses like the one's going down
at the US Embassy in CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBA.
HominyTwin ,
That's right! Powerful people are taking care of everything, and making sure all will be
right with the USA once again, in the very near future, without effort or sacrifice or
thinking on our part. That is wonderful news!!!!
south40_dreams ,
Build the gallows.
missionshk ,
my understanding is that there were 14 people from various agencies, in a chat room all
committing treason, but dont here about that any more
This is a coup, plain and simple, and the coup is winning.
Prosource ,
Not sure the coup is winning, but it's been almost 2 years and we are only this far in
investigations and prosecutions ???
fulliautomatix ,
Trying to keep some of the legal community alive.
Dickweed Wang ,
Does Lisa Page have tits or are those mutant mosquito bites?
NewHugh ,
In my limited experience flat girls figure out a way to "compensate"...
I am Groot ,
Have you seen her smile ? She's all gums. I'll bet Stzrok loves when the vet takes her
teeth out to clean them and she blows him.
GUMMY ! GUMMY ! GUMMY !
SirBarksAlot ,
It hasn't been determined if she has tits or not.
However, she certainly has balls.
cosmyccowboy ,
she needs the crocodille dundee test... the dept of injustice is trannies on parade!
Collectivism Killz ,
Just in case Qanon is wrong about Keebler Elf Sessions, can someone at least gently remind
him that failure to prosecute will give creeps like Joe Biden a second shot at his
Granddaughters? Not sure if he cares, but I would think an old hound dog such as Sessions
would at least consider his final legacy on earth. All that Fried Chicken and chitlins have
to catch up with him at some point.
Yog Soggoth ,
Everyone up on the Hill feels the fire burning below their feet, those who succumb will
embrace the everlasting heat. Where is Billy? Can you clean this up for me?
Stan522 ,
"The FBI's coordination with the mainstream media surrounding the 2016 US election - a
"media leak strategy" which was first
first revealed Tuesday , goes far deeper than first reported, according to
Fox News , which obtained "new communications between the former lovers." "
Questions arise....
The media obviously knows who is leaking and they also know who's been in the news
relating to this investigation, yet, they still refuse to connect the dots and write about
the uncontrollable sieve of leaks
The media also refuses to put any focus on the drip by drip bits of information about how
there was bias. The devilcRAT talking heads are in contortions trying to excuse all of this
and the MSM are allowing it.
The Inspector General apparently conducted an investigation on all of this shit's and
concluded there was no bias, yet every day there seems to be more evidence that there was
extreme bias. What more needs to be shown to get the media talking about it?
Last weeks breaking news had shown that Andrew Weisman (yes, the same clown that now works
for Mueller's hit squad) as colluding with Bruck Ohr and Christopher Steele during the
creation of that fake news Dossier and Weisman was feeding information to Mueller. When will
Mueller drop this scam investigation?
There are still republicans that hold the opinion that Mueller must be allowed to finish
his investigation. With the fact that Weisman was part of the hit squad creating dirt about
Trump, at what point are these idiot politicians are going to grow a pair and start talking
about all of this? It seems they are the same lazy thinkers that go along with the man caused
global warming hoax.
Yesterday's breaking news was about what DeGenova stated about the meeting in obama's
office with Rice, Yates, Biden, Comey, and Obama. He says "It was a meeting to discuss how
Sally Yates was going to get Michael Flynn. And the President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was directly involved in these discussions." Yet NOTHING was shown on CNN, MSNBC, NBC,
CBS, ABC and the rest about this.
lookslikecraptome ,
Just put up the link to fox news that ran this story. Talk about a cut and paste.
"As Communists, we work in the elections not just for a candidate but strategically to
build and strengthen the movement and our Party for the long term. The situation varies
greatly from one state and election district to the next so tactics have to be developed
locally. The more we share our concrete experiences, the more we can learn and get ideas from
each other. Here are thoughts for consideration:
1. Where to concentrate?
Clubs: the neighborhood or election district where the club is located;
Districts: election districts that can be flipped; election districts where
working-class champions who are incumbents are under attack; election districts with a
progressive primary candidate.
2. What goals?
• build a voter base to change the political balance of forces;
• strengthen relationships with unions, left/progressive electoral forms like Our
Revolution (OR) and Working Famlies Party (WFP), etc;
• raise the level of class consciousness, unity and solidarity;
• enlarge the CPUSA diverse working-class membership and readership of People's
World;
• identify among our members potential candidates for local office.
3. What methods?
Voter registration: laws differ from state to state. Where there is postcard
registration, door-to-door work with voter cards and issue petitions and sign-ups are a great
way to identify people who want to become engaged and who we can follow up with to vote and
get involved. Tabling with voter cards, issue petitions, People's World and literature is
another way, but harder to follow up with people in scattered geography. Increasing voter
turnout in working-class communities can win elections and create the base for organizing to
win a people's program. It is a direct challenge to the corporate right-wing that depends on
depressing and suppressing the vote.
Participate with allies: Unions, progressive community groups and left/progressive
electoral forms are the best way to participate in campaigns and build the movement for the
long term. Organizations vary from place to place. Labor 2018 is the AFL-CIO program and
anyone can take part in phone banks and visits to the homes of union members. Each union also
has its own election program that union members should prioritize. Local issue coalitions or
ballot initiatives are also important venues, for example Jobs with Justice, Planned
Parenthood, Fight for 15, the Poor People's Campaign, Millions of Jobs etc. Left and
progressive electoral organizations that have endorsed candidates with strong programs are a
strategic way to participate such as Our Revolution, Working Families Party, Indivisible,
etc. If you are just getting started this is a great way to reach out.
Chupacabra-322 ,
They really thought Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton
would win.
And, with it. Complete destruction of Conservatism, Libertarian Values, &
Ideology.
Her Crimes would have never been uncovered or bought out into the open as we're
witnessing.
Much was at stake. Everything was lost.
The Presidency LOST.
Weaponized Intelligence Community with Agents, Assets & Operatives. LOST.
Complicit, Criminal Loyal CIA, FBI, DOJ. LOST.
Supreme Court. LOST.
No doubt, the censorship & Gas Lighting would have been turned on fully.
And, with it Tyrannical Lawlessness.
mc888 ,
How about the "Free Press"? Exposed as nothing but a corrupt propganda outlet for the
DS.
"Free Independent Journalism" LOST.
All these MSM propaganda outlets need their FCC licenses revoked for broadcasting false
information and hoaxes.
Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Radio Broadcast 1938 - Complete Broadcast. The War of
theWorlds was an episode of the American radio drama anthology seri...
If the FBI really would have put its muscle behind it HRC would be president.
Instead Comey was waffling, re-opening the email investigation and writing a mealy-mouthed
letter to Congress just before the election.
It's pretty funny to watch the Tyler Kremlin boys try to contort this into a Deep State
conspiracy to prevent Trump and get HRC elected. If so this would have been the most inept
conspiracy ever.
debtserf ,
News Flash: It was (inept).
How else are we finding all this out?
"Trump won therefore there cannot have been a conspiracy" is not a cogent argument.
Paralentor ,
We all knew it. What the Soros owned Social Media and Rothschild AP/Reuters owned
mainstream choose to tell the sleeping public is an entirely different story.
justyouwait ,
So if we didn't live in a banana republic these guys would all be in prison or at least
going through some court proceedings for what they did. Not here though. No sir, we live in a
full blown, first world banana republic where the power elite are truly far better off than
the peons that pay their way but we offer enough distractions on so many levels that most of
the peons don't realize they are being played and many that do throw up their hands and say
ho hum, I have nothing to worry about (as long as they can have their entertainment &
distractions).
The whole FBI has to be tore down and redone from the ground up. Sure the Deep State would
want total control of the national and most powerful police force. This is how you control
government and the peons. It has shown itself to be beyond corrupt. Yes there may be many
good ones still out there but how do we know anymore? Wipe it out and start again. Yes, I
know it won't happen because it is far too huge a labyrinth to dismantle & reassemble but
the point is still valid. I guess the best we can hope for is to take down some at the top
and then make them squeal on the others. Won't happen until we reform the DOJ first
though.
DRTexas ,
What? Sorry, I wasn't listening. I was thinking about the bread, circuses, and the bit of
meat and cake they are allowing me to have.
Mercuryquicksilver ,
Cults have "Sisters".
Chupacabra-322 ,
Mocking Bird, Presstitute, Deep State "Sister" appendages.
chubbar ,
No question these folks are committing treason/sedition and it goes directly to Obama,
that fucking traitor. God, I hope these fuckers swing!
Itdoesntmatter ,
fuck you people are fucking stupid....The people writing this shit are laughing at you
idiot sheeple...
Totin ,
Riiiiiight. You are a dumb phuck if you don't think this kind of news makes a huge
difference.
1970SSNova396 ,
I will have to wait until Strzok's Jew lawyer tells us the real deal. They don't lie for
sure. There is a golden calf joke in there somewhere.
Hadenough1000 ,
Comey will be in jail when this is over
1970SSNova396 ,
That can't happen! The entire US government will be jail if that were to happen including
half the house and 80% of the senate past and present.
NMmom ,
I have no problem with that. Do you?
fulliautomatix ,
They ought to be happy they're only going to jail.
Stan522 ,
Comey was following orders....
A fish stinks starting at the head
No one at the top ever pays the price, they usually find an underling to take the fall, so
don't expect jail time for obama.....
1970SSNova396 ,
Hillary wasn't joking when she said " we all will hang from nooses if the fuking bastard
wins"
To be continued.
Hadenough1000 ,
This is why anyone paying attention KNOWS that this makes watergate look like a
kindergarten party
ISIS Barry weaponized the hell out of our government
just like they do in third world dumps where that Muslim pig was raised
all the felons this time are obamas boys
MedTechEntrepreneur ,
I want these two Yay-hoo's Waterboarded and Propofal'ed tonight! Live streamed nationwide.
I want the truth...all of it!
peippe ,
to learn what? that these lovers loved hillary & thought they were doing 'god's
work'?
please, it's like listening to francis the leader of the catholic church these days.
Gitmo for all of them.
Kosher meals till they quit lying.
All the other detainees get Egg McMuffins.
SHADEWELL ,
Gums and Butter
Page and the balding weirdo dickhead...match made in hell
Strzok has to be the most fucked up individual I have ever seen...a 50 yr old that acts
like an effeminate weirdo
Fucking scary that a weirdo like that can obtain a position that high in
"intelligence"
Truly fucked up...must have been servicing folks like Brennan
topshelfstuff ,
Sure Previously Known, But Not Previously Believed To Be
r0mulus ,
Operation Mockingbird lives on, just as we, the "conspiracy theorists" said.
And look who was wrong about reality in the end:
The ones pretending nothing was/is wrong, and that we were/are crazy.
Well who's crazy now motherfuckers?
Looks like it's you lot over there, desperately clinging to your MSM/DNC/GOP idols, asking
for FB/Twitter/Google to ban everything too inconvenient for your "reality".
Face the truth for once: the collusion is and has always been between the
MSM/DNC/GOP/Alphabet Agencies and the DEEP STATE. And you perpetuate the oppression by being
party to it.
JoeTurner ,
I sometimes lose sleep wondering how horrific things would be if the Clinton Crime Cabal
was in power. All over the TV in New York demorats are running insane political ads for
Cuomo, Nixon, Teachout and all the rest of the wild eyed communist wack jobs. Not one of them
has any proposals to govern better or improve the life of the middle class. Its all about
aggrieved minorities sticking it to whitey for 'mo gimmies'
Hadenough1000 ,
If that fat drunk and her raping Pig hubby had won then
MS13 Killers would be in the streets with their amnesty papers and new welfare checks and
voter Registration
weinstein would be in the cabinet
Rapist clinton and ISIS Barry would be on the Supreme Court
we would be losing 200,000 jobs a week again like with Barry
thank God for Trump
Prosource ,
And Mike Rogers.
And Bill Binney.
And Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan.
1970SSNova396 ,
New York is a shithole country ...a lost cause....JewVille
Zappalives ,
nyc is a parasite on the real America and must be destroyed.
Prosource ,
Babylon will fall..
Count on it..
Just hope we can survive the tumor removal.
Yippie21 ,
And to sell the Russia-crap, the Obama administration purposely kicked diplomats out of
the country and laid on sanctions in December. I'm curious enough to wonder how much of the
White-helmet gas attacks in Syria ( that Trump reacted to ) were indirectly done to further
the anti-Russia narrative by Obama folks.... After all, the whole Syria mess has his
fingerprints all over it.
surf@jm ,
Big wow......
Clear and convincing evidence of a crime, obviously isn't a crime in Washington D.C.,
unless, of course, you are a conservative.....
fulliautomatix ,
little wow - Strzok deliberately documented the crimes on his and Page's phones.
thetruthhurts ,
It is unclear at this point to whom Strzok was referring when he used the term
"sisters."
_______________________________
CIA, NSA etc.
attah-boy-Luther ,
16 more 'sisters eh?
yipper....pedos love like a set of arkansas cousins as well...lol.
PrivetHedge ,
I see what they are afraid of now.
The 'russiagate' stuff is now starting to reveal the very structure and organisation of
the Deep State: once only suspected by the sheep, now it's coming into plain sight for all to
see to the horror of all the pharisee jew vampires who are now seeing the first signs of
dawn.
valerie24 ,
God, I hope you're right.
insanelysane ,
Still want to see the communication between the lovers at the time Seth Rich was
murdered.
So...under the ruse of consolidating agencies under Homeland Security to effectively
coordinate against terrorism, they now are organized to effectively coordinate a battle
against anyone of their choosing.
i think we've been had.
consider me gone ,
It was only a matter of time. Thing is, is that it took almost no time at all. Go figure.
So much for that Constitution thingy. What did Franklin say again, when he left the
Constitution Convention?
Chupacabra-322 ,
The Deep State collects blackmail data on all Democratic & Republican members that are
in positions of power. That is how they are able to keep secrets and control politicians.
The entire Surveillance Infrastructure Is & was being used for one thing. .. To build
blackmail 'Control Files' on thousands if not millions of Americans. ... An Extortion Tool.
.. NOTHING legal about it.
The Awan Case is the biggest Criminal, Treasonous, Seditious Intelligence Political
Espionage Operation of our lifetime.
And, the Awans were let off the Hook. That alone is telling of how far down the Tyrannical
Lawless Espionage rabbit hole it is.
Idiocracy's Not Sure ,
FBI-DOJ-MSM Collusion Went Far Deeper Than Previously Known ..Never Underestimate The
Power Of Stupid People In Large Groups.....NUTPOSPILG
let freedom ring ,
Trump is fucking nuts get over it!
Westcoastliberal ,
Go back to the Huffington Post. It's where idiots like you belong.
MsCreant ,
Nuts or not does not make this right.
You're putting too much "dumb" in your free-dumb.
valerie24 ,
The entire US population should be nuts over it and at the ready with their pitchforks.
This shit has gone on way too long and thankfully Trump's election has exposed these deep
state scumbags.
r0mulus ,
If you don't make an argument supported by facts, you lose by default. Loser.
Got The Wrong No ,
let freedom ring. That's funny coming from a 1 month Media Matters Commie.
Trump is nuts.....the new war cry of the failed Demrat losers. Everything from Russiagate
to Stormy has failed. Let's try the 25 Amendment. You and your masters are a fucking
joke.
debtserf ,
There's an orange nutter living rent-free in your head. Maybe you need to get over it son.
He won. Nearly 2 years ago now. You really need to let it go.
Breathe....and relax.
Snout the First ,
Isn't there more than enough evidence disclosed already to have a dozen or two of them
behind bars for life? What the fuck is Trump waiting for?
GaryLeeT ,
I think he's waiting so he can deliver an October surprise with a massive
declassification.
Yippie21 ,
That and he may want to wait to get Kavanaugh seated on the court. Trump is a long-game
thinker so, might at well get a judge first, and then start kicking ant hills.
navy62802 ,
It might take a while, but I think the full truth will eventually emerge. What has been
done here is a betrayal of the United States by career bureaucrats. It appears to be a
campaign of sedition.
Westcoastliberal ,
Coup de 'tat is what it is. Double whammy: Treason AND Sedition!
valerie24 ,
Agree, but will the real culprits be convicted? I'm talking about the dual citizens that
have kept us in endless wars in the Middle East, some of whom have active roles in the White
House.
No doubt Rosenstein, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Ohr, Strozk, Page, etc. Should be in jail.
Hell, Sessions should probably be in jail just for failing to act.
What about the rest? The 9/11 conspirators - Silverstein, Bush, Cheney, the CIA and
Mossad, the dancing fucking Israeli's?
What a shit show
debtserf ,
Hasn't it already emerged enough? You couldn't make this shit up. Even LeCarre would be
hard pushed to concoct such a labyrinthine plot as this. And no doubt there's much much more,
much deeper sub-plots, but you get the gist.
conraddobler ,
It's all just a show, even Q says constantly to "Enjoy the show"
I haven't liked this show for about 10 plus years and it wasn't that good before and on
top of all that, the illusion to which I have awoken from about that time seems to have
shattered any illusions that were concurrent to it.
In reality, our country was taken from us at least 100 years ago "if not much more, and if
we ever really had one" and if anyone thinks that they will ever "give it back" then you are
in fact suffering from a severe reality gap.
There are no "good guys" when they want to put the ring on to save us all they still
unfortunately will have to put the damn ring on to do it.
No one is advocating what actually needs to be done, namely finding a band of hobbits to
toss it into the fire from whence it came.
Just because some honorable people want to stop dishonorable people from doing
dishonorable things does not mean when they are elevated to such positions of power that they
won't turn themselves, they always do.
Until the MIC collapses we will forever be slaves to someone, doesn't matter who, bankers
or the military, either way we will not be free.
Restoring the rule of law would mean public trials, not military tribunals, a fact which
people aren't discussing at all.
The way they caught these people was the spying on everyone. The very power that most
threatens our liberties will restore our liberties?
What are the odds of that?
I'm not blind, the world is a dangerous place, maybe liberty is just too tough or
impossible to exercise in the modern world?
Clearly we were nearing a horrible fate and I am grateful for being saved form something
worse even if it only flips us out of one pan to the next the other pan was intolerably
hot.
What I most want to point out above all else is that human freedom is exceedingly fragile
and tough to win, it should be guarded much more closely and absolute power will always
corrupt so anything we do to navigate as a nation needs to adhere to the constitution as
closely as possible.
I don't like being told there have to be secrets, I don't like military tribunals, I'm not
saying that we don't need a military.
We need a military and we need it badly and we need to get out money's worth out of
it.
I can only ask that instead of a show, give me the real damn thing, I want, along with
millions upon millions of other Americans, REAL DAMN LIBERTY!
valerie24 ,
Excellent post!!
fulliautomatix ,
faded a bit toward the end, nice one.
Freedom is a property that can be taken from you? How do you come by this "freedom"?
RubberJohnny ,
Why are these people still on the OUTSIDE?
WHY!!!!!
Rubicon727 ,
"Why are these people still on the OUTSIDE?
WHY!!!!!"
Why? Because the greedy corporations, banks, and the entire financial system has corrupted
every federal/regional and local institutions from the US Senate/The Military Complex all the
way down to the local politician.
It only stands to reason the US would come to this. With millions of zombified American
citizens, and the bought off media - they are all participants watching this nation DIE!
I Am Jack's Macroaggression ,
#RUSSIAHOAX
Hey, Stockman outlined this well over a year ago. It would be great to see an updated
article:
Brennan used the Ukrainians to launder the dossier to Steele.
Oldwood ,
The "deep state" is anyone who attempts to direct our government in contradiction to the
constitution or the will of the people as represented by democratic process. They have been
shoving this notion of the sanctity of "democracy" while willingly subverting it in every
case that its result contradict THEIR AGENDA. It knows no party or specific affiliation
beyond its own self interests.
Trump, as the outsider, is forced to work in league with many of these people as "they"
will not allow anything else. People openly opposed to them are destroyed by their media and
courts, and as such, Trump's roster of potential team is severely limited. The ONLY means of
putting people devoted to the destruction of deep state is through elections, as all others
(and even then) will be run through the gauntlet.
We can Trash Trump all we please, but find me another, ANYONE who will stand in his place,
someone who will gain enough support to win an election against otherwise insurmountable
odds, and will then stand and face them and take their withering unending attacks. We hear
the complaints of his tweets, when in consideration of what he faces hourly, seems tiny in
response....while knowing he is attacked for that in full knowledge that doing anything more
would bring about more investigation, legal action and the inevitable impeachment.
Trump is the impossible man, the one who is willing to do what no other will, and ALL
constitutional, within the law. Accusations of tyranny when he has done nothing extraordinary
other than to simply act within his constitutional powers to advance his stated agenda.
We can dislike what he does and how he does it but no rational person can suggest he is
doing it illegally or immorally (beyond the standards that progressives have established
themselves).
fulliautomatix ,
Hey Oldwood - I've enjoyed your posts for a while now.
I'd argue that the deep state is more usefully defined as that part of the governing body
that exercises sovereign rights with regard to exemption to consequences at law. It is
probably worth noting that these sovereign rights evolved from a claimed divine right as the
divine was based in Rome (for the model of "the democratic west") and the claim was no longer
useful. Where others are more than willing to employ murderous tactics such a recognised body
is a pragmatic tool - but one to be used by the state as a whole. No consequences at law does
not mean no consequences at all - and it does not mean that the people who have employed
murderous tactics in order to benefit themselves are immune to reaction to their behaviours.
Arguing that you are immune to consequences at law, at the same time as seeking the
protection of the law, is no argument.
brushhog ,
Does anyone believe that these two were acting on their own? You think they masterminded
the whole conspiracy? They were two low-level foot soldiers in a much deeper conspiracy...the
real questions that need to be addressed is who were the generals? Whose orders were they
operating under?
107cicero ,
Hillary's, Obama, Soros', Rice's, Brennans' and Comey's.
But I think that Crooked Hillary double crossed Comey in the last two weeks, reneging on a
post presidential promise I would guess, and Comey 'restarted' the investigation which deep
sixed her presidential hopes.
Thieves and whores fight among each other just as hard......
brushhog ,
Forgot Clapper.
FreedomWriter ,
That's why waterboarding is still legal and Trump is OK with it.
AsEasyAsPi ,
The only evidence of "Collusion" exists with Hillary, the DNC, Fusion GPS and the
Obamite-Leftovers in the DOJ/FBI.
beenlauding ,
Stories about How Corrupt Us government is: 6million
What is interesting that the first eight reviews were all written by neocons.
The book looks like an implicit promotion of Pence. Which is probably not
what Dems want ;-).
Notable quotes:
"... I fell in love with Woodward's writing with "All the President's Men." It inspired me to work in journalism. But Woodward has lost his touch. His "reporting" feels second-hand and arm's length. Each Chapter in his Source Notes leads with this disclaimer: "The information in the chapter comes primarily from multiple deep background interviews and firsthand sources." We have no way of knowing what firsthand sources even means – an article he read in the New York Times whose author he's friends with? ..."
"... The review mentions biography of Mike Pence, "The Shadow President ..." by Michael D'Antonio and Peter Eisner . For former Harvard alumni this is an extremely naive review, that is completely devoid of understanding of political forces that are shaping the country and first of all the crisis of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Mike Pence, the "Shadow President" and Trump's hand picked successor, will from many indications become president in the months following the November 6 election. ..."
I went into this book thinking that it would confirm all of my deepest fears about Trump and give me more reasons to
dislike him. At the end of the book, I had the distinct impression that Trump's presidency is not as bad as it is often
portrayed.
Some of Trump's ideas are not so bad -- for example, the book spends a lot of time on Afghanistan. Trump has for a long
time believed the war was a mistake, that there is no way to "win," and that it is a perpetual loss of our country's
treasures.
The book spends a lot of time showing how Trump fought the "swamp" to come up with a strategy to get out -- and failed.
Of course, many other stories in the book confirmed my belief that he is a disaster for a president.
The book jumps around in time and topic a lot, making it difficult to follow. Kind of like Trump himself.
Melanie Gilbert, September 12, 2018
Deep Fear
My Kindle book loaded at 12:30 Tuesday morning , and I stayed up until 6:30 a.m. reading this fascinating and alarming
story. The scariest part of this massive tome is the sheer hubris of everyone in President Trump's orbit including the
author, famed Watergate reporter, Bob Woodward. They all think they are more presidential than the actual president, and that
sense of entitlement and arrogance drives this tell-all narrative.
Even though I agree that Trump is mentally unfit to be Commander-in-Chief – and Woodward cites many troubling incidents that
point to a memory-impaired leader – it feels as if Woodward operated under the theory of selection bias, finding sources who
would confirm his thesis. I don't know what's scarier, a president who is off the rails, or a staff that helps keep him there
while they are busy running the country the way they see fit (except when the crazy uncle escapes his handlers and spouts off
on Twitter.)
Woodward, a veteran reporter, and the man (with Carl Bernstein) who broke the Nixon-era Watergate crime with a source the
known only as "Deep Throat" falls for and magnifies their conceit. The real story isn't Trump, it's his unelected and
unconstitutional enablers (senior staff, family, media, lobbyists, rogue governments) who act like they are running a shadow
government (surreptitiously taking papers off his desk, screening his briefing materials.) Woodward's story will feed Trump's
main argument that there's a Deep State at work in this country.
I fell in love with Woodward's writing with "All the President's Men." It inspired me to work in journalism. But Woodward
has lost his touch. His "reporting" feels second-hand and arm's length. Each Chapter in his Source Notes leads with this
disclaimer: "The information in the chapter comes primarily from multiple deep background interviews and firsthand sources."
We have no way of knowing what firsthand sources even means – an article he read in the New York Times whose author he's
friends with?
This book is beneath Woodward's skill and reputation. You can basically retrieve the same message in "Unhinged" a much
briefer and far more readable format - though no less disturbing account - of working in the Trump White House.
NOTES: The review mentions biography of Mike Pence, "The Shadow President ..." by
Michael
D'Antonio and Peter Eisner
. For former Harvard alumni this is an extremely naive review, that is completely devoid of
understanding of political forces that are shaping the country and first of all the crisis of
neoliberalism.
Donald Trump's Demotion & Mike Pence's Promotion! When and How?
Bob Woodward has done it again. "Fear" is a remarkable and important book, especially
because it is so current and revealing and is vouched for by this very credible reporter.
Woodward's book confirms in much greater detail many earlier and less credible reports, plus
many others --- establishing clearly that Donald Trump is not fit to be the US president ---
politically, intellectually, psychologically or morally. Moreover, his erratic behavior is a
threat to US national security, as Woodward's book and recent TV interviews make very clear.
Of course, most of the media attention on this book has been and will continue to be on
Woodward's many shocking scoops. The most important question, however, that the book raises,
for me at least, is "When and how will Trump's reckless rule be retired?"
Mike Pence, the "Shadow President" and Trump's hand picked successor, will from many
indications become president in the months following the November 6 election. That seems
to be a high probability, even without Special Counsel Robert Mueller's likely devastating
report on the Russian conspiracy to influence illegally the 2016 presidential elections and
the related cover up obstructing Mueller's investigation of this conspiracy . The only
unknown now is when and how Trump goes--- by the impeachment process or by simple resignation
like Nixon did.
We can expect Pence will then give Trump a full pardon, after Trump fully pardons some
family members and close associates. Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort need not hold their
breath waiting for a pardon. Trump, some of his family members and close associates will, of
course, still be at risk of state law prosecutions, expecially in NY.
Trump has long used fear to exercise power over others. Fear, as Machiavelli strongly
recommended five centuries ago to a corrupt pope's nephew, is preferable to and more
effective than kindness. Paradoxically, Trump's own deep personal fear of failure still
drives him desperately--- any means are justified to reach Trump's top goals of personal
profit and glory forever. Any means is OK, including even orphaning innocent infants at the
Mexican border, while other immigrants are welcomed to work temporarily at Mar-a-Lago.
Woodward's book just reinforces these observations many have already made.
It is amazing to me that many of the so-called "adults in the room" cannot see that Trump
is misbehaving as he always did. He cannot be changed, certainly not now and not by the many
handlers selected seemingly because Trump can dominate them. That said, Trump still has more
than two years remaining on his term!
I have strong reactions to Woodward's many disturbing disclosures, as (1) a former Harvard
Law assistant to Archibald Cox (prior to his being the unforgettable Watergate Prosecutor and
nailing Nixon), (2) a former high school chum of Rudy Guiliani (now an unimpressive key Trump
advisor), (3) a former law firm colleague of Bob Khuzami (now the impressive head of NYC
federal investigations of Trump criminal matters) and (4) a father and grandfather.
... ... ...
At 75 years old, Woodward clearly had a purpose in this voluntary and prodigious effort to
research and write this book--- to flush out the true Donald Trump and show the danger he
poses for US national security. Woodward, a Navy veteran like John McCain before him, is also
a patriot. To paraphrase Trump, Woodward shows vividly that Trump's behavior is "very sad and
really disgusting".
The media will have a field day with some of the troubling Trump episodes Woodward
reports. Many persons cited in the book will challenge some of his reports. To be expected
and perhaps understandable, given Trump's fiery temper about those he thinks are in any way
disloyal to him. The facts will nevertheless prevail, as they have mostly for Woodward's
earlier books about the many presidents who immediately preceded Trump.
More important, however, than specific episodes, is what the confluence of these troubling
episodes clearly shows --- Trump is clearly unfit to be president! The longer he remains, the
greater the risk in our nuclear age for the US, and the world as well. It is well to recall
the near catastrophe last January when a Hawaiian technician pressed the wrong button
indicating a non-existent "imminent" North Korean missile attack, following Trump's reckless
rhetoric about the real North Korean threat. This must have sent a real chill down the spines
of the leaders of all nuclear nations, and many others as well.
Will Trump then finish his first term? Very doubtful, it appears.
If the Democrats win a House majority in less than two months, prompt impeachment
proceedings and numerous House investigations of Trump and his corrupt cronies appear to be
inevitable. That dooms Trump.
Even if the Democrats remain the minority, impeachment is still likely to occur in my view
as Mueller's efforts continue --- they cannot be stopped now. They will continue even if
Mueller is fired as they continued after Nixon fired Archibald Cox. Moreover, there is a
reasonable prospect that one or more of Trump's children and/or in-laws could soon be
indicted.
Trump will after November be an increasingly unnecessary liability for Republicans, the
GOP. Only 32% of voters currently polled even think Trump is honest. He has already done what
the GOP and its billionaire backers like the Kochs and Devoses most wanted --- a major tax
cut for the wealthiest, reckless deregulation, insuring a right wing judiciary majority,
reducing drastically Federal revenues needed to fund the social safety net, et al.
Moreover, it seems unlikely that Trump will be able to handle the steadily growing
pressure he faces. He may even elect to resign as Nixon did. Pence can finish up to the
cheers of the Kochs, Devoses, et al.
For a fuller picture of what to expect from Pence when Trump "retires", please see the new
comprehensive, readable and detailed biography of Mike Pence, "The Shadow President ..." by
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter, Michael D'Antonio, and by his co-author, Peter
Eisner. This book's findings dovetail nicely with the findings in "Fear".
Unlike Woodward, D'Antonio even got, for his recent excellent Trump biography, hours of
direct interviews of Trump before the 2016 elections, until Trump abruptly ended the
interviews apparently concerned that D'Antonio was writing a truthful book based on facts,
not on Trump's limitless lies and specious spin. We now know from this important book on
Pence why it is very unlikely that Pence will ever be able to clean up Donald Trump's mess.
We also can understand much better why Trump recently predicted that stock markets would
crash if he were to be impeached. Not too great an endorsement of his successor, Pence, by a
reckless and incompetent boss who has now witnessed up close for almost two years the
non-stop cheerleading of the "Shadow President", Mike Pence.
Pence successfully strived during the last two years behind the scenes, with Trump's
apparent blessings, to advance his repressive and regressive fundamentalist Christian
remaking of American society, including through administration and judicial right-wing
appointments and adoption of fundamentalist social policies, like curtailing legal abortions
and even limiting contraception access. Significantly, these policies mostly benefit in the
end the already "uberrich" top 0.01% of Americans at the expense of the 99.99 % less
fortunate--- how Christian is that?
Trump's and Pence's unfair tax cuts and excessive deregulation can readily be fixed by
Democrats when they regain power. But Trump and Pence have already changed the Federal
judiciary with their many right wing judges appointed for life. That is not so easily
fixed.
This is scary stuff for a religiously diverse nation with constitutional safeguards of
religious freedom that were extremely important for good reason to our Founding Fathers. They
rejected a theocracy as well as a monarchy !
By providing a brisk and insightful history of Pence's personal and political journey, we
are able with this book to see behind Pence's perpetual smile and smooth style. It is not a
very pretty picture.
All, even Trump supporters, should read this book to understand better the threat Pence
poses even for Trump. After the midterm elections, the "uberrich" will know they can fulfill
all their remaining political and economic dreams through Pence, without having to put up any
longer with Trump's erratic and at times almost bizarre policies and behavior. By
mid-November, Trump will need Pence more than Pence will need Trump.
It is not surprising the Omarosa recently observed on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" show that
she thinks one of Pence's staff was the author of the unprecedented and anonymous New York
times Op Ed column that further undercuts Trump and re-inforces some of Woodward's
revelations. As to be expected, Pence offers to swear under oath that HE did not write the Op
Ed column, which denial leaves room that one of his staffers wrote it, no?
"Fear" and "The Shadow Presidency" raise a very ironic possibility in my mind. If Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's report, after the midterm elections in November, indicates that
Trump and Pence were both implicated in Russian election conspiracy and/or in the subsequent
cover-up, both of them could be removed from office or worse by a Congress forced by public
outrage to act on Mueller's report. Even Nixon's base abandoned him once the true facts were
widely known.
Pence often played a key role in the 2016 campaign, as well as during the two years since.
Who knows what he said and did in secret? Who knows if Pence was recorded by Amarosa, an
evangelical pastor, or Michael Cohen, a "tell all" third rate lawyer or someone else at the
White House, including possibly Trump himself. I suspect that by now, Mueller knows!
If that happens, Nancy Pelosi could succeed after next January to the presidency as
Speaker of the House, third in line after the President and Vice President. So much then for
the great Trump/Pence strategy.
The Pence book makes very clear why Pence is to be feared, perhaps even more than Trump.
The "god" of Trump is Trump --- in that sense, he is obvious and usually predictable. Pence's
"god" is much darker and more dangerous, as well as unpredictable, as this book has confirmed
for me. It may be that a needy and greedy Trump is a safer bet than a surreptitious and
smiling religious zealot, Pence.
Pence legitimated Trump with the important and united fundamentalist voter base, who voted
by over 80% to elect Trump! Trump also won 52% of Catholics' votes, while only 46% of the
national vote. Who will legitimate Pence? This book suggests "good" fundamentalists should
now vote against Pence if they ever find their Christian moorings again!
Pence appears determined to advance a repressive and regressive fundamentalist evangelical
theocracy, even though most Americans, including most Christians, have no interest in a
theocracy, Christian or otherwise. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the brutal
post-Reformation religious wars that some of their not too distant relatives had fled Europe
to avoid.
Interestingly, Pence was a Catholic altar boy and Trump attended for two years a Jesuit
college, Fordham. And the current four male Supreme Court conservative Catholic Justices and
the newly nominated likely to be Justice, Brett Kavanagh, were also raised Catholic. Four of
these five also went to Catholic schools --- Clarence Thomas to Jesuit Holy Cross College,
Neil Gorsuch and Kavanagh to Jesuit Georgetown Prep and John Roberts to La Lumiere School.
Samuel Alito was raised in a traditional Italian American Catholic family environment.
Looks like this "Iago" op-ed injected the poison of mutual suspicion into Trump administration: "Cabinet secretaries quickly
lined up to plead their innocence of any involvement, playing Bukharin to Trump's Stalin. Who wrote the op-ed? Someone by the name
of "Not Me." An internal administration manhunt (womanhunt?) has allegedly launched to unmask the
evildoer."
The op-ed itself was a jejune and mediocre example of
a time-honored American pastime, talking smack about one's boss behind his back. On its own
terms, it deserved at most a brief period of public mockery before fading away to something less
than an historical footnote.
But then Trump responded swiftly and decisively from his favorite bully pulpit, Twitter.
As for the alleged internal "resistance" the anonymous writer claims to belong to, it seems
to have fled the scene. Cabinet secretaries quickly lined up to plead their innocence of any
involvement, playing Bukharin to Trump's Stalin. Who wrote the op-ed? Someone by the name of
"Not Me." An internal administration manhunt (womanhunt?) has allegedly launched to unmask the
evildoer.
"... kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times, none of them are on our side, Trump and his included. ..."
"... @Big Al ..."
"... "With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period." ..."
"... "With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period." ..."
"... @WoodsDweller ..."
"... @WoodsDweller ..."
"... to take criminal action, ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... to take criminal action, ..."
"... Leaks to the media are equated with espionage. ..."
"... Leaks to the media are equated with espionage. ..."
This, according to author Paul Craig Roberts. In his urgent and compelling essay, he breaks the discovery down piece by piece.
You'll want to follow the link below and read it yourself for the full effect of the logic in action. Here are a few of his key
assertions:
The op-ed is a forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no
senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it
undermines the character of the writer.
The New York Times' claim to have vetted the writer lacks credibility, as the New York Times has consistently printed
extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times
has consistently misrepresented unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the
New York Times about anything.
Roberts is convinced that this obviously forged op-ed is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion
throughout the senior level. Unfortunately, Trump has fallen for the hoax and may not realize his mistake before significant damage
is done.
The New York Times motive for this deception, and the reason for the op-ed in the first place, is to serve the interests
of the military/security complex, which has long been the newspaper's primary objective. They desperately seek to compel a paranoid
nation to hold on to the enemies with whom Trump prefers to make peace.
For example, the alleged "senior official" misrepresents, as does the New York Times , President Trump's efforts
to reduce dangerous tensions with North Korea and Russia as President Trump's "preference for autocrats and dictators, such
as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un" over America's "allied, like-minded nations."
This is the same non-sequitur that the New York Times has expressed endlessly.
Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for dictators" and not a preference for peace? The New York Times
has never explained, and neither does the "senior official."
How is it that Putin, elected three times by majorities that no US president has ever received, is a dictator? Putin stepped
down after serving the permitted two consecutive terms and was again elected after being out of office for a term. Do dictators
step down and sit out for 6 years?
The "senior official" also endorses as proven fact the alleged Skripal poisoning by a "deadly Russian nerve agent," an event
for which not one scrap of evidence exists. Neither has anyone explained why the "deadly nerve agent" wasn't deadly. The entire
Skripal event rests only on assertions. The purpose of the Skripal hoax was precisely what President Trump said it was: to
box him into further confrontation with Russia and prevent a reduction in tensions.
If the "senior official" is really so uninformed as to believe that Putin is a dictator who attacked the Skripals with a
deadly nerve agent and elected Trump president, the "senior official" is too dangerously ignorant and gullible to be a senior
official in any administration. These are the New York Times' beliefs or professed beliefs as the New York Times
does everything the organization can do to protect the military/security complex's budget from any reduction in the "enemy
threat."
Roberts points out another favorite attack on President Trump used by the New York Times, that he is unstable and
unfit for office. He notes that even the wording of the attack is reproduced in the fake op-ed:
"Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which
would start a complex process for removing the president," writes the invented and non-existent "senior official."
Americans are an insouciant people. But are any so insouciant that they really think that a senior official would write
that the members of President Trump's cabinet have considered removing him from office? What is this statement other than a
deliberate effort to produce a constitutional crisis -- the precise aim of John Brennan, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the DNC,
and the New York Times . A constitutional crisis is what the hoax of Russiagate is all about. The level
of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history.
This op-ed hoax puts people in grave danger, all for the financial gain of the war profiteers. There is not a politician left
in America that has the nerve to stand up against this atrocity. They are all owned and fearful; they know full well a factual
and moral criticism against these inhumane wars and designated enemies will instantly destroy their careers. They will be banished
from the Capitol. It is up to the people themselves to denounce the coup government that is waging these illegal wars and destabilizing
the world.
In America today, and in Europe, people are living in a situation in which the liberal-progressive-left's blind hatred of
Donald Trump, together with the self-interested power and profit of the military security complex and election hopes of the
Democratic Party, are recklessly and irresponsibly risking nuclear Armageddon for no other reason than to act out their hate
and further their own nest.
This plot against Trump is dangerous to life on earth and demands that the governments and peoples of the world act now
to expose this plot and to bring it to an end before it kills us all.
...in a democracy. But according to recent polls, more than 75 percent of Americans have no one to represent them in ending
the wars. No one to vote for in upcoming elections because no one in Congress will take a stand against the deep state Coup government
that is pushing military aggression and intervention around the world.
The headline findings show, among other things, that 86.4 percent of those surveyed feel the American military should be
used only as a last resort, while 57 percent feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The latter
sentiment "increases significantly" when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military aid -- including
money and weapons -- should not be provided to such countries.
The poll shows strong, indeed overwhelming, support, for Congress to reassert itself in the oversight of US military interventions,
with 70.8 percent of those polled saying Congress should pass legislation that would restrain military action overseas
@Pluto's
Republic
When was the last time the US Congress declared war, as required by the Constitution ?
Many assume it was Dec.8, 1941 against Japan or maybe Dec.11, 1941 against Germany and Italy.
Actually, it was June 5, 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
I had to look that up: wikipedia
...in a democracy. But according to recent polls, more than 75 percent of Americans have no one to represent them in ending
the wars. No one to vote for in upcoming elections because no one in Congress will take a stand against the deep state Coup
government that is pushing military aggression and intervention around the world.
The headline findings show, among other things, that 86.4 percent of those surveyed feel the American military should
be used only as a last resort, while 57 percent feel that US military aid to foreign countries is counterproductive. The
latter sentiment "increases significantly" when involving countries like Saudi Arabia, with 63.9 percent saying military
aid -- including money and weapons -- should not be provided to such countries.
The poll shows strong, indeed overwhelming, support, for Congress to reassert itself in the oversight of US military
interventions, with 70.8 percent of those polled saying Congress should pass legislation that would restrain military action
overseas
I'm not as amazed as I might have been before I learned about the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921
for the sole purpose of forcing US involvement in wars around the world.
The people refused to do it, saw no point in it, so the bankers had to do it themselves.
#1
When was the last time the US Congress declared war, as required by the Constitution ?
Many assume it was Dec.8, 1941 against Japan or maybe Dec.11, 1941 against Germany and Italy.
Actually, it was June 5, 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.
I had to look that up: wikipedia
Insouciant - showing a casual lack of concern; indifferent.
PCR overuses the word, but it is basically a dig at "the exceptional nation". He means we are so arrogant that we can't be
concerned to inform ourselves about the facts or their implications. I guess you could say it means ignorant, but its a kind of
willful, fingers in the ears ignorance.
Not out of ignorance, but because he's too damned polite.
but particularly after the NYT put out a response to over 23,000 reader inquiries. The answers to those inquires simply did
not ring credible.
I laid out two scenarios in a comment
on wendy davis' essay yesterday. In the beginning of the second scenario, I wrote of my belief that this op ed was not what it
was purported to be. It did not pass the smell test to me.
The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I am
beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two red flags
jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries.
While this op ed may not have been written in house by Times staff, it was probably written by someone who has worked closely
with the Times in the past and may have even been written at the request of the Times editor in chief or publisher.
The op-ed is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that
no senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor
of it undermines the character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position
to lend weight to his dissent.
This is exactly why I used William Ruckelhaus' resignation from the Nixon Administration as an example of an insider using
his reputation and honor to call attention to what Nixon wanted to do by firing Archibald Cox.
Another aspect of Roberts' essay is something that is very important to me personally and that is what would be the long term
damage done to the country by those calling for Trump's impeachment or removal via the 25th Amendment. And that does not take
into consideration the frightening prospect of Pence becoming President.
The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history. Have any of these conspirators
given a moment's thought to the consequences of removing a president for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions
between nuclear powers? The next president would have to adopt a Russophobic stance and do nothing to reduce the tensions
that can break out in nuclear war or himself be accused of "coddling the Russian dictator and putting America at risk."
but particularly after the NYT put out a response to over 23,000 reader inquiries. The answers to those inquires simply
did not ring credible.
I laid out two scenarios in a comment
on wendy davis' essay yesterday. In the beginning of the second scenario, I wrote of my belief that this op ed was not what
it was purported to be. It did not pass the smell test to me.
The more I am learning about this op ed and particularly as a result of the Times explanation of how it came to be, I
am beginning to think this op ed was concocted as a way of poisoning the well by those who wish Trump out of office. Two
red flags jumped out for me in the Times response to reader inquiries.
While this op ed may not have been written in house by Times staff, it was probably written by someone who has worked closely
with the Times in the past and may have even been written at the request of the Times editor in chief or publisher.
kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump
from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times, none
of them are on our side, Trump and his included.
"Personifying a serious and unfortunate division on the left, progressive-libertarian journalist Glenn Greenwald has focused
his ire on the individuals in the administration who seek to undermine Trump's presidency, and his anger at these alleged "deep
state" bureaucrats has been echoed by numerous leftists I've spoken with in recent days. While admitting that Trump "may be a
threat," Greenwald responds: "but so is this covert coup" within the White House, which represents "an unelected cabal that covertly
imposed their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
"Greenwald is an important figure for leftists considering his work with Edward Snowden to expose the federal government and
NSA's illegal spying in the "War on Terror." But his message here badly misses the mark. The claim that Trump "may be a threat"
to the country is perhaps the understatement of the century.And his willingness to focus on turmoil within the administration
as a major threat to democracy is strange. It's akin to complaining that your lawn is slowly turning brown when your house is
burning down in front of you. This is not a critique that's unique to Greenwald, as I've engaged with numerous individuals on
the left over the last week who see the White House op-ed as an example of the "deep state's" assault on civilian political rule.
I don't see it this way. The stakes are far higher than some monkey wrenchers in the White House undermining the president. If
we cannot separate the real threat to the nation – fascism in the White House – from the marginal "problem" of intra-administrative
discord within that fascist administration, then we are in serious trouble."
I'm not clear if, with your extensive quotations, you are endorsing the Counterpunch article. To me, that article is busy attacking
Greenwald for defending the Constitution and the political process. The author perverts defending the law into defending Trump.
Even murderers are supposed to be given a fair trial. The author, DiMaggio, does not seem to be in favor of that.
This article fits a pattern at Counterpunch. They print some leftwing stuff, but when the chips are down, they will publish
an article that supports the Deep State. I judge Counterpunch on an article by article basis. This article gets an F.
kind of psy-op. The problem I've had all along with this and the continued blaming of the "deep state" for preventing Trump
from being the next coming of Jesus is that it creates sympathy for Trump, which is very dangerous. As I've said many times,
none of them are on our side, Trump and his included.
"Personifying a serious and unfortunate division on the left, progressive-libertarian journalist Glenn Greenwald has focused
his ire on the individuals in the administration who seek to undermine Trump's presidency, and his anger at these alleged "deep
state" bureaucrats has been echoed by numerous leftists I've spoken with in recent days. While admitting that Trump "may be
a threat," Greenwald responds: "but so is this covert coup" within the White House, which represents "an unelected cabal that
covertly imposed their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
"Greenwald is an important figure for leftists considering his work with Edward Snowden to expose the federal government
and NSA's illegal spying in the "War on Terror." But his message here badly misses the mark. The claim that Trump "may be a
threat" to the country is perhaps the understatement of the century.And his willingness to focus on turmoil within the administration
as a major threat to democracy is strange. It's akin to complaining that your lawn is slowly turning brown when your house
is burning down in front of you. This is not a critique that's unique to Greenwald, as I've engaged with numerous individuals
on the left over the last week who see the White House op-ed as an example of the "deep state's" assault on civilian political
rule. I don't see it this way. The stakes are far higher than some monkey wrenchers in the White House undermining the president.
If we cannot separate the real threat to the nation – fascism in the White House – from the marginal "problem" of intra-administrative
discord within that fascist administration, then we are in serious trouble."
internal or external? I really don't have an opinion on which, but I think both are a threat to our rapidly disappearing democracy.
Trump is a threat too and easy to hate. It makes him such a great foil for a coup.
@dkmich
target of a coup, doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan
and not just Hers plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically
termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live with,
or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think we all know
our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same
damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch,
and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
internal or external? I really don't have an opinion on which, but I think both are a threat to our rapidly disappearing
democracy. Trump is a threat too and easy to hate. It makes him such a great foil for a coup.
Trump was the plan all along. He is doing much of the same things that Obama was doing but people weren't noticing because
of his so called 'charm'. It looks like Trump is rolling back a lot of Obama's policies where it comes to the environment, but
many of those policies were done just before Obama left office and wouldn't take affect for months or years. But it makes it look
like Obama was more progressive than he was and Trump is the one destroying the country.
Hillary wouldn't have been able to appoint the type of people Trump has in order to get to where we are now. And I see that
the only thing that has changed when it comes to our foreign interventions is that Trump has relaxed the rules of engagement and
isn't even bothering to protect the civilians who are in our way. Trump is still supporting ISIS and AQ who Obama and Hillary
armed and funded to do our dirty work.
Then there's the economic issues that the GOP are ramming through and the poor democrats are in no position to defend against
them. How convenient, eh?
People are going to pissed when Trump cuts the social programs, but lets not forget that they were cut during Obama's tenure
too and he even put SS on the table. Rumor is that McConnell stopped him, but why did he? SO that he could take credit for it?
Hmmm. Fishy that.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits
during the post-crash period."
The 2008 financial meltdown inflicted devastating financial and psychological damage upon millions of ordinary Americans,
but a new report released by Public Citizen on Tuesday shows the Wall Street banks that caused the crash with their reckless
speculation and outright fraud have done phenomenally well in the ten years since the crisis.
Thanks to the Obama administration's decision to rescue collapsing Wall Street banks with taxpayer cash and the Trump administration's
massive tax cuts and deregulatory push, America's five largest banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo,
and Goldman Sachs -- have raked in more than $583 billion in combined profits over the past decade, Public Citizen found in
its analysis marking the ten-year anniversary of the crisis.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits," said Robert Weissman, president of Public
Citizen, "the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period. Like bandits."
What a surprise,
According to a Washington Post analysis published on Saturday, many of the lawmakers and congressional aides who helped
craft the Democratic Congress' regulatory response to the 2008 crisis have gone on to work for Wall Street in the hopes of
benefiting from big banks' booming profits.
Not
#5 target of a coup,
doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan and not just Hers
plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live
with, or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think
we all know our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same
damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch,
and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
@snoopydawg
You always put it so much better and in better detail than I do. I've felt from the beginning with Trump the more repulsive and
stupid the policy, they better for our owners. They're fine with all that, but they will not tolerate dissent on overall American
dominance of the entire world and Trump, for whatever greedy reasons, is bucking them there. And I do not believe Her could have
gotten away with his more egregious things and our owners were certainly aware of that. The mask is off, let the final gutting
commence openly.
And the more they "fight" Trump the more "credible" Trump looks. I find that personally terrifying.
Trump was the plan all along. He is doing much of the same things that Obama was doing but people weren't noticing because
of his so called 'charm'. It looks like Trump is rolling back a lot of Obama's policies where it comes to the environment,
but many of those policies were done just before Obama left office and wouldn't take affect for months or years. But it makes
it look like Obama was more progressive than he was and Trump is the one destroying the country.
Hillary wouldn't have been able to appoint the type of people Trump has in order to get to where we are now. And I see that
the only thing that has changed when it comes to our foreign interventions is that Trump has relaxed the rules of engagement
and isn't even bothering to protect the civilians who are in our way. Trump is still supporting ISIS and AQ who Obama and Hillary
armed and funded to do our dirty work.
Then there's the economic issues that the GOP are ramming through and the poor democrats are in no position to defend against
them. How convenient, eh?
People are going to pissed when Trump cuts the social programs, but lets not forget that they were cut during Obama's tenure
too and he even put SS on the table. Rumor is that McConnell stopped him, but why did he? SO that he could take credit for
it? Hmmm. Fishy that.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits, the big banks have made out like bandits
during the post-crash period."
The 2008 financial meltdown inflicted devastating financial and psychological damage upon millions of ordinary Americans,
but a new report released by Public Citizen on Tuesday shows the Wall Street banks that caused the crash with their reckless
speculation and outright fraud have done phenomenally well in the ten years since the crisis.
Thanks to the Obama administration's decision to rescue collapsing Wall Street banks with taxpayer cash and the Trump
administration's massive tax cuts and deregulatory push, America's five largest banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America,
Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs -- have raked in more than $583 billion in combined profits over the past decade,
Public Citizen found in its analysis marking the ten-year anniversary of the crisis.
"With no jail time for executives and half a trillion in post-crisis profits," said Robert Weissman, president of Public
Citizen, "the big banks have made out like bandits during the post-crash period. Like bandits."
What a surprise,
According to a Washington Post analysis published on Saturday, many of the lawmakers and congressional aides who helped
craft the Democratic Congress' regulatory response to the 2008 crisis have gone on to work for Wall Street in the hopes
of benefiting from big banks' booming profits.
By that I'm saying that both major legacy Parties always managed to nominate Party candidates who were acceptable to the Deep
State and the One Percent--until DT came along, and won the Republican nomination in 2016.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
#5 target of a coup,
doesn't it? The more I see of this stuff the more I cannot help but think that Trump WAS part of their plan and not just Hers
plan that she would win against him but maybe the perfect plan to dismantle what's left of our pathetically termed "democracy."
Trump is dangerous as hell in his own right, what he and his idiots are doing to the climate is something we'll all live
with, or rather, die with, but he's doing what our owners want there and it is so easy to blame it all on him when I think
we all know our fossil fuel psychos are as much a part of the deep state as is the MIC.
This is a coup alright and what they want is nothing less than totalitarianism. By using Trump to get there it is the same
damned game of dupe, divide and conquer. Trump is no hero either, he's not going to "save America" but drive it into a ditch,
and really, I think that's been the plan all along.
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it is
fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and keep
them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to Trump's
initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any more
complicated than that.
the biggest Dem Congressional voting block will be a military/intel/national security/State Dept cabal--or, a 'shadow Deep
State.' Probably, one reason that the DCCC and Dem Leadership recruited scores of these candidates to run in open seats.
On November 7, it will be a piece of cake to take out (figuratively) DT.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it
is fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and
keep them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to
Trump's initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any
more complicated than that.
...on domestic issues, but don't expect improvements.
As for foreign policy, the Dems will vote with the Deep State every time.
The trajectories of the past 50 years are not going to change.
leading to a Pence administration. Trump's main qualification is that he's incompetent. What this op-ed (I also think it
is fake, perhaps written by someone at an intelligence agency) is supposed to do is to tie the Trump White House in knots and
keep them from functioning. A Democratic wave in November, even if it does no more than retake the House, will put a stop to
Trump's initiatives. If the Democrats take the Senate they will be able to hold up appointments, in particular of judges.
And how many Democratic candidates have an intelligence or military background? What voting block would be calling the shots?
Delay and befuddle for just a few months more, and the worst of the Trump threat will be disarmed. I don't think this is any
more complicated than that.
Greenwald. The CP piece is factually incorrect--the Admin is not asking for an investigation of the author to
take criminal action, per the NYT & LA Times. They're wanting assistance to "root out the source of the
Op-Ed." Not to prosecute, or jail him/her.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that OPM wouldn't have a Department that can suss out 'who' the author
is. So, in order to discipline the author, some other agency would have to identify him/her.
No doubt, we're witnessing an attempted coup d'état.
Now, if it's a 'single' official--my money's on Jon Huntsman. I've also wondered if the Op-Ed could be a collective effort
(by a cabal of officials ).
OTOH, it could very well be the Editorial Board of the NYT, considering the way the author(s) wove in so many verbal
expressions that could point to various 'officials.' IOW, it seemed very contrived.
(Pence uses 'lodestar' a lot. Read that a couple other terms/expressions were common to John Kelly, and one other person--whose
name I can't recall, right now.)
Anyhoo, who'd be better equipped to throw out 'BS' like that, than a bunch of newspaper editors. After all, they'd have a great
deal of familiarty with politicians'/officials' verbiage.
Guess I'll need to amend my comment in WD's essay, now!
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
have attributed this excellent essay to Pluto. My apologies!
(Nancy's comments were great, too. )
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
Greenwald. The CP piece is factually incorrect--the Admin is not asking for an investigation of the author
to take criminal action, per the NYT & LA Times. They're wanting assistance to "root out the source
of the Op-Ed." Not to prosecute, or jail him/her.
After all, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that OPM wouldn't have a Department that can suss out 'who' the
author is. So, in order to discipline the author, some other agency would have to identify him/her.
No doubt, we're witnessing an attempted coup d'état.
Now, if it's a 'single' official--my money's on Jon Huntsman. I've also wondered if the Op-Ed could be a collective effort
(by a cabal of officials ).
OTOH, it could very well be the Editorial Board of the NYT, considering the way the author(s) wove in so many verbal
expressions that could point to various 'officials.' IOW, it seemed very contrived.
(Pence uses 'lodestar' a lot. Read that a couple other terms/expressions were common to John Kelly, and one other person--whose
name I can't recall, right now.)
Anyhoo, who'd be better equipped to throw out 'BS' like that, than a bunch of newspaper editors. After all, they'd have
a great deal of familiarty with politicians'/officials' verbiage.
Guess I'll need to amend my comment in WD's essay, now!
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans' phone records, the Obama administration
was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer tabs on their co-workers
and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.
President Barack Obama's unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It has
received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal departments
and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and Agriculture departments.
It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of "insider threat" give agencies latitude to pursue and
penalize a range of other conduct.
Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized disclosures
of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors must watch
for "high-risk persons or behaviors" among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for failing to
report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.
"Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," says a June 1, 2012, Defense
Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.
Even before a former U.S. intelligence contractor exposed the secret collection of Americans' phone records, the Obama
administration was pressing a government-wide crackdown on security threats that requires federal employees to keep closer
tabs on their co-workers and exhorts managers to punish those who fail to report their suspicions.
President Barack Obama's unprecedented initiative, known as the Insider Threat Program, is sweeping in its reach. It
has received scant public attention even though it extends beyond the U.S. national security bureaucracies to most federal
departments and agencies nationwide, including the Peace Corps, the Social Security Administration and the Education and
Agriculture departments. It emphasizes leaks of classified material, but catchall definitions of "insider threat" give agencies
latitude to pursue and penalize a range of other conduct.
Government documents reviewed by McClatchy illustrate how some agencies are using that latitude to pursue unauthorized
disclosures of any information, not just classified material. They also show how millions of federal employees and contractors
must watch for "high-risk persons or behaviors" among co-workers and could face penalties, including criminal charges, for
failing to report them. Leaks to the media are equated with espionage.
"Hammer this fact home . . . leaking is tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States," says a June 1, 2012,
Defense Department strategy for the program that was obtained by McClatchy.
I haven't seen Trump behave in any way but in a way consistent with this op-ed. I watched Omarosa on The View (on youtube)
yesterday, and she was completely convinced of the op-ed's truth and had her own theory about who in the administration wrote.
She also played a recording of Trump spewing terrible lies (I forgot the subject matter out a need for tranquility) and Sara Huckabee
was there backing up the lies, ready to spew them at her next press conference.
I mean, come on: Trump University? The President
was born in Kenya? Bankruptcies, inability to condemn a deadly nazi parade? etc etc et fucking cetera. This is real and it's Trump
and maybe Putin. The evidence is getting overwhelming.
We know Trump is a liar. The public knew that when they elected him. That's actually a better deal than the suckers who voted
for Obama the "peacemaker" but got Obama the war starter, drone bomber, and coup instigator. That's a better deal than the people
who voted for Obama to undo the Bush/Cheney damage, and got Obama the bailer-out of Wall St, Obama the prosecutor of whistleblowers.
Lying is not an impeachable offense. Politicians do it all the time.
The constant undermining of the office of the President by intelligence agencies who abuse their access to classified information
is a crime - although one that we have never been able to prosecute the CIA for since the day it was founded.
I haven't seen Trump behave in any way but in a way consistent with this op-ed. I watched Omarosa on The View (on youtube)
yesterday, and she was completely convinced of the op-ed's truth and had her own theory about who in the administration wrote.
She also played a recording of Trump spewing terrible lies (I forgot the subject matter out a need for tranquility) and Sara
Huckabee was there backing up the lies, ready to spew them at her next press conference. I mean, come on: Trump University?
The President was born in Kenya? Bankruptcies, inability to condemn a deadly nazi parade? etc etc et fucking cetera. This is
real and it's Trump and maybe Putin. The evidence is getting overwhelming.
@arendt
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy. So you agree
with me about the character of Trump and that the op-ed could very well be real?
We know Trump is a liar. The public knew that when they elected him. That's actually a better deal than the suckers who
voted for Obama the "peacemaker" but got Obama the war starter, drone bomber, and coup instigator. That's a better deal than
the people who voted for Obama to undo the Bush/Cheney damage, and got Obama the bailer-out of Wall St, Obama the prosecutor
of whistleblowers.
Lying is not an impeachable offense. Politicians do it all the time.
The constant undermining of the office of the President by intelligence agencies who abuse their access to classified information
is a crime - although one that we have never been able to prosecute the CIA for since the day it was founded.
Of course I think the op-ed is part of the plot to overthrow a legitimately elected president.
Trump's a bum. But so was George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table". The Clintons are crooks who
TPTB refuse to prosecute. Maybe the NYT should start a smear campaign against Hillary.
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not
how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it. You seem not to care that impeaching Trump brings us Mike
Pence, who may be even worse.
This is the same game as Jose Padilla and Habeus Corpus. You find some loathsome character and use him as a test case to get
rid of some basic rights from everyone, forever.
If you can't see the plot by this point, I can't help you.
#9.1
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy. So you agree
with me about the character of Trump and that the op-ed could very well be real?
@arendt@arendt
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the hell
are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every American?
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not
how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump
this November because it's critical as hell.
Of course I think the op-ed is part of the plot to overthrow a legitimately elected president.
Trump's a bum. But so was George W. Bush, and Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table". The Clintons are crooks
who TPTB refuse to prosecute. Maybe the NYT should start a smear campaign against Hillary.
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump, not
how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it. You seem not to care that impeaching Trump brings us
Mike Pence, who may be even worse.
This is the same game as Jose Padilla and Habeus Corpus. You find some loathsome character and use him as a test case to
get rid of some basic rights from everyone, forever.
If you can't see the plot by this point, I can't help you.
You have to wait for 2020 when you will be able to vote for Biden if you can stop throwing up on your way to the polls.
#9.1.1.1#9.1.1.1
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the
hell are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every
American?
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump,
not how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump
this November because it's critical as hell.
That was the point I was making, since this is an article that seems to imply the op-ed is part of a conspiracy.
In other words, you have difficulty acknowledging that PCR has been on record for months claiming there is a conspiracy. Are
you really that unwilling to acknowledge he thinks there is a conspiracy? What is your objection to acknowledging the man's stated
position?
In this second response, you jump on the word "impeachment" as if that is an unjustifiable stretch from the facts on the table.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth.
To many of us, including the OP writer, this op-ed is just the latest stirring of the pot in an ongoing campaign to get rid
of/impeach/remove Trump well before 2020. Such provocations have been occurring since before Trump was sworn in. To claim, as
you do, that this op-ed was done only to influence this election is a classic "broken clock is right twice a day" argument. Its
true it might influence the election, but its purpose is to further the coup attempt that is underway.
That you react so strongly ("I never said") to the word impeachment is part of a pattern. You want to wall off the issue of
the conspiracy (which you still only acknowledge with a "seems to imply") from the issue of Trump's behavior and only focus on
the latter. This is exactly the pattern of the corporate Dems.
I refuse to adhere to your compartmentalization. The op-ed and impeachment ARE related.
#9.1.1.1#9.1.1.1
Democracy requires:
1) A readiness to debate honestly, in a civil manner, with people who disagree.
2) An openess to facts and expert opinion about such things as climate change.
3) A respect for due process and fairness.
4) A respect for non-partisanship in reference, to say, what the attorney general can investigate.
There's a lot of other things a democracy requires but first and foremost Trump has no respect for honest debate. How the
hell are we going to solve climate change when Trump's only response is to insult scientists and the intelligence of every
American?
You seem to not care about the process of government. You seem to think that all that matters is getting rid of Trump,
not how that is done, not how much of the Constitution we tear up to do it.
I never said the word "impeachment" until this reply. Quit putting words in my mouth. Everybody needs to vote against Trump
this November because it's critical as hell.
"It's Time for the Press to Stop Complaining -- And to Start Fighting Back"
Chuck Todd SEP 3, 2018 in "The Atlantic"
Two days later the NYT article hit. That was my reaction to the piece, Chuck called for this.
What deep state conspiracy? There's your proof right there! So, Trump was right?
"It's a witch hunt!" Trumps seemingly paranoid ejaculations, do not seem so paranoid with every passing day of nothing but backfires.
"Fake News!" Strzok-Page's "media leak strategy" Not so crazy after all?
Trump is so unpredictable. The tweeting maniac is impossible to handle. Is that such a bad thing?
I think we can afford it, there is a benefit.
Some people just wanted Washington shook up, they are getting what they wanted.
I don't know that there's a better way to bring actual change.
The means are not conventional that's for sure, what are the results we want?
If he achieves them, will he be credited?
If all his fantastic assertions keep coming true, he'll be around for some time.
No? Why not, because of anonymous articles like this? Another deep state back fire; keep digging.
"... The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House , which has a similar tale to tell and came out on Amazon today. ..."
And there is always Iran just waiting to get kicked around, when all else fails. Haley,
always blissfully ignorant but never quiet,
commented while preparing to take over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council last
Friday, that Russia and Syria "want to bomb schools, hospitals, and homes" before launching
into a tirade about Iran, saying
that "President Trump is very adamant that we have to start making sure that Iran is
falling in line with international order. If you continue to look at the spread Iran has had in
supporting terrorism, if you continue to look at the ballistic missile testing that they are
doing, if you continue to look at the sales of weapons we see with the Huthis in Yemen -- these
are all violations of security council resolution. These are all threats to the region, and
these are all things that the international community needs to talk about."
And there is the usual hypocrisy over long term objectives. President Donald Trump said in
April that "it's time" to bring American troops home from Syria -- once the jihadists of
Islamic State have been definitively defeated. But now that that objective is in sight, there
has to be some question about who is actually determining the policies that come out of the
White House, which is reported to be in more than usual disarray due to the appearance last
week of the New York Timesanonymous
op-ed describing a "resistance" movement within the West Wing that has been deliberately
undermining and sometimes ignoring the president to further Establishment/Deep State friendly
policies. The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the
release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House , which has a similar tale to tell and came out on
Amazon today.
The book and op-ed mesh nicely in describing how Donald Trump is a walking disaster who is
deliberately circumvented by his staff. One section of the op-ed is particularly telling and
suggestive of neocon foreign policy, describing how the White House staff has succeeded in
"[calling out] countries like Russia for meddling and [having them] punished accordingly" in
spite of the president's desire for détente. It then goes on to elaborate on Russia and
Trump, describing how " the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as
punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about
senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he
expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for
its malign behavior. But the national security team knew better – such actions had to be
taken to hold Moscow accountable."
If the op-ed and Woodward book are in any way accurate, one has to ask "Whose policy? An
elected president or a cabal of disgruntled staffers who might well identify as
neoconservatives?" Be that as it may, the White House is desperately pushing back while at the
same time searching for the traitor, which suggests to many in Washington that it will right
the sinking ship prior to November elections by the time honored and approved method used by
politicians worldwide, which means starting a war to rally the nation behind the
government.
As North Korea is nuclear armed, the obvious targets for a new or upgraded war would be Iran
and Syria. As Iran might actually fight back effectively and the Pentagon always prefers an
enemy that is easy to defeat, one suspects that some kind of expansion of the current effort in
Syria would be preferable. It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with
Russia, which would be unpredictable, but an attack on Syrian government forces that would
produce a quick result which could plausibly be described as a victory would certainly be worth
considering.
By all appearances, the preparation of the public for an attack on Syria is already well
underway. The mainstream media has been deluged with descriptions of tyrant Bashar al-Assad,
who allegedly has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The rhetoric coming out of
the usual government sources is remarkable for its truculence, particularly when one considers
that Damascus is trying to regain control over what is indisputably its own sovereign territory
from groups that everyone agrees are at least in large part terrorists.
Last week, the Trump White House approved the
new U.S. plan for Syria, which, unlike the old plan of withdrawal, envisions something like
a permanent presence in the country. It includes a continued occupation of the country's
northeast, which is the Kurdish region; forcing Iran plus its proxies including Hezbollah to
leave the country completely; and continued pressure on Damascus to bring about regime
change.
Washington has also shifted its perception of who is trapped in Idlib, with
newly appointed U.S. Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey arguing that
". . . they're not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal
dictator." Jeffrey, it should be noted, was pulled out of retirement where he was a fellow with
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) spin off. On his recent trip to the Middle East he stopped off in Israel nine
days ago to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The change in policy, which is totally in
line with Israeli demands, would suggest that Jeffrey received his instructions during the
visit.
Israel is indeed upping its involvement in Syria. It has bombed the country 200
times in the past 18 months and is now threatening to extend the war by attacking Iranians in
neighboring Iraq. It has also been providing
arms to the terrorist groups operating inside Syria .
As Doug French
noted last July , this result would surprise no one familiar with F.A. Hayek's Road to
Serfdom. As Hayek wrote in his chapter dedicated to the question "Why the Worst Rise to the
Top:"
Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on a willingness to do
immoral things. The principle that the end justifies the means, which in individualist ethics
is regarded as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the
supreme rule. There is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be
prepared to do if it serves 'the good of the whole', because that is to him the only
criterion of what ought to be done.
Donald Trump is a man that is guilty of a great many sins, but at the end of the day he's no
worse than your average – overpaid
– Federal senior staffer. The elites that make up the professional political class and
their cheerleaders in the mainstream media have no moral high ground here. Their aim is not to
restore "civility" or "decency" to American politics, after all their desire to expand the
reach of government power is precisely what undermines such values .
No, their goal is simply to reverse an election they didn't expect to lose. It's quite possible
they may end up succeeding.
Hopefully the takeaway for those who relished the idea of "draining the swamp" is the
realization that this can't be accomplished by simply changing the name of the person who
occupies the top office. The Federal government can't be fixed; it must have its powers taken
away.
Political decentralization is the only way to truly make America great again.
Newly released text messages between disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page regarding a "media leak
strategy" have come under intense scrutiny, as they were exchanged one day before and one day after a bombshell Washington Post article
during a critical point in the Trump-Russia investigation, reports
Sara Carter
and the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
Photo: Daily Caller
The text messages, revealed Monday by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and sent the day before and after two damaging articles about former
Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, raise " grave concerns regarding an apparent systematic culture of media leaking by high-ranking
officials at the FBI and DOJ related to ongoing investigations."
Recall that Strzok's boss, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, was fired for authorizing self-serving leaks to the press.
Also recall that text messages released in January reveal that Lisa Page was on the phone with Washington Post reporter Devlin
Barrett , then with the New York Times , when the reopening of the Clinton Foundation investigation hit the news cycle - just one
example in a series of text messages matching up with MSM reports relying on leaked information, as reported by the
Conservative Treehouse .
♦Page: 5:19pm "Still on the phone with Devlin . Mike's phone is ON FIRE."
♥Strzok: 5:29pm "You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there's news on."
♦Page: 5:30pm "He knows. He just got handed a note."
♥Strzok: 5:33pm "Ha. He asking about it now?"
♦Page: 5:34pm "Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now."
The review of the documents suggests that the FBI and DOJ coordinated efforts to get information to the press that would potentially
be "harmful to President Trump's administration." Those leaks pertained to information regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court warrant used to spy on short-term campaign volunteer Carter Page.
The letter lists several examples:
April 10, 2017: (former FBI Special Agent) Peter Strzok contacts (former FBI Attorney) Lisa Page to discuss a "media leak
strategy." Specifically, the text says: "I had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you I want to talk to you about
media leak strategy with DOJ before you go."
April 12, 2017: Peter Strzok congratulates Lisa Page on a job well done while referring to two derogatory articles about
Carter Page. In the text, Strzok warns Page two articles are coming out, one which is "worse" than the other about Lisa's "namesake"."
Strzok added: "Well done, Page." -
Sara
Carter
Meadows says that the texts show " a coordinated effort on the part of the FBI and DOJ to release information in the public domain
potentially harmful to President Donald Trump's administration. "
lisa page...why do i get the sense she was strzork's agency handler and not his fbi lover? is it because his mannerisms scream
homo, or is it because he speaks to her as a subordinate to a superior? those texts were far more focused on the dissemination
and control of information than they were about arranging trysts. strange. and speaking of homos, did you guys catch the conversation
about kasich? seems he's been in the closet for a long time. seems his long-time advisor/'roommate' is more than just that.
another lisa that should pique your interest is Lisa Barsoomian. who is lisa barsoomian? who is she married to? what is her
connection with lynch, holder, strzok, ohr, steele, obama, priestap, comey, etc?
anyone else think a FISA declass docu-drop perfectly apropos for the 9/11 anniversary?
i sure do.
janus
jeff montanye ,
i never get tired of realizing peter strzok, regarded as absolutely the top of the line in counterintelligence, thought ("I
had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you . . .") he could avoid the nsa by his choice of phone. priceless.
insanelysane ,
Look the un-bias IG reviewed the FBI's action and found no bias. How can that happen? Who does a review to see if the IG is
biased? Who does a review to see if the person that finds that the IG has no bias has bias?? Who does a review....
Someday Sessions and Rosenstein may get sacked or the people responsible for the sacking will get sacked.
If the Dims take back Congress in the mid-terms, none of these revelations will matter one iota as the Dims will bury these
investigations and start their own into everything Trump... Time for Trump to drop the hammer on all of these people, BEFORE the
mid-terms...
novictim ,
And what is the reason for the people REALLY in charge going after Trump? It has always been about his Anti-Neoliberal agenda.
Specifically, TARIFFS on CHINA. The oligarchs behind the establishment have made fantastic amounts of money off the strip-mining
of American industry and Capital. They want the cheap labour of Asia and the 3rd world yet also want to sell the sh#t back to
the USA even though that trade imbalance will lead to ruin.
If not for President Trump, there would be no hope for the American people.
ipud ,
April 12, 2017: Peter Strzok congratulates Lisa Page on a (hatchet) job well done...
From FBI's "Protected Voices" website, on "Safer Campaign Communications"-
"To secure communications channels -- such as email, messaging apps, and social media -- use encryption, disable archiving
, use access controls, disable remote wiping, use account lockout, and patch your systems."
If campaigns should disable archiving, would they not be in violation of federal e-mail retention laws?
rosiescenario ,
It is interesting that all of the "reporters" at the MSM do not care that the entire (excluding FOX) news organization is behaving
exactly as Tass and Pravda used to behave under communist Russia. These folks are too dense to see the irony that a read of RT
today is more factual than anything coming out of the U.S. media.
I guess when you are a liberal Dem you do not have anything honest and factual to discuss....you resort to calling Benghazi
"a wild conspiracy".
migra ,
They aren't too dense. They know exactly whats going on and they are happy with it as long as it helps there cause.
Stan522 ,
So, what the fuck was the Inspector General looking at and reviewing when he declared there was no bias.....?
migra ,
Because IG Horowitz is one of, "them".
Anunnaki ,
Horowitz. Nuff said
enough of this ,
It was a deep-state whitewash just like his next report is going to be.
By the way this new commenting system and specifically the lack of ability to follow up on a conversation since there are no
links to a user's history of comments really sucks.
sgorem ,
i agree.........
ThinkerNotEmoter ,
Yep.
I blame Trump.
Indelible Scars ,
It is waaaay better.
SmallerGovNow2 ,
agree with you. it is the way it used to be when you could really have a common thread and people were not jumping the thread
just to get their comments at the top...
Nunny ,
It was so tiresome to respond to a thread and have to wade through 3 pages+ to see if someone responded. I like this much better.
Sanity Bear ,
True, glad to see the comment-jumping thing gone.
However, now you have to remember which articles you posted on and hunt for them yourself in order to check for followup, which
is worse user-wise than having to click through a bunch of pages to see how far down your comment got pushed.
pops ,
Yes. It sucks big time.
Sanity Bear ,
Hanging offense treason, and there is not even the slightest ambiguity that that is what this is.
Empire's Frontiers ,
Why does it seem obvious that the sitting administration used all its levers to aid Hillary in her election, and further, destroy
Trump in his victory?
Ink Pusher ,
That'll be 6 orders of SEDITION with a side order of COLLUSION for each and a Diet TREASON for everyone to drink please.
Long Live The Donald ,
Trump is fucking nuts! Get Over it!
cheech_wizard ,
So you're still sodomizing your children?
Yen Cross ,
Yen is older, and looks 1o years younger than than that pile of shit!
Guilt has away of destroying people
Yen Cross ,
Faggot libtard snowflake?
American Snipper ,
This cocksucker Rosenberg needs to be fired, as is everyone on Trumps short list of leakers. Drain the fucking swamp! Redact
all Russian docs, speed it up, Mr. President!!!
I am Groot ,
When you say "fired" , I'm thinking he should be strapped to missile and fired into the sun, Wiley coyote style.....
Yen Cross ,
Pro facto**** Never ever once, ever has Yen cheated on a Woman.
Many opportunities, but yen used the bigger head.
Yen will never cheat on the Woman he's dedicated to.
Cursive ,
Lisa should really stick with the straight hair. Much better than that headshot with the cheesy perm that was first circulated.
Her credentials as a nasty Deep State dick gobbler aside, She rises from a 2 to a 5 (on a scale of 10).
Htos1 ,
3, with a bag. If she's not fat.
bookofenoch ,
Nope. Lisa Page is a filthy whore. Imagine sharing her front and back holes with Strzok. Or Kissing her Strzok jizz drinking
hole.
Repulsive. Forever disgraced. The woman is dogshit.
I am Groot ,
It's really hard to rate animals on a scale of 1 to 10. Tough choice between her and a goat.
rbianco3 ,
Released in January- this is September WTF?
This is seriously important information - could have exonerated the President almost a year ago - and had he been impeached
would have no recourse. Those that did not release until now are co-conspirators.
justyouwait ,
They are co-conspirators and more. They were placed to do the job they are doing. Rotten Rodney is the head of the snake in
the DOJ. He was positioned to slow down or if possible totally hold back key information from congress (his boss). Old man Sessions
was co-opted right from the start. He looks & acts like a guy taking orders. I don't know what they have on him (use your imagination)
but he was neutered right from day 1. He should be charged with dereliction of duty and fired. I think if a true investigation
is ever done and all the facts come out, Rotten Rodney could very well be charged with treason along with a large number of other
Deep State operatives and more than a few in the Democratic Party.
Htos1 ,
Depends on what was in all those bankers boxes of FBI files trucked over to the WH from Reno and Holder in the 90's.
Chupacabra-322 ,
♦Page: 5:19pm "Still on the phone with Devlin . Mike's phone is ON FIRE."
♥Strzok: 5:29pm "You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there's news on."
♦Page: 5:30pm "He knows. He just got handed a note."
♥Strzok: 5:33pm "Ha. He asking about it now?"
♦Page: 5:34pm "Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now."
At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:
These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths & Sociopaths get off on Gas Lighting the Public through their
own manufactured, Scripted False Narratives & Psychological Operations.
Sick, twisted, Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths deserve to be hung with Piano wire. Them, Breanan, Clapper, Lynch, Rice, Obama
& last but not least the ring leader Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large, Hillary Clinton.
stubb ,
CRUSH HIS SKULL NOW
1970SSNova396 ,
The CrossRoads have been reached.........Saddle up
Can't wait for the release of all the MSM person that were paid via GPS to spin this shit!
Yen Cross ,
That little prick, needs to be knocked down, an notch?
His cum guzzling adultress pretty much sums things up?
Calvertsbio ,
What we need is a 100% republican DOJ, FBI, CIA, politicians... wipe out the democrats for a better society... That should
work, then we won't need Zerohedge to spread all this propaganda !
Robert of Ottawa ,
The repubs and dementocrats are on the same team, the uniparty swamp where all congressman and senators get equal bribes if
they wish
1970SSNova396 ,
They're all whores for a buck.How else can you make less than 200k per year
yet retire with millions ...just in the House.
Calvertsbio ,
Yes, we are doomed, for sure it is every FAMILY for themselves... Glad I only have one kid to work thru this mess, I can keep
an eye on her...
My sister, brother, father all are week too week people.. They never listened, prepared, etc... Just glad Pops has the SS and
post office pension... Otherwise, would be living here... Also kind of glad they are 1200 miles away... Too bad they ignored all
the signs... They will be begging in a few years.. Beans and RICE
Htos1 ,
90% of the repugs are ON the team! Otherwise billary would be a warm memory and no 9/11.
sniffybigtoe ,
Never fear! The GOP is ready and willing to do fuck all about it.
r0mulus ,
Yep- can't have a fake two party system without a fake second party to collude with...
candyman ,
After 3 hrs... ABC,CBS,NBC, CNN - nothing on the web pages.
thetruthhurts ,
November can't come fast enough for Democrats and the Corporatist deep state.
enough of this ,
It was a deep-state whitewash just like his next report is going to be.
This is seriously important information - could have exonerated the President almost a year ago - and had he been impeached
would have no recourse. Those that did not release until now are co-conspirators.
justyouwait ,
They are co-conspirators and more. They were placed to do the job they are doing. Rotten Rodney is the head of the snake in
the DOJ. He was positioned to slow down or if possible totally hold back key information from congress (his boss). Old man Sessions
was co-opted right from the start. He looks & acts like a guy taking orders. I don't know what they have on him (use your imagination)
but he was neutered right from day 1. He should be charged with dereliction of duty and fired. I think if a true investigation
is ever done and all the facts come out, Rotten Rodney could very well be charged with treason along with a large number of other
Deep State operatives and more than a few in the Democratic Party.
Htos1 ,
Depends on what was in all those bankers boxes of FBI files trucked over to the WH from Reno and Holder in the 90's.
Chupacabra-322 ,
♦Page: 5:19pm "Still on the phone with Devlin . Mike's phone is ON FIRE."
♥Strzok: 5:29pm "You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there's news on."
♦Page: 5:30pm "He knows. He just got handed a note."
♥Strzok: 5:33pm "Ha. He asking about it now?"
♦Page: 5:34pm "Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now."
At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:
These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths & Sociopaths get off on Gas Lighting the Public through their
own manufactured, Scripted False Narratives & Psychological Operations.
Sick, twisted, Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths deserve to be hung with Piano wire. Them, Breanan, Clapper, Lynch, Rice, Obama
& last but not least the ring leader Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large, Hillary Clinton.
Dre4dwolf ,
Fbi leaks fake story to media -> Media reports fake story-> Fbi uses fake story as evidence in Visa Court - > Fisa court grants
a Fisa warrant that would of otherwise been denied -> rinse repeat till all your political enemies are crippled by fake investigations
??? profit???
Fufi007 ,
Deep State and Shadow Government Clowns.
They all burning in Hell. Let's give them goodbye.
In due course of time, they will be sucked out of here and taken far into Space into a gross Planet where the Monkeys are seeing
that Black Stone next to their pot hole and going like crazy for the marvel just discovered.
The more shit you intake the heavier and difficult lift to better zones.
Miserables. Hasta la Vista Fools. They took it deep and swallowed the whole Enchilada !!!!
OccamsCrazor ,
these fbi and doj f*ckers will roast in hell.
WAY worse than Watergate.
MuffDiver69 ,
That Strzok is one fudge packer. Having an affair my ass...not with any women.
devnickle ,
Shall be hung by the neck until deceased. That is the penalty for Treason. Hillary, Bill, Obama, Lynch, Jarrett, Podesta's,
Holder, Awans, Whatshername Shitz, et al. The list is endless. McStain is dead, he bailed before the purge.
devnickle ,
Saddam was powder puff compared to these assholes. If it was good enough for him.....
arby63 ,
If they worked for me, they would be facing a grand jury now.
janus ,
lisa page...why do i get the sense she was strzork's agency handler and not his fbi lover? is it because his mannerisms scream
homo, or is it because he speaks to her as a subordinate to a superior? those texts were far more focused on the dissemination
and control of information than they were about arranging trysts. strange. and speaking of homos, did you guys catch the conversation
about kasich? seems he's been in the closet for a long time. seems his long-time advisor/'roommate' is more than just that.
another lisa that should pique your interest is Lisa Barsoomian. who is lisa barsoomian? who is she married to? what is her
connection with lynch, holder, strzok, ohr, steele, obama, priestap, comey, etc?
anyone else think a FISA declass docu-drop perfectly apropos for the 9/11 anniversary?
i sure do.
janus
Normal ,
Hey, that's worse than rootin tootin putin. Putin didn't do it. The FBI did it.
flyonmywall ,
Whaaat? The FBI and CIA colluding to undermine a sitting US President?
Oh come on, that's just silly !!
GotEmAll ,
Yes these people are leaking, and they will leak again, again and again etc. Until these Leakers get shown the inside of a
Jail cell, tell me why would they be afraid to leak?
Look at strzok, what did he get lose his job (by the way some leftist will hire him somehwere) and what else......nothing;
heck it didn't even cost him anything really considering all the donations he got from his go fund me.
You want the leaks to stop, its time for Sessions, to start laying the hammer down on these candyasses.
wafm ,
besides having a totally unfuckinpronouncable name, Zok is obviously a complete incompetent. Hang the cunt.
DJ the Tax Man ,
Whether they know it or not the FBI and DOJ have a very limited life cycle left in the workings of our country. The American
people will take over soon and the justice will be delivered swift and viciously.
DOJ and FBI you have a choice step-up and do your job or just step aside.
For the sake of the saving of America every one of the Deomocrats better end up behind bars for the rest of their life including
Mueller
Tunga ,
<)
Tunga ,
"A meme is a cognitive or behavioral pattern that can be transmitted from one individual to another one. Since the individual
who transmitted the meme will continue to carry it, the transmission can be interpreted as a replication : a copy of the
meme is made in the memory of another individual, making him or her into a carrier of the meme. This process of
self-reproduction (the memetic life-cycle ), leading to spreading
over a growing group of individuals, defines the meme as a replicator, similar in that respect to the gene (Dawkins, 1976; Moritz,
1991.
No known source but still a favorite Tunga talking point: NOT!
Karl Marxist ,
But Hurrican Florence, everybody! Trump's gonna release those documents ... but ... Hurricane Florence! Israel's gonna commit
that Idlib false flag, hurl banned white phosphorus weapons at US funded "terrorists" who are Syrian Christians but Hurricane
Florence! Everything's gonna get crunched. Just what the media is waiting for. 24/7 on Hurricane Florence!
Tunga ,
Stop making sense!!!
jeff montanye ,
i never get tired of realizing peter strzok, regarded as absolutely the top of the line in counterintelligence, thought ("I
had literally just gone to find this phone to tell you . . .") he could avoid the nsa by his choice of phone. priceless.
deus ex machina ,
YEP.
pelican ,
Stan Beeman level of skill.
Makes one wonder if all the FBI is this sloppy.
FBaggins ,
Hey look at this. More than 28 ZH articles on domestic and financial issues and finally one from earlier today something on
Syria.
Now let me see. The elite and imperious commissars of the US high command in their caution to protect vital US propaganda interests
and save the people from the truth, have banned all coverage of the Syrian conflict on Youtube - out of fear that their next planned
false-flag attack will blow up in their faces - which means that they have likely also "cautioned" with severe sanctions any alternate
media site directors in the same way.
Ms No ,
For all we know we could become rice crispies within 24 hours. Its not immanent but not at all out of the question. I think
people are desensitized to this already.
People should be on the edge of their seats, if not shitting their pants. Russian media is pretty quiet too. Al Jazeera is
now an atrocity similar to Hufpo (since the mad prince hung everybody upside down and surrounded Qatar and nabbing Jazeera).
Its eerie when this happens. People seem to be desensitized to the idea of conflict with Russia already.
I am Groot ,
Forget the rope and the bullets. It's time to take a fucking axe to all of these Deep State scumbag traitors.
insanelysane ,
Look the un-bias IG reviewed the FBI's action and found no bias. How can that happen? Who does a review to see if the IG is
biased? Who does a review to see if the person that finds that the IG has no bias has bias?? Who does a review....
Someday Sessions and Rosenstein may get sacked or the people responsible for the sacking will get sacked.
Enough already gaaddammit! You swamp creatures need to fess up that you've tried to unseat Trump from Day 1. End this bogus
"investigation" that y'all know, and have known, is nothing short of treason. Everyone caught in your snares should be released
regardless of guilt or innocence. Everyone involved in your conspiracy should get mandatory 25 years with no parole. Yeah, that
means you too Brennan!
truthseeker47 ,
Disagree: Commie traitor Brennan should be in front of a firing squad.
consider me gone ,
I'd be okay with that too. But swinging from a noose having vacated his bowels on national TV would be more degrading.
Tunga ,
Big love rules.
;)
Tunga ,
Maybe you should stick to T€#++€r?
Jk.
Tunga ,
"These people, are not people." - Bill Clinton to AG Lynch on the Tarmack.
navy62802 ,
Conspiracy. Not "collusion."
navy62802 ,
I will never forget that freak Strozk testifying before Congress. I get chills just thinking about it.
Yeah, there's a comment. Vlad in Syria building up forces to allow Iran to install missile sites to protect Nordstream 2 and
Assad regime while threatening Israel. Do Israel and its allies stand by and let this happen or do they tell Vlad the game is
on, and if it's war he must have, then war he will have,
So this Moscow Messiah has become the enabler of the wonderful mullahs of Iran and the humanist Assad of Syria. These
are the quality of scum with which the Tsar of Russia has chosen to align. All you proud Russians stand and sing an anthem
to the butcher of Damascus and the most repressive and dangerous force in the Middle East, the Murderous Mullahs of a Muzzled
Iran. What an Axis of Pigs. For alleged muslims, they snortle like pork around in the shite and mud with Vlad an awful lot.
Putin drives the Middle East and the world toward Armageddon because his intellectual and moral poverty can devise no strategy
for the spread of Russian power except at the tip of missiles.Maybe he wants to accelerate the war before it becomes nuclear,
so he cannot push Israel to the edge of extinction.
Perhaps he will ride in as the Great Reconciliator once he has allowed Iran's expansion throughout Syria. The Jews will either
concede, or they will treat us to a true test of the Russian super AAs. It may be a really good show, or it could be time for
Amazon and Apple to relocate to a zip code 100 feet below Wellington, new Zealand.
MrAToZ ,
Why is there no perp walk? There is a conga line of law breakers and not a single arrest. Either there is something going on
that we are not allowed to know or this is going to drag on till it fades away. This is the longest quietest investigation into
largest crime and scandal in U.S. history and all that is on display is arrogance. Hang someone in the town square.
dubsea ,
Were two years in. ..and you wonder..does our democracy run a machine...out of control government...or does the machine run
democracy... goddam we voted ...let him do his job....
navy62802 ,
The machine runs the "democracy." If you have not realized that yet, you are willfully blind.
Keyser ,
If the Dims take back Congress in the mid-terms, none of these revelations will matter one iota as the Dims will bury these
investigations and start their own into everything Trump... Time for Trump to drop the hammer on all of these people, BEFORE the
mid-terms...
Oldwood ,
Not only that, but our hot air economy will pop like a cheap Chinese balloon.
The only thing keeping it going is public and business confidence that they might have a chance. That chance will dissipate
like a baby fart if Trump faced a Democrat majority.
It should make many here yearning for their dream "reset" wet with anticipation.....the ultimate in ignorance.....getting exactly
what they hope for.
LaugherNYC ,
Every single shred of evidence points to a powerful conspiracy between the DOJ, FBI, HRC and Democrat machine to smear Trump
with the cooperation of all those Russians supposedly totally riding the Trump train. Yeah, that's how I help get an American
et elected, create a whole smear story that he's a Russian puppet.
If they're not gong to prosecute these lying scum, there needs to be a for real investigarion
devnickle ,
And the shooting will commence.
BankSurfyMan ,
Dry humping Lisa with a bit of Hedge off the wall, Thanks Peter... Fucktard Man of the year 2018 and beyond! SEXY!
MozartIII ,
Can we just shoot all of them already? The Clintons as well??
goldenbuddha454 ,
dumb and dumbererer
WarAndPeace ,
If these two get off without being sentenced for criminals, Americans are gonna actually start a revolution with guns.
commiebastid ,
you can bet it won't be covered in the 'news'
devnickle ,
Enough is enough.
Old Poor Richard ,
Democratic operative codename "Keebler Elf" is furiously scrambling to bury and distract. Maybe call friends in the White Helmets:
"Now would be a great time for that fake gas attack!"
The Terrible Sweal ,
Stzork should go up the river for a very long time.
CheapBastard ,
That'll be hard to do when he's disenboweled.
I am Groot ,
When he's cremated, I mean buried at the stake, they can send his remains to Gitmo.
claytonmoore50 ,
I hope they have had to surrender their passports.
They are so done...
oDumbo ,
You can just "smell" the Starbucks shitcan on these pukes. Hang them at noon.
Imagine clicking on a short url in a comment section in the current year .
Fedtacular ,
#CancelAllAgencies FBI CIA DOJ ATF DHS TSA EPA DOE FAA FDA. fuck it. They are all filled with Union loving liberal pensioners.
Cutting the heads off won't kill the deep state.
captain whitewater ,
Hang all of these criminals from lamp posts along the capital streets.
GoingBig ,
Here on Conspiracy Hedge.... The news nobody else is reporting because its conjecture.
Nunny ,
Have another drink and stumble to bed Hillary.
wisefool ,
they stink. we dont. The church will always find the high ground.
It is a metitroucious society if you take the long view.
ZIRPdiggler ,
Would you do Lisa Page? I would. She's not super hot but she kinda looks like she would be fun in bed
booboo ,
If she had as many dicks sticking out of her that were stuck in her she would look like a porcupine.
Scuba Steve ,
too gummy when she smiles ...
I am Groot ,
She must have a good vet to get her teeth that clean.
Anunnaki ,
She has DSL
novictim ,
And what is the reason for the people REALLY in charge going after Trump? It has always been about his Anti-Neoliberal agenda.
Specifically, TARIFFS on CHINA. The oligarchs behind the establishment have made fantastic amounts of money off the strip-mining
of American industry and Capital. They want the cheap labour of Asia and the 3rd world yet also want to sell the sh#t back to
the USA even though that trade imbalance will lead to ruin.
If not for President Trump, there would be no hope for the American people.
Anunnaki ,
No one goes to jail
Won Hung Lo ,
T minus ZERO. Here it comes......
pine_marten ,
Strzok's member seemed alive with a dark malfeasance that sent her deep into an underworld where her orgasms were tectonic.
ipud ,
April 12, 2017: Peter Strzok congratulates Lisa Page on a (hatchet) job well done...
Thethingreenline ,
Page looks kinda hot in that pic
WTFUD ,
Hot's OTT however, she looks like she's handled a cockatoo.
Thethingreenline ,
Kinda........hot
I am Groot ,
I'm sure Eva Braun said Hitler "looked kinda hot" too.......
From FBI's "Protected Voices" website, on "Safer Campaign Communications"-
"To secure communications channels -- such as email, messaging apps, and social media -- use encryption, disable archiving
, use access controls, disable remote wiping, use account lockout, and patch your systems."
If campaigns should disable archiving, would they not be in violation of federal e-mail retention laws?
paul20854 ,
This guy needs incarceration.
I am Groot ,
You meant to say "incineration". There, fixed that for ya......
CatInTheHat ,
They are ALL in on it. This whole fucking shit show slow walked in a bunch of Kabuki for the plebes
Trump, as the most powerful man in the world could have fired Sessions ages ago and had every single document DECLASSIFIED
to where this shitshow would have ended long ago and cankles, Obama Rice Holder, Powers, Lynch
et.al , would be doing a perp walk
And where are the investigations into true Russian collusion with Cankles having sold our yellow cake to them for a few bucks
donation to the Clinton money washing machine foundation? And her emails, many of which have been discovered and we're highly
claddified sent on that bitch's blackberry & on and on it goes
They are ALL IN ON IT. INCLUDING TRUMP. And none of this shit is going to end until the American people overthrow their government
Chupacabra-322 ,
It's absolute, complete, open, in our Faces Tyrannical Lawlessness .
Shue ,
And there's fuck all any of you can do anything about it.
Chipped ham ,
Some Donkeys gonna get kicked.
Better happen real soon. I can't take it. Just when I can't scream anymore about why someone's not in jail, out comes another
nugget like this.
Drip. Drip. Drip. I can't take it anymore. When will the dam break?
Htos1 ,
We need a couple of dam busters to come rolling in........Q and Trump come to mind.
Heroic Couplet ,
What laws should Republicans be able to break? How does Trump have seven-to-ten indicted campaign and transition staff? Where
was Trey Gowdy, the Faux News attorneys, the RNC attorneys, Rudy Giuliani, Mitch McConnell, Mark Meadows, the Koch Brothers, Sheldon
Adelson, and Rupert Murdoch when Trump was vetting ha-ha and appointing his team? Faux News has succeeded in dumbing down Republicans
to the point their long term memory is whatever Hillary did last.
Fishthatlived ,
"seven-to-ten"......what a maroon.
ChiangMaiXPat ,
Run away troll...the sedition is mind numbing. What your failing to grasp on purpose I might add is the entire investigation
against Trump is specious "tainted fruit" illegal, it is a Coup in any iteration. Monastic cognitive dissonance only gets you
so far....
Tzanchan ,
Gowdy spent lord knows how many hours/years looking to string up HRC...The select committee itself was created by House Republicans
in May 2014. The committee issued its final report on the Benghazi attack a little more than two years later in June 2016 and
was officially shut down in December 2016. The select panel spent $7 million during the course of the probe.
The committee ultimately issued an 800-page report, which faulted the Obama administration on a number of fronts, and lawmakers
questioned Clinton for 11 hours in an October 2015 hearing. Zero indictments and a piss away of taxpayer money. Yes 4 noble and
patriotic Americans were killed and the administration bumbled the reasons, but crimes committed, well, none. Talk about double
standards.
Nunny ,
Yes indeedy....who shut down the Bengazi investigation?
xcct ,
Build the fucking gallows! Time for bullshit talk is over. Arrest, try and execute all these fuckers.
Htos1 ,
We need a "neutral" 3rd party as the DOJ is corrupt, and the house has no bollocks. Say, oh, the military? AND their gallows.
goldenbuddha454 ,
All these Washington elites run in the same circles. Term limits on all of Congress. On all civil servants too. Noone who has
worked in gov. can be a lobbyist. Its so incestuous. The door revolves continuously in favor of the connected.
bookofenoch ,
Page and Strozk are disgusting. Hideous.
They will die screaming, and nobody will mourn them.
Fedtacular ,
They will be sent off McCain style.
Ban KKiller ,
George Webb covers this pretty well...and more. How come he can keep naming names and live? Or not be sued for libel? Anyhoo...his
show is pretty amazing.
Shill me.
JimZin ,
my Popcorn with extra butter is hot and ready to go...let the mid-term shit show begin! hanging is way to nice for these deepstate
fuckturds. yes a noose is right, but they should be dragged behind a Ford truck on a gravel road by a couple of Deplorables that
smell like Walmart
Htos1 ,
I remember that Texas based campaign commercial from 1996!
"If you vote Republican, another brother is dragged behind a pickup truck"!
Only then it actually worked on the low infos.
Indelible Scars ,
The Honorable Rod RosenSTEIN? Alrighty then....
rosiescenario ,
It is interesting that all of the "reporters" at the MSM do not care that the entire (excluding FOX) news organization is behaving
exactly as Tass and Pravda used to behave under communist Russia. These folks are too dense to see the irony that a read of RT
today is more factual than anything coming out of the U.S. media.
I guess when you are a liberal Dem you do not have anything honest and factual to discuss....you resort to calling Benghazi
"a wild conspiracy".
migra ,
They aren't too dense. They know exactly whats going on and they are happy with it as long as it helps there cause.
Stan522 ,
So, what the fuck was the Inspector General looking at and reviewing when he declared there was no bias.....?
migra ,
Because IG Horowitz is one of, "them".
Anunnaki ,
Horowitz. Nuff said
enough of this ,
It was a deep-state whitewash just like his next report is going to be.
By the way this new commenting system and specifically the lack of ability to follow up on a conversation since there are no
links to a user's history of comments really sucks.
sgorem ,
i agree.........
ThinkerNotEmoter ,
Yep.
I blame Trump.
Indelible Scars ,
It is waaaay better.
SmallerGovNow2 ,
agree with you. it is the way it used to be when you could really have a common thread and people were not jumping the thread
just to get their comments at the top...
Nunny ,
It was so tiresome to respond to a thread and have to wade through 3 pages+ to see if someone responded. I like this much better.
Sanity Bear ,
True, glad to see the comment-jumping thing gone.
However, now you have to remember which articles you posted on and hunt for them yourself in order to check for followup, which
is worse user-wise than having to click through a bunch of pages to see how far down your comment got pushed.
pops ,
Yes. It sucks big time.
Sanity Bear ,
Hanging offense treason, and there is not even the slightest ambiguity that that is what this is.
Empire's Frontiers ,
Why does it seem obvious that the sitting administration used all its levers to aid Hillary in her election, and further, destroy
Trump in his victory?
Ink Pusher ,
That'll be 6 orders of SEDITION with a side order of COLLUSION for each and a Diet TREASON for everyone to drink please.
Long Live The Donald ,
Trump is fucking nuts! Get Over it!
cheech_wizard ,
So you're still sodomizing your children?
Yen Cross ,
Yen is older, and looks 1o years younger than than that pile of shit!
Guilt has away of destroying people
Yen Cross ,
Faggot libtard snowflake?
American Snipper ,
This cocksucker Rosenberg needs to be fired, as is everyone on Trumps short list of leakers. Drain the fucking swamp! Redact
all Russian docs, speed it up, Mr. President!!!
I am Groot ,
When you say "fired" , I'm thinking he should be strapped to missile and fired into the sun, Wiley coyote style.....
Yen Cross ,
Pro facto**** Never ever once, ever has Yen cheated on a Woman.
Many opportunities, but yen used the bigger head.
Yen will never cheat on the Woman he's dedicated to.
Cursive ,
Lisa should really stick with the straight hair. Much better than that headshot with the cheesy perm that was first circulated.
Her credentials as a nasty Deep State dick gobbler aside, She rises from a 2 to a 5 (on a scale of 10).
Htos1 ,
3, with a bag. If she's not fat.
bookofenoch ,
Nope. Lisa Page is a filthy whore. Imagine sharing her front and back holes with Strzok. Or Kissing her Strzok jizz drinking
hole.
Repulsive. Forever disgraced. The woman is dogshit.
I am Groot ,
It's really hard to rate animals on a scale of 1 to 10. Tough choice between her and a goat.
rbianco3 ,
Released in January- this is September WTF?
This is seriously important information - could have exonerated the President almost a year ago - and had he been impeached
would have no recourse. Those that did not release until now are co-conspirators.
justyouwait ,
They are co-conspirators and more. They were placed to do the job they are doing. Rotten Rodney is the head of the snake in
the DOJ. He was positioned to slow down or if possible totally hold back key information from congress (his boss). Old man Sessions
was co-opted right from the start. He looks & acts like a guy taking orders. I don't know what they have on him (use your imagination)
but he was neutered right from day 1. He should be charged with dereliction of duty and fired. I think if a true investigation
is ever done and all the facts come out, Rotten Rodney could very well be charged with treason along with a large number of other
Deep State operatives and more than a few in the Democratic Party.
Htos1 ,
Depends on what was in all those bankers boxes of FBI files trucked over to the WH from Reno and Holder in the 90's.
Chupacabra-322 ,
♦Page: 5:19pm "Still on the phone with Devlin . Mike's phone is ON FIRE."
♥Strzok: 5:29pm "You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there's news on."
♦Page: 5:30pm "He knows. He just got handed a note."
♥Strzok: 5:33pm "Ha. He asking about it now?"
♦Page: 5:34pm "Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now."
At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:
These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths & Sociopaths get off on Gas Lighting the Public through their
own manufactured, Scripted False Narratives & Psychological Operations.
Sick, twisted, Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths deserve to be hung with Piano wire. Them, Breanan, Clapper, Lynch, Rice, Obama
& last but not least the ring leader Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large, Hillary Clinton.
stubb ,
CRUSH HIS SKULL NOW
1970SSNova396 ,
The CrossRoads have been reached.........Saddle up
Can't wait for the release of all the MSM person that were paid via GPS to spin this shit!
Yen Cross ,
That little prick, needs to be knocked down, an notch?
His cum guzzling adultress pretty much sums things up?
Calvertsbio ,
What we need is a 100% republican DOJ, FBI, CIA, politicians... wipe out the democrats for a better society... That should
work, then we won't need Zerohedge to spread all this propaganda !
Robert of Ottawa ,
The repubs and dementocrats are on the same team, the uniparty swamp where all congressman and senators get equal bribes if
they wish
1970SSNova396 ,
They're all whores for a buck.How else can you make less than 200k per year
yet retire with millions ...just in the House.
Calvertsbio ,
Yes, we are doomed, for sure it is every FAMILY for themselves... Glad I only have one kid to work thru this mess, I can keep
an eye on her...
My sister, brother, father all are week too week people.. They never listened, prepared, etc... Just glad Pops has the SS and
post office pension... Otherwise, would be living here... Also kind of glad they are 1200 miles away... Too bad they ignored all
the signs... They will be begging in a few years.. Beans and RICE
Htos1 ,
90% of the repugs are ON the team! Otherwise billary would be a warm memory and no 9/11.
sniffybigtoe ,
Never fear! The GOP is ready and willing to do fuck all about it.
r0mulus ,
Yep- can't have a fake two party system without a fake second party to collude with...
candyman ,
After 3 hrs... ABC,CBS,NBC, CNN - nothing on the web pages.
thetruthhurts ,
November can't come fast enough for Democrats and the Corporatist deep state.
Dre4dwolf ,
Fbi leaks fake story to media -> Media reports fake story-> Fbi uses fake story as evidence in Visa Court - > Fisa court grants
a Fisa warrant that would of otherwise been denied -> rinse repeat till all your political enemies are crippled by fake investigations
??? profit???
Calvertsbio ,
Of course it is, profit for the republican party. works every time... Always blame others for your own misgivings.
danl62 ,
Obama perfected that strategy. When you are guilty blame the other party. When someone else does something right take credit
even though you had nothing to do with it. Than have a press conference with I,I,I me, me,me ...
Mr. Bones ,
Alinsky rules numbers 5, 6, 8, 11, and 13.
1970SSNova396 ,
The Obama dik sukers meeting has been canceled for today....try again on Tuesday Sport
stubb ,
I always blame your mother for my misdoings. Quite appropriate, as she is balls-deep involved in most of them.
HenryJ ,
"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe,
Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a
Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take
a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the
Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At
what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot
come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live
through all time or die by suicide."...........Abraham Lincoln, a Portion of his Lyceum address
BrokeMiner ,
FBI and DOJ are just a bunch of dudes in a circle jerk that get nothing done and cover up a bunch of illegal shit. what a joke
stubb ,
They look good doing it, though.
Lord JT ,
Rod Rosenstein? more like Rod Rosenasshole, if you ask me.
Pigeon ,
Errr...Dr. Rosen Rosen...
aaahhhhh Dr. Rosenpenis
Lost in translation ,
UPVOTED!
I still use that line, myself - it was a great movie!!
Yen Cross ,
Two peas in an pod.
For the life of me, I don't understand why dudes cross swords.
Women are so beautiful.
Men are very handsome, and women are beautiful.
Yen gets confused sometimes???
The clown is 48, and an professional cheater. His wife has the sex drive of the last CAT balance sheet.
Yen is taking a nap. Fuck you very much
Yen Cross ,
Was it the CAT balance sheet, or me pile driving your trophy wife?
MoreFreedom ,
Pretty soon these conspirators will be doing plea deals that they were doing what Obama told them to do. And they'll have evidence
to back it up. Otherwise Obama wouldn't be working so hard attacking Trump, along with the other guilty acting members of his
administration. Strzok showed he thought he was still untouchable.
Pigeon ,
Vee ver juscht following orders
Htos1 ,
Hence, the need for tribunals at Gitmo!
RICKYBIRD ,
I think Page flipped way, way back. That's why we have her emails. Emails which the FBI tried to withhold from Congress. There
are still bombshells among the Page-Strzok emals that haven't been released. The FBI has pleaded a "glitch" (that's the word it
has the huzpah to use) already to excuse the slow production.
MuffDiver69 ,
Many sources for FBI investigative reports are actually media articles that were written based on leaks from the FBI investigators.
>This is one of the reasons the media are dug-in to a position of alignment with the corrupt DOJ and FBI officials.
Inasmuch as the truth is adverse to the interests of the corrupt officials, so too is that same truth toxic to the media corporations
who engaged in the collaboration.
Additionally, many of the journalists who keep showing up amid the population of this ongoing story are likely connected to
the Fusion-GPS network.
This creates even more motive for ongoing media obfuscation.
True Blue ,
It is a neat little circle-jerk; the FBI lacks probable cause to get the secret courts to give them a writ because their
'evidence' is obviously from a paid off source within one political party trying to undo their opposition; so they 'leak' a massive
pile of steaming bullshit to the friendly presstitutes, who promptly write a 'news' article based on it, which the FBI then takes
to their 'secret court' judge as 'probable cause' to spy on their patron's opposition...
This is beyond banana republic level of corruption, malfeasance and abuse of power.
TeethVillage88s ,
There are many books Non-Fiction and Fiction that indicate that the Nazis were not rooted out after WWII. Of course in hind
sight there is little benefit from USA from joining WWI or WWII other than securing a position as Super Power and Financial and
Trading/Industrial Giant... to assume the Anglo Empire... But to my point: I'd guess we have secrets upon secrets, we create 1000s
of secrets a day, and have huge secrets industries. 17 Intel Agencies. I would guess CIA, NSA, SEC, FINRA, FDIC, Comptroller of
the Currency, Federal Reserve... all have secrets and can act against Trump as Gary Cohn and Mnuchin, John Bolton, might. Lots
of room for adding Mockingbird Sources.
Many sources for FBI investigative reports are actually media articles that were written based on leaks from the FBI investigators.
thebigunit ,
I'm not so sure about that.
We're sure Rosenstein will get right on it...
Rosenstein seems to me like kind of a slimy reptile.
just the tip ,
for the 10,000th time.
it is not treason god damn it.
it is sedition.
Not Too Important ,
Wrong. The dossier starts in London, with MI6. This is international involvement, which makes it all treason, and because it
is against the 'Head of State', it is accurately defined as 'High Treason'.
Hillary's actions regarding her server involved the 'US Nation', which makes her crimes 'High Treason', and every single person
who used that server, or knew about that server and stopped any action, is also guilty of 'High Treason'.
These are crimes punishable by death, as outlined in the US Constitution. Now you can see why there is such a massive attempt
at avoiding indictments and trials. And you can see why Trump made it clear, through EO, that these widespread crimes of 'High
Treason' should be handled by military tribunals.
Both sides have to play for keeps, there's only going to be one victor. And they will kill billions to avoid punishment. Or
just simply take as many as they can with them, they are all psychopaths.
RICKYBIRD ,
Joe DiGenova today says Susan Rice's self-serving email memorandum to herself, which she sent literally minutes before she
left the WH, concerning a recent meeting at the WH on, I think, Jan 5th, was the meeting at which the FBI ambush of General Flynn
was planned. Obama, Lynch, Comey, and others, including Sally Yates were in on it.
nmewn ,
That mental image is almost as bad as Bruth Ohr & Nellie or...Bill & Hill ;-)
So, where are we at here?
Looks to me like...
Strzok...FIRED.
Comey...FIRED.
McCabe...FIRED.
Ohr...DEMOTED.
Yates...FIRED.
Nellie...fluent in Russian, a student in Russia 1989 & a CIA op before & now, walking the streets...lol.
Rybicki...RESIGNED.
Page...RESIGNED.
Finally, history will show Mike Rogers as a patriot in the entire affair, how he could just sit there, next to Comey and not
stand up and garret him (knowing what he had done) in front of that Senate Committee (and the cameras) is a testament to his honor,
his integrity and his commitment to the rule of law as a free man.
I couldn't have done it, it would have been over in five seconds.
"... Top Trump aides like chief of staff John Kelly, national security advisor John Bolton, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly met with Trump Thursday in an effort to convince him that none of them was the author of the op-ed and that he could still trust his inner circle. Some two dozen top officials issued formal denials that they were the anonymous writer. ..."
Every day last week brought new demonstrations of an unprecedented crisis within the Trump
White House and US state apparatus. The Trump administration is torn by internal divisions,
amidst palace coup conspiracies involving the corporate media and sections of the
military-intelligence apparatus, as well as the Democratic Party.
On Tuesday, initial reports on the new book by Bob Woodward portrayed top Trump aides
deriding his intelligence and even sanity, working behind the scenes to derail his most
inflammatory orders -- such as a demand for the assassination of Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad. Trump administration officials were carrying out what Woodward characterized as "an
administrative coup d'état," i.e., disobeying his wishes and carrying out their own.
The next day, the New York Times made public an op-ed, written for its Thursday
print edition, in which an unnamed "senior administration official" presented himself as the
spokesman for a cabal of top officials working to keep Trump in check. "We are the real
resistance," the official claimed, making clear his support for the main elements of the
administration's right-wing program.
On Friday, Barack Obama weighed in with a campaign-style speech -- unusual for an
ex-president in the first election after leaving office -- in which he described the Trump
administration as "radical" and "not normal." He called on Republicans, conservatives and
Christian fundamentalists to vote for Democratic candidates in November, to "restore sanity" in
Washington and allow a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to provide an
institutional check on Trump.
President Trump responded in kind. On Monday, he attacked his own attorney-general, Jeff
Sessions, for not quashing Justice Department investigations into two Republican congressmen
indicted on criminal charges of stock market swindling and theft. On Tuesday he denounced the
Woodward book as a fabrication, and on Wednesday he called the New York Times op-ed an
act of treason. On Thursday, he told a campaign rally in Montana that they had to vote
Republican in November to prevent his impeachment. On Friday, he tweeted his demand that
Sessions have the Justice Department investigate the New York Times op-ed and identify
the anonymous writer.
Top Trump aides like chief of staff John Kelly, national security advisor John Bolton, press
secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly met with Trump
Thursday in an effort to convince him that none of them was the author of the op-ed and that he
could still trust his inner circle. Some two dozen top officials issued formal denials that
they were the anonymous writer.
There is simply no precedent in modern American history for such a level of political
conflict and dysfunction within the leading institutions of the capitalist state. How is this
to be explained? What direction will the crisis take?
It is entirely superficial to root such an explanation in the personality of Donald Trump.
Even Obama in his Illinois speech admitted that Trump is not the cause, but merely the symptom,
of more profound processes. But Obama, of course, covered up his own role, depicting his
presidency as eight years of heroic efforts to repair the damage caused by the 2008 financial
crash. At the end of those eight years, however, Wall Street and the financial oligarchy were
fully recovered, enjoying record wealth, while working people were poorer than before, a
widening social chasm that made possible the election of the billionaire con man and demagogue
in November 2016.
This social crisis underlies the political convulsions in Washington. There are, of course,
political differences within the two factions fighting it out within the ruling elite. They are
deeply divided over foreign policy, particularly over how to deal with the failure of US
intervention in Syria and the Middle East more broadly, and over whether to target Russia or
China first in the struggle to maintain the global dominance of American imperialism. The most
significant passage in Obama's speech was his criticism of the Republican Party for having
retreated from its Cold War, anti-Communist roots by tolerating Trump's supposed "softness"
toward Putin.
More fundamental, however, is the growing concern within all sections of the ruling elite
over the possibility of a renewed economic crisis under conditions of mounting social
opposition from below, following the initial stirrings of the American working class this year
-- the series of statewide teachers' strikes, the mounting resistance of industrial workers to
sellout contracts imposed by the unions, and the buildup of anger over super-exploitation by
giant employers like Amazon and Walmart.
Facing an impending eruption of the class struggle, there is little confidence in corporate
boardrooms, on Wall Street, or at the Pentagon and CIA that the current chief executive of the
American government can meet the test of great events.
One of the premier institutions of big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report
on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that another "great
liquidity crisis" was possible, and that a government bailout on the scale of that effected by
Bush and Obama will produce social unrest, "in light of the potential impact of central bank
actions in driving inequality between asset owners and labor."
The report went on to note that political explosions on the scale of 1968 could develop,
facilitated by the role of the internet as a means of dissemination for radical political views
and a means of political self-organization. "The next crisis is also likely to result in social
tensions similar to those witnessed 50 years ago in 1968," the bank report warned. "Similar to
1968, the internet today (social media, leaked documents, etc.) provides millennials with
unrestricted access to information In addition to information, the internet provides a platform
for various social groups to become more self-aware, polarized, and organized."
The ruling class response to this danger is to prepare domestic repression on a massive
scale. In that respect, there is no difference between Trump and his opponents, except the
ferocious disagreement over who should be in control of the forces of repression that will be
unleashed against the American working class. Trump, of course, is an authoritarian through and
through, organizing a fascistic attack on immigrant workers and developing tools that will be
used against the entire working class.
However, his opponents, utilizing of the methods of the palace coup -- intrigues, leaks,
media smears, special prosecutors and other provocations -- are no more wedded to democratic
forms than Trump. The essence of the drive to censor the internet, spearheaded by the
Democratic Party, is revealed by the JP Morgan report: it is the platform for "social groups,"
above all, the working class, "to become more self-aware."
As one of Trump's leading media critics, Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum,
a frothing anti-communist, wrote Sunday, "Maybe we have also underestimated the degree to which
our Constitution, designed in the 18th century, has proved insufficient to the demands of the
21st."
Trump's political opponents seek to use the Democratic Party campaign in the November
elections both to further the preparations for repression and to disguise them from working
people. The disguise is provided by a handful of self-styled leftwing and even "socialist"
candidates for the House of Representatives, many aligned with Bernie Sanders, like Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley.
The substance is provided by the much larger number of Democratic candidates drawn directly
from the military-intelligence apparatus, nearly three dozen in all, who will hold the balance
of power if the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives. The policy the Democrats
will pursue if they win the election has already been demonstrated by the anti-Russia campaign
and the accompanying demands for internet censorship.
Whatever the outcome of the elections, it will not resolve the crisis in Washington nor
alter the basic trajectory of politics, which is bringing the working class into explosive
conflict with the ruling class, the entire state apparatus, and the capitalist system.
"... Serious border enforcement, demanding our wealthy allies do more for their own security, infrastructure investment, the (campaign's) refutation of Reaganomics, acknowledging the costs of globalism, calling BS on all of the dominant left PC pieties and lies, were themes of Trump's campaign that were of value. ..."
Serious border enforcement, demanding our wealthy allies do more for their own security,
infrastructure investment, the (campaign's) refutation of Reaganomics, acknowledging the
costs of globalism, calling BS on all of the dominant left PC pieties and lies, were themes
of Trump's campaign that were of value.
Trump was able to harness and give voice to some very important energies. But being Trump,
he's poisoned these issues for a couple of generations. No serious leader will be able to
touch these things.
Add this to all the institutional and political ruin he has created.
Responding to an anonymous Op-Ed in the New York Times detailing an active resistance within
the Trump White House, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon told
Reuters that President Trump is facing a "coup" the likes of which haven't been seen since
the American Civil War.
... ... ...
" This is a crisis . The country has only ever had such a crisis in the
summer of 1862 when General McClellan and the senior generals, all Democrats in the Union Army,
deemed that Abraham Lincoln was not fit and not competent to be commander in chief ," said
Bannon - whose departure from the White House was in large part over a fallout with Trump's
"establishment" advisers. Bannon said at the time that the "Republican establishment" sought to
nullify the results of the 2016 election and effectively neuter Trump.
"There is a cabal of Republic establishment figures who believe Donald Trump is not fit to
be president of the United States. This is a crisis," Bannon said in Rome.
Anonymous IX ,
The naivete of so many astounds me. Do you really think that Trump cannot get the name of
the person who wrote the op-ed? In the old days, you sent your operatives to break into the
Watergate. With today's computers and backdoors everywhere into any computer system [open
your reading horizons... https://www.rt.com/op-ed/437895-privacy-five-eyes-encryption/
], anyone can obtain this information if they so desire. Why is Trump being portrayed as a
poor "rich guy" who only wants the best for the country while valiantly fighting a nefarious
coup...whose members, by the way, are so clever and clandestine that they write an op-ed in
the friggin' New York Times! Sorry...don't have much time to continue discussing op-eds in
the NYT, gotta go re-insert ourselves into an independent sovereign nation, called Syria,
where our 1%-ers have deemed we need to go!
I like Trump's bravado and I like his partner, Melania. Designers should definitely bring
back slits in skirts! Scroll down. Here's a lady with class and style. She doesn't have to
show you her entire bosom for you to get the idea that she's hot! https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/09/03/melania-trump-labor-day-looks/
thebigunit ,
Silicon Valley comes full circle:
Apple's famous "1984" ad.
How ironic.
The guy on the TV screen is Tim Cook. He's saying "WE MUST SUPPRESS ALEX JONES!"
The anonymous leaker might not exist. Maybe the oped was written by someone at the new
york times. The reason for lying such might be to make Trump start hunting for his own
subordinates, that could turn some of his subordinates against him who then become an actual
leaker. I think this is their plan.
Moe Howard ,
Of course it is a coup in progress. So obvious it is beyond a question.
The fake op-ed was just the latest shot.
Seems to me that we need to break up and destroy these MSM and interweb monopolies.
No more dual national control over media outlets.
DEDA CVETKO ,
Yes, Steve Bannon. This is a coup. And it is a bad, bad, bad nazi-style,
beer-putsch kind of coup, the night of long knives and all.
But this is the coup you and your party (as well as your technical adversaries, but
friends in real life - the "democrats" - have been preparing for decades . This is the
coup you have been paving the way for with bombbombbomb Iran, with "export of
democracy" to Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Russia (and pretty much
everywhere else); with weaponization of dollar and global finance and militarization of media
and the police, with colored and rosey and khaki revolutions, with vulture hedge funds as the
primary instrument of the foreign policy and with 1% distribution of the 99% of national
wealth.
Yes. Steve Bannon. These are all proud accomplishments of the Republican and
Democratic party.
This is the coup your party (as well as the other one) has been funding for almost
three decades by voting for $1 trillion-per-year war budgets and never-ending wars across the
globe and by vigorously bankrolling the nazi merchants of death a/k/a/
military-industrial-financial-academic-media complex. And now you are shocked to learn that
nazis have fondness for putcshes? No kiddin', Sherlock!
This is the coup your party ideologically, theologically and morally justified in
terms of divine national exceptionalism, messianic narcissism, arrogant group-think and
never-ending pursuit of national might-makes-right and peace-through-strength.
Yes, Steve Bannon, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was right when he said that the chickens are
coming home to roost, er...roast. But this time, they are not coming home as McDonalds'
Chikken McNuggets or Kentucky Fried Chicken Shit. This time they are returning as chicken
guts'n'bones for the gigantic globalist chicken soup called New World Order.
You and your party should be rejoicing, not bemoaning. For, after all, this is your
proudest achievement and your finest hour.
God is The Son ,
Bannon is a retard, Trump is a retard, both Zionists. The only hope is Mattias to a Order
Coup De Ta. Military General needs to recognize that how Israel, Jews, Rothschilds have taken
over Banking Politics and Media in US and have hijacked US and are looting it. He also needs
to realize that they run the Left and the Right of Politics's. Arrest Trump, Alex Jones,
Zionists, ABC, FOX, Re-Investigate 9/11 findings will probably come to that the CIA and
Zionists did it, and that JFK killing was also CIA and Zionists. The CIA gets destroyed into
Thousand pieces and Israeli influence is removed entirely from all parts of American Society.
Federal Reserve, gets taken and turned into Public Central Bank of America under eye of US
Military. Rothschilds then told to leave or Arrested.
Peter41 ,
Well, correct up to a point. The established world order elites "saved" the system in
2007-08, by propping up the moribund banks (Citibank, JP Morgan, and others) by massive
injections of liquidity. Rather than removing this liquidity after the debacle, the Fed kept
the accelerator to the floor with continued "quantitative easing." Now presiding over a
$4Trillion balance sheet, the Fed is in the famous "liquidity trap" which Lord Keynes avoided
describing a solution for, by opining, "in the long run we are all dead."
Well, the elites are now in the position of watching the whole shitteree come unglued as
the Fed's policies framed by the elites will soon come unwound. Then, the elites will be
exposed as powerless.
Griffin ,
The old world order was not so organised, and the main ideology the ruling elites had in
common was transfer of wealth and wealth control,.
Using ideas like privatisation to get control of strategic assets like natural resources,
energy etc.
Using scams like pump and dump to suck wealth out of economies and then investing outside
the economy or planting it in a tax haven.
In Iceland there was roughly a 5 year interval between crashes. I called it the bubble
crash machine.
The msm and bank analysts were a important tool for politicians to keep this scam running,
but its dead now.
The new world order was supposed to be far more advanced and more organised, a tool to
eliminate all kinds of problems for large corporations, like the sovereign rights of states
for instance.
This was supposed to be a fusion between the superstate in Europe, where Merkel was at the
helm, and the liberal globalist friendly USA where Hillary was supposed to lead.
If this would have materialised it would have enabled multinational corporations to sue
nation states for imposing inconvenient laws that could suppress hopes of future profits for
instance, giving the corporations a indirect control over state politics, overriding
democracy and constitutions.
Abraxas ,
Coup, my ass. These guys turn everything upside-down. What a bunch of hyaenas.
Just look, these are the people that will drag us all down to the depths of hell with
them, telling us how nice and prosperous ride we'll have getting there. Stop this train, I
want to get off!
shortonoil ,
Having worked around DC I can tell you that the place collects nutcases, screwballs, and
sociopaths like fresh dog fresh shit collects flies. The Deep State is not the problem, the
problem is the DC State! DC is the epicenter of power hungry, greedy, self centered, self
serving, backstabbing, backbiting lunatics, and every one of them is looking for a gimmick to
advance their own personal agenda. The welfare of the nation is number 101 on their list of
100. Too much money, in too small a place with too many people trying to climb the same
ladder at the same time leads to anarchy. Give the power to collect money, and regulate back
to the States where it belongs, and let DC sink back into the swamp it was built on. The
Federal Government is out of control. The States have the Constitutional power, and
responsibility to regulate, and control the Federal government, and they had better start
using it before this dog and pony show breaks down into a lynching party.
Herdee ,
U.S. under Trump interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela. The CIA goes around the
world overthrowing governments. American hypocrisy is so phony, especially their Washington
NeoCon/NeoNazi politicians:
These uniparty hacks are the same who claim Trump has disemboweled the Obama agenda, which
he has. Some nutcase... doing what he ran on. The only things he can't get done are because
of the career uniparty hacks.The op-ed was nothing more then carryover from the McCain
funeral. It's all transparent and meaningless, but a useful tool for Trump now.
DingleBarryObummer ,
"To some people the notion of consciously playing power games-no matter how indirect-seems
evil, asocial, a relic of the past. They believe they can opt out of the game by behaving in
ways that have nothing to do with power. You must beware of such people, for while they
express such opinions outwardly, they are often among the most adept players at power. They
utilize strategies that cleverly disguise the nature of the manipulation involved. These
types, for example, will often display their weakness and lack of power as a kind of moral
virtue. But true powerlessness, without any motive of self-interest, would not publicize its
weakness to gain sympathy or respect. Making a show of one's weakness is actually a very
effective strategy, subtle and deceptive, in the game of power" -Robert Greene '48 Laws of
Power'
chumbawamba ,
What results though? So far, the results are in and the swamp is still pretty full.
As Dinglebutt pondered: deception, but for what purpose? Have you considered that you
might be being lulled into a safe landing right into the heart of totalitarianism?
Don't think for one moment Trump isn't capable of selling you out for his own
interests.
-chumblez.
Dilluminati ,
correction demonic coup (re-posted) but the Pizza gate it seems to be real, all the fake
news for generatons and the one story the globalists couldn't get to uncovering ~~~ YOU MUST
DECIDE!!
Sweden tonight.. Europe tomorrow. The left lives in fantasy land. Where Kapernick is some
NFL hero and the guy sucked at QB, I mean looking at the record, he sucked, he didn't win
anything. He ran like Mike Vick and that is about that.. and like Mike he suddenly realized
that EVERYBODY runs fast in the NFL unlike college. Then there is IMMIGRATION notice how the
globalists love three things above all others: profits for the 1%, paying no taxes, and they
love them some open borders and immigrant cheap labor. Take for example the imaginary op-ed
fake news from the NYT, or the CNN fake news story with leftist Lanny Davis, or lets drag
that whore Stormy out on stage for another trailer park runway dollar bill, or how about the
hearings on SCOTUS and Spartacus? Pocahontas? Abolishing Ice to fight crime, getting rid of
the 2nd amendment to make us safer, Or more gun legislation in Chicago or Baltimore doubling
down on stupid.. And now the ghouls who run the Democratic party have to go and try and sell
the Obama myth, talk about fantasy.. what the fuck was Obamacare? Where was the $ saved and
could people keep their doctor if they wanted? Each and every idea the Democrats and left
have come up with is proof that what the left doesn't fuck up it shits upon instead, and
now.. after being globally discredited the GLOBALISTS cocksuckers are done. Name a single
promise that the Globalists kept to any but the 1% the cocksuckers!
But turn on any globalist media, the NFL, ESPN, CNN, and of the Globalist monopoly news or
media outlets, the same lies are told. These Globalist cocksuckers cannot stop telling these
lies so instead they need to be removed by ballot, laws, and if need be FORCE!
The rudeness and desperation of the 1% is astonishing, but their boldness is like that of
the Pedophile Catholic Church! They get up on stage and do their empty virtue signalling and
then rape their communities cynically and with methodical efficiency, yes they are the 1% and
they do not care, yes they are the 1% and there is now no laws to confront them. There is
only the ballot. They intend to run to New Zealand as they know their days are numbered, they
skip the hearings like Google when called to account by Congress, and still you turn on the
media and see:
I'm sure Madeline has brokered some deal to service some 1% benefactor somewhere. But
again the rudeness, they come into your home under the guise of sports, under the guise of a
legitimate news source, and then they spread their LIES and distortions.
Watch Brexit and Google pissing in the face of Congress.. they do not respect the ballot
though they clamor about democracy, they but care about the 1% like the Pedophile Catholic
Church and do not care about your laws, they want to abolish Ice, they want to disarm you so
that they can more efficiently abuse you. That is your globalists not some loser on a Nike
ad, who has less of a career than say Tim Tebow (who could run) but wasn't the apologist and
hate America first Cunt stooge of the globalists. Watch Brexit and Google as they piss in the
face of democracy and remember.
This brief comment became the biggest headline news to come out of the third debate, as
many saw it as Mr Trump threatening to shatter a 240-year-old electoral tradition, one of the
cornerstones of US democracy: the losing candidate must always concede defeat, regardless of
the result.
Presidential rival Hillary Clinton called his stance "horrifying", saying it "was not
the way our democracy works".
Barack Obama labelled Trump's comments as "dangerous", and damaging to
democracy.
You see how that works? The left is like the Pedophile Catholic Church all worked up about
the plastic in the ocean, one set of laws and democracy for you, and another for them..
The lies, the globalist lies.. vote for your freedom.. What does the NFL and the Pedophile
Catholic Church have in common? NEITHER PAYS TAXES! Them globalists them silly globalists:
love three things above all others: profits for the 1%, paying no taxes, and they love them
some open borders and immigrant cheap labor.
The real PIZZA GATE my friends is the Globalists. The 1% with their laws, unaccountable to
ours which they twist against us.
I'm watching Bob Woodward being pimped by the Globalists media this morning, and I have to
think that in this guy's lifetime the largest scandal in the Church, the global abuse and
coverup, never warranted an op-ed. Need I say more? When you look at the fabled globalist Bob
Woodward, remember that he missed the abuse, the cover-up, the complete and orchestrated
abuse of power globally, he missed that story!
It took the state of Pennsylvania and a Grand Jury to tell that story that the globalist
and Bob Woodward would not, instead he peddled rumors, similar to Stormy trotted out for a
dollar bill on the trailer park runway.
notfeelinthebern ,
Been nothing but a coup since before day one even.
iinthesky ,
Started right after the Trump stepped off the escalator
Jim in MN ,
If the globalist elite neolibcon blackmail files ever see the light of day a lot of folks
are going to swing from nooses...where have I heard that phrase before....
This is still our last peaceful chance for change.
iinthesky ,
I think most historically competent folks quickly come to the conclusion that ''Kompramat"
as the Russians call it is without a doubt how the government governs itself.. hence an
'outsider' is rarely ever seen and never allowed to govern
Regarding that mysterious New York Times op-ed: I don't claim to know the truth of the
matter, but I'm mildly surprised that so few people are thinking out of the box-- or should I
say "outside the frame"?-- in which this curious op-ed was presented.
These days, I shouldn't be surprised that any old sensational "bombshell" is taken at face
value, especially by extreme anti-Trumpers.
The largely unexamined assumption that the mysterious op-ed is legitimate has triggered a
rush of whodunit fantasising; it's reminiscent of a pack of racing dogs chasing after the
mechanical bunny used on the racetrack to give the critters a reason to run. (Or the endless,
churning amateur espionage screenplay-writers' discussions of the Skripal diversion.)
I don't want to get pulped in the stampede, so I've held off expressing the obvious
thought that this agitprop gem could've easily been fabricated right in the NYT newsroom.
Why not? Never mind the conventional pious blather asserting that the prestigious
Newspaper of Record would never stoop to such chicanery.
Actually, I realize that this is a little too cut-and-dried; it's probable that the
NYT poobahs would be more inclined to "let it happen" rather than "make it happen"-- they
need a measure of deniability.
OTOH, the NYT is a major Big Lie fulfillment center. It essentially demands that the
public trust its explanation of the circumstances under which the op-ed was published; once
the "bombshell" is detonated, and the whodunit controversy is off and running, only rigorous
skeptics (ahem) would even think to question whether the NYT itself launched this IED of
self-sealing infoganda.
This possibility is too mind-blowing for Normals, of course. But why assume that the NYT's
carefully-staged and veiled assertions about the op-ed's origins are credible? It certainly
pushes all of the right "Resistance" buttons; whether it's perceived as a righteous
"whistleblower" attempting to Save Us from the ongoing horror of a Trump presidency, or a
treacherous stab in the back from some insider, it doesn't reflect well on Trump.
If one accepts these sources as credible and reliable, one must perforce conclude that
Trump is either seriously deranged, or is so hamstrung by his own megalomania and narcissism
that he's intolerably incompetent and out of control. He is simply too mad, or bad, or both,
to be allowed to remain on the Oval Office Throne.
I just saw a column by a progressive-liberal columnist, Will Bunch, at philly.com with the
headline " President Trump is not well. Congress must curb his power to start a nuclear
war. ". It almost sounds sympathetic, but the message is that both the mysterious op-ed
and Woodward's book conclusively "prove" that Trump is either ethically or mentally unfit to
hold office, or both.
Hmmm... these days, no matter where one looks, it's all about the "bombshells"!
Pepe Escobar has a wonderful new article today in which he discusses the Resistance
warrior in the NYT op-ed, as well as the Resistance hit piece from Bob Woodward, and reprises
Nixon and Kissinger from the old days of the "golden age of journalism", as Seymour Hersch
calls it in his latest memoir, Reporter , and as Escobar details.
The spookiness of the age we live in today couldn't be more resonant with the spookiness
exposed back in the golden age. It's all one piece. The only questions are, which is the side
to be on? And how are we supposed to leak these secrets anyhow? It's a gripping thriller of
an article from Pepe:
I said something similar to your quote from the link a couple of days ago. Its part of the
show
Frankly the whole Trump show is psyops theater. While the show is going on in public, in
the the wrecking crew in the shadows is working to dismantle every aspect of government that
works for the benefit of the population, whats left of it anyways.
I remember the Watergate hearings. They dared to interrupt soap operas which allowed me to
grab the TV from my mother some summer afternoons and I found it more entertaining than the
50's shows in UHF stations. Pure entertainment. Maybe we see something similar soon to liven
up the show
Of course this time they might give us a civil war to have an excuse to declare martial
law.
Cant really predict these things though . Stay tuned.
Pft @57: Frankly the whole Trump show is psyops theater.
Yup.
Pepe reinforces the narrative that Trump is a nationalist who peace initiatives are
thwarted by the nasty deep state. But Trump proved his love for the establishment in the
years before he ran for President and no real populist can be elected in USA.
Dead men tell no tales, especially about their role in trying to set up and take down U.S. President Donald Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... DNC lawyers wrote in court filings Friday that Joseph Mifsud, who spoke to Papadopoulos during the 2016 presidential election, "is missing and may be deceased," Bloomberg News reported. The lawyers did not elaborate. ..."
"... "The DNC's counsel has attempted to serve Mifsud for months and has been unable to locate or contact him. In addition, public reports have said he has disappeared and hasn't been seen for months," DNC spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said. ..."
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Friday raised the prospect that the London-based professor who told former Trump campaign
adviser George Papadopoulos that Russia had "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton may be dead.
DNC lawyers wrote in court filings Friday that Joseph Mifsud, who spoke to Papadopoulos during the 2016 presidential election,
"is missing and may be deceased,"
Bloomberg News reported. The lawyers did not elaborate.
The DNC stood by its claim in a statement to The Hill on Friday. The committee indicated that an investigator had been used to
find Mifsud, who has been missing for months, and was told the Maltese professor may be dead.
"The DNC's counsel has attempted to serve Mifsud for months and has been unable to locate or contact him. In addition, public
reports have said he has disappeared and hasn't been seen for months," DNC spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said.
Mifsud was reportedly teaching at a private university in Rome before he
vanished late
last year , shortly after his name emerged as a key figure in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The professor had reportedly not been in contact with prosecutors in Italy seeking to question him over allegations of financial
wrongdoing and his fiancée
told Business Insider
earlier this year that she could not reach him.
The DNC's revelation came in court filings Friday in their lawsuit against Russia, the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks for interfering
in the 2016 presidential election. According to Bloomberg, the DNC said it believed all of the defendants in the case had been served,
with the exception of Mifsud.
"... These new questions about Mifsud come as Trump draws attention to reports that the FBI used another individual as a confidential informant in connection with the Russia case. The informant met several campaign officials, including Papadopoulos, during the 2016 race. ..."
"... A Tablet investigatio n using public sources to trace the evolution of the now-famous dossier suggests that central elements of the Russiagate scandal emerged not from the British ex-spy Christopher Steele's top-secret "sources" in the Russian government -- which are unlikely to exist separate from Russian government control -- but from a series of stories that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby co-wrote for TheWall Street Journal well before Fusion GPS existed, and Donald Trump was simply another loud-mouthed Manhattan real estate millionaire. Understanding the origins of the "Steele dossier" is especially important because of what it tells us about the nature and the workings of what its supporters would hopefully describe as an ongoing campaign to remove the elected president of the United States. ..."
"... 1) Mills and Samuelson should have been compelled to produce the computers by grand-jury subpoena with no immunity agreement; ..."
You know, I have been selling the DNC short. They're crazier than I ever imagined they could be. And what happens if the guy shows
up? They'll have to grease his doorknobs with some Novichok juice I guess.
But just in case he is MIA, they need to check and see what The Clinton Creature's been up to. Generally she's the common thread
between a political scandal and a dead body, right?
DNC: Papadopoulos's UK contact may be dead
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Friday raised the prospect that the London-based professor who told former Trump
campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton may be dead.
DNC lawyers wrote in court filings Friday that Joseph Mifsud, who spoke to Papadopoulos during the 2016 presidential election,
"is missing and may be deceased," Bloomberg News reported. The lawyers did not elaborate.
The DNC stood by its claim in a statement to The Hill on Friday. The committee indicated that an investigator had been used
to find Mifsud, who had disappeared for months, and was told the Maltese professor may be dead.
"The DNC's counsel has attempted to serve Mifsud for months and has been unable to locate or contact him. In addition, public
reports have said he has disappeared and hasn't been seen for months," DNC spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said.
The possibilities for really bad drama and/or high camp comedy here are endless. How's Booby going to pin this on some poor low
hanging fruit?
I hope there are future episodes coming because I want to see what happens if he shows up. Or even better yet, if he IS defunct.
Which will open the door to how did they know ?
UPDATE :
Professor Joe Mifsud: a 'ghost' on the run from the Americans, Russians and Italians
Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud, who has gained international notoriety for allegedly being the person who connected the Trump
campaign to the Russians looking to derail Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, is not only on the run from the Americans,
Russians and the press, but also from the Italian judicial authorities, who have been unable to track down the wayward academic.
This week, in fact, Mifsud was a no-show in the courts of Palermo, where he was to answer to charges, along with two others,
of having unjustifiably inflated salaries at a university consortium in Agrigento, Sicily, which he presided almost a decade ago.
At a hearing in Palermo, Italy, Joseph Mifsud was described as "a ghost" after neither he nor his lawyers turned up in court
on Wednesday.
Sicilian prosecutors described Mifsud as a "peculiar subject" and said that all attempts to reach and notify the professor
about the hearing had proved futile.
*
The Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, in their report on Russia's attempted interference in the election released
in April, described Mifsud as being "Kremlin-linked".
However, Mifsud also had Western ties at academic institutions like the Link Campus University in Rome, the University of Stirling
in Scotland, the London Academy of Diplomacy and the London Centre for International Law Practice.
*
These new questions about Mifsud come as Trump draws attention to reports that the FBI used another individual as a confidential
informant in connection with the Russia case. The informant met several campaign officials, including Papadopoulos, during the
2016 race.
This puts some meat on the bones of gulfgal's essay interpreting the meaning of some very interesting video from McStain's
funeral. The wheels of the DNC bus seem to just about ready to fall off.
George Webb has also been all over the Ohrs over the past few days. The thousands of sealed warrants rumored to be waiting
for a mass extinction event may be more than just wishful thinking.
Through this process, what few recognize is that much of the material inside the Steele Dossier is actually research intelligence
material unlawfully extracted from the FBI and NSA database; most likely in majority an assembly by Nellie Ohr.
Nellie et al. ran unauthorized searches through the security databases and gave the results to foreign agent Steele to pretend
it was his own research.
How many serious crimes in just that one sentence?
This puts some meat on the bones of gulfgal's essay interpreting the meaning of some very interesting video from McStain's
funeral. The wheels of the DNC bus seem to just about ready to fall off.
George Webb has also been all over the Ohrs over the past few days. The thousands of sealed warrants rumored to be waiting
for a mass extinction event may be more than just wishful thinking.
@dervish
What is the significance of the license? I read the post, and all the comments on the first page. There's a really long comment
by "CET" that rambles on about it, but I'm not thinking too clearly today. What is the significance?
#1
What is the significance of the license? I read the post, and all the comments on the first page. There's a really long comment
by "CET" that rambles on about it, but I'm not thinking too clearly today. What is the significance?
in the scenario, but, am I the only one who did not know that the FBI has an office in Rome?
On a related note, isn't it past time for the FBI, the CIA and Homeland Security to merge? Not only is all the duplication
among them costly, but the artificial divisions and rivalries among them are dangerous.
in the scenario, but, am I the only one who did not know that the FBI has an office in Rome?
On a related note, isn't it past time for the FBI, the CIA and Homeland Security to merge? Not only is all the duplication
among them costly, but the artificial divisions and rivalries among them are dangerous.
span y Amanda Matthews on Sat, 09/08/2018 - 8:01pm
Election Security
Elections play a vital role in a free and fair society and are a cornerstone of American democracy. We recognize the fundamental
link between the trust in election infrastructure and the confidence the American public places in basic democratic function.
A secure and resilient electoral process is a vital national interest and one of our highest priorities at the Department of
Homeland Security.
We are committed to working collaboratively with those on the front lines of elections – state and local government, election
officials, federal partners and the vendor community – to manage risks to election infrastructure. We will remain transparent
as well as agile to combat and secure our physical and cyber infrastructure against new and evolving threats.
The Department of Duct Tape and Plastic running our elections is very unsettling to me.
As the Homeland Security Department called on Americans to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal windows and doors
in the event of a terrorist attack, critics on Wednesday said such precautions would have limited value and likened them to
ineffective civil defense measures of the Cold War era.
...is filled with lies, fabrications, and FBI-type revisions. Those lies attempt to pull the DNC emails into Russia's hands.
There are many other points of direct misinformation, as well, that attempt to build a case for Mueller that simply is not there
in reality. Important events have been scrubbed.
But, there's something missing in all this reportage I should chase down. Remember when an Austrailian official contacted the
FBI to blow the whistle on Papadopoulos after a drunken cocktail hour they shared in London? That now has been scrubbed from history.
It came from lies spewed from the NYT, when people were finally catching on to the FISA warrants, to cover for the wiretapping
that was already going on. That's the only time dirt on Hillary has ever been tied to Papadopoulos. The only "witness." Now, it's
like it never happened.
Thanks for posting, Amanda.
span y Pluto's Republic on Sat, 09/08/2018 - 12:14pm
Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud, who has gained international notoriety for allegedly being the person who connected the
Trump campaign to the Russians looking to derail Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign... .
There is nothing out there that has ever suggested a motive like "derailing Hillary." The idea is absurd on the face of it.
This is new disinformation.
If you read the real timeline, you'll see that Papadopoulos was obsessed with getting a meeting together between Russia and
Trump for the purpose of peaceful relations in the future. And, cui bono? , also to make his first big score on the geopolitical
stage.
Nobody cared about Hillary.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Mifsud was a US asset. The girl he introduced Papadopoulos to was an obvious set-up -- but
almost too low-level to be bothered with. This whole charade is not about Russia. It's about entrapment.
@Pluto's
Republic
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Mifsud was a US asset. Or Dem/Steele hireling.
Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud, who has gained international notoriety for allegedly being the person who connected
the Trump campaign to the Russians looking to derail Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign... .
There is nothing out there that has ever suggested a motive like "derailing Hillary." The idea is absurd on the face of
it. This is new disinformation.
If you read the real timeline, you'll see that Papadopoulos was obsessed with getting a meeting together between Russia
and Trump for the purpose of peaceful relations in the future. And, cui bono? , also to make his first big score on
the geopolitical stage.
Nobody cared about Hillary.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Mifsud was a US asset. The girl he introduced Papadopoulos to was an obvious set-up --
but almost too low-level to be bothered with. This whole charade is not about Russia. It's about entrapment.
Which would make Nellie Ohr much more than just an invited panelist at a CIA Open Source symposium along with Simpson some
years ago. There are reported to be about 20 people legally authorized to do unmaskings, most are at NSA, and it is unlikely Nellie
Ohr is one of them.
I therefore doubt Nellie was the one doing the extracting, which has been elsewhere referenced as "unmasking" of raw NSA intercepts.
In that case, the unmasking was likely carried out by someone at the NSC. Rice or Power, maybe?
Thus, could it be that the Steele Dossier was really just a cover for the dissemination from the White House basement of classified
materials unmasked by the same people at the NSC who then acted unlawfully to make them public to help the Clinton campaign/DNC
sink the opposition?
Yes, that would violate a whole bunch of laws -- keep in mind, two FISA warrant applications were denied, the first in June
2016 after which the Steele Memo was commissioned until one was finally granted for coverage of Page in October. So, something
had to be put together earlier to evade the warrant requirements.
Indeed, this turns Russiagate completely on its head.
There may have been a criminal conspiracy, but it was by the alleged victims of the Russian plot. No wonder the pillars of
Russiagate all seem to morph into something else under close scrutiny, and the alleged Russian agents -- Page and Papadoloulos,
along with their first-level handler, Milfsud -- turn out to be FBI or MI-6 plants.
Which would make Nellie Ohr much more than just an invited panelist at a CIA Open Source symposium along with Simpson some
years ago. There are reported to be about 20 people legally authorized to do unmaskings, most are at NSA, and it is unlikely
Nellie Ohr is one of them.
I therefore doubt Nellie was the one doing the extracting, which has been elsewhere referenced as "unmasking" of raw NSA
intercepts. In that case, the unmasking was likely carried out by someone at the NSC. Rice or Power, maybe?
Thus, could it be that the Steele Dossier was really just a cover for the dissemination from the White House basement of
classified materials unmasked by the same people at the NSC who then acted unlawfully to make them public to help the Clinton
campaign/DNC sink the opposition?
Yes, that would violate a whole bunch of laws -- keep in mind, two FISA warrant applications were denied, the first in June
2016 after which the Steele Memo was commissioned until one was finally granted for coverage of Page in October. So, something
had to be put together earlier to evade the warrant requirements.
Indeed, this turns Russiagate completely on its head.
There may have been a criminal conspiracy, but it was by the alleged victims of the Russian plot. No wonder the pillars
of Russiagate all seem to morph into something else under close scrutiny, and the alleged Russian agents -- Page and Papadoloulos,
along with their first-level handler, Milfsud -- turn out to be FBI or MI-6 plants.
@leveymg
I'm no security clearance expert, but unless the whole system had a protocol and clearance overhaul, it's probable, imo, that
Nellie could have had access.
Hell, Manning still had access to, and the ability to download, 10s of thousands (might have been 100s of thousands -- it's
been too long ago for me to recall the exact number) of classified documents and audios/videos after assaulting a superior and
being moved to the mail room. If you can try to beat up your superior, get arrested by MPs, get basically demoted to the mail
room, and still have your clearance, something is wrong. I know we're talking military -vs- IC, but it's all still government
and all still classified information. Seems to me, the only ones without access are us.
Which would make Nellie Ohr much more than just an invited panelist at a CIA Open Source symposium along with Simpson some
years ago. There are reported to be about 20 people legally authorized to do unmaskings, most are at NSA, and it is unlikely
Nellie Ohr is one of them.
I therefore doubt Nellie was the one doing the extracting, which has been elsewhere referenced as "unmasking" of raw NSA
intercepts. In that case, the unmasking was likely carried out by someone at the NSC. Rice or Power, maybe?
Thus, could it be that the Steele Dossier was really just a cover for the dissemination from the White House basement of
classified materials unmasked by the same people at the NSC who then acted unlawfully to make them public to help the Clinton
campaign/DNC sink the opposition?
Yes, that would violate a whole bunch of laws -- keep in mind, two FISA warrant applications were denied, the first in June
2016 after which the Steele Memo was commissioned until one was finally granted for coverage of Page in October. So, something
had to be put together earlier to evade the warrant requirements.
Indeed, this turns Russiagate completely on its head.
There may have been a criminal conspiracy, but it was by the alleged victims of the Russian plot. No wonder the pillars
of Russiagate all seem to morph into something else under close scrutiny, and the alleged Russian agents -- Page and Papadoloulos,
along with their first-level handler, Milfsud -- turn out to be FBI or MI-6 plants.
span y Amanda Matthews on Sat, 09/08/2018 - 8:12pm
Ignore the 'reasons' in the article. It's pure BS.
Which would make Nellie Ohr much more than just an invited panelist at a CIA Open Source symposium along with Simpson some
years ago. There are reported to be about 20 people legally authorized to do unmaskings, most are at NSA, and it is unlikely
Nellie Ohr is one of them.
I therefore doubt Nellie was the one doing the extracting, which has been elsewhere referenced as "unmasking" of raw NSA
intercepts. In that case, the unmasking was likely carried out by someone at the NSC. Rice or Power, maybe?
Thus, could it be that the Steele Dossier was really just a cover for the dissemination from the White House basement of
classified materials unmasked by the same people at the NSC who then acted unlawfully to make them public to help the Clinton
campaign/DNC sink the opposition?
Yes, that would violate a whole bunch of laws -- keep in mind, two FISA warrant applications were denied, the first in June
2016 after which the Steele Memo was commissioned until one was finally granted for coverage of Page in October. So, something
had to be put together earlier to evade the warrant requirements.
Indeed, this turns Russiagate completely on its head.
There may have been a criminal conspiracy, but it was by the alleged victims of the Russian plot. No wonder the pillars
of Russiagate all seem to morph into something else under close scrutiny, and the alleged Russian agents -- Page and Papadoloulos,
along with their first-level handler, Milfsud -- turn out to be FBI or MI-6 plants.
Washington (CNN)Former national security adviser Susan Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities
of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year, multiple
sources told CNN.
The New York meeting preceded a separate effort by the UAE to facilitate a back-channel communication between Russia and
the incoming Trump White House.
According to numerous reports, "[f]ormer United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power is believed to have made 'hundreds' of
unmasking requests to identify individuals named in classified intelligence community reports related to Trump and his presidential
transition team."
Think about that: Hundreds of unmasking requests by Obama's U.N. Representative. And "[o]f those [hundreds of] requests,
only one offered a justification that was not boilerplate."
Now new reports have revealed the unprecedented number of unmasking requests made by former Ambassador Power: "[She] was
"unmasking" at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for
every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump's inauguration . . . ."
At the ACLJ, we have been consistently fighting the Obama-era deep state's usurpation, unmasking, and criminal violations
of the Espionage Act. Now we're fighting to get to the bottom of yet another frightening Obama Administration scandal.
I remember reading this article when it came out. It has some good links in it.
Mary Jacoby, the wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, who is the man in the middle of the entire Russiagate scandal,
boasted on Facebook about how 'Russiagate,' would not exist if it weren't for her husband.
A Tablet
investigatio n using public sources to trace the evolution of the now-famous dossier suggests that central elements
of the Russiagate scandal emerged not from the British ex-spy Christopher Steele's top-secret "sources" in the Russian government
-- which are unlikely to exist separate from Russian government control -- but from a series of stories that Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby co-wrote for TheWall Street Journal well before Fusion GPS existed, and
Donald Trump was simply another loud-mouthed Manhattan real estate millionaire. Understanding the origins of the "Steele
dossier" is especially important because of what it tells us about the nature and the workings of what its supporters would
hopefully describe as an ongoing campaign to remove the elected president of the United States.
From the Tablet article:
A Tablet investigation using public sources to trace the evolution of the now-famous dossier suggests that central elements
of the Russiagate scandal emerged not from the British ex-spy Christopher Steele's top-secret "sources" in the Russian governmen
t -- which are unlikely to exist separate from Russian government control -- but from a series of stories that Fusion GPS co-founder
Glenn Simpson and his wife Mary Jacoby co-wrote for The Wall Street Journal well before Fusion GPS existed, and Donald Trump
was simply another loud-mouthed Manhattan real estate millionaire
I think this needs more attention paid to it. I'll see what I can do. All 4 articles are worth a read. All of this information
was known over a year ago, but we have been lied to so much it's hard to keep track of everything.
Or like you said, Rice or Powers. I have the article bookmarked somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it up.
Which would make Nellie Ohr much more than just an invited panelist at a CIA Open Source symposium along with Simpson some
years ago. There are reported to be about 20 people legally authorized to do unmaskings, most are at NSA, and it is unlikely
Nellie Ohr is one of them.
I therefore doubt Nellie was the one doing the extracting, which has been elsewhere referenced as "unmasking" of raw NSA
intercepts. In that case, the unmasking was likely carried out by someone at the NSC. Rice or Power, maybe?
Thus, could it be that the Steele Dossier was really just a cover for the dissemination from the White House basement of
classified materials unmasked by the same people at the NSC who then acted unlawfully to make them public to help the Clinton
campaign/DNC sink the opposition?
Yes, that would violate a whole bunch of laws -- keep in mind, two FISA warrant applications were denied, the first in June
2016 after which the Steele Memo was commissioned until one was finally granted for coverage of Page in October. So, something
had to be put together earlier to evade the warrant requirements.
Indeed, this turns Russiagate completely on its head.
There may have been a criminal conspiracy, but it was by the alleged victims of the Russian plot. No wonder the pillars
of Russiagate all seem to morph into something else under close scrutiny, and the alleged Russian agents -- Page and Papadoloulos,
along with their first-level handler, Milfsud -- turn out to be FBI or MI-6 plants.
What the post above suggests is "unmasking", which is the individualized review of NSA raw "take" (content) of targeted intercepts
in order to identify specific US persons involved in conversations with foreign surveillance targets. That's done relatively infrequently,
and requires a very high-level security clearance for access.
The stored metadata reportedly destroyed by NSA was obtained under the Stellar Wind program, which is an umbrella program,
with various NSA components.
The metadata take (dotted line segments), which the Times references, would be that collected and stored under the Marina or
one of the other large scale NSA Internet Section 215 "trolling net" metadata collection programs (see the illustration below):
@leveymg
my point is that while scrubbing this data, they may be also scrubbing any other evidence of wrong-doing on their part.
Who knows what they've been up to, or what their level of culpability might be?
What the post above suggests is "unmasking", which is the individualized review of NSA raw "take" (content) of targeted
intercepts in order to identify specific US persons involved in conversations with foreign surveillance targets. That's done
relatively infrequently, and requires a very high-level security clearance for access.
The stored metadata reportedly destroyed by NSA was obtained under the Stellar Wind program, which is an umbrella program,
with various NSA components.
The metadata take (dotted line segments), which the Times references, would be that collected and stored under the Marina
or one of the other large scale NSA Internet Section 215 "trolling net" metadata collection programs (see the illustration
below):
that a lot of the information on Trump was received from the British government because they didn't have to get a warrant to
spy on people in Trump's campaign. Which proves that the warrants were gotten illegally. People should go to prison over the things
they did, but will they? There is a grand jury investigation into McCabe's lying so there's that.
but not really. Basically a record of what was done to create Russia Gate.
The Dirty Trickery of Hillary's Campaign is Proving to be of Mind-Boggling Magnitude , Wasserman Schultz ( Hillary's campaign
manager in 2008) had been installed as DNC head in 2009 because Hillary had secured the resignation of the previous chairman,
Tim Kaine, by promising that he would be her running mate in 2016; needless to say, if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren had been
the VP choice, rather than the nebbish Kaine, Hillary would have won in a walk. So Hillary's egomaniacal drive for power came
back to bite her in the ass
....
Throughout the campaign, Hillary faced grave legal problems because, during her tenure as Secretary of State, she had traded
access -- and perhaps favorable decisions -- for donations to the Clinton Foundation and large speaking fees for Bill.
Her private server was a scam intended to evade FOIA requirements for government transparency, likely because she didn't want
any "smoking guns" to emerge documenting quid-pro-quos linking donations with favorable actions. The fact that this scheme
inherently entailed exposing US secrets -- including the identify of US intelligence assets overseas -- to hacking by foreign
governments, was of no concern to Hillary. When this effort to evade FOIA was confronted with a subpoena, 33 thousand subpoenaed
emails were bleach-bitted out of existence -- while Hillary partisans continued to smugly insist that there was no proof
of quid-pro-quo.
....
Comey did not have the integrity to resign in protest of executive corruption; instead, he cravenly chose to "go with the flow".
And since Comey had no reason to suspect that Hillary had functioned as a spy, it is hardly surprising that he drafted her
exoneration letter months in advance of key FBI interviews. With respect to pay-for-play, the DOJ simply made it impossible
for the FBI field offices looking into this to make any progress, denying them use even of the Hillary emails then in the FBI's
possession. Furthermore, the fact that this investigation was in progress was kept secret from the public. Offers of immunity
were handed out like candy, but there were zero indictments. Owing to this intentional obstruction, Hillary skated throughout
the campaign; if indictments had been forthcoming, Bernie would likely have been the nominee, and Trump would not now be President.
This information has been known for over a year and we are only now finding out about some of this information now..
Hillary's buttocks should be sitting inside a prison by now, but because of the criminal acts by Obama's justice department
she is still walking free. But if Trump actually does want to "lock her up" he has the authority to declassify lots of the documents
that have been covered up. That Loretta Lynch threatened the NY FBI office to not release the information about the emails that
belong to Hillary on Weiner's laptop is just one more criminal act by the justice department. The unmasking of hundreds of people
by Powers was a huge crime according to the legal system.
When the history of Obama's presidency is written he will be 'unmasked' to have been one of the most corrupt presidents in
history. We already know that he is a war criminal, but what else will be discovered if an investigation into his presidency is
ever done?
The people in charge of The Hague missed a golden opportunity to arrest countless war criminals who attended McCain's funeral.
. . . if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren had been the VP choice, rather than the nebbish Kaine, Hillary would have won in a walk.
Bwahahahaa! Nope!
Kain had kneepads surgically implanted for his visits to Wall Street. Nebbish is a nice worfd for him. Skankface would have
had to swallow vomit to take Bernie onto Her ticket; though Bernie proved later that he was cool with her policies and even voted
to move the embassy. Goofy ass Warren is as flaky as a box of cereal, and is as gymnastic as Her, almost.
Blech!
Her should be held accountable.
but not really. Basically a record of what was done to create Russia Gate.
The Dirty Trickery of Hillary's Campaign is Proving to be of Mind-Boggling Magnitude , Wasserman Schultz ( Hillary's
campaign manager in 2008) had been installed as DNC head in 2009 because Hillary had secured the resignation of the previous
chairman, Tim Kaine, by promising that he would be her running mate in 2016; needless to say, if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren
had been the VP choice, rather than the nebbish Kaine, Hillary would have won in a walk. So Hillary's egomaniacal drive
for power came back to bite her in the ass
....
Throughout the campaign, Hillary faced grave legal problems because, during her tenure as Secretary of State, she had traded
access -- and perhaps favorable decisions -- for donations to the Clinton Foundation and large speaking fees for Bill.
Her private server was a scam intended to evade FOIA requirements for government transparency, likely because she didn't
want any "smoking guns" to emerge documenting quid-pro-quos linking donations with favorable actions. The fact that this
scheme inherently entailed exposing US secrets -- including the identify of US intelligence assets overseas -- to hacking
by foreign governments, was of no concern to Hillary. When this effort to evade FOIA was confronted with a subpoena, 33
thousand subpoenaed emails were bleach-bitted out of existence -- while Hillary partisans continued to smugly insist that
there was no proof of quid-pro-quo.
....
Comey did not have the integrity to resign in protest of executive corruption; instead, he cravenly chose to "go with the
flow". And since Comey had no reason to suspect that Hillary had functioned as a spy, it is hardly surprising that he drafted
her exoneration letter months in advance of key FBI interviews. With respect to pay-for-play, the DOJ simply made it impossible
for the FBI field offices looking into this to make any progress, denying them use even of the Hillary emails then in the
FBI's possession. Furthermore, the fact that this investigation was in progress was kept secret from the public. Offers
of immunity were handed out like candy, but there were zero indictments. Owing to this intentional obstruction, Hillary
skated throughout the campaign; if indictments had been forthcoming, Bernie would likely have been the nominee, and Trump
would not now be President.
This information has been known for over a year and we are only now finding out about some of this information now..
Hillary's buttocks should be sitting inside a prison by now, but because of the criminal acts by Obama's justice department
she is still walking free. But if Trump actually does want to "lock her up" he has the authority to declassify lots of the
documents that have been covered up. That Loretta Lynch threatened the NY FBI office to not release the information about the
emails that belong to Hillary on Weiner's laptop is just one more criminal act by the justice department. The unmasking of
hundreds of people by Powers was a huge crime according to the legal system.
When the history of Obama's presidency is written he will be 'unmasked' to have been one of the most corrupt presidents
in history. We already know that he is a war criminal, but what else will be discovered if an investigation into his presidency
is ever done?
The people in charge of The Hague missed a golden opportunity to arrest countless war criminals who attended McCain's funeral.
How many people even knew about him before she picked him? He is so bland and had as much centrist leanings as she did. Or
was he picked because of his blandness? He wouldn't outshine the Queen. Isn't he strongly pro life too? One of his first acts
after not becoming VP was to write the new AUMF that would give presidents the right to wage unlimited war without any oversight
from congress. No sunset on wars, not that there are now, but still. Gawd. We dodged a bullet with her loss, but not much has
changed.
BTW. Just saw a tweet that had a poll on who people would vote for today. Jill Stein got over 60%.
. . . if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren had been the VP choice, rather than the nebbish Kaine, Hillary would have won in
a walk.
Bwahahahaa! Nope!
Kain had kneepads surgically implanted for his visits to Wall Street. Nebbish is a nice worfd for him. Skankface would have
had to swallow vomit to take Bernie onto Her ticket; though Bernie proved later that he was cool with her policies and even
voted to move the embassy. Goofy ass Warren is as flaky as a box of cereal, and is as gymnastic as Her, almost.
Was it EDNY who had Weiner's laptop filled with over 700,000 of Hillary's emails that Loretta threatened not to release them?
I've been saying that it was the NY FBI who had them, but I might be wrong. TMI to keep track of so much information. Lynch should
have had nothing to do with any of the investigations into Hillary's shenanigans after her meeting with Bill on her plane during
Tarmac Gate. And because of her history with the Clintons. Maybe it doesn't matter since DC is so incestous because of the revolving
doors between so many government positions.
Readers are unlikely to know that the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn is not just any United States attorney's
office. It is the office that was headed by Attorney General Loretta Lynch until President Obama elevated her to attorney general
less than two years ago.
It was in the EDNY that Ms. Lynch first came to national prominence in 1999, when she was appointed U.S. attorney by President
Bill Clinton -- the husband of the main subject of the FBI's investigations with whom Lynch furtively met in the back of a
plane parked on an Arizona tarmac days before the announcement that Mrs. Clinton would not be indicted. Obama reappointed Lynch
as the EDNY's U.S. attorney in 2010. She was thus in charge of staffing that office for nearly six years before coming to Main
Justice in Washington. That means the EDNY is full of attorneys Lynch hired and supervised.
When we learn that Clinton Foundation investigators are being denied access to patently relevant evidence by federal prosecutors
in Brooklyn, those are the prosecutors -- Loretta Lynch's prosecutors -- we are talking about.
Recall, moreover, that it was Lynch's Justice Department that:
‐refused to authorize use of the grand jury to further the Clinton e-mails investigation, thus depriving the FBI of the
power to compel testimony and the production of evidence by subpoena;
‐consulted closely with defense attorneys representing subjects of the investigation;
‐permitted Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson -- the subordinates deputized by Mrs. Clinton to sort through her e-mails
and destroy thousands of them -- to represent Clinton as attorneys, despite the fact that they were subjects of the same investigation
and had been granted immunity from prosecution (to say nothing of the ethical and legal prohibitions against such an arrangement);
‐drastically restricted the FBI's questioning of Mills and other subjects of the investigation; and
‐struck the outrageous deals that gave Mills and Samuelson immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the FBI with
the laptops on which they reviewed Clinton's four years of e-mails. That arrangement was outrageous for three reasons:
1) Mills and Samuelson should have been compelled to produce the computers by grand-jury subpoena with no immunity
agreement;
2) Lynch's Justice Department drastically restricted the FBI's authority to examine the computers; and
3) Lynch's Justice Department agreed that the FBI would destroy the computers following its very limited examination
.
....
As I have detailed, it was already clear that Lynch's Justice Department was stunningly derelict in hamstringing the bureau's
e-mails investigation. But now that we know the FBI was simultaneously investigating the Clinton Foundation yet being denied
access to the Clinton e-mails, the dereliction appears unconscionable.
The biggest understatement ever:
Were it not for the Clinton Foundation, there probably would not be a Clinton e-mail scandal.
Professor Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School, who is a lawyer's lawyer accurately pointed
out that Mueller and his Democrat Lawyers are really acting illegally.
Mueller is a principal officer of the DoJ not a subordinate officer and according to the
Appointments Clause in the Constitution must be appointed by the President and confirmed by
the senate. He is neither. His activities are supposed to be supervised only by the AG
Sessions as a principal officer. AG Sessions has recused himself from the so called Russian
Collusion investigation only. Rosenstein is only a Deputy AG and was not appointed or
confirmed as the Acting AG so Mueller is also unsupervised. Mueller appointment and his
activities are constitutionally illegal.
No one has ever offered a smidgen of concrete evidence whatsoever that there was ever any
collusion of interference in the election by the Russians and certainly none by the Trump
Campaign.Former CIA head Brennan at the CIA has never offered under oath any proof of any
cyber attacks by the Russians. Obama and Brennan never even pursued the Chinese hacks that
were physically confirmed by server and IP addresses from China under Obama. The Democrats
claim that their DNC server was hacked by the Russians. This has never been confirmed as the
DNC refused to allow it to be taken and examined by the FBI or any other agency. The DNC also
had a lot to hide on it. After all, their foreign IT guy ran off to Pakistan with all the
server data on flash drives. Blackmail? The DNC servers were subpoenaed a year by the House
Judiciary Committee, Somehow they have all disappeared! Felony obstruction of justice.
So here we are a over a year and a half later and still not a single smidgen of proof of
any Russian interference. Not a single one of Mueller's American indictments have had
anything whatsoever to do with the fake Russian collusion claim or anything that occurred in
the campaign period or the transition to office.
This is an obvious attempt at a soft coup to effect the mid terms in favor of the
Democrats. And it is obvious to even a casual observer that Alan Dershowitz exposed
Ohr's account to Congress and his contemporaneous notes show he had
multiple contacts with Steele in July 2016. One occurred just before Steele visited the FBI in Rome, another right after
Steele made the contact.
A third contact occurred July 30, 2016, exactly one day before the FBI and its counterintelligence official, Peter Strzok,
opened the Trump probe officially.
Steele met with Ohr and Ohr's wife, Nellie, in a Washington hotel restaurant for breakfast. At the time, Nellie Ohr and
Steele worked for the same employer, Simpson's Fusion GPS opposition research firm, and on the same project to uncover Russia
dirt on Trump, according to prior testimony to Congress.
[ ] According to my sources, Ohr called then-FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe the same day as his Steele breakfast and
met with
McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page on Aug. 3 to discuss the concerns about Russia-Trump collusion that Steele had relayed.
Ohr disclosed to lawmakers that he made another contact with the FBI on Aug. 15, 2016, talking directly to Strzok.
Within a month of Ohr passing along Steele's dirt, the FBI scheduled a follow-up meeting with the British intelligence operative
-- and the path was laid for the Steele dossier to support a
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
Just as important, Ohr told Congress he understood Steele's information to be raw and uncorroborated hearsay, the sort of
information that isn't admissible in court. And he told FBI agents that Steele appeared to be motivated by a "desperate" desire
to keep Trump from becoming president. (
read more )
Oh snap . Now, Nellie and Glenn Simpson had a problem. They needed to have a way to launder unlawfully extracted FISA search results.
Nellie Ohr was familiar with Christopher Steele from her husband Bruce's prior working relationship with Steele in the FIFA corruption
case.
So Fusion GPS (Glenn Simpson and Nellie Ohr) reached out to Christopher Steele. As a former intelligence officer, and conveniently
not in the U.S. (plausible deniability improves), Steele could then receive the Nellie research, wash it with his own research
from ongoing relationships with Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska,
here comes the hookers and pee tapes . and begin packaging it as the "dossier".
When you understand what was going on, some of the irreconcilable issues surrounding the dossier make sense. [
Example Here ] This is the Big Effen Deal .
The unlawful FISA extracted intelligence/research was laundered through the use of the dossier. The information was then cycled
back to Bruce Ohr, thereby using Christopher Steele to remove Nellie's fingerprints from the origination. That's why Bruce Ohr
never initially told the FBI -the end user of the dossier- about his wife working for Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson.
Bruce Ohr meets with Christopher Steele, receives the laundered intelligence product within the dossier, informs Andrew McCabe
and Lisa Page and then passes the intelligence information along to FBI Agent Peter Strzok.
Does this explain now why Glenn Simpson, Chris Steele, Nellie Ohr and Bruce Ohr were
having breakfast together on July 30th, 2016? ::: Ding-Ding-Ding :::
Through this process, what few recognize is that much of the material inside the Steele Dossier is actually research intelligence
material unlawfully extracted from the FBI and NSA database; most likely in majority an assembly by Nellie Ohr.
This explains why
Paul Wood said : " I have spoken to one intelligence source who says Mueller is examining 'electronic records' that would
place Cohen in Prague." Likely Mueller has Nellie's database research mistake on Michael Cohen, and he got it from Christopher
Steele. ::: Ding-Ding-Ding :::
Remember the
New York Times article , right before the testimony by Bruce Ohr, where the intelligence community was trying to say that
Nellie Ohr had nothing to do with the Dossier? (screen grab below) Remember that ridiculous attempt to distance Nellie Ohr from
the dossier?
Now do you see why the intelligence community needed to try, via their buddies in the New York Times, to cloud the importance
of Nellie Ohr? ::: Ding-Ding-Ding :::
Kim Strassel -- [ ] Congressional sources tell me that Mr. Ohr revealed Tuesday that he verbally warned the FBI that its
source had a credibility problem Mr. Ohr said, moreover, that he delivered this information before the FBI's first application
to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a warrant against Trump aide Carter Page, in October 2016. (
link )
Of course Bruce Ohr delivered it before October 21st, 2016. He gained the foundational material from Chris Steele in June and
July 2016, passed it along to Peter Strzok, and his wife was a key in providing Steele the source information. ::: Ding-Ding-Ding
:::
This is also why Bruce Ohr never put his wife's income source on his annual compliance forms. Nellie Ohr's income was an outcome
of her database access.
"♦Here's how it comes together: Nellie Ohr started working for Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS) in/around October or November
of 2015. Nellie Ohr had "contractor access" to the FISA database (NSA and FBI) as a result of her prior and ongoing clearance
relationship with the CIA and open source research group."
If that has been mentioned anywhere previously, then I must have missed it. She was one of the contractors actually doing
it !!
Almost time to start taking bets, who and when will be the first to make a break and run, or off themselves. Once the known
knowledge against them reaches a certain level, they're not just going to sit there waiting for a knock on the door.
Sundance you connected the dots based on your theory Fusion GPS is a redacted contractor name on the FISC memo outlining FISA
abuse, an educated guess.
If your guess is right Judge Collyer knows Fusion GPS is one of the contractors. There's no way she didn't connect those same
dots from Fusion GPS illegal database access to the Carter Page warrant application. And she's done nothing about it.
Exactly SmilinJack:
Collyer commissioned and SIGNED the April 26 2017 FISC report on abuse.
Then 6 months later, she signs a 100 page report about abuse by the FBI and their "contractors" then approves a T-1 FISA application
on a Trump campaign employee DURING the campaign submitted by the FBI with "intel" from those same "contractors"????
Hell I can smell that stink from all the way here in the Midwest.
(And I'm upwind.)
1. Glenn Simpson has some genuine oppo research on Trump.
2. Simpson hires Nellie Ohr to use her NSA access to add to it.
3. When Adm. Rogers shuts contractor access down, Simpson and Ohr devise their scheme to launder through Steele.
4. Steele adds his own Russian disinformation into the mix and then passes it back to the FBI via Bruce Ohr.
This is what is known as "parallel construction". If intelligence uncovers an illegal scheme (say, a drug trafficker or a terrorist
plot) but law enforcement can't use what intel has uncovered in court, then LE uses the info to "uncover" admissible evidence.
So, perhaps an "anonymous caller" tips off the police abput something suspicious. Which leads to police making a traffic stop,
or surveillance of an address. Which finds enough evidence to get a warrant.
And PRESTO! The cops, by pure happenstance, stumble into the very plot the IC pointed them to!
Steele, Simpson, and Ohr likely fully expected the FBI would easily follow the trail of breadcrumbs in the dossier and uncover
some real Trump criminality.
Only they didn't. Simpson's speculation about Trump, and Nellie Ohr's sloppy research, didn't pan out.
And the trail of breadcrumbs led back to – them and the dirty FBI agents.
The story above also indicates that several of the participants genuinely believe Trump is indeed involved in dirty business with
the Russians. It infuriates them that they are unable to prove it.
Mind you, these folks have no problem at all with corruption, or treason for financial gain. They're corrupt traitors themselves
and they love them some Hillary Clinton. But they HATE HATE HATE Donald Trump and it kills them that they can't prove what they
wasn't so badly to be true.
So they attempted to frame him. Framing people is nothing new to these moral cripples, and framing a guilty person (especially
when it benefits themselves) is A-OK!
I think Joshua2415 hits on it down below: Glenn Simson had been chasing Paul Manafort for years. As investigative journalists
he and his wife had written stories about Manafort's nefarious and corrupt lobbying for the Wall Street Journal. So, when Trump
hires Manafort in March 2016 to be his convention manager( for his delegate wrangling skills, in case of a brokered convention)
Simpson assumes the worst: That Trump is involved in Manafort's dirty business. Pure projection, IMHO.
So, a bunch of information about Manafort is added to the oppo research, to tar Trump with guilt by association. Simpson gets
even MORE excited and convinced he's onto something big when he looks into Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, two "foreign policy
experts" with (perfectly legal) Russian connections, whose names Trump had dropped to the Washington Post editorial board the
week before hiring Manafort. (In retrospect, Trump was B.S.ing WaPo to defend against accusations he had no such advisors).
As Trump is wont to do, Manafort was released shortly after the convention; Page and Papadopolous' were never really players,
their biggest role in the campaign was serving as stage props to impress WaPo.
But, like the Tom Hanks comedy "The Man With One Red Shoe" (about an innocent man mistaken for a spy) Simpson and an ever-growing
parade of intelligence specialists and spooks dig deep into the background of these men, going so far as to attempt entrapment.
Meanwhile, Trump has long since moved on and no longer has anything to do with any of them.
And all the promising leads turn out to be dead ends. Leaving the FBI and IC holding the bag with egg on their face.
Good catch. Truth here wants to strain credulity as if fiction, but fiction it's not!
As an aside, I saw the film that was the basis for "The Man With One Red Shoe" decades ago. So much of Hanks' work is akin to
that derivative film. Prefer to not see too much credit go in Hanks direction.
[The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe (French: "Le Grand Blond avec une chaussure noire") is a 1972 French comedy film directed
by Yves Robert, written by Francis Veber. The film was remade in English as The Man with One Red Shoe]
Theirs is the certainty of the dedicated cult believer; the cult is that of Obama/Soetoro. Donald Trump was elected as a rejection
of Obama and his cult.
They are insane, unreasoning in their reaction to us and President Trump.
Why does a known communist sympathizer have access to this sort of highly classified data? How Did she get clearance? Why was
contractor access allowed in the first place?
She speaks fluent Russian and is an expert on the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation.
Dan Bomgino explained there is nothing nefarious or unusual about using outside contractors to conduct this kind of work and
allowing them to access these databases. What IS wrong is that the access wasn't terminated upon completion of the work, and that
Nellie Ohr (and possibly many others) used their access for illegal purposes.
The only thing I would add to this for Treeper consideration is that Paul Manafort joined the Trump campaign in March of 2016.
Glenn Simpson has been after Paul Manafort for years. He tried to take him down when he was at the WSJ and nobody was interested.
When Trump made Manafort his campaign manager on March 19, 2016, I bet Simpson blew a gasket. Simpson had MDS (Manafort Derangement
Syndrome) long before there was a TDS.
This is like reading the 9/11 Commission Report. It's sickening how all of the parties worked together. Strzok and Page used their
FBI phones to conduct their affair to hide it from their spouses, but I'll bet they used their personal phones to conduct their
treason. Wish their homes could be raided and all of their phones and computers and other belongings be seized. I'm sure we'd
be able to fill in all of the gaps and the entire scheme would be fully mapped out.
Because Hillary was paying for the dossier, I'm guessing she was heavily involved in decision-making. I wonder if she's afraid?
Or if decades of evading justice has emboldened her.
No. What was illegal was not "the people she hired using unauthorized access", but THE FBI ALLOWING the unauthorized access, in
order to help "get Trump". What was illegal was John Brennan, Director of the CIA, and James Clapper, former Director of National
Intelligence, along with James Comey, Director of the FBI, pretending to be "17 intelligence agencies" to give cover to the coup
cabal by assuring everyone that it was a fact, from authoritative national intelligence, that "Russia did it and Trump colluded
with them". What was illegal was President Barack Obama making his own last-minute law loosening the controls against the "unmasking"
of Americans incidentally caught up in foreign intelligence monitoring, so that unverified leaks against the Trump campaign could
be broadcast publically by a perverse, partisan mainstream media. What was and is illegal is the cover-up being perpetrated by
all of the cabal, from Obama/Soetoro on down.
"But for all we know, neither Clinton nor Obama knew About or authorized any such thing."
Obama knew:
1) Mary Jacoby, the WIFE OF FUSION-GPS's GLENN SIMPSON, visited the White House on April 19, 2016, the very next day after
the "unauthorized access" to the raw intelligence data, was shut down. There is no innocent explanation of this; they needed a
new plan (the Steele dossier direct FISA fraud)
Analysis of the NSA database searches is key. Which candidates were researched? Any Democrats subjected to scrutiny? How does
the volume of NSA searches on a candidate relate to their poll position? How do the NSA searches on Trump match up with the dossier
versions? Is there any nexus between media reports and searches? Which information didn't come from the NSA database, if any?
I'll betcha a donut it all came from NSA database searches. That's why Evelyn Farkas was "urging her colleagues on the Hill" to
hurry up before they got found out. Had to use a different link bc the video links on CTH article are all "broken."
Makes me wonder if or how many of the "like-minded official within her [Nellie Ohr's] circle of CIA, U.S. Dept of State, DOJ,
FBI or NSA network allies" have han operator licenses , , , or, just how did the Nellie Ohr ham calls get to their intended destination?
DOJ and FBI are fighting this investigation tooth and nail for reasons that seem obvious, but probably go much deeper than any
of us suspect. They are covering up something much much bigger than the conspicuous here. Hopefully, this will be revealed in
the fullness of time. In many cases, there may be outright criminal acts committed by some of these deep state actors. I believe
that this will eventually be ferreted out right up the chain to Obama. Another issue I find hard to digest is the FISA court's
role in this debacle. Irrespective of what Rosemary Collyer has written, I find it dubious that any judge would not be alerted
to the loosely fabricated and unverified facts laid down in the application. Would not a reasonable person (judge?) be somewhat
curious/dubious? Seems to be a huge stretch of common sense! No, the FISA court HAD to know this application was based on bogus
information. Its been reported that no actual hearing was held and the warrant application was pretty much rubber stamped . What
a mess!!!
I greatly appreciate sundance's tying all the breadcrumbs into a coherent path. One Obama administration name that hasn't shown
up much in the whole dossier mess: Valerie Jarrett. Any thoughts on why that is? With all the rest of the senior administration
involvement, I would have expected some breadcrumbs leading to her.
It should be noted that the NYT oped cruise missile happened to be exactly timed with the
big splash of the Bob Woodward 'book' that trumpets the same meme ie the Trump administration
is dysfunctional and in a state of mutiny
'There is credible evidence that the American Deep State of the military-intelligence
apparatus used the Watergate scandal as a way to get rid of Nixon whose febrile mental
state was becoming a concern to them. Woodward, who had a background in Navy intelligence
was suspiciously a prodigy journalist who rapidly rose to cover what became the scandal
that ended Nixon's presidency.'
I would disagree only about Nixon's 'febrile mental state' as the reason for the deep
state wanting him gone the real reason was in fact that Nixon moved against neoliberalism and
expelled Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago School' from the white house he in fact turned
toward socialism on the economy
'Nixon's purge of Friedman from his administration was not merely symbolic. Facing a
serious economic downturn, Nixon utilized huge amounts of government spending, spending
$25.2 billion to stimulate the economy in 1972.
Nixon went as far to openly propose a plan to provide a universal basic income of $1,600
(the equivalent of $10,000 present day) to every American family of four.'
This was a step too far for the Rockefellers and the plutocracy that runs the United
States
as Caleb Maupin explained presciently back in May in his superb historical parallel
between the war on Trump and the Nixon offing
Now we see that the deep state 'journalist' Woodward is here attempting to reprise his
Watergate role in bringing down a sitting POTUS the claims in the Woodward book about an
'administrative coup' in the Trump white house, and this 'oped' are so obviously part of the
same ploy that it is way beyond coincidence
Now it is interesting to note that we have on record THREE very astute commentators saying
the same thing about the provenance of the 'anonymous' hit piece that it is a creation of the
NYT itself PCR was first out of the blocks, yesterday Mr Cunningham, one of the few honest
and capable writers on the REAL left and now Ms Johnstone
And here's where things get curioser yet even the neoliberal standard bearer, the New
Yorker magazine ran a scathing piece by none other than Putin [and Trump] hater Masha Gessen
condemning the 'media corruption' embodied in the NYT oped
'But having this state of affairs described in print further establishes that an
unelected body, or bodies, are overruling and actively undermining the elected leader
An anonymous person or persons cannot govern for the people, because the people do not
know who is governing.'
Clearly there is a civil war going on behind the scenes inside the executive branch of the
United States government what the results will be nobody can know but we must realize that
when even one link in the chain of command is broken, the whole thing falls apart
I predicted right after the Singapore Trump-Kim summit and the fierce media backlash that
resulted that the media and their deep state partners in crime would overplay their hand and
shoot themselves in the foot
They have now done exactly that we will see how the people react, but I suspect that even
those who might not otherwise support Trump will in fact rally round the embattled president
by firing this cannonade now the treasonous media have nailed their on coffin tightly
shut
For the "Full Spectrum Dominance " crows even neutered and bitten down Trump is unacceptable. They want him out.
Notable quotes:
"... I have no idea how deep this amorality charge goes, but coming from people who actually support killing children in the womb, that men and women are the same and marriage is the same dynamic between two people of the same sex as it is for the traditional dynamic, that relations out of wedlock are the same, that illegal immigrants are in fact entitled, that criticizing a foreign state is a crime, that have cheerlead for no less than the four military interventions or destabilizing state actions of the same . . . ..."
"... They don't need him gone, they just need him weak enough to destroy his ability to govern, his agenda and or him personally -- I think they prefer all four. ..."
"... This NYT op ed is a classic forgery, from the scammer NYT posing as a "conservative" (another common scam) to attacking Trump. ..."
This comes as no news. The NYT has been after part of the "get the president" for anything
and everything camp since the nomination.
I have no idea how deep this amorality charge goes, but coming from people who actually
support killing children in the womb, that men and women are the same and marriage is the
same dynamic between two people of the same sex as it is for the traditional dynamic, that
relations out of wedlock are the same, that illegal immigrants are in fact entitled, that
criticizing a foreign state is a crime, that have cheerlead for no less than the four
military interventions or destabilizing state actions of the same . . .
just does not have the weight to make much headway with me. It's like the supposedly
wonderful kobe beef from Japan I had today -- spoiled and sour.
The NYT reputation was tainted long before the current president took office. I think that
the compromise made by the president to adopt in full the intel report has serious
repercussions. The issue here is not whether the Russians engage in espionage or influence, i
take it for granted that they do. But thus far the evidence has been mighty thin that they
actually have done so and did so to any effect.
Something rather nasty has been seeping out of US polity and if Trump is anything he
represents that polity with all its veneer of integrity swept aside.
Not all of the members he chose for his staff are self seeking aggrandizers, making the US
safe for democracy is but a disguise. Some are honorable men and women who simply should not
have been selected because they openly rejected the current executive for political, policy
and personal reasons. I think that was a managerial mistake.
They don't need him gone, they just need him weak enough to destroy his ability to govern,
his agenda and or him personally -- I think they prefer all four.
This article about who, wrote or said what is just a side show.
@Rational DEAR
JUDAISTS -- PLEASE STOP LYING AND SCAMMING, PLEASE. BECOME CIVILIZED PLEASE.
Thanks for the excellent article, Sir. Great points!
This NYT op ed is a classic forgery, from the scammer NYT posing as a "conservative"
(another common scam) to attacking Trump.
Anonymous sources -- fabricated conversations that cannot be verified, because the source
is non-existent. It is all fabricated.
... ... ... You're being Rational again: "please stop these childish scams. This is
juvenile." You're appealing to hardened criminals.
I commend you for moderation and compassion, but if these people were to be redeemed it
would have happened before the FED, the Great Depression (read Wayne Jett), the assassination
of JFK and RFK, Tonkin, 911, 2008 and God know what more.
The neocon crowd wants a revenge. Badly. "Full Spectrum Dominance" is a a religion for them. And they uses all dirty tricks
intelligence agencies are know for.
In a speech Friday at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, former President Barack Obama publicly joined the escalating
offensive against President Trump being mounted by sections of the ruling class and the state. The speech, directed at channeling
both popular and ruling class opposition to the Trump administration behind the Democrats in the fall midterm elections, marked Obama's
first direct attack on his successor.
Obama's speech came as the culmination of a series of extraordinary events over the past two weeks that have brought the acute
political crisis in the US to a new and explosive level of intensity.
First came the week-long spectacle of bipartisan hypocrisy and political reaction occasioned by the death of Republican Senator
John McCain, one of the most ferocious war-mongers in the US political establishment. Democrats sought to outdo the Republicans in
eulogizing McCain as an "American hero" and model statesman. Within two days of McCain's burial, the media was ablaze with revelations
from the forthcoming book on the Trump White House by Washington Post editor Bob Woodward. Woodward, citing anonymous interviews
with high-ranking Trump officials, paints a picture of turmoil and dysfunction in which figures such as Defense Secretary James Mattis
and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly call Trump an idiot. Woodward recounts incidents of Trump administration officials countermanding
orders from the president, a situation Woodward characterizes as an "administrative coup d'état."
This was followed by the New York Times ' publication of an op-ed piece by an anonymous "senior official" in the Trump
administration describing the activities of an internal "resistance" to Trump within the White House. The piece cited discussions
among Trump aides about seeking his removal on the grounds of mental incompetence, as stipulated in the 25th Amendment to the US
Constitution. It made clear that the "resistance," promoted by the Times and the Democrats, supports Trump's tax cuts for
the rich, removal of corporate regulations and increase in military spending. It attacks Trump for his "softness" toward Russia and
North Korea and his overall impulsiveness, unpredictability and recklessness.
Obama's speech was along similar lines. He presented an absurdly potted history of American progress on the basis of the "free
market," with, he acknowledged, some imperfections -- such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq (which killed millions of people). His
administration was supposedly part of this march of progress.
... ... ...
The reality, of course, is that Obama presided over the funneling of trillions of dollars to Wall Street to rescue the financial
oligarchy, carrying out the greatest redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top in history. This was paid for by wage cuts
and the destruction of decent-paying jobs, replaced by poverty-wage, part-time and temporary employment, the gutting of health benefits
for millions of workers under "Obamacare," pension cuts, the closure of thousands of public schools and layoff of tens of thousands
of teachers, and a general lowering of the living standards of the working class.
Trump's attacks on democratic rights were prepared by Obama's brutal policy of deportations, his continuation of indefinite detention
and the Guantanamo torture camp, his support for mass domestic spying and his program of drone assassinations, including of US citizens.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were continued and new wars were launched in Libya and Syria.
"... The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role. ..."
The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high
gear this week.
Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our
establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.
Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and
Barack Obama, Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney, Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton,
John Kerry and Henry Kissinger, the leaders of both houses of Congress, and too many generals
and admirals to list.
Striding into the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his
legacy:
"So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and
petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. It's
a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear."
Speakers praised McCain's willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new
determination: From here on out, confrontation!
Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded
immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed to halt the hearings.
Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Sen. Dick Durbin boasted, "What we've heard
is the noise of democracy."
But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain
why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a
semblance of order.
Wednesday came leaks in The Washington Post from Bob Woodward's new book, attributing to
Chief of Staff John Kelly and Gen. James Mattis crude remarks on the president's intelligence,
character and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a "crazytown" led by a fifth-
or sixth-grader.
Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.
Thursday came an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous "senior official" claiming to
be a member of the "resistance working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his
(Trump's) agenda."
A pedestrian piece of prose containing nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in
the media, the op-ed caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the
disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her
president.
The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.
While the Woodward book may debut at the top of The New York Times best-seller list, and
"Anonymous," once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what this
portends is not good.
For what is afoot here is something America specializes in -- regime change. Only the regime
our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is
afoot is the overthrow of America's democratically elected head of state.
The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president
by a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist
press plays its traditional supporting role.
Presidents are wounded, disabled or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.
ORDER IT NOW
No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in.
But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two
years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a
hate-filled city that ran a sword through Nixon for offenses it had covered up or brushed under
the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson years.
So, where are we headed?
If November's elections produce, as many predict, a Democratic House, there will be more
investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be
able to manage.
There is the Mueller investigation into "Russiagate" that began before Trump was
inaugurated. There is the investigation of his business and private life before he became
president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump
Foundation by New York State.
There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments
Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report the leaks from all of
these investigations.
Then, if media coverage can drive Trump's polls low enough, will come the impeachment
investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.
If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even
as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and the Democrats' septuagenarian
caucus led by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi.
2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.
Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d'etat can the Republic sustain before
a new generation says enough of all this?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Just for the record -- not that we're keeping one -- I strongly suspect that that NYT Op Ed
by an "insider" is almost entirely fraudulent. OK, there might be an assistant to the
assistant undersecretary in charge of cutting the grass at the White House who will be
willing to put her name at the bottom of this thing, thereby giving the Times an "out" in
terms of committing outright journalistic perjury.
But who's going to call these people on it? The Times themselves? CNN? The Washington
Post? The Huffington Post?
What consequences will they suffer? Will the rabid dog leftists who read the
aforementioned periodicals suddenly do an about-face and abandon their leftist religion
because of journalistic fraud?
Of course not.
They'll just move on to the next "scandal" (almost certainly based on anonymous sources or
triple hearsay).
I think Trump is his own worst enemy. It is his incompetence that is fueling all these calls
for impeachment. He should have fired Mueller long time ago. The screaming could not have
been any worse. I don't think he comprehends the seriousness of the current situation. He
doesn't realize that he is the president. He has fallen into the trap of anti-Russian
rhetoric while I know he does not believe any of it.
He should never have hired John Bolton or Pompeo. For God's sakes; he appointed all these
heads of Departments, CIA, FBI, DNI, etc. and none of them can control his own department. He
is letting others control his agenda and his foreign policy. If it weren't for Pence, I would
prefer impeachment at this time because he is making the US a laughing stalk of the world.
But Pence scares me even more.
Acts 3:25 "He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be
blessed.'"
By the way, God's covenant with Abraham included Ishmael, who was also his offspring. The
Jews have altered the bible to make the covenant with Isaac only, as they have done with the
sacrifice of the "only son."
So far the only 2 senior officials who have not come out to deny writing the op-ed are John
Kelly and Nikki Haley, both are highly suspect at this point. John Kelly gave all those
disparaging accounts of the president to Bob Woodward then tried to deny it. Nikki Haley's
been running her own dog and pony show at the UN for two years, clashing with Trump more than
once for wanting to take out Assad. She takes her orders directly from the Prime Minister of
Israel, Trump who?
This NYTimes hit piece shows clearly the existence of a Deep State that is actively
working to subvert and overthrow a democratically elected POTUS. The Deep State must be
defeated for America to survive, but the only way to defeat the Deep State is through a
functioning DOJ. Jeff Sessions must now be considered part of the Deep State, along with
Pence and all the people Pence brought into Trump's cabinet when he was in charged of setting
up the interim government, from John Kelly to Mattis, Haley, Bolton, Kirstjen Nielsen,
Christopher Wray, Mike Pompeo, and above all Rod Rosenstein -- all are neocon Deep State
stooges and big time swamp creatures.
"... McCain was a protégé of neo-Conservative founder Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, a crazy servant of the British imperial agenda who constantly sought military confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... The British were so enamored of Jackson's views that they have dedicated an entire society of British intelligence spooks to him, the Henry Jackson Society. The former incarnation of this group was the Committee on Present Danger and the Project for a New American Century in the United States. ..."
"... Leading members of both groups hastily retreated to British mother ship after they led the mobilization for the failed and disastrous Iraq War here in the U.S. Sir Richard Dearlove, who has shepherded Christopher Steele and other British aspects of the coup against Donald Trump, is a leading member of this group. ..."
"... He was uniquely ruthless when it comes to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict zone to another to personally recruit far right fanatics as American proxies ..."
"... He backed the installation of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood to govern Egypt, another failed and insane project. More than $5.6 trillion was spent chasing John McCain's idyll of democracy in Southwest Asia. Six thousand seven hundred Americans died, more than 50,000 were wounded, entire countries were reduced to rubble with accompanying genocide against their populations, the largest mass human migration ever was sent into Europe resembling something akin to the desperate mass flights of the Middle Ages. ..."
John McCain died and deserved a decent funeral based on his war record and his long, if destructive, public service. McCain and
others in Washington's arrogant and narcissistic elite decided before his death, however, to use McCain's demise to advance the coup
against the President, and to make claims about the late Senator and themselves which are totally and utterly false and delusional.
The funeral was a national media extravaganza achieving a status normally only enjoyed by former Presidents. It was, according to
New Yorker Magazine , also the "biggest resistance meeting yet." President Donald Trump was not invited so that the cowards
in the funeral crowd, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, could freely take potshots at the President. McCain picked these leaders
of the country's descent into hell deliberately, to romanticize his death, and to trash talk the current President, albeit, in eloquent
and lofty language and knowing allusions. In effect, they wrapped the murderous crimes of empire in the American flag.
McCain was a protégé of neo-Conservative founder Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, a crazy servant of the British imperial agenda
who constantly sought military confrontation with Russia.
The British were so enamored of Jackson's views that they have dedicated an entire society of British intelligence spooks
to him, the Henry Jackson Society. The former incarnation of this group was the Committee on Present Danger and the Project for a
New American Century in the United States.
Leading members of both groups hastily retreated to British mother ship after they led the mobilization for the failed and
disastrous Iraq War here in the U.S. Sir Richard Dearlove, who has shepherded Christopher Steele and other British aspects of the
coup against Donald Trump, is a leading member of this group.
Funding for McCain's political adventures came from his second wife, whose brewing company fortune was completely mixed up in
Arizona mob and mob funding during its earlier years.
With respect to McCain's activities, Max Blumenthal characterized them accurately in the August 27th Consortium News:
"McCain did not simply thunder for every major intervention in the post-Cold War era from the Senate floor. . .
He was uniquely ruthless when it comes to advancing imperial goals, barnstorming from one conflict zone to another to personally
recruit far right fanatics as American proxies . . .
In Libya and Syria, he cultivated affiliates of Al-Qaeda as allies, and in Ukraine, McCain recruited actual sig-heiling neo-Nazis.
. .
Following the NATO orchestrated murder of Libya's leader, McCain tweeted: "Qaddafi on his way out, Bashar Al Assad is next."
He backed the installation of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood to govern Egypt, another failed and insane project. More than
$5.6 trillion was spent chasing John McCain's idyll of democracy in Southwest Asia. Six thousand seven hundred Americans died, more
than 50,000 were wounded, entire countries were reduced to rubble with accompanying genocide against their populations, the largest
mass human migration ever was sent into Europe resembling something akin to the desperate mass flights of the Middle Ages.
It is these horrific actions by McCain, not the myth peddled at his funeral, which is the source of the conflict between Trump
and John McCain, and between Trump and George Bush and Barack Obama. Trump promised to end the imperial policy of endless religious
and population wars and Wall Street bailouts, and the voters responded resoundingly by electing him President.
"... We Americans are totally subject to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows. ..."
"... Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon? ..."
"... Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his money's worth. https://www.investopedia.co... ..."
"... Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. ..."
"... it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study: http://www.psr.org/assets/p... . ..."
"... Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny. https://ejmagnier.com/2018/... ..."
"... We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador" to the "others." ..."
"... In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine? ..."
"... Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter. ..."
"... Trump is more savagely and ignorantly aggressive. ..."
"... Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation. ..."
"In her statement during the UN Security Council briefing, Haley said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its "enablers,"
Russia and Iran have a playbook for the war in Syria. First, they surround a civilian area. Next, they make the "preposterous claim
that everyone in the area is a terrorist," thus making all civilians targets. That is followed by a "starve and surrender" campaign,
during which Syrian security forces keep attacking until the people no longer have food, clean water, or shelter. "It's a playbook
of death. The Assad regime has spent the last seven years refining it with Russia and Iran's help."
According to her it has happened many times before, in July 2018 it happened in Dara'a and the southwest of Syria, where Syrian
forces "trapped and besieged civilians." In February 2018, it was Ghouta. In 2017 it was Aleppo, and prior to that places like Madaya
and Hama.
According to her, Assad's government has left the country in ruins. "The atrocities committed by Assad will be a permanent stain
on history and a black mark for this Council -- which was blocked over and over by Russia from taking action to help," Nikki Haley
said." SF
------------
Well, strictly speaking, her parents were immigrants, not she. She was born in Bamberg, South Carolina, a little town in the Piedmont
that is majority Black. Her parents were professional people at Amritsar in the Punjab. Haley is the surname of her husband. Nikki
is a nickname by which she has long been known. As governor, she was in favor of flying the Confederate flag on the Statehouse grounds
before the Charleston massacre of Black Christians at a Bible study session. They were killed by an unstable white teen aged misfit
whom they had invited to join their worship. After that Nikki discovered that the Confederate flag was a bad and disruptive symbol.
It was a popular position across the country and Nikki became an instant "hit," the flavor of the month so to speak.
I suppose that she was supposed to be an interesting and decorative figure as UN ambassador. She is quite pretty and the South
Carolina accent adds to the effect.
The positions she has taken at the UN with regard to the ME are similar to those expressed by her boss, President Trump. They
are largely reflections of images projected by the popular and mass media operating as Zionist propaganda machines. I don't believe
that the State Department's INR analytic bureau believes the crapola that she spouts with such hysteric fervor. I don't believe that
my former friend David Satterfield believes the crapola. So, where does she get ideas like the ones quoted above? IMO she is trying
to out-Trump Trump. DJT is a remarkably ignorant man concerning the geo-politics of just about everything in the ME. He appears to
have once seen the film, "Exodus" and to have decided on the basis of Paul Newman's performance as Begin that the situation was and
is quite simple - Israel good! Everyone else bad! Nikki's depth of knowledge appears to be just about the same.
She also appears to me to be in receipt of a stream of opinion from various Zionist and anti-Muslim groups probably related to
the anti-Muslim ravings of Maronite and other Christian ME extremists.
These groups cannot seem to understand that alliances shift as does policy. They don't seem to understand that Israel's policy
in Syria is no longer regime change. They never seem to have understood that the Syrian government is the protector of the religious
minorities against Sunni jihadi fanatics.
They don't seem to understand that the Syrian government has no choice but to recover Idlib Province, a piece of Syria's heartland.
pl
Haley's "playbook" is used by the US but not by Russia & Iran as she claims, with all civilians being targeted. Instead, Russia
& Iran have taken warfare to a higher and better level, allowing the armed factions to surrender their arms and get on a bus or
be killed, and many of them took the bus to preserve their lives until the final offensive. A third option, which many of them
took, was to join the SAA and fight against their former comrades. All of this statecraft was revolutionary, and was not at all
as Haley described, including the crocodile tears over Syrian lives which has never been honest especially considering the level
of support Assad has within Syria.
I agree it is revolutionary, at least in modern times in the western world. I wonder if it will set a "trend": a more humane way
to wage war. I am sure it will be studied in war colleges.
One observation I had while thinking about the Ambassador Haley quote you provided (which I think supports the point you
were making in your post):
When the US was in a somewhat similar situation during the occupation of Iraq, where Sunni militants were in open rebellion
and controlling towns like Fallujah, our response wasn't wildly different to the Syrian government's response. The US gov't at
the time typically labeled any armed resistance "terrorists", and while they might acknowledge that there were civilians in those
territories in addition to terrorists, they were just "human shields" and "regrettable collateral damage". Did the US try a little
harder, and have a bit better of technology, training, etc, and do a little bit better of trying to limit damage to civilians
when crushing those uprisings? Yes. But we're mostly talking modest quantitative differences in response, not fundamentally morally
superior qualitative differences. I bet you if you took pictures of towns like Fallujah, Sadr City, etc, after US counter-insurgency
operations, and mixed them in with pictures of trashed Syrian towns that had just been liberated from rebel groups, and showed
them to Nikki Haley, or frankly any neocon, they'd have a hard time telling the difference.
As I was reading this topic Raqqa and Fallujah came to mind. In the case of Fallujah I don't recall if the civilians were given
an opportunity to evacuate. They were not in ISIS controlled Raqqa. In any event Haley's blather at the UN is for the consumption
of the rubes.
as far as i recall in the battle for fallujah, only women and children were permitted to leave during the siege.and during the
siege of Mosul they were dropping leaflets telling people not to try and leave.
And giving civilians a chance to evacuate doesn't help as much as one would think if the insurgents/rebels really do want to use
them as human shields.
Speaking to young marines in the aftermath of the second assault on Fallujah I learned that although women and children were allowed
to pass the checkpoints but men of fighting age (also known as the father, brother or husband who was driving the families out
of the city) were sent back into the city.
In talking with people here in the U.S. about Syria there is the total lack of understanding of Assad's Alawite government. There
are a couple million Christians in Syria and it is Assad's government that protects them from the Saudi sponsored Sunni headchoppers
who would like to eliminate Christians, Jews, and Shia from the Middle East. Perhaps, the Alawites being an offshoot of Shia makes
them sensitive to minority religions. However, mentioning Assad evokes strong negative reaction among U.S. Christians, similar
to Trumps "lets kill them all". On my one visit to Damascus, traveling on my U.S. Passport rather than my Israeli one, The Christians
I met were uniformly positive about Assad and the need for Assad to control the ENTIRE country.
Thank you for providing your direct experience of the views of Christian Syrians you met there.
Unfortunately none of those views ever make it to either to our print or broadcast media. We Americans are totally subject
to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic
and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows.
Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can
easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon?
Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions
in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his
money's worth.
https://www.investopedia.co...
There's a disturbing piece up today at WaPo by Karen De Young asserting the USA is doubling down in Syria. From the piece, emphasis
by ex-PFC Chuck:
"We've started using new language," [James] Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons.
Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate "an attack. Period." "Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless
escalation" he said. "You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refugee flows or attack innocent civilians,"
and "the consequences of that are that we will shift our positions and use all of our tools to make it clear that we'll have
to find ways to achieve our goals that are less reliant on the goodwill of the Russians."
Jeffrey is said to be Pompeo's point person on Syria. Do any of you with ears closer to the ground than those of us in flyover
land know anything about this change of tune?
.Iraq PM urged to quit as key ally deserts him over unrest.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi faced calls to resign yesterday as his alliance with a populist cleric who won May elections
crumbled over deadly unrest shaking the country's south. The two leading groups in parliament called on Abadi to step down, after
lawmakers held an emergency meeting on the public anger boiling over in the southern city of Basra.,...
The Conquest Alliance of pro-Iranian former paramilitary fighters was "on the same wavelength" as Sadr's Marching Towards Reform
list and they would work together to form a new government, Assadi said. Abadi, whose grouping came third in the May polls, defended
his record in parliament, describig the unrest as "political sabotage" and saying the crisis over public services was being exploited
for political ends.
http://news.kuwaittimes.net...
Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. According to J. D Cunningham, author
of 'History of the Sikhs (Appendix XX)' included among the injunctions ordained by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth guru, 'a Khalsa
(true Sikh) proves himself if he mounts a warhorse; is always waging war; kills a Khan (Muslim) and slays the Turks (Muslims).'
Aside from this, it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after
what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone
since 2001
under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants
under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality
Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study:
http://www.psr.org/assets/p... .
Your good professor sounds like a great piece of work. "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950" Perhaps we should have
stopped all that foreign aid in the '50s.
The under five mortality figures from Afghanistan (1 in 5) are a problem that preceded our involvement by many years. However,
the failure of the international community to make any significant progress over the last 17 years would be a legitimate criticism.
Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is
spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny.
https://ejmagnier.com/2018/...
We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics
like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as
a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador"
to the "others."
Thank you, Sir. It makes perfect sense with the End if History and all those beliefs.
In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history
and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of
his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine?
You may be interested in a recent article in Unz by SST's own 'smoothieX12' in response to Paul Craig Roberts asking how long
Russia should continue to turn the other cheek:
http://www.unz.com/article/...
Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever
getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime
ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter.
A new PM was at the top of H.Clinton's to-do list as Secretary of State. My favorite Assad replacement candidate was Ghassan
Hitto from Murphy Texas, but he only lasted a couple months.
here
I don't trust converts except for the adjustment from Protestant to Catholic or vice versa. I suppose shifts from one madhab to
another, or between Buddhist schools are also ok.
Sad that in a moment of crisis,so many of the rising political stars of both parties are so hollow to the point of dangerousness.
Has anything really changed much with our policies in the ME in the past 50+ years? Haven't we been deeply influenced/controlled
by Israeli interests in this period, maybe even beyond if the attacks on USS Liberty are taken into account? Is the Trump administration
just following in the traditions of Reagan, Bush Pčre et fils, Clinton and Obama, or is there a qualitative difference?
Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any
chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this
post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation.
Maybe this is all just "positioning" and "messaging" but maybe not. With Bibi, Nikki, Bolton and Pompeo as THE advisors, does
anyone have a clue what Trump decides, when, not if, the jihadi White Helmets stage their chemical event in Idlib?
"... Mueller's problem is that his entire investigation has been revealed to be permeated with illegality and dubious Constitutional premises. As the result of investigations by Congress, we know that as of December, 2015 British intelligence agencies were frantically signaling their fears about Donald Trump to Obama Administration intelligence officials, primarily the CIA of John Brennan. ..."
"... The British were demanding that Trump be taken out by whatever means because he was "soft on Russia." They were demanding that Trump be taken out by criminalizing the idea for which the American people ultimately voted, a rational relationship, rather than war, between the U.S. and Russia. ..."
"... By the early Spring, we now know Brennan was operating out of the CIA with a taskforce investigating Trump based on British "leads," despite multiple legal prohibitions against just such domestic activity by the CIA. ..."
"... That task force included Peter Strzok, the fired FBI agent who said he would do anything to prevent Trump's election. This operation included sending informants to plant fabricated evidence on peripheral figures in the Trump campaign, including George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. ..."
The media posited that these two events, one by trial, one by plea, gave Robert Mueller new
found credibility and "momentum' at a point where both were dissipating extremely rapidly. This
claim, like the others we have examined here, has no relation to reality.
Mueller's problem is that his entire investigation has been revealed to be permeated with
illegality and dubious Constitutional premises. As the result of investigations by Congress, we
know that as of December, 2015 British intelligence agencies were frantically signaling their
fears about Donald Trump to Obama Administration intelligence officials, primarily the CIA of
John Brennan.
The British were demanding that Trump be taken out by whatever means because he
was "soft on Russia." They were demanding that Trump be taken out by criminalizing the idea for
which the American people ultimately voted, a rational relationship, rather than war, between
the U.S. and Russia.
By the early Spring, we now know Brennan was operating out of the CIA with a taskforce
investigating Trump based on British "leads," despite multiple legal prohibitions against just
such domestic activity by the CIA.
That task force included Peter Strzok, the fired FBI agent
who said he would do anything to prevent Trump's election. This operation included sending
informants to plant fabricated evidence on peripheral figures in the Trump campaign, including
George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The fake evidence suggested that Trump was using Russian
obtained "dirt" against Hillary Clinton. The evidence planting operations, mostly conducted on
British soil, were designed to back up the bogus and otherwise evidence free and indefensible
dossier authored by MI-6's Christopher Steele, paid for by the Clinton campaign, and promoted
by the Department of State, Department of Justice, the FBI, and select reporters. The dirty
British Steele dossier claimed that Trump had been compromised by Putin. Based on this, Trump
was targeted in a full-set counterintelligence investigation by the FBI including surveillance
of his campaign and anyone associated with it. The goal of this surveillance was to put those
who were around Trump under an investigative microscope stretching back years to find any crime
or misdeed for which they could be prosecuted. That is the illegal and unconstitutional
backdrop to everything Robert Mueller has produced thus far. Nothing produced by Mueller has
shown Trump to be a puppet of Putin as claimed by the British, the Clinton campaign, and the
national news media. Nonetheless, the entire episode has damaged relations between the U.S. and
Russia and between the U.S. and China, which was the British strategic goal in the first
instance, continuing the dive into a new and dangerous Cold War. Trump has fought this at every
step.
Paul Manafort was hired to handle delegate selection at the Republican National Convention
and then as campaign manager. He worked for Trump for six months total until his legal problems
became known and he resigned. He was charged by Mueller with tax, foreign agent registration
act, and bank fraud offenses for his lobbying activities on behalf of the deposed government of
Ukraine. That government was overthrown in coup in which John McCain played a critical role, a
coup which empowered outright neo-Nazis. Christopher Steele, British intelligence, and the U.S.
State Department also played major roles in the Ukraine regime change operation. Manafort was
targeted by both Ukrainian and British intelligence because he, in effect, backed the perceived
Russian side in the coup. For this, he was being investigated by the Obama Justice Department
well prior to any campaign association with Donald Trump. Mueller simply adjusted the focus of
this already political investigation, a focus aimed at turning Manafort into an asset against
Trump by means of the terror of potential prison sentences numbering in the hundreds of years
as the result of overcharged and duplicative indictments.
Michael Cohen, who worked with Trump as a lawyer, also had his share of prior legal
problems, primarily related to taxes concerning his taxi medallion business in New York City.
For months, the mainstream media has featured the claims of porn star Stormy Daniels claiming a
one night stand with the future President, ten years ago, as if the nation could draw some
lesson from Daniels about public virtue. Cohen apparently arranged to pay off Daniels and
another woman concerning their allegations about sex with the President. Among other suspicious
dealings, Cohen tape recorded conversations with his client, Donald Trump, during the campaign,
a complete and total violation of legal ethics which would independently cost him his law
license. For many months prior to his plea deal, Cohen has been a target of intense
investigative interest based on his tax problems. In recent months, Cohen has repeatedly
signaled that he was willing to betray the President and say whatever prosecutors in the
Southern District of New York wanted him to say about Donald Trump in order to avoid jail. The
problem is that prosecutors thought Cohen an obvious desperate liar and were not buying.
Ultimately, the deal which Cohen struck has him claiming that candidate Trump asked him to pay
hush money to the women, resulting in Federal Election Campaign Act violations. This is what
the Justice Department claimed against John Edwards in a widely ridiculed and failed
prosecution. It is exactly the type of claim by which the British and our Establishment
impeached Bill Clinton.
Cohen hired long-time Clinton operative Lanny Davis to represent him in recent months and to
make a deal. Following his plea, Davis claimed that Cohen had two made-up morsels to offer
Mueller, in return for a reduced sentence, a claim that Trump knew about the June 2016 Trump
Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer, and a claim that Cohen knew about Russian hacking of
Hillary Clinton's emails. Davis has since admitted that both these claims were totally false
and has had to walk them back publicly.
So, if you are tempted by the media t think that either of these "convictions" are germane
to the President's fitness for office, or Robert Mueller's credibility, please, seek medical
attention. The madness which now infects much of official Washington may have claimed you.
From comments: "In short, false inquiry into imaginary collusion hands down pseudo-indictments for quasi-obstruction of
fraudulent justice based on fake news reported by mock journalists quoting fictitious sources leaking fabricated stories about
made-up events about the false inquiry into imaginary collusion. " Papadopolous lied to hide the fact that the
Trump tower meeting was intended as an entrapment to make Trump look like he was colluding - and even having TAKEN that meeting,
it remains undisclosed to the public what information might have been considered 'dirt' that would be regarded as illegal for a
political opponent to use or disclose
Trump's former campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days
in jail, the first campaign official to be sentenced as part of Robert Mueller's probe into
Russian election interference. Papadopoulos was sentenced to one year of supervised release,
200 hours of community service and a $9,500 fine.
Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October
2017 to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Russia nationals and efforts
to arrange a meeting with the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
During the sentencing, Papadopoulos' lawyer told the judge that he was motivated to lie in
part by Trump characterizing investigation as "Fake news."
Imxploring ,
First rule in dealing with the FBI or law enforcement.... Say NOTHING! When they come
calling to talk to you they are trying to lock you up.... and if they want to "talk"... they
don't have enough to do so.... don't give it to them!
haruspicio ,
I have just been through this is another country. Just give a no comment interview and
make sure you have a lawyer by your side before even opening your mouth to answer a question
from a cop.
Golden Phoenix ,
This is why you should never say anything to police or other investigators. They'll entrap
you, twist your words, and suddenly an otherwise innocent person is convicted of a purely
procedural crime.
Justapleb ,
This carried the flag for Russian Collusion a year ago, how Papadopoulus had been
"flipped" and was "cooperating" with the Mueller investigation.
What happens after they "flip" former Trump people and they start "cooperating"? Nothing.
Because there is no crime even coherently stated pertaining to Russia. "Colluding" is not a
crime.
God what convoluted potempkin show trials.
Davidduke2000 ,
hillary lied and lied and lied and lied to the FBI, CIA, NSA and everybody in the
intelligence and law enforcement agencies and got zero days in jail.
pparalegal ,
Not hard when your co-conspirators are all given pre-immunity and you are given the
questions beforehand. And because the loudest, smartest woman in the world always says "I
don't recall".
RICKYBIRD ,
Let's not forget that an FBI contract "lure" met George in Europe and hired George to do
some work for him. Gave George $10,000 in marked bills. The object was to dirty George up,
maybe even claim he was paid by a Russian agent. When shortly thereafter George arrived in
the US, before he could go to Customs the FBI stopped him. They thought they'd catch him with
the bills. They didn't. George had left them behind in Europe. Tough luck, FBI.
bh2 ,
The lesson this teaches is the one every defense attorney advises to his clients: "never
speak to the police".
All these brain-dead prosecutions accomplish is to confirm those defense attorneys are
correct.
Yet under four years later, just after the then Soviet Union invaded, just weeks before,
Afghanistan and months after the tumultuous Iranian revolution of 1979, which at the time many
thought the Soviet Union had a hand in, Brennan was accepted into the CIA as a junior
analyst.
At that time, John Brennan should have never got into the CIA, or any Western Intelligence
agency given his communist background.
Think on that carefully as you continue to read this.
Also reflect on the fact that Brennan, later in his CIA career, was surprisingly elevated
from junior analyst to the prestigious position of Station Chief in Saudi Arabia where he spent
a few years.
Its said he was appointed purely for 'political' reasons, alleged to have been at the direct
request of Bill Clinton and other Democrats not because of a recommendation or merit from
within the Agency.
Its further said that the Saudis liked Brennan because he became very quickly 'their man' so
to speak. Some reports, unsubstantiated, even allege Brennan became a Muslim while there to
ingratiate himself with the Saudis.
Important to read is an NBC news article entitled 'Former Spooks Criticize CIA Director John
Brennan for Spying Comments' by Ken Dilanian dated March 2nd, 2016.
The article contains many revealing facts and evidence, while giving a flavour, of the
feelings of many in the CIA who felt that Brennan was totally unsuitable and unqualified to be
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
A final controversy is the little known fact of Brennan's near four year departure from the
CIA into the commercial world, having been 'left out in the cold' from the CIA, from November
2005 to January 2009 when he was CEO of a private company called 'The Analysis
Corporation'.
So why was he then reinstated into the CIA, to the surprise of CIA's senior management, by
newly elected President Obama, to head the CIA? No answer is available as to why he left the
CIA in 2005.
Lastly let's not forget Brennan's many failures as CIA head in recent years, one most
notable is the Benghazi debacle and the death of a US Ambassador and others there. Something
else to ponder.
Back to the present an the issue of security clearances.
In early August, on the well known American TV Rachel Maddow Show, Brennan back tracked on
his Trump traitor claim by saying "I didn't mean he (Trump) committed treason. I meant what he
has done is nothing short of treasonous." Rachel Maddow responded correctly "If we diagram the
sentence, 'nothing short of treason' means it's treasonous?"
A simple question follows. Since he is no longer in the CIA, why does he need a security
clearance other than to commercially exploit it?
Last month what can be described as 200+ 'friends of Brennan', former CIA officials of
varying rank, responded against the removal of former CIA Director Brennan's security
clearances, in support of him.
These men and women too most likely will have their clearances revoked.
And why not?
Since the only purpose they retain it is to make money as civilians?
A potentially more serious issue than 'the Brennan controversies' is that the US
intelligence community has around 5 million people with security clearances as a whole includes
approximately 1.4m people holding top secret clearances. It is patently a ridiculously high
number and makes a mockery of the word secret.
Former CIA veteran Sam Faddis is one of the few people brave enough and with the integrity
required, that has stood up and told some of the real truths about Brennan in an 'Open Letter',
yet this letter's contents have hardly at all been reported in the media.
Generally by nature, CIA Officers sense of service and honour to their Country, their
professionalism and humility, and disdain for publicity has dissuaded most of them to enter the
current very public Brennan controversy; but for how much longer?
I implore you to cease and desist from continuing to attempt to portray yourself in the
public media as some sort of impartial critic concerned only with the fate of the republic. I
beg you to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing intelligence
professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations
whatsoever.
None of this is true.
You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited
sources or worked the streets abroad. You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the
business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm's way. You have never heard a
shot fired in anger.
You were for a short while an intelligence analyst. In that capacity, it was your job to
produce finished intelligence based on information provided to you by others. The work of
intelligence analysts is important, however in truth you never truly mastered this trade
either.
In your capacity as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, while still a junior
officer, you were designated to brief the President of the United States who was at that time
Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to the president each
morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other
individuals. Period.
While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then
President Bill Clinton. End of story.
Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your
personal relationship with the former president, his wife Hillary and their key associates.
Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established yourself by
the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary.
All of your commentary in the public sphere is on behalf of your political patrons. It is
no more impartial analysis then would be the comments of a paid press spokesman or attorney.
You are speaking each and every time directly on behalf of political forces hostile to this
president. You are, in fact, currently on the payroll of both NBC and MSNBC, two of the
networks most vocally opposed to President Trump and his agenda.
There is no impartiality in your comments. Your assessments are not based on some sober
judgment of what is best for this nation. They are based exclusively on what you believe to
be in the best interests of the politicians with whom you long since allied yourself.
It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have
been associated during your career with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in
recent American history.
Ever since this President was elected, there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize
him and destabilize him led by you. This has been an unprecedented; to undermine the
stability of the republic and the office of the Presidency, for solely partisan political
reasons. You and your patrons have been complicit in this effort and at its very heart.
You abandoned any hope of being a true intelligence professional decades ago and became a
political hack. Say so.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says the developments in Syria and the US defeat in the Arab country
show that Washington can be contained.
The Leader made the remarks in a Friday meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who traveled to Tehran to participate in
a key trilateral
summit
on Syria, hosted by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and also attended by Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
"Cooperation between Iran and Russia on the Syrian issue is a prominent example and a very good experience of bilateral cooperation,"
the Leader said.
Ayatollah Khamenei added that the two countries can expand cooperation on global issues, saying, "One of the cases that the
two sides can cooperate with each other is to contain the US, because it is a danger to humanity and it is possible to contain
it."
The Leader stated that the Americans suffered a real defeat in Syria and failed to achieve their goals.
Ayatollah Khamenei also said sanctions imposed by the US on Iran, Russia and Turkey are a very strong common ground for strengthening
cooperation, and urged Tehran and Moscow to develop political and economic relations and follow up on the agreements of the summit
in Tehran.
The Leader stressed the importance of pursuing non-dollar transactions in trade.
Europeans did not fulfill JCPOA commitments: Ayatollah Khamenei
Elsewhere in his remarks, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran has so far remained committed to a multilateral nuclear agreement, officially
known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), reached between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries in 2015.
"But the Europeans did not carry out their duties, and it is not acceptable that we completely fulfill our commitments within
the JCPOA while they don't," the Leader pointed out.
The Leader praised the Russian president's approach to the nuclear deal, adding that the Islamic Republic would adopt a stance
on the JCPOA which would meet its national interests.
Although the US now raises Iran's missile program and regional developments, their problem with the Islamic Republic relates to
issues beyond them, Ayatollah Khamenei said.
The Leader added that the US has been seeking to topple the Islamic Republic over the past 40 years, but Iran has managed to make
substantial advancements during this period.
"The resistance of the Islamic Republic and its advances are another successful example that the US can be contained," Ayatollah
Khamenei said.
The Leader also pointed to the deplorable situation of the Yemeni people and their killing at the hands of Saudi Arabia, adding,
"The Saudis will definitely fail to achieve a result in Yemen and will not be able to bring the resilient Yemeni people to their
knees."
During the meeting, which was also attended by Iranian First Vice President Es'haq Jahangiri, the Russian president said he held
very fruitful and good negotiations with President Rouhani on mutual issues of interest, including the situation in Syria.
Iran and Russia discussed the expansion of relations in all fields, particularly in the economic and trade sectors, Putin added.
He said the US is putting obstacles, including banking restrictions, in the way of the development of Tehran-Moscow relations,
and added that Washington is making a strategic mistake by limiting financial transactions.
The Russian president expressed regret that the remaining sides to the JCPOA failed to fulfill their commitments under the deal
after the US withdrawal.
He said although the Europeans announce that they are seeking ways to keep the nuclear accord alive, they are following the US
due to their dependence on Washington.
"... he has brought North Korea away from the edge of nuclear war and established at least tentative diplomatic relations with that nation, something no president has done before him. Against frenzied opposition from the American Establishment, he has somewhat softened U.S. relations with Russia. ..."
"... On domestic and environmental matters, Trump is pro-plutocrat, a climate change denier, and the installer of arch-reactionary Supreme Court justices. But this is more a function of the current national Republican party than of Trump himself. Any of Trump's opponents in the 2016 primaries would have followed the same policies. ..."
Trump is not crazy at all. He is the proponent of a particular philosophy, Trumpism, which
he follows very clearly and consistently.
As president, he has had significant successes. Notably, he has brought North Korea away
from the edge of nuclear war and established at least tentative diplomatic relations with
that nation, something no president has done before him. Against frenzied opposition from the
American Establishment, he has somewhat softened U.S. relations with Russia.
On domestic and environmental matters, Trump is pro-plutocrat, a climate change denier,
and the installer of arch-reactionary Supreme Court justices. But this is more a function of
the current national Republican party than of Trump himself. Any of Trump's opponents in the
2016 primaries would have followed the same policies.
Trumpism is undeniably a form of near-fascism. Trump has followed viciously anti-immigrant
tendencies, and this, along with his ties to out-and-out racists, is the worst part of his
presidency. But these horrible aspects do not at all show that he is crazy. He has used them
coldly and calculatedly to gain power.
And while his schtick and bluster are indeed bizarre, he has used them very consistently
to keep a 40%-plus approval rating in the face of an Establishment opposition the like of
which has used against a president at least in our lifetimes.
As I have commented here before, except for Trump's disgusting anti-immigration policies,
George W. Bush was on balance a far worse president.
U.S. President Donald Trump continued his
attacks Wednesday on an explosive book about his administration.
Trump said the book, written by U.S. veteran investigative journalist Bob
Woodward, "means nothing" and called it "a work of fiction" during a photo op with
visiting Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah at the White
House.
Woodward's book -- "Fear: Trump in the White House" -- is to be released next
week.
According to excerpts obtained by media outlets, Trump's aides describe him as a
"liar" and an "idiot" who is running a "crazytown."
"Isn't it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up
stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the
fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost," Trump tweeted earlier in
the day.
He also tweeted out written statements of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly
and Secretary of Defense James Mattis, both of whom denied uttering quoted
criticisms of the president in the book.
In a statement to The Washington Post, Woodward said, "I stand by my
reporting."
The book was based on hundreds of hours of conversations with direct players,
according to the author.
Woodward has been a reporter at the The Washington Post since 1971 and remains
an associate editor there.
He is most famous for breaking the story of the Watergate scandal, which
promoted the resignation of Richard Nixon from the presidency in 1974.
"... two more people tied to me would be dragged before the Grand Jury. ..."
"... Mueller and his smug band of thugs seek to browbeat before the Grand Jury is conservative author Dr. Corsi. ..."
"... It was Dr. Corsi who first alerted me to the lucrative business deals and Russian collusion of John and Tony Podesta but Corsi, a brilliant researcher, got this information from already published public sources! ..."
"... The other longtime contact Mueller seeks to interrogate this week is Trump hating left-wing radio host and deranged but job Randy Credico who merely confirmed for me that Wikileaks had, as it's publisher Julian Assange told CNN in June if 2016 a trove of devastating material on Hillary and would publish the material in October before the election. ..."
Robert Mueller the biased and partisan " Special Counsel "who has no interest whatsoever in
the multiple crimes of Bill and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and his deeply corrupted FBI
and Justice Department but is on a relentless drive to remove President Donald Trump has done
it again!
This time Mueller and the partisan band of left-wing hitmen on the "Get Trump squad" leaked
to the media that two more people tied to me would be dragged before the Grand
Jury.
If you believe the fake news media Mueller seeks to prove that I had advance knowledge of an
alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee by "the Russians" and that this alleged
hack email material was then sent to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks who then passed it on to me to
pass in to my friend and client if 40 years Donald Trump. This is a damnable provable lie!
The other fairy tale Mueller is pushing is the false claim that I knew that Wikileaks had
obtained and would [publish] Clinton campaign chief John Podesta's incredibly incriminating
emails. This also categorically false!
One of my friends Mueller and his smug band of thugs seek to browbeat before the Grand
Jury is conservative author Dr. Corsi.
It was Dr. Corsi who first alerted me to the lucrative business deals and Russian
collusion of John and Tony Podesta but Corsi, a brilliant researcher, got this information from
already published public sources! Corsi also made me aware of an August 14, 2016 article
in Breitbart News by Peter Schweizer who reported that John Podesta's brother Tony had lobbied
for the same Ukrainian political party as Paul.
While Corsi did not memorialize his findings until Aug 31 I had heard enough to post my now
Iconic tweet predicting " the Podesta's time in the barrel (time under the same public scrutiny
as Paul Manafort) would come "on August 21. Remember the context- Manafort was taking a beating
in the press but I knew the Podesta's Russian ties were more extensive and that Tony was in the
same boat as Manafort.
Note in the original Tweet I said THE Podesta's time in the barrel while THE (which is
omitted in virtually every news report including ironically the final House Intelligence
Committee Report) clearly refers to TWO Podestas. There is much debate about the apostrophe s
in Podesta's- I say it is correct as it is a plural possessive (referring to BOTH their time in
the barrel) while others argue it should be "Podestas" if I was speaking of two people.
The other longtime contact Mueller seeks to interrogate this week is Trump hating
left-wing radio host and deranged but job Randy Credico who merely confirmed for me that
Wikileaks had, as it's publisher Julian Assange told CNN in June if 2016 a trove of devastating
material on Hillary and would publish the material in October before the election.
This I know- there is no evidence in my emails or texts or anywhere else or from any other
party that would demonstrate that I knew about the publication or content of John Podesta's
extraordinarily embarrassing and incriminating emails in advance or that I knew about the
source or content of the DNC material Wikileaks did publish .Mr. Mueller will find nothing of
the sort and any claim to the contrary by anyone would be composed perjury.
If Corsi and Credico testify truthfully their testimony would be exculpatory for me but
Mueller has a lifelong record of squeezing witnesses to get them to lie.
Some people should be very careful what they wish for.
UPDATE- the testimony of Dr. Jerome Corsi before the Grand Jury today was canceled.
Regarding the hacking of Democrats computers, nothing has been proven even on the margins or
circumstantially on any of these counts. Moreover, the FBI failed to examine the affected
computers, and we now know that FBI deputy head and other FBI top officials were scheming to
undermine Trump in support of Hillary Clinton's election and that Clinton's campaign had
colluded with the Russians to produce the Steele dossier, for which the FBI also paid for.
Moreover still, independent research has demonstrated that the hack is most likely to have
occurred from inside DNC headquarters.
Even if Russia did hack the DNC – and I am sure it has at least tried to hack US
government computer systems as well – one needs to be beyond naïve to believe that
US intelligence has not hacked Russian government computers. Indeed, the NSA has hacked the
government computers of such close US allies as Germany and France
(www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/04/us-nsa-gerhard-schroeder-surveillance and http://www.bbc.com/news/33248484 ). It is
clear that much of the material in the recent indictment of 13 Russians was garnered by U.S.
intelligence accessing Russian computer systems, perhaps some governmental systems. For
example, the indictment references an intercepted email. One can be sure that some of the
compromising materials on Russian officials that appear in American and perhaps even Russian
media come from NSA hacking. Russian hacking is a drop in the bucket compared with the scale
and scope of methods the West has used to target Russia and its allies in the former USSR since
the end of the first cold war.
State Hacks Never Happened
All or most of the charges that the Kremlin hacked state voting systems have been retracted.
Even if it did, ditto the previous paragraph.
Russia-Trump 'Collusion'
The Russia-Trump collusion charges have fallen flat on their face. The only semi-maningful
result of former FBi Director Robert Mueller's 'counter-intelligence investigation' is that a
one-time campaign advisor Paul Manafort was indicted for corrupt collusion with Ukraine's
corrupt Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions that occurred before Manafort was on Trump's
campaign staff. Furthermore, contrary to the Western view, Yanukovych was anything but a 'Putin
puppet.' This fact is well-illustrated by then Ukrainian president's willingness to sign the EU
Association Agreement in November 2013, a signing which was only aborted by an exorbitant offer
by Putin of $15 billion in loans and natural gas price reductions on the background of Ukraine
being on the verge of bankruptcy and the EU offering far less.
Russia's Troll Farm – An Inconsequential Spontaneous Experiment
The newest sensation in the 'hunt for Red October' is the Kremlin-tied troll farm. Assuming
that Putin's close associate and cook is indeed tied to this small effort, then the US
government has finally found an incident of 'Russian interference in the 2016 presidential
election' in the United States. Unfortunately, the effort was minimal and nothing to write home
about or worth a multi-million government investigation. It is more on the level of a research
report farmed out to one of the government-oriented and often-funded DC think tanks with a
small $5-10,000 grant attached. Indeed, RFERL already had written about the very same operation
as did an Internet news site based, in all places, in 'Putin's Russia.' The 13 indictments were
handed down not for the troll activity under an operation called 'Lakhta' – 99 percent of
which was merely posting advertisements and comments on the Internet from "around" May 2014 to
several months after the US presidential campaign – but for other crimes such as
money-laundering. To be sure, the effort to pit American against American by calling opposing
radical groups to the same location for potentially explosive counter-demonstrations is nasty
stuff. But such cases amounted to less than a handful.
Ultimately, operation Lakhta appears to have been a rather inconsequential experiment, since
prior to the US presidential campaign it had focused almost exclusively on trolling Russian
politics, expanding to foreign issues like Ukraine and then to the US. The FBI indictment sites
the budget of 'Lakhta' was several million dollars per year. Elsewhere the indictment states
that by September 2016 'Lakhta' had a monthly budget of $1.3 million ( www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download , pp.
5 and 7). Again, this is a drop in the bucket compared to Western disinformation operations in
general and the US political campaign expenditures. This is equivalent to about 10 percent of
the cost of congressional campaign, about 1 percent of the the amount Trump and Clinton spent
on Internet activity (much of which was similar trolling with ads and comments), and a fraction
of a percent of the billions of dollars the two candidates paid on their campaigns. Moreover,
this tactical campaign amounts to far less than the routine, much more strategic disinformation
communications carried out by the US government and allied media on a continuing basis since
the first cold war's end (see, for example,
https://gordonhahn.com/2015/09/19/putin-is-crazy-and-sick-the-lows-of-american-rusology/ and
https://gordonhahn.com/2015/11/11/the-myth-of-an-imminent-anti-putin-coup-rusological-fail-or-stratcomm/
).
Opposition-Promotion
In imitation and exacting revenge against past Western support for democratic and other
opposition organizations and individuals in Russia and elsewhere under various and sundry
democracy-promotion programs and much else, Russia has turned to cooperating with nationalist
and populist opposition parties in the West. However, that effort is, again, very limited and
gravely overstated by Western pundits and politicians. It amounts almost entirely to an alleged
one-time contribution to Marie Le Pen's nationalist-populist National Front party in France.
Some in the US are making much noise about a forum of legal European nationalist and populist
parties hosted in 2015 in St. Petersburg, Russia (www.kommersant.ru/doc/2683403 and
www.interpretermag.com/the-far-right-international-russian-conservative-forum-to-take-place-in-russia/
). A second conference is scheduled there on 8 April 2018 ( http://realpatriot.ru/en/ ). Presumably, these conferences
could be held elsewhere. Is it crucial that they are hosted by Russia? Does it matter where
such conferences are held? As a US presidential candidate once said: "Where's the beef?" Does
it matter more than US-government RFERL whitewashing jihadi Caucasus terrorists who killed
thousands of Russians over some six years or falsifying the reality of the 20 February 2014
Maidan snipers' massacre in Kiev? Does it matter more than the fact that Europeans have
produced such parties and why they have produced them? Should Europeans be absolved of their
agency, so blame can be redirected onto Russia? Moreover, one researcher has convincingly
demonstrated that Russia's cooperation with such parties has more to do with an overlap or
"confluence" of interests and ideology between some in Moscow and the Western far-right rather
than the former's influence on the latter
(www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/russian-and-american-far-right-connections-confluence-not-influence).
Moreover, the radical jihadist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, regarded by almost all terrorism
experts as a precursor and recruitment organization for jihdism and jihadi groups, holds an
annual convention and several other events in the United States every year ( https://hizb-america.org/events/ ), with similar
operations across the West. Weeks ago one of America's leading conservative political
organizations, the Conservative Political Action Committee or CPAC, had Marie Le Pen's daughter
Marion Marechal`-Le Pen, the United Kingdom's Independent Party's populist firebrand and former
leader Nigel Farage, among other European populists speak at their annual convention.
Russia may move into more threatening territory, if it begins to support rising
ethno-national separatism in places in Europe or the West more generally like Catalonia. The
foreign ministry of South Ossetiya, the Russian-backed breakaway region of Georgia, opened up a
"representative office" in Catalonia in October (www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/41274/). This
could be even more dangerous territory for Moscow's 'me-two-ism' to tread on. On the other
hand, the West violated its own UN-sponsored resolution on Kosovo committing to Yugoslavia's
territorial integrity.
Conclusion
Russia is using the tools of the West, those the latter has deployed against Russia since
the collapse of the Berlin wall, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the dawn of the new world
order and a 'united Europe from Vancouver to Vladivostok.' The West moved first to back
anti-Russian parties in the former USSR and opposition parties in Russia, so Russia has now
begun to back anti-American parties and opposition parties in the West. The West first used the
Internet against Russia and its allies, and Russia followed suit using it against the West. The
West interfered in Russian presidential campaigns and other aspects of Russia's internal
political life and that of its allies, and Russia is responding in kind. The West has backed
revolutions (a priori facto and ex post facto) and separatism, including jihadism, against
Russia and its allies, and Russia began to do the same (minus the support for jihadists)
against the West.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., Expert Analyst at Corr Analytics,
http://www.canalyt.com and a Senior
Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group, San
Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org .
Dr. Hahn is the author of Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold
War (McFarland Publishers, 2017) and three previously and well-received books: Russia's
Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist
Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Russia's Islamic Threat (Yale University
Press, 2007); and The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus
and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014).He has published numerous think tank reports, academic
articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media and has served
as a consultant and provided expert testimony to the U.S. government.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San
Francisco State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University,
Russia. He has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies and the Kennan Institute in Washington DC as well as the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University.
First of all as Diana
Johnstone noted this can be attempt to saw discord in Trump administration and anonymous
author iether does not exist or is a former official fired by Trump. See The New York Times as Iago, by Diana
Johnstone . She suggested that it was written by NYT staff " The letter by Mister or Ms
Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the
NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a
masterpiece of treacherous deception." ... "The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the
facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to
undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea." The letter amounts to an endorsement
of future President Pence. Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing
Republican as President.
She continues: " Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone
around him? Isn't that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and
which is fallback grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with
anything more serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?"
AS Daniel Larrison points out the dishonesty of anonymous author is evident: " They want
credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating the policies of the
government to their own liking. ". And they so far succeeded in manipulating Trump foreign
policy to the extent that he does not differ from Bush II.
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating the policies of the government to their own liking. ..."
"... There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but the anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory article. ..."
The
New York Timespublished
a strange op-ed purportedly written by a "senior official" in the Trump administration:
The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda
and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left. We want the administration
to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more
prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a
manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
The author of the op-ed flatters himself by claiming to be acting in the best interests of
the country, but there is something very wrong with having self-appointed guardians assuming
that they have the right to sabotage certain policies of the elected president. For one, they
have no authority to do what they're doing, and no one voted for them. It is one thing to argue
that professionals should be willing to serve a bad president in the interests of public
service, and it is quite another to argue that the officials working for the president are
entitled to disregard and override the president's decisions because the president happens to
be an ignorant buffoon. The "two-track presidency" that the official boasts about is an affront
to our system of government. It is not reassuring that U.S. foreign policy continues as if on
autopilot no matter what the electorate votes for.
Perversely, the more that Trump administration officials "frustrate parts of his agenda,"
the more likely it is that Trump remains in power longer than he otherwise would. The official
says that the core of the problem is the president's "amorality." That raises the obvious
question: how can someone acknowledge that the president has no principles or scruples of any
kind and still in good conscience try to help him succeed? These officials are not only
enabling a president whose behavior they consider to be "detrimental to the health of our
republic," but they are helping to make sure that he stays in office instead of hastening his
defeat. They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to
manipulating the policies of the government to their own liking.
There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but
the anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the
administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly
conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about
that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory
article.
If this official feels so strongly that the president endangers the health and well-being of
the country, he should put his name on a statement to that effect when he announces his
resignation.
"... The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception. ..."
"... This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow. ..."
"... The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with Russian and North Korea. ..."
"... Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.) ..."
"... The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence. ..."
"... This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington, Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and betray. ..."
"... The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on. ..."
"... Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly matters since they are so closely entwined. ..."
"... The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural resources. ..."
"... When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States. ..."
The New York Times continues to outdo itself in the production of fake news. There is no
more reliable source of fake news than the intelligence services, which regularly provide their
pet outlets (NYT and WaPo) with sensational stories that are as unverifiable as their sources
are anonymous. A prize example was the August 24 report that US intelligence agencies don't
know anything about Russia's plans to mess up our November elections because "informants close
to Putin and in the Kremlin" aren't saying anything. Not knowing anything about something for
which there is no evidence is a rare scoop.
A story like that is not designed to "inform the public" since there is no information in
it. It has other purposes: to keep the "Russia is undermining our democracy" story on front
pages, with the extra twist in this case of trying to make Putin distrustful of his entourage.
The Russian president is supposed to wonder, who are those informants in my entourage?
But that was nothing compared to the whopper produced by the "newpaper of record" on
September 5. (By the way, the "record" is stuck in the same groove: Trump bad, Putin bad
– bad bad bad.) This was the sensational oped headlined "I am Part of the Resistance
Inside the Trump Administration", signed by nobody.
The letter by Mister or Ms Anonymous is very well written. By someone like, say, Thomas
Friedman. That is, someone on the NYT staff. It is very cleverly composed to achieve quite
obvious calculated aims. It is a masterpiece of treacherous deception.
The fictional author presents itself as a right-wing conservative shocked by Trump's
"amorality" – a category that outside the Washington swamp might include betraying the
trust of one's superior.
This anonymous enemy of amorality claims to approve of all the most extreme right-wing
measures of the Trump administration as "bright spots": deregulation, tax reform, a more robust
military, "and more" – cleverly omitting mention of Trump's immigration policy which
could unduly shock the New York Times' liberal readers. The late Senator John McCain, the model
of bipartisan bellicosity, is cited as the example to follow.
The "resistance" proclaimed is solely against the facets of Trump's foreign policy which
White House insiders are said to be working diligently to undermine: peaceful relations with
Russian and North Korea.
Trump's desire to avoid war is transformed into "a preference for autocrats and
dictators". (Trump gets no credit for his warlike rhetoric against Iran and close relations
with Netanyahu, even though they must please Anonymous.)
The purpose of this is stunningly obvious. The New York Times has already done yeoman
service in rounding up liberal Democrats and left-leaning independents in the anti-Trump lynch
mob. But now the ploy is to rally conservative Republicans to the same cause of overthrowing
the elected President. The letter amounts to an endorsement of future President Pence.
Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as
President.
The Democrats may not like Pence, but they are so demented by hatred of Trump that they are
visibly ready to accept the Devil himself to get rid of the sinister clown who dared defeat
Hillary Clinton. Down with democracy; the votes of deplorables shouldn't count.
That is treacherous enough, but even more despicable is the insidious design to destabilize
the presidency by sowing distrust. Speaking of Trump, Mr and/or Ms Anonymous declare: "The
dilemma – which he does not fully grasp – is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations" (meaning peace with Russia).
This is the Iago ploy. Shakespeare's villain destroyed Othello by causing him to
distrust those closest to him, his wife and closest associates. Like Trump in Washington,
Othello, the "Moor" of Venice, was an outsider, that much easier to deceive and
betray.
The New York Times is playing Iago, whispering that Putin in the Kremlin is surrounded
by secret "informants", and that Trump in the White House is surrounded by people
systematically undermining his presidency. Putin is not likely to be impressed, but the trick
might work with Trump, who is truly the target of open and covert enemies and whose position is
much more insecure. There is certainly some undermining going on.
Was the New York Times oped written by the paper's own writers or by the CIA? It hardly
matters since they are so closely entwined.
No trick is too low for those who consider Trump an intolerable intruder on THEIR power
territory. The New York Times "news" that Trump is surrounded by traitors is taken up by other
media who indirectly confirm the story by speculating on "who is it?" The Boston Globe (among
others) eagerly rushed in, asking:
"So who's the author of the op-ed? It's a question that has many people poking through the
text, looking for clues. Meanwhile, the denials have come thick and fast. Here's a brief look
at some of the highest-level officials in the administration who might have a motive to write
the letter."
Isn't it obvious that all this is designed to make Trump distrust everyone around him? Isn't
that a way to drive him toward that "crazy" where they say he already is, and which is fallback
grounds for impeachment when the Mueller investigation fails to come up with nothing more
serious than the fact that Russian intelligent agents are intelligent agents?
The White House insider (or insiders, or whatever) use terms like "erratic behavior" and
"instability" to contribute to the "Trump is insane" narrative. Insanity is the alternative
pretext to the Mueller wild goose chase for divesting Trump of the powers of the presidency. If
Trump responds by accusing the traitors of being traitors, that will be final proof of his
mental instability. The oped claims to provide evidence that Trump is being betrayed, but if he
says so, that will be taken as a sign of mental derangement. To save our exemplary democracy
from itself, the elected president must be thrown out.
The military-industrial-congressional-deep state-media complex is holding its breath to
breathe that great sigh of relief. The intruder is gone. Hurrah! Now we can go right on
teaching the public to hate and fear the Russian enemy, so that arms contracts continue to
blossom and NATO builds up its aggressive forces around Russia in hopes that this may frighten
the Russians into dumping Putin in favor of a new Boris Yeltsin, ready to let the United States
pursue the Clintonian plan of breaking up the Russian Federation into pieces, like the former
Yugoslavia, in order to take them over one by one, with all their great natural
resources.
And when this fails, as it has been failing, and will continue to fail, the United States
has all those brand new first strike nuclear weapons being stationed in European NATO
countries, aimed at the Kremlin. And the Russian military are not just sitting there with their
own nuclear weapons, waiting to be wiped out. When nobody, not even the President of the United
States, has the right to meet and talk with Russian leaders, there is only one remaining form
of exchange. When dialogue is impossible, all that is left is force and violence. That is
what is being promoted by the most influential media in the United States.
Sara h
Huckabee Sanders has a tiny request: Please stop asking her about that pesky little
New York Times op-ed written by an anonymous White House official.
... ... ...
On Thursday, Sanders tweeted a message addressed to all the people "asking for the identity
of the anonymous coward" (basically, everyone).
The media's wild obsession with the identity of the anonymous coward is recklessly
tarnishing the reputation of thousands of great Americans who
proudly serve our country and work for President Trump. Stop. If you want to know who this
gutless loser is, call the opinion desk of the failing NYT at 212-556-1234, and ask them.
They are the only ones complicit in this deceitful act.
We stand united together and fully support our President Donald J.Trump.
"... I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us, Russians. ..."
"... The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections. But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ? ..."
"... Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values. ..."
"... But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? ..."
"... Looks like Daniel Coats think that the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve the role of world government you better be rich. ..."
"... why we Russians should interfere in already completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity. ..."
According to popular belief, the cold war ended with the victory of the United States of America. And, accordingly, the demice
of the Soviet Union. However, what exactly represent such a victory is not that easy to understand. Instead of one conservative,
and therefore predictable player, the United States received a half dozen countries, of which only three or four are loyal, with
other living by "the laws of jungles" (sorry free market). The number of aimed at American cities Intercontinental ballistic missiles
with nuclear warheads remained approximately the same as before the infamous "victory." And strategic atomic submarines remained,
and strategic bombers. There are less of them, for sure, but they are more modern and more dngerous with more sophisticated weaponry.
In any ccase remaining are still enough to make the winner to feel like a loser after b=neclear apolaipsys. And the idfea of victory
is that the victor is the master (in this case the master of the plant). Am I missing something ?
Of course, another inquisitive observer will tell us about the controlled chaos, about the growing influence and plans for the
establishing of the world neoliberal government. I was impressed by the recent revelation of Senator John Tester, who said that Putin
is promoting communism in America. As the idea that this senator is a complete idiot who does not understand the Russia rejected
communism as a dead-born system is pretty absurd. I would venture to assume that it might be that Russia did something that can with
some stretch be qualifies as an attempt to influence the USA election, but, alas, Putin has no strategic plan, not the intention.
First of all this would be pretty idiotic idea as two candidates were equally bad for Russia and it was completely unclear who is
worse.
But all those crazy US neocons still managed to imposed on Russia sanctions because of its "interference in the elections." That
tells us something about the US congress. I do not want to write about the lack of evidence and absurdity of the arguments again.
I've already written a lot about it. No, let's stop talking about the past and try to look into the future.
The US President's national security adviser John Bolton (who theoretically should be a sanest person in the administration) recently
said that the US is concerned about the potential for interference in the midterm elections to the Congress of four countries. Russia,
China, Iran and North Korea. "I will not go into details of what I saw or didn't see, but I tell you that in the 2018 elections,
these four countries raise the greatest fears," proclaim this highly placed Presidential adviser.
Theoretically it make some sense. Any man with a knife has a potential to kill. Any country with nuclear weapons has the potential
to strike at the US. Any country with developed IT has a potential opportunity to interfere in elections with the help of cyber attacks.
For example, Israel. But it is not a good idea to scare the American voter with Israel. No, he/she should be confused, and he/she
should be afraid of potential menace. And this external enemy should unite fragmented by neoliberal excesses country (for this purpose
those good-for nothing people grazing in State Department and Spaso House (The US embassy in Moscow) should constantly accuse the
Russian authorities of all sorts nefarious activities. So there is nothing new here: Great Britain uses similar dirty tricks against
Russia for centuries. I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea
interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us,
Russians.
What do we want? Let's say we want the midterms to be won by the Republicans. Then explain to me why Republican John Bolton fears
this. If there's anything John Bolton should be afraid of, it's that Russia will intervene in the midterms in order to win the Democrats.
But The Washington Post writes that "the leaders of the Democratic party of the United States fear the potential interference of
Russia and start to increase its presence in anticipation of the interim election cycle on such platforms as Facebook and Twitter."
President Trump writes on Twitter that Russia will" make a lot of effort " to intervene in the midterm elections on the side of the
Democrats. Microsoft claims that Russian hackers created fake websites of Republican organizations in order to collect information
about Republicans. The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections.
But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our
effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ?
Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and
undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values.
But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will
lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? If the net result for us anyway will be the same: more
sanctions? Here we should go back to the idea of "controlled chaos" and world government. Looks like Daniel Coats think that
the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk
as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve
the role of world government you better be rich.
Again the question arise, why we should interfere in he USA elections. Only if we are out for revenge, "eye for eye" principle
as they interfered in ours. There's no other reasonable answer. But even in this case, why we Russians should interfere in already
completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen
and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity.
And before we get the answer to this fundamental question "Why?" there can be no further questions. None. Moreover, no other questions
are needed. So let them just explain to us why we should interfere and how we can benefit from such an interference, and we will
try our best. Before that, let's just watch.
And when they explain this to us, we can communicate the answer to China, Iran and North Korea free of charge.
"... I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us, Russians. ..."
"... The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections. But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ? ..."
"... Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values. ..."
"... But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? ..."
"... Looks like Daniel Coats think that the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve the role of world government you better be rich. ..."
"... why we Russians should interfere in already completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity. ..."
According to popular belief, the cold war ended with the victory of the United States of America. And, accordingly, the demice
of the Soviet Union. However, what exactly represent such a victory is not that easy to understand. Instead of one conservative,
and therefore predictable player, the United States received a half dozen countries, of which only three or four are loyal, with
other living by "the laws of jungles" (sorry free market). The number of aimed at American cities Intercontinental ballistic missiles
with nuclear warheads remained approximately the same as before the infamous "victory." And strategic atomic submarines remained,
and strategic bombers. There are less of them, for sure, but they are more modern and more dngerous with more sophisticated weaponry.
In any ccase remaining are still enough to make the winner to feel like a loser after b=neclear apolaipsys. And the idfea of victory
is that the victor is the master (in this case the master of the plant). Am I missing something ?
Of course, another inquisitive observer will tell us about the controlled chaos, about the growing influence and plans for the
establishing of the world neoliberal government. I was impressed by the recent revelation of Senator John Tester, who said that Putin
is promoting communism in America. As the idea that this senator is a complete idiot who does not understand the Russia rejected
communism as a dead-born system is pretty absurd. I would venture to assume that it might be that Russia did something that can with
some stretch be qualifies as an attempt to influence the USA election, but, alas, Putin has no strategic plan, not the intention.
First of all this would be pretty idiotic idea as two candidates were equally bad for Russia and it was completely unclear who is
worse.
But all those crazy US neocons still managed to imposed on Russia sanctions because of its "interference in the elections." That
tells us something about the US congress. I do not want to write about the lack of evidence and absurdity of the arguments again.
I've already written a lot about it. No, let's stop talking about the past and try to look into the future.
The US President's national security adviser John Bolton (who theoretically should be a sanest person in the administration) recently
said that the US is concerned about the potential for interference in the midterm elections to the Congress of four countries. Russia,
China, Iran and North Korea. "I will not go into details of what I saw or didn't see, but I tell you that in the 2018 elections,
these four countries raise the greatest fears," proclaim this highly placed Presidential adviser.
Theoretically it make some sense. Any man with a knife has a potential to kill. Any country with nuclear weapons has the potential
to strike at the US. Any country with developed IT has a potential opportunity to interfere in elections with the help of cyber attacks.
For example, Israel. But it is not a good idea to scare the American voter with Israel. No, he/she should be confused, and he/she
should be afraid of potential menace. And this external enemy should unite fragmented by neoliberal excesses country (for this purpose
those good-for nothing people grazing in State Department and Spaso House (The US embassy in Moscow) should constantly accuse the
Russian authorities of all sorts nefarious activities. So there is nothing new here: Great Britain uses similar dirty tricks against
Russia for centuries. I am interested in another, a very simple question: why? Why would Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea
interfere in the US midterm elections? What they want to achieve. All right, let's drop all the others, let's just talk about us,
Russians.
What do we want? Let's say we want the midterms to be won by the Republicans. Then explain to me why Republican John Bolton fears
this. If there's anything John Bolton should be afraid of, it's that Russia will intervene in the midterms in order to win the Democrats.
But The Washington Post writes that "the leaders of the Democratic party of the United States fear the potential interference of
Russia and start to increase its presence in anticipation of the interim election cycle on such platforms as Facebook and Twitter."
President Trump writes on Twitter that Russia will" make a lot of effort " to intervene in the midterm elections on the side of the
Democrats. Microsoft claims that Russian hackers created fake websites of Republican organizations in order to collect information
about Republicans. The same hackers who broke into the DNC and stole Hillary Clinton emails now will steal midterm elections.
But from whom? Do you understand anything? Personally, I don't understand anymore. Which Party we support? Who is the target of our
effort to interfere in the USA elections. Are we promoting Repubs or DemoRats ?
Perhaps the head of the US national intelligence Daniel Coates is right when he declared that "their goal is to divide and
undermine our democratic values." Well, let's suppose that we really are against those sacred values.
But the midterm elections will still be held, despite any interference. And one of candidates will win, while the other will
lose. If we see no difference in candidates why we should interfere? If the net result for us anyway will be the same: more
sanctions? Here we should go back to the idea of "controlled chaos" and world government. Looks like Daniel Coats think that
the world government is us. No, I'd certainly like the idea, even if this requires smoking something really strong (let's use Musk
as a lodestar ;-). But I'm afraid we're not capable to serve in this role. After economic rape of 1991 we are too poor. And to serve
the role of world government you better be rich.
Again the question arise, why we should interfere in he USA elections. Only if we are out for revenge, "eye for eye" principle
as they interfered in ours. There's no other reasonable answer. But even in this case, why we Russians should interfere in already
completely messed up US elections, which typically equal to a force choice between two equally unacceptable candidates, already chosen
and vetted by neoliberal elite. Like Trump vs. Hillary. why we should play this game of "the lesser evil." It's plain vanilla stupidity.
And before we get the answer to this fundamental question "Why?" there can be no further questions. None. Moreover, no other questions
are needed. So let them just explain to us why we should interfere and how we can benefit from such an interference, and we will
try our best. Before that, let's just watch.
And when they explain this to us, we can communicate the answer to China, Iran and North Korea free of charge.
President Trump and those close to him have challenged the narrative of Bob
Woodward's new book, which portrays him as "a 5th-grader" ready to make rash decisions, such as
ordering the assassination of Assad.
"The Woodward book has already been refuted and
discredited by General (Secretary of Defense) James Mattis and General (Chief of Staff) John
Kelly," Trump tweeted on Tuesday afternoon, after excerpts from the book were published by
the Washington Post and other publications. The manuscript, which is scheduled for release next
week, contains many quotes that were "made up frauds," Trump said, calling the book's
narrative "a con on the public."
The Woodward book has already been refuted and discredited by General (Secretary of
Defense) James Mattis and General (Chief of Staff) John Kelly. Their quotes were made up
frauds, a con on the public. Likewise other stories and quotes. Woodward is a Dem operative?
Notice timing?
Rejecting the claims that senior aides have been plucking sensitive documents off his desk
to prevent him from making rash decisions, Trump noted in an exclusive interview with
the Daily Caller that the bulk of the stories in the book were just a compilation of "nasty
stuff" totally "made up" by the famed Watergate Washington Post reporter.
Trump was not the only one to slam Woodward's claims, which present the US leader as an
impulsive decision-maker, who is sometimes called an "idiot" and a "liar"
even by those closest to him:
Trump ordered Mattis to 'f**king kill' Assad
One of the excerpts from the book claims the president ordered Secretary of Defense Jim
Mattis to assassinate the Syrian leader following the 2017 Idlib chemical incident. "Let's
f**king kill him! Let's go in. Let's kill the f**king lot of them," Trump allegedly told
Mattis. "We're not going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured," the
defense secretary allegedly told one of his senior staffers after that.
Following the controversial claim, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley denied that Trump
ever planned to assassinate Assad. "I have not once ever heard the president talk about
assassinating Assad,"
she told reporters at UN headquarters.
"Mr. Woodward never discussed or verified the alleged quotes included in his book with
Secretary Mattis or anyone within the DOD," a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Rob Manning,
added.
Mattis compared Trump to '5th or 6th grader'
Woodward claims that Trump once asked Mattis why the US backs South Korea militarily and
financially, prompting the defense secretary to tell close associates afterward that Trump had
the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader. "Secretaries of defense don't always get to
choose the president they work for," Mattis allegedly said in another instance.
Mattis personally rejected the claim made in the book. "In serving in this
administration, the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief,
President Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our
Department of Defense, is a product of someone's rich imagination," he said.
Chief
of Staff described Trump as an 'unhinged idiot'
"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the
rails. We're in crazytown," Woodward quotes White House Chief of Staff John Kelly as
saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I don't even know why any of us are here. This is
the worst job I've ever had."
Kelly, however, has firmly
denied the allegations, dismissing the chapter about him as "total
BS."
Staff snatched documents from Trump's desk fearing he might sign them
Former Chief Economic Adviser Gary Cohn, according to Woodward, once saw a draft letter on
the Oval Office desk that would have withdrawn the US from a trade agreement with South Korea.
"I stole it off his desk," Cohn told an associate, allegedly terrified Trump might
sign it. "I wouldn't let him see it. He's never going to see that document. Got to protect
the country." Former staff secretary Rob Porter, who handled the flow of presidential
papers, allegedly used similar tactics on several occasions.
However, according to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, the entire book is nothing
more than a bunch of "fabricated stories" told by "disgruntled" former
employees to make the president "look bad."
Egypt's president wondered if Trump
was 'going to be around' for long
According to Woodward, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is one of the world leaders
who was worried the infamous Mueller probe might eventually result in impeachment. "Donald,
I'm worried about this investigation. Are you going to be around?" al-Sisi allegedly said.
Trump supposedly later told his lawyer that the question was "like a kick in the
nuts."
Amid the barrage of firm denials by Trump and his team, Woodward
reiterated that he "stands by" his reporting and the book's contents.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"... "This is very different from Watergate. This is gossip. Much of it is anonymous gossip, so it feeds this neverending reality television show political drama that cable news channels like CNN are making quite a bit of money off of," ..."
"... "It's always something, it's endless burlesque, and this feeds into this kind of narrative." ..."
"... "a little more likely to side with Woodward on this one," ..."
"... "At the same time, 70 percent of the people in this country are in pretty severe economic distress, and their voices are not being heard at all, and I think that that's why Trump's base remains firm, because these people have been rendered invisible by the press... that has just become a giant carnival act," ..."
"... "shady world of anonymous sources" ..."
"... "Institutions like the New York Times... use language about the president that would've been wholly unacceptable when I was there. Calling him a liar day in and day out – that doesn't mean he didn't lie, but presidents lie all the time, and every administration I covered lied, starting with the Reagan administration. This is really a war on the part of the establishment press, the Washington establishment, to take down Trump." ..."
The paradoxical era of anonymous anti-Trump reporting has turned once-solid journalism into
a carnival of unverifiable accusations. True or not, they distract from real issues, says
Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges. A new bombshell book about the horrors of
Trump's White House is about to hit the shelves. This time it's not penned by a disgruntled
former official, but the world-famous Bob Woodward – the investigative journalist who
uncovered the 1970s Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. Only this
time, instead of doing solid, verifiable journalism, he is peddling damning claims by anonymous
sources, says Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist and author.
"This is very different from Watergate. This is gossip. Much of it is anonymous gossip,
so it feeds this neverending reality television show political drama that cable news channels
like CNN are making quite a bit of money off of," – Mr. Hedges told RT. "It's
always something, it's endless burlesque, and this feeds into this kind of narrative."
This doesn't mean accusations against Trump are necessarily false – in fact, Mr.
Hedges says he's "a little more likely to side with Woodward on this one," – but
it does draw attention from America's real issues, and thus further entrenches Trump's voter
base.
"At the same time, 70 percent of the people in this country are in pretty severe
economic distress, and their voices are not being heard at all, and I think that that's why
Trump's base remains firm, because these people have been rendered invisible by the press...
that has just become a giant carnival act," Mr. Hedges says.
The "shady world of anonymous sources" has enabled phenomena like the recent New
York Times op-ed by a supposed anonymous White House insider, claiming there's a 'Resistance'
hotbed within the heart of the presidency. Chris Hedges, who has worked at the NYT for 15 years
himself, says the media's war on the president is like nothing he has seen before.
"Institutions like the New York Times... use language about the president that would've
been wholly unacceptable when I was there. Calling him a liar day in and day out – that
doesn't mean he didn't lie, but presidents lie all the time, and every administration I covered
lied, starting with the Reagan administration. This is really a war on the part of the
establishment press, the Washington establishment, to take down Trump."
More plausible theory is that it was written by NYT staff in Iago-style operation to saw discord in Trump administration
and promote Woodward's book
Notable quotes:
"... might be just what the NYT wants the Trump Whitehouse to waste time on. ..."
"... It could very well be a trap. In fact, the timing almost guarantees it. The other alternative is that the NYT is very desperate and the Deep State in dire straights. ..."
"... I don't think the op-ed piece came from anyone in the WH. It's fake but rest assured Trump can still use it to his advantage. ..."
"... The "op-ed" was likely either a set-up fabrication / amalgam from the CIA Toilet Paper of Record or some deluded over ambitious piece of shit like Nikki Haley. ..."
1) The NYT OpEd was actually written by one of the people who were fired during the very
EARLY days of the Trump administration because they turned out to not be so good (like
Bannon, Preibus, Walsh, Yates, Comey, Spicer, Gorka, Tillerson, McMaster, etc). This also
makes sense because they are describing (very exaggerated) the early days of the Trump admin
which were known to be somewhat chaotic before Trump got a good chief of staff (because
Preibus was useless)
2) The NYT has been holding onto the letter for almost two years as a weapon to use during
the mid-term elections
3) Looking for them inside the current administration is useless, because they are already
long gone
4) The NYT is probably stretching the truth about them being "senior" official which they
have a history of stretching the truth on for sources
5) It is also the exact same person as the (primary/only) source for all the accusations
in Woodward's book
Assuming this was written recently is a HUGE tactical oversight and might be just what the NYT wants the Trump
Whitehouse to waste time on.
Brazen Heist II ,
It could very well be a trap. In fact, the timing almost guarantees it. The other alternative is that the NYT is very desperate and the Deep State in dire
straights.
FreeEarCandy ,
"Issue Of National Security" and "looking into legal action".
If its a "REAL" issue of national security looking into legal action is non sequitur. You
raid the NYT and send all the usual suspects to Guantanamo Bay for a little water
boarding.
This whole stunt is pure political mind fuckery. Since when does the justice department
determine if we can legally defend our national security?
Kreditanstalt ,
Trump, like the rest of the Deep State elite, detests and is enraged more by "disloyalty"
among fellow elitists than by the opposition!
Dangerclose ,
I don't think the op-ed piece came from anyone in the WH. It's fake but rest assured Trump
can still use it to his advantage. I'll bet he gets EVERYONE to show a little more support
and less resistance. Hmmmmmm?
benb ,
The "op-ed" was likely either a set-up fabrication / amalgam from the CIA Toilet Paper of
Record or some deluded over ambitious piece of shit like Nikki Haley.
In any event it doesn't
matter. It's all about subversion. The Communist Party USA (Democrats) and Deep State know
they are about to get their asses handed to them in November.
They're are a bunch of desperate assholes at this point. Heads up. Be ready for anything
from here on out.
"... Taken together, the two are the equivalent of a stiff left jab followed by a roundhouse right. The president has been left reeling, staring into the political abyss. ..."
"... The president is betrayed, openly, in the pages of America's paper of record and, according to the activist, "the senior people in the [administration] do nothing about it." ..."
"... A report of mine in the National Interest last year relayed the hiring procedures, or lack thereof, of Trump appointees on the campaign and in the administration; prospective employees were rarely asked about their policy preferences. Said Scott McConnell , founding editor of TAC , on Wednesday: "Trump's biggest weakness is lacking knowledge of the policy people who might have helped him with a realist/populist agenda. But he never evinced any interest in finding smart realists to staff his administration." ..."
"... "We're Watching an Antidemocratic Coup Unfold," says David Graham in The Atlantic . "How the 'resistance' in the White House threatens American democracy . ..."
"... There's more than one path to authoritarianism," posits Damon Linker in The Week. ..."
"... But it's also true that Trump openly ran on detente . Should actual voters' preferences just be tossed aside in the name of, as the author suggests, the preservation of democracy? "So let's see: Trump ran on closer relations with Russia," Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined on Wednesday night. "Voters agreed with that. And so they elected him president of the United States. And yet, the tiny and incompetent Washington foreign policy establishment -- the very same people who brought you Iraq and Libya -- do not agree with that. So they subvert his views, which are also the views of voters." ..."
The Coup Against TrumpOne of his advisors tells TAC a plot is afoot. How far will
the president go to ensure his political survival?
... ... ...
Donald Trump rose from pariah to president through politics, and now may be on the brink of
being returned by the same means, the result of Bob Woodward's searing testimonial in
Fear and a scathing New York Times op-ed from someone in his own ranks.
Taken together, the two are the equivalent of a stiff left jab followed by a roundhouse
right. The president has been left reeling, staring into the political abyss.
A former senior administration official tells me that Wednesday's
op-ed in the New York Times , by an anonymous senior administration official, is
nothing short of an attempt at a "coup" against Trump himself. A veteran conservative activist
who is close to the White House says the story here is one insiders have been identifying since
the early days of the Trump administration (and that I've reported on
ad nauseum ): personnel.
The president is betrayed, openly, in the pages of America's paper
of record and, according to the activist, "the senior people in the [administration] do nothing
about it."
Something tantamount to a national game of "Clue" is underway. It was Mike Pence, with an
email to the Times , in the Naval Observatory. It was Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Jr.,
with the phone, in the bathroom of his Moscow apartment. This reporter is loathe to delve into
conjecture, but the author of the op-ed seems clearly to be, first, interested in national
security, and second, a traditional conservative. A preponderance of my sources argue that the
simplest explanation is usually the correct one. "[National Security Advisor John] Bolton would
shock me," a State Department veteran says.
The op-ed author writes: "This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of
the steady state." He (or she) maligns the president as "amoral" and devoid of "first
principles." A veteran watcher of Secretary of Defense James Mattis tells me that "'steady' is
a favorite Mattis word. I think the McCain funeral hit Mattis hard." Yet even if the president
suspected his defense chief, he would be loathe to quickly dispatch him -- and anyway Mattis
may leave on his own after the midterms.
♦♦♦
A case of seismic duplicity -- or needed patriotism, depending on who you talk to -- is, of
course, only half the story.
The other half is one that has been recurrent throughout this administration: the president
and his apparatchiks expended little initial capital on staffing the White House with genuine
loyalists, or true believers. They appointed neither longtime personal friends of the president
nor policy hands faithful to anything resembling a populist-nationalist agenda. News reports
abound of the president's surprising and depressing paucity of genuine friends.
As I relayed last week
in TAC : "A former senior Department of Defense official [being considered] for top
administration positions recalls meeting Jeff Sessions after the election. After hitting it
off, the future AG asked the candidate: ' Where have you been? '"
A report of mine in
the National Interest last year relayed the hiring procedures, or lack thereof, of
Trump appointees on the campaign and in the administration; prospective employees were rarely
asked about their policy preferences. Said Scott McConnell ,
founding editor of TAC , on Wednesday: "Trump's biggest weakness is lacking knowledge of
the policy people who might have helped him with a realist/populist agenda. But he never
evinced any interest in finding smart realists to staff his administration."
The president suggested that the op-ed was perhaps "TREASON?" He routinely conflates
national interest and personal interest, and thus now demands that the Times betray its
source. In doing so, he denigrates a founding ideal of the republic, prepared to erode civic
support for the First Amendment to dull the pain of an atrocious but largely self-inflicted
news cycle.
The personal nature of the president's complaint convulses the persuasive authority of the
arguments against his opposition. Since the publishing of the op-ed, there has been a steady
trickle of concern, particularly among left-liberal writers, about the precedent being set.
"We're Watching an Antidemocratic Coup Unfold," says David Graham in The Atlantic .
"How the 'resistance' in the White House threatens American democracy .There's more
than one path to authoritarianism," posits Damon Linker in The Week.
And indeed there are parts of the op-ed that are cause for genuine concern:
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies
as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks
about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and
he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country
for its malign behavior.
Treating Russia as the adversarial power that it is and proportionately punishing its malign
behavior smacks of sound policy. But it's also true that Trump openly ran on detente
. Should actual voters' preferences just be tossed aside in the name of, as the author
suggests, the preservation of democracy? "So let's see: Trump ran on closer relations with
Russia," Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined on Wednesday night. "Voters agreed with that. And
so they elected him president of the United States. And yet, the tiny and incompetent
Washington foreign policy establishment -- the very same people who brought you Iraq and Libya
-- do not agree with that. So they subvert his views, which are also the views of
voters."
Beyond the substantive criticisms from both sides, of Trump and of his critics, is the
diagnostic nature of the conspiracy -- and it is a conspiracy -- against the president. First
and foremost, Trump, they say, is unwell or unfit. The case for invocation of the 25th
Amendment is being made plainly in the pages of the United States' most-read newspapers.
What's truly remarkable is that, to a certain extent, the U.S. is already functioning as
though the 25th Amendment has been invoked -- at least if the reporting of Bob Woodward, the
premier journalist of his generation, is to be believed. In spring of 2017, after Syrian despot
Bashar al-Assad reportedly murdered citizens in rebel-held territory with chemical weapons,
Trump, according to Woodward, told Defense Secretary Mattis: "Let's f**ing kill him! Let's go
in. Let's kill the f**king lot of them." Mattis replied, "We're not going to do any of that."
(Mattis denies Woodward's accounts.) As the author of the op-ed gloats, this is "is a two-track
presidency. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and
punished accordingly."
The debate, then, isn't about policy. It isn't as though Trump is trying to decimate the
civil service, or staff the State Department with "realists" on Russia, or halve legal
immigration. If he leaves office, his legacy will be tax cuts and (likely) two conservative
Supreme Court justices; on policy, it's unlikely that a President Cruz or Rubio would have done
much differently. But the paranoid style that Trump has mainstreamed is, of course, a separate
matter and not a small one. Neither is the fealty, or at least feigned fidelity, to a
populist-nationalism that is now likely a prerequisite to becoming the Republican presidential
nominee for the foreseeable future. That's even though, at their core, the president's
protestations of "treason" and a "deep state" are about personal survival, not the
implementation of a nationalist revolution.
For his supporters, Trump's continued occupancy of the White House is more about cultural
grievance -- a middle finger to a failed establishment -- than about a knock-down, drag-out
fight over real political change.
As Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard after his ouster last year: "The Trump
presidency that we fought for, and won, is over."
Curt Mills is the foreign affairs reporter at The National Interest, where he covers
the State Department, National Security Council, and the Trump presidency.
Striding to the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy.
"So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and
petty," he said, "trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured
outrage. It's a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear."
Speakers praised McCain's willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new
determination: from here on out, confrontation!
Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded
immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed.
Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Senator Dick Durbin boasted, "What we've
heard is the noise of democracy."
But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain
why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a
semblance of order.
Wednesday came leaks in the Washington Post from Bob Woodward's new book,
attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and General James Mattis crude remarks on the
president's intelligence, character, and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a
"crazytown" led by a fifth or sixth grader.
Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.
Thursday came an op-ed in the New York Times by an anonymous "senior official"
claiming to be a member of the "resistance working diligently from within to frustrate parts of
his [Trump's] agenda."
A pedestrian piece of prose that revealed nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily
in the media, the op-ed nonetheless caused a sensation, but only because Times editors
decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray
his or her president.
The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.
While the Woodward book may debut at the top of the New York Times bestseller list,
and "Anonymous," once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what
this portends is not good.
For what is afoot here is something America specializes in -- regime change. Only the regime
our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is
afoot is the overthrow of America's democratically elected head of state.
The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by
a special prosecutor's office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press
plays its traditional supporting role.
Presidents are wounded, disabled, or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.
No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in.
But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two
years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a
hate-filled city for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt,
Kennedy, and Johnson years.
So where are we headed?
If November's elections produce, as many have predicted, a Democratic House, there will be
more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government
may be able to manage.
There is the Mueller investigation into "Russiagate" that began before Trump was
inaugurated. There is the investigation into his business and private life before he became
president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump
Foundation by New York State.
There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments
Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report on the leaks from all
of these investigations.
Then, if the media coverage can drive Trump's polls low enough, will come the impeachment
investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.
If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even
as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and a septuagenarian caucus led by
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi.
2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all.
Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d'etat can the Republic sustain before
a new generation says enough of all this?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
On NBC's Thursday morning broadcast of the "Today" show, former CIA director John Brennan
repeatedly praised the unknown author of the New York Times's recent anti-Trump op-ed as a
supreme example of "courageous" American patriotism. While admitting that the anonymous writer
was committing "active insubordination" with the piece, Brennan justified his or her actions by
claiming that because Trump is too "unfit" to be President, the writer is admirably trying to
"prevent disasters" in the future.
"I think there are two major takeaways," Brennan told "Today" co-host Savannah Guthrie in
relation to the op-ed. "One is, what the author wrote is wholly consistent with all the reports
that we have seen over the last year, the reports within Bob Woodward's book, and other things
about just how unfit, reckless, irresponsible Donald Trump is. But secondly, it shows the depth
of concern within the administration, within the senior ranks of the administration, about what
is happening and the extraordinary steps that individuals are willing to take, such as this
op-ed, to prevent disasters."
Whoever it was, this "gutless" person seems pretty craven, opportunistic neocon of McCain
flavor. Most neocons are chickenhawks. And there are plenty of neocons in Trump
administration.
It might well be that anonymous "resistance" op-ed in NYT is CIA operation to promote Woodward's book ( Woodward is definitely
connected to CIA from the time of Nixon impeachment)
Notable quotes:
"... You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions ..."
During an interview with Fox and Friends, conducted onstage prior to Trump's rally and set
to air on Friday, the president called the paper's decision to publish the column "very
unfair".
"When somebody writes and you can't discredit because you have no idea who they are,"
Trump said. "It may not be a Republican, it may not be a conservative, it may be a deep state
person that's been there a long time.
It's a very unfair thing, but it's very unfair to our country and to the millions of
people that voted really for us."
Since the editorial was published, the highest-ranking officials in Trump's administration
have come forth to
publicly deny any involvement. Those distancing themselves from the column have included
the vice-president, Mike Pence, and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, along with much of
Trump's cabinet. The first lady, Melania Trump, also condemned the author and called on the
individual to come forward.
"You are not protecting this country, you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions," she
wrote.
The editorial was published as the White House was contending with yet another
firestorm.
A book authored by the famed journalist
Bob Woodward , poised for release next week, chronicles the chaos and dysfunction within
the Trump administration.
Excerpts released on Tuesday provided an unflattering portrait of the
president, who was described by aides in disparaging terms that included being likened to a
schoolchild.
Most probably this anonymous official does not exist and this is Iago style disinformation operation by the NYT to saw
discord in trump administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Does the so-called "Senior Administration Official" really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? ..."
Meanwhile, First Lady Melania Trump said: "If a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility
to publicly stand by their words."
Why does it matter?
The White House is already on the defensive amid questions over Mr Trump's suitability for office raised in a book by revered
political journalist Bob Woodward.
Fear: Trump in the White House also describes staff deliberately undermining the president, with some hiding sensitive documents
from him to prevent him signing them, and other aides calling him an "idiot" and a "liar". Mr Trump has called the book a "con".
Image deleted (copyright REUTERS) Image caption Bob Woodward is one of the most respected journalists in the US
One of the most explosive passages in the New York Times article says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking
the 25th Amendment", which would allow Mr Trump to be forced out of office.
"What the author has just done is throw the government of the United States into even more dangerous turmoil," he wrote. "He or
she has enflamed the paranoia of the president and empowered the president's willfulness."
So much puzzles me about Mr/Ms Anon in @ nytimes - if you really
think best interests of state are served working covertly inside to thwart president, why blurt out what you're doing? Aren't
you making @ realDonaldTrump case of a
# DeepState ? Surely resign or keep schtum?
Donald J. Trump✔ @realDonaldTrump
Does the so-called "Senior Administration Official" really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another
phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her
over to government at once! 2:54 AM
- Sep 6, 2018
End of Twitter post by @BBCJonSopel
A former CIA director, John Brennan, who has been strongly critical of Mr Trump, called the article "active insubordination" although
he said it was "born out of loyalty to the country".
Russians want a weak and divided US. Putin couldn't care less about who is running the
nation.
Did they interfere with our election? Maybe.
Did illegals criminally vote in our elections after Obama asked them to? Did the Clintons
and the DNC pay millions for the so-called research that led to Russia dossier? Yes. Did
Clinton have her billionaire foreign friends funding her campaign? Yes.
But I guess direct foreign interference doesn't count if the Democrats were behind it. I
think Democrats need to understand that people are starting to notice all the BS they are
preaching.
You can't have it both ways....unless your a Democrat. People got tired of that and elected
a clown over a corrupt political cult of blatant liars and criminals. Normal people don't like
SJW types, hypocrites and habitually outraged race baiters.
At some point you start to notice how they flood social media and every forum with their
trash propaganda. Even slashdot seems to get hit constantly.
Looks like this Iago-style false flag operation by NYT: the anonymous author does not exists and the the plot is to saw
discord and mutual suspicion
Notable quotes:
"... The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. ..."
"... If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects' continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas, and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them. You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and heroism. ..."
"... As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart his agendas of peace and harmony. ..."
"... Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it? I'm going to say probably. ..."
If any evidence existed to be found that Donald Trump had illegally colluded with the
Russian government to rig the 2016 presidential election, that evidence would have been picked
up by the sprawling surveillance networks of the US and its allies and leaked to the Washington
Post before Obama left office.
Russiagate is like a mirage. From a distance it looks like a solid, tangible thing, but when
you actually move in to examine it critically you find nothing but gaping plot holes,
insinuation, innuendo, conflicting narratives, bizarre mental contortions to avoid
acknowledging contradictory information, a few arrests for corruption and process crimes, and a
lot of hot air. The whole thing has been held together by nothing but the confident-sounding
assertions of pundits and politicians and sheer, mindless repetition. And, as we approach the
two year mark since this president's election, we have not seen one iota of movement toward
removing him from office. The whole thing's a lie, and the smart movers and shakers behind it
are aware that it is a lie.
And yet they keep beating on it. Day after day after day after day it's been Russia, Russia,
Russia, Russia. Instead of attacking this president for his many, many real problems in a way
that will do actual damage, they attack this fake blow-up doll standing next to him in a way
that never goes anywhere and never will, like a pro wrestler theatrically stomping on the
canvass next to his downed foe.
What's up with that?
... ... ....
As you doubtless already know by now, the New York Times has made the wildly controversial
decision to publish an anonymous op-ed
reportedly authored by "a senior official in the Trump administration." The op-ed's author
claims to be part of a secret coalition of patriots who dislike Trump and are "working
diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." These
"worst inclinations" according to the author include trying to make peace with Moscow and
Pyongyang, being rude to longtime US allies, saying mean things about the media, being
"anti-trade", and being "erratic". The possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment is briefly
mentioned but dismissed. The final paragraphs are spent gushing about John McCain for no
apparent reason.
I strongly encourage you to read the piece in its entirety, because for all the talk and
drama it's generating, it doesn't actually make any sense. While you are reading it, I
encourage you to keep the following question in mind: what could anyone possibly gain by
authoring this and giving it to the New York Times ?
Seriously, what could be gained? The op-ed says essentially nothing, other than to tell
readers to relax and trust in anonymous administration insiders who are working against the bad
guys on behalf of the people (which is interestingly the exact same message of the right-wing
8chan conspiracy phenomenon QAnon, just with the white hats and black hats reversed). Why would
any senior official risk everything to publish something so utterly pointless? Why risk getting
fired (or risk losing all political currency in the party if NYTAnon is Mike Pence, as
has been
theorized ) just to communicate something to the public that doesn't change or accomplish
anything? Why publicly announce your undercover conspiracy to undermine the president in a
major news outlet at all?
What are the results of this viral op-ed everyone's talking about? So far it's a bunch of
Democratic partisans making a lot of excited whooping noises, and Trump loyalists feeling
completely vindicated in the belief that all of their conspiracy theories have been proven
correct. Many rank-and-file Trump haters are feeling a little more relaxed and complacent
knowing that there are a bunch of McCain-loving "adults in the room" taking care of everything,
and many rank-and-file Trump supporters are more convinced than ever that Donald Trump is a
brave populist hero leading a covert 4-D chess insurgency against the Deep State. In other
words, everyone's been herded into their respective partisan stables and trusting the
narratives that they are being fed there.
And, well, I just think that's odd.
Did you know that Donald Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame ? He was inducted
in 2013, and he's been enthusiastically involved in pro wrestling for many years, both as a fan
and as a performer .
He's made more of a study on how to draw a crowd in to the theatrics of a choreographed fight
scene than anyone this side of the McMahon family (a member of whom happens to be part of the Trump
administration currently).
You don't have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the possibility
that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators on all sides
routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack Trump but secretly
loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their eyes even part way open
already knows that America's two mainstream parties feign intense hatred for one another while
working together to pace their respective bases into accepting more and more neoliberal
exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl
and shake their fists at each other, then cuddle up and share candy
when it's time for a public gathering. Why should this administration be any different?
I believe that a senior Trump administration official probably did write that anonymous
op-ed. I do not believe that they were moved to write it out of compassion for the poor
Americans who are feeling emotionally stressed about the president. I believe it was written
and published for the same reason many other things are written and published in mainstream
media: because we are all being played.
The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms.
The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing
the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more
importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. If you can separate the masses into two
groups based on extremely broad ideological characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined
"us vs them" narratives into each of the two stables, with the white hats and black hats
reversed in each case. Now you've got Republicans cheering for the president and Democrats
cheering for the CIA, for the FBI, and now for a platoon of covert John McCains alleged to be
operating on the inside of Trump's own administration. Everyone's cheering for one aspect of
the US power establishment or another.
If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects'
continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't
know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a
ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas,
and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them.
You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them
off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and
heroism.
As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of
its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by
attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it
will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart
his agendas of peace and harmony. Meanwhile those who see Trump as a heel won't experience any
cognitive dissonance if any of the establishment agendas they support are carried out, because
they can give the credit to the secret hero squad in the White House.
Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of
staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it?
I'm going to say probably.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish
is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
What is interesting is that Wolffe links the op-ed and publishing Bob Woodward's latest
book: "Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk."
Notable quotes:
"... Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story. Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort. ..."
"... Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation, ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and resigning publicly. ..."
If you really believe your boss is a threat to the constitution which you've
taken an oath to protect, perhaps you should consider quitting or going public. As in: going on
Capitol Hill to hold a press conference to urge impeachment.
In this regard, and only in this regard, our anonymous whistleblower has handed the crazy
boss a degree of righteous indignation.
"If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist," tweeted the madman in the
attic, "the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at
once!"
Donald, we feel your pain, albeit briefly. Your internal enemies are indeed gutless, and if
you feel better putting that in ALL CAPS, that's fine. Let it out.
But that bit about turning people over to you for national security reasons is kind of the
point here. If you'll allow us to summarize the GUTLESS person's arguments: you are
fundamentally a threat to democracy and national security yourself. You are indeed, as your
lawyers have pointed out repeatedly, your own worst witness.
This much we know from this week's other bombshell in the shape of Bob Woodward's latest
book. Woodward has cornered the panicked Trump rats into screeching about all the ways they
prevented
World War Three , or a massive trade war, by ignoring the ranting boss or snatching papers
off his desk.
... ... ...
Mr or Ms GUTLESS describes Trump's decisions as "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally
reckless", while chief of staff John Kelly says Trump is "an idiot" living in a place called
"Crazytown". This revelation led to the priceless statement from Kelly where he had to deny
calling the president an idiot.
Somewhere in Texas, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson is swirling a glass of bourbon
muttering that he lost his job for calling Trump a moron.
Second, Trump's staffers are enabling the very horrors they claim to hate, while grandiosely
pretending to be doing the opposite.
Mr or Ms GUTLESS says there were "early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th
amendment" in what he imagines is a clear sign they can distinguish reality from reality
TV.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Trump cabinet: please know that you will not be accepted into
the next edition of Profiles in Courage for your early whispers. If you truly believe the
president is incapacitated, you should perhaps consider raising your voice to at least
conversational level, if you're not inclined to bellow from the mountaintops. Library rules are
inoperative at this point.
Given the weight of evidence, even the most diehard Trump defenders are now conceding the
obvious, by signing up to the GUTLESS gang's self-promotion. Brit Hume, a Fox News veteran, let
the cat out of the bag when he tweeted that it was a "good
thing" they were restraining Trump "from his most reckless impulses".
This is how the pirate ship Trump eventually sinks to the ocean's floor. You can fool some
of Fox News's viewers all of the time, and you can fool all of them some of the time.
But no fool wants to drown with the captain we all know is plain crazy.
It's someone high up that makes policy decisions, brags about everything they have done to
help America despite Cheetos interfering. Why now? Pence wants it known that he is running
the government not useless trump whom has passed nothing. Pence will come out as the author
when Don is removed from office. Which could be nearing since this OPED is likely to expose
him. Maybe he planned it that way.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's
White House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each
other.
Clearly a massive conspiracy. And one which Trump is helpfully participating in by
constantly saying and doing stuff which accords with the pictures they're all painting.
What's most remarkable to me is how closely the Michael Wolff's White House, Omarosa's White
House, Bob Woodward's Whitehouse, and Anonymous Staffer's White House reflect each other. All
these sources come together to display a rather coherent image of a chaotic White House led
by a man who's not bright enough to realize he's in over his head.
The New York Times attack piece was anonymous. It is therefore completely unverifiable and
could have been written by anyone, including any of the politically biased NYT editorial
team, or by Bob Woodward to publicize his new book. It's junk news.
I'm firmly convinced that when it's all said and done we'll be able to represent his
presidency as an MMO boss fight. This is the bit where everyone concentrates fire on the
glowy spot until the enrage mechanic kicks in. In fact it looks like the mad flailing has
started and now everyone will try not to stand in the AoE as they DPS him down.
Mussolini was in power for twenty years before his functionaries deposed him to keep the
regime intact while removing its newly-a-liability head. Mussolini was the legal (if
abhorrent) premier of a coalition government in a liberal-democratic (both words with a pinch
of salt) regime for his first two years, until winning a parliamentary majority of his own;
indeed, after the leader of the Socialist Party was killed by his supporters, his coalition
partners almost pulled out of government: that's not a totalitarian dictatorship, but what
was then called "pre-fascism", and today we'd call it an 'illiberal democracy'. The
dictatorship was informal (result of a supportive majority) until the constitional reform of
1928 - five years into his government.
Thinking that all will turn out fine because American democracy is under strain but
generally intact, is a dangerous complacency. All interwar autocrats went through a
transition of first governing under the old constitution, slowly undermining opposition, then
installing a new organic law. Perhaps all will turn out well in the US, and Trump will leave
office with the old 'rules of the game' untouched - but that can't be assumed, and we won't
know until after he is gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back
- we have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
Truckloads of "anonymous bollocks" reported by credible, highly respected journalists with
excellent reasons to protect their sources.
"Anonymous" bollocks" which syncs perfectly with events and pronouncements by the
president himself - including numerous firings of so many of the "best people" he hired.
"Anonymous bollocks" confirmed in evidence/testimony presented publicly and under oath in
court.
Nothing proved, unnamed sources, claims about this, claims about that. Until someone is
prepared to step forward and reveal themselves this is a non story.
Still, it gives the Trump haters comfort.
There is a segment of this country that is willfully ignorant because a con man told them
to be. We really need to ignore this shrinking number of fuck-nuts and just out vote
them.
We live in a democracy. If you choose to use facebook as your only source of news about the
world, it is not because a con man told you to, it is because you are just too plain stupid
to go looking elsewhere.
I'm surprised that no one has compared the author of the anonymous article in the New York
Times with "Deep Throat", who anonymously met Bernstein and Woodward in an underground
parking garage in Washington to spill the beans about Watergate. Deep Throat turned out to be
Mark Felt, a high-ranking official in the FBI who kept working against Nixon under cover and
whose name was revealed only a few years ago.
Personally, I am not surprised or impressed by this White House insider's account. Nothing he
or she has said should be a real revelation to anyone who has cast a critical eye on the
Trump presidency. And whoever it is, this person is so enamored with tax cuts, deregulation,
ramping up military spending and the usual Republican horse shit that he or she does not seem
prepared to risk further discrediting the administration by identifying him/herself and
resigning publicly.
Screw whoever it is, they are obviously no hero to the American people.
So now we know what 'the resistance' really is. It's the establishment. It's the old
political order. It's that late 20th-century political set, those out-of-touch managerial
elites, who still cannot believe the electorate rejected them. That is the take-home message of
the bizarre political spectacle that was the burial of John McCain, where this neocon in life
has been transformed into a resistance leader in death: that while the anti-Trump movement
might doll itself up as rebellious, and even borrow its name from those who resisted fascism in
Europe in the mid 20th-century, in truth it is primarily about restoring the apparently cool,
expert-driven rule of the old elites over what is viewed as the chaos of the populist Trump /
Brexit era.
The response to McCain's death has bordered on the surreal. The strangest aspect has been
the self-conscious rebranding of McCain as a searing rebel. In death, this key establishment
figure in the Republican Party, this military officer, senator, presidential candidate and
enthusiastic backer of the exercise of US military power overseas, has been reimagined as a
plucky battler for all that is good against a wicked, overbearing political machine. 'John
McCain's funeral was the biggest resistance meeting yet', said a headline in the New
Yorker , alongside a photo of George W Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and
soldiers from the US Army, the most powerful military machine on Earth. This is 'the
resistance' now: the former holders of extraordinary power, the invaders of foreign nations,
the Washington establishment.
The New Yorker piece, like so much of the McCain commentary, praises to the heavens the
anti-Trump theme of McCain's funeral. McCain famously said Trump couldn't attend his funeral.
And that in itself was enough to win him the posthumous love of a liberal commentariat that now
views everything through the binary moral framework of pro-Trump (evil, ill-informed,
occasionally fascistic) and anti-Trump (decent, moral, on a par with the warriors against
Nazism). Even better, though, was the fact that orators at the funeral, including McCain's
daughter Meghan and both Bush and Obama, used the church service to slam Trumpism, without
explicitly mentioning it, and in the process to big-up what came before Trumpism, which of
course was their rule, their politics, their establishment. The Washington political and media
set might seem bitterly bipartisan, said the New Yorker writer, but it is also 'more united' in
one important sense - 'in its hatred of Donald Trump'.
Hatred of Trump has become the moral glue of the bruised elites who have been either pushed
aside or at least dramatically called into question by the populist surge taking hold in the
West. And so motored are these people by the shallow moralism of Anti-Trumpism that they are
happy to marshal even a life as complex and interesting and flawed as McCain's to the service
of hurting Trump. A former Al Gore adviser, Carter Eskew, wrote in the Washington Post: 'In
death, John McCain is about to exact revenge on Donald Trump.' Unwittingly revealing the Old
Testament streak to the new elite religion of Hating Trump, Eskew said that as 'McCain ascends
to heaven on an updraft of praise, Trump's political hell on Earth will burn hotter'. On why it
suddenly started to rain when McCain's coffin was brought into the Capitol, a CNN journalist
said: 'The angels were crying.' What century is this?
The religious allusions, the talk of vengeance against Trump, the misremembering of McCain's
life so that it becomes a moral exemplar against the alleged crimes of Trumpism, exposes the
infantile moralism of the so-called resistance. Albert Burneko, assessing some of the madder
McCain commentary, says there is now a 'condition' that he calls 'Resistance Brain', where
people display an 'urge to grab and cling on to anything that seems, even a little bit, like it
might be the thing that Finally Defeats Donald Trump'. Even if the thing they're grabbing on to
is actually a bad thing. Like a seemingly endless FBI investigation into the elected
presidency. Or George W Bush, whose moral rehabilitation on the back of Anti-Trumpism has been
extraordinary. Or neoconservatism: this was the scourge of liberal activists a decade ago, yet
now its architects are praised because they subscribe to the religion of Anti-Trumpism. Being
against Trump washes away all sins.
Some on the left have criticised the moral rehabilitation of McCain. 'Let's not forget that
he wanted war with Iran and lots of other places too!', they cry. Yet the truth is they paved
the way for his posthumous rebranding as one of the great Americans of the late 20th century.
Since 2016 they have talked about Trump as a uniquely wicked president, a shocking aberration,
the closest thing to Hitler since the 1930s. Their anti-Trump hyperbole, driven by their own
political disorientation and increasing sense of distance from the electorate, has allowed any
politician who is not Trump to mend their reputations and gloss over their own destructive
behaviour. The transformation of Trump into the bête noire of all right-minded
people, a pillar of unrivalled wickedness that we all have a duty to protest against in our
pussy hats and orange wigs, has been a boon to the wounded pre-Trump political class keen both
to whitewash its own crimes and to prepare for its return to the position of power it enjoyed
before the electorate was corrupted by 'post-truth' hysteria.
'The resistance' is the fightback of the establishment against the people. As it is in
Britain, too, where the rich and influential people fuelling the war on Brexit - the largest
act of democracy in British history - like to refer to themselves as 'insurgents'. It is the
height of Orwellianism for these acts of elitist reaction against democratic dissent to dress
themselves up as forms of resistance. But it is not surprising. From the get-go, the so-called
resistance has been more a pining for the old establishment, for Hillary's rule and for the
continued domination of Britain by the EU, than it has been any kind of daring strike for a new
politics. Look closely at the funereal elitism of McCain's burial and you will see one of the
saddest and most striking political developments of our time: how self-styled radicals
preferred to throw their lot in with the old establishment under the umbrella of 'the
resistance' rather than heed ordinary people who were saying: 'Let's tear up the old
order.'
Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked. Find him on Instagram: @burntoakboy
Nice post and well put.
I am currently sitting in an office where 30% are blaggers of the highest order. They talk
and kiss ass - but ultimately - deep down - know they cannot do they do not know the job. The
responsibiltiy they have will make you shudder. I have told friends and they are visibly
shaken that this can happen. But I think it is the way of the world at the moment. They dare
not argue with me for full knowledge they will be sent packing, they already have been but on
"minor" non work related items.
"Fake it til you make it" is the slogan they clutch tight to their heart the consequences
however are far far reaching. My only hope is that should any of them leave here - they will
get found out in a week.
Yes the likes of Trump are a reflection of just that.
The mad thing is - I now am of the belief that I could do that job ie President of the US.
That is madness.
to foil the wishes of the elected members of government.
No. Just one member. And that one member isn't a supreme leader. You need to look
elsewhere for those types of leaders - they're usually standing next to Trump while he fawns
over them.
Personally I'm grateful for a bureaucracy that frustrates bad ideas - wherever they
come
from. That's part of their role.
Everything, with the exception of Steve Bannon in Michael Wolf's book, has been anonymous.
These people write things, attribute them to, say, John Kelly, then Kelly says I NEVER SAID
THAT and we're left to believe whom?
If there is genuine resistance inside the White House to Trump- If it is at all like
anybody says- then I would imagine that a genuine top level appointee would go on camera,
throw themselves on their sword, and speak to the American people. Until such a time I
question what is Woodward's agenda? Do I trust Omarosa? Is Michael Wolf credible? What are
their goals? I'm not blind but I want to see more than anonymous. And until then... I don't
believe it.
I agree, I'd hate to defend him either, but you can't help thinking he has a point by
calling this person gutless. Either stand up in public and say it or, if s/he really is
working in the background to save us from Trump's excesses, then surely you're better off
(and the country as a whole) staying there and not alerting him?
It's the New York Times, and no, they certainly haven't been against Trump since his
election.
Their lead White House correspondent, Maggie Haberman, still writes extremely
understanding pieces of Trump. And she's been covering the man for almost 15 years, so one
would think she had the measure of the man long ago.
More importantly, the NYT threw the election for Trump by first exonerating Trump of any
Russian collusion - which was false - and by covering the last-minute Comey statements on the
Clinton emails in the worst negative light possible for the Democratic candidate. The NYT
turned out to be wrong, but the damage was done.
The NYT even tried to put new faces on their opinion staff with close connections to
actual American neo-Nazis (!) and only failed when old tweets came to light.
I'm not quite sure what the NYT is playing at - I guess it's easy to play the devil's
advocate in artsy-fartsy, liberal New York - but they most certainly have not been
against Trump from January 2017 at all.
Trump is not a freedom fighter, he is not your Great White Messiah, he's not an advocate
for blue collar American citizens. Trump is a stupid, vulgar, greedy old fat racist who
conned his way into the White House. There has been a lot of talk in all mediums about his
unsuitability for the office, and his obvious ties to the Kremlin, but there has been no
organized effort to remove him from office, no matter what you might have read on Qanon.
You think the entire population is incapable of thinking about serious issues because there's
some tittle-tattle on twitter? When did that happen? No-one would work because there's always
fluffy kittens on YouTube.
"... "When you think about it it's an amazing statement of their willingness to make themselves bigger than the entire American system," ..."
"... "extremely self-indulgent." ..."
"... "You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post," ..."
"... "If you are this person, you really should resign tonight." ..."
"... "just made things worse," ..."
"... "Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of honor speaking openly would have far more impact." ..."
"... "The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is 'principled,' as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and daring Trump to get worse," ..."
"... "Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this 'internal resistance' far harder," ..."
"... "What is the point of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?" ..."
"... "We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official because they think that's true," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Press Pundits are lining up to
weigh in on a salacious New York Times op-ed allegedly penned by an anonymous #Resister in the
Trump administration, with some experts on television calling the piece an all-out coup against
the president. The opinion piece in question, "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump
Administration," has spawned a level of frenetic punditry not seen since George W. Bush was
spotted
sneaking Michelle Obama a cough drop. Only this time the stakes are allegedly much higher.
MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace said on Wednesday the stunning claims made in the anonymous op-ed
– for example, that there is a group of "adults" in the White House who believe
Trump is unfit to hold office and are trying
to shape policy behind the president's back – are akin to "a coup."
"In other countries... they sometimes call this a coup," Wallace said on MSNBC's
Deadline: White House, referring to the article's assertion that there is a
"resistance" made up of administration officials which aims to protect the republic
from Trump's "amorality."
Another MSNBC talking head, Howard Fineman, said that he was troubled by the fact that the
op-ed appears to describe how "unelected aides have staged a slo-mo coup." Impeachment
– not "frenzy, mutiny and rumors" – is the antidote to Trump's criminal
unfitness for public service, he added.
The @nytimes
essay is troubling. Why? 1. The dangerous, ignorant volatility of @realDonaldTrump . 2. The claim
by UNELECTED aides to have staged a slo-mo coup. 3. The NYT letting the accuser hide.
#Trump 's unfit, but
caution: impeachment -- not frenzy, mutiny and rumor -- is the answer.
But others were even less impressed by the anonymous scoop-provider. Fox News host Sean
Hannity called the author of the op-ed a "swamp sewer creature who can't stand that there
is a new sheriff in town."
Hannity calls the senior Trump administration official who wrote the NYT op-ed a "swamp
sewer creature."
Speaking with Hannity on his program, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said
that the anonymous author had "repudiated our whole constitutional process."
"When you think about it it's an amazing statement of their willingness to make
themselves bigger than the entire American system," Gingrich
said .
Dana Perino, the former White House press secretary under George W. Bush, called the
mysterious author of the op-ed "extremely self-indulgent."
"You should not be lapping up the benefits of being a senior administration official, no
doubt while scouting for lucrative opportunities for when you leave your post," she
said .
"If you are this person, you really should resign tonight."
Almost all of the nation's sharpest political minds were in agreement on one point, however:
This mystery senior government official should reveal him/herself, in order to save America
from fascism, or hokey #Resistance claptrap, depending on whom you ask.
The op-ed "just made things worse," conservative commentator and National Review
senior fellow David French said. "Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of
honor speaking openly would have far more impact."
1) The guy is real (no way the NYT puts forth a fake source);
2) His story is likely largely true (perhaps exaggerated at the margins);
3) He's just made things worse.
4) Anonymous leaking won't take down Trump. A person of honor speaking openly would have
far more impact
"If you are the author of this and you truly want to effectuate change... you want to do
something in service to the nation, you have to come forward and sign your name to this..
Come forward. You could change the fate of the country..."- @DavidJollyFL w/ @NicolleDWallacepic.twitter.com/d9l7PMnzkj
"The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is
'principled,' as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and
daring Trump to get worse," veteran journalist Dan Froomkin said. He added that he thought
it was wrong of the Times not to identify the piece's author.
The thing about the op-ed is that reading its text, you can think the writer is
"principled," as the NYT did. But in context, the author is a coward confessing to a coup and
daring Trump to get worse. They shouldna granted anonymity.
Much has also been discussed about Trump's reaction to the article.
"Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this 'internal resistance' far
harder," predicted Washington Post contributor Carlos Lozada. "What is the point
of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?"
Gut reaction to NYT oped:
1) Feeds/confirms Trump's worst fears about the deep state plots
2) Trump will go nuclear, making the efforts of this "internal resistance" far harder
3) What is the point of a secret cabal if you don't keep it secret?
Not everyone is calling for the anonymous author to come forward, however: At least one
pundit claims to already know who penned the troubling opinion piece.
"We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official
because they think that's true," Ben Shapiro tweeted.
We all know Putin wrote the op-ed and the NYT claimed it's a senior Trump official because
they think that's true.
"... While Syria's long serving President Hafez al-Assad was criticised by Iraq for his apparent eagerness to enter into an armistice with Israel in 1974 and while Hafez appeared to be on the verge of recognising Israel in the mid-1990s, recent revelations brought to the world's attention by former US Secretary of State John Kerry indicate that his son and current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad drafted a letter to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asking to enter into discussions regarding Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights in exchange for Syria entering into a Jordanian style peace agreement with Tel Aviv. ..."
"... A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, ..."
"... As such, Russia looks to balance the ambitious of each of these players against one another in order to attain a regional equilibrium in which Moscow plays the role of both benign power broker and economic partner. ..."
"... the so-called Arab Spring was supposed to pave the way for a future Greater Israel, that too is now dead as Russia would not let Tel Aviv threaten the long term territorial integrity of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or any other Middle East state. ..."
"... When viewed with the benefit of hindsight, the gamble that Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu took in 2011 to forfeit good relations with politically stagnant, diplomatically compromised and generally malleable Arab Nationalist leaders in order to attempt and fracture the political structures and territorial unity of multiple Arab states has backfired in extraordinary fashion. ..."
"... While in 2010 Russia was scarcely a major factor in the region and while Iran did not have much influence in the Arab world outside of southern Iraq and parts of southern Lebanon, today the opposite is very much the case. As a result, while a combination of Israeli-US pressure and internal pettiness helped render many once proud Arab Nationalist states impotent, the omnipresence of Russia as the only regional power with a desire and ability to balance Iranian, Turkish, Arab and Israeli interests means that while Israel's existence is now guaranteed, its expansionist aims are permanently dead. In this sense, the Arab Spring was in reality, an Israeli winter. ..."
At the beginning of 2011 while Iraq was still on its knees following the illegal 2003 US/UK
invasion, the rest of the Arab world was generally calm, domestic politics was predictable and
most importantly from the American and Israeli perspective, the revolutionary fervour that
underpinned the Arab Nationalist revolutions of the mid-20th century had largely given way to
pragmatic and at times self-effacing secular Arab regimes that posed no serious military or
diplomatic challenge to America's desired pro-Israel status quo in the region. At the beginning
of 2011, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak looked and acted unsinkable. Crucially, this included
his unsinkable loyalty to the United States and Israel. The same was true in Jordan's monarchy
while in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had given up on the Arab Nationalist cause in order to pursue
what he believed was a more tangible and potentially more rewarding Pan-African cause.
Crucially, not long after trading Arab Nationalism for Pan-Africanism, Gaddafi established
normal relations with the United States and its traditional partners in 2003.
While Syria's long serving President Hafez al-Assad was criticised by Iraq for his apparent
eagerness to enter into an armistice with Israel in 1974 and while Hafez appeared to be on the
verge of recognising Israel in the mid-1990s, recent revelations brought to the world's
attention by former US Secretary of State John Kerry indicate that his son and current Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad drafted a
letter to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asking to enter into discussions
regarding Israel's withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights in exchange for Syria entering
into a Jordanian style peace agreement with Tel Aviv.
In a rational environment, Netanyahu and Obama should have been utterly contented with the
fact that an Arab world which was once united behind the cause of Palestinian justice had
gradually capitulated while even Arab Nationalist hold out Syria was on the verge of doing much
the same. But rather than being content with getting concessions from the Arab world that as
comparatively recently as the mid-1970s would have sounded fantastical, Washington with
Israel's clear consent and cooperation instead decided to light a fuse beneath the Arab
world.
The so-called Arab Spring began with "protests" in Tunisia in December of 2011. But the real
coming out party for America and Israel's new policy of 'lead from behind regime change' in the
Arab world was in Egypt. It was in Cairo on the 25th of January that a combination of genuine
demonstrators, paid agitators and terrorists took to Tahrir Square to protest government
policies. The protests eventually lead to the downfall of President Mubarak who had governed
the country since 1981.
Mubarak had many genuine home grown opponents to be sure and this is before one accounts for
opposition from proscribed terror groups including and especially the Muslim Brotherhood. And
yet it was only when the United States officially withdrew support for Mubarak that a full
regime change came to pass which itself paved the way for a highly unstable Muslim Brotherhood
regime led by Muhammad Morsi.
Unable to facilitate the kinds of lead from behind protests in Libya that were rather easy
to foment in an Egyptian society where a great deal of genuine discontent served to cover the
true intentions of the Obama administration in the Arab world, the US decided to accuse Libya's
government of crimes against the Libyan people including an accusation of mass rape committed
by soldiers that turned out to be as fake as the 2002 allegation that Iraq maintained
stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. While most Libyans were too busy enjoying the
benefits of Africa's most generous welfare state to protest, the US began preparing for a full
scale military attack on Libya while France and Britain became the public face of America's
biggest war on an Arab state since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
It was around the same time in early 2011 that provocations against the Syrian government of
Bashar al-Assad were staged near the Jordanian border in the city of Daraa. Unlike in Libya
there was a measure of discontent in Syria due to a five year long drought which severely
impacted domestic agriculture. Likewise, in spite of modest economic reforms, the economy was
largely stagnant. Be that as it may, genuine discontent in Syria was not only less than in
Libya but less than in Egypt. From the US perspective this became all the more reason to fan
the flames of long latent sectarian divisions and likewise it became the private excuse for
offering arms and funds to individuals who later formed anti-government militias and terror
groups.
The results of this so-called Arab Spring have led to instability in Egypt under Muslim
Brotherhood rule which itself led to the politically and economically stagnant government of
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. In LIbya what was once Africa's most stable and prosperous nation, a
failed state peppered with terrorist training camps and slave auctions has developed which
itself has led to the worst migrant crisis in the modern history of Afro-European relations. In
Syria, the war which began in 2011 is still being fought and while an end is in sight, Syria is
still a long way away from peace.
The mutual desire of the United States and Israel to weaken Arab Nationalist governments and
retard the advancement of progressive Arab unity long predates the tragic events of 2011. But
while 1996 saw arch-neocon Richard Perle draft A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm, a radical anti-Arab foreign policy paper
presented to Benjamin Netanyahu as a kind of gift, by 2010, many of the goals contained in
A Clean Break had already been achieved through co-opting Arab states into a policy of
submission which supplanted the radicalism of previous decades.
What had not been achieved by 2010 however was the realisation of anything approximating the
Yinon
Plan , a controversial policy proposal advocating for the creation of a so-called "greater
Israel" that was first published in 1982 in the Israel journal Kivunim. The Yinon Plan called
for the aggressive expansion of Israeli territory into Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and
Lebanon.
While the Yinon Plan was based partly on modern far-right notions of political expansionism
and in other parts based on the most extreme interpretations of Zionist mythology, the idea of
intentionally weakening once powerful Arab Nationalist states in the region was clearly an
attempt to begin the early stages of what could have become expanded political influence and
territorial domination throughout the Middle East for Israel.
Today however, it would appear that the plan has backfired for two largely unrelated
reasons. First of all, the agitations of Iraq's Shi'a majority population in Iraq combined with
the phenomenon of a Shi'a Islamic Resistance spreading to Syria as a means of countering
extremist Sunni Takfiri groups including Daesh, along with the increased influence of Hezbollah
in Lebanon has made a once isolated Islamic Republic of Iran a major player in much of the
northern half of the Arab world. Thus, as Arab Nationalist states and political movements in
the northern half of the Arab world have weakened a militarily resurgent Iran has only become
stronger and as such is something of a bulwark against Yinon's map of a Greater
Israel.
But the rise of Iran has also led to another major development, the long term importance of
which is still being overlooked as much in the Arab world as in the west. Russia has returned
to the Middle East as a major player only unlike during the Cold War, Russia is now on
exceptionally good terms with every major player in the region including multiple rivalling
Arab states, Turkey, Iran and crucially both Palestine and Israel.
As such, Russia looks to balance the ambitious of each of these players against one another
in order to attain a regional equilibrium in which Moscow plays the role of both benign power
broker and economic partner. As a result, the old Arab Nationalist dream of liberating
Palestine is virtually dead as Russia views the importance of safeguarding Israel's territory
as on-par with that of all of its neighbors. That being said, while the so-called Arab Spring
was supposed to pave the way for a future Greater Israel, that too is now dead as Russia would
not let Tel Aviv threaten the long term territorial integrity of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon
or any other Middle East state.
When viewed with the benefit of hindsight, the gamble that Barack Obama and Benjamin
Netanyahu took in 2011 to forfeit good relations with politically stagnant, diplomatically
compromised and generally malleable Arab Nationalist leaders in order to attempt and fracture
the political structures and territorial unity of multiple Arab states has backfired in
extraordinary fashion.
While in 2010 Russia was scarcely a major factor in the region and while Iran did not have
much influence in the Arab world outside of southern Iraq and parts of southern Lebanon, today
the opposite is very much the case. As a result, while a combination of Israeli-US pressure and
internal pettiness helped render many once proud Arab Nationalist states impotent, the
omnipresence of Russia as the only regional power with a desire and ability to balance Iranian,
Turkish, Arab and Israeli interests means that while Israel's existence is now guaranteed, its
expansionist aims are permanently dead. In this sense, the Arab Spring was in reality, an
Israeli winter.
Federal prosecutors have been using a grand jury over the last several months to investigate
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, reports the
Washington Post , citing two people familiar with the matter.
What's more, the grand
jury has summoned at least two witnesses, and the case is ongoing according to WaPo 's sources.
The presence of the grand jury shows prosecutors are treating the matter seriously,
locking in the accounts of witnesses who might later have to testify at a trial. But such
panels are sometimes used only as investigative tools, and it remains unclear if McCabe will
ultimately be charged. -
Washington Post
McCabe was fired on March 16 after Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
issued a criminal referral following a months-long probe, which found that McCabe lied four
times, including twice under oath, about authorizing a self-serving leak to the press. Horowitz
found that McCabe " had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor -
including under oath - on multiple occasions. "
Specifically, McCabe was fired for lying about authorizing an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney
to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St.
Journal - just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not put the brakes on a
separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation, at a time in which McCabe was coming under
fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry
McAuliffe.
In order to deal with his legal woes, McCabe set up a GoFundMe "legal defense fund" which
stopped accepting donations, after support for the fired bureaucrat took in over half a million
dollars - roughly $100,000 more than his wife's campaign took from McAuliffe as McCabe's office
was investigating Clinton and her infamous charities. Who's lying?
In May , federal investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office interviewed former FBI
director James Comey as part of an ongoing probe into whether McCabe broke the law when he lied
to federal agents, reports the
Washington Post .
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office recently interviewed former FBI
director James B. Comey as part of a probe into whether his deputy, Andrew McCabe, broke the
law by lying to federal agents -- an indication the office is seriously considering whether
McCabe should be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said. -
Washington Po st
Of particular interest is that Comey and McCabe have given conflicting reports over the
events leading up to McCabe's firing, with
Comey calling his former deputy a liar in an April appearance on The View, where he claimed
to have actually "ordered the [IG] report" which found McCabe guilty.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied , " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so.
"He's an idiot. It's pointless to try to convince him of anything. He's gone off the
rails. We're in crazytown," Kelly is quoted as saying at a staff meeting in his office. "I
don't even know why any of us are here. This is the worst job I've ever had."
(CNN) WARNING: This story contains graphic language.
President Donald Trump 's
closest aides have taken extraordinary measures in the White House to try to stop what they saw
as his most dangerous impulses, going so far as to swipe and hide papers from his desk so he
wouldn't sign them, according to a new book from legendary journalist Bob Woodward.
Woodward's 448-page book, " Fear: Trump in the White
House, " provides an unprecedented inside-the-room look through the eyes of the President's
inner circle. From the Oval Office to the Situation Room to the White House residence, Woodward
uses confidential background interviews to illustrate how some of the President's top advisers
view him as a danger to national security and have sought to circumvent the commander in
chief.
Many of the feuds and daily clashes have been well documented, but the picture painted by
Trump's confidants, senior staff and Cabinet officials reveal that many of them see an even
more alarming situation -- worse than previously known or understood. Woodward offers a
devastating portrait of a dysfunctional Trump White House, detailing how senior aides -- both
current and former Trump administration officials -- grew exasperated with the President and
increasingly worried about his erratic behavior, ignorance and penchant for lying.
Chief of staff John Kelly describes Trump as an "idiot" and "unhinged," Woodward reports.
Defense Secretary James Mattis describes Trump as having the understanding of "a fifth or sixth
grader." And Trump's former personal lawyer John Dowd describes the President as "a fucking
liar," telling Trump he would end up in an "orange jump suit" if he testified to special
counsel Robert Mueller.
Sounds like a palace coup to me: first, news of the forthcoming Woodward book (and excepts);
then-coincidentally-today's "anonymous" and 'Gutless' article in the Times.
As far as I'm concerned, this entire hellish administration is sheer "madness" and a very
clear indication that this country is in its agonizing twilight.
Each and every senior official in this administration is an enabler of this "shithole"
human being and current president, so there is no such thing as bravery here, just covering
one's tail if a coup were to occur.
Not once, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, has this 'Gutless' wonder decried the
immorality of family separation, employing white racists as policy makers, shredding the
social safety net for millions of this nation's most vulnerable; an outlandish Pentagon
budget and etcetera.
What is solidly on display in this unfolding miasma is a firmly entrenched kleptocracy,
enabled and supported by U.S. corporations and the death of democracy.
The Woodward book seems to me just more kiss and tell stories of the Michael Wolff ilk
(remember him?). The juiciest quotes - Trump being called an idiot by Kelly - is denied by
Kelly himself and most of the others are ex-employees.
A better - more objective - book would
get past the unconventional, apparent chaos of the Whitehouse and perhaps investigate whether
Trumps methods have or will bear fruit.
That perhaps, as David Lynch said, traditional
politicians can't take the country or the world forward - they can't get things done anymore
because they are afraid of political consequences or media backlash. Trump and his ego
doesn't seem to care about that - is that a good thing or a bad thing? Trump has turned
everything on it's head and liberals find themselves allying with establishment politicians
and business groups. It is a fascinating period of political change and time - and better
journalism - will eventually judge Trump more objectively.
'Pence... not a dangerous, mentally ill megalomaniac'
Pence is more dangerous – make that outright terrifying – than Trump. Yes.
Trump is a senile vulgarian oaf – but he doesn't really believe in anything and is
motivated only by his greed and pathological need for self-aggrandizement. He's mentally
incompetent in a very obvious way, which renders him laughably inept at trying to bring his
more odious policy objectives to fruition (in fact, inept at everything, pretty much).
Pence is far more sinister, because he's a dementedly fanatical believer in a
fundamentalist and authoritarian mutation of religion – a crazed zealot. While
sometimes able to imitate the superficial demeanour of a person of sound mind, he is in truth
utterly deranged.
While Trump lies and denies obvious specific facts almost as a reflex, he doesn't really
sustain his warped world view consistently or with conviction that lasts longer than it takes
to play his next round of golf.
Pence vehemently espouses a whole alternative reality based
upon his religious fantasies, and believes he has a mission to impose his delusional ideas in
a punitive and repressive manner on his country's entire population, permanently. He may have
the cunning to be chillingly effective at realising his most ghastly ambitions.
Trump represents a temporary aberration; a collective brain fart. Pence could be the
instigator of a new dark age for the USA
Having seen this type of character assassination visited on Bill and Hillary Clinton,
character assassination before any reported crimes have been proven against them or for that
matter any sexual misdemeanors as president are proven, what exactly is going on here?
I totally disagree with this type of thing even if the person is someone I don't
understand much. The world has come to a dangerous place where digital lynching without
reference to law seems to be the prevailing modus operandi.
A little word of warning. Be careful what you wish for. If Don can be removed prior to the
next election, (and I don't believe that would happen), then Mike Pence takes the reins. He
has just as many crazy notions as his current boss, but is an experienced politician who
knows the ins and outs of Congress. He may get more of the programme through than little Don
can. And that would not be good.
He's done it before. Lots of times.
Example: one of his posts back in April:
"Trump is a genius. Nobody can take him down, the man is a fighter, you punch him and he'll
punch you back 10 times harder. The FBI, Democrats and MSM have tried to take him down since
he decided to run for president, yet he's standing tall and with a 50% approval rating."
There's no point in engaging in discussion with folks like that ...
Welcome to postmodernist politics folks. It will continue to degenerate until, in despair,
people turn toward an orderly system of politics; the Chinese system, the Russian system or
even a coherent religious system. Counsellors will be on hand for those who feel hurt or
upset by the return to authoritarianism -- they will be able to get great treatment in
re-education centres. Just a matter of time before our current system just crumbles from
within.
Yeah they're sucking it direct from Ayn Rand's teat. Bunch of sociopaths. And I think most
political scientists are well aware that citizens united was the death of American democracy
as a representative political system. The illusion of functionality has collapsed under the
weight of corruption. Trump is really just a symptom of that. A giant orange enema of the
state.
LOL. The west is about to collapse. There is no more money to finance the Ponzy Scheme of the
everlasting growth you seem to think is natural. while everyone is distracted in this
dualistic BS, the planet is slowly shutting down her ressources.
The Russia after years of
sanctions have developed an economy that make them less dependant on other countries. So
They will probably less affected by what is coming.
Unless you live in you own bubble, maybe
you noticed that Occidental countries have become empty shells...gutted from their skills at
making stuff. It is all virtual production now...all banking stuff, numbers insurance...most
skilled stuff are either in Germany or in Asia...what is going on?
Trump is a megalomaniac I agree, but he is not dangerous and is not mentally ill.
Mental illness is a real thing and you shouldn't casually trivialize it in this way.
Finally anyone who runs for office as President of the USA is by very definition a pretty
extreme megalomaniac. So you have two points that are not real and/or could be considered erroneous
discrimination and one point that is a prerequisite for any POTUS candidate.
Looking for a reason to impeach him is a ridiculous back to front thing to do and is itself
proof that any impeachment will fail. To impeach someone you must first start with a very
obvious reason.
It's simply not possible to impeach a president because you don't like their politics or
their personality. This whole searching for a reason to impeach is itself evidence that any
impeachment is politically motivated and the very optics of this serve only to strengthen
Trump's own political support in direct opposition.
Trump is President because the DNC was captured by very stupid and deeply corrupt
people.
Many say Mike Pence could have been the one behind the op-ed, because the unidentified author
singled out the late John McCain as "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our
national dialogue." The word isn't that commonly used. But Pence has used the word with some
regularity. Yet the word could have been a ploy to divert attention from the real author, who
claimed to support many of the GOP policies – "effective deregulation, historic tax
reform, a more robust military and more."
No doubt the current crisis works for Pence: "Given the instability many witnessed, there
were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a
complex process for removing the president." Of course he and the GOP didn't want to
"precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration
in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over." But they don't want Trump
to finish his term and hope that he'll soon be gone.
Pepperoni Pizza is absolutely correct. We DON'T know his staff are going behind his back - we
have this anonymous bollocks as the totality of our evidence.
This op-ed is going to absolutely confirm, in the eyes of Trump supporters, all his whines
about being thwarted by the Deep State. It's going to increase his support among the crazies,
and it's also useful for the Republicans who want to ditch him in favour of Mike Pence.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven and for the Democrats or the 'resistance' to see it
as some kind of bonus is insane. Even if you take it at face value it's a disgusting piece of
authoritarian, we-know-best hypocrisy. If you look at its actual effects, the net result is
not likely to benefit the forces of sanity in any way.
The media's complacency about all of this, and their failure to actually report on the
Republican trajectory and the bigger picture, is criminal. Instead we get YET ANOTHER bit of
'oh look the wheels are just about to come off the bus!', and all the while the Republicans
are gerrymandering and purging voter rolls like crazt before the midterms, and of course
refusing to change their unaccountable electronic voting machines and - did you read THIS one
in the news? - blocking a bill which would have audited the election results.
Tl;dr: The US, and by extension the planet via environmental destruction and possibly war
on top, is utterly fucked.
"... Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times .. four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even before the US military became .. robust?.. ..."
Mr anonymous also concedes that the administration has done some good things .. like .. a
robust military. Now call me old fashioned, but having a military with twice(three times ..
four times) the capability of the rest of the world put together and spending enough yearly
to run the whole of Africa .. probably India too, just on a means of killing .. and this even
before the US military became .. robust?..
What is wrong with you people .. national security?.. Laughable .. when is your security
ever, ever, ever threatened! And yet people starve, people don't have clean water to drink
..
Perhaps were the US to help lift the basic burdens of millions who have bugger all, then
there wouldn't be so many suposed 'enemies'. I do believe film maker Michael Moore has voiced
this very same thing .. but then, what purpose all those shiny new expensive killing
machines?..
Something is seriously wrong in America .. and it ain't just Trump!
This is a very poor op-ed piece. Simply calling the President "a crazy loon " isn't political
analysis, or at least not the sort of political analysis I would be willing to pay for. Nor
do I think the thesis that certain members of the administration are busy trying to shore up
their reputations in the face of a sinking presidency holds water. Firstly, unless the
current investigations provide incontrovertible evidence that the President was engaged in
criminal activity I don't think there is any change that he will be impeached. Secondly, if
you wanted to protect your reputation surely the thing to do would be to resign and maintain
a dignified silence while you are writing your memoirs. Or if you really were part of a
secret clique protecting the American constitution against a reckless President you would
keep quiet and get on with your important business. It seems to me that this anonymous piece
was either a clumsy attempt to further damage the President or a sophisticated attempt to
galvanise his support base by "proving" that the President is being undermined by unelected
traitors. Or something else completely might be going on. That's why I would like to read a
thoughtful opinion piece by an informed observer.
Sounds like there's a treasonous public servant there, doing their best to subvert the will
of the people. And of course loudly supported by the squealing hard left guardian mob.
Looking at the type of far left fascists crawling out of the woodwork, I would say
Trump is provoking utter derangement in all the right people.
"the corrupt metropolitan elites have swindled them again"
-Who appointed these 'corrupt metropolitan elites' if it was not Trump himself? Who are these
people-Betsy DeVos, Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin- quite apart from Jeff Sessions and the now
disgraced Michael Flynn? Trump appointed them, they weren't forced on him by the "corrupt
metropolitan elites". Is Trump to be given a free pass for his own mistakes?
What many commentators here seem to fail to recognise, because of their political bias I
suppose, is that there is a ground swell of dissatisfaction with the political consensus that
has seen the working class and lower middle class disenfranchised or at least their perceived
interests ignored. As a result, populist ideologies, as espoused by Steven Bannon, and
others, and exemplified by leaders like Donald Trump have thrown away the rule book with all
its aims to support the extremely wealthy and have reached out to those that want jobs before
green policies, law and order before gender diversity programs and so on.
I doubt that many of the readers here will receive the message but we are witnessing a
revolution that I see as significant as the rise of the sans-culottes in the early part of
the French Revolution. That didn't end well for the sans-culottes or their aims but we can
hardly blame them for trying. Today the retrenched car worker in the US can hardly be blamed
for being unhappy that the CEO of a car company receives a huge pay rise and bail outs from
the government and similar stories in other areas.
Vive la revolution.
Some of this stuff is clearly nonsense. Example: the insider claimed Trump is an admirer of
dictators:
"In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators,
such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and
displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded
nations."
And yet the forthcoming Bob Woodward book claims Trump told his defence secretary he
wanted to kill Assad:
Donald Trump ordered his defence secretary to assassinate Syria's president Bashar
al-Assad and "kill the f****** lot of them" in the leader's regime, in the wake of a chemical
attack against civilians, according to a new book.
Defence secretary James Mattis is said to have told the president during a phone call he
would "get right on it" before hanging up the phone and instead telling an aide: "We're not
going to do any of that. We're going to be much more measured." In the wake of the chemical
attack in April 2017, the president's national security team developed options that included
the more conventional airstrike that Mr Trump eventually ordered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The anti-Trump lot can't have it both ways. He can't be a fan of dictators but also want to
kill them! It's clear there is lying or exaggeration on both sides. The people out to impeach
Trump (or sell books!) will lie too.
This is plausible as McCain was involved in Steele dossier saga
Notable quotes:
"... In this sense, the author may well have felt the need to plant the red herring in question in this very part of the letter so as to create the 'Pence diversion' in the very place that one might otherwise being looking for someone associated with John McCain. ..."
"... The next logical question would then be: how did he do it? The answer to this is quite simple. Just as he meticulously arranged his own funeral prior to his death, apparently down to the seating arrangements for guests, McCain could have easily handed the letter to a highly trusted associate or family member who would then present the letter to an ideological ally at the infamously anti-Trump New York Times. ..."
"... It is therefore not beyond the realm of the possible to consider that the infamous letter was not actually drafted by a Trump White House official but instead was drafted by John McCain as the final salvo in his long war against Donald Trump. Stranger things have happened and this without a doubt is a strange era in American political life. ..."
Not only was John McCain never in the Trump administration but at
the time when the infamous anonymous New York Times op-ed from a reportedly disgruntled senior
Trump White House official was published, John McCain had been dead for eleven days. Therefore
to suggest that McCain wrote the letter isn't to suggest a belief in time travel or the
supernatural. Instead it is to suggest a calculated scheme from beyond the grave by a man who
famously choreographed every detail of his own funeral during his final weeks or possibly
months of life.
Whoever wrote the letter was clever enough to include in the text a red herring designed to
convince the public and possibly Donald Trump himself that the letter's author was none other
than Vice President Mike Pence. But as Andrew Kroybko
rightly illustrates in his piece on the subject in Eurasia Future, Pence would never be so
foolish as to include in the letter the word "lodestar" as the highly obscure word is
frequently used by Pence while not being a part of the daily vocabulary of most English
speakers anywhere in world. Such an obvious giveaway could have only been planted by design
considering that whoever did write the letter most likely penned the most important epistle in
his or her life.
Making matters more curious, the word "lodestar" appears in the ed-op in the paragraph where
the author negatively compares Trump with John McCain. This itself is an indication that McCain
and his much anticipated death were clear sources of inspiration for the content of the letter
and the timing of its publication. The paragraph in question reads as follows:
"We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example -- a lodestar
for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such
honorable men, but we should revere them".
In this sense, the author may well have felt the need to plant the red herring in question
in this very part of the letter so as to create the 'Pence diversion' in the very place that
one might otherwise being looking for someone associated with John
McCain.
While not casting judgment on the reality that John McCain was indeed a surviving prisoner
of war, it is factually true that unlike many prisoners of war, McCain tended to publicly revel
in his status as a survivor and even used the fame derived from his harrowing experience to
launch a long political career. Because of this, it is not by any means unreasonable to think
that the kind of egotism one associates with McCain might have led him to devise such a
'parting shot' at his powerful and more politically successful rival. This was after all the
man who flew to all corners of the earth even in old age to rally various armed rebellions of
one sort or another from Georgia and Ukraine to Syria and Iraq. It is also instructive to
realise that McCain is the man who without a second thought handed the hoax Steele dossier to
then FBI Director James Comey and later
said the following about his actions:
"I discharged that obligation, and I would do it again. Anyone who doesn't like it can go
to hell".
The next logical question would then be: how did he do it? The answer to this is quite
simple. Just as he meticulously arranged his own funeral prior to his death, apparently down to
the seating arrangements for guests, McCain could have easily handed the letter to a highly
trusted associate or family member who would then present the letter to an ideological ally at
the infamously anti-Trump New York Times.
While Donald Trump has suggested that he will use legal pressure to force the New York Times
to divulge the source of the letter, such a matter could take years of back and forth in the
courts, by which time the relevance of the letter would have been greatly reduced by the
passage of time. In any case, as the drafting of the letter may well be a seditious or
treasonous act, unlike an actual member of the Trump White House staff, McCain is currently in
a place where no judge, jury or executioner can reach him.
It is therefore not beyond the realm of the possible to consider that the infamous letter
was not actually drafted by a Trump White House official but instead was drafted by John McCain
as the final salvo in his long war against Donald Trump. Stranger things have happened and this
without a doubt is a strange era in American political life.
"... The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. ..."
The Mainstream Media's latest reports that internet sleuths think that Vice President Pence
probably wrote yesterday's "Resistance" op-ed in the New York Times because of the anonymous
writer's use of the word "lodestar" is nothing more than a red herring by the "deep state" to
provoke a showdown between Trump & Pence ahead of this November's midterms and possibly
even push the President to trigger a constitutional crisis by trying to fire him.
Everyone in the world is wondering which high-level official in the Trump Administration
penned yesterday's
"Resistance" op-ed in the New York Times, but the Mainstream Media is running with the
story that internet sleuths think that it's Vice President Pence because of the anonymous
writer's use of the word "lodestar", which he's publicly used on
at least five separate occasions before. He probably wasn't behind the piece, however, but
his idiosyncratic use of a relatively uncommon word was likely picked up by the "deep state"
well in advance and deliberately inserted into the preplanned infowar provocation that was just
published in order to pin the blame on him as part of a larger scheme to sow discord in the
White House.
The "deep state" wants to provoke Trump to unleash one of his famously scathing and
unscripted tweets against Pence, which would irreparably ruin their professional relationship
but also throw the President into a constitutional conundrum because he can't
legally fire his Vice President no matter how much the two might come to hate each other as
a result of this devious psy-op. Running with this scenario for a moment, whether Trump tries
to fire a publicly insulted Pence or seethes with rage because he can't, the resultant turmoil
that would play out in the Mainstream Media would be enough to seemingly confirm all of the
accusations of chaos that Bob Woodward alleged in his upcoming book, therefore potentially
tipping the midterm electoral scales to the Democrats' favor.
Reviewing the fast-moving developments of the past couple of days, it's inarguable that The
Establishment planned for all of this to happen far in advance as part of their plot to
undermine Trump ahead of the midterms, with the phased escalation of their infowar campaign so
far moving from Woodward's book to the anonymous "Resistance" op-ed and finally to the claims
that Pence is somehow involved because the unknown author cleverly inserted a very uncommon
word that he's known to occasionally use. While Trump will probably display more common sense
that he's regularly given credit for and likely won't fall for the trap of jumping the gun and
publicly condemning Pence, he's in a dilemma when it comes to identifying who's behind the
scandalous op-ed.
Trump has no choice but to order an immediate investigation on national security
grounds after it was revealed that a high-ranking official in his administration is
supposedly conspiring with others to sabotage the policies of the democratically elected and
legitimate President of the United States, but this is predictably being framed by the
Mainstream Media as a "witch hunt" that they'll soon try to compare to a "Stalinist purge" (if
they haven't done so already). Actually, they seem to secretly hope that Trump becomes paranoid
to the point of overreacting and punishes or publicly embarrasses innocent members of his staff
in order to counterproductively create an internal "Resistance" where there might not have even
really been one to begin with.
Whatever ends up happening, and the latest "deep state" coup attempt against Trump has only
just begun, this much is certain, and it's that the inclusion of the word "lodestar" was a red
herring designed to manipulate the President's mind after he finds out that the Mainstream
Media is promoting internet sleuths who apparently "discovered" that Pence used this uncommon
word on several occasions. The whole point at this stage is to provoke Trump, who they
mistakenly believe to be an unhinged maniac incapable of controlling his actions and prone to
lashing out at whoever and whenever at the slightest hint of an affront, to publicly attack
Pence and then trigger a constitutional crisis by trying to fire him, all of which would be
taking place in front of the entire nation ahead of the upcoming
midterms.
Trump's much too clever to fall for this trap, and the fact that something so blatantly
obvious has been attempted speaks to just how much his opponents underestimate him, but he
nevertheless needs to be careful that he doesn't take action against any innocent members of
his administration who might get caught up in the current investigation to find the traitor and
their ilk, if they even exist. This means that he has to trust whoever it is that he's
dispatched to dig up evidence on this issue and won't doubt the findings that they present to
him, after which he'll have to determine whether they're also being set up just like Pence is
or if they're actually guilty as charged. Trump's toughest tests are therefore ahead of him and
could make or break his presidency in the coming days.
DISCLAIMER:The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which
is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing
written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions
of any other media outlet or institution.
he reversed the war in afghanistan? drones? did he prosecute bankers? does he favor
increasing offshore drilling? now it looks like he's renegotiating clinton's nafta and
pushing for some version of obama's trade treaties. trump is the invading python, and the
democrats and establishment republicans are the alligators; whichever wins, the small furry
animals get eaten. i just hope they don't start world war 3 while they're settling
things--trump looks to be doubling down on obama's syria policy too, and support of the
current ukrainian government.
'Fraid so. Every new generation of neocons regurgitates the same discredited lies from the
previous generation, and suckers believe them all over again. Even the title "neocon" or
"neoliberal" is a lie: there's nothing new about them.
Trump was not only openly attacked during the nomination process, the Republican Party
nominee who was selected to fight Obama in 2012 -Mitt Romney- delivered a savage attack in
which he described Trump as a con-man and a chronic liar -yet the same people who could,
there and then have told Trump to get lost backed him. Trump has been attacked from the start
and every time and all of the time said to his attackers: so what? I dare you to remove me
from the nomination, I dare you to remove me from the Office of President. This is a man who
is challenging the governance of the US in a manner no other President has done before, and
so far, he is still winning. That is the scary part.
Trump is threatening Deep State corruption by placing his own family members in positions of
power and profiting from charging the nation for his and his staff's repeated use of Trump
Tower and Mar-a-Lago? That's a bizarre way of draining the swamp.
The US political system has many flaws, not least that the President can be elected on an
apparent electoral college landslide while losing the popular vote. But then again no
country's political system is perfect, human nature being what it is.
However, Trump is clearly not up to the job. Not by intellect, understanding of world
affairs, honesty, temperament, respect for the law, nor constitution. The list goes on
frankly.
The system has gone bad. Trump hasn't "drained the swamp", he's made it far deeper. That
said, "the system" such as it is should work in the hands of honest men and women of
integrity. The trouble is they're few and far between in the GOP as it wilfully ignores
issues in which they would be clamouring for a Democrat president to be impeached.
I sincerely hope the GOP get a thrashing in the mid-terms which may, just may, give them
pause for thought. A Democrat Congress might also actually hold Trump to account. The only
danger there is that he lashes out with even less self control.
Dangerous times.
"... Dear Readers: Your website needs your support. It cannot exist without it. ..."
"... When you read my column below, you will read what you cannot find anywhere else–a clear, concise, correct explanation of who the author is of the New York Times op-ed falsely attributed to a "senior Trump official." ..."
"... Anonymous dissent has no credibility. ..."
"... A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position to lend weight to his dissent. ..."
"... thwart his and his fellow co-conspirators' plot by revealing it! ..."
"... This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times' deception, a house cleaning is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot function. ..."
"... Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for dictators" and not a preference for peace? ..."
"... removing a president for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions between nuclear powers? ..."
Dear Readers: Your website needs your support. It cannot exist without it.
When you read my column below, you will read what you cannot find anywhere else–a
clear, concise, correct explanation of who the author is of the New York Times op-ed falsely
attributed to a "senior Trump official."
I know who wrote the anonymous "senior Trump official" op-ed in the New York Times. The New
York Times wrote it.
The op-ed ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50194.htm
) is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can
state with certainty that no senior official would express disageeement anonymously.
Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it undermines the
character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his
high position to lend weight to his dissent.
The New York Times' claim to have vetted the writer also lacks credibility, as the New York
Times has consistently printed extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin
without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times has consistently misrepresented
unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New
York Times about anything.
Consider also whether a member of a conspiracy working "diligently" inside the
administration with "many of the senior officials" to "preserve our democratic institutions
while thwarting" Trump's "worst inclinations" would thwart his and his fellow
co-conspirators' plot by revealing it!
This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion
throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times' deception, a house cleaning
is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot
function.
The fake op-ed serves to validate from within the Trump administration the false reporting
by the New York Times that serves the interests of the military/security complex to hold on to
enemies with whom Trump prefers to make peace. For example, the alleged "senior official"
misrepresents, as does the New York Times, President Trump's efforts to reduce dangerous
tensions with North Korea and Russia as President Trump's "preference for autocrats and
dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un"
over America's "allied, like-minded nations." This is the same non-sequitur that the New York
Times has expressed endlessly. Why is resolving dangerous tensions a "preference for
dictators" and not a preference for peace? The New York Times has never explained, and
neither does the "senior official."
How is it that Putin, elected three times by majorities that no US president has ever
received, is a dictator? Putin stepped down after serving the permitted two consecutive terms
and was again elected after being out of office for a term. Do dictators step down and sit out
for 6 years?
The "senior official" also endorses as proven fact the alleged Skripal poisoning by a
"deadly Russian nerve agent," an event for which not one scrap of evidence exists. Neither has
anyone explained why the "deadly nerve agent" wasn't deadly. The entire Skripal event rests
only on assertions. The purpose of the Skripal hoax was precisely what President Trump said it
was: to box him into further confrontation with Russia and prevent a reduction in tensions.
If the "senior official" is really so uninformed as to believe that Putin is a dictator who
attacked the Skripals with a deadly nerve agent and elected Trump president, the "senior
official" is too dangerously ignorant and gullible to be a senior official in any
administration. These are the New York Times' beliefs or professed beliefs as the New York
Times does everything the organization can do to protect the military/security complex's budget
from any reduction in the "enemy threat."
Do you remember when Condoleezza Rice prepared the way for the US illegal invasion of Iraq
with her imagery of "a mushroom cloud going up over an American city"? Iraq had no nuclear
weapons, and everyone in the government knew it. There was no prospect of such an event.
However, there is a very real prospect of mushroom clouds going up over many American and
European cities if the crazed Russiaphobia of the New York Times and the other presstitutes
along with the Democratic Party and the security elements of the deep state continue to pile
lie after lie, provocation after provocation on Russia's patience. At some point, the only
logical conclusion that the Russian government can reach is that Washington is preparing
Americans and Europeans for an attack on Russia. Propaganda vilifying and demonizing the enemy
precedes military attacks.
The New York Times' other attack on President Trump -- that he is unstable and unfit for
office -- is reproduced in the fake op-ed: "Given the instability many witnessed, there were
early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex
process for removing the president," writes the invented and non-existent "senior
official."
Americans are an insouciant people. But are any so insouciant that they really think that a
senior official would write that the members of President Trump's cabinet have considered
removing him from office? What is this statement other than a deliberate effort to produce a
constitutional crisis -- the precise aim of John Brennan, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the DNC,
and the New York Times. A constitutional crisis is what the hoax of Russiagate is all
about.
The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history. Have any
of these conspirators given a moment's thought to the consequences of removing a president
for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions between nuclear powers? The
next president would have to adopt a Russophobic stance and do nothing to reduce the tensions
that can break out in nuclear war or himself be accused of "coddling the Russian dictator and
putting America at risk."
The reason that America is at risk is that the CIA and the presstitute media have put
America -- and Europe -- at risk by frustrating President Trump's intention to reduce the
dangerous level of tensions between the two major nuclear powers. Professor Steven Cohen,
America's premier Russian expert, says that never during the Cold War were tensions as high as
they are at this present time. As a former member of The Committee on the Present Danger, I
myself am a former Cold Warrior, and I know for a fact that Professor Cohen is correct.
In America today, and in Europe, people are living in a situation in which the
liberal-progressive-left's blind hatred of Donald Trump, together with the self-interested
power and profit of the military security complex and election hopes of the Democratic Party,
are recklessly and irresponsibly risking nuclear Armageddon for no other reason than to act out
their hate and further their own nest.
This plot against Trump is dangerous to life on earth and demands that the governments and
peoples of the world act now to expose this plot and to bring it to an end before it kills us
all.
This is a classic color revolutions trick, usually called "Diplomats letter". Used many times
in many color revolutions worldwide. In EuroMaydan it preceded "sniper massacre".
Notable quotes:
"... I think he has to do it ASAP because the NYT editorial looks like an act of desperation and I expect Mueller to pile on soon, so beat them to the punch and put them on their heels for a change. No doubt, this is hardball. ..."
Now that ridiculously juvenile NYT's "op-ed" starts to make sense...they were given a
heads up on the GJ proceedings against this "stellar public servant" and wanted to knock it
off the front page.
What's in my head is declassifying a bunch of nasty shit.
Either way, if NYT made up fake news pretending to be a senior white house official, OR,
there really is somebody in his inner circle anonymously stabbing POTUS in the back, it is
very bad news and there should be serious hell to pay. I do not like nor trust a single one
of his appointees so I'm guessing it's somebody. It would be suicide for NYT getting caught
making this all up, that would be risky business IMO.
This isn't a complicated timeline of he said, she said over this piss dossier that glosses
people's eyes over. This is very simple stuff people can understand and Trump could make a
very rational case that the swamp is so damn deep he can't even put together a staff without
it being infiltrated and say "here look" and declassify shit that would encompass ALL the
recent scandals and ensnare the fake news experts colluding to make this happen.
That would light a big fire in DC that would be very hard to put out.
Well personally I don't believe for one second that the "op-ed" was anything other than
Fake Nuuuz.
As far as ordering the release/declassification of everything the DoJ & FBI has on the
Hillary Dossier I believe it's getting close but it's a hardball kind of swamp, it would be
before the midterms for maximum effect I would think.
I think he has to do it ASAP because the NYT editorial looks like an act of desperation
and I expect Mueller to pile on soon, so beat them to the punch and put them on their heels
for a change. No doubt, this is hardball.
As was no doubt their intent, the mainstream media has succeeded in overshadowing the Kavanaugh
confirmation hearing with a flurry of stories about a mutiny allegedly brewing inside the West Wing
that has set
more than a
few
tongues
wagging
about the
possibility of Trump's cabinet invoking the 25th amendment
(an eventuality that was once reportedly discussed by former White House Chief Strategist
Steve Bannon
). But while White House officials have already vehemently denied the quotes
gathered by Bob Woodward
in the strategically leaked (to his own newspaper) excerpts from the
Watergate reporter's upcoming book, speculation is shifting to
who might be the mystery author
of a scathing NYT op-ed reportedly penned by a "senior
administration official" that portrays Trump as unfit for office.
Fortunately for Trump, several voices of moderation have come forward to condemn the attacks
(amid speculation that the Times' "senior" source may not be so senior after all).
But this
incipient backlash didn't deter Axios (a media org that, like the Times, is notoriously critical of
Trump) from piling on with a story about President Trump's intensifying distrust of those in his
inner circle.
Trump, Axios claims, is "deeply suspicious of much of the government he
oversees" from federal agency grunts all the way up to those privileged few with unfettered access
to the Oval Office. The piece even goes so far as to quote yet another anonymous "senior
administration official" as saying that "a lot of us are wishing we'd been the writer."
"I find the reaction to the NYT op-ed fascinating - that people seem so shocked that there is
a resistance from the inside," one senior official said.
"A lot of us [were] wishing
we'd been the writer, I suspect ... I hope he [Trump] knows - maybe he does? - that there are
dozens and dozens of us."
And in case you couldn't figure out why this is important, allow
Axios
to elaborate:
Why it matters:
Several senior White House officials have described their
roles to us as saving America and the world from this president.
A good number of current White House officials have privately admitted to us they consider
Trump unstable, and at times dangerously slow.
But the really deep concern and contempt, from our experience, has been at the agencies -- and
particularly in the foreign policy arena.
In what was perhaps the most bombastic claim included in the piece, Trump reportedly once
carried around with him a list of suspected leakers.
"The snakes are everywhere but we're
getting rid of them,"
he reportedly told
Axios.
For some time last year,
Trump even carried with him a handwritten list of people
suspected to be leakers undermining his agenda.
"He would basically be like, 'We've gotta get rid of them.
The snakes are everywhere
but we're getting rid of them,'"
said a source close to Trump.
Trump would often ask staff whom they thought could be trusted.
He often
asks the people who work for him what they think about their colleagues, which can be not only
be uncomfortable but confusing to Trump: Rival staffers shoot at each other and Trump is left
not knowing who to believe.
And just in case you haven't read enough about Trump's purported obsession with "snakes" -
here's some more.
"When he was super frustrated about the leaks, he would rail about the 'snakes' in
the White House,"
said a source who has discussed administration leakers with the
president.
"Especially early on, when we would be in Roosevelt Room meetings,
he would sit down
at the table, and get to talking, then turn around to see who was sitting along the walls behind
him."
"One day, after one of those meetings, he said, 'Everything that just happened is going to
leak. I don't know any of those people in the room.' ... He was very paranoid about this."
All of this reinforces the idea that Trump truly believes that there is an organized "deep
state" conspiracy to take him down.
Of course, what Axios neglects to say,
is that he's
not wrong.
"Trump flopped as an owner of a professional football
team, effectively killing not only his own franchise but
the league as a whole... He bankrupted his casinos five
times over the course of nearly 20 years. His eponymous
airline existed for less than three years and ended up
almost a quarter of a billion dollars in debt. And he has
slapped his surname on a practically never-ending
sequence of duds and scams (Trump Ice bottled water,
Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks,
Trump
magazine, Trump
Mortgage, Trump University -- for which he settled a
class-action fraud lawsuit earlier this year for $25
million)."
And Kruse didn't even mention The Donald's sixth
bankruptcy, the one he filed for the debt-ridden Plaza Hotel
in 1992.
So, people, what do you think Trump, the
bankrupter-in-chief, is gonna do to the good old US of A?
That's one of my major hopes for this presidency. That
Trump can get us through the coming bankruptcy without
a large scale war/depression breaking out.
"one senior
official said"... oh really, why should I believe
that? When something is obvious BS, repeating it
just makes you look foolish, it doesn't make it
true, Hitlers propaganda play book is dated and no
longer functions in the age of the internet. At
least we know that Operation Mocking Bird is alive
and well.
This just shows us how they keep recycling
the same shit bureaucrat's over and over
again and they become an animal that lives
within and outside of whomever is POTUS.
Perhaps it's time to burn the whole thing
down and start over again.....
We the People are not so
schooled in the finer points.
We have rope and can see
treason with our own eyes, and
figure to do our part, be
civic minded for the greater
good and all.
If he has the power to do it, the time is
right to declassify some major bombs on the
swamp.
It sounds sensational but it's also
a step in the right direction to move the
capital out of DC. It really is the nerve
center of raunch, deceit, fraud and an
irredeemable shit hole.
Agreed, but moving won't help. The problem
is the concentration of money and power.
You could move the capitol every day and
the swamp would follow like remoras follow
a shark
The only way to deal with the Debt, is to grow the
economy and shrink it on a relative basis. So much
of the past debt was incurred on non-productive
expenditures that yield no returns.
Trump knows
that. Amazing what he gets done with all the
snipers outside and all the cockroaches inside. A
lesser man would have said fuck it a long time ago.
Its as if they think the people actually support
the Deep State Establishment and don't loath them.
Please tell me how I should really love John McCain
again now that he's dead.
"Trump, Axios claims, is
'deeply suspicious of much of the government
he oversees'
"
Again, if people believed the corporate
media Trump wouldn't be president right now,
HIllary would be, so that fight is pretty
much over.
Also, just because you are paranoid and
think they are all out to get you doesn't
mean it isn't true!. Of course the deep
state hates Trump. It's all just a circus
and a show until it's not. I really don't
know what Trump is waiting for. Call Bill
Binney in and get your heads together and
take down all the deep state.
PUT THEM ALL IN PRISON.
Yes, it will wipe out the whole government
as we know it.... but that is why Trump was
elected in the first place.
a very big part. rub is, i don't think he
knew. i think wray came in on a "if you
don't appoint him, the FIB is going to be
without a director" sort of threat. i think
sessions totally ass raped trump.
as for the remainder of his
administration, if you turn the white house
into goldman south, what exactly do you
expect for an economic plan.
as for the pre-election dumbfucks saying
trump is an executive, he will appoint good
people, and let them do their jobs. i
haven't seen one good appointment yet out of
trump. out of all of his appointments, scott
pruitt was the best and trump should have
backed him up, but didn't. he was sacrificed
to the environmentalists.
holee shit!!!!!
have i got an off topic comment to make.
i clicked on the globalintelhub link at
the top of the page about the possible source
of the op-ed.
what i found about one fourth of the way
into the article stopped me dead in my
tracks. this is the comment that did it:
But what is news in this disclosure
are the
newly
released emails
between Mark Mazzetti,
the New York Times's national security and
intelligence reporter, and CIA spokeswoman
Marie Harf.
you see it? do you see it? MARIE
HARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
does that name ring a bell? it damn well
should. she was a long time spokeshole in
the HNIC state department. she is the one
who uttered the phrase:
We need in the medium to longer term
to go after the root causes that leads people
to join these groups, whether it's a lack of
opportunity for jobs,
jobs for jihadists!!!! and this whore
still has a job in gov't? as a CIA
spokeshole? RUFKM
my fucking gawd get rid of these fucking
people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So if they go 25th Amendment on him will
Trump supporters chimp out or wait for the
proof to be presented and evaluate if his
staff have a vaild point?
Edit: I mostly
agree with your post and thats why I have
been so critical. What I saw early on, and
since, has been one big clusterfuck of
"you keep making decisions that in no way
reflect a person who is as awesome as you
promised."
Figures. When you are blocked from pillaging foreign
nations, you of course turn to the idea of bankruptcy.
You people just don't seem to understand that you are
not kings and queens, but common folk and you should
pay your debts, and tighten your belts. It would be
relatively short term pain for long term gain.
That,
more than anything else, speaks to the absence of any
character in the American make up.
I'll not believe it until Woof Shitzer and/or
Rachel Madcow confirm these rumors.
Radical Left
Plagiarist Farheed Diarrhea has evidently been
preoccupied by being dumped by his wife after 21
years of hardship so we won't be hearing his inane
comments bashing Trump for awhile.
Zakaria was suspended for a week in August
2012 while Time and CNN investigated an allegation
of plagiarism
[46]
involving an August 20 column on gun control with
similarities to a New Yorker article by
Jill Lepore
. In a statement Zakaria apologized,
saying that he had made "a terrible mistake."
Go back to Chinese Tire and buy some "made in
Canada" crap. Tell me again how the "Canadians"
co-opted the British in 1812 . Watch some more
Franz Kafka on the CBC, the Chinese Broadcasting
Corporation and explain to the CAW in southern
Ontario how Justine Twinklesocks traded auto worker
jobs for the Quebec Milk Quota.
There are
Canadians with character, but you ain't one of
them.
The US went into receivership in 1933, so I guess
"make it bankruptier?"
I have no problem with this,
since it's going to be interesting to see how the
debtors (The US and its employees) are going to pay
the creditors (that would be the Citizens) back for
the $17 trillion they owe us.
Going to have to be one helluva bake sale.
But my guess is they will just throw another woar
and kill off another generation of Creditors like they
have done for the past century. (And collect the
insurance premiums, since Social Security Insurance
pays out to the primary beneficiary first..and that
would be...The US GOv).
What? You thought Social Security was for YOUR
benefit?! Hahah, silly wabbits.
The author clearly supports a neocon foreign policy. just look at his stance about Russia. Can this me MI6 false flag designed
to paralyze Trump administration by sowing suspicion among the top officials.? British clearly resent Trump attempt to shrink the US
led global neoliberal empire created by his predecessors.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for
ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these
ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the "enemy of
the people," President Trump's impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
Don't get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative
coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust
military and more.
But these successes have come despite -- not because of -- the president's
leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior
officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief's comments and actions. Most are
working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive
rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to
be walked back.
"There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to
the next," a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president
flip-flopped on a major policy decision he'd made only a week earlier.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren't for unsung heroes in
and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have
gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always
successful.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there
are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what's right even when
Donald Trump won't.
The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference
for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and
displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly,
and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant
to expel
so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He
complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and
he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign
behavior. But his national security team knew better -- such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn't the work of the so-called deep state. It's the work of the steady
state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet
of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted
to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right
direction until -- one way or another -- it's over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather
what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be
stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his
farewell letter
. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim
of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example -- a
lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but
we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put
country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across
the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
I assumed it was an effort at creating some sort of record of resistance. Does anybody
really believe Paul Ryan is retiring from the 3rd most powerful position in the US Government
to "spend more time with family"? The rats are fleeing a sinking ship. Even if Trump serves
out a full four years, anybody too closely tied to this stupid shit-storm of an
Administration will be tarred in public eyes. But, American voters are notoriously forgetful,
and getting out before the ship goes down will probably work.
Funny shit. "the mole" wrote an Op/Ed piece, that contains no information of a sensitive
nature. S/he wrote of their own personal observations working in the White House. There is
nothing illegal in that.
I get that you might not have any functional understanding of
US law, but it is deeply disturbing that the President of the United States is calling for
the arrest of a citizen exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The op-ed piece being anonymous makes me wonder if Mr Trump himself put someone up to do it.
What better way of stirring up the base ahead of the mid-terms than talk of undemocratic
factions within the administration and fifth columnists to be rooted out for the cause. It
also offers the president another cudgel against the press that will appeal to his core
constituencies.
Even if Mr Trump isn't capable of coming up with such a scheme, there are certainly those
around him who are.
The statements in the opinion piece are horribly anti-pluralist anti-democratic in
themselves. The writer's nationalist appeal to 'American' unity at the end is based on
everyone uniting around US Republican principles of neo-liberalism, inequality and
militarism. S/he would use a false unity against Trump to impose the worst kind of
conservative fundamentalism and eliminate anything more progressive from the political
spectrum.
Maybe this is mainstream neo-liberal thinking but it's the end of a plural, democratic
state. There would be no more room to discuss inequality, climate change, race or gender
discrimination or new welfare provisions. Just an offer of false unity around hard neoliberal
principles. I guess it's a very similar game to Brexit, which is a choice between
life-threatening asset striping of the UK or May's 'hard right soft Brexit' super
Thatcherism.
Is Vice President Mike Pence trying to pull off a "House of Cards"-style scheme to undermine Trump
and increase his own chances of assuming the presidency?
Apparently, more than a few journalists
believe that might be the case. According to the Huffington Post, some believe that
the use
of a single word - "lodestar" - is a crucial tell
pointing toward Pence as the op-ed's
author. During the op-ed's final paragraphs the mystery author refers to John McCain as "a lodestar
for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue."
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter.
All Americans should
heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our
shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example - a
lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue.
Mr. Trump may
fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put
country first.
But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above
politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one:
Americans.
Pence has, of course, categorically denied these allegations and affirmed his loyalty to the
president.
Still, one video circulating on twitter shows Pence using the word in eight different speeches
dating back to 2001, when he was a Congressman from Indiana.
At the very least, there's some evidence to suggest that the author is a man. As Bloomberg's
Jennifer Jacobs pointed out yesterday, the Times' official Twitter feed may have inadvertently
revealed their gender.
For those who aren't familiar with the word, Merriam-Webster defines "lodestar" as
"a
star that leads or guides"
or a person who
"serves as an inspiration, model, or
guide."
To be sure, the Pence theory isn't without its holes. Trump staffers have said previously that
they pay attention to the idioms employed by others as a defense mechanism when speaking to the
press under the guise of anonymity.
"To cover my tracks, I usually pay attention to other staffers' idioms and use that in
my background quotes.
That throws the scent off me," one White House official told
Axios
.
But online betting markets have put Pence at the top of the list of suspects, with MyBookie
currently
reflecting 2-to-3 odds
on Pence as the culprit, per the
New
York Post
. The favorite right now, at 1-3 odds, is "the field" - i.e. someone not listed among
the 18 most likely senior admin officials, according to the Costa-Rica-based betting operation.
Still, at first brush, the theory makes a degree of sense:
As first in line for the
throne, Pence undoubtedly has the most to gain from the collapse of the Trump presidency.
But it's equally likely that a more junior official could've intentionally included these cues to
sow discord in the ranks.
As the Trump administration has proved time and time again, anything is possible in the West
Wing.
not sure pence is entirely a team member ... he has been told
to wait for more ... being around the trump tower, you can see
why pence would believe it besides the fact that he must have
been talking to real players that he knows they are real
players ...
having said all that, 100% this is coordinated ... it is no
coincidence it comes out at the same time with Bob Woodwards
book, Theresa May verdict on assailant of the failed attempt to
kill in salisbury soil, big offensive in Idlib (where trimp is
doing a 180 degrees and being a team member again ... to name
just a few ... it is the end of the line ... that economist
magazine "prediction" from 1988 on 30 years later comes to mind
... time for the US to come down hard i suppose ...
No way is the op-ed writer VP Pence. It
doesn't have his boring Midwestern tone.
It seems much more likely that the
letterbomb was written by a group --
not
in
the administration.
Rather, a
group of Deep State crybabies who aren't
getting their way and have devised this
lame, transparent effort akin to
Valley girls passing notes in homeroom ...
"like, I mean, um, whatever" ... because
they're too dumb to do anything else. And
the NYTimes ate it up.
But he IS a moron. All the war mongering pharisees are
morons.
Pence is a pro war psychopath who is very much
disconnected from his tortured soul and is a simple
biological robot devoid of higher levels of thought.
Pence is literally a moron. Only humans have souls and
access to imagination, inspiration, intuition, empathy:
pharisees DO NOT. They are all robotic machines: morons.
There being so many convoluted theories floating around,
here's mine. Trump, Pence and friends arranged this whole
editorial/reaction incident. As you point out, many other
stories were suddenly demoted to by-the-way status. This
gives Trump another reason to urge his supporters to be
enraged. It also could provide courage for purges within the
administration, someqthing it has long needed. Diverse
elements of the MSM are even attacking each other.
Ultimately, ask yourselves: cui bono? Who benefits?
It is
all too confusing. I'm getting a headache. Back to munching
on dark chocolate and watching cat videos.
Millions were beginning to think that that Trump wasn't
really leading the charge against the NWO and that he was
really
part of the NWO himself
--just like the NYT and the
person who wrote the op-ed, but by attacking Trump, these
NWO stooges
proved
Trump is leading the charge
against the NWO, and
proved
(after the
Sarah Jeong scandal
) to just as many others that the
NYT really is the most trustworthy institution in America
... just when both the NYT and Trump needed some street
cred the most ... and there's no way we are getting
played ... and there's no way this could be just theater
... or a psyop ... oh wait ...
Wasn't there a ZH article a few weeks ago about an algorithm that
could predict the author of a text, to a very high 90's percentile,
based on speech patterns?
I say we try it out and root out this
"saboteur".
However, I think we'd find that they are a fake.
Something about it feels contrived, why would a deep spate
functionary expose the apparatus that controls power regardless of
who is elected? What is the first rule of Fight Club?
I have a suspicion it is a plant, in an effort to convince the
masses that the deep state does exist. They are preaching to the
choir here at ZH, but 98% of the country has absolutely no idea what
the fuck Deep State even means. This makes it real for the common
man, In that respect, I guess it's a good thing. It just feels fake
though.
This whole year is playing out like the script from "House of Cards."
Now the MSM is calling for Trump to be removed as "unfit to hold
office." Liberals have hated Donald Trump since he first appeared on the
scene oil the 1970s as a loudmouth trust fund developer. They fought
every project he undertook and mocked him. Famously, "Spy" Magazine
belittled him as a "short-fingered vulgarian and Queens-born casino
operator" every time they mentioned his name, which was often. The
magazine's editor, Graydon Carter, despised Trump. Trump predicted the
magazine would fail within a year. So Carter put a calendar in the back
of the magazine, tearing off the days to prove Trump wrong. Alas, Trump
was right, and Spy shuttered before the year was out. It was a shame,
because the magazine was terrific and funny, but it had that typical
liberal New York Ivy League snottiness and superiority.
As
embarrassing as Trump may be, and he is certainly that, he is not
insane, nor unable to do the job. You may hate the job he is doing, but
this country has laws. If Mueller proves Trump committed real crimes
that mandate his indictment and removal, then so be it. But until then,
just because he runs a chaotic ship doesn't mean he can simply be taken
out.
The op-ed represents a shocking critique of Trump and is without precedent in modern
American history. Former CIA Director
John Brennan , who has sparred fiercely with the president, called the op-ed "active
insubordination born out of loyalty to the country, not to Donald Trump".
"This is not sustainable to have an executive branch where individuals are not following the
orders of the chief executive," Brennan told NBC's "Today" show. "I do think things will get
worse before they get better. I don't know how Donald Trump is going to react to this. A
wounded lion is a very dangerous animal, and I think Donald Trump is wounded."
In it, the anonymous author describes Trump as amoral, "anti-trade and anti-democratic" and
prone to making "half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions".
The writer claims aides had explored the possibility of removing Trump from office via
the 25th amendment , a complex constitutional mechanism to allow for the replacement of a
president who is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office", but had decided
against it.
An op-ed written in the New York Times by an anonymous "senior official in the Trump
administration" has drawn harsh rebuke from both sides of the aisle and beyond - after everyone
from President Trump to Glenn Greenwald to the
Los Angeles Times
chimed in with various
criticisms.
The author, who claims to be actively working against Trump in collusion with other
senior officials in what they call a "resistance inside the Trump administration," has now been
labeled everything from a coward, to treasonous, to nonexistent.
Trump, as expected,
lashed out
at the "failing" New York Times - before questioning whether the the mystery
official really exists, and that if they do, the New York Times should reveal the author's identity
as a matter of national security.
Trump supporters, also as expected, slammed the op-ed as either pure fiction or treason - a
suggestion Trump made earlier Wednesday.
What we don't imagine the anonymous author or the
Times
saw coming was the onslaught of
criticism coming from the center and left - those who stand to benefit the most from Trump's fall
from grace, or at least probably wouldn't mind it.
In an op-ed which appeared hours after the
NYT
piece, Jessica Roy of
the
Los
Angeles Times
writes: "
No, anonymous Trump official, you're not 'part of
the resistance.' You're a coward
" for not going
far enough
to stop Trump and in
fact enabling him.
If they really believe there's a need to subvert the president to protect the country,
they should be getting this person out of the White House. But they're too cowardly and
afraid of the possible implications
. They hand-wave the notion thusly:
"Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of
invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But
no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis."
How is it that utilizing the 25th Amendment of the Constitution would cause a crisis,
but admitting to subverting a democratically elected leader wouldn't?
...
If you're reading this, senior White House official, know this: You are not resisting
Donald Trump. You are enabling him for your own benefit. That doesn't make you an unsung hero.
It makes you a coward. -
LA
Times
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald - the Pulitzer Prize Winning co-founder of
The Intercept,
also
called the author of the op-ed
a "coward" whose ideological issues "voters didn't ratify."
Greenwald continues; "The irony in the op-ed from the NYT's anonymous WH coward is glaring and
massive:
s/he accuses Trump of being "anti-democratic" while boasting of membership in an
unelected cabal that covertly imposes their own ideology with zero democratic accountability,
mandate or transparency.
"
So who is the "coward" in the White House?
While the author remains anonymous, there are a couple of clues in the case. For starters,
Bloomberg
White
House reporter Jennifer Jacobs points out that the
New York Times
revealed that a man
wrote the op-ed, which rules out Kellyanne Conway, Nikki Haley, Ivanka and Melania (the latter two
being
CNN's
suggestions
).
A second clue comes from the language used in the op-ed, and in particular "
Lodestar
"
- a rare word used by Mike Pence in at least one speech. Then again, someone trying to make one
think it's pence would also use that word (which was oddly Merriam-Webster's
word of the day
last
Tuesday).
A pence-theory hashtag has already emerged to support this theory;
#VeepThroat
Given the Op-Ed's praise of the late Senator John McCain, never-Trumper and Iraq War
sabre-rattler Bill Kristol tweeted that it was Kevin Hassett, the Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers. Of course, Kristol and whoever wrote the op-ed are ideologically aligned, so one
might question why he would voluntarily work against this person.
So while we don't know who wrote the op-ed, it appears to be backfiring spectacularly on its
author(s) amid wild theories and harsh rebuke from all sides of the aisle.
We're sure Carlos Slim - the largest owner of the
New York Times
and once the richest
man on earth, is having a good laugh at Trump's expense either way... for now.
Perhaps Trump can push the "fabrication" angle longer than NYT can retain the moral high ground
- especially after they hired, then refused to fire,
Sarah Jeong
- a new addition to the NYT editorial board who was revealed in old tweets to be an
openly bigoted, with a particularly deep hatred of "old white men."
The
New York Times
stood by Jeong - claiming she was simply responding to people
harassing her for being an Asian lesbian - only to have their absurd theory shredded within hours
.
Jeong
in fact has a multi-year history of unprovoked and random comments expressing hatred towards white
men.
And now she's right on the front lines of perhaps the greatest attempt to smear Trump yet. Not
exactly a good look for the
Times
at a time when MSM credibility has already taken a hit.
How many
broke bread
with the Clinton campaign leading up to the 2016 election?
Vote up!
158
Vote down!
2
Coup d'etat, in every sense of the word.......Constitution? What's that?
Roaches aren't even scurrying when you turn the lights on anymore. Trying to overthrow an elected standing government is the very definition of
treason.
That is an interesting angle. . . Trump creating his
own narratives by using agents to leak to the
blatently bias NYT. Jeebus, but the trouble that
strategy could cause. Millions out there are wound
tight across Amerika. Wouldnt take much of a spark to
get a good fire going. .
These are all staged irrelevances designed to distract
people...the few remaining people who are not addicted to
their screens. Remember - all media, all members of both
parties, all white house employees and especially Trump
work for the same cabal. No one can step out of line and
stay alive. The cabal knows everything.
If people yell loud and often enough, many will
actually forget that they are now knee deep in
ice-cold saltwater.
#Titanic
Let's focus on the important things, like a
scripted reality show fight, versus, idk, the fact
that we are again on the precipice of yet another
meltdown, only this time the Fed is fucked cause
nobody can borrow anymore $$, interest rates are still
way too low, and we are on our way to a Maunder
Minimum.
I could go on and on with REAL issues, but it seems
we just don't talk about them anymore. No need to see
how medical is bankrupting us, pensions are fucked,
"students" are quickly on their way to being
skullfucked with no way out.
We are setup for a calamity that will be 10x worse
than 2008, and the only thing I hear is the ever
increasing volume of "Everything is Awesome."
My dear, you don't really quite realize what you have
given the Trump Administration.
What the Times have
done is assured their readers that there is a counter
coup currently underway to bring down this sitting
President.
Back up and let that reality marinate.
Understand that now any failings or short comings that
come out of this administration can be laid at the feet
of the saboteurs working to bring down the government.
So if the economy rolls over and dies, it's the
saboteur's fault. If gas prices spike, it's the
senator's fault. If a nuke goes off in an American city,
it's the saboteur's fault. If the President is
impeached, it is the saboteur's fault. Any opposition to
this President from this point on is the result of a
concerted effort on the part of a gang of saboteurs to
bring down the government.
Merry Christmas, you have
just added the raison d'eter for a purge of all Obama
appointees in every executive agency.
President Trump thought that he could 'go along
to get along'. He is a slow learner. Taking credit
for a ginormous stock market bubble created by
cheap credit and buybacks, no real effort to build
a wall, massive tax cuts to
millionaires/billionaires, kissing Israel's ass,
the list goes on and on. The man hasn't done much
of anything to really help the middle class. And,
he hasn't done enough to even protect himself. The
op-ed is a hit piece. So what. But, Trump better
get up to speed sooner rather than later.
Are you really this stupid? The Trump administration
is owned by the banksters, every bit as much as the
'saboteur'. You really don't understand the game at
all.
CIA hit piece to discredit Trump and
sow division in the cabinet shortly before midterms.
If Trump fires half of his cabinet, or locks everyone down
hunting for the mole - "Seee?! We told you he was tyrannical!"
If he doesn't react or address it, it hangs out there,
continuing to make everyone believe he's an unstable bumbling
moron. And as he's stated previously, he's a "very stable
genius".
Either way, what may have been a clever ploy is a ham-fisted
CIA plot that misjudged it's audience (like they've never done
THAT before) and will continue to backfire. People are so sick
of the virtue signalling horseshit (Nike and Kuntpaernik come
to mind) that it's almost a guaranteed backfire when you try to
do it.
Imagine for a moment that you win the lottery and are appointed the
director of the CIA. Do you have any idea what the CIA does? Do you have
any inkling beyond what you have read in the media and the alternate media
of what agendas are afoot? Do you have any idea of what's at stake? Do
you have a clue about who you can trust? Are the lower echelons for you or
against you? Who do you talk to just to find out what is going on? Once
you are informed can you trust the information? Are the options you are
offered real options or are the serving someone's private agenda?
Now
imagine that you are President of the United States and half the electorate
wants to remove you from office. Who do you tap on the shoulder to
initiate the purge? How do you know they won't purge you?
I never said I was smart but I worked for one of the most corrupt
bureaucracies in the world for about a decade, and I learned a few
things about political tools and how to manipulate the narrative. What
the Times has done is publicly assert that there are saboteurs working
in the Trump administration who are actively attempting to bring down
this President. The Resistance i.e. the Democratic Party through its
mouth piece has openly stated that they are participating in an ongoing
coup to bring down the government. Do you not realize what kind of club
that has just been handed to Trump to beat down his opposition? Any
opposition is now aiding and abetting the attempted coup.
As for
government, the banks lent the money to purchase it in 1913. The banks
running the show is old news.
CIA hit piece to discredit Trump and sow division
in the cabinet shortly before midterms.
If Trump fires half of his cabinet, or locks everyone down hunting for
the mole - "Seee?! We told you he was tyrannical!" If he doesn't react or
address it, it hangs out there, continuing to make everyone believe he's an
unstable bumbling moron. And as he's stated previously, he's a "very stable
genius".
Either way, what may have been a clever ploy is a ham-fisted CIA plot
that misjudged it's audience (like they've never done THAT before) and will
continue to backfire. People are so sick of the virtue signalling horseshit
(Nike and Kuntpaernik come to mind) that it's almost a guaranteed backfire
when you try to do it.
syria had a legitimately elected government too, and look what's gone on
for the last seven years there.
you think these fuckers at CIA see any
difference between what they are able to do there and here in the US?
over there they drop pallets of weapons from the sky. over here they
drop what passes for information from their mockingbird operations.
same difference.
most america haters here at ZH are laughing because they think this
is the US getting their comeuppance. the comeuppance we are getting is
for challenging those who have been doing this to others for all these
years. it's not other nations turning around and doing this to the US.
it is those who have done this to others, are now doing it to the
citizens of the US. those america haters better hope we citizens win,
if not, that hell trump said would be unleashed on iran, will be
unleashed on the world. and all the hyperweapons invented or dreamed of
will not be able to stop it.
Government , its representatives and its agencies are unscrupulous
and immoral beyond the imagination of a normal person.
Northwoods,
Iraq WMD, Vietnam chemical weapon campaign, The Lusitania, Grenada,
Tonkin, kennedy assassinations.
The amazing thing is how people swallow all that and trot off to
the polls and never ask for any murderous corrupt bastard to be held
to account.
Meanwhile we lost the free press so now no lone voice questions
the moves of the real powers. The waste their voice on partisan
bickering over people who are only puppets leaving real power to play
its global killing games un remarked.
This really smells with coup d'état. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert coup
to impose these policies. The op ed suggests the existence of anti-Trump 'sleeper cells' within
the government"
The author also claimed that the administration's achievements had included some "bright
spots" such as "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and
more".
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... is required by their own oath ..."
"... If Anonymous=Deep State, then Trump brought this Deep State with him. These are his appointees ..."
The New York Timespublished
a strange op-ed purportedly written by a "senior official" in the Trump administration:
The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda
and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular "resistance" of the left. We want the administration
to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more
prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a
manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
The author of the op-ed flatters himself by claiming to be acting in the best interests of
the country, but there is something very wrong with having self-appointed guardians assuming
that they have the right to sabotage certain policies of the elected president. For one, they
have no authority to do what they're doing, and no one voted for them. It is one thing to argue
that professionals should be willing to serve a bad president in the interests of public
service, and it is quite another to argue that the officials working for the president are
entitled to disregard and override the president's decisions because the president happens to
be an ignorant buffoon. The "two-track presidency" that the official boasts about is an affront
to our system of government. It is not reassuring that U.S. foreign policy continues as if on
autopilot no matter what the electorate votes for.
Perversely, the more that Trump administration officials "frustrate parts of his agenda,"
the more likely it is that Trump remains in power longer than he otherwise would. The official
says that the core of the problem is the president's "amorality." That raises the obvious
question: how can someone acknowledge that the president has no principles or scruples of any
kind and still in good conscience try to help him succeed? These officials are not only
enabling a president whose behavior they consider to be "detrimental to the health of our
republic," but they are helping to make sure that he stays in office instead of hastening his
defeat. They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating
the policies of the government to their own liking.
There are legitimate political and constitutional remedies for an unfit president, but the
anonymous "resistance" official isn't interested in any of that. He prefers to keep the
administration from completely imploding because it also happens to be advancing a mostly
conventional Republican agenda that he likes. There is nothing particularly admirable about
that, and he should not have been granted anonymity to write his self-congratulatory article.
If this official feels so strongly that the president endangers the health and well-being of
the country, he should put his name on a statement to that effect when he announces his
resignation.
Who knew the Deep State (tm?) included Trump's political appointees? (see Times guidelines on
who that attribute as "senior administration officials" )
Donald: Yes, but that Deep State was brought in by Trump and is trying to keep their jobs. I
agree with Daniel's analysis, but I am not at all confident that our Constitution is equipped
to deal with a sociopath as President when you also have a legislative branch that knows it
but refuses to do it's constitutional duty.
It is my understanding from carefully listening to Trump Supporters (I am not one) that this
is exactly the reason why he was elected. There is a feeling (particularly strongly felt
among Trump supporters, but a lot of Bernie supporters felt a version of it too) that
although we continue to have elections in this country, that we are ceasing to be a democracy
because decision-making is increasingly being taken away from or being delegated away from
elected officials.
Supporters of a very powerful Executive Branch might argue "hey, it's not exactly the way
that our Founder Fathers envisioned our Federal System to work, but if the Executive takes
decision-making power away from unelected bureaucrats, lifetime-appointed judges, and a
deadlocked Congress, then at least we get to vote every 4 years on kicking the bum out of the
White House or not".
A White House that has decision-making taken power away from the person of the Executive,
thus devolving power back to unelected officials, is a true crisis for democracy. Impeachment
or the 25th Amendment are Constitutional remedies for a corrupt or incapacitated Executive
because they take power away from an elected official and invest them in a new official
subject to election. White House officials secretly undermining the President doesn't pass
Constitutional muster, no matter how bad the President is.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get
it good and hard." – H. L. Mencken
It's a remarkable editorial. It appears to be a confession of treason. Similar words, written
in response to a popular president, would hopefully trigger an investigation leading to
conviction and imprisonment of those involved.
Every indication is that the writer is correct: Trump is a disaster. But if the writer
wants to live up to his/her claim of putting country first, s/he and the other cafeteria
Republicans (i.e., selective co-conspirators) should stop trying to have it both ways,
keeping their salaries and their positions of power in the name of the Trump administration
while simultaneously reserving the right to undermine it. Instead, they should find the
courage to step forward en masse.
An independent investigator could help them to find that courage. The process of exploring
and publicizing what has gone on, in that White House, may help to push the nation toward a
serious discussion of an appropriate replacement for its present corrupted and dysfunctional
form of democracy.
I have some reservations about this so called 'Resistance' Op-Ed in the NYT. This whole
'resistance' affair sounds hollow and not very authentic to me. I also have reservation about
the new book 'Fear' by Bob Woodward. The book as such probably is needed, but naming who said
what is counterproductive, to put it mildly. I do not think B. Woodward got permission to
assign names to who said what because if he had permission the people to whom some statements
are assigned would not deny them. I suspect that B. Woodward in reality conscientiously works
for D. Trump. Why I do think so: because I can not imagine that he in his book could not
anticipate what D. Trump will do next with those named. The book by B. Woodward will only
help to purge the rest of the moderate people from trump administration and put in their
place his favorites so he will have free hand to do whatever he wants probably until 2024.
I suspect this op-ed is nothing more than someone trying to establish their own personal
defense for when the whole thing comes crashing down. "No no no – don't blame me! I
wasn't really part of it. In fact I was really trying to stop it the whole time." If what
this person is writing is true, then there is a constitutional remedy that he or she is
required by their own oath to implement. Failing to do that, and just trying to
undermine Trump secretly is making them just as guilty. I despise Trump as much as anyone,
but this is not the way to deal with him.
I agree up to a point. If Trump got up one morning and decided he was tired of arguing with
North Korea and ordered a first nuclear strike, I'd hope that there'd be people around him
who would stop him, as that would, no doubt, be in the best interest of the country. To
assume that they'd have time to go through the constitutional removal procedure in time to
stop the needless deaths of millions of people is absurd.
Now, I'm not saying what they are doing is preventing nuclear war. I'm just making the
point that there are limits to your principled position.
"They want credit for "resisting" Trump when their "resistance" amounts to manipulating
the policies of the government to their own liking. "
Yes. Creepy. Especially in light of Trump's about-turn on foreign policy, in which this
administration has used our money and military power to serve Israeli and Saudi Arabian
interests instead of America's.
Now we know where the "America First" policy of the campaign went. It went down the Deep
State rabbit hole. We're still mired in the Middle East, still doing favors for Israel and
Saudi Arabia. Things didn't get better. They got far worse.
Hiding behind anonymity I believe shows a lack of courage and conviction. I am surprised a
genuine "newspaper" would even publish the article. How can anyone be believed when they
don;t have the courage to sign their name?
This basically confirms what many have suspected and feared. Neocon Establishment types
worked their way into the White House and have been pursuing their own foreign policy agenda,
exploiting the President's ignorance, stupidity, and impulsiveness.
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" – H. L.
Mencken
Some at TAC have suggested for quite a while that Trump was "hijacked" by his staff at some
point. While most of what he's done is clearly down to Trump himself, those who have
suggested that he has been manipulated and controlled by advisors just got whopping
corroboration from the Woodward book and NYT op/ed.
Under the circumstances, there's obviously concern that foreign countries have been
exploiting the situation. FBI counterespionage agents, a small army of them, should be
checking and re-checking the foreign connections of his current staff, to the extent that
isn't already being done by Mueller.
And it isn't just Russia. China, Israel and Saudi Arabia are obvious suspects, if for no
other reason that they spy on and attempt to influence us with at least the same intensity as
Russia. The investigators should look where Trump has been spending his time in the foreign
policy arena. He has been threatening and pressuring some countries, but he is also doing
favors for others. For what countries has he been doing favors? And in threatening certain
countries is he doing the will of others?
Reminds me of the story of the last days of the Nixon White House, when the pressure was
driving him to drunken wanderings punctuated by near unhinged rants. Senior officials became
so worried that they contacted the pentagon and told them to ignore nuclear launch orders
unless confirmed by someone else.
In all seriousness though, this is less some kind of "deep state" and more of what you get
when you run the White House the way Trump apparently has. He's packed his administration
with people of dubious ability for the most part, with the highest qualification apparently
being how he perceives their loyalty to him. Then he sets them all at odds against each
other, fighting for the scraps of his attention to get their own agendas enacted.
In that kind of environment it's inevitable that someone will believe that One, the
emperor has no clothes, and Two, the agenda they are fighting so hard to shepherd through
this administration is more important than the administration itself. So why not just do an
end run around the moron and do whatever they want.
Ray Woodcock: " It appears to be a confession of treason. "
Only if you regard the US president as a monarch to whom his minions owe a duty of
personal allegiance. Because that is the way treason is typically defined in monarchies. (For
example, in the UK.) In the United States treason has a very different definition. You can
find it in section 3 of article 3 of the Constitution. There allegiance is not to any one
person but to the United States as a whole, and more specifically to the Constitution.
In other words, in the US it isn't treason to betray a president, although I will grant
you many Americans do treat treason as if that WERE the case. But then just how many of them
have even read their nation's Constitution?
Re treason : "There allegiance is not to any one person but to the United States as a whole,
and more specifically to the Constitution."
Yes. There may be treason if a foreign country has infiltrated Trump's staff with
operatives who persuaded Trump to do things against the national security interests of the
United States – actions on behalf of a foreign country that imperil American persons or
property, civilian or military.
The idea that the ethical problem at the White House is not Pr. Trump is pretty odd.
Pr. Trump says GOP legislators shouldn't be prosecuted by DOJ, voting is rigged, FBI is
corrupt, 3 million Mexicans voted, orders economic deal with S. Korea to end, apparently
forgets about it, and etc, and somehow Mr. Larison, David Frum, and David Graham think a
bureaucrat ratting on the President and other bureaucrats frustrating the President's desires
is a constitutional crisis?
When members of the President's own cabinet are taking the same actions as these
bureaucrats, because they think the President is immature, not stable, or immoral?
They work with the President. They would know.
Apparently no one wants to work for Pr. Trump. Why can't he find people who agree with him
and respect him?
Go after Pr. Trump's cabinet members for a deep state, not petty bureaucrats who could be
fired and replaced any time.
Ask yourself why the President can't find good people to work for him.
The answer is tweeting at you every day and the finger should be pointing back at him.
"It's a remarkable editorial. It appears to be a confession of treason. "
But Trump has been spectacularly disloyal to the people who work for him. Is there anyone
other than family members who he hasn't belittled and attacked? Hell, he's even betrayed
those who voted for him (see long list of broken promises).
Given his own treacherous nature, how much loyalty can he reasonably expect? He must have
already fired half of those he hired, so it's not too surprising that many are now writing
books or telling tales to the NYT or WaPo.
That said, there are probably some real traitors in there. I'd guess most of the real
traitors are spies working for foreign countries, taking advantage of the chaos to get things
done for their foreign masters. That's a real cause for concern.
Clearly this is an admission of a Deep State. Many of you might agree with the politics of
the Deep State operative below but keep in mind he is phrasing the issue in the most
political way possible but that's the point. We don't resolve political disagreements by
using the power if the bureaucracy to tie the President up in say, 'collusion investigations'
in combination with what entrenched agencies want. If we did so we would still be enemies of
Great Britain. Those rogues burned down the White House and armed the Confederates.
The Deep State is trying to get us into battle against the Russians in Syria to create
Iraq 2.0 and is cheering on his mania against Iran for Iraq 3.0.
"Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for
autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's
leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to
allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on
another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished
accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed
as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's
spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for
weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with
Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions
on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better -- such
actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable"
All of this is well and good as the expression goes. The anonymous author of the Op Ed piece
should come forward and cease serving in an administration which is at odds with his or her
sensibilities except for one thing that above all else must be considered in this respect:
The Chief Executive has his finger on the button.
The case made by Mr. Larison is correct except for this one major consideration. One
individual can launch a nuclear strike and that individual no matter who it has been and no
matter who it is today and will be tomorrow has that power. Perhaps the time is past due to
reconsider granting one individual with this capacity to act which with one directive sent
directly to our nuclear warhead tipped missile silos may bring the end to our species on this
planet.
Many of the complaints from the NYT's anonymous WH coward - not all, but
many - are ideological: that Trump deviates from GOP orthodoxy, an ideology he didn't
campaign on & that voters didn't ratify. Trump may be a threat but so is this covert
coup to impose these policies. pic.twitter.com/4Qf54JJHN9
Replying to @ggreenwald The irony in the op-ed from the
NYT's anonymous WH coward is glaring and massive: s/he accuses Trump of being
"anti-democratic" while boasting of membership in an unelected cabal that covertly imposes
their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency
"... The professor who reportedly assisted the FBI's Russia probe as a confidential source is at the center of a Defense Department whisteblower complaint that alleges government contractor abuses, as well as excessive payments with taxpayer dollars, according to interviews and documents reviewed by Fox News. ..."
"... Earlier this month, conservative watchdog Judicial Watch announced it was suing the Defense Department on behalf of Lovinger to force the release of emails and other electronic messages after Lovinger had his security clearance suspended. ..."
"... Bigley, who is representing Lovinger pro bono, said his client flagged the concerns about contractors -- including Stefan Halper , the professor -- as early as 2016, to Lovinger's leadership at the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), which is like an internal Pentagon think tank. ..."
The professor who reportedly assisted the FBI's Russia probe as a confidential source is at
the center of a Defense Department whisteblower complaint that alleges government contractor
abuses, as well as excessive payments with taxpayer dollars, according to interviews and
documents reviewed by Fox News.
The complaint was filed by attorney Sean Bigley on behalf of Pentagon lawyer Adam Lovinger.
Earlier this month, conservative watchdog Judicial Watch announced it was suing the Defense
Department on behalf of Lovinger to force the release of emails and other electronic messages
after Lovinger had his security clearance suspended.
Bigley, who is representing Lovinger pro bono, said his client flagged the concerns about
contractors -- including
Stefan Halper , the professor -- as early as 2016, to Lovinger's leadership at the Office
of Net Assessment (ONA), which is like an internal Pentagon think tank.
"... So the strategy is obvious: Scare Russia with how big your defense budget is, even if you have nothing to show for it. And if 1 trillion can't do the trick, I don't see why 2 trillion shouldn't be able to accomplish the task – winning Cold war 2. ..."
"... The US are perfectly capable by themselves alone in finding a new source of pride in the fact how much they can (ill) afford to spend on the military, thus they want to ensure that on their way to oblivion, history will marvel at what a powerful country they used to be – spending amounts of money on the military that no one else was able to match. ..."
"... Yes, Putin managed to change the world quietly, to the helpless chagrin of the Empire. The fact that the Empire is now using the lowliest scum, like jihadi head choppers and "svidomie" Nazis, shows that it is reduced to hysterics and tantrums. ..."
"... So, if in Cold War 2.0 Putin is using the strategy the US used in Cold War 1.0, he is outsmarting his adversaries admirably. ..."
"... It might be even worse for the Empire and its lackeys. The US and other NATO armies would be totally incapacitated by the absence of bathroom tissue. ..."
"... You need to start with the premise that the US Zioglob wants to destroy Syria and Iran – and you have to take them seriously since much of the Middle East has already been targeted, and is lying in ruins ..."
"... Russia's part in this is that it gets in the way. Without Russian support, Assad and the Iranians would probably already be gone, and Syria would be some kind of ISIS run hellhole ..."
"... But overall, it's unreal that this is happening. If the US attacks Russian warships off the Syrian coast, then things could get completely out of control. ..."
"... Israel would not let America do anything that might start a nuclear war. ..."
"... FSB operational group is in Donetsk now and is dealing with this murder. This is the start of the official recognition of the LDNR–initially as independent entities and, eventually, rejoining Russia. It is especially remarkable after even Kiev admitting a demographic and labor catastrophe, which also feed-backs and drives the whole country into the oblivion even faster. That, plus US military "advisers" are already in place in Ukraine. 2019 is not far away and US wants to "sell" own toxic asset as high as possible. ..."
"... Is the outbreak of nuclear war possible? Of course it is possible, it always is–the main measure of it is how probable this outbreak is. This is way above my pay-grade level, but I will reiterate–Russia is aware of the US and where it stands on the order (if not two) of magnitude more than it is the other way around. Russians actually study the US and I saw a vast improvement of Russian Americanistika in the last 10 years. Dramatic really. On the other end well ..."
"... As far as Israel is concerned, you don't need to target anything in particular: one 500 kiloton device (or a few smaller ones) would wipe the whole Israel off the map (Arabs need not rejoice: that puny territory won't be usable for any mammals for a few thousand years). One can only hope that Israelis and the US neocons don't have a death wish and won't let things to go that far. ..."
"... The US strategy is to make Russia bleed internally with aggressive and violent Military occupations directly as in Syria and by proxy in the Ukraine ..Could this not lead to a coup in Russia? ..."
"... Dempsey and Michael Flynn (while he was head of the DIA) sabotaging the CIA and State department policy on overthrowing Assad the Idiot (he put up the price of basic necessities while the Arab spring was going on) was the origin of Russia gate, the CIA hated Flynn. ..."
"... The US "strategy" on Russia is written by dated "products" of the US "humanities" field, by amateurs and by ignoramuses – that is why US "strategy" on Russia is easily identifiable as one huge tantrum and is exhibit A of how not TO conduct military and foreign policies. In fact, I expect at some point of time many a Ph.D theses written on that–a fascinating topic of a country ran by people with maturity level of teenagers. As per coup–wanna see one? Open any US MSM newspaper or watch any MSM news. ..."
"... I fear you're underestimating the power of messianic delusions. The country with leaders speaking of the End of History, the Moral Arc of History, etc., is not a country with a generalized ability to accept equal status among competing powers. ..."
"... While it may be the case that there are serious people who seriously understand the situation, the default assumption among Regime players is that USG is on top, and this will continue for ever . ..."
"... The other is geopolitical: I strongly suspect that Putin wants to use Donbass as a lever to push Ukraine to a sensible position of neutrality internationally and federation internally. If so, good luck to him: that would make Ukraine viable. ..."
"... I don't know about goats, but naturally radiation-resistant rodents and insects would have been grateful to neocons, if they knew who to thank for gifting them the whole Earth as a kingdom. ..."
"... I fear you're underestimating the power of messianic delusions. The country with leaders speaking of the End of History, the Moral Arc of History, etc., is not a country with a generalized ability to accept equal status among competing powers. ..."
"... Yes, it's definitely a tricky situation living in a large country run by criminals and madmen. ..."
"... If not for nuclear weapons, things would be much simpler, and once they eventually got a bloody military nose, there might be a popular uprising, probably leading to the wholesale massacre of all our ruling political, financial, and intellectual elites. This would definitely serve them right and also provide excellent business to Chinese guillotine-manufacturers. But with nukes in the hands of madmen, a positive outcome is much more doubtful, so I guess there's not all that much we can do except sit around and worry. ..."
I am sorry Andrei, but I am going to have to disagree with your assessment of the current
situation. I think that the US strategy is very sound and its aims are obvious. Since they
can't win any "hot" war of any significance, they decided to lure Russia into Cold war 2. And
we all know who "won" Cold war 1.
Basically the strategy is: Focus on the "wars" that you can "win", instead on the ones
that you can't. And the way they intend to "win" Cold war 2 is the same like they "won" Cold
war 1 – outspend Russia on defense.
For a few years now, the Americans are bragging that their yearly increases in the
military budget are bigger than the total Russian military budget. US now spend around 1
trillion on defense, while Russia is what – in the 50-60 billion range?
So the strategy is obvious: Scare Russia with how big your defense budget is, even if you
have nothing to show for it. And if 1 trillion can't do the trick, I don't see why 2 trillion
shouldn't be able to accomplish the task – winning Cold war 2.
The only difference between Cold war 1 and 2 is that USSR tried to match the spending of
US in Cold war 1 -that's what bankrupted them. This time around, the Russians don't even have
to pretend that they are trying to match US military budget.
The US are perfectly capable by themselves alone in finding a new source of pride in the
fact how much they can (ill) afford to spend on the military, thus they want to ensure that
on their way to oblivion, history will marvel at what a powerful country they used to be
– spending amounts of money on the military that no one else was able to match.
Your argument is nonsensical and uninformed. Russia has recently slashed their defence
spending by a significant margin. If the plan was to lure Russia to spend more via defence
then it has already completely failed.
A Tweet by Nick Griffin,
former leader of the British National Party, on whether decades of mass immigration and
Cultural Marxism have increased or decreased the West's chances of surviving World War
III:
'Here's the bottom line: Even if Nato destroyed the entire military & half the cities
of Russia, she would survive. If the USA & UK lose their militaries & their
electricity supply, their cities will be destroyed by their own citizens. The West has lost
#WW3 before it starts!'
Yes, Putin managed to change the world quietly, to the helpless chagrin of the Empire. The
fact that the Empire is now using the lowliest scum, like jihadi head choppers and "svidomie"
Nazis, shows that it is reduced to hysterics and tantrums.
Sometimes I wish Putin to act more decisively, like after the murder of Zakharchenko in
Donetsk by cowardly terrorist jackals. But I also feel that he must know more than I do. His
strategy seems to be "when you see your enemy committing suicide, do not interfere". So far
it is working. If anything, Russia, without spending too much, prompts the US to spend itself
into financial insolvency.
So, if in Cold War 2.0 Putin is using the strategy the US used in
Cold War 1.0, he is outsmarting his adversaries admirably.
It might be even worse for the Empire and its lackeys. The US and other NATO armies would
be totally incapacitated by the absence of bathroom tissue. And I mean real soldiers, not trannies.
Both of you are way off. The reality trumps race, real or imagined. That's where Russia
wins. Particularly because it includes people of different nationalities, races, religions
(or lack thereof), etc.
You need to start with the premise that the US Zioglob wants to destroy Syria and Iran
– and you have to take them seriously since much of the Middle East has already been
targeted, and is lying in ruins.
Russia's part in this is that it gets in the way. Without Russian support, Assad and the
Iranians would probably already be gone, and Syria would be some kind of ISIS run
hellhole.
Also, the cook in the fable does monologues when angry, but the Neocons have been
described as "Crazies" and act like crazies, so it's a bit risky to only expect "loud talk
and nothing more". Crazies can start throwing things around, and they're not known for
balanced responses, so I find Martyanov's view too complacent.
I would guess that Putin & his generals have a more realistic assessment , and
interestingly they seem to have decided to stick with Assad (which seems to imply that
they're ready to go all the way with the US). Trump & Mattis need to appreciate this and
moderate the Ziocons.
But overall, it's unreal that this is happening. If the US attacks Russian warships off
the Syrian coast, then things could get completely out of control.
Rural Russians do not have electricity, indoor plumbing and running water in many cases.
It is like Eire in the 1920′s except worse because the distances are vastly greater.
Anyway, if Russia got to a point where it was in a full nuclear strategic exchange with the
US, the last act of the Russian leadership would be to order that their missiles hit every
other nuclear power: Britain, France, China and Israel too . Russia would take
everyone else down with them. For that reason Israel would not let America do anything that
might start a nuclear war.
FSB operational group is in Donetsk now and is dealing with this murder. This is the start
of the official recognition of the LDNR–initially as independent entities and,
eventually, rejoining Russia. It is especially remarkable after even Kiev admitting a
demographic and labor catastrophe, which also feed-backs and drives the whole country into
the oblivion even faster. That, plus US military "advisers" are already in place in Ukraine.
2019 is not far away and US wants to "sell" own toxic asset as high as possible.
Also, the cook in the fable does monologues when angry, but the Neocons have been
described as "Crazies" and act like crazies, so it's a bit risky to only expect "loud talk
and nothing more". Crazies can start throwing things around, and they're not known for
balanced responses, so I find Martyanov's view too complacent.
Evidently you missed Ralph Peters' (and he is really bat shit crazy one and passes as
"military experts" among neocon cabal) "performance" and writings when he called on the war
against Russia ONLY inside Syria. And even then with some caveats.
Even if such a psycho as Peters understands limitations–and that was a year ago,
since then things changed in Syria dramatically, such as Syrian and Russian Air Defense among
other things–then I would say that my position is not really "complacent". Russia has a
revolver and it is held to the temple.
Is the outbreak of nuclear war possible? Of course it
is possible, it always is–the main measure of it is how probable this outbreak is. This
is way above my pay-grade level, but I will reiterate–Russia is aware of the US and
where it stands on the order (if not two) of magnitude more than it is the other way around.
Russians actually study the US and I saw a vast improvement of Russian Americanistika in the
last 10 years. Dramatic really. On the other end well
You are a bit under-informed. Practically all Russian villages have electricity now,
although many don't have natural gas, indoor plumbing, and live w/o running water in homes
(some have it in the streets, others rely on wells; most use old-fashioned latrines).
In the worst-case scenario of nuclear war between Russia and the US, Russia won't need to
target nuclear power plants (or anything else) in China. Russian strategy would be to make
sure some people survive, same as Chinese strategy in that case. They might, although I am
not sure that the survivors won't envy the dead after a full-blown nuclear war. The US
vassals will be hit, but given what the world will become, one can consider that an act of
mercy.
As far as Israel is concerned, you don't need to target anything in particular: one 500
kiloton device (or a few smaller ones) would wipe the whole Israel off the map (Arabs need
not rejoice: that puny territory won't be usable for any mammals for a few thousand years).
One can only hope that Israelis and the US neocons don't have a death wish and won't let
things to go that far.
1) the Russian Military and the US Military are separated physically by a very thin line in
Syria and other places ..accidental bumping into each other=Big nuclear accident!!!
2)The US strategy is to make Russia bleed internally with aggressive and violent Military
occupations directly as in Syria and by proxy in the Ukraine ..Could this not lead to a coup
in Russia? Noam Chomsky makes a compelling case that the US actually won the Vietnam War
.Vietnam had it's military victory .but the war turned Vietnam into a dependent basket case
.44 years of being a dependent basket case.
If there exists any other people than me that got curious about Ivan Krylov and want to
read his stories i found a book on archive.org
"Kriloff's original fables translated by Henry Harrison published in 1883."
I found it easier to read the letters in that one than in the link in the article tbh.
Watergate was really about the US losing the war, so I think the Vietnamese won the war,
but the US left benefited . To get rid of Putin and his system the US would have to impose a
clear defeat on Russia, something the US cannot do in Ukraine without Russia
escalating, and
did not care to try in Syria. The American and Russian military would not let the politicians
start a war.
McCAIN: General Dempsey is the most disappointing chairman of the joint chiefs that I
have seen, and I have seen many of them
He says he may request that. He has supported the plan to completely withdraw from
Afghanistan. And he has basically been the echo chamber for the president. And one of the
reasons we are in the situation that we're in in the world today – and particularly
in the Middle East – is because the lack of his either knowledge or candor about the
situation in the Middle East. And it has done great damage, and so all I can say is he only
has eight more months.
In the above video Dunford tells Wicker controlling airspace in Syria means war with
Russia. McCain throws a tantrum, then Dunford refines answer. However, it is perfectly
obvious that the current head of the Joint Chiefs is no more keen than Martin Dempsey was on
aggressive action against Assad.
Dempsey and Michael Flynn (while he was head of the DIA) sabotaging the CIA and State
department policy on overthrowing Assad the Idiot (he put up the price of basic necessities
while the Arab spring was going on) was the origin of Russia gate, the CIA hated Flynn.
Sean -- I hope you are right about Israel. I have seen it argued, though, that Jews would
welcome a nuclear conflagration because, as God's chosen, they would be the only ones certain
to be left standing when the dust had settled. It would be the realization of the Judaic
belief that Heaven and Earth were created solely for the Jews; see Shahak and Mezvinsky's
Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel , page 60.
of course they are, now go back to bed grandpa. you should not let your self get so
agitated either, your heart is weak. it is a long time ago now that "you" beat the nazis and
taught those pesky commies a lesson.
Noam Chomsky makes a compelling case that the US actually won the Vietnam War
Noam Chomsky could be many things, military historian and scholar of a warfare he surely
is not. I believe Carl Von Clausewitz makes much more compelling case about the war than
Chomsky ever did or will.
The US strategy is to make Russia bleed internally with aggressive and violent Military
occupations directly as in Syria and by proxy in the Ukraine ..Could this not lead to a
coup in Russia?
The US "strategy" on Russia is written by dated "products" of the US "humanities" field,
by amateurs and by ignoramuses – that is why US "strategy" on Russia is easily
identifiable as one huge tantrum and is exhibit A of how not TO conduct military and foreign
policies. In fact, I expect at some point of time many a Ph.D theses written on that–a
fascinating topic of a country ran by people with maturity level of teenagers. As per
coup–wanna see one? Open any US MSM newspaper or watch any MSM news.
Your last paragraph .and I thought: Kenneth Adleman Jean Kirkpatrick ..Condelezza Rice(and
this one is too stupid to know she is stupid ), Susan Rice( very inflated opinion of herself
and a dunce ) now this is a real confederacy of dunces
I fear you're underestimating the power of messianic delusions. The country with leaders
speaking of the End of History, the Moral Arc of History, etc., is not a country with a
generalized ability to accept equal status among competing powers.
They will burn the world if they can't have it.
Additionally, I interact (drink) with policy types in DC and elsewhere and to them the
suggestion that USG would not be able to ruin Russia, or China, and not suffer a catastrophe
at home, is laughable. They will actually laugh. While it may be the case that there are
serious people who seriously understand the situation, the default assumption among Regime
players is that USG is on top, and this will continue for ever .
Much reasoned and passionate debate this: should Russia do or not do? Not possessing
military background at the level of many luminaries here, all I can do is lay out an analogy
built around game theory and poker.
You (Russia) are playing poker with a guy (Uncle Sam) known to hide cards up his sleeves.
You do not call for a show of hands because you fear the loser and his servants will rather
blow up the gaming room than lose. And the blowing up the room is not a certainty, only a
probability not subject to quantification.
So the initiative rests with the other guy –
and he keeps doubling the stakes every move. Now what to do you do? Every time the stakes are
doubled the probability of the loser blowing up the gaming room increases should he be called
out. Should you have called for a show of hands when the stakes were lower? Or should you let
the game go on and on, thereby avoiding a big blow up?
The other probem is that not only is
the other guy crooked, he is also slightly crazy and blind. Has he really seen his own hand
of cards correctly? You don't know for sure. It does look like safety might lie in letting
the game go on at the other guy's initiative.
What if it drags on endlessly? Who has the
bigger pile of chips? Who will go bust first? What if piles of chips are ignored as a
constraint on both sides? Well, then how will the game end? All games must have an end
point.
I have no answers.
Having grown up in Donbass, I would like to share your hope.
However, there are several reasons for Russia's reluctance to let Donbass join. One is
purely economic: Donbass is a lot more populous than Crimea, so bringing the living standards
there from Ukrainian to Russian level would cost lots of money. Russia is hardly in a
position to take on an additional huge burden right now.
The other is geopolitical: I strongly suspect that Putin wants to use Donbass as a lever to
push Ukraine to a sensible position of neutrality internationally and federation internally.
If so, good luck to him: that would make Ukraine viable.
If WWIII starts in earnest, having someone left intact would be the least of Russia's (or
anyone else's) worries.
I don't know about goats, but naturally radiation-resistant rodents and insects would have
been grateful to neocons, if they knew who to thank for gifting them the whole Earth as a
kingdom.
I fear you're underestimating the power of messianic delusions. The country with
leaders speaking of the End of History, the Moral Arc of History, etc., is not a country
with a generalized ability to accept equal status among competing powers.
They will burn the world if they can't have it.
Yes, it's definitely a tricky situation living in a large country run by criminals and
madmen.
If not for nuclear weapons, things would be much simpler, and once they eventually got
a bloody military nose, there might be a popular uprising, probably leading to the wholesale
massacre of all our ruling political, financial, and intellectual elites. This would
definitely serve them right and also provide excellent business to Chinese
guillotine-manufacturers. But with nukes in the hands of madmen, a positive outcome is much
more doubtful, so I guess there's not all that much we can do except sit around and
worry.
Michael Cohen's guilty plea
directly implicating President Trump in the commission of a crime has stimulated new talk
about possible impeachment. Given how the case involves sexual liaisons, it also has
stimulated comparisons with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Most such comparisons focus on
the domestic politics of each episode, and on such questions as whether Democrats who
downplayed the significance of Clinton's dalliance with a White House intern would be
inconsistent if they now went after Trump -- although Clinton's behavior did not involve an
election and violation of campaign finance law -- whereas Cohen's allegation about Trump
does.
Those more interested in foreign and security policy might focus instead on another
dimension of how Clinton's caper with Monica Lewinsky was discussed at the time. When
Clinton, following al-Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam
twenty years ago this month, ordered cruise missile attacks against facilities associated
with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan, some of his political opponents accused him of using
the strikes to boost domestic support that was sagging amid the Lewinsky affair. The
accusation was stimulated partly by the timing of the missile strikes, which occurred just
three days after Clinton admitted in a televised address that he had misled the public about
his relationship with Lewinsky.
The Russian Government and President Putin are coming under pressure not
from US sanctions, which are very good for Russia as they force Russia into
independence, but from Russian patriots who are tiring of Putin's non-confrontational
responses to Washington's never-ending insults and military provocations. Russian
patriots don't want war, but they do want their country's honor defended, and
they believe Putin is failing in this job. Some of them are saying that Putin
himself is a West-worshipping Atlanticist Integrationist.
This disillusinonment with Putin, together with Putin's endorsement of raising
the retirement age for pensions, a trap set for him by Russia's neoliberal economists,
have hurt Putin's approval ratings at the precise time that he will again be
tested by Washington in Syria.
In many columns I have defended Putin from the charge that he is not sufficiently
Russian. Putin wants to avoid war, because he knows it would be nuclear, the
consequences of which would be dire. He knows that the US and its militarily
impotent NATO allies cannot possibly conduct conventional warfare against Russia
or China, much less against both. Putin also undersrtands that the sanctions
are damaging Washington's European vassals and could eventually force the European
vassal states into independence that would constrain Washington's belligerence.
Even with Russia's new super weapons, which probably give Putin the capability
of destroying the entirety of the Western World with little or no damage to
Russia, Putin sees no point in so much destruction, especially as the consequences
are unknown. There could be nuclear winter or other results that would put the
planet into decline as a life-sustaining entity.
So, as I have suggested in many columns Putin is acting intelligently. He
is in the game for the long term while protecting the world from dangerous war.
Whereas I endorse Putin's strategy and admire his coolness as a person who
never lets emotion lead him, there is nevertheless a problem. The people in
the West with whom he is dealing are idiots who do not appreciate his statesmanship.
Consequently, each time Putin turns the other cheek, so to speak, the insults
and the provocations ratchet upward.
Consider Syria. The Syrian Army with the help of a tiny part of the Russian
Air Force has cleared all areas of Syria but one of the American-instigated-financed-and-equiped
forces sent by Washington to overthrow the Syrian government.
The remaining US proxy force is about to be eliminated. In order to save
it, and to keep a Washington foothold that could permit a restart of the war,
Washington has arranged yet another false flag "chemical attack" that the presstitute
and obiedient Western media will blame on Assad. President Trump's National
Security Adviser, a crazed, perhaps insane, Zionist Neoconservative, has told
Russia that Washington will take a dim view of the Syrian/Russian use of chemical
weapons against "Assad's own people."
The Russians are fully aware that any chemical attack will be a false flag
attack orchestrated by Washington using the elements it sent to Syria to overthrow
the government. Indeed, Russia's ambassador to the US explained it all yesterday
to the US government.
Bogdasarov and I might be wrong. The Russian forces deployed around Syria
with their hypersonic missiles are more than a match for the US forces assembled
to attack Syria. However, American hubris can certainly prevail over facts,
in which case Putin would have to destroy the sources of the attack. By not
committing in advance, Putin retains flexibility. Washington's attack, like
its previous attack on Syria, might be a face-saver, not a real attack. Nevertheless,
sooner or later Russia will have to deliver a firmer response to provocations.
I am an American. I am not a Russian, much less a Russian nationalist. I
do not want US military personnel to be casualties of Washington's fatal desire
for world hegemony, much less to be casualties of Washington serving Israel's
interests in the Middle East. The reason I think Putin needs to do a better
job of standing up to Washington is that I think, based on history, that appeasement
encourages more provocations, and it comes to a point when you have to surrender
or fight. It is much better to stop this process in its tracks before it reaches
that dangerous point.
Andrei Martyanov, whose book I recently reviewed on my website, recently
defended Putin, as The Saker and I have done in the past, from claims that Putin
is too passive in the face of assaults.
https://russia-insider.com/en/russia-playing-long-game-no-room-instant-gratification-strategies-super-patriots/ri24561
As I have made the same points, I can only applaud Martyanov and The Saker.
Where we might differ is in recognizing that endlessly accepting insults and
provocations encourages their increase until the only alternative is surrender
or war.
So, the questions for Andrei Martyanov, The Saker, and for Putin and the
Russian government is: How long does turning your other cheek work? Do you turn
your other cheek so long as to allow your opponent to neutralize your advantage
in a confrontation? Do you turn your other cheek so long that you lose the support
of the patriotic population for your failure to defend the country's honor?
Do you turn your other cheek so long that you are eventually forced into war
or submission? Do you turn your other cheek so long that the result is nuclear
war?
I think that Martyanov and The Saker agree that my question is a valid one.
Both emphazise in their highly informative writings that the court historians
misrepresent wars in the interest of victors. Let's give this a moment's thought.
Both Napoleon and Hitler stood at their apogee, their success unmitigated by
any military defeat. Then they marched into Russia and were utterly destroyed.
Why did they do this? They did it because their success had given them massive
arogance and belief in their "exceptionalism," the dangerous word that encapsulates
Washington's belief in its hegemony.
The zionist neoconsevatives who rule in Washington are capable of the same
mistake that Napoleon and Hitler made. They believe in "the end of history,"
that the Soviet collapse means history has chosen America as the model for the
future. Their hubris actually exceeds that of Napoleon and Hitler.
When confronted with such deluded and ideological force, does turning the
other cheek work or does it encourage more provocation?
This is the question before the Russian government.
Perhaps the Russian government will understand the meaning of the orchestrated
eulogies for John McCain. It is not normal for a US senator to be eulogized
in this way, especially one with such an undistinguished record. What is being
eulogized is McCain's hatred of Russia and his record as a warmonger. What Washington
is eulogizing is its own committment to war.
The crimes of 11 September 2001 have never been judged in your country. I
am writing to you as a French citizen, the first person to denounce the inconsistencies
of the official version and to open the world to the debate and the search for
the real perpetrators.
In a criminal court, as the jury, we have to determine whether the suspect
presented to us is guilty or not, and eventually, to decide what punishment
he should receive. When we suffered the events of 9/11, the Bush Junior administration
told us that the guilty party was Al-Qaďda, and the punishment they should receive
was the overthrow of those who had helped them – the Afghan Taliban, then the
Iraqi régime of Saddam Hussein.
However, there is a weight of evidence which attests to the impossibility
of this thesis. If we were members of a jury, we would have to declare objectively
that the Taliban and the régime of Saddam Hussein were innocent of this crime.
Of course, this alone would not enable us to name the real culprits, and we
would thus be frustrated. But we could not conceive of condemning parties innocent
of such a crime simply because we have not known how, or not been able, to find
the guilty parties.
We all understood that certain senior personalities were lying when the Secretary
of State for Justice and Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, revealed the names
of the 19 presumed hijackers, because we already had in front of us the lists
disclosed by the airline companies of all of the passengers embarked - lists
on which none of the suspects were mentioned.
From there, we became suspicious of the " Continuity of Government ", the
instance tasked with taking over from the elected authorities if they should
be killed during a nuclear confrontation. We advanced the hypothesis that these
attacks masked a coup d'état, in conformity with Edward Luttwak's method of
maintaining the appearance of the Executive, but imposing a different policy.
In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration made several decisions:
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
The Secretary for Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, created the Office of Force Transformation,
under the command of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, who immediately presented a programme,
conceived a long time earlier, planning for the control of access to the natural
resources of the countries of the geopolitical South. He demanded the destruction
of State and social structures in the half of the world which was not yet globalised.
Simultaneously, the Director of the CIA launched the " Worldwide Attack Matrix
", a package of secret operations in 85 countries where Rumsfeld and Cebrowski
intended to destroy the State structures. Considering that only those countries
whose economies were globalised would remain stable, and that the others would
be destroyed, the men from 9/11 placed US armed forces in the service of transnational
financial interests. They betrayed your country and transformed it into the
armed wing of these predators.
For the last 17 years, we have witnessed what is being given to your compatriots
by the government of the successors of those who drew up the Constitution and
opposed at that time - without success – the Bill of Rights. These rich men
have become the super-rich, while the middle class has been reduced by a fifth
and poverty has increased.
We have also seen the implementation of the Rumsfeld-Cebrowski strategy –
phoney " civil wars " have devastated almost all of the Greater Middle East.
Entire cities have been wiped from the map, from Afghanistan to Libya, via Saudi
Arabia and Turkey, who were not themselves at war.
In 2001, only two US citizens denounced the incoherence of the Bush version,
two real estate promoters – the Democrat Jimmy Walter, who was forced into exile,
and yourself, who entered into politics and was elected President.
In 2011, we saw the commander of AfriCom relieved of his mission and replaced
by NATO for having refused to support Al-Qaďda in the liquidation of the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya. Then we saw NATO's LandCom organise Western support for jihadists
in general and Al-Qaďda in particular in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian
Arab Republic.
So the jihadists, who were considered as " freedom fighters " against the
Soviets, then as " terrorists " after 9/11, once again became the allies of
the deep state, which, in fact, they have always been.
So, with an immense upsurge of hope, we have watched your actions to suppress,
one by one, all support for the jihadists. It is with the same hope that we
see today that you are talking with your Russian counterpart in order to bring
back life to the devastated Middle East. And it is with equal anxiety that we
see Robert Mueller, now a special prosecutor, pursuing the destruction of your
homeland by attacking your position.
Mister President, not only are you and your compatriots suffering from the
diarchy which has sneaked into power in your country since the coup d'état of
11 September 2001, but the whole world is a victim.
Mister President, 9/11 is not ancient history. It is the triumph of transnational
interests which are crushing not only your people, but all of humanity which
aspires to freedom.
Thierry Meyssan brought to the world stage the debate on the real
perpetrators of 11 September 2001. He has worked as a political analyst
alongside Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mouamar Kadhafi. He is today
a political refugee in Syria.
See :
Memoranda for the President on 9/11: Time for the Truth -- False Flag Deep State
Truth! , by : Kevin Barrett; Scott Bennett; Christopher Bollyn; Fred
Burks; Steve De'ak; A. K. Dewdney; Gordon Duff; Aero Engineer; Greg Felton;
James Fetzer; Richard Gage; Tom-Scott Gordon; David Ray Griffin; Sander Hicks;
T. Mark Hightower; Barbara Honegger; Eric Hufschmid; Ed Jewett; Nicholas Kollerstrom;
John Lear; Susan Lindauer; Joe Olson; Peter Dale Scott; Robert David Steele;
and indirectly, Victor Thorn and Judy Wood.
"... In one dramatic encounter, F.B.I. agents appeared unannounced and uninvited at a home Mr. Deripaska maintains in New York and pressed him on whether Paul Manafort, a former business partner of his who went on to become chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign, had served as a link between the campaign and the Kremlin. ..."
"... The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader, clandestine American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining cooperation from roughly a half-dozen of Russia's richest men, nearly all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska, depend on President Vladimir V. Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials said. ..."
By Kenneth P. Vogel and Matthew Rosenberg
Sept. 1, 2018
WASHINGTON -- In the estimation of American officials, Oleg V. Deripaska,
a Russian oligarch with close ties to the Kremlin, has faced credible accusations
of extortion, bribery and even murder. They also thought he might make a
good source.
Between 2014 and 2016, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department unsuccessfully
tried to turn Mr. Deripaska into an informant. They signaled that they might
provide help with his trouble in getting visas for the United States or
even explore other steps to address his legal problems. In exchange, they
were hoping for information on Russian organized crime and, later, on possible
Russian aid to President Trump's 2016 campaign, according to current and
former officials and associates of Mr. Deripaska.
In one dramatic encounter, F.B.I. agents appeared unannounced and
uninvited at a home Mr. Deripaska maintains in New York and pressed him
on whether Paul Manafort, a former business partner of his who went on to
become chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign, had served as a link between the
campaign and the Kremlin.
The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader, clandestine
American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining cooperation from roughly
a half-dozen of Russia's richest men, nearly all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska,
depend on President Vladimir V. Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials
said.
___________________
As I and some others around here have been saying for a while, "Russiagate"
started years before Trump entered the scene. He stumbled face-first into a
CIA/MI-6 effort to use Russian oligarchs to regime change Putin. It's right
there, if you read between the lines and the usual NYT spin.
Look at the dates. Also be aware of the larger context here. As we know,
this obviously didn't start with Russian "meddling" in US elections – and it
isn't about law enforcement. The FBI is the junior partner in such matters of
Oligarchs, Big Politics and Big Money. For decades, the FBI and DOJ knew about
and did surprisingly little about international organized crime, and its movement
of capital into the United States -- most of it into the Eastern District of
New York -- even Russian organized crime has been largely hands off. That's
why they actively helped Mr. Deripaska with his visa problems so he could move
his Manhattan bank accounts around after he began cooperating with western intelligence
in 2009.
What we're finally seeing is the lid coming off is the dying vestiges of
an ongoing, covert program to promote regime change in Moscow. Because since
that has already failed, Plan B is to escalate the Cold War and wipe out any
chance of continued detente with Russia. That'll teach 'em, even if we have
to bring our own corrupt empire down around our ears. It'll be a miracle if
we not to blow up the world this time 'round. We've already been improbably
lucky too many times.
As the world shifts, this is also an opportunity for the CIA to settle some
old scores, using Robert Mueller's Star Chamber to punish Americans such as
Mike Flynn and Manafort who for various reasons -- good and bad -- tried to
push back during the last Administration against failed regime change programs
in Syria and Ukraine.
If you buy into Russiagate, better be aware of the backstory what goes along
with it. As the lid comes off, who knows what else might crawl out.
Really, publishing a story which doesn't actually accuse El Trumpo of
Russian collusion. Is the geomagnetic pole starting to shift--after all
both polar ice caps are melting, throwing the celestial orb off track.
The brilliance of the FBI! Boy, it is unmatched in the files of history.
Trying to "turn" a Russian billionaire who not only owes his wealth to V.V.
Putin, but also his life? Oleg must have laughed his head off after the
Feebs left his home.
"What kind of story, boys, do you want me to tell you? About the Chinese
masquerading as Russians? About the Awangate? About Difi's Chinese spy 'about
which she didn't know--nor did you'?"
From NYT:
Mr. Trump and his allies have cast Mr. Steele's research -- and the
serious consideration it was given by Mr. Ohr and the F.B.I. -- as part
of a plot by rogue officials and Mrs. Clinton's allies to undermine
Mr. Trump's campaign and his presidency.
I would change rogue officials to "all of the senior officials". Of course
NYT won't admit to this silent civil war between two factions of the Deep
State.
Did Mr. Oleg get to deduct his money paid to the Feebs to rescue Levinson
from the Imams? It definitely was a loss. Apparently, though--and this is
the good news, The FBI doesn't get much funding from drug running, at least
unlike the CIA, so they had to rely on a furriner to bail them out. And
then they try to use him again, gratis, to pin a big one on El Trumpo.
The tides are slowly turning and lying assholes like Rachel Madcow are
beginning to slowly pirouette away from Russia-Russia-Russia. She actually
gave Brennan some hardball questions in her interview with the Ringleader
on MSDNC. Now perhaps Mr. Slim will be deprived of his part ownership of
the Slimes under Trump's new SHAFTA.
a fairly frequent and close observer of Tim Russert. Part of what I observed
was his asking both Democrats and Republicans what he called "the hard questions.
However, he would allow Republicans to complete their answers in peace.
Sometimes, he even nodded as they spoke, looking for all the world like
he was agreeing with what they were saying. Then, he would go on to the
next question, or ask a softball follow up question. So, the "hard question"
merely gave Republicans the opportunity to give their side of a story on
national television.
When he questioned Democrats, however, he would cut them off while they
were speaking, talk over them and barrage them with follow up questions,
sometimes not even waiting for them to respond before asking his next question.
I saw one interview of Ted Kennedy that could not have been more disrespectful,
with cutting off Kennedy repeatedly while shouting at him.
The first time Obama was on MTP, Russert hammered him about, of all things,
something controversial that Harry Belafonte had recently said, spending
most of Obama's air time on that one comment that Obama had not even made!
(I suppose it only made sense to insist that one Democratic black man defend
the comment of another Democratic black man?/s)
But, Russert would brag that he asked "both" sides the hard questions
and show video to back up his claim. Problem was, the video showed only
the initial question and not what followed. And it was only in what followed
the initial "hard question" that Russert's bias showed.
We helped put the Oligarchs into business, Putin reigned them in so he
has to go
From before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been cultivating
a commercial and political elite abroad that we could "work with." As in
most of the developing world during the Cold War, that meant that post-communist
Russia was an oligarchy kept in money and power by IMF loans, graft, private
militias and death squads.
Such was the case during the Boris Yeltsin's government that presided
over the Russian Federation, a self-contained trading bloc shorn of half
of its richest territories. The result of loss of most military spending
and trade resulted in an average 50% loss in real living standards for the
typical Russian in the depths of the Depression during the early 1990s.
What grew out of the rubble was the New Russia controlled by the Oligarchs,
run by returning members of Russian ethnic organized crime families once
scattered around the world and remnants of the KGB, party bosses, and former
Soviet military who couldn't move enough their assets out of the country
while the door was still open. For Deripaska, that door closed the other
way in 2006, when he lost his US B-1 visa, which meant that he had to make
a deal with the FBI's McCabe and other US intelligence handlers to reenter
the U.S. to access his stash deposited in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Is Oleg really Putin's "closest oligarch", as is again repeated here
in the Times?
The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos Oil Co., one of
the world's major oil suppliers on October fifth, 2003 was a signal that
things would never be the same for the oligarchs. By the time he took his
third term as Russian President in 2012, Putin had put highly concentrated
large industries increasingly under state supervision, curtailing the effective
power and range of operation of many oligarchs, restricting the movement
of private wealth out of the country, including that of Oleg Deripaska,
whom he publicly humiliated in 2009, as seen in this video.
1) You pay your taxes
2) You pay your employees
3) There will be no asset stripping
Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging
Russia. From 1995–2006 his company, Hermitage Capital Management, siphoned
untold billions of dollars out of Russia into offshore accounts while paying
no taxes and cheating workers of wages and pensions.
Putin put an end to US and UK backed shysters stealing Russia blind.
Is it any wonder the western oligarchs hate him with such a passion?
@Alligator Ed the oligarchs. This has been a common historical
issue for Russia over many centuries.
Successful Czars controlled the oligarchs.
If you were in favor you could attend court and keep your position and wealth
in Russian society. Otherwise not.
The US deep state figured that they had won the cold war with Russia. Reality
had a different tale to tell. They are a bunch of sore losers and revengeful
bastards. Thinking that they could find another wedge to neuter Russia by
working with Russian oligarchs was wishful thinking, and showed a fundamental
misunderstanding of modern Russia. Today the neocons can't work through
the oligarchs, or NGOs, can't find any serious "Liberal" opposition and
can't generate any dislike of President Putin through the media. It's amazing
to travel in Moscow and talk to Russians about their government. They love
Vladimir Putin. Their attitude is the exact opposite of Liberal America
today. No hatred, just love and appreciation. It's really nice. The hate
in this country is disgusting and dangerous. Right mow Democrats are seething
with hate for both Presidents. I sat at a meeting of local Democrats led
by our Rep, seething with hate for Russia-- how dare they hack our pristine
god-sent democratic process? Unfortunately they betray themselves for who
they really are, and it's pretty ugly.
...until Putin was elected in 1999 and began to rein in the robber barons.
By then, the Russian people had fallen into poverty from a decade of
asset stripping, and their life expectancy had taken a steep dive.
The next decade, from 2000 to 2010, saw a reversal of those fortunes
under Putin's guidance. The people's standards of living had improved significantly,
and medical services were made available to them. Year-over-year economic
improvements made Putin a popular figure in Russia. That's when the US sanctions
and fear mongering began in earnest, along with NATO'S push to the West
and myriad military provocations against Russia, including the overthrow
of Ukraine's democratically elected government.
But I would suggest that the unintended consequences of US aggression
against Russia, coupled with larger geopolitical developments created a
condition that took regime change off the table and replaced it with a mad
grab for global supremacy and empire.
Sensable analysts would have seen by 2015 that regime change in Russia
was impossible -- especially after the failed attempt to seize Russia's
only warm water Navy base in Crimea (which was the key strategic purpose
of the Ukraine overthrow). The Russians are more attached to their 200-year-old
navy base than the West can ever begin to understand. It was a catastrophic
move. As a consequence, the US pushed Russia and China together and triggered
the explosive rise of Eurasia. In the face of illegal sanctions, Russia
grew stronger and opened markets decades into the future. Trading alliances
formed throughout the Eastern Hemisphere favoring Russia and China. The
roles of currencies transformed and comprehensive new banking systems that
could replace US controlled banking and hegemony were successfully established.
Almost immediately, the US was facing the reality of multipolar world
powers -- which replaced their dream of a New American Century. Even with
regime changes, the die had been cast. One hundred nations are now Members
of the Asian Investment and Infrastructure Bank AIIB, which will stand at
the center of global trade. The US is no longer the largest trading partner
of anybody, outside of Canada and Mexico. The US Dollar is optional, not
mandatory.
I would suggest that the US provoking Iran, Russia, and China is a desperate
attempt to undo the terrible consequences of the neocon's Ukraine fiasco;
it is their last, insane push to secure the American Empire they thought
was theirs already. Hillary Clinton devoted her time as SoS putting the
Empire timeline in place. She ushered in the TPP, the TTIP, and the Pivot
to Asia to wrap it up. As President of the United States, she was going
to oversee the final execution of the plan.
But the Neocons spoiled everything with the Ukraine coup.
Thanks for this stimulating essay. Your very first sentence got me laughing.
Good one.
@Pluto's Republic Your exposition is so clear and logical that
it's a wonder the genii at HFA, DNC, NeoCon Central didn't get it. Oh, wait...they
didn't want to "get it". They never acknowledge their fiascos. It's what
narcissistic sociopaths do.
The author had put me in a funny mood and I found your rifts on the topic
both amusing and insightful, especially your view on the contortions of
the NYT and Maddow. Do you think many readers can see this embarrassing
clawback? It seems so obvious.... but we are dealing with an intellectually
tased readership, so it's hard to know.
and excellent comments too. This is why this blue blog rocks.
Russia Gate boils down to this.
We helped put the Oligarchs into business, Putin reigned them in so he
has to go.
As the world shifts, this is also an opportunity for the CIA to settle
some old scores, using Robert Mueller's Star Chamber to punish Americans
such as Mike Flynn and Manafort who for various reasons -- good and
bad -- tried to push back during the last Administration against failed
regime change programs in Syria and Ukraine.
Good point. Manafort was working with the Ukraine president before Obama,
Biden, McCain and Nuland threw him out of his country because he accepted
the loan from Russia instead of the IMF which would bankrupted the country
unless he allowed foreign corrupt to steal the resources. And just like
every other country we have "meddled" with Ukraine is full of violence and
being run by despots. But why did Podesta get immunity for doing the same
things that Manafort did? John Podesta worked with Manafort on many issues.
Could it be because he's a friend of the Clintons?
And when Oleg refused to play along with the FBI:
In April, Deripaska and his company were hit by sweeping US sanctions,
with Washington accusing him of links to crime, various abuses and even
of ordering a murder.
During the previous Russian election the streets were full of protesters
against Putin's presidency. Putin wanted a more peaceful one during the
last one so he kicked out a bunch of NGOs and that made all the difference.
I reference to the Alligator's comment Rachel pinned down Brennan on
his tweet accusing Trump of committing treason. I wonder if she had a flash
back to when she had a conscience and reported on the heinous acts that
the intelligence agencies committed? But Rachel isn't the only one kissing
Brennan's buttocks.
In their blind hatred for Trump, liberals have sunk to an all-time
low by unabashedly cheering a war criminal.
On August 24, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher had former CIA director
John Brennan on as an interview guest. Brennan has been in the news
lately because he accused Trump of treason or, more precisely, "nothing
short of treason," due to the president's weak-kneed, post-summit news
conference with Russia's Vladimir Putin.
...
On the episode of Real Time, the usually acerbic Maher, or as I am fond
of calling him due to his petulant demeanor and intellectual dwarfism,
Little Bill, immodestly degraded himself fawning over John Brennan before
the former CIA chief ever got on stage by gushing that he was a "
true American patriot. "
The nadir for the #Resistance occurred shortly thereafter as Brennan
rumbled on stage and was greeted by the eruption of a raucous standing
ovation by the liberal audience, with Little Bill calling it a " well-deserved
standing ovation. " Only in the bizarre universe where a silver-spooned,
multi-bankrupted, reality television star is president does a former
CIA director who has committed crimes and war crimes such as implementing
and covering up Bush's rendition and torture regime, spying on the US
Senate, and masterminding Obama's deadly drone program, get a delirious
ovation from those on the left.
Trump derangement syndrome has infected the country. Everyone who spoke
at McCain's funeral had to get a dig in about Trump. Great way to honor
the biggest war hero in the history of the country wasn't it?
And just like every other country we have "meddled" with Ukraine is
full of violence and being run by despots.
Since "we" have meddled plenty with this our own country, we are full
of violence and being run by despots, who in the U.S. are generally called
billionaires--large beasts, ravenous appetites, and very little brain in
the small cranii.
Number two:
Trump derangement syndrome has infected the country. Everyone who spoke
at McCain's funeral had to get a dig in about Trump. Great way to honor
the biggest war hero in the history of the country wasn't it?
I missed the /shark label--oooh, never could spell well, er, I meant
/snark label. Surely you thought the Quote would be recognized for what
it is.
Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close associate of Vladimir
Putin, has gone on record with
The
Hill
's John Solomon - admitting to colluding with Americans
leading up to the 2016 US election, except it might not be what
you're thinking.
Deripaska, rumored to be Donald Trump's "
back
channel
" to Putin via the Russian's former association with Paul
Manafort, says he "colluded" with the
US
Government
between 2009 and 2016.
In 2009, when
Robert
Mueller was running the FBI
, the agency asked Deripaska to
spend $25 million of his own money to bankroll an FBI-supervised
operation to rescue a retired FBI agent - Robert Levinson, who was
kidnapped in 2007 while working on a 2007 CIA contract in Iran. This
in and of itself is more than a bit strange.
Deripaska agreed, however the Obama State Department, headed by
Hillary Clinton, scuttled a last-minute deal with Iran before
Levinson could be released. He hasn't been heard from since.
FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel
meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington
.
Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the
mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither
involve nor harm his homeland. -The Hill
In other words -
Trump's
alleged "back channel" to Putin was in fact an FBI asset
who
spent $25 million helping Obama's "scandal free" administration find
a kidnapped agent. Deripaska's admitted
Steele, Ohr and the 2016 US Election
Trending Articles
Earth's "Big Freeze" Looms As Sun Remains Devoid
Of
Scientists believe that Earth could experience a
"big freeze" as the sun goes through what's
known as "solar minimum."
As the
New
York Times
frames it, distancing Deripaska from the FBI (no
mention of the $25 million rescue effort, for example), the Russian
aluminum magnate was just one of several Putin-linked Oligarchs the
FBI tried to flip.
The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader,
clandestine American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining
cooperation from roughly a half-dozen of Russia's richest men,
nearly
all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska, depend on President Vladimir V.
Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials said. -
NYT
Central to the recruiting effort were two central players in the
Trump-Russia investigation; twice-demoted DOJ #4 official
Bruce
Ohr and Christopher Steele
- the author of the largely
unverified "Steele Dossier."
Steele, a longtime associate of Ohr's, worked for Deripaska
beginning in 2012 researching a business rival - work which would
evolve to the point where the former British spy was interfacing
with the Obama administration on his behalf - resulting in Deripaska
regaining entry into the United States, where he visited numerous
times between 2009 and 2017.
The State Department tried to keep him from getting a U.S. visa
between 2006 and 2009 because they believed he had unspecified
connections to criminal elements in Russia as he consolidated
power in the aluminum industry. Deripaska has denied those
allegations...
Whatever the case,
it
is irrefutable that after he began helping the FBI, Deripaska
regained entry to the United States
. And he visited
numerous times between 2009 and 2017, visa entry records show. -
The
Hill
Deripaska is now banned from the United States as one of
several
Russians sanctioned
in April in response to alleged 2016
election meddling.
In a September 2016 meeting,
Deripaska
told FBI agents that it was "preposterous" that Paul Manafort was
colluding with Russia to help Trump win the 2016 election
.
This, despite the fact that Deripaska and Manafort's business
relationship "ended in lawsuits, per
The
Hill
- and the Russian would have every reason to throw
Manafort under the bus if he wanted some revenge on his old
associate.
So the
FBI
and DOJ secretly collaborated with Trump's alleged backchannel over
a seven-year period
, starting with Levinson, then on
Deripaska's Visa, and finally regarding whether Paul Manafort was an
intermediary to Putin. Deripaska vehemently denies the assertion,
and even took out newspaper advertisements in the US last year
volunteering to testify to Congress, refuting an
AP
report
that he and Manafort secretly worked on a plan to
"greatly benefit the Putin government" a decade ago.
Soon after the advertisements ran, representatives for the House
and Senate Intelligence Committees called a Washington-based
lawyer for Mr. Deripaska, Adam Waldman, inquiring about taking
his client up on the offer to testify, Mr. Waldman said in an
interview.
What happened after that has been in dispute. Mr. Waldman, who
stopped working for Mr. Deripaska after the sanctions were
levied, said he told the committee staff that his client would
be willing to testify without any grant of immunity, but would
not testify about any Russian collusion with the Trump campaign
because "he doesn't know anything about that theory and actually
doesn't believe it occurred." -
NYT
In short, Deripaska wants it known that he worked with the FBI and
DOJ, and that he had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.
Today, Deripaska is banned anew from the United States, one of
several Russians sanctioned in April by the Trump administration
as a way to punish Putin for 2016 election meddling. But he
wants to be clear about a few things, according to a statement
provided by his team.
First,
he did collude with Americans in the form of voluntarily
assisting and meeting with the FBI, the DOJ and people such as
Ohr between 2009 and 2016.
He also wants Americans to know
he
did not cooperate or assist with Steele's dossier, and he tried
to dispel the FBI notion that Russia and the Trump campaign
colluded during the 2016 election
. -
The
Hill
Interestingly, Steele's dossier which was partially funded by the
Clinton campaign, relied on
senior
Kremlin officials
.
Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close associate of Vladimir
Putin, has gone on record with
The
Hill
's John Solomon - admitting to colluding with Americans
leading up to the 2016 US election, except it might not be what
you're thinking.
Deripaska, rumored to be Donald Trump's "
back
channel
" to Putin via the Russian's former association with Paul
Manafort, says he "colluded" with the
US
Government
between 2009 and 2016.
In 2009, when
Robert
Mueller was running the FBI
, the agency asked Deripaska to
spend $25 million of his own money to bankroll an FBI-supervised
operation to rescue a retired FBI agent - Robert Levinson, who was
kidnapped in 2007 while working on a 2007 CIA contract in Iran. This
in and of itself is more than a bit strange.
Deripaska agreed, however the Obama State Department, headed by
Hillary Clinton, scuttled a last-minute deal with Iran before
Levinson could be released. He hasn't been heard from since.
FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel
meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington
.
Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the
mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither
involve nor harm his homeland. -The Hill
In other words -
Trump's
alleged "back channel" to Putin was in fact an FBI asset
who
spent $25 million helping Obama's "scandal free" administration find
a kidnapped agent. Deripaska's admitted
Steele, Ohr and the 2016 US Election
Trending Articles
Earth's "Big Freeze" Looms As Sun Remains Devoid
Of
Scientists believe that Earth could experience a
"big freeze" as the sun goes through what's
known as "solar minimum."
As the
New
York Times
frames it, distancing Deripaska from the FBI (no
mention of the $25 million rescue effort, for example), the Russian
aluminum magnate was just one of several Putin-linked Oligarchs the
FBI tried to flip.
The attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader,
clandestine American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining
cooperation from roughly a half-dozen of Russia's richest men,
nearly
all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska, depend on President Vladimir V.
Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials said. -
NYT
Central to the recruiting effort were two central players in the
Trump-Russia investigation; twice-demoted DOJ #4 official
Bruce
Ohr and Christopher Steele
- the author of the largely
unverified "Steele Dossier."
Steele, a longtime associate of Ohr's, worked for Deripaska
beginning in 2012 researching a business rival - work which would
evolve to the point where the former British spy was interfacing
with the Obama administration on his behalf - resulting in Deripaska
regaining entry into the United States, where he visited numerous
times between 2009 and 2017.
The State Department tried to keep him from getting a U.S. visa
between 2006 and 2009 because they believed he had unspecified
connections to criminal elements in Russia as he consolidated
power in the aluminum industry. Deripaska has denied those
allegations...
Whatever the case,
it
is irrefutable that after he began helping the FBI, Deripaska
regained entry to the United States
. And he visited
numerous times between 2009 and 2017, visa entry records show. -
The
Hill
Deripaska is now banned from the United States as one of
several
Russians sanctioned
in April in response to alleged 2016
election meddling.
In a September 2016 meeting,
Deripaska
told FBI agents that it was "preposterous" that Paul Manafort was
colluding with Russia to help Trump win the 2016 election
.
This, despite the fact that Deripaska and Manafort's business
relationship "ended in lawsuits, per
The
Hill
- and the Russian would have every reason to throw
Manafort under the bus if he wanted some revenge on his old
associate.
So the
FBI
and DOJ secretly collaborated with Trump's alleged backchannel over
a seven-year period
, starting with Levinson, then on
Deripaska's Visa, and finally regarding whether Paul Manafort was an
intermediary to Putin. Deripaska vehemently denies the assertion,
and even took out newspaper advertisements in the US last year
volunteering to testify to Congress, refuting an
AP
report
that he and Manafort secretly worked on a plan to
"greatly benefit the Putin government" a decade ago.
Soon after the advertisements ran, representatives for the House
and Senate Intelligence Committees called a Washington-based
lawyer for Mr. Deripaska, Adam Waldman, inquiring about taking
his client up on the offer to testify, Mr. Waldman said in an
interview.
What happened after that has been in dispute. Mr. Waldman, who
stopped working for Mr. Deripaska after the sanctions were
levied, said he told the committee staff that his client would
be willing to testify without any grant of immunity, but would
not testify about any Russian collusion with the Trump campaign
because "he doesn't know anything about that theory and actually
doesn't believe it occurred." -
NYT
In short, Deripaska wants it known that he worked with the FBI and
DOJ, and that he had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.
Today, Deripaska is banned anew from the United States, one of
several Russians sanctioned in April by the Trump administration
as a way to punish Putin for 2016 election meddling. But he
wants to be clear about a few things, according to a statement
provided by his team.
First,
he did collude with Americans in the form of voluntarily
assisting and meeting with the FBI, the DOJ and people such as
Ohr between 2009 and 2016.
He also wants Americans to know
he
did not cooperate or assist with Steele's dossier, and he tried
to dispel the FBI notion that Russia and the Trump campaign
colluded during the 2016 election
. -
The
Hill
Interestingly, Steele's dossier which was partially funded by the
Clinton campaign, relied on
senior
Kremlin officials
.
1) You pay your taxes
2) You pay your employees
3) There will be no asset stripping
Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia. From
1995–2006 his company, Hermitage Capital Management, siphoned untold billions of
dollars out of Russia into offshore accounts while paying no taxes and cheating workers of
wages and pensions.
Putin put an end to US and UK backed shysters stealing Russia blind. Is it any wonder the
western oligarchs hate him with such a passion?
"... "to destroy the USSR and China as viable societies." ..."
"... "as a viable society" ..."
"... "would no longer be a viable nation," ..."
"... "population loss as the primary yardstick for effectiveness in destroying the enemy society with only collateral attention to industrial damage." ..."
"... "might not be as important," ..."
"... "no-warning US strike" ..."
"... "an unprecedented range and mix of threats" ..."
A review of the US general nuclear war plan by the Joint Staff in 1964, which was recently
published by George Washington University's National Security Archive project, shows how
the Pentagon studied options "to destroy the USSR and China as viable societies."
The review, conducted two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, devises the destruction of
the Soviet Union "as a viable society" by annihilating 70 percent of its industrial
floor space during pre-emptive and retaliatory nuclear strikes.
A similar goal is tweaked for China, given its more agrarian-based economy at the time.
According to the plan, the US would wipe out 30 major Chinese cities, killing off 30 percent of
the nation's urban population and halving its industrial capabilities. The successful execution
of the large-scale nuclear assault would ensure that China "would no longer be a viable
nation," the review reads.
The Joint Staff had proposed to use the "population loss as the primary yardstick for
effectiveness in destroying the enemy society with only collateral attention to industrial
damage." This "alarming" idea meant that, as long as urban workers and managers
were killed, the actual damage to industrial targets "might not be as important," the
George Washington University researchers said.
The 1964 plan doesn't specify the anticipated enemy casualty levels, but – as the
researchers note – an earlier estimate from 1961 projected that a US attack would kill 71
percent of the residents in major Soviet urban centers and 53 percent of residents in Chinese
ones. Likewise, the 1962 estimate predicted the death of 70 million Soviet citizens during a
"no-warning US strike" on military and urban-industrial targets.
The Pentagon continues to rely heavily on nuclear deterrence, and – just like in the
1960s – the US nuclear strategy still regards Russian and Chinese military capabilities
as main "challenges" faced by Washington. The latest Nuclear Posture Review,
adopted
in February, outlined "an unprecedented range and mix of threats" emanating from
Beijing and Moscow. The document, which mentions Russia 127 times, cites the modernization of
the Russian nuclear arsenal as "troubling" for the US.
The existing nuclear strategy also allows the US to conduct nuclear strikes not only in
response to enemies' nuclear attacks, but also in response to "significant non-nuclear
strategic attacks" on the US, its allies and partners.
The newest US Nuclear Posture Review was heavily criticized by Russia and China. Moscow
denounced the strategy as "confrontational, " while Beijing described the Pentagon's
approach as an example of "Cold-War mentality."
"... For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief Executive. ..."
"... There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there. ..."
For the first 15 months of his presidency, Donald Trump saw no need to appoint members to
the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a group of outside advisors who have historically
served as watchdogs over the official intelligence community on behalf of the Chief
Executive. It fit Trump's profile and his skepticism about the USIC that he felt no need
to have more quasi-official advisors peering over his shoulder. And a year-and-a-half into the
first term, the Trump Administration is still suffering from scores of vacancies in important
posts in all the executive branch departments.
Now, lo and behold, some appointments have been made to PFIAB, and it don't look good. The
only two names I have been able to locate as appointees to the PFIAB are: Steve Feinberg, who
was named on May 11, 2018 as the PFIAB chairman, and Samantha Ravich was named more recently as
the Board's vice chairman. To date, there are no indications there are any other members. Back
in January, Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who founded PayPal and was one of the
only Valley big wigs to back Trump for President, rejected the offer to head PFIAB. Thiel's
data mining firm Palantir has extensive contracts with the USIC and he may have felt he'd be
caught up in conflict of interest allegations. He has also expressed concerns to friends that
the Trump Presidency may be headed for oblivion.
So who are the new PFIAB chair and vice chair? Steve Feinberg is a vulture fund magnate,
whose Cerberus Capital Management has wrought havoc across the US economy. The firm, founded in
1992 and named after the mythical three-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades, Apropos.
After looting GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors, Feinberg bought up a number of arms
manufacturers and defense contractors, including DynCorp. According to his bio on AllGov,
Feinberg was trained by ex-Army snipers and set up his own private "military base" outside of
Memphis, Tennessee.
Ever the hedger, Feinberg backed Jeb Bush for president, then switched to Donald Trump in
the final months of the 2016 campaign, while also bankrolling Chuck Schumer in his Senate
re-election campaign.
Samantha Ravich is pure neocon. She was a national security aide to Vice President Dick
Cheney and was one of the biggest promoters of the "Saddam WMD" hoax, leading to the Iraq
invasion of March 2003. She runs the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Transformative
Cyber Innovation Lab, is listed on the FDD site as "principal investigator on FDD's
Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare project" and Board Advisor on FDD's Center on Sanctions and
Illicit Finance. She is an advisor to the Chertoff Group.
You can't get more neocon than Samantha Ravich.
Question: Has President Trump finally caved in to the neocon long march through the
institutions? Is PFIAB another romper room for son-in-law and Netanyahu captive and love slave
Jared Kushner? Will PFIAB actually have a role or simply be a window dressing that Trump
ignores as he relies on a handful of cabinet and White House advisors and his rolodex of
billionaire friends who he chats up most evenings from the East Wing?
What I don't understand is after Iraq, who in the world with any brains would listen to
the Neo-cons again? As a veteran of the NY real estate wars, Trump has run into tons of snake
oil salesmen in his life and survived because he did not listen to them. What arguments are
neo-cons now advancing that would overcome all our previous mistakes and cause Trump to not
boot them out of the room. In my previous job as interim CFO of Prudential I was involved
with the negotiations with Trump and his Japanese partner over selling the ground under the
Empire State Building in 1991. At least back then, Trump did not listen to anyone except what
his gut told him. His mannerisms and personality have not changed one iota from those days to
his Presidency so why would Trump be susceptible to the nwo-cons when it goes against the
grain of everything he has espoused in the past.
Sad, but Trump doesn't pay any attention to groups like that. For him anything like that
is just PR and shareholder relations. He is much more interested in what the true loudmouths
on the boob tube have to say.
It's amazing to me that somebody who has engaged in NYC business and politics for so long
is so oblivious of how and when the strings are pulled when something needs to get done. Is
it even humanly possible that the same person that got himself into the WH can be so
oblivious. It's really an enigma. But then again, you kindly like to point out that sometimes
the most obvious explanations are the ones staring you right in the face
Donald Trump doesn't have an ideology or think tanks backing him; only his family. He is
in his 70s. He will appoint GOP flacks who didn't diss him in the past notwithstanding if
they are neocons or not. What he has done is jump in front of the parade. The FBI ran a sting
on Mayor of Tallahassee who is now the Democrat's Florida candidate for governor. The power
class is trying to contain the parade and direct it in the direction that they want. If it
goes wild, they will jail it.
More on Stephen Feinberg and his military connections:
"Through DynCorp, Feinberg already controls one of the largest military
contractors in the U.S., one which trains Afghanistan's police force and
assists in their narcotics-trafficking countermeasures. According to the
Times, Feinberg proposed an expanded role for such contractors, and
also recommended transferring the command of paramilitary operations in
the country to the C.I.A., increasing their operating footprint while
decreasing both transparency and accountability. He reportedly discussed
Afghanistan with President Trump in person."
same bullshit from the MIC, promoting war in Syria, in the bottles of the democrats and
the republicans. both parties are supporting the Russia bullshit -- look at the politics
swirling around McCain's funeral for example.
Both parties interfere in the middle east, paying off different sides, fighting al Qaida
one place, supporting them in Syria.
Both parties promote people like Bolton, with Bolton's agenda. Trump's main value is as a
destabilizer, which is why the established republicans and the democrats hate him, but the
people he surrounds himself with are very telling.
There's a power struggle between trump and the IC which wants to vet US. presidents
like a modern praetorian guard; I don't know who is going to win, but the IC is on the side
of pushing policies that risk war with Russia, so I support Trump there.
Ok, no insights or insides to offer, Harper, but from my own reading of Trump's Foreign
Policy Speech, scripted it was, I seem to recall I was told then vs earlier ad lib
approaches, I somewhat assumed this more general road into the future under Trump.
Strictly I dislike it deeply to approach anything resembling the, I" told you so" pattern.
It could suggest I only search for bits and pieces that fit in.
Irony/sarcasm alert: How well did the respectively selected PFIAB experts conform under
Bush, Obama? And who but a master in business would fit into let's say Trump's larger
meme-strategy: we have been exploited as a nation by close to everyone for ages?
What a wonderful insightful comment. Other than missing that PFIAB helped sell the Iraq
WMD, just like they were paid to do; and this pair will do the same next time out.
So, the metamorphosis is done. President Trump has finally, fully, shed his 2016 Campaign
'skin' of loosely imagining a grand foreign policy bargain that could be the foundation for
"WORLD PEACE, nothing less!" as Trump tweeted when imposing sanctions on Iran. We wrote, on 3
August,
quoting Prof Russell-Mead, that Trump's '8 May metamorphosis' (the US exit from JCPOA),
constituted a step-change of direction: one that reflected "[Trump's] instincts, telling him
that most Americans are anything but eager, for a "post-American" world. Trump's supporters
don't want long wars, "but neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national
decline".
It all began, very precisely, with Trump's '8 May metamorphosis' - which is to say, to the
moment when the US president definitively took the Israeli 'line': exiting from the Iranian
nuclear accord, deciding to sanction and to lay siege to Iran's economy, and when he endorsed
the (old, never materialized) idea of a Sunni 'Arab NATO', led by Riyadh, that would confront
Shi'a Iran.
In practical terms, Trump's Art of the Deal geo-strategy, as we now see, became thus
transformed into the search for radical US leverage (through weaponising a strong dollar and
tariffs) -- looking always to the means to force the capitulation of the counter-party. This
cannot be rightly termed negotiation: It is rather, more as if the script has been lifted from
The Godfather.
But, when Trump unreservedly took the Israeli (or, more properly the Netanyahu) 'line', he
assumed to himself all 'the baggage' that comes with it, too. The 1996 Clean Break document,
prepared by a study group led by Richard Perle for Binjamin Netanyahu, meshed the Israeli and
US neocon camps into one. And they are still umbilically linked. 'Team Trump' now is filled with neocons who
are unreserved Iran-haters. And Sheldon Adelson (a major Trump donor, a patron of Netanyahu,
and the instigator for the US embassy move to Jerusalem), consequently has been able to implant
his ally, John Bolton (a neocon), as Trump's chief foreign policy advisor.
The Art of the Deal has effectively been neocon-ised into a tool for enlarging American
power – and there is nothing of earlier 'mutual advantage' to be heard of, or to be seen,
these days.
And now, this week, the metamorphosis has been cemented. After the Helsinki summit between
Trump and President Putin, there seemed to have opened a small window of opportunity –
for co-operation between the two states - to return stability to Syria. Many hoped that from
this small terrain of tentative Syria co-ordination, some lessening of tensions between the US
and Russia, might have found fertile soil.
Trump said some positive things; the area around Dera'a, in south Syria, was smoothly
cleared of insurgents, and was retaken by the Syrian army. Israel did not demur in having the
Syrian army as their near neighbours. But then co-operation rather obviously stalled. It is not
clear why, but perhaps this was the first sign of power fracturing apart in Washington. The
Helsinki 'understandings' somehow were melting away (though military-to-military co-ordination
continued).
Putin dispatched the head of the Russian Security Council to a meeting with Bolton in Geneva
on 23 August, to explore whether there was still any possibility for joint co-operation; and,
if so, was such activity politically 'viable'. But before even that bilateral meeting with a
Russian envoy could be held, Bolton - speaking from Jerusalem (from what was billed as a
'roll-back Iran' brainstorming with PM Netanyahu) - warned that the United States would respond
"very strongly" if forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical
weapons in the offensive to retake Idlib province (expected to commence early September),
claiming that the US had intelligence of the intent to use such weapons in Idlib.
The Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, however, said on August 25 "Militants of Hay'at
Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), [trained by a named British company], are preparing to stage a chemical
attack in northern Syria that will be used as a pretext for a new missile strike by the U.S.,
the UK and France - on facilities of the Damascus government". Russian officials said they had
full intelligence on this false flag operation.
What is clear is that since early August the US has been moving a task force (including the
USS The Sullivans and USS Ross) into position that would be able to strike Syria, as well as
positioning air assets into the US airbase in Qatar. French President Emmanuel Macron too has
declared that France was also ready to launch new strikes against Syria, in case of a chemical
weapons attack there.
The Turkish newspaper Hurriyetsays that the
US military is laying the groundwork to close the airspace over northern Syria. US military
freighters are reported to have transported radar systems to the city of Kobanî,
controlled by the Kurdish militia, and to the US military base in Al-Shaddadah in southern
al-Hasakah. Hurriyet claims that the US plans to use these complexes to establish a no-fly zone
over the territory between Manbij in Aleppo and Deir ez-Zor. (This claim however, is
unconfirmed)
Evidently, Russia takes this US threat seriously (it has deployed 20 naval vessels into the
E. Mediterranean, off Syria). And Iran evidently takes the threat seriously, too. The Iranian
Defence Minister on Sunday made a rapid unscheduled visit to Damascus in order to agree a
tri-partite (Russia, Syria Iran) response to any US attack on Syria.
Then, in the wake of Bolton's chemical weapons claims, and the pre-positioning of US
guided-missile vessels close to Syria, Petrushev and Bolton met.
The meeting was a disaster. Bolton insisted that Petrushev admit to Russian interference in
the US elections. Petrushev refused. Trump said we have 'secret' evidence. Petrushev retorted
if that were so, what was the purpose of demanding admission. Bolton said effectively: We
sanction you anyway.
Well not surprisingly, the two were unable to agree on Iranian withdrawal from Syria (which
Petrushev put on the table). Bolton not only said flatly 'no', but afterwards went public with
the Russian initiative to talk possible Iran withdrawal – thus killing it, and killing
the initiative as a gambit to leverage further diplomacy. Even the customary, bland,
uninformative, final communiqué that is usual in such circumstances, could not be
agreed.
The message seems clear: any Helsinki understandings on Syria are dead. And the US is
prepared it seems (they have actually moved assets into position) to strike Syria. Why? What is
going on?
One obvious element is, that until now, Trump's hand in all this is not visible. Now,
power appears to have fractured in Washington with regard to Middle East policy. The
neocons are in the lead. This is very significant, since the slender pillar on which Trump's
rapport with President Putin had been built, was the prospect of US-Russian co-operation over
Syria. And that hat seems, now, to be a dead letter.
Lawrence Wilkerson, now a professor, but formerly the Chief of Staff to Secretary of State
Colin Powell during the infamous Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction' episode
says it 'cold'
:
"It has to do with the return of the Neoconservatives (Neocons) what is happening today, as
Trump is preoccupied increasingly with the considerable, ever-growing challenges to him
personally and to his presidency institutionally, is the re-entry into critical positions in
the government of these people, the people who gave America the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Even
those many of them who declared "Never Trump" -- as arch-Neocon Eliot Cohen summed it up -- are
salivating at the prospect of carrying out their foreign and security policy - while Trump
essentially boils in his own corrupt juices.
"A vanguard, of course, is already in our government to beckon, comfort, and re-establish
others of their type. John Bolton as national security advisor to the president leads this pack
though he's not, strictly speaking, a card-carrying Neocon
"Presently, their first and most identifiable target is the unfinished business -- which
they largely commenced -- with Syria and Iran, Israel's two most serious potential threats. If
the Neocons got their way -- and they are remarkably astute at getting their way -- it would
mean a reignited war in Syria and a new war with Iran, as well as increased support for the
greatest state sponsor of terrorism on earth, Saudi Arabia".
Bolton, Pompeo and the neocons have made it abundantly clear that they – at least
– have not abandoned 'regime change' in Syria, as their objective - and they remain set
on delivering somehow a strategic setback to Iran (Bolton has said that sanctions alone, on
their own, and without Iran suffering some extra strategic blow, would be insufficient to alter
Iranian 'malign behaviour').
Whether or not Mattis and Votel are fully on board with Bolton's "very strong" military
reprisal on Syria threat (for alleged chemical weapons use) is not clear. (Mattis succeeded in
mitigating the last missile strike by Trump on Syria, and to co-ordinating with Moscow a 'nil
response' to Trump's Tomahawk salvo). Will it be the same this time if the US again makes an
unsubstantiated (and later unproven) claim of chemical weapons use by the Syrian
government?
Will Israel join in any attack – using the pre-text of its self-awarded 'right' to
attack Iranian forces anywhere in Syria? Given the new strategic 'fact' of the Iranian Defence
minister's 'surprise' Sunday visit to Damascus to sign a common resolve on countering
any such attack on Syria. Will Netayahu 'bet' on the Russians not responding to hostile Israeli
aircraft entering Syrian airspace?
Who will blink first? Netanyahu? Or will Trump surface from his domestic tribulations
sufficiently, to take notice and to say
'no' ?
Whatever happens, Presidents Putin and Xi can 'read the runes' of this affair – which
is to say that President Trump's highest officials remain committed, openly, or through 'false
flags', to defend the American 'global order'. These officials share a disdain for the Obama
administration's retrenchment and retreat. They want to arrest, and even truncate the rise of
America's rivals, whilst restoring to their former position, those former pillars to U.S. world
power: i.e. America's military, financial, technological and energy, dominance.
Russia is trying to defuse the critical situation by sharing their intelligence with
Washington that Tahrir al-Sham (formerly known as al-Nusra), was plotting a chemical attack
that would then be misrepresented as another 'atrocity' committed by the 'Syrian regime'. Eight
canisters of chlorine have been delivered to a village near Jisr al-Shughur city, and a
specially trained group of militants, prepped by a British security company, have also arrived
in the area, to imitate a rescue operation to save the civilian 'victims'. Militants plan to
use child hostages in the staged incident, Russian officials say .
But will Washington listen? From the moment that the Syrian or the Iranian 'regime' is
subjected to a judgement of moral delinquency (irrespective of evidence) – in the context
of America's claim to its own Manifest (moral) Destiny – these 'regimes' become
transformed from being a temporary, relative adversaries, into an absolute enemy. For, when one
is upholding humanity's 'destiny' and seeking "WORLD PEACE, nothing less!", how can one wage
war - unless it is in the name of a self-evident good. What is afoot is
not attacking an adversary, but punishing and killing the guilty.
Faced with the radical moral devaluation of the 'Other' across western media; and - on the
other hand - with the virtue signaling of western good consciousness, can Russia's rational
presentations hope to carry weight? The only fact that might just weigh in the balance is the
threat that Russia will use its missile arsenal assembling in the East Mediterranean. But what
then?
Mueller has resorted to the classic sleazy prosecutor's gambit of resorting to auxiliary
allegations like perjury. All you need is to bully someone into contradicting the President
and you have a perjury charge if you can trap the President into making statements on
oath.
And re the tangled web of Robert Mueller gang corruption:
From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations
were illegally undeclared.
The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it
over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod
Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell
20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a
one-hour speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium
One deal then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation
FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under
gag order not to speak of it.
Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US
Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for
Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.
When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of
Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James
Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any
crimes regarding Hillary.
Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time in many cases, was either herself or her
legal partner acting in representation of James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton,
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US
Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Robert Mueller to his current
job.
You could have mentioned Robert Reich's call for the entire Trump presidency to be
annulled, including erasure of all executive orders he has issues and unseating of all judges
and officials he has appointed. In a perfect nod to Stalinism, he is is to be sent down the
memory hole with every shred of evidence of his existence airbrushed out of existence. BTW,
Reich is a great name for one who comments on how to deal with Nazis, nicht war?
The corporate media run these features in the wake of every "Trump Deathwatch" episode
to taper liberals off the effects of the mindless hysteria they have just finished
generating.
Yeah, wouldn't want to those liburls to go cold-turkey and crash on the sidewalk with
blood running out of their ears, noses and eye sockets.
And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides
to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get
extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of
aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it.
Don't doubt. Doublethink is an integrated feature of liberalism and there would not be any
sort of problem whatsoever in doing both. Like a priest how lies with a sex worker, then has
her whipped and branded for being a temptress.
Inb4 Corvinus proclaiming his fealthy in Mueller and his "extremely complex,
never-had-it-before" investigation that will calve any minute now.
That was the old days. The cold war was playing it safe. The US did coups and wars then
too. Vietnam and South Asia was bombed and destroyed. Coups in Latin America were a regular
thing. Cuba was the only one that managed to keep the US out. After the cold war, the US
branched out to Europe (Yugoslavia, Ukraine), North Africa (Libya) and West Asia (
Afghanistan, Iraq). The US has been going crazy in the middle east since 1991. 1991 Iraq war
ended on Purim 1991. 2003 war on Iraq started on Purim. 2011 war on Libya started on Purim.
Notice the eight year play for the last two. Is Iran in line for the next Purim attack in
2019?
Readjustment!!!!
And so it took two years for Miller and his team of superhero lawyers to find one miserable
tax cheat, who was hiding his money in all the wrong places.
So what is IRS doing anyway? Playing with theirs ?
This is only one, little bit more significant signs of decaying of US hegemonistic
Capitalism.
One way or the other, with Trump or without Trump Us society is standing on the doorsteps of
major readjustment theoretical, practical, and political.
Hypocrisy will end, and somebody will have to tell the American people the naked truth.
Russia had zero influence on US politics by the time of Reagan, the main
source of
subversion in America switched to Israel and is now also the main source of the opposition to
Trump. He can take the mainspring out of the opposition machine by wrong-footing his enemies
in the Jewish community with an attack on Iran. It will only remain to destablise Jordan then
expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and officially annex it, and the anti-Trump
movement will be like the Left after the Six Day War.
Mueller, the man accused on a German site of having perpetrated Lockerby, to kill a rival
secret service, that found out about Mueller's drug trade in Beirut.
It was, if it is true, great for Mueller that he was the USA investigator of Lockerby.
I wonder if it is known in the USA that already during the trial held in the Netherlands,
the father of one of the victims, who was at the trial, that some about the mechanism for the
ignition was inconsistent.
This was later confirmed by the, if I remember correctly, Swiss manufacturer.
The Libyan convicted for Lockerby went to a Scottish jail, quite soon, a Scottish
investigation committee came to the conclusion that he was innocent.
Those who lost relatives in the disaster never got answer to the question how and why it was
possible that shortly before take off in London VIP's were manoevred out of the plane.
As to the Libyan, 'luckily' he got a deadly disease, great smokescreen for letting him
go.
Until now we do not how the cause of the death of Arafat.
If Mueller is as criminal as asserted, I cannot know.
However, three years after Sept 11 I could no longer fool myself, this was not a Muslim
terrorist attack.
The mentioned German site also explained that Sept 11 brought a profit of some $ 5 billion to
thr owners of the Twin Towers, to be paid by Allianz, A German firm, that as a result had to
fire 3000 employees.
The insurance with Allianz dated from three weeks before Sept 11.
So, for who thinks, what is his point, no crime within the USA I judge impossible any
more.
Also not accusing a president of things that never happened.
Wonder if hegemonistic capitalism can decay.
When in Florida I visited the Flagler museum, accompanied by a USA friend who lived in the
vicinity.
He told me some interesting Flagler stories.
The main USA problem, is, in my opinion, that little has changed since the times of Flagler
and Rockefeller.
Rockefeller, BTW, was able in a few years time, by buying a news agency, to change his image
with the USA public from ruthless capitalist to philantropist, Bill Gates and Soros
accomplished something similar, though not here in Europe.
Polish socialists call the Soros followers 'Sorosjugend'.
"... The AKP over the years did manage to set up a quite decent universal healthcare insurance system – including the upgrading of public hospitals – as well as a pension system. ..."
"... Neocons are second guessing that the Trumpster is being tough via sanctions and issuing missile launches. They think that ultimately their plans will continue in some form or other. The rest of America, possibly the world, is waiting for the Trumpster to clean up the place and give honest US acumen a chance, end wars that go nowhere for no good reason and re-instate those financial safeguards which were repealed and led directly to present day problems. ..."
Meet The Sanctioned; a multinational band starring multi-instrumentalists
Vladimir Putin (Russia), Xi Jinping (China), Hassan Rouhani (Iran) and Recep
Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey).
Beijing and Moscow offer an array of trade deals; Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov has already offered trade in their own currencies. Erdogan for
his part said Turkey is ready to begin using local currencies in trade with
Russia, China, Iran and the EU.
After Turkey restructures its US dollar debts, China buys up the Turkish
lira off foreign exchange markets – an easy play for the People's Bank of China
(PBOC). Ankara is already planning to issue yuan-denominated bonds. China's
ICBC already announced a $3.6 billion loan for energy/transport.
In sharp contrast to the Washington Consensus, Erdogan very well knows that
Turkey cannot "rewrite the crisis management playbook for emerging markets"
by surrendering to IMF austerity. An answer would be to increasingly rely on
the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
As EU companies leave sanctioned Iran, Chinese and Russian companies go into
overdrive. As the US Congress slaps a nyet on Turkey buying F-35 fighter
jets because Ankara is buying the Russian S-400 air-defense system, Boeing and
Airbus in Iran are bound to lose market share to Russian jets such as the MS-21
or the IL-96-400M.
And as Iran-Turkey trade gets a boost, Turkish Stream – the Russia-Turkey
strategic energy partnership – is far from being derailed.
Erdogan knows very well how Turkey is the quintessential East-meets-West
strategic connector across Eurasia. And he knows what's he's really "guilty"
of: buying the S-400s, ditching the "Assad must go" obsession, advancing Turkish
Stream and insisting Turkey will continue to buy Iranian oil.
... ... ...
Fatih mirrors Erdogan's immense
popularity all across Anatolia. Whatever his notorious, incandescent illiberal
traits, Erdogan's development program is not only about more mosques and more
malls. The AKP over the years did manage to set up a quite decent universal
healthcare insurance system – including the upgrading of public hospitals –
as well as a pension system.
Now it's time to deliver again – nationally and globally.
Calling all Eurasian young dudes
Meanwhile, Russia will keep developing a very sophisticated strategy across
the
Black Sea .
In no time, Putin has already reshaped the Black Sea – geopolitically and
geoeconomically. The graphic symbol is the sumptuous Kerch Strait
bridge
to Crimea – an engineering tour de force inaugurated only three months ago.
Putin's multi-instrumental riffs are ubiquitous. Erdogan gets S-400s, nuclear
power plants and Turkish Stream (which also benefits vast tracts of southern
Europe). Rouhani and the Central Asians get a Caspian convention and the prospect
of a succession of energy deals. Damascus and Tehran – with Ankara a little
far behind – get to see the possible end of the tragic Syria war cycle.
As Erdogan progressively moves Turkey's reserves to yuan – and gold – benefits
can accrue from more interaction with the BRI/EAEU/SCO galaxy in everything
from electronics and nuclear technology to advanced weapons. And further connectivity
may entail, for instance, Chinese goods transiting through Russian ports in
Krasnodar and Crimea to Turkish ports in the Black Sea.
The Black Sea, for all practical purposes, is being configured as a Russo-Turk
Mediterranean Sea – much as the Caspian is now configured as a Central Asian,
non-NATO, Mediterranean Sea.
In parallel, The Sanctioned is also enjoying a guest performing appearance
by the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim al-Thani, instrumental in the offer of a
$15 billion loan to Ankara. And this after Qatar restored good relations with
Iran, including energy collaboration on the shared South Pars/North Dome – the
largest gas field on the planet.
It's crucial to consider that in the event the Qatar-Turkey Combined Joint
Force Command may "disappear", for some reason, the path would be open for a
nasty, joint Saudi/UAE invasion of Doha, with major consequences; the double
confiscation of the Qatari sovereign wealth fund and North Dome – to the benefit
of salvaging the sinking "Vision 2030" House of Saud.
The Trumpster is doing a very good job alienating his corrupt system
from world markets. We should be thankful for that. If sanctions can be
ignored this easily, they become counter-productive.
The world is moving on and the Trumpster knows that the US system will
not be welcome in the B&R in its present form.
Neocons are second guessing that the Trumpster is being tough via
sanctions and issuing missile launches. They think that ultimately their
plans will continue in some form or other. The rest of America, possibly
the world, is waiting for the Trumpster to clean up the place and give honest
US acumen a chance, end wars that go nowhere for no good reason and re-instate
those financial safeguards which were repealed and led directly to present
day problems.
Those involved in the B&R project are going to require a different form
of payment, use of a different clearing system and a different way of working.
Dinosaurs need not apply.
If provisions for members also include extradition rights between borders
for wanted criminals caught interrupting trade or attacking member states
via fraud and political agitation, it could prove a tough time for US shyster
business and their spook helpers. Might be best to clean up first.
Should Turkey, Qatar and Iran find common ground, then there's a real
possibility for a middle-east trade union that would include Syria, Iraq,
and others that would line up to join.
The USA, which is not America or Americans, it is a foreign corporation,
serves Israhell.
How about, America rents a U-haul transport jumbo jet, starts flying
all USA personal, to Israhell, which they love, and out of America, which
they hate.
All materials, monies and such to stay in America of course.
Once all the zionist ass wipes have moved from Washington DC, to Tel
Aviv, they will be Russia's buddies, friends, and fellow collaborators ,
as both Putin and Russia, seems to just love the shit hole zionism has made
of Palestine.
if the us, or any agency thereof, orchestrated or participated in any
overthrow coup attempt upon any nation of nato, it would seem to me this
fact alone would be some violation of at least the spirit, if not the letter,
of the nato treaty agreement, which is that all members will jointly come
to the aid and defense of any member nation attacked from within or without,
in effort to topple or destroy it.
turkey has made a serious allegation that the us was in fact involved
in such a coup against it.
this serious allegation has not, to my knowledge, in any respect been
heard, litigated, dispelled, disproven, or even denied by the us in any
formal proceedings, international body, or court of law of appropriate jurisdiction.
yet the us has simply taken upon itself the right to punish the innocent
people of turkey, via imperial economic sanctions, possibly war, even world
war, simply for its government making such allegation in the first instance,
then subscribing to it, without any just hearing or legal resolution of
same.
is this any way for a nation to conduct itself? where is niki haley,
purported us ambassador to the united nations? has she taken up this matter
at the united nations, or is she merely an ihop waitress posturing as ambassador
of the us to the un?
ms. ihop is woefully derelict in her ambassadorial duties, a shameless
national disgrace, and an international disgrace to the un and international
law. what did this imbecile do at the un to smooth over this spat between
these two former nato allies, to avoid sanctions or war? now we hear insane
babble this lazy, irresponsible reprobate should be considered vice presidential
timber. heaven forbid.
president genius trump must immediately require her immediate resignation,
for dishonor of her office. if not, he in effect affirms her abandonment
of her position, his duty to the people of the us and the world.
btw, what i wrote above about turkey and ihop haley goes for the sanctions
trump has leveled against russia, syria, china, iran.
when did mime clown haley ever utter syllable one in credible proof at
the un, to warrant sanctions: russia colluded to overthrow the us 2016 election,
or poisoned british subjects (unlike israel which guns down its innocent,
defenseless, unarmed children citizens); syria
chem-bombed its own people (not israel's terrorist proxies); china engaged
in lawless international trade or economic behavior (unlike the imf); iran
violated jcpoa, lawlessly aggressed in attack over international borders
(unlike israel, which refuses to adhere to any nuclear non-proliferation
treaty at all, maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, and conducts abjure
air raid attacks in syria from disallowed lebanese skies)?
to my mind, haley's dereliction of duty and failure to properly address
sanctionable acts of misbehavior wholly enable trump, and co-pilot bolt-on,
on their wayward war bus express, bound for extinction. thus enabled, they
embark, at first stop: to level sanctions without proven cause; progress
to the next stop: unmitigated and unrelenting irritability; and, finally,
the last stop:war, possibly world war to annihilate the planet.
never-war-unless-attacked job-candidate trump has thus morphed into his
frankensteinian 180-opposite, ever-war president trump, without anyone's
proof of actual wrongdoing, only imperial edicts by the tump-haley new pope
pair of israel, tweedledee and tweedledum. america, wake up before it is
too late: we are a nation of laws, not of men or women. laws, properly enforced,
require proof soundly made, of guilt and culpability. sound and fair proof
takes time to adduce; war does not, only a handy dandy button to push.
"... "The 'Magnitsky Trio' (John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin) Pushes for War With Russia With New Sanctions ..."
"... "The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department thinks they are a bad idea.' ..."
"... Israel, assisted by its very powerful lobby in America, was the driving force in the set of Neocon Wars that have burned through the Middle East. ..."
"... And I strongly suspect, given the intensity of his all efforts for Israel, that he was caught once in a Mossad "honey trap" and given to understand that very compromising photos of him existed. ..."
"... His constituents back home – conservative Southern Baptists and the like – of course, are not aware of his sexual proclivities, so pictures would make a serious threat. ..."
"... This kind of thing would not at all new to Washington. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, also a closet gay and indeed a cross-dresser according to one reliable biographer, is said to have been compromised the same way by the American Mafia, something which explains his long reluctance to act against Mafia interests, allowing them to flourish while he chased after largely non-existent communists across America. ..."
"The 'Magnitsky Trio' (John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin) Pushes for War With
Russia With New Sanctions
"The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury
department thinks they are a bad idea.'
I think in many such analyses about American-Russian strained relations an important actor
is left out, and that actor is America's strange Middle East quasi-colony, Israel.
Israel, assisted by its very powerful lobby in America, was the driving force in the set
of Neocon Wars that have burned through the Middle East.
In order to have the kind of highly aggressive America represented by those wars, much in
Israel's favor, effort has to be made to keep antagonisms high. And Russia is inevitably viewed
as a barrier to an aggressive America, no matter how friendly Russian-Israeli relations are,
and Putin does a very good job of trying to keep good relations.
But, still, while Netanyahu and his gang smile for the cameras after meetings, their
deep-down drives are in conflict with Russia in some fundamental ways that cannot be made to
disappear with handshakes or smiles. A highly aggressive America serves Israel in its own
aggressive regional ambitions as well as in vague matters as "security," the term likely used
by its lobby in America.
Russia has her own experience with these drives in the unhappy induced-coup in Ukraine,
something in which that charming Neocon from the State Department, Barbara Nuland, famous for
bragging that America spent $5 billion on its Ukraine operation and also for once shouting
within earshot of others, "Fuck Europe!" played an important role.
The anti-Russian crowd in Washington – very much including the Neocons, who are part
and parcel of the total multi-fronted Israel Lobby in Washington, many of the Neocons holding
(or having held, as Nuland did) influential government posts – won something for their
cause whichever way events in Ukraine went.
They gained either a large country, hostile to Russia right on its border, one with good
American connections, to harass and worry Russia, or with the outcome we see, Ukraine having
made a fool of itself in falling apart through incompetence and pig-headedness, they have
gained the theme of Russian aggression. While Putin's moves were masterful and required, making
the very best of a very bad situation, what has emerged still serves these nasty folks in
stoking hatred of Russia, now accused of aggression, a charge strongly embraced in Washington
and in American-influenced parts of Western Europe.
Lindsay Graham is about the most vocal and reactionary defender of Israel in the Congress.
He might be matched by John McCain, but I'm not sure he doesn't in fact earn top honors in his
service to another country. He quite literally leaps to his feet at any mention of Israel. So,
when a guy like that strongly advocates greatly increased hostility towards Russia, it should
tell us something.
And I strongly suspect, given the intensity of his all efforts for Israel, that he was
caught once in a Mossad "honey trap" and given to understand that very compromising photos of
him existed.
You see, Graham is known as a fairly flagrant gay in Washington.
His constituents back home – conservative Southern Baptists and the like –
of course, are not aware of his sexual proclivities, so pictures would make a serious
threat.
This kind of thing would not at all new to Washington. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover,
also a closet gay and indeed a cross-dresser according to one reliable biographer, is said to
have been compromised the same way by the American Mafia, something which explains his long
reluctance to act against Mafia interests, allowing them to flourish while he chased after
largely non-existent communists across America.
On the "blue" side of things, mendacity rules as usual lately, especially in
the Deep State septic abscess that the Russia probe has become.
Department
of Justice official Bruce Ohr, twice demoted but still on the payroll, went
into a closed congressional hearing and apparently threw everybody but his
mother under the bus, laying out an evidence trail of stupendous, flagrant
corruption in that perfidious scheme to un-do the election results of 2016.
Most amazingly, it was revealed that Mr. Ohr had not been called to testify
by special counsel Robert Mueller nor by the federal prosecutor John Huber,
who is charged with investigating the FBI / DOJ irregularities surrounding
the Russia probe.
It is amazing because Mr. Ohr is precisely the
pivotal figure in what now looks like an obvious conspiracy to politically weaponize the agencies against the Golden Golem.
An
awful lot of people have some 'splainin' to do on that one, starting with
the Attorney General and his deputy. Who will put it to them?
Kunstler sums it all up colorfully and correctly. If America is
to survive we need to take the money out of politics but fat
chance of that. In ancient Athens and in Rome's early republic
period, positions in government were given to men respected by
their peers and known to be honest and fair. Look at our
Congress. Look at the lowlife presidents of the last 25 years. A
sex degenerate, a brain-damaged alcoholic, a jive dancing
homosexual. And they lionize McCain as a great man. He actually
plans his own funeral with multiple venues and has presidents
kissing his ass even in death and all for anti-Trump
showmanship. This doesn't look like a nation on the way up to
me.
Ancient Athens and Rome faced the same problem - complete political
corruption - their leaders were chosen on the basis of their wealth
and property - indeed, if you weren't a property holder, you usually
weren't even a citizen. And their personal lives back then were
just as perverted, if not more so than our politicians and captains
of industry today.
Baron, if you are right,
historians (if there are any), will one day compare
Rome's emperors from Caligula to Nero
to recent US presidents.
History repeats, first as tragedy, then as farce
. - K. Marx
He seems to be saying that the real Fed chairman is an algo on
steroids, and while elites know it, they will not admit it,
publicly, whereas the serfs still blame things like offshoring
of jobs and displacement from jobs by illegal aliens with
welfare-hoisted wages, hence their attendance at MAGA rallies, not
that Trump has succeeded in motivating the congressional swamp to do
anything about this. He also seems to be saying that, when it hits
the fan, underemployed serfs will win something, but will blame
elites despite their winnings. If the post-collapse "winnings"
are anything like other economic upsides for serfs, they better not
blink, or they will miss all the good stuff. It will be a lot like
that imperceptible payroll tax cut that Obama's stimulus provided to
most non-welfare-eligible serfs, living on earned-only income, or
what most serfs got out of the Trump tax cuts: a
Costco-membership-sized lift to their monthly paychecks, which
are half consumed by rent alone.
"... My favorite part of this article: "And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go until 2020, unless Trump decides to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let him do, because that would get extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously support another US war of aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it. ..."
"... Oh, and also, they would have a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge in the White House to attack Russia's ally in the Middle East." ..."
My favorite part of this article: "And on and on, and on, it goes and will continue to go
until 2020, unless Trump decides to attack Iran, which I doubt The Resistance® will let
him do, because that would get extremely weird, as they would somehow have to simultaneously
support another US war of aggression and condemn Trump as Adolf Hitler for starting it.
Oh, and also, they would have a hard time explaining why Putin had ordered his stooge
in the White House to attack Russia's ally in the Middle East."
We live in times in which the media elites and academia are fully insane. That means that
the 'normal' levels of insanity and venality for career politicians will be ramped up.
So this "tribe" (as you call them) are the folks leading the criticism of the President?
These folks "own the media" you aver -- yes?
Hmmm, then that clearly can't be a "tribe" which includes Netanyahu, his likudniks and
neo-cons and militant right-wing, American billionaire Zionists -- because they've never had
it so good under any U.S. President.
As for the Palestinians (let alone the American middle class), well, things are rather
different.
unilateral private media ownership is the problem, not privatized tribal hate for Trump or
whomever..
Government vs Private Parallel Media can solve many, many problems created by Deep
State it can quickly turn the tables on the deep state or strongly support it.. Since
1492 when Martin Luther exposed unilateral backroom power, massive singularities of
accumulated wealth, and controlled, filtered propaganda to the masses. government has become
the responsibility of the governed, and the governors have become the servants of the masses.
However, those same powers Luther exposed have done everything in their power to deny the
masses the right to self determination
Trump has a plan to nationalize the media, but I think he should merely parallel the
private media with open source government media ( no rules to use it, none, not any, sex
weird stuff, criminal stuff, whatever ,just let anyone with something to say say it on their
own website hosted by the government). Produce a government media hosting site, allow anyone,
foreign or local, to present on the public media. use government developed search engine and
indexing technology (no private party no private contractors, everything and everyone
involved at the government host site is a government employee and all technology is developed
by government for government use only) and let the masses decide for themselves both 1) form
of government and 2) degree of corruption they will accept. Everyone can then select do they
want to view the Deep State Media or one of the millions of content providers visible on the
government media host.
"Zionism(A.K.A. Neo-Cons, and all "Israeli Firsters") is a political ideology based upon
the suspension of reason and common sense, rooted upon a macabre death wish that worships the
state of Israel.
Israel-First loyalists do not have to be Jewish. Christian-Zionists routinely forgo
faithfulness to our country, when they place Israel above the interests of our own nation.
The notion that Israel is a trusted ally is the most absurd illusion that exists in a
demented political culture. This is the "Big Lie", an invention of Zionist subversion, which
is the cause of an insane American foreign policy. Israel-First zealots control every aspect
of political power in the United States. An actual American holocaust that stares us directly
in our faces stems from sick fraudulent propaganda and phony guilt deceit that only benefits
Zionists and Israel."
I hope not. If Trump wants to go down a hero, he can be the monkey wrench that wrecks so
much damage on the machine that it's no longer capable of threatening the world. If he can
perform a controlled demolition of the USA, the rest of the world will continue just fine
without them. We'll remember him as a hero for preventing WW3.
None of this makes any difference. The MSM still control 98 percent of the information
transmission systems in the western world. Indeed, (((they))) are beginning to prohibit other
information systems such as the internet.
What you don't hear about never happened. The flip side of that coin is that what you hear
about over and over comes to be reality, regardless. Think Tawana Brawley. Think Duke sports
teams.
Where there's smoke there must be fire, right?
Trump has a talent for feeding the MSM red meat. Always with a good dose of poison mixed
in so they are happy to shoot themselves in the foot. Think Roseanne Roseannadanna.
Nevermind
Well, he can't attack Syria because Israel, ya know, might get hot grease spattered on
them. And besides, Israel wants Syria with as little additional damage as possible, leaving
an attack on Iran as the only method of "attacking" Russia. But, it cannot be done directly,
with flimsy excuses. The excuses are just too damn flimsy.
Also, life is too damn good for American Army mercenaries to have to risk life and limb
for another meaningless ME conflict. Nope, the Army needs another five years, at the very
least, before another round of medals and benefit-increases justifies their personal risk. US
Army take-home, "combat" pay and massive health-and-living benefits amount to the best living
any white American boy can experience, but there is a limit.
Now, limited-scope attack by proxy? Iraq border conflict? Afghanistan border conflict?
Both good, plus there is already umpty-ump bajillion $ of US taxpayer-paid military equipment
in Afghanistan. Good excuse to junk it all and get new stuff. That's what taxpayers are for,
after all.
The fact is that the U.S. is a Zionist controlled plantation and there is no difference at
the top levels between the demonrats and the republicons as both are Zionist controlled and
are traitors to America, as proof of this is the Israeli and Zionist controlled deep state
attack on 911 which killed 3000 Americans and Israel and the Zionists got away with it and
every thinking America knows they did it.
The only difference between Trump and Helliary is their plumbing, both are Zionist puppets
and the ziocons run the U.S. gov..
It is reported that the German company and partner in Nord Stream II, Uniper, may pull out
of the project due to the risk of US sanctions (previously it said Uniper will pull
out sic see link.).* In related news, construction has been started in German waters.
Still silence from Denmark as to whether they will block it or not.
If I were Moscow, I would announce that the pipeline's route will avoid Danish waters and
sit back to see the reaction. Why? Coz you can bet that some will claim it is
punishment/bribe/threat/anti-competitive to Denmark, to whit, Russia can simply reply that
Denmark has XXX days to provide the permits before it is no longer economically feasible for
the route to go through its waters.
What p* me off about the reported 'threat from NSII' and even in articles like the one
above that point out it is in Europe's interest, none of them mention the preceding sabotage
of South Stream II under the mighty Obama and the impact from that led directly to
Nord Stream II.
At this time there is a request from the European Commission, after which we've
suspended the current works, I ordered it," Oresharski told journalists after meeting with
John McCain, Chris Murphy and Ron Johnson during their visit to Bulgaria on Sunday. "Further
proceedings will be decided after additional consultations with Brussels."
McCain, commenting on the situation, said that "Bulgaria should solve the South Stream
problems in collaboration with European colleagues," adding that in the current situation
they would want "less Russian involvement" in the project.
"America has decided that it wants to put itself in a position where it excludes
anybody it doesn't like from countries where it thinks it might have an interest, and there
is no economic rationality in this at all. Europeans are very pragmatic, they are looking for
cheap energy resources – clean energy resources, and Russia can supply that. But the
thing with the South Stream is that it doesn't fit with the politics of the situation," Ben
Aris, editor of Business New Europe told RT .
####
Yes kids. Warmonger McCain was at the forefront of getting it killed after interference
from Brussels failed to shift the asshole Borissov's government. So when a European asks
"What has John McCain done for us? , he's already f*ed you over for the benefit of the US
and U-ropean poodle Krazy K**t Klan.
See,
this is why I enjoy Leonid Bershidsky's writing . Despite his idealistic prattling that
Russia is actually guilty of all the things America says it is – his ultimate loyalty
is still to his adopted homeland, the land of milk and honey – he remains essentially a
realist. And his take on the economic dynamics is brutally realistic; the United States
cannot 'bring the Russian economy to its knees'. Once again, America's ridiculously-high
opinion of itself and its power fail to take account of consequences.
Oh, it could, I suppose, in a way. A way that would see the world's largest economy
– arguably, and certainly in its last days if it is actually still the world's largest
economy – wreck the global economy and its own trade relationship with the world in
order to damage Russia. Is it willing to go that far? You just never know, as decades of
feeding itself exceptionalism have addled its thinking.
Bershidsky points out – correctly, I think – that Russia has held off on
punishing American companies in Russia just as the USA has not dared to sanction the energy
industry in Russia. Neither wants to take that step, although one will certainly provoke the
other.
In fact, it occurs to me that if Russia were really as malignant and evil as Washington
pretends it is, Russia would be first to take that step, booting American companies out of
Russia, perhaps giving them 72 hours to clear out their desks and get out. What would happen
then? America would be bound to drop the sanctions hammer on oil and gas. And what would
happen then? Europe would say, it's been a lovely party, but I must be going. I give that an
8 of 10 chance of happening, and solely because of the stupid actions heretofore by the Trump
government. Had America been reasonable, it would have stood a chance of carrying Europe with
it to a war against Russia. But Trump and his blowhard bullying have hardened European
resolve against the USA.
This is incorrect: Russiagate first and foremost is a color revolution
against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the Deep State has many other goals and priorities which align with Russiagate, and therefore support it fully, but the principals of Russiagate are the criminals trying to save their skin ..."
"... Of course, you can look at it at different levels with differing breadths, and at one level the Deep State role is included within the definition of "Russiagate" and therefore will include both Trump and Russia. But the view I expressed above is more fundamental (a) in terms of how and why Russiagate came into being, (b) in terms of the main principals involved, and (c) in terms of the causality of the the main processes. ..."
"... Once the "Russian election meddling" and "Putin puppet" memes were concocted as 1) a deflection from the Wikileaks DNC meddling scandal and 2) a smear to help assure that Trump couldn't be elected, the Dems painted themselves into a corner that they couldn't get out of once Trump was elected. ..."
"... They had made their scurrilous charges without anticipating that Trump would win. Throwing a smear during a campaign is one thing; conducting an investigation to shore up a smear is quite another. A campaign smear doesn't have to withstand scrutiny if it achieves its effect by dominating news cycles. But once they had thrown it and Trump was elected anyway, they were forced into a position where the smear needed to be shored up with bogus investigations. The alternative would have been an admission that the smear was just a smear. ..."
"... Russia derangement is a response to having to deal with an independent regional power acting on its own interests. The only thing that could have defused it would have been if the Russians folded over the Crimea and Donbas, and not shown their agency in Syria. And of course "progressives" have latched onto the new McCarthyism in their aspirations to regain power. Not that I love Trump or the Republicans, but if "progressives" wake up after election day with results showing that it backfired, it will be a great day ..."
"... IMO Russia gate is a cover for the Dems to make no change to their playbook. It also gives Trump an excuse to not deliver on some campaign promises he never intended to deliver on, much like Obama and many other Presidents. Its a great distraction keeping people from looking at the biggest foreign influence on government and elections, which is Israel ..."
"... Whether intended or not Russia gate also serves to strengthen Putin at home in the face of an external threat and keep them on their neoliberal path such as cutting pensions to support their MIC in the face of the US threat, and it will allow EU members to increase their own military spending to meet Trumps demands and many of those Euros will flow to the US ..."
"... IMO this is a carefully planned psyops and con game with each party playing their role and facilitating the execution of the ruling elites game plan. Sure, there are different factions and some infighting is allowed to maintain an illusion of Democracy for the proles, but the only Democracy is at the level of the ruling elite during their many private meetings of various elite groups that need not be named since they are so well known ..."
Russiagate has just one purpose: coverup for the crimes of operatives involved in the
election manipulation of 2016 and earlier crimes such as the Clinton email scandal
investigation.
Nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Russia. Anything else is purely peripheral.
(Of course, the Deep State has many other goals and priorities which align with
Russiagate, and therefore support it fully, but the principals of Russiagate are the
criminals trying to save their skin.)
"Nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Russia."
Of course, you can look at it at different levels with differing breadths, and at one
level the Deep State role is included within the definition of "Russiagate" and therefore
will include both Trump and Russia. But the view I expressed above is more fundamental (a) in
terms of how and why Russiagate came into being, (b) in terms of the main principals
involved, and (c) in terms of the causality of the the main processes.
Once the "Russian election meddling" and "Putin puppet" memes were concocted as 1) a
deflection from the Wikileaks DNC meddling scandal and 2) a smear to help assure that Trump
couldn't be elected, the Dems painted themselves into a corner that they couldn't get out of
once Trump was elected.
They had made their scurrilous charges without anticipating that
Trump would win. Throwing a smear during a campaign is one thing; conducting an investigation
to shore up a smear is quite another. A campaign smear doesn't have to withstand scrutiny if
it achieves its effect by dominating news cycles. But once they had thrown it and Trump was
elected anyway, they were forced into a position where the smear needed to be shored up with
bogus investigations. The alternative would have been an admission that the smear was just a
smear.
Russia derangement is a response to having to deal with an independent regional power
acting on its own interests. The only thing that could have defused it would have been if the
Russians folded over the Crimea and Donbas, and not shown their agency in Syria. And of
course "progressives" have latched onto the new McCarthyism in their aspirations to regain
power. Not that I love Trump or the Republicans, but if "progressives" wake up after election
day with results showing that it backfired, it will be a great day.
IMO Russia gate is a cover for the Dems to make no change to their playbook. It also gives
Trump an excuse to not deliver on some campaign promises he never intended to deliver on,
much like Obama and many other Presidents. Its a great distraction keeping people from
looking at the biggest foreign influence on government and elections, which is Israel
Whether intended or not Russia gate also serves to strengthen Putin at home in the face of
an external threat and keep them on their neoliberal path such as cutting pensions to support
their MIC in the face of the US threat, and it will allow EU members to increase their own
military spending to meet Trumps demands and many of those Euros will flow to the US
IMO this is a carefully planned psyops and con game with each party playing their role and
facilitating the execution of the ruling elites game plan. Sure, there are different factions
and some infighting is allowed to maintain an illusion of Democracy for the proles, but the
only Democracy is at the level of the ruling elite during their many private meetings of
various elite groups that need not be named since they are so well known
The sleaze around Donald Trump's NYC businesses has gotten a couple of convictions. This a
classic case of looking under the streetlight and finding it. The FBI/DOJ/CIA collaboration
is something else. The forwarding of Clinton's 30,000 e-mails to the Chinese that was posted
here has popped up, again. The e-mails reportedly went to a business front in Northern
Virginia. The Chinese said they have heard this before. The Washington Post says that the FBI
denies it. The truth is totally in the dark, but this can be investigated and be proven if
true or false.
Jeff Sessions has appointed John Huber, Utah US Attorney, to investigate the claims
against the FBI. He is not a special counsel. This likely is the source of friction between
the two. The President is starting to show the wounds from the media attacks. All he has is
his family. His staff is third string. He doesn't read briefings and gets his news
from Fox TV. He blows his top. He is being wrestled down by the Lilliputians until he slaps
the mat.
The last thing Globalists want is the incompetence and corruption in DC of the last
decades brought out into the daylight. If the Democrats gain control of the House
this year, the President will be hard pressed to make to 2021. John Kelly and Fox News won't
tell the President, but the only way he can get off the ropes is to appoint a Second Special
Counsel to investigate the Obama Administration FBI/DOJ and the Intelligence Coup against
him.
Sir;
How far back does the China/Clinton 'connection' go? I remember some minor scandal from back
in Bill Clinton's administration concerning Chinese purported 'agents of influence.' Money,
of course played a role.
From your experience "inside the beltway," how large an effect do you think venality has on
national governance?
What a cast of characters. Grifters, con-men and neo-con-men. It's a wonder there are any
honest men and women left in Washington.
"... As I have argued previously , such evidence that exists points to John Brennan and James Clapper, President Obama's head of the CIA and director of national intelligence respectively, even though attention has been focused on the FBI. ..."
"... Until Brennan, Clapper, and their closest collaborators are required to testify under oath about the real origins of Russiagate, these crises will grow ..."
For nearly two years, mostly vacuous (though malignant) Russiagate
allegations have drowned out truly significant news directly affecting
America's place in the world. In recent days, for example.
French
President Emmanuel Macron declared
"Europe can no longer rely on the
United States to provide its security," calling for instead a broader kind
of security "and particularly doing it in cooperation with Russia." About
the same time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President
Vladimir Putin met to expand and solidify an essential energy partnership by
agreeing to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia, despite US
attempts to abort it. Earlier, on August 22, the Afghan Taliban announced it
would attend its first ever major peace conference -- in Moscow, without US
participation.
Thus does the world turn, and not to the wishes of Washington. Such news
would, one might think, elicit extensive reporting and analysis in the
American mainstream media. But amid all this, on August 25, the ever-eager
New
York Times
published yet another front-page Russiagate story -- one that
if true would be sensational, though hardly anyone seemed to notice.
According to the
Times
'
regular Intel leakers, US intelligence agencies, presumably the CIA, has had
multiple "informants close to Putin and in the Kremlin who provided crucial
details" about Russiagate for two years. Now, however, "the vital Kremlin
informants have largely gone silent." The
Times
laces
the story with misdeeds questionably attributed to Putin and equally
untrustworthy commentators, as well as a mistranslated Putin statement that
incorrectly has him saying all "traitors" should be killed. Standard US
media fare these days when fact-checkers seem not to be required for Russia
coverage. But the sensation of the article is that the US had moles in
Putin's office.
Skeptical or credulous readers will react to the
Times
story
as they might. Actually, an initial, lesser version of it first appeared in
The
Washington Post
, an equally hospitable Intel platform, on December 15,
2017.
I
found it implausible
for much the same reasons
I
had previously found Christopher Steele's "dossier,"
also purportedly
based on "Kremlin sources," implausible. But the
Times
'
new, expanded version of the mole story raises more and larger questions.
If US intelligence really had such a priceless asset in Putin's office -- the
Post
report
implied only one, the
Times
writes
of more than one -- imagine what they could reveal about Enemy No. 1 Putin's
intentions abroad and at home, perhaps daily -- why would any American Intel
official disclose this information to any media at the risk of being charged
with a treasonous capital offense? And now more than once? Or, since "the
Kremlin" closely monitors US media, at the risk of having the no less
treasonous Russian informants identified and severely punished? Presumably
this why the
Times
'
leakers insist that the "silent" moles are still alive, though how they know
we are not told. All of this is even more implausible. Certainly, the
Times
article
asks no critical questions.
But why leak the mole story again, and now? Stripped of extraneous financial
improprieties, failures to register as foreign lobbyists, tacky lifestyles,
and sex having nothing to do with Russia, the gravamen of the Russiagate
narrative remains what it has always been: Putin ordered Russian operatives
to "meddle" in the US 2016 presidential election in order to put Donald
Trump in the White House, and Putin is now plotting to "attack" the November
congressional elections in order to get a Congress he wants. The more Robert
Mueller and his supporting media investigates, the less evidence actually
turns up, and when it seemingly does, it has to be considerably massaged or
misrepresented.
Nor are "meddling" and "interfering" in the other's domestic policy new in
Russian-American relations. Tsar Aleksandr II intervened militarily on the
side of the Union in the American Civil War. President Woodrow Wilson sent
troops to fight the Reds in the Russian Civil War. The Communist
International, founded in Moscow in 1919, and its successor organizations
financed American activists, electoral candidates, ideological schools, and
pro-Soviet bookstores for decades in the United States. With the support of
the Clinton administration, American electoral advisers encamped in Moscow
to help rig Russian President Boris Yeltsin's reelection in 1996. And that's
the bigger "meddling" apart from the decades-long "propaganda and
disinformation" churned out by both sides, often via forbidden short-wave
radio. Unless some conclusive evidence appears, Russian social media and
other meddling in the 2016 presidential election was little more than old
habits in modern-day forms. (Not incidentally, the
Times
story
suggests that US Intel had been hacking the Kremlin, or trying to, for many
years. This too should not shock us.)
The real novelty of Russiagate is the allegation that a Kremlin leader,
Putin, personally gave orders to affect the outcome of an American
presidential election. In this regard, Russiagaters have produced even less
evidence, only suppositions without facts or much logic. With the Russiagate
narrative being frayed by time and fruitless investigations, the "mole in
the Kremlin" may have seemed a ploy needed to keep the conspiracy theory
moving forward, presumably toward Trump's removal from office by whatever
means. And hence the temptation to play the mole card again, now, as yet
more investigations generate smoke but no smoking gun.
The pretext of the
Times
story
is that Putin is preparing an attack on the upcoming November elections, but
the once-"vital," now-silent moles are not providing the "crucial details."
Even if the story is entirely bogus, consider the damage it is doing.
Russiagate allegations have already delegitimized a presidential election,
and a presidency, in the minds of many Americans. The
Times
'
updated, expanded version may do the same to congressional elections and the
next Congress. If so, there is an "attack on American democracy" -- not by
Putin or Trump but by whoever godfathered and repeatedly inflated
Russiagate.
As I have argued
previously
,
such evidence that exists points to John Brennan and James Clapper,
President Obama's head of the CIA and director of national intelligence
respectively, even though attention has been focused on the FBI.
Indeed,
the
Times
story
reminds us of how central "intelligence" actors have been in this saga.
Arguably, Russiagate has brought us to the worst American political crisis
since the Civil War and the most dangerous relations with Russia in history.
Until Brennan, Clapper, and their closest collaborators are required to
testify under oath about the real origins of Russiagate, these crises will
grow
Jeffrey Harrison
says:
August 30, 2018 at 1:06 am
I'd love to know, Mr. Cohen, why you think that Russiagate was
perpetrated by Messrs Brennan and Clapper. I've been under the
impression that it all started with Three Names whining about a hack
to the DNC done by the Russians (based on no evidence) and the theft
of e-mails which revealed Three Names and her henchmen as amoral
political con artists. It is so clearly unfair and borderline
illegal to expose her and her henchmen for what they are
in.their.own.words that something must be done! I would advise that
we apply Occam's Razor to this problem and see what kind of answers
we get.
David Gurarie
says:
August 30, 2018 at
7:00 pm
The whining trio is a sideshow on general background run by our
deep state (or fourth government branch) made of
Clapper-Brennan-McCain types.
Joel Herman
says:
August 29, 2018 at 4:18 pm
Wrong . All we have to do is look at the actions of Trump and all
those that surround him to know that you are wrong take a hike with
the BS.
We have a conspiracy in plain sight. We did not meet with any
Russians. We discussed adoptions. But so what if we did engage in a
criminal conspiracy to swing an election. Then we established or
attempted to establish backchannels. To cash in.
All quite normal. Stick your nonsense where the sun doesn't shine.
Clark Shanahan
says:
August 30, 2018 at
11:30 am
Joel,
Were you part of Hill's $9.5 million "Correct the Record" troll
op?
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
Jeffrey Harrison
says:
August 30, 2018 at
12:02 pm
It's amazing to me how easily duped people with suspicious
minds are. It's also amazing to me how often people think
that they can create dynasties out of thin air. Three Names
has largely been unable to get anything right; the invasion
of Libya being a prime example of her capabilities. It would
be best if she just went away and took her daughter with
her.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one and
simply being incompetent is much simpler than some
fantastical tale of Russian interference which was magically
able to flip 80,000 votes in three states so that she could
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with a 2.9 million
vote lead.
Once the spy agencies become the controlling element a government degenerates into a
regime or imperium depending upon its level of power.
The rule of law is sidelined and a cynical form of dictatorship develops.
Britain, the US and all anglophone countries are exhibiting the results of this sort of
evolution.
It is more dangerous now than when the historical odious tyrannies ran riot during the
'30s and '40s of last century because technology has advanced to the point that their
continuance is a threat to our survival as a species.
"... "information held for the purposes of creating the BBC's output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities" ..."
As you may know, I am a journalist working in alternative media, a member of the NUJ, as
well as a former British Ambassador. I am researching the Skripal case.
I wish to ask you the following questions.
1) When the Skripals were first poisoned, it was the largest news story in the entire
World and you were uniquely positioned having held several meetings with Sergei Skripal the
previous year. Yet faced with what should have been a massive career break, you withheld that
unique information on a major story from the public for four months. Why?
2) You were an officer in the Royal Tank Regiment together with Skripal's MI6 handler,
Pablo Miller, who also lived in Salisbury. Have you maintained friendship with Miller over
the years and how often do you communicate?
3) When you met Skripal in Salisbury, was Miller present all or part of the time, or did
you meet Miller separately?
4) Was the BBC aware of your meetings with Miller and/or Skripal at the time?
5) When, four months later, you told the world about your meetings with Skripal after the
Rowley/Sturgess incident, you said you had met him to research a book. Yet the only
forthcoming book by you advertised is on the Skripal attack. What was the subject of your
discussions with Skripal?
6) Pablo Miller worked for Orbis Intelligence. Do you know if Miller contributed to the
Christopher Steele dossier on Trump/Russia?
7) Did you discuss the Trump dossier with Skripal and/or Miller?
8) Do you know whether Skripal contributed to the Trump dossier?
9) In your Newsnight piece following the Rowley/Sturgess incident, you stated that
security service sources had told you that Yulia Skripal's telephone may have been bugged.
Since January 2017, how many security service briefings or discussions have you had on any of
the matter above.
I see he is a Trustee of the Imperial War Museum. Of course. Along with Lord Ashcroft et
al. Urban was appointed by the DCMS SoS in March
That was Hancock who has been moved to Health and Social Care. Mrs May's Musical Chairs.
She is off to S Africa, Nigeria and Kenya to fix post Brexit trade deals.
As if.
She is also returning the SS Mendi's bell to S Africa who lost over 700 Africans when the
ship sank in 1917 after a collision with a Royal Mail steamship in fog on Southampton Water.
Very sad.
"The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the
purposes of 'journalism, art or literature.' The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this
information to you. Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC
and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for
'purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature". The BBC is not required to
supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC's output or information that
supports and is closely associated with these creative activities."
to a FOI request regarding why the BBC took down a report from their own Russian
correspondent. It appears to be a standard fob to any real journalists trying to get at the
truth.
The Skripal story is for the purpose of Art (of deceiving / fiction) so it does not fall
under an act dedicated to fact finding. It is an admission of fake news from the Bravda.
Everything is Deception whether Skripal or Berezhovsky or Litvinenko or Aung San Suu Kyi
or Poroshchenko – all manufactured, packaged and marketed to hide the blemishes beneath
oh and of course Armand Hammer and Al Gore; and William Browder the Media is an illusion just
as much as the Wizard of Oz
I find it impossible to watch BBC News, primarily because most of the editorial staff and
senior correspondents seem to be working for MI5/6 and are more interested in disseminating
Geo-political propaganda than upholding their journalistic responsibilities as defined in the
BBC charter. People should not only boycott the BBC but refuse to pay the license fee on the
grounds that it's a compulsory political subscription.
1 Why do you, and the BBC continue to commit war crimes Propaganda.
2 Are you accepting payment from secret sources, as your activity regarding Sergei Scripal
would
sugest
3 Why did the BBC try to ramp up the prospect of the END of Civilization as we know it,
By
stating that " North Korea has Missiles Seemingly capable of reaching the U.S. west coast
"
( fool Some Eh )
4 Have you any idea at all of the Consequences of a Nulear war with Russia
5 Why did the BBC change it's web headline on the Murder of a young pregnant
Palestinian
woman, and her 18 month old baby Daughter only moments after Irsael complained. You –
BBC – tried
then to White wash this war crime
6 Where are the Scripals Mark ?
7 Why were you ( BBC ) silent for so long on Yemen Sckool bus War Crime
8 Why does the BBC Savage, Show Blatant Bias to only one Political party in Scotland, the
SNP
9 Are the Scripals Still alive Mark ?
10 Do you think it's a good idea for Jeremy Hunt trying to declare war with Russia, whilst
in the U.S,
Who in the BBC is Callimg him out for this
11 Regarding Point '10 ' Above Do think it would be a great idea for Scotland to
become
independant, ship the Nukes to London ?
!2 What do you think of Albright's " yes the Price was worth it " quote, And Clintons Evil
, Laugh
" We came we saw He Died " A lot More people Died Didn't they Mark. With the BBC's war
crimes help
13 Your ( BBC ) Silence on the Genocides in Palestine, and Yemen are Sickening, But the
Most
Despicable thing of all, is that the U.N allow it
!4 I pity the Elite's lack of Humanity. you will Never make a Poet Mark. Have a good laugh
at that Mark
Mark Urban was wrong to present himself as an objective, uninvolved TV commentator when he
was concealing from the viewers his prior connection with Sergei Skripal.
The dyslexic, the angry and those with poor spelling have as much right to raise questions
as anyone else. I would say that they have more right to do so than has a news presenter to
mislead the public.
Mark Urban may choose not to answer those questions, but he cannot claim that the style in
which they are presented makes them invalid.
So (1) the reason Mark Urban kept his meetings with Sergei Skripal secret from the public,
(2) the date and time at which the BBC discovered that Mark Urban had met Sergei Skripal, and
(3) all correspondence between the BBC and Mark Urban on the subject of Sergei Skripal,
are all:
– "information held for the purposes of creating the BBC's output or information
that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities" .
This seems to imply that:
(1) The BBC could not have created Newsnight as was shown had it
included the specified facts.
(2) The impression that Newsnight generated (the "creative activity") would be
shattered if these facts were released as opposed to "held".
The Royal Tank Regiment used to be responsible for the chemical, biological, radiological
and nuclear (CBRN) force. In 2011 that force was downgraded to the CBRN wing (under the
responsibility of the RAF) to save money.
Our Hamish is quoted, salivating at the thought of getting the old gang together
again:
With regards to the alleged attempted murder of Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his
daughter Yulia on March 4, he told the Telegraph: "All the more sobering, therefore, to see
virtually all our remaining assets in chemical defence deployed on the streets of Salisbury
today to deal with what is probably less than an egg cup full of nerve agent.
"After Salisbury, that capability must surely be rebuilt. Much more difficult, however,
will be putting the genie of chemical and biological weapons back in its
bottle."
The Clintons are a CIA Mafia family. Hillary helped cover up the CIA role in the JFK
assassination, most specifically the arrest of George Herbert Walker Bush in Dallas. The CIA
loves to recruit sociopaths, and lined her up as Bill's "Beard". She is a lesbian, and
Chelsea is the spitting image of her real father. Huma Abedin is her lover. The Rhodes
Scholarship is part of the Anglo-American [/Zionist = Kabbalah] control system setup by Cecil
Rhodes' Business Round Table for the City of London Bankers. Bill is a bastard child of the
Rockefeller family. They also control the CIA, British Intelligence, and the Mossad. Who blew
up those buildings in NYC on 9/11. For the City of London.
Hillary was the City's candidiate of choice. What you're looking at is an ongoing coup d'etat
against the democratically elected President of the USA. Involving British Intelligence. The
Skirpals have been caught up in this, but it's also part of their beloved "Great Game"
against Russia. All leaders who work for the best interests of their country are to be
crushed. Like JFK. Like Charles de Gaulle. "PERMINDEX".
@Permindex
Thank you for your link to the Mail article. It states that Mifsud worked in Malta:
"Mifsud, a 'diplomacy' expert who specializes in energy policy issues, worked for the
Malta minis-try of foreign affairs and the education ministry in the 1990s."
It reminded me of reading that Sergei Skripal used to work in Malta when he was in the
GRU. Looking the article up again, it says that he was there in the early 1990s. However, the
same article states that he was not 'turned' until he was in his next posting in Madrid,
which he took up in 1994:
"In the early 90's, he received what was then dreamed of by every intelligence officer
– a post in the GRU's residency in Malta. A tiny country, lost in the azure waters of
the Mediterranean Sea, and its capital, Valletta, seemed after the perestroika Moscow a real
earthly paradise. But for GRU officers, Malta was primarily one of the centers of espionage.
Local counterintelligence, about which no one had heard anything, was not "underfoot" by the
numerous foreign residents and their agents, who therefore did their unsafe business
secretly."
(google translate)
"... John McCain was not acting alone. He was played a role in a bizarre charade that involved James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele. The plan behind the coup is becoming more transparent with each passing day--the intelligence community and the FBI conspired to create the false meme that Donald Trump was a puppet of the Russians and that Vladimir Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... I will try to be charitable towards John McCain at this point. Maybe the brain tumor was clouding his judgment. What is Comey's excuse? Does he have a brain tumor? ..."
"... In light of what we now know about the supposed firing of Christopher Steele and the persistent choice of the FBI to continue to use information from Steele, a proven liar, raises more questions about the integrity and competence of all FBI personnel involved in this sordid affair. ..."
"... The CNN post-speech focus that night seemed odd to me. There was not a word on Obama. CNN was entirely focused on a just released dossier that clearly showed that Trump's election and coming inauguration were problematical. Trump defeated Clinton only with Russian help! ..."
Maybe it was the brain tumor. Maybe that explains why John McCain decided to play a small
part in an attempted coup against Donald Trump. Maybe the cancer in his head accounts for his
bizarre actions in the aftermath of Donald Trump's election in November 2016. But
John McCain
was not acting alone. He was played a role in a bizarre charade that involved James Comey,
Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele. The plan behind the coup is
becoming more transparent with each passing day--the intelligence community and the FBI
conspired to create the false meme that Donald Trump was a puppet of the Russians and that
Vladimir Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton.
My initial piece on
McCain's collusion with foreign spies (13 July 2017) needs to be updated in light of what
we have learned about Christopher Steele and his relationship with the FBI and the Department
of Justice.
Let's review the new chronology of events.
From June 2016 thru 1 November 2016 , Christopher Steele was under contract to Fusion GPS
to prepare memoranda on "intelligence concerning Russian efforts to influence the US
presidential election process and links between Russia and Donald Trump. Steele produced 16
reports during that time frame.
Christopher Steele was terminated as an
FBI confidential informant on 1 November 2016 . Here is what he was told at that "final"
meeting (I've substituted Steele's name for the acronym, CHS to make your reading of this
easier):
Christopher Steele confirmed to an outside third party that he has a confidential
relationship with the FBI. Stele was used as a source for an online article. In the article,
Steele revealed his relationship with the FBI as well as information that he obtained and
provided to FBI. On November 1, 2016, Steele confirmed all of this to the handling agent. At
that time, handling agent advised Steele that the nature of the relationship between the FBI
and him would change completely and that it was unlikely that the FBI would continue a
relationship with Steele. Additionally, handling agent advised that Steele was not to operate
to obtain any intelligence whatsoever on behalf of the FBI.
After Donald Trump's election (November 8, 2016), Senator John McCain, accompanied by David
Kramer (a longtime aide), met in London with Sir Andrew Wood, a business associate of
Christopher Steele. Senator McCain was shown the 16 memoranda that had already been
shared/given to the FBI and other members of the US media.
David Kramer subsequently met on 28 November in London with Christopher Steele as given
copies of the 16 pre-election memoranda and asked by Steele to give these to Senator McCain.
Kramer, acting on behalf of Senator McCain, asked Steele to provide the Senator with any
additional intelligence about alleged Russian interference.
Christopher Steele prepared a final memo (it was dated 13 December) that made the following
fantastic claims:
Michael Cohen held a secret meeting in Prague, Czechoslovakia in August 2016 with Kremlin
operatives.
Cohen, allegedly accompanied by 3 colleagues (Not Further Identified), met with Oleg
SOLODUKHIM to discuss on how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked
in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign and various contingencies for
covering up these operations and Moscow's secret liaison with the Trump team more
generally.
In Prague, Cohen agreed (sic) contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the
operation, but in particular what was to be done in the event that Hillary Clinton won the
Presidency.
Sergei Ivanov's associate claimed that payments to hackers had been made by both Trump's
team and the Kremlin.
John McCain took all of this information and gave it to FBI Director James Comey sometime in
late December 2016 :
McCain recounts how he put the dossier in a safe in his office and called Comey's office to
request a meeting: "I went to see him at his earliest convenience, handed him the dossier,
explained how it had come into my possession.
"I said I didn't know what to make of it, and I trusted the FBI would examine it carefully
and investigate its claims. With that, I thanked the director and left. The entire meeting had
probably not lasted longer than ten minutes. I did what duty demanded I do," McCain
concludes.
I will try to be charitable towards John McCain at this point. Maybe the brain tumor was
clouding his judgment. What is Comey's excuse? Does he have a brain tumor?
Comey apparently failed to inform Senator McCain that the FBI was already aware of 16 of the
17 reports and that the source of those reports had been terminated as a confidential
informant. But then Comey then signed off on two more FISA warrants and included information
from the 13 December report in those warrants. We now know that the information flow to Comey
and the FBI was not coming via only John McCain. DOJ's number four guy, Bruce Ohr, also was
forwarding information to the FBI.
In light of what we now know about the supposed firing of Christopher Steele and the
persistent choice of the FBI to continue to use information from Steele, a proven liar, raises
more questions about the integrity and competence of all FBI personnel involved in this sordid
affair.
McCain's bizarre behavior can be excused as a by-product of a brain tumor. How do we explain
the FBI?
Apparently what we don't know is the anything about the ties between McCain or FBI, and
CNN, the media outlet which without pause has led the effort to depose Trump.
I haven't had a teevee for thirty years but I happened to be in a rented property which had
one on January 10, 2017. That was the day, ten days before Trump's (surprise) inauguration,
that two-term president Obama made his historical farewell speech. Watching teevee, I saw
that the post-speech chatter was amply covered by Fox news. But switching over to CNN, there
was nothing on Obama.
The CNN post-speech focus that night seemed odd to me. There was not a word on Obama. CNN was
entirely focused on a just released dossier that clearly showed that Trump's election and
coming inauguration were problematical. Trump defeated Clinton only with Russian help!
Trump, no doubt to CNN's displeasure, was inaugurated anyhow. CNN has continued on this theme
since that time. I do stay in rented properties occasionally and I see Jake Tapper and others
incessantly dumping on Trump.
Mirroring the title of this piece, was it McCain or FBI who informed CNN on the infamous
dossier? Did McCain give it to not only FBI but also to CNN? To me, that's more likely than
Comey doing it.
"... the United States expelled 60 diplomats back in March, and more recently they have effectively declared economic war on the Russian Federation – all in response to unproven and inconsistent assertions of a botched assassination attempt against an old spy in a quiet Wiltshire City. Such a response ought to raise the suspicions of any sentient being that all is not what it appears. ..."
"... The first question to be asked is this: What exactly does she mean by "the motive"? By including that definite article before the word "motive", she implies that there is only one "motive" – the ..."
"... it is known -- although woefully unreported because of a media ban -- that Mr Skripal was connected to the man behind the so-called Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele. Personally, I am reasonably convinced that Mr Skripal had a hand in putting this dossier together, given his connections to Steele, and since it was almost certainly authored by a Russian "trained in the KGB tradition" . ..."
"... Might this give a motive to some very powerful groups who are nervous about the origins and details of this dossier coming to light? Yes, of course. Then why is it not a line of possible enquiry? Answers on a postcard to the Department of the Blindingly Obvious. ..."
"... Mrs May had no right to state that the Russian Federation had "the motive". The best she could have said at that stage, without taking other possibilities into account, was that they had "a motive". The motive she does present is particularly feeble and does not explain why the Russian Federation would have wanted Mr Skripal in particular dead, and at that particular time. Mr Skripal's recent activities indicate that there were others with possible motives to assassinate or incapacitate him. dmonished 2 February 2016 by his FBI handler. This was in vault dump. ..."
"... If Sergei was Steele's only "source" obviously his disappearance was essential. ..."
"... My first question is : who is protecting Chris Steele right now ? I think it´s MI6. But I don´t think that they are happy to be forced to do that. Maybe there was an order of UK government to hide Steele. Because he meddled in some other things not related to the Dossier, but to Cambridge Analytica and Brexit and Fifa and . ..."
"... Don't understand why standard clean-up operations for fentanyl poisoning are ignored here. it includes protective clothing and hosing down public areas where the fentanyl may be present. Sunday evening clean-up at Maltings was SOP for fentanyl. This is not mysterious. ..."
"... Moving from a fentanyl od diagnosis to an unknown agent occurred Sunday evening. SDH stated that in the announcements on Monday. ..."
"... I am beginning to wonder if Bailey was even poisoned at all. Was it all just a PR exercise? Was he told to get himself to hospital on Tuesday morning so that the nerve agent story would have at least one other person involved. If he was feeling ill, why did he drive himself to hospital – he could have collapsed at any second! ..."
"... Two SDH physicians had a completed training in a highly specialized program at Porton Down shortly before 4 Mar. It's been hinted that one or both were on duty 4 Mar. ..."
"... Having followed your excellent blog for some weeks now, I've become convinced that there are four distinct elements to this affair: two opposing clandestine ops, an almost unbelievably idiotic false flag charade, and a random death:- ..."
"... 1. Operation 'Let's Keep Tabs on Sergei'. Run by MI5/6/SB to make sure their double agent doesn't come to any harm or become a triple agent. Electronic tagging, email monitoring, phone tapping, and friendly chats ever now and then. Worked well for years, then the wheels fell off on 4th March. ..."
"... 2. Operation 'Let's Extract Skripal'. Run by an unknown security agency but possibly contracted out to another. Deniable soft extraction so he could be wheeled out later to give evidence concerning the Trump Dossier, with or without his co-operation. The plan included his daughter, because she was needed to ensure Sergei said what he was supposed to say when the time came. Phase One carried out successfully on 4th March. Phase Two delayed by HMG playing silly games, but eventually mission was accomplished. ..."
"... 3. The 'Let's Blame Putin' Charade. When MI6 reported to its ultimate boss that an ex-Russian spy had been poisoned, Boris would have rightly assumed the culprits were probably Russian. But then, remembering how Lavrov humiliated him at that press conference in Moscow last December, he decided to make sure Russia did get the blame and take the rap for it. With the help of the new inexperienced Defence Secretary and others, he came up with a hastily and ill-conceived plan to show that the poison could have only come from Russia, ensuring Russia's guilt. The Home Secretary at the time, Amber Rudd, did not buy into it so had to be replaced, but others – including the overworked Theresa May – were taken in. The narrative quickly fell apart, but having persuaded the world and his wife of Putin's guilt, there was no going back. The hole Boris dug just got deeper. And all the evidence – or the lack of it – had to be destroyed. No wonder Boris resigned. ..."
When I began writing about the Skripal case, I was moved to do so by three main
considerations.
Firstly, I really am passionate for the truth, and whatever the truth happens
to be in this case, I strongly desire it to be made manifest. It was clear to
me fairly early on that this was not happening.
Secondly, I am also very passionate about concepts such as the rule of law,
innocent until proven guilty, and the apparently quaint notion that investigations
should precede verdicts, rather than the other way around. And so when I saw
accusations being made before the investigation had hardly begun, verdicts
being reached before the facts were established, I was appalled --
appalled that this was happening in what we British pride ourselves is the Mother
of Parliaments, and equally appalled that this meant the investigation was inevitably
prejudiced and – pardon the expression – poisoned from the off.
Thirdly, the incident happened to have taken place pretty much on my doorstep,
which made it of even more interest to me.
Nothing I have seen in the intervening time has persuaded me that my initial
impressions were wrong. In fact, the whiff of rodent I first detected has only
become stronger as time has gone on and the case has become -- frankly -- farcical.
Not only that, but the reaction to the case has been simply incredible. For
instance, the United States expelled 60 diplomats back in March, and more recently
they have effectively declared economic war on the Russian Federation – all
in response to unproven and inconsistent assertions of a botched assassination
attempt against an old spy in a quiet Wiltshire City. Such a response ought
to raise the suspicions of any sentient being that all is not what it appears.
I still do not have any clear idea of what happened on that day, but what
I am certain of is that the official narrative is not only untrue, but it is
manifestly inconceivable that it could be true. There are simply too many inconsistencies,
too many holes and far too many unexplained events for it to be true. And whilst
part of me would dearly love to leave this wretched case behind for a while,
whilst it is still ongoing, and especially as it is now being used to push us
even closer to the brink of war (economic warfare is often a prelude to military
warfare), I find that hard to do.
What I would therefore like to do in a series of 10 short pieces over the
next couple of weeks or so, is attempt to expose some of the very many holes
in the official narrative. At the end of it, I may well put it all together
into one PDF, so that it can be sent somewhere, where it can be completely ignored
by those that matter. Enjoy!
"In conclusion, as I have set out, no other country has a combination
of the capability, the intent and the motive to carry out such an act."
For the purposes of this piece, I am not interested in her comments on capability
or intent, but simply what she describes as "the motive".
The first question to be asked is this: What exactly does she mean by "the
motive"? By including that definite article before the word "motive", she implies
that there is only one "motive" – the motive – and that only one party
– the Russian Federation – possessed this. Which is of course manifest nonsense.
She might at that stage have said that they possessed "a motive", but without
looking into what Mr Skripal was up to, and the contacts he had, she was in
no position to state that they had " the motive".
Imagine the following scenario: A farmer called Boggis is found shot dead
in his barn. It is known that a week earlier, he had a very public quarrel with
another landowner, Bunce, about the boundaries between their lands, and that
the two of them had to be separated before they came to blows. Could it be said
of Bunce that he had "the motive"? Well, it would be reasonable to suggest that
he had "a motive", but without looking into other circumstances and other characters
connected with Boggis, it would be disingenuous to claim that he had "the motive"
as if only he might have had one.
As it happens, Boggis had been committing adultery with the wife of another
neighbouring farmer called Bean, and Bean had found out about this two days
before Boggis was found dead. What now? Does Bean have a motive? Very possibly.
So too might Boggis' wife. Perhaps even Bunce's wife. Who knows without examining
the facts more closely?
And so herein lies the first whiff of rodent. Mrs May asserted that the Russian
Federation possessed "the motive", implying that there was only one possibility,
which is something that could only be ascertained by proper investigation of
Mr Skripal, his circumstances and what he was up to. She therefore committed
what is a most basic fallacy in the investigative process.
The second question to ask is this: she says she set out "the motive" in
her speech, but what actually was that? Here is what she presented as the motive
in her speech:
"We know that Russia has a record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations
– and that it views some former intelligence officers as legitimate targets
for these assassinations."
This won't do. Firstly, many countries have records of conducting state-sponsored
assassinations, and not always against their own nationals. But secondly, the
claim that the Russian Federation "views some former intelligence officers as
legitimate targets for these assassinations" is not a motive. At best it is
a claim, but it is not a motive. A motive for an attempted murder, such as this,
would need to give a reason for carrying it out on that particular person at
that particular time. Simply saying that they view some former intelligence
officers as legitimate targets for these assassinations does not explain why
they are supposed to have decided to assassinate this particular man, at this
particular time, especially since they released and pardoned him in 2010. It
also does not explain why they apparently decided to wreck all possible future
spy swaps, since Mr Skripal had been part of such a deal, and assassinating
him would put an end to such deals.
But the most important question to ask is this: are there any other parties
with a possible motive for this crime? Even without a particularly careful investigation
of the details of Mr Skripal's life, contacts and circumstances, I can say assuredly
that there were. For instance, it is known -- although woefully unreported because
of a media ban -- that Mr Skripal was connected to the man behind the so-called
Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele. Personally, I am reasonably convinced that
Mr Skripal had a hand in putting this dossier together, given his connections
to Steele, and since it was almost certainly
authored by a Russian "trained in the KGB tradition" .
Might this give a
motive to some very powerful groups who are nervous about the origins and details
of this dossier coming to light? Yes, of course. Then why is it not a line of
possible enquiry? Answers on a postcard to the Department of the Blindingly
Obvious.
In summary:
Mrs May had no right to state that the Russian Federation had "the motive".
The best she could have said at that stage, without taking other possibilities
into account, was that they had "a motive". The motive she does present is particularly
feeble and does not explain why the Russian Federation would have wanted Mr
Skripal in particular dead, and at that particular time. Mr Skripal's recent
activities indicate that there were others with possible motives to assassinate
or incapacitate him. dmonished 2 February 2016 by his FBI handler. This was
in vault dump.
Fusion GPS only got contract from Hillary April 2016, who then subcontracted
to Steele.
But Steele was FBI asset prior to dossier being started. Was he an asset or
a feeder of MI6 disinformation into US politics/intelligence?
That McCain ended up giving the dossier to Comey, when that dossier was written
by a supposed FBI "asset" would indicate the latter. If Sergei was Steele's only "source" obviously his disappearance was essential.
"CC Pritchard said officers at the scene underwent a "decontamination process"
at Salisbury District Hospital overnight on Sunday and into Monday morning,
after details of the attack became clearer."
But didn't Bailey drive himself in only because he said he didn't feel
well sometime on Monday evening?
@Jo. Yes, one version of the story says Bailey and two colleagues were checked
out at the hospital and then discharged, but that Bailey drove himself back
after feeling unwell and was readmitted.
I want to present my own thoughts on party A and B, that some posters here
have developed.
My first question is : who is protecting Chris Steele right now ?
I think it´s MI6. But I don´t think that they are happy to be forced to
do that.
Maybe there was an order of UK government to hide Steele. Because he meddled
in some other things not related to the Dossier, but to Cambridge Analytica
and Brexit and Fifa and .
MI6 has to hide the Skripals, too. The reason is simply to prevent that
Steele, Miller and the Skripals will ever be interrogated by the Trump fraction.
The dodgy dossier became a heavy burden on the UK Government since Steele
became known as the author.
It is an open secret that the UK Government has secretly done everything
possible to prevent Trump's presidency. Who knows what else will come to
light ?
In another post I had mentioned the role of Alexandra Chalupa and her
Ukraine connection. She's an ambassador to the Ukraine for the DNC.
Chalupa collected dirt on Paul Manaford for a long time.She emailed DNC that she'll share sensitive info about Paul Manafort "offline"
including "a big Trump component that will hit in next few weeks" (which
never happened, at least by Alexandra Chalupa).
Then her private Yahoo email account was hacked and a few days later DNC
fired Chalupa. WHY ? Maybe because DNC needed to keep her activities off-site,
where a FOIA can't touch them ?
But what happened on the very day Chalupa is fired ? Oh, Christopher Steele
is hired. What a coincidence.
And what happens FIVE DAYS after Christopher Steele was hired ? Oh, he publishes
his first report on his dossier, a report that discusses FIVE YEARS of investigation.
I mention Chalupa, because I strongly suspect that much of the Trump
dossier goes back to Chalupa's research. These, in turn, are based largely
on information provided by the Ukrainian intelligence service SBU.
The DNC wanted to use this information against Trump, but they couldn´t
use Chalupa as the source. So the idea was born to hire Steele for the job.
Outsourcing.
The FBI has probably contacted its loyal vassal MI6 and discreetly referred
to "common interests".
Steele then changed the dossier to obfuscate Chalupa's authorship. But he
made decisive mistakes.
One mistake may have been to involve Sergei to some extent.
So I'm assuming that FBI and MI6 have a common interest in preventing
Steele, Miller and the Skripals from speaking.
Maybe MI6 contacted Sergei some time before and offered him to change his
identity. But Sergei refused. However, he was now alarmed and made plans
to return to Russia.
A dilemma for FBI and MI6. They now had to find another way to prevent Sergei
from speaking.
The idea of a Russian nerve agent was born. That killed two birds with one
stone.
Who executed the plan ?
FBI alone
MI6 alone
FBI and MI6 together
A third party that was willing to support the plan. This third party could well be from Ukraine. They hate Russia, they feared
that their share of the Trump dossier could come to light.
Moreover, in the West, they can not distinguish well between Ukrainians
and Russians if the perpetrators were unmasked.
Moreover, various sources, including the German BND, have pointed out that
Ukraine may still have Novichok stocks.
Bailey's job was to shadow the Skripals and report it. But he knew nothing
of the plan.
I think, the attack itself happened in or around the Mill Pub and Bailey
witnessed it.
However, I have no idea if the attack was done open or hidden.
I guess hidden. Something contaminated was being smuggled into the red bag,
perhaps already in the Zizzi, which the Skripals then discovered, wondering
how it came in the bag, and what both were touching.
Bailey was contaminated later, when he touched the same item (maybe a perfume
in gift wrapping) inside the red bag ?
In the run up to and including the war of the Iraq II WMD Debacle, Mi6
were fractured, even the bosses Dearlove and Scarlett that were running
their own pro Blair operations in conflict with the rest of the service.
Dearlove and Scarlett had their own objectives which were not comparable
with each other (personal and professional but mainly personal) or the rest
of their service.
Mi6, Mi5, DiS (or whatever they are all called now) with GCHQ have their
own infighting and conflicts of interest; within themselves, their sister
services, commercial / pension interests and those of the government ..
And of course what is in the best interest of the nation. (the police forces
are inconvenient uneducated, unfocussed rabbles that get in the way if they
involve themselves in anything more than issuing speeding fines)
Add to that Ministers fighting each other, Labour MP's trying harder
to bring down Corbyn than May, the Israeli and US interests ever present
wherever you look.
And top that with the US shambolic lessons to all other developed governments
in the world and the examples they display of their own decorum. Clinton
v Trump. FBI v CIA. (How many intelligence services are there? How many
agendas have they got?) And the Sickly twisted occultist hand the CIA has
in global drug production / distribution, unmetered oil windfalls, blackmail
scams (honey traps, murder, vice, paedophilia). An organisation with limitless
wealth and income streams, zero conscience, morality or single objective
other than to control the surf / goyim / proletariat. No objectives other
than to invoke misery, pain, suffering and death with crime, wickedness,
fear and perpetual global wars so the elite can remain that way and enjoy
their rewards.
And we wonder why Salisbury happened, what it is about, who is doing
something about it, why are they lying and covering up, who is to blame?
Sputnik makes an unfortunate choice of words in trying to paraphrase the
Guardian article:
"The spokesman for Salisbury district hospital, where Charlie Rowley was
taken, told The Guardian that *none* of the hospital's patients was receiving
any nerve agent-related treatment at the moment."
The Guardian article actually says,
"The hospital said it could not speak about individual cases but stressed
it was not treating anyone for the effects of novichok poisoning at the
moment."
So, nine, not nether.
More interesting is that the truth of the strained relationship between
Charlie and his brother is becoming more apparent. A mutual friend told
me a few weeks back that Charlie was estranged from his family by choice.
Hearing that put a very different perspective on his brother's effusively
confusing statements to the press.
Regarding the family relationship, when Charlie was in court for drug dealing
last year (?) he was additionally charged with stealing Ł2,000 (I think
that was the amount) from Mr Matthew Rowley. So I too remain to be convinced
of the 'brotherly love'.
" he was additionally charged with stealing Ł2,000 (I think that was the
amount) from Mr Matthew Rowley". That, to me, is a very odd fact. We are
told that Charlie is a drug addict on his uppers (i.e. skint), yet he had
Ł2000 that his brother (perhaps with an underlying motive to put Chalie
on cold turkey – oh, wait, oink, , flap, , oink, , flap, ) sought to relieve
him of responsibility for it.
As to the mangling of the message mentioned by lissnup, both the Guardian
and Sputnik would probably have got the original story from PA, following
which they would then have put their own brand of spin on it.
The identity of the Skripals in contained in the witness statements – those
who were present at the time and clearly saw them:
FEMALE DOCTOR: "A doctor who was one of the first people at the scene
has described how she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting
and fitting. She had also lost control of her bodily functions. The woman,
who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery
position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father. She said
she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical
agent on Ms Skripal's face or body. The doctor said she had been worried
she would be affected by the nerve agent but added that she "feels fine."
She clearly states that she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a
bench, vomiting and fitting and that she had lot control of her bodily functions.
I don't know of anyone who has the ability to spontaneously evacuate their
bladder and bowl at will, more especially a female in front of a crowd on
onlookers. The doctor put her in the recovery position, that means on her
side, so there would have been visible evidence of Yulia having lost control
of her bodily functions.
FREYA CHURCH: "Sixteen minutes later [that is, after being seen on CCTV],
personal trainer Freya Church, 27, came across the victims slumped on a
bench. She said they seemed 'out of it' and assumed they were on drugs.
"It was a young, blonde and pretty girl and it was definitely the man that's
been pictured in the news – the guy that's a spy. She was passed out and
he was looking up to the sky and I tried to get eye contact to see if they
were okay. They didn't seem with it. To be honest I thought they were just
drugged out as they were in a weird state. There are lots of homeless people
here so I just thought they were homeless."
Freya Church clearly identifies them, "It was a young, blonde and pretty
girl and it was definitely the man that's been pictured in the news – the
guy that's a spy." She also says "I tried to get eye contact to see if they
were okay", so she had a clear view of their faces.
Destiny Reynolds, 20, who works in Ganesha Handicrafts in the centre,
said: "I saw quite a lot of commotion – there were two people sat on the
bench and there was a security guard there. They put her on the ground in
the recovery position, and she was shaking like she was having a seizure.
It was a bit manic. There were a lot of people crowded round them. It was
raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them over them."
She says "It was raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them
over them." so these too would have had a clear view of the Skripal's faces.
Not one of these people, or the other witnesses, has come forward to
say it wasn't the Skripals, unlike DS Bailey, they are not subject to a
gagging order by way of the The Official Secrets Act.
All these witnesses would have assumed they were the Skripals because the
media claimed that they were. So did the Wiltshire police at least, at that
time. This is not of evidential value.
Freya Church has been proven to be an unrelaible witness. Destiny Reynolds
may not have had a clear view of their faces at all, especially as she said
that there was quite a lot of commotion, and "There were a lot of people
crowded round them. It was raining, people had umbrellas and were putting
them over them." How far away was she?
I'm also suspicious of that anonymous 'female nurse'. I had read that
this first responder was a 'male nurse' too. Apparently, s/he was a military
nurse, and had had experience with the African Ebola outbreak. S/he apparently
spent 30 minutes with the Skripals! Was it her who made the original emergency
call?
Besides, descriptions differ. CCTV evidence has been suppressed, and
that alone suggests that they were not the Skripals, and so does the police
interest in the Market walk footage. So, no, I'm not at all convinced.
I've not read any posts here since last night, so this post must be read
bearing that in mind.
I briefly replied to John Bull's four points, but I'd like to say more
on this. His first point related to the surveillance op being conducted
on Sergei. I said more or less that this would have been standard procedure
in this type of case, and the work would have been carried out by MI5 watchers.
In 2006 Special Branch was merged with the Met's Anti Terrorism Branch to
become the Counter Terrorism Command, and I'm pretty sure that DS Bailey
would have been seconded to that organisation, and that he was Sergei's
'front-line' case officer. His roles would be to protect Sergei (an SIS
asset) and to pass on intelligence to MI5's regional liaison officer at
Bristol.
Now John Bull was assuming that those involved in this operation were
one of two competing parties. The second party being covered in his second
point. This is where I disagree. I don't count MI5's role here as being
one of the two parties, for it is at least theoretically neutral.
The other party is not neutral, and that is MI6. It is MI6 who were (and
still probably are) acting in competition with the unknown group. Both groups
were involved in planning a their own Skripal operations prior to 4th March.
Let's call this unknown group, Group X – This shadowy group represents certain
US political interests.
This is what I said in my original post (19th at 3.50pm) that first brought
the dual-party theory into the light:
"Let's suppose [the film] was their source of poisoning inspiration.
Let's also suppose that two competing groups became involved at different
stages. Let's say there was a pre-planned, well-organised operation prepared
by group A, but when group B somehow learnt of it, a hurried attempt was
made by group B to scupper group A's plan – which might have failed. Just
speculation, but it would account for many anomalies. These two groups could
be two different intelligence agences, or one of them possibly being a rogue
faction within an intelligence agency".
This remains the bare bones of my theory, and I was deliberately being
rather coy about it at the time. Of course, another party that quickly became
involved in all this is the British parliament itself, and I suspect that
MI6 sought urgent advice from government ministers when they realised Group
X's intentions. (They would have only given them information on a need-to-know
basis). MI6, wanting to protect their assets as well as Britain's interests,
attempted to neutralise Group X's plan at short notice. It was the hurried
nature of all this, along with extreme political pressure, that caused mistakes
to be made. Secret heated discussions between the US, UK and *French* governments
have no doubt been going on about this situation ever since 4th March.
I could say much more, but for now, I'll try and catch up with a long
backlog of posts !
Competing groups might explain the 15:47 CCTV image if it was indeed Sturgess
and Rowley, not the Skripals. If the Skripals were to be whisked away alive,
a couple who could be mistaken for them, walking in a direction away from
the point of disappearance and after it could be used, should the need arise,
to deflect from the real circumstances by Group A. However, Group B, hastily
interfering with Group A's plan, causes a public scene, making the red herring
couple a liability instead of an asset – which might explain the release
of the footage (part of Group A's original plan) but the lack of an appeal
for help by local authorities (because the plan was FUBAR, making the pre-planned
release of the CCTV footage a mistake).
Miheila, I am not surprised to hear MI5 are in Bristol.
Two other odd occurrences doing to mind. The cricketer Ben Stokes' charging
decision being inexplicably sent to London.
Thanks Noone very interesting. I signed this too, about ending the 'special
relationship', (which in my opinion was toxic and one-sided ever since it
began):
https://action.larouchepac.com/declassifyukdocs
Brexiteers go on so much about 'British sovereignty', yet they ignore
the fact that Britain has effectively been a vassal of the USA for decades.
I'm not saying Kier Prichard did it on his own, and the Met have their burden
to carry, but what this man has achieved in such a short time is truly breathtaking.
Wilts police are now a laughing stock, not just in Salisbury or Wilts
but the UK and internationally. The public trust level must be as low as
it can possibly get. The rank and file must be suffering humiliation, worthlessness,
shame and depression. Motivation must be zero.
What a jerk, why do that to yourself, your reputation, your family, your
colleagues, your force of 20 20 years ? Is he really that thick, so stupid
that he couldn't see this coming and when he did he had a chance to say
enough is enough or is that side of his character so flawed that he is either
too cowardly or just unaware of what people think of him?
"ACC Pritchard said: "I have a huge sense of pride taking over the reigns
as Temporary Chief Constable for a force I have served for more than 20
years.
At least Basu has had the good grace to keep his mouth shut and go into
hiding.
I can't see how he (and others ) can avoid criminal prosecutions but
it won't be long until the civil prosecutions begin which will cost the
tax payers dear. But those who are involved can expect (if they do manage
to stay out of jail) to now spend much of the rest of their lives fighting
litigation
They brought it on themselves and unfortunately us but none more so than
Dawn.
Justice for Dawn!
"Mike has been a fantastic leader and he leaves us in great shape – both
in terms of engagement amongst officers and staff and, externally, as evidenced
in our strong Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue
Services (HMICFRS) gradings.
"We are blessed with outstanding officers, staff and volunteers across
our organisation who achieve great things every day and who strive to provide
an excellent service to all of our communities.
"Now is the time to look forward and to continue, as we've always done,
with our values and communities at the heart of everything we do.""
Peter, They are all useless. It seems to be the only qualification needed
these days. Now Jeremy Hunt is calling for more sanctions on Russia – this
simply proves that he is ignorant as well as useless.
For years Russia has been dedollarising; Russia will manage just fine
with more British sanctions (and American sanctions for that matter) and
the most damage will be done to British companies that will be shut out
of Russia – not because of anything Russia has done but because of what
their own idiotic government has done.
TPTB are cretins!
With immediate effect, I am starting a personal 'buy Russian' campaign.
If I find anything in the shops that is 'made in Russa', I will buy it in
preference to anything made in the EU. Every little helps!
Ditto. There is another country that I and my relatives never buy fresh
produce from, always going for South African or South American alternatives,
or – if they're unavailable – going without. I can't say publicly which
country as I might get a visit from the boys in blue!
CF
Alexander Goldfarb is/was a friend of Sergei Skripal, Alexander Litvinenko,
Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov.
Associated with George Soros :
Goldfarb was among the first group of Russian exiles in New York whom Soros
invited to brainstorm his potential Foundation in Russia. In 1991 Goldfarb
persuaded Soros to donate $100 million to help former Soviet scientists
survive the hardships of the economic shock therapy adopted by the Yeltsin
government.
From 1992 to 1995, Goldfarb was Director of Operations at Soros' International
Science Foundation, with many more Soros projects to follow.
Here is a chronology of Goldfarb's press statements.
One gets the impression that he has prompted TM how to argue.
March 6
Quote : Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, Mr Goldfarb said:
"The Russian secret services and the regime of Mr Putin had the motive and
the opportunity to do this. And they did it before. I mean, it's only natural
for any reasonable person to suspect them."
Mr Goldfarb, a close friend of killed dissident Alexander Litvinenko, said
he has a theory as to why Russia could be behind the latest alleged poisoning.
The microbiologist and activist said it is not a spy theory but instead
a political move.
He said: "It is a political motivation and it has to do with the elections
of the President, which will happen in Russia in about ten days from now
and the major problem for Putin is the turnout because his main opponent
has been barred from participating and he has called for a boycott of the
elections.
"So Mr Putin is worried there are few people who come people who are apathetic
in Russia so this will be used regardless of whether Putin did it or not.
"He has a way to invigorate his nationalistic and extremely anti-western
rhetoric."
Mr Goldfarb said the "majority" of Russians would perceive the "poisoning"
as the right thing to do as they view Putin as a leader that can "get his
enemies wherever they are across the globe."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/927751/Russian-spy-poisoned-Salisbury-London-Alexander-Litvinenko-Sergei-Skripal-Putin-spy-swap
March 8
Quote : Former-spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter and a policeman have been
poisoned in Salisbury in what is suspected to be a state-sponsored hit.
But it is not the first time this has happened as Alexander Litvinenko,
who was former Russian secret service officer who defected to the west,
died in November 2006 after he drank tea laced with radioactive polonium-210
at the Millenium Hotel in Mayfair.
His friend Alex Goldfarb appeared on Newsnight to warn that it was the inaction
from the UK on the Litvinenko murder which led to the recent suspected attempted
assassination.
Mr Goldfarb said: "For 10 years the British Government refused to admit
that the Litvinenko murder was a state-sponsored crime and up to the very
public inquiry which happened in 2016 they maintained this is just a regular
criminal matter.
"The moment an English judge ruled that it was a state-sponsored murder
and in all probability ordered by Putin David Cameron went on TV and said,
'we knew it from day one'.
"So they were trying to keep it quiet to not to annoy Putin and they invited
other attacks like this.
"If the response now will be the same, only words without any actions, there
will be a third and a fourth attempt."
He added: "I would pick the Putin theory because he is the only one who
had a motive and an opportunity too and he has been shown beyond any reasonable
doubt to be involved in the previous assassination – I mean Litvinenko who
was my friend.
"He has a motive. His motive is the elections which are coming in about
10 days and there is a very low turnout expected and he needs to energise
his nationalistic, anti-western electorate."
"So, he wants to portray himself as a tough guy who can get his enemies
anywhere in the world and who has been presenting himself as the only thing
that is protecting Russia and the Russians from the plotting and the scheming
of the west."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/928729/bbc-newsnight-russia-spy-war-bbc-news-Sergei-Skripal-assassination-latest-Putin
March 17 DailyNewsUSA
Quote : Alex Goldfarb, a friend of both men as well as a prominent critic
of Russia, insisted Vladimir Putin must have ordered both hits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwpV7n-rLTU
March 18
Quote : Police insist they have discovered no connection between the strangling
of former businessman Nikolai Glushkov, 68, at his London home last Monday
and the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury
a fortnight ago.
But Alex Goldfarb, a friend of both men as well as a prominent critic of
Russia, insisted Vladimir Putin must have ordered both hits.
Mr Goldfarb told BBC Radio 4: 'There is no connection in a forensic sense
probably, but if you look at the larger picture of politics, I am convinced
that no murder of this sort could have happened without the personal approval
of Putin or some of his immediate deputies.'
Mr Goldfarb was also close to former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, who
was murdered with radioactive polonium-210 in London, and exiled tycoon
Boris Berezovsky, who was found dead at his Surrey home in suspicious circumstances.
'All of these in my view have the common denominator of Mr Putin flexing
his muscle,' said Mr Goldfarb, a scientist who lives in New York.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5514213/Murder-Putin-critic-linked-Skripal-nerve-agent-attack.html
Could you elaborate on those similarities please? I've had a look but didn't
see any. The CCTV footage is terrible quality but what "image" I get does
not coincide with available photos of Glushkov.
Goldfarb is certainly a person to be avoided – with friends like that
who needs enemies? Litvinenko's dad suspects Goldfarb was his son's assassin.
The claim is made in that youtube video that Goldfarb was Skripal's friend
as well. It would not be a surprise but it would be good to obtain confirmation.
I agree, Liane, and have commented here about it. Glushkov has a young,
pretty, blonde daughter. I am not sure if it was the same daughter who reportedly
discovered his body.
"I would like to reassure you all that Nick is receiving medical intervention
and care from highly specialist medical practitioners experienced in these
matters."
Why did Pritchard say "highly specialist medical practitioners experienced
in these matters" instead of something less specific? Who are these "highly
specialist" and "experienced" practitioners? The medics at SDH were quite
humble in the Newsnight programme – I am sure none of them would regard
themselves as 'highly specialist and experienced' in treating a nerve agent.
JOBS HOMES MOTORS Book an AdBusiness directory Local Info DatingExchange
and Mart
NewsJobsSportYour Say
9
MENU
NEWS5th JuneKier Pritchard says DS Nick Bailey poisoned at Skripal house
Exclusive by Rebecca Hudson @JournalRebecca
EXCLUSIVE
Dt Sgt Nick Bailey.
DETECTIVE Sergeant Nick Bailey was poisoned with a nerve agent when he
and other officers attended Sergei Skripal's home looking for evidence including
signs of drug use or suicide notes.
9
Chief Constable Kier Pritchard told the Journal he had watched evidence
from body-worn cameras used by officers who first attended the scene on
March 4, and that their response to the incident was "first class".
"We would not have known from those first hours what we were dealing
with. At that time we didn't know, and why would they, if there was anything
other than a medical incident, or something that was drug-related or something
more sinister," he said.
CC Pritchard said DS Bailey was one of a team of officers who attended Mr Skripal's home in Christie Miller Road, after the Russian former-spy
and his daughter were found slumped on a bench in the city three months
ago.
He said officers were looking for information to establish a timeline
of events and explain why the Skripals had fallen "gravely ill", as well
as making sure there was nobody else affected.
"That [information] could be a suicide note, it could be evidence of
drugs, it could be evidence of some form of substance," CC Pritchard added.
And he said DS Bailey (pictured) and his family are still receiving support
from Wiltshire Police.
CC Pritchard said: "Nick has been to Wiltshire Police headquarters, he
came in last week and that was a very positive step forward.
"This has been a long three months for many of us can you just imagine
the impact on your children and your wife and your family life when all
you're trying to do is your job? My heart absolutely goes out to Nick and
his family over all that they've suffered."
CC Pritchard said officers at the scene underwent a "decontamination
process" at Salisbury District Hospital overnight on Sunday and into Monday
morning, after details of the attack became clearer.
And, following that, Wiltshire Police set up a "welfare cell" to help
affected officers understand and work through the psychological effects
of the attack.
"We have supported over 90 members of our staff in either one to one
sessions or group meetings," CC Pritchard revealed. "Of course one of those
90 will be Nick Bailey".
CC Pritchard shared his pride in Wiltshire Police, and the citizens of
Salisbury, for their response to the "colossal events".
"We [Wiltshire Police] have the ability and the confidence to be able
to deal with international and global issues. I hope that provides real
confidence to the public of how proud they can be.
"And I want to put on record how proud I am of the community of Salisbury.
They have demonstrated the true brilliance of a community.
"Despite a global issue, and despite the massive impact, the way the
Salisbury general public has responded has been exemplary."
'Spacemen' in The Maltings on Sunday evening officers at the scene underwent
a "decontamination process" at Salisbury District Hospital overnight on
Sunday and into Monday morning
Why would that be? SDH suspected a nerve agent by 6am Monday morning,
not Sunday evening.
The only way anyone could have suspected more than a drug overdose on
Sunday would have been prior knowledge but if someone had prior knowledge
and did not ensure that ALL emergency responders were protected, that would
not just be negligent
The only way anyone could have suspected more than a drug overdose on
Sunday would have been prior knowledge
Yes and no. Don't understand why standard clean-up operations for fentanyl
poisoning are ignored here. it includes protective clothing and hosing down
public areas where the fentanyl may be present. Sunday evening clean-up
at Maltings was SOP for fentanyl. This is not mysterious.
Moving from a fentanyl od diagnosis to an unknown agent occurred Sunday
evening. SDH stated that in the announcements on Monday.
Liane, it wasn't just protective clothing it was the full 'moonsuit' but
not everyone wore one. When I mentioned prior knowledge, I was thinking
of Rob's idea that British intelligence might have got wind of an FBI/CIA
plot to use an agent from Porton Down. If there been any prior knowledge,
then allowing any first responders to be at the scene not wearing full hazmat
gear, would have been a crime in itself.
Remember that Kier Pritchard had his first day on duty on March 5. Maybe
he was not well informed about Bailey´s part in the case.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu has taken over from Mark Rowley
as the new Assistant Commissioner responsible for leading counter terrorism
nationally on March 5.
March 1 a new temporary assistant chief constable has been selected at Wiltshire
Police. ACC Craig Holden joined Kier Pritchard.
So who was Bailey´s supervisor on March 4 ? Deputy Chief Constable Paul
Mills ?
I am beginning to wonder if Bailey was even poisoned at all. Was it all
just a PR exercise? Was he told to get himself to hospital on Tuesday morning
so that the nerve agent story would have at least one other person involved. If he was feeling ill, why did he drive himself to hospital – he could
have collapsed at any second!
If it was a bit of LARPing, that would at least explain why he didn't
need a tracheostomy.
I am beginning to wonder if Bailey was even poisoned at all.
My guess is that he wasn't. He felt ill and as instructed went to the
hospital on Tuesday to get checked out. Game was on at that point; so, he
was put in a bed for observation and not allowed to leave. Drugged. That
would be surreal, wouldn't it?
As I followed this segment in real time, there was a sense of elation
in the media that they had a third victim. A first responder. Then they
scrambled trying to explain what a DS would have been doing at Maltings;
so, they switched it to he was at the house. Then there were questions as
to why it took so long for the alleged poison to effect him. Somehow that
got dropped as they continued to make different claims about where he'd
been; finally settling on both Maltings and the house.
Paul and Marie, if Bailey was not poisoned the OPCW has to lie !
They took blood samples of all three on March 22. After that Bailey was
released.
I´m convinced that Bailey was poisoned with the same nerve agent, whatever
agent that might be.
The OPCW did not lie – but they were deceived. The OPCW says they checked the identities of the individuals they tested
against IDs. How hard would it be for the government to issue a passport
on the 'name' of Nicholas Bailey?
This raises the question again of how the OPCW acquired the samples they
took away with them. As I understand it the OPCW scientists who came to
the UK are not clinically trained – they are effectively lab technicians
– so they do not have the training to "take" samples from patients. They
are reported as "collecting samples" but to my knowledge from reading other
reports and articles it was UK medical staff who "took" the samples – and
then handed them over to the OPCW. Even if they took the samples in front
of the OPCW, I bet at some point they said something along the lines of
"Oh hang on a minute, I just need to go and put labels on these phials back
in a minute".
Two SDH physicians had a completed training in a highly specialized program
at Porton Down shortly before 4 Mar. It's been hinted that one or both were
on duty 4 Mar.
But Bailey did not check in until 6 March. Were PD specialists there throughout?
Why didn't they just take the patients to PD instead of risking contaminating
a public hospital?
I recall reading at some point that Bailey drove himself to SDH on Monday
morning. Try as I might, however, I couldn't find it again. I know there
is a comment on MoonOfAlabama mentioning the same thing but it does not
have a link.
Then Mark Urban said in the Newsnight programme that Bailey drove himself
there on Tuesday morning .
Those were not PD specialists but SDH physicians that had received PD
training. That might be in addition to PD scientists that SDH spokespersons
have said were there as well. So, plenty of professionals focused on nerve
agent poisoning could have been there during the first 36 hours.
SDH had a whole new unoccupied wing they could have commandeered to isolate
the patients. Also to keep regular SDH staff and their eyes away from the
patients as well. Wouldn't that be preferable to transporting them to PD
with so many eyes watching?
But that was my original point. A training course does not make anyone:
"highly specialist medical practitioners experienced in these matters" Where does the 'experience in the matters' come from?
I'm posting this reply to Max_B here because this is the second time that
there's been no 'reply' option to his posts. No idea why, but the blue word
inthe corner is missing.
If you really "don't care", Max_B, then why on earth are you making such
a fuss over it ? I do care. And after accusing me of getting my facts wrong
(over Lavrov) you apologise to newcomer (Новичoк) Cherrycoke only when s/he
corrected you. Maybe you forgot.
Anyway, you say: "Fentanyl's and Carfentanil *are* nerve agents, I understand
you want to rely on a much narrower definition of nerve agent that only
includes Organophosphates, but that definition is just not accurate".
In your opinion only; not professional opinion which has for decades
treated organophosphate agents as nerve agents, and fentanyls as (narcotic-analgesic
type) incapacitants.
You said, "The substance responsible for the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents
isn't an Organophsophate, that's why they are scrabbling around for a redefinition".
I agree with this, although we are only surmising that the Salisbury/Amesbury
substance is not an organophosphate (due to symptoms), for no-one has actually
specified its nature. And yes, I can see that they are scrabbling around,
and so are you ! Fair enough. But how can this explain why nobody has officially
specified what this chemical is ? As far as I can tell, it doesn't. Why
can't they simply be open about its nature and honest about their scrabbling
?
Yes, of course opioids depress the CNS, but so do lots of substances
such as alcohol, and, yes Peter, even axes ! This does not make them nerve
agents for they do not inhibit acetylcholinestaerase – crucial to the definition.
Wikipedia: "Nerve agents, sometimes also called nerve gases, are a class
of organic chemicals that disrupt the mechanisms by which nerves transfer
messages to organs. The disruption is caused by the blocking of acetylcholinesterase".
I perfectly understand the argument over BZ versus Carfentanyl, but surely,
rather than redefine the latter as a nerve agent, why not simply redefine
it as an opioid chemical weapon ? Organophosphate and carbamate pesticides
are officially (and biochemically) nerve agents, but they're not chemical
weapons. In the same way, most opioids are not chemical weapons but some,
such as the fentanyls should be. Salisbury has highlighted this failing,
hence the scrabbling about.
To include certain opioids as nerve agents (rather than opioid CW's),
then the official, long-established and generally-accepted scientific definition
must be changed which would only invite more confusion.
Agreed.
Opioid receptor agonists are not nerve agents.
However, if carfentanil was suspected then unprotected contact with the
victims would not be the protocol.
The true first responders were the heroes.
Unless they knew enough ahead of time to not be afraid.
"The true first responders were the heroes."
And they were who ? By the testimony of some who were aware of them (i.e. the unfeeling Freya
Church) just walked on like The Good Samaritans they most certainly are
not!
Perhaps there was an assumption that in an, allegedly, druggie infested
town like Salisbury, most people would ignore the histrionics of the pair
on the bench and walk on, leaving it to 'the first responders' to deal with
it. Convenient, if it worked.
If, and it is an if, the lady doctor and the nurse rushed to give the two
prone figures first aid without considering their own safety then these
two are the only heroic ones in this shambles.
As of 4 Mar, there has been no known fentanyl overdose in Salisbury. First
responders would have been trained in what to look for and how to proceed
in a fentanyl od situation, but practice makes perfect. There's not that
much difference in the emergency response protocols for fentanyl and carfentanil.
The difference is in the medical treatment in the hours and days after the
first couple of hours, and symptoms, treatments, and responses rather than
tests for the presence of carfentanil is the guide for physicians.
Rob, you are a great one for making lists of questions. You may have this
one on a list already:-
If HMG knew that Russia had declared death to all traitors, what measures
did they take to protect Sergei Skripal, a confirm traitor but also a member
of our security services. And why were those measures so lamentably unsuccessful?
Listen to Javid. The UK has never said what happened, (that's why we
have the Blogmire) and I don't recall ANY Russian account, other than denial
and show us evidence.
Glen needs to improve on his nodding skills. He is about three seconds too
slow.
Time and practice will no doubt improve this.
Having followed your excellent blog for some weeks now, I've become convinced
that there are four distinct elements to this affair: two opposing clandestine
ops, an almost unbelievably idiotic false flag charade, and a random death:-
1. Operation 'Let's Keep Tabs on Sergei'. Run by MI5/6/SB to make sure
their double agent doesn't come to any harm or become a triple agent. Electronic
tagging, email monitoring, phone tapping, and friendly chats ever now and
then. Worked well for years, then the wheels fell off on 4th March.
2. Operation 'Let's Extract Skripal'. Run by an unknown security agency
but possibly contracted out to another. Deniable soft extraction so he could
be wheeled out later to give evidence concerning the Trump Dossier, with
or without his co-operation. The plan included his daughter, because she
was needed to ensure Sergei said what he was supposed to say when the time
came. Phase One carried out successfully on 4th March. Phase Two delayed
by HMG playing silly games, but eventually mission was accomplished.
3. The 'Let's Blame Putin' Charade. When MI6 reported to its ultimate
boss that an ex-Russian spy had been poisoned, Boris would have rightly
assumed the culprits were probably Russian. But then, remembering how Lavrov
humiliated him at that press conference in Moscow last December, he decided
to make sure Russia did get the blame and take the rap for it. With the
help of the new inexperienced Defence Secretary and others, he came up with
a hastily and ill-conceived plan to show that the poison could have only
come from Russia, ensuring Russia's guilt. The Home Secretary at the time,
Amber Rudd, did not buy into it so had to be replaced, but others – including
the overworked Theresa May – were taken in. The narrative quickly fell apart,
but having persuaded the world and his wife of Putin's guilt, there was
no going back. The hole Boris dug just got deeper. And all the evidence
– or the lack of it – had to be destroyed. No wonder Boris resigned.
4. A Tragic Death. Four months after Skripal, a couple in Amesbury were
hospitalised for drug misuse; just two of the many cases SDH would have
dealt with during the year. But having been persuaded by HMG that the Skripals
had been poisoned with Novichok-that-only-comes-from-Russia, the local authorities
took no chances and assumed the two from Amesbury had been likewise affected.
HMG, desperate to keep their narrative alive, leapt on the incident to re-ignite
the anti-Russian rhetoric and claim Dawn's death was 'murder', 'a terrorist
act', 'a war crime' etc. etc. The narrative was even more idiotic than the
first one (a scent bottle in a litter bin for four months!) – and ironically,
it blew the gaff. They said Dawn was poisoned by the very same Novichok-that-only-comes-from-Russia
and died because she received 10-times the dose Skripal got. But we know
she took eight days to die. It could not have been Novichok.
Perhaps the police should stop trying to hunt down non-existent assassins
and investigate Boris Johnson. The crime? Misconduct in public office, which
carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
When I was writing my scenario below, I started to realise that rather
than satirical it could be factual.
Little Gavin might be working under that man who would be king's tutelage.
Gavin having told the Russians to shut up, does not do well under questioning.
'A tragic death'
If Salisbury and the aftermath was not already crazy, Amesbury hit new heights
of idiocy.
A woman was taken from a house with poisoning in the morning but others
in the house were not taken to hospital for observation.
Later the same day, the other occupant of the same house fell ill. Decontamination
tents were sent to the location but were not used. Instead police put the
second victim in an ambulance with no protection whatsoever.
Just watch this short video and ask yourself – what were the police thinking!!**??
Two days after Dawn and Charlie had been admitted to hospital, and as a
direct result of the Amesbury incident, Detective Sergent Erin Martin of
Salisbury CID took the " unusual step " of issuing an official warning
via Wiltshire Constabulary to " drug users " in south Wiltshire
"to be extra cautious" , . "We are asking anyone who may have
information about this batch of drugs to contact the Police", " where the
drugs may have been bought from, or who they may have been sold to."
John, you're poaching my theory ! The one I hinted at in an earlier post
(yesterday I think).
Like you, I'm convinced that two opposing covert ops are involved.
Your point 1. would be standard practice. Sergei would have been subjected
to discreet surveillance by MI5 watchers and GCHQ throughout his British
exile. Most likely heroic DS Bailey was his local case officer. But let's
not forget that Sergei was still working for MI6 and that Pablo Miller was
probably still his controller (line manager). There's a saying, 'once an
intelligence officer; always an intelligence officer' – a saying which certainly
holds true for many ex-SIS folk. It was his covert activities that lead
to your next point.
Your point 2. is more or less exactly what I had worked out myself, and
I'll be working on the finer details for some time yet.
Your point 3. is spot on too. This is the opportunistic 'political capital'
angle I mentioned in an earlier post.
Your point 4. I see this as a crude continuation of the above. A further
opportunity. Nothing more.
Eventually, we'll be joining more and more dots together. Good work,
John !
"Party A is British Intelligence, whereas Party B is perhaps some sort
of Trump supporting element of US Intelligence/military. The Skripals are
therefore currently under their protection. Have I got that right?"
Broadly yes; that is the bare bones of what I currently think.
You counter with:
"Party A would be FBI/CIA Intel with nerve agent from US part of Porton
Down, and Party B would be British Intelligence believe what Party A is
about to do is potentially disastrous, and so try to stop it."
I have two particular issues with that idea. I mention them, to see whether
they can be answered in a way that allows us to build a scenario around
your idea.
Firstly, when you say FBI/CIA, what you really mean is Cabal. The FBI/CIA
would be acting on behalf of HRC/DNC/Obama/etc. to remove an individual
who could expose them and throw light on their illegal activities – specifically
spying on Trump. Why would May/M_5/M_6 want to stop that? They are in exactly
the same boat and do not want their role to be disclosed either. Also Sergei
was nothing but an expense for HMG; they already had all the information
he was ever going to give them.
Ah, you say, British intelligence didn't like the idea of a nerve agent
being set loose in Salisbury. OK, well why not just have a word with the
FBI/CIA and agree to do it in a way that keeps everyone (except Sergei)
happy. I am sure that between FBI/CIA/M_5/M_6/HMG, there was something that
they could all agree would do the job and not threaten the whole of Salisbury.
Why not just get him at home?
But that isn't my biggest problem.
Secondly, Sergei was on British soil. If HMG/M_5/M_6 got wind of a plan
to kill him, why would they not just take him off the streets immediately?
Get him into protective custody. He had already been to the police to say
he was in fear of his life, so get him somewhere safe. Then there is no
need for any 'nerve agent' attack at all. The FBI/CIA might be a bit miffed
but Trump would not complain; he would say British intelligence did a great
job!
In this case, Bailey visits Sergei on Saturday morning and says: "Right
Sergei, go and get Yulia and then we will take you in. You will be safe
for the rest of your life. All you have to do is give me the SD card and
we will take care of the rest." Job done and it would have saved an awful
lot of ferreting around in rubbish bins ever since.
So if party A was indeed some black op of the FBI/CIA, why did party
B let it proceed right up to 4 March and then try to thwart it at the last
moment, instead of just killing it stone dead? If party B didn't stop the
FBI/CIA earlier and Bailey was sent in to save the Skripals, it rather looks
like they didn't get the SD card anyway
Good points Paul. For now, the only thing I'll say is with regard to the
second problem, which is this. It would all depend on when this plot was
discovered. If it was days or weeks in advance, then yes, you're absolutely
correct. But if it was some time on the morning or even early afternoon
of 4th March, then that would change things. And to be frank, even if there
was a "cover up" of a "cover up" it doesn't look like it was very well thought
through.
If party B discovered the plot on Sunday morning, they would have had
the whole day to find Sergei and take him in. Sergei wasn't trying to hide;
they would have found him easily on council CCTV. There would also have
been police cars all day outside Sergei's house, waiting for him and police
would have been crawling all over the city.
If party B discovered the plot at, say, 2pm and Sergei was not at home,
they still had options. Surely the police would have launched their procedures
for something like a bomb threat. The city would be closed off immediately
and police would have been everywhere. People would have been told to evacuate
the city and get to safety. Given 2 or 3 hours, procedures would exist to
minimise the risk to the general public.
Even if they only had one hour's notice, I can't see the police doing
nothing and allowing a nerve agent to be deployed.
I should add that I still believe that on the Sunday and Monday, the Wiltshire
police were honest and did a proper job. Some very funny details emerged
very quickly by Monday evening they knew that this was a scam and on Tuesday
the Met was brought in to cover it all up.
I should add that I still believe that on the Sunday and Monday, the
Wiltshire police were honest and did a proper job.
Agree.
on Tuesday the Met was brought in to cover it all up.
Disagree. The Met or Met CT was in the lead as early as 7:00 PM on Sunday
and no later than 9:00 PM. Publicly for the next day and a half SFD and
SDH referred to the Met as a 'partner,' but one of the local police seniors
did say on Monday or Tuesday that they were relieved of command on Sunday.
Okay – so what do you do with the subsequent statements from SDH/NHS that
have clearly stated that on Sunday evening, SDH contacted NHS "Radiation,
poison, etc." and NHS "Radiation, poison, etc" promptly contacted Met CT?
Did Met CT respond with, "We're busy with our tea and crumpets and it's
not our patch anyway?"
The Monday announcements were issued by SDH and hours later the SPD,
but we now also know that by 06:00 on Monday buzz about unknown agent and
Skripal had spread throughout several UK agencies. Do you seriously think
that SDH and SPD were in the lead that day? That referring to 'partners'
was a simple nicety?
Is there not even a semi-automatic communication link from SPD to Wiltshire
PD and the Met? Shortly after the incident, if we accept a Skripal neighbor
eyewitness, a SPD patrol car stopped at Skripal's house. That indicates
that Skripal has been preliminarily identified as one of the bench people.
Even if that eyewitness is wrong, nobody disputes that a team of police
arrived at Skripal's house sometime between 7:00 and 8:00 PM and by all
accounts gained access to the house and searched it. If the Met or Met CT
had any boots on the ground by then, they wouldn't have had enough to handle
the search on its own. So, of course, local police assets were involved
in this.
Do you think Craig Holden and Cara Charles-Barkwrote the statements they
read on camera on Monday evening? Statements that only covered the barest
of information,
You honestly believe that SPD operated exclusively on this matter from
Sunday evening until Tuesday?
Seemed to me that there was a bit of chaos at the law enforcement end on
Monday as they didn't get much done by that evening statement and when national
reporters were beginning to show up. SPD couldn't ascertain that a crime
had been committed. Was Met CT pushing for a crime? Somebody behind the
scenes with power sure was.
Boris had his script ready to go as soon as Rowley (Met CT) announced
that Skripal was one of the victims.
Marie, I don't know why you are ranting at me, all I did was post a link
– that is the official story! Anyway, just to correct a couple of things for you:
" police arrived at Skripal's house sometime between 7:00 and 8:00 PM"
No Bailey was there by 5pm.
" by 06:00 on Monday buzz about unknown agent"
No the buzz by 6am on Monday was about a former Russian spy. The news of
an unknown agent came later on Monday morning.
I find it helpful to be as precise as possible when so much possible evidence
is mushy or conflicts.
SPD has stated that the team of officers including Bailey went to Skripals
house Sunday evening. I don't recall that SPD has given the time of they
arrived. Skripals neighbors reported seeing several police cars and officers
at Skripals house at 7:00. As eyewitnesses aren't generally all that reliable
as to the precise time they observed something, I merely accepted 7:00 as
the earliest and allowed that it could have been as late as 8:00. Either
of which are good enough for a reconstructed timeline.
As to the report from one neighbor that a police car arrived at Skripal's
house at 5:00, there's no other evidence to support that. I'm sort of accepting
a 5:00-5:30 visit by a lone police car because checking on a home of a patient
whose identity would not have been firmly established at that point is sort
of what police do. I could have been Bailey, but I doubt it because it's
too routine. That person wouldn't have entered the house. Likely knocked
on the door and reported back that nobody was home. It's relevance for me
is that it gives a time as to when Skripal had first been identified as
one of the two possible patients.
Key Elements of the Hoax
(I say key because a big part of the Hoax has been to throw in distractions,
red herrings and a ton of irrelevant stuff to confuse and overload the story
– It is Not meant to be understood)
The Conflicting advice of Novichoks that Public Health England (PHE)
promulgated compared with that of the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on Nerve Agents (the OPCW hadn't put anything out
on Novichok specifically for the simple reason they didn't know anything)
The Director of Public Health England (PHE) Paul Cosford saying that
Novichok actually does take a minimum of 3 hours to take effect after contact
with a large dose
"If you become ill with this stuff (Novichok) from actually coming into
contact with a significant amount of it then its within 6-12 hours, maximum
(that symptoms would occur) – 3 hours is the minimum but you have to be
in touch with a large dose.""
PHE – Risk to public remains low (Despite being dead). "This Stuff" (Novichok)
take effect in not less than 3 hours IF you get a very large dose through
the skin
OPCW – Nerve Agents are deadly, the more toxic they are the deadlier
they are. They are designed to kill. Through Skin contact will present symptoms
in 20 – 30 mins, (inhalation much quicker)
No CCTV released by police.
Which would establish the actual Time Line rather than that of the Fake
Official Narrative.
It would establish what the Skripals looked like that day and what actually
occurred at the bench (the police don't want us to know either)
It could have saved the lives of the 3 children that Sergei gave bread
to in the park when he first arrived in Salisbury that day if the boys had
been poisoned by Novichok.
Bailey's Body Cam would establish what he did at the bench and Skripal
home.
The Government Lie that it was the Russians that did it and could only
have been them.
I have a tome which addresses means and opportunity, and when I can paste
it to the Blog you will hopefully see it.
I will still bang on about Skripals and only Skripals being the park bench
victims.
We know that they were in Zizzi's after the duck feed with the boys, then
onto the Mill Pub.
As many of the recent posts had pointed out the Mill Pub has lots of CCTV
footage and the police spent quite a long time interviewing the staff. (As
one does in a terror investigation.
The Telegraph was still reporting that the Mill Pub was the last port
of call before the park bench. I think that is true. However, TPTB want
us to "ignore" that location and focus on the Novichok that dripped from
Zizzi's table.
Why?
The US media has send journalists to Salisbury very early.
For example Ellen Barry, NYT. These journalists have influenced the official
narrative to a decisive extent.
He used the Snap Fitness CCTV to establish the „fact" that the Skripals
went from Zizzis through Market Walk to the bench.
Rob, just another false translation of what Putin said about traitors.
Listen to Moran´s interpretation at 2:00 in the video.
Quote : Vladimir Putin's held a town hall session and he was asked about
this five's that had been traded and he said, and this is almost a direct
quote : „They will kick the bucket. Trust me. They betrayed their colleagues,
their brothers in arms. And they took thirty pieces of silver and are gonna
choke on all that." [End quote]
At 3:00 Terry Moran shows the CCTV of Snap Fitness.
It´s outside at the right side of the entrance.
Noone & Liane:
Excellent articles, thanks.
I recommend everyone to watch the video on Liane's link: https://youtu.be/sGqi-k213eE
15 minutes well worth watching.
"Flat Earth New" by Nick Davies. It provides a plausible reason for the
phenomena where all the new media carry the same headline and column with
minor changes – it all comes from one source via a single feed that they
all subscribe to (the Press Association, or sometimes Reuters).
We keep talking about the "official narrative". But actually, what is
the official narrative and where does one find it?
I do try to keep up with events around the Skripal case. The media regularly
and frequently cite "sources", official or otherwise. But have there been
any actual authorized statements from the government containing anything
like an "official" version of the events? There was Theresa May's statement
to Parliament in March, but has there been anything since? If so, I must
have missed it (which is quite possible).
For sure there's a media narrative. The media keeps floating new stories
or bits of new information. But the media stories are often either self-contradictory
or just plain nonsensical. Does this amount to an "official narrative"? Is the "perfume bottle" official for example? Or the novichok in the
public toilets? Or are these only media stories?
I read in earlier posts that the police have issued an "official" timeline
(contradicting earlier eye-witness accounts). Is this the case? Is there
really a police timeline that one can look up in any official source, or
is it just another media story?
Most recently the fact (?) was reported – apparently as a Guardian exclusive
– that the government is "poised" (whatever that means) to submit an extradition
request to Moscow. If true, it would be a very serious act. Has it been
officially documented, or is even this simply another media story?
I apologise if I'm talking rubbish here, but I have the impression that
there no such thing as an "official narrative" beyond what May told Parliament
in March. Everything since then has been media smoke and mirrors. Or an
I missing something?
I totally agree with you.
And it seems none of the media is inclined to pin down and demand the official
story.
It is to the government's advantage to allow the media to run with unnamed
sources to reinforce the Russia dunnit scenario, without themselves committing
to it
When I use the term "official narrative", which I do a lot, I am basically
referring to three simple claims:
That Sergei and Yulia Skripal, along with D.S. Nick Bailey, were poisoned
by a "military grade nerve agent" known as a Novichok.
That responsibility for this act lies with the Russian state.
That the poisoning took place at the home of Mr Skripal, specifically
by the application of the nerve agent to the handle of his front door.
The first two claims have been expressly made by Her Majesty's Government,
whilst the third one has expressly been made by those in charge of the investigation.
There are of course other sub-claims that form a part of this (such as
the day that Yulia and then Sergei were discharged from hospital) but these
three claims are substantially it.
The main problem with the first claim is that the Skripals are alive
and well. The main problem with the second is Russia is absolutely not the
only country or entity that could have produced the alleged substance. And
the main problem with the third claim is that it is a physical impossibility
that 2 people could have come into contact with the alleged substance, and
then collapsed at exactly the same time 4 hours later.
Everything else follows from those three basic, but demonstrably false
claims.
I agree with you completely, Rob, except for you saying that the Skripals
are 'alive and well'. In truth, we can't be sure of this. All we know for
certain is that Yulya was alive at the time the Reuters video was recorded.
I definitely agree with you. Almost nothing is "official" except that
Putin did it (whatever it was).
On your Point 3, what do we make of this post by CharlieFreak ?
I was discussing the 'door handle' theory with a relative about five or
six weeks ago and he was telling me that he had been listening to a BBC
Radio 4 'Today' interview with a Govt Security Minister the previous week
(Ben Wallace?) in which he was asked if Novichok residue had actually been
found by investigators on the door handle. According to my relative – who
has been following the case and assumed from all the publicity that nerve
agent residue had been found on the door handle – the Minister said it hadn't
but it was a plausible the theory they were working with. As I understand
it the interviewer then rhetorically remarked (without any obvious hint
of irony or incredulity) that presumably it was quite possible that the
'assassins' came back after seeing the Skripals leave the house and wiped
the door handle clean to remove the evidence!!
https://www.theblogmire.com/bbc-crimewatch-reconstruction-of-salisbury-poisonings-shelved/#comment-8643
Can this be? Not even the door handle is "official" ???
john_a,
"Is the "perfume bottle" official for example?"
Officially the Novichok was found in a "small glass bottle" in Charlie
Rowley's flat. No further details were officially given about the container.
It was Charlie who said that he had found a perfume bottle with a known
brand name, which Dawn sprayed on her wrists, and that the contents somehow
got onto Charlie's hands.
Nothing official as far as I know, except that the Hazmat guys searched
the public toilets in QEM park. Some tabloid published a ludicrous story
about Russia using that public toilet as a CW lab.
This has been said many times before, but it's worth repeating that the
police did not say when the Skripals visited the Mill pub, only that it
was "at some time after" they arrived at Sainsbury's car park in Salisbury
city centre. The police must have known more about the exact timing, since
they had plenty of timestamped CCTV footage available to them. 'Unofficially'
according to media reports, they went to Mill before they went to Zizzis,
but there does not appear to be anything to support that version of events.
– "Most recently the fact (?) was reported – apparently as a Guardian exclusive
– that the government is "poised" (whatever that means) to submit an extradition
request to Moscow. If true, it would be a very serious act. Has it been
officially documented, or is even this simply another media story?"
I guess that this is the story that originated from the Press Association
that the Russian assassins were identified from CCTV images. Nothing official
about that, in fact the Security Minister called it "ill informed and wild
speculation". However, the BBC has treated the report very seriously.
https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1020366761848385536 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43643025
If the BBC continues to say that, it must have been leaked from some
senior official source that wants the public to believe it, even if that
source does not commit to it publicly.
– You ask in another post "Not even the door handle is "official" ???"
The British authorities have not explicitly stated that the Novichok
was found on the door knob, only on the front door: "Specialists have identified
the highest concentration of the nerve agent, to-date, as being on the front
door of the address.".
However, there have been various media reports that the nerve agent was
found on the door handle. Furthermore, Sir Mark Sedwill, the UK's national
security adviser stated in a publicly released letter that Russia had previously
tested the use of door handles as a way of delivering nerve agents.
Sedwill says "DSTL established that the highest concentrations were found
on the handle of Mr Skripal's front door. These are matters of fact." So
I suppose you could call that official.
My thesis: The Skripals did not walk through the Market Walk to the bench.
I want to substantiate this thesis:
We have two CCTVs of people that are NOT the Skripals :
15:47:43 Snap Fitness shows the couple with the red bag. First published
on March 6.
Cain Prince, 28, runs Snap Fitness.
16:08:00 Jenny's restaurant shows three people. First published on March
9.
Mustafa Dalangal, 57, runs Jenny's restaurant .
How did these two CCTVs find their way into the public ?
We know that the police didn´t publish a single CCTV. Why should they release
this two ?
No, it were some journalists who found the CCTV earlier than the police.
Look at this timeline of March 5 and 6 (Reporter Liam Trim) :
Monday March 5
6pm The BBC reports the man is Sergei Skripal, 66, an ex-military intelligence
colonel who was convicted in Russia of passing state secrets to Britain
7pm At a press conference Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Craig Holden
tells reporters it is not being treated as a counter-terror incident.
Tuesday March 6
09:07 The BBC named Skripal as the man who was found along with a woman
in her 30s, believed to be known to him, on a bench near a shopping centre
shortly after 4pm on Sunday.
09:37 Both supermarkets are open but there are national media providing
coverage close to the police tape.
10:34 Sergei Skripal, 66, was found slumped on a bench in Salisbury alongside
a 33-year-old woman, who the BBC understands is his daughter, Yulia Skripal.
10:53 The latest from the Press Association: „As CCTV believed to show the
pair in the moments before they were found slumped on a bench emerged, the
UK's top counter-terrorism officer, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner
Mark Rowley, said: "We have to be alive to the fact of state threats."
10:56 Freya Church, 27, the gym worker, from Salisbury, told the Press Association:
(..)
15:37 BBC home affairs correspondent sums up press conference
He's quite brutally frank here but it's true – we did not learn much from
that press conference.
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/salisbury-russian-spy-police-substance-1302045
I guess that Craig Holden in the evening of March 5 told reporters about
a man in his 60th and a woman in her 30th were the couple found slumped
on the bench. And I suspect he also mentioned the red bag.
This gave the Press Association the idea to look for the couple on private
CCTVs.
PA was looking for a couple with a red bag and they found it at Snap Fitness.
We know for a fact that PA found the wrong pair.
Had there been another couple on the CCTV with a red bag, then they would
certainly have copied it, too ! So there was no second pair with a red bag
in Market Walk at that time !
Later on March 6 the police arrived at Snap Fitness :
Quote : Snap Fitness manager Cain Prince, aged 28, said: "Police had a good
look at the footage and were interested in these two people. It was the
only image they took away."
Mr Prince added that police said Skripal was "wearing a green coat". [End
quote]
"Police had a good look at the footage" – so, the police too didn´t see
the Skripals in market Walk !
But they found it suspicious that there was a couple who also had a red
bag. So they took it away.
The Sun knew about the Snap Fitness CCTV and the red bag. Why did they
focus on another couple ? Was the red bag couple not on Jenny's restaurant
CCTV ? But they can not have fallen from the sky. I have no logical explanation
other than this : Certain media wanted to create the illusion that the Skripals
walked the Market Walk, although they didn´t.
Conclusion : Two different reporters have spotted CCTV. But no one has
discovered the Skripals. In short, the Skripals didn´t walk through the
Market Walk.
Liane, I think you are right. And why did the police take away that image
from Snap Fitness? Because it was the couple on the bench! When the police
searched the CCTV they knew what the bench couple looked like and that was
who they were looking for.
If it had been the real Skripals on the bench, why on earth would the
police have taken away CCTV of a random couple with a red bag, yet not bothered
to take any images of the Skripals?
"Yes Mr Cain, Mr Skripal was wearing a green coat but never mind about
that; I think I will have this picture of these two other people if that's
alright with you."
Another thought, this may explain the switch in the Mill/Zizzi or Zizzi/Mill
timeline. The CCTV couple were clearly not coming from the direction of
the Mill, they were coming from Zizzi.
As the police had made a mistake in releasing the CCTV image, they may
have switched the story round and said it was the Mill first to cover up
the fact that they had (ridiculously) issued a CCTV image of 2 otherwise
random people coming from the wrong direction. By switching it round perhaps
they thought it provided some cover for having issued images of people that
were not the Skripals and left the idea in everyone's mind that the Skripals
had come from the same direction.
Paul, both CCTVs were NOT released by the police but by the press !
This fact forced them to change the story.
Why on earth was the time when the Skripals were in Mill Pub never given,
neither by police nor journalists ?
Something very significant happened in the Mill. It had 12 CCTV cameras operating that day the recordings were all seized
by the police. The Manager was was treated as a terror suspect and interviewed by police
8 times in the first week of the investigation. The Skripals went to the Mill before Zizzis
"As further details of Col Skripal's movements emerged, a source close
to Greg Townsend, manager of The Mill, revealed that he served the Russians
last Sunday afternoon and had since been treated like a "terror suspect",
interviewed by police up to eight times last week.
He said The Mill had 12 CCTV cameras, covering the large open-plan bar
area as well as the upstairs balcony and lavatories overlooking it.
"The pub has obviously remained closed for more than a week and the cordon
widened, but Greg feels like he has been kept completely in the dark, they're
not telling him anything.
"He actually served them. He's had a bit of a time of it all and is a
pending terror suspect.
"He certainly said he's being treated like one. He's had around eight
police interviews.""
Sorry the Telegraph has the opposite to the "Official Narrative" (as it
was then)
"From the car park, it was just a short walk through The Maltings shopping
precinct to Zizzi, where they ate lunch before heading to The Mill pub for
a drink."
The "Official Narrative" was never changed on Dr Davies, the Duck Boys
park location, the cctv pair being one and the same as the bench people
And the Helicopter taking Yuia and / or Sergie changed 3 weeks l was
corrected later in the leading MSM news provider the Spire FM website.
The Official Narrative is a tool of the Hoaxer and because of its unreliability
it means Pants.
Independent Tested Evidence is what is forming the Facts, if they are
false they can easily be refuted abd corrected by New Evidence eg Mill and
Council CCTV
Peter, this prompted me to look at Mr Townend's Facebook page and there
was a link to a piece about his rabbits, which were locked up behind the
police cordon, with no food or water. But thanks to his raising of awareness
on social media, the police stepped in:
"Luckily, the Luckily, Wiltshire Police stepped into the rescue the rabbits
after pub manager's plea was shared more than 100 times across Facebook.
The force today tweeted: 'We have an update on the rabbits stuck at an address
in one of [the] cordons. They have now been given food and water and are
OK. Thanks for everyone's concern.'"
Sadly the cat and the guinea pigs at 47 Christie Miller Road were not
treated with the same care. "All animals are equal, but some animals are
more equal than others" it seems.
Or, possibly, 'all police are dumb, but some are dumber than others'.
Or, one could change 'dumb' to 'unfeeling', or 'callous', or some other
derogatory term.
The cat and the guinea pigs in the Skripal's house would have been raising
hell and the cat would have been trying everything in its repertoire to
get out. Then there's the defecation and urination, the smell must have
been quite ripe. So please tell me how the officers posted outside the Skripals
and Townsend's ignored all this without comment to their superiors?
No idea. The two things that baffle me about the whole incident are:
a) If you look at the photos of police officers standing near the house,
there are three windows that are open. I would have thought the cat could
have got through one of those, and there's probably a catflap on the back
door. The cat, if not the guinea pigs, could surely have gotten away.
b) Why on earth the authorities let on about the condition of the animals.
They're not above being economical with the actualite. Why then did they
not just say, "The cat and the guinea pigs are now safely residing at a
secure location. They do not wish to avail themselves of the services of
the RSPA, or Russian Embassy, and they ask that their privacy be respected."
The affair of the pets was only made public when the Russian embassy began
enquiring about them. Until then it was the Skripals' vet who'd contacted
the police about the pets, and this happened within hours of the poisoning.
Once it became public, the government had to come up with a plausible
cover story – claiming that DSB had found them on 4th March. I don't believe
this. The DEFRA vet allegedly involved was, as far as I know, never named,
and the best they could come up with was that the Persian cat, Nash van
Drake (brought over from Russia), had been found in a 'distressed' state,
taken to PD, humanely put to sleep and incinerated. No vet should euthanise
an animal simply because it is distressed. The guinea pigs (also from Russia)
had been found dead due to lack of food and water were also taken off to
PD. I don't believe this story. Rumours of a second cat, Masyanya, bought
in England, began to circulate and it was assumed that this cat had escaped.
Neighbours will know more.
I would like to think that all the pets survived and are now safe. This
may even be true if the Skripals had been 'disappeared' according to a pre-planned
operation. If so, the pets would have been moved elsewhere shortly before
the fateful day, or on that very morning.
HMG hadn't taken into account a second cat, because they weren't aware
of one, but there certainly were two cats and I have videos of them both.
The embassy were only aware of one cat and two guinea pigs, information
that I believe came from Viktoria. As for the rabbits and fish, another
later rumour, perhaps they had been taken away earlier too. The whole pet
story strikes me as very odd. Maybe Howard Taylor, the vet, knows more than
we do. He said, "We phoned the police on day one to offer to help if they
needed it. I thought it unlikely the police would have gone to the house
and not done anything."
On 17th March it was only reported that the animals had been taken away.
It was only on 6/7th April that HMG admitted that the guinea pigs were dead
and the had been suffering.
According to The Sun: Taylor said of Mr Skripal: "He was a nice chap
and we got on well. He never said he was in fear for his life. He used the
vets for some years and I had seen his cat and his guinea pigs." Note: only
one cat mentioned.
"We contacted the police straightaway upon hearing the news that Mr Skripal
had been admitted to hospital, and a number of times afterwards, to make
them aware of Mr Skripal's pets and their needs.
We contacted Porton Down – in case the animals may have been taken into
isolation. We also offered to take care of Mr Skripal's pets in his absence.
We were never contacted by the police or Porton Down in return regarding
Mr Skripal's pets".
If we believe this official story, then why haven't the RSPCA prosecuted
the police fotr animal neglect? I'm disgusted by the RSPCA's apparent lack
of interest in this affair. Their press officer, Nicola Walker said:
"It is very sad to hear that these animals have died in such tragic circumstances.
However, we appreciate the emergency services were working in extreme and
dangerous conditions in an incredibly fast-moving operation in an attempt
to keep the public safe. We don't currently know the details of what happened
but, as part of our ongoing working relationship with police, we would like
to see if there is any learning for future operations."
Suzanne Norbury, their South-West Press Officer came up with the same
wording, and:
"Emergency services working in extreme and dangerous conditions incredibly
fast-moving operation an attempt to keep the public safe'
I go along with this assessment: "It's a string of shallow excuses. It's
nonsense. And it comes, not from the police themselves, but from the royal
body supposed to prevent cruelty to animals".
This report may have been inaccurate, but nobody can claim that the existence
of the pets was not known as early as mid March. The family vet also raised
questions at an early stage. The report also shows that somebody thought
the animals were worth "testing".
To me, this is one of the most bizarre inconsistencies in the whole case.
Were the animals removed in mid March (alive) or early April (dead)? Why
are there two different and mutually contradictory stories? What possible
interest could be served by leaving the pets inside the house? And does
it really mean that the police or counter-terror guys never entered the
house before early April? After (supposedly) finding novichok on the door
handle?
What's going on here? Did somebody calculate that a heartbreak story
about starving pets would make us all hate Russia even more? If so, I suspect
it backfired badly. British people love pets, and the story really just
makes the British authorities look inhuman. Especially because it was the
Russians who raised the issue.
Or is the whole sorry saga of the pets just a symptom of the British
authorities losing interest in the whole affair and just trying to walk
away from it in embarrassment?
Also, do the Skripals know the fate of their pets? What have they been
told, and how did they take it?
As I wrote before, it looks like a punishment of Sergei. He really loved
his pets.
Or does anybody here has the impression, that the Skripals were treated
like innocent victims ?
Sterling work as always Paul, thank you.
The note was sent from Frank Beswick (no relation) to Dr David Kelly
the week before he died. Beswick was a colleague of Kelly's at Porton Down
The writer of the letter was Frank Beswick (no relation) to Dr david Kelly,
I don't know whether it was his own letter header (the crest and coat of
arms) or that of the CDE Porton Down but this seems to indicate it was his
own personal crest & Arms
"Frank's scientific work did not interfere with his enthusiasm for voluntary
work with the St John Ambulance, in which he was a senior figure. The promotion
to the rank of commander brother within the Order of St John in 1995 delighted
him and allowed him to design his own coat of arms. This included the badge
of the Chemical Defence Establishment and a heart, a nod back to his early
work in cardiac physiology."
I Hadn't realised before but Beswick and Kelly had worked on detoxing
the island of Gruinard together
"In 1979, following the closure of the Microbiological Research Establishment,
the small microbiology programme fell into his bailiwick and this stimulated
the work to rehabilitate the Island of Gruinard, which had been contaminated
with anthrax in the early 1940s."
Well, there's no heart in the arms on that letterhead so I can't see how
they can be the arms that Beswick chose for himself. Nor do I understand
why the crest is placed separately on the left. It's only the colour and
charges in the escutcheon (shield) that makes a coat-of-arms unique to a
particular family, individual or corporate body. In a sense, the rest is
mere traditional ornament – the supporters, crest, helm, motto
Yes, I saw that Hasbrouck one when I did a quick search, but the chevron
is not engrailed and the difference is crucial. It MUST be engrailed (the
internet is still not the best way to search for these things). By the way
the Hasbouck arms would is described as "Purpure, a chevron between three
flambeaus or, flamed proper", so our friend's arms would then be:
"????, a chevron engrailed between three flambeaus (not torches) or (probably),
flamed proper (probably)". I can't guess the field colour (????), and I'm
guessing the likely colours of the torches.
I had forgotten about Ross Cassidy and was checking him out again after
Miheila mentioned him for the list of people who know more that they are
saying and found this from Sky News March 28 2018
Mr Cassidy, 61, has spent many hours with counter-terror detectives investigating
the poisoning, but would not discuss the police operation.
Mr Cassidy got to know Sergei, his wife Lyudmila, his son Alexandr (who
was known as Sasha) and Yulia.
Sergei spent a lot of time out of the country and there were times when
I didn't see him, but he used to call me his English friend. He was very
generous and never forgot my birthday, usually buying me an expensive bottle
of whisky.
On Saturday 3 March, Mr Cassidy drove Mr Skripal to Heathrow to collect
Yulia, who had moved back to Moscow and was visiting her father. It had
been snowing and Sergei asked his pal if they could use his four-wheel-drive
pick-up truck.
Last week, in a court ruling about the Skripals' medical needs, a judge
quoted the consultant treating them in Salisbury district hospital: "The
hospital has not been approached by anyone known to the patients to enquire
of their welfare."
Mr Cassidy was upset by the suggestion there wasn't anyone who cared
enough to want to go and see the Skripals.
He said: "That is misinformation, because we care. I asked the police
several times if we could go and see them, quietly and away from the media,
but I was told quite categorically that we were not allowed. We asked the
question and the answer was 'no'.
"We were also upset that if his family and friends in Russia got to hear
about this lack of concern it would cause them extra anguish."
My questions:
Why wouldn't Ross Cassidy discuss the police operation?
Why wouldn't the police let Sergei's best friend in England, visit him
in hospital?
Did the SDH consultant know that the police were preventing Sergei and
Yulia from having visitors?
If the SDH consultant did know that, then why didn't he tell the judge
that?
I'm glad you picked up on his name.
I included him, because outside the spook community, he's the only person
in England who appears to have known the Skripal family well – all four.
No wonder he was questioned for so long. I'll try to answer your questions as I see the situation. Just my opinion.
1.Why wouldn't Ross Cassidy discuss the police operation? Because he'd been threatened with dire consequences if he did. Whatever
they were, they were most likely fabricated. 'National interest' springs
to mind as the justification.
2. Why wouldn't the police let Sergei's best friend in England, visit
him in hospital? Either because he wasn't there or because – later- they were afraid that
Sergei would speak. I suspect he was never there at all.
3. Did the SDH consultant know that the police were preventing Sergei
and Yulia from having visitors? Probably none of the SDH staff did.
4. If the SDH consultant did know that, then why didn't he tell the judge
that? SDH declined to be represented in court due to feeling 'uncomfortable'.
As I said in an earlier post, whoever that unnamed doctor was, he/she was
'highly unlikely' to be from SDH, but was rather an MoD 'specialist' brought
in from elsewhere – PD or a military hospital.
Ross Cassidy may not have been willing to talk to the media, but I'm
sure he said more to family and friends. Perhaps he'd be willing to talk
to an impartial investigator, but then he might be too afraid of the consequences
– which could have been direct threats to him or his family.
He needs to be asked about police activity and visitors at the Skripals,
Sergei's pets (including the alleged rabbits and fish, not to mention Manyúnya,
the cat who allegedly escaped), any concerns he may have had leading up
to the fateful day, and so much more.
2. Why wouldn't the police let Sergei's best friend in England, visit
him in hospital?
In the US and absent a signed directive by a patient that's either unconscious
or incompetent, only next of kin are allowed to visit the patient. So, it
would be the hospital that denies a friend access to a patient. No need
for police involvement on this matter in this case.
The police, naturally, were looking for information on the patients and
at any conceivable culprits. A double whammy for Cassidy.
According to Ross Casssidy, it was the police who told him that he wasn't
allowed to visit Sergei. Have they any right to do this? If conscious and
talking, Sergei could ask to see any visitor he liked, but this didn't happen
– either because he wasn't there, didn't ask, had no friends or because
friends had been prohibited from visiting. We know RC had tried to, but
without success.
In normal circumstances a hospital wouldn't be prohibiting visitors.
Presumably RC had no means of contacting Sergei by phone either, and vice
versa. As far as we know, Sergei has been kept incommunicado ever since
4th March, if indeed he is still alive. A very worrying situation.
According to Ross Casssidy, it was the police who told him that he wasn't
allowed to visit Sergei. Have they any right to do this?
Cassidy's Sky News interview was published on 3/28; so, his interview
took place on or before 3/28. As of that date, both Yulia and Sergei were
officially unconscious or not able to communicate meaningfully. At the direction
of a hospital or for other reasons determined by law enforcement, police
do have that right.
Also, we don't have any idea if at any time Yulia and/or Sergei requested
to see Cassidy.
I see now. As you say the Skripals (or 'bench people') were still officially
unconscious at that time, so it would make sense that no visitors were allowed.
If the Skripals were there and after they had regained consciousness,
it's surely likely that they would have wanted visitors, especially a visit
from Ross Cassidy, Sergei's best friend. But I'm pretty certain that the
authorities would have prevented this at all costs, hence the lack of phone
access and Cassidy's remarks.
These exchanges about whether friends were allowed to visit the Skripals
in hospital inspired me to refresh my memories of the gross deception of
HMG regarding whether the Skripals had any relatives in Russia. At the High
Court ruling by Mr Justice Williams on 22 March, granting permission to
provide the OPCW with samples, he stated "Given the absence of any contact
having been made with the NHS Trust by any family member and the limited
evidence as to the possible existence of family members in Russia, I accept
that it is neither practicable nor appropriate in the special context of
this case to consult with any relatives [of the Skripals] who might fall
into the category identified in s.4(7)(b) of the Act". ('The Act' being
the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and s.4(7)(b) states that before delivering
what is in an incapacitated person's best interests the person ruling (in
this case Mr Justice Williams) must: take into account, in order to consult
them, the views of anyone engaged in caring for the person or INTERESTED
IN HIS WELFARE"). (my emphasis).
This statement was delivered in spite of the fact that the Sun had carried
an interview with Viktoria Skripal on 14 March about her concerns and desire
to visit/make contact with the Skripals. And in spite of the fact that the
Russian Embassy have records that on 6 March "the Embassy informed the FCO
of the request it had received from Viktoria Skripal to provide information
on the condition of her relatives.
https://rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6481
Apologies for the misplacement of a couple of quotation marks in the above
post. I usually intend to proof read what I have written before sending
but didn't on this occasion as I am conscious that if I exceed a certain
period of time composing my message (I haven't worked out what the time
limit is) the system refuses to post it and I have to start again. That
aside, I think my meaning is clear.
Friends do not enjoy the same privileges to visit patients in hospital
as family does. (This has been a huge factor in why same-sex marriage was so necessary.)
Quote : The colonel's close friend Ross Cassidy, who lives just a few doors
from the property the Russian rented when he first arrived in Salisbury,
said he "was not at liberty to talk."
He declined to say whether his friend had spoken of fears for his life,
adding: "It's a very sensitive investigation of some gravitas. I really
am unable to divulge any information at the moment."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/06/did-treacherous-past-russian-colonel-finally-catch-salisbury/
I agree with you that Cassidy knows more, but is forbidden to talk about.
I will reply to this, but simply as a test as I can't seem to post this
afternoon,
Maybe Rob is doing some site maintenance.
I do not think SDH were involved in bad practices. The Terror Team and
PD took over.
In fact going to the courts for the second blood sample might have been
required due to SDH "resistance".
Anyone else with posting issues?
If I see that you are posting then it must be my PC or possibly the big
van with a dish on the roof at the end of my street.
A some point people stopped trying to prove the Earth was an irregular ball
shape thing and was spinning around, doing laps of our nearest star at close
on 66k mph.
They didn't stop because it wasn't true, it had just been proven beyond
doubt and there was other stuff to get on with.
Flat Earthers did come along, many having their own reasons, some just
didn't want to believe we were on a ball floating in space and prefer to
live with the idea that we live on a gurt plate.
The Hoax has been proven, the motive is not the most important feature,
murderers go to jail whether their motives are known or not.
The most important thing is to identify who was responsible for Dawn
Sturgess' death and bring them to Justice along with those that have attempted
to cover up the wicked and depraved crime.
The motives may or may not flow from that process but it is rather academic
at the moment to say the least.
Those responsible for Dawn's death are also responsible for the cover
up of the Salisbury Incident. That is what led to Dawn's death.
People responsible include
Mrs May and some of her Ministers
Salisbury and Met Police Chiefs.
These are not wild "Conspiracy Theories". They are cold, hard facts.
And we have the proof that will convict. Beyond reasonable doubt proof that
those people I have mentioned above are involved in the death of Dawn Surgess
and the cover up of the Salisbury and Amesbury Incidents.
Whenever governments bury facts, they are never up to any good. History
is full of examples of facts been hidden and whenever the lid is finally
raised, it is was never for a good reason:
Vietnam war
JFK
Iraq WMD
etc
etc
The problem for TPTB this time is that they are in a different class
to prior events – they are completely incompetent, utterly useless, self-important
fools and obvious liars. This is what 'equal opportunity' hiring does! The
good liars are gone.
Just look at all the 'officials' involved and wonder how they ever came
to get the job
I continue to believe that this saga was the reason for Johnson's resignation.
He could have survived May's Chequers debacle but he knows this story will
ruin the rest of his career, so he has done a runner. He will get as much
distance between himself and these events as he possibly can.
Paul,
Once again, I agree with everything you say.
Digressing to a different topic, it is the sheer "incompetence etc etc"
that also explains the shambles that is 'Brexit'. And these incompetents
– as I have alluded to elsewhere – are these days supported by many incompetent
civil servants. I could see the way things were heading many years ago and
that was one of my reasons for leaving the civil service 15 years ago after
more than 20 years service in the company of many intelligent and honourable
civil servants who were gradually retiring and were also expressing concerns
about the deterioration in standards at all levels. I saw the rot begin
when, about 20 years ago, the civil service opened up vacancies at all levels
of responsibility to people with administrative or managerial experience
but not civil service experience, so they hadn't acquired the ability to
work alongside and in conjunction with legal advisers or technical experts
(e.g. in my case, veterinarians and structural engineers at different times)
which is an ability that develops and improves over an extended period of
time and is integral to the successful functioning of the CS. When I joined
the CS you would attend meetings and observe how such relationships developed
and were used to achieve the intended aim many years before you yourself
might find yourself having to do it. That no longer happens – people are
just thrown in at the deep end, managed by incompetent staff and told to
get on with it, with nobody providing knowledge-based 'quality control'.
Whether or not you are a 'Remainer' or a 'Brexiteer' in principle, there
was no hope for negotiations from the outset with the useless shower that
we have in power (scope for a limerick there!). The Brexit considerations
and negotiations have been in the hands of pathetic amateurs who are at
sixes and sevens and who, after so many decades of relying on the EU to
tell them what to do, have completely foregone any ability to think for
themselves. That is the key problem, not the principle of Brexit, which
could have resulted in far more encouraging prospects had it been in the
right hands.
CF
Peter,
Exactly – one quality I found to be completely absent in 'newcomers' was
initiative. I inherited someone at middle management level who had been
in that particular policy job for about a year. I routinely asked him to
draft a straightforward (but not 'standard') letter for one of our Ministers
to send to an MP answering questions raised by a constituent about aspects
of our Department's legislation. After all, that was part of his job description.
As a middle manager responsible for that policy area he and even his subordinate
officer should be able to quote chapter and verse and why it had been formulated
in the way it had (e.g. 'based on Article X of EU Council Directive ABC');
at the very least he should have been able to work out the answers from
information to hand or by consulting expert colleagues. We had been given
the standard week or so to produce the draft reply which I could have knocked
up in a couple of hours at most. So when I hadn't been given the draft for
clearance by the morning of the required day and asked him about it he told
me I had been unreasonable to ask him to do it without telling him what
he needed to say! Needless to say, I knocked up the reply in a couple of
hours but had to forego other tasks I was supposed to do that afternoon.
When I joined the CS a Clerical Officer (2 grades below this chap) would
have been asked to provide a first draft. I could bore you with other examples
but, you'll be pleased to hear,I won't. Unfortunately that level of intellect
is all too common nowadays.
Charlie, you've described an operational organizational change that isn't
limited to public institutions. It exists in corporations as well and began
to take hold about thirty years ago. Instead of promoting from within line
staff – those who had spent years doing and moved up slowly in managerial
positions as they demonstrated management skills – into the managerial ranks,
the concept of 'universal manager' gained a foothold. As if managerial skills
are a special talent and nothing more is required to manage any operation.
In the US, business and government had to absorb all those newly minted
MBAs and those people weren't about to start at the bottom of the operational
ladder.
The two best managers I ever had the pleasure to work for didn't complete
an undergrad college degree. Yes, they did have people skills but they were
also solid in their line technical skills as well. Highly respected by employees,
colleagues, and in the industry. They had a firm grasp of the skill-sets
of their employees, how trustworthy each of their employees were, and were
immune to the sycophants.
Marie
Another change in infrastructure policy that had dire consequences and contributed
to the problems you refer to was the principle that 'no one could be deemed
a failure or to not have the aptitude to succeed with the appropriate training'.
When I began my CS employment the annual report procedure was quite emphatic
and honest about abilities. As a manager there was a range of five graded
boxes you could tick against all aspects of performance, the lowest of which
was 'not good enough', and, if repeated, this could warrant a warning from
personnel (sorry, 'human resources' now) and potentially demotion. There
was also a box where the manager had to enter what grade they thought the
member of staff would have the inherent capability of achieving by the end
of their career! For many people of all ages this was often the grade they
were in at the time but they were realistic and honest enough to accept
that it was probably right. It's arguable whether this last box served a
positive purpose for the majority of staff but, rightly or wrongly, the
intention was to motivate the best staff to continue in the CS rather than
become despondent and quit. It was decided by forward thinking, liberal
minded individuals many years ago now that annual reports should never say
anything negative, and if anything negative needed to be said then the line
management must be at fault for not overcoming their staff member's deficiencies.
George,
Yep. Another problem we are creating for the future – although the Govt
will welcome this 'problem' – is that in 'the good old days' and up until
the 1990s EVERY single official communication whether written or verbal
had to be recorded on a single officially registered uniquely numbered registry
file. Each file, where documents and 'minutes' were sequentially numbered
in date order, expanded to about 2.5″ thick and some subjects would have
multiple A,B, C etc files. If someone in Office A sent a note to someone
in Office B about a Govt issue it was obligatory to send a paper photocopy
(or carbon copy) to HQ for them to place on the file. Nothing went unrecorded.
Even internal discussions between staff would be summarised on a minute
sheet afterwards, signed by the staff involved and placed on file. The system
had to be run really strictly but it worked and we can look back and identify
why certain decisions were made and by whom. But now, with the advent of
computers and email the significance of keeping central records has gone
and I can guarantee nobody in HQ has a complete historical record of all
deliberations and communications. In years to come, conveniently for the
Govt, key information about what has been going on in this case and other
important matters will be missing.
The motive – creating a rift between the Russian and Western states – is
obvious. The perpetrators – including Yulia in the attack for publicity
– too.
It is possible that Skripal was following money laundering via real estate
for Christopher Steele and the mafia did not like it.
But the whole thing was planned for publicity.
Anybody interested in tax havens and investment .
"Perhaps the greatest challenge, with respect to Russia and more generally,
concerns the anonymity of global offshore finance. On this front, the US
administration would find some cooperation from Moscow. Economically, the
Russian treasury has been losing vast sums to offshores. Politically, the
Kremlin is keen to strengthen its control over bureaucrats and oligarchs,
two groups for whom offshore nest eggs provide an alternative to Putin's
Russia. Since 2013, the Kremlin has pursued a "deoffshorization" campaign
encouraging businesses to repatriate capital and stop registering companies
offshore; additional legislation has restricted the Russian state employees'
foreign asset
ownership. A joint US-Russian effort, however limited, at ending the anonymity
of corrupt cash flows in Western jurisdictions would serve the interests
of both countries."
In the interests of accuracy, Simpson has never claimed to have expertise
on Russia. His major calling card is the series of investigative articles
he wrote on Ukraine, circa 2005-2008, when he was a WSJ reporter. In 2014
or 2015 he was hired by Prevezon, the plaintiff in a UK lawsuit against
Browder, and later a defendant in a DOJ lawsuit. When Fusion GPS was hired
by the Washington Beacon to do oppo research on Trump, he knew nothing about
Trump. It was after the Beacon contract ended and approximately two months
after the DNC/HRC campaign hired Fusion and they outsourced the Trump-Russia
oppo research to Steele. (Personally, I suspect that Steele had been engaged
on this long before then but not by Fusion.)
Dylan Martinez who operated the camera at Yulia's post-Novihoax debut, and
who is described as the chief Reuters photographer for UK and Ireland, has
an amusing quote heading his profile page: "When editing photos I look for the truth told in the most beautiful
way."
Yulya Skripal, the embodiment of truth and beauty!
I forgot to mention that Mr Martinez covers "news, sport and the odd feature". Regardless of a possible fake tracheotomy scar, I suppose his Skripal
assignment was highly likely to be the oddest feature of his career.
https://widerimage.reuters.com/photographer/dylan-martinez
'In another curious detail in the filing, the special counsel team said
Papadopoulos had been given $10,000 in cash "from a foreign national whom
he believed was likely an intelligence officer of a foreign country." The
filing noted that the country was "other than Russia." ' CNN
Mueller strangely coy about who gave Papa 10k in cash. Was he an Orbis
collector too?
UK Government and intelligence all over the place :
Quote : Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants
off the foreign-policy establishment by calling for a rapprochement with
Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was somehow behind it. The pace
accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant named George
Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling
in Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic,
who reportedly set about cultivating him after learning of his position
with Trump. Mifsud claimed to have "substantial connections with Russian
government officials," according to prosecutors. Over breakfast at a London
hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow where
he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form
of "thousands of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The
New York Times describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion
Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends,"
which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. But WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign
Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official
named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in
Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian
agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely
with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by telling a reporter
that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing Trump's
anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch
with a friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her
boss. Over drinks, Downer advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos
then passed along Misfud's tip about Clinton's emails, Downer informed his
government, which, in late July, informed the FBI. (..)
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and
a paid trip to London to write a research paper on a disputed gas field
in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty. "George, you know about hacking
the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there, but Papadopoulos
said he knew nothing.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking-themselves/
PAGE 3 OF 4
Within 30 minutes (15.47 to 16.15) they are in critical condition. Charlie
Rowley describes a similar time-frame for Dawn Sturgess.
7th March – Scotland Yard Chief Medical Officer statement
"As your Chief Medical Officer, my message to the public is that this event
poses a low risk to us, the public, on the evidence we have."
METHOD OF DELIVERY
Spray: too risky, the assailants run the risk of contaminating themselves.
Also the doctor said "There was no sign of any chemical agent on Ms Skripal's
face or body".
High pressure syringe: the pressure is so great the vaccine (or nerve
agent) is pumped through the skin and immediately enters the blood stream.
The beauty of this method of delivery is there's no evidence. I think the
assailants grabbed them from behind and delivered the nerve agent directly
into the jugular vein, the site of the attack being at the corner of G&T'S.
The Skripals wouldn't have known what had just happened to them.
DS BAILEY
DS Bailey will have attended a First-Aid course, so his first action would
be to loosen any clothing round Sergei's neck and clear his airway. If you
look at photos of Sergei, he's got quite a thick neck, so DS Bailey probably
had to fiddle a bit with his clothing and this is probably how he was contaminated.
He'd unknowingly come into direct contact with a small amount of residue
nerve agent at the delivery site.
ANTON UTKIN former UN Chemical Weapons Expert in Iraq
Worlds Apart Interview 29th April 2018 – Breaking with Conventions?
"Why was Novichok agent determined undecomposed only in the blood of
Yulia Skripal? It was undecomposed. It's supposed to be decomposed under
the metabolism of the body, but they found undecomposed agent in her blood,
but not in the blood of Sergei Skripal, who got heavier exposure to the chemical
agent. That was very strange because it is not clear how it happened that
a fresh agent was in Yulia's blood."
Sounds like he suspects Yulia received a second dose while in hospital.
She was making an unexpected recovery, partly because she's healthy and
partly because of the medical treatment, so somebody gave her another dose.
Sergei wasn't expected to survive because as Anton Utkin said, he "got
heavier exposure to the chemical agent", that combined with any existing
health issues, he was simply expected to die.
PAGE 2 OF 4
"Georgia Pridham, 25, also saw the couple slumped on the bench. She said:
"He was quite smartly dressed. He had his palms up to the sky as if he was
shrugging and was staring at the building in front of him. He had a woman
sat next to him on the bench who was slumped on his shoulder. He was staring
dead straight. He was conscious, but it was like he was frozen and slightly
rocking back and forward."
"Graham Mulcock said: "The paramedics seemed to be struggling to keep
the two people conscious. The man was sitting staring into space in a catatonic
state".
"Destiny Reynolds, 20, who works in Ganesha Handicrafts in the centre,
said: "I saw quite a lot of commotion – there were two people sat on the
bench and there was a security guard there. They put her on the ground in
the recovery position, and she was shaking like she was having a seizure.
It was a bit manic. There were a lot of people crowded round them. It was
raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them over them."
Other reports: "Two police officers helped the pair before emergency
services were called at 4.15pm."
Emergency services: "There were several emergency calls."
Channel 4 "Russian Spy Assassination", 26th March 2018
Male witness: "There was a man being sick on the floor, leant over, and
a woman laying on the floor. I didn't see the woman, she was surrounded
by paramedics, but they both looked fairly ill."
EFFECTS OF NERVE AGENT POISONING
Craig Murray's article Knobs and Knockers quote from a scientist "Unlike
traditional poisons, nerve agents don't need to be added to food and drink
to be effective. They are quite volatile, colourless liquids (except VX,
said to resemble engine oil). The concentration in the vapour at room temperature
is lethal. The symptoms of poisoning come on quickly, and include chest
tightening, difficulty in breathing, and very likely asphyxiation. Associated
symptoms include vomiting and massive incontinence. Eventually, you die
either through asphyxiation or cardiac arrest".
EVENTS FROM 15.47 ONWARDS
15.47 CCTV footage, if you analyse the shape of Sergei's head and hairline
with clearer pictures it matches. Two witnesses describe Yulia as having
blonde hair. At this point, neither is showing any signs of nerve agent
poisoning.
16.03 (16 minutes later) Freya Church sees them slumped on the bench.
Minutes later, both are becoming critically ill. From witness statements,
Yulia is worse affected so the doctor attends to her and DS Bailey attends
to Sergei. The reports say two police officers, but I think it was the security
guard.
PAGE 1 OF 4
I think I've worked out how it was done and why DS Bailey was the only other
person affected. It's all down to METHOD OF DELIVERY. The attack took place
between 15.47 and 16.03 near to where they were found. The door handle is
a diversionary technique to draw attention away from this. There's someone
else calling themselves Anonymous, I'll call myself Anonymous-1 see what
happens.
TIMINGS
13.40 Arrive at car park
Feed ducks and walk to pub
Mill Pub (30 minutes)
Walk to Zizzi's
(40 mins have elapsed from arriving at the car park to arriving at Zizzi's)
14.20-15.35 Zizzi's (1 hour 15 minutes, there's specific timings)
(12 minutes after leaving Zizz's they are picked up on CCTV)
15.47 CCTV footage (older man with blonde haired younger woman with red
bag)
(16 minutes later they fall ill from nerve agent poisoning)
16.03 Freya Church see them slumped on bench
(5 other witnesses all see them on bench, with two 'police' officers and
a doctor in attendance)
16.15 Emergency service call(s)
WITNESS STATEMENTS FROM NEWS REPORTS
FREYA CHURCH: "Sixteen minutes later [that is, after being seen on CCTV],
personal trainer Freya Church, 27, came across the victims slumped on a
bench. She said they seemed 'out of it' and assumed they were on drugs.
"It was a young, blonde and pretty girl and it was definitely the man that's
been pictured in the news – the guy that's a spy. She was passed out and
he was looking up to the sky and I tried to get eye contact to see if they
were okay. They didn't seem with it. To be honest I thought they were just
drugged out as they were in a weird state. There are lots of homeless people
here so I just thought they were homeless."
FEMALE DOCTOR: "A doctor who was one of the first people at the scene
has described how she found Ms Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench, vomiting
and fitting. She had also lost control of her bodily functions. The woman,
who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved Ms Skripal into the recovery
position and opened her airway, as others tended to her father. She said
she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical
agent on Ms Skripal's face or body. The doctor said she had been worried
she would be affected by the nerve agent but added that she "feels fine."
"Witness Jamie Paine told the BBC yesterday: "Her eyes were just completely
white, they were wide open, but just white and she was frothing at the mouth.
And then the man went stiff, his arms stopped moving and still looking dead
straight."
Now here is someone who knows where Yulia is. The photographer in the Reuters
video is of Yulia making her statement is Dylan Martinez.
Reuters written reporters may know where she is as well. Reporting is
by Guy Faulconbridge. Additional reporting by Alistair Smout. Editing by
Simon Robinson and Nick Tattersall. There will be a video cameraman who
knows as well and a video editor.
Do you think you might write to them Rob and ask where she is?
And if they wont tell you, what is their reason for not telling you?
As you know any information we can get is useful Miheila. We could learn
a lot about who has Yulia, by were she was for the Reuters video and yes
you are correct to suggest that she probably isn't there anymore. Thank
you. I think they will slip up soon, its getting to be a way too tangled
web now with far to many people to keep silent.
So tangled, Denise, that I feel it's tangling the neurones in my brain!
Does anyone know when exactly that video was recorded (rather than released),
after all, the statement was mysteriously undated? Could there have been
some kind of embargo on its release until a later date?
Yulia was allegedly released on 10th April, 43 days before the video
was broadcast. According to The Sun, a 'source' claimed that she'd been
released from SDH into another hospital: ''She is in hospital on a military
base for her own protection and to monitor her health." Was the video recorded
at that military base?
Was it USAF Fairford?
Could the CIA have pre-empted MI6's hasty plans for the disappearance
of the Skripals? Perhaps MI6 had nothing planned. Maybe it was a CIA operation
from the beginning. I'll need to think about these scenarios a lot more.
Miheila, if you listen to the Daily Mail version of the video there are
a lot of police sirens at the end including bull horns. That and the aircraft
noise would point to London. It could be US Ambassadors residence in Regents
Park.
In my opinion, it was a rogue FBI op to stop "our guy" going back to Russia.
I think UK authorities knew it was happening and organised medical cavalry
to save Skripals.
HMG are caught out, to admit it would be proof MI6 surrogates were interfering
in US presidential election.
So the Feds made it look like Russia and HMG have to follow the pretence.
In my scenario some of them could be genuine. If the emergency services
were told extra medical/police/fire resources were available for that Sunday
due to the " CBW exercise" that was going on they wouldn't publicly question
it.
Maybe when the Skripals were on the bench they thought it was not "real
world" and that is why they dashed in.
But I think HMG knew Yulia had come to extricate Sergei and knew rogue elements
in UK and US "intelligence community" were trying to assassinate him.
Any contributors on here offering an alternative theory to the Hoax should
be aware (although they may be blissfully unaware) that the Hoax has been
proven.
It is a fact.
So before putting out new theories please recognise that fact and possibly
try the refute / debunk / disemble the fact before you put forward your
take.
Don't get me wrong (although a few will) I think that brainstorming and
testing theories is fine, more than fine it is essential to test ideas and
testament to the progress that this blog has contributed, advanced and assisted
public understanding in the unravelling of the case.
If you have an alternative theory please let it coincide with at least
a few facts.
@Peter
The scientific method (a la Popper): observe, deduce, theorize, predict
(i.e. show how the theory matches/predicts the things observed). And, if
necessary, adduce (i.e. defend the hypothesis).
What is never done is to insist dogmatically that one's pet theory is
the only explanation. This is because it is the duty of every scientifist
to, having produced a theory, seek to demolish it. You aren't doing that,
Peter, instead you are challenging others to demolish it.
I think fact that Sergei Skripal an ex spy may have confused issues? He
may or may not still have been actively doing intelligence but all evidence
points to accidental poisoning by drug addicts sleeping rough.
1. Reported that 40/50 rough sleepers including drug addicts, living in
area at time of Skripal poisoning.
2. Contaminated public lavatories and a "drug den" in park.
3. Council blocked off rough sleepers area and rehomed drug addicts after
Skripal poisoning.
4. Charlie Rowley rehoused at about that time?
5. OPCW not permitted to analyse all ingredients associated with poisoning
which they say makes it very difficult identifying substance
6. Two men (Kim Ferguson and Jamie Knight) forced their way through police
barricade to get to bench where Skripals had been sitting
6. Dawn Sturgess's poisoning looks like classic One Pot Shake and Bake methamphetamine
accident. Fact that fire brigade called and she was in bath suggests explosion
and burns.
7. One Pot Shake and bake produces large amounts of toxins which are dumped.
Public loos in park reported contaminated and report of a drug den there.
8. Skripals, Sturgess and Rowley did not respond to naloxone so not opioid
poisoning, this fits with it being poison from waste left from one pot shake
and bake meth.
9. Salisbury Hospital Doctor said no-one was suffering from nerve agent
poisoning.
"... "Steele notes that he is concerned about the stories in the media about the bureau delivering information to Congress 'about my work and relationship with them. Very concerned about this. *People's lives may be endangered*.'" ..."
"... If Rosenstein knew of Steele's relationship with the Ohrs prior to signing FISA, he already knew that he was signing a BS FISA application – which would be perjury. But if Rosenstein was a 'firewall', it becomes an attempted coup and sedition awkward. ..."
Key quote from Sara Carter's revelations about text messages from Christopher Steele to Bruce
Ohr in October 2017:
"Steele notes that he is concerned about the stories in the media about the bureau
delivering information to Congress 'about my work and relationship with them. Very concerned
about this. *People's lives may be endangered*.'"
Now, this might seem a bit of an aside, but does anyone reading this blog have any idea
when Yulia last came to England prior to 3rd March this year? I'm trying to get an idea of
whether she is likely to have had any idea prior to this visit of what her father was
involved in, or whether she is likely to have learnt about this on this particular visit.
Thanks Rob and we are all grateful for your capacity to harness all the contributors into a
sane dialogue.
Motive indeed:
There are the pleadings by Steele to Ohr for reassurance that the "firewall" is solid! Not
sure what that intends but surely there are a few firewalls in this saga going all the way
back on the US side to the favorite candidate, the candidates party, the party legal team
that employed Fusion GPS, Fusion GPS itself, Orbis, Steele, Sergei, and perhaps Yulia. What
might have been her potential role other than innocent visitor. We now have a clearer view of
her employment trajectory. I would bet the firewalls on the UK side are fully aluminium clad
too, and I anticipate this site and a few other emerging lines of inquiry will penetrate
those.
The furious mother in law angle is a good one and potentially worth a serious look.
Sometimes murders deliver conveniences to unforeseen parties.
The overreach of British interference in the USA election and May's complicity in that
exercise needed a very good redeeming cover and here is a dandy.
The mafiosi angle cannot be ruled out and nor can the Ukrainian possibility given their
intense penetration of the EU playing ground. Perhaps Sergei was investigating things there
too and annoyed the new mafiosi now free to roam.
But I am sure that closer to home there are others that employed Orbis to do interesting
work. How's Bill Browder these days?
Page was the fourth firewall (not Comey), but she is already gone too.
If Rosenstein knew of Steele's relationship with the Ohrs prior to signing FISA, he
already knew that he was signing a BS FISA application – which would be perjury. But if
Rosenstein was a 'firewall', it becomes an attempted coup and sedition awkward.
"... "A Ukrainian political consultant has revealed to Sputnik that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele sought and paid for researchers in Ukraine to concoct fake stories about Donald Trump prior his election as US president to use in the now-infamous dossier that supposedly contained damning evidence of Russia-Trump collusion. ..."
"... Radio Sputnik's Lee Stranahan spoke previously with Ukrainian political consultant and former diplomat Andrii Telizhenko about his connections to a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative named Alexandra Chalupa who also worked for clients in Ukrainian politics. Chalupa told Politico in January 2017 that beginning in 2015, she pulled on a network of sources she'd established in Kiev and Washington to try and turn up dirt on Trump ..."
"... The BBC is a propaganda organisation. It has even admitted it. http://viewsandstories.blogspot.com/2018/04/bbc-asserts-it-is-propaganda.html ..."
"... The door handle application is a crock. If, as is claimed the alleged Novichok was pure then who made it should be known because of its purity. ..."
"... Browder just wants us to go to war with Russia so he can keep his stolen money, that's not too much to ask! ..."
On 8 July 2018 a lady named Kirsty Eccles asked what, in its enormous ramifications,
historians may one day see as the most important Freedom of Information request ever made. The
rest of this post requires extremely close and careful reading, and some thought, for you to
understand that claim.
Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,
1: Why did BBC Newsnight correspondent Mark Urban keep secret from the licence payers that
he had been having meetings with Sergei Skripal only last summer.
2: When did the BBC know this?
3: Please provide me with copies of all correspondence between yourselves and Mark Urban
on the subject of Sergei Skripal.
Yours faithfully,
Kirsty Eccles
The ramifications of this little request are enormous as they cut right to the heart of the
ramping up of the new Cold War, of the BBC's propaganda collusion with the security services to
that end, and of the concoction of fraudulent evidence in the Steele "dirty dossier". This also
of course casts a strong light on more plausible motives for an attack on the Skripals.
Which is why the BBC
point blank refused to answer Kirsty's request, stating that it was subject to the Freedom
of Information exemption for "Journalism".
10th July 2018
Dear Ms Eccles
Freedom of Information request – RFI20181319
Thank you for your request to the BBC of 8th July 2018, seeking the following information
under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000:
1: Why did BBC Newsnight correspondent Mark Urban keep secret from the licence payers that
he
had been having meetings with Sergei Skripal only last summer.
2: When did the BBC know this?
3: Please provide me with copies of all correspondence between yourselves and Mark Urban on
the
subject of Sergei Skripal.
The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the
purposes of
'journalism, art or literature.' The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information
to you. Part VI
of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service
broadcasters
is only covered by the Act if it is held for 'purposes other than those of journalism, art or
literature".
The
BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC's output
or
information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.
The BBC is of course being entirely tendentious here – "journalism" does not include
the deliberate suppression of vital information from the public, particularly in order to
facilitate the propagation of fake news on behalf of the security services. That black
propaganda is precisely what the BBC is knowingly engaged in, and here trying hard to hide.
I have today attempted to contact Mark Urban at Newsnight by phone, with no success, and
sent him this email:
As you may know, I am a journalist working in alternative media, a member of the NUJ, as
well as a former British Ambassador. I am researching the Skripal case.
I wish to ask you the following questions.
1) When the Skripals were first poisoned, it was the largest news story in the entire
World and you were uniquely positioned having held several meetings with Sergei Skripal the
previous year. Yet faced with what should have been a massive career break, you withheld that
unique information on a major story from the public for four months. Why?
2) You were an officer in the Royal Tank Regiment together with Skripal's MI6 handler, Pablo
Miller, who also lived in Salisbury. Have you maintained friendship with Miller over the
years and how often do you communicate?
3) When you met Skripal in Salisbury, was Miller present all or part of the time, or did you
meet Miller separately?
4) Was the BBC aware of your meetings with Miller and/or Skripal at the time?
5) When, four months later, you told the world about your meetings with Skripal after the
Rowley/Sturgess incident, you said you had met him to research a book. Yet the only
forthcoming book by you advertised is on the Skripal attack. What was the subject of your
discussions with Skripal?
6) Pablo Miller worked for Orbis Intelligence. Do you know if Miller contributed to the
Christopher Steele dossier on Trump/Russia?
7) Did you discuss the Trump dossier with Skripal and/or Miller?
8) Do you know whether Skripal contributed to the Trump dossier?
9) In your Newsnight piece following the Rowley/Sturgess incident, you stated that security
service sources had told you that Yulia Skripal's telephone may have been bugged. Since
January 2017, how many security service briefings or discussions have you had on any of the
matter above.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Craig Murray
I should very much welcome others also sending emails to Mark Urban to emphasise the public
demand for an answer from the BBC to these vital questions. If you have time, write your own
email, or if not copy and paste from mine.
To quote that great Scot John Paul Jones, "We have not yet begun to fight".
Not going in to the details of the Skripals etc but what this goes to show is the
limitations of the FOI Act. The FOI Act was brought in by the Blair Govt but of course was
very much weakened in its final version. Even this was very much regretted by Blair in his
autobiography who said what an 'idiot' he had been to bring it in. Tony, you need have no
fear – powerful institutions like the BBC can block any meaningful probing because of
the limitations of the law.
Spotted this yesterday .5103 "A Ukrainian political consultant has revealed to Sputnik that former MI6 agent
Christopher Steele sought and paid for researchers in Ukraine to concoct fake stories about
Donald Trump prior his election as US president to use in the now-infamous dossier that
supposedly contained damning evidence of Russia-Trump collusion.
Radio Sputnik's Lee Stranahan spoke previously with Ukrainian political consultant and
former diplomat Andrii Telizhenko about his connections to a Democratic National Committee
(DNC) operative named Alexandra Chalupa who also worked for clients in Ukrainian politics.
Chalupa told Politico in January 2017 that beginning in 2015, she pulled on a network of
sources she'd established in Kiev and Washington to try and turn up dirt on Trump , once
his star began to rise in the Republican primary campaign." Etc etc
I can't add any cogency to the (so-far) fruitless quest for information from the BBC, but
last weeks R4 programme (still available on iPlayer) The Reunion, in which the Skripal, and
more recent 'nerve agent' attacks, were discussed and, I thought, neatly tied in with the
'Murder of Georgi Markov in the 1950s, apparently by Bulgarian secret agents, perhaps
deserves examination by listeners and researchers more interested in BBC propaganda.
A panel of 'experts', diplomats, security people, some of whom you may very well knowand who
laid claim to being 'there or thereabouts', concluded that The Skripal's incident bore all
the markings of 'state sponsored' action, though, of course, they would never know until "the
Russian archives are opened".
It all sounded thoroughly convincing (radio does when you're driving on a long-haul, I find)
but it did occur to me that the programme, though ostensibly about the 'murder of Markov' was
intended to draw the listener to inevitable conclusions about the perpetrators of Salisbury
and Amesbury 'poisonings'.
The BBC is very good at obfuscation and I felt this was a good example.
Sorry I cannot be more 'relevant' to your blog of 27/08/18.
Good luck, and please. as they say, keep up the good work.
I remember the excellent 'Media Lens' team have complained about Mark Urban in the past
with his blatant Western bias. For example, like the other overpaid political analysts and
presenters on the BBC, he doesn't question the stated but transparently dishonest premise of
the West – that they are intervening in other nations on a humanitarian basis. Like the
other wastes of space in the mainstream media, he is also quick to mention civilian deaths by
the Russians but not so quick to mention those killed by the West.
As I recall, Urban completely failed to reply to or to address the concerns of Media Lens
in a reasonable way.
"I remember the excellent 'Media Lens' team have complained about Mark Urban in the past
with his blatant Western bias."
Mark Urban is from a Western country and the broadcaster he works for is in a Western
country. Why are you so surprised that both he and the organisation he works for have a
"Western bias"? Is that so abnormal? Would you expect him to have a pro-Chinese or a
pro-Russian or, for that matter, a pro-Brazilian bias and would you be happy if he had? Would
you expect a journalist who works for RT to have an anti-Russian, pro-Western
bias?
Ramifications.
'Recently Aeroflot has been affected by US sanctions and its flights to America face possible
suspension by Washington, as the US government seeks to punish the Kremlin for its alleged
involvement in the poisoning of former double agent and Russian national Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia in Salisbury in March.' https://www.rt.com/trends/aeroflot-russia-airlines-international/
Russian skies could become too expensive for US airlines if Washington targets
Aeroflot
American carriers would face huge financial losses if Russia increases tariffs for the use of
its airspace in response to possible US sanctions targeting the country's largest airline
Aeroflot, an expert has told RT. https://www.rt.com/business/435599-russia-aeroflot-us-sanctions/
Klutzes all! and now the entire story is unravelling thanks to that idiot Alexander Downer
and his mate Halper. I guess their little maltese buddy Joe Mifsud is deeply underground for
a decade or two.
I hadn't really followed the implications until' your list. So there will be a chemical
attack and the OPCW will assign blame to Syria (but also possibly Syria/Russia).
The US have been making it clear that they would hold Russia accountable for any "further"
chemical weapons attacks carried out by Syria. This could used then to remove Russia form the
UN Security Council. Even for the UN to no longer recognise the Russian Government as
legitimate and instead recognise an alternative Russian Government (under Mikhail
Khardovsky). Will China fall in line?
This looks awfully close to the start of a full scale war.
The UN has been turning a blind eye to neo-con murder since 9/11. They are a busted flush.
There is no residual value or purpose for the UN in an age that backs Saudi Arabi to train
terrorists in Myanmar.
As to Senator John McCain the world will be a safer place when this terrorist is finally
removed. The UN is wholly owned by the US. The US neo-cons have sucked every particle of
respectability out of it.
" Those who antagonise the believing Muslim men and women and do not repent will be consigned
to the Fire, to dwell forever therein. " Qur'an. I am immensely proud of Donald trump for
refusing to honour him.
Frightening, and probably part of the plan. I have been reading for the last 2 days a
series of warnings by the Russians that a chemical "attack" is imminent. Not many
translations of this in the MSM. One would think that they wouldn't dare after such warnings,
but I am not optimistic. After all, how many people have read the warnings?
I've seen posts on Twitter about this warning by the Russians and you know what the
counter-argument is that they are putting forward? They contend that it's a double bluff by
the Syrians/Russians. Well, if you're intending to use chemical weapons why wouldn't you make
out that the other side are planning it as a false flag? Trouble is, Western governments will
be more than happy to go along with that in the public eye – let's face it, they know
the real truth of the situation. I note however that the Russian warning mentions the active
role in the planned false flag played by British security firm Olive. I haven't seen any
denial from them so that would suggest to a neutral observer that the Russian allegations do
have some foundation and hopefully will be enough to 'put the wind up' those planning the
event.
Further to my post at 18.08 I see a short and sweet statement on the Sputnik website that
"Olive Group has no involvement" Suzanne Piner, the company's marketing director said. So
there we have it, who are we to disbelieve them??
A great blog, Craig, and lots of good comments. I have two contributions.
1. A recent Spectator blog talked of a 'Stockade of D-notices'. Surely that means more
than the two we know about. So I guess that anyone working in the MSM must have to tread
carefully.
2. We are swimming in a sea of fake news, disinformation, misinformation, deliberate lies
and speculation. I have found only one rock worth clinging onto and it's this. The Porton
Down analyst (CC) who gave evidence to the high court which heard the blood sample
application said the analysis of the Skripals blood indicated exposure to a nerve agent or
related compound (para 17 of the judge's report). It is reasonable to assume they used the
term 'nerve agent' correctly, i.e. belonging to the group of organo-phosphorus compounds
(from the OPCW website). On the assumption CC told the truth, there are only three
possibilities:-
a. The Skripals were exposed to a nerve agent, or
b. They were exposed to a related compound that was not a nerve agent, or
c. The analysis was unable to say whether it was a nerve agent or a related compound.
If it was 'a', why did CC muddy the waters by saying 'or a related compound? Very
unlikely, bearing in mind the sensitivety of the issue.
If it was 'c', is it credible that Porton Down, world leaders in chemical weaponry, were not
able to tell if a substance was a nerve agent or not? I think not.
Which leaves 'b'. That the Skripals were not poisoned by a nerve agent.
I think we should all write to our MPs pointing this out and request a Parliamentary
Question be put to the Secretary of State for Defence (who oversees PD) asking for full
details of those blood tests and for Theresa to be briefed accordingly. She would then be
required under the Ministerial Code to correct her misleading statements to the House which
claimed the Skripals were poisoned by a nerve agent.
Hi Robert – if CC knew for sure they Skripals were exposed to a nerve agent, CC
would not have added 'or a related compound' as it only serves to confuse. CC might have said
it because he/she couldn't tell from the findings – most unlikely – so the only
reason he/she said the words 'or a related compound' was to avoid lying under oath to the
high court.
It all comes down to contaminated crack or whatever they used, especially the
Amesbury folk. They're well known imbibers a friend living there has told me.
I pass this on merely as a possible explanation from 'people who know'.
Hi Paul – yes. At the court hearing, CC was referring to the initial blood analyses
carried out by Porton Down a day or so after the poisoning. But clearly the doubt sown by the
words 'or a related compound' remained at least until 20th March when CC gave that
evidence.
I remember reading that Court of Protection judgement wording at the time and made some
notes about it, plus how this wording compared with that of Gary Aitkenhead's and the
OPCW's:
When comparing the wording from three sources – interview with head of Porton Down,
court hearing and OPCW documents – I think that there is room for the absence of
Novichok in blood samples taken from the Skripals before 22/03.
The Court of Protection judgement before Mr Justice Williams (22/03), (regarding an
application to take blood samples for the OPCW to confirm Porton Down's earlier analysis),
states that earlier blood tests carried out by Porton Down "indicated exposure to a nerve
agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class
nerve agent or closely related agent." (Please note the "or".) The statement comes at point
17 i):
Then, Gary Aitkenhead, CEO of Porton Down, told Sky News (04/04) that the substance they
found was "..Novichok or from that family.." (Again, please note the "or".) The statement
comes 1:27mins in on this YouTube video, which has a less edited version than on the Sky News
site, plus some interesting notes:
And the OPCW's executive summary, which has been made public, does not mention Novichok by
name, but it says that the results of their tests confirm the findings of the UK relating to
the chemical's identity, and show that the toxic chemical is of high purity. It says that the
name and structure of the toxic chemical are contained in the full classified report of the
Secretariat, available to the state parties of the OPCW.
Taken from points 10, 11 and 12 at:
I have been thinking about this as well. Please note that "nerve agent or related
compound" leaves open the possibility that the compound is not even a nerve agent.
It would be interesting to know the expert definitions of "closely related" and "family"
with regard to "nerve agent" and "novichok".
The general understanding is that it was A-234. This has never been confirmed in a public
statement, however.
Expressions like "nerve agent" subconsciously conjure up dark and sinister evildoing in
the world of James Bond and his "licence to kill", at least in the minds of most British
English speakers. The same psychology is at work when you see "Polite Notice" and
subconsciously read it as "Police Notice". Such notices are invariably unofficial, and often
impolite!
For the mischief makers, however, mere "nerve agent", with its ambiguity and murky
undertones, was not enough; "novichok" will soon be a novichok entry for 2018 in the OED.
("Новичо́к" means "newcomer", "new
guy"–as in freshman, rookie, novice.)
Modern nerve agents were first discovered in the 1930s by German industrial chemists
experimenting with organophosphorus compounds (which are defined by containing a particular
grouping of carbon, phosphorus and oxygen atoms). They were trying to make new insecticides
which would be powerful but safe(ish), but stumbled across tabun, which was powerful but very
unsafe. Given the political situation, and realising the military potential, these chemists
then pursued their research with emphasis on the extremely unsafe, and with huge success.
After 1945, having had no such success themselves, the victorious allies' chemists
"inherited" this German research; the Soviets did particularly well here, as there was much
German manufacturing infrastructure in Poland. Exactly what happened next is obviously kept
very secret, but some refinements were certainly achieved such as VX,
and–allegedly–the Novichoks. Per Chalmers Johnson: "we knew Saddam had WMD; we
had the receipts".
All very interesting (not really), and probably well-understood by a few reading this. A
problem in getting a real understanding of all this novichok/Skripal malarkey lies in some
misunderstandings of the details about the foregoing, of which few will be properly aware,
Craig included. He read history.
Firstly organophosphorus compounds are certainly not inherently toxic; DNA is an
organophosphate, as is RNA, ATP, etc. Boat loads of other basic biochemistry involves this
chemical grouping. To equate "nerve agent" (or "insecticide") with "organophosphate" is a
good start, but nothing more.
Secondly, the idea that nerve agents are new is misleading. Curare (poison) tipped arrows
have been used in South America for millenia, secretions by bufotenine toads similarly used
elsewhere, with many many other examples throughout recorded history (and beyond). These
chemicals could all semantically correctly be termed nerve agents.
Interestingly, although tabun's potency was discovered in the 30s by Schrader er al, it had
been unwittingly synthesised 40-odd years earlier. There's nothing new under the sun.
Thirdly, poisoning by ACE nerve agents (which, allegedly, includes
Новичо́к) is quick and easy(ish) to detect and
interpret in an unambiguous way. Less so more exotic and novel toxins (so obviously not eg
curare or bufotoxins, but along those lines). However, given time, a good analysis is doable
using mass spectrometry, SEM, X-ray crystallography (and other) methods.
In reply to John Bull, I wouldn't say we're "swimming in a sea of fake news, et seq", more
bobbing around like corks. Love the moniker, by the way! It works on so many levels.
I suspect the reason for the wording is that what was identified was an
acetylcholineesterase (ACE) inhibitor, which covers the major nerve agents and other
compounds as well.
Here is one of the really stupid things about the official british story line on the
Skripals. Sergei and Yulia are supposed to have left their home at around 1:30 and both
swiped their hands on the door lever and were then novihoaxed. They drove to town and parked
their car ten minutes later. They then walked through the park and stopped to hand feed the
ducks in the stream and handed bread to the young boys to also feed the ducks. They then went
on to act 2 scene 1 at zizzis or the pub and then act 2 scene two collapsed on the bench.
No young boy or duck was harmed making this play. The military grade novihoax is incapable
of killing a duck, let alone a child as this pair smeared military grade nerve poison on
everything! They have incinerated the zizzi table and heaven knows what has been incinerated
at the pub. They incinerated the Skripals front door, who knows what fate was delivered to
the BMW.
But they cant kill a duck! Mind you they can starve Skripal pets.
I wasn't trying to divert. I know quite a bit about the habits of ducks. You'll very
rarely see a dead duck anywhere in the natural world. Same with swans. They like to die in
private.
I can tell you that it's very unlikely that you'd have any reports of dead ducks in
Salisbury parks.
Before anyone puts this down to more high level trolling, I used to be a wildlife
photographer. And I mean a proper one, i.e one that crawled around in mud for days at a time
filming and photographing ducks.
The ducks were an obvious joke (of derision). The joke has a second level (not hidden);
the young boys didn't die because everyone knows the novichok poisoning story is not
true?
"No ducks or young boys were harmed in the making of this movie!"
All of the above just paraphrases/repeats what uncle tungsten said
You jobs sounds like it was really great, I envy you. But your contribution (here) sucks
big time!
There appears to be a distinct lack of cross contamination.
The Skripal car should be riven with this poison – on the steering wheel- gear stick
etc etc. If so, then reports of it being burned should follow like the table – as the
guinea pigs and the cat were.
It should be all over the bread and all over the assistant duck feeders and the ducks
should have been legion with their webbed feet up in the air.
The door handle application is a crock. If, as is claimed the alleged Novichok was pure
then who made it should be known because of its purity.
If it's Russian that should be provable. So far the proof that it is Russian made has not been shown.
"So far the proof that it is Russian made has not been shown."
Nonsense, the very name novichok is a giveaway, nobody would use a novichok except
Russians.
"They have incinerated the Zizzi table " The significance of the table in this saga
intrigues me. I recall when the 'details' (!!) of events were revealed by the MSM at the
outset we were informed that the table had been covered in nerve agent in the form of a fine
white powder and had to be incinerated. [ In fact it was so badly contaminated even Porton
Down didn't have the capability of storing it safely – that's my facetious 'take' on it
before anyone asks where I read that!]
On the assumption that it was indeed incinerated as a 'risk' item it begs a couple of obvious
questions which the official narrative hasn't explained. First, the time lapse between the
Skripals leaving Zizzis, being identified and their movements traced back to the restaurant
and 'lockdown' being applied to everything in the restaurant: we don't know but I would
hazard a guess an hour minimum. Are we really supposed to believe that the plates, dishes and
cutlery left by the Skripals weren't cleared away in all that time, and the table wasn't
wiped down? Irrespective of whether the nerve agent residue that we are supposed to believe
was being spread all over Salisbury was visible or not, surely whoever cleared the table and
washed up the dishes would definitely have been contaminated if we are to believe what we
have been told about the door handle theory.
Adding to my comment at 12.19, we mustn't also forget that glasses and dishes would also
have been removed from the table during the course of the Skripals' meal as well, not to
mention money or credit cards or card reading machines etc exchanging hands. And the drinking
glasses used at the pub. The more you think about it, the more ridiculous the official line
becomes.
Most of US Russiagate charges are projection. Russiagate is a color
revolution of the block of neoliberals and neocons to depose Trump. They are
afraid of too many skeletons in the closet to allow Trump to finish his
term. And for a right reason. Trump is unpredictable and he at one moment
can turn on them and start revealing unpleasant truth about Bush II and
Obama.
But rumors about the demise of the US neoliberal empire are slightly
exaggerated ;-). Without providing an alternative model to neoliberalism and
without ethnological superiority China does not stand a chance.
Notable quotes:
"... Through endless repetition, allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia. ..."
"... Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia. ..."
"... Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures & keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance & hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth! ..."
"... Their claim to One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than 100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology development system (DARPA) ..."
"... other Nations may reach a saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the realization that this crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped, once & for all time! ..."
It was around 1898, when America first starting thinking it was the center of the universe.
In that year the U.S. intervened in Cuba's war for independence and proceeded to take over
parts of the decrepit Spanish Empire, from Latin America to the Philippines. Shortly before, in
1893, the U.S. overthrew the Queen of Hawaii on behalf of U.S.-backed sugar and pineapple
plantation owners.
That led to a long history of political interference in other countries, in the form of
destabilization, coups and invasions. Once the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, a narrative was
fostered to justify expanding NATO to Russia's borders.
In the last four years, anti-Russian propaganda has reached a fever pitch: lies about
Russia's "expansionism" in Ukraine; hype about Russia's "meddling" in the U.S. elections,
creating an existential "threat to democracy;" unproven allegations of Russia using chemical
weapons to poison the Skripals in London. Experts are trotted out on major media to further the
narrative without hard evidence. Together with think-tanks, the American and British media run
these stories daily with almost no counter news or opinions. Through endless repetition,
allegations are transformed into "facts." Sanctions are loaded upon sanctions, based on these
unsubstantiated charges in an economic war against Russia.
In 2004, journalist Ron Suskind wrote in The New York Times magazine that a top White
House strategist for President George W. Bush -- identified later as Karl Rove, Bush's Deputy
White House Chief of Staff -- told him, "We're an empire now; we create our own reality."
Swiss journalist, Guy Mettan, in his 2017 book, Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious
Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria, writes that the West's psycho-social pathology
about Russia dates back over 1,000 years to the division of Christendom between the Orthodox
and Roman churches. The U.S. is a relative newcomer to this, but seeks perhaps its biggest
role.
" More than merely dominate, the American superpower now seeks to control history," Mettan
says.
Myth of Russian Expansionism
The astute University of Chicago Professor John J. Mearsheimer exposed how the West provoked
the Ukraine crisis in his 2014 Foreign Affairs article,
"Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin."
But the American foreign policy establishment and media remain committed to the suppression of
facts about the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev and the resulting escalating tensions with Russia.
Ignoring or fabricating evidence, the U.S. and NATO persist in
lying that Russia has expansionist goals in Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. Russia is helping
ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine who are resisting the coup, Crimea (which had been part
of Russia since 1783 and transferred by the Soviets to Ukraine in 1954) held a referendum in
2014 in which the public voted to rejoin Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in to
help fight Western and Gulf-backed jihadists trying to violently overthrow the government, as
even then Secretary of State John Kerry admitted .
Another scholar, Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University
of Kent, writes in his latest book, Russia Against the Rest: The Post-Cold War Crisis of World Order, that the
Ukraine crisis crystallized the profound differences between Russia and the West, differences
that are not just a replay of the "Cold War."
Simply put, under the banner of the indispensable "liberal world order," neo-conservative
warriors and "democracy"-spreading-"humanitarian-interventionists"
are promoting the Russophobia "reality" to justify American hegemony.
Ditching Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn : Ditched when he turned on America. (Wikimedia Commons)
One of the greatest illustrations of the centuries-old Russophobia, says Mettan in his 2017
book, is the case of Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
" During the 1990s, I was shocked by the way the West treated Solzhenitsyn," Mettan wrote.
"For decades, we had published, celebrated, and acclaimed the great writer as bearing the torch
of anti-Soviet dissidence," but only when he criticized his communist Russia. But after moving
to the U.S., when Solzhenitsyn showed a preference for privacy "rather than attending
anticommunist conferences, western media and academics began to distance themselves."
And when Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia and spoke out against Russian 'westernizers' and
liberals who denied Russian interests, he was labeled "an outdated, senile writer," though he
had not changed his fundamental views on freedom.
After the mid-July, Trump-Putin Helsinki summit, there were countless mass media delusions
and hysteria against U.S.-Russia ties, reminiscent of the Hearst newspaper empire's propaganda
that whipped up a frenzy to support the empire-building war against Spain in 1898. Professor
Stephen Kinzer vividly described the unsuccessful battle by prestigious anti-imperialists
against the power of the Hearst propaganda in his latest book, The True Flag:Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire."
Today's propaganda tool is named "RussiaGate," a campaign to bring down a deeply flawed
U.S. president for possibly trying to mend U.S. relations with Russia.
Do we have enough good sense left to follow the advice of Henry David Thoreau: "Let us
settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion,
and prejudice till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality."
Or, as I thought when I visited Galileo's house that day in the Florentine hills: the world
does not revolve around America.
Jean Ranc is a retired psychologist/research associate at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Wonderful observations that challenge the complete and utter madness of our times here in
the U.S., and the West in general. The inquisitorial "accusations" leveled against Putin and
Russia by the West bear no more resemblance to "reality" than the lunatic accusations that
the Holy Inquisition leveled against "witches," "heretics" and "non-believers" for centuries
as it used terror to consolidate power. Given the ever more shrill and painfully persistent
nature of these ongoing nonsense anti-Russian accusations – it would appear more and
more of us in the West are falling into the category of – "non-believers."
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:45 pm
A very good post Gary. The West is decadent and corrupt.Whatever high moral grounds the
West once held, I am afraid they are either forgotten or totally gone.
Delightful piece to read, great comments as usual. I can only add that the neocolonialists
who don't want to give up leading the US over the edge, as mike says "into the abyss", will
be forced to change their ways, well stated by Babylon and others. The tragedy of what they
have done by their narcissistic, egoistic, delusional misleading, is that they have wrecked
the lives of millions worldwide. But of course, that is the story of deluded conquerors until
they meet their own end. I welcome the sun setting on the "American Century"; a sharp reset
awaits us all but we should welcome it.
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Jessika: the saddest part in all this is that they still continue to wreck and decimate
lives worldwide. It is like a cancer eating and obliterating every thing in their path. A
very incisive post.
The cancer is psychopathy! These people have no conscience or empathy. They are liars and
manipulators. They treat people like objects to be used and abused. Until America admits that
we've had a substantial percentage of psychopathic leaders and mentality, from the Puritans
forward, we will never recover from the psychological, social, economic, political, legal,
religious destruction this ilk has forced upon the rest of us. It took me deep research and
therapy to discover that psychopaths project themselves onto the rest of us and then claim we
are somehow damaged, flawed or have sinful human nature. The problem has always been the
psychopaths among us (1%) who have created hierarchies and placed themselves atop them. They
have bamboozled most of us with their lies but as we wake up to their games, we can kick them
out of power and we can create a country of the 99% with conscience and empathy rather than a
country of slaveowners and deluded "Israelites" who believed they had the right to exploit,
enslave, kill
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:36 am
It's not sad, it's what's deathcult tyrants & dying Empires do, they take as many
victims as they can, once they realise the end is nigh! It's a mass shooter mentality &
it's disgraceful!
JR , August 28, 2018 at 9:14 pm
HI Jessika,
I tried to find you while I was still living in NH as I got the idea you live there as well.
I had lived in the Dartmouth area in the 70's but the brutal winters were too much! this time
around so I returned to my home base here in Chapel Hill. If you'd like to be in touch, you
can reach me at my old-but-still-good Santa Fe address: [email protected]
mike k , August 28, 2018 at 5:37 pm
American egotism is legendary. It is the defining mark of the breed. Ignorant know-it-alls
lead us confidently into the abyss.
jose , August 28, 2018 at 8:53 pm
Mike: If American leaders that are in control of the country have studied history of any
empire, they would come to the realization that empires do not last forever. The illogical
part is that empire's life expectancy has been more or less the same worldwide. And like an
opened book the end is closing in and they know it.
Realist , August 28, 2018 at 5:00 pm
Excellent bit of necessary truth-telling. Too bad it won't be read in most of America, not
because the people would reject its premise, but because their keepers just won't let them
see it in the highly manipulated mass media.
America has repeatedly become what it most professes to hate: first an onerous empire like
Spain, then a pack of fascists like Nazi Germany, and now totalitarian tyrants like the
Soviets. Welcome to the truth, the one NOT fabricated by Rove's inheritors of empire.
Babyl-on , August 28, 2018 at 4:32 pm
This thought is so important to understand if you are to make any sense of the new
multi-polar world which does not revolve around the failing Western empire.
China's Belt and Road is a catalyst but China will benefit only through the
interconnection of the entire Eurasian land mass – sooner than you think, high-speed
trains will cross the steppes. That is the new world the Enlightenment era is dead the
Eurasian era is opening. Eurasia will trade most naturally with Africa and it will prosper
because The US Empire is the last of the Enlightenment white European empires.
When you consider the integration of the great Eurasian land mass for the first time is
history (the ancient Silk Road writ large) it's easy to forget about a US over there
separated by all that water from the thriving markets.
Those oceans which protected the center of power from attack now are a big disadvantage in
trade.
We are witnessing the end of the Enlightenment and the end of Empire which it spawned.
China is not imperial, Russia is not imperial – no country today seeks empire but
the US and they are failing in every way. Western Liberal Democracy also died with the
Enlightenment, new forms of governance and culture will develop, the sky really is the limit,
now that the old dead Enlightenment is moving out of the way.
It would be a brighter future if not for that pesky climate.
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 1:51 am
Nations, such as Russia, China & others just want to determine their own futures &
keep their National sovereignty's! It's America, with it's unbelievable arrogance &
hubris, that wants to dominate & impose its sovereignty on every Country on Earth!
Russia
& China are the future with the one belt, one road initiative & America is being left
in the rear view mirror & is on the path to total oblivion thanks to its warmongering
ways! The end of this corrupt American Empire can't come soon enough for people who want to
live in peace!
Egocentrism isn't just a Donald Trump thing, it's an American thing. America's
never-ending RussiaGate narrative is a classic example of psychological projection. It can't
be US who has the problem, it must be THEM who has the problem. Time to own it.
paraphrasing J. Pilger -- America should leave the rest of the world
alone -- leave it alone
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:15 am
Yes, I second what Mr Pilger stated & I will add a few more requests? "Leave the
World" alone! Stop your Warmongering interference in other Countries affairs! Immediately
stop all your murderous Wars, Coups & Financial & Economic terrorism such as
weaponising the dollar & Trade sanctions to illegally punish other Nations! Abide by
International Laws & the U.N. charter! Remove your 800 bases from around the World &
stick to your own backyard! Stop being the Worlds Policeman because no one asked you to
perform this role! Look after your own people first & stop wasting trillions of dollars
on the pointless & stupid Military Industrial Complex! Ban Campaign lobbyists & big
money from Politics! Jail all corrupt Corporates & thieving Bankers, Politicians &
seize their assets! These are a few things for a start! There are many more things you could
do more numerous to name here, but the main thing is LEAVE THE WORLD ALONE! We are sick to
death of this American Empire!
Sally Snyder , August 28, 2018 at 2:28 pm
Here is what Americans really think about the anti-Russia hysteria coming from
Washington:
Less than half of Americans believe that Russia's interference in the 2016 election made a
difference to the final outcome and nearly six in ten Americans believe that it is important
that Washington continue to improve relations with Moscow.
Jeff Harrison , August 28, 2018 at 2:25 pm
When you get to the end of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, six volumes of dense,
erudite prose which details the failings of a decadent society, Gibbon lets you in on a
secret. The Roman Empire was militarily defeated. Not all at once, mind. But militarily
defeated nonetheless. Consider what that means for the US.
RnM , August 28, 2018 at 9:27 pm
Rome became a victim of its success, being overstretched beyond their war technology
(horses, shields, swords and siege machines.)
My inability and unwillingness to predict the end of the rise of The Empire of "We the
People" and its brand of War Technologies, is due to my close perspective and life-long
Bernaiseian (?sp) brainwashing by the mass media, which, thankfully, has, since 2016, been
dealt a blow to the mask on their (the corporate media's) Totalitarian nature.
Their claim to
One Truth (no alternate facts tolerated in NYT/WaPo Land) that they've enjoyed for more than
100 years has fallen victim to the Internet, a creation of the American war technology
development system (DARPA). So, in the American attempt to surpass the Romans, the Empire of
We the People (as a Totalitarian dystopia) may well be thwarted by the spread of open
information. I hope so. The alternative might be very difficult to defeat.
Jeff, if you enjoyed Gibbons, I think you would really enjoy Michael Parenti's, "The
Assassination of Julius Caesar". There are so many parallels between the late Roman Republic
and today's America. Michael got his PhD in political science and history from Yale and
writes "people's history". He argues convincingly that Caesar was assassinated -- - not for
being an egomaniac and dictator -- - but because he stood up against the most elite in the
senate by seeking reforms that would benefit the masses. He actually argues that Gibbons
wrote as a historian from the priviledged class and therefore never condemned the senate for
exploiting the masses.
KiwiAntz , August 29, 2018 at 2:34 am
Yes, what it means,& if History is anything to go by, that other Nations may reach a
saturation point when enough is enough & they finally come to the
realization that this
crooked American Empire is to dangerous to be allowed too continue & must be stopped,
once & for all time!
The Roman Empire never saw the Barbarian hordes such as the
Visigoth's, Huns & Vandals coming until it was to late! Will the American Empire see
there downfall coming? 9/11 proved the arrogant American Empire couldn't even see that event
coming, due to their own hubris & complacency!
Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-NC) dropped a late-night
bombshell on Monday suggesting there's evidence that the FBI and DOJ
rigged their own FISA spy warrants by leaking information to the
press, then using the resultant articles to obtain court
authorization to surveil targets.
"We've learned NEW information suggesting our suspicions are true:
FBI/DOJ
have previously leaked info to the press, and then used those same
press stories as a separate source to justify FISA's
,"
tweeted Meadows.
We've learned NEW information suggesting our
suspicions are true: FBI/DOJ have previously
leaked info to the press, and then used those
same press stories as a separate source to
justify FISA's
Unreal. Tomorrow's Bruce Ohr interview is even
more critical. Did he ever do this?
Until now, we've known that the creator of the so-called Steele
Dossier, former UK spy Christopher Steele, leaked information
directly to
Yahoo!
News
journalist Michael Isikoff - whose article became a
supporting
piece of evidence
in the FBI's FISA warrant application and
subsequent renewals for Trump adviser Carter Page.
So while we've known that Steele seeded Isikoff with information
from his dubious dossier, and that the FBI then used both Steele's
dossier and Isikoff's Steele-inspired article to game the FISA
system,
Rep.
Mark Meadows now says that the FBI/DOJ directly leaked information
to the press, which they then used for the same type of FISA scheme.
Strong evidence was discovered in January suggesting that former FBI
employee Lisa Page
leaked
privileged information
to Devlin Barrett, formerly of the
Wall
Street Journal
and now with the
Washington
Post
. Whether any of Barrett's reporting was subsequently used
to obtain a FISA warrant is unknown.
Meanwhile, Rep. Meadows's Monday night tweet comes hours before
twice-demoted DOJ employee Bruce Ohr is set to give closed-door
testimony to the House Oversight Committee. Ohr was caught lying
about his involvement with opposition research firm Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson - who employed Steele.
Ohr's
CIA-linked
wife,
Nellie, was also
employed
by Fusion
as part of the firm's anti-Trump efforts, and had
ongoing communications with the ex-UK spy, Christopher Steele as
well.
- Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for the firm
hired by the Clinton campaign to write the
dossier
- Bruce Ohr gave the dossier to the FBI
- The FBI then used the same dossier to spy on
the Trump campaign
When he comes to Congress tomorrow, Bruce Ohr
has explaining to do
Based on
new
emails
recently turned over to Congressional investigators, Ohr
was revealed to have been
feeding
information to the FBI from Steele, long after the FBI had
officially cut Steele off for inappropriate leaks to the press.
"Conspiracy theorists" ? We have emails showing
Bruce Ohr and Chris Steele, Clinton-paid dossier
author, were frequently communicating. Ohr was
getting info from Steele long after the FBI
claimed Steele was formally 'terminated' as a
source. They had 60+ contacts.
Ohr's role as a conduit between Steele and the FBI continued for
months
and resulted in 12 separate FBI interviews,
including several after Trump's inauguration. According to Ohr's
then-supervisor, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Ohr
worked on the Russia probe without his permission and without
his knowledge. -
The
Federalist
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy
vowed that Tuesday's Ohr testimony would "
get
to the bottom of what he did, why he did it, who he did it in
concert with, whether he had the permission of the supervisors at
the Department of Justice."
Last week, President Trump called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions
to fire Ohr after his and Nellie's relationship with Simpson
emerged. Trump tweeted: "Will Bruce Ohr, whose family received big
money for helping to create the phony, dirty and discredited
Dossier, ever be fired from the Jeff Sessions 'Justice' Department?
A total joke!"
Will Bruce Ohr, whose family received big money
for helping to create the phony, dirty and
discredited Dossier, ever be fired from the Jeff
Sessions "Justice" Department? A total joke!
Trump's threat came one day after two tweets about Ohr, noting a
connection to former FBI agent Peter Strzok, as well as a text sent
by Ohr after former FBI Director James Comey was fired in which Ohr says
"afraid they will be exposed."
"Very concerned about Comey's firing, afraid
they will be exposed," said Bruce Ohr. DOJ's
Emails & Notes show Bruce Ohr's connection to
(phony & discredited) Trump Dossier. A creep
thinking he would get caught in a dishonest act.
Rigged Witch Hunt!
"The FBI received documents from Bruce Ohr (of
the Justice Department & whose wife Nelly worked
for Fusion GPS)." Disgraced and fired FBI Agent
Peter Strzok. This is too crazy to be believed!
The Rigged Witch Hunt has zero credibility.
More Ohr questions remain. For example, why did Nellie Ohr obtain a
Ham Radio license right in
May,
2016?
As Ham enthusiast George Parry wondered in The Federalist
in March, was it to avoid detection while working on the anti-Trump
effort?
So,
was
Nellie Ohr's late-in-life foray into ham radio an effort to
evade the Rogers-led NSA detecting her participation in
compiling the Russian-sourced Steele dossier
? Just as
her husband's omissions on his DOJ ethics forms raise an
inference of improper motive, any competent prosecutor could use
the circumstantial evidence of her taking up ham radio while
digging for dirt on Trump to prove her consciousness of guilt
and intention to conceal illegal activities. -
The
Federalist
And since none of this apparently justifies the appointment of a
second special counsel by the DOJ, perhaps Bruce can offer up some
answers during Tuesday's session? Of course, we'll never know what
he said unless someone leaks.
"... that the U.S. should rethink whether it needs to remain in the seven-decades-old NATO alliance with Europe. ..."
"... Sounding more like a CFO than a commander-in-chief, Trump said of the alliance, "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore," adding, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money." ..."
"... U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said that European allies have to shoulder a bigger burden of NATO's cost. But calling for the possible U.S. withdrawal from the treaty is a radical departure for a presidential candidate -- even a candidate who has been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Withdrawing from NATO would leave European allies without a forceful deterrent to the Russian military, which invaded and annexed portions of Ukraine in 2014. That would arguably be a win for Putin but leave U.S. allies vulnerable. ..."
"... It also wasn't clear how Trump's arguably anti-interventionist position on the alliance squared with his choice of advisers. ..."
"... One other Trump adviser had previously been reported. Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn had told The Daily Beast that he "met informally" with Trump. Flynn was pushed out of his post as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and has since spoken out publicly about the need for the U.S. to forge closer ties with Russia. ..."
"... I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it's obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today's Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but – I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don't think – right now we don't have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror. And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking at terror, because terror today is the big threat. Terror from all different parts. You know in the old days you'd have uniforms and you'd go to war and you'd see who your enemy was, and today we have no idea who the enemy is. ..."
"... I'll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending -- you know, in fact, they're even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I'm a person that -- you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don't have money anymore because we've been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don't have money -- and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I'm all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn't seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn't seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we're the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn't seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn't seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they're not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else's reports, how often do you see other countries saying "We must stop, we must stop." They don't do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn't that interesting? We're fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said, it doesn't seem fair and it doesn't seem logical. ..."
"... Even Barack Obama, despite his pretenses for ' a reset in U.S.-Russia relations ', had had actually the opposite of that pretension in mind -- a doubling-down on the Cold War . And Obama's successor, Donald Trump, doubles down on his predecessor's double-down, there. ..."
"... the Koch brothers' Doug Bandow, who represents his sponsors' bet against neoconservativsm, headlined on 27 April 2017 "Donald Trump: The 'Manchurian (Neoconservative) Candidate'?" and he itemized what a terrific Trojan Horse that Trump had turned out to be, for the war-lobby, the 'neocons', or, as Dwight Eisenhower had called them (but carefully and only after his Presidency was already over), "the military-industrial complex." ..."
"... Other people (the masses) fight, kill, die, get maimed, and are impoverished, while these few individuals at the very top in the U.S. profit, from those constant invasions, and military occupations ..."
"... bête noire ..."
"... I will say this about Iran. They're looking to go into Saudi Arabia, they want the oil, they want the money, they want a lot of other things having to do they took over Yemen, you look over that border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that is one big border and they're looking to do a number in Yemen. Frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us, and at what point do we get involved? And how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them? ..."
"... the stockholders in those American war-making corporations ..."
"... America's Founders ..."
"... Donald Trump just wants for Europeans to increase military spending (to buy U.S.-made weapons) even more than the U.S. is doing against Russia, and for the Sauds and Israelis also to buy more of these weapons from America's weapons-firms, to use against Iran and any nation friendly toward it. Meanwhile, America's own military spending is already at world-record-high levels.That's Trump's economic plan; that's his jobs-plan; that's his 'national security' plan. That is Trump's Presidency. ..."
"... He lied his way into office, just like his predecessors had been doing. This is what 'democracy' in America now consists of: lies -- some colored "liberal"; some colored "conservative"; but all colored "profitable" (for the 'right' people); and another name for that, in foreign affairs, is "neoconservative." ..."
On August 20th, Gallup headlined "More in U.S. Favor
Diplomacy Over Sanctions for Russia" and reported that, "Americans believe it is more
important to try to continue efforts to improve relations between the countries (58%), rather
than taking strong diplomatic and economic steps against Russia (36%)." And yet, all of the
sanctions against Russia have passed in Congess by over 90% of Senators and Representatives
voting for them -- an extraordinarily strong and bipartisan favoring of anti-Russia sanctions,
by America's supposed
"representatives" of the American people . What's happening here, which explains such an
enormous contradiction between America's Government, on the one side, versus America's people,
on the other? Is a nation like this really a democracy at all?
Donald Trump understood this disjunction, when he was running for President, and he took
advantage of the public side of it, in order to win, but, as soon as he won, he flipped to the
opposite side, the side of America's billionaires, who actually control the U.S.
Government.
While he was campaigning for the U.S. Presidency, Donald Trump pretended to want to soften,
not harden, America's policies against Russia. He even gave hints that he wanted a redirection
of U.S. Government expenditures away from the military, and toward America's economic and
domestic needs.
On 31 January 2016 , Donald Trump -- then one of many Republican candidates running for
the Republican U.S. Presidential nomination -- told a rally in Clinton Iowa, "Wouldn't it be
nice if we actually got along with Russia and China and all these countries?"
On 21 March 2016 , he was
published in the Washington Post as having told its editors, that "he advocates a
light footprint in the world. In spite of unrest abroad, especially in the Middle East, Trump
said the United States must look inward and steer its resources toward rebuilding domestic
infrastructure. 'I do think it's a different world today, and I don't think we should be
nation-building anymore,' Trump said. 'I think it's proven not to work, and we have a different
country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We're sitting, probably, on a bubble.
And it's a bubble that if it breaks, it's going to be very nasty. I just think we have to
rebuild our country.'"
On that same day, The Daily Beast's Shane Harris wrote that:
Trump's surprising new position [is] that the U.S. should rethink whether it
needs to remain in the seven-decades-old NATO alliance with Europe.
Sounding more like a CFO than a commander-in-chief, Trump said of the alliance, "We
certainly can't afford to do this anymore," adding, "NATO is costing us a fortune and yes,
we're protecting Europe with NATO, but we're spending a lot of money."
U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said that European
allies have to shoulder a bigger burden of NATO's cost. But calling for the possible U.S.
withdrawal from the treaty is a radical departure for a presidential candidate -- even a
candidate who has been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Withdrawing from NATO would leave European allies without a forceful deterrent to the
Russian military, which invaded and annexed portions of Ukraine in 2014. That would arguably be
a win for Putin but leave U.S. allies vulnerable.
It also wasn't clear how Trump's arguably anti-interventionist position on the alliance
squared with his choice of advisers.
One other Trump adviser had previously been reported. Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn
had told The Daily Beast that he "met informally" with Trump. Flynn was pushed out of his post
as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and has since spoken out publicly about the
need for the U.S. to forge closer ties with Russia.
, the New York Times bannered, "Transcript: Donald Trump Expounds on His Foreign
Policy Views" and David Sanger and Maggie Haberman presented their discussion with Trump about
this, where Trump said:
I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it's obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades
ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet
Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much
more powerful than even today's Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but
– I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don't think
– right now we don't have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror.
And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking
at terror, because terror today is the big threat. Terror from all different parts. You know in
the old days you'd have uniforms and you'd go to war and you'd see who your enemy was, and
today we have no idea who the enemy is.
I'll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending
-- you know, in fact, they're even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair,
economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United
States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I'm a person that -- you notice I talk about
economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we
don't have money anymore because we've been taking care of so many people in so many different
forms that we don't have money -- and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at
the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It
has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of
the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I'm all for
Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn't seem to me, when the Ukrainian
problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very
confrontational, it didn't seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the
least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we're the farthest away. But even their
neighbors didn't seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at
other countries, and they didn't seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia.
And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine
– why is it that they're not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved?
Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that
– you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then
I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David –
because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else's reports, how
often do you see other countries saying "We must stop, we must stop." They don't do it! And, in
fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and
they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you
know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn't that interesting? We're
fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine
itself, of course, and I said, it doesn't seem fair and it doesn't seem logical.
The next day, March 27th, on ABC's "The Week," Trump said, "I think NATO's obsolete.
NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger, much larger than
Russia is today. I'm not saying Russia's not a threat. But we have other threats. We have the
threat of terrorism and NATO doesn't discuss terrorism, NATO's not meant for terrorism. NATO
doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism."
Even Barack Obama, despite his pretenses for '
a reset in U.S.-Russia relations ', had had actually the opposite of that pretension in
mind -- a doubling-down on the
Cold War . And Obama's successor, Donald Trump, doubles down on his predecessor's
double-down, there.
Of course, neocons aren't only against Russia; they also are against any country that Israel
and Saudi Arabia hate -- and, of course, Israel and Saudi Arabia are large purchasers of
American-made weapons, such as weapons from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and
General Dynamics. In fact: Saudi Arabia is the world's largest purchaser (other than the U.S.
'Defense' Department itself) of their products and services. In fact, soon after coming into
office, Trump achieved the
all-time-world-record-largest international weapons-sale, of $350 billion to the Sauds, and it
was quickly hiked yet another $50 billion to $400 billion . It's, as of yet, his jobs-plan
for the American people. Instead of Trump's peaceing the American economy, he has warred it.
Consequently, for example, the Koch brothers' Doug Bandow, who represents his sponsors' bet
against neoconservativsm, headlined on 27 April 2017
"Donald Trump: The 'Manchurian (Neoconservative) Candidate'?" and he itemized what a
terrific Trojan Horse that Trump had turned out to be, for the war-lobby, the 'neocons', or, as
Dwight Eisenhower had called them (but carefully and only after his Presidency was already
over), "the military-industrial complex."
They're all actually the same people; they serve the same billionaires, all of whom are
heavily invested in these war-makers -- all against two main targets: first, Russia (which
America's aristocracy hate the most); and, then, Iran (which Israel's and Saudi Arabia's
aristocracies hate the most). Any nation that's friendly toward those, gets destroyed.
Other people (the masses) fight, kill, die, get maimed, and are impoverished, while these
few individuals at the very top in the U.S. profit, from those constant invasions, and military
occupations -- which Americans admire (their
nation's military, America's invasion-forces) above all else .
On the Bill O'Reilly Show, 4 January 2016,
Trump was asked to announce, before even the Presidential primaries, what would cause him
as the U.S. President, to bomb Iran, and Trump then was panned everywhere for refusing to
answer such an inappropriate question -- to announce publicly what his strategy, as the U.S.
President, would be in such a matter of foreign affairs (in which type of matter only
the President himself should be privy to such information about himself, namely his strategy)
-- but Trump did reveal there his sympathy for the Sauds, and his extreme
hostility toward Iran, a nation which is a bête noire to neocons:
I will say this about Iran. They're looking to go into Saudi Arabia, they want the oil,
they want the money, they want a lot of other things having to do they took over Yemen, you
look over that border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that is one big border and they're
looking to do a number in Yemen. Frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us, and at what
point do we get involved? And how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them?
The Sauds have already answered that question, with their commitment to paying $400 billion,
and they're already using some of this purchased weaponry and training, to conquer Yemen. But
who gets that money? It's not the American people; it is only the stockholders in those
American war-making corporations (and allied corporations) who receive the benefits.
And what's this, from Trump, about "at what point do we get involved" if Saudi Arabia's
tyrants "don't survive without us"? America is now supposed to be committed to keeping
tyrannical hereditary monarchies in control over their countries? When did that start?
Certainly not in 1776. Today's America isn't like the country, nor the culture, that
America's Founders created, but instead is more like the
monarchy that they overthrew. This was
supposed to be an anti -imperialist country. Today's American rulers are
traitors , against the
nation that America's Founders had created. These traitors, and their many agents, are
sheer psychopaths. The American public are not their citizens, but their subjects -- much like
the colonists were, who overthrew the British King.
Donald Trump just wants for Europeans to increase military spending (to buy U.S.-made
weapons) even more than the U.S. is doing against Russia, and for the Sauds and Israelis also
to buy more of these weapons from America's weapons-firms, to use against Iran and any nation
friendly toward it. Meanwhile, America's own military spending is already at world-record-high
levels.That's Trump's economic plan; that's his jobs-plan; that's his 'national security' plan.
That is Trump's Presidency.
He lied his way into office, just like his predecessors had been doing. This is what
'democracy' in America now consists of:
lies -- some colored "liberal"; some colored "conservative"; but all colored "profitable" (for
the 'right' people); and another name for that, in foreign affairs, is
"neoconservative."
About Russia, he's continuing Obama's policies but even worse ; and
about Iran, he's clearly even more of a neocon than was his predecessor. However, as a
candidate, he had boldly criticized neoconservatism. Democracy cannot be based on
lies, and led by liars.
Ron Ridenour's latest book (this is his 10 th book on international relations and
politics) takes a direct shot at one of the most prevailing myths in the western political
discourse: the thesis that Russia and its USSR predecessor have been uniquely aggressive and
generally bellicose states. At a time when rabid russophobia is the order of the day (again --
chronic russophobia has been a regular feature of western political culture for many centuries
now), this is a very timely and important book which I highly recommend to those interested in
history.
The book is separated into three parts. In the first part of the book ( The Great
Capitalist Socialist Divide ), Ridenour looks at the Cuban Missile Crisis in some detail
and uses it to debunk the many myths which the "official" US historiography has been presenting
as dogma for decades. In this first section, Ridenour also provides many fascinating details
about Captain Vasili Arkhipov "the man who prevented WWIII". He also recounts how the US
propaganda machine tried, and still tries, to blame the murder of JFK on the Russians. The
second part of the book ( Peace, Land, Bread ) goes back in history and looks into the
ideological and political struggle between the collective West and the Soviet Union from the
revolution of 1917 and well into the Cold War. The third part of the book ( Russia At the
Crossroads -- the Putin Era ) conclude with very recent events, including the western
backed coup d'etat in the Ukraine and the Russian intervention in Syria.
The first and the third parts of the book are extremely well researched and offer a
rock-solid, fact-based, and logical analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis and its modern
equivalent, the AngloZionist "crusade" against modern Russia. This is a very important and good
choice because the two crises have a lot in common. I would even argue that the current crisis
is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the extremely low personal and
intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites. Ridenour shows that in 1962 it was not
the Soviets, but the US which pushed the world to the edge of a nuclear war, and in the third
section of his book he shows how, yet again, the Empire is cornering Russia into a situation
which very much risks resulting in a nuclear conflict.
For those who would have a knee-jerk rejection of Ridenour's crimethink, the book, on
page 438-444, offers a list of governments the USA has overthrown since WWII (50), countries
which the USA has bombed (30), foreign leaders it has murdered (50+), suppressed
populist/nationalist movements (20), and subverted democratic elections (30). Ridenour then
asks how it is that with a tally like that the US gets to moralize about Russia. He is
absolutely right, of course. Compared to the USA, the Soviet Union was a peace-loving,
non-interventionist and generally international law respecting country. Oh sure, the USSR had
its share of horrors and evil deeds, but compared with the "land of the free and the home of
the brave" these are minor, almost petty, transgressions.
The book is not without its faults. Sadly, in the second part of his book Ridenour repeats
what I can only call the "standard list of western clichés" about the 1917 Revolution,
it's causes and effects. Truth be told, Ridenour is most certainly not to be singled out for
making such a mistake: most of the books written in English and many of those written in
Russian about this period of Russian history are basically worthless because they are all
written by folks (from all sides of the political spectrum) with a vested ideological interest
in presenting a completely counter-factual chronology of what actually took place (Russian
author Ivan Solonevich wrote at length about this phenomenon in his books). Furthermore, such a
process is inevitable: after decades of over-the-top demonization of everything and anything
Soviet, there is now a "return of the pendulum" (both in Russia and outside) to whitewash the
Soviet regime and explain away all its crimes and atrocities (of which there were plenty). For
these reasons I would recommend that readers skip chapter 7 entirely (the description of the
1905 and 1917 revolutions are particularly bad and sound like a rehash of Soviet propaganda
clichés of the early 1980s).
This weakness of this historical analysis of the two Russian revolutions is, of course,
rather disappointing, but it in no way affects the pertinence of the fundamental thesis of this
book: that, for all its very real faults, the "Evil Empire" was a gentle and timid regime when
compared to the AngloZionist "Axis of Kindness" and its never-ending violent rampages all over
the world (literally) and its orgy of subversion and violence in the name of democracy,
freedom, human rights and all the rest of the western propaganda buzzwords.
The book's afterworld begins with the following words " WAITING AND WAITING! Waiting for
the end of the world! Waiting for Godot! Although, unlike in Samuel Beckett's Theater of the
Absurd play, in which Godot never arrives, the mad men and mad women leaders of the US, France
and UK (and Israel) are bringing us their bombs ". Having been warning about the very risks
of war for at least 4 years now, and having, along with others, posted a special " Russian
Warning " to warn about this danger, I can only wholeheartedly welcome the publication of
an entire book aimed at averting such a cataclysmic outcome.
My other big regret with this book is that it does not have an index. This is particularly
frustrating since the book is packed with over 500 pages of very interesting information and
can be used as a very good reference book.
Still, these criticisms should not distract from the very real value of this book. One of
the most frightening phenomena today is that the Empire and Russia are currently headed
directly for war and that, unlike what took place during the Cuban Missile Crisis, almost
nobody today speaks about this. The western corporate media is especially guilty in this
regard, as it encourages a constant escalation of rabid anti-Russian rhetoric (and actions)
without ever mentioning that if brought to its logical conclusion such policies will result in
a devastating war which the West cannot win (neither can Russia, of course, but that is hardly
much of a consolation, is it?).
There have been courageous voices in the West trying to stop this crazy slide towards a
nuclear apocalypse (I especially think of Professor Stephen Cohen and Paul Craig Roberts) but
theirs were truly "cries in the wilderness". And it doesn't matter one bit whether somebody
identifies himself as a conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, socialist,
anarcho-capitalist or by another other (mostly meaningless) political label. What matters is as
simple as it is crucial: preventing the Neocons from triggering a war with Russia or with
China, or with Iran, or with the DPRK, or with Venezuela, or with ( fill in the blank ).
The list of countries the US is in conflict with is very long (just remember Nikki Haley
berating and threatening the entire UN General Assembly because the vast majority of its
members dared to disagree with the US position on Jerusalem), but Russia is (yet again) the
designated arch-villian, the Evil Empire, Mordor -- you name it! Russia is the country which
wants to murder everybody with poison gas, from the Skripals in the UK, to the innocent
children of Syria. Russia is the country which shoots down airliners and prepares to invade all
her western neighbors. Finally, Russia is the place which hacks every computer in the "Free
World" and interferes with every single election. The longer that list of idiotic accusations
stretches, the bigger the risk of war becomes, because words have their weight and you cannot
have normal, civilized relations with the Evil Empire of Mordor which is "highly likely" to
invade, nuke or otherwise subvert the peace-loving peoples of the West.
Except that there never was any such thing as a "peace loving West" -- that is truly a
self-serving and 100% false myth. The historical record shows that in reality the collective
West has engaged in a 1000 year long murderous rampage all over the planet and that each time
it designated its victim as the culprit and itself as the defender of lofty ideals. Ridenour's
The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert (alongside with Guy Mettan's "
here ) does a long way towards debunking this myth.
With the few caveats mentioned above, I highly recommend this book.
I tend to agree with Saker–that yes, the Soviet Empire, and the current Russian
government have had their"nasty" moments, but it is not those governments that made their
very existence depend on creating chaos, death and destruction across the globe. The American
people have been too complacent–at least through out my life time (far side of 70) --
because they really have had no struggle as most of the rest of the world has. Mostly good
economic conditions, not having to rebuild after invading armies have passed through, plenty
of meat and potatoes–and all the other consumer goods. As long as that has been the
case, we have not really cared about what the government in DC has been doing "over there"
Consequently, the war industry has won control of the country.
So the possibility of nuclear war is closer now than ever before. It seems to me that the
neocon mentality that has been dominant for the past 25-30 years (the fall of the Soviet
empire?) comes with an erroneous belief that some how as was the case in the two previous
"great wars" conus will be spared any pain. However, it is my belief that there can not
possible be a limited nuclear exchange–one bomb will have everyone with the capacity
using them, and even if the "elite" manage to survive in their extensive underground
shelters, when they finally do have to come out, the idiots will have no idea at all as to
how to survive in an alien world.
Anyway, hope it doesn't happen, but arrogance has caused more than it's share of trouble,
and the neocons are nothing if not arrogant.
..the current crisis is much more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because of the
extremely low personal and intellectual qualities of the current US ruling elites ..
.The longer that list of idiotic accusations stretches, the bigger the risk of war
becomes ..
I do place a bit of the blame for unhappy outcome on Kremlin , though.
Had it acted more assertively, and decidedly, maybe US elite wouldn't have been acting so
recklessly.
Sharp and decisive intervention in Syria; overwhelming intervention in Ukraine.
And last but not least, a couple of missiles towards those two destroyers recently. With
training warheads, calculate for just one, two tops, to make through, and make a hole.
"They" believe that whenever they push Kremlin will step back. As so far.
Can anyone point as to where is that "red line"? I can't. But I am sure there is
somewhere.
And, it's highly likely we'll recognize it only when ICMBs start flying.
Much good it will do to all of us then.
"... The greatest success of the US conspiracy practitioners has been in convincing the US mass media to act as an arm of the CIA-Pentagon-Congressional and Presidential interventionist agenda. ..."
"... Conspiratorial plots have a narrow audience, mostly the US mass media and elite . They seem to have a short-term impact in justifying sanctions and trade wars. The media plotters having called wolf and proved nothing ,have lost credibility among a wide swath of the public. ..."
The mass media and political leaders of the US have resorted to denouncing competitors and
adversaries as spies engaged in criminal theft of vital political, economic and military
know-how.
The spy-mania has spread every place and all the time, it has become an essential element in
driving national criminal hearings, global economic warfare and military budgets.
In this paper we will analyze and discuss the use and abuse of spy-mongering by (1)
identifying the accused countries which are targeted; (2) the instruments of the spy
conspiracy; (3) the purpose of the 'spy attacks'.
Spies, Spies Everywhere: A Multi-Purpose Strategy
Washington's 'spy-strategy' resorts to multiple targets, focusing on different sectors of
activities.
Russia has been accused of poisoning adversaries, using overseas operatives in England. The
evidence is non-existent. The accusation revolves around an instant lethal poison which in fact
did not lead to death.
No Russian operative was identified. The only 'evidence' was that Russia possessed the
poison- as did the US and other countries. The events took place in England and the British
government played a major role in pointing the finger toward Russia and in launching a global
media campaign which was amplified in the US and in the EU.
The UK expelled Russian diplomats and threatened sanctions. The Trump regime picked up the
cudgels, increasing economic sanctions and demanding that Russia 'confess' to its 'homicidal
behavior'. The poison plot resonated with the Democratic Party campaign against Trump ,
accusing Russia of meddling in the Presidential election, on Trump's behalf. No evidence was
presented. But the less the evidence, the longer the investigation and the wider the
conspiratorial net; it now includes overseas business people, students and diplomats.
US conspiracy officials targeted China, accusing the Chinese government of stealing US
technology, scientific research and patents. China's billion dollar "Belt and Road" agreement
with over sixty countries was presented as a communist plot to dominate countries, grab their
resources, generate debt dependency and to recruit overseas networks of covert operatives. In
fact, China's plans were public, accepted by most of the US allies and membership was even
offered to the US.
Iran was accused of plotting to establish overseas terrorist military operations in Yemen,
Iraq and Syria – targeting the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. No evidence was ever
presented. In fact, massive US and EU supplied arms and advisors to Saudi Arabia's overt terror
bombing of Houthi-led Yemen cities and populations. Iran backed the Syrian government in
opposition to the US backed armed mercenaries. Iranian advisers in Syria were bombed by Israel
– and never retaliated.
The US policy elite resort to conspiratorial plots and spying depends heavily on the mass
media to repeat and elaborate on the charges endlessly, depending on self-identified experts
and ex-pats from the targeted country. In effect the media is the message. Media-state
collaboration is reinforced by the application of sanctions -- the punishment proves guilt!
In the case of Russia, the conspirators demonize President Putin; he is 'guilty' because he
was an ex-official of the police; he was accused of 'seizing' Crimea which voted to rejoin
Russia. In other words, plots are linked to unrelated activity, personality disorders and to US
self-inflicted defeats!
Labeling is another tool common to conspiracy plotters; China is a 'dictatorship' intent on
taking over the world -- therefore, it could only defeat the US through spying and stealing
secrets and assets from the US.
Iran is labelled a 'terrorist state' which allows the US to violate the international
nuclear agreement and to support Israeli demands for economic sanctions. No evidence is ever
presented that Iran invaded or terrorized any state.
The Political Strategy Behind Conspiracy Terrorists
There are several important motives for the US government to resort to conspiracy plots.
By accusing countries of crimes, it hopes that the accused will respond by revealing their
inability or unwillingness to engage in the action falsely attributed to them. Pentagon plots
put adversaries on the defensive – spending time and energy answering to the US agenda
rather than pursuing and advancing their own.
For example, the US claims that China is stealing economic technology to promote its
superiority, is designed to pressure China to downplay or modify its long-term plan for
strategic growth. While China will not give general credence to US conspiracy practitioners, it
has downplayed the slogans designed to motivate its scientists to "Make China Great'.
Likewise, the US conspiracy practitioners accusation that Iran is 'meddling' in Yemen and
Syria is designed to distract world opinion from the US military support for Saudi Arabia's
terror bombing in Yemen and Israel's missile attacks in Syria.
Plot accusations have had some effect in Syria. Russia has demanded or asked Iran to
withdraw fifty miles from the Israeli border. Apparently Iran has lowered its support for
Yemen.
Russia has been blanketed with unsubstantiated accusations of intervening in the Ukraine,
which distracts attention from Washington's support for the mob-led coup.
The UK claim that Russia planted a deadly poison, was concocted in order to distract
attention from the Brexit fiasco and Prime Minister May's effort to entice the US to sign a
major trade agreement.
How Successful are Conspiratorial Politics?
The greatest success of the US conspiracy practitioners has been in convincing the US
mass media to act as an arm of the CIA-Pentagon-Congressional and Presidential interventionist
agenda.
Secondly, the conspiracy has had an impact on both political parties – especially the
Democratic leadership, which has waged a political war accusing Trump of plotting with Russia,
to defeat Clinton in the presidential elections. However, Democratic conspiracy advocates have
sacrificed their popular electorate who are more interested in economic issues then in regime
plots – and may lose to the Republicans in the fall 2018 Congressional elections.
Thirdly, the plot and spy line has some impact on the EU but not on their public. Moreover,
the EU is more concerned with President Trump's trade war and made overtures to Russia.
Fourthly, China , Iran and Russia have moved closer economically in response to the
conspiracy plots and trade wars.
Conclusion: The Perils of Power Grabbers
Conspiratorial plots have a narrow audience, mostly the US mass media and elite . They
seem to have a short-term impact in justifying sanctions and trade wars. The media plotters
having called wolf and proved nothing ,have lost credibility among a wide swath of the
public.
Moreover, the conspiracy has not resulted in any basic shifts in the orientation of their
adversaries, nor has it shaped the electoral agenda for the majority of US voters.
The conspiracy advocates have discredited themselves by the transparency of their
fabrications and the flimsiness of their evidence. In the long-run, historians will provide a
footnote on the bankruptcy of US foreign and domestic policy based on plots and
conspiracies.
Magnitsky story is the textbook, perfect illustration of the level
of control of CIA over media. Almost everything in official story is a lie,
still it is never challenged.
A perfectly good article, I'm sure, but why diffuse ourselves [and engender feelings of
fear and hopelessness as you express] when a strategic pressure point has presented?
Johnstone makes no mention of Bill Browder. Nor do the [100, so far] commenters.
BILL BROWDER is a key figure in the anti-Trump, anti-Russia hysteria. The notorious Trump
Tower meeting was about the Magnitsky Act, a fabrication by Browder to hide his financial
crimes. Browder "testified" in the Senate expressly to demonize Putin. Browder's contacts in
the IC, the Jewish Lobby, and the fawning media have enabled his propaganda assault this
week. He's appeared -- unchallenged, virtually unquestioned -- on countless talk shows. But
he's been running scared at the mention of interrogation by Russians. There are huge holes in
his story, made clear in his deposition in the Prevezon case. The truth will bring him down!
And perhaps his Deep State supporters, along with him.
Ask your Senators if they've heard/read Browder's 2015 deposition in the Prevezon
case. (See comment 161 under The Untouchable Mr. Browder? by Israel Shamir for
links.)
Research links to primary sources on #Browdergate -
...BTW, have you seen "THE MAGNITSKY ACT – BEHIND THE SCENES" that Phil Giraldi
posted today? Debunking anti-Russian criminal sociopaths like Bill Browder will go a long way
to improving relations. Not to mention easing pressure on the unfortunate Trump.
Full research primary links available here, including Browder's 2015 deposition in the
U.S. vs. Prevezon Holdings case. Every Senator who voted to support Browder should see this.
[Any who already have, double shame!]
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been in the news lately due to his inquiry into
Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. After a 12-year stint leading the Bureau, the
longest ever since J. Edgar Hoover, Mueller is now seen by many as an honest man serving the
interest of the American public. However, that perception cannot be defended once one knows
about Mueller's past.
What some people don't know about Mueller is that
he has a long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups.
These include the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the investigation
into the terrorist financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the FBI
investigations into the crimes of September 11 th , 2001. Today the public is
beginning to realize that Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump
campaign is a similar diversion.
Mueller's talents were noticed early in his career at the Justice Department. As a U.S.
Attorney in Boston during the mid-80s, he helped falsely convict four men for murders they
didn't commit in order to protect a powerful FBI informant -- mobster James "Whitey" Bulger."
According to the Boston Globe , "Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger
was
helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow
graves along the Neponset."
Mueller was then appointed as chief investigator of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 in
Scotland. The account Mueller produced was a flimsy story that accused a Libyan named Megrahi
of coordinating placement of a suitcase bomb that allegedly traveled unaccompanied through
several airports to find its way to the doomed flight. Despite Mueller's persistent defense of
this unbelievable tale, Megrahi was released from prison in 2009 and died three years later in
Libya.
With the Pan Am 103 case, Mueller was covering up facts related to some of the of victims of
the bombing -- a group of U.S. intelligence specialists led by Major Charles McKee of the
Defense Intelligence Agency. McKee had gone to Beirut to find and rescue hostages and, while
there, learned about CIA involvement in a drug smuggling operation run through an agency
project called COREA. As TIME magazine
reported , the likely explanation for the bombing, supported by independent
intelligence experts, was that U.S. operatives "targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the
hostage-rescue team." This would prevent disclosure of what McKee's team had learned. That
theory was also supported by the fact that the CIA showed up immediately at the scene of the
crash, took McKee's briefcase, and returned it empty.
Mueller's diversions led to his leadership of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Department
of Justice, putting him in charge of investigations regarding BCCI. When Mueller started in
that role, members of Congress and the media were already critical of the government's approach
to the BCCI affair. Mueller came into the picture telling the Washington Post that
there was an "appearance of, one, foot-dragging; two, perhaps a cover-up." Later he denied the
cover-up claim and the suggestion that the CIA may have collaborated with BCCI operatives.
But again, Mueller was simply brought in to accomplish the cover-up. The facts were that
BCCI was used by the CIA to
operate outside of the rule of law through funding of terrorists and other criminal operatives.
The bank network was at the root of some of the greatest
crimes against the public in the last 50 years, including the Savings & Loan scandal,
the Iran-Contra affair, and the creation of the al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Mueller was instrumental in obstructing the BCCI investigation led by Manhattan District
Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During this time, Justice Department prosecutors were instructed
not to cooperate with Morgenthau. Describing Mueller's obstruction of Morgenthau, the
Wall Street
Journal reported that, "documents were withheld, and attempts were made to block other
federal agencies from cooperating."
Describing Mueller's role in the BCCI cover-up more clearly, reporter Chris
Floyd wrote :
"When a few prosecutors finally began targeting BCCI's operations in the late Eighties,
President George Herbert Walker Bush boldly moved in with a federal probe directed by Justice
Department investigator Robert Mueller. The U.S. Senate later found that the probe had been
unaccountably 'botched'–witnesses went missing, CIA records got 'lost,' Lower-ranking
prosecutors told of heavy pressure from on high to 'lay off.' Most of the big BCCI players went
unpunished or, like [Khalib bin] Mahfouz, got off with wrist-slap fines and sanctions. Mueller,
of course, wound up as head of the FBI, appointed to the post in July 2001–by George W.
Bush."
Yes, in the summer of 2001, when the new Bush Administration suspected it would soon need a
cover-up, Mueller was brought in for the job. Although suspect Louis Freeh was FBI Director in the
lead-up to the crimes, Mueller knew enough to keep things under wraps. He also had some
interesting ties to other 9/11 suspects like Rudy Giuliani , whose career paralleled
Mueller's closely during the Reagan and first Bush administrations.
Under Mueller, the FBI began the whitewash of 9/11 immediately. Mueller himself lied
repeatedly in the direct aftermath with respect to FBI knowledge of the accused hijackers. He
claimed that the alleged hijackers left no paper trail , and
suggested that they exercised "extraordinary secrecy" and "discipline never broke down." In
fact, "ring leader" Mohamed Atta went to great lengths to draw attention to himself prior to the
attacks. Moreover, the evidence the accused men supposedly left behind was obvious and implausibly
convenient for the FBI.
Meanwhile, Mueller's FBI immediately seized control of the investigations at the World Trade
Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA where United Flight 93 was destroyed.
Under Mueller , leaders of the Bureau went on to arrest and intimidate witnesses, destroy
or withhold evidence, and prevent any independent investigation. With Mueller in the lead, the
FBI failed to cooperate with the government investigations into 9/11 and failed miserably to
perform basic investigatory tasks. Instead, Mueller
celebrated some of the most egregious pre-9/11 failures of the FBI by giving those involved
promotions, awards, and cash bonuses.
As FBI whistleblower Coleen
Rowley later wrote with regard to 9/11, "Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney
general) presided over a cover-up." Kristen Breitweiser , one of the four 9/11
widows known as the "Jersey Girls," stated something similar:
"Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information
specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there
was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi
evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation."
Supporting Breitweiser's claims, public watchdog agency
Judicial Watch emphasized Mueller's role in the cover-up.
"Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the
Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears that
the lies were approved by Mueller."
Mueller's FBI went on to "botch" the investigation into the October 2001 anthrax attacks. As
expected, the result was a long series of inexplicable diversions that led nowhere. The anthrax
attacks occurred at a time when Mueller himself was warning Americans that another 9/11 could
occur at any time (despite his lack of interest in the first one). They also provided the
emotional impetus for Americans and Congress to accept the Patriot Act, which had been written
prior to 9/11. Exactly why Mueller's expertise was needed is not yet known but examining the evidence suggests
that the anthrax attackers were the same people who planned 9/11.
With knowledge of Mueller's past, people can see that he is not in the news today to reveal
important information about Russia and the Trump Administration. To the contrary, Mueller is in
the news to divert attention away from important information and, most likely, to prevent the
Trump Administration from being scrutinized in any real way.
"... However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges against himself. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem. All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then they can't touch you." Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically motivated. ..."
"... Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself. This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even noticed, while U.S. authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs. ..."
"... U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed, the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America. ..."
As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works for
Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest of APCO's many
clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered in Guernsey. The trust
tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch got out of Russia before he was
jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after
his arrest in Russia) and for the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president
and CEO, is a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted
to "promoting democratic values" – in other words, to building political opposition to
Vladimir Putin.
In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given a distinguished
service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq
from their bases in Iraq they were trying to overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once
officially recognized as a terrorist organization by the State Department, has become a pet
instrument in U.S. and Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.
However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally brought him into
the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight of the House Intelligence
Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named him as
one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused Trump of illicit
financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.
By Winer's own account, he had been friends with former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled Steele
reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence agents, to Victoria
Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts. These included the infamous
"Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old friend Sidney Blumenthal – a
particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton – gave him notes written by a more
mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer, repeating the salacious attacks.
All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media before being
revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate the "Russiagate"
investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited but the investigation goes on
and on.
So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from "Russian agents"
and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with so much else in Washington,
double standards are the rule.
Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act
Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei Magnitsky Rule
of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure that effectively ended
post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington and Moscow. This act was based on a
highly contentious version of the November 16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei
Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl
Browder, head of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a
lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.
However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov's
(banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was neither a human rights
crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an accountant jailed for his role in
Browder's business dealings, who died of natural causes as a result of inadequate medical
treatment. The case was hyped up as a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit
Russian charges against himself.
In any case
The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a
much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and
later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his U.S.
citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to
extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds.
It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.
, "When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose economic and
travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand corruption. Browder decided this
could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky. He initiated a campaign that led to the
enactment of the Magnitsky Act. Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts,
including Canada, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom."
Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press
conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing U.S.
authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing
Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and
former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was
possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999,
back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.
But the naïve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.
As Winer wrote, "Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the U.S. attorney
general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a criminal case. But
there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general can provide no such assistance in a
politically motivated case." (My emphasis.)
"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there. Back in 1999,
when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the senior State Department official
managing U.S.-Russia law-enforcement relations."
So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem. All that we
need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then they can't touch you." Winer's
clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to a case if it is politically
motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically motivated.
In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital
Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the
Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the
"lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former
Republican congressman").
The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing foreign
principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the attorney does not try to
influence policy at the behest of his client." However, by disseminating anti-Magnitsky
material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was "clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore
in violation of FARA filing requirements."
Catch-22 all over again.
Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress to pass
the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself. This type of
"Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even noticed, while U.S. authorities
scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.
Conclusion
The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia.
Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich
security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their
own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on
principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this.
The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on
principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers
itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its
affairs.
So, if Russians were trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, they would not be trying
to change the U.S. system but to prevent it from trying to change their own. Russian leaders
clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that historic processes do not depend on some
childish trick played on somebody's computer.
U.S. policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly willing to
allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those Russians are
"unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely the same unipolar world
sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed, the American empire depends on such
interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians, Russians, Cubans – all those who come to
Washington to try to get U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow the government in the
country they came from. All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by
America.
Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it helps turn public
opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy, serves U.S. interests
including the military-industrial complex, helps break down national borders (except those of
the United States and Israel) and puts money in appropriate pockets in the halls of
Congress.
"... In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges. ..."
"... "Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016, said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. ..."
"... Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security. ..."
"... Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage assessment" directive . ..."
"... "There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an investigation before the election." ..."
"... Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand. At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence. ..."
"... However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to 2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it was, on classified information. ..."
"... The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and hillaryclinton.com. ..."
"... (McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000 relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.) ..."
"... FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery, particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed "Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as secretary. ..."
"... Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to Congress with the discovery so close to the election. ..."
"... But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation. ..."
"... The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton "better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated, "fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded." ..."
"... Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at those emails, as well. ..."
"... Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's term. ..."
"... In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the remaining emails in a hurry. ..."
"... Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG. ..."
"... Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material. ..."
"... But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against prior emails recovered during the investigation." ..."
"... Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law enforcement sources say. ..."
"... Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football. ..."
"... Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by a rigged system." ..."
"... RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages. ..."
"... Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected] account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign." ..."
"... Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton. ..."
"... In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on "bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which he said never "affected his work." ..."
"... "When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still, contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton. On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case." ..."
"... A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today? ..."
"... Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement authorities. ..."
When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email
investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress
that his agency had "reviewed all of the communications" discovered on a personal laptop used
by Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.
James Comey, above.
Top photo: His certification to Congress just before Election Day clearing Hillary Clinton a
second time. That certification is challenged by new reporting. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite,
File Top: AP Photo/Jon Elswick
At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the
"hundreds of thousands" of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a
sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.
Comey later
told Congress that "thanks to the wizardry of our technology," the FBI was able to
eliminate the vast majority of messages as "duplicates" of emails they'd previously seen.
Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked "night after night after night" to scrutinize the
remaining material.
But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.
In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new
emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for
classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single
12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.
"Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the
evidence" of what was reviewed in the original year-long case that Comey closed in July 2016,
said a law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation.
Yet even the "extremely narrow" search that was finally conducted, after more than a month
of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her
unauthorized basement server, the official said. Contradicting Comey's testimony, this included
highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information
and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.
Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an
unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine
if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated "damage
assessment" directive
.
The newly discovered classified material "was never previously sent out to the relevant
original classification authorities for security review," the official, who spoke to
RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.
Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to
Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day.
One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that
officials in Washington tried to "bury" the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained
the full archive of Clinton's emails -- including long-sought missing messages from her first
months at the State Department.
RealClearInvestigations pieced together the FBI's handling of the massive new email
discovery from the "Weiner laptop." This months-long investigation included a review of federal
court records and affidavits, cellphone text messages, and emails sent by key FBI personnel,
along with internal bureau memos, reviews and meeting notes documented in government reports.
Information also was gleaned through interviews with FBI agents and supervisors, prosecutors
and other law enforcement officials, as well as congressional investigators and public-interest
lawyers.
If the FBI "soft-pedaled" the original investigation of Clinton's emails, as some critics
have said, it out-and-out suppressed the follow-up probe related to the laptop, sources for
this article said.
"There was no real investigation and no real search," said Michael Biasello, a 27-year
veteran of the FBI. "It was all just show -- eyewash -- to make it look like there was an
investigation before the election."
Although the FBI's New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of
evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for
sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the
huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant
affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government
business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the
search.
The search warrant was so limited in scope that it excluded more than half the emails New
York agents considered relevant to the case. The cache of Clinton-Abedin communications dated
back to 2007. But the warrant to search the laptop excluded any messages exchanged before or
after Clinton's 2009-2013 tenure as secretary of state, key early periods when Clinton
initially set up her unauthorized private server and later periods when she deleted thousands
of emails sought by investigators.
Far from investigating and clearing Abedin and Weiner, the FBI did not interview them,
according to other FBI sources who say Comey closed the case prematurely. The machine was not
authorized for classified material, and Weiner did not have classified security clearance to
receive such information, which he did on at least two occasions through his Yahoo! email
account – which he also used to email snapshots of his penis.
Many Clinton supporters believe Comey's 11th hour reopening of a case that had shadowed her
campaign was a form of sabotage that cost her the election. But the evidence shows Comey and
his inner circle acted only after worried agents and prosecutors in New York forced their hand.
At the prodding of Attorney General Lynch, they then worked to reduce and rush through, rather
than carefully examine, potentially damaging new evidence.
Comey later admitted in his memoir "A Higher Loyalty," that political calculations shaped
his decisions during this period. But, he wrote, they were calibrated to help Clinton:
"Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the
United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the Justice Department or
her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of
an FBI investigation?"
What does it matter now? Republicans are clamoring for a special counsel to reopen the
Clinton email case, though a five-year statute of limitations may be an issue concerning crimes
relating to her potential mishandling of classified information.
However, conducting a broader and more thorough search of the Weiner laptop may still have
prosecutorial justification. Other questions linger, including whether subpoenaed evidence was
destroyed or false statements were made to congressional and FBI investigators from 2014 to
2016, a time frame that is within the statute of limitations. The laptop was not searched for
evidence pertaining to such crimes. Investigators instead focused their search, limited as it
was, on classified information.
Also, the FBI is still actively investigating the Clinton Foundation for alleged
foreign-tied corruption. That probe, handled chiefly out of New York, may benefit from evidence
on the laptop.
The FBI did not respond to requests for comment.
The Background
In March 2015, it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had used a private email server located
in the basement of her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct State Department business during her
2009-2013 tenure as the nation's top diplomat. The emails on the unsecured server included
thousands of classified messages, including top-secret information. Federal law makes it a
felony for government employees to possess or handle classified material in an unprotected
manner.
By July, intelligence community authorities had referred the matter to the FBI.
That investigation centered on the 30,490 emails Clinton handed over after deeming them
work-related. She said she had deleted another 33,000 because she decided they were "personal."
Also missing were emails from the first two months of her tenure at State – from Jan. 21,
2009, through March 18, 2009 -- because investigators were unable to locate the BlackBerry
device she used during this period, when she set up and began using the basement server,
bypassing the government's system of archiving such public records as required by federal
statute.
Comey faces media on July 5, 2016. AP Photo/Cliff Owen
One year later, in a dramatic July 2016 press conference less than three weeks before
Clinton would accept her party's nomination for president, Comey unilaterally cleared Clinton
of criminal wrongdoing. While Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling
of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said, "no charges are appropriate in this
case."
Comey would later say he broke with normal procedures whereby the FBI collects evidence and
the Department of Justice decides whether to bring charges, because he believed Attorney
General Loretta Lynch had engaged in actions that raised doubts about her credibility,
including secretly meeting with Clinton's husband, the former president, just days before the
FBI interviewed her.
Fast-forward to September 2016.
FBI investigators in New York were analyzing a Dell laptop, shared by Abedin and Weiner, as
part of a separate sex-crimes investigation involving Weiner's contact with an underage girl. A
former Democratic congressman from New York, Weiner is serving a 21-month prison sentence after
pleading guilty to sending obscene material to a 15-year-old.
On Sept. 26, 2016, the lead New York agent assigned to the case found a large volume of
emails – "over 300,000" – on the laptop related to Abedin and Clinton, including a
large volume of messages from Clinton's old BlackBerry account.
The headers indicated that the emails on the laptop included ones sent and/or received by
Abedin at her clintonemail.com account, her personal Yahoo! email account as well as a host of
Clinton-associated domains including state.gov, clintonfoundation.org, presidentclinton.com and
hillaryclinton.com.
The agents had reason to believe that classified information resided on the laptop, since
investigators had already established that emails containing classified information were
transmitted through multiple email accounts used by Abedin, including her clintonemail.com and
Yahoo! accounts. Moreover, the preliminary count of Clinton-related emails found on the laptop
in late September 2016 -- three months after Comey closed his case -- dwarfed the total of some
60,000 originally reported by Clinton.
The agent described the discovery as an "oh-shit moment." "Am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" he asked another case agent. They agreed that the information needed "to get reported up the chain"
immediately.
The next day, Sept. 27, the official in charge of the FBI's New York office, Bill Sweeney,
was alerted to the trove and confirmed "it was clearly her stuff." Sweeney reported the find to
Comey deputy Andrew McCabe and other headquarters officials on Sept. 28, and told Justice
Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz that "everybody realized the significance of
this."
(McCabe told Horowitz he didn't remember Sweeney briefing him about the Weiner laptop, but
personal notes he took during the teleconference indicate he was briefed. Sweeney also updated
McCabe in a direct call later that afternoon in which he noted there were potentially 347,000
relevant emails, and that the count was climbing. McCabe was fired earlier this year and
referred to the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., for possible criminal investigation
into allegations he made false statements to federal agents working for Horowitz.)
McCabe, in turn, briefed Strzok - who had led the Clinton email probe - that afternoon, text
messages show.
Comey was not on the conference call, but phone records show he and McCabe met privately
that afternoon and spoke during a flurry of phone calls late that evening. McCabe said he could
not recall what they discussed, while Comey told investigators that he did not hear about the
emails until early October -- and then quickly forgot about them. ("I kind of just put it out
of my mind," he said, because he claimed it did not "index" with him that Abedin was closely
connected to Clinton. "I don't know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the
time.")
FBI officials in New York assumed that the bureau's brass would jump on the discovery,
particularly since it included the missing emails from the start of Clinton's time at State. In
fact, the emails dated from the beginning of 2007 and covered the entire period of Clinton's
tenure as secretary and thereafter. The team leading the Clinton investigation, codenamed
"Midyear Exam," had never been able to find Clinton's emails from her first two months as
secretary.
By Oct. 4, the Weiner case agent had finished processing the laptop, and reported that he
found at least 675,000 emails potentially relevant to the Midyear case (in fact, the final
count was 694,000). "Based on the number of emails, we could have every email that Huma and
Hillary ever sent each other," the agent remarked to colleagues. It appeared this was the
mother lode of missing Clinton emails. But Strzok remained uninterested. "This isn't a ticking
terrorist bomb," he was quoted as saying in the recently issued inspector general's report.
Besides, he had bigger concerns, such as, "You know, is the government of Russia trying to get
somebody elected here in the United States?"
Strzok and headquarters sat on the mountain of evidence for another 26 days. The career New
York agent said all he was hearing from Washington was "crickets," so he pushed the issue to
his immediate superiors, fearing he would be "scapegoated" for failing to search the pile of
digital evidence. They, in turn, went over Strzok's head, passing their concerns on to career
officials at the National Security Division of the Justice Department, who in turn set off
alarm bells at the seventh floor executive suites of the Hoover Building.
The New York agent has not been publicly identified, even in the recent IG report, which
only describes him as male. But federal court filings in the Weiner case
reviewed by RCI list two FBI agents present in court proceedings, only one of whom is male -
John Robertson. RCI has confirmed that Robertson at the time was an FBI special agent assigned
to the C-20 squad investigating "crimes against children" at the bureau's New York field office
at 26 Federal Plaza, which did not return messages.
The agent told the inspector general that he wasn't political and didn't understand all the
sensitive issues headquarters may have been weighing, but he feared Washington's inaction might
be seen as a cover-up that could wreak havoc on the bureau. "I don't care who wins this election," he said, "but this is going to make us look really,
really horrible."
Once George Toscas, the highest-ranking Justice Department official directly involved in the
Clinton email investigation, found out about the delay, he prodded headquarters to initiate a
search and to inform Congress about the discovery.
By Oct. 21, Strzok had gotten the word. "Toscas now aware NY has hrc-huma emails," he texted
McCabe's counsel, Lisa Page, who responded, "whatever."
Four days later, Page told Strzok - with whom she was having an affair - about the murmurs
she was hearing from brass about having to tell Congress about the new emails. "F them," Strzok
responded, apparently referring to oversight committee leaders on the Hill.
The next day, Oct. 26, the New York agent finally was able to brief Strzok's team directly
about what he had found on the laptop. On Oct. 27, Comey gave the green light to seek a search
warrant.
Michael Horowitz: Pressure from New York was key to
reopening email case.
"This decision resulted not from the discovery of dramatic new information about the Weiner
laptop, but rather as a result of inquiries from the Weiner case agent and prosecutors from the
U.S. Attorney's Office [in New York]," Horowitz said in his recently released report on
the Clinton investigation.
Former prosecutors say that politics is the only explanation for why FBI brass dragged their
feet for a month after the New York office alerted them about the Clinton emails.
"There's no rational explanation why, after they found over 300,000 Clinton emails on the
Wiener laptop in late September, the FBI did nothing for a month," former deputy Independent
Counsel Solomon "Sol" L. Wisenberg said in a recent interview with Fox News host Laura
Ingraham. "It's pretty clear there's a real possibility they did nothing because they thought
it would hurt Mrs. Clinton during the election."
Horowitz concurred. The IG cited suspicions that the inaction "was a politically motivated
attempt to bury information that could negatively impact the chances of Hillary Clinton in the
election."
He noted that on Nov. 3, after Comey notified Congress of the search, Strzok created a
suspiciously inaccurate "Weiner timeline" and circulated it among the FBI leadership.
The odd document, written after the fact, made it seem as if New York hadn't fully processed
the laptop until Oct. 19 and had neglected to fill headquarters in on details about what had
been found until Oct. 21. In fact, New York finished processing on Oct. 4 and first began
reporting back details to top FBI executives as early as Sept. 28.
Fearing Leaks
Fears of media leaks also played a role in the ultimate decision to reopen the case and
notify Congress.
FBI leadership worried that New York would go public with the fact it was sitting on the
Weiner emails, because the field office was leaking information on other sensitive matters at
the time, including Clinton-related conflicts dogging McCabe, which the Wall Street Journal had
exposed that October. At the same time, Trump surrogate and former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, who was still in touch with FBI sources in the city, was chirping about an "October
surprise" on Fox News.
Loretta Lynch: Stop those leaks.
During the October time frame, McCabe called Sweeney in New York and chewed him out about
leaks coming out of his office. On Oct. 26, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch was so worried
about the leaks, she called McCabe and Sweeney and angrily warned them to fix them. Sweeney
confirmed in an interview with the inspector general that they got "ripped by the AG on leaks."
McCabe said he never heard the attorney general "use more forceful language."
Lynch -- who had admonished Comey to call the Clinton case a "matter" and not an
investigation, aligning FBI rhetoric with the Clinton campaign, and who inappropriately agreed
to meet with Bill Clinton aboard her government plane five days before the FBI interviewed
Hillary Clinton -- sought to keep the Weiner laptop search quiet and was opposed to going to
Congress with the discovery so close to the election.
"We were quite confident that somebody is going to leak this fact, that we have all these
emails. That, if we don't put out a letter [to Congress], somebody is going to leak it,"
then-FBI General Counsel James Baker said. "The discussion was somebody in New York will leak
this."
Baker advised Comey that he also was under obligation to update Congress about any new
developments in the case. Just a few months earlier, the director had testified before Hill
oversight committees about his decision to close the case. Baker said the front office
rationalized that since Clinton was ahead in the polls, the notification would not have a big
impact on the race. The Democratic nominee would likely win no matter what the FBI did.
But this time, Comey made no public show of his announcement. On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey
quietly sent a terse and private letter to the chairs and the ranking members of the oversight
committees on the Hill, informing them, vaguely, that the FBI was taking additional steps in
the Clinton email investigation.
Those steps, of course, started with finally searching the laptop for relevant
emails.
'Giant Nothing-Burger'
Prosecutors and investigators alike, however, approached the search as an exercise in
futility, even prejudging the results as a "giant nothing-burger."
That was an assessment that would emerge later from David Laufman, then a lead prosecutor in
the Justice Department's national security division assigned to the Clinton email probe. He had
"a very low expectation" that any evidence found on the laptop would alter the outcome of the
Midyear investigation. And he doubted a search would turn up "anything novel or consequential,"
according to the IG report.
Mary McCord: Discounted laptop trove, and she wasn't the only
one.
Hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, Laufman complained it was "exceptionally
inappropriate" to restart the investigation so close to the election. (Records show Laufman,
who sat in on Clinton's July 2016 interview at FBI headquarters, gave money to both of Barack
Obama's presidential campaigns.)
His boss, Mary McCord, discounted the laptop trove as emails they'd already seen. "Hopefully
all duplicates," she wrote in notes she took from an October 2016 phone call she had with
McCabe, who shared her hope. McCord opposed publicly opening the case again "because it could be a big nothing."
In an Oct. 27 email to the lead Midyear analyst, Strzok suggested the search would not be
serious, that they would just need to go through the motions, while joking about "de-duping,"
or excluding emails as ones they'd already seen.
The reactivated Midyear investigators were not eager to dive into the new emails, either.
They also prejudged the batch as evidence they had already analyzed -- while at the same time
expressing pro-Hillary and anti-Trump sentiments in internal communications.
For example, the Midyear agent who had called Clinton the "future pres[ident]" after
interviewing her in July, pooh-poohed the idea they would find emails substantively different
than what the team had previously reviewed. Even though he expected they'd find some missing
emails, even new classified material, he discounted their significance.
"My best guess -- probably uniques, maybe classified uniques, with none being any different
tha[n] what we've already seen," the agent wrote in an Oct. 28 instant message to another FBI
employee on the bureau's computer system. (Back in May 2016, as Clinton was locking up the
Democratic primary, the agent had revealed in another IM that there was "political urgency" to
wrap up her email investigation.)
The unnamed agent, who is identified in the IG report only as "Agent 1," is now married to
another Midyear investigator, who on Election Day IM'd her then-boyfriend to say Clinton
"better win," while threatening to quit if she didn't. Known as "Agent 5," she also stated,
"fuck trump," while calling his voters "retarded."
At the same time, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear case, Sally Moyer (whose lawyers
confirmed is the anonymous "FBI Attorney 1" cited in the IG report), was in no hurry to process
the laptop. Before examining them, she expressed the belief that the massive volume of emails
"may just be duplicative of what we already have," doubting there was a "smoking gun" in the
pile.
A Hurried, Constrained Search
Moyer, a registered Democrat, was responsible for obtaining legal authority to review the
laptop's contents. She severely limited the scope of the evidence that investigators could
search on the laptop by setting unusually tight parameters.
Working closely with her was Strzok, who forwarded a draft of the warrant to his personal
email account in violation of FBI policy, where he helped edit the language in the affidavit.
By processing the document at home, no record of his changes to the document were captured in
the FBI system.
(Strzok had also edited the language in the drafts of Comey's public statement about his
original decision on the Clinton email investigation. He changed the description of Clinton's
handling of classified information from "grossly negligent" -- which is proscribed in the
federal statute -- to "extremely careless," eliminating a key phrase that could have had legal
ramifications for Clinton.)
The next day, the search warrant application drafted by Strzok and Moyer was filed in New
York. It was inexplicably self-constraining. The FBI asked the federal magistrate judge, Kevin
N. Fox, to see only a small portion of the evidence the New York agent told headquarters it
would find on the laptop.
"The FBI only reviewed emails to or from Clinton during the period in which she was
Secretary of State, and not emails from Abedin or other parties or emails outside that period,"
Horowitz pointed out in a section of his report discussing concerns that the search
warrant request was "too narrow."
That put the emails the New York case agent found between 2007 and 2009, when Clinton's
private server was set up, as well as those observed after her tenure in 2013, outside
investigators' reach. The post-tenure emails were potentially important, Horowitz noted,
because they may have offered clues concerning the intent behind the later destruction of
emails.
Also excluded were Abedin's Yahoo emails, even though investigators had previously found
classified information on her Yahoo account and would arguably have probable cause to look at
those emails, as well.
Also removed from the search were the BlackBerry data -- even though the FBI had previously
described them as the "golden emails," because they covered the dark period early in Clinton's
term.
"Noticeably absent from the search warrant application prepared by the Midyear team is both
any mention that the NYO agent had seen Clinton's emails on the laptop and any mention of the
potential presence of BlackBerry emails from early in Clinton's tenure," Horowitz noted.
Even though the BlackBerry messages were "critical to [the] assessment of the potential
significance of the emails on the Weiner laptop, the information was not included in the search
warrant application," he stressed, adding that the application appeared to misrepresent the
information provided by the New York field agent. It also grossly underestimated the extent of
the material. The affidavit warrant mentioned "thousands of emails," while the New York agent
had told them that the laptop contained "hundreds of thousands" of relevant emails.
That meant that the Midyear team never got to look, even if it wanted to, at the majority of
the communications secreted on the laptop, further raising suspicions that headquarters wasn't
really interested in finding any evidence of wrongdoing – at least on the part of Clinton
and her team.
"I had very strict instructions that all I was allowed to do within the case was look for
Hillary Clinton emails, because that was the scope of our work," an FBI analyst said, even
though Horowitz said investigators had probable cause to look at Abedin's emails as well.
In addition to limiting the scope of their probe, the agents were also under pressure from
both Justice Department prosecutors and FBI headquarters to complete the review of the
remaining emails in a hurry.
One line prosecutor, identified in the IG report only as "Prosecutor 1," argued that they
should finish up "as quickly" as possible. Baker said there was a general concern about the new
process "being too prolonged and dragged [out]."
Lynch urged Comey to process the Weiner laptop "as fast as you can," according to notes from
a high-level department meeting on Oct. 31, 2016, which were obtained by the IG.
On Nov. 3, Strzok indicated in a text that
Justice demanded he update the department twice a day on the FBI's progress in clearing the
stack. "DOJ is hyperventilating," he told Page.
De-Duplicating 'Wizardry'
Before the search warrant was issued, the Midyear team argued that the project was too vast
to complete before the election. According to Comey's recently published memoir, they insisted
it would take "many weeks" and require the enlistment of "hundreds of FBI employees." And, they
contended, not just anybody could read them: "It had to be done by people who knew the
context," and there was only a handful of investigators and analysts who could do the job.
"The team told me there was no chance the survey of the emails could be completed before the
Nov. 8 election," Comey recalled, which was right around the corner.
But after Comey decided he'd have to move forward with the search regardless, Strzok and his
investigators suddenly claimed they could finish the work in the short time remaining prior to
national polls opening.
At the same time, they cut off communications with the New York field office. "We should
essentially have no reason for contact with NYO going forward on this," Strzok texted Page on
Nov. 2.
Strzok followed up with another text that same day, which seemed to echo earlier texts about
what they viewed as their patriotic duty to stop Trump and support Clinton.
"Your country needs you now," he said in an apparent attempt to buck up Page, who was "very
angry" they were having to reopen the Clinton case. "We are going to have to be very wise about
all of this."
"We're going to make sure the right thing is done," he added. "It's gonna be ok."
Responded Page: "I have complete confidence in the [Midyear] team."
"Our team," Strzok texted back. "I'm telling you to take comfort in that." Later, he
reminded Page that any conversations she had with McCabe "would be covered under atty
[attorney-client] privilege."
Suddenly, however, the impossible project suddenly became manageable thanks to what Comey
described as a "huge breakthrough." As the new cache of emails arrived, the bureau claimed it
had solved one of the most labor-intensive aspects of the previous Midyear investigation
– having to sort through the tens of thousands of Clinton emails on various servers and
electronic devices manually.
Advanced new "de-duplicating" technology would allow them to speed through the mountain of
new emails automatically flagging copies of previously reviewed material.
Strzok, who led the effort, echoed Comey's words, later telling the IG's investigators that
technicians were able "to do amazing things" to "rapidly de-duplicate" the emails on the
laptop, which significantly lowered the number of emails that he and other investigators had to
individually review manually.
But according to the IG, FBI's technology division only "attempted" to de-duplicate the
emails, but ultimately was unsuccessful. The IG cited a report prepared Nov. 15, 2016, by three
officials from the FBI's Boston field office. Titled "Anthony Weiner Laptop Review for
Communications Pertinent to Midyear Exam," it found that "[b]ecause metadata was largely
absent, the emails could not be completely, automatically de-duplicated or evaluated against
prior emails recovered during the investigation."
Trump at rally Nov. 7, 2016, in
Manchester, N.H. : "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days."
The absence of this metadata -- basically electronic fingerprints that reveal identifying
characteristics such as To, CC, Date, From, Subject, attachments and other fields –
informed the IG's finding that "the FBI could not determine how many of the potentially
work-related emails were duplicative of emails previously obtained in the Midyear
investigation."
Contrary to Comey's claim, the FBI could not sufficiently determine how many emails
containing classified information were duplicative of previously reviewed classified emails. As
a result, hundreds of thousands of emails were not actually processed for evidence, law
enforcement sources say.
"All those communications weren't ruled out because they were copies, they were just ruled
out," the federal investigator with direct knowledge of the case said. The official, who wished
to remain anonymous, explained that hundreds of thousands of emails were simply overlooked.
Instead of processing them all, investigators took just a sample of the batch and looked at
those documents.
After Comey announced his investigators wrapped up the review in days – then-candidate
Donald Trump expressed skepticism. "You can't review 650,000 emails in eight days," he said
during a rally on Nov. 7. He was more correct than he knew.
Exoneration Before Investigation
At the urging of Lynch, Comey began drafting a new exoneration statement several days before
investigators finished reviewing the sample of emails they took from the Weiner laptop.
High-level meeting notes reveal they even discussed sending Congress "more-clarifying"
statements during the week to "correct misimpressions out there."
A scene from the
documentary "Weiner."
As the search was under way, one of the Midyear agents – Agent 1 -- confided to
another agent in a Nov. 1 instant message on the FBI's computer network that "no one is going
to pros[ecute Clinton] even if we find unique classified [material]."
On Nov. 4 – two days before they had completed the search – Strzok talked about
"drafting" a statement. "We might have this stmt out and be substantially done," Page texted
back about an hour later.
The pair seemed confident at that point that Clinton's campaign had weathered the new
controversy and would still pull off a victory.
"[O]n Inauguration Day," Page texted Strzok, "in addition to our kegger, we should also have
a screening of the Weiner documentary!" The film, "Weiner," documented the former Democratic
lawmaker's ill-fated run for New York mayor in 2013.
Filtering
Even after the vast reservoir of emails had been winnowed down by questionable methods, the
remaining ones still had to be reviewed by hand to determine if they were relevant to the
investigation and therefore legally searchable as evidence.
Moyer, the lead FBI attorney on the Midyear team who had initially discounted the trove of
new emails as "duplicates" and failed to act upon their discovery, was also head of the
"filtering" team. After various searches of the laptop, she and the Midyear team came up with
6,827 emails they classified as being tied directly to Clinton. Moyer then culled away from
that batch emails she deemed to be personal in nature and outside the scope of legal
agreements, cutting the stack in half. That left 3,077 which she deemed "work related."
On Nov. 5, Moyer, Strzok and a third investigator divided up the remaining pool of 3,077
emails -- roughly 1,000 emails each -- and rifled through them for classified information and
incriminating evidence in less than 12 hours, even though the identification of classified
material is a complicated and prolonged process that requires soliciting input from the
original classification authorities within the intelligence community.
"We're doing it ALL," Strzok told Page late that evening. The trio ordered pizza and worked into the next morning combing through the emails. "Finishing up," Strzok texted Page around 1 a.m. that Sunday.
By about 2 a.m. Sunday, he declared they were done with their search, noting that while they
had found new State Department messages, they had found "no new classified" emails. And
allegedly nothing from the missing period at the start of Clinton's term that might suggest a
criminal motive.
Later that evening of Nov. 6, after he announced to Congress that Clinton was in the clear
again, an exuberant Comey gathered his inner circle in his office to watch football.
As news of the case's swift re-closure hit the airwaves, Page and Strzok giddily exchanged
text messages and celebrated. "Out on CNN now And fox I WANT TO WATCH THIS WITH YOU!" Strzok
said to Page. "Going to pour myself a glass of wine ."
Page noted that "Trump is talking about [Clinton]" on Fox News, and how "she's protected by
a rigged system."
New Classified Information
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, earlier prognostications that the results of the laptop
search would not be a game-changer turned out to be accurate. Yet investigators nonetheless
found 13 classified email chains on the unauthorized laptop just in the small sample of 3,077
emails that were individually inspected, and four of those were classified as Secret at the
time.
Contrary to the FBI's public claims, at least five classified emails recovered were not
duplicates but new to investigators.
RCI has learned that these highly sensitive messages include a Nov. 25, 2011, email
regarding talks with Egyptian leaders and Hamas, and a July 9, 2011, "call sheet" Abedin sent
Clinton in advance of a phone conversation she had that month with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. The document runs four pages.
Another previously unseen classified email, dated Nov. 25, 2010, concerns confidential
high-level State Department talks with United Arab Emirates leaders. The note, including a
classified "readout" of a phone call with the UAE prime minister, was written by Abedin and
sent to Clinton, and then forwarded by Abedin the next day from her [email protected]
account to her then-husband's account identified under the rubric "Anthony Campaign."
Tom
Fitton: "sham" investigation.
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based government watchdog group which has filed a lawsuit
against the State Department seeking a full production of Clinton records, confirmed the
existence of several more unique classified emails it has received among the rolling release of
the 3,077 "work-related" emails.
"These classified documents are not duplicates," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told
RCI. "They are not ones the FBI had already seen prior to their November review."
He accused the FBI of conducting a "sham" investigation and called on Attorney General Jeff
Sessions to order a new investigation of Clinton's email.
The unique classified emails call into question Comey's May 2017
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when he maintained that although
investigators found classified email chains on the laptop, "We'd seen them all
before."
No Damage Assessment
Comey, in subsequent interviews and public testimony, maintained that the FBI left no stone
unturned. This, too, skirted the truth.
Although Comey claimed that investigators had scoured the laptop for intrusions by foreign
hackers who may have stolen the state secrets, Strzok and his team never forensically examined
the laptop to see if classified information residing on it had been hacked or compromised by a
foreign power before Nov. 6, law enforcement sources say. A complete forensic analysis was
never performed by technicians at the FBI's lab at Quantico.
Nor did they farm out the classified information found on the unsecured laptop to other
intelligence agencies for review as part of a national security damage assessment -- even
though Horowitz confirmed that Clinton's illegal email activity, in a major security breach,
gave "foreign actors" access to unknowable quantities of classified material.
Without addressing the laptop specifically, late last year the FBI's own inspection division
determined that classified information kept on Clinton's email server "was compromised by
unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber
intrusion or other means."
Judicial Watch is suing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the State
Department to force them to conduct, as required by law, a full damage assessment, and prepare
a report on how Clinton's email practices as secretary harmed national security.
Comey and Strzok also decided to close the case for a second time without interviewing its
three central figures: Abedin, Weiner and Clinton.
Abedin was eventually interviewed, two months later, on Jan. 6, 2017. Although summaries of
her previous interviews have been made public, this one has not.
Investigators never interviewed Weiner, even though he had received at least two of the
confirmed classified emails on his Yahoo account without the appropriate security clearance to
receive them.
The IG concluded, "The FBI did not determine exactly how Abedin's emails came to reside on
Weiner's laptop."
Premature Re-Closure
In his May 2017 testimony, however, Comey maintained that both Abedin and Weiner had been
investigated.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana: Investigating investigators. AP
Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.): Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them?
Comey: There was, it is -- we completed it.
Pressed to answer why neither of them was charged with crimes, including mishandling
classified information, Comey explained:
"With respect to Ms. Abedin, we didn't have any indication that she had a sense that what
she was doing was in violation of the law. Couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent."
At the time, the Senate Judiciary Committee was unaware that the FBI had not interviewed
Abedin to make such a determination before the election. What about Weiner? Did he read the classified materials without proper authority? the
committee asked. "I don't think so," Comey answered, before adding, "I don't think we've been able to
interview him."
Pro-Clinton Bias
The IG report found that Strzok demonstrated intense bias for Clinton and against Trump
throughout the initial probe, followed by a stubborn reluctance to examine potentially critical
new evidence against Clinton. These included hundreds of messages exchanged with Page, embodied
by a Nov. 7 text referencing a pre-Election Day article headlined, "A victory by Mr. Trump
remains possible," about which Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."
Strzok is a central figure because he was a top agent on the two investigations with the
greatest bearing on the 2016 election – Clinton emails and the Trump campaign's ties to
Russia. These probes overlapped in October as the discovery of Abedin's laptop renewed Bureau
attention on Clinton's emails at the same time it was preparing to seek a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Some Republicans have charged that the month-long delay between the New York office's
discovery of the laptop and the FBI's investigation of it can be explained by Strzok's partisan
decision to prioritize the Trump investigation over the Clinton one.
Among the evidence they cite is an Oct. 14 email to Page in which Strzok discussed applying
"hurry the F up pressure" on Justice Department attorneys to secure the FISA surveillance
warrant on Page approved before Election Day. (This also happened to be the day the Obama
administration promoted his wife, Melissa Hodgman , a big Hillary booster,
to associate director of the SEC's enforcement division.) On Oct. 21, his team filed an
application for a wiretap to spy on Carter Page.
IG Horowitz would not rule out bias as a motivating factor in the aggressive investigation
of Trump and passive probe of Clinton. "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to
prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead
discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias," he said.
Asked to elaborate in recent Senate testimony, Horowitz reaffirmed, "We did not find no bias
in regards to the October events."
Throughout that month, the facts overwhelmingly demonstrate that instead of digging into the
cache of new Clinton evidence, Strzok aggressively investigated the Trump campaign's alleged
ties to Moscow, including wiretapping at least one Trump adviser based heavily on unverified
allegations of espionage reported in a dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign.
In a statement, Strzok's attorney blamed the delays in processing the new emails on
"bureaucratic snafus," and insisted they had nothing to do with Strzok's political views, which
he said never "affected his work."
The lawyer, Aitan D. Goelman, a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP in Washington, added that
his client moved on the new information as soon as he could.
"When informed that Weiner's laptop contained Clinton emails, Strzok immediately had the
matter pursued by two of his most qualified and aggressive investigators," Goelman said. Still,
contemporaneous messages by Strzok reveal he was not thrilled about re-investigating Clinton.
On Nov. 5, for example, he texted Page: "I hate this case."
Recovering the
Laptop
A final mystery remains: Where is the Weiner laptop today?
The whistleblower agent in New York said that he was "instructed" by superiors to delete the
image of the laptop hard drive he had copied onto his work station, and to "wipe" all of the
Clinton-related emails clean from his computer.
But he said he believes the FBI "retained" possession of the actual machine, and that the
evidence on the device was preserved.
The last reported whereabouts of the laptop was the Quantico lab. However, the unusually
restrictive search warrant Strzok and his team drafted appeared to remand the laptop back into
the custody of Abedin and Weiner upon the closing of the case.
"If the government determines that the subject laptop is no longer necessary to retrieve and
preserve the data on the device," the document states on its final page, "the government will
return the subject laptop."
Wherever its location, somewhere out there is a treasure trove of evidence involving
potentially serious federal crimes -- including espionage, foreign influence-peddling and
obstruction of justice -- that has never been properly or fully examined by law enforcement
authorities.
The first tell was last summer when the first word of Russia allegedly hacking the DNC's
computers became public. As we have come to find out, the DNC announced that it had been hacked
but refused the FBI access to its servers. Why? Because the DNC preferred to have its own
cybercrime experts examine them. And who were their cybercrime experts? CrowdStrike, owned by
Dmitri Alperovitch, a Moscow-born immigrant who settled in the US as a youth. Curiously, he has
a chair at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank that spends a lot of time thinking of
reasons to go to war against Russia. How much do they want to go to war with Russia? A lot.
Saudi Arabia and the Ukrainian World Congress are among their funders.
Well, sure enough, as could have been predicted, CrowdStrike did indeed find that Russia was
hacking the DNC, although subsequently the hack information turned out to be unpersuasive. One
piece of malware misidentified by Crowdstrike as Russian was actually Ukrainian. That's a
rather big mistake, if a malware's country of origin proves anything at all, and in fact when
the software's country of origin was alleged to be Russian that was the logic in charging the
Russians as the hackers. With recent Wikileaks revealing that the CIA has in its toolbox the
ability to create hacks using others' malware and then pinning the blame elsewhere, any claim
of hacking and who authored the hacking should be open to question, as we've had enough proof
to suspect all along. And, as always, the CIA is the last institution to trust when seeking the
truth. This does not even address whether one of our moles in the Russian bureaucracy was
aiding this okeydoke.
At the same time that the first indications of the Russian hack were announced, Alexandra
Chalupa, a self-described "proud Ukrainian American" employed at the DNC, was doing opposition
research on Trump, Manafort et al for their "connections" to Russia. In interviews last summer
Chalupa was throwing around the words "treason" and "capital crime" in the direction of
Manafort and Trump.
Note what we have: A self-contained scandal within the DNC, not open to contradiction by law
enforcement (the FBI was kept out), pointing the finger at Russia for interfering with the
"democratic process". Our sacred democratic process!
Current-day Russia, and formerly when it existed as the Soviet Union, has been the number
one target for US intelligence since President Roosevelt died and generally by the West since
the Russian Revolution. I don't have enough space to describe the decades of the history of
propaganda directed against Russians, but I will briefly describe one, the shootdown of
Indonesia Airlines MH-17. I will include a few pieces of evidence reported in "fake news"
outlets and ignored in the mainstream US press, just to give the reader an idea of what the
campaign against "fake news" is all about.
In July 2014 Malaysia Flight MH-17 was shot down over a battle zone in the eastern part of
Ukraine that had refused to recognize the coup government in Kiev. That's correct, depending on
how you want to define it, the Donbass region either seceded from the greater Ukraine or the
greater Ukraine was taken over in a fascist coup backed by the US and the Donbass region
refused to recognize the fascists in Kiev.
The weapon generally blamed for the shootdown was a BUK missile, an old Soviet anti-aircraft
missile long taken out of service in Russia but still in use around the world in countries once
armed by the old Soviet Union, like Ukraine.
Within hours of the shootdown Ukrainians produced a recording of rebel chatter on radio
where it appeared that the rebels were talking about shooting down the plane. A few days later
it was determined that the recording was manufactured, using some rebel dialogue regarding
shooting down a military supply plane that had been landing at a contested airport on the front
lines of battle. What happened to the story of the recording? In the west the story about the
recording being faked was ignored, but the original story wasn't defended. It was allowed to
disappear, leaving behind its residue.
Several days after the incident the Russians released radar readings of the event. It showed
two Ukrainian fighter planes accompanying the airliner as it changed course and flew over the
battle area in the minutes before the plane was attacked. What did Ukraine say about those two
fighters? Nothing. What did the flight tower recordings with MH-17 say about those two jet
fighters? Nothing, because, depending on the version of the story you read, either all the
recordings of conversations between the control tower and the plane were made top-secret
immediately after the incident, or were lost or otherwise missing, thereby giving Ukraine the
ability to never have to answer what appeared on Russian radar to be two Ukrainian fighters
steering the civilian airliner right to the place where it was to be shot down.
At this point it should be noted that Russian BUK anti-aircraft batteries are generally
obsolete, but are complicated to operate. A BUK consists of the actual missile launcher
carrying a battery of rockets and a separate truck that operates the radar targeting aspects of
the weapon. The initial reports in the West said that it had been rebel forces that had shot
down the airliner, but the rebel forces had no operable BUK weapon and it was unlikely that the
infantry on the front lines had gone through the months of training to even operate one.
This problem was counteracted in the West by a "study" by "Bellingcat". Bellingcat is
supposed to be a somewhat anonymous citizen investigator operating from his home in Britain and
reviewing "evidence" online. Bellingcat claimed that the BUK battery used in the shootdown had
been secretly moved across the border from Russia into the rebel-occupied territory overnight,
was used to shoot down the airliner, and then was snuck back into Russia. Sound preposterous?
Of course, but not in the fog of propaganda. If it had been well known in the West that the
Ukrainian army had seventeen (!) BUK anti-aircraft batteries in the battle area while the
rebels had none, or the one "snuck in and out of the area by those tricky Russians", perhaps
the charge against the rebels and/or Russians would not have had the same effectiveness in the
West. It might further weaken the western version of events if some talking head had pointed
out that since the rebels had no air force, having anti-aircraft weapons in a battle theater
where its enemy had no aircraft was useless unless the Ukrainians planned on shooting down
someone else's aircraft.
Armies actually keep track of their ordinance. But when Russia asked for records of whether
any BUK missiles had been fired from any of the seventeen Ukrainian batteries in the battle
zone Ukraine refused.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media operated as if it had to be the Russians, or the rebels
backed by Russia. The Secretary of State, John Kerry, the weekend after the incident, declared
on Sunday morning talk shows that the US had absolute proof via its spy satellites who had
fired that missile. And, in truth, the US did know. It has spy satellites parked over Ukraine
that have the capability to read the insignia on soldiers' uniforms. One problem: the US never
released their photos. In the years since the incident the US has never released those
photographs. There have been investigations across Europe and in Australia, and yet the US
refuses to release those photographs. The family of the only American on Flight 17 has
personally asked for the photos to be released. Nothing.
Essentially, what the US intelligence and military has told the world is, "Trust us." And
most Americans do.
And while Kerry was making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows claiming he had
evidence of Russian guilt the rest of the media were doing their work. From the morning show to
late night TV, everyone was talking about Putin! Jimmy Kimmel and the other various cohosts
across the dial were making Putin the target of jokes, another very effective propaganda tool.
Even the darling of the Left, John Oliver, was taking his turn whacking Putin. Based on
what?
Most Americans believe that Russia shot down MH-17. For what purpose? A clue to many of the
false flags presented to the public is that they do not have a coherent motive. Why would
Russia want to smuggle a rather large, obsolete missile battery into a battle zone in the
middle of the night to shoot down an airliner? However, if in fact Ukraine shot down that
airliner and used the Mighty Wurlitzer of the CIA to promote Russia's guilt it makes much more
sense. A false flag.
What is the truth in the matter? I wasn't there, and neither were you. Who do you trust,
that evil caricature Putin, or America?
Propaganda often appears on parallel tracks. As the story of the Russian hack got more play
in the mainstream media we had stories about Russia hacking voting machines and Russia even
hacking a nuclear plant, all debunked. But because of the nature of propaganda truth was
irrelevant. A good portion of the public never hears the retractions and more often than not
there are no retractions. That fog of propaganda swirls on, and in the age of the internet
there are millions ready to repeat the propaganda. Residue.
There was a second, parallel story in the wind last fall, the Washington Post's "fake news"
story and its promotion of PropOrNot. The author of the story, Craig Timberg, is the son of
Robert Timberg, who's written a hagiography of Senator John McCain, a strong supporter of war
generally and specifically of the fascist elements in power in Ukraine.
PropOrNot designated hundreds of news sites as "fake news" sites. Considering the
decades-long history of the Washington Post working hand in hand with the CIA in disseminating
information (often false) some of us found WaPo calling the alarm on fake news to be at the
very least ironic. PropOrNot generally identified any news source that was not onboard with the
mainstream media, and not heavily against Russia, as fake.
Who is PropOrNot? They are officially anonymous, but they've left some hints, if you're
willing to look. For example, in posts at their website before the attention of WaPo, someone
on the site used the term "Heroiam Slava!" What?
"Heroiam Slava" was a fascist salute that originated in Kiev in 1942, when the Nazis put
their Banderite allies in power during their march east against the Soviet Union. In the months
afterwards the new slogan was used by Ukrainian military units during Operation Nightingale,
the local version of Germany's Holocaust. The German command had found that the constant
slaughter of civilians was taking its toll on the esprit de corps of German soldiers, so the
work mass murder was passed to the Ukrainian fascists. During their time in power it is
estimated that a million Jews were gassed, shot, garroted and shoved into mass graves. At the
same time the Banderites also slaughtered uncounted numbers of Poles, ethnic Russians and
pretty much anyone else who did not conform to Ukrainian ideas of racial purity.
So the Washington Post's source for defining fake news were anonymous people who liked to
repeat wartime slogans of the Nazis' allies. It should be noted that since the fascists came to
power in Ukraine in 2014 they have been shutting down all opposition press, frequently by
assassination. Reporters who have troubled the regime have been identified by name, address,
phone numbers et al. The Ukrainians have established an actual Ministry of Truth and have begun
rewriting the history of World War II.
Craig Timberg had another source for his story: Clint Watts of The Foreign Policy Research
Institute. The FPRI is an ultra-rightwing think tank created during The Depression which
traffics in racialist eugenics and anti-Soviet/Russian proclamations. Their founder, Robert
Strausz-Hupé, actually wrote a deranged op-ed piece for the New York Times condemning
the movie "Doctor Strangelove" as Soviet propaganda. In short, Timberg's sources of false news
were old hands at anti-Russian propaganda.
Early on I said there was something missing. Hillary Clinton isn't the President. Everyone
expected her to win. When the story of Russia hacking the DNC was first floated, the world
expected Clinton to be President. But why use only parts of the hacking story when you are
already going to win the election? As we have seen, the majority of "news" about the Russian
hacks actually occurred too close to the election to have any effect on the voting (if the DNC
leaks had any effect at all), or after the election when the hacking stories could do nothing
at all for Clinton's election chances. (Timberg's story appeared weeks after the election.) If
you are going to use this "Russia hack-Trump traitor" story to win the election, why hold any
of it back for release until after the contest was won or lost?
The hack story wasn't created to get Clinton elected. It was done to give President Clinton
her war in 2017.
Imagine now how the entire sitting government would have been behind President Clinton. We
have the dastardly Russians going so low as to try to sabotage the elections to get their buddy
Trump elected. Granted, Congress would still be completely in Republican control, as could be
estimated prior to the election, but what's the one thing Republicans stalwarts like John
McCain and Lindsay Graham can agree on? War. And the Russians hacking the DNC and tampering
with American Democracy? Outrageous. Clinton versus Putin, and this time it's personal!
As I've asked before, what is the one thing that Hillary was falling over herself to deliver
to the Deep State that Trump wouldn't and couldn't? A war with Russia. Trump is apparently too
constrained by his business dealings with various Russians (I don't think he's constrained by
any kind of loyalty; Trump has never displayed much loyalty to anyone). When Clinton announced
she would create a "no-fly zone" in Syria early on in the primary debates, it was essentially
her saying, "When I'm President I will go to war with Russia."
The "Russian hack" story was going to be our Deep State's casus belli, our reason to go to
war with Russia. With Hillary's failure in November the okeydoke was left without the most
important part, a President ready to go to war. What we see now is the okeydoke being used
against Trump. I doubt the Deep State thinks it can push Trump out for a more malleable chief
of state (like they did with Nixon and JFK). You can probably consider the public scandal to be
private negotiation behind the scenes. And the final tell will be if we are in some kind of hot
war with Russia this time next year, or living in the rubble in the aftermath of a nuclear
exchange. Tags: fake
news up 45 users have voted.
The progressive frenzy of beating war drums proceeded all our recent wars. Books have been
written about the very art of propagandizing a public, which is very much the way you
depicted. The analysis of what really happened to the MH-17 is quite enlightening. The
similarities puts this false flag right up there with Assad gassing his civilians with
Sarin--unfortunately for all concerned, Jug Ears and Medusa siphoned off some spare Sarin and
gave it to the "moderate extremists".
The Ukrainians have established an actual Ministry of Truth and have begun rewriting the
history of World War II.
Now we have our own Ministry of Truth, aided and abetted by those unbiased folks at
Facebook, Twitter, WaPo and NYT.
War on drugs--not if they're gouging us via Big Pharma. War on Terror--not if that
enriches the MIC.
Legalize marijuana? Hell no, that would cut into alcohol, tobacco, opioid revenues too
much--can't have that can we? Discussion of single-payer at this point, considering this is
c99, is pointless--but the issue is not forgotten.
Hot War with Russia? No, no, no. We must have an appetizer before the entreé" and
how do you like your Persian delicacies nuked: rare or crispy?
ubmitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 04/02/2017 - 9:39pm
You did a great job deconstructing the Russian propaganda and why they are creating more
each day.
I am pretty sure that I read that Malaysia Flight MH-17 was flying to an AIDS convention
and a lot of the passengers were AIDS experts. If that is true then that is much more than a
war crime, it's a crime against humanity. I know, redundant, but it makes the false flag that
much worse in my opinion. They don't care who they kill as long as they can get their agendas
done.
(ETA: "Among the passengers were delegates en route to the 20th International AIDS Conference
in Melbourne, including Joep Lange, a former president of the International AIDS Society,
which organised the conference.[35] Many initial reports had erroneously indicated that
around 100 delegates to the conference were aboard, but this was later revised to six.[36]
Also on board were Dutch Senator Willem Witteveen,[37] Australian author Liam Davison,[38]
and Malaysian actress Shuba Jay.[39]")
I didn't realize that the report was revised
And if Trump isn't gung ho on a war with Russia then who is calling the shots and
continuing the military buildup in the countries that surrounds Russia? The troops and the
equipment is still arriving in those countries. And who is in charge of NATO? Anyone who can
help me out with this?
I know that he has given the pentagon more authority to wage war and that is why there are
more civilians being killed in Mosul and other war areas. Is it the joint chiefs of staff who
have taken over the military? Or someone else?
As to Alligator Ed's comment, just thinking that Obama, Hillary and everyone else who was
involved with the sarin gas attack has got to be sociopaths. The inhumane indifference of
killing innocent civilians including children with the gas is another thing beyond my
comprehension. It just is.
ubmitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 04/02/2017 - 9:29pm
I think it fits here because she goes after the democrats who can't see that they are
drinking the Russian propaganda hook line and sinker.
It's the democrat's WMDs to get people on board with their war against Russia that has been
planned for over a year or more.
This is who you've allied yourselves with, Democrats. This is where you've decided to
take your stand. With war criminals like Dick Cheney, who should have stood trial at the
Hague many years ago. With John McCain, Graham and all the Bush era neocons who were
supporting Hillary over Trump because they knew that she would create their no fly zone
over Syria in order to get their war with Russia.
I look in liberal discussion circles and I see these bloodthirsty war criminals being
celebrated as heroes for standing up to Donald Trump as though they oppose his vile human
rights policies, when really they only oppose his resistance to the neocon policy of
regime-change invasions.What have you become, Democrats? How did you get here? I think it's
worth taking a few steps back to reassess your situation.
What happened to you? I've been watching you my whole life and I can honestly say I've
never seen you so crazy. You used to care about the poor, the working class, economic
justice, taking care of everyone, but now whenever I look in your direction I get blasted
in the face with McCarthyist vitriol and George W. Bush prancing around on the Ellen show
while you all cheer and talk about how you wish he could be president again instead of
Trump.
https://www.newslogue.com/debate/417/CaitlinJohnstone
A lot of these people are the ones who flocked to DK during the ramp up to the Iraq war and
were against everything that Bush and the republicans were pushing. But they are also the
same people who went silent when Obama continued PNAC's policies in the Middle East and
expanded the number of countries that he used drones on.
Oh there were a few push backs against him like when he bombed the hospital in Afghanistan,
but any time I spoke out against his use of the drones I was told that by using them it saved
our troop's lives. No thought at all about the number of people who were killed only because
they lived in the area where they dropped the bombs.
I don't believe that they don't know that by pushing the Russian propaganda that they are
saying that it's okay if there is a war with Russia because they didn't allow Hillary to
become president.
ubmitted by CB on Sun, 04/02/2017 - 9:54pm
ubmitted by travelerxxx on Mon, 04/03/2017 - 12:52am
Thanks for your work, Bob. This essay is concise, clear, and accurate.
This push for war with Russia is total insanity.
A year ago, if one had told the average Democrat that in twelve months they would be:
1) Acting as though George Bush was a hero,
2) Believing every word from the CIA and FBI as God's Own Truth,
3) Holding the evil Dick Cheney as a paragon of virtue,
4) Doing McCarthyism better than McCarthy, etc., etc. -
they would have suggested you be locked up for your own good, as you were clearly crazy.
No need to attribute (unless it's to bring folks to c99p) -- in fact, I'm certain others can
make that list quite long. That's just what popped into my head in a few seconds.
Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Mon, 04/03/2017 - 10:25am
@travelerxxx@travelerxxx
that the Democrats might someday be aware of the blazing irony of the points your are making
but (to appropriate a Simpsons quote) the mainstream Democrats turned into the Republicans so
gradually, they didn't even notice.
Best to be insulated from TV noise (news), some is picked up on FB by clueful writers. If my
father were alive now, he would be 98 and an anarchist, I am sure. Never rolling in his grave,
cremains are in control of his second wife, same age as me. Now our mother's ashes sit on a
closet shelf at my sister's house.
The future looks bleak. TV noise is a diversion from the causes that should be engaged, but
won't. Circus diversions, the elephants are gone from them and living in Texas.
can't even name all the countries we are currently drone bombing...mostly because of the
lack of reporting. Hollering Russia keeps the people distracted. They have no idea of our
(NATO) aggression against Russia.
The Ukraine story is obscured. Oliver Stone's movie is difficult to find in the US (2 min
trailer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVdvp188rk4
In fact I had to watch a sub-scripted version.
The Yemen story is shameful - killing the poorest people of the middle east at the behest of
our pals the Saudis (who oppress women, have weekly beheadings, and beat you half to death if
you say anything about it).
The blindness is pervasive. Thanks for shining some light.
The United States started bombing Iraq on January 16, 1991, and, except for a few brief
intervals, hasn't stopped since. Twenty-six years this Monday, more than a quarter of a
century, and four US presidents, all of whom have bombed Iraq. Last year, the rate of bombing
increased over 20,105. The lion's share of the 26,171 bombs dropped by the United States on
the world was split evenly between Iraq and Syria, though we did reserve a dollop for Yemen.
And the United States dropped more on Libya, about 500, in 2016, than in 2015. Trump, and
Trumpism, is a symptom of the sickness, not the source.
ubmitted by detroitmechworks on Mon, 04/03/2017 - 8:52am
Why do we even bother to give the politicians "The Respect of the Office"?
They certainly didn't earn it. I didn't vote for war and neither did anybody I respect. Why
does lying your way into office, and having your bawds screaming into the airwaves about how
wonderful you are equate to respect?
The positions only have as much worth as the value we ascribe to them. We need to treat the
offices with the respect those that hold them show.
of ongoing US propaganda techniques, and for such a clear explanation of how and why they
work. I only wish all Americans could read it... it certainly deserves as wide a distribution
as possible.
Excellent work!
ubmitted by Bob In Portland on Tue, 04/04/2017 - 12:24pm
OMdearbloodyG... these pathological fruitcakes have to be stopped - I swear they're set on
destroying both any concept of civilization and planetary life and I'm not sure which they'll
achieve first. I'd ask 'what are they thinking!?' except they clearly aren't capable of
thinking - or of anything but manifesting greed, death and destruction.
This is far worse than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre in order to watch people being
trampled to death, far worse than setting a fire to burn a theatre full of people to a horrible
death, because they're trying to manipulate people into supporting this being done to
everything on Earth, all in the name of lunatic corporate/billionaire greed and their urge for
totalitarian power over any temporarily surviving remains.
Why can't all parties knowingly involved in propagating this lunatic projection be charged
with treason? Oh, right, because all levels of the US government almost entirely consist of the
treasonous madmen conspiring at this...
And Obama 'legalized' the use of propaganda by the US government against The People who
their public offices exist to serve... as if defying/ignoring Constitutional protections and
governmental limitations somehow over-rides them, which they cannot do unless The People are
propagandized - yet again - into accepting it as a 'done deal' and allowing it.
This is the last chance - never vote for evil again and make it obvious exactly why, while
you still can.
Reporting on RussiaGate, as it is called, goes on day after day, always something new, more
hacks, more targets, more election rigging or is it all more fake news? Who controls the news,
who really controls the news? Perhaps the news itself rigs elections and spreads rumors,
promotes fakery and serves foreign interests as well, let's take a look.
First of all, we might ask why no one, certainly not anyone in the paid media, noted that
"non-state actors" as they are called in intelligence and counter-terrorism, are the big
players nowadays. After all, it is the media that creates reality, that defines truth, though
that effort has now migrated to Silicon Valley moguls who now hire failed academics and
journalists who have set up "truth panels."
Before that, the fake press reported lies, and any academic who taught otherwise or wrote
otherwise was a "conspiracy theorist" and faced loss of tenure, though tenure seldom exists in
today's world of rapidly declining academic standards, in the US at least.
A case study for infiltration of US government by a foreign intelligence service, other than
Russia, is easy to find. When Australian Rupert Murdoch and his media empire came to America,
they clearly bought House Speaker Newt Gingrich in order to have laws changed.
"... Duncan described herself as an avid supporter of President Trump, but said she was moved by four full boxes of exhibits provided by Mueller's team – though she was skeptical about prosecutors' motives in the financial crimes case. ..."
"... Though Duncan said the jury was not political in its conviction, she said she was skeptical of prosecutors' intentions, which she implied were political. ..."
A juror who sat on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's
case said on
Fox
News Wednesday night
that a
lone
juror prevented a ruling on all 18 counts against Manafort.
Juror
Paula Duncan said a lone juror could not come to a guilty verdict on
10 charges, forcing judge T.S. Ellis III to declare a mistrial on 10
of Manafort's 18 counts.
"It was one person who kept the verdict from being guilty on all 18
counts," Duncan, 52, said. She added that Mueller's team of
prosecutors often seemed bored, apparently catnapping during parts
of the trial.
In an exclusive interview on
@
foxnewsnight
,
Paul Manafort juror Paula Duncan said Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's team was one holdout
juror away from convicting Paul Manafort on all
18 counts of bank and tax fraud.
https://
fxn.ws/2Mrmrzb
While the identities of the jurors have been closely held, kept
under seal by Judge T.S. Ellis III at Tuesday's conclusion of the
high-profile trial, Duncan gave a behind-the-scenes account to Fox
News on Wednesday, after the jury returned a guilty verdict against
the former Trump campaign chairman on eight financial crime counts
and deadlocked on 10 others.
Duncan described herself as an avid supporter of President Trump,
but said she was moved by four full boxes of exhibits provided by
Mueller's team – though she was skeptical about prosecutors' motives
in the financial crimes case.
"Certainly Mr. Manafort got caught breaking the law, but he
wouldn't have gotten caught if they weren't after President
Trump," Duncan said of the special counsel's case, which she
separately described as a "witch hunt to try to find Russian
collusion," borrowing a phrase Trump has used in tweets more
than 100 times.
Though Duncan said the jury was not political in its conviction, she
said she was skeptical of prosecutors' intentions, which she implied
were political.
Following a lengthy jury deliberation, former
Trump
campaign
manager Paul Manafort was
convicted
on
eight counts, including tax fraud, failure to disclose
foreign bank accounts, and bank fraud –
even
though jurors were still hung on another ten counts
:
"If we cannot come to a consensus for a single count, how can we
fill in the verdict sheet?" the jurors asked in the note.
"It is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so," said
Ellis, who encouraged each juror to make their own decisions on
each count. If some were in the minority on a decision, however,
they could think about the other jurors' conclusions.
Notably, the case has nothing
to
do
with "Trump, the Trump campaign or the 2016 US election" – it
has to do with work Manafort did with former Ukranian President
Victor Yanukovych from 2005-2014.
The
case was referred to the federal prosecutors in the Southern
District of New York (SDNY) by Special Investigator
Robert
Mueller
who also referred Democrat superlobbyist Tony Podesta
for prosecution as part of similar work he did for Yanukovych.
All of this begs the question – if Tony Podesta committed the same
crimes as Paul Manafort, why hasn't the SDNY brought charges against
him?
Last year, Tucker Carlson exposed just how close Tony Podesta and
the
Podesta
Group
were to the Ukranian and Russian governments...
...which was summed up in the below list originally complied by
iBankCoin
–
detailing Manafort's close ties with the Podesta Group regarding
Russian
/Ukranian
lobbying:
Lobbyist and temporary Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
is at the center of the Russia probe – however the scope of
the investigation has broadened to include his activities
prior to the 2016 election.
Manafort worked with the Podesta Group since at least
2011 on behalf of Russian interests
, and was at the
Podesta Group offices "all the time, at least once a
month," peddling Russian influence through a shell group
called the
European
Centre for a Modern Ukraine
(ECMU).
Manafort brought a "parade" of Russian oligarchs to congress
for meetings with members and their staffs, however, the
Russia's
"central effort" was the Obama Administration.
In 2013,
John
Podesta recommended that Tony hire David Adams, Hillary
Clinton's chief adviser at the State Department, giving them
a "direct liaison" between the group's Russian clients and
Hillary Clinton's State Department.
In late 2013 or early 2014,
Tony
Podesta and a representative for the Clinton Foundation met
to discuss how to help Uranium One
– the Russian
owned company that controls 20 percent of American Uranium
Production – and whose board members gave over $100 million
to the Clinton Foundation.
"
Tony
Podesta was basically part of the Clinton Foundation."
Believing she would win the 2016 election,
Russia
considered the Podesta Group's connection to Hillary highly
valuable
.
Podesta Group is a nebulous organization with no board
oversight and all financial decisions made by Tony Podesta.
Carlson's source said
payments
and kickbacks could be hard for investigators to trace,
describing it as a "highly secret treasure trove."
One
employee's only official job was to manage Tony Podesta's
art
collection
, which could be used to conceal
financial transactions.
Trending Articles
"Thank God This Is Happening" Russia Says Time
Has Come To
With the US unveiling a new set of sanctions
against Russia on Friday, Moscow said it would
definitely respond to
Additionally, Zerohedge
explained
why
this list is so significant:
emails obtained by the Associated Press showed that Gates
personally directed two Washington lobbying firms,
Mercury
LLC and the Podesta Group, between 2012 and 2014 to set up
meetings between a top Ukrainian official and senators and
congressmen on influential committees involving Ukrainian
interests
. Gates noted in the emails that the official,
Ukraine's foreign minister, did not want to use his own embassy
in the United States to help coordinate the visits.
And this is where the plot thickens,
because
while the bulk of the press has so far spun the entire Ukraine
lobbying scandal, which led to Manafort's resignation, as the
latest "proof" that pro-Moscow powers were influencing not only
Manafort but the Trump campaign in general (who some democrats
have even painted of being a Putin agent), the reality is that a
firm closely tied with the Democratic party, the Podesta Group,
is just as implicated.
As AP further adds, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, a
Brussels-linked nonprofit entity which allegely ran the lobbying
project,
paid
Mercury and the Podesta Group a combined $2.2 million over
roughly two years.
In papers filed in the U.S. Senate,
Mercury and the Podesta Group listed the European nonprofit as
an independent, nonpolitical client. The firms said the center
stated in writing that it was not aligned with any foreign
political entity.
In other words, the Podesta Group was likely
as
much or even more complicit in any wrongdoing than Manafort was
.
Of course, none of this stopped
Mueller
from
offering
Podesta immunity – in exchange for testimony against Manafort:
It is not as though Manafort is blameless or guilt-free in his
conduct – and according to Corey Lewandowski,
President
Trump
himself was not particularly fond of
some
of
his conduct on the campaign trail, at one point
lowering
his helicopter
to berate him via cell phone:
While were in the air, heading for Delaware, somebody -- I think it
was Ann Coulter -- tweeted out
a
quote from Manafort saying that Trump shouldn't be on television
anymore
, that he shouldn't do the Sunday shows. And
from now on Manafort would do all shows. Because he's the
fucking expert, right? Not Trump, who had already turned the
whole primary race on its head
"Yes, sir," Hope said, "Paul said he doesn't want you on TV."
Trump went fucking ballistic. We were still over the New York
metropolitan area, where you can get cell service if you fly at
a low altitude.
"Lower it!" Trump yelled to the pilot. "I have to make a call."
He got Manafort on the phone, "Did you say I shouldn't be on TV
on Sunday??" Manafort could barely hear him because of the
helicopter motor. But Trump said,
"I'll
go on TV anytime I goddamn fucking want and you won't say
another fucking word about me! Tone it down? I wanna turn it up!
I don't wanna tone anything down! I played along with your
delegate charts, but I have had enough."
He got Paul on the phone and completely decimated him again
verbally. Ripped his fucking head off. I wish I'd recorded it,
because it was one of the greatest takedowns in the history of
the world.
"You're a political pro? Let me tell you something. I'm a pro at
life. I've been around a time or two. I know guys like you, with
your hair and your skin "
and again, according to Lewandowski, Trump was unaware of
Manafort's connections when he took the job, but was seriously
unhappy about them after they were released to the press:
"It's all lies," Manafort said. "My lawyers are fighting it."
"But if it's in the paper someone has to give Trump a heads-up,
because if it's in the paper, it's reality."
Just as Steve had thought, the story ran the next day, August
15, on Page One, above the fold.
"I've got a crook running my campaign," Trump said when he read
it.
However, in spite of his apparent misgivings for Manafort, Trump has
decided to support him – ostensibly because he did not cave to the
outrageous demands of the Mueller "
investigation
":
I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his
wonderful family. "Justice" took a 12 year old
tax case, among other things, applied tremendous
pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he
refused to "break" - make up stories in order to
get a "deal." Such respect for a brave man!
....and why hasn't the Podesta brother been
charged and arrested, like others, after being
forced to close down his very large and
successful firm? Is it because he is a VERY well
connected Democrat working in the Swamp of
Washington, D.C.?
...the Podesta brothers are both well-connected swamp creatures, on
the same political team as the
uber-politicized
SDNY
assigned to levy charges against them.
"... First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." ..."
"... It would deeply undermine any notion that the political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook posts. ..."
But these crimes are tax fraud, money laundering, and credit app padding that have nothing
to do with Donald Trump, and campaign-finance violations related to what a critic of Trump
aptly describes
as "a classic B-team type of bumbling screw-up of covering up mistresses." I question the level
of word play, if not fantasizing, necessary to claim that these crimes validate "
this investigation of foreign subversion." None of them has anything to do with that.
The perils of this, that, these, and those.
Do these results disprove that the Mueller probe is "a political investigation"? I think
they imply quite the opposite, and quite obviously so.
Why? Because these convictions would not have occurred if Hillary Clinton had been elected
president. There would be no convictions because there would have been no investigation.
If Hillary had been elected, all the crimes of Manafort and Cohen -- certainly those that
took place over many years before the election, but even, I think, those having to do with
campaign contributions and mistress cover-ups -- would never have been investigated, because
all would have been considered right with the political world.
The Manafort and Cohen crimes would have been ignored as the standard tactics of the elite
financial grifting -- as well as of parasitism on, and payoffs by, political campaigns -- that
they are. Indeed, there would have been no emergency,
save-our-democracy-from-Russian-collaboration, Special Counsel investigation, from which these
irrelevant charges were spun off, at all.
... ... ...
Have you heard of the Podestas? The Clinton Foundation? Besides, the economic purpose of
American electoral politics is to funnel millions to consultants and the media. Campaign
finance law violations? We'll see how the
lawsuit over $84 million worth of funds allegedly transferred illegally from state party
contributions to the Clinton campaign works out. Does the media report, does anybody know or
care, about it? Will anybody ever go to prison over it?
... ... ...
First of all, the Democrats will now face increasing demands for impeachment from the
impassioned members of their base whom they have riled up to see Trump as the epitome of the
Putin-Nazi evil that threatens "our democracy." If the Democrats insist these convictions
are not just matters of financial hijinx, irrelevant to Mueller's "Russia collusion"
investigation, and irrelevant in fact to anything of political substance; if they assert that
the payoffs to Stormy and Karen (the only acts directly involving Trump) disqualify Trump for
the presidency, then they will have no excuse but to call for Trump's impeachment, and act to
make it happen. Their base will demand that Democratic candidates run on that promise, and if
the Democrats re-take the House, that they begin impeachment proceedings immediately.
... ... ...
If they try to impeach and fail (which is likely), well, then, as happened to the
Republicans with Clinton, they will just look stupid, and will be punished for having wasted
the nation's political time and energy foolishly. And Trump will be strengthened.
If they were to impeach, convict, and remove Trump (even by forcing a resignation), a large
swath of the population would conclude, correctly, that a ginned-up litigation had been used to
overturn the result of the 2016 election, that the Democrats had gotten away with what the
Republicans couldn't in 1998-9. That swath of the population would likely withdraw completely
from electoral politics, leaving all their problems and resentments intact -- hidden for a
while, but sure to erupt in some other ways. It would deeply undermine any notion that the
political system holds the confidence of the people, and intensify division, disruption, and
the sense of incipient civil war in the country more than any number of Russian Facebook
posts.
. .. ... ...
...if they do move forward, that will initiate a political battle that will tear the country
apart and end up either with their defeat or the victory of Mike Pence.
... ... ...
By the way, for those who think that Manafort's conviction portends a smoking gun, based on
his work for "pro-Kremlin Viktor Yanukovych," as the NYT and other liberals persistently call
him, I would suggest looking at this Twitter thread by Aaron
Maté. It's a brilliant shredding of Rachel Maddow's (and, to a lesser extent, Chris
Hayes's) version of the deceptive implication -- presented as an indisputable fact -- that
Manafort's work for Yanukovych is proof that he (and by extension, Trump) was working for
Putin. As Maté shows, that is actually indisputably false. Manafort was working hard to
turn Yanukovych away from Russia to the EU and the West, and the evidence of that is
abundant and easily available. It was given in the trial, though you'd never know that from
reading the NYT or listening to MSNBC. As a former Ukraine Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "If
it weren't for Paul, Ukraine would have gone under Russia much earlier. He was the one dragging
Yanukovich to the West." And the Democrats know this.
And if you think Cohen is harboring secret knowledge of Trump-Russia collusion that he's
going to turn over to Mueller, take look at Maté's thread on that.
We are now entering a new period of intense political maneuvering that's the latest turning
point in the bizarre and flimsy "Russiagate" narrative. I've been asked to comment on that a
number of times over the past two years, and each time I or one of my fellow commentators would
say, "Why are we still talking about this?" It was originally conjured up as a Clinton campaign
attack on Trump, but, to my and many others' surprise and chagrin, it somehow morphed into the
central theme of political opposition to Trump's presidency.
... ... ...
Russiagate was a pretext to dig around everywhere in his closet. Trump was clueless about
the trap he was setting for himself, and has been relentlessly foolish in dealing with it. It
is a witch hunt, and he's riding around on his broom, skywriting self-incriminating
tweets.
There are a thousand reasons to criticize Donald Trump -- his racism, his stupidity, his
infantile narcissism, his full embrace of Zionist colonialism with its demand to attack Iran,
his enactment of Republican social and economic policies that are destroying working-class
lives, etc. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them. His election was a symptom of deep
pathologies of American political culture that we must address, including the failure of the
"liberal" party and of the two-party system itself. That Donald Trump is a Russian agent is not
one of them. There are a number of very good justifications for seeking his impeachment,
starting with the clear constitutional crime of launching a military attack on another country
without congressional authorization. That he is a Kremlin agent is not one of them.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party and its allied media do not want to center the fight on
these substantive political issues. Instead, they are centering on this barrage of Russiagate
litigation -- none of which yet proves, or even charges, Russian "collusion" -- which they are
using as a substitute for politics. And, in place of opposition, they're substituting
uncritical loyalty to the heroes of the military-intelligence complex and "our democracy" that
only a complete fantasist could stomach. I mean, when you get to the point that you're
suspecting John Bolton's "
ties to Russia " .
"... "I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate. ..."
"... Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances. ..."
"... Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency. ..."
"... American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris." ..."
"... This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. ..."
"... It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today. ..."
FOR ONE OF THE world's major powers to interfere systematically in the presidential
politics of another country is an act of brazen aggression. Yet it happened.
Sitting in a distant capital, political leaders set out to assure that their
favored candidate won an election against rivals who scared them. They succeeded.
Voters were maneuvered into electing a president who served the interest of
the intervening power. This was a well-coordinated, government-sponsored project
to subvert the will of voters in another country -- a supremely successful piece
of political vandalism on a global scale.
The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin,
whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a
savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits.
President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served
by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin
was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton
bonded with him. He was our "Manchurian Candidate."
"I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again,"
Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and
I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for
the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect."
Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts."
With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown
behind a Russian presidential candidate.
Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a
world-class statesman . He defended Yeltsin's scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya,
comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together.
As for Yeltsin's bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187
lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had "bent over backwards" to avoid it.
He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia's borders, and never
uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia's formerly state-owned economy by
kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.
Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International
Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used
some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared
into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear:
Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it,
Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner.
Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his
rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.
Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin's
campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on "sophisticated
methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization." They organized
focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters' fears
of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were
gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants
shouted in triumph: "It worked! The whole strategy worked. They're scared to
death!"
Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The
count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits,
but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce
the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact,
it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate
in the Russian presidency.
American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret.
On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a
country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin
and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the
right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland
but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won,
Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined,
"Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin
Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris."
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in
the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened
his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen
capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically.
Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country
and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known
intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that
shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the
United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years
ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
"... And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer defending a fixer. So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign where people can donate so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is $500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis. ..."
"... On TV yesterday he apparently promoted a wrong URL , which was promptly picked up by someone else who had it redirect to the Trump campaign. Even fixers screw up, right? Still, there's already well over $100,000 donated for Cohen Davis. But why $500,000? One of the accusations against Cohen concerns lying to a bank for a $20 million loan. He bought an apartment not long ago for $6.7 million. He owned multiple apartments in Trump buildings. ..."
"... Did he lose everything when Robert Mueller et al raided his office, home and hotel room on April 9 2018? Were all his assets frozen? Possibly. What we do know is that he 'expected' the Trump campaign to pay for his legal fees. Which they declined. Or rather, as Fortune reported in June : "The Trump campaign has given some money to Cohen to help cover legal expenses for the Russia investigation. To date, though, it has not offered financial assistance in the investigation of his business practices." ..."
"... But anyway. So Lanny Davis, fixer of fixers and presidents, goes on a talk-show tour last night and what do you think happens? He walks back just about everything he's said the previous day. Aaron Maté made a list in this Twitter thread ..."
"... What do you think will happen when someone of the stature of Bob Mueller spends 18 months investigating the Clintons and their fixers? Perhaps the events of the past few days won't bring such a 2nd Special Counsel any closer, but by the same token they might do just that. Offense is the best defense. ..."
"... That is both dangerous in that the mandate of a Special Counsel should be limited lest it becomes endless and veers off the reasons it was initiated, as well as in the risk that it can easily turn into a party-political tool to hurt one's opponent while one's own dirt remains unscrutinized. ..."
"... In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming in the swamp that either it should be expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like Lanny Davis and Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been. ..."
If there's one thing that is exposed in the sorry not-so-fairy tale of former Trump aides Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, it's
that Washington is a city run by fixers. Who often make substantial amounts of money. Many though by no means all, start out as lawyers
and figure out that let's say 'the edges of what's legal' can be quite profitable.
And it helps to know when one steps across that edge, so having attended law school is a bonus. Not so much to stop when stepping
across the edge, but to raise one's fees. There's a lot of dough waiting at the edge of the law. None of this should surprise any
thinking person. Manafort and Cohen are people who think in millions, with an easy few hundred grand thrown in here and there.
But sometimes the fixers happen to come under scrutiny of the law, like when they get entangled in a Special Counsel investigation.
Both Manafort and Cohen now rue the day they became involved with Trump, or rather, the day he was elected president and solicited
much more severe scrutiny.
Would either ever have been accused of what they face today had Trump lost to Hillary? It's not too likely. They just gambled
and lost. But there are many more just like them who will never be charged with anything. Still, a new fixer name has popped up the
last few days who may, down the line, not be so lucky.
And that's not even because Lanny Davis is a registered foreign agent for Dmytro Firtash, a pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch wanted
by the US government. After all, both Manafort and Cohen have their contacts in that part of the world. Manafort made tens of millions
advising then-president Yanukovich in the Ukraine before the US coup dethroned the latter. Cohen's wife is Ukrainian-American.
Lanny Davis is a lawyer, special counsel even, for the Clintons. Has been for years. Which makes it kind of curious that Michael
Cohen would pick him to become his legal representation. But that's not all Davis is involved in. Like any true fixer, he has his
hands in more cookie jars than fit in the average kitchen. Glenn Greenwald wrote this in August 2009 about the health care debate:
After Tom Daschle was selected to be Barack Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services and chief health care adviser, Matt
Taibbi wrote: "In Washington there are whores and there are whores, and then there is Tom Daschle." One could easily have added:
"And then there's Lanny Davis." Davis frequently injects himself into political disputes, masquerading as a "political analyst"
and Democratic media pundit, yet is unmoored from any discernible political beliefs other than: "I agree with whoever pays me."
It's genuinely difficult to recall any instance where he publicly defended someone who hadn't, at some point, hired and shuffled
money to him. Yesterday, he published a new piece simultaneously in The Hill and Politico – solemnly warning that extremists on
the Far Left and Far Right are jointly destroying democracy with their conduct in the health care debate and urging "the vast
center-left and center-right of this country to speak up and call them out equally" – that vividly illustrates the limitless whoring
behavior which shapes Washington generally and specifically drives virtually every word out of Lanny Davis' mouth.
Davis' history is as long and consistent as it is sleazy. He was recently hired by Honduran oligarchs opposed to that country's
democratically elected left-wing President and promptly became the chief advocate of the military coup which forcibly removed
the President from office. He became an emphatic defender of the Israeli war on Gaza after he was named by the right-wing The
Israel Project to be its "Senior Advisor and Spokesperson." He has been the chief public defender for Joe Lieberman, Jane Harman
and the Clintons, all of whom have engaged his paid services.
And as NYU History Professor Greg Grandin just documented: "Recently, Davis has been hired by corporations to derail the labor-backed
Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize, all the while touting himself as a "pro-labor liberal."
Davis was also the chief U.S. lobbyist of the military dictatorship in Pakistan in the late 90s and played an important role in
strengthening relations between then President Bill Clinton and de facto president General Perez Musharraf."
Trending Articles Majority Of Young Americans Live In A Household Receiving
New analysis from CNS News finds that the majority of Americans under 18 live in households that take "means-tested
There's much more in that article, but you get the drift. And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer
defending a fixer. So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign where people can donate
so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is $500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis.
On TV yesterday
he apparently promoted a wrong URL , which was promptly picked up by someone else who had it redirect to the Trump campaign.
Even fixers screw up, right? Still, there's already well over $100,000 donated for Cohen Davis. But why $500,000? One of the
accusations against Cohen concerns lying to a bank for a $20 million loan. He bought an apartment not long ago for $6.7 million.
He owned multiple apartments in Trump buildings.
Did he lose everything when Robert Mueller et al raided his office, home and hotel room on April 9 2018? Were all his assets frozen?
Possibly. What we do know is that he 'expected' the Trump campaign to pay for his legal fees. Which they declined. Or rather, as
Fortune reported in June : "The
Trump campaign has given some money to Cohen to help cover legal expenses for the Russia investigation. To date, though, it has not
offered financial assistance in the investigation of his business practices."
It seems safe to assume that's the point where Cohen turned, or was turned, to Lanny Davis. From a full decade of being Trump's
fixer to being fixed by the Clintons' fixer. That's a big move. It raises a number of questions :
First, why did Trump not pay Cohen's legal fees? This is 2 months after the raid on the man's office, home, hotel room, in
which huge amounts of files and disks etc. were seized.
Second question: if Lanny Davis only now sets up a Go Fund Me campaign, who's been paying him over the past 2 months? Did Cohen
sell assets, or is someone else involved?
Anyway, so Davis goes on TV with big words about how Cohen will tell all about Trump -provided people donate half a million- and
adding "I know that Mr. Cohen would never accept a pardon from a man that he considers to be both corrupt and a dangerous person
in the oval office. And [Cohen] has flatly authorized me to say under no circumstances would he accept a pardon from Mr. Trump."
Oh, and that "the turning point for his client's attitude toward Trump was the Helsinki summit in July 2018 which caused him to
doubt Trump's loyalty to the U.S." That, to my little brain, doesn't sound like something that would come from Cohen. That sounds
more like a political point the likes of which Cohen has never made. That's plain old Russiagate.
But anyway. So Lanny Davis, fixer of fixers and presidents, goes on a talk-show tour last night and what do you think happens?
He walks back just about everything he's said the previous day. Aaron Maté made a list in this Twitter thread:
1/ In a few minutes of airtime today, Michael Cohen attorney Lanny Davis has rejected a key Steele dossier claim, and, more
significantly I think, the basis for all of the ceaseless, frenzied speculation that Cohen has something to offer Mueller on Trump-Russia
collusion:
3/ Right after, Davis walks back his already heavily qualified innuendo to
@ Maddow -- which generated endless chatter -- about Cohen being useful
to Mueller's probe on collusion & knowing of hacking. Now Davis claims he was "tentative", that Cohen "may or may not be useful",
etc:
4/ Earlier in the day, Davis also asserted that Cohen was "never, ever" in Prague -- undermining a key claim in the Steele
dossier that he went there in August/September 2016 as part of the collusion scheme:
https:// twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/st atus/1032427395993624576
6/ So in short: Lanny Davis has not just denied what was explosively alleged about Cohen-Trump by Steele, CNN, and McClatchy,
but has also walked back the explosive speculation about Cohen-Trump that Lanny Davis himself generated.
Is Michael Cohen sure he wants this guy as his lawyer? Is he watching this stuff?
If Cohen and Manafort have broken laws, they should be punished for it. The same goes for all other Trump campers, including the
Donald. But it would be good if people realize that Cohen and Manafort are not some kind of stand-alone examples, that they are instead
the norm in Washington. And Moscow, and Brussels, London, everywhere there's a concentration of power. In all these places, and probably
more so in DC, there are these folks specializing in the edge of the law.
What do you think will happen when someone of the stature of Bob Mueller spends 18 months investigating the Clintons and their
fixers? Perhaps the events of the past few days won't bring such a 2nd Special Counsel any closer, but by the same token they might
do just that. Offense is the best defense.
I don't know, we don't know, what monsters Trump has swept under his luxurious carpets. But we do know that those are not the
only monsters in Washington. Meanwhile, the Steele dossier that was used to start the entire Mueller remains just about entirely
unverified. The Russian collusion meme he was tasked with investigating has so far come up empty.
That he would find something if he tried hard enough was obvious from the start. That is both dangerous in that the mandate of
a Special Counsel should be limited lest it becomes endless and veers off the reasons it was initiated, as well as in the risk that
it can easily turn into a party-political tool to hurt one's opponent while one's own dirt remains unscrutinized.
In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming in the swamp that either it should be
expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like
Lanny Davis and Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been.
Because if you don't do that, you can only possibly end up in an even bigger mess. You can't drain half a swamp.
This is Lavrentiy Beria style move from John "911 coverup" Mueller. It is clear that he can dig dirt on trump business dealings.
Notable quotes:
"... What's more, Mr Weisselberg has been at the beating heart of the Trump Organization since the 1970s. He handles the president's private trust, is the treasurer of the family's charitable foundation - currently under investigation by the state of New York - and has, at times, reviewed the Trump presidential campaign's accounting books ..."
The Trump Organization's finance boss, Allen Weisselberg, has reportedly been granted legal immunity in the probe into Michael
Cohen.
He was summoned to testify earlier this year in the investigation into Cohen, Donald Trump's longtime former lawyer, US media
report.
Cohen pleaded guilty on Tuesday to handling hush money for Mr Trump in violation of campaign finance laws.
Mr Weisselberg, Chief Financial Officer, is the latest to get immunity.
On Thursday, it emerged that David Pecker, head of the company that publishes the National Enquirer tabloid, was also given immunity.
Mr Weisselberg is reportedly mentioned on a tape secretly recorded by Cohen in 2016 in which a hush money payment to an alleged
lover of Mr Trump is discussed.
It is not yet clear what Mr Weisselberg has agreed to in return for getting legal immunity.
The Trump Organization has not commented on the reports, which first emerged in the Wall Street Journal.
Where does this fit in?
This is the latest twist in a saga continuing to dog the Trump administration.
In a serious blow, Cohen, Mr Trump's personal lawyer for more than a decade, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to eight criminal charges,
including tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
He said he had paid hush money to two women who alleged they had affairs with Mr Trump, at the direction of "the candidate" -
a clear reference to Mr Trump.
Cohen said the payment was made for the "principal purpose of influencing [the 2016] election".
His plea deal with prosecutors could see his prison sentence reduced from 65 years to five years and three months.
Mr Weisselberg was one of those called to give evidence before a federal grand jury for the Cohen investigation earlier this year,
the Wall Street Journal reports.
Separately, the Manhattan district attorney has launched a preliminary investigation into whether the Trump Organization falsified
business records relating to payments made to Cohen, a source confirmed to CBS news.
The dominoes continue to fall
By Anthony Zurcher, Senior North America Reporter
Donald Trump's former personal lawyer has told a federal judge that the president knew about his illegal payments to women claiming
illicit affairs with the then-candidate. The publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, formerly a close ally of Mr Trump's, has
reportedly received immunity to discuss his role in the payments.
Now multiple US media outlets are reporting that Allen Weisselberg, chief financial officer of the Trump Organization and the
only non-relative trusted by the president to run his business empire during his presidency, is co-operating with federal investigators.
While much of the political world has been focused on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the situation in New York for the president
is increasingly threatening.
Mr Weisselberg reportedly oversaw the reimbursements Mr Cohen received from the Trump Organization for paying adult film star
Stormy Daniels. Depending on how the financial transfer was accounted for, it could run afoul of a number of campaign finance and
accounting laws.
What's more, Mr Weisselberg has been at the beating heart of the Trump Organization since the 1970s. He handles the president's
private trust, is the treasurer of the family's charitable foundation - currently under investigation by the state of New York -
and has, at times, reviewed the Trump presidential campaign's accounting books.
He's the man who knows things - and now he's talking.
What's the origin of all this?
It is the latest fallout from the wider inquiry launched by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in May 2017 into suspected collusion
between the Trump election campaign and Russia.
As part of that probe, Cohen's offices were raided and investigators looked into his finances. What they found was passed on to
New York judicial authorities.
Cohen's lawyer has said his client is "more than happy" to help the collusion inquiry.
Mr Trump has repeatedly denied collusion with Russia, and Russia denies involvement in the 2016 election.
Related Topics
Federal prosecutors have granted immunity to American Media Inc. CEO and longtime friend of
President Trump, David Pecker, reports the Wall Street
Journal .
"... Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both countries support. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... New York Times' ..."
"... I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing to an article in The Guardian ..."
"... Both Merkel and Putin are now facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on Russia relating to the Skripal affair. ..."
"... La Libre Belgique ..."
"... "Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people." ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of Merkel and Putin knows that. ..."
"... Vremya Pokazhet ..."
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine ..."
"... In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a 360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the small slices we see discussed in the news. ..."
"... When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas bases. ..."
"... By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . ..."
"... Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it. ..."
Reading the tea leaves of the Putin-Merkel meeting
During this past Saturday, 18 August, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a brief visit to
Austria to attend the wedding of the country's Minister of Foreign Affairs Karin Kneissl. Per
the Kremlin, this stop of several hours in the Styrian wine country not far from the border
with Slovenia was a "purely private" side excursion "on the road to Germany" for the state
visit with Chancellor Angela Merkel starting later in the day at the Meseberg Palace, the
federal guest house 60 km north of Berlin.
Journalists were admitted to film the wedding party, including Putin's dance with the 53
year old bride. No questions were taken and no statements were issued by the President's Press
Secretary, who also was present. We know only that on the return journey to Graz airport, Putin
was accompanied by Austria's Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Presumably they had some issues to
discuss that may be characterized as official talks.
Prior to their meeting both Putin and Angela Merkel made statements to the press listing the
topics they intended to discuss. We may assume that these lists were not exhaustive. Comparing
their lists, we find that the respective priorities of the parties were in inverted order, with
economic cooperation at the head of Putin's list while regulating the Donbass crisis in Ukraine
was the top concern of Merkel. Moreover, the content of issues bearing the same heading was
very different. Both sides spoke of Syria, but whereas for Putin the issue for discussion is
the humanitarian crisis of refugees, ensuring their return to their homes from camps in
Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey by raising funds to repair and replace fundamental infrastructure
destroyed in the war. For Merkel, the number one issue in Syria is to prevent the
Russian-backed Syrian armed forces from creating a new humanitarian disaster by their ongoing
campaign to retake Idlib province from the militants opposed to Bashar Assad.
Meanwhile, what is surely the single most urgent issue for both sides was not mentioned at
all in their opening statements: namely how to respond to US President Donald Trump's new
sanctions on Russia and on participants in the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project that both
countries support.
As was explained at the outset, there was to be no press conference or joint statement
issued at the conclusion of the talks. The only information we have is that Merkel and Putin
conferred for more than three hours, which is in itself quite extraordinary and suggests that
some understandings may have been achieved.
In a word, the potentially very important diplomatic developments of Saturday remain, for
once, a state secret of the parties, with no leaks for the press to parse. And yet there is
material here worthy of our consideration. I have in mind the interpretations of what might
transpire before, during and after the events of Saturday in the news and commentary reportage
of various countries having greater or lesser interest in Russian affairs. Indeed, my perusal
of French, Belgian, German, British, American and Russian news media shows great diversity of
opinion and some penetrating and highly pertinent remarks based on different information bases.
This material is all essential if we are to make sense of the behavior of the parties on the
international stage in the coming weeks.
In this essay, I will set out what I have found per country, starting with the least
attentive to detail - the United States - and ending with those who offered the best informed
and most interested reportage, Germany and Russia. I will conclude with my own reading of the
tea leaves.
* * * *
Let us take The Washington Post and The New York Times as our markers for
how US mainstream media reported on Putin's meetings this past Saturday.
On the 18th, The Washington Post carried in its online edition two articles dealing
with the Putin diplomatic doings. "At Austrian foreign minister's wedding, Putin brings the
music, the flowers and the controversy" was written by the newspaper's bureau chief in Berlin,
Griff Witte. It is accompanied by video clips of Vladimir Putin dancing with the bride and
speaking, in German, to the wedding party seated at their banquet table. The journalist touches
very briefly on the main political dimensions of Putin's visit to Austria, including the party
relations between United Russia and the far right Freedom Party in Austria's ruling coalition
which nominated Kneissl for her post, the criticism of Putin's participation in the wedding
coming from the Opposition parties in Austria who see it as a violation of the government's own
ambition to be a neutral bridge between East and West, and the issue of Putin's sowing division
on the continent. The only criticism one might offer is that the article is superficial, that
each of the issues raised deserves in-depth analysis separately.
The newspaper's second article online, which spread its net more broadly and covered the
meeting with Merkel in Germany as well as the visit in Austria, came from an Associated Press
reporter, not its own staff. Here again, the problem is that issues surrounding the meetings
are not more than bullet points, and the reader is given no basis for reaching an independent
finding on what has happened..
The New York Times' feature article "Merkel and Putin Sound Pragmatic Notes After
Years of Tension," also published on the 18th and datelined Berlin was cited by Russian
television news for a seemingly positive valuation of the talks in Meseberg Palace. However,
the content of the article by reporter Melissa Eddy is more cautious, highlighting the pattern
of "conflicts and reconciliations" that have marked German-Russian relations over the centuries
and seeing the present stage not as a warming of relations but instead as reaching for
compromises "on Syria, energy and other key issues while maintaining their differences over
Russia's role in the conflict in Ukraine." She sees the Syrian issue as one where German and
Russian interests may be closest given that refugees from the Middle East are now a German
preoccupation with political weight. The reporter cites several experts attached to well-known
institutes in Germany that are generally skeptical about Russia's intentions. But the end
result is better informed than most NYT reporting on Russia even if it leaves us
wondering what will result from the Saturday diplomacy.
In both mainstream papers there is no attempt to find a link between Putin's two visits on
Saturday.
I close out this little survey of English-speaking media by pointing
to an article in
The Guardian from the 18th entitled "Putin urges Europe to help
rebuild Syria so refugees can return." This piece comes from the Agence France-Presse in Berlin. It is not much
more than a recitation of the lists of topics for discussion that Putin and Merkel issued
before their talks. But the reporter has made his choice for the most important of them, Syria
and refugees.
The French-language press does not seem to have been very interested in Putin's "private"
trip to the wedding of the Austrian foreign minister, but was definitely keen to discuss
Putin's trip to Berlin. On the day preceding the Putin-Merkel meeting, the French press offered
a clear concept of where things were headed. We read in Figaro , "Merkel receives
Putin Saturday to renew a difficult dialogue." A caption in bold just below is more
eye-catching: "While the German Chancellor has become the main opponent to the Russian
President within the EU, the policy of sanctions conducted by Washington has led to a
rapprochement between Berlin and Moscow with regard to numerous issues."
The reporter notes that following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, relations
between the two heads of state had become quite bad and in four years they met only when
obliged to do so during international summits.
"But starting three months ago, their diplomatic exchanges have intensified: in May Angela
Merkel met the chief of the Kremlin in Sochi, Russia. In July, she met the head of the Russian
diplomatic corps, Sergei Lavrov, in Berlin. By inviting Vladimir Putin this time, the German
Chancellor has promised 'in-depth discussions.' "She is pursuing a pragmatic attempt at
normalization of German-Russian relations, because the international realities have changed,'
explains Stefan Meister, director of the Robert Bosch Center for Russia."
And how has the calculus of international relations changed? Both Merkel and Putin are now
facing the same challenge: US foreign policy has become unpredictable, both for its allies and
for rivals like Moscow. Notwithstanding the warm discussions Donald Trump had with Vladimir
Putin in Helsinki, the American administration has just announced a new wave of sanctions on
Russia relating to the Skripal affair.
"The American policy represents a danger for the Russian economy and a threat to German
interests."
A spokesperson from Merkel's CDU party responsible for foreign policy is quoted on the
possible dangers of secondary sanctions being directed at Germany through the application of US
extraterritoriality against those failing to respect the new sanctions on Russia.
The article explains the issues surrounding the Nord Steam 2 pipeline, and in particular
Trump's hostility to the project for its locking in German dependence on Russian
hydrocarbons.
And the author points to the common interests of Germany and Russia over maintenance of the
Iranian nuclear deal as a factor powering the rapprochement of the two countries. Here again
the common threat is Donald Trump and American sanctions against those companies which continue
to trade with Iran.
The article concludes that divergent views of Russia and Germany over Ukraine and Syria
exclude any breakthrough at the meeting on Saturday. But nonetheless the dialogue that was
lacking these several past years is being recreated.
In its weekend edition issued on 18 August, the Belgian mainstream daily La Libre
Belgique was even more insistent on interpreting the Merkel-Putin meeting as a consequence
of the policies of Donald Trump. Their editorial captures the sense very nicely in its
tongue-in-cheek headline: "Trump is the best 'ally' of Putin."
La Libre sees Vladimir Putin's latest diplomatic initiatives as directly resulting
from the way his host at the White House has annoyed everyone. Moreover, his outreach is
welcomed:
"Germany is not the only 'Western' nation to return to the Kremlin. Putin is taking full
advantage of the boomerang effect caused by the policies of Donald Trump, who, by hammering
away at his customary allies is pushing them to other interlocutors. By looking for
confrontations, imposing taxes and sanctions while thinking that this rampant isolationism
will make the United States 'great again,' Trump is helping to build a wall that he no doubt
did not imagine, that of the anti-Trump people."
The editors point to Turkish President Erdogan's clear signal that he is now
looking for other allies. He has done his calculations and has said he has more to gain with
Moscow than with Washington.'
The editorial concludes that a summit on reconstruction of Syria might even take place at
the start of September between Moscow, Ankara, Paris and Berlin. The conclusion? "Putin has
taken center stage on the chessboard. Thank you, Mr. Trump."
The article filed by La Libre 's correspondent in Berlin, Sebastien Millard, bears
a heading that matches the editorial view of the newspaper: "Merkel and Putin - allies of
convenience facing Trump." The author credits Donald Trump with being the catalyst for the
resumption of dialogue between Germany and Russia; they are telling Washington that they do not
accept its blackmail. He notes that we should not expect any reversal of alliances. There are
too many differences of view between Berlin and Moscow on a variety of issues.
* * * *
The German press paid a good deal of attention to Vladimir Putin's visit to Austria for the
wedding of Foreign Minister Karin Kreissl.
In an article posted on the 16th entitled "Suspicion that Austria is a Trojan horse,"
Die Welt highlighted the negatives of Putin's presence. Quoting an "expert from the
University of Innsbruck" this does not cast a good light on the country. They anticipate
political fall-out. This will impair Austria's ability as chair of the European Council to play
a role of intermediary in the Ukraine conflict. The only beneficiary of the visit will be the
the Russia-friendly be the Russia-friendly Freedom Party. For Putin, being a guest provides him
with the opportunity to demonstrate that he is not isolated but is instead highly welcome in
society of an EU country.
As for the coming meeting with Merkel on Saturday evening, Die Welt in a related
article of the same day lists the issues for discussion. Without taking a position, it cites
experts for and against the Nord Stream II pipeline and other issues on the list.
Welt's report from the wedding party on the 18th was gossipy and unfriendly, comparing it to
a wedding of some European royal family because of the extraordinary guest list that included
the country's chancellor, vice chancellor, and defense minister as well as the head of OPEC
and...Vladimir Putin. With typical German petty financial accounting, they reckon that the 500
police and other security measures needed for the safety of the highly placed guests cost the
Austrian tax payers 250,000 euros.
A separate article in Die Welt deals with Putin's meeting with Merkel at the
Meseberg Palace. The emphasis here is on Merkel's remarks during the Statement prior to the
talks that cooperation with Russia is "vital" to deal with many conflicts globally and that
both sides bear responsibility to find solutions.
The article quotes from the opening statements of the leaders on all the issues in their
list for discussion - Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream II. We are given bare facts without any
analysis to speak of.
The other major mainstream daily Frankfurter Allgemeine in its Saturday, 18 August
edition offered separate articles on Putin's visits to Austria and Germany.
The article on Karin Kneissl's wedding heads off in a very different direction from the
reporting in other media that I have summarized above. FAZ notes that Kneissl is
rarely in the headlines and it asks: who is she? They answer the question with some curious
details. We learn that Kneissl was once active in competitive sports and even now swims a
kilometer every day. For many years she has lived on a small farmstead with a couple of boxers,
two ponies, hens and cats. Each morning her chauffeur takes her and the dogs to her office in
Vienna, to return in the evening. Regrettably, FAZ does not take this curious
biographical sketch further. No connection is drawn between her personality and the Russian
President's acceptance of her invitation to her wedding.
FAZ similarly has chosen to amuse rather than inform in its coverage of the meeting
in Berlin entitled "Sparkling wine in Austria, sparkling water in Meseberg." They comment on
how Putin arrived half an hour late, on how it is hard to see how the meeting could be
characterized as a success. They stress that we know nothing about the content of the
consultations. Then they tick off the opening positions of the sides as set out in their
statements before the talks.
Spiegel online risks more by giving more interpretation and less bare facts. Its
article entitled "Something of a new start" suggests that a rapprochement is underway and that
both Merkel and Putin have a lot in play. Unlike the other German press we have mentioned,
Spiegel sees a direct link between Putin's attending the wedding in Styria and his visit to
Merkel.
Putin is under economic pressure to find closer ties with Europe. In Austria, which now
chairs the European Council, he has allies in the government, namely the extreme right
populists of the Freedom Party which installed Kneissl. But the way to Europe passes by way of
Merkel and Putin knows that.
Meanwhile, says Spiegel , Germany also is interested in improving relations with
Russia despite all the controversy, namely due to the growing conflicts with US President
Donald Trump. We don't know the exact content of the talks which were confidential, but there
is some movement now between Germany and Russia.
Spiegel remains cautious. Cordiality does not enter into the relationship. The
parties keep their distance. There is no laughter to lighten the atmosphere. Yet, it concludes:
"The talks have prospects and we can see the wish to make progress through common positions,
and without being silent about contradictions. Diplomatic normality, as it were. A step
forward."
* * * *
If the great bulk of commentary in the West about Putin's diplomatic weekend was reserved
and stayed by the bare facts without speculation, Russian television more than made up for
dryness. I point in particular to two political talk shows which invited a mixture of experts
from different backgrounds.
Let us begin with the show Vremya Pokazhet (Time will tell) on
state television's Pervy Kanal . Their Friday, 17 August program focused on Putin's
forthcoming visit to the wedding 'on the road to Berlin,' which several panelists saw as a
strong signal to Germany that Russ1+
ia had other channels to the EU if Germany refuses to be its intercessor.
The visit was said to be breaking new ground in diplomatic practice. According to panelist
Andrei Baklanov, deputy chair of the association of Russian diplomats, this kind of positive,
human diplomacy is Russia's answer to the negative behavior in international affairs that has
occupied center stage in the recent past - sanctions, fake news, etc. As another panelist
interjected, this is the first time that a Russian head of state attended a wedding abroad
since Tsar Nicholas did so in Germany in 1913.
Baklanov proceeded to provide details about the bride, however, bringing out aspects of her
career that are far more relevant to her attracting the attention of Putin than the
Frankfurter Allgemeine produced. We learn that she grew up in Amman, Jordan, that she
speaks 8 languages: Arabic, Hebrew, Magyar, French, Spanish, Italian, English as well as her
native German. She studied Near Eastern languages in Vienna University, in the Jewish
University of Jerusalem, in the University of Jordan and also graduated from the National
School of Administration in France. She holds a doctorate in law. She is a non-party minister,
which also attests to her generally recognized professionalism. For all of these reasons, she
is a good fit with Putin's determination to find supporters in Europe for investments to
restore Syrian infrastructure and enable the return of refugees.
Sergey Mironov, leader of the socialist party Fair Russia said that despite Merkel's warning
in advance not to expect breakthroughs it is likely progress was made in agreeing how to deal
with US sanctions. This would be tested in the coming days.
As for the link between the visits to Austria and Germany, the representative of a
pro-business party Sergey Stankevich reminded viewers that Germany and Austria are the market
makers in Europe for Russian gas. Nord Stream II gas may land in Germany but a large part of it
will be pumped further to Austria's hub for distribution elsewhere in Europe. Whatever may have
been said publicly, Stankevich believes that Merkel and Putin did agree on many if not all the
subjects named before the start: Iran, Syria, Ukraine, Nord Stream.
Russian media coverage of the Saturday travels of their President continued on Russian news
programs into Monday, with video clips of Putin dancing at the wedding and speaking alongside
Merkel before entering into their talks at Meseberg Palace.
* * * *
Looking back at the media coverage of Putin's visits to Austria and Germany on 18 August,
and with all due respect to those who opinions are different from mine, I find that the most
helpful for our understanding of the present day international situation were the report and
editorial in Belgium's Libre Belgique and the unruly, risky but at times brilliant
insights on Russian television.
What comes out of this is the understanding that the visits to a wedding in Austria and to
the federal Chancellor outside Berlin were directly linked in Russian diplomatic strategy, that
Russia is playing the Austrian card during the country's six months at the helm of the European
Council in Brussels, that Russia is pushing for a multi-party relief effort for Syria to
facilitate the return of refugees to their home and pacification of the war-torn country. The
web of common interests that Russia is pursuing has at its core the fragility of the current
world order and generalized anxiety of leading countries due to America's aggressive pursuit of
narrow national interest under Donald Trump as seen in his tariff wars and sanctions directed
at friends and foes alike.
Where I differ from the interpretations set out in the foregoing press reports is in my
understanding of what Trump is doing and why.
The nearly universal assumption of commentators is that Trump's policies known as "Make
America Great" are ignorant and doomed to fail. They are assumed to be isolationist,
withdrawing America from the world community.
However, Trump did not invent bullying of US allies. That was going strong under George W.
Bush, with his challenge "you are either with us or against us" when he sought to align the
West behind his invasion of Iraq in 2003 without authorization of the UN Security Council. His
more urbane successor Barack Obama was no kinder to U.S. allies, who were slapped with crushing
fines for violations of U.S. sanctions on Iran, just to mention one way in which they were kept
in line. And the U.S. Congress today is no more reasonable and diplomatic than the President in
the brutal unilateral sanctions it has on its own initiative advocated against not just Russia
but also against Turkey and other states which are not snapping to attention with respect to
purchases of military materiel from Russia.
What made U.S. bullying tolerable before Trump was the ideological smokescreen of "shared
values," namely democracy promotion, human rights and rule of law, that all members of the
alliances could swear to and which set them apart from the still unenlightened parts of the
globe where autocrats hold sway.
In my view, Trump's use of sanctions and tariffs here, there, everywhere has a totally
different logic from what is adduced in the writings of my peers in the analyst community. He
invokes them because 1. they are within his sole power as Chief Executive and 2. they are in
principle as American as apple pie and do not require grand explanations in Congress or before
the public. As to why he invokes them, there you have to look at Trump's foreign policy from a
360 degree perspective and not merely as it relates to Putin or to Erdogan or to any of the
small slices we see discussed in the news.
When viewed in the round, it is obvious that Trump is reshuffling the deck. He is doing what
he can to break up NATO and the other military alliances around the world which are consuming
more than half of the U.S. defense budget and do not arguably provide greater security to the
American homeland than the country can do for itself without fixed alliances and overseas
bases.
The first two presidencies of this millennium undid the country's greatest geopolitical
achievement of the second half of the 20th century: the informal alliance with China against
Russia that put Washington at the center of all global politics. Bush and Obama did that by
inattention and incomprehension of what was at stake. That inattention was an expression of
American hubris in the unipolar world which, it was assumed, was the new normal, not a
blip.
By contrast, what Trump is now doing is not a blunder or a bit of bluster. Even if he is not
conversant with the whole of the Realist School of international relations, as surely he is
not, he does grasp the fundamentals, namely the centrality of the sovereign nation-state and of
the balance of power mechanism by which these states are constantly changing alignments of
these nation-states to ensure no one enjoys hegemony . We see this understanding when he speaks
about looking out for American interests while the heads of state whom he meets are looking out
for the interests of theirs.
In his tweets we find that our allies are ripping us off, that
they are unfair competitors. His most admiring remark about Russia is that it is a strong
competitor. The consistent element in Trump's thinking is ignored or willfully misunderstood in
the press.
Accordingly, I insist that the possible rapprochement of Russia and Germany will be in line
with Trump's reshuffling of the deck not in spite of it.
Good Optics · about 3 hours ago
This nuanced analysis rings true and speaks to the fact that -
though Trump may not exactly be playing 47D chess - he certainly
does have some good intentions that, left to follow their course,
would have a chance of making the world a better place. But that
will not be allowed to happen by those in the US with firm
commitments to pursue the world's subjugation through any means
possible.
The Cs did tell us that Trump's heart is in the right place, unlikely
though that does appear a lot of the time . . .
Why is Congress so obsessed with starting a new Cold War with Russia? Are they all gripped
by group-think? Who do sanctions hurt most? And how can people visit with Rep. Thomas Massie
and Ron Paul later this month? Tune in to today's Ron Paul Liberty Report with a very special
guest!
You can always count on the neocons in Congress to ignore reality, ignore evidence, and
ignore common sense in their endless drive to get us involved in another war.
Last week, for example, Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-NC), Bob Menendez
(D-NJ), and others joined up to introduce what Senator Graham called "the sanctions bill from
hell," aimed at applying "crushing" sanctions on Russia.
Senator Graham bragged that the bill would include "everything but the kitchen sink" in its
attempt to ratchet up tensions with Russia.
Sen Cory Gardner (R-CO) bragged that the new sanctions bill "includes my language requiring
the State Department to determine whether Russia merits the designation of a State Sponsor of
Terror."
Does he even know what the word "terrorism" means?
Sen Ben Cardin (D-MD) warns that the bill must be passed to strengthen our resolve against
"Vladimir Putin's pattern of corroding democratic institutions and values around the world, a
direct and growing threat to US national security."
What has Russia done that warrants "kitchen sink" sanctions that will "crush" the country
and possibly designate it as a sponsor of terrorism? Sen. Menendez tells us:
"The Kremlin continues to attack our democracy, support a war criminal in Syria, and
violate Ukraine's sovereignty."
There is a big problem with these accusations on Russia : they're based on outright lies and
unproven accusations that continue to get more bizarre with each re-telling .
How strange that when US Senators like Menendez demand that we stand by our NATO allies even
if it means war, they attack Russia for doing the same in Syria. Is the Syrian president a "war
criminal," as he claims? We do know that his army is finally, with Russian and Iranian help,
about to defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda, which with US backing for seven years have turned Syria into
a smoking ruin. Does Menendez and his allies prefer ISIS in charge of Syria?
And how hypocritical for Menendez to talk about Russia violating Ukraine's sovereignty. The
unrest in Ukraine was started by the 2014 US-backed coup against an elected leader. We have
that all on tape!
How is Russia "attacking our democracy"? We're still waiting for any real evidence that
Russia was involved in our 2016 elections and intends to become involved in our 2018 elections.
But that doesn't stop the propagandists, who claim with no proof that Russia was behind the
election of Donald Trump.
These Senators claim that sanctions will bring the Russians to heel, but they are wrong.
Sanctions are good at two things only: destroying the lives of innocent civilians and leading
to war.
As I mentioned in an episode of my Liberty Report last week, even our own history shows that
sanctions do lead to war and should not be taken lightly. In the run-up to US involvement in
the War of 1812, the US was doing business with both France and the UK, which were at war with
each other. When the UK decided that the US was favoring France in its commerce, it imposed
sanctions on the US. What did Washington do in response? Declared war. Hence the War of 1812,
which most Americans remember as that time when the British burned down the White House.
Recent polls show that the majority of Americans approve of President Trump's recent meeting
with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among Republicans, a vast majority support the meeting.
Perhaps a good defeat in November will wake these neocon warmongers up. Let's hope so!
"... What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of anyone who doesn't toe the line. ..."
"... What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence. ..."
"... So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it all. ..."
"... Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran. Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than this. ..."
"... The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework. ..."
What started as small moments of defiance a few years ago are turning into full-throated
shouts of opposition as the US pushes its leverage in financial markets to step on the necks of
anyone who doesn't toe the line.
And Trump feeds off this by casting everyone as a leach who has been sucking off the US's
breast for decades. It doesn't matter the issue, to Trump US economic fragility is a hammer and
every trade and military partner a nail to be bashed over the head to pay their way.
What we are seeing is the culmination of a long-term plan by global elites to tighten
the financial noose around the world through overlapping trade and tariff structures and
weaponizing the dollar's position at the center of global financial interdependence.
Trump is against that in principle, but not against the US maintaining as much of the empire
as possible.
So, everyday another round of sanctions makes the case against continuing to do business
with the US stronger. Everyday another global player speaks with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and makes contingency plans for a world without the dollar at the center of it
all.
The latest major one was with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This meeting wasn't expected
to provide anything concrete, only vague assurances that projects like the Nordstream 2
pipeline goes through.
But, no breakthroughs on Crimea or Ukraine were expected nor delivered. It was, however, an
opportunity for both Putin and Merkel to be humanized in the European media. Between Putin's
attending Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl's wedding as well as the garden party photo
op background for their talk, this meeting between them was a bit of a 'charm tour' to assist
Merkel in the polls while expanding on Putin's humanity post World Cup and Helsinki.
That said, however, the statement by Merkel's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, about the need
for a new financial payment system which bypasses the US-dominated SWIFT system was the big
bombshell.
Maas openly accused the US of weaponizing the dollar and disrupting the very foundations
of global trade, which is correct, to achieve its goals of regime change in Turkey and Iran.
Maas mainly tied this to Trump's pulling out of the JCPOA but the reality is far bigger than
this.
The Magnitsky Act and its progenitors around the world are a major evolution in the US's
ability to bring financial pain to anyone who it disapproves of. Know Your Customer (KYC) and
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws also into this framework.
While KYC and AML laws can at least have the appearance of validity in attempting to stop
illegal activity, targeted sanctioning is simply Orwellian.
It politicizes any and all economic activity the world over. Just look at the recent reasons
for these sanctions – unproven allegations of chemical weapons usage and electioneering.
Recent actions by the US have driven this point home to its 'allies' with stunning clarity.
Why do you think Putin brought up Bill Browder's name at the Helsinki press conference? He
knows that Browder's story is a lie and it's a lie that has been used as the foundation for the
type of political repression we're seeing today.
The US is blocking the simplest of transactions in the dollar now, claiming that any use of
the dollar is a global privilege which it can revoke at a whim. Aside from the immorality of
this, that somehow dollars you traded goods or services for on the open market are still
somehow the property of the U.S to claw back whenever it is politically convenient, this
undermines the validity of the dollar as a rational medium of exchange for trade.
This is why after the first round of sanctions over the reunification with Crimea Putin
ordered the development of a national electronic payment system. He rightly understood that
Russia needed a means by which to conduct business that was independent of US political
meddling.
So, to me, if Heiko Maas is serious about the threat posed by continued use of the dollar in
EU trade, he should look to Putin for guidance on building a system separate from SWIFT.
Moreover, Maas' statement didn't go out to the world without Merkel's approval. This tells
me that this was likely the major topic of conversation between her and Putin over the weekend.
Because a payment system that skirts the dollar is one the US can't control.
It took the Russians longer than they should have to develop MIR. Putin complained about how
slow things went because too many within the Bank of Russia and the financial community could
be thought of as fifth columnists for the West.
It's also why development of the crypto-ruble and Russia's policy on cryptocurrencies has
been so slow. It took Putin publicly ordering the work done by a certain time to get these
tasks completed. In the end, it shouldn't take the EU long to spin up a SWIFT-compliant
internal alternative. It is, after all, just code.
And that's why so many of the US's former satraps are now flexing their geopolitical muscle.
The incentives aren't there anymore to keep quiet and go along. Alternatives exist and will be
utilized.
I don't expect the EU brass to do much about this issue, the threat may be all that is
needed to call Trump's bluff. But, if in the near future you see an announcement of MIR being
accepted somewhere in the EU don't be surprised.
Because what used to be a node of political stability and investor comfort is now a tool of
chaos and abuse. And abusing your customers is never a winning business model in the long run.
Customers of the dollar will remind the US of that before this is over.
The author is a typical neocon. But some of his thought are interesting
if only for delusions they contain.
Notable quotes:
"... While these Russian endeavors are important, they're a sideshow to the main event: a long geopolitical struggle in which the United States briefly gained a dominant position, but which today is more evenly matched. ..."
"... the chaotic process amounted to a looting of some of the former Soviet Union's prized assets by a tiny circle of corrupt oligarchs. Yeltsin's inner circle engaged in epic corruption ..."
"... Citizens lost the social safety net, while gaining very little in return. The visible results of capitalism piled up only for a tiny elite. ..."
"... if America has squandered international goodwill and allowed alliances to fray, those assets will prove as ineffectual as they have in the most recent contests in which Putin has outfoxed the West. ..."
"... Thanassis Cambanis, a fellow at The Century Foundation, is the author of "Once Upon a Revolution: An Egyptian Story." He is an Ideas columnist and blogs at thanassiscambanis.com. ..."
"... Following the collapse of the USSR, the US broke it's promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO. It did so, right up to the border of Russia, essentially encircling it. ..."
"... ''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.'' ..."
It should come as no surprise that many Russians will mourn this month, a quarter century
after Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as president of the Soviet Union and overnight, one of the
great world empires simply dissolved.
Today a tense realignment is underway, as a resurgent Russia jostles to the table and upends
American nostrums about the post-Cold War order. Russia has given the United States plenty of
grist for worry with its apparent meddling in the US presidential election. President Vladimir
Putin's hackers and propagandists appear ready and willing to work to tip the balance to the
right in upcoming European elections as well.
While these Russian endeavors are important, they're a sideshow to the main event: a long
geopolitical struggle in which the United States briefly gained a dominant position, but which
today is more evenly matched.
... ... ...
Putin wants to erase once and for all the image of Russia as the tottering, ex-empire low on
cash, trying to bully the world with a limping army whose rusty equipment is staffed by
alcoholics with truncated life spans.
A multipolar world is full of fuzzy boundaries that breed conflict and uncertainty. The
United States might be in first place, but China is gaining, and neither can patronizingly
dismiss Russia as a "regional power." The European Union is politically fragmented and
economically hobbled, but it remains one of the richest markets in the world and, like Russia,
possesses geostrategic depth. The fallacy of the American interregnum after 1991 was that old
standards of geopolitical power no longer applied. Now the world has been put back on notice
that they do, but that doesn't answer the specific question: What should the United States do
about Russia?
The first step toward a more effective Russia policy is to understand Moscow's grievances.
The sudden collapse of an empire of global scope traumatized many former Soviet citizens.
After Gorbachev's Christmas-day resignation, Boris Yeltsin led an independent Russia into
what was supposed to be a bright new age of capitalist democracy. Expert American advisers
helped usher in a headlong rush to privatize state-owned industries. Whatever their intention,
the chaotic process amounted to a looting of some of the former Soviet
Union's prized assets by a tiny circle of corrupt oligarchs. Yeltsin's inner
circle engaged in epic corruption. Some of
the experts argued that a flawed sell-off of Communist-era industries was a necessary shock to
shed Soviet mores. The result was catastrophic. Citizens lost the social safety net, while
gaining very little in return. The visible results of capitalism piled up only for a tiny
elite.
Added to the quotidian discomfort was a wrenching loss of national status. An ailing Yeltsin
lurked out of view, while oligarchs ran riot and former Soviet republics made a mockery of
Russia's former primacy. NATO spread closer to Russia's borders.
"Russia's brief experience of democratic life was an experience of being pushed around by
the United States," said Mark MacKinnon, a Canadian journalist and author of "The New Cold
War."
Yeltsin's Communist challenger was expected to win in 1996, but a unified front of
oligarchs, worried they might lose their privileges, and campaign experts dispatched by
Clinton, saved the day for Yeltsin, if not for his constituents. The episode was memorialized
in the 2003 American comedy "Spinning Boris."
"Many Russians look at what's happening now in the United States and giggle that it's
payback time," MacKinnon said.
Russian influence reached its nadir when NATO intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo, which Russia
considered parts of its sphere of influence.
... ... ...
The first seminal crisis will come when Putin challenges an interest dear to the Trump
administration. Perhaps the Russian government will confiscate the assets of an American
corporation or clash with NATO forces or invade the Baltic republics or enter a showdown with
Europe.
Trump will presumably have the advantage, from America's unparalleled military and the
imposing NATO infrastructure, to an economy orders of magnitude richer and more productive than
Russia's. But if America has squandered international goodwill and allowed alliances to fray,
those assets will prove as ineffectual as they have in the most recent contests in which Putin
has outfoxed the West.
The chapter in contemporary history in which America stood alone at the top has come to a
close. Russia will return to the top tier, along with the United States, China, and potentially
other alliances. But the natural size of its power, whether measured in wealth, military power,
or global political influence, is not as great as Putin appears to think it is. Trump might be
willing to accept a bigger Russian role than his predecessors, but he's unlikely to forfeit
first place.
Thanassis Cambanis,
a fellow at The Century Foundation, is the author of "Once Upon a Revolution: An Egyptian
Story." He is an Ideas columnist and blogs at thanassiscambanis.com.
Following the collapse of the USSR, the US broke it's promise to
Gorbachev not to expand NATO. It did so, right up to the border of Russia, essentially
encircling it. The threat of bringing the Ukraine into NATO, after the coup supported by the
US, alarmed Putin, and he took Crimea with its strategically important port. Russia has adopted
a mostly defensive posture.
With regard to Syria, the US mistake was not doing enough to assist the rebels, but choosing
to support them at all. While the Russians have been nothing short of ruthless in destroying
the rebels, we are not blameless.
The
underlying world view in the article is that there are 3 super powers jockeying for global
leadership. This world view belies the fact that global power does come from military leverage,
although it is important, but economic power. The 1980s Soviet Union was never a real threat
because its economic production base could never sustain a war of any type and one did not need
the Afghan war to prove this. It was clear by the mid 1970s but the military industrial complex
would never let this view become part of the popular DNA.
Today, Russia's economy is in a
shambles, and with oil prices not likely to rise ( U.S. is the marginal producer now so U.S.
production will rise to cap any global price rise), the basis of a military buildup as part of
a new Cold War will yield economic hardship to a nation already suffering.
China is naturally
treating Asia as its sphere of influence which can be challenged economically but China's
leadership knows that any real military conflict with the U.S. will lead to economic disaster
as capital flows out and the yuan depreciates.
In short, a strong U.S. economy and not a
military buildup should be Trump's focus.
George Kennan, the architect of the Cold War, had this to say on
the expansion of NATO:
''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home.
''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies.
I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening
anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their
graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither
the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a
light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''
"... Some MoA commentators have discussed the possibility of Trump having been installed as the "front man" for the 'Deep State'. Our suspicions are derived from the falseness of Obama, the clear manipulations of the 2016 Presidential election (not by Russians, but by DNC and Hillary) , and Kissinger's cryptic but clear call for MAGA! after the Donbas rebels won in Ukraine (August 2014) ..."
"... A forgotten aspect: USA has a variety of goals in trade policies that inevitably conflict each other. Trump got an idea to change conditions of the trade with China in a way that will improve the manufacturing jobs in USA, but he also wants the negotiation on that issue to hinge on "cooperative attitude" in respect of starving North Korea to submission ..."
"... And there is a long list of issues that confuse trade negotiations: e.g. impunity for Israel, impunity for USA for war crimes, cooperating with American sanctions on Iran that do not have trade purpose. Then we have Trumpian quasi-economic idea to force import of American weapons and unleash sanctions if, say, Russian weapons a for being twice cheaper. ..."
"... North Korea already has the solution for the problem you highlight: the Chinese model of "one country, two systems" mixed with the American model. ..."
"... The problem is: the South (and the USA) doesn't want it. They are betting on the North's collapse, followed by a would be chaebol/American multinationals takeover, followed by an IMF-like "shock doctrine", which would result in the mass enslavement of the Northern population ..."
b: Trump is suddenly binding the continuation of Korea talks to a trade deal with
China.
If Trump previously used trade to coerce China's support for a hardline against NK (as
seems likely) then his claim that CHINA is using NK to strike back at USA over trade must
infuriate the Chinese.
b: There are small and big signs that a deeper conflict [with China] is
developing .
Trump has said that anyone trading with Iran after Nov. 4th will not be trading with USA.
I don't think the signs could be any more clear than that.
... the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no
respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less
arduous course.
As usual, BigLie Media shows its an impediment to establishing peace as it tries to BigLie
away the reality of the Trump/Kim agreement. Unfortunately, even outlets opposing the
monopoly of BigLie Media like RT and Sputnik further the BigLie regarding denuclearization,
which I then try to correct via comments--I think 9 times so far, which is far too many.
Despite denouncing Fake News, the Trump admin continues to fuel BigLie Media's BigLie by
announcing the appointment of someone to oversee a process--denuclearization--that won't
begin anytime soon. Furthermore, today China
called-out the ongoing prevarications :
"The United States' claims that China has been impacting Washington's talks with Pyongyang
on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula are irresponsible and contradict the facts,
Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman, Lu Kang, said in a statement on Saturday."
There're no talks about denuclearization occurring because it's not time for them to occur
as DPRK has said on several occasions in denouncing Bolton's & Pompeo's lies while
praising Trump.
3
weeks ago , China reiterated its ongoing policy to assist DPRK's economic development, so
Trump's moves have done nothing to weaken China's resolve.
IMO, what Trump says on the matter doesn't hold much weight as I see Moon and Kim--and the
Korean people, North and South--having more than enough courage and drive to attain the goal
of unification. Nor does it matter which side ends up the "winner" from a Western perspective
as the real winners will be Koreans and all other peoples of the region from Japan to
Indonesia. Just imagine the shock to US Imperialists when RoK and DPRK announce the joining
of their militaries into one overall institution--including DPRK's nukes.
All events in Korea are having a big affect of Okinawa and Okinawans' drive to attain
their freedom from Japanese and US Imperialism. And the shock waves don't avoid Japan proper
either as its economy really doesn't have yen to spare on wasteful military equipment. Not to
mention Japan's business sector's salivation at the monies possible by joining Xi's BRI's
Winwinism.
IMO, the remainder of the 21st Century will witness the metamorphosis of East Asia's
political-economy into a hybrid of Xi's Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, which will
eventually encompass Eurasia because WinWinism is far more desirable than the Outlaw US
Empire's Zerosumism. Furthermore, WinWinism lends itself far more readily to adopting
resiliency as resources dwindle and climate change bites harder.
By continuing to engage in such behavior, "the West" just hastens its journey into
irrelevance as the tenuous Atlanticist ties rupture due to Outlaw US Empire hubris/arrogance.
This site has a global view of Eurasia that
provides an honest comparison in size between it and its European appendage.
The historical
reasons allowing for European ascendency over Eurasia and much of the rest of the planet no
longer apply. The dynamism of Europe's run its course; and as Hesse noted 100 years ago,
Europe's future lies to the East.
A forgotten aspect: USA has a variety of goals in trade policies that inevitably conflict
each other. Trump got an idea to change conditions of the trade with China in a way that will
improve the manufacturing jobs in USA, but he also wants the negotiation on that issue to
hinge on "cooperative attitude" in respect of starving North Korea to submission (some wonder
why USA is so approving toward starving Yemen to submission, this is modus operandi in
general). So, how much of economic goals is he willing to surrender to get this cooperative
attitude?
And there is a long list of issues that confuse trade negotiations: e.g. impunity for
Israel, impunity for USA for war crimes, cooperating with American sanctions on Iran that do
not have trade purpose. Then we have Trumpian quasi-economic idea to force import of American
weapons and unleash sanctions if, say, Russian weapons a for being twice cheaper.
Building
our economy on the basis of piracy is perhaps a sound idea if we cannot compete in other
ways, but that harks to "build better future by stealing office supplies". But the fact is
that USA is not an omnipotent pirate, so to get concessions we need to concede something
else, and the least important are issues that affect jobs (think tanker jobs and other elite
occupations are not threatened after all).
Reunification under what government. When you say, "on its way to reunification", do you
foresee the Kim Jong-Un regime taking over the entire peninsula, or dissolving while a
democratic government similar to the one in South Korea is established across the whole
continent, as was the case in Germany?
North Korea already has the solution for the problem you highlight: the Chinese model of
"one country, two systems" mixed with the American model. In the North's plan, there would be
peace, the frontier would be more porous (families could reunite, more or less freedom of
movement), strategic infrastructural projects that would involve both halves interests would
be joint, foreign policy would be unified but domestic policies would be practically
independent (the American model, where the States of the Federation can decide on tax,
etc.).
The problem is: the South (and the USA) doesn't want it. They are betting on the North's
collapse, followed by a would be chaebol/American multinationals takeover, followed by an
IMF-like "shock doctrine", which would result in the mass enslavement of the Northern
population (slave labor for the chaebols factories, generating a new cycle of high profit
rates) -- precisely what happened to the DPR (which capitulated) and, in the second case, the
Russian SR (shock doctrine).
CIA whistleblower Kevin Shipp says that the
mainstream
media is laser-focused on the recent Cohen plea and the Manafort conviction,
both of which have nothing to do with "Russian collusion."
He says
this is because the mainstream media are conspirators and have nothing to do
with real news.
"They have, from their editors on down and their corporate owners,
an objective and, in this case, to remove Donald Trump. He stands
against everything that they are, the Left or the 'Dark Left' as I
call it.
Trump
is actually confronting the Shadow Government and Deep State, and he
has them shaking.
He has the news media shaking that pushes
these really leftist things. So,
they
are intentionally and on purpose blocking the news and deleting the
news about things like this soft coup, the (phony) dossier
."
This is a very powerful interview. If you have the time, we suggest you
watch it in its entirety. It is just over 37 minutes long.
Shipp went on to detail the truth: "The MSM will not tell you the latest
revelation and that is
Bruce
Ohr, who was the fourth highest ranking official in the Obama Justice
Department (DOJ), wrote the now infamous phony Trump Dossier which was
used to apply for fraudulent federal wiretaps (with the FISA Court) to
spy on Trump.
"
Trending Articles
Massive Russian-Chinese Joint War Games Will
Feature
Over the past half year the West has increasingly
taken note of the significantly heightened pace of
both Chinese and
Shipp says all of this investigating started with Bruse Ohr, and he'll
be the next to lose his security clearance.
"It all started from the fake dossier which led eventually to the
appointment of Robert Mueller (Special Prosecutor) and the entire
foundation is based on a falsity. . . .
I
understand the next revocation of security clearance is probably
going to be Bruce Ohr because he crafted the fake dossier with
Christopher Steele, and he may even have written the thing...
After the FBI supposedly fired Christopher Steele, Bruce Ohr had at
least 70 communications (with Steele) back and forth talking about
the 'firewall' is still there to protect us
. Recent
accounts show that Bruce Ohr either wrote the dossier with
Christopher Steele or he wrote it himself in communication with
Christopher Steele." –
Kevin
Shipp
When Hunter asked Shipp if the dossier meant to frame Trump came
directly from the FBI and the DOJ, Shipp confirmed that it did.
"Yes. Oh, they coordinated it for sure.
There are 70 emails
back and forth between Ohr and Steele crafting the dossier. So, the
FBI and Department of Justice were intimately involved with the
creation and publication of that dossier."
"They even went further than that. The FBI and CIA
counter-intelligence even placed an agent inside the Trump
campaign."
-Kevin
Shipp
Shipp concluded that a Civil War in the making right now.
"I
think we are at the beginning of a civil war. You've got the 'Dark Left'
and you've got the Conservative people, the Constitutionalists.
In
progressivism, one of its tenets is to change the Constitution,
especially the First Amendment, and uproot traditional America.
Whatever
happens in November is going to intensify that
. . . . Their
attack is against Christians and the Constitution."
CIA spies operating within the Kremlin have suddenly "gone to ground" according to the
New York
Times , citing American officials clearly abusing their security clearances.
The officials do not think their sources have been compromised or killed - rather, they've
been spooked into silence amid "more aggressive counterintelligence by Moscow, including
efforts to kill spies," according to the Times, pointing to the still-unsolved March poisoning
of former Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal in the UK.
Curiously, the Times immediately suggests that the lack of intelligence is " leaving the CIA
and other spy agencies in the dark about precisely what Mr. Putin's intentions are for
November's midterm elections. "
But American intelligence agencies have not been able to say precisely what are Mr.
Putin's intentions : He could be trying to tilt the midterm elections, simply sow chaos or
generally undermine trust in the democratic process . - NYT
There it is. Of course, buried towards the end of the article is this admission:
But officials said there has been no concrete intelligence pointing to Mr. Putin ordering
his own intelligence units to wade into the election to push for a certain outcome , beyond a
broad chaos campaign to undermine faith in American democracy.
Meanwhile, "current and former officials" tell the Times that the outing of FBI spy Stefan
Halper, who infiltrated the Trump campaign, had a " chilling effect on intelligence collection
."
"... Anyway, what's there to argue: in its founding documents, the EU declares that its foreign and security policies will follow those of NATO. In other words, Europeans have declared *themselves* to be incapable of thinking about their place in the world, letting Uncle Sam do this for them instead. Nobody will respect them unless they first learn to respect themselves. ..."
"... By the standards our Congress is applying to Russia, this would be an "Act of War", now wouldn't it? ..."
"... Well the EU swallowed the farcical story of the Scripals so I expect anything Mrs May tells them about a leak will be believed. ..."
"... International spookery is a lucrative job, if you can get in it. ..."
"... Truth is every bit as strange as fiction, only dirtier. I have to believe that international skulduggery and its various specialties like espionage, smuggling, hacking, whacking and merking is a growth industry in today's globalist world. Millennials take note, if you want to pay off those student loans in this lifetime, because I'm sure they will still collect on them in Hades. ..."
"... GCHQ is there to support the establishment and the neocons. If Corbyn were to be elected, they will be in the thick of causing as much trouble as possible for the new government. Gladio springs to mind. ..."
"... john wilson – "the farce continues." Absolutely. The Skripnal affair in the U.K. and Russiagate here in the U.S. demonstrate the absolute and utter contempt our respective elites have for the intelligence of the populace of each nation. I ..."
As the author also acknowledges with the references to the Belgacom saga: what else is
new. It's not just spying, but outright sabotage of critical European infrastructure, which
is one of the factors showing that if you'd ever want the EU to go anywhere, step one is that
you'd *want* to throw the Brits out–the London branch of the US Govt will *never* be a
loyal European ally. Instead of getting its own act together, the article informs us that the
EU "is concerned to retain access to the UK's defense and security powers post-Brexit".
This goes to show that the problem lies a bit deeper, since ultimately the loyalty of
Merkel and Macron is also to the Dark Throne, though perhaps not to the same extent as with
Ms. May.
Anyway, what's there to argue: in its founding documents, the EU declares that its
foreign and security policies will follow those of NATO. In other words, Europeans have
declared *themselves* to be incapable of thinking about their place in the world, letting
Uncle Sam do this for them instead. Nobody will respect them unless they first learn to
respect themselves.
John McCarthy , August 18, 2018 at 8:24 pm
By the standards our Congress is applying to Russia, this would be an "Act of War",
now wouldn't it?
padre , August 18, 2018 at 12:08 pm
First thing that comes to mind is, whether there were any Russians involved?
Peter , August 19, 2018 at 3:28 pm
Of course they were. Britishers never would spy on their "friends", would they now?. I
think that Putin personally did the spying, the man has just too much time on his hands.
Brad Owen , August 18, 2018 at 9:19 am
Have British spies been hacking the EU you ask? Is it not true that spies have been at
work in the isles and on the Continent for CENTURIES? I would say it's an even more important
force than the military forces, what with their ability to embroil one enemy in a war with
another enemy, thus eliminating two enemies, with just a bagful of money and a few proxy
provocateurs. No wonder finance is King, intelligence/covert ops his governing Prime
Minister, and over rules the military industrialists and uniformed services and the citizenry
and their elected representatives.
john wilson , August 18, 2018 at 5:35 am
Well the EU swallowed the farcical story of the Scripals so I expect anything Mrs May
tells them about a leak will be believed. Whatever the EU negotiators have to say about Brexit behind closed doors seems to be irrelevant as sooner or later they will have to put
their cards on the table.
Realist , August 18, 2018 at 4:19 am
International spookery is a lucrative job, if you can get in it. Mental time slip back to
the early 60's. Ian Fleming's "James Bond" novels had just hit the states as the latest craze
and one of my best friends, a Ukrainian fellow, therefore congenitally attracted to the dark
side, discovers them and becomes a cult follower, so much so that when he's kicked out of
college for fraud a few years later he becomes involved in international gemstone smuggling
under the mentorship of an ex-Nazi uncle ensconced near the Brasil-Argentine border, makes
beaucoup lucre, marries a fellow American expat down in Latin America at the height of
Iran-Contra shenanigans and eventually returns home a very wealthy man now living out his
dotage in the closest thing to a manor house in the exurbs north of Chicago.
Truth is every
bit as strange as fiction, only dirtier. I have to believe that international skulduggery and
its various specialties like espionage, smuggling, hacking, whacking and merking is a growth
industry in today's globalist world. Millennials take note, if you want to pay off those
student loans in this lifetime, because I'm sure they will still collect on them in
Hades.
John A , August 18, 2018 at 4:05 am
GCHQ is there to support the establishment and the neocons. If Corbyn were to be elected,
they will be in the thick of causing as much trouble as possible for the new government.
Gladio springs to mind.
john wilson , August 18, 2018 at 5:49 am
Jean, the latest in the Scripal case gets ever more bizarre. A few days ago the police
went to the homes of 12 people who were in the Zizzies restaurant (don't know if is was staff
or members of the public) and took away their clothes for testing.
This is a full FIVE MONTHS
after the event.
I know we British are a scruffy lot, if not down right dirty, but for Christ
sake give it rest, even we wash our clothes after five months. The farce continues.
john wilson – "the farce continues." Absolutely. The Skripnal affair in the U.K. and
Russiagate here in the U.S. demonstrate the absolute and utter contempt our respective elites
have for the intelligence of the populace of each nation. It almost makes one long for the
good old days when our intelligence agencies had to at least try to come up with plausible
explanations for elite criminal activities: i.e. "the magic bullet (JFK assassination)" :)
and "the pancake effect (9/11)" :)
Ok, ok, maybe they've never really given us any real respect as critical thinkers, but I
quite agree with you that government propaganda has now reached absolutely farcical levels of
idiocy over the last several years and is now completely and utterly detached from any actual
"physical reality" on planet earth.
"... Seems to me (no expert!!!) that the main forces questioning the RussiaGate story and suggesting the actual plot behind it are Devin Nunes, a number of foreign-based journalists who publish on alternative media such as Finian Cunningham, Ray McGovern and VIPS, Dan Bongino, and. . . . Alan Dershowitz!!! ..."
"... I've seen no evidence that Mueller is any different than any of the other Inside the Beltway power players. If anyone else dares to stand up to him, I'd be shocked if Mueller instantly doesn't fall back on the do-you-know-who-the-hell-I-am response. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. ..."
"... Well, he's obviously a mean spirited dude and a hater but isn't that in the job description. I don't think he will be prosecuted or even exposed , at least not to the point of George Slamdunk Tenet, by Corporate Media. ..."
"... Gone are those heady days when he and Obama decided who to murder with drones over coffee and scones first thing every morning. I wonder what he does to stay busy now? ..."
What does Mueller himself stand to lose if he can't find any dirt on Trump/collusion?
From what I have read about Mueller's career as a kind of designated hitter, I doubt that there
are any scruples lying within him to hold him back from any step that would "prove his
case."
Seems to me (no expert!!!) that the main forces questioning the RussiaGate story and
suggesting the actual plot behind it are Devin Nunes, a number of foreign-based journalists who
publish on alternative media such as Finian Cunningham, Ray McGovern and VIPS, Dan Bongino,
and. . . . Alan Dershowitz!!!
Tom , August 18, 2018 at 5:31 pm
I've seen no evidence that Mueller is any different than any of the other Inside the
Beltway power players. If anyone else dares to stand up to him, I'd be shocked if Mueller
instantly doesn't fall back on the do-you-know-who-the-hell-I-am response. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely.
Professor , August 19, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Well, he's obviously a mean spirited dude and a hater but isn't that in the job
description. I don't think he will be prosecuted or even exposed , at least not to the point
of George Slamdunk Tenet, by Corporate Media. I do think he's in for
a comeuppance of some kind but how does it help Republicans in the
midterm to do this now?
Gone are those heady
days when he and Obama decided who to murder with drones over coffee and scones first thing
every morning. I wonder what he does to stay busy now? He must be stewing in his own juices
., steaming hot.
He is a hard man to admire and he's tough to look at as well but hey he's
not as ugly as Clapper and nothing is ever going to touch him.
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend. ..."
"... In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman"). ..."
"... The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs ..."
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was ostensibly a
conflict between two ideologies, two socio-economic systems.
All that seems to be over. The day of a new socialism may dawn unexpectedly,
but today capitalism rules the world. Now the United States and Russia are engaged
in a no-holds-barred fight between capitalists. At first glance, it may seem
to be a classic clash between rival capitalists. And yet, once again an ideological
conflict is emerging, one which divides capitalists themselves, even in Russia
and in the United States itself. It is the conflict between globalists and sovereignists,
between a unipolar and a multipolar world. The conflict will not be confined
to the two main nuclear powers.
The defeat of communism was brutally announced in a certain "capitalist manifesto"
dating from the early 1990s that proclaimed: "Our guiding light is Profit, acquired
in a strictly legal way. Our Lord is His Majesty, Money, for it is only He who
can lead us to wealth as the norm in life."
The
authors of this bold tract were Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who went on to become
the richest man in Russia, before spending ten years in a Russian jail, and
his business partner at the time, Leonid Nevzlin, who has since retired comfortably
to Israel.
Loans For Shares
Those were the good old days in the 1990s when the Clinton administration
was propping up Yeltsin as he let Russia be ripped off by the joint efforts
of such ambitious well-placed Russians and their Western sponsors, notably using
the "loans for shares" trick.
In a 2012 Vanity Fair
article on her hero, Khodorkovsky, the vehemently anti-Putin journalist
Masha Gessen frankly summed up how this worked:
The new oligarchs -- a dozen men who had begun to exercise the power that
money brought -- concocted a scheme. They would lend the government money,
which it badly needed, and in return the government would put up as collateral
blocks of stock amounting to a controlling interest in the major state-owned
companies. When the government defaulted, as both the oligarchs and the
government knew it would, the oligarchs would take them over. By this maneuver
the Yeltsin administration privatized oil, gas, minerals, and other enterprises
without parliamentary approval.
This worked so well that from his position in the Communist youth organization,
Khodorkovsky used his connections to get control of Russia's petroleum company
Yukos and become the richest oligarch in Russia, worth some $15 billion, of
which he still controls a chunk despite his years in jail (2003-2013). His arrest
made him a hero of democracy in the United States, where he had many friends,
especially those business partners who were helping him sell pieces of Yukos
to Chevron and Exxon. Khodorkovsky, a charming and generous young man, easily
convinced his American partners that he was Russia's number one champion of
democracy and the rule of law, especially of those laws which allow domestic
capital to flee to foreign banks and foreign capital to take control of Russian
resources.
Vladimir Putin didn't see it that way. Without restoring socialism, he dispossessed
Khodorkovsky of Yukos and essentially transformed the oil and gas industry from
the "open society" model tolerated by Yeltsin to a national capitalist industry.
Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev were accused of having stolen all
the oil that Yukos had produced in the years 1998 to 2003, tried, convicted
and sentenced to 14 years of prison each. This shift ruined US plans, already
underway, to "balkanize" Russia between its many provinces, thereby allowing
Western capital to pursue its capture of the Russian economy.
The dispossession of Khodorkovsky was certainly a major milestone in the
conflict between President Putin and Washington. On November 18, 2005, the Senate
unanimously adopted
resolution 322 introduced by Joe Biden denouncing the treatment of the Khodorkovsky
and Lebedev as politically motivated.
Who Influences Whom?
Now let's take a look at the history of Russian influence in the United States.
It is obvious that a Russian who can get the Senate to adopt a resolution in
his favor has a certain influence. But when the "deep state" growls about Russian
influence, it isn't talking about Khodorkovsky. It's talking about a joking
response Trump made to a reporter's snide question during the presidential campaign.
In a variation of the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?" the reporter
asked if he would call on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "stay out" of
the election.
Since a stupid question does not deserve a serious answer, Trump said he
had "nothing to do with Putin" before adding, "Russia, if you're listening,
I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you
will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Aha! Went the Trump haters. This proves it! Irony is almost as unwelcome
in American politics as honesty.
When President Trump
revoked his security clearance earlier this month, former CIA chef John
Brennan got his chance to spew out his hatred in the complacent pages of the
New York Times.
Someone supposed to be smart enough to head an intelligence agency actually
took Trump's joking invitation as a genuine request. "By issuing such a statement,"
Brennan wrote, "Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect
intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his
followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent."
The Russians, Brennan declared, "troll political, business, and cultural
waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in
the hands of their Russian puppet masters."
Which Russians do that? And who are those "individuals"?
'The Fixer in Chief'
To understand the way Washington works, nothing is more instructive than
to examine the career of lawyer Jonathan M. Winer, who proudly repeats that
in early 2017, the head of the Carnegie Endowment Bill Burns introduced him
as "the Fixer in Chief". Winer has long been unknown to the general public,
but this may soon change.
Let's see what the fixer has fixed.
Under the presidency of fellow Yalie Bill Clinton, Winer served as the State
Department's first Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Law Enforcement,
from 1994-1999. One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton's concern for
international law enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international
law by bombing defenseless countries. In any case, in 1999, Winer was awarded
for "virtually unprecedented achievements". Later we shall examine one of those
important achievements.
At the end of the Clinton administration, from 2008 to 2013, the Fixer in
Chief worked as high up consultant at one of the world's most powerful PR and
lobbying firms, APCO Worldwide. This is how the Washington revolving door functions:
after a few years in government finding out how things work, one then goes into
highly paid "consultancy" to sell this insider information and influential contacts
to private clients.
APCO got off to a big start some thirty years ago
lobbying
for Philip Morris and the tobacco industry in general.
In 2002, APCO launched something called the "Friends of Science" to promote
skepticism concerning the harmful effects of smoking. In 1993, the campaign
described its goals and objectives "encouraging the public to question – from
the grassroots up – the validity of scientific studies."
While Winer was at APCO, one of its major activities was hyping the Clinton
Global Initiative, an international networking platform promoting the Clinton
Foundation. APCO president and CEO Margery Kraus explained that the consultancy
was there to "help other CGI members garner interest for the causes they are
addressing, demonstrate their success and highlight the wide-ranging achievements
of CGI as a whole." Considering that only five percent of Clinton Foundation
turnover went to donations, they needed all the PR they could get.
Significantly, donations to the Clinton Global Initiative have dried up since
Hillary lost the presidential election. According to the
Observer : "Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling
the organization's clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather
than its philanthropic work."
This helps explain Hillary Clinton's panic when she lost in 2016. How in
the world can she ever reward her multi-million-dollar donors with the favors
they expected?
As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works
for Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest
of APCO's many clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered
in Guernsey. The trust tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch
got out of Russia before he was jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both
for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after his arrest in Russia) and for
the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president and CEO, is
a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted
to "promoting democratic values" – in other words, to building political opposition
to Vladimir Putin.
In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given
a distinguished service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded
members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq from their bases in Iraq they were trying to
overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once officially recognized as a terrorist
organization by the State Department, has become a pet instrument in US and
Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.
However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally
brought him into the public spotlight early this year – or rather, the spotlight
of the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named
him as one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused
Trump of illicit financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.
By Winer's
own account , he had been friends with former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled
Steele reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence
agents, to Victoria Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts.
These included the infamous "Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old
friend Sidney Blumenthal – a particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton –
gave him notes written by a more mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer,
repeating the salacious attacks.
All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media
before being revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate
the "Russiagate" investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited
but the investigation goes on and on.
So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from
"Russian agents" and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with
so much else in Washington, double standards are the rule.
Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act
Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure
that effectively ended post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington
and Moscow. This act was based on a highly contentious version of the November
16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told
to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl Browder, head
of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a
lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.
However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei
Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was
neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an
accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural
causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as
a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges
against himself.
In any case, by adopting a law punishing Magnitsky's alleged persecutors,
the US Congress acted as a supreme court judging internal Russian legal issues.
The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during
the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since
Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he
had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other
financial misdeeds.
It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.
When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose
economic and travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand
corruption. Browder decided this could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky.
He initiated a campaign that led to the enactment of the Magnitsky Act.
Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts, including Canada,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom.
Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In
his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin
suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller
indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals
involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow
Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back
in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.
But the naďve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.
As Winer wrote:
"Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the US attorney
general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a
criminal case. But there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general
can provide no such assistance in a politically motivated case ." (My emphasis.)
"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there.
Back in 1999, when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the
senior State Department official managing US-Russia law-enforcement relations."
So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem.
All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then
they can't touch you."
Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to
a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically
motivated.
In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage
Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky
Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938
with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely
identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman").
The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing
foreign principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the
attorney does not try to influence policy at the behest of his client." However,
by disseminating anti-Magnitsky material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was
"clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore in violation of FARA filing
requirements."
Catch-22 all over again.
Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress
to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself.
This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even
noticed, while US authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.
Conclusion
The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar
Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech
at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national
sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is
against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally
prefer an American government willing to allow this.
The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other
countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic"
system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country
should have and how it should run its affairs .
So, if Russians were trying to interfere in US domestic politics, they would
not be trying to change the US system but to prevent it from trying to change
their own. Russian leaders clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that
historic processes do not depend on some childish trick played on somebody's
computer.
US policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly
willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics – so long as those
Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely
the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed,
the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians,
Russians, Cubans – all those who come to Washington to try to get US power to
settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from.
All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America.
Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it
helps turn public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy,
serves US interests including the military-industrial complex, helps break down
national borders (except those of the United States and Israel) and puts money
in appropriate pockets in the halls of Congress.
"... With respect to the Browder-Magnitsky Act legislation scandal, people might consider that ongoing, colossal, bombshell story in light of the mentioned 18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy: ..."
"... The fact that Magnitsky Act legislation is founded on a massive concoction of lies is unacceptable and, far more importantly, increasingly dangerous and destructive to international relations with each passing day of the coverup. It is of paramount importance that humanity learns the full truth about the Browder-Magnitsky laws scandal – and NOW. ..."
"... Yes, the Magnitsky Act legislation is a crock, isn't it? And the sad thing is that these congressmen know it, but, as Peter Phillips said, they go along because it's all part of controlling the world in favor of these transnational corporations. We just think our votes count! How stupid are we? ..."
With respect to the Browder-Magnitsky Act legislation scandal, people might consider
that ongoing, colossal, bombshell story in light of the mentioned 18 U.S. Code § 2384
– Seditious conspiracy:
".. or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United
States,"
If moral force is deemed a correct legal interpretation, the growing number of men and women
becoming aware of the scandal, in the United States particularly and around the Earth
generally, could face 20 years of imprisonment. Of course, "by force" in the clause is meant as
kinetic or physical force, so people demanding the profoundly consequential truth about
Browder-Magnitsky have nothing in to worry about.
Political reality in America reveals that the two-party system is mythical, but actually
that Americans are experiencing a one-party structure serving members of the transnational
capitalist class – named and described in the recently published book "Giants: The Global
Power Elites" by Sonoma State (CA) Professor Peter Phillips (co-founder of Project Censored
with Mickey Huff).
Confirmation is found in the unanimous -- total silence over the historic magnitude
Browder-Magnitsky scandal of John Brennan(D), Gina Haspell(R), Loretta Lynch(D), Jeff
Sessions(R), Ben Cardin(D), John McCain(R), all 535 U.S. elected representatives(D, R and I),
Hillary Clinton(D), Mike Pompeo(R), Joseph Biden(D), Mike Pence(R), Barack Obama(D), Donald
Trump(R)
The fact that Magnitsky Act legislation is founded on a massive concoction of lies is
unacceptable and, far more importantly, increasingly dangerous and destructive to international
relations with each passing day of the coverup. It is of paramount importance that humanity
learns the full truth about the Browder-Magnitsky laws scandal – and NOW.
Replybackwardsevolution , August 17, 2018 at 3:36 am
Jerry – I saw a Youtube video by Professor Peter Phillips a few months back where he
outlined the concentration of wealth by these transnational corporations. It was a very good
video, and he's right – something definitely needs to be done about these people. They
are going to either kill us with war or kill us by ruining the planet. It's like they're
addicted to greed and cannot help themselves, almost like a drug addict. We'll have to stop
them.
Yes, the Magnitsky Act legislation is a crock, isn't it? And the sad thing is that
these congressmen know it, but, as Peter Phillips said, they go along because it's all part
of controlling the world in favor of these transnational corporations. We just think our
votes count! How stupid are we?
I don't know where it's all going to end, but we'd better start fighting back before these
addicts take us all out.
"... Sounds like the rich Russians who refused to believe their wealth wouldn't be confiscated in the West just learned a hard lesson. The "rule of law" is for suckers. ..."
"... The west wants Putin gone so badly that there is no law they will not break, no amount of hard-earned soft power they will not throw away, no western business they will not throw under the bus if they think they will realize that goal. ..."
ZURICH (Reuters) – One of Switzerland's largest banks, Credit Suisse, has frozen
roughly 5 billion Swiss francs ($5 billion) of money linked to Russia to avoid falling foul
of U.S. sanctions, according to its accounts, further increasing pressure on Moscow .
Credit Suisse is being cautious in part because of earlier bad experiences. In 2009, it
reached a $500 million settlement with U.S. authorities over dealings with sanctions-hit
Iran.
There have been other instances where European banks have been punished. In 2014,
France's BNP Paribas ( BNPP.PA ) agreed to pay a record $8.9 billion for violating U.S.
sanctions against Sudan, Cuba and Iran.
Switzerland's banking watchdog FINMA does not require Swiss banks to enforce foreign
sanctions, but has said they have a responsibility to minimize legal and reputational
risks.
I hope the present Russian administration and those yet to come remember this.
Sounds like the rich Russians who refused to believe their wealth wouldn't be confiscated
in the West just learned a hard lesson. The "rule of law" is for suckers.
I doubt very many ordinary Russians lost anything, but they got a pretty useful lesson for
free. The west wants Putin gone so badly that there is no law they will not break, no
amount of hard-earned soft power they will not throw away, no western business they will not
throw under the bus if they think they will realize that goal.
I wonder whose money this was. Russian offshoring is rather sneaky and uses all sorts of
places like Cyprus and the Cayman Islands through various instruments. As of 2014, simply
keeping money in a western bank was no longer an option.
So this is either illegal money or Credit Suisse is simply lying.
That's a good point; some time ago (you're probably correct that it was 2014, or around
there) the Russian government did somewhat formalize its advice to not keep money in western
banks. As I best remember, it was only mandatory for members of government. But it seems
unlikely the government would order all its ministers and senators to move all monies held in
western banks out of those banks, and then leave government funds there itself. So perhaps
some oligarch/s got burned.
Possibly, but I doubt it. Saint Mikhail's money, what there is left of it, is transparent to
western investigations, and if they could think of a good reason they would give him a lot
more, especially if he were even remotely popular in Russia and they thought he might be a
candidate for insertion into Putin's role.
Now Credite Suisse says that Russian accounts have not been frozen, that the Bank had
reclassified certain assets placed under sanctions. By these actions no Russian customers
have been affected, reports TASS .
Meanwhile, in the world's greatest dirty money laundry, it has been revealed that the
London branch of Deutsche Bank has issued threats to the Russian government.
Deutsche Bank AG threatened to end business with Russia's government earlier this year
in a letter sent to the state demanding that it provide more information related to
know-your-customer records.
The lender's London branch sent the correspondence in June saying the business
relationship could be terminated if Russia failed to submit the documents within 30 days.
While that deadline has long since elapsed, Russia never answered the letter and the German
bank hasn't followed up on the initial request, according to two people with knowledge of the
matter.
Arschlöcher!
I was working only yesterday and last week as well in the main office of Deutsche Bank
here in Moscow.
Never saw no Fritzes there, only Ivans. Seemed to be business as usual to me..
Skripal (most probably false flag) poisoning now has distinct Washington connections. Cue
Bono?
Nobody can still explain why Skripals lost conscience simultaneously. That kills UK version
of door knob. Another strange issue is why all but one victims survived. That can be explained
only if this was a false flag and novichok was injected in bio samples.
Plans to impose the latest sanctions were announced by the Trump administration on Aug. 8, a
response to what the State Department said was Moscow's use of a nerve agent against a former
Russian agent and his daughter in Britain in March.
Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's GRU military intelligence service, and his
33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of
Salisbury after a liquid form of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to the front door
of his home. Both survived the attack.
Moscow has denied involvement in the attack. It has also denied meddling in the 2016 U.S.
elections.
'CHANGE IN BEHAVIOUR'
Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, said on Friday Moscow must change its ways
before the United States will lift its already long list of sanctions.
"The sanctions remain in force and will remain in force until the required change in Russian
behaviour," he told a news conference in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.
The new measures will be published and come into effect on Aug. 27 and remain in place for
at least one year, according to the notice in the Federal Register, a daily catalogue of
government agency actions. They are authorized by the 1991 Chemical and Biological Weapons and
Warfare Elimination Act.
Space flight activities, government space cooperation, areas concerning commercial aviation
safety and urgent humanitarian assistance will be exempt.
A second batch of penalties will be imposed after 90 days unless Russia gives "reliable
assurance" that it would no longer use chemical weapons and allow on-site inspections by the
United Nations or another international observer group.
Soon after the attack on the Skripals, Washington also showed solidarity with Britain and
announced it would expel 60 Russian diplomats, joining governments across Europe in punishing
the Kremlin.
"... Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents. ..."
"... In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job. ..."
"... Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates was even remotely suitable for the presidency. ..."
"... Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the election. ..."
(1) An intellectual Rubicon is crossed when Giuliani is deemed a reliable source for
anything.
(2) Brennan is hardly a model of credibility. But in that he is simply characteristic of the
national security apparatus's leaders over the decades. The starting point with these guys has
always been an obvious contempt for the legislative branch and the public it represents.
It's
not a quality unique to Brennan. In fact, it's probably a qualification for the job.
(3) Am happy to hear that Brennan wants "all Americans [to] get the answers they so rightly
deserve" [NYT] from the Mueller investigation. But he'd be more persuasive if that desire
extended equally to the Senate's investigation into torture.
(4) Not so obvious is the reference to "documentary evidence" that allegedly demonstrates
how national security officials "play[ed] fast and loose with the Constitution and the law". A
number of them made it clear during the campaign that they believed only one of the candidates
was even remotely suitable for the presidency. Where does the law come in? If the claim --
hinted at but not made explicit -- is that Brennan was part of a conspiracy to produce the
Steele dossier, allegations of fact, not to mention citation to laws violated, would be
helpful. Based on information known to date, we can reasonably surmise that some, but not all,
of the material in the dossier was the product of Russian disinformation channelled to Steele.
If there's something more, it would be good to get details.
(5) Why people opposed to Clinton are still on about Comey is a mystery. His
Prince-of-Denmark obsession with his own virtue materially contributed to her losing the
election. And, more broadly, if there really was a conspiracy by the national security
apparatus, it was an endeavor that failed. One would think that the 63 million would be pleased
on both counts.
(6) If law breaking there was, what explains the silence from the DOJ under Sessions, whose
stellar career is littered with contrived prosecutions of political opponents? It doesn't take
much to draft an indictment. Yet, here we are, nearly two years into the new dawn, and Brennan
continues to walk free and even spout off publicly. What explains that?
"... Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding the deep state elites and social engineering. ..."
Here is my take on the priorities of the deep state and its public face – the
MSM:
stopping the deplorable rebellion
cutting off the head of the rebellion – perceived as Trump
reinstating the Cold War in an effort to derail Rusisa's recovery and international
leadership role
bitch slapping China
The rest involves turning unsustainable debt into establishment of a feudal world
comprised of elites living on Mount Olympus, legions of vassals and a vast sea of cerebrally
castrated peasants to serve as a reservoir for any imaginable exploitation.
Upon further reflection, Trump is being promoted by the MSM as the leader of the
deplorables – an orange straw man. I support him to the degree that he is confounding
the deep state elites and social engineering.
"... Trump, like Obama, should be impeached on illegal, unconstitutional acts of military aggression, including his unconstitutional use of signing statements to reject even the most feeble attempts of Congress to pretend to assert War Powers. Both men should have been impeached for the atrocity that is Yemen, and their for-profit collusion in it. ..."
"... Sample quote from the book: "[Pence is] the most successful Christian supremacist in American history." ..."
"For some reason I never actually let myself think of a concept of Trump with a Democratic
congress. The frightening thing is, it might actually work out."
When Trump was first elected I proposed this to some progressive friends of mine that
Trump, without the traditional Republican baggage, might actually be able to accomplish real
things, like taming the Military and Medical industrial complexes, do a grand infrastructure
deal with Schumer and The Democrats, pull us out of the middle east, etc. Their response was
"Do you really think he will do that?". My response was "I doubt it, but maybe".
But instead, he was captured by the radical Freedom Party and neo-con wing of the
Republicans, so nothing got done except tax cuts for the elites and more middle east turmoil
and destruction benefitting our good buddies Israel and Saudi Arabia. That, along with his
contempt for everything Obama, got us to where we are today.
And, just breaking news, the Southern District of NY has just granted the Trump
Organization CFO immunity from prosecution. Trump is in serious trouble, and will probably
resign soon (I know MM, another prediction without any basis). The SDNY is also investigating
the Trump Foundation for what appears to be massive, long running financial crimes. Don Jr,
Eri, and Ivanka are in serious trouble too.
Trump is toast. Let's hope he just goes away and doesn't drag the US into a global
wag-the-dog conflict or economic collapse.
"Better to accuse Trump of foreign collusion and wage political war to bring him down"
The Republican Mueller, under direction of Republican Rosenstein, and all under direction
of the hard core right wing GOP Sessions, is doing a fine enough job. Most Dems are merely
eating popcorn and watching the spectacle unfold.
Impeachment doesn't really concern most Dems so much. For one, they know the Senate will
not convict. Secondly, Pence as POTUS would be a nightmare for Dems: many of his views are
similar to Trump, but he's actually competent enough to get stuff done.
"Call me simple minded, but if the Democrats really hate Trump, why don't they put all of
their efforts into putting their own candidate over the top in the next presidential
election?"
They will -- but it's still only the second year of Trump's term. You have noticed how
energized Dem voters seem to be this summer thus far, haven't you?
The question we should ask is do Republicans want an impeachment fight? Presidents have
enormous power and Trump has shown no ability to restrain himself when he feels threatened.
The damage an enraged and desperate President could do to the country and the Party is
literally incalculable. If the list of crimes gets long enough and the evidence inescapable
enough, Republicans will need to find an 'offramp' for Trump out of pure self-interest (never
mind the Country).
Trump, like Obama, should be impeached on illegal, unconstitutional acts of military
aggression, including his unconstitutional use of signing statements to reject even the most
feeble attempts of Congress to pretend to assert War Powers. Both men should have been
impeached for the atrocity that is Yemen, and their for-profit collusion in it.
Does Buchanan have any principles, or is everything determined by day-to-day
expediency?
Two articles of interest at links below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
CIA Whistleblower: It Was A Failed Coup & MSM Covering Up Phony DOJ Dossier
By Mac Slavo
August 23, 2018 "Information Clearing House" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50112.htm
In retrospect, the new Pence bio book ("The Shadow President: The Truth About Mike Pence")
would be seen as the first shot across the bow in the 'impeach Pence' movement if Trump were
impeached and removed.
Sample quote from the book: "[Pence is] the most successful Christian supremacist in
American history."
If the vote counters cannot get to 2/3rds vote in the Senate, the Democrats have an excuse
not to impeach. Instead they should spend the next two years investigating Trump. This would
put the Republican Senators in a really awkward position. Either they commit to supporting
impeachment or they watch what two more years of Trump does to their party.
You are right about pressure to impeach. But the Democrats are resisting it right now and
hopefully will continue to resist it.
Why would democrats want to impeach Trump? There is no chance of removing him from office.
What they will do is start requesting those documents. They will get those Tax returns, they
will put Omarosa up there and have her tell her story. The Trump agenda is over after
November when Democrats get into full obstruction mode. Let's start looking under those rocks
and see what we can see. Trump is super helpful for revitalizing democrats long term as he
solidifies the democratic hold on people under 45.
The fact that this article is even being written is evidence that truth really is
penetrating that right wing bubble. Trump isn't going to have a single week of his presidency
with Majority support.
Trump should pardon Manafort and Cohen and fire Mueller immediately. Then let the chips
fall where they may. Americans hate sore losers and whiners and they are fed up with
political correctness. These factors may act to deny the Congress to the Democrats. Trump has
blundered badly in the Middle East and has pulled out of the Iran deal. He broke his promise
to withdraw. He is now a puppet of Sheldon Adelson and Israeli foreign policy. In these
areas, the Democrats are in full agreement with Trump. So the issue is not foreign policy as
here there is no difference between the parties. Tariffs and immigration are the only areas
of disagreement and I think these issues are the ones that will allow the Republicans to keep
control of both Houses. We shall soon see.
Manafort will be going to court again next month on various other charges, including
failure to register as a foreign agent. What will be discovered in that trial is what is
keeping Trump up at night, as it these charges, not Manafort's tax evasion, which are much
closer to the presidency and his personal financial crimes.
Trump is going to go out in abject disgrace, either by impeachment, resignation or more
likely, refusing to run in 2020 as polls show he'll be blown out. Instead, the punk will
retreat to Mar-A-Lago, whining about conspiracies and Crooked Hillary and witch hunts, and
trying to be a king maker, and never shutting his mouth as an ex-"president." He doesn't have
the character to simply lose an honest contest.
Indeed, he'll fight like a cornered animal. He's already proven, repeatedly, that he's in
this for himself, not the country. He'll abuse every privilege and every power he has until
America's Berlusconi is out of options.
"... The Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they may yet get their wish. But not yet. ..."
"... It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance violations'. But what do I know. ..."
"... There are three impeachable offenses: treason, bribery and the more opaque "high crimes and misdemeanors," but the House of Representatives has the responsibility to accuse the president of one of those things. If a majority in the House agrees, a president is then impeached. The Senate then votes on impeachment, which under the U.S. Constitiution requires a two-thirds majority. ..."
"... I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind by 'High crimes and misdemeanors ..."
"... the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises. ..."
This is bad for Trump but not unexpected. Despite the figleaf of 'Russian collusion' the
main brief of Mueller was 'find out bad stuff about Trump and his associates' and of course
it was almost inevitable that he would find such stuff because Trump and his cronies are
scumbags who exist to break the law. This is the reality of capitalism (as has been pointed
out 'crony capitalism' is the only kind of capitalism that has ever existed or ever will
exist). Congress might or might not accept it, but the Senate (even more viciously
'gerrymandered' albeit de facto) won't yet. So Trump won't go down, not yet.
The only way that Trump will go down, IMHO is if and when the Republican establishment
decide that they have got everything out of him that they're going to get, which means after
the next Presidential election. Assuming he wins it, he may be ditched quickly. The
Republican elite (and the Democratic elite) have always wanted Pence for President, and they
may yet get their wish. But not yet.
In terms of the current situation, Manafort is simply irrelevant. Cohen is relevant, but
paying a porn start off because you are worried your wife might find out that you are a
philanderer: it seems a stretch to interpret that as 'trying to influence an election'
although I can sort of see the logic (I suppose Bill Clinton's behaviour vis a vis Monica
Lewinsky was ultimately political too).
It also seems weird to conceptualise hush money to a porn star as 'campaign finance
violations'. But what do I know.
'The Republicans simply don't care, and nothing will make them care.'
To be fair, I don't care either, and nothing will make me care.
Anyway, back in the real world .
'Michael Cohen, who spent a decade as a lawyer for Trump, told a judge Tuesday that he was
directed by Trump to coordinate payments to two women designed to prevent them from
disclosing alleged affairs with the real estate mogul before the presidential election, in
violation of campaign finance law.
Such an explosive assertion against anyone but the president would suggest that a criminal
case could be in the offing, but under long-standing legal interpretations by the Justice
Department, the president cannot be charged with a crime.
The department produced legal analyses in 1973 and 2000 concluding that the Constitution
does not allow for the criminal indictment of a sitting president.
In comments to reporters after Cohen pleaded guilty to eight felony counts in federal
court in Manhattan, Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami said prosecutors were sending a
message that they are unafraid to file charges when campaign finance laws are broken. But he
did not mention Trump or offer any indication that his office planned to pursue action
against the president.'
(Washington Post)
'Despite impeachment talk, it's no easy task to remove a president in such a way. Both
Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate.
President Richard Nixon resigned before he could be removed from office.
There are three impeachable offenses: treason, bribery and the more opaque "high
crimes and misdemeanors," but the House of Representatives has the responsibility to accuse
the president of one of those things. If a majority in the House agrees, a president is then
impeached. The Senate then votes on impeachment, which under the U.S. Constitiution requires
a two-thirds majority.
In Trump's case, starting the impeachment process would currently require a mass revolt by
Republicans against him in the House of Representatives -- controlled by the GOP -- an event
even less likely than normal with midterm elections on the horizon.'
I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors ,'
'I am no lawyer, but apparently if you spend that much money covering up your adultery to
avoid damage to your political campaign, that is a crime'.
I sort of see what you are saying, and of course, in a certain sense, what you say is not
only true but self-evidently and obviously true. Any politician engages in activities to gain
him or herself votes. All I am saying is that it doesn't seem like the most obvious way to
conceptualise these activities. CF Bill Clinton.
Presumably one of the key reasons that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair was because
he thought it would make him look bad and therefore lose him votes in the 2000 elections. And
in a sense it did (although others presumably voted for him 'cos they felt sorry for him).
But that seems like a weird way to conceptualise his activities.
Does it not seem more likely that Trump's main concern in paying the hush money was to
avoid his wife, who had just given birth, finding out? Obviously the effect on votes would be
of benefit to him, but I'm not sure that was his main concern.
Very serious. Cohen is obviously going to cooperate (if he hasn't begun already) on topics
far afield from his own charges, and Manafort must be thinking hard about doing the same
thing, now.
Lawfare does not mention the politics: this also boosts the possibility that
Democrats will take control of the House. Then they may wait for Mueller's report do the
heavy lifting before impeaching Trump and in the meantime start various committee
investigations of emoluments and the corruption elsewhere in the Administration.
The next two
years will be unremitting television news of more crime and corruption. If and when they
impeach Trump, even a Republican-controlled Senate will convict; the Senate only needs
2/3rds. The Senators all want to get rid of him; he makes it harder for them to run for
President themselves.
For now, they will all be watching the disapproval rating at someplace
reputable like FiveThirtyEight's aggregator. Tuesday's news will cycle into these figures, in
about a week or ten days. If it starts to tick downwards 3-5%, back to the levels in the last
half of 2017, Trump is toast sooner rather than later.
I too agree with most of what Hidari said here (and there), except for their last
paragraph here. To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was
transparently not to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal
– the timing of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but
immediately before the election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital
affairs with adult entertainers from turning into October Surprises.
These functioned as (unreported) in-kind donations, insofar as they were third-party
resources expended to for the explicit purpose of providing electoral support to the
candidate.
Hidari@ I am not sure that hush money being paid to the porn star the President was banging in
order that his pregnant wife not find out was precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind
by 'High crimes and misdemeanors,'
It's intentionally
vague . It should be noted that when Johnson was impeached , one
of the eleven articles was "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his
aforementioned words and actions."
Again, though, the idea that the payoffs to Ms. Cliffords and Ms. McDougal were made to
prevent Ms. Trump from learning of the affairs defies all credibility when considering that
they occurred in the fall of 2016 rather than ten years earlier.
@Hidari it would be a strange way to conceptualise the activity if it was based purely on
the fact that the hush money was politically helpful. But:
"He told a judge in United States District Court in Manhattan that the payments to the
women were made "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal
office," implicating the president in a federal crime.
"I participated in this conduct, which on my part took place in Manhattan, for the
principal purpose of influencing the election" for president in 2016, Mr. Cohen said."
So I don't really know how you can keep insisting this is an issue of conceptual
analysis
I don't think that a Congressional majority, and certainly not the 2/3 Senate majority
needed for removal, is going to feel much ethical pressure to impeach based on the list of
wrongdoing we know about so far, or that are at all likely to emerge.
Quite aside from the lack of gravity of the crimes on that list, none of them are a clear
betrayal of the electorate that decided he should be president. That electorate already knew
he was a Russophile, had even invited Russians to hack D computers, they knew that he was a
pussy-grabber, and that his privately-owned business was ethically challenged -- yet an
electoral majority voted him in anyway.
Removal on impeachment involves the legislature asserting its will and its judgment over
that of the people. Of course the legislature is also elected by the people to accomplish
duties that include holding the president to certain standards. But I don't see even a 2/3 D
Senate (which we would only get by the Rs losing every race up this year, plus about 15 of
them party-switching) having the cojones for such an assertion, certainly not when the
electorate already knew about the crimes when they voted for the criminal. The Rs have
cojones for such enterprises, and in spades, but not our beloved Ds.
And I don't see impeachment as a very useful strategy for the Ds to pursue. Even if
successful at removing Trump, that just gets you Pence -- just as public policy irrational,
only less politically disorganized.
Maybe impeachment comes up as a tactic, to facilitate some other plan of action, but I
don't see conviction on impeachment as a useful means of even control of Trump behavior, much
less removal.
If the Ds do have control of either house after the election, of course the usual that we
can expect of them is not very much. Even if they control both chambers, they couldn't
possibly have the 2/3 in both needed to run the govt by overriding the vetoes that any actual
program of theirs would be sure to attract from the president. Even with 2/3, because this is
a D 2/3 we're talking about, we can most likely discount the possibility that they would even
try to exercise any oversight over what the govt does in opposition to the president's
control.
An actual political party in this situation of even controlling a bare majority of just
the House could do a whole lot to not only thwart Trump, but to at least make a credible
effort at asserting control over the govt. They could of course block any new legislation, or
the repeal of any existing law, and even the actual Ds are probably up to that. But to go
further, to control or limit how Trump runs the govt under existing law, this D majority of
the House would have to be willing to boldly set sail on the sea of political hardball and
take up a career of budgetary hostage-taking -- so right off we should say that this is
political fanfic, and not even canonic fanfic.
But a girl can dream, can't he, so let's pursue this alternate reality just a bit. Who
knows, if Trump's misrule makes things sufficiently dire, maybe even the Ds will be motivated
to find their inner pirate.
To take ICE as an example, it would go something like this. The House only agrees to pass
the annual appropriations on a 30-day continuing resolution basis, so that their assent is
needed every 30-days to the govt doing anything. They pass all the spending except for the
ICE funding (keeping the funding for whatever ICE spends on housing and otherwise caring for
people already apprehended -- that funding goes with the funding of the rest of the govt),
which they hold back until and unless Senate and president agree to ICE funding that includes
new law that keeps ICE from doing family separations, and whatever else the Ds find
objectionable. After success getting control of ICE abuses, next month when the CRs come due,
they do the same maneuver on their next target of Trump misrule.
The risk is that the Rs, Senate and president, just refuse to agree to the omnibus that
funds everything else the govt does until the Ds let loose the ICE funding. There is a govt
shutdown, and the Ds run the risk of being blamed. It turns into a game of legislative
chicken. Of course, this has to be anti-canon fanfic for such a game to end other than by the
Ds swerving first, so the real world Ds will never actually even start the game, because
whatever their faults, they know their limitations.
Hidari #13: " they 'all' want to get rid of him now?"
The Republican Senate would be happy to throw him overboard tomorrow. His voters are the
problem. They won't wait for his voters to turn on him however, if the Senate receives a
lengthy bill of impeachment from a Democratic House and Mueller has signed off on some of the
charges.
They'd rather have Pence do the sanctimonious messaging and go into 2020 trying to
reconstruct the party with an open primary.
After all, the GOP stands to lose Senate seats in 2020 anyway, just due to the map (the
same problem they have this year, with the House). If the election in 76 days puts the
Democrats in charge of the House, Trump won't make it to the end of his term.
'To further clarify your statement, the issue is that the payment was transparently not
to keep Ms. Trump from finding out about Ms. Cliffords or Ms. McDougal – the timing
of the payment/catch-and-kill story, well after the incidents but immediately before the
election, make that clear: their purpose was to avoid extramarital affairs with adult
entertainers from turning into October Surprises. '
Oh ok, I didn't really understand that. I haven't to be honest, been following the Stormy
Daniels story too closely for the good reason that I don't care.
So one infers that the FL did in fact know about these things. Could we conceptualise it
thus, then: Trump paid the hush money to ensure that Melania was not publicly humiliated by
these things (I mean, humiliated even more than simply being married to Donald Trump)?
But obviously, in that case, Trump not wanting this to be a big story in the run up to the
election was obviously a 'thing'.
"... Mueller's team of partisan prosecutors seek to prove the unprovable -- that I received allegedly hacked e-mails from the Russians or Wikileaks and passed them on to Donald Trump. ..."
Mueller is running a criminally abusive, constitutionally unaccountable, professionally and
politically incestuous conspiracy of ethically conflicted cronies colluding to violate my
Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and those of almost everyone who had any sort of
political or personal association with me in the last 10 years.
He has conducted a supposedly comprehensive investigation of a very narrow and limited issue
as an open-ended, totally limitless Grand Prosecution, with absolutely no articulable or even
identifiable criminal predicate to substantiate it as a lawful investigation, even under
ordinary circumstances.
Mueller's team of partisan prosecutors seek to prove the unprovable -- that I received
allegedly hacked e-mails from the Russians or Wikileaks and passed them on to Donald
Trump. This threadbare false narrative is harped on endlessly by the slugs at MSNBC and
other despicable "fake news" outlets.
Now, because of the accuracy of my tweets -- in which I merely followed the tweets of
Wikileaks and the many public interviews of Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange -- Mueller and
his hit-men seek to frame some ludicrous charge of "defrauding the United States."
This is, of course, based on a false and unproven assumption that Assange is a Russian agent
and Wikileaks is a Russian front -- neither of which has been proven in a court of law.
Interestingly Assange himself has said, "Roger Stone has never said or tweeted anything we at
Wikileaks had not already said publicly."
A question for all the impeach Trump for colluding with Russia weenies:
How would Cohen know anything about Trump's collusion with Russia? Why would Trump need a
lawyer for this illegal activity? If you are going to claim that Trump just happened to share
this information with Cohen, then why not anyone else? Is Cohen some sort of consigliere or
confession booth priest for Trump?
This whole farce with Cohen is pathetic BS. Cohen will be told to say this and that my
Mueller and this will be deemed "evidence". Americans are really a few cards short of a full
deck to swallow this drivel.
BTW, the new consensus emerging amongst the "deplorables" who do not share the official
CNN fake news narrative, is that the dirty dossier produced by Steele was a Russian
machination. This is truly overwhelming in its retardation. Why the f*ck would Russia
undermine Trump by colluding with Hillary when Hillary was basically foaming at the mouth to
start a war over Russia's intervention in Syria. Hillary's Democratic Party has ignited the
current anti-Russian hysteria in America, so there is no way that Russia was colluding with
her or her party. Americans are apparently too brainwashed or dumb to distinguish between the
involvement of Russian nationals and the Russian state. You can find dozens of nationals from
any country to do anything with the right motivation.
"... "Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." ..."
"... The investigation is based on a lie. Therefore it is unconstitutional and nothing more than an attempt to cover up MASSIVE crimes committed by the pplayers now losing their security clearance and their puppet masters ..."
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby
Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack
containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and
the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was
the major unreported story of the campaign," and it succeeded to a fare-thee-well. After the
election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure
investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel, which
in turn has triggered virtually nonstop coverage.
And now you want to talk about trying to shoe horn reality into your fantasy outcome.
Anyone with with 2 brain cells to rub together is laughing at you and your ilk pushing this
complete horse chit.
The investigation is based on a lie. Therefore it is unconstitutional and nothing more
than an attempt to cover up MASSIVE crimes committed by the pplayers now losing their
security clearance and their puppet masters.
Do yourself a favor and turn off that freak Rachel Madcow!
Cohen / Manafort mess creates a whole other level of problems for the current
Administration. So Mueller got Trump in an old fashioned way by digging the
personal and business related dirt and going after people who were close to
Trump. This is how prosecutors approach mafia cases ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law. But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation. And Trump could legally contribute as much as he wished to his own campaign for president. ..."
"... Hence the high-fives among never-Trumpers are premature. ..."
"... But if Cohen's guilty plea and Tuesday's conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort do not imperil Trump today, what they portend is ominous. For Cohen handled Trump's dealings for more than a decade and has pledged full cooperation with prosecutors from both the Southern District of New York and the Robert Mueller investigation. ..."
"... Also, Manafort, now a convicted felon facing life in prison, has the most compelling of motives to "flip" and reveal anything that could be useful to Mueller and harmful to Trump. Then there is the Mueller probe itself. ..."
"... Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate. ..."
"... However, having, for a year now, been marching White House aides and campaign associates of Trump before a grand jury, Mueller has to be holding more cards than he is showing. And even if they do not directly implicate the president, more indictments may be coming down. ..."
"... And as this Congress has only weeks left before the 2018 elections, it will be the new House that meets in January, which may well be Democratic, that will receive Mueller's report. ..."
"... Trump is not going to resign. To do so would open him up to grand jury subpoenas, federal charges and civil suits for the rest of his life. To resign would be to give up his sword and shield, and all of his immunity. He would be crazy to leave himself naked to his enemies. ..."
"... No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the presidency in his fight for survival. And as he has shown, these powers are considerable: the power to rally his emotional following, to challenge courts, to fire Justice officials and FBI executives, to pull security clearances, to pardon the convicted. ..."
"... if Democrats capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media auxiliaries to pursue impeachment. ..."
"... Instead, he's embarked on a massively ambitious nation-building project in northeast Syria and is otherwise scouring the globe for new wars to start, while mostly catering to his rich friends at home. And Israel, Israel, Israel all the time. ..."
"... What has he done that's actually useful? Ditching TTIP? OK let's grant him that one. Meeting Kim? Mayyybe, but at the same time he chose to appoint Bolton and Pompeo who are predictably sabotaging the Singapore understanding. Meanwhile, American finances are going off the cliff at an ever-accelerating pace. ..."
"... All of which is the perfect mirror image of an equally true statement: if Obama hadn't been such a lousy president (which his supporters are in denial about), a known charlatan like Trump would've never had a shot at the office. ..."
"If anyone is looking for a good lawyer," said President Donald Trump ruefully, "I would
strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen." Michael Cohen is no Roy
Cohn.
Tuesday, Trump's ex-lawyer, staring at five years in prison, pled guilty to a campaign
violation that may not even be a crime. Cohen had fronted the cash, $130,000, to pay porn star
Stormy Daniels for keeping quiet about a decade-old tryst with Trump. He had also brokered a
deal whereby the National Enquirer bought the rights to a story about a Trump affair with a
Playboy model, to kill it.
Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law. But paying girlfriends
to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a campaign violation. And Trump could
legally contribute as much as he wished to his own campaign for president.
Would a Democratic House, assuming we get one, really impeach a president for paying hush
money to old girlfriends?
Hence the high-fives among never-Trumpers are premature.
But if Cohen's guilty plea and Tuesday's conviction of campaign manager Paul Manafort do
not imperil Trump today, what they portend is ominous. For Cohen handled Trump's dealings for
more than a decade and has pledged full cooperation with prosecutors from both the Southern
District of New York and the Robert Mueller investigation.
Nothing that comes of this collaboration will be helpful to Trump.
Also, Manafort, now a convicted felon facing life in prison, has the most compelling of
motives to "flip" and reveal anything that could be useful to Mueller and harmful to Trump.
Then there is the Mueller probe itself.
Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six
months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard
evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate.
However, having, for a year now, been marching White House aides and campaign associates
of Trump before a grand jury, Mueller has to be holding more cards than he is showing. And even
if they do not directly implicate the president, more indictments may be coming down.
Mueller may not have the power to haul the president before a grand jury or indict him.
After all, it is Parliament that deposes and beheads the king, not the sheriff of Nottingham.
But Mueller will file a report with the Department of Justice that will be sent to the
House.
And as this Congress has only weeks left before the 2018 elections, it will be the new
House that meets in January, which may well be Democratic, that will receive Mueller's
report.
Still, as of now, it is hard to see how two-thirds of a new Senate would convict this
president of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Thus we are in for a hellish year.
Trump is not going to resign. To do so would open him up to grand jury subpoenas,
federal charges and civil suits for the rest of his life. To resign would be to give up his
sword and shield, and all of his immunity. He would be crazy to leave himself naked to his
enemies.
No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an
illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the
presidency in his fight for survival. And as he has shown, these powers are considerable: the
power to rally his emotional following, to challenge courts, to fire Justice officials and FBI
executives, to pull security clearances, to pardon the convicted.
Democrats who have grown giddy about taking the House should consider what a campaign to
bring down a president, who is supported by a huge swath of the nation and has fighting allies
in the press, would be like.
Why do it? Especially if they knew in advance the Senate would not convict.
That America has no desire for a political struggle to the death over impeachment is
evident. Recognition of this reality is why the Democratic Party is assuring America that
impeachment is not what they have in mind.
Today, it is Republicans leaders who are under pressure to break with Trump, denounce him,
and call for new investigations into alleged collusion with the Russians. But if Democrats
capture the House, then they will be the ones under intolerable pressure from their own media
auxiliaries to pursue impeachment.
Taking the House would put newly elected Democrats under fire from the right for forming a
lynch mob, and from the mainstream media for not doing their duty and moving immediately to
impeach Trump.
Democrats have been laboring for two years to win back the House. But if they discover that
the first duty demanded of them
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. "
President Pence would do little to undo the political polarization that America has
experienced over the past two decades since his voting record suggests that he leans rather
heavily to the right side of the political spectrum.
Maybe this is payback for the other impeachment attempt 20 years ago. Perhaps some dems
have been waiting two decades for vengeance. Whatever Clinton's faults, the GOP should not
have opened that can of worms back then.
Either the Republicans come out ahead in which case the left will say it was because of
"Russian" interference and the election results are thus illegitimate. Or the Democrats will
and they will not only be under pressure to impeach Trump but also to punish the deplorables
who voted for him.
Well, this would constitute a real civil war. All because Obama and Hillary failed at
rigging an election and failed at launching a coup. Good Times. Keep your powder dry.
Well, this would constitute a real civil war. All because Obama and Hillary failed at
rigging an election and failed at launching a coup. Good Times. Keep your powder dry.
Meh. Who are you going to shoot at? Your neighbors? The local messican ghetto? Cops in
general?
IMO, just like always throughout history, the key is to nab "elected representatives" from
local, state and federal positions, and hang them. You don't have to hang very many --
they're smarter than they look; they're merely corrupt slimebags. Kill a few, and the rest
scatter, awaiting future opportunity.
Mr. Buchanan somehow manages to make it through the entire article without reminding us
that, in fact, the GOP did impeach a president over a blowjob–what goes around,
comes around. And while I doubt that Pat is among his fans, Bill Clinton at the time was a
good deal more popular than Trump is now.
Which brings us to something basic: Democrats and liberals in general have jumped the
shark for everyone to see, they're stark raving mad. Granted, the GOP is not exactly Trump's
party, but in an environment where Republicans face no substantial opposition, Trump could
potentially do something for his voters and there would be no possibility of a blue wave.
Instead, he's embarked on a massively ambitious nation-building project in northeast Syria
and is otherwise scouring the globe for new wars to start, while mostly catering to his rich
friends at home. And Israel, Israel, Israel all the time.
What has he done that's actually
useful? Ditching TTIP? OK let's grant him that one. Meeting Kim? Mayyybe, but at the same
time he chose to appoint Bolton and Pompeo who are predictably sabotaging the Singapore
understanding. Meanwhile, American finances are going off the cliff at an ever-accelerating
pace.
All of which is the perfect mirror image of an equally true statement: if Obama hadn't
been such a lousy president (which his supporters are in denial about), a known
charlatan like Trump would've never had a shot at the office.
For an outsider, the
sentimental attachment of this supposedly forward-looking country to its two officially
allowed parties which haven't served their stated purpose for decades already is a curious
thing to behold.
Although I lean conservative, I despair for my country. If Trump's election "unauthorized by the real powers that be" proves to be the match that
sets alight the country then we're all in for a form of Hell that few of us have seen.
Note that someone whose supposed level of intimacy with violence is someone who would not
know the first thing to do if war actually broke out. Exactly why you, the armchair warrior,
who waits with bated breath to jackboot your "enemies", will be staying at home rather than
being on the front lines, just like yourself, dear.
Now, onto Patrick's post.
"Michael Cohen is no Roy Cohn."
Patrick is partially right. They are both Jewish, and they both engaged in illegal
activity, but one was a closet homosexual.
"But paying girlfriends to keep past indiscretions private is neither a crime nor a
campaign violation "
Obviously if that was the case, Cohen would not have pled guilty. And clearly Patrick has
not been keeping up with the Mueller investigation on this particular development.
"Cohen claims he and Trump thus conspired to violate federal law."
No, Cohen is offering to corroborate the evidence collected by prosecutors as to what
constitutes illegal activities.
"No, given his belief that he is under attack by people who hate him and believe he is an
illegitimate president, and seek to bring him down, he will use all the powers of the
presidency in his fight for survival."
Well, we know for a fact that if Shitlery or Obama was in the SAME SITUATION, Patrick
would NOT be advocating this course of action. Rather, he would call for either of them to
step aside.
"Twenty-six months after the Watergate break-in, President Nixon had resigned. Twenty-six
months after the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, Mueller has yet to deliver hard
evidence the Trump campaign colluded with Putin's Russia, though this was his mandate."
The Mueller investigation is a sore spot for Buchanan, who had to endure an eerily similar
experience with Nixon. So it is other than surprising that Buchanan is defending Trump.
Patrick ought to know better here, as Mueller is carefully gathering evidence from one of the
most complex cases in our nation's political history.
Justice in this instance has no time
table. Mueller is under no obligation to show his cards, that is not how prosecutions
work.
"... "Perhaps the greatest political damage came not from the felony charges, all of them related to various forms of financial chicanery, including five counts each for Cohen and Manafort of income tax evasion, but from Cohen's public statement in the courtroom of Judge Kimba Wood. In confessing his guilt to the eight counts, Cohen declared that in two instances, violating federal laws by using personal funds to suppress politically inconvenient statements by Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, he was acting "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office." ..."
"... My point is that Cohen's admissions implicating Trump in carrying out either himself or in concert with others willful ongoing acts violative of Federal Campaign Finance laws are CLEARLY sufficient-if substantiated-to oust him from office. ..."
"... "Mueller's strategy of focusing on Cohen and Manafort's white-collar crimes is perfectly reasonable, even in a probe directed at Russian interference in the 2016 election. "It's not unusual for prosecutors to use charges -- Al Capone is the primary example -- to bring down a criminal conspiracy in any way they can," Waxman pointed out." ..."
"... Cohen's guilty plea effectively makes Trump an unindicted co-conspirator. Current Justice Department guidelines say a sitting president cannot be indicted -- but building a legitimate criminal case against Trump would make it harder for Republicans to stand united in opposition to impeaching the president ..."
"... Cohen would be a prosecutor's "dream cooperator: one who had special insider access to the leader of a powerful, closed, corrupt organization," former prosecutors Mimi Rocah and Elie Honig wrote last month. "We used to prosecute mafia cases. We both know that in the mob -- and perhaps in this White House -- the right cooperator can bring down the entire hierarchy." ..."
"Perhaps the greatest political damage came not from the felony charges, all of them
related to various forms of financial chicanery, including five counts each for Cohen and
Manafort of income tax evasion, but from Cohen's public statement in the courtroom of Judge
Kimba Wood. In confessing his guilt to the eight counts, Cohen declared that in two
instances, violating federal laws by using personal funds to suppress politically
inconvenient statements by Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy
Daniels, he was acting "in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal
office."
My point is that Cohen's admissions implicating Trump in carrying out either himself
or in concert with others willful ongoing acts violative of Federal Campaign Finance laws are
CLEARLY sufficient-if substantiated-to oust him from office.
Don't think so??
If the following transgressions were sufficient to 'nail' their intended targets -which is
what happened - then Trump's acts in attempting to hush up Stormy (supra) COULD achieve the
same result. Whether or not some faction of TPTB has the WILL to impeach him is another
matter.
"Mueller's strategy of focusing on Cohen and Manafort's white-collar crimes is perfectly
reasonable, even in a probe directed at Russian interference in the 2016 election. "It's not
unusual for prosecutors to use charges -- Al Capone is the primary example -- to bring down a
criminal conspiracy in any way they can," Waxman pointed out."
Yup!!!
" Cohen's guilty plea effectively makes Trump an unindicted co-conspirator. Current
Justice Department guidelines say a sitting president cannot be indicted -- but building a
legitimate criminal case against Trump would make it harder for Republicans to stand united
in opposition to impeaching the president .
When President Richard Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator by a grand jury, he
opted to resign instead of face impeachment proceedings. Trump seems unlikely to step down,
however. Any further efforts on his part to block the investigation into his campaign would
put the Justice Department in uncharted territory"
Cohen would be a prosecutor's "dream cooperator: one who had special insider access to
the leader of a powerful, closed, corrupt organization," former prosecutors Mimi Rocah and
Elie Honig wrote last month. "We used to prosecute mafia cases. We both know that in the mob
-- and perhaps in this White House -- the right cooperator can bring down the entire
hierarchy."
From links I've already posted , getting a USC Title 18 conviction of Trump is not
necessarily that required to charge him with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors". Although there
is some dispute in legal circles as to what exactly constitutes a sufficent basis of facts
upon which impeachment can be based.
But it will establish an unsavory precedent – that any sitting president can be taken
out merely by selecting one of his/her aides and then threatening them with crushing
penalties for some silly transgression or other or they can turn state's evidence. Anyone who
ever dreamed of ascending to the nation's highest office would have to know that, by
facilitating this process, they were handing the lawmakers the means to remove any future
president.
But, as I said, I don't care. Hillary can't win it now, Pence is a dink, The Donald would
dig in his heels and fight all the way out, probably causing great damage, but if he went, so
what? He's a dreadful president. And the USA would be in political chaos.
Trump should have fired Sessions for recusing himself from this Congress instituted
witch-hunt. The job of Sessions is to be over-seer of the Special Counsel investigation.
Mueller cannot have special rights, he must follow the rules. Shaking down people around
Trump for tax evasion or assorted other unrelated crimes is not following the rules. It is
pure Inquisition tactics.
I would not be so quick to write Trump off as dreadful. He basically sabotaged the two
hyped up cruise missile attacks on Syria. Even though his hands are tied and his mouth is
gagged by US corporate-run "freedom", he managed to make both those attacks totally
ineffective. If he was a loyal servant of the US elites, he would have kept sending more and
more missiles and actually ordered NATzO or "coalition" jets to bomb Syrian targets
seriously. The sporadic Israeli and coalition attacks have been basically irrelevant.
He is rocking the boat as much as he can. This creates are sorts of noise. This noise is
not a metric of his efforts and success.
We'll see. If the Democrats are successful at having him impeached, they will probably create
a special holiday recognizing Stormy Daniels, or give her the Presidential Medal of Freedom
or something. I frankly don't care – he beat Hillary, and that's something she can
never erase or cover up.
I imagine they sweated him with the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison;
all the newspaper accounts of his testimony spoke of his shaky voice, and it's typically
pretty hard to scare a lawyer. They likely told him that he could just disappear into the
prison system and that there would be nothing at all he could do about it.
Anyone find any reference to "Russian trolls" in it, apart from this: " It found
many tweets that were posted by the same bots thought to have been used to influence the 2016
election, as well as marketing and malware bots "?
I see: "thought to have been used", writes the "journalist".
And on that supposition the Independent "journalist" rests his case.
It turns out that many anti-vaccine tweets come from accounts whose provenance is
unclear ," said David Broniatowski, an assistant professor in GW's School of Engineering and
Applied Science.
"These might be bots, human users or 'cyborgs' – hacked accounts that are
sometimes taken over by bots. Although it's impossible to know exactly how many tweets were
generated by bots and trolls, our findings suggest that a significant portion of the online
discourse about vaccines may be generated by malicious actors with a range of hidden
agendas."
Equivocation central – it's amazing what can pass as a 'study' these days. What is
even more incredible is that we have arrived at a point in our history when the appearance of
debate on a point is suspicious, and inspires 'researchers' to 'study' the problem to see who
is behind it rather than focusing on why the point generated debate in the first place. We
have arrived at a point where it is actually unpatriotic to disagree with the official
narrative.
Many more Americans believe vaccines are safe than the astroturfed 'debate' suggests,
found the study. Google says bullshit. A recent Zogby poll of a claimed representative sample
group found only 32% of respondents said they were 'very confident' vaccines were safe. The
same or a similar question was posed 10 years ago, and the proportion who said they were 'not
too confident has risen 3% since then, while those who said they were 'not at all confident'
in the safety of vaccines went up by 2%. People are not getting more confident, they're
getting less confident. There; that's my study – where's my research grant?
Once again, as soon as the mainstream media finds an argument, it is quick to blame it on
unidentified 'Russian trolls', rather than addressing the problem. The state narrative is the
law. And the pace is quickening.
This is how you can tell Americans (and media as a whole, for that matter) truly are
stupid.
Okay, first of all: The whole anti-vaccine hysteria is as American as apple pie, going way
back to at least 1998 and to a research paper in the medical journal The Lancet linking MMR
vaccines to autism spectrum disorders (a paper that was lated found to be severely lacking in
scientific rigor) and certain people raising concern about the mercury content in the
thiomersal vaccines. This sparked numerous anti-vaccination campaigns all over the US,
ranging from concerned but ignorant parent groups all the way to the Alex Jones type of
conspiracy guzzlers, and many of these are alive and kicking to this day.
The vaccine controversy rose to new prominence the widely publicized Jenny McCarthy crap
in 2007-2008 and was further fueled by the (legitimate, as it happens) swine flu
vaccine-linked narcolepsy cases a few years later.
This stuff trends from time to time, and apparently this clickbait farm (that is what it
actually is) caught a whiff of it and thus posted a grand total of 253 (!) short-worded
tweets with a vaccination hashtag, out of which according to these so-called researchers 43%
were "pro-vaccination", 38% "anti-vaccination" and the remainder were neutral.
And they're "sewing division", "threatening our health" and so on Good god, I'm not sure
how much more of this I can take to be honest.
This reminds me of a piece of news here in Sweden the other day, namely that the Swedish
Social Democrats got their website DDoS-ed twice. I mean, that's to be expected (the
elections are coming up shortly, some of these "establishment" parties are not held in high
regard in certain demographics and regularly get their election posters torn down or
vandalized and so on, DDoS attacks are cheap to order online and so on and so forth. Fine.
The "IT expert" at the Social Democratic Party said they'd tracked down the IPs from which
the attack came, and these were random IPs in Japan, in South Africa, in Spain, in Korea
and in Russia.
Well, duh , it's a distributed denial-of-service attack, using botnets
consisting of infected personal computers all over the world, and it's all available for hire
on various onion/darknet market websites for a couple of bucks an hour or so. But of course,
the media just disregarded the blatantly obvious and instead decided to illustrate the news
with a great Russian flag and some hooded hacker-type fellow superimposed.
It just blows my mind. The info war is real, no doubt about it
Most Americans simply don't understand how science works. In school they are not taught
the scientific method, how experiments are conducted, how statistical sampling works, or even
anything about statistics period.
Without such knowledge they are left to the human "default" state of mind, which is magical
thinking coupled with basic empiricism. As in "My best friend's daughter got the polio
vaccine and then was diagnosed with autism " etc etc.
The ignorance is colossal. I have a friend at work who is actually quite brilliant in her
own way, but I discovered, in a conversation, that she doesn't understand how computers work,
or how language works. She bought some product and is now convinced that computers
"understand human speech". I almost despaired in trying to explain to her that computers are
only machines and cannot understand human language.
Apparently she was suckered by some of these "AI" products like Siri, Cortana, etc. People
don't learn in school how the "natural language" computer processing works. I don't claim to
understand these algorithms myself, as this is a very specialized field of Computer Science,
and I never really studied it that much. The only bit that I know, is that "Natural Language"
algorithms are based on massive database searches coupled with statistical probabilities in
the formation of phrases.
Apparently the Computer Science developments in this field were held back for about 10 years
due to reliance on Chomsky's theories (of Transformational Grammar), which turned out to be
false and fruitless. As people should have known from the start, if only they had read their
Alan Turing in school.
Once the wrong-headed Chomskyite approach was abandoned and a more empirical methodology
was introduced, then progress started to be made more quickly in the arenas of computer
translation, voice recognition, and "natural language" algorithms.
But the main point here is that computers are just machines and cannot actually speak or
understand human languages. And yet Americans apparently think that they can. All part of the
"magical thinking" mode which is encouraged by The Powers That Be.
I was recently told to turn off my mobile/cellphone because of storms and told that more
than one person had been hit by lightning not so far away. I asked where it was. A kid
outside in a field. I was indoors. I didn't turn it off. I do though unplug stuff if it's
going to be a biggie.
"Apparently the Computer Science developments in this field were held back for about 10
years due to reliance on Chomsky's theories (of Transformational Grammar), which turned out
to be false and fruitless. As people should have known from the start, if only they had read
their Alan Turing in school."
Ummm Followed by a thorough familiarization Searle's work
Thanks for the post, it is an interesting article. However, I believe that it
misrepresents the fundamental point of Turing's work in his development of the Turing
Machine. Turing's legacy is actually (I believe) the opposite of what the layperson thinks it
is, since Turing had proved mathematically that "computer" languages are not the same as
"natural" languages and cannot be mapped out nor parsed. Turing's proofs basically dismiss
(in advance) all of Chomsky's research in the field of so-called transformational
grammar.
I would also point out that Roger Schank was a con-man who received unwarranted grant
money based on his fictitious research into so-called "Artificial Intelligence".
I put Chomsky in a different category: His work was well-meaning but incorrect. His
theories went against Turing's proofs and led researchers down a blind alley. Which resulted
in the loss of approximately one decade of what could have been fruitful empirical work. But
is catching up now. I notice, for starters, that google translation is getting better than it
used to be. But these products like "Siri" and "Alexa" are simply toys, they are like the
dancing dolls of the wizard Coppelius.
You can also tell the writer is a son of of the uneducated and doltish media himself (I
think it was a man, I don't have time now to go back and look); it's 'sowing division', as if
division were seeds, rather than 'sewing', as if it were thread.
"My strong suspicion is that 'Russiagate' is a kind of nemesis, arising
from the fact that key figures in British and American intelligence have, over
a protracted period of time, got involved in intrigues where they are way out
of their depth. The unintended consequences of these have meant that people
like Brennan and Younger, and also Hannigan, have ended up having to resort
to desperate measures to cover their backsides."
Brennan exposed "intelligence community" as a forth branch of government.
The branch more powerful that then the other three combined.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that powerful, connected people in the
intelligence community and in politics worried that a wildcard Trump presidency,
unlike another Clinton or Bush, might expose a decade-plus of questionable
practices. Disrupt long-established money channels. Reveal secret machinations
that could arguably land some people in prison.
The main suspicion is that Steele's involvement may
have been less in crafting the dossier, than making it possible to conceal
its actual origins while giving it an appearance of credibility. It could
also be the case that Nellie Ohr's sudden interest in radio transmissions
had to do with communications inside the United States, rather than with
Steele.
Notable quotes:
"... Los Angeles Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... It's a misnomer to term these people representatives of a hidden "deep state." In recent years, they have been amply visible on television and newspaper op-ed pages. Instead, they see and present themselves as members of a fully empowered and essential fourth branch of government. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... To be fair, Brennan may only be a symptom of this profound American crisis, some say the worst since the Civil War. ..."
Brennan's allegation was unprecedented. No such high-level intelligence official
had ever before accused a sitting president of treason, still more in collusion
with the Kremlin. (Impeachment discussions of Presidents Nixon and Clinton,
to take recent examples, did not include allegations involving Russia.)
Brennan clarified his charge : "Treasonous, which is to betray one's trust
and to aid and abet the enemy." Coming from Brennan, a man presumed to be in
possession of related dark secrets,
as he strongly hinted , the charge was fraught with alarming implications.
Brennan made clear he hoped for Trump's impeachment, but in another time, and
in many other countries, his charge would suggest that Trump should be removed
from the presidency urgently by any means, even a coup. No one, it seems, has
even noted this extraordinary implication with its tacit threat to American
democracy. (Perhaps because the disloyalty allegation against Trump has been
customary ever since mid-2016, even before he became president, when an array
of influential publications and writers -- among them a former acting CIA director
-- began branding him Putin's "puppet," "agent," "client," and "Manchurian candidate."
The
Los Angeles Times even saw fit to print an article suggesting that
the military might have to remove Trump if he were to be elected, thereby having
the very dubious distinction of predating Brennan.)
Why did Brennan, a calculating man, risk leveling such a charge, which might
reasonably be characterized as sedition? The most plausible explanation is that
he sought to deflect growing attention to his role as the "Godfather" of the
entire Russiagate narrative, as Cohen argued back in February. If so, we need
to know Brennan's unvarnished views on Russia.
They are set out with astonishing (perhaps unknowing) candor in
a New York Times op-ed of August 17. They are those of Joseph McCarthy
and J. Edgar Hoover in their prime. Western "politicians, political parties,
media outlets, think tanks and influencers are readily manipulated, wittingly
and unwittingly, or even bought outright, by Russian operatives not only to
collect sensitive information but also to distribute propaganda and disinformation.
I was well aware of Russia's ability to work surreptitiously within the United
States, cultivating relationships with individuals who wield actual or potential
power. These Russian agents are well trained in the art of deception. They troll
political, business and cultural waters in search of gullible or unprincipled
individuals who become pliant in the hands of their Russian puppet masters.
Too often, those puppets are found." All this, Brennan assures readers, is based
on his "deep insight." All the rest of us, it seems, are constantly susceptible
to "Russian puppet masters" under our beds, at work, on our computers. Clearly,
there must be no "cooperation" with the Kremlin's grand "Puppet Master," as
Trump said he wanted early on. (People who wonder what and when Obama knew about
the unfolding Russiagate saga need to ask why he would keep such a person so
close for so long.)
And yet, scores of former intelligence and military officials rallied around
this unvarnished John Brennan, even though, they said, they did not entirely
share his opinions. This too is revealing. They did so, it seems clear enough,
out of their professional corporate identity, which Brennan represented and
Trump was degrading by challenging the intelligences agencies' (implicitly including
his own) Russiagate allegations against him. It's a misnomer to term these people
representatives of a hidden "deep state." In recent years, they have been amply
visible on television and newspaper op-ed pages. Instead, they see and present
themselves as members of a fully empowered and essential fourth branch of government.
This too has gone largely undiscussed while nightingales of the fourth branch
-- such as
David Ignatius and
Joe Scarborough in the pages of the The Washington Post -- have
been in full voice.
The result is, of course -- and no less ominous -- to criminalize any advocacy
of "cooperating with Russia," or détente, as Trump sought to do in Helsinki
with Putin. Still more, a full-fledged Russophobic hysteria is sweeping through
the American political-media establishment, from Brennan and -- pending actual
evidence against her -- those who engineered the arrest of Maria Butina (imagine
how this endangers young Americans networking in Russia) to the senators now
preparing new "crippling sanctions" against Moscow and the editors and producers
at the Times , Post , CNN, and MSNBC. (However powerful, how
representative are these elites when surveys indicate that a majority of the
American people still prefer good relations with Moscow?)
As the dangers grow
of actual war with Russia -- again, from Ukraine and the Baltic region to Syria
-- the capacity of US policy-makers, above all the president, are increasingly
diminished. To be fair, Brennan may only be a symptom of this profound American
crisis, some say the worst since the Civil War.
Finally, there was a time when many Democrats, certainly liberal Democrats,
could be counted on to resist this kind of hysteria and, yes, spreading neo-McCarthyism.
(Brennan's defenders accuse Trump of McCarthyism, but Brennan's charge of treason
without presenting any actual evidence was quintessential McCarthy.) After all,
civil liberties, including freedom of speech, are directly involved -- and not
only Brennan's and Trump's. But Democratic members of Congress and pro-Democratic
media outlets are in the forefront of the new anti-Russian hysteria, with only
a few exceptions. Thus a generally liberal historian
tells CNN viewers that "Brennan is an American hero. His tenure at the CIA
was impeccable. We owe him so much." Elsewhere the same historian
assures readers , "There has always been a bipartisan spirit of support
since the CIA was created in the Cold War." In the same vein, two Post
reporters write of the FBI's "
once venerated reputation ."
"... One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC email leaker (or one of them, at least.) ..."
"... That right there is obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Literally everyone at the FBI who can't PROVE he didn't know about that report will be going to jail. The entire top administration of the FBI is going to go down. ..."
"... And how many people at the Department of Justice are aware of that report? Did Rosenstein know? Who else in the Obama administration knew? ..."
"... That would be motivation for a lot of desperate maneuvering. Add to that who was really behind the Steele Dossier and even more people are likely to end up in jail. ..."
One thing to remember about the FBI is Sy Hersh. Hersh claims the FBI has been sitting
on a report for two years that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the Wikileaks DNC
email leaker (or one of them, at least.)
Now can we imagine that not everyone in a senior position at the FBI knows about that
report? I can't. Literally everyone from the supervisor of the Special Agent or computer
forensic investigator who examined Rich's computer right up to the Director HAD to know that
report exists - and covered it up.
That right there is obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Literally everyone at the
FBI who can't PROVE he didn't know about that report will be going to jail. The entire top
administration of the FBI is going to go down.
And how many people at the Department of Justice are aware of that report? Did
Rosenstein know? Who else in the Obama administration knew?
That would be motivation for a lot of desperate maneuvering. Add to that who was
really behind the Steele Dossier and even more people are likely to end up in jail.
You haven't heard that yet? It's the infamous audio tape that Hersh was caught on
discussing it. He's since obfuscated what he said, but the tape stands on its own, and he has
never said that anything he said on the tape wasn't true, despite that a lot of Democrats and
Trump-bashers claim he has.
I have told you several times and I will tell you again probably hopelessly that Hersh
PERSONALLY has told me that the "tape" was made without his permission or knowledge when he
was aimlessly speculating on possibilities.
I am unaware of your explicitly telling me that he personally told you that the tape was
"aimless speculation." My apologies if I missed that response.
Of course the tape was made without his permission. We all know that. It's irrelevant to
what he said on the tape.
What I'm saying is that despite what he may have told you, nothing on that tape sounds
like "aimless speculation".
When you consider that he has four good reasons for dissembling about the tape, I view it
as far more likely that everything he said was true.
1) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his FBI contact. Not good for his line
of work.
2) If what he said is true, compromising that contact may well make all his other contacts
wary about talking to him in the future - a bad deal for a journalist who relies on his
contacts.
3) If what he said is true, he may have compromised his ability to get his "long form
journalism" article published - a problem he already has had in the past.
4) If what he said is true, he's accusing the FBI of sitting on that report for two years,
which might well make him a target of retaliation in some way.
If you believe that everything he said on the tape is untrue and that is what he
explicitly told you, fine. I'm waiting for his "long form journalism" report to explain it.
So far everything he has said publicly about it has not contradicted what he said on the
tape, but merely waved his hands about it.
Sy Hersh talks a lot both loudly and profanely. He never intended to tell Buttowski that
there was more than a possibility that the FBI held more than a rumor that this might be
true. He talked to Buttowski because a mutual friend of him and me asked him to do so for no
good reason. Please go talk to all the other people you pester and not on SST. You are an
argumentative nuisance.
I have no stake in the debate about Rich, DNC, wikileaks.
But I do notice some loose ends. Hersh may well have engaged in speculation, but it is
interesting speculation:
quote:
55. During his conversation with Butowsky, Mr. Hersh claimed that he had received information
from an "FBI report." Mr. Hersh had not seen the report himself, but explained: "I have
somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. And I know this person is
unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy."
56. According to Mr. Hersh, his source told him that the FBI report states that, shortly
after Seth Rich's murder, the D.C. police obtained a warrant to search his home. When they
arrived at the home, the D.C. police found Seth Rich's computer, but were unable to access
it.The computer was then provided to the D.C. police Cyber Unit, who also were unable to
access the computer. At that point, the D.C. police contacted the Cyber Unit at the FBI's
Washington D.C. field office. Again, according to the supposed FBI report, the Washington
D.C. field office was able to get into the computer and found that in "late spring early
summer [2016], [Seth Rich][made] contact with Wikileaks." "They found what he had done. He
had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some juicy emails from the DNC." Mr. Hersh
told Butowsky that Seth Rich "offered a sample [to WikiLeaks][,] an extensive sample, you
know I'm sure dozens, of emails, and said I want money."
. . .
"I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of
it."
. . .
The clip is definitely worth listening to in its entirety if you haven't already. Hersh is
heard telling Butowsky that he had a high-level insider read him an FBI file confirming that
Seth Rich was known to have been in contact with WikiLeaks prior to his death, which is not
even a tiny bit remotely the same as having "heard rumors". Hersh's statements in the audio
recording and his statement to NPR cannot both be true.
endquote
https://medium.com/@caityjo...
"... Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept. ..."
"... When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes regarding Hillary. ..."
"... Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA. ..."
From the web the other side of the rabbit hole, key items in the utterly
corruption-tainted profile of the Robert Mueller – Hillary Clinton etc team jabbing at
Trump
From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations
were illegally undeclared.
The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it
over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod
Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell
20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a one-hour
speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium One deal
then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation
FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under gag
order not to speak of it.
Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US
Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for
Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.
When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of
Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James
Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes
regarding Hillary.
Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey,
Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA.
Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed
Robert Mueller to his current job.
Great insight: "Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia"
Notable quotes:
"... Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried up. ..."
"... Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a favorite investment for money launderers ..."
"... Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as possible and keep it from Russia ..."
Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia
in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and
US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current
bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried
up.
Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf
companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a
favorite investment for money launderers
During the Ukrainian conflict Putin began an amnesty program asking oligarchs to repatriate
these assets by waiving penalties and taxes. He restarted it at the end of last year, hence the
need to expand the list of assets to be seized before they fly the coop.
Trump may know where a lot of these assets are parked. Perhaps he had been a good informant
of the FBI/CIA like his partner Felix Sater
Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia
"... Our government is quick to apply sanctions and extremely reluctant to lift them. Once a government is targeted with sanctions on one issue, it becomes even easier to apply additional sanctions for other reasons. Multiple overlapping sets of sanctions give the targeted government little reason to cooperate. ..."
"... Now Trump has not only gone back on the promise of sanctions relief, but he is going out of his way to use U.S. sanctions to force other governments to wage economic war on Iran as well. ..."
"... Other governments understandably consider U.S. secondary sanctions on foreign firms to be illegal and unacceptable, and it is only a matter of time before many more states look for ways to get around them. ..."
"... Sanctions addicts are under the mistaken impression that they can force the targeted state to change its behavior, but in practice this just causes them to do more of what the U.S. doesn't want to give them additional leverage ..."
"... If the Trump administration succeeds in completely blowing up the deal, Iran won't have to abide by its restrictions any longer. In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. pressure campaign could convince Iran's government to leave the NPT. In its vain and destructive attempt to force Iran to make deeper concessions, the Trump administration could very easily repeat the Bush administration's North Korea blunder ..."
"... In fact, my guess would be that Iran could get a lot more "bang for the buck" by investing the significant efforts and budgets of pursuing a nuclear deterrent – with the resulting "window of vulnerability" – into those conventional and irregular deterrents: A2/AD and IRGC, Hezbollah, proxies in Iraq. ..."
"... Trump and Obama might be dumb enough to waste trillions on mutually assured nuclear suicide, Iran appears to have a more frugal approach to deterrence ..."
"... I find another aspect of sanctions illuminating. Sanctions have significant cost – opportunity cost, loss of investment, penalties on breach of contract – for large segments of US and EU industry – as our "allies" are now learning ..."
"... Is sanction enforcement by itself more profitable than the trade it suppresses? Or are sanctions without profitable "regime change" and the follow-thru looting – Russia 1991 or Iraq 2003 – a net loss? ..."
"... the interests of various factions of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex are not in perfect alignment ..."
"... "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy has been completely militarized. "Our way or the highway" diplomacy is defined by the ham-fisted war-mongers Pompeo and Bolton. With Nutjob Nikki Haley cheering them on with Dragon Lady Gina Haspel and her arrogant minions hatching regime change plots at CIA with anticipatory delight. ..."
"... The U.S./Russia relationship has been fatally wrecked by the one-way ratchet sanctions ginned up by a nitwit Congress oblivious to unintended consequences. China and the rest of Asia are formulating an economic model decoupled from the Global Cop Gorilla. They will capture Iran's business and are peeling off Turkey. Europe is realizing the lunatic incoherence of U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... BTW, Trump is so clueless he thinks that Putin will pow-wow with him under the current circumstances. ..."
Iran's Foreign Minister recently
criticized the U.S. for its "addiction" to sanctions:
"I believe there is a disease in the United States and that is the addiction
to sanctions," he told CNN, adding that, "Even during the Obama administration
the United States put more emphasis on keeping the sanctions it had not
lifted rather than implementing its obligation on the sanctions it lifted."
Zarif has his own reasons for saying this, but the addiction he describes
is all too real. Our government is quick to apply sanctions and extremely
reluctant to lift them. Once a government is targeted with sanctions on one
issue, it becomes even easier to apply additional sanctions for other reasons.
Multiple overlapping sets of sanctions give the targeted government little reason
to cooperate. In Iran's case, they made significant concessions on the
nuclear issue in the expectation of receiving sanctions relief. Contrary to
the lies of nuclear deal opponents, Iran made the bulk of its concessions up
front in exchange for the promise of relief later. That relief was very slow
in coming to the extent that it came at all. Now Trump has not only gone
back on the promise of sanctions relief, but he is going out of his way to use
U.S. sanctions to force other governments to wage economic war on Iran as well.
Iran is still in compliance with the deal even after the U.S. broke its promises,
and now the U.S. is piling on sanctions simply for the sake of inflicting economic
harm. Other governments understandably consider U.S. secondary sanctions
on foreign firms to be illegal and unacceptable, and it is only a matter of
time before many more states
look for ways to get around them. The more that our government
abuses sanctions , the more likely it is that other states will create mechanisms
to shield themselves and their companies from them.
U.S. abuse of sanctions reminds me of another part of Bloomberg's recent
editorial on the nuclear deal. The editors write:
But a deepening economic crisis could yet force a change of heart in
Tehran. A second round of U.S. sanctions, targeting oil exports and due
in November, could also concentrate minds. For his part, Trump has said
he's open to meeting with Iran's leaders "whenever they want to." He might
welcome a second act to his summit with North Korea's Kim Jong Un. The Iranians
might reflect on the fact that Kim lost nothing from that encounter.
All this is, admittedly, slim hope on which to base a long, tortured
process of negotiation. But it's better than the false hope that Europe's
leaders are currently clinging to.
If additional sanctions "concentrate minds" in Tehran, what is likely to
happen? Prior to the nuclear deal, increasing sanctions spurred Iran to build
tens of thousands of centrifuges and advance their nuclear program significantly.
Sanctions addicts are under the mistaken impression that they can force
the targeted state to change its behavior, but in practice this just causes
them to do more of what the U.S. doesn't want to give them additional leverage
. In order for sanctions to have any chance of being effective, the other government
has to believe that there is way to get the sanctions lifted permanently. Iran's
leaders no longer believe that because Trump shredded our government's credibility
by reneging on the deal. Now that the U.S. has shown that its promises of sanctions
relief are meaningless, it can impose any number of sanctions for as long as
it wants and all it will do is provoke Iran into doing exactly what our government
opposes.
If the Trump administration succeeds in completely blowing up the deal,
Iran won't have to abide by its restrictions any longer. In the worst-case scenario,
the U.S. pressure campaign could convince Iran's government to leave the NPT.
In its vain and destructive attempt to force Iran to make deeper concessions,
the Trump administration could very easily repeat the Bush administration's
North Korea blunder . Sanctions addicts don't think that abusing sanctions
can have adverse and undesirable consequences, but in this case they could end
up producing a much worse outcome to the detriment of all concerned. Posted
in
foreign policy ,
politics . Tagged
Iran ,
North Korea ,
Bloomberg ,
NPT ,
Mohammad Javad Zarif ,
Donald Trump ,
JCPOA .
"In the worst-case scenario, the U.S. pressure campaign could
convince Iran's government to leave the NPT."
For the Bolt-On et.al. this would be a best case outcome. There are good
arguments that Iran will refrain from anything that would deliver a pretext
for "non-proliferation at gunpoint" until at least 2020 – US election –
and 2021 – Iranian elections.
In fact, my guess would be that Iran could get a lot more "bang for
the buck" by investing the significant efforts and budgets of pursuing a
nuclear deterrent – with the resulting "window of vulnerability" – into
those conventional and irregular deterrents: A2/AD and IRGC, Hezbollah,
proxies in Iraq.
When the Trump administration and Congress defined that "malignancy",
which so mirrors our own, they signaled clearly that Iran's actions were
exposing weaknesses and serve as constraints on US impunitive action.
Trump and Obama might be dumb enough to waste trillions on mutually
assured nuclear suicide, Iran appears to have a more frugal approach to
deterrence .
I find another aspect of sanctions illuminating. Sanctions have significant
cost – opportunity cost, loss of investment, penalties on breach of contract
– for large segments of US and EU industry – as our "allies" are now learning
. For administrations such as Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, that all hail
from different toxic brews of corporate and oligarch interests, there has
to be a reason to force these costs on one segment of their true "constituencies".
On first glance, it would imply that the interests of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial
complex – that is, the profit and business interests of the industrial segment,
or the ancillary benefits for the other war profiteers – trump (for lack
of a more appropriate word) the concerns and interests of the non-defense
and non-electioneering business.
Bloomberg, of all publications, should be sensitive to this, unless they,
too, place a premium on "national securities".
Is sanction enforcement by itself more profitable than the trade
it suppresses? Or are sanctions without profitable "regime change" and the
follow-thru looting – Russia 1991 or Iraq 2003 – a net loss?
Our foreign policy might be decided and defined by this trade-off.
Do our war profiteering business elites consider regime change a requirement
for deferred return on investment, or would they prefer sanctions in perpetuity?
Certainly, the interests of various factions of the presidential-congressional-military-industrial
complex are not in perfect alignment . For example, a trillion dollar
budget for mutually assured nuclear suicide might offer significant short
term profits to a narrow "market segment" while increasing the "business
risks" to all beneficiaries of inbred wealth across the world, for generations.
But it would appear that these trade-offs are not well understood. I
guess I cannot complain about that, given my choice of "inbred wealth" as
a description for the multi-generational estrangement of the rich, connected
and powerful from existential realities.
Given the Neocon constitution of Trump's inner circle, it is not surprising
that the Karl Rove delusion is again in play:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's
how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will
be left to just study what we do."
How did that work out last time?
U.S. foreign policy has been completely militarized. "Our way or
the highway" diplomacy is defined by the ham-fisted war-mongers Pompeo and
Bolton. With Nutjob Nikki Haley cheering them on with Dragon Lady Gina Haspel
and her arrogant minions hatching regime change plots at CIA with anticipatory
delight.
How did that work out in Libya, Ukraine and Syria? And Mattis successfully
fear-mongers out the wazoo for even more hyper-expensive "lethality".
The U.S./Russia relationship has been fatally wrecked by the one-way
ratchet sanctions ginned up by a nitwit Congress oblivious to unintended consequences.
China and the rest of Asia are formulating an economic model decoupled from
the Global Cop Gorilla. They will capture Iran's business and are peeling off
Turkey. Europe is realizing the lunatic incoherence of U.S. foreign policy.
And incredulously, Trump merely stands back and watches as his minions run
his albeit mal-formed foreign policy vision into the ground. BTW, Trump
is so clueless he thinks that Putin will pow-wow with him under the current
circumstances.
Stick a fork in this harebrained administration – because it's cooked
This is partially incorrect view on Trump foreign policy. At the center of
which is careful retreat for enormous expenses of keeping the global neoliberal
empire, plus military Keyseanism to revive the us economy. Which means
tremendous pressure of arm sales as the only way to improve trade balance.
NATO was always an instrument of the USA hegemony,
so Trump behavior is perfectly compatible with this view -- he just downgraded vassals
refusing usual formal respect for them, as they do no represent independent nations.
That's why he addressed them with the contempt. He aptly remarked that German stance
of relying on Russia hydrocarbons and still claiming the it needs the USA defense
is pure hypocrisy. On the other side china, Russia and North Korea can't be considered
the USA vassals.
China is completely dependent on the USA for advanced technologies so their
dreams of becoming the world hegemon is such exist are premature.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington's dominance over the world economy had begun to wither and its once-superior work force to lose its competitive edge. ..."
"... By 2016, in fact, the dislocations brought on by the economic globalization that had gone with American dominion sparked a revolt of the dispossessed in democracies worldwide and in the American heartland, bringing the self-proclaimed "populist" Donald Trump to power. ..."
"... Determined to check his country's decline, he has adopted an aggressive and divisive foreign policy that has roiled long-established alliances in both Asia and Europe and is undoubtedly giving that decline new impetus. ..."
"... On the realpolitik side of that duality, Washington constructed a four-tier apparatus -- military, diplomatic, economic, and clandestine -- to advance a global dominion of unprecedented wealth and power. This apparatus rested on hundreds of military bases in Europe and Asia that made the U.S. the first power in history to dominate (if not control) the Eurasian continent. ..."
"... Instead of reigning confidently over international organizations, multilateral alliances, and a globalized economy, Trump evidently sees America standing alone and beleaguered in an increasingly troubled world -- exploited by self-aggrandizing allies, battered by unequal trade terms, threatened by tides of undocumented immigrants, and betrayed by self-serving elites too timid or compromised to defend the nation's interests. ..."
"... Instead of multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or even the WTO, Trump favors bilateral deals rewritten to the (supposed) advantage of the United States. ..."
"... As he took office, the nation, it claimed, faced "an extraordinarily dangerous world, filled with a wide range of threats." ..."
"... Despite such grandiose claims, each of President Trump's overseas trips has been a mission of destruction in terms of American global power. Each, seemingly by design, disrupted and possibly damaged alliances that have been the foundation for Washington's global power since the 1950s ..."
"... Donald Trump acted more like Argentina's former presidente Juan Perón, minus the medals. ..."
"... Beijing's low-cost infrastructure loans for 70 countries from the Baltic to the Pacific are already funding construction of the Mediterranean's busiest port at Piraeus, Greece, a major nuclear power plant in England, a $6 billion railroad through rugged Laos, and a $46 billion transport corridor across Pakistan. If successful, such infrastructure investments could help knit two dynamic continents, Europe and Asia -- home to a full 70% percent of the world's population and its resources -- into a unified market without peer on the planet. ..."
"... In January, to take advantage of Arctic waters opened by global warming, Beijing began planning for a "Polar Silk Road," a scheme that fits well with ambitious Russian and Scandinavian projects to establish a shorter shipping route around the continent's northern coast to Europe. ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. ..."
"... In addition to the fundamentals of military and economic power, "every successful empire," observes Cambridge University historian Joya Chatterji, "had to elaborate a universalist and inclusive discourse" to win support from the world's subordinate states and their leaders. ..."
"... China has nothing comparable. Its writing system has some 7,000 characters, not 26 letters. ..."
"... During Japan's occupation of Southeast Asia in World War II, its troops went from being hailed as liberators to facing open revolt across the region after they failed to propagate their similarly particularistic culture. ..."
"... A test of its attitude toward this system of global governance came in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled unanimously that China's claims to sovereignty in the South China Sea "are contrary to the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and without lawful effect." ..."
...Although they started this century on generally amicable terms, China
and the U.S. have, in recent years, moved toward military competition and open
economic conflict. When China was admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO)
in 2001, Washington was confident that Beijing would play by the established
rules and become a compliant member of an American-led international community.
There was almost
no awareness of what might happen when a fifth of humanity joined the world
system as an economic equal for the first time in five centuries.
By the time Xi Jinping became China's seventh president, a decade of rapid
economic growth averaging 11% annually and currency reserves surging toward
an unprecedented $4 trillion had created the economic potential for a rapid,
radical shift in the global balance of power. After just a few months in office,
Xi began tapping those vast reserves to launch a bold geopolitical gambit, a
genuine challenge to U.S. dominion over Eurasia and the world beyond. Aglow
in its status as the world's sole superpower after "winning" the Cold War, Washington
had difficulty at first even grasping such newly developing global realities
and was slow to react.
China's bid couldn't have been more fortuitous in its timing. After nearly
70 years as the globe's hegemon, Washington's dominance over the world economy
had begun to wither and its once-superior work force to lose its competitive
edge.
By 2016, in fact, the dislocations brought on by the economic globalization
that had gone with American dominion sparked a revolt of the dispossessed in
democracies worldwide and in the American heartland, bringing the self-proclaimed
"populist" Donald Trump to power.
Determined to check his country's decline, he has adopted an aggressive
and divisive foreign policy that has roiled long-established alliances in both
Asia and Europe and is undoubtedly giving that decline new impetus.
Within months of Trump's entry into the Oval Office, the world was already
witnessing a sharp rivalry between Xi's advocacy of a new form of global collaboration
and Trump's version of economic nationalism. In the process, humanity seems
to be entering a rare historical moment when national leadership and global
circumstances have coincided to create an opening for a major shift in the nature
of the world order.
Trump's Disruptive Foreign Policy
Despite their constant
criticism of Donald Trump's leadership, few among Washington's corps of
foreign policy experts have grasped his full impact on the historic foundations
of American global power. The world order that Washington built after World
War II rested upon what I've
called a "delicate duality": an American imperium of raw military and economic
power married to a community of sovereign nations, equal under the rule of law
and governed through international institutions such as the United Nations and
the World Trade Organization.
On the realpolitik side of that duality, Washington constructed a four-tier
apparatus -- military, diplomatic, economic, and clandestine -- to advance a
global dominion of unprecedented wealth and power. This apparatus rested on
hundreds of military bases in Europe and Asia that made the U.S. the first
power in history to dominate (if not control) the Eurasian continent.
Even after the Cold War ended, former national security adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski
warned that Washington would remain the world's preeminent power only as
long as it maintained its geopolitical dominion over Eurasia. In the decade
before Trump's election, there were, however, already signs that America's hegemony
was on a downward trajectory as its share of global economic power fell from
50% in 1950 to just
15% in 2017. Many financial forecasts now
project that China will surpass the U.S. as the world's number one economy
by 2030, if not before.
In this era of decline, there has emerged from President Trump's torrent
of tweets and off-the-cuff remarks a surprisingly coherent and grim vision of
America's place in the present world order. Instead of reigning confidently
over international organizations, multilateral alliances, and a globalized economy,
Trump evidently sees America standing alone and beleaguered in an increasingly
troubled world -- exploited by self-aggrandizing allies, battered by unequal
trade terms, threatened by tides of undocumented immigrants, and betrayed by
self-serving elites too timid or compromised to defend the nation's interests.
Instead of multilateral trade pacts like NAFTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), or even the WTO, Trump favors bilateral deals rewritten to the (supposed)
advantage of the United States. In place of the usual democratic allies
like Canada and Germany, he is trying to weave a web of personal ties to avowedly
nationalist and autocratic leaders of a sort he clearly admires: Vladimir Putin
in Russia, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Narendra Modi in India, Adel Fatah el-Sisi
in Egypt, and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Instead of old alliances like NATO, Trump favors loose coalitions of like-minded
countries. As he sees it, a resurgent America will carry the world along, while
crushing terrorists and dealing in uniquely personal ways with rogue states
like Iran and North Korea.
His version of a foreign policy has found its fullest
statement in his administration's December 2017 National Security Strategy.
As he took office, the nation, it claimed, faced "an extraordinarily dangerous
world, filled with a wide range of threats." But in less than a year of his
leadership, it insisted, "We have renewed our friendships in the Middle East
to help drive out terrorists and extremists America's allies are now contributing
more to our common defense, strengthening even our strongest alliances." Humankind
will benefit from the president's "beautiful vision" that "puts America First"
and promotes "a balance of power that favors the United States." The whole world
will, in short, be "lifted by America's renewal."
Despite such grandiose claims, each of President Trump's overseas trips
has been a mission of destruction in terms of American global power. Each, seemingly
by design, disrupted and possibly damaged alliances that have been the foundation
for Washington's global power since the 1950s. During the president's first
foreign trip in May 2017, he promptly
voiced withering complaints about the supposed refusal of Washington's European
allies to pay their "fair share" of NATO's military costs, leaving the U.S.
stuck with the bill and, in a fashion unknown to American presidents, refused
even to endorse the alliance's core principle of collective defense. It was
a position so extreme in terms of the global politics of the previous half-century
that he was later forced to formally
back down . (By then, however, he had registered his contempt for those
allies in an unforgettable fashion.)
During a second, no-less-divisive NATO visit in July, he charged that
Germany was "a captive of Russia" and pressed the allies to immediately
double their share of defense spending to a staggering 4% of gross domestic
product (a
level even Washington, with its monumental Pentagon budget, hasn't reached)
-- a demand they all ignored. Just days later, he again questioned the very
idea of a common defense,
remarking that if "tiny" NATO ally Montenegro decided to "get aggressive,"
then "congratulations, you're in World War III."
Moving on to England, he promptly kneecapped close ally Theresa May, telling
a British
tabloid that the prime minister had bungled her country's Brexit withdrawal
from the European Union and "killed off any chance of a vital U.S. trade deal."
He then went on to Helsinki for a summit with Vladimir Putin, where he visibly
abased himself before NATO's nominal nemesis, completely enough that there were
even brief, angry
protests
from leaders of his own party.
During Trump's major Asia tour in November 2017, he
addressed the Asian-Pacific Economic Council (APEC) in Vietnam, offering
an extended "tirade" against multilateral trade agreements, particularly the
WTO. To counter intolerable "trade abuses," such as "product dumping, subsidized
goods, currency manipulation, and predatory industrial policies," he swore that
he would always "put America first" and not let it "be taken advantage of anymore."
Having denounced a litany of trade violations that he termed nothing less than
"economic aggression" against America, he
invited everyone there to share his "Indo-Pacific dream" of the world as
a "beautiful constellation" of "strong, sovereign, and independent nations,"
each working like the United States to build "wealth and freedom."
Responding to such a display of narrow economic nationalism from the globe's
leading power, Xi Jinping had a perfect opportunity to play the world statesman
and he took it,
calling upon APEC to support an economic order that is "more open, inclusive,
and balanced." He spoke of China's future economic plans as an historic bid
for "interconnected development to achieve common prosperity on the Asian, European,
and African continents."
As China has lifted 60 million of its own people out of poverty in just a
few years and was committed to its complete eradication by 2020, so he urged
a more equitable world order "to bring the benefits of development to countries
across the globe." For its part, China, he assured his listeners, was ready
to make "$2 trillion of outbound investment" -- much of it for the development
of Eurasia and Africa (in ways, of course, that would link that vast region
more closely to China). In other words, he sounded like a twenty-first century
Chinese version of a twentieth-century American president, while Donald
Trump
acted
more like Argentina's former presidente Juan Perón, minus the medals. As
if to put another nail in the coffin of American global dominion, the remaining
11 Trans-Pacific trade pact partners, led by Japan and Canada,
announced major progress in finalizing that agreement -- without the United
States.
In addition to undermining NATO, America's Pacific alliances, long its historic
fulcrum for the defense of North America and the dominance of Asia, are eroding,
too. Even after 10 personal meetings and frequent phone calls between Japan's
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Donald Trump during his first 18 months in office,
the president's America First trade policy has
placed a "major strain" on Washington's most crucial alliance in the region.
First, he ignored Abe's
pleas and cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact and then, as
if his message hadn't been strong enough, he promptly imposed heavy
tariffs on Japanese steel imports. Similarly, he's
denounced the Canadian prime minister as "dishonest" and
mimicked Indian Prime Minister Modi's accent, even as he made chummy with
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and then
claimed ,
inaccurately , that his country was "no longer a nuclear threat."
It all adds up to a formula for further decline at a faster pace.
Beijing's Grand Strategy
While Washington's influence in Asia recedes, Beijing's grows ever stronger.
As China's currency reserves
climbed rapidly from $200 billion in 2001 to a peak of $4 trillion in 2014,
President Xi launched a new initiative of historic import. In September 2013,
speaking in Kazakhstan, the heart of Asia's ancient Silk Road caravan route,
he
proclaimed a "one belt, one road initiative" aimed at economically integrating
the enormous Eurasian land mass around Beijing's leadership. Through "unimpeded
trade" and infrastructure investment, he suggested, it would be possible to
connect "the Pacific and the Baltic Sea" in a proposed "economic belt along
the Silk Road," a region "inhabited by close to 3 billion people." It could
become, he predicted, "the biggest market in the world with unparalleled potential."
Within a year, Beijing had
established a Chinese-dominated Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank
with 56 member nations and an impressive $100 billion in capital, while launching
its own $40 billion Silk Road Fund for
private equity projects. When China convened what it called a "belt and
road summit" of 28 world leaders in Beijing in May 2017, Xi could, with good
reason,
hail his initiative as the "project of the century."
Although the U.S. media has often described the individual projects involved
in his "one belt, one road" project as
wasteful ,
sybaritic ,
exploitative , or even
neo-colonial , its sheer scale and scope merits closer consideration. Beijing
is expected to
put a mind-boggling $1.3 trillion into the initiative by 2027, the largest
investment in human history, more than 10 times the famed American Marshall
Plan, the only comparable program, which
spent a more modest $110 billion (when adjusted for inflation) to rebuild
a ravaged Europe after World War II.
Beijing's low-cost infrastructure
loans for 70 countries from the Baltic to the Pacific are already funding
construction of the Mediterranean's
busiest port at Piraeus, Greece, a major nuclear power plant in England,
a $6 billion
railroad through rugged Laos, and a $46 billion transport
corridor across Pakistan. If successful, such infrastructure investments
could help knit two dynamic continents, Europe and Asia -- home to a full 70%
percent of the world's population and its resources -- into a unified market
without peer on the planet.
Underlying this flurry of flying dirt and flowing concrete, the Chinese leadership
seems to have a design for transcending the vast distances that have historically
separated Asia from Europe. As a start, Beijing is building a comprehensive
network of trans-continental gas and oil pipelines to import fuels from Siberia
and Central Asia for its own population centers. When the system is complete,
there will be an integrated inland energy grid (including Russia's extensive
network of pipelines) that will extend 6,000 miles across Eurasia, from the
North Atlantic to the South China Sea. Next, Beijing is working to link Europe's
extensive rail network with its own expanded high-speed rail system via transcontinental
lines through Central Asia, supplemented by spur lines running due south to
Singapore and southwest through Pakistan.
Finally, to facilitate sea transport around the sprawling continent's southern
rim, China has already bought into or is in the process of building more than
30 major port facilities, stretching from the Straits of Malacca across
the Indian Ocean, around Africa, and along
Europe's extended coastline. In January, to take advantage of Arctic waters
opened by global warming, Beijing began
planning for a "Polar Silk Road," a scheme that fits well with ambitious
Russian and
Scandinavian projects to establish a shorter shipping route around the continent's
northern coast to Europe.
Though Eurasia is its prime focus, China is also pursuing economic expansion
in Africa and Latin America to create what might be dubbed the strategy of the
four continents. To tie Africa into its projected Eurasian network, Beijing
already had doubled its
annual trade there by 2015 to $222 billion, three times that of the United
States, thanks to a massive infusion of capital expected to reach a trillion
dollars by 2025. Much of it is financing the sort of commodities extraction
that has already made the continent China's second largest source of crude oil.
Similarly, Beijing has
invested heavily in Latin America, acquiring, for instance, control over
90% of Ecuador's oil reserves. As a result, its commerce with that continent
doubled in a decade, reaching $244 billion in 2017, topping U.S. trade with
what once was known as its own "backyard."
A Conflict with Consequences
This contest between Xi's globalism and Trump's nationalism has not been
safely confined to an innocuous marketplace of ideas. Over the past four years,
the two powers have engaged in an escalating military rivalry and a cutthroat
commercial competition. Apart from a
shadowy struggle for
dominance in space and cyberspace, there has also been a visible, potentially
volatile naval arms race to control the sea lanes surrounding Asia, specifically
in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. In a 2015 white paper, Beijing
stated
that "it is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force
structure commensurate with its national security." Backed by lethal land-based
missiles, jet fighters, and a global satellite system, China has built just
such a modernized fleet of 320 ships, including nuclear submarines and its first
aircraft carriers.
Within two years, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson
reported
that China's "growing and modernized fleet" was "shrinking" the traditional
American advantage in the Pacific, and warned that "we must shake off any vestiges
of comfort or complacency." Under Trump's latest $700-billion-plus defense budget,
Washington has responded to this challenge with a crash program to build 46
new ships, which will
raise its total to 326 by 2023. As China builds new naval bases bristling
with armaments in the Arabian and South China seas, the U.S. Navy has begun
conducting assertive "freedom-of-navigation" patrols near many of those same
installations, heightening the potential for conflict.
It is in the commercial realm of trade and tariffs, however, where competition
has segued into overt conflict. Acting on his
belief that "trade wars are good and easy to win," President Trump
slapped heavy tariffs, targeted above all at China, on steel imports in
March and, just a few weeks later, punished that country's intellectual property
theft by
promising tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports. When those tariffs
finally hit in July, China immediately
retaliated against what it called "typical trade bullying" with similar
tariffs on U.S. goods. The Financial Times
warned that this "tit-for-tat" can escalate into a "full bore trade war
that will be very bad for the global economy." As Trump
threatened to tax $500 billion more in Chinese imports and
issued confusing, even contradictory demands that made it unlikely Beijing
could ever comply, observers became
concerned that a long-lasting trade war could destabilize what the New
York Times called the "mountain of debt" that sustains much of China's
economy. In Washington, the usually taciturn Federal Reserve chairman issued
an uncommon
warning that "trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global
economy."
China as Global Hegemon?
Although a withering of Washington's global reach, abetted and possibly accelerated
by the Trump presidency, is already underway, the shape of any future world
order is still anything but clear. At present, China is the sole state with
the obvious requisites for becoming the planet's new hegemon. Its phenomenal
economic rise, coupled with its expanding military and growing technological
prowess, provide that country with the obvious fundamentals for superpower status.
Yet neither China nor any other state seems to have the full imperial complement
of attributes to replace the United States as the dominant world leader. Apart
from its rising economic and military clout, China, like its sometime ally Russia,
has a self-referential culture, non-democratic political structures, and a developing
legal system that could deny it some of the key instruments for global leadership.
In addition to the fundamentals of military and economic power, "every
successful empire,"
observes Cambridge University historian Joya Chatterji, "had to elaborate
a universalist and inclusive discourse" to win support from the world's subordinate
states and their leaders. Successful imperial transitions driven by the
hard power of guns and money also require the soft-power salve of cultural suasion
for sustained and successful global dominion. Spain espoused Catholicism and
Hispanism, the Ottomans Islam, the Soviets communism, France a cultural
francophonie , and Britain an Anglophone culture.
Indeed, during its century of global dominion from 1850 to 1940, Britain
was the exemplar par excellence of such soft power, evincing an enticing
cultural ethos of fair play and free markets that it propagated through the
Anglican church, the English language and its literature, and the virtual invention
of modern athletics (cricket, soccer, tennis, rugby, and rowing). Similarly,
at the dawn of its global dominion, the United States courted allies worldwide
through soft-power programs promoting democracy and development. These were
made all the more palatable by the appeal of such things as Hollywood films,
civic organizations like
Rotary International , and popular sports like basketball and baseball.
China has nothing comparable. Its writing system has some 7,000 characters,
not 26 letters. Its communist ideology and popular culture are remarkably, even
avowedly, particularistic. And you don't have to look far for another Asian
power that attempted Pacific dominion without the salve of soft power. During
Japan's
occupation of Southeast Asia in World War II, its troops went from being
hailed as liberators to facing open revolt across the region after they failed
to propagate their similarly particularistic culture.
As command-economy states for much of the past century, neither China nor
Russia developed an independent judiciary or the autonomous rules-based order
that undergirds the modern international system. From the foundation of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in 1899 through the formation of
the International Court of Justice under the U.N.'s 1945 charter, the world's
nations have aspired to the resolution of conflicts via arbitration or litigation
rather than armed conflict. More broadly, the modern globalized economy is held
together by a web of conventions, treaties, patents, and contracts grounded
in law.
From its founding in 1949, the People's Republic of China gave primacy to
the party and state, slowing the growth of an autonomous legal system and the
rule of law. A test of its attitude toward this system of global governance
came in 2016 when the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague
ruled unanimously that China's claims to sovereignty in the South China
Sea "are contrary to the Convention [on the Law of the Sea] and without lawful
effect." Beijing's Foreign Ministry simply
dismissed the adverse decision as "invalid" and without "binding force."
President Xi
insisted China's "territorial sovereignty and maritime rights" were unchanged,
while the state Xinhua news agency
called the ruling "naturally null and void."
If Donald Trump's vision of world disorder is a sign of the American future
and if Beijing's projected $2 trillion in infrastructure investments, history's
largest by far, succeed in unifying the commerce and transport of Asia, Africa,
and Europe, then perhaps the currents of financial power and global leadership
will indeed transcend all barriers and flow inexorably toward Beijing, as if
by natural law. But if that bold initiative ultimately fails, then for the first
time in five centuries the world may face an imperial transition without a clear
successor as global hegemon. Moreover, it will do so on a planet where the "
new normal " of
climate change -- the heating of the atmosphere and the
oceans , the intensification of flood, drought, and
fire , the rising seas that will
devastate coastal cities, and the
cascading damage to a densely populated world -- could mean that the very
idea of a global hegemon is fast becoming a thing of the past.
Alfred W. McCoy, a
TomDispatch regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity
in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture
of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the recently published
In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global
Power (Dispatch Books).
"... The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post foreign policy reporter: ..."
"... For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird. ..."
"... Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner. ..."
"... However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II ..."
"... And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S. government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski, "apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other's elections." ..."
"... We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance." ..."
"... "Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and government-overthrows ..."
William Blum shares with us his correspondence with
Washington Post presstitute Michael Birnbaum. As you can tell from Birnbaum's replies, he comes
across as either very stupid or as a CIA asset.
When I received my briefing as staff associate, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
which required top secret clearance, I was told by senior members of the staff that the
Washington Post was a CIA asset. Watching the Washington Post's takedown of President Richard
Nixon with the orchestrated Watergate story, that became obvious. President Nixon had made too
many overtures to the Soviets and too many arms limitations agreements, and he opened to China.
Watching President Nixon's peace initiatives water down the threat level from the Soviet Union
and Maoist China, the military/security complex saw a threat to its budget and power and
decided that Nixon had to go. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy had resulted in
far too much skepticism about the Warren Commission Report, so the CIA decided to use the
Washington Post to get rid of Nixon. To keep the clueless American left hating Nixon, the CIA
used its assets in the leftwing to keep Nixon blamed for the Vietnam war, a war that Nixon
inherited and did not want.
The CIA knew that Nixon's problem was that he could not exit the war without losing his
conservative base, which was convinced of the nonsensical "Domino Theory." I have always
wondered if the CIA concocted the "Domino Theory," as it so well served them. Unable to get rid
of the war "with honor," Nixon was driven to brutal methods to force the North Vietnamese to
accept a situation that he could depart without defeat and soiling America's "honor" and losing
his conservative support base. The North Vietnamese wouldn't bend, but the US Congress did, and
so the CIA succeeded in discrediting among both the leftwing and righwing Nixon's war
management. With no one to defend him, Nixon was an easy target for the CIA.
Here is Blum's exchange with Birnbaum. It is possible that Birnbaum is neither stupid nor a
CIA asset, but just a person wanting to hold on to a job. The last thing he can afford to do is
to disabuse readers of the "Russian Threat" when Bezos' Amazon and Washington Post properties
are dependent on the CIA's annual subsidy of $600 million disquised as a "contract."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-20/cia-washington-post-and-russia-what-youre-not-being-told
The Anti-Empire Report # 159 Willian Blum
The mind of the mass media: Email exchange between myself and a leading Washington Post
foreign policy reporter: July 18, 2018
Dear Mr. Birnbaum,
You write Trump "made no mention of Russia's adventures in Ukraine". Well, neither he nor Putin
nor you made any mention of America's adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the
overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure.
Therefore ?
If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in
Mexico? William Blum
Dear Mr. Blum,
Thanks for your note. "America's adventures in the Ukraine": what are you talking about? Last
time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and
run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn't the Americans who
did it.
It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014,
according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern
Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts. Best, Michael Birnbaum
To MB,
I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high
State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to
encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who
were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next
president. And he's the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch
Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a
while. William Blum
To WB,
I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months
and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a
credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to
the actual actors on the ground myself – that's my job.
And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she
clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with
potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for
overthrowing the government. I'm not saying the United States wasn't involved in trying to
shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver's seat
the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych
in November 2013; he's not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible
falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don't
stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the
Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will
find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US
foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific.
Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides. Best, Michael Birnbaum
======================= end of exchange =======================
Right, the United States doesn't play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments;
never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new
president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr
Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT "reports
fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time." "All the time", no less! That should make
it easy to give some examples.
For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And,
yes, it's bias, not "fake news" that's the main problem –
Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full
century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is
there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast?
Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that
when they do it can seem rather weird.
To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the
Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in
proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed
objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and
conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So
we're still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at
determining the winner.
The Russians did it (cont.)
Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I'm
looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something
logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from
influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK.
But I do not find such evidence.
Each day brings headlines like these:
"U.S. to add economic sanctions on Russia: Attack with nerve agent on former spy in England
forces White House to act"
"Is Russia exploiting new Facebook goal?"
"Experts: Trump team lacks urgency on Russian threat"
These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article,
but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in
America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY.
Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing
sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia's preference of Trump
over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn't begin to explain how Russia could pull off any
of the electoral magic it's accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were
a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.
There's the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads The people who are influenced by this
story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many
are both; many are neither. It's one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I've
read is that they come from money-making websites, "click-bait" sites as they're known, which
earn money simply by attracting visitors.
As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians
look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would
Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely
proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal
time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.
However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day
believe the official stories about the Russians. They're particularly impressed with the fact
that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at
all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is
alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.
But we're the Good Guys, ain't we?
For a defender of US foreign policy there's very little that causes extreme heartburn more
than someone implying a "moral equivalence" between American behavior and that of Russia. That
was the case during Cold War I and it's the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the
wall.
After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to
register as a "foreign agent", the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to
require foreign media to register as a "foreign agent". Senator John McCain denounced the new
Russian law, saying there is "no equivalence" between RT and networks such as Voice of America,
CNN and the BBC, whose journalists "seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments
accountable." By contrast, he said, "RT's propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek
to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin's agenda."
And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights
and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had "charged that the U.S.
government had interfered 'aggressively' in Russia's 2012 presidential vote," claiming that
Washington had "gathered opposition forces and financed them." Putin, wrote Malinowski,
"apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would
interfere in the other's elections."
"Is this moral equivalence fair?" Malinowski asked and answered: "In short, no. Russia's
interference in the United States' 2016 election could not have been more different from what
the United States does to promote democracy in other countries."
How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?
We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft
the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991: "A lot of what we do today
was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED's
wings wrote: "A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow's campaign of
political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance."
"Democracy assistance", you see, is what they call NED's election-interferences and
government-overthrows. The authors continue: "This narrative is churned out by propaganda
outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. it is deployed by isolationists who propound a
U.S. retreat from global leadership."
"Isolationists" is what [neo]conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they
can't easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don't want the US to be involved in
anything abroad.
And "global leadership" is what they call being first in election-interferences and
government-overthrows.
The FBI has been dealt a major blow after a Washington DC judge
ruled
that the agency must respond to a FOIA request
for documents concerning the bureau's
efforts to verify the controversial Steele Dossier,
before it was used as the foundation
of a FISA surveillance warrant application and subsequent renewals.
US District Court Judge Amit
Mehta - who in January sided with the FBI's decision to ignore the FOIA request, said that
President Trump's release of two House Intelligence Committee documents (the "Nunes" and "Schiff"
memos) changed everything.
Considering that the FBI offered Steele
$50,000
to
verify the Dossier's claims yet never paid him, BuzzFeed has unsuccessfully
tried
to do the same
to defend themselves in a dossier-related lawsuit, and a
$50 million Soros-funded investigation
to continue the hunt have turned up nothing that we
know of - whatever documents the FBI may be forced to cough up regarding their attempts to verify
the Dossier could prove highly embarrassing for the agency.
[I]f Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay
him $50,000 for his efforts
, according to two people familiar with the offer.
Ultimately,
he was not paid
. -
NYT
What's more,
forcing the FBI to prove they had an empty hand will likely embolden calls
to disband the special counsel investigation
- as the agency's mercenary and politicized
approach to "investigations" will be laid all the more bare for the world to see. Then again, who
knows - maybe the FBI verified everything in the dossier and it simply hasn't leaked.
That said, while the FBI will likely be forced to acknowledge the documents thanks to the
Thursday ruling, the agency will still be able to try and convince the judge that there are other
grounds to withhold the records.
In January, Mehta
blessed the FBI's decision
not to disclose the existence of any records containing the agency's
efforts to verify the dossier - ruling that Trump's tweets about the dossier didn't require the FBI
and other intelligence agencies to act on records requests.
"
But then the ground shifted
," writes Mehta of Trump declassifying the House
memos. "As a result of the Nunes and Schiff Memos, there is now in the public domain meaningful
information about how the FBI acquired the Dossier and how the agency used it to investigate
Russian meddling."
The DOJ also sought to distinguish between the Steele Dossier and a synopsis of the dossier
presented to both Trump and then-President Obama in 2016, however Mehta rejected the attempt,
writing "That position defies logic," while also rejecting the government's refusal to even say if
the FBI has a copy of that synopsis.
"It remains no longer logical nor plausible for the FBI to maintain that it cannot confirm nor
deny the existence of documents," Mehta wrote.
It is simply not plausible to believe that, to whatever extent the FBI has made efforts to
verify Steele's reporting, some portion of that work has not been devoted to allegations that
made their way into the synopsis. After all,
if the reporting was important enough to
brief the President-elect, then surely the FBI thought enough of those key charges to attempt to
verify their accuracy
. It will be up to the FBI to determine which of the records in
its possession relating to the reliability of the Dossier concerns Steele's reporting as
discussed in the synopsis.
"This ruling represents another incremental step in revealing just how much the FBI has been
able to verify or discredit the rather personal allegations contained in that synopsis derived from
the Steele dossier," said Brad Moss, a lawyer pressing the lawsuit for the pro-transparency group,
the James Madison Project. "It will be rather ironic if the president's peripheral actions that
resulted in this ruling wind up disclosing that the FBI has been able to corroborate any of the
'salacious' allegations."
In other words, the FBI must show what they did to verify the claims contained within the Nunes
and Schiff memos.
Because the case was heard on appeal, the ruling will not take immediate effect, notes
Politico
,
which
adds that the appeals court is now likely to remand the case to Mehta, while the FBI is going to
try and convince him the records should remain unreleased.
Strange how the alphabet soup agencies always seem to fight hardest
only when it comes to hiding embarrassing information from the
American people. Yet they wonder why we don't consider them all
civil servants and heroes.
Pat Buchanan demonstrates how so-called liberal America despises ordinary folks who don't
seem so "enlightened" such as crooks like Obama, Hillary Clinton, Cuomo, Brennan, Clapper,
Comey, Hayden. Not to speak of their disgusting infantry of the kind of the Strzoks and his
lover girl Lisa Page and their ilk, plus the biased media rascals that are in fact "the enemy
of the people" (deplorable).
What's going on in the US is unprecedented. The entire political or so-called liberal
establishment is fighting with every means at their disposal against a democratically elected
President. Together with the Deep State and its agent, Robert Mueller, they want to bring
Donald Trump down. It's only a question of time when the Deep State comes up with a kind of
Lee Harvey Oswald.
One good thing about Trump. He's a clown but he triggered so many in the Deep State to come
out of the woodwork and show their true face. And what a hideous lot.
I had no idea that the Deep State was so infested with lowlife scum.
"... The U.S. sets the main goals in negotiating with anyone and does not retreat an inch from the self-asserted goals. ..."
"... The U.S. does not offer anything in cash or immediate in return for what it receives in cash. It simply makes strong promises and tries to enchant the other side by mere promises. ..."
"... And in the final step, when things are over and the U.S. has received the cash, the immediate benefits, it breaches the same promises. ..."
The Iranian Supreme Leader even posted a special graphic summary to summarize and explain
the Iranian position:
This is the U.S. formula for negotiation:
Because U.S. officials depend on power and money, they consider
negotiations as a business deal.
The U.S. sets the main goals in negotiating with anyone and does
not retreat an inch from the self-asserted goals.
They demand the other side to give them immediate benefits and if
the other party refrains from giving in, the U.S. officials will create
an uproar so that their partner would give up.
The U.S. does not offer anything in cash or immediate in return for
what it receives in cash. It simply makes strong promises and tries
to enchant the other side by mere promises.
And in the final step, when things are over and the U.S. has received
the cash, the immediate benefits, it breaches the same promises.
This is the U.S.'s method of negotiation. Now, should one
negotiate with such a duplicitous government?
"... At that point, Lovinger wouldn't have known was a spy working with the FBI/DOJ on operation " Crossfire Hurricane " - the code name for the Obama administration's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Halper - an Oxford University professor, former US government official and longtime FBI / CIA asset (who was married to the CIA deputy director's daughter at one point), received over $400,000 for a 2016 contract which Lovinger complained about. ..."
"... According to USASpending.gov, Mr. Halper was paid $411,000 by Washington Headquarters Services on Sept. 26, 2016 , for a contract that ran until this March. - Washington Times ..."
"... In total, the American citizen teaching abroad received over $1 million from contracts dated between 2012 and 2016. ..."
"... "As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper ," wrote Bigley in the ethics complaint, which referred to the contracts as " cronyism and corruption ." ..."
"... " Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money ," said Bigley. "Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper's contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman . That was very unusual." ..."
"... A longtime CIA and FBI asset who once reportedly ran a spy-operation on the Jimmy Carter administration, Halper was enlisted by the FBI to spy on several Trump campaign aides during the 2016 U.S. election, including Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... The unassuming university professor approached Page during an election-themed conference at Cambridge on July 11, 2016, six weeks after the September 26 DoD award start date. The two would stay in contact for the next 14 months, frequently meeting and exchanging emails . ..."
"... And as the Daily Caller reported, Halper used a decades-old association with Paul Manafort to break the ice with Page. ..."
"... In the email to Page, Halper asks what his plans are post-election, possibly probing for more information. " It seems attention has shifted a bit from the 'collusion' investigation to the ' contretempts' [sic] within the White House and, how--or if--Mr. Scaramucci will be accommodated there," Halper wrote. ..."
A Pentagon whistleblower was stripped of his security clearance and demoted after complaining about questionable government contracts
with both FBI informant spy Stefan Halper and a company headed by Chelsea Clinton's "best friend" for whom then-Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton arranged meetings, reports the
Washington
Times .
Adam Lovinger, a Trump supporter and 12-year veteran of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA), filed a whistleblower reprisal
complaint with the Defense Department's inspector general in May against ONA boss James Baker - who hired Halper, 73, to "conduct
foreign relations" and kept the details of the spy's contracts "close to the vest." Baker was appointed chief of the ONA in 2015
by Obama Defense Secretary, Ashton Carter.
At that point, Lovinger wouldn't have known was a spy working with the FBI/DOJ on operation "
Crossfire Hurricane " - the code name for the Obama administration's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.
In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of " the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters
Services contracting with Stefan Halper ," the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to "conduct foreign relations,"
a job that should be confined to government officials.
...
In the fall of 2016, as the election loomed, Mr. Lovinger sent emails to Mr. Baker and other officials at the Office of Net
Assessment complaining about the entire outside contracting process. He also said the office failed to write papers on long-term
threats presented by radical Islam, China and Iran .
And in September 2016, Lovinger sent an email directly to
Baker summing up the perceived problems, which
reads in part:
"Some of our contractors distribute to others their ONA work for personal and professional self-promotion," wrote Lovinger.
"Another part is the growing narrative that ONA's most high-profile contractors are known for getting paid a lot to do rather
peripheral work ."
"On the issue of pay, our contractors boast about how much they get paid from ONA . Such boasting, of course, generates jealously
among those outside the club, and particularly from those who have tried to secure ONA contracts unsuccessfully."
"On the issue of quality, more than once I have heard our contractor studies labeled 'derivative,' 'college-level' and based
heavily on secondary sources . One of our contractor studies was literally cut and pasted from a World Bank report that I just
happened to have read the week before reading the contractor study itself. Even the font was the same."
Halper - an Oxford University professor, former US government official and longtime FBI / CIA asset (who was married to the CIA
deputy director's daughter at one point),
received over $400,000 for a 2016 contract which Lovinger complained about.
According to USASpending.gov, Mr. Halper was paid $411,000 by Washington Headquarters Services on Sept. 26, 2016 , for a contract
that ran until this March. -
Washington Times
In total, the American citizen teaching abroad received over
$1 million from contracts dated between 2012 and 2016.
Lovinger's attorney, Sean M. Bigley, filed the second of four complaints on July 18 with the Pentagon's senior ethics official,
claiming that Lovinger's bosses punished him on May 1, 2017 by abusing the security clearance process to yank his credentials and
relegate him to clerical chores. Lovinger's complaint also names the Washington Headquarters Services, a support agency within the
Pentagon that awarded the Halper contracts.
"As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none
other than Mr. Halper ," wrote Bigley in the ethics complaint, which referred to the contracts as " cronyism and corruption ."
" Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money ," said Bigley. "Adam said Jim Baker, the director,
kept Halper's contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted
out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman . That
was very unusual."
A longtime CIA and FBI asset who once reportedly
ran a spy-operation on the Jimmy Carter administration, Halper was enlisted by the FBI to spy on several Trump campaign aides
during the 2016 U.S. election, including Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.
Halper's $411,575 award came three days after a September 23
Yahoo! News article by Michael Isikoff about Trump aide Carter Page, which used information fed to Isikoff by "Steele dossier"
creator Christopher Steele . The FBI would use the Yahoo! article along with the largely unverified dossier as
supporting evidence in an FISA warrant application for Page.
The unassuming university professor approached Page during an election-themed conference at Cambridge on July 11, 2016, six weeks
after the September 26 DoD award start date. The two would stay in contact for the next 14 months,
frequently meeting and exchanging
emails .
He said that he first encountered the informant during a conference in mid-July of 2016 and that they stayed in touch. The
two later met several times in the Washington area. Mr. Page said their interactions were benign. -
New York
Times
And as the Daily Caller reported, Halper used a decades-old association with Paul Manafort to break the ice with Page.
Page noted that in their first conversation at Cambridge, Halper said he was longtime friends with then-campaign chairman Paul
Manafort . A person close to Manafort told TheDCNF that Manafort has not seen Halper since the Gerald Ford administration . Manafort
and Page are accused in the Steele dossier of having worked together on the campaign's collusion conspiracy, but both men say
they have never met. -
Daily Caller
Halper would continue to spy on Page after the election. Two days after the second installment of Halper's 2016 DoD contract,
On July 28, he emailed Page with what the Trump campaign aide describes as a "cordial" communication, which did not seem suspicious
to him at the time.
In the email to Page, Halper asks what his plans are post-election, possibly probing for more information. " It seems attention
has shifted a bit from the 'collusion' investigation to the ' contretempts' [sic] within the White House and, how--or if--Mr. Scaramucci
will be accommodated there," Halper wrote.
Clinton connection
The other complaint lodged by Lovinger concerns a string of contracts totaling $11 million to Long Term Strategy Group - a D.C.
consulting firm headed by self-described "best friend" of Chelseal Clinton, Jacqueline Newmyer Deal.
In October, the
Washington Free Beacon reported that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged meetings in 2009 between Deal and Pentagon
officials to discuss contracts - to which Deal says no award "resulted directly or indirectly from the actions or influence of Secretary
Clinton ."
According to one 2009 email, Clinton said she recommended Deal to Michele Flournoy, the newly installed undersecretary of defense
for policy, who was seeking young women to mentor.
Deal, a specialist in China affairs who worked at the White House as a press aide for First Lady Clinton in the 1990s, wrote
back to Clinton saying she would meet Flournoy on May 5, 2009, and stated "thank you very much for making this happen."
Later that month, Deal thanked Clinton for "all your encouragement and help with DoD, " shorthand for the Defense Department.
-
Free Beacon
In a statement, Deal said: "Jacqueline Deal and the Long Term Strategy Group (LTSG) are justifiably proud of their collaboration
with the US Department of Defense across multiple administrations over the last two decades, beginning under the administration of
President George W. Bush. LTSG's work has consistently earned the highest respect and confidence of its clientele in government and
has won LTSG a reputation for producing research and analysis of exceptional quality."
"... If convicted on all counts, Mr Manafort could face a sentence of up to 305 years in prison based on the maximum for each count, with the most serious charge carrying up to 30 years. However, if convicted, he likely would be given between seven and 12 years, according to a range of estimates from three sentencing experts interviewed by Reuters. ..."
"... Meanwhile Mr Mueller recommended in a court filing on Friday that a judge sentence former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos to up to six months in prison for lying to agents investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. ..."
Prosecutors accuse Mr Manafort of a complex effort to hide millions of dollars in income
from Ukrainian politicians.
Mr Ellies earlier refused to release the names of jurors, saying he has received threats and
fears for their safety as well.
The judge said he is currently under the protection of U.S. marshals. He declined to delve
into specifics, but said he's been taken aback by the level of interest in the trial.
President Trump earlier said the case was "sad" and described Mr Manafort as a "good
person."
If convicted on all counts, Mr Manafort could face a sentence of up to 305 years in
prison based on the maximum for each count, with the most serious charge carrying up to 30
years. However, if convicted, he likely would be given between seven and 12 years, according to
a range of estimates from three sentencing experts interviewed by Reuters.
Meanwhile Mr Mueller recommended in a court filing on Friday that a judge sentence
former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos to up to six months in prison for lying to
agents investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
"The government does not take a position with respect to a particular sentence to be
imposed, but respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration, within the applicable
guidelines range of zero to six months imprisonment is appropriate and warranted," Mr Mueller
said in the filing.
Mr Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in October to lying to FBI agents investigating possible
collusion between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia. He is scheduled to be sentenced
on Sept. 7.
There has been a dramatic shift in how the United States government carries out its business
internationally. Admittedly, Washington has had a tendency to employ force to get what it has
wanted ever since 9/11, but it also sometimes recognized that other countries had legitimate
interests and accepted there was a place for diplomacy to resolve issues short of armed
conflict. The Bush Administration reluctance to broaden its engagement in the Middle East after
it recognized that it had blundered with Iraq followed by Obama's relaxation of tensions with
Cuba and his negotiation of a nuclear agreement with Iran demonstrated that sanity sometimes
prevailed in the West Wing.
That willingness to be occasionally accommodating has changed dramatically, with the State
Department under Mike Pompeo currently more prone to deliver threats than any suggestions that
we all might try to get along. It would be reasonable enough to criticize such behavior because
it is intrinsically wrong, but the truly frightening aspect of it would appear to be that it is
based on the essentially neoconservative assumption that other countries will always back down
when confronted with force majeure and that the use of violence as a tool in international
relations is, ultimately, consequence free.
I am particularly disturbed with the consequence free part as it in turn is rooted in the
belief that countries that have been threatened or even invaded have no collective memory of
what occurred and will not respond vengefully when the situation changes. There have been a
number of stunningly mindless acts of aggression over the past several weeks that are
particularly troubling as they suggest that they will produce many more problems down the road
than solutions.
The most recent is the
new sanctioning of Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury England. For those not
following developments, last week Washington abruptly and
without any new evidence being presented, imposed additional trade sanctions on Russia in
the belief that Moscow ordered and carried out the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter
Yulia on March 4th. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia
Skripal has
recently announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the
conclusion that even one of the alleged victims does not believe the narrative being promoted
by the British and American governments.
Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a
tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now
believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent exchanges
between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise,
suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign
policy.
Turkey is also feeling America's wrath over the continued detention of an American
Protestant Pastor Andrew Brunson by Ankara over charges that he was connected to the coup
plotters of 2016, which were allegedly directed by Fetullah Gulen, a Muslim religious leader,
who now resides in Pennsylvania. Donald Trump has made the detention the
centerpiece of his Turkish policy, introducing sanctions and tariffs that have led in part
to a collapse of the Turkish lira and a run on the banking system which could easily lead to
default and grave damage to European banks that hold a large party of the country's debt.
And then there is perennial favorite Iran, which was hit with reinstated
sanctions last week and is confronting a ban on oil sales scheduled to go into effect on
November 4th. The US has said it will sanction any country that buys Iranian oil after that
date, though a number of governments including Turkey, India and China appear to be prepared to
defy that demand. Several European countries are reportedly preparing mechanisms that will
allow them to trade around US restrictions.
What do Russia, Turkey and Iran have in common? All are on the receiving end of punitive
action by the United States over allegations of misbehavior that have not been demonstrated.
Nobody has shown that Russia poisoned the Skripals, Turkey just might have a case that the
Reverend Brunson was in contact with coup plotters, and Iran is in full compliance with the
nuclear arms agreement signed in 2015. One has to conclude that the United States has now
become the ultimate angry imperial power, lashing out with the only thing that seems to work
– its ability to interfere in and control financial markets – to punish nations
that do not play by its rules.
Given Washington's diminishing clout worldwide, it is a situation that is unsustainable and
which will ultimately only really punish the American people as the United States becomes more
isolated and its imperial overreach bankrupts the nation. As America weakens, Russia, Turkey,
Iran and all the other countries that have been steamrolled by Washington will likely seek
revenge. To avoid that, a dramatic course correction by the US is needed, but, unfortunately,
is unlikely to take place.
According to leading analysts, America decided to take such a tough step because of
Washington's desire to restrain the development of our state as much as possible. However, it
is already clear that such actions on the part of American colleagues will only worsen
relations between the two superpowers. The new sanctions package altogether nullifies all
previous agreements.
"All the positive aspects that have emerged after the meeting of the two presidents in
Helsinki, of course, will be almost completely leveled," the media quoted the statement of the
head of the center for military and political studies Vladimir Batyuk.
According to him, the actions of the us administration threaten with negative consequences,
extremely complicating the further dialogue between Washington and Moscow.
First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on international Affairs Vladimir
dzhabarov, commenting on the situation, said - the United States is trying to "trim the wings"
of Russia.
"The reason is banal – they are trying to restrain the development of Russia. The
Americans themselves understand that our country is now deploying its wings, Russia is on the
rise, it can become a powerful competitor both economically and militarily. Therefore at any
cost try to constrain us", – the member of the Federation Council spoke.
According to dzhabarov, our country has long understood that Russia has no partners in
America. The US is engaged in dirty methods of competition, using a variety of levers to
squeeze Moscow from the EU energy markets.
"But it's useless. The history they, probably, not teaching. Let them read what the
sanctions against Russia led to, " the Senator added.
We will remind, on August 8, the U.S. state Department announced the introduction of new
restrictive measures against Russia. This package of anti-Russian sanctions includes a ban on
the supply of dual-use products to Russia, a decrease in the level of diplomatic relations, an
almost complete cessation of us exports, as well as a ban on flights to the States of the
Russian company Aeroflot.
"... (labs in several countries including the UK have also manufactured it) ..."
"... still refuses to say any such thing ..."
"... Look at this paragraph: ..."
"... "Russia is the official successor state to the USSR. As such, Russia legally took responsibility for ensuring the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] applies to all former Soviet Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities." ..."
"... It does not need me to point out, that if Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as made in Russia, the FCO ..."
"... would not have added that paragraph. Plainly they cannot say it was made in Russia. ..."
"... In short, the ruling cited above, even if read in the most improbably forgiving way possible, shows the UK government does not have the information to warrant any of the claims it has so far made about Russian state involvement in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. It shows the UK government is currently guilty of lying to Parliament, to the British people, and to the world. ..."
"... Imposition of Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act Sanctions on Russia ..."
"... Press Statement ..."
"... Department Spokesperson ..."
"... Following the use of a "Novichok" nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals. ..."
"... Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22, 2018. ..."
All of the sanctions (economic, diplomatic, and otherwise) against Russia are based on
clearly demonstrable intentional falsehoods; and the sanctions which were announced on August
8th are just the latest example of this consistent tragic fact -- a fact which will be proven
here, with links to the evidence, so that anyone who reads here can easily see that all of
these sanctions are founded on lies against Russia.
The latest of these sanctions were announced on Wednesday August 8 th . Reuters
headlined
"US imposes sanctions on Russia for nerve agent attack in UK" and reported that,
"Washington said on Wednesday it would impose fresh sanctions on Russia by the end of August
after it determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent against a former Russian agent and his
daughter in Britain." This was supposedly because "Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russia's
GRU military intelligence service, and his 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, were found slumped
unconscious on a bench in the southern English city of Salisbury in March after a liquid form
of the Novichok type of nerve agent was applied to his home's front door. European countries
and the United States expelled 100 Russian diplomats after the attack, in the strongest action
by President Donald Trump against Russia since he came to office."
However, despite intense political pressure that the UK Government and 'news'media had
placed upon the UK's Porton Down intelligence laboratory to assert that the poison had been
made in Russia (labs in several countries including the UK have also manufactured it)
, the Porton Down lab refused to say this. Though the US Government is acting as ifPorton
Down's statement "determined that Moscow had used a nerve agent," the actual fact is that
Porton Down still refuses to say any such thing , at all -- this allegation is merely
a fabrication by the US Government, including its allies, UK's Government and other Governments
and their respective propaganda-media. It's a bald lie.
On March 18th, the great British investigative journalist and former British diplomat Craig
Murray had headlined about UK's Foreign Secretary,
"Boris Johnson Issues Completely New Story on Russian Novichoks" and he pointed to the key
paragraph in the Porton Down lab's statement on this matter -- a brief one-sentence
paragraph:
Look at this paragraph:
"Russia is the official successor state to the USSR. As such, Russia legally took
responsibility for ensuring the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention] applies to all former Soviet
Chemical Weapons stocks and facilities."
It does not need me to point out, that if Porton Down had identified the nerve agent as
made in Russia, the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office -- UK's foreign ministry]
would not have added that paragraph. Plainly they cannot say it was made in
Russia.
Murray's elliptical report, which unfortunately was unclearly written -- it was rushed, in
order to be able to published on the same day, March 18 th , when the UK's official
response to the Porton Down lab's analysis was published -- was subsequently fully explained on
March 23 rd at the excellent news-site Off-Guardian, which specializes in
investigating and interpreting the news-media (in this case, Craig Murray's article, and the
evidence regarding it); they headlined "Skripal
case: 'closely related agent" claim closely examined'," and concluded their lengthy and
detailed analysis:
In short, the ruling cited above, even if read in the most improbably forgiving way
possible, shows the UK government does not have the information to warrant any of the claims it
has so far made about Russian state involvement in the alleged poisoning of the Skripals. It
shows the UK government is currently guilty of lying to Parliament, to the British people, and
to the world.
Nothing has been published further about the Skripal/Novichoks matter since then, except
speculation that's based on the evidence which was discussed in detail in that March 23
rd article at Off-Guardian.
On the basis of this -- merely an open case which has never been examined in more detail
than that March 23rd analysis did -- the Skripal/Novichok case has been treated by the UK
Government, and by the US Government, and by governments which are allied with them, and by
their news-media, as if it were instead a closed case, in which what was made public
constitutes proof that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government. On that
blatantly fraudulent basis, over a hundred diplomats ended up being expelled.
The Porton Down lab still refuses to say anything that the UK Government can quote
as an authority confirming that the Skripals had been poisoned by the Russian Government.
All that's left of the matter, then, is a cold case of official lies asserting that proof
has been presented, when in fact only official lies have been presented to the public.
This is the basis upon which the US State Department, on August 8th, issued the following
statement to 'justify' its new sanctions:
Imposition of Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act
Sanctions on Russia
Press Statement
Heather Nauert
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
August 8, 2018
Following the use of a "Novichok" nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate UK citizen
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal, the United States, on August 6, 2018, determined
under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act)
that the Government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in
violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its
own nationals.
Following a 15-day Congressional notification period, these sanctions will take effect
upon publication of a notice in the Federal Register, expected on or around August 22,
2018.
US law is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" -- the opposite of legal systems in
which the contrary assumption applies: "guilty until proven innocent." However, regarding such
matters as invading and destroying Iraq in 2003 upon the basis of no authentic evidence; and
invading and destroying Libya in 2011 on the basis of no authentic proof of anyone's guilt; and
on the basis of invading and for years trying to destroy Syria on the basis of America's
supporting Al Qaeda in Syria against Syria's secular government; and on the basis of lying
repeatedly against Russia in order to load sanction after sanction upon Russia and to 'justify'
pouring its missiles and thousands of troops onto and near Russia's border as if preparing to
invade 'the world's most aggressive country' -- the US federal Government routinely violates
that fundamental supposition of its own legal system ("innocent until proven guilty"), whenever
its rulers wish. And yet, it calls itself a 'democracy'.
Donald Trump constantly says that he seeks improved relations with Russia, but when his own
State Department lies like that in order to add yet further to the severe penalties that it had
previously placed against Russia for its presumed guilt in the Skripal/Novichok matter, then
Trump himself is publicly exposing himself as being a liar about his actual intentions
regarding Russia. He, via his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's State Department, not only is
punishing Russia severely for this unproven allegation, but now adds yet further penalties
against Russia for it. Trump is being demanded by the US Congress to do this, but it is his
choice whether to go along with that demand or else expose that it's based on lies. He likes to
accuse his opponents of lying, but, quite obviously, the members of Congress who are demanding
these hiked rounds of sanctions against Russia are demanding him to do what he actually wants
to do -- which is now clearly demonstrated to be the exact opposite of exposing those lies. If
Trump is moving toward World War III on the basis of lies, then the only way he can stop doing
it is by exposing those lies. He's not even trying to do that.
Nothing is being said in the State Department's cryptic announcement on August 8th that sets
forth any reasonable demand which the US Government is making to the Russian Government, such
that, if the reasonable demand becomes fulfilled by Russia's Government, then the United States
Government and its allies will cease and desist their successive, and successively escalating,
rounds of punishment against Russia.
Russia is being offered no path to peace, but only the reasonable expectation of
escalating lie-based American 'justifications' to perpetrate yet more American-and-allied
aggressions against Russia.
There have been three prior US excuses for applying prior rounds of sanctions against
Russia, and all of them have likewise been based upon lies, and varnished with many layers of
overstatements.
First, in 2012, there was the Magnitsky Act, which was based upon frauds (subsequently
exposed here
and
here and
here ) which assert that Sergei Magnitsky was murdered by the Russian Government. The
evidence (as linked-to there) is conclusive that he was not; but the US Government and its
allies refuse even to consider it.
Then, in 2014, Crimea broke away from Ukraine and joined the Russian Federation, and the US
and its allies allege that this was because Russia under Putin 'seized' Crimea from Ukraine, when in fact
America under Obama had, just weeks prior to that Crimean breakaway, seized Ukraine and turned
it against Russia and against Crimea and the other parts of Ukraine which had voted
overwhelmingly for the democratically elected Ukrainian President whom the Obama regime had
just overthrown in a
bloody coup that had been in the planning ever
since at least 2011 inside the Obama Administration . Several rounds of US-and-allied
economic sanctions were imposed against Russia for that -- for the constant string of lies
against Russia, and of constant cover-ups of
"the most blatant coup in history," which had preceded and caused the breakaway.
These lies originated with Obama; and Trump accuses Obama of lying, but not on this, where
Obama really did lie, psychopathically
. Instead, Trump makes those lies bipartisan. On what counts the most against Obama, Trump
seconds the Obama-lies, instead of exposing them. And yet Trump routinely has accused Obama as
having lied, even on matters where it's actually Trump who has been lying about Obama.
Then, there have been the anti-Russia sanctions that are based upon Russiagate and 'Trump is
Putin's stooge and stole the election.' That case against Russia has not been proven, and
Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange says that what he had published were leaks from the DNC and
Podesta's computer, not hacks at all; and yet the sanctions were imposed almost as soon as the
Democratic Party's accusations started. Those sanctions, too, are utterly baseless except as
being alleged responses to unproven (and likely false) allegations . Furthermore, even in
the worst-case scenario: the US Government itself routinely overthrows foreign governments, and
continues tapping the phones and electronic communications of foreign governments, and
manipulating elections abroad. Even in the worst-case scenario, Russia hasn't done anything
that historians haven't already proven that the US Government itself routinely does. That's the
case even if Russia is guilty as charged, on all of the U.S-and-allied
accusations.
Either the lies will stop, or else we all will. Trump, as usual, is on the
wrong side of the lies . And he seems to be too much of a coward to oppose them, in these
cases, which are the most dangerous lies of all. This is how we could all end. Doing something
heroic that would stop it, seems to be way beyond him -- he doesn't even try. That's the type
of cowardice which should be feared, and despised, the most of all. Trump has taken up Obama's
worst, and he runs with it. Trump had promised the opposite, during his Presidential campaign.
But this is the reality of Trump -- a profoundly filthy liar -- at least insofar as he has,
thus far, shown himself to be. What he will be in the future is all that remains in question.
But this is what he has been, up till now.
The most embarrassing outcome will turn out to be that they actually did nothing to verify
the Steele dossier. Why would they question it? They wanted to use it as a political tool. Do
I question and inspect a hammer before I swing it?
Barring that, if they did try to verify it, their complete and utter stupidity will see
the light of day.
In either case they are truly fucked by this court order.
So the FBI's position is that they cannot confirm nor deny the existence of documents to
confirm or deny the truth of the dossier, but they used it in the FISA warrants. But the
procedure required for the warrants are that all information must be verified, so those
documents need to exist. So the FBI is admitting that they did not follow the required
procedure. That makes the warrants void, which means that all information obtained that way
is mute, and thus the entire case collapses. Further, filling a warrant request where the
rules have not been followed is perjury, making everyone who signed it guilty of a criminal
offense against the court.
That might have been true .then. However, Bannon was never the puppet master (Trump is a
capitalist who has never listened to anyone else apart from his own messy ego in his life: the
idea that he would be a puppet for anyone, Bannon, Putin or whatever, is risible). Without
wanting to raise from the dead the 'Trump is teh Hitler' meme: there is a very very tiny grain
of truth in it, just as there is a very very tiny grain of truth in the right wing idea that
Hitler was a socialist because his party had the word 'socialist' in it. Hitler's initial
programme really did have a tiny element of 'socialism' in it, and some elements of the working
class (shamefully) swallowed the lies and gained him votes.
But it was never real and Hitler was never going to deliver. He dealt with the Brownshirts
(the most authentically 'working class' and 'socialist' part of the Nazi movement) in the Night
of the Long Knives, and from that point on, the 'socialist' parts of the Nazi programme were
steadily ditched, as the regime became more and more strongly right wing throughout the
'30s.
Same with Trump (in this respect only). It's true that in the run up to the election he
threw some scraps to the working class, and some of his protectionist rhetoric swung him some
states in the Rust Belt. Some union supporters, to their shame, trooped along to the White
House soon after.
But Trump, a right wing Republican who is, as I've said, far more orthodox a Republican than
the media would have you believe, was never going to deliver. Bannon was the most 'left wing'
of Trump's circle (and as his admiration for Thatcher makes clear, he was never very left wing)
and he was quickly cast out. Trump did not, in fact, 'drain the swamp' and nor did he try. His
major economic policy has turned out to be .tax cuts for the rich. And he has totally failed to
follow through on the (interesting) isolationist rhetoric he used in his election campaign
(despite the fact that some of us hoped otherwise). He has turned out to be as much of a
warmonger as Obama or even Bush jr (even towards Russia, again despite what the media would
have you believe).
And we haven't heard too much about that 'trillion dollar' investment in infrastructure
recently have we?
The problem is that the Democrats have concentrated on the (mainly trivial and
uninteresting) ways in which Trump differs from previous Republican Presidents (the lies, the
silly tweets, the dubious rhetoric) and have therefore persuaded themselves that this
'unorthodox' President will have to be removed by 'unorthodox means'. 'Tain't so. Trump will be
removed the only way any President (except Nixon) has ever been removed since the dawn of the
Republic: by the opposing party organising, developing a strong program that people can believe
in, and getting out the core vote. No election has ever been won any other way. In the case of
the Democrats this means using the might and money of organised labour and activists to get
candidates who can inspire and who have a genuinely progressive message that resonates with
people.
Democrats, #Russiagate will not save you. Getting your core vote out to vote for a genuinely
progressive candidate, will.
Likbez
@Hidari 08.18.18 at 6:41 pm
Powerful post and a veryclear thinking. Thank you !
Also an interesting analogy with NSDAP the 25-point Plan of 1928
Hitler's initial programme really did have a tiny element of 'socialism' in it, and some
elements of the working class (shamefully) swallowed the lies and gained him votes.
But it was never real, and Hitler was never going to deliver. He dealt with the Brownshirts
(the most authentically 'working class' and 'socialist' part of the Nazi movement) in the Night
of the Long Knives, and from that point on, the 'socialist' parts of the Nazi programme were
steadily ditched, as the regime became more and more strongly right wing throughout the
'30s.
Same with Trump (in this respect only). It's true that in the run-up to the election he
threw some scraps to the working class, and some of his protectionist rhetoric swung him some
states in the Rust Belt. Some union supporters, to their shame, trooped along to the White
House soon after.
Actually NSAP program of 1928 has some political demands which are to the left of Sanders
such as "Abolition of unearned (work and labor) incomes", ".We demand the nationalization of
all (previous) associated industries (trusts)." and "We demand a division of profits of all
heavy industries."
7.We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood
and way of life for the citizens... ... ...
... ... ...
9.All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10.The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or
physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality,
but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.
Consequently, we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands
of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the
people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate
communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the
utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or
municipality.
17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free
expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and
prevention of all speculation in land.
18.We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the
general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be
punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
... ... ...
21.The state is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and
child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the
legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all
organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
22.We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
23.We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press...
.... ... ...
24.We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as
they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race...
But I think Trump was de-facto impeached with the appointment of Mueller. And that was the
plan ( "insurance" as Strzok called it). Mueller task is just to formalize impeachment.
Pence already is calling the shots in foreign policy via members of his close circle (which
includes Pompeo). The recent "unilateral" actions of State Department are a slap in the face
and, simultaneously, a nasty trap for Trump (he can cancel those sanctions only at a huge
political cost to himself) and are a clear sign that Trump does not control even his
administration. Here is how <a
href="http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/august/17/america-the-punitive/">Philip
Giraldi</a> described this obvious slap in the face:
The most recent is the new sanctioning of Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury
England. For those not following developments, last week Washington abruptly and without any
new evidence being presented, imposed additional trade sanctions on Russia in the belief that
Moscow ordered and carried out the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia on March
4th. The report of the new sanctions was particularly surprising as Yulia Skripal has recently
announced that she intends to return to her home in Russia, leading to the conclusion that even
one of the alleged victims does not believe the narrative being promoted by the British and
American governments.
Though Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with restraint, avoiding a
tit-for-tat, he is reported to be angry about the new move by the US government and now
believes it to be an unreliable negotiating partner. Considering the friendly recent exchanges
between Putin and Trump, the punishment of Russia has to be viewed as something of a surprise,
suggesting that the president of the United States may not be in control of his own foreign
policy.
From the very beginning, any anti-globalization initiative of Trump was sabotaged and often
reversed. Haley is one example here. She does not coordinate some of her actions with Trump or
the Secretary of State unliterary defining the US foreign policy.
Her ambitions worry Trump, but he can so very little: she is supported by Pence and Pence
faction in the administration. Rumors "Haley/Pence 2020" surfaced and probably somewhat poison
atmosphere in the WH.
Add to this that Trump has hostile to him Justice Department, CIA, and FBI. He also does not
control some critical appointments such as the recent appointment of CIA director (who in no
way can be called Trump loyalist).
Which means that in some ways Trump already is a hostage and more ceremonial President than
a real.
In Part 1 we referenced the infamous hysteria triggered in Salem Massachusetts by Betty
Parris (age 9) and Abigail Williams (age 12).
In 1692 their prepubescent imaginations were apparently more than capable of detecting the
evil doings of witches at loose in their community; and a population hopped up with Calvinist
enthusiasm for the supernatural works of the Almighty apparently was also capable of lapsing
into collective madness – at least for a spell.
But who would have thought that in the year 2018 the grizzled adults and racketeers who
populate the Imperial City would fall prey to the same momentary outbreak of deliriums?
After all, Vladimir Putin was the very same Putin who made a mere cameo appearance in the
2012 presidential debates. He got an honorable mention when Barack Obama appropriately schooled
Mitt Romney on the fact that Russia was not America's principal national security threat.
Indeed, the MSM commentators who are shrieking about Trump's parlay with Vlad today were
knowingly furrowing their brows about Romney's alleged gaffe back then.
So the question at hand is what changed? How did the politics as usual debating points about
the status of Russia and Putin only 69 months ago turn into a veritable Salem style
hysteria?
We'd suggest two pivotal events turned the Imperial City upside down. To wit, Barry lost his
nerve in August 2013 on the Syrian red line and Donald Trump won the 2016 election in the red
zones of Flyover America.
In between, the mainstream media completely lost its grasp on reality as the Imperial City
dove headlong into it latest and greatest Indispensable Nation adventures by intervening in
Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Yemen, and Iraq for the third time.
The Indispensable Nation conceit, of course, is the ultimate cover story for the work of
Empire and is the polar opposite of the rudimentary America First notions on which Donald Trump
rode into the White House.
As it happened, the Indispensable Nation meme flourished when the neocons and liberal
interventionists became ascendant during the Clinton and early Bush 43 era; and they virtually
ran the policy tables after 9/11 as the full-throated War on Terrorism cranked up a powerful
head of steam.
Nevertheless, the acolytes of Empire nearly lost their political lunch when Shock & Awe
in Iraq turned into a bloody quagmire and the retaliation against the Taliban for harboring the
9/11 conspirators ended up as an endless trillion dollar war in the Hindu Kush.
That's why the peace candidate won in 2008. And it didn't matter that Barrack Obama was an
utterly unqualified greenhorn Senator and former part-time law professor and community
organizer who had no more claim to the Oval Office in his day than the Donald did this time
around.
But Barry was too much the quick study by half. Rather than dismantle the rogue postwar
Empire of the neocons and militarists, he sought to make it smarter and more deft. So he
populated his national security team with moderate neocons like Robert Gates, Leon Panetta,
David Petraeus and Victoria Nuland and a posse of liberal interventionists including Hillary
Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power.
Our point here is not simply that peace never had a chance with that crowd in charge of
policy; it's that the outbreak of the so-called Arab Spring in early 2011 triggered a toxic
brew of interventionist enthusiasm among Barry's foreign policy team that quickly metastasized
into R2P (responsibility to protect) madness in Libya and Syria.
Needless to say, even a newly arrived Martian visitor in 2011 what have been scratching his
head about Libya.
In his advancing old age, Khadafy had turned himself into a model non-proliferator and
exclusively inward focused tyrant. Libya thus posed a threat to exactly no one outside its own
borders; and it was just plain laughable as a matter of concern to the security of the American
homeland.
But Hillary and her posse famously danced on Khadafy's grave after NATO-enabled terrorists
brought about his brutal demise. So doing, they learned a dangerously erroneous lesson.
Namely, that uncooperative dictators who purportedly threatened their citizens with
genocidal repression could be clinically removed for a few billions worth of bombs, drones and
aid to local rebels.
That proposition really had nothing to do with homeland security in America and was belied
by the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now the "smart" people were in charge, and both
Libya and Egypt were proof they knew how to make Regime Change happen with a minimum of muss
and fuss.
Yet any intelligent reading of the impossible sectarian politics of Syria put the lie to
that conceit in a heartbeat.
Indeed, given the 40-year history of the Assad family business built around Baathist
secularism and a protective umbrella for Syria's numerous minority confessions – Alawite,
Druse, Shiite, Christian, Jewish, Kurd etc. – the very idea of arming Sharia-spouting
Sunni Arabs to overthrow the Assad regime was sheer lunacy.
So whatever the immediate origins and allegedly peaceful intentions of the anti-Assad
uprising in the spring of 2011, it did not take long for these clashes to degenerate into
bloody urban warfare.
And it did not take a lot of figuring to also see that arming Muslim Brotherhood sectarians
was absolutely guaranteed to generate a violent response from Damascus. That's because the
Brotherhood had been the historic vanguard of Sunni religious opposition to the Baathist
secularism of the Assad regime; and had been brutally suppressed by the senior Assad in the
1980s.
Beyond that, it was also a given that the Shiite polities on either side of Syria's borders
would likely come to Assad's aid. That is, the Iranians in the east and Hezbollah across the
southwest border in Lebanon – to say nothing of the regime's longtime Russian patrons,
whose only naval base in the Mediterranean was located on Syria's tiny slice of coastline.
In any event, Obama's neocons and R2P liberals threw every caution to the wind. In going all
in for regime change and demonizing Assad as a butcher who used barrel bombs and chemical
weapons against innocent civilians, they maneuvered Obama – newly feisty as the slayer of
Osama bin-Laden – into drawing his famous red line on the use of chemical weapons.
Needless to say, that was catnip to the Nusra Front and ISIS jihadists who dominated the
armed opposition. It did not take long for them to mount a false flag attack in Ghouta in
August 2013, which horrified the social media connected world when 1300 civilians suffered
gruesome deaths from what was apparently sarin gas.
Only later did rocket experts demonstrate that the sarin had been delivered by short-range
projectiles launched from jihadist controlled areas outside of Damascus, not by Assad's forces
15-20 miles away. But at the moment, the job was done: Obama was on the hot-seat of his own
foolishly drawn red line – exactly where the jihadist and his own interventionists wanted
him.
When he attempted to escape the trap by punting the decision to bomb Assad to Capitol Hill,
however, Cool Hand Vlad saw his opening. To wit, he quickly brokered a deal with Assad to have
his entire chemical weapons arsenal removed and destroyed under international supervision.
That was operationally executed by the acknowledged neutral experts at the OPCW
(Organization For The Prevention of Chemical Weapons) and there is little doubt that the
preponderant share of Assad's arsenal was eliminated.
Yet for that act of constructive statesmanship, the neocons and liberal interventionists
never forgave Putin. Then and there he became Bad Vlad because his action on chemical weapons
but the kibosh on Washington's excuse for regime change in Damascus.
In fact, the War Party interventionists of both stripes – neocons and R2P liberals
– went on the all-out attack in September 2013, transforming Putin from the also
mentioned adversary of the Obama-Romney debate one year earlier into a veritable
demon . Hillary now even insisted his was a modern day Adolph Hitler.
As it happened, the duly elected President of Ukraine chose that same fall to pursue an
economic bailout deal with Moscow to rescue his country's debt-laden, corruption ridden
post-Soviet economy; and he did so in lieu of the far less attractive deal that had been
offered by the west through the EC, IMF and Washington.
Not surprisingly, that wholly appropriate decision by the leader of a sovereign nation
became exactly the opening for the Washington interventionists to strike hard at Putin and
Russia.
We have detailed elsewhere how the so-called Maidan uprising on the streets of Kiev in
February was funded, organized and enabled by Washington and its cadres of operators from the
CIA, NED, State and sundry NGOs; and how that divided the country to the quick politically when
Washington installed and recognized a radical nationalist government that immediately moved
against the Russian speaking populations of the Donbas and Crimea.
Indeed, enabling the Kiev coup and instantly recognizing the crony capitalists, ruffians and
neo-Nazi nationalists who formed the new government was the single stupidest act of peace
candidate Barry's entire presidency.
But by then the interventionists were in high dudgeon. So there was no stopping their
virtually instantaneous demonization of Russia and Putin for actions which were self-evidently
driven by Russia's vital national interests in it own backyard – not some kind of
aggressive quest for territory or lebensraum.
To wit, Putin did not "seize" Crimea like it was some country in the Benelux that he
coveted. To the contrary, Crimea was virtually Russian to the core after it was purchased by
Catherine the Great in 1783 and thereafter when Sevastopol become the homeport for the great
black sea fleet of czars and commissars alike.
For crying out loud, Crimea was never part of Ukraine until Khrushchev had the
Soviet Presidium transfer it in 1954 from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet
Republic as a gift to his Ukrainian compatriots who had stood with him the bloody struggle for
Stalin's succession.
So Washington decided to declare economic war on Russia through Obama's idiotic sanctions in
order to make sure that the dead hand of the Soviet Presidium's writ is enforced 64 years
later.
Besides, Russia did conduct a referendum which was fair by all objective accounts; and under
which 83% of the eligible voters elected to return to Mother Russia after what had been an
historical short interlude of rule by the Ukrainian state. Among other things, the
overwhelmingly Russian speaking population of Crimea as not enthusiastic about being culturally
"cleansed" the Ukrainian nationalists who now ruled in Kiev.
Likewise with the Donbas and the other nearby Russian speaking provinces on the eastern
border. Many of them had been put there generations earlier by Stalin to man what was the
industrial maw – coal, iron, steel, chemicals and heavy engineering – of the Soviet
Union.
And all of them knew of the terrors that had occurred during WWII when the Hitler's
Wehrmacht marched through the Donbas and destroyed everything and everyone in sight on its way
to the siege of Stalingrad, and how it had been accompanied by legions of Ukrainian
collaborators during the terror.
They also knew that the region had eventually been liberated from the Nazi terror by the Red
Army as it returned through the region on its way to Berlin.
Yet the interventionist fools in Washington ignored all of this and proclaimed Putin menace
to peace and the rule of law because he came to the aid of the overwhelmingly Russian-speaking
population, which did not want to be ruled by the Ukrainian nationalists who had illegally
sized power in Kiev.
The obvious solution all along was partition – just like happened when Washington
forced Serbia to give up Kosovo; or when the artificial country of Czechoslovakia, created by
backroom intrigue at Versailles in 1919 peacefully decided to separate into two sovereign
countries a few year back.
In short, there is no there, there. The Ukraine/Crimea "aggression" is nothing of the kind,
and Putin was in Syria because he was invited to be there by its sovereign government.
In fact, the whole demonization campaign, the sweeping economic sanctions and NATO's
provocative encroachments on Russia's borders in the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea are nothing
more than retaliation for Putin's wise rescue of Barrack Obama from his own stupid red
line.
But this isn't the end of the stupidity. In part 3 we will strip the bark off the Russian
election meddling meme by laying out the simple fact that a country which is no threat to the
security of the American homeland, but which has been viciously attacked by Washington, might
will seek to make it's case for a different policy.
That is to say, none of this is about espionage or stealing military secrets. It actually
boils down to the obvious fact that Donald Trump had an open mind about Russia and had not been
party to Obama's cabal of neocon and R2P interventionists and their campaign of revenge against
Vlad Putin.
That Putin preferred Trump was a no brainer and he admitted as such at the Helsinki Summit.
But that Putin's preference for Trump had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the
election is also patently obvious.
Nevertheless, the Deep State has cooked up a massive fiction that claims Moscow made every
effort to do so.
We intend to tear that Big Lie limb-for-limb in Part 3, but suffice it here to consider the
take below from CIA veteran
Philip Giraldi . It does remind that Salem on the Potomac is actually happening in the here
and now:
Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear
misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly
includes the GRU, operates. If there had been a large-scale Kremlin sanctioned plan to
disrupt the US election, it would not be run by twelve identifiable GRU officers working with
what appears to be only limited cover and resources. If the facts are correct, the activity
might have been a routine probing, collecting and selective dissemination of information
effort that all intelligence agencies engage in. The United States does so routinely in many
countries, interfering in elections worldwide, far more than Russia with its limited
resources, and even carrying out regime change.
If the Kremlin's objective were truly to undermine American democracy, a task that is
already being undertaken very ably by the GOP and Democrats, hundreds of officers would be
involved, all working under deep cover and operating securely out of dispersed sites. And no
one involved would be using computers connected to networks that could be penetrated to
enable personal identification or discovery of the ultimate source of the activity. Everyone
would be working in alias on stand-alone machines and the transmission of information would
be done using cutouts to break any chain of custody. A cutout might consist of using thumb
drives to transmit information from one computer to another, for example. There would be no
sending or receiving of information by channels that could be identified by NSA or CIA and
compromised.
So the idea that the United States government identified twelve culprits who were
responsible for trying to overthrow American democracy is by any measure ludicrous, if indeed
there was a major plan to disrupt the election at all. The indictment is little more than a
political document seeking to undermine any effort by Donald Trump to establish rapprochement
with Vladimir Putin. It will also serve to give fuel to the Democrats, who are still at a
loss to understand what happened to Hillary Clinton, and Republican hawks like John McCain,
Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse who persist in seeking to refight the Cold War. As
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin said in their Helsinki press conference, the coming together
of the leaders of the world's two most powerful nuclear armed countries is too important an
opportunity to let pass. Cold Warriors in Washington should take note.
In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship
August 10, 2018 •
92 Comments
In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between
corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship, argues
Caitlin Johnstone in this commentary.
By Caitlin Johnstone
Last year, representatives of Facebook,
Twitter, and Google were instructed on the US Senate floor that it is their responsibility to
"quell information rebellions" and adopt a "mission statement" expressing their commitment to
"prevent the fomenting of discord."
" Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," the representatives were
told. "America's war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media
battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and
easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Today Twitter has silenced three important anti-war voices on its platform: it has
suspended Daniel
McAdams, the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, suspended Scott Horton of the
Scott Horton Show , and completely removed the account of prominent
Antiwar.com writer Peter Van Buren.
I'm about to talk about the censorship of Alex Jones and Infowars now, so let me get the
"blah blah I don't like Alex Jones" thing out of the way so that my social media notifications
aren't inundated with people saying "Caitlin didn't say the 'blah blah I don't like Alex Jones'
thing!" I shouldn't have to, because this isn't actually about Alex Jones, but here it is:
I don't like Alex Jones. He's made millions saying the things disgruntled right-wingers want
to hear instead of telling the truth; he throws in disinfo with his info, which is the same as
lying all the time. He's made countless false predictions and his sudden sycophantic support
for a US president has helped lull the populist right into complacency when they should be
holding Trump to his non-interventionist campaign pledges, making him even more worthless than
he was prior to 2016.
But this isn't about defending Alex Jones. He just happens to be the thinnest edge of the
wedge.
Infowars has been censored from Facebook, Youtube (which is part of Google), Apple, Spotify,
and now even Pinterest, all within hours of each other. This happens to have occurred at the
same time Infowars was circulating a petition with tens of thousands
of signatures calling on President Trump to pardon WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange,
who poses a much greater threat to establishment narratives than Alex Jones ever has. Assange's
mother also reports that this
mass removal of Infowars' audience occurred less than 48 hours after she was approached to do
an interview by an Infowars producer.
In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between
corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship. Because
legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has given wealthy Americans the
ability to control the U.S. government's policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no
effective influence whatsoever, the U.S. unquestionably has a corporatist system of government.
Large, influential corporations are inseparable from the state, so their use of censorship is
inseparable from state censorship.
This is especially true of the vast mega-corporations of Silicon Valley, whose extensive
ties to U.S. intelligence agencies are well-documented . Once you're assisting
with the construction of the US military's drone program , receiving grants from the CIA and NSA for mass surveillance, or having your site's content
regulated by NATO's propaganda arm , you don't get to pretend you're a private,
independent corporation that is separate from government power. It is possible in the current
system to have a normal business worth a few million dollars, but if you want to get to
billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where money translates directly to political
power, you need to work with existing power structures like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else
they'll work with your competitors instead of you
Censorship Through Private Proxy
And yet every time I point to the dangers of a few Silicon Valley plutocrats controlling all
new media political discourse with an iron fist, Democratic Party loyalists all turn into a
bunch of hardline free market Ayn Rands. "It's not censorship!" they exclaim. "It's a private
company and can do whatever it wants with its property!"
They do this because they know their mainstream, plutocrat-friendly "centrist" views will never be censored. Everyone
else is on the chopping block, however. Leftist sites have already had their views slashed by a manipulation of Google's algorithms, and it won't be
long before movements like BDS and Antifa and skeptics of the establishment Syria and Russia
narratives can be made to face mass de-platforming on the same exact pretext as Infowars.
This is a setup. Hit the soft target so your oligarch-friendly censorship doesn't look like
what it is, then once you've manufactured consent, go on to shut down the rest of dissenting
media bit by bit.
Don't believe that's the plan? Let's ask sitting US Senator Chris Murphy: " Infowars is the
tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our
nation apart," Murphy tweeted in response
to the news. "These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our
democracy depends on it."
That sure sounds an awful lot like the warnings issued to the Silicon Valley representatives
on the Senate floor at the beginning of this article, no? This is headed somewhere dark.
We're going to have to find a way to keep the oligarchs from having their cake and eating it
too. Either (A) corporations are indeed private organizations separate from the government, in
which case the people need to get money out of politics and government agencies out of Silicon
Valley so they can start acting like it, and insist that their owners can't be dragged out on
to the Senate floor and instructed on what they can and can't do with their business, or (B)
these new media platforms get treated like the government agencies they function as, and the
people get all the First Amendment protection that comes with it. Right now the social
engineers are double-dipping in a way that will eventually give the alliance of corporate
plutocrats and secretive government agencies the ability to fully control the public's access
to ideas and information.
If they accomplish that, it's game over for humanity. Any hope of the public empowering
itself over the will of a few sociopathic, ecocidal, omnicidal oligarchs will have been
successfully quashed. We are playing for all the chips right now. We have to fight this. We
have no choice.
This
commentary was originally published on CaitlinJohnstone.com .
Ms. Johnstone is right. Government pressure on corporations works but the media in all its
forms does a pretty good job of sowing discord without government interference. There are so
few instances where the government and the major media are not in sync, they are hard to
find. As to allowing the lonely voices of worthy organizations like Consortium News, why
should they bother. Allowing them creates the pretense of free speech. If they become
dangerous, the mood of our elected officials is to fix the problem as Ms. Johnstone rightly
notes. The defense of freedom of speech by government and the major media is very selective,
and the use of the calling fire in a loaded theatre standard is a big enough vehicle for
suppression to drive a truck through, a whole convoy in fact.
As an aside, watching Sixty Minutes on their hit piece about Russian interference in our
elections was an example of sloppy journalism that seems to be the norm. when it is about
Russia. I was about to say they never used to be like that, but I think that is probably not
true.
Bulls-eye!!!! especially on Democratic party loyalists who perform a much more important
function for plutocracy than the Republicans and the Tea Party – to rally around fake
progressive politics dripping out of the DNC, and effectively drain off the pressure building
for true progressive politics.
cjonsson1 , August 12, 2018 at 1:50 pm
This is a good example of Caitlin explaining what is going on in the American media wars
which is crucial for people to know.
Our access to information, other than government propaganda, is becoming very limited because
the few major social network corporations are owned by a few wealthy individuals or private
government contractors. They are monopolies which should be designated public utilities, and
regulated as such, or broken up into smaller entities, allowing for competition.
It is important to preserve what is left of our freedom of expression and our free press. The
ability to comment on reporting and discuss it with others is diminishing while sources are
becoming more and more restricted.
Government and big business fight the public for control of information and opinion. We have
to collectively save our stake in democracy by rejecting censorship.
You make some very good points. Alas, I disagree about Alex Jones. The very few times I've
listened to his videos, it seemed to me every last thing he said was absolutely true and
correct. So I don't know where the idea comes from that he speaks disinformation. He's
sometimes obnoxious and hard to watch. But that's a different thing. His words are accurate,
particularly about the globalists, the deep state, US-Russia relations, and Trump.
"It is possible in the current system to have a normal business worth a few million
dollars, but if you want to get to billions of dollars in wealth control in a system where
money translates directly to political power, you need to work with existing power structures
like the CIA and the Pentagon, or else they'll work with your competitors instead of
you."
Actually, If companies get big, they become potential big tools/weapons for the war-making
State, at which point they will be offered a deal that they can't refuse, as one would expect
within this gangster Corporatocracy. Look at Wikileaks. Mozilla simply jumped on the fake
news bandwagon, so they are now safe, as Aaron Kesel at Activist Post points out. Lavabit's
owner, Ladar Levinson had principles and was loyal to his customers (including Edward
Snowden) whom he didn't want to betray just because the Corporatocracy State demanded it, and
so he shut down. He revived his company once he figured out ways to shield his customers from
the war-making State that attacks us all in the name of 'national security'.
So, it's a little more dire than the government just deciding to favor your competitors,
which of course the amazing Caitlin knows.
With all of this capture by tech giants, innovators, by the war-making State (Randolph
Bourne), How will end? I have more than one answer to that. One of those answers is the
obvious one: Ramped up counterrevolution, in the area of cyberspace mainly, in the State's
war against the people. And such a war is underway as any number of authors have demonstrated
thoroughly. And its not (just) Russia attacking the people. Jeff Halper wrote "War Against
The People." Nick Buxton and Ben Hayes edited "The Secure And The Dispossessed." Douglas
Valentine wrote "The Phoenix Program," which he notes wasn't confined to Vietnam. Noam
Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote the devastating two-volume "Political Economy Of Human
Rights," which included "The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism." And Edward
Herman wrote: "The Real Terror Network." All of those books and many others talk about
counterrevolution and the counterinsurgency (State terrorism) that goes with it.
And counterrevolution and counterinsurgency doesn't have to be of the extreme variety,
such as in South Vietnam when the US was torturing that country to death. Caitlin has talked
about how the State (New Zealand) went to work on her friend, Suzie Dawson. Read the account.
It's quite illuminating.
What do you call 'thinking' that is against 'thinking' (and what we consider to be a part
of innovation that leads to inventions that elevate society? It's called counterrevolution.
That's where our corrupt tech giants have gone. It won't end well for them, even if they
think otherwise and even if they feel safe because they are with the big guy. There's a
bigger guy who has that big guy in his sights.
Somehow I had missed those words from our elected "representatives" in Congressional
hearing. What these political pimps and whores don't want us to do is get together and agree
to dispel the bullshit that we're up to our necks in right now.
As far as I know this is the first piece I've read by Caitlin Johnstone, and I agree with
her general premise that this is more than just ominous. More and more of our elected
"representatives" talk and act like alien totalitarians.
The good news is that Trump's "trade" and saber-rattling belligerence is finally awakening
the rest of humanity to the fundamental non-starter of a unipolar anything. That one entity
so militarily, politically, and economically dominant that it can cause pain and suffering
wherever and whenever it decides. It is ironic that Trump's MAGA is the act in this play that
will dethrone the USA. The downside is that the 99% control NOTHING (this is true across most
of the planet.) Another downside is that the megalomaniacs in power will not concede power
without a cataclysmic conflict. But nothing is set in stone, though the indications don't
look promising.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary
opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had
the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the
human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion,
still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the
opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is always a great benefit
– the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision
with error."
– JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873) English political economist, philosopher
Realist , August 11, 2018 at 3:12 am
Something must be getting into the water supply either by accident or design to induce the
mass hypnosis that has so many presumably intelligent people believing that we must all walk
in lockstep on every policy the elites want. Maybe we are all zombified from the massive
amounts of Xanax, Valium, Oxycontin and other mind-numbing psychoactive agents our population
consumes and pisses, unmetabolized, into the water table to be recycled into our drinking
water, obviating the need for a personal prescription to enjoy (suffer) the effects.
It's a real pity if the totally transparent sham scare stories they have disseminated are
alone enough to convince most of the people to give up their constitutional rights and
privacy. Clearly the tactic of the big lie doesn't work on every last individual or sites
like this one would not have an audience. That is why they want to shut us down, and Alex
Jones, though not a member of this journal club, is just the first step towards an outcome
that will encompass everyone remaining outside an all pervasive Groupthink.
Ideas, beliefs, memes, values, customs, habits and such are not received universally from
some inspirational force on high. (You are simply told to believe that from earliest
childhood.) They are spread through the population like a virus from mind-to-mind contact,
whether in person or via some modality of mass communication, like the TV or the internet.
The object of censorship, as per Alex Jones or Ron Paul most recently, is to extirpate the
source of "infection" as close to its point of origin as possible, before it can be spread to
too many carriers for transmission to others. People tend to believe what they hear and what
they hear comes from their regular contacts. Shut down their favorite talk show host or
internet site and they become starved for new "seditious" ideas. If they never hear a truth,
chances are they won't think it up themselves and certainly not act upon it.
Another thing I am pretty sure of: if their attempts at propaganda, psy-ops and mind
control do not work to their satisfaction, unadorned thuggery will become the new standard. I
know, I know, some of our number already get a taste of that.
Dave P. , August 11, 2018 at 5:46 pm
Realist –
"Another thing I am pretty sure of: if their attempts at propaganda, psy-ops and mind
control do not work to their satisfaction, unadorned thuggery will become the new standard .
. . "
You have it absolutely right. There have been markers all along since G.W. Bush/Cheney
rule, clear indicators of this new Future.
But some of us are so desperate to have a better and peaceful future for the humanity on
this planet that we get our hopes high for any silver lining in the sky – Obama's hope
and change, now Trump's getting along with Russia and stopping interventions abroad.
Now it seems like there is this new hoax the Democrats are going to perpetrate, candidates
with some type of socialist orientation, like Bernie Sanders supposedly has been or is. The
politicians in both parties are accomplished ConMen, in service of the real Masters –
MIC, Wall Street Finance, Media and Entertainment, working to bring this new Future. Bernie
Sanders is no different.
Skip Scott , August 12, 2018 at 7:08 am
"Now it seems like there is this new hoax the Democrats are going to perpetrate,
candidates with some type of socialist orientation, like Bernie Sanders supposedly has been
or is. "
I have noticed this ploy as well. They are willing to have a few faux progressives to keep
the progressive wing of the party from abandoning them altogether. They use Sanders, and now
this new Ocasio-Cortez, to sell their "big tent" narrative, and then co-op them when it comes
to all the important issues. They also constantly sell the idea that voting for third party
candidates is a waste of time, so you have to settle for "the lesser of evils" when it comes
time for a new president. I don't know how long they can keep playing the same con-game
before people see through it, but if it happens again in 2020, I think we are doomed.
Realist , August 12, 2018 at 10:01 am
The Democratic incumbent running for the senate in Florida (Bill Nelson) has made me so
angry by yet again using the party con against Russia that I could never vote for him even
though his opponent is the horrendous Governor Rick Scott (who plead guilty to defrauding
Medicare to the tune of a billion dollars for his Columbia HMO system prior to his election).
I cannot abide such theft of taxpayer money in broad daylight, but I also cannot accept
Nelson's spewing lies that Russia has actively hacked the Florida voter roles, plans to
delete registrations and disrupt the November elections. You know who's really more likely to
do those things? The Democratic and Republican parties.
Nelson is just making pre-emptive excuses for the loss that he sees coming. If he believes
his desperate gambit can work, he must think the voters are damned idiots to believe that
Russia would persist in perpetrating sabotage against American interests putting them
constantly in the crosshairs of our politicians and media. He must think that Floridians will
buy any tall tale that their elected officials tell them, totally unsupported by any
evidence. We are to believe that Assad never stops trying to poison his own people and that
Putin never stops interfering in American elections. (Why should Putin favor Rick Scott?
Because he admires American crooks?) If you truly believe such accusations, it is probably
logical that you would favor WAR with that country. I will vote for someone from the
Baader-Meinhof gang or the Taliban Party (if there is such a beast) before either Nelson or
Scott. Or I won't vote at all.
Zero Hedge tonight has an interesting article by Charles Hugh Smith, "The Grand Irony of
Russiagate: US Becomes More Like USSR Every Day". The clampdown in the old Soviet Union
before its collapse has parallels to what's going on in US now.
Jeff Harrison , August 10, 2018 at 5:12 pm
From Wikipedia. Fascism:
Fascism (/?fæ??z?m/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2]
characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong
regimentation of society and of the economy.
The Cheetos-in-chief would love to wield dictatorial power and has tried to do so in the
past as have his predecessors (Obama, yeah, well, we had to torture some folks::Shrub you're
with us or against us.). Senator Chris Murphy essentially telling these companies who to kick
off their platforms, the regimentation of society and the economy is continuing apace as
companies are forced to comply with government demands that the government should never be
able to make but they do for "national security reasons"
Pfui. As I've said before the US has become a fascistic police state.
MBeaver , August 11, 2018 at 10:50 pm
Many other western countries, too. The only thing missing to "fit" fascism is the
nationalism. They completely gave up their national identity for neoliberal agendas. I wont
look for a new term, because its as close to fascism as anything else, especially since the
definition of leftism and socialism has changed a lot since fascism was invented (by a
socialist), so why shouldnt the definition of fascism a tiny bit?
But it exposes people who always cry "its not fascism" because nationalism is missing, as
accomplices at the very least.
Also, as an objective person, you should at least admit, that "cheeto-in-chief" is
actually trying hard to keep the promises he made. I havent seen that in a western leader in
a very VERY long time. Its just very obvious that the president isnt almighty and the deep
state is very powerful. Thanks to Trump its become evident to even fools, that the USA is
much more corrupt than even any conspiracy theorist would have thought just a few years
ago.
jaycee , August 10, 2018 at 4:27 pm
The idea that discordant speech is somehow a threat to the nation or democracy is so
looney and bereft of fact that it is actually painful to contemplate how many otherwise
intelligent persons seem to have internalized the notion. Obviously, Trump's election victory
severely damaged the Establishment's confidence in the ability to "manufacture consent" to
the degree that fundamental concepts of free speech are now in the cross-hairs. They will
destroy the Republic in order to save it.
When the corporate state speaks of "hate speech" and "community standards" – one can
be sure they are not referring to Madeline Albright's stunning defense for killing of a half
a million Iraqi children with sanctions as "worth it." Nor would the corporate state ever
categorize as "hate speech" the daily attack by a wide variety of U.S. officials and media
pundits, not only on the Russian government, but on the very – "character" – of
the Russian people as a whole.
Our actual and very real – "community standards" – in the U.S. include the
complete normalization of illegal immoral endless aggressive war-making in violation of
international law (not to mention regime change by jihadists, drone murders, economic
warfare, political assassinations, etc.) – along with the despicable demonization of
official enemies – in other words the total "normalization of hate-speech."
"Violations" of these widely held U.S. "community standards" & "hate-speech standards"
involves plain and simply any – "challenge" – to them or deviation from them. In
other words to speak words not sufficiently 'anti-Russian' today is considered a form of
"hate speech" in MSM and in political discourse. To suggest peace rather than war with Russia
might be a good idea is to violate precious "community standards" which today tolerate only
mindless fact-free warmongering in public discourse. You really can't make this stuff up!
Dave P. , August 10, 2018 at 5:48 pm
Excellent comments. So true.
We are heading towards some sort of dark ages, and at very fast pace.
Maxwell Quest , August 10, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Gary, pointing out the shameless and bald-faced hypocrisy as you did can sometimes shake
the stupefaction from an open-minded reader. Sadly, though, arguments such as these just seem
to bounce off the Russiagaters, having no effect. Conversely, these very same people couldn't
lavish enough praise on the peace prize winner Obama, whether he was bailing out the corrupt
banks, letting the lobbyists craft Obamacare, trafficking arms through Benghazi, or droning
some wedding party in the desert.
What do both of these examples have in common? Easy, the state media was able to control
the narrative in each case, and these same hypnotized drones ate it up hook, line and sinker.
This brings us right back to why internet-based censorship is the hot topic of the day, since
it is the single most threat to complete state control over the public mind.
Dave P. , August 10, 2018 at 11:09 pm
Well said. Obama is not gone yet. He is still out there selling his philosophy of
promoting the Wall street and corrupt banks, and droning and killing the weak and innocents
all over the world , for the right cause so to speak – spreading freedom and democracy.
And liberals buy it. What a World we live in!
He, along with Clintons, is the main instigator of "Russia Gate", which may lead the human
life to extinction on Earth.
Realist , August 11, 2018 at 2:24 am
Dave
Yes, anything is permitted (by Washington) as long as it is in the name of "freedom and
democracy." So say the leaders of our exceptional country.
Realist , August 11, 2018 at 2:22 am
Damn straight, Maxwell.
Mildly Facetious , August 11, 2018 at 4:16 pm
Yes, anything is permitted (by Washington) as long as it is in the name of "freedom and
democracy." So say the leaders of our exceptional country.
??????????????????????????
They do this because they know their mainstream, plutocrat-friendly "centrist" views will
never be censored.
Everyone else is on the chopping block, however.
Leftist sites have already had their views slashed by a manipulation of Google's
algorithms, and it won't be long before movements like BDS and Antifa and skeptics of the
establishment Syria and Russia narratives can be made to face mass de-platforming on the same
exact pretext as Infowars.
-- - compare that, if you've a clue, (not to obfuscate your subject), Caitlan Johnstone,
with, not mere censorship, but the Protection of 'Confidential' information such as the
Industrial Pharma INDUSTRY OF DEATH (shades -of -nazi-germany??? )via INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
and PRESCRIBING OF OPIOIDS as if Huxley's "Soma" or/and a preview of " The Chemical and
Bacteriological Conditioning of the Embryo. – Practical Instructions for Beta
Embryro-Store Workers /// as in government forced vaccinations along with Facebook enforced
capitulation of any/all -- Personal Sovereign Belief/s massively defaulting and bowing the
knee and Becoming Persuaded and Trapped into inescapable Autocracy, by reason of Darwin-esk
dissembling and a dis-informed election to Dissent Into The Maelstrom of the sinking ship of
American Exceptionalism, -- as if God could/would "forgive" all-of-the-collective Brutality
of Bombs, bullets, Uranium Munitions / CRIPPLING Sanctions imposted -- support of brutal
dictators Who massacred INNOCENT Civilians in order to obtain/secure US MILITARY FUNDS, in
order to secure autocratic/authoritative CONTROL
We are engulfed in a Molding Faze of acceptance of/into a totally new Reality strangely
built upon Nazi science/experiments, now Entering an/the Age of Space-Age manipulation of
DNA, Gene Manipulation -- origins of species ordered inside test tubes.
George Gilder prophetically saw this in this and more in his prescient 1990's book,
MICROCOSM. --
George Gilder and his Discovery Institute were far Ahead – of -the -curve in this
'Facebook" era of Futurisms .
Please find and consider his book, esp as it relates to technological possibilities and
the New Wonders (Brave New Worlds) of Gene splicing / manipulation .
"... Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this? ..."
"... A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as 'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies. ..."
"... It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries ..."
"... If, as seems likely, both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary. ..."
"... An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him ..."
"... A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the supposed termination ..."
"... 'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence probes in American history.' ..."
"... I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief. ..."
"... Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it. ..."
Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for
clandestine activities.' As Steele was not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the
FBI in technical violation of this?
The point is not merely a quibble. A central question in regard to Steele, as with
quite a number of former intelligence/law enforcement/military people who have started at
least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as 'cover' for
activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or
other state agencies.
It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make
it possible to evade the letter of agreements between intelligence agencies in different
countries .
Another related matter has to do with the termination of Steele as a 'Confidential Human
Source.'
It has long seemed to me that it was more than possible that this was not to be taken at
face value. If, as seems likely, both current and former top FBI and DOJ people –
very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately involved
in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele
to combine feeding information to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could
have been necessary.
An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal
'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back channels' to those who were officially supposed
not to be talking to him .
A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged
between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the supposed termination .
When on 31 January 2017 – well after the publication of the dossier by BuzzFeed
– Ohr provided reassurance that he could continue to help feed information to the FBI,
Steele texted back:
"If you end up out though, I really need another (bureau?) contact point/number who is
briefed. We can't allow our guy to be forced to go back home. It would be disastrous."
At that point, Solomon tells us that 'Investigators are trying to determine who Steele was
referring to.' This seems to me a rather important question. It would seem likely, although
not certain, that he is talking about another Brit. If he is, would it have been someone else
employed by Orbis? Or someone currently working for British intelligence? What is the precise
significance of 'forced to go back home', and why would this have been 'disastrous'?
Another crucial paragraph:
'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele
and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in London. But the vast majority occurred during the
2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence
probes in American history.'
The earlier contacts may be of little interest, but there again they may not be.
As it happens, it was following Berezovsky's arrival in London in October 2001 that the
'information operations' network he created began to move into high gear. It is moreover
clear that this was always a transatlantic operation, and also fragments of evidence suggest
that the FBI may have had some involvement from early on.
I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report
into the death of Litvinenko. In large measure, this develops claims originally made in
Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures close to
Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with
polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the
patently indefensible almost beggars belief.
The original attempt came in a radio programme broadcast by the BBC – which was to
become known to some of us as the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – on 16
December 2006, presented by Tom Mangold, a familiar 'trusty' for the intelligence
services.
(A transcript sent out from the Cabinet Office at the time is available on the archived
'Evidence' page for the Inquiry, at
http://webarchive.nationala... , as HMG000513. There is an interesting and rather
important question as to whether those who sent it out, and those who received it, knew that
it was more or less BS from start to finish.)
The programme was wholly devoted to claims made by the former KGB operative Yuri Shvets,
who was presented as an independent 'due diligence' expert, without any mention of the rather
major role he had played in the original 'Orange Revolution.'
Back-up was provided by his supposed collaborator in 'due diligence', the former FBI
operative Robert 'Bobby' Levinson. No mention was made of the fact that he had been, in the
'Nineties, a, if not the lead FBI investigator into the notorious Ukrainian Jewish mobster
Semyon Mogilevich.
The following March Levinson would disappear on the Iranian island of Kish, on what we now
know was a covert mission on behalf of elements in the CIA.
Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6,
a question also arises as to whether the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and
possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson were involved.
Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems
a rather important issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may
cast any light on it.
At last – a paterfamiliar earful by none other than James Howard Kunstler, on the state
of the "Three Headed Monster" that is the Democratic Party.
This is an important tipping point, because the country is waiting for nobles of the left
to lead their children from the deep dark woods.
Every day, we ask, "Where are the adults? Who will call this madness for what it is?" I'll
provide the link to this masterful analysis of the "illness" – but first let me tempt
readers with a brief synopsis of the "first head".
" one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold
during the campaign that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes
and microphages in the "intel community" to attack the perceived disease that the election of
Donald Trump represented.
The "doctors" of this Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An
overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later that the malady was
actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community
itself . who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel
service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case,
Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous -- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges --
for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic instead
of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop
running its mouth -- "
This was published on his blog yesterday..... this is monumental, if only because the
masks are coming off.
Read his description of the other 2 heads.... it's wonderful.
> Do you also dismiss the global pattern of Russian interference on democratic
elections by the same means and methods?
Yup! Since nobody has presented the slightest evidence of such a pattern (and even the
German intelligence agencies have said it didn't happen )
> Didn't Putin say publicly that his country acted to assist Donald Trump?
Nope!
> Are the CEO's of FACEBOOK and Google and Twitter also spouting lie about Russian
media interference in our elections's
As far as I know, they have been avoiding doing so (presumably because they know such lies
would be exposed immediately).
> When the details come out about how Russia has funneled money throu the NRA, will
you dismiss that as well?
The NRA is funded by Moscow gold! I like it that makes all its right-wing supporters in
Congress agents of Moscow, right? Please launch a campaign to have them all impeached. (I
won't hold my breath waiting, though.)
> Is Florida election systems not really under Russian military attack as I write
this?
Well, no, it is not. And why should the Russians want to, in the first place? The existing
office-holders do more harm than anything they could possibly arrange
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:56 am
his name is seth rich. the dnc gave him a memorial bike rack.
Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 3:27 pm
Do you dismiss the global pattern of CIA interference in elections all around the world
for decades, including Russia in 1996? Look at the amount and quality of this so-called
interference by Russian citizens. It is miniscule. Facebook , google, and twitter know they
have to play ball with our so-called "Intelligence Community" and Congress or else. Please
provide a source for Putin saying publicly he helped Trump. I found nothing on a browser
search.
You are drinking MSM Kool-aid by the bucketload. Try reading through the archives here for
an education.
Rob , August 14, 2018 at 4:19 pm
I believe that Putin said that he hoped for Trump to win, not that he ordered Russian
operatives to interfere in the U.S. election process. There is a big difference. If I am
wrong about this, I would love to see the evidence.
Curious , August 15, 2018 at 1:40 am
Rob, there's is a lot of confusion about what Putin really said, and most of it is wrong.
Again, the 'lost in translation' issues. Here is what was said by Putin, quoted in CGI and
elsewhere:
CGI quote: What Putin actually called Trump in Russian is "ochen' yarkiy chelovek," which
literally translates to "a very bright person." Unlike the English word "bright," the Russian
yarkiy does not connote intelligence; rather, it means someone who is colorful, flashy,
showy, an individual who makes himself stand out from the crowd.
The more colloquial translation is "a colorful character," a phrase that in the Russian
carries a note of bemusement. Putin added that Trump is also "talented (talantlivyi), without
a doubt." He then went on to say that "regarding [U.S.] internal politics and the turns of
phrase [Trump] employs to boost his popularity, I repeat that it is not our business to
assess that aspect of his performance." Taken as a whole, the statement suggests that Putin
recognizes the theatrical component of Trump's campaign, and chose not to comment on the
contentious impact that Trump and his statements have had on American politics.
Putin himself later explained this to the journalists at one of his end of the year
Q&As he has.
Trump, naturally, heard a bad translation and this appealed to his self-aggrandizement. He
gave the thumbs up thinking Putin was congratulating, and backing him. Unsurprisingly, people
still misunderstand Putins' statement.
Translation issues often occur and I remember when Jimmy Carter went to Poland for his
first trip abroad to Poland, and the translator said President Carter had a great "lust" for
the people of Poland, whereas the word "lust", as in German, means "desire, fondness and
affection" and not some sexual connotation at all in a formal context.. The funny thing is
people still believe Putin wanted Trump, believing a poor translation. Foreign languages
really should be taught in schools again.
rosemerry , August 14, 2018 at 4:21 pm
Didn't Putin say publicly that his country acted to assist Donald Trump? NO, he did not.
The questioner joined several questions together. Putin agreed that he wanted a person to win
who would try to mend relations with Russia. He said he did nothing to help the process.
You really believe the billionaire CEOs of those controlling businesses???
As for Florida- remember the 2000 election.
Paul P , August 14, 2018 at 4:35 pm
These are all quite easily addressed point by point. As the saying goes, that which can be
asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Where is this established pattern of interfering with the "same means and methods"? If the
claim is essentially, "Russia obtained evidence of corruption in an unfavorable party and
disseminated this evidence to swing a democratic foreign election against said party" please
cite an example of another election where this can be proven as something that happened. It
hasn't.
Did Putin publicly admit that Russia acted to help Donald Trump? The answer to that is no.
You are likely misinterpreting or misrepresenting an interview in which Putin stated Trump's
more conciliatory campaign rhetoric (vs Clinton's open hostility) seemed preferable. This is
as far as the "admission" went and is miles from your assertion/interpretation.
FB and Twitter's definition of Russia-linked activity is purposefully misleading. For
activity to be considered Russia-linked, only ONE (not all) of the following conditions must
apply. 1. The account is set up from Russian IP. 2. The account is confirmed using number
with a Russian phone carrier. 3. Any services purchased are paid for in Russian currency. 4.
The user has ever logged in via a Russian network, even once. 5. The user posts primarily in
Russian. 6. User has a screen name spelled in the Cyrillic alphabet.
None of these things can even guarantee that a user is even Russian national, much less
acting at the behest of the Russian government. If you used the wifi at Sheremtyevo during a
layover between Amsterdam and Beijing and used Twitter, they'd call that Russia-linked
activity.
According to Bloomberg, "Russia funneling money through the NRA" amounts to a meager $2512
donated by 23 people with Russian addresses in 2015-2018 (laughably paltry for an
organization with over $433,000,000 in annual revenue), the majority is in the form of
membership dues and less than half in the form of individual donations. This is hardly
indicative of some giant secret funding operation, especially as there is no proof the
Russian government has anything to do with this. There are an estimated 300,000 American
citizens at least temporarily residing in Russia, but it's inconceivable that among them
might be 23 NRA members/donors?
As for Florida, to date there's been no evidence presented. If there's no evidence, then
anyone believing this only does so because they want to.
keir , August 14, 2018 at 4:39 pm
I can only assume that:
"Are the CEO's of FACEBOOK Google and Twitter also spouting lie about Russian media
intereference in our elections's"
-was meant to be ironic?
If not, then what do you think these unregulated public forums and their selective censoring
are really for?
An exercise in freedom of speech?
(clearly not all speech)
They are literally designed to sway public opinion (at best) and circulate the lies that
corporate media is spouting.
Russian Meddling?
Why this so funny to the majority of the rest of the world is because historically America
not only meddles in elections, but illegally invades and overthrows democratically elected
governments and installs dictatorships (think Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine and the
Honduras)
The real irony is that in the 1996 Russian election under Clinton the US made sure it was
their man Yeltsin that got elected.
It is psychologically easy to attach to the hysteria of Russian fear mongering, because of
the history of propaganda.
"Fear Communism!"
"They are infiltrating America through worker's unions!!"
Only now they are crony capitalists just like us.
Karelian , August 14, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Bream Lynch,
No, he didn't say that. And if some media claims so, then please avoid that media in the
future, as it lies to you. He answered the first part of a two-piece question. He said that
he hoped Trump to win, not that he ordered people to assist Trump.
And there is no "global pattern" of Russian interference. You may remember how NSA said
they watched the Russians hack Macron's email? But do you remember how soon after that France
said there were no "Russian hacking" of any sort. You might also remember how the media in
Germany (and in US) told that Russia was ready to hack the German elections? Do you remember
how after the elections German intelligence agency said that they didn't find any Russian
activities at all?
P.S. Sorry about my English. This is not my native language :)
backwardsevolution , August 15, 2018 at 5:12 am
Karelian -- excellent English. Good job.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:23 pm
"Didn't Putin say publicly that his country acted to assist Donald Trump?"
No, he did not, though media pundits pretended he did for a few days and then dropped it.
Gregory Herr , August 14, 2018 at 6:32 pm
When the details come out? That's the problem -- relentless accusations for 20 months with
no evidence and little detail except absurd notions about the (non) effect of click-bait ads
on social media that have nothing to do with Russian government activity. What is equally
absurd is the idea that the Russian Federation gives a rat's petunia about who wins a contest
between Bill Nelson or Rick Scott, two all-too-similar politicians in the American mold. And
of course the Russian government has an idea of how to purge just the right voters to achieve
a preference! What nonsense!
With all the "information" and "disinformation" coming from a myriad of quarters trying to
sell one candidate over another during our protracted election seasons, people need to get a
grip about terms such as "influence" and "interference" and perhaps arrive at the perspective
that amidst all the chatter and influence-peddling lies the responsibility for individual
voters to separate wheat from chaff and come to a personal voting decision.
CNN and MSNBC backed Clinton to the hilt so in my disagreement should I cry "untoward
influence!"? well, that's touching on another subject and I'll leave it at that.
The fact Putin would want Trump as opposed to the war criminal Hillary who threatened war
with Russia and destabilize the Middle East in a proxy war is just sanity.
Why would you believe the very same people who lied us into Iraq and worse ?
Literally
willow , August 14, 2018 at 10:54 pm
Obama traveled to the UK to urge voters to vote against Brexit. The Saudi's funded 20
percent of Hillary's campaign. yada-yada-yada
Gregory Herr , August 14, 2018 at 11:25 pm
And Obama went to France to cheerlead for Macron the week of the election. But that's
exceptional -- no indispensable -- advice.
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 1:08 am
Obama wiretapped Merkel's phone!
People should really think hard about that when tossing around these horse chit lies about
Russia hacking the DNC.
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 11:54 am
Looking over the comments on Lawrence's post, I wonder if we're losing sight of the bigger
picture here. Exposing the truth about a presidential candidate, whoever did it (and all the
credible evidence to date points toward Seth Rich) isn't meddling, it's a public service. The
DNC leak didn't threaten democracy, it promoted it by providing crucial information to the
U.S. electorate. Those who claim that revealing the truth about a political candidate is a
crime are the ones who constitute the real threat to democracy.
Smears, hoaxes, fabrications, and psyops are standard operating procedure for U.S.
intelligence agencies. You would have to be simple to believe that these agencies would
hesitate to use these same tactics against the American public when it furthers their
political agenda. Just like you would have to be simple to believe that the officials running
these agencies don't have a political agenda.
Russia is an obstacle to U.S. global hegemony? Blow it up, after first subverting their
economy with groundless sanctions and whipping the American public into a hysterical war
frenzy. That's the grand strategy behind the Russiagate hoax, the Skripal hoax, the Douma
hoax, and whatever hoax they dream up next.
If President Trump is foolish enough to get in the way, he's expendable, and he knows it
now if he didn't before.
Skip Scott , August 15, 2018 at 8:22 am
alley cat-
I've thought the same myself. Even if it was the evil Vlad himself who snuck into the DNC,
stole the files and personally handed them to Assange, how is bringing the truth about the
collusion between team Hillary and the DNC to sabotage the Sanders' campaign an "attack" on
our democracy? Actually it would be a service to our democracy, and an "attack" on an evil
oligarchy that was trying to subvert our democracy.
This whole "evil Ruskies" thing is just ridiculous. Our democracy has been utterly
corrupted from within, and providing the truth to the voting public can never be considered
an "attack", no matter the source.
Al Pinto , August 14, 2018 at 11:49 am
Quote from the article:
"The intrusion into the Democratic National Committee mail was a local download --
wherever 'local' is."
"wherever" is a wide definition. While I certainly agree that 22.6MB/s, or ~180Mb/s, does
seem a lot like USB 3.0 write speed, one cannot neglect the possibility of over the network
transferring the same data with the same speed.
The DNC server certainly had the bandwidth available for this transfer rate, most hosting
service providers do allow ramping up the transfer rate up to 1Gb/s. Verizon and other ISPs
in the New York Metropolitan area had been providing fiber connection for businesses and home
users for years, with transfer rates of up to 1Gb/s. For home users the most popular speed
had been 200Mb/s for years.
Please keep in mind that 8 bits = 1 Byte Notice the capitalization of the letter "B"
The 200Mb/s speed has a maximum transfer rate of 25MB/s. Knowing that the network protocol
overhead uses up about 10% of the nominal speed, then the 22.6MB/s transfer rate is easily
achievable remotely. And yes, "wherever that local is".
Theoretically The Russians could have hacked a PC/server, with high speed Internet access
within the New York Metropolitan, hacked the DNC server from the "Zombie" system, download
the archived files to the "Zombie" system and download to possibly couple of other "Zombie"
systems, prior to reaching the destination in Russia. At least that's how I would have done
it
Even doing so, there should have been traces of these connections in the NSA data
warehouse in UTAH, possibly even capturing the transfered archived file. It would not
surprise me a bit, if that's the case. The fact in itself, that there has been no such
verification/capture for this connection seems to indicate that the data transfer has taken
place directly on the server, via the USB port. Unless of course the NSA does not want to
disclose network traces of the connection, since it might implicate a friendly country, maybe
the most friendly country for the US, that would also exonerate Russia.
As for the dates of the file It seems that these files had been generated just prior to
downloading the .7z archived files. The default behavior for .7z is to preserve both the
folder and file creation dates, while recording the current time for the archive folder in
itself. Of course, this can be changed, both during and/or after archiving
JoeD , August 14, 2018 at 12:40 pm
Ok you're a troll right? Verizon has most certainly not provided fiber connections for
home users in the New York Metropolitan area. They stopped their fiber roll out A LONG TIME
AGO. So no, the infrastructure does not exist.
No you don't know much about network speeds if you believe that you can have those
sustained speeds all the way through the connections. If you have ever done internet speed
tests you will know that your speed depends a lot on the different nodes you pass
through.
"You'd need a dedicated, leased, 400 -- megabit line all the way to Russia to achieve that
result," Binney said in a recent interview. "
If you can shoe me that and you have something, otherwise, you're trolling.
Al Pinto , August 14, 2018 at 3:26 pm
If anyone, you don't know much about network speeds and Verizon
For businesses, that had been mentioned, Verizon started the fiber rollout even
earlier
Show me where my numbers are incorrect?
Johnmichael2 , August 14, 2018 at 4:23 pm
trollling ? I don't think you understand internet data rates nor the capabilities of
hackers .. he's talking about remote control of a PC local to the DNC server with good access
not a direct high speed route out of the country.
Come on folks, the great US of A has been influencing electoral politics of other nations for
years by many methods. Russians are not dumb some of the best virus detection and protection
comes out of Kaspersky Labs. Look up the work of Russian and eastern country information
science experts; the Chinese, Israelis and Indian practitioners are no dummies either.
Open your eyes Russian and other hacking is real and 'turn about is fair play' . we ain't the
rulers of the world anymore in case you didn't notice.
Rob , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm
This comments section is a place where people are allowed to spout their own ideas and
theories, but still, I am amused by commenters who presume to have knowledge about
communications technology that is somehow unknown to the likes of William Binney and other
genuine experts in the field. I know that this may sound like ad hominem thinking on my part,
but some of the opinions regarding technology are so simplistic that they make me laugh.
willow , August 14, 2018 at 11:04 pm
It's all good because it leads to deeper understanding of subject and makes us better able
to finesse/counter/debate disinformation on forums like the Washington Post or the NYT,
where
opposing views are scant and we need to push back.
michael , August 15, 2018 at 6:59 am
If the evidence existed, it would have been released in redacted form by the NSA over a
year ago (although by now you would think they would have fabricated something).
Diane Rejman , August 14, 2018 at 10:50 am
I believe much of this whole "Russiagate" thing started as a disgusting and pathetic
attempt to give Hillary an excuse for losing, and is now out of control, with tentacles
reaching throughout our country and the world. The DNC has admitted to being cheaters. THAT
should be the bigger investigation. Our right to vote should be sacred, but the DNC took all
legitimacy away from it. If they thought their "chosen one" couldn't win the primary without
cheating and other assistance, why would they think she could win the main election? She was
a horribly bad candidate, and they won't admit this. So instead -- they came up with this
whole, "My dog ate my homework" type theory. And yes -- it is very scary to think this whole
Russiagate conspiracy theory has gotten out of hand, and is now too big to fail. What a
ridiculous reason to create trouble with Russia!
rosemerry , August 14, 2018 at 4:25 pm
I remember Obama in his "lame-duck" period expelling Russian diplomats, stealing their US
properties, starting the whole landslide of Russia-hatred when he had spent 8 years helping
to reduce the seats of the Democratic Party at all levels of government by his actions. Check
out the figures- Democrats lost because of their own faults.
The original intent, based on the rhetoric that followed right after the Russiagate
narrative was first launched, seem to have been to have the election declared invalid so they
could either do it over or have HRC declared the real winner by fiat. Apparently, at some
point wiser heads pointed out that wasn't Constitutionally viable, so the story was toned
down to its current level then repeated over and over, per Goebbels' Law, to ensure the bulk
of the public accepted it as proven fact.
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 1:22 am
don't kid yourself.
They still have the fantasy of installing their queen.
Lawrence Lessig, the Roy L. Furman professor of law and leadership at Harvard Law School.
Postulates the fantasy that Democrats win the house in 2018.
A NY congressman/woman takes the dive and resigns so Hillary can be appointed to the seat by
NY governor.
And, she is then elected Speaker of the house putting her in #3 for the presidency.
Then Pence resigns a- la Spirow Agnew.
And, Trump is impeached and removed by the Senate.
Voila Herself is president.
These F'n people have lost all grip on reality.
The only people buying the Russia Russia Russia hysteria is the same people pushing it.
They are delusional.
Completely unhinged and delusional.
Thank you, Stephen P!
I'll tweet it, to remind people of what Assange has done.
Peter Bowen , August 14, 2018 at 10:08 am
Your excellent discussion is only lacking the role of British intelligence. See "The fish
stinks from the head down" by Barbara Boyd at LaRouchePAC.com.
anastasia , August 14, 2018 at 9:49 am
Guccifer is a manipulator and a fabricator, and time and location cannot be determined?
Yet, Guccifer leaves fingerprints of the Russians, in Cyrillic letters. If Guccifer is a
manipulator and a fabricator, deliberately leaving fingerprints of the Russians, one need
only ask, who in the world would want to pin the blame on the Russians for election
interference in the US, and for what reason would they want to do such a thing. When that
question is answered, you narrow down who is behind it all.
xeno , August 14, 2018 at 9:47 am
The American public has been living in a cloud of mis- and dis- information for decades.
This isn't new.
Since Trump came on the political scene a couple years ago and scared the big money and
big power "elite", it has become more obvious and extreme.
Christian Chuba , August 14, 2018 at 8:10 am
If the hack narrative is ever refuted, the IC community will just fallback to 'Russians
are still attacking our democracy with facebook posts', aren't we the fragile, hot house
plants. Still I would love to see the truth come out someday, whatever that may be.
The last set of accusations centers around hacking voter registration servers which is
reported as 'Russians hacking state elections'.
I've wondered if this is just another commercial enterprise where hackers are just doing
routine identity theft, not nice, but not a state enterprise.
I remember Putin wanting to have a treaty with the U.S. to clamp down on all international
hacking but that would require reciprocity and this would prevent our infiltration of their
systems. This never gets any mention in our MSM.
Chucky LeRoi , August 14, 2018 at 4:19 pm
Just a very small point Christian. The blogger at MOA is hardly anonymous. Click the
"about this blog" link on the site. I even have his home address for donations
F. G. Sanford , August 14, 2018 at 7:58 am
Observations I have shared here in the past have had little impact on the grand scheme of
things, so it is with little hope that I comment today. Arguments become complex and
tortured, esoteric even to the point of grasping at philosophical abstractions which, in the
end, bear no resemblance to the actual events.
We are asked to believe that Russian "insiders" fed information damaging to Candidate
Trump to Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, who then concocted the "dossier". This would
serve to subvert his electability, and failing that, would provide an "insurance policy" to
insure that his Presidency would be nonviable. In the same breath, we are asked to believe
that those same Russians who sabotaged Mr. Trump's credibility -- wait for it -- manipulated
the election to insure that his opponent would lose. Either strategy would result in an
outcome unfavorable to Russia. Either Pence would assume leadership after an engineered coup,
or Clinton would have won. Neither outcome benefits the Russians. YOU SIMPLY CAN'T HAVE IT
BOTH WAYS. All of this ignores what I and others observed long before the election: Hillary
Clinton was the most repugnant candidate the DNC could possibly have chosen. Gotta give it to
COL Lawrence Wilkerson, who stated frankly: "I just don't think she's electable".
Without all the ontological baggage, "Fideism" simply refers to articles of religious
faith. Religion cares not a wit for evidence. In fact, it relies on the rejection of common
logic in favor of "faith", itself the polar opposite of empirical, evidence-based
thinking.
When news outlets of the day smeared, fabricated, edited, misrepresented and outright lied
about Jim Garrison's case regarding the JFK assassination, the affronts to his integrity
became so egregious and so obvious that, under the "Fairness Doctrine", he was granted a
thirty minute rebuttal on one of the major television networks. To paraphrase, he said, "The
American public has been sold a children's fairytale. But we are not children, and as adults,
the consequences of believing such nonsense will be devastating. We will eventually lose our
democracy".
Garrison's prediction has come to pass. We now vehemently defend fairytales as reality
collapses in front of our very eyes.
Bob Van Noy , August 14, 2018 at 8:52 am
Thanks F. G. Sanford for the very appropriate referral to Jim Garrison. It was his
dedication in the face of near impossible odds that convinced me to dedicate myself to
fighting the ongoing battle for honesty and justice with respect to JFK's Assassination. When
I remember the lifelong dedication of Jim Garrison, Fletcher Prouty, and the many totally
dedicated Journalists, Researchers, and Public Servants like William Binney, I'm encouraged
that the Truth will yet win out
Somehow I think Christopher Steele is the link to all of Russiagate. He was the head of
Mi6's Russia Desk and "held the hand" of the dying Alexander Litvinenko(the 1st alleged
poison victim of Putin), he was still around for the mysterious suicide of Dr. Kelley, he was
hired by Fusion GP3, first by the GOP, then by the Dems to dig up dirt on Trump. He was then
hired by Crowdstrike to clean up the DNC server(denied to the FBI). His association with
Portman Down might well connect him with the Skripal poisonings.
jdd , August 14, 2018 at 4:36 pm
You are on target. In fact there is speculation that Skripal may have been one of the
infamous "sources" of Steele's salacious dossier. In any case, Skripal was recruited to MI6
by one Pablo Miller, during the time Steele was undercover in Moscow, and who in addition to
living near Skripal, was employed by Orbis, Steele's Private Intelligence firm.
Interestingly,according to the Telegraph, Miller's association with Orbis has since been
removed from his linkedin profile.Steele also pops up in a key role in conjunction with
State's Victoria Nuland and Jonathan Winer in the violent 2014 coup against the elected
government of Ukraine. where he began surveillance of Paul Manafort, and was later
involved,along with his boss richarad Dearlove of MI6, in the targeting of Mike Flynn, Carter
Page and George Papadopolous, the intended entrapment of the last two occurring on British
soil, and then fed into the FBI by John Brennan.
jdd if you have a link for Steele's connection with the 2014 Ukraine coup, I would
appreciate it if you would post it here thanks
rosemerry , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm
No wonder Reagan got rid of the "Fairness Doctrine". The US MSM could not survive it these
days.
I wonder too how many people remember the McCarthy times, which seem to have returned with
a vengeance without the commies!!
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:32 pm
Re Wilkerson "I just don't think she's electable".
This might be a good time to remind readers that HRC has never won a contested election in
her life.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:49 am
She was twice elected to the U.S. Senate with opponents on the ballot, and had to win
contested primaries both times.
It doesn't speak very well of the people of New York that she won all those races, but in
what sense were they not "contested elections", at least in the limited sense that applies to
U.S. politics generally?
GKJames , August 14, 2018 at 7:02 am
(1) Does this set an impossibly high bar? Assuming one can navigate the technological
intricacies -- the point about transfer speeds seems reasonable enough -- can't one equally
conclude that there is compelling evidence of Russia's ongoing (over years) cyber-operations
against a number of countries? Certainly, there is the counter-argument, Well, you've not
proved anything. True enough, but in terms of crafting policies, we're never dealing with a
proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt standard. And even if we agreed that DNC emails were leaked (by
Americans) rather than hacked by Russians, that wouldn't be the end of the inquiry, would
it?
(2) Reasonable people will agree that hysteria should not drive policy. But hasn't US
policy -- especially in connection with the country's relationship with the rest of the world
-- been driven by exactly that, more often than not, for eons? The Infotainment Complex
recognized long ago that there are profits to be made by luring eyeballs. The particular
flavor may vary with time (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, etc.), but the hysteria itself is
ever-present. Today's flavor happens to be Russia, a perennial best-seller that benefits a
variety of domestic constituencies, not least the Threat Industry. Whether the public is
being manipulated or simply getting what it wants is an open question. My own view is that,
by and large, very little happens without the public's (even if only tacit) support.
(3) US foreign policy has always been an extension of domestic politics. Politicians
taking sensible positions invariably would be flogged by power-seekers for being "soft" on
some contrived evil. Reality, especially the nuanced kind, has rarely played much of a role.
Nor has self-reflection. Neither Washington nor the public it ostensibly serves show a
capacity for asking, What might explain Russia's position on, for instance, Crimea, Ukraine,
and Georgia? The cavalier decision to expand NATO eastward to Russia's border as THE source
of Moscow's resentment -- shared by a large proportion of the Russian public -- simply
doesn't compute in American minds. That non-computation is bipartisan; it's simply how an
empire does things.
(4) What remains strikingly elusive is a public exploration of how/why information on
social media was found persuasive by American voters, irrespective of who planted the
information. If it hadn't been Russians, would the November 2016 outcome have been different?
Unlikely. A cursory look at the on-line world makes it obvious that ignorance is the coin of
the realm, and that Americans do just fine in that regard all on their own.
All to say that the contentiousness among the world's powers will stay with us. As will
the national myth-making. The best that can be hoped for is that there is enough
self-restraint all around to keep in check the worst of the insanity.
mike k , August 14, 2018 at 8:02 am
GK -- Your comment can be summed up as: Nothing new here, get used to it -- there's
nothing we can do about it. Really? The establishment would dearly love for all of us to
adopt your ho hum attitude.
GKJames , August 14, 2018 at 9:08 am
Am suggesting that the problem facing what's left of the republic is far greater than a
hack/leak case, "collusion", or even the Nov '16 outcome. The American mind needs re-wiring,
something that Americans had better do themselves if they don't want a changing geopolitical
landscape to do it for them. Sure, there are (always have been) people with a clue, but they
tend to be outnumbered, now more than ever as widely cheered appeals to the visceral have
taken over the ethos of government itself. Problem is, the opposition (at least at national
leadership levels) to the current administration is mired in incoherence, obsessed to
distraction with the obviously woeful personal qualities of the president, and devoid of
imagination (the realistic kind). In other words, liberal democracy as we've known it since
1945 and imperfect as it's been, is under threat. And the threat doesn't come from Russia,
but from half of a population no longer persuaded that it's the only viable way of sustaining
the grand experiment. Concerns with anything less than that strike me as a matter of nibbling
at the edges and avoiding what we really need to do: look at ourselves and stop pointing
fingers at whatever "others" we can conjure as the source of our troubles.
We have, of course, someone who can precisely and accurately answer any question in the
matter.
Unfortunately, he is more or less imprisoned at the behest of your American
government.
And should he be turned out of his current situation, he faces certain extradition to the
US where he faces ugly treatment and a long prison term.
Such are the realities of American power in the world today.
By the way, his name is Julian Assange.
And the Democratic Party's own candidate, Ms Clinton, was quoted in her charming fashion,
"Can't we just drone him or something?"
Of course, it was in line with many ugly statements by Clinton, as the one, after
Qaddafi's assassination -- a man who did his best for his people and kept them in peace --
"We came, we saw, he died! Ha ha ha!"
It isn't just Trump who has a filthy mouth and constantly tells lies.
It is the whole American power establishment.
There is no easy solution, at least not in our time.
Powerful people who are determined to do terrible things will do them.
The total stakes for America's power establishment are too big for any argument or
evidence to turn it around.
But this is just the way American politicians have learned to deal with any adverse
finding about almost anything, especially in foreign affairs.
They just ignore it.
"How far will we allow our government to escalate against others without proof of
anything?" is a reader quote cited by the author.
But I ask, first, what the "allow" is doing in there?
Just what options, what real power, do average Americans have today? My best guess is that
it is close to zero.
Yes, you're still free, at least for a little while, to write and speak words, words, and
more words. But their net effect on the giant engine that is the American power establishment
is close to zero also.
And perhaps before long -- given events like the Alex Jones creepy stunts -- you may not
even be able to utter the words.
The stupid, endless stuff about Russia and hacks is just one small battle front of a huge
multi-front war being waged by the American power establishment for world supremacy.
If you want to understand the engines driving all this, read:
The censorship extends to the alternative commentators too. KPFA, Pacifica radio, which
hosts Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, just removed a long running program, Guns & Butter
hosted by Bonnie Falkner because she recently dared to discuss verboten subjects, i.e.,
Zionism.
Gregory Herr , August 15, 2018 at 12:10 am
I was hoping she was vacationing. I'll miss her interviews with people like William
Pepper, William Engdahl, the Saker, and many others. What a disappointment.
exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 2:53 am
They'd rather stick with establishment shills, which is what Amy Goodman has evolved into
as a serial apologist for yankee war crimes in the middle east.
exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 2:51 am
Great articles; great responses; great website. You've accurately described the true
nature of the present day yankee imperium in your responses and articles.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:22 am
Thank Dog our wonderful elites in the halls of power are spending millions; if not
hundreds of millions of dollars on Russiafarce.
Instead of frittering it away on hardening the electrical grid to an EMP.
I feel so represented and cared for by our illustrious elites
David G , August 14, 2018 at 3:12 am
Ok, here's my technical question, which is not calculated to make me very popular around
here.
Suppose the following:
Somebody (the Russians, the Samoans, elves, whoever) did in fact hack the DNC computer for
these emails, and this was done at the expected, relatively slow download rate. They then may
or may not have manipulated the data or metadata in some fashion on their own machine. The
somebody then uploaded these files onto a USB flash drive, and then re-downloaded them onto
another computer at the high transfer rate noted by the VIPS. From this second computer they
were sent on to Wikileaks (or some intermediary).
Does the VIPS analysis preclude this scenario? If not, is it possible that they are
correct about the download rate, but still have not excluded the possibility that the initial
taking of the emails from the DNC was done by hack?
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 3:54 am
The disseminator (wikileaks/Julian Assange) of those LEAKED emails has already answered
the question.
He has unequivocally stated that the emails were leaked; Not hacked.
NOTHING Wikileaks has released or claimed has ever been found to be false.
Kim Dotcom also claims to have intimate knowledge of the leak.
Both have offered to give testimony in this entire farce investigation
Yet, the grand inquisitor, Mueller the 9/11 and Anthrax, coverup artist refuses to interview
them.
That alone should tell you what is really going on.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 4:07 am
So you're saying there's nothing in the VIPS analysis that refutes the scenario I
outlined? Just those unrelated statements, upon which VIPS did not rely?
I'd be surprised if that's the case, but I'm waiting to hear from someone with useful
knowledge on the subject. That doesn't seem to be you.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:40 pm
That "someone" with the most knowledge on the subject has already spoken. His name is
Julian Assange and he flat out said it came from a leak not a hack.
Who else do you think is more qualified to make a statement on the hack than Julian
himself?
gratification , August 14, 2018 at 4:56 am
So what you're saying is that these cunning Russians faked the metadata on the DNC
download (or whatever it was) so as to obfuscate the fact that it was them but left other
"Russian fingerprints" -- such as cyrillic text -- that pointed to them? Baldrickian cunning!
It's beyond my simple mind.
What I'm *asking* is how the VIPS analysis can tell that the download (or upload,
whatever) speed that they are relying on was from the *beginning* of the data's journey to
Wikileaks (i.e. the initial transfer from the DNC server), which is what is required to prove
their thesis, rather than from some subsequent step along the way?
I'm not crediting myself with any genius in bringing up this point. It seems like a fairly
obvious challenge to make to the VIPS analysis, and I'm sure it's been made elsewhere.
I imagine the VIPS have dealt with this question long ago somewhere or other, but I've
never run across it and am hoping someone here has the technical chops to enlighten me.
In the mean time, how about everybody else stop trying to mischaracterize my question or
throw irrelevant (to this specific issue) facts at me?
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 7:28 am
I am also no technocrat.
My understanding is that any hack or leak leaves "fingerprints" in the files.
Both the original and the target files.
Thus, in the case of the scenario you propose -- earlier hacks that were amalgamated and
transformed into one large leak (I think this is your scenario) -- there would be
fingerprints of the earlier hacks.
AFAIK no allegations or evidence have been put forth concerning earlier suspicious hacks
that could have been transformed into one large, fast leak.
We need to look at the very strong possibility that the real purpose of Mueller's
investigation is to hide something, not reveal something. That is the strong record of his
CV.
Can someone tell me whether a person who has posted regularly in the past and who wants to
post here must enter name and email address afresh with each and every post?
Or is it just me?
David G , August 14, 2018 at 7:44 am
Well, what you say may well be true, Litchfield, but it still seems to me to be external
to the VIPS point about internet download-speed limitations, upon which -- based on Patrick
Lawrence's article -- they seem to be hanging a great deal, especially since they now
acknowledge that "[t]he conclusions initially drawn on time and location in VIPS50 are now
subject to these recent discoveries" (i.e. have been brought into question).
So I think my question stands.
I too now have to re-enter name and email with each post, and I also was wondering whether
it was just me. Guess not. Maybe an anti-spam thing?
Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:39 am
Litchfield-
The re-entry of your personal data started a couple weeks ago. I believe it is a safety
precaution so that your personal email address is no longer stored by CN. I could be
wrong.
Tom Welsh , August 14, 2018 at 8:41 am
As I understand your question, you are asking whether some information may not have been
tracelessly stolen from the DNC server quite separately from the transfer to an external
device described by VIPS.
My first reaction to this is that, obviously, any information could be copied from any
computer at any time by any person -- but if the operation left no traces, nobody could know
that it ever took place.
The only data that investigators have to go on are the files provided by Wikileaks and the
logs and other records of the DNC server itself. As far as I know, those point only to one
download -- that described by VIPS and this article.
Incidentally, you have reversed the usual meanings of "upload" and "download".
Conventionally, one downloads data from a repository or database, and uploads to it.
The files used were in fact not those provided by Wikileaks. The article linked to above
states that,
'The Forensicator specifically discusses the data that was eventually published by
Guccifer 2.0 under the title "NGP-VAN." This should not be confused with the separate
publication of the DNC emails by Wikileaks'.
The file copy times were derived from a compressed archive containing all the files of
interest. You can see a partial picture of the archive listing in the linked article.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 9:43 am
I appreciate your comments, Tom Welsh, but I feel I am just foundering deeper in
confusion.
To be clear, I wasn't "asking whether some information may not have been tracelessly
stolen from the DNC server quite separately from the transfer to an external device described
by VIPS." At least, I didn't mean to ask that.
I want to know specifically why the VIPS are sure that the speedy download/upload rate
they build their case on happened exactly when the data left the DNC server, and not at some
later point in their history. The VIPS argument depends on the former being the case.
The article you link to in fact *does* speak to this point, which is great, but as you say
it specificies that it is *not* about the DNC files that ended up at Wikileaks.
But this Patrick Lawrence article has William Binney "examin[ing] all the metadata
associated with the files [Guccifer] 2.0 has made public" without making any distinction
between that and the DNC/ Wikileaks files.
I guess I really don't have a handle on the essential details here.
While I like reading Patrick Lawrence's reflections on statecraft, I think he may have
been out of his depth here. There's nothing here that clarifies these questions, and that's
without even mentioning the passages that are confusing on their own, such as the paragraph
about how "G-2.0" somehow "merged" two sets of data into two sets of data.
I realized my use of "download" (vs. "upload") was off after my initial comment, and have
tried to avoid it in the later ones, but Binney himself is quoted using it in the "reversed"
sense in the article, and I took my lead from that.
Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:37 am
David G-
Here is a good video of Bill Binney explaining the merged data sets.
As to your other question, it is my understanding that ALL transfer of files leaves
metadata, and Bill Binney and the Forensicator have backtracked the metadata to the original
download that was of a speed only possible (at that time and place) locally via a storage
device.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:29 pm
Thanks, Skip Scott. That's helpful.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:23 pm
I thought that there were two incidents concerning hacks/leaks, which some people are
conflating.
1. *Leak* of files from DNC computers. This info ended up being given to Wikileaks by a
person w ho is known to both Craig Murray and Julian Assange
.
2. *Hack* of Hillary's private email server, including emails that should not have been on a
private server. And that there is some speculation that the Chinese hacked into Hillary's
private server.
Am I wrong about that?
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 4:23 am
"*Hack* of Hillary's private email server, including emails that should not have been on a
private server. And that there is some speculation that the Chinese hacked into Hillary's
private server.
Am I wrong about that?"
Not wrong.
Any intelligence agency and every intelligence agency, including 3rd world rate, were in and
out of Hillary's paper MCSE server set up.
FFS Brian Pagliano was busted asking for help on how to delete files on Reddit.
Aaron Schwartz got the last laugh!
And, we all got a few more years of an unradiated planet.
Well, so long as you pretend like the MSM does that Fukushima is a mass fertilaztion
event.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 9:04 am
Litchfield --
It's reasonable to assume that Clinton's home server was compromised by any number of
intelligence agencies, but that's not connected to any of the emails that have been publicly
released -- because they're spies and Wikileaks is journalism, no matter how much U.S. pols
and their stooges want to pretend otherwise.
Part of the Russia-gate snow job is to confuse this matter, though -- for instance by
pretending references by Trump on the campaign trail to "Hilary's emails" were actually about
the DNC and Podesta leaks.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:12 pm
" other records of the DNC server itself"
I thought that no one had been able to get their hands on the DNC servers -- the DNC had
not turned them over to law enforcement or the FBI -- to do forensics on them.
Am I wrong about that?
backwardsevolution , August 15, 2018 at 2:22 am
Litchfield -- no, you've got it right, the DNC servers have not been forensically examined
by the FBI. They were given to Crowdstrike to examine, if you can believe it.
Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 11:48 am
One thing has been bugging me about Binney's argument. Yes, it is nearly impossible for
someone in Russia to transfer the files that quickly. But who's to say the "hacker" was not
much closer to the DNC server, somewhere near DC?
They then transported the files via thumb drive or (more likely) portable disk drive to
Wikileaks.
Mind you, I desperately want Binney to be right, and for the whole charade to fall apart,
but this seems to be a weakness in his forensic argument.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:57 pm
My understanding has been that the VIPS are saying any internet upload at the recorded
rate would have been impossible under the applicable conditions, even a local one. Despite
the Binney quote in this piece referring to a "dedicated, leased, 400 -- megabit line all the
way to Russia", I hadn't thought that's really their argument. Am I wrong?
In any case, without any expertise myself, I'm inclined to trust them on that, at least
provisionally, but it's true that at this point the VIPS seem to be resting their entire
thesis on that one point -- there's not a lot of redundancy (in the good sense) there.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:15 pm
"Despite the Binney quote in this piece referring to a "dedicated, leased, 400 -- megabit
line all the way to Russia", I hadn't thought that's really their argument. Am I wrong?"
I think you are right. That is my understanding. That any upload/download over the
Internet would be much slower than a transfer to a flash drive.
I thought the mention of the 400-megabit line to Russia was a bit of hyperbole designed to
show how ridiculous the upload over internet scenario is.
Curious , August 16, 2018 at 1:11 am
Litchfield,
Although you are not a 'techie' the bottom line is not proximity. One can be in the same room
and not duplicate the speed of transfer. The internet is set up with limitations inherent in
the technology available.
As a personal reference, doing the Olympics in Italy, we had our own 'home run fiber' with
our fiber run to NY with copper as a backup. I do not have William Binneys' skills and tech
savvy, but I do know as a different techie we could not create anywhere close to the speed
this argument entails. And when on our 'home run' fiber from the US to Italy we had speed
issues, not because of the fiber links, but the interfaces that terminate the ends of the
fiber. This is important even for a non techie. If one doesn't have the latest and greatest
fiber interface, or (god help us) copper pairs, the speed is dependent on the termination of
the lines.
This hacking thing is as bogus as the world has seen, mainly because a lot of people don'y
Know the difference between a hack and a leak, and would have to put down too many beers to
learn.
Given what I know, I would trust Mr Binney to tell us what is possible, and again, it is not
proximity, nor super copper pairs, fiber, not sat feeds. He, above others probably built what
we now use randomly and he knows what is possible. This is just a suggestion to trust a man
with his experience which is uncommon to those who have not built systems in their lives, and
can only question without tech info.
Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Actually I think they underestimate some because to transmit a byte serially takes 10 bits
total because there is overhead (start and stop bits). So 49.1 MBps is about 491 Mbps.
Was a 491 Mbps network connected to the DNC computer? Probably not (that's very fast) but
it could be easily verified if the FBI or anybody else cared about the truth.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:53 pm
What you don't seem to be able to grasp is that "manipulating" the "data" or "metadata"
would leave fingerprints of the manipulation as well.
As was demonstrated by the VIPS being able to discern that the Guccifer 2.0 data was actually
2 seperate batches of data "manipulated" into one set.
I left any snark I have for you in my head and not on the keyboard.
I ask that you do the same in the future so we can have an adult conversation on the subject
and not an emotionally filled rant.
nonsense like "I'd be surprised if that's the case, but I'm waiting to hear from someone
with useful knowledge on the subject. That doesn't seem to be you." is petty and
childish.
David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:40 pm
You should also consider leaving in your head aspersions such as telling people who are
honestly seeking information that they are not "able to grasp" things.
Compare your aggressive approach to helpful attempts at addressing my question from
Litchfield, Tom Welsh, and Skip Scott (so far).
You seem like a wants-the-last-word kind of person. Looking forward to reading it.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:21 pm
I was quite polite to you in my first response.
You drew first blood.
Your question has been answered.
Any attempt to adjust the metadata would be traceable as was demonstrated by the 2 data sets
being discovered as merged into 1 data set.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:25 pm
Why not be perfectly polite in all responses?
What is this "first blood" nonsense?
Grow up!!!
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 1:45 am
@Litchfield
"Why not be perfectly polite in all responses?"
Perhaps you could ask your buddy that same question.
"Grow up!!!"
Introspection
Learn it!
Live it!
backwardsevolution , August 15, 2018 at 3:12 am
Litchfield -- there are many people who come on sites like this, pretending to be novices,
when their real objective is to place doubt in everybody's minds. That is their plan, to
create confusion, obfuscate. Of course these people have the right to question what VIPS has
discovered, but notice what they never ask for:
1) where are the DNC servers?
2) why haven't the DNC servers been handed over to the FBI?
3) why did the FBI accept Crowdstrike's analysis of the DNC servers?
4) why don't we allow VIPS access to these servers, along with the FBI, so that a complete
analysis can be done?
5) why don't we allow VIPS access to NSA data in order to follow the evidence from
beginning to end?
VIPS are doing the best job they can with what they have, but they are left with trying to
piece a puzzle together. Let's get our hands on the real data.
We can't know whether David G is sincere in his questions or whether he's just trying to
discredit VIPS (yes, that is the real objective of some people). I have my own opinion, but
I'll keep that to myself.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 9:18 am
backwardsevolution --
I don't think you did a particularly good job about keeping your opinion about me to
yourself here.
I didn't ask the questions you list because I was asking about something germane to this
specific article which I wanted to learn more about.
If you equate that with a "plan, to create confusion, obfuscate", then how are you
different from our members of Congress who are delegitimizing everybody who questions their
preferred narrative?
I couldn't agree more. Lockeed Martin and the numerous Political sellouts as well as the
War merchants, including corporate media, need another Russian cold war to justify getting
enormous government contracts that keep them glutinously feeding from the troth. This fake
Russian narrative seems to tie the President's hands until the mid-terms
where they hope to flip the house and stop the investigation by the House Intel committee and
politically damage him with impeachment and then to oust him in the 2020 election while
setting the narrative to justify Cold War 2.0
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 1:27 am
U.S. neoconservatism is just the latest permutation of imperialism that has plagued us
since the dawn of human history. Thucydides documented the blind greed and pig-headedness
that destroyed Greek civilization almost two and a half millennia ago in his History of
the Peloponnesian War :
"What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this
caused in Sparta."
And from Pericles' speech to the Athenians:
"And do not imagine that what we are fighting for is simply the question of freedom
or slavery: there is also involved the loss of our empire and the dangers arising from the
hatred which we have incurred in administering it. Nor is it any longer possible for you to
give up this empire, though there may be some people who in a mood of sudden panic and in a
spirit of political apathy actually think that this would be a fine and noble thing to do.
Your empire is now like a tyranny: it may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly
dangerous to let it go."
Add half a cup of Goebbels and Bernays sauce and a heaping tablespoon of hysteria to
Pericles' recipe for Armageddon, and voila ! you have a deadly dish of yellow
journalism like the one served up by the Washington Post editorial of Feb. 6,
2003:
"Irrefutable
After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations
Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq
possesses weapons of mass destruction. . . .
. . . .Diplomats from these nations [e.g., France and Germany] do not dispute Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's assertion that "any country on the face of the Earth with an
active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
. . . .None say Iraq has complied [with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441]. Until
now, however, they have cynically argued that the inspectors must uncover evidence proving
what they already know, or that it's too early to judge Saddam Hussein's cooperation. Mr.
Powell's presentation stripped all credibility from that dodge."
All a perfect iteration of the law of the lynch mob: We don't need no stinkin' evidence,
everyone knows they're guilty!
(I keep learning a whole lot from the many knowledgeable people who comment here. Please,
nobody stop!)
Ray
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 4:59 pm
Many thanks to you Ray for all you are doing and have done.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 8:26 pm
Dear Ray,
So many thanks for all you do. And for always showing a pleasant demeanor.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 9:33 am
"Bernays sauce" is good.
I watched Powell's U.N. presentation live. Even on its face -- before the specific
falsehoods had been exposed -- it was so obviously feeble, yet the media unanimously praised
it as irresistibly convincing. This left a lasting impression on me, and it came to mind a
few weeks ago during the stupefying media meltdown following the Trump-Putin Helsinki
summit.
"... The Russians were not pleased by U.S.-NATO involvements in the former Yugoslavia, a traditional Russian ally, in 1995 and 1999, and the expansion of NATO in the latter year (to include Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) in violation of the agreement between Ronald Reagan and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for Russia's acceptance of German reunification NATO would not spread "one inch" towards Russia. They protested meekly. But Russia was not an adversary then. ..."
"... Nor was it an adversary when, in 2001, under its new president Vladimir Putin, it offered NATO a route through Russia to provision forces in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. The real change only came in 2004, when NATO suddenly expanded to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This brought alliances forces right to the Russian border. ..."
"... We are your adversary. ..."
"... Russia is an adversary. ..."
"... Russia is an adversary. ..."
"... He worked with our adversary to undermine our election. ..."
The question is finally being asked, by the
president himself: what's wrong with collusion? Or at least his lawyer asks the question, while
Trumps tweets:
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn't matter because there was No Collusion.
The problem, of course, is that of collusion with an alleged adversary. Russia, we
are constantly informed, is one such adversary, indeed the main state adversary, with Putin is
its head.
Adversary is a very strong term. The Hebrew word for adversary is Satan. Satan is
the ultimate symbol of evil in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Satan tempted Eve at the Tree of
the Knowledge of Good and Evil, causing her to eat the fruit, and so evil entered the
world.
Just like some want you to think that evil entered the (good, pristine) U.S. electoral
process due to this Russian adversary in 2016.
(Sometimes listening to TV pundits vilifying Putin I find Luther's famous hymn floating
through my head:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe.
His craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal.
Luther's referring to Satan, of course. But the current mythology around Putin -- as someone
who still , like Lenin and Stalin before him, and the tsars of old, wishes us
harm; is an unbridled dictator with a powerful great nuclear arsenal; is the wealthiest man on
earth; and hates democracy -- resembles the mythology around the Adversary in the Bible.)
But let us problematize this vilification. When did Russia become a U.S. adversary?
Some might say 1917 when in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution Moscow became the center of
the global communist movement. But surely that period ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the
Warsaw Pact and the USSR.
Throughout the 1990s the U.S. cultivated Boris Yeltsin's Russia as a friend and even aided
the drunken buffoon in winning the 1996 election. Bill Clinton and Yeltsin signed the Start II
treaty. Harvard professors advised Moscow on economic reform.
The Russians were not pleased by U.S.-NATO involvements in the former Yugoslavia, a
traditional Russian ally, in 1995 and 1999, and the expansion of NATO in the latter year (to
include Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) in violation of the agreement between Ronald Reagan
and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 that in return for Russia's acceptance of
German reunification NATO would not spread "one inch" towards Russia. They protested meekly.
But Russia was not an adversary then.
Nor was it an adversary when, in 2001, under its new president Vladimir Putin, it offered
NATO a route through Russia to provision forces in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. The real
change only came in 2004, when NATO suddenly expanded to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This brought alliances forces right to the Russian
border.
It was a clear statement by the U.S. to a friendly country: We are your adversary.
But, of course, the Pentagon and State Department always pooh-poohed Russian concerns, denying
that NATO targeted any particular country.
Four years later (2008) NATO announced intentions to draw Ukraine and Georgia into the
alliance. Meanwhile the U.S. recognized Kosovo as an independent state. Kosovo, the historical
heart of Serbian civilization, had been wrenched from Serbia in 1999 under the pretext of a
"humanitarian" intervention that included the first bombing (by NATO) of a European capital
city since 1945. The province had been converted into a vast NATO base.
Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, emboldened by the prospect of NATO membership and
western backing, attacked the capital of the separatist republic of South Ossetia, provoking
(as the Russians explain it) a proper punitive response: the Russo-Georgian War of August 7-16
. After this Moscow recognized South Ossetia and a second breakaway republic, Abkhazia, in a
tit-for-tat response to Washington's recognition of Kosovo.
Now Russia was labelled an aggressive power -- by the power that had carved up Yugoslavia,
and invaded and occupied Iraq on the basis of lies and killed half a million in the process.
Plans to include Georgia in NATO had to be put on hold, in large part due to European allies'
opposition (why provoke Russia?) but the U.S. intensified efforts to draw in Ukraine. That
meant toppling the anti-NATO elected president Viktor Yanukovych.
The U.S. State Department devoted enormous resources to the Maidan coup in Kiev on February
23, 2014. Its agents helped topple the government, ostensibly for its failure to negotiate an
agreement for Ukrainian associate membership in the EU, but really to bring pro-NATO forces to
power and expel the Russian Fleet from the Crimean Peninsula where it has been based since
1783. Moscow's limited support for the Donbass ethnic-Russian separatists and re-annexation of
Crimea were, of course, depicted by the U.S. as more aggression, more mischievous opposition to
"U.S. global interests."
But from Moscow's point of view these moves have surely been defensive. The main problem is
(obviously) NATO and its dangerous, unnecessary and provocative expansion. Throughout his
presidential campaign Trump questioned the continued "relevance" of NATO. Characteristically he
focused on budget issues and allies' failure to meet the goal figure of 2% if GDP for military
expenses (misleadingly depicting investment shortfalls as a betrayal and rip-off of the
victimized U.S.). But he did -- to the alarm of many, and probably to Moscow's delight --
express little enthusiasm for the alliance's historical purpose.
The most rational proposition Trump voiced before his election that the U.S. should "get
along" with Russia. That is, get along with the so-called adversary. Trump as we all know had
been in Russia on business, hosting the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, and maintains
interest in building a Trump Tower in the city. He has met and befriended Russian oligarchs. He
quite possibly sees Russia as just another country, like Germany or France.
If "the French" had had dirt on Hillary, would it have been okay to "collude" with them to
influence the election result? France is, of course, a NATO ally. Would that make it different?
Now that the president and his layers are openly questioning whether "collusion", per
se, is even illegal, the specific nature of the colluder becomes more relevant.
Russia is an adversary.
Russia is an adversary.
Putin in Helsinki acknowledged to a reporter that he had hoped Trump could win, because he
had expressed hope for better relations. He might have added that he dreaded the prospect of a
Hillary victory because of her warmongering and characterization of him as a Hitler. Naturally
the Russian media favored Trump over Clinton at a certain point when he emerged as a credible
candidate. So when Trump on July 27, 2016 called on Russia to release Hillary's missing emails
("if you've got 'em") the Russians probably felt invited to make contact through channels. And
when informed that they had dirt, Don Jr. wrote: "If that's what you say, I love it." (Who can
blame him?)
Let's say there was some collusion after the June 6 Trump Tower meeting. Trump has suddenly
acknowledged that the meeting with the Russians was indeed to "seek political dirt." He adds
that this is "totally legal," and this may be true. Some are now saying that Don Jr. may have
violated a federal statute (52 USC 30121, 36 USC 5210) forbidding any foreign person to "make a
contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise
to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local
election.' and for anyone to knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any
contribution or donation prohibited by [this law]." But the language is vague. If a Canadian
speechwriter works gratis for a U.S. political candidate, in order to help him or her win, is
this not "a thing of value" intended to affect an election?
If Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner had met with Canadian agents in Trump Tower I
doubt there would have been any controversy. The fact is, Trump won the election and many of
those stunned by that wish to undermine him using revived Cold War-type Russophobia. They
insist: He worked with our adversary to undermine our election. And now they hope
they've got him on this charge.
*****
Five years ago a young man named Edward Snowden (now living in forced exile in Russia)
revealed to the world the extent of the U.S.'s global surveillance. He showed us how the NSA
wiretaps EU meetings, popes' conversations, Angela Merkel's cell phone and maintains metadata
on virtually all U.S. residents. He showed us what the contemporary advanced state can do in
this respect. We should suppose that Moscow has, if not similar capacity, at least enough
expertise to hack into the DNC emails or John Podesta's g-mail account. Is that surprising?
What none of the TV anchors is allowed to say needs to be said again: The U.S. interferes in
foreign elections all the time, including Russian ones. It should surprise no one if Russian
intelligence responds in kind. The point is not the provenance of the leaked emails but their
content.
Those horrified by the leaked material complain that their release was designed to
"undermine faith in our democratic system." Really? Don't the workings of the system itself
undermine one's faith in it, once they are exposed? Was it adversarial of the leaker to inform
us that the DNC had no intention of allowing Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination,
and thus that the process was rigged? Was it unfriendly to reveal that Podesta was hoping the
media would hype Trump, as an easy target for his candidate?
The question that will no doubt be debated in the coming days is whether seeking dirt on a
political opponent from any foreigner is indeed illegal, or whether there are specific legal
ramifications of meeting with someone from an "adversary" country. But it seems to me that
Russia has not been defined as such officially. So we may have a discussion less about legality
than the politics of Russophobia.
I am happy to see Trump besieged, rattled, possibly facing impeachment. But to bring him
down on the basis of "Russian collusion," on the assumption that Russia is an adversary, would
only advantage the warmongers who want no-fly zones over Syria and military support for the
Kiev regime against the Donbas separatists. Vice President Pence I believe favors both.
Trump has said that he cannot host Putin in Washington this year, or until the Russian Hoax
witch hunt is over. But Putin has invited him to Moscow. One senses he wants some agreements
with Trump before he is ousted by his gathering adversaries, including the press, courts,
Democrats, select Republicans, turncoat aides and he himself sometimes in his unguarded
tweets.
Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of
numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: [email protected] . Read other articles by Gary .
But always remember, the FBI/DOJ is "honorable". Yeah, that's the term
they use to refer to the scumbags that "represent" us in congress. In
reality, "there is no honor amongst thieves", and government is full of
them because sociopaths gravitate to positions of power.
It's a unruly fuck show at the FBI and nobody is being held accountable. No
leadership, no standards, no neutrality, no accountability. Obama weaponized
the FBI. Fire everyone.
The
Wall Street Journal
continues to counter
the
liberal
mainstream media's Trump Derangement Syndrome
, dropping uncomfortable truth-bombs and
refusing to back off its intense pressure to get to the truth and hold those responsible,
accountable (in a forum that is hard for the establishment to shrug off as 'Alt-Right' or
'Nazi' or be 'punished' by search- and social-media-giants) .
And
once again Kimberley
Strassel
- who by now has become the focus of social media attacks for her truth-seeking
reporting - does it again this morning, as she points out -
hours after former CIA Director
Brennan threw a tantrum over having his security clearance removed - that while Justice has
released some damning documents - particularly on what Bruce Ohr was doing - much of the truth
is still classified.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department have continued to insist they did
nothing wrong in their Trump-Russia investigation. This week should finally bring an end to
that claim, given the clear evidence of malfeasance via the use of Bruce Ohr.
Mr. Ohr was until last year associate deputy attorney general.
He began feeding information to the FBI from dossier author Christopher Steele in late 2016
- after the FBI had terminated Mr. Steele as a confidential informant for violating the
bureau's rules. He also collected dirt from Glenn Simpson, cofounder of Fusion GPS, the
opposition-research firm that worked for Hillary Clinton's campaign and employed Mr. Steele.
Altogether, the FBI pumped Mr. Ohr for information at least a dozen times, debriefs that remain
in classified 302 forms.
All the while, Mr. Ohr failed to disclose on financial forms that his wife, Nellie, worked
alongside Mr. Steele in 2016, getting paid by Mr. Simpson for anti-Trump research. The Justice
Department has now turned over Ohr documents to Congress that show how deeply tied up he was
with the Clinton crew - with dozens of emails, calls, meetings and notes that describe his
interactions and what he collected.
Mr. Ohr's conduct is itself deeply troubling. He was acting as a witness (via FBI
interviews) in a case being overseen by a Justice Department in which he held a very senior
position. He appears to have concealed this role from at least some superiors, since Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified that he'd been unaware of Mr. Ohr's intermediary
status.
Lawyers meanwhile note that it is a crime for a federal official to participate in any
government matter in which he has a financial interest. Fusion's bank records presumably show
Nellie Ohr, and by extension her husband, benefiting from the Trump opposition research that
Mr. Ohr continued to pass to the FBI. The Justice Department declined to comment.
But for all Mr. Ohr's misdeeds, the worse misconduct is by the FBI and Justice
Department.
It's bad enough that the bureau relied on a dossier crafted by a man in the employ of the
rival presidential campaign. Bad enough that it never informed the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of that dossier's provenance. And bad enough that the FBI didn't fire Mr.
Steele as a confidential human source in September 2016 when it should have been obvious he was
leaking FBI details to the press to harm Donald Trump's electoral chances. It terminated him
only when it was absolutely forced to, after Mr. Steele gave an on-the-record interview on Oct.
31, 2016.
But now we discover the FBI continued to go to this discredited informant in its
investigation after the firing -- by funneling his information via a Justice Department cutout.
The FBI has an entire manual governing the use of confidential sources, with elaborate rules on
validations, standards and documentation. Mr. Steele failed these standards. The FBI then
evaded its own program to get at his info anyway.
And it did so even though we have evidence that lead FBI investigators may have suspected
Mr. Ohr was a problem.
An Oct. 7, 2016, text message from now-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok to his colleague Lisa
Page reads: "Jesus. More BO leaks in the NYT," which could be a reference to Mr. Ohr.
The FBI may also have been obtaining, via Mr. Ohr, information that came from a man the FBI
had never even vetted as a source -- Mr. Simpson. Mr. Steele had at least worked with the FBI
before; Mr. Simpson was a paid political operative. And the Ohr notes raise further doubts
about Mr. Simpson's forthrightness. In House testimony in November 2017, Mr. Simpson said only
that he reached out to Mr. Ohr after the election, and at Mr. Steele's suggestion. But Mr.
Ohr's inbox shows an email from Mr. Simpson dated Aug. 22, 2016 that reads, in full: "Can u
ring."
The Justice Department hasn't tried to justify any of this; in fact, last year it quietly
demoted Mr. Ohr. In what smells of a further admission of impropriety, it didn't initially turn
over the Ohr documents; Congress had to fight to get them.
But it raises at least two further crucial questions.
First, who authorized or knew about this improper procedure? Mr. Strzok seems to be in the
thick of it, having admitted to Congress interactions with Mr. Ohr at the end of 2016. While
Mr. Rosenstein disclaims knowledge, Mr. Ohr's direct supervisor at the time was the previous
deputy attorney general, Sally Yates. Who else in former FBI Director Jim Comey's inner
circle and at the Obama Justice Department nodded at the FBI's back-door interaction with a
sacked source and a Clinton operative?
Second, did the FBI continue to submit Steele- or Simpson-sourced information to the FISA
court? Having informed the court in later applications that it had fired Mr. Steele, the FBI
would have had no business continuing to use any Steele information laundered through an
intermediary.
* * *
Strassel concludes with the point that she and The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board have
been hammering for months...
We could have these answers pronto; they rest in part in those Ohr 302 forms. And so once
again: a call for President Trump to declassify.
It's time for things to get more serious than slaps on the wrist, firings, and
self-inflicted black-eyes!
That Mueller is ignoring this OBVIOUS
Clinton/Steele/Ohr/FBI etc, etc Russian collusion
while prosecuting Manafort for an unrelated, 2005
financial crime (while granting IMMUNITY to Tony
Podesta for the identical crime) is all the proof you
need it's a coverup, not an "investigation" into
russian collusion.
Strassel deserves a Pulitzer. But instead, CNN
received an award for their comey story (after it was
proven that comey leaked the documents to
them....it's not that CNN did tons of investigative
work....the docs were handed to them and they
published them - dutifully in exchange for an award
to be given at the WH Correspondents' dinner.)
That's a fact, long after Steele was fired as a "foreign
asset" Ohr was still passing his Russian procured
bullshit through to fellow travelers within the FBI & DoJ...like
McCabe and Stzrok.
Hell the day before the Trump Tower
meeting with Natalia, Glenn Simpson was dining with this
"Russian government lawyer".And oddly enough, the very next
day too.
The ONLY Russian collusion was happening on the dim side
and one of the first clues is ALWAYS watch for what they
are accusing other's of cuz that is what THEY are doing ;-)
Every time I read these things I start by saying the
FBI/DOJ was trying to hide ____ , then I replace that
with the FBI/DOJ conspired to hide ____. You start doing
that too much and you have to say the FBI/DOJ colluded
to nullify the election, overthrow an elected president.
Somewhere this Summer I started saying the word coup
with a little more conviction. When 350 news outlets
then write coordinated editorials targeting that same
president, not the architects of this conspiracy, this
failed (so far) coup, I tend to side more against than
with them. Journalism and Yellow Journalism are
different things - I think that's why they added
"Yellow" to the term.
"When CNN and MSNBC start to ask questions like this then
I'll start paying attention."
Their money loving greed will never allow them to tell their
dedicated liberals any such thing..
The media is the enemy of the Constitution, its amendments,
and the Declaration of Independence. They do not care about who
they hurt, they do not care about Americans or America....they
are a foreign enemy under foreign control.
Hatch Act Violations by many in FBI... plus CIA, NSA, DNI, DOJ.
Prohibitions against political activity by Federal Employees. Brennen
should be scared that we all prove common policy prohibition does lead
to lying/deceit and even sedition, treason, subterfuge, subversion
charges.
This article, along with all the other reports, always state that the
DOJ did this, the FBI did that, but fails to name the individual
involved or the department heads who were responsible. The information
is always muddled and obfuscated by the bureaucratic organization, so
no individual is responsible. Enough of this, name names please!!! or
no one will ever be accountable.
Stalin had the Moscow Trials where he framed his opposition and had
them executed. Does anyone doubt had Hillary won that she would have
orchestrated the prosecution of Trump and his cronies knowing full well
she ran the entire frame-up behind the scenes?
Who would have stood
up for Trump? Both sides wanted him buried and gone. History would
have written that Trump was the ultimate Manchurian candidate...paid
for, supported by, and mandated to by Russia, now serving a life
sentence for treason.
Very insightful comment. Nobody has any doubt but half the country
wouldn't care. The other half as you eluded to, would be scattered
to the wind and left at the mercy of the controlled opposition that
is the Republican Party.
We all need to be ready to form a
Big Tent Party
outside the power structure of the
current D's and R's. Obviously not the moment now but there will
come a moment when we all must strike out
Alone...Together
.
Leave these shit stains and all of their divide and conquer BS in
the dust.
"... Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century ..."
"... "Democrats are lipstick on a neocon pig. " ..."
"... The headline says it all? The Russiagate lie is "to big too fail" because if this shellgame hoax concocted by the Democratic Party to mask the very thing they are accusing Russia of doing, election meddling was ever exposed, the'd be finished, as a Political Party! ..."
One year later, the VIPS memo contending that the DNC emails were leaked and not hacked has yet to be successfully challenged.
Meanwhile, the country sinks deeper into the morass of the new McCarthyism, comments Patrick Lawrence.
A year has passed since highly credentialed intelligence professionals produced the
first hard evidence that allegations of mail theft and other crimes attributed to Russia rested on purposeful falsification and subterfuge.
The initial reaction to these revelations -- a firestorm of frantic denial -- augured ill, and the time since has fulfilled one's
worst expectations. One year later we live within an institutionalized proscription of proven reality. Our discourse consists of
a series of fence posts and taboos. By any detached measure, this lands us in deep, serious trouble. The sprawl of what we call "Russia-gate"
now brings our republic and its institutions to a moment of great peril -- the gravest since the McCarthy years and possibly since
the Civil War. No, I do not consider this hyperbole.
Much has happened since Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity published its report on intrusions into the Democratic Party's
mail servers on Consortium News on July 24 last year. Parts of the intelligence apparatus -- by no means all or even most of it --
have issued official "assessments" of Russian culpability. Media have produced countless multi-part "investigations," "special reports,"
and what-have-yous that amount to an orgy of faulty syllogisms. Robert Mueller's special investigation has issued two sets of indictments
that, on scrutiny, prove as wanting in evidence as the notoriously flimsy intelligence "assessment" of January 6, 2017.
Indictments are not evidence and do not need to contain evidence. That is supposed to come out at trial, which is very
unlikely to ever happen. Nevertheless, the corporate media has treated the indictments as convictions.
Numerous sets of sanctions against Russia, individual Russians, and Russian entities have been imposed on the basis of this great
conjuring of assumption and presumption. The latest came last week, when the Trump administration announced measures in response
to the alleged attempt to murder Sergei and Yulia Skripal, a former double agent and his daughter, in England last March. No evidence
proving responsibility in the Skripal case has yet been produced. This amounts to our new standard. It prompted a reader with whom
I am in regular contact to ask, "How far will we allow our government to escalate against others without proof of anything?"
This is a very good question.
Cover of 2001 book that looks back on the earlier period of anti-Russia hysteria.
There have been many attempts to discredit VIPS50 as the group's
document is called.
There has been much amateurish journalism, false reporting, misrepresentation, distortion, misquotation, and omission. We have been
treated to much shoddy science, attempts at character assassination, a great deal of base name-calling, and much else. Russia is
routinely advanced as the greatest threat to democracy Americans now face. Is there any denying that we live amid an induced hysteria
now comparable to the "Red under every bed" period of the 1950s?
None of this has altered the basic case. VIPS and forensic scientists working with it have continued their investigations. New
facts, some of which alter conclusions drawn last year, have come to light, and these are to be addressed. But the basic evidence
that Russia-gate is a false narrative concocted by various constituents of national power stands, difficult as this is to discern.
Scrape back all that is ethically unacceptable and unscrupulously conveyed into the public sphere and you find that nothing has changed:
No one "hacked" the Democratic party's mail in the summer of 2016. It was leaked locally. From what one can make out, it was done
to expose the party leadership's corrupt efforts to sink Bernie Sanders' insurgent campaign to win the Democratic nomination.
But in another, very profound way, more has changed since VIPS50 was published than one could have imagined a year ago. American
discourse has descended to a dangerous level of irrationality. The most ordinary standards of evidentiary procedure are forgone.
Many of our key institutions -- the foreign policy apparatus, the media, key intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, the political
leadership -- are now extravagantly committed to a narrative none appears able to control. The risk of self-inflicted damage these
institutions assume, should the truth of the Russia-gate events emerge -- as one day it surely will -- is nearly incalculable. This
is what inspires my McCarthy and Civil War references. Russia-gate, in a phrase, has become too big to fail.
This column is an attack on no one. However it may be read, it is not intended as another round of vituperative argument adding
to the din and fog we already suffer daily. No shred of ideology informs it. I write a lament -- this for all we have done to ourselves
and our institutions this past year, and to the prospect of an orderly world, and for all that must somehow be done to repair the
damage once enough of us indeed recognize what has been done.
New VIPS Findings
Binney: Dares anyone to prove remote speeds .
The forensic scientists working with VIPS continued their research and experiments after VIPS50 was published. So have key members
of the VIPS group, notably William Binney, the National Security Agency's former technical director for global analysis and designer
of programs the agency still uses to monitor internet traffic. Such work continues as we speak, indeed. This was always the intent:
"Evidence to date" was the premise of VIPS50. Over the past year there have been confirmations of the original thesis and some surprises
that alter secondary aspects of it. Let us look at the most significant of these findings.
At the time I reported
on the findings of VIPS and associated forensic scientists, that the most fundamental evidence that the events of summer 2016 constituted
a leak, not a hack, was the transfer rate -- the speed at which data was copied. The speed proven then was an average of 22.7 megabytes
per second. That speed matches what is standard when someone with physical access uses an external storage device to copy data from
a computer or server and is much faster than a remote hack, reliant on communications
topology available at the time, could achieve.
Binney experimented into the autumn. By mid-autumn he had tested several routes -- from East Coast locations to cities in eastern
Europe, from New Jersey to London. The fastest internet transfer speed achieved, during the New Jersey–to–Britain test, was 12.0
megabytes of data per second. Since this time it has emerged from G-2.0's metadata that the detected average speed -- the 22.7 megabytes
per second -- included peak speeds that ran as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, impossible over the internet. "You'd need a dedicated,
leased, 400–megabit line all the way to Russia to achieve that result," Binney said in a recent interview.
To my knowledge, no one with an understanding of the science involved, including various former skeptics, any longer questions
the validity of the specific finding based on the observed transfer rate. That remains the bedrock evidence of the case VIPS and
others advance without qualification. " No one -- including the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA -- has come out against this finding,"
Binney said Monday. "Anyone who says the speed we demonstrated can be achieved remotely, our position is 'Let's see it. We'll help
any way we can.' There hasn't been anyone yet."
There is also the question of where and when leaks were executed. Research into this has turned out differently.
Evidence last year, based on analysis of the available metadata, showed that the copy operation date-stamped July 5, 2016, took
place in the Eastern U.S. time zone. But Forensicator, one of the chief forensic investigators working on the mail-theft case anonymously,
published evidence in May showing that while there was activity in the Eastern zone at the time of that copy, there was also a copy
operation in the Pacific time zone, where clocks run three hours earlier that EST. In an earlier publication he had also reported
activity in the Central time zone.
Plainly, more was awaiting discovery as to the when and where of the copy operations. The identity of Guccifer 2.0, who claimed
to be a Romanian hacker but which the latest Mueller indictment claims is a construct of the GRU, Russian military intelligence,
has never been proven. The question is what G–2.0 did with or to the data in question. It turns out that both more, and less, is
known about G–2.0 than was thought to have been previously demonstrated. This work has been completed only recently. It was done
by Binney in collaboration with Duncan Campbell, a British journalist who has followed the Russia-gate question closely.
Peak Speed Established
Binney visited Campbell in Brighton, England, early this past spring. They examined all the metadata associated with the files
G–2.0 has made public. They looked at the number of files, the size of each, and the time stamps at the end of each. It was at this
time that Binney and Campbell established the peak transfer rate at 49.1 megabytes per second.
But they discovered something else of significance, too. At some point G–2.0 had merged two sets of data, one dated July 5, 2016,
which had been known, and another dated the following September 1, which had not been known. In essence, Campbell reverse-engineered
G–2.0's work: He took the sets of data G–2.0 presented as two and combined them back into one. "G–2.0 used an algorithm to make a
downloaded file look like two files," Binney explained. "Those two shuffled back together like a deck of cards."
G–2.0 then took another step. Running another algorithm, he changed all the dates on all the files. With yet another algorithm,
he changed the hours stamped on each file. These are called "range changes" among the professionals. The conclusion was then obvious:
G–2.0 is a fabrication and a fabricator. Forensicator had already
proven that the
G–2.0 entity had inserted Russian "fingerprints" into the document known as the "Trump Opposition Report," which G-2.0 had published
on June 15, 2016. It is clear that no firm conclusions can be drawn at this point as to when or where G–2.0 did what he did.
" Now you need to prove everything you might think about him," Binney told me. "We have no way of knowing anything about him or
what he has done, apart from manipulating the files. We detected activity in the Eastern time zone. Now we have to ask again, 'Which
time zone?' The West Coast copy operation [discovered by Forensicator] has to be proven. All the data has been manipulated. It's
a fabrication."
This throws various things into question. The conclusions initially drawn on time and location in VIPS50 are now subject to these
recent discoveries. "In retrospect, giving 'equal importance' status to data pertaining to the locale was mistaken," Ray McGovern,
a prominent VIPS member, wrote in a recent note. "The key finding on transfer speed always dwarfed it in importance."
The indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers announced in mid–July by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney-general,
also come into question. They rest in considerable part on evidence derived from G–2.0 and DCLeaks, another online persona. How credible
are those indictments in view of what is now known about G–2.0?
Binney told me: "Once we proved G–2.0 is a fabrication and a manipulator, the timing and location questions couldn't be answered
but really didn't matter. I don't right now see a way of absolutely proving either time or location. But this doesn't change anything.
We know what we know: The intrusion into the Democratic National Committee mail was a local download -- wherever 'local' is." That
doesn't change. As to Rosenstein, he'll have a lot to prove."
What Role does Evidence Play?
Rosenstein at the Justice Department on July 13 announcing indictments against 12 GRU agents. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty
Images)
Rosenstein's predicament -- and there is no indication he understands it as one -- brings us to an essential problem: What is
the place of evidence in American public discourse? Of rational exchange?
The questions are germane far beyond the Russia-gate phenomenon, but it is there that answers are most urgent. What is implicit
in the Rosenstein indictments has been evident everywhere in our public sphere for a year or more: Make a presumption supported by
circumstantial evidence or none and build other presumptions upon it until a false narrative is constructed. The press has deployed
this device for as long as I have been a practitioner: "Might" or "could" or "possibly" becomes "perhaps," "probably" and "almost
certainly," and then moves on to unqualified fact in the course of, maybe, several weeks. Now this is how our most basic institutions
-- not least agencies of the Justice Department -- routinely operate.
This is what I mean when I refer to ours as a republic in peril.
There is the argument that certain things have been uncovered over the past year, and these are enough to conclude that Russia
plots to undermine our democracy. I refer to the small number of Facebook advertisements attributed to Russians, to strings of Twitter
messages, to various phishing exercises that occur thousands of times a day the world over. To be clear, I am no more satisfied with
the evidence of Russian involvement in these cases than I am with the evidence in any other aspect of the Russia-gate case. But for
the sake of argument, let us say it is all true.
Does this line up with the Russophobic hysteria -- not too strong a term -- that envelops us? Does this explain the astonishing
investments our public institutions, the press, and leading political parties have made in advancing this hysteria as they did a
variant of in the 1950s?
As global politics go, some serious thought should be given to a reality we have created all by ourselves: It is now likely that
America has built a new Cold War division with Russia that will prove permanent for the next 20 to 30 years. All this because of
some Facebook ads and Twitter threads of unproven origin? Am I the only one who sees a weird and worrisome gap between what we are
intent on believing -- as against thinking or knowing -- and the consequences of these beliefs?
There was an orthodoxy abroad many centuries ago called Fideism. In the simplest terms, it means the privileging of faith and
belief over reason. It was the enemy of individual conscience, among much else. Fideism has deep roots, but it was well around in
the 16 th century, when Montaigne and others had to navigate its many dangers. Closer to our time, William James landed
a variant on American shores with an 1896 address called "The Will to Believe." Bertrand Russell countered this line of thinking
a couple of decades later with "Free Thought and Official Propaganda," a lecture whose title I will let speak for itself. Twenty
years ago, none other than Pope John Paul II warned of a resurgence of Fideism. It is still around, in short.
Do we suffer from it? A variant of it, I would say, if not precisely in name. There seems to be a givenness to it in the American
character. I think we are staring into a 21 st century rendition of it.
To doubt the hollowed-out myth of American innocence is a grave sin against the faith. It is now unpatriotic to question the Russia-gate
narrative despite the absence of evidence to support it. Informal censorship of differing perspectives is perfectly routine. It is
now considered treasonous to question the word of intelligence agencies and the officials who lead them despite long records of deceit.
Do we forget that it was only 15 years ago that these same institutions and people deceived us into an invasion of Iraq the consequences
of which still persist?
This was the question Craig Murray, the former British diplomat (who has vital information on the DNC mail theft but who has never
been interviewed by American investigators) posed a few weeks ago. Eugene Robinson gave a good-enough reply in a Washington Post
opinion piece shortly afterward: "God Bless the Deep State," the headline read.
How we got here deserves a work of social psychology, and I hope someone takes up the task. Understanding our path into our self-created
crisis seems to me the first step to finding our way out of it.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist,
author, and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist.
His web site is www.patricklawrence.us . Support his work via
www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
Gerry L Forbes , August 16, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Can the DNC server be used to convict anybody but the DNC and Crowdstrike since they refused to let the FBI examine the
server, breaking the chain of custody? About the indictments handed down so far all one can really say is "luncheon is served!"
("Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich"). And how is lying to the FBI a crime unless it meets
the standard of obstruction of justice? Do they put you under oath before questioning you? Isn't this just an infringement
of Fifth Amendment rights? Must be one of Schumer's six ways from Sunday.
The amount of discord sown by Russian trolls probably pales in comparison to that sown by American trolls and wouldn't
even register compared to the discord sown by daily headlines screaming about Russian meddling.
The solution is to teach critical thinking but this will not happen because it is not in the interests of politicians,
lobbyists, or advertisers and the businesses that these groups serve.Even Harvard University prefers to protect its students
from "fake news' by censorship rather than education.
Rob , August 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm
"Lying" to the FBI is exactly how they indicted Michael Flynn. His interrogators asked questions to which they already had
the answers (via telephone taps), and when he gave them wrong information, they nailed him. For all we know, he simply forgot
specific details in giving his answers and was not trying to deceive, but that possibility seems to be beside the point. This
is a common tactic that the FBI uses to induce suspects and witnesses to cooperate. Clever, but backhanded, IMO
irina , August 16, 2018 at 9:07 pm
1981 is not 2018.
And you might want to google 'Clinton Body Count' if you're worried about politicos offing people. In fact, a young woman investigating
Bill Clinton's sexual shenanigans just got dead rather suspiciously . . .
For those who are so vituperative about Vladimir Putin, I say "Be careful what you wish for". We can only hope his successor
is as unflappable as he seems to be. (By the way, during your trip did you learn anything about the Siege of Leningrad in WW2
?) Did you know that Putin's parents lived through that siege, and that his older brother died in childhood as a result of being
young and starving during the siege ?
I live in Alaska and remember the 'Golden Samovar Service' offered by Alaska Airlines in the late 1980's (direct flights to
the Russian Far East). Now, we must fly almost all the way around the world to get to Siberia. How does that make sense ?
Kay , August 15, 2018 at 11:39 am
What is astonishing to me is how anyone could have believed this hoax in the first place, particularly when the Democratic
party literally admitted it chooses candidates in backroom deals. It is lobbyists, defense contractors, corporations & the Israeli
lobby that owns our politicians. Russia gate is also a smokescreen that covers up another foreign government interfering in our
own & in our elections. Trumps largest donor is Sheldon Adelson, Israeli billionaire. We have 89 members of Congress who are dual
Israelis and we just gave that fascist, genocidal state 38 BILLION in welfare. All our wars have been for the colonial expansion
of greater Israel and the new NDAA literally authorizes war with Iran, on behalf of Israel & Saudi Arabia of course.
I was present throughput the 2016 election and witnessed the fraud by Clinton the DNC & the FBI's downgrading of Clinton crime
was obvioua. Where in the hell was everyone else? Democrats wanted Clinton & her intelligence agency crowd because WAR WAS ASSURED.
Democrats are addicted to war & militarism. I still meet people who had no idea that Obama was involved in five wars, with Clinton
help!! And if they do know they don't CARE.
Democrats are lipstick on a neocon pig. Their love for war & continued denial about their corruption will continue to see them
lose election after election. In a recent Gallop poll, Russia was at the bottom of the list of concerns for respondents. Democrats
do not talk to their base. They talk at them with Russiagate. It's old. I do believe the lies will be revealed and I believe that
more in America know what's really going on than not. 62 percent of Americans don't vote. There is a reason for that. In another
recent poll 56 percent of Americans want normalized relations with Russia. It's the elite that are,driving us to war.
The question is what will we do to stop it
Ed , August 16, 2018 at 11:25 pm
"Democrats are lipstick on a neocon pig. "
True, and let's not forget that the original neocons were Scoop Jackson democrats who infiltrated the GOP and now infest both
parties.
KiwiAntz , August 14, 2018 at 8:16 pm
The headline says it all? The Russiagate lie is "to big too fail" because if this shellgame hoax concocted by the Democratic
Party to mask the very thing they are accusing Russia of doing, election meddling was ever exposed, the'd be finished, as a Political
Party!
So the lie must go on using Russia as the scapegoat to divert public attention from Democrats colluding with the Intelligence
Agencies to firstly get rid of Bernie Saunders as a Presidential Candidate then to get dirt on Trump in a attempt to conduct a
soft coup to oust him from office! The corruption of the Democratic Party & the entire American establishment, comprised of its
Corporate, Financial, Political, MIC & Intelligence Agencies in lockstep with a insidious MSM propagandist arm is now, so corrupt,
evil & ingrained, that there's no hope for its citizens who now live in a Stasi, Gestopo, Fascist Country whose Leaders are blaming
Russia for everything to distract attention away from their race to the bottom, deathcult ambitions & their willing to risk Nuclear
War with Russia too advance their lunatic plans! America is lost as a Country with no hope, no values & certainly has no moral
compass or conscience
exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 2:22 am
This is exactly how it is at present. It is a signal disgrace and war crimes, such as the Yemen thing and suggested wars with
Iran and elsewhere are the inevitable outgrowth of this situation.
The Clintons abrogated the Reagan agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO to the west of reunified Germany, ringing Russia with
NATO bases and provoking Russian actions. American and British oligarchs (like Bill Browder) descended on Russia under American
puppet Yeltsin to plunder Russia, along with quick study Russian oligarchs (many of whom fled to the West, particularly to London,
with the money). Putin put an end to that, and the Clintons had a conniption, since they were counting on fortunes for themselves.
Clintons delivered the meaningless Kosova war, as well as in Chinagate, offshoring our technology technology jobs to permanent
free trade status China, which was designed to further pressure Russia but may come back to haunt us, as did the Clintons' repeal
of Glass Steagall in 2008. Putin is popular for reversing much of what the Clintons' did to Russia, and Russian life expectancy
has gone up by 5 years since 2005 (American life expectancy has declined, and is below the OECD countries in aggregate).
GKJames , August 15, 2018 at 6:53 am
I recognize that hyperbole is the order of the day. But to lay at Clinton's feet responsibility for "mass murder [really??]
and chaos and coups" in the countries you identify surely is carrying your highly selective rage too far. If memory serves, it
was some other guy who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. As for her "call[ing] Putin Hitler," what she in fact said was that Putin's
actions in Ukraine -- the purported protection of the ethnic Russian minority in the east of the country in order to justify the
use of military force there -- was similar to what Hitler h
Keith , August 14, 2018 at 4:41 pm
According to Bill Binney in an interview with Jimmy Dore ( https://youtu.be/JHZXVWUxxDU
), Guccifer 2.0 released two batches of data, one on 5 July 2016 and a second on 1 Sept 2016. "But if you look at that data a
little closer," Binney said, "and you ignore the hour and the day, and just look at minutes, seconds, and milliseconds, [you can
take those] two data sets and shuffle them like a deck of cards. They fit together into one dataset without conflict." So there
was one continuous set of data. In other words, G-2.0 got hold of one dataset, but wanted it to appear as two different hacks.
Binney doesn't deviate from the claim that the speed of the download means it was done "locally"–not over the internet–but that
we don't know where "local" was (it wasn't necessarily done at the DNC). As for the possibility that the dataset was hacked over
the internet, then moved locally at the much faster speed, I'd guess that the VIPS would have identified that possibility. If
G-2.0 were so unsophisticated as to change dates and hours, but ignore minutes, seconds, and milliseconds, G-2.0 might have overlooked
any evidence that the dataset had also been moved previously over a slower internet transfer–and VIPS is sharp enough to have
picked that up. If such evidence could easily be removed, surely VIPS would have pointed out that possibility.
JWalters , August 14, 2018 at 9:02 pm
The main defense against the VIPS download speed analysis is the claim that the files might have been stolen from the DNC server
over the internet at the slower speed, and then copied to a thumb drive at the faster speed. I'd like to hear how VIPS would dispute
that theory.
In any case, there is a great deal of additional evidence that the theft was an inside job, including Julian Assange and Craig
Murry saying the emails came to Wikileaks from a disgruntled insider, and even Leon Podesta speculating that it was insider.
The were leaked. JULIAN ASSANGE HAS SAID SO MANY TIMES. Why do you think he is now isolated from the world? Now I hear he's
considering taking an offer to testify and I'm worried about his mental state. Maybe someone in isolation who goes "stir crazy"
would be willing to do anything to get out of it. No, that can't be right. He's never caved before.
michael , August 15, 2018 at 5:55 am
As Federal judge William Zloch told Bernie supporters when they sued the Hillary DNC for stealing the primaries and their donations,
the DNC is NOT a government entity. The DNC is NOT a public institution. The DNC IS a private club which by some arcane corrupt
rule befitting a Banana Republic allows it to put forth one of essentially only two candidates for President. If there was any
crime committed in this "matter" the FBI would have been all over those servers and computers like white on rice. You cannot have
it both ways. As it is, there is no chain of custody for any possible evidence, and as Hillary has said many times, No Evidence
Means No Crime.
It is quite interesting how many uninformed posters and/or trolls would love to find a way to show the "Russiagate" nonsense
is somehow plausible in spite of the evidence. They're kind of like a five year old child who desperately wants to keep believing
in Santa Claus, even though he just found dad's Santa costume in the closet and he's holding it in his own hands.
I will say that the amount of mental gymnastics required to continue not believing evidence that is right in front of one's
eyes is quite impressive – but I'd never underestimate the American people's creativity when they want to maintain their illusions/delusions.
And I'd certainly never underestimate the Russiagate troll army's persistence.
At this rate I expect to soon encounter some version of the following "observation" in the comments section for this article:
– "maybe space aliens hired by the Russians downloaded the files to a to a new fangled thig-a-ma-jig and then shape-shifted so
Craig Murray would be fooled into thinking a real-like-human insider provided him the files on a flash drive." – "oh, oh, wait,
maybe the aliens abducted Murray too, and then just made him "think" a fellow human gave him the drive in person." "yeah, yeah,
and maybe Assange just says he didn't get the files from the Russians because "he's a space alien too." "Yeah, prove to me that
it didn't happen this way – you can't – ha! there! I win!"
Sorry, but two years into this we should be way beyond this kind of – "I can't believe Santa's not real"- denying, dissembling,
rationalizing nonsense. Then again, this is America.
michael , August 15, 2018 at 6:06 am
"Two years after the Iraq War began, 70 per cent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the
9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post survey." The Big Lie works, and since Obama gutted Smith-Mundt, the CIA/ State Department
can legally keep Americans tracking on their propaganda narratives.
Double pronged exercise: 1) Start war with Russia, steal its oil, break into tiny States
to destroy its power; 2) Destroy Trump as enemy of globalist world domination and USA
disintegration plan.
MSM propaganda arm to sell (1) and (2).
These retired Intel specialists keep interfering in the game and interjecting inconvenient
facts:
DNC server never hacked by Russia or anyone. It was an insider transfer. Insider dead.
Dead men tell no tales and so far, neither does Wikileaks.
VIPS is doing some excellent work and they show what really happened while Rosenstein is
out to Lunch, Sessions is deaf dumb and blind - useless - both Sessions and Rosenstein need
to go.
Muller does not care and he is not interested in the truth and is ignoring the facts and
the corruption in the FBI/DOJ - Muller and his band of Clinton Loyalist are trying to frame
Trump.
Rosenstein and Mueller KNOW the DNC server was not hacked by Russia or by anyone. Insider
transfer. So are they working for HilBarry? Or is this a magic act?
What Sessions is doing is unknown. He knows he was set up by Barry sending the Russian
ambassador to his office and by (FBI? Spy) Paul Ericsson offering to connect campaign thru
him to Russia. He had to recuse or be in the midst of the mess. Does he have a plan? - we
don't know.
It's not Russiagate, it's Americagate and it's your problem, not ours.
The only significant remaining question is whether you fade gracefully from the page of
History or whether you take the Samson Option and we all go out flash-bang.
I have a ton of respect for Binney. Regardless as to how fucked up this country is and its
govt, there are still people who will step up and try to set the record straight.
If you put a camera in front of a bunch of randomly selected Americans and ask them to
state their name and where they live, before answering if they voted for Trump, you get a lot
of No replies.
Now do the same questioning anonymously. The number of Nos drops.
This is the gaping hole in Goebbels argument. Anonymous polls can get closer to the truth.
Then the "accepted truth" is challenged, as in 9-11.
"There has been much amateurish journalism, false reporting, misrepresentation,
distortion, misquotation, and omission." In other words, the CIA was behind this.
so... the upshot is that G.2 and DCLeaks fabricated the leak as a hack AND the tools to do
this and to fabricate signatures/date stamps etc existed in the CIA (proven here: https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/index.html
) and possibly MI6, but not in Russia, or Romania?
the CIA has "stations" all over the world?
looks like a few facebook and twitter posts have resulted in the alphabet soup, deep
state, DNC and MSM spending tens of billions of dollars pushing a false agenda against russia
AND have caused hundreds of billions of exra dollars on military expenditure and extra
security globally.
in which case, they have won by further diverting taxes away from taxpayers and increasing
debt where insufficient taxes remain/ed.
The fact that the files were downloaded from the DNC computer, and not hacked from abroad,
should be the key to unlocking Clinton conspiracies that would destroy large portions of the
Democrat establishment if revealed.
I can achieve up to 1 Gbit/s up & downstream. The average up/downstream is probably
quite a bit lower but +50mb/s is probably average. So i lol at the VIPS LOL
The poison of partisan propaganda dumped into American polity to prevent the prosecution
of the guilty (for illegally spying on Trump campaign and the assorted crimes associated with
it, including the murder of Seth Rich) will continue to foul the atmosphere for decades. The
fight is certainly between an unelected octopus that has captured all the three wings of
American polity, and a determined if not well armed citizens. The end is not near.
There is a small, nice book by C Northecote Parkinson, "The Law and the Profits". He
describes how in 1909 the British empire started a simultaneous course of welfare state and
empire building warfare state bureacracy, and how it eventually bankrupted the people by
1945. America started its own version with L B Johnson's Great Society and Vietnam War. Since
American economy was much bigger the dichotomous struggle has lasted much longer. But now the
time to choose one over another is at hand. Candidate Trump advocated trimming the warfare
state more and first. But President Trump is sending mixed signals.
The only saving grace is the self aware American citizenry and its capacity to reform
itself.
Thursday, the New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the enemy of the
people." "Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the lifeblood of
democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous, period," said the
Times .
"... What is definitely conclusive is the Gucci 2 entity forged the inclusion of Russian fingerprints in the leaked version of the documents by pasting it into a Russian language Word template. With 70 years of experience in espionage, there is no way Russian spy agencies are that sloppy and moreover, and if they were it would be absolutely unprecedented. ..."
"... the central conclusion of William Binnery's forensic analysis: that Gucifer 2.0 was a fabrication, and that the DNC emails were downloaded, not hacked by Russia. ..."
"... Were Assange be allowed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this month, the lid could be blown off the entire sordid operation. ..."
"... From before the CIA's formation the US intelligence activities have been the province of the Republican Party (there are plenty of exceptions, but please follow). Allen Dulles and his ilk were friends with and shared goals with German industrialists long before World War II. These relationships continued through WWII and afterwards. The CIA has functioned as an international coal and iron police, overthrowing governments around the world that have stood in the way of corporate profits. ..."
"... This edition of Covert Action Information Bulletin, in 1990, happened just before a shift in Washington. Almost all of the operations run by our government to destabilize Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1990 were organized by the political right and run by people such as Paul Weyrich. But the nineties showed a rise in Democratic activity in these settings. I would guess that a mental image of this would be our then-First Lady lying about dodging bullets on an airstrip during the destruction of Yugoslavia. It marked the successful CIA takeover of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The 2016 Russiagate hysteria has been an intelligence operation which has been by all measures successful. I presumed initially that the scam was done to put Hillary into the White House, but now wonder if having Trump as President was part of the long-term strategy. ..."
"... Please note that the DNC backed over fifty new candidates for Congress who have intelligence backgrounds. How do you think they will vote for the coming war resolution against Russia? ..."
"... Not sure about the theory of installing Trump in the WH is part of a long term strategy of the deep state, but the latter seems to be adapting to the disruption quite well. ..."
"... Additional info: Stephen Kinzer's "The Brothers" which documents the Dulles brother's creation of the Cold War mentality and activities. Shouldn't we add Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. ..."
"... Citing a book from almost 30 years ago that implicated ONLY the Republicans in the CIAs machinations ignores LBJ and the CIA's involvement in Vietnam and possibly in the JFK assassination. ..."
"... One suspects that the President has revealed far less than he knows, perhaps wary of being accused of "obstruction" by Mueller in concert with the controlled media. He actually requested that William Binney present his analysis to then CIA Director Pompeo, who has since sat on it. ..."
"... But actually, to your point, the reverse is true. If the DNC and Podesta were hacked by Russians, the NSA would have been able to demonstrate that fact through evidentiary proof, a point made repeatedly by Binney. ..."
"... No such proof was or has ever been offered. Instead the main document presented to the American public was the January 6, 2017 "assessment" by analysts hand-picked by John Brennan, who has played a key role in the illegal operation against President Trump. ..."
"... I was struck by one comment particularly, why not ask Assange about the leak. ..."
"... Keeping him incommunicado certainly serves the leaders of the lynch mob and thanks goes to the new Ecuadorian President. He was asked to shut the guy up and he did. ..."
"... Herman, Assange has been asked about the identity of the leaker and replied that he couldn't comment because Wikileaks has a strict policy of maintaining sources' confidentiality. No potential source would ever trust Assange if he violated that policy. Instead, Assange offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Seth Richards' murderer. So this was his way of answering the question indirectly. ..."
I don't believe the Russians did this. I think there are
perhaps millions of people in the US capable of carrying out this action and many more with
motive. Furthermore, if they did, I am happy that the information was made available so I can't
see why I would care.
That said, I am unconvinced by this evidence. I am quite familiar with file systems on
different operating systems and I would at least need to know what device we are talking about
here. Did it come from Assange? Why doesn't somebody say so? What sort of device is it? The
simple fact that it was copied from a computer doesn't prove that the computer was the DNC
server. It might have been copied from Putin's iMac. I believe in one reading the writer
acknowledged that the dates on the drive could be manipulated and I am certain that this is
true. While this may still leave it above the level of evidence that the FBI or "intelligence"
agencies have presented (or even claimed to have) it is not conclusive.
Reply
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:10 pm
What is definitely conclusive is the Gucci 2 entity forged the inclusion of Russian
fingerprints in the leaked version of the documents by pasting it into a Russian language
Word template. With 70 years of experience in espionage, there is no way Russian spy agencies
are that sloppy and moreover, and if they were it would be absolutely unprecedented.
Furthermore, I have no reason to disbelieve Craig Murray that the docs were handed to him
directly and transferred by him to Wikileaks. Quite the contrary, in fact, since his
reputation would undoubtedly be irreconcilably demolished for all time if the Russiagaters
ever came up with hard proof to support their conspiracy theory.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:12 pm
Please forgive all the typos, posted on my little bitty phone :)
j. D. D. , August 14, 2018 at 2:21 pm
The crucial premise of the ongoing British-instigated coup against President Trump and the
chief legal ground for Robert Mueller's operation against the President, is the claim that
the Russians hacked the emails of the DNC and, John Podesta, and provided the results to
WikiLeaks which published them. The authenticity of such emails showing Hillary Clinton to be
a craven puppet of Wall Street who had cheated Bernie Sanders of the nomination were never
disputed, by Clinton, or anyone else.
Nor has the central conclusion of William Binnery's forensic analysis: that Gucifer
2.0 was a fabrication, and that the DNC emails were downloaded, not hacked by
Russia.
Furthermore, the only people who really know where and by whom the download occurred are
Julian Assange, whose life is now in peril, and former British Ambassador Craig Murray.
Were Assange be allowed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee later this
month, the lid could be blown off the entire sordid operation.
paul g. , August 14, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Craig stated he was merely a go between, who was given the data in the woods by American
University by probably another go between. Lots of cut outs here but the data was transferred
physically by thumb drive(s).
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:27 am
"The crucial premise is the claim that the Russians hacked the emails of the DNC and, John
Podesta, and provided the results to WikiLeaks which published them."
I would like to call attention to a little slice of history of US the destabilization of
Eastern Europe and the USSR that would help to explain what is happening today.
From before the CIA's formation the US intelligence activities have been the province
of the Republican Party (there are plenty of exceptions, but please follow). Allen Dulles and
his ilk were friends with and shared goals with German industrialists long before World War
II. These relationships continued through WWII and afterwards. The CIA has functioned as an
international coal and iron police, overthrowing governments around the world that have stood
in the way of corporate profits.
This edition of Covert Action Information Bulletin, in 1990, happened just before a
shift in Washington. Almost all of the operations run by our government to destabilize
Eastern Europe and the USSR in 1990 were organized by the political right and run by people
such as Paul Weyrich. But the nineties showed a rise in Democratic activity in these
settings. I would guess that a mental image of this would be our then-First Lady lying about
dodging bullets on an airstrip during the destruction of Yugoslavia. It marked the successful
CIA takeover of the Democratic Party.
The 2016 Russiagate hysteria has been an intelligence operation which has been by all
measures successful. I presumed initially that the scam was done to put Hillary into the
White House, but now wonder if having Trump as President was part of the long-term
strategy.
Please note that the DNC backed over fifty new candidates for Congress who have
intelligence backgrounds. How do you think they will vote for the coming war resolution
against Russia?
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:16 pm
Not sure about the theory of installing Trump in the WH is part of a long term
strategy of the deep state, but the latter seems to be adapting to the disruption quite
well.
Additional info: Stephen Kinzer's "The Brothers" which documents the Dulles brother's
creation of the Cold War mentality and activities.
Shouldn't we add Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
michael , August 15, 2018 at 6:33 am
Citing a book from almost 30 years ago that implicated ONLY the Republicans in the
CIAs machinations ignores LBJ and the CIA's involvement in Vietnam and possibly in the JFK
assassination. Later, Carter was the only Democrat President who may or may not have
been heavily involved with the CIA. The Clintons were likely involved with the CIA early on
in their Mena, Arkansas drug-smuggling schemes, and the CIA was definitely closely involved
in their presidential anti-Slavic foreign policy. The Clintons' neoliberal agenda fit well
with the older neocons and consolidated the Duopoly support for the crazed think tank ideas
in DC.
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:45 am
all perhaps true, but the cia, etc. have terribly neglected their republican base (ftr:
registered democrat, sanders and trump voter) and it is baying at their heels, drool swinging
from gnashing fangs. that is a political change as profound and radical as anything i
observed around the tear gas and batons of the sixties.
"They have passed the point of no return; there is no walking it back now. If it fails
heads will roll, but most importantly these trusted institutions will have flushed their last
vestiges of credibility down the drain. Then what?"
Then nothing. It puts one mind of the comment made by one of the Robber Barons when they
were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. His comment " All that was lost was honour"
In the present mess even if eventually it all comes to light no one is going to be held
answerable. No one is going to jail. Truth does not matter. The propaganda is what matters.
if it is proven wrong it is merely swept under the rug. With the short attention spans of
Americans it would be forgotten in a New York Minute.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:19 pm
Perhaps this explains the need for the likely false flag poison attack in Britain and the
fake Douma nerve gas attack. Russiagate hasn't really been panning out so well and too much
info has been emerging to challenge the narrative.
David G , August 15, 2018 at 8:29 am
I fully agree.
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 1:06 pm
If Russian hacking is a hoax, why has it not been exposed by all the Trump appointed
intelligence and FBI heads? Trump's people could shut it down with a public single statement.
Y'all are deep into a conspiracy theory that makes no sense.
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Pffft!
It was shown to be a hoax by Clinton's own campaign staff in their book released after the
election titled "shattered".
"Within 24 hours of her concession speech, [campaign chair John Podesta and manager Robby
Mook] assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack
containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and
the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
The plan, according to the book, was to push journalists to cover how "Russian hacking was
the major unreported story of the campaign," and it succeeded to a fare-thee-well. After the
election, coverage of the Russian "collusion" story was relentless, and it helped pressure
investigations and hearings on Capitol Hill and even the naming of a special counsel, which
in turn has triggered virtually nonstop coverage.
Guess the only conspiracy theororist here is you.
Goebbels would be so proud.
You drank the kool-aid bruh!
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 2:19 pm
My comment applies equally well to your response. Why doesn't Nunes, Pompeo, or Coates,
etc ever say anything about these theories?
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:28 pm
It's no longer a theory when the conspirators confess to it in their own writing.
Which I demonstrated to you in the previous post.
Peter de Klerk , August 14, 2018 at 6:18 pm
This very slanted article amplifies a few post-election statements. I'm sure Podesta and
Mook wanted to play this up. Some of that was sour grapes but most people are inclined to
think it was also true. These guys controlling most media outlets and most of the
intelligence community seems absurd to me. But I guess we all believe what we want to believe
now.
jdd , August 14, 2018 at 2:30 pm
One suspects that the President has revealed far less than he knows, perhaps wary of being
accused of "obstruction" by Mueller in concert with the controlled media. He actually
requested that William Binney present his analysis to then CIA Director Pompeo, who has since
sat on it.
But actually, to your point, the reverse is true. If the DNC and Podesta were
hacked by Russians, the NSA would have been able to demonstrate that fact through evidentiary
proof, a point made repeatedly by Binney.
No such proof was or has ever been offered. Instead
the main document presented to the American public was the January 6, 2017 "assessment" by
analysts hand-picked by John Brennan, who has played a key role in the illegal operation
against President Trump.
jeff montanye , August 17, 2018 at 7:54 am
And Donald Trump has more training in show business than most politicians or even internet
commenters. I suspect there is a fall premiere of quite an extravaganza leading up to the
midterm elections.
Read half the most intelligent commentary and had to quick. I was struck by one comment
particularly, why not ask Assange about the leak. Too simple but too much to ask, I guess.
Keeping him incommunicado certainly serves the leaders of the lynch mob and thanks goes to
the new Ecuadorian President. He was asked to shut the guy up and he did.
Modawg , August 14, 2018 at 3:28 pm
I think he has been asked and has politely refused to reveal. But his innuendo is that it
was from inside the US and definitely not the Russkies.
alley cat , August 14, 2018 at 4:44 pm
Herman, Assange has been asked about the identity of the leaker and replied that he
couldn't comment because Wikileaks has a strict policy of maintaining sources'
confidentiality. No potential source would ever trust Assange if he violated that policy. Instead, Assange offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and
conviction of Seth Richards' murderer. So this was his way of answering the question
indirectly.
A Solomonic solution that is technically not a violation of confidentiality
Andy Wilcoxson , August 14, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Can I play devil's advocate and ask a question. Can we rule out the possibility that a hacker in Russia, China, or wherever
had remote control of a computer in the United States that they used to hack the DNC?
49.1 megabytes per second is almost 400 mbps, which is a very fast transfer speed, but there were one gigabit (1000 mbps)
connections available in several US markets when these e-mails were stolen. You might not have been able to transfer the files
directly from Washington D.C. to Russia at those speeds, but you certainly could have transferred them between computers
within the United States at those speeds using gigabit internet connections.
Is there something I'm missing? How does the file transfer speed prove this was a USB download and not a hack when gigabit
internet connections existed that could have accommodated those transfer speeds -- maybe not directly to Russia or Europe, but
certainly to another US-based computer that foreign hackers may have have remotely controlled.
Desert Dave , August 14, 2018 at 6:09 pm
Actually a byte is 10 bits total because there is overhead (start and stop bits). So 49.1 MBps is about 491 Mbps. The
question of whether the DNC server was attached to a network that fast would be easy to answer, if the FBI or anybody else
wanted to check.
Thursday, the New York Times decried Trump's accusation that the media are "the enemy of the
people." "Insisting that truths you don't like are 'fake news' is dangerous to the lifeblood of
democracy. And calling journalists 'the enemy of the people' is dangerous, period," said the
Times .
"... I would say the first turning point was the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the restoration of Russian sovereignty in the energy sphere. Subsequent major inflection points have been: the 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 events in Ukraine, and the post-2016- election manufactured anti-Russia hysteria/neo-McCarthyism. ..."
"... Kees van der Pijl fills in the details here (ignore the title of the piece): https://www.unz.com/article/why-was-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-shot-down/ ..."
"... the "Putin is a *thug*" meme has been successfully promulgated as shorthand that acts as a justification for anything done or said against both Putin and Russia. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the thugs are those in our Congress and executive branch and such as Mueller, who are pushing the country beyond its tolerance levels or, shall we say, ability to right itself after a knockdown (maritime metaphor is intended). ..."
"... I think the rollout of the new cold war actually began when Putin stopped the looting of his country that was occurring under Yeltsin. The evil empire only accepts vassals, not partners. Maximum capital must accrue to the one percent, and be free to flee the country to the tax haven of choice. Any world leader who tries to build an economy for the benefit of its nation's citizens becomes a target. ..."
"... I figure it was the Magnitsky ruse that got the ball rolling. It predates Ukraine and was grounds for the first round of sanctions. ..."
I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the
Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014, as was well covered here at
Consortium News. The policy – isolate Russia as a pariah nation – was set before
the Maidan events reached their resolution. Victoria Nuland's "f -- - the EU" rant was in
response to efforts to mediate the situation and possibly spoil or derail the plans. IMHO,
the Russian response to the violent coup was fully expected by the Americans to have been a
tanks-in-the streets-Czechoslovakia-1968 scenario, and yet all they got was a Crimean
referendum and a frozen stalemate in eastern Ukraine. Still, policy being policy, NATO
reacted as if there had been a full invasion regardless.
Anecdotally, conversations I've had with intelligent, progressive, good-hearted persons
suggests the election of Trump has in effect destabilized their critical thinking abilities.
This has opened up the space in which the worst aspects of Cold War 2.0 have flourished. In
their minds, the urgent need to remove Trump by any means, fair or foul, fully overwhelms any
other priorities, including objective consideration of the current moment.
Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 10:14 pm
I think you are right about Ukraine. I also recall that everything went downhill after
Putin negotiated for Assad to give up all Syria's chemical weapons. Which gave cause to
believe Putin was being punished for interfering in the Coalitions schemes. I think Robert
Parry sighted that as well.
No matter jaycee I too believe that Ukraine was where the U.S. fired the first bullet.
This New World Order the U.S. represents doesn't negotiate, no instead it's either our way or
no way, is the mantra of the tribe. Joe
Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 11:08 pm
I wrote a response jaycee that went to the wind . What I was saying was Putin got punished
with the uprising in Ukraine after he pulled Assad out of the chemical weapons debate.
Joe
Suggestion the Consortium needs to get this comment boards algorithm problem figured
out.
Sibiriak , August 14, 2018 at 2:55 am
Jaycee:
"I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin
and the Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014 " -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
I would say the first turning point was the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky and the
restoration of Russian sovereignty in the energy sphere. Subsequent major inflection points
have been: the 2008 war with Georgia, the 2014 events in Ukraine, and the post-2016- election
manufactured anti-Russia hysteria/neo-McCarthyism.
"I would say the roll-out of Cold War 2.0 and the concerted demonizing of Putin and the
Russian Federation began with the Ukraine Coup in February 2014,"
As in statistics perceived trajectories are functions of framing including evaluation
horizons.
From inception, and through declarations such as the Monroe doctrine, some in the
misrepresentation "United States of America" have perceived others as simultaneously
existential threats and existential opportunities.
These existential threats and opportunities have been facilitated and acted upon as
functions of perceived needs and opportunities.
The targets and modes of activation of these perceived needs and opportunities have varied
according to perceived needs and opportunities, sometimes using the tactics of "hot wars" and
sometimes using the tactics of "cold wars".
Some in the misrepresentation "United States of America" have correctly perceived others
as existential threats and opportunities to/for them given their socio-economic system and
its perceived requirements – the functions of the "other" being multi-various –
the definition of the "others" include but are not necessarily restricted to those of
difference within and without the "United States of America".
Some in the Soviet Union in the early 1970's attempted to conflate "strategy" with
"tactics" and decided to forget notions of existential threat and perceive only existential
opportunity through conflation, thereby facilitating detente on the basis of spheres of
influence.
War is not restricted to things that go bang but restricted to forms of coercion.
The misrepresentation "cold war", which was never cold but sometimes engaged through
proxies, was/is a context specific tactic.
Some are of the view that the ends justify the means instead of understanding that means
condition ends, and consequently some facilitate and rely upon increasing the conflation of
strategy with tactics increasing the sum, motivations, and resolve of the "others", thereby
conditioning strategy through accelerating, continuing and expanding existential threats.
Those who engage in such self-delusion were not/are not restricted to the
misrepresentation "United States of America" but as Thucydides and others were aware, have
been/are generally restricted to those who perceive others as existential opportunities and
threats.
Some others correctly assess the misrepresentation "United States of America" to be more a
land of opportunity than an existential threat.
Litchfield , August 14, 2018 at 7:48 am
I agree with your comment.
A good precis.
And the "Putin is a *thug*" meme has been successfully promulgated as shorthand that acts as
a justification for anything done or said against both Putin and Russia.
Meanwhile, the thugs are those in our Congress and executive branch and such as Mueller, who
are pushing the country beyond its tolerance levels or, shall we say, ability to right itself
after a knockdown (maritime metaphor is intended).
Skip Scott , August 14, 2018 at 11:47 am
jaycee-
I think the rollout of the new cold war actually began when Putin stopped the looting of
his country that was occurring under Yeltsin. The evil empire only accepts vassals, not
partners. Maximum capital must accrue to the one percent, and be free to flee the country to
the tax haven of choice. Any world leader who tries to build an economy for the benefit of
its nation's citizens becomes a target.
Aime Duclos , August 14, 2018 at 1:50 pm
Yes, Skip, when the West's pillaging and looting of Putin's country was stopped, the one
percent was not amused. Add to that NATO's constant march up to Russia's borders, the threat
to and actual placement of "defensive" missles on Russia's border.
The last straw was the US orchestrated coup in it's next NATO prize for acquisition Ukraine.
Putin reacted as any leader would, and with restraint I might add.
Yet somehow all this proves Putin is a thug?
It's been a calculated drive to this new Cold War. The MIC is having it's way.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 6:12 pm
I figure it was the Magnitsky ruse that got the ball rolling. It predates Ukraine and was
grounds for the first round of sanctions.
"... For nearly 100 years, Russia has been under US sanctions, often to the detriment of American national security. ..."
"... Historically, such sanctions were not problem-solving measures advancing American national security but more akin to temper tantrums or road rage, making things even worse, than to real policymaking. ..."
"... US "core" interests "need" Russia's cooperation in many vital ways. ..."
"... Moscow could sell off its billions of dollars of US Treasury securities ..."
"... It could end titanium exports to the United States ..."
"... Nor have four other circumstances. ..."
"... turning away even more from the West and toward China and other non-Western partners, and by developing its own capacity to produce sanctioned imports. ..."
"... in an era when there is no "globalization," or international security, without Russia. ..."
"... with the apparently solitary exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky, ..."
"... is in response to Russia's alleged "attack on American democracy" during the 2016 presidential election . ..."
"... only the kind of "meddling" and "interference" in the other's domestic politics that both countries have practiced, almost ritualistically, for nearly a hundred years. ..."
"... to thwart and even punish President Donald Trump for his policy of "cooperation with Russia." And Putin too for having met and cooperated with Trump at their Helsinki summit in July. ..."
For nearly 100 years, Russia has been under US sanctions, often to the detriment of American national security.
Cohen begins by putting the current bipartisan Senate campaign to impose new, "crushing" sanctions on Russia in historical context.
Broadly understood, sanctions have been part of US policy toward Russia for much of the past 100 years. During the Russian civil
war of 1918-20, President Woodrow Wilson sent American troops to fight against the emerging Soviet government. Though the "Reds"
were clearly the established government of Soviet Russia by 1921, Washington continued to deny the USSR diplomatic recognition until
President Franklin D. Roosevelt established formal relations in 1933. During much of the 40-year Cold War, the United States imposed
various sanctions on its superpower rival, mainly related to technological and military exports, along with periodic expulsions of
diplomats and "spies" on both sides.
Congress' major political contribution was the 1975 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which denied Moscow privileged trading status with
the United States, primarily because of Kremlin restrictions on Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. Indicative of how mindlessly
habitual US sanctions had become, Jackson-Vanik was nullified only in late 2012, long after the end of the Soviet Union and after
any restrictions on Jews leaving (or returning to) Russia. Even more indicative, it was immediately replaced, in December 2012, by
the Magnitsky Act, which purported to sanction individual Russian officials and "oligarchs" for "human-rights abuses." The Magnitsky
Act remains law, supplemented by additional sanctions leveled against Russia as a result of the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and particularly
Moscow's annexation of Crimea.
Looking back over this long history, there is no evidence that any US sanctions ever significantly altered Moscow's "behavior"
in ways that were intended. Or that they adversely affected Russia's ruling political or financial elites. Any pain inflicted fell
on ordinary citizens, who nonetheless rallied "patriotically" around the Kremlin leadership, most recently around Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Historically, such sanctions were not problem-solving measures advancing American national security but more
akin to temper tantrums or road rage, making things even worse, than to real policymaking.
Why, then, Washington's new bout of sanction mania against Moscow, especially considering the harsh official Russian reaction
expressed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who called the Senate's proposed measures "a declaration of economic war" and promised
that the Kremlin would retaliate?
One explanation is an underlying, astonishing assumption recently
stated by Michael McFaul , the media-ubiquitous
former US ambassador to Moscow and a longtime Russia scholar: "To advance almost all of our core national security and economic interests,
the US does not need Russia." Such a statement by a former or current policymaker and intellectual is perhaps unprecedented in modern
times - and manifestly wrong. US "core" interests "need" Russia's cooperation in many vital ways. They include avoiding
nuclear war; preventing a new and more dangerous arms race; guarding against the proliferation of weapons and materials of mass destruction;
coping with international terrorists (who are in pursuit of such materials); achieving lasting peace in Syria and elsewhere in the
Middle East; fostering prosperity and stability in Europe, of which Russia is a part; promoting better relations with the Islamic
world, of which Russia is also a part; and avoiding a generation-long confrontation with a formidable new alliance that already includes
Russia, China, Iran, and other non-NATO countries. If McFaul's assumption is widespread in Washington, as it seems to be, we are
living in truly unwise and perilous times.
A second assumption is no less myopic and dangerous: that the Kremlin is weak and lacks countermeasures to adopt against the new
sanctions being advocated in Washington. Consider, however, the following real possibilities. Moscow could sell off its billions
of dollars of US Treasury securities and begin trading with friendly nations in non-dollar currencies, both of which it has
already begun to do. It could restrict, otherwise undermine, or even shut down many large US corporations long doing profitable business
in Russia, among them Citibank, Cisco Systems, Apple, Microsoft, PepsiCo, McDonald's, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Ford Motor
Co., and even Boeing. It could end titanium exports to the United States , which are vital to American civilian and military
aircraft manufacturers, including Boeing. And terminate the sale of rocket engines essential for NASA and US satellite operations.
The world's largest territorial country, Russia could charge US airlines higher tariffs for their regular use of its air space or
ban them altogether, making them uncompetitive against other national carriers. Politically, the Kremlin could end its own sanctions
on Iran and North Korea, alleviating Washington's pressure on those governments. And it could end the Russian supply transit to US
troops fighting in Afghanistan used since the early 1990s.
None of this seems to have been considered by Washington's sanction zealots. Nor have four other circumstances. Sanctions
against Russia's "oligarchs" actually help Putin, whom the US political-media establishment so despises and constantly indicts. For
years, he has been trying to persuade many of the richest oligarchs to repatriate their offshore wealth to Russia. Few did so. Now,
fearful of having their assets abroad frozen or seized by US measures, more and more are complying. Second, new sanctions limiting
Moscow's ability to borrow and finance investment at home will retard the country's still meager growth rate . But the Kremlin coped
after the 2014 sanctions and will do so again by turning away even more from the West and toward China and other non-Western
partners, and by developing its own capacity to produce sanctioned imports. (Russian agricultural production, for example, has
surged in recent years, now becoming a major export industry.) Third, already unhappy with existing economic sanctions against Russia,
European multinational corporations - and thus Europe itself - may tilt even farther away from their capricious "transatlantic partner"
in Washington, who is diminishing their vast market in the East. And fourth, waging "economic war" is one impulsive step from breaking
off all diplomatic relations with Russia, this too actually being discussed by Washington zealots. Such a rupture would turn the
clock back many decades, but in an era when there is no "globalization," or international security, without Russia.
Finally, what reason do Washington extreme Cold Warriors themselves give for imposing new sanctions on Russia? Most of them are
in the US Senate, historically a body with at least several independent-minded distinguished statesmen, but no longer, with the
apparently solitary exception of Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has demonstrated considerable wisdom in regard to US-Russian relations.
Their professed reasons are various and nonsensical. Some say Russia must be sanctioned for Ukraine, but those events happened four
years ago and have already been "punished." Others say for "Russia's aggression in Syria," but it was Putin's military intervention
that destroyed the Islamic State's terrorist occupation of much of the country and ended its threat to take Damascus, to the benefit
of America and its allies, including Europe and Israel. Still others insist the Kremlin must be sanctioned for its "nerve agent"
attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the UK several months ago. But the British government's case against the Kremlin has
virtually fallen apart, as any attentive reader of articles in David Johnson's Russia
List will understand.
Ultimately, though, the new bout of sanction mania is in response to Russia's alleged "attack on American democracy" during
the 2016 presidential election . In reality, there was no "attack" - no Pearl Harbor, no 9/11, no Russian parachuters descending
on Washington - only the kind of "meddling" and "interference" in the other's domestic politics that both countries have practiced,
almost ritualistically, for nearly a hundred years. Indeed, whatever "meddling" Russian actors did in 2016 may well have been
jaywalking compared to the Clinton administration's massive, highly intrusive political and financial intervention on behalf of the
failing Russian President Boris Yeltsin's reelection campaign in 1996.
We are left, then, with the real reason behind the new anti-Russian sanctions effort: to thwart and even punish President
Donald Trump for his policy of "cooperation with Russia." And Putin too for having met and cooperated with Trump at their Helsinki
summit in July. This bizarre, also unprecedented, reality is more than a whisper. According to a
New York Times "news
analysis," as well as other published reports,
a "bipartisan group of senators, dismayed that Mr. Trump had not publicly confronted Mr. Putin over Russia's election meddling,
released draft legislation" of new sanctions against Moscow. "Passage of such a bill would impose some of the most damaging sanctions
yet."
Leave aside for now that it is not Russian "meddling" that is delegitimizing our elections but instead these fact-free allegations
themselves that are doing so. (How many losing candidates in 2018 will claim their victory was snatched away by Putin?) Consider
instead that for doing what every American president since Eisenhower has done - meet with the sitting Kremlin leader in order to
avoid stumbling into a war between the nuclear superpowers - in effect both Trump and Putin are being condemned by the Washington
establishment, including by members of Trump's own intelligence agencies.
If so, who will avert the prospect of war with Russia, a new Cuban missile-like crisis, conceivably in the Baltic region, Ukraine,
or Syria? Certainly not any leading representative of the Democratic Party. Certainly not the current Russophobic "bipartisan" Senate.
Certainly not the most influential media outlets, which amplify the warmongering folly almost daily. In this most existential regard,
there is for now only, like it or not, President Donald Trump.
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their
(usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com .
Comment: As Cohen brilliantly points out - sanctions, for the US, are a dead end.
"... Bruce Ohr and his wife are complicit in the fake Christopher Steele Russian dossier ..."
"... All of this was orchestrated by the Obama Administration ..."
"... All of these FBI and DOJ people are just lackeys who take their orders from higher-ups. The real deep state controllers seem to always be protected by the underlings. But it's the underlings who fall on the sword. ..."
I've posted this before, I keep this running timeline:
Sep/15 Washington Free Beacon retains FusionGPS for oppo-research
on Trump.
Spring/16 WFB drops oppo-research project with Fusion GPS, DNC/HRCC
picks project up, money washed through Perkins Coie/Marc Elias
Apr28/16 NSA (Rogers) bans FBI 'private contractors' from access
to NSA database (Daniel Richman-Comey's leak-buddy, Shearer+Blumenthal? FusionGPS?).
Based on audit by FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer (released Apr26/17).
May/16 FusionGPS hires Nellie Ohr, wife of DD DOJ for organized
crime Bruce Ohr.
10May/16 Papadopoulos meets Australian ambassador, Clinton
Foundation sponsor
Alexander Downer in 'Kensington Wine Room' in
London
Jun/16 FBI attempts to get FISA warrant on Trump campaign –
denied.
MidJul/16 State Dept/John Winer gives Chris Steele 'dossier2,'
received from Clinton operatives Shearer+Blumenthal. Victoria Nuland, Elizabeth
Dibble also get copies.
Jul06/16 FBI/Comey vindicate HRC. Agent Strzok lead the case.
Jul/16 Steele gives dossier to FBI agent in Rome.
Jul31/16 FBI initiates investigation of Carter Page (former FBI
informer in Russian banker sting).
Aug15/16 FBI agents Strzok+Page discuss
"insurance policy" in Andy's office.
Sep/16 Steele comes to WDC, offering dossier to WaPo, NYT,CNN,
New Yorker &
Yahoo, violating FBI orders.
Only Yahoo/Isakoff takes the bait.
Mid-Oct/16 Clapper/ODNI + Carter/DOD lobby POTUS to fire Adm.
Rogers/NSA
Oct21/16 FISA warrant issued on Carter Page, based almost
completely on dossier.
Surveillance of Trump tower begins.
Nov01/16 FBI terminates relation with "CHS" Steele.
Nov08/16 Trump elected.
Nov17/16 GCHQ/Robert Hannigan writes FM Boris Johnson that there is
request from
Susan Rice to extend Aug28/16 five eyes
warrant on floors 5+26 Trump Tower,
referred to as operation "Fullsome"
(by-passing US civil rights protections??)
Nov18/16 Rogers/NSA meets Trump in Trump Tower
Nov19/16 Trump moves transition team from Trump Tower to Bedminster
Golf Club
Nov22/16 DD DOJ Bruce Ohr (wife at FusionGPS), begins extensive
unauthorized contact on behalf of FBI with Steele, resulting in 12
FBI302's from 11/22/16-05/17/17.
Dec09/16 Never-Trumper Sen. McCain (R-AZ) sends David Kremer to
London to meet
With Steele, get copy of dossier, McCain turns
it over to FBI.
Jan03/17 Ranking democrat Diane Feinstein (D-CA) resigns from
Senate Intelligence (SSCI). Her staffer Dan Jones raises $50 mil for
FusionGPS – for Russian interference research. Replaced by Mark Warner (D-VA).
Jan06/17 Comey briefs Trump on 'salacious and unverified'
dossier.
Jan09/17 Buzzfeed publishes the dossier, other press outlets
follow.
Jan11/17 ODNI/Clapper makes official statement "IC has not made
any judgement that the information is reliable." Nobody knew
"info" is already basis of FISA warrant.
Jan12/17 Comey/Yates extend FISA warrant with 'salacious and
unverified' dossier 2
nd
time.
Feb01/17 Leaks of SIGINT starts, Trump=Australian PM,
Flynn=Russian Amb. Kislyak, etc.
Feb14/17 Flynn resigns.
Mar01/17 AG Sessions recuses.
Mar30/17 Mark Warner of SSCI tries to establish backdoor contact
with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and Chris Steele via Deripaska's
rep, Adam Waldman.
1st week, before 16 - Caputo reports someone claiming to be a former NSA
agent offered him Hillary emails. He declined concerned they were
classified and urged whistleblower process be followed. He reported event
to Mueller.
9 or 13 - FBI Priestap in London
10 - *Papadopoulos meets Australian ambassador & Clinton Foundation
sponsor Alexander Downer in 'Kensington Wine Room' in London
Reported by NYT on 30 Dec 2017.
10 - Paul Ericsson sends "Kremlin Connection" email to Sen Sessions
offering to hook DJT campaign up with Russia's Putin
May Date? - Rosenstein-Mueller Special Counsel team member Preet Bharara
granted a special Visa for Russian agent Natalia Veselnitskaya in order for
her to meet with Trump Jr at a June 2016 Tower meeting the FBI would
record. Obama sent one of his translators to the meeting. Natalia needed a
special Visa because she was barred from entering the US.
9 - Russian Rinat Akhmetshin visits Obama White House for the day.
Later he was in Trump Tower meeting of June 2016. WH visitor Log.
JUNE 2016
9 - Infamous Trump Tower meeting w/ Jr and Russian atty Natalia. Then
Natalia meets w/ Simpson Fusion GPS before & after Tower mtg
14 - Russian atty Natalia attends US House Foreign Affairs hearing.
DATE? - Russian atty attends Magnitsky Act meeting w/ Dem Reps
Rohrbacher and Dellums.
26 - 1st FISA court warrant denied.
27 - DoJ AG Lynch met with Bill Clinton on Arizona airport tarmac
28 - CIA Evan McMullin sister creates fake "Trump OrGAINization" site
and bought from GoDaddy the domain trump-email.com. Site then fake robot
calls Russian Alfa Bank to create 'ping trail.'
Did not keep McMullin research. There were family
pics of them. They attended same Auburn High School in WA, near
Seattle.
Was Mormon mission agent in Brazil. Interned for CIA while at
Mormon college. Agent for UN in Israel & Muslim nation of Jordan. For
CIA was recruiter for Muslim radicals. Worked w/ British UK spy
system. Did he know Steele?
McMullin ran against DJT in 2016 election w/ backers 'never
Trump'. Got 21% UT vote. McMullin went directly from CIA to being
"undercover?" Prez candidate.
Also of note,
Halper is UK citizen (&US) plus Rhodes at Oxford same time as
Rhodes Bill Clinton. It is unknown if Rhodes scholars take loyalty
oath to UK.
Right on McMullin. The fact that Alfa Bank Russia was pinging
Trump tower was brought up several times by the Lamestream Media
during peak 'muh Russia' in 2017, and believe Clinton mentioned it
in one of the debates. But there are Russian owners of apartments
in Trump Tower who apparently use the house server, and (I
speculate) that these Russian residents were managing their own
private banking.
Now you make it sound like it was a set-up by
McMullin's sister? By the way I agree with your analysis of the
CIA candidate... at least strip Utah's electoral college votes
from Trump.
Again, there can never be a legal judgement that the DOJ and/or the FBI tried
to sway a political election and then engaged in seditious actions when the
election wasn't swayed. This would "destroy" the power of these
institutions. It is obvious and EVIDENT that there was a conspiracy by DOJ
and FBI employees to stop Trump.
The issue the Deep State has is that they
were able to successfully end the IRS exposure by destroying all of the
evidence as Obama was elected for another 4 years. The Deep State expected
Hillary to win and stay for 8 years so none of this DOJ/FBI information would
see the light of day. Trump is in charge now. If the Rs take more seats in
2018 the Deep State may do some really interesting things as they are feeling
the heat. Sessions has been playing the wait and see game. As a career
politician he is waiting to see which way the wind blows in November.
It is normal tendency in US Military to try to control war news, hold back
information from the public like coffins coming home from Vietnam or Iraq.
And we are not surprised if the Pentagon actually engaged in counter
intelligence against US Citizens. I've said this about Obama Care (ACA) and
Mr. Guber or whatever... and I've said this about Hillary Clinton.
- It is
completely different when our MICC in FBI, CIA, NSA, DOJ, engage in Hatch Act
Violations while on the Job against a presidential candidate with phony intel,
spies, false statements to FISA court, false news stories... then 'Smirk' on
camera and continue to lie to all of America. Hatch Act governs political
behavior, but I'd say the FBI, NSA, CIA, DOJ are to be held to the highest
levels of behavior. No politics on Govt Time/working hours.
https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/Hatch_Act.pdf
"He appears to have concealed this role from at least some superiors, since
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified that he'd been unaware of Mr.
Ohr's intermediary status."
Is this an attempt at humor by Strassel?
And why won't Trump declassify??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bruce Ohr and his wife are complicit in the fake Christopher Steele Russian
dossier. Feckless Jeff Sessions needs to indict Ohr and his wife (and the rest
of the Deep State cabal) involved in their treasonous coup attempt against the
duly elected POTUS!!!!!!!
All of this was orchestrated by the Obama Administration.
And because Obama must be recognized historically as the greatest and most
honest president of all time, because he was the first black president
ever.....
We cannot allow the legacy of the first black president to be tarnished
To
allow anything else to happen could offend someone.
Obama knew this would be the case and thus he knew he had a free pass to get
away with anything he wanted.
Hillary knew the exact same thing and, well, When you give an honest person
a chance to get away with a few things they will take a mile. Hillary is not
an honest person, so she went as far as possible under the belief that she
would get away with it.
All of these FBI and DOJ people are just lackeys who take their orders from
higher-ups. The real deep state controllers seem to always be protected by
the underlings. But it's the underlings who fall on the sword.
"... They're kind of like a five year old child who desperately wants to keep believing in Santa Claus, even though he just found dad's Santa costume in the closet and he's holding it in his own hands. ..."
"... Sorry, but two years into this we should be way beyond this kind of – "I can't believe Santa's not real"- denying, dissembling, rationalizing nonsense. Then again, this is America. ..."
"... America is after all a country in which half the population believe in the creation myth. ..."
"... "Two years after the Iraq War began, 70 per cent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post survey." The Big Lie works, and since Obama gutted Smith-Mundt, the CIA/ State Department can legally keep Americans tracking on their propaganda narratives. ..."
"... I agree with Lawrences point that this is an issue of social psychology. Rational argument over the facts is simply over taken by some kind of mass hysteria. There certainly precedent for this kind of behavior. Indeed this was described in 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' 180 years ago. In my lifetime I have witnessed two episodes of this kind of mass hysteria. The first was the red scare of the early 1950's (I not so much witnessed that as experienced it) and the second was the day care hysteria of satanic cults abusing our children that flared between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Now this is a third manifestation of mass hysteria. ..."
It is quite interesting how many uninformed posters and/or trolls would love to find a way to show the "Russiagate" nonsense
is somehow plausible in spite of the evidence. They're kind of like a five year old child who desperately wants to keep believing
in Santa Claus, even though he just found dad's Santa costume in the closet and he's holding it in his own hands.
I will say that the amount of mental gymnastics required to continue not believing evidence that is right in front of one's
eyes is quite impressive – but I'd never underestimate the American people's creativity when they want to maintain their illusions/delusions.
And I'd certainly never underestimate the Russiagate troll army's persistence.
At this rate I expect to soon encounter some version of the following "observation" in the comments section for this article:
– "maybe space aliens hired by the Russians downloaded the files to a to a new fangled thig-a-ma-jig and then shape-shifted so
Craig Murray would be fooled into thinking a real-like-human insider provided him the files on a flash drive." – "oh, oh, wait,
maybe the aliens abducted Murray too, and then just made him "think" a fellow human gave him the drive in person." "yeah, yeah,
and maybe Assange just says he didn't get the files from the Russians because "he's a space alien too." "Yeah, prove to me that
it didn't happen this way – you can't – ha! there! I win!"
Sorry, but two years into this we should be way beyond this kind of – "I can't believe Santa's not real"- denying, dissembling,
rationalizing nonsense. Then again, this is America.
"Two years after the Iraq War began, 70 per cent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in
the 9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post survey." The Big Lie works, and since Obama gutted Smith-Mundt, the CIA/ State
Department can legally keep Americans tracking on their propaganda narratives.
ToivoS , August 14, 2018 at 4:26 pm
I agree with Lawrences point that this is an issue of social psychology. Rational argument over the facts is simply over
taken by some kind of mass hysteria. There certainly precedent for this kind of behavior. Indeed this was described in 'Extraordinary
Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' 180 years ago. In my lifetime I have witnessed two episodes of this kind of mass
hysteria. The first was the red scare of the early 1950's (I not so much witnessed that as experienced it) and the second was
the day care hysteria of satanic cults abusing our children that flared between the late 1980s and early 1990s. Now this is a
third manifestation of mass hysteria.
It all began with Hillary's shocking defeat. Many millions of her supporters knew that she was so good that she had to win.
But then she lost. Those millions of Democrats could not accept that in fact their assessment of her talents were totally wrong
and that she lost because she has to be one of the worst candidates in American history. That is a reality those people refused
to accept. Instead they had to concoct some crazy conspiracy to explain their break with reality. This is a classic case of cognitive
dissonance which often leads to mass hysteria.
GM , August 14, 2018 at 5:01 pm
People choose to believe what they feel that they most need to believe to assuage their insecurities fostered by what they
perceive to be the dangerous and scary world in which they exist. The simple fact that we know that life is finite by the time
we're three years old fosters the creation of such constructs as that of the myth of everlasting life in the kingdom of heaven
complete with a mortgage-free condo and an extra parking space for all repentant sinners are mainstream beliefs.
ToivoS, you are right about Hillary. She simply couldn't accept her defeat. She was the one who began Russiagate by the lie,
"17 intelligence agencies" said the Russians hacked the emails.
As for times of mass-swallowing of a lie in the 1930s every German thought that Poland was about to invade Germany and they were
scared so much that they believed their leaders who "false flagged" them into invading Poland "first." Of course, Poland had no
intention of invading Germany.
Notice every time the US attacks another sovereign country, there's a false flag waved for the citizens to follow?
Don't you appreciate that we have consortiumnews?
Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass
demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State
Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was rapidly
stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was planning to
use against the United States.
In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held up
a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides purporting to
show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."
There was only one problem with Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to
end.
... ... ...
...War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction."
Rather, "it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political
aims that center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global
hegemony."
The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different.
Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the
Iraqi government.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could
have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations
-- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove
to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a
doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude
otherwise."
The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at
the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that there
"is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the
capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more
recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."
Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its
media accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one
million people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.
Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time,
instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once
again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again, the
media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American government --
which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has been relentlessly
expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.
"... When I hear people talk about how vulnerable Trump is because of his allegedly dirty business deals, I wonder: if that's true, then why wasn't he charged long ago, since he's been active as a businessman for many years. ..."
"... My hunch is that seriously investigating these deals, if they do exist, would expose too many powerful people to scrutiny they don't want, so Trump gets a pass. ..."
"... I doubt it very much, Trump has any dirty deals in those Russian money laundering as some commentators write about, the money the corrupt Russian Oligarchs, mostly Jewish, who brought to London and other West's Financial Centers during the plundering of Russia in 1992 – 2004 period. And as you pointed out, if there is any, seriously investigating these deals will expose many powerful people, and the corruption and rot of London Financial Center along with many other West's Financial Centers. ..."
"... All the Oligarchs engage in some sort of corruption, Mitt Romney was no different with all his money stashed away in off shore financial safe heavens. Trump is singled out because he ran against that Swamp which he called it during his election campaign, and in their view, he is damaging the World Uni-polar System with U.S. as the Master and EU as vassal States. ..."
When I hear people talk about how vulnerable Trump is because of his allegedly dirty
business deals, I wonder: if that's true, then why wasn't he charged long ago, since he's
been active as a businessman for many years.
My hunch is that seriously investigating these deals, if they do exist, would expose too many
powerful people to scrutiny they don't want, so Trump gets a pass.
And yes, I agree, there is no public evidence of collusion, not surprising since it isn't a
federal crime to begin with, except, potentially, in an anti-trust context that doesn't apply
here.
Dave P. , August 15, 2018 at 2:56 pm
John Kirsch – Good comments. I agree.
I doubt it very much, Trump has any dirty deals in those Russian money laundering as some
commentators write about, the money the corrupt Russian Oligarchs, mostly Jewish, who brought
to London and other West's Financial Centers during the plundering of Russia in 1992 –
2004 period. And as you pointed out, if there is any, seriously investigating these deals
will expose many powerful people, and the corruption and rot of London Financial Center along
with many other West's Financial Centers.
All the Oligarchs engage in some sort of corruption, Mitt Romney was no different with all
his money stashed away in off shore financial safe heavens. Trump is singled out because he
ran against that Swamp which he called it during his election campaign, and in their view, he
is damaging the World Uni-polar System with U.S. as the Master and EU as vassal States.
Trump says he discovered the power of being shallow: "Whenever I am making a creative
choice, I think back and remember my first shallow reaction. The day I realized it can be
smart to be shallow, was for me, a deep experience.
I have no personal business dealings with Trump nor have I ever met the guy. Just reading
information as everyone else does. No special knowledge of specific anything.
The allegation floating around is one very common to real estate. Laundering money.
Trump's business model is his "brand," which basically means Trump lends his names to
building projects rather than actually owning said buildings himself. Sounds similar to
franchising.
Not surprisingly, Trump has been involved in such shady scandals in the past. As someone
else stated, "My hunch is that seriously investigating these deals, if they do exist, would
expose too many powerful people to scrutiny they don't want, so Trump gets a pass."
Whether or not Trump gets convicted of these sorts of crimes depends on a cost/ benefit
analysis the powers that be will have to make. Is nailing Trump worth enough to them to draw
unwanted attention to how these money laundering/ not paying taxes/ globalism foreign
investment/ corrupt crony capitalist scams work?
DemoRats and Deep Staters are all about the enemy "Russia". To hell with them both. And to hell with Brennan, Clapper, Yates,
Rice, and all the other lying, cheating promoters of OBAMUNISM: Weaponizing government agencies to attack DemoRats' political
opponents like you and me. You know the fake "Russia Collusion" fraud perpetrated by the DemoRats goes all the way up to Obama.
"... The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped. ..."
"... Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor, providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in establishment institutions. ..."
The people behind advancing the Russiagate fraud are not concerned about the widening
chaos it has engendered. On the contrary, it is playing out exactly as they hoped.
Fast growing censorship of dissent, isolation of a major geopolitical competitor,
providing an explanation for the rise of Trump and the precipitous decline in public faith in
establishment institutions.
Hell, it's even being leveraged to explain away racism. Win win win win. I'd say they are
right where they want to be at this juncture.
Dave P. , August 14, 2018 at 6:21 pm
GM – Excellent observations. Very true.
I would add that they – the Ruling Establishment – are accomplished in the art
of manipulating the public into believing whatever they want them to believe in. In fact,
they have world wide reach.
"... But it is worth noting that, particularly in recent decades, and under the auspices of Editorial Page editor James Bennet, there has been a remarkable integration of the Times ..."
Less than four days after the Parkland school shooting, the New York Times has
found a way to turn a national tragedy that claimed the lives of 17 high school students into
an opportunity to escalate its unrelenting campaign of anti-Russian propaganda, involving the
continuous bombardment of the public with reactionary lies and warmongering.
Against the backdrop of a major escalation of military tensions between the two countries,
the Times seized upon the Justice Department indictment of Russian nationals over the
weekend to claim that Russia is at "war" with the United States. Now, the Times has
widened this claim into an argument that Russia somehow bears responsibility for social
divisions over the latest mass shooting in America.
Its lead headline Tuesday morning blared: "SHOTS ARE FIRED, AND BOTS SWARM TO SOCIAL DIVIDES
- Florida School Shooting Draws an Army Ready to Spread Discord"
According to the Times , Russian "bots," or automated social media accounts, sought
"to widen the divide" on issues of gun control and mental illness, in order to "make compromise
even more difficult." Russia sought to exploit "the issue of mental illness in the gun control
debate," and "propagated the notion that Nikolas Cruz, the suspected gunman" was "mentally
ill."
The absurd claim that Russia is responsible for the existence of social divisions in America
is belied by the shooting itself, which is a testament to the fact that American society is
riven by antagonisms that express themselves, in the absence of a progressive outlet, in
outpourings of mass violence.
The aim of this campaign is to target anyone who would criticize the underlying social
causes of the shooting -- the violence of American society, the nonexistence of mental health
services, or even the social psychology that gives rise to mass shootings -- as a "Russian
agent" seeking to "sow divisions" in American society. The Times lead is based
entirely on a "dashboard" called Hamilton 68 created by the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for
Securing Democracy, whose lead spokesman is Clint Watts, the former US intelligence agent and
censorship advocate who declared in November that social media companies must "silence" sources
of "rebellion."
Without naming any of the accounts it follows, Hamilton 68 claims to track content tweeted
by "Russian bots and trolls." But most of the trends leading the dashboard are news stories,
many posted by Russia Today and Sputnik News , that are identical with the
trending topics followed by any other news agency. Thus, Hamilton 68 provides an instant
New York Times headline generator: Any major news story can be presented as the result
of "Russian bots."
The New York Times is making its claims about "Russian meddling" with what is known
in the law as "unclean hands." That is, the Times practices the very actions of which
it accuses others.
Here is not the place to deal with the long and bloody history of American destabilization
campaigns and their horrific consequences in Latin America and the Middle East, or to review
the fact that many American journalists serving abroad had dual functions -- as reporters and
as agents.
But it is worth noting that, particularly in recent decades, and under the auspices of
Editorial Page editor James Bennet, there has been a remarkable integration of the
Times with the major operations of the US intelligence agencies.
This is
particularly true with regard to Russia, in regard to which the Times acts as an
instrument of US foreign policy misinformation, practicing exactly what it accuse the Kremlin
of.
Take, for example, the so-called political "dissident" Aleksei Navalny. This proponent of
extreme nationalism and xenophobia, with deep ties to Russia's fascistic right, and extensive
connections to US intelligence agencies, has been championed by the Times as the voice
of social dissent in Russia. Despite his miniscule support within Russia, Navalny's activities
generate front-page headlines in the Times , which has mentioned him in over 400
separate articles.
Another example is the Times ' promotion of the "feminist" rock band Pussy Riot,
which makes a habit of getting themselves arrested by taking their clothes off in Russian
Orthodox churches, and whose fate the Times holds up as a horrific example of Russian
oppression. The very name "Pussy Riot," which in typical usage is not even translated into
Russian, expresses the fact that this operation aims to influence American, and not Russian,
public opinion.
In 2014, the Times met with members of Pussy Riot at their editorial offices, and
have since extensively promoted the group, having mentioned it in over 400 articles. The term
"anti-Putin opposition" is mentioned in another 600 articles.
The logic of the Times ' campaign was expressed most clearly by its columnist
Thomas Friedman, the personification of the pundit as state intelligence mouthpiece whose
career was aptly summed up in a biography titled Imperial Messenger . In a column
published on February 18 ("Whatever Trump is Hiding is Hurting All of US Now"), Friedman
declares a "code red" threat to the integrity of American democracy.
"At a time when the special prosecutor Robert Mueller -- leveraging several years of
intelligence gathering by the F.B.I., C.I.A. and N.S.A. -- has brought indictments against 13
Russian nationals and three Russian groups -- all linked in some way to the Kremlin -- for
interfering with the 2016 U.S. elections," Friedman writes, "America needs a president who will
lead our nation's defense against this attack on the integrity of our electoral democracy."
This "defense," according to Friedman, would include "bring[ing] together our intelligence
and military experts to mount an effective offense against Putin -- the best defense of all."
In other words, war.
The task of all war propaganda is to divert internal social tensions outwards, and the
Times ' campaign is no different. Its aim is to take the anger that millions of people
feel at a society riven by social inequality, mass alienation, police violence, and endless
war, and pin it on some shady foreign adversary.
The New York Times ' claims of Russian "meddling" in the Parkland shooting set the
tone for even more hysterical coverage in the broadcast evening news. NBC News cited Jonathan
Morgan, another collaborator on the Hamilton 68 project, who declared that Russia is "really
interested in sowing discord amongst Americans. That way we're not focused on putting a unified
front out to foreign adversaries."
The goal of the ruling class and its media accomplices is to put on "a unified front"
through the suppression of social opposition within the United States. Along these Lines, NBC
added, "Researchers tell us it's not just Russia deploying these attacks on social media,"
adding "many small independent groups are trying to divide Americans and create chaos."
Who are these "small independent groups" seeking to "create chaos"? By this, they no doubt
mean any news or political organization that dares question the official line that everything
is fine in America, and that argues that the horrendous levels of violence that pervade
American society are somehow related to social inequality and the wars supported and justified
by the entire US political establishment
"... The erosion of the American society is on track, and its stay the course until this corporate owned government cannot govern no more. ..."
"... In a real rule of law world Jeff Sessions would take all this evidence the VIPS have produced and present it into the Mueller Investigation as just that evidence, or proof of lack there of. ..."
"... For a possibly useful parsing of what is actually going in the Mueller investigation, check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEt4kwAvNqU The delivery is a bit inelegant, but the main takeaway is that the Mueller investigation is meant to hide what really went down between the Dems and the Russians. ..."
"... Here you can read to how far the U.S. is willing to go with nothing but allegations. http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-sanctions/ This insanity has to end. ..."
Russia Gate has given us one thing for sure, and
that it is now ravishing the internet of all of its corporate controlled First Amendment
Rights. Just like the establishment of long TSA lines pushing us travelers through airport
security like inspected cattle, was an example of 911 reforms to our system, this Russia Gate
Investingation and all its trappings are doing the same destruction to our liberties.
What
memories of a free and liberal society have we all seen swirl ever so slowly, but deliberately
down the memory hole of our once civil liberties? The erosion of the American society is on
track, and its stay the course until this corporate owned government cannot govern no more.
In a real rule of law world Jeff Sessions would take all this evidence the VIPS have
produced and present it into the Mueller Investigation as just that evidence, or proof of lack
there of.
Good to hear Patrick Lawrence get down with it, that's what we need more of. At the rate the
internet is going, say it now, or forever hold your peace, is now in force.
Joe Tedesky , August 13, 2018 at 10:26 pm
Here is a link to something that at first seems a little unrelated, but after reading it
ask yourself, is it? Moon Jae in of S Korea may just have the answer for the way of dealing
with past government malpractices.
For a possibly useful parsing of what is actually going in the Mueller investigation,
check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEt4kwAvNqU The delivery is a bit inelegant, but the main takeaway is that the Mueller investigation
is meant to hide what really went down between the Dems and the Russians.
Excellent observations, Joe. I hope this – Russia gate – does not lead to a
much more dangerous zone as it appears to be heading to with these sanctions against Russia
slated to go into effect in November. There was this rather very disquieting article the
other day in Strategic Culture by Finnian Cunningham.
If this is true it is hard to see Russiagate collapsing...
Notable quotes:
"... The ruling establishment has pushed all their chips onto the table in a do-or-die effort to make this allegation stick. ..."
"... How many times has the U.S. "national security" establishment brazenly deceived the country and the world, at incalculable cost, without being held to account in a way that seriously discomfited the perpetrators? ..."
"... From the bomber gap, to the missile gap, through Vietnam from beginning to end, to Iran-Contra, to Iraqi WMDs, and so much more. ..."
"... It's hard to see Russia-gate collapsing in a way that would force its architects and proponents to acknowledge its fictitiousness: it is too much of an irrational miasma to actually be falsifiable in the sort of concrete way that led to even such perfunctory admissions of error as we got when Saddam's "WMDs" failed to exist. ..."
"... Bush Jr. was able to make a White House Correspondents Dinner joke about those derned elusive WMDs – and get laughs – *one year* after the invasion of Iraq. Why would this time be any different? ..."
"... People often wonder why psychopathic sadists enjoy torturing their victims, when presumably they have enough cognitive empathy to appreciate how terrible the suffering is. ..."
"... But that is WHY the sadists enjoy their activities so much. What they do to their victims is so unendurable, yet someone is having to endure it – and that somebody is not the perpetrator. ..."
"... It's hard to know if the American people will ever see a full explanation of this, Church Committee or FOIA style, ..."
Maxwell Quest August 13, 2018 at 9:38 pm Excellent article! I was particularly jolted by the
reference that the Russia-gate narrative has become "too big to fail." So true!
The ruling establishment has pushed all their chips onto the table in a do-or-die effort
to make this allegation stick.
They have passed the point of no return; there is no walking it back now. If it fails heads
will roll, but most importantly these trusted institutions will have flushed their last
vestiges of credibility down the drain. Then what?
Reply
David G , August 14, 2018 at 2:45 am
Or, as Patrick Lawrence puts it: "The risk of self-inflicted damage these institutions
assume, should the truth of the Russia-gate events emerge -- as one day it surely will -- is
nearly incalculable."
However, I disagree with both Mr. Lawrence and you, Maxwell Quest. I think that assessment
is actually too optimistic.
How many times has the U.S. "national security" establishment brazenly deceived the
country and the world, at incalculable cost, without being held to account in a way that
seriously discomfited the perpetrators?
From the bomber gap, to the missile gap, through Vietnam from beginning to end, to
Iran-Contra, to Iraqi WMDs, and so much more.
It's hard to see Russia-gate collapsing in a way that would force its architects and
proponents to acknowledge its fictitiousness: it is too much of an irrational miasma to
actually be falsifiable in the sort of concrete way that led to even such perfunctory
admissions of error as we got when Saddam's "WMDs" failed to exist.
But even if that somehow does happen, and the whole Beltway official and media
establishment has to suck it up and emit a feeble "my bad" about Russia-gate, what makes you
think it will have any lasting consequences in terms of the dispensation of power and
privilege among the U.S. elites?
Bush Jr. was able to make a White House Correspondents Dinner joke about those derned
elusive WMDs – and get laughs – *one year* after the invasion of Iraq. Why would
this time be any different?
AnthraxSleuth , August 14, 2018 at 4:07 am
"Bush Jr. was able to make a White House Correspondents Dinner joke about those derned
elusive WMDs – and get laughs" – *one year* after the invasion of Iraq. Why would
this time be any different?
Yup, got lots of laughs from his fellow members of the club that were coconspirators.
Had he tried that joke around veterans and the families of casualties of that whole
criminal adventure I doubt he would have made it out alive.
Tom Welsh , August 14, 2018 at 8:57 am
Had he tried that joke around any of the millions of victims of his criminal aggression or
their familes and friends, I am sure he would not have made it out alive.
But if you have ever managed to think yourself into the criminal mind, you will understand
that it is precisely the fact that he was NOT subject to any comeback that made the whole
thing such fun.
People often wonder why psychopathic sadists enjoy torturing their victims, when
presumably they have enough cognitive empathy to appreciate how terrible the suffering
is.
But that is WHY the sadists enjoy their activities so much. What they do to their
victims is so unendurable, yet someone is having to endure it – and that somebody is
not the perpetrator.
AnthraxSleuth , August 15, 2018 at 4:51 am
I've never tried to think myself into the criminal mind. And, I thank you for the insight.
I have had someone try to kill me. Someone that has killed at least one person before by his
own admission. It changes you forever.
Anne Jaclard , August 14, 2018 at 10:33 am
Agreed. The American corporate press has been running what are essentially press releases
and "dossiers" of evidence for a year now, mostly from shady private firms (Twitter trolls
"discovered" by Graphika, Fusion GPS's "Dirty Dossier," CrowdStrike's initial investigation
of the DNC).
Many of these firms aren't neutral parties either, head of CrowdStrike is rabidly
anti-Russia and just put together another package of "research" that was debunked on
Ukraine.
It's hard to know if the American people will ever see a full explanation of this,
Church Committee or FOIA style, given that these are companies with no public
obligations .not good.
Jeff Harrison , August 13, 2018 at 8:51 pm
Well, Patrick, I"m glad to see that you're writing for a reputable organization for a
change. I don't have a hell of a lot to add to what you've said but I'll say this. I saw an
article about the DefCon in Las Vegas this AM or yesterday. I don't remember where and I
can't find it again but the gist of it is – they had like 39 kid volunteers who they
told to go hack the election systems in some number of "battleground" states. The upshot? 35
of the 39 kids successfully hacked several election systems. The champ was an 11 yo girl who
broke in in 10 minutes. If our election systems are so poorly designed that kids can break
into them in just a few minutes, I'm sure it's just a walk in the park for an actual pro.
Jeff Harrison , August 13, 2018 at 10:45 pm
Hah! I found it. It was on RT, of course. Here's the link
-https://www.rt.com/usa/435824-us-midterms-hacking-children/
Good comments to this very good article. I agree with Gary that the US is in decline,
perhaps terminal, and that rising Eurasia led by China and Russia is the reason for the Deep
State's frantic need to try to focus the people on Russia, and now the biggie, China, to
avoid the reality of the social decay within from not addressing the people's needs for well
over 30 years. However, i also don't think as many Americans are swallowing this lie as MSM
and politicos would have us believe. What we now call the "alt-left", perhaps, may take it
seriously. It was Mme Clinton herself who is at the top of chain of this manufactured
story.
But I don't think we'll see this fixation around for the next 20-30 years, as Mr. Lawrence
speculates, because I don't think we'll have that much time for such political nonsense as we
are confronted by massive Earth changes, not all human-caused, that are now manifesting.
Tom Kath , August 13, 2018 at 8:28 pm
The correction of "illusions" often has the appearance of being too horrendous to
contemplate. Be it the delusion that we can get wealthy on debt, or the delusion that we are
invincible. These are all able to be traced back to a fundamental belief which has long been
proven to be inconsistent with reality.
mike k , August 13, 2018 at 7:29 pm
How did we get here? The stupefication of the American people was well advanced before the
pilgrims landed. The idea that this continent only really began when we "discovered" it was
the beginning of our idiocy. That this land was waiting for the blessing of our special role
in "civilizing' it was a continuation of our delusional thinking.
In philosophy there is a concept called Teleology which means to view things "by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated
causes". If we are to look at Russiagate from a teleological perspective, and indeed we should, as the evidentiary and proportional
justification is severely lacking, we see a distinct organism with a broad purpose. So let's examine, what purposes are being
served by Russiagate, what agendas being driven, and interests being advanced?
Control of information by imperial, establishment and corporate interests
Control of discourse and dissent being stigmatized
Restriction of democracy by third parties and anti-establishment candidates being smeared as "Kremlin supported'
The enlargement of the military industrial complex
The ideological alignment of the nominal left and center with authoritarianism
The justification of imperialism and aggressive foreign policy
The deflection from widespread issues of discontent
The projection of issues in the 2016 election, particularly primary rigging, voting irregularities, voter suppression,
candidate funded troll operations like Correct the Record, widespread collusion between candidates and the mainstream media,
and outsized influence of Israeli, Saudi and Ukrainian lobbies
Considering how much of an impact Russiagate has had towards these ends, in comparison how meagerly it has tackled these phantom
Russian meddlers and "active measures", I think it's fair to say that Russiagate has NOTHING to do with it's stated cause. If
Russiagate can be described by what it does, and not what allegedly caused it, what it is is an authoritarian push to broadly
increase control of society by establishment elites, and to advance their imperialistic ambitions. In this way, it does not look
dissimilar to the way previous societies have succumbed to authoritarian and imperialist rule, nor do the flavors of propaganda,
censorship and nationalism differ greatly. The 2016 election represented the ruling Establishment losing control of the narrative,
and to a lesser degree, not getting their preferred candidate. And in response the velvet glove is slipping.
Reply
mike k , August 13, 2018 at 7:33 pm
Excellent analysis!
Dunderhead , August 13, 2018 at 9:12 pm
You nailed that one man, Kudos
Maxwell Quest , August 13, 2018 at 9:32 pm
9. The delegitimization of Trump's presidency, and a false justification for removing him from office, or in the very least
crippling his ability to function as the executive.
Indeed. The Shit Snowball keeps gaining size and momentum because so many groups get various benefits from propagating the
Russiagate narrative.
I xeroxed your list of 8 – as well as an excerpt from Patrick Lawrence's original article – then added references and artwork
to set it off in a classy way.
Please let me know what the two of you think of the results:
exiled off mainstreet , August 15, 2018 at 3:00 am
This analysis is spot on.
Kevin Huxford , August 13, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Duncan Campbell's article is embarrassing, especially in that it took him so long to even slightly correct his misrepresentation
of Binney's position on the matter.
Dunderhead , August 13, 2018 at 7:00 pm
This article touches on such a fundamental truth which is the new paradigm of US disunity, the fracturing of both US political
parties and a greater General dysfunction of the American body politic not to mention the US's Image of itself.
A truly excellent and very important post! Thank you.
"To doubt the hollowed-out myth of American innocence is a grave sin against the faith." – author
Absolutely! The current "Russiagate" lunacy renders anyone a "heretic" who might engage in such "doubt"
– or who engages in any independent critical thinking on this matter. I've never seen the political class, the deep state psychopaths,
and the MSM more irrational, nor more out of touch with and more contemptuous of – simple basic verifiable physical "reality"
– than at this historical moment. The current state of affairs suggests the American empire may not simply be in decline, but
is instead perhaps in free fall with the hard ground of reality rapidly approaching. The current level of absolute public lunacy
also suggests the landing will be neither graceful nor pleasant, and may actually come as a shock to the true believers.
Terrific article, Patrick Lawrence. Too Big Too Fail is exactly correct. Just as the banks in the 2008 mortgage crisis got
bailed out, so the Russiagate narrative is cultivated by the US government. Both are insults to the American people.
As you know, there has been some recent discussion of this leak vs. hack topic. To wit:
There is a response by William Binney in video form at the end of this article:
In both cases CIA and neocons run the show. But there is new powerful factor: emergence of CIA democrats like Brennan and the conversion
of intelligence agencies into political tool, the Cerberus that safeguard the castle of neoliberalism in the USA. The USA people (bottom
90%) be damned.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's guilt in " Russiagate " is now assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every passing day. ..."
"... Coulter was confident and she wasn't alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American right -- from pundits like Coulter and Sean Hannity to President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress -- was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so ingrained for so long that many excitedly rushed to pretend that chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as reported by the New York Times ..."
"... Now, "Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs. ..."
declared liberal celebrity
activist Rosie O'Donnell at a protest in front of the White House last week. "We see it, he can't lie about it," she added. "He is
going down and so will all of his administration." "The charge is treason," O'Donnell declared. Protesters held held large letters
that spelled it out: " T-R-E-A-S-O-N ."
O'Donnell is by no means alone in her sentiments. Trump's guilt in "
Russiagate " is now
assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every passing day.
This kind of partisan religiosity is not new.
In the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, conservative pundit Ann Coulter accused war opponents of "
treason " and
insisted of Saddam Hussein, "We know he had weapons of mass destruction."
Coulter was confident and she wasn't alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American right -- from pundits like Coulter and
Sean Hannity to President George W. Bush and
the Republican Congress -- was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based
on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so ingrained for so long that many
excitedly rushed to
pretend that
chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as
reported by the New York Times in 2014 were somehow the same thing as the "
mushroom cloud " the
Bush administration said Saddam was capable of.
Now, "Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs.
The post-2016 left's most dominant narrative is arguably their deeply held belief -- with all the ferocity and piety of yesterday's
pro-war conservatives -- that Russia colluded with Trump's campaign to undermine the presidential election. Many believe that the
president and anyone who supports his diplomatic efforts like
Senator Rand Paul
are in the pocket of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It really was plausible that Iraq had WMDs in 2003 based on what our intelligence agencies knew, or purported to know. Today,
it is feasible that American democracy really has Putin's fingerprints on it based on things revealed by U.S. intelligence.
But isn't it also possible that the left is reading far too much into Russiagate?
The Nation 's Aaron Maté believes
liberals are overreaching, and that's putting it mildly:
From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the unverified claims of US government officials and
other sources, most of them unnamed. The reaction to special counsel Robert Mueller's recent indictment of 12 Russian military-intelligence
officers for hacking of Democratic party servers and voter databases is no exception. Mueller's indictment is certainly detailed.
Most significantly, it marks the first time anyone has been charged for offenses related to Russiagate's underlying crime.
But while it is a major step forward in the investigation, we have yet to see the basis for the allegations that Mueller has
lodged. As with any criminal case, from a petty offense to a cybercrime charge against a foreign government, a verdict cannot
be formed in the absence of this evidence.
Then the irony kicks in. Maté continues, "The record of US intelligence, replete with lies and errors, underscores the need for
caution. Mueller was a player in one of this century's most disastrous follies when, in congressional testimony, he endorsed claims
about Iraqi WMDs and warned that Saddam Hussein 'may supply' chemical and biological material to 'terrorists.'"
Noting Mueller's 2003 WMD testimony
is not an attempt to undermine him or his investigation, something Maté also makes clear. But it does serve as an important reminder
that "intelligence" can be flat-out wrong. It reminds us how these scenarios, which so much of Washington and the elite class fully
endorse, can be looked back on as lapses of reason years later.
Mass psychology is real. Political classes and parties are not immune.
"Suppose, however, that all of the claims about Russian meddling turn out to be true," Maté asks. "Hacking e-mails and voter databases
is certainly a crime, and seeking to influence another country's election can never be justified."
He continues, "But the procession of elite voices falling over themselves to declare that stealing e-mails and running juvenile
social-media ads amount to an 'attack,' even an 'act of war,' are escalating a panic when a sober assessment is what is most needed."
The U.S. could have certainly used less hyperbole and more sobriety in 2002 and 2003.
And there's good chance that when the history books are written about American politics circa 2018, much of Russiagate will be
dismissed as more Red Scare than
Red Dawn .
With Russia, as with WMDs, left and right have elevated slivers of legitimate security concerns to the level of existential threat
based mostly on their own partisanship. That kind of thinking has already proven to be dangerous.
We don't know what evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia might yet come forth, but it's easy to see how, even
if this narrative eventually falls flat, 15 years from now some liberals will still be clinging to Russiagate not as a matter of
fact, but political identity. Russia-obsessed liberals, too, could end up on the wrong side of history.
No one can know the future. Republicans would be wise to prepare for new, potentially damaging information about Trump and Russia
that may yet emerge.
Democrats should consider that Russiagate may be just as imaginary as Republicans' Iraq fantasy.
All this may be as Hunter would have it. Yet there is the nagging doubt that Trump, who could only find major financing for his
enterprises following his last bankruptcy through Putin-controlled banks, could be free of any entangling ties or obligations.
And if those doubts prove true, what then?
From the Nation: "From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the unverified claims of U.S. government
officials and other sources, most of them unnamed."
This is a key point, because now Democrats and the most of the Left are ready to embrace a guy like Brennan a.k.a. Mr. Torture,
merely because they hate Trump.
I'll also admit to not knowing what's coming in the future, but as of now there's a strong circumstantial case to be made that
this reactions to Russian election meddling, which when all was said and done amounted to providing the voting public with the
truth about the DNC and its own election-fixing operation, that this reaction is only about losing the 2016 presidential election
to a guy who was only given a 1% chance of winning by almost everyone.
This is the most sensible commentary on "Russiagate" I have seen anywhere in a long time.
At present, there is some suggestive evidence in the public arena, but nothing conclusive.
What we probably need, actually, is a moratorium on commentary about this until the investigation reaches its conclusion. That
can take a long time. But until then, the endless partisanship-motivated speculation we hear daily is, frankly tiresome.
Thank you, Mr. Hunter, for your temperate perspective on this. I wish this would be the last word on the subject until the
investigation ends.
'"Russian collusion" could be becoming the new WMDs.'
I suspect I agree with the author's sentiment, but it is not easy to tell.
Who stands accused? Trump? Russia? Both?
The claim that Trump is colluding with Russia is not the same as the claim that Iraq War opponents were colluding with Saddam
Hussein.
The manufactured "Russia!" hysteria campaign orchestrated by the Obama/Clinton Democratic Party leadership, as deplorable and
dubious as it might be, has nothing in common with the "5th column" smears Sullivan et.al. were peddling in 2002-2003 and beyond.
The claim that Trump committed "treason" would be legally incorrect on the worst case. Without a formal Congressional declaration
of war, we are not at war with Russia, and Russia is not the enemy, no matter how much irresponsible mouthbreathing is broadcast
from the biparty Congress members. However corrupt and corrupted Trump may be, corruption does not qualify as treason. If corruption
were treason, Congress, in support of Israel and Saudi Arabia at the expense of the US (and certainly not in support of Russia)
would be a house of traitors.
In comparison, the claim that opponents of the Iraq war were traitors was not just idiotic, but morally inexcusable. If anybody
violated their oath, it was Bush himself, his appointees, and the ranking officers of the US military, for issuing illegal orders
and/or following them.
"Russian election meddling" is the new WMD only the extent it is used as a pretext for war against Russia. It is the new "stained
dress" in the attempt to challenge the ballot and paralyze an inconvenient President. I have no doubt that the Clintons are corrupt,
and the GOP has engaged in many a Congressional effort to "investigate". The Clinton campaign adopted this playbook, and the damage
to the Republic done by all is growing every day.
The real corruption here is the pretense that Congress is any better than Trump, that Russian oligarchs have more impact on
the eroding Republic than Israeli-American, Saudi and UAE oligarchs, and that the biggest threat to the integrity of our elections
and the franchise is Russia, and not the Roberts Court, Democrat apparatchiks like Sunstein, or Republican frauds like Kobach.
Both parties are actively conspiring and plotting to make sure our votes are meaningless and cannot harm incumbents and the war
profiteering classes, and where there used to be an opposition to illegal war and to oligarchs and plutocrats, there is now willing
participation in manufactured hysteria to extend the 2016 campaign indefinitely.
WMDs? The very concept is a scam -- there is nukes, and nothing else. Nuclear arsenals outsized to end us all, and trillion
dollar waste to expand them, are the tie that binds the US and Russia, and I suspect that Russia would be a lot more rational
about reducing those arsenals than the US. If the author wants to worry about ending up on the wrong side of history, he should
stop worrying about partisan points and focus. Politics is not a team sports, and anybody who picks a favorite is a failure as
a citizen. Nobody who wants power is suitable for it.
Ask yourself, if Saddam Hussein had had "WMD" -- say, some of those chemical and biological stocks Reagan envoy Rumsfeld helpfully
provided to Saddam Hussein -- would that have made the Iraq invasion legal, right just, necessary, successful? Or if Powell's
little phials and mobile weapons labs actually existed?
Heck, let's say Saddam managed to make actual nukes out of tubes that weren't and yellowcake that wasn't. North Korea has nukes.
Does that make invasion and aggressive war legal, right, just necessary, successful?
WMD or not was a lie wrapped within a deception inside a fraud. That's the one thing that it has in common with "Russiagate".
Every layer, every aspect of it is a lie, a distraction, and everybody -- Trump included -- is perpetuating the hysteria for their
own benefit. The stupidity of it is only barely rivaled by the mendacity.
Trump is proving to be the Republican Alger Hiss. The partisanship of 1948 quickly crystallized into pro- and anti-Hiss camps
in which the then limited evidence was trumped by ideology. It was not until the Verona tapes were released in the early 1990s
that Hiss was proven to be guilty. Had Nixon and his allies called for a special prosecutor in 1948 and the facts both open and
classified been examined intensely, Hiss would never have become the progressive Victim that he was to be for over thirty years.
Ditto with Trump. Absent Mueller's investigation, these accusations against Trump (and I believe them to have serious weight and
substance as well as potential for policy changes to prevent election fraud) would be mere ideological shrapnel to be argued over
for another thirty years. Let the investigations proceed unimpeded and a final accounting be published at the very least for the
sanity and integrity of the Republic. Don't let Trump become the Right's Alger Hiss.
In other words, let's imagine that Putin has really tried to change election results. Let's imagine that Trump really has been
bribed by Russian oligarchs.
Is that why we are at this juncture? Is that why Congress has not served the People and upheld the Constitution in decades?
Is that why citizens and voters lose trust in our institutions, and doubt election results?
Really?
We cannot even own up to our own mistakes, our own greed, our own malignancy. We have to blame it not on our "business partners"
and "allies" and their hundreds of billions of dollars of arms purchases, we will blame it on Russia.
How small we have become.
It is not just Trump, it is Congress. It is not just this administration and this Congress, it is the previous ones, and the
ones before it, and so on.
The point is not whether or not the "Russia!" hysteria and the allegations against Trump are accurate or not. The point is
that, in comparison to everything else, it would just be more of the same, and we brought it upon ourselves.
@Collin-
Isn't it extremely Orwellian to say that 'information isn't really information/should be censored or disregarded if it comes from
a subversive (Russia) source'?
Naturally, it allows for a very easy way to control and censor information.
Now, as far as pure security threats, aside from information that should've been public anyway, experts deem that the DNC information
came from on site:
Now this is also an appeal to authority, but VIPs has a better track record and I've seen them actually elaborate on their
claims, not just assert them.
MAGNITSKIY MOVIE. An authorised
version is available on Vimeo here. I urge you to watch it: not only
does it complete destroy Browder's case, it is an interesting detective process as the
film-maker gradually perceives the inconsistencies and manipulations. Browder's story has been
extremely important at setting up the anti-Russia dancing mania : if it's a lie, then what?
'Bill Browder Should Be in Jail' Says Philip Giraldi, Widely Respected Pundit and Retired
CIA Officer The Browder story keeps getting more and more airplay, and it is not
complimentary to him. Patrick Fleming 10 min ago | 29
13 Giraldi, one of
the most popular writers on the conservative Unz.com , is one of the superstars of the alt-media landscape. He has
been outspoken about the pernicious effects of Israel and wealthy pro-Israeli American Jews on
American politics. You can see many of his articles on RI here .
This was from a radio interview with Lee Stranahan, formerly of Breitbart, now with Sputnik,
the Russian state-owned news agency.
You can listen to the whole thing here. Key quotes below:
"He's basically been the one who appears on the networks, appears before Congress," "
"He is someone that they've [US officials] decided has to be the spokesperson in terms of
what's going on in Russia, and yet he has a hidden agenda as a potential criminal."
"I think the story is growing; I'm seeing more and more references to Browder in a
negative way."
"The problem is that we have to get this at a level where Browder is doing his damage, and
that's in the mainstream media, places like The New York Times, and also to have some people
in Congress begin to speak up and say, 'Hey, what about the Magnitsky Act and everything that
we did to provoke a crisis with Russia based on what Browder was telling us?'".
"Once you understand that, you realize that Browder, if anything, should be in jail."
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the
images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon
it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider .
It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
@Collin-
Isn't it extremely Orwellian to say that 'information isn't really information/should be
censored or disregarded if it comes from a subversive (Russia) source'?
Naturally, it allows for a very easy way to control and censor information.
Now, as far as pure security threats, aside from information that should've been public
anyway, experts deem that the DNC information came from on site:
Now this is also an appeal to authority, but VIPs has a better track record and I've seen
them actually elaborate on their claims, not just assert them.
First rule of diplomacy– respect the culture and traditions of your
your [sic] host country, aka as [sic] the place where you were
born.
In Seagal's case, the "host" country to which the "academic" McFaul refers is not "also
known as the place where you were born", where "you" is Seagal, to whom McFaul is proffering
unsolicited advice.
The place where Seagal was born is the USA: Seagal's host country in this instance is
Russia.
If Seagal had truly wished to respect the culture and traditions of his host country, he
should have made his statement of acceptance of the post in Russian:
Я глубоко
потрясен и
польщен
назначением
специальным
представителем
российского
Министерства
иностранных
дел по
гуманитарным
связям с США.
Надеюсь, что мы
сможем достичь
мира, гармонии
и
положительных
результатов в
мире. Я очень
серьезно
отношусь к этой
чести.
However, as far as I am aware, Mr. Seagal does not speak Russian, but McFaul does, albeit
он несет полную
хуйню!
Oh, yeah, uh huh, McFaul speaks Russian. In fact, he is some kind of jive-talkin' Russian
homie, telling his audience that he looked forward to seeing them in 'Yoburg', which is the
culture-respectful term for "Yekaterinburg'. That's what got him dubbed "McFuck'. if I recall
correctly.
Then off he went as US Ambassador to Russia, where he almost immediately invited a host of
Russian opposition figures to the US embassy. According to Olga Romanova (& wikipedia)
they discussed the recent Russian protests and "the United States Presidential election
campaign" with McFaul.
While McFaul was away fostering Democrat collusion with Russian opposition figures,
Browder rammed the Magnitsky Act through Congress because of the legislative anomaly that the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment had to be repealed and Congress wouldn't give away something for
nothing.
McFaul and Browder are on the same team, playing different positions.
But ultimately they are impotent chimps. This ain't 1917 and not Sorosite and similar funding
of regime change is going to work in Russia. All these US laws and sanctions are blowhard
vapidity. They only generate healthy stimulus for Russia to clean up the last vestiges of
Yeltsin's 1990s era distortions in its economy and legal system.
Rory Cormac investigates Britain's use of spies and special forces for covert operations
in the postwar period
Historian Rory Cormac discusses his new book Disrupt and Deny, which investigates
Britain's use of spies and special forces for covert operations in the postwar period
####
Podcast at the link.
There's plenty not mentioned within, but still interesting. I would question though the
veracity of official reports released under (Freedom of Information) requests and would
assume that some of those documents are fabricated. After all, if keeping secrets is your
business, then you have have whole range of options for obfuscation, from complete release to
none at all.
Curiously having spoken of the Mau Maus, no mention is made of the discovery a few years
ago of MoD dossiers discovered in a skip (UK gov selling off real estate) detailing the
torture and abuse of them which until then had been completely denied, and ultimately went
before the high court and was fully exposed
Over the years, though, agreements with Russia to reduce nuclear arms have not followed a straight path of success.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush announced his intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by announcing that the INF Treaty might no longer be in Russia's
interests. Russia had ratified START II in 2000 but pulled out of the treaty after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM
Treaty.
Most recently, New START took effect in 2011. In addition to placing
a cap
of 1,550 on deployed strategic nuclear warheads, a nearly three-quarters drop from START, New START also cut
in half
the allowable number of strategic nuclear-delivery vehicles, such as missile launchers and heavy bombers.
New START expires in 2021. If either side allows it to simply sunset, it will be the first time in several decades
that a nuclear-arms-reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia lapses.
... ... ...
Rand Paul
is
the junior United States Senator from Kentucky.
Out of all those that can be easily identified in the photograph above, I think it's safe to
say only two of them even knew about Putin. The rest died when Putin was a nobody, save for
Pralnikov, but he had been hospitalized on and off for a decade before he finally passed away
in 1997.
When you dig deeper into it, the trail of dead journalists, business competitors and local
officials in the wake of Boris Berezovsky's and Mikhail Khodorkovsky's 1990's escapades is
the most striking one by far. That was under Yeltsin's watch, needless to say, and we all
know what became of those two gentlemen when they finally ditched Russia for Switzerland and
the United Kingdom.
Among the journalists that have died since 2000, nearly all of which are attributed to
Putin in one way or another these days by lazy pundits (and politicians, and human rights
organizations etc), several curiously also probed Berezovsky. Then, you have a big bunch of
deaths that are routinely and grossly misrepresented e.g: https://fkriuk.blogspot.com/2008/02/audit-of-committee-to-protect.html
All in all, summing it up it's all a steaming pile of fake news.
"... Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics . ..."
It's time for everyone to come off Twitter – it is like writing your message on your
buttocks with a black sharpie and dropping your trousers. Tweets are the kind of stupid thing
you send out at the end of work after you've had a bastard of a day, and something you read
or hear pushes you over the edge. People in diplomatic posts should not be allowed to use
Twitter at all, and should be punished for doing so – reporters now avidly follow the
Twitter feed of anyone who is anyone, and pounce on anything that has not been thought
through before it can be deleted: an attempt to delete it is just the icing on the cake, an
admission that you shouldn't have said it.
Time was, diplomats ran everything they said in writing in an official capacity through a
review before it was released, it was parsed six ways from Sunday to see how it might be
spun, twisted or misinterpreted. Diplomats speaking in a live interview were careful to
remain vague and say nothing which might not have meant several different things. You did not
get countries straining to get at one another because of something the minister of
agriculture said. But now everybody feels they can speak for the government on Twitter. It's
hard to imagine how the various countries of the world could come to be represented by their
stupidest citizens.
I hope America does formally sanction the Russian finance and banking sector. They're
already doing it under the radar, and going formal would give Russia an excuse to dump SWIFT
and stop using it, as well as the US dollar. Mastercard and Visa would be gonzo, taillights,
possibly in China as well. America sanctioning the Russian financial sector would remove its
last ability to keep an eye on it easily.
Regarding the Russian characterization of America as their "friend", I believe that
Russia is simply playing with us. The US wants Russia to come across as an angry, belligerent
and shoe-waving peasant. The intent is to keep alive the Cold War image of Russia as
uncivilized and crass. The best response is to do exactly what they are doing. It makes the
US look like the petulant bully that it is. Call it judo-politics .
It's just diplo-speak, to mark the speaker as a civilized man and not a thug. That is
beginning to become a bit of a sore point – is there anyone left who actually believes
that because Russian diplomats say "our American friends" or "our American colleagues", that
they labour under a delusion that this is just a temporary spat and under it all they still
have brotherly connections? If so, let me disabuse all those people of that notion; the
Russian government and all its operatives are well aware that America is a self-declared and
thus committed enemy. But saying, "the Americans, our enemies" would make for tiresome
commentary in the western papers, in which ideologues would assess that this practice proved
the Russians are the aggressors while westerners are just trying to work it out.
Alternatively, they could lower themselves to the vernacular and instruct, "Listen up,
motherfuckers".
Russia understands that America is an enemy and not a friend of any description, just as
it understands the United Nations is an American-dominated body and that it is next to
useless to expect the UN to back any Russian initiative. It continues to go through the
motions in both cases, merely to underline who is following the rules and protocols set up by
a better and more aware global civilization than currently prevails, and who is just kicking
sand in the other's face and trying to get him to swing for the chin.
Very true. Poll after poll fails to show any concern by American citizens over Russian
"meddling" or Russian "assertiveness". Sure, questions can be posed such as "Should the US
resist the Russian invasion of xxxxx?". Naturally, the answer would likely be yes. But when
asked, without prompting, what concerns them, Russia does not register as a concern at any
level. I find this remarkable as anti-Russian news is often the lead on every network evening
news show. I can not recall a news broadcast for many months that did not include a
Russian-bashing story. The tipping point on media credibility may have been reached
Cut off titanium metals and fabrications to the West – Boeing shutdowns as well as
many other US aerospace operations;
Close off air space or charge much higher tariffs to US carriers using Russian airspace. US
airlines become non-competitive in many Asian and European markets;
Stop exporting LNG and other energy products to the US;
Raise taxes or shutdown US companies in Russia;
Stop exports of the RD-180 and 181 rocket engines.
Action 1 would have a devastating impact on US aerospace manufacturing. The US has little
ability to replace with domestic or foreign supplies. This action should be reserved in the
event of extremely aggressive US actions such as a direct military attack on Syria;
"... It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.' ..."
"... Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact, Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox. ..."
"... Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have brought them closer to their dream. ..."
The other backstory being that NATO wanted to stick its nose in the Caspian Sea, but has been
pushed out. Not sure exactly what the pretext was. I have a piece in VZGLIAD that explains the whole
thing, but I haven't worked through it yet, will probably do a piece on my own blog in the
near future. But I have a couple of other projects in the queue first.
Dick Cheney, among others, was convinced that the Caspian Basin holds massive deposits of oil
and gas and is strategically significant for that reason.
"Central Asian resources may revert back to the control of Russia or to a Russian led
alliance. This would be a nightmare situation. We had better wake up to the dangers or one
day the certainties on which we base our prosperity will be certainties no more. The
potential prize in oil and gas riches in the Caspian sea, valued up to $4 trillion, would
give Russia both wealth and strategic dominance. The potential economic rewards of Caspian
energy will draw in their train Western military forces to protect our investment if
necessary."
Mortimer Zuckerman
Editor, U.S. News and World Report
"This is about America's energy security. Its also about preventing strategic inroads
by those who don't share our values. We are trying to move these newly independent countries
toward the West. We would like to see them reliant on Western commercial and political
interests. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and it's important
that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."
Bill Richardson
Then-U.S. Secretary Energy (1998-2000)
It looks as if Zuckerman's 'nightmare situation' has come about. I don't know that these
were ever proven reserves, and in fact I have the impression that the supposed energy bounty
of the Caspian did not turn out quite as imagined, but Washington once thought – not
long ago, either – that it was imperative America controlled the Caspian region because
it was about 'America's energy security'. Which is another way of saying 'America must have
control over and access to every oil-producing region on the planet.'
Richardson was correct, though, that Russia 'does not share America's values'. In fact,
Americans do not share America's values, in the sense that most Americans by far would not
support the actions of the Saudi military in Yemen, the clever false-flag operations of the
White Helmets in Syria, the deliberate destabilization of Venezuela, regime-change operations
to the right and left in order to obtain governments who will facilitate American commercial
and political control, and many other things that official America considers just important
tools in the American Global Dominance Toolbox.
Washington has long nurtured the dream of being Europe's primary, if not only, energy
supplier, and owning the Caspian (had the reserves expectations played out) would have
brought them closer to their dream. A pipeline network would have carried Caspian oil and gas
to Europe. Agreement among the Caspian nations was most definitely not in American interests,
and if you dig you will probably find American interventions to prevent that from coming
about.
"... Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride. ..."
"... Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are potentially stupid dangerous. ..."
"... I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian. Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA. ..."
"... Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back and see the bigger picture ..."
"... I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to get elsewhere. ..."
"... The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling. But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical damage on Russian society and Russian people. ..."
"... It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate. ..."
Russia is simply trying to preserve an impression of normalcy for its own population, and
trade is normal – Russia replaces those goods it cannot buy from the west with those
from other markets, but completely shutting off the purchase of all western goods would
subject Russians to unnecessary privations for the sake of pride.
Mr. Putin's popularity with the Russian people rests largely on their confidence that he
is looking out for them, and always carefully balancing risk with reward. If Russia were run
by somebody like Erdogan, the west would have succeeded in overthrowing him ages ago.
Russia is in a good position to resist sanctions, because Washington dares not impose
restrictions on its trade in oil and gas. While it would be wrong to assume Russia has
nothing else, these are core industries and in the other sectors where Russia is strong, the
west does not buy much from it anyway except for steel and raw materials. Russia can easily
replace those markets. But western brands who spent decades building up their market in
Russia slowly and carefully have lost it almost overnight. And they will be a long, long time
getting it back.
PCR's sources of information probably focus too much on the doings of the Central Bank of
Russia and not enough on other sources of advice that the Russian government might rely on.
You wonder whether PCR or his researchers are aware that the Russians and the Chinese might
be mocking the US in the statements and policies they choose to make public.
Russia has many arrows in its quiver. Best not to use them until needed. Big ones like
turning off the gas to the EU would only makes sense if there is imminent war which is
clearly not the case. In fact, it would be in Russia's best strategic interest to continue to
the the main supplier of energy to the EU as it inhibits them from doing things that are
potentially stupid dangerous.
I would like to see Russian stop supply of the RD-180 and 181 as it is ultra-high tech
which would be a nice reminder to the West regarding Russia's science and technology edge as
well as delivering a serious blow to the US presence in space – military and civilian.
Trump's "Space Force" would be DOA.
Western sanctions have done Russia enormous good. It provided an escape from WTO
restrictions and unfair trade practices. Good that they are taking full advantage of this
opportunity. I suppose that Paul Craig Roberts means well but he needs to take a step back
and see the bigger picture.
I agree that Russia should start cutting the United States off from things it needs from
Russia – like the RD-180 and titanium – which would be expensive for the USA to
get elsewhere.
I also agree Russia should keep on supplying the EU with energy, for a couple
of reasons. One, any interruption in the supply is just what Washington and its Atlanticist
Eurobuddies are looking for so they can label Russia an unreliable partner, and start that
whole alternative-sources conversation again: it's why they want to keep Ukraine in the loop
– to initiate disruptions and promote uncertainty about the reliability of Russian gas.
Two, Russia has a good chance of splitting factions in Europe off from the USA, as the latter
is more and more perceived to be trying to boss the European energy market so as to secure a
captive customer for its own exports. The last thing Russia needs is to create the impression
that Washington is saving Europe instead of dicking it around.
"The new round of sanctions this week unleashed by the United States on Russia has only
one meaning: the US rulers want to crush Russia's economy. By any definition, Washington is,
in effect, declaring war on Russia.
The implemented economic measures may have a seemingly abstract or sterile quality about
them: banning electronic exports to Russia, rattling financial markets, stock prices falling.
But the material consequence is that American officials are intending to inflict physical
damage on Russian society and Russian people.
It's economic warfare on a sliding scale to military warfare, as the Prussian General Karl
von Clausewitz would no doubt appreciate."
All these articles are hysterical pap. The events after 2014 have demonstrated that Russia is
immune to western sanctions and actually massively benefits from them. It has also shown that
it can rapidly react to changing financial conditions as seen in the offloading of $230
billion in foreign debt in 2015. The current round of "the mother of all sanctions" trash
talk from Washington is desperate and pathetic failure.
Russia has no reason or incentive for war. It is NATzO that wants to take Russia out.
Russia will adjust to the new sanctions by become fully independent of any western financial
or economic links. Russia has the critical economic mass to by an autarchy. But it does not
need to be since it will keep on trading with most of the planet. NATzO accounts for 11% of
the global population (but thinks it is 100%). The congenital retards who run NATzO are
helping China to become the next premier financial power. The Yuan will replace the dollar by
necessity if not by choice.
I want to see the writers of this scaremongering garbage list the actual economic impacts
on Russia. Starting with the financial ones. Russia does not depend on foreign currencies. It
also does not depend on foreign loans like some banana republic. The current claims by the
chimps in Congress that they will bring Russia's economy to its knees are the same BS as
during the post Banderite Kiev coup sanctions which Obama was sure were going to cut Russia
down.
There is some truth in what you say but nevertheless I think you quite underestimate the
threat of US sanctions. One doesn't have to be an unabashed fan of Ben Aris to accept some of
the points that he makes in the following article.
http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-us-declares-economic-war-on-russia-146707/?source=blogs
In any case, I am a fan of Eric Kraus and he has serious concerns- check out some of his
comments here, say, for example, 7 minutes in.
Eric Kraus apparently thinks that Russian enterprises need to borrow dollars or euro from the
west. He is dead wrong. Russia can get all the dollars and euro it needs via the exports of
oil and gas, minerals, military equipment, nuclear power plants and assorted other exports
over $400 billion US per year. That was the point of my post: Uncle Scumbag's sanctions on
financial transactions do not cut Russia off, they cut the US and the EU off from the Russian
market. We are back to 2014 and these new "mother of all sanctions" will be as useless as the
previous round.
As for Japan, it is a useless comparison. Pearl Harbour was triggered by the US trying to
cut Japan off from vital resources. Non financial ones. Nobody can cut Russia either from
natural resources or the financing it needs. But Russia can f*ck the EU over big time by
cutting off natural gas exports. As the rabid mutt in Washington tries to go for broke,
Russia should keep diverting natural gas eastward. Let Uncle Scumbag save the EU with the
spare LNG he doesn't have.
Yes, the analogy between prewar Japan and Russia is false. It can be argued that it is
exactly the opposite. Russia has the resources that the West needs and if Russia were to cut
those off, the West could be induced to launch a war of desperation as Japan did. If Russia
is "walking on eggs" that is why.
Russia also can borrow whatever money it needs to from China. China probably has more than
enough to lend of its own, but if it does not, it is under no restrictions against borrowing
from western banks, and those banks have no control over how that money is reallocated.
I commented on the Pearl Harbour episode simply to make the point that the proposed sanctions
are a very aggressive move- this is clearly how the Russian government sees them, and rightly
so. If these sanctions clip a percent or so of Russian GDP growth for the foreseeable future
then they are very damaging for the country. Frankly, I would not be very sanguine about
Russia's long term future if it were not for China, and I continue to back Kraus's opinion
over Kirill's This earlier article by Aris sets the stage reasonably well- it's obvious
weakness is that the role of China is not taken into account
. http://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-russio-delenda-est-140787/?source=blogs
A further point. No matter how creative Russia's scientists and engineers might be, it
beggars belief to imagine that any country can compete technologically long term if largely
isolated by the rest of the World. Again, this further emphasizes how critical China is
likely to be for Russia's well being.
Russia needs China and China needs Russia if it wants to remain a sovereign nation.
I would add that the US is in a very fragile state burdened by a stagnate economy despite
massive deficit spending in addition to a crumbling global empire. Russia may simply need to
ride out the storm and let nature takes it course relative to the US.
The chimps in Congress can't see past their own noses and think that borrowing and debt is
what sustains the Russian economy. Their bubble of delusion has no bearing on Russian
reality. They are currently engaged in "the definition of insanity is to repeat the same
failed approach over and over and expect a different result". You can't cut Russia off from
western banks more than once and there is obviously no cumulative impact from such sanctions.
On what basis do you estimate 1% GDP growth reduction (or contraction?) for the foreseeable
future? Kraus needs to make a case and not just engage in proof by assertion. How can we have
the same restrictions to banking access that were imposed in 2014 all of the sudden starting
to matter now? That is just ludicrous. Cutting off access to NATzO banks in 2014 was the
limit of what NATzO could do. It can't go into Russia and shut down Russian banks to prevent
Russian companies from financing themselves there or from the Russian government.
Anyway, too much obscure mush and utter lack of details. These "mother of all sanctions"
are a joke because the 2014 sanctions did most of the "damage".
But for how long can the rest of the world (meaning, I suppose, the United States and western
Europe, which seem together to think they are The World) keep it up? Long enough to bring
Russia down? I frankly doubt it. America needs trade for its corporations to flourish and
expand market share, and it is not achieving that through sanctions and tariffs. The USA is
not just taking on Russia; it is making enemies everywhere. The global economy is so
interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to death unless you can block
all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to Russia) without hurting Europe.
The present sanctions are lame and do not really do anything but get journalists excited
and use up paper. The sting is in the ones set to automatically go into effect in three
months, because to avoid them Russia must admit that it has a secret chemical-weapons
program, agree to shut it down and allow UN inspectors into the country to verify it has been
done. Perhaps Trump and his cabal gamble that Russia will cop to something it actually
doesn't have, just to avoid sanctions, as Gadaffi did. But Russia will not, while the
American attempt to bring more inconvenience and problems to the Russian people in an effort
to use them to bludgeon the government into doing Washington's bidding is about as shitty a
thing as America has ever done without involving weapons, since it offers no proof at all of
its conclusions. It is simply imposing collective punishment in order to get ts own way, and
would be the first to squeal if Russia did it.
"The global economy is so interwoven now that it is very difficult to sanction a country to
death unless you can block all its major moneymakers. And Washington can't do that (to
Russia) without hurting Europe."
"Like the Romans, the US has built a military-industrial economy that can massively
out-resource all its opponents' and so is impossible to defeat – a legacy of the rapid
militarisation during WWII when it simply out produced first the Nazis and then the Soviet
Union, the only other country on the planet at the time with any chance of matching the US's
industrial might"
Unlike the Reich the USA industrial base wasn't hampered by round the clock bombing from
the Eighth AirForce and the RAF , which also involved the diversion on billions of
Reichsmarks for thousands of planes and the Luftwaffe manpower in an attempt to stop or at
least mitigate the air attacks.
Likewise the USA industrial base was not hampered by having to -in a massive
undertaking-uproot its core manufacturing facilities and move them thousands of kilometers to
where they could be reassembled and resume production of machinery , armor and weaponry in
general.
Furthermore:
These are just a couple reasons for the fall of Rome, but what is perhaps most terrifying
about the fall are the corollaries to today. The Unites States of America has a Gini
coefficient of .45, and 40% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1% of the population.[5]
By every metric, the United States is even more divided and unfair than Rome before its fall.
The effects are perfectly evident as well as there is increasing inclination from the rich to
build fallout bunkers and withdraw from civilization and politics just as the roman elites
did centuries before. Worsening matters is the evidence of extreme racism towards migrant
workers who like slaves in Rome "take the labor from the hardworking middle class".
Increasingly the middle class shrinks as social unrest and bigotry grows. It is a scary
combination that, if we aren't careful, could spell the end of civilization as we know it,
just like it did for the Romans centuries before.
Therefore the Aris notion that USA can simply bide its time and wait for Russia to
collapse is suspect. If anything there may well be be a collapse but not Russia.
Agree with the sentiment but the Soviet Union outproduced the US in every industrial category
that mattered. Its military was much stronger than the US on land and in the air. On the sea,
the US probably had the edge.
The Soviet Union fell because its ideology provided no means to deal with psychos and
sociopaths. Religion, with all of its shortcomings, at least tried to address sociopathic
behaviors with such terms as sin, evil, etc. When religion left the building, there was
nothing left to stop the psychos and its kissing cousins, the Randites.
The West is immune from such dangers as it embraces sociopathyy. Russia, I believe, is
seeking a society that can withstand such assaults without heavy handed purges which only
provide temporary relief. The Orthodox Church ascendancy in modern Russia is helping to
provide that moral anchor to keep socciopathy from becoming the dominant world view. I think
even atheists can agree on the importance of its role in providing a stable and humane
society.
USA say that Russia did poison the Skripals in Salisbury.
"The US blamed the attack on Vladimir Putin and said they would be issuing fresh sanctions
in response to the deadly attack.
The state department says Wednesday the sanctions will be imposed on Russia because it
used a chemical weapon in violation of international law.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said: "The United States determined under the
Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) that
the government of the Russian Federation has used chemical or biological weapons in violation
of international law, or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own
nationals."
Former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Novichok, a
military-grade nerve agent, in the British town of Salisbury in March."
What can I say – perhaps now Russia will batten down the hatches and stop all
this pandering to western partners.
No need to batten down the hatches. Just ignore the yapping NATzO chihuahuas. We have not
even had a proper trial to determine guilt. The US leadership is not some ultimate judicial
body. They can make as many political judgements as they want, but that will do Jack to
Russia.
At this point all the hysterical US-driven sanctions against Russia are totally self
defeating. The monkeys in Washington clearly think that Russia is a banana republic and that
it needs to have access to foreign money and technology to function. They are cleared fucked
in the head.
It would reportedly include more drastic measures, such as downgrading diplomatic
relations, banning the Russian airline Aeroflot from flying to the US and cutting off nearly
all exports and imports.
So, are we talking about RD-180 rocket engines and Americans traveling to the ISS on
Russian rockets? Are we talking about titanium fabrications that Boeing needs for its
aircraft manufacturing?
This Russian hysteria is masking something, something big. My one-track mind suggests
fixated on the idea of an approaching economic collapse and subsequent imposition of martial
law and/or massive levels of censorship; all to be blamed on Russia. The increasingly
frenetic pace of Russian hysteria suggests a near-term sh!t-storm is on the way.
The Russian hysteria is scary as so many citizens over there believe in the Russiagate
nonsense and have been manipulated to feel they have been attacked.
It means therefore that conditions have been created whereby the USA has the support to
attack back.
Putin should never have gone to Helsinki as that escalated the madness.
Trump is emasculated just as obama was and has no power to do anything to block this
pathway to outright confrontation
The Europeans will sit by and watch – Russia has no allies there.,
Europe will stay on the porch and let the big boys duke it out. In the red corner, we have
Vlad – the Terminator. In the other corner, we have Donald – the Orange Haystack.
In another corner we have Bruce – the Red Dragon.
Haystack lumbers out of his corner before the bell rings, makes some nasty gestures and
starts his victory dance. The Terminator stands in his corner, muscular arms folded across
his chest with a wry smile across his face. The Red Dragon is closely studying Haystack with
an inscrutable stare. Haystack exhausts himself and collapses mid-ring. The Terminator and
Red Dragon leave the arena as the Haystack fans seek their autographs. Something like
that.
Perhaps a boxed piano will fall from a ninth-floor balcony and crush Nauert to a rectangular
pizza. I'd pay to see that.
Define 'pandering'. Can you name some concessions the United States has wrung from Russia
in the last two years? I seem to recall the British investigators said there was no proof
that anyone in the Russian government was involved – they simply speculated that
because Novichok could only be made in a state facility, there must be state involvement.
Does the USA have some evidence that the British have not seen yet? Perhaps they found it in
the same place they filed their satellite photography of the Buk missile taking out MH17.
You mean the same Russia that is one of only 7 nation states to have verifiably dismantled
and destroyed their chemical weapon stockpiles as ratified by the OPCW and in compliance to
the CWC? That Russia?
I can't wait for this determination to be made public along with the coinciding evidence
as released by an official judiciary body wielding the requisite jurisdiction and authority
under official auspices of the UN. That's what is meant by determined right? Pretty
unambiguous terminology there.
This entire charade has gone so far beyond farce it's not even comical anymore, just
depressing.
That's an interesting point, because a likely consequence of the continued hysterical
hostility from the west will be opacity where there once was transparency; ie: if the United
States wants to know something about Russian unconventional weapons programs, it will have to
go to extensive and complicated labour to insert a deep-cover spy or persuade an asset that
it can trust to find out the information, never knowing if it is being fed disinformation
deliberately by a double agent, where once it could simply have asked and been invited to
verify the truth itself. International organizations controlled by Washington will be less
and less likely to have a free pass to come in and poke about as they see fit.
Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has warned the US that any sanctions targeting Russian banking
operations and currency trade will be treated as a declaration of economic war and retaliated
against by any means necessary.
" If they introduce something like a ban on banking operations or the use of any currency,
we will treat it as a declaration of economic war. And we'll have to respond to it
accordingly – economically, politically, or in any other way, if required ,"
Medvedev said during a trip to the Kamchatka region.
" Our American friends should make no mistake about it ," he emphasized.
"... Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU – remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute' which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing, if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year ago? ..."
I suppose few were under any apprehension that Trump would not sign the sanctions bill
reimposing American sanctions on Iran. Consequently, most will be unsurprised that he did so.
Interestingly, the USA is increasingly going it alone in such actions, and the EU –
remarkably, for such a spineless outfit – has actually imposed a 'blocking statute'
which allegedly will protect European companies from being sanctioned by the USA, while
Brussels has taken the unprecedented step of instructing European firms not to comply with
demands by the White House that they cease doing business with Iran. Even more astonishing,
if that were possible, EU companies who opt to pull out of business with Iranian contacts
must first obtain authorization from the European Commission to do so. Without such
authorization, they may be sued by EU member states, while a mechanism has been created to
allow EU businesses impacted by the sanctions to sue the US administration in the national
courts of member states. Who could have forecast that would happen, as recently as a year
ago?
I need hardly draw attention to the unmitigated and brazen arrogance of the stated US aim:
to "force the Iranians to the table for a renegotiation of their role in the Middle East".
They fucking live there, for God's sake, but the intent of the sanctions is to force them to
bow to American will, and accept the plans for them of a state which is more than 6,000 miles
away – yet insists on its right to direct and order regional affairs to its own
strategic and economic benefit.
Once upon a time, America's meddling in the Middle East could count on the support of all
the major western powers. For the time being, that practice is in abeyance, as the major
western allies try to bring about American failure. Goodwill toward the United States has
more or less evaporated completely, and America is increasingly regarded as an enemy by
former allies. I can't see any possibility of it prevailing, unless it starts a major war and
drags everyone into it. I can, however, see irreparable economic damage being inflicted on
the American economy.
If the EU will actually protect European companies from US enforcement/retaliation and compel
European companies to honor contracts with Iranian companies or government, that is big. But
why would they do such?
I speculate the US plan is to take Iranian oil off the market thereby driving up crude
prices. The downside is that it helps Russia (perhaps not a major concern for Trump) and
hurts China but it will be a boon for US oil frackers to the point of avoiding mass default
of loans and collapse of major US operations. If Nord Stream II can be stopped, US LNG may
surge as well assuming gas frackers can ramp up. And when Iran capitulates (in US dreams) US
companies will be granted special concessions to soak up Iranian oil revenues and the EU left
of the sidelines.
So the above could be some of the reasons for the EU's stiffening. Putin is probably
breaking out the popcorn.
The US has suddenly recollected that if it wants to take on China, it will actually need the
support of its traditional allies, and is supposedly launching a make-up effort, especially
where Europe is concerned.
Trump is such a boob; his policies are all over the place – first the hard-ass who
will never back off, then conciliatory and talking international unity. Anyone who would
willingly help that country achieve its goals needs their head examined, as it clearly will
turn on its traditional friends the instant it is unhappy with the relationship. Trump brags
that trade hardball is 'his thing', but that's just more of his stupid ego, and he appears to
not grasp many of its implications.
American farmers understand, though, all too well. It does not take a genius to figure
that a $12 Billion bailout fund suggests an assessment of a potential $12 Billion in damage
to the sector, which seems like a lot of money. But as agricultural economists correctly
deduce, the real damage is to long-term trade relationships, as customers repelled by
America's thug tactics turn to other suppliers. I already mentioned the new prominence in
Canadian supermarkets of identifying symbols to highlight Canadian products, and Canada is
the biggest export market by a considerable margin for American agricultural products. Canada
could not win in a trade war against the USA, but it could inflict serious damage on the
agricultural sector. Much of Canada is farm country just like south of the border, and all
the USA really has going for it in the way of growing-season advantage is California and
Florida. Products from there which are out of season in Canada can be purchased from Mexico.
Otherwise, pretty much anything you can grow in the USA, you can grow in Canada.
"... Peskov made a statement about how unfriendly this action was after the two presidents met and got on – is this guy for real? The Americans are aiming to crush Russia and Peskov thinks it's unfriendly. This is what I mean by pandering ..."
"... What was the cost to Russia? Nada. What did it do to the US – more comical flailing, posturing and noise. Russia clearly understood what they were doing and the repercussions to the US political system – more dysfunction and misdirection. Score: Russia 1, USA 0. ..."
When I used the term pandering I mean the following
– Agreeing to meet in Helsinki with no agenda.
The meeting btw Lavrov and Pompeo was cancelled.
But Russia went along and has now escalated the Russophobia attacks against itself – this behaviour by Russia is
pandering – let's meet with America whatever the cost, since at least 2014 and the latest Ukrainian coup; USA has
proved untrustworthy yet Russia turns up when the USA asks. Putin was even going to Washington.
Is the Kremlin living in a bubble?
Putin lavrov Shoigu have been there for years and yet they seem to wear rose coloured glasses when it comes to
America
Now with the latest sanctions – there is a protest and vague threat to respond –
Peskov made a statement about how unfriendly this action was after the two presidents met and got on – is
this guy for real? The Americans are aiming to crush Russia and Peskov thinks it's unfriendly. This is what I mean
by pandering
I really think the government needs fresh people – doing what they have been doing is not working.
What was the cost to Russia? Nada. What did it do to
the US – more comical flailing, posturing and noise. Russia clearly understood what they were doing and the
repercussions to the US political system – more dysfunction and misdirection. Score: Russia 1, USA 0.
If the situation eventually resolves itself without a major war, and things go back to something more like
normal, when American manufacturers like Caterpillar and Ford are looking to expand into Russia, they will say
"Waaahhhhh!!! Why do they hate us?"
Media: "We would like to have better relations with the Russian government. And sanctions are one tool
from a whole set, through which we can try to set up some kind of government that shows an improvement in its
behavior", the head of the State Department press service has said.
What kind of tool-set is this, "through which governments are set up to improve their behaviour for the
betterment of their relations with the US":
?
And I should like a couple of examples of where and how this "set" has worked.
I daresay there are a few countries in the world which would like to use various tools against the United
States until those countries managed to set up a government in America which showed an improvement in its
behavior. Would that be regarded as just another avenue of diplomacy by America? Surely not, in the Shining
City On A Hill? Then what's all this talk of 'meddling' in America's democracy? Either the people of the
country get to pick its leader, or the international community decides who would be appropriate and then uses
the tools at its disposal to maneuver a satisfactory government into power. Make up your mind, but stop
babbling about 'democracy', what say?
Amazingly enough, some people believe this nonsense. There are a
handful of Russian liberals who allow that the country deserves to be sanctioned, and express hope that there
will be more until the government is cast down, and a new American-style – possibly even American-picked –
government takes power. This, to the US State Department, is the very distilled essence of democracy and
freedom. However, the electoral process in America is evidently flawless, as no tampering with it is either
required or permitted, and any result which does not meet with the approval of the corporate lobbyists is
obviously an engineered takeover attempt by Russia.
"See: I'm not biased against the POTUS and never have been, cos I'm investigating the
Dems, too. So I need to continue my impartial work forever" scam:
" anything he unearths about Russian election interference.." Future tense, as in not yet
accomplished as of this date. Mueller landed himself a good gig, but you can bet he has
discovered a great deal about 'foreign money flowing into Washington' which will never be
told, because it's not good politics, and has nothing to do with Russia. I daresay a
significant amount flows out of Washington as well, for intrigues and influence-peddling
abroad.
"... Mueller, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING... Or this president might appoint a honest AG that looks into our HSBC and 911 whitewash!! ..."
"... he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others. ..."
"... The Witch Hunt, Learn about the enemy, " Nevermind the CFR has this in hand..." https://www.cfr.org/about ~ Smart Cookies Kan! ..."
"... Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration! ..."
"... What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference in the 2016 election"? ..."
"... Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom? That's the question. ..."
"... The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok, Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers. ..."
"... As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space. ..."
I think one of Mueller's deeply embedded character flaws is that once he decides on burying someone he becomes possessed. Much
like the awful dealings with Whitey Bulger, sending men to prison for crimes they did not commit, in federal custody where they
could keep them quiet and under the threat of death if they were to talk.
He did this to protect the corruption surrounding that case, he is Mr. Wolf, sent in to clean up the fucking mess. He has gotten
away with this tact of ruthlessness for so long that he can't stop digging and will eventually dig his own grave because this
is out in the open, prying eyes like Sheryl Atkinson, internet sleuths and many others.
This will be his downfall, like Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick the White whale, caught in the harpoon tethers and wrapped around
the great whale as he takes him deep into the abyss.
Mueller hasn't even interviewed Don Jr yet. If he were going after Trump that would be a big deal. I tell this to my liberal
friends this info and they're like wtf is Mueller even doing?
Mueller's entire probe is to protect and cover up the crimes/FISA abuse of the Obama administration!
What is the premise for all this investigative crap? Where is the proof that Wikileaks had any contact with Russia
to begin with? Why hasn't Mueller asked to talk to Julian Assange himself ??? The supposed agent of Russia??? WTF is going on
here? What kind of BS investigation would omit to interview the very person at the nexus of the supposed "Russian interference
in the 2016 election"?
Why hasn't muller subpoenaed the DNC's server to see how the information was downloaded or uploaded and to whom or by whom?
That's the question.
The investigation is all cover for Obama, Brennan, Klapper, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarret, Comey, McCabe, both Ohrs, Stzrok,
Liza Page and Mueller himself, plus all their little footsoldiers.
You wonder what Mueller and his team do with "exculpatory evidence" they discover. It must go in that deep, dark recess where
Obama's birth cert and college and law school records go.......
As the author notes if there was any collusion none of this makes sense....all of this is after the fact and these two
are nothing but publicity seeking dogs...what a waste of time and space.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said on Sunday President Trump may
need to step in and declassify documents related to the Russia investigation. "I think he
really has no choice because...You're going to end up with a situation with half of America,
including many, almost nearly every Republican member of Congress, who will have zero
confidence in the Department of Justice and FBI and that just can't be," Nunes, R-Calif., told
"Sunday Morning Futures."
Trump said in a tweet Saturday that he "may have to get involved,"
since the FBI isn't providing texts from Andrew McCabe, the agency's former deputy director, to
conservative government activist group Judicial Watch.
One rather material element in delusions about Russia, alike in my country as in yours, is that people still appear to have difficulty
realising that Putin is not a communist, and, where they can get this far, find it utterly impossible to make sense of what he actually
is.
Among the more extreme instances was provided by our Ambassador to the UN, Karen Pierce, in the exchanges in April as the Western
powers were trying to cover up yet another 'false flag' chemical weapons attack. She explained: "In respect of Karl Marx, I think
he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting
Syria by condoning the use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory."
This problem might have been avoided had our then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, summoned his Eton and Oxford contemporary
Paul Robinson back from Ottawa, where he now teaches. Ironically, it was when Johnson was editing the 'Spectator' that, in January
2004, he published an article by Robinson, headlined 'Putin's might is White', which had a shaping influence on my view of contemporary
Russian realities.
Only later did I learn that, after leaving university, its author had served for five years in Army Intelligence, and, when he
chose to do a doctorate, opted to excavate some forgotten figures from Trotsky's 'dustbin of history', writing on the White Russian
Army in exile.
As a result, at a time when so many who had opted for 'relevant' subjects quite patently had no idea what was happening, Robinson
could see, clearly, that what goes into the 'dustbin' does not necessarily stay there: that Putin was, in essence, a grandchild of
the Rev olution who had come to believe that some of those who had opposed it had been completely justified. (As it were, Trotsky
should have been in the 'dustbin', not Denikin.)
Moreover, having described the new Russian President as a 'typical Soviet radish – red on the outside but white at the core',
Robinson went on to put into context the complexities of his relationship towards 'liberal' ideas:
'Probably the most fundamental tension in Russian politics is that between the concepts of gosudarstvennost' and its rival obshchestvennost'.
The nuances of the latter are difficult to translate, but the term refers to civil society and, roughly speaking, means "public opinion".
Liberal commentators regard the state in Russia with suspicion. At the start of the 20th century, they longed for the state to surrender
its power to "public opinion". They still do. But supporters of gosudatstvennosr view supporters of obshchestvennost' with equal
suspicion. They see them as the self-interested representatives of the chattering classes, who, if put into positions of power, will
immediately plunge Russia into a state of anarchy in which their beloved liberties will be of no use to them or anybody else. This,
the Whites argued, was what the liberals of the provisional government had done in 1917, and this, many now claim, is what free-market
democrats such as Yegor Gaidar did to Russia in the early 1990s.
What about the historical, by the ammount of millions, military budget Trump signed yesterday at that military base, destined
mainly to counter Russia and China?
Is he suffering of RDS too already?
How do you see it?
It includes an increase in military personel wages of 2.5%...this would translate into pensions as well, I guess, thus, added
to the tax cut, it would seem that for some people Trump is the hen of the golden eggs...
The Reagan/Thatcher revolution was a restoration of a new Victorian Gilded Age. The USA is a plutocracy with two ideologies
(globalism and nationalism) at war. Donald Trump represents the old national myths. Peter Strzok is a courtier of the Clinton
globalists. The little people, under stress from austerity, are reverting to their old myths and religions. American globalists
cannot face the reality of the defeat of Hillary Clinton. Instead they project themselves on to others. It is the evil Vladimir
Putin who is doing the dirty deeds. As with all scapegoats, the truth about Russia does not matter.
This is very scary. The weaponizing of sanctions and tariffs plus the possibility of the 17 year old Middle East Holy War spreading
into Turkey and involving NATO troops in Turkey, Syria and Iraq; make the ignition of Russia's 1,960 strategic nuclear weapons
a real possibility.
It is only under the shelter of a state strong enough to protect its subjects from crime or external assault, to create
and enforce laws to regulate commerce and industry, and to encourage the arts, education and other social benefits, that a
society can prosper, and that the conditions for individual liberty can ever hope to exist.'
This is the quintessential state delusion. History proves the exact opposite, nowhere better than the United States whose founding
was based on minimizing state power as much as possible consistent with there being a state. Clearly it was not enough... "Give
them an inch and they'll take a mile."
'In that story, America is placed at the vanguard of the great human march of progress. America is the grateful inheritor
of other people's gifts. It has a spiritual connection to all people in all places, but also an exceptional role. America culminates
history. It advances a way of life and a democratic model that will provide people everywhere with dignity. The things Americans
do are not for themselves only, but for all mankind.
'This historical story was America's true myth '
How people can write this sort of nonsense is beyond me. Truly delusional and divorced from any notion of reality. Nothing
but a propaganda piece by Brooks. A pure example of "America Delusion Syndrome."
re: "How people can write this sort of nonsense is beyond me."
Perhaps the current propaganda is analogous to that described by Auden in
"The Shield of Achilles" (
https://www.poets.org/poets... )
"... She looked over his shoulder
For vines and olive trees,
Marble well-governed cities
And ships upon untamed seas,
But there on the shining metal
His hands had put instead
An artificial wilderness
And a sky like lead.
A plain without a feature, bare and brown,
No blade of grass, no sign of neighborhood,
Nothing to eat and nowhere to sit down,
Yet, congregated on its blankness, stood
An unintelligible multitude,
A million eyes, a million boots in line,
Without expression, waiting for a sign.
Out of the air a voice without a face
Proved by statistics that some cause was just
In tones as dry and level as the place:
No one was cheered and nothing was discussed;
Column by column in a cloud of dust
They marched away enduring a belief
Whose logic brought them, somewhere else, to grief..."
At this rate many may come to grief due to the corruption of bloviating megaphones.
'Tis a pity.
Ishmael Zechariah
In 2015, Bill Browder published Red Notice – purportedly a true story about his
experience in Russia between 1996 and 2005. Upon closer scrutiny however, his story doesn't
add up and demonstrably fails to stand up in a court of law. Nonetheless, on the dubious
strength of that story, Browder has been able to lobby the U.S. Congress to pass the
Magnitsky Act in 2012 which needlessly damaged the relations between the U.S. and Russia.
Where he failed in courts of law, however, his campaign of relentless demonization of Russia
and of Vladimir Putin has been successful in the court of public opinion in the West. As
humanity finds itself on the precipice of yet another great war, what we need are bridges of
mutual understanding and constructive engagement, not demonization.
" and so Putin immediately issued orders for him to be sadistically murdered "
What an amazing consistency in supporting the Browder/Steele line "Putin did it." Which is
understandable, considering the efforts and investment made into the MSM memes. You made a
very strong impression that the presstituting MSM is your main source of information.
Here are some excerpts from the honest sources.
"Poisoned Russian spy was close to Christopher Steele consultant:"
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/poisoned-russian-spy-close-steele-consultant-report-article-1.3862516
"Jonathan Winer was not only a point man for the Steele "dossier" at the State Department in
2016 (and Steele dossiers of yore), he was also a father of the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Yes,
longtime Senate staffer Winer is the "old friend" Browder credits with envisioning the
legislative strategy that culminated in passage of the law. (More recently, Winer is serving
as Browder's bulldog-lawyer -- story here.)
"Cardin knew there were problems with Browder's story about Magnitsky's death and yet brought
him into Congress to testify to secure the vote. That's suborning perjury:" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-04/magnitsky-trio-pushes-war-russia-new-sanctions
"Litvinenko's circle also included Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Goldfarb, Vyacheslav
Zharko, and Akhmed Zakayev, most of whom have received asylum in the U.K. In the 1990s, Boris
Berezovsky worked with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and George Soros' International Science
Foundation which was headed by Alexander Goldfarb for almost ten years. He was also involved
in money laundering millions of dollars through the Bank of New York and the Republic
Bank of New York which was owned by Bill Browder's now deceased partner, Edmond
Safra:" https://jimmysllama.com/2018/05/07/11191/
– Is not interesting, how so many Browder's connections met an untimely death yet
Browder the Scoundrel is well supported and protected by the "deciders." -- See the fate of a
DOCUMENTARY about Browder, Magnitsky, and a bloody trail of the dead former employees of
Browder whom he used for his very profitable if criminal enterprise.
Alexander Perepelichny" was the key witness who could potentially destroy the scam with
highest political stakes on Magnitsky dossier. As Browder responds with "I do not recall" and
"I do not know" on any substantial inquiry in the court, the US judiciary could be very
interested in hearing Perepelichny. This menace to Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week
before the bill passed the US House: on Nov 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead
outside his mansion in London."
"... Why are they pushing a propaganda war which awfully looks like psychological preparation for a real hot war, when they must know that there cannot ever be a real hot war? ..."
"... How will they prevent escalation if they themselves seem to slowly drink their own Kool-Aid and believe that Russia is "waging hybrid warfare" with them, and therefore that any military action against Russia counts as self-defense, moreover, that it'd be insane not to wage an actual war against Russia? ..."
Exactly. It's a bit frightening because I don't quite get what their endgame is here.
Maybe they truly believe they can decapitate Russia with very little risk or damage to
NATO countries, but from publicly available data it doesn't look like that.
Why are they pushing a propaganda war which awfully looks like psychological
preparation for a real hot war, when they must know that there cannot ever be a real hot
war?
How will they prevent escalation if they themselves seem to slowly drink their own
Kool-Aid and believe that Russia is "waging hybrid warfare" with them, and therefore that any
military action against Russia counts as self-defense, moreover, that it'd be insane not to
wage an actual war against Russia?
"... Russia's economy is weak. Its GDP did not make the world's top 10, yet its military, especially its nuclear power, has sustained its status as one of the most influential nations in the world. Russia and the US have serious geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East and Europe, but Trump suddenly reversed the hardline US stance and showed a low-key response to Putin. That's probably because, as Trump said, Russia is a nuclear power. ..."
"... Yet Trump's respect toward Russia is worth mentioning. Trump is a man who values strength, and he attaches great importance to military strength, especially nuclear strength. ..."
"... China is different from Russia. China has a robust economy and has many tools at its disposal, which is an advantage. Yet China's relatively weak military, especially its nuclear power, which lags behind the US, is a major strategic sore point. ..."
"... Just by looking at the US' aggressive attitude in the South China Sea and the Taiwan question, we know that China's nuclear strength is "far from sufficient." Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear advantage. We are concerned that maybe one day, Washington will turn this arrogance into military provocation, whereby China will face very grave challenges. ..."
Amid the lingering fury from the US media over US President Donald Trump's summit with
Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the White House announced Thursday that Trump
invited Putin to visit Washington this fall. Trump's attitude has been firm on improving
US-Russia relations. Despite staunch opposition, it is quite likely that US-Russia
relations will halt its slide during Trump's presidency.
Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers
in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's
total, and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is
clearheaded.
Russia's economy is weak. Its GDP did not make the world's top 10, yet its military,
especially its nuclear power, has sustained its status as one of the most influential
nations in the world. Russia and the US have serious geopolitical conflicts in the Middle
East and Europe, but Trump suddenly reversed the hardline US stance and showed a low-key
response to Putin. That's probably because, as Trump said, Russia is a nuclear
power.
We know US-Russia relations cannot be improved overnight because it is difficult for the
two countries to make strategic compromises in Europe and the Middle East. Even if their
relations improve, other frictions may emerge, causing new rifts in bilateral ties.
Yet Trump's respect toward Russia is worth mentioning. Trump is a man who values
strength, and he attaches great importance to military strength, especially nuclear
strength.
The US has defined China as its strategic competitor and is exerting more pressure. The
trade war may be just the beginning. Tensions between the two nations may spread to other
areas. We believe that during this process, the White House will continue to evaluate,
including a look at China's nuclear arsenal.
China is different from Russia. China has a robust economy and has many tools at its
disposal, which is an advantage. Yet China's relatively weak military, especially its
nuclear power, which lags behind the US, is a major strategic sore point.
A popular view among Chinese strategists is that we need only a sufficient number of
nuclear weapons. Too many nuclear weapons cost more and may trigger outside alarm, leading
to strategic uncertainty. Those who hold this view believe China does not need to increase
its strategic nuclear weapons and should instead focus on modernizing its nuclear weapons
to secure the country's capability for a second nuclear strike. We believe this view is a
serious misinterpretation of the major countries' nuclear situation.
China is no small country that needs only a few nuclear weapons to scare off an
intimidator at a critical moment. China has grown into a global influence, facing greater
risks and pressure than smaller countries do. We must reconsider what constitutes
"sufficient" in terms of nuclear weapons.
China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role
of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate
China militarily. Once major countries are engaged in military conflicts, each side must
evaluate the determination of the other side to see the conflict through. Nuclear power is
the pillar of that determination. One of the major reasons that the US used a
"salami-slicing" method to push for NATO's eastward expansion but refused to engage in open
conflict in Ukraine and Syria with Russia is probably because it was concerned about what
Moscow might do with its huge nuclear arsenal.
Just by looking at the US' aggressive attitude in the South China Sea and the Taiwan
question, we know that China's nuclear strength is "far from sufficient." Part of the US'
strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear advantage. We are concerned that
maybe one day, Washington will turn this arrogance into military provocation, whereby China
will face very grave challenges.
China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power. Advanced missiles
such as the Dongfeng-41 should materialize as soon as possible. Not only should we possess
a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know that China is
determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.
Of course, we do not believe nuclear power development should override all the other
work or its development should come at the expense of other major developmental interests.
But this work must be made a top priority. We must recognize the urgent need for China to
strengthen its nuclear prowess.
If a nuclear war starts, it is only logical for the initial combatants to target ALL
powers at once, as this may be their last chance to reduce their neighbors' ability to loot
and conquer after the war. So expect Europe & China to be hit. China will in turn target
Japan, India, Korea, etc. The US do not trust Canada or Mexico, so these may well become
targets too. Pakistan and Israel may want to make their move at this point. Pretty soon it
would become clear that no major industrial or population center should be spared. So within
a couple of hours, the world's entire nuclear stockpile would be launched.
After these events, the country with the most extensive tunnel system will emerge as the
new world leader.
A very busy week indeed. It looks like the world is dividing into two alliances: those who
will follow the dictates on Iran and Russian sanctions and those who won't. We're in the
prelude to a long winter of a cold war or a very hot one, depending on how the USA chooses to
enforce those sanctions. Effectively at this point the upcoming sanctions would serve as the
equivalent of a blockade. A blockade is an act of war. A much more lively August than any of
us expected. The devil is never idle.
Miserable fat scheming twats like Karl Rove have nothing to look forward to on vacation
and so delight in poisoning everyone else's. There's a whole warren of similar rats in the
Trump administration and over at Langley which is why I mention Rove. While he's not in the
current administration, he's a very visceral representation of what the world is up against
until we put the neocons and PNACers out of business for good.
PS. I see nhs continues to post tracking links instead of direct links @7. b, I'd really
appreciate it (and the rest of the tech savvy audience here would too) if you'd ban tracking
links or more positively insist on direct links. Technically speaking all of nhs's posts
should be held as he's a serial offender. You can either clean his links for him (sounds like
as much fun as fixing his toilet for free) or just delete the comments which contain URL
shorteners (tracking links). The latter would make encourage him to clean up his act fast.
You'd be surprised how quickly inconsiderate, spying, spamming types like nhs would learn how
to post direct links.
" I don't quite get what their endgame is here .Why are they pushing a propaganda war
which awfully looks like psychological preparation for a real hot war, when they must know
that there cannot ever be a real hot war?"
Most probably, because they are calculating that under various forms of psychological and
economic pressure Russia will crumble from within and surrender, just like in the times of
Gorbachev-Yeltsin, without having to fight a real, risk-filled war. Surrender and subjugation
without firing a shot – THAT'S their imagined endgame. "Why wouldn't what worked within
living memory, a mere 30 years ago, work again now in updated form?", they think –
especially since the Russia of today is in a comparatively much weaker position overall than
the USSR of back then and the Russian rulers and society are not really too much different
psychologically from what they were back then, and are even mostly COMPOSED OF THE SAME
INDIVIDUALS? Is it really surprising that they think that way, given the continued existence
and thriving inside Russia of a powerful, openly seditious Fifth Column which is not
seriously combatted by either the Putin government or the stupid mass of the Russian populace
(who stand to lose the most, suffer terribly, and be reduced to colonized virtual serfs or
exterminated if the Fifth Columnists and their foreign masters succeed in crashing
Russia)?
Of course, IF this is a miscalculation (and I'm not sure that it is, given the current
weak, appeasing mentality of the Russian government and population), and the psychopathic
Western ruling elites don't manage to get a hold of their oversized lunatic egos and rein in
their arrogant hubristic belligerence – well, then the whole situation could devolve
pretty quick into a massive, WW I/WW II/Iraq/Serbia combination-type hot war scenario.
Except, this time, with the real probability of stepwise escalation from conventional
hostilities to Thermonuclear Holocaust.
Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive
power of American sanctions on Russia?
Russia may have struck a heavy blow already, when she dumped her holdings of U.S.
treasuries. The relatively small amount ($100 to $200 billion) may not have been significant,
but as a signal to the rest of the world it may have been loud. The new sanctions may be an
attempt to punish Russia for that. They won't work, of course, but the noise they generate
may help to obscure the import of Russia's recent action.
What I don't understand is why the US thinks Russia and China will continue to sanction North
Korea. It seems like the US is handing out straight razors to everybody and asking them to
slit each others throats. Except for Erdogan, they all seem to be saying, "Sure why not?"
Maybe they are simply accustomed to taking orders.
"... "DOJ official Bruce Ohr will come before Congress on August 28 to answer why he had 60+ contacts with dossier author Chris Steele, as far back as January 2016. He owes the American public the full truth." ..."
"... So here you have information flowing from the Clinton campaign from the Russians, likely -- I believe was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign, fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a counter-intelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now polluted nearly every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. It is absolutely amazing, ..."
"... Emails handed over to Congress by the Justice Department show that Ohr, Steele, and Simpson communicated throughout 2016, as Steele and Simpson were being paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump. ..."
"... why the most central of figures in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, British spy for hire Christopher Steele, is not sitting before Congress, testifying to the real election collusion between the UK, the Obama White House, the FBI and the DOJ. ..."
"DOJ official Bruce Ohr will come before Congress on August 28 to answer why he had 60+
contacts with dossier author Chris Steele, as far back as January 2016. He owes the American
public the full truth."
DOJ official Bruce Ohr will come before Congress on August 28 to answer why he had 60+
contacts with dossier author, Chris Steele, as far back as January 2016.
Lawmakers believe former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is a central figure to
finding out how the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid PR
smear firm Fusion GPS and British spy Christopher Steele to fuel a conspiracy of Trump campaign
collusion with Russians at the top levels of the Justice Department and the FBI.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA)
said Sunday to Fox News' Maria Bartiromo
So here you have information flowing from the Clinton campaign from the Russians,
likely -- I believe was handed directly from Russian propaganda arms to the Clinton campaign,
fed into the top levels of the FBI and Department of Justice to open up a
counter-intelligence investigation into a political campaign that has now polluted nearly
every top official at the DOJ and FBI over the course of the last couple years. It is
absolutely amazing,
According to Breitbart
, during the 2016 election, Ohr served as associate deputy attorney general, and as an
assistant to former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein. His office was
four doors down from Rosenstein on the fourth floor. He was also dual-hatted as the
director of the DOJ's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.
Ohr's contacts with Steele, an ex-British spy, are
said to date back more than a decade. Steele is a former FBI informant who had helped the
FBI prosecute corruption by FIFA officials. But it is Ohr and Steele's communications in 2016
that lawmakers are most interested in.
Emails handed over to Congress by the Justice Department show that Ohr, Steele, and
Simpson communicated throughout 2016, as Steele and Simpson were being paid by the Clinton
campaign and the DNC to dig up dirt on Trump.
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine the role Bruce
Ohr played in Hillary Clinton's Deep State attack against the Presidency of Donald Trump, and
why the most central of figures in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, British spy for hire
Christopher Steele, is not sitting before Congress, testifying to the real election collusion
between the UK, the Obama White House, the FBI and the DOJ.
"... Trump in fact was not the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against China. ..."
"... So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that. ..."
"... despite whatever happened to the U.S., China would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic sectors to foreign investment. ..."
"... for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income, wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor. ..."
"... first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall economy, by various measurements. ..."
"... And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal. ..."
"... let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global order that the Trump administration in the U.S. ..."
"... The Trump administration of this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans' current political system. ..."
"... So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable. ..."
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.
The Financial Times chief economic columnist Martin Wolf has called Trump's trade wars with
Europe and Canada, but obviously the big target is China, he's called this a war on the liberal
world order. Well, what does this mean for China? China's strategy, the distinct road to
socialism which seems to take a course through various forms of state hypercapitalism. What
does this mean for China? The Chinese strategy was developed in what they thought would be a
liberal world order. Now it may not be that at all.
Now joining us to discuss what the trade war means for China, and to have a broader
conversation on just what is the Chinese model of state capitalism is Minqi Li, who now joins
us from Utah. Minqi is the professor, is a professor of economics at the University of Utah.
He's the author of The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy, and the
editor of Red China website. Thanks for joining us again, Minqi.
MINQI LI: Thank you, Paul.
PAUL JAY: So I don't think anyone, including the Chinese, was expecting President Trump to
be president Trump. But once he was elected, it was pretty clear that Trump and Bannon and the
various cabal around Trump, the plan was twofold. One, regime change in Iran, which also has
consequences for China. And trade war with China. It was declared that they were going to take
on China and change in a fundamental way the economic relationship with China and the United
States. And aimed, to a large extent, trying to deal with the rise of China as an equal, or
becoming equal, economy, and perhaps someday in the not-too-distant future an equal global
power, certainly as seen through the eyes of not just Trumpians in Washington, but much of the
Washington political and economic elites.
So what does this mean for China's strategy now? Xi Jinping is now the leader of the party,
leader of the government, put at a level virtually equal to Mao Tse-tung. But his plan for
development of the Chinese economy did not, I don't think, factor in a serious trade war with
the United States.
MINQI LI: OK. As you said, Trump was not expected. Which meant that Trump in fact was not
the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with
respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these
new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not
the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the
American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the
majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against
China.
Now, on the Chinese part, and we know that China has been on these parts, there was
capitalist development, and moreover it has been based on export-led economic growth model and
with exploitation of cheap labor. So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends
on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the
model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that.
And so you have, indeed there are serious trade conflicts between China and U.S. that will,
of course, undermine China's economic model. And so far China has responded to these new
threats of trade war by promising that China, despite whatever happened to the U.S., China
would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial
liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic
sectors to foreign investment.
Now, with respect to the trade itself, at the moment the U.S. has imposed tariffs on, 25
percent tariffs on the worth of $34 billion of Chinese goods. And then Trump has threatened to
impose new tariffs on the additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. But this amount at
the moment is still a small part of China's economy, about 3 percent of the Chinese GDP. So the
impact at the moment is limited, but certainly has created a lot of uncertainty for the global
and the Chinese business community.
PAUL JAY: So given that this trade war could, one, get a lot bigger and a lot more serious,
and/or even if they kind of patch it up for now, there's a lot of forces within the United
States, both for economic and geopolitical reasons. Economic being the discussion about China
taking American intellectual property rights, becoming the new tech sector hub of the world,
even overpassing the American tech sector, which then has geopolitical implications; especially
when it comes to the military. If China becomes more advanced the United States in artificial
intelligence as applied to the military, that starts to, at least in American geopolitical
eyes, threaten American hegemony around the world.
There are a lot of reasons building up, and it's certainly not new, and it's not just Trump.
For various ways, the Americans want to restrain China. Does this start to make the Chinese
think that they need to speed up the process of becoming more dependent on their own domestic
market and less interested in exporting cheap labor? But for that to happen Chinese wages have
to go up a lot more significantly, which butts into the interests of the Chinese billionaire
class.
MINQI LI: I think you are right. And so for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic
consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income,
wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the
Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in
transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor.
PAUL JAY: You know, there's some sections of the left in various parts of the world that do
see the Chinese model as a more rational version of capitalism, and do see this because they've
maintained the control of the Chinese Communist Party over the politics, and over economic
planning, that do see this idea that this is somehow leading China towards a kind of socialism.
If nothing else, a more rational planned kind of capitalism. Is that, is there truth to
this?
MINQI LI: Well, first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic
sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall
economy, by various measurements.
And then regarding the rationality of China's economic model, you might put it this way: The
Chinese capitalists might be more rational than the American capitalists in the sense that they
still use most of their profits for investment, instead of just financial speculation. So that
might be rational from the capitalist perspective. But on the other hand, regarding the
exploitation of workers- and the Chinese workers still have to work under sweatshop conditions-
and regarding the damage to the environment, the Chinese model is not rational at all.
PAUL JAY: My understanding of people that think this model works better, at least, than some
of the other capitalist models is that there's a need to go through this phase of Chinese
workers, yes, working in sweatshop conditions, and yes, wages relatively low. But overall, the
Chinese economy has grown by leaps and bounds, and China's position in the world is more and
more powerful. And this creates the situation, as more wealth accumulates, China is better
positioned to address some of the critical issues facing China and the world. And then, as bad
as pollution is, and such, China does appear to be out front in terms of developing green
technologies, solar, sustainable technology.
MINQI LI: OK. Now, Chinese economy has indeed been growing rapidly. It used to grow like
double-digit growth rate before 2010. But now China's growth rate has slowed down just under 7
percent in recent years, according to the official statistics. And moreover, a significant part
of China's growth these days derives rom the real estate sector development. And so there has
been this discussion about this growing housing market bubble. And it used to be that this
housing price inflation was limited to a few big cities. But for the first half of 2018,
according to the latest data, the national average housing price has grown by 11 percent
compared to the same period last year. And that translates into a pace of doubling every six
years.
And so that has generated lots of social resentment. And so not only the working class these
days are priced out of the housing market. Moreover, even the middle class is increasingly
priced out of the housing market. So that is the major concern. And in the long run, I think
that China's current model of accumulation will also face the challenge of growing social
conflicts. Worker protests. As well as resources constrained and environmental damage. And
regarding the issue of China's investment in renewable energy, it is true. China is the largest
investor in renewable energy development, in the solar panels. And although China is of all the
largest investor in about everything.
And so China is still the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, accounting for
almost 30 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions in the world every year. And then
China's own oil production in decline, but China's oil consumption is still rising. So as a
result, China has become the world's largest oil importer. That could make the Chinese economy
vulnerable to the next major oil price shock.
PAUL JAY: And how seriously is climate change science taken in China? If one takes the
science seriously, one sees the need for urgent transformation to green technology. An urgent
reduction of carbon emission. Not gradual, not incremental, but urgent. Did the Chinese- I
mean, it's not, it's so not taken seriously in the United States that a climate denier can get
elected president. But did the Chinese take this more seriously? Because you don't get the
same, any sense of urgency about their policy, either.
MINQI LI: Well, yeah. So like many other governments, the Chinese government also pays lip
service to the obligation of climate stabilization. But unfortunately, with respect to policy,
with respect to mainstream media, it's not taken very seriously within China. And so although
China's carbon dioxide emissions actually stabilized somewhat over the past few years, but is
starting to grow again in 2017, and I expect it will continue to grow in the coming year.
PAUL JAY: I mean, I can understand why, for example, Russia is not in any hurry to buy into
climate change science. Its whole economy depends on oil. Canada also mostly pays lip service
because the Alberta tar sands is so important to the Canadian economy. Shale oil is so
important to the American economy, as well as the American oil companies own oil under the
ground all over the world. But China is not an oil country. You know, they're not dependent on
oil income. You'd think it'd be in China's interest to be far more aggressive, not only in
terms of how good it looks to the world that China would be the real leader in mitigating,
reducing, eliminating the use of carbon-based fuels, but still they're not. I mean, not at the
rate scientists say needs to be done.
MINQI LI: Not at all. Although China does not depend on all on oil for income, but China
depends on coal a lot. And the coal is still something like 60 percent of China's overall
energy consumption. And so it's still very important for China's energy.
PAUL JAY: What- Minqi, where does the coal mostly come from? Don't they import a lot of that
coal?
MINQI LI: Mostly from China itself. Even though, you know, China is the world's largest coal
producer, on top of that China is either the largest or the second-largest coal importer in the
world market as well. And then on top of that, China is also consuming an increasing amount of
oil and natural gas, especially natural gas. And so although natural gas is not as polluting as
coal, it's still polluting. And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest
importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously
the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal.
PAUL JAY: The Chinese party, just to get back to the trade war issue and to end up with, the
idea of this Chinese nation standing up, Chinese sovereignty, Chinese nationalism, it's a
powerful theme within this new Chinese discourse. I'm not saying Chinese nationalism is new,
but it's got a whole new burst of energy. How does China, if necessary to reach some kind of
compromise with the United States on the trade war, how does China do that without looking like
it's backing down to Trump?
MINQI LI: Well, yes, difficult task for the Chinese party to balance. What they have been
right now is that on the one hand they promise to the domestic audience they are not going to
make concessions towards the U.S., while in fact they are probably making concessions. And then
on the other hand the outside world, and they make announcement that they will not change from
the reform and openness policy, which in practice means that they will not change from the
neoliberal direction of China's development, and they will continue down the path towards
financial liberalization. And so that is what they are trying to balance right now.
PAUL JAY: I said finally, but this is finally. Do the Americans have a case? Does the Trump
argument have a legitimate case that the Chinese, on the one hand, want a liberal world order
in terms of trade, and open markets, and such? On the other hand are not following intellectual
property law, property rights and law, the way other advanced capitalist countries supposedly
do. Is there something to that case?
MINQI LI: Well, you know, let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led
by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global
order that the Trump administration in the U.S. - but I don't want to make justifications
for the neoliberal global order. But let's put it this way: The Trump administration of
this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social
conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans'
current political system.
PAUL JAY: So the crisis- you know, when you look at the American side and the Chinese side,
including the deep debt bomb people talk about in China, there really is no sorting out of this
crisis.
MINQI LI: So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable.
PAUL JAY: All right. Thanks for joining us, Minqi. I hope we can pick this up again
soon.
MINQI LI: OK. Thank you.
PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
"... Israel – not Russia – is the one foreign country that can interfere with impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from criticism. ..."
By all means confront Israel if that is your thing, but don't pretend that there is any
possibility of besting them.
Israel – not Russia – is the one foreign country that can interfere with
impunity with the political processes in the United States yet it is immune from
criticism.
Yes. And that is why only Israel can tame American Jews.
An excellent blogger about Russia distills Putin's Sochi speech into 10 simple points A longer version of this article originally
appeared at the ClubOrlov
blog .
Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin's speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago,
and, chances are, those who have heard of the speech didn't get a chance to read it, and missed its importance.
Western media did their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don't think of Putin (like
the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since
Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech of March 5, 1946.
In this speech, Putin abruptly changed the rules of the game. Previously, the game of international politics was played as follows:
politicians made public pronouncements, for the sake of maintaining a pleasant fiction of national sovereignty, but they were strictly
for show and had nothing to do with the substance of international politics; in the meantime, they engaged in secret back-room negotiations,
in which the actual deals were hammered out.
Previously, Putin tried to play this game, expecting only that Russia be treated as an equal. But these hopes have been dashed,
and at this conference he declared the game to be over, explicitly violating Western taboo by speaking directly to the people over
the heads of elite clans and political leaders.
Russia will no longer play games and engage in back-room negotiations over trifles . But Russia is prepared for serious
conversations and agreements, if these are conducive to collective security, are based on fairness and take into account the interests
of each side.
All systems of global collective security now lie in ruins . There are no longer any international security guarantees
at all. And the entity that destroyed them has a name: The United States of America.
The builders of the New World Order have failed , having built a sand castle. Whether or not a new world order of any
sort is to be built is not just Russia's decision, but it is a decision that will not be made without Russia.
Russia favors a conservative approach to introducing innovations into the social order, but is not opposed to investigating
and discussing such innovations, to see if introducing any of them might be justified.
Russia has no intention of going fishing in the murky waters created by America's ever-expanding "empire of chaos ," and
has no interest in building a new empire of her own (this is unnecessary; Russia's challenges lie in developing her already
vast territory). Neither is Russia willing to act as a savior of the world, as she had in the past.
Russia will not attempt to reformat the world in her own image , but neither will she allow anyone to reformat her in their
image. Russia will not close herself off from the world, but anyone who tries to close her off from the world will be sure
to reap a whirlwind.
Russia does not wish for the chaos to spread, does not want war, and has no intention of starting one. However, today
Russia sees the outbreak of global war as almost inevitable , is prepared for it, and is continuing to prepare for it. Russia
does not war -- nor does she fear it.
Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World
Order -- until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give
themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard
for her interests , will be taught the true meaning of pain .
In her external, and, even more so, internal politics, Russia's power will rely not on the elites and their back-room dealing,
but on the will of the people.
To these nine points I would like to add a tenth:
10. There is still a chance to construct a new world order that will avoid a world war . This new world order must of necessity
include the United States -- but can only do so on the same terms as everyone else: subject to international law and international
agreements; refraining from all unilateral action; in full respect of the sovereignty of other nations.
To sum it all up: play-time is over. Children, put away your toys. Now is the time for the adults to make decisions. Russia is
ready for this; is the world?
I agree with your analysis. In addition, President Putin does not want to ruin the US
economy as doing so could have catastrophic ripple effects across the globe. What he does
want is to neuter the US government so it cannot so easily continue to make war, which
indirectly will weaken the Israeli state to the same.
Those people who have their monies in sound, diversified investment houses (ie:
Schwab, Canada's TD Bank) will weather the financial storms but houses such as Glodman's
and all the other speculators will most likely lose everything while bankrupting most of
the US government itself.
If it goes far enough and and the US government under the current set of Republican
loons decide to shut down Social Security and Medicare under such stresses, it will most
likely be game over for the government at that point allowing the UN to come in a reorder
the mess the US has made of itself; hopefully under Russian directives...
That the 'storm' is coming, needs no elaboration, because this spending spree the US
has indulged in, can, on any REAL planet, simply not go on indefinitely, ...
...and Russia isn't the only country, divesting themselves of this highly toxic brew
of the US' 'reserve currency', other countries are doing it too, namely China.
If the grapevine is to be given any credence, Japan is ALSO trying, with ever greater
desperation, to divest themselves from the US dollar, but because their economy is so
much tighter strung to the US', this diversification isn't going to happen without some
major 'pains', ...
The ones, who are going to bear the brunt of the US financially collapse, ...like it
happened during the GFC, are the Europeans, Africans and South Americans, who's economies
aren't endowed with either such resilience, ...like the Russian economy, or with such
size, ...like the Chinese economy.
Sounds like they're preparing for the possibility that this will one more bit of ammo
that the US will use against Russia. If you recall, they've made noises about it in the
past. Putin's trying to cover against all possible infringements of Russian freedom and
business by doing this. It's a smart idea to get the companies using the alternative to
SWIFT before it becomes necessary. It is also good news that Russian companies and
civilians are not specifying dollars for their loans. Smart thinking!
Yes, the Russians took the lemons of the sanctions and made lemonade - re-creating
their exports by diversifying into agriculture, industrial and technological equipment,
meat, dairy and other items. As for tourism, they are rated very high with St. Petersburg
being high on the list of 'want to visit' cities. The World Cup brought the truth out to
fans of how great, friendly and safe the country is. I'm sure they'll survive whatever
the US throws at them with elan.
And they need to be. I don't see the US softening their attitude anytime soon. No
matter who wins the midterms, the loser will blame their loss on Russian meddling, so
this will continue on - we've got at least 2 more years of the shit, possibly 4 after
that, if Trump runs and wins again. I myself am tired of all this - it will only be the
loss of the dollar as world currency that ends this and that's started happening already
and will be speeding up as more sanctions and tariffs come into play worldwide.
"... Moscow. July 27. INTERFAX.RU - Russia is not giving up the dollar, because at the
moment it is the universal reserve currency to which there are no full-fledged
alternatives, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Russia is not abandoning the dollar, the dollar is the universal reserve currency.
The Euro could more or less claim that status, but not fully. Therefore, we are perfectly
aware what the dollar represents today," he said at a press conference on the results of
the BRICS summit in South Africa, answering the question on reduction of investments of
the Russian Federation in US Treasury bonds.
"As for the reserve currencies in general, regional reserve currencies already emerge.
In a sense, this is the role that the Russian ruble plays in relation to the CIS or
EurAsEC countries. But in general, any national currency is strong and good if it is
backed by an equally strong and good economy. We must proceed from these fundamental
facts", said the President.
...
... "
Russia wont drop a dollar, do drop a dollar means surrender to China...Putin wont
allow China to progress over Russia, Chinese economy dropping with the speed of light
anyway...
In reply to Dennis, I think he is right on all counts, but, in the end, the U.S.
national debt coupled with ten times the "unfunded liabilities" is going to completely
tank the dollar, and nothing short of Americans demanding our government beg to be
allowed in the now dozen or more "real, gold capitalized banks" of the world, and being
accepted only because we do have some gold, and it would be security, and at the same
time, the U.S. returning to "capitalism", not a form of trade, but natural law in the
realm of "value added trade", something socialists have had to learn the hard way, and in
teaching the lesson, our own considered themselves 'above that issue', never allowing
themselves to dream of what could, would, and has happened, the actual taking up of this
natural law, and re-securing world trade out of being manipulable by the power brokers,
bankers and central banks, and once again, answering to the singular stable value that
has served humanity for millennia.
There is a way, and reason for "allowing America" to join, we've taxed the whole of the
trading world with inflation since 48, we've reduced the dollar from 22.50 per ounce to
35.00 between 33 and 48, and from that to floating around 2000, depending on our
government's manipulations on commodities markets, and oil in particular, and the world
would be better off if it could recoup some or all of the pillage my government has done,
outside the country.
As to "buying gold while it is down, I've bought much silver, for security, at 22.00 an
ounce, later at 19.xx per, and recently, at 14.xx per, as nations sell off metals to
provide liquidity in their markets. The metals have real value, and we can only guess the
probable future value of the paper, so securing one's place on a continuous, ongoing pace
means one will get better value one week, and perhaps lesser value the next, but
regardless, all its value is secure, in a way paper never can be.
In the mid-19th century, a cattle rancher with history and reputation of honesty by long
practice, could scribble a note on the back of a shingle, a check, buying cattle, and the
person taking the shingle in exchange for a herd, could take the shingle to the town
bank, and get gold in the amount denoted on the rancher's signature on his, scrap wood
"check".
Gold and silver "certificates" were issued to make money more easily carried, but they
acclimated people to the idea paper can hold real value. The people, we, humans, forget,
all the value is in the words put on the paper, and trust in the Person upon whose
signature that value is secured by. Informal, on scrap paper, scribbled, we never forget
it merely represents a pile of gold, and we don't let just anyone trade a scrap of
shingle for a herd of cows, only those we know by experience, we, personally, can trust.
We can never trust fancy printed paper, special, illegal to make, except the one who
makes it for money, and we should know by the kind of paper, the fancy special ink, and
the "flourishes", it was never intended to represent money, but to replace it on its
face, without having to carry the real value, which then can be kept, stolen, when paper
is lawful to own, and gold is not.
Satan didn't tell Eve "you won't die, God lied to you", he merely asked, "surely you
won't die?", implying God must love her too much to fulfill His word. The lie was all in
Eve's mind, Satan merely gave her opportunity to lie to herself, and our monopoly money
system is exactly the same kind, and form of enticement to lie, that puts the onus of the
lie upon ourselves, in accepting pretend money.
All great lies are made by those desirous of the power, or wisdom, wealth, ease, but
don't wish to fulfill God's promise, "you will earn your daily bread by the sweat of your
brow", but know so many who will fall for deceit in hopes of getting something more than
they earned. Those who doggedly tie their lives, their honor, and their fortunes to God,
and their faith, won't fall for the game, and are the exact enemies of the evil, because
they prove the truth and the lie in their everyday work.
America has walked a long dark way down that broad and wide path, and we are right close
to the point of no return. I don't know which side of that point we're on, time will
tell, but I pray we are short, and can still be saved if we choose to turn to right.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro ,NC, USA
Those who are looking for a swift collapse of the dollar will probably be mistaken.
Instead a whole series of events is gradually eroding its world power. These events
include the rise of China as the world supremo of trade, the increasing isolationism of
the US in world trade and diplomacy, and the need for US to keep increasing its Fed rate
which in turn makes its debt servicing more unsustainable
Russia pays the [huge] cost of remaining a nation, a civilization and a state ~Vladimir
Putin.
Putin Slams US: "The Biggest Mistake Russia Ever Made Was To Trust You"
This is a clear attempt top abuse the dominant position of the USA in the world. For Russian
this is powerful blow in the torso, Will it be knockdown remains to be seen. Also as a weaker
party Russia can's afford a powerful counterstrike.
Notable quotes:
"... "Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas" ..."
"Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of truth,
hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to derail the
one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil hegemonistic plans
of Washington and its chihuahuas"Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey 14 hours
ago | 2,909
85 More sanctions
from the USA using the Skripal affair as an excuse without a shred of evidence, based on hype,
hysteria and hearsay. Back-door economic warfare.
Surprise, surprise. The USA invokes a law from the 1990s claiming that it has to impose
sanctions when a country crosses a chemical or biological line, in this case an invisible one
with no proof, no law case, no due legal process, just an allegation from wonderful British
intelligence that the Kremlin was involved in the Skripal case. Proof? None actually...none at
all. Just a vague blanket statement along the lines of "They have done it before and they have
said they will take out traitors and in the absence of any plausible alternative, they must be
guilty". For Washington, after months of vacillating, stating the obvious that it is very
complicated to apportion the blame when nobody knows which novichok was used, where it was
produced and in the total absence of any trail linking it to the Kremlin, we get the idea that
we are looking yet again at the wonderful British intelligence of the type that Colin Powell
used to justify the USA's illegal and murderous act of butchery against Iraq. The type of
intelligence which resembles a decade-old doctoral thesis copied and pasted from the net and
sexed up by Downing Street.
And here they are again, the dynamic duo. Skulduggery instead of diplomacy, lies instead of
truth, hairdresser-saloon hearsay against facts and truth, anything goes in the attempt to
derail the one nation with the guts, gumption, grit and wherewithal to counter the evil
hegemonistic plans of Washington and its chihuahuas.
Drawing the time line at the beginning, let us analyze what is happening and let us see the
movie developing from a distance. The political system in vogue at present is the corporatist
model controlled by the $inister $ix $isters which control the policies of Washington and its
chihuahuas, namely the BARFFS (Banking, Arms, eneRgy, Finance, Food, Pharma/DrugS Lobbies). The
BARFFS live off resources and as history has shown us when they have none themselves, they
invade countries and steal them. Ask Africa, the victim of a silent Holocaust which claimed
seventy million lives.
Russia for them is kosher when it is ruled by something that bends over when told to and
allows foreigners to steal the country's resources. Russia for them is not kosher when someone
like Putin comes along, slams his fist on the table and says loud and clear that Russian
resources are for Russians, managed by Russians. What the BARFFS want is to see Russia divided
up into, say, one hundred micro-states each one with a BARFFS-friendly government allowing
foreigners to syphon off the vast resources of this country.
The game starts with promises made to the then-USSR about friendly relations, about NATO not
encroaching eastwards, about a new world order based on partnership. It then quickly morphs out
of control with the help of the media, using buzz-words and expressions such as "collapse of
the Soviet Union" (absolute nonsense, it did not collapse, it transformed from the Union to the
Commonwealth as per the terms of the Third Soviet Constitution, without consulting the people,
or has everyone forgotten that?). There then ensued acts of provocation in the Balkans, and
then in Russia itself (Chechnya), then on Russia's frontiers.
Before Georgia in 2008 we had a spectacular example of war crimes and an illegal invasion of
Iraq to test the waters, where military hardware was deployed against civilian structures,
where fields of cereals were strafed by NATO aircraft to starve families, where Depleted
Uranium was deployed leaving swathes of territory poisonous; beforte this we had the illegal
interference in the Republic of Serbia, backing terrorists (Ushtria Çlirimtare ë
Kosovës, UÇK or KLA) and the illegal act of kidnapping and subsequent
manslaughter/murder of Slobodan Milosevich, who died in custody while being held illegally and
without being found guilty of any of the crimes leveled against him.
With Georgia we had another act of provocation in which Georgian forces attacked Russian
peacekeepers in South Ossetia and were building up to do the same in Abkhazia, territories
which under the Soviet Constitution had necessarily to have status referendums on which way the
people wanted to go and into which Republic they should integrate. Georgia refused to hold
these referendums.
And since Georgia we had Libya, a shocking act of barbarity in which NATO interfered in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state, sending the country with the highest Human Development
Index back into the dark ages, fragmented and crawling with terrorists. Not to mention
Afghanistan, started in 2001 and ongoing, where "allied" troops are photographed guarding opium
fields, where opium production has risen and where Talebaan fighters are seen escorting NATO
convoys, paid, like WTF?... and not to mention Syria, in which the same side once again allied
itself with terrorists as it did in Libya, terrorists which raped little girls before and after
they were beheaded, which raped nuns savagely in every orifice of their bodies, which impaled
little boys on stakes and which ripped the hearts out of Syrian soldiers and bit into them.
So we see what we are up against. And if all that were not enough today we have the idiotic
acts of provocation in the Baltic where a handful of NATO soldiers are cavorting around like
toy soldiers claiming to keep their countries safe. From what? Jupiter? Ah and yes, we have
Ukraine as the latest act of provocation.
It started off well before the so-called protests in Independence Square, Kiev with
subversion and organization of protesters who took to the streets in November 2013 and in late
February 2014, shots were fired from the sixth floor of Hotel Ukraine on the protesters in the
square below to create a "cause", the democratically elected President was ousted in an illegal
coup, massacres were perpetrated against Russian-speaking Ukrainians (this story seems to have
disappeared from the Western media) and Fascists shouted slogans such as "Death to Russians and
Jews". As a reaction, Russian-speaking Ukrainians defended themselves in South-East Ukraine and
in the absence of the due legal force in the Republic of Crimea, the Legislative Assembly, now
the organism with due legal force, organized a referendum on status and over ninety per cent of
the population (Russians) voted to reintegrate Russia. It's called Democracy. Maybe Washington
and its chihuahuas should try it some time.
What the BARFFS wanted Russia to do was to roll over, drop its pants and say "sock it to me,
babe". With another leader, that might have happened. Not with Putin. So now we have instead,
economic warfare with sanctions, more sanctions and increased sanctions, trying to tie a knot
around Russia's throat and tightening it, now linking Crimea to Abkhazia to South Ossetia, to
state-sponsored terrorism without a shred of respect for the law and the facts. It is by now
crystal clear what the West wants.
It wants to strangle the Russian economy to create unrest in Russia and create political
movements against Putin. It then wants to instal a west-friendly government which will see
Russia fragmented, sooner or later, into a myriad of republics, each one with their resources
controlled by foreigners.
That is what the sanctions are about. Let us see whose side God is on.
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war
was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the
bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering;
on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a
fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched
down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers
and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they
swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory with
stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest
intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in
the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of
Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which
moved every listener.
It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured
to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a
stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of
sight and offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church
was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams --
visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing
sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the
surrender!
Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of
glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors
and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to
win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a
war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed
by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with
glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation:
God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest,
Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!
Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate
pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an
ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers,
and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in
the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong
and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them crush the foe, grant to them and
to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his
eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet,
his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy
face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and
wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side
and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence,
continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent
appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord and God, Father and Protector of
our land and flag!"
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled
minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound
audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he
said:
"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the
house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the
prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such be your desire after I,
His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import.
For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who
utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think. "God's servant and yours has prayed
his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one
uttered, and the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all
supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would
beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon
your neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain on your crop which
needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse on some neighbor's crop which
may not need rain and can be injured by it.
"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by
God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you
in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant
that it was so! You heard the words 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is
sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words.
Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for
many unmentioned results which follow victory -- must follow it, cannot help but follow
it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He
commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
"Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle -- be
Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our
beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody
shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of
their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their
wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of
fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help
us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the
wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in
summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee
for the refuge of the grave and denied it --
For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract
their bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain
the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!
We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the
ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble
and contrite hearts. Amen.
(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of
the Most High waits."
--
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in
what he said.
The rest of the world needs to rally around Russia. Regular Americans have no voice in
this insanity. Contacting Representatives/Senators does no good. The neocons, run by you
know who, seek to destroy Russia b/c they can't control Putin. The neocons are
psychopaths and care not about US or other lives nor even the interests of citizens -
they want war. Hope Putin can dodge this with China and the other BRICS.
http://theduran.com/us-sanc...
Hitler's plan for Russia was called "General Plan Ost."
After being conquered, the country up to and including the western third of Siberia was
to be carved up into a series of administrative regions like "Muscovy", "Ukraine" and
others, and exploited. The remaining two thirds of Siberia was to be given to Japan.
There was a special plan for Crimea because of its favourable climate. Cities like
Leningrad and Moscow were simply to be erased as serving no useful purpose in the Plan.
Moscow was to be submerged under an artificial lake.
The population of 200 million was to be reduced by "natural" means, ie starvation.
Different figures were given of the numbers who would have to die. 45 million, initially.
But ultimately only 15 million young Russian men and women would need to be retained as
slave labour.
The country would be comprehensively looted and run as a resource colony, supplying its
colonial overlords with grain, oil, timber and metal ores.
Of course, in the event the Plan was never carried out. Things didn't quite work out
according to the power point presentation. But like they say, it's the thought that
counts.
The western plan for the Russian Federation is broadly similar, except in the details.
They probably wouldn't bother submerging Moscow in an artificial lake. These plans came
very close to being realised and put into effect in 1941 and 1991. That these things did
not come to pass is not the result of any natural law. If circumstances had been slightly
different, all these things would now be part of the historical record. Maybe if the
weather had not been so severe in 1941. Or if German leadership and planning had been
slightly better. Or if some quisling stooge had come to power after the 1990s instead of
Putin. Any of these things could easily have happened. And Russia would just have been a
half forgotten memory, like the ancient civilisations of Central and South America.
And that is why Russia needs to stop referring to its "western colleagues and
partners."
What Russia is like today, with it's leader Vladimir Putin ,was meant to be .I firmly
believe this.
From the Sleeping Prophet Edgar Cayce sometime in the 1930's
"Through Russia comes the hope of the world. Not in respect to what is
sometimes termed Communism or Bolshevism -- no! But freedom -- freedom! That each
man will live for his fellow man. The principle has been born there. It will
take years for it to be crystallized; yet out of Russia comes again the hope of
the world." ~ Edgar Cayce
You could be right, but Russia has had some disastrous leaders in the past - Yeltsin,
Gorbachev, going back to Kerensky, or Tsar Nicholas. Not necessarily evil or corrupt,
maybe well meaning, but disastrous leadership. Imagine if someone of that kind was at the
helm now, someone like Merkel/ Macron/ May. It could have happened, and Russia would be
just like Ukraine today...
"Bring Them on and Let's See Whose Side God Is On!"
LOL, sounds like Erdogan who recently said "They have Dollars, we have our God".
Funny social media comments followed, such as; "Maybe God should be appointed our
economy minister". .. "As if 'they' don't have any God"... "Is God a Turk?" (which is
funny because "Allah" is an Arab God).
But religious people are totally unable to question; only they believe in the right
religion, in the right God and only they are God's favorite people. Everybody else is
doomed.
Russia must learn to counter the sanctions threat. If sanctions result in Russia
correcting the errors in how her money system functions (these all stemming from the
world banking monopoly which only ever issues money as an ever-increasing and ever more
dragonian burden on nations and people) then it will lead to prosperity based on Russia's
own vast natural resources, her own increasing production capacities and the material
requirements of her people. When Russia sweaps aside all the lies that the global banking
monopoly relies upon Russia will not only be truly free and prosperous, it will lead the
rest of the world in a better and more secure economic future.
Sanctions on Russia is of lesser importance than interest level
Let us say sanctions increase machinery cost for a farmer with 10%, so a $50,000 machine
will cost $55,000. That is $500 per year (downpayment 10 years)
While 1% interest on $500,000 (all his debt) is like $5000. Today's 15% interest on
$500,000 will be $75,000 per year.
Farmers need more sanctions anyway
Japan was loaded down with so many sanctioned that it had no choice but to attack
Hawaii. That was the plan after all - but the American people never found out about it
till - Now. Russia has more than a few hundred - Zero's to attack its enemy with. It's
another Washington game and once again the people of the US - are out to lunch.
The American people are brainwashed by their media about all this. They are swallowing
the lies b/c they don't get enuf alt media and even there, not enuf is reported. Most
still believe Crimea was militarily taken over by Russia. Keep getting the truth out.
God favors truth,I don't expect the racists blinded in their zeal,can concieve the
virtues of the real deal christain faith,not for the faint minded,nor them purists who
assume justice is easier said then done!
General Grant, who participated in the war against Mexico as a junior officer, said he
believed the Civil War was God's inevitable punishment for that act of illegal
aggression.
SuperJew AKA Mike a JIDF heavyweight has decided to go on an all out offensive along
with his rabid Jew dog - Bad boy!! Otto!! Mike may be operating from an alt account
Their objective is to provoke and attempt to get people banned
It seems they really dont appreciate being identified like this . Well Jews - Get Used to
it !
It also seems that otto has been banned from posting here due to his offensive nature,
yet here he is from a different account still stinking up the place
Kjell Hasthi is a known JEW Troll, very likely a JIDF Operative
A Jew with mutilated genitals because his parents are degenerates
To add to that, it was a dirty old Jew that violated him
Clearly this has had a significant psychological impact
Kjell Hasthi Total Comments 45310
All on Russia Insider thats some serious f'ing trolling
Thats an all out offensive and this is just one Jew account
A list of this network is being compiled:
Nightcrawler136 ---- David --- Anja Boettcher
Vera Gottlieb ---- Kjell Hasthi --- John C Carleton
Mike Saunders ---- Jay Dee --- YaSayTyrantsAndLiarsBetter?
JIMI JAMES ---- Merijn --- SHELDON BUCHMAN
reaganmikenyc ---- Bruno Bardorosso ---
Bad boy!! Otto!! ---- Mike ---
You've been Identified Jews !
Stop your attacks on this community and discontinue you disruptive behaviour
It is unfortuanate that we must engage in such activities to protect our communities
from Jewish Supremacists but we do what we must !!!!
(To the gentile community - feel free to Join us in our campaign to expose these
hostile invasive Jews and protect this community from their offensive - you can copy this
and use it (or create your own) whenever these JIDF Troll operatives are active)
Keep screaming it today, keep screaming it tomorrow, keep screaming it long after you
have been deported
Keep screaming you Religious Supremacist nut case
Unless you are talking that angry, vindictive, bloodthirsty, pedophilic "god", of the
Babylonian End of Times Death Cult.
Jesus the Christ said, chain some cinderblocks around a pedophiles neck, throw em in
the deep end.
Putin and Trump are in bed with the pedophile evil of Israhell!
So it is obvious, the "God" which WASHINGTON DC/USA, Moscow and the Russian Orthodox
Church serves, is not the God, who is the Father, of Jesus the Christ, who did not say
crawl in bed with the Holocausting pedophiles!
Maybe Moscow's/ USA/WASHINGTON DC's God's name is Shekels.
"Jesus the Christ said, chain some cinderblocks around a pedophiles neck, throw em in
the deep end".
Now John, as your friend who agrees and sympathizes with your righteous anger, surely
that's not exactly what he said? As I recall, he warned that it would better for such
people if they were drowned. The implication seems to be that God will punish them
severely - either now or, more likely, in the afterlife.
SuperJew AKA Mike a JIDF heavyweight has decided to go on an all out offensive along
with his rabid Jew dog - Bad boy!! Otto!! Mike may be operating from an alt account
Their objective is to provoke and attempt to get people banned
It seems they really dont appreciate being identified like this . Well Jews - Get Used to
it !
It also seems that otto has been banned from posting here due to his offensive nature,
yet here he is from a different account still stinking up the place
Kjell Hasthi is a known JEW Troll, very likely a JIDF Operative
A Jew with mutilated genitals because his parents are degenerates
To add to that, it was a dirty old Jew that violated him
Clearly this has had a significant psychological impact
Kjell Hasthi Total Comments 45310
All on Russia Insider thats some serious f'ing trolling
Thats an all out offensive and this is just one Jew account
A list of this network is being compiled:
Nightcrawler136 ---- David --- Anja Boettcher
Vera Gottlieb ---- Kjell Hasthi --- John C Carleton
Mike Saunders ---- Jay Dee --- YaSayTyrantsAndLiarsBetter?
JIMI JAMES ---- Merijn --- SHELDON BUCHMAN
reaganmikenyc ---- Bruno Bardorosso ---
Bad boy!! Otto!! ---- Mike ---
You've been Identified Jews !
Stop your attacks on this community and discontinue you disruptive behaviour
It is unfortuanate that we must engage in such activities to protect our communities
from Jewish Supremacists but we do what we must !!!!!
(To the gentile community - feel free to Join us in our campaign to expose these
hostile invasive Jews and protect this community from their offensive - you can copy this
and use it (or create your own) whenever these JIDF Troll operatives are active)
All the Jews are screaming Fascist today
Keep screaming it today, keep screaming it tomorrow, keep screaming it long after you
have been deported
Keep screaming you Religious Supremacist nut case !
They are trying with all their deceptive stupidity,to project an image of Israhell
that is totally false. The little poor innocent insignificant Israhell that hurts no one
and minds its own business. Deception and evil is in their dna.
Peter Strzok,
who spearheaded the FBI's investigations into both the Clinton email
"matter" and the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election,
has been
fired from the agency over anti-Trump texts,
according to The
Washington
Post
.
Aitan Goelman, Strzok's lawyer, said
FBI Deputy Director David L. Bowdich ordered the
firing on Friday
-- even though the director of the FBI office that normally handles
employee discipline had decided Strzok should face only a demotion and 60-day suspension.
Goelman said the move undercuts the FBI's repeated assurances that Strzok would be afforded the
normal disciplinary process. -
Washington
Post
"
This isn't the normal process in any way more than name
," Goelman said.
Strzok's termination follows a
June report
that he was physically escorted out of an FBI building despite still being employed
by the agency.
In response Goelman said in a statement: "
Pete has steadfastly played by the rules and
respected the process
, and yet he continues to be the target of unfounded personal
attacks, political games and inappropriate information leaks."
In the same June letter, Goelman complained about the "
impartiality of the disciplinary
process, which now appears tainted by political influence
."
In other words, Peter Strzok - who vowed in a text message to his FBI mistress to "stop" Trump,
was the victim of political bias - according to his attorney.
Goelman also wrote that "instead of publicly calling for a long-serving FBI agent to be
summarily fired, politicians should allow the disciplinary process to play out free from political
pressure." We are confident that
everyone
will be very interested in watching the
"impartial" disciplinary process play out fully in the coming months.
Goelman's conclusion: "Despite being put through a highly questionable process, Pete has
complied with every FBI procedure, including being escorted from the building as part of the
ongoing internal proceedings."
Strzok's anti-Trump sentiment came to light after an internal investigation revealed he and his
FBI mistress Lisa Page had exchanged 50,000 text messages, many of which contained clear animus
towards then-candidate Donald Trump.
Strzok's position in the bureau had been precarious since last summer, when Inspector General
Michael E. Horowitz told Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III that the lead agent on his team
had been exchanging anti-Trump messages with an FBI lawyer. The next day, Mueller expelled
Strzok from the group.
The lawyer, Lisa Page, had also been a part of Mueller's team, though she left a few weeks
earlier and no longer works for the FBI. She and Strzok were having an affair. -
Washington
Post
Perhaps the most alarming of the exchanges mentions an "insurance policy" in the event Trump is
elected.
"
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that
there's no way he
[Trump]
gets elected - but I'm afraid we can't take that risk."
Strzok
wrote to Page, adding "
It's like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40
."
In another text exchange, Strzok tells Page: "I am riled up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable
to provide a coherrent answer," and
"I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR
COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!
"
Page then messages Strzok, saying "And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're
meant to
protect the country from that menace
. (links to NYT article), to which
Strzok replied "
I can protect our country at many levels
."
The text messages made
abundantly clear
that Strzok - the man who downgraded
the FBI's assessment of Hillary's email mishandling from "grossly negligent" to "extremely
careless," and
used a largely unfounded Trump-Russia dossier to launch a
counterintelligence operation
- holds a deep disdain for Donald Trump.
In response to the discovery of Strzok and Page's texts, President Trump derided the pair as
"FBI lovers." On Sunday, Trump tweeted "Will the FBI ever recover it's once stellar reputation, so
badly damaged by Comey, McCabe, Peter S and his lover, the lovely Lisa Page, and other top
officials now dismissed or fired? So many of the great men and women of the FBI have been hurt by
these clowns and losers!"
Strzok testified at a Congressional earing last month, asserting that there was "no evidence of
bias in my professional actions," and that his testimony was "just another victory notch in
[Russian President Vladimir] Putin's belt and another milestone in our enemies' campaign to tear
America apart."
The now-former FBI agent also creeped people out with a weird smirk during the session, as well
as the generally creepy faces he made:
PS tried to influence a US election! He should be
made an example of to put fear in the 'Russians' or
anyone else that ever tries to throw an election, a
sentence of life in a hard labor camp will be fair!
They didn't issue a firearm to him. He was not a graduate of
FLETC nor a law enforcement agent/officer. He is not an 1811
criminal investigator. He was a CIA puke shipped to FBI for
detail by Brennan. This is all lies.
Sounds like my lib
brother who says there is no need to go after Hillary because she
lost. I told him by that logic we shouldn't have tried the Nazis
because they lost.
Firing him only means he is of no more use. Lisa Page was fired after she
had no more use other than testifying. I'll be interested to see what
happens to PS. He represents an interesting mix of factors. His background
is pure Deep State yet he is personally well and truly screwed. Will he
flip to save his hide or will he go down with the globalist ship? I
personally think he turned on them but that is just a guess. The
demon-possessed kabuki testimony was just an act he was told to portray for
optics IMHO. Tie will tell
He played a big role in the CIA infiltration of the FBI (to get
around that annoying policy of no spying on Americans in the CIA...
officially of course). He doesn't even show up as completing the FBI
Academy program... same for McCabe...
But why is he not being
charged for conspiracy to take down a sitting president using official
government agency tools?
I doubt PS has any dirt on anyone who hasn't already been fired.
No,
his best bet personally is to make a truckload of cash for appearances,
talks and book advances (no one will buy them, of course). The Deep
State look after their own.
Strzok thought he would be safe towing the FBI party line during his
congressional hearing, where he behaved like a useful idiot. Now that he
is on record defending the FBI, it was no longer necessary to keep him on
the payroll, so the FBI fired him. That's how the deep-state closes ranks
after they discard one of their own who stupidly embarrassed them by
leaving text messages that showed FBI corruption in exonerating Clinton and
framing Trump.
"
In other words, Peter Strzok - who vowed to "stop" Trump, was the
victim of political bias according to his attorney."
Everything
I say is a lie. But, if everything I say is a lie, then, I'm lying as I say
this. Therefore, everything I say is truth. But, if everything I say is
true, and I'm telling you that I am lying
This is awesome because Team Mueller & Co. won't be able to resist from
pulling at the threads of this latest twist, as in "was Stroke's firing
politically motivated...", and will further unravel the DNC's, Democrats
and Fusion GPS collusion at all levels of government.
Fucking genius
move, and most well deserved (though he got off easy). If he's smart
he'll stay out of the public eye.
who at the FBI awarded immunity
from prosecution to Clintons lawyers et al?
was it Comey, Strzok, McCabe?
why does that immunity still stand if the FBI officers that granted
it were poltical hacks fucking on government time and using
federal/taxpayers money?
The FBI packed with Ivy Leaguers, Friends and Relatives of Wall Street,
Social Justice Warriors, and Govt types who know they are above the Law.
The real question is, is the FBI worth saving ?
or can it even be saved and made back into a beacon of integrity?
The best policy would be to close it, terminate everyone and transfer
any law enforcement or national secutiry work that it might have
inadvertently been doing, to the various other myriad of Law Enforcement
Agencies, like Homeland, US Marshals, Treasury, ATF etc etc etc.....
Throughout, Republicans in Congress were relentless in their pursuit. (If the recent Peter
Strzok hearing shocked you, you didn't watch any of the dozens of Whitewater hearings.) Starr's
office leaked like a sieve, making it clear that his mission had strayed far beyond normal law
enforcement into being a political operation intended to bring down the president. The media
ate it all up like little baby birds with their beaks open, eager to take whatever was fed to
them. The atmosphere was febrile and intense.
Starr had finally decided to close up shop after years and years of chasing his tail had
come up with no evidence of a crime. But that was when the Paula Jones civil suit opened the
door for Linda Tripp to stab her friend Monica Lewinsky in the back, and right-wing lawyers set
a perjury trap for the president. Clinton walked into it, lying under oath when asked if he'd
engaged in an extramarital affair with Lewinsky. The rest is history.
Of course this kind of devious machination is what Republicans see happening with Robert
Mueller's investigation into Trump's campaign dealings with Russians.
One has to wonder on how many fronts can Washington keep expanding America's military with the goal of fighting and actually
winning a war before it collapses under the weight of its expenditures?
Washington won't be winning any wars against Russia and/or China. It should stick with what it's good at, that is bombing third
world countries, on behalf of its Zionist masters. On second thoughts, it shouldn't be doing that either.
This is an interesting analysis shedding some light on how the US intelligence services have gone rogue...
Notable quotes:
"... Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. ..."
"... the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. ..."
"... He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail? ..."
"... The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance -- which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up." ..."
"... The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. ..."
"... "What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task." ..."
"... "The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact." ..."
"... But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. ..."
"... Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much
use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage,
but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they
prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you
look at things.
First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has
been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and
China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and
conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you
are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days
torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged
in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and
that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate
negotiating future spy swaps.
In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a
good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies,
sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US
intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr.
Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own
spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They
poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no
evidence.
There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working
in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly
super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't
work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it
needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the
prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An
alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be
following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.
A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is
acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and
the method -- treason -- can be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper,
professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents.
In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to
recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for
injecting disinformation.
Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert
Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail
server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's
been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that
they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet.
Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from
Russia.
Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in
Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the
Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of
Russia or extradited to another state."
Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can
just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule
against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.
That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked
into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system
has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done
bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged
hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping
a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment.
He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC
officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie
Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian
hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So,
where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?
Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal
investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to
have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who
may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to
begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious
amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US
officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed,
at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US
instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?
The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the
traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage -- "intelligence" in US parlance --
which is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best
ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such
quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US
"intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit
up."
The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the
stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make
unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmful -- be they about Syrian chemical
weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden -- because facts require accuracy and rigor
while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual
objective is easily discernible.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its
allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom
aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and
overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they
are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and
so on.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag
operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta
chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is
perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were
harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly
forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure
confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a
conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A
light-hearted answer would have been:
"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They
were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to
claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped
lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available,
is an impossible task."
A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:
"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig
the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to
prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately
be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as
conspiracy theory, not as fact."
And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:
"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to
which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to
me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their
dismissal."
But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake
answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake
intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and
ultimately futile conflicts.
Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of
religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the
Taliban is resurgent and battling ISIS -- an organization that came together thanks to American
efforts in Iraq and Syria.
The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593.
Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is
too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the
US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."
The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like
a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the
country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of
them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of
the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million
per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence
community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US
intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.
There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.
First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that
the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where
grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward
an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such
incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for
their mistakes.
Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has
been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile
conflicts -- the largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How
that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable
definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at
it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better
than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be
perpetual liars."
Please support antiwar.com -- a unique antiwar site in the climate of rabid militarism and
jingoism...
Notable quotes:
"... "the unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party" is upsetting to writer Tina Nguyen because the "far left and the far right" are "converging." Or something. Peace with nuclear-armed Russia? That qualifies the Senator as a "wacko bird" and "Putin's perfect stooge." ..."
"... Rand Paul has gone from being an overly cautious presidential candidate who seemed scared of his own noninterventionist shadow to a principled statesman unafraid to take a stand for peace. He is a living example of how people – yes, even politicians – learn and change. His trip to Russia to bring a message of peace and détente at a time when the wolves of the War Party are howling ever louder was an act of courage that should have every person of good will standing and applauding. Bravo, Senator! ..."
Libertarians are largely lost in the wilderness of the present era: wandering without a
compass, either moral or ideological, and without a clue as to how to get home, never mind
reach their ultimate goal of "freedom in our time." Yes, that was the old slogan that we
libertarians started out with: an optimistic battle-cry that, today, seems unrealistic, at
best. But is it? And if it isn't, who can show us the way forward?
My answer is simple: look at what Sen. Rand Paul is doing, and take a lesson. Instead of
weeping and wailing about the loss of a "libertarian moment" that never really happened, Sen.
Paul is making a difference. As Politicoreports
:
" Rand Paul has the ear, and the affection, of the most important person in the White
House: President Donald Trump.
"Once bitter rivals on the Republican campaign trail, the Kentucky senator and the
commander-in-chief have bonded over a shared delight in thumbing their noses at experts the
president likes to deride as 'foreign policy eggheads,' including those who work in his own
administration."
When Trump appointed the hawkish John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, the usual
suspects crowed that "the neocons have taken over the White House." Never mind that a) Bolton
is no neocon, and b) Trump is known for encouraging vigorous debate among his policy advisors
while not necessarily agreeing with one or the other – these people, mostly alleged
non-interventionists, hate the President for other reasons, and merely seized on the
appointment as a convenient talking point. However, this narrative is contradicted by the
reports of Sen. Paul's increasing influence in the Oval Office:
"While Trump tolerates his hawkish advisers, the aide added, he shares a real bond with
Paul: 'He actually at gut level has the same instincts as Rand Paul.'"
"Paul has quietly emerged as an influential sounding board and useful ally for the
president, who frequently clashes with his top advisers on foreign policy. The Kentucky
senator's relationship with Trump, developed via frequent cellphone calls and over rounds of
golf at the president's Virginia country club, became publicly apparent for the first time on
Wednesday when the senator announced he had hand-delivered a letter to the Kremlin on Trump's
behalf."
While the Beltway apparatus put together by the Kochs has jumped on the NeverTrump bandwagon
with both feet, publicly declaring war on the administration and announcing a de facto alliance
with the Democrats, Sen. Paul has made a difference in a key area that the Koch machine has
largely abandoned or reversed itself: foreign policy. Here's Politico again:
"Both Paul and Trump routinely rail against foreign entanglements, foreign wars, and
foreign aid – positions characterized as isolationist by critics and as 'America first'
by the president and his supporters. Even on points of where they disagree, Paul has
extracted small victories."
That one area is Iran, and even there it looks like Sen. Paul has his finger in the
dike:
"But Trump has stopped short of calling for regime change even though Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Bolton support it, aligning with
Paul instead, according to a GOP foreign policy expert in frequent contact with the White
House. '
Rand Paul has persuaded the president that we are not for regime change in Iran,' this
person said, because adopting that position would instigate another war in the Middle
East."
As the President launches peace initiatives from the Korean peninsula to the steppes of
Russia, the virtue-signalers among us pretend that none of that is happening and obsessively
descry the decision to exit the Iran deal. Yet where has all their moaning and groaning gotten
them? Sen. Paul is single-handedly doing more for peace than any of these bloviating
nonentities could dream of.
The hysteria aimed at the President is now directed at Sen. Paul, with the New York
Times in what is perhaps mistakenly presented as a "news" article
describing the Senator's relationship with the White House in words that are clearly over the
top:
"Suddenly, in the mind of the junior senator from Kentucky, Mr. Trump has soared from
lower than that speck of dirt to high enough for Mount Rushmore."
One imagines the foam-flecked computer screen of the author was quite a mess well before she
reached the end of her jeremiad. Hatred for the President blends and merges with hatred for
Russia as the Fourth Estate becomes an instrument in the hands of the War Party. Vanity
Fair – that bastion of foreign policy expertise – shrieks
that
"the unlikely, unholy alliance between Rand Paul and Donald Trump, one a libertarian
iconoclast, the other the cancerous center of the Republican party" is upsetting to writer
Tina Nguyen because the "far left and the far right" are "converging." Or something. Peace
with nuclear-armed Russia? That qualifies the Senator as a "wacko bird" and "Putin's perfect
stooge."
Yeah, suuure it does, Tina: anything you say. Just like those who wanted to end the
Vietnam war were "stooges" of Ho Chi Minh. Just like Ronald Reagan getting rid of a whole
category of nukes made him a "stooge" of Gorbachev.
And to get down to the real intellectual heavyweight: S. E. Cupp, whose credentials seem to
be phony glasses and blondness, vomits up her considered opinion
that Sen. Paul is now Putin's "errand boy." Which is far better than being Max Boot's errand girl , but
don't anyone tell Iraq war-supporting Ms. Cupp that she has blood on her hands. She feels no
need to apologize.
Oh yes, the heavies are out in force, sliming Sen. Paul for defending the President's
Helsinki peace initiative with nuclear-armed Russia. Vanity Fair , S. E. Cupp –
who's next? Madonna? Women's Wear Daily ?
Rand Paul has gone from being an overly cautious presidential candidate who seemed
scared of his own noninterventionist shadow to a principled statesman unafraid to take a stand
for peace. He is a living example of how people – yes, even politicians – learn and
change. His trip to Russia to bring a message of peace and détente at a time when the
wolves of the War Party are howling ever louder was an act of courage that should have every
person of good will standing and applauding. Bravo, Senator!
It could be the Trump was already deposed as a President by Pompeo.
I never understood appointment of Haley and appointment of Bolton if we assume that Trump is not a neocon and does not want to
continue previous administration policies. Haley is kind of Sikh variant of
Samantha
Power. Bolton is probably as bad as Wolfowitz. Pompeo also can be viewed as Hillary 2.0.
Notable quotes:
"... In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties. ..."
"... The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that conclusion following an initial determination by the British government. ..."
"... However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline. ..."
"... Strangely, a government research facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and the Public Health England. ..."
"... All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the country. ..."
"... It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place. ..."
"... With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect, it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral world order being challenged more than ever. ..."
"... Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise. ..."
Forget about running the Empire or the American state. Trump isn't even in control of his team US President Donald Trump is not in
control of his own administration, as evidenced by the latest round of sanctions imposed against Russia for the alleged involvement
in the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK in March.
The sanctions came the same day that US Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.,
announced
on a trip to Moscow that he had handed over a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin from Trump calling for better relations
between the two countries. For that reason, the timing appears to be suspect, suggesting strongly that Trump has his own foreign
policy while the Trump administration, comprised mainly of bureaucrats referred to as the Deep State, have their own. Right now,
they appear to be in control, not President Trump, over his own administration, and it is having the adverse effect of further alienating
Washington and Moscow.
The neocons, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, along with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his United Nations ambassador
Nikki Haley, comprise the Trump " war cabinet " ostensibly aimed at directing a harder line toward Syria, North Korea, Iran
but also Russia. Bolton, in particular, has been outspoken in calling for regime change in some of these countries. Trump not so
much so. In fact, he has said just the opposite. Nevertheless, their anti-Russian flair in Washington has breathed new life into
the neocons who, along with the Democrats, Deep State and much of the mainstream media, have pushed the false narrative of collusion
between Russia and Trump.
This persistent anti-Russian rant and repeated sanctions which have been imposed have had the effect of leading to further threats
of sanctions for questionable reasons, raising the potential prospect of suspension of diplomatic ties.
Even at the height of the Cold War, relations between the US and Russia never reached such low depths as they have now. The latest
sanctions affect primarily dual-use technologies which are civilian products with potential military applications. They include gas
turbine engines, electronics and integrated circuits which will now be denied. Previous sanctions going back to the Obama administration,
however, already imposed bans on many of these dual-use technologies.
In addition, the US has delivered an ultimatum, saying that if Russia does not give assurances within 90 days that it will
no longer use chemical weapons and allow international inspectors to inspect its production facilities, further sanctions will be
implemented. But Russia denies it used chemical weapons. Unlike the US, it
destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with international treaties.
Implementation of the sanctions stem from provisions of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination
Act of 1991.
The legislation gave a 60-day window to begin implementation of sanctions after the Trump administration determined that the
now-British citizen Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by a strain of the Novichok nerve-agent. The US came to that
conclusion following an initial determination by the British government.
However, the US administration missed the deadline by more than a month. That prompted Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of
the House Foreign Relations Committee, to write a
letter to Trump some two weeks ago slamming the president for ignoring the deadline.
Curiously, the British government hasn't implemented similar sanctions, although the US has. It may reflect the continued uncertainty
among some British politicians and experts over the origin of the Novichok and concern with Britain's trade dependency on Russia.
But since the Americans opted to implement sanctions due to existing legislation, there was apparently no objection from London even
though it initially implemented sanctions by kicking out Russian diplomats from the country.
Moscow, however, vehemently denied that it was involved in the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter. Novichok was created by
Russian scientists during the Cold War but never used on the battlefield. Russian officials asked Britain for evidence of Russian
involvement and called for a joint investigation to be conducted by the Kremlin and British governments.
The British government repeatedly turned down the offer, as did other Western members of the United Nations Security Council,
the US and France, when Moscow sought such a joint investigation.
The US claimed that the information linking the poison to Russia was " classified ."
Strangely, a government research
facility at Porton Down in Amesbury, not far from Salisbury where the alleged March poisoning took place, examined the strain
of Novichok. Porton Down lab does work for British Defense Science and Technology Laboratory, run by the Ministry of Defense, and
the Public Health England.
Results from the examination confirmed the poison was a form of Novichok but – importantly – could not determine where the poison
had been created or who had used it. This development created further confusion and prompted disputes among politicians.
It is known that samples of Novichok have been in the hands of many
NATO countries for years after
the German foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, or BND, had reportedly obtained a sample from a Russian defector
in the 1990s.
The formula was later shared with Britain, the US, France, Canada and the Netherlands, where small quantities of Novichok reportedly
were produced in an effort to develop countermeasures. Porton Down labs similarly had received samples to study. Czech President
Milos Zeman recently admitted that his country synthesized and tested a form of Novichok. Sweden and Slovakia also have the technical
capability to produce the nerve agent, according to Russian officials.
All of this makes makes the issue as to why Britain, and even the US, never wanted to share samples taken from the poisoning
of the Skripals with Moscow more concerning. Yet, they all went ahead in lock-step to condemn Moscow for the poisoning, without any
evidence, suggesting a more sinister reason for lobbying increased sanctions against Russia with the goal of further isolating the
country.
It reflects the need especially by the US to have a demon in an effort to justify its defense spending to bolster NATO up
to the border of the Russian Federation in the form of a new containment policy that launched the Cold War in the first place.
With even further sanctions against Russia in the recently passed Defense Department Authorization Bill about to go into effect,
it is becoming apparent that the allegations against Russia are politically-motivated, false flag allegations to be used as an excuse
for a greater geostrategic reason -- to contain Russia just as the Trump administration is increasingly finding its US-led unilateral
world order being challenged more than ever.
The reason, however, isn't due to anything that Moscow initiated but by Trump himself who isn't in control of his own administration,
and maybe never has been. Many of his campaign promises such as dropping out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iranian
nuclear agreement, the threat of sanctions against any company that trades with Iran, his tariff war with US allies are in conflict
with each other, leading to increased world instability. At the same time, Trump talks about better relations with Russia, but
the actions of his own administration in demonizing Moscow dictate otherwise.
F. Michael Maloof is a former Pentagon security analyst.
WASHINGTON -- Suffering yet another unexpected setback during his ongoing investigation into foreign collusion with the Trump
campaign, Special Counsel Robert Mueller scrambled Friday to contain the damage to his documents after spilling an entire Grape Crush
Big Gulp all over his Russia evidence. "No, no, no! No! Aw,
WASHINGTON -- Saying that their investigation indicated her involvement in election interference went deeper than
previously believed, the FBI revealed Thursday that Russian agent Maria Butina traded sex in exchange for all 62,984,828 votes Donald
Trump received for president in 2016. "Our inquiry into Ms. Butina
I had just finished exercising and went to the sauna. The gym I go to is a modern facility
with new equipment and is very popular in our city.
My favorite parts are the sauna and the steamer. Both remind me of my old country –
Russia. Though, to be politically and geographically correct – I never lived in Russia: I
was born and raised in one of the fifteen republics of the former USSR – the republic of
Kazakhstan.
So, I am a Russian from Kazakhstan. It's kind of confusing for Americans, and when
twenty-six years ago my American wife brought me here, the customs official gave me an alien
card where my nationality was stated not Russian but Kazakh. My friends make fun of me, because
Russians and Kazakhs are like apples and oranges. We look different
In 1992, when I arrived in America, the relationship between the two cold war rivals was
excellent: Americans traveled to Russia, opening McDonalds, KFC's, Burger Kings, and other
businesses, and Russians were opening not only their hearts but even the secrets of the
overthrown KGB. Millions of Russians and Americans enjoyed such a "romance" between the two
most powerful nuclear countries in the world.
Not anymore! Every morning I wake up to the words, "Russia is terrible," and go to sleep
with the humiliating jokes of the "night-show-clowns" about "the dictator" Putin and "barbaric"
Russians, whose 13 hackers changed the electoral minds of millions of naïve Americans.
Wow! What a powerful "gasoline station country"- Russia, as Senator McCain calls it.
If in 1992 the people in my city who heard my accent were very nice to me and to Russia, now
the usual reaction is to stare at me like a goat at the newly painted gates. One of my
neighbors even yelled at me when I answered his question about my recent trip to Russia. I told
him: "Russians like Putin because he saved their country from collapse. I saw with my own eyes
how Russia has changed since my last trip there. I didn't see the impact of Obama's sanctions,
Russians have better roads, than we have in Colorado; the shops, are filled with all kinds of
products; the churches are restored "
My neighbor who didn't like Trump yelled at me: "If you like Russia go back to your
country!" My answer was: "I love Russia but I am American – like your immigrant wife,
like you. I love America for a lot of reasons, one of them – the right to speak! Nobody
should privatize this right." He ran away, later coming to apologize
My wife, knowing my hard-tempered character asks me not to talk about policy –
Putin-Trump anymore. And I don't, to a certain degree. However, when someone asks me about
Russia or Putin I usually answer, giving my point of view; I just cannot be silent. I was
silent for 40+ years living in the USSR, not anymore! Of course, not everyone likes my answers,
like the man I am going to tell you about.
So, I went into the sauna; a stout man was sitting on the upper bench. He was the same age
as I. Many of the older men in America call ourselves "old farts." The name is not offensive to
us, because we really do not care about our image, and because we like to make jokes about
everything, mostly about ourselves. Usually, we old farts are nice, we love to talk, even in
the sauna. Young people nowadays do not talk. They turn on their phones even in the sauna
– I bet they do not know how to talk with other people. They cover their "secrets" in
towels while we do not – we do not have any secrets anymore.
Anyway, the man said hello to me, I answered, and he caught my slight accent.
"Where are you from?" It's a question I am usually asked.
"From here." I answered.
He was a little confused. I knew what usually followed if I had said – "from
Kazakhstan." Usually, there would be an exchange of this type: "Where is it?" – "Between
Russia and China," – "How do you like it here?" The silly film "Borat" helped me for a
short period of time. People were smiling, as if they met Sasha Cohen, and I was happy that at
least they knew some geography, though the film was silly and the geography in it was
completely mistaken.
"No, I mean originally where are you from?" The guy, let's call him Tony, found the right
question.
I decided not to check his geography skills and said that I came from Russia. The dialog
that followed was remarkable. Here it is.
"Welcome to America! Your English is pretty good!"
"Yours, too." He didn't get my humor. "Just joking," I said, "As for welcoming, it's a
little late: I have lived here for 25 years."
"Have you been in Russia lately?" He asked.
"Yes, I go there every year."
"Wow. So, what do you think about that crazy guy , Pyutin?"
"Sorry, honey," – I apologized to my wife in my thoughts and picked up the gauntlet.
"You mean Putin? He is not crazy. Actually, he is one of the smartest rulers Russia ever had."
I said.
Tony's eyes nearly leaped from their sockets. "But he is a dictator and kills people!"
"I wouldn't call him a dictator – he was just last week elected by nearly 67% of
Russians. I would call him an authoritarian, strong ruler; but a weak ruler in Russia wouldn't
survive a day. Besides, there were seven people opposed him in the election!"
Tony smiled. "You call it an election? He chose the opponents himself from his friends. The
whole world knows that elections in Russia are a sham!"
"Who told you this nonsense, Tony? Did you listen to the debates? Did you hear how these
people yelled at each other and cursed Putin, asking people to vote for them not for Putin.
They really were as tough as Hillary to Donald! And besides, there were a lot of observers from
110 countries. They claimed the election was legitimate."
"No, I do not believe you."
"You may not believe me but I am citing the international organizations reports. You may
check their reports on the Internet yourself. You may even sue these organizations if you
wish."
Tony was silent for a minute, then turned his head to me and asked: "You know that Pyutin is
evil even to his own people?"
"You mean Putin? Who told you? How many Russians share your opinion?"
"McCain."
"Is he Russian?"
"No, but he knows that Pyutin is KGB."
"His name is Putin!" I tried to correct at least this in his mind. "So, you do not believe
me, a Russian, who just returned from Russia, but you believe this Senator, who hates Putin and
Russia? Besides, there are no KGB anymore."
"But he used to be KGB?"
"Yes, and Bush H. was also a CIA agent. So, what? After the collapse of the Soviet Union
there were no people who didn't work for government in that country, we all worked for
government! Putin is good for Russia, he is the brightest politician nowadays. He is like a
great Chess-master, and he is a dangerous player. We must be careful with him. Some Congressmen
are underestimating Russia, calling it "a gasoline station with nukes," but I was there this
summer and saw with my own eyes how much people love Putin, and how much he is doing to make
that country great again."
"Yeh, yeh, yeh " Tony didn't know what to say. Then he recalled something and turned his red
face to me. "Well, he invaded Crimea, and Ukraine!"
"No, he did not. Crimea was a harbor for the Russian navy, and according to the treaty
between Ukraine and Russia there were sixteen thousand Russian troops stationed there on a
permanent base. There were about twenty-three thousand Ukrainian troops there, too. So, when
the thugs in Kiev took power, illegally kicking out president Yanukovych and killing the
political opponents, the Crimean people decided to organize a referendum. Ninety-six percent
decided to reunite with Russia, as they were Russians for nearly 400 years before the Communist
dictator Khrushchev gave that peninsula to Ukraine as a present to his native land."
"But they had no right to secede from the main land of Ukraine!"
"Yes, they did. International law gives the right for self-determination to people.
Remember, we split from the British Empire."
"But it was so long ago!"
"Okay, what about East and West Germany or Kosovo? The people in these countries also
exercised their right of self-determination, but they didn't have any referendum as far as I
know."
Tony looked at me attentively. "I don't believe you."
"You have the right not to believe me. You asked, I answered."
Tony was silent for a while. Then he threw out his last argument. "I hope you wouldn't deny
that Putin killed British citizens recently, using KGB gas!"
Wow, he pronounced "Putin" correctly! I smiled. The nice face of my American wife appeared
in my head again, and she was not happy! I kissed her in my thoughts and finished the
conversation with my last knockout blow:
"I wouldn't deny it if the poisoning by Russians had been proved!"
"But it was proved by Teresa May!"
"Really? What did she say?"
"She said that it was Putin who poisoned the British citizens!"
"Not really, my friend. She said that it was "highly likely" that Russia did it! Besides,
only Mr. Skripal is a British citizen, his daughter is a Russian citizen"
"Does it make any difference?"
"You mean, "highly likely" is proof to punish somebody? What about one of the main pillars
of democracy – innocent until proven guilty?"
"But we believe our allies, not the Russians!"
That statement made me laugh. "You believe not facts but political statements without any
facts? Wow! What kind of democracy is that?"
Tony's face became so red that I was afraid it would melt. He stood up from the bench and
without looking at me firmly said:
"Russians are our enemies, and democracy does not apply to them."
He left, leaving me with a sudden fear of approaching nuclear war.
At night I prayed for peace. I prayed for American and Russian people-in-power who could
easily destroy this fragile planet. If people refuse to understand each other, they fight.
Kennedy and Khrushchev fortunately understood this. Will Putin and Trump understand?
Pavel Kozhevnikov was born in Kazakhstan. In 1992 he married an American woman and
relocated to Colorado, USA, where he worked in a variety of business ventures and taught
various subjects including Russian at Mitchell High School as well as at Pikes Peak Community
College and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Pavel continues to enjoy teaching
Russian at the local community college and university and devotes his free time to writing. He
has published four books of stories and poems as well as numerous articles for newspapers and
journals in Russia, Germany, Kazakhstan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
"... Second, the U.S. government in April imposed sanctions on Deripaska, one of several prominent Russians targeted to punish Vladimir Putin -- using the same sort of allegations that State used from 2006 to 2009. Yet, between those two episodes, Deripaska seemed good enough for the FBI to ask him to fund that multimillion-dollar rescue mission. And to seek his help on a sensitive political investigation. And to allow him into the country eight times. ..."
"... "The real question becomes whether it was proper to leave [Deripaska] out of the Manafort indictment, and whether that omission was to avoid the kind of transparency that is really required by the law," Dershowitz said. ..."
"... Melanie Sloan, a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer and longtime ethics watchdog, told me a "far more significant issue" is whether the earlier FBI operation was even legal: "It's possible the bureau's arrangement with Mr. Deripaska violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services." ..."
But there's one episode even Mueller's former law enforcement comrades -- and independent ethicists -- acknowledge raises legitimate
legal issues and a possible conflict of interest in his overseeing the Russia election probe.
ADVERTISEMENT In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI,
the bureau
asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired
FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.
Yes, that's the same Deripaska who has surfaced in Mueller's current investigation and who was recently sanctioned by the Trump
administration.
The Levinson mission is confirmed by more than a dozen participants inside and outside the FBI, including Deripaska, his lawyer,
the Levinson family and a retired agent who supervised the case. Mueller was kept apprised of the operation, officials told me.
Some aspects of Deripaska's help were chronicled in
a 2016 book by reporter Barry
Meier , but sources provide extensive new information about his role.
They said FBI agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel meetings in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington.
Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither
involve nor harm his homeland.
"We knew he was paying for his team helping us, and that probably ran into the millions," a U.S. official involved in the operation
confirmed.
Deripaska's lawyer said the Russian ultimately spent $25 million assembling a private search and rescue team that worked with
Iranian contacts under the FBI's watchful eye. Photos and videos indicating Levinson was alive were uncovered.
Then in fall 2010, the operation secured an offer to free Levinson. The deal was scuttled, however, when the State Department
become uncomfortable with Iran's terms, according to Deripaska's lawyer and the Levinson family.
FBI officials confirmed State hampered their efforts.
"We tried to turn over every stone we could to rescue Bob, but every time we started to get close, the State Department seemed
to always get in the way," said Robyn Gritz, the retired agent who supervised the Levinson case in 2009, when Deripaska first cooperated,
but who left for another position in 2010 before the Iranian offer arrived. "I kept Director Mueller and Deputy Director [John] Pistole
informed of the various efforts and operations, and they offered to intervene with State, if necessary."
FBI officials ended the operation in 2011, concerned that Deripaska's Iranian contacts couldn't deliver with all the U.S. infighting.
Levinson was never found; his whereabouts remain a mystery, 11 years after he disappeared.
The State Department declined comment, and a spokesman for Clinton did not offer comment. Mueller's spokesman, Peter Carr, declined
to answer questions. As did McCabe.
The FBI had three reasons for choosing Deripaska for a mission worthy of a spy novel. First, his aluminum empire had business
in Iran. Second, the FBI wanted a foreigner to fund the operation because spending money in Iran might violate U.S. sanctions and
other laws. Third, agents knew Deripaska had been banished since 2006 from the United States by State over reports he had ties to
organized crime and other nefarious activities. He denies the allegations, and nothing was ever proven in court.
The FBI rewarded Deripaska for his help. In fall 2009, according to U.S. entry records, Deripaska visited Washington on a rare
law enforcement parole visa. And since 2011, he has been granted entry at least eight times on a diplomatic passport, even though
he doesn't work for the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Former FBI officials confirm they arranged the access.
Deripaska said in a statement through Adam Waldman, his American lawyer, that FBI agents told him State's reasons for blocking
his U.S. visa were "merely a pretext."
"The FBI said they had undertaken a careful background check, and if there was any validity to the State Department smears, they
would not have reached out to me for assistance," the Russian said.
Deripaska once hired Manafort as a political adviser and invested money with him in a business venture that went bad. Deripaska
sued Manafort, alleging he stole money.
Mueller's indictment of Manafort makes no mention of Deripaska, even though prosecutors have evidence that Manafort
contemplated inviting his old Russian client for a 2016 Trump campaign briefing. Deripaska said he never got the invite and investigators
have found no evidence it occurred. There's no public evidence Deripaska had anything to do with election meddling.
Deripaska also appears to be one of the first Russians the FBI asked for help when it began investigating the now-infamous Fusion
GPS "Steele Dossier." Waldman, his American lawyer until the sanctions hit, gave me a detailed account, some of which U.S. officials
confirm separately.
Two months before Trump was elected president, Deripaska was in New York as part of Russia's United Nations delegation when three
FBI agents awakened him in his home; at least one agent had worked with Deripaska on the aborted effort to rescue Levinson. During
an hour-long visit, the agents posited a theory that Trump's campaign was secretly colluding with Russia to hijack the U.S. election.
"Deripaska laughed but realized, despite the joviality, that they were serious," the lawyer said. "So he told them in his informed
opinion the idea they were proposing was false. 'You are trying to create something out of nothing,' he told them." The agents left
though the FBI sought more information in 2017 from the Russian, sources tell me. Waldman declined to say if Deripaska has been in
contact with the FBI since Sept, 2016.
So why care about some banished Russian oligarch's account now?
Two reasons.
First, as the FBI prepared to get authority to surveil figures on Trump's campaign team, did it disclose to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court that one of its past Russian sources waived them off the notion of Trump-Russia collusion?
Second, the U.S. government in April imposed sanctions on Deripaska, one of several prominent Russians targeted to punish
Vladimir Putin -- using the same sort of allegations that State used from 2006 to 2009. Yet, between those two episodes, Deripaska
seemed good enough for the FBI to ask him to fund that multimillion-dollar rescue mission. And to seek his help on a sensitive political
investigation. And to allow him into the country eight times.
I was alerted to Deripaska's past FBI relationship by U.S. officials who wondered whether the Russian's conspicuous absence from
Mueller's indictments might be related to his FBI work.
They aren't the only ones.
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz told me he believes Mueller has a conflict of interest because his FBI previously accepted
financial help from a Russian that is, at the very least, a witness in the current probe.
"The real question becomes whether it was proper to leave [Deripaska] out of the Manafort indictment, and whether that omission
was to avoid the kind of transparency that is really required by the law," Dershowitz said.
Melanie Sloan, a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer and longtime ethics watchdog, told me a "far more significant issue"
is whether the earlier FBI operation was even legal: "It's possible the bureau's arrangement with Mr. Deripaska violated the Antideficiency
Act, which prohibits the government from accepting voluntary services."
George Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley agreed: "If the operation with Deripaska contravened
federal law, this figure could be viewed as a potential embarrassment for Mueller. The question is whether he could implicate Mueller
in an impropriety."
Now that sources have unmasked the Deripaska story, time will tell whether the courts, Justice, Congress or a defendant formally
questions if Mueller is conflicted.
In the meantime, the episode highlights an oft-forgotten truism: The cat-and-mouse maneuvers between Moscow and Washington are
often portrayed in black-and-white terms. But the truth is, the relationship is enveloped in many shades of gray.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence
failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous
cases of political corruption. He is The Hill's executive vice president for video.
ZH is just as bad as cnn and fox news these days. Report the REAL NEWS you fucks. Tylers i
am so sorry what happened to this website, nothing but russian propoganda anymore.
Prove me wrong. Do a story on the reason Carter Page was never charged w/ a crime is bc he
was a cooperating fbi witness in 2016 and the fbi knew CP wasnt a spy bc he just finished
helping them, the fbi, bust up a REAL russian spy ring, or does that not fit into your
narrative?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/02/02/the-fbi-knew-carter-page-m
stfu, anyone who has been paying attention knows goddam well that Carter Page was giving
testimony of behalf of the gov just a couple months before he magically became a russian
agent so that they could justify all the spying they'd already been doing on team trump.
Carter Page was a plant, just like Manafort and Papadapolous.
Global Intel Hub received the following text message from an ex-CIA
operative who we obviously cannot disclose:
911 was an insurance fire. My neighbor's do this - I've lived in the South for 25 years when their house is in bad need of
repair they light a fire and take the insurance check, only people from New York only Israelis only high-level military people
are capable of organizing such a high-profile Insurance fire this was a Hollywood quality Blockbuster make no question about it
this was an A+ event like nothing the world has ever seen if the Holocaust was a bold and aggressive move by Hitler; 9/11 was
pure genius mazel tov
Ending more than five years of bitter legal battles, the World Trade Center's insurance carriers agreed to fork over the remaining
$2 billion in payments – a move that clears the way to rebuild the massive complex, Gov. Spitzer announced yesterday.
The deal with seven insurers brings the total payout for the World Trade Center to $4.55 billion, about $130 million less than
what Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority had been seeking.
Then there is this issue about the WTC building itself. There were design flaws, the engineers knew it. The building would have
needed billions in repairs, should it not have been destroyed on 911.
Here's how it probably went down. Sitting around the Kibbutz chatting, owner told friend about structural problems of WTC. Friend
says "well I have a problem too, cannot get US help fighting Arabs, we need a 'Pearl Harbor' - let's kill 2 birds with one stone.
Call our friends in Hollywood, in Washington, let's make a plan."
Jewish Lightning indeed. Look up the term in papers during the early 1900's. People noticed a connection back then. "Hmmmm,
I wonder why all these jew owned tenement buildings are going up in smoke...." People were smart back then, no sense of guilt
to hold them back from acknowledging the truth of the matter. Sadly all too many of the jews got away with it, their crummy buildings
burned, the residents displaced, then they got new property paid for by the insurance company that they stole from due to a fraudulent
fire.
Insurance fraud was on the laundry list of crimes committed that day. However, Fire is a believable cause for the collapse(s)
only if you are learning disabled.
Absolute fake news... the overwhelming evidence is that 9/11 was terror spectacle engineered by the US military and intelligence
with the Saudi Royal family. The purpose was to stampede the population into perpetual war -- a new or second Pearl Harbor as
it were. And also to shred what remains of the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
Much of the story is documented in the Congressional 9/11 Inquiry (which is NOT the 9/11 Commission cover-up designed to refute
the Congressional Inquiry)
Mossad has thoroughly infiltrated US intelligence whose key leaders were dual passport citizens so they likely knew that the
CIA allowed al Qaeda figures into the US more than a year in advance of Sept 11th. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence
that Mossad had any working operational role in 9/11... don't bother bloviating about dancing Jews unless you can bring some real
evidence to the table.
Right out of silverburgstein's mouth came the command to "Pull it" literally on day one did it take this long to know what
the plan was? Not for most of us
There is also plenty of evidence that the markets were being played as well: shorts on airline and insurance stocks and other
trades that only make sense if you know what is coming. There is no doubt that there was foreknowledge of the event and that many
actors profited handsomely from it.
Mueller is in on the Kabuki Theater just like Trump and all the rest - it's just to make Trump look like a Maverick-y Swamp-Drainer
while he is actually part of the Banker/Wall St/Fed ass-fucking that the US citizens are getting
Once had a Jewish executive tell me once with a straight face, that a Jewish fathers responsibility to his son is to help him
thru his first lawsuit so he can get established in Life.
911 was many things, there was no single magic bullet.
It was the means for the USA to begin it's Global Rampage.
It solved all these problems ....
It allowed the US to get into Afghanistan to secure Lithium and Opium
It allowed the US to get into Iraq to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's
It allowed the US to get into Libya to seize their Oil, steal their Gold, hand over their Central Bank to the Rothschild's
It gave the Bush Clown his 15 minutes of Fame and a boost in popularity he desperately needed
It allowed Silverstein to make a Profit on his purchase of the Towers
It allowed the US to Invade any country on the Pretext of Terrorism for any Country not buying US Bonds
It allowed the Pentagram to not worry about where 2.3 Trillion Dollars went missing
It allowed the MIC to get a boost in Sales and Profits by selling more Military Weapons
It allowed the US to prevent GazProm (Russian) from Installing a Pipeline to Syria
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld all got Richer as a Direct result of these Wars
The CIA got more money, more control and more spying capability for Domestic and International
The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.
The Only downside is, a few people died as a result of collateral damage, but apart from that it was a Win Win for everyone.
"A few people died" being many millions and counting.
Yes, maybe the biggest scam was getting the US military to murder Israel's enemies on an even larger scale than before. This
was a Mossad operation with Deep State complicity.
Agent Peter Strzok was just fired from the FBI - finally. The list of bad players in the FBI & DOJ gets longer & longer. Based
on the fact that Strzok was in charge of the Witch Hunt, will it be dropped? It is a total Hoax. No Collusion, No Obstruction - I
just fight back!
I believe Russia sees the sanctions for what they are. A crude attempt to
provoke them into a hasty reaction. It is virtually certain they won't react in a childish or inconsidered way.
Paul Craig Roberts is well behind the curve when it comes to what is
believed about the west in Russia politics.
A clue might be in the fact they have just
reduced their $ reserves to 14 billion, down from nearly 200 4 or so years ago.
Like Iran,
the Russians know the U.S.A. Is about as reliable as a third hand condom and just as
classy.
"... Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. ..."
"... The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war. I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal. ..."
"... They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack" on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep drifting towards actual war. ..."
"... I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave. ..."
"... Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a hostile act by Europe. ..."
"... Any compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again. ..."
"... Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely – then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world order. ..."
"... Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly doesn't give two hoots about. ..."
The Trump administration is hitting Russia with new sanctions punishing President Vladimir
Putin's government for using a chemical weapon against an ex-spy in Britain, U.S. officials
told NBC News Wednesday.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on a determination that Russia violated
international law by poisoning the former spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in March,
officials said, a decision that was announced Wednesday afternoon by State Department.
The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting
licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have
included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration
equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case
basis.
A second, more painful round kicks in three months later unless Russia provides "reliable
assurances" that it won't use chemical weapons in the future and agrees to "on-site
inspections" by the U.N. -- conditions unlikely to be met. The second round of sanctions
could include downgrading diplomatic relations, suspending state airline Aeroflot's ability
to fly to the U.S, and cutting off nearly all exports and imports.
Section 7 covers the sanctions that are to be imposed, which consist of initial sanctions,
and further sanctions to be imposed after 90 days if there is no compliance on the country's
part.
Initial sanctions : Ban on foreign assistance, arms sales, denial of US credit, and
exporting national security sensitive goods. (Most of this is already functionally in place
with respect to Russia).
Further sanctions : Ban on multilateral bank assistance [e.g. IMF, World Bank, the EBRD,
etc], ban on US bank loans, a near total export ban (except food and agricultural commodities)
and import ban, downgrade or suspension of US diplomatic relations, revocation of landing
rights to air carriers controlled by the government of the sanctioned country.
Reuters has a US State Department official saying that the sanctions
would not apply to Aeroflot, which some commenters have
qualified as backtracking. But I think that the official was merely talking of the initial
sanctions.
How does Russia go about removing the sanctions? The President will need to "certify" to
Congress that the country in question: (1) Has made "reliable assurances", and is not making
preparations, to use chemical/biological weapons in violation of international law, or against
its own citizens; (2) is willing to allow on-site inspections by UN observers to confirm the
above; (3) is making restitutions to the victims of its chemical/biological weapons usage.
This would basically require Russia to admit guilt for the Skripal poisoning and subject
itself to the inspections regimes that the US typically tries to force on "rogue states." In
other words, it is out of the question.
Moreover, even in the theoretical possibility that this goes through, it's not like
President Trump's "certification" will be worth anything amidst the Russiagate hysteria.
Another possibility to avoid the near cessation of trade between the US and Russia is to
have the President "waiver" the application of individual sanctions, if he can determine and
certify to Congress that doing so is necessary for the national security interests of the US;
or that there has been "a fundamental change in the leadership and policies" of the sanctioned
country. In either case, the President needs to provide a report to Congress explaining his
detailed rationale for the waiver, and listing steps the sanctioned country is taking to
satisfy the "removal of sanctions" clause.
The newspaper Kommersant has published a full draft of the proposed "Defending American
Security from Kremlin Aggression Act," which demands a U.S. investigation into Vladimir
Putin's personal wealth and whether Russia sponsors terrorism, and would impose a ban on U.S.
citizens buying Russian sovereign debt, though the U.S. Treasury publicly opposed this idea
in February, warning that it would disrupt the market broadly. Republican Senator Lindsey
Graham, one of the initiative's sponsors, says one of the draft legislation's goals is to
impose "crushing sanctions."
[Sanctions to include:]
* Banning the banks . The draft bill proposes banning Russia's biggest state banks --
Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Rosselkhozbank, Promsvyazbank, or Vnesheconombank -- from
operating inside the United States, which would effectively prevent these institutions from
conducting dollar settlements.
* Oil and gas . In the energy sector, the legislation would impose sanctions on investment
in any projects by the Russian government or government-affiliated companies outside Russia
worth more than $250 million. Businesses would also incur penalties for any participation
(funding or supplying equipment or technology) in new oil projects inside Russia valued above
$1 million.
* Lists and research . If the bill is submitted in its current form and adopted, the U.S.
president would have 180 days to begin implementing its provisions; within 60 days of
adoption, the White House would need to provide a new list of Russian individuals suspected
of cyber-attacks against the United States; the Treasury Department would have 180 days to
update its "Kremlin list" of Russian state officials and oligarchs; the director of national
intelligence would be tasked with completing a "detailed report on the personal net worth and
assets" of Vladimir Putin and his family; and the State Department would have 90 days to
determine whether Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.
* A new Sanctions Office . In order to shore up the 2017 Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act, the draft legislation would also create an "Office of Sanctions
Coordination" within the State Department to coordinate work with the Treasury.
(1) The bill's sponsors, which include Lindsey Graham, Robert Menendez, and Ben Cardin,
preface their text with a call for President Trump to demand Russia stop interference in US
"democratic processes", return Crimea to the Ukraine, stop supporting the separatists in East
Ukraine, as well the "occupation and support of separatists" in the territories of Georgia and
Moldova, and support for Bashar Assad, who continues to commit "war crimes."
(2) They note that the general drift of the document is towards a consolidation of separate
anti-Russian sanctions, from the "Ukrainian" to the "cyber" ones, into a "single
mechanism."
(3) Subject to a 2/3 vote in the Senate, the bill also includes a ban on financing "direct
or indirect" steps, that have as their goal to support the attempts of "any US government
official" to take the country out of NATO. Every 90 days, the US Secretary of State, in
coordination with the Defense Minister, would be required to present a report to the relevant
committees in Congress about "threats to NATO", which would include attempts to weaken US
commitments to the alliance. Considering Trump's ambiguous feelings on NATO, this part is
primarily aimed at Trump himself.
(4) There are calls to "pressure" Russia from interfering with UN and the OPCW attempts to
investigate chemical weapons usage, as well as to "punish" Russia for producing and using
chemical weapons. This directly syncs this sanctions bill to the previous one.
The report concludes that it's not yet clear how to interpret this. In the worse case, it
could be a "preliminary application" for a UN campaign to exclude Russia from the Security
Council; alternatively, it could just be a "pragmatic" run-up to merely invoking great
sanctions, as with Iran in 1983.
***
I suppose we now also know why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three
months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15 billion
from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).
For comparison,
the last time such a drawback happened (but which only lasted three weeks) was in the
immediate aftermath of Crimea.
The last time Russia pulled such a large sum out of the U.S. was just after the annexation
of Crimea in 2014, when the central bank withdrew about $115 billion from the New York Fed,
Reuters reported last year, citing two former Fed officials. Most of that money was returned
a few weeks later, after it became clear that the scope of initial U.S. sanctions would be
narrower than the Kremlin expected, according to the news service.
But I suppose this drawdown would now be permanent, since it is increasingly evident that
Iran-tier sanctions on Russia are now on the horizon.
These sanctions are either going to steadily creep in – or rush in like a tsunami if
there is a Blue Wave in 90 days, or if Trump was to be removed.
However, as I have pointed out, the ultimate ability of the US to directly
punish Russia is limited; it has twice as many people as Iran, after all, and many times the
economic output. Trade between Russia and the US is very limited.
Moreover, as I have pointed out , Russia has
plenty of surprising ways to hurt the US as well. For instance, banning Aeroflot from flying to
the US has a simple response – banning US air carriers from overflying North Eurasia,
period. It can resurrect a bill – first raised this May, since sunken in the legislature
– to impose fines and prison time
on individuals and entities who support Western sanctions by refusing to do business with
Russian citizens or entities on America's SDN list. It can throw out the American-dominated
copyrights regimen out of the window.
Some questions we should now be asking include:
1. Precisely how far is the US prepared to go? Cutting off its own trade with Russia is one
thing – penalizing foreign companies that do business with Russia is something else. As
Ben Aris
notes , the US Treasury Department has been ratcheting back on its sanctions against Oleg
Deripaska and Rusal, after the chaos it has caused in the international metals market. The
ideological Russiagaters need to balance their PDS/TDS against the pecuniary practicalities of
catering to finance and oil & gas interests and their lobbies.
2. To what extent will the EU join in, passively acquiesce to, or resist the US sanctions
against Russia? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine precisely how
deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades.
This sounds very close to a declaration of war. USA is beginning to throw everything it has
behind economic warfare and go "all in" forcing even its closest allies to either suffer
serious sanctions for not joining the economic attacks or to inflict self-harm by limiting
trade with Russia, Iran, and anyone else the US chooses to declare economic warfare upon.
I don't believe that this set of circumstances can continue indefinitely without a serious
realignment or a degeneration into "kinetic" warfare.
Proposed new "sanctions" on Russia essentially amount to a declaration of war. Lunatic asylum
is the most appropriate place for the whole American "leadership", down to the last
man/woman/tranny. The only thing that stands between us and WWIII, which would be a suicide
of humanity, is unbelievably cool and reasonable position of Putin and the rest of Russian
leadership.
It is clear to anyone with a brain that the US "sanctions" on Russia have zero chance of
changing Russia's stance on any international issues of consequence. Crimea is a good
example: it will return to Ukraine the day after the Hell freezes over. On the same date
Georgia gets South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and US-sponsored Islamic bandits win over Assad in
Syria. Thus, The US is spelling out the conditions that have no chance of being met. Let's
hope that the result will be further Russian alignment with China, rather than nuclear war.
I'd hate to be killed by Russian missiles hitting the US just because bought by MIC and paid
for American "leadership" has gone completely insane. Hope springs eternal.
I agree. They are constantly talking about the "hybrid warfare" and the Russian "attack"
on America, but it means that the US (both its politicians and its population) get
psychologically prepared for an actual war, and it is precisely their actions which keep
drifting towards actual war.
There is also a lot of projection going on here: the Americans obviously perceive their
own election meddling as war by other means, and so they accuse their enemies with the very
same thing.
Russia is far too integrated in to the wider European economy, and Russia is too stronk for
sanctions to do anything. See Nord Stream II. Ignore the Israel lobby sanctions, not even the
corrupt congress critters could vote for those.
I have no idea why these new meaningless sanctions have been conjured up, maybe the Rand
Paul letter has the answer, maybe not. I think we may have some answers after the
midterms.
I don't think the Israel lobby alone should be blamed for these "sanctions". Insanity is
more widespread in the US "leadership" than Jewish shekels. This looks like the death throes
of the Empire. Let's hope it does not take the humanity with it to its grave.
Now that it is within the realms of reasonable debate, if there were a nuclear war between
the USA and Russia what targets would be hit? Would Russia hit puppet regimes such the UK,
France or Poland? Would the USA hit Iran (because if they are going to hit Russia they might
as well get Iran in there as well).
If say only Russian and USA were hit, how much of the nuclear fallout would affect
Europe?
Why, if Putin threatened Netanyahu to call off his dogs, he would have to? Actions of
AIPAC should be accountable.
Interesting looks like the inevitable Turkish financial crisis has begun, Europe has
reasonable exposure there, further disruption to economic ties to Russia would be seen as a
hostile act by Europe.
Russia today is in a much better position to withstand sanctions. Global oil investments have
been lagging for half a decade due to low prices, and this will inevitably show up in the
coming years.
Russia in 2014 was battered by a twin storm, of which the oil price collapse was in fact far
worse. That factor is now gone.
Furthermore, a planned VAT rise next year will mean that the break-even oil price for the
Russian budget will fall to $50 after $60 this year and $67 last year, according to Alfa
Bank's analysis . Steady, impressive
improvement. So even in an event of an unexpected oil price decline, Russia is far more
prepared this time around.
Additionally, over the last 4 years, Russia's economy has indigenised to a much greater
extent than before. This is especially the case in the financial markets. Russia is simply a
lot less reliant on foreign funding. Bershidsky wrote about how more and more Russian
companies are leaving UK capital markets and returning to Russia. This process will continue
but it has already yielded results. As a country with a large current account surplus, tamed
inflation, an incredibly strong fiscal state, there is indeed very little that the US can do,
which is probably why they are reaching with ever-greater desperation.
I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any
compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions. Who could be
partners in such a system? Aside from the obvious candidate, China, perhaps even India. Modi
has in recent months distanced himself from the US and warmed up to China again.
India has
always bristled at being treated as a close ally rather as a 'partner'. It has cherished it's
non-aligned movement legacy and its historically close relations to Russia. It is unlikely to
want to give up on that in order to become a subservient lapdog to US interests in the manner
that the EU has degraded itself.
China's AIIB is a good start, but the full range of new institutions must bear fruit. Some
of the BRICS ideas are good but ultimately both Brazil and South Africa are too unimportant.
It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian
coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit
yet have a bright future ahead of them.
Turning to Europe. Unless the EU finally shows some spine – which is very unlikely
– then the Western system will be exposed to be at the mercy of whoever controls the
US. Such a system is hegemonic and it will be in the best interest of not just the
non-Western world but even for those of us in Europe to see a breakdown in that world
order.
America now has a "good cop, bad cop" with Trump and Congress.
Congress puts in more sanctions, but there is constraint responding too much because Trump
seems friendly, and you don't want to alienate him. Trump himself doesn't care about the sanctions, because he thinks it is leverage that he
can lift them later.
There was an article a few months ago that Trump is actually worse than Obama – even
in Obama did not supply direct weapons to Ukraine.
I think Trump plans to remove the sanctions in the next year and improve the relations
– but without any kind of timetable (his meeting with Putin is delayed already to next
year).
OT: The Turkish lira is now the worst-performing currency this year, bar none.
Turkey's implicit bet was that it could continue to rely on Western money flows while
pursuing an agenda contrary to Western interests has been conclusively shattered. When I say
Western interests, I do not mean the propaganda about human rights, which the West manifestly
doesn't give two hoots about.
Turkey was not entirely foolish to believe this strategy could work. Pakistan during the
reign of Islamist military dictator Zia ul-Haq, used a similar strategy during the 1980s. He
empowered the mullahs and moved Pakistan decidedly to the hard-right in religious/cultural
terms while massively opening up the economy to speculative finance, thereby pleasing
Washington. Saudi Arabia has used this policy for a long time. For those who knew this, the
revelation that the US funded some of the most extremist "moderate" rebels in Syria came as
no shock.
So perhaps it isn't the Islamism in of itself which is the problem in Erdogan's case. What
could it be? Well, one clue is the case of Pastor Brunson. The good pastor, who under house
arrest in Turkey, is accused to be close to the Gülen cult. The official line in the
Western MSM is that Trump is trying to appease evangelicals before the midterms. I don't buy
that. He has them in the bag regardless. Gülen himself, some of you might recall, still
lives in the US despite repeated pleas from Turkey to give him back. Which is the unreliable
ally here? Curiously, Gülen's religious bent is even more Islamist than Erdogan's. He's
also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?
At any rate, the demand from the US has been for Turkey to release Brunson
unconditionally. Erdogan's media has speculated that Brunson was slated to become CIA chief
in Turkey had the 2016 coup come to pass. Obviously, Turkey does not want to release him
unconditionally: it makes them look extremely weak. Well, they now got hit where it hurts.
Indeed, Trump even tweeted out new sanctions news today even as Erdogan was delivering a
speech. I don't happen to believe in coincidences. The result is that the lira lost close to
a quarter of its value in a single day. I haven't even mentioned Turkey's apparent interest
in the S-400 missile system among other matters. This, I think, is what truly irked D.C.
rather than Erdogan's human rights record or "authoritarianism", which is just the
pretext.
Make no mistake: the decline of the lira was structural from the beginning. Turkey's large
CAD made it extremely vulnerable to financial speculation from the getgo. It has now paid
that price. But this does not preclude the fact that countries which are overtly reliant on
Western financial flows to fund large current account deficits should forgo the lesson that
there is no free lunch. Erdogan made this cardinal error. Poland is not nearly as vulnerable,
but we're also in the same orbit. This is why I always laugh at the Poland Stronk memes. It's
also why I dismiss the criticism against Orban that he plays all sides, including taking
money from the EU, as politically naïve. Very few countries in this world can reliably
be called truly independent. Russia is in the process of becoming one. So is China. India is
not quite there, but it has the potential. The rest of us will simply have to balance
hegemons, while reminding ourselves of our inherent vulnerability. If we forget that, then we
just had a textbook example of what happens when we overestimate our hand, playing out in
front of our very eyes today.
Good to hear something sensible from Polish Perspective (in every sense of this
expression). I know some Poles, who tend to be reasonable people, so the policies of Polish
government always amazed me. Then again, if Polish democracy is similar to the US, the
opinions of the people don't matter at all.
There is still a long way to go before Russia, China, or any other country frees itself
from the clutches of dollar-based financial system. However, an alternative might look
parallel at the beginning, but it won't be parallel for long. Thing is, the US dollar and the
US sovereign debt have become essentially Ponzi schemes. If Russia, China, and a few others
create a "parallel" system, dollar-based Ponzi scheme folds, as the US does not have
sufficient assets to support the dollar or pay off its debt. The fall of the Empire will
likely be violent. The only thing we can hope for is that the humanity survives it.
As to EU, it missed every chance of becoming something with a spine. Too late now. In
fact, what French president once said about Arafat (he never missed an opportunity to miss an
opportunity) applies to the EU with a vengeance.
I suppose we now also now why Russia has been selling Treasuries for the past three
months, which plummeted from their typical level of $100 billion in March to just $15
billion from June (i.e. just enough to guarantee USD-denominated trade).
You're making the Kremlins look smarter than they actually are. They should have done this
4 years ago. What I want to know is what happened to the proceeds from the sale? CBR data
shows that value of "foreign exchange" held by the CBR hasn't declined:
Now I can't use the Export-Import Bank insure the export of American-made products from a
swing state to Russia. Really Making America Great Again! Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?
Regarding India, they are asking America for a permission to keep buying Russian weapons.
Asking for a sanctions "waiver" – this is just sad. India also agreed to reduce imports
of Iranian oil. So, perhaps, not so independent anymore.
There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress
Russian economic growth. But unless they find a way to somehow stop Russia's exports of oil,
our economy will shrug off whatever sanction packages US can throw at it.
Can we please replace Pompeo with Rohrabacher already?
Rohrabacher is a flake and blowhard as well. If he were in the running for Secretary of
State, he could just as easily flip and become militantly anti-Russian in order to impress
people in Washington. Appearing tough on foreigners in front of one's peers in Washington is
their prime motive. They've been like this since before the Vietnam War era.
Obviously a good read overall, but there was this one part that I found particularly well,
interesting, and actually quite surprising:
"Moreover, the mid-2020s will also see a massive influx of electric vehicles into the
global car fleet, which could lead to a final collapse in oil prices. There was practically
no real diversification: the number of industrial robots per worker in Russia is at the
level of Iran and India. Meanwhile, "effective managers" like Sechin turned out to be so
effective that Rosneft's debts exceed the value of the company itself from this year. An
acute economic crisis in a few years is almost inevitable. "
So I'm clearly not even entirely sure whether that translation is accurate, but it really
seems like you're kind of suddenly much more pessimistic on the Russian economy. Or is that
just the "best-case" scenario for Russian nationalists?
Didn't you rate Putin's "economic management" reasonably highly not a long time ago, just
before the Presidential elections? Of course compared to the situation in 2000, but
still.
You've also pointed out several times that Russia's oil dependency has been considerably
exaggerated. Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's
Jon Hellevig's research and numbers as well (GDP share of oil & gas, the consolidated
budget, etc). And Polish Perspective's comment above.
So shouldn't the repeat of 2014 be kind of unlikely, if not impossible? At this rate,
Russia's remaining oil dependency should already be considerably lower by the mid-20s,
despite all those technological limitations.
You don't believe in an annual growth of 3% anymore? You seriously think there will be an
"acute crisis" in a few years?
I actually just read that even the always (or atleast recently) conservative/pessimistic
Russian authorities (in this case, the Economic Development Ministry) forecast a growth rate
of atleast around 3% beginning from 2021, after the VAT hike, some other "reforms" and
increasing spending.
At the same time, Trump his helping to push the Turkish economy off a cliff with his Twitter
account. Russia and Turkey find themselves in the same boat. So?
Israel and Netanyahu responsible for American sanctions on Russia, conspiracy makes less
sense to me than the others I read here (Israel responsible for killing Kennedy, etc). Why do
Israel want to impose American sanctions on Russia?
This week's sanctions mainly targeting Russian airlines. Aeroflot is about to buy 30
Boeing 737s from America – and now this is in danger.
In Israel, Aeroflot is the third airline, and Israeli government pays it direct subsidies
to reduce the ticket prices for places like Eilat. They allow Aeroflot to put giant Aeroflot
commercial posters along the roads and skyscrapers.
According to the news earlier in the year, Israel is negotiating to join a customs union
with the Eurasian Economic Union. How will they reconcile their own actions, with being the
one responsible for America to sanction Russia? It would be very competent 4 dimensional
chess, from people who cannot even count their illegal immigrants or deport a single illegal
immigrant, or coordinate their nationality policy with a few thousand druze. While making
America sanction Russia has no benefit for them, deporting illegal immigrants, or
coordinating with Druze has important benefits for them (yet supposedly they can do the
former, but not the latter).
At the same time, they do the opposite of sanctioning themselves.
Also if this is the case, how in Russia, nobody in the expert community is aware Israel is
responsible for the sanctions. Instead the media celebrate when it still wants to export
carrots. And if any of the Kremlin top think relations with Israel are bad, then why is
Israel allowed to operate freely in Russia.
If explanation is to do with Syria – it also does not fit. Intervention in Syria was
presented as something which would encourage West to remove its sanctions.
For Israel, Russian-American alliance would improve the situation in the region. And also
probably for Turkey and the Arabs.
Israel is terrified with an increase of Iran in Syria. The reality is that is that both
Russia and America is going to reduce presence in Syria, and Iran is going to increase it.
The problem of Russia in Syria for Israel, is that Russia's presence is only minimal, and
will allow Iran on the ground to take over the same territories that Russia helps secure for
Assad. In the current equation and stage of the war, they will be hoping Russia increases its
presence and reduces the need for Iranian forces. Problem of Assad for them is his only to
the extent of his relation with Iran, not with Russia.
Before the Trump-Putin summit, the Mueller involved FBI indicted 12 Russians, knowing full
well that they'd not be turned over to the US. This latest round of sanctions comes right
after Rand Paul's trip to Moscow, for the purpose of seeking closer US-Russian relations.
On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements
in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge. He
leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK, there're
Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the Russian
government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to kill two
birds (so to speak) in one shot.
Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the
Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government disclosure
on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the Russian
government.
I think the ultimate endgame can only be to completely run a parallel system. Any
compromise with the US is unlikely to give anything than shattered delusions.
Seconded. Washington is too much in love with their sanctions.
It should be borne by the big powers (Russia, India and China) together with an Asian
coalition like the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and others who are not in the US orbit
yet have a bright future ahead of them.
Also, Russia's federal budget is already based on low oil prices. Then there's
It's up to 50% of the federal budget in recent years, is funded by oil and gas revenue,
although in low oil price years the proportion can fall (to lower 40s%).
When the proportion falls, then you are by definition financing a federal budget in other
ways, which are usually less politically popular.
You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.
Raising pension age (as needs to often be repeated to people) is necessary and reasonable,
but raising VAT is a bad thing as in most countries.
Karlin is probably too pessimistic about oil price demand peaking in 2020s (demand for oil
probably peaking in the 2030s).
Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms, reduction of size of government
sector, increase in proportion of private sector in many areas, investment in education for
future industries.
Having Russia go pirate on US copy-rite laws could be interesting. Do you think the US would
build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing Russian content, and could they
actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like back in the good old 90′s days
with Napsternik?
Russia might even make some headway with Pirate Party types. Information belongs to the
people, comrades! Also Russia switching to Linux would probably lead to an increased development of
Linux.
Looks like these sanctions will force their hand: their new narrowbody airliner was going
to have pratt and witney engines with the aviadvigatel ones only for government planes. Not
sure what the exact reasons for this were: p&w ones have a slightly higher bypass ratio,
it allows international buyers to utilise existing service infrastructure or aviadvigatel's
ability to mass produce might be crap. If the us imposes a complete export ban they'll all
have to have them.
Russia's current widebody airliner is pretty much obsolete though.
Aeroflot had benefited from collapse of Transaero. They're getting 35 planes (all Airbus and
Boeing models) from the Transaero fleet and are putting them into Aeroflot fleet this year.
With Boeing, they also had an order of Dreamliners, which they cancelled a few years ago.
Although that was just because there was a downturn in long-haul flights. New Boeing 737
orders are for building up their lowcoster "Pobeda".
For that, Russia needs to produce all types of civilian aircraft, like the USSR did.
That's hard after the 1990s, when the traitors destroyed Russian aircraft industry. There are
moves in the direction of restoring it, in cooperation with China. However, they both need to
be able to build aircraft w/o any parts from the US and its vassals. That would take 5-10
years. In fact, US sanctions pushed Russia and China in the direction of self-sufficiency
very hard. In Russian it is called "sawing off the bough you sit on". The West is really good
at that lately.
These sanctions might be a net positive for Russia in the long term, forcing them to
develop indigenous industries instead of just importing everything from the oil revenue.
Do you think the US would build a giant firewall and ban it's citizens from viewing
Russian content, and could they actually enforce it, or would the internet be just like
back in the good old 90′s days with Napsternik?
The "free market" of Facebook, Apple, Google and Spotify will protect good Americans from
fake news.
Presumably they can still source from Rolls Royce. The UK is a smaller economic power than
America and presumably less interested in sabotaging one of its crown jewels (never rule it
out with the UK ofc).
Russia's aerospace technology is inferior to the West, but that's irrelevant since Russia
can simply force Russian carriers to purchase Russian aircraft. Higher operating costs
relative to foreign carriers can be addressed with subsidies (or tariffs).
Prioritizing your own technology also creates the option of charting an independent
technological course. For instance, instead of building swept-wing jets with low bypass
turbofan engines optimized for transonic cruise, you could build straight-wing aircraft with
propfans optimized for low fuel consumption. You can also build supersonic aircraft and
experiment with different planforms than the boring one established by the Boeing 707.
It's kind of funny how many Americans feel threatened by Iran.
Regarding Russia as a threat at least makes a certain sense given Russia's nuclear arsenal
and ability to destroy the US.
Every time Medvedev opens his mouth, he makes me cringe. Seriously, if you're going to
proclaim an "economic war", against USA no less, then you better explain how Russia is going
to fight back and win. Smart Russians will be heading to currency exchange (
обменный
пункт ) after hearing this statement.
More fuel consumption than is usual with modern aircraft, noisier passenger cabin, more
external noise (also important for some airports with regulations restricting noisy
aircraft), less safety, etc.
It's just not competitive to operate them. Airlines have very low margins anyway, you
cannot make a profit with obsolete aircrafts.
There are a couple of new planes which Aeroflot is going to buy/buying for shorthaul
– Superjet 100 and MC-21. Karlin was blogging about these planes a few weeks ago.
Airtickets are a freemarket, and most passengers don't want to fly in unsafe old planes
like Tu-154
A single crash can be even fatal for an airline – crash of an An-148 has earlier
this year, destroyed Saratov Airlines
As a customer, I don't think there is any disgrace in buying Boeing and Airbus. All major
airlines now, and around the world, are using mainly Airbus and Boeing, and have now retired
the Tu-154.
There is no way to sugarcoat it: in the short to medium term sanctions will suppress
Russian economic growth
AND also Ukraine's, Moldova's, Georgia's, the Baltics and the friendly countries like
Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan etcetera. If anything the US's moron, scumbag policy towards
Russia ends up doing the exact opposite of what it intends to do Ukraine, Moldova, Gerogia and
Baltics then become more financially interlinked and even dependent on Russia than they were
before.
But in the circumstances ..is guaranteed 1% or 1.5% GDP growth per year for the next
decade even that bad considering the circumstances? Every social/infrastructure element is
improving in Russia
The enemy is probably laughing his ass off at Medvedev. One simply should NOT be making
such statements as a prime-minister of Russia. Here is another fool, who doesn't understand currency markets:
You can see unpopularity of announcements to raise VAT or pension age.
It's fake outrage and fake unpopularity on these two issues. 18% increased to 20% is a
non-issue ( the budget is being spent significantly better than ever to offset this increase
in VAT)
A lot of nonsense about "long overdue" get's said about pension reform but this is total
BS.
Yes Russia has 48 million out of 146 million as pensioners, but the most important thing is
the unexpected , way above average increase in life expectancy . that has actually instigated
this move by the authorities.
Those approaching retirement won't suddenly have to work 1-5 years longer they can still
opt-in to the current arrangements in the overlapping period.. and with guarantees pension
increased much further to corresponding inflation levels than now.
Either way, it's known there need to be economic reforms
Disagree with this .the same patterns that have been shown in the last 4 years need to
continue, no radical "reform" is necessary. Small and medium sized business have gone from 10
million to 20 million people and should easily reach the target in afew years time that the
President wished for in May,credit behavior and availability is becoming more and more
western,
Instead of saying "reduction in size of government sector" you must specify exactly which
areas of state control should be privatised .too often from liberasts their focus is solely
on getting state control off critically important energy resources and distribution .nothing
else.
Americans see the Russians as greatness deniers. Their European lackeys are their
greatness-acknowledgers – even when it's detrimental to their own survival.
If the world was a theater, Americans see themselves as the only performers – the
role of the rest of the world is to applaud their performance.
Russia is not a part of the audience, it's not even a heckler. It's a performer, it has
always been, and a very talented one too. To try to demote them to the role of spectators, or
to try to usher them out of the concert hall can be suicidal, they have enough musical
instruments to put on a remarkable concert – even if afterwards no one is left to
applaud.
Mice and humans are quite different, results applying to mice apply to humans less than
50% of the time. The loss rates on this, at any rate, are insane:
Of the 1348 embryos they made, eight pups were born.
Every beginning is hard. Considering that all the cutting edge research in
fertility/cloning/artificial wombs is done on shoestring budgets, the progress is amazing.
Imagine what could be done with sufficient funding.
Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its
rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better
Russians.
The West is stymied by the "pro-lifers" of the right and "bioethicists" of the left, and this
is Russia's chance. Unlike the origial M project, Russians can keep things secret, and even
if the West will suspect something, what can they do? Impose sanctions?
In the thirties, ignorant Caucasian moustacheoid gangster picked the Lysenkoists over the
scientifically correct Darwinist transhumanist eugenicists. Time to undo this mistake.
Our esteemed host have the right idea – the only chance for Russia to achieve its
rightful number one place in the world is through new Manhattan project to develop better
Russians.
And it will have as much impact on the outcome of the looming confrontation as the
Mengele's research had on the outcome of the WWII.
He's also even more of a neoliberal. Notice a pattern?
The west has no qualms about using Islamist. Radical Islam has been used in 1950s against
Nasser's regime in Egypt. Islamist were used against secular pro Soviet regime of Afghanistan
and then against Assad's Syria, Hussain's Iraq and Gaddafi's Libya. The equation is
complicate: on one side you have Israel's Yinon Plan and global neoliberal and Islamists and
on the other side you have secular national countries that try to build greater sovereignty
and stronger state.
Majority of Islamist are just useful idiots while some among the leadership are operatives
of western security services. Sometimes they break off the leash like Hamas which it does not
seem to be controlled by Mossad anymore but it still does everything from the wish list of
Israel's hard-liners.
My pet theory is that Islamist of Iran who destroyed the fast growing and developing Iran
of Shah were also used by some foreign interests in the west and/or Israel. Shah himself
believed it was the British.
You should look at history of your own country in 19 and 20 century. To what extent all
those patriots responsible for numerous and hopeless uprisings were useful idiots, dupes or
operatives of foreign interests?
Question about the Skripal poisoning–if it wasn't the Russians, then who did it?
Also, it's interesting that Sergei Skripal's poisoning has resulted in much more Western
action than Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning back in 2006 did.
' The biggest impact from the initial sanctions is expected to come from a ban on granting
licenses to export sensitive national security goods to Russia, which in the past have
included items like electronic devices and components, along with test and calibration
equipment for avionics. Prior to the sanctions, such exports were allowed on a case-by-case
basis. '
Now they'll have to pay the Israelis to get it for them. Does this count as aid to
Israel?
I am always puzzled to hear that lesbians require artificial insemination. I had a couple
of friends who were a bit behind schedule, and were trying hard to conceive just before the
last eggs would wither. Whatever they were doing, taking days off from work when the
thermometer said so, shoving it at any price, and so on – it could not be described as
pleasurable. So why would the lesbians not bear it if they so much need children?
On a more general note, I am puzzled as to how USSR survived between 1945 and 1989 without
fainting at the thought that Americans would not recognize annexation of the Baltic jokes,
that Russians would not be allowed to use dollars, or that Pokemon Go could be blocked in the
Russian app store. Surely, if you have a population of idiots, like USSR circa 1989, who
would think that it's their ow government blocking the dollar and Pikachu, it may gnaw at the
roots of the state. But today's Russians can guess that with Putin or without him, with
Crimea or without it, they are still seen as enemies of America, and will be treated
accordingly.
Conservatives pilloried the program, which sources said is a gift to an Orthodox Jewish
community that has pressed for government-paid fertility services for 15 years.
Orthodox leaders called the budget measure a "significant victory" for women struggling
to have kids in a community that traditionally values large families.
"This amendment will make it easier for women who would like to have children to do so,"
said Jeff Leb, a top lobbyist for Jewish nonprofits.
Guilty until proven innocent? Don't open that Pandora's box. You're gleefully piling on
the Russians now, but give a few years and the same gang might apply that principle to you in
turn. Just because they hate Russians at this moment doesn't mean they hold any love for the
rest of humanity.
Brunson's captivity had dragged for quite long already, and we heard negotiations for his
release made some progress before. However, Trump ramped up the rhetoric at a precise moment:
when Turkey announced they would not only shirk new Iran sanctions (like they did in the
past) but also were being vocal about this.
Seeing what ensued, again yes the S-400 was an irritant for a while already and certainly
cumulate with other factors but the timeline is interesting. God forbid we conclude those who
should not be named are ultimately setting the agenda here, not really the pastor's plight
under islamist thugs.
On CNN, the establishment alternative academic Robert English hypothesized that elements
in the Russian government might've poisoned the Skripals without Putin's prior knowledge.
He leaves out another possibility, in line with US mass media restrictions. In the UK,
there're Russian ex pats, who quarrel among themselves, in addition to not liking the
Russian government. The poisoning of the Skripals could very well be a matter of trying to
kill two birds (so to speak) in one shot.
Of course we don't know for sure. Likewise, with the bogus suggestion as fact that the
Russian government poisoned the Skripals. Given the ongoing lack of UK government
disclosure on this incident, there's very good reason to doubt the claim against the
Russian government.
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he somehow
got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend got arrested
for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic
to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb and Berezovsky
suggest a source other than the Russian government.
That's wrong, except about the innumeracy of the majority of biologists. Evolutionary
biologists are less innumerate than the rest, and in any event, enough of them are numerate
(like Greg Cochran with a physics PhD).
Evolutionary biologists are less innumerate than the rest, and in any event, enough of
them are numerate (like Greg Cochran with a physics PhD).
Physicists are trained in integrals and analysis, they know nothing about probability
theory, statistics and theoretical computer science. These are the fields required to form a
semblance of a mathematical theory of evolution.
(A theory that will never be formed, because Darwinism violates the very basic theorems of
probability and computation.)
Could you give an example of some probabilities? How do you calculate them and with what
assumptions?
At resent article by Fred Reed the commenter "j2″ produced some numbers but I was
too lazy and not certain that his starting assumptions were correct to verify it.
Physicists are trained in integrals and analysis, they know nothing about probability
theory, statistics and theoretical computer science. These are the fields required to form
a semblance of a mathematical theory of evolution.
Such complete bullshit. Probability and statistics are absolutely key for modern physics
and an education in theoretical physics is definitely the best route to train in the
practical applications, better than going to the mathematics department where they mainly
deal with abstract theory. You clearly know nothing beyond high school level physics (or
anything else for that matter).
Some fields of modern physics like thermodynamics ARE basically just pure probability
theory applied to physical phenomena. If you take a random sample of research physicists from
your local university, they're much more likely to be doing statistical mechanics rather than
trying to find analytical solutions for their n-body problem and some application of
probability is usually the most important field of mathematics for working physicists.
You're right again about the Litvinenko conspiracy, Mickey. The notion that the Russian
government would want to eliminate somebody who had betrayed its secret service, written
books denouncing Vladimir Putin for giving the order to murder the likes of Boris Bereszvsky,
Anna Polikovskaya and others, accused the secret service of being behind the bombings of the
Russian apartment buildings, just doesn't add up or make any sense. The fact that Litvinenko,
while lying on his death bed directly accused Putin for being responsible for his death also
didn't lend any value that it was indeed Putin behind his poisoning. It just goes to show you
the lengths to which the enemies of Russia and Vladimir Putin will go to try and besmearch
Putin's honorable name. But they'll never be able to fool somebody with your veracity and
skillul analysis – keep up the great 'independent foreign analysis'!
Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.
I wasn't aware of this and am glad that you pointed this out. Another incredibly strong
reason not to believe that the Russian government was behind the Litvinenko poisoning. Isn't
it time that you wrote a book, Mickey? I know that other book authors regularly rely on your
input to write their own monographs, isn't it time that you put it all together and shared
more of your thoughts with the world? Perhaps, Karlin might let you write a chapter in his
forthcoming book 'The Dark Lord of the Kremlin'?
Anyone wants to comment on this bizarre diplomatic spat, that Greece and Russia are having?
The abrupt deterioration in relations between Greece and Russia has intensified after
Athens publicly accused Moscow of attempting to bribe state officials and meddle in the
country's internal affairs.
Athens also rejected requests for entry visas from Russian Orthodox clerics heading for
northern Greece's all-male monastic republic of Mount Athos.
The community is alleged to be a "den of spies" , with reports that Moscow has
turned the Holy Mount – widely seen as the spiritual centre of Orthodoxy – into
an intelligence-gathering operation with extensive funding of monasteries across the
peninsula.
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it. Greece could be trying to secure some debt
relief by manufacturing a pointless row with Russia. Their PM Tsipras did come to Russia in
2015, asking for money. Left with nothing.
Probability and statistics are absolutely key for modern physics and an education in
theoretical physics is definitely the best route to train in the practical applications,
better than going to the mathematics department where they mainly deal with abstract
theory.
Untighten your panties. That was my point, which you managed to miss by blindly charging
to M'Lady Science's defense.
Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy,
computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly
the "abstract theory" you're deriding.
The practical stuff physicists are using for solving practical, well-defined problems is
useless here.
* Age of the universe is about 10^18 seconds.
* The "Planck time" gives us the smallest possible unit of time, about 10^-45 seconds.
* There are about 10^82 atoms in the Universe.
Now assume an ideal computer. Let each atom of the Universe be a CPU, operating as fast as
physics allows.
That gives us an upper bound of 10^(18+45+82) = 10^145 CPU cycles for computation.
Now take Shakespeare's sonnet #27. It is 458 letters long. (Let's ignore punctuation.)
If we take 458 random letters of the English alphabet, there are 26^458 random
combinations.
So if our ideal Universe-sized computer was randomly picking letters and hoping to compose
a Shakespeare sonnet, it would need about 10^300 Universes to do so.
How much more complex is an E. Coli cell compared to a sonnet?
P.S. This is obvious, freshman-tier stuff unless you're blinded by ideology.
What' s to make of it? The article that you cite clearly explains what the row is all
about:
Moscow announced the move weeks after Athens banned four Russian diplomats after
accusing them of fomenting opposition to a landmark deal between Greece and macedonia,
opening up the possibility of eventual Nato membership for Skopje.
Your own bizarre explanation betrays your own Russian reasoning:
Personally, I'm not sure what to make of it. Greece could be trying to secure some debt
relief by manufacturing a pointless row with Russia. Their PM Tsipras did come to Russia in
2015, asking for money. Left with nothing.
My guess is that the Greek government wants to gain a powerful backer against
Brüssel.
In Greece, he very often appears in public alongside Kammenos and spreads his political
views on what is going on in the country via his Twitter account.
The influence goes so far that Pyatt unchallengedly criticizes the Greek judiciary and
demands measures against anti-American demonstrators. Tsipras administration, arguing
anti-Americanly itself at opposition times, on the other hand, fulfils every wish of the
USA. While on the other side of the Bosphorus NATO partner Turkey is pushing its dispute
with the US to the top, Greece's government is the most US-friendly since the overthrow of
military rule in July 1974: NATO interests, gas pipelines and the regional influence of the
North Atlantic defence alliance.
The coalition government of SYRIZA and the Independent Greeks agreed to the expansion of
American military bases in Greece, including the stationing of nuclear weapons. This was
not initially communicated to the public by the government, but only became known when the
Secretary General of the Communist Party, Dimitris Koutsoubas, criticized it during public
performances.
Secret diplomacy, as in the case of NATO, is also a characteristic of the Tsipras
government in resolving the name dispute with northern Macedonia and in ongoing
negotiations on border corrections with Albania. All negotiations are held in secrecy, with
reference to the protection of state interests. There is no detailed information and no
transparency regarding the reasons for the decision.
Athens is now providing NATO with the infrastructure for military bases in the event
that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan withdraws his country from the North Atlantic
Defence Alliance.
Yes, that's is the infamous Pyatt who was ambassador in Kiev during the Maidan Coup.
He has been in Athen since 2016.
The case brings to the forefront the tension that seems to have been brewing between
Athens and Moscow over the last two years, for reasons that have to do with regional
security.
Yeltsin was president when the bombings happened. Putin was only prime minister for a
couple of weeks before the tower block bombings happened. Boris Bereszvsky killed himself
(exiles are often miserable, Skripal wanted to go back) after Litvinenko, they were a couple
of losers. No, Putin is a proud man, he sent the anti terror police to arrest Gusinsky not
because of investigation into the apartment massacres of hundreds, but because that puppet
show Dolls of Gusinsky's NTV portrayed Putin in a way he hated.
Who wouldn't want to inflict a horrible death on someone who accused them of being a
paedophile? Litvinenko accused Putin of being a child molester and so Putin immediately
issued orders for him to be sadistically murdered and a month he was poisoned (like apartment
bombings, these things take a while to set up).
This brings me back to my point about Hitler & weak, foolish Eastern Europeans. Greek
government is only behaving this way because it sees no risks in antagonising Russians
whatsoever. Slapping sanctions on Greece (by banning tourism for example) might get them
thinking.
Look, I'm not passing judgement on the veracity of these accusations, that Litvinenko made
against Putler. I see that you've added another one to the list, that Litvinenko accused
Putler of being a pedophile too. All I was pointing out was that there were many reasons why
Litvinenko was a target for unfriendly Rusian actions, not like our resident 'Independent
foreign Policy Analyst' Mike Averko who claims:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act.
Of course, he's a professional analytical type that always knows what he's talking
about?
Greece has been a member of NATO since 1952, it joined the European Community in 1981.
It's odd though that a Greek leftist like Tsipras is pro-American, given the strong
anti-American traditions of Greek left-wingers. But Tsipras seems to be an all-around scumbag
anyway.
how deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades
Russia can start taking China's side on an ad hoc basis, e.g. sending ships to the
disputed sea and hassling US ships and planes. Russia could hassle them on the Northern half
and China on the Southern half, a nice division of labor and multiplication of hassle for the
US Navy.
Russia has enough chicken legs of its own now. They are not washed in chlorine.
Disengagement will simply remove what little influence the US has on Russia. Russia's
exports are utterly dominated by primary production which is entirely fungible. The US
exports little of high added to Russia and the EU and Switzerland, Korea and increasingly
China can replace that. Japan probably won't. Russia has been trying to play a softer game
with Japan but both sides true imperialist nature keeps on re-emerging. Like the US, Japan
has remarkably low levels of trade with Russia given the size of its economy. Switzerland
does a lot of high end complex electromechanical systems, like the Germans. The Germans are
good; The Swiss are perfect.
I'm not really sure how low prices for Turkey can become lower. It's already very
cheap.
Maybe further devaluation can contribute to the tourist market diverging more between
Greece and Turkey. More and more poorer people will go on holiday to Turkey, as it becomes
almost as cheap to go on holiday in Turkey, as it is to stay at home.
Maybe Greece can focus more on middle segment of the tourist market.
Greece had withdrawn from the NATO military structure after the invasion of Cyprus by
fellow member Turkey. If I remember rightly it was their own PM who told Greeks they had to
go back into NATO to be allowed to join the EC.
Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy,
computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly
the "abstract theory" you're deriding.
Bullshit. I have a pretty good education in probability theory both from the theoretical
physics and mathematics departments so feel free to explain whatever point you think you have
in as technical terms and with as much abstract math as you like.
I'm just going to claim that you're trying an "it doesn't work because of fancy words X,
Y, Z" bluff without any actual technical argument behind the big fancy words. Prove me
wrong.
It will have a negative impact on domestic Russian consumption short term. It's stupid,
short sighted, and hard to reverse. Sanctions work best when used least.
"Age of the universe" is a pop sci concept. In the standard model of cosmology it is
estimated that the universe has developed from a massively dense state to the current state
in roughly 13 billion years. We can backtrack the development over that time with current
theories of physics and then we hit a wall as matter is so dense that we'd need a quantum
theory of gravity to go further back in time but we don't have that. We don't know how long
the universe existed before that, actually we don't even know if time existed in the same
manner. The earliest known state of the universe was NOT informationless (there were
variations in mass distribution etc) so your assumption that patterns would emerge only in
the following 13 billion years is false.
[MORE]
If you watch some pop sci documentary, they will explain all sorts of stuff about how the
universe was at first some tiny point and there was a big explosion that spread it all over.
This is all nonsense that was made up so that pop sci documentaries could have CGI
graphics.
* The "Planck time" gives us the smallest possible unit of time, about 10^-45
seconds.
There is no such thing as the "smallest possible unit of time". This is complete nonsense.
You seem to get your knowledge of physics from science fiction movies.
There is an expectation that current theories of physics are not accurate at very small
time scales (which have not been reached by experiment). This is not the same thing as
postulating that there is some "smallest possible unit of time". Current theories of physics
simply do not include such a thing.
* There are about 10^82 atoms in the Universe.
We don't even know if the universe is finite or infinite. This is just a claim that you
pulled out of your ass. There may even be an infinite number of atoms.
Turks are a lot more orderly and competent than Greeks. In fact, I was surprised how much
more organized Turks are: we rented a car in Ankara near railway station and returned it in
another city near airport, and they delivered the car where we wanted it and then took it off
my hands, without car rental agency at either point.
For Russians, there are two additional advantages: no visa is required (you just pay $20
at the airport, and they stick what they call "visa" in your passport), and the same services
are cheaper than in Greece.
"Any scientific theory of evolution will have to be about information entropy,
computational complexity and asymptotic properties of stochastic processes. That's exactly
the "abstract theory" you're deriding."
The US went thru a period of noticeable politically motivated violence (in one form or
another), that among other things included the murders of the Kennedy brothers, King, X,
black children in a church, fatal Kent State shootings and the Manson involved murders.
There was absolutely no need for the Russian government to orchestrate the Moscow
apartment bombings. The evidence is non-existent, with the so-called evidence being a
put mildly creative stretch. On par with the idea that the US government sought and was
involved in planning 9/11. Terrorism from Chechnya was a clear reality before the Moscow
apartment bombings.
A disingenuous cherry pick on your part, along with empty calories sarcasm. It wasn't only
his (as has been said) sympathy for Chechen separatism, but a combination of factors, in
conjunction with that aspect.
What I said in full on this matter:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
It's a pity that the good things Macedonia is doing (like fixing its relations with Bulgaria
and Greece and starting to slowly accept the real history as opposed to the shit made up by
the Serbs, the communists and Tito) are all done for such a shitty reason like entering the
EU and NATO.
Greece has an inferior tourist industry and plenty of great European competition (Spain,
Italy, Croatia etc.)
Thanks to Cyprus, you don't even to travel to Greece if you want to be on vacation in a
Greek-speaking country.
Stick to the facts and do not reply back with your monotonous drum of often recited BS
when you don't have a credible reply, Mickey!
I was specifically pointing out the paucity of information that you provided regarding
your alternative suggestion that somebody other than Russian backed was responsible for
Livinenko's demise. As I've already pointed out, I do not pass judgments on any of the
aspersions that Litvinenko made against Putler, only that the smoking gun clearly points
towards Moscow. If you've got something better, then present it I'd try something more clever
than indicating that Litvinenko was in favor of Chechen separatists.
Much unlike your svido trolling ways, which include mis-informative cherry picks,
designed to spin an otherwise faulty impression.
Whoa, what do we have here? Another genuine ' Averkoism '??
You indicate that I ' include mis-informative cherry picks' to spin an otherwise
faulty impression. Why yes, I guess that's what I can be contrued doing. Most
impressions that you make are faulty' ' and deserve to be rebuked, don't you think? I
think that what you meant to say was that:
Much unlike your svido trolling ways, which include mis-informative cherry picks,
designed to spin an otherwise accurate impression.
Mickey, you don't really want to be remembered for making 'faulty impressions ' now
do you?
I have to agree with Mikhail here. I think that Litvinenko affair was like a
dress-rehearsal for the most famous, daring and successful spy operation in history –
the Babchenko affair.
You see, such a stunning operation like that takes years to perfect and for the Ukrainians
Litvinenko was just a guinea pig on whom they tested their secret intelligence (OK,
intelligence might be a stretch) operations skills.
And Litvinenko was an easy choice, the Ukrainians were sure that because of his background
– it will be blamed on the Russians.
Nevertheless, this doesn't take anything away from the professionalism and mastery that
Ukrainians displayed when they designed the Babchenko hoax. I wouldn't be surprised at all if
Babchenko success story launches a new series of spy novels – maybe about agent 008
– where 008 is the IQ of the agent.
My take too rT. Economic warfare will not play out against Russia today as it did against
Japan and Germany in the 1930′s; because while they were energy dependent, Russia has
an abundance of oil and can and will–as you say–bootstrap its own industries inso
far as they are able. They don't have to develop a surplus to trade since, like the USA 100
years ago, their population is sufficiently large to support a robust internal market.
Also, this entire analysis (and the Saker's discussions of weapons as well) ignores
Russia's bigger concern, 1.2 billion Chinese wielding state of the art weaponry, who would
love to bite off some big chunks of a weakened Russia for lebensraum.
You can read statements of their foreign ministry.
His statements to do with paranoia about Russian-Turkey relations – statement from
Greece was claiming Russia is a "comrade in arms with Turkey".
As Russia becomes friendly with Turkey – they will find an excuse to be angry, and
vice-versa.
I feel that this is one of those situations, when you need to read between the lines.
Turkey, religion and "meddling" ARE excuses for Greece. Trying to please Greece's creditors
is the real issue here. It's a literal crackwhore of a nation, living from one tranche to
another.
Also, this entire analysis (and the Saker's discussions of weapons as well) ignores
Russia's bigger concern, 1.2 billion Chinese wielding state of the art weaponry, who would
love to bite off some big chunks of a weakened Russia for lebensraum.
This is implausible, for reasons that have been discussed multiple times here, including
recently.
The idea that the Chinese will move to seize Siberia is a ridiculous fantasy.
China and Russia already in the 1990s peacefully resolved all of their outstanding
border issues.
China suffers from below replacement fertility and solved its food security issues in
the 1980s, so the era of "Yellow Peril" population pressure belongs to the distant past.
And in any case the Russian Far East is useless for agricultural purposes.
There are indeed some minerals in Siberia, but let's review some economic facts about
China:
China can buy all the resources it needs. The main threat to China's economic security
are the naval and air forces of the United States and Japan, and to a lesser extent the US
Treasury and Commerce Departments. Expanding into Siberia does exactly zero to counter any
of these threats, unless you think the Port of Vladivostok somehow enables the PLA-N to
break out into the open Pacific.
Instead it multiplies these threats by pointlessly adding Russia to its enemies and
eliminating the possibility of overland trade substituting for seaborne trade.
China is a security threat to Siberia only once the following are true:
1 – USA abandons Western Pacific in favor of hemispheric security
2 – China secures dominance over Second Island Chain
3 – China replaces USA as lynch pin of global financial (as opposed to just economic)
system
And given China's cautious attitude, that might not be enough. For instance, a USA
focused on hemispheric security would still be viewed as potentially dangerous by China
owing to its blue water navy and dominance of the "Third Island Chain".
If China displaces the USA as the world's preeminent power, then there might be some cause
for concern. But even then I'm not so sure–Russia would be Canada to China's America.
The USA and Canada have had very good relations since the 1930s.
Lebensraum with Chinese Characteristics is not going to happen.
That's not to say everything will be hunky dory in Russian-Chinese relations. There are
areas of friction like:
• Influence in Central Asia
• Chinese IP theft
• North Korea
• Japan
• Near Abroad
• Competition for defense and nuclear exports
The CRAIC CR929 project looks great for now, but the gist of it is that while it's
designed in Russia it will be made in China. Once China matches Russia in aerospace
technology, what is Russia's role in this partnership? Seems like the most likely outcome is
that Russian industry is reduced from producing aircraft to merely being a Tier One supplier
and, perhaps, an engine supplier.
Will Russia be happy with that? I don't know. The UK decided to accept being reduced to
this status after the commercial failure of its innovative but flawed postwar airliners
cheerfully enough I suppose. Japan considered but decided against developing a complete
aerospace-industrial base, though this may be changing (MHI Regional Jet, Kawasaki P1, MHI
X-2 Shinden).
He's a svido troll as evidenced by his ongoing distortions and omissions, which include
not having a good comeback to the following:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
So, do you have even one shred of any evidence linking the poisoning of Litvinenko
with the Ukrainian secret service? If not, I wouldn't spend too much time writing your novel
about 008 and Babchenko, unless you intend it for an audience of only one gullible reader,
Michael Averko!
His ' Italian friend '? Were they fishing buddies where somebody got jealous of
their 'friendship' and decided to take the Italian out? Could've been another Russian job
too?
Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.
Now, this is really stupid, I think that even you'll have to admit Mickey. Are we to
believe that because Litvinenko was sympathetic to Chechen separatism, that this somehow made
him impervious to any sort of Russian assault? Please explain this one to me!
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque
and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest? If
Russia wasn't full of fools, why are they circumvented by the world community with
unnecessary and embarrasing sanctions, anyway? Besides, as I've already pointed out, there
were many reasons why the Kremlin wanted Litvinenko gone.
Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque
and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest?
Why Litvinenko himself, albeit (if true) in a possible unintended way. No proof that the
Rusisan government did him in. No need to reply anymore to your rehashed trolling tripe.
Still no good answer to:
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
Theory that it is to do with creditors, doesn't make much sense.
Creditors (troika) are European fund – mainly Germany, France and Italy, in order.
Followed by IMF and ECB.
Criteria for release of funds is economic criteria, that imply they might one day get
their money back.
Greece's foreign policy is not of interest to anyone much (Turkey care about them),
especially not accountants.
-
Reason for tensions with Greece, are the new relations with Turkey.
An alternative world, with a solvent Greece, they would be more angry, than currently
weak, insolvent one – considering sale of S-400 to Turkey, construction of Akkuyu for
Turkey, and recent decision for Turkstream.
Turkstream was always supposed to go to Greece, but two months ago, finally announced it's
going to Bulgaria (with no mention of Greece).
For Turkstream it's now option if it needs to go to Greece at all – it could also
reach Italy, via the Balkans.
In a Northern option that gets to Hungary and Italy over Serbia. (With no need of
Greece).
At the same time, Israel, Cyprus and Greece are probably building a rival pipeline
(probably not very economically rational), after Cyprus has discovered a gas field.
Well orderliness is not the only reason for holiday choice.
And Schengen visa is not a big deal for middle class tourists (35 euros).
Greece already has almost "too many" tourists (from around the world), for size of the
country.
Greece receives 32 million tourists this year (while Turkey receives around 40 million a
year tourism – and is six times larger than Greece in land area).
Perhaps Greece can even raise prices and market more for middle class tourists?
You missed my reply in #143 with plenty of decent replies. I don't mind reprinting them
for you, I know how prone you are to missing information that is contrary to your myopic
belief system:
His 'Italian friend' ? Were they fishing buddies where somebody got jealous of
their 'friendship' and decided to take the Italian out? Could've been another Russian job
too?
Litvinenko was said to be sympathetic to Chechen separatism.
Now, this is really stupid, I think that even you'll have to admit Mickey. Are we to
believe that because Litvinenko was sympathetic to Chechen separatism, that this somehow made
him impervious to any sort of Russian assault? Please explain this one to me!
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
Well, somebody was responsible for this ill advised murder, and did so in this grotesque
and over the top manner. Why not the Russians, are they somehow smarter than the rest? If
Russia wasn't full of fools, why are they circumvented by the world community with
unnecessary and embarrasing sanctions, anyway? Besides, as I've already pointed out, there
were many reasons why the Kremlin wanted Litvinenko gone.
I believe Russia's loss of influence there is inevitable. China has $$$; Turkey/Islamic
world has ethno/religious draw; USA has its hegemonic culture.
Russia has some fading sovok relicts, such as old political ties and the Victory Day
cult.
However, China is displacing it gently, as opposed to batting it away as the US and EU are
wont to do. This naturally makes Russia much better disposed than it otherwise would be.
• Chinese IP theft
Will become less of an issue as China converges with and overtakes Russia in many
technological areas. For instance, the realization that China's MIC is progressing far faster
than expected – without significant Russian tech transfer – has contributed to
Russia dropping its inhibitions on selling the S-400 and advanced fighters to China in recent
years. (An HBD realist could have told them as much, earlier).
• North Korea
• Japan
• Near Abroad
The equitable arrangement would be for Russia to defer to China on North Korea and the Far
East in general (though economic relations with Japan should be broadened), and to require
that China do the same for Russia wrt to its Near Abroad.
But certainly a much more dominant China may no longer feel the need to honor such an
arrangement.
• Competition for defense and nuclear exports
This will certainly be an issue.
Russia's nuclear technology is much further advanced than China's (the gap is much bigger
than the rapidly dwindling one in the military sphere), and it doesn't appear to me that
China is making a major R&D push in that area. I think Russia will continue to dominate
global nuclear tech exports for at least 2-3 more decades.
Russia's current dominance of global nuclear exports is something of a fluke.
The West crippled its nuclear industry owing to pathological atomophobia. Design expertise
didn't atrophy, but construction experience did. Result was massive cost overruns and endless
delays on the few Western Gen III reactor projects. Now effectively priced out of the world
market.
Japan suffered from the double whammy of Fukushima and Toshiba getting dragged down by the
collapse of Westinghouse. Even though it's somewhat unfair, no one will now order Japanese
reactors in the near future. The Japanese elite, once truly impressive in its atomophilia and
determination to resist popular atomophobia, is no longer united on the issue either. Former
Prime Minister Junichiro Koisumi has for instance called for Japan to shut down all nuclear
power plants.
Emerging competitor is South Korea. The Koreans successfully won the project in the United
Arab Emirates, and within South Korea they have an excellent record of efficient
construction. Fortunately for Russia, the very weak President Moon is a disgraceful
atomophobe.
Thanks for your comments. I really wasn't referring to today, more to a tomorrow when
China is the world's leading economy and the USA is struggling to enforce dollar
supremacy.
You are looking at it from a wrong perspective, pal. I was simply expressing pride and
admiration for the competence of the Ukrainian Secret Services. Why can't a fellow –
even though admittedly phony – Slav like me feel proud of the accomplishments of a
Slavic country that I look upon to for inspiration and guidance?
Interesting argument but it hinges on something that is not a part of it, i.e, what is
special about the 458 letter sonnet? Your argument only demonstrates that if another world
began 10^18 seconds ago it most likely would not produce the same 458 letter sonnet but it
would produce some other sonnet which could have a meaning in this different world.
You could create similarly fallacious argument 'proving' that you cannot possibly exist.
Assign probabilities p<<1 of an event that two of your ancestors met and procreated.
What was a chance that your parent met and then go back to grandparents and so on. And soon
you will obtain cumulative probability close to zero stating exactly what? That your life
could not have happened?
I think it is east to be confused and tricked by probabilities. And this happens when we
are sloppy in defining the space of events on which the probability function must be defined.
When you are heating up water at some point there will me one molecule of H2O that will break
free and evaporate. If this molecule asked the Nancy Kerrigan's question "Why me?" and began
calculating the probability of this event soon it would have to conclude the even was
impossible. The problem is with the question "Why me?"
Thanks man, I am really trying. If I may confide in you, you know what I find the most
admiring about the Ukrainians? Your keen sense of democracy.
I mean, it took you what – barely 4 years to figure out that Yanukovych was not
democratic enough – and then boom – revolution. I mean you guys are sharp. Look
at the Russians, they have been electing Putin since 2000 and they still haven't figured out
that he is not democratic enough. You are way ahead of the game.
You know what I think? I think that one good coup is worth at least 5-6 regular elections.
So if you guys were to stage another coup within – let's say the next couple of years
– it's like you've gone through 12 regular elections of 4 years each. You know what
– if I was you I wouldn't even bother with elections, elections are for dummies, just
stick with coups and soon you'll overtake even Western Europe – democracy and economic
development wise, so you won't even need their stinking EU.
As for the Litvinenko matter you bring up, there's good reason to believe that he
somehow got poisoned by a source other than a Russian government act. His Italian friend
got arrested for arms smuggling and was also infected with polonium. Litvinenko was said to
be sympathetic to Chechen separatism. These factors and his links to the likes of Goldfarb
and Berezovsky suggest a source other than the Russian government.
Never mind the impracticality of the Russian government using something like polonium to
bump someone off, when there're effectively cheaper ways of doing such.
I can't help it if you don't know the specifics about Litrvinenko's aforementioned Italian
friend. Stupid people have a way of babbling on because they don't realize just how stupid
they are. Then again, part of you might recognize that, seeing your cowardly anonymous empty
calories insults.
Opposite to your shooting blanks is this precision reply:
Thek ind of Russian-American views not getting propped in US mass media. Similar to the PC
Ukrainian views getting the nod over Ukrainians thinking differently.
You're on the right track, buddy! I don't know why AP tries to continually put you in
place by pointing out that you're not really a Slav, but some sort of Balkanized Turk. Who
cares? Your last two comments indicate that you're capable of evolving your thinking patterns
much higher that the typical 97 or 98. Heck, I'd guess that you're a solid 99! Keep it
up!
Stupid people have a way of babbling on because they don't realize just how stupid they
are.
I see that you're still babbling on Mickey. Isn't it time for you to do a few
rounds of kumbaya in front of your icon of Herr Putler and go to sleep yet?
As La Russophobe imagines it, Averko then sits down in the lotus position, the room lit
by a single candle beneath a large photo of Stalin, and intones his mantra several thousand
times: "I am a journalist I am a journalist I am a journalist " until he falls asleep. When
he wakes up, he heads out to his day job flipping hamburgers at Wendy's
"Now take Shakespeare's sonnet #27. It is 458 letters long. (Let's ignore punctuation.) If
we take 458 random letters of the English alphabet, there are 26^458 random combinations. So
if our ideal Universe-sized computer was randomly picking letters and hoping to compose a
Shakespeare sonnet, it would need about 10^300 Universes to do so."
The above just shows that the author is just completely ignorant of scientific, statistics
and computing principles.
First in English the occurance of letters do not have random frequencies, the frequencies
range from 0.074% for letter z to 12.702% for letter e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_frequency
Incidentally sonnet 27 only has 80 unique words, many of which are not random but closely
related, e.g. blind, old, sight, tired, sightless, see, ghastly, shadow, darkness, expired,
eyelids, drooping, weary, bed, toil, view, night, etc. A task simple enough for markov text
sonnet generators,
I'm just going to claim that you're trying an "it doesn't work because of fancy words X,
Y, Z" bluff without any actual technical argument behind the big fancy words. Prove me
wrong.
What's the "it" in your post, exactly? Darwinism? The problem with Darwinism is
that it's not a scientific theory. It's not even formulated correctly. The problem itself is
framed by biologists in handwavey terms on a "monkeys and typewriters" level.
When one tries putting some sort of numbers to the idea, the whole thing falls apart. See
my post above, for example, where it turns out you need a Universe about 10^300 larger than
ours to make random selection work.
And before you charge to M'Lady Science's defense: note this isn't a "disproof", it's just
a demonstration that nobody bothered to frame the question properly yet. There's nothing
there that can be proved or disproved.
The actual point is that biologists framed a problem in a way that doesn't match the scale
of our Universe as we observe it.
Feel free to correct the numbers I made; maybe the correct factor is 10^100 instead of
10^300. So what? The processes biologists postulate are so asymptotic that they require an
infinite Universe, which doesn't exist in real life.
There is an expectation that current theories of physics are not accurate at very small
time scales (which have not been reached by experiment).
We don't even know if the universe is finite or infinite. This is just a claim that you
pulled out of your ass. There may even be an infinite number of atoms.
Good point, but no. You missed the point again.
Any theory that requires time or space outside of a conventional Newtonian understanding
of physics isn't Darwinism. It wouldn't even be biology, because biologists don't (and can't)
deal with stuff like that.
I never assigned any special meaning to a sonnet. I merely demonstrated that the size of
the probability spaces we're traversing are unimaginable orders of magnitude larger than the
Universe we observe.
Formulating the probability spaces and functions should be step one of any biological
theory of evolution. Only then we can start talking about meanings and other philosophy.
Good point, but unfortunately Markov chains (and evolutionary algorithms) are intelligent
design, not random evolution.
They are tools for getting an answer when you know the result you want, but don't know the
steps to get it. The better you understand the result you want, the faster you arrive at a
solution.
That's a framework postulated by 'intelligent design' proponents, and rejected by
conventional Darwinist biologists.
OK, so what is the big deal about generating random string of 458 letters? Any such string
can be easily generated with the same probability from a bag full of letters. Each string is
equivalent.
Continuing on AKarlin's conclusion how Russia's future economic and foreign policy
orientation lies on the EU's response to the US's inevitable Iran-style sanctions against
Russia, I'll walk through some situations, and also state that once sanctions and adversaries
with unfriendly relations escalate to embargo and enemies with no relations on the US side,
the EU's decision at that point will be able to determine its fate for a long time to come.
1. EU caves in, and like a good vassal state with no independent policy of its own
whatsoever, follows US policy. This is more likely to happen if the US threatens third party
trade ties with Russia. This means that EU imposes Iran-style sanctions, and gradually turns
to more expensive US LNG for energy. This would put the EU under incredible strain, and a
large amount of state coffers would be shaved off due to these purchases; the citizens
disposable income would plunge too. On the other hand, Europe won't really collapse if the US
agrees to subsidize gas sales to the EU in exchange for joining the ideological crusade
against Russia.
In the Kissinger thread where I mentioned how a blackpilled possibility of Russia's future
lies as a vassal state, or junior partner, of China, while I may have exaggerated a little
regarding permanent PLA bases on Russia soil, it still is a slight possibility if the
oligarchs become more powerful again and also get a little desperate. However, PLA bases
aside, if the EU joins in the US on an embargo against Russia, Russia would still be cut off
from trade and other ties to its west, and inevitably having to completely rely on its east
for trade and political ties. Since even Japan/Korea trade can be a little difficult due to
their strong US ties and India doesn't really offer Russia much, except as a place to export
some goods, this leaves us with China, rendering Russia's future as China's largest and most
important vassal state.
This would also enable the EU branch of neoliberalism.txt to show their true colors as an
American vassal. Outside of Poland and the Baltics, attitudes towards Russia vary directly on
how neoliberal they feel, so in order to prevent the people from voting in non-neoliberal
parties, some "checks and balances" aka non-democracy has to be implemented to make sure
neoliberalism.txt stays via "voting". In this case, shave off a good at least 10% to EU's
white percentage in the long run also; while its unlikely for Britain and France to ever dip
below 60% white but stabilize around that point instead, a quasi-neoliberal dictatorship
would mean Eastern and Southern Europe bearing a lot of this brunt, e.g. ghettos in Warsaw
might go from a fear to actual reality. And expect the EU's economic growth to be highly
stagnant, and China, with Russia as not just a friendly state but a vassal state, would take
advantage of this to end up becoming the other pole in a bipolar world along with the US.
Unless China changes the way it conducts trade and foreign policy, this means that Russia
will likely get taken advantage of and not get too much in return, especially with
non-patriotic and greedy oligarchs still having significant power. In this case, Russia-China
relations will resemble a more predatory version of UK/Canada-US relations and Russia will
find itself to be a largely China-oriented, with Chinese tourism, businesses, language, and
other ties etc. having a very broad, visible, and dominating presence.
Chance of this happening? 30% given Europe's rhetoric on Iran. China will gladly take
advantage of the situation.
2. The EU doesn't cave in and continues to maintain trade and political ties with Russia.
This is the better result for not just Russia, but also the entire world. A Europe that's
able to stand up to American foreign policy, especially if its more ideological hysteria than
based on realpolitik in the case with Russia, is one that would have taken its first step
towards significantly reasserting their sovereignties. This would've also been a huge blow to
the American establishment, if not THE nail in the coffin ending American unipolarity. And
China also needs more competitors instead of a bipolar world with just China and America.
2a). Europe continues to be ruled by neoliberalism.txt as America enforces the embargo.
Sanctions won't be lifted and the status quo remains. As China gets more powerful and
European relations still cold, Russia and China will end up in a full-blown alliance, but its
status quo trade and personal ties with Europe would ensure that Russia can continue to
maintain a somewhat multi-vectored approach instead of complete subservience to Beijing. And
Russia won't be as much of a "hot potato" if not embargoed by the EU, ties with countries
like Japan and South Korea will continue unabated if not upgraded. In this case, the EU can
still be a more sovereign entity, albeit just ruled by the neoliberalism.txt ideology;
demographically, slightly better than, but no significant differences from the EU caving to
US embargo case. In this case, Russia-China relations will resemble Japan-US relations,
albeit without the military bases.
Chance of this happening? 40%.
2b). Europe undergoing a right-wing wave as America enforces the embargo. Europe in this
case will lift sanctions against Russia and ties likely even upgrade to a strategic
partnership. While Russia will not become enemies with China since it is in its best interest
to not pick a fight with the world's #1 or #2 power, its relationship will stabilize as
non-adversarial but non-aligned, a renewed strategic partnership with Europe can stimulate
Russia's economy and will ensure a multipolar world emerges in the 21st century, with Russia
as a powerful 3rd or 4th most powerful country on good terms with everybody (minus the US and
parts of Eastern Europe). Such close ties to Russia will also be a boon for Europe's economy,
and the possibility to regain their sovereignties after a century-long occupation post-WW2.
America becomes more isolated and loses its unipolarity in this case.
An unrelated side effect of this tactic is that the nonwhite percentages of Europe will
probably stabilize at or just above or below (in the case of southern Europe) current
values.
In this case, Russia-China relations won't be any special, with close trade relations,
some military cooperation, and neutral détente but inevitable minor beefs that spring
up every once in a while, like a closer and better version US-China relations pre-Trump.
Russia in this case will truly be one of the smaller poles in a multipolar world.
Chance of this happening? 30%, but this is by far the best outcome for the entire
world.
* There are 27 words of one letter and 26 letters.
* There are 635 words of two letters and 676 two-letter combinations.
* There are 4710 words of three letters and 17576 three-letter combinations.
* There are 11169 four-letter words and 456976 four-letter combinations.
* There are 22950 words of five letters and 11 million five-letter combinations.
(Oops.)
* There are 61018 words of 8 letters, but 208 billion 8-letter combinations.
Now, these are words, not texts, but you get the idea. Letter combinations grow as c^n,
while the number of English texts clearly doesn't.
1. EU caves in, and like a good vassal state with no independent policy of its own
whatsoever, follows US policy.
Chance of this happening? 30% given Europe's rhetoric on Iran.
Eh, what? It is not EUropean rhetoric that suggests that, but the gap between their
rhetoric and reality.
Europeans talk about defending JCPOA yet European big business ditches Iran and European
banks stab Iran in the back.
In recent weeks, U.S. and European intelligence agencies flagged a European-Iranian
Trade Bank request to withdraw 300 million euros from the Deutsche Bundesbank. Iran claimed
the cash is necessary so that Iranian citizens can use foreign currency when they travel,
but Western governments warned that the cash would be used to fund Iran's terrorist
proxies.
Fearing repercussions from the U.S. Treasury, the German bank decided last week to
introduce the new rules to prevent the withdrawal. This move was likely coordinated with
the German government.
In recent months, the E.U. has said that it will try to salvage the Iranian nuclear
deal, despite the U.S. withdrawal and renewed sanctions.
Initially, the E.U. explored the possibility of compensating European firms that would
be affected by the new sanctions, using the European Investment Bank.
This effort was torpedoed by the EIB, which said it might be blacklisted by the U.S.
Treasury of it was part of a scheme to offset the sanctions. EIB President Werner Hoyer
said two weeks ago that "doing business in Iran is something that we cannot be actively
engaged in."
So my 3 predictions are essentially, Iran-style western embargo, status quo with embargo
only on US side, and normalization of relations with Europe. How would you recalibrate the
likelihoods?
Theory that it is to do with creditors, doesn't make much sense.
Creditors (troika) are European fund – mainly Germany, France and Italy, in order.
Followed by IMF and ECB.
Criteria for release of funds is economic criteria, that imply they might one day get
their money back.
Greece's foreign policy is not of interest to anyone much (Turkey care about them),
especially not accountants.
You assume that Greece is the rational actor in this situation. It's a stupid crackwhore,
desperate for a bit of debt relief.
It is also fair to say that Western decisions on financial aid are not made by
accountants, ultimately they are made by politicians, who do consider geopolitics.
Surely Greece can see that IMF is dumping billions of dollars into the Ukraine for no
other reason than geopolitics. Ukrainian regime also got a nice debt relief a couple of years
back – to better resist "Russian aggression".
So it comes down to the meaning after all. You look for words that have meaning. But why?
Every word out of 208 billions may have a mining in some other language that you do not know
of. Why you insist that the disproof of evolution or the random Universe must be based on
what has meaning in English language? There are some believers in the intelligent design like
yourself in Pentecostal church who speak all kind of tongues nobody heard of them but to them
they have some meaning. There are patients in psychiatric wards who write 458 letter sonnets
that have meaning only to them. So why did you pick up this particular Shakespeare sonnet to
calculate a number that suppose to prove something?
Do you begin to understand where is the flaw in your argument?
2. To what extent will the EU join in, passively acquiesce to, or resist the US
sanctions against Russia? The answer to this question will to a large extent determine
precisely how deeply Russia falls into China's orbit in the next couple of decades.
This looks like a fine opportunity for the EU to 1) develop its own international
settlements system based on a Euro reserve currency 2) redirect trade and investment towards
the ROW (rest of the world), if necessary, excluding the US 3) become a reliable
non-political trade partner to these countries 4) make a unilateral decision to terminate
NATO and detach itself from US lies, subversion and military adventurism.
The place to start would be the termination of NATO, but it would be better to implement
the policies simultaneously. It would initially be very costly to European corporations, but
ultimately worth it, with new more predictable international relationships.
This is exactly what I meant by my response. Not only will EU's response to the upcoming
US embargo be instrumental in writing Russia's role and development in the 21st century
world, but also if the EU ever wants to transform from a neoliberalism.txt US vassal
experiment to either an independent "Great Power" quasi-federation (essentially USSR 2.0
after the revolutionary phase died down, Communism replaced by neoliberalism.txt), or to
break up as wholly sovereign states, a continuation if not strengthening of relations with
Russia will be a pivotal first step for that to happen.
There is no reason to look at any further steps in your calculations when you begin with
false premises.
[MORE]
Again, you are under the false impression that the universe "began" 13 billion years ago
as some informationless entity and that all patterns and complexity emerged after it. No. The
earliest known state of the universe had patterns and complexity. Even if you somehow managed
to argue that the complexity of life on earth is too high to emerge in 13 billion years, it
would still be of no consequence to Darwinism since we don't need it to emerge in that time
– 13 billion years ago is not some patternless zero state of complexity.
In fact, for all we know the emergence of life on earth could have already been determined
in the earlier state of the universe 13 billion years ago. That's implausible to me but a lot
of people believe in an intelligent creator and you can easily just postulate that he baked
the emergence of man in the design of the early universe and then you're in no contradiction
with modern science whatsoever.
Where did the patterns and complexity in the early universe come from? We don't know since
the current theories of physics can't probe that far. In fact, as I said before, the whole
"age of the universe" thing is a false notion that unfortunately some physicists peddle as a
simplification of cosmology. What we can do is trace back the development of the universe
from this point in time and we can go back 13 billion years and conclude that the universe
back then was a very different place, in a very dense state that gradually "expanded" into
the current one.
However in this process we run into a dead end as to study such dense states we'd need to
make the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics work together and we can't do that
currently. Hence, everything "earlier" than that is pure speculation, in fact we don't even
know for sure whether there was a "before". This state beyond current theories has been
dubbed the "big bang", "the beginning" and such but that's all just popularization. This has
the unfortunate side effect that some people now believe physics to somehow have proven that
the universe emerged from "nothing" 13 billion years ago and that's just not true.
And an "understanding of time and space outside of a conventional Newtonian understanding
of physics" is definitely required for cosmology like claims that "universe is X seconds
old". You are the one who began with assumptions that require physics well beyond Newtonian
mechanics.
Most likely is "status quo with embargo only on US side" with limited shift towards
"Iran-style western embargo". EUropean elites do not show much willingness to oppose
Russophobia, but on the other hand Russia is much more integrated in the EU economy than the
Iran.
For instance, the value of the trade in 2017 between Russia and Germany was 57,3 billion
Euro (rank 14th), the number for the Iran-Germany trade was only 3,4 billion Euro (rank
58th).
From 2009 to 2011, Syria supplied almost a fifth of EU imports of phosphate, but those
sales collapsed during the war.
Official EU import data shows that phosphate shipments to Europe -- heading almost
exclusively to Greece -- are resuming and more than tripled between December 2017 to April
2018. The volumes remain small compared to the pre-war heyday, but Syria is making a clear
push to return to the EU market and its giant farm sector.
Syrian data show that total phosphate exports were more than $200 million in 2010.
Three people either working in the phosphate industry or involved with trading the
commodity said Syria is able to export again because Russian investors have resurrected the
Palmyra mines, which Islamic State militia captured in 2015. Assad awarded these reserves
to the Russians last year after Moscow helped him turn the tide against ISIS.
No, it actually doesn't. The probabilities grow as c^n, while the Universe doesn't. No
matter how big it is, it's still a fixed size due to the laws of conservation of mass and
energy.
Every word out of 208 billions may have a mining in some other language that you do not
know of.
Even if every atom in the observable Universe had its own language, the number of possible
letter combinations would still be vastly bigger.
Why you insist that the disproof of evolution or the random Universe must be based on
what has meaning in English language?
I'm not "disproving" anything. I'm demonstrating that the "monkeys and typewriters"
argument used by biologists (and its variants "the universe is really big" and "the Earth is
really old" arguments) violate basic mathematical logic.
The Universe isn't really big. In fact, it is infinitesimal compared to the
probabilities we're dealing with here.
Once biologists acknowledge this obvious fact, then we can formulate some sort of
theory, and maybe then there will be something to prove or disprove.
Do you begin to understand where is the flaw in your argument
Do you? The point is that we're traversing probability spaces here that grow
exponentially, and yet nothing in nature can be exponential indefinitely. Somewhere in your
assumptions is a grave error.
What do you mean uncritically? I think that the citation is very critical of you.
If you're looking for something even more critical, just let me know?
Again, you are under the false impression that the universe "began" 13 billion years ago
as some informationless entity and that all patterns and complexity emerged after it. No.
The earliest known state of the universe had patterns and complexity.
Very good point, and one I agree with. However, this is a variant of the Intelligent
Design hypothesis, and is considered to be pseudoscience by biologists.
Like I said, I'm not "disproving" anything, merely pointing out that the way Darwinian
evolution is framed by biologists is not science.
Maybe it can be reformulated in a way that makes sense, but don't hold your breath -- the
biologists don't even understand the objections and fall back to the "Earth is, like, really
old" argument.
And an "understanding of time and space outside of a conventional Newtonian
understanding of physics" is definitely required for cosmology like claims that "universe
is X seconds old".
Again, the actual figure is irrelevant. The point is that we've posited an exponentially
exploding probability space, and yet nothing in nature is infinite and exponential. (I know
about the cosmology arguments about the finite/infinite universe, spare me. In any case, the
observable Universe is definitely finite, and science only deals with the observable.)
Now that Syria has all but won the war, I wonder when will rebuilding and eventually
re-emerging as a stable country good enough for FDI and tourism will start. By then, I also
wonder how it will be sanctioned.
My guess is that it will rebuild under Iran-style conditions back to more or less where it
was in the early 2000s politically, economically, socially, and sanctions-wise starting
around 2020 or so.
"For instance, banning Aeroflot from flying to the US has a simple response – banning
US air carriers from overflying North Eurasia, period. It can resurrect a bill – first
raised this May, since sunken in the legislature – to impose fines and prison time on
individuals and entities who support Western sanctions by refusing to do business with
Russian citizens or entities on America's SDN list. It can throw out the American-dominated
copyrights regimen out of the window."
As an American, I think Russia should do this and for good reason: the people who run this
country are idiots; if this is allowed to stand, they'll continue to push this until we get a
war. Best to head it off now by making the US Ruling Class pay the price. I especially like
the last part. Russia should just host all Hollywood movies, books, and video games on a
server accessible to American pirates (hey, Red States won't have problem with this these
scum just voted to remove Trump's star on the walk of fame anyway).
"This looks like a fine opportunity for the EU to make a unilateral decision to terminate
NATO and detach itself from US lies, subversion and military adventurism."
Not going to happen for a variety of reasons. NATO is a good way to keep an incompetent,
belligerent U.S. bogged down so that it doesn't cause any serious trouble for advanced
nations. Take Germany for instance. The number of US troops there is quite small in an
absolute sense, not enough to cause trouble, but combined with troops all over the place, the
all-volunteer US military can't really marshall the numbers necessary to invade anyone
without support from Europe. NATO is actually a clever way to control the aggressive
tendencies of the United States; without it, there is no telling what the U.S. could do.
Europe also gets high-tech weapon systems in the process – and sold at a premium
considering the enormous R&D costs involved. That's why German industrialists were stupid
to provoke Trump and go around telling Europeans to not buy American weapons (those weapons
are in some cases FAR superior to what the Europeans have and someone is definitely going to
buy them considering the cost spent to develop them, either you or a potential enemy so it
might as well be you). In all, it's good deal for them. They aren't going to chunk that for
anything.
The real key here is for Russia to strike back in a way that doesn't galvanize the
American public against them. My suggestion: cancel all American copyright protections and
start hosting American movies and television programs. Conservative republicans won't oppose
this as these programs are made in Trump-hating California – a place that just voted to
remove Trump's star on the walk of fame.
In fact, his "conservative" predecessor Samaras was more pro-German than pro-American.
Tsipras is pro-American. He is leftist like Tony Blair is leftist.
But unless they find a way to somehow stop Russia's exports of oil, our economy will
shrug off whatever sanction packages US can throw at it.
It still makes Russia look pathetically weak. The U.S. actions are essentially an act of
war. If Russia just rolls over allows itself to get kicked then the U.S. is just going to
keep on kicking. Cowardice is rarely a good policy.
the F-35. The one which even Americans were criticising.
I bought into much of the criticism, and probably a somewhat better plane could've been
made cheaper, but all in all I think it'll be a fine enough weapon, and probably better than
any currently deployed Russian fighters. The Su-57 is not yet ready (and it's recently got
questioned if it ever will), so you cannot meaningfully compare it to it.
Altogether if you want the very best fighter jet available in the market, then you should
choose it, unless the costs are prohibitive for you. It's actually no longer much more
expensive than 4+ generation planes. I think Boeing is trying to market the F-15X, which
would be a newly produced version of the F-15 with all possible technologies (except stealth
which is impossible for this frame), and it's not going to be meaningfully cheaper than the
latest (and cheapest) F-35.
If buying Russian is politically possible for you, then the Su-35 might be a good cheaper
alternative, though countries which are allowed to buy it are usually not sold the F-35.
Maybe India (and perhaps soon Turkey?) is the only country where both could even be
considered.
If the Su-57 were ready, then maybe we could talk about whether it was better than the
F-35 (the answer would probably depend on a number of issues, e.g. the rest of the equipment
used by the military in question, and of course politics, which is to say, if there was a
chance of a political conflict with the supplier, because if yes, then obviously you'd need
to buy from the other).
For most (but not all) roles the F-35 is at least as good as any other American fighter
jet (except maybe the F-22, and maybe not even that).
Maybe that's why Israel uses its own software? (At least they rewrote part of the
software, or so I read.)
Anyway, I don't think it's a bad fighter jet for the job of fighting America's enemies.
Probably even against neutrals. It might be useless against America's friends, or America
itself, but no one buys it for that. And actually it's probably useful against America, too,
or else why is the US so reluctant to sell it to Turkey?
And probably the American idea that the Russians might use their S-400 to spy on other
Turkish weapon systems (including the F-35), when in fact it's the Americans who use weapons
they sell to do that. The Russians are probably too afraid to lose their reputations.
F-35 has inferior kinematic performance to most, if not all, of the Generation 4 fighters
it's supposed to replace or oppose. Lack of a bubble canopy is also a major step backwards.
Quite a dubious distinction for a new aircraft.
That leaves its stealth and its supposedly wiz-bang sensors.
Stealth is nice, but it drives up operating costs and reduces sortie rates. And on a small
aircraft, you can't carry large war loads without sacrificing your stealth. F-35 stealth is
in the frontal area only, optimized for the X-band. It will be easily detected by long
wavelength radars. In air to air combat it would rely upon detecting intercepting aircraft
and firing AMRAAMs before they can lock on or, heaven forbid, close to visual range (where
the F-35 will be dogmeat).
The Air Force has long said that the F-35 isn't optimized for air combat. I suppose the
idea was that F-22s and legacy fighters would handle air superiority missions. F-35s, with
frontal stealth, would be able to get close to targets and attack them with PGMs.
As for its allegedly wonderful sensors, I am skeptical. Lots of air forces continuously
modernize old designs with AESA radars, glass cockpits, etc. Why exactly is a new airframe
needed for any of this?
That said it's not like the F-35 is awful , and as usual pilot skill and other
factors can overcome inappropriate technology.
The F-35 also now costs less to buy than the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale, which is an
important advantage. Gripen is much cheaper, but Sweden has no geopolitical clout and has a
very bad habit of finding moralistic reasons not to export armaments.
If you have to buy from Western suppliers, a mix of F-15X and Gripen NGs seems ideal. If
you can't afford two classes of fighter, the Rafale is a very good compromise. France is also
a reliable supplier. Worst choice is the Super Hornet. The F-16, while now quite an old
design, is still a very capable aircraft at a reasonable price as well.
Japan now has a stealth fighter technology demonstrator in the MHI X-2 Shinden. They
somehow built it, including with indigenous turbofans, for $360m. The airframe is very
interesting in that it's built of new materials which eliminate the need for RAM, which
should keep operating costs down and increase sortie rates. But this is only a technology
demonstrator at this time, probably as proof-of-concept for the new materials and an
indigenous low-bypass afterburning turbofan engine.
As for the Su-57, it's somewhat like the F-35 in its limited stealth. But it's also like
the Su-27 family in having superb kinematic performance. Russia's official reason for
delaying entry into service is that the Su-35 is adequate for existing threats, which is
probably true.
Who knows what the real reason is. Budgetary pressures perhaps? Russia wants to double
capital spending in rouble terms in 2024, and to do so without increasing debt. At the same
time it's continuing its import substitution efforts, and there are no moves to soaking the
rich. So the money has to come from somewhere, and presumably that makes mass production of
the Su-57 and T-14 Armata less attractive.
And actually it's probably useful against America, too, or else why is the US so
reluctant to sell it to Turkey?
>study F-35 and its data
> get better at detecting/fighting F-35
It is probably one of the main reasons why the RoC (Taiwan) won't get this jet despite
needing more than most. The risk that pro-PRC agents would have access to the F-35 is not
small.
I agree. However, let's not forget that Russia and USA have very different weight and role
in the international economy. USA effectively owns the system of international finance. That
is to say "international finance" is but an extention of US financial system. They can
exclude Russia, we can't exclude them (from the system they created and own).
If Russia is going to impose meaningful costs on the US, I think it can only be done
through non-economic means. Realistically, what action Russia could take that would
potentially match the disruptive power of American sanctions on Russia? Arm the Central
American drug cartels?
Using your own software is common for technologically advanced powers concerned about
their sovereignty and their own military-industrial capabilities. Japan for instance (after
being bullied out of building its own indigenous fighter in the 80s) built its own upgraded
version of the F-16 which, among other things, included Japanese software. Like Israel, Japan
also fields its own air-to-air missiles which on paper are in the first rank.
The UK took a different route of becoming a Level 1 Partner on the F-35 program, so they
received privileged access to the source code which is not available to other powers.
The F-35 is not very useful for fighting Russia or China, but fine for fighting most
anyone else. It actually could have some utility against America since America lags Russia
and China in low-frequency radar and infrared search and track, but probably the real
reluctance is safeguarding technology. In particular materials (e.g. the new RAM panels
instead of finicky coatings) and the engines.
Sun Tzu say avoid combat with superior force, bide time and wait till you are stronger. Of
course doesn't take Sun Tzu to work that out, even if he did say it.
IMF funded by a lot of countries though – Russia now one of the top ten important
creditors and more influential owners of the IMF (although it's proportion of ownership is
still multiples times smaller compared to US).
Russia is 8th largest shareholder of the IMF (out of 189 countries). US is largest
share-holder, and then Japan and China.
Decisions are based on member voting which is based on share in the organization, so
Russia has 8th largest vote in IMF, but behind USA, Japan, China, etc.
Part of the Greek debt is owned by Russia through the IMF, probably relative to Russian
ownership of IMF and the debt relief packages partly also funded from Russian loans.
Fortunately, IMF ownership of Greek debt is several times smaller than the eurozone
countries. But Russia's government share of Greece debt will probably be some billions of
dollars. That's how Greece can basically continue receiving money – so many countries
are owed money on their debt.
Thanks man, that's what I have been craving all my life – an approval from a
Ukrainian hick. You keep it up too buddy, your encouragement means the world to me.
VAT is not a "non-issue". When you raise from 18% to 20%, then you are taking
significantly more money from the whole population (including poor people) who want to buy
things in private sector, and transferring this money to state sector, where not all extra
money (to be "polite") is going to be used "wisely".
At the same time, a problem now is to have up to 50% of the federal budget from oil/gas
revenues – which is a volatile priced resource.
So it's typical dilemma with neither option looking good.
Of course, the solution to both, is to reduce unnecessary government expenditure, which
continues to grow all the time in many useless areas, to the extent that you can see
expressed in even unhidden ways of the luxurious buildings being constructed for all kinds of
different government offices who could really do their job just as well (or incompetently) in
a warehouse or a polyester and nylon tent.
You uncritically referenced an anonymous, lying coward (not too much different from
yourself BTW), who ducked a live one hours BBC World Service radio panel discussion, much
unlike the person who you've an obsession with.
Increasing taxation reduces private consumption, but I'm skeptical that it creates a
long-term output gap (short term is a different matter). The OECD has prosperous economies
with taxation at a share of GDP ranging from about one-third to three-fifths. Such a wide
divergence suggests that high taxes and prosperity are not incompatible. Money spent by the
state is still spent, and even if it's spent dubiously it continues to circulate.
Russia's official economic plan (besides import substitution) is to increase capital
spending. It intends to do with while retaining fiscal discipline and limiting offshore
borrowing. If you are unable or unwilling to borrow to finance investment, you must suppress
consumption.
Suppressing consumption to finance investment has a track record of success in East Asia
and for that matter Russia itself (~1928-1970).
The intent is to increase capital spending from one-fifth of GDP to one-quarter. A
reasonable goal.
The real issue here of course is that the intent is for this increase in investment to
come from the state and state-controlled companies, whose track records are dubious.
Still, perhaps something good could be done. Russia's nuclear industry is one bright spot,
and shifting to a more nuclear power mix would allow for more hydrocarbon exports and improve
public health. Russia is a growing agricultural exporter, and somehow I doubt Russia has the
ubiquitous farm roads like we have here in the American Midwest.
Perhaps it would be wiser to reduce Rouble borrowing costs for the business sector by
suppressing consumer credit and promoting higher household savings. Household savings rate in
Russia is only 8%. China is 38%.
"F-35 has inferior kinematic performance to most, if not all, of the Generation 4 fighters
it's supposed to replace or oppose. Lack of a bubble canopy is also a major step backwards.
Quite a dubious distinction for a new aircraft."
The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any
other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it. The bubble canopy is
really only useful in dogfights; the F-35, scheduled to be built by the thousands, likely
won't get into one-on-one engagements without serious air support. The bubble canopy reduces
stealth, so it was removed. That was the right decision.
"That leaves its stealth and its supposedly wiz-bang sensors."
Its sensors have already been tested against the F-22 – a proven aircraft –
and are almost certainly far and away superior to anything fielded by the Russians. There is
no "supposedly" here as the US has already built aircraft with similarly impressive sensor
suites. There is no reason to believe the F-35′s sensors won't be just as good, and
probably far superior, to what it has already been able to produce. Any belief to the
contrary is wishful thinking.
"Stealth is nice, but it drives up operating costs and reduces sortie rates."
The US can easily afford it.
"And on a small aircraft, you can't carry large war loads without sacrificing your
stealth."
Doesn't matter. The F-35 will be operating with many other F-35s. Combined, it will be a
formidable foe.
"F-35 stealth is in the frontal area only, optimized for the X-band."
No, it's not. The F-35 is simply more stealthy frontal but still stealthy over all.
Further, X-band is the frequency required for a weapons lock. All stealth aircraft are
specialized for this radar band.
"It will be easily detected by long wavelength radars."
Radars not capable of generating a weapon's grade lock, so they're useless in combat.
Further, long wavelength radars – weather radars, basically – can already detect
stealth aircraft; that's always been true. Didn't do Iraq any good back in the 90s.
"In air to air combat it would rely upon detecting intercepting aircraft and firing
AMRAAMs before they can lock on or, heaven forbid, close to visual range (where the F-35 will
be dogmeat)."
Which they will do very effectively. 100 F-35s vs. 100 Russian Su-27s, both closing on
each other = 100 piles of wreckage and 100 F-35s.
"The Air Force has long said that the F-35 isn't optimized for air combat. I suppose the
idea was that F-22s and legacy fighters would handle air superiority missions. F-35s, with
frontal stealth, would be able to get close to targets and attack them with PGMs."
F-35 + F-22 is a potent combination. Even a squadron of F-35s alone would crush anything
the Russians have. If necessary, the air force will likely just dogpile a large number of
F-35s to make up for any perceived weakness. Considering the numbers scheduled to be
produced, that should work fine.
"As for its allegedly wonderful sensors, I am skeptical."
You have no reason to be skeptical. The US has continually fielded next generation weapons
that have worked quite well in combat. There is no reason to believe this will be any
different. Further, your qualifications seem to be essentially nill in this area as you have
displayed very limited knowledge of the subject. Your skepticism doesn't seem to be based on
anything concrete, just wishful thinking.
"Lots of air forces continuously modernize old designs with AESA radars, glass cockpits,
etc. Why exactly is a new airframe needed for any of this?"
This one statement qualifies you as an amateur that should be ignored.
"That said it's not like the F-35 is awful, and as usual pilot skill and other factors can
overcome inappropriate technology."
The technology on the F-35 will crush its competition.
"If you have to buy from Western suppliers, a mix of F-15X and Gripen NGs seems ideal. If
you can't afford two classes of fighter, the Rafale is a very good compromise."
Sure, if you're poor and want to lose against countries fielding 5th generation fighter
aircraft.
"As for the Su-57, it's somewhat like the F-35 in its limited stealth. But it's also like
the Su-27 family in having superb kinematic performance."
Having superb kinematic performance doesn't count for much if your opponent is flying in
an aircraft that can shoot you down long before you close to within visual range.
"Russia's official reason for delaying entry into service is that the Su-35 is adequate
for existing threats, which is probably true."
Russia is delaying because 1. they can't afford to buy the aircraft 2. they are having
trouble constructing the aircraft as designed and in the quantity required 3. it probably
isn't as good as the F-35 anyway, so they don't see a point in building it.
The F-35 is for transferring US technology to Israel
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/israels-air-force-might-have-the-ultimate-weapon-custom-25983
Lockheed-Martin has mostly refused to allow major country-specific modifications to the
F-35, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars foreign F-35 operators contributed to the
aircraft's development. Israel, however, managed to carve out an exception. Though not an
investor in the F-35's development, Tel Aviv was nonetheless quick to sign on to the
program with an initial order of fifty. It also negotiated a favorable deal in which
billions of dollars worth of F-35 wings and sophisticated helmet sets would be manufactured
in Israel, paid for with U.S. military aid. Furthermore, depot-level maintenance will occur
in a facility operated by Israeli Aeronautics Industries rather than at a Lockheed facility
abroad.
The Lightning's sophisticated flight computer and ground-based logistics system has
become a matter of contention with many F-35 operators. Foreign air forces would like to
have greater access to the F-35's computer source codes to upgrade and modify them as they
see fit without needing to involve external parties -- but Lockheed doesn't want to hand
over full access for both commercial and security-based reasons. Israeli F-35Is uniquely
will have an overriding Israeli-built C4 program that runs "on top" of Lockheed's operating
system.
"Right, which is why Denmark bought the F-35. The one which even Americans were criticising.
Buying American weaponry is often a combination of tribute, corruption and paying protection
money."
Please. They bought the F-35 because it is the best aircraft they could get, and they
don't trust the Russians. If they wanted to offer tribute, they'd just write a check and buy
another aircraft.
Further, much of the so-called criticism of the F-35 came from non-experts in the subject
or older guys who worked with the now-outdated F-14. The F-35 has made enough progress for me
to believe that it will likely crush anything the Russians have now or in the future. Even if
the Russians could build the Su-57, the F-35 would still win in most contests because 1. its
sensor suite and over the horizon A2A capability + electronic warfare capability will be
appreciably superior 2. it will be built in far larger numbers.
"The F-35 is not very useful for fighting Russia or China, but fine for fighting most
anyone else."
The F-35 will be quite effective against any aircraft those countries currently field. Any
belief to the contrary is either ignorance or delusion. The US isn't spending a trillion
dollars on this thing to fight Trinidad and Tobago.
The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any
other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it. The bubble canopy is
really only useful in dogfights; the F-35, scheduled to be built by the thousands, likely
won't get into one-on-one engagements without serious air support. The bubble canopy
reduces stealth, so it was removed. That was the right decision.
"Over-the-horizon A2A capability" has existed for half a century. Previously structuring
our airpower around this concept resulted in high losses in Vietnam.
The real reason for the bubble canopy's elimination (note that the stealthier F-22 and
YF-23 both have bubble canopies) is the ridiculous insistence on the same platform being used
for a STOVL aircraft with a lift fan placed right in the middle of the fuselage.
If your goal is to maximize stealth and only fight BVR engagements, the F-35′s
design is entirely inappropriate. After all, its stealth is in the front area only and it
can't carry a large missile load.
Optimizing exclusively for BVR combat would entail a large tailless aircraft (perhaps a
flying wing) with all-aspect stealth, large internal volumes of missiles, and far more
powerful radar.
The F-35′s design is based on political and economic considerations, not military
ones.
Its sensors have already been tested against the F-22 – a proven aircraft –
and are almost certainly far and away superior to anything fielded by the Russians. There
is no "supposedly" here as the US has already built aircraft with similarly impressive
sensor suites. There is no reason to believe the F-35′s sensors won't be just as
good, and probably far superior, to what it has already been able to produce. Any belief to
the contrary is wishful thinking.
I have no doubt in the capability to produce and field top-class avionics. What I do doubt
is the idea that we produce (and always will produce) superior avionics to anyone else.
Europe, Russia, China, Japan, and even tiny Israel all produce AESA radars. The US lagged
Russia (and Europe) in IRST for decades. The US is far behind on low-frequency radar.
The US can easily afford it.
You'll note that this was originally about F-35 exports . A solution with high
operating costs and low sortie rates is problematic for anyone, but especially undesirable
for a small power.
Radars not capable of generating a weapon's grade lock, so they're useless in combat.
Further, long wavelength radars – weather radars, basically – can already
detect stealth aircraft; that's always been true. Didn't do Iraq any good back in the
90s.
Detection is not useless. It allows you to vector interceptors until they get close enough
for a radar lock or can identify the target with IRST or visual tracking.
Incompetent Arabalonians. Norman Scwhartzkopf stated that if you'd reversed the weapons on
each side but kept the personnel and training the same, the Allied coalition would've still
handily won. Serbia incidentally did successfully shoot down an F-117, which largely owed
itself to the skill of the operator in question and poor tactics on the part of NATO.
Which they will do very effectively. 100 F-35s vs. 100 Russian Su-27s, both closing on
each other = 100 piles of wreckage and 100 F-35s.
The RAND Corporation disagreed and projected one Su-35 lost for each 2.4 F-35s.
F-35 + F-22 is a potent combination. Even a squadron of F-35s alone would crush anything
the Russians have. If necessary, the air force will likely just dogpile a large number of
F-35s to make up for any perceived weakness. Considering the numbers scheduled to be
produced, that should work fine.
F-22 production capped at 187 units, and none were exported to other countries (despite
persistent requests from Japan).
You have no reason to be skeptical. The US has continually fielded next generation
weapons that have worked quite well in combat. There is no reason to believe this will be
any different. Further, your qualifications seem to be essentially nill in this area as you
have displayed very limited knowledge of the subject. Your skepticism doesn't seem to be
based on anything concrete, just wishful thinking.
[...]
This one statement qualifies you as an amateur that should be ignored.
[...]
The technology on the F-35 will crush its competition.
This is what is known as projection. Identifying in others the sins that you yourself are
guilty of.
Sure, if you're poor and want to lose against countries fielding 5th generation fighter
aircraft.
Many countries are poor. Others are small or have limited defense budgets. Though I
contend thee aircraft in question are in fact superior to the F-35 which makes this moot.
Having superb kinematic performance doesn't count for much if your opponent is flying in
an aircraft that can shoot you down long before you close to within visual range.
Superb kinematic performance enables earlier missile shots, makes it easier to defeat
incoming missile shots, allows for faster transit in and out of combat zones, and gives a
decisive edge in WVR combat.
The F-35 program developed a first-class powerplant and avionics, but then mated then to
an inferior airframe in order to fulfill a commonality fantasy driven by a silly Marine Corps
STOVL requirement.
The Kremlin would have killed the organ grinder (Boris Abramovich Berezovsky) not the
monkey. Litvinenko virtually committed suicide. People become depressed when they are
exiles.. Litvinenko publicly accused Putin of the apartment bombings by Chechens that killed
hundreds of Russians so he must have had some inkling that Putin could be dangerous.
If you publicly call someone a child molester they will at least fantasize about killing
you, and if they have the means and opportunity then it is not the biggest surprise in the
world if you give them the motive and you are killed by a method that is as good as a signed
confession they did it. Putin wanted Litvinenko to know who had put an end to him.
That was the whole point of using alpha radiation; nice and slow all the while knowing who
did it. Putin is very like another famous Vlad.
If you publicly call someone a child molester they will at least fantasize about killing
you
I have fantasized about killing people who had seriously harmed me or the public. But I
have never fantasized about killing a clown, nor can I ever imagine fantasizing about it. I
cannot imagine anyone who is not a psychopath fantasizing about killing a clown. By accusing
Putin of the house explosions and converting to Islam etc. Litvinenko totally jumped the
shark. He was a clown, a tool used by others.
Now it's not impossible that Putin nevertheless wanted to murder Litvinenko, but you have
just assumed how Putin would think and then proceeded to jump to a conclusion based on that
assumption.
Litvinenko was a poor devil, incapable of harming Putin. If anyone harmed Putin, it's
Berezovsky or the western media which gave a platform to poor devils like Litvinenko. Do you
think Putin is so stupid that he hates the tools instead of the powerful people wielding
them?
That is pretty incredible, however, because of your reputation perhaps she was
afraid of some sort of retribution for being critical of you? I notice that you often like to
taunt me on by calling me a 'coward' for using a moniker instead of presenting you with my
true identity. Whether deserved or not, many feel that you're some sort of a Kremlin
Stooge nutcase, Mickey. From Srebrenica Genocide Denier to this:
friend of mike averko | April 12, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Reply
I have known mike averko for a very long time and wish to warn all of you who feel safe
mocking him and his rants this is not someone you want to get angry . HE IS
INSANE!!! I have seen how this man lives and it is not that of a healthy person, it is
that of someone insane. Make your comments but don't ever let this man into yuour life in
any way or you will end up being sorry.
This is why I choose to shield my true identity from you, Mickey. Who needs any grief from
a Kremlin Stooge wacko?
The machine that draws the numbers for a lottery manages to pick 7 winning numbers every
week. It never fails to pick the winning numbers. Is this an amazing feat? The numbers it
picks are the winning numbers while millions of lottery players have great difficulty to pick
the winning numbers and spend millions of dollar on it while the cost to the machine is just
few bucks.
Shakespeare picked 458 'winning' letters but if you would try to reproduce them in the
same sequence by random selections it becomes probabilistically impossible task.
Finding a winning sonnet by Shakespeare for the Universe was not a probabilistic feat just
as it is not for the lottery machine to pick the winning numbers. It all comes down to the
meaning and when that meaning is assigned. You assigned a special meaning to this particular
sequence of 458 letters just like lottery players assign special meaning to 7 numbers picked
by a machine.
Although you show a lot of promise, unfortunately there are still a few rough edges. Don't
concentrate so much on your less than honorable pedigree, but work on improving your
emotional dilemmas. AP is a medical doctor, and has diagnosed some of your ailments. Listen
to him, for he's a pure blood Slav. And you know how great the Slavic race is. (I know that
you can overcome!).
On the subject of of agriculture, it should be noted that Rostelmash has done ok for a big
sovok behemoth and has had at least some success exporting west. It's combines are
competitive with the American makes but not Claas, they've also been able to buy up
varsatile. This is quite surprising given the fact that rostov has a reputation for being a
rough and corrupt place. Ak, any thoughts?
You make it sound like being a Slav is like being a member of an exclusive club. How
exclusive can it be if you – the Ukrainians are in it? I would say that that is setting
the standards pretty low. Don't worry about my "emotional" dilemmas. I am happy with who I
am, which can't be said about you people. You seem quite torn between your Western European
heritage and your humble Slavic origin that gets in the way of being recognized as one of the
nations that are pillars of western civilization which everybody agrees that you are.
USSR engaged in intensive agricultural motorization earlier than any country other than
the USA and Canada. It was also fairly early to intensive chemicalization, mainly beaten out
by Germany and America.
In the postwar period the share of capital investment devoted to agriculture varied from
11.8% in 1946-1950 to a peak of 20.1% in 1971-1975.
Not surprising there is something of a positive legacy. Main failures of postwar Soviet
agriculture were distribution and processing. Not enough roads or trucks, inadequate cold
chain, too few food processing plants, etc.
Belarus also has a successful agricultural machinery sector as well.
Heavy transportation machinery was generally a Soviet success story, probably because not
only are they producer goods but they also require routine replacement. Thus unlike other
capital goods in centrally-planned economies they weren't kept in service long past the time
they ceased to be efficient. The irrational "development" of Siberia also increased the size
of this sector and the quality of its output.
Lastly, worth noting Rostelmash has been privately owned since 2000.
The F-35 will have an over-the-horizon A2A capability that will result in virtually any
other aircraft being annihilated long before it closes distance on it.
If this is the case then obviously its 'kinematic performance' is secondary. If you can
see the enemy before it can see you and you have weapons to engage the enemy then obviously
your top speed and acceleration are not that important. The missile you launch is faster than
your top speed and your enemy's top speed.
But there are doubts. How much the stealth technology is a hype? Is information about
radar cross sections of various planes credible?
I thought like you before Skripal, but after the second in a row I understood this was
either Western intelligence or Putin's orders. Western intelligence simply would not
dare frame Putin because the Russians would become too jumpy. Yeltsin almost started WW3
in 1995, there is no telling what could happen if the West was framing Putin repeatedly and
he responded by putting Russian forces on red alert, then something like the Black Brant
scare occurred.
Litvinenko was a poor devil.
I don't think he was a happy man.
Now it's not impossible that Putin nevertheless wanted to murder Litvinenko, but you
have just assumed how Putin would think and then proceeded to jump to a conclusion based on
that assumption.
I happen to believe that Putin is deliberately trying to alienate the West with these
assassinations because he wants Russia to remain proudly independent after he is gone. Yet he
has to justify that policy to his close associates many of whom who love the Western
lifestyle and making money. It is like Hitler having to explain his attack on the USSR to his
generals and Goebbels by saying it was necessary to remove that threat from the east before
moving against Britain. Obviously Hitler really longed to conquer Russia, and it seems likely
to me that Putin wants to initiate schismogenesis with the West. He probably is not telling
his cronies that though, there will be some security pretext.
Do you think Putin is so stupid that he hates the tools instead of the powerful
people wielding them?
Putin has more power than anyone else on Earth, I should have thought that was obvious by
now. He wants to exert control when he is no longer there, and that means setting Russia on a
course that cannot be altered, and consulting/implicating the entire future leadership
cadre.
John Deere does very well in Russia because they own a local factory. They seem to be the
combine of choice because they have faster parts distribution than Class. Rostelmash does
better than it used to but the really big commercial farms and associated contractors buy the
best machines. The operators on the ex cooperatives, usually farmed under (corrupt) rental
arrangements tend to use Rostelmash, insofar as they buy new.
In BVR combat kinematic performance is indeed secondary to the performance of sensors,
electronic warfare equipment, and missiles.
But not irrelevant. Higher top speed allows for longer-ranged missile shots. Faster
acceleration (and, for that matter, turning performance) allows for faster escape from the
combat zone.
Note how BVR optimized interceptors like the F-102/106, MiG-25/31, F-4, F-111B, English
Electric Lightning, and so forth had great top speeds and excellent acceleration. They were
however lacking in maneuverability as it was not intended for them to dogfight (hence the bad
air combat performance over North Vietnam).
China's Chengdu J-20 is a modern stealth aircraft designed for this role. The F-35 is not.
It's basically a tactical strike fighter. Historical analogues would be the F-100, F-105,
SEPECAT Jaguar, Su-24, and so forth.
Tactical strike fighters of the classic style are dubious today since multi-mode radars
and PGMs have made fighters very capable of ground attack.
Stealth isn't hype unless you believe the maximalist fanboy nonsense from the 1990s.
If indeed F-22 and F-35 have several orders of magnitude smaller cross-sections (RCS) than
other jet fighters then obviously it is a huge advantage that if utilized will render small
differences (±10%) in speed and acceleration completely unimportant.
You're right about that, and I'm glad to be different from you. At least people aren't
leaving messages about me at blogs warning them that I might be dangerous to deal with.
'Sbrebrenica Genocide Denier' is nothing to be proud about, Mickey.
Realistically, what action Russia could take that would potentially match the disruptive
power of American sanctions on Russia? Arm the Central American drug cartels?
I quite like that idea!
Provide sophisticated arms to everybody (no matter how crazy) with an ability to cause
grief to the U.S.
The U.S. objective is not to punish Russia or weaken Russia. The U.S. objective is to
destroy Russia as a sovereign nation. This is war to the death. There can be no negotiation
with the U.S. The only hope of forcing the Americans to adopt a sane policy is to make the
costs of their current policy catastrophically high.
The U.S. is obviously stronger but a strong man will usually back down if faced with
someone crazy and unpredictable. Putin needs to be crazy and unpredictable.
And Russia needs to target America's lapdogs, like the British. Perhaps let them know that
if it ever came to nuclear war London would be a priority target.
U.S. "public opinion" is literally the collective opinion of dumbed-down, amoral idiots.
In fact, the word "opinion" is too dignified for this – "braindead recantation of
MSM-fed government propaganda" would be a better description.
It's optimized for certain wavelengths and expected receiver locations.
Thus stealth aircraft can for instance be readily detected by low frequency radars.
Stealth is still useful as low frequency radars are too bulky to fly, and they indicate a
general location rather than a precise location.
Stealth aircraft can also be detected visually, acoustically, through their own electronic
emissions, and through their heat signatures. Employment of weapons, obviously, compromises
stealth as well.
There are also degrees of stealth. The F-22 for instance is considered an all-aspect
stealth design, at least in the higher frequency bands. The Have Blue, MBB Lampyridae, F-117,
B-2, and YF-23 were as well.
The F-35 however is not–it's only stealth optimized in the frontal area. This of
course reflects the fact that it was never intended to be an air superiority fighter, but
incompetent American force planning is now pressing it into that role.
Lastly, while stealth is obviously a good capability (hence why everyone is following
America's lead on it), it's not without trade-offs. Stealth is lost if weapons are carried
externally. Radar absorbing materials are costly and maintenance intensive (though the
Japanese may have solved this problem). Because stealth requires precision shaping of the
airframe, it is difficult to modify the airframe for future requirements.
"But it's not an invisibility cloak." – Nobody talks about invisibility. RCS
matters. You detect enemy plane before it detects you. Period.
"The F-35 however is not–it's only stealth optimized in the frontal area. " –
Presumably it will show its rear to its enemy only when the enemy will be already falling
down after being hit.
"Stealth aircraft can also be detected visually " – Nobody argues invisibility.
"it was never intended to be an air superiority fighter". – It all depend on
superiority over whom. Anyway this is a vague and pompous term.
"Stealth is lost if weapons are carried externally." – What good are those weapons
for if you are shot before you see your stealthy enemy?
"Radar absorbing materials are costly and maintenance intensive". – Yes. That's why
Russians do not have it.
Listen. I do not really care about this issue and I do not know much about it. I just
responded to your arguments which are mostly rhetorical in nature among at diminishing
importance of the orders of magnitude lower RCS of F-22 and F-35 comparing to that of their
potential opponents.
I thought like you before Skripal, but after the second in a row I understood this was
either Western intelligence or Putin's orders.
Or something else neither of us thought of. It's a false dichotomy when we have no
information at all about the whole thing, the only thing we know is that the British are
lying.
Western intelligence simply would not dare frame Putin because the Russians would become
too jumpy.
But that's just your model. Maybe they wouldn't become jumpy, or maybe the Western
intelligence services would dare frame him anyway.
By the way it's interesting that you managed to draw a psychological profile of Putin
based on just two cases a decade apart, and Putin only did it twice in his whole reign. Sure
if he enjoyed torturing his critics he'd do it more, wouldn't he?
Yeltsin almost started WW3 in 1995, there is no telling what could happen if the West
was framing Putin repeatedly and he responded by putting Russian forces on red alert, then
something like the Black Brant scare occurred.
Risk management is my job. People don't think about risks that way. They assign a very low
probability to events like the Black Brant scare, and anyway probably Putin would just
realize it was only one rocket. There's no reason to believe he'd be any more likely to
launch than Yeltsin.
Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air
superiority fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very
obviously telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just
telegraphs their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ
countermeasures.
However, ground sites lack many countermeasures against incoming missile launches and
cannot lock onto low-visibility planes from the front, so even if its general location is
known, there's not much that a SAM site can do to it in theory. Thus, it has a very
effective, but limited role.
This is of questionable utility against a peer competitor since they will not be using
ground to air systems in isolation, although it probably means that the US can destroy any
number of third world countries.
I wish I could say the same thing about the Ukrainians. You are showing nothing but
regress since 1991, but I don't expect that you'll agree with that. It's one of the side
effects of having a thick head.
You know how the Ukrainians got their name? It's from the Latin Cranium for scull.
Basically, what it means is that when any new idea (or old one for that matter) tries to
penetrate the thick Ukrainian sculls – it has to make a U turn when it reaches their
fortified cranial structures – U Cranium – therefore Ukraine. Get it? It's pretty
discouraging actually.
A good case could be made that we don't know how these jets would perform under the
conditions of a real world war. But I think it's always the best bet that it will be the
American weapons which perform the best. That's simply the way to bet.
It's possible that many of their weapons systems wouldn't perform as advertised. Some
would perform better than thought or for roles they weren't designed for.
It's a very safe decision to buy the F-35, which is now not even that expensive. It's
possible that it won't be worth much in a real war against comparable opponents, but this
could be true of any other platform: these weapons are only tried out against vastly inferior
opponents.
You detect enemy plane before it detects you. Period.
He will usually have a vague idea where you are. Currently it's not possible to launch a
missile based on that vague knowledge, but will it stay like that forever? A lot depends on
other systems like air defense and AWACS.
Anyway, my original point was that probably buying the F-35 is not based on politics, it's
a safe decision for those with deep enough pockets to buy the best available fighter jet.
Even if under the circumstances of a real war it turned out to be bad: it could happen to a
number of other weapons systems anyway, and you cannot really tell in advance which ones.
The longer range just telegraphs their intentions earlier
But wouldn't the idea be that you get closer to the enemy without being detected? Your
argument might work against BVR combat in general, but more against non-stealth BVR combat
than against stealth: stealthy planes will probably employ their BVR weapons from closer
range than non-stealthy planes.
If BVR air-to-air missiles work at all, they work much better with stealthy planes.
Regardless of whether against peer or non-peer opponents.
Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air
superiority fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very
obviously telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just
telegraphs their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ
countermeasures.
If your argument states that it is actually bad to deploy weapons far away (which I do not
understand) I would say that the stealth will allow you to get much closer to the enemy w/o
being detected and makes it possible to launch the missile when there will be not less time
for the enemy to deploy countermeasures.
I realize this is a complex game with many possible strategies and tactics with many
parameters involved. For each strategy there are decision regions where the different
parameters dominate what will be the optimal tactic. Furthermore we really do not know how
effective various countermeasures are but I suspect that they might be decisive. But if they
fail and planes get close to each other within the visual range then obvious completely
different parameters might be decisive including the human factor.
I won't argue with you on this subject because I know you were raised by video games so
you now better at least in the realm of video games model. I would not argue with Mowgli
about the purpose and efficacy of howling at the moon. Perhaps it was a sophisticated
countermeasure.
I actually have never played a flight simulator within recent memory. As far as I'm aware,
none of them really calculate the issues of missile flight with any degree of accuracy and
treat guidance systems like some sort of magic. My comments are actually speculations from
conversations with military pilots.
If your argument states that it is actually bad to deploy weapons far away (which I do
not understand)
Missiles have extremely limited flight times and their flight characteristics degrade
after launch. Disrupting either their guidance or their flight negates the kill chain.
I would say that the stealth will allow you to get much closer to the enemy w/o being
detected and makes it possible to launch the missile when there will be not less time for
the enemy to deploy countermeasures.
This is possible, but ever-increasingly decreases the window of attack that is beyond
visual range. Its possible that this is the idea, coupled with the Block III Sidewinders
which are designed against a number of countermeasures, but that seems to have been cancelled
for some reason.
If you don't know the composite materials used, you can not give a correct RCS, and you
can not tell just by looking, the physics don't work like that!
So at least we have the word of the US Air Force and Lockheed regarding the stealthiness
of their planes (these are probably not outright lies, but might differ from reality in
either direction: they might be modest to hide their true capabilities, or, more likely,
exaggerate and give a number only true under ideal conditions for a specific type of radar
etc. ), but regarding the supposedly 5th generation Chinese or Russian jets we have just very
rough estimates based on the shape and some assumptions about their coating.
So many US sanctions and interdictions , to friends and foes alike , will end up isolating
the US .
The US pressure to the EU not to trade with Russia , Iran and other countries has provoked
a deep resentment in the EU and has turned the US into a very unreliable partner , and even a
dangerous " friend " .
The better part of four decades ago, President Reagan made a joke about outlawing the Soviet
Union and the press and the left went apeshit. Now Congress seriously proposes legislation
that would essentially outlaw Russia, and the press and the left are all for it.
ever-increasingly decreases the window of attack that is beyond visual range
How many seconds will the stealth pilot have to identify the target and fire its missiles?
Sixty? Hundred-twenty? Thirty? Even thirty seconds must be enough for a well enough trained
pilot.
There might be issues with how to leave the scene after having killed an opponent, if
other enemies are still there, because it's less stealthy from other angles. I guess we're
not the first to think about it, so probably there's some solution. At the very least, I
wouldn't expect them to perform worse than the 4th gen planes.
I think even the production of the F-16 is about to end.
Yes, the Gripen is a good and cheap alternative, but it's not the best available in the
western ecosystem. The F-35 would probably destroy an equal number of Gripens, though that's
not saying much, considering the price differential.
Hungary also has Gripens, though we didn't fully equip them until recently, and I don't
think we spend enough on training the pilots.
These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to Serbia
after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war. The whole
slow-motion drama, with all its attendant false flags (MH17, the Skripals, gassings in Syria,
etc), numerous rounds of sanctions and specious rhetoric including accusations of "stealing
the election" from Hillary, since Putin checked Obama's attempt to seize Russia's Crimean
base and recruit another hostile NATO member on that country's frontier has been meant to
convince the American public that Russia is our country's blood enemy, that it is run by an
insane dictator the equal of Hitler, and that the consequent world war will have been all
Putin's fault in spite of America bending over backwards to make peace with those vicious
mongrels from the steppes.
As a commentor above said, I'd hate to be killed by a Russian nuke directed at my city
only because of an insane American leadership, but I'd equally hate for tens of millions of
Russians (and others) to be exterminated by our weapons simply to further an agenda being
promoted by the likes of Jeff Bezos, Sheldon Adelson and the other plutocrats who really pull
all the strings in Washington to benefit themselves plus their Saudi and Israeli
co-conspirators in some great game to rule the world. I'd say that Washington is about poised
to commit the greatest crime in the history of the human race, and chances are good that it
will be the last.
"Stealth is of limited use in an air-to-air role to take down enemy fighters(air superiority
fighter) since missiles are not "stealth" and their guidance systems very, very obviously
telegraph their intentions: thus "missile lock" warning. The longer range just telegraphs
their intentions earlier, which gives the targeted plane more options to employ
countermeasures."
That's not quite true. The ability to shoot a barrage of sophisticated missiles at an
opponent that can't shoot back beyond visual range should be quite useful in combat; these
missiles will also close the gap much sooner than you would think, so it's not like an enemy
is going to have all day to deal with incoming threats. Further, electronic countermeasures
won't be perfect as most A2A missiles fielded by the US will have systems designed to defeat
them. The F-35 will also be fielded in large enough numbers such that they'll just overwhelm
opponents with their stealth ability. Combine the F-35 with the F-18 or F-22, and you'll have
a very effective air dominance force.
"This is of questionable utility against a peer competitor since they will not be using
ground to air systems in isolation, although it probably means that the US can destroy any
number of third world countries."
I expect the F-35 to do quite well against both Russia and China in helping to establish
air dominance. The F-35 will additionally have utility against surface S2A units. The navy
could overwhelm Russian and Chinese air defenses – even assuming they are quite
effective – by coordinating strikes with F-22s and F-35s. Those air defenses will go
active, and the F-35 will then be able to hit many of them with a degree of survivability +
coordinate with surface ships to smoke them out, mobile or not.
These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to
Serbia after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war.
I have never put much thought into these issues. But now after reading comments and some
articles I realized that this is a fascinating topic and that there are many people somewhere
who study it, write simulations and developed optimal algorithms for all possible situations
where they have input data on all plane and missile characteristics except with only partial
knowledge of enemy characteristics and efficacy of countermeasures. So I think that
everything has been already calculated. When and what to shoot and when and where to turn and
when to retreat and so on. And as new data are flowing in with the outcome of the first
missile or the arrival of another enemy plane the master program is just bringing in
pre-calculated solutions for each new situations. And then every geometric configuration must
have been analyzed and optimal actions has been found. Furthermore optimal configuration were
found about how to fly , in what formations, with what speeds and so on. Mathematically this
problem might not be harder than a chess game on multiple boards and thus I think a
completely autonomous AI system must exist where pilot is really not needed. The only big
unknown are countermeasures. You do not have them in chess. Can pilot be better in making
some decisions in the present of countermeasure than computer? I doubt it.
Now the question is who is better in this game? Russians or Americans? It all comes down
to money. How many good mathematicians, computer programmers and physicists I can employ? In
USSR at secret sites like Arzamas-16 they had departments where 1000 or so PhDs in math
(many, many women) worked. In Yeltsin times and probably before they mostly drank tea and
coffee, organized birthday celebrations and send designated ones to stand in lines to do
shopping. And it all fell apart. But in the US DARPA and Aerospace R&D continued w/o a
break. So I would not hesitate to bet on Americans that they have significantly better
systems. Another question is about spying. Jews are not as numerous as they were in R&D
and no longer enamored with the Soviet Union, so it is more likely that India and China has
know more about it and obviously Israel but through more official channels. But the fact that
F-22 was not donated to Israel yet may suggest that there are still some boundaries within
American MIC that are off limits even to our beloved Jews.
Yes, the Gripen is a good and cheap alternative, but it's not the best available in the
western ecosystem. The F-35 would probably destroy an equal number of Gripens, though
that's not saying much, considering the price differential.
You don't ask for the "best", you ask for the right system.
Unless you need a stealth strike fighter (and don't mind Lockheed's involvement), the F-35
does not have to be the right one.
In Hungary's case, it is more important to have enough jets for air patrol duty.
Can pilot be better in making some decisions in the present of countermeasure than
computer? I doubt it.
I doubt it. It's open ended, and the number of variations practically infinite. The
computer can do most things way better than a human, but then could succumb to stupidity in
some unknown situation, like the Tesla charging at full speed into the firetruck. Is the
Tesla autopilot better than a well trained professional human, like a rally race driver? I
don't think so, especially in unexpected (for the computer) situations, where the human would
just do the easy and sensible thing, but not the computer.
Anyway, the US warplanes are still flown by human pilots. Of course, most things which
could be automated are automated, and the logical conclusion is fully autonomous drones
flying without much input from their handlers in underground bunkers.
Jews are not as numerous as they were in R&D and no longer enamored with the Soviet
Union, so it is more likely that India and China has know more about it and obviously
Israel but through more official channels.
Do you think that one of the things Israel pays Putin for being so friendly to him is US
military tech? They did sell Russia some drones back in the Medvedev days, but nothing more
recent can be found. But I'd be surprised if Putin didn't think about it. I also think it's
not above Netanyahu to sell Russia American secrets. They gave such secrets to the USSR, and
they also helped China more recently. I'm sure that if there's anything going on, the MSM
wouldn't be reporting much on it. They also rarely wrote about the extent of the Israel-South
Africa arms trade, and things only got worse recently.
"The RAND Corporation disagreed and projected one Su-35 lost for each 2.4 F-35s."
I believe that study was conducted under the assumption of within visual range, which
artificially presented a situation where the F-35 was at a disadvantage from the get go. In a
real world situation, the Su-35 would probably be shot down before it knew what hit it,
especially considering that American pilots tend to be among the best in the world.
"F-22 production capped at 187 units, and none were exported to other countries (despite
persistent requests from Japan)."
That's irrelevant for three reasons:
1) 187 is still a number far greater than the number of Su-57s the Russians wanted to
produce in the near term.
2) the F-22 is often stationed at bases around the world, so the US does not need to sell
the aircraft to anyone to bring it to a theater of combat.
3) the F-22 would dominate any Russian or Chinese aircraft currently fielded; an
appreciable number of F-22s (or any US fourth generation aircraft) along with the F-35 should
be a potent combination. US pilots are also very well trained, easily matching any other
country save perhaps Israel.
"This is what is known as projection. Identifying in others the sins that you yourself are
guilty of."
Please. Extrapolation from a set of known facts and historical precedent is hardly
projection. What you've done is classic deflection.
"Many countries are poor. Others are small or have limited defense budgets. Though I
contend thee aircraft in question are in fact superior to the F-35 which makes this
moot."
The aircraft you quoted are certainly not superior, so the issue is hardly moot.
"Superb kinematic performance enables earlier missile shots, makes it easier to defeat
incoming missile shots, allows for faster transit in and out of combat zones, and gives a
decisive edge in WVR combat."
Kinematic performance doesn't cont for much when you are overwhelmed by aircraft that you
can't shoot back at effectively while they are shooting at you from a distance. Kinematic
performance isn't nothing, but it isn't everything either. The F-35 will have a decisive
advantage over all Russian aircraft fielded now and over the next decade, and any issues with
the design will be made up for by fielding large numbers of them to overwhelm opponents +
combining the aircraft with the F-22 or F-18.
"The F-35 program developed a first-class powerplant and avionics, but then mated then to
an inferior airframe in order to fulfill a commonality fantasy driven by a silly Marine Corps
STOVL requirement."
That's not really the right way to phrase it. "Inferior" in this case only means "less
than what the US could have otherwise done but still quite good compared to most other
aircraft."
Further, the philosophy you quoted will allow the US to field huge numbers of these craft
– thousands – at an affordable price, so I'm not so sure it was a bad idea after
all. That's much better than the SU-57, which is a dumpster fire of a program.
I'm also not sold on the idea that the B model was a bad idea for the Asian theater. In
any conflict, the Chinese will attempt to destroy our bases and landing strips. Having a
larger number of fighters capable of short vertical takeoffs might prove to be quite the
asset in organizing a counter offensive/stationing the craft in various locations that are
hard to hit or detect.
"If your goal is to maximize stealth and only fight BVR engagements, the F-35′s
design is entirely inappropriate. After all, its stealth is in the front area "
That's not correct. The F-35 will have a reduced radar cross section across much of the
craft compared with any other non-stealth aircraft. Nearly the entire surface is covered in
radar absorbent material and the engine itself is designed to reflect away radar waves. It
also has IR reduction measures.
"Small number of missiles."
Made up for by building 2000+ F-35s. How many SU-57s is Russia making?
"Optimizing exclusively for BVR combat would entail a large tailless aircraft (perhaps a
flying wing) with all-aspect stealth, large internal volumes of missiles, and far more
powerful radar."
No, it wouldn't. Something doesn't have to be theoretically perfect for it to work quite
well in the real world. The F-35 will perform BVR combat much better than any non-American
aircraft.
"Flying wing."
1. We already have that. It's called the B2 and we are also working on a flying wing
stealth drone that does exactly that already: shoot a barrage of missiles at BVR in
coordination with the F-35.
2. Wrong. Just wrong. There are huge disadvantages to your flying wing idea. Stability and
maneuverability being just two, so they wouldn't be much use in visual range combat or in a
variety of other missions for which the F-35 was designed; the F-35 is a multi-role fighter.
It will do BVR just fine.
"The F-35′s design is based on political and economic considerations, not military
ones."
The military design of the F-35 is pretty good. You're trying to cover this up by pointing
out an irrelevant fact – that there were economic considerations when building the
craft which applies to every military project ever conceived.
You don't need to convince me. You'll need to convince Russian kleptocrats, who've been
sending their kids to live in the West since 1991, and who have kept their (stolen) money in
the West.
And reiner Tor , you are a funny guy, liking these militant comments from dfordoom,
but getting your panties in a bunch, when I suggest occupying the Ukraine. I wonder why?
The fact is asserting dominance in Eastern Europe will be a lot easier for Russia to
accomplish, than confronting USA directly, and it is something I would probably do before I
started threatening New York and London with nuclear devastation. You gotta make your threats
credible you know. Credibility doesn't come from making scary faces and shouting loudly, it's
earned.
Your Croatian neighbors are still operating Mig-21 and will get second-hand
((((F-16)))).
And your Austrian neighbors are unhappy with their Eurofighters.
Gripens are better than alternatives and nothing.
No, I don't. In fact, I think the American Deep State is nuts. I have great respect for
Russians and their military. I am simply pointing out facts: the F-35 isn't the chump some
think it is; do not believe any random internet poster when he says this thing won't work.
I've seen enough to know that it will and that you should be afraid of what it can do in
large numbers.
As I said earlier, the Russians should just dump all Hollywood movies and video games onto
a server and call it MegaUpload 2. Hurt an industry most Trump voters despise anyway and you
might be able to turn republicans against their warmongering representatives in congress who
are pushing for sanctions, etc.
Actually, it means "pure fool," "reines Tor" would be "pure gate" (not door), and it comes
from the Wagner opera Parsifal, where the protagonist is a pure fool, enlightened by
compassion. I'd probably choose a funnier handle today, but ultimately it doesn't matter.
This point of false dichotomy is very important. Everything at this point, points to the
fact that there was no nerve agent employed against the Skripals and that they were simply
knocked out by some chloroform like substance. The fact that they survived, and recovered
without any problems, is irrefutable proof of this.
Therefore a false dichotomy is employed in order to, we can say mentally sodomise people
into believing that the only option is that the Kremlin did it.
I see people stating in comments sections in British newspapers that the official story is
bullshit but that they simply can't believe that their own government would disperse CWs
throughout their country, however this is a mute point as it has been disproven that CWs were
used at all and that the obvious conclusion is that they were simply drugged and held against
their will while their oh so benevolent government spun an endlessly shifting fairytale,
growing ever more convoluted and self contradictory by the day.
Even if both NATO and the EU collapsed, and a war broke out with one or some of our
neighbors, neither Austria nor Croatia would be likely enemies. Of our NATO allies, both
Romania and Slovakia were more likely enemies. I hope it won't happen, because both are
seriously stronger than us.
The F-16 is no longer in production (though maybe a restart is planned?), but most
operators are happy enough with it.
Here, locally, I find it interesting that the commenter "Sean" got sodomized himself or is
just trying to sodomize us. There is one recurring almost below the radar theme in his
comments: war with Iran and the opportunity of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians it will
bring. He might be right about it though I still hope this will be prevented while he seems
to be welcoming it. And for some reason he seems to need Putin dead or compromised for this
scenario to happen.
Public opinion in Russia is a lot like this actually. It seems that state-tv interrupted
its anti-Western programming during World Cup, which caused approval of both US and EU to
spike into positive territory for the first time since 2014.
Somebody SHOULD investigate: Michael McFaul, Samantha Power, Robert Mueller, Peter
Strzok, George Soros, William Browder, Hillary Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, Christopher
Steele, John Podesta, Barack Obama, and John Brennan.
Congress has done a SHlTTY Job of it. Perhaps Vladimir Putin SHOULD be allowed to
publicly question these traitors, in the USA.
And reiner Tor, you are a funny guy, liking these militant comments from dfordoom, but
getting your panties in a bunch, when I suggest occupying the Ukraine. I wonder why?
I don't fear it much, it'd simply be a stupid policy. I also don't like ethnic cleansing
and mass deportations and the like. Which would be a requirement if you were to occupy
Ukraine.
The predictable result would be a state of emergency in Central Europe and a strong
mobilization against Russia. Military expenditures would quickly rise to 5% of GDP in Central
Europe, but it'd rise around Europe.
But actually some kind of military action in Ukraine as a direct response to American
sanctions might make sense. Just don't expect Ukrainians or neighboring peoples to greet you
with flowers. So you might bomb some military targets recently installed by the
Americans.
But before that, you'd need to make the anti-sanctions law. Actually, you'd need to make
it pretty strong. Until you cannot even do that, you shouldn't even fantasize about
conquest.
There are several steps you could take before starting an actual war of conquest. Which
you wouldn't even be able to finish.
AK: In the future, please unite your multiple low effort one-sentence posts into one. Since
they aren't very high quality, fill up valuable screen real estate, and splicing them
together takes too much time on my part, I will otherwise have to just start deleting them.
Captain Albert Ball, VC, DSO & Two Bars, MC (14 August 1896 – 7 May 1917) was an
English fighter pilot during the First World War. At the time of his death he was the United
Kingdom's leading flying ace, with 44 victories.
These sanctions are complex, well thought out, most probably not by Goyim.
Now We can see that Scripal affair was definitely false flag.
These sanctions are obviously not a punishment.
..
These sanctions are telling Mother Russia to get on her knees, or die.
.
These are not really sanctions. This is Ultimatum.
.
Everybody should understand that.
Putin cannot be read like a book, but we can be confident that he is capable of deceiving
even his closest confidants, for he got his current job by completely fooling Yeltsin .
There's no reason to believe he'd be any more likely to launch than Yeltsin.
All other things being equal, but Yeltsin was never framed for murder by the West even
once, so he never had Russian forces on red alert; never had the safety catches off
. Yet in the Black Brant scare Yeltsin actually activated the nuclear keys , something
that never happened even in the Cuban Missile crisis. In circumstances where there was
already a hair trigger because of some misunderstanding and Yeltsin had a too much of a
hangover to think clearly and recognize bad advice, he might well have launched. Putin would
never knowingly launch first, but the opening of move of a nuclear first strike would
be a high altitude air burst to blind the victim's radar so waiting for the first nuclear
detonation would not be an option.
If he and his country had been framed for murder twice in a row, Putin would take the some
of the safeties off of the Russian nuclear deterrent because it was not working at the normal
settings. All it would then take is someone, possibly at a low level, to get careless and we
are in the danger zone. The Russians do not think America is likely to attack them out of the
blue, but they do not rule out the possibility (Reagan said that was what most surprised him
about the Soviet leadership once he came to know them).
Wealthy Russians put their money in offshore British accounts, you seriously think anyone
in their right mind would do that if the British Deep State was capable of deliberately
framing Russia for assassinations. Dirty money from all over the world comes to offshore
British accounts because Britain has the rule of law and the ill gotten gains are safe. It
simply would not pay Britain to behave like a banana republic in the way you are suggesting.
What you are suggesting is like MI5 & 6 stealing the gold out of the Bank of England,
except it would be more plausible because there would be something in it for them. South
Korean had the death penalty for capital flight. Putin is less crude, he is using the British
sanctions against his circle (and you must be associated with circle to get rich in Russia)
to force dodgy Russians and their money to stay put .
Putin's long term objective is to nullify foreign influences, which boils down to Western
soft power and money. The Russian and Western elite were growing together before he started
the high profile assassinations, now the divergence is gaining a momentum of its own. The
more the West retaliates the better Putin likes it, hence arrest of Maria Butina and the
heavy boots of the bots are grist to Putin's mill, the more amateurish the espionage against
the West, the better. That is why the
OPSEC–oblivious GRU suit his purpose so much
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/06/the-gru-the-russian-intelligence-agency-behind-the-headlines
"The GRU regards itself as a war-fighting instrument. Yes, it gathers conventional
intelligence but its culture is much more military," said Mark Galeotti, an expert on
Russian security issues and the country's intelligence agencies. "Although only a minority
of GRU officers are Spetsnaz, it has an impact when part of your service are
commandos."
Putin sacked the vast majority of the old GRU; the new commander Sergun was low
ranking (although he was to be promoted to Colonel General after he designed the Donbass
uprising) and was keen on contacts with the US, but died mysteriously in 2016, and the ones
left know better than to ask questions about the ultimate purpose or ulterior motive of
goading the US. Anyway, Putins's objectives in all this are not to get away with anything, he
wants the bad public relations, he wants the West to reject Russia and all its works,
all the better to keep Russian away from Western influence. I just think the idea of the West
deliberately pushing a proud nuclear armed power into confusion such as Andropov was in
during Able Archer would be foolhardy beyond belief.
Brilliant. And I like how you are able to weave in your almost non-existent knowledge of
Latin too! This definitely proves that your IQ is in the 99* range. Like I say, you're
showing real progress each and every day. Soon, I suspect that readers of this blog will be
giving you 'agreements' each and every time you write something here, like your buddy
Janissary !
On the other hand, the more such crises there will be between nuclear armed states, the
more likely that one of those will result in a nuclear war. Humans (or machines, for that
matter) will inevitably miscalculate once in a while, and those might result in one side
believing it's about to be obliterated, so that it can "use it or lose it." All kinds of
stupid (or seemingly stupid) factors might get into this, like sleep deprivation, extreme
stress, fear of shame or loss of face, etc. People have committed murder-suicide under all
kinds of circumstances, starting a nuclear war as an act of final desperation is certainly
not out of the realm of possibilities.
So while nuclear weapons greatly diminish the likelihood of a world war, it certainly
doesn't make it impossible, and, on a long enough timeline, its likelihood will approach
1.
Their armies are certainly much stronger, in terms of artillery or armored forces for
example. Their air forces are not, but with the very low number of planes, it wouldn't be
decisive anyway. And they're both in the process of buying F-16s, unless I'm mistaken. I
think once these are over, the Slovakian Air Force will be roughly as strong as the Hungarian
one, or somewhat stronger, while the Romanian will be multiple times stronger.
The Slovak military is somewhat smaller on paper (in terms of troop numbers) than the
Hungarian, but even that might be just a paper advantage. At least Slovakia is a smaller
country (roughly half the size of Hungary), but Romania is vastly bigger, and its military is
even larger than would be proportional.
Anyway, I don't think any Hungarian government would have the appetite to wage war against
either of these.
This is probably the consequence of Trump's blunder in grovelling in front of Putin (and the
world's TV cameras!). He now has to inflict a defeat on Putin so unequivocal that even
Putin's American supporters cannot hype it into a victory. I don't see EU Member States
raising any objection to further sanctions. Quite the contrary, in fact. The EU is the
principal victim of Putin's actions and is therefore the principal beneficiary of sanctions.
Don't forget that the fight with Putin began over an attempt by him to prevent Ukraine
signing an association agreement with the EU. The idea that the EU Member States are just
dying to resume trade with Russia is a US internet myth (like so much else about Europe!).
OK the GRU did not use deadly nerve gas on the traitor Skripal because he survived, but by
the same token the GRU did not use knockout gas in the Dubrovka Theater because they killed
hundreds of innocent Russian hostages. At least we can agree GRU did use flamethrowers and
heavy machine guns in the Beslan school, because they shot and burned hundreds of Ossetian
children to death.
This is probably the consequence of Trump's blunder in grovelling in front of Putin (and
the world's TV cameras!). He now has to inflict a defeat on Putin so unequivocal that even
Putin's American supporters cannot hype it into a victory.
Look I know you are another dim witted Ukrainian pretending to be an Anglo Saxon, but even
for you this logic is beyond ridiculous.
President Trump has not dismissed the idea that Russian investigators meet with, and
question, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul. President Trump has said that
Vladimir Putin tendered him an "incredible offer": that, in exchange for letting Robert
Mueller's team question the twelve indicted Russian intelligence officers thought to have
participated in the cyber-meddling in the 2016 election, Russian counterparts would get the
chance to question McFaul, the U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama years. Rather than
dismiss this idea out of hand, Trump, according to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is "going to work
with his team, and we'll let you know if there's an announcement on this front."
At a summit in Helsinki, Finland, with President Trump, Putin floated the idea of inviting
U.S. special counsel investigators to Russia for the questioning of a dozen Russian
intelligence officials indicted last week as part of the special counsel's inquiry into
Kremlin interference in the 2016 election. In return, Putin wanted Russian authorities to be
allowed to interrogate a roughly equal number of Americans, including McFaul, for supposed
illicit activities. At Monday's post-summit news conference with Putin at his side, Trump --
sounding intrigued rather than indignant -- called that an "incredible" offer.
What is the problem with a joint investigation of Michael McFALL, on American Soil.
I have no idea what is going on in Putin's mind, but I can see what he is doing and if he
wants closer relations with the West, his way of showing it seems odd. Do I need to read
Dostoevsky to understand Putin?
But before that, you'd need to make the anti-sanctions law. Actually, you'd need to make
it pretty strong. Until you cannot even do that, you shouldn't even fantasize about
conquest.
There are several steps you could take before starting an actual war of conquest. Which
you wouldn't even be able to finish.
But the sanctions are happening anyway. We'll need an anti-sanctions law regardless of
whether or not we are going to invade. Actually, as an economist, I don't think we need a
law. What we need is to make sure that the vital sectors of the economy do not rely on US
financial system, by converting oil trade into non-dollar currencies for example.
Eastern Europeans will never mobilise. What would mass mobilisation even look like in a
country like Hungary? Instead, they'll petition USA to station more of its troops in Eastern
Europe. A lot more, like hundreds of thousands more. Doing so will impose costs on the USA.
Actually, this is one of the few ways Russia could impose tangible costs on USA: by stoking
tensions in Eastern Europe.
And if USA suddenly grows a brain and declines to play along, Eastern NATO members will
begin re-orienting their foreign relations towards appeasement of Russia instead. That's what
weak people do.
I also don't like ethnic cleansing and mass deportations and the like. Which would be a
requirement if you were to occupy Ukraine.
Mass deportations is the best part about occupying the Ukraine! I would drive Galicia
population into Poland and other neighboring countries. There would be millions of refugees.
This by itself will seriously destabilise NATO's "Eastern flank". There could be Russian
agents among the refugees, allowing us to seamlessly move from the invasion of the Ukraine to
a campaign of hybrid warfare against Eastern NATO members.
NATO will react to invasion of the Ukraine by positioning to support an insurgency in the
Western part of the country. Instead they would have to contend with an insurgency in Eastern
Poland – wouldn't that be fun?
Probably better than trying to understand things by reading comic books (Hollywood movies
are the same), which is pretty much what the US establishment uses for their thinking.
for he got his current job by completely fooling Yeltsin "
Doesn't that apply to Obama? Will that not apply to future presidents? Doesn't it apply to
the sitting US senators and congress ? Doesn't this "fooling" apply every time US senators
and congress apply more sanction on Iran and justify their earlier "fooling" when they failed
to stop Trump get out of JCPOA?
It does because majority of Americans supported the deal and wanted to keep the deal.
"fooling" is a little more complex in America that it is in Papua NewGuinea . But fooling
it is.
It is like cries against "fake news ' charges leveled against Facebook infowar or
intercept or antiwar or common dreams by WaPo and NYT and FOX/CNN – being bad because
those lead to violences.
The violences perpetrated against Iraq ,Libya, Somalia, and Syria are based on lies and
been made possible by Fake News of CNN NYT . The latest servile and sinsiter attempt by NYT
to start talking of banned CW use by Syrians to kill more Syrians is nothing but 'fooling and
lying" fakery of news what they accuse Putin and Russian bot of but without proof.
Congress did not do their job when the CIA, DOJ & FBI ILLEGALLY:
Surveiled citizens. Investigated the Trump Presidential Campaign. Paid Christopher Steele to fabricate a pack of God Damned Lies. Told the FISA Court a pack of God Damned Lies. Obstructed a congressional investigation, into that pack of God Damned Lies. Fabricated ANOTHER pack of lies about Civil-Wars in Georgia & Ukraine. Fabricated YET ANOTHER pack of lies about the Syrian Civil War & ISIS. Fabricated STILL ANOTHER pack of lies about Russia President Putin.
Don't confuse Ukrainians with Ukies. Ukrainians are humans, with their stronger and weaker
points, like all humans, whereas Ukies are the scum of the Earth.
Trump has to thread a fine line with the Neocons and outright JOO firsters in his cabinet who
HATE Putin and the Russians. Push back against these vermin would be good but he probably
wont do it until after the mid terms, we shall see.
I believe that study was conducted under the assumption of within visual range, which
artificially presented a situation where the F-35 was at a disadvantage from the get go. In
a real world situation, the Su-35 would probably be shot down before it knew what hit it,
especially considering that American pilots tend to be among the best in the world.
The basic assumption is that over the horizon UHF radar (like Australia's Jindalee system)
detects the F-35, allowing Flankers to use their IRST.
Of course some have disputed the study, as well they should. A major problem with IRST is
its very limited field of view, though pairing this with low frequency radar mitigates
that.
In a real world situation the Su-35 would detect the AMRAAMs before impact rather than be
surprised. Whether or not the AMRAAMs destroy the Su-35 would depend on many factors such
as:
• Number of AMRAAMs fired
• Distance from which AMRAAMs are fired
• Quality of Su-35 countermeasures
• Pilot skill (duh)
Should also be pointed out that the Russians are now fielding L-band AESA radars embedded
in wingtips specifically for counter-VLO purposes. See here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html
That's irrelevant for three reasons:
1) 187 is still a number far greater than the number of Su-57s the Russians wanted to
produce in the near term.
2) the F-22 is often stationed at bases around the world, so the US does not need to
sell the aircraft to anyone to bring it to a theater of combat.
3) the F-22 would dominate any Russian or Chinese aircraft currently fielded; an
appreciable number of F-22s (or any US fourth generation aircraft) along with the F-35
should be a potent combination. US pilots are also very well trained, easily matching any
other country save perhaps Israel.
Chengdu J-20 and J-31 units will most certainly not be capped at 187 units. Fifth
generation fighters will almost certainly proliferate beyond China and Russia as well.
No, the US didn't "need" to sell the F-22 to Japan. But the sale would've strengthened
Allied forces in the Pacific theater, kept the F-22 production line open and cut unit costs,
reduced the American trade deficit, and provided jobs and profits to Americans. The F-22
export ban was an own goal.
Kinematic performance doesn't cont for much when you are overwhelmed by aircraft that
you can't shoot back at effectively while they are shooting at you from a distance.
Kinematic performance isn't nothing, but it isn't everything either. The F-35 will have a
decisive advantage over all Russian aircraft fielded now and over the next decade, and any
issues with the design will be made up for by fielding large numbers of them to overwhelm
opponents + combining the aircraft with the F-22 or F-18.
This decisive advantage depends on two assumptions:
• Counter-VLO sensors will not be effective (or fielded in adequate numbers), or at
least won't be enough to vector interceptors (whether aircraft or missiles) to the target
• Kill probability of BVR missile shots has improved by two orders of magnitude since
the last air war against a near peer
Obviously, overwhelming the opponent with numbers is always a war winning strategy. NATO
can thus be expected to prevail in any air war against Russia, though not without a bloody
nose.
That's not really the right way to phrase it. "Inferior" in this case only means "less
than what the US could have otherwise done but still quite good compared to most other
aircraft."
Further, the philosophy you quoted will allow the US to field huge numbers of these
craft – thousands – at an affordable price, so I'm not so sure it was a bad
idea after all. That's much better than the SU-57, which is a dumpster fire of a
program.
I'm also not sold on the idea that the B model was a bad idea for the Asian theater. In
any conflict, the Chinese will attempt to destroy our bases and landing strips. Having a
larger number of fighters capable of short vertical takeoffs might prove to be quite the
asset in organizing a counter offensive/stationing the craft in various locations that are
hard to hit or detect.
The airframe is inferior to what the US could have done otherwise, and is inferior to
contemporary aircraft. This inferiority was not driven by the stealth does requirement and
thus counts as an own goal.
The B model stems from the Marine Corps remember some battle in the Pacific War where Navy
air support didn't show up. Therefore they must have their own fighters, a logic which
strangely wouldn't apply to the Army.
If our doctrine or experience dictates that a STOVL aircraft is desirable, fine. But given
the limitations of STOVL aircraft, it ought to be a separate design.
Dealing with Chinese strikes at Pacific bases is probably better dealt with by buying more
heavy equipment and training more Seabees. You can patch holes pretty quickly.
That's not correct. The F-35 will have a reduced radar cross section across much of the
craft compared with any other non-stealth aircraft. Nearly the entire surface is covered in
radar absorbent material and the engine itself is designed to reflect away radar waves. It
also has IR reduction measures.
Here's a thermal image of an F-35 from a modern IR camera:
No IR reduction in the world is going to disguise 45,000 pounds of thrust from a single
nozzle.
Yes, the F-35 has substantially reduced RCS compared to non-VLO aircraft. News at 11. It
has, however, inferior stealth compared to the F-22 (let alone the YF-23).
RAM is useful, but the largest reductions in RCS come from airframe shaping. F-35 is not
optimized in the lower or aft areas. The original X-35 is quite decent here, but this was
changed for the F-35 in order to increase internal weapons load out. Given the original
intention of employing it as a tactical strike fighter, this wasn't unreasonable.
Made up for by building 2000+ F-35s. How many SU-57s is Russia making?
This originally concerned exports. Any damn fool can tell you that numerical superiority
is very powerful.
No, it wouldn't. Something doesn't have to be theoretically perfect for it to work quite
well in the real world. The F-35 will perform BVR combat much better than any non-American
aircraft.
In a 1v1 engagement with no supporting elements where the rival fighters approach each
other head on, I agree. But this isn't reflective of actual combat.
1. We already have that. It's called the B2 and we are also working on a flying wing
stealth drone that does exactly that already: shoot a barrage of missiles at BVR in
coordination with the F-35.
B-2 is unsuitable for this role owing to the location of its radar:
That said it has been proposed to use the B-1 for this role, which I think is a good
idea.
Drone idea is worth trying, though I'm skeptical of the ability to retain datalinks in an
electromagnetically challenged environment. And drones autonomously launching missiles could
be dubious–but this could be solved by wargaming (if its proven autonomous drones ID
targets better than human pilots, have at it).
2. Wrong. Just wrong. There are huge disadvantages to your flying wing idea. Stability
and maneuverability being just two, so they wouldn't be much use in visual range combat or
in a variety of other missions for which the F-35 was designed; the F-35 is a multi-role
fighter. It will do BVR just fine.
Stability not a concern with fly-by-wire and thrust vectoring (which the B-2 doesn't have
incidentally, yet is a stable bombing platform).
There is incidentally a trade-off between stability and maneuverability, hence why
fighters from the F-16 on have been designed to be inherently unstable.
But in any case you've been pooh poohing maneuverability here, citing the superiority of
BVR combat. If BVR is your goal, then you want a larger missile load, more powerful/sensitive
sensors, and increased stealth. A flying wing eliminates the issue with resonant effects (if
a vertical surface is less than eight times the size of a radar wavelength, it produces a
resonant effect).
The military design of the F-35 is pretty good. You're trying to cover this up by
pointing out an irrelevant fact – that there were economic considerations when
building the craft which applies to every military project ever conceived.
Well I suppose that's true, but whole JSF program would've been better if:
1 – STOVL had been left out
2 – Kinematic performance had been considered important
Have to agree with you: Soros, Browder, MSM owners, Pentagon contractors, and all other
sorts of scum are much bigger threat to the US than Putin, Un, Iranian Ayatollahs, Assad, and
many others. The enemy within is always more dangerous. Especially when that enemy has only
one loyalty: to his/her/its money.
Interesting, a few years ago Algeria had to have Russia redo the electronics in the Su
30′s that it bought because there was some Izraeli electronics in it.
You are forgetting thievery and corruption that provides cover for that thievery. Out of
every dollar spent in the U on "defense", at least 90 cents are stolen, some of the money is
used to buy "patriotic" politicians who pretend not to see the thievery.
No they don't pluck books off shelf . They watch the snippet cribbed from some internet
site on Fox TV /CNN and use it as evidence. That were the sources of evidences they offered
on Syrian using sarin gas.
Last air war between near peers was Vietnam. BVR combat was a total failure.
Radars and missiles have improved a lot since then of course, but so have
countermeasures.
There were BVR kills in Operation Mole Cricket 19 and Desert Storm, but fighting
incompetent Arabalonians doesn't count as near peer. And there were still WVR kills in those
campaigns.
Depending on ROE in a conflict or confused airspace, there will be a need to visually ID
targets on occasion.
The main thing that's changed about dogfighting is that heat seeking missiles can now lock
onto an aircraft from any angle (instead of just behind) and launch from high off boresight.
This makes instantaneous turning performance more importance than sustained turning
performance.
But like I said, if BVR missiles are now truly as miraculous as you think, then the F-35
is an improper design. In fact, so is the F-22 and more or less all other existing fighters.
The idea "fighter" of existing aircraft would be the Airbus A380 launching thousands of
missiles at once
BVR missiles also work just as well from the ground as the air (with some kinematic
disadvantages, and of course can't deal with attackers on the deck). Magical BVR missiles
suggest we should be building a lot more SAM systems.
I bring you the air superiority force of the future:
These senators may or may not be lunatics themselves. This does not change the fact that
they are bought and paid for puppets of lunatics, the US moneyed elites that dangerously
degenerated after 1991. The US used to be a decent country. Not anymore.
There was a joke about Czechoslovakia in the USSR: Czechoslovakia is the most peaceful
country on Earth, it does not interfere even in its own internal affairs. Puppet masters
change (Hitler, USSR, the US), but the policy stands.
i lived in the russian federation for several years (yuzhno sakhalinsk, 2011-2012). i don't
claim to be a russian expert, however, i did not detect any virulent comintern intent amongst
the russians with whom i was privileged to interact. for the most part, they seemed like
everyone else i have come across in my travels on this pitiable orb; they were simply trying
to get by, and were as capitalistic as any crony capitalist in america.
maybe someone with more foreign relations erudition, and experience than i could pen an
expositive on why there exists such animosity betwixt our nations, other than the all to well
known need for a bogeyman so as to facilitate u.s. world hegemony.
for a country which is broke, and which depends upon martial, and venal, intimidation to
achieve/sustain its aims, the impending comeuppance could be very humbling, and decisive.
As Ben Aris notes, the US Treasury Department has been ratcheting back on its sanctions
against Oleg Deripaska and Rusal, after the chaos it has caused in the international metals
market.
Aluminum has a unique market dynamic which other products with more fungible supply chains
don't share. Sanctions are a work in progress. Treasury has learned from the Rusal matter.
Henceforth it can collapse even bigger Russian companies like Gazprom, Rosneft and Lukoil
without much fear of a concomitant contagion. Oil and gas are the ultimate fungible
commodities.
However, as I have pointed out, the ultimate ability of the US to directly punish Russia
is limited; it has twice as many people as Iran, after all, and many times the economic
output
This is delusional. Russia is vastly more exposed than Iran, as it is more tightly wound
up in the western financial structures that the US created and controls. Russia's economic
output, measured in GDP, is the same size as New York City's. It has always been a question
of how far the US was willing to go to punish Russia. There are nuclear options in the US
quiver that can pretty much destroy the Russian economy. But so far the US has been applying
relatively trivial sanctions in the hopes that Russia would reform its conduct (I'm not
making a value judgement). But the perception that Trump has somehow been captured by Russian
intelligence has ratcheted things up.
Trade between Russia and the US is very limited.
It's not a question of trade between Russian and the US. It's a question of trade between
Russia and the world since the US controls the global economy.
Mr Fack , your ukraruina , your jojolistan , is the black hole of Europe , you want to set
Europe on ( atomic ) fire fot the benefit of the usa , and of your corrupted oligarcs .
No real country in Europe respects ukraruina , a very inmoral and stupid pseudocountry .
Ukraruina could have been a golden bridge between the EU and Russia ,and choosed instead to
be a blood trench for the benefit of the oligarcs of the usa . You are a cursed land .
Swarms of missiles? What? With the F-35 capacity of 4 AMRAAM? The ones that haven't been
upgraded, have been unreliable since at least 2016, and would be vulnerable to manuever
anyway? The twenty five plus year old missiles?
Stealth is only stealth to high fidelity radar, as in versus missile locks. That's great,
but low frequency radar will still reveal the location of aircraft for the purpose of general
location. So it's not really a "bolt from blue," which is much more of a ground to air
concept since IR missiles don't telegraph themselves like radar locks do.
Goodness, you are one thick POS.
As I have said before Cyrano is a serious intellectual .you on the other hand are a serious
cretin.
Seeing as it's that part of your menstruation cycle, I thought I would add another proof
of how fake "Ukrainian" history and language is. From a company yet again threatening the
collapse of Ukrainian infrastructure due to an oligarchic dispute:
As you can see the Ukrainian version is a waste of time, when the Russian version exists
..the whole fake language is a fabrication by lowlife scum Banderite tossers who escaped
bestiality charges in the 1940′s/50′s and fled to America/Canada
If Putin wants to retaliate by creating a destabilizing crisis in the USA, he could simply
admit that he has proofs that Trump COLLUDED with Russians operatives to affect the
election.
Trump will be removed and Mike Pence will take over throwing the USA in a deeper crisis.
Is Trump aware of this Damocles sword if he does not stop the Congress for escalating
sanctions?
There are theories, but the mass bueaucracy made some really strange results. In Vietnam,
ROE required visual confirmation of targets to use beyond visual range weapons. Weapons that
homed into flares because they produced "heat."
Well, that worked about as well as could be expected.
Well, no, Austria-Hungary gave an ultimatum: "do these in 48 hours or we'll go to war".
These demands are also unrealistic, but they are just pretext for new sanctions. It is very
unlikely that the US will take any military action against Russia. Russia responding to more
sanctions/economic warfare with attacking the West with nukes is also very unlikely.
It is also very unlikely that the people pulling the strings want WW3 with Russia. They just
found a convenient scapegoat and want to ramp up tensions with Russia not independently of
the game to bring down Trump for "colluding with Russia".
Face it, Russia is bound to lose an economic war, they cannot really retaliate without
hurting themselves. They could close the gas taps, but then they lose a lot of money. They
could close Russian airspace, but then they lose a lot of money too. They could deny Soyuz
seats to American astronauts, but the US has other options (not ready yet but they could get
them ready if really needed) etc. Russia is not a big economic player and never was one.
Regarding the sanctions the question is whether the EU will follow the US, probably yes, EU
companies are going to lose a lot of money, but they would lose much more if they are
punished by the US govt.
The US hawks think that they can bankrupt Russia like they did with the Soviet Union. The
question is how viable is Russian economy if mostly cut from the world economy including
finance and how tolerant will be the Russian people with the hardships. Looking at Iran, if
they could manage then Russia should be able to, but more hardships must be expected. Also
the government may do away with democratic pretensions and go full autocracy in the case of
popular unrest. And of course Russia will be dependent on China more than now. Why is it good
for the US if Russia becomes China's little bitch instead of a strategic ally against Chinese
expansion is another question. Rationally thinking China is the future geopolitical rival of
America and not Russia. But the people pulling the strings want to screw Russia bad, that is
their first goal, obviously, they feel ideologically fueled hatred for Russia beyond
strategic calculations.
Somehow a lot of comments here were deflected into a discussion of F-35 vs other fighters,
including Russian. I am not a technical expert, so I can comment only in general terms.
Overall, the technology in the US is more advanced. However, there is one huge difference
between Russian and American weapons: Russian ones are designed for the battlefield, whereas
American ones are design to maximize manufacturers' profits. To what extent does this
difference cancel technological potential in fighter planes, I don't know.
Why would Russia do that? The US is destroying itself more efficiently than any of its
enemies could ever achieve. Reminds me of a dark joke "if you see your enemy committing
suicide, do not interfere".
As a matter of fact, the USSR was not bankrupted. It was destroyed because the Party
elites wanted to steal a lot more than the Soviet system allowed. They succeeded, now they
are oligarchs, whereas the great majority of the population got screwed.
This is delusional. Russia is vastly more exposed than Iran, as it is more tightly wound
up in the western financial structures that the US created and controls
For now yes, but if forced to, it could leave those structures and survive without them.
Of course it wouldn't be pretty especially the transitional period.
But so far the US has been applying relatively trivial sanctions in the hopes that
Russia would reform its conduct (I'm not making a value judgement).
The idea that Russia would i.e. abandon the Crimea if sanctioned hard enough and such
"hopes" are delusional. A country that still sees itself as a great power and has a lot of
national pride is not going to make such concessions to the US. If Putin looks a wuss to the
Russian people he will fall more quickly than because of any sanctions. But I doubt that
there were even such hopes for real. The aim was always just to ratchet the hostility up with
Russia more and more, until a full blown cold war.
WASHINGTON -- Saying that their investigation indicated her involvement in election interference went deeper than
previously believed, the FBI revealed Thursday that Russian agent Maria Butina traded sex in exchange for all 62,984,828 votes Donald
Trump received for president in 2016. "Our inquiry into Ms. Butina
WASHINGTON -- Suffering yet another unexpected setback during his ongoing investigation into foreign collusion with the Trump
campaign, Special Counsel Robert Mueller scrambled Friday to contain the damage to his documents after spilling an entire Grape Crush
Big Gulp all over his Russia evidence. "No, no, no! No! Aw,
I had just finished exercising and went to the sauna. The gym I go to is a modern facility
with new equipment and is very popular in our city.
My favorite parts are the sauna and the steamer. Both remind me of my old country –
Russia. Though, to be politically and geographically correct – I never lived in Russia: I
was born and raised in one of the fifteen republics of the former USSR – the republic of
Kazakhstan.
So, I am a Russian from Kazakhstan. It's kind of confusing for Americans, and when
twenty-six years ago my American wife brought me here, the customs official gave me an alien
card where my nationality was stated not Russian but Kazakh. My friends make fun of me, because
Russians and Kazakhs are like apples and oranges. We look different
In 1992, when I arrived in America, the relationship between the two cold war rivals was
excellent: Americans traveled to Russia, opening McDonalds, KFC's, Burger Kings, and other
businesses, and Russians were opening not only their hearts but even the secrets of the
overthrown KGB. Millions of Russians and Americans enjoyed such a "romance" between the two
most powerful nuclear countries in the world.
Not anymore! Every morning I wake up to the words, "Russia is terrible," and go to sleep
with the humiliating jokes of the "night-show-clowns" about "the dictator" Putin and "barbaric"
Russians, whose 13 hackers changed the electoral minds of millions of naïve Americans.
Wow! What a powerful "gasoline station country"- Russia, as Senator McCain calls it.
If in 1992 the people in my city who heard my accent were very nice to me and to Russia, now
the usual reaction is to stare at me like a goat at the newly painted gates. One of my
neighbors even yelled at me when I answered his question about my recent trip to Russia. I told
him: "Russians like Putin because he saved their country from collapse. I saw with my own eyes
how Russia has changed since my last trip there. I didn't see the impact of Obama's sanctions,
Russians have better roads, than we have in Colorado; the shops, are filled with all kinds of
products; the churches are restored "
My neighbor who didn't like Trump yelled at me: "If you like Russia go back to your
country!" My answer was: "I love Russia but I am American – like your immigrant wife,
like you. I love America for a lot of reasons, one of them – the right to speak! Nobody
should privatize this right." He ran away, later coming to apologize
My wife, knowing my hard-tempered character asks me not to talk about policy –
Putin-Trump anymore. And I don't, to a certain degree. However, when someone asks me about
Russia or Putin I usually answer, giving my point of view; I just cannot be silent. I was
silent for 40+ years living in the USSR, not anymore! Of course, not everyone likes my answers,
like the man I am going to tell you about.
So, I went into the sauna; a stout man was sitting on the upper bench. He was the same age
as I. Many of the older men in America call ourselves "old farts." The name is not offensive to
us, because we really do not care about our image, and because we like to make jokes about
everything, mostly about ourselves. Usually, we old farts are nice, we love to talk, even in
the sauna. Young people nowadays do not talk. They turn on their phones even in the sauna
– I bet they do not know how to talk with other people. They cover their "secrets" in
towels while we do not – we do not have any secrets anymore.
Anyway, the man said hello to me, I answered, and he caught my slight accent.
"Where are you from?" It's a question I am usually asked.
"From here." I answered.
He was a little confused. I knew what usually followed if I had said – "from
Kazakhstan." Usually, there would be an exchange of this type: "Where is it?" – "Between
Russia and China," – "How do you like it here?" The silly film "Borat" helped me for a
short period of time. People were smiling, as if they met Sasha Cohen, and I was happy that at
least they knew some geography, though the film was silly and the geography in it was
completely mistaken.
"No, I mean originally where are you from?" The guy, let's call him Tony, found the right
question.
I decided not to check his geography skills and said that I came from Russia. The dialog
that followed was remarkable. Here it is.
"Welcome to America! Your English is pretty good!"
"Yours, too." He didn't get my humor. "Just joking," I said, "As for welcoming, it's a
little late: I have lived here for 25 years."
"Have you been in Russia lately?" He asked.
"Yes, I go there every year."
"Wow. So, what do you think about that crazy guy , Pyutin?"
"Sorry, honey," – I apologized to my wife in my thoughts and picked up the gauntlet.
"You mean Putin? He is not crazy. Actually, he is one of the smartest rulers Russia ever had."
I said.
Tony's eyes nearly leaped from their sockets. "But he is a dictator and kills people!"
"I wouldn't call him a dictator – he was just last week elected by nearly 67% of
Russians. I would call him an authoritarian, strong ruler; but a weak ruler in Russia wouldn't
survive a day. Besides, there were seven people opposed him in the election!"
Tony smiled. "You call it an election? He chose the opponents himself from his friends. The
whole world knows that elections in Russia are a sham!"
"Who told you this nonsense, Tony? Did you listen to the debates? Did you hear how these
people yelled at each other and cursed Putin, asking people to vote for them not for Putin.
They really were as tough as Hillary to Donald! And besides, there were a lot of observers from
110 countries. They claimed the election was legitimate."
"No, I do not believe you."
"You may not believe me but I am citing the international organizations reports. You may
check their reports on the Internet yourself. You may even sue these organizations if you
wish."
Tony was silent for a minute, then turned his head to me and asked: "You know that Pyutin is
evil even to his own people?"
"You mean Putin? Who told you? How many Russians share your opinion?"
"McCain."
"Is he Russian?"
"No, but he knows that Pyutin is KGB."
"His name is Putin!" I tried to correct at least this in his mind. "So, you do not believe
me, a Russian, who just returned from Russia, but you believe this Senator, who hates Putin and
Russia? Besides, there are no KGB anymore."
"But he used to be KGB?"
"Yes, and Bush H. was also a CIA agent. So, what? After the collapse of the Soviet Union
there were no people who didn't work for government in that country, we all worked for
government! Putin is good for Russia, he is the brightest politician nowadays. He is like a
great Chess-master, and he is a dangerous player. We must be careful with him. Some Congressmen
are underestimating Russia, calling it "a gasoline station with nukes," but I was there this
summer and saw with my own eyes how much people love Putin, and how much he is doing to make
that country great again."
"Yeh, yeh, yeh " Tony didn't know what to say. Then he recalled something and turned his red
face to me. "Well, he invaded Crimea, and Ukraine!"
"No, he did not. Crimea was a harbor for the Russian navy, and according to the treaty
between Ukraine and Russia there were sixteen thousand Russian troops stationed there on a
permanent base. There were about twenty-three thousand Ukrainian troops there, too. So, when
the thugs in Kiev took power, illegally kicking out president Yanukovych and killing the
political opponents, the Crimean people decided to organize a referendum. Ninety-six percent
decided to reunite with Russia, as they were Russians for nearly 400 years before the Communist
dictator Khrushchev gave that peninsula to Ukraine as a present to his native land."
"But they had no right to secede from the main land of Ukraine!"
"Yes, they did. International law gives the right for self-determination to people.
Remember, we split from the British Empire."
"But it was so long ago!"
"Okay, what about East and West Germany or Kosovo? The people in these countries also
exercised their right of self-determination, but they didn't have any referendum as far as I
know."
Tony looked at me attentively. "I don't believe you."
"You have the right not to believe me. You asked, I answered."
Tony was silent for a while. Then he threw out his last argument. "I hope you wouldn't deny
that Putin killed British citizens recently, using KGB gas!"
Wow, he pronounced "Putin" correctly! I smiled. The nice face of my American wife appeared
in my head again, and she was not happy! I kissed her in my thoughts and finished the
conversation with my last knockout blow:
"I wouldn't deny it if the poisoning by Russians had been proved!"
"But it was proved by Teresa May!"
"Really? What did she say?"
"She said that it was Putin who poisoned the British citizens!"
"Not really, my friend. She said that it was "highly likely" that Russia did it! Besides,
only Mr. Skripal is a British citizen, his daughter is a Russian citizen"
"Does it make any difference?"
"You mean, "highly likely" is proof to punish somebody? What about one of the main pillars
of democracy – innocent until proven guilty?"
"But we believe our allies, not the Russians!"
That statement made me laugh. "You believe not facts but political statements without any
facts? Wow! What kind of democracy is that?"
Tony's face became so red that I was afraid it would melt. He stood up from the bench and
without looking at me firmly said:
"Russians are our enemies, and democracy does not apply to them."
He left, leaving me with a sudden fear of approaching nuclear war.
At night I prayed for peace. I prayed for American and Russian people-in-power who could
easily destroy this fragile planet. If people refuse to understand each other, they fight.
Kennedy and Khrushchev fortunately understood this. Will Putin and Trump understand?
Pavel Kozhevnikov was born in Kazakhstan. In 1992 he married an American woman and
relocated to Colorado, USA, where he worked in a variety of business ventures and taught
various subjects including Russian at Mitchell High School as well as at Pikes Peak Community
College and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Pavel continues to enjoy teaching
Russian at the local community college and university and devotes his free time to writing. He
has published four books of stories and poems as well as numerous articles for newspapers and
journals in Russia, Germany, Kazakhstan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
"... By Sanjay Reddy, Associate Professor of Economics, The New School for Social Research. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
Grappling with the shock of Donald Trump's election victory, most analysts focus on his
appeal to those in the United States who feel left behind, wish to retrieve a lost social
order, and sought to rebuke establishment politicians who do not serve their interests. In this
respect, the recent American revolt echoes the shock of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom,
but it is of far greater significance because it promises to reshape the entire global order,
and the complaisant forms of thought that accompanied it.
Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump.
The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy
that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of mainstream
political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that there was no
alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the iron-handed
enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy.
It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical
events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy
interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over the
last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have reigned
for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.
First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed
corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the
intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. Economics made the case for such
agreements, generally rejecting concerns over labor and environmental standards and giving
short shrift to the effects of globalization in weakening the bargaining power of workers or
altogether displacing them; to the need for compensatory measures to aid those displaced; and
more generally to measures to ensure that the benefits of growth were shared. For the most
part, economists casually waved aside such concerns, both in their theories and in their policy
recommendations, treating these matters as either insignificant or as being in the jurisdiction
of politicians. Still less attention was paid to crafting an alternate form of globalization,
or to identifying bases for national economic policies taking a less passive view of
comparative advantage and instead aiming to create it.
Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock
market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook asset
stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and financialization
produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who serviced them in global
cities, alongside gentrification of those cities, proleterianization and lumpenization of
suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization of employment for the bulk of the middle and
working class.
Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy in
favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on top of
it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten far more.
All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy. Indeed,
it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the efficient-markets
hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through mergers and acquisitions in
the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification of the city through attacks on
rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor markets through the idea that
unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure preferences, etc. The mainstream
political parties, including those historically representing the working and middle classes, in
thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a
share of the promised gains and thus embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to
abandon and to antagonize a large section of their electorate.
Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which,
although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the rise
of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can paradoxically
simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty intellectual case made by
many mainstream economists for central bank independence, inflation targeting, debt
sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation and the superiority of private
provision of services including for health, education and welfare, have helped to support
antagonism to governmental activity. Within this perspective, there is limited room for fiscal
or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct governmental role in service provision, even in
the form of productivity-enhancing investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the
shipwreck of 2008 that has caused some cracks in the edifice.
The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests
attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of the
reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his victory
produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism so much as
replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation without a
theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]
Still, to the extent that Trumpism has any economic policy content it's the idea that a
package of immigration restrictions and corporate tax cuts[1] will make workers better off by
reducing competition from migrants and increasing labor demand from corporations. The second
part of this claim has been pretty thoroughly demolished, so I want to look mainly at the
first. However, as we will see, the corporate tax cuts remain central to the argument.
Still, to the extent that Trumpism has any economic policy content it's the idea that a
package of immigration restrictions and corporate tax cuts[1] will make workers better off
by reducing competition from migrants and increasing labor demand from corporations.
The emergence of Trumpism signifies deepening of the ideological crisis for the
neoliberalism. Neoclassical economics fell like a house of cards. IMHO Trumpism can be viewed
as a kind of "national neoliberalism" which presuppose rejection of three dogmas of "classic
neoliberalism":
1. Rejection of neoliberal globalization including, but not limited to, free movement
of labor. Attempt to protect domestic industries via tariff barriers.
2. Rejection of excessive financialization and primacy of financial oligarchy.
Restoration of the status of manufacturing, and "traditional capitalists" status in
comparison with financial oligarchy.
3. Rejection of austerity. An attempt to fight "secular stagnation" via Military
Keysianism.
Trumpism sent "Chicago school" line of thinking to the dustbin of history. It exposed
neoliberal economists as agents of financial oligarchy and "Enemy of the American People"
(famous Trump phase about neoliberal MSM).
It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical
events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy
interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over
the last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have
reigned for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.
First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed
corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the
intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. ...
Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock
market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook
asset stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and
financialization produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who
serviced them in global cities, alongside gentrification of those cities,
proletarianization and lumpenization of suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization
of employment for the bulk of the middle and working class.
Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy
in favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on
top of it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten
far more.
All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy.
Indeed, it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the
efficient-markets hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through
mergers and acquisitions in the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification
of the city through attacks on rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor
markets through the idea that unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure
preferences, etc. The mainstream political parties, including those historically
representing the working and middle classes, in thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market
fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a share of the promised gains and thus
embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to abandon and to antagonize a large
section of their electorate.
Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which,
although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the
rise of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can
paradoxically simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty
intellectual case made by many mainstream economists for central bank independence,
inflation targeting, debt sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation
and the superiority of private provision of services including for health, education and
welfare, have helped to support antagonism to governmental activity. Within this
perspective, there is limited room for fiscal or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct
governmental role in service provision, even in the form of productivity-enhancing
investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the shipwreck of 2008 that has caused
some cracks in the edifice.
The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests
attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of
the reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his
victory produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism
so much as replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation
without a theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]
Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens'
political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while
indulging in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low
measured unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity
of living in hollowed-out communities.
Mainstream accounts of politics recognized the role of identities in the form of wooden
theories of group mobilization or of demands for representation. However, the psychological
and charismatic elements, which can give rise to moments of 'phase transition' in politics,
were altogether neglected, and the role of social media and other new methods in politics
hardly registered. As new political movements (such as the Tea Party and Trumpism in the
U.S.) emerged across the world, these were deemed 'populist' -- both an admission of the
analysts' lack of explanation, and a token of disdain. The essential feature of such
movements -- the obscurantism that allows them to offer many things to many people,
inconsistently and unaccountably, while serving some interests more than others -- was
little explored. The failures can be piled one upon the other. No amount of quantitative
data provided by polling, 'big data', or other techniques comprehended what might be
captured through open-eyed experiential narratives. It is evident that there is a need for
forms of understanding that can comprehend the currents within the human person, and go
beyond shallow empiricism. Mainstream social science has offered few if any resources to
understand, let alone challenge, illiberal majoritarianism, now a world-remaking
phenomenon.
Trump attacked former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, the man at the center of the Trump dossier scandal, who
had extensive contacts with the Department of Justice's former #4 ranked official, before and after the FBI opened its Trump-Russia
probe in the summer of 2016,
according to new emails
recently turned over to Congressional investigators.
That official, Bruce Ohr, was
demoted twice
after the DOJ's Inspector General discovered that he lied about his involvement with opposition research firm Fusion
GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson - who employed Steele. Ohr's CIA-linked wife, Nellie, was also
employed by Fusion
as part of the firm's anti-Trump efforts, and had ongoing communications with the ex-UK spy, Christopher Steele
as well, suggesting that Steele was much closer to the Obama administration than previously disclosed, and his DOJ contact Bruce
Ohr reported directly to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates - who approved at least one of the FISA warrants to surveil Trump campaign
aide Carter Page.
"The big story that the Fake News Media refuses to report is lowlife Christopher Steele's many meetings with Deputy A.G. Bruce
Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly. It was Fusion GPS that hired Steele to write the phony & discredited Dossier, paid for by Crooked
Hillary & the DNC.... " Trump tweeted.
"...Do you believe Nelly worked for Fusion and her husband STILL WORKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF "JUSTICE." I have never seen anything
so Rigged in my life. Our A.G. is scared stiff and Missing in Action. It is all starting to be revealed - not pretty. IG Report soon?
Witch Hunt!"
Trump's latest broadside on Steel and Ohr was likely prompted by speculation that the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee is preparping subpoenas for people connected to the controversial Steele dossier. As The Hill
reported earlier
this week
, Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is said to be preparing subpoenas for Bruce Ohr, his wife Nellie Ohr and Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson.
By escalating his all too public demands on AG Sessions, Trump is risking further scrutiny by Robert Mueller, who is
already
poring over Trump's tweets
to solidify his Obstruction of justice case, while inviting a whole new set of contradictory statements
by his newest attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who most recently said that Trump would be willing to sit down with Mueller if two specifics
topics are not discussed:
Why Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.
What Trump said to Comey about the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Of course, by continuing his periodic twitter attacks on Sessions, Trump makes it prohibitively difficult for Mueller to agree
to those terms. Tags
Multiline Utilities - NEC
It's hard to say what's really going on behind the scenes but you'd think at some point soon that a huge and undeniable truth-bomb
is revealed.
Here's a sick thought...is Session's position as Trump's AG the "insurance policy" (((they))) had in place?
If Session's isn't part of Trump's plan then he'll be gone soon enough. If Trump endlessly tolerates Session's inactivity and
merely berates him periodically (just for optics) then we'll know Sessions is clandestinely working behind the scenes (w/HUBER)
and this movie starts to finally get interesting.
Obama, Hillary & Co. will pay for their attempted/failed treason. But will Session's be the AG that see's it through?
He's just trying to mess with your head and make you confused. That's what he does.
"Hit it from every angle. Open multiple fronts on your enemy. He must be confused, and feel besieged on every side."- Roger
Stone's Rules (the guy who got trump elected.)
What you don't realize is WE the people are his "enemy" in that tactic above. It's gaslighting.
Here's another Stone rule
"Always praise 'em before you hit 'em."
"Politics isn't theater. It's performance art. Sometimes, for its own sake."
"Unless you can fake sincerity, you'll get nowhere in this business"
MetaMussolini Our golfing warthog president has picked a cabinet of semi-human dirty people who are intellectually corrupt gangsters. Trump makes worse the sorrows of the middle class.
This confirms what we've been hearing on the alt news. Sessions isn't doing his job and the criminals will get a pass. Mr.
Sessions, you may not agree with the President and may feel you're acting honorably but that's a problem. You were put there to
round up the criminals (your former esteemed colleagues) and didn't follow through on your duties. Step aside and let someone
step up who isn't timid and let's git 'er done. Of course, that's assuming any of this was real to begin with and I have serious
doubts.
I think it goes a lot deeper than Hillary, Obama, or any intel agencies. All the way up to the globalist western oligarchs who
are scared shitless of losing control and allowing a populist movement to fuck up their racketts.
Orders come down the pike from
the oligarchs through the politicans [ who's campaigns cannot be funded without the oligarchs, and who nod is needed to be accepted
by either of the two parties ] and their appointed intelligentce agents, down through the media, through the special interest groups
to the idiot at home watching CNN.
If Session's isn't part of Trump's plan then he'll be gone soon enough. If Trump endlessly tolerates Session's inactivity
and merely berates him periodically (just for optics) then we'll know Sessions is clandestinely working behind the scenes (w/HUBER)
and this movie starts to finally get interesting.
Do you think that there are a lot of public servants in Washington DC
who practice rule of law, hold themselves to higher ideals, are
interested in promoting and spreading liberty? Tell me about them.
Most Reps are just talking heads, that's all they do, appear before
cameras looking like they are accomplishing shit. Same with Sessions,
except now he's in a appointed position, where there's actual things
to be accomplished besides finding the next donor to sell out to. But
it's not called the swamp for nothing. These law abiding freedom
loving so called conservatives we've been voting for are a joke, no
significant gains, only slightly less aggressive rate of
deterioration into a bigger state. And Session fits into that club
nicely. The conservative club is the joke. I'm merely pointing it
out. I'd like to be wrong, but I see no evidence of it. We're way
past the tipping point, too many of us are in on the take, in one way
or another, to go back, and by design.
Amen! I heard a sound clip of Sessions giving a speech on XM 125 a few
days ago. The man can barely talk and when he does talk he sounds like a
moron. A real life Forest Gump. He sounds retarded. Bad choice on the
part of Trump.
ADF: Alliance Defending Freedom and is made of Christians. Because of
that it is a hate group. The fucking commies will never stop. This PC
crap that everything is hate speech and everything is racist is
nonsense. I'm sick of it, quite frankly. Want to be racist? Go ahead.
Want to say something hateful or stupid? Go ahead. Let the leftists
freak out. I have had enough of their caterwauling!
This is awesome: "lowlife Christopher Steele's many meetings with Deputy A.G.
Bruce Ohr and his beautiful wife, Nelly." If you have seen pics of Nelly,
well, she isn't beautiful. Her being married to Ohr is weird. Beyond weird.
These two things do not go together!
Thats interesting because waldman inserted himself with assange and did
nine visits..the purpuse of that was to establish a mythical Russian
bridge to Assange that would be used against him by Mueller who was
exposed workin on Oleg Matter with the FBI . Oleg powed 25 M of own
money..and never got his visa. Chris steele was working to Get Oleg his
visa..Walman represented steele assange and Oleg...
He completed his
mission..on assange then sold him down the river turning the immunity
deal over to Warner...
Knowing full well Warner Comey and deepstate would trash it.
Warner is King of the Snakes..Adam was just doing what was best for
his mafioso boss Olegs business. Oleg and FBI are joined at the hip.
Sessions was the insurance. He screened everyone during the transition
including halper, who was then pushed aggressively by Navarro... Its ironic
that when paige , the patsy, went to the Cambridge meeting paid by Halpers
connection.. Paige took it cuz no body wanted to go so he volunteered.. the
guest speakers were Madelinne Albright of the Atlantic Council and Vin Weber
disgraced congressman whose PR firm was scrutinized by Mueller.
Albright went to emphasize what a threat Trump and the populist movement
was and how important it was to get on the transition team. No telling how
many others Sessions let thru. Make no mistake.. he will be implicated in
this. Trump knows what a betrayal this really was.
"... By Sanjay Reddy, Associate Professor of Economics, The New School for Social Research. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens' political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while indulging in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low measured unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity of living in hollowed-out communities. ..."
"... Welcome to the "New World Economic Order;" which looks suspiciously like Dickensian Predatory Capitalism. ..."
"... Just one caveat: Neoliberalism is not really market-fetishism, unless fetishism is understood as fake devotion. Neoliberalism is a State ideology of the economy, its central tenet being that the State must directly help the rich, the poor will be better off as a by-product. ..."
"... The Academy are direct and indirect employees of the State. The Ivy League are direct and indirect employees of plutocrats (thru the university endowment). The State officials are plutocrats or more commonly indirect employees of the plutocrats. What is not to like? How can the Academy be reformed, when it has been oligarchic since Plato (an oligarch) invented it the first Rand Corporation ..."
"... Steve Keen said similarly in Forbes – that once you offshore an industry it is too expensive to reinstall, and that some old factory for making furnaces cannot be retooled to make textiles, etc. even tho' you might have a comparative advantage for doing textiles – sounds like corporate raiding and big time looting more and more because once you devastate an industry you really cannot do anything economically with those facilities and those workers. ..."
"... Another factor in maintaining manufacturing in the USA is what is referred to as furthering the "next bench syndrome". This is where one is made aware of a manufacturing problem to solve due to proximity to the factory floor, and the solution leads to new profitiable products that can be used both inside/outside the original factory. ..."
"... Financialization leads to asset bubbles and deindustrialization. It hollows out industries. When money/credit are created in ever increasing quantity, the makeup of how we "work" shifts from goods producing to "finance". ..."
"... Get ready for real kleptocracy. Breitbart obscurantism + Trump/Bannon misdirection = turkeys vote for thanksgiving. ..."
"... TINA was definitely an ideology – an idea backed by interest. They were making fun of Thatcherism last nite on France 24 because it had been so devastating and now one of the candidates in France is talking her old trash again. ..."
"... "The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed at the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying taxes on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were trying to cut wages to be internationally competitive." ..."
Grappling with the shock of Donald Trump's election victory, most analysts focus on his
appeal to those in the United States who feel left behind, wish to retrieve a lost social
order, and sought to rebuke establishment politicians who do not serve their interests. In this
respect, the recent American revolt echoes the shock of the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom,
but it is of far greater significance because it promises to reshape the entire global order,
and the complaisant forms of thought that accompanied it.
Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump.
The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy
that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of mainstream
political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that there was no
alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the iron-handed
enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy.
It is never clear whether ideas or interests are the prime mover in shaping historical
events, but only ideas and interests together can sustain a ruling consensus for a lengthy
interval, such as the historic period of financialization and globalization running over the
last 35 years. The role of economics in furnishing the now-rebuked narratives that have reigned
for decades in mainstream political parties can be seen in three areas.
First, there is globalization as we knew it. Mainstream economics championed
corporate-friendly trade and investment agreements to increase prosperity, and provided the
intellectual framework for multilateral trade agreements. Economics made the case for such
agreements, generally rejecting concerns over labor and environmental standards and giving
short shrift to the effects of globalization in weakening the bargaining power of workers or
altogether displacing them; to the need for compensatory measures to aid those displaced; and
more generally to measures to ensure that the benefits of growth were shared. For the most
part, economists casually waved aside such concerns, both in their theories and in their policy
recommendations, treating these matters as either insignificant or as being in the jurisdiction
of politicians. Still less attention was paid to crafting an alternate form of globalization,
or to identifying bases for national economic policies taking a less passive view of
comparative advantage and instead aiming to create it.
Second, there is financialization, which led to increasing disconnection between stock
market performance and the real economy, with large rewards going to firms that undertook asset
stripping, outsourcing, and offshoring. The combination of globalization and financialization
produced a new plutocratic class of owners, managers and those who serviced them in global
cities, alongside gentrification of those cities, proleterianization and lumpenization of
suburbs, and growing insecurity and casualization of employment for the bulk of the middle and
working class.
Financialization also led to the near-abandonment of the 'national' industrial economy in
favor of global sourcing and sales, and a handsome financial rentier economy built on top of
it. Meanwhile, automation trends led to shedding of jobs everywhere, and threaten far more.
All of this was hardly noticed by the discipline charged with studying the economy. Indeed,
it actively provided rationales for financialization, in the form of the efficient-markets
hypothesis and related ideas; for concentration of capital through mergers and acquisitions in
the form of contestable-markets theory; for the gentrification of the city through attacks on
rent control and other urban policies; for remaking of labor markets through the idea that
unemployment was primarily a reflection of voluntary leisure preferences, etc. The mainstream
political parties, including those historically representing the working and middle classes, in
thrall to the 'scientific' sheen of market fetishism, gambled that they could redistribute a
share of the promised gains and thus embraced policies the effect of which was ultimately to
abandon and to antagonize a large section of their electorate.
Third, there is the push for austerity, a recurrent trope of the 'neoliberal' era which,
although not favored by all, has played an important role in creating conditions for the rise
of popular movements demanding a more expansionary fiscal stance (though they can paradoxically
simultaneously disdain taxation, as with Trumpism). The often faulty intellectual case made by
many mainstream economists for central bank independence, inflation targeting, debt
sustainability thresholds, the distortive character of taxation and the superiority of private
provision of services including for health, education and welfare, have helped to support
antagonism to governmental activity. Within this perspective, there is limited room for fiscal
or even monetary stimulus, or for any direct governmental role in service provision, even in
the form of productivity-enhancing investments. It is only the failure fully to overcome the
shipwreck of 2008 that has caused some cracks in the edifice.
The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization. The system depended not merely on actors having the specific interests
attributed to them, but in believing in the theory that said that they did. [This is one of the
reasons that Trumpism has generated confusion among economic actors, even as his victory
produced an early bout of stock-market euphoria. It does not rebuke neoliberalism so much as
replace it with its own heretical version, bastard neoliberalism, an orientation without a
theory, whose tale has yet to be written.]
Finally, interpretations of politics were too restrictive, conceptualizing citizens'
political choices as based on instrumental and usually economic calculations, while indulging
in a wishful account of their actual conditions -- for instance, focusing on low measured
unemployment, but ignoring measures of distress and insecurity, or the indignity of living in
hollowed-out communities.
Mainstream accounts of politics recognized the role of identities in the form of wooden
theories of group mobilization or of demands for representation. However, the psychological and
charismatic elements, which can give rise to moments of 'phase transition' in politics, were
altogether neglected, and the role of social media and other new methods in politics hardly
registered. As new political movements (such as the Tea Party and Trumpism in the U.S.) emerged
across the world, these were deemed 'populist' -- both an admission of the analysts' lack of
explanation, and a token of disdain. The essential feature of such movements -- the
obscurantism that allows them to offer many things to many people, inconsistently and
unaccountably, while serving some interests more than others -- was little explored. The
failures can be piled one upon the other. No amount of quantitative data provided by polling,
'big data', or other techniques comprehended what might be captured through open-eyed
experiential narratives. It is evident that there is a need for forms of understanding that can
comprehend the currents within the human person, and go beyond shallow empiricism. Mainstream
social science has offered few if any resources to understand, let alone challenge, illiberal
majoritarianism, now a world-remaking phenomenon.
Trumpism is a crisis for the most prestigious methods of understanding economic and social
life, ennobled and enthroned by the metropolitan academy of the last third of a century. It has
caused mainstream 'social science' to fall like a house of cards. It can only save itself
through comprehensive reinvention, from the ground up.
You are onto something here. I always wondered if the suppression of wages would lead to a
decline in the population of people even willing to learn a task due to a perceived lack of
incentive to make the effort. This would work alongside a seldom mentioned fact; the limits
to the supply of appropriately skilled "foreigners" to perform a task.
The resultant mix must
be generating an industry of active recruiters in foreign lands for in demand, for less,
skill sets. I would lay money on the bet that eventually, things will reach the point where
criminal activities make more sense than the miserable jobs on offer.
"I always wondered if the suppression of wages would lead to a decline in the population
of people even willing to learn a task due to a perceived lack of incentive to make the
effort."
Just from what I've seen & heard I'm pretty sure that's already happened with CNC
machinists, and it's happening with CDLs, and starting to happen with CNAs.
"I'm pretty sure that's happened with CNC machinists."
One of my neighbours is a CNC machinist. He is presently working "free lance" because the
company he was associated with was bought by a Taiwanese concern and all the skilled labour,
previously in house, was out sourced. After a couple of years of near disasterous
"production," the company re-shored the more technical work, but as sub contract labour.
Now
Jack receives regularly spaced "jobs" from the company to do what was previously done in
house. Naturally, now Jack and his fellow "free tradesmen" have to supply all the incidental
work involved, such as quarterly taxes, insurance if any, self supplied "workers comp," of a
sort, and most importantly, the actual machinery to do the work. Even a used CNC machine is a
pretty big investment for an individual.
Jack's CNC machine is almost as big as a Volkswagen
Beetle. Jack was "lucky" insofar as he was already trained to do this work. Others needs rely
on the support of small businesses in this "Engineering Trade," or go into debt to learn the
process at a technical college. Then, as Jack has remarked, there is no set schedule nor
guaranteed contract. The ultimate "craps shoot."
Welcome to the "New World Economic Order;" which looks suspiciously like Dickensian Predatory
Capitalism.
Sounds like a classic supply/demand curve: the lower the price, the lower the supply and
the greater the demand. As many have noted – perhaps higher wages would increase the
number of job applicants.
However, skilled workers aren't widgets – they need to be trained. Companies don't
want to invest in training, and students don't want to take out all those student loans
without some assurance that there'll be a job which pays enough to pay off the loans and
still have enough left over to put food on the table and have a roof over their heads. Thus,
it takes time to bring more skilled workers on-line, and by then, the demand may have
evaporated.
Public schools investing in training workers would help – but that would mean
raising taxes to pay for them – and Grover would get angry.
I think some states are seeing a shortage of teachers because of the way they've demonized
the teaching profession and cut wages for the last fifteen years.
That was front page on the Wall St Journal Europe a couple days ago – a jaw-drop
moment. The voice of business effectively calling for a larger pool of voiceless dirt-cheap
laborers to dismantle the social contract. Clearly the management class has no fear of
suffering consequences, like maybe even higher crime rates (their native victims not the
illegals the perps), dystopic civics, encapsulation, culture = branding. are those
undocumented roofers in code with that left over sealing? you bet! management has got them by
the cajones.
Important to note there's quite a lot of Europeans who stay illegally in the US by
entering on the visa waiver program as tourists and simply overstaying. Irish and Eastern
Europeans especially. If you're in the Northeast it's common to see Irishmen working
maintenance jobs at buildings here, or as bartenders or other cash jobs – 90% are going
to be out of status. But this issue gets almost zero media attention.
Citizen registration (cr) would effectively end illegal immigration in the US. Once you
get past the immigration control at the airport you are in. access to relevant services is
possible without having to prove citizenship/legality. It is insane and/or perversely clever
that illegals can get drivers licenses, ss#s, use dumps, open bank accounts, receive water
and electrical services, even pay taxes without having to out themselves.
The only barrier is
at the border and Trump is gonna make it really big! hahaha.
To receive any municipal service, including registering to vote, it should be necessary to be
registered at city hall, anytime you change address you have to renew your registration,
standard practice in eur social democracies.
The thing to do is try to push the actual numbers of people trying to immigrate here down,
by ceasing to ruin their home countries. No one's ever even tried that.
You are on the right path Tim.
Any of you notice this shift in economic possibilities from Russia?
Excerpt:
The Stolypin Group
The third group represented was the one most Western observers ridiculed and dismissed,
with the US Pentagon-linked Stratfor referring to them as a "strange collective." I have
personally met and talked with them and they are hardly strange to anyone with a clear moral
mind.
This is the group which after two months has emerged with the mandate from Vladimir Putin
to lay out their plans to boost growth again in Russia.
The group is in essence followers of what the great almost-forgotten 19th Century German
economist, Friedrich List, would call "national economy" strategies. List's national economy
historical-based approach was in direct counter-position to the then-dominant British Adam
Smith free trade school.
Can we find some common ground in this demographic driven trade problem?
De`tante (Steady State) trade, lack of traditional "growth" yet more abundance and sanity?
Can we defeat demographic trends with a better monetary system? There is plenty of need, is
that not unfulfilled demand?
We see massive malinvestment and over capacity right now, so some common sense like List
and George sounds good to me.
I thought it's not possible to get a driver's license without a green card or US
citizenship since they changed the laws after 9/11. If this is true, one cannot get a SS No.,
open a bank a/c etc. Mexicans and others who cross the border w/o papers are unable to open a
bank a/c and therefore pay big fees to Amex for money orders.
Not all states adopted the OpenID law which requires this, and the federal government cannot impose it since it imposes a
financial cost on the states without compensating benefit. There are federal punishments for not adopting it, but states are
fighting it.
In my state you need legal presence docs and proof of residence in the state, at least a
student visa for example, to get a drivers license. And then the info is checked against the
federal govt Save request.
I think the post office and drug stores sell money orders without id? Certainly without
perm res status.
I think bank accounts can be opened at least at some banks with a foreign passport and
maybe an itin number.
I'm told by my father that in Berkely Springs, West Virginia, men can get haircuts for as
little as $1.75. Perhaps these are eastern European barbers? More likely it is simply a
product of the crushing desperation we see in our broken economy. But hey, unemployment is
under 5% so everything's fine, right? The dismal science indeed.
Just one caveat: Neoliberalism is not really market-fetishism, unless fetishism is
understood as fake devotion. Neoliberalism is a State ideology of the economy, its central
tenet being that the State must directly help the rich, the poor will be better off as a
by-product.
So if the push of the populace is strong enough, a new State ideology of the economy (aka
mainstream economic dogma) would develop around the concepts of Self-suficiency (as opposed
to Globalization), Industrialism (as opposed to Financialization), and Stimulus (as opposed
to Austerity). Probably MMT has something to say about the latter, but what about
Self-sufficiency and Industrialism?
its central tenet being that the State must directly help the rich, the poor will be
better off as a by-product. Ruben
Yes, government-subsidized* private credit creation being a (the?) prime example of
this.
*e.g. forcing the poorer to lend (a deposit is legally a loan) to banks to lower the
borrowing costs of the more so-called creditworthy, the richer, or else be limited to dealing
with unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, cash.
The Academy are direct and indirect employees of the State. The Ivy League are direct and
indirect employees of plutocrats (thru the university endowment). The State officials are
plutocrats or more commonly indirect employees of the plutocrats. What is not to like? How
can the Academy be reformed, when it has been oligarchic since Plato (an oligarch) invented
it the first Rand Corporation
Tell me where you want to go and I'll provide the selective facts and the subjective
interpretation of those facts to reach the desired conclusions = Economists
-- - or merely arbitrarily change the cell definitions in excel as Harvard economists
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.
As early as 1967 Greenspan was well known as an academic whore and a Rockefeller Puppet
which now is a vast army of dial up opinions.
"Ideas played an important role in creating the conditions that produced Brexit and Trump.
The 'social sciences' -- especially economics -- legitimated a set of ideas about the economy
that were aggressively peddled and became the conventional wisdom in the policies of
mainstream political parties, to the extent that the central theme of the age came to be that
there was no alternative. The victory of these ideas in politics in turn strengthened the
iron-handed enforcers of the same ideas in academic orthodoxy."
Yesterday I posted a link from Krugman saying that manufacturing CANNOT be restored in the
US.
Not that laws, rules, trade agreements make it difficult, but that something akin to the
"arrow of time" or entropy prevents it – " that there was no alternative." Which is why
I so vehemently disagree with the man. 1st, economics is not a physical science. 2nd, the
loss of manufacturing in this country is due to man made conventions. Men made the rules, men
can unmake the rules.
Just like prohibition was thought to be a good idea, but with the passage of time, it was
revealed that whatever benefits arise of not drinking, it is more than offset by the
setbacks.
I used to believe in "free trade" – but a thing called reality whacked me upside the
head and disabused me of the notion. Whether GDP is going up fast enough or not, there is
overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of GDP is not distributed to the 90% of the
members of society.
Like a lot of things, we did the experiment – it doesn't work, but a few who gain
advantage by that state of affairs want it to continue. The emperor has been exposed as
having no clothes, and once you see the nakedness, you can't unsee it.
of course you could institute that all manufacturng used 1960s technology – or maybe
even 1860s, that would generate even more jobs.
short of doing that, todays higly automated factory will use about tenth of blue collar
workforce than in 1960s with the same productivity but creating much more complex
products.
I've seen reshoring happen (into compartively high labour cost country) and it created a
thousand jobs or so. the previus offshoring costed close to five or six thousands iirc.
I doubt that you'd wish for the US workers to have 10k or less annual salary –
because that is what the Chinese get (10k is about the average salary for a worker at one of
the plants making Apple gadgets, and that involves almost continuous overtime. IIRC, the
hourly rate is something like $1.80. Oh, and there's no health or social insurance).
I suggest you investigate why the UK was the birthplace of industrial revolution and the
Continent wasn't (hint – the UK labour costs were order(s) of magnitude higher than say
in France or Germany. It just didn't make sense to invest in up-front expensive capital goods
when you could get reams of very cheap labour instead).
And, in fact, the QE and ZIRP made it even worse, because before that you'd to cost the
capital at much more than labour, while now you can get money for literally nothing (assuming
you want to use it for something, like capital goods). At the same time, the companies run
locally optimal, but globally bad strategy of holding on the money, failing to recognise that
for people to spend, they have to earn first. The supply economic mantra "if you make it
cheap enough, someone will buy" fails to recognise that shopping basket of most people is
very much skewed towards food, energy and housing, leaving limited buffer for other goods
– so the "cheap enough" may have to be "free" or "near free" in the environment of
falling real wages.
But I'd be happy for you to provide examples of re-shored operations where the number of
jobs created were the same (assuming the same quality of jobs) or comparable to the number of
jobs lost by offshoring before.
I don't have US numbers, but I can give you UK ones. In 1970s, UK car manufacturing
industry employed about 500k people. That number has been steadily dropping and today it's
about 140k total between all manufacturers (you may see some sources use number as high as
750k – but that generally includes anyone who has anything to do with cars, like car
salesmen, garage staff etc. – not just car manufacturers. I don't have a reliable
comparable number for 1970, so use manufacturers only).
In 1970, UK manufactured about 2m cars, in 2014 it was about 1.6m. The loss of 400k is
almost entirely covered by the loss of commercial vehicles capacity – personal cars are
at the same level.
So, the UK car industry lost about 70% of its jobs, but only 20% of its output. And the
cars it manufactures today are mostly driveable unlike say Austin Allegro.
The situation is not that much different elsewhere. Yves run an article on Trump making US
coal "great again" – and the conclusion was the same – it will never employ the
same number of people at the same salaries.
I work in the electronics industry and had a minor observation point for some of the
outsourcing of electronics manufacturing from the USA to, primarily, Asia, starting in the
late 1980's. At first USA employees were told not to worry as only excess capacity would be built
overseas. But, that was proven to be an optimistic(?) statement, as even the managers making these
statements also disappeared.
If one looks at the value of raw electronic "ingredients" produced in Asia, for example,
Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs), one can see how much capacity has been built up overseas.
Here are some numbers pulled from report I have access to:
For 2015, 26.5 billion dollars of PCB's were produced in China.
Taiwan and South Korea produce 7.8Billion and 7.3billion respectively.
Even high priced Japan produces 5.36 billion dollars of PCB's
The North American number is 2.846 billion.
China + Japan + Taiwan + South Korea +Other Asia = .51.94 billion vs 2.8 billion in North
America.
So Asia produces 18.55 x as much dollar volume of PCBs than North America (Canada +
USA)
In my simple minded labor model, when a country allows very free migration of capital
overseas, importation of foreign workers by migration or temporary visas and outsourcing of
labor by computer networks to overseas workers, it seems implausible one would argue that USA
wages would not tend lower in response.
But we have Obama and numerous economists, pushing the Free Trade mantra, via TPP, as good
for American workers.
And a further factor is the US military and State Department strive to make it safer for
American businesses to function anywhere in the world, lowering business risk while pitching
increased national security to the USA population (who bears the military cost).
It will be difficult to bring American manufacturing back, especially when the alleged
high paying white collar college jobs are pushed as the solution to USA wage stagnation.
Steve Keen said similarly in Forbes – that once you offshore an industry it is too
expensive to reinstall, and that some old factory for making furnaces cannot be retooled to
make textiles, etc. even tho' you might have a comparative advantage for doing textiles
– sounds like corporate raiding and big time looting more and more because once you
devastate an industry you really cannot do anything economically with those facilities and
those workers.
Which explains why after clever men like Mitt Romney finish with your
corporation's takeover nobody dashes in to re-up something new. Like pulling a tree out by
its roots and then expecting it to grow into some kinda shrub.
Well I like Steve Keen but he and PK are finally on the same page, where neither knows not
what the f he is talking about.
A lot of "offshoring" of the steel industry happened as the US plants themselves were
passing the "invest or wind down" point in their life. Since the US labor force was
considered intractable and foreign governments had much newer facilities the TPTB in steel
just punted on US manufacturing.
I am going to try to find a link, but there was a lot of
debate between the union and US Steel (? one of them? ) about building a continuous caster
plant in the 70's. Foreign companies had them, we didn't. I think they didn't, but the point
is the, all other things being equal, any plants of any type of manufacturing go
thru the same technological vs ageing cycle, and the US is as likely to gain "back" -- quotes
because like continuous casting, it's steelmaking but not the same as before -- an industry
as it is to have lost it in the first place. Factories like to be located where they make
sense.
And what is all this about "well they don't need anybody in manufacturing, it's all gonna
be machines now". Yeah, right. Been on a manufacturing floor lately? People have yet to be
born that are going to be working in something called "manufacturing". And if the machines
cut the work need by 10x, we may well need 10x as much stuff as long as it is the
right stuff.
Well, if we had universal heathcare and Germanic trade education, but that would require
elections not between carrot-heads and Queen Wannabes.
Because they have a skilled trade education track, and manufacturing is a respected
occupation that one can raise a family doing. Because of the high-skill labor base, Germany
can make high-margin products that the rest of the world wants to import.
From very early, all German kids are encouraged to build things and take things apart, and
they are given this opportunity even in urban areas at special "building playgrounds" that
have hammers, nails, and wood. How is a poor American kid in a housing project going to do
this? He's not, and even if he does have a clue what to do with a tool someone hands him on
the job, he won't have the deep fundamental background to use it well without a long period
of training and screwups -- the kind of period he would have already gotten through while
growing up.
American small businesses that require skilled technicians are desperate for them. We
literally cannot grow our businesses because of labor constraints.
Since I am not an economist nor a historian probably I should restrain myself, but if you
look at the history of labor relations in Germany you might notice that Bismark, not exactly
a bleeding heart, believed that it was in the nation's interest to have a healthy, well-fed,
well-educated populace. They not only made better workers, they made better soldiers. Then
from the 1890s onward Socialism was much better regarded in Germany than it ever has been in
the U.S. I speculate that there is a desire for fairness that has deeper roots in German
culture than in American culture -- which is not particularly homogenous anyway.
Nobody wants to hear this, but manufacturing profit margins, according to Bruce Greenwald
of Columbia Business School, are plummeting around the world. Globalization has hit its peak
without our recognizing the fact and without our help. Fifty years from now, most of the
things we buy will be made within fifty miles of our homes. In twenty years, we won't be
admiring the German system.
I used to respect Krugman during Bush II presidency. His columns at this time looked like
on target for me. No more.
Now I view him as yet another despicable neoliberal shill. I stopped reading his columns
long ago and kind of always suspect his views as insincere and unscientific. In this
particular case the key question is about maintaining the standard of living which can be
done only if manufacturing even in robotic variant is onshored and profits from it
re-distributed in New Deal fashion. Technology is just a tool. There can be exception for it
but generally attempts to produce everything outside the US and then sell it in the USA lead
to proliferation of McJobs and lower standard of living. Creating robotic factories in the
USA might not completely reverse the damage, but might be a step in the right direction. The
nations can't exist by just flipping hamburgers for each other.
Actually there is a term that explains well behavior of people like Krugman and it has
certain predictive value as for the set of behaviors we observe from them. It is called
Lysenkoism and it is about political control of science.
Yves in her book also touched this theme of political control of science. It might be a
good time to reread it. The key ideas of "ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined
Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism " are still current.
Another factor in maintaining manufacturing in the USA is what is referred to as
furthering the "next bench syndrome". This is where one is made aware of a manufacturing problem to solve due to proximity to
the factory floor, and the solution leads to new profitiable products that can be used both
inside/outside the original factory.
This might be an improved process or an improvement in manufacturing tooling that had not
been anticipated before.
New products will be created with their profits/knowledge flowing to the country hosting
the manufacturing plants.
The USA seems to be on a path of "we can create dollars and buy anything we want from
people anywhere in the world".
Manufacturing dollars and credit rather than real goods might prove very short sighted if
dollars are no longer prized.
Perhaps the TPP, with its ISDS provisions, indicates that powerful people understand this
is coming and want additional wealth extraction methods from foreign countries.
The author mentions globalization and financialization. But what seems to be always left
out (and given a pass) in these discussions is the role of central banks and monetary
policy.
Central banking policy (always creating more money/credit) lies at the nexus of almost all
that is wrong with modern capitalism and is the lubricant and fuel that enables
financialization's endless growth.
Financialization leads to asset bubbles and deindustrialization. It hollows out
industries. When money/credit are created in ever increasing quantity, the makeup of how we
"work" shifts from goods producing to "finance".
Then through globalization, what we lack in goods, foreigners who accept our paper, seem
to provide. At least for now. In a closed system, financialization has its natural limits.
But enabled by cross-border trade, it metastasizes.
In the short run, it appears to be a virtuous circle. We print paper. They make real
stuff. They take our paper. We take their stuff. We feel very clever.
But over time, wealth inequality grows. Industries are hollowed out. The banking sector
dominates.
And then we get a populist uprising because people realize "something is wrong".
But mistakenly, they think it's globalization. Or free trade. Or capitalism. When all
along, it's just central banking. Central banks are the problem. Central bankers are the
culprits.
Yes, insofar as they create fiat for the private sector since that is obviously violation
of equal protection under the law in favor of the banks and the rich.
Otoh, all citizens, their businesses, etc. should be allowed to deal directly in their
nation's fiat in the form of account balances at the central bank or equivalent and not be
limited to unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, a.k.a. cash.
Central banks are part of the problem, but not because any of the things you say. Abandon
monetarism, is just wrong, on everything.
CB's do not control the rates effectively during the upturns (they are just procyclical as
they add to savings though higher rates).
CB's "creating money" would mean loanable funds theory is right, but as it has been
demonstrated over and over it's horribly wrong. Banks suffice themselves to expand credit on
upturns, and CB'ers can do nothing about it. On downturns they cna try, and fail, because the
appetite for credit is just not there. Credit expansion and contraction is endogenous and
apart of of what CB's do, not to speak about all the forms of shadow money which are the real
outliers and trouble makers.
What CB's do, in practice, is to prevent capitalism from collapsing on crisis, making "bad
money" good, by stabilising asset prices. All their tools are reactive, not pro-active, so
they cannot create any condition, because they react to conditions. They neither set the
rates in reality, nor "create money" that enters the real economy in any meaningful way.
The religion of "central bankism" is part of the problem, but as it is the religion of
"monetarism" (which are the same) on which many of those ideas are based.
Banks suffice themselves to expand credit on upturns, and CB'ers can do nothing about
it IDG
Yes, "loans create deposits" but only largely virtual liabilities wrt to the non-bank
private sector. We should fix that by allowing the non-bank private sector to deal with
reserves too then it would be much more dangerous for banks to create liabilities since bank
runs would be as easy and convenient as writing a check to one's cb account or equivalent. Of
course, government provided deposit insurance could then be abolished too since accounts at
the cb or equivalent are inherently risk-free.
Our system is a dangerous mess because of privileges for depository institutions –
completely unnecessary privileges given modern computers and communications.
Get ready for real kleptocracy. Breitbart obscurantism + Trump/Bannon misdirection = turkeys vote for thanksgiving.
Sessions views on race at Justice = curtailed civil rights.
Wilbur Ross pension stripping = privatize Social Security.
DeVos at education = privatize the golden egg of public education.
85% tax credit for private infrastructure spending = fire sale of the public square (only
rich need apply).
3~4 Military generals in the cabinet = enforcement threat for crypto-fascist state.
McGahn at counsel + Pompeo at CIA = Koch Bros.
Ryan at speaker = privatize Medicare
Welcome to government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, for the billionaires.
btw, if Giuliani is appointed to a cabinet post, he will have to explain his foreknowledge
of the NY FBI→Kallstrom→Comey connection→to Congress under oath (if they
aren't too afraid to ask).
I worry along with you, but again: When somebody Ms DeVos opens her mouth people just
naturally recoil. Trump doesn't seem to have grasped the only thing that mattered in his
election – you want your enemies to suck. His appointees are people that suck. Hillary
would have appointed smooth-talkers who could effortlessly move between "private and public"
positions.
PS: Paul Ryan is a good counterexample – people fall for his BS because he isn't
quite a stupid as, say Guiliani. Of course he was elected, not picked by Trump.
mr reddy solves the riddle of the Great Refusal but doesn't far enough: certainly
mainstream economists were wrong to act as cheerleaders for the kleptocracy, yet they were
also complicit in a material sense by furnishing all the necessary algorithms to boost the
derivatives industry into the realm of corporate cyber-theft. that genie isn't going back
into bottle. what's in store for us then? economic apartheid. just read what the new team has
been saying about walls, guns, police, military and terrorism. the bannon plan is for heavily
policed gated communities monopolizing vital resources; high surveillance, rights abatement
zones for the proletariat; and a free-fire wilderness of lumpen gangsters, gun-toting
vigilantes, survivalist cults, etc. competing for subsistence. mad max, only run by people
worse than mel gibson. close to what we already have but once legislated into existence
impossible to reverse without a violent revolution. once again mr. reddy is correct: hobbes'
leviathan is the negation of social science.
hmmmm .. Trump said quite a few contradictory things during his campaign and it would seem
an error to believe anything a candidate says on either side of an issue. Have the Koch
brothers (who are involved w/Trump) been particularly unhappy with the numerous billions
they've accumulated under Obama? I expect this regime to be more along the 'different
globalization' side (more a shuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic). Manufacturing will
be back in relation to the degree – penalties are eliminated on 'repatriated' funds,
land is eminent domained on behalf of oligarchs, private profit is granted primacy over
pollution, then build their factories with public money and abolish the minimum wage.
Austerity will continue but the new con will be private/public partnerships. Don't you want
to buy you friend/family member/neighbor a job? Don't you?
The elite, including the Trump's, are going to continue their actions until they've taken
it all.
Since you mention land you might be interested in the idea of land value taxation a way to
take the land back from the oligarchs an idea that has been around for a long time
assiduously ignored by folks like Naked Capitalism.
Mr. Fitzgerald, if you search in NC for "land value taxation" you will see many articles,
especially from Mr. Hudson. NC has thoroughly covered a lot of territory regarding this
topic.
Yes you could probably catch us restlessly muttering "Henry George" in our sleep half the
time.
The problem is it's a really, really hard sell. It just sounds funny. Pittsburgh actually
had it until a few years ago when it was "discovered" and before there was even a discussion
the Democratic mayor and City Council who should have known better had rescinded it before
anybody got a chance to say anything.
" during 2001 after years of underassessment, and the system was abandoned in favor of the
traditional single-rate property tax. The tax on land in Pittsburgh was about 5.77 times the
tax on improvements."
To be good Russian plants, we do actually need to know things about Amerika
Anyway, here's the problem: people just voted for a billionaire how you gonna get this
type of taxation approved given the Pittsburgh example?
It seems to be forgotten that this was a vote against Clinton and not a vote for Trump. If
Trump goes back on his progressive platform, jobs jobs jobs there will be a backlash so fast
that it will give everyone, especially the billionaires whiplash. Let them touch one hair on
Social Security's head or privatize Medicare, there will be another big surprise in the
mid-term elections. When the good people of the rust belt find out about the plans to put
rentier tolls on all that public infrastructure, trust me the pitchforks will come out from
their corners quick as you blink The best laid plans of billionaires and their lackeys often
go awry. The curtain has been lifted. If Trump thinks he can satisfy the working class by
giving another huge tax break to the .01%, he better think again. They do not have enough
rubber bullets nor pepper spray.
Nah, as long as Trump keeps blaming folks of color, he's got a good six years. You
overestimate the people of Flyover. Yes, they got hosed by Obama, but they've been electing
Republicans to flog them for 30 years.
It's a hard sell for good reason. Many Americans are land rich and cash poor. The idea
that they'd have to sell property to pay such a tax offends even the simplest conception of
sound land planning. If a lot more property came on the market at once, as it would have to
under the land tax scheme, we'd be Japan all over again.
Taxes should be unavoidable to avoid violating equal protection under the law and land
taxes are certainly unavoidable in that land can't be hidden as income, for example, can
be.
Another unavoidable tax, except for the existence of physical fiat* (notes and coins),
would be a tax on fiat, i.e. negative interest.
*Yet these can be taxed when bought and sold to the central bank with/for "reserves"**
**Just another name for fiat account balances at the central bank when the account owners are
depository institutions.
The goal should be to reduce injustice – preferably at its source. And the source of
much injustice is surely government privileges for private credit creation and other welfare
for the rich such as positive interest paying sovereign debt.
Still, there's previous injustice to deal with so asset redistribution should be on the
table too and that could include taxing the rich to give to the poor – certainly not to
run a surplus (or even a balanced budget) as you say.
Mainstream analysts don't want to recognize the real problem. They failed the people have
lost their legitimacy to govern.
Not saying Trump is the solution (I'm hoping for a solution from the left and think that
Trump could enable his cronies, but nothing else), but the Establishment is unworthy to
govern.
A solution that most people would consider being from the left but which is the radical
center (taking valid ideas from both left and right) is land value taxation the wedge issue
to tax the various sources of unearned income (estimated at 40+% of GNP however you determine
it) thus allowing for the elimination of taxation of earned income from wages and profit from
the investment of real capital in the real economy. Taxing community created land value and
making the distinction between earned and unearned income has been assiduously ignored and
avoided by mainstream economists, most of our vaunted/sainted public intellectuals and
sources like naked capitalism but since all of that has failed there is nothing to lose by
considering what this author, Sanjay Reddy, says is necessary: "It [social science] can only
save itself through comprehensive reinvention, from the ground up." I suggest that the this
has already been done literally from the ground up by the analysis that has been around for a
very long time that takes land, how its value is created, who owns it and what happen when
you tax its value into account. Happy day.
We finally made it to the post-modern wasteland. It is pretty weird to see the post-modern
methods used by social scientists for decades to dissect culture actually manifest in
practiced culture.
TINA was definitely an ideology – an idea backed by interest. They were making fun
of Thatcherism last nite on France 24 because it had been so devastating and now one of the
candidates in France is talking her old trash again. Humor is effective against ideology when
all else fails but it takes a while. But as defined above, we actually do have an alternative
– our current alternative is "illiberal majoritarianism". Sounds a tad negative. We
should just use the word "democracy".
"The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed
at the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying
taxes on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were
trying to cut wages to be internationally competitive."
The landowners wanted to increase their profit by charging a higher price for corn, but
this posed a barrier to international free trade in making UK wage labour uncompetitive by
raising the cost of living for workers.
In a free trade world the cost of living needs to be the same in West and East as this
sets the wage levels.
The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally
uncompetitive with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.
These costs all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the
high minimum wage.
US labour can never compete with Eastern labour and will have to be protected by
tariffs.
Free trade has requirements and you must meet them before you can engage in free
trade.
The cost of living needs to be the same in West and East.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that all assets in the West were equally owned by its
citizens? Then wouldn't free trade with the East be a universal blessing for the citizens of
the West and not a curse for some (actually many) of them?
So the problem is unjust asset distribution? But how could that occur if our economic
system is just? Except it isn't just since government subsidies for private credit creation
are obviously unjust in that the poor are forced to lend (a deposit is legally a loan) to
banks for the benefit of the rich.
A technical note, to avoid possible confusion: "corn" in British means wheat and other
small grains – a "corn" is a kernel. Maize was not a big factor in Britain; too far
north.
There are two certainties in life – death and taxes.
There are two certainties about new versions of capitalism; they work well for a couple of
decades before failing miserably.
Capitalism mark 1 – Unfettered Capitalism
Crashed and burned in 1929 with a global recession in the 1930s.
The New Deal and Keynesian ideas promised a bright new world.
Capitalism mark 2 – Keynesian Capitalism
Ended with stagflation in the 1970s.
Market led Capitalism ideas promised a bright new world.
Capitalism mark 3 – Unfettered Capitalism – Part 2 (Market led Capitalism)
Crashed and burned in 2008 with a global recession in the 2010s.
We are missing the vital ingredient.
When the first version of capitalism failed, Keynes was ready with a new version.
When the second version of capitalism failed, Milton Freidman was waiting in the wings
with his new version of capitalism.
Elites will always flounder around trying to stick with what they know, it takes someone
with creativity and imagination to show the new way when the old way has failed.
Today we are missing that person with creativity and imagination to lead us out of the
wilderness and
stagnation we have been experiencing since 2008.
1) The work of the Classical Economists and the distinction between "earned" and
"unearned" income, also "land" and "capital" need to be separated again (conflated in
neoclassical economics)
Reading Michael Hudson's "Killing the Host" is a very good start
2) How money and debt really work. Money's creation and destruction on bank balance
sheets.
3) The work of Irving Fisher, Hyman Minsky and Steve Keen on debt inflated asset
bubbles
>The Euro was designed with today's defective economics.
Man I didn't think of that. What comically lousy timing. I do like this post because it
similar to sigh, ok it asserts my belief but still don't think I'm in an echo chamber here, I
actually want people to know what I think so they can reinforce the good and whittle out the
bad anyway, asserts my belief that "economics" isn't a science but when used in the best way
is a toolkit, here we need an hammer (austerity), here we need a screwdriver (some tweaking).
It isn't one tool for all jobs for all time.
American's are brainwashed from birth about capitalism and Milton Freidman may have been
as susceptible as the next man.
He may not have realised he was building on a base that had already been corrupted, the
core of neoclassical economics.
The neoclassical economists of the late 19th century buried the difference between
"earned" and "unearned" income.
These economists also conflated "land" and "capital" to cause further problems that were
clear to the Classical Economists looking out on a world of small state, raw capitalism.
Thorstein Veblen wrote an essay in 1898 "Why is economics not an evolutionary
science?".
Real sciences are evolutionary and old theory is replaced as new theory comes along and
proves the old ideas wrong.
Economics needs a scientific, evolutionary rebuild from the work of the classical
economists.
Most of the UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the "unearned" income from a
BTL portfolio, extracting the "earned" income of generation rent.
The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off "unearned" income and doing
nothing productive.
This is what happens when stuff goes missing from economics.
Keynes realised wage income was just as important as profit.
Wage income looks after the demand side of the equation and profit the supply side.
I think we will find he was right, this knowledge has just gone missing at the moment.
Keynes studied the Great Depression and noted monetary stimulus lead to a "liquidity
trap".
Businesses and investors will not invest without the demand there to ensure their investment
will be worthwhile.
The money gets horded by investors and on company balance sheets as they won't invest.
Cutting wages to increase profit just makes the demand side of the equation worse and leads
you into debt deflation.
Central Banks today talk about the "savings glut" not realising this is probably Keynes's
"liquidity trap".
It's more missing stuff.
When Keynes was involved in Bretton Woods after the Second World War they put in
mechanisms for recycling the surplus, to keep the whole thing running.
The assumption today is that capitalism will just reach stable equilibriums by itself.
The Euro is based on this idea, but Greece has just reached max. debt and collapsed, it
never did reach that stable equilibrium.
Recycling the surplus would probably have worked better.
I disagree that we don't have a ready to go replacement. MMT. We just have TPTB throwing
$$$ around to make sure no one hears about it, much less does anything.
I believe that our way out of this morass is to start by buying locally. There are always
people who make things and they need to be supported. We may not get the cheap products, but
we can build our communities up gradually over time. Our standard of living will be different
but we will have our dignity and the means for creating prosperous communities.
I have been a member of a localist group here in AZ. Said group does a great job of
appealing to people from across the political spectrum. And that is a good example to
follow.
"I believe that our way out of this morass is to start by buying locally."
I very much like the localist movement, and I try very hard to support it in upstate NY,
among other places. The problem with this approach is that there are simply way too many
people for us to painlessly revert back to an artisanal, agrarian 18th c. lifestyle.
To put this in Empire State terms: we might just be able to accommodate hundreds of
thousands of people who used to work for Kodak, I.B.M, or Xerox upstate– in new jobs
making craft beer or high-quality string instruments, etc. Yet what do we do with the many
millions of people, who live downstate, who currently work in jobs very dependent on a
globalized economy?
We've seen a few economists posting lately to say that all social sciences got it wrong,
and especially economics. What's curious to me is that non of the examples given apply to any
social science except economics.
Is this the same discipline that refuses to acknowledge the value of other disciplines and
cross-discipline research, ducking for cover behind the very disciplines it's been
snobbing?
'All social sciences' indeed.
The election was less about trump gaining voters in the rust belt than Clinton losing
hers. Romney lost with exactly as many votes as trump got because 6 million that voted for
black Obama preferred to stay home rather than vote for white Clinton.
All the dems need to do is to run a candidate willing to spend quality time in the swing
states, somebody not totally corrupt and not verbally advocating confrontation with Russia
would also be a big help, though this already rules out most dem elites.
Of course if trump manages to get a lot of infra built, and gets a lot of decent jobs, his
support in 2020 will grow, maybe to the point only a strong progressive could beat him.
But today's dem elites will fight tooth and nail to keep real progressives from controlling
the party, as instructed by their corp overlords remember, bankers might go to jail if the
wrong person gets AG. First indication is Keith on dec 1 can/will big o keep him out?
I liked this 'take' by Prof. Reddy a lot in terms of looking at what happened to bring us
to a Trump Presidency (with an observation that Orange Duce hasn't YET been sworn in).
But if he thinks that a Tea Party shaped Republican House and Senate and soon to be skewed
Supreme Court aren't about to launch a season of Rent Taking and Austerity to levels
previously only attained in Arthur Laffer's wet dreams he needs his otherwise rational head
examined.
Don't go so excited the "Trump Revolution" like the "Obama Revolution" will likely end up
as "hopeless" for ordinary folk. So for starters Trump's tax breaks will save the 1% fifteen
percent and the rest of us 2 percent! Already the msm including my local paper are already
grinding out the counter-propaganda against raising tariff barriers for China. The majority
of the electorate are too ignorant to figure much of it out and come 2024 will be voting
Ivanka Trump in as president!
If Trump raises MORE(notice that word son) tariffs against China, he will get a nice
uppercut across the forehead when China cancels contracts one after another and jobs start
being lost in the next NBER recession. His ego can't take that.
He was the Mercers introduction to the elite, nothing more or less. If anything, the
Republicans are more Jewy than ever.
"The dominant economic ideas taken together created a framework in which deviation from
declared orthodoxy would be punished by dynamics unleashed by globalization and
financialization."
IOW, it isn't science; it's political ideology.
The environmental economist Herman Daley traces that back to the very beginning of the
field; he says the earliest economists essentially chose sides in the contest then raging
between landowners (resource based) and merchants (trade based). That made them
propagandists, not referees. And it's the reason economics, from the beginning, suppressed
the distinction between natural resources, like land, water, and minerals, and human-created
capital. It recognized only two "production factors," when in reality there are at least
three. Marx picked up the same self-serving :"error."
" illiberal majoritarianism"
That's an unfortunate word choice, considering that Trump lost the election by nearly 2
million votes. It was an extraordinary demonstration of the defective Electoral College
system. Maybe now we'll get some action on the Popular Vote initiative.
It's important to remember that the rebellion is "illiberal" mainly because the "liberal"
parties refuse to offer a "liberal" populism, aka the New Deal. You could call it an old,
proven idea. Some of us see that as weak tea, but even that isn't on offer outside the
marginalized Left. (This is the essential point of Thomas Franks' "What's the Matter with
Kansas.")
Of course, that's just a further illustration of the author's point.
One of the most insightful chapters in Karl Polanyi's THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION is about
something Karl calls "the discovery of society." It is the story of how those who wrestled
with the fundamental falsehoods of the "self-regulating market" [our Libertarian friends'
dreamworld] had to begin thinking about how people in their everyday lives actually, really,
incompletely, made a life for themselves in a world defined by trickle-down economics. It was
never a pretty sight, but the lesson was that the "self-regulating market" was going to be
regulated somehow by non-economic actors with non-economic considerations foremost in mind,
like it or not, or face destruction by human beings whose lives were distorted beyond what
would be tolerated by ordinary people. Most people put up with neoliberal BS for a generation
because that's what most people do, most of the time, even when they know they're being sold
a bunch of horsecr*p. But the limit of what people will tolerate in a society defined by the
false gods of market capitalism is reached periodically. Trump's victory tells us that one of
these limits has been reached. The question now is, "What are we going to "discover" about
ourselves and about the society we want to live in–and will we find a way to create it,
assuming it's something good?" (Or flee from, if it turns sour.)
TINA folks will repeat, over and over, that "there is no alternative," but that bugaboo
has just been smashed. Clinton, Summers, Obama, Rubin, Schumer, and the many, many lesser
lights of Neo-Liberalism have become "old hat" almost overnight. Let's hope our discovery of
society includes a stronger dose of Reason and Solidarity than would seem to exist in
Trumpworld.
ergo: Less work (at all levels) + increasing population (which includes some explosive
variables, like a large increase of older persons who will require economic support from
fewer younger workers) = a massive increase in tension re: the struggle for available
necessities.
Technology innovation will help with some of this, but the great, looming problem is: how
are billions of idle people with nothing to do going to be motivated to remain
non-disruptive? I can see a massive surveillance state controlling the "idles"; perhaps new
technologies that permit people to jack their brains into the network for diversion (but how
long before people become desensitized to that?). Will there be a "spiritual" revolution that
is not attached to current dogmatic religions, that values having less, sharing more,
cooperating with others, etc.? Hard to say.
Anyway, it's coming, yet very few policy makers are talking about it. I'll bet the
Pentagon is planning for this scenario, among others.
In twenty years – maybe a few more – we should be able to begin to migrate
away from earth. It will probably be a LONG time before extra-earth settlements are feasible
and sustainable. That said, we here on earth are going to have our hands full.
Can humanity somehow find ways to overcome its wired propensity for status reflected by
material wealth, and somehow change that status-seeking to a sharing model that is not
top-down?
I've been pondering this for a while. People much smarter than I will hopefully lead the
way. We have our work cut out for us.
This segment is interesting theatre, especially considering that Mr. Giuliani is acting as
President Trump's attorney on the Russiagate matter, and that he is going public about anything
at all having to do with the investigation and its case, in full knowledge that anything he
says publicly will be noted. Nevertheless, "America's Mayor" made several very strong
assertions:
Mueller doesn't need to ask a single question on obstruction; he has all the answers
already and those answers are not going to change in a direct interview with President
Trump.
Mueller is trying to trap the President into perjury.
The reason Mueller is trying to trap the President is simply because he does not have a
case.
According to Mr. Giuliani, the case will not fizzle; it is going to blow up on
them
This is because there is a lot more that they (meaning the Democrats) did, that no one
knows yet.
It will wind up with Mr. Mueller himself having a lot to answer for.
These and other points are included in Mr. Giuliani's responses in his discussion with Sean
Hannity.
The question that would logically arise with such a set of claims is "why would this
investigation even be happening in the first place, if it is only guaranteed to lose?"
And this question is what gives lie to the massive conspiracy of the Deep State and various
powerful figures
such as Bill Browder , the neo-con establishment, and secular humanist liberals, all banded
together to stop President Trump atany cost from changing America's headlong
plunge into the darkness of the soft tyranny of modern-day liberalism. Russia stands as the one
great power in the world that declares with great strength that this group of people is wrong,
and therefore, Russia, and anyone who wishes to grant her legitimacy – must be
stopped.
A speculative question that next arises is this:
What happens when President Trump gets vindicated?
There is a massive power play in motion here, and the stakes are much higher than anyone
cares to admit.
The FAKE NEWS media (failing @
nytimes , @ NBCNews , @ ABC , @ CBS , @ CNN
) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People! ~ Donald Trump
On Thursday, Mr. Trump expressed his distaste for journalists in more populist terms, saying,
"much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles in particular, speaks
not for the people, but for the special interests."
"The public doesn't believe you people anymore," Mr. Trump added. "Now, maybe I had something
to do with that. I don't know. But they don't believe you."
President Trump has denounced and exposed the repeated deceits and ongoing fabrications of
the mass media. Never before has a President so forcefully identified the lies of the leading
print and TV outlets. The NY Times , Washington Post , the Financial
Times, NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the
larger public. They have lost legitimacy and trust. Where progressives have failed, a war
monger billionaire has accomplished, speaking a truth to serve many injustices.
"... [Manifort and Deripaska] had a falling out laid bare in 2014 in a Cayman Islands bankruptcy court. The billionaire gave Manafort nearly $19 million to invest in a Ukrainian TV company called Black Sea Cable, according to legal filings by Deripaska's representatives. It said that after taking the money, Manafort and his associates stopped responding to Deripaska's queries about how the funds had been used. ..."
Much of what is known about Paul Manafort's alleged activities on
behalf of Russia is based on court documents revealed in a series of law suits dating back to
2014. One of them was filed in Virginia in August 2015, leading to the "outing" of Paul
Manafort and his firing as Trump's Campaign Manager. The plaintiff in those cases is Oleg
Deripaska.
It is Manafort's relationship with Deripaska that happens to underlie most of the
allegations made in the standard "Russiagate" narrative that Manafort was a secret agent
advancing Putin's interests inside the Trump campaign. At the same time, Oleg has been cast by
the western media as simply an agent of Putin. Furthermore, it was Christopher Steele's "Dirty
Dossier" that got Russiagate up and rolling.
Now, it comes out, that Steele was working not only for the DNC and with Clinton Campaign
funds, but was also shared a DC lawyer and possibly doing business with Deripaska. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-26%20CEG%20to%20W...
(Mr.%20Steele,%20Mr.%20Deripaska,%20and%20Mr.%20Jones).pdf
All this seems implausible and contradictory, doesn't it? Yes, it does, read on.
Documents emerging from the Senate Judiciary Committee indicate Christopher Steele shares a
lawyer with Oleg Deripaska, and the committee wants to know the details of that going back to
2015. Keep in mind, Fusion-GPS started developing its opposition file on Trump at about that
time, we have been told funded by money provided by another GOP candidate or by Robert Mercer,
the reclusive billionaire hedge-fund operator and backer of Ted Cruz.
Then, a year later, after the CIA/FBI cleared him of charges of corruption, the State Dept.
issued it, and he got the 24 or 48 hours he then needed during the first visit to be inside the
US. The only reason anyone needs to be physically inside the US for a day that I can think of
is to establish bank accounts here in his own name. Since then, he comes and goes. According to
the WSJ, during the 2009 visits he had meetings with both the FBI and several major NY banks.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170624031454/https://www.wsj.com/news/arti...
The Senate Committee first became aware of the relationship between Deripaska and Steele
when Mark Warner received a text last March from a lawyer named Adam Waldman saying that his
client, Christopher Steele, wanted to talk to him. According to Tablet:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/255290/christopher-ste...
In 2009, Waldman filed papers with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act (FARA) registering himself as an agent for Deripaska in order to provide
"legal advice on issues involving his U.S. visa as well as commercial transactions" at a
retainer of $40,000 a month. In 2010, Waldman additionally registered as an agent for Russian
foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, "gathering information and providing advice and analysis as
it relates to the U.S. policy towards the visa status of Oleg Deripaska," including meetings
with U.S. policymakers. Based on the information in his FARA filings, Waldman has received at
least $2.36 million for his work with Deripaska.
Clearly, Chris Steele and Oleg Deripaska have the same Washington, DC lawyer, the one who
arranged for Deripaska's visa, who is the head of the Endeavor Group, a K Street lobby shop
located two blocks from the White House. Waldman is also an executive of one of Deripaska's New
York companies, Basic Element. An unrelated 2017 law suit against Deripaska lays that out,
along with Oleg's U.S. banking and investments, corporate ownerships, including the U.S.
subsidiary of Rusal aluminum, and his New York City real estate holdings. Also laid bare are
his ten trips to the U.S. since 2009 during which he has met with among others, the heads of
Wolfonsohn Investments, a large hedge fund, and Alcoa Aluminum. According to the allegation
cited in the court Order, "Deripaska derives billions in revenues from the United States - and
its U.S. operations in N.Y." While the plaintiff's suit was ultimately dismissed because Oleg
was found to not be domiciled in New York, the essential facts in the complaint are summarized
in the Judge's Order: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2017/2017-ny-slip-op-
...
What does all this mean? That's what some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee would
like to find out, including records of any direct transactions between Deripaska and Steele or
through Waldman going back to 2015.
It looks like Oleg Deripaska made a deal to be able to do business and to safely park large
parts of his fortune in the United States. Let's look at the big picture and then focus back in
on Steele and Deripaska. The really big backdrop to Russia!Russia!Russia! is the botched serial
regime change operations in the Ukraine and Syria cooked up under Secretary Clinton and her
BFFs at the CIA.
If those operations had succeeded, as planned, that might have ended with the removal of Mr.
Putin. Unfortunately for the plan, certain Americans got in the way – primarily, the DIA
Director, General Michael Flynn who worked with Russian military to abort the planned ISIS
takeover of Damascus, and Paul Manafort, who was a thorn in the side of the State Department,
CIA and MI-6 who were working to remove Russia from Ukraine, including its key naval base in
eastern Ukraine, on the Crimean Peninsula at Sebastipole. Here, we make an assumption, and
connect a dot, but it doesn't change the bigger picture. Maybe, promises were made that the
CIA/MI-6 would help Mr. Deripaska with some of his own ambitions, East and West. He seems
pretty ambitious and capable. Almost as much so as Vladimir Putin.
What ended up actually happening, apparently, is in exchange for turning on Manafort, Oleg
has been granted clubhouse and greens privileges at Club Langley. At the same time, his role
can't be so deep and murky to amount to something that actually ever really threatened Putin,
so one might conclude Putin has been playing along with this whole thing and it has paid off.
Indeed, he has something like 90 percent approval ratings and will be reelected. Mr. Putin also
appears greatly amused by how, indeed, the scheme has backfired and ended up absolutely
paralyzing the American political process and much of the U.S. government.
Russiagate! has turned into some kind of a weird game of mutual advantage that the CIA is
playing with Putin after it became clear that the Moscow regime change operation (which was
supposed to follow those in Ukraine and Syria -- which is how this thing started -- had failed
miserably. The Agency gets its revenge against Manafort and Flynn (who were instrumental in
blocking the intermediate ops), and Putin gets the credit for fucking with the heads of the
Deep State and another term as uncontested boss of the Kremlin.
The Booby Prize goes to the parrots in the major media who still really believe that
Manafort was working with Deripaska inside the Trump Campaign in 2016 to advance Putin's
influence. That joint venture, if there ever was one, certainly wasn't helped much when
Deripaska sued Manafort in open court three times, first in the Cayman Islands in 2014,
followed by a 2015 filing in federal court in Virginia. That information led eventually to
front-page exposure in the New York Times, leading to Manafort's being dismissed as Campaign
Director, and most recently this January using information contained in the indictment handed
down by Mueller.
So, the CIA gets it revenge against Manafort and Flynn, while Vladimir gets to keep his
place as leader of all Russia. And part of Ukraine, and Syria, and . . .
The lesson here: The Great Game continues. Who says we all can't still get along with each
other?
Deripaska is not who he has been portrayed to be
Oleg Deripaska showed up on Thursday in an American Op-ed in which he tried to get ahead of
the changing portrait that is emerging of him that show he has actually been doing business
with Christopher Steele, and that relationship predated the Dirty Dossier.
When I attended the Munich Security Conference in February, the extraordinary, coordinated
message of a panel of U.S. senators was summarized by moderator Victoria Nuland, former
assistant secretary of state under President Barack Obama, as: "Deep State-proud loyalists
giv[ing] broad reassurance about continuity." One of the panelists, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-R.I.), said: "What the Breitbart crowd would call the 'Deep State' is what many of us
would call 'knowledgeable professionals.'" The panel's uniform message was essentially:
Ignore Donald Trump and increase your defense budget to 2 percent, because the generals who
are 'operationalizing policy' remain in charge.
[ . . .]
What has been inelegantly termed the "Deep State" is really this: shadow power exercised
by a small number of individuals from media, business, government and the intelligence
community, foisting provocative and cynically false manipulations on the public. Out of these
manipulations, an agenda of these architects' own design is born.
Unfortunately, I am personally familiar with this group. Before they moved to their
current, bigger ambitions of reversing the U.S. presidential election results, they
scurrilously attacked me and others from the shadows for two decades. The various story lines
and roles they have created for me don't survive close scrutiny and are internally
inconsistent, yet they simply follow the "Wag the Dog" playbook: We don't need it to prove to
be true. We need it to distract them.
[ . . .]
The distractions no longer can mask these "unholy alliances." The wife of a central
architect of the Department of Justice's "Russia narrative" secretly worked for the
dossier-peddling Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson attempted -- according to his
own congressional admissions -- to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and its
aftermath, to attack Russia and to "embarrass" me and cause trouble for the company I
founded.
As entertaining and on some level gratifying it is to read Oleg Deripiska's snarky take on
Victoria Nuland's, "Deep State-proud loyalists," and his insider poop on Fusion-GPS, keep in
mind that Oleg, himself, is integral to the prosecution case against Paul Manafort and has his
own axe to grind. It turns out, in addition, there is reason to believe he has his own
relationship with the author of the "Dirty Dossier" that may have predated the direct funding
of Fusion-GPS by the DNC.
Deripaska, too, is playing both sides of the "Russiagate" game. Here's why. As I wrote about
him last November when he emerged as the primary source of renewed allegations that Paul
Manafort was acting as Putin's agent inside the Trump camp, it was Deripaska who "outed"
Manafort by suing him in a U.S. court to recover tens of millions of dollars that PM allegedly
couldn't account for in his older business dealings with Deripaska in Ukraine. Much of what is
publicly known about Manafort's dealings with the Russians comes from documents that came out
of that law suit filed in a civil court in Cyprus. See,
https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/all-the-standard-errors-that-u...
So what moved Paul Manafort to get into the Trump Campaign? It has been surmised elsewhere
that it was Oleg Deripaska, or more exactly the pressure of owing Oleg Deripaska millions of
dollars, that motivated Manafort.
What was Oleg Deripaska's interest in Manafort, aside from recovering a debt? Deripaska
has a reported net worth in excess of $5 billion. What's a trifling $19 million in the
Russian oligarch's money that Manafort is reported to have kept from a 2009 cable TV
investment deal in Ukraine that went bad. That's a good question that Mr. Sypher doesn't even
ask.
[Manifort and Deripaska] had a falling out laid bare in 2014 in a Cayman Islands
bankruptcy court. The billionaire gave Manafort nearly $19 million to invest in a Ukrainian
TV company called Black Sea Cable, according to legal filings by Deripaska's representatives.
It said that after taking the money, Manafort and his associates stopped responding to
Deripaska's queries about how the funds had been used.
That leads to an obvious question that isn't raised by the likes of NBC and AP. Why, if
Deripaska is simply Putin's Cat's Paw, as is alleged -- and, if, as the Russiagate narrative
presumes, Manafort was working to further Putin's interests inside the Trump campaign (see,
e.g.,
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/paul-manafort-once-worked-b... and the March,
2017 AP Report: https://apnews.com/122ae0b5848345faa88108a03de40c5a
) -- would Oleg be playing a central role in taking down Manafort by suing him before Manafort
joined the Trump campaign? Seems a very unlikely way of maintaining operational secrecy if the
two were really Kremlin operatives.
Jan 10, 2018 – Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska used details from Mueller's
indictment in a new lawsuit against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Wealthy Russian oligarch
Oleg Deripaska filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman,
Paul Manafort, and his associate, Rick . . .
The fiction created that Deripaska is simply an agent of Putin is falling apart. Like Carter
Page, who is now publicly shown to be an FBI informant, the fact that Oleg Deripaska outed Paul
Manafort is one of the "fog facts" -- inconvenient facts that are conveniently ignored by most
reporters and others with a perceived stake in the game -- that underlie the standard
Russia!Russia!Russia! narrative.
Thanks for the analysis leveymg. The political connections get very complicated. The bare
facts from Wiki:
He was once Russia's richest man, worth $28 billion, but nearly lost everything due to
mounting debts amid the 2007–08 financial crisis. As of May 2017, his wealth was
estimated by Forbes at $5.2 billion.[8] Deripaska is also known for his close ties to
Russian president Vladimir Putin, as well as his connection to American political
consultant Paul Manafort, whom Deripaska employed from at least 2005 to 2009.[9]
And:
He is married to Polina Yumasheva, step-granddaughter of former Russian President Boris
Yeltsin and daughter of Valentin Yumashev, Yeltsin's son-in-law and close advisor.
Then we have to add in political and financial battles over corporate empires to muddy the
waters of global intrigue even more with deceptions and global legal battles.
Thanks again leveymg. I'm still not sure what to think about this whole convoluted
investigation, but there is without a doubt a whole lot of criminal conduct going on from a
whole lot of political and financial syndicates.
All the other people who are being installed in the Mueller investigation is hard to
follow. This started with Russia hacking the DNC computers and that Trump and Putin colluded
so that Trump would win. Everything else that has been thrown at the wall isn't sticking.
Plus the hacking accusations were started to deflect from what was in the files. They
showed that the DNC put their thumb on the election so she would win. Besides, at first they
were saying that Guiciffer 2.0 was the one that hacked the DNC and gave them to
Wikileaks.
If you have to keep changing the story to make your case, something is wrong.
and trying to read through this essay, I was reminded that before you get some good
organic compost you have to wade through lots of shitty free range political actors.
Can't follow, dear. Too complicated. I bet you have given some people a lot of inside
knowledge.
and trying to read through this essay, I was reminded that before you get some good
organic compost you have to wade through lots of shitty free range political actors.
Can't follow, dear. Too complicated. I bet you have given some people a lot of inside
knowledge.
do business in and park a considerable portion of his aluminum fortune in the U.S.
Here's some new information I updated the article with:
Clearly, Chris Steele and Oleg Deripaska have the same Washington, DC lawyer, the one
who arranged for Deripaska's visa, who is the head of the Endeavor Group, a K Street lobby
shop located two blocks from the White House. Waldman is also an executive of one of
Deripaska's New York companies, Basic Element. An unrelated 2017 law suit against Deripaska
lays that out, along with Oleg's U.S. banking and investments, corporate ownerships,
including the U.S. subsidiary of Rusal aluminum, and his New York City real estate
holdings. Also laid bare are his ten trips to the U.S. since 2009 during which he has met
with among others, the heads of Wolfonsohn Investments, a large hedge fund, and Alcoa
Aluminum. According to the allegation cited in the court Order, "Deripaska derives billions
in revenues from the United States - and its U.S. operations in N.Y." While the plaintiff's
suit was ultimately dismissed because Oleg was found to not be domiciled in New York, the
essential facts in the complaint are summarized in the Judge's Order: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2017/2017-ny-slip-op-...
What does all this mean? That's what some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
would like to find out, including records of any direct transactions between Deripaska and
Steele or through Waldman going back to 2015.
It looks like Oleg Deripaska made a deal to be able to do business and to safely park
large parts of his fortune in the United States.
How Secretive Manhattan Heiress Rebekah Mercer Became One of the Most Powerful Women in
Politics
A decade ago, Mercer was running a Hell's Kitchen bakery. Now she's advising the
president.
By Kate Storey
Mar 17, 2017
... Though he's not shy about throwing his weight behind conservative causes, Robert
prefers to remain in the background. According to a recent Wall Street Journal profile, the
hedge fund titan once told a colleague he preferred the company of cats to humans. So, it's
his more sociable middle daughter who has become the face of the family, meeting with power
players and initiating deals. She sits on boards of conservative foundations he funds,
including the Heritage Foundation, and has reportedly been seen walking arm-and-arm with
him at events he funds like the Jackson Hole Summit, a conference promoting the gold
standard. Politico just put her as 21 on their PlayBook Power List.
By Rebekah's most public -- and influential -- role so far is as an executive on Trump's
16-person transition executive committee, which advises the president-elect on Cabinet
appointments and organizing his White House. ...
... The big Mercer money came when Robert began working for the ultra-mysterious
Renaissance Technologies hedge fund on Long Island in 1993. In 2009, Robert became the
co-CEO of Renaissance, which author Sebastian Mallaby called "perhaps the most successful
hedge fund ever" in his 2011 book More Money Than God.
Robert and his wife Diana moved into an extravagant Long Island mansion, which they
dubbed "Owl's Nest," closer to the Renaissance offices. The home is so palatial, the family
created Owl's Nest Inc., a company used to manage household staff. In 2013, the service
staff sued Robert for allegedly penalizing them for doing things like failing to close a
door or not refilling the shampoo. The case was dismissed a few months later and appears to
have been quietly settled. ...
... Pinning down the Mercers's specific political motivations is tricky. Robert and
Rebekah have directed money to anti-abortion groups and a Christian college, according to
Bloomberg Businessweek, which also reports the father and daughter "don't talk about
religion."
They secretly funded ads for a research chemist named Arthur Robinson during his run for
Congress in Oregon. Robinson believes climate change is a hoax, thinks nuclear radiation
could be good for you, and insists he can extend the human life span by studying human
urine. Robinson told the Bloomberg Businessweek that political ads supporting him just
began popping up -- he had no idea who was behind them until a third party revealed it was
Robert.
Rebekah sits on the boards of Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think
tank, the Goldwater Institute, a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank, and
Reclaim New York, a nonprofit focused on transparency and the city's affordability.
(Heritage and Goldwater representatives didn't respond to requests for comment about her
work.) ...
In an interview I read some time back, Mercer said that he preferred computers to people,
which left me with an entirely different impression...In any event, they shifted from
supporting Cruz to Trump - and this is particularly interesting:
...After that fiasco, research firm Cambridge Analytica was one of the very few that
remained confident that Trump would still win the election. Robert is reportedly a major
backer of the relatively unknown strategic communications company, which also worked with
Leave.EU in the U.K. ahead of the Brexit vote.
So, while many may have been shocked when Trump clinched the Electoral College late
November 8, the Mercers surely felt vindicated.
One of Trump's first actions as president-elect was to name Mercer associate Bannon as
chief strategist, sparking outrage from the Anti-Defamation League as well as politicians
on both side of the aisle because of his work with Breitbart, which Bannon himself told
Mother Jones was a "platform for the alt-right," an online movement with white supremacist
views. ...
This is the Real Story Behind How Steve Bannon Joined Forces With Donald Trump
Secretive Republican donor Rebekah Mercer recently convinced the president's chief
strategist not to resign.
By Kate Storey
Apr 6, 2017
... Once Trump had sealed the 2016 GOP nomination, the Mercers made their move. Over the
course of her reporting, Ward learned that Rebekah's first point of action was to oust
Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to put into place her family's allies, Kellyanne
Conway and Steve Bannon. As part-owners of far-right nationalist website Breitbart news,
the Mercers have been close to Bannon, who ran the site, for years.
In a scene that foreshadowed the current controversy surrounding the administration,
Rebekah used Manafort's ties to Russia to make her point. Here, Ward lays out the Mercers's
coup d'etat:
[Trump] had been disturbed by recent stories detailing disorganization in his campaign
and alleging ties between Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and pro-Russia officials
in Ukraine. Rebekah knew of this and arrived at her meeting with "props," says the source
who strategized with the Mercers: printouts of news articles about Manafort and Russia that
she brandished as evidence that he had to go. And she also had a solution in mind: Trump
should put Bannon in charge of the campaign and hire the pollster Kellyanne Conway.
Within four days, Manafort was out, and Bannon and Conway were in. ...
Since this has always appeared to be a Battle of the Billionaires, and assuming that this
is accurate, I kinda wonder who actually 'owns' the CIA and others (Dems loading up on
CIA/Military Intelligence candidates all of a sudden) and who might be issuing orders to the
military Generals now that Trump's 'given them their heads'. Does all of this 'military
might, for the use of': go to the highest bidder and if so, by the individual war-crime or
the whole attack/invasion over seemingly forever? Dunno, but with all of the weirdness and
strategic misdirection/disinformation further muddying the propaganda stream, my speculators
are pointed, albeit conditionally, in all directions. Just don't have the energy for actual
research or the ability to verify any of this.
One more potentially indicative thing, (although a lot of Republican billionaires do seem
to get all excited and 'Dom'-ish over other people's sex lives, loves and personal
reproductive choices, and the CorpoDems want them all to hire them rather than Repubs as
their Representatives in government,) regarding a tid-bit from that top article '...Robert
and Rebekah have directed money to anti-abortion groups and a Christian college...' - with
Pelosi pushing an anti-LGBT and anti-abortion candidate, below.
11 minute video which I found interesting and covers ground - really like this guy,
although I never seem to get subscription notices from Youtube on him and only come across
his vids down the side sometimes...
Bernie Endorses Marie Newman Over Pelosi's Anti-LGBT Candidate
The Rational National
Published on 9 Mar 2018
Bernie Sanders has endorsed Marie Newman for Illinois 3rd congressional district, over
Nancy Pelosi-backed candidate Dan Lipinski.
If I had the energy, I'd start trying a bit of poking around, regarding the following from
that first article, see how shiny, squeaky clean that money might possibly be, even if not
expecting much to be visible...
'...the ultra-mysterious Renaissance Technologies hedge fund on Long Island in 1993. In
2009, Robert became the co-CEO of Renaissance, which author Sebastian Mallaby called "perhaps
the most successful hedge fund ever" in his 2011 book More Money Than God. ...'
Renaissance Technologies: Hedge Fund on a $7 Billion Winning Streak
Hedge-fund firm Renaissance Technologies has attracted more than $7 billion in new investor
money over the past year even as peers have struggled
By Gregory Zuckerman
Updated Oct. 11, 2016
Many hedge funds and mutual funds are slashing fees, laying off employees and losing
customers following years of subpar performance.
Then there is Renaissance Technologies LLC.
The hedge-fund firm, which relies on closely held computer models and algorithms, has
staged a comeback after an uneven spell, with its funds posting market-beating gains for
more than the past year.
Now they are getting a cash influx, even as rivals suffer withdrawals. Renaissance
attracted more than $7 billion in new investor money over the past year from wealthy
clients of UBS Group AG, Citigroup Inc. and others, according to people close to the
matter. Renaissance now manages more than $36 billion, up from $27 billion a year ago, even
after returning about $1 billion from its signature Medallion fund, which is closed to
investors.
The success is the latest sign that some quantitative funds are beating traditional
investors. ...
What is a Quantitative Hedge Fund?
of Quantitative Hedge Fund Training
Brief Summary of Hedge Funds
Hedge Funds, broadly speaking, are investment funds that have less regulation and more
flexibility relative to other, "classic" investment funds, such as mutual funds (more on
this distinction is written below). A Hedge Fund will have an investment manager, and will
typically be open to a limited range of investors who pay a performance fee to the fund's
manager on profits earned by the fund. Each Hedge Fund has its own investment philosophy
that determines the type of investments and strategies it employs.
In general, the Hedge Fund community undertakes a much wider range of investment and
trading activities than do traditional investment funds. Hedge Funds can employ high-risk
or exotic trading, such as investing with borrowed money or selling securities for short
sale, in hopes of realizing large capital gains. Additionally Hedge Funds invest in a
broader range of assets, including long and short positions in Equities, Fixed Income,
Foreign Exchange, Commodities and illiquid hard assets, such as Real Estate.
The first hedge funds were thought to have existed prior to the Great Depression in the
1920s, though they did not gain in popularity until the 1980s, with funds managed by
legendary investors including Julian Robertson, Michael Steinhardt and George Soros. Soros
gained widespread notoriety in 1992 when his Quantum Investment Fund correctly bet against
the Bank of England by predicting that the pound would be devalued, having been pushed into
the European Rate Mechanism at too high a rate. Soros' bet paid off to the tune of $1
billion, and set the stage for future hedge fund entrants, who speculated on markets based
on fundamental and quantitative factors. ...
... Quantitative Trading Models
Quantitative Hedge Funds development complex mathematical models to try to predict
investment opportunities -- typically in the form of predictions about which assets are
projected to have high returns (for long investments) or low/negative returns (for short
investments). As computing power has blossomed over the past couple of decades, so has the
use of sophisticated modeling techniques, such as optimization, prediction modeling, neural
networks and other forms of machine-learning algorithms (where trading strategies evolve
over time by "learning" from past data).
One common, classic Quant Hedge Fund modeling approach is called Factor-Based Modeling.
In this data, predictor (or "independent") variables, such as Price/Earnings ratio, or
inflation rates, or the change in unemployment rates, are used to attempt to predict the
value of another variable of interest ("dependent" variables), such as the predicted change
in the price of a stock. Factor models may base trading decisions on a pre-determined set
of factors (such as returns on the S&P 500, the U.S. dollar index, a corporate bond
index, a commodity index such as the CRB, and a measure of changes in corporate bond
spreads and the VIX) or a set of factors related mathematically (but with no explicit
specification) such as those gleaned through Principal Component Analysis (PCA). ...
Gee, if only these wealthy clients from '...UBS Group AG, Citigroup Inc. and others...'
actually knew how the markets were going to move and this data was used in programming, they
could all really make a packet among a limited group of investors, while others went sub-par,
couldn't they?
Renaissance Technologies: Hedge Fund on a $7 Billion Winning Streak
Hedge-fund firm Renaissance Technologies has attracted more than $7 billion in new investor
money over the past year even as peers have struggled
... Some traditional stock pickers say unexpected trading patterns caused by the rush
into exchange-traded funds make investing harder for those reliant on fundamental
strategies, such as buying underpriced stocks. By contrast, Renaissance's models rely on
signals from a range of inputs, including technical factors related to stock-price
movements, helping the firm avoid some issues slowing traditional investors, clients
say.
"Technical factors are swamping fundamental analysis lately," helping Renaissance, says
Amanda Haynes-Dale, co-founder of Pan Reliance Capital Advisors, which became a Renaissance
client this year.
That recipe hasn't always worked for Renaissance, which Mr. Simons founded in 1982. The
firm opened two hedge funds to outside investors in 2005 and 2007 but experienced mediocre
early results.
In 2010, when Mr. Simons stepped back from running the East Setauket, N.Y., firm, new
leadership considered closing the two hedge funds open to outside investors. By then,
assets had fallen to $5 billion from over $20 billion a few years earlier. Last year,
Renaissance closed a $1 billion futures fund due to poor interest.
Renaissance's recent rebound comes as the company's executives are playing larger roles
in politics. Co-Chief Executive Robert Mercer has been among the largest political donors
of the 2016 election cycle, spending more than $13 million to back Texas Sen. Ted Cruz
through a super PAC while also funding Breitbart News, the conservative media outlet.
He and his daughter, Rebekah, played a role in the August shake-up of Donald Trump's
presidential campaign, recommending Breitbart Chairman Stephen Bannon and Republican
pollster Kellyanne Conway for top posts. Mr. Simons has given millions to a Hillary Clinton
super PAC. ...
...Renaissance avoids hiring Wall Street veterans, helping it avoid mistakes made by
those reliant on traditional investing methods, the firm says.
"The advantage scientists bring is less their mathematical or computational skills than
their ability to think scientifically," Mr. Simons said, according to an investor document.
"They are less likely to accept an apparent winning strategy that might be a mere
statistical fluke."
'... In 2010, when Mr. Simons stepped back from running the East Setauket, N.Y., firm,
new leadership considered closing the two hedge funds open to outside investors. By then,
assets had fallen to $5 billion from over $20 billion a few years earlier. Last year,
Renaissance closed a $1 billion futures fund due to poor interest. ...
... Now they are getting a cash influx, even as rivals suffer withdrawals. Renaissance
attracted more than $7 billion in new investor money over the past year from wealthy
clients of UBS Group AG, Citigroup Inc. and others, according to people close to the
matter. Renaissance now manages more than $36 billion, up from $27 billion a year ago, even
after returning about $1 billion from its signature Medallion fund, which is closed to
investors. ...
... Renaissance's recent rebound comes as the company's executives are playing larger
roles in politics. Co-Chief Executive Robert Mercer has been among the largest political
donors of the 2016 election cycle, spending more than $13 million to back Texas Sen. Ted
Cruz through a super PAC while also funding Breitbart News, the conservative media
outlet.
He and his daughter, Rebekah, played a role in the August shake-up of Donald Trump's
presidential campaign, recommending Breitbart Chairman Stephen Bannon and Republican
pollster Kellyanne Conway for top posts. Mr. Simons has given millions to a Hillary Clinton
super PAC. ...
So Mercer quite recently made his billions in an astounding spurt in both
algorithm-operated hedge fund investment and returns, with a restricted group of investors,
within a previously failing firm he was/is? Co-Chief Executive of, while the firm's founder
steps back, all this in conjunction with an influx of unnamed wealthy clients of '...UBS
Group AG, Citigroup Inc. and others...' and then moved into influencing politics, king-making
an unlikely President he is said to have essentially got elected and who his daughter and
various of his suggested own staffers/employees advise/have advised?
Dunno, but these are not groups in which I hold faith, and some of these coinky-dinks are
awfully familiar... kinda smells as though he's been made a billionaire in order to funnel
Presidential political funding and advice from Wall St., doesn't it?
And I wonder if they'll be one of the few to come out of the anticipated crash this
fall-ish richer than ever...
Obviously just speculating while wondering if anyone out there (on what'll be a long-dead
thread by now, lol) Who Knows About This Stuff, has a functional brain and some energy, and
maybe who's better at searching, lol, is interested in following this up to see if it leads
anywhere interesting? Especially with the regs coming off this Oct. and a resultant crash
expected.
You may not be surprised to learn this, but the organization that pioneered the
specialization of working with financial speculators in creating political crises to
manipulate 19th Century bonds markets was actually, hold it, the Okhrana , the
Czarist secret police. The elaborate competing games that Mercer, Soros, Deripaska, et al.,
seem to be up to is a hoary tradition of false flags, dirty-tricks, forgeries, provocations,
and assassinations carried out to police the Czarist Court from afar. When you have a chance,
you might want to go back to the beginning of this, which I wrote about a dozen or so years
ago during a simpler time of crisis (never seems to end, does it?):
The History of Political Dirty Tricks: Pt. 1, The Okhrana and the Paris Bourse https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/11/15/271437/-
The History of Political Dirty-Tricks: (Pt 2) How to Colonize a Larger Country https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/11/29/275653/-
The History of Dirty Tricks (pt. 3): Who Benefited From the Self-Destruction of Europe?,
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2006/12/11/279897/-
because the details immediately debunk the MSM narrative.
Russiagate! has turned into some kind of a weird game of mutual advantage that the CIA
is playing with Putin after it became clear that the Moscow regime change operation (which
was supposed to follow those in Ukraine and Syria -- which is how this thing started -- had
failed miserably. The Agency gets its revenge against Manafort and Flynn (who were
instrumental in blocking the intermediate ops), and Putin gets the credit for fucking with
the heads of the Deep State and another term as uncontested boss of the Kremlin.
The Booby Prize goes to the parrots in the major media who still really believe that
Manafort was working with Deripaska inside the Trump Campaign in 2016 to advance Putin's
influence. That joint venture, if there ever was one, certainly wasn't helped much when
Deripaska sued Manafort in open court three times , first in the Cayman Islands in 2014,
followed by a 2015 filing in federal court in Virginia. That information led eventually to
front-page exposure in the New York Times, leading to Manafort's being dismissed as
Campaign Director, and most recently this January using information contained in the
indictment handed down by Mueller. . .
The lesson here: The Great Game continues.
It's clear to those few critical thinkers following this sewer of bullshit that just about
everyone involved in this ridiculous false flag is some kind of Deep Stater/intelligence
operative. It is, as you say, some weird Game of Thrones nonsense funded from the $100 B
black budget that taxpayers willingly fork over.
The UK poisoning thing is just more of the same. The victim was known to Steele, and they
shared the same intelligence officer. The victim had been pardoned by Russia years ago. But
"Russia,Russia,Russia".
----
Unfortunately, I do believe the propaganda is drowning out the truth. More and more people
accept the "fact" of Russian "meddling" (whatever the fuck "crime" that is). Each false flag
is trumpeted until debunked. Then, like the Chesire Cat, the accusation fades but the dirt is
left to stick to Russia.
The WSWS series on how many spies, special forces, and intelligence folks are running in
the Democratic Party primaries is just the brown icing on the cake of the militarized state
that America has been turned into by the neocons.
I have not had the heart to find out what is behind the latest incoming barrel-of-shit
bomb: "Putin accused the Jews". (Could he have accused the neocons, many of whom have Israeli
dual citizenship?)
"... Taxpayer-funded mass-slaughter is now routine and goes on year after year. ..."
"... "democracy" requires free access to unconstrained information. Otherwise the voter is like cattle free to chose which pre-determined path to take to the same slaughterhouse ..."
"... Wars being fought by the United States will continue to contribute to America's growing inequality, an issue that Washington is completely ignoring. ..."
"... In THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN it is laid out that the business of the U.S. is war and that war is good for business and war we shall have and so it is that we are a nation of war and as in Orwells 1984 the wars are not meant to be won, the wars are meant to be continual for the profit of the elites and we the proles are to suffer. ..."
"... The sheeple are not only lead to slaughter, they are made totally unaware of the fact. Sad. ..."
"... "Why didn't Putin simply restore Yanukovych to power and leave it at that?" -- Michael Kenny, why have not you asked Brennan, the former CIA director who traveled "secretly" to Kiev to "organize" the ongoing civil war in Ukraine? ..."
Donald Trump's biggest success, thus far into his Presidency, has been his sale of
$400
billion (originally $350 billion) of U.S.-made weapons to the Saudi Arabian Government,
which is owned by its royal family, after whom that nation is named. This sale alone is big
enough to be called Trump's "jobs plan" for Americans. It is also the biggest weapons-sale in
all of history. It's 400 billion dollars, not 400 million dollars; it is gigantic, and, by far,
unprecedented in world-history.
The weapons that the Sauds and their friends, the 7 monarchies that constitute the United
Arab Emirates, are using right now, in order to conquer and subdue Yemen, are almost entirely
made in America. That's terrific business for America. Not only are Americans employed, in
strategically important congressional districts (that is, politically important congressional
districts), to manufacture this equipment for mass-murdering in foreign lands that never
threatened (much less invaded) America, but the countries that purchase this equipment are
thereby made dependent upon the services of those American manufacturers, and of the
taxpayer-funded U.S. 'Defense' Department and its private military contractors such as Lockheed
Martin, to maintain this equipment, and to train the local military enforcers, on how to
operate these weapons. Consequently, foreign customers of U.S. military firms are buying not
only U.S. weapons, but the U.S. Government's protection -- the protection by the U.S. military,
of those monarchs. They are buying the label of being an "American ally" so that the U.S. news
media can say that this is in defense of American allies (regardless of whether it's even
that). American weapons are way overpriced for what they can do, but they are a bargain for
what they can extract out of America's taxpayers, who fund the U.S. 'Defense' Department and
thus fund the protection of those monarchs: these kings and other dictators get U.S. taxpayers
to fund their protection. It's an international protection-racket funded by American taxpayers
and those rulers, in order to protect those rulers; and the victims aren't only the people who
get slaughtered in countries such as Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Libya, and Syria, and Yemen,
and Palestine, but also (though only financially) are the American public, who get fleeced by
it -- the American public provide the bulk of the real funding for this operation to expand the
lands where America's allies rule, and so to serve both America's aristocracy and the
aristocracies that are America's allies.
This is how today's America enforces its 'democracy' around the world, so that America can
spread this 'democracy', at gunpoint, and at bomb-point, like America's allies, those Kings and
Emirs, and the apartheid regime in Israel, are doing, to the people whom they kill and conquer,
with help from the taxpayer-funded American military -- funded to protect those aristocrats,
against their respective publics, and to further enrich America's own aristocrats, at the
expense of America's own public.
The global 'aggressor' has been identified by America's previous President, Barack Obama ,
who won office like Trump did, by promising 'a reset' in
relations with post-communist Russia, and by mocking Obama's opponent (Mitt Romney) for
having called Russia "the number one geopolitical
foe" -- which America's aristocracy has historically considered Russia to be, ever since
the aristocracy in Russia fled and were killed in 1917, which caused America's and other
aristocracies to fear and hate Russia and Russians, for having ousted its aristocracy, this
being an act that aristocrats everywhere
are determined to avenge, regardless of 'ideology' . (Similarly, America and its
pro-aristocracy foreign allies, seek to avenge Iran's 1979 overthrow of the Shah.) As Obama's
own actions during his subsequent Presidency made clear, and as he already had started in 2011
(if not from day one of his Presidency) secretly to implement, he privately agreed with what
Romney said on that occasion, but he was intelligent enough (which his opponent obviously was
not) to recognize that the American public, at that time, did not agree with it but instead
believed that Islamic terrorists and aristocrats such as the Sauds who finance them are that);
and Obama took full advantage of his opponent's blunder there, which helped Obama to win a
second term in the White House (after having skillfully hidden from the public during his first
term, his intention to weaken Russia by eliminating leaders who were friends or even allies of
Russia, such as in Syria, and Ukraine).
This is American 'democracy', after all ( rule
by deceit, lies ), and that's the reason why, when Russia, in 2014, responded to the U.S.
coup in Ukraine (a coup under the cover of anti-corruption demonstrations) which coup was
taking over this large country next-door to Russia and thus constituted a deadly threat to
Russia's national security,
Obama declared Russia to be the world's top 'aggressor' . Obama overthrew Ukraine and then
damned Russia's leader Putin for responding to Obama's aggressive threat against Russia from
this coup in neighboring Ukraine. Russia was supposedly the 'aggressor' because it allowed the
residents of Crimea -- which had been part of Russia until the Soviet dictator in 1954 had
arbitrarily handed Crimea to Ukraine -- to become Russian citizens again, Russians like 90% of
them felt they still were, despite Khrushchev's transfer of them to Ukraine in 1954. The vast
majority of Crimeans felt themselves still to be Russians. But Obama and allies of the
U.S. Government insisted that the newly installed Government of Ukraine must rule those people;
those people must not be permitted to rule (or be ruled) by people they've participated in
choosing.
This is today's American 'democracy' . Is it also
'democracy' in America's allied countries? (Obviously, they are more democratic than America
regarding just the incarceration-rate; but what about generally?) Almost all of those countries
continue to say that America is a democracy (despite the proof that it is not), and that
they are likewise. Are they correct in both? Are they allied with a 'democracy' against
democracy? Or, are they, in fact, phonies as democracies? These are serious questions, and
bumper-sticker answers to them won't suffice anymore -- not after invading Iraq in 2003, and
Libya in 2011, and Syria right afterward, and Ukraine in 2014, and Yemen today, etc.
Please send this article along to friends, and ask for their thoughts about this. Because,
in any actual democracy, everyone should be discussing these issues, under the prevailing
circumstances. Taxpayer-funded mass-slaughter is now routine and goes on year after year. After
a few decades of this, shouldn't people start discussing the matter? Why haven't they been?
Isn't this the time to start? Or is America so much of a dictatorship that it simply won't
happen? We'll see.
I am very tired of the limp dick gutter trash that passes for leadership in this country
trying to tell the rest of the world what they can and cant do. The Orange Clown is too big
for his britches and is doing the donkey for his Jew Israeli gang. This is not America First.
China, Germany defend Iran business ties as U.S. sanctions grip
Reuters•August 08, 2018
BEIJING/BERLIN (Reuters) – China and Germany defended their business ties with Iran
on Wednesday in the face of President Donald Trump's warning that any companies trading with
the Islamic Republic would be barred from the United States. The comments from Beijing and
Berlin signaled growing anger from partners of the United States, which reimposed strict
sanctions against Iran on Tuesday, over its threat to penalize businesses from third
countries that continue to operate there. "China has consistently opposed unilateral
sanctions and long-armed jurisdiction," the Chinese foreign ministry said. "China's
commercial cooperation with Iran is open and transparent, reasonable, fair and lawful,
not...
Turkey to continue buying natural gas from Iran despite U.S. sanctions
ANKARA (Reuters) – Turkey will continue to buy natural gas from Iran in line with
its long-term supply contract, Turkey's energy minister said on Wednesday, a day after U.S.
President Donald Trump threatened that anyone trading with Iran will not do business with
America. NATO member Turkey is dependent on imports for almost all of its energy needs and
Iran is a key supplier of Ankara's natural gas and oil purchases. While the Turkish refiner
Tupras has already cut back on oil shipments from Tehran, a complete halt of energy imports
would be near impossible. Energy Minister Fatih Donmez told A Haber broadcaster that he
expected Ankara's talks with Washington on the issue to yield a positive outcome.
"democracy" requires free access to unconstrained information. Otherwise the voter is
like cattle free to chose which pre-determined path to take to the same slaughterhouse
I am in no position to contest much of the author's detail on matters of peripheral interest
to me like Ukraine but I have an honest and expert source of information which makes me
understand the unmentioned fact that, apart from the Crimeans, there is a very solid body of
Ukrainians including those whose first language is Russian whose main objective would be for
Ukraine to be and remain independent of Russia.
Correspondingly the idea that Yanukovich was
"democratically elected" is humbug coming from someone who – rightly in my view –
denies America's democratic credentials.
LOL, Justin Trudeau is having a row with Saudi Arabia for jailing a female activist. But he
care less about civilian being mascaraed in Yemen, especially children (school bus) being
bombed .
democracy requires more; it also requires voting power..
IN USA controlled America, Americans are not allow to vote on law at all and for law
maker[Pharaoh directed slave drivers of Americans] each voter gets to check on the ballot
whether he, she or it prefers the donkey Pharaoh or the Elephant Pharaoh to rule America by
selecting (voting for) the next slave driver office holder. Real candidates selected by
Americans in a true democracy do not happen.
Secondly, 527 positions in the USA are filled by voting outcome,
Americans can Corporations and Foreigners can fund these guys
vote for 1 to be your
next slave driver
1 President Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate
1 V Pres. Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate
1 Senator Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate
1 Senator Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate
1 member of the House Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate
that's a total of five votes, each voter can caste, but there are 527 jobs to be
filled?
you vote is limited, what you say is ignored., what you are allowed to know or hear about
is
directed by private media corporations and highly paid psychologist and professional
intelligence people.
Think about it, Americans have no power to control how they are Governed or whot
will inflict the next pain Americans will be made to suffer, nor are Americans allowed
access to the information needed to understand the environment or the issues important
to that environment in which they live. True in many countries.
Seems to me there are two prisons in America:
the larger unconfined prison and
the highly confined jails.
The occupants of each are under 24/7 surveillance,
not by government but by private corporations.
Neither is given access to important information, and
those in the unconfined prison are threatened each day with confinement
should the thoughts or behaviors of the threatened challenge those in control of the
system.
The article is about Militarization of our economy, but that too is not within
the control of Americans. Militarization is dictated by private corporations
and their Pharaoh owners; it is they who control the USA, and it is the USA
that Controls Americans in accord to the directives given by the Pharaohs.
The Zionist controlled U.S. gov is in the war business and has been ever since the Zionists
took control of the U.S. via their privately owned money creation machine know as the FED and
their IRS in 1913 so once they had the ability to create money out of thin air and the
ability to tax Americans to pay for the debts that war incurred, the Zionists had control of
America lock stock and gun barrel.
All the wars that the U.S. has been in since and including WWI and right down to the war
in Syria , have been Zionist banker created wars and all the millions of lives lost and the
trillions in debt from these wars can be laid at the feet of the Zionists who control every
facet of the U.S. gov, and as said by General Smedley Butler in his book War Is A Racket, and
that is what war is a Zionist racket.
In THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN it is laid out that the business of the U.S. is war and
that war is good for business and war we shall have and so it is that we are a nation of war
and as in Orwells 1984 the wars are not meant to be won, the wars are meant to be continual
for the profit of the elites and we the proles are to suffer.
Good God, what a hysterical rant! It's hardly worth bothering with the details but just a few
points for the heck of it. He says that the Ukrainian coup "constituted a deadly threat to
Russia's national security" but doesn't explain why that, even if true, gave Putin the right
to invade Ukraine and annex part of its territory. Why didn't Putin simply restore Yanukovych
to power and leave it at that? By the way, Ukraine has never at any time applied for EU
membership.
MSM are doing their job of keeping Americans in the dark about anything of consequence. The
State Department just posted on its site proposed new "sanctions" on Russia that essentially
amount to a declaration of war. Lunatic asylum is the most appropriate place for the whole
American "leadership", down to the last man/woman/tranny. The only thing that stands between
us and WWIII, which would be a suicide of humanity, is unbelievably cool and reasonable
position of Russian leadership.
But Americans are kept in the dark entirely, distracted with BS stories. The top "news" on
the CNN site: "2 police officers among 4 killed in Canada shooting; a suspect is in custody";
"Ex-Ohio state wrestler clarifies comment about congressman's awareness of abuse". As if any
of this would matter when nuclear missiles start flying.
The sheeple are not only lead to slaughter, they are made totally unaware of the fact.
Sad.
Do some research, there is plenty of information available for example Wall Street and the
Bolshevik Revolution by Anthony Sutton, can be had on Amazon.
So much irritation but zero refutation. The article certainly struck a nerve in an
"Intelligent Dasein," a supporter of Zio-Nazism.
Meanwhile, here is a rational approach towards war reparations: http://www.voltairenet.org/article202370.html
"'the conflict that took place in Syria is a war of aggression organized by transnational
financial interests – such as the investment fund KKR, Toyota, the global leader of
Cement Lafarge, etc. Therefore it must be the transnationals involved and the States that
worked with them that have to pay the damages."
The Jewish State must be unquestionably included in the list of "organized interests"
guilty of the war of aggression and war crimes in Syria, which resulted in a massive loss of
life and tremendous damage to Syrian infrastructure. Considering the sheer number of the
war-cheerleaders among Israel-firsters and the influence of ziocons (the Jewish Lobby) on the
US policies abroad, Israel owes a lot to Syria.
This is not some sort of inventive claims peddled by Holo-biz, but a fact-based demand that
must be honored by the aggressors.
Every time a "chosen" makes a noise about "uncomparable sufferings" he/she must be reminded
of the Jewish crimes in Russia, Ukraine, Syria, and Gaza Ghetto.
I do mean rational factually supported arguments. But creationists and adepts of any other
system of baseless beliefs, including various religions, communism, Nazism, etc., should be
also allowed to air their arguments, however ridiculous they are. Let everyone show his/her
true colors. Smart people will see through any BS, whereas fooling the fools is not a crime,
the fools exist to be fooled, often by other fools.
Censorship is an admission that you have no arguments. That's why Western MSM are so
heavily censored.
"Why didn't Putin simply restore Yanukovych to power and leave it at that?" -- Michael Kenny, why have not you asked Brennan, the former CIA director who traveled
"secretly" to Kiev to "organize" the ongoing civil war in Ukraine?
How old are you to ask such a naive question, 7 or 97?
Do you understand how much $5 billion is? -- This is how much the zionized US government had
invested in regime change in Ukraine.
The rationale for the anti-Russian sanctions carries, of course, a "humanitarian" touch:
bad Russia is punished by the righteous US for the alleged poisoning of Skripals. There is
zero evidence to support the US/UK verdict re Skripals
Here is what is left of the formerly alive and healthy children after the "righteous" US had
sent a "legitimate" "humanitarian" help in the kids' direction:
Typical of the "defenders of human rights". The "shining city on a hill" did the same in
Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and countless other
countries. As Madeleine Albright put it, the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it.
The US is always more arrogant, as opposed to super-hypocritical Europe. Hard to tell what's
worse.
If this article were any more poorly written, it would be banned by the FDA. The
repetitious, tub-thumping tone should not be consumed while driving or operating heavy
machinery.
Agree. Promising topic, disappointing delivery.
Just the usual, shallow, propaganda.
Simply a very bad article.
Russian officials reacted with outrage and markets slumped on Thursday morning following
the announcement of tough new US sanctions over Russia's alleged use of a nerve agent in
the Salisbury attack.
President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the sanctions were "absolutely
unlawful and don't conform to international law", as politicians vowed to respond with
countermeasures, which could include bans on the exports of rockets or resources for
manufacturing.
"The theatre of the absurd continues," tweeted Dmitry Polyanskiy, first
deputy permanent representative of Russia to the UN. "No proofs, no clues, no logic, no
presumption of innocence, just highly-likelies. Only one rule: blame everything on Russia, no
matter how absurd and fake it is. Let us welcome the United Sanctions of America!"
One senior Russian MP called the US a "police state".
A member of the Duma's foreign affairs committee, Leonid Slutsky, said Russia could block exports of RD-180 rocket
engines to the US as a potential countermeasure, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.
The State Department said the new sanctions would come into effect on 22 August and would be
followed by much more sweeping measures, such as suspending diplomatic relations and revoking
Aeroflot landing rights, if Russia did not take "remedial" action within 90 days.
Moscow is not expected to agree to the response required by US legislation, which includes
opening up Russian scientific and security facilities to international inspections to assess
whether it is producing chemical and biological weapons in violation of international law.
"Certainly it is really up to Russia to make that decision, whether they meet this
criteria," a senior administration official said. "The second round of sanctions are in general
more draconian than the first round."
Another senior state department official said the US received in March "persuasive
information" from the UK that Russia was behind the attack. It made its own determination last
weekend and was now acting on the basis of "objective facts" and "legal requirements".
Russian markets took the news poorly. Stocks in Aeroflot, the country's national carrier,
fell by 12% in trading before lunchtime on Thursday over concerns that its direct flights
between Russia and the US could be halted entirely.
Russia's currency, the rouble, fell to below 66 to the US dollar, a 4% slide from Wednesday
morning that began with the leak of a separate draft sanctions bill that could see Russia named
a state sponsor of terror.
The US has already expelled 60 suspected Russian spies as part of a global response to the
March attack in Salisbury against
Sergei Skripal , a former colonel in Russian military intelligence, and his daughter,
Yulia , in which a rare and potent Russian-made nerve agent, novichok, was found to have
been used.
"... Earlier, Russia's Kommersant newspaper posted the draft introduced last week by a bipartisan group of legislators. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the nation's biggest lenders. ..."
"... Traders are particularly concerned by a clause that calls for prohibiting "all transactions in all property and interests in property" of some of the country's largest lenders. Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Promsvyazbank, Rosselkhozbank and Vnesheconombank are listed. ..."
"... The bill also seeks penalties on energy projects and a survey of President Vladimir Putin's net worth. It follows reports of Russia's ongoing efforts to sway U.S. elections, new efforts to hack U.S. senators, and intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
Earlier, Russia's Kommersant newspaper posted the draft introduced last week by a bipartisan group of
legislators. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions of the
nation's biggest lenders. The bill includes proposals to sanction new sovereign debt and block dollar transactions
of the nation's biggest lenders.
"The Kommersant publication was the straw that broke the camel's back,"
said Denis Davydov, an analyst at Nordea Bank in Moscow. "It's important to be able to read and assess the actual
bill."
Market Jitters
No action will be taken on the draft until the House is back from summer recess in September, leaving room for
more market jitters through the end of the month. But with President Donald Trump calling for closer ties with
Russia, and the U.S. Treasury warning earlier this year against sanctioning the sovereign debt market, it's
uncertain the bill will make it into law.
Traders are
particularly concerned
by a clause that calls for prohibiting "all transactions in all property and interests
in property" of some of the country's largest lenders. Sberbank, VTB Bank, Gazprombank, Promsvyazbank,
Rosselkhozbank and Vnesheconombank are listed.
The draft also includes Bank of Moscow, which was merged into VTB in 2016, while Vnesheconombank is listed
twice in the text, without explanation.
'Crushing Russia'
"If you start crushing Russia by causing the banking system to collapse as a result of sanctions, it could
actually lead to worse political outcomes than what you have right now," Khan said. "The key rule of sanctions is
that you want to keep some in reserve because if you use your worst sanctions then what do you follow it up with?"
The bill also seeks penalties on energy projects and a survey of President Vladimir Putin's net worth. It
follows reports of Russia's ongoing efforts to sway U.S. elections, new efforts to hack U.S. senators, and
intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia sought to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.
Lawmakers from both parties have also been sharply critical of President Donald Trump's meeting with Putin in
Helsinki last month, saying Trump hasn't done enough to hold Russia accountable.
This is attack on ruble. Kind of Magnitsky II set of moves. Strange if view of Trump supposed
attempt to split Russia and China in Helsinki. You should chose a single target in such
cases.
Sanctions weaken the effect of Iranian sanctions. While the goal is to undermine the Russian
economy -- the effect of negative expectations is always stronger than a onetime action -- 90
days allow to avoid big financial losses for major banks. The requirement of inspection of Russia
objects is from Iraq war textbook.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to the dollar. ..."
"... This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the worst valuation since mid-November, 2016. ..."
"... For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK, which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , ..."
"... This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing intensity since 2013. ..."
sanctions was
apparently enough to create jitters on the Russian stock exchanges, and the Russian
Ruble has fallen to a new 2018 low against the American dollar. Trading went over 66 rubles to
the dollar.
This marks almost a 20% devaluation in the currency since April of this year, and the
worst valuation since mid-November, 2016.
This incident has not gone unanswered in Moscow. The Russian Embassy in the United States
called for documentation about the source and reasoning behind these new sanctions, as reported by TASS:
The Russian embassy in the United States has called on the US Department of State to
publish correspondence on the introduction of new sanctions on Moscow over the Skripal
incident, the embassy said in a statement.
" For our part, we reiterated our principle [sic] stands on the events in the UK,
which the Embassy had been outlining in corresponding letters to the State Department. We
confirmed that we continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of
the crime committed in Salisbury and for bringing the culprits to justice , " the
statement reads.
"We suggested publishing our correspondence on this issue. No answer has followed so
far," the Russian embassy added.
This pattern of throwing out destructive slander while refusing to provide opportunity
for a real answer has permeated American policy towards the Russian Federation with increasing
intensity since 2013. It reveals the machinations of a very divided American government,
with the "deep State" or establishment politicians and foreign policy makers completely
unwilling to even give Russia a fair shake at representing itself. This policy is shared by the
United Kingdom, as this
piece by The Duran's Editor in Chief, Alexander Mercouris shows, with this summary of
violations of due process the British authorities are committing with regard to Russia:
(1) The British government is interfering in the conduct of a criminal investigation, with
Prime Minister Theresa May and especially Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson pointing fingers at
who they say is guilty (Russia) whilst the criminal investigation is still underway;
(2) The British government has said that unless Russia proves itself innocent within a
specific time the British government will conclude that it is guilty. As I have explained
previously this
reverses the burden of proof : in a criminal case it is the prosecution which is supposed
to prove the defendant's guilt, not the defendant who must prove his innocence;
(3) The British government refuses to share with Russia -- the party it says is guilty --
the 'evidence' upon which it says it has concluded that Russia is guilty, the evidence in
this case being a sample of the chemical with which it says Sergey and Yulia Skripal was
poisoned.
This violates the fundamental principle that the defendant must be provided with all the
evidence against him so that he can properly prepare his defence;
(4) The British government is not following the procedure set out in Article IX (2) of the
Chemical Weapons
Convention to which both Britain and Russia are parties. This reads as follows
States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and
resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter
which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to
concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which
receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the
requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting
State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than ten days after the request,
with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation
of how the information provided resolves the matter.
(5) The British authorities are denying the Russians consular access to Yulia Skripal,
though she is a Russian citizen who the British authorities say was subjected to a criminal
assault on their territory.
This is a potentially serious matter since by preventing consular access to Yulia Skripal
the British authorities are not only violating the interstate consular arrangements which
exist between Britain and Russia, but they are preventing the Russian authorities from
learning more about the condition of one of their citizens who has been hospitalised
following a violent criminal assault, and are preventing the Russian authorities from
carrying out their own investigation into the assault on one of their citizens which the
British authorities say has taken place.
I would add that this obstruction of Russian consular access to Yulia Skripal has gone
almost entirely unreported in the British and Western media.
The Americans are playing the same game here, and, regrettably, President Trump's overtures
towards repairing this relationship are almost sure to be torn out from under him by the
actions of this virulent group of people. It is quite possible that this is the very reason for
these new sanctions.
The perspective of the American government as one divided, with a rabid force in favor of
continuing to isolate and vilify a great power in the world for no good reason, is sure to have
repercussions. However, given the gradual realignment of Russia and China to be in closer and
closer partnership, and Russia's increasing prominence in Asian and Eastern Hemisphere affairs,
the end result of this behavior is likely to damage the United States and its standing in the
world over the long run.
6. Focused on violence through brownshirt stormtroopers who beat up any who disagreed
7. Had an intelligence service which focused on crushing dissent and spying on its own
people
8. Placed more power in the central government and state then any Nation before it.
All of the above are things proposed or carried out by leftists. It is almost as if the true
parties espoused by people are those who support individualism and those who support
collectivism. Spoiler alert for the Leftist retards: Power corrupts and Absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Your Statist Sanders Utopia will never come to fruition. The "Kind Socialist
Politicians" will sell you out to the elite in a heartbeat.
All you are doing is focusing the
power of your society into one single glass for the Elite to sip as they assfuck you into
oblivion, Death toll of all of these Statist Nations, IE Imperial Japan, Soviet Union,
Communist China, the People's "Republic" of Korea, etc is over 200,000,000 and counting.
How is it that the acronym NAZI Literally has the word SOCIALIST in it and people still
think they were right wing??? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for the average
individual?
The entire Spygate scandal is finally being exposed. In this episode I address the
scandalous beginnings of the FBI investigation into Trump and the sources they may be
hiding.
If John Solomon were still doing journalism, the lede of
this piece would be that the FBI interviewed Oleg Deripaska in September 2016, even as the Russian operation to tamper in the
election was ongoing.
Two months before Trump was elected president, Deripaska was in New York as part of Russia's United Nations delegation when
three FBI agents awakened him in his home; at least one agent had worked with Deripaska on the aborted effort to rescue Levinson.
During an hour-long visit, the agents posited a theory that Trump's campaign was secretly colluding with Russia to hijack the
U.S. election.
"Deripaska laughed but realized, despite the joviality, that they were serious," the lawyer said. "So he told them in his informed
opinion the idea they were proposing was false. 'You are trying to create something out of nothing,' he told them." The agents
left though the FBI sought more information in 2017 from the Russian, sources tell me. Waldman declined to say if Deripaska has
been in contact with the FBI since Sept, 2016.
Telling that story would make it clear that the FBI pursued an investigation into Russian tampering at the source, by questioning
Russians suspected of being involved. Republicans should be happy to know the FBI was using such an approach.
But Solomon isn't doing journalism anymore -- even his employer now
acknowledges that that's true. After
complaints about his propaganda (in part, attacking the Mueller investigation) he has been relegated to the opinion section of
The Hill.
Not before his last effort to impugn Mueller, though, claiming that because the FBI used Deripaska as a go-between in a 2009 effort
to rescue Robert Levinson, Mueller is prevented from investigating him now.
In 2009, when Mueller ran the FBI,
the
bureau asked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to spend millions of his own dollars funding an FBI-supervised operation to rescue
a retired FBI agent, Robert Levinson, captured in Iran while working for the CIA in 2007.
[snip]
Deripaska's lawyer said the Russian ultimately spent $25 million assembling a private search and rescue team that worked with
Iranian contacts under the FBI's watchful eye. Photos and videos indicating Levinson was alive were uncovered.
Then in fall 2010, the operation secured an offer to free Levinson. The deal was scuttled, however, when the State Department
become uncomfortable with Iran's terms, according to Deripaska's lawyer and the Levinson family.
FBI officials confirmed State hampered their efforts.
"We tried to turn over every stone we could to rescue Bob, but every time we started to get close, the State Department seemed
to always get in the way," said Robyn Gritz, the retired agent who supervised the Levinson case in 2009, when Deripaska first
cooperated, but who left for another position in 2010 before the Iranian offer arrived. "I kept Director Mueller and Deputy Director
[John] Pistole informed of the various efforts and operations, and they offered to intervene with State, if necessary."
FBI officials ended the operation in 2011, concerned that Deripaska's Iranian contacts couldn't deliver with all the U.S. infighting.
Even assuming Solomon's tale -- which is that offered by Deripaska's lawyer -- is factually correct, what this means is that the
FBI used Deripaska as an asset, just like they've used Christopher Steele as a source. Of course, using ex-MI6 officer Steele, for
the frothy right, is a heinous crime. But using a Russian billionaire, according to a propagandist who has been regurgitating Trump
spin since he was elected, is heroic. Perhaps that's why a Trump crony, Bryan Lanza, is also trying to help Deripaska's company
beat the sanctions
recently imposed on him.
Of course, Solomon doesn't consider the possibility that FBI and State balked in 2011 because Deripaska himself had proven unreliable.
Which would explain a lot of what transpired in the years since. Nor does he consider --
nor has the frothy right generally -- the
possibility that any damning
disinformation in the Steele dossier ended up there in part via Deripaska.
Certainly, Deripaska's own asset, Paul Manafort, seemed
prepared to
capitalize on that disinformation.
As the Mueller investigation has proceeded, we've gotten just a glimpse of how the spooks trade in information, involving allies
like Steele and Stefan Halper, and more sordid types like George Nader (who appears to have traded information to get out of consequences
for a child porn habit), Felix Sater (who claims, dubiously, to be offering full cooperation with Mueller based on years of working
off his own mob ties), and even Deripaska.
Curiously, it's Deripaska that propagandists spewing the White House line seem most interested in celebrating.
Update: Chuck Ross did a story based on
Solomon's report, and did note that the FBI questioned Deripaska in September 2016. But, fresh off complaining that I had
called him out for doing this in another story, turns a story about Manafort and his long-time Russian associate into a story about
the dossier (in which Deripaska is not named).
In September 2016, FBI agents approached Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska to ask about allegations President Donald Trump's
campaign was colluding with the Russian government to influence the election, according to a new report.
Deripaska, who was at his apartment in New York City for the interview, waved the three agents off of the collusion theory,
saying there was no coordination between the Trump team and Kremlin,
The Hill reported Monday.
The agents, one of whom Deripaska knew from a previous FBI case, said they believed former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
was involved in the conspiracy, an allegation made in the infamous Steele dossier.
Ross then continues on, dossier dossier dossier dossier dossier, including this claim not supported by any public evidence.
It is also an indicator of how they investigated some of the allegations made in the dossier.
By the time September 2016 rolled around, it had been
two months since Deripaska go-between Konstantin Kilimnik emailed (
probably via
a PRISM service ) Manafort about paying off his debt to Deripaska by giving inside dirt on the campaign. There were meetings
in NYC. In September 2016, Alex Van der Zwaan was
actively covering
up the ongoing efforts to hide Manafort's involvement in Ukraine's persecution of Yulia Tymoshenko, and doing so in the servers of
a law firm going to pains to clear their name.
And all that's before you consider what hasn't been shared with Congress and leaked to the press.
Meanwhile, the only mention of Deripaska in the dossier by September was an undated
July report claiming
that Manafort was happy to have the focus on Russia because the Trump corruption in China was worse (and also suggesting that Manafort
used Carter Page as a go-between with Russia); given reports about when Steele shared reports with the FBI, it's not clear the Bureau
would have had that yet. In any case, the more extensive discussion of Manafort comes later, after the Deripaska interview.
Had Manafort been a surveillance focus solely for the dossier (something that wasn't even true for Page), you'd have heard that
by now.
Every time Mueller submits a filing explaining how the Manafort Ukraine investigation came out of the Russia investigation, he
has mentioned Deripaska. Trump's own team leaked questions suggesting that Mueller is sitting on information that Manafort reached
out to Russians asking for help (and Deripaska was among those we know he was in touch with).
And yet, after competently noting that the FBI interviewed Deripaska, Ross made the crazypants suggestion that any suspicion of
Manafort would arise from the dossier and not abundant other known evidence.
I fail to see how Solomon is saying Mueller isn't allowed to investigate Deripaska because he once recruited him for the
Levinson rescue operation. Perhaps if you were doing honest blogging, the lede of your piece would be how three FBI agents
showed up to persuade Deripaska to help them create a phony Russiagate narrative. Or isn't this line obvious enough: 'You are
trying to create something out of nothing.'
You might also want to be asking why Mueller omitted any mention of Deripaska in his Manafort indictment. Strange, huh?
Excuse me? What part of 'You are trying to create something out of nothing' didn't you get? I'm sorry,
but this is the elephant in the room. Three agents show up to tell a Russian oligarch to go along with their tale of collusion --
I guess because he's been so cooperative in the past. Not only that, they suggest to him "keep an open mind" about things. What does
that mean?
Forget R-TV, this should be on every American news network not to mention every major newspaper. But of course we know it won't
be, for obvious reasons. So ignore this if you wish, but please, spare me the suggestion this is tin-foil stuff. It's right there in the open.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller obtained a secret order from a federal magistrate judge to suspend the statute of limitations
on one of the charges he ultimately brought against Paul Manafort, a court filing revealed Monday evening.
Mueller did not inform Manafort of the secret order until after the former Trump campaign chairman had requested that charge be thrown out, the filing
said. [ ]
Mueller also disclosed in the Monday court filing that, as recently as April 30 of this year, the government of Cyprus
was still turning over documents related to the special counsel's Manafort investigation. [ ]
[Editor's note: The following article is an excerpt
from investigative journalist Seth Hettena's new book, "Trump / Russia: A Definitive History."]
*
[quote] [ ] In April of 2008, Deripaska paid nearly $19 million to fund the acquisition of Chorne More, then paid Manafort an
additional $7.35 million in fees. Years later, Deripaska learned that the purchase price of Chorne More was $1.1 million less
than Manafort and Gates had led him to believe. Gates and Manafort had simply pocketed the difference, laundering it through accounts
in Cyprus that the two men used as "their personal piggy banks," the oligarch said in a lawsuit. [ ] [end quote]
Emails in 2016 between former British spy Christopher Steele and Justice Department official
Bruce Ohr suggest Steele was deeply concerned about the legal status of a Putin-linked Russian
oligarch, and at times seemed to be advocating on the oligarch's behalf , in the same time
period Steele worked on collecting the Russia-related allegations against Donald Trump that
came to be known as the Trump dossier. The emails show Steele and Ohr were in frequent contact,
that they intermingled talk about Steele's research and the oligarch's affairs, and that Glenn
Simpson , head of the dirt-digging group Fusion GPS that hired Steele to compile the dossier,
was also part of the ongoing conversation.
The emails, given to Congress by the Justice Department, began on Jan. 12, 2016, when Steele
sent Ohr a New Year's greeting. Steele brought up the case of Russian aluminum magnate Oleg
Deripaska (referred to in various emails as both OD and OVD), who was at the time seeking a
visa to attend an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in the United States. Years
earlier, the U.S. revoked Deripaska's visa, reportedly on the basis of suspected involvement
with Russian organized crime. Deripaska was close to Paul Manafort , the short-term Trump
campaign chairman now on trial for financial crimes, and this year was sanctioned in the wake
of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.
"I heard from Adam WALDMAN [a Deripaska lawyer/lobbyist] yesterday that OD is applying for
another official US visa ice [sic] APEC business at the end of February," Steele wrote in the
Jan. 12 email. Steele said Deripaska was being "encouraged by the Agency guys who told Adam
that the USG [United States Government] stance on [Deripaska] is softening." Steele concluded:
"A positive development it seems."
Steele also asked Ohr when he might be coming to London, or somewhere in Europe, "as I would
be keen to meet up here and talk business." Ohr replied warmly the same day and said he would
likely travel to Europe, but not the U.K., at least twice in February.
Steele emailed again on Feb. 8 to alert Ohr that "our old friend OD apparently has been
granted another official [emphasis in original] visa to come to the US later this
month." Steele wrote, "As far as I'm concerned, this is good news all round although as before,
it would be helpful if you could monitor it and let me know if any complications arise." Ohr
replied that he knew about Deripaska's visa, and "to the extent I can I will keep an eye on the
situation." Steele again asked to meet anytime Ohr was in the U.K. or Western Europe.
Steele wrote again on Feb. 21 in an email headlined "Re: OVD – Visit To The US."
Steele told Ohr he had talked to Waldman and to Paul Hauser, who was Deripaska's London lawyer.
Steele reported that there would be a U.S. government meeting on Deripaska that week –
"an inter-agency meeting on him this week which I guess you will be attending." Steele said he
was "circulating some recent sensitive Orbis reporting" on Deripaska that suggested Deripaska
was not a "tool" of the Kremlin . Steele said he would send the reporting to a name that is
redacted in the email, "as he has asked, for legal reasons I understand, for all such reporting
be filtered through him (to you at DoJ and others)."
Deripaska's rehabilitation was a good thing, Steele wrote: "We reckon therefore that the
forthcoming OVD contact represents a good opportunity for the USG." Ohr responded by saying,
"Thanks Chris! This is extremely interesting. I hope we can follow up in the next few weeks as
you suggest."
Steele was eager to see Ohr face to face. On March 17, Steele wrote a brief note asking if
Ohr had any update on plans to visit Europe "in the near term where we could meet up." Ohr said
he did not and asked if Steele would like to set up a call. It is not clear whether a call took
place.
There are no emails for more than three months after March 17. Then, on July 1, came the
first apparent reference to Donald Trump, then preparing to accept the Republican nomination
for president. "I am seeing [redacted] in London next week to discuss ongoing business," Steele
wrote to Ohr, "but there is something separate I wanted to discuss with you informally and
separately. It concerns our favourite business tycoon!" Steele said he had planned to come to
the U.S. soon, but now it looked like it would not be until August. He needed to talk in the
next few days, he said, and suggested getting together by Skype before he left on holiday. Ohr
suggested talking on July 7. Steele agreed.
Ohr's phone log for July 7 notes, "Call with Chris Steele" from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
eastern time.
(A caution here: It is possible the "favourite business tycoon" could be Deripaska, or
perhaps even someone else, and not Trump. But no one referred to Deripaska in that way anywhere
else in the communications. Also, Steele made it clear the "tycoon" subject was separate from
other business. And July 1 was just before Steele met with the FBI with the first installment
of the Trump dossier . So it appears reasonable, given Steele's well-known obsession with
Trump, and unless information emerges otherwise, to see the "favourite business tycoon" as
Trump.)
On the morning of Friday, July 29, Steele wrote to say that he would "be in DC at short
notice on business" later that day and Saturday. He asked if Ohr and wife Nellie were free for
breakfast on Saturday morning. They were, and agreed to meet for breakfast at the Mayflower
Hotel in downtown Washington.
Ohr's log of contacts with Steele lists a meeting with Steele on July 30. Steele finished
installments of the dossier on July 19 and 26.
On Aug. 22, Ohr received an email from Simpson with the subject line "Can u ring." There was
no message beyond a phone number. Ohr's log lists some sort of contact – it's not
specified what – with Simpson on Aug. 22.
Steele finished an installment of the dossier on Aug. 22.
Steele dated three installments of the dossier on Sept. 14. On Sept. 16, Steele wrote Ohr to
say that he would be back in Washington soon "on business of mutual interest." Ohr said he
would be out of town Sept. 19-21. On Sept. 21, Steele wrote to say he was in Washington and was
"keen to meet up with you." The two agreed to have breakfast on Sept. 23. Meeting on that date
would be "more useful," Steele said, "after my scheduled meetings" the day before. It's not
clear what those scheduled meetings were. Ohr's log lists a meeting with Steele on Sept.
23.
On October 18, Steele emailed Ohr at 6:51 a.m. with a pressing matter. "If you are in
Washington today, I have something quite urgent I would like to discuss with you, preferably by
Skype (even before work if you can)." Steele wrote. Ohr suggested they do it immediately.
"Thanks Bruce. 2 mins," Steele replied. Ohr's log lists a call with Steele on Oct. 18.
There is no note on what they discussed. But a few hours later, still on Oct. 18, Steele
emailed Ohr again, and the subject was related to Deripaska. "Further to our Skypecon earlier
today," Steele wrote, Hauser had asked Steele to forward to Ohr information about a dispute
between the government of Ukraine and RUSAL, Deripaska's aluminum company. "Naturally, he
[Hauser] wants to protect the client's [Deripaska's] interests and reputation," Steele wrote.
"I pass it on for what it's worth."
After another few hours had passed, Ohr asked if Steele had time for a Skype call. Steele
said, let's do it now. Ohr's log lists calls with Steele on Oct. 18 and 19.
Steele finished dossier installments on Oct. 18, 19, and 20. The installment on Oct. 18 was
the infamous Russians-offer-Carter-Page-millions-of-dollars allegation, and the ones on Oct. 19
and 20 concerned Manafort's alleged role in an alleged collusion scheme.
On Nov. 21, other players entered the conversation. Ohr received an an email from Kathleen
Kavalec, a deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European Affairs in the State
Department. (Kavalec is now President Trump's nominee to be ambassador to Albania.) Kavalec
sent Ohr information on Simon Kukes, a Russian-born executive who contributed more than
$250,000 to Trump-supporting organizations after Trump won the Republican nomination. Kavalec
said she met Kukes around 2014, when "Tom Firestone brought him in," a reference to former
Justice Department official Thomas Firestone, now a partner at the Washington law firm
BakerHostetler. Kavalec also linked to a Mother Jones article about Kukes.
Ohr responded by saying, "I may have heard about him from Tom Firestone as well, but I can't
recall for certain." Then Kavalec answered by saying she was "just re-looking at my notes from
my convo with Chris Steele" and that "I see that Chris said Kukes has some connection to Serge
Millian, an emigre who is identified by FT as head of the Russian-American Chamber of
Commerce." [In the book Russian Roulette , authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn
wrote that Millian claimed to have some sort of business relationship with the Trump
organization – which the Trumps denied. More importantly, Millian went on to become
Steele's source for the infamous "golden showers" allegation that Donald Trump had engaged in a
kinky sex scene in a Moscow hotel room in 2013.]
Ohr's phone log indicates that he called Simpson on Dec. 8 to set up a meeting for coffee
the next day, Dec. 9.
There is not another email until Dec. 11. Simpson sent Nellie Ohr a link to an article in
the left-wing ThinkProgress headlined, "Why has the NRA been cozying up to Russia?" The article
focused on now-indicted Russian agent Maria Butina and Russian Alexander Torshin. Nellie Ohr
responded, "Thank you!" to which Simpson, the next day, answered, "Please ring if you can."
Nellie Ohr forwarded the Simpson message to Bruce Ohr, saying, "I assume Glenn means you not
me."
Ohr's phone log on Dec. 13 said, "Glenn Simpson. Some more news. Yesterday 9:27 a.m. Spoke
with him."
Steele dated a dossier installment Dec. 13.
On Jan. 20, 2017, inauguration day, Bruce Ohr received an email from Simpson that said
simply, "Can you call me please?"
The emails raise a clear question of whether Steele was working, directly or indirectly,
with Oleg Deripaska at the same time Steele was compiling the dossier – and whether the
Justice Department, along with Simpson and Fusion GPS, was part of the project. Given
Deripaska's place in the Russian power structure, what that means in the big picture is
unclear.
On Feb. 9 of this year, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley wrote a letter
to Hauser, the London lawyer, and asked, "Is it the case that Mr. Steele, through you, works or
has worked on behalf of Mr. Deripaska or businesses associated with him?"
Hauser refused to answer, claiming such information was privileged. But he added: "I can
confirm that neither my firm nor I was involved in the commissioning of, preparation of or
payment for the so-called 'Steele Dossier.' I am not aware of any involvement by Mr. Deripaska
in commissioning, preparing or paying for that document."
On Feb. 14, at an open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Sen. Tom
Cotton asked FBI Director Christopher Wray about Deripaska.
"Is it fair to call him a Putin-linked Russian oligarch?" asked Cotton.
"Well, I'll leave that characterization to others, and certainly not in this setting," Wray
said.
"Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, last week sent a letter to a
London-based lawyer who represents Mr. Deripaska," Cotton continued, "and asked if Christopher
Steele was employed, either directly or indirectly, by Oleg Deripaska at the time he was
writing the so-called Steele dossier. Do you know if Christopher Steele worked for Oleg
Deripaska?'
"That's not something I can answer," Wray said.
"Could we discuss it in a classified setting?"
"There might be more we could say there," Wray answered.
The newly-released Ohr-Steele-Simpson emails are just one part of the dossier story. But if
nothing else, they show that there is still much for the public to learn about the complex and
far-reaching effort behind it.
from
https://www.sott.net/article/393095-DOJ-gives-Congress-emails-between-Ohr-Steele-Simpson-suggesting-ties-to-Putin-ally-oligarch-Deripaska
Christopher Steele was working on the Trump dossier at the same time he was lobbying DOJ
official Bruce Ohr on behalf of a Russian oligarch linked to Putin.
Newly revealed emails show Steele thought the U.S. government should grant visas to
Deripaska, who had been barred from traveling to the U.S.
Steele asked Ohr to "keep an eye" on Deripaska's visa case.
At the same time Christopher Steele was compiling a dossier accusing the Trump campaign of
colluding with the Russian government, the former British spy was lobbying Department of
Justice official Bruce Ohr on behalf of a Russian oligarch with close ties to Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The connection between Steele and the oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, is laid out in emails the
Justice Department recently provided Congress.
The emails show that Steele, a former British spy, advocated for Deripaska in negotiations
over his visa status with the U.S. government. Deripaska, an aluminum magnate, had been blocked
from traveling to the U.S. in 2006 because of suspected ties to Russian mobsters. Deripaska
hired an American lawyer named Adam Waldman in 2009 to lobby the U.S. government to obtain
a visa for the billionaire.
The Washington Examiner
detailed the exchanges, which show Steele discussing Deripaska with Ohr, the former No. 4
official at the Justice Department.
Steele's relationship with Deripaska has been one of the more bizarre aspects of the dossier
saga, mainly because it raises the possibility that the Putin-connected businessman was a
source for the salacious document. Steele's unverified 35-page dossier relies heavily on
information from anonymous Kremlin insiders who claimed that the Russian government was
colluding with the Trump campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton. (RELATED:
Oleg Deripaska's Lawyer Goes On The Record About His Senate Testimony)
"I heard from Adam WALDMAN [a Deripaska lawyer/lobbyist] yesterday that OD is applying for
another official US visa ice [sic] APEC business at the end of February," Steele wrote in a
Jan. 12, 2016, email to Ohr, according to The Examiner.
Steele claimed that Deripaska had been "encouraged by the Agency guys who told Adam that the
USG [United States Government] stance on [Deripaska] is softening."
"A positive development it seems," Steele added.
Steele emailed Ohr again on Feb. 8, 2016, to say that Deripaska had been granted a visa to
travel to the U.S. later that month. He also made a request of Ohr in the email.
"As far as I'm concerned, this is good news all round although as before, it would be
helpful if you could monitor it and let me know if any complications arise," he wrote.
Ohr said that "to the extent I can I will keep an eye on the situation."
In a Feb. 21, 2016, email Steele said he was circulating reporting that he had done on
Deripaska that suggested the oligarch was not a "tool" of the Kremlin.
"We reckon therefore that the forthcoming [Deripaska] contact represents a good opportunity
for the [U.S. Government]," said Steele.
Links between the Steele and Deripaska began to emerge earlier in 2018 after Republican
lawmakers began inquiring about a possible relationship between the two.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has pressed Steele, Waldman and a
London-based lawyer named Paul Hauser about Steele's possible links to Deripaska.
FBI Director Christopher Wray was also asked about the relationship during a Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence hearing on Feb. 13.
"Do you know if Christopher Steele worked for Oleg Deripaska?" Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom
Cotton asked Wray.
"That's not something I can answer," Wray replied, adding added that "there might be more"
that he could say in a classified setting.
It is still not clear whether Steele was working for Deripaska or interested in his visa
status for other reasons.
Steele's support for Deripaska would seem to undercut one of Trump critics' theories about
possible collusion: that Deripaska conspired with Paul Manafort.
Deripaska's business ties to the longtime Republican political operative have come under
intense scrutiny from Democrats and the media, leading to some speculation that Manafort and
Deripaska may have colluded during the 2016 presidential campaign. (RELATED: Chuck Grassley
Connects Dossier Dots)
In one July 7, 2016, email, Manafort
told a Ukraine-based associate that he would be willing to provide briefings about the
campaign to Deripaska.
"If he needs private briefings we can accommodate," Manafort wrote to his associate,
Konstantin Kilimnik.
At the time, Manafort and Deripaska were in a dispute over a failed business deal involving
Ukrainian cable companies.
Manafort is currently on trial in Virginia for tax evasion and money laundering related to
his political work in Ukraine.
Steele and Ohr maintained contact throughout the presidential campaign and beyond, according
to Ohr's emails.
Nellie Ohr also happened to work at the time for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm
that hired Steele.
Bruce Ohr and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson also appear to have had contact prior to the
election. Simpson emailed Ohr on Aug. 22, 2016, asking to speak by phone.
It is not clear whether the two spoke, but Simpson did not disclose that contact when he
discussed Ohr during a Nov. 14, 2017, deposition before the House Intelligence Committee.
During that interview, Simpson said he met with Ohr for coffee after the election to discuss
the Trump investigation. Simpson did not tell the House panel that Ohr's wife worked for Fusion
GPS.
The United States Department of Justice would apparently have you believe that the Kremlin
sought to subvert the five-million-member strong National Rifle Association (NRA) by having two
Russian citizens take out life memberships in the organization with the intention of corrupting
it and turning it into a mouthpiece for President Vladimir Putin.
Both of the Russians – Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin – have, by the way,
long well documented histories as advocates for gun ownership and were founders of Right to
Bear Arms, which is not an intelligence front organization of some kind and is rather a genuine
lobbying group with an active membership and agenda.
Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, Russians can own guns but the
licensing and registration procedures are long and complicated, which Right to Bear Arms,
modeling itself on the NRA, is seeking to change.
Maria Butina, a graduate student at American University, is now in solitary confinement in a
federal prison, having been charged with collusion with Torshin and failure to register as an
agent of the Russian Federation. It is unusual to arrest and confine someone who has failed to
register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, but she has not been granted bail
because, as a Russian citizen, she is considered to be a "flight risk," likely to try to flee
the US and return home. It is to be presumed that she is being pressured to identify others
involved in her alleged scheme to overthrow American democracy through NRA membership.
Indeed, in any event, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would consider the NRA to
be a legitimate intelligence target. It only flexes its admitted powerful legislative muscles
over issues relating to gun ownership, not regarding policy on Russia. In short, Butina and by
extension Torshin appear to have done nothing wrong. Both are energetic advocates for their
country and guns rights, which they appear to believe in, and Butina's aggressive networking
has broken no law except not registering, which in itself assumes that she is a Russian
government agent, something that has not been demonstrated. To put the shoe on the other foot,
will every American who now travels to Russia and engages in political conversations with local
people be suspected of acting as an agent of the US government? Once you open the door, it
swings both ways.
One might dismiss the entire Affair Butina as little more than a reflection of the
anti-Russia hysteria that has been sweeping the United States since Hillary Clinton lost the
2016 election, but that would be unfair to those remaining honest FBI agents who may have
investigated Butina and Torshin and come up with what they believed to be a plausible case for
an indictment . There were possibly suspicious money transfers as well as email intercepts that
might be interpreted as incriminating.
But two important elements are clearly missing.
The first is motive. Did the Kremlin seriously believe that it could get anything
substantial out of having a gun totin' attractive young Russian woman as a life member in the
NRA? What did the presumed puppet masters in Moscow expect to obtain apart from the sorts of
group photos including Butina that one gets while posing with politicians at the annual NRA
convention? Sure, the photo might even evolve into a cup of coffee together, but what is the
end game?
Second is the lack of any of the hallmarks of an intelligence operation, which is referred
to in the business as tradecraft. Spies meet secretly or at least outside the public eye with
prospective agents whereas Maria operated completely in the open and she made no effort to
conceal her love for her country and her desire that Washington and Moscow normalize
relations. Spies also communicate securely, which means that they use encrypted systems or
various cut-outs, i.e. mis-directions, when maintaining contact with those who are running
them. Again, Maria did none of that, which is why the FBI has her emails. Also spies work
under what is referred to as an "operating directive" in CIA-speak where they have very
specific information that they seek to obtain from their contacts. There is no indication
that Maria Butina in any way sought classified information or intelligence that would relate
either to the security of the United States or to America's political system. And finally,
Maria made no attempt to recruit anyone and turn them into an actual controlled Russian
agent, which is what spies eventually seek to do.
It has come down to this: if you are a Russian and you are caught talking to anyone in any
way influential, there is potentially hell to pay because the FBI will be watching you. You are
automatically assumed to be part of a conspiracy. Once "evidence" is collected, you will be
indicted and sent to prison, mostly to send a message to Moscow.
It is the ultimate irony that how the old Soviet Union's judiciary used to function is now
becoming standing operating procedure in the United States.
"Resumption of anti-Iranian sanctions by the US is a destructive step that might bring about destabilization in the Middle East,
the Russian Foreign Ministry's official spokesperson Maria Zakharova told a news briefing on Thursday."
"Washington's course at bringing down the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] on the Iranian nuclear program and restoring
full-scale pressure through sanctions is absolutely destructive," she said.
"There's scarcely any doubt these steps by the US administration will have long-term deplorable consequences for global nonproliferation
[of the weapons of mass destruction] and will impart a destabilizing impulse to the situation in the Middle East."" AMN
---------
IMO Zakharova, the Russian spokesperson has it right.
The Israeli desire to have a less than 1% chance of an Iranian nuke existing has led us to adopt sanctions that may well bring
down the present Iranian government. Unrest is growing across the country because of ever growing economic hardship. We claim that
regime change is not our goal but I do not believe it. IMO Gina Haspel has been given a presidential finding that orders CIA to bring
down the government and the sanctions are just part of that attempted coup.
The Iranians have every reason to distrust the US. First there was Mossadgh. Kermit Roosevelt brought him down by manipulating
street mobs. Secondly there is the undoubted fact that we backed Iraq against them in the Iran-Iraq War. Now we have abandoned JCPOA,
an agreement that IMO was good for everyone except the extreme right in Israel and their neanderthal friends in the US (Hannity,
Varney, Keane, Pompeo etc.) Bolton I will not even mention in that list because he is such an extremist, a man who hungers for war,
a man who hid from VN in the Maryland National Guard. The CIA is just doing its legally ordained task but the rest of them seem to
have no comprehension of the chaos that will occur if Wilayet al-faqih falls.
Trump, Bolton and Giuliani seems to want the Mujahideen e Khalq to become the government of Iran. This passel of Islamic Marxists
(spawn of Ali Shariati) actually fought against Iran as allies of Saddam's Iraq. That has never been forgotten. Why would it be?
In fact they would be destroyed in short order of they attempted to form a government.
There is no other coherent body who could form a government. But, from the Israeli point of view that would be just fine. pl
"There is no other coherent body who could form a government. But, from the Israeli point of view that would be just fine
."
Spot on, Sir. This is precisely what the Israelis want. Instability, domestic violence and chaos in all their adversaries.
And they have us as their poodle to do the dirty deeds.
I doubt very much that, despite any economic problems Iran may have, it is likely to have its government - still less it's form
of government - overthrown. Iran has been under sanctions to one degree or another for the last fifty years. Every time the US
claims the government is fraudulent or its elections are fraudulent, they've been proven wrong, most notably in 2009 when millions
of Iranians took to the streets in support of the government and the election results.
The problem is this notion of "reducing Iranian oil exports to zero", as voiced by US officials. China has already dismissed
that notion. So this time next year, at least China and probably India and others will be ignoring US sanctions and importing
Iranian oil. Even the EU might do so.
What does Trump do then? Well, Obama suggested during his 2008 campaign to install a naval blockade, in that case to block
Iranian imports of gasoline, since at the time Iran did not have enough refineries to process their own gasoline. That has since
been corrected. But what if Trump is persuaded by Bonkers Bolton that this would be a good idea: a naval blockade to block Iranian
oil exports?
Iran would correctly view that as an act of war and would start escorting its oil tankers, which would inevitably lead to conflict
with US Navy ships ordered to interdict them. Bingo - nice way to start a war, with Trump blaming Iran and Israel sitting back
blameless.
Applying the Walrus law: "governments achieve the reverse of their stated intentions", leads me to believe that with a little
help from those other pariah states, Russia and China, the Government and state of Iran will be renewed and strengthened as a
result of current American policy.
To put that another way, the most effective American tools for corroding regimes are Ipads, Facebook, rappers and McDonalds.
Sanctions against Iran. Sanctions against Russia (more every day). Tariffs against China (more every day). China, Russia, Iran.
These nations are going to fold and disappear. Yes, an alliance is being forced on them from without, but they are a collection
of stupid people who are up against a stable genius.
Before you accuse me of being snide and flippant, remember that approximately 50%, at least, of the electorate agrees with
me. And the Constitution? Why the Constitution is in my pocket.
Aug. 9 - Is Pompeo launching a coup against his boss? By kicking in sanctions on Russia -
invoking a 1991 US law on chemical weapons - the US State Department is further poisoning
President Trump's efforts to improve relations with his Russian counterpart. If President Trump
refuses to enforce the sanctions, he will hand a political gift to Democrats who believe their
election fortunes in November rest on endlessly screaming "Russia, Russia, Russia." And what
are these new sanctions all about? The totally unproven, full-of-holes claims that the Russian
government was behind the Skripal "poisoning" in the UK in March. We untangle some of this
madness in today's Liberty Report:
"... "When will you finally stop beating your wife?" ..."
"... "Russia can't admit what it hasn't done. It's as if the US is asking Russia, 'Show us your Yeti' and if you don't we will punish you. There are literally no facilities to even show," ..."
"... "The very way that the conditions of dropping the sanctions are posed by the US –we will abandon them if you confess your sins and repent– is so humiliating and unacceptable that any response will have to be very firm," ..."
"... "Historically, under the current leadership Russia can never do two things. It can never move from officially stated positions on certain international issues and incidents – for example, on Skripal. Russia is not going to turn around and say 'Sorry, we actually did poison him,'" ..."
"... "And secondly, Vladimir Putin will never agree to any unilateral concessions. Any previous offers Moscow has made are always on a quid-pro-quo basis," ..."
"... "This is an attempt to make a statement from the US establishment – to show who is boss in international politics. Over the last two or three years the role of the US as the commander-in-chief of world affairs has been cast into doubt, and Russia has been chosen as the whipping boy as Washington tries to reassert control," ..."
"... "looking strong on Russia" ..."
"... "The people putting these sanctions forward aren't aware of the international consequences. First and foremost, they are driven by a desire to play to their domestic audience, particularly with the midterms coming up. Showing you are not beholden to Russia is a campaign move," ..."
"... "As the saying goes, when you don't know what to do, do what you know. The international situation is such that no side can expect to back down without losses. Everyone knows that sanctions don't work. But it is a simple tool, easy to understand, and one that has been widely used before by the US. It is almost a reflex reaction by now." ..."
"... "It is clear that if it wasn't going to be the Skripals, it would be something else. Sanctions have become a tool in economic and trade wars, and no one is bothering to hide this," ..."
Washington's latest sanctions have left no room for a constructive response from Moscow,
analysts explain, but opinions differ widely on how much the measures will affect relations
between the two countries. All interviewed by RT railed against the framing of the sanctions,
nominally prompted by the alleged use of chemical weapons against the Skripals in the UK back
in March. Russia will be punished with a first set of measures from August 22, and is given 90
days to assure Washington that it will no longer deploy chemical weapons, and to open up its
chemical production facilities to international inspectors.
One problem: Russia denies that it has used chemical weapons in the first place and says
that it had already disposed of its stockpile in accordance with international treaties. So, to
use the proverbial example, the US is asking Russia: "When will you finally stop beating
your wife?"
"Russia can't admit what it hasn't done. It's as if the US is asking Russia, 'Show us
your Yeti' and if you don't we will punish you. There are literally no facilities to even
show," Vladimir Kornilov, a political analyst for RIA news agency, told RT.
"The very way that the conditions of dropping the sanctions are posed by the US
–we will abandon them if you confess your sins and repent– is so humiliating and
unacceptable that any response will have to be very firm," said Andrey Kortunov, Director
General of the Russian International Affairs Council.
Leonid Polyakov, from the Higher School of Economics, says that Washington must be aware
that the Kremlin would never agree to its conditions, so setting them in the first place is a
cheap pretense at diplomacy.
"Historically, under the current leadership Russia can never do two things. It can never
move from officially stated positions on certain international issues and incidents – for
example, on Skripal. Russia is not going to turn around and say 'Sorry, we actually did poison
him,'" he told RT.
"And secondly, Vladimir Putin will never agree to any unilateral concessions. Any
previous offers Moscow has made are always on a quid-pro-quo basis," Polyakov pointed out,
citing the recent offer by the Russian president to allow the questioning of its citizens
involved in alleged election-meddling, but only in exchange for William Browder and others
being interviewed by Moscow's investigators.
US 'showing who's boss' or playing to home
audience?
All three experts agreed that not only will the sanctions be rejected, but they are unlikely
to have any indirect effect on Russia's international policies, or its economic outlook.
Kortunov says this is an attempt to claw back international prestige, particularly in the
wake of the US failure to impose its will in Syria, fraying relations with Europe and China,
and Donald Trump's perceived softness in negotiating with Putin in Helsinki last month.
"This is an attempt to make a statement from the US establishment – to show who is
boss in international politics. Over the last two or three years the role of the US as the
commander-in-chief of world affairs has been cast into doubt, and Russia has been chosen as the
whipping boy as Washington tries to reassert control," Kortunov said.
For Polyakov, this is all about "looking strong on Russia" ahead of October's
mid-term elections.
"The people putting these sanctions forward aren't aware of the international
consequences. First and foremost, they are driven by a desire to play to their domestic
audience, particularly with the midterms coming up. Showing you are not beholden to Russia is a
campaign move," he said to RT.
The professor of political science adds that a lack of ideas over how to corral a feisty
Russia is pushing American officials to press the sanctions button again and again.
"As the saying goes, when you don't know what to do, do what you know. The international
situation is such that no side can expect to back down without losses. Everyone knows that
sanctions don't work. But it is a simple tool, easy to understand, and one that has been widely
used before by the US. It is almost a reflex reaction by now."
Yet Kornilov believes that sanctions are not just a shield for a beleaguered establishment,
but an offensive weapon.
"It is clear that if it wasn't going to be the Skripals, it would be something else.
Sanctions have become a tool in economic and trade wars, and no one is bothering to hide
this," he said.
Can things get worse?
Since hostility between Moscow and Washington is at a post-war high as it is, Polyakov
believes it will be impractical for the two nuclear powers to escalate tensions still further,
beyond the headlines.
Chittum's work makes more sense than either of the books reviewed here. The two books
discussed above are good for the Harry Potter set but in no way conform to 2018 reality.
I frequently reread Chittum's work and am amazed at how he correctly analyzed the future into
what is contemporary USSA.
LOOK NO further, than the incipient election of a reparation Democrat governor in Georgia and
a like minded legislature,come November, for validation of Chittum's hypotheses. The one
weakness in his predictions is the belief that there will be a patriotic core in the local
police and national military that could be relied on to protect the lives and property of
traditional Americans. This just won't happen. The FBI, CIA, ATFE, Homeland Security Police
and like activities set the pace, call the shots and control the funds and the locals provide
a conditioned response.
Chittum writing 20 years back could not see the rise of the mass surveillance and correct
thought propagation that we increasingly welcome or endure today.
My bet is Unz Review will totally access denied after the massive Democrat election gains in
November.
"Door handle" theory is dead on arrival. the main theory now is that UK government gave Skripals different agent BX
(similar to LSD and which caused hallucinations) and they voluntarily took it in order to start preplanned Skripal false flag
provocation. That's why military nurse accidentally appeared near Skripals soon after poisoning.
Notable quotes:
"... Following the attack on the Skripals, European and US allies took Britain's side on the attack, ordering the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats since the height of the Cold War, reports Reuters . In response, Russia retaliated by expelling Western diplomats, while the Kremlin has repeatedly denied involvement in the attacks - while accusing the UK intelligence agencies of staging the attack in order to inflame anti-Russia tensions. ..."
"... Prior to the investigation's focus on the door handle, for a period of almost three weeks there were at least nine other theories proposed by the authorities as to where the Skripals came into contact with the poison. These included the restaurant, the pub, the bench, the cemetery, the car, the flowers, the luggage, the porridge and even a drone. During that time, police officers and investigators were entering and leaving the house, by the door, since it was not known to be the place where the poison was located. ..."
"... Once the door handle theory was established, those who had been in and out of the property during the previous three weeks would naturally have been concerned about the possibility that they had been contaminated. ..."
"... Every officer who entered the house after 4th March, and before the door handle became an object of interest, should have been given a medical examination to check for signs of poisoning. ..."
"... Initial reports about Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey stated that he was poisoned at the bench, after coming to the aid of Mr Skripal and Yulia. However, on 9th March, Lord Ian Blair stated that D.S. Bailey had actually become poisoned after visiting Mr Skripal's house. Since he was thought to have been poisoned with a military grade nerve agent, and since it was thought that this had occurred at Mr Skripal's house, the immediate next step should have been to seal off the house and set up a mobile decontamination unit outside. However, numerous photographs show officers in normal uniforms standing close to the door long after Lord Blair's claim ..."
"... Can the authorities explain how these decisions did not put the health and even the lives of those officers in jeopardy? ..."
"... Before the door handle theory was settled on, the majority of competing theories put out by the authorities tended to assume that Mr Skripal was poisoned long before he went to Zizzis. For example, the flowers, the cemetery, the luggage, the porridge and the car explanations all assume this to be the case. What this means is that according to the assumptions of police at that time, when Mr Skripal fed the ducks near the Avon Playground with a few local boys, at around 1:45pm, he was already contaminated. Yet although this event was caught on CCTV camera, it was more than two weeks before the police contacted the parents of these boys. ..."
"... Can the authorities comment on why they did not air the CCTV footage on national television, in an effort to appeal to the boys or their parents to come forward, and whether the delay in tracking them down might have put them in danger? ..."
"... If the door handle was the place of poisoning, it is extremely likely that the bread handed by Mr Skripal to the boys would have been contaminated. Certainly, areas that he visited after this incident were deemed to be so much at risk that they were either closed down (for example, The Mill and Zizzis, which are both still closed), or destroyed (for instance, the restaurant table, the bench and – almost certainly – the red bag near the bench have all been destroyed). ..."
"... It has been said that one of the reasons the Government is/was so sure that the ultimate culprit behind the poisoning was the Russian state, is the apparent existence of an "FSB handbook" which, amongst other things, allegedly features descriptions of how to apply nerve agent to a door handle. Given that the Prime Minister first made a formal accusation of culpability on 12th March in her speech to the House of Commons, the Government must therefore have been in possession of this manual prior to that day. However, claims about the door handle being the location of the poison did not appear until late March (the first media reports of it were on 28th March). What this means is there was a delay of several weeks between the Government making its accusation, based partly on the apparent existence of the "door handle manual", and the door handle of Mr Skripal's house being a subject of interest to investigators. ..."
"... "We are learning more about Sergei and Yulia's movements but we need to be clearer around their exact movements on the morning of the incident. We believe that at around 9.15am on Sunday, 4 March, Sergei's car may have been in the areas of London Road, Churchill Way North and Wilton Road. Then at around 1.30pm it was seen being driven down Devizes Road, towards the town centre. We need to establish Sergei and Yulia's movements during the morning, before they headed to the town centre. Did you see this car, or what you believe was this car, on the day of the incident? We are particularly keen to hear from you if you saw the car before 1.30pm. If you have information, please call the police on 101." ..."
"... Now that Sergei and Yulia Skripal have been awake and able to communicate for around four months, these details are presumably now all known to investigators. In the normal course of such a high profile investigation, details such as these would be relayed to the public in the hope of jogging memories to prompt more information. And in fact, many such details have been released to the public in this case. Yet, confirmation of Mr Skripal's and Yulia's movements that day remain conspicuous by their absence. ..."
"... These questions have nothing to do with any conspiracy theory. On the contrary, they are all based on the assumption that the two central claims made by the authorities regarding the mode and the method used in this incident are correct. They are, however, very serious and perfectly legitimate questions about the way the authorities have dealt with this incident, on their own terms and on the basis of their own claims . ..."
"... "Reports that the United Kingdom is planning to ask Russia to extradite suspects in a Salisbury poisoning incident are nothing more than a "speculation," a spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office told Sputnik on Monday. ..."
The British government has prepared an extradition request to Moscow for two
Russians they claim carried out the Salisbury nerve agent attack, according to The Guardian ,
citing Whitehall and security sources.
Former Russian double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious on
a public bench in Salisbury in early March - which UK authorities believe was due to a nerve
agent called Novichok.
Months later on June 30, nearby residents Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, a 44-year-old
mother of three, were subsequently treated for exposure to the nerve agent. Rowley recovered
while Sturgess died.
Authorities are operating on the assumption that the Skripals were poisoned using a
novichok-laced perfume bottle or a door handle smeared with the nerve agent, while Rowley may
have picked up said bottle and given to Sturgess, who applied it to her wrists.
Sturgess received a much higher dose than the other three after apparently smearing the
substance on her wrists, having sprayed it from the bottle. Rowley's recovery was helped,
according to a source, by one of the first responders being familiar with the nerve agent,
having been involved in helping the Skripals.
The Porton Down military defence laboratory near Salisbury has examined the novichok found
on the Skripals' doorknob and the perfume bottle, but police have not yet said whether they
are from the same batch. -
The Guardian
UK authorities believe they have pieced together the movements of the two Russians, from
their entry into the UK to their departure after the alleged assassination attempt.
Following the attack on the Skripals, European and US allies took Britain's side on the
attack, ordering the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats since the height of the Cold War,
reports
Reuters . In response, Russia retaliated by expelling Western diplomats, while the Kremlin
has repeatedly denied involvement in the attacks - while accusing the UK intelligence agencies
of staging the attack in order to inflame anti-Russia tensions.
Oddly, Sergei Skripal was linked by
The Telegraph to a consultant with former UK spy Christopher Steele's Orbis Business
Intelligence, who he reportedly had repeated contacts with.
The motive for trying to assassinate the 66-year-old skripal is unknown. Skripal moved to
the UK in a Kremlin-approved "spy swap" in 2010, causing many to question why they would
suddenly try to take him out a decade later.
In July, journalist Rob Slane compiled
10 questions for the UK authorities on the ever-confusing Skripal case:
***
The two most basic claims made by the Government and investigators regarding the method and
the mode in the Salisbury poisoning are these:
That military grade nerve agent was used to poison Mr Skripal
That it was applied to the door handle of his house
These claims raise a number of very obvious questions. For example, how did the assassin(s)
apply such a powerful chemical without wearing protective clothing? How did the people who are
said to have come into contact with the substance not die immediately, or at the very least
suffer irreparable damage to their Central Nervous Systems? How did this military grade nerve
agent manage not only to have a delayed onset, but also managed to affect a large 66-year-old
man and his slim 33-year-old daughter, both of whom would have vastly different metabolic
rates, at exactly the same time?
These are perfectly reasonable questions that deserve reasonable answers. I am aware,
however, that no matter how obvious and rational such questions might be, doing so places one
– at least in the eyes of the authorities – in the camp of the conspiracy theorist.
This is disingenuous. One of the marks of a true conspiracy theorist is that he is someone who
refuses to accept an explanation for an event, even after being presented with facts which fit
and explain it coherently . But when the "facts" presented in a case do not fit the event they
are supposed to explain, and are neither rational nor coherent -- as in the Salisbury case --
then calling the person who raises legitimate questions a "conspiracy theorist" is a bit rich,
is it not?
Nevertheless, for the purposes of this piece, what I'd like to do is work on the assumption
that the "Military Grade Nerve Agent on the Door Handle" claim is correct. And working from
this assumption, I want to ask some questions about how the authorities have handled the case.
The point is this: These questions are not really intended to challenge the official claims;
rather the intention is to ask whether the authorities have handled the case correctly on their
own terms .
1. Prior to the investigation's focus on the door handle, for a period of almost three weeks
there were at least nine other theories proposed by the authorities as to where the Skripals
came into contact with the poison. These included the restaurant, the pub, the bench, the
cemetery, the car, the flowers, the luggage, the porridge and even a drone. During that time,
police officers and investigators were entering and leaving the house, by the door, since it
was not known to be the place where the poison was located.
Can the authorities explain how these officers and investigators were not poisoned?
2. Once the door handle theory was established, those who had been in and out of the
property during the previous three weeks would naturally have been concerned about the
possibility that they had been contaminated.
Can the authorities tell us what steps were taken to reassure these officers?
3. Every officer who entered the house after 4th March, and before the door handle became an
object of interest, should have been given a medical examination to check for signs of
poisoning.
Can the authorities confirm that this took place for every officer?
4. Initial reports about Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey stated that he was poisoned at the
bench, after coming to the aid of Mr Skripal and Yulia. However, on 9th March, Lord Ian Blair
stated that D.S. Bailey had actually become poisoned after visiting Mr Skripal's house. Since
he was thought to have been poisoned with a military grade nerve agent, and since it was
thought that this had occurred at Mr Skripal's house, the immediate next step should have been
to seal off the house and set up a mobile decontamination unit outside. However, numerous
photographs show officers in normal uniforms standing close to the door long after Lord Blair's
claim.
Can the authorities confirm why the house was not sealed off and a decontamination unit set
up immediately after it became known that D.S. Bailey had been there, and why officers with no
protective clothing on were allowed to continue standing guard outside the house for the next
few weeks?
5. Can the authorities explain how these decisions did not put the health and even the lives
of those officers in jeopardy?
6. Before the door handle theory was settled on, the majority of competing theories put out
by the authorities tended to assume that Mr Skripal was poisoned long before he went to Zizzis.
For example, the flowers, the cemetery, the luggage, the porridge and the car explanations all
assume this to be the case. What this means is that according to the assumptions of police at
that time, when Mr Skripal fed the ducks near the Avon Playground with a few local boys, at
around 1:45pm, he was already contaminated. Yet although this event was caught on CCTV camera,
it was more than two weeks before the police contacted the parents of these boys.
Can the authorities explain why it took more than two weeks to track down the boys, who
– as the CCTV apparently shows – were given bread by Mr Skripal?
7. Can the authorities comment on why they did not air the CCTV footage on national
television, in an effort to appeal to the boys or their parents to come forward, and whether
the delay in tracking them down might have put them in danger?
8. If the door handle was the place of poisoning, it is extremely likely that the bread
handed by Mr Skripal to the boys would have been contaminated. Certainly, areas that he visited
after this incident were deemed to be so much at risk that they were either closed down (for
example, The Mill and Zizzis, which are both still closed), or destroyed (for instance, the
restaurant table, the bench and – almost certainly – the red bag near the bench
have all been destroyed).
Can the authorities comment on how the boys, who were handed bread by Mr Skripal, managed to
avoid contamination?
9. It has been said that one of the reasons the Government is/was so sure that the ultimate
culprit behind the poisoning was the Russian state, is the apparent existence of an "FSB
handbook" which, amongst other things, allegedly features descriptions of how to apply nerve
agent to a door handle. Given that the Prime Minister first made a formal accusation of
culpability on 12th March in her speech to the House of Commons, the Government must therefore
have been in possession of this manual prior to that day. However, claims about the door handle
being the location of the poison did not appear until late March (the first media reports of it
were on 28th March). What this means is there was a delay of several weeks between the
Government making its accusation, based partly on the apparent existence of the "door handle
manual", and the door handle of Mr Skripal's house being a subject of interest to
investigators.
Can the authorities therefore tell us whether the Government's failure to pass on details of
the "door handle manual" put the lives of the officers going in and out of Mr Skripal's house
from 5th March to 27th March in jeopardy?
10. On 17th March, Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said:
"We are learning more about Sergei and Yulia's movements but we need to be clearer around
their exact movements on the morning of the incident. We believe that at around 9.15am on
Sunday, 4 March, Sergei's car may have been in the areas of London Road, Churchill Way North
and Wilton Road. Then at around 1.30pm it was seen being driven down Devizes Road, towards
the town centre. We need to establish Sergei and Yulia's movements during the morning, before
they headed to the town centre. Did you see this car, or what you believe was this car, on
the day of the incident? We are particularly keen to hear from you if you saw the car before
1.30pm. If you have information, please call the police on 101."
Now that Sergei and Yulia Skripal have been awake and able to communicate for around four
months, these details are presumably now all known to investigators. In the normal course of
such a high profile investigation, details such as these would be relayed to the public in the
hope of jogging memories to prompt more information. And in fact, many such details have been
released to the public in this case. Yet, confirmation of Mr Skripal's and Yulia's movements
that day remain conspicuous by their absence.
Can the authorities confirm that the movements of the Skripals that day are now understood,
and that they will be made known shortly, in order that more information from the public might
then be forthcoming?
These questions have nothing to do with any conspiracy theory. On the contrary, they are all
based on the assumption that the two central claims made by the authorities regarding the mode
and the method used in this incident are correct. They are, however, very serious and perfectly
legitimate questions about the way the authorities have dealt with this incident, on their own
terms and on the basis of their own claims .
"Reports that the United Kingdom is planning to ask Russia to extradite suspects in a
Salisbury poisoning incident are nothing more than a "speculation," a spokesperson for the UK
Foreign Office told Sputnik on Monday.
"This is just more speculation. The police investigation is ongoing and anything on the
record will need to come from the Police," the spokesperson said."
"... Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened (Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work? ..."
Let me stipulate at the outset that the phrase, "Max Boot," should be consider
as a new synonym in the Oxford English Dictionary for the word inane moron or
imbecile are other plausible possibilities.
Not since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy have we witnessed such a bizarre,
vicious level of red-baiting and smearing. Max Boot, have you no decency?
You will understand the context of my introductory observations after you
view the following video. Max Boot believes that Donald Trump should have threatened
(Boot's word, not mine) Vladimir Putin. How does one go about threatening a
country with inter-continental nuclear weapons systems that are proven to work?
"... During his election campaign, Donald Trump reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of US laws? ..."
"... Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was, and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy". ..."
So the US news
media are in uproar over President Trump's latest admission that a meeting between his son and
a Russian lawyer more than two years ago was about "getting dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
With self-righteous probity, Trump's political and media enemies are declaring him a felon
for accepting foreign interference in the US presidential election.
Admittedly, President Trump appears to have been telling lies about the past meeting, which
took place at Trump Tower in New York City in the summer of 2016. Or maybe it's just this
American president shooting himself in the foot -- again -- with his inimical
gibberish-style.
However, the burning issue of "foreign interference" is being stoked out of all proportion
by Trump's enemies who want him ousted from the White House.
US constitutional law forbids candidates from receiving help from foreign governments or
foreign nationals.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
Thus, by appearing to accept a meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 -- during the
presidential campaign -- the Trump election team are accused of breaking US law.
The alleged transgression fits in with the wider narrative of "Russiagate" which posits that
Republican candidate Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the race to the White House
against Democrat rival Hillary
Clinton .
Russia has always denied any involvement in the US elections, saying the allegations are
preposterous. Moscow also points out that in spite of indictments leveled by American
prosecutors, there is no evidence to support claims that Russian hackers meddled in the
presidential campaign, or that the Kremlin somehow assisted Trump.
The Russian lawyer, Natalia
Veselnitskaya , who met with the Trump campaign team in early June 2016 is described in US
media as "Kremlin-linked". But that seems to be just more innuendo in place of facts. She
denies any such connection. The Kremlin also says it had no relation with the attorney on
her business of approaching Team Trump.
In any case, what is being totally missed in the latest brouhaha is the staggering hypocrisy
in the US media circus over Trump. Let's take Trump at his word -- not a reliable source
admittedly -- that his campaign team were trying to "get dirt" on Clinton. That would appear to
be a violation of US law.
If Trump is going to be nailed for improper conduct with regard to alleged foreign
assistance, then where does that leave Hillary Clinton and US intelligence agencies?
During the presidential campaign, Clinton's team contracted a British spy, Christopher
Steele, to dig up dirt on Trump in the form of the so-called "Russian dossier". That was the
pile of absurd claims alleging that the Kremlin had blackmailing leverage over Donald Trump. It
was Steele's fantasies that largely turned into the whole Russiagate affair which has dominated
US media and politics for the past two years.
Not only that, but now it transpires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation also paid the
same British spy to act as a source for the FBI's wiretapping of Trump's associates, according to
declassified documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a US citizens' rights group.
In other
words, the foreign interference that the FBI engaged in under the Barack Obama administration,
as well as by Hillary Clinton's campaign team, is on a far greater and more scandalous scale
that Trump seems to have clumsily endeavored to do with a Russian lawyer.
The real, shocking interference in US democracy was not by Russia or Trump, but by American
secret services working in collusion with the Clinton Democrats to distort the presidential
elections. This scandal which Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen has labeled "Intelgate" is far
more grievous than the Watergate crisis which resulted in President Richard Nixon's ignominious
resignation back in the mid-1970s.
The Obama administration's intelligence agencies and the Democrats attempted to sabotage the
2016 presidential election in order to keep Trump out of the White House. They failed. And they
have never gotten over that defeat to their illegal scheming.
The Russiagate claims are just a sideshow. As American writer Paul Craig Roberts, among
others, has
commented , the media-driven "witch hunt" against Trump and Russia is blown out of all
proportion in order to distract from the real scandal which is Intelgate -- and how millions of
American voters were potentially disenfranchised by the US intelligence apparatus for a
political power grab.
Another staggering hypocrisy in the US media kerfuffle over Trump and alleged Russian
interference is that all the fastidious hyperbole completely ignores actual foreign
interference in American democracy -- foreign interference that is on an absolutely colossal
scale.
As American critical thinker Noam Chomsky points out , "Israeli intervention in
US elections overwhelms anything Russia may have done".
Israel's interference includes the multi-million-dollar lobbying by such groups as the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial sponsorship of hundreds of
lawmakers in both houses of Congress. Many critics maintain
that the entire Congress is in effect "bought" by AIPAC.
Chomsky referred specifically to the occasion in 2015 when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu snubbed then President Obama by addressing the US Congress with a speech openly
calling for lawmakers to reject the internationally-backed nuclear deal with Iran.
During his election campaign, Donald Trump
reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon
Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of
US laws?
Trump has since shown himself to do Adelson's and Israel's bidding by walking away from the
Iran deal and in pushing stridently pro-Israeli interests in the conflict with
Palestinians.
Another foreign benefactor in US politics is the so-called Saudi lobby and other oil-rich
Gulf Arab states. Millions of dollars are funneled into Congress by these dubious regimes to
shape US government foreign policy in the Middle East. For several decades, Saudi oil money is
also documented to be
a major contributor to the CIA and its off-the-books covert operations around the world.
Foreign interference in US politics -- in which often nefarious foreign interests are
promoted over those of ordinary American citizens -- is conducted on a gargantuan and
systematic scale. But this massively illegal interference in flagrant violation of US laws is
stupendously ignored by the American media.
Trump is being assailed over an alleged scandal regarding Russia which is, by any objective
measure, negligible.
The whole Russiagate narrative is sheer hysteria driven by anti-Trump forces who do not want
to accept the result of the 2016 election. It is, in effect, a coup attempt by unelected
political forces.
Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was,
and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies
working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up
those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy".
Such lies are an odious distortion of the truth by America's real enemies who are its own
domestic political and media operators trying to cover up their anti-constitutional crimes.
What's even more despicable is that these people are willing to inflame US-Russia relations to
the point of starting a war between two nuclear powers.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
This article was originally published by " Sputnik "
-
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Political War! Washington Goes Full Retard on the Russia Hoax
by David
Stockman Posted on
August 08, 2018 August 7, 2018 It's hard to identify anything that's more uncoupled from
reality than the Donald's Trade War and reckless Fiscal Debauch. Together they will soon
monkey-hammer today's delirious Wall Street revilers and send main street's aging and anemic
recovery back into the drink.
Except, except. When it comes to unreality, Trump's crackpot economics is actually more
than rivaled by the full retard Russophobia of the MSM, the Dems and the nomenclatura of
Imperial Washington.
In fact, their groupthink mania about the alleged Russian attack on American democracy is
so devoid of fact, logic, context, proportion and self-awareness as to give the Donald's
tweet storms an aura of sanity by comparison.
Their endless obsession with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian nobody by
the name of Natalia Veselnitskaya proves the point. She was actually in New York doing god's
work, as it were, defending a Russian company against hokey money-laundering charges related
to the abominable Magnitsky Act and its contemptible promoter, Bill Browder.
The latter had pulled off an epic multi-billion swindle during the wild west days of
post-Soviet Russia and was essentially chased from the country in 2005 by Putin for hundreds
of millions in tax evasion. Thereafter he turned the murky prison death of his accountant,
Sergei Magnitsky, who was also charged with massive tax evasion, into a revenge crusade
against Putin.
That resulted in a huge lobbying campaign subsidized by Browder's illicit billions and
spearheaded by the Senate's most bloodthirsty trio of warmongers – Senators McCain,
Graham and Cardin – to enact the 2012 Magnitsky Act.
The latter, of course, is the very excrescence of Imperial Washington's arrogant meddling
in the internal affairs of other countries. It imposes sweeping sanctions on Russians (and
other foreigners) deemed complicit in Magnitsky's death in a Russian jail and for other
alleged human rights violations in Russia and elsewhere.
Needless to say, imperial pretense doesn't get any more sanctimonious than this. Deep
State apparatchiks in the US Treasury Department get to try Russian citizens in absentia and
without due process for vaguely worded crimes under American law that were allegedly
committed in Russia, and then to seize their property and persons when involved in any act of
global commerce where Washington can browbeat local satrapies and "allies" into
cooperation!
Only in an imperial capital steeped in self-conferred entitlement to function as global
hegemon would such a preposterous extraterritorial arrangement be even thinkable. After all,
what happens to Russians in Russian prisons is absolutely none of Washington's business
– nor by any stretch of the imagination does it pose any threat whatsoever to America's
homeland security.
So the irony of the Trump Tower nothingburger is that the alleged Russian agent was here
fighting Washington's meddling in Russia , not hooking up with Trump's campaign
to further a Kremlin plot to attack American democracy.
You could properly call this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but Imperial
Washington and its shills among the ranks of Dem politicians and megaphones in the MSM
wouldn't get the joke in the slightest. That's because Washington is in the business of
meddling in the domestic affairs of virtually every country in the world – friend, foe
and also-ran – on a massive scale never before imagined in human history.
That's what the hideously excessive $75 billion budget of the so-called
17-agency "intelligence community" (IC) gets you. To wit, a backdoor into every access point
and traffic exchange node on the entire global internet, and from there the ability to hack,
surveil, exfiltrate or corrupt the communications of any government, political party,
business or private citizen virtually anywhere on the planet.
And, no, this isn't being done for the noble purpose of rooting-out the terrorist needles
in the global haystack of communications and Internet traffic. It's done because the IC has
the resources to do it and because it has invested itself with endless missions of global
hegemony.
These self-serving missions, in turn, justify its existence, keep the politicians of
Washington well stocked in scary bedtime stories and, most important of all, ensure that the
fiscal gravy train remains loaded to the gills and that the gilded prosperity of the beltway
never falters.
Indeed, if Washington were looking for corporate pen name it would be Meddling "R" Us. And
we speak here not merely of its vast and secretive spy apparatus, but also of its completely
visible everyday intrusions in the affairs of other countries via the billions that are
channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy and the vast NGO network funded by the
State Department, DOD and other organs of the national security complex.
The $750 million per year Board For International Broadcasting, for example,
is purely in the propaganda business; and despite the Cold War's end 27 years ago, still
carries out relentless "agit prop" in Russia and among the reincarnated states of the old
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of
America.
For example, here is a Voice of America tweet from this morning falsely charging Russia
with the occupation of the former Soviet state of Georgia.
In fact, Russia came to the aid of the Russian-speaking population of the breakaway
province of South Ossetia in 2008; the latter felt imperiled by the grandiose pretensions of
the corrupt Saakashvili government in Tbilisi, which had unilaterally launched an
indiscriminate military assault on the major cities of the province.
Moreover, even an EU commission investigation came to that conclusion way back in 2009
shortly after the events that the inhabitants of South Ossetia feared would lead to a
genocidal invasion by Georgia's military.
An investigation into last year's Russia-Georgia war delivered a damning indictment of
President Mikheil Saakashvili today, accusing Tbilisi of launching an indiscriminate
artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinvali that started the war.
In more than 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation and witness statements, the most
exhaustive inquiry into the five-day conflict dismissed Georgian claims that the artillery
attack was in response to a Russian invasion
The EU-commissioned report, by a fact-finding mission of more than 20 political,
military, human rights and international law experts led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi
Tagliavini, was unveiled in Brussels today after nine months of work.
Flatly dismissing Saakashvili's version, the report said: "There was no ongoing
armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation Georgian claims of a
large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive
could not be substantiated
The point is, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statelets and provinces attempting to
sort themselves out after the fall of the Soviet Union, this was all happening on Russia's
doorsteps and was none of Washington business even at the time. But wasting taxpayer money 10
years later by siding with the revanchist claims of the Georgian government is just plain
ludicrous.
It's also emblematic of why the Imperial City is so clueless about the rank hypocrisy
implicit in the Russian meddling hoax. Believing that America is the Indispensable Nation and
that Washington operates by its own hegemonic rules, they are now Shocked, Shocked! to find
that the victims of their blatant intrusions might actually endeavor to fight back.
Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill. We
investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was
actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own
business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do
– until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's
relentless vilification of Russia and Putin.
Accordingly, this particular Russian patriot hired a few dozen students at $3-4 per hour
who mostly spoke English as a third-language. Operating on 12-hour shifts, they randomly
trolled Facebook and other US based social media, posting crude and sometimes incoherent
political messages from virtually all points on the compass – messages that were
instantly lost in the great sea of social media trivia and mendacity.
Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin
policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200
million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples
thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues.
In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and
collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether
new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a
lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a
nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Really?
We have no brief for Vlad Putin, but one thing we are quite sure of is that he is anything
but stupid. So would he really send a secret agent to Trump Tower – who neither speaks
nor writes a word of English and has been to America only once – in order to plot a
surreptitious attempt to manipulate the American election?
The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump campaign
in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of what
appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber!
Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob
Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was
held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it
comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop
singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump- style real estate developer and had been
involved in the 2013 pageant.
Said the London PR flack in an email to Don Jr:
"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting .The
Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered
to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your
father .( this is) "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
And a very big so what!
For one thing, the last "Crown prosecutor of Russia" was assassinated by the Bolsheviks in
1917, suggesting Goldstone's grasp of the contemporary Russian government was well less than
rudimentary.
Secondly, there was neither a crime nor national security issue involved when a campaign
seeks to dig-up dirt from foreign nationals. The crime is when they pay for it, and do not
report the expenditure to the Federal Elections Commission.
Of course, that's exactly what Hillary Clinton's campaign did with its multi-million
funding of the Trump Dossier, generated by foreign national Christopher Steele and
intermediated to the FBI and other IC agencies by Fusion GPS.
And that gets us to the mind-boggling silliness of the whole Trump Tower affair.
Self-evidently, the dirt on Hillary suggestion was a come-on so that Veselnitskaya (through
her Russian translator) could make a pitch against the Magnitsky Act; and to point out that
after 33,000 Russian babies had been adopted by Americans before its enactment, that avenue
of adoption had been stopped cold when the Kremlin found it necessary to retaliate.
Don's Jr. emails to his secretary from the meeting long ago proved that he immediately
recognized Natalia's bait and switch operation, and that he wanted to be summoned to the
phone so he could end what he saw was a complete waste of the campaign's time.
But here's the joker in the woodpile. Its seem that Glenn Simpson, proprietor of Fusion
GPs, had also been hired by Veselnitskaya Russian clients to make a case in Washington
against the Magnitsky Act, and to also dig up dirt on the scoundrel behind it: Bill
Browder.
More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the
Trump Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to
the Trump campaign.
So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn
Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier!
It doesn't get any crazier than that – meaning that the Donald could not be more
correct about this entire farce:
This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged
Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is
totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace
to USA!
In truth, the only basis for Natalia Veselnitskaya's alleged Putin ties was through
Russia's prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika.
And exactly why was Chaika interested in making American contacts?
Why, because he was pursuing one Bill Browder, fugitive from Russian justice and the
driving force behind the abominable Magnitsky Act – an instrument of meddling in the
domestic affairs of foreign countries like no other. As one report described it:
Chaika's foray into American politics began in earnest in April 2016. That is when his
office gave Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and three other US representatives a
confidential letter detailing American investor Bill Browder's "illegal scheme of buying up
Gazprom shares without permission of the Government of Russia" between 1999 and 2006, one
month after Rohrabacher returned from Moscow.
As it happened, Veselnitskaya had apparently brought a memo to the Trump Tower meeting
that contained many of the same talking points as one written by Chaika's office two months
earlier.
There you have it.
At the heart of the Russian collusion hoax and the wellspring of the current Russophobia
is nothing more than a half-baked effort by Russians to tell their side of the Magnitsky
story, and to expose the real villain in the piece – a monumentally greedy hedge fund
operator who had stolen the Russian people blind and then conveniently gave up his American
citizenship so that he would neither do time in a Russian jail or pay taxes in America.
Spoiler Alert for next part: When both economic policy and politics have gone full retard
in the Imperial City is there anything which could possibly go wrong – that might
pollute the punch bowl on Wall Street?
Here are ten bombshell revelations and fascinating new details to lately come out of both Sy
Hersh's new book, Reporter , as well as
interviews he's given since publication...
1) On a leaked Bush-era intelligence memo outlining the neocon plan to remake the Middle
East
(Note: though previously alluded to only anecdotally by General Wesley Clark in his memoir and in a 2007
speech , the below passage from Seymour Hersh is to our knowledge the first time this
highly classified memo has been quoted . Hersh's account appears to corroborate now retired
Gen. Clark's assertion that days after 9/11 a classified memo outlining plans to foster regime
change in "7 countries in
5 years" was being circulated among intelligence officials.)
From Reporter: A Memoir
pg. 306 -- A few months after the invasion of Iraq, during an interview overseas with a general
who was director of a foreign intelligence service, I was provided with a copy of a Republican
neocon plan for American dominance in the Middle East. The general was an American ally, but
one who was very rattled by the Bush/Cheney aggression. I was told that the document leaked to
me initially had been obtained by someone in the local CIA station. There was reason to be
rattled: The document declared that the war to reshape the Middle East had to begin "with the
assault on Iraq. The fundamental reason for this... is that the war will start making the U.S.
the hegemon of the Middle East. The correlative reason is to make the region feel in its bones,
as it were, the seriousness of American intent and determination." Victory in Iraq would lead
to an ultimatum to Damascus, the "defanging" of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Arafat's Palestine
Liberation Organization, and other anti-Israeli groups. America's enemies must understand that
"they are fighting for their life: Pax Americana is on its way, which implies their
annihilation." I and the foreign general agreed that America's neocons were a menace to
civilization.
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 306-307 -- Donald Rumsfeld was also infected with neocon fantasy. Turkey had refused to
permit America's Fourth Division to join the attack of Iraq from its territory, and the
division, with its twenty-five thousand men and women, did not arrive in force inside Iraq
until mid-April, when the initial fighting was essentially over. I learned then that Rumsfeld
had asked the American military command in Stuttgart, Germany, which had responsibility for
monitoring Europe, including Syria and Lebanon, to begin drawing up an operational plan for an
invasion of Syria. A young general assigned to the task refused to do so, thereby winning
applause from my friends on the inside and risking his career. The plan was seen by those I
knew as especially bizarre because Bashar Assad, the ruler of secular Syria, had responded to
9/11 by sharing with the CIA hundreds of his country's most sensitive intelligence files on the
Muslim Brotherhood in Hamburg, where much of the planning for 9/11 was carried out... Rumsfeld
eventually came to his senses and back down, I was told...
3) On the Neocon deep state which seized power after 9/11
From Reporter: A Memoir
pages 305-306 -- I began to comprehend that eight or nine neoconservatives who were political
outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States
-- with ease . It was stunning to realize how fragile our Constitution was. The intellectual
leaders of that group -- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle -- had not hidden their
ideology and their belief in the power of the executive but depicted themselves in public with
a great calmness and a self-assurance that masked their radicalism . I had spent many hours
after 9/11 in conversations with Perle that, luckily for me, helped me understand what was
coming. (Perle and I had been chatting about policy since the early 1980s, but he broke off
relations in 1993 over an article I did for The New Yorker linking him, a fervent supporter of
Israel, to a series of meetings with Saudi businessmen in an attempt to land a
multibillion-dollar contract from Saudi Arabia . Perle responded by publicly threatening to sue
me and characterizing me as a newspaper terrorist. He did not sue.
Meanwhile, Cheney had emerged as a leader of the neocon pack. From 9/11 on he did all he
could to undermine congressional oversight. I learned a great deal from the inside about his
primacy in the White House , but once again I was limited in what I would write for fear of
betraying my sources...
I came to understand that Cheney's goal was to run his most important military and
intelligence operations with as little congressional knowledge, and interference, as possible.
I was fascinating and important to learn what I did about Cheney's constant accumulation of
power and authority as vice president , but it was impossible to even begin to verify the
information without running the risk that Cheney would learn of my questioning and have a good
idea from whom I was getting the information.
4) On Russian meddling in the US election
From the recent
Independent interview based on his autobiography -- Hersh has vociferously strong opinions
on the subject and smells a rat. He states that there is "a great deal of animosity towards
Russia. All of that stuff about Russia hacking the election appears to be preposterous." He has
been researching the subject but is not ready to go public yet.
Hersh quips that the last time he heard the US defense establishment have high confidence,
it was regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He points out that the NSA only has moderate confidence in Russian
hacking. It is a point that has been made before; there has been no national intelligence
estimate in which all 17 US intelligence agencies would have to sign off. "When the intel
community wants to say something they say it High confidence effectively means that they don't
know."
5) On the Novichok poisoning
From the recent
Independent interview -- Hersh is also on the record as stating that the official version
of the
Skripal poisoning does not stand up to scrutiny. He tells me: "The story of novichok
poisoning has not held up very well. He [Skripal] was most likely talking to British
intelligence services about Russian organised crime." The unfortunate turn of events with the
contamination of other victims is suggestive, according to Hersh, of organised crime elements
rather than state-sponsored actions –though this files in the face of the UK government's
position.
Hersh modestly points out that these are just his opinions. Opinions or not, he is scathing
on Obama –
"a trimmer articulate [but] far from a radical a middleman". During his Goldsmiths talk, he
remarks that liberal critics underestimate Trump at their peril.
He ends the Goldsmiths talk with an anecdote about having lunch with his sources in the
wake of 9/11 . He vents his anger at the agencies for not sharing information. One of his
CIA sources fires back: "Sy you still don't get it after all these years – the FBI
catches bank robbers, the CIA robs banks." It is a delicious, if cryptic aphorism.
* * *
6) On the Bush-era 'Redirection' policy of arming Sunni radicals to counter Shia Iran, which
in a 2007 New Yorker article
Hersh accurately predicted
would set off war in Syria
From the
Independent interview : [Hersh] tells me it is "amazing how many times that story has been
reprinted" . I ask about his argument that US policy was designed to neutralize the Shia sphere
extending from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence redraw the Sykes-Picot
boundaries for the 21st century.
He goes on to say that Bush and Cheney "had it in for Iran", although he denies the idea
that Iran was heavily involved in Iraq: "They were providing intel, collecting intel The US did
many cross-border hunts to kill ops [with] much more aggression than Iran"...
He believes that the Trump administration has no memory of this approach. I'm sure though
that the military-industrial complex has a longer memory...
I press him on the RAND and Stratfor reports including one authored by Cheney and Paul
Wolfowitz in which they envisage deliberate ethno-sectarian partitioning of Iraq . Hersh
ruefully states that: "The day after 9/11 we should have gone to Russia. We did the one thing
that George Kennan warned us never to do – to expand NATO too far."
* * *
7) On the official 9/11 narrative
From the
Independent interview : We end up ruminating about 9/11, perhaps because it is another
narrative ripe for deconstruction by sceptics. Polling shows that a significant proportion of
the American public believes there is more to the truth. These doubts have been reinforced by
the declassification of the suppressed 28 pages of the 9/11 commission report last year
undermining the version that a group of terrorists acting independently managed to pull off the
attacks. The implication is that they may well have been state-sponsored with the Saudis
potentially involved.
Hersh tells me: "I don't necessarily buy the story that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
We really don't have an ending to the story. I've known people in the [intelligence] community.
We don't know anything empirical about who did what" . He continues: "The guy was living in a
cave. He really didn't know much English. He was pretty bright and he had a lot of hatred for
the US. We respond by attacking the Taliban. Eighteen years later How's it going guys?"
8) On the media and the morality of the powerful
From a recent
The Intercept interview and book review -- If
Hersh were a superhero, this would be his origin story. Two hundred and seventy-four pages
after the Chicago anecdote, he describes his coverage of a massive
slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians by the U.S. in 1991 after a ceasefire had ended the
Persian Gulf War. America's indifference to this massacre was, Hersh writes, "a reminder of the
Vietnam War's MGR, for Mere Gook Rule: If it's a murdered or raped gook, there is no crime." It
was also, he adds, a reminder of something else: "I had learned a domestic version of that rule
decades earlier" in Chicago. "Reporter" demonstrates that Hersh has derived three simple lessons from that rule:
The powerful prey mercilessly upon the powerless, up to and including mass murder.
The powerful lie constantly about their predations.
The natural instinct of the media is to let the powerful get away with it.
New McCarthyism allows
corporate media to tighten grip, Democrats to ignore their own failings Alan MacLeod
The election of Donald Trump came as a shock to many ( Independent ,
11/5/16 ).
To the shock of many, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections, becoming the 45th
president of the United States. Not least shocked were corporate media, and the political
establishment more generally; the Princeton Election Consortium
confidently predicted an over 99 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while MSNBC 's
Rachel Maddow ( 10/17/16 ) said
it could be a "Goldwater-style landslide."
Indeed, Hillary Clinton and her team actively
attempted to secure a Trump primary victory, assured that he would be the easiest candidate
to beat. The Podesta emails show that her team considered even
before the primaries that associating Trump with Vladimir Putin and Russia would be a winning
strategy and employed the tactic throughout 2016 and beyond.
With Clinton claiming , "Putin would rather have a puppet
as president," Russia was by far the most discussed topic during the presidential debates (
FAIR.org ,
10/13/16 ), easily eclipsing healthcare, terrorism, poverty and inequality. Media seized
upon the theme, with Paul Krugman ( New York Times , 7/22/16
) asserting Trump would be a " Siberian
candidate," while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden ( Washington Post ,
5/16/16 ) claimed Trump would be Russia's "useful fool."
The day after the election, Jonathan Allen's book Shattered detailed, Clinton's team
decided that the proliferation of Russian-sponsored "fake news" online was the primary reason
for their loss.
Within weeks, the Washington Post (
11/24/16 ) was publicizing the website PropOrNot.com , which purports to help users
differentiate sources as fake or genuine, as an invaluable tool in the battle against fake news
( FAIR.org , 12/1/16
, 12/8/16 ).
The website soberly informs its readers that you see news sources critiquing the "mainstream
media," the EU, NATO, Obama, Clinton, Angela Merkel or other centrists are a telltale sign of
Russian propaganda. It also claims that when news sources argue against foreign intervention
and war with Russia, that's evidence that you are reading Kremlin-penned fake
news.
The Washington Post (
11/24/16 ) was one of the first media outlets to blame the election results on Russian
"fake news."
PropOrNot claims it has identified over 200 popular websites that "routinely peddle Russian
propaganda." Included in the list were Wikileaks , Trump-supporting right-wing websites
like InfoWars and the Drudge Report , libertarian outlets like the Ron Paul
Institute and Antiwar.com , and award-winning anti-Trump (but also Clinton-critical)
left-wing sites like TruthDig and Naked Capitalism . Thus it was uniquely news
sources that did not lie in the fairway between Clinton Democrats and moderate Republicans that
were tarred as propaganda.
PropOrNot calls for an FBI investigation into the news sources listed. Even its creators see
the resemblance to a new McCarthyism, as it appears as a frequently asked question on
their website. (They say it is not McCarthyism, because "we are not accusing anyone of
lawbreaking, treason, or 'being a member of the Communist Party.'") However, this new
McCarthyism does not stem from the conservative right like before, but from the establishment
center.
That the list is so evidently flawed and its creators refuse to reveal their identities or
funding did not stop the issue becoming one of the most discussed in mainstream circles. Media
talk of fake news sparked organizations like Google , Facebook , Bing and
YouTube to change their algorithms, ostensibly to combat it.
However, one major effect of the change has been to hammer progressive outlets that
challenge the status quo. The Interceptreported a 19 percent reduction
in Google search traffic, AlterNet63 percent and Democracy
Now!36 percent. Reddit and
Twitter deleted thousands of accounts, while in what came to be called the
"AdPocalypse," YouTube began demonetizing videos from independent creators like
Majority Report and the Jimmy Dore Show on controversial political topics like
environmental protests, war and mass shootings. (In contrast, corporate outlets like CNN
did not have their content on those subjects demonetized.) Journalists that questioned aspects
of the Russia narrative, like Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté, were accused of being
agents of the Kremlin ( Shadowproof ,
7/9/18 ).
The effect has been to pull away the financial underpinnings of alternative media that
question the corporate state and capitalism in general, and to reassert corporate control over
communication, something that had been loosened during the election in particular. It also
impels liberal journalists to prove their loyalty by employing sufficiently bellicose and
anti-Russian rhetoric, lest they also be tarred as Kremlin agents.
Thomas Friedman ( Morning Joe ,
2/14/18 ) pointedly compared email hacking to events that the US responded to with major
wars.
When it was reported in February that 13 Russian trolls had been indicted by a US grand jury
for sharing and promoting pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes on Facebook , the response
was a general uproar. Multiple senior political figures declared it an "act of war." Clinton
herself described Russian interference as a "
cyber 9/11 ," while Thomas Friedman said that it was a "
Pearl Harbor–scale event ." Morgan Freeman's viral video, produced by Rob Reiner's
Committee to Investigate Russia, summed up the outrage: "We have been attacked," the actor
declared ; "We are at war with Russia." Liberals declared Trump's refusal to react in a
sufficiently aggressive manner further proof he was Putin's puppet.
The McCarthyist wave swept over other politicians that challenged the liberal center. Green
Party presidential candidate Jill Stein refused to endorse the Russia narrative, leading
mainstream figures like Rachel Maddow to
insinuate she was a Kremlin stooge as well. After news broke that Stein's connection to
Russia was being officially investigated, top Clinton staffer Zac Petkanas announced :
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
"Commentary" that succinctly summed up the political atmosphere.
In contrast, Bernie Sanders has consistently and explicitly endorsed the RussiaGate theory,
claiming it is "clear
to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and
intends to be involved in 2018." Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented
as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (
11/12/17 ) asking its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of
Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals respond?" The message is clear: The
progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
Outlets like Slate (
5/11/18 ) warned of a sinister connection between Black Lives Matter and Russia.
It is not just politicians who have been smeared as Russian agents, witting or unwitting;
virtually every major progressive movement challenging the system is increasingly dismissed in
the same way. Multiple media outlets, including CNN (
6/29/18 ), Slate (
5/11/18 ), Vox ( 4/11/18
) and the New York Times (
2/16/18 ), have produced articles linking Black Lives Matter to the Kremlin, insinuating
the outrage over racist police brutality is another Russian psyop.
Others claimed Russia funded the riots in Ferguson and that Russian trolls promoted
the Standing Rock environmental protests.
Meanwhile, Democratic insider Neera Tanden retweeted a
description of Chelsea Manning as a "Russian stooge," writing off her campaign for the Senate
as "the Kremlin paying the extreme left to swing elections. Remember that." Thus corporate
media are promoting the idea that any challenge to the establishment is likely a Kremlin-funded
astroturf effort.
The tactic has spread to Europe as well. After the poisoning of Russian double agent Sergei
Skripal, the UK government immediately blamed Russia and imposed sanctions (without publicly
presenting evidence). Jeremy Corbyn, the pacifist, leftist leader of the Labour Party, was
uncharacteristically bellicose, asserting , "The Russian
authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence and our response must be both
decisive and proportionate."
The British press was outraged -- at Corbyn's insufficient jingoism. The Sun 's front
page ( 3/15/18 )
attacked him as "Putin's Puppet," while the Daily Mail (
3/15/18 ) went with "Corbyn the Kremlin Stooge." As with Sanders, the fact that Corbyn
endorsed the official narrative didn't keep him from being attacked, showing that the
conspiratorial mindset seeing Russia behind everything has little to do with evidence-based
reality, and is increasingly a tool to demonize the establishment's political enemies.
The Atlantic Council
published a report claiming Greek political parties Syriza and Golden Dawn were not
expressions of popular frustration and disillusionment, but "the Kremlin's Trojan horses,"
undermining democracy in its birthplace. Providing scant evidence, the report went on to link
virtually every major European political party challenging the center, from right or left, to
Putin. From Britian's UKIP to Spain's Podemos to Italy's Five Star Movement, all are charged
with being under one man's control. It is this council that Facebookannounced
it was partnering with to help promote "trustworthy" news and weed out "untrustworthy" sources
( FAIR.org ,
5/21/18 ), as its CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with representatives from some of the largest
corporate outlets, like the New York Times , CNN and News Corp , to help
develop a system to control what content we see on the website.
"We are at war," Morgan Freeman
assures us on behalf of the Committee to Investigate Russia.
The utility of this wave of suspicion is captured in Freeman's aforementioned
video . After asserting that "for 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example to
the world of what we can all aspire to" -- a tally that would count nearly a century of chattel
slavery and almost another hundred years of de jure racial disenfranchisement -- the actor
explains that "Putin uses social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces
people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political process."
The obvious implication is that the political process and media ought to be trusted, and
would be trusted were it not for Putin's propaganda. It was not the failures of capitalism and
the deep inequalities it created that led to widespread popular resentment and movements on
both left and right pressing for radical change across Europe and America, but Vladimir Putin
himself. In other words, "America is already great."
For the Democrats, Russiagate allows them to ignore calls for change and not scrutinize why
they lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in history. Since Russia hacked the
election, there is no need for introspection, and certainly no need to accommodate the Sanders
wing or to engage with progressive challenges from activists on the left, who are Putin's
puppets anyway. The party can continue on the same course, painting over the deep cracks in
American society. Similarly, for centrists in Europe, under threat from both left and right,
the Russia narrative allows them to sow distrust among the public for any movement challenging
the dominant order.
For the state, Russiagate has encouraged liberals to forego their faculties and develop a
state-worshiping, conspiratorial mindset in the face of a common, manufactured enemy. Liberal
trust in institutions like the FBI has
markedly increased since 2016, while liberals also now espouse a neocon foreign policy in
Syria, Ukraine and other regions, with many supporting the vast increases in the US military
budget and attacking Trump from the right.
For corporate media, too, the disciplining effect of the Russia narrative is highly useful,
allowing them to reassert control over the means of communication under the guise of preventing
a Russian "fake news" infiltration. News sources that challenge the establishment are censored,
defunded or deranked, as corporate sources stoke mistrust of them. Meanwhile, it allows them to
portray themselves as arbiters of truth. This strategy has had some success, with
Democrats' trust in media increasing since the election.
None of this is to say that Russia does not strive to influence other countries' elections,
a tactic that the United States has employed even more frequently ( NPR ,
12/22/16 ). Yet the extent to which the story has dominated the US media to the detriment
of other issues is a remarkable testament to its utility for those in power.
Bloomberg article cited in
Russia To Propose Rolling Back 1.8 Million Bpd Of Oil Cuts OilPrice.com is a rumor. Russians
clearly understand that it was the USA who orchestrated 2014-2018 oil price slump which hurt
Russia pretty severely with standard of living still not recovered to 2014 levels. There no trump toward the USA left. for russia
the USA with its neocon foreign policy is now in a way "Great Satan" as it is for Iran.
put
forward a proposal to OPEC to increase production by 1.8million barrels per day (bpd)
– and, unusually, proposed that these increases were to start kicking in within weeks. In
the end,
a pact to increase production by 1 million barrels per day – spearheaded by Russia
and Saudi Arabia – was agreed by OPEC and non-OPEC countries in late June. The rise was
opposed by Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Algeria, with Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh
commenting ahead of the meeting that "OPEC is not the organization to receive instruction from
President Trump OPEC is not part of the Department of Energy of the United States".
Within days of the adoption of the Russian-led production increase, the Trump administration
announced its plans to "reduce Iranian oil
exports to zero" by November 4th. Questioned on whether such a policy might cause disruption as
countries scrambled to replace supplies, State Department policy director Brian Hooks remarked
that "we are confident there is sufficient global spare oil capacity." Russia's push for
increased production had, in effect, smoothed the path for the next round of Trump's
strangulation of Iran. It was precisely this deal which lay behind Trump's brazen claim that
world oil supplies would plug the gap created by the loss of Iranian crude; without the end to
Russian-Saudi production limits, this would have been unthinkable. As things stand, however,
all the pieces are in place for Trump to apply serious pressure on all importers of Iranian
oil. Whilst the Russian-Saudi deal offers alternative sources of supply, the trade war now
underway demonstrates Trump's willingness to use tariffs against those who do not bend to his
geopolitical will. Whilst Trump has openly threatened sanctions against those who do not heed
his call to end their dealings with Iran, it is quite possible that those who do heed it will
be rewarded with tariff exemptions. China, in particular – Iran's biggest trading
partner, and now threatened with tariffs on all $500bilion of their exports to the US –
will be particularly under pressure.
On the surface, then, Russia's actions appear self-defeating. The end to the, hugely
successful, production quotas of the previous 18 months immediately triggered a drop in oil
prices – Russia's main export commodity – whilst facilitating the escalation of US
economic warfare against key Russian ally Iran. Yet there are several reasons Russia may be
supporting Trump's moves.
Most obviously, Iran is a major competitor with Russia for oil export markets –
especially in Europe. European hopes to reduce dependence on Russian energy supplies are likely
to be seriously dashed if they can no longer turn to Iran as an alternative supplier. Quite
simply, Russia will sell more oil without Iranian competition.
More than this, however, even Trump's use of tariffs as leverage to push countries away from
Iran could be to Russia's benefit. If Trump does indeed make tariff-free access to the US
market conditional on cutting investment and trade with Iran, China would face a major
dilemma.
China has for some years been not only Iran's major trading partner, but investment
financier as well. In 2011, China signed a $20 billion
agreement to boost bilateral cooperation in Iran's industrial and mining sectors. Today,
China is poised to take over development of the massive South Pars oil and gas field should the
French company TOTAL pull out, as they are widely expected to do, whilst a $3billion deal was
recently signed giving SINOPEC the right to expand the Abadan oil refinery in Khuzestan
Province. Meanwhile,
reports Fox News , "With the U.S. Treasury putting pressure on Western banks to not make
any deals with Iran, the Chinese state-owned CITIC bank is extending lines of
credit worth $10 billion for Iranian banks. This funding will finance water, energy and
transport projects. To bypass U.S. sanctions, the lines of credit will use euros and yuan
currencies".
But most significant for Russia is the 2017 $1.5 billion deal made by the Chinese
Export-Import Bank to finance a high-speed railway between Tehran and Mashhad. The railway is
envisioned to become part of China's 'Belt and Road Initiative' , creating a high-speed transit
route between central Asia and Europe that will shave weeks off current travel times.
This May – in a clear act of defiance to the US – China opened a
new train line between China's Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and Tehran, shortening
travel time by 20 days compared to cargo ship. Once the full vision of a Chinese built
high-tech, high-speed rail network across central Asia is realised, however, the current
'Northern route' through Russia is likely to be rendered all but redundant.
Could it be, then, that Russia sees it as in its own interests to facilitate Trump's quest
to chase Chinese investment out of Iran in order to preserve its trade routes and access to
European oil markets?
If so, it is likely to be disappointed. For Iran is central not only to the Belt and Road
Initiative – China's multi-trillion, multi-decade long 'geoeconomic' programme –
but also to its defence strategy. As correctly observed in a
recent piece published by The Diplomat, "Iran constitutes [China's] true priority. China
has nurtured bilateral relations with Tehran for decades, leveraging a common resentment toward
Western
dominance . This partnership has great geostrategic importance to both nations. Thanks to
its oil and gas reserves, Iran could help Beijing withstand a U.S. attack on its SLOCs (Sea
Lines of Communication)."
For China, much as it naturally seeks to avoid further punishment from the US, Iran is
simply too important to be bargained away. Unfortunately not so, it seems, for Moscow.
Join
the debate on Facebook More articles by: Dan Glazebrook
If half of what I have come to understand about the Curious Case of Bill Browder is true,
then the "Magnitsky Trio" of Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin are guilty of
espionage, at a minimum.
Why? Because they know that Browder's story about Sergei Magnitsky is a lie. And that means
that when you tie in the Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, the Skripal poisoning
and the rest of this mess, these men are consorting with foreign governments and agencies
against the sitting President.
As Lee Stranahan pointed out recently on Fault Lines, Cardin invited Browder to testify to
Congress in 2017 to push through last year's sanctions bill, a more stringent version of the
expiring Magnitsky Act of 2011, which has since been used to ratchet up pressure on Russia.
I'd read it a few times, because it's about as murky as The Swamp gets. And, still my eyes
glaze over.
The Magnitsky Act and its sequel have been used to support aggressive policy actions by the
U.S. against Russia and destroy the relationship between the world's most prominent militaries
and nuclear powers.
The new bill is said to want to put 'crushing sanctions' on Russia to make 'Putin feel the
heat.' In effect, what this bill wants to do is force President Trump to enforce sanctions
against
the entire Russian state for attempting to do business anywhere in the world.
The new financial penalties would target political figures, oligarchs, family members and
others that "facilitate illicit and corrupt activities" on behalf of Putin.
It would also impose new sanctions on transactions tied to investments in state-owned
energy projects, transactions tied to new Russian debt, and people with the capacity or
ability to support or carry out a "malicious" cyber act.
In addition, if it wasn't clear enough already, that he's no friend of the President, Graham
is trying to tie the President's hands on NATO withdrawal, requiring a two-thirds majority.
Now, why would Graham be worried about that, unless it was something the President was
seriously considering? This is similar to last year's sanctions bill requiring a similar
majority for the President to end the original sanctions placed on Russia in 2014 over the
reunification with Crimea.
And behind it all stands Bill Browder.
Because it has been Browder's one-man campaign to influence members of Congress, the EU and
public opinion the world over against Putin and Russia for the past 10 years over Magnitsky's
death.
Browder's story is the only one we see in the news. And it's never questioned, even though
it has. He continually moves to block films and articles critical of him from seeing
distribution.
Browder is the epicenter around which the insane push for war with Russia revolves as
everyone involved in the attempt to take over Russia in 1999 continues to try and cover their
collective posteriors posterities.
And it is Browder, along with Republic National Bank chief Edmond Safra, who were involved
together in the pillaging of Russia in the 1990's. Browder's firm hired Magintsky as an
accountant (because that's what he was) to assist in the money laundering Heritage Capital was
involved in.
The attempted take over of Russia failed because Yeltsin saw the setup which led him to
appoint Putin as his Deputy Prime Minister.
There was $7 billion that was wired through Bank of New York which involved money stolen
from the IMF loans to Russia. The attempt to takeover Russia by blackmail was set in motion.
As soon as that wire was done, that is when Republic National Bank ran to the Department of
Justice to say it was money-laundering. I believe this started the crisis and Yeltsin was
blackmailed to step down and appoint Boris A. Berezovsky as the head of Russia.
Clearly, Republic National Bank was involved with the US government for they were sending
also skids of $100 bills to Russia. It was written up and called the
Money Plane . Yeltsin then turned to Putin realizing that he had been set up. This is how
Putin became the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia on August 9th, 1999 until August 16th,
1999 when he became the 33rd Prime Minister and heir apparent of Yeltsin.
So, now why, all of a sudden, do we need even stronger sanctions on Russia, ones that would
create untold dislocation in financial markets around the world?
Look at the timeline today and see what's happening.
Earlier this year Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicts 13 people associated with
Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll farm, for influencing the 2016 election.
Then Mueller indicts twelve members of Russian intelligence to sabotage the upcoming
summit between Trump and Putin while the Russia Hacked Muh Election narrative was
flagging.
Three days later President Trump met with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. There a Putin let
the world know that he would assist Robert Mueller's investigation if in return the U.S.
would assist Russia in returning Bill Browder, who was tried and convicted in absentia for
tax evasion.
All of a sudden Browder's story is all over the alternative press. Browder is all over
U.S. television.
Earlier this week Facebook comes out, after horrific earnings, to tell everyone that IRA
was still at it, though being ever so sneaky, trying to influence the mid-terms by engaging
Democrats and anti-Trumpers to organize... In that release, Facebook let it be known it was
working with the political arm of NATO, The Atlantic Council, to ferret out these dastardly
Russian agents.
And now we have a brand-new shiny sanctions bill intended to keep any rapprochement between
the U.S. and Russia from occurring.
Why is that? What's got them so scared of relations with Russia improving?
Maybe, just maybe, because Putin has all of these people dead to rights and he's informed
Trump of what the real story behind all of this is.
That at its core is a group of very bad people who attempted to steal trillions but only got
away with billions and still have their sights set on destroying Russia for their own
needs.
And Lindsay Graham is their mouthpiece. (all puns intended)
That all of U.S. foreign policy is built on a lie.
That our relationship with Russia was purposefully trashed for the most venal of reasons,
for people like Bill Browder to not only steal billions but then have the chutzpah to steal the
$230 million he would have paid in taxes on those stolen billions.
And the only way to ensure none of those lies are exposed is for Trump to be unable to
change any of it by forcing him to openly side with the Russian President over members of his
own political party.
The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department
thinks they are a bad idea. But, at this point there is nothing Graham won't do for his
owners.
Because they are desperate they will push for open warfare with Russia to push Putin from
power, which is not possible. All of this is nothing more than a sad attempt to hold onto power
long enough to oust Trump from the White House and keep things as horrible as they currently
are.
Because no one gives up power willingly. And the more they are proven to be frauds the more
they will scream for war.
I should also mention Putin's treatment of certain Jewish oligarchs who have attempted
to influence Western policies toward Russia (e.g., Mikhail Khodorkovsky). A truly stunning
moment in the Trump-Putin presser (all but ignored in the MSM) was Putin saying that Bill
Browder and his associates had illegally earned $1.5 billion in Russia ("the way the money
was earned was illegal") without paying taxes either to Russia or the United States where
the money was transferred. And that he and his associates had contributed $400 million to
Hillary Clinton's campaign. While the charges back and forth are impossible for me to
evaluate, Browder's firm, Hermitage Capital Management, has been involved in other
accusations of fraud. Browder was the main force promoting the Magnitsky Act, signed by
President Obama in 2012, that barred Russian officials said to be involved in the death of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Browder associate, from entering the U.S. or using the U.S. banking
system.
Here the point is that American neocons have been in the forefront of hostility over
Putin's treatment of Jewish oligarchs, taking the view that Browder et al. are completely
innocent victims of Russian evil. Along with Russian foreign policy, Putin's actions toward
the oligarchs is one factor in neocon and hence some factions of the GOP toward Russia.
It's no surprise that they are now eagerly joining the hate-Trump chorus throughout the
American establishment.
"William Felix "Bill" Browder was born into a Jewish family in Chicago, Illinois.
Browder's paternal grandfather was Earl Browder , who was born in Kansas in
1891. [1] He was a
radical and had lived in the Soviet Union for several years from 1927 and married Raisa
Berkman, a Jewish Russian woman, while living there. [1]
After his return to the United States in 1931, [1] Earl Browder
became the leader of the Communist Party USA , and ran for
U.S. president in 1936 and 1940. [13]
After World War II, Earl Browder lost favor with Moscow and was expelled from the American
Communist party . [1]
Remove all jew supremacists from all positions of power, no matter how small-NOW!
Get It, Read It:
"A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind" Stephon Mitford Goodson
Great film that takes you from Browder the poor defrauded good guy with a hero lawyer
Magnitsky, to a bad guy with Magnitsky the long employed accountant who made none of the
assertions injected into the Russian -English translations that no one reviewed. But why is
this film banned in the West? (/s)
Not only is Steele part of this shady group but there are ties with Alexander Litvinenko,
Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Perepelichny (who all meet thier untimely deaths) around Bill
Browder (directly/indirectly)"
As Browder responds with "I do not recall" and "I do not know" on any substantial
inquiry in the court, the US judiciary could be very interested in hearing Perepelichny.
This menace to Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week before the bill passed the US House:
on Nov 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead outside his mansion in London. The
police investigation did not bring any tangible result but the theory of "Russian mafia"
involved was timely injected into the international media. One month later Magnitsky Act
was signed by president Obama
McCain hand carried the Steele Dossier to Comey. McCain was in Canada when MI6 operative
Sir Andrew Wood enlisted McCain. Then McCain took the bait, no he was working to take Trump
out.
He tried to get out of it in his new book, The Restless Wave.
I've watched McCain for years, I believe he has brain damage from the Vietnam War.
I can understand repealing Jackson-Vanik because it pertained to how U. S. deals with
"non-market economies." Free market mechanisms were introduced in Russia and China since the
1970s so there needed to be changes. However, if there's government corruption in other
nation states, how does this rate an act of Congress? Why repeal the law that required annual
reviews of trade relations and replace it with normalization of trade only to sanction
foreign government officials that have never even had a trial? What about all the financial
misdeeds, money laundering, abuse of the banking system that can be traced to Browder, the
congressional instigator? How does Graham, McCain and Cardin benefit by derailing relations
with Russia over ONE GUY's WORD with a dicey past?
Law
In June 2012, the United
States House Committee on Foreign Affairs reported to the House a bill called the Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 4405). The main intention of the law
was to punish Russian officials who were thought to be responsible for the death of Sergei
Magnitsky by prohibiting their entrance to the United States and their use of its banking
system. The legislation was taken up by a Senate panel the next week,
sponsored by Senator Ben
Cardin , and cited in a broader review of the mounting tensions in the international
relationship.
In November 2012, provisions of the Magnitsky bill were attached to a House bill (H.R.
6156) normalizing trade with Russia (i.e., repealing the Jackson–Vanik
amendment ) and Moldova . On December 6, 2012, the U.S. Senate
passed the House version of the law, 92-4. The law was signed by President Barack Obama on December 14, 2012.
In 2016, Congress enacted the Global Magnitsky Act which allows the US Government to
sanction foreign government officials implicated in human rights abuses anywhere in the
world.
In 16 November 2009, tax specialist lawyer Sergey Magnitsky died in Matrosskaya
Tishina prison (Moscow). Immediately, the US Press claimed that he had been in possession of
information concerning a State scandal, and had been tortured by the " régime ".
The
Magnitsky Act
The death of Magnitsky shut down the legal procedures that had been launched against him by the
Russian Minister of Justice. Billionaire William ("Bill") Browder declared in Washington that the
tax expert possessed proof that Russian Power had stolen 3 billion dollars from him. Despite
lobbying by Goldman Sachs, the US Congress believed it had clarified the affair, and in 2012
adopted a law sanctioning the Russian personalities suspected of having murdered the lawyer.
Goldman Sachs, which did not believe the information forwarded by the parliamentarians, hired the
lobbying firm Duberstein Group in an attempt to block the vote on the law [
1
].
On this model, in 2016, the Congress extended the "
Magnitsky Act
" to the whole world,
requesting the President to implement sanctions against all people and all states which violate
individual property. Presidents Obama and Trump obeyed, placing about twenty personalities on the
list, including the President of the Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.
These two laws were aimed at giving back to the United States the role it had assumed during the
Cold War as defender of individual property, even though they had no communist rival.
The two versions of the " Magnitsky affair "
As for the Russian State Duma, it responded to its US counterpart by forbidding the adoption of
Russian children by US families, and by denouncing the responsibility of US personalities in the
legalisation of torture (the Dima Yakovlev Law, from the name of the Russian child adopted in the
USA who died as a result of negligence by the parents). President Putin applied this text in 2013,
also forbidding ex-US Vice President Dick Cheney access to Russian territory.
The " Magnitsky affair " could have ended there. It seems to be independent of the "
Khodorkovsky affair ", exploited by NATO in order to accuse Russia of interference in Western
democracies by way of disinformation or " fake news " [
2
].
However, the Russian Prosecutor General contests the narrative presented by William Browder to the
US Congress.
According to William Browder, his company Hermitage Capital invested in Russia, particularly in
Gazprom. He allegedly discovered signs of irregular practices and attempted to warn the Kremlin.
However, his resident's visa was then cancelled. Then his Russian companies were allegedly robbed
by Lieutenant-Colonel Artem Kuznetsov, a civil servant from the Financial Brigade of the Russian
Ministry of the Interior. Kuznetsov apparently seized the property documents during a search, then
used them to register a new owner. Lawyer Sergey Magnitsky, who apparently blew the whistle on the
embezzlement, was arrested, tortured and finally died in prison. In the end, Lieutenant-Colonel
Artem Kuznetsov and " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev were allegedly able to deposit the 3 billion stolen
dollars in a Cypriot bank. This is a classic case of theft by the Russian mafia with the help of
the Kremlin [
3
].
This narrative inspired the seventh season of the Showtime TV series,
Homeland
.
On the contrary, according to Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika, William Browder illegally
acquired 133 million shares in Gazprom on behalf of the Ziff brothers, via various straw men. Not
only did Browder avoid paying 150 million dollars in taxes, but the acquisition of part of this
crown jewel of the Russian economy is in itself illegal. Furthermore, his financial advisor, Sergey
Magnitsky, who had developed another scam for the same Browder, was arrested and died of a heart
attack in prison [
4
].
It is obviously impossible to tell the truth from the lies in these two versions. However, it is
now recognised that Sergey Magnitsky was not a lawyer working freelance, but was employed by
William Browder's companies. He was not investigating embezzlement, but was tasked by Browder
with the creation of financial structures which would avoid him having to pay taxes in Russia.
For example, the two men imagined remunerating mentally handicapped people as front men in order to
benefit from their tax exempt status. Browder had much experience with tax evasion – which is why
he lived for ten years in Russia with a simple tourist visa, then abandoned his US citizenship and
became a British citizen.
These last elements prove William Browder wrong, and are compatible with Prosecutor Chaika's
accusations. In these conditions, it seems at the least imprudent for the US Congress to have
adopted the
Magnitsky Act
, unless of course the operation was aimed not at defending
individual property, but at hurting Russia [
5
].
A leader of the Russian opposition paid by Browder
Alongside the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Browder abundantly finances the work of a
young lawyer, Alexeď Navalny. Thanks to the help of US ambassador Michael McFaul, the young man
pursued his studies in the USA at Yale in 2010. He created an Anti-Corruption Foundation in order
to promote Browden's version and accuse Putin's administration.
Having become a leader of the political opposition, Navalny and his Foundation directed a first
documentary accusing the family of Prosecutor Chaika of corruption. But although the video is
convincing at first look, it presents no proof of the facts it relates.
Simultaneously, Navalny ordered a second documentary from a Russian film director and member of
the opposition about the " Magnitsky affair ". But this journalist turned against his employer
during the investigation, which was finally broadcast by Russian public television.
Thereafter, William Browder engaged an ex-agent of MI6 in Moscow (1990-93), Christopher Steele,
and the ex-US ambassador to Moscow (2012-14), Michael McFaul.
It so happens that it was Christopher Steele who, in 2006 – while he was with MI6 – accused
President Vladimir Putin of having ordered the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium. In
2016, he also worked – freelance this time – for the US Democratic Party. That was when he wrote
the famous dossier accusing candidate Donald Trump of being under the threat of blackmail by the
Russian secret services [
6
]
; an unwarranted charge which has just resurfaced after the bilateral Summit in Helsinki. We find
Steele once again, in 2018, involved in the Novitchok poisoning of Sergueď Skripal – as a "
consultant " for MI6, he of course accused the inevitable Vladimir Putin.
The Russian riposte
During the US Presidential campaign of 2016, Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika attempted to
influence a member of Congress who was open to Russian thinking, Dana Rohrabacher (Republican,
California). He sent her a note concerning his version of the Browder-Magnitsky affair. Russian
lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya met the son and son-in-law of candidate Donald Trump at Trump Tower,
in order to inform them that a part of Browder's dirty money was being used to finance the
candidacy of Hillary Clinton [
7
].
Thereafter, William Browder became the main source of the enquiry run by Special Prosecutor
Robert Mueller about possible Russian interference in " US Democracy ". A long time before he
became the Director the FBI, Mueller – who officially has no link to the CIA – had been responsible
for the enquiry on the Lockerbie attack, which he attributed to Mouammar Kadhafi. Let's remember
that Libya never recognised that it was implicated in this affair, although it accepted to pay a
compensation to the victims. Above all, Scottish Justice established the fact that fragments of the
detonator found on site were placed there by the CIA in order to accuse Libya. Mueller used the
meeting of Trump's team with Natalia Veselnitskaya as " proof " of the subordination of Donald
Trump to the Russian Intelligence services.
In the USA, Natalia Veselnitskaya represents the interests of several of Browder's Russian
victims. She also acted in 2014 on behalf of one of the companies that Browder accused of being
connected to " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev. She also raised the question about the manner in which an
agent of Homeland Security, Todd Hyman, had transmitted a trial document without proceeding with
the usual verifications.
There will be no moment of truth
During the US-Russia summit in Helsinki, President Vladimir Putin proposed that his US
counterpart allow US investigators to question those Russian civil servants suspected of
interference in the US Presidential campaign, on the condition that Russian investigators would
also be allowed to question suspects in the USA. Donald Trump is reserving his answer.
However, when the office of Prosecutor Yury Chaika transmitted the list of witnesses to be
questioned, Washington panicked. Not only did Chaika ask to question British subjects William
Browder and Christopher Steele if they should travel in the United States, but also ambassador
Michael McFaul, lawyer Jonathan Winer, researcher David J. Kramer, and finally, agent Todd Hyman.
Jonathan Winer was in charge of the Lockerbie dossier at the State Department during the 1990's.
He is a personal friend of Christopher Steele, and transmitted his reports to the neo-conservatives
for a decade [
8
].
During Bush Jr.'s first term, David J. Kramer played an important role in the management of the
propaganda system for the State Department as well as looking after the stay-behind agents in
Eastern Europe and in Russia. After having worked in various think tanks, he became the president
of Freedom House, and campaigned on the " Magnitsky affair ". He is today a researcher at the
McCain Institute.
Although, so far, nothing enables us to tell which of the Browder and Chaika versions is
accurate, the truth will soon emerge. It is possible that Russian interference may be no more than
fake news, but US interference (by introduction into the crown piece of the Russian economy as well
as via Alexeď Navalny) may in fact be a reality.
In the context of' Washington's unanimous anti-Russian stand, President Trump declines Vladimir
Putin's proposition.
Thierry Meyssan
[
4
]
Note from Yury Chaika Office to Dana Rohrabacher, June 2016.
[
5
]
"
Intouchable, Mr. Browder ?
", par
Israël Shamir, Traduction Maria Poumier,
Entre la plume et l'enclume
(France),
The Unz
Review
(USA),
Réseau Voltaire
, 22 juin 2016.
"... "[The] US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers – from an allied country – illustrates not just [the] US administration's policy of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft, but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds," ..."
"... "a victim of unfair and unjust detention" ..."
"... "an absence of evidence." ..."
"... "a great Christian, family man and wonderful human being." ..."
"... "any property, or interest in property" ..."
"... "US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them." ..."
The "addiction" of Washington to sanctions "knows no bounds," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said. It comes after Washington
slapped two top officials from major ally Turkey with restrictions. "[The] US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers
– from an allied country – illustrates not just [the] US administration's policy of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft,
but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds," Zarif tweeted.
US' unlawful sanctions against two Turkish ministers - from an allied country - illustrates not just US administration's policy
of pressure and extortion in lieu of statecraft, but that its addiction to sanctions knows no bounds.
In a heightening of tensions between the two allies, the US Treasury Department on Wednesday
announced restrictions against Turkish Minister
of Justice Abdulhamit Gul and Minister of Interior Suleyman Soylu over the continued detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson.
Brunson is being held by Turkey on charges of espionage and assisting the plotters of an unsuccessful 2016 military coup attempt.
The US says Brunson is "a victim of unfair and unjust detention" by the Turkish government, adding that he was accused
with "an absence of evidence." US President Donald Trump has
called the pastor "a great Christian,
family man and wonderful human being."
The Treasury Department announced that "any property, or interest in property" of both Gul and Soylu within US jurisdiction
is blocked and "US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them."
Brunson's case has long been a stumbling block in already strained relations between Washington and Ankara. Days before the US
Treasury announced its decision, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
accused
his American counterpart of waging "psychological warfare" against Turkey over the pastor and warned that the US may lose
"a strong and sincere ally."
Responding to the restrictions, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu
tweeted that they "won't be left
without retaliation."
US relations with Turkey have not been smooth in recent months. Among other things, Ankara and Washington are locking horns over
Turkey's decision to buy Russian S-400 missile systems. Erdogan's government is also adamant on pushing ahead with the purchase of
American F-35 jets, which US lawmakers are trying to block due to Ankara's S-400 deal.
Why, then, would a coalition of leftish and right-wing patriots not join in
denouncing a leader who seemed to put Russia's interests ahead of those of his own country?
Sorry to say, things are not so simple. Look a bit more closely at what holds the anti-Trump
foreign policy coalition together, and you will discover a missing reality that virtually no
one will acknowledge directly: the existence of a beleaguered but still potent American Empire
whose junior partner is Europe. What motivates a broad range of the President's opponents,
then, is not so much the fear that he is anti-American as the suspicion that he is
anti-Empire.
Of course, neither liberals nor conservatives dare to utter the "E-word." Rather, they argue
in virtually identical terms that Trump's foreign and trade policies are threatening the
pillars of world order: NATO, the Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization, the
International Monetary Fund, the OSCE, and so forth. These institutions, they claim, along with
American military power and a willingness to use it when necessary, are primarily responsible
for the peaceful, prosperous, free, and democratic world that we have all been privileged to
inhabit since the Axis powers surrendered to the victorious Allies in 1945.
The fear expressed plainly by The New York Times 's David Leonhardt, a
self-described "left-liberal," is that "Trump wants to destroy the Atlantic Alliance." Seven
months earlier, this same fear motivated the arch-conservative National Review to
editorialize that, "Under Trump, America has retreated from its global and moral leadership
roles, alienated its democratic allies, and abandoned the bipartisan defense of liberal ideals
that led to more than 70 years of security and prosperity." All the critics would agree with
Wolfgang Ischinger, chair of the Munich Security Conference, who recently stated, "Let's face
it. Mr. Trump's core beliefs conflict with the foundations of Western grand strategy since the
mid-1940's."
"Western grand strategy," of course, is a euphemism for U.S. global hegemony – world
domination, to put it plainly. In addition to peace and prosperity (mainly for privileged
groups in privileged nations), this is the same strategy which since 1945 has given the world
the Cold War, the specter of a nuclear holocaust, and proxy wars consuming between 10 and 20
million lives in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
and Yemen. Its direct effects include the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala, Iran,
Lebanon, Congo, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Granada, Ukraine, et al.;
the bribery of public officials and impoverishment and injury of workers and farmers world-wide
as a result of exploitation and predatory "development" by Western governments and
mega-corporations; the destruction of natural environments and exacerbation of global climate
change by these same governments and corporations; and the increasing likelihood of new
imperialist wars caused by the determination of elites to maintain America's global supremacy
at all costs.
It is interesting that most defenders of the Western Alliance (and its Pacific equivalent:
the more loosely organized anti-Chinese alliance of Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand,
and South Korea) virtually never talk about American hegemony or the gigantic military
apparatus (with more than 800 U.S. bases in 60 or so nations and a military-industrial complex
worth trillions) that supports it. Nor is the subject of empire high on Mr. Trump's list of
approved twitter topics, even when he desecrates NATO and other sacred cows of the Alliance.
There are several reasons for this silence, but the most important, perhaps, is the need to
maintain the pretense of American moral superiority: the so-called "exceptionalist" position
that inspires McCain to attack Trump for "false equivalency" (the President's statement in
Helsinki that both Russia and the U.S. have made mistakes), and that leads pundits left and
right to argue that America is not an old-style empire seeking to dominate, but a new-style
democracy seeking to liberate.
The narrative you will hear repeated ad nauseum at both ends of the liberal/conservative
spectrum tells how the Yanks, who won WW II with a little help from the Russians and other
allies, and who then thoroughly dominated the world both economically and militarily,
could have behaved like vengeful conquerors, but instead devoted their resources and
energies to spreading democracy, freedom, and the blessings of capitalism around the world. Gag
me with a Tomahawk cruise missile! What is weird about this narrative is that it "disappears"
not only the millions of victims of America's wars but the very military forces that
nationalists like Trump claim deserve to be worshipfully honored. Eight hundred bases? A
million and a half troops on active duty? Total air and sea domination? I'm shocked . . .
shocked!
In fact, there are two sorts of blindness operative in the current U.S. political
environment. The Democratic Party Establishment, now swollen to include a wide variety of
Russia-haters, globalizing capitalists, and militarists, is blind (or pretends to be) to the
connection between the "Western Alliance" and the American Empire. The Trump Party (which I
expect, one of these days, to shed the outworn Republican label in favor of something more
Berlusconi-like, say, the American Greatness Party) is blind – or pretends to be –
to the contradiction between its professed
"Fortress America" nationalism and the reality of a global U.S. imperium.
This last point is worth emphasizing. In a recent article in The Nation , Michael
Klare, a writer I generally admire, claims to have discovered that there is really a method to
Trump's foreign policy madness, i.e., the President favors the sort of "multi-polar" world,
with Russia and China occupying the two other poles, that Putin and Xi Jinping have long
advocated. Two factors make this article odd as well as interesting. First, the author argues
that multi-polarity is a bad idea, because "smaller, weaker states, and minority peoples
everywhere will be given even shorter shrift than at present when caught in any competitive
jousting for influence among the three main competitors (and their proxies)." Wha? Even shorter
shrift than under unipolarity? I think not, especially considering that adding new poles (why
just three, BTW? What about India and Brazil?) gives smaller states and minority peoples many
more bargaining options in the power game.
More important, however, Trump's multi-polar/nationalist ideals are clearly contradicted by
his determination to make American world domination even more overwhelming by vastly increasing
the size of the U.S. military establishment. Klare notes, correctly, that the President has
denounced the Iraq War, criticized American "overextension" abroad, talked about ending the
Afghan War, and declared that the U.S. should not be "the world's policeman." But if he wants
America to become a mere Great Power in a world of Great Powers, Trump will clearly have to do
more than talk about it. He will have to cut the military budget, abandon military bases,
negotiate arms control agreements, convert military-industrial spending to peaceful uses, and
do all sorts of other things he clearly has no intention of doing. Ever.
No – if the Western Alliance, democratic values, and WTO trade rules provide
ideological cover and junior partners for American global hegemony, "go-it-alone" nationalism,
multi-polarity, and Nobel Peace Prize diplomatic efforts provide ideological cover for . . .
American global hegemony! This can be seen most clearly in the case of Iran, against whom Trump
has virtually declared war. He would like to avoid direct military involvement there, of
course, but he is banking on threats of irresistible "fire and fury" to bring the Iranians to
heel. And if these threats are unavailing? Then – count on it! – the Empire will
act like an empire, and we will have open war.
In fact, Trump and his most vociferous critics and supporters are unknowingly playing the
same game. John Brennan, meet Steve Bannon! You preach very different sermons, but you're
working for the same god. That deity's name changes over the centuries, but we worship him
every time we venerate symbols of military might at sports events, pay taxes to support U.S.
military supremacy, or pledge allegiance to a flag. The name unutterable by both Trump and his
enemies is Empire.
What do we do with the knowledge that both the Tweeter King and the treason-baiting
coalition opposing him are imperialists under the skin? Two positions, I think, have to be
rejected. One is the Lyndon Johnson rationale: since Johnson was progressive on domestic
issues, including civil rights and poverty, that made him preferable to the Republicans, even
though he gave us the quasi-genocidal war in Indochina. The other position is the diametric
opposite: since Trump is less blatantly imperialistic than most Democratic Party leaders, we
ought to favor him, despite his billionaire-loving, immigrant-hating, racist and misogynist
domestic policies. Merely to say this is to refute it.
My own view is that anti-imperialists ought to decline to choose between these alternatives.
We ought to name the imperial god that both Trump and his critics worship and demand
that the party that we work and vote for renounce the pursuit of U.S. global hegemony.
Immediately, this means letting self-proclaimed progressives or libertarians in both major
parties know that avoiding new hot and cold wars, eliminating nuclear weapons and other WMD,
slashing military spending, and converting war production to peaceful uses are top priorities
that must be honored if they are to get our support. No political party can deliver peace and
social justice and maintain the Empire at the same time. If neither Republicans nor Democrats
are capable of facing this reality, we will have to create a new party that can.
Notes.
[1]
The author is University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason
University. His most recent book is Resolving Structural Conflicts : How Violent
Systems Can Be Transformed (2017).
"... STEPHANOPOULOS: And I gave you a chance to explain all the irregularities you thought you saw in the investigation. I asked you about that. You said no collusion. At first the White House said that there were no contacts with Russians. We now know there were at least 80 contacts. If the White House or anyone connected to the Trump campaign accepted information from the Russians, that could potentially be collusion. That would be -- that could be considered collusion, could be considered participating with a conspiracy. ..."
STEPHANOPOULOS: And I gave you a chance to explain all the irregularities you thought
you saw in the investigation. I asked you about that. You said no collusion. At first the White
House said that there were no contacts with Russians. We now know there were at least 80
contacts. If the White House or anyone connected to the Trump campaign accepted information
from the Russians, that could potentially be collusion. That would be -- that could be
considered collusion, could be considered participating with a conspiracy.
So that's also -- that's also the possibility of a legal violation there as well. But I do
want to ask you about --
(CROSSTALK)
SEKULOW: -- in that allegation, though, you'd have to -- the -- the so-called collusion,
which by the way is not a legal term, that's now what results in a -- a-- a issue of
criminality. I mean, that's just one theory (ph). And by the way, you know, the phrasing here,
especially at this late date is very important. So everyone is still talking about this
collusion concept. And when Rudy Giuliani said collusion's not a crime, that was again rather
unremarkable.
What was the fact? I mean what was the fact? Well the facts that we know is what is the
violation or what violation has anybody put forward of an actual federal statute that's been
violated by the – by the president of the United States?
And we've yet to seen (ph) it, and as I said, we've seen an awful lot of it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well that's one of the things that Robert Mueller's investigating. I agree
with you on that.
"... The recent hyperbolic exchange of threats between US President Donald Trump and his equal Iranian rank Hassan Rouhani, despite the obvious bad taste, has revealed an absolute truth: a potential new conflict against Iran could really have devastating outcomes not only for the Middle Eastern region but also for the whole world. From the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran to today, the relations between the two countries, excluding the short life of the nuclear agreement JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (however never fully respected by the North American side under the Obama administration as well as the present), have never known a real relaxation of tension. ..."
"... a warning against the oppressors of the people ..."
"... the outcasts have become creators of public norms ..."
"... 5Stars – League ..."
"... rhetoric of the clash between civilizations ..."
"... Western colonialism, from the perspective of Imam Khomeini, has been able to counter the reality of Islam by introducing into the Muslim countries foreign laws and cultures incompatible with it so as to make it totally inauthentic. The colonization of the minds is the step immediately following the economic colonization aimed at expropriating natural resources and making the colonized territory a market for the sale of western products. For this reason, according to Khomeini, in the time that the necessary conditions for the Parousia of the Imam of the time are not met, it is not possible for the Islamic Law to remain unused. ..."
"... velayat-e faqih ..."
"... the general aim of the prophetic mission is the rectification of humanity in the framework of a righteous and neatly developed social structure, which can be achieved through the definition of a government able to run the law. ..."
"... The hatred of Iran comes from the fact that this represents a concrete example of resistance, and in some respects an alternative, to this destructive and culturally racist model of civilization. ..."
"... Original article by Daniele Perra, L'Intellettuale Dissidente – Translation by Costantino Ceoldo – Pravda freelance ..."
The intelligence is coming in, Russia appearing to be pushed to the side, making many wonder
what Netanyahu has on Russia's President Vladimir Putin. Iran should well be a "redline" for
Russia but, increasingly, analysts are coming to believe that Trump and Putin at their
conference in Helsinki may well have "sold Iran down the river."
The next target, of course is Turkey.
When Iran is gone, Turkey will go as well, with America having a long standing relationship
with the Kurds and holding the what Trump's sees has his key to Turkey, Gulan, the radical
cleric living in Pennsylvania, groomed by the CIA to become Washington's puppet in Ankara when
Erdogan can finally be eliminated.
Behind this is an economic war. Israel is crushing the Palestinians, aided by Trump rag-tail
relation and probably Mueller investigation target, Jared Kushner. Few are aware of the real
"geologicals" from the Eastern Mediterranean, with massive gas deposits under Idlib and Latakia
in Syria and adjacent Turkey and both off and onshore in Gaza. The Gaza reserves alone may well
constitute the second largest untapped gas reserve in the world.
The the first under both Iran and Qatar, moves to put both nations "out of business," will
benefit Israel, Russia and the US and push pipeline gas and LNG to new record highs.
It is always about the money and US sanctions on Iran and Russia are intended, of course, to
bring the "hot war" on Iran to fruition as soon as possible.
Now for an Italian source on
the issue translated by Pravda's Constantino Ceoldo
by Daniele Perra
The recent hyperbolic exchange of threats between US President Donald Trump and his equal
Iranian rank Hassan Rouhani, despite the obvious bad taste, has revealed an absolute truth: a
potential new conflict against Iran could really have devastating outcomes not only for the
Middle Eastern region but also for the whole world. From the triumph of the Islamic Revolution
in Iran to today, the relations between the two countries, excluding the short life of the
nuclear agreement JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (however never fully
respected by the North American side under the Obama administration as well as the present),
have never known a real relaxation of tension.
The 1979 hostage crisis, as a result of which Pope John Paul II sent a request for release
that Imam Khomeini rejected by arguing his answer with the fact that the Iranian people would
have expected from the messenger of Christ a warning against the oppressors of the
people and not solidarity with them, and the terrifying war of aggression that Saddam
Hussein's Iraq, on US and Saudi commission, moved against the newborn Islamic Republic were
only the first episodes of a long series of more or less direct confrontation between a nation
with ancient history and culture and that paradise of Protestant eschatological heterodoxy in
which, as the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin affirmed, the outcasts have become
creators of public norms .
Add to this the fact that between the imposition of sanctions regimes on several levels and
in different periods and direct interference in Iranian internal affairs (heavy exploitation of
the protests of the so-called Green Movement and support to various terrorist groups that aim
to destabilize the country: first among all the Mojahedin-e Khalq with offices in France and
Albania), the US has never stopped aspiring and dreaming of that "regime change" that now, with
the appointment of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State but above all of John R. Bolton as a
national security advisor, seems to have come back very closely.
Also, and above all, because the fears for the Iranian presence in Syria, considered as an
existential threat to Israel, has triggered various hysterical reactions between the North
American Zionist lobby and the Israeli military and political leaders themselves. See
in this regard the bombastic as unreliable presentation of "irrefutable evidence" on the
Iranian violations of the JCPOA by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the twelve
requests, drawn up by Mike Pompeo, that Iran should meet if it intends to renegotiate the
agreement with the USA. Requests among which there appears to be at least a ridiculous
cessation of aid to al-Qaeda and to the Afghan Taliban that Iran have always been sworn enemies
and which, on the contrary, have often enjoyed the support of the US and Zionist
intelligence . The Taliban, among other things, have carried out real massacres of the
Hazara : the ethnic Shiite component of Afghanistan.
For what concerns Italy (Iran's first European commercial partner), the new sanctions
imposed by the USA following the unilateral exit from the JCPOA would damage the economy much
more than those, however useless, inflicted on Russia and the whose removal has been included
(even if at the time it is taken into the background) in the program of the new yellow-green
government [ 5Stars – League ].
The low negotiating power of European economic actors, faced with the forced choice between
access (with the risk of sanctions) to the Iranian market or to the "imposed" US market, and
the cultural subalternity that many governments continue to suffer towards the US, despite of
the desire to preserve the JCPOA, do not foresee anything that does not go beyond the usual
forms of masochistic schizophrenia of Europe.
Now, from a purely geopolitical point of view, the North American obsession with Iran is
more than justified. The Islamic Revolution has overthrown a regime that in previous decades,
except for the small parenthesis of the nationalist government of Mossadeq (not coincidentally
overturned by a joint Anglo-American operation), had made of its total alignment to the United
States its only form of international legitimacy and which, with Turkey, represented one of the
"pillars" of North American geopolitics in the Middle East. And the Revolution has also
prevented the North American elites from directly managing huge energy resources.
Iran, to date, is the third country in the world in terms of oil resources and the first in
terms of natural gas reserves. It is therefore clear how the Trump administration, by launching
the Energy Dominance doctrine aimed at achieving dominance on the global energy market, can not
help but perceive Iran as a fearsome potential competitor and at the same time as a "prey" for
the effective expansion and implementation of the aforementioned plan.
Nor should we forget the fact that Iran, as a pillar of the new multipolar order and a
hegemonic power in the Middle East, represents a sort of black hole that threatens the US
control of that Eurasian rimland that the geopolitical scholar Nicholas J. Spykman
laid the foundation of the North American hegemonic system. However, there are other factors
that, although preliminary to the North American hegemonic design, remain more related to the
rhetoric of the clash between civilizations and the perception of an Islam that can
not be used for its geopolitical purposes as an enemy to be fought and annihilated
whenever possible. And even in this sense, the North American obsession with Iran appears more
than justified.
Today's Iran, albeit with obvious defects (though not alien to any nation in the world),
represents the antithesis par excellence of a model of civilization set on the magnificent and
progressive fate of modernity. The Khomeinist Revolution developed as a reappropriation of the
dimension of the sacred, as a restoration of that direct thread between the physical and
metaphysical order that the Western modernity imposed by the Shah regime had almost
irretrievably split. The Revolution, understood in the etymologically correct sense of the term
re-evolution , has shown how the phenomenon of modernity has no connection with
contemporaneity. Modernity is only a model of society, of civilization, of the vision of the
world which through a process of reversion of time and of reappropriation of one's traditional
"being in the world" can be overturned.
Western colonialism, from the perspective of Imam Khomeini, has been able to counter the
reality of Islam by introducing into the Muslim countries foreign laws and cultures
incompatible with it so as to make it totally inauthentic. The colonization of the minds is the
step immediately following the economic colonization aimed at expropriating natural resources
and making the colonized territory a market for the sale of western products. For this reason,
according to Khomeini, in the time that the necessary conditions for the Parousia of the Imam
of the time are not met, it is not possible for the Islamic Law to remain unused.
But this law must refer to authentic Islam and not to its version counterfeited by Western
colonialism. The Imam, for example, never stopped defining Wahhabism as American Islam
. The doctrine of the velayat-e faqih (vicariate of the jurisconsult) as the
foundation of the current Iranian political system, by the admission of Khomeini himself, is
not the product of his theoretical elaboration. This is not something new, but is at the center
of the question of Islamic government from the beginning. Khomeini limited himself only to a
more in-depth analysis, identifying its roots in the Islamic tradition.
The vicariate of the jurisconsult is the order to fulfill a delivery. The assumption of the
obligations of government and of the burden of command by the doctors of the law implies the
realization of a precise purpose: to confirm the truth and to eliminate the lie. According to a
well known prophetic hadith the doctors of the law are the custodians of the trust of
the prophets. And as the Imam reiterates in his speech on the Islamic government:
the general aim of the prophetic mission is the rectification of humanity in the
framework of a righteous and neatly developed social structure, which can be achieved through
the definition of a government able to run the law.
A concept present on several occasions even in his most strictly focused works on
irfan (gnosis) in which to the divine Nuncio and fixed archetype of the Perfect Man is
given the task of preserving the limits established by God and preventing them from coming out
of the confines of moderation. A call, that to measure, present in a relevant way also in
Western culture, both in ancient Greece and in the Middle Ages. It is said, for example, that
Frederick II Hohenstaufen, questioned by the legendary Priest Gianni (figuration of the
Guenonian "King of the World") about what was the best thing in the world, replied: "the best
thing in this world is measure".
It is therefore obvious that as a philosophical-metaphysical logos set entirely on
the sense of measure and on the virtue of moderation it can not necessarily clash against a
vision of the world based on excess (on that "gigantism" so stigmatized by Martin Heidegger)
and on the negation of all that is human. Man realizes himself through thought. Being human
means first of all to think and investigate around the sense of truth. And if the instrument of
the intellect is not exercised and developed, man is transformed into a machine and is
sacrificed on the altar of technique. The fact that Western thought has produced such an
artificial act by determining its own suicide does not mean that every other civilization /
culture must do the same in the name of unipolar globalization.
The hatred of Iran comes from the fact that this represents a concrete example of
resistance, and in some respects an alternative, to this destructive and culturally racist
model of civilization. And the same idea is also valid for what concerns Zionism that has
imported this model in the Near East, openly confronting the Islamic world. In this regard, the
Imam was particularly critical in the first place with the rabbis: "they – said Khomeini
– despite being the guardians of Jewish religious law have done nothing to prevent the
oppressors to pronounce their sinful words, spread lies, slander and distort the truth".
Original article by Daniele Perra, L'Intellettuale
Dissidente – Translation by Costantino Ceoldo – Pravda freelance
"... "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit -- terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group -- that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!" ..."
"... "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of the break-up of the EU -- and with it, potentially, western civilisation," ..."
"... "propaganda arms of the Russian government," ..."
"... "at the back of the queue" ..."
"... "This is not foreign interference This is not foreign interference!" ..."
"... " highly probable " ..."
"... "had conducted a thorough investigation around the Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference ." ..."
"... "Russian troll factory," ..."
"... "very low levels of engagement" ..."
"... "conspiracy theorist" ..."
"... "Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do with him." ..."
"... "I don't know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States. They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," ..."
"... "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money " ..."
"... "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," ..."
You'd have to have a real sense of humor failure not to laugh. The news that US billionaire
Soros donated £400k to an anti-Brexit group came on the day that YouTube said they found
no evidence of Russian interference in Brexit. Repeat After Me (with robotic arm movements):
"Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit -- terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A
£400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group -- that's
no problem; it's helping our democracy!"
You don't have to own a brand new £999 state-of-the art Hypocrisy Detector from
Harrods, to pick up on the double standards. Just having a few functioning brain cells and
thinking for yourself will do. For months in the UK we've been bombarded with
Establishment-approved conspiracy theories -- peddled in all the 'best' newspapers -- that
Russia somehow 'fixed' Brexit. Getting Britain to leave the EU was all part of a cunning plot
by Vladimir Putin, aka Dr. Evil, to weaken Europe and the 'free world.'
Even West End musical composer Andrew Lloyd-Webber, who knows quite a bit about phantoms,
seemed taken in by it. "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of
the break-up of the EU -- and with it, potentially, western civilisation," the noble Lord
declared in July.
Never mind that we don't have a single statement from Putin or other senior Kremlin figures
saying that they actually supported Brexit. These Establishment Russia-bashers know exactly
what The Vlad is thinking.
And never mind that RT and Sputnik, which we are repeatedly told are "propaganda arms of
the Russian government," ran articles by pro- and anti-Brexit writers. The same people who
told us Iraq had WMDs in 2003 were absolutely sure it was those dastardly Russkies who had got
Britain to vote 'leave.' The irony is of course that there was significant foreign interference
in Brexit. But it didn't come from Moscow.
Or Obama actually visiting the U.K. to urge people to vote Remain. Imagine if Putin did
the same for Leave!
The US has always wanted Britain to stay in the EU. In April 2016, two months before the
Referendum, President Obama made it clear what he wanted when he visited the UK. He warned that
if Britain exited the EU it would be "at the back of the queue" for trade deals with
the US
.
Just imagine if Putin had said that. The Russophobes would have spontaneously combusted.
Then of course there was the backing the Remain camp had from the giants of US capital.
Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan donated £500,000 each to the 'Britain Stronger in Europe'
group, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley -- £250,000 each.
Again, repeat after me (with robotic arm movements): "This is not foreign interference
This is not foreign interference!"
You've got to see the funny side of this: all that hysterical fake news about 'Russian
interference' in Brexit & here we have one side receiving £400K from a US
billionaire who is part of the US political establishment. Is that not 'interference' ?!!
https://t.co/URzrB3ciLd
The point is not whether we are for or against Brexit. Or whether we think George Soros is a
malign influence who only acts out of self-interest or an old sweetie-pie with the good of
humanity at heart. The point is the double standards that are causing our Hypocrisy Detectors
to explode.
Let's think back to December 2016. Then, the pro-war and fiercely anti-Russian Labour MP Ben
Bradshaw told Parliament that it was "
highly probable " that Russia had interfered with Brexit.
Fourteen months on, what have we got? On Thursday, the global head of You Tube's public
policy, Juniper Downs, said her company "had conducted a thorough investigation around the
Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference
."
Twitter meanwhile says it detected 49 (yes, 49) accounts from what it claimed to be a
"Russian troll factory," which sent all of 942 messages about Brexit -- amounting to
less than 0.005% of all the tweets about the Referendum. Twitter said the accounts received
"very low levels of engagement" from users. If the Kremlin had planned to use tweets
to persuade us to vote 'leave,' they didn't really put much effort into it, did they?
Finally, Facebook said that only three "Kremlin-linked" accounts were found which spent the
grand sum of 72p (yes, 72p) on ads during the Referendum campaign. Which amounts to the greater
"interference" ? 72p or £400K? Erm tough call, isn't it?
You might have thought, given his concern with 'foreign interference' in British politics,
that Ben Bradshaw would have been urging 'Best for Britain' to return George Soros' donation.
Au contraire! His only tweets about it were retweets of two critical comments about the Daily
Telegraph, and the BBC's coverage of the story. Conclusion: Those who rail about 'Russia
meddling in Brexit' but not Soros' intervention aren't concerned about 'foreign interference'
in UK politics, only 'foreign interference' from countries they don't approve of.
Those who are quite happy peddling ludicrous conspiracy theories about Russians shout
"conspiracy theorist" (or worse) at those who report factually on proven meddling from
others. The Daily Express hit the nail on the head in their Friday editorial which said:
"Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to
stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do
with him."
That really is the rub of the matter. And Bradshaw and co. have no adequate response except
to shoot the messenger.
If we look at the affair with an even wider lens, the hypocrisy is even greater. The US has
been gripped by an anti-Russian frenzy not seen since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy. The
unsubstantiated claim that Russia fixed the election for Donald Trump is repeated by 'liberals'
and many neocons too, as a statement of fact. "I don't know that the public understands the
gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States.
They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," film director Rob Reiner
said
.
But the number one country round the world for undermining democracy and interfering in the
affairs of other sovereign states is the US itself.
While Establishment journos and pundits have been foaming at the mouth over 'Russiagate' and
getting terribly excited over 'smoking guns' which turn out -- surprise, surprise -- to be damp
squibs, there's been less attention paid to the boasts of former Vice President Joe Biden on
how he got the allegedly 'independent' Ukrainian government to sack its prosecutor general in a
few hours. "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not
fired, you're not getting the money "
"I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," Biden
said during a meeting of
the US' Council on Foreign Relations. "Well, son of a b***h. He got fired."
Again, just imagine the furore if a leading Russian government figure boasted about how he
used financial inducements to get another country's Prosecutor General to be sacked. Or if a
tape was leaked in which the Russian Ambassador and a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson
could be heard discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new 'democratic' government of
another sovereign state. But we had the US Ambassador to Ukraine and the US Assistant Secretary of
State doing exactly that in 2014 -- and the 'Russia is interfering in the Free World!' brigade
were as silent as a group of Trappist monks.
It's fair to say that Orwell would have a field day with the doublespeak that's currently on
show. The cognitive dissonance is there for all to see. Repeat After Me: Unproven Russian
interference -- Bad. Proven interference from other external sources -- Good. What's your
problem?
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many
newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star,
Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The
Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also
appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder
of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at
www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party. ..."
"... Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts. ..."
Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyite and Other Double Dealers :
March 3, 1937
"Comrades!
From the reports and the debates on these reports heard at this plenum, it is evident that
we are dealing with the following three main facts.
First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among
whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly
all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party.
Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into
lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts.
Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only
failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved
to be so careless, complacent, and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting
agents of foreign states to responsible posts.
These are the three incontrovertible facts which naturally emerge from the reports and the
discussions on them "
"... In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to NATO and are also building fences with Russia. ..."
"All Russian security documents explicitly single out the challenges that the policies of Western states supposedly create
for Russian security (with particularly harsh words in the Security strategy). Grievances connected to what Russia sees as 'systemic
problems in the Euro-Atlantic region' (Foreign policy concept), the enlargement of NATO, the location of its military infrastructure
close to Russian borders, its 'offensive capabilities' and the trend towards the Alliance acquiring 'global functions', the 'symptoms'
of the U.S. efforts to retain absolute military supremacy (the global antimissile system, Global Strike capabilities, militarization
of space) "
Are Russian forces in Canada and Mexico conducting joint exercises against the US? No. Are Russian forces in Ireland conducting
joint exercises against Britain? No. Is there an obvious Russian presence in Scotland promoting independence from the UK? No. But
Britain and the US are mounted on Russia's borders and conducting joint exercises with its neighbors.
In addition, Russia is being literally fenced off from Europe, with NATO members and/or EU member states Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania and Poland building border fences. Finland, Norway and Ukraine are members of neither NATO nor the EU but contribute to
NATO and are also building fences with Russia.
But what do Russia's neighbours, like the Estonians, rank as their national security priorities? A
survey suggests that for Estonians, the biggest threat to global security is the Islamic State, followed by the refugee crisis
in Europe and the war in Syria. Russia came fourth on the list, even after the Ukraine crisis. According to
Gallup , a majority
52% of Estonians consider NATO a protective force, but 43% see it as either a threat (17%) or neither (26%). Estonians are behind
Kosovars, Albanians, Poles and Lithuanians in their opinions of NATO.
"... There are too many lucrative salaries on the line that depend on that trillion dollars a year military budget to allow Russia to end up being bogeyman number one. ..."
"... They are fighting for their own lifestyles. And I think that speaks to a broader point that the Russiagate narrative is one that sustains privilege because, really, who does it threaten? ..."
"... And of course, Russia has no huge, powerful lobby in Washington. Russia has no major economic power in the U.S. So attacking Russia really hurts nobody domestically in a position of privilege and influence. And meanwhile, attacking Russia serves a double benefit of allowing people to deflect from other interests much more powerful than Russia that are doing real damage here at home, as Paul has been talking about. ..."
"... While the importance of the existential threat of Russia, the importance of that narrative to the military-industrial complex, is I think that's only one piece of why the American state and large sections of the American oligarchy see Russia so much as a threat. They keep using the word 'adversary.' ..."
"... The United States wants what they call in some of their documents Full Spectrum Dominance. They want global hegemony. Global hegemony means hegemony in every region of the world. They do not like it when any power emerges. The challenges for regional hegemonic because that's obviously part of global hegemony. So they don't like the fact that Russia has a major economy; and not one of the biggest economies, by any means, but a major economy. A big army. Of course, nuclear weapons. So they don't like that it has, kind of, independent will in this region. It's not a global competitor. ..."
"... In the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a free-for-all plundering of all the natural resources and state resources, privatization mania. And the U.S., the Americans thought they'd get a much bigger piece of this. I don't think they thought, after all these years of trying, they thought, bringing down the Soviet Union, in truth the Soviet Union fell mostly for internal reasons. And bureaucrats within the party and the state became the oligarchs, became the billionaires. They seized a lot of these assets, not the West and the Americans. ..."
"... And the out of the chaos emerges a Russian state, led by Putin, to create some sense of normalcy, turn it into a kind of a normal capitalist country, with laws, to some extent, so you can do business and commerce. And one of the things that state did is it didn't allow the West to just hocus pocus, I forget the term, they didn't just allow the West to come in and pick up all these resources and privatization directly themselves. ..."
"... So different parts of the U.S. state have different agendas connected to different sections of capital that have their other agendas, but none of this justifies this McCarthyite level of Cold War rhetoric. ..."
"... And Kissinger observed to Nixon, he says: In 20 years your successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese. And then he went on to say: Right now we need the Chinese to correct the Russians, and to discipline the Russians. ..."
"... The, the metaphysical vision of the world- and don't forget, Hitler had quite a metaphysical vision of the world. The, the role of, the mission of the aryan nation to take over the world and march into a new era of civilization and all this was all intertwined with, with a metaphysical, quasi-fanatical religious view of the world. ..."
"... Putin is very close to the Russian Orthodox Church. He's been promoting this kind of nationalism intertwined with religious messaging through the church. He promotes this kind of stuff in Western Europe. Putin has been nurturing the far right in Western Europe. So this jives, the agenda of the people around Trump and Putin have similar views of the world. ..."
"... So yeah, the idea of some kind of accommodation with Russia because of the coming trade war, and who knows what kind of war, with China, yeah, this is definitely, I think, part of the equation. The shorter-term play is Iran. They are, this group, this cabal in Washington, is fixated on regime change in Iran. I actually am not sure how they, why they see that fits the China strategy, but I don't know that it matters, because that's their play. And they've been talking about it for years, since the late night 1990s. And this document, Project for a New American Century. Undoing the Iranian revolution has been absolutely at the core of these people's foreign policy. ..."
Watch Part 2 of Paul Jay and Aaron Mate's interactive discussion with viewers about the
controversy over Trump's visit to Helsinki – From a live recording on July 18th, 2018
AARON MATE: I want to read a comment from a viewer, Kristen Lee, who writes: There
are too many lucrative salaries on the line that depend on that trillion dollars a year
military budget to allow Russia to end up being bogeyman number one. To not end up-. To have
Russia not end up being boogeymen number one, I believe. They are fighting for their own
lifestyles. And I think that speaks to a broader point that the Russiagate narrative is one
that sustains privilege because, really, who does it threaten? I mean, yes, it threatens Trump.
But we already know that there's a huge cross-section of the elite that despises Trump,
including many Republicans who campaigned against him during the campaign.
And of course, Russia has no huge, powerful lobby in Washington. Russia has no major
economic power in the U.S. So attacking Russia really hurts nobody domestically in a position
of privilege and influence. And meanwhile, attacking Russia serves a double benefit of allowing
people to deflect from other interests much more powerful than Russia that are doing real
damage here at home, as Paul has been talking about.
PAUL JAY: Could I just, could I just then-.
AARON MATE: Let me ask you about China, first. Because we're-.
PAUL JAY: Before we do China, before we do China, let me just add one thing to this,
which I think-. While the importance of the existential threat of Russia, the importance of
that narrative to the military-industrial complex, is I think that's only one piece of why the
American state and large sections of the American oligarchy see Russia so much as a threat.
They keep using the word 'adversary.' .
And the reason why I think there's a several pieces to it, and I said this in the interview
the other day, one, the United States does not like regional powers that are not under the
American thumb. They don't want anyone, they-. The United States wants what they call in
some of their documents Full Spectrum Dominance. They want global hegemony. Global hegemony
means hegemony in every region of the world. They do not like it when any power emerges. The
challenges for regional hegemonic because that's obviously part of global hegemony. So they
don't like the fact that Russia has a major economy; and not one of the biggest economies, by
any means, but a major economy. A big army. Of course, nuclear weapons. So they don't like that
it has, kind of, independent will in this region. It's not a global competitor.
But there's another piece to this. Russia has oil. They don't like an oil state, a country
that has such massive oil supply, not being under the U.S. umbrella, U.S. hegemony. That's,
that's number two. Number three, they don't like the way Putin and that state emerged. You
know, if people are watching the series that I'm doing of interviews with Alexander Buzgalin,
we're telling the whole story of the emergence of Putin out of the collapsed Soviet state,
Soviet system. In the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a
free-for-all plundering of all the natural resources and state resources, privatization mania.
And the U.S., the Americans thought they'd get a much bigger piece of this. I don't think they
thought, after all these years of trying, they thought, bringing down the Soviet Union, in
truth the Soviet Union fell mostly for internal reasons. And bureaucrats within the party and
the state became the oligarchs, became the billionaires. They seized a lot of these assets, not
the West and the Americans.
And the out of the chaos emerges a Russian state, led by Putin, to create some sense of
normalcy, turn it into a kind of a normal capitalist country, with laws, to some extent, so you
can do business and commerce. And one of the things that state did is it didn't allow the West
to just hocus pocus, I forget the term, they didn't just allow the West to come in and pick up
all these resources and privatization directly themselves.
So this Putin's state's been to some extent blocking the U.S. from turning this Russia, as
they have with most most other areas of the world- of course the other big exception is China
and Iran- under, into the American global capitalist system, where the Americans are the
dominant power. And they even had ways to do that. But these things jive, don't always jive, I
should say, which is the economic incorporation of Russia into, into global capitalism, into,
even into the EU, for example, or something, some structure like that, does not jive with the
narrative of an existential threat that serves this massive military expenditure.
So different parts of the U.S. state have different agendas connected to different
sections of capital that have their other agendas, but none of this justifies this McCarthyite
level of Cold War rhetoric.
AARON MATE: Right. So in terms of China, as we're talking about other possible
explanation for Trump's desire to work with Russia that go beyond him being a potential
intelligence asset, or that Putin has kompromat on Trump, which really is right now the
dominant corporate media narrative and question. You've been laying out some- I want to focus
on China for a second, and actually read to you, Paul, a quote. This is John Pomfret. He's a
historian. And he writes about Kissinger talking to Nixon after Kissinger returned from China
as part of the Nixon administration's overture to China in the early '70s. And Kissinger
observed to Nixon, he says: In 20 years your successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up
leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese. And then he went on to say: Right now we need
the Chinese to correct the Russians, and to discipline the Russians.
So I find that interesting, because it's a way to help understand what might have motivated
Nixon's overtures to China back then. But also I think that might help us understand what might
motivate Trump's overtures to Russia. Now, obviously China has been a huge obsession of Trump.
He talks about it constantly. He's launching a trade war right now. And it's quite likely, I
think, he recognizes that if he really wants to confront China, a far bigger world power than
Russia is, especially, obviously, economically, that he might need to enlist Russia for that
task.
PAUL JAY: I certainly think there's part of it. How conscious Trump himself is of
these kind of geostrategic assessments and plans, I don't know. Trump's a very smart con man. I
don't know that he has a big geopolitical brain. But that being said, he's got people around
him, including John Bolton, who are actually quite smart and have real geopolitical brains, and
are fanatics.
The, my guess is the short-term play, and I don't see this- I think it's ridiculous that
Trump is Putin's stooge, and all of this. The agenda of this group that's in power and that
Trump represents the interests of, this isn't just a one man band, even if he flies off the
handle in a one-man way. But this agenda of Iran and China, this was very well articulated by
Steve Bannon before and after the victory of Trump in the election. This has economic interests
which they, of course, China is the real economic competitor in the world that's a threat to
American dominance. But it also has an ideological framing for it. And that's the defense of
Western Christian civilization. And I think they believe in this stuff. Bannon himself is
connected to Opus Dei in the Catholic Church. He's connected to Cardinal Burke. They're waging
a war against Pope Francis. They want to overthrow the Pope. And it's really as open as that.
They don't like, they're shocked that they've got a pope that's a social democrat. The, the
metaphysical vision of the world- and don't forget, Hitler had quite a metaphysical vision of
the world. The, the role of, the mission of the aryan nation to take over the world and march
into a new era of civilization and all this was all intertwined with, with a metaphysical,
quasi-fanatical religious view of the world.
Well I think they have this. So China does not fit the plan of saving Western civilization.
But Russia does. And Putin is very close to the Russian Orthodox Church. He's been
promoting this kind of nationalism intertwined with religious messaging through the church. He
promotes this kind of stuff in Western Europe. Putin has been nurturing the far right in
Western Europe. So this jives, the agenda of the people around Trump and Putin have similar
views of the world. And it is a far right, far right view of the world.
So yeah, the idea of some kind of accommodation with Russia because of the coming trade
war, and who knows what kind of war, with China, yeah, this is definitely, I think, part of the
equation. The shorter-term play is Iran. They are, this group, this cabal in Washington, is
fixated on regime change in Iran. I actually am not sure how they, why they see that fits the
China strategy, but I don't know that it matters, because that's their play. And they've been
talking about it for years, since the late night 1990s. And this document, Project for a New
American Century. Undoing the Iranian revolution has been absolutely at the core of these
people's foreign policy.
So there are, all these things are interconnected. And you know, dividing Russia from China,
and having clearly some kind of alliance there, it's also in the interests of Putin, and it's
very much in the interest of this, of this cabal. I think we should even stop talking and being
so focused on Trump. Because if they bring down Trump the individual, they'll find some other,
some other individual to come play a similar role. And he won't, this, whoever he or she is
won't be such a clown.
"... Graph: The Democrats' choice to blame external forces, e.g. Russian meddling, for their electoral loss in 2016 ignores evidence of that none-of-the-above is the people's choice. The largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who chose not to vote. In contrast to the received wisdom in political consultant circles, choosing not to vote is a political act. The U.S. has the lowest voter turnout in the 'developed' world for a reason. Source: ..."
Prior to the 2016 presidential election, if one were to ask what single act could seal a
new Cold War with Russia, align liberals and progressives with the operational core of the
American military-industrial-surveillance complex, expose the preponderance of left-activism as
an offshoot of Democratic Party operations and consign most of what remained to personal
invective against an empirically dangerous leader, consensus would likely have it that doing so
wouldn't be easy.
The decision to blame Russian meddling for Hillary Clinton's electoral loss was
made in the immediate aftermath of the election by her senior campaign staff. Within days
the
received wisdom amongst Clinton supporters was that the election had been stolen and that
Donald Trump was set to enter the White House as a pawn of the Russian political leadership.
Left out was the history of U.S. – Russian relations; that the largest voting bloc in the
2016 election was eligible voters who didn't vote and that domestic business interests
substantially control the American electoral process.
Graph: The Democrats' choice to blame external forces, e.g. Russian meddling, for their
electoral loss in 2016 ignores evidence of that none-of-the-above is the people's choice. The
largest voting bloc in the 2016 election was eligible voters who chose not to vote. In contrast
to the received wisdom in political consultant circles, choosing not to vote is a political
act. The U.S. has the lowest voter turnout in the 'developed' world for a reason. Source:electproject.org.
More than a year later, no credible evidence has been put forward to establish that
any votes were changed due to 'external' meddling. As the Intercept has reported
, since the election progressive candidates seeking public office have been systematically
subverted by establishment Democrats in favor of those with connections to big-money donors.
And
the Democratic Party leadership in congress just voted to give Mr. Trump expanded spying
powers with fewer restraints. Congressional Democrats are certainly behaving as if they believe
Mr. Trump was duly elected. And more to the point, they are supporting his program.
The choice of Russia would seem bizarre if not for the history. Residual propaganda from the
first Cold War -- itself largely a business enterprise that provided
ideological cover for American imperial incursions , had it that substantive grievances
against the American government, in the form of protests, were universally the product of
'external' enemies intent on sowing discord to promote their own interests. This slander was
used against the Civil Rights movement, organized labor, anti-war protesters and the
counterculture of the 1960s.
Therefore, the choice by the Clintonites to invoke a new Cold War by bringing Russia into
the American electoral mix is not without a past. Students of history may recall that in the
early 1990s Mikhail Gorbachev was
given assurances by senior members of George H.W. Bush's administration that NATO would not
be expanded to Russia's border in exchange for Russia's help re-integrating East and West
Germany. It was Bill
Clinton who unilaterally abrogated these assurances and moved nuclear-armed NATO to
Russia's border.
In 2013 the Obama administration ' brokered ' (Mr. Obama's term) a coup in the
former Soviet state of Ukraine that ousted the democratically elected President to install
persons favorable to the
interests of Western oligarchs . At the time Hillary Clinton had just vacated her post as
Mr. Obama's Secretary of State to prepare for her 2016 run for president, but her lieutenants,
including Victoria
Nuland , were active in coordinating the coup and deciding who the new 'leadership' of
Ukraine would be.
An analogy would be if Russia moved troops and weaponry to the Mexican border with the U.S.
after giving assurances that it wouldn't do so and then engineered a coup (in Mexico) to
install a government friendly to the interests of the Russian political leadership. One needn't
be sympathetic to Russian interests to understand that these are provocations. Given U.S. and
Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, the provocations seem more reckless than 'tough.' Then
consider Mr. Obama's, later Trump's, move to 'upgrade' the U.S. nuclear arsenal toward
'tactical' use.
This is to suggest that it certainly makes sense that the Russian political leadership would
want to keep American militarists, a/k/a the Clintons and their neocon ' crazies
,' out of White House. But as of now, the evidence is that the Russians changed no votes in the
2016 election. As far as inciting dissent -- the charge that protests were organized by Russian
'interests,' not only does this reek of prior misdirection by the FBI and CIA, but there is no
evidence that any such protests had an impact on the outcome of the 2016 election.
Given Mr. Trump's belligerent (unhinged) rhetoric toward North Korea, if enhancing
geopolitical stability was the Russians' goal, Mr. Trump must be a disappointment.
Unfortunately for Mr. Trump's critics (among whom I count myself), there is a lot of 'theory'
from American think tanks that supports crazy as a strategy . And it was
after Mr. Trump's provocative posture toward North Korea became widely known that
senior Democrats voted to give him additional NSA powers with fewer restrictions.
The most cynically brilliant outcome of the 'blame Russia' campaign has been to neuter left
activism by focusing the attack on Donald Trump rather than the interests he represents. As
evidence, the proportion of Goldman Sachs alumni in Mr. Trump's administration approximates
that in Mr. Obama's and what was expected for Mrs. Clinton's. If the problem is Donald Trump,
then the solution is 'not Trump.' However, if the problem is that the rich substantially control American political
outcomes, how would electing 'not Trump' bring about resolution?
As it is, within days of the 2016 election Mr. Trump, his supporters plus the political
opponents of Mrs. Clinton were recast as stooges of the Kremlin. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
had required loyalty oaths
from their stalwarts. But even a loyalty oath wouldn't prove that one isn't a stooge of the
Kremlin. And the larger problem with the theory (of Russian meddling) is that the U.S.
electoral system was already thoroughly corrupted by
economic power.
As students of the scientific method know, you can't 'prove' a negative. Condoleezza Rice
used this knowledge in 2003 to sell the
George W. Bush administration's calamitous war against Iraq through the charge that the proof
that Saddam Hussein had an ongoing WMD program is that he hadn't handed over his WMDs. As
history has it, Mr. Hussein couldn't hand over his WMDs because he didn't have any to hand
over. How then would critics of Mrs. Clinton 'prove' they weren't / aren't acting on behalf of
foreign interests?
The answer lies with Democratic Party loyalists. Much as Bush – Cheney supporters were
impervious to logical and evidentiary challenges to the rationales given for the war against
Iraq, Clintonites believe what they believe because they believe it. For those with an interest
and some knowledge of empirical research, read the myriad articles touting 'proof' of Russian
meddling and find a single instance where such proof is provided. Or with an eye toward not
being the half of
Republicans who still believe that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, bring the proof forward if it
exists.
Here is the disclaimer taken from the National Intelligence Estimate (link here ).
The National
Intelligence Estimate , initially claimed to be based on input from 17 intelligence
agencies, later reduced to selected representatives from three of the agencies (NSA, CIA and
FBI), provides no proof for claims of Russian meddling and states quite openly that it is
conjecture. Amongst these agencies, one (NSA) is known for illegally spying on Americans and
lying about it to congress, the second (CIA) provided fraudulent 'evidence' to drag the U.S.
into a calamitous war against Iraq where it ran illegal torture camps and the third (FBI) has
such a checkered history that is was called 'Gestapo'
by former U.S. president Harry Truman.
Here is James
Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying.
Here is Trevor Timm in the
Columbia (University) Journalism Review explaining the many ways former head of the NSA and CIA
Michael Hayden has lied to congress and the American people. Here is a brief history of
COINTELPRO and FBI attempts to disrupt and discredit the Civil Rights movement. At the time
that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was accusing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. of being a communist
(link above), the term approximated being an agent of Russia.
(Here is a compendium of links related to claims made in this piece:
Promise by U.S. that NATO wouldn't expand to surround Russia. Bill Clinton expands NATO
to Eastern Bloc to surround Russia. Barack Obama admits U.S. role in Ukraine coup. James
Clapper
committing perjury. Victoria Nuland discusses overthrowing the democratically
elected government of Ukraine and installing U.S. puppets. Backstory of CIA and Robert Sheer that
supports argument Propornot is government operation with ties to Ukrainian fascists.)
There is circumstantial
evidence that the first list of 'Russian-linked' websites published by the 'credible'
media, that of Propornot
published in the Washington Post (in their 'Business' section) to which a
disclaimer was subsequently added, was the work of Ukrainians with links to the CIA. The
Propornot website (link above) is worth visiting to get a sense of how implausible the whole
enterprise is. On it former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts , is listed
prominently as a puppet of the Kremlin. And deep-research political website Washington's Blog made the honor roll as well.
More recently, the New York Times
cited the German Marshall Fund as an authority on Russian meddling. The German Marshall
fund (U.S.) is headed by Karen Donfried , a former Obama
Administration official and operative for the National Intelligence Council. The National
Intelligence Council supports the Director of National Intelligence.Here (again) is James Clapper,
the former Director of National Intelligence, lying to congress about NSA spying. Derek Chollet , Executive Vice
President of the fund, is the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Obama
administration and a senior member of Hillary Clinton's Policy Planning Staff.
The question for the Left is why liberals and progressives would align themselves with
Hayden, Clapper, the FBI, CIA and NSA, and suspect organizations like Propornot and the German
Marshall Fund when most have spent their entire existences trying to undermine and shut down
the Left? The (near-term) cynical brilliance of the Democrats' strategy is through revival of
the Cold War frame of national interests that was always a cover for imperial business schemes.
As the Intercept articles (links above) have well- uncovered, this is all just business for the
Democrats anyway. Can you say class warfare?
Assuming for a moment that not everyone is playing the Democrats' one-dimensional checkers,
if the Russian political leadership really intended to 'undermine the U.S.-led liberal
democratic order,' as the NIE puts it, it is doing Mrs. Clinton
a disservice to suggest that she wasn't up to the job. From the Clintons' 1994 Crime Bill to
deregulating Wall Street to support for George W. Bush's calamitous war against Iraq to the
U.S. / NATO destruction of Libya, Mrs. Clinton has 'undermine(d) the U.S.-led liberal
democratic order' just fine.
Likely not considered when the Russian meddling hypothesis was originally put forward is
what happens next? The initial charge that America's 'sacred democratic tradition' was soiled
when the Russian political leadership hacked the election has run up against the apparent fact
that no votes have been found to have been changed. The charge that AstroTurf protests
organized by the Russians led to dissent smells a lot like the last half-century of FBI / CIA
lies against / about the Left. And the charge that narcissistic plutocrat Trump has been
'compromised' misses that he was already compromised by the circumstances of his birth and
upbringing. This is the problem.
The Democrats, in their wisdom, have given a gift to the U.S. intelligence 'community' that
provides political cover for closing down inconvenient commentary and disrupting inconvenient
political organizations. A political Left with a brain would be busy thinking through strategy
for when the internet becomes completely unusable for organizing and communication. The
unifying factor in the initial 'fake news' purge was criticism of Hillary Clinton. Print media,
a once viable alternative, has been all but destroyed by the move to the internet. This
capability needs to be rebuilt.
Bourgeois incredulity that Donald Trump still has supporters could be seen by an inquisitive
Left through a lens of class struggle. Yes, his effective supporters are rich, just as the
national Democrats' are -- the term for this is plutocracy. But back in the realm of human
beings, rising deaths of despair tie in theory and fact to the wholesale abandonment of the
American people by the political class. An inquisitive Left would be talking to these people,
not at them. The Russian meddling story is a sideshow with a political purpose. But class
struggle remains the relevant story. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Rob Urie
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
"... Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall before entering Europe. ..."
The indictments are a major political story, but not for the reasons given in
mainstream press coverage. Once Mr. Mueller's indictment is understood to charge the
exploitation of existing social tensions (read it and decide for yourself), the FBI, which Mr.
Mueller directed from 2001 – 2013, is precisely the wrong entity to be rendering
judgment. The FBI has been America's political police since its founding in 1908. Early on
former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover led legally dubious mass
arrests of American dissidents. He practically invented the slander of conflating
legitimate dissent with foreign agency. This is the institutional backdrop from which Mr.
Mueller proceeds.
In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s the FBI's targets included the civil rights movement, the
antiwar movement, the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black Panther Party and any other
political organization Mr. Hoover deemed a threat. The secret (hidden) FBI program COINTELPRO was intended to
subvert political outcomes outside of allegations of criminal wrongdoing and with no regard for the lives of its
targets . Throughout its history the FBI has sided with the powerful against the powerless
to maintain an unjust social order.
Robert Mueller became FBI Director only days before the attacks of September 11, 2001. One
of his first acts as Director was to arrest 1,000 persons without any evidence of criminal
wrongdoing. None of those arrested were ever charged in association with the attacks. The frame
in which the FBI acted -- to maintain political stability threatened by 'external' forces, was
ultimately chosen by the George W. Bush administration to justify its aggressive war against
Iraq.
It is the FBI's legacy of conflating dissent with being an agent of a foreign power that Mr.
Mueller's indictment most insidiously perpetuates. Russians are 'sowing discord,' and they are
using Americans to do so, goes the allegation. Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders are listed
in the indictment as roadblocks to the unfettered ascension of Hillary Clinton to the
presidency. Russians are sowing discord, therefore discord is both suspect in itself and
evidence of being a foreign agent.
The posture of simple reporting at work in the indictment -- that it isn't the FBI's fault
that the Russians (allegedly) inserted themselves into the electoral process, runs against the
history of the FBI's political role, the tilt used to craft criminal charges and the facts put
forward versus those put to the side. Given the political agendas of the other agencies that
the FBI joined through the charges, they are most certainly but a small piece of a larger
story.
In the aftermath of the indictments it's easy to forget that the Pentagon created the internet ,
that the NSA
has its tentacles in all of its major chokepoints, that the CIA has been heavily
involved in funding and 'using' social media toward its own ends and that the FBI is only
reputable in the present because of Americans' near-heroic ignorance of history. The claim that
the Russian operation was sophisticated because it had corporate form and function is countered
by the fact that it was, by the various agencies' own claims, ineffectual in changing the
outcome of the election.
I Have a List
While Robert Mueller was busy charging never-to-be-tried Russians with past crimes, Dan
Coats, the Director of National Intelligence,
declared that future Russian meddling has already cast a shadow over the integrity of the
2018 election. Why the Pentagon that created the internet, the NSA that has its tentacles in
all of its major chokepoints, the CIA that has been heavily involved in funding and 'using'
social media toward its own ends and the FBI that just landed such a glorious victory of good
over evil would be quivering puddles when it comes to precluding said meddling is a question
that needs to be asked.
The political frame being put forward is that only these agencies know if particular
elections and candidates have been tainted by meddling, therefore we need to trust them to tell
us which candidates were legitimately elected and which weren't. As generous as this offer
seems, wouldn't the creation of free and fair elections be a more direct route to achieving
this end? Put differently, who among those making the offer, whether personally or as
functionaries of their respective agencies, has a demonstrated history of supporting democratic
institutions?
The 2016 election was apparently a test case for posing these agencies as the meddling
police. By getting the bourgeois electocracy -- liberal Democrats, to agree that the loathsome
Trump is illegitimate, future candidates will be vetted by the CIA, NSA and FBI with impunity.
It's apparently only the pre-'discord, ' the social angst that the decade of the Great
Recession left as its residual, that shifts this generous offer from the deterministic to the
realm of the probable. The social conditions that led to the Great Recession and its aftermath
are entirely home grown.
More broadly, how do the government agencies and people that spent the better part of the
last century undermining democracy at home and abroad intend to stop 'Russian meddling?' If the
FBI couldn't disentangle home grown 'discord' from that allegedly exploited and exacerbated by
the Russians, isn't the likely intention to edit out all discord? And if fake news is a problem
in need of addressing, wouldn't the
New York Times and the Washington Post have
been shut down years ago?
The Great Satin (sic)
While Russia is the villain of the day, week and year due to alleged election 'meddling,'
the process of demonization that Russia has undergone has shown little variation from (alleged)
villain to villain. It is thanks to cable news and the 'newspaper of record' that the true
villainy of Vladimir Putin, Muammar Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, Nicolas Maduro and the political
leadership of Iran has been revealed. In the face of such monsters, questions of motivation are
moot. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin 'sow discord?'
The question as yet unasked, and therefore unanswered is: is there something besides base
villainy that brought these national leaders, and the nations they lead, into the crosshairs of
America's fair and wise leadership? This question might forever go unanswered were it not for
the secret list from which their names were apparently drawn. No, not that secret list. This one is publicly available -- hiding in plain sight, as it
were. It is the list of proven oil reserves by country (below). This is no doubt unduly
reductive -- evil is as evil does, but read on.
The question of how such a list could divide so evenly between heroes and villains I leave
to the philosophers. On second thought, no I won't. The heroes are allies of a small cadre of
America's political and economic elite who have made themselves fabulously rich through the
alliances. The villains have oil, gas, pipelines and other resources that this elite wants.
Reductive, yes. But this simple list certainly appears to explain American foreign policy over
the last half-century quite well.
Source: gulfbusiness.com
It's almost as if America's love for humanity, as demonstrated through humanitarian
interventions, is determined by imperial competition for natural resources -- in this case oil
and gas. Amongst these countries, only one (Canada) is 'democratic' in the American sense of
being run by a small cadre of plutocrats who use the state to further their own interests. Two
-- Iraq and Libya, were recently reduced to rubble (for the sake of humanity) by the U.S.
Nigeria is being 'brought' under the control of AFRICOM. What remains are various and sundry
petro-states plus Venezuela and Russia.
Following the untimely death of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the horrible tyrant kept in office
via free
and fair elections , who used Venezuela's petro-dollars to feed, clothe and educate his
people and was in the process of creating a regional Left alliance to counter American abuse of
power, the CIA joined with local
plutocrats to overthrow his successor, Nicolas Maduro. The goal: to 'liberate' Venezuela's oil
revenues in their own pockets. At the moment Mr. Maduro is down the list of villains, not
nearly the stature of a 'new Hitler' like Vladimir Putin. But where he ends up will depend on
how successfully the CIA (with Robert Mueller's help) can drum up a war against nuclear armed
Russia.
What separates Russia from the other heroes and villains on the list is its history as a
competing empire as well as the manner in which Russian oil and gas is distributed. Geography
placed it closer to the population centers of Europe than to Southeastern China where Chinese
economic development has been concentrated. This makes Europe a 'natural' market for Russian
oil and gas.
The former Soviet state of Ukraine did stand between, or rather under, Russian pipelines and
Europe until Hillary Clinton had her lieutenants engineer a coup there in 2014. In contrast to
the 'new Hitler' of Mr. Putin (or was that Trump?) Mrs. Clinton and her comrades demonstrated a
preference for the old Hitler in the form of Ukrainian fascists who were the ideological
descendants of 'authentic' WWII Nazis. But rest assured, not all of the U.S.'s allies in this
affair
were ideological Nazis .
Chart: Demonization of Russia centers on competition for oil and gas revenues. Pipelines
to deliver oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe run through North Africa (Libya) and
Syria and / or Turkey. These pipelines are substantially controlled by Western interests with
imperial / colonial ties to the U.S., Britain and 'developed' Europe. Russian oil and gas did
run through Ukraine, which is now negotiating to join NATO, or otherwise hits a NATO wall
before entering Europe.
In contrast to the alternative hypotheses given
in the American press, NATO, the geopolitical extension of the U.S. military in Europe,
admits that the U.S.
engineered coup in Ukraine was 'about' oil geopolitics with Russia. The American storyline
that Crimea was seized by Russia ignores that the Russian navy has had a Black Sea port in Crimea for decades. How
amenable, precisely, might Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and his friends be if
Russia seized a major U.S. naval port given their generous offer to take over the U.S.
electoral system because of a few Russian trolls?
Although Russia is toward the bottom of the top ten countries in terms of oil reserves, it
faces a problem of distribution that the others don't. Imperial ties and recent military
incursions have left the distribution of oil and gas from the Middle East to Europe largely
under Western control. Syria, Turkey and North Africa are necessary to moving this oil and gas
through pipelines to Europe. That Syria, Libya and Turkey are now, or recently have been,
militarily contested adds credence to the contention that the 'international community's'
heroes and villains are largely determined by whose hands their oil and gas resources are
currently in.
Democratic Party loyalists who see Putin, Maduro et al as the problem first need to
answer for the candidate they put forward in 2016. Hillary Clinton led the carnage in Libya
that murdered
30,000 – 50,000 innocents for Western oil and gas interests. Russia didn't force the
U.S. into its calamitous invasion of Iraq. Russia didn't take Americans' jobs, houses and
pensions in the Great Recession. Russia didn't reward Wall Street for causing it. Democrats
need to take responsibility for their failed candidates and their failed Party.
Part of the point in relating oil reserves to American foreign entanglements is that the
countries and leaders involved are incidental. Vladimir Putin certainly seems smarter than the
American leadership. But this has no bearing on whether or not his leadership of Russia is
broadly socially beneficial. The only possible resolution of climate crisis requires both
Russia and the U.S. to greatly reduce their use of fossil fuels. Reports have it that Mr. Putin
has no interest in doing so. And once the marketing chatter is set to the side, neither do the
Americans.
By placing themselves as arbiters of the electoral process, the Director of National
Intelligence and the heads of the CIA, NSA and FBI can effectively control it. Is it accidental
that the candidate of liberal Democrats in the 2016 election was the insiders' -- the
intelligence agencies' and military contractors,' candidate as well? Implied is that these
agencies and contractors are now 'liberal.' Good luck with that program if you value peace and
prosperity.
There are lots of ways to create free and fair elections if that is the goal. Use
paper ballots that are counted in public, automatically register all eligible voters, make
election days national holidays and eliminate 'private' funding of electoral campaigns. But why
make elections free and fair when fanciful nonsense about 'meddling' will convince the liberal
class to deliver power to grey corpses in the CIA, NSA and FBI for the benefit of a tiny cabal
of stupendously rich plutocrats. Who says America isn't already great?
"Ex-FBI agent: Trump got elected, thanks to Russia" [
Yahoo News
]. • One thing to remember about RussiaRussiaRussia -- R 3 ? -- is that it's very profitable to be a talking head.
"DOJ Announces Public Release of the Cyber-Digital Task Force's First Report; Impact on and Role of the Private Sector Likely
to be a Focus in the Coming Months" [
Compliance and Enforcement ]. "[Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] lauded 'self-policing' efforts to remove 'fake accounts'
and encouraged companies to 'consider the voluntary removal of accounts and content' that are linked by the FBI to foreign agents'
activities, which he said 'violate terms of service and deceive customers.'" • What could go wrong?
"The Death of Truth" by Pulitzer-Prize winning book critic Michiko Kakutani explores the waning of integrity in American
society, particularly since the 2016 elections. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion,
but not to his own facts," is more timely than ever, Kakutani says: "polarization has grown so extreme that voters have a hard
time even agreeing on the same facts." And no wonder: Two-thirds of Americans get at least some of their news through social media
-- a platform that has been overwhelmed by trolls and bots, and which uses algorithms to decide what each of us gets to see.
Executives ignore the cultural shift away from honesty at their peril.
I would put the start date for the cultural shift away from honest at 2008; every one knew what caused the financial disaster,
knew who the culprits were (and are), saw them get away with grand theft and govt protection, and knew they were being lied to
by the sort of bs excuses like WF's "it was a computer glitch" that done it. Once it was clear the govt was going to protect the
robbers, the new paradigm of dishonesty in high places trickled down. Ohhh, so that's how trickle down works.
People. Don't miss out this recent and fascinating Interview featuring Bill Binney, former NSA IT guy and whistle blower
. The host made him the right Questions. He speak on very important issues In Particular The Russian "Hacking" of the DNC, and
even 9-11.
Binney is "The Expert" , Nobody can dispute his integrity.
"... First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party. ..."
"... Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts. ..."
Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyite and Other Double Dealers :
March 3, 1937
"Comrades!
From the reports and the debates on these reports heard at this plenum, it is evident that
we are dealing with the following three main facts.
First, the wrecking and diversionist-espionage work of agents of foreign countries , among
whom a rather active role was played by the Trotskyists, affected more or less all, or nearly
all, of our organizations-economic, administrative, and Party.
Second, agents of foreign countries, among them the Trotskyites , penetrated not only into
lower organizations, but also into certain responsible posts.
Third, some of our leading comrades, both at the center and at the periphery, not only
failed to discern the face of these wreckers, diversionists, spies, and killers, but proved
to be so careless, complacent, and naive that at times they themselves assisted in promoting
agents of foreign states to responsible posts.
These are the three incontrovertible facts which naturally emerge from the reports and the
discussions on them "
n 16 November 2009, tax specialist lawyer Sergey Magnitsky died in Matrosskaya
Tishina prison (Moscow). Immediately, the US Press claimed that he had been in possession of
information concerning a State scandal, and had been tortured by the " régime ".
The
Magnitsky Act
The death of Magnitsky shut down the legal procedures that had been launched against him by the
Russian Minister of Justice. Billionaire William ("Bill") Browder declared in Washington that the
tax expert possessed proof that Russian Power had stolen 3 billion dollars from him. Despite
lobbying by Goldman Sachs, the US Congress believed it had clarified the affair, and in 2012
adopted a law sanctioning the Russian personalities suspected of having murdered the lawyer.
Goldman Sachs, which did not believe the information forwarded by the parliamentarians, hired the
lobbying firm Duberstein Group in an attempt to block the vote on the law [
1
].
On this model, in 2016, the Congress extended the "
Magnitsky Act
" to the whole world,
requesting the President to implement sanctions against all people and all states which violate
individual property. Presidents Obama and Trump obeyed, placing about twenty personalities on the
list, including the President of the Republic of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.
These two laws were aimed at giving back to the United States the role it had assumed during the
Cold War as defender of individual property, even though they had no communist rival.
The two versions of the " Magnitsky affair "
As for the Russian State Duma, it responded to its US counterpart by forbidding the adoption of
Russian children by US families, and by denouncing the responsibility of US personalities in the
legalisation of torture (the Dima Yakovlev Law, from the name of the Russian child adopted in the
USA who died as a result of negligence by the parents). President Putin applied this text in 2013,
also forbidding ex-US Vice President Dick Cheney access to Russian territory.
The " Magnitsky affair " could have ended there. It seems to be independent of the "
Khodorkovsky affair ", exploited by NATO in order to accuse Russia of interference in Western
democracies by way of disinformation or " fake news " [
2
].
However, the Russian Prosecutor General contests the narrative presented by Wiliam Browder to the
US Congress.
According to William Browder, his company Hermitage Capital invested in Russia, particularly in
Gazprom. He allegedly discovered signs of irregular practices and attempted to warn the Kremlin.
However, his resident's visa was then cancelled. Then his Russian companies were allegedly robbed
by Lieutenant-Colonel Artem Kuznetsov, a civil servant from the Financial Brigade of the Russian
Ministry of the Interior. Kuznetsov apparently seized the property documents during a search, then
used them to register a new owner. Lawyer Sergey Magnitsky, who apparently blew the whistle on the
embezzlement, was arrested, tortured and finally died in prison. In the end, Lieutenant-Colonel
Artem Kuznetsov and " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev were allegedly able to deposit the 3 billion stolen
dollars in a Cypriot bank. This is a classic case of theft by the Russian mafia with the help of
the Kremlin [
3
].
This narrative inspired the seventh season of the Showtime TV series,
Homeland
.
On the contrary, according to Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika, William Browder illegally
acquired 133 million shares in Gazprom on behalf of the Ziff brothers, via various straw men. Not
only did Browder avoid paying 150 million dollars in taxes, but the acquisition of part of this
crown jewel of the Russian economy is in itself illegal. Furthermore, his financial advisor, Sergey
Magnitsky, who had developed another scam for the same Browder, was arrested and died of a heart
attack in prison [
4
].
It is obviously impossible to tell the truth from the lies in these two versions. However, it is
now recognised that Sergey Magnitsky was not a lawyer working freelance, but was employed by
William Browder's companies. He was not investigating embezzlement, but was tasked by Browder
with the creation of financial structures which would avoid him having to pay taxes in Russia.
For example, the two men imagined remunerating mentally handicapped people as front men in order to
benefit from their tax exempt status. Browder had much experience with tax evasion – which is why
he lived for ten years in Russia with a simple tourist visa, then abandoned his US citizenship and
became a British citizen.
These last elements prove William Browder wrong, and are compatible with Prosecutor Chaika's
accusations. In these conditions, it seems at the least imprudent for the US Congress to have
adopted the
Magnitsky Act
, unless of course the operation was aimed not at defending
individual property, but at hurting Russia [
5
].
A leader of the Russian opposition paid by Browder
Alongside the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Browder abundantly finances the work of a
young lawyer, Alexeď Navalny. Thanks to the help of US ambassador Michael McFaul, the young man
pursued his studies in the USA at Yale in 2010. He created an Anti-Corruption Foundation in order
to promote Browden's version and accuse Putin's administration.
Having become a leader of the political opposition, Navalny and his Foundation directed a first
documentary accusing the family of Prosecutor Chaika of corruption. But although the video is
convincing at first look, it presents no proof of the facts it relates.
Simultaneously, Navalny ordered a second documentary from a Russian film director and member of
the opposition about the " Magnitsky affair ". But this journalist turned against his employer
during the investigation, which was finally broadcast by Russian public television.
Thereafter, William Browder engaged an ex-agent of MI6 in Moscow (1990-93), Christopher Steele,
and the ex-US ambassador to Moscow (2012-14), Michael McFaul.
It so happens that it was Christopher Steele who, in 2006 – while he was with MI6 – accused
President Vladimir Putin of having ordered the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium. In
2016, he also worked – freelance this time – for the US Democratic Party. That was when he wrote
the famous dossier accusing candidate Donald Trump of being under the threat of blackmail by the
Russian secret services [
6
]
; an unwarranted charge which has just resurfaced after the bilateral Summit in Helsinki. We find
Steele once again, in 2018, involved in the Novitchok poisoning of Sergueď Skripal – as a "
consultant " for MI6, he of course accused the inevitable Vladimir Putin.
The Russian riposte
During the US Presidential campaign of 2016, Russian Prosecutor General Yury Chaika attempted to
influence a member of Congress who was open to Russian thinking, Dana Rohrabacher (Republican,
California). He sent her a note concerning his version of the Browder-Magnitsky affair. Russian
lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya met the son and son-in-law of candidate Donald Trump at Trump Tower,
in order to inform them that a part of Browder's dirty money was being used to finance the
candidacy of Hillary Clinton [
7
].
Thereafter, William Browder became the main source of the enquiry run by Special Prosecutor
Robert Mueller about possible Russian interference in " US Democracy ". A long time before he
became the Director the FBI, Mueller – who officially has no link to the CIA – had been responsible
for the enquiry on the Lockerbie attack, which he attributed to Mouammar Kadhafi. Let's remember
that Libya never recognised that it was implicated in this affair, although it accepted to pay a
compensation to the victims. Above all, Scottish Justice established the fact that fragments of the
detonator found on site were placed there by the CIA in order to accuse Libya. Mueller used the
meeting of Trump's team with Natalia Veselnitskaya as " proof " of the subordination of Donald
Trump to the Russian Intelligence services.
In the USA, Natalia Veselnitskaya represents the interests of several of Browder's Russian
victims. She also acted in 2014 on behalf of one of the companies that Browder accused of being
connected to " godfather " Dmitry Klyuev. She also raised the question about the manner in which an
agent of Homeland Security, Todd Hyman, had transmitted a trial document without proceeding with
the usual verifications.
There will be no moment of truth
During the US-Russia summit in Helsinki, President Vladimir Putin proposed that his US
counterpart allow US investigators to question those Russian civil servants suspected of
interference in the US Presidential campaign, on the condition that Russian investigators would
also be allowed to question suspects in the USA. Donald Trump is reserving his answer.
However, when the office of Prosecutor Yury Chaika transmitted the list of witnesses to be
questioned, Washington panicked. Not only did Chaika ask to question British subjects William
Browder and Christopher Steele if they should travel in the United States, but also ambassador
Michael McFaul, lawyer Jonathan Winer, researcher David J. Kramer, and finally, agent Todd Hyman.
Jonathan Winer was in charge of the Lockerbie dossier at the State Department during the 1990's.
He is a personal friend of Christopher Steele, and transmitted his reports to the neo-conservatives
for a decade [
8
].
During Bush Jr.'s first term, David J. Kramer played an important role in the management of the
propaganda system for the State Department as well as looking after the stay-behind agents in
Eastern Europe and in Russia. After having worked in various think tanks, he became the president
of Freedom House, and campaigned on the " Magnitsky affair ". He is today a researcher at the
McCain Institute.
Although, so far, nothing enables us to tell which of the Browder and Chaika versions is
accurate, the truth will soon emerge. It is possible that Russian interference may be no more than
fake news, but US interference (by introduction into the crown piece of the Russian economy as well
as via Alexeď Navalny) may in fact be a reality.
In the context of' Washington's unanimous anti-Russian stand, President Trump declines Vladimir
Putin's proposition.
Thierry Meyssan
[
4
]
Note from Yury Chaika Office to Dana Rohrabacher, June 2016.
[
5
]
"
Intouchable, Mr. Browder ?
", par
Israël Shamir, Traduction Maria Poumier,
Entre la plume et l'enclume
(France),
The Unz
Review
(USA),
Réseau Voltaire
, 22 juin 2016.
If half of what I have come to understand about the Curious Case of Bill Browder is true,
then the "Magnitsky Trio" of Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Ben Cardin are guilty of
espionage, at a minimum.
Why? Because they know that Browder's story about Sergei Magnitsky is a lie. And that means
that when you tie in the Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, the Skripal poisoning
and the rest of this mess, these men are consorting with foreign governments and agencies
against the sitting President.
As Lee Stranahan pointed out recently on Fault Lines, Cardin invited Browder to testify to
Congress in 2017 to push through last year's sanctions bill, a more stringent version of the
expiring Magnitsky Act of 2011, which has since been used to ratchet up pressure on Russia.
I'd read it a few times, because it's about as murky as The Swamp gets. And, still my eyes
glaze over.
The Magnitsky Act and its sequel have been used to support aggressive policy actions by the
U.S. against Russia and destroy the relationship between the world's most prominent militaries
and nuclear powers.
The new bill is said to want to put 'crushing sanctions' on Russia to make 'Putin feel the
heat.' In effect, what this bill wants to do is force President Trump to enforce sanctions
against
the entire Russian state for attempting to do business anywhere in the world.
The new financial penalties would target political figures, oligarchs, family members and
others that "facilitate illicit and corrupt activities" on behalf of Putin.
It would also impose new sanctions on transactions tied to investments in state-owned
energy projects, transactions tied to new Russian debt, and people with the capacity or
ability to support or carry out a "malicious" cyber act.
In addition, if it wasn't clear enough already, that he's no friend of the President, Graham
is trying to tie the President's hands on NATO withdrawal, requiring a two-thirds majority.
Now, why would Graham be worried about that, unless it was something the President was
seriously considering? This is similar to last year's sanctions bill requiring a similar
majority for the President to end the original sanctions placed on Russia in 2014 over the
reunification with Crimea.
And behind it all stands Bill Browder.
Because it has been Browder's one-man campaign to influence members of Congress, the EU and
public opinion the world over against Putin and Russia for the past 10 years over Magnitsky's
death.
Browder's story is the only one we see in the news. And it's never questioned, even though
it has. He continually moves to block films and articles critical of him from seeing
distribution.
Browder is the epicenter around which the insane push for war with Russia revolves as
everyone involved in the attempt to take over Russia in 1999 continues to try and cover their
collective posteriors posterities.
And it is Browder, along with Republic National Bank chief Edmond Safra, who were involved
together in the pillaging of Russia in the 1990's. Browder's firm hired Magintsky as an
accountant (because that's what he was) to assist in the money laundering Heritage Capital was
involved in.
The attempted take over of Russia failed because Yeltsin saw the setup which led him to
appoint Putin as his Deputy Prime Minister.
There was $7 billion that was wired through Bank of New York which involved money stolen
from the IMF loans to Russia. The attempt to takeover Russia by blackmail was set in motion.
As soon as that wire was done, that is when Republic National Bank ran to the Department of
Justice to say it was money-laundering. I believe this started the crisis and Yeltsin was
blackmailed to step down and appoint Boris A. Berezovsky as the head of Russia.
Clearly, Republic National Bank was involved with the US government for they were sending
also skids of $100 bills to Russia. It was written up and called the
Money Plane . Yeltsin then turned to Putin realizing that he had been set up. This is how
Putin became the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia on August 9th, 1999 until August 16th,
1999 when he became the 33rd Prime Minister and heir apparent of Yeltsin.
So, now why, all of a sudden, do we need even stronger sanctions on Russia, ones that would
create untold dislocation in financial markets around the world?
Look at the timeline today and see what's happening.
Earlier this year Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicts 13 people associated with
Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll farm, for influencing the 2016 election.
Then Mueller indicts twelve members of Russian intelligence to sabotage the upcoming
summit between Trump and Putin while the Russia Hacked Muh Election narrative was
flagging.
Three days later President Trump met with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. There a Putin let
the world know that he would assist Robert Mueller's investigation if in return the U.S.
would assist Russia in returning Bill Browder, who was tried and convicted in absentia for
tax evasion.
All of a sudden Browder's story is all over the alternative press. Browder is all over
U.S. television.
Earlier this week Facebook comes out, after horrific earnings, to tell everyone that IRA
was still at it, though being ever so sneaky, trying to influence the mid-terms by engaging
Democrats and anti-Trumpers to organize... In that release, Facebook let it be known it was
working with the political arm of NATO, The Atlantic Council, to ferret out these dastardly
Russian agents.
And now we have a brand-new shiny sanctions bill intended to keep any rapprochement between
the U.S. and Russia from occurring.
Why is that? What's got them so scared of relations with Russia improving?
Maybe, just maybe, because Putin has all of these people dead to rights and he's informed
Trump of what the real story behind all of this is.
That at its core is a group of very bad people who attempted to steal trillions but only got
away with billions and still have their sights set on destroying Russia for their own
needs.
And Lindsay Graham is their mouthpiece. (all puns intended)
That all of U.S. foreign policy is built on a lie.
That our relationship with Russia was purposefully trashed for the most venal of reasons,
for people like Bill Browder to not only steal billions but then have the chutzpah to steal the
$230 million he would have paid in taxes on those stolen billions.
And the only way to ensure none of those lies are exposed is for Trump to be unable to
change any of it by forcing him to openly side with the Russian President over members of his
own political party.
The proposed sanctions by the Graham bill are so insane that even the Treasury department
thinks they are a bad idea. But, at this point there is nothing Graham won't do for his
owners.
Because they are desperate they will push for open warfare with Russia to push Putin from
power, which is not possible. All of this is nothing more than a sad attempt to hold onto power
long enough to oust Trump from the White House and keep things as horrible as they currently
are.
Because no one gives up power willingly. And the more they are proven to be frauds the more
they will scream for war.
August 06, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - So the US news
media are in uproar over President Trump's latest admission that a meeting between his son and
a Russian lawyer more than two years ago was about "getting dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
With self-righteous probity, Trump's political and media enemies are declaring him a felon
for accepting foreign interference in the US presidential election.
Admittedly, President Trump appears to have been telling lies about the past meeting, which
took place at Trump Tower in New York City in the summer of 2016. Or maybe it's just this
American president shooting himself in the foot -- again -- with his inimical
gibberish-style.
However, the burning issue of "foreign interference" is being stoked out of all proportion
by Trump's enemies who want him ousted from the White House.
US constitutional law forbids candidates from receiving help from foreign governments or
foreign nationals.
Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?
Thus, by appearing to accept a meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 -- during the
presidential campaign -- the Trump election team are accused of breaking US law.
The alleged transgression fits in with the wider narrative of "Russiagate" which posits that
Republican candidate Donald Trump colluded with the Kremlin to win the race to the White House
against Democrat rival Hillary
Clinton .
Russia has always denied any involvement in the US elections, saying the allegations are
preposterous. Moscow also points out that in spite of indictments leveled by American
prosecutors, there is no evidence to support claims that Russian hackers meddled in the
presidential campaign, or that the Kremlin somehow assisted Trump.
The Russian lawyer, Natalia
Veselnitskaya , who met with the Trump campaign team in early June 2016 is described in US
media as "Kremlin-linked". But that seems to be just more innuendo in place of facts. She
denies any such connection. The Kremlin also says it had no relation with the attorney on
her business of approaching Team Trump.
In any case, what is being totally missed in the latest brouhaha is the staggering hypocrisy
in the US media circus over Trump. Let's take Trump at his word -- not a reliable source
admittedly -- that his campaign team were trying to "get dirt" on Clinton. That would appear to
be a violation of US law.
If Trump is going to be nailed for improper conduct with regard to alleged foreign
assistance, then where does that leave Hillary Clinton and US intelligence agencies?
During the presidential campaign, Clinton's team contracted a British spy, Christopher
Steele, to dig up dirt on Trump in the form of the so-called "Russian dossier". That was the
pile of absurd claims alleging that the Kremlin had blackmailing leverage over Donald Trump. It
was Steele's fantasies that largely turned into the whole Russiagate affair which has dominated
US media and politics for the past two years.
Not only that, but now it transpires that the Federal Bureau of Investigation also paid the
same British spy to act as a source for the FBI's wiretapping of Trump's associates, according to
declassified documents obtained by Judicial Watch, a US citizens' rights group.
In other
words, the foreign interference that the FBI engaged in under the Barack Obama administration,
as well as by Hillary Clinton's campaign team, is on a far greater and more scandalous scale
that Trump seems to have clumsily endeavored to do with a Russian lawyer.
The real, shocking interference in US democracy was not by Russia or Trump, but by American
secret services working in collusion with the Clinton Democrats to distort the presidential
elections. This scandal which Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen has labeled "Intelgate" is far
more grievous than the Watergate crisis which resulted in President Richard Nixon's ignominious
resignation back in the mid-1970s.
The Obama administration's intelligence agencies and the Democrats attempted to sabotage the
2016 presidential election in order to keep Trump out of the White House. They failed. And they
have never gotten over that defeat to their illegal scheming.
The Russiagate claims are just a sideshow. As American writer Paul Craig Roberts, among
others, has
commented , the media-driven "witch hunt" against Trump and Russia is blown out of all
proportion in order to distract from the real scandal which is Intelgate -- and how millions of
American voters were potentially disenfranchised by the US intelligence apparatus for a
political power grab.
Another staggering hypocrisy in the US media kerfuffle over Trump and alleged Russian
interference is that all the fastidious hyperbole completely ignores actual foreign
interference in American democracy -- foreign interference that is on an absolutely colossal
scale.
As American critical thinker Noam Chomsky points out , "Israeli intervention in
US elections overwhelms anything Russia may have done".
Israel's interference includes the multi-million-dollar lobbying by such groups as the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial sponsorship of hundreds of
lawmakers in both houses of Congress. Many critics maintain
that the entire Congress is in effect "bought" by AIPAC.
Chomsky referred specifically to the occasion in 2015 when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu snubbed then President Obama by addressing the US Congress with a speech openly
calling for lawmakers to reject the internationally-backed nuclear deal with Iran.
During his election campaign, Donald Trump
reportedly received a $20 million donation from the American-Israeli casino mogul Sheldon
Adelson. Adelson has Israeli citizenship. Is that not foreign help, according to definition of
US laws?
Trump has since shown himself to do Adelson's and Israel's bidding by walking away from the
Iran deal and in pushing stridently pro-Israeli interests in the conflict with
Palestinians.
Another foreign benefactor in US politics is the so-called Saudi lobby and other oil-rich
Gulf Arab states. Millions of dollars are funneled into Congress by these dubious regimes to
shape US government foreign policy in the Middle East. For several decades, Saudi oil money is
also documented to be
a major contributor to the CIA and its off-the-books covert operations around the world.
Foreign interference in US politics -- in which often nefarious foreign interests are
promoted over those of ordinary American citizens -- is conducted on a gargantuan and
systematic scale. But this massively illegal interference in flagrant violation of US laws is
stupendously ignored by the American media.
Trump is being assailed over an alleged scandal regarding Russia which is, by any objective
measure, negligible.
The whole Russiagate narrative is sheer hysteria driven by anti-Trump forces who do not want
to accept the result of the 2016 election. It is, in effect, a coup attempt by unelected
political forces.
Russiagate is a cover to conceal the really disturbing scandal which was,
and continues to be, the attempt to subvert American democracy by US intelligence agencies
working in cahoots with the Obama administration and Clinton's election campaign. To cover up
those crimes, Russia is being maligned for "attacking American democracy".
Such lies are an odious distortion of the truth by America's real enemies who are its own
domestic political and media operators trying to cover up their anti-constitutional crimes.
What's even more despicable is that these people are willing to inflame US-Russia relations to
the point of starting a war between two nuclear powers.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
This article was originally published by " Sputnik "
-
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
"Ex-FBI agent: Trump got elected, thanks to Russia" [ Yahoo
News ]. • One thing to remember about RussiaRussiaRussia -- R 3 ? -- is
that it's very profitable to be a talking head.
"DOJ Announces Public Release of the Cyber-Digital Task Force's First Report; Impact on
and Role of the Private Sector Likely to be a Focus in the Coming Months" [
Compliance and Enforcement ]. "[Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein] lauded
'self-policing' efforts to remove 'fake accounts' and encouraged companies to 'consider the
voluntary removal of accounts and content' that are linked by the FBI to foreign agents'
activities, which he said 'violate terms of service and deceive customers.'" • What
could go wrong?
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a few comments. First, I disagree with the
analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking
because Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".
If you pay attention to the questions and statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering
on the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're
believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock
you, but I believe Vladimir Putin on several things."
Cooper continues to insist that the content of the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say.
The sheer hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.
I do admit that Cooper shuts up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake of calling
Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.
I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists,
especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news"
and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media.
\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary, in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists
into their correct place, telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real decisions on content
are not made by them.
What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem that would be!
Second, it would give the American people more information on how their consent is engineered, how the media has owners
who have an agenda, and that agenda is not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed
with accurate information.
Why, then, would a coalition of leftish and right-wing patriots not join in
denouncing a leader who seemed to put Russia's interests ahead of those of his own country?
Sorry to say, things are not so simple. Look a bit more closely at what holds the anti-Trump
foreign policy coalition together, and you will discover a missing reality that virtually no
one will acknowledge directly: the existence of a beleaguered but still potent American Empire
whose junior partner is Europe. What motivates a broad range of the President's opponents,
then, is not so much the fear that he is anti-American as the suspicion that he is
anti-Empire.
Of course, neither liberals nor conservatives dare to utter the "E-word." Rather, they argue
in virtually identical terms that Trump's foreign and trade policies are threatening the
pillars of world order: NATO, the Group of Seven, the World Trade Organization, the
International Monetary Fund, the OSCE, and so forth. These institutions, they claim, along with
American military power and a willingness to use it when necessary, are primarily responsible
for the peaceful, prosperous, free, and democratic world that we have all been privileged to
inhabit since the Axis powers surrendered to the victorious Allies in 1945.
The fear expressed plainly by The New York Times 's David Leonhardt, a
self-described "left-liberal," is that "Trump wants to destroy the Atlantic Alliance." Seven
months earlier, this same fear motivated the arch-conservative National Review to
editorialize that, "Under Trump, America has retreated from its global and moral leadership
roles, alienated its democratic allies, and abandoned the bipartisan defense of liberal ideals
that led to more than 70 years of security and prosperity." All the critics would agree with
Wolfgang Ischinger, chair of the Munich Security Conference, who recently stated, "Let's face
it. Mr. Trump's core beliefs conflict with the foundations of Western grand strategy since the
mid-1940's."
"Western grand strategy," of course, is a euphemism for U.S. global hegemony – world
domination, to put it plainly. In addition to peace and prosperity (mainly for privileged
groups in privileged nations), this is the same strategy which since 1945 has given the world
the Cold War, the specter of a nuclear holocaust, and proxy wars consuming between 10 and 20
million lives in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
and Yemen. Its direct effects include the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala, Iran,
Lebanon, Congo, Nigeria, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Granada, Ukraine, et al.;
the bribery of public officials and impoverishment and injury of workers and farmers world-wide
as a result of exploitation and predatory "development" by Western governments and
mega-corporations; the destruction of natural environments and exacerbation of global climate
change by these same governments and corporations; and the increasing likelihood of new
imperialist wars caused by the determination of elites to maintain America's global supremacy
at all costs.
It is interesting that most defenders of the Western Alliance (and its Pacific equivalent:
the more loosely organized anti-Chinese alliance of Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand,
and South Korea) virtually never talk about American hegemony or the gigantic military
apparatus (with more than 800 U.S. bases in 60 or so nations and a military-industrial complex
worth trillions) that supports it. Nor is the subject of empire high on Mr. Trump's list of
approved twitter topics, even when he desecrates NATO and other sacred cows of the Alliance.
There are several reasons for this silence, but the most important, perhaps, is the need to
maintain the pretense of American moral superiority: the so-called "exceptionalist" position
that inspires McCain to attack Trump for "false equivalency" (the President's statement in
Helsinki that both Russia and the U.S. have made mistakes), and that leads pundits left and
right to argue that America is not an old-style empire seeking to dominate, but a new-style
democracy seeking to liberate.
The narrative you will hear repeated ad nauseum at both ends of the liberal/conservative
spectrum tells how the Yanks, who won WW II with a little help from the Russians and other
allies, and who then thoroughly dominated the world both economically and militarily,
could have behaved like vengeful conquerors, but instead devoted their resources and
energies to spreading democracy, freedom, and the blessings of capitalism around the world. Gag
me with a Tomahawk cruise missile! What is weird about this narrative is that it "disappears"
not only the millions of victims of America's wars but the very military forces that
nationalists like Trump claim deserve to be worshipfully honored. Eight hundred bases? A
million and a half troops on active duty? Total air and sea domination? I'm shocked . . .
shocked!
In fact, there are two sorts of blindness operative in the current U.S. political
environment. The Democratic Party Establishment, now swollen to include a wide variety of
Russia-haters, globalizing capitalists, and militarists, is blind (or pretends to be) to the
connection between the "Western Alliance" and the American Empire. The Trump Party (which I
expect, one of these days, to shed the outworn Republican label in favor of something more
Berlusconi-like, say, the American Greatness Party) is blind – or pretends to be –
to the contradiction between its professed
"Fortress America" nationalism and the reality of a global U.S. imperium.
This last point is worth emphasizing. In a recent article in The Nation , Michael
Klare, a writer I generally admire, claims to have discovered that there is really a method to
Trump's foreign policy madness, i.e., the President favors the sort of "multi-polar" world,
with Russia and China occupying the two other poles, that Putin and Xi Jinping have long
advocated. Two factors make this article odd as well as interesting. First, the author argues
that multi-polarity is a bad idea, because "smaller, weaker states, and minority peoples
everywhere will be given even shorter shrift than at present when caught in any competitive
jousting for influence among the three main competitors (and their proxies)." Wha? Even shorter
shrift than under unipolarity? I think not, especially considering that adding new poles (why
just three, BTW? What about India and Brazil?) gives smaller states and minority peoples many
more bargaining options in the power game.
More important, however, Trump's multi-polar/nationalist ideals are clearly contradicted by
his determination to make American world domination even more overwhelming by vastly increasing
the size of the U.S. military establishment. Klare notes, correctly, that the President has
denounced the Iraq War, criticized American "overextension" abroad, talked about ending the
Afghan War, and declared that the U.S. should not be "the world's policeman." But if he wants
America to become a mere Great Power in a world of Great Powers, Trump will clearly have to do
more than talk about it. He will have to cut the military budget, abandon military bases,
negotiate arms control agreements, convert military-industrial spending to peaceful uses, and
do all sorts of other things he clearly has no intention of doing. Ever.
No – if the Western Alliance, democratic values, and WTO trade rules provide
ideological cover and junior partners for American global hegemony, "go-it-alone" nationalism,
multi-polarity, and Nobel Peace Prize diplomatic efforts provide ideological cover for . . .
American global hegemony! This can be seen most clearly in the case of Iran, against whom Trump
has virtually declared war. He would like to avoid direct military involvement there, of
course, but he is banking on threats of irresistible "fire and fury" to bring the Iranians to
heel. And if these threats are unavailing? Then – count on it! – the Empire will
act like an empire, and we will have open war.
In fact, Trump and his most vociferous critics and supporters are unknowingly playing the
same game. John Brennan, meet Steve Bannon! You preach very different sermons, but you're
working for the same god. That deity's name changes over the centuries, but we worship him
every time we venerate symbols of military might at sports events, pay taxes to support U.S.
military supremacy, or pledge allegiance to a flag. The name unutterable by both Trump and his
enemies is Empire.
What do we do with the knowledge that both the Tweeter King and the treason-baiting
coalition opposing him are imperialists under the skin? Two positions, I think, have to be
rejected. One is the Lyndon Johnson rationale: since Johnson was progressive on domestic
issues, including civil rights and poverty, that made him preferable to the Republicans, even
though he gave us the quasi-genocidal war in Indochina. The other position is the diametric
opposite: since Trump is less blatantly imperialistic than most Democratic Party leaders, we
ought to favor him, despite his billionaire-loving, immigrant-hating, racist and misogynist
domestic policies. Merely to say this is to refute it.
My own view is that anti-imperialists ought to decline to choose between these alternatives.
We ought to name the imperial god that both Trump and his critics worship and demand
that the party that we work and vote for renounce the pursuit of U.S. global hegemony.
Immediately, this means letting self-proclaimed progressives or libertarians in both major
parties know that avoiding new hot and cold wars, eliminating nuclear weapons and other WMD,
slashing military spending, and converting war production to peaceful uses are top priorities
that must be honored if they are to get our support. No political party can deliver peace and
social justice and maintain the Empire at the same time. If neither Republicans nor Democrats
are capable of facing this reality, we will have to create a new party that can.
Notes.
[1]
The author is University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason
University. His most recent book is Resolving Structural Conflicts : How Violent
Systems Can Be Transformed (2017).
"... As widely loathed as the Democratic establishment is, it has been remarkably adept at engineering a reactionary response in favor of establishment forces. Its demonization of Russia! has been approximately as effective at fomenting reactionary nationalism as Mr. Trump's racialized version. Lest this be overlooked, the strategy common to both is the use of oppositional logic through demonization of carefully selected 'others.' ..."
"... What preceded Donald Trump was the Great Recession, the most severe capitalist crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Great Recession followed approximately three decades of neoliberal de-industrialization, of policies intended to reduce the power of organized labor, reduce working class wages and raise economic insecurity under the antique capitalist theory that destitution motivates workers to produce more for less in return. ..."
"... The illusion / delusion that these problems -- lost livelihoods, homes, social roles, relationships, sense of purpose and basic human dignity -- were solved, or even addressed, by national Democrats, illustrates the class divide at work. The economy that was revived made the rich fabulously rich, the professional / managerial class comfortable and left the other 90% in various stages of economic decline. ..."
"... Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique of neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the neoliberal world order. ..."
"... Democrats could have confronted the failures of neoliberalism without resorting to economic nationalism (as Mr. Trump did). And they could have confronted unhinged militarism without Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism. But this would have meant confronting their own history. And it would have meant publicly declaring themselves against the interests of their donor base. ..."
"... Mr. Trump's use of racialized nationalism is the primary basis of analyses arguing that he is fascist. Left unaddressed is the fact the the corporate-state form that is the basis of neoliberalism was also the basis of European fascism. Recent Left analysis proceeds from the premise that Trump control of the corporate-state form is fascism, while capitalist class control -- neoliberalism, is something else. ..."
"... Lest this not have occurred, FDR's New Deal was state capitalism approach within the framework of the corporatism (merge of corporations and a state) social formation. The only widely known effort to stage a fascist coup in the U.S. was carried out by Wall Street titans in the 1930s to wrest control from FDR before the New Deal was fully implemented. Put differently, the people who caused the Great Depression wanted to control its aftermath. And they were fascists. ..."
"... As political scientist Thomas Ferguson has been arguing for decades and Gilens and Page have recently chimed in, neither elections nor the public interest hold sway in the corridors of American power. The levers of control are structural -- congressional committee appointments go to the people with lots of money. Capitalist distribution controls the politics. ..."
"... The best-case scenario looking forward is that Donald Trump is successful with rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and that he throws a monkey wrench into the architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward can be built when he's gone. If he pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't nothing. ..."
"... Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book ..."
The election of Donald Trump fractured the American Left. The abandonment of class analysis
in response to Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism left identity politics to fill the void. This
has facilitated the rise of neoliberal nationalism, an embrace of the national security state
combined with neoliberal economic analysis put forward as a liberal / Left response to Mr.
Trump's program. The result has been profoundly reactionary.
What had been unfocused consensus around issues of economic justice and ending militarism
has been sharpened into a political program. A nascent, self-styled socialist movement is
pushing domestic issues like single payer health care, strengthening the social safety net and
reversing wildly unbalanced income and wealth distribution, forward. Left unaddressed is how
this program will move forward without a revolutionary movement to act against countervailing
forces.
As widely loathed as the Democratic establishment is, it has been remarkably adept at
engineering a reactionary response in favor of establishment forces. Its demonization of
Russia! has been approximately as effective at fomenting reactionary nationalism as Mr. Trump's
racialized version. Lest this be overlooked, the strategy common to both is the use of
oppositional logic through demonization of carefully selected 'others.'
This points to the most potent fracture on the Left, the question of which is the more
effective reactionary force, the Democrats' neoliberal nationalism or Mr. Trump's racialized
version? As self-evident as the answer apparently is to the liberal / Left, it is only so
through abandonment of class analysis. Race, gender and immigration status are either subsets
of class or the concept loses meaning.
By way of the reform Democrat's analysis , it was the shift of
working class voters from Barack Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016 that swung the election
in Mr. Trump's favor. To the extent that race was a factor, the finger points up the class
structure, not down. This difference is crucial when it comes to the much-abused 'white
working-class' explanation of Mr. Trump's victory.
What preceded Donald Trump was the Great Recession, the most severe capitalist crisis
since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The Great Recession followed approximately three
decades of neoliberal de-industrialization, of policies intended to reduce the power of
organized labor, reduce working class wages and raise economic insecurity under the antique
capitalist theory that destitution motivates workers to produce more for less in
return.
The illusion / delusion that these problems -- lost livelihoods, homes, social roles,
relationships, sense of purpose and basic human dignity -- were solved, or even addressed, by
national Democrats, illustrates the class divide at work. The economy that was revived made the
rich fabulously rich, the professional / managerial class comfortable and left the other 90% in
various stages of economic decline.
Left apparently unrecognized in bourgeois attacks on working class voters is that the
analytical frames at work -- classist identity politics and liberal economics, are ruling class
ideology in the crudest Marxian / Gramscian senses. The illusion / delusion that they are
factually descriptive is a function of ideology, not lived outcomes.
Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can ] accommodate class analysis
whereas the Democrats' neoliberal nationalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic power,
and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this critique
behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated.
Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are
clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique of
neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the
neoliberal world order. Watching the bourgeois Left put forward neoliberal trade theory to
counter it would seem inexplicable without the benefit of class analysis.
Within the frame of identity politics rich and bourgeois blacks, women and immigrants have
the same travails as their poor and working-class compatriots. Ben Carson (black), Melania
Trump (female) and Melania Trump (immigrant) fit this taxonomy. For them racism, misogyny and
xenophobia are forms of social violence. But they aren't fundamental determinants of how they
live. The same can't be said for those brutalized by four decades of neoliberalism
The common bond here is a class war launched from above that has uprooted, displaced and
immiserated a large and growing proportion of the peoples of the West. This experience cuts
across race, gender and nationality making them a subset of class. If these problems are
rectified at the level of class, they will be rectified within the categories of race, gender
and nationality. Otherwise, they won't be rectified.
Democrats could have confronted the failures of neoliberalism without resorting to
economic nationalism (as Mr. Trump did). And they could have confronted unhinged militarism
without Mr. Trump's racialized nationalism. But this would have meant confronting their own
history. And it would have meant publicly declaring themselves against the interests of their
donor base.
Mr. Trump's use of racialized nationalism is the primary basis of analyses arguing that
he is fascist. Left unaddressed is the fact the the corporate-state form that is the basis of
neoliberalism was also the basis of European fascism. Recent Left analysis proceeds from the
premise that Trump control of the corporate-state form is fascism, while capitalist class
control -- neoliberalism, is something else.
Lest this not have occurred, FDR's New Deal was state capitalism approach within the
framework of the corporatism (merge of corporations and a state) social formation. The only
widely known effort to stage a fascist coup in the U.S. was carried out by Wall Street titans
in the 1930s to wrest control from FDR before the New Deal was fully implemented. Put
differently, the people who caused the Great Depression wanted to control its aftermath. And
they were fascists.
More recently, the effort to secure capitalist control has been led by [neo]liberal
Democrats using Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDS) clauses in trade agreements. So that
identity warriors might understand the implications, this control limits the ability of
governments to rectify race and gender bias because supranational adjudication can overrule
them.
So, is race and / or gender repression any less repressive because capitalists control the
levers? Colonial slave-masters certainly thought so. The people who own sweatshops probably
think so. Most slumlords probably think so. Employers who steal wages probably think so. The
people who own for-profit prisons probably think so. But these aren't 'real' repression, are
they? Where's the animosity?
As political scientist Thomas Ferguson
has been arguing for decades and
Gilens and Page have recently chimed in, neither elections nor the public interest hold
sway in the corridors of American power. The levers of control are structural -- congressional
committee appointments go to the people with lots of money. Capitalist distribution controls
the politics.
The liberal explanation for this is 'political culture.' The liberal solution is to change
the political culture without changing the economic relations that drive the culture. This is
also the frame of identity politics. The presence of a desperate and destitute underclass
lowers working class wages (raising profits), but ending racism is a matter of changing
minds?
This history holds an important lesson for today's nascent socialists. The domestic programs
recently put forward, as reasonable and potentially useful as they are, resemble FDR's effort
to save capitalism, not end it. The time to implement these programs was when Wall Street was
flat on its back, when it could have been more. This is the tragedy of betrayal by Barack Obama
his voters.
Despite the capitalist rhetoric at the time, the New Deal wasn't 'socialism' because it
never changed control over the means of production, over American political economy. Internal
class differences were reduced through redistribution, but brutal and ruthless imperialism
proceeded apace overseas.
The best-case scenario looking forward is that Donald Trump is successful with
rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and that he throws a monkey wrench into the
architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward can be built when he's gone. If he
pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't nothing.
Otherwise, the rich have assigned the opining classes the task of defending their realm.
Step 1: divide the bourgeois into competing factions. Step 2: posit great differences between
them that are tightly circumscribed to prevent history from inconveniently intruding. Step 3:
turn these great differences into moral absolutes so that they can't be reconciled within the
terms given. Step 4: pose a rigged electoral process as the only pathway to political
resolution. Step 5: collect profits and repeat. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Rob Urie
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His bookZen Economicsis
published by CounterPunch Books.
"... I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management and ownership of the media. ..."
I posted this one to my facebook page three or four days ago. It's brilliant. I have a
few comments. First, I disagree with the analysis given by the fellow from the Duran in
the introduction, something along the lines of "even Anderson Cooper was smirking because
Cohen was demolishing Boot so badly".
If you pay attention to the questions and
statements, you find that Cooper is equally as unhinged as Boot is, first hammering on
the point that nobody knows what was discussed in the meeting, then after Cohen rattles
off a list, Cooper shifts to the "you're believing Vladimir Putin on this" tactic, a nail
that Cohen wisely smashes with a hammering statement, "I don't want to shock you, but I
believe Vladimir Putin on several things."
Cooper continues to insist that the content of
the meeting is unknown and unconfirmed, regardless of what Putin and Trump say. The sheer
hubris of journalists today is unprecedented and outrageous.
I do admit that Cooper shuts
up after being schooled by Cohen a second and third time and after Boot makes the mistake
of calling Cohen an apologist for Putin and Russia. This leads me to a second point.
I'm somewhat puzzled why Trump and his people, when referring to the "fake news" and
answering questions from hostile journalists, especially about the idea that the media
are "enemies of the American people", fail to bring up the fact that the "fake news" and
the "enemies of the people" are not the journalists themselves, but rather the management
and ownership of the media.
\This would accomplish two important things, both necessary,
in my opinion. First, it would put the front line journalists into their correct place,
telling them that they are really nothing but mouthpieces, and we know that the real
decisions on content are not made by them.
What a blow to their narcisstic self-esteem
that would be!
Second, it would give the American people more information on how their
consent is engineered, how the media has owners who have an agenda, and that agenda is
not related to improving the lives of the American people, or even keeping them informed
with accurate information.
"... "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit – terrible! Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an anti-Brexit campaigning group – that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!" ..."
"... "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of the break-up of the EU – and with it, potentially, western civilisation," ..."
"... "propaganda arms of the Russian government," ..."
"... "at the back of the queue" ..."
"... "This is not foreign interference This is not foreign interference!" ..."
"... " highly probable " ..."
"... "had conducted a thorough investigation around the Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference ." ..."
"... "Russian troll factory," ..."
"... "very low levels of engagement" ..."
"... "conspiracy theorist" ..."
"... "Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do with him." ..."
"... "I don't know that the public understands the gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States. They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," ..."
"... "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money " ..."
"... "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," ..."
You don't have to own a brand new £999 state-of-the art Hypocrisy Detector from
Harrods, to pick up on the double standards. Just having a few functioning brain cells and
thinking for yourself will do. For months in the UK we've been bombarded with
Establishment-approved conspiracy theories – peddled in all the 'best' newspapers –
that Russia somehow 'fixed' Brexit. Getting Britain to leave the EU was all part of a cunning
plot by Vladimir Putin, aka Dr. Evil, to weaken Europe and the 'free world.'
Even West End musical composer Andrew Lloyd-Webber, who knows quite a bit about phantoms,
seemed taken in by it. "By quitting Europe, I fear that we are hastening Putin's dream of
the break-up of the EU – and with it, potentially, western civilisation," the noble
Lord
declared in July.
Never mind that we don't have a single statement from Putin or other senior Kremlin figures
saying that they actually supported Brexit. These Establishment Russia-bashers know exactly
what The Vlad is thinking.
And never mind that RT and Sputnik, which we are repeatedly told are "propaganda arms of
the Russian government," ran articles by pro- and anti-Brexit writers. The same people who
told us Iraq had WMDs in 2003 were absolutely sure it was those dastardly Russkies who had got
Britain to vote 'leave.' The irony is of course that there was significant foreign interference
in Brexit. But it didn't come from Moscow.
Or Obama actually visiting the U.K. to urge people to vote Remain. Imagine if Putin did
the same for Leave!
The US has always wanted Britain to stay in the EU. In April 2016, two months before the
Referendum, President Obama made it clear what he wanted when he visited the UK. He warned that
if Britain exited the EU it would be "at the back of the queue" for trade deals with
the US
.
Just imagine if Putin had said that. The Russophobes would have spontaneously combusted.
Then of course there was the backing the Remain camp had from the giants of US capital.
Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan donated £500,000 each to the 'Britain Stronger in Europe'
group, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley – £250,000 each.
Again, repeat after me (with robotic arm movements): "This is not foreign interference
This is not foreign interference!"
You've got to see the funny side of this: all that hysterical fake news about 'Russian
interference' in Brexit & here we have one side receiving £400K from a US
billionaire who is part of the US political establishment. Is that not 'interference' ?!!
https://t.co/URzrB3ciLd
The point is not whether we are for or against Brexit. Or whether we think George Soros is a
malign influence who only acts out of self-interest or an old sweetie-pie with the good of
humanity at heart. The point is the double standards that are causing our Hypocrisy Detectors
to explode.
Let's think back to December 2016. Then, the pro-war and fiercely anti-Russian Labour MP Ben
Bradshaw told Parliament that it was "
highly probable " that Russia had interfered with Brexit.
Fourteen months on, what have we got? On Thursday, the global head of You Tube's public
policy, Juniper Downs, said her company "had conducted a thorough investigation around the
Brexit referendum and found no evidence of Russian interference
."
Twitter meanwhile says it detected 49 (yes, 49) accounts from what it claimed to be a
"Russian troll factory," which sent all of 942 messages about Brexit – amounting
to less than 0.005% of all the tweets about the Referendum. Twitter said the accounts received
"very low levels of engagement" from users. If the Kremlin had planned to use tweets
to persuade us to vote 'leave,' they didn't really put much effort into it, did they?
Finally, Facebook said that only three "Kremlin-linked" accounts were found which spent the
grand sum of 72p (yes, 72p) on ads during the Referendum campaign. Which amounts to the greater
"interference" ? 72p or £400K? Erm tough call, isn't it?
You might have thought, given his concern with 'foreign interference' in British politics,
that Ben Bradshaw would have been urging 'Best for Britain' to return George Soros' donation.
Au contraire! His only tweets about it were retweets of two critical comments about the Daily
Telegraph, and the BBC's coverage of the story. Conclusion: Those who rail about 'Russia
meddling in Brexit' but not Soros' intervention aren't concerned about 'foreign interference'
in UK politics, only 'foreign interference' from countries they don't approve of.
Those who are quite happy peddling ludicrous conspiracy theories about Russians shout
"conspiracy theorist" (or worse) at those who report factually on proven meddling from
others. The Daily Express hit the nail on the head in their Friday editorial which said:
"Just what does George Soros think he is doing pouring £400,000 into a campaign to
stop Brexit. For a start he is not actually a resident of this country so it has nothing to do
with him."
That really is the rub of the matter. And Bradshaw and co. have no adequate response except
to shoot the messenger.
If we look at the affair with an even wider lens, the hypocrisy is even greater. The US has
been gripped by an anti-Russian frenzy not seen since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy. The
unsubstantiated claim that Russia fixed the election for Donald Trump is repeated by 'liberals'
and many neocons too, as a statement of fact. "I don't know that the public understands the
gravity of what the Russians were able to do and continue to do here in the United States.
They've attacked us. They're trying to undermine our democracy," film director Rob Reiner
said
.
But the number one country round the world for undermining democracy and interfering in the
affairs of other sovereign states is the US itself.
While Establishment journos and pundits have been foaming at the mouth over 'Russiagate' and
getting terribly excited over 'smoking guns' which turn out – surprise, surprise –
to be damp squibs, there's been less attention paid to the boasts of former Vice President Joe
Biden on how he got the allegedly 'independent' Ukrainian government to sack its prosecutor
general in a few hours. "I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the
prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money "
"I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars," Biden
said during a meeting of
the US' Council on Foreign Relations. "Well, son of a b***h. He got fired."
Again, just imagine the furore if a leading Russian government figure boasted about how he
used financial inducements to get another country's Prosecutor General to be sacked. Or if a
tape was leaked in which the Russian Ambassador and a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson
could be heard discussing who should or shouldn't be in the new 'democratic' government of
another sovereign state. But we had the US Ambassador to Ukraine and the US Assistant Secretary of
State doing exactly that in 2014 – and the 'Russia is interfering in the Free World!'
brigade were as silent as a group of Trappist monks.
It's fair to say that Orwell would have a field day with the doublespeak that's currently on
show. The cognitive dissonance is there for all to see. Repeat After Me: Unproven Russian
interference – Bad. Proven interference from other external sources – Good. What's
your problem?
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit."
When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had.
At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won.
Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom.
Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all.
Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most
recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong
With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College
Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and
the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
"... While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
"... So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours. ..."
"... You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by DNC! Everybody knows... ..."
"... Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB ..."
"... Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats. ..."
It has been clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be
involved in 2018. It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the
Russian oligarchs.
However, Sanders had already committed the unforgivable
sin of criticizing the Democratic establishment candidate from the left. There is simply no way of coming back from that treason.
Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking
its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals
respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
It isn't just progressive politicians that are all traitors. Movements like Black Lives Matter are also traitors for Russia.
It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.
Hey, Bernie. The American people were the ones who should have decided who won the primary, not Hillary, the DNC and the delegates.
That you are blaming Her loss on Russia instead of admitting that the American people rejected her makes you nothing more than
a democratic puppet. How embarrassing for you.
Every Black voter should abandon the DP until they apologize for their disrespect for the BLM and saying that they only started
protesting cops killing Blacks because Russia manipulated them into doing so.
Eichenwald thinks that our intelligence agencies are patriots who have spent their lives working on keeping us safe does he?
I agree with Dmitry Orlov's take on them.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as
possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on
ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially
organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.
....
the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial,
economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest
single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your
own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself.
While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than
" a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. "
And let's not forget how many
coups
and false flag events they had a hand in creating that have cost so much misery and death.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, ŕ la 9/11, to fake false
flag operations, ŕ la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story
is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting
this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips.
It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy
theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
The real puppets are the ones who believe in this silly story that Russia is pulling Trump's strings and that the GOP are also
Russian puppets. Good grief!
The others show that there are others out there that have seen through this propaganda crap. I'd like to see the breakdown
of Hillary supporters that believe Russia Gate and the Bernie supporters that don't. Most of the Trump supporters think it's phony
so what made Hillary's believe in something that everyone should be laughing at?
You deserve a lot of credit. Russia interfered in your favor, yet you are man enough to admit that they interfered. Thank
you Bernie!
So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you
didn't seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours.
You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was
"deeply involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated
by DNC! Everybody knows...
Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't
need a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB
Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will
fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate
by the democrats.
The democrats (and media cohorts) have become an apocolyptic death cult. The language that comes from them is infused with
the language of conspiracies, violence, treason, aggression and demonization.
And here is the thing, Bernie to survive electorally will have to become a cult member. Effectively he will have to be pro-war
with Russia. He will be giving from the the Left supposed support for aggressive action andmilitarism toward Russia.
I fear that if a democrat becomes president in 2020 (it won't be Bernie), is elected president that in the year of the midterms
in 2022, the US will start a real war with Russia which has a highly likehood of going nuclear.
"... -- William Powell, The Anarchist Cookbook (1971), from memory ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... Finally there's the meeting that Assange's lawyer set up with congress for him to testify to congress and tell them where he got the DNC emails that showed how they rigged the primary. Comey and Schaffer shot that down because it would have killed Russia Gate. Dead and buried and the country could move on. ..."
"... In this case, it is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of FACT. The physical proof that we have right now tells us that the Wikileaks documents did not come from a "hack." We also have physical evidence that someone (no doubt Crowdstrike) manipulated copies of the leaked documents and embedded awkward amateurish evidence to make them look like they were taken by a "Russian" hacker. Here's how we know that: ..."
"... Assange's diplomatic trip to the US in mid-2017 to testify before Congress and prove where the documents came from was emergency-blocked by Comey and Rosenstein. As a consequence, Assange immediately released the extensive Vault 7 documents to the American people so we could forensically recognize the signature techniques that the US intelligence agencies would use to alter downloaded DNC documents and embed fake Russian "fingerprints." We have seen the physical evidence that that occurred. ..."
"... The US has no real physical evidence of a Russian hack or they would never have released the fake evidence. Yet they continue their attack to harm Russia's economy and the continue their attempts to provoke a hot war with Russia. The US motive for this has nothing to do with their fake hacking narrative; it is about crippling Russia (and China) to forestall the rapid rise of Eurasia, which is stripping the Neocons and war-profiteering corporations of their dream for the US to achieve total domination over all other nations. The Entitled Elite want their New American Century back! Their Empire was supposed to rule the world.... ..."
"... @Pluto's Republic ..."
"... While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. ..."
"... third run ..."
"... ~~Author Unknown ..."
"... ~~Martin Luther King Jr. ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... ~~Martin Luther King Jr. ..."
"... Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate by the democrats. ..."
Russiagate may technically be about Trump, but in fact most of the "traitors" and Putin Puppets are progressives on the left.
Russiagate officially started in 2015 long before
the DNC hack and the Democratic primaries.
Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin
Russiagate never was actually about Russia. It's the Democrats' version of Obama's birth certificate. As
Caitlin Johnstone puts it, Russiagate is 9/11 minus 9/11.
TWIT:
Kurt Eichenwald
@kurteichenwald
Bottom line: You either support the patriots in our intelligence community and law enforcement who work endlessly for our
national security, and all of the intelligence agencies of our allies, or you support Putin.
You're either a patriot, a traitor or an idiot. Choose.
10:51 AM-16 Jul 2018
In reality, Russiagate started with Ralph Nader and the
2000 election .
They said a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. You have a moral duty to vote for the Democrat and to be pragmatic. Your Naderite
purity came at the expense of the poor. Only affluent selfish white guys could afford this type of virtue signaling. In fact,
maybe some of these people were really Republicans in disguise. There were no Russian bots to blame just yet, but clearly some
liberals are unable to imagine good faith criticism of Democrats coming from the left.
The terms " virtue signaling", " purity pony", and of course "White Berniebro" weren't coined yet, but the the stereotype they
describe was formed in 2000. Gore lost and Nader and all his voters, in swing states or not, were vilified. They were worse than
Republicans. They were traitors. Of all the factors that caused Gore's loss, the only one that Democratic partisans really cared
about was Nader.
People that voted for Nader became responsible for the Iraq War, while Democrats who voted for Bush and the Iraq War got a free
pass. Liberals, besides their obvious double-standards when allocating responsibility, made the dubious claim that morality requires
being pragmatic in your voting. And then, as if to prove the basis of their claims to be false, they approach their target audience
in a non-pragmatic way.
The anger on open display is the opposite of pragmatic politics. They don't try to persuade people to vote for the Democrat. They
demand it. It is a moral litmus test, or rather, a judgement of one's very soul. Good people know they have to vote for the Democrat.
Bad people vote for Republicans and the very worst people of all claim to be left, but vote for Stein or maybe even voted for
Clinton, but criticized her. Democratic partisans have no interest in what you say about an issue if they perceive it as in any
way an attack or a criticism of a Democrat. If you are a third party advocate you can forget about being taken seriously on any
issue because you have already self identified as a Satanist and you need to be exorcised from the body politic. Even if you say
you support the Democrat as the lesser evil, you speak as one of the damned and deserve no mercy. Sanders played the game in 2016
exactly the way people said Nader should have played it and he and his supporters were still dismissed.
Like Nader before her, Stein is the absolute
worst traitor of all . Worse than Trump himself.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent. https://t.co/qkDUe6yADd
Maddow cast suspicion on Stein's silence over alleged Russian attempts to interfere with the election to benefit Donald Trump, who
she claimed during her own campaign would govern no differently than Hillary Clinton.
"So everybody's like, 'Wow, how come this like super, super aggressive opposition that we saw from these third-party candidates
-- how come they haven't said anything since this scandal has broken?'" Maddow said.
"I don't know, Jill -- I can't pronounce it in Russian," Maddow said, with apparent sarcasm.
Bernie Sanders, OTOH, did everything he was told he should do. He supported the Democratic establishment candidate, and believed
the Russiagate story.
It has been clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be
involved in 2018. It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the
Russian oligarchs.
However, Sanders had already committed the unforgivable
sin of criticizing the Democratic establishment candidate from the left. There is simply no way of coming back from that treason.
Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking
its readers, "When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals
respond?" The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the
failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.
It isn't just progressive politicians that are all traitors. Movements like Black Lives Matter are also traitors for Russia.
That's because you, Russia, funded riots in Ferguson. See 0 hour I have your connections to Trump archived via Schiller and
Scavino https://t.co/aTUDlCGkYi
If you are still confused about what is treason and what isn't, ask yourself the question: Does the issue advance the narrative
that the Democratic Party is a force for absolute good?
Oh my god: this is how deranged official Washington is. The President of the largest Dem Party think tank (funded in part by
dictators) genuinely believes Chelsea Manning's candidacy is a Kremlin plot. Conspiracy theorists thrive more in mainstream DC
than on internet fringes pic.twitter.com/e8g314iQHT
We still have the 2018 election, and then the long lead-up to the 2020 election. There is nothing to indicate that the rhetoric
won't get a lot more insane. The general indifference of the public doesn't seem to discourage the media and pundits. So how will
it likely look in Fall 2020? Probably like it looked in
1952 .
The purpose of advancing the Communist issue was not to fix the Communist problem -- it was to exploit that problem for political
and ideological advantage. That is how the Republican Party could produce its unhinged 1952 platform, which charged that the Democrats
"have shielded traitors to the Nation in high places," "work unceasingly to achieve their goal of national socialism," and "by
a long succession of vicious acts, so undermined the foundations of our Republic as to threaten its existence." (Does that kind
of talk strike you as overheated? Then you, too, are failing to take the Russia issue seriously.)
There is little to no danger for conservatives and Republicans. All of the danger is for progressives and socialists, and the
angry mob is the Democratic establishment trying to silence left-wing ideas. In comparison, the danger of the GOP to the left-wing
is trivial.
Russiagate officially started in 2015 long before the DNC hack and the Democratic primaries.
I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that people keep posting it as common knowledge and factual -- especially on this
site. Old dkos habits are hard to break, I guess. The speed at which the files were STOLEN prove it was done from within the network.
Not from Russia, or from a van parked down the street. I can only guess that the DNC can't reveal whose network account was used
to do so, because it would blow the bullshit lie of a hack out of the water.
The speed at which the files were STOLEN prove it was done from within the network. Not from Russia, or from a van parked
down the street. I can only guess that the DNC can't reveal whose network account was used to do so, because it would blow
the bullshit lie of a hack out of the water.
There was NO hack.
emphasis in original.
The term usually used by the perpetrator classes for this sort of thing is: "inside job" . And, as
with all other inside jobs, the question really is: "Who's the insider?"
"The easiest way to raise a revolutionary army is to use someone else's; especially if it belongs to your enemy." -- William Powell, The Anarchist Cookbook (1971), from memory
I've seen an article debunking the "hack was a leak" story, but it makes no difference anyway. In my book, the leak/hack just
created a more informed electorate, and that's good for American democracy.
@Deja
The truth is contained in the emails, not in their journey. Remember who else is telling you that the contents of the emails is
less important than how they got there - the Democrats.
@Deja
hypothesis has problems. Don't get me wrong, I think it holds more promise than the 'hack' hypothesis. But right now, really,
we got shit for proof either way? Would honestly look forward to your proof either way, sans the critique of the essayist. Might
I suggest that you criticize the point, not the person, please? Questions remain.
- DNC leak vs hack remains unproven (servers not provided)
- one party consent is complicated. On the tape, there was 3rd party on speaker phone. Were they in one party consent jurisdiction
as well?
- How was CNN able to confirm that this tape was recorded in NY?
in it. This is the point that matters to me. Assange has stated that the emails didn't come from Russia. Craig Murray said
that he was involved with the person who got the information from the DNC computers and that there was no connection to Russia.
The CIAs Vault 7 shows how evidence on computers can be manipulated to make it seem like someone's dawg did the deed. I think
it'd be very sloppy for trained hackers to leave their own footprints on the scene don't you think?
Finally there's the meeting that Assange's lawyer set up with congress for him to testify to congress and tell them where
he got the DNC emails that showed how they rigged the primary. Comey and Schaffer shot that down because it would have killed
Russia Gate. Dead and buried and the country could move on.
It matters profoundly. Knowing the facts surrounding critical political events or social earthquakes can be
epigenetic events. Hard truths can trigger conscious evolution while we are alive and your advanced gene expressions can be
physically inherited, changing the species.
By exercising our own critical thinking and working very hard to see through narratives to the core realities in the universe
and in all things -- we are physically evolving the species into better and more enlightened generations of humans.
In this case, it is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of FACT. The physical proof that we have right now tells us
that the Wikileaks documents did not come from a "hack." We also have physical evidence that someone (no doubt Crowdstrike) manipulated
copies of the leaked documents and embedded awkward amateurish evidence to make them look like they were taken by a "Russian"
hacker. Here's how we know that:
Assange's diplomatic trip to the US in mid-2017 to testify before Congress and prove where the documents came from was
emergency-blocked by Comey and Rosenstein. As a consequence, Assange immediately released the extensive Vault 7 documents to the
American people so we could forensically recognize the signature techniques that the US intelligence agencies would use to alter
downloaded DNC documents and embed fake Russian "fingerprints." We have seen the physical evidence that that occurred.
The US has no real physical evidence of a Russian hack or they would never have released the fake evidence. Yet they continue
their attack to harm Russia's economy and the continue their attempts to provoke a hot war with Russia. The US motive for this
has nothing to do with their fake hacking narrative; it is about crippling Russia (and China) to forestall the rapid rise of Eurasia,
which is stripping the Neocons and war-profiteering corporations of their dream for the US to achieve total domination over all
other nations. The Entitled Elite want their New American Century back! Their Empire was supposed to rule the world....
If that is what your instincts tell you, you should trust them. It's a biological imperative.
It is the American people who should be deciding the political future of our country, not Mr. Putin and the Russian oligarchs.
Hey, Bernie. The American people were the ones who should have decided who won the primary, not Hillary, the DNC and the delegates.
That you are blaming Her loss on Russia instead of admitting that the American people rejected her makes you nothing more than
a democratic puppet. How embarrassing for you.
Every Black voter should abandon the DP until they apologize for their disrespect for the BLM and saying that they only started
protesting cops killing Blacks because Russia manipulated them into doing so.
Eichenwald thinks that our intelligence agencies are patriots who have spent their lives working on keeping us safe does he?
I agree with Dmitry Orlov's take on them.
The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as
possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on
ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially
organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on.
....
the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic
and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflicts -- the largest single
continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your
own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you
are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than " a skeptical attitude
toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars. "
And let's not forget how many
coups
and false flag events they had a hand in creating that have cost so much misery and death.
One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, ŕ la 9/11, to fake false
flag operations, ŕ la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story
is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting
this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips.
It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy
theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.
The real puppets are the ones who believe in this silly story that Russia is pulling Trump's strings and that the GOP are also
Russian puppets. Good grief!
meaning the 'Russia Ruse'--IMO, has been an exercise in setting up a scenario under which the PtB can put in place a system
geared toward major social media 'censorship,' and, a face-saving exercise for FSC--just in case she decides to make a third
run in 2020. Heaven forbid!
Mollie/Blue Onyx (Reverting to my original handle)
"Every time I lose a dog, he takes a piece of my heart. Every new dog gifts me with a piece of his. Someday, my heart will
be total dog, and maybe then I will be just as generous, loving, and forgiving." ~~Author Unknown
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments
are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
"... has been an exercise in setting up a scenario under which the PtB can put in place a system geared toward major social
media 'censorship,'
Yup. Dan Coates directory of national intelligence came out and accused Russsia of engaging in a "messaging campaign". So how
does one stop this messaging campaign. Well, back in the day, the answer was to answer bad speech with more and better speech.
Well, with Russiagate both the media and dem/gop establishment have to come to demand censorship from the major social media
platforms. And they have responded. At first they actually didn't and thought the Russia charges were trivial. Until that is,
they were theatened by House and Senate reps. And then they hopped to it.
And just a number of days ago, Facebook proudly announced they took down some nefarious pages who seemed to be engaging in
a message campaign. And turns out they shut down a real group organizing an anti-fascist rally. There are other examples like
this.
The censorship will continue becoming more and more brazen. (BTW, youtube started ths process earlier demonitizing and hurting
a lot of popular, but alternative voices.)
BTW--the Young Turks showed the Coats clip and claimed "see the Russians are still hacking our elections".
I'm truly getting concerned regarding the direction our government appears to be taking when it comes to 'freedom of expression/speech.'
Strangely, many on the 'left' don't seem very concerned. Indeed, because the MSM is so intent on going after DT, many so-called
progressives--including the supposedly more liberal (cough, cough) lawmakers--have become major cheerleaders of the corporatist
media. Go figure.
Mollie/Blue Onyx (Reverting to my original handle)
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went." ~~Will Rogers
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments
are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." ~~Martin Luther King Jr.
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
as well as every other person in Trump's administration that is working against him. This is insubordination and if Trump continues
to let them run their mouths then I believe that he is in on this scam and is playing along with it. Why? Look at what has been
happening since he became president. From the increasing Russian sanctions to the internet censorship to the increased military
budget with money that goes to fighting cyber warfare and many other things that are being done because of this new and improved
false flag.
As you stated YouTube has been removing lots of videos, Facebook and Twitter have been censoring alternative media sites that
are not playing along with Russia Gate and Google changed its algorithms so that traffic to those sites are down up to 90% according
to WSWS.
I once thought that this would eventually be exposed for the scam it is, but not any more. It's here to stay. And just like
in 1984 where there was that place where history was changed to fit the narrative of the day, we are seeing that here. Things
that happened last decade are being blamed on Russia hacking. I wouldn't be surprised if the KKK and Jim Crow were blamed on Russia.
This is how out of control it's gotten. And I was so looking forward to seeing Rachel trying to explain to her viewers how she
got things so wrong.
@snoopydawg
His erratic actions are the perfect distraction for the capitalist pigs the same as the "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist Communist
Fascist Socialist Radical Leftist Feminazi SJW" crap that went on during the last capitalist puppet presidency. Either way, the
world still burns and the pigs make out like bandits in the process. Keeping the plebs at each other's throats is just a bonus
for them.
@snoopydawg
Remember whom you are discussing. Alas, you must be a Russian wolfhound to think R. Madcow could ever be wrong. Apologize, then
stand in the corner until after the midterms when the GRU hauls off recalcitrant Dims and Repugnants failing to swear fealty to
Vladimir Vladimirovich.
"Russiagate is like a mirage. It looks so real from a distance you'll swear it's there and mock anyone who says otherwise,
but once you get up close and examine its component parts you find it's made of nothing but innuendo, spin, unsubstantiated claims
and dishonest omissions.
2:45 PM · Aug 3, 2018"
"
@caitoz
·
Aug 3
Nothing wrong with wanting a full investigation. There's something very, very wrong with pressuring a US president to continually
escalate dangerous cold war tensions with a nuclear superpower without ever backing down based on an "idea" with no evidence.
"
@snoopydawg
Bernie will not be able to say "Oh evil Russia but let's not go to war with them." Diplomacy itself finally became full criminalized
and made tresonous when Trump meet Putin in Finland. Any level of moderation will be attacked as soft on Putin and treasonous.
And I write "pro-war" and not "anti-Russian". One cannot be anti-Russian in any moderate way. Being anti-Russian means supporting
a harsh and aggressive military stance toward their nation. The Russians are after all destroying Western civilization and this
cannot be meant with diplomacy.
And from what I can, every national democratic candidate for House and Senate will follow suite.
For reference, these are the only 10 senators who voted AGAINST giving Trump a $717 billion war budget:
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Ed Markey
Kirsten Gillibrand
Dick Durban
Kamala Harris
Jeff Merkley
Ron Wyden
Mike Lee (R)
Marco Rubio (R)
So much for #Resistance huh?
The others show that there are others out there that have seen through this propaganda crap. I'd like to see the breakdown
of Hillary supporters that believe Russia Gate and the Bernie supporters that don't. Most of the Trump supporters think it's phony
so what made Hillary's believe in something that everyone should be laughing at?
You deserve a lot of credit. Russia interfered in your favor, yet you are man enough to admit that they interfered. Thank
you Bernie!
So you plan to continue this McCarthy Russian BS? You didn't speak out when you got cheated in the primaries, and you didn't
seem to care that Hillary was using her own paid troll army. Integrity matters Bernie and you are losing yours.
You stopped speaking for me and millions of others when you caved to crooked HRC. No it was NOT clear that Russia was "deeply
involved in the election. What is CLEAR is your betrayal of your followers and cover up of the election fraud perpetrated by
DNC! Everybody knows...
Bernie, that's MIC propaganda. Stop helping it. There are millions of reasons Trump should not be president. We don't need
a hyped up corporate fairytale to make that point https://t.co/7FAwb47LtB
Democratic party jingoism in 2020 will be extra-ordinary with candidates each trying to out do each other how they will
fuck over Putin and the Russian nation. There will be a shit load of public loyalty testing against any third party candidate
by the democrats.
The democrats (and media cohorts) have become an apocolyptic death cult. The language that comes from them is infused with
the language of conspiracies, violence, treason, aggression and demonization.
And here is the thing, Bernie to survive electorally will have to become a cult member. Effectively he will have to be pro-war
with Russia. He will be giving from the the Left supposed support for aggressive action andmilitarism toward Russia.
I fear that if a democrat becomes president in 2020 (it won't be Bernie), is elected president that in the year of the midterms
in 2022, the US will start a real war with Russia which has a highly likehood of going nuclear.
TASS reported that August 1 was the
five year anniversary of Edward Snowden's being granted temporary asylum in the Russian
Federation. This happened after his release of an enormous trove of information showing
clandestine and illegal practices being carried out by the US intelligence agencies to gather
information on just about anyone in the world, for any – or no – reason at
all.
Edward Snowden, 35, is a computer security expert. In 2005-2008, he worked at the
University of Maryland's Center for Advanced Study of Language sponsored by the National
Security Agency (NSA) and at the global communications division at CIA headquarters in
Langley, Virginia. In 2007, Snowden was stationed with diplomatic cover at the US mission to
the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. In 2009, he resigned from the CIA to join the Dell
company that sent him to Hawaii to work for the NSA's information-sharing office. He was
particularly employed with the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm.
In June 2013, Snowden leaked classified information to journalists Glenn Greenwald and
Laura Poitras, which revealed global surveillance programs run by US and British intelligence
agencies. He explained the move by saying that he wanted to tell the world the truth because
he believed such large-scale surveillance on innocent citizens was unacceptable and the
public needed to know about it.
The Guardian and The Washington Post published the first documents concerning the US
intelligence agencies' spying on Internet users on June 6, 2013. According to the documents,
major phone companies, including Verizon, AT&T and Sprint Nextel, handed records of their
customers' phone conversations over to the NSA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
who also had direct access to the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Skype,
YouTube, Paltalk, AOL and Apple. In addition, Snowden's revelations showed that a secret
program named PRISM was aimed at collecting audio and video recordings, photos, emails and
information about users' connections to various websites.
The next portion of revelations , which was published by the leading newspapers such as
The Guardian, Brazil's O Globo, Italy's L'Espresso, Germany's Der Spiegel and Suddeutsche
Zeitung, concerned the US spying on politicians. In particular, it became known that the NSA
and Great Britain's Government Communications Headquarters intercepted the phone calls that
foreign politicians and officials made during the G20 summit in London in 2009. British
intelligence agencies particularly tried to intercept then Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev's phone calls. US intelligence monitored the phone calls of 35 world leaders,
including German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
According to the disclosed information, the NSA regularly gathered intelligence at the New
York and Washington offices of the European Union's mission. The agency also achieved access
to the United Nations' internal video conferences and considers the Vienna headquarters of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as one of its major targets for spying.
The leaks also uncovered details about the Blarney and Rampart-T secret surveillance
programs. Blarney, which started in 1978, is used to collect information related to
counter-terrorism, foreign diplomats and governments, as well as economic and military
targets. Rampart-T has been used since 1991 to spy on foreign leaders. The program is focused
on 20 countries, including Russia and China.
Snowden also let the world know that Germany's Federal Intelligence Service and Federal
Office for the Protection of the Constitution used the NSA's XKeyScore secret computer system
to spy on Internet users, monitoring their web activities. In addition, the NSA and Great
Britain's Government Communications Headquarters developed methods that allowed them to hack
almost all the encryption systems currently used on the Internet. Besides, the leaked
documents said that the NSA had secretly installed special software on about 100,000
computers around the globe that provided access to them and made cyber attacks easier. In
particular, the NSA used a secret technology that made it possible to hack computers not
connected to the Internet.
Portions of the information Snowden handed over to Greenwald and Poitras continue to be
published on The Intercept website .
According to edwardsnowden.com – a website commissioned by the Courage foundation
(dedicated to building support for Snowden), a total of 2,176 documents from the archive have
been published so far.
The NSA and the Pentagon claim that Snowden stole about 1.7 mln classified documents
concerning the activities of US intelligence services and US military operations. He is
charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense
information and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information
to an unauthorized person. He is facing up to ten years in prison on each charge.
As can be seen, Mr. Snowden's work is of extreme importance now in the connected Internet
age. But how is his life in Russia now?
Anatoly Kucherena, Edward Snowden's lawyer, has revealed some details of the renowned
whistleblower's life to Sputnik. According to him, Snowden has found a job, is actively
traveling around Russia and is continuing to learn the language.
Kucherena added that Snowden receives visits from his girlfriend, Lindsey Mills, and his
parents. When asked about the whistleblower's favorite place in Russia, his lawyer said that
he likes St Petersburg "a lot."
"He is doing alright: his girlfriend visits him, he has a good job and he's continuing to
study Russian. His parents visit him occasionally. [They] have no problems with visas. At
least they have never complained about having any trouble," the lawyer said.
After Snowden released classified NSA documents, he fled first to Hong Kong, then, on June
23, 2013, arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong. The whistleblower remained in the transit zone of
Sheremetyevo Airport until he was granted temporary asylum in Russia, which was later
prolonged to 2020.
So the US neoliberal establishment tried to sabotage Trump-Putin summit in doer to pursue "business as usual". In other words military-industrial
complex is in control of the USA government...
Notable quotes:
"... It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran. ..."
"... At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueď Skripal and his daughter, who, inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas. ..."
"... The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful. ..."
"... In opposition to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "), but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war. ..."
"... Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex? ..."
While the International Press distorted the content of the NATO Summit, the US establishment perfectly understood the unique
issue – the end of enmity with Russia. Thus disturbing the bilateral summit in Helsinki between the USA and Russia became its priority.
By all means possible, it had to prevent any rapprochement with Moscow.
We need to talk about everything, from commerce to the military, missiles, nuclear, and China " - this was how President Trump
began at the Helsinki Summit. " The time has come to talk in detail about our bilateral relationship and the international flashpoints
", emphasised Putin.
But it will not only be the two Presidents who will decide the future relationships between the United States and Russia.
It's no coincidence that, at the very moment when the President of the United States was about to meet with the President
of Russia, special prosecutor Robert Mueller III charged twelve Russians with having manipulated the US presidential elections by
hacking into the data networks of the Democratic party in order to hinder candidate Hillary Clinton. The twelve Russians, accused
of being agents of the military secret services (GRU), were officially defined as " conspirators ", and found guilty of " conspiracy
to the detriment of the United States ". Simultaneously, Daniel Coats, National Director of Intelligence and principal advisor to
the President in these matters, accused Russia of working to " undermine our basic values and our democracy ". He then sounded the
alarm about the " threat of cyber-attacks which have arrived at a critical point " similar to that which preceded 9/11, on behalf
not only of Russia, " the most aggressive foreign agent ", but also China and Iran.
At the same time, in London, British " investigators " declared that the Russian military secret service GRU, which had sabotaged
the Presidential elections in the USA, is the same service which poisoned ex-Russian agent, Sergueď Skripal and his daughter, who,
inexplicably, survived contact with an extremely lethal gas.
The political objective of these " enquiries " is clear – to maintain that at the head of all these " conspirators " is Russian
President Vladimir Putin, with whom President Donald Trump sat down at the negotiating table, despite vast bi-partisan opposition
in the USA. After the " conspirators " had been charged, the Democrats asked Trump to cancel the meeting with Putin. Even though
they failed, their pressure on the negotiations remains powerful.
What Putin tried to obtain from Trump is both simple and complex – to ease the tension between the two countries. To that purpose,
he proposed to Trump, who accepted, to implement a joint enquiry into the " conspiracy ". We do not know how the discussions on the
key questions will go – the status of Crimea, the condition of Syria, nuclear weapons and others. And we do not know what Trump will
ask in return. However, it is certain that any concession will be used to accuse him of connivance with the enemy. In opposition
to the easing of tension with Russia are not only the Democrats (who, with a reversal of formal roles, are playing the " hawks "),
but also many Republicans, among whom are several highly-important representatives of the Trump administration itself. It is the
establishment, not only of the US, but also of Europe, whose powers and profits are directly linked to tension and war.
It will not be the words, but the facts, which will reveal whether the climate of détente of the Helsinki Summit will become reality
- first of all with a de-escalation of NATO in Europe, in other words with the withdrawal of forces (including nuclear forces) of
the USA and NATO presently deployed against Russia, and the blockage of NATO's expansion to the East.
Even if an agreement on these questions were reached between Putin and Trump, would the latter be able to implement it? Or
will the real deciders be the powerful circles of the military-industrial complex?
One thing is certain – we in Italy and Europe can not remain the simple spectators of dealings which will define our future.
Manlio Dinucci
The conflict between transnational financial capitalism and productive national capitalism has entered into a paroxystic
phase. On one side, Presidents Trump and Putin are negotiating the joint defence of their national interests. On the other, the major
daily newspaper for the US and the world is accusing the US President of high treason, while the armed forces of the US and NATO
are preparing for war with Russia and China.
You have attacked our democracy. Your well-worn gamblers' denials do not interest us. If you continue with this attitude, we will
consider it an act of war." This is what Trump should have said to Putin at the Helsinki Summit, in the opinion of famous New
York Times editorialist Thomas Friedman, published in La Repubblica . He went on to accuse the Russian President of having
"attacked NATO, a fundamental pillar of international security, destabilised Europe, and bombed thousands of Syrian refugees, causing
them to seek refuge in Europe."
He then accused the President of the United States of having " repudiated his oath on the Constitution " and of being an " asset
of Russian Intelligence " or at least playing at being one.
What Friedman expressed in these provocative terms corresponds to the position of a powerful internal and international front
(of which the New York Times is an important mouthpiece) opposed to USA-Russia negotiations, which should continue with the
invitation of Putin to the White House. But there is a substantial difference.
While the negotiations have not yet borne fruit, opposition to the negotiations has been expressed not only in words, but especially
in facts.
Cancelling out the climate of détente at the Helsinki Summit, the planetary warmongering system of the United States is in the
process of intensifying the preparations for a war reaching from the Atlantic to the Pacific:
After the landing of an US armoured brigade in Anvers, totalling a hundred tanks and a thousand military vehicles, a US aerial
brigade landed in Rotterdam with sixty attack helicopters. These forces and others, all of them USA/NATO, are deployed along the
borders of Russian territory, in the framework of operation Atlantic Resolve , launched in 2014 against " Russian aggression.
" In its anti-Russian function, Poland asked for the permanent presence of an armoured US unit on its own territory, offering
to pay between 1.5 - 2 billion dollars per year.
At the same time, NATO is intensifying the training and armament of troops in Georgia and Ukraine, candidates for entry into
membership of the Alliance on the frontiers with Russia.
Meanwhile, the US Congress received with all honours Adriy Parubiy, founder of the National-Social Party (on the model of
Adolf Hitler's National-Socialist Party), head of the neo-Nazi paramilitary formations employed by NATO in the Maďdan Square putsch.
NATO command in Lago Patria (JFC Naples) – under the orders of US Admiral James Foggo, who also commands the US naval forces
in Europe and those in Africa – is working busily to organise the grand-scale exercise Trident Juncture 18 , in which will
participate 40,000 military personnel, 130 aircraft and 70 ships from more than 30 countries including Sweden and Finland, which
are NATO partners. The exercise, which will take place in October in Norway and the adjacent seas, will simulate a scenario of
" collective defence " - naturally enough, against " Russian aggression. "
In the Pacific, the major naval exercise RIMPAC 2018 (27 June to 2 August) is in full swing - organised and directed
by USINDOPACOM, the US Command which covers the Indian and Pacific oceans – with the participation of 25,000 sailors and marines,
more than 50 ships and 200 war-planes.The exercise – in which France, Germany and the United Kingdom are also participating –
is clearly directed against China, which Admiral Phil Davidson, commander of USINDOPACOM, defines as a "major rival power which
is eroding the international order in order to reduce the access of the USA to the region and thus become hegemonic."
When Trump meets Chinese President Xi Jinping, Friedman will no doubt accuse him of connivance not only with the Russian enemy,
but also with the Chinese enemy. Manlio Dinucci
Princeton, Harvard Law, Oxford law studies, six years in the navy, appointed by Reagan. This
is a hard fellow to talk your way around in a courtroom.
Sayings from TS Ellis:
"Don't roll your eyes at me." (to Mueller's crew in court.
"My wife thinks your statement that you might not call Rick Gates as a witness is funny.
Without him you do not have a case." (to the Muelleristas)
paraphrasing "You don't want Manafort. You are here to impeach the president."
"We do not try people for being rich, or throwing their money around." (in response to
Muellerite fascination with Manafort's lack of taste in throwing money around.)
"Sometimes prosecutors seek to make a witness sing. In others they seek to make them
compose."
Ellis' federal courthouse (Eastern District of Virginia) is about half a mile from my house.
I spent a lot of time there as a consultant and expert witness. I hope to never see the inside
of the place again.
IMO Ellis is going to do something dramatic with the Manafort case that is now in his court.
If he tosses the whole thing that will gut Mueller as a factor in The Resistance. pl
Sir,
I've been following this. Seeing the same things you are. Fascinating that this case has gone
to trial so quickly. If Ellis tosses the case or Manafort is found not guilty, then IMO,
Mueller is finished. This could happen well before the mid-terms. Ellis will provide some
quote worthy statements in throwing the case out that will be used to help justify getting
rid of Mueller; will help it stick and help Trump with the fallout of the s__t canning. Part
of me can't believe that Mueller would be so foolish as to put his part of the coup, and his
reputation, at such risk, but another part says that the coup has always been built on shaky
methods by sketchy incompetent people. If Mueller goes, then other dominoes begin to fall.
I hope so, I have always thought the US more corrupt than most suppose, recent events have
proven this, but I have always thought America one of the few places the rule of law
prevails, where a man can get a fair trial, this needs to be proven. Ellis sounds an
impressive character, a throw back to the Virginia gentry that has produced many notable
historical figures, let us hope he doesn't disappoint.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov will meet U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a
proponent of encouraging diplomacy with Russia amid tense relations, in Moscow on Aug. 6, the
senator's office said on Thursday.
"Senator Rand Paul is a proponent of diplomacy and is supporting President Donald J.
Trump in engaging around the world. He looks forward to his meetings," Paul's office said in a
statement on Thursday. No further information was available about the trip, including who else
might be in the delegation.
####
Bill intends to sanction Russian 'oligarchs,' restrict energy projects
The Russian Ruble dropped Thursday to a near-term low after bipartisan US senators
announced what they are calling a "bill from hell" round of new sanctions and restrictions
targeting the Russian economy and leadership.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the leading proponents of the bill, said the massive
present US sanctions against Russia have failed, saying that all of these new sanctions are
needed to "punish" Russia.
As currently envisioned, the sanctions target a number of top Russian politicians and
"oligarchs." The bill also aims to severely restrict Russia's ability to raise sovereign debt,
and to restrict their ability to seek investment in energy projects.
There is no timeline for a vote on the bill yet, but reportedly some senators are also
lining up to offer amendments adding yet more sanctions or other measures against Russia. This
could go on for quite awhile, with almost the whole Senate looking to one-up each other on
being anti-Russia these days, and could mean an actual vote won't happen.
####
It looks to me that with the mid-terms coming up and showing diplomacy with Russia not
taking a hit with Republican voters, this further push by Rand Paul looks to make the Dems look
and sound even more extreme, maybe drawing disgusted voters to the Republican camp..
This is just America pretending to itself that it controls the global economy and that it can
strangle any country economically at a time of its choosing – I am frankly surprised to
see them continually trying harder when their efforts to date have had such negligible
success. I suppose the Senate needs something to do to make itself look busy and necessary.
But all this will achieve is further cementing of America as an enemy of Russia in the eyes
of ordinary Russians – should a future US government decide that was a mistake, and
soft power is the way to go, it will not be able to make any progress for around 50 years,
and a great deal of hard work and careful relationship-building has been thrown away.
American businesses must be finding it increasingly difficult to continue operations in
Russia, and Asian companies must be acing them out for market
share . Altogether a continuing exercise in stupidity and willful blindness – if
America wants to destroy Russia, it is eventually going to have to take it on in a head-on
military confrontation. Because its efforts to destroy it economically are failing and will
continue to fail. Not to mention that they are building sympathy around the world –
outside North America – for Russia. America has to understand that while it is enjoying
playing "I'm crushing Russia", it has consequences and it will not be able to make things up
for a generation.
I'm not quite sure what Paul thinks he might achieve with this, but he certainly is not
going to make any friends in Russia, and he certainly is not going to have any leverage to
make changes in American policy so long as the Russophobic majority has the bit in its teeth.
He's basically just wasting the taxpayers' money on a junket to Moscow. Alternatively, he
might be going to measure Russian desperation, to see if there is any possibility the country
can be brought to its knees without having to fight it.
"... The vilification of alternative, dissenting views or linking those views to a foreign power -- in many people's views, an implacably hostile foreign power -- is the degradation of our political media culture. When Rand Paul, who is interesting on foreign policy, reminds, as The New York Times has over the last -- you know, that America has meddled in other countries' elections, has interfered, has overthrown countries' governments, and MSNBC contributors tweet "traitor"? ..."
"... - it's dangerous when you have a suffocating consensus instead of a full, robust debate. ..."
"... But I think what -- the tweeting, to call someone a traitor because they have a point of you don't agree with, we're in a dangerous territory. ..."
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL : I think what Trump did on this trip, between Europe and the Helsinki
summit, is he played to his base. He's reconfiguring the Republican Party so that it becomes
more consistent with its isolationist roots, its roots as going it alone, not tethered by
international institutions, and also sympathetic to strongmen. I mean, I think Trump is more a
con man than a strongman, but he certainly has an affinity. I don't have much use for those who
say, "Look, he's guilty, because he never says a bad word about Putin." Problem is, he never
says a bad word about Bibi Netanyahu, doesn't say a bad word about the Saudi leaders, nor does
he say a bad word about the murderous Duterte in the Philippines. So he does have an affinity
for those strongmen, which I think does lead him and guide a kind of foreign policy. So we
need, as small-D democrats, to counter and not accept -- what I talked to Amy about last week
-- the failed bipartisan foreign policy establishment as our default. We should not go back to
policing the world, indispensable nation, but instead have a demilitarized foreign policy that
truly deals with the challenges of our time, which most of are not going to be met with a
military solution.
... ... ...
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL : The vilification of alternative, dissenting views or
linking those views to a foreign power -- in many people's views, an implacably hostile foreign
power -- is the degradation of our political media culture. When Rand Paul, who is interesting
on foreign policy, reminds, as The New York Times has over the last -- you know, that
America has meddled in other countries' elections, has interfered, has overthrown countries'
governments, and MSNBC contributors tweet "traitor"?
And I would also mention Glenn Greenwald.
We talked of him earlier. Malcolm Nance, a very ubiquitous commentator on MSNBC on intelligence
and other issues, said Glenn was -- I'm going to read it, because it's so outrageous -- "an
agent of Trump & Moscow deep in the Kremlin's pocket." This is -- we've seen this in our
history before. And I think it is -- it's dangerous when you have a suffocating consensus
instead of a full, robust debate.
And it should be about issues. Juan is right. When we fix so much on personalities, we're
feeding the beast, we've seen, of media malpractice, this obliteration of the line between news
and entertainment, the conglomeratization, the decimation of local news.
These are issues which
collide with an administration which does want to delegitimize public accountability, if they
know public accountability journalism, delegitimize any check on abuses. And we, as
representatives of a media which seek to speak to the issues, seek debate, to foster, not
police, debate, need to stand up and continue to do our work despite these fake news and --
people are despairing about the issue of news, about facts, about -- anyway.
But I think what
-- the tweeting, to call someone a traitor because they have a point of you don't agree with,
we're in a dangerous territory.
NOAM CHOMSKY : So, take, say, the huge issue of interference in our pristine elections. Did
the Russians interfere in our elections? An issue of overwhelming concern in the media. I mean,
in most of the world, that's almost a joke. First of all, if you're interested in foreign
interference in our elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in
the balance as compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous
support. Israeli intervention in U.S. elections vastly overwhelms anything the Russians may
have done, I mean, even to the point where the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu, goes
directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with
overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies -- what happened with Obama
and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress
trying to -- calling on them to reverse U.S. policy, without even informing the president? And
that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence. So if you happen to be interested in
influence of -- foreign influence on elections, there are places to look. But even that is a
joke.
I mean, one of the most elementary principles of a functioning democracy is that elected
representatives should be responsive to those who elected them. There's nothing more elementary
than that. But we know very well that that is simply not the case in the United States. There's
ample literature in mainstream academic political science simply comparing voters' attitudes
with the policies pursued by their representatives, and it shows that for a large majority of
the population, they're basically disenfranchised. Their own representatives pay no attention
to their voices. They listen to the voices of the famous 1 percent -- the rich and the
powerful, the corporate sector. The elections -- Tom Ferguson's stellar work has demonstrated,
very conclusively, that for a long period, way back, U.S. elections have been pretty much
bought. You can predict the outcome of a presidential or congressional election with remarkable
precision by simply looking at campaign spending. That's only one part of it. Lobbyists
practically write legislation in congressional offices. In massive ways, the concentrated
private capital, corporate sector, super wealth, intervene in our elections, massively,
overwhelmingly, to the extent that the most elementary principles of democracy are undermined.
Now, of course, all that is technically legal, but that tells you something about the way the
society functions. So, if you're concerned with our elections and how they operate and how they
relate to what would happen in a democratic society, taking a look at Russian hacking is
absolutely the wrong place to look. Well, you see occasionally some attention to these matters
in the media, but very minor as compared with the extremely marginal question of Russian
hacking.
And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for
whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he's perfectly right when he says we should have
better relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes --
Russia shouldn't refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst
crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But
they shouldn't refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn't refuse to deal with
them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just
absurd. We have to move towards better -- right at the Russian border, there are very extreme
tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war,
terminal for the species and life on Earth. We're very close to that. Now, we could ask why.
First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it's
because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises
to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded
right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama. The U.S. has offered to bring
Ukraine into NATO . That's the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns. So, yes,
there's tensions at the Russian border -- and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those
are all issues that should be of primary concern. The fate of -- the fate of organized human
society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to
these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem
to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.
... ... ...
And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for
whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he's perfectly right when he says we should have better
relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes -- Russia
shouldn't refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst crime of
the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But they shouldn't
refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn't refuse to deal with them for whatever
infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to
move towards better -- right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could
blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the
species and life on Earth. We're very close to that. Now, we could ask why. First of all, we
should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it's because NATO expanded
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev,
mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border,
expanded further under Obama. The U.S. has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO . That's the kind
of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns. So, yes, there's tensions at the Russian border
-- and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary
concern. The fate of -- the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species,
depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether
Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.
As part of the propaganda campaign to discredit and isolate Russia, the UK and the Ukraine,
stalwart flunkies of Washington, accused Moscow of assassinations by poison and bullets. Both
alleged victims appeared live and well in due time!
On March 4, 2018, the Prime Minister of the UK Theresa May claimed that Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Russian secret agents. Foreign Secretary Boris "Bobo"
Johnson called the poison, 'the most-deadly agent known to man' (sic) – Novichok.
According to "Terry and Bobo" the poison kills in 30 seconds. Two months later Sergei and Yulia
were seen taking a stroll in a park.
The fake charges were promoted by the entire Anglo-Americans mass media. The UK proceeded to
charge Putin with 'crimes against humanity' , backed additional diplomatic and economic
sanctions, increased military spending for homeland defense and urged President Trump to take
forceful action. Once the 'victims' 'rose from the dead' the media never questioned the
regime's claim of a Russian conspiracy planned at the highest level.
The UK scored a few trivial merit points from Washington, which, however, did not prevent
President Trump from slapping a double-digit tariff on British steel and aluminum exports (with
more to come)!
The Ukraine joined the line of toadies trying to secure President Trump's approval by
cooking up another Russian murder plot. This time Ukraine leaders claimed Kremlin agents
assassinated one Arkady Babchenko, an anti-Russian journalist and self-proclaimed exile in
Kiev.
On May 29, 2018, Arkady was found 'murdered' or so said the Ukraine President Petro
Poroshenko and repeated, embellished and circulated by the entire western mass media.
On May 31, a wide-eyed 'Arkady' turned up alive and claiming his 'resurrection' was a
planned plot to catch a Russian agent!
Western regimes systematic use of lies, plots and conspiracies are central to the imperial
drive for world power.
In Syria, the US accused Damascus of using poisonous gas against its own people in order to
justify NATO's terror bombing of Aleppo's civilian population!
In Libya, Obama and Clinton claimed President Gaddafi distributed Viagra to his armed forced
to rape innocent civilians, precipitating the US-EU terror bombing of the country and rape and
murder of President Ghaddafi.
The question is whether western leaders will seek papal recognition of CIA directed
resurrections to coincide with Easter?
Manafort situation now is difficult. But the crimes he is accused of were committed
outside the election campaign period. He has some chances to fight them with a good
lawyers team claiming the Mueller exceeded his mandate and engaged in the witch hunt
against Trump.
If we assume that Mueller is a hired gun of Clinton wing of Democratic Party, and his
appointment was a gambit to impeach Trump, then he is also in a difficult position.
1. Now a lot of people started raising unpleasant questions about his role in 911
cover-up. So he is investigated too.
2. After spending taxpayers money for more than a year, the results were questionable.
He suffered greatly from Strzokgate and Steele dossier saga,
3. As Hillary aptly said" If that bastard wins, we all hang from nooses!" so I would
assume that Trump digs out some skeletons too.
4. If Rosenstein falls, Mueller is cooked. There are some people who would like to
take revenge, and without "Lord-protector" in the Justice Department, he is very
vulnerable.
5. The direct interference of the intelligence agencies in the election and derailing
Sanders now make all Russiagate saga a double-edged sword. There is also "the Sword of
Damocles" over Dems due to Avan brothers scandal. Those can be played strategically.
So this catfight between two factions of the US neoliberal elite might be very
interesting to watch.
In any case, Russiagate is just a smoke screen to cover the huge crack in the
neoliberal state façade.
robert Waldmann , August 1, 2018 10:13 am
@Likbez, what Joel said (with compliments for the topical reference to Virginian
congressional campaigns). Mueller is a lifetime Republican appointed bt lifetime Republican Rod
Rozenstrein who was appointed by sometimes Democrat Donald Trump.
The probability that "is a hired gun of Clinton wing of Democratic Party" is, like the
probability that you are a butterfly, one of those cases which help us decide if we can believe
that a probability can really be exactly exactly zero.
For that reason only, your comment is not off topic.
likbez , August 1, 2018 3:18 pm
@Robert Waldmann August 1, 2018 10:13 am
@Likbez, Mueller is a lifetime Republican appointed bt lifetime Republican Rod Rosenstein
who was appointed by sometimes Democrat Donald Trump.
This is just a deflection. Nobody can deny that we observe a fight between two factions of
the US elite. Which is about the direction of the country. Russiagate is just a smoke
screen.
And Mueller actions talk louder than words, or this superficial detail of his resume
(Democratic Party after Bill Clinton can well be renamed into Moderate Republican Party).
Look at the composition of Mueller team and try to find people who might be sympathetic to
Trump platform (not that he lasted long; he betrayed it in three month in office). All the team
consists exclusively of rabid Clinton supporters. Who knows what is their main task without the
necessity of Mueller telling them anything. And as we all know "Personnel is policy."
Now tell me again that he is a lifelong Republican ;-)
Also being a Republican (and moreover, being the head of FBI after 911, and one of the
architects of transition of the USA into national security state) does not exclude actions
against detractors from neoliberal globalization and neoliberalism even if they are fellow
Republicans.
His loyalty is not to the Republican party, but to neoliberalism and Neoconservatism
including neoliberal globalization, which is assaulted by Trump. Looks how smoothly neocons
aligned with the Democratic Party during and after the elections.
McFaul lies. and that raises question about his connections to intelligence agencies as
well.
In no way a regular businessman would lobby for Magnitsky act, using false evidence and
blatant lies (for example that Magnitsky was a lawyer; Browder admitted that this is a lie in his
court deposition. This was yet another false flag operation with fingerprints of MI6
It really is peculiar what's happened to these dimwit Dems. I used to listen to Thom
Hartmann and Rachel Maddow when they were on Air America, and their main political positions
were for working people. Now, all they do is partisan politics which they don't seem to
understand benefits only the Deep State war party.
Incidentally, State of the Nation website, http://www.sott.net , has an article by Alex Krainer, who wrote
the book about Bill Browder's crooked dealings in Russia. His book, which was suppressed by
Browder first, i think is "Grand Deception", now available from Red Pill Press for $25 (and
must be selling well because it's being reprinted). I wrote this hastily but you'll see it on
sott.net. Russia's resurgence under Putin is nothing short of astounding.
Also, there is a video on Youtube, "The Rise of Putin and the Fall of the Russian Jewish
Oligarchs", 2 parts. I only saw the beginning showing how the Russian people were given state
vouchers that led to the oligarchs buying them up for their own profit and plunging Russians
into shock therapy disaster instigated by IMF and other US led monetary agencies including
Harvard. This is why it is so incredible how Americans receive political "perception control"
when the truth is exactly opposite of what they are being told. At least more people are
realizing the lies being told about Russia and Putin.
I think he behaved very well towards this lady. He was polite and respectful and open. I
believe everything he said. We need more like him. I do not believe for a moment all the
rubbish in the news. Its quite clearly from lack of evidence (re the UK incident) or proper
dialogue that the reason for those accusing Russia is purely political and Anti-Russia as per
usual.
"... Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the probe ..."
"... Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud surrounding, among other deals, Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star called Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took place. - WSJ ..."
Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen
engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate
clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the
probe .
Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud
surrounding, among other deals,
Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star called
Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump,
according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took place. -
WSJ
BROWDER MOVIE. A Russian documentary maker believed everything Browder said and started a
film to justify him. As it progressed, he discovered anomalies and came to realise the story
was false.
See here . It is moving around the Net now and it's worth looking for because Browder's
story is a primary founding myth of the Putin hysteria. The film is fatal to Browder's
story.
In the latest effort to punish Moscow over alleged election meddling, as well its role in both Ukraine
and Syria, a bipartisan bill has been introduced in the Senate Thursday that
seeks to be so
far reaching that it's being widely described as "crushing".
Predictably, it has as
sponsors such Congressional hawks as Senators Bob Menendez, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham
--
the
latter which announced the bill's goal is to "
impose crushing sanctions and other measures
against Putin's Russia
until he ceases and desists meddling in the U.S. electoral process,
halts cyber-attacks on US infrastructure, removes Russia from Ukraine, and ceases efforts to create
chaos in Syria," according a
statement
.
Via Google News
According to lawmakers' statements,
the
Graham-Menendez bill introduces harsh new restrictions on sectors ranging from energy and oil projects
to uranium imports and on sovereign debt transactions.
And the new sanctions further target
various Russian political figures and oligarchs.
Bob Menendez (D) of New Jersey
called the measure
the
"next step in tightening the screws on the Kremlin"
so
Putin understands
"that the U.S. will not tolerate his behavior any longer."
Other supporters include Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
among those previously mentioned.
In a statement Sen. John McCain said, "Until Putin pays a serious price for his actions, these
attacks on our democracy will only grow.
This bill would build on
the strongest sanctions
ever imposed on the Putin regime
for its assault on democratic institutions, violation
of international treaties, and siege on open societies through cyberattacks and misinformation
campaigns."
Notably, part of the legislation would
require the State Department to make an assessment
on
whether Russia should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism
.
It might have trouble passing, however, as even though
a broad spectrum of legislators have
lately criticized President Trump for meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki last month
and have charged Russia with seeking to interfere in US elections, there's concern that it could
inadvertently impact markets beyond Russia's borders. It would further have to pass the House of
Representatives before going to Trump's desk.
The Banking and Foreign Relations Committees are planning hearings in advance of legislation
coming to the floor. Some senators have expressed concern new sanctions might go too far or not
succeed in getting Putin to change course.
The Treasury Department has warned Congress against legislation that would block
transactions and financing for Russian sovereign debt in part
because of the pain
it would wreak across markets outside Russia's borders
.
The bill is considered the broadest and most far reaching of any Russia sanctions bill previously
considered. Sen. Graham had recently described that it would include everything but "the kitchen
sink."
Meanwhile
the ruble and Russian local bonds were shaken moments after the bipartisan
legislation was announced Thursday
:
the ruble traded down by as much as 0.9 percent
against the dollar, and bond yields jumped to the highest level since July last year.
"... It is a sham since no evidence of election influence by the Russians was provided and no preventive or corrective measures our government is taking to prevent Emmanuel Goldstein (The Russians) from further attacking and usurping our elections was put forth. ..."
Today on ABC Martha Raddatz hosted "This Week" which featured James Lankford a Republican
from Oklahoma describing how Russia and Putin were actively trying to ruin our democracy and
also were trying to influence elections at every possible turn. The Russian Bear and Putin
according to Lankford were also trying to rewrite the Constitution, trying to upend every
election and were seeking to disrupt our national electrical grid not to be confused with our
national election grid which they were also trying to destroy as well as to control the most
local elections by a means of electronic control that was beyond any means to control.
Of course no mention was made about possible solutions to thwart the Russians was
mentioned and it is doubtful that there are any serious efforts to counteract the alleged
Russian hacking of US elections since not one single preventive action to stop the Orwellian
monster of Russia, like Emmanuel Goldstein in Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty Four" was put
forth.
Apparently ABC and the other media are trying to convince Americans that there is an
overwhelming force in Russia that is somehow able to infiltrate and control all our national
elections. Apparently the Russians are unstoppable.
It is a sham.
It is a sham since no evidence of election influence by the Russians was provided and
no preventive or corrective measures our government is taking to prevent Emmanuel Goldstein
(The Russians) from further attacking and usurping our elections was put forth.
Instead the publishers of "This Week" on ABC were content to provide evidence-free
incriminations of Russia and attribute all manner of influence in our elections to the
incredibly sneaky and unstoppable Russian-Putin election Influencing machine which is
unstoppable by our intelligence agencies.
What is missing from Martha Radditz's show? There will never be any admission that they
have jobs because of Citizens United, their corporate benefactors (Koch Industries),
Gerrymandering, Dark Money, Media Bias which ensures that the Iron Triangle of corporate
election dark money flows to hand picked political candidates that will support conservative
causes or that these are the real election influencing mechanisms which have the most power
in our country to influence elections.
As long as ABC, NBC, CBS and other cable news shows fail to correctly identify the real
reasons of election corruption which is our very near and dear corporate money funded
political organizations we will continue to be duped by the free press to believe that Russia
has control over our national elections and not believe that US Corporations hold all the
power.
Thanks to Norman for reminding us of the continued waste of time and effort on the
'russiagate' stories based on allegations and indictments, NOT evidence or possible reasons
for such behavior. The USA is fully capable of unfair election practices, helped by the
undemocratic system of electoral college, partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, lack of
response to voter desires .plus of course Israel being the very large external factor.
Trump's influence on workers, environment, USA's reputation are negative, but blaming Russia
when this is in nobody's real interest is hardly the way forward for the Democratic
Party.
Realist , July 27, 2018 at 9:26 pm
All those loons you mentioned are effectively practicing a religion, in which there is a
dogma everyone must believe to be virtuous and a set of commandments every believer must live
by to gain salvation. Don't toe the line on every bit of it and you are rejected as an
apostate.
I'm surprised that some of those folks, notably Thom Hartmann, choose not to practice what
they preach -- you know, the platitudes about studying the facts and coming to your own
conclusions rather than following the herd. They rightly condemn acting on prejudice, out of
pure self-interest, without verifiable facts (indeed at odds with empirical fact) and using
group intimidation, as per McCarthyist tactics, and then they go ahead and embrace those
vices to their own ends.
It is my process on everything in this life to learn as much as I can on my own, without
being brainwashed by any group or movement, and only backing a cause if it is congruent with
my own conclusions. Unfortunately, most people do the opposite: they are joiners first and
analysts only if their biases are not threatened.
I feel entirely justified in agreeing with movements on some things and not others. I
doubt that human beings have arrived at definitive answers about most phenomena in the real
world or that any single organised group of us has it all down accurate and pat on
everything. Listen to any casual debate on the questions big and small in science: the give
and take, back and forth, can go on as long as the participants have the interest and energy.
I never give my interlocutors any respite, because there is always one more thing to be
considered or one more way of looking at a problem. I'm sure I would have been burned at the
stake in many previous lives and so would a lot of the readers here.
Eddie , July 27, 2018 at 11:26 pm
Yes, good points Drew. I view Maddow as a liberal Rush Limbaugh, trying to win a Leni
Riefenstahl award from the DNC, and having to be satisfied with her purported $9M/yr salary
(which definitely DOES buy a LOT of co-opting).
In support of your argument, I would add that ultimately we should be voting for a
candidate based on his/her POLICIES, as evidenced by their prior political voting record and
whatever political actions they've taken, NOT based on what they SAY they believe -- that's
1st period high school civics as I recall. It's too easy for candidates to say this or that
during a campaign. Trump's policy of detente w/Russia, is -- like the proverbial 'blind
squirrel who occasionally finds a nut' -- probably random chance or perhaps a way to
penetrate a relatively untapped market with his hucksterism. But so what?? For something as
IMPORTANT as NOT having a nuclear war, I'm all for any honest, significant efforts in that
direction. Even Nixon, whose presidency I disliked greatly, did a good thing by 'going to
China' -- I don't recall anybody on the liberal side at that time saying he was Mao's dupe or
foolishness like that. Did Nixon do it as a cynical ploy to draw attention away from other
political problems, and did he previously help aggravate/perpetuate a lot of the conflict
w/China? Sure, but the act of rapprochement w/China was in-and-of-itself desirable and
laudable in that it moved the world a major step AWAY from possible nuclear war. And
full-scale nuclear war trumps (no pun intended) virtually all other problems, with the
possible exception of climate change, so a POTUS should devote extra energy to that task.
Ideally, they should be ramping down the militarism and nationalism, but unfortunately those
are campaign tactics that are too easy for either major party to set aside (with 1/2 the
fault lying in the electorate who too often endorses those 'isms).
Re-reading this today for some reason really popped a few things up for me. The first one
right in my face was: "Now, after a remarkable 46-minute news conference on foreign soil
where Trump stood side by side with a former KGB agent to praise his 'strong' denials of
election interference and criticize the FBI, those strategists believe the ground may have
shifted."
Can someone explain to me what the hell "foreign soil" has to do with the price of tea in
China? Trump has given plenty of pressers "on foreign soil" but that phrase nor anything like
it is ever mentioned. Trump stood side by side with a former KGB agent.
Talk about a lack of respect and blatant bias. He stood side by side with the
democratically elected President of the Russian Federation who, by the way, won his election
by a clear majority of the vote unlike Mr. Trump who would have lost the election had it been
held in Russia. One wonders what would have happened had WaPo and the NYT said something like
Russian President Gorbachev stood side by side with the former head of the KGB I mean CIA
without ever saying President Bush?
It's also blindingly obvious how screwed we are. We really only have one political party
in the US -- the US Corporate Party. There is, indeed, very little reason to vote as a recent
survey pointed out Congressional votes correspond to the people's preferences as determined
by polling only about 5% of the time.
Gregory Herr , July 27, 2018 at 12:08 pm
Progressives, particularly those few taken tokens the Democrats allow for, should have
realised long ago that MSNBC is all in on the corporatist controlled economy and leans
heavily forward in the quest for War and Profits.
FAIR is correct to point to the "traditional centers of power" that MSNBC services, but
the farcical "coverage" of Russiagate inanity certainly doesn't "preserve" a "progressive
image" and is not "elegant" in any way.
The war on Yemen and the weapons contracting with the Saudi terrorist regime was already
"steroidal" during Obama's Administration. In October 2016, warplanes bombed a community hall
in Yemen's capital, Sana'a, where mourners had gathered for a funeral, killing at least 140
people and wounding hundreds. We should note that the U.S. provided intelligence assistance
in identifying targets and mid-air refueling for Saudi aircraft and helped blockade the ports
of Yemen during Obama's tenure.
"... On the one hand, he loves to flatter and compliment China's President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin -- that angers the Beltway foreign policy intelligentsia to no end, myself included. But, and of a more important note, Trump also plays hard-nosed geopolitics as good as anyone, arming Ukraine, sending ships into the South China Sea, hitting Moscow with more sanctions and working more closely with Taiwan. ..."
"... When you add in a growing military budget, Trump might sound weak to his critics and at the podium during superpower summits, but his policies are, in fact, right out of the standard GOP foreign policy playbook. ..."
What about America's traditional great-power adversaries like Russia and China? Here and again, anyone who studies international
politics for a living is likely ripping their hair out, as Trump does not conform to anything that they understand.
On the one hand, he loves to flatter and compliment China's President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin -- that
angers the Beltway foreign policy intelligentsia to no end, myself included. But, and of a more important note, Trump also plays
hard-nosed geopolitics as good as anyone, arming Ukraine, sending ships into the South China Sea, hitting Moscow with more sanctions
and working more closely with Taiwan.
When you add in a growing military budget, Trump might sound weak to his critics and at the podium during superpower summits,
but his policies are, in fact, right out of the standard GOP foreign policy playbook.
Harry J. Kazianis ( @grecianformula ) is director of defense
studies at the Center for the National Interest and executive editor of its publishing arm The National Interest. Previously, he
led the foreign policy communications efforts of the Heritage Foundation, and served as editor-in-chief of The Diplomat and as a
fellow at CSIS:PACNET. The views expressed are his own.
"... No, my new theory about why Americans want conflict with Russia is because we know in our heart of hearts that the world is ending soon because of climate change. ..."
"... Nick Pemberton is a student at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is currently employed by Gustavus Dining Services. Nick was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota. He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
And I think about killing myself
And I love myself way more than I love you, so
-- Kanye West, I Thought About Killing You
For the past two years, I have been wondering why Americans have been so ready, if not
eager, to reengage the Cold War with Russia, despite Russia showing no desire to do so. A war
between Russia and the United States, given the nuclear arsenals, political allegiances around
the world, and the unhinged nature of our President, could destroy the entire species. And for
what? Russia's alleged crime of election meddling, is negligible at best when in comparison to
what America has done in Russia, or what rich Americans have done in America. Xenophobia,
historical revisionism, and an embrace of fake news are all on the rise in the age of Trump,
and are surely all factors for blaming Russia. But lying and bigotry, while practiced
routinely, is often shameful, not something to get excited about.
No, my new theory about why Americans want conflict with Russia is because we know in
our heart of hearts that the world is ending soon because of climate change. Just as
born-again Christians flock to Trump as they yearn for a Revelations-style apocalypse, liberals
want a showdown with Russia. If the world is ending anyways, let's end it on our own terms
seems to be the rationale. Other countries have reacted with a more rational response to the
potential of the world ending -- namely doing something about it. The Republican Party stands
alone, in terms of rich countries, in its blatant denial of climate change. This is why Noam
Chomsky correctly calls them the most dangerous organization in human history. The Democratic
Party, their hapless and willing enablers, are a close second.
The Republican Party though has seemed to stand alone in their tendency to live in an
'alternative facts' universe. As bad as Democrats are, they know better ways to lie. But since
the election of Donald Trump, the Democrats have become just as paranoid and dishonest as their
friends across the aisle. The Republicans may see a communist behind every corner, but the
Democrats see a Russian behind every corner. This makes sense because Russia, or at least the
Soviet Union, was seen as communist the first time around. And the Democrats have always been
scared of communism too. Now Russia isn't communist, or even close, but what world power is?
Poor Mr. Putin. He has tried so hard to be a ruthless capitalist, in fact he has succeeded at
this goal, but it appears that America is too hotheaded to care.
In the age of Barack Obama, those who deal with life superficially could forget the coming
Armageddon. If one could get by his arrogance and kill lists, Mr. Obama seemed like a pretty
cool guy. And when it came to Russia, a better diplomat. One has to wonder if the fear of Trump
has become so irrational that we are scared of anything he does, and that by simply forcing him
into the opposite, we will be better off. There also is surely a part of the American psyche
that is just rooting for Mr. Trump to fail. And who wouldn't want that? Anything that gets him
out of office as soon as possible should be welcomed, no matter the undemocratic implications
of Robert Mueller's agenda. Trump failing while in office though? It is unclear who this helps
besides the anti-Trump resistance who may be more interested in being morally superior than
stopping Trump's vicious agenda.
Regardless, what Donald Trump brings to America is the sense that we are powerless. He is
unpredictable, reckless, stupid and vengeful. We now live in constant fear, and for good
reason. But the legitimate fear of Trump manifests as illegitimate fear of Putin, even though
there is little implication they actually like each other. We fear Putin's authoritarian state,
when it is Donald Trump who is bringing authoritarianism home. Why? Well, many of the
resistance are imperialists. We want an enemy we can bomb and scapegoat, not one that pervades
all of our own crumbling American institutions. It is the same reason why Republicans blame
immigrants that Democrats blame Russia. Someone to blame, not something to change.
This powerlessness we feel may remind us of our powerless future that can easily be
forgotten in the age of mass distraction. However, with Donald Trump, he is both the
distraction and the problem. He is useful to the rich because he distracts, but perhaps he is a
little too close to the real problem to be the calming relaxer that our smartphones are. One
can turn on the TV and see Trump said blank, or Russia did that, but any person could quickly
be reminded that not only is Trump a petty scandal, but a serious one.
Such is the reason for this extreme level of neurosis. There is endless piffling Trump
material to focus on, but the material is based in something far more alarming not yet examined
in a serious way. Thus, Trump, while ever present, remains enticing simply because we are not
yet at the root of our fear. Many Americans may fear Donald Trump will grope them, insult them
or embarrass them but the real fear is that he is deregulating and privatizing everything, and
killing us all in the process. This is not the focus of discourse though. In part because mass
media and their ties to polluting companies won't allow it. But also in part because it is no
longer fun gossip.
Russia somehow remains fun gossip. The game of bringing down Donald Trump continues. He
messes up, we scold, nothing happens. Until we drop the bomb, it's all fun and games. It's
endless flirtation without a lot of action. I imagine it is how Ted Cruz deals with his sexual
urges. It is a whole lot of fun talking about them, but he knows he is going to hell if he ever
does them. Likewise, Russia is fun to talk about, but if we ever act on our claim that they are
the greatest threat to democracy since 9/11, we will be bringing the end times early.
If Donald Trump was impeached, what would war-mongering corporate liberals talk about?
Expect them to ask Russia to rig it even harder in 2020 for Mr. Trump.
Trump has reminded us of the real cause for alarm: the mass extinction thundering towards
us. We feel so uneasy, but what can we do? Climate change is depressing and horrifying and we
can seemingly do nothing about it on an individual level. We then opt for the only thing that
we have left to control: how we all die. Foolish, I think. As bad as Trump is, there is
something left to live for, and if Trump were to blow up Russia, it would not be on our terms,
but on his. In fact, he is only likely to blow up Russia if he feels he is being out-machoed by
the neoliberal corporate class in combative rhetoric. As it stands, America is egging on this
madman for no other purpose than a sense of control over our own demise. If anything lets Trump
and the corporate overlords win, this is it.
It is worth detailing what has happened in the Russia scandal, if only to show nothing has
really happened. The first charge, which is denied by the accused firm, is that a Russian
company known as Internet Research Agency funded 'millions of dollars' in advertisements. There
has been no link established between this company and the Russian government. The accusation,
if it is true, is no different from the private American companies who invest billions in
elections, sometimes illegally, but often legally. The second charge is related to the Russian
government and the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee. Once again, this is
only a charge, but the information released by hackers was potentially damaging to Hillary
Clinton and the Democrats, simply because it was true. The irony is that the damaging
information for the DNC was that they had rigged their own primary. The accused riggers only
crime is exposing the proven riggers. There are allegations of state and local hacking too, but
those were present before 2016. Did Russia do it? is hardly our biggest story now. For whatever
it is, even if it did prevent the corporate warmonger Hillary Clinton from
winning, it should be far less concerning than the obsessive, neurotic,
fear-mongering, scapegoating, ominous mood in the United States since the 2016 election.
Why were Democrats tearing their hair out over a Trump-Putin meeting last week that seemed
to offer zero conclusions about how Trump felt about anything? The whole week, which was
typical Donald, was just another week of bullying the weak and submitting to the strong. Putin
may be able to push some buttons in his own country, but when Trump, who never apologizes for
anything, ran back his own words, it was clear that NATO would live to see another day, no
matter the scattered thoughts of a wimpy man in over his head. The deranged response to the
deranged Donald was enough for me to think long and hard about a theory given to me by a
right-wing woman this past week.
Her theory was that God had in fact sent us Donald Trump. My first thought: highly unlikely.
This man lacks the morals of the people God sends to us. In fact, I can hardly think of a worse
human being. There may actually be no human being worse than Trump, save maybe Charles Koch,
David Koch and whoever funds Adam Sandler movies. But I thought of the alternative the
corporate media was telling me: Vladimir Putin is the real President of America and the real
reason the entire country is undemocratic, poor, hungry, and in prison. Also, highly
unlikely.
Yet the pamphlet this woman handed me at least admitted there was no rhyme or reason to this
theory other than some guy hearing it from God: "I, like many of you, was shocked by the word I
received regarding Donald Trump. Trust me when I say it was given with fear and trembling." Has
the fear and trembling gone away?
The only biblical evidence of this theory the pamphlet provided was 1 Corinthians 15:52: "In
a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the
dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." and 1 Thessalonians 4:16: " For
the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the
archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." The
problem with being a fundamentalist in the age of Trump is that you are taking a book word for
word that you haven't even read. If you are going to take it literally, at least look for that
capital T in trump, otherwise you have to take every trumpet player as a prophet. Next thing
you know Trumpettes will be swapping out their Johnny Rebel records and replacing them with Lee
Morgan. Still, the trail left by the Trumpettes was no less convincing than Robert Mueller's.
There was as much evidence of Trump in the Bible as Trump in Putin's pocket.
It should come to no one's surprise that Donald Trump has not exactly been pro-Russia. A
broken clock may strike right twice a day, but a doomsday clock never strikes right. Glen
Greenwald points out that Barack Obama was actually more pro-Russia than Trump: "you look at
President Obama versus President Trump, there's no question that President Obama was more
cooperative with and collaborative with Russia and the Russian agenda than President Trump.
President Trump has sent lethal arms to Ukraine -- a crucial issue for Putin -- which President
Obama refused to do. President Trump has bombed the Assad forces in Syria, a client state of
Putin, something that Obama refused to do because he didn't want to provoke Putin. Trump has
expelled more Russian diplomats and sanctioned more Russian oligarchs than [Obama] has. Trump
undid the Iran deal, which Russia favored, while Obama worked with Russia in order to do the
Iran deal." Once again, liberals give Mr. Trump too much credit. He has no friends. He gets
along with no one. There is no coherent plan here other than corruption.
As liberals resist Putin-Trump with homophobic memes, one has to wonder, how mad are these
people? Do they realize that Donald Trump is crazy, even crazier than them? Why on earth do
they want Trump armed and angry?
Anyone who can still bear to follow the news knows that the corporate media is still
attempting to paint Russia as an aggressive and unreasonable foe. This is all with Mr. Trump as
the President! It is hard to believe that anyone is more unreasonable and aggressive than
Trump, but once again, the liberals let him off the hook. Despite military on Russia's borders,
years of war-mongering rhetoric and hostile economic activity, meddling in Russia's own
elections, and constant racism, Russia remains a reasonable actor in its relation to the United
States. One wonders why Russia tries to reason with us at all, but the nuclear weapons
certainly make things a little more complicated.
For all the talk about Putin destroying American democracy, no one mentions the real threats
to U.S. democracy that led to Trump's election -- absurd campaign financing, a sensationalist
profit-driven corporate media, and voter suppression. No one mentions that there was a proven
election scandal in the United States in 2016. This scandal was the DNC rigging its primary for
Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. If the United States was a democracy, Bernie Sanders would
be President right now.
Finding no comfort or coherence in the liberal narrative, I turned once again to my new
right-wing friend. She told me that all these recent storms were punishment for the sins of a
liberal society. Almost, actually. But her anti-choice, anti-immigrant complaints showed me she
was as far from the truth as anyone else. Still, I found this to be a fascinating denial of
climate change. It was not so much that she denied that it is happening, she just denied human
involvement. Which goes to show, as climate change becomes increasingly hard to ignore,
religion may be the only method left to explain it away.
I have always thought the war over public opinion is a losing battle though. After all, what
is the prize if you win? It is far more rewarding to fight hunger, poverty, deregulation,
incarceration and war. Beat those things and we will all be too cozy to have a worthwhile
opinion anyways.
The public opinion debate too often turns into a qualification of other people's mental
health, as if any skepticism deserves to be medicated by the liars who tell you that you need
their drugs. Climate change skeptics should have a place in public discourse. The skeptics do
at times have a financial interest in keeping us fooled, but then their problem isn't their
skepticism, but their dishonesty, which almost proves the real skeptics right. Otherwise, these
are sincere believers who are right to be skeptical of science, which has brought us eugenics,
unnecessary mental health treatments, nuclear power, and the very pollutants we now oppose, and
would have kept at it without government checks and populist skeptics. If only the same amount
of skepticism could be applied to Fox News and the corporate hacks Donald Trump appoints.
In the spirit of skepticism, let's look at what Trump has done on climate change and the
coming end of the world. As Noam Chomsky puts it, the Republicans are racing to the precipice.
Among the recent sins by Mr. Trump:
1. Rolling back the Endangered Species Act.
2. Cutting NASA Climate monitoring.
3. A move to make details of scientific studies public, making sure that scientists will
have to choose between privacy rights and conducting a study.
4. Rollback of car emissions standards
5. Repeal of Water of the United States rule, which threatens clean water for 117 million
Americans.
6. Repeal of lead-risk reduction program
7. Reduction of chemical bans for methylene chloride, trichloroethylene and
N-Methylpyrrolidone
8. Stripping rules for coal ash waste removal.
9. Pardoning despicable ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond
10. Appointing anti-EPA Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
11. Pushing for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
If anything, God sent us Trump to punish us for our sins, not to save us from them.
Alas, while a worthwhile exercise to imagine that God indeed sent us Donald Trump, I was
only reminded that the right-wing is just as bonkers as the neoliberal wing. A week of watching
CNN will have you believing anything; even pushing one to believe that God really did send
Donald Trump. But I will confirm, for anyone so tempted by a new way of thinking, the glove
just doesn't fit. God did not send us Donald Trump. I can't prove it, but I am fairly certain.
I then was left with one mystifying question: if God did not send Donald Trump, what does the
corporate media have against him?
The common variable between Trumpettes and Russiaphobes is the end of the world narrative.
Is it a reaction to climate change that both must make up stories about how the world will end?
Is it the only power any of us have left? Is it the cancer patient learning they have a year to
live and then shooting up a school just so they can end it on their own terms? Sorry, to all
Cold War Warriors and all Donald Doomers, some of us just are not ready to die. There is, one
has to believe, a rose growing in the concrete somewhere that makes these prophecies not worth
an early exit. At the very least, must we go out on such fabricated and petty terms? Surely
there is something worth dying for besides hating political correctness or Putin's soccer
ball.
What is that nuclear taste? Is reviving Hillary's corpse really worth it? Or has the entire
country given up and opted for a death they can blame on someone else? It is not so dissimilar
from the apocalypse envisioned by the Trumpettes, who can blame every storm that Trump makes
worse on the sins of a liberal society. If Trump and Putin were to blow each other up tomorrow,
liberals would die on top. However, if we are to die slightly slower due to climate change, the
entire industrialized world will have to know we played a part. And there will be those pesky
Trumpettes who blame it on liberalism, not capitalism. To all this I say, who cares. Yes, we
messed up. We shouldn't have drained the earth of all its resources, we shouldn't have elected
Trump. But no need to feel guilty and embrace the end of the world! There is still good work to
be done. Who will be laughing when the world dies by nuclear (a Russiaphobe wet dream) or fire
(a Trumpette wet dream). There will be no moral high ground at that point. The apocalypse will
be the great equalizer. Even in the age of Trump, the world is worth sticking around for,
although She might as well be done with us as soon as She can be.
Surely the principle of lesser evilism still has a place, no? Can't we all agree that dying
tomorrow is better than dying today? Who is more looney, the apocalyptic Trumpettes or the
Russiaphobic corporate class? We will find out soon enough. While it is very likely that Trump
will win reelection (poll numbers in the Republican Party for him are very positive), it is
just as likely that the new Cold War will continue until Trump is gone, whether that be in 2
years, 6 years, or 14 years (Ivanka). The premise is that we will either have Trump's
apocalypse or we will blow up Russia. There must be a winner. Given Trump's flair for
winning and upending the liberal class, who would be surprised if it was he who ended up
blowing up Russia, not for our reasons, but for his own. Therefore, it is equally important to
get Trump, the Republicans and Democrats out of power as quickly as possible.
We are once again pawns to the powers that be. Sensing the end is coming, they wish to go
out with a bang. It is true, the end is coming, whether that be by climate change, nuclear
weapons or God Himself. The battle over how we end is worth fighting for. I for one have no
interest in being killed by Trump, the neocons, or the ecocide maniacs. If God must take me, I
will let Him, but giving the establishment the satisfaction of having the last word is too much
to bear. To hear Hillary's cackle at my funeral with the words "We came, we saw, he died"
across the headstone would be a tragedy too great for even a species sprinting towards the
precipice. If Donald were to preside over my grave, he would simply say "I won, you tiny
loser", but I would resent this option equally. If God exists, and wants the last word for
Himself, He should start by kicking all with nuclear fever to the curb. For we all are
dangerously close to becoming the latest item on America's war-mongering resume. Let's just
hope Donald doesn't take the bait and one-up the liberals one last time.
Even if God doesn't exist, one would have a better chance reasoning with Him than either
Donald or his yuppy resistance groupies. So I thanked my right-wing friend today. For even if
she was no more sane than the neoliberals prattling to the abyss, she at least had a nice place
to send me after the world ended; that is assuming, I was born in America, had as many babies
as ejaculations, and voted for God's unconventional servant, Donald J. Trump. Join the debate
on Facebook More articles by: Nick Pemberton
Nick Pemberton is a student at Gustavus Adolphus College. He is currently employed by
Gustavus Dining Services. Nick was born and raised in St. Paul, Minnesota. He can be reached at
[email protected]
To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply by accusing them of being Russian
sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league
with Russia was enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy
fired his first shot on February 9, 1950,
proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing
but assertions .
Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making
accusations of treason without sufficient evidence. Other
definitionsinclude a ggressively
questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or discredit
an opponent, and subverting civil and political rights in the name of national security.
Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed thousands of lives over the next four years
simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist." Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy
answered that this was "the most positive
proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used by others as well: the
Lavender Scare , which
concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their
perversions, was an offshoot of McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals" charges.
State legislatures and school boards
mimicked McCarthy. Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded.
The FBI embarked on campaigns of political
repression (they would later claim Martin Luther
King Jr. had communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political thinking to exclude communism.
STEPHEN COHEN: ...Are the Russians still targeting our elections?" This is in the category "Are you still beating your wife?"
There is no proof that the Russians have targeted or attacked our elections. But it's become axiomatic. What kind of media is that,
are the Russians still, still attacking our elections.
And what Michael McFaul, whom I've known for years, formerly Ambassador McFaul, purportedly a scholar and sometimes a scholar
said, it is simply the kind of thing, to be as kind as I can, that I heard from the John Birch Society about President Eisenhower
when he went to meet Khrushchev when I was a kid growing up in Kentucky.
...to stage a kangaroo trial of the president of the United States in the mainstream media, and have plenty of once-dignified
people come on and deliver the indictment, is without precedent in this country
The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment
rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited
and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues.
The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the
internet speeds to and from numerous test locations abroad and in the U.S., it was
determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the DNC
computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed
of the transfer to a thumb drive. Additionally, it was found that the data had been
manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer, when in
fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the
probability of the split being a coincidence would be 100 to the 50th power.
As for the crude trace fingerprints (e.g. the referencing of Dzerzinsky), one of the
Wikileaks data dumps (Vault 7 Marble) during a period when Assange was negotiating with
the Administration - there were two at the time (Vault 7 Marble and Vault 7 Grasshopper),
the release of which apparently enraged Mike Pompeo- was designed to obfuscate, fabricate
and frame countries such as Russia, Iran or North Korea by pretending to be the target
country, including in the use of target's alphabet and language.
VIPs has written numerous articles on this in Consortium News. See also the report by
Patrick Lawrence Smith in The Nation at:
https://www.thenation.com/a... . (It was apparently so hot at the time- and disputed
by several other VIPs members- that The Nation sought an independent assessment by third
party, though those comments were easily addressed and dismissed in seriatim by Binney in
an annex to the article.)
Binney has explained his forensic analysis and conclusions at numerous forums, and in
a sit-down with Secretary Pompeo in October, 2017- though Mueller, the FBI, and
mainstream and some of the alternative press seem either deaf, dumb and blind to it all,
or interested in discrediting the study. The irony is, I'd venture to guess, that Binney,
with his 40 years of experience, including as Technical Director and technical guru at
the NSA, is, even in retirement, more sophisticated in these matters than any one at the
Agency, or the FBI, or CIA, or certainly, the Congressional Intelligence Committees. So,
it is astounding that any or all of them could have, but did not, invite him to testify
as an expert.
Moreover, the NSA has a record of every transmission, and also would have it on backup
files. And, the FBI has been sitting on Seth Rich's computer and his communications with
Wikileaks, and presumably has a report that it has not released. And of course, as Trump
asked in his press conference, where's the DNC server, any or all of which would put this
question to rest.
The last clause of the first paragraph should have said:
"according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be one over
100 to the 50th power
"... There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment. The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note. ..."
"... We see the same situation of sweeping under the rug malfeasance and even outright criminality through obfuscation and obstruction in the case of the meddling in the 2016 election by top officials in intelligence and law enforcement. Clearly less and less people are buying what the Deep State sells despite their overwhelming control of the media channels. ..."
"... What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats. ..."
If you look at the 'Lawfare' blog, in which a key figure is James Comey's crony Benjamin Wittes, you will find a long piece published
last Friday, entitled 'Russia Indictment 2.0: What to Make of Mueller's Hacking Indictment.'
Among the authors, in addition to Wittes himself, is the sometime GCHQ employee Matt Tait. It appears that the former head of
that organisation, the Blairite 'trusty' Robert Hannigan, who must know where a good few skeletons are buried, is a figure of some
moment in the conspiracy.
It was Matt Tait who, using the 'Twitter' handle @pwnallthethings, identified the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky in the 'metadata'
of the 'Guccifer 2.0' material on 15 June 2016, the day after Ellen Nakashima first disseminated the BS from 'CrowdStrike' in the
'WP.'
The story was picked up the following day in a report on the 'Ars Technica' site, and Tait's own account appeared on the 'Lawfare'
site, to which he has been a regular contributor, on 28 July.
According to the CV provided in conjunction with the new article:
'Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University
of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was
a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.'
How does the objective truth get disclosed in an environment of extreme deceit by so many parties?
How to trust western intelligence when they have such a long and sordid track record of deceit, lies and propaganda? At the
same time there is such a long history of Russian and Chinese intelligence and information operations against the west.
Then there is the nexus among the highest levels of US law enforcement and intelligence as well as political elites in both
parties and key individuals in the media complex.
We are living in a hall of mirrors and it seems the trend is towards confirmation bias in information consumption.
Excellent post, especially the debunking of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' which I always thought was more hand-waving and Russian mind-reading.
It's important to realize that there are a number of people in the infosec community who have biases against Russia, just as
there are in the general population. Then there are more cautious people, who recognize the difficulty in attributing a hack to
any specific person absent solid, incontrovertible, non-circumstantial and non-spoofable (and preferably offline) evidence.
Tait doesn't appear to be one of the latter. Thomas Rid would be another. There are others.
Jeffrey Carr is one of the latter, and his familiarity with intelligence matters is clear from his organization of the annual
"Suits and Spooks" Conference. I believe he was the first to raise questions about the DNC hack which didn't pass his smell test.
There are also a number of companies in infosec who rely on latching onto a particular strain of hacker, the more publicly
exploitable for PR purposes the better, as a means of keeping the company name in front of potential high-profile and highly billable
clients. CrowdStrike and its Russia obsession isn't the only one that's been tagged with that propensity.
Mandiant could be referred to as the "Chinese, all the time" company, for example. Richard Bejtlich was at Fireeye and the
became Chief Security Officer when they acquired Mandiant. He spent quite a bit of effort on his blog warning about the Chinese
military buildup as a huge threat to the US. He's former USAF so perhaps that's not surprising.
The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian
State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues.
The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the internet speeds to and from numerous test
locations abroad and in the U.S., it was determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the
DNC computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed of the transfer to a thumb drive.
Additionally, it was found that the data had been manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer,
when in fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence
would be 100 to the 50th power.
As for the crude trace fingerprints (e.g. the referencing of Dzerzinsky), one of the Wikileaks data dumps (Vault 7 Marble)
during a period when Assange was negotiating with the Administration - there were two at the time (Vault 7 Marble and Vault 7
Grasshopper), the release of which apparently enraged Mike Pompeo- was designed to obfuscate, fabricate and frame countries such
as Russia, Iran or North Korea by pretending to be the target country, including in the use of target's alphabet and language.
VIPs has written numerous articles on this in Consortium News. See also the report by Patrick Lawrence Smith in The Nation
at:
https://www.thenation.com/a... . (It was apparently so hot at the time- and disputed by several other VIPs members- that The
Nation sought an independent assessment by third party, though those comments were easily addressed and dismissed in seriatim
by Binney in an annex to the article.)
Binney has explained his forensic analysis and conclusions at numerous forums, and in a sit-down with Secretary Pompeo in October,
2017- though Mueller, the FBI, and mainstream and some of the alternative press seem either deaf, dumb and blind to it all, or
interested in discrediting the study. The irony is, I'd venture to guess, that Binney, with his 40 years of experience, including
as Technical Director and technical guru at the NSA, is, even in retirement, more sophisticated in these matters than any one
at the Agency, or the FBI, or CIA, or certainly, the Congressional Intelligence Committees. So, it is astounding that any or all
of them could have, but did not, invite him to testify as an expert.
Moreover, the NSA has a record of every transmission, and also would have it on backup files. And, the FBI has been sitting
on Seth Rich's computer and his communications with Wikileaks, and presumably has a report that it has not released. And of course,
as Trump asked in his press conference, where's the DNC server, any or all of which would put this question to rest.
The last clause of the first paragraph should have said:
"according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be one over 100 to the 50th power
More evidence for the at least passive complicity of GCHQ – for which Matt Tait used to work, and which Robert Hannigan used
to run – in corrupt 'information operations' comes in a report yesterday on CNN.
'Police have identified two suspects in the poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia,
a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN on Thursday.
'The pair left the UK in the wake of the attack on what is believed to have been a commercial flight, the source added.
'Their departure was revealed in a coded Russian message to Moscow sent after the attack, which was intercepted by a British
base in Cyprus, the source said. The British government blames the Skripals' poisoning on Russia.'
The base in question is high up in the Troodos mountains, and is formally run by the RAF but actually a key resource for both
GCHQ and NSA in monitoring communications over a wide area. According to an internal document from the former organisation, it
has 'long been regarded as a 'Jewel in the Crown' by NSA as it offers unique access to the Levant, North Africa, and Turkey'.
That the quote comes a report in 'The Intercept' in January 2016 revealing that one of the uses of the Troodos facility is
to intercept live video feeds from Israeli drones and fighter jets brings out how paradoxical the world is. For it also appears
to have emerged as an important resource in 'information operations' in support of 'Borgist' agendas.
The claim about intercepts incriminating the Russians over the Salisbury incident was first made in a piece by Marco Giannangeli
in the Daily Express on 9 April, which followed up the claims which Colonel de Bretton-Gordon had been instrumental in disseminating,
and was then widely picked up by the MSM.
It was headlined: 'REVEALED: The bombshell Russian message intercepted on DAY of Skripal poisonings,' and opened: 'AN ELECTRONIC
message to Moscow sent on the day former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a nerve agent in
Salisbury included the phrase "the package has been delivered".'
Supposedly, this 'prompted a young Flight Lieutenant to recall a separate message that had been intercepted and discounted
on the previous day.' The messages were 'understood to have formed "just one part" of the intelligence packet which later allowed
Prime Minister Theresa May to state it was "highly likely" that Russia was behind the attacks.'
As it happens, the same writer – Marco Giannangeli – had disseminated a parallel piece of palpable fiction on 1 September 2013,
in the 'Sunday Express', in relation to the Ghouta 'false flag.'
This one was headlined, even more melodramatically, 'Senior Syrian military chiefs tell captain: fire chemicals or be shot;
BRITISH intelligence chiefs have intercepted radio messages in which senior Syrian military chiefs are heard ordering the use
of chemical weapons.'
Part of the story of how bogus claims about 'smoking gun' evidence from 'SIGINT' were used to support the attempt to use the
Ghouta 'false flag' to inveigle the British and Americans into destroying the Syrian government was told in my SST post on the
incident. However, to mix metaphors, I only scratched the surface of a can of worms.
In a report on the 'Daily Caller' site on 29 August 2013, Kenneth Timmerman claimed that the sequence had started with an actual
intercept by Unit 8200 – the Israeli equivalent of GCHQ and NSA.
Claiming to base his account on Western intelligence sources, he suggested that:
'According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian
military communication intercepted by Israel's famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads
a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.'
While I am not in a position to establish whether his claim is or is not accurate, an AP report on the same day quoted 'U.S.
intelligence officials' explaining that 'an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff,
with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander'.
Meanwhile, Timmerman's claim that 'The doctored report was picked up on Israel's Channel 2 TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine
in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable in Washington, DC' is supported by links to the relevant stories,
which say what he claims they say.
Moreover, it seems clear that the 1 September 2013 report was an attempt to counter a – somewhat devastating – critique made
in a 31 August post entitled 'The Troodos Conundrum' by the former British Ambassador Craig Murray, who had been closely involved
with the facility during his time at the Foreign Office (and has written invaluable material on the Salisbury incident.)
Precisely because of the closeness of the GCHQ/NSA collaboration, Murray brought out, there was indeed a major problem explaining
why claims about 'SIGINT' had been central to the case made in the 'Government Assessment' released by the White House on 30 August
2013, but not even mentioned in the Joint Intelligence Community 'Assessment' produced two days before.
The answer, Murray suggested, was that the 'intelligence' came from Mossad, and so would not have been automatically shared
with the British. But, given the superior capabilities of Troodos, if Mossad had it, the British should have also. So his claims
'meshed' with those by Timmerman and the AP, and the 'Express' report looks like a lame attempt at a cover-up.
Again however, one finds the world is a paradoxical place. As I noted in my SST post, detailed demolitions of the claims about
'SIGINT' in relation to Ghouta were provided both Seymour Hersh, in the 'Whose sarin?' article, and also on the 'Who Attacked
Ghouta?' site masterminded by one 'sasa wawa.'
Later, it became clear that this was likely to be the Israeli technology entrepreneur Saar Wilf, a former employee of Unit
8200. So this may – or may not – be an indication of deep divisions within Israeli intelligence.
Between 18 March and 31 April, a fascinating series of posts on the Salisbury incident appeared on the 'Vineyard of the Saker'
blog. The author, who used the name 'sushi', was a self-professed IT professsional, who had however obviously acquired an extensive
familiarity with 'chemical forensics' and appeared to have some experience of 'SIGINT.'
In a 14 April post, 'sushi' produced a dismissal of the claims about 'SIGINT' implicating the Russians over the Salisbury incident
quite as contemptuous as that which 'sasa wawa' had produced in relation to the claims about it incriminating the Syrian government
over Ghouta. Pointing to the implausibility of the story disseminated by the 'Express', he remarked that:
'It is doubted that any message traffic is processed on Cyprus. It is more likely that the entire take is transmitted back
to GCHQ in Cheltenham via a fibre optic link. There exabytes of take are processed, not by a bored flight lieutenant, but by banks
of high speed computers.
'Clearly someone in Cheltenham has committed a programming error. Anyone with any knowledge of secret communications knows
that the code phrase used to confirm a murder in Salisbury is "small pizza, no anchovies." '
Interestingly, another paper in the 'Express' group made a parallel claim in relation to the Khan Sheikhoun incident to that
about the Ghouta incident, but the story was not picked up and may indeed have been suppressed.
On 9 April, the paper published a report headlined 'Brit spies' lead role in Syrian air strikes; RAF BASE IS 'WEAPON.' This
claimed that 'within an hour of the airstrike', Troodos had intercepted communications revealing that nerve gas had been used,
and had been delivered by jets from the Syrian Arab Air Force's Shayrat Air Base.
I was drafting a response to the comment by 'Barbara Ann' – thanks for the link to the recent posts by Adam Carter – before
going out. Returning and reading some very interesting comments, I think what I wanted to say has more general relevance.
One reason I am reading so much into 'this Dzerzhinsky thing' is the body of accumulating evidence that people like Tait are
part of a system of networks which combine sanctimoniousness, corruption and stupidity in about equal measures. So some more examples
may be to the point.
Different cases in which I have taken an interest come together in a post by Tait on the 'Lawfare' site on 13 March, entitled
'U.K. Prime Minister's Speech on the Russian Poisoning of Sergei Skripal: Decoding the Signals.'
In support of the claim that in accusing Russia of a pioneering act of chemical terrorism Theresa May was relying upon accurate
analysis from the 'U.K. intelligence community', Tait wrote that:
'May then explained that Skripal was poisoned by a "military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia one of a group
of nerve agents known as 'Novichok.'" She is laying out the basic groundwork for the government's attribution to a nation state
and, more specifically, Russia. At Porton Down, the U.K. has one of the world's best forensic labs for analyzing chemical, biological
and nuclear weapons. With the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, this lab not only established that Polonium-210 was used
but also which reactor in Russia it came from.'
In the event, as is by now well know, Boris Johnson's claim that Porton Down scientists had told him that the agent which poisoned
the Skripals came from Russia was specifically repudiated by the head of that organisation, Gary Aitkenhead, on 3 April. Our Foreign
Secretary told a flagrant lie, and was exposed.
As I have shown in previous posts on this site, the 'Inquiry' conducted by Sir Robert Owen into the death of Litvinenko was
patently corrupt. Moreover, it seems highly likely that, in fabricating 'evidence' to cover up what actually happened, Christopher
Steele was doing a 'dry-run' for the fabrication of material in the dossier published by 'BuzzFeed.'
In fact, however, Owen's report made quite clear that the role of Porton Down was marginal. Furthermore, 'Scientist A1' from
the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston quite specifically rejected the claim that 'impurity profiling' made it possible
to establish that the source of the polonium was the Avangard facility at Sarov, her arguments being accepted by Owen. Either
Tait has not bothered to read the report or very much of the coverage, or he is lying.
What Porton Down did do was to use 'impurity profiling', which can produce 'spectra' identifying even the tiniest traces of
substances, to frustrate the attempt to use the 'false flag' attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 to inveigle the American and British
governments into destroying the Assad 'régime' and handing the country over to jihadists.
It may well be that this display of competence and integrity led to a 'clampdown' at the organisation, which encouraged Boris
Johnson to believe he could get away with lying about what its scientists told him.
A general pattern which emerges is that the same small group of 'disinformation peddlers' resurfaces in different contexts
– and the pattern whereby 'private security companies' are used to create a spurious impression of independence also recurs.
As I bring out in my piece on Ghouta, two figures who were critical in shaping the 'narrative' acccording to which Syrian government
responsibility for the atrocity had been conclusively proved, were Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, formerly the former commanding
officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment, and also NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion, and
Dan Kaszeta.
Immediately after the story of the poisoning of the Skripals on 4 March broke, the same duo reappeared, and have been as critical
to shaping the 'narrative' about the later incident as they were to that about the former.
(For the piece by Kaszeta on 'Bellingcat' which introduced the 'Novichok' theme four days later, see
https://www.bellingcat.com/... .)
This makes it particular interesting to look at the website of Kaszeta's consultancy, 'Strongpoint Security Limited', in conjunction
with the 'Companies House' documentation on the company.
One would have thought from the website that his company was a small, but hardly insignificant, player, in the field of 'physical
and operational security.' As it happens, having filed 'Total exemption small company accounts' since its incorporation in May
2011, last December it filed 'Micro company accounts' for the year to 31 May 2017.
With a turnover of Ł20,000, staff costs of a bit more than half of that, and a profit of Ł394, we can see that although unlike
Matt Tait's, Kaszeta's company did trade, if indeed it was his sole source of income, this pivotal figure in Anglo-American 'disinformation
operations' was living on something less than $15,000 a year, at current exchange rates. (Pull the other one, as we say in Britain.)
This is all the more ironic, as the website brings out quite how critical a figure Kaszeta has been in obscuring the truth.
From the bio he gives, we learn that having started as a Chemical Officer in the U.S. Army, he worked for 12 years in the White
House, dealing with CBRN matters, before moving to Britain in 2008.
Among the articles to which he links on the site, we see his response in 'NOW Lebanon' in December 2013 to Hersh's original
'Whose sarin?' piece on Ghouta, -- in which Kaszeta first introduced the famous 'hexamine hypothesis.'
This – patently preposterous – suggestion that the presence of a single 'impurity' is a 'smoking gun' incriminating the Syrian
government has echoed on into the clearly corrupt OPCW documents purporting to demonstrate that it was responsible for the 4 April
2017 Khan Sheikhoun attack.
Of some interest in understanding where Kaszeta he is coming from is what he describes as his 'oldest (and most footnoted on
Wikipedia)' piece, which is an article published in 1988 on a site called 'Lituanus', on 'Lithuanian Resistance to Foreign Occupation
1940-52.'
As to Colonel de Bretton-Gordon, it is of interest to look at the attempt to 'finger' the GRU over the Skripal poisoning published
under the title 'UK Poisoning Inquiry turns to Russian Agency in Mueller Indictments' in the 'New York Times' last Sunday, and
the response by the Russian Embassy in London to a question about it.
The response objects that 'while the British authorities keep concealing all information concerning the investigation into
the Salisbury incident, the newspaper has quoted "one former US official familiar with the inquiry".'
It also asserts that that crucial evidence which has not been made available to the Russians – and here, as with Ghouta and
Khan Sheikhoun, the results of 'impurity profiling' are critical – appears to have been shared not just with inappropriate Americans,
but with all kinds of others.
And indeed, the Embassy is quite right in suggesting that the claim made by the supposed creator of 'Novichok', Vladimir Uglev,
to the BBC in April about 'all the spectrum data I was sent recently' has neither been confirmed nor denied. This seems a general
pattern – the 'spectra' which may actually be able to provide definitive answers to questions of responsibility are only provided
to people who can be relied upon to give the 'right' answers.
The Embassy response also quite fairly refers to a report in the 'Times' also in April, about the 'intelligence' which had
been 'used to persuade world leaders that Moscow was behind the poisoning' and that the 'Novichok' had been manufactured at the
Shikhany facility at in southwest Russia, which stated that de Bretton-Gordon, 'who had seen the intelligence, called it very
compelling.' He has a long history of lying about CW in Syria – so is obviously the right person to lie about them in the UK.
It thus becomes interesting to probe into what lies behind the opening of de Bretton-Gordon's entry on the 'Military Speakers'
website ('Real Heroes; Real Stories.') According to this, he is 'Chief Operating Office of SecureBio Ltd a commercial company
offering CBRN Resilience, consultancy and deployable capabilities.'
From 'Companies House', we learn that the liquidation of 'Secure Bio', which started in in June 2015, was concluded in August
last year. The really interesting thing about the records, however, is that at the time of the liquidation the company had very
large debts, which were written off, of a kind and in a manner which suggested that de Bretton-Gordon's activities may have been
largely funded by loans from untraceable sources which were not meant to be repaid.
Actually, with the 'NYT' report we come full circle. Among those quoted is Mark Galeotti – apparently his admission that he
had totally misrepresented the thinking of the Russian General Staff has not him made more cautious about making extravagant claims
about its Main Intelligence Directorate (misreported as Main Directorate by the 'NYT.')
Also quoted are two figures who play key roles in Owen's Report – the Soviet era-GRU defector 'Viktor Suvorov' (real name 'Vladimir
Rezun') and the former KGB operative Yuri Shvets. Both of these feature prominently in the posts on the Litvinenko affair to which
I have linked, and both were key members of the 'information operations' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky. This
now seems to have taken control of American policy, as of British.
The role of 'Suvorov'/Rezun in attempting to defend the interpretations of Stalin's policy put forward by MI6 in the run-up
to the Second World War, and those asserted later by General Keitel, and the way he was demolished by the leading American historian
of the War in the East, Colonel David Glantz, and the Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, is too large a subject to go into
here.
However, it provides further reason to wonder whether the misreadings of Stalin's policy which caused MI6 to give advice to
Chamberlain which helped destroy the last chances of preventing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, may still be the 'house view' of that organisation.
It was, obviously, the Pact which spelled 'curtains' both for Poland and the Baltics.
There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment.
The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any
honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note.
We see the same situation of sweeping under the rug malfeasance and even outright criminality through obfuscation and obstruction
in the case of the meddling in the 2016 election by top officials in intelligence and law enforcement. Clearly less and less people
are buying what the Deep State sells despite their overwhelming control of the media channels.
It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced in the Soviet Union when no one
trusted the contents in Pravda.
What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the US it
is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance
is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats.
That was one of the changes being hoped for when Obama was first elected. Instead we got little, except for things such as bailed
out bankers and the IRS scandal which lasted until the end of his 2nd term. The panic from the left over the 2016 election issues
the are still going on is that the expected candidate isn't in office and they are being exposed. Whether they get prosecuted
is another story.
"... the error message in Cyrillic can only be generated via some technical contortions with the explicit intention of doing so. ..."
"... I would challenge anyone reading Adam Carter's work to conclude that the G2 persona is anything other than misdirection specifically designed to point to Russia. The indictment itself has zero new evidence that can be analyzed and I suspect all the GRU detail is aimed at giving it the appearance of authenticity - even when subject to scrutiny by the IC itself. I think John Helmer is closest to the truth when he says: "...it may be a signal that US cyber agents can fabricate Russian tracks to deceive other US cyber agents; Mueller too." ..."
Now THIS is a really interesting development in #DncHack:
@Gawker has & is publishing the DNC's Trump oppo research
gawker.com/this-looks-lik...
4:33 PM - Jun 15, 2016
This Looks Like the DNC's Hacked Trump O...
A 200+ page document that appears to be a
Democratic anti-Trump playbook compiled by the
Democratic National Committee has leaked
gawker.com
Q? 398 Q 269 people are talking about this
of June 15th 2016 mentions several "opsec fail"s in respect of 'Russian' metadata which, as you say, were then picked up by
Ars Technica & others. So the meme was born. A key claim is that an error message in Cyrillic script appeared because one of the
leaked docs was converted to pdf before being sent to Gawker - one of 2 press outlets to get a preview before Guccifer 2.0 published
the docs on his blog. Adam Carter (@with_integrity), at
http://g-2.space/ citing theforensicator (link below) says this is not true and that the error message in Cyrillic can
only be generated via some technical contortions with the explicit intention of doing so.
I would challenge anyone reading Adam Carter's work to conclude that the G2 persona is anything other than misdirection
specifically designed to point to Russia. The indictment itself has zero new evidence that can be analyzed and I suspect
all the GRU detail is aimed at giving it the appearance of authenticity - even when subject to scrutiny by the IC itself. I think
John Helmer is closest to the truth when he says: "...it may be a signal that US cyber agents can fabricate Russian tracks
to deceive other US cyber agents; Mueller too."
For several years, a family of foreign nationals (and not only Wassermannn-Schultz) has
been surfing the congressional computers while having no security clearance.
Both Debbie and Hillary should be in federal prison already. Clinton used to be fond of
droning Assange for divulging the criminal and illegal activities of the state. What Debbie
and Hillary did has been much more dangerous to the US national security.
"... As it happens, the same writer – Marco Giannangeli – had disseminated a parallel piece of palpable fiction on 1 September 2013, in the 'Sunday Express', in relation to the Ghouta 'false flag.' ..."
More evidence for the at least passive complicity of GCHQ – for which Matt Tait used
to work, and which Robert Hannigan used to run – in corrupt 'information operations'
comes in a report yesterday on CNN.
'Police have identified two suspects in the poisoning of former Russian double agent
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN
on Thursday.
'The pair left the UK in the wake of the attack on what is believed to have been a
commercial flight, the source added.
'Their departure was revealed in a coded Russian message to Moscow sent after the attack,
which was intercepted by a British base in Cyprus, the source said. The British government
blames the Skripals' poisoning on Russia.'
The base in question is high up in the Troodos mountains, and is formally run by the RAF
but actually a key resource for both GCHQ and NSA in monitoring communications over a wide
area. According to an internal document from the former organisation, it has 'long been
regarded as a 'Jewel in the Crown' by NSA as it offers unique access to the Levant, North
Africa, and Turkey'.
That the quote comes a report in 'The Intercept' in January 2016 revealing that one of the
uses of the Troodos facility is to intercept live video feeds from Israeli drones and fighter
jets brings out how paradoxical the world is. For it also appears to have emerged as an
important resource in 'information operations' in support of 'Borgist' agendas.
The claim about intercepts incriminating the Russians over the Salisbury incident was
first made in a piece by Marco Giannangeli in the Daily Express on 9 April, which followed up
the claims which Colonel de Bretton-Gordon had been instrumental in disseminating, and was
then widely picked up by the MSM.
It was headlined: 'REVEALED: The bombshell Russian message intercepted on DAY of Skripal
poisonings,' and opened: 'AN ELECTRONIC message to Moscow sent on the day former Russian spy
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury included
the phrase "the package has been delivered".'
Supposedly, this 'prompted a young Flight Lieutenant to recall a separate message that had
been intercepted and discounted on the previous day.' The messages were 'understood to have
formed "just one part" of the intelligence packet which later allowed Prime Minister Theresa
May to state it was "highly likely" that Russia was behind the attacks.'
As it happens, the same writer – Marco Giannangeli – had disseminated a
parallel piece of palpable fiction on 1 September 2013, in the 'Sunday Express', in relation
to the Ghouta 'false flag.'
This one was headlined, even more melodramatically, 'Senior Syrian military chiefs tell
captain: fire chemicals or be shot; BRITISH intelligence chiefs have intercepted radio
messages in which senior Syrian military chiefs are heard ordering the use of chemical
weapons.'
Part of the story of how bogus claims about 'smoking gun' evidence from 'SIGINT' were used
to support the attempt to use the Ghouta 'false flag' to inveigle the British and Americans
into destroying the Syrian government was told in my SST post on the incident. However, to
mix metaphors, I only scratched the surface of a can of worms.
In a report on the 'Daily Caller' site on 29 August 2013, Kenneth Timmerman claimed that
the sequence had started with an actual intercept by Unit 8200 – the Israeli equivalent
of GCHQ and NSA.
Claiming to base his account on Western intelligence sources, he suggested that:
'According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain,
France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel's famed
Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just
the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.'
While I am not in a position to establish whether his claim is or is not accurate, an AP
report on the same day quoted 'U.S. intelligence officials' explaining that 'an intercept of
Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct
evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander'.
Meanwhile, Timmerman's claim that 'The doctored report was picked up on Israel's Channel 2
TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The
Cable in Washington, DC' is supported by links to the relevant stories, which say what he
claims they say.
Moreover, it seems clear that the 1 September 2013 report was an attempt to counter a
– somewhat devastating – critique made in a 31 August post entitled 'The Troodos
Conundrum' by the former British Ambassador Craig Murray, who had been closely involved with
the facility during his time at the Foreign Office (and has written invaluable material on
the Salisbury incident.)
Precisely because of the closeness of the GCHQ/NSA collaboration, Murray brought out,
there was indeed a major problem explaining why claims about 'SIGINT' had been central to the
case made in the 'Government Assessment' released by the White House on 30 August 2013, but
not even mentioned in the Joint Intelligence Community 'Assessment' produced two days
before.
The answer, Murray suggested, was that the 'intelligence' came from Mossad, and so would
not have been automatically shared with the British. But, given the superior capabilities of
Troodos, if Mossad had it, the British should have also. So his claims 'meshed' with those by
Timmerman and the AP, and the 'Express' report looks like a lame attempt at a cover-up.
Again however, one finds the world is a paradoxical place. As I noted in my SST post,
detailed demolitions of the claims about 'SIGINT' in relation to Ghouta were provided both
Seymour Hersh, in the 'Whose sarin?' article, and also on the 'Who Attacked Ghouta?' site
masterminded by one 'sasa wawa.'
Later, it became clear that this was likely to be the Israeli technology entrepreneur Saar
Wilf, a former employee of Unit 8200. So this may – or may not – be an indication
of deep divisions within Israeli intelligence.
Between 18 March and 31 April, a fascinating series of posts on the Salisbury incident
appeared on the 'Vineyard of the Saker' blog. The author, who used the name 'sushi', was a
self-professed IT professsional, who had however obviously acquired an extensive familiarity
with 'chemical forensics' and appeared to have some experience of 'SIGINT.'
In a 14 April post, 'sushi' produced a dismissal of the claims about 'SIGINT' implicating
the Russians over the Salisbury incident quite as contemptuous as that which 'sasa wawa' had
produced in relation to the claims about it incriminating the Syrian government over
Ghouta.
Pointing to the implausibility of the story disseminated by the 'Express', he remarked
that:
'It is doubted that any message traffic is processed on Cyprus. It is more likely that the
entire take is transmitted back to GCHQ in Cheltenham via a fibre optic link. There exabytes
of take are processed, not by a bored flight lieutenant, but by banks of high speed
computers.
'Clearly someone in Cheltenham has committed a programming error. Anyone with any
knowledge of secret communications knows that the code phrase used to confirm a murder in
Salisbury is "small pizza, no anchovies." '
Interestingly, another paper in the 'Express' group made a parallel claim in relation to
the Khan Sheikhoun incident to that about the Ghouta incident, but the story was not picked
up and may indeed have been suppressed.
On 9 April, the paper published a report headlined 'Brit spies' lead role in Syrian air
strikes; RAF BASE IS 'WEAPON.' This claimed that 'within an hour of the airstrike', Troodos
had intercepted communications revealing that nerve gas had been used, and had been delivered
by jets from the Syrian Arab Air Force's Shayrat Air Base.
I was drafting a response to the comment by 'Barbara Ann' – thanks for the link to
the recent posts by Adam Carter – before going out. Returning and reading some very
interesting comments, I think what I wanted to say has more general relevance.
One reason I am reading so much into 'this Dzerzhinsky thing' is the body of accumulating
evidence that people like Tait are part of a system of networks which combine
sanctimoniousness, corruption and stupidity in about equal measures. So some more examples
may be to the point.
Different cases in which I have taken an interest come together in a post by Tait on the
'Lawfare' site on 13 March, entitled 'U.K. Prime Minister's Speech on the Russian Poisoning
of Sergei Skripal: Decoding the Signals.'
In support of the claim that in accusing Russia of a pioneering act of chemical terrorism
Theresa May was relying upon accurate analysis from the 'U.K. intelligence community', Tait
wrote that:
'May then explained that Skripal was poisoned by a "military-grade nerve agent of a type
developed by Russia one of a group of nerve agents known as 'Novichok.'" She is laying out
the basic groundwork for the government's attribution to a nation state and, more
specifically, Russia. At Porton Down, the U.K. has one of the world's best forensic labs for
analyzing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. With the poisoning of Alexander
Litvinenko in 2006, this lab not only established that Polonium-210 was used but also which
reactor in Russia it came from.'
In the event, as is by now well know, Boris Johnson's claim that Porton Down scientists
had told him that the agent which poisoned the Skripals came from Russia was specifically
repudiated by the head of that organisation, Gary Aitkenhead, on 3 April. Our Foreign
Secretary told a flagrant lie, and was exposed.
As I have shown in previous posts on this site, the 'Inquiry' conducted by Sir Robert Owen
into the death of Litvinenko was patently corrupt. Moreover, it seems highly likely that, in
fabricating 'evidence' to cover up what actually happened, Christopher Steele was doing a
'dry-run' for the fabrication of material in the dossier published by 'BuzzFeed.'
In fact, however, Owen's report made quite clear that the role of Porton Down was
marginal. Furthermore, 'Scientist A1' from the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston
quite specifically rejected the claim that 'impurity profiling' made it possible to establish
that the source of the polonium was the Avangard facility at Sarov, her arguments being
accepted by Owen. Either Tait has not bothered to read the report or very much of the
coverage, or he is lying.
What Porton Down did do was to use 'impurity profiling', which can produce 'spectra'
identifying even the tiniest traces of substances, to frustrate the attempt to use the 'false
flag' attack at Ghouta on 21 August 2013 to inveigle the American and British governments
into destroying the Assad 'régime' and handing the country over to jihadists.
It may well be that this display of competence and integrity led to a 'clampdown' at the
organisation, which encouraged Boris Johnson to believe he could get away with lying about
what its scientists told him.
A general pattern which emerges is that the same small group of 'disinformation peddlers'
resurfaces in different contexts – and the pattern whereby 'private security companies'
are used to create a spurious impression of independence also recurs.
As I bring out in my piece on Ghouta, two figures who were critical in shaping the
'narrative' acccording to which Syrian government responsibility for the atrocity had been
conclusively proved, were Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, formerly the former commanding
officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment, and also NATO's
Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion, and Dan Kaszeta.
Immediately after the story of the poisoning of the Skripals on 4 March broke, the same
duo reappeared, and have been as critical to shaping the 'narrative' about the later incident
as they were to that about the former.
(For the piece by Kaszeta on 'Bellingcat' which introduced the 'Novichok' theme four days
later, see
https://www.bellingcat.com/... .)
This makes it particular interesting to look at the website of Kaszeta's consultancy,
'Strongpoint Security Limited', in conjunction with the 'Companies House' documentation on
the company.
One would have thought from the website that his company was a small, but hardly
insignificant, player, in the field of 'physical and operational security.' As it happens,
having filed 'Total exemption small company accounts' since its incorporation in May 2011,
last December it filed 'Micro company accounts' for the year to 31 May 2017.
With a turnover of £20,000, staff costs of a bit more than half of that, and a
profit of £394, we can see that although unlike Matt Tait's, Kaszeta's company did
trade, if indeed it was his sole source of income, this pivotal figure in Anglo-American
'disinformation operations' was living on something less than $15,000 a year, at current
exchange rates. (Pull the other one, as we say in Britain.)
This is all the more ironic, as the website brings out quite how critical a figure Kaszeta
has been in obscuring the truth. From the bio he gives, we learn that having started as a
Chemical Officer in the U.S. Army, he worked for 12 years in the White House, dealing with
CBRN matters, before moving to Britain in 2008.
Among the articles to which he links on the site, we see his response in 'NOW Lebanon' in
December 2013 to Hersh's original 'Whose sarin?' piece on Ghouta, -- in which Kaszeta first
introduced the famous 'hexamine hypothesis.'
This – patently preposterous – suggestion that the presence of a single
'impurity' is a 'smoking gun' incriminating the Syrian government has echoed on into the
clearly corrupt OPCW documents purporting to demonstrate that it was responsible for the 4
April 2017 Khan Sheikhoun attack.
Of some interest in understanding where Kaszeta he is coming from is what he describes as
his 'oldest (and most footnoted on Wikipedia)' piece, which is an article published in 1988
on a site called 'Lituanus', on 'Lithuanian Resistance to Foreign Occupation 1940-52.'
As to Colonel de Bretton-Gordon, it is of interest to look at the attempt to 'finger' the
GRU over the Skripal poisoning published under the title 'UK Poisoning Inquiry turns to
Russian Agency in Mueller Indictments' in the 'New York Times' last Sunday, and the response
by the Russian Embassy in London to a question about it.
The response objects that 'while the British authorities keep concealing all information
concerning the investigation into the Salisbury incident, the newspaper has quoted "one
former US official familiar with the inquiry".'
It also asserts that that crucial evidence which has not been made available to the
Russians – and here, as with Ghouta and Khan Sheikhoun, the results of 'impurity
profiling' are critical – appears to have been shared not just with inappropriate
Americans, but with all kinds of others.
And indeed, the Embassy is quite right in suggesting that the claim made by the supposed
creator of 'Novichok', Vladimir Uglev, to the BBC in April about 'all the spectrum data I was
sent recently' has neither been confirmed nor denied. This seems a general pattern –
the 'spectra' which may actually be able to provide definitive answers to questions of
responsibility are only provided to people who can be relied upon to give the 'right'
answers.
The Embassy response also quite fairly refers to a report in the 'Times' also in April,
about the 'intelligence' which had been 'used to persuade world leaders that Moscow was
behind the poisoning' and that the 'Novichok' had been manufactured at the Shikhany facility
at in southwest Russia, which stated that de Bretton-Gordon, 'who had seen the intelligence,
called it very compelling.' He has a long history of lying about CW in Syria – so is
obviously the right person to lie about them in the UK.
It thus becomes interesting to probe into what lies behind the opening of de
Bretton-Gordon's entry on the 'Military Speakers' website ('Real Heroes; Real Stories.')
According to this, he is 'Chief Operating Office of SecureBio Ltd a commercial company
offering CBRN Resilience, consultancy and deployable capabilities.'
From 'Companies House', we learn that the liquidation of 'Secure Bio', which started in in
June 2015, was concluded in August last year. The really interesting thing about the records,
however, is that at the time of the liquidation the company had very large debts, which were
written off, of a kind and in a manner which suggested that de Bretton-Gordon's activities
may have been largely funded by loans from untraceable sources which were not meant to be
repaid.
Actually, with the 'NYT' report we come full circle. Among those quoted is Mark Galeotti
– apparently his admission that he had totally misrepresented the thinking of the
Russian General Staff has not him made more cautious about making extravagant claims about
its Main Intelligence Directorate (misreported as Main Directorate by the 'NYT.')
Also quoted are two figures who play key roles in Owen's Report – the Soviet era-GRU
defector 'Viktor Suvorov' (real name 'Vladimir Rezun') and the former KGB operative Yuri
Shvets. Both of these feature prominently in the posts on the Litvinenko affair to which I
have linked, and both were key members of the 'information operations' network centred around
the late Boris Berezovsky. This now seems to have taken control of American policy, as of
British.
The role of 'Suvorov'/Rezun in attempting to defend the interpretations of Stalin's policy
put forward by MI6 in the run-up to the Second World War, and those asserted later by General
Keitel, and the way he was demolished by the leading American historian of the War in the
East, Colonel David Glantz, and the Israeli historian Gabriel Gorodetsky, is too large a
subject to go into here.
However, it provides further reason to wonder whether the misreadings of Stalin's policy
which caused MI6 to give advice to Chamberlain which helped destroy the last chances of
preventing the Nazi-Soviet Pact, may still be the 'house view' of that organisation. It was,
obviously, the Pact which spelled 'curtains' both for Poland and the Baltics.
There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the
propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment. The depths that were plumbed to push the
Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any honest
accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note.
We see the same situation of sweeping under the rug malfeasance and even outright
criminality through obfuscation and obstruction in the case of the meddling in the 2016
election by top officials in intelligence and law enforcement. Clearly less and less people
are buying what the Deep State sells despite their overwhelming control of the media
channels.
It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced
in the Soviet Union when no one trusted the contents in Pravda.
What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons
cases since Litvinenko? In the US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become
extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance is futile is very
high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to
their dictats.
STEPHEN COHEN: ...Are the Russians still targeting our elections?" This is in the category "Are you still beating your wife?"
There is no proof that the Russians have targeted or attacked our elections. But it's become axiomatic. What kind of media is that,
are the Russians still, still attacking our elections.
And what Michael McFaul, whom I've known for years, formerly Ambassador McFaul, purportedly a scholar and sometimes a scholar
said, it is simply the kind of thing, to be as kind as I can, that I heard from the John Birch Society about President Eisenhower
when he went to meet Khrushchev when I was a kid growing up in Kentucky.
...to stage a kangaroo trial of the president of the United States in the mainstream media, and have plenty of once-dignified
people come on and deliver the indictment, is without precedent in this country
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
Philippics are good, but at some point they faile to exite. The key question that Phipip forgot to ander is: Dore Izreal acts
a alobbist of the US MIC or it hasits own l(local agnda) that conflicts the MIC interests in the region.
So President Donald Trump reckoned on Monday that the United States Intelligence Community (IC) just might be wrong in its assessment
that Russia had sought to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election but then decided on Tuesday that he misspoke and had the greatest confidence
in the IC and now agrees that they were correct in their judgment. But Donald Trump, interestingly, added something about there being
"others" that also had been involved in the election in an attempt to subvert it, though he was not specific and the national media
has chosen not to pursue the admittedly cryptic comment. He was almost certainly referring to China both due to possible motive and
the possession of the necessary resources to carry out such an operation. Indeed, there are
reports that China hacked the 30,000 Hillary Clinton emails that are apparently still missing.
Just how one interferes in an election in a large country with diverse sources of information and numerous polling stations located
in different states using different systems is, of course, problematical. The United States has interfered in elections everywhere,
including in Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It engaged in regime change in Iran, Chile, and Guatemala by supporting conservative elements
in the military which obligingly staged coups. In Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. forces invaded and overthrew the governments while in
Libya the change in regime was largely brought about by encouraging rebels while bombing government forces. The same model has been
applied in Syria, though without much success because Damascus actually was bold enough to resist.
So how do the Chinese "others" bring about "change" short of a full-scale invasion by the People's Liberation Army? I do not know
anything about actual Chinese plans to interfere in future American elections and gain influence over the resulting newly elected
government but would like to speculate on just how they might go about that onerous task.
First, I would build up an infrastructure in the United States that would have access to the media and be able to lobby and corrupt
the political class. That would be kind of tricky as it would require getting around the Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938 (FARA),
which requires representatives of foreign governments operating in the United States to register and have their finances subject
to review by the Department of the Treasury. Most recently, several Russian news agencies that are funded by the Putin government
have been required to do so, including RT International and Sputnik radio and television.
The way to avoid the FARA registration requirement is to have all funding come through Chinese-American sources that are not directly
connected with the government in Beijing. Further, the foundations and other organizations should be set up as having an educational
purpose rather than a political agenda. You might want to call your principal lobbying group something like the American Chinese
Political Action Committee or ACPAC as an acronym when one is referring to it shorthand.
Once established, ACPAC will hire and send hundreds of Chinese-American lobbyists to Capitol Hill when Congress is in session.
They will be carefully selected to come from as many states and congressional districts as possible to maximize access to legislative
offices. They will have with them position papers prepared by the ACPAC central office that explain why a close and uncritical relationship
with Beijing is not only the right thing to do, it is also a good thing for the United States.
As part of the process, new Congressmen will benefit from free trips to China paid for by an educational foundation set up for
that purpose. They will be able to walk on the Great Wall and speak to genuine representative Chinese who will tell them how wonderful
everything is in the People's Republic.
Congressmen who nevertheless appear to be resistant to the lobbying and the emoluments will be confronted with a whole battery
of alternative reasons why they should be filo-Chinese, including the thinly veiled threat that to behave otherwise could be construed
as politically damaging anti-Orientalist racism. For those who persist in their obduracy, the ultimate weapon will be citation of
the horrors of the Second World War Rape of Nanking. No one wants to be accused of being a Rape of Nanking denier.
The second phase of converting Congress is to set up a bunch of Political Action Committees (PACs). They will have innocuous names
like Rocky Mountain Sheep Herders Association, but they will all really be about China. When the money begins to flow into the campaign
coffers of legislators any concerns about what China is doing in the world will cease. The same PACs can be use to fund billboards
and voter outreach in some districts, allowing China to have a say in the elections without actually having to surface or be explicit
about whom it supports. Other PACs can work hard at inserting material into social websites, similar to what the Russians have been
accused of doing.
And then there is the mass media. Using the same Chinese-American conduit, you would simply buy up controlling interests in newspapers
and other media outlets. And you would begin staffing those outlets with earnest young Chinese-Americans who will be highly protective
of Chinese interests and never write a story critical of the government in Beijing or the Chinese people. That way the American public
will eventually become so heavily propagandized by the prevailing narrative that they will never question anything that China does,
ideally beginning to refer to it as the "only democracy in Asia" and "America's best friend in the whole wide world." Once the indoctrination
process is completed, the Chinese leadership might even crush demonstrators with tanks in Tiananmen Square or line up snipers to
pick off protest leaders and no congressman or newspaper would dare say nay.
When the political classes and media are sufficiently under control, it would then be time to move to the final objective: the
dismantling of the United States Constitution. In particularly, there is that pesky Bill of Rights and the First Amendment guaranteeing
Free Speech. That would definitely have to go, so you round up your tame Congress critters and you elect a president who is also
in your pocket, putting everything in place for the "slam-dunk." You pass a battery of laws making any criticism of China both racist
and felonious, with punitive fines and prison sentences attached. After that success, you can begin to dismantle the rest of the
Bill of Rights and no one will be able to say a word against what you are doing because the First Amendment will by then be a dead
duck. When the Constitution is in shreds and Chinese lobbyists are firmly in control of corrupted legislators, Beijing will have
won a bloodless victory against the United States and it all began with just a little interference in America's politics alluded
to by Donald Trump.
Of course, dear reader, all of the above might be true but for the fact that I am not talking about China at all and am only using
that country as a metaphor. Beijing may have spied on the U.S. elections but it otherwise has evidenced little interest in manipulating
elections or controlling any aspect of the U.S. government. And even though I am sure that Donald Trump was not referring to Israel
when he made his offhand comment about "others," the shoe perfectly fits that country's subjugation of many of the foreign and national
security policy mechanisms in the United States over the past fifty years. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently
boasted
about how he controls Trump and convinced him to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement.
The real mystery, if there is one, is why no American politician has either the guts or the integrity or perhaps the necessary
intelligence to substitute Tel Aviv for Moscow and to call Israel out like we are currently calling out Russia for actions that pale
in comparison to what Netanyahu has been up to.
To be specific, there is no evidence that Russia ever asked for favors from Trump's campaign staff and transition team but
Israel did so over a vote on its illegal
settlements at the United Nations. Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Congress interested? No. Is the media interested? No.
Israel, relying on Jewish power and money to do the heavy lifting, has completely corrupted many aspects of American government
and, in particular, its foreign policy by aggressive lobbying and buying politicians. All new members of Congress and spouses are
taken to Israel on generously funded "fact finding"
tours after being elected to make sure they get their bearings straight right from the git-go. Israel's nearly total control over
the message on the Middle East coming out of the U.S. mainstream is aided and abetted by the numerous Jewish editors and journalists
who are prepared to pump the party line. The money to do all this comes from Jewish billionaires like Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson,
who have their hooks deep into both political parties. Meanwhile, the ability of America's most powerful foreign policy lobby AIPAC
to avoid registration as a foreign agent is completely due to the exercise of Jewish power in the United States which means in practice
that Israel and its advocates will never be sanctioned in any way.
Israel is eager to have the United States fight Iran on its behalf, even though Washington has no real interest in doing so, and
all indications are that it will be successful. Though it is a rich country, it receives a multi-billion-dollar handout from the
U.S. Treasury every year. When its war criminal prime minister comes to town he receives
26 standing ovations from a completely sycophantic congress and now the United States has even stationed soldiers in Israel who
are
"prepared to die" for Israel even though there is no treaty of any kind between the two countries and the potential victims have
likely never been consulted regarding dying for a foreign country. All of this takes place without the public ever voting on or even
discussing the relationship, a tribute to the fact that both major parties and the media have been completely co-opted.
And now there is the assault on the First Amendment, with legislation currently in Congress
making
it a crime either to criticize Israel or support a boycott of it in support of Palestinian rights. When those bills become law,
which they will, we are finished as a country where fundamental rights are respected.
And what has Russia done in comparison to all this? Hardly anything even if all the claims about its alleged interference are
true. So when will Mueller and all the Republican and Democratic baying dogs say a single word about Israel's interference in our
elections and political processes? If past behavior is anything to go by, it will never happen.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O.
Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Thanks for the great article, Sir. You are so right.
The New York Times should change its name to Tel Aviv Times. Everyday, it interferes in virtually every US election, on behalf
of Israel, attacking candidates who do not support Israel or those who are patriotic and want to ban immigration.
Same with CNN, WaPo, the Economist (a Rothschild publication), etc.
Our Congressmen are Gazans. They are forced to sign pledges supporting Israel, and forced to destroy their country through
3rd world immigration, or risk destruction of their careers, mockery or defamation by the Zionist controlled media, loss of campaign
contributions from their biggest donors, or even risk being framed.
When Cynthia McKinney refused to sign the pledge, she was forced out. When another freshman Congressman simply wanted to delay
a vote in favor of Israel, he was attacked, taken to Israel where he was softened up and now is totally under the Jewish Lobby's
control.
"... With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions. ..."
An answer was needed, so one was created: the Russians. As World War II ended with the U.S.
the planet's predominant power, dark forces saw advantage in arousing new
fears . The Soviet Union morphed from a decimated ally in the fight against fascism into a
competitor locked in a titanic struggle with America. How did they get so powerful so quickly?
Nothing could explain it except traitors. Cold War-era America? Or 2018 Trump America? Yes, on
both counts.
To some, that fear was not a problem but a tool -- one could defeat political enemies simply
by accusing them of being Russian sympathizers. There was no need for evidence, so desperate
were Americans to believe; just an accusation that someone was in league with Russia was
enough. Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy fired his first shot on February
9, 1950, proclaiming there were 205 card-carrying members of the Communist Party working for
the Department of State. The evidence? Nothing but assertions .
Indeed, the very word " McCarthyism " came to mean making accusations
of treason without sufficient evidence. Other definitionsinclude a ggressively
questioning a person's patriotism, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to
adhere to conformist politics or discredit an opponent, and subverting civil and political
rights in the name of national security.
Pretending to be saving America while he tore at its foundations, McCarthy destroyed
thousands of lives over the next four years simply by pointing a finger and saying "communist."
Whenever anyone invoked his Fifth Amendment right to silence, McCarthy answered that this was "the
most positive proof obtainable that the witness is communist." The power of accusation was used
by others as well: the Lavender
Scare , which concluded that the State Department was overrun with closeted homosexuals who
were at risk of being blackmailed by Moscow for their perversions, was an offshoot of
McCarthyism, and by 1951, 600 people had been fired based solely on evidence-free "morals"
charges. State legislatures and school boards mimicked McCarthy.
Books and movies were banned. Blacklists abounded. The FBI embarked on campaigns of political
repression (they would later claim Martin Luther King Jr. had
communist ties), even as journalists and academics voluntarily narrowed their political
thinking to exclude communism.
Watching sincere people succumb to paranoia again, today, is not something to relish. But
having trained themselves to intellectualize away Hillary Clinton's flaws, as they had with
Obama, about half of America seemed truly gobsmacked when she lost to the antithesis of
everything that she had represented to them. Every
poll (that they read) said she would win. Every
article (that they read) said it too, as did every
person (that they knew). Lacking an explanation for the unexplainable, many advanced
scenarios that would have failed high school civics, claiming that only the popular vote
mattered, or that the archaic
Emoluments Clause prevented Trump from taking office, or that Trump was insane and could be
disposed of under the
25th Amendment .
After a few trial balloons during the primaries under which
Bernie Sanders' visits to Russia and
Jill Stein's attendance at a banquet in Moscow were used to imply disloyalty, the fearful
cry that the Russians meddled in the election morphed into the claim that Trump had worked with
the Russians and/or (fear is flexible) that the Russians had something on Trump. Everyone
learned a new Russian word: kompromat .
Donald Trump became the Manchurian Candidate. That term was taken from a 1959 novel made
into a classic Cold War movie that follows an American soldier brainwashed by communists as
part of a Kremlin plot to gain influence in the Oval Office. A
Google search shows that dozens of news sources -- including
The
New York Times , Vanity
Fair ,
Salon ,
The Washington Post , and, why not, Stormy Daniels' lawyer
Michael Avenatti -- have all claimed that Trump is
a 2018 variant of the Manchurian Candidate,
controlled by ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin.
The birth moment of Trump as a Russian asset is traceable to MI-6 intelligence
officer-turned-Democratic opposition researcher-turned FBI mole
Christopher Steele , whose "dossier" claimed the existence of the pee tape. Supposedly,
somewhere deep in the Kremlin is a surveillance video made in 2013 of Trump in Moscow's
Ritz-Carlton Hotel, watching prostitutes urinate on a bed that the Obamas had once slept in. As
McCarthy did with homosexuality, naughty sex was thrown in to keep the rubes' attention.
No one, not even Steele's alleged informants, has actually seen
the pee tape. It exists in a blurry land of certainty alongside the elevator
tape , alleged video of Trump doing something in an elevator that's so salacious it's been
called "Every Trump Reporter's White Whale." No one knows when the elevator video was made, but
a dossier-length article in
New York magazine posits that Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987.
Suddenly no real evidence is necessary, because it is always right in front of your face.
McCarthy accused
Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower of being communists or communist stooges over the
"loss" of China in 1949. Trump holds a bizarre press conference in Helsinki and the only
explanation must be that he is a traitor.
Nancy
Pelosi ("President Trump's weakness in front of Putin was embarrassing, and proves that the
Russians have something on the president, personally, financially, or politically") and
Cory Booker ("Trump is acting like he's guilty of something") and
Hillary Clinton ("now we know whose side he plays for") and John Brennan ("rises to and
exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous.
Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin") and
Rachel Maddow ("We haven't ever had to reckon with the possibility that someone had
ascended to the presidency of the United States to serve the interests of
another country rather than our own") and others have said that Trump is
controlled by Russia. As in 1954 when the press provided live TV coverage of McCarthy's
dirty assertions against the Army, the modern media uses each new assertion as "proof" of an
earlier one. Snowballs get bigger rolling downhill.
When assertion is accepted as evidence, it forces the other side to prove a negative to
break free. So until Trump "proves" he is not a Russian stooge, his denials will be seen as
attempts to wiggle out from under evidence that in fact doesn't exist. Who, pundits ask, can
come up with a better explanation for Trump's actions than blackmail, as if that was a
necessary step to clearing his name?
Joe McCarthy's victims faced similar challenges: once labeled a communist or a homosexual,
the onus shifted to them to somehow prove they weren't. Their failure to prove their innocence
became more evidence of their guilt. The Cold War version of this mindset was well illustrated
in movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or the classic Twilight Zone episode "
The Monsters Are Due on
Maple Street ." Anyone who questions this must themselves be at best a useful fool, if not
an outright Russia collaborator. (Wrote one
pundit : "They are accessories, before and after the fact, to the hijacking of a democratic
election. So, yes, goddamn them all.") In the McCarthy era, the term was "fellow traveler":
anyone, witting or unwitting, who helped the Russians. Mere skepticism, never mind actual
dissent, is muddled with disloyalty.
Blackmail? Payoffs? Deals? It isn't just the months of Mueller's investigation that have
passed without evidence. The IRS and Treasury have had Trump's tax documents and financials for
decades, even if Rachel Maddow has not. If Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987, or even
2013, he has done it behind the backs of the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and NSA. Yet at the same
time, in what history would see as the most out-in-the-open intelligence operation ever, some
claim he asked on TV for his handlers to deliver hacked emails. In TheManchurian
Candidate , the whole thing was at least done in secret as you'd expect.
With impeachment itself on the table, Mueller has done little more than issue the
equivalent of parking tickets to foreigners he has no jurisdiction over. Intelligence summaries
claim the Russians meddled, but don't show that Trump was involved. Indictments against
Russians are cheered as evidence, when they are just Mueller's uncontested assertions.
There is no evidence the president is acting on orders from Russia or is under their
influence. None.
As with McCarthy, as in those famous witch trials at Salem, allegations shouldn't be
accepted as truth, though in 2018 even pointing out that basic tenet is blasphemy. The burden
of proof should be on the accusing party, yet the standing narrative in America is that the
Russia story must be assumed plausible, if not true, until proven false. Joe McCarthy tore
America apart for four years under just such standards, until finally public opinion, led by
Edward R. Murrow , a
journalist brave enough to demand answers McCarthy did not have, turned against him. There is no
Edward R. Murrow in 2018.
When asking for proof is seen as disloyal, when demanding evidence after years of
accusations is considered a Big Ask, when a clear answer somehow always needs additional time,
there is more on the line in a democracy than the fate of one man.
Peter Van Buren, a
24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and
Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War
: A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter @WeMeantWell .
The Rosenstein Justice Department is entirely too calculated and manipulative, from all we have now seen, to believe there is
not a deep and profound ulterior motive behind its obstinate, even petulant, refusal to produce critical documents at the center
of the entire Russian collusion pretextual hoax that, beyond question now, was manufactured."
Roger Stone 4 hours
ago | 311
31 Stay classy MSM
Well, America's national freak show hit
parade of the sleazy shaved head "Intelligence Community" liars, and Bond-villainous deep state subversives are at it again, busy
rolling out the 6th or 7th permutation (who can keep count?) of their ever-evolving (ever-collapsing, really) Russian collusion defamation-distraction
hoax.
Even with the fact that bipartisan hitman Robert Mueller has spent $16 Million and two years using bully tactics and continuously
threatening lawyers for people who don't care to testify in this Inquisition still has proof of collusion, conspiracy.
Deep State Democrat frauds are frantic to keep the most cynical, deceitful smear campaign in American history alive and kicking.
Time is not on their side. It has brought steady plodding revelation of the facts, inevitably exposing the depths of their deceit
and willingness to corrupt public power.
With their bag of manipulative dirty tricks approaching exhaustion these sordid schemers are in panic mode, and their shrill lies
and flailing antics are escalating. On July 23, 2018, two of California's worst political afflictions on America, Nancy Pelosi, and
Adam Schiff used the ruse of announcing a toothless, useless House resolution "condemning" the president's remarks at the Helsinki
summit to double down on their latest round of twisted defamations of President Trump.
" As the whole world knows, one week ago, President Trump sold out our democracy ," crowed Pelosi, in typically-understated
rhetorical style.
Without the slightest irony, the under-medicated then incredibly pronounced, " The last thing you want in intelligence is partisanship,
and we were able to avoid that for so long ."
[Certainly, Nancy, we wouldn't want that. And rest assured, the self-unmasking of the psychopathic duo of Obama thugs John Brennan
and James Clapper has made abundantly obvious which lying partisan lunatics are responsible for ending this mythical streak of non-partisan
intelligence.]
If nothing else, Pelosi and Schiff's grandstand-of-the-day highlighted how practiced and polished the Democrat tribe's demagogues
are at hyperbole, hypocrisy and almost medical-grade ingenuity. Entirely predictable does not make their nauseating faux sanctimony
any less appalling to witness, though.
But really who's to complain when watching one's opponents make complete asses of themselves huckstering a contrived scandal that
is polling around 1% in the list of most important issues to Americans.
Plus, if not for power-lusting Democrat demagogues like Adam and Nancy and their Democrat platoon of expert political bullshit
artists, America might be forced to go on without the benefit of having our public life perpetually hijacked by one phony leftist
melodrama after another.
With the president's poll numbers steadily rising, when not holding firm, it is easy to understand why the conniptions underway
amongst the unholy alliance between the bellicose Russo-phobic Beltway war party and perpetually-impotent Democrat leftist losers.
Both camps were tossed aside .dethroned in one fell swoop by the ascendancy of a president who promotes the alien idea of having
peace around the world. It is no wonder they are so apoplectic.
They are getting an object lesson about how Donald Trump will not be bumrushed and bullied into launching any more messianic military
misadventures, squandering American blood and treasure in some hell hole on the other side of the planet. Nor will he be hoaxed into
provoking the world's only other nuclear power even close to the United States in its stockpile.
Their latest descent into It was not enough that the Robert Mueller hit squad, being so high, holy and apolitical as we have all
been repeatedly admonished by those whose motives are just as pure, happened to conveniently announce the indictment of 12 Russians
within hours of the president's face-to-face meetings with the Russian president.
Surely this was just a pure coincidence. Who could dare think there was anything suspicious (or malicious) about having an ad
hoc legal inquisition headed by Barack Obama's former FBI chief and loaded with Hillary Clinton supporters (donors, even) spark a
partisan media frenzy around astonishingly-specific domestic criminal allegations against purported agents of America's only matching
nuclear-armed rival on the planet, just as the president is on foreign soil daring try to establish a workable relationship with
that nation, potentially affecting everything from middle-east conflict reduction to North Korean denuclearization.
Apparently this cute little connivance staged by Trump's own #2 at the DOJ, the pompous smirking self-righteous foot-dragger and
Mueller protégé Rod Rosenstein, was merely a prelude to the truly-grotesque torrent of vicious, seditious slander unleashed on the
president by the Clinton-Obama fifth columnists and their himself was about one step away from facing articles of impeachment for
his obstruction of congressional oversight and inquiry into the unprecedented abuse of national security by Obama apparatchiks.
Over at the Comey Noise Network, the hairless, brainless, spineless tub of crap named Brian Stelter (you can also refer to him
by his initials: BS) oozed up from his feeding hole to act as a lead parrot for their latest and, so far, thinnest of fabricated
defamations.
CNN's very own BS ominously posed their latest ploy to all six of his viewers and on Twitter in the form of laughably-demented
questions:
"What does Putin have on Trump?"
"Has he been compromised ?"
When there is a particularly important lie or smear or spin that the Democrat-Media axis of sleaze wants to be injected into the
news cycle, the specific talking (lying) points will usually be assigned to multiple prominent Democrat spokesliars to be repeated
pretty much verbatim in separate appearances on various high profile news outlets (the Sunday morning network shows are most favored).
Whether their latest consensus lie is meant to breathe new life into their perpetually-collapsing false narrative using a newly
cooked-up defamation or false accusation or it is designed to manufacture a timely distraction drawing attention away from some other
story they want to be squelched, the imperative of putting it out there can be gauged by how many media stooges are enlisted to parrot
it and how precisely the stooges repeat the exact wording of the lie.
This was clearly the case with the latest load of bullschiff initially shoveled by Stelter. Chief Hoaxliar Adam Schiff (and likely
fabricator of most or all of the Trump-Russia lies and manipulations floated over the last two years) added his shiny talking head
to Smelter's stooging, on where else but ABC's This Week with Clinton deceit fluffer and amenable leftist dwarf, George Stephanopoulos.
Schiff quadrupled down, likely out of smug satisfaction at having concocted this latest twist on his Russia-Trump carousel of
lies:
"I think there's no ignoring the fact that for whatever reason, this president acts like he's compromised ."
"Well, I certainly think he's acting like someone who is compromised . And it may very well be that he is compromised
or it may very well be that he believes that he's compromised , that the Russians have information on him."
"I hope that Bob Mueller's investigating it, because again, if that's the leverage the Russians are using, it would not only explain
the president's behavior, but it would help protect the country by knowing that in fact our president was compromised ."
Schiff naturally did not find the 145 million smakers Bill and Hillary took from executives of the Russian State-owned Energy
company compromising – just as he sees no problem with his own association with defense contractors connected to Ukrainian Organized
crime.
Reinforcing these two spinning BS artists, they brought in a real luminary from the Obama Mafia to drive the smear home. Good
old Susan Rice, what with her clean hands.
Like any other professional con artist, they know better than to linger around any particular pack of lies they pounded incessantly
for weeks, or even months, extracting every last molecule of ill-gotten benefit they possibly could from it while desperately squirming
to salvage anything possible from their messy, slimy trail of serially-debunked lies and disinformation.
The Rosenstein Justice Department is entirely too calculated and manipulative, from all we have now seen, to believe there is
not a deep and profound ulterior motive behind its obstinate, even petulant, refusal to produce critical documents at the center
of the entire Russian collusion pretextual hoax that, beyond question now, was manufactured.
Spot on about the Russiagate witch hunt -- but describing Trump as a "president who promotes the alien idea of having peace
around the world" is almost as Fake News as CNN.
Trump doesn't want peace in Iran. Trump doesn't want peace for Syria or Palestine.
He's less insane than Hitlery Clinton on Russia, but that's like saying he's less insane than Adolf Hitler on the issue of annexing
Austria.
Surely the Democrats suck -- but it's not like Republicans or Trump are the solution.
when thinking about Trump and Iran, try to inform your thoughts with the Trump and North Korea story .... he's a very skilled
dealmaker, and when doing negotiations, you don't lay your full hand on the table at the beginning ...
Perhaps Trump, et al, are not the solution, but in the U$ system they are the only other option. There will be only two options
until this straw shack finally goes up in flames, and rebuilds itself as something better.
They are getting an object lesson about how Donald Trump will not be
bumrushed and bullied into launching any more messianic military
misadventures
Unless one of those 'messianic adventures' features Iran in a starring role. This orange-haired assclown is literally minutes
away from doing his benefactor's bidding and starting a war with Persia.
A war the Monkey Empire will lose - but that's beside the point.
This is all great fun to see them hissing and fighting but at the end of the day, it is very unproductive to be so preoccupied
with things US. I promise I will try to avoid the soap opera a bit more.
The author expresses his justified anger in an ingenious and hilarious way! I just would like Mr. Stone to apologize for saying
that Trump will not continue "squandering American blood and treasure in some hell hole on the other side of the planet". The
invaded countries in the ME (or in other parts of the world earlier) were not "hell holes" before the US set its deadly boot on
their soil! The author's anger should not be deflected against the US gov's victims
Here's an important article on 'why' os many in the West, the neocons, hate Russia. Eye opening to the reality of things.
https://www.sott.net/articl...
Enough irony to explode your brain. Stone misidentifies the subversives in his McCarthy-Murrow graphic. Murrow represented
the anti-America Judeo-supremacist faction. It was McCarthy who accurately warned us of the Deep State threat for which shabbos
Murrow fronted.
Russiagate isn't a partisan freak show. It is a naked demonstration of Jewish subversion of public institutions to aggress
against the White race. Thank you for today's cognitive infiltration, (((Mr. Stone))). We so love marching in circles, it's good
cardio training.
There should be a special investigation into Mueller. Dodgy, some of the investigations he has been involved in, plus, who
he supports. Now why does Uranium One, so come to mind?
Has anybody read the George Eliason articles on the Mueller investigation?
Duh, no kidding. Ukrainian hackers have been posing as Russians from day one. Add to that, the SBU's little noivichok scam
and you have the full picture of Ukraine Today.
Congress CAN'T be that stupid. Only logical conclusion, they're in cahoots.
Have you seen how much they get from their sponsors? Funny, how the Pro-Israel America Lobby, spend so much on sponsoring politicians,
whilst doing nought for the people of Israel or America.
This article from The Saker, with regards who wrote the HR1644 Bill (then went on to write the Russian Sanction Bill, using
no more than a Government telephone directory), shows how much they are sponsored, not to represent the electorate. I could not
believe it, or the fact the Pro-Israel America Lobby, support the Ukraine Nazis.
THE US BILL H.R. 1644 TO KILL RUSSIAN FOOD EXPORT AND CHINESE TRADE
Authors of the Bill
Edward Randall "Ed" Royce, a member of the United States House of Representatives for California's 39th congressional district,
is listed as the main author of this bill.
Edward R. Royce is listed by the non-government political watchdogs as the top second US representative that received pro-Israel
campaign contributions – $233,943
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ed Royce: $4,041,553
NORPAC is a bipartisan, multi-candidate political action committee working to strengthen the United States–Israel relationship
– $114,243
Organization Contributions
NORPAC $114,243
Royce Victory Fund $35,100
Morgan Stanley $17,500
Mutual Pharmaceutical $15,600
Blackstone Group $13,500
Rida Development $13,500
First American Financial Corporation $12,700
Seville Classics $12,240
Arnold and Porter $12,200
Wells Fargo $12,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.
According to the MapLight disclamer, "Contributions data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (
OpenSecrets.org
). Legislative data from
GovTrack.us
. "
-- –
Eliot L. Engel Democrat (Elected 1988), NY House district 16
I wrote in details about the Representative Eliot Lance Engel in connection to his anti-Russia activities in authoring STAND
for Ukraine Act H.R. 5094 in May 2016
Eliot Lance Engel has been reported as being a recipient of the pro-Israel campaign contributions $191,150
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Eliot L. Engel: $1,596,646
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Pro-Israel $191,150
Real Estate $123,000
Health Professionals $105,925
Lawyers/Law Firms $95,186
Securities & Investment $68,025
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $55,700
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $36,350
Education $34,300
Building Trade Unions $34,000
Public Sector Unions $31,500
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
NORPAC $28,000
St Georges University $20,000
Natural Food Source Incorporated $16,200
Duty Free Americas $16,200
Stroock Stroock and Lavan $11,100
Nimeks Organics $10,800
Baystate Medical Center $10,800
Boeing Company $10,000
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,000
Raytheon Company $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.
-- -
Ted S. Yoho Republican (Elected 2013), FL House district 3
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ted S. Yoho: $721,346
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Crop Production & Basic Processing $72,411
General Contractors $39,451
Real Estate $35,177
Agricultural Services/Products $24,839
Health Professionals $23,960
Livestock $23,300
Special Trade Contractors $22,150
Pro-Israel $17,000
Securities & Investment $13,400
Printing & Publishing $11,800
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
Islands Mechanical $15,400
Anderson Columbia Company $13,400
Angel Investor $10,800
National Cattlemens Beef Association $10,000
Hennessey Arabian Horses $10,000
Florida Congressional Committee $10,000
American Crystal Sugar $7,500
Cecil W Powell And Company $6,400
Lockheed Martin $6,000
Vallencourt Construction $5,900
--
Brad Sherman Democrat (Elected 1996), CA House district 30
Brad Sherman has reputedly received $93,580 in pro-Israel campaign contributions.
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Brad Sherman: $1,575,550
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Real Estate $122,900
Securities & Investment $109,475
Pro-Israel $93,580
Lawyers/Law Firms $72,198
Insurance $69,300
Accountants $60,330
Building Trade Unions $57,500
Misc Finance $51,300
Health Professionals $46,575
TV/Movies/Music $46,015
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
NORPAC $25,720
Hackman Capital Partners $16,200
Capital Group Companies $15,400
Majestic Realty $10,800
Pachulski Stang Et Al $10,800
Saban Capital Group $10,800
Keyes Automotive Group $10,800
United Food and Commercial Workers Union $10,000
Honeywell International $10,000
Deloitte Llp $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.
--
The US Representatives sponsoring the Bill
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is listed as a recipient of the pro-Israel campaign contributions – $138,800
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Republican (Elected 1988), FL House district 27
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: $1,453,178
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Pro-Israel $140,650
Real Estate $85,650
Lawyers/Law Firms $80,048
Foreign & Defense Policy $53,750
Transportation Unions $38,000
Health Professionals $36,150
Republican/Conservative $34,700
Building Trade Unions $29,000
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $27,300
Defense Aerospace $26,750
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
Duty Free Americas $20,500
NORPAC $18,850
Leon Medical Centers $16,450
Southern Wine and Spirits $15,400
Clearpath Foundation $10,800
Badia Spices $10,800
Irving Moskowitz Foundation $10,800
Tate Enterprises $10,700
At and T Incorporated $10,000
Operating Engineers Union $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. Contributions fro
--
The US representative Ralph Lee Abraham, Jr.
Total Campaign Contributions Received by Ralph Lee Abraham: $649,364
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Crop Production & Basic Processing $76,435
Health Professionals $61,950
Agricultural Services/Products $33,200
Oil & Gas $23,950
Commercial Banks $23,450
Real Estate $22,775
Lawyers/Law Firms $20,850
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $17,900
Misc Business $15,100
Forestry & Forest Products $14,000
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
American Society of Anesthesiologists $15,000
American Sugar Cane League $10,000
National Association of Realtors $8,500
Farm Credit Council $8,000
Intermountain Management $6,300
Centurylink $6,250
Central Management $5,400
Moore Oil $5,400
Lasalle Management $5,400
Hospital Administrator $5,400
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016. Contributions from political
--
William R. Keating (D-MA) U.S. House
Total Campaign Contributions Received by William R. Keating: $1,094,550
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Lawyers/Law Firms $76,117
Building Trade Unions $67,500
Public Sector Unions $53,500
Transportation Unions $48,500
Industrial Unions $47,000
Real Estate $40,549
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $39,000
Special Trade Contractors $30,475
Defense Aerospace $30,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $26,500
Top 10 Organizations Funding
Organization Contributions
Superior Plumbing $21,700
Nixon Peabody LLP $13,320
United Food and Commercial Workers Union $10,000
Honeywell International $10,000
Plumberspipefitters Union $10,000
Carpenters and Joiners Union $10,000
Operating Engineers Union $10,000
Painters and Allied Trades Union $10,000
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,000
Ironworkers Union $10,000
Contributions above are for the last two years of available data, Nov 29, 2014 – Nov 28, 2016.
https://southfront.org/the-...
"... AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration to lead the investigation. ..."
"... Former FBI Director and Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related scandals to dissolve. ..."
It's Official: The US is in a Constitutional Crisis – Only President Trump Can Save the Nation Now!The US is now in a constitutional crisis. Yesterday Attorney General
Sessions announced that he was refusing to set up a special investigation into FBI and DOJ wrongdoing even though the evidence
of corruption, illegalities and cover ups of Obama and Clinton scandals is rampant. A year ago Sessions had no problem with the creation
of an unconstitutional investigation into President Trump when no crimes were committed.
Mueller's illegal Trump-Russia investigation moves on while investigations into obvious corruption and criminal activities in
Obama's FBI, DOJ and State Department are ignored. We asked in October what does the
deep state
have on AG Sessions causing him to ignore the constitution and his duty to serve the American people? It's now clear that Sessions
must go and a new team be brought in to clean up the FBI, DOJ and other deep state led government departments.
How did we get here?
During the 2016 election one of the biggest chants at Trump rallies was – Drain the swamp!
Americans were tired of the corruption and criminal acts perpetrated by the government under the Obama administration but no one
guessed how corrupt it really was. The sinister Obama administration had the audacity to spy on the Trump campaign using the entire
apparatus of the US government and then framed the incoming President once he won.
AG Sessions allowed a special investigation into the new President while allowing rogue actors from the Obama Administration
to lead the investigation.
Former FBI Director and
Dirty Cop Robert Mueller was selected to lead the investigation. Mueller had a history of allowing Clinton and Obama related
scandals to dissolve. Emailgate, Fast and Furious, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton emails, Uranium One, and the IRS scandal
all fizzled with no wrong doing identified over Mueller's years with the FBI. Mueller also was best friends with disgraced and fired
leaker former FBI Director James Comey. Mueller should have never taken the job to lead the investigation due to his numerous conflicts
of interest.
We know that the FBI had an investigation into the Clintons and money they received from Russia in return for giving Russia 20%
of all US uranium. Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial Uranium One deal in 2010, the FBI had evidence
that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir
Putin. The
FBI approved the deal anyway. We also know that Rosenstein and Mueller were the ones who allowed the Uranium One deal to go forward.
This was the real Russia collusion story involving the US government.
Mueller brought in
a team of Obama and Clinton lackeys to form his investigative team who had no intention of performing an independent and objective
investigation. The entire team is corrupt lefties who have represented the Clinton Foundation or let Hillary go in her obvious crimes
related to her email scandal. This included the texting FBI scoundrels Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Some suspect that their efforts
are as much to cover past wrong doings as to frame the current President for unethical acts.
We know that Mueller's team
illegally
obtained emails related to the Trump transition team as reported in December and these emails were protected under attorney-client
privilege. Mueller and his entire team should have resigned after this but the investigation moves on.
Unconstitutionality of the Mueller Investigation
Not only is the Mueller investigation corrupt, it is unconstitutional. We learned
in January that Paul Manafort was suing Mueller, Rosenstein and Sessions as Head of the DOJ due to the Mueller investigation
being unconstitutional.
Gregg Jarrett at FOX News wrote when initially Mueller brought charges against Manafort that Mueller is tasked with finding a
crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
In addition Jarrett stated-
As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate
crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017),
Rosenstein directed him to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated
with the campaign of President Donald Trump." It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.
Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law as noted previously by Jarrett.
Manafort's case argues in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller
powers that are not permitted by law –
But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further authority to investigate and prosecute
" any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." That grant of authority is not authorized
by DOJ's special counsel regulations. It is not a "specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." Nor is it an
ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
In addition to Jarrett and Manafort's arguments above, Robert Barnes wrote this past week at
Law
and Crimes that –
Paul Manafort's legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any
investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign.
I agree with this take on Mueller's authority. If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority
to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that
clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller's
requested interview with President Trump.
Sessions formally notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases and cases related
to obstruction of Mueller's investigation would be doing what the Constitution compels: enforcing the Appointments Clause of the
Constitution. Additionally, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases
would be exercising Sessions' court-recognized Constitutional
obligation to "direct and supervise
litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Furthermore, Sessions notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to
act outside of campaign-related cases protects against the inappropriate use of the federal grand jury that defendant Manafort
now rightly complains about.
Sessions limiting Mueller to the 2016 campaign would also be restoring confidence in democratic institutions, and restore public
faith that democratically elected officials.
One thing to remember about Sessions'
recusal : Sessions only recused himself from "any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the
campaigns for President of the United States." This recusal letter limits the scope of Sessions' recusal to the 2016 campaigns;
it does not authorize Sessions' recusal for anything beyond that. Constitutionally, Sessions has a "
duty to direct and supervise
litigation" conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory
obligations for cases that are not related to the "campaigns for President."
Not only is the Mueller investigation run by former FBI and DOJ criminals and bad cops but it is unconstitutional in the way it
was created and in the way it is currently being managed outside the scope of Sessions' recusal while incorporating Sessions duties
as AG.
The only solution
There's a lot of speculation from some Americans and Trump supporters who believe that AG Sessions is behind the scenes working
on cleaning the swamp, but this is all speculation. Little if any evidence supports these hopes.
We must look at the facts. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. Rosenstein was somehow recommended and hired
as Assistant AG. With a background of multiple conflicts of interest related to
Uranium One and having
signed off on at least one FISA warrant to spy on candidate and future President Trump, Rosenstein never should have been appointed.
In spite of his conflicts, Rosenstein hired Mueller to investigate President Trump and continues in his oversight role. Sessions',
Rosenstein's and Mueller's actions are unethical, illegal and unconstitutional.
We are currently in a constitutional crisis. AG Sessions will not uphold the law. He must be replaced with an aggressive, competent
and fair AG who will uphold the constitution. This is something we haven't had in at least a decade.
Only President Trump can save America. Only President Trump can replace AG Sessions and now it's time.
You're right. But the reality is being right doesn't do squat for Sessions very little credibility. For good reason...his actions
merit distrusting him. It's the height of arrogance and simply smells to high heaven that a "Man of the highest integrity"...would
knowingly allow himself to be confirmed one day and recuse himself the next day......without first telling his boss the POTUS.
That excuse dog is not going to hunt no matter how long or whomever blows that dog whistle. It's an insult to not only the
intelligence of folks but their common sense as well.
Bluntly, he is a disaster for the country and POTUS. The problem is NO THINKING ADULT TRUST SESSIONS ANY FARTHER THAN THEY CAN
THROW HIM! What he did disqualifies him for the position he took under false pretenses. That is is Deception...not...Integrity.
PERIOD!
We are in a war. Nice guys don't win wars. They clean up afterwards. He acts like Mr Magoo and not the nations Chief Law Enforcement
Officer. We are in a war and the equivalent of the Military Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Law Enforcement has gone
missing.
Sessions is the classical..."Fool me once..your fault; Fool me twice, my fault"
My deadline for him is June 20, 2018 at the maximum. Nothing significant by then....it will be a confirmation he is part of the
problem....and always has been....a plant of the "Deep State"
Tom Fitton: "When you read the letter its pretty clear Huber isn't charged with prosecuting anyone. Sessions is not going to
appoint a special counsel to investigate anything having to do with the Obama FBI or Hillary Clinton. I don't think [Huber] has
empaneled a grand jury or is doing a prosecution, he's just looking at the record and may suggest additional resources. Nothing
is going to be done. There is no public indication of any serious investigation by the DOJ."
Had I not come across the following, I would absolutely agree with you. But below is what is really occurring behind the scenes.
They ARE fighting the Deep State which has existed for decades, but rest assured POTUS and his team of patriots are on it. If
you take the time to really go through it, you can almost predict what POTUS will do next.
It seems unbelievable at first but it checks out as the story unfolds and Q predicts things before they happen... Also, Trump
has signalled the truth of it; do you think he said "tip top tippety top" just for the heck of it at Easter speech? (He was asked
by an anon to use this in something to verify validity of Q.) It won't make sense unless you start at the beginning in Oct and
read posts from there. (And disregard MSM reports that Q is false; if he was, why even bother trying to discredit?)
Think about it - is it like POTUS to keep someone so "obviously inept" around as Sessions? Does that really sound like POTUS?
Trump and team have handled this beautifully...they even have conservatives screaming for Sessions' head. He is neither uninvolved
nor clueless as is being portrayed. It's the Art of the Deal. Many are going down and POTUS and Q team are bringing us to it live
through the posts.
I promise you, this will open your eyes to the long game that POTUS and Sessions are playing out. Check it out - it will be
the best read of your life. So many things that never made sense, so many lies, massive corruption...be prepared.
Once you've gone through Q, you will truly know that POTUS meant every single word, literally, in this short link.
Biggest problem after watching the video of Lou Dobbs tonight is that Rod Rosenstein is still acting in an oversite position.
He will never let anyone be convicted of any crime because he is a sitting member of almost every crime that was committed. I
don't think Sessions is that smart in the first place, I believe that Rosenstein is running the show and that is all it is a Dog
and Pony show for the masses. All of them should be fired
Au contraire-All you Sessions sycophants are the ones who'll have an uncomfortably full stomach! That man's public actions
are NOT those of a sly old law and order prosecutor maintaining "radio silence" while tirelessly working behind the scenes! They're
the actions of a compromised Attorney General who is NOT performing his Constitutional duties and is actively covering for known
lawbreakers and Obstructing Justice--NOT demanding it!!
"... Why anyone believes a thing this man says or does is a mystery. He is obviously a Deep State tool who was perfectly willing to go along with the Big Lie back then, resulting in 1 million dead Iraqis, $1 trillion is squandered money, the rise of ISIS, and the destabilization of the Middle East, resulting in millions of refugees. ..."
"... He is protected by the US media which are the mouthpiece of the Deep State. ..."
"... 'Truth is to WASHINGTON DC, as Sunlight is To Dracula' http://www.johnccarleton.or... ..."
"... he lied the US people into the genocidal war against Iraq is a fitting centerpiece to the bookends provided by The Mueller Inquiry and the WTC demolition. ..."
"... Politics is the profession where scum rises to the top faster than all the others combined. ..."
Why anyone believes a thing this man says or does is a mystery. He is obviously a Deep State tool who was perfectly willing
to go along with the Big Lie back then, resulting in 1 million dead Iraqis, $1 trillion is squandered money, the rise of ISIS, and
the destabilization of the Middle East, resulting in millions of refugees.
He's a public disgrace and should be behind bars, not running a bogus Russian Meddling investigation that is pure hoax and political
conspiracy.
Mueller is a professional liar, traitor and scumbag. He is not even a good liar but he is a prolific one. ... That he lied
the US people into the genocidal war against Iraq is a fitting centerpiece to the bookends provided by The Mueller Inquiry and
the WTC demolition.
The fact that he is not only at large, but in charge of the coup against Donald Trump is a tragedy of immeasurable proportions
for the long-suffering US people. The good news is, one way or another, it may be their final tragedy.
Please, keep the anti-American thing down to a roar. Ya'll by now see that the people do not control their gov at all. They,
the cabal, did 9-11 on us and spy on us. It's the cabal at the top which does us in too - Pearl Harbor another e.g.
"... Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term. ..."
"... I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign. ..."
"... We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years. ..."
"... Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence. ..."
"... I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him. ..."
"... CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). ..."
"... As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface. ..."
"... No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev. ..."
Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible
to pursue that goal in the near term. The U.S. and Russia could and should have a more constructive relationship, but it can't
be based on the denial of reality and ignoring the genuine disagreements that exist between our governments.
If there is to be genuine improvement in U.S.-Russian relations, it will come from facing up to these disagreements and finding
a way to work through or around them.
"Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term."
I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals
like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyite lenghts since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any*
change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The
US establishment and the retainees of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before
Trump even announced his campaign.
We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia" playbook during the Obama years.
I agree with b. While Trump may not be savvy enough to calibrate his engagement with Putin in a way that would allow a proper
dialogue with Russia in spite of the political backdrop in the US, the primary blame for any failure to allow such dialogue rests
for those responsible for creating that political backdrop that makes it so difficult in the first place (hint: it's not Trump,
unless you blame him for winning the election – rather it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing
the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)).
That Putin talked up the Iran deal in the press conference makes me wonder what was said in the one-on-one. Couldn't have pleased
the Adelson/Bolton wing.
Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election interference.
Indictments are accusations, not evidence.
I saw nothing particularly wrong with the press conference. I'm no Trump fan, but he was just saying he believed Putin
rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his administration down. Can't really blame him.
The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media.
They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces
goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil.
CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating that Putin use her to terrorize
Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000 children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was
about to be liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to kill). These are just
two random examples in a very long day. It was
a show worthy of the priests of Baal who confronted Elijah.
As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we elected a conventional candidate
it would just be business as usual with these seething hatreds buried just below the surface.
No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian leader unless we are discussing
terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev.
The summit was announced by the White House and the Kremlin on June 28. The Finnish hosts probably knew about it a few days earlier.
That leaves only three weeks for preparation.
The summit itself lasted one day. Putin arrived late and after lunch and diplomatic niceties there was only 2-3 hours for actual
talks.
That's not a problem if everything is already carefully negotiated and the presidents just sign documents and smile for the
cameras. But it seems very little was agreed on beforehand.
I'm all for world leaders meeting and talking. The more the better. But I really don't see the point of hastily calling a summit
where nothing is agreed upon. At least not that we know of.
The "uncivil war" within the US neoliberal elite is getting a lot hotter... The problem for the American establishment is that it
doesn't like the way democracy worked out.
The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.
Notable quotes:
"... Written by Eric Margolis ..."
"... But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted to hear the truth. ..."
"... In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve). ..."
"... Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war. ..."
"... For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations. ..."
"... It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks. ..."
"... The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them on CNN, snarling away at President Trump. ..."
"... Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching US TV one might think so. ..."
"... Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence. ..."
Comedy? Disaster? Mental disorder? Hearing loss? Even days after President Donald Trump's bizarre appearance in Moscow alongside
a cool, composed President Vladimir Putin, it's hard to tell what happened. But it certainly was entertaining. In case anyone in
the universe missed this event, let me recap. Trump met in private with Putin, which drove bureaucrats on both sides crazy. So far,
Trump won't reveal most of what was said between the two leaders.
But after the presidential meeting, Trump replied to reporters' questions by saying he believed Russia had no role in attempts
to bug the Democratic Party during the election. Outrage erupted across the US. 'Trump trusts the Russians more than his own intelligence
agencies' went up the howl. Trump is a traitor, charged certain of the wilder Democrats and neocon Republicans. Few Americans wanted
to hear the truth.
In fact, so intense was the outrage at home that Trump had to backtrack and claim he had misspoken. Yes, he admitted, the
Russians had meddled in the US election. But then he seemed to back away again from this claim.
The whole thing was black comedy. Maybe it was due to Trump's poor hearing or to jet lag and travel fatigue.
Hillary Clinton did not lose the election due to Russian conniving. She lost it because so many Americans disliked and mistrusted
her. When the truth about her rigging of the Democratic primary emerged, she deftly diverted attention by claiming the Russians had
rigged the election. What chutzpah (nerve).
Yet many Americans swallowed this canard. If Russia's GRU military intelligence was really involved in the run-up to the election,
as US intelligence reportedly claimed, it's alleged buying of social media amounted to peanuts and hardly swung the election.
Back in the 1940's, GRU managed to penetrate and influence Roosevelt's White House. Now that's real espionage. Not some junior
officers and 20-somethings on a laptop in Moscow.
Besides, compared to US meddling in foreign politics, whatever the Ruskis did in the US was small potatoes. Prying into US
political and military secrets is precisely what Russian intelligence was supposed to do. Particularly when the US Democratic Party
was pushing a highly aggressive policy towards Russia that might lead to war.
For the US to accuse Russia of meddling is the ultimate pot calling the kettle black. The neocon former US Assistant Secretary
of State, Victoria Nuland, admitted her organization had spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian government. US undercover
political and financial operations have recently been active in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, Somalia,
Uganda, Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan, to name but a few nations.
Democrats and Republican neocons are in full-throat hysteria over an alleged Russian threat – Russia, whose total military budget
is smaller than Trump's recent Pentagon budget increase this year.
What we have been seeing is the fascinating spectacle of America's war party and neocons clamoring to oust President Trump. Included
in their ranks are most of the US media, led by the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and TV's war parties, CNN and
NBC.
It's also clear that Trump's most ardent foes are the big US intelligence agencies whose mammoth $78 billion combined budget exceeds
total Russian military spending. The bloated US intelligence industry fears that Trump may slash its budgets, power and perks.
The uproar over Putin has revealed just how fanatic and far to the right were the heads of the US national security state
operating under the sugarcoating of the Obama administration. Straight out of the wonderful film, 'Dr. Strangelove.' We now see them
on CNN, snarling away at President Trump.
Speaking of far right generals, one is also reminded of the brilliant film, `Seven Days in May,' in which a cabal of generals
tries to overthrow the president because of a peace deal he made with Moscow. Could there be a real plot against the president? Watching
US TV one might think so.
Now, completing the childish 'Reds Under Our Beds' hysteria comes the final touch, the evil Russian temptress-spy who managed
to infiltrate the National Prayer Breakfast, of all silly things. This dangerous Jezebel is now in the hands of the FBI. If this
is the best KGB or GRU can come up with they need urgent help from Congolese intelligence.
"... The Awan family was banned from the House IT network February 2, but Wasserman Schultz kept Imran on her payroll until he was arrested last week. Infamously, when Capitol Police seized a laptop from Wasserman Schultz's office, she later threatened the cops with "consequences" at a hearing if the police didn't return the device. ..."
Last week, Democratic IT staffer Imran Awan was
arrested for alleged
bank fraud. In and of itself, that news would rate as a relatively minor political scandal. But Awan worked for Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz, who inspires some of the weirdest conspiracy theories on Capitol Hill. Her disastrous stint as Democratic National Committee
chair has turned the centrist South Florida congresswoman into a punching bag for the left, which accuses her of "rigging" the 2016
election for Hillary Clinton, and the far right, which has spent 2017 accusing her of murdering one of her own staffers. Now the
Awan scandal is shaping up to be a classic Wasserman Schultz snafu. While Awan was involved in a litany of shady business dealings,
the congresswoman has made the case 1,000 percent worse for herself by refusing to talk to reporters and openly feuding with police.
A conservative
ethics group is now calling for a full probe . According to Politico, U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler
first hired Imran Awan
in 2004.
Unfortunately, much of the reporting on the case so far has come from Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller,
which is well known for pushing bogus stories about climate change and spewing fact-free nonsense.
According to the Daily Caller's Luke Rosiak , House staffers continued paying the family despite a series of red flags and security
issues that likely should have been addressed long before 2017. Earlier this year, the U.S. Capitol Police revealed they are investigating
the Awans for alleged data and equipment theft, but no one knows yet what might have been stolen; charges haven't been filed in that
case. But once news of that investigation broke, every Democratic office -- except Wasserman Schultz's -- fired the Awans. Wasserman
Schultz continued funneling money to Imran Awan. The Daily Caller has reported that Imran began liquidating his assets and trying
to sell his properties. Then, last week, he was caught at Washington Dulles International Airport trying to leave the country.
He was arrested on bank fraud charges, a case that's apparently separate from the ongoing Capitol Police probe. All of this paints
an extremely confusing picture that isn't helped by Rosiak's stories, which are full of speculation and hearsay. The Daily Caller
has speculated that the Awans could have been involved in a thousand scams, including
stealing
money from the government, data from Homeland Security, or emails from the Democratic National Committee. (Rosiak's stories also
consistently mention the Awans are Pakistani Muslims, which seems irrelevant.) Wasserman Schultz's involvement has led right-wing
pundits, including Fox News ham-brains Sean Hannity and Geraldo Rivera, to baselessly speculate that the Awans were behind the WikiLeaks
hack that forced Wasserman Schultz to step down as Democratic National Committee chair last year...
For Fox figureheads, the story has provided a convenient distraction to suck time away from addressing the crippling failure that
has been the Trump White House. But flaws aside, Rosiak's reporting has uncovered some genuinely troubling details. Here's a breakdown
of the biggest unanswered questions about Wasserman Schultz and the Awan scandal:
1.How many Democratic lawmakers are involved? According to Rosiak, the family members worked for at least 80 House
Democrats in their decade-plus on the Hill. Though Wasserman Schultz is certainly the highest-profile House member ensnared in the
scandal and did herself no favors by keeping Awan on her payroll long after everyone else canned him, she's far from the only lawmaker
who could have been the target of data theft or, as Rosiak claimed in a later story, blackmail. The Daily Caller released a handy
chart showing how many other Democrats were tied to the Awans: The list includes South Florida's Ted Deutch and Frederica Wilson,
and Lois Frankel.
2. What is the actual extent of the Awans' alleged data theft? Here's where things also get muddy. So far, there's no indication
as to what the Awans might have downloaded from Democratic networks. According to Rosiak, the Awans might have been funneling someone's
data to an offsite server, but the public still has no clue who might have been victimized. BuzzFeed News reported that after six
months, charges still have not been filed against the family.
3. Why did Wasserman Schultz refuse to fire Imran Awan when everyone else did, threaten the Capitol Police, and then continue
paying him? Here's where Wasserman Schultz's dreadful media presence, along with what appear to be some true red flags, really
comes into focus. Once the Awans were outed as targets of a Capitol Police criminal probe, every other Democrat in Washington immediately
kicked them to the curb. (According to federal data, Imran Awan earned $164,000 in 2016, and his wife, Hina Alvi, earned $168,300.
That's a lot of cash for government IT employees.) Also: Who in hell hires an entire family of IT employees? If, say, a local lawmaker
or someone like Gov. Rick Scott handsomely paid a husband, wife, and two of their brothers to run, say, janitorial services, every
newspaper in the nation would cry nepotism. Likewise, while multiple mainstream outlets, including the Washington Post and
BuzzFeed, have published "explainers" about the burgeoning scandal, they've glossed over major legal red flags that Rosiak uncovered
in court records, including
allegations made in court that the Awans threatened to kidnap their own family members . Rosiak also reported that the family
members seem to have
filed false financial disclosures in order to obtain their government jobs and either misreported or outright lied about their debts
to foreign businesspeople.
Anonymous sources also told Rosiak that the FBI seized smashed hard drives from Imran Awan's house, which certainly doesn't look
good.
The Awan family was banned from the House IT network February 2, but Wasserman Schultz kept Imran on her payroll until he
was arrested last week. Infamously, when Capitol Police seized a laptop from Wasserman Schultz's office, she later threatened the
cops with "consequences" at a hearing if the police didn't return the device.
4. Are the bank fraud charges and data theft allegations connected? This is where the case really gets confusing. Despite
the brouhaha over the Capitol Police investigation, that case hasn't resulted in any charges yet. Awan was arrested last week for
simple bank fraud, which doesn't appear to be a smoking gun pointing to WikiLeaks or blackmail. According to the criminal complaint,
Awan and his wife are charged with attempting to defraud the Congressional Federal Credit Union by
receiving a $165,000
loan by claiming one property was their primary residence when, in fact, they were renting the place out . (The Awans have pleaded
not guilty.) That's bad, but it's not exactly House of Cards -level political material.
5. Why are the Democrats so hush-hush about all of this? This, more than anything, is the classic Wasserman Schultz flaw:
hubris in the face of negative press. In the face of adversity, she tends to double-down and dig in her heels, which has rarely helped
her (or any lawmaker) when confronted with legitimately negative news. The Awan case is no different: She has shied away from TV
appearances and has neglected to explain why the family was hired a decade ago. So has every Democrat tied to the family. Granted,
it's difficult to say much to the media during an open criminal investigation, but the public deserves more answers than it has gotten.
Jerry Iannelli is Miami New Times ' daily-news reporter. He graduated with honors from Temple University. He then earned
a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University. He moved to South Florida in 2015.
"... So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the hook. ..."
Yes indeed, first Britain, and now Russia has pantsed the US too. In a virtuosic dick
move, they exposed a CIA spook who's implicated not only in Secret Agent Browder's war
propaganda ( http://russiahouse.org/current_news.php?language=eng&id_current=1454
) but in CIA crimes against humanity -- specifically, 'legal pretexts for manifestly illegal
acts."
David Kramer, Tufts/Harvard Political Science/Russian studies, **PNAC** , DoS focal point,
then CIA's famous captive NGO **Freedom House** , and a featherbed job at the McCain
Institute for Freedom, Democracy, and Abandoning Thousands of MIAs in Vietnam to Die Slow
Agonizing Deaths in Penal Camps.
Here he is talking to his co-conspirator Robert Otto, "Only idiots like Kerry think we
have common interests in Syria."
Needless to say, Kramer wouldn't know a human right from a bar of soap. He's a
knuckledragger. CIA sent Kramer to DRL when Alfreda Bikowsky got her tit caught in the
crimes-against-humanity wringer for systematic and widespread torture.
The US was five years late reporting to the Committee Against Torture and got a
mind-boggling eight (8) follow-on inquiries for urgent derogations of non-derogable rights.
So Kramer had to think fast and make up some bullshit why simulated live burial, object rape,
death by dryboard suffocation, and penis-slitting is not torture. Kramer is not the brightest
bulb, but that's not a hard job. During the Bush administration all the delegation did was
say, "The US does not Torture," robotically over and over.
So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital
interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the
hook.
"... After Bush I's James Baker's verbal agreement with Russia to not expand NATO was proven "inoperative", the Russians should be very skeptical of American verbal promises/agreements, anyway. ..."
"... BILL MAHER: All our intelligence agencies said that Russia attacked us in 2016. Yes, it was cyber. It wasn't with armaments. But it was still-. ..."
"... not the only time Wilkerson has failed to stop the discussion cold until such points can be countered and clarified ..."
"... no examples or links to ..."
"... left sites will fade if the left doesn't get it's act together. The liberals are about gone already -- and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave ..."
"... and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave. Capitalism is dying. Everything in the empire is falling apart as contradictions of thesis and antithesis transform into some foggy synthesis, or destruction ..."
Yves here. As Lambert might say, the behavior of the enforcers of Liberal Goodthinking has
been wonderfully clarifying. Despite the fact that there is a catalogue-full of reasons to be
deeply disturbed about the Trump presidency, prominent media figures are regularly resorting to
the screeching, pearl-clutching, straw manning, and other forms of "any stick to beat a dog"
strategies even faced with people like Lawrence Wilkerson, who is expressing only mild
opposition to their views. That sort of behavior is usually the behavior of someone who does
not have astrong case. Of course, on RussiaRussia! that is par for the course. The fact that
Wilkerson was effectively silenced by Bill Maher is a disgrace. Don't invite people on your
show if you aren't prepared to let them have their say.
This Real News Network segment reviews the particulars.
Note that Wilkerson was ridiculed for making what should have been an utterly
uncontroversial point: that US leaders need to, and always have, had a dialogue with our
strategic opponents. Wilkerson doesn't add, perhaps because he does not have corroborating
information, or alternatively, does not want to appear to be talking Russia's book, that Putin
announced that Russia has weapon systems that the US appeared to have been unaware of, such as
a nuclear-powered missile that can fly over the South Pole. If even half of them are real, they
are game changers.
There's a sour note at the very end, where Wilkerson says he expects the Democrats to
impeach Trump if they win both houses of Congress in the fall. As regular readers know,
Nancy Pelosi
has taken that off the table .
SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Larry, from what I understand from this
morning's announcement that the invitation that Trump had issued to Vladimir Putin to come to
Washington is now rescinded, or it's off. Apparently there was no movement on either side to
make sure this happens. Now, are you surprised by that move?
LARRY WILKERSON: Not at all, politically. Because most of everything Donald Trump has
done of substance since he was elected is based on his reading of his domestic political needs.
As the German foreign minister said so aptly, I think, about his withdrawal from the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear agreement with Iran, it was all based on domestic
politics in the United States. It had nothing to do with strategy, nothing to do with security,
nothing to do with NATO or the security of Western Europe. It had everything to do with Donald
Trump and his political base. I think the German foreign minister was absolutely correct.
So I have to look at everything that Trump does from that perspective, because that's his
first consideration. So what he saw was what you cited at the beginning; 46 percent thought he
was treasonous, and he said, ooh, John- talking to John Bolton, his national security adviser-
walk this bit back about a meeting, and put it out that we're walking it back because we want
the brouhaha about the meeting to subside. We want the accusations about the meeting to subside
a bit before we invite Mr. Putin to come to Washington. This is bad on two levels. One, Mr.
Putin should come to Washington, and we should continue the talks, and hopefully, in the way
that I describe, good meaningful talks earlier. That's how we should continue them,
particularly the nuclear issues. And two, because we do not need a war in Europe. And it's
increasingly apparent that both sides are looking very hard at the potential for that war.
And if you want a war that will pale- make all the other prospects, Iran, Syria, North Korea
and everything else, pale in comparison, let's have one break out in Europe, and let's have one
go nuclear. This is bad stuff. So I really would like to see Mr. Putin come to Washington and
meaningful talks take place. But to answer your question, and to reiterate, the reason this
delay or maybe even cancellation altogether has occurred is because Trump read the domestic
political signals and said, oop, can't get caught in this mess. The midterms are coming up.
These midterms, Sharmini, are going to determine the fate of the Republican Party. If the
Democrats were to win both houses of the U.S. Congress in November, I think impeachment would
be on the table for a majority of Republicans, and certainly Democrats, almost instantly. So
Trump has got to start thinking about these midterms. And so I think that's the reason he
canceled it, or at least told John Bolton to tell the Russians that it'll be later.
A word about that video. I couldn't play it at first but the clip can also be on YouTube
found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oymCf_pRk
I noticed that when Larry Wilkerson stated that the US had also interfered in countries since
1947 the audience agreed as there was a lot of clapping about that. Maybe the audience was
getting jack over Maher's obstinacy.
I also note that it was not Maher that said in reply "But that doesn't make it right" but
Michael Moore who until then had said nothing (How the mighty have fallen). Maher's comment
was basically that it was "it's still us" which of course made it different.
You just wish that they had a speaker that would be more direct and say something like:
"Well Bill Maher, should we attack and sink a Russian ship in the Black sea to show them
who's boss? Maybe attack that Russian airbase in Syria to show how hurt our feelings are?".
Probably find that footage like that would hit the editing floor in the same way that guest
that give opinions that don't agree with the main stream get cut off and the same happens
even with their own reporters.
There is a reason why newspapers are dying of irrelevancy over the past few decades and I
would not be surprised if the same fate followed television if this performance is typical
fare. The good ones on TV end up like Phil Donahue so all you get left with are the shrills
or neocons like Rachel Maddow.
If one goes to Youtube and looks at the readers' comments, there is little support for
Bill Maher. An occasional "Trump should not have had secret conversation with Putin".. I may
be naive, but I still do not understand why a private conversation with Putin was a
problem.
Even if Trump made some concession with Putin during this private talk, wouldn't it have
to be backed up with formal written agreements?
After Bush I's James Baker's verbal agreement with Russia to not expand NATO was
proven "inoperative", the Russians should be very skeptical of American verbal
promises/agreements, anyway.
I worked at a company that advocated for "Management by walking around". Part of the
advantage of the higher ups talking with workers well down the organization chart was that
the entire organization knew there was an alternate path for information to flow outside of
the hierarchy.
I believe this improved the accuracy of information flowing in the normal management path
as a consequence.
Trump's wandering to Russia might have the same positive effect. The
Democrats/Republicans/MIC seem to want to control the Russia narrative by telling Trump,
"trust us, you should not try to determine anything about Russia on your own, we will tell
you what to do".
Trump, to his credit, ignored them and did not cancel the trip.
Maher has a particularly severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. The condition seems to
have seriously impaired that part of the brain where his sense of humor resides, not to
mention perspective, at least insofar as the topic of Trump is concerned. His calling for the
U.S. intelligence community to save us from Trump is particularly unfunny.
That may be, but irrespective of Trump, Maher has always been sneaky, underhanded and
whiney. He is at his most palatable when he covers a topic where one tends to be of the same
mind, (which, of course, gets one to wonder about objectivity in general) and even then just
barely. Scratch beneath superficial agreements and he is but one self indulgent spoiled
brat.
IMNSHO, Maher has never been funny, nor particularly bright. I've never understood the
appeal, and ever since the whole anti-science anti-vax campaign nonsense (which he pushed)
I've come to feel Maher is dangerous, every bit a part of the problem. Certainly he's no
friend of the left.
BILL MAHER: All our intelligence agencies said that Russia attacked us in 2016. Yes,
it was cyber. It wasn't with armaments. But it was still-. -Idiot
As far as I know, ONE: this, "Russia attacked us in 2016" claim is still only claimed by
three (3) agencies, not all of them, and TWO: the claim is still simply a set of
allegations regarding origin and not hard established facts.
Because people like Wilkerson do not call Macarthyites out on such claims, the allegations
have taken on the aspect of established fact to most Americans. If it's still allegations and
not facts (that is, if I haven't missed important updates), then much as I like Wilkerson, I
fault him for this kind of acquiescence to weapons of mass deception. Perhaps not so much
with such a slimy shill as this particular comedic disease, who doesn't let Larry get a word
in edgewise and is brain dead enough to think he's being clever, but the Maher episode is not
the only time Wilkerson has failed to stop the discussion cold until such points can be
countered and clarified.
well he is a conservative, he was colin powell's chief of staff when powell was lying to
the u.n. about wmd's in iraq. he tells the truth sometimes, and admits some responsibility,
but i don't really trust him.
He has done a number of interviews for The Real News Network that were quite good where he
has seemed far more impervious to spin (I think the experience with weapons of mass
destruction fiasco, including Powell, represented a sea-change for him). I'm pretty sure that
includes the realization that Ukraine was a US backed coup, that Syria and Assad wasn't so
cut and dry, that Putin is a remarkable strategist, our part in the horrible fiasco in
Lebanon, the brutal nature of Saudia Arabia, Israel criminality and on and on. But I may well
be giving him more credit than he is due (by process of projection from a given interview I
saw to a topic I thought I had heard him discuss).
And for sure, every now and then, it's as if his military training or background kicks in
and he goes into obtuse mode though still making sense.
As to the Maher incident, I suspect he avoids (and/or gets put off balance by) cat claw
scrabbles, as undignified.
> not the only time Wilkerson has failed to stop the discussion cold until such
points can be countered and clarified
perhaps the colonel needs to milk the system for a bit. Any company boards clamouring for
his services? That's the whole point: many returns, much clarification for as long as
possible, with suitably deep yellow hip waders.
"The Russians attacked us." Depending on what parts of the 'attack' you are talking about
there is little doubt about who did it.. For example – you can read interviews in the
Russian newspapers with people who worked in the Internet Research Agency about what they did
in the US social media. I don't really see the big deal. We have done it to many other
countries. There was blow back and we got the same thing done to us. The real issue is that
we where not very well prepared.
Many years ago, when I was a college freshman, there was one fraternity on campus that was
looked down upon as a collection of losers. But it had at least one very sharp and
enterprising brother named Jack, who was a counselor in the freshman dorm. As pledge time
approached, he would talk to the most popular freshmen, one by one, and tell us that he had a
proposition for us. Why, he asked, would we want to join one of the cool frats and find
ourselves at the bottom of the pecking order? Why not instead join his struggling frat, en
mass, take it over, and run things ourselves? If we did so, he assured us, this loser frat
would become the coolest one on campus, and new students would be beating down the doors to
join. Believe it or not, his scheme actually worked, and, one by one, the most popular
freshmen agreed to go along with the concept. The key to his success was that he would put it
to us this way: Look, I know this is a difficult choice to make, and I'm not asking you to do
it on your own. But would you do it these other guys did it? If Jim and Steve and Pete and
John and Bill, etc., all agreed to pledge with you, will you now give me your promise that
you'd join them? That's all I want you to promise right now, that if these other guys do
this, you will too. And by God, it worked, and at pledge time he had a huge group of popular
freshmen lined up to join his loser fraternity. Had his conscience not bothered him and
caused him to release us from our promises right before pledge day, the greatest and most
sudden transformation in my college's frat history would have occurred. I tell this true
story because I don't see why it couldn't apply to the Green Party, if only it had enough
Jacks in its ranks, with the insight and savvy to reach out in similar fashion to
progressives and minorities, one by one or group by group.
We stopped watching his show when he let his guests talk over each other on a regular
basis, and besides that, he's slower on the uptake of what's really going on, as opposed to
any NC reader.
I watch Bill Maher's show regularly. I normally watch just the beginning and the end. The
opening monologue and the New Rules segment at the end. I normally skip the panel in the
middle of the show because it's so one-sided. Two or three liberals versus one conservative
plus Bill Maher. So the conservative constantly gets drowned out and interrupted. He has
little to no airtime because he can barely get a sentence in before the panel devolves to a
hysterical shouting match. And this was before Trump even ran for President. Now, it's even
worse. They don't even allow anyone else to have a contrarian opinion to the Beltway
consensus.
I find Maher odious in general. However, it does puzzle me as to why he was a strong
Sanders supporter (kind of the opposite of a Libertarian) and he also clearly wasn't thrilled
about Hillary, although he supported her over Trump.
What ever scruples Maher may have, they come along with a heaping helping of
playing to what he thinks his perceived public wants to hear. It's possible that he actually
does have a soft spot for Sanders (though that could be influenced by shared religious
tribe).
Network TV is still a thing ?? Guess I've been missin out .. well, not really. It's such
that whenever I happen to be in proximity to a set that's 'on', which is rather rare, it just
seems loud, obnoxious, and stupifying .. whether it be the programmed 'entertainment', or the
commercial klaxons whailing away. If one thinks of Corpse-rated TV as a virus, then maher et.
al. are the phomites of obsfucation, psychopathy and spite !
Wilkerson was in with Powell when the phony reasons for the attack on Iraq were being
mounted, and was deep into the military, and MIC. Maher, and Moore are both psychopaths,
which Wilkerson, for all his faults, is not. The Republicans and conservatives are insane.
The Democrats and liberals are even worse now. It's like watching two groups of insane,
childish, drug-crazed, chimps flinging feces at each other as they both set the jungle on
fire. The level of stupidity, ignorance, and lunacy is astounding. None of this makes
sense.
I think I understand why elves and flying saucer people are not seen: "What? You want to
try to contact these creatures? Are you on drugs? They would kill you without thinking twice.
Better to interact with hyenas or grizzly bears."
Help! I've fallen into this insane nightmare and can't wake up. The best I've been able is
to ignore some of it and hide in my 'cave' with the cats while I still can. It's hard to even
find a good reason for thinking or talking about it any more: pissing into the wind.
He sums it up in the last three paragraphs:
"
This troubling trend of the Western public gravitating toward and supporting individuals like
McFaul and Browder solely out of their perceived hatred for President Trump and Russia is
pushing Western political discourse further from rational debate and deeper toward
hysteria.
That powerful special interests can easily manipulate sections of the Western public to
support virtually anyone or anything, including unsavory characters like McFaul and Browder
or the notion of expanding NATO or continued war abroad in nations like Syria simply by
invoking "Trump" or "Russia" represents a predictable but dangerous Pavlovian phenomenon
likely to leave deep scars, permanently disfiguring American politics and society much in the
way the so-called "War on Terror" has.
The increasing lack of political sophistication in America is a reflection of a much wider
deterioration of American economic and geopolitical strength both at home and around the
globe. While one would expect sound leadership to begin preparing America for an orderly
transition from a once global hegemon to a constructive member of a more multipolar world
order, history has proven the lack of grace that generally accompanies an empire's
decline.
"
I've thought since 2011 that "Tony Cartalucci" is a Kremlin writers-group operation thing,
or something like that. Those writings are always group projects of some sort, not just one
dude, kind of like "Tyler Durden" at zerohedge, but much, much higher quality. I'm
not saying to not listen to or to disregard everything "Cartalucci" says. There's a
lot of genuinely insightful and useful information in there. But be aware of how "not exactly
for America's 99%" the bias is. "They" seem to think we should all give up on democracy and
become preppers and wait on techno-utopian solutions to solve all of our problems.
I see at https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Tony_Cartalucci
he is
"Tony Cartalucci is a geopolitical researcher and writer based in Bangkok, Thailand. His work
covers world events from a Southeast Asian perspective and promotes self-sufficiency as one
of the keys to true freedom."
I see no reason to doubt that right now, but I don't care. I read things for content, and
his content is often good, so I pay attention when I see something from him. Other names I
recognize as rubbish and don't wast my time or energy with it. I take no one without
skepticism, fact checking, etc. Sometimes I could learn something from an idiot, but it's
generally not worth the effort to try.
I also read some, such as Paul Craig Roberts, who has some good material and also some blind
spots and obvious bias or flaws.
It all goes into the box from which I assemble my own take on the probabilities of which
models and narratives are most accurate and useful.
"Sex is Funny, but Love isn't." Hence it is that shopping cart traffic conflict is funny,
but empty shelves isn't. Most I've done as a stand-up is the pro set time of 45 minutes. I've
heard of Maher doing 2 hours. Someone like Eddie Murphy did movie length stand-up. People pay
to see Maher live. Carlin was better at being serious. There is the Lenny Bruce tradition for
which few can handle, and the Will Ferrell silly genus. If you want to see fine comedy watch
Kate McKinnon do Kelly Ann Conway on SNL. I understand Bill Maher as a successful
producer.
What do we mean by "BiPartisan". What it best means is neither Left or Right. Best it
means American, Eclectic, Ethical, Pragmatism. In fact this is easiest achieved when it is an
issue of Defense in Foreign Policy. GOP domestic policy is essentially selfish and mean.
Makes the right answer hard to get near. Philosophy of leading GOP figures like Paul Ryan who
has terrific power as Speaker is Objectivism not American Pragmatism. Ayn Rand makes what
would be wonderful bleak.
You will have reasons to feel safer when you hear that the US & NATO have put 3
thousand Tanks along the Fronts where Russian Tanks would roll into Europe. It is either that
or you know that Russian Tanks can all be bazooka blasted away by lots of mobile tank killing
crews and their missiles. Nukes exist to kill tanks and their crews. US doctrine is still to
use nukes to kill tanks.
When Carter saw he was going to fail to "rid all nuclear weapons from the face of this
earth." -Inaugural Address) he came up with the neutron bomb. For some unfathomable reason
this flipped people out. We would prefer the Neutron bomb since it would not destroy
farmland.
In the time of Trump and the open assault on Democracy characterized by failures of the TV
Press distorted by profits and personalities I look at the famines that are associated with
One Party Rule, and the Dictators such as Stalin and Mao. Maybe there is a way to make it
funny in how I might say "Democracy & a Free Press, No Famine!. One Party Rule & a
Dictator & Famine. Don't vote for Famine Folks!"
If I was even negotiating with Russia and China I would be pointing out they are Food
Insecure and the US is not. Russia and China need to be wary and fair if they want the US to
sell them food at a price the US can maintain its farmers from.
Soybean Tariffs threaten to cause farmland in the US to be taken out of food production
making the US take one turn itself towards less food insecurity. It is too much to expect
that US Grants to Farmers would prevent some good high number of farmers selling their land
for other uses when they are forced to fail on price competition.
William Burroughs who gave us sci fi phrases like "Heavy Metal", & the art he produced
from heroin, Scientology's E Meter, pills, guns, spiritually justified murder? and Methadone
in Kansas, ended his life saying all he cared about were his 11 cats.
I understand that very few Americans have any objectivity left or imagination, but let's
try a thought experiment. Substitute Hillary Clinton and Clinton Advisor for every time we
hear Trump or Trump Advisor and tell me that the rabid right would not be foaming at the
mouth, demanding impeachment (along with waterboarding and lynching) and threatening to round
up all registered democrats as a precaution.
Hillary Clinton is a terrible thing. She should never have been allowed to run or even
held any position in anyone's administration for a variety of reasons. But that does not
absolve Trump from being everything HE is. And it does not absolve Trump from appearing to
collude with Russia and be Putin's puppet. I cannot and will not buy the 9 Dimensional Chess
argument or the He's a Business Genius Argument when both are patently false. He is
admittedly incredibly ignorant and lacking any attention span. He is a narcissistic liar. A
proven racist. A misogynist. A womanizer. A serial cheater. An unfaithful husband and
business partner.
How have we gotten to the point where we are defending Donald Trump? How are we giving him
the benefit of the doubt in anything when every past lie and action indicates he is
incompetent and merits no trust whatsoever.
The Trump Spin Team has done an amazing job turning a megalomaniac serial liar into a
victim. And America rolls over and takes it again.
With all due respect, you have this wrong. Please tell me for starters who this "Trump
spin team" is. The media is united against him, as is all of the Democratic party and big
swathes of the GOP. Helsinki is a case study. Trump does something which every president has
done, including the sainted Ronald Reagan, when "Russia" was not Russia but the far more
threatening USSR, and no one got bent out of shape about it. All Trump did was high five
Putin. He didn't make any commitments. And even when Trump makes commitments, he reneges on
them a high proportion of the time. Oh, and Saint Ronnie also got on personally with
Gorbachev.
The Republicans made clear they would impeach Hillary. They had both her server and the
Clinton Foundation taking foreign cash as issues. They could get her alone on what amounted
to taking kickbacks for brokering uranium to Russia.
As for RussiaRussia, you totally misrepresent the issue. What readers and many on the left
are upset about is:
1. Disregard for facts or evidence. No one has yet to provide any solid evidence against
Trump regarding his supposed dalliance with Russia. The stuff coming from Team Dem is on the
order of the birther charges re Obama. Just read this discussion of the Steele dossier as an
example:
If you don't demand accuracy from the press, you are volunteering to be propagandized all
the time.
2. The effort to demonize Trump has moved into New McCarthyism. And you are actively
promoting it. Standing up for the idea of integrity of information and accurate reporting is
now being mischaracterized as defense of Trump. This is tantamount to a loyalty test and is
crass authoritarianism.
3. In case you missed it, various parties are now treating the left as a threat and using
RussiaRussia to up the ante. See this telling Comey tweet as an example,
I'm usually more or less immune to groupthink and propaganda, at least compared to many,
but even I had to take a few days away from all internet communications last week and just
re-read old Orwell essays to get my mind straight again regarding Helenski.
"One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the
familiar Marxist claim that 'bourgeois liberty' is an illusion, there is now a widespread
tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves
democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who
are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and
consciously, but those who 'objectively' endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In
other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."
"These people don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come
when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning Fascists
without trial, and perhaps the process won't stop at Fascists. Soon after the suppressed
Daily Worker had been reinstated, I was lecturing to a workingmen's college in South
London. The audience were working-class and lower-middle class intellectuals -- the same
sort of audience that one used to meet at Left Book Club branches. The lecture had touched
on the freedom of the press, and at the end, to my astonishment, several questioners stood
up and asked me: Did I not think that the lifting of the ban on the Daily Worker was a
great mistake? When asked why, they said that it was a paper of doubtful loyalty and ought
not to be tolerated in war time. I found myself defending the Daily Worker, which has gone
out of its way to libel me more than once. But where had these people learned this
essentially totalitarian outlook?"
What am I missing? Why does a guy like Wilkerson lower himself to appear on this show?
Once maybe. More than that, why? No one is perfect including Wilkerson and he has a "past"
but don't we all?
There is a possibility that Maher's behavior reflects an expanded role of the BBG
(Broadcasting Board of Governors), who controls it, concentration of media ownership in a few
large corporate hands, and the recent modifications of the Smith-Mundt Act to allow domestic
propaganda. IMO "RussiaRussia!" and "IranIran!" would not have been and continue to be
relentlessly injected into our MSM diet for the past year and a half without the table having
been set.
Unfortunately, as other readers have noted, this misdirection is also damaging in the
sense that it serves to divert attention away from issues of genuine public concern such as
climate change, the sad state of our nation's infrastructure, public education, erosion of
civil liberties, transitioning from a war-based economy, extreme economic inequality,
meaningful campaign finance reform, etc.
Where did Wilkerson pick up that it is now Russian military doctrine to use nukes? Every
analysis I've read is that Putin's aim in weapons development, real or imaginary, is to
restore deterrence, which the U.S. has been steadily eroding.
Russia's latest edition of its nuclear doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons in
response to a nuclear attack against Russia or its allies, or to a conventional attack that
threatens the existence of Russia.
Only the "or its allies" bit isn't straightforward deterrence doctrine. That would be
"extended deterrence", a contradictory doctrine that the U.S. has adopted since virtually the
start of the Cold War. McNamara's "ladder of escalation" doctrine was its explicit
formulation. ("Full spectrum dominance" is its lineal descendant). And the fact of the matter
is that the U.S. military has never really fully accepted the straight-forward notion of
deterrence, but has always been pressing further, seeking some obscure advantage or leverage.
I think it's clear from his statements over many years, that Putin is attempting to respond
to the erosion of deterrence by the U.S., (while the Soviet Union itself never explicitly
embraced deterrence doctrine, originally crudely understanding nukes as just high powered
artillery).
Here is yet another 'liberal' or 'leftist' who has fallen into Trump Derangement Syndrome,
complete with hurling names and insults at any who disagree with him and spouting a host of
logical and rhetorical fallacies -- and another who has fallen out of list of people who I
think are worth listening to.
"It's true that the number of self-professed "analysts" and dementia-addled lefties
spouting the Trump-as-peacenik line is relatively small
Indeed, because of the Dotard's doting on Putin, we should all sing hosannas as we erect
cheaply made gold-plated monuments in his honor.
But back on Planet Earth, even the specious notion that Trump is somehow a peacemaker
cannot fake news its way into being true. In fact, if anything, Trump has been the most
bellicose president in recent memory. But don't tell those Trumpy lefties that. "
Counterpunch itself is teetering on the edge of that 'worth reading' list such that I
rarely bother going there any more. Have these clowns been listening to what Clinton and the
Dems have been saying and doing? -- "treason" for a president to talk to Russian leaders
("doting on Putin")? They think Clinton, who laughed when she destroyed Libya, would be
better?
Adding, I just reread the thing, and I found no examples or links to these
supposed "Left Trumpists." So it's a smear, plain and simple, left lying about for future
use.
Re: "Left Trumpists" If anyone from the left agrees with *any* of the hundreds, if not
thousands, of policies opinions espoused by Trump. Is a "Left Trumpist". He is evil, to give
support to evil in any way is evil. It's politics driven almost purely by ad hominem fallacy.
Therefore any person of the left who is capable of independent thought will necessarily be
presumptively labeled a "Left Trumpist" by the absurd definition of the #resistance. I won't
even bother pointing out to them that always disagreeing with someone puts you in their
complete control. if I can make you always contradict me, I can make you think or say almost
whatever I like.
The world is full of Trump mind readers .wish I had their extra sensory powers.
And some of us who consider ourselves "leftists" do hope Trump makes peace with Russia and
others. Since these are things he talked about before he was president it's not impossible.
If you think Trump's main goal in life is to build his brand it's also not illogical.
Starting a war with, say, Iran would be very unpopular–one new poll says 23 percent
support–and bad for brand building. The public now wants peace IMO. Most of Trump's
current mayhem is grandfathered in from Obama or at least too much under the radar to be
noticed (except for those trash talking tweets of course).
Counterpunch publishes all sorts of views. I don't think we should condemn the site
because of one article. However they do publish authors who like to say things like "dotard."
Name calling is so childish (unless it's about Hillary).
A view is one thing; this is something else: a tirade of insults is not a view. I
regularly listen to Crosstalk, for example, and appreciate Lavelle and most of his guests,
even if I disagree with the conservative positions, but they don't rant and rave and insult
me with phrases such as "depraved" or "dementia-addled". This is not just unpleasant to read,
but demonstrates a fundamental weakness in his analytical, and his writing, ability. If
that's the best Draitser can manage then I don't want to take time to see what he has to say
-- and there is really not much more there, but a litany of complaints about Trump which most
everyone not in the matrix are aware of. It's not just name-calling which is childish, but
his thinking and perception. And that's something I find increasingly common in Counterpunch,
and other western publications. I have no need or time for more crude propaganda.
The idea of defending Trump is not defending Trump and his ogrish ways, but defending law,
legitimate process, open inquiry and dialogue, sophisticated analysis, and even truth. That's
not about Trump; that's about us.
If it helps I agree they do accept some articles that aren't very good. I think they may
be struggling since Cockburn died. I don't think they actually pay people to write there.
But that site has been around a long time and it would be a shame to see it go. Too many
lefty sites have bitten the dust.
It started with Alexander Cockburn's weird "Climate Science is a fraud! A man on the
Nation cruise told me this!" and achieved its defining moment with Andrew Levine, who went on
endlessly as to how Trump was necessarily, inevitably, "unelectable in American Democracy,"
but could be a source of wry amusement to the enlightened liberal.
I suspect an upcoming merger between Counterpunch and the Guardian.
Cockburn was a contrarian who liked to provoke. He was also a vehement opponent of nuclear
power and thought the AGW warnings were a Trojan horse to restart nuclear power–which
is to say even if true the proposed cure could be worse than the disease.
And while AGW is now more widely accepted it's hard to say that much is being done about
it. It's not so much an inconvenient truth as a problem from hell. Bandaid solutions make us
feel better but may not change the outcome. Fortunately nuclear still seems to be on the
skids.
Whether global warming is a hoax or not, nuclear is expensive and dangerous, and can be
replaced with solar, wind, hydro, etc. with some good side effects for employment and other
economic factors. Beat your swords into plowshares and your soldiers into energy technicians.
Just do it -- make the investment (and remember MMT) -- and the survival of the ecology and
civilization could well be a nice side effect. There is enough with that to make a decision
with. Other countries are managing it.
The old Counterpunch was worth saving, I guess, but for the new one it isn't so clear.
Many more left sites will fade if the left doesn't get it's act together. The liberals are
about gone already -- and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave. Capitalism is dying.
Everything in the empire is falling apart as contradictions of thesis and antithesis
transform into some foggy synthesis, or destruction.
It's a place to begin where there is a not a crowd of climate change deniers and
proponents breaking out into avoidable fights which would derail plans and efforts to go
sustainable.
It doesn't matter whether the sun goes around the earth and actually sets, or if the earth
rotates out of the light, to decide that when it gets dark one needs to light a lamp to see
and not fall down the steps. It is being in the dark which is sufficient reason for the
decision to light it.
A sufficient decision to do away with coal fired plants is that the pollution makes us
sick -- we don't need to consider CO2 or albedo warming effects to not want to breath in the
junk.
left sites will fade if the left doesn't get it's act together. The liberals are about
gone already -- and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave
you shouldn't ignore the belly of the beast, the working class, losing their divide that was
the big risk to the status quo from sanders, he could have bridged that divide
and the conservatives are riding a temporary wave. Capitalism is dying. Everything in
the empire is falling apart as contradictions of thesis and antithesis transform into some
foggy synthesis, or destruction
the only quibble I have with this perfect description is that many democrats are
conservative, and the democrat conservatives got, well, served, and the compass is kind of
spinning right now
Eric Draitser is a deeply, deeply meretricious commentator. In the essay you linked to,
Blue, note how he tries to have it both ways. First, he criticizes us for, in effect, being
the dupes of Russian propaganda:
Left Trumpists focus their ire on the opponents of Trumpism. Ostensibly, it's because
the anti-Trump activists are hypocrites who only form political opposition against
Republicans while letting Democrats eat live babies on YouTube and roll wheelchair-bound
pensioners into oncoming traffic. But, seen from a more realistic perspective, it seems
this chorus of silliness is based more on Trump's words, and those of openly pro-Putin
media , than on reality. [Emphasis mine]
Next, he himself begins to spout what–only a few short months ago–would have
been roundly dismissed by the MSM as Russian propaganda:
Well, it wasn't particularly inspiring when the Trump Administration decided to escalate
Obama's already insane policy vis-à-vis Ukraine by providing lethal weapons to the
US-backed Kiev regime which continues to be partnered with, and in some ways captive to,
Ukrainian Nazis and other fascist, er um, "ultra-nationalist," forces.
Nazis in Ukraine! Why, that's so very RT of you, Eric.
So, to recap: Eric Draitser can switch sides in an argument whenever he wants, while still
claiming that we are the ones who are being inconsistent.
Draitser, along with the rest of the 'Gang of Four' (Louis Proyect, Yoav Litvin, Jeffrey
St. Clair), is the reason I now find CounterPunch to be basically unreadable. Sad for years
it was my absolute favorite website–head and shoulders above the other alt-left sites
back then. But I guess it was just Alexander Cockburn who made it what it was. Over the past
two years, they've lost so many of their best writers that I've taken to calling it
CounterPurge. Not to worry, though: most of their best writers have turned up at Unz.com.
I'm far to the left of Bill Maher, but in a general way I agree with him more often than
with Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. However on what is apparently an attempt at a show with
thoughtful discussion from a variety of perspectives, the way Col. Larry Wilkerson was
treated was not helpful for any side. Col. Wilkerson is one of the last republicans on the
national stage who is reasonable, or even rational at this point in time. And certainly one
of the very few who have the backbone to stand up even for what they personally believe is
"right". A real lost opportunity by Mr Maher. And regarding "tRump derangement syndrome" how
SAD is it that we live in a world where we have to discuss whether it is worse to have a
willfully ignorant and egomaniacal dotard with his finger on the nuclear button or whether
the real problem is a country where forty per cent of the voters support an authoritarian
party willing to steal elections so that they can pass laws to steal wages and savings at
home and abroad, destroy the biosphere, and wage war for profit.
On a related note at 51 minutes into this video by the excellent journalist Egberto
Willies,Col. Larry Wilkerson, says that the military is being told that the worst case
scenario (and IPCC "worst case" scenarios are routinely exceeded) is that "by the end of
2100" there will be less than enough arable land on the planet for 400 MILLION people.
https://egbertowillies.com/2015/09/25/lawrence-wilkerson-the-travails-of-empire-lone-star-college-kingwood-video/
"No such thing as bad publicity" is one of those truisms that isn't true. For example,
this interview was very bad publicity indeed for Donna Brazile. https://youtu.be/GQtu1VsH_0s?t=47s
It looks as though the Pentagon is agreeing with the War Hawks in the Administration
(Bolton) and Legislature (Graham) that nuclear war is the way ahead. They must disbelieve the
Russian revelation of new weapons. That's a bold position to take when your entire country
and its population is likely to be bombed.
I disagree with Colonel Wilkerson's apparent expectation that the war will be restricted
to Europe. The day something falls on Russia is the day something falls on the continental
USA.
The survivors will be those hundreds of thousands of US soldiers serving in Asia and
Africa and South America. The recruiting offices might be able to make something of that but
how will they keep the PXs supplied?
"... I'll second Rod Rosenstein, I couldn't stand his performance before Congress. He played it both ways, 'we are working day and night to get you the documents', same as saying, I don't have enough people and then said he didn't know because ..., 'I can't watch everyone, I have thousands of people working under me'. A first class weasel. ..."
"... It appears that some senior FBI Cybersecurity leaders are retiring. Just when they are needed most - to explain how they let China run rampant through the Secretary of State's email server. They should be fired rather than allowed to collect a retirement check. ..."
"... https://www.wsj.com/article... ..."
"... I wonder which one of the three is Sy Hersh's source for the Seth Rich report. Because that came directly from the FBI cyber division and clearly would have been so explosive that anyone senior at that division would have been aware of it and had access to it. Of course, it could have come from some other agency but Hersh was clear that his source was very good. "I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. This person is unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy. He'll do a favor." ..."
"... Since Globalization and President Obama giving out "get out of jail" cards, the Elite can do what they want. Government is secondary. The rule of law for Multinationals is dead. Fines are the cost of doing business. Courtiers use the revolving door to climb the ladder and accumulate power ..."
"... Chris Christie and Wray- two Jersey Republicans. Sessions knew Rosenstein from DoJ and the courts. This tells me that Trump did not know government people. ..."
The government of the United States is not a parliamentary government. There are three
co-equal branches in the federal government; the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary.
The president is the "line and block chart" boss of everyone in the Executive Branch. All of
the categories of political appointees listed above plus the actual department heads in the
cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president acting as head of the Executive Branch of the US
Government. He does not have such a free hand in disposing of civil servants who are below
these political appointees and whose employment is protected by law. They generally work for
the political appointees. For the record - I was a career SES after retirement from the army
and not a presidential appointee. The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch of
the federal government and all its political appointees are subject to presidential discipline
as are all others in the Executive Branch. Presidents, like the heads of all executive teams
have the right to expect the loyalty of the subordinates below them. It is expected that these
subordinates should carry out all policies that are not illegal, nor grossly contrary to the
interests of the United States. If an Executive Branch civilian employee believes that a policy
is illegal or so contrary to US interests then this person should resign his or her position.
In no instance should an Executive Branch employee act as a member of a "resistance" to the
lawfully elected president. With that in mind I would suggest that the following officials
should be dismissed by President Trump:
DNI Dan Coats - He has made it clear by his utterances at the Aspen security conference
this week that he is not loyal to the president. For a supposed member of the president's
inner team to communicate in public by words or body language his rejection of presidential
policy is a firing offense.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This man is an obvious affiliate of the
"resistance." His arrogance in dealing with the Congress clearly indicates that he thinks
that all power is rightfully in the hands of the lawyer bureaucrats at the DoJ and that both
the Congress and the president will get what he chooses to give them.
FBI Director Christopher Wray. His performance at Aspen indicates that he thinks that as
head of the FBI he is the consecrated protector of the Knights of the Round Table reborn as
the FBI. IMO that comes before loyalty to the president for him. The FBI is in no legal or
constitutional sense independent of presidential authority.
Others are candidates for this list, but time will develop the case. IMO it is clearly
suicidal to retain such people in office when they are proceeding through action or inaction to
undermine the administration. The argument will be made that there will be cries of Obstruction
of Justice. So be it. pl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States
The US Armed Forces are headed by commissioned officers whose appointments at each level of
rank are confirmed by the US Senate. They can be removed at will from positions by superiors
including of course the president/commander in chief but cannot be deprived of rank or
expelled from the services except by court-martial. The armed forces understand very well
that within the limits of US law they are completely subordinated to the commander in chief
and will not speak against him or his policies unless they wish to risk conviction under the
Punitive Article in UCMJ that forbids such speech. (Article 88)
I'll second Rod Rosenstein, I couldn't stand his performance before Congress. He played it both ways, 'we are working day and night to get you the documents', same as
saying, I don't have enough people and then said he didn't know because ..., 'I can't watch
everyone, I have thousands of people working under me'. A first class weasel.
It appears that some senior FBI Cybersecurity leaders are retiring. Just when they are
needed most - to explain how they let China run rampant through the Secretary of State's
email server. They should be fired rather than allowed to collect a retirement check.
I wonder which one of the three is Sy Hersh's source for the Seth Rich report. Because
that came directly from the FBI cyber division and clearly would have been so explosive that
anyone senior at that division would have been aware of it and had access to it. Of course,
it could have come from some other agency but Hersh was clear that his source was very good.
"I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. This person is
unbelievably accurate and careful. He's a very high level guy. He'll do a favor."
You are correct. Except at this point the only people the President can trust are his
family members. He went off to Helsinki and did his thing without senior staff.
Since Globalization and President Obama giving out "get out of jail" cards, the Elite
can do what they want. Government is secondary. The rule of law for Multinationals is dead.
Fines are the cost of doing business. Courtiers use the revolving door to climb the ladder
and accumulate power .
Donald Trump slammed that door shut. Climbers can not work for him and risk pissing off
future bosses. Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Greenspan), Don Coats, Rod Rosenstein and Christopher
Wray were at the Aspen Security Forum bonding and networking. If they lose their jobs and
power, they face Paul Manafort's fate; jail before trial.
Donald Trump was elected because of American voters lost their jobs and homes,
immigration, plus the endless wars. The Aspen Four's mission is to elevate VP Mike Pence and
avoid a second Civil War while allowing the continued exploitation of the American people and
environment to get richer. Will the global corporate propaganda and coup succeed? We are
Americans. "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past."
Maybe I'm painting with too broad a brush but I honestly don't understand why President Trump
didn't demand the resignations of all of the Obama political appointees the moment he took
the oath of office.
but who does he replace them with? because i think it's this, primarily - the fact that he
has no bullpen - that's his single biggest problem afa this issue's concerned...
I think you are right but this seems to be changing. He was not part of the Borg (in it's
wider sense i.e not just re. FP) and therefore was not the GOP's man. As such it must have
been a problem to find enough like minded people to fill all these positions who were not
part of the status quo and had the experience to effectively operate within the beltway. Had
any of the GOP's boys won they would have been able to dip into the establishment think-tank
pool and pick the clones they wanted - not so easy for a boat rocker like President Trump.
The unrelenting attacks from the Dems seem to be rallying more of the old Republicans in line
behind the President.
We have a very similar problem here in the UK. Corbyn won an overwhelming victory from the
Labour party rank and file but Blair had been PM for so long almost all of the senior
positions were held by Blairites (AKA 'New Labour') and Corbyn is having a hard time finding
'Traditional Labour' ideologues with experience. Again, like Trump, he is having to try and
restructure his party while under constant attack from the MSM and backstabbing from the
Blairites. It is not easy trying to steer a Juggernaut like Westminster or Washington on a
new course when all the existing crew only know, or want, the old way.
Should our current Brexit meltdown end PM May's Government we could end up with a
Trump/Corbyn 'special relationship'. Now that really would be something very interesting to
watch, preferably from a safe distance.
There are a lot of lawyers in the DOJ and FBI. DNI wouldn't be too hard either. Maybe he
should recall Martin Dempsey to active duty and give him the job.
yeah, i'm not saying that there aren't any, i'm sure there're a number of very qualified
people. but trump, personally, has no background in government, & just doesn't seem to
have any kind of substantial, trustworthy inner circle who's judgments he can rely on when it
comes to separating the wheat from the chaff, & filling positions like these...
Rosenstein is a member of SES. I wonder if that is having an effect. Comey was also an SES
member, but he was fired, although I guess that was for malfeasance. Or was Comey fired
simply because DOJ members can be fired by the president? BTW, a cursory search showed that
Jeff Sessions, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Bill Priestap, Valerie Jarrett, and Bruce Ohr are
also members of SES.
That is not correct. A cabinet member cannot be a member of the SES. What is the citation for
your assertion that these people were members of the SES? I think you are lying.
I completely concur with you and will add AG Sessions and DCIA Ms. Gina to the list.
Anyone recommended by the traitor and avowed Communist Brennan should go. Jeff Sessions is a
disgrace for hiding under his desk. If he had any decency he would have resigned long
ago.
Are all SES employees of the federal government, "at will" employees? Or can they only be
fired for "cause"?
IMO, a significant purge of the top echelons of the intelligence and law enforcement
agencies is required to restore the rule of law and confidence in the integrity and
competence of these institutions.
If guys like Andy McCabe, Peter Strzok, Sally Yates can rise up to the levels they did
something is wrong with these institutions. I would even go further and shut them all down
and re-build from scratch. These agencies are a bigger threat to our constitutional republic
than our foreign adversaries.
To get rid of a career SES you either have to remove him for malfeasance and make it stick or
give him a poor annual rating three years in a row. The president can remove them from
position and let them sit in a bare office with a telephone until you have three poor
ratings. That was always true.
I for one and all in favor. My favorite possible action which I am sure we will never see is
the complete closure of the CIA, but we all know how that idea yielded unfortunate results
the last time it was proposed by a President.
At what point do we declare Treason? My personal redline is Trump's Presidency. I don't
pretend to know what Trump faces everyday. I do not like his rudeness, his incivility, and
several of his policies, but I also don't doubt that he cares about America. And I know that
he was legally elected.
Right after the election we saw an incredible social media push against the electoral
college, the Constitution. It was the beginning of a coup d'etat here in the USA. That
attempt has not ended.
The Constitution will stand or not, but it will not go easy and not without the blood of
Patriots. Millions can moan whatever blather the TV tells them but it was a few that created
this country and it will be a few that defend it and continues it into the future.
A few passionate and moral people can outweigh millions.
Not advocating revolution here but if needed and and we can get 1% to show up in
Washington that is 3.3 million people. 5X current population. D.C. rolled out the tanks and
used Patton for only 17,000 vets in 1932.
From where I sit and knowing the absolute disgust I am hearing from so many people around me,
both those who are old moderates, those who are avid Trump supporters, and the ones around
here who always vote for what I call "white 'bread" Republicans all the time, it's time for
draining and hosing out the swamp. Even a few of the Democrats I know are a little
embarrassed about what is going on in D.C.
I think you would be able to hear the cheering from the West clear out there in D.D. if
your recommendations were put into place.
The Saker suggests he do what Putin did. (Maybe this is something the two of them talked
about) "When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and
traitor-infested as the White House nowadays."
https://www.paulcraigrobert...
BTW what did they talk about? There's asyory going around that VVP gave him terabytes of
coded US messages by and about the conspirators and the key to reading the codes. Don't know
what to make of that but we should be alert for sudden revelations.
I humbly suggest that Trump supporters can stop hyperventilating. Your required reading
should be the series of ten articles on the 2016 election by surely the most astute pollster
on the political scene, Nate Silver. Among many, many money quotes, here is one of the most
brutal,
""Coverage rarely mentioned the parallels between Clinton and Al Gore, for instance, who
had failed to win a third consecutive term for Democrats in 2000 under similar conditions to
the ones Clinton faced."
-- Nate Silver
Realistically, we're looking at eight years of Trump... and the transformation of U.S.
society under malign Russian rule, because I firmly believe the bromance between Trump and
Putin is based on one of the two things that Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards said could
defeat him.
This is a reverse Yeltsin if you will. What goes around comes around. Given that it may
end the horror of American military adventure across the globe, I intend to sit back and
enjoy it. States' rights is thankfully a two-edged sword.
Trump has very limited support among the GOP establishment in the House and Senate. Just look
at the response to the meeting with Putin from Flake, Corker, McCain and Rubio. Who does he
have in the White House that shares his views on foreign policy? At least on trade policy he
has Ross, Navarro and Lighthizer.
He clearly needs another team to lead the intelligence and law enforcement functions. I
think he realizes it but it seems from recent interviews that he feels constrained due to
Mueller and the obstruction of justice charge. Maybe he acts after the mid-terms. In the mean
time the assault by the TDS crowd will continue.
while i agree with your sentiment that these people all need the axe, it seems like a trend
where presidents putting key official in places where they sabotage themselves.
i mean i don't like obama, but what ever good instincts he had, were totally derailed by
his own appointments. particularly on the foreign policy side of things.
Dan Coats was pushed for DNI by Mike Pence. You have to wonder where Pence now stands in
regards to Coats' statements? Wray was pushed for his job by NJ governor Chris Christie. Not sure who was Rosenstein's patron. My guess is Sessions.
Yes. Coats and Pence - two Hoosiers. Chris Christie and Wray- two Jersey Republicans.
Sessions knew Rosenstein from DoJ and the courts. This tells me that Trump did not know
government people.
"... This is the proverbial case where the real " action is in the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject hysterics. ..."
"... What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for what it is. ..."
"... Even such supposed supporters of President Trump like Trey Gowdy who has fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like these... ..."
"... What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are only increasing . ..."
"... By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again, then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. ..."
"... The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and, second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other groups. ..."
"... I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters. Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that happen are now horrified by what is taking place. ..."
"... I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress, especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now apparently also want it de-jure too. ..."
"... From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the AngloZionist Empire. ..."
"... the infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction. ..."
"... The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level. ..."
"... the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at risk. ..."
"... Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story. ..."
"... He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push as it heads for the edifice. ..."
"... I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of Russia. ..."
"... It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous. ..."
Oh sure, there were a number of general statements made about "positive discussions" and the
like, and some vague references to various conflicts, but the truth is that nothing real and
tangible was agreed upon. Furthermore, and this is, I believe, absolutely crucial, there never
was any chance of this summit achieving anything. Why? Because the Russians have concluded a
long time ago that the US officials are "
non-agreement capable "
(недоговороспособны).
They are correct – the US has been non-agreement capable at least since Obama and Trump
has only made things even worse: not only has the US now reneged on Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (illegally – since this plan was endorsed by the
UNSC ), but Trump has even pathetically backtracked on the most important statement he made
during the summit when he retroactively changed his "
President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any reason why it would be " into "
I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia " (so much for 5D chess!).
If Trump can't even stick to his own words, how could anybody expect the Russians to take
anything he says seriously?! Besides, ever since the many western verbal promises of not moving
NATO east "
by one inch eastward " the Russians know that western promises, assurances, and other
guarantees are worthless, whether promised in a conversation or inked on paper. In truth, the
Russians have been very blunt about their disgust with not only the western dishonesty but even
about the basic lack of professionalism of their western counterparts, hence the
comment by Putin about " it is difficult to have a dialogue with people who confuse
Austria and Australia ".
It is quite obvious that the Russians agreed to the summit while knowing full well that
nothing would, or even could, come out of it. This is why they were already dumping US
Treasuries even
before meeting with Trump (a clear sign of how the Kremlin really feels about Trump
and the US).
So why did they agree to the meeting? Because they correctly evaluated the
consequences of this meeting. This is the proverbial case where the real "
action is in
the reaction " and, in this case, the reaction of the Neocon run US deep-state and its
propaganda machine (the US corporate media) was nothing short of total and abject
hysterics. I could list an immense number of quotes, statements and declarations accusing
Trump of being a wimp, a traitor, a sellout, a Putin agent and all the rest. But I found the
most powerful illustration of that hate-filled hysteria in a collection of cartoons from the
western corporate media posted by Colonel Cassad on this page:
What we see today is a hate campaign against both Trump and Russia the likes of which
I think the world has never seen before: even in the early 20th century, including the pre-WWII
years when there was plenty of hate thrown around, there never was such a unanimity of
hatred as what we see today. Furthermore, what is attacked is not just "Trump the man" or
"Trump the politician" but very much so "Trump the President". Please compare the following two
examples:
The US wars after 9/11: many people had major reservations about the wars against
Afghanistan, Iraq and the entire GWOT thing. But most Americans seemed to agree with the "we
support our troops" slogan. The logic was something along the lines of "we don't like these
wars, but we do support our fighting men and women and the military institution as such". Thus,
while a specific policy was criticized, this criticism was never applied to the institution
which implement it: the US armed forces. Trump after Helsinki: keep in mind that Trump made no
agreement of any kind with Putin, none. And yet that policy of not making any
agreements with Putin was hysterically lambasted as a sellout. This begs the question: what
kind of policy would meet with the approval of the US deep state? Trump punching Putin in the
nose maybe? This is utterly ridiculous, yet unlike in the case of the GWOT wars, there is no
differentiation made whatsoever between Trump's policy towards Putin and Trump as the President
of the United States. There is even talk of impeachment, treason and "high crimes &
misdemeanors" or of the "KGB" (dissolved 27 years ago but nevermind that) having a hand in the
election of the US President.
What Trump is facing today is not a barrage of criticism but a very real lynch mob! And what
is really frightening is that almost nobody dares to denounce that hysterical lynch mob for
what it is. There are a few exceptions, of course, even in the media (I think of Tucker
Carlson), but these voices are completely drowned out by the hate-filled shrieks of the vast
majority of US politicians and journalists. Even such supposed supporters of President Trump
like Trey Gowdy who has
fully thrown his weight behind the "Russia tried to attack us" nonsense . With friends like
these...
What has been taking place after this the summit is an Orwellian "two minutes of hatred" but
now stretched well into a two weeks of hatred. And I see no signs that this lynch mob is
calming down. In fact, as of this morning, the levels of hysteria are
only increasing .
By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again,
then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as many
times as needed. This strategy is useless against a powerful and principled enemy, but it works
miracles with a weak and spineless foe like Trump. This is particularly true of US politicians
and journalists who have long become the accomplices of the deep state (especially after the
9/11 false flag and its cover-up) and who now cannot back down under any circumstances or treat
President Trump as a normal, regular, President. The anti-Trump rhetoric has gone way too far
and the US has now reached what I believe is a point of no return.
The brewing constitutional crisis: the Neocons vs the "deplorables"
I believe that the US is facing what could be the worst crisis in its history: the lawfully
elected President is being openly delegitimized and that, in turn, delegitimizes the electoral
process which brought him to power and, of course, it also excoriates the "deplorables" who
dared vote for him: the majority of the American people.
The process which is taking place before our eyes splits the people of the US into two main
categories: first, the Neocons and those whom the US media has successfully brainwashed and,
second, everybody else. That second group, by the way, is very diverse and it includes not only
bona fide Trump supporters (many of whom have also been zombified in their own way), but
also paleo-conservatives, libertarians, antiwar activists, (real) progressives and many other
groups.
I am also guessing that a lot of folks in the military are watching in horror as their
armed forces and their country are being wrecked by the Neocons and their supporters.
Basically, those who felt "I want my country back" and who hoped that Trump would make that
happen are now horrified by what is taking place.
I believe that what we are seeing is a massive and deliberate attack by the Neocons and
their deep state against the political system and the people of the United States. Congress,
especially, is now guilty of engaging on a de-facto coup against the Executive on so
many levels that they are hard to count (and many of them are probably hidden from the public
eye) including repeated attempts to prevent Trump from exercising his constitutional powers
such as, for example, deciding on foreign policy issues. A perfect example of this can be found
in Nancy Pelosi's official statement about a possible invitation from Trump to Putin:
"The notion that President Trump would invite a tyrant to Washington is beyond belief.
Putin's ongoing attacks on our elections and on Western democracies and his illegal actions
in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine deserve the fierce, unanimous condemnation of the
international community, not a VIP ticket to our nation's capital. President Trump's
frightened fawning over Putin is an embarrassment and a grave threat to our democracy. An
invitation to address a Joint Meeting of Congress should be bipartisan and Speaker Ryan must
immediately make clear that there is not – and never will be – an invitation for
a thug like Putin to address the United States Congress."
Another example of the same can be found in the unanimous 98-0 resolution by the
US Senate expressing Congress's opposition to the US government allowing Russia to question
US officials. Trump, of course, immediately caved in, even though he had originally declared
"fantastic" the idea of actually abiding by the terms of an existing 1999 agreement on mutual
assistance on criminal cases between the United States of America and Russia. The White House
"spokesperson", Sarah Sanders, did even better and stated : (emphasis
added)
"It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump
disagrees with it. Hopefully, President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to
the United States to prove their innocence or guilt "
Talk about imperial megalomania! The US will not allow the Russians to interrogate anybody,
but it wants Putin to extradite Russian citizens. Amazing
Every single day, I find myself asking: what do the Russians have on @realDonaldTrump
personally, financially, & politically? The answer to that question is that only thing
that explains his behavior & his refusal to stand up to Putin. #ABetterDeal.
Pretty clear, no? "Trump is a traitor and we have to stop him".
By now there is overwhelming evidence that a creeping Neocon coup has been in progress from
the very first day of Trump's presidency and that the Neocons are far from being satisfied with
having broken Trump and taken over the de-facto power in the White House: they now
apparently also want it de-jure too. The real question is this: are there any forces
inside the US capable of stopping the Neocons from completely taking all the reins of power
and, if yes, how could a patriotic reaction to this Neocon coup manifest itself? I honestly
don't know, but my feeling is that we might soon have a "President Pence" in the Oval Office.
One way or another, a constitutional crisis is brewing.
What about the Russian interests in all this?
I have said it many times, Russia and the AngloZionist Empire (as opposed to the United
States as a country) are at war, a war which is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and
only 5% "kinetic". This is a very real war nonetheless and it is a war for survival simply
because the Empire cannot allow any major country on the planet to be truly sovereign.
Therefore, not only does the AngloZionist Empire represent an existential threat to Russia,
Russia also represents an existential threat to the Empire. In this kind of conflict for
survival there is no room for anything but a zero-sum game and whatever is good for Russia is
bad for the US and vice-versa.
The Russians, including Putin, never wanted this zero-sum game,
it was imposed upon them by the AngloZionists, but now that they have been forced into it, they
will play it as hard as they can. It is therefore only logical to conclude that the massive
systemic crises in which the Neocons and their crazy policies have plunged the US are to the
advantage of Russia.
To be sure, the ideal scenario would be for Russia and the US (as opposed
to the AngloZionst Empire) to work together on the very long list of issues where they share
common interests. But since the Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the
sake of their imperial designs, that is simply not going to happen, and the Russians understand
that. Furthermore, since the US constitutes the largest power component of the AngloZionist
Empire, anything weakening the US also thereby weakens the Empire and anything which weakens
the Empire is beneficial for Russia (by the way, the logical corollary of this state of affairs
is that the people of the US and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons
– and that makes them de-facto allies).
It is not my purpose here to discuss when and how the Neocons came to power in the US, so I
will just say that the delusional policies followed by the various US administrations since at
least 1993 (and, even more so, since 2001) have been disastrous for the United States and could
be characterized as one long never-ending case of imperial hubris (to use the title of
here
). The long string of lost wars and foreign policy disasters are a direct result of this lack
of even basic expertise. What passes for "expertise" today is basically hate-filled hyperbole
and warmongering hysterics, hence the inflation in the paranoid anti-Russian rhetoric.
The
US armed forces are only good at three things: wasting immense sums of money, destroying
countries and alienating the rest of the planet. They are still the most expensive and bloated
armed forces on the planet, but nobody fears them anymore (not even relatively small states,
nevermind Russia or China). In technological terms, the Russians (and to a somewhat lesser
degree the Chinese) have found asymmetrical answers to all the key force planning programs of
the Pentagon and the former US superiority in the air, on land and on the seas is now a thing
of the past. As for the US nuclear triad, it is still capable of accomplishing its mission, but
it is useless as an instrument of foreign policy or to fight Russia or China (unless suicide is
contemplated).
[Sidebar: this inability of the US military to achieve desired political goals might explain
why, at least so far, the US has apparently given up on the notion of a Reconquista of
Syria or why the Ukronazis have not dared to attack the Donbass. Of course, this is too early
to call and these zigs might be followed by many zags, especially in the context of the
political crisis in the US, but it appears that in the cases of the DPRK, Iran, Syria and the
Ukraine there is much barking, but not much biting coming from the supposed sole "hyperpower"
on the planet] The US is now engaged in simultaneous conflicts not only with Iran or Russia but
also with the EU and China. In fact, even relationships with vassal states such as Canada or
France are now worse than ever before. Only the prostituted leaders of "new Europe", to use
Rumsfeld's
term , are still paying lip service to the notion of "American leadership", and only if
they get paid for it.
The US "elites" and the various interest groups they represent have now
clearly turned on each other which is a clear sign that the entire system is in a state of deep
crisis: when things were going well, everybody could get what they wanted and no visible
infighting was taking place. The Israel Lobby has now fully subordinated Congress, the White
House, and the media to its narrow Likudnik agenda and, as a direct result of this,
the US has lost all their positions in the Middle-East and the chorus of those with enough
courage to denounce this Zionist Occupation Government is slowly but steadily growing (at least
on the Internet). Even US Jews are getting fed up with the now openly
Israeli apartheid state (see
here or
here ). By withdrawing from a long list of important international treaties and bodies
(TPP, Kyoto Protocol, START, ABM, JCPOA. UNESCO, UN Human Rights Council, etc.) the United
States has completely isolated themselves from the rest of the planet. The ironic truth is that
Russia has not been isolated in the least, but that the US has isolated itself from the rest of
the planet.
In contrast, the Russians are capitalizing on every single US mistake – be it the
carrier-centric navy, the unconditional support for Israel or the simultaneous trade wars with
China and the EU. Much has been made of the recent revelation of new and revolutionary Russian
weapon systems (see here
and here
) but there is much more to this than just the deployment of new military systems and
technologies: Russia is benefiting from the lack of any real US foreign policies to advance her
own interests in the Middle-East, of course, but also elsewhere. Let's just take the very
latest example of a US self-inflicted PR disaster – the following "tweet" by
Trump: (CAPS in the original)
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL
SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE
ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE
CAUTIOUS!
This kind of infantile (does he not sound like a 6 year old?) and, frankly, rather demented
attempts at scaring Iranians (of all people!) is guaranteed to have the exact opposite effect
from the one presumably sought: the Iranian leaders might snicker in disgust, or have a good
belly-laugh, but they are not going to be
impressed .
The so-called "allies" of the US will be embarrassed in the extreme to be "led"
by such a primitive individual, even if they don't say so in public. As for the Russians, they
will happily explore all the possibilities offered to them by such illiterate and
self-defeating behavior.
Conclusion one: a useful summit for Russia
As a direct consequence of the Helsinki summit, the infighting of the US ruling classes has
dramatically intensified. Furthermore, faced with a barrage of hateful attacks Trump did what
he always does: he tried to simultaneously appease his critics by caving in to their rhetoric
while at the same time trying to appear "tough" – hence his latest "I am a tough guy with
a big red button" antics against Iran (he did exactly the same thing towards the DPRK). We will
probably never find out what exactly Trump and Putin discussed during their private meeting,
but one thing is sure: the fact that Trump sat one-on-one with Putin without any "supervision"
from his deep-state mentors was good enough to create a total panic in the US ruling class
resulting in even more wailing about collusion, impeachment, high crimes & misdemeanors and
even treason. Again, the goal is clear: Trump must be removed.
From the Russian point of view, it matters very little whether Trump is removed from office
or not – the problem is not one of personalities, but one of the nature of the
AngloZionist Empire. The Russians simply don't have the means to bring down the Empire, but the
infighting of the US elites does and, if not, then at the very least the current crisis will
further weaken the US, hence the Russian willingness to participate in this summit even if by
itself this summit brought absolutely no tangible results: the action was in the reaction.
Conclusion two: the Clinton gang's actions can result in a real catastrophe for the
US
Trump's main goal in meeting with Putin was probably to find out whether there was a way to
split up the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership and to back the Israeli demands for Syria.
On the issue of China, Trump never had a chance since the US has really nothing to offer to
Russia (whereas China and Russia are now locked into a
vital symbiotic relationship ). On Syria, the Russians and the Israelis are now negotiating
the details of a deal which would give the Syrian government the control of the demarcation
line with Israel (it is not a border in the legal sense) and Trump's backing for Israel will
make no difference. As for Iran, the Russians will not back the US agenda either for many
reasons ranging from basic self-interest to respect for international law. So while Trump did
the right thing in meeting with Putin, it was predictable at least under the current set of
circumstances, that he would not walk away with tangible results.
For all his very real failings, Trump cannot be blamed for the current situation. The real
culprits are the Clinton gang and the Democratic Party which, by their completely irresponsible
behavior, are creating a very dangerous crisis for the United States: the Neocons and the
Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if
the US political system by itself is also put at risk. Furthermore, the Neocons have now
completely flipped around the presumption of innocence – both externally (Russian
"attack" on the US elections) and internally (Trump's "collusion" with Putin). As for Trump,
whatever his good intentions might have been, he is weak and cannot fight the entire US deep
state by himself. The Neocons and the US deep state are now on a collision course with Russia
and the people of the United States and while Russia does have the means to protect herself
from the Empire, it is unclear to me who, or what could stop the Neocons from further damaging
the US. Deep and systemic crises often result in new personalities entering the stage, but in
the case of the US, it is now undeniable that the system cannot reform
All of this seems profoundly depressing, but it appears to be how things are. I was
disappointed by Trump's efforts to cave into the deep state on his statements. The fact he
can't even control his justice ministry reveals his weakness. I'm of the view history shows
that once spy agencies reach a critical mass in power they become the absolute rulers of a
structure and the rule of law becomes a facade, then is sidelined completely.
Trump was a complete outsider to politics when he decided to run for the presidency in
2015. He had no team or political allies. He really didn't have much of a philosophy of
governance, a solid foundation of history and facts, a first rate vocabulary or the debating
skills of an 8th grader. He has consistently failed to win over any Democratic and probably
not even a majority of Republican politicians.
The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the
Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has
been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level.
His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business
but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a
vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to
bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job
of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international
tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with
virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain
his credibility before the public.
Actually, a smidgen south of half the public are the only base of his support. And a very
eclectic base they are, including numerous liberals, progressives, intellectuals and
peaceniks, in addition to conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians, who prefer to deal
with the real world rather than Hillary's deliberate misrepresentation of it.
Will that be enough for him to survive? The way the maniacs are raving in the media,
expect the country to throw a big celebration if he gets "taken out" one way or another
tomorrow. The situation is really dangerous and utterly shameful. Most of the blame goes to
Hillary Clinton and her insurrectionists for not accepting the outcome of our system of
ersatz "democracy." Her husband won with something like 43% of the popular vote in 1992. I'm
pretty sure Trump had a higher number. Cry me a river, Hillary, but stop trying to destroy
what you can't have like a petulant child.
the logical corollary of this state of affairs is that the people of the US and the people
of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons – and that makes them de-facto
allies
I think it would be more accurate to say that the people of Russia had the same
enemy.
By the way, these are typical Neocon-style tactics: double-down, then double-down again,
then issue statements which make it impossible for you to back down, then repeat it all as
many times as needed.
It's like trial lawyers say: if the facts are on your side and the law is not, then argue
the facts; if the law is on your side and the facts are not, then argue the law; and if
neither the facts nor the law are on your side, then bang your fists on the table and shout
as loud as you can! That's exactly what the neo-clowns are doing here.
the Neocons and the Clinton gang are willing to say anything, no matter how
destabilizing, to hurt Trump even if the US political system by itself is also put at
risk.
All of which just helps to further discredit the empire. Even with all the insanity in the
media, I still thank God every day that Hellary did not become president.
The above h0moerotic caricature of Putin and Trump is quite revealing in what it tells us
about what drives the emotional life of White Liberals and White Leftist. They are driven by
powerful urges to impose homosexuality-pedophilia-pederasty on both Christian Russia and the
Working Class Native Born White American Christians.
Saker, something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and
spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria? If, on the other hand, he is a rather successful wrecking ball, already having put in
jeopardy half the key resources of the empire, that's another story.
I think because Trump postulated himself as a candidate, then got nominated the Republican
candidate and worst of all, despite the huge campaign against him, won the elections, without
the blessing of the Deep State and the neocons. So now they want to teach him (and anyone
else who might think about doing the same) a lesson: "Anyone who tries to become president
without our approval will be crushed", so it never happens again.
something is not adding up. If Trump is truly as pathetic a pushover, as "weak and
spineless," as you say, why all the hysteria?
And nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do
And he never shows his feelings
But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning around
That Trump is a wrecking ball is a hypothesis I've held since the first GOP debate, when I
also realized he would (probably) win not only the election, but may even succeed at the far
more difficult challenge of bringing the Empire to a sufficiently soft landing that the
nation survives. I'm less convinced of the latter now, largely because I underestimated the
centrifugal forces driving the fault lines in the American body politic. The nation,
tragically may not survive the Empire's twilight, but I've seen nothing that makes me want to
change my hypothesis.
He's laying waste to the Empire in the most peaceful process possible – in large
part by so embarrassing the Empire's elites, allies and vassals that they withdraw first
their active support, and then finally even their consent. Inducing hysteria, both foreign
and domestic, is a non-trivial component of the forces giving the wrecking ball an extra push
as it heads for the edifice.
As for the summit, I frankly wouldn't be surprised to learn that much of it was staged for
maximum hysteria-inducing effect. Their 2hrs spent alone probably was little more than
comparing notes. After all, what can Trump promise that he can also deliver under the
circumstances? He can only promise to keep doing what he's doing.
In any case, they both know the Empire has to go, and they both want the American nation
to be a player after it goes. A vibrant America is as critical to the multipolar world as it
is to Americans. Maybe more so.
Collusion? Maybe, but the Trump phenomena, IMHO, has all the earmarks of regime change
done right. With or without collusion, the hystericals can't quite put their finger on
what happened, which drives further hysteria, which pushes the wrecking ball even faster,
which drives....
now undeniable that the system cannot reform itself
Yes, Saker and that puts US politics behind European fascism of 70+ years ago. Mussolini was booted out by a fascist committee, Franco paved the way for a constitutional
monarchy, but all Americans get is Bozo the Clown/President.
The destruction of the US working class amazes me in its absence from all serious debate.
First subverted by the CIA then rendered null by outsourcing (which is still undercounted)
the "deplorables" have no mechanism for resistence except the unthinkable one: Hope for total
breakup of the United States. Or hope for a foreign invasion.
Makes one wonder. When Egyptians greeted Alexander the Great as a liberator as he
conquered them, it was a fairly pungent comment on the ruling Persians. Will blue-collar
former-Yanks be cheering for liberating Chinese or Russian troops anytime soon? Henry
Kissinger once predicted something of the sort.
Well on the way, head in a cloud
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him
Or the sound he appears to make
And he never seems to notice
He never listens to them
He knows that they're the fools
They don't like him
I don't think that Trump is the fool on the hill. I think that mostly all those around him
are. The latest hysteria over Russia is not about any "meddling" in any "democracy". It's about throwing tantrums that Russia won't submit to US hegemony. In my opinion, they
don't deserve to be in charge of their own country, let alone to be asking to be in charge of
Russia.
All they come up with is terrible ideas which they in their generosity are way too eager
to share with the world – against the wishes or the best interests of the world. Like
the multiculturalism. It's bad enough that they came up with that awful idea, but then they
had to force it down the throats of the stupid Europeans.
Then when Merkel showed enough brains to challenge their idea, they forced her to make 180
turn and to welcome over a 1 million refugees from the imperial misadventures.
Well, Saker did put, this time, some good points here.
Of course, they were well mixed with the usual Kremlin propaganda, but that's now like "good
morning" with his writing. Probably all public members of "Team Russia" have that clause in
their contract.
The usual spin "Russia is great, winning, and all is not only good but simply getting better
for Kremlin and the Great Leader".
He does point to this "thing" with MSM and public figures in West re the summit.
I agree, it's surreal. If I were watching this in a serious movie I'd change the channel/walk
out. If I were reading a serious book with the "thing" as a part of the plot I'd stop
reading. I think there IS something there.
It is not just "unanimity of hatred and chaos", "abject hysterics", "hate-filled
hysteria", "two minutes of hatred stretched well into a two weeks of hatred" etc. It's
something else and, I feel, simply much worse and dangerous.
I guess we have entered a zone beyond geopolitics into mass psychology. Not my area of
expertise at all, but simply feel there is something there. It feels as watching, hard to express it, hysterical people? Now, on my level, whenever I dealt with such people I simply walked away, most of the
time. A couple of times, when I couldn't walk away I simply floored them (or so I say). Both
men and women (talking about being a gentleman , a). With women, it's even easier, just one
strike, weak hand even. With men a full combination, even with a takedown and
..anyway. Joking. Sort of. Besides, I was younger then. But how can you take out people who control, in essence, US power, nuclear weapons in
particular? You simply can't . That is what makes, IMHO, this so dangerous. I simply can't recollect anything similar in relationship between superpowers. I am not so optimistic re the collapse of The Empire, multipolar world etc.
This "thing" can, I concede, deliver a couple of goods:
People, at last, realizing who, or better what, are our "betters".
The real power of The Empire diminishing because of the mess and chaos those species
..created.
Those two things creating an opportunity to, somehow, do something about this
abomination.
But, and a big but, there is the flip there.
People simply not paying attention. And, those hysterics really getting the levers of power
in their hands. While they are in that state, that is.
As I've said several times here so far (doesn't matter a bit, of course) Trump supporters
fucked up.
Not him; he didn't expect to win and when he did he found himself in a really bad
position.
His supporters. As soon as he won they walked home. A mistake.
A terrible mistake. I feel we'll all pay, dearly, for it.
The difference between image and real server is that image is just a little bit more easy to manipulate. In other words it does
not necessary truthfully reflect that hard drive information.
There are also subtle things like the ability to restore erased files which can be done only on physical hardware using special
equipment. You still can see some erased files on the image if it was done byte wise (using dd) if the space was not reused)
Chain of custody is also important. As the requirement of working is not longer present, files and programs on it can more easily manipulated to prove whatever you need to
prove even in such a way that would not work on a real server. If you want to stage false flag operation it is better to pass only images.
In reality neither real server not images proves anything. Both can be "staged" like fake video in poisoning false flag operations.
Cyberspace is perfect environment for false flag operations. As soon as FBI was not the first to get to the servers and can be assured
that nobody touched the server "in between" (which most easily is achieved by disconnected server from the network and shutting it done
even if this wipes out memory on the server, all bets are off
Another relevant question is why Awan case was swiped undr the carpet.
Notable quotes:
"... the DNC servers were never inspected by the FBI and Crowdstrike's involvement is still suspect. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks that CrowdStrike; a group whose majority investor is Google's Eric Schmidt, who also formed "Groundwork," which was the tech group for the Clinton campaign; & whose co-founder (CrowdStrike) is a senior fellow of the openly anti-Russian Atlantic Council who is funded by Ukrainian billionaire who "donated" millions to the Clinton Foundation & even gave Hillary a frickin' award in 2013.....if you think that that group; who produced a report in exchange for money from the DNC at a time when we now know Clinton had control of DNC finances.....if you think that this report which aaaallllll this is based on would hold up in court.......you're out of your goddamn mind. ..."
"... Doing forensics on a physical machine is rarely encouraged because data can be corrupted, accidentally erased, etc, and that data is lost forever. An image can be copied and stored securely in case a forensics analysts makes a mistake, they can just restore the image and start again. Sorry Jimmy, I know you hate Russia-gate but this specific case is not a strong argument against it. ..."
Despite recent claims by the media, and despite the fact Trump is parroting the same claims, the DNC servers were never inspected
by the FBI and Crowdstrike's involvement is still suspect.
Anyone who thinks that CrowdStrike; a group whose majority investor is Google's Eric Schmidt, who also formed "Groundwork,"
which was the tech group for the Clinton campaign; & whose co-founder (CrowdStrike) is a senior fellow of the openly anti-Russian
Atlantic Council who is funded by Ukrainian billionaire who "donated" millions to the Clinton Foundation & even gave Hillary
a frickin' award in 2013.....if you think that that group; who produced a report in exchange for money from the DNC at a time
when we now know Clinton had control of DNC finances.....if you think that this report which aaaallllll this is based on would
hold up in court.......you're out of your goddamn mind. Keep up the good work Jim.
#rEVOLution#NotMeUs#NinaBernie2020
The irony that the same people in the media crying 'Russian collusion' in regards to Trump do not have the integrity ( or
are not allowed) to cry over Clinton/DNC collusion to railroad Bernie Sanders out of the Democratic Primary. George Orwell
looks smarter everyday.
As someone who works in IT, an image in this context is not a picture like you would take with your phone, but rather a
perfect copy of the system state, which you could deal with forensically, or load up in a virtual machine. With that, there's
no need to have the servers. You have a clone of the servers along with all their data and their memory state at the time the
snapshot was taken. What that article says actually makes perfect sense to me, because by powering down machine, you destroy
whatever exists only in RAM.
Jimmy, I have much love for your show and no love for the DNC, but you got this one wrong. An 'Image' in this context does
not mean picture, it is a copy of the file system(s) on the machine (server in this case). Having done some digital forensics,
this is the norm. Doing forensics on a physical machine is rarely encouraged because data can be corrupted, accidentally erased,
etc, and that data is lost forever. An image can be copied and stored securely in case a forensics analysts makes a mistake,
they can just restore the image and start again. Sorry Jimmy, I know you hate Russia-gate but this specific case is not a strong
argument against it.
Good example of people talking about things they have no idea what they are talking about... Most likely the "servers" where
virtual servers meaning images are the closest thing to what you guys believe to be physical. Of course you could ask the provider
to hand over the hosts. They would have to decide if flipping a bird or laughing out loud is more appropriate.
If you have
no idea how applied computer science works today do not assume your intuition to be more appropriate than expert statements
without asking another expert about it...
But doing nothing of that kind keeps the grounds for conspiracy theories intact,
so just go on while I load another image in one of the by now several commonly used virtualization solutions (uuups, a "server"
appears out of thin air... And if I click 140 times 140 "servers" will appear [and the swaping would kill this computer in
no time...]).
"... The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every level. ..."
"... His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain his credibility before the public. ..."
"... Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the sake of their imperial designs ..."
"... Private corporations have become global, have acquired many public resources, and are now in control of whole segments of the profit potential in the entire world. This makes them as big as or bigger than the nations states that gave birth to them. America is just a small part of the private corporate wealth generating reach of the private domain. What corporations don't control is left to government. What's wrong with that? ..."
"... The USA has become a transfer mechanism and a transport company. Those in power are transferring massive arrays of public rights, duties, and resources to private corporate opulence. The elite (Pharaoh and his private corporation) have not been more secure, but Americans have reached the extended edge of insecurity. Leadership now consist of two masters: Public elected government 40% and privately owned corporations 60%. ..."
"... Every empire in history, after conquering its future colonies, ruled those colonies with a good degree of acceptance by the colonised population. Now the US claims that it is a global empire, the biggest one in history, but I know of no country which likes to be even man-handled let alone managed by US. ..."
"... Here is the specific threat to CIA impunity behind the US propaganda hysterics. Russia is turning over the rocks where CIA hides its moles in the US government. Russia knows what the perps are up to, so US state secrets don't protect them as they do at home. ..."
"... The CIA focal points that Fletcher Prouty told us about decades ago, they're still infesting the government, dug in deeper than ever. Russia proposes to question them. It's the American public's first look at the secret dotted-line reports CIA uses to control the US government. ..."
"... The US agents Russia singled out for questioning: Browder, Steele, McFaul (CIA war propaganda against Russia,) Jonathan Wiener (Lockerbie fabricator and DoS focal point,) David J. Kramer (ran Russian agents from DoS DRL and CIA's Freedom House), Kyle Parker (CIA mole on Senate staff) Todd Hyman, Schvartsman (CIA's DHS moles.) and Jim Rote, a garden-variety CIA spook rather than an agent, and CIA's transnational organized crime boss Robert Otto. ..."
"... Many millions of patriotic conservative, nationalist, and libertarian people working in "white-collar" jobs voted for Trump (as well as some more lefty white-collar folks who couldn't abide the DNC's rigging the primaries against Sanders and/or her obvious personal corruption, incessant warmongering, and loyalty to very rich folks in the finance/banking and entertainment fields). ..."
Trump
was a complete outsider to politics when he decided to run for the presidency in 2015. He had
no team or political allies. He really didn't have much of a philosophy of governance, a solid
foundation of history and facts, a first rate vocabulary or the debating skills of an 8th
grader. He has consistently failed to win over any Democratic and probably not even a majority
of Republican politicians.
The Deep State has opposed him at every turn, choosing to favor the policies of the
Neocons and their enablers in the Democratic Party. Hence, having no team of his own, he has
been saddled with personnel from the ranks of his most virulent enemies at every
level.
His lack of knowledge and primitive persuasive skills, which might work in big business
but not under the microscope of politics, have not won him any converts but only encouraged a
vicious escalation of antipathy from his opponents, who, controlling the media from top to
bottom, are openly calling him a traitor on no objective grounds, unless trying to do the job
of the office, maintain the peace, and explore possible avenues for reducing international
tensions is now considered treasonous. The charge of treason is clearly bombastic but with
virtually everyone of influence nodding in agreement, it's difficult for the man to retain his
credibility before the public.
Actually, a smidgen south of half the public are the only base of his support. And a very
eclectic base they are, including numerous liberals, progressives, intellectuals and peaceniks,
in addition to conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians, who prefer to deal with the real
world rather than Hillary's deliberate misrepresentation of it.
Will that be enough for him to survive? The way the maniacs are raving in the media, expect
the country to throw a big celebration if he gets "taken out" one way or another tomorrow. The
situation is really dangerous and utterly shameful. Most of the blame goes to Hillary Clinton
and her insurrectionists for not accepting the outcome of our system of ersatz "democracy." Her
husband won with something like 43% of the popular vote in 1992. I'm pretty sure Trump had a
higher number. Cry me a river, Hillary, but stop trying to destroy what you can't have like a
petulant child.
If Trump can't even stick to his own words, how could anybody expect the Russians to
take anything he says seriously?!
I think this is tanken too seriously; the Russians definitely appreciate Trump's courage
in taking a step toward them in an era of such hysteria. Trump is being beaten down by the
propaganda arm of the deep state (the MSM) but his tenacity is paying off. Already poles are
indicating that the majority of people are not taken in by the charade. As with the 2016
election, a sizable portion of the population just ain't buying it.
I dunno whether citing Nancy Pelosi on anything is relevant. Never had courage on anything
during the Dubya Years, and now she's pretty gone, a political career robot with decaying
functions.
You can practically see the cabling coming out of the spine, she's probably having herself
dominated
remotely via TeamViewer by MS-13 members, too.
I agree with your comments. I wish to emphasize one point: Trump was NEVER given a chance.
The establishment HATED him from his candidacy. That hatred has become more pathological by
the day.
It's gone beyond "agreeing"/ "disagreeing" with Trump: this is a sickening assault on U.S
democracy.
The Democratic Party IS guilty of treason. The US establishment – the deep state, if
you like is -- criminally INSANE.
I think there is an element of truth to your views. However, I can't get past the fact
that the head of this Trump hating psychotics are native born white Americans. Yes, they
pander to "minorities" but it's merely a means to their own piggish elite ends. Minorities
are also "useful idiots" .
the people of the US and the people of Russia have the same enemy – the Neocons
– and that makes them de-facto allies
There's definitely something to this statement. I think the Russian people can definitely
commensurate with the "deplorables" as they too have (and to some extent continue to) spend
many decades under Jewish dominated Nomenklatura.
Trump did not do anything different in this meeting with Putin than any other leader, who had
in the past met with the Russian leader. It was not what was done; it was the reaction to
what was presumed to have been done, and wasn't..
The entire Mueller investigation is being conducted, and will continue for all the years
of the Trump Presidency, to be sure, to insure that Trump does not do what he promised to do
during his campaign – cooperate with Putin and get out of the mid-east. It is very
obvious that so far, Trump has shown to have completely reneged on his campaign promises in
this regard (eg. putting military bases in Syria, evacuating ISIS commandos, bombing Syria,
recognizing Jerusalem as the state capital, continuing the war in Afghanistan, arming to the
teeth Saudi Arabia, etc. and some of the actions he has taken were based upon patent and
obvious lies (eg. bombing Syria ..twice).
If one listens carefully to the concerns of Trump in the Putin meeting, it was
predominantly the "security" of Israel vis a vis Iran. It was not the Untied States, but
Israel that was his major concern, and if you listen even more carefully, anyone could have
heard some key words, "Putin is a big fan of BeeBee", which means what? It means that these
mid-eastern wars are never, never. never going to end.
All this noise coming from the right and left is only that .noise. Because really nothing
under the sun has changed.
the lawfully elected President is being openly delegitimized and that, in turn,
delegitimizes the electoral process which brought him to power and, of course, it also
excoriates the "deplorables" who dared vote for him: the majority of the American people.
Neocons have seized power and are sacrificing the US for the sake of their imperial
designs,
that is simply not going to happen, and the Russians understand that.
transition from ::to
From. one nation ::to-1-many colonies, protectorates, puppet regimes+comprador-run vassal
states
From peaceful instigators ::to-2. barkers of orders and abusers of the use of force
From policy experts :: to-3. private monopoly powered corporate war monger and
propagandize
From best of its kind :: to-4 a wasted has been; w/o air, sea or land military
superiority
From rational global leader :: to-5 chaotic commanders engaged in simultaneous
conflicts
From a cooperating society :: to-6 a segmented fight raging society of multiple conflict in
fighting society
From a popularist state :: to-7 a Apartheid-Israeli Lobby lead state
From respected word keepers :: to-8 untrustworthy abdicators, abandoning agrmts as it suits
the situation.
From positive leadership :: to-9 infantile, demented, embarrassing, threatening
outburst
But I think the ruling classes intensity is a result of copyright and patent laws and
other devices too numerous to list here have been taken to privatize the public resources
held in trust by the USA into the hands of Pharaoh and his right arm corporations.
Essentially American public assets were entrusted to the USA, and its corporate elected
leaders pieced the public assets up, and sold them to the highest bidder. Now the successful
bidders are trying to get control or ownership over the remaining few assets that still held
in the public [USA} trust, when that is finished America will be wasted and the USA will
become a dictatorship.
Privatization is the first and foremost internal problem; unless it is fixed, nothing will
change.
What do I mean by privatization? Whole segments of the national USA and global economy now
belong to one or a few private enterprises: by contract, by rule of some law, or by ownership
of assets that were taken, or that are controlled by contract, or agreement, the public
domain was reduced and the private domain was increased. Substantial economic power and most
political power h\b transferred into private hands.
Private corporations have become global, have acquired many public resources, and are now
in control of whole segments of the profit potential in the entire world. This makes them as
big as or bigger than the nations states that gave birth to them.
America is just a small part of the private corporate wealth generating reach of the private
domain. What corporations don't control is left to government. What's wrong with that?
Private corporations (PCs) conduct their affairs independent of national laws and politics,
but the political systems and the people that depend on those political systems are highly
dependent, not on government, but on these private corporations.
Privatization means a part of the public domain has been transferred to the private domain
(mostly corporations). Water franchises, health care, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, military
arms production, transportation (airlines and ships used to be public owned or highly
controlled quasi-governmental entities), energy production and distribution, private armies,
public research discoveries converted by rule of law and investment capital into private
properties, global manufacturers of important and necessary software or hardware systems or
components ; energy, water, gas production and distribution, and services such as garbage,
jail management, education, and so on, are public services provided by private
corporations.
Just as British Colonial Aristocrats and their massive corporations were doing in 1776,
today's elites are busy transferring public government and American assets, resources, and
governing powers to their private selves.
The USA has become a transfer mechanism and a transport company. Those in power are
transferring massive arrays of public rights, duties, and resources to private corporate
opulence. The elite (Pharaoh and his private corporation) have not been more secure, but
Americans have reached the extended edge of insecurity. Leadership now consist of two
masters: Public elected government 40% and privately owned corporations 60%.
Pieces of the public government were carved out and given to private corporate enterprises.
Each transfer from public government to private corporate government; provides elites more
power, and the government that represents the public less power.
The problems the Saker presents are all results of the private taking from public.
If the media truly hated Trump as much as they say they did, they would never have put him
front and center during the primary and given him all that publicity. They would have Ron
Pauled him into public oblivion. They had complete control, but instead of ignoring him, they
put him front of center.
And those polls? If they were rigged, the media knew they were rigged, and would have
conducted one in secret. And why would Hillary have a schedule of campaign stops, half of
which were lies. Why was she lying about her campaign schedule? His election was a surprise
to no one, except those they wanted to fool – the public.
The "surprise" of his election was nothing more than part of the grand theatre we see
being played now.
There was collusion all right during this election, but it certainly wasn't with the
Russians.
Every empire in history, after conquering its future colonies, ruled those colonies with a
good degree of acceptance by the colonised population. Now the US claims that it is a global
empire, the biggest one in history, but I know of no country which likes to be even
man-handled let alone managed by US.
Therefore, I fail to understand where this claim to
empire comes from. Yes, the behaviour appears empirial (for example requesting delivery of
some "12 Russians" that some third-rate US horse-face pretend-policeman identified as
perpetrators of a crime which never happened), but every Napoleon in my local asylum for the
insane behaves empirially.
As to Pellosi and the gang who suck the dicks of Netanyahoo and MbS, the real mass
murderers, like little bunny rabbits suck bottles of milk, their words on Putin are words of
frustration due to the fact that Putin will never offer his member to be similarly
sucked.
Let me summise it simply: what an amazing fuck up US is under its Jewish ownership.
Here is the specific threat to CIA impunity behind the US propaganda hysterics. Russia is
turning over the rocks where CIA hides its moles in the US government. Russia knows what the
perps are up to, so US state secrets don't protect them as they do at home.
The CIA focal points that Fletcher Prouty told us about decades ago, they're still
infesting the government, dug in deeper than ever. Russia proposes to question them. It's the
American public's first look at the secret dotted-line reports CIA uses to control the US
government.
From Meduza: "The list of names also includes Homeland Security Department official Todd
Hyman (who testified in a deposition against Prevezon, a Russian company accused of
laundering proceeds from the fraud uncovered by Sergey Magnitsky), Svetlana Engert (who
supposedly stole criminal case materials from Russia), Alexander Shvartsman (who supposedly
oversaw Browder's stay in the U.S.), Jim Rote (a supposed CIA agent acting as Browder's
"financial manager"), Robert Otto (who supposedly served as deputy director of a U.S.
intelligence agency until January 2017), David Kramer (who recently served as an adviser to
the U.S. State Department), Jonathan Wiener (a long-time aide to John Kerry and an adviser on
national security), and Kyle Parker (a recent U.S. State Department official), according to
Kurennoi."
The US agents Russia singled out for questioning: Browder, Steele, McFaul (CIA war
propaganda against Russia,) Jonathan Wiener (Lockerbie fabricator and DoS focal point,) David
J. Kramer (ran Russian agents from DoS DRL and CIA's Freedom House), Kyle Parker (CIA mole on
Senate staff) Todd Hyman, Schvartsman (CIA's DHS moles.) and Jim Rote, a garden-variety CIA
spook rather than an agent, and CIA's transnational organized crime boss Robert Otto.
Russia is showing us how CIA infiltrates and controls the entire US government.
(1) continuing indefinitely the war in Afghanistan
(2) bombing Syria twice for reasons which he knew or should have known were false.
(3) putting a military base in Syria as an invader
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/u-s-forces-set-up-new-base-in-syria-s-manbij-despite-turkish-threats-1.6073192
something no President dared do in the past.
(4) appointing neo-con war mongers in all key cabinet positions
(5) telling police (on video for all the world to hear) to confiscate guns and "worry about
due process later" (13 states have followed this advice) This statement tramples upon not
only the second amendment, but the fifth and fourteenth as well
(6) saying absolutely nothing about Google, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, censuring all right
wing groups, showing that he doesn't give a hoot about anyone's lst amendment rights,
including his supporters.
(7) recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (at a cost of thousands injured and dead
Palestinians during Israel's celebration)
(8) sanctioning Russia at least three times since he has been in office; with sanctions more
severe than those imposed by Obama.
(9) having the US military evacuate ISIS commandos in Syria
(10) breaching the agreement with Iran at a time when the only party with continuing contract
obligations was Iran who was abiding by the contract (he certainly was not going to get back
the Obama money,w hich is the only thing he complained about during his campaign)
(11) fully funding planned parenthood (now trying to undo this Congressional action with an
Executive Order which compounds the problem in his attempt to usurp the powers of Congress,
violating Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution)
(12) not building the wall
(13) lying about his gross immorality (keep in mind that if the Senate impeached Clinton for
committing fellatio in the Oval Office with a foolish young girl in her early twenties, Trump
would never have dared to run for office with his background)
(14) lying about the economy (saying there was 4 percent unemployment when all the big
retailers employing hundreds of thousands went out of business on the heels of his
statement)
(15) proposing to reward millions of immigrants who have broken our laws
Yet, his supporters are still on the street with those silly hats reciting their mantra
that he is making America great again.
What he is doing in fact is continuing unjustified wars (military Keynesian economics that
will destroy the US) while simultaneously and quietly taking away our constitutional rights.
Those are his biggest "accomplishments"
I'd just quibble that it's unlikely that the majority of Trump's voters were "blue
collar", if that's what we mean by working class.
Many millions of patriotic conservative, nationalist, and libertarian people working in
"white-collar" jobs voted for Trump (as well as some more lefty white-collar folks who
couldn't abide the DNC's rigging the primaries against Sanders and/or her obvious personal
corruption, incessant warmongering, and loyalty to very rich folks in the finance/banking and
entertainment fields).
Unfortunately, if we're counting manufacturing and assembly jobs as "blue collar" or
"working class", there just aren't enough of those jobs left in the USA for their holders to
constitute a majority even of Trump voters. That was part of Trump's appeal, right, the
endless loss of good-paying jobs actually making things of tangible usefulness and value?
What "we" have is a corrupt US (global) elite. An elite, primed in the 80′s &
let entirely off the leash in '91.
Benevolent despots ? A concept with only the vaguest comprehension.
No – these US/ Globalist elites just KNEW history was on THEIR side. Take the brakes
off, & spin the capitalist coin: heads – class war; tails imperialism. Win -win.
(Can't remember his name – guy who runs Hathaway-something: "there is class war, &
my class is winning". Damn few business men are as worshipped as this bloke) And yes, just
look at the 90′s, the Yeltsin years, the Clinton years looked like it was all working
out.
Well, contradictions will "out". And here we are.
A ruling class descending into sociopathology.
A public unable to fully comprehend the toxic brew bubbling just beneath the surface ( the 6
o'clock news, comfortable, day in day out, pay the damn bills, the kid's teeth need braces
& the car a new exhaust).
I won't mention climate change – few here who believe, let alone give a fuck ?
We are in diabolical trouble but fuck it – instinctively we all know it's a Panglossian
universe .& the devil take the hindmost.
Both the USA and Russia are much less "Christian" than you make out. But you're right, of course, that our enemies seem especially motivated to destroy any
nation with a meaningful vestige of Western (Greco-Roman-Anglo-European) Civilization and/or
Christian mores.
The Democratic Party Voting Bloc is now effectively-demographically majority post-1965
nonwhites+American Blacks .
True enough but they aren't necessarily against the "Deplorables". For example Alexandra
Ocasio-Cortez who recently won a Democratic primary in New York (against heavy odds)
describes herself as a "Democratic Socialist" for affordable single-payer national
healthcare, tuition free education in high schools and universities ,with a downsized MIC
& Deep State and realistic corporate taxation helping pay for it.
And on the Gaza border shooting of Palestinians she recently said, "This is a massacre. I
hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state or entity is absolved of mass
shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human
dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore." She opposes the
Likudniks, AIPAC, Netanyahu and wants a two state solution.
Democratic Socialism and Elite Globalist Zionism seem to have a problem living together in
the Democratic Party.
The strains are also visible in the UK where Jeremy Corbyn could also be described as a
Democratic Socialist with much the same platform as Ocasio-Cortez and a good chance of
becoming Prime Minister.
Trump – good & evil. But his base need to take to the streets before he has a
"problem in Dallas" or the dickless wonders in Congress finally get the gumption to impeach
(hard as that's to believe of the Dem-castrartie party .)
The US has been a very succesful country, an amazing empire . In barely a century and a half
expanded enormously thanks to Northern European protestant immigration and to the occupation
of Mexican territories .
In 1945 the USA was on top of the world , it was " the shining city of the hill " , the
only city shining in the hill in fact , it had 50% of the world GDP . while the rest of the
world was in ruins . The decadent Europeans had destroyed themselves in two world wars . .
The Russians had suffered the horrors of the communist revolution and the two world wars . The
Japanese although defeated had destroyed Asia , specially China which also endured a civil
war and a communist revolution .
So , in 1945 the world was in ruins , and the USA was indeed the only "shining city on the
hill " . The USA never suffered the world wars destruction on its own territory , had few casualties in the world wars , and had 50% of the world GDP. Besides the USA inherited
economically and politically the British Empire that England, exhausted by the two world
wars could not maintain .
In the 60`s the USA was still the " shining city on the hill ", Kennedy wanted to do some
changes , I do not know which ones, and he was killed ( by the deep State ? ), the world
was shocked .
In the 70`s Nixon finished the Vietnam war ( a colonial heritage of the French ) it was an
American defeat, and the " shining city in the hill " impeached him ( the deep State does
not accept defeat ) . Europe , the USSR , Japan , China , had recovered from the wars and
wanted to have their shining little villages in the hills too.
Presently the USA has 20% of the GDP , that`s a lot , the USA is a very powerful country ,
probably the most powerful country of the world , but 20% is not 50% . Probably Kennedy and
Nixon realized that this day would come , and Trump sees that this day is arrived . Probably
the american deep State would like to freeze time in 1945 , as well as the french deep State
would like it to freeze history in 1805 in Austerlitz with Napoleon , or the Spanish deep
State would like to freeze history in 1492 when Spain completely expelled the moors from
Spain after seven centuries of fighting and discovered America , with the Catholic Kings
.
The deep States are always sick of imperial nostalgia , they are the war party , they
would like to make war to anyone to threatens its 1945 imperial glorious moment . And the
Kennedys , Nixons and Trumps of this world are the party of peace, they want to adapt to a
changing reality less glorious than the magic orgasmic moments that all empires have had ,
but more constructive, more adapted to an ever changing world .
All the Empires that the earth has seen have passed though this dilemma : party of war vs
party of peace . At the end the parties of peace end up prevailing, but the parties of war
can make a lot of damage both to their own country and to others .
I still think the best explanation of Merkel's immigration policy is her belief that
indeed the Germans are guilty of two world wars and the holocaust.
Therefore 'ein neuer Mensch', a new German, must be created through mass immigration, as a
German commentator explains.
His book should be ready by now.
His prediction is that just the E European countries, Hungary, Poland, etc., will remain
European.
Writing this, one may expect that they will turn politically to Russia, also a catholic white
country.
" The decadent europeans had destroyed themselves in two world wars . . "
The USA destroyed Europe in two world wars.
Do not remember if it was here that I read what Mark Twain said or wrote 'it is easier to
fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled'.
About WWI:
Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War,
1938)
FDR's preparations for WWII:
Charles A. Beard, 'American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in
responsibilities', New Haven, 1946
Charles A. Beard, 'President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances
and realities', New Haven, 1948
"Russian leaders provoked popular sentiment in numerous countries to join NATO, no doubt
abetted by their unfavorable experiences under Russian occupation"
You mean USSR occupation, of course.
Perhaps Russia might discuss any number of issues when the US removes it's illegal forces in
Syria, stops supporting the crypto--Nazi coup government in Ukraine, withdraws it's missiles from Poland etc (oh, we'll protect
you from non existent Iranian nuclear weapons) & pulls back it's conventional forces,
stops proving up invasions like the Georgian invasion of Sth Iapetus, stops interfering in
what remains of the democratic processes of the former USSR states, stops supporting
terrorists across the ME, stops interfering in the energy business of its allies in the EU,
stops it's lies & threats against Russian allies such as Iran & stops iys criminal
sanctions on Russia .Well, that scratches the surface, anyway .
3.The US armed forces are only good at three things: wasting immense sums of money,
destroying countries and alienating the rest of the planet.
Alienating the rest of the planet: Wasting immense sums of money: The U.S. War Industry Raked in $5+ Billion Worth of Foreign Military Sales in June
2018
July 27, 2018 / Christian Sorensen /
"The U.S. war industry raked in $5,408,112,575 worth of foreign military sales (FMS)
during June 2018. Notable items included $1.12 billion worth of Lockheed Martin F-16 aircraft
for Bahrain and "
An uncommonly excellent analysis.
High quality comment threads and sites that allow for reactions/debate/introduction of public
discourse are my gold standard. Unz is exceptional and much appreciated. Just because it's unlikely that I might post here often
I would like to suggest Dr. Judith Curry's blog to anyone like me who enjoys going deeper
into subjects than most 'normal' people would ever find time for. It's a climate blog. It's brilliant. Curry is a genuinely exceptional human and scientist.
The comment threads are pure mind candy..
are u ok ? Russia occupying her province of Kaliningrad ? maybe your country is occupying illegally California , Arizona , Nevada , Colorado , Utah
, New Mexico , Oklahoma and Texas ? Get your nato out of Europe , Europe is fed un with your 80.000 yankee occupation troops
.
Even baltics are missing Russians, Baltics` population is going down since they left CCCP
, they are fed up with American warmongers , they do not want to be cannon fodder for the
well paid eccentric American militarists .
Trump won 20% of the Black male electorate. If he can increase that percentage, then the
Democratic coalition becomes black females, post-1965 immigrants, and white New Class
managerial types. He might get blacks to side with him over immigration, which has cut out the support for
lower-skilled wages across the board.
That's kinda over the top. Continental suicide was on the books for the Great Continental War (I don't know how it
comes it is called "World War") as general desire of revanchism, political nastiness,
prussian militarism, yougoslav apsirations, decaying empires and the British desire for a
continental balance of power met head-on with war tool mechanization. The US came online
rather late.
As for "Word War II", it was mainly about two socialist systems facing off, and Japan
irking the US with a bout of late-onset colonialism. Also everyone going crazy with
operations research and even more mechanization. So it should be called "Socialist War I with
Colonialism on the side.".
They should have destroyed Germany after WWI, or come to a just Peace. They did neither,
slightly weakening it and strongly pissing it off.
After the Soviets went out of business, the US neither welcomed it to the brotherhood of
nations, nor destroyed it so it could not be a threat. Letting the looters loose upon it sure
did piss a lot of people off though. Your point is well taken.
First reaction. All I can think of whenever I read another allegation of Russia influence,
control of Trump or anyone else, or of Putin coming to Washington is Israel. Over and over:
these people simply keep ignoring the elephant in the room. I don't care about the Pekinese:
there's an elephant right there! Look at it! Yes, a Russian businessman once gave a Trump
advisor (since dismissed) fifty thousand dollars. Israel partisans were the leading
contributors to both candidates; Sheldon Adelson alone gave Donald Trump thirty five
million dollars. Shall we talk about what we're doing as a consequence; how we're
remorselessly driving Iran to the point where there will be no choice but war -- and at whose
behest we're doing this?
No let's fret and fantasize about 'Russian influence.' Never mind that the body bags won't
be coming back from Latvia, but from Iran.
Second reaction: this one's more optimistic. Yes, the attacks are increasingly hysterical;
but they're also coming from an increasingly narrow base. More and more, people on both the
right and the left just don't buy them anymore: see, for example, the denunciation of
all this nonsense at the impeccably 'progressive' Mondoweiss.
I perceive the remaining anti-Trump partisans as still possessing a grip on the
traditional media outlets. However, more and more, they simply speak for no one but
themselves. In fact, this may account for the note of hysterical exaggeration; underneath it
all is the sneaking suspicion that no one believes them, or is even listening. After all,
look at Trump's poll numbers. The media keeps announcing that 'now he's blown it' -- and his
numbers keep inching up. I like tracking a rolling average of the last ten polls. When I
started the figure was around 38. Now it's moving past 43. Neither 'babygate' nor
'Russiagate' perceptibly affected this at all.
So to sum up, 'Russiagate' isn't the problem, and it's questionable if many actual
Americans even think it is. This remains true whatever the ravings coming out of The
Washington Post, or The New Yorker , or USA Today . All the evidence is
that these organs speak for fewer and fewer people, and fewer and fewer are even
listening.
Basically, I think most Americans don't even care about all this nonsense.
They know that if Trump is awful, the alternatives were even worse, and they know that the
economy's doing well. No one's saying 'if only Hillary coulda won '
The USA came into WWI from the very beginning.
Without buying USA food and weapons on credit GB and France could not have fought at all.
Moreover, the USA was not neutral, the USA allowed the British blockade of Germany.
As to continental suicide, there was no such thing.
GB wanted war.
WWII, how many times must be repeated what Lindbergh already said before Pearl Harbour,
that 'jewry and GB wanted war'.
FDR was brought into politics by Bernard Baruch, who already in 1928 prevented his friend
Churchill from going into business, because 'he saw great things for Churchill in the
future'.
These great things came, Churchill waged an unnecessary war, and destroyed the empire.
Quote: " do you know the evolution of population in the baltic countries after they left the
Soviet Union in 1990 ?"
Yes, the decreases in population can easily be explained primarily by Russians, who used
to live there, having moved back to Russia. Additionally, there might have been small
population flows of Lithuanias to Poland, Latvians to Sweden, and Estonians to Finland, given
the close relationships. Nothing nefarious.
interesting that Russia has been called to defend itself in England. There its Novichok
the instant death substance arguably produced in London by USA controlled labs or taken from
the old USSR when it fell apart.
Putin vs British government case: Putin charged with poisoning an ex Russian spy and his
daughter, unfortunately for the media and the British corporate Zionist both Russians
survived,
Russia has called the British liars to the carpet.. Russia demands an investigation but the
Banksters and their corporations refuse to allow the British Government to open its
"so-called" investigation to Russian questioning.
Keep your eyes focused on Nord II. the one road one belt, Turkey moving in support of
Syria and Yemen against Saudi Arabia, BRICS and concern yourself with the fact that Russia
not only does not own any USA debt, but Russia also has a non federal reserve approved
monetary exchange operation, SCO is growing in strength, China Gold backed bonds are
available for anyone to buy and convert the face value of the bond to gold. These are game
changers.
Stay tuned for more privately owned advertising supported corporate media productions
showing on "FREE THEATER". M 16, (criminal instigating Association) CIA and Mossad employees
are busy writing new propaganda, budget is not a problem, the Russian's will be made to pay
for the articles, movies etc. so everything is free. Enjoy!
Yes indeed, first Britain, and now Russia has pantsed the US too. In a virtuosic dick
move, they exposed a CIA spook who's implicated not only in Secret Agent Browder's war
propaganda ( http://russiahouse.org/current_news.php?language=eng&id_current=1454
) but in CIA crimes against humanity – specifically, 'legal pretexts for manifestly
illegal acts."
David Kramer, Tufts/Harvard Political Science/Russian studies, **PNAC** , DoS focal point,
then CIA's famous captive NGO **Freedom House** , and a featherbed job at the McCain
Institute for Freedom, Democracy, and Abandoning Thousands of MIAs in Vietnam to Die Slow
Agonizing Deaths in Penal Camps.
Here he is talking to his co-conspirator Robert Otto, "Only idiots like Kerry think we
have common interests in Syria."
Needless to say, Kramer wouldn't know a human right from a bar of soap. He's a
knuckledragger. CIA sent Kramer to DRL when Alfreda Bikowsky got her tit caught in the
crimes-against-humanity wringer for systematic and widespread torture. The US was five years
late reporting to the Committee Against Torture and got a mind-boggling eight (8) follow-on
inquiries for urgent derogations of non-derogable rights. So Kramer had to think fast and
make up some bullshit why simulated live burial, object rape, death by dryboard suffocation,
and penis-slitting is not torture. Kramer is not the brightest bulb, but that's not a hard
job. During the Bush administration all the delegation did was say, "The US does not
Torture," robotically over and over.
So Kramer is a good example of how CIA runs the State Department. When a CIA vital
interest like impunity comes up, they parachute a mole in to get their criminals off the
hook.
Really? Why? What's to hard to fully comprehend?
This ain't quantum physics. Not enough time in busy lives to spend some effort on the topic?
Yeah .But enough time for shopping, social media, online entertainment and such.
Etc.
No. Yes, the elites are corrupted.
But, the masses are corrupted too.
THAT is the problem here.
Or, Trump support base is corrupted too. Not as bad/evil/malicious. As weak.
W ..e a k. And weak always get ruled by strong.
What did/do they think? That the same people who can slaughter hundreds of thousands
Iraqis without missing their lunch are just going to give up their power like that? That the
half an hour of voting "effort" will change that game of power?
What are they doing now? How can one expect to challenge that power by sitting at home and waiting for one man to
go against all that?
Bullshit.
I've been told that "Trump base" doesn't do mass demonstrations.
I still don't get why not?
What's so hard to do, WHENEVER Dems/progs pull their numbers on the street, the "Trump base"
does the same? That's reactive. Go active.
Whenever Trump pulls some of his moves which flips the Dems/progs his support base floods the
streets From the little town in Midwest to New York.
What's so hard about that? The same people have no problem going out .watching games being
outdoors..whatever.
Oh, yes, it could get what .dangerous? Really?
What? Fistfights? Shooting? What happened to that "brave" in the "land of ."?
Don't get this post wrong. Not directed at you. It's directed at lazy and weak people who
are out of their depth.
Wouldn't be a problem save what's going to happen when Dems/progs get their person in White
House.
"... I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies, the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyism lengths since before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will never know. The US establishment and the retainers of the war profiteering classes have made any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign. ..."
"... it is the unholy alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing the election and Cold War hawk neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)). ..."
"... The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run media. They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme to reinforce that we are the forces goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us is evil. ..."
"Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term."
I do think the credit for this goes to the Clinton campaign, the "intelligence" agencies,
the neoconlib biparty and individuals like McCain, who have gone to McCarthyism lengths since
before the GOP primaries ended to prevent Trump from attempting *any* change of the status
quo on foreign policy. Granted, the man might be ineffectual no matter what, but we will
never know. The US establishment and the retainers of the war profiteering classes have made
any negotiations with Russia impossible long before Trump even announced his campaign.
We also should not forget to credit the GOP for test-driving the whole "weak on Russia"
playbook during the Obama years.
I agree with b. While Trump may not be savvy enough to calibrate his engagement with Putin in
a way that would allow a proper dialogue with Russia in spite of the political backdrop in
the US, the primary blame for any failure to allow such dialogue rests for those responsible
for creating that political backdrop that makes it so difficult in the first place (hint:
it's not Trump, unless you blame him for winning the election – rather it is the unholy
alliance of Democrats looking for an excuse for them losing the election and Cold War hawk
neocons who have Russia-hate in their DNA (and their stock portfolios)).
That Putin talked up the Iran deal in the press conference makes me wonder what was said in
the one-on-one. Couldn't have pleased the Adelson/Bolton wing.
Additionally there has yet to be any actual evidence presented re significant election
interference. Indictments are accusations, not evidence.
I saw nothing particularly wrong with the press conference. I'm no Trump fan, but he was just
saying he believed Putin rather than the people who are clearly trying to bring his
administration down. Can't really blame him.
The embarrassment was the reaction in the MSM showcasing how they are now CIA state run
media.
They trot out former high ranking CIA officers now employed by them recycling every meme
to reinforce that we are the forces goodness and light and anyone strong enough to oppose us
is evil.
CNN even used Putin's dearly departed Labrador, Konni making her look like Cujo stating
that Putin use her to terrorize Angela Merkel. A U.S. Congressman fumed that the 50,000
children died in Syria because this fiend supported Assad when Syria was about to be
liberated (a number suspiciously close to the true number of Yemeni children we helped to
kill). These are just two random examples in a very long day. It was
a show worthy of the priests of Baal who confronted Elijah.
As flawed as Trump may be, he is merely holding up a mirror to what we have become. Had we
elected a conventional candidate it would just be business as usual with these seething
hatreds buried just below the surface.
No one better suggest that we should tarnish ourselves talking to the likes of a Russian
leader unless we are discussing terms of surrender. We want Yeltsin or maybe Medvedev.
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?
No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star
Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans
can't afford a $500 emergency
. Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now
worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than
he could ever spend on himself.
Worldwide,
one in
10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has?
193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our
current world or even just our nation.
So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire.
No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to
continue on like this.
Why?
Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched,
like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.
I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because
(A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have
other shit to do.
Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.
If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something
that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think
of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center
and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been
transformed into
an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that
we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.
Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.
Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines,
voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties
that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!
What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?
No, we have what a large Harvard study called the
worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has
a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy
steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"
And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen
through our ridiculous rigged system.
Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.
Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard
on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to
rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the
myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing
nothing but a trench coat.
Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.
The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions
of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges
recently noted , "The most basic constitutional
rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret
evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."
If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to
The New
York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty
in exchange for a lesser sentence."
That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million
dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)
Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .
That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still
legal in 32
states .)
The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely
immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .
We lock up more people than
any other country on earth
. Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking
heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up
right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.
Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.
This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a
tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because
most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then
flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).
If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find
it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say
buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does
your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies
off and you'll feel alive !
The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel.
And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling
elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.
Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.
According to Deloitte's Shift
Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their
lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.
Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon
a time, jobs boiled down to:
I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.
But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda
doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.
If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt
it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to
make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that
truly must get done.
So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing
that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal
basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.
Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away
all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will
happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and
then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."
One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.
And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.
Myth No. 1 -- You are free.
... ... ...
Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.
Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.
Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was
bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."
Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed
potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.
Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.
We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more
billionaires than ever .
Meanwhile,
Americans
supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire
system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something
people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)
Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear
gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into,
hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.
815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.
$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could
fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.
" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't
need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for
us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "
Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars.
Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.
"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil
Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."
Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole
point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and
personal interests.
Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down,
into a shit hole.
But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.
As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence
during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually
taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing
computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.
"... "a calculated attempt to harm our campaign and to make people doubt the legacy of Sergey Magnitsky," ..."
"... "This is a core issue about getting points of view into the public domain," ..."
"... I believe Magnitsky died ..."
"... Questions remain, but the fact that he was not killed, as Mr Browder says, by the same people who investigated his case and had a 'motive' to make him silent as a whistleblower – this is totally certain. ..."
"... "The story of Magnitsky turned out to be made-up," ..."
"... "I saw facts that do not add up, that prove that the story of Magnitsky was faked by Browder," ..."
"... "There is no evidence that he [Magnitsky] was killed or even was beaten," ..."
"... "I am a critic of the Russian authorities and I continue to be this critic, but in this particular case, the West made a mistake by adopting the Magnitsky Act and the Magnitsky resolutions, as they are based on a made-up story," ..."
"... "it is not in the interests of the US to remain trammelled by prejudice against Russia." ..."
"... "I thought I was filming about great the whistleblower Magnitsky. But it became my story of coming together basically with a lie, and with a lot of selfishness, and cynicism," ..."
"... "You have become a foot soldier of the propaganda war," ..."
"... "I am ashamed for you, Andrei. You will have to live with that." ..."
"... "I am a critic of the Russian regime and still am. I had a sort of political affiliation to Browder and his friends," ..."
"... "It goes against your ideology and your worldview to say that actually the Russian cops did not kill Magnitsky, the Russian cops didn't steal the money. Russia is still a very corrupt country, but in this case it was different." ..."
Despite
threats of a libel lawsuit, a documentary about the Magnitsky case by a prominent critic of the
Russian government has been shown in Washington. The film rejects the narrative about the case
accepted in the West, on which the US Magnitsky Act is based. The film, titled 'The Magnitsky
Act – Behind the Scenes', was presented to the public for the first time on Monday at the
Newseum, a private museum dedicated to the news industry and freedom of speech in Washington,
DC. The two-hour production is part documentary, part dramatization of the events that surround
the death of Russian lawyer Sergey Magnitsky six years ago. Read more After Magnitsky: Dead
lawyer's boss Browder and his legal hurdles – now in US
Magnitsky worked as an accountant for US-British investor William F. Browder, who made
millions in Russia during the 1990s, but was later accused of tax evasion and fled the country.
The lawyer was detained by the Russian police as part of a separate fraud investigation and
died in police custody in November 2009.
Browder claimed that Magnitsky had been investigating corrupt police officers and was thrown
into jail and murdered by them. He declared a crusade against what he called endemic corruption
in the Russian government and lobbied across Europe and the US for punishment of the
individuals whom he accused of involvement in Magnitsky's death.
In 2012 the US passed an act named after the Russian lawyer, which imposed sanctions against
40 Russian citizens – a move that Moscow saw as blatantly anti-Russian, and apparently
retaliated against by banning the adoption of Russian orphans by US citizens.
'Story of
coming together with lie, selfishness & cynicism'
Director Andrei Nekrasov struggled for months to have his controversial work shown to the
public. Scheduled screenings in three European venues, including the European Parliament, were
canceled because Browder threatened multimillion-dollar libel lawsuits against producers or
would-be broadcasters of the film.
Browder opposes the film because he believes it to be "a calculated attempt to harm our
campaign and to make people doubt the legacy of Sergey Magnitsky," as he told
euobserver.com back in April.
Newseum was threatened in the same way, but rejected the pressure, saying that publishing
Nekrasov's film was an issue of freedom of speech.
"This is a core issue about getting points of view into the public domain,"
investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who moderated the event, told the audience before the
screening.
Nekrasov says he wanted to make a docudrama film about Magnitsky ever since he heard of his
story. He received funding for the project from eight European film foundations and state
broadcasters and got in touch with Browder as part of his work.
But he found inconsistencies in the evidence presented by Browder's campaign to back his
story, saying most of it was circumstantial at best. When he confronted the businessman about
them, he said Browder broke off all contact and started to oppose the film.
The director believes that the narrative of Magnitsky as the brave whistleblower killed by
corrupt Russian cops, as it was accepted in the West, is a scam by Browder, who capitalized on
the lawyer's death to shield himself from all past and future accusations from Russian law
enforcement, which he could claim to be politically motivated.
" I believe Magnitsky died ," Nekrasov told journalists in response to a question
on whether he believed the lawyer was killed or died. " Questions remain, but the fact that
he was not killed, as Mr Browder says, by the same people who investigated his case and had a
'motive' to make him silent as a whistleblower – this is totally certain. "
"The story of Magnitsky turned out to be made-up," Nekrasov told journalists as he
commented on revelations he made during the making of his film. "I saw facts that do not
add up, that prove that the story of Magnitsky was faked by Browder," he added.
Documents show that the evidence presented by Browder as proof that Magnitsky was a
whistleblower was in fact a transcript of Magnitsky's interrogations, which were conducted
before he made his statements, Nekrasov claimed, stressing that police officers had no motive
for killing Magnitsky as he did not expose them.
"There is no evidence that he [Magnitsky] was killed or even was beaten," the film
director told journalists.
"I am a critic of the Russian authorities and I continue to be this critic, but in this
particular case, the West made a mistake by adopting the Magnitsky Act and the Magnitsky
resolutions, as they are based on a made-up story," Nekrasov said, adding that "it is
not in the interests of the US to remain trammelled by prejudice against Russia."
"I thought I was filming about great the whistleblower Magnitsky. But it became my story
of coming together basically with a lie, and with a lot of selfishness, and cynicism,"
Nekrasov told RT in May, when the screening of the film was cancelled at the last moment in
Brussels.
The director's view didn't go well with some of the first viewers of the film, including
Russian opposition politicians and rights activists.
"You have become a foot soldier of the propaganda war," exclaimed Ilya Yashin, a
veteran opposition figure in Russia. "I am ashamed for you, Andrei. You will have to live
with that."
The outcry was perhaps to be expected. Nekrasov himself has been a critic of the Russian
government for years. Some of his earlier works explored alleged involvement of the Kremlin in
very serious issues, including the Chechnya war, the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko, corruption
in security agencies and others.
His documentaries, both political and otherwise, were praised by critics and won a number of
awards, including the prestigious German Grimme-Preis award. Georgia named him person of the
year 2009 for a film about the 2008 war against Russia.
"I am a critic of the Russian regime and still am. I had a sort of political affiliation
to Browder and his friends," Nekrasov said of his latest film. "It goes against your
ideology and your worldview to say that actually the Russian cops did not kill Magnitsky, the
Russian cops didn't steal the money. Russia is still a very corrupt country, but in this case
it was different."Where to
watchSchedule Subscribe to RT
newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won't tell you
I have read Alex Krainer's book. It is a devastating critique of Browder, which exposes him
as the corrupt thug he is. Browder is no more interested in "democratizing" Russia than the
U.S. Deep State is in protecting the integrity of the U.S. election process! That Browder was
the "star witness" for the Congress before it overwhelmingly passed the latest sanctions bill
against Russia shows why it is important that he be exposed.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know something about the networks and
individuals acting to prevent a rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia.
At the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki, Russian President
Vladimir Putin and American President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of resolving
potential criminal cases involving citizens of the two countries by permitting interrogators
from Washington and Moscow to participate in joint questioning of the individuals named in
indictments prepared by the respective judiciaries. The predictable response by the American
nomenklatura was that it was a horrible idea as it would potentially require U.S. officials to
answer questions from Russians about their activities.
Putin argued, not unreasonably, that if Washington wants to extradite and talk to any of the
twelve recently indicted GRU officers the Justice Department has named then reciprocity is in
order for Americans and other identified individuals who are wanted by the Russian authorities
for illegal activity while in Russia. And if Russian officials are fair game, so are American
officials.
"... Included in the documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday is a one-page document submitted by Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for Donald Trump's 2016 effort. Manafort was serving in that role on June 9, 2016, when he joined Donald Trump Jr. and campaign adviser Jared Kushner in a meeting with a Kremlin-linked attorney who had promised incriminating information about Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Those notes, apparently taken on Manafort's phone , are as follows. ..."
"... Offshore -- Cyprus ..."
"... Not invest -- loan ..."
"... Value in Cyprus as inter ..."
"... Active sponsors of RNC ..."
"... Browder hired Joanna Glover ..."
"... Tied into Cheney ..."
"... Russian adoption by American families ..."
"... In the absence of other context, the notes are cryptic and include words that certainly seem to wave red flags. "Offshore," "Illici[t]" -- even an apparent mention of former vice president Richard B. Cheney. ..."
Included in the documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday is a
one-page document submitted by Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for Donald Trump's
2016 effort. Manafort was serving in that role on June 9, 2016, when he joined Donald Trump Jr.
and campaign adviser Jared Kushner in a meeting with a Kremlin-linked attorney who had promised
incriminating information about Hillary Clinton.
In the absence of other context, the notes are cryptic and include words that certainly
seem to wave red flags. "Offshore," "Illici[t]" -- even an apparent mention of former vice
president Richard B. Cheney.
"... [ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please click here ] ..."
"... "I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is." ― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion" ..."
"... Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at evening. ..."
"... Alex Krainer is a hedge fund manager based in Monaco. His book, "The Killing of William Browder" may still be available in paperback at Book Depository , Barnes&Noble (USA), Amazon.fr , Amazon.co.uk , or ..."
[ Note by the Saker : for my review of Alex Krainer's book please
click here ]
"I always say the truth is best even when we find it unpleasant. Any rat in a sewer can
lie. It's how rats are. It's what makes them rats. But a human doesn't run and hide in dark
places, because he's something more. Lying is the most personal act of cowardice there is."
― Nancy Farmer, "The House of the Scorpion"
In January 2015 I received a book titled "Red Notice" written by Bill Browder, once a hedge
fund manager running Hermitage Capital the largest foreign-owned hedge fund in Russia. In the
past, my path had crossed with Browder's on two occasions. In 2005, I was invited to his
presentation, only days before he was expelled from Russia. On that occasion Browder surprised
me because he was the first credible person I ever heard speaking positively about Vladimir
Putin. The next time I met Browder was in 2010 during an investment conference in Monaco. This
time he was very anti-Putin. When I received his book, it was recommended to me as an excellent
read.
Through his book, Browder presents himself in glowing colors. By contrast, he portrays
Russia as a sinister, backward tyranny and President Putin as the greediest, most ruthless
tyrant since Genghis Khan. The book's main plot shapes up as an appealing story about the
struggle of good against evil, about a lone maverick (Browder himself), taking on a powerful
network of dangerous criminals and corrupt government officials in selfless pursuit of justice.
It would be a beautiful story – if only it were true.
I was familiar with Parts of Browder's story, so his tale seemed fishy to me. A few days
after reading it I had to re-read it from the beginning. Sure enough, I discovered quite a
number of things that didn't add up which prompted me to do some research of my own. Much about
it bothered me enough that I ended up writing a whole book which I titled "The Killing of
William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception." In August of this year I
finally finished it and self-published it on Amazon.com.
My book's main object is to unmask Browder's brazen and dangerous deception. Beyond this,
I've also sought to put his story into proper context by including a rather detailed account of
the relevant events that led to the collapse of the USSR, Russia's subsequent transition from
Communism to Capitalism and what
17 years of Vladimir Putin's leadership have changed . I've also included a section
discussing the person and character of Vladimir Putin (since Browder relentlessly demonizes
him). The book's last chapter discusses the history of the relations between the U.S. and
Russia from the beginnings of the 19 th century, including the U.S.
Civil War when Russia came to Abraham Lincoln's aid and played the key role in preserving the
Union and what the future relations between the U.S. and Russia might, or should be.
As it turned out, my book was surprisingly well received by its readers and during the first
few weeks it received very encouraging reader reviews (seven five-star and one four-star
review). Unfortunately, by mid-September "The Killing of William Browder" came up on Browder
team's radar and my problems began. It seems that in the free world, the freedom of expression
comes with some restrictions. Exposing Bill Browder is one of them.
On 13 th September, University of Tulsa professor Jeremy Kuzmarov cited some of
the materials from my book in his own Hffington Post article about Bill Browder, titled
"Raising the Curtain on the Browder-Magnitsky Story." I was flattered by that article, but
Huffington Post scrubbed it from their website within hours. A week later, Amazon's publishing
company, CreateSpace "suppressed" my book, purging it from Amazon.com website and from its
Kindle store.
CreateSpace explained that a third party claimed that my book "may contain defamatory
content," and that to resolve the issues I needed to contact Mr. Jonathan M. Winer, Mr.
Browder's legal counsel. Mr. Winer's word was all that was necessary for Amazon to oblige and
remove my book from its bookstore. My protest and subsequent communications with CreateSpace
had no effect and my only venue was to "work" with Browder's lawyers to "resolve the issues."
In other words, I was put in the situation to have Browder censor my book and decide on whether
it could be published or not. At first I rejected idea and refused to contact Mr. Winer
offering instead my book for free to whoever requested a copy. But subsequently I decided to
write to Mr. Winer anyway to find out what, if anything went wrong. So far, I have received no
response.
This is not the first time Bill Browder – and whoever is backing him – has
effectively censored what the Western public may or may not know about his story. In 2016,
Russian film-maker Andrei Nekrasov made the documentary film, "The Magnitsky Act – Behind
the Scenes."
Over the years, Nekrasov had built a reputation for producing documentaries that were
critical of the Russian government, and with the Magnitsky affair, he initially followed
Browder's narrative of the events and even envisioned Browder as the film's narrator. But his
research into the subject turned up a number of problems with Browder's story. Nekrasov reached
out to him for an explanation, but was unable to get in touch with Browder for several months.
Nekrasov finally tracked down Browder at a book signing event where he tried and failed to get
clarifications from him. Ultimately however, Nekrasov managed to meet with Browder and with the
cameras rolling, he began to lay out his findings. As he did so, Browder became visibly vexed
until at one moment he abruptly interrupted Nekrasov with an accusation that he was spreading
Russian propaganda.
When Nekrasov's film was completed, Browder took aggressive action to block its screenings.
With threats of lawsuits, he prevented an already scheduled screening to a group of Members of
the European Parliament in Brussels. He did the same with another screening in Norway, and even
managed to pressure the Franco-German television network "Arte" to call off the showing of
Nekrasov's film on its channel. In June 2016, Browder tried to force The Newseum in Washington DC to cancel the screening of
Nekrasov's film. Thankfully, The Newseum, whose laudable mission is to promote freedom of
expression and "the five freedoms of the First Amendment to the U.S. Consitution," refused to
be cowed by Browder's intimidation and showed the film to a Washington audience.
No, unfortunately this did not happen. Freedom of expression – which should be
sacrosanct – is dangerously compromised in the west.
Open, civilized societies seek resolution of contentious issues by allowing proponents of
different sides in any dispute to present their respective points of view. An informed, open
debate is by far the best mechanism of conflict resolution because we can only arrive at
constructive solutions to problems by taking different stakeholders' points of view into
consideration. Browder's approach is contrary to that of civilized societies: he seeks to
silence all points of view but his own. He seeks to persuade not by initiating an informed
debate, but by suppressing all debate. This is not the conduct of a truth teller pursuing
elevated objectives like human rights, justice, and truth. Truth does not need such forceful
defense. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, " Truth is tough. It will not break, like a
bubble, at a touch. Nay, you may kick it about all day, and it will be round and full at
evening. " Browder is clearly anxious that his story cannot take any kicking at all.
Meanwhile in the western world, we appear to be at the mercy of lawyered-up elites for what we
are allowed to know and what we are not.
In the end, I have no doubt that truth will prevail and that Bill Browder will lose his
battle to keep his deception going. It is because there's something sacrosanct about truth and
most people will reject a lie once they are aware of it.
This shocking tale of alleged Russian official corruption and brutality drove legislation
that was a major landmark in the descent of U.S.-Russian relations under President Barack
Obama to a level rivaling the worst days of the Cold War.
.But what the film shows is how Nekrasov, as he detected loose ends to the official story,
begins to unravel Browder's fabrication which was designed to conceal his own corporate
responsibility for the criminal theft of the money. As Browder's widely accepted story
collapses, Magnitsky is revealed not to be a whistleblower but a likely abettor to the fraud
who died in prison not from an official assassination but from banal neglect of his medical
condition.
The cinematic qualities of the film are evident. Nekrasov is highly experienced as a maker
of documentaries enjoying a Europe-wide reputation. What sets this work apart from the
"trade" is the honesty and the integrity of the filmmaker as he discovers midway into his
project that key assumptions of his script are faulty and begins an independent investigation
to get at the truth .
The reason nekrasov has a following among European liberal snowflakes is that his
documentaries have had a sarcastic jaded and negative tinge with respect to Russia (even BBC
News has aired his documentaries as recently as 2016). He is rather pessimistic regarding
Russia. That's what makes this revelation that even he (Nekrasov, a darling of the debauch
liberals of the west, and Putin critic) found browder to not be credible. Coming from
Nekrasov, that allegation and documentary would really destroy the battering ram (and useful
fraud) that browder had provided the Western establishment.
Nekrasov is now getting a painful reality check as to how sophisticated the West's
totalitarian nature is: they are not crude like the Chinese who will arrest small time
nobodies for being too honest or critical, the West focusses it's blunt oppression for high
value targets; just as outlined in 1984, the higher up you are and the greater your reach,
the greater the scrutiny and the more blunt the instrument used to keep you in line. One must
admit that the Anglo empire and their hypocrit vassals/covert-competitors in the EU, have
refined this to an art and are far more efficient at it than their poor understudies in CCP
China, or the Soviet Union.
Krainer is right though, the truth is going to prevail and eventually browder will be
exposed (especially when the deep state decides he's too much of an annoying liability
– as times progresses or as the deep state finds browder's agenda and his supporters
getting in the way of the state's own agenda).
There is one thing that no one has clarified: Why was magnitsky allowed to die, why was he
denied medical treatment, who was responsible for that? What are the facts around magnitsky's
death?
Hi RC – a few great point. In Nekrasov's defence, I think I can understand him. I'm
Croatian and if we started discussing Croatia, you'd find me very critical. My inclination
would be to expose negative developments – not because I'm anti-Croatian but becauseI
would want to draw public attention to problems that need to be addressed. To his credit,
when he realized truth was different from what he initially believed, he made a turn to
pursue truth when he could have made the film that would have been far better for his career.
I agree with you that Browder will probably end up thrown under the bus. That's what I'm
afraid of (and the #1 reason for my book's title). But they will try to first make Browder a
household name (crusader for human rights and justice, bla, bla..) with their Hollywood
movie. Then they'll try to make it look like Putin had him killed.
As to why Magnistky died – that's a mystery. It was definitely a massive cock-up on
the part of Russian law enforcement, but there's also the angle that his death was VERY
convenient for Browder and his goodfellas.
I think that Magnitsky was such a pain in the ass ( he made 450 complaints about the
prison-conditions during 358 days in prison, most ofwhich nobody could solve without a much
larger budget) that doctors and staff prefered to not hear or to look the other way when
Magnitsky came into a psychosis. He got into this psychosis after a court case from where he
returned very disappointed. Future looked a lot worse than he had expected.
Parry's article
mentions that he viewed the film on Vimeo, using a password provided by Piraya Film, the
Norwegian production company.
This is a fairly standard way that independent producers shop their films around, looking
for a distribution deal. I.e., a journalist or distributor contacts them, and they are given
a Vimeo link and password for a private, limited-time viewing of the film. Journalists get
this access because their writing helps to promote the film. The simplest distribution deal
would then be through a subscription-based streaming platform. DVDs are more complicated and
usually happen later.
However, in this case, the film is a co-production with four other companies, including
ZDF and ARTE, which are large European networks, and all of whom have been threatened with
litigation, presumably by Browder's lawyers.
In effect, then, the film in its original version has been censored. It is not available,
unless or until somebody pirates it. There are several scammy-looking streaming sites that
claim to have it, but they want your credit card number and they might just have the same
Russian-dubbed version that you can watch for free via the link posted above.
I suspect the version of the film with the Russian voice-over was not done by Piraya Film,
as the production of the sound doesn't seem very high compared to the quality of the
original. This might have been done with authorization of Piraya, but if not, it means
somebody has a illegitimate copy of the film to which they added the Russian voice-over. This
means, they could also post the film in its original form. If they really want to increase
awareness in the West of how the new Cold War is playing out, such a move could help.
Given the legal threats and the fact that few small distribution companies have the
resources to fight legal battles, this might be a situation in which we are waiting for
somebody to pirate the film, somebody who has access to the original, and to distribute it
via a torrent.
I wonder whether Nekrasov himself knows of the level of interest (at least in some quarters)
in seeing the film, and could find a way to make one available somehow. . .
Something tells me he doesn't want to push this too much as money for this film came from
French and German sources. It is nice to see him sticking his neck out to uphold the Truth.
When I watched the US rep. who supposedly investigated this Magnitzky affair for the US
gov. state under oath that he never verified any of the info that Browder gave him, I kept
thinking "Is this guy serious ?" But when you realize that they never did any investigation
then it all seems logical.
Conventional wisdom would have us believe that Russia became America's sworn enemy in the aftermath
of the 2016 presidential election. As is often the case, however, conventional wisdom can be
illusory.
In the momentous 2016 showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump,
a faraway dark
kingdom known as Russia, the fantastic fable goes, hijacked that part of the American brain
responsible for critical thinking and lever pulling with a few thousand dollars' worth of Facebook
and Twitter adverts, bots and whatnot.
The result of that gross intrusion into the squeaky
clean machinery of the God-blessed US election system is now more or less well-documented history
brought to you by the US mainstream media: Donald Trump, with some assistance from the Russians
that has never been adequately explained, pulled the presidential contest out from under the wobbly
feet of Hillary Clinton.
For those who unwittingly bought that work of fiction, I can only offer my sincere
condolences.
In fact, Russiagate is just the latest installment of an anti-Russia story
that has been ongoing since the presidency of George W. Bush.
Act 1: Smokescreen
Rewind to September 24th, 2001.
Having gone on record as the first global
leader to telephone George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Putin showed his
support went beyond mere words. He announced a five-point plan to support America in the 'war
against terror' that included the sharing of intelligence, as well as the opening of Russian
airspace for US humanitarian flights to Central Asia.
In the
words
of
perennial Kremlin critic, Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia,
Putin's
"acquiescence to NATO troops in Central Asia signaled a reversal of two hundred years of Russian
foreign policy. Under Yeltsin, the communists, and the tsars, Russia had always considered Central
Asia as its 'sphere of influence.' Putin broke with that tradition."
In other words, the new Russian leader was demonstrating his desire for Russia to have, as Henry
Kissinger
explained
it
some seven years later, "a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice."
This leads us to the question for the ages: If it was obvious that Russia was now
fully prepared to enter into a serious partnership with the United States in the 'war on terror,'
then how do we explain George W. Bush announcing the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty just three months later?
There are some things we may take away from that move, which Putin tersely and rightly
described
as
a "mistake."
First
, Washington must not have considered a security partnership with
Moscow very important, since they certainly understood that Russia would respond negatively to the
decision to scrap the 30-year-old ABM Treaty.
Second
, the US must not considered the 'war on terror' very serious
either; otherwise it would not have risked losing Russian assistance in hunting down the baddies in
Central Asia and the Middle East, geographical areas where Russia has gained valuable experience
over the years. This was a remarkably odd choice considering that the US military apparatus had
failed spectacularly to defend the nation against a terrorist attack, coordinated by 19 amateurs,
armed with box cutters, no less.
Third
, as was the case with the
decision
to
invade Iraq, a country with nodiscernible connection to the events of 9/11, as well as the
imposition of the
pre-drafted
Patriot
Act on a shell-shocked nation, the decision to break with Russia seems to have been a premeditated
move on the global chessboard. Although it would be hard to prove such a claim, we can take some
guidance from Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff, who notoriously advised, "You never want a
serious crisis to go to waste."
So why did Bush abrogate the ABM Treaty with Russia?
The argument was that some
"rogue state," rumored to be Iran, might be tempted to launch a missile attack against "US
interests abroad." Yet there was absolutely no logic to the claim since Tehran was inextricably
bound by the same principle of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) as were any other states that
tempted fate with a surprise attack on US-Israeli interests. Further, it made no sense to focus
attention on Shia-dominant Iran when the majority of the terrorists, allegedly acolytes of Osama
bin Laden, reportedly hailed from Sunni-dominant Saudi Arabia. In other words, the Bush
administration happily sacrificed an invincible relationship with Russia in the war on terror in
order to guard against some external threat that only nominally existed, with a missile defense
system that was largely unproven in the field. Again, zero logic.
However, when it is considered that the missile defense system was tailor-made by
America specifically with Russia in mind, the whole scheme begins to make more sense, at least from
a strategic perspective.
Thus, the Bush administration used the attacks of 9/11 to not
only dramatically curtail the civil rights of American citizens with the passage of the Patriot
Act, it also took the first steps towards encircling Russia with a so-called 'defense system' that
has the capacity to grow in effectiveness and range.
For those who thought Russia would just sit back and let itself be encircled by foreign
missiles, they were in for quite a surprise.
In March 2018, Putin stunned the world, and
certainly Washington's hawks, by
announcing
in
the annual Address to the Federal Assembly the introduction of advanced weapons systems – including
those with hypersonic capabilities - designed to overcome any missile defense system in the world.
These major developments by Russia, which Putin emphasized was accomplished "without the
benefit" of Soviet-era expertise, has fueled the narrative that "Putin's Russia" is an aggressive
nation with "imperial ambitions," when in reality its goal was to form a bilateral pact with the
United States and other Western states almost two decades ago post 9/11.
Now, US officials can only wring their hands in angst while speaking about an "aggressive
Russia."
"Russia is the most significant threat just because they pose the only
existential threat to the country right now. So we have to look at that from that perspective,"
declared
Air
Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, or STRATCOM.
Putin reiterated in his Address, however, that there would have been no need for Russia to have
developed such advanced weapon systems if its legitimate concerns had not been dismissed by the
US.
"Nobody wanted to talk with us on the core of the problem," he said. "Nobody
listened to us. Now you listen!"
Everybody needs to get up to speed on international Jew criminal Bill
Browder. He's at the center of the Deep State, and royally fucked up when
he tried to rip off Putin for $400 million.
I should also mention Putin's treatment of certain Jewish
oligarchs who have attempted to influence Western policies toward
Russia (e.g., Mikhail Khodorkovsky). A truly stunning moment in the
Trump-Putin presser (all but ignored in the MSM) was Putin saying
that Bill Browder and his associates had illegally earned $1.5
billion in Russia ("the way the money was earned was illegal")
without paying taxes either to Russia or the United States where the
money was transferred. And that he and his associates had contributed
$400 million to Hillary Clinton's campaign. While the charges back
and forth are impossible for me to evaluate, Browder's firm,
Hermitage Capital Management, has been involved in other accusations
of fraud. Browder was the main force promoting the Magnitsky Act,
signed by President Obama in 2012, that barred Russian officials said
to be involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Browder associate,
from entering the U.S. or using the U.S. banking system.
Here the point is that American neocons have been in the forefront
of hostility over Putin's treatment of Jewish oligarchs, taking the
view that Browder et al. are completely innocent victims of Russian
evil. Along with Russian foreign policy, Putin's actions toward the
oligarchs is one factor in neocon and hence some factions of the GOP
toward Russia. It's no surprise that they are now eagerly joining the
hate-Trump chorus throughout the American establishment.
"... Eric Draitser is the founder of StopImperialism.org and host of CounterPunch Radio . He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at [email protected]. ..."
Every morning, just before his first threatening tweet of the day, and well before the
bright lights and not-so-bright blondes of Fox & Friends have even had a chance to
caffeinate, President Trump awakens, shuffles out to the Truman Balcony, and releases a pair of
snow white doves in the direction of Moscow.
At least, that's the impression one gets reading what passes for analysis from some of the
more depraved corners of the online left.
It's true that the number of self-professed "analysts" and dementia-addled lefties spouting
the Trump-as-peacenik line is relatively small, but the impact their voices have had on left
discourse around Trump and this historical moment is not insignificant. For every protest, be
it a mainstream liberal march, radical Antifa direct action, or anything in between, the Left
Trumpists focus their ire on the opponents of Trumpism. Ostensibly, it's because the anti-Trump
activists are hypocrites who only form political opposition against Republicans while letting
Democrats eat live babies on YouTube and roll wheelchair-bound pensioners into oncoming
traffic. But, seen from a more realistic perspective, it seems this chorus of silliness is
based more on Trump's words, and those of openly pro-Putin media, than on reality.
Take, for instance, this agonizingly vapid talking point about Trump desperately trying to
repair the US-Russia relationship and promote peace with Russia. It certainly aligns with
Trump's words. But how about his actions?
Well, it wasn't particularly inspiring when the Trump Administration decided to escalate
Obama's already insane policy vis-à-vis Ukraine by
providing lethal weapons to the US-backed Kiev regime which continues to be partnered with,
and in some ways captive to, Ukrainian Nazis and other fascist, er um, "ultra-nationalist,"
forces. Even the great Russophobe himself, that elusive covert Kenyan-Muslim Brotherhood
communist agent Obama wouldn't go that far.
Trump's genius, apparently, is in being a peacenik toward Russia while arming to the teeth
the anti-Russian Nazis whose grandfathers got their jollies collaborating with Hitler, killing
Jews and other ethnic minorities. Sources on the ground tell me, however, that these are very
fine people who simply want to Make Ukraine Great Again. What's wrong with that? (Sidenote: My
grandfather was busy killing their grandfathers. He didn't think they were very fine
people.)
The Left Trumpists though still manage to find ways to justify, or at least explain away,
Trump's arming of Ukrainian fascists by pointing out that Trump is a victim of his intelligence
agencies, the Deep StateTM, SJWs, the Alt-Left, and the War on Christmas. The
Hillary-Comey-Maddow cabal hashed out a plan to destroy Trump by forcing the actual left into
talking about Trump's actual dangerous policies that are openly acknowledged and easily
researched by anyone with an internet connection. Damn liberals.
And let's all remember with warm reminiscence the good old days of the 2016 campaign when
Donald Trump stood before the American people undermining the imperial military juggernaut of
NATO, presenting himself as the first major US politician in recent memory to question the very
function of the alliance. These leftists championed Trump the anti-imperialist, the man who
would rein in the US's European war machine.
Welp, within 18 months Trump has not only not reduced NATO's importance or reach, he has, in
fact, demanded a more robust, more deadly, and more provocative NATO with each member state
increasing significantly their contribution to the military alliance. Oops. I guess
Trumpian anti-imperialism and America First-erism extends to funding the world's most dangerous
imperial alliance used as a weapon against Russia and much of the world.
But, of course, the spending hike for NATO only mirrors Trump's glorious peace program at
home, which includes a record
$700 billion military budget . That obscene amount of blood money will fund massive new
killing machines and line the pockets of Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, and the other death
merchants who today sit around laughing at the notion that Trump would somehow be bad for the
military-industrial complex. For these ghouls, Trump means business, and business is booming.
Trump: A Russian Stooge?
The history of the Russiagate story is still being written. But, as usual, liberals have
already transmogrified a murky, hitherto unproven narrative of Russian puppetry of the US
president into a story of treason and of despoiling the good name of the US of A. And the Left
Trumpists reject it, arguing that Trump is merely trying to restore friendly relations and
avoid a World War III apocalypse.
But what if – bear with me now – what if they're both completely fucking wrong?
What if Trump is actually just warmongering and undermining peace in the way that presidents of
the Imperium Americana have for decades, but in a more unpredictable way?
Consider that Midtown Mussolini, the great orange conciliator, has actually imposed
expanded sanctions on Russia, going further than the Obama Administration did. Whether this
is a response to domestic political pressures, a negotiating strategy, weakness in the face of
neocons, or some combination of the three, is not terribly important given that the end result
is heightened tensions with the Kremlin. Naturally, those points are used by the Left Trumpists
as "explantions" for Trump's behavior. Note that these lefties will never admit to defending
Trump, they prefer to cast their defenses as "explanations."
Regardless, Trump has managed to present himself as a dove on Russia, while in fact being
more hawkish than any president in recent memory. This is further demonstrated by Trump's
expulsion of more than 60 Russian embassy, consulate, and/or intelligence officials over
the alleged poisoning of a former Russian spy in the UK. Trumpologists, though, have the
talking points in hand: "Trump is just bowing to pressure from liberals and the intelligence
agencies, he didn't really want to do it!"
Interesting. Since when do leftists care about the political pressures a president faces?
Lyndon Johnson faced tremendous political pressures from his right and left, does he get a pass
on Vietnam? Nixon faced incredible pressure, as did Carter and Clinton. And why, please tell,
am I supposed to care? Their actions are what matter.
I suppose the Left Trumpists also forgot that Trump brought in the utterly unhinged neocon
imperialist, John Bolton. And, predictably, the mustache that launched a thousand ships has in
short order raised the
threat of war with Iran, moved the administration further
to the right on Venezuela , argued in favor of a first strike
against North Korea , and much more. And who could forget now Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, who succeeded Exxon Mobil kingpin Rex Tillerson, as Trump's consiglieri. I suppose it's
progress as the US threatens to kill millions in the name of Jesus, rather than in the name of
oil profits.
There are probably a hundred other policies and actions taken by Trump that are worth
examining in context of left apologism for the Fascist-in-Chief. But this essay is not intended
to catalog all the criminal, degenerate policies that Agent Orange has enacted or championed.
It is merely an introduction, a window into a confused political space and discourse on the
Left that is both infuriating and deeply depressing.
Many decent, well-meaning people who have dedicated their lives to fighting neoliberal
imperialism have suddenly positioned themselves to the right of neocons in alliance with
ascendant fascism in the US. They don't espouse the fascism, but have nonetheless made common
cause with the far right in defense of Trump on the grounds of world peace and smashing the
neoliberal/neoconservative consensus in Washington.
One has to wonder, though Would they also align with the hangman to spite the gallows-maker?
Join
the debate on Facebook More articles by: Eric Draitser
"... " So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." ..."
"... https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s ..."
"... McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... I am with PT on this issue. McCain is the bigger jerk. In my opinion, he can't stand it that more Americans voted for Trump than voted for McCain (this American included--though I did hold my nose and vote for McCain simply because my stomach would not take voting for BHO. I was not a birther, but I was fully aware of things in regard to his past that I didn't like and his ideology that I despised and his friendships with people I found reprehensible. I could go on, but won't). ..."
"... "Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up." ..."
"... This is in addition to attracting more attention to Magnitsky Act (and to a documentary by Nekrasov), ..."
"... no western country dares to show "The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes," because the presented facts are not fitting the ziocons' sensibilities. ..."
"... Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those responsible for 9/11. ..."
"... Also, a report on 'McClatchy' on 11 July, entitled 'John McCain faces questions in Trump-Russia dossier case', linked to the response of Steele and Orbis dated 18 May to the request by Gubarev's lawyers for further information in response to the 'Defence' in the London suit to which you linked. ..."
"... At the moment, both sets of legal proceedings are a hostage to fortune, for many reasons, including the possibility that they could make people for the first time actually notice that Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up ..."
"... Although the claims made about Steele's involvement in that affair are a hopeless mess of contradictions, what would seem reasonably clear is that he was a key figure in orchestrating proceedings. (Whether Fusion were involved, at the American end, is an interesting question.) ..."
"... The whole anti-Trump bruha-ha has been about his alleged collusion with a foreign government. Here we have a documented case of a collusion of clintonistas with the foreign intelligence organization (UK) and foreign government (Ukraine). The "progressives" (including McCain and the most rabid ziocons) have been waling like sirens about alleged "treason." Well. It seems that their wish was heard. This is not about Trump. This is about the law. ..."
"... Obama's "we scam" was a powerful instrument of breeding both lawlessness and cynicism. ..."
"... The latter is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement ..."
"... he efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line. ..."
"... Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary. ..."
When it comes to meeting with foreign spies to dish dirt on a Presidential candidate (or a
President elect), John McCain is more at fault than anyone connected to Donald Trump. McCain was
directly involved in spreading unverified slanderous material regarding President-elect Donald
Trump as he consorted with operatives linked to a foreign government--in this case, the United
Kingdom.
This should give Lindsay Graham pause after watching his his exchange with FBI
nominee Christopher Wray at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary hearing. Graham, who rhetorically fell
on a fainting couch overwhelmed by outrage from the news that an obscure Russian lawyer had
sought a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. in order to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton,
admonished the FBI nominee to deal harshly with his colleagues on the following
:
" So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you
get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging
your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI."
https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s
But Donald Trump Jr. is not guilty of doing this. Instead, it is Senator John McCain. He is
the one who was fooling around with a foreign intelligence organization.
What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative
and passed this along as if it was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof,
thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times
.
Aleksej Gubarev
, a
Cypriot based chief executive of the network solutions firm XBT Holdings, filed suit against
Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, for defamation over their role in the
publication of an unproven dossier (which appeared in Buzzfeed) on President Donald Trump's
purported activities involving Russia and allegations of Russian interference during last year's
U.S. election.
The businessman,
Aleksej Gubarev
, claims he and his companies were falsely linked in the
dossier to the Russia-backed computer hacking of Democratic Party figures.
Gubarev
, 36,
also is seeking unspecified damages from
Buzzfeed
and its
top editor, Ben Smith, in a parallel lawsuit filed in Miami.
Lawyers for Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence in the United
Kingdom filed a response with the British court. Rowan Scarborough obtained a
copy of the document and posted it on-line in April. The defense document is both
illuminating and damning (I don't know how I missed this when it came out in
April). This is like a statement under oath and it presents the following facts:
1. Orbis Business Intelligence was engaged by Fusion GPS sometime in early June
2016 to prepare a series of confidential memorandum based on intelligence
concerning Russian efforts to influence the U.S. Presidential election process
and links between Russia and Donald Trump (the first memo was dated 20 June
2016).
2. Fusion GPS is run by three former Wall Street Journal reporters: Glenn
Simpson; Tom Catan; and Peter Fritsch. (
According
to the New York Times, Fusion GPS was originally hired by a Republican donor –
who has not been publicly identified – to dig up dirt on Trump in 2015. After
Trump won the nomination, the firm began working with Democrats and honed in on
Trump's links to Russia.)
3. Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator
McCain's Institute for International Leadership), met in London with an Associate
of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent
meeting with Christopher Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele
Dossier.
4. David Kramer and Christopher Steele met in Surrey on 28 November 2016, where
Kramer was briefed on the contents of the memos.
5. Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States,
arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator McCain hard copies of
the memoranda.
6. After Donald Trump was elected, Christopher Steele prepared an additional
memorandum (dated 13 December 2016) that made the following claims:
Michael Cohen held a secret meeting in Prague, Czechoslovakia in August 2016
with Kremlin operatives.
Cohen, allegedly accompanied by 3 colleagues (Not Further Identified), met
with Oleg SOLODUKHIM to discuss on how deniable cash payments were to be made to
hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton
campaign and various contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow's
secret liaison with the Trump team more generally.
In Prague, Cohen agreed (sic) contingency plans for various scenarios to
protect the operation, but in particular what was to be done in the event that
Hillary Clinton won the Presidency.
Sergei Ivanov's associate claimed that payments to hackers had been made by
both Trump's team and the Kremlin.
[Note--Michael Cohen denies he was ever in
Prague.]
7. Christopher Steele passed a copy of the December memo to a
senior UK Government national security official and to Fusion GPS (via encrypted email) with the
instruction to give a hard copy to Senator McCain via David Kramer.
Sometime between December 14, 2016 and December 31, 2016, Senator McCain passed this
salacious material to FBI director, James Comey.
As I pointed out in my previous piece (
Trump
Jr. Emails Prove No Collusion . . .
), the Steele Dossier now stands completely discredited
because the Trump Jr. emails provide prima facie evidence that there was no regular, sustained
contact with Kremlin operatives. If there had been then there was no need to meet with an
unknown lawyer peddling anti-Hillary material that, per the Steele Dossier, already had been
delivered to the Trump team.
The role of Fusion GPS in this whole sordid affair needs to be thoroughly investigated.
Circumstantial evidence opens them to charges of facilitating and enabling sedition. What they
did appears to go beyond conventional opposition research and dirty tricks. Spreading a lie that
Donald Trump and his team are Russian operatives crosses a line and, as we have witnessed over
the last six months, roiled and disrupted the American political system.
McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed
Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a
foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with
Ukrainian operatives:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton
and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated
documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the
matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging
information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
You can read the full story
here
.
The hysteria on the part of Democrats over alleged Russian meddling and collusion with the
Trumps shows a growing potential for blowback. As more actual evidence emerges of anti-trumpets
receiving intelligence and sharing that intelligence in underhanded back channels, the greater
the risk that public attention will hone in on the real actions as opposed to unsubstantiated
allegations. Such a development would leave the Democrats very vulnerable and very exposed.
×
Comments for this thread are now closed.
We can argue the merits of a Trump presidency all we want. We can continue to be distracted by new
intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up.
That is the plan.
I understand that foreign governments--and probably mostly Russia--try
desperately to influence our elections in their favor. Just as I understand that our government
officials do the same in foreign elections. It's disgusting behavior for someone who really, really
believes the high principles on which our government was founded. I admit it: I am a Pollyanna in
that regard.
But I also KNOW my tendencies to be more idealistic than realistic in regard to human nature. At
my age, the reality of human nature has caused me more heartbreak than I care to remember.
Therefore, I have to prioritize my worries. And so, here again, I am with PT on this issue. McCain is the bigger jerk. In my
opinion, he can't stand it that more Americans voted for Trump than voted for McCain (this American included--though I did hold my
nose and vote for McCain simply because my stomach would not take voting for BHO. I was not a birther, but I was fully aware of
things in regard to his past that I didn't like and his ideology that I despised and his
friendships with people I found reprehensible. I could go on, but won't).
The people I admire the most are, in many cases, people who did champion Trump from the
beginning. I was originally flabbergasted by that fact. I was, and still am, a Cruz person.
But.....I am also an American and do put much faith in the everyday, working, Americans who live in
the Middle, where I live. These are truly the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world"
people. Their votes were given mostly because, I think, Trump declared that he wanted to "drain the
swamp." We knew what that meant. We know now that avoiding the machinations of swamp people is
harder than we might have guessed. So I am willing to give the Trump boys some grace, but not the
smarmy "bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomp Iran" McCain.
Nothing came from this juvenile and inept attempt to "collude." Let's forget it, get the swamp
drained and the leaks plugged and get on with making campaign promises come true. Take the NYT and
WaPo copies and find some way to use them for good: birdcage liners, shredded packaging stuffing,
even cat litter. Let CNN become a memory as you avoid watching it or any news story about it. Heck,
don't even watch Fox except to get the news without listening to the commentary. Write your
senators and representatives about your views of the issues; then go on with leading good American
lives, while saying your daily prayers to the only One who is in charge.
"Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up."
This is in addition to attracting more attention to Magnitsky Act (and to a documentary by
Nekrasov), and, by association, to another important documentary, "Two hundreds years together" by
Solzhenitsyn. Both authors used to be the darlings of the west for their harsh critique of the
Soviet Union (by Solzhenitsyn) and Putin (by Nekrasov). No publishing house in the US and UK dares
to publish "Two hundreds years together," and no western country dares to show "The Magnitsky Act –
Behind The Scenes," because the presented facts are not fitting the ziocons' sensibilities.
What subversion is that? Nothing came of Donald Jr's stupidity but there were real effects from the
Fusion GPS garbage. As for Trump making gooey eyes at Putin, it was one part of his election
platform that Trump was clear and open about and as the president pretty much gets to decide
foreign policy, rather than McCain, Graham, the Clintonists, etc. so what?
Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and
the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was
Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those
responsible for 9/11.
Apparently the Russian lawyer who met with Don Jr was lobbying on behalf of a Russian oligarch who
was sanctioned as a result of the Magnitsky Act.
That same oligarch was also faced with a $230 million fine for money laundering. He tried to cut
a deal back in 2015 whereupon he would act as an informant to US authorities. The $230 million fine
was later reduced to only $6 million days before his case was set for trial this past May.
"
In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually
possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate
degree of 'whitewash'.
"
This is exactly what breeds cynicism. I don't believe it is any different in the US as the
judiciary always gives a pass when the "state secrets" defense is mounted. This is a perfect legal
doctrine as it can be used to cover up all kinds of malfeasance and misfeasance. There's a reason
why support exists for whistleblowers like Snowden and Wikileaks among the general public.
What was the reaction of the average person in Britain to the Lord Hutton "inquiry"?
I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by
former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by
the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing hysteria.
There is a further lawsuit against BuzzFeed, brought by the Alfa Group oligarchs, Mikhail
Fridman, Petr Aven, and German Khan. The summons, dated 26 May 2017 is at
Also, a report on 'McClatchy' on 11 July, entitled 'John McCain faces questions in Trump-Russia
dossier case', linked to the response of Steele and Orbis dated 18 May to the request by Gubarev's
lawyers for further information in response to the 'Defence' in the London suit to which you
linked.
Whether the fact that the lawyer who prepared the response, Nicola Cain, was until recently a
senior barrister at the BBC is of any relevance I do not know.
There is a lot in this which is not at the moment making a great deal of sense. It is absolutely
basic journalistic 'tradecraft' to get a piece like the dossier 'lawyered' before publication. The
question in my day would have been 'is it a fair business risk?'
A lawyer competent in the law of defamation – as Ms Cain clearly is – would I think have almost
certainly said that the memorandum on the Alfa oligarchs was in no way a 'fair business risk.'
Moreover, it is hard to see any compelling reason why it should not have simply been omitted
from the published version of the dossier – particularly as this would not have materially reduced
the 'information operations' impact of the document.
As to the reference to Gubarev, a simple redaction would have reduced the risk of his suing to
zero, and again, would not have materially reduced the impact of the dossier.
Indeed, even if the BuzzFeed journalists are amateurish, former WSJ journalists like those who
run Fusion – and one of the company's partners, Thomas Catan, is also a former 'Financial Times'
journalist – should have been aware they were on a sticky wicket without needing to consult a
lawyer.
At the moment, both sets of legal proceedings are a hostage to fortune, for many reasons,
including the possibility that they could make people for the first time actually notice that Sir
Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up.
Although the claims made about Steele's involvement in that affair are a hopeless mess of
contradictions, what would seem reasonably clear is that he was a key figure in orchestrating
proceedings. (Whether Fusion were involved, at the American end, is an interesting question.)
Perhaps unsurprisingly, we end up with a situation where people are stabbing each other in the
back. So Steele is trying to rescue himself, by suggesting that the memoranda were not intended for
publication at all, and that the reason for their publication was a violation of a confidentiality
agreement by Fusion.
Meanwhile, the former British Moscow Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood has already directly
contradicted the 'Defence', claiming that, contrary to what it says, he was never an 'associate' of
Orbis.
In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible
to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of
'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this substance to the Joint
Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of Dr David
Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of
imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow.
The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new
heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the
right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other outlets, they
can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong.
The whole anti-Trump bruha-ha has been about his alleged collusion with a foreign government. Here
we have a documented case of a collusion of clintonistas with the foreign intelligence organization
(UK) and foreign government (Ukraine). The "progressives" (including McCain and the most rabid
ziocons) have been waling like sirens about alleged "treason." Well. It seems that their wish was
heard.
This is not about Trump. This is about the law.
"...if there was any line, it was crossed a long
time ago."
Sigh. Obama's "we scam" was a powerful instrument of breeding both lawlessness and cynicism.
Yeah, Trump's birtherism was odious but I don't see the equivalence between that and the current
Russiaphobia.
The latter is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a
nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at
a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts of neocons in
tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line.
Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote.
Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary.
The Trump Tower meeting was arranged by Fusion GPS associate Rob Goldstone, who said during
Congressional testimony reviewed by
Breitbart that he believes the June 9, 2016 meeting was a "bait and switch" by a Russian
lobbyist who promised "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, and admitted that he used hyperbolic language
on purpose to ensure that the meeting would take place.
"I, therefore, used the strongest hyperbolic language in order to secure this request from
Donald Trump Jr. based on the bare facts I was given," said Goldstone, a UK publicist and music
manager.
"It was an example of, I was given very limited information, and my job was to get a
meeting, and so I used my professional use of words to emphasize what my client had only
given bare-bones information about, in order to get the attention of Mr. Trump Jr. " -Rob
Goldstone
Goldstone then said " it appeared to me to have been a bait and switch of somebody who
appeared to be lobbying for what I now understood to be the Magnitsky act," - which sanctions
Russian officials thought to be involved in the death of a Russian tax accountant.
Fusion GPS associate Natalia Veselnitskaya, an attorney for Russian businessman and Fusion
GPS client Denis Katsy, said that Emin Agalarov - the son of Russian oligarch Aras Agalarov -
told her to contact his representative, Irakly "Ike" Kaveladze to set up the Trump Tower
meeting, which Kaveladze attended.
While both Agalarov and Katsyv opposed the Magnitsky act, Veselnitskaya worked only for
Katsyv, while approaching Agalarov and his associates to participate in the Trump Tower
meeting. Of ntoe, Agalarov organized the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow when it was
partially owned by Donald Trump.
Veselnitskaya said Agalarov told her to get in touch with Kaveladze about the meeting
because he had connections with the Trump team.
Veselnitskaya said she made a point of asking Goldstone -- who she mistakenly thought was
a lawyer -- whether it was OK to include Akhmetshin, given that he was a registered lobbyist.
Goldstone told her it was fine, she said. -
NBC News
On June 3, 2016, Goldstone sent an email to Trump Jr. on behalf of Emin Agalarov to set up
the meeting. Goldstone was described last July as "associated with Fusion GPS" by Mark Corallo
- spokesman for Trump's outside legal counsel, according to the
Washington Post .
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS , a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives
to develop opposition research on the president and which commissioned the phony Steele
dossier" -Mark Corallo
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting
offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its
government's support for Mr. Trump -- helped along by Aras and Emin.
Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone that " if it's what you say I love it especially later in the
summer ."
Breitbart News previously
reported that Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, who attended the meeting
with Veselnitskaya, evidenced a larger relationship with Fusion GPS and the controversial
firm's co-founder Glenn Simpson , according to Akhmetshin's testimony before the same
committee. -
Breitbart
Fusion's fingerprints are all over this...
Hours before Veselnitskaya attended the Trump Tower meeting to lobby Trump Jr. about the
Magnitsky act, she met with Fusion GPS co-founder
Glenn Simpson .
While most people know that Fusion GPS was paid by the Clinton campaign to produce the
infamous "Steele Dossier" - assembled by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, Fusion was also
working for a Russian businessman who wanted the Magnitsky act repealed, Denis Katsyv, and
Veselnitskaya was his lawyer who was given special permission by the Obama DOJ to enter the
U.S. to represent him.
In late November of 2017, The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported that
heavily redacted Fusion GPS bank records reveal DNC law firm Perkins Coie
paid Fusion a total of $1,024,408 in 2016 for opposition research on then-candidate Donald
Trump - including the 34-page dossier.
Ross also reported that law firm Baker Hostelter paid Fusion $523,651 between March and
October 2016 on behalf of a company owned by Katsyv
to research Bill Browder , a London banker who helped push through the Magnitsky Act.
Keep in mind, Veselnitskaya really doesn't like Donald Trump based on several archived
Facebook posts:
I'm unsure of the zeitgeist being proposed here but it sure sounds like you are offering
up the theory that the Deep State actually wanted Trump.
Yet he..."colluded"...among outside parties like the DNC funded Fusion, Perkins Coie, MI6
and then the FBI, the CIA, DNI and the DoJ to manufacture FALSE EVIDENCE.
In order to produce that "evidence" to a FISA court, in order to "legally" surveil (with
taxpayer funds, of course) the very same man (and his associates).
So as to, gather incriminating evidence against him (Trump) so he could be removed from
office in disgrace (almost immediately) because he is actually the one the Deep State wants
in office, as President of the United States.
The only one telling a different story is the guy who's trying desperately to stay out of
prison. Not the best witness. Particularly since he didn't remember for two years prior.
Reasonable doubt anyone?
So hold on this chick is employed by Fusion GPS- who was paid to concoct a dossier against
Trump- using Russian sources and UK intelligence, has dinner with the head of Fusion GPS the
night before the meeting, she gets the meeting offering information- within minutes changes
the course of the meeting- realizing something was wrong, Donald Trump Jr ends the meeting-
and the crime is Trump may have known about it??
It's a set up plain and simple. These fucking people are dirty AS SHIT- including the
Brown Clown Kenyan.
The big story is using opposition research- paid for- submitted to the court as proof to
secure a FISA warrant, and if they didn't know the information was false and paid for- what
the fuck is the "I" in FBI for??
April 2018...."Michael is in business, he is really a businessman, a fairly big business,
as I understand it. I don't know his business." He "also practices law." And, "I have many
attorneys. Sadly, I have so many attorneys you wouldn't even believe it." Cohen handled only
a "tiny, tiny little fraction of my overall legal work."
According to Adam Davidson of the New Yorker, Cohen was not part of the Trump
Organization's Legal Team in any sense. Alan Garten was the Trump Org's attorney on real
estate matters and Marc Kasowitz usually represented Trump in important cases.
Cohen's legal education was not stellar by any sense of the word. Cohen often told this
joke:
Q: "What do you call a lawyer who graduated with a 2.0?"
A: "Counselor."
Would Trump actually hire a guy like this to be his "personal" attorney? He was
effectively a trip-and-fall attorney up to the point he was brought into the organization by
Trump Sr. In truth, Cohen was a fairly savvy real estate investor and, as such, was appointed
Trump's "deal maker" for international projects. He was also Trump's personal "fixer." Cohen
made things 'go away.' You don't need to be an attorney to "make things go away."
It's doubtful that there was a legitimate "attorney/client" relationship there.
In any case, reports are out tonight that the Trump Organization's CFO has been subpoenaed
to testify in the Cohen investigation. Why? Allen Weisselberg's name came up in the recording
that Lanny Davis released yesterday. While everyone was getting their thongs in a twist about
who said "cash," the Weisselberg mention was actually the biggest shoe to drop on that tape.
Weisselberg has a thorough knowledge of all Trump's deals, payments and income.
It was setup by Democrats trying to tie Trump to Russia
The Russian lawyer was briefed before and after the meeting by Fusion GPS
The lawyer was offering dirt on Clinton, but lied and had another agenda
What people should care about, is that Democrats were attempting to frame Trump, in the
dirtiest campaign trick in my lifetime, and using it as a pretext to get the government to
spy on Trump. But you're right that the Dems care about it, because they think (magically)
that it means Trump was colluding with Russia. LOL Consider, wouldn't Trump be doing the USA
a great favor by obtaining Hillary's emails from Russia, which would prove that Putin was
blackmailing her and Obama. The Democrats are completely ignoring this narrative, as if it's
Trump's fault Putin has her emails. LOL
You're a funny guy...The perverse inquisition by the Purple Inquisitors strike again.
Nothing but a pathetic Op to "Sting" Trump by the Psyop Deep State Dip Shits. Cohen squeals
on cue, check his Cayman Isle bank account. Mr Mueller is beyond desperate as you should be
well able to relate to. Ha F'n Ha, but you'll always have Hillary's " "Precious" pee pee
dossier...
Trump knew about a meeting re: oppo research on Hellary. Which is the same crime Hellary
and the DNC did with the bogus Russo 8ntel from the Steele Dossier against What is good for
the goose not good for the gander.
It's like a George Webb wayback machine.
Also funny how no one ever mentions that the Podesta Group closed shop immediately after
George Webb filed his lawsuit against them.
Who were in bed with Fusion... who were in bed with the DNC... who were in bed with Awan.
Also funny how that fake ass Rosenstein Russian indictment stole George Webbs lawsuits
actblues paragraph almost word for word, but substituting Russians for Awan.
The Awan who also downloaded terabytes of congressional data From Pakistan, ffs.
My, what a wicked web they weave.
Cohen is a plant. The guy was in no danger of anything happening to him. Once the DOJ took
everything they broke the law for lawyer client confidentiality. Cohen could just stfu and
say nothing and no judge would prosecute him given he never broke a law... So why is he
singing like a bird? Because its all a fucking setup.
Who knows, maybe he disliked Trump, Maybe his bitch wife made him do it at the end of the
day its his word against a bunch of other people.
Incredible what they are allowing Mueller to do. He basically makes it clear to the person
that if they do not say what they want to hear they are going to ruin them financially, so
people say tell me what you want me to say, and Mueller backs off. I am blown away this
charade is being allowed to go forward. Mueller has done more to destroy the faith people
have in our justice system than any other figure in our modern history. Truly, Mueller should
be rotting in prison for a very long time since it is clear that he is attempting a silent
coup, the US and the American public be damned. This is all about Mueller and appeasing his
puppet masters.
But slowly, ever so slowly, this charade is unraveling. This is throwing his constituents
a bone.
How do I really feel? FUCK YOU, Mueller. Fuck you and your outsized ego.
Was just reported Cohen has already testified to Congress under oath Trump didn't know and
Lanny Davis is accusing the Trump team of leaking this made up story...Cohen getting the
treatment by Trump..
President Trump's former longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, is prepared to tell
special counsel Robert Mueller that then-candidate Donald Trump knew in advance about the June
2016 Trump tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Fusion GPS associate Natalia
Veselnitskaya - who is not a fan of Trump Sr., and several other individuals - including Cohen
who says he was there, reports
CNN .
The story Browder refuses to tell is far more interesting than the one he wrote for the
book.
I found the book quite easy to put down: I got tired of all the chapters about how he made
so much money following the fall of the Soviet Union. But Norman Pearlstine's statement that
"Browder's business saga meshes well with the story of corruption and murder in Vladimir
Putin's Russia" is more true than he realizes. With the release of Glenn Simpson's 20 hours
of testimony before three Senate committees we now know that there is a great deal of
information Browder failed to disclose. I'll let Simpson tell it:
He was willing to, you know, hand stuff off to the DOJ anonymously in the beginning and
cause them to launch a court case against somebody, but he wasn't interesting in speaking
under oath about, you know, why he did that ... All of this -- his determined effort to avoid
testifying under oath, including running away from subpoenas and changing -- frequently
changing lawyers and making lurid allegations against us, including that, you know, he
thought we were KGB assassins in the parking lot of Aspen, Colorado when we served the
subpoena, all raised questions
in my mind about why he was so determined to not have to answer questions under oath about
things that happened in Russia.
I'll add that, you know, I've done a lot of Russia reporting over the years. I originally
met William Browder back when I was a journalist at the Wall Street Journal when I was doing
stories about corruption in Russia. I think the first time I met him he lectured me about --
I was working on a story about Vladimir Putin corruption and he lectured me about how have
Vladimir Putin was not corrupt and how he was the best thing that ever
happened to Russia.
But returning to the detailed discussion of my work, we investigated William Browder's
business practices in Russia, we began to understand maybe what it was he didn't want to talk
about, and as we looked at that we then began to look at his decision to surrender his
American citizenship in 1998. At that point somewhere in there the Panama papers came out and
we discovered that he had incorporated shell companies offshore in the mid 1990s, in 1995 I
believe it was in the British Virgin Islands, and that at some point his hedge fund's shares
had been transferred to this offshore company. This offshore company was managed -- several
of his offshore companies were managed by the Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca,
which is known now for setting up offshore companies for drug kingpins, narcos, kleptos, you
name it. They were servicing every bad guy around. And I'm familiar with them from other
money laundering and corruption and tax evasion investigations that I've done.I'll note
parenthetically that William Browder talks a lot about the Panama papers and the Russians who
are in the Panama papers without ever mentioning that he's in the Panama papers.
Now, I choose to believe Simpson, who not only chose to submit to 20 hours of Senate
committee but then demand that it be made public, and not Browder, who fled from Simpson in
the parking lot of an Aspen resort, later claiming he thought Simpson was KBG.
This is not a book to be set aside lightly... in the words of Dorothy Parker. It has been
many years since I have read a book this bad. And many more since I finished one this bad. In
recent years I have been more able to simply give up on bad books, ignoring the sunk cost
fallacy that previously drove me to soldier on - perhaps it's an increasing awareness of the
value of time, but nowadays I will bail out when it is clear I've made a big mistake. But
this one was recommended by a friend whose taste I had no reason to doubt so I kept on,
chapter after gruelling chapter, hoping for some epiphany or quality uptick. Let me save you
from the same mistake.
One service this book does render, though, is to remind you, if you need it, that writing
is hard. You may be the world's most fabulous person (well, second most fabulous - the author
of this book is pretty clear about who occupies the top spot) but it don't make you a good
writer, see. So the first important thing to know is that Bill Browder cannot write. He
strings together cliches, name drops, humble brags (and regular brags too) but he can't
write. No matter; perhaps the content can make up for it? I'm sure there are plenty of books
where the content redeems the awful style, such as... well, I'm sure there are plenty. But
the second thing to know going in is that the story is a pretty tedious, linear tale of BB's
triumphs in the world of finance and then, as he calls it, "human rights". The problem, I
think, is that the tone of the book is very smug and, despite the occasional and obviously
cynical self-deprecation, deeply self-satisfied. The author has a real tin ear for his tone,
I think, and it's well illustrated by a very early part of the story. He arrives in Poland in
his first job, charged with the assessment and, hopefully, revival of a failing bus company.
He expresses his deep sorrow and pity for the poor, poor workers and wonders what he can do
to help. Meanwhile, he comes across a class of stocks in Poland that seem to him to be
ridiculously underpriced. Aha! thinks the naive reader - I know where this is going: he will
get the bus company to invest in these stocks ad save the day. But no! It turns out that
these narratives shall not meet: he buys the stocks himself and makes out like a bandit, and
he recommends that the bus company be shut down, throwing all the workers on the street. He
is very, very sorry about the latter, of course, but, on the other hand, he has discovered
his true calling as a value investor! Gaudeamus!
The author seems to have absolutely no appreciation of his role as a functionary in a very
particular social system and it makes all of his carefully laid out social conscience ring
hollow and renders his thoroughly documented tears crocodilian.
Both sides of this story are doing horrible things and the writer thinks what he did was
correct!
This is a story where the writer only criticizes the horrible things the russian goverment
did to him and how some oligarchs steal tax money (as everywhere but blatantly) but fails to
realize that what he did, purchasing people-owned companies at fractions of a penny on the
dollar and knowing it, while taking advantage of the imperfect systems put in place for the
distribution of those companies' wealth to the people of that country, as he perfectly
describes in this book, is also wrong in the first place. He fails to understand he actually
hurt the people of that country when he bought shares at a "steal" price as he writes, he
thinks he is doing the right thing because of his wall street mentality, no rules, prey on
whomever gives an opportunity. Sad, but it's the world we live in today
Browder's story seems like a complete scam. First, he personally profited to the tune of
$2 BN off the backs of the Russian people, taking advantage of inequities in the voucher
system used with the dissolution of the USSR. He never mentions how much he personally made,
as that would have cast too much reality on the sheer vanity, self-aggrandizement, and
sanctimonious rubbish that is the rest of the story. More pointedly, he does not speak to how
his money provided access to the highest levels of government, John McCain, and greased the
wheels of the European legal system. Take for example, his ability to miraculously get two
Interpol Red Notices removed within days of their placement. The Magnitsky case was terrible
but he clearly uses it as a sanctimonious shield to get public sympathy and protection. I
could go on but the bottom line is do not waste your time or money. Browder is one of the bad
guys- at best a delusional narcissist, or more likely a greedy scam artist, pulling the wool
over everyone's eyes.
After finishing Masha Gessen's "Man Without a Face" (insightful) Karen Dawisha's "Putin's
Kleptocracy" (a mind-boggling, devastating indictment of Putin and his cronies), and David
Hoffman's "Billion Dollar Spy" (reads like a thriller novel), I was hoping that Bill
Browder's book would provide some additional depth and an interesting perspective on the
thoroughly corrupt workings of post-Soviet Russia. It does not.
Like Browder, I went to Russia numerous times -- but didn't have an office there as he did
-- during the 90s and did a number of deals there. Unlike Browder, I speak the language and
know Russian business and legal culture quite well. (I'm an average American, born and raised
in Ohio, where I still live, but I do have a Russian wife, whom I met on one of my trips
there in the 1990s.)
Browder is an extremely unsympathetic figure: Although he doesn't admit to it in the book,
he was blinded by greed and arrogance to the point where he viewed his marriage and his son
as of only trivial importance compared to his mission in life to get rich. He went to Russia
to get something for nothing, thinking he was being shrewd. His utter ignorance of Russian
business and Russian culture permeate the book -- his condescending attitude is similar to
that of a British governor-general back in 1940s Iran, when the British role was limited to
exploiting Iran by grabbing its oil for a pittance while speaking contemptuously of the
locals. Browder contemptuously describes Russian attempts to reign him in: "Russians will
gladly -- gleefully even -- sacrifice their own success to screw their neighbor." Yet he is
oblivious to the fact that he himself, without any second thoughts, sacrificed his own family
for the prospect of making just one more deal, just one more deal, and then just one more
deal. American citizenship too was just another expendable in his all-consuming quest for
riches.
Russia in the 1990s was a sea of corruption, intrigue, mafia protection rackets, turf
battles, economic chaos, incompetence, and power grabs. Browder injected himself into it,
completely ignorant of what he was getting into, determined to take advantage. He got
burned.
"Red Notice" doesn't provide any perspective or depth; it isn't even particularly
interesting. Browder's narcisssm and self-justifications permate the book, making it
extremely unpleasant to read.
The author is, inter alia, wanted in Russia for tax fraud and so, obviously, will say
everything he can that is negative about Russia. His background and backers are also very
suspicious, to my mind anyway.
I found the book to be nothing but hype. This was confirmed when I read Alex Krainer's
"The Killing of William Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception." This
excellent book - with factual content and well referenced - tears Browder to shreds. As he
deserves to be.
But the sheeple will continue to want to believe this fiction - it suits the current
american meme.
I recommend to turn off the TV ( tel-a-vision or the-lies-on-vision ...
The ' truth ' and the brainwashed herd of the sheeple. The death of the
Anglo-American-Zionist Empire. For those who think for themselves and cares for the others,
here in the USA ( former United States of America, now United Slaves of America ) and
all-over the World, for those of you in the research of ' whatreallyhappened ', I recommend
to turn off the TV ( tel-a-vision or the-lies-on-vision ) and read...R E A D INDEPENDENT
books and watch INDEPENDENT documentaries ! Books like ' The Killing of William Browder:
Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deceptions ' - NOT for sale on 'amazon.com' - WHY
???!!!...Documentaries like ' The Magnitsky act: Behind the Scenes ', produced by filmmaker
Andrei Nekrasov ( a fierce critic of President Putin ).
Crook got his chances in Russia ----- HE IS A LIER!!!!
Complete Rubbish! Not only he concealed a lot of facts - he fabricated a lot of them. The
book is complete fiction, Why he doesnt mention that Magnitsky helped Hermitage create
schemes to avoid taxes, crate shell-companies to buy stocks of Gazprom (foreigners can not
buy Gazprom stocks), created shell companies in Cyprus and Kalmikia to pay joke taxes, hired
disabled people to again lower taxes? etc He is a joke
Mr. Browder went to Russian in the early 90s to make quick cash - he did it by buying
stocks from uneducated russians (similar to other russian oligarchs). Story of another greedy
individual who wanted to become a billionaire fast - once he had to pay the price he become
outraged by injustice of the system... XOXOXOXOXOX next time when you, Mr Browder, go to
another developing country with the intention to rob the system be prepared to take the
responsibility and do not whine about it like a little girl. A crook got upset that he didnt
make as much money as he wanted and got kicked out from the country - what a joke.
BTW - the youtube video with Mr. Browder running away from the officer who served him
subpoena is hilarious. If Mr Browder is so ethical and clean why he doesn't want to testify
in court?
This book came highly recommended to me by someone in the hedge fund industry. I was
surprised at how bad it was. I was looking into insight as to how Bill Browder, who once ran
the largest Russian hedge fund, made his fortune, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions
of dollars. Instead the book was a very self serving book which I would identify as 20% self
aggrandizement, self serving, 20% discussion of the arbitrage trades that made him rich, 60%
discussion of the Sergie Magnitsky Act which he worked to pass. The book is full of
contradictions including Browder's moral position and his self righteousness. It makes you
wonder if anyone thought about this book in context of the 2008 financial markets collapse or
did any research on Browder when reading it. Also, why does Browder today actively evade
subpoenas to testify about what happened in American court as shown in Youtube videos?
The book is full of villains on both sides. Browder is the grandson of the former head of
the US communist party. He gave up his US citizenship to become a British citizen in 1997. He
worked for the criminal Robert Maxwell who had misappropriated corporate pension funds to
live a flamboyant lifestyle, then he went to work with Edmond Safra as a partner in Hermitage
Capital. Not only these global speculators but the book includes Mossad and a host of Russian
oligarchs (all financed by Fred Goodwin's Royal Bank of Scotland). Browder's arbitrage was
that Russian companies were severely undervalued because no other investors trusted Russian
corporations and Russian rule of law. Whereas most other investors thought Russian companies
were 100% un-investable, Browder figured many of them were only 50% un-investable and he
invested in that 50% that was investable. After that arbitrage went away, he decided to start
investigating Russian corporations for inside dealing and his activist strategy paid off but
made many enemies. He was warned by numerous other investors that his life and others would
be in danger for this. Everyone he works with leaves wreckage behind until he does the same.
When one of his lawyers who gets less than 1% of coverage in the first half of the book dies
in a Russian prison, he goes all out to try to get revenge on the Russians who he claims made
tax fraud on the Russian government and him by seizing control of companies he owned. Many
questions arise from the book some of which I list below.
(1) Browder's hedge fund is domiciled in Guernsey and Cayman Islands, notorious tax
evasion locales, yet the premise of the second half of the book is to get revenge on corrupt
Russian officials for stealing Russian tax money (his hundreds of millions of dollars)
(2) Browder is drawn to evil people and shady characters (Maxwell, oligarch companies,
mossad, etc) like moths to a flame. Is it force of habit for him to fall into bad situations
with them? Is it the US government's role to spend taxpayer money on exacting revenge for him
on the crooked crowd he deals with? His friends are spoken with in great superlatives, his
enemies despised. It is easy to imagine if you were a friend and became an enemy he would
label you with epithets thus immediately.
(3) Browder becomes a British citizen (but a hedge fund deci or centi millionaire) yet he
easily gets access to John McCain, Joe Lieberman and other US elected officials to get the
Magnitsky act passed. Ultimately the Magnitsky act passes and Russia responds by banning all
US adoptions of Russian children. For all you childless women looking to adopt Russian
babies, thank the egotist Browder for your inability to do so going forward. Were you screwed
in the 2008 financial markets collapse? The system may not work for you but it works for a
global speculator who wants vengeance.
(4) But its worse. Browder goes to war with the Oligarchs who were funded by Royal Bank of
Scotland and who defaulted on their loans from RBS. The UK citizens had to bail out RBS.
Browder tries to utilize the British government to exact vengeance on the very same Oligarchs
the British government is bailing out in some ways.
(5) Browder is the great example of the speculative hedge fund trader of the 90's and 00's
run amok. He is a speculator, he was warned about the risks, he jumps headlong into them and
knows Russia does not have American or British rule of law. But he expects the US and Britain
to jump to his aid for his recklessness and bail him out like the other crooks of the 2008
vintage. EVEN THOUGH HE IS A BRITISH CITIZEN.
(6) Lookup the Wall Street Journal articles or Youtube videos about how the cowardly Browder
runs away from being served by a subpoena and has constantly sought to avoid subpoena's from
the Russians who are countersuing him in US and British court. If he is for rule of law, why
not work his way through the legal systems. Seems like there is another side to the
story.
Hey, guys and gals, the man is a shark. An investment banker. He'd sell his own
grandmother if he thought he's make a profit. And now he's trying to profit by selling his
own story, all teary-eyed about his lawyer and his quest for "justice." Barf. He wants to
expose Kremlin corruption, happily forgetting Wall St. corruption that he hoped would make
HIM millions. He only saw the light when other folks made millions and he got arrested. Kinda
like any low-life Baltimore drug pusher. Please don't buy his line of crack cocaine.
This is a thrilling page-turner of financial and political intrigue. The problem is that
it is much like the pot calling the kettle black. Just about everything of which Browder
accuses the Russian kleptocrats is equaled or excelled by the US robber barons and the
agencies of violence wielded by the US government. Browder also digresses from time to time
into the history of the USSR about which he knows nothing except the propaganda that we have
been fed, most of which originates, ironically enough, from the very oligarchs he so
justifiably criticizes.
Very interesting to hear an insider's experience of Russia privatization and the politics
of the 90's and early 2000s. I enjoyed that part.
That said, I found Browder spent a lot of time tooting his own horn and virtue signaling . He
seemed quite impressed with himself and spends much of the book detailing why you should be
too.
I never thought Putin was a good guy.
I never thought neocon/ deep state John McCain was a good guy. ( Browder does).
I don't think Browder made his gazillions by being a good guy. A lot of ordinary Russians got
ripped off . Browder and a lot of others got rich.
This is a fairly interesting, if pretty unsurprising, story of high-level graft and
corruption in Russia. Yes, Putin and the Russian government are rife with corruption, and the
rules are subject to change on a whim. That should be obvious to anyone who paid any
attention to Russia's preparation for the Sochi Olympics. I'm even inclined to take Browder's
story about the torture and eventual death of Sergei Magnitsky (who he describes as a tax
lawyer, but was actually an accountant) at face value.
But where Browder really grates is with his remarkable lack of self-awareness and
out-of-touch declarations. At one point, for instance, in the run-up to the 1996 elections,
in which there was a chance that the Communist candidate, Gennady Zyuganov, would win the
presidency and potentially re-nationalize state companies, Browder said that he could deal
with food shortages, hyperinflation, or any number of terrible conditions, but what he
couldn't stomach was re-nationalization of industry. So, according to this guy, people
starving and their savings evaporating into thin air is tolerable, but the worst thing
imaginable is him losing his gains from fleecing Russian peasants. Solid guy, Browder.
For some background-- when the USSR fell, Russia embarked on a program of "voucher
privatization" where every citizen received vouchers that they could use to bid on the shares
of previously state-owned enterprises. Since Russia has incredible resource wealth, these
were quite valuable. Unfortunately, in a country with no history of any kind of capital
markets, the overwhelming majority of people had no clue what use they could get out of stock
ownership. Immediately after they were issued, you could buy a voucher for a bottle of cheap
vodka. And the people who became the oligarchs, as well as western vultures like Browder, did
just that. Eventually, these shares sold at incredibly low valuations, and investors made a
killing. But what Browder doesn't mention is that these absurdly low valuations almost
certainly came about, in large part, from the fact that investors hate uncertainty. The
possibility that a Zyuganov would come to power and re-nationalize state-owned enterprises
was a real possibility, so plenty of investors stayed on the sidelines. Not Browder-- he
jumped in, and when (surprise!) the Russian government behaved like the Russian government is
wont to do, he acted like he was the victim of the world's worst injustice. Sure, what
happened was in some way unfair. So was all the vultures jumping in to take advantage of
peasants. Browder had no problem ripping off Russian peasants while extolling himself as a
"great capitalist," but, when the Russian government took him in, he complained about the big
bad Russians. It was extremely tiresome.
There were other places where his tone was equally annoying. He spent time talking about
how "sexy" his second wife was/is, how she's "not like those other Russian girls that are
just after money," and how many other people wanted to date her and how awesome he was
because she chose him. Sergei Magnitsky's death is a sad story from a sad place. It's too bad
the person to tell it is such a wildly out of touch hypocrite.
The book was fun to read, like a Marvel comic book. Truly Bill Browder is, according to
Bill Browder, a brilliant man willing to take daring risks where he sees an opportunity for
personal gain. And I have to agree with him. With his inherited genetic intelligence, and
some of the best education money can buy, he made himself enormously rich profiting from
financial transactions that produced nothing of real value. I found this book to be quite
self-congratulatory, written with no embarrassment for taking advantage of a whole
population.
As Browder writes, "I found that to transition from communism to capitalism, the Russian
government had decided to give away most of the state's property to the people. The
government was going about this in a number of ways, but the most interesting was something
called voucher privatization. The government granted one privatization certificate to every
Russian citizen---roughly 150 million people in total -- and taken together these were
exchangeable for 30 % of nearly all Russian companies." "The market price of the vouchers
equaled 3 billion this meant that the valuation of the entire Russian economy was only 10
billion! That was one-sixth the value of Wal-Mart!" "Russia had 24% of the word's natural
gas, 9% of the world's oil, and produced 6.6 % of the world's steel, among many other things.
Yet this incredible trove of resources [owned by ordinary Russian citizens] was trading for a
mere 10 billion! Even more astonishing was that there were no restrictions on who could
purchase these vouchers. I could buy them, anyone could buy them." He recounts, "The Russian
people had no idea what to do with the vouchers when they received them for free from the
state and, in most cases, were happy to trade them for a $7 bottle of vodka or a few slabs of
pork." Mr. Browder took advantage of their ignorance and brought millions of vouchers from
the Russian people for a pittance of their true value. This is something to brag about? It is
not laudable to buy something for a pittance of its real worth, from owners who have no idea
of its true value. It is reprehensible. It was disturbing to me to see no introspection on
the rightness or wrongness of beating someone out of his or her money.
Mr. Browder describes in his Sidanco deal the feeling he has when an opportunity for ungodly
gains presents itself, "I had that tingling, greedy tension in my gut, similar to when I saw
my $2,000 Polish investment multiply by nearly ten times, or when I unearthed the Russian
voucher scheme."
Greed is not a virtue, Mr. Browder. It is a vice.
Reviewer Ian Kaplan wrote:
The second half of the book is about how Putin's gang tried to crush Hermitage Capital and
everyone associated with it."
And, I would add, how Browder's gang is trying to crush Putin.
It makes me think that a large part of Mr. Browder's dogged determination in pushing the
Maginsky Act through Congress, and signed into law, was not so much a humanitarian turn of
the leaf for him, but a strategy to enlist the whole backing of the United States into his
personal war with Putin, who put him out of a lucrative business in Russia.
I was familiar with Hermitage and Browder so it was not "news" to me. I feel Browder makes
himself look good when in reality he was a jerk.
I don't wish him well!
Bill Schaffer
Bill Browder is a shrewd fellow, at least up to a point. He saw an opportunity to make
money after the collapse of Communism in Russia. He moved to Moscow, started a hedge fund,
and succeeded in a big way. He made piles of money in essentially the same way the Russian
oligarchy made it, by purchasing formerly state owned assets at hugely discounted rates.
It all worked beautifully for a while, but clever as he was Browder didn't realize he was
living in a fool's paradise. Rather than remaining cool and quiet while making money, he
publicly accused certain local enterprises of corruption. He did this, rather naively, in a
country notoriously resentful of foreign interference in its affairs. Furthermore, there are
indications that he himself was not above involvement in dodgy dealings, including fudging on
taxes and sneaking funds into tax havens.
Not surprisingly, Browder, away on a trip, was barred from reentering Russia. Authorities
raided his Moscow offices, confiscating files and computers. Although Browder managed to get
his staff out of Russia, a man named Sergei Magnitsky whom Browder calls his lawyer, though
he was apparently only an auditor, chose not to leave. This was a grave error, as poor
Magnitsky became the foil for Russian displeasure with Browder. He was jailed, beaten, denied
medical treatment, and died in prison. Meanwhile, a couple of thugs attached to the KGB,
Russia's secret police, extorted large sums of money from Browder via a complex fraud,
presumably accomplished with the tacit consent of establishment superiors.
Browder used Magnitsky's death to launch a major and eventually successful lobbying
campaign for a U.S. law which came to be known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposing
sanctions on Russian officials responsible for Magnitsky's death. The Russians retaliated by
placing Browder on the Interpol wanted list and later sentencing him in absentia to nine
years in prison for tax fraud.
"Red Notice" is written in the fashionably breezy and colloquial style seemingly favored
by many professional ghost writers. Not surprisingly, it portrays Browder as a skilled and
principled financier who, prompted by the Magnitsky tragedy, turns himself into a towering
figure in the world of human rights.
There are odd omissions in descriptions of Browder's family life. Divorce from his first
wife is mentioned only in passing; although much ado is made over his meeting his glamorous
Russian second wife, she fades entirely from later portions of the manuscript. "Red Notice"
is a work of considerable interest. However, given the many controversies that hover over
Browder's life and reputation, I believe it wise to view its contents with a generous degree
of skepticism.
Other reviewers have accurately summarized the book, and justly praised Browder's
commitment and courage in seeking a measure of justice for the brutal treatment, leading to
death, of Sergei Magnitsky. My comment will focus on a disquieting subtext babout browder's
activities in setting up and running his hedge fund.
Browder's rise to prominence with his Hermitage Fund followed the classic MBA playbook:
find and exploit undervaluation. Fair enough in a financial world of transparency and
disclosure where "consenting adults" can presumably fend for themselves. But this was not
exactly the environment in Russia in the early 1990s. In its attempted transition from
communism to some form of capitalism, the Russian government granted "privatization
certificates" to the people - one certificate per citizen, about 150 million in total.
Browder found that these certificates, in the aggregate, were exchangeable for about a 30
percent interest in newly privatized Russian companies.
In theory, this should have been a promising financial arrangement for the impoverished
Russian people, particularly given the country's wealth of natural resources and the
p[otential of its energy sector. But after decades of communism, capitalism was a largely
unknown concept in day-to-day practice. Controlling interests were diverted to a
well-connected oligarchical minority, who saw the companies more as ATMs rather than what we
in the West would call modern corporations with appropriate disclosure and governance
standards. Companies were valued at a tiny fraction of comparable Western entities, and the
Russian stock market, such as it was, had little volume and virtually no transparency.
Browder had the insight to realize that the participation certificates were ludicrously
undervalued in relation to the potential net worth of Russian companies. By purchasing large
numbers of these certificates from the essentially clueless Russian citizenry for the
functional equivalent of pennies on the dollar in relation to underlying value, Browder was
able to position his Hermitage Fund to get in on the ground floor of a stock market that was
virtually certain to rise dramatically as the potential of the Russian economy came to be
understood in the Western world.
Depending on one's perspective, this is either an instance of brilliant, if amoral,
take-the-world-as-it-is MBA-ism, or a classic example of a city slicker fleecing the rubes in
a manner that would be much more difficult to pull off in a more sophisticated financial
environment. I lean toward the latter position, and surely am not the only one dazed by the
irony of Browder, grandson of a one-time head of the U.S. Communist Party, so
unapologetically exploiting the ignorance of the Russian populace for capitalist gain.
Browder deserves all the kudos he's received for his work on the Magnitsky matter. But his
Hermitage Fund (and its progeny and imitators) helped give visibility (though not
transparency) and liquidity, as well as an aura of respectability, to the previously
"undernourished" Russian stock market. Browder's investors did well, as did numbers of
average Russians (though not necessarily those who sold the participation certificates).
Principal beneficiaries, however, were the oligarchs and the well-connected favored few, the
value of whose controlling interests soared greatly. In part, Browder was an enabler of the
system he came (rightly) to despise and fight against.
It seems Browder is trying to whitewash his own reputation and the part he played in the
disasterous privitazation of Russian businesses after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He
was an active and avid participant in buying up shares of companies for pennies on the dollar
which helped to impoverish Russians for a generation. In addition his part in the death of
Sergei Magnitsky was shameful. Yes Browder and Magnitsky uncoverd massive fraud but
ultimately Browder decided that the money was more important than his "friend's" life.
Passige of the Magnitsky Law slightly punished the perpetrators but he didn't need to die and
Browder should be ashamed of himself as well.
A must read, regardless of political party of choice. A book that could save America,
literaly
Well written, stringently researched and truly shines a light on the dark dealings of Bill
Browder. Seamlessly disects the chapters of Bill browders book red notice bit by bit.
Everyone should read this book.
Russian
businessman Aleksandr Perepelichny, a key witness in the Sergey Magnitsky case who died in
southern England in November 2012, may have been poisoned, British media reported. Perepelichny
allegedly cooperated with Swiss investigators looking into the death of Sergey Magnitsky and a
$240 million money laundering case, involving Russian officials and organized crime.
Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer, who was held in pre-trial detention in connection with tax
fraud, and died in 2009 due to being denied crucial medical treatment by prison officials.
His death caused an international outcry and led to the passing of the so-called Magnitsky
Act by the US Congress in 2012, which punished a group of Russian state officials and law
enforcers with a US asset freeze and a visa ban over alleged human rights violations.
Shortly before testifying in the Magnitsky case, Perepelichny collapsed and died while jogging near
his home near in Surrey, south of London.
The Surrey police initially found nothing suspicious about the 44-year-old man's death,
saying that there was "no third-party involvement."
However, a pre-inquest hearing Monday has shed light on new facts in the case, which
contradicted the initial conclusions by the police.
A top poisons expert examined a sample of Perepilichny's stomach contents last year and
discovered the presence of a chemical strongly associated with a lethal plant toxin, the
Independent newspaper reported.
Professor Monique Simmonds from Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew, London, told the court that
the substance was extremely rare in nature and could only be obtained from gelsemium, a
poisonous plant also known as "heartbreak grass."
The plant only grows in remote areas in Russia and China, and became known as a poison used
by assassins in the two countries.
However, it isn't used very often. The most recent known use of gelsemium as a poison was
the assassination of Chinese billionaire Huang Guang in 2011.
Lawyers representing the police at Surrey Coroner's Court in Woking acknowledged that the
presence of the chemical "ion" in Perepilichny's system was a "cause for very
serious concern," the Independent reported.
The new finding prompted the judge to reschedule a hearing in Perepilichny's case, due to
begin Monday, until September as to allow more tests to be performed.
According to the Independent, the Surrey police may find themselves in hot water for
negligence if Perepilichny's poisoning is confirmed, as the case would resemble the
high-profile murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko in London in 2006.
Litvinenko, a former Russian security officer, died in hospital after being poisoned with
radioactive Polonium 210, with his death acting as a stumbling block in relations between
Russia and the UK.
A
documentary screening of Andrei Nekrasov's investigation comes to a halt due to
behind-the-scenes schemes of an American billionaire.
Nekrasov (c) in a scene from his new film (Photo: greens-efa.eu)
Originally appeared at Rusplt , translated by
Mona Lita exclusively for SouthFront
Seems like the world has turned upside down. After decades of living under the conditions of
censorship, Russia has generated an unprecedented desire for freedom. Europe, by contrast, is
increasingly resorting to banning facts that are inconvenient for her. Myths that benefit
politicians of the Old World are claimed as truth, while all the rest is, for example, Russian
"propaganda". On this basis the obstacles to Mass Media activities are being fixed, while
access to individual documentaries is being cut off from the viewer. One of these types of
works is a film "the Magnitsky Act – behind the scenes", made by a Russian director
Andrei Nekrasov, which is dedicated to a famous story about tax evasion, which later becomes
the reason for the adoption of the American law with the same name.
Another screening of Nekrasov's film was to be held today, on May 27th as one of the short
films at a festival in Grimstad, Norway [ SF editor: It wasn't screened]. Whether it will
happen or not is not yet clear. The fact is that the film's authors now have a powerful
opponent, an American billionaire and CEO of Hermitage Capital – William Browder, an
author of the Sergei Magnitsky myth and his self-proclaimed political executor. Unhappy with
Nekrasov's investigation, in which a version of an innocent businessman is being refuted,
Browder launched an opposition campaign. He is not hesitating to use a whole arsenal of tools
for this: direct political pressure, defender assaults and prosecution. A Norwegian publication
Dagbladet writes about this.
According to the publication, for the sake of counteracting the film's circulation Browden
held separate meetings with the Storting parliament members – Ingerd Skou from the
"Høyre" Party and Morten Wold from the Progress Party. Both of them are also members of
the Storting delegation in PACE, and this means they have European-scale influence. Moreover,
Browder met with the leader of the Norwegian Party Venstre, Trine Skei Grande. In respect to
Nekrasov's film the policy is set to be very critical, calling it propaganda. "Everyone knows
that Russia is a master at conducting such campaigns", a publication quotes her words. It turns
out she has not seen the film itself but believes in Browder's version.
In addition to politicians' support, Browder – an American with a British passport,
enlisted the sympathy of human rights activists. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee is entirely
on his side. A corresponding meeting took place during the visit of this country's
businessman.
A sacrifice is required for human rights activists to exist. Magnitsky is the suitable
candidate. Death in a Russian prison makes him a desirable target to human rights fanatics. In
case this resource is not enough, Browder prepared a court appeal. "I have hired Norwegian
attorneys. They have been ordered to take up the case", he explained to Dagbladet. Browder
wants to sue not only the film director but also the film festival in Grimstad, if he did not
remove the film from screening.
Right now, the festival organizers are resisting. According to the Executive Director Anita
Svingen, they will refuse the showing of Nekrasov investigation only if the creators themselves
will withdraw the film for legal reasons. Despite Browder's threats to sue the festival, its
organizers invited him to a discussion that will take place after the viewing. They recalled
that it was a Norwegian company that created the film, which guarantees him a sufficient level
of confidence.
It should be noted that funding for Nekrasov's work is also European. The film received
millions of krones from the Nordic Film and TV Fond, the Norwegian Film Institute (NFI), Norsk
Film Institute and the Foundation Fritt Ord ("Free Word"). If those politicians who oppose the
showing are outraged by this circumstance, then the Representative of NFI Mette Taraldsen
reasonably noted that the very "form and task of documentaries is to raise critical questions
and to cover the case from different angles". At the same time he also reminded that Andrei
Nekrasov is one of the most experienced documentarians, and it makes no sense not to trust
him.
Europe is afraid of free speech?
In fact, the Russian director is considered one of the masters in European documentary
films. A partnership with Andrei Tarkovsky, training in Bristol and work on the British
television network allowed him to sustain a professional status. His work has received numerous
awards, including one at the Cannes Film Festival. An important factor in Nekrasov's reputation
is that he is the current Russian president's enemy. Accusations that he "sold out" to the
Kremlin obviously have no ground to stand on. "I used to make films that were quite critical of
Putin, and such allegations hurt me deeply", he said.
When Nekrasov first began shooting the film, he implicitly believed in Browder's version.
After all, all the major Western media consistently wrote and spoke about it with one voice.
The adaptation of the story "about the conspiracy of Russian policemen killing the fighter of
Magnitsky corruption" was assumed. It was only during the process of filming, when the director
was introduced to the documents that he realized he was filming a lie. The version of the story
that Browder circulated has little to do with reality, but rather serves the businessman's
personal interests. This explains the powerful complex program to counter the film's showing
and threats with multi-million dollar lawsuits to anyone involved in its spread. It's just that
Browder's pride was hurt.
The first documents Nekrasov learned of were from Browder's famous site "the Untouchables",
where Magnitsky exposes the corruption of investigators Karpov and Kuznetsov. As it turns out,
there was no exposure. "There was an interrogation, and there was protocol, which shows that
Magnitsky is in the midst of a heavy defensive struggle with the investigation. And he is not
blaming any MIA officers, and doesn't even mention them", writes Nekrasov in his blog on the
website "Echo of Moscow". "Since then (Fall of 2014) my "based on a true story" film began
ripping at the seams. Each day I was more certain that it was based on a lie".
As a result, the director developed his own version of events that was built as a result of
personally studying all sources. According to Nekrasov, Magnitsky was not an auditor but an
accountant who was arrested for tax fraud. He died in prison not because of beatings or other
illegal pressures but as a result of a fatal deterioration of health caused by being confined.
Browder, as a political attack on Russia used his tragic death in retaliation for his expulsion
from the country in 2005 and termination of business. And this is how his interests coincided
the U.S. foreign policy objectives: it is how the "Magnitsky Act" was born, the effect of which
has recently spread globally. The main thing that Nekrasov understood was that Magnitsky was
not murdered and has not pressed charges against the investigators.
It is not surprising that Browder was so ready to actively oppose the showing of Nekrasov's
film. Forces all too powerful are drawn into the story. The previous film showing in the
European Parliament that was scheduled for April 27th, and it too met resistance and was
cancelled. The organizers received a letter with threats from Browder and were unable to
withstand pressure. A member of the European Parliament Heidi Hautala particularly mentioned
this. She called the pressure "sudden and strong". The fact that the premier of this film was
so easily removed from a scheduled screening in the European Parliament shows that the right to
the freedom of speech is offered only to one side", said the film's screening organizer Natalia
Veselnitskaya.
A near future will show how another attack of this unscrupulous billionaire will end. Nekrasov
himself seems to hope for the best, and that the Europeans will still see his honest
investigation and will draw conclusions. "An 'Oscar' is not necessary. But we will see the
idols fall", said the director.
"... You would do well to consult a dictionary on questions of spelling ..."
"... Trump is not merely mouthing platitudes about farmers or workers or the Rust Belt. He is bringing them back into the game for the first time in ages, and the other side (who considered them dead and gone) is furious. You cannot claim to be for the working class and not cheer a little, if you are being at all honest. ..."
"... But if he succeeds? Wow. ..."
"... According to the Center for Automotive Research's (CAR's) latest trade briefing, applying a 25-percent tariff on all automobile and parts imports would result in 2 million fewer U.S. vehicle sales, 715,000 fewer U.S. jobs and nearly $60 billion in lower U.S. economic output. ..."
"... I was stunned to see that and still don't quite know what to make of it. But the argument is basically, there is no real way to ramp up US auto production without investing in new capacity, which the auto companies are not going to do, period. And since domestic steel and aluminum capacity has already been decimated, and the domestic steel and aluminum producers are even more unwilling to add new capacity than the auto companies, the only effect of the tariffs is to dramatically raise materials costs. ..."
According to Leonard, quite a few key players in China see Trump as having a coherent
geopolitical agenda, with reducing China's influence as a key objective, and that he is doing
an effective job of implementation. From his Financial Times
piece :
I have just spent a week in Beijing talking to officials and intellectuals, many of whom
are awed by his [Trump's] skill as a strategist and tactician ..
Few Chinese think that Mr Trump's primary concern is to rebalance the bilateral trade
deficit .They think the US president's goal is nothing less than remaking the global
order.
They think Mr Trump feels he is presiding over the relative decline of his great nation.
It is not that the current order does not benefit the US. The problem is that it benefits
others more in relative terms. To make things worse the US is investing billions of dollars
and a fair amount of blood in supporting the very alliances and international institutions
that are constraining America and facilitating China's rise.
In Chinese eyes, Mr Trump's response is a form of "creative destruction". He is
systematically destroying the existing institutions .as a first step towards renegotiating
the world order on terms more favourable to Washington.
Once the order is destroyed, the Chinese elite believes, Mr Trump will move to stage two:
renegotiating America's relationship with other powers. Because the US is still the most
powerful country in the world, it will be able to negotiate with other countries from a
position of strength if it deals with them one at a time rather than through multilateral
institutions that empower the weak at the expense of the strong.
My interlocutors .describe him as a master tactician, focusing on one issue at a time, and
extracting as many concessions as he can. They speak of the skilful way Mr Trump has treated
President Xi Jinping. "Look at how he handled North Korea," one says. "He got Xi Jinping to
agree to UN sanctions [half a dozen] times, creating an economic stranglehold on the country.
China almost turned North Korea into a sworn enemy of the country." But they also see him as
a strategist, willing to declare a truce in each area when there are no more concessions to
be had, and then start again with a new front.
For the Chinese, even Mr Trump's sycophantic press conference with Vladimir Putin, the
Russian president, in Helsinki had a strategic purpose. They see it as Henry Kissinger in
reverse. In 1972, the US nudged China off the Soviet axis in order to put pressure on its
real rival, the Soviet Union. Today Mr Trump is reaching out to Russia in order to isolate
China.
In fact, Trump made clear on the campaign trail that he wanted to normalize relations with
Russia because he saw China as the much bigger threat to US interests, and that the US could
not afford to be taking them both on at the same time. He also regarded Russia as having more
in common culturally with the US than China, and thus a more natural ally. Given the emphasis
that Trump has placed on US trade deficits as a symbol of the US making deals that are to
America's disadvantage, by exporting US jobs,
However, even if the Chinese are right, and there is more method to Trump's madness than his
apparent erraticness would have you believe, there are still fatal flaws in his throwing bombs
at international institutions.
As anyone who has done a renovation knows, the teardown in the easy part. Building is hard.
And while the young Trump that pulled off the Grand Hyatt deal had a great deal of creativity
and acumen, early successes appear to have gone to Trump's head. He did manage to get out of
the early 1990s real estate downturn in far better shape than most New York City developers by
persuading lenders that his name was so critical to the value of his holdings that creditors
needed to cut him some slack. But the older Trump has left a lot of money on the table, such as
with The Apprentice, by not even knowing what norma were to press for greatly improved
terms.
The fact that the half-life of membership on Trump's senior team seems to be under a year
does not bode well for establishing new frameworks, since they require consistency of thought
and action. And the fact that Trump has foreign policy thugs operatives like
John Bolton and Nikki Haley in important roles works against setting new foundations.
So even if the Chinese are right and Trump has been executing well on his master
geopolitical plan, Trump is at best capable of delivering only on the easy, destructive part,
and will leave his successors to clean up his mess.
Possibly, but the meme's I saw rolling around in the run up to the 2016 election had a
decidedly 40k aesthetic. In either case, that anyone takes it seriously is hilarious.
I'm sorry, but I just can't rap my head around this. It reads like a union piece. "Trump
brilliantly does nothing in the face of oncoming challenges." Thanks to our insane foreign
policy, when Trump doses anything with a modicum of intelligence, it must seem like
"brilliance" to the outside world.
The trick to playing poker isn't having a good hand – but convicting the other
players that you have a better hand than theirs. And when Trump isn't smart enough to know
when he has been dealt a bad hand? You have to look out for two kinds of players – the
ones who know what they are doing, and the ones who don't.
I suspect that they suffer from overprojection, i.e. can't believe he would not be
rational, and project on Trump what they would do in his position. Not unusual behaviour when
one meets with a chaotic behaviour.
It doesn't really surprise me. In China there is still a sort of awe attached to the 'big
man' with power who throws his weight around, even if its not always with subtlety. In my
experience, many Chinese are quite fascinated with Trump, and were so even before he became
POTUS. So it doesn't surprise me that they tend to put the most positive spin on his
blunderbuss approach to international affairs. On the flip side, I also found that the
Chinese never shared the rest of the worlds awe of Obama, they saw him as weak and vain.
That said, I'm pretty sure the strategists in Beijing are well aware of Trumps weaknesses
and will work out (if they haven't already) how to manipulate him. For now, broken
institutions may well suit China very well.
I doubt it. They have been rising like a rocket as they manipulate institutions like WTO,
if this breaks they will do ok one on one with small countries, but poorly wrt Eu and us.
I doubt seriously if anybody in China is impressed by Trump's brilliance. Like all world
leaders, they have realized that if you stroke Trump's ego, he'll sit up and beg –
woof.
I suggest reading Hilda Hookham's " A Short History of
China. " Though published in 1972, the history of China dates back millennia. From that
book, I note that China has cycles of domination followed by economic implosion (often
triggered by revolution – most recently Mao) and a slow crawl back. It has been going
on for centuries. Some of it is endemic to the Chinese culture (how they view the world), and
some of it is likely due to the limits of central control when the country is just too huge
to govern. If Hookam's observations are correct, then we should expect a financial meltdown
at some point. After all, China's personal debt level is high and their housing bubble is
ginormous – the sort of thing that generates recessions.
If this is all the case, it may be partially working. The EU just agreed to buy more
soybeans to make up for what US farmers lost in orders to China as well as offering to build
more facilities to take in US LPG shipments which is by its nature is much more expensive and
less reliable than that coming in from Russia. So the EU has basically surrendered to Trump's
demands.
The implication of this article is that Trump would spend his first term smashing up things
and the second term securing all these you beaut deals to secure his legacy. I doubt that
Russia will go along because they know that the US is not only incapable of keeping an
agreement but can trash a deal and impose all sorts of sanctions in a matter of days. Iran is
already experiencing this. China may be taking note.
I think too that the deep state is also working against this model. I am going to throw out a
theory that what they want is to see the formation of a second Tripartite Pact but this time
between China, Russia and Iran hence the constant pressure against these three nations. With
that in place, it would guarantee ever-increasing defense budgets for decades to meet this
'united threat'. In addition, China may want to be cautious here. Once you pay 'danegeld' it
never stops.
According to the
WaPo it appears Juncker gave Trump a non-concesstion concesstion:
Trump also touted an agreement by the Europeans to buy more American soybeans and
liquefied natural gas. But Juncker in a speech later Wednesday indicated the gas purchases
would only go forward "if the conditions were right and price is competitive." (Anthony
Gardner, a former U.S. ambassador to the E.U., said in a tweet it was "absurd" to believe
liquefied gas could compete with what the continent pipes in from nearer by.) And the E.U.
was already looking to import more U.S. soybeans, since China -- in its own trade fight
with the Trump administration -- has been buying more from Brazil, driving up the price of
the product there.
" they want to see the formation of a second Tripartite Pact but this time between
China, Russia and Iran"
It is a basic necessity for the MIC (in which I include the "deep state") to have a worthy
opponent to continue producing and selling their weaponry to all of the other countries of
the world, or at least the ones on "our" side. Such an opponent also justifies the continuing
massive funding of the surveillance agencies.
The Soviet Union served for decades as the worthy opponent, but since 1991 the US has been
looking for another worthy opponent, i.e., a credible threat. Saddam Hussein served that
purpose for a short time, and then the broader War on Terror. However, neither one of those
was sustainable as a credible threat.
A Tripartite Pact v2.0 would create a very worthy opponent, keeping the MIC companies very
busy and profitable for many years to come.
See Links today. Politico reported that everything that Junkcer promised to Trump (save
maybe soyabeans but not sure there) is stuff the EU was doing/going to do already. So Trump
got nothing new.
I think too that the deep state is also working against this model. I am going to throw
out a theory that what they want is to see the formation of a second Tripartite Pact but
this time between China, Russia and Iran hence the constant pressure against these three
nations.
If so, they would probably be making a huge mistake. Handling China by itself
will soon be more than a chore for an ever-declining west. Handling a "tripartite pact" would
be way, way out of our league. A Russo-Chinese-Iranian alliance in the Eurasian heartland
would have Mackinder turning in
his grave. That's why the neocon strategy is so stupid: it just pushes the Russians further
into the arms of the Chinese. Say what you want about Trump–at least he understands
that much.
Trump, especially in his foreign policy is very rational if chaotic. Chaotic can still be
rational.
He saw what e.g. Obama tried to do. Obama wanted to curb down on US global force projection,
less US instigated wars on 7 continntes. He did it poorly, was stupid even. And when he
didn't want to start new wars, the deep state including the state department (Hillary) or his
allies (France/UK) drew him into new conflicts anyways: Ukraine, Syria, Lybia.
Trump saw this and therefore uses a different strategy, basically a crazy Ivan. Be so
outrageous, chaotic, etc, that the US is simply not welcome anymore. Not in Syria, not in
Ukraine, but even more important: not with their own allies. UK/France could be sure their
ally US would bail them out when it was clear that Lybia was a total clusterfuck for them.
Would any NATO ally be able to depend on Trump today for one of their stupid wars anymore?
Exactly.
Trump is no pacifist of course. He still likes to sell weapons to anyone who pays, but the
crucial difference is, Saudi-Arabia and UAE pays, it's not a "deliver weapons for free via
CIA" as before to some shitty terrorist cel^W^Wfreedom fighter.
On the tradefront it's the same: he ruthlessly tries to exploit the hegemonial position
the US still enjoys here. That's why he asked Merkel several times about a bilateral trade
agreement in the beginning. He knows in one on one treaties the US always has the advantage
due to its size. I'm sure he asked everybody he ever met that. Germany loudly and publically
declined and pointed to the EU for that, but maybe not every country would: eg. Poland or any
other eastern european country might agree to a quiet "we protect you from Russia, but we
need a consideration for this" treaty mafia style.
He will try to exploit every kind of advantage like this all the while giving the impression
of being a moron, crazy or both.
Same with his constant tries to bring back industry to the US any way he can, gutting NAFTA,
etc. He doesn't care if he pollutes to high heaven, for him it's actually bringing the
industry back first and foremost. You cannot really have both which sucky but that's physics.
The left however wants both, and gets neither btw.
This is a high risk strategy, and far from certain it will work, but it's much better than
the constant decline over the last 20 years with perpetual wars draining the coffers,
generating unrest at home, hobbling the economy in the process only lining the pockets of the
rich and creating two worldwide major economical crises. Not counted the by now millions of
deaths the US is almost solely responsible for.
It actually uses the power that the US still has fairly optimally cause when the power is
totally gone, it's too late. We all know free trade and globalism do not help "the economy"
much less the common man, so when someone is actually doing something practical instead of
writing useless books so the NC commentariat can gripe or fap to Mr. Hudson in an embarassing
fanboi way, then he's vilified.
You can vilify him for his corruption, e.g. his self serving tax reform, the personal
credit for his private ventures from UAE/Saudi Arabia or ZTE, gutting of financial oversight
or EPA, but especially his foreign policy has some method in his madness.
Of course he is not a shining liberal progressive saviour, but a right wing reactionary evil
capitalist so the way he does it is his way the evil way. The US already tried a
compassionate, smiling "peace for all mankind" ineffective moron from 2008-2016. It didn't
help, it made it all around much worse everywhere and was indistinguishable from the criminal
evil moron before him.
There are pearls of wisdom mixed in with a goodly dose of horse hooey here. You would do
well to consult a dictionary on questions of spelling (it's not LYbia, but Libya; not
hegemonial but hegemonical, etc.).
Like the FT piece itself, it is hard to parse what perspective you are coming from. I will
focus here on the piece itself, which I read yesterday. The FT piece could be genuine: "Hey,
look at this guys! The Chinese really seem to think Trump is a genius strategist!" It could
be a CYA operation by an increasingly hostile FT editorial board worried by the increasing
vehemence of commentators on both ends of the spectrum and some of its columnists who appear
to be suicidal over the rise of Trump AND Brexit. Or, the 3rd option, it is a concerted
strategy by the Chinese to appeal to Trump's vanity in a way that calls to mind a brilliant
episode of South Park where Pokeman is a mind control plot by the Japanese to take over
America and the worried parents keep getting distracted from their efforts to get to the
bottom of it by Japanese proclamations of wonder at the size of their male members.
Classic!
Time will tell. But one thing is certain, Trump is not a fool, at least not in the classic
sense of the term. For my part, I get the sense of someone who has a map of the minefield and
is deftly maneuvering through it, but whose luck could run out at any time. In the meantime,
the world as a whole finally gets a chance to see the minefield, which we have been told
repeatedly does not exist.
You would do well to consult a dictionary on questions of spelling
FWIW it's Pokémon, not Pokeman. Orthography aside, I agree that Trump has shown the
world the "map of the minefield", although my preferred metaphor is that Trump has sent (and
continues to send) impulses through the liberal international order, and in doing so, has
revealed the liberal international order's impulse response function.
In signal processing, the impulse response , or impulse response
function (IRF), of a dynamic system is its output when presented with a brief input signal,
called an impulse. More generally, an impulse response is the reaction of any dynamic
system in response to some external change. In both cases, the impulse response describes
the reaction of the system as a function of time (or possibly as a function of some other
independent variable that parameterizes the dynamic behavior of the system).
In all these cases, the dynamic system and its impulse response may be actual physical
objects, or may be mathematical systems of equations describing such objects.
Since the impulse function contains all frequencies, the impulse response defines the
response of a linear time-invariant system for all frequencies.
I'm not sure whether the liberal international order is a linear time-invariant system
though, but " The End of History and
the Last Man " appears to suggest that it is.
Trump and his appointees have no policies that will benefit the common person, and many
that will do them great harm. There's no path from smashing "globalism" to the common good
under such a regime.
Balanced trade is better for our workers than the status quo.
And reduced immigration is similar all this is the unwind of the Corp push, aided by both
parties, to push down wages because profits. Unwinding means breaking agreements.
It is not news that we have let other countries take advantage of our workers, or that, as
trump said, winning trade wars is easy, given that you're the big importer. Or that in trade
wars it is the exporter that is hurt the most in the 30's it was the us. True, Apple might
get hurt since most stuff is made in Asia, so what? How many us workers do they have? Not
like GM.
Trump certainly wanted his tax cuts, but it seems he has not forgotten flyover.
What hurts workers is predatory capitalism. That's why we don't have good wages, safe
workplaces, universal healthcare, robust social programs, sustainable food and energy
supplies, clean air and water, infrastructure maintenance and improvement .etc.
Trump and his appointees are neglecting or working against all those things now. Why would
that change under protectionist capitalism, even for the white flown-overs who attend his
rallies and cheer his bigotry, let alone the rest of the common people?
"Predatory capitalism" is not a thing in and of itself. It is the end product of
globalisation breaking all the old rules of reciprocity and communal obligations/rights.
Trade unions got a (deservedly) bad rap in post-war America for hindering productivity and
making off-shoring attractive to management. What gets less play is their place in western
labor/economic history where they held the line against robber barons, big finance, and their
political cronies as a link in a chain going back to the Middle Ages, when noblesse oblige
was an actual thing and not a vague concept. When we focus too much on one player in a
complex chess match, we lose the importance of the shared authority of both sides. JohnK is
correct. Trump is not merely mouthing platitudes about farmers or workers or the Rust Belt.
He is bringing them back into the game for the first time in ages, and the other side (who
considered them dead and gone) is furious. You cannot claim to be for the working class and
not cheer a little, if you are being at all honest.
Trump is not merely mouthing platitudes about farmers or workers or the Rust Belt. He
is bringing them back into the game for the first time in ages, and the other side (who
considered them dead and gone) is furious. You cannot claim to be for the working class and
not cheer a little, if you are being at all honest.
While I agree with this in principle, what matters is actual practice, not principle. The
farmers here in Wisconsin are going berserk. The commodity soybean producers are seeing their
Chinese market go away. The dairy farmers are losing their undocumented help while dairy
prices stay depressed. While we have a relatively large organic and small scale farm sector
compared to many other places, it is still peanuts in the grand scheme of things and no one
in that sector believes Trump is out to help them.
According to the Center for Automotive Research's (CAR's) latest trade briefing,
applying a 25-percent tariff on all automobile and parts imports would result in 2 million
fewer U.S. vehicle sales, 715,000 fewer U.S. jobs and nearly $60 billion in lower U.S.
economic output.
I was stunned to see that and still don't quite know what to make of it. But the argument
is basically, there is no real way to ramp up US auto production without investing in new
capacity, which the auto companies are not going to do, period. And since domestic steel and
aluminum capacity has already been decimated, and the domestic steel and aluminum producers
are even more unwilling to add new capacity than the auto companies, the only effect of the
tariffs is to dramatically raise materials costs.
I do not wish to make light of the real pain of real people, but there was always going to
be short to mid-term disruption to "the system" to stop the outflow of capital and redirect
growth domestically. It's like trimming a tree or pruning a grape vine. The branches that
were growing are definitely feeling the pain and would protest if they could. But the
productivity and long term prospects of the plant and/or crop are infinitely improved.
You cannot negotiate with a gun to your head, and if the gun is pointed by your supporters
and political opposition, it is nevertheless potentially lethal. Were he the most popular
political leader ever, Trump would still face this backlash, and the backlash is legitimate.
He is NOT the most popular, so this is very dangerous. But if he succeeds? Wow.
If you mean success the way I mean success, there will need to be some sort of fundamental
change to US/MNC corporate leadership. I don't see how Trump achieves this. Not even
convinced he really wants it.
Why would a rational person believe this is anything more than a ploy from a bullsh1tter
to win votes? Or that Trump cares about anything beyond 2020 (if that far out)?
Also, I think your (best case) argument only applies to manufacturing, not farming. For
better or worse, US agriculture is heavily export oriented. And I have never heard Trump
mutter one word about growing our own food.
From what I understand the US has been overproducing dairy for quite some time now which
benefits the big midwestern farms and hurts the smaller farms, like those in New England.
When the New England diary compact came up for renewal by Congress several years ago they
declined to renew after pressure from the larger corporate dairy enterprises.
My family has milked 60 cows for decades now no matter what the price of milk is. Others
have expanded their herds when prices go up, thinking they would cash in, which annoys my
father to no end. As long as we're under a capitalist system, increasing production without
increasing demand is going to cause prices to drop. I don't know how all the other farmers in
Vermont did over the years, but I do know that my family's farm is still milking 60 cows
while all up and down the road nearby other barns are crumbling to dust. My family has never
hired any undocumented workers and very few documented ones either, and none in the half
century I've been around. The herd is kept to a size they can manage by themselves.
I believe someone here linked the astronomical amount of government cheese we currently
have lying around that nobody wants. What exactly is the point of all this overproduction? No
small farmers I know are retiring early from any great windfall they've received.
Now if Trump's idea was to cut production and decrease the perceived 'need' for
undocumented workers, I'd be all for it. Without the US overproducing cheap dairy and dumping
it on other nations, the undocumented might be able to begin farming in their own countries
again. But since Trump seems to want Canada, which has evidently managed its dairy industry
much better, to start accepting cheap US dairy, I don't think that's his plan. I'm still not
convinced he has a coherent strategy on anything, despite what the Chinese think.
But if the result turns out to be less overproduction and less illegal immigration, fewer
corporate farms and a return to the smaller family farm, that can't be a bad thing.
At this point global warming can't be denied. If these policies result in less
overproduction which means less industrial activity and fewer overall large ruminants with
their own food requirement, I would count that as a victory.
Staying the course means capitalism ruins the planet even quicker.
The system needs to change. I'd much rather have someone other than Trump doing the
changing, but there seems to be almost noone else in DC willing to upset the apple cart (or
the milk wagon) for fear that their corporate bribes will dry up. If someone could convince
Trump of a little MMT, and make sure all the workers who do lose their jobs when
overproduction is cut will be taken care of, then I think we're on the right track.
I'm no dairy expert. But I found a very informative article in the local ag rag from Sept
2017: Total dairy farms in Wisconsin were just less than 9000, down 500 from the year before,
with an average herd size of 142. (That average masks a number of 5000 cow mega-dairies.)
Compared to 1997, when there were 50,000 dairy farms with average herd size of 37. 1.8
million total dairy cows then, 1.2 million now producing twice as much milk per cow. (In
1957, 103,000 dairy farms in the state.)
against robber barons, big finance, and their political cronies as a link in a chain
going back to the Middle Ages, when noblesse oblige was an actual thing and not a vague
concept.
Noblesse Oblige was more of a guideline than a practice. It certainly was not law.
Not true. There were wide variations depending on country and period, but the vassal/liege
model replicated all the way down society. Nobles who broke customary law could face serious
uprisings and when agricultural labor was in short supply, as after a plague outbreak, their
serfs might simply run away, leaving them with worthless estates.
No, you have it backwards. Predatory capitalism, if you want to call it that, goes back to
the Thatcher/Reagan revolutions, which received legitimation from the raiders of the 1980s,
who took overdiversified conglomerates that were trading at a discount, bought them with tons
of debt, and sold the parts for more than the purchase price. All the money they made was
depicted as a victory for entreprenurship over corporate norms of considering the needs of
all of what would now be called stakeholders, not just shareholders.
The actions of the raiders and the gospel of "maximizing shareholder value) predate the
globalization/outsourcing fetish, which really took hold in the 1990s.
There's no path from smashing "globalism" to the common good under such a regime.
Maybe. But there's definitely no path from globalism to the common good, so Trump is just
a risk we're going to have to take. One thing is beyond dispute here: we gave those jokers in
Washington (and Brussels) a full eight years after the economic crash of 2008 to fix the
situation, and they did nothing. Not a damn thing! Now the situation is really dire, and it
looks like we might have to–forgive the metaphor–break a little china.
Trump has zero interest in the welfare of ordinary workers save for optics to fool the
rubes. If you think he's breaking things for your benefit, you are smoking something very
strong.
But he does want to be re-elected.
Dems refuse to consider giving up any income stream from donors, trump, though beholden to
Sheldon and Israel, will toss any Corp group save real estate under the bus if that helps.
M4a would do it, so I think he might get the reps to give up that income stream.
And could be very gradual, two years down every year.
'They think Mr Trump feels he is presiding over the relative decline of his great
nation'
And he is, of course, as a nearby post about the downwardly mobile middle class makes
clear.
Unfortunately flake-o-nomics will not make America great again. The Republican party's
crackpot fiscal stimulus pumps hundreds of billions into negative rate of return global
military domination during Trump's first and only term.
This is money flushed down the toilet which should have been invested in fixing the
substandard features of America's late-Soviet-era economy: failing infrastructure, failing
education, a failed health care system. It's high times for looters defense
contractors though.
Don't mistake Chauncey Gardner Trump for a very stable genius.
I would expect the domestic money hoses to be turned on for the 2020 election. By the way,
education and medical care are weird sinkholes of very large amounts of money now and the
hosemasters may try to avoid them. If you waste billions on a highway at least at the end of
the process you may have a highway, whereas it's clear that the education and medical care
industries can make infinite amounts of money vanish leaving behind no tangible signs of
their passage.
It depends on the speed at which the Chinese can build a self-sustaining consumer economy.
That is, become an Autarchy.
Their imports are raw materials and Oil. They will solve the oil problem, as most
oilfields are associated with large rivers, and the Chinese have a number of large rivers
where they can explore for oil.
Chinese have a trump card: a sovereign currency. Like one other nation: Ecuador. When the
state issues the scrip (and not commercial banks) it gives you many options. Michael Hudson
is one of the very few to point out the importance of this glaring fact.
I think there's also a chance the Chinese are just lying, because whatever he's doing is
something where they feel it actually gives them the upper hand. It's impossible to say
either way at this point, as far as I can tell.
So much projection by readers, so little time until the next election. Shouldn't y'all
spend more time promoting the right kind of populist candidates and getting them elected?
Focusing on Trump is taking your eye off the ball (again).
Yes, the Chinese are mercantilist, and so is Trump. They recognize their own. Kissinger
has never sold a single ice cube to a single Inuit. Followers of Plato's Republic, frequently
are mesmerized by academic nonsense.
Get back to work, I would like some populists to vote for (not same as progressives).
Agreed that the all Trump all the time focus of much of the left is fruitless. The reality
is that nobody knows for sure what Trump is up to including, perhaps, Trump himself.
Speculation about a strategic plan is mostly useful for curbing the hysteria that says Trump
must be stopped, now, immediately, and that's all that matters. Even Sanders has fallen prey
with his recent denunciation of the Russia summit. It makes one wonder whether Sanders has a
plan either.
And while Kissinger was certainly amoral and had his own crackpot notions, his "realist"
view of foreign policy would be a refreshing change from the fake solicitude that says we
have to bomb one country after another in order to save them.
Sanders' capitulation to the Russiagate narrative was sad, as was his capitulation to
Clinton and the DNC after knowing they stabbed him AND THOSE WHO SUPPORTED HIM in the back.
As one who worked hard for Bernie and deeply appreciates what he did for
America–demonstrating that an effective national campaign can be crowd-funded, and that
socialism is no longer a dirty word–I hope that he does not run the next time around.
He was John the Baptist. We await "the one who comes after" to carry the revolution forward
and take it home. Horizontalism and the grass roots have their important places, but history
shows that nothing happens, nothing changes, without the key ingredient of leadership
well that's what he did to chile, via coup rather than bombing, there's a quote about "not
letting chile go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people". sanders'
capitulation on russia gate bothers me a great deal.
True, so amoral "realism" can be just as bad as (effectively) amoral R2P.
But in this particular case Kissinger has said that Russia should be given its sphere of
influence and given Russia's nuclear status it's hard to see why that isn't sensible and
true. It's hard to see what the American interests would be in the Ukraine.
That depends on what you think America's interests are. That is, its ruling class's
interests. If one conceives of America's interests as dominating a weakened Russia, then of
course one wants to get them kicked out of Syria and the Middle East in general, and to turn
Ukraine into a hostile pro-Western bastion by whatever means necessary. The risk that these
moves would result in hostility and countermoves was accepted, and some of the threats have
now come to pass. From my point of view, it was stupid to provoke them, but as government
seems to attract psychopaths, perhaps inevitable.
I think this article misses the fact that the Chinese are far more subtle than P45 could
ever understand. They may appear "awed", but they are not the least bit fooled. If P45 reads
any book before dealing with the Chinese, it should be the Art of War.
*****
Allure the enemy by giving him a small advantage. Confuse and capture him. If there be
defects, give an appearance of perfection, and awe the enemy. Pretend to be strong, and so
cause the enemy to avoid you. Make him angry, and confuse his plans. Pretend to be inferior,
and cause him to despise you. If he have superabundance of strength, tire him out; if united,
make divisions in his camp. Attack weak points, and appear in unexpected places.
Strategy or tactics aside, on the math Trump's retraction of his tariff menace against
Europe, at the price of a few bags of soybeans, seems a huge victory for Juncker, right?
Teasing out Trump's merits is a little like diving for quarters in the sewer. You'll find
some for sure, but
As to the Reno analogy, if the frame of a building is rotten throughout, then tearing down
walls even by temper tantrum appears strategic in that it's guaranteed to uncover
issues that must be addressed. The established method of diplomacy, for instance, has become
so formalized and drawn out that for all it's merits in caution, the simple act of a human
meeting between one leader and – GASP – the POTUS can contribute significantly to
unexpected success. It's not easy to tell if Trump upsets the apple cart of protocal because
he's a spoiled brat who thinks he's the greatest negotiator ever to walk upright, or because
he has an intuitive grasp of human nature or a bit of both.
Glen Greenwald strikes me as one of the better Trumpticians who can discuss Trump
intellegently without having to put on a wet suit. He presents the facts and highlights the
positives and let's the cards fall where they may as far as merit goes and indeed it puts a
certain shine on Trump which he may or may not deserve and even then without necessarily
being a great tactician.
I'll go for Sanders cause we can all make mistakes ? Is there a right answer? All of the
above? None o the above? All of the above and none of the above simultaneously?
that's what i like about reading the comments here. lots of people more witty than me
cranking out quality lines before i've even finished my 2nd coffee
I am trying to come with up a historical Chinese example where flattery won a dynasty.
The first emperor – through sheer military might
There was the Feast at Hong Gate ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_at_Hong_Gate
), and Liu Bang escaped with the help of an insider from the opposition (treason) to later
establish the second Chinese dynasty – the Han empire.
The Qing conquerors did not win with flattery – with again through the treasonous
act of a Ming general guarding the gate to Manchuria (Shanhaiguan).
Throughout Chinese history, I can recall, at this moment, only flattery on the part of the
subservient Mandarins or eunuchs, presuming a superior and inferior hierarchy.
And it worked sometimes, and failed disastrously other times, for the flatter.
Couple points
Your earlier point was that his modus was to keep firing until he is happy with his team I
can imagine his not being happy yet. And he has to keep hiring people he doesn't know.
Minefields certainly deep, msm and dems are making it as difficult as they can to be nice to
Russia, and to pivot from China to them. He's got to keep both the base and elected reps
reasonably happy, lots to juggle. Amazing how Twitter keeps to base engaged and opp off
guard.
China they really, really don't want existing world order upset or broken, they're doing
well, and change that leads to unemployment can slip into revolution, given their only excuse
to rule is ever rising living standard. There are always thousands of protests that need
suppressing. So why would they say anything that encourages his behavior? Sounds like
grudging admiration.
Omelettes require breaking eggs. Reversing 40 years of wage repression attacks profits Bernie
wants 15/hr, but stopping immigration while balancing trade would naturally push up wages
without mandate. And, of course, push down profits Apple and others in jeopardy.
Amplifying:
The US corporate class does very little business with Russia. They have little to lose by
siding with the neocons on Russia. Also very good for defense budgets, military
contractors.
The US corporate class is deeply invested in China. The neocons obviously see this and
tread much more lightly on the China issue. Also, "we need to protect the WTO and the world
trade order" so that our allies see us as a "responsible" trade partner and aren't driven
into the arms of China – even though our corporate class is completely wedded to China
at this point. Inconsistency on China also not bad for defense budgets, military
contractors.
Where does Trump fit in all this? Hard to say. I have been surprised by his continued
willingness to push the trade issue despite the complete opposition of the corporate class.
On the other hand, I don't see how he actually benefits the working person if the
corporations refuse to reinvest in the USA. And I see no evidence that they are or ever will
again. So my conclusion at this point is that he simply sees it as an electoral winner even
if no substantive change is ever achieved. And my second conclusion would be to follow
Trump's money. I'm still of the opinion that Trump taking on the "community" is more about
knee-capping their ability to dig into, or at least do anything about, his finances than
about any geo-strategic America-first thinking.
25% tariff brings a lot of car mfg, whether our own or Japanese or Europe japan now labor
short anyway, they can quickly expand.
Grant that trump doesn't care about working class, but he clearly wants to be re-elected.
Most dems still aren't paying any attention to working class, all about Russia, a losing
strategy even from Bernie.
I could imagine trump pushing m4a thru, great for his hotel workers, not clear even Bernie
could beat him if he does. Why not? He's already going against most Corp in attacking
China.
Course he makes mistakes, but shouldn't let personal distaste convince you he's stupid.
I posted this (with link) above. Not saying it's gospel but the link between tariffs and
domestic manufacturing runs though the US corporate class, who seem very disinterested in US
mfg:
According to the Center for Automotive Research's (CAR's) latest trade briefing,
applying a 25-percent tariff on all automobile and parts imports would result in 2 million
fewer U.S. vehicle sales, 715,000 fewer U.S. jobs and nearly $60 billion in lower U.S.
economic output.
I was stunned to see that and still don't quite know what to make of it. But the
argument is basically, there is no real way to ramp up US auto production without investing
in new capacity, which the auto companies are not going to do, period. And since domestic
steel and aluminum capacity has already been decimated, and the domestic steel and aluminum
producers are even more unwilling to add new capacity than the auto companies, the only
effect of the tariffs is to dramatically raise materials costs.
He would need someone to explain how Medicare works, and how it would be expanded to M4A.
Probably not the person he appointed to administer it though.
Verma said the focus of Medicare should be on seniors and disabled individuals and that
expanding the program to cover younger, healthier people will drain the program of funding
and deprive seniors of the coverage they need.
"By choosing a socialized system, you are giving the government complete control over
the decisions pertaining to your care or whether you receive care at all. It would be the
furthest thing from patient-centric care," Verma said.
Verma also said the CMS would likely deny waivers from states that seek to implement
their own single-payer systems.
Trump's been developing real estate in New York and running casinos. He doesn't need to
read the book by Sun Tzu. Underestimation is mentioned where as a recommended strategy? I
think Trump has planned his work and is working his plan. That's for strategy. The tactics
develop in play. I also think that Mr. Pompeo will be around for a while. Take out your pens.
History is being written, and yes, it involves risk.
I wonder how much of this would be gaslighting on the part of the Chinese, or at least a
hint the direction they would like to nudge Trump. What made me wonder that was the all too
true quip tearing down is easy, building is hard . As someone who has gone through
renovation I can attest to that! But it's not only me, in the aftermath of WWII America was
the only 'great power' that hadn't been shattered by the war, and can thank its postwar
dominance on that fact. Even the USSR, though victorious, had lost millions of lives and been
thoroughly ravaged by the Nazis. And the best the US could come up with against this fairly
broken rival was Cold War!
The thing is, today no other 'great power' is in such as state as they were after WWII.
None are at the mercy of the US the way they were then. Trump can take swings and smash
stuff, but will not be able to rebuild anything on his own terms because the situation is
nowhere near the same. In fact, the more damage Trump does can only put the US in a worse
position. We become the loose canon that may vote in another Trump at any time, who may again
overtly smash things and try to be more aggressively dominant in the world, and China can
portray themselves as a model of stability in comparison.
" even if the Chinese are right and Trump has been executing well on his master
geopolitical plan, Trump is at best capable of delivering only on the easy, destructive part,
and will leave his successors to clean up his mess."
What you refer to as a mess, may be the next stage, following the Chinese perception that
there is a coherency to the chaos.
Over and over again, it's been shown that the allowed choices by the establishment are
neoliberalism (what is currently defined as liberal democracy) or its kissing cousin (maybe
siamese twin) overt fascism.
"Overt" is an important word doing a lot of work here.
For the USA, Trumps alliances with supporters of theocracy means the cleanup is going to
be a baton pass to actual ideologues with a horrifying domestic agenda that we are not
prepared for.
Maybe it won't be so much a matter of cleaning up a mess as just modestly building
international linkages that don't stupidly favor a bunch of leech-like allies.
In spite of the face-saving flattery, I think the Chinese are right. But I also think that
this is pablum for the egos of us Americans who don't understand the world anymore. If they
say rational things about Trump it makes it easier for the US public. I must wonder what
Rachel is gonna make of what almost appears to be an orchestrated, cooperative international
effort to adjust trading relationships and, clearly, to avoid war. The Chinese know full well
they have exported a fatal dose of deflation to the American economy; they knew it would
happen as far back as 1980. And so did our big corporations – which explains why they
dumped American labor like garbage. I really think the fix was in back then and it is in
today.
Our European allies are behaving interestingly, calmly. In Canada they all gathered
around a sitting, stubborn looking Trump for a photo op that depicted them all wanting to
talk reason – all the while following a set plan. Notice how they stood by us when
China wanted to do trade treaties with them that harmed us. And they have been very patient
with us over Russia – they didn't rush into Ukraine even though Vicki publicly said
"Fuck the EU" and they didn't turn their backs on us when we asked for 2% NATO payments.
And
Russia has really kept her powder dry . it all looks orchestrated to me. The big question is
Where to now?
Germany just advised India to buy oil from Iran (because Germany is in on the
Saudi pipeline no doubt). We and Europe are acting like a big family – and I just heard
the most profound description of "family" – it is where "things are left unsaid." I
certainly hope that is the reason nobody is talking about what an emergency global warming is
– and that they are actually getting ready for some big changes. Always hopeful.
> In Chinese eyes, Mr Trump's response is a form of "creative destruction". He is
systematically destroying the existing institutions
So, "
volatility voters " have brought forth a "Volatility Executive." If you're playing in a
rigged game and losing, the upside comes from kicking over the table .
Absolutely.
Maybe delayed on account of Russia Russia, but he seems to have consolidated power and might
be on course now. Granted vol voters don't have absolute control over a vol exec, but his
moves so far likely encourage them.
I personally doubt dems will get enough house seats by appealing to moderate reps.
And it's also granted trump moves have huge Corp and political enemies, flyover knows this,
IMO will be patient.
I've been talking to HK expats in Toronto, they didn't know what flyover meant, but quickly
understood the shift in voter pref. My point to them is that the side hurt the most in a
trade war is the big exporter they don't need to be told China is particularly vulnerable,
can't take unemployment. We're used to it here
I think Beijing is just acknowledging it's a new world kind of like the people during the
last years of the Han dynasty.
That was when the famed Three Kingdom Period commenced. One of the two or three greatest
Chinese novels was written in the late Yuan/early Ming dynasty – more than 1,000 years
later and Chinese adults and kids still remembered – about the battles of wits,
strategizing and brave deeds of various heroes during that period. The novel is called
Romance of the Three Kingdom
How the three kingdoms played one off another would be quite relevant today, with three
major world powers trying to cope.
China knows Trump is the first American (or Western) leader, in a long time, and likely to
be the only American one in the foreseeable future, to stand up to Beijing.
That they don't just say that, but have to say this, indicates the game has changed for
them.
And to think one can bury one's stupid opponent by lauding him can be not too smart. It
implicitly under-estimate that opponent, by presuming.
Shu – in Sichuan – had great generals and the greatest strategist in Chinese
history (more famous than Sun Zi), Zhuge Liang.
Wei – in Honan, near the old Eastern Han capital of Luoyang – had all the
official institutions, as the first Wei king's father, Cao Cao, was the first Shogun, who
ruled for the child Han emperor. So he controlled those institutions (equivalent to today's
UN, IMF, World Bank, reserve currency, propaganda centers like Hollywood).
As it turned out, Wei provoked Shu and Wu to war against each other, with the latter
killing a great general Guan Yu (who was honored by later Chinese through even today as the
Martial Saint/Duke/God). Not much later, Wei first defeated Wu and then conquered Shu.
"... Obviously, breaking up GRU networks is something which it made eminent sense for MI6 to attempt. A central problem is that Berezovsky was – as Bill Browder is – himself a colossal fraud, as are so many of the figures in the network which grew up around him, such as Yuri Shvets, Vladimir Rezun (aka "Viktor Suvorov"), and the late Alexander Litvinenko. ..."
"... Those who get involved with fraudsters, without being knowledgeable and/or wordly-wise enough to see through them, are inherently prone to end up as fraudsters themselves. ..."
"... "Those who get involved with fraudsters, without being knowledgeable and/or wordly-wise enough to see through them, are inherently prone to end up as fraudsters themselves." ..."
"... The US security agencies with tens of billions of dollars in budgets could not prevent the Chinese from stealing the personnel information of all federal government employees. ..."
"... What we observe however, is that they're mired in all sorts of domestic political intrigue including spinning and manipulating media narratives along with their close associates in the media. As the IG report on Hillary email investigation notes, many were willing recipients of graft from these media personalities. ..."
Yep, you're a real James Bond. So they've been recruiting Trump for 21 years? Not 5? Not 8? Did you even read the damn dossier?
Not a word about "duping." The claim is that Trump was actively collaborating and that Putin's press guy was the mastermind in
this bullshit.
One of my favourite comments on the dossier was made immediately after its publication by Professor Paul Robinson, one of the
best British experts on Russia. In a rational world, he would have been back here advising his erstwhile Eton and Oxford contemporary
Boris Johnson, now our ex-Foreign Secretary. As it is, he is teaching in Ottawa.
Unlike Johnson, who after Oxford went into a media 'bubble', Robinson spent five years in Army Intelligence. That this and
later experiences have made him almost as sceptical of many MI6 people as I am is I think clear from the title of his post on
the dossier: 'Top Secret Credulous Eyes Only.'
The approach he goes on to adopt has I think been too little used – taking the piss, as we say in England. So Robinson writes:
'Human intelligence compiled from anonymous sources is known to be the most reliable basis on which to form judgements about
important events. Nothing else provides such detailed insider information from the very heart of enemy institutions.
'It is time people knew the truth. I have decided that it is necessary to reveal my own notes from underground (scribbled
on a table napkin in invisible ink this morning and just now squirted with lemon juice). I cannot, of course, identify my sources,
but I might suggest that you look up Richard Meinertzhagen's "dirty paper method" (see footnote). I can also claim that I have
access to the highest echelons of the Russian government through somebody who knows somebody, who is related to somebody, who
went to school with somebody, whose neighbour sharpens Vladimir Putin's hockey skates.
'These sources of mine tell me that the plot to place Donald Trump in the White House was hatched not five years ago as
claimed in the BuzzFeed report, but 13 years ago at an exclusive banya in Sokolniki.
'According to Source BS, the concept for what became known as Operatsiia Tuz emerged during a sweaty discussion over a dozen
bottles of vodka, when oligarch Viktor Bogatyi announced that he had an idea for a new television show. Aspiring kleptocrats
would audition for a job as Bogatyi's assistant and the losers would be eliminated one by one with his famous catchphrase 'You're
shot!' Hearing this, a senior GRU agent, Max Otto von Stierlitz, after a pause of seventeen moments, suggested an alternative.
Why not, said Stierlitz, pass the idea for the TV show on to Donald Trump to use as a vehicle for making himself popular among
the American people? It would be the perfect mechanism to gradually push the Donald into a position from which he could become
President of the United States of America. The rest, as they say, is history.'
As to the 'dirty paper method', some of Colonel Meinertzhagen's claims about his exploits in the First World War ran as follows:
"I ... found that the contents of German officers' latrines were a constant source of filthy though accurate information as
odd pieces of paper containing messages, notes on enciphering and decoding, and private letters were often used where lavatory
paper did not exist... By June 1915 I had collected, through captured documents and DPM, the signatures and occupations of almost
every German employed in German East. These were reproduced and distributed to every officer, so that when a paper with a signature
came into their hands they would know who it was and what his job was."
A biography of Meinertzhagen by Brian Garfield, published back in 2007, was entitled 'The Meinertzhagen Mystery: The Life and
Legend of a Colossal Fraud.' For a summary, see
http://scienceblogs.com/grr...
A moral of the tale, perhaps, is that barefaced impudence can get one a very long way, particularly as people hate to admit
they have been fooled.
Actually, insofar as Steele himself has sources, rather than simply inventing, many of these are likely to be involved with
the 'information operations' networks surrounding the erstwhile oligarch the late Boris Berezovsky – which may indeed have been
responsible for the recruitment of Sergei Skripal, which in turn may have resulted in the winding up of much of the GRU network
in Europe.
A corollary of this is that these sources will also be those of MI6, and can only be used with their consent.
Obviously, breaking up GRU networks is something which it made eminent sense for MI6 to attempt. A central problem is that
Berezovsky was – as Bill Browder is – himself a colossal fraud, as are so many of the figures in the network which grew up around
him, such as Yuri Shvets, Vladimir Rezun (aka "Viktor Suvorov"), and the late Alexander Litvinenko.
Those who get involved with fraudsters, without being knowledgeable and/or wordly-wise enough to see through them, are
inherently prone to end up as fraudsters themselves.
This is, quite patently, what happened with Steele, and those on both sides of the Atlantic who have cooperated with him. While
I have no evidence to believe that – as appears may have been the case with Meinertzhagen – he has been involved in murdering
anybody, there is very strong evidence that he has been involved in producing bogus allegations of murder against the Russian
authorities, in relation to Litvinenko and others.
And it is a serious possibility that, in relation to Berezovsky, MI6 have been involved in covering up a murder by others.
There were many people who could not afford to run the risks involved in his making terms with Putin and returning to Russia,
for reasons rather similar to those which may have impelled Meinertzhagen to commit murder – the fear of being exposed.
Equally, there were massive risks involved in the possibility of Berezovsky being exposed at the then upcoming Inquest – later
Inquiry – to the kind of devastating exposure of the contradictions in his claims which Lord Sumption had provided when he successfully
defended Roman Abramovich against the suit by which MI6's favourite oligarch had hoped to recoup his fortunes.
Even although Sir Robert Owen, the Lord Hutton substitute chosen to whitewash MI6, clearly ignored a mass of evidence about
these, much of it drawn to his attention by myself, he still had to display remarkable ingenuity in avoiding these contradictions
coming to light.
Frankly, nobody who takes anything in the dossier seriously should now have, or should have had in the past, any role whatsoever
in intelligence analysis relating to the post-Soviet space. They simply are not good enough at assessing murky and ambiguous evidence.
"Those who get involved with fraudsters, without being knowledgeable and/or wordly-wise enough to see through them,
are inherently prone to end up as fraudsters themselves."
Yes, indeed!
The US security agencies with tens of billions of dollars in budgets could not prevent the Chinese from stealing the personnel
information of all federal government employees. They did not disrupt a bunch of Saudi citizens who were learning to fly
with no interest in takeoff and landings from flying commercial jets into the WTC. But...they had their hands full with renditions
and torture all round the world.
What we observe however, is that they're mired in all sorts of domestic political intrigue including spinning and manipulating
media narratives along with their close associates in the media. As the IG report on Hillary email investigation notes, many were
willing recipients of graft from these media personalities.
There is a common refrain that yes, there may be some bad apples at the top but they were doing their best considering the
circumstances and they have served for decades safeguarding the nations security. And don't ever impugn the character of the "rank
and file". They are straight as arrows, honorable people of integrity.
Is it possible for the rank & file to work with integrity in a command climate of "fraud"? What compromises does one make to
climb the ladder of such a bureaucracy?
We continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.
Sifting through the cacophony of commentary from the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, here
are four key points missed, ignored or glossed over by the Washington establishment and
mainstream news coverage - and they require a good airing.
They are:
1) It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media
totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on
NATO in the first place?
Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we really think the former Soviet Empire
will invade Poland or the Baltic nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to
intervene in the Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media, for
all their noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is no debate about the
reasons why. Meanwhile
Russia is cutting its military spending.
Washington is so dominated by our military-industrial-congressional complex that spending
money is a major intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an
anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian
attack? Of course, it was really directed against Russia. Washington was so eager to spend
the money that it didn't even ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly
for their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 million on the
site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay billions to the Raytheon
Corporation for the shield to comply with their commitment to increase military spending to 2
percent of gross national product.
2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or
accidental. No one, including journalists at the joint press conference, spoke about the
collapsing missile treaties (the only one who reportedly seemed keen to discuss it was
ejected beforehand).
Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC .
The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes which allow for a surprise attack
on Russia with only a few minutes of warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an
hour or more. This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe,
because they could have little warning if cruise missiles were fired from the new bases.
Americans may think that we don't start wars, but the Russians don't. The old shill argument
that democracies don't start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and
Yemen.
3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to
Putin, he gave Putin nothing. His administration is still maintaining an increasingly
stringent economic attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his
meeting)
$200 million of new aid to Ukraine's military and threatening Europeans with sanctions if
they go ahead with a new Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some
analysts believe that
Putin has given up on wanting better relations with the U.S. and instead is just trying
to weaken and discredit America's overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand
Paul writes how we never think
about other nations' interests.
4) The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last
election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the "Deep State" in
dominating American foreign policy. An article by Bruce Fein in TAC argues we should
"Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia, "
showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it's good for business.
Furthermore, releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump's
blood is explained away by pointing out that the special prosecutor has separate authority to
that of the president. But the timing, a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows
intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia. It's interesting to
note that TAC has been criticizing the "Deep
State" since at least 2015.
The casualness with which much of Washington regards conflict and starting wars is only
comparable to the thoughtlessness of Europeans when they started World War I. Like now, that
war followed nearly a century of relative peace and prosperity. Both sides thought a war would
be "easy" and over quickly and were engulfed in it because of minor incidents instigated by
their small nation allies. It was started with a single assassination in Serbia. The situation
is similar now. America is hostage to the actions of a host of tiny countries possibly starting
a war. Think of our NATO obligations and promises to Taiwan and Israel.
America has become inured to the risks of escalation and Congress has ceded its war powers
to the president. The authority of war power was one of the most important tenets of our
Constitution, designed to prevent our rulers from irresponsibly launching conflicts like the
European kings. Witness now how casually Trump talks about starting a war with Iran, with no
thought of possible consequences, including blowing up oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, oil
and gas vital for the world economy.
For most Americans, war means sitting in front of their TVs watching the bombs fall on small
nations unable to resist or respond to our power. "We" kill thousands of "them" in easy battles
and then worry if a single American soldier is harmed. We don't viscerally understand the full
threat of modern weapons because they've never been used against us. This is not unlike World
War I, for which the countries engaged were wholly unprepared for a protracted siege war
against the lethality of new modern artillery and chemical weapons. All had assumed the war
would be over in weeks. I wrote about these issues after visiting the battlefields of the
Crimean war. (See " Lessons in
Empire")
And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.
Inc.'s Fawning Response to James Gunn Scandal Reveals Where Its True
Loyalties Lie •
It's the classic man-bites-dog story; a Leftist artist suffered a career setback because of
his statements on social media. The person in question is Guardians of the
Galaxy director James Gunn, who lost his gig directing Disney's next installment in
the film series after independent reporters such as Mike Cernovich highlighted his "jokes"
about the sexual exploitation of children. Senator Ted Cruz, among others, was outraged and
suggested Gunn's comments even bordered on illegality.
Hollywood celebrities are defending Gunn and even demanding that he be rehired [
Chris Pratt
and more break silence after James Gunn fired from 'Guardians of the Galaxy 3 ,' by
Lisa Respers France, CNN, July 23 2018). However, one can't help but notice the same
celebrities defending or telling graphic "jokes" about sexually exploiting children are also
the people who want careers ended for Politically Incorrect comments directed at privileged
classes such as women, homosexuals, or nonwhites [
Note: Hollywood Finds Child Rape Hilarious , by John Nolte, Breitbart, July
22, 2018].
It's not clear why Disney, a company dependent on its appeal to children, would ever employ
someone who thinks horrific crimes are comedic fodder. After all, as Gunn himself once
tweeted:
Yet it isn't just Leftist celebrities who are suddenly eager to defend the sacred right of
free speech when it comes to pedophilia. Shockingly, some Conservativism
Inc. luminaries, particularly those who love to showily brag about their
Christianity and social
conservatism , have chosen this hill to die on as well.
David French, one of the most prominent
Never Trump activists of
the 2016 election, rushed to Gunn's defense, saying:
Similarly, S.E. Cupp, who has a long career as one of CNN's token conservatives , decided this of all
things was something that she couldn't remain silent about. She endorsed French's tweet in
support of Gunn and added:
Yet only two months ago. when mob rule on Twitter decided Roseanne's fate, Cupp gleefully
piled on. Like NR 's French, she faulted ABC for hiring Roseanne in the first
place.
Remember, this is a woman who was an early supporter of birtherism, has compared Muslims
to Nazis, took to Twitter regularly to attack citizens both private and public, floated wild
conspiracy theories and bullied Trump opponents with racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic
insults.
Minicon Ben Shapiro , another
opponent of Trump during the primaries, is also among Gunn defenders. Shapiro acknowledged
Gunn's tweets were "loathsome" but said "that doesn't mean he should have lost his job at
Disney". [ Should
James Gunn have lost his job at Disney ? Daily Wire, July 20, 2018]
Roseanne, however, was different: "Roseanne played herself in the series, so when she made a
new racist reference about Valerie Jarrett, her persona was inseparable from her
character," Shapiro wrote. " Roseanne was Roseanne."
Erick Erickson is another
Never Trumper whose views about respectability have mysteriously changed within two months.
When Roseanne was driven off the air, Erickson self-righteously proclaimed: "Her joke was not
in poor taste. It was racist" [
Roseanne's behavior is not defensible , The Maven, May 30, 2018]. Yet regarding Gunn,
he said:
The last comment is revealing. It's hard to imagine in what ways conservatives are "winning"
-- Trump supporters are regularly attacked on the street and expelled from businesses. Random
white people are humiliated by the Main Stream Media and
fired
from their jobs
for calling the police. [
BBQ Becky, Permit Patty and why the Internet is shaming white people who police people 'simply
for being black' , Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY, July 18, 2018] Meanwhile, even as the
Democrats become ever more radical, they continue to enjoy all but unanimous support from the
MSM and are leading the polls. Insofar as the American Right has won any major victories in the
recent past, it was President Trump's election -- something Erickson and his Never Trump
co-conspirators fought every step of the way.
Yet the strange connection between Never Trump and defending James Gunn is easily explained.
All of the figures above rely on Leftist media, and the
powerful mafias that dominate it , to grant them fame and legitimacy as "leading" American
conservatives. For that reason, Never Trump conservatives share a common interest with System
media outlets in making sure only certain people have access to a mass audience -- certainly
not independents like Mike Cernovich [
How Pizzagate Pusher Mike Cernovich Keeps Getting People Fired , by Luke O'Brien,
Huffington Post, July 21, 2018].
For ideological and ethnic reasons, Never Trumpers are desperate to purge the American Right
of any authentic populist and nationalist tendencies that can't be controlled from the top
down. Their power relies on their audience remaining corralled within a certain ideological
space and not hearing dissident ideas such as the biological reality of race or the political
insanity of expecting nonwhites to vote for "limited government." These Beltway Right hacks
have a positive interest in making sure that websites and platform outside Conservatism Inc.,
although equally or more critical of supposed common enemies on the Left, are marginalized and
stripped of resources.
Thus, Cupp, French, Shapiro, Erickson et. al will always be far more eager to purge the
Conservative movement than to combat Leftist control of key cultural institutions. To a Never
Trump conservative dreaming of future bylines in The New York Times and television
appearances on CNN, a far-Left Hollywood degenerate poisoning the minds of America's youth
isn't even a problem, let alone an enemy. The problem for Conservatism Inc. remains Donald
Trump and what he represents -- a fighting American Right, united behind nationalism, and
willing to do what it takes to win power.
After all, the point of that fighting Right is not to get a sinecure in the enemy's System.
The point is to destroy it entirely.
This documentary caused an uproar in Russia when it appeared in April of 2016.
This film was made by the main Russian government news broadcasting company, Rossiya 1.
It alleges that Bill Browder, the legendary American hedge fund manager who from 1995 - 2005
was the largest foreign investor in Russia, controlling billions of $ and a significant share
of Russia's leading companies, was in fact a CIA front.
At one point his funds owned 7% of Gazprom, using what the film argues were illegal schemes
to acquire shares
The film argues that Browder's whole involvement with Russia was a CIA operation to disrupt
Russia politically and economically
It alleges that in 2006, Browder was instructed by the CIA to provide financial support to the
rising opposition politician, Alexei Navalny, and that the two then closely cooperated for the
next 5 years.
As evidence, the film cites hacked CIA email and skype correspondence which it claims fell
into Russian hands during the government upheaval in Kiev in 2014.
When the film appeared, Browder and Navalny charged that the evidence was faked, and Navalny
sued Rossiya 1 for libel. As of the translation of this video, (July 2016), the suit has not
been concluded.
Browder was expelled from Russia in 2006, after which he led a highly successful public
campaign criticizing Russia and Putin. The film argues that the campaign was financed by the
CIA.
The campaign demanded sanctions against Russia for what Browder alleged was the murder of
one of his employees, Sergei Magnitsky, and theft from his companies, by corrupt Russian
officials.
His campaign resulted in the famous "Magnitsky Act" sanctions against Russia, passed by
Congress in 2012.
The film alleges that this cynically misrepresents the facts. It alleges that Magnitsky
ended up in jail for carrying out major fraud for Browder, and that he was on the verge of
testifying against Browder when he died. It cites the hacked CIA mail as evidence that the CIA
managed to orchestrate Magnitsky's death in prison.
The film argues that the only people with a motive for Magnitsky's death were Browder and
the CIA, because his testimony about the tax fraud would have been devastating.
The film includes embarrassing details of tax avoidance schemes used by Browder and
Magnitsky, including hiring barely literate invalids in remote corners of Russia as fake
executives in order to receive tax breaks amounting to 100s of millions of $.
The film then alleges, again citing the hacked CIA correspondence, that in 2010 Browder paid
Navalny $300,000 to conduct a PR campaign in Russia in support of the Magnitsky Act.
This documentary was never aired separately, rather appeared as a segment within the April
13, 2016 episode of the popular Russian political talk show "Spetsialnii Korrespondent"
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAkt...
The episode consisted of an emotional 1.5 hour discussion of the film, with several people
who appeared in the film present https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37GZ3...
(only in Russian)
Of the 10-plus guests, all but one, an American journalist, argued heatedly that Browder had
clearly committed gross financial crimes and agreed with the film.
The comment leading into the beginning of the film is typical of the tone of the talk show,
where the Deputy Chairman of Russia's parliament compares Browder to an "intestinal
tapeworm".
At the conclusion of the film, the talk show guests discussed the film for a further 1.5
hours. About half of the guests were also featured in the film, and they were able to go into
much more detail about their knowledge of the Browder case.
The discussion became very emotional, with some guests shouting about what they alleged are
Browder's crimes.
In April 2016, the head of Russia's powerful Investigative Committee instructed his
subordinates to examine the potential " complicity " of U.S.-born British businessman William
Browder -- once Russia's largest portfolio investor -- in the "murder" of his former employee,
Sergei Magnitsky.
It was a bizarre twist in the saga of Magnitsky, whose 2009 death in a Moscow jail resulted
in a 2012 U.S. law bearing his name that slaps sanctions on Russians deemed to be human rights
abusers. Browder vigorously lobbied for the law, arguing that Magnitsky was tortured and denied
medical treatment for blowing the whistle on a massive tax fraud allegedly involving Russian
law enforcement and tax officials.
Russia, which says Magnitsky's death was a tragedy but denies allegations that he was abused
while in custody, has undertaken an aggressive, multipronged effort in recent years aimed at
discrediting Browder and the narrative underpinning the U.S. Magnitsky Act.
The law was said to be at the
center of a meeting between a Russian lawyer, Donald Trump Jr., and other confidants of
U.S. President Donald Trump at a controversial meeting in New York in June 2016.
Investigative Committee chief Aleksander Bastrykin's call last year to probe allegations of
Browder's possible role in Magnitsky's death was explicitly linked to a documentary on Russian
state TV that alleged a byzantine conspiracy between Browder, British intelligence, and Russian
opposition leader Aleksei Navalny.
But for 18 months, it was unclear if this probe had gone anywhere.
According to an October
22 report by The New York Times, however, Russian authorities are indeed pursuing a
possible murder charge against Browder -- and citing evidence that parrots widely mocked claims
presented in the documentary broadcast on Rossia-1 television a day prior to the Investigative
Committee's announcement.
Citing documents obtained from a court docket by a lawyer for Magnitsky's family, the Times
reported that Russian prosecutors allege Browder colluded with a representative of Britain's
MI6 to convince doctors to withhold medical care to "cause the death of S.L. Magnitsky" while
he was in custody.
RFE/RL reached out to Browder, who said he was not immediately able to provide a copy of the
documents in question.
Prosecutors, according to the Times report, also cite alleged intercepts of intelligence
communications and suggest the goal of the purported plot was to start "a significant news
trigger to discredit" Russia.
They also cite claims made in the Rossia-1 documentary, including that Browder was in
cahoots with Navalny in a purported secret operation titled "Quake" -- with Browder supposedly
using the code name "Solomon" and Navalny using the moniker "Freedom."
Clumsy Fakes
The documentary featured scans of alleged secret U.S. and British documents concerning
Browder, Navalny, and Magnitsky that were widely ridiculed as crude fakes based on their clumsy
syntax and grammatical mistakes -- including improper use of English indefinite and definite
articles that often stymie native Russian speakers.
The claims by Russian prosecutors, as reported by the Times, echo one alleged CIA document
from 2009 shown in the Rossia-1 program with the awkward subject line: "Report on the health
status of a Sergei Magnitsky."
The document purports that Browder ("Agent Solomon") "was offered by proxies in the Russian
Federal Penitentiary Service to arrange the termination of any medical services for
Magnitsky...which could lead to his death."
That document is signed by "V. Plame" -- an apparent reference to former CIA covert officer
Valerie Plame, who was exposed by officials in the administration of President Georgia W. Bush
after her husband criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Plame on Twitter called the document, purportedly from 2009, " such nonsense " and noted that
she left the CIA in 2007.
The Russian Investigative Committee did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment on The New
York Times report, and officials there could not immediately be reached by telephone.
The report was published just days after Canada on October 19 passed its version of the
Magnitsky Act, a move that Russian President Vladimir Putin called " unconstructive
political games ."
Browder U.S. Travel Blocked?
Browder, meanwhile, is claiming that Russia has placed him on an Interpol list, and that his
U.S. "global entry status" -- which can expedite entry to the
United States -- has been revoked by U.S. officials, The Guardian reported.
Interpol has previously refused to place the investor, whom Russia convicted in absentia on
tax-evasion charges in 2013, on an international wanted list at Moscow's request.
The Guardian reported over the weekend that
Russia had used a loophole allowing governments to place individuals on the Interpol
database unilaterally.
A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in an e-mailed statement that
Browder's visa waiver had been "manually approved" on October 18, though Browder told the
Associated Press that he had been informed by U.S. authorities of his rejection on October
19.
Browder said on Twitter late on October 23 that his waiver had been " restored " and that he has
"successfully checked into a U.S. flight."
It took place in New York on Feb 3, 2015, when marshals from the U.S. District Court in
Manhattan tried to serve him a subpoena to give evidence as part of the only trial thus far on
US soil proceeding from the Magnitsky Act. (The details of that case can be found
here .) The reason for Mr. Browder's nervous behavior is obvious: his arguments served only
political aims and were intended for cases in which the verdict is known from the beginning.
But none of his claims could stand up to scrutiny by any experienced lawyer once real business
interests were at stake, and this is exactly what happened with Mark Cymrot from BakerHostetler
during Browder's court deposition on Apr 15,
2015.
Returning to Perepelichny, we have to acknowledge that he was a key witness who could
potentially destroy the high-political-stakes scam being conducted with the Magnitsky dossier.
As Browder was responding with " I do not recall " and " I do not know " to
any real question asked him in court, the US judiciary system might have been very interested
in hearing from Perepelichny. This menace to the Magnitsky Act was eliminated one week before
the bill passed the US House: on Nov. 10, 2012 Alexander Perepelichny was found dead outside
his mansion in London. The police investigation did not yield any tangible results, but the
theory of "Russian mafia" involvement was
implanted in the international media at the proper time. One month later the Magnitsky Act
was signed by President Obama
"... When some Washington (politician) was asked why he opposed Trump - He is not part of the Security establishment. "Security establishment" = insider ..."
The common conclusion of my two encounters with Bill Browder was that his intensity and the time he was devoting
now to putting in place anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behavior of a top level
international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play.
One of the clear missions of Russian state television in 2016, the year of elections to the State Duma has been to
discredit Alexei Navalny, the long established blogger, wily critic of the Kremlin and leader of the new
generation 'non-systemic' opposition by exposing him as a fraud in the pay of Russia's Western rivals and
ill-wishers.
Several weeks ago Russian state television broadcast hidden camera recordings of Navalny's first meeting with Carl Bildt, former Swedish premier and foreign minister, best known in this part of the world for leading the Eastern Partnership program aimed at removing former Soviet republics, notably Ukraine, from the Russian sphere of influence.
A
screen shot from the documentary, with what is allegedly a conversation between Browder and Navalny
This past Sunday, the
Vesti nedeli
program, a prime time Sunday evening wrap-up of the week's news
presented by the senior journalist and manager of Russia's informational broadcasting resources, Dmitry Kiselyov,
showed excerpts from a documentary film about Navalny and his mentor, or handler, William F. Browder. (Video
below - in Russian only)
The film, entitled "The Browder Effect," was assembled by the channel's investigative reporter and presenter in his
own right, Yevgeni Popov. The full version of "The Browder Effect" will be aired on Wednesday evening, 13 April on
Russia's flagship network, Pervyi Kanal. However, from the lengthy segments shown on Sunday it is possible to draw
some conclusions about the sensational material it sets out.
Both Vesti 24 and Pervyi Kanal are Russian language stations directed at the domestic audience.
From the standpoint of their management, whatever is sensational about the film has to do with the way it
conclusively details Navalny's recruitment by Bill Browder in 2007 for a program run by Britain's Secret Intelligence
Service, also known as Military Intelligence (MI6), intended to destabilize the Russian government. Navalny came to
the attention of MI6 because Browder determined he was "the most suitable candidate for future political leader"
given his creativity, new media mastery and speaking skills on politics, law and economics.
We then follow Navalny's progress as a foreign-paid trouble-maker engaged in standing up for minority shareholders and exposing corruption in major Russian, partly state-owned companies, meaning that he was busily attacking Vladimir Putin's direct appointees. We are told Navalny was next a useful aid to U.S. authorities in compiling a list of high Russian judicial and penal administrative officials for inclusion in the Magnitsky List on the basis of their alleged involvement in the torture and murder in detention of Browder's erstwhile accountant, Sergei Magnitsky. One document from 2010 indicates Navalny received large sums of money, at one point a $300,000 payment, from his overseas handlers to apply his skills with social media and disseminate a positive spin on American sanctions to Russia's liberals and creative classes. The objective was to undermine popular trust in the courts.
The last documents involving Navalny shown on the Vesti nedeli
program Sunday date from just before
the State Duma elections on 4 December 2011, which were followed by massive street demonstrations against what was
called electoral fraud perpetrated by the ruling party. Notwithstanding the advice from his mentor, Browder, to
stick with his economic warfare on Russian big business and stay out of politics, this was the point when Navalny
went on to emerge as a key leader in the new generation of forces opposed to the Kremlin.
For Western observers, there is nothing sensational in the exposé of Navalny as a paid agent of British intelligence operating under the code name "Freedom." He is a remote personality, has been denounced by some in the West as a Russian nationalist and he is at liberty, not a prisoner of conscience. The truly sensational nature of Yevgeny Popov's film lies elsewhere, in its material on Browder. If Navalny was recruited by Browder, then Popov was obliged to show how it was that the billionaire co-founder and owner of Hermitage Capital, which was at one point the largest foreign portfolio investment company in Russia, could be an agent, code named "Solomon," in the MI6 documents presented on screen.
To answer this question, the film flashes back to 1995, and a Memorandum for the Chief of Secret Intelligence dated 12 July describing the attraction of Browder for his new bosses:
"he is an important figure in
integration of financial structures into the Russian economy. [He] has extensive contacts with [sic] international
banking community and has [sic] wide range of relations with representatives of business communities in the UK,
the USA, Europe, China and India."
This was about the time when Browder was making a transition from highly paid employee heading up the section of private investing in Russia at Salomon Brothers (hence the coy code name, a corruption of Salomon) to setting up his own investment company with seed capital from the elderly Syrian-Jewish-Brazilian banker and entrepreneur Edmond Safra. It was also the time when Browder, a US citizen became a British subject.
And so that we may understand why such talents and contacts could be useful to British (and by extension to American) intelligence, a further flashback to 28 August 1986 shows us a CIA document entitled "Change the Constitutional and Political System in Eastern Europe and the USSR" signed by the agency director Wiliam Casey. Among the specific actions within the scope of this program would be "getting control over financial flows and removing assets from the economies of developed countries."
The narrator explains that even more than 25 years after the disappearance of the USSR, this CIA policy, known as "The Quake" (Drozh', in Russian) remains in effect.
Not content with proving that a billionaire investment fund owner could also be an MI6 operative, the film's producer also saw fit to demolish via documentary proof the entire Browder story about the reasons for his being declared persona non grata in Russia in 2006 as a threat to national security and about the persecution of his loyal retainer Magnitsky at the hands of rapacious Moscow officials plundering the remains of his company.
It emerges from a memorandum to the Director of Central intelligence written on CIA letterhead and dated 20 September 2009 that Browder had discussed with MI6 the deteriorating health of Magnitsky in detention and that he was involved in plans to have the penitentiary service arrange the termination of medical services. The report went on to say that this 'medical error' could lead to Magnitsky's death.
A follow-on interview with one political analyst explains that Browder was the only one who could profit from Magnitsky's demise. We are told his former protégé was about to start talking to prosecution against his employers. Then his death provided the material for the cause célčbre that Browder would ride to nation-wide prominence in the USA and in Europe with the eventual passage of the sanctions on Russia he promoted as the just punishment for corrupt and murderous officials of the Putin regime.
Thus, the collateral damage resulting from Yevgeni Popov's exposé amounts to a devastating attack on the political situation in the United States, where the CIA is shown to have been complicit in setting up the case used to move the American political mood and legislation in a harshly anti-Russian direction via the Magnitsky Act sanctions. Here is a smoking gun of great potential importance for those who care about who is actually controlling the US government if not our elected leaders.
Part of the documentary rests on expert testimony of Russian political analysts. Part rests on skype texts and on telephone conversations intercepted by the Russian intelligence agencies. But the most important material, including the aforementioned 'smoking gun' come from documents in a cache prepared by Kremlin-nemesis Boris Berezovsky in London as he tried to negotiate with Vladimir Putin a possible return to his motherland that would land him in good graces and not in a prison cell.
One sequence in the documentary introduces us to Sergei Sokolov, the former chief of security for Berezovsky who, at his boss's instructions, hid copies of this cache of documents in several locations and eventually brought a set with him to Moscow, where we may assume Russian intelligence officers pored over them. Sokolov is not a new face to viewers of Russian state television. Several months ago he was shown in a documentary examining the death of Berezovsky in one of his London properties. The cache of documents was mentioned then but not described.
This peculiar provenance of the documents means that they should have been subjected to special scrutiny by Mr. Popov's team before presentation to the general public. Considering the possible impact of the content of these documents on US-Russian relations, such caution would be doubly recommended. Regrettably, that appears not to have been the case.
In the information war that has been ongoing and escalating to fever pitch ever since Vladimir Putin made his famous accusatory speech directed against the United States at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, I have examined closely a succession of key documents produced by the American side and its close allies and discovered patent fraud and forgeries.
In
my essay on the article "Containing Russia"
signed but not written by Yulia Tymoshenko and published in
Foreign Affairs magazine in the spring of 2007, I demonstrated how textual analysis could turn up inconsistencies
that give the lie to official attribution.
The same essay pointed out the fraud perpetrated by the German Marshall Fund in the summer of 2008 when it commissioned an open letter denouncing Barack Obama's recently launched policy of re-set which was distributed to and published by The New York Times and other mainstream media as a cri de coeur from Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and other Cold War heroes in the struggle against Soviet domination.
Still another essay of mine devoted to the launch of the EU's Eastern Partnership Program at a summit in Prague in May 2009 pointed to the American spelling used in the Southern Corridor papers presented in the concurrent summit on the New Silk Road for energy. While interference by MS Word spellcheck cannot be totally eliminated as an explanation, the greater likelihood was that these ostensibly European documents on a new, anti-Russian energy policy were written in Washington, D.C. See my book Stepping Out of Line, pp. 315 ff.
It is with this background of interest in textual analysis that I have approached the documents presented by the film "The Browder Effect" and at once serious questions arose. In one or two documents, my reservations are at the level of tell-tale signs of Russian speakers' intervention: namely absence of or poor control over the use of articles. In the one memo where this occurs most, it could be just telegraphic style, but it stands out and differs from the other texts. Another document has one specifically Russian turn of speech. More generally, it is disconcerting that memorandums from the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the one memorandum on CIA letterhead are formatted identically. The most recent document, from MI6, the "Report on performing duties under special operation 'Magnitsky list'" is dated 'Jan 23, 2010,' American style; it has the American spelling of "program" and British punctuation. Such mongrel style does not usually exist in nature.
It is impossible to say what is the source of the problems cited. One possibility is that the documents, which are said to have come from the US embassy in London, were copied out by hand and mistakes were made in the transcription. Then they were retyped in a single style. Another possibility is that they are forgeries, pure and simple.
Having called attention to these issues, I hasten to add that the content of the documents as they concern Bill Browder ring true to my understanding of his possible role in the entire Magnitsky case. I say this on the basis of my personal reading of Browder during his two visits to Brussels in 2013 when I saw him and his road show exhibits up close.
In his first visit, at a public seminar on Russian political prisoners held in the European Parliament building on 5 June 2013, Browder brought a collection of spiteful witnesses intent on blackening the reputation of Vladimir Putin and his 'regime.' The seminar, which was sponsored by the neo-Liberal ALDE faction in the Parliament, was scheduled to take place one day after the publication of an Address to Foreign and Interior Ministers of the EU signed by 47 European Parliamentarians pressing on the EU executive the adoption of a law similar to the so-called Magnitsky Act.
Notwithstanding the various particular messages and particular concerns of the diverse panel, united only in its opposition to the Putin regime, the event was called to promote such a Magnitsky bill and those on the podium spoke in unison in its favor, disseminating the (manifestly false) idea that the bill enjoyed broad support within Russia and was only opposed by the regime itself. The entire proceedings were video recorded, presumably for future use in the halls of power by the event's sponsors.
At that event, Browder spoke very little. His task as master of ceremonies was to introduce his assembled witnesses. These included Mikhail Kasyanov, former prime minister and leader of the Parnas Party, together with Boris Nemtsov, the allied party to ALDE in the Russian Federation. A tearful speech was delivered by Pavel Khodorkovsky, son of the then still imprisoned oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. But perhaps the most passionate speech was by the iconic freedom fighter Ludmila Alexeeva, former leading personality in the Moscow Helsinki Group. In her mid-80s but still very active, Alexeeva likened the environment in Russia to 1937, year of the Great Purge.
I wrote up my impressions of Browder's second visit to Brussels that year,
in a November essay
. On that occasion, which was nominally to present a book he financed promoting a Magnitsky
Act for Europe at the Brussels Press Club, Browder once again presented assorted witnesses, including the
particularly odious Vladimir Kara Murza, an unrestrained propagandist against the Putin regime and fellow-traveler
of the Parnas group. What was most revealing was the Q&A session in which Browder dropped his genial mask and
spoke openly about the need to punish by sanctions the million thieves and murderers who run Russia. His stated
objective was regime change.
The common conclusion of my two encounters with Bill Browder was that his intensity and the time he was devoting now to putting in place anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behavior of a top level international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play. But at the time, Browder was enjoying vast popularity in the USA, was not doing badly in Europe and no one could stand up and suggest the man was a fraud, an operative of the intelligence agencies.
Whatever the final verdict may be on the documents presented by the film "The Browder Effect," it raises questions about Browder that should have been asked years ago in mainstream Western media if journalists were paying attention. Yevgeni Popov deserves credit for highlighting those questions, even if his documents demand further investigation before we come to definitive answers.
The author is the European Coordinator of The American Committee for East West Accord Ltd. His most recent
book, "Does Russia Have a Future", was published in August 2015.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
I never liked Browder. His background reminds me too much of Armand Hammer (named after Arm &
Hammer). He had relatives that were jailed in the US as Stalin-era NKVD spies. He renounced his US
citizenship in part, for what the US did to them and the persecution of his father. The apple never
falls far from the tree. Another Berezovsky-type.
After what has happened in Ukraine, regardless of this programme; the Parnas party are going
nowhere, this just adds to the commonly held negative views of people like Navalny and his liberal
gang
Apart from preparing the ground for destabilizing Russia from within, the US is already planning
other Ukraine-like destabilisation of Latvia, in order to further promote a further escalation
of the NATO-Russian relationship up to the moment they want to enforce a Russian response to
violence against the Latvian Russian minority with the use of tactile nuclear weapons which
would then allow a full war-response by NATO. The want to incite a rebellion of that minority,
to which the Latvian government, after first attempts to reconcile, is pressed by Poles and
Ukrainians to react toughly, so that step for step the situation becomes worse – up to the
moment of physical violence against the Russian minority which then would provoke a Russian
reaction for their support.
The plan was figured out by a thinktank for a US-conference
entitled "Rethinking Amageddon – Planning Scenarios for the Second Nuclear Age" on the 12th
February 2016.
According to the plans, worked out their by US-thinktanks, they have sketched their an
elaborate path to a full scale war in scripts available in the net.
While they know that unwilling and (in their eyes) too compromising and de-escalting EU
countries like Germany, Italy, Austria, the Chechs and the Greeks, could be an obstacle, they
have as well started various taskforce for the "information warfare". One which is directed to
make Europe's population swallow the idea of NATO airstrikes against Russia held a conference in
Novermber 2015 in Essen, Germany. Their strategic report can as well be found in the internet.
It shows the direction of NATO propaganda and the determination to abuse all our media for that
purpose:
It's all quite obvious, they do not even hide it. They are so damn sure that the public might
be distracted to the degree of complete disregard to all these plans – although they are
publicly available.
What can we do to prevent their scenario of a full scale Amageddon of Europe?
with all due consideration to potential and likely inevitable LOSSES ..
the RUSSIANS - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM - no matter how remotely russian MUST BEGIN PREPARATIONS TO LEAVE -- and start transferring assets, however that goes n the
procedures...
i am talking about REAL ''PICK UP AND START LIFE" AGAIN..it is going to be a painful
process and they will have to sacrifice much of what they have established for generations in
the baltics...IT SHOULD ALSO be noted that the DUMA is about to approve the 1 hectare free ,
no tax for ''every russian citizen and foreigner that wants to establish in Russia for any
business or personal reasons -- EXCEPT to sell to foreigners" anyway.. And at least whatever
the limitations of that -- they DO have something to ''go home to" ..
a dacha, a new house, to build on free land, something...
RATHER THAN WAIT for their possessions to be confiscated, burned, and their lives
miserable BECAUSE they are russian in latvia, and baltics as will SURELY COME because they
are going to be used as ''BAIT" BY NATO/USA BALTICS to provoke russia.
but it is ALSO CLEAR that WORSE will come unless they already do it now. it is better that
whatever 'losses" they have to make for picking up - houses to sell, even at lower prices,
etc...are NOTHING COMPARED to if the USA/NATO/BALTICS
EVENTUALLY will provoke something like what happened in UKRAINE. AND BY LEAVING THEY
REMOVE A VERY, VERY LARGE part of national assets with them TO their true homeland in russia.
and at least -- literally -- BE SAFE.
IT HAS come to that point and the lessons of Ukraine, etc...have already shown they are
RUNNING OUT OF TME and can not rely on HOPE that things will be better and the worst can be
avoided. NOT AT ALL - THE USA ANGLO-AMERICAN regme changers through the baltics are INTENT on
creating a 'vietnam" RIGHT IN THAT AREA.
AND THE RUSSIAN ETHNICS better make their preparations now . bank accounts,
etc...businesses to liquidate -- invest again in russia, simply MAKE their chilldren
understand the critical importance that their very LIVES are at stake FOR BEING RUSSIANS.
AND it partly removes the EXCUSE by the USA/NATO/BALTICS. ''the russians left -- all of them" WHERE IS THIS RUSSIAN EXPANSION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? "IF you cross even an inch of russian borders -- your shps SINK, PERIOD".
it HAS TO be that kind of ''red line" now. as the LUNATICS OF the west and baltcs can't
and WON'T stop their lunacy. it is really time for KREMLIN RUSSIA - FORTRESS russia to make
the decisions without further delay , imo. and it has to now include the russian ethnics - they MUST FLEE - just like CRIMEA AND EAST
UKRAINE HAVE DONE -- FROM WESTERN FASCISTS that are impending in descending upon them.
- Apart from preparing the ground for destabilizing Russia from within, the US is already
planning
I haven't gone through the sources yet. But are you telling the sources tells "US"
wants to destabilize Russia, and also start a WW? US is a superpower in decline -> US has
more important problems to worry about
US think tank - does not have to mean the client is US
A Russian think tank may be pro-Putin or anti-Putin. In last case that is not a "Russian"
think tank, more an Oligarch think tank
The US either wants to topple an independent Russian government or to go step for step up
a pre-planned escalation ladder. The fictitious scenario in the script, composed by a
thinktank for that conference, shows something like a chess arrangement: We will make move
x1, then they either will have to surrender or they will go step y1. Secondly we make move
x2, then they will either have to.... and so on.
In this scenario (which really names
the dates of the described chain of events, supposed to start next year) they really think
through any use of the weapons they have at their disposal.
And a second aspect becomes obvious: They are determined never to allow any of their
"allies" turning out to be a possible game-changer. They take into consideration that they
may always use Poland and Lithuania for the next step of escalation, if it's convenient,
and the German government to slow things down, if they need it. But that any other country
could persuade them to alter any of their steps or even the general course is definitely
outruled.
Nuclear war is not at all a no-go for the US, while I am absolutely sure that the
Russians would only make use of it under the inescapble threat of physical extinction -
following the clear message: "If you decide, we have to die, we won't go alone."
This is as well Ron Paul's view, that of Clinton's defense secretary William Perry and
Andre Damon's interpretation of John Kerry's current message to Japan.
Your source (1) is Washington DC / Pentagon related
http://csbaonline.org/publi...
We may equal that with Hillary in US. Your source (2) "FutureWorld Fundation"
My source (1) is from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. The persons
who sign responsible are all US congressmen. They have as well produced the script I
have linked (even if the link was as well given on the sites of Future World.)
Wikipedia says about the CSB:
"The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent,
non-profit, Washington, D.C.-based think tank specializing in US defense policy,
force planning, and budgets. It is headed by Andrew Krepinevich, a West Point
graduate. According to its website, CSBA's mission is "to promote innovative
thinking and debate about national security strategy, defense planning and military
investment options [and] to enable policymakers to make informed decisions in
matters of strategy, security policy and resource allocation."[1] CSBA emphasizes
initiatives the United States and its allies can take to wisely invest in the
future, even during periods of fiscal austerity and uncertainty. CSBA evaluates its
policy proposals through the net assessment methodology, wargaming, and by estimated
impact on the Department of Defense budget over multiple Future Years Defense
Programs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
How can you claim it has nothing to do with the US-administration?
the destabilizing of Russia project goes apace, even accelerating - it is what the USA
has to do in order to preserve its primacy - that's the whole point. it knows it is a
vicious rabid dog cornered in its exposed brutality so now -- it is lashing out in all
directions -- it's an all-out war, . that has actually been going from the USA FOR A LONG
TIME NOW. it can't help itself -- it's what the USA IS AND DOES.
Not very plausible, as Navalny spend time int he USA in YYale, so if he was recruted it is
probably during his stay in the USA, but connection of Bill Browder and MI6 is plausible
According to MI6 and CIA internal documents, Alexei Navalny had been recruited to work for
MI6 by UK hedge fund manager Bill Browder. His task is to carry out operation "Quake" which
aims to undermine the existing constitutional order of the Russian Federation. He is being paid
handsomely for his services via the Moscow Helsinki Group (MHG) human rights organisation.
Russia has claimed Magnitsky died of natural causes and, in a new twist, is now accusing
Browder of colluding with a British spy in 2009 "to cause the death of S. L. Magnitsky by
persuading Russian prison doctors to withhold care," according
to The New York Times .
"... We know year by year what's going to happen, and they know that we know. It's only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger - this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don't know how to get through to you anymore. ..."
Putin railed against the journalists for their "tall tales" in blindly repeating lies and
misinformation provided to them by the United States on its anti-ballistic missile systems
being constructed in Eastern Europe. He pointed out that since the Iran nuclear deal, the claim
the system is to protect against Iranian missiles has been exposed as a lie.
The journalists were informed that within a few years, Russia predicted the US would be able
to extend the range of the system to 1000 km. At that point, Russia's nuclear potential, and
thus the nuclear balance between the US and Russia, would be placed in jeopardy.
Putin completely lost patience with the journalists, berating them for lazily helping to
accelerate a nuclear confrontation by repeating US propaganda. He virtually pleaded with the
western media, for the sake of the world, to change their line:
We know year by year what's going to happen, and they know that we know. It's only you
that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your
countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger - this is what
worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible
direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don't know how to get through to
you anymore.
Does anyone in the reeking garbage heap that is mainstream western media have a conscience?
Do they even have enough intellect to get what Putin is saying - that they are helping to push
the planet towards World War III?
"... Marc Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C., firm, to conduct the research. Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS' research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day. ..."
"... well developed conspiracy of cooperation ..."
The revelations following the release last Saturday of the FISA application, requires an update to a piece I wrote last December
on the so-called Steele Dossier. I am going to focus on those reports that were generated by Christopher Steele prior to the submission
of the first FISA application. The key thing you should be asking is whether or not the information was verified. (I would encourage
you to read Andy
McCarthy's outstanding review of this matter .) The FBI had a duty and an obligation to only use VERIFIED information in the
application. The FBI failed to do so.
There now is no doubt that FBI and DOJ officials collaborated with the Intelligence Community, which was led by Jim Clapper at
the time, in misleading members of Congress and feeding the media about alleged collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and the
Russians. With the publication of the FISA applications, we now know for certain that the FISA judges were informed that a significant
source of the evidence claiming that Carter Page was a Russian agent came from information gathered by a former British intelligence
officer who had by hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign. How those judges could acquiesce to such blatant partisan bullshit is grist
for another day.
There also is no dispute that the Clinton campaign, using intermediaries, hired a foreign intelligence operative to target Donald
Trump. The
Washington Post reported in October 2016 that:
Marc Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C., firm, to conduct
the research. Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and
the U.S. intelligence community.
Elias and his law firm, Seattle-based Perkins Coie , retained the firm in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the
DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS' research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS' research through the end of October 2016,
days before Election Day.
The partisan effort to take out Trump spilled over into the Department of Justice.
Nellie Ohr, the wife of a senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr , had worked for the CIA and was working with Fusion GPS on Russian matters
related to Trump at the same time as Steele. We learned from Peter Strzok in recent testimony before the House that Bruce Ohr gave
the Steele dossier to the FBI. Which is very odd given the fact that Strzok swore under oath in the FISA warrant application that
Steele gave the report to the FBI. Nothing was said of Ohr in that application.
The dossier was created for one purpose--portray Donald Trump as a collaborator of the Russians and Vladimir Putin. I am sure
you have heard some claim that the dossier has been validated as "true." That is a lie. You do not have to rely on my opinion. Instead,
I am going to take you through the 17 reports chronologically, you can read for yourself and see the most egregious errors and disinformation
with your own eyes.
Let's start with a broad overview. There are 17 reports that comprise the dossier. Report 2016/86 carries the date "26 July 2016."
I believe that is a mistake. The author of the report should have written June instead of July. Report 2016/95 does not have a date,
but was produced between 19 July and 30 July:
2016/80--20 June 2016 -- US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP'S ACTIVITIES IN RUSSIA AND COMPROMISING RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE KREMLIN
2016/86--26 July 2015 (sic)-- RUSSIA/CYBER CRIME: A SYNOPSIS OF RUSSIAN STATE SPONSORED AND OTHER CYBER OFFENSIVE (CRIMINAL) OPERATIONS
2016/94--19 July 2016 -- RUSSIA: SECRET KREMLIN MEETINGS ATTENDED BY TRUMP ADVISOR, CARTER PAGE IN MOSCOW
2016/95--(UNDATED) -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FURTHER INDICATIONS OF EXTENSIVE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN TEAM
AND THE KREMLIN
2016/97--30 July 2016 -- RUSSIA-US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: KREMLIN CONCERN THAT POLITICAL FALLOUT FROM DNC E-MAIL HACKING AFFAIR
SPIRALLING OUT OF CONTROL
2016/100--5 August 2016 -- RUSSIA/USA: GROWING BACKLASH IN KREMLIN TO DNC HACKING AND TRUMP SUPPORT OPERATIONS
2016/101--10 August 2016 -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: SENIOR KREMLIN FIGURE OUTLlNES EVOLVING RUSSIAN TACTICS IN PRO-TRUMP,
ANTI-CLINTON OPERATION
2016/102--10 August 2016 -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: REACTION IN TRUMP CAMP TO RECENT NEGATIVE PUBLICITY ABOUT RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE AND LIKELY RESULTING TACTICS GOING FORWARD
2016/105--22 AUGUST 2016 -- RUSSIA/UKRAINE: THE DEMISE OF TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER PAUL MANAFORT
2016/111--14 September 2016 -- RUSSIA/ US: KREMLIN FALLOUT FROM MEDIA EXPOSURE OF MOSCOW'S INTERFERENCE IN THE US PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN
2016/112--14 September 2016 -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: KREMLIN-ALPHA GROUP COOPERATION
2016/113--14 September 2016 -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE TRUMP'S PRIOR ACTIVITIES IN ST PETERSBURG
2016/130--12 October 2016 -- RUSSIA: KREMLIN ASSESSMENT OF TRUMP AND RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
2016/134--18 October 2016 -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FURTHER DETAILS OF KREMLIN LIAISON WITH TRUMP CAMPAIGN
2016/135--19 October 2016-- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF TRUMP LAWYER, COHEN IN CAMPAIGN'S SECRET LIAISON
WITH THE KREMLIN
2016/136--19 October 2016 --US/RUSSIA: FURTHER DETAILS OF SECRET DIALOGUE BETWEEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN TEAM, KREMLIN AND ASSOCIATED
HACKERS IN PRAGUE
2016/166--13 December 2016 -- US/RUSSIA: FURTHER DETAILS OF SECRET DIALOGUE BETWEEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN TEAM, KREMLIN AND ASSOCIATED
HACKERS IN PRAGUE
Now for the details:
Let us start at the beginning. The first report is a deliberate blockbuster. It clearly was intended to provide the foundation
for constructing the lie that Trump was under the control of Vladimir Putin. How could you read this report without being both shocked
and alarmed?
2016/80--20 June 2016 -- US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP'S ACTIVITIES IN RUSSIA AND COMPROMISING RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE KREMLIN
Source A a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure,
Source B a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin,
Source C senior Russian financial official,
Source D a close associate of TRUMP who had organized and managed his recent trips to Moscow,
Source E (unknown),
Source F Female staffer at the Ritz,
Source "8" (sic),
Source G a senior Kremlin official
Summary
Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to
encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.
So far TRUMP has declined various sweetener real estate business deals offered him in Russia in order to further the Kremlin's
cultivation of him. However he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his
Democratic and other political rivals
Former top Russian intelligence officer claims FSB has compromised TRUMP through his activities in Moscow sufficiently to be able
to blackmail him. According to several knowledgeable sources, his conduct in Moscow has included perverted sexual acts which have
been arranged/monitored by the FSB
A dossier of compromising material on Hillary CLINTON has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many years and
mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls rather than any embarrassing
conduct. The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN's orders. However it has not as yet been distributed
abroad, including to TRUMP. Russian intentions for its deployment still unclear
I would like you to look at the substance of the report like an intel analyst would. You should start by asking key questions--does
the information ring true? Do the sources have the access they claim? Next, you look for corroborating evidence. Are there other
reports that have made similar claims? Finally, you subject
The first scent of bullshit comes from the assertion that Moscow had been cultivating and assisting Trump for five years. Unless
a clandestine means of communication was established between Trump and the Russians, there should have been some open communication
(i.e., emails or phone calls) that would provided corroborating evidence of such a courtship. Given Trump's proclivity to say almost
anything that enters his brain, I find it difficult to believe that such a relationship could have been in place and he would have
said nothing about it. I have yet to hear anyone describe Donald Trump as "tight lipped."
How about assistance? Are there any unexplained sources of income flowing into Trump's coffers since 2011? That would be easy
for a law enforcement agency to investigate and for an intelligence organization to corroborate.
We also are being asked to believe that the Russians were so prescient that they knew that Trump would be the Republican candidate
for President years before he decided to run. Do the Russians really have that kind of predictive ability (or ability to manipulate
the future)? If so, they should have foresaw the break up of the Soviet Union? But they did not.
Another curiosity--multiple sources in this report claim the Kremlin was giving Trump and his team "valuable intelligence" on
his opponents for SEVERAL YEARS. How can you pass intel on opponents that do not yet exist? That is the kind of question a serious
analyst should ask when confronted with these audacious claims.
Then we have the compromising material claim. Multiple sources insist Donald Trump is a sexual pervert who got his jollies from
"golden showers" with hookers at a non-Trump hotel. This first report also introduces the claim that there is compromising video
of Donald Trump with hookers and urine. But nothing juicy on Hillary. Just tapes of her conversations (probably discussing weddings
and yoga).
How is the ostensible Russian plan to blackmail Trump working out for Putin (assuming it exists)? Instead of forcing Trump to
drop sanctions he is adding to them. Instead of ending U.S. military exercises along Russia's border, he is pressing on. Those facts
strongly suggest that the Russians are either the most inept blackmailers in the world or that no such material exists.
The second report provided by Steele breaks no new ground. It simply feeds the meme of Russian hacking:
2016/86--26 July 2015 (sic) -- RUSSIA/CYBER CRIME: A SYNOPSIS OF RUSSIAN STATE SPONSORED AND OTHER CYBER OFFENSIVE (CRIMINAL)
OPERATIONS
Source A former senior intelligence officer,
Source B a Russian IT specialist with direct knowledge
Russia has extensive programme of state-sponsored offensive cyber operations . External targets include foreign governments and
big corporations, especially banks. FSB leads on cyber within Russian apparatus. Limited success in attacking top foreign targets
like G7 governments, security services and !Fis but much more on second tier ones through IT back doors, using corporate and other
visitors to Russia
FSB often uses coercion and blackmail to recruit most capable cyber operatives in Russia into its state-sponsored programmes.
Problems however for Russian authorities themselves in countering local hackers and cyber criminals, operating outside state control.
This report could have been written by Captain Obvious and titled, No Shit Analysis. It provides no information not already in
the public record. But it does conveniently shows up about a month after Wikileaks unleashed leaked/hacked emails from the DNC. Hillary
and her team were quick to blame the Russians (claiming the FBI told them so). Odd. The FBI did not have access to the computers
or servers of the DNC. Yet, somehow, they were able to conduct a quickie investigation and conclude that it was Russia.
The third report is the most important of the 17 because it provides alleged intel directly linking a Trump advisor to Russian
intelligence operations:
2016/94--19 July 2016 -- RUSSIA: SECRET KREMLIN MEETINGS ATTENDED BY TRUMP ADVISOR, CARTER PAGE IN MOSCOW
(1) A Russian source close to Rosneft President Igor SECHIN,
(2) An official close to Presidential Administration Head S. IVANOV
TRUMP advisor Carter PAGE holds secret meetings in Moscow with SECHIN and senior Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN
SECHIN raises issues of future bilateral US-Russia energy co-operation and associated lifting of western sanctions against Russia
over Ukraine. PAGE non-committal in response
DIVEYKIN discusses release of Russian dossier of 'kompromat' on TRUMP's opponent, Hillary CLINTON, but also hints at Kremlin possession
of such material on TRUMP
The bullshit alarms should have been blaring at full volume with this report because Carter Page is described as a "Foreign Affairs
Advisor" to Trump. If you are an FBI agent your very first action, upon getting this kind of report, is to verify Page's status with
the Trump campaign. Just basic fact checking would have revealed that Carter Page had never met with Donald Trump and was not someone
regularly asked for advice that was passed on to the Presidential candidate. He was not someone who had Donald Trump's phone number
and never had any personal conversations with the candidate.
This report is a classic example of creating the illusion of guilt by declaring relationships that are unverified. A classic case
of disinformation in a covert action campaign in my view.
The fourth report in the dossier tries to put a stake in the heart of the Trump campaign and "prove" that Trump and Putin are
doing everything but exchanging bodily fluids. The report is undated but, given the report number, i.e. 2016/95, it was delivered
between 19 and 30 July 2016. To someone not accustomed to reading intelligence, the alleged facts in this are alarming:
2016/95--(UNDATED) -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FURTHER INDICATIONS OF EXTENSIVE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN TEAM
AND THE KREMLIN
Source E an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP
Further evidence of extensive conspiracy between TRUMP's campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving
Russian diplomatic staff based in the US
TRUMP associate admits Kremlin behind recent appearance of DNC e mails on WikiLeaks, as means of maintaining plausible deniability
Agreed exchange of information established in both directions . TRUMP's team using moles within DNC and hackers in the US
as well as outside in Russia. PUTIN motivated by fear and hatred of Hillary CLINTON.
Russians receiving intel from TRUMP's team on Russian oligarchs and their families in US.
Mechanism for transmitting this intelligence involves "pension" disbursements to Russian emigres living in US as cover, using
consular officials in New York, DC and Miami
Suggestion from source close to TRUMP and MANAFORT that Republican campaign team happy to have Russia as media bogeyman to
mask more extensive corrupt business ties to China and other emerging countries.
The report kicks off by claiming that Paul Manafort was coordinating a " well developed conspiracy of cooperation " with
the Russians (no indication who on the Russian side) and was using Carter Page as his gofer. It was known within the Trump campaign
that Carter Page's main contact was the chubby, jovial Sam Clovis. Sam Clovis was not a buddy of Paul Manafort and there was no evidence
of any prior contact or relationship between Manafort and Page. How in the world does someone like Manafort run a Russian conspiracy
by relying on someone he does not know? The absurdity of this claim would have crinkled the nose of a competent FBI agent.
The report then insists that the DNC hack and dump to Wikileaks was a Russian operation carried out with the full knowledge of
the Trump campaign:
In return the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense
commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine, a priority for PUTIN who needed to cauterise
the subject.
Manafort only started as
an advisor at the end of March 2016. He did not become Campaign Chairman until 19 May 2016. Yet, magically, he is able to suddenly
start conspiring with the Russians on behalf of Trump. It does not require a big leap in logic to believe that linking Manafort to
the DNC leaks was a deliberate ploy to suggest that Manafort became the Chair of Trump's campaign at the direction of his Russian
handlers.
This report also introduces the Trump's policy views on the Ukraine as the principal motive driving Russia's alleged manipulation
of the campaign:
[the] TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense commitments
in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine, a priority for PUTIN who needed to cauterise the subject.
In case you forgot, Josh Rogin of the Washington Post published a piece on 18 July 2016 accusing the Trump campaign of trying
to sell out traditional
Republican policy on the Ukraine :
The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won't call for giving weapons to
Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.
Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led
intervention. Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort,
worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.
I do not believe in coincidence. And it is no coincidence that Steele's late July report comes right on the heels of the Rogin
article and is designed to paint Trump as carrying out the foreign policy of Vladimir Putin. If you plant multiple stories on the
same topic you can disingenuously claim that you are reporting a fact based on multiple sources when you are the one who created
the "fact."
The final curiosity in this report is the backhanded acknowledgement that Trump was never corrupted financially by the Russians.
The explanation? He was too busy banging Russian hookers. If you are a competent law enforcement or intelligence officer and you
have an informant feeding you this kind of salacious material you would demand some sort of corroborating evidence. None provided
in the Steele dossier.
The fifth report tries to paint the picture of the Russians acting like a cad who has awoken in bed after a night of debauchery
with a naked, ugly girl:
2016/97--30 July 2016 -- RUSSIA-US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: KREMLIN CONCERN THAT POLITICAL FALLOUT FROM DNC E-MAIL HACKING AFFAIR
SPIRALLING OUT OF CONTROL
SOURCE: (1) A Russian emigre figure close to the Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP's campaign team,
Kremlin concerned that political fallout from DNC e-mail hacking operation is spiralling out of control. Extreme nervousness among
TRUMP's associates as result of negative media attention/accusations
Russians meanwhile keen to cool situation and maintain 'plausible deniability' of existing /ongoing pro-TRUMP and anti-CLINTON
operations. Therefore unlikely to be any ratcheting up offensive plays in immediate future
Source close to TRUMP campaign however confirms regular exchange with Kremlin has existed for at least 8 years, including intelligence
fed back to Russia on oligarchs' activities in US
Russians apparently have promised not to use 'kompromat' they hold on TRUMP as leverage, given high levels of voluntary co-operation
forthcoming from his team
This report is provided at the end of July and introduces the new alleged fact that Trump has been working for Russian intelligence
since 2008. What??!! How and why would the Russians recruit Trump in 2008? Ostensibly because he was in close contact with Russian
oligarchs who had fled Russia and was now willing to rat them out. Dropping this nuclear bomb of a fact in the middle of this report
should have provoked some intense questioning by the FBI agents when they got their hands on the dossier.
We know, thanks to the classified material leaked by Edward Snowden, that the U.S. intelligence community has/had in its archives
phone calls and emails from U.S. citizens. This would include Donald Trump. If this report was true then it would have been pretty
easy to corroborate contacts between the Russians and the Trump people starting in 2008. The failure to find any corroborating evidence
of such a relationship with the Russians is prima facia evidence that this dossier is a total fraud.
It is important to understand that the material in the Steele dossier was being provided to the Clinton campaign. Glen Simpson
was not sitting on this information. The Clinton campaign received it. Understanding this point let's take a quick look at the press
coverage towards the end of July to see if any of the themes identified by Steele were surfacing in the public.
Here is a sampling of articles from major media outlets:
When all of the major media is pushing the same story line one must realize, especially if you are a super sleuth like Peter Strzok
or James Comey, that political ax grinding is going on in a very prominent way.
The sixth report claims that the Russians are having more morning after regrets. For a bunch of stone cold killers this report
makes the Russian operatives appear like a group of nervous old ladies.
2016/100--5 August 2016 -- RUSSIA/USA: GROWING BACKLASH IN KREMLIN TO DNC HACKING AND TRUMP SUPPORT OPERATIONS
SOURCE : (1) Two well-placed and established Kremlin sources,
(2) a second source, close to premier Dmitriy MEDVEDEV
Head of PA IVANOV laments Russian intervention in US presidential election and black PR against CLINTON and the DNC. Vows not
to supply intelligence to Kremlin PR operatives again. Advocates now sitting tight and denying everything
Presidential spokesman PESKOV the main protagonist in Kremlin campaign to aid TRUMP and damage CLINTON . He is now scared and
fears being made scapegoat by leadership for backlash in US. Problem compounded by his botched intervention in recent Turkish crisis
Premier MEDVEDEV's office furious over DNC hacking and associated anti-Russian publicity. Want good relations with US and ability
to travel there. Refusing to support or help cover up after PESKOV
Talk now in Kremlin of TRUMP withdrawing from presidential race altogether, but this still largely wishful thinking by more liberal
elements in Moscow
We now enter bat-shit crazy territory. This report claims that the mastermind of the hacking of the DNC is none other the Vladimir
Putin's press spokesman, Dimitri Peskov. What? Put yourself in the position of the FBI people who are reading this crap for the first
time. You want to believe that these are reliable sources. But you are now confronted with the claim that Vladimir Putin's version
of Sarah Huckabee Sanders was the one who cooked up and executed the hack of the DNC. Who within the U.S. intel community would vouch
for such an insane claim? I doubt there are many who would sign on to such absurdity. But Peter Strzok and Jim Comey did. They affirmed
to the judge that Steele was providing verified information.
The seventh report is a mess of contradictory "facts" and bizarre claims. For example, the Russians were going to focus on spreading
"rumors and misinformation" about the DNC emails. How does one spread rumors and misinformation about actual documents that are posted
on line and can be read by anyone with an internet connection?
2016/101--10 August 2016 -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: SENIOR KREMLIN FIGURE OUTLlNES EVOLVING RUSSIAN TACTICS IN PRO-TRUMP,
ANTI-CLINTON OPERATION
SOURCES: (1) An official close to Presidential Administration Head S. IVANOV,
(2) a Kremlin official involved in US relations
Head of PA, IVANOV assesses Kremlin intervention in US presidential election and outlines leadership thinking on operational way
forward
No new leaks envisaged, as too politically risky, but rather further exploitation of (WikiLeaks) material already disseminated
to exacerbate divisions
Educated US youth to be targeted as protest (against CLINTON) and swing vote in attempt to turn them over to TRUMP
Russian leadership, including PUTIN, celebrating perceived success to date in splitting US hawks and elite
Kremlin engaging with several high profile US players, including STEIN, PAGE and (former DIA Director Michael Flynn), and funding
their recent visits to Moscow
This report comes off like the scribblings of a failed Hollywood script writer. Got to have a villain. Enter, stage right, Boris
the Russian. And how do Russians force feeble, weak-minded foreigners to heel? Kompromat, i.e., you black mail them. The Russian's
had three goals in their operation:
asking sympathetic US actors how Moscow could help them; gathering relevant intelligence; and creating and disseminating compromising
information ('kompromat').
This had involved the Kremlin supporting various US political figures, including funding indirectly their recent visits to Moscow.
S/he named a delegation from Lyndon LAROUCHE; presidential candidate Jill STEIN of the Green Party; TRUMP foreign policy adviser
Carter PAGE; and former DIA Director Michael Flynn, in this regard and as successful in terms of perceived outcomes.
Do you remember all of the compromising information that was disseminated by against Stein, Page and Flynn? Neither do I. But
it must be true because it was written in a report provided by a former British intelligence officer.
Report number eight claims to have all sorts of insider information on the Trump campaign. But there is no direct Russian connection.
Nope, just an "insider" who was an ethnic Russian.
2016/102--10 August 2016 -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: REACTION IN TRUMP CAMP TO RECENT NEGATIVE PUBLICITY ABOUT RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE AND LIKELY RESULTING TACTICS GOING FORWARD
SOURCES: an ethnic Russian associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP
TRUMP campaign insider reports recent DNC e-maiI leaks were aimed at switching SANDERS (protest) voters away from CLINTON and
over to TRUMP
Admits Republican campaign underestimated resulting negative reaction from US liberals, elite and media and forced to change course
as result
Need now to turn tables on CLINTON'S use of PUTIN as bogeyman in election, although some resentment at Russian president's perceived
attempt to undermine USG and system over and above swinging presidential election
I do not know if Christopher Steele was shooting for highbrow humor, but his decision to present the following as a juicy piece
of intel is guffaw worthy. The ethnic Russian buddy of Trump's:
assessed that the problem was that the TRUMP campaign had underestimated the strength of the negative reaction from liberals and
especially the conservative elite to Russian interference. This was forcing a rethink and a likely change of tactics. The main objective
in the short term was to check Democratic candidate Hillary CLINTON's successful exploitation of the PUTIN as bogeyman/Russian interference
story to tarnish TRUMP and bolster her own (patriotic) credentials.
What person who was even vaguely following the 2016 Presidential campaign would want to claim that Trump underestimated the negative
reaction from liberals and the conservatives establishment? What campaign was this alleged source watching? Trump was being besieged
in the press, as noted above, as a tool or stooge of Russia.
The ninth report directly contradicts the fourth report in the Steele dossier. One of these sources reporting to Steele was a
liar and/or fabricator. Remember that the report--2016/95--identified Paul Manafort as the mastermind/coordinator in chief with the
Russians of project Make Trump Putin's Puppet. That was then. Now, less than a month later, Manafort is out and the Russians are
worried about his historical ties to former Ukrainian President Yanukovych (who was ousted in a non-violent coup in February 2014).
If the Russians really were running a broad conspiracy with the cooperation of Trump and the knowledge of Paul Manafort one would
think that Putin and company would be worried about many other things than how much ill gotten gain Manafort may have stuffed into
foreign banks.
2016/105--22 AUGUST 201 6-- RUSSIA/UKRAINE: THE DEMISE OF TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER PAUL MANAFORT
SOURCES : (1) a well-placed Russian figure,
(2) an American political figure associated with Donald TRUMP
Ex-Ukrainian President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorised kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged in
western media. Assures Russian President however there is no documentary evidence/trail
PUTIN and Russian leadership remain worried however and sceptical that YANUKOVYCH has fully covered the traces of these payments
to TRUMP's former campaign manager
Close associate of TRUMP explains reasoning behind MANAFORT's recent resignation. Ukraine revelations played part but others wanted
MANAFORT out for various reasons, especially LEWANDOWSKI who remains influential
The closing paragraph of this so-called intel report is pathetic in both its content and contradiction. It was not the Ukraine
revelations that forced Manafort out. Nope. Corey Lewandowski did not like him and Corey was a big buddy of Trump. But wait. I thought
Trump had been in the pocket of the Russians for at least five years or eight years and that Manafort, per Steele's report, was the
manager of a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation" between Putin and Trump. This kind of astonishing contradiction demands an
explanation. Report nine actually undermines the collusion claim.
The tenth report in the Steele dossier is a real head scratcher and should have given Peter Strzok and James Comey pause in considering
the sources reliable and informed. It starts with the claim that Vladimir Putin was really worried about the negative fallout from
recent news reports that Russia was intervening in the election in favor of Donald Trump. Negative fallout? Let's look first at the
salient points from this report:
2016/111--14 September 2016 -- RUSSIA/ US: KREMLIN FALLOUT FROM MEDIA EXPOSURE OF MOSCOW'S INTERFERENCE IN THE US PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN
SOURCES: (1) a senior member of the Russian Presidential Administration, (2 a senior Russian MFA official)
Kremlin orders senior staff to remain silent in media and private on allegations of Russian interference in US presidential campaign
Senior figure however confirms gist of allegations and reports IVANOV
Sacked as Head of Administration on account of giving PUTIN poor advice on issue. VAINO selected as his replacement partly because
he was not involved in pro-TRUMP, anti-CLINTON operation/s
Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e -mails) and considering disseminating it after Duma (legislative elections)
in late September. Presidential spokesman PESKOV continues to lead on this
However, equally important is Kremlin objective to shift policy consensus favourably to Russia in US post-OBAMA whoever wins.
Both presidential candidates' opposition to TPP and TTIP viewed as a result in this respect
Senior Russian diplomat withdrawn from Washington embassy on account of potential exposure in US presidential election operation/s
Got it? Putin was worried that Russia's hidden hand would be discovered so he ordered everyone to clam up. Got to keep that negative
press at bay. And what kind of negative fallout was there in the press in the weeks preceding the 14th of September? Let's start
in late August and see if there was an avalanche of negativity:
Report ten really creates a factual train wreck when it comes to pushing the meme of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.
Paragraph two of the report is confounding if you were part of the camp pushing the theory that this Russian meddling was part of
an elaborate, comprehensive intelligence effort. Nope. There are different factions in the Kremlin the guy running the press department
is winning out over the Russian Ambassador to Washington and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Whatever happened to having a cyber
intelligence operation run out of the GRU? That is what we are told now. But in this laughable piece of tripe pushed by Christopher
Steele and gobbled up by ignorant FBI officials, the lead player in the Putin circle was his press spokesman.
One can argue that the Russians are a lot of things. But being total morons, as is suggested in report ten, is not part of their
modus operandi. If the Russians were going to carry out a cyber op to disrupt our election then they would sit down and conduct a
thorough, comprehensive risk/reward analysis. That is not the picture Christopher Steele is painting. He is like the guy that wrote
the worst Hollywood script ever.
The eleventh report in the dossier is not worth your time. It is a throw away. I hope you are sitting down. We learn that Vladimir
Putin has relationships and conversations with wealthy businessmen. Shocker.
2016/112--14 Septembe 2016 -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: KREMLIN-ALPHA GROUP COOPERATION
SOURCES: (1) a top level Russian government official
Top level Russian official confirms current closeness of Alpha Group PUTIN relationship. Significant favours continue to be done
in both directions and FRIDMAN and AVEN still giving informal advice to PUTIN, especially on the US
Key intermediary in PUTIN-Alpha relationship identified as Oleg GOVORUN, currently Head of a Presidential Administration department
but throughout the 1990s, the Alpha executive who delivered illicit cash directly to PUTIN
PUTIN personally unbothered about Alpha's current lack of investment in Russia but under pressure from colleagues over this and
able to exploit it as lever over Alpha interlocutors
Number twelve is the last report that Peter Strzok and James Comey could have seen before signing off on the FISA application.
We start where we began--unsubstantiated reports of sexual perversion and bribery on the part of Donald Trump. Only this time, it
is in St. Petersburg, not Moscow.
2016/113--14 September 2016 -- RUSSIA/US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE TRUMP'S PRIOR ACTIVITIES IN ST PETERSBURG
SOURCES: (1) a political/business elite and
(2) someone involved in the local services and tourist industry
Two knowledgeable St Petersburg sources claim Republican candidate TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there
but key witnesses silenced and evidence hard to obtain
Both believe Azeri business associate of TRUMP, Araz AGALAROV will know the details
Here is the key morsel of this report:
The local business/political elite figure reported that TRUMP had paid bribes there to further his interests but very discreetly
and only through affiliated companies, making it very hard to prove. The local services industry source reported that TRUMP had participated
in sex parties in the city too, but that all direct witnesses to this recently had been "silenced" i.e. bribed or coerced to disappear.
Claims of illegal activity without any witnesses or evidence. And the FBI accepted this crap as reliable and verifiable.
I apologize for being so pedantic, but I think it is vital that the American people actually read the source material and apply
their own common sense. There was nothing in any of the first 12 reports that comprise the Steele dossier that compelled the FBI
to lie to a Federal judge. The FBI, as explained in detail by Andy McCarthy (see my first paragraph), were obliged to present facts
they had reason to believe were true and could be corroborated. But that was not the case. Strzok and Comey lied. There must be an
accounting.
Thanks for your excellent analysis once again and your continued focus on the conspiracy by our law enforcement and intelligence
agencies to influence the last presidential election and to frame a POTUS.
Some of us have speculated for some time that the Steele dossier was bogus and the extent of obstruction by Rosenstein and,Wray
as well as the unhinged behavior of Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Yates point to some serious cover up. The conspirators did what
they did as they had the cloak of "state secrets" and they expected to be rewarded for their nefarious activities by the incoming
president Hillary Clinton. Their plans got way laid by voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and, Wisconsin - the supposed Blue Wall.
Peter Strzok was correct in his text message that there was no there, there as it related to collusion. Comey used his information
operation and got Rosenstein to appoint his buddy Mueller to continue obfuscating the conspiracy and to keep it rolling.
The sad part is that the probability that Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Yates will ever have to testify to a grand jury is very
low. As the IG report documents with the Hillary exoneration, rule of law does not exist in our nation's capital.
For the sake of our country, I hope and pray there's accountability eventually.
This is the first time I've read the actual text of the Steele Dossier. I'm struck by its failure to provide any verification
whatsoever. It's unbelievable, literally. Are FISA warrant applications submitted during hearings wherein verbal verification
is permitted and accepted? If so, are transcripts of the hearings created? I don't want to believe something like this dossier
alone is sufficient to allow such extensive surveillance of US citizens, but so far I've neither read nor heard of anything that
bolsters the case against Carter Page. In fact, his continued freedom from indictment seems to refute the dossier's claims about
him.
I had to chuckle when I read the bit that Putin feared Hillary Clinton. Was the contractor trying to flatter the client?
Comey was just on the NPR humor show "Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me". Yucking it up with the apparatchiks of the ruling class. Time
to stop supporting public radio.
"If the Russians were going to carry out a cyber op to disrupt our election then they would sit down and conduct a thorough, comprehensive
risk/reward analysis."
This is what I've been saying since Day One of the DNC "hack" story. There's no way the Russians would do this in the manner
alleged because the risk would be greater than anything they could EXPECT to find in DNC emails. Russia was ALREADY being blamed
for everything except Hollywood hair styles. ANYTHING they did against the US would be a cause célčbre. If they decided to go
ahead and hack the DNC for background intelligence (which wouldn't surprise me) - even without expecting to find anything usable
against Clinton - they would have done it in a manner decidedly different from the stupid way the alleged "Guccifer 2.0" behaved
and the US would never have discovered it.
That is, by the way, what the bit in the Steele Dossier about how the Russians hire all manner of criminal hackers to do their
dirty work is supposed to cover up - the sloppiest of the alleged "hack." This is not to say that Russian criminal hackers never
pass or do work for Russian intelligence. But there is no way Russian intelligence would use them to hack a highly sensitive target
like the DNC (despite TTG's fantasy that the DNC was NOT a sensitive target.)
The fact that the Steele reports even list all the alleged "panic" that the Russian government engaged in after the blowup
over the DNC hacking only gives more evidence for the probability that they would never have done it. Even Steele recognized the
implausibility and had to account for it in his bogus story line.
I just listened to RT's Crosstalk discussing the Maria Buttina story. It was pointed out that the plausibility of one 29-year-old
"gun nut" and ANTI-Putin conservative having the ability to in any way "influence" relations between the US and Russia over the
efforts of the Congress, the intelligence community, the media, and the US political parties is so absurd as to be incomprehensible.
The same applies to the famous Facebook ads and just about everything else involved in Russiagate. There was absolutely NO
CHANCE that Russia would have ANY SIGNIFICANT influence on the US election by ANY of these means, in comparison to the efforts
of the real parties I list above.
And the Russians would have KNOWN this. They KNOW that the US is not some Third World country, or some Baltic State, or some
dysfunctional Eastern European satrapy that could be influenced by millions of US dollars, US-funded NGOs, and CIA covert ops.
If you step back and use common sense, the whole story is absurd on its face.
Does Russian use influence operations? Do they meddle in elections? Of course. But they use them in limited ways in limited
countries for limited objectives. They don't use them to "undermine US democracy" which is completely impossible for them.
The problem with the Buttina case, as the Crosstalk panelists pointed out, is that it appears the intent of indicting her is
to try to link her to the Trump campaign in some way, shape or form, so the Trump opposition can claim they've finally found a
"real Russian" that they can hang their "collusion" story on, and thus seek Impeachment. This is why you see these bogus stories
about her being pictured near Trump in some photos, and why she is alleged to have had contacts with a given "Political Party
1."
Sadly, it's very likely that they will get away with this.
The Washington establishment came to their own conclusions about Russia and NATO --
but this is what they missed.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump during the recent
summit in Helsinki. (Office of the Russian Presisdent/Kremin.ru) Sifting through the cacophony
of commentary from the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, here are four key points missed,
ignored or glossed over by the Washington establishment and mainstream news coverage -- and
they require a good airing.
They are:
It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But
Big Media totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so
much on NATO in the first place?
Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we really think the former Soviet Empire
will invade Poland or the Baltic nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to intervene
in the Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media, for all their
noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is no debate about the reasons why.
Meanwhile
Russia is cutting its military spending.
Washington is so dominated by our military-industrial-congressional complex that spending
money is a major intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an
anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian
attack? Of course, it was really directed against Russia. Washington was so eager to spend the
money that it didn't even ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly for
their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 million on the
site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay billions to the Raytheon
Corporation for the shield to comply with their commitment to increase military spending to 2
percent of gross national product.
There was no focus on the real, growing threat of
nuclear war, intentional or accidental. No one, including journalists at the joint press
conference, spoke about the collapsing missile treaties (the only one who reportedly seemed
keen to discuss it was ejected beforehand).
Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC .
The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes which allow for a surprise attack on
Russia with only a few minutes of warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an hour
or more. This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, because
they could have little warning if cruise missiles were fired from the new bases. Americans may
think that we don't start wars, but the Russians don't. The old shill argument that democracies
don't start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.
For
all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin, he gave
Putin nothing. His administration is still maintaining an increasingly stringent economic
attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his meeting)
$200 million of new aid to Ukraine's military and threatening Europeans with sanctions if
they go ahead with a new Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some
analysts believe that
Putin has given up on wanting better relations with the U.S. and instead is just trying to
weaken and discredit America's overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand Paul
writes how we never think
about other nations' interests.TAC argues we should
"Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia, "
showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it's good for business.
Furthermore, releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump's
blood is explained away by pointing out that the special prosecutor has separate authority to
that of the president. But the timing, a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows
intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia. It's interesting to
note that TAC has been criticizing the "Deep
State" since at least 2015.
The casualness with which much of Washington regards conflict and starting wars is only
comparable to the thoughtlessness of Europeans when they started World War I. Like now, that
war followed nearly a century of relative peace and prosperity. Both sides thought a war would
be "easy" and over quickly and were engulfed in it because of minor incidents instigated by
their small nation allies. It was started with a single assassination in Serbia. The situation
is similar now. America is hostage to the actions of a host of tiny countries possibly starting
a war. Think of our NATO obligations and promises to Taiwan and Israel.
America has become inured to the risks of escalation and Congress has ceded its war powers
to the president. The authority of war power was one of the most important tenets of our
Constitution, designed to prevent our rulers from irresponsibly launching conflicts like the
European kings. Witness now how casually Trump talks about starting a war with Iran, with no
thought of possible consequences, including blowing up oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, oil
and gas vital for the world economy.
For most Americans, war means sitting in front of their TVs watching the bombs fall on small
nations unable to resist or respond to our power. "We" kill thousands of "them" in easy battles
and then worry if a single American soldier is harmed. We don't viscerally understand the full
threat of modern weapons because they've never been used against us. This is not unlike World
War I, for which the countries engaged were wholly unprepared for a protracted siege war
against the lethality of new modern artillery and chemical weapons. All had assumed the war
would be over in weeks. I wrote about these issues after visiting the battlefields of the
Crimean war. (See " Lessons in
Empire")
And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.
Mr. Utley is the publisher of The American Conservative 15 Responses to What
Everyone Seemed to Ignore in Helsinki
"And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended
consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are
thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington."
Careful with such cavalier use of the truth. Someone is sure to point out Vlad said just
the same, which means according to D.C. war profiteer sponsored consensus we should do
exactly the opposite.
Lovely article. One aspect of going to war for conquest over and over, is that it leads to
moral deterioration. Defensive wars aren't that bad. I am not sure why we haven't seen any
articles on TAC about this aspect -- is it that it's not a popular idea?
"1) It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO."
No, they are not. Defense budgets are increasing -- very different, and it was happening
already before Trump's tweets came along.
"2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or
accidental."
How do you know, since Trump hasn't told anyone what was discussed in Helsinki?
"3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin,
he gave Putin nothing."
Trump abased himself before Putin. That's not nothing. And who knows what else he gave Putin
behind closed doors. One must assume a lot since Trump is not out bragging about
particulars.
"4) The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last
election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the "Deep State" in
dominating American foreign policy."
Trump personally approved the release of that intelligence.
The myth that NATO has kept Europe at peace since WWII (except for the Balkan war) is still
alive and well. But really, it was the fear of nuclear weapons that kept the peace.
It is the risk of war vs. the hidden agenda of trying to break Russia a second time.
The people who want to break Russia a second time really do believe that Russia is weak and
unwilling to risk war under any circumstances. So they want to expand NATO, get into another
arms race and wait for Russia to go bankrupt again. Rinse repeat China.
If we expand NATO, pull out of INF and even START, we can build missile bases near Russia's
borders, reduce or eliminate their exports, we can drive their economy into overdrive. But this
requires an information war to make it look like they are the aggressors while we are the ones
implementing this strategy.
By 'we' I mean our entrenched Foreign Policy Establishment that blathers about the 'rules
based world order' while we bomb any country we want whenever we want. Queue up another story
on how they encroached on NATO airspace while flying to their enclave in Kaliningrad, look at a
map, it's impossible not to so so.
Tying it back, they do not believe that there is any risk of war. They are wrong.
"The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last
election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the 'Deep State' in
dominating American foreign policy Releasing the accusations and indictments via a press
already out for Trump's blood a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows intent to
cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia."
To be sure, the 6-4-3 (Mueller to Rosenstein to Mainstream Media) double play appeared at
first to be a real beauty. However, the video replay showed that the pitcher had not yet
pitched the ball to the batter and that the shortstop Mueller, the second baseman Rosenstein,
and the MSM first baseman had carried out their double play with a ball that Mueller had pulled
out of his hip pocket. ("Hip pocket" is a polite euphemism for the proximate area of the
Mueller anatomy from whence the ball was actually pulled.)
The real question is what did Putin give Trump? Nothing, as far as can be seen. Efforts for a
dialogue with Russia are thwarted by Putin's continued occupation of Ukrainian territory, with
its implicit denial of the principle of the sovereign nation-state, which has been the building
block of the European political order since the French Revolution. For Americans, given the
history of the American continent, European nationalism and the nation-state are wholly
incomprehensible concepts but they're very real to us in Europe. Those Americans who promote a
poorly-understood European nationalism in the hope of destroying the EU are promoting the very
war they so piously claim to oppose.
It's clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media
totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on
NATO in the first place?
Why would you top post a commentor who so clearly doesn't understand the details of what
he's discussing?
I mean -- such fundamental misunderstanding of the issues might qualify him to be the
Republican nominee for President (and thanks to the Electoral College, the President) but it is
beneath your editorial standards.
Enough of this "Deep State" nonsense: stop lambasting U.S. Federal law enforcement and
intelligence professionals for calling out Trump's willful ignorance/intentional lies about
Russia's malicious actions. Russian belligerence against the U.S. is a predictable and
manageable problem, but only by a President (e.g., Reagan, Bush 41) who grasps the complexity
of the issue and who can balance targeted confrontation and selective cooperation with Russia.
Trump is inherently incapable of striking that balance, as Putin clearly understands, therefore
U.S.-Russian relations will remain (usefully for Putin) confrontational for the near term.
Why is it up to the media to address the elephant in the room? Shouldn't the media simply
report what happened? Why doesn't Trump address the elephant in the room?
Our grandparents and parents fought the Commies.
GOP throws that away in search of lower taxes and less regulation.
GOP elites belong to the international elite, namely the highest bidder.
Shame.
"The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians' intervention in the last election
just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the 'Deep State' in dominating
American foreign policy"
Others have already pointed out that the facts might not back up that the timing was some
elaborate plot, but even if this was a Derp State conspiracy on full display, it would probably
be proof of the opposite -- this would have not been an indication of influence, control,
domination, but a sign of weakness.
Like all conspiracy theories, "Deep State" implies competence, coordination, capability. Our
problem appears to be that we have too many bureaucracies infighting with each other, and
filled with too many shallow minds. Indeed, one could argue that 9/11 happened precisely
because of this.
That said, the first half of the article makes a compelling case of the foreign policy
aspect of the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria, and the existential threat originating with the
nuclear sector of the war profiteering presidential-congressional-military-industrial complex
-- "We end the world for money!" -- and the Great Gambler faction of the nelibcon biparty --
"We can win nuclear war!".
The other half of the national, collectivized insanity that is "Russia!" is the domestic
fraud: the biggest threat to the integrity of our elections and the functions of our
institutions of government is not Russia, but ourselves.
The semi-organized biparty mob -- the "Derp State" -- that is pushing the "Russia!"
narrative as the Grant Unified Theory of US American Home-Made Failure is systematically
destroying whatever is left of The People's confidence in our processes and institutions --
confidence in our ruling class had to have died before anybody considered voting for Trump --
and soon, we will find ourselves in a nation in which nobody can profess any trust in any
elected representative without being accused of being a traitor or useful idiot.
Putin, for one, could never accomplish that. American Excess: Hamstring your political
opponent? Worth It. Destroy democracy to protect it from The People? Priceless.
I wasn't aware that the U.s. Is finding new niclear-armed cruise missiles that would give
Russia only minutes to respond to an attack, as opposed to a half hour with ICBMs. Russia only
has to recalibrate its fully automated Doomsday Machine to target Warsaw, Berlin, and Cracow
along with U.S. cities, and to shorten the time of response.
We have to ask whether the exponentially greater likelihood of nuclear holocaust by
accident, which is what the U.S. would be bringing about by nuclear-arming cruise missiles,
proves that the Deep State's lust for power is irrational bordering on madness.
From Vimeo site comment section: "Cynthia Buckner, 22 hours ago What a detective story, I watched it two times. This is what
making a documentary is all about, uncovering truth under layers of lies. This is why today's News Media is nothing but "Fake
News".
It's no longer available on Bitchute site. In any case, the two I have downloaded have
been dubbed in Russian. I was hoping to watch it later, but it's going take me awhile to
learn the language.
Amazing story of lies and deceit on the part of Browder seems like. I don't judge people
by the way they look, but just looking and listening to this guy makes me believe he is one
BIG slimey fellow, even without watching the movie.
I'd turn him over to the Russians for questioning. After all, he has nothing to worry
about if he has nothing to hide.
If Zero Hedge commenters represent a part of the US public opinion Clinton neoliberal are in
real trouble. This is real situation when the elite can't goverm as usual
Notable quotes:
"... it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans ..."
"... Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt. ..."
"... For those of you who have not seen this...This has been in the works since April...... https://gosar.house.gov/uploadedfiles/criminal-referral.pdf ..."
"... Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge. ..."
News of the resolution comes after weeks of frustration by Congressional investigators, who
have repeatedly accused Rosenstein and the DOJ of "slow walking" documents related to their
investigations. Lawmakers say they've been given the runaround - while Rosenstein and the rest
of the DOJ have maintained that handing over vital documents would compromise ongoing
investigations.
Not even last week's
heavily redacted release of the FBI's FISA surveillance application on former Trump
campaign Carter Page was enough to dissuade the GOP lawmakers from their efforts to impeach
Rosenstein. In fact, its release may have sealed Rosenstein's fate after it was revealed that
the FISA application and subsequent renewals - at least one of which Rosenstein signed off on ,
relied heavily on the salacious and largely unproven Steele dossier.
In late June, Rosenstein along with FBI Director Christopher Wray clashed with House
Republicans during a fiery hearing over an internal DOJ report criticizing the FBI's handling
of the Hillary Clinton email investigation by special agents who harbored extreme animus
towards Donald Trump while expressing support for Clinton. Republicans on the panel grilled a
defiant Rosenstein on the Trump-Russia investigation which has yet to prove any collusion
between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
"This country is being hurt by it. We are being divided," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said of
Mueller's investigation. "Whatever you got," Gowdy added, " Finish it the hell up because this
country is being torn apart. "
Rosenstein pushed back - dodging responsibility for decisions made by subordinates while
claiming that Mueller was moving "as expeditiously as possible," and insisting that he was "not
trying to hide anything."
" We are not in contempt of this Congress, and we are not going to be in contempt of this
Congress ," Rosenstein told lawmakers.
Congressional GOP were not impressed.
" For over eight months, they have had the opportunity to choose transparency. But they've
instead chosen to withhold information and impede any effort of Congress to conduct
oversight," said Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a sponsor of Thursday's House
resolution who raised the possibility of impeachment this week. " If Rod Rosenstein and the
Department of Justice have nothing to hide, they certainly haven't acted like it. " -
New York Times (6/28/18)
And now, Rosenstein's fate is in the hands of Congress.
I got directed to Meadows Twitter feed earlier and I couldn't believe some of the comments
from the Hilary crowd. Either they actually believe the CNN/MSNBC "Russia did it" bullshit or
they've decided to roll with that narrative regardless of what reality shows because they
think it gives them some kind of leverage if they keep spewing those accusations. Those
people are really sick in the head.
Somewhat. Yes, sometimes cowards need a good swift kick in the ass to get em
going...lol.
But you gotta place yourself into the mind of a bureautocracy kleptocrat like Rosenstein
to discover where his head was at (or whatever bureaucrat, pick any one)...this was "business
as usual"...for EIGHT SOLID YEARS they were able to delay/obstruct Congressional oversight at
will into any number of things, from "recycled hard drives" to "rogue agents" to "smashed
Blackberries" to "Bleachbit" to "illegal servers" to "spontaneous protests in Benghazi" to
"Car Czars" to "the benign tracking of weapons into Mexico" (lol...my personal favorite) et
fucking cetra so...there was no reason whatsoever that Rosenstein would suspect that
oversight would..."change".
See, all of this nation ending angst, hate, ill-will, divide & conquer, the rending of
clothes and gnashing of teeth could have been completely avoided if the People would have
just complied with their betters, the elites, the educated, the non-deplorables and used that
gift of, ahem, "democracy" (lol) that the rich & powerful are so insecure in trusting us
with...none of this would have happened.
There would have been a "historic" coronation of our new Queen Hillary! There were royal
wedding plans even!
And we, the deplorables, the plebes, the low-lifes, had to go and mess up their plans of
sweeping it all under the rug ;-)
Why in the Sam hell do you think they're jawboning this thing to death ..
swmnguy Wed, 07/25/2018 - 19:39 Permalink
"They'll move to impeach Rosenstein just as they voted to repeal ObamaCare 50 times or
however many. And, just like when they got the chance to re-do ObamaCare altogether and had
not the foggiest notion what to do, if they get to impeach Rosenstein they won't have any
idea how to proceed."
This ..
Damned Kabuki, will be answered! With more Kabuki ..
Also a big problem, was his CHOICE to not recuse himself from being involved in appointing
Mueller, when he was heavily involved in the investigations, such as signing a FISA warrant
to spy on Trump campaign staff when there was allegedly (in the FISA warrant) Russian
collusion.
What is the swamp hiding? This latest revelation by Republicans looking into Spygate
offers us some tantalizing clues. In this episode I address the growing efforts by the swamp
to sweep the scandal under the rug.
"Is they don't want to get into who pushed the Information into the Trump Team orbit. And,
the questions surrounding Joseph Mizut. Who was the initiator, I should say, of the
Papadopoulos, "they have dirt on Hillary story."
"If this guy was working for Western Intelligence Agencies, this whole case is going to
explode." "It's already exploding. But it's going to explode at just Nuclear Levels."
"Right?"
"Now they're starting to realize that, that may be a problem too. So, now there's a third
track. The third track Joe, is going to be:
"Verification is not necessary." "They're starting to creep this out there now."
"Remember what I told you about the "Woods Procedure." "The Woods Procedure" is a
procedure in the FBI & DOJ to verify information before it goes in front of the FISA
Court, right?"
"The new line of attack is going to be:
"Well, that's really not necessary. This thorough verification of all the information."
"Why they're going down that track I can't give you a conclusive explanation. I can only tell
you that, my guess here, is that they're realizing that whatever fork they take in the
road."
"Cater Paige who was spied on. With no verified information. Not good. Papadoplolus, who
we Prosecuted despite the fact that a potential "Western Connected Intelligence Asset,"
pushed the information into Papadopoulos. Meaning he was framed. That's not good either."
"They know there's no way out. So what are they going to do? Now, they're going to
push:
"Well, lets go back to Cater Paige. But let's say, "Alright, we may have made a mistake
but Verification is really not necessary. We were really worried he (Carter Paige) was a
terrorist or a spy. So we had to just run with it."
"Folks, they have no where to go."
"Now, how does this tie into the Bryon York piece. Remember, that they're are people up in
the House. Nunes & other folks in these Committees. Don't forget this. They're folks,
Republicans in the House & on the Senate side too who have seen the Declassified,
Unredacted documents about why this whole case stated."
"They've seen that now. They haven't seen all of the DOJ or FBI records. That is where
this fight is brewing. But the FISA application. They have seen most of what's in it. The
redacted copy the one you've seen. Obviously, has blacked out information. Hence, the
redactions. They dropped a hint yesterday. They want disclosed Joe. And, I'm quoting Bryon
York here:
"What is on pages 10-12 & 17-34. of the FISA application."
"He says, this is York:
"That is certainly a tantalizing clue dropped by the House Intel Members. But it's not
clear what is means. Comparing the relevant sections from the initial FISA application in
October & the third renewal in June much appears the same. But in pages 10-12 the date
the Republicans want redacted. Of the third renewal. There's a sightly different
headline:
"The Russian Governments coordinated effort to influence the 2016 Presidential Election."
Plus a footnote seven lines long that was not in the original."
"Folks, the Republicans know something. They have seen these redactions. now, based on
some research. I can't tell you because I have not seen the unredacted copy of the document.
I can only tell you based on research surrounding the case & some Information I've been
working hard to develop. That it may disclose, those footnotes may disclose some connections
for information streams. Again, that were not related to formal Intelligence Channels."
"In other words, the theory from the start that we've been operating on is that this case
was not developed through standard protocol. If you develop Intelligence in a Five Eyes
Country & Intelligence cooperated with the UNITED STATES against Donald Trump. You pass
that information to your domestic Intelligence Agency who passes it Central Intelligence
Agency. They vet the information before it makes it to the Presidents desk."
"That is not the way this case worked. May I suggest to you that the redactions describe
other channels. Other channels of information that developed outside of those standard
channels."
"Are we clear on this? I want to make clear what we're talking about. Standard way to do
this is Intel Agency to Intel Agency. Vet it, vet the information, check the information
before it makes it to the President. The only reason you would go outside of that network
with Intelligence, specifically against a Political Candidate in the UNITED STATES is because
you want to launder the information without vetting it. You want to clean it to make it seen
legitimate."
"We already know, based on Public admissions by State Department Officials on the Obama
Administration that they used The State Department. We already know, that there where people
working for the Clinton Team that met with people on The State Department. May I suggest that
this describes an alternative information channel outside of the standard "modus operandi"
here that is going to expose The whole thing was an information laundering operation. The
Republicans know something here folks."
Woods procedure IS required, it's not optional. And we have the FBI self-admittedly not
adhering to their own procedure. If they had, Steele would have been paid. The FBI stiffed
him.
Further, it's the Judge's responsibility to insure the Prosecutors and Agents followed the
procedure, and additionally that they vetted the sources - not just the informant. The
informant's sources. They were criminally negligent on that point as well. The Judge was no
victim here, the Judge had to be complicit in the conspiracy.
Totally illegal in their own country, so they have another country do it for them. Can it
be prosecuted as Espionage? What about when it's used in Conspiracy to commit Sedition? What
about failure to prosecute a crime of this magnitude, a direct attack on our govt by
FVEY?
What will the punishment be, nothing, be fired for incompetence, that's all. Why are they
being stubborn dicks and not handing over the information because if fucking proves they are
incompetent and gets them fired.
So either way they are fired, they just suck up more inflated salary for longer by holding
off as long as they can and fuck everyone else, fuck the government, fuck Americans, fuck
justice, they will stay there as long as they can sucking up quite a large salary well over
$100,000 per year, plus perks, plus super and we are not talking dicking around for days but
months.
Fired months and months later for not releasing the information versus fired within days
of the information being released. As simple as that and as far as they are concerned fuck
all other US citizens, they will not leave their spot at the trough of corruption until
forced.
Trump hired him but I don't think he's Trump's guy. Although it does seem odd that Rosenstein was part of the plan to indict charges on Russians right before Trump met Putin
since he met Trump earlier that week to discuss those plans. It is all theater, you got that
right, just not sure what the plot is.
Zerohedge readers might want to read this article from
theconservativetreehouse.....Rosenstein and Sessions may be up to more than meets the eye;
i.e., drain the swamp by catching the leakers:
Mule-face is just as conflicted... he applies and interviews for the FBI job, doesn't get it... then takes on an
investigation of Trump??? Bullshiiiiiiiiit!!!! Special Counsel statutes are CLEAR... but Sessions is totally corrupt.
Rosenstein signing off on the FISA documents means he should have recused himself from the
Mueller investigation instead of overseeing it. That's what is going to take him down.
Recuse himself? He violated US Code with improper appointment of Special Counsel. Don't
even think he didn't know. That alone is enough for Malfeasance, Abuse of Office, and a
mistrial for anything Bueller can get in front of a Judge.
True... but WTF is Trump thinking??? He should use this action to FIRE Rosenstein's
traitor's ass NOW. Include the useless Sessions and Wray and, obviously, McCabe and Ohr.
DiGenova for AG, David Clarke for FBI head... Maybe Andy McCarthy for new Special Counsel
to prosecute Hillary and all the rest of the Barry Obongo criminals... especially pigfart
Brennan.
In a conversation with the Financial Times last week, Henry Kissinger made a highly
significant remark about President Donald Trump's attempt to improve the United States'
relations with Russia. The conversation took place in the backdrop of the Helsinki summit on
July 16. Kissinger said: "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from
time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences. It doesn't
necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could
just be an accident."
Kissinger did not elaborate, but the drift of his thought is consistent with opinions he has
voiced in the past – the US' steady loss of influence on global arena, rise of China and
resurgence
of Russia necessitating a new global balance .
As far back as 1972 in a discussion with Richard Nixon on his upcoming trip to China,
signifying the historic opening to Beijing, Kissinger could visualize such a rebalancing
becoming necessary in future. He expressed the view that compared with the Soviets (Russians),
the Chinese were "just as dangerous. In fact, they're more dangerous over a historical period."
Kissinger added, "in 20 years your (Nixon's) successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up
leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese."
Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between
Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need "to play this balance-of-power
game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to
discipline the Russians." But in the future, it would be the other way around.
Of course, Kissinger is not the pioneer of US-Russia-China 'triangular diplomacy'. It is no
secret that in the 1950s, the US did all it could to drive a wedge between Mao Zedong and
Nikita Khrushchev. The accent was on isolating "communist China". Khrushchev's passion for
'peaceful co-existence' following his summit with Dwight Eisenhower in 1959 at Camp David
became a defining moment in Sino-Soviet schism.
But even as Sino-Soviet schism deepened (culminating in the bloody conflict in Ussuri River
in 1969), Nixon reversed the policy of Eisenhower and opened the line to Beijing, prioritizing
the US' global competition with the Soviet Union. The de-classified Cold-War archival materials
show that Washington seriously pondered over the possibility of a wider Sino-Soviet war. One
particular memorandum of the US State Department recounts an incredible moment in Cold War
history – a KGB officer querying about American reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack
on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.
Then there is a memo written for Kissinger's attention by then influential China watcher
Allen S. Whiting warning of the danger of a Soviet attack on China. Clearly, 1969 was a pivotal
year when the US calculus was reset based on estimation that Sino-Soviet tensions provided a
basis for Sino-American rapprochement. It led to the dramatic overture by Nixon and Kissinger
to open secret communications with China through Pakistan and Romania.
Will Putin fall for Trump's bait? Well, it depends. To my mind, there is no question Putin
will see a great opening here for Russia. But it will depend on what's on offer from the US.
Putin's fulsome praise for Trump on North Korean issue and the latter's warm response was a
meaningful exchange at Helsinki, has been a good beginning to underscore Moscow's keenness to
play a broader role in the Asia-Pacific.
Beijing must be watching the 'thaw' at Helsinki with some unease. The Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesperson welcomed the Helsinki summit. But the mainstream assessment by Chinese
analysts is that nothing much is going to happen since the contradictions in the US-Russia
relations are fundamental and Russophobia is all too pervasive within the US establishment.
The government-owned China Daily carried an editorial – Has the meeting
in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? – where it estimates that at best, "
Helsinki summit represents a good beginning for better relations between the US and Russia."
Notably, however, the editorial is pessimistic about any real US-Russia breakthrough, including
on Syria, the topic that Putin singled out as a test case of the efficacy of Russian-American
cooperation.
On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times featured an editorial
giving a stunning analysis of what has prompted Trump to pay such attention ("respect") to
Russia -- China
can learn from Trump's respect for Russia . It concludes that the only conceivable
reason could be that although Russia is not an economic power, it has retained influence on the
global stage due to military power:
Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers
in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's
total, and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is
clearheaded.
On the contrary, if the US is piling pressure on China today, it is because China, although
an economic giant, is still a weak military power. Therefore:
China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role
of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate
China militarily Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear
advantage China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power Not only
should we possess a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know
that China is determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.
Indeed, if the crunch time comes, China will be on its own within the Kissingerian triangle.
And China needs to prepare for such an eventuality. On the other hand, China's surge to create
a vast nuclear arsenal could make a mockery of the grand notions in Moscow and Washington that
they are the only adults in the room in keeping the global strategic balance.
The meaning of a crucial text message between two FBI officials appears to have been finally
explained, and it's not good news for the Russia-gate faithful...
Former FBI attorney Lisa Page has reportedly told a joint committee of the House of
Representatives that when FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok texted her on May 19,
2017 saying there was "no big there there," he meant there was no evidence of collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russia.
It was clearly a bad-luck day for Strzok, when on Friday the 13th this month Page gave her
explanation of the text to the House Judiciary and Oversight/Government Reform Committees and
in effect threw her lover, Strzok, under the bus.
Strzok's apparent admission to Page about there being "no big there there" was
reported on Friday by John Solomon in the Opinion section of The Hill based on multiple
sources who he said were present during Page's closed door interview.
Strzok's text did not come out of the blue. For the previous ten months he and his FBI
subordinates had been trying every-which-way to ferret out some "there" -- preferably a big
"there" -- but had failed miserably. If Solomon's sources are accurate, it is appearing more
and more likely that there was nothing left for them to do but to make it up out of whole
cloth, with the baton then passed to special counsel Robert Mueller.
The "no there there" text came just two days after former FBI Director James Comey succeeded
in getting his friend Mueller appointed to investigate the alleged collusion that Strzok was
all but certain wasn't there.
Strzok during his public testimony earlier this month.
Robert Parry, the late founder and editor of Consortium News whom Solomon described to me
last year as his model for journalistic courage and professionalism, was already able to
discern as early as March 2017 the outlines of what is now Deep State-gate, and, typically, was
the first to dare report on its
implications.
Parry's article, written two and a half months before Strzok texted the self-incriminating
comment to Page on there being "no big there there," is a case study in professional
journalism. His very first sentence entirely anticipated Strzok's text: " The hysteria over
'Russia-gate' continues to grow but at its core there may be no there there ." (Emphasis
added.)
As for "witch-hunts," Bob and others at Consortiumnews.com, who didn't succumb to the
virulent HWHW (Hillary Would Have Won) virus, and refused to slurp the Kool-Aid offered at the
deep Deep State trough, have come close to being burned at the stake -- virtually. Typically,
Bob stuck to his guns: he ran an organ (now vestigial in most Establishment publications) that
sifted through and digested actual evidence and expelled drivel out the other end.
Those of us following the example set by Bob Parry are still taking a lot of incoming fire
-- including from folks on formerly serious -- even progressive -- websites. Nor do we expect a
cease-fire now, even with Page's statement (about which, ten days after her interview, the
Establishment media keep a timorous silence). Far too much is at stake.
As Mark Twain put it, "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been
fooled." And, as we have seen over the past couple of years, that goes in spades for
"Russia-gate." For many of us who have looked into it objectively and written about it
dispassionately, we are aware, that on this issue, we are looked upon as being in sync with
President Donald Trump.
Blind hatred for the man seems to thwart any acknowledgment that he could ever be right
about something -- anything. This brings considerable awkwardness. Chalk it up to the price of
pursuing the truth, no matter what bedfellows you end up with.
Courage at The Hill
Page: Coughs up the meaning of 'there.'
Solomon's article merits a careful read, in toto . Here are the most germane paragraphs:
"It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day [May 19, 2017] was
debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level
of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller's special counsel team. [Page has since left
the FBI.]
"'Who gives a f*ck, one more AD [Assistant Director] like [redacted] or whoever?'" Strzok
wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more
attractive role: 'An investigation leading to impeachment?'
"A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: 'You and I
both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I
hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there.'
"So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative -- as well as
Rosenstein's decision to appoint Mueller -- apparently knew all along that the evidence was
going to lead to 'nothing' and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a
possibility of impeachment."
Solomon adds: "How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your
love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by
the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don't think
occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired
from your job. Is that an FBI you can live with?"
The Timing
As noted, Strzok's text was written two days after Mueller was appointed on May 17, 2017.
The day before, on May 16, The New York Times published a story that Comey leaked to it through
an intermediary that was expressly designed (as Comey admitted
in Congressional testimony three weeks later) to lead to the appointment of a special
prosecutor to investigate collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Hmmmmm.
Had Strzok forgotten to tell his boss that after ten months of his best investigative
efforts -- legal and other -- he could find no "there there"?
Comey's leak, by the way, was about alleged pressure from Trump on Comey to go easy on Gen.
Michael Flynn for lying at an impromptu interrogation led by -- you guessed it -- the
ubiquitous, indispensable Peter Strzok.
In any event, the operation worked like a charm -- at least at first. And -- absent
revelation of the Strzok-Page texts -- it might well have continued to succeed. After Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named Mueller, one of Comey's best buddies, to be special
counsel, Mueller, in turn, picked Strzok to lead the Russia-gate team, until the summer, when
the Department of Justice Inspector General was given the Strzok-Page texts and refused to sit
on them.
A Timeline
Here's a timeline, which might be helpful:
2017
May 16: Comey leak to NY Times to get a special counsel appointed
May 17: Special counsel appointed -- namely, Robert Mueller.
May 19: Strzok confides to girlfriend Page, "No big there there."
July: Mueller appoints Strzok lead FBI Agent on collusion investigation.
August: Mueller removes Strzok after learning of his anti-Trump texts to Page.
Dec. 12: DOJ IG releases some, but by no means all, relevant Strzok-Page texts to Congress
and the media, which first
reports on Strzok's removal in August.
2018
June 14: DOJ IG Report Published.
June 15; Strzok escorted out of FBI Headquarters.
June 21: Attorney General Jeff Sessions announces Strzok has lost his security
clearances.
July 12: Strzok testifies to House committees. Solomon reports he refused to answer
question about the "there there" text.
July 13: Lisa Page interviewed by same committees. Answers the question.
Earlier: Bob Parry in Action
Journalist Robert Parry
On December 12, 2017, as soon as first news broke of the Strzok-Page texts, Bob Parry and I
compared notes by phone. We agreed that this was quite big and that, clearly, Russia-gate had
begun to morph into something like FBI-gate. It was rare for Bob to call me before he wrote; in
retrospect, it seemed to have been merely a sanity check.
The piece Bob
posted early the following morning was typical Bob. Many of those who click on the link will be
surprised that, last December, he already had pieced together most of the story. Sadly, it
turned out to be Bob's last substantive piece before he fell seriously ill. Earlier last year
he had successfully shot down
other Russia-gate-related canards on which he found Establishment media sorely lacking --
"Facebook-gate," for example.
Remarkably, it has taken another half-year for Congress and the media to address --
haltingly -- the significance of Deep State-gate -- however easy it has become to dissect the
plot, and identify the main plotters. With Bob having prepared the way with his Dec.13 article,
I followed up
a few weeks later with "The FBI Hand Behind Russia-gate," in the process winning no friends
among those still suffering from the highly resistant HWHW virus.
VIPS
Parry also deserves credit for his recognition and appreciation of the unique expertise and
analytical integrity among Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and giving us a
secure, well respected home at Consortium News.
It is almost exactly a year since Bob took a whole lot of flak for publishing
what quickly became VIPS' most controversial, and at the same time perhaps most important,
Memorandum For the President; namely, "Intelligence Veterans Challenge 'Russia Hack'
Evidence."
Critics have landed no serious blows on the key judgments of that Memorandum, which rely
largely on the type of forensic evidence that Comey failed to ensure was done by his FBI
because the Bureau never seized the DNC server. Still more forensic evidence has become
available over recent months soon to be revealed on Consortium News, confirming our
conclusions.
Just think how questionable and sleazy their entire FBI careers must have been? We are
already at the point where malicious prosecution is a given, so how many cases are going to
be appealed based on their behavior? We know Mueller has been accused of evidence tampering
and malicious prosecution to protect Whitey Bulger and his other crooked agents, now there is
probably actual evidence.
"... While if star wars* were anything other than a very profitable science project, it has already violated ABM, which RS 26 is in part hardened to missile defenses. ..."
"... Worst, if a miracle occurred and the pentagon trough could actually make something work star wars enables a first strike which is far more destabilizing! ..."
"... Given star wars, START is not in Russia's interests. ..."
"... This from soft spoken, occasionally logical Robert Reich. The depths of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and the willingness to scream for war on allegations of cyber attack on "sacred US democracy"* while the money (oil sheik, AIPAC, etc) in government and the DNC dirty tricking Sanders leave huge holes in the claims of "sacred US democracy". ..."
"... Sen Shaheen (D NH)+ was all over Trump about his scaring US allies in NATO! She is a co-chair on the Senate NATO Observer Group whose purpose is to meddle in execute branch operations of foreign policy specifically to turn NATO into an offensive alliance where "collective security" requires surrounding Russia and assuring the new "allies" that the US will go nuclear over their "integrity". ..."
"... Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipe line will not be enough leverage on Germany as it provides 9% of their needs. ..."
"... I am sorry I sent this thread "off the rails". The topic is timely and important. We all should push for new START and INF. From what I have read, it was mentioned but nothing has come out of the executive offices. ..."
The Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) was agreed to in Dec. 1987 by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Gorbachev.
It is a permanent treaty requiring no special extension. It bans missiles of intermediate range of especial danger to NATO nations
in western Europe. Until 2014 it was followed by both sides. Then in 2014 Putin adopted the RS-26 missile that violates the treaty,
although he has denied it does. But US SecDef Mattis thinks it does.
So, what Trump should have had as his top priority in Helsinki and before while visiting NATO allies, whom he dissed, including
the EU as our "worst foe," would have been to demand that Putin get rid of the RS-26 missile that violates the INF treaty. Instead
we are told that he and Putin have agreed to "extend" it and the START. This is plain awful, but not surprising.
Barkley Rosser
ilsm , July 22, 2018 10:39 am
wkik reports the RS 26 is on "hold". We might consider (or Putin might bring up) US respect for deals with Iran and ABM treaty.
I worked a project involved in implementing the INF treaty years ago. I also have had dealing with related weapon systems.
I should keep up with the INF kerfuffle.
RS-26 and such "weapons is [are] to deter Western forces from coming to the aid of the NATO's newer eastern members that
are located closer to Russia's borders.[15] "
Seems RS 26 has been put in some kind of hold, there are better techie things for the Russian's to use for the nuclear trip
wire sitting on the Dnieper.
The US needs to meet with Russia about START while spending a trillion bucks upgrading nukes over the next generation.
While if star wars* were anything other than a very profitable science project, it has already violated ABM, which RS 26
is in part hardened to missile defenses.
Ai=sideon the sundered ABM treaty and star wars:
The St Ronald approach to star wars: he did not want to be "Henry Fonda in Fail Safe". It has now grown to systems that are
not so useful for missile defense but are enablers of other tactics which have moved in to former Warsaw area and Korea. Worst,
if a miracle occurred and the pentagon trough could actually make something work star wars enables a first strike which is far
more destabilizing!
Given star wars, START is not in Russia's interests.
Karl Kolchak , July 22, 2018 4:48 pm
Yeah, the U.S. violates every agreement with Russia and brings NATO right up to their doorstep, yet Russia should give up the
one weapon that is key to protecting it from NATO aggression. You want to carry some MORE water for the unaccountable empire?
Dan , July 22, 2018 6:32 pm
While the issue of defensive missiles is important, the immediate concern is the rabid anti-Russian stance of the liberals
who, up until 2016, were just fine with "discussions" or "negotiations" with the Russians to keep antagonism to a moderate and
manageable level. Then, with Trump's election, the rails came off the rational train of thought in liberals' heads. Now they are
seeking confrontations with the Russians who they blame for Hillary Clinton's defeat rather than the fact that enough people saw
her for the sociopath that she is. So, any chance they have to poke the bear, they take it.
This from soft spoken, occasionally logical Robert Reich. The depths of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) and the willingness to scream for war on allegations of cyber attack on "sacred
US democracy"* while the money (oil sheik, AIPAC, etc) in government and the DNC dirty tricking Sanders leave huge holes in the
claims of "sacred US democracy".
Sen Shaheen (D NH)+ was all over Trump about his scaring US allies in NATO! She is a co-chair on the Senate NATO Observer Group
whose purpose is to meddle in execute branch operations of foreign policy specifically to turn NATO into an offensive alliance
where "collective security" requires surrounding Russia and assuring the new "allies" that the US will go nuclear over their "integrity".
Opposing that aggressive alliance is not treason it is the best way to assure the future of the world.
The democrats have gone from soft on defense to raving war mongers. TDS is not the main cause.
*in a constitutional republic owned by money foreign and domestic!!
+I will work and contribute to unseat all democrats in NH.
run75441 , July 23, 2018 2:02 pm
ilsm:
If it was just a matter of talking to another world leader, this would be a so what. The fact is, Putin is not just another
world leader the same as Merkel, May, or Macron. You have cited Robert Reich's post of July 19, 2018 in general without specifics
you would find wildly exaggerated, half true, or just plain lies. Trump's wildly fallacious comments and bizarre actions in light
of his past public blundering nationally and globally leave much to the imagination and do not breed trust. He is a liar who makes
things up as he goes along.
Shaheen calling for a congressional hearing with an interpreter is a call to war? It is kind of funny we have to interrogate
an interpreter to find out what Trump actually said because by the next day he will have forgotten. That is the danger of his
forgetting what he actually promised.
Maybe too you meant Bush II placement of missiles in Poland and Czech republic, canceled by Obama due to techie issues, and
to be placed elsewhere closer to Iran in 2018 with an improved version (feign south?). Czechs did not want them and the nationalistic
Poles did want them. Obama did not want to spend the money on something (Aegis, Patriot?) of which earlier versions did not work
effectively. Trump signed off on a $10.5 billion deal with the Poles giving them an advanced version. And Dems are clamoring for
war?
A while back Russia was testing hypersonic weapons. You said it earlier that Russia can not afford a large War budget as it
takes from the economy. Large amounts of money spent on war materials helped lead to their collapse previously. Best bet is
for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipe line will not be enough leverage on Germany as it provides 9%
of their needs.
I think you are right that the RS-26 is on some sort of hold, which seems to date to the Obama era. This is a big deal, but
nobody wants to talk about it publicly, which is why you have to have somebody like me to bring up this deep shit, :-).
JBR
EMichael , July 23, 2018 8:48 am
So Russia ratfckes our election and the problem is liberals looking for a confrontation with them?
Like to see the reaction of these so called americans when they show up to vote and find they are not registered any longer
for reasons no one knows.
ilsm , July 23, 2018 4:29 pm
Barkley Rosser,
I am sorry I sent this thread "off the rails". The topic is timely and important. We all should push for new START and INF.
From what I have read, it was mentioned but nothing has come out of the executive offices.
While Kim may be watching how Trump and Putin deal with the really big stuff.
"... By contrast, Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists. Dissent is not well tolerated at work or social spheres. And its only gotten worse as media fragmentation and political strategies based on hitting voter hot buttons means that many people are deeply invested in their political views, whether they are well founded or not. Punitive unfriending and other forms of ostracism have become a new normal. ..."
"... She said the "fake news" campaign has been extremely effective in discrediting non-mainstream views. And since her friends are also PhDs, she was also frustrated at their refusal to consider evidence, or entertain the idea that their preferred sources were biased. ..."
"... One approach she has used that worked was to find information from other sources they could not reject, like Reuters and the Associated Press, that had not been covered in the New York Times or better yet, contradicted what they wanted to believe, such as a Reuters story describing how Germany opposed sanctions against Russia. But she clearly found it taxing to find these informational nuggets. ..."
"... Saying early on that Hillary was an awful alternative to Trump can lower the temperature considerably. Going on to talk about issues and staying away from Trump bashing is a follow through. ..."
"... Speaking as a member of the clergy, I have a suggestion about how to use the teachings of Jesus to reach Team Blue, whether or not they subscribe to Christianity in some form. ..."
"... One of the most radical of Jesus' teachings, one that is often given lip service but is extremely difficult to put into practice, is the commandment that we love our enemies and pray for them ..."
"... I am increasingly encountering extremism as the base line for discussions, really arguments, in my daily encounters. This comes from both ends of the political spectrum. This I perceive as a sign of desperation. ..."
"... Fair enough, Chuck, but I think you might be missing a very important bit: the fact that many people who are otherwise staunch rank-and-file supporters might also have an otherwise invisible breakpoint, or fault line. I say this as a former Dem Party supporter, who did the full song and dance – supported Hillary, supported Kerry before that, and was a total devotee to Obama. I was as tied to the Dem party as anyone not getting a paycheck could be, and when Obama won, I was elated. I thought that things would really change. ..."
"... The Financial Crisis was a rude, rude awakening. The pretty speeches meant little, and did even less. If anyone had a hand in setting fire to my generally moderate viewpoint, it was Obama himself, his worship for Wall Street, and his inability to put up a fight about anything. It was a weird time for me, politically, but 2008-2016 was what set the stage, while the last set of primaries only confirmed what I had felt in my gut for many years. ..."
"... Listen is first. Would you expect to walk into any fundamentalist church or mosque and change minds? Conversation among strangers gets more specific along commonalities until it hits a split point, then drops down a level. If nothing in common, there's always the weather. That's universal. ..."
"... On Russia – the biggest "liberal" fake new angle for years now – I say "Not one single piece of evidence has ever been presented that Russia meddled in the election. Not one single piece. The same agencies that said WMD in Iraq are now telling us Russia meddled. This is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment." ..."
"... The Making of the President 2016 ..."
"... my point is that she enforces dogma and insinuates disloyalty in any heretic. ..."
"... It would be great if the one group of unthinking believers cancelled out the other group of unthinking believers, but of course the adherents are so blind to reality that that can't see that the difference between Bush's Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary and Obama Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary is .???? ..."
"... I wonder, sadly, if "engaging with liberals" might be, in fact, a lost cause. Struggling to find common cause with the delusional amidst the collapse of empire, environmental catastrophe, and financial ruin might not be the best use of limited resources. ..."
"... Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists ..."
"... fairness and decency ..."
"... Arguing with entrenched people is a lost cause but sarcasm = mercilessly tearing right into their own hypocrisy does the work of shaming them for a while, especially if you make the point about a topic they are virtue signalling about. These people do not have a policy idea in mind, they are pure virtue signallers. ..."
An oft-repeated bit of
advice in America is never to talk about religion or politics. Sadly, the reason is that Americans are dreadful at talking across
political lines. When I lived in Australia in the early 2000s and adopted a pub, by contrast, I found the locals to be eager to debate
the topics of the day yet remain civil about it. That may be because Australians in generally have mastered the art of being confrontational
by lacing it with humor and/or self deprecation.
By contrast, Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists. Dissent is not well tolerated at work or social
spheres. And its only gotten worse as media fragmentation and political strategies based on hitting voter hot buttons means that
many people are deeply invested in their political views, whether they are well founded or not. Punitive unfriending and other forms
of ostracism have become a new normal.
And now that we have anger over Trump directed at not the best or most useful objects, like Russia! Russia! as opposed to his packing
of the Federal bench, or his environmental policies, or even his push to privatize Federal parks, a lot of educated people expect,
even demand, that their friends be vocal supporters of the #Resistance.
For instance, at the San Francisco meetup, I spent a fair bit of time with a woman who had held elected offices in her community.
She was clearly distressed by the fact (without using such crass terms) that her friends had turned into pod people. They all believe
that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New Yorker are authoritative. When she tried arguing with them about what they've
read in these outlets, they shoot back, "Oh, so you believe in fake news?" She said the "fake news" campaign has been extremely effective
in discrediting non-mainstream views. And since her friends are also PhDs, she was also frustrated at their refusal to consider evidence,
or entertain the idea that their preferred sources were biased.
One approach she has used that worked was to find information from other sources they could not reject, like Reuters and the Associated
Press, that had not been covered in the New York Times or better yet, contradicted what they wanted to believe, such as a Reuters
story describing how Germany opposed sanctions against Russia. But she clearly found it taxing to find these informational nuggets.
She also said they would not consider foreign sources, even the BBC or Der Spiegel or Le Monde.
Readers also discussed their frustrations in Links over the weekend. For instance:
"Shame" looks to me like the word of the week. I've heard from liberal/Democrat friends that they are "ashamed" of this
President. They are embarrassed by his behavior at NATO and Helsinki. I asked, "Who are you embarassed in front of? What does
that mean?" Then I got a link to a Thomas Friedman article .
I'm not sure how to answer my friends with grace. I don't want to be condescending by saying "Really, you read Tom Friedman
without a red pen in your hand?" What should I say? "I had no idea you were a globalist although you are kind of anti labor,
right?" Any suggestions for talking to Dems about this last week?
My usual answer is "I don't know why we need NATO now that the Cold War is over. Bush I promised Gorbachev not to expand
NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries. Putin wanted to join NATO. Russia, especially the populous West is more European
than Asian. So why don't we have Russia join NATO. Wouldn't that solve the problem?
on talking to democrats. LOL. you and me both. Haldol as a prophylactic, perhaps. The Berners are a lot easier but the "mainstream" dem people have been difficult to talk
to for some time too many triggers and blind spots. They've become as reactionary as the tea party.. The aversion to figuring
out what we're FOR must be overcome.
Montanahaven, great post, and I don't know the answer on how to talk to Dems or the general gammit of duopoly supporters, but
I have been working on refining a technique I heard Tim Black talking about: "drop a few lines, and walk away". I am working
on inserting a few judgment free comments without argument, however it requires patience in listening to the ramble of the
other side. A few examples in my recent life:
Hillary Dem: "But Mueller found Russia was hacking. Blah Blah, Blah, 17 intelligence agencies"
Me: Did you know in 2003 Mueller helped lead us into Iraq and testified before Congress pushing WMD intel. [I did not
follow with anything about along the lines of "Is this guy trustworthy."]
Trump Repub: "People are killing each other in the streets, blah blah freeloaders, murder rate going up, blah
blah, this country is not the same, what happened to our country"
Me: "People are desperate, Americans are addicted
to opiates and will get it however they can, but someone peddling marajuana will get 10 years in prison, but the Sackler
family who wantonly pushed opiates on all of America are worth billions" [I could have argued that American crime rate has
gone down since the 80's, but I just wanted to divert their attention to a part of the current problem, not to start an
argument]
A few weeks later these folks repeated these talking points as their own, which is a win in my book. I have been trying
to drop stuff as subtly as possible and hope they find their own way. People get more entrenched on their viewpoint while
arguing, and more words often means less average impact per word. My sample size is admittedly low right now, so I will
continue observation.
Another approach, although it takes a great deal of patience, is to go Socratic and ask the true believers in your circle to provide
the support for their views. You may still be stuck with the problem that they regard people like Louise Mensch or Timothy Synder
or (gah) James Clapper as unimpeachable.
Of course, not everyone is dogmatic. On my way back to New York, I sat next to a Google engineer (PhD, possibly even faculty member
at Cornell since he'd gotten some major grant funding for his research, now on an H1-B visa and on track to have to leave the US
in the next year+ due to Trump changes in the program) who held pretty orthodox views. He wanted to chat and we were able to discuss
the Dems and even Russia. He even thanked me for the conversation as he was getting off the plane. But I knew I was lucky to find
someone who wasn't deeply invested in his views, or perhaps merely not invested in winning arguments.
Any further tips or observations would be helpful to everyone. Things will only get more heated as the midterms approach.
This is true. This is why I like Hamford's idea of information nuggets. You have to let people think you are on their side
while they come around to your ideas more or less on their own. If you give someone a good nugget that they take in as their own,
then you have more leverage to convince them of something grander.
And listen. Just listen. You don't have to agree with people to give them time and space to be heard. They are more likely
to reciprocate if you do.
Letting people "talk it out" works for strangers and acquaintances. They'll eventually run out of road or realize they've monopolized
the conversation and give you a chance to react, even if only out of politeness.
I find closer friends and family will chew your ear off mercilessly, and once they start, you're trapped. If you start poking
holes in their beliefs after they've gone on for a while, they'll feel betrayed. I find it best to say "that's nice" and walk
away to maintain your sanity. Don't mess with tribalism, you'll always lose.
Ha ha these posts resonate with me – my mother is a committed Rachel Maddow watcher and my best friend is a Trump supporter.
And both of them are otherwise very nice people and rather similar in terms of personality, interests, and outlook aside from
red team/blue team foolishness.
What I like to do with both of them is use the term BushBamaTrump. And at the slightest bit of pushback just jump right in
to all the things that have been done more or less the same under all three. It never gets through and you really can't change
people, but still. Gives me a bit of pleasure to at least throw a little wrench into their silly partisan blinkered world view
If you can't shift out of the partisan mentality, then all hope is really lost. My brain just does not compute this way and
I find it really hard to understand how someone else's does.
I find it difficult to break this construct without coming off as arrogant or cynical. I readily admit this feature in
myself could be a bug.
jump right in to all the things that have been done more or less the same under all three
Yes. Even though disagreements appear to be about issues, there's an underlying personal partisanship that often drives conversational
breakdown. This is particularly true for people on the right. Saying early on that Hillary was an awful alternative to Trump
can lower the temperature considerably. Going on to talk about issues and staying away from Trump bashing is a follow through.
Hamford's approach is one that I have used with the people I live around(supermajority Repubs, altho much of that is habit
and/or single issue apathy is the only growing demograph)
Introducing doubt, "short, sharp shock", and then they worry over it for a day or a week, and later they seem to have incorporated
it into their weltanshauung.
That is, indeed, a win.
I've much more experience, given my habitus(central texas wilderness) with culture jamming and otherwise undermining the orthodoxy
of republicans. To talk about important things with them, one must avoid numerous trigger words that cause salivation or violent
conniptions.
Finding these rhetorical paths has been enlightening, to say the least. like talking about unionism by using the Chamber of
Commerce as an example, or playing on their own memories of the Grange or the Farmer's Co-Op or even going directly at the cognitive
dissonance, as in "hey, wait a minute if we have freedom of religion, aren't I by necessity free to be a Buddhist?"
Similarly, I've found that using the language of Jesus gets results, unless my interlocutor is too far gone into the whole
warrior Christ thing. I'm still working on how to do this with Team Blue.
Like with the R's, the D's have an emotional attachment, and a psychological need, to avoid believing that their party is in
any way less than pristine and above board.
Similarly, I remember a discussion of the Puma's (Hillary's 08 supporters) wherein they were so caught up with Herstory(!)
that an attack on (or even criticism of) Hillary was an attack on their Identity.
Stages of Grief applies the acceptance we wish for is a big step for most people, because the manifest problems are so huge
and complex and intertwined that acknowledging them feels like giving in and even giving up.
It's a big problem, and I thank you for addressing it.
The forces arrayed against civil discourse are huge and well funded(which is, in itself, a sort of indictment and indicator)
Speaking as a member of the clergy, I have a suggestion about how to use the teachings of Jesus to reach Team Blue, whether
or not they subscribe to Christianity in some form.
One of the most radical of Jesus' teachings, one that is often given lip service but is extremely difficult to put into
practice, is the commandment that we love our enemies and pray for them.
I have come to believe that the Russiagate attacks on Trump are driven not by reason but by pure hatred, a sin which always
blinds. While there are many reasons to oppose much of Trump's policies and actions, we must not allow ourselves to wallow in
personal hatred of the man himself. If Jesus doesn't work here for some of Team Blue, MLK, who taught the same message, is an
excellent alternative. Take away the visceral hatred of Trump, and he will be opposed, much more reasonably, ethically, and effectively.
I agree: whenever possible, Trump the individual should be ignored, since too many people seem unable to separate the man from
the systems, processes and interests in play.
When it's all about Trump, he wins. You'd think people would have realized that by now, but take a look at Alternet, where
it's literally "All Trump All The Time," and you see how trapped in their fears and illusions liberals are.
As Lambert and others insist, make it about issues and policy; that's how people can (eventually, hopefully) be reached over
time. As the saying goes, they lose their minds in crowds/herds, and will only regain their sanity one at a time.
The added benefit is that ignoring Trump's provocations goes a ways toward depriving him of oxygen. Ignoring him is one of
the few ways to drive him crazy(er), takes away much of his effectiveness, and provides the personal satisfaction of being able
to do something against him, even if just passively.
I'm really hopeful that Michael Hudson's upcoming book on the roots of Christianity will open up a whole new conversation for
people of all views, particularly the role of debt and 'what we owe to one another'. Or when we should, and what we shouldn't,
owe one another.
IMVHO, Trump is the apotheosis of a debt-based form of greed, which conventional politics mostly exalts and exacerbates, but
doesn't seem to really understand -- and papers over its social costs [see also: FoxNews, CNBC]. In this form of (leveraged) debt,
the debtor owes absolutely nothing to society, irrespective of the social dislocations that his/her debt creates.
I find that people who get caught up in Dem/Repub conflicts are unreachable on political terms, but if the conversation shifts
to economics, to outrage at financial shenanigans, to who 'owes' what to whom, the emotional tone shifts and the conversations
are much more engaged.
The R's that I know tend to affiliate with 'lenders', but have an abhorrence of debt. They seem weirdly incapable of grappling
with the social and political implications of debt. To them, debt is a sign of weakness. I find myself struggling to grapple with
their worldview on the general topic of 'debt'.
The D's that I know tend to at least be able to think about debt as a means to an end: an education, a home, a business idea.
But they seem to experience debt as a form of guilt, or powerlessness, a lot of the time. The people in my life who fall into
this category are very careful with money, but they are also capable of carrying on a conversation about social meaning of debt.
I don't think it is any accident that the two most articulate, informed voices in current politics are on the 'left', and their
expertise and focus is on debt: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I suspect that is because debt is one of the most fundamental
social-political-cultural issues of our time.
I do come across as a bit of a nutter, and bloodthirsty to boot. However, in my defense, I am increasingly encountering
extremism as the base line for discussions, really arguments, in my daily encounters. This comes from both ends of the political
spectrum. This I perceive as a sign of desperation.
The Third Way 'faux left' movement is running out of steam as the inequality that it was designed to enable takes hold, and
disenchants those that the movement required to at least be neutral in order for it to do its 'work.' The Right wing has always
cultivated a sense of being oppressed in order to cultivate the sense of 'belonging' to a 'special' and 'chosen' people. I have
been called "dirty socialist" and even less salubrious terms so many times, I've developed somewhat of a thick skin to the insult.
The problem with that is that those who are doing the insulting are dead serious in their obloquy. This can escalate into actions.
Therein lies the rub. the step from verbal abuse to physical abuse must be guarded against and, if encountered, short circuited.
Hence, the comment about the probable bad results of trying to crash someone's SHTF refuge.
I have worked with several ex-cons during my work life. Jail is the pressure cooker of power relations for Western society.
All the ex-cons said that threats, even when coming from obviously superior physical specimens must be responded to quickly and
decisively. As one man put it, "Even if you have to take a beat down. Make the point that you will fight. Once is usually enough.
After that, people in jail will leave you alone." Another man related the tale of a small man in prison who was being groomed
for 'bitchdom' by a much bigger man. "The big guy poked the little guy in the chest and started to say something. The little guy
grabbed the finger and broke it. Then this tiny tornado tore into the big guy. Man! Nobody f -- -d with the little guy again.
He was crazy everybody said. Some of the older cons said that he was smart."
It may not be relevant yet, but America certainly does seem to be sliding into a full blown Police State. As such, the etiquette
of prison is slowly being imposed on the civil society. Pure power relations are becoming the norm. This manifests in our more
genteel disputations.
So, my present reply to people who take me to task for not voting for Her Royal Highness is to say; "Thank you for giving us Trump.
Without your gallant efforts, we would have had a decent government, under Bernie." Then, as one of the above comments suggests,
I walk away, and make sure our Urban Bug In Bag is ready.
That is a frightening observation and I believe it is unfortunately accurate. Relations in the workplace certainly have resembled
this since 2008. Civil society was next.
A brilliant compaction. And nice (fascinating being even better desc.) to see the longer version as well. Skynet apparently
liked it too.
My poor wife has somewhat 'come around' (been dragged along) because many of the predictions (that I get from NC)seem to materialize
in one way or another, but on the flip side we have lost what we thought were real friends (fortunately few), largely because
of my inability to shut up (at least I don't do it until asked some hard to get out of question) combined with insufficient command
of a given subject – alas, all given subjects it seems.
We do find out who our 'real' friends are when we go a little 'off the reservation' with subjects having a significant emotional
content. I have found that I also discover personal biases by observing what subjects being 'rejected' by others give me pain.
I have been surprised at some of my personal biases. Don't be too hard on yourself about those things that you need to study more.
Everyone has those kinds of subjects. I certainly do. Yesterday's thread on the lowly apostrophe was such a wake up call to me.
It seems to me that the longer the person has supported the Democratic Party the more they are resistant to changing their
views. The affiliation comes to resemble that of a football fan to her favorite team. People who've changed their political affiliation
over the course of their lives, and especially those who have done so relatively recently, are more open-minded and willing to
consider evidence contrary to their current views.
Not to quibble, but your observation takes on the appearance of a 'chicken or egg' problem. As the Political Fundamentalists
showed, politics is a long term game. That's one reason that Lamberts comment about the Democrat party and their 'missing' ground
game is so pertinent.
Fair enough, Chuck, but I think you might be missing a very important bit: the fact that many people who are otherwise
staunch rank-and-file supporters might also have an otherwise invisible breakpoint, or fault line. I say this as a former Dem
Party supporter, who did the full song and dance – supported Hillary, supported Kerry before that, and was a total devotee to
Obama. I was as tied to the Dem party as anyone not getting a paycheck could be, and when Obama won, I was elated. I thought that
things would really change.
The Financial Crisis was a rude, rude awakening. The pretty speeches meant little, and did even less. If anyone had a hand
in setting fire to my generally moderate viewpoint, it was Obama himself, his worship for Wall Street, and his inability to put
up a fight about anything. It was a weird time for me, politically, but 2008-2016 was what set the stage, while the last set of
primaries only confirmed what I had felt in my gut for many years.
I think there are many out there, struggling like I did. They'll show. Eventually. I'd say that the famous line about the center
not holding applies here, but I'm likely missing a ton of context.
My 'turn' was when Nancy P. swiped "impeachment" off the gilded table in 2006, Right • After • The • House • Elections. So,
when shortly there after, while listening to Obama give his inaugural address, all I could say was "we'll see ??" . Then came
his cabinet appointments, and from then on the d-party lost me with their passive-aggressive "We'll have to $ee what's in it AFTER
WE VOTED FOR IT" FU tactics.
Mediation in kindergarten words: Listen, Talk, Ask, Agree, Write.
Listen is first. Would you expect to walk into any fundamentalist church or mosque and change minds? Conversation among
strangers gets more specific along commonalities until it hits a split point, then drops down a level. If nothing in common, there's
always the weather. That's universal.
Which blogger was it, trying to change the world when he realized he was only reaching the 5% who thought like he did, & stopped?
Think how hard it is to undo economics class learnin' and understand MMT.
Politically, these are not going to be new customers. I can't find number of new voters for AOC, but turnout was less than
1 in 5. She gained trust by knocking on doors. You can't reach the frontal lobes if the amygdala is signalling threat.
If you find points of agreement, you can move the conversation to universal. Then to concrete and material.
This dovetails with hamsher above, whose defiines success as hearing his talking points adopted by those he has dropped them
on. The key is to be nonjudgmental .
there are two statements which have worked in my recent exchanges with liberals:
1)
Obama has bombed more nations than Bush
2) no one person did more to put donald trump in office than hillary clinton (extreme, indisputable malfeasance against sanders
in the primary)
although many seem completely ready to discard 'russian collusion' i still hear 'why is he trying to be friends with putin?'
on a regular basis.
any criticism of obamacare is immediately discarded, even though many know someone who has health insurance but doesn't have
health care.
i keep trying to argue that democrats are best served if abortion is constantly under threat. that most democratic politicians
strongly prefer this situation, as it would otherwise be close to impossible to motivate people to get out to the polls. (or,
likewise, republicans and gun rights) so far, this doesn't seem to work.
calling out tesla as a nonsense scam is working pretty well, though. (monorail!)
also, pointing out that new research shows that
wifi/cellphone exposure increases miscarriage risk is starting to gain traction. i cringe everytime i see a toddler playing
with an i-pad. (obviously not a liberal issue, but it helps to dispel the fog of complacency)
Here is my general approach, good or bad towards Hillary "liberal" or establishment think or whatever you may call it. I think
it helps put the burden of proof to the fake news'ers
On Russia – the biggest "liberal" fake new angle for years now – I say "Not one single piece of evidence has ever been
presented that Russia meddled in the election. Not one single piece. The same agencies that said WMD in Iraq are now telling us
Russia meddled. This is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment."
I ask them to "show me the money" if they can point to any evidence to support the claim Russia hacked. Depending on how much
time I have, I can shoot it down (like the click bait social media example that is full of holes) but there is so much non-sense
out their I am always up on the latest.
Re: discussing what's happening with people I just gave up. Partially because I couldn't keep calm in the face of being labeled
a "white cis gendered Russia loving hate monger." Partially because the medium for debate my friends and I were using was Facebook,
which is really not a great tool for serious discussions. Partially because it took so much time and energy and garnered no rewards.
Most of my circle of friends ardently believe the following:
(1) the Democrats are significantly different from the Republicans and suggesting otherwise is lying. This gets you the most
violent reactions from most people.
(2) all or most of what Trump is doing is a significant departure from the Obama administration.
(3) withholding votes or voting for other candidates than "electable Democrats" is equivalent to voting for fascists.
(4) US citizens who live in depressed economic areas are to blame for their own problems because they vote against their own
interests and won't move to better places.
(5) increased immigration, increased globalism, and free trade agreements like TPP are policies we should support.
(6) Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, etc. are not monopolies and anti-trust law should not be used to break them
up.
(7) solutions to inequality in public education should not include busing children from poor areas to wealthy areas. Or vice
versa.
(8) our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must continue.
(9) we need identity politics in this country.
(10) the world would be better off if Hillary was president. P.S. she was robbed by Russians, misogynists, and electoral manipulation
from the fascistic Trump campaign.
When I try to mention that all of those points are debatable at best, and admittedly I do that with varying degrees of success,
they do not accept it. Any of it. They find discussions of what happened during the Obama administration which either lead to,
or was similar to, what Trump is doing now tiring and painful. Mentioning how poorly the HRC campaign was run, how HRC laundered
money through local state dem orgs, the wasted millions in consultants, the lack of campaigning in key states, globalism, etc.
get you a soulful vomiting of Russia/Misogyny/Fascism. They will ask why you focus on the Democrats, and not the Republicans.
It's the Republicans fault we're here and their voters deserve rock suffer.
Humor or analogy doesn't work on this topic either. If you mention something like both parties blame outsiders for their troubles,
except Republicans blame people from Mexico and Democrats blame people from Michigan, you get angry stares. If you mention both
parties want to go back in time to a better, safer place, except for Republicans it's an imaginary 1950 something and for Democrats
is an imaginary 2006, you'll end up drinking alone.
I realized that the only thing I was doing was aggravating my friends and hurting my cause. They're all too high strung to
have discussions. They don't want to consider that the status quo ante that they think was great was only "great" for a select
portion of the country. They might have admitted that progressives and leftists weren't happy with the Obama administration in
2016. They have no space for that kind of thinking now. So I logged out of FB and Twitter, deleted the apps and spend the time
doing other things. I will talk to people about this stuff if they're interested and if it's in person. I stop when I see their
body language shift to 'uncomfortable.'
The other thing I've been doing is working to support local candidates who believe in th kind of policies I want to see in
my community. I think that's a much better way to use my time and political energy.
Good luck to anyone who wants to try and fight this battle with words. No one is reading or listening anymore. They just want
red meat and a torch to join their preferred mob. And with what's happening if you post something a boss or other person finds
objectionable, I strongly recommend the virtues of self censorship and keeping your mouth shut until this time passes.
These were all people who I know and associate with off line. What surprised and saddened me was that they couldn't leave an
argument behind.
I can leave an FB discussion on FB. I have other topics to discuss when I'm with my friends. They can't do that anymore.
It was that fact more than anything that lead me to believe there was no benefit in trying to post articles or participate
in social media discussions. No one is listening. Everyone in my socal circle is feeling too raw to have measured discussions
about how we got here and where we could go next.
I've experienced the same from long time friends or who I thought were friends. For months after the election all they could
talk about was 'Hillary was robbed.' I let them vent because it seemed like a grieving time for them. After six months or so,
when they still could not talk about anything else even if I tried shifting the conversation to family or gardening or something,
then I knew they were caught up in more than grieving. I'm starting to wonder if this is the fury of people who suspect they've
been conned and are determined to prove they were not conned. 'The most qualified candidate ever' was a terrible campaigner.
From 2016: https://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-losing-wisconsin-results-2016-11
My outlook now is that people determined to prove they were not conned then will need to find their way back to calmness.
In Roger Stone's book, The Making of the President 2016 , there was a passage about people, many of them on the left,
who view those who disagree with them as truly evil people.
What comes next explains a lot about what we've seen since the election. Quoting Stone:
"This is a very immature worldview that produces no coping skills."
Yes! Plz someone tell me a way to discuss immigration at the border and separating families. The word on the street that 10k
of those 12k children being separated were ACTUALLY being 'trafficked' and WITHOUT their REAL parents in the first place.
There are a lot of Dem Nuts on facebook that harrassed the heck out of me and since I posted #walkaway, as an astute BERNIE
supporter, this has SHOCKED many and I been unfriended 5 times.
8 million MISSING children and our FBI has only reunited/found 526?
Please don't post such serious charges about trafficked children without sources. As far as I know not even the Trump administration
in its own defense is claiming to have identified trafficked children at those levels.
I'm going to try to put together a comment later today about what we know of the current situation, the need to understand
what was happening pre-Ttrump, and what may be happening to the children now after separation. It will probably be on the links
thread, as it's not directly related to the coping issue of this thread.
So, I made the below comments in today's LINKS. But I will emphasize a different aspect here – in the Links comment my point
was the reporter was wrong (about Obama representing the 1% – I think he did). Here my point is that she enforces dogma and
insinuates disloyalty in any heretic.
fresno dan
July 24, 2018 at 7:25 am
Why So Many Reporters Are Missing the Political Story of the Decade Washington Monthly. Versailles 1788.
Frankly, someone needs to tell this guy (i.e., Bernie Sanders) to sit down and shut up for a while. Reinforcing the notion
that a party that was led by Barack Obama for eight years has merely been representing the one percent contributes to the divide
and reinforces Republican lies.
====================================================
party that was led by Barack Obama for eight years has merely been representing the one percent
BESIDES believing that Obama DIDN'T represent the 1%, I'm sure this reporter believes:
1. The earth is flat
2. Elvis is alive
3. The living head of John F. Kennedy is kept at the CIA
4. There are 2 Melania Trumps
5. that Hillary got more white women voters than Trump .
other examples are welcome
on that inability to confront the less stellar record of Obama: it's the same process that happened(and is happening, I'd argue)
on the Right .and that happens, over and over, when science chips out another block in the wall of religious certainty.
Fear of the disenchantment of having been wrong, or fooled they'll resist tooth and claw from admitting being descendants of apes
.even when they feel/know in their secret hearts that it's true.
With the Dems(non-Berner subspecies), it's acute right now.
They must defend the paradigm at all costs, because to do otherwise is to open the door to a frightening and incomprehensible
world that would demand their attention and resolve. For so long, the ire was safely directed at the Right it's their fault we
can't have nice things, they are a regressive existential threat, omgomgomg. This is rendered tolerable by the belief that the
Dems are their team, on their side and the polar opposite of the hateful Right.
This latter set of assumptions was thrown into existential even ontological doubt by numerous reports, surveys and even by plain
old look-out-the-window observation.
The belief and the Reality couldn't be reconciled(America is not already great for a whole bunch of folks) and the Nature of the
newly perceived Reality was so ugly, and so huge, that they recoil into paradigm defense.
a giant edifice of bullshit is inherently unstable, it turns out.
The challenge, as I see it, is to acknowledge that the Way We Do Things is falling apart, and that it should fall apart, if
we really believe all the high minded rhetoric we perform to each other and then to try to figure out what system/paradigm we'd
like to replace it to use the chaos and destruction of the trump era to our advantage.
So more and more, in lib/dem/prog* social spaces, I'm asking "what are we for?"
(* the confusion of tongues here is both instructive and disheartening and encouraging(!). asking folks to define such things
is resulting in less fury and spittle and froth, and more with either silence or thought and honest questioning. at least in my
little circles )
I can't beat what notabanker said:
notabanker
July 24, 2018 at 8:26 am
If you can't shift out of the partisan mentality, then all hope is really lost. My brain just does not compute this way and I
find it really hard to understand how someone else's does ..
==============================================
"Independent" self sufficient Americans .join groups called political parties that as a rite of passage evidently require the
adherents to believe idiotic, inconsistent things.
But another thing is that the number of people who even belong to political parties isn't that great. But they set the agenda.
It would be great if the one group of unthinking believers cancelled out the other group of unthinking believers, but of
course the adherents are so blind to reality that that can't see that the difference between Bush's Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary
and Obama Goldman Sachs' Treasury Secretary is .????
NOW, of course there were real differences between Obama and Bush .Obama droned a LOT more.
Thank you, Yves and the community. This situation applies in the UK, too. It's amazing to meet people who took time off to
protest against Trump, but won't against homelessness or austerity.
Yes, the Irish media used to be moderately independent, but they are getting in line too. Over the weekend I nearly threw my
copy of the Irish Times away in disgust at reading some of the articles from writers I'd consider pretty clear minded normally.
They are just gradually absorbing the message by osmosis I think.
When someone here rants about Trump, I usually say something like 'well,what exactly has he done thats worse than anything
Obama did to, say for example, Libya, or Honduras?' I'd love to say I get a thoughtful response, but thats rarely the case. Interestingly,
I find that its the people who profess themselves as non-political or don't read the newspapers much who are more open to discussion.
I'm sure that a lot of NC readers have, over time, experienced some amount of pain associated with the dissolution of long-held
beliefs surrounding the American dream, and faith in our economic, and political systems abilities to ' self-correct
'.
It's been very painful to realize that ' things ' are not going to get better if we simply vote for the other team.
Over many decades, both the ' other teams ' have pointed fingers at each other and invited us to believe that our
problems originated on the other side of the fence, when in reality, as many of us now understand, our two political parties have
all the while, worked in collusion to forward the interests of the rich and powerful, the result of which has been wide spread,
and extreme economic hardship for most of us.
This failure of our politics has engendered a wide spread visceral hatred of our leadership class, that so far, has remained
loosely in the control of the two political parties, but, and I think this a good thing, there is a dawning understanding among
a significant number of us, that the hatred of Hillary, and her party, is well deserved, and rooted in exactly the same reality
as the hatred of George 'W', and his party.
All that hatred of the political parties and their leadership has so far, resulted in Trump, which in an odd sense is evidence
supporting optimism that the two parties strangle-hold on our lives is not invincible, and that there exists a wide-spread thirst
for change.
I think that thirst for change is the point where we have an opportunity to make conversation fruitful, and find common ground.
I'm sure that a lot of NC readers have, over time, experienced some amount of pain associated with the dissolution of long-held
beliefs surrounding the American dream, and faith in our economic, and political systems abilities to 'self-correct'.
It's been very painful to realize that 'things' are not going to get better if we simply vote for the other team.
================================================
I don't know how many times I have heard that voting for a third party is "throwing your vote away"
REALITY, that voting for a democrat* or a republican is throwing your vote away, never seems to sway anyone.
* maybe there are individual democrats that are worth voting for, but that is usually due to some screw up by the party apparatchiks
I wonder, sadly, if "engaging with liberals" might be, in fact, a lost cause. Struggling to find common cause with the
delusional amidst the collapse of empire, environmental catastrophe, and financial ruin might not be the best use of limited resources.
There's a guy running for local city council whose campaign I intend to work for, and anyone campaigning on Medicare-for-All (free
at the point of care, of course!), a minimum wage humans can live on, and anything else beneficial to people who work for a living
will get my jealously-guarded vote. But the rest looks more and more like the re-arranging the proverbial deck chairs.
I also think that this is not the time to try to argue. Many people (liberals) seem to have been shocked to their core by Clinton's
loss and the arrival of the barbarians. The world has come unhinged, it appears to them.
That is a deeply unsettling feeling that can induce a deep distress and panic. I think it's also new to most liberals because
things in America had proceeded pretty much sensibly, even during the Bush years. Also, I suspect many are at a stage in life
when they have settled their own sense of their lives on a platform of comfort with the status quo as personified by the liberal
consensus; or they are deeply committed ideologically for other reasons of self-identity.
The liberal establishment everyday is whipping the flames of people's panic and resulting outrage, and has created a huge firestorm.
The "resistance" gives people a way to make sense of the world again. They will hold onto the "resistance" with all their power
because admitting that the "resistance" is in any way flawed throws them back into a chaotic world. So any argument about this
stuff derives from a deep place and is not conducive to reasoning. You threaten them, if you try to take away their "resistance"
bear.
I also think it is better to put energy into other things, like building positive political movements or structures of life
that extend "under" the current debate. (If you go down below general political buzz words, you can sometimes find agreement across
political barriers.)
I still make general comments non-locally, but I do not engage with people individually about this. It's useless right now.
– Humans usually have a strong need to identify with a tribe
– In stressful times humans seem to want to simplify their lives, which can be done by joining a tribe, which allows you
to NOT think for yourself
– There are a lot of physical and mental benefits (and perceived benefits) to being a member of a tribe
– Humans have a remarkable ability to do things that are, in the long run, not to their own benefit
– Humans will too often defend their own self image to the death, because they don't have the self respect that comes with
a developed personality, and thus support their self-value through the groups they have chosen to identify with, the tribes
they feel they belong to
– Tribalism unfortunately seems to be mostly about screwing other tribes
Some additional tribes: Wall St bankers, corporate CEOs, police, teachers, Congress, your town, your state, sports fans, etc.
Very relevant commentary to which I can completely relate. I had to leave a certain FB group because it became increasingly
apparent that these mostly PhD, higher education types were not really interested in being the resistance or fighting fascism.
No, what they really want is a safe space/echo chamber in which they can whine about everything that has gone to shit while completely
ignoring how they themselves and the 'Democrat' party facilitated said shit's construction. The level of cognitive dissonance
was simply mind boggling.
No rational thought about how going along to get along contributed to the current situation, that the lesser of two evils still
gets you to the same destination. My working theory is they suffer from social detachment disorder due to their comfortable government
(many tenured professors) jobs. As I attempted to explain to one of them, the economic damage created by the policy responses
following the GR directly contributed to the door opening for Trump or something like him. These PhD types seem to be completely
willing to overlook the social injustice of the Obama tenure, growth of the surveillance state, economic monopolies etc.
Many of these people have not had to worry about a paycheck for some time, thus the complete disconnect from the realities
of the current economy. They talk a good game about fighting for social & economic equality, but when push comes to shove many
of them are willing to throw their working neighbor under the bus so they can keep their comfortable (not rich mind you) tenured
positions and lifestyles. If nothing else, the level of cognitive dissonance in this group certainly made me think about tenure
from a much different perspective. Certainly not an encouraging picture of higher ed for sure.
Thomas Frank has repeatedly pointed out that credentialed professionals were the most reliably Republican voting block in America
for decades. Now they're firmly democrat. Did their politics/interests change? Doubtful
The decades-long purge of any hint of leftists from the American university system (which started right here in California
in the 50's then spread out) has led to our extremely conservative tenure class of professors.
I've had the same experience with these credential class types. Their politics are uniformly anti-labor and elitist. There's
no convincing them.
I think that it is seldom clear in discussions what differentiates credentialed class from not. Just a bachelors degree? Bachelors
degree attainment is over 30% now among young people. They are luckier than many who don't have the degree, but with every white
collar job wanting a bachelors degree (often for fairly lowly work that didn't used to) and with a bachelors degree no guarantee
of anything (nope not even that white collar job) I'm not sure its all that. (BTW I don't have a bachelors degree, but I'm in
no good shape economically at all, if I had a degree maybe I'd be allowed to live, that is all .. so I consider it but without
illusion at 40 something).
I think what really protects people's jobs etc. is licensed professions (lawyers, doctors, CPAs, landscape architects etc.)
and in some cases those requiring post-bachelors attainment including years of additional training (physical therapists etc.).
Well and unionization in the public sector obviously and tenure in academia.
it's not in their class interest to care, well the tenured ones, the adjuncts it depends on who they identify with, with the
working class or with the tenured ones whose life they can't get anyway.
The average office worker would be more likely to care, although usually not political, and though they usually pretend otherwise,
and though they are taught to sympathize with the bosses, there is a chance they might at some level ultimately know the are pawns
in a game that they don't control and that can eat them alive (unlike those protected with tenure).
Ask the professors at Vermont Law School, 75% of whom just had tenure stripped unceremoniously. It's coming for them all. I
give it less than 10 years. These tenured types total lack of solidarity within their group or any other will finally come home
to roost.
My dear friend has been slogging through the trenches of the adjunct lifestyle for the better part of a decade and it's only
now at this late date starting to dawn on him that he'll never get regular work at the university. Those waves and easy smiles
from tenured faculty hid what they were thinking all along, "Better you than me pal!"
Not my country, but this is less a question of talking to "liberals" (who have their own problems) than of talking to conspiracy
theorists. All over the world, certain groups of people are finding that history has suddenly, in the last few years, veered off
in directions it has no right to. Since they refuse to believe they are responsible, however distantly, and since they seek, as
we all do, simple explanations for complex problems, it must be a conspiracy. And anyone who questions the existence of a conspiracy
is by definition part of it.
Because conspiracy theories serve essentially emotional and ideological purposes, rational discussion is by definition useless,
and studies show that pointing out that people are factually wrong actually makes them more likely to cling to their beliefs.
I'd recommend a site which discusses and dissects conspiracy theories (www.metabunk.org), and which has discussion threads
on how to argue with conspiracy theorists.
I was a Keynesian. I thought that meant the same as being a Democrat. Obama cured me of that mistake. Now, I'm in the Modern
Money camp. Explaining that to paygo liberals is an even bigger chore.
Yes, although I've found that when I simply explain basic MMT concepts to either repub or dem friends, I come across as non-political.
Because neither dems or repubs support it.
And I gain instant credibility/solidarity with them when I agree with their knee-jerk reaction that state/local governments
ARE constrained.
Americans, who pretend to fetishize individualism, are conformists
That's spot on. Perhaps it has to with out lack of a set class structure which makes people socially insecure. Plus the rise
of the meritocracy means that the worse thing you can call someone these days is "stupid" meaning uneducated. Life experience
gets little credit at a time when knowledge has been overly formalized.
However we can take some comfort in a history where periods of intense conformity such as the 1950s provoke periods of more
liberated thinking as in the 1960s. Things do seem to be changing–hopefully not for the worse. Patience with those vehement NYT
and WaPo readers may be necessary until the fever breaks.
My concern is that we have a poisoned public space, as it is hard to find the facts in the press or the body politic. Hard
to find common ground to discuss or solve problems. I think our democracy, what is left of it, is in deep trouble. I agree that
we need to talk to our neighbors about issues of the day. It is hard to overcome the do not talk about politics meme of the last
30 years.
I try really hard these days to talk about the system. Trump is a product of the system that we created and we need to change
to better everyone.
I try to be compassionate above all else. Trump supporters are not evil or selfish. They believed the lies of someone telling
them he was going to save jobs. We, as a nation, believed the lies of Obama's "hope and change" and it got us nowhere except a
little more hopeless. Its not about political affiliation. Its about the world oligarchs having entire control. I refuse to be
divided by what they want me to be divided by.
A fascinating and often painful subject. Being mostly a dismal failure in my own attempts, I've been keenly interested in and
come up with several 'types' (hardly exhaustive) that seem gifted with varying degrees of success in communicating though
I'm not sure about convincing others. Making others sit up and think (I should say 'having that effect' rather than 'making')
might be as far as most in this select group will ever get but I strongly suspect such exchanges can ultimately be very powerful
(meaning the 'other' will almost always do the changing of pov, or the expansion of understanding, under their own steam and in
their own time).
Trite as it may seem, those who have a strong core of honesty, or who always tend to gravitate toward truth, have the most
success in the above. They are the ones who seem to make headway under the most ridiculously difficult or impossible conditions.
That they often have a strong command of their subject seems (to me) to be a natural outcome of the affinity for truth rather
than truth being a result of knowledge breadth. They aren't always likeable but are often admirable.
After that, there are the 'warm intellectuals' and note that this categorization does not preclude honesty. My father was such.
He had a way of making all present feel welcome and valuable despite the intricacy of the discussion. One usually had to ferret
out his opinions or his 'take' on something as he rarely made an issue of it. But his conversation and 'presence' always made
fairness and decency seem cool; the natural order of things, and I know for a fact he had a profound influence on at
least some people – some hard core ones as well.
The ability to bend and compromise for a greater good (or in some cases for another purpose) is yet another 'type' who I see
as potentially having considerable power in their exchanges with others. I see them as having emotional energy and an ability
to see through the 'facts' or to 'suspend' them for a period. This is obviously a tricky – perhaps flawed (although in reality
they are all flawed) – category, home to intellectuals inclined toward the Machiavellian as well as do-gooders quickly judged
and relegated -not always justly- to the lot of suck-asses, and I image it has mixed results. It includes but is not the sole
domain of those with the facility to put themselves in anther's shoes (and occasionally get lost in so doing).
I am only describing those who can influence others of extreme or highly contrary positions and beliefs, not the relatively
larger group who can be eloquent in their own right but are not of note in dealing with made-up minds. Since we are all banging
about under varying degrees of illusion , the truly or profoundly successful ambassador, along with his/her close cousin
the successful negotiator, even the mundane every-man commenting on a blog or at a social gathering that provokes others to reassess,
is a rather unusual individual indeed. That there is some preponderance of such individuals on NC does not contradict the rarity
in general.
Perhaps just a very long winded way of saying, "Don't be too hard on yourself."
What I meant to say in the last sentence is, "I won't be too hard on myself ", but put in the general form while thinking
of it applying to me. I don't presume to give others such advice (though I imagine it holds for others as well ).
Also, since the process of changing or simply being influenced, always takes time, it is almost impossible to see or assess;
an unhappy circumstance for those who try at it rather than let it be an outcome..
Arguing with entrenched people is a lost cause but sarcasm = mercilessly tearing right into their own hypocrisy does the
work of shaming them for a while, especially if you make the point about a topic they are virtue signalling about. These people
do not have a policy idea in mind, they are pure virtue signallers.
Sarcasm is not to be confused with irony, which allows people to react mildly along "ha, ha, ha, oh my, what a world we live
in". You can always escape from irony but a good, hard sarcasm put the moral dilemma right out there and people cannot escape
their own crap poorly founded opinions.
Political talk has really become a competition as opposed to a conversation. If the conversation decends into competition I'll
try to ask "are there are any rules to this game?". When all else fails, go Socratic. Their answers can be enlightening.
I think it can be effective to do a virtual cannonball into the kiddie pool of their belief system. Like Maddow squared but
willing to connect the dots.
'Of course the Russians put Trump in, but the whole hacking story is part of a scam and a distraction. There's barely a
connection between the leaked emails and the election results. They are a sideshow to get Assange. No, the real story is that
the Russians had a high level operative inside the DNC. That's how the emails leaked. That is why the campaign was diverted
away from Wisconsin, for example, in favor of Arizona. It is why the campaign pulled strings to get airtime for Trump during
the GOP primary. It is why the DNC relied on bad software models and ignored experienced campaigners. Heck, it is why the DNC
ran Hillary, even though she was over 43% animatronic by the end of the primary.'
Then you reveal that the mole is Mook.
The more facts you can weave into an acceptable narrative, the more secret landmines you can slip into their bubble, until
the critical mass of cognitive dissonance causes a rupture
Watch out for the response being a psychotic break. I have had that happen when I got too carried away with 'weaponized humour'
in my arguments.
I mean not just angry outbursts directed in my direction but actual punches. These times are becoming physically dangerous.
I will generally, when I encounter a true believer Left or Right, let them get comfortable, agreeing with their critique of
the Other until they say something grotesquely hypocritical or patently false or deranged, and then I will call out the hypocrisy/bs
by way of pointing to it in their own party, then segway into something like 'MSNBC is part of the DNC, CNN is mockingbird CIA/DEEP
STATE, and FOX is Rupert Murdoch's geriatric limp dick. Sometimes I call myself an anarchist, because I am liberal about some
things and conservative about others and hypocrisy sucks. Wtf are Americans left and right going to pull their heads out of their
buttz and realize the country has been gutted and the people put in debt servitude to globalist corp, bank, billionaire and eternal
profiteering war/surveillance machine? Oh, and capitalism looks like a death cult if you are a pollinator or an ecosystem, so
wtf about your bloody party ."
Which rant I can sustain as long as the person can hear it. Sometimes with liberals though I just ask why they think Hillary
would have been a better president, and they usually realize at some point they have tied themselves in knots.
One quibble: It should be "Russia!Russia!Russia!", not "Russia!Russia!" – it makes the Jan Brady jokes a little funnier.
Anyway, with some people, I'm not sure if people should really be trying to "talk to" liberals, with the intent of changing
their minds. I remember similar discussions going on in Daily Kos around 2006 or so, but there they discussed how to "talk to"
conservatives, or people in rural areas, or "low information voters," as they liked to call them. It does seem a little condescending
– some people believe what they believe, and you're not going to be able to argue them out of their positions. As macnamichomhairle
posted above, the election of Trump really seems to have caused a psychic break in certain segments of society. I'm not sure if
agitating them any further would really be that helpful. It's gotten to the point that I wonder (only half-jokingly) if Trump
Derangement Syndrome will be included in the next volume of the DSM.
So, if you want to argue with people about something, make it sports. It seems that Americans are much more civil and mature
when it comes to arguing about that topic. That is, unless they're from Philadelphia.
when facing russia! putin! arguments, i usually retort with a big "i don't care" and paraphrase Mohammed Ali: "ain't no vladimir
putin ever set the middle east on fire and crash the global economy".
At first I was going to suggest using a lead pipe on so-called liberals as a coping strategy but I think that this is too serious
to joke about. Think about this. The US midterms take place on Tuesday, November 6, 2018 and only 16 days later you will have
Thanksgiving in the US. If you think that people are on edge now can you imagine what it will be like around Thanksgiving tables
this year?
Look, it is a real bad idea to tie your identity to any political party. Too much putting your faith in princes here – or princesses
too for that matter. I don't think that the US voting system helps either where they want you to register for Party A or Party
B which, when you think about it, kinda defeats the purpose of a secret ballet.
If people with phds are drinking the kool-aid and are not using their critical thinking skills, then how can you expect average
people to be convinced? I am not sure that you can but what you can do is undermine their beliefs. Don't let them shape the battlefield
of argument ('Or course everybody knows Russia did it!') or else it is a losing game. In any case, this whole thing reeks of the
old identity game where those in power set two sides to fiercely combat each other while skimming profits all the way to the bank.
An example of this? Democrats and Republicans hate each other's guts but when it come time to vote $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest
people in the country then it was bipartisan all the way, baby.
My birthday comes shortly after the election. I'm thinking of throwing a party for myself and inviting liberal Democrats, libertarians,
Republicans, Greens, independents, and those who refuse to be classified.
Thanksgiving in the US. If you think that people are on edge now can you imagine what it will be like around Thanksgiving
tables this year?
hmmm if the MSM determine too many of the midterm winners are the *wrong* sort of people then watch out for more MSM, Thanksgiving
weekend, crazy stories, as in 2016. Properly speaking or not. ;)
For a discussion to occur, both sides have to be willing and able to listen. While most people claim both, in my experience
especially the latter (able to) is a learned skill which majority lacks (of all bents, not just liberals etc.).
Hence after this was tested, I do not discuss anymore, I rant, if I feel like it.
Talk about small, but 'respectably' sourced news stories instead of whatever's dominating the current news cycle – stories
where the DNC spokespeople haven't already poisoned the well by telling people "This is your team's official position, there's
no need to make up your own mind."
Give the liberal a chance to make up their own mind on the small story. Chances are that they sympathize with the underdog
in that story – showing how 'liberals care'.
Then – if you're in the mood – spring the trap:
"You're absolutely right to be concerned about the underdog in [story A]. The compassion -that's why people like liberals!
By the way, why do you think that [famous dem spokesperson] doesn't show the same compassion regarding [morally analogous but
more mainstream news controversy B]?"
"Russian meddling, eh? That's a scary country. I've been reading about Russia in the 90s. The average life expectancy of the
whole country went down by years after the communist government collapsed. Old people dying alone in their apartments from easily
treatable illnesses. Yeah, it IS terrible. Yeah it IS disgusting and immoral. Oh by the way, that's around the time they switched
to a for-profit medical system like we have. Weird huh?"
The inability to talk politics with others of differing views is hardly limited to the US even if it expresses itself in different
ways. I have family in France (je suis une pičce rapportée – in-law) and it's almost identical to the US. As even my wife is somewhat
of a 'guest' when we go over now, You simply avoid subjects where you know it could get too hot and so do they among themselves.
Things are not at all as cut and dry as they were (at least seemed) back in the late 60's early 70's when students AND workers
united massively in common cause.
A few years ago, I had a discussion that turned into an argument with a friend visiting from France who is an economist by
training but made his pile (of comfortable not gargantuan size) in real estate. It turned around Jeremy Corbyn with my argument
that as long as people are really hurting, social/political/economic justice movements will thrive and often succeed in radical
change and his argument that 1) he is an economist and therefore knows what he is talking about and 2) Corbyn is simply
unacceptable and unworkable in todays economy , c'est tout!
How horribly frustrating for me not to have a good command of the subject, getting hot under the collar is not a compelling
argument, (though I didn't let him get away with the, being an economist, braggadocio), but on the good side, our friendship survived
the bout and we holstered our pistols for the rest of their visit.
I find arguments of systemic problems, corruption, absence of actual solutions, divide conquer, class war, rather than D vs
R work best.
Example:
Ask anyone who has a problem with immigrants why not one politician demands an arrest of a ceo and board members for illegal hiring
practices. Put them in jail just for a weekend and things would dramatically change over night. We don't need to cage many thousands
of desperate people, just a few greedy ones. Like them or not, quit blaming desperate poor people for crawling through a nasty
river and horrific desert to get a crappy job. If the illegal hiring didn't exist they wouldn't come. As for children and adults,
once 'we' have them captured, under our control, how they exist is all about us, not them.
And then I shut up. You have to know when to shut up.
At other times I love reminding D's or R's and especially those who are neither, the D's and R's are at best 27 percent of
the eligible voters. Independents are far greater in number than they are and 'refuse to vote' for any of them are greatest of
all. The D's and R's both have a super majority against them for good reasons which are being ignored at all our peril. That they
are not listening, not asking, not representing. They are owned and we are all being played like a two dollar banjo. Fighting
for either one of them is exactly what they want and need to keep the con alive.
I keep reminding people this is not professional football, you don't have to watch, much more you are not forced to pick between
two teams, please choose neither like most of us are doing because we need an entirely new game. Issues, not personality. Because
all owners are always a winner, cashing in, if you do.
More generally speaking, there are actually clinical trials of ways to be persuasive. Doctors need this for the difficult patients:
the heart patients who don't want to take their meds, the addicts who don't want to quit, etc. It's worth looking up:
Motivational Interviewing . The link is to a course
offered by Citizens' Climate Lobby, designed to help their members deal with climate change denial.
The key, they say, is forming partnerships. Disagreement can take the form of fights, arguments or partnerships, with only
the last providing some prospect for relief.
So providing the "perfect squelch" or putting down one's opponent is the very last thing you want to do. Finding areas of agreement
and building on those is the royal road to something more positive.
I've also found some of the worst offenders in the environmental community. These are often former bureaucrats who want to
keep the (bankrupt) process in place, but encourage a different outcome. They want to be the "good guys," and judge the environmental
"bad guys" rather than make a significant change.
I tend towards the Socratic approach, both for establishment Democrats and the larger universe of people I disagree with in
person. It generally means doing more listening than talking, which I know is a downside for some, but letting people talk things
out in front of you with occasional nudges in the right direct does a decent job of moving them gradually in the right direction,
and leaves them with an impression of you as a friendly good-listener with whom they have some disagreements rather than that
asshole yelling about nonsense.
I'm going to throw out my tips that I've used for years to talk politics in various environments (office, family gatherings,
etc).
1) Keep context in mind if you're in the office, keep encounters brief and cordial, couple of news headlines as you breeze
by for a couple of minutes. Crack a couple of jokes and try to keep it light. But choose your topics with care, especially if
you don't know the person really well.
2) Find common ground: with trumpers you can rail against clintons, obamas, and dem hypocrisy. with clintonites you can talk about how excited you are that Ted Cruz has a real challenge, Paul Ryan's retiring, all the damage
Trump is doing to the establishment repubs, etc. Tell them the positive thing about Trump winning is that ALL THE OTHER REPUBS
LOST .badly!
3) As far as genuinely changing minds .THESE THINGS TAKE TIME! Some minds aren't open to being changed, some will periodically
open and close, and some of us are genuinely trying to figure out WTF is going on in the world (which is why we come to NC!) In
any case, minds get changed over weeks and months, not a couple of hours.
4) Understand and remember that you DO NOT have all the answers and think about all things you've changed your mind about over
the years and it helps to open minds to SHARE stories with people about what changed your mind and why. If you're not sure why
you think what you think, go figure out why! :)
5) Once you've got a certain comfort level, don't be afraid to crack a joke that aggravates the other person, but don't overdo
it and don't do a lot of public mocking/shaming.
6) When someone else uses 5) on you, practice to make sure you DO NOT get too mad about it. Get thicker skin, if you can't
do it .then you aren't ready to talk politics.
7) Yes, that includes people saying ignorant stuff. That doesn't mean you have to grin and bear it, you don't and you shouldn't.
Drop a mild rebuke (no more and no less) and change the subject. Don't ostracize or shame. Keep interacting with people, as much
as they want to do so. We've all said stupid $h!t at one time or another, we can and should all be able to forgive/forget. I've
certainly said my fair share. But also, people do change their minds over time. It's helpful if you can guide them in a positive
direction.
8) Talk about the context in which things happen and put yourself in other people's shoes. This is something I've learned a
lot in the last few years and people forget to step back and look at things from a high level. I've been amazed at how much more
sense things can make when you think more about context.
My coping method is mostly avoidance, but if I did intervene it would be something like this:
I agree Trump is ill-suited to the job and has horrible policies.
If Russia (or Russians) interfered with the election, if Trump and his cronies participated in that, or if Trump and cronies
had other dealings with Russian that are illegal, Mueller is the right person to figure it out. His whole career has been defending
and strengthening the pre-Trump status quo, the "norms" of the military-industrial-corporatist-security complex. If there's a
way to push us back in that direction, there may be no one on earth more committed to that job.
Our job is to examine the impacts of current Trump policy, the roots where applicable in those status quo "norms",
issues other than Russia that weaken and corrupt our electoral system, failures of centrist Democrat policies to solve problems;
and to promote alternative policies and politicians. None of this will be adddressed by any negative Mueller consequences to Trump,
and maybe to a few of those around him.
Whether it's committed liberals (eg, super strong Big D voters) or committed conservatives, there's really not much point in
"talking."
I accidentally said something truthful about Trump's/the Republicans' recent tax law, and my super conservative sister launched
into a tirade that came right out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. I hadn't meant to stir the pot, either, and what I said was pretty
nothingburger. I let her rant for a few minutes; explained my side very graciously and calmly (mainly that MY taxes have been
raised, not lowered as advertised), and then I changed the topic.
I know a very few D voter friends who are starting to pay more attention – it's taken a while but they are – and they're starting
to see that Big D is NOT their savior, at least, not as they currently exist. Of course, I have Big D friends who revile Bernie
Sanders as the worst of the worst, and they're HORRIFIED that he's a socialist!!!111!!!!! Well, there's nothing to say there.
Mostly if I'm thinking about it, I'll drop in a few salient points – as some other commenters have suggested, above – and then
mostly walk away.
The Big Fat Propaganda Wurlizter has done it's job, and HOW. And it's not just about conservatives ranting out the usual Fox/Rush
rightwing talking points. Now it's so-called liberals ranting out the latest from, I guess (no tv, never watch), Rachael Maddow
and similar.
I can barely ever listen to what passes for "nooz" on NPR, but possibly they get their talking points from there, as well.
Some of those talking points now come up regularly in the weekend game shows. I duly noted that "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" had
James EFFEN Comey on last weeked. R U Kidding ME???? Of course, I didn't listen.
So, go figure.
Both sides are being heavily brainwashed by our M$M. For me: No TV at all and precious little radio (mostly music stations).
And judicious nooz paper reading.
Get my real info at sites like this one.
Thanks to all who comment logically here in reality-land.
In general, the way I deal with the liberals, partisan Dems, Hillary crowd or whatever you call it, is in person (I'm not on
FB) with this type of statement:
"Not one single piece of evidence has every been presented showing Russia meddled in the election. Not one. We don't even have
grounds to investigate such a thing. And what evidence we do have points away from Russia. The same agencies that said WMD in
Iraq are now saying Russia meddled in the election, have you learned nothing? Russiagate is Democrat's WMD in Iraq moment."
That usually silences them because they don't have any evidence and some even know that. If they offer "evidence" (like the
social media click bait adds) I am usually familiar enough show how silly the examples given are.
I hike regularly w/my buddy who is a 73 year old Nam vet, I am a 65 year old conscientious objector he is blue collar for generations,
I am college educated family for generations New Deal Dems forever.
Our concerns in life are the same, the well being of our adult children and grandchildren, our relationships w/our spouses,
how to manage our retirements. But Oh do we talk politics! He teases me that I'm a Trumpster because of my deserved critiques
of Clinton, Obama and my anger at that gang of liars, as if that means I think Trump and his band of "obligerant" oligarchs are
great! (oblivious and belligerent)
The executive branch is a huge about-to-become-extinct dinosaur w/the brain of a tiny reptile, little realizing only the little
mammals will survive, while still imagining itself to be king of the place forever.
" American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman "
American? I beg to differ. All of those turncoats serve their Master Israel and kiss the nether regions of those TBTF Wall
Street Casinos.
Browder is one of those nine Russian oligarchs -- eight of whom are Jews -- who stole hundreds of billions from Russia when
it was decompressing from being the USSR, helped by the drunken buffoon Yeltsin and a battery of Wall Street financial sharpies
who also filled their pockets.
Watch the tough guy Browder run like a scared bunny rabbit in NYC from a process server.
Browder needs to be arrested by Interpol, tried, convicted and spend the rest of his sorry life in a Super Max prison for his
thefts, frauds and helping to poison the relationship between the USA & Russia, in an effort to save his sorry ass from prosecution.
"Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled media and by President Bill Clinton,
who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him to buy support. Today we would refer to Clinton's action as "interference
in the 1996 election," but at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object to what was being done
to it."
[emphasis mine]
So Mother Russia was raped, and by Bill Clinton, of all people. Where is the outrage? #MeToo
Although I posted this comment under another thread, I think it bears repeating here (especially relevant to your point is
the bolded part):
I think debunking the vulture capitalist Bill Browder's false claim of being, of all things, a human rights advocate is
the key to unraveling the Russia-gate hoax. I also think the following information goes a long way in doing that:
1. Nekrasov's documentary, The Magnitsky Act: Behind The Scenes, now available for viewing
2. Alex Krainer's The Killing of William Browder, now available online; and
3. Bill Browder's Previzon deposition in which he claims "I can't remember" at least 50 times and answers "I don't know"
fully 211 times.
Notwithstanding these facts, it appears Mr. Browder is an untouchable. The Russians have issued a Red Notice at least
six times and he has managed to walk away scot free on each occasion.
The zinger was when the Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to testify as an expert witness against Fusion GPS, arguing
that it should have registered under FARA because it was working on behalf of a foreign government, in this case the Russian.
The irony of this scene was incredible. The hallowed chamber in which this inquiry took place is completely bought and paid
for by The Lobby but not a peep about having it register under FARA. Totally surreal!
An interesting thing about this that has gone almost completely unreported is that HSBC quietly held a series of closed-door meetings
with Russian authorities earlier this year regarding the tax fraud charges leveled at Browder and his businesses (HSBC jointly
managed Hermitage) and decided to pay up some of the cash he illegally siphoned out of the country (22 million dollars I believe,
so a drop in the ocean given the scale of his endeavors, but it's something.)
"Bill Browder declined to comment" according to one of the few articles on the matter.
Isn't all of that more or less tantamount to an admission of guilt?
(2) How does a respectable congress pass a law based solely on the testimony of someone convicted of a crime by another country?
No jury in the world would reach a verdict based solely on the word of a convict, without it being substantiated by numerous pieces
of other circumstantial and direct evidence.
(3) Even if he paid everyone oodles of money and brought a thousand lawsuits, why would gazillionaire corporations cave in
to his demands to ban books, movies, organizations, etc.?
There is something more powerful about Bill Browder than just his pile of money.
In fact, most (not all) US lawmakers long ago became a euphemism for incompetence, corruption and lies. So, no -- modern US
Congress is not respectable by people and numbers reflect that. Hopefully, sometime in the future, some honorable and loyal to
their country people will make it there.
Can someone help me remember the names of those 9 oligarchs?
These are the ones I remember:
1) Anatoly Chubais
2) Browder
3) Boris Berezovsky
4) Mikhail Khodorkovsky
5) Vladimir Gusinsky
Who were the others? Thanks.
Of these 5, Chubais remained in Russia but the others fled. Chubais was the one who was instrumental in starting the loans-for-shares
scheme. My understanding is that those who fled are real scum, since Putin offered all oligarchs the chance to keep their money
so long as they avoided politics. Most vulture capitalists agreed to this arrangement, but the worst of the Jewish oligarchs were
too greedy and lustful to give in. So I have heard, anyway.
Case in point:
An opinion piece on the Fox News website, by Dan Gainor makes note of the absolute media
carnage (not too strong a word in this case) concerning the reaction of the political
establishment and almost ALL media outlets (including Fox) to President Trump's conciliatory
tone struck with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Helsinki Summit, one week ago
today.
We have excerpted from his piece, adding emphasis:
A raging epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome broke out among reporters covering the
summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday, as journalists
gave the American president hellish reviews for his performance in Helsinki at a joint news
conference.
No reporters knew what actually transpired in the main event of the day – the
private meeting between the two presidents. So journalists put themselves in the position of
critics, grading President Trump's news conference performance
USA Today
reported in a front-page story: " Every nation has an infamous traitor. And now, after a
news conference Monday in Finland, the term is being used in relations to the 45th president
of the United States. Donald Trump, master of the political insult, finds himself on the
receiving end. "
The New York Daily News screamed "OPEN TREASON" on its cover page with a cartoon showing
Trump holding Putin's hand and holding a gun in his other hand and shooting Uncle Sam in the
head. Really.
CNN host Fareed Zakaria wasn't satisfied with "treason" as a descriptor. "I feel like
treasonous is too weak a word, because the whole thing has taken on an air of such
unreality," he said.
Zakaria had lots of
company : CNN analyst Max Boot, MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, and, of course, former CIA
Director John Brennan, who now works for NBC
and MSNBC.
CNN presidential historian
Douglas Brinkley said "the spirit of what Trump did is clearly treasonous," and declared
that the president "came off as being a puppet of Putin."
The list of network reactions in Mr. Gainor's article is very long and deserves a careful
read. But all of those reactions and more led to this point :
The hellish outrage over the Helsinki news conference had its desired effect for now.
Newsweek posted a story on an opinion poll that
declared : "According to a new Ipsos poll, 49 percent of Americans said Trump was
"treasonous" during the summit and ensuing press conference, with only 27 percent
disagreeing."
In other words the viewing, listening and reading public did absorb this very unified
tirade. One of the most unusual aspects of this which we have reported on here, is that the
media's unity included many conservative elements. In all but a few cases, most notably that of
Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, even very respected conservative voices still bought into
"Russian meddling" as though this were some sort of issue. It really isn't, because as even
some of these hosts acknowledged, "everyone does it."
But as to why this is happening, the explanation really has to do with the establishment
reaction to a speech that President Putin himself gave several years ago about the situation in
the West. It is this speech that spurred most of the sanctions and actions taken against
Russia. It is NOT the "invasion" of Crimea or the 25 invasions of Ukraine that were reported
during the years 2014-2016. It is the alignment that the Russian President noted in the West,
and Russia's refusal to follow that same path.
Blackpilled offered this video
clip and a translation of the speech in English. We offer that clip and the relevant part of
the speech's transcript here.
It is of tantamount importance to understand that this is the main factor in all the
opposition against President Trump, because his presence threw a major monkey wrench into "the
plan."
2. The narrator of "BlackPilled is incorrect in attributing this speech as being given
"shortly after Trump was elected." The actual speech was given at the Valdai conference in
2013. If we consider this, and the timeline of events following – such as the Sochi
Olympics and the concurrent list of "scandal after scandal" concerning Russia, then the
pieces fall into place:
Another serious challenge to Russia's identity is linked to events taking place in the
world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the
Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values
that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all
traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing
policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief
in Satan.
The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously
talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in
many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations.
Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as
is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over
the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism,
resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.
What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest
testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are
no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values
embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that
have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider
it natural and right to defend these values . One must respect every minority's right to be
different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.
At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar
world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a
unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires [slaves]."
And... anyone that is against America's unipolar hegemon must be removed - as this year's
new US military strategy proved, as Defense Secretary Mattis explained that fighting terror is
now on the back burner, because " we face growing threats from revisionist powers as different
as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian
models ... great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national
security."
It started the day that Putin said "no more" to US mischief and moved into Syria.
From there the coup in Ukraine was engineered in an attempt to neutralize the Black Sea
fleet supporting Syria, which was based in Crimea.
That was never going to be allowed to happen, but the usual suspects managed to lose their
shit anyway when they failed to capture Crimea in the coup and the fleet was able to continue
to assist Syria against US/Turk/Saudi-sponsored jihadis.
the coup de'tat in Ukieville occurred in late 2013/early2014 and Putin's speech to the UN
was Sept. 2015, where he asked: 'Do you (meaning the west) realize what you have done?", and
promptly a week later he starts bombing terrorists in Syria
I really couldn't give a good god-damn about whether or not he's a billionaire, a
gazillionaire or any other number... look, if Mark Fuckerberg can steal an idea from the
twins and make a few billion, I have NO issue with Vlad having all the loot he needs... no
questions asked, ever
He is not a multi-billionaire. That is just part of the anti-Putin propaganda campaign by:
Boris Berezovsky, Bill Browder, Mikhail Khodorovsky, Masha Gessen, George Soros and assorted
other (((Usual Suspects))), to attempt to isolate Russia and Putin from the global
"community".
Anti-Putin propagandists Masha Gessen and the Washington Post's David Ignatius's led the
charge on that one. The Palace is wonderful, but no one claims it belongs to Putin.
The whislterblower claims in the Wikipedia entry are unsubstantiated and appear to be
totally motivated by other business dealings that went bad. Similar to Bill Browder and the
Magninsky Affair.
Wait until we see Bill Browders client list. What Democratic insiders made the most from
his Hermitage hedge fund prior to his stealing the money and the tax money and paying off
those deep state Dems (including Soros) who helped make it happen. Can we charge some Mi6
fucks too? Magnitsky was killed by Browder to set the stage for his stories.
From then on, the Dems needed a Russian villain to demonize so the cover would stick...
Until Putin and Donald exposed the truth in Helstinky
No, Putin's speech didn't start anything, because most Americans were totally unaware of
it, since MSM rarely ever reports much about what Putin says. Instead, America has had a
hatred for Russia going back over 100 years, starting with the first Red Scare in 1917-1924.
Second Red Scare 1947-1957. . This current nonsense about the Russians makes Red Scare
#3.
"... The contrary narrative to that provided by Browder concedes that there was indeed a huge fraud related to as much as $230 million in unpaid Russian taxes on an estimated $1.5 billion of income, but that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, who was actually an accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme, using multiple companies and tax avoidance schemes to carry out the deception. Magnitsky, who was on cardiac medication, was indeed arrested and convicted, but he, according to his own family, reportedly died due to his heart condition, possibly exacerbated by negligent authorities who failed to medicate him adequately when he became ill. ..."
"... As Nekrasov worked on the documentary, he discovered that the Browder supported narrative was full of contradictions, omissions and fabrication of evidence . By the time he finished, he realized that the more accurate account of what had occurred with Browder and Magnitsky had been that provided by the Russian authorities. ..."
"... When one gets past all of his bluster and posturing, by one significant metric Bill Browder might well be accounted the most dangerous man in the world. ..."
"... That the U.S. media and Congress appear to be entranced by Browder and dismissive of Moscow's charges against him is symptomatic of just how far the Russia-phobia in the West has robbed people of their ability to see what is right in front of them. To suggest that what is taking place driven by Browder and his friends in high places could well lead to tragedy for all of us would be an understatement. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
At the press
conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki, Russian President Vladimir Putin and
American President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of resolving potential criminal cases
involving citizens of the two countries by permitting interrogators from Washington and Moscow
to participate in joint questioning of the individuals named in indictments prepared by the
respective judiciaries. The predictable response by the American nomenklatura was that
it was a horrible idea as it would potentially require U.S. officials to answer questions from
Russians about their activities.
Putin argued, not unreasonably, that if Washington wants to extradite and talk to any of the
twelve recently
indicted GRU officers the Justice Department has named then reciprocity is in order for
Americans and other identified individuals who are wanted by the Russian authorities for
illegal activity while in Russia. And if Russian officials are fair game, so are American
officials.
A prime target for such an interrogation would be President Barack Obama's Ambassador to
Russia Michael McFaul, who was widely criticized while in Moscow for being on an apparent
mission to cultivate ties with the Russian political opposition and other "pro-democracy"
groups. But McFaul was not specifically identified in the press conference, though Russian
prosecutors
have asked him to answer questions related to the ongoing investigation of another leading
critic, Bill Browder, who was named by Putin during the question and answer session. Browder is
a major hedge fund figure who, inter alia , is an American by birth. He renounced his
U.S. citizenship in 1997 in exchange for British citizenship to avoid paying federal taxes on
his worldwide income.
Bill Browder is what used to be referred to as an oligarch, having set up shop in 1999 as
Hermitage Capital Management Fund, a hedge fund registered in tax havens Guernsey and the
Cayman Islands. It focused on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the
loans-for-shares scheme under
Russia's drunkard President Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the
early years of Vladimir Putin. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in
Russia.
Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled media and
by President Bill Clinton, who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him to buy
support. Today we would refer to Clinton's action as "interference in the 1996 election," but
at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object to what was being
done to it. Yeltsin proved keen to follow oligarchical advice regarding how to strip the former
Soviet Union of its vast state-owned assets. Browder's Hermitage Investments profited hugely
from the commodities deals that were struck at that time.
Browder and his apologists portray him as an honest and honorable Western businessman
attempting to operate in a corrupt Russian business world. Nevertheless, the loans-for-shares
scheme that made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of
corruption by all parties involved, an arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local
oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of
value. Along the way, Browder
was reportedly involved in money laundering, making false representations on official
documents and bribery.
Browder was eventually charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was
banned from re-entering Russia in 2005 and began to withdraw his assets from the country, but
three companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities. Browder
himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia in 2013 and sentenced to nine years
in prison.
Browder, who refers to himself as Putin's "public enemy #1," has notably been able to sell
his tale of innocence to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay
Graham, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman, all of whom are always receptive when
criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians and media outlets. In
the wake of the Helsinki press conference he has, for example, claimed that Putin named him
personally because he is a threat to continue to expose the crimes of the mafia that
he claims is currently running Russia, but there is, inevitably, another less discussed
alternative view of his self-serving narrative.
Central to the tale of what Browder really represents is the Magnitsky Act , which
the U.S. Congress passed into law to sanction individual Kremlin officials for their treatment
of alleged whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, arrested and imprisoned in Russia. Browder has sold
a narrative which basically says that he and his "lawyer" Sergei Magnitsky uncovered massive
tax fraud and, when they attempted to report it, were punished by a corrupt police force and
magistracy, which had actually stolen the money. Magnitsky was arrested and died in prison,
allegedly murdered by the police to silence him.
The Magnitsky case is of particular importance because both the European Union and the
United States have initiated sanctions against the identified Russian officials who were
allegedly involved. In the Magnitsky Act , sponsored by Russia-phobic Senator Ben
Cardin and signed by President Barack Obama in 2012, the U.S. asserted its willingness to
punish foreign governments for human rights abuses. The Act, initially limited to Russia, has
now been expanded by virtue of 2016's Global Magnitsky Act , which enabled U.S.
sanctions worldwide.
Russia reacted angrily to the first iteration of the Act , noting that the actions
taken by its government internally, notably the operation of its judiciary, were being
subjected to outside interference, while other judicial authorities also questioned
Washington's claimed right to respond to criminal acts committed outside the United States.
Moscow reciprocated with sanctions against U.S. officials as well as by increasing pressure on
foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups operating in Russia. Some have referred to the
Magnitsky Act as the start of the new Cold War.
The contrary narrative to that provided by Browder concedes that there was indeed a huge
fraud related to as much as $230 million in unpaid Russian taxes on an estimated $1.5 billion
of income, but that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately
ordered and engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, who was actually an accountant, personally
developing and implementing the scheme, using multiple companies and tax avoidance schemes to
carry out the deception. Magnitsky, who was on cardiac medication, was indeed arrested and
convicted, but he, according to his own family, reportedly died due to his heart condition,
possibly exacerbated by negligent authorities who failed to medicate him adequately when he
became ill.
The two competing Browder narratives have been explored in some detail by a Russian
documentary film maker Andrei Nekrasov, an outspoken anti-Putin activist, who was actually
initially engaged by Browder to do the film. An affable Browder appears extensively in the
beginning describing his career and the events surrounding Magnitsky.
As Nekrasov worked on the documentary, he discovered that the Browder supported narrative
was full of contradictions, omissions and fabrication of
evidence . By the time he finished, he realized that the more accurate account of what had
occurred with Browder and Magnitsky had been that provided by the Russian authorities.
When Nekrasov prepared to air his work " The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes," he
inevitably found himself confronted by billionaire Browder and a battery of lawyers, who
together blocked the showing of the film in Europe and the United States. Anyone subsequently
attempting to promote the documentary has been immediately confronted with 300 plus pages of
supporting documents accompanying a letter threatening a lawsuit if the film were to be shown
to the public.
A single viewing of "The Magnitsky Act" in Washington in June 2016 turned into a
riot when Browder supporters used tickets given to Congressional staffers to disrupt the
proceedings. At a subsequent hearing before Congress, where he was featured as an expert
witness on Russian corruption before a fawning Senate Judiciary Committee, Bill Browder
suggested that those who had challenged his narrative and arranged the film's viewing in
Washington should be prosecuted under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), which
includes penalties of up to five years in prison.
Because of the pressure from Browder, there has never been a second public showing of
"The Magnitsky Act" but it is possible to see it online at this site .
Bill Browder, who benefited enormously from Russian corruption, has expertly repackaged
himself as a paragon among businessmen, endearing himself to the Russia-haters in Washington
and the media. Curiously, however, he has proven reluctant to testify in cases regarding his
own business dealings. He has, for example, repeatedly
run away , literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under
oath.
When one gets past all of his bluster and posturing, by one significant metric Bill Browder
might well be accounted the most dangerous man in the world. Driven by extreme hatred of Putin
and of Russia, he personally and his Magnitsky Myth have together done more to launch and
sustain a dangerous new Cold War between a nuclear armed United States and a nuclear armed
Russia. Blind to what he has accomplished, he continues to pontificate about how Putin is out
to get him when instead he is the crook who quite likely stole $230 million dollars and should
be facing the consequences. That the U.S. media and Congress appear to be entranced by Browder
and dismissive of Moscow's charges against him is symptomatic of just how far the Russia-phobia
in the West has robbed people of their ability to see what is right in front of them. To
suggest that what is taking place driven by Browder and his friends in high places could well
lead to tragedy for all of us would be an understatement.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Please take a look at the documentary that has been quashed by Bill Browder and his
enablers, as it has not only been nixed in its premiere in many EU countriu, except Norway,
but has been deleted almost immediately when it was made available on YouTube. Now, however,
it is still available on bitchute and has almost 13K hits in almost four days after being
posted (as of this post):
As an aside, Thank you to Robin and S2C for spreading it so that people can make up their
own minds.
A special thanks should be made to Robin and S2S for distributing this film. The video is
almost at 13K as of this posting. We all have to work together in order to reveal the truth.
Perhaps we will benefit in the end, but that is to be determined yet. Nontheless, we must
try!
Sorry the video on bitchute which you have in your presentation was not present when first
losded in my browser, but I must admit from the time I first encountered this video, having
just 38 views until now, almost four days later, at almost 13K views, people are certainly
paying attention!
Please team up with Stranahan in his campaign to make Senators answer the question, "Have
you seen Bill Browder's 2015 deposition in the U.S. vs. Prevazon case?"
Full research sources here , including links to Browder's deposition. See for
yourselves how Browder contradicts himself in depositions, Senate testimony and his book.
Sad, but maybe not for us!
SAME THING HAPPENED WITH THE AL JAZEERA DOCUMENTARY ON ISRAELI LOBBY IN AMERICA
For the past year, Qatar has been under tremendous pressure from other US puppet Gulf states
(SAudi ARabia, UAE, Egypt etc) and from US and Israeli lobby. There was a economic blockade
of Qatar. WHY? Because Al Jazeera was about to release a documentary on Israeli lobby in the
US. Its documentary on Israeli lobby in UK had already been embarassing for zionists.
Because
of the extreme economic pressure put on Qatar and the threat of sanctions and worse, Qatar
(which owns Al Jazeera) shelved the documentary. They also had to grease a lot of zionist
organizations in US.
Not only did the Israeli lobby pressure Qatar into shelving the Al Jazeera documentary on the
lobby in America, they also shook them down for money.
Qatar donated $250,000 to some of the most extreme pro-Israel organizations in the United
States, including one that funds senior Israeli military officers to go on propaganda
tours.
Joseph Allaham, a lobbyist working for the Qatari government, transferred the money through
his firm Lexington Strategies in late 2017 and early 2018.
The sums included $100,000 to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), $100,000 to Our
Soldiers Speak and $50,000 for Blue Diamond Horizons, Inc.
The USA idea about justice is best expressed by a USA law, allowing an invasion of the
Netherlands, if a USA citizen would be in the The Hague prison of the International
Court.
To liberate this USA citizen.
" far the Russia-phobia in the West has robbed people of their ability to see what is right
in front of them "
Nothing new, in the 30ties Kennan was unable to make USA ambassador Davies see through
Stalin's show trials.
George F. Kennan, ´Memoirs 1925 – 1950', New York 1967, 1972
" American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Cardin and
ex-Senator Joe Lieberman "
American? I beg to differ. All of those turncoats serve their Master Israel and kiss
the nether regions of those TBTF Wall Street Casinos.
Browder is one of those nine Russian oligarchs – eight of whom are Jews – who
stole hundreds of billions from Russia when it was decompressing from being the USSR, helped
by the drunken buffoon Yeltsin and a battery of Wall Street financial sharpies who also
filled their pockets.
Watch the tough guy Browder run like a scared bunny rabbit in NYC from a process
server.
Browder needs to be arrested by Interpol, tried, convicted and spend the rest of his sorry
life in a Super Max prison for his thefts, frauds and helping to poison the relationship
between the USA & Russia, in an effort to save his sorry ass from prosecution.
"Central to the tale of what Browder really represents is the Magnitsky Act, which the U.S.
Congress passed into law to sanction individual Kremlin officials for their treatment of
alleged whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, arrested and imprisoned in Russia".
Hmmm. The USA has its whistleblowers, too. Maybe Russia (and other civilized countries)
should impose their own sanctions on all American officials in any way involved with the
persecution of Chelsea Clinton, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and others.
Although the existing US sanctions are a dead letter, since they will not get their hands
on the people they are trying to harm, they still give the world a wholly misleading
impression.
The sanctions insidiously suggest to the people and governments of the world that the US
government is somehow entitled to decide what is legal and what is illegal everywhere –
not just within its own jurisdiction – and moreover that it has the power to be
prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner against any of the world's citizens.
That is wrong, illegal, immoral, and unconscionable, and should not be tolerated.
"Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled
media and by President Bill Clinton, who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him
to buy support. Today we would refer to Clinton's action as "interference in the 1996
election," but at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object
to what was being done to it."
[emphasis mine]
So Mother Russia was raped, and by Bill Clinton, of all people. Where is the outrage?
Andrei Nekrasov's documentary is absolutely damning – how, after viewing it, could
anybody see Browder as anything but a shameless serial liar? The closest I can find on the internet to a rebuttal is from the Daily Beast:
Ooops, I posted this comment before seeing that this video was already posted above in the
article. I got a link to it from an entirely different source. It shows how it's getting
around! Good.
Although I posted this comment under another thread, I think it bears repeating here
(especially relevant to your point is the bolded part):
I think debunking the vulture capitalist Bill Browder's false claim of being, of all
things, a human rights advocate is the key to unraveling the Russia-gate hoax. I also think
the following information goes a long way in doing that:
1. Nekrasov's documentary, The Magnitsky Act: Behind The Scenes, now available for
viewing
2. Alex Krainer's The Killing of William Browder, now available online; and
3. Bill Browder's Previzon deposition in which he claims "I can't remember" at least 50
times and answers "I don't know" fully 211 times.
Notwithstanding these facts, it appears Mr. Browder is an untouchable. The Russians
have issued a Red Notice at least six times and he has managed to walk away scot free on
each occasion.
The zinger was when the Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to testify as an expert
witness against Fusion GPS, arguing that it should have registered under FARA because it
was working on behalf of a foreign government, in this case the Russian. The irony of this
scene was incredible. The hallowed chamber in which this inquiry took place is completely
bought and paid for by The Lobby but not a peep about having it register under FARA.
Totally surreal!
An interesting thing about this that has gone almost completely unreported is that HSBC
quietly held a series of closed-door meetings with Russian authorities earlier this year
regarding the tax fraud charges leveled at Browder and his businesses (HSBC jointly managed
Hermitage) and decided to pay up some of the cash he illegally siphoned out of the country
(22 million dollars I believe, so a drop in the ocean given the scale of his endeavors, but
it's something.)
"Bill Browder declined to comment" according to one of the few articles on the matter.
Isn't all of that more or less tantamount to an admission of guilt?
(2) How does a respectable congress pass a law based solely on the testimony of someone
convicted of a crime by another country? No jury in the world would reach a verdict based
solely on the word of a convict, without it being substantiated by numerous pieces of other
circumstantial and direct evidence.
(3) Even if he paid everyone oodles of money and brought a thousand lawsuits, why would
gazillionaire corporations cave in to his demands to ban books, movies, organizations,
etc.?
There is something more powerful about Bill Browder than just his pile of money.
In fact, most (not all) US lawmakers long ago became a euphemism for incompetence,
corruption and lies. So, no–modern US Congress is not respectable by people and numbers
reflect that. Hopefully, sometime in the future, some honorable and loyal to their country
people will make it there.
Browder is a Zionist Bolshevik of the stripe that murdered some 60 million Russians from 1917
to 1957 and as such is not only an enemy of Russia but an even greater enemy of America and
is a typical communist who wrecks and destroys countries.
Read THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION, Browder is a poster boy for these thieves and murderers .
The 'Netherlands Invasion Act' is a former fact popularized by Noam Chomsky. The
Netherlands invasion provisions were quietly repealed because it was too embarrassing and
disruptive to US policy. What remains is a prohibition against US assistance to certain
criminal investigations. Putin poked at the same neuralgic spot in Helsinki when he proposed
reciprocity in mutual legal assistance. The issue is US impunity for war propaganda and
coercive interference.
The US government has asserted a specific reservation to the international prohibition of
war propaganda (ICCPR Article 20.) And legal experts are chipping away at the nonsense
rationale behind the US reservation. The US claims it is defending free speech, so Article 19
and other NGOs propose an important distinction:
. Dumb broke Joe Blow with his bumper sticker that says Make Iran a Parking Lot
. Concerted government and media campaigns advocating war.
Only the latter constitutes illegal war propaganda, which is illegal under conventional
international law (UN Charter Article 2(4)), customary international law (E/Conf. 6/C.i/ig of
1948 and other resolutions), and legal precedent (Nuremberg Count 1).
So when Russia gets fed up and decapitates the US regime, Browder will be in the cage at
the war crimes tribunal under the Streicher, Fritzsche, Dietrich, and von Weizsaeker
Nuremberg precedents.
Where is the outrage? You ain't gonna get it from Big Media, who sold out a long time ago.
BM has all but ignored the Clinton Administration collusion with Yeltsin in the Russian 1996
election. It was an, er, "inconvenient truth."
Can someone help me remember the names of those 9 oligarchs?
These are the ones I remember:
1) Anatoly Chubais
2) Browder
3) Boris Berezovsky
4) Mikhail Khodorkovsky
5) Vladimir Gusinsky
Who were the others? Thanks.
Of these 5, Chubais remained in Russia but the others fled. Chubais was the one who was
instrumental in starting the loans-for-shares scheme. My understanding is that those who fled
are real scum, since Putin offered all oligarchs the chance to keep their money so long as
they avoided politics. Most vulture capitalists agreed to this arrangement, but the worst of
the Jewish oligarchs were too greedy and lustful to give in. So I have heard, anyway.
Last weekend's release of a FISA warrant application to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page was quite revealing - perhaps most of all because we learned that the FBI in relied heavily on
the Steele dossier, contrary to claims that it played a minor role.
What's even more troubling, as noted by Chuck Ross of the
Daily Caller
,
is
a report contained in a
new book
by two journalists involved in the ordeal, David Corn and Michael Isikoff, who state
that
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson had serious doubts about one of the sources used
in the Steele Dossier
.
Simpson called dossier source Sergei Millian a
"big talker
"
who
overstated his connections to Trump, and had a "fifty-fifty" chance of being accurate.
"Had Millian made something up or repeated rumors he had heard from others to impress Steele's
collector? Simpson had his doubts. He considered Millian a big talker," Isikoff and Corn, who are
good friends with Simpson. Isikoff notably wrote a
Yahoo! News
article containing claims
directly from Christopher Steele - a relationship the FBI lied about in Carter Page's FISA
application when they said Isikoff did not directly receive the information from the former MI6
spy, while Isikoff said he did in a
February podcast
.
Millian is both Source D and Source E in the dossier, according to The Wall Street Journal
and The Washington Post. In the 35-page document,
Source D alleged that the Russian
government is blackmailing Donald Trump with video of a sexual tryst with prostitutes at a
Moscow hotel room. Source E described an alleged "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation
between them and the Russian leadership."
"This was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate's campaign manger, Paul
MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries,"
reads the dossier. -
Daily
Caller
Millian
, meanwhile, operates a shadowy trade group called the Russian-American
Chamber of Commerce. He denies being a dossier source, though he has refused to speculate as to
whether he may have unwittingly provided claims that ended up in the report.
Millian did have one known link to the Trump campaign.
In late July 2016, he reached
out to George Papadopoulos
, the Trump adviser who has pleaded guilty to lying to the
FBI about the timing of his contacts with an alleged Russian agent.
Sources close to Papadopoulos have told The Daily Caller News Foundation that
he met
Millian for the first time several days after Millian reached out to the campaign aide on
LinkedIn
. Sources close to Papadopoulos have also said that
Millian offered
Papadopoulos $30,000 a month for a business deal that would require him to remain in the Trump
orbit.
Papadopoulos rejected the idea, according to TheDCNF's sources. -
Daily
Caller
Millian, a Belarusian American businessman, has denied being a Russian spy, though he does admit
to having Kremlin contacts, and told the
Daily Caller'
s Chuck Ross that he was one of the
"very few people who have insider knowledge of Kremlin politics...who has been able to successfully
integrate in American society."
While the 412-page release of Page's FISA application and subsequent renewals were heavily
redacted, GOP lawmakers who have seen less redacted copies say that the redacted portions don't
provide any evidence that they verified the dossier whatsoever, while it remains unclear what
efforts - if any, the FBI undertook to corroborate any of the claims.
What's more,
the FBI stated several dossier claims as fact within the FISA application.
For example, the FBI says in the application that Page secretly met with Kremlin insiders Igor
Sechin and Igor Diveykin during a July 2016 trip to Moscow - a claim directly out of the dossier,
which Page has vehemently disputed.
... ... ...
Another approach used to beef up the FISA application's curb appeal was
circular
evidence,
via the inclusion of a letter from Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid
(NV) to former FBI Director James Comey, citing information Reid got from John Brennan,
which
was in turn from the Clinton-funded dossier
.
... ... ...
The FBI also went to extreme lengths
to convince the FISA judge that Steele ("Source
#1"), was reliable when they could not verify the unsubstantiated claims in his dossier - while
also having to explain why they still trusted his information after having terminated Steele's
contract over inappropriate disclosures he made to the media.
"Not withstanding Source1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate1's ties to
Russia,
based on Source1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby
Source1
provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source 1s reporting herein to be
credible
"
... ... ...
Millian, meanwhile, is Sure that Trump likes Russia, "because he likes beautiful Russian
ladies... He likes talking to them, of course. And he likes to be able to make lot of money with
Russians, yes, correct."
Trump also likes paying them to urinate on beds, according to Millian, allegedly.
So exactly who were the journalists Fusion GPS paid to pump the Russian narrative
in the very beginning?
Or is that still a state secret? I want goddamn names.
"You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no
question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there." -
Peter Strzok
End Quote
Ray McGovern, over at
Antiwar.com , provides a helpful time line:
2017
May 16: Comey leak to NY Times to get a special counsel appointed
May 17: Special counsel appointed -- namely, Robert Mueller.
May 19: Strzok confides to girlfriend Page, "No big there there."
July: Mueller appoints Strzok lead FBI Agent on collusion investigation.
August: Mueller removes Strzok after learning of his anti-Trump texts to Page.
Dec. 12: DOJ IG releases some, but by no means all, relevant Strzok-Page texts to Congress
and the media, which first reports on Strzok's removal in August.
2018
June 14: DOJ IG Report Published.
June 15; Strzok escorted out of FBI Headquarters.
June 21: Attorney General Jeff Sessions announces Strzok has lost his security clearances.
July 12: Strzok testifies to House committees. Solomon reports he refused to answer
question about the "there there" text.
July 13: Lisa Page interviewed by same committees. Answers the question.
Meanwhile, in Syria, Israel shot down a Syrian fighter which it claims strayed into its
airspace. Israel also fired two missiles from its David's Sling missile defense against a
Russian Tochka short-range ballistic missile which was fired against ISIS positions. The
Israeli system failed to hit the Russian missile, which is embarrassing since the US spent
hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars funding the system.
In other news, Israel rebuffed Putin's offer to keep Iranian forces 100km away from the
Golan border region, saying that wasn't enough. Thus, Israel keeps open its ability to attack
Syria at any time it wants as long as it claims it's hitting "Iranians", despite the fact that
most "Iranian" forces are actually Shia from other countries like Iraq.
The attorney for President Trump's former longtime personal attorney has given
CNN
a copy of a secretly recorded conversation between Trump and Cohen, in which they
discuss purchasing the rights to a Playboy model's claim that she and Trump had an affair.
McDougal, claims to have had a nearly yearlong affair with Trump in 2006, right before Melania
Trump gave birth to their son Barron. McDougal sold her story to the National Enquirer for $150,000
as the 2016 presidential campaign was in its final months, however the tabloid sat on the story
which kept it from becoming public in a practice known as "catch and kill."
Cohen told Trump about his plans to set up a company and finance the purchase of the rights
from American Media, which publishes the National Enquirer.
"I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our
friend David,"
Cohen said in the recording, likely a reference to American Media head
David Pecker.
Trump interrupts Cohen asking,
"What financing?"
according to the recording.
When Cohen tells Trump,
"We'll have to pay."
Trump is heard saying
"pay
with cash"
but the audio is muddled and it's unclear whether he suggests paying with
cash or not paying. Cohen says,
"no, no"
but it is not clear what is said next.
-
CNN
The Enquirer's chairman, David J. Pecker, is a personal friend of Trump's, and McDougal has
accused Cohen of taking part in the deal.
By burying Ms. McDougal's story during the campaign in a practice known in the tabloid
industry as "catch and kill," A.M.I. protected Mr. Trump from negative publicity that could have
harmed his election chances, spending money to do so.
The authorities believe that the company was not always operating in what campaign finance
law calls a "legitimate press function," according to the people briefed on the investigation,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity. That may explain why prosecutors did not follow typical
Justice Department protocol to avoid subpoenaing news organizations when possible, and to give
journalists advance warning when demanding documents or other information. -
New
York Times
While Trump never paid for the rights, Lanny Davis says that the recording, made in 2016, shows
Trump knew about the payment.
On Saturday, President Trump broke his silence over the recording, tweeting: "Inconceivable that
the government would break into a lawyer's office (early in the morning) - almost unheard of. Even
more inconceivable that a lawyer would tape a client - totally unheard of & perhaps illegal. The
good news is that your favorite President did nothing wrong!" Trump tweeted.
Meanwhile, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani confirmed with the
New York Times
last week
that Trump and Cohen had discussed payments - and that "
there was no indication on the tape
that Mr. Trump knew before the conversation about the payment from the Enquirer's parent company,
American Media Inc., to Ms. McDougal
."
"
Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance
,"
said Giuliani, adding that Trump had previously told Cohen that if he were to make a payment
related to the woman, to write a check instead of sending cash so that the transaction could be
properly documented. "In the big scheme of things, it's powerful exculpatory evidence," Giuliani
added.
Cohen made a similar payment of $130,000 to porn star and stripper Stormy Daniels, whose real
name is Stephanie Clifford. Cohen said at the time "In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own
personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford."
Clifford - whose husband
just
filed for divorce
, is suing Trump over a nondisclosure agreement so that she can "tell her
story" (in the form of a book, we imagine), while she is also suing both Trump and Cohen for libel
after Trump called her statements "fraud" over Twitter, while claiming that Clifford fabricated a
story that she was threatened by a man after she went to journalists with the story of her affair.
Shortly before the 2016 election, former Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that
McDougal's allegations were "totally untrue."
Honestly, no one cares except the libtards and democrats
if there is a difference. The men and women I know love
Trump because, among other things, he is not limp-wristed
like Bush and Obama were.
Americans care about jobs,
immigrants and terrorists.
"pay with cash" probably is just a response to the
word "financing". Just my guess of course, but
from the dialogue it flows logically, as in Trump
saying to himself "why finance it, just pay her
cash". Doesn't necessarily mean pay with currency
just means don't borrow the money. Besides, it
doesn't matter much in this context since the
lawyer said no, and there is no crime here unless
he said "pay her with campaign contributions".
Clinton paid Paula Jones, what, $850,000? And he
didn't even get the rights to the story.
Trump's negotiating genius on display lol.
"'pay with cash' probably is just a response to
the word 'financing'."
I would say 99%
probability that's what he meant. Lawyer: "we
need to talk about financing" Trump: "pay with
cash." He didn't mean a suitcase full of
bills. He meant "just write a check." Anyone
in business knows the terminology. Plus it's
not even clear WTF they are talking about.
I have no love for Trump, in fact I think
he's an asshole. But this is all so much ado
about nothing.
I have to admit I'm confused as to why he should
pay anything at all. Why not let the smoking hot
model tell the world you scored with her? What's
the downside here?
So this is the tape that Trump said he doesn't give a
crap about the release of, outside of the larger
question of EVERYONE'S RIGHT of lawyer-client
privilege?
Well just damn, it must be a smoker
that will finally lead to his impeachment ;-)
Well yeah...but these days ya just roll with what
they present, like..."past and former government
officials who are in a position to know have
confirmed that"...which invariably leads to, abuse
of authority, presenting falsified/manufactured
evidence to a court, withholding exculpatory
evidence to a court, stolen classified documents
after being fired, obstruction of justice,
perjury...ya know, the normal regular things progs
do to put their heads in the noose ;-)
It was FBI that raided Cohen's office so I'll
presume that's where this tape came from.
I'm
not going to start sticking up for the
maverick's lapses in fidelity, but holy crap,
the FBI/DOJ have been blatantly weaponized
against him and in charge of those outfits
are....Sessions and Wray?
Well yeah...but these days ya just roll with what
they present, like..."past and former government
officials who are in a position to know have
confirmed that"...which invariably leads to, abuse
of authority, presenting falsified/manufactured
evidence to a court, withholding exculpatory
evidence to a court, stolen classified documents
after being fired, obstruction of justice,
perjury...ya know, the normal regular things progs
do to put their heads in the noose ;-)
It was FBI that raided Cohen's office so I'll
presume that's where this tape came from.
I'm
not going to start sticking up for the
maverick's lapses in fidelity, but holy crap,
the FBI/DOJ have been blatantly weaponized
against him and in charge of those outfits
are....Sessions and Wray?
At least DJT has shown generosity toward his, um, friends. What did JFK do
to Marilyn? What did Teddy do to Mary Jo? LBJ had at least one mistress.
What did Bill Clinton call the gal in the blue dress, wasn't it "that
woman"? What did Obama call his wife, Michael if I recall correctly.
Poor
Jimmy Carter. All he ever had was a killer rabbit. He may have been totally
incompetent, but at least he was a decent guy while in office. Afterward,
unfortunately, not so much.
Broadcast of a recording that falls under attorney-client priviledge,
which is specifically exempted from use by anyone, period
recorded with single-party consent
from records siezed by a surprise raid by the FBI of the standing
president's attorney
as part of an investigation predicated on evidence completely
fabricated by the other party
discovered by a special group tasked
specifically keep privledged
information from being passed on,
by court order
the investigation is still ongoing so presumably all evidence is
sensitive
leaked by special counsel
Any one of these is a federal felony. The people behind this are willing to
break a
lot
of laws to make it happen. All to release a
recording that on the face of it is regarding a legal activity (a forebearance
contract.)
"... Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He's a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today , especially for the online magazine " New Eastern Outlook ." https://journal-neo.org/2018/07/21/russiagate-the-comedy-of-errors/ ..."
NEO: Russiagate, the Comedy of Errors - Veterans Today | News - Military Foreign Affairs Policy
The 2018 Helsinki summit has left Americans puzzled, some terrified, others feign outrage but few
have stood back and taken a breath. Always stand back, always take a breath, always keep the mouth shut and
the hand off the keyboard.
A quick review of the facts, such as they are, such as we can assume
them to be, is a place to begin. Donald Trump, despite his denials and obfuscation, really did side with
Russia against America's intelligence agencies.
Let's take a breath, on one hand you have the CIA, NSA and 14 other agencies, all heavily politicized,
all with long histories of abuses, of lying, of even drug trafficking, rigging elections, assassinations –
this is the "one hand."
On the other, you have Russian President Vladimir Putin saying, "I didn't do it."
Then you have Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller telling us he has evidence of Russian wrongdoing –
evidence he got from the CIA, NSA and 14 other agencies.
Then again, I forgot to mention that these agencies generally get their intelligence from Israel, about
half of it – a nation that is seldom an unbiased or disinterested party – or from open source intelligence.
They see it on TV.
Then again, they have been accused, from time to time, of making it all up.
Add to this Donald Trump
, a man who would lie about what day it was; he doesn't seem to
be able to help himself – the mouth opens and out they come – an endless stream of them, many of them
bizarre and quite unnecessary. It is as though he is testing us.
There is a simple answer here. Based on reason, Trump may well have been quite correct in his assessment
that Putin wasn't lying. Putin was right there; Trump only told the audience what he was told. Trump wasn't
making that part up.
As you can note, we are now testing one or more hypotheses, hoping we might end up with something
resembling truth, a lonely effort in the best of cases.
Robert
Mueller
We can assume Robert Mueller
was telling the truth also. He
said, through indictments of Russian intelligence personnel, that he had "evidence" received from
"intelligence sources" and "witnesses," some of whom are already convicted criminals, that support his
hypothesis. Mueller says his evidence proves "the Russians did it."
This doesn't mean Putin lied. It doesn't even mean Trump lied, though in his recent denials, he has begun
lying, and quite embarrassingly; nothing new there.
Here is what it hinges down to – the American judicial system, an adversarial system that can be
manipulated and in many cases, as Trump has claimed over and over, can be used to target innocent victims.
Then again, we aren't saying Trump is an innocent victim, only that Putin didn't lie.
Then we ask, is it possible for Russian intelligence officers to do exactly what Mueller has claimed –
steal identities, hack computers, pay off stooges – the normal things intelligence officers are paid to do
anyway, without Putin knowing?
The answer to this is yes; but the answer is also mitigated, in that
the likelihood of "yes" being correct is poor. Putin should have known. He says he didn't and, thus, based
on his character, or at least his history of blatant fearlessness, he is unlikely to lie over something
where he has little or nothing to lose nor does lying serve the interests of the Russian people and their
welfare.
Then we look at the real weak link, the sources of the evidence, witness statements from admitted
criminals and reports from intelligence agencies.
Past this
, we look at who has something to gain in destroying American institutions,
discrediting President Trump even more than usual, and worsening relations between the US and Russia.
It isn't Iran. It isn't Syria. It isn't Germany.
We then step back again and assess which nations have the power to fake evidence or corrupt the output of
American intelligence reports even more than they are usually faked or corrupted.
Three nations come to mind, in order; Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Each have powerful lobbies in Washington, each could potentially gain through weakening both Russia and
the United States, and each has a long history of using black propaganda and even false flag terrorism to
achieve gains.
I like this list.
We then take an anecdotal look
at a couple of minor aspects of the Mueller inquiry. We
begin with internet manipulation of fake news stories attacking Hillary Clinton.
It is one thing putting out a fake story; it is quite another featuring it on Facebook with extremely
strong preferences and making sure any and every Google search, for cabbage recipes or vacation spots, gives
results that attack the Clinton campaign.
Assuming that "Zuckerberg" of Facebook would work with Israeli intelligence, simply because of his name
might well be considered anti-Semitism. However, when examining how Zuckerberg dealt with Cambridge
Analytica during an election year and his relationship with Israeli spy contractor, Black Cube, Israel comes
to the top of the list.
Jared
Cohen at Google Ideas
Google
also has things to hide. Behind Google
is a regime-change organization, formerly known as Google Idea Groups, now called Google Jigsaw.
Jigsaw, a powerful military and intelligence contractor owned by Google Corporation, is headed by former
Bush White House clandestine intelligence chief, Jared Cohen.
Cohen has been active in operations against Russian interests in Crimea, he has run operations inside
Iran and has a number of organizations under his command in Turkey aimed at ousting President Assad of
Syria.
After all
, Cohen's job is "regime change" and Russia, Iran and Syria are long targets of
the "Russia bashers" in Washington, many of whom, if not most, are also powerful members of the Israel lobby
as well.
We will let Saudi Arabia off the hook this time.
Time to step back again. Note that even if Russia were guilty, but guilty of what? Spying is not illegal.
There is no international convention against spying.
America's troops in Syria are illegal. Drone killings are illegal. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol
of Israel is illegal. Russia rigging an American election is not a violation of international law.
It's not nice, but then again, American sanctions against Russia aren't nice either. America's rightist
coup against Ukraine wasn't so nice. America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a few other countries,
wasn't so nice.
America's efforts to flood Russia with heroin from Afghanistan isn't nice either, but we don't have to
get into that right now.
What we are saying, and a case we are making, there was no reason for Putin to lie. However, there is
reason for a nation, let's take Israel for instance, to fake Russia as a "bad guy," putting an American
president in office who, as Trump has proven, does what Israel tells him to do 100% of the time.
Does Israel have the muscle, the capability or, using the legal term, the "means" to fake evidence?
We already established
they have a motive and they have opportunity.
We then have it – Mueller told the truth, Putin told the truth, even Trump told the truth before he
started lying.
Should the Russian people take solace in the fact that America is poorly governed? America has hurt
Russia, over and over, though few Americans realize it.
Peace could and should have broken out decades ago, except America has been ruled by
Russia-haters for a hundred years – Russia-haters that are alive and well and in control in Washington,
even now.
I am not saying Putin is perfect or above sin. I am only saying he would not have bothered lying about
anything this stupid or minor; it isn't worth it. He has nothing to gain. Putin is not stupid, though he may
well be poorly informed. Is he so poorly informed that his own intelligence agencies might well have acted
with blatant stupidity against the United States and gotten caught?
The Russia of the Cold War, the old Soviet Union, would never have been so stupid.
Then again, how much has Russia gained from Trump?
As the ire of the first 48 hours after Helsinki dies down, and some real rage among a population of
Americans – no one knows how big – burns on, we ask why?
To many Americans
, perhaps a majority that ebbs and flows according to fake pollsters,
Russia foisted a dangerous clown into the Oval Office as a sick joke – perhaps a punishment for some crime
Americans would never admit to anyway.
"Why have you done this to us?"
When asked, Vladimir Putin simply said,
"Look elsewhere."
I saw a
Twitter thread between two journalists the other day which completely summarized my
experience of debating the establishment Russia narrative on online forums lately . Aaron
Maté, who is in my opinion one of the clearest voices out there on American Russia
hysteria, was approached with an argument by a journalist named Jonathan M Katz.
Maté engaged the argument by asking for evidence of the claims Katz was making,
only to be given the runaround.
I'm going to copy the back-and-forth into the text here for anyone who doesn't feel like
scrolling through a Twitter thread, not because I am interested in the petty rehashing of a
meaningless Twitter spat, but because it's such a perfect example of what I want to talk about
here.
Katz : Are you aware of what Russian agents did during the 2016 presidential election, by
chance?
Maté : I'm aware of what Mueller has accused Russian agents of --
are we supposed to just reflexively believe the assertions of prosecutors &
intelligence officials now, or is it ok to wait for the evidence? (as I did in the tweet
you're replying to)
Katz : Why are you even asking this question if you're just going to discard the reams of
evidence that have supplied by investigators, spies, and journalists over the last two
years?
Maté : Why are you avoiding answering the Q I asked? If I can guess, it's
cause doing so would mean acknowledging your position requires taking gov't claims on faith.
Re: "reams of evidence", I've actually written about it extensively, and disagree that it's
convincing.
Katz : Yeah I'm familiar with your work. You're asking for someone to summarize two years
of reporting, grand jury indictments, reports from independent analysts, give agencies both
American and foreign, and on and on just so you can handwave and draw some vague
equivalencies.
Maté : No, actually I've asked 2 Qs in this thread, both of which have been
avoided: 1) what evidence convinces you that Russia will attack the midterms 2) are we
supposed to reflexively believe the assertions of prosecutors & intel officials now, or
is it ok to wait for the evidence?
Katz : See this is what you do. You pretend like all of the evidence produced by
journalists, independent analysts and foreign governments doesn't exist so you can accuse
anyone who doesn't buy this SF Cohen Putinist bullshit you're selling of being a deep state
shill.
Maté : Except I haven't said anything about anyone being a "deep state shill",
here or anywhere else. So that's your embellishment. I'm simply asking whether we should
accept IC/prosecutor claims on faith. Mueller does lay out a case, that's true, but no
evidence yet.
Katz : No. You should not accept a prosecutor's claims on faith. You should read
independent analyses, evidence gathered by journalists and other agencies, and compare all it
to what is known on the public record. And you could if you wanted to.
Katz continued to evade and deflect until eventually exiting the conversation .
Meanwhile another journalist, The Intercept 's Sam Biddle, interjected that the debate was
"a big waste of" Katz's time and called Maté an "inverse louise mensch", all for
maintaining the posture of skepticism and asking for evidence. Maté invited Katz
and Biddle to debate their positions on The Real News , to which Biddle replied , "No thank you,
but I have some advice: If everyone has gotten it wrong, you should figure out who really did
it! If not Russia, find out who really hacked the DNC, find out who really spearphished
American election officials. Even OJ pretended to search for the real killer."
If you were to spend an entire day debating Russiagate online (and I am in no way suggesting
that you should), it is highly unlikely that you would see anything from the proponents of the
establishment Russia narrative other than the textbook fallacious debate tactics exhibited by
Katz and Biddle in that thread. It had the entire spectrum:
Gish gallop
-- The tactic of providing a stack of individually weak arguments to create
the illusion of one solid argument, illustrated when Katz cited unspecified "reams of
evidence" resulting from "two years of reporting, grand jury indictments, reports from
independent analysts, give agencies both American and foreign." He even claimed he shouldn't
have to go through that evidence point-by-point because there's too much of it, which is like
a poor man's Gish gallop fallacy.
Argumentum
ad populum -- The "it's true because so many agree that it is true"
argument that Katz attempted to imply in invoking all the "journalists, independent analysts
and foreign governments" who assert that Russia interfered in a meaningful way in America's
2016 elections and intends to interfere in the midterms.
Ad hominem
-- Biddle's "inverse louise mensch". You have no argument, so you insult the other
party instead.
Attempting
to shift the burden of proof -- Biddle's suggestion that Maté
needs to prove that someone else other than the Russian government did the things Russia is
accused of doing. Biddle is implying that the establishment Russia narrative should be
assumed true until somebody has proved it to be false, a tactic known as an appeal to ignorance
.
I'd like to talk about this last one a bit, because it underpins the entire CIA/CNN Russia
narrative.
As we've
discussed previously , in a post-Iraq invasion world the confident-sounding assertions of
spies, government officials and media pundits is not sufficient evidence for the public to
rationally support claims that are being used to escalate dangerous cold war
tensions with a nuclear superpower . The western empire has every motive in the world to
lie about the behaviors of a noncompliant government, and has an extensive and well-documented
history of doing exactly that. Hard, verifiable, publicly available proof is required.
Assertions are not evidence.
But even if there wasn't an extensive and recent history of disastrous US-led escalations
premised on lies advanced by spies, government officials and media pundits, the burden of proof
would still be on those making the claim, because that's how logic works. Whether you're
talking about law, philosophy or debate, the burden of proof is always on the party
making the claim . A group of spies, government officials and media pundits saying that
something happened in an assertive tone of voice is not the same thing as proof. That side of
the Russiagate debate is the side making the claim, so the burden of proof is on them. Until
proof is made publicly available, there is no logical reason for the public to accept the
CIA/CNN Russia narrative as fact, because the burden of proof has not been met.
This concept is important to understand on the scale of individual debates on the subject
during political discourse, and it is important to understand on the grand scale of the entire
Russia narrative as well. All the skeptical side of the debate needs to do is stand back and
demand that the burden of proof be met, but this often gets distorted in discourse on the
subject. The Sam Biddles of the world all too frequently attempt to confuse the situation by
asserting that it is the skeptics who must provide an alternative version of events and somehow
produce irrefutable proof about the behaviors of highly opaque government agencies. This is
fallacious, and it is backwards.
There are many Russiagate skeptics who have been doing copious amounts of research to come
up with other theories about what could have happened in 2016, and that's fine. But in a way
this can actually make the debate more confused, because instead of leaning back and insisting
that the burden of proof be met, you are leaning in and trying to convince everyone of your
alternative theory. Russiagaters love this more than anything, because you've shifted the
burden of proof for them. Now you're the one making the claims, so they can lean back and come
up with reasons to be skeptical of your argument. Empire loyalists like Sam Biddle would like
nothing more than to get skeptics like Aaron Maté falling all over themselves
trying to prove a
negative , but that's not how the burden of proof works, and there's no good reason to play
into it.
Until hard, verifiable proof of Russian election interference and/or collusion with the
Trump campaign is made publicly available, we are winning this debate as long as we continue
pointing out that this proof doesn't exist. All you have to do to beat a Russiagater in a
debate is point this out. They'll cite assertions made by the US intelligence community, but
assertions are not proof. They'll cite the assertions made in the recent Mueller indictment as
proof, but all the indictment contains is more assertions. The only reason Russiagaters confuse
assertions for proof is because the mass media treats them as such, but there's no reason to
play along with that delusion.
There is no good reason to play along with escalations between nuclear superpowers when
their premise consists of nothing but
narrative and assertions . It is right to demand that those escalations cease until the
public who is affected by them has had a full, informed say. Until the burden of proof has been
met, that has not even begun to happen.
* * *
The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my
website , which will get you an
email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if
you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
The Russiagate conspiracy is exposed as a seditious fraud. The FISA warrant was attested
to by a who's who of these clowns. they swore the bogus, unvetted basis of the warrant had
been validated.
It no longer much matters what the MSM consumer, demo true believers think. It's headed to
prosecutions. The revocation of clearances threat is opening publicity shot on the
process.
We in the USSA live in what can rightly be called a target rich environment. I believe
that the corruption of not just the government (all levels) but the culture too -
particularly the MSM, Hollyweird, etc. - is so immense that pulling the plug on all the bad
guys would cause the country to crash. I keep hoping that it is simply a matter of picking
one target at a time and crushing it before moving on to the next one. Going along, for the
time being, with the "war on drugs" and lavishing $ on MIC could then be seen as a way of
mollifying certain opponents until the time to attack them rolled around.
If my suspicions are correct, there just aren't enough uncompromised good guys around to
tackle all the corruption at once. My big fear is that there are not enough uncompromised
good guys in positions to do anything at all.
"... "Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) ..."
"... On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence community ." ..."
"... Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke, in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs." ..."
"... That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions." ..."
"... The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor, exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow, exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government. ..."
"Our intelligence community" is one of those phrases that make my back teeth itch, because I hate to see "our" doing that much
work (especially when I know how much work our's parent, "we," has to do.) So I thought I'd throw together some usage examples of
the term to see if I could find more significant readings than my own reaction, and then draw out some implications from that reading.
But first, let's look at how often that term is used, and where. We turn to
Google Trends
:
Some caveats: Google doesn't have enough data to track "our intelligence community," or so it says, so the search is for "intelligence
community" only.
Further, the search is for 2008 to the present, again because Google, or so it says, doesn't have enough data for
shorter time frames.[1] However, I think the chart shows that interest in the intelligence community is not general in time or space:
It spikes when there's gaslighting with reader interest in particular stories, and spikes along the Acela Corridor, in
Washington and New York. (We might also speculate,
based on HuffPost/YouGov
voter data , that interest in the today's stories about the intelligence is limited not only in space, and time, but in scope:
Primarily among liberal Democrats.[2]) With that, let's turn to our usage examples.
I used Google to find them, and of course Google
search is crapified and all but useless -- for example, it insists on returning examples of "intelligence community" along with "our
intelligence community" in normal search, even with when the search string is quoted -- but it is what it is; readers are invited
to supply their own examples.
On Friday, Michael McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Russia, wrote on Twitter: "I'm very impressed that Mueller
was able to name the 12 GRU officers in the new indictment. Demonstrates the incredible capabilities of our intelligence
community ."
No. Mueller provided no evidence and the case is unlikely to go to trial; the capability consists in the naming, not in the proof.
Verdict: Credulity .
The
intelligence community
determined
that the Kremlin intended to "denigrate" and "harm" Clinton, and "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic
process" while helping Trump.
And the same claim, July 10, 2018, Washington Post:
The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to boost Trump's candidacy
No. If you click through, you'll find that this is the "17 agencies"/"high confidence" report, whose agencies and analysts were
hand-picked by Clapper; that's just not the "intelligence community" as a whole[3]; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was not
involved in the analysis, for example. (I don't see how it's normal that such an important topic not to be the subject of a Presidental
Finding, but perhaps people were in a rush.) Verdict; Misinformation .
FLAKE: We know the intelligence is right. We stand behind our intelligence community . We need to say
that in the Senate. Yes, it's symbolic, and symbolism is important.
And a similar formulation, July 22, 2018, Senator Marco Rubio (R),
CBS News
:
We need to move forward from that with good public policy and part of that is, I think, standing with our intelligence
community .
Posturing aside, to my sensibilities, it's pretty disturbing when "support the troops" bleeds over into "support the spies," and
when supporting the conclusions of an institution bleeds over into supporting the institution itself, as such. (The whole of the
Federalist Papers argues against the latter view:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.") Verdict: Authoritarian followership .
WE UNIFY OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TOWARD A STRONGER, SAFER NATION
No. The DNI mistakes the hope for the fact; were the intelligence community in fact
unified
, Clapper would not have hand-picked agencies for his report, and a Presidential Finding would have been made. (And given the
source, "our" is doing even more work there than it usual does; it reminds of liberal Democrats talking about "our Democracy." Whose,
exactly?) Verdict: Wishful thinking .
Example 5, July 16, 2018, John Sipher (interview),
PBS
:
I do think the intelligence community is quite resilient. They put their head down and they do their work, but they
take this very seriously. And they see the president as their primary customer and they will do almost anything to get the president
the information that he needs to do his job.
No. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-- "Who will guard the guards themselves?" -- was formulated by the Roman poet
Juvenal (d. 138AD) in the late first or early second century,
[checks calculator], about 1880 years ago. It's absurd to assume that "the intelligence" community has always served its "primary
customer" -- see the Bay of Pigs invastion at "
groupthink " -- or that they will
in the future, especially considering the enormous stakes involved today. Verdict: Historical ignorance .
Today I voted for H.R. 6237, the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. This
important legislation funds our Intelligence community and provides them the resources they need to effectively defend
our nation "This legislation makes sure that the dedicated men and women who serve our nation in the Intelligence Community [caps
in the original] are fully equipped to fulfill their mission."
No. While Sipher urges (
as does Clapper
) that the intelligence community is in the business of serving customers, Comstock, through her language ("dedicated
men and women who serve our nation") identifies it with the military. That's pretty disturbing when you realize that the intelligence
community has a domestic component (and when you think back to Obama's 17-city crackdown on Occupy, or Obama's militarized response
to #BlackLivesMatter). Verdict: Militarization
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, head of the U.S. intelligence community , reaffirmed his conclusion
that Russia had indeed tried to sway the election in a statement published after Trump's remarks.
No. The U.S. has 17 intelligence agencies; the DNI is in no sense their head.
From the DNI site :
The core mission of the ODNI is to lead the IC in intelligence integration, forging a community that delivers the most insightful
intelligence possible. That means effectively operating as one team: synchronizing collection, analysis and counterintelligence
so that they are fused. This integration is the key to ensuring national policymakers receive timely and accurate analysis from
the IC to make educated decisions.
If you boil that bureucratic porridge down -- the Russian word for porridge is
kasha , in case kompromat has
worn thin for you -- you'll see that the 17 intelligence agencies do not have a reporting relationship to the DNI. Hence, the DNI
is not their head. QED. Verdict: Authoritarian followership
[BRENNAN:] What Mr. Trump did (Monday) was to betray the women and men of the FBI, the CIA and NSA and others and betray the
American public. That's why I use the term, this was nothing short of treason, because it is a betrayal of the nation. He's giving
aid and comfort to the enemy.
(Leaving aside Brennan's broad definition of enemy -- apparently a sovereign state with interests different from our own, as opposed
to a nation against whom Congress has declared war -- note that Brennan treats the agencies as individual entities, not as "unified,"
presumably betraying DNI Coats). More:
BRENNAN:] I still shake my head trying to understand what was discussed during the two-hour one-on-one, what was discussed
between the two sides in their bilateral meeting. We only saw what Mr. Trump said during the press conference. I can't even imagine
what he said behind closed doors. I can't imagine what he said to Mr. Putin directly. I am very concerned about what type of impact
it might have on our intelligence community and on this country."
No. Note well: What (
torture
advocate ) Brennan says contradicts the other two models expressed in this aggregation. If the President is the customer, it's
not Brennan's concern what that customer does (any more than it's Best Buy's concern what I buy in Starbucks after I pick up my flat-screen
TV). And if the intelligence community is a branch of the military, it's not their concern what their Commander-in-Chief does; he'll
tell them what they need to know.) Seriously, why does the Praetorian Guard need to know what the emperor is doing. Now, one could
argue that Brennan's ambition is counteracting Trump's ambition; well and good, but then one needs to think through the consequences.
And if Brennan, et al., really believe that Trump committed treason, then they -- as the good patriots they presumably are -- need
to indicate a path to removing him. If that path does not include full disclosure of the evidence for whatever charges are to be
made, then the country will have to deal with the consequences -- which I'd speculate won't be pretty -- of
a change in the Constitutional order where the "intelligence community" can remove a President from office based on its own internal
consensus . Praetorian
Almost one year ago, on January 28th, 2003, the President devoted one-third of his State of the Union address to what he
described as "a serious and mounting threat to our country" posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. He spoke,
in those famous 16 words, about efforts by Iraq to secure enriched uranium from Africa. He talked about aluminum tubes "suitable
for nuclear weapons production." He described stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said, "we know that Iraq, in the
late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs."
One week later, on February 5th, Secretary of State Colin Powell, with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet sitting
behind his right shoulder, used charts and photographs to elaborate on the Administration's WMD case. "These are not assertions,"
Powell said, "these are facts corroborated by many sources." Among Powell's claims were:
That "we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was dispersing rocket launchers and warheads
containing biological warfare agent to various locations " That "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons
and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Pictures of what he called "active chemical munitions bunkers" with "sure
signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."
Powell has subsequently said that he spent days personally assessing the intelligence. He included only information he felt
was fully supported by the analysis. Hence, no mention of enriched uranium from Africa, no claim that al Qaeda was involved in
9-11.
The effect was powerful. Veteran columnist for the Washington Post, Mary McGrory, known for liberal views and Kennedy connections,
wrote an op-ed the following day entitled "I Am Persuaded". Members of Congress, like me, believed the intelligence case. We voted
for the resolution on Iraq to urge U.N. action and to authorize military force only if diplomacy failed. We felt confident we
had made the wise choice.
But as the evidence pours in the Intelligence Committee's review of the pre-war intelligence; David Kay's interim report on
the failure to find WMD in Iraq; an impressive study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board's critique; thoughtful commentaries like that of Ken Pollack in this month's Atlantic Monthly; and
investigative reporting including a lengthy front page story by Barton Gellman of the Washington Post on January 7,
we are finding out that Powell and other policymakers were wrong, British intelligence was wrong, and those of us who
believed the intelligence were wrong . Indeed, I doubt there would be discussions of David Kay's possible departure if the
Iraq Survey Group were on the verge of uncovering large stockpiles of weapons or an advanced nuclear weapons program.
But if 9/11 was a failure to connect the dots, it appears that the Intelligence Community, in the case of Iraq's WMD,
connected the dots to the wrong conclusions . If our intelligence products had been better, I believe many policymakers,
including me, would have had a far clearer picture of the sketchiness of our sources on Iraq's WMD programs, and our lack of certainty
about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities.
Let me add that policymakers -- including members of Congress -- have a duty to ask tough questions, to probe the information
being presented to them. We also have a duty to portray that information publicly as accurately as we can.
The WMDs episode led to the (bipartisan) Iraq War, the greatest strategic debacle in American history. The WMDs episode was marked
by fake evidence (yellowcake; aluminum tubes), planted stories, gaslighting, and a consensus of elite opinion along the Acela Corridor,
exactly as today. The intelligence community was wrong. The national security establishment was wrong. The press was wrong. The Congressional
leadership was wrong. The President was wrong. Everybody was wrong (except for a few outliers who couldn't get jobs afterwards anyhow,
exactly because they were right). And now, today, we are faced with the same demand that we believe what the intelligence community
says, without question, and without evidence that the public can see and examine. The only difference is that this time, the stakes
are greater: Rather than blowing a few trillion and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of faraway brown people, we're rushing toward
a change in the Constitutional Order that in essence makes the intelligence community a fourth branch of the government.
Why are we doing that? Well, if you look at the verdicts after each of the quotes I've found, taking the quotes as a proxy for
elite opinion, one reason might be that the portion of our elites involved in the Russia narrative -- who, let us remember, are limited
in space and scope -- are:
Credulous Misinformed Prone to authoritarian followership Historically ignorant Militarized Praetorian
If power is lying in the street, beware of who picks it up. Matters might not improve.
NOTES .
[1] The hit count (100 for the spike in January 2017) is oddly low; sadly, although 100 looks like a blue link, we cannot click
through to check the data. However, even if the aggregates are low, I think we can assume that both the shape of the trend line and
its geographic distribution are directionally correct, because the spikes occur at reasonable places for them to occur. Sidebar:
Note the horrid user interface design, which uses inordinate amounts of screen space to no purpose, disrespecting the time-pressed
professional user.
[2] We might even go so far as to speculate that -- given these limitations in space -- that while "our" asserts Democrat leadership
as a National party, Democrats are in fact a State party. Removing the hyphen from "nation-state" is a neat way
of encapsulating our current legitimacy crisis.
[3] "Intelligence community," like "deep state," connotes unity among institutions that are in fact riven by faction.
ADDENDUM: Scott Horton
I didn't add this material to the post proper, because I only had screen shots, and I wasn't able to find the post in time using
Google, or Facebook's lousy search. So after ten minutes of plowing through Facebook's infinite scroll, here is the embed* from Scott
Horton that I sought:
And a screen shot personally taken by me:
Note the lead: "European intelligence analysts ," so reminiscent of Bush's "British intelligence has learned " (the
sixteen words ). What they "learned," of course,
was the faked evidence on Niger yellowcake. Go through my list of "verdicts," starting with "credulous," and see what does
not
apply to Horton.
Horton is a Contributing Editor to Harper's Magazine,
has a law practice in New York, and is affiliate with Columbia Law School and the Open Society Institute.
The key point, for me, is this: "Liberal Democrats do not view anyone outside of places like Orange and Lexington County (whom
they go all-out to court) as people fit to make their own choices." It's important to watch for outright denial of agency,
to others, not merely lack of agency. That's true for Horton, it was true for Clinton's "deplorables" comment, and it was true for
Obama's "bitter"/"cling to" Kinseley gaffe.
It would be nice if Senator Sanders didn't signal boost this stuff. Here's another usage example of "intelligence community":
Or, to put this another way, Sanders needs to get his supporters' backs, and fast, with messaging that doesn't take a "duck and
cover" approach by repeating the catchphrases of the current onslaught, but contextualizes and decontaminates it. I didn't say that
would be easy
NOTE * I like the picture the Time chose very much; apparently, the evul left is young, female, swarthy, and/or black.
No suburban Republicans here! The "AbolishICE" t-shirt -- and not, say, #MedicareForAll -- is also a nice touch.
"... PT is correct. Any Russian anywhere who has ever spoken to any American for any reason is now considered attempting to "undermine American democracy." When in reality, we're doing it just fine ourselves. The hypocrisy and paranoia is breathtaking - and extremely dangerous. ..."
I noticed this situation some months ago when Torshin was accused of donating money to the NRA in order to help Trump get elected.
Apparently he is a member of the NRA and as such is perfectly entitled to make donations to the organization.
What I noticed in the article about this is that the one piece of information left out was the amount of the donation. Since
the NRA spent $50 million trying to get Trump elected, unless Torshin's donation was some significant percentage of that $50 million,
it would make no sense for his donation to be considered significant, if it was little more than what a normal NRA member might
be expected to contribute.
Which is, of course, why that figure was deliberately left out of the article - and several other articles on the subject.
An article at ABC News finally acknowledged what the "donation" was:
Last month, a lawyer for the NRA told ABC News that Torshin had, indeed, donated membership dues of between $600 and $1,000
to the organization.But the lawyer, J. Steven Hart, said that was the extent of money coming from Russians.
"We have one contribution from a Russian," Steven Hart, outside counsel to the NRA, said in an interview with ABC News before
Friday's sanctions announcement.
Hart said it was the "life membership payment" made by Torshin, which went to the NRA's non-profit parent organization,
which is not required by law to disclose the donation. Hart added, "The donation was the person's membership dues" and was
not used for election-related activities. "That was not a major donor program," he said.
PT is correct. Any Russian anywhere who has ever spoken to any American for any reason is now considered attempting to
"undermine American democracy." When in reality, we're doing it just fine ourselves. The hypocrisy and paranoia is breathtaking
- and extremely dangerous.
A Russian donating to the NRA - that is going to make liberal heads explode! Snowflakes, run do not walk to the campus safe
spaces before they fill up!
"Since the NRA spent $50 million trying to get Trump elected, unless Torshin's donation was some significant percentage of
that $50 million, it would make no sense for his donation to be considered significant, if it was little more than what a normal
NRA member might be expected to
contribute."
And just how significant was the $100,000 that clickbait firm from St. Petersburg spent on Facebook ads in 2016? We're through
the looking-glass now, friend! Logic doesn't matter anymore.
The Narrative here faces serious Questions... Poor Trade-craft is obvious using insecure Communications, Chit Chat with supposed
'Handler' to name a few... The Note left about the FSB - FSB being INTERNAL Agency of RF begs yet more Questions...
The NYT Article about it brings up another one I think I should Highlight:
"Prosecutors sought criminal charges after agents reported over the weekend that she was moving money out of the country,
had her boxes packed, looked into renting a moving truck and had terminated her apartment lease. "
If she was an Agent of the Government and preparing to leave the Country due to increased Attention - she would hardly waste
her Time sorting her Affairs and Possessions in the US - This would be considered Government write off effectively.
Her actions however screams someone trying to preserve personal Possessions and Earnings..
I can suggest two 'soft' theories on this whole Affair -
A) She is a naive Girl who genuinely believed what she was doing, found a sponsor whom guided her, maybe even persuaded her
to thinking she was working for Russian Government or elements within and thus her naive and very unprofessional behavior has
obvious explanation.
B) Much of what is suggested she wrote has been playful Jest, the Types of Jokes my Friends and I have made countless Times
when visiting Foreign Countries and taken for whatever reason utmost seriously by Investigators....
Even this Explanations feels forced - The alternative hard Theories may be something far worse as PT suggests
Having lived in a few Western Countries for varied Times, I feel vindicated having returned to Russia - Though I still travel
constant for work, this serves as careful reminder that the very qualities I once admired in the Western World are potentially
at highest risk and as a Russian - maybe best to be careful...
This poor naive girl has been imprison by a bunch of cowards. This insanity has gone so far over the top with this relentless
drive toward armed conflict with a nuclear superpower that it forces me to believe there is a more organizing principle than just
TDS. They openly defy a elected President and plan his coup. Assange will be arrested next. The conspiracy will use his arrest
against Trump as a bludgeoning tool and force his extradition to the US. Just another political prisoner in the Land of the Free.
I'm sure you're right: there's more at work here than just TDS. The establishment was obviously planning something big, and
Hillary was in on it. I can't say for sure what it was, but if I had to take a wild guess, I would say she was going to invade
Syria, which would have almost certainly led to a war with Russia. But now that Trump is president instead, they're threatened
with the specter of peace!
By this indictment's logic every foreign national helping planned parenthood is trying to "influence American politics". I
wonder if speeches to chambers of commerce or economic clubs or universities by former Presidents of Mexico also make one guilty
of this crime?
It is worth remembering that the Soviet Union purported to be a democracy - the country held elections and the government and
the news media told the people that they lived in the greatest democracy in the world.
I have a friend who grew up in the Soviet Union. Until he was 12 years old he believed he lived in the greatest country in
the world. Then his mother went to England on a trade mission (an opportunity that very few Soviet citizens ever had), and when
she came back she told her son what she had seen there. It was only then that he started to figure out the truth.
Scarey. Foreign nationals will no doubt take note. But she is getting a court hearing, at least. Will it extend to Western
citizens living and working in their home countries?
It already has. In England, in Australia, on the Continent and in the States there are many such examples. Seldom coming before
the Courts. The use of government agencies to harass undesirables has long been standard - using the tax authorities mostly, as
far as one can see, but sometimes other agencies.
For the average citizen it's never made a lot of odds. Those targeted are usually big names who are making waves or might do.
The ordinary citizen has no fear that because he or she holds the view that Government's activities are wrong some official's
going to turn up on the doorstep.
If ordinary people are vulnerable, as this case indicates even though this particular ordinary person is a foreigner, then
we may begin to feel a trifle uneasy. But these are uneasy times in any case.
We are already seeing censorship of social media under the pretext of protecting the country from the supremely powerful Russian
bots. I do not see this de-escalating, despite the best efforts of the Russians not to escalate.
Since the general consensus among Russia "experts" in policy-making circles is that they'll get regime change if only Russia's
wealthy are harassed sufficiently, the logical next step would be to start arresting the children of wealthy Russians who are
studying at US universities.
Trump's intent for dialogue with the Russians and Putin's intent to maintain his 'Putin the Statesman' brand should preclude
a very dangerous spiral of retaliation. We think.
At the now-famous Helsinki press conference with Presidents Trump and Putin the name of a
former US businessman, Bill Browder, came up as a person of interest to the Russian president.
Let's make a deal, he said: you can come to Moscow and question the 12 GRU officers you accuse
of hacking the DNC computers and we'll question Bill Browder and a group of other businessmen
who had done business in Moscow. And the former US ambassador to Moscow. While the usual
suspects shrieked at such a deal, many wondered what was wrong with trying to get to the bottom
of the indictments and "Russiagate."
So what's the deal with Browder? RPI's Daniel McAdams spoke to RT America about the former
hedge fund operator who reportedly gave up his US citizenship to avoid US taxes and is wanted
in Moscow for tax avoidance...
"... The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon . It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign and then sabotage the presidency that resulted. ..."
"... she offered a bombshell confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen (keep in mind that there are many yet to be released). ..."
"... The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters. ..."
"... We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber , who is investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes. That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury sessions, if summoned. ..."
The Mueller special counsel investigation was launched to probe charges that the key FBI
officials developing evidence in the case thought were baseless. That's a bombshell accusation
that appears to have been confirmed by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page , according to John Solomon
. It tends to confirm the suspicion that the Mueller probe is a cover-up operation to obscure
the criminal use of counterintelligence capabilities to spy on a rival presidential campaign
and then sabotage the presidency that resulted.
Earlier reports indicated that Page has been answering questions from the House Judiciary
Committee quite frankly and may even have
cut a deal selling out her ex-lover Peter Strzok over their professional misbehavior (and
quite possibly worse) in targeting the campaign and presidency of Donald Trump with the
intelligence-gathering tools of the FBI.
Last night, John Solomon of
The Hill revealed that he has obtained information from sources who heard Page's testimony
in two days of sworn depositions behind closed doors that she offered a bombshell
confirmation of the meaning of one of the most enigmatic text messages that the public has seen
(keep in mind that there are many yet to be released).
[T]here are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok
exchanged, that you should read.
That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. "There's no big there there," Strzok
texted.
The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy
Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein
named special counselRobert Mueller to oversee an investigation
into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.
Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to
the evidence against the Trump campaign.
This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say – but Page,
during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way
that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple
eyewitnesses.
The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome
powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving
the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was "there."
The truth behind the Mueller probe is looking uglier and uglier. Pursuing bogus
accusations without foundation is the very definition of a witch hunt – President Trump's
term for Mueller's team of Hillary-supporters.
We don't know anything at all about the activities of Utah U.S. attorney Peter Huber ,
who is
investigating the potential abuse of U.S. intelligence apparatus for political purposes.
That is the proper procedure for grand jury probes. But if Lisa Page is honestly answering
questions under oath for a congressional committee, she probably is doing so in grand jury
sessions, if summoned.
The glacial pace of this probe is frustrating for Trump-supporters. But doing it right and
observing the ethical and legal constraints takes time and does not generate leaks.
Nevertheless, I am deeply encouraged by this leak to Solomon, as it seems to indicate that the
truth will come out.
Appearing on Hannity last night, Solomon elaborated: watch video
here .
"... Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon has invested a lot of time and money in positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets. ..."
The Helsinki hysteria shone a spotlight on the utter impotence of the establishment media
and their Deep State controllers to make their delusions reality. Never before has there been
such a gaping chasm visible between the media's "truth" and the facts on the ground. Pundits
compared the summit to Pearl Harbor and
9/11 , with some even reaching for the brass ring of the Holocaust by likening it to
Kristallnacht , while
polls revealed the American people reallydidn't care .
Worse, it laid bare the collusion between the media and their Deep State handlers –
the central dissemination point for the headlines, down to the same phrases, that led to every
outlet claiming Trump had "thrown the Intelligence Community under the bus" by refusing to
embrace the Russia-hacked-our-democracy narrative during his press conference with Putin.
Leaving aside the sudden ubiquity of "Intelligence Community" in our national discourse –
as if this network of spies and murderous thugs is Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood – no one
seriously believes every pundit came up with "throws under the bus" as the proper way of
describing that press conference.
The same central control was apparent in the unanimous condemnations of Putin – that
he murders
journalists , breaks
international agreements , uses bannedchemical
weapons ,
kills women and children
in Syria , and, of course,
meddles in elections . For every single establishment pundit to exhibit such a breathtaking
lack of insight into their own government's misdeeds is highly unlikely. Many of these same
talking heads remarked in horror on Sinclair Broadcasting's Orwellian "prepared statement"
issuing forth from the mouths of hundreds of stations' anchors at once. Et tu, Anderson
Cooper?
The media frenzy was geared toward sparking a popular revolt, with tensions already running
high from the previous media frenzy about family separation at the border (though only one
MSNBC segment seemed to recall that they should still care about that, and belatedly included
some footage of kids
behind a fence wrapped in Mylar blankets). Rachel Maddow , armed with the crocodile tears that
served her so well during the family-separation fracas, exhorted her faithful cultists to
do something.
Meanwhile, national-security neanderthal John Brennan all but called for a coup, condemning the
president for the unspeakable "high crimes and misdemeanors" of seeking to improve relations
with the world's second-largest nuclear power. He called on Pompeo and Bolton, the two biggest
warmongers in a Trump administration bristling with warmongers, to resign in protest. This
would have been a grand slam for world peace, but alas, it was not to be. Even those two
realize what a has-been Brennan is.
Congress wasted no time jumping on the Treason bandwagon, led by Chuck Schumer conjuring
the spectre of the KGB, Marco Rubio as neocon point-man (one imagines Barbara Bush rolling in
her grave at his usurpation of Jeb's rightful role) proposing locked-and-loaded sanctions in
case of future "meddling," and John McCain , still desperate to take the rest of the world with
him before he finally kicks a long-overdue bucket, condemning the "disgraceful" display of two
heads of state trying to come to an agreement about matters of mutual interest. The Pentagon
has invested a lot of time and money in
positioning Russia as Public Enemy #1, and for Trump to put his foot in it by making nice
with Putin might diminish the size of their weapons contracts – or the willingness of the
American people to tolerate more than half of every tax dollar disappearing down an unaccountable
hole . Peace? Eh, who needs it. Cash , motherfucker.
Trump's grip on his long-elusive spine was only temporary, and he held another press
conference upon returning home to reiterate his trust in the intelligence agencies that have
made no secret of their utter loathing for him since day one. When the lights went out at the
climactic moment, it became clear for anyone who still hadn't gotten the message who was
running the show here (and Trump, to his credit, actually joked about it). The Intelligence
Community believes it is God, and it hath smote Trump good. Smelling blood in the water, the
media redoubled their shrieking for several days, and crickets.
On to the Playmates .
Sacha Baron Cohen 's latest series, "Who is America," targeted Ted Koppel for one segment.
Koppel cut the interview short after smelling a rat and expressed his
high-minded concern that Cohen's antics would hurt Americans' trust in reporters. But after
a week of the entire media establishment screaming that the sky is falling while the heavens
remain firmly in place, Cohen is clearly the least of their problems. At least he's funny.
*
Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers
politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism
from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University.
Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski .
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite
which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in
the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation"
associations.
Attached is the URL for the Nekrasov film on Browder. The producer tells me it is an illegal
pirate copy but I assured him I would buy a copy if it ever became available in Canada and he
seemed to be happy with that. He tells me "There is an upcoming proper release."
Some background. You've all heard the story: Browder hired a smart Moscow lawyer to
investigate a crime. Said lawyer, Sergey Magnitskiy, discovers that two policemen and some
thieves-in-law have managed to steal a quarter of a billion dollars from the Russian state
pretending to be Browder companies. Magnitskiy goes to the police to complain, is arrested,
tortured and beaten to death in prison. Browder has been going around the world, telling this
story over and over again and getting laws passed to sanction Russians. The story is a very
important part of the foundation of the anti-Russian house.
The film-maker Andrey Nekrasov, who has made several anti-Putin documentaries, is attracted
to the story, completely believing Browder. The first 30 minutes of the documentary are him
interviewing Browder and, through actors, running the movie as Browder says it.
But, he noticed an anomaly in the story: how can six lumpy cops plus truncheons fit into the
tiny cell to beat Magnitskiy to death. He starts pulling on that thread; he finds others, pulls
on them, and the entire sweater Browder has knitted falls apart.
Very much worth watching because it not only exposes a very important lie, every repetition
of which brings us a step closer to becoming radioactive dust, but also does it in a rather
thrilling way as the sweater is unravelled. So, apart from anything else, it's a good
mystery.
Two things we learn: 1) that everybody who has "investigated" the story has accepted
everything Browder has said without the slightest questioning 2) the whole story depends on
people being unable to read Russian so that when Browder shows them a document they are unable
to see that it doesn't actually say what Browder is telling them it says.
Also note the German "human rights expert" who is uninterested in mere details.
Oh. Magnitskiy was the "the smartest lawyer in Moscow" and specially hired by Browder to
investigate; he was actually an accountant who worked for Browder for years.
So, if you watch this, make a mental note to buy it so that the film team get the royalties
they deserve.
Thanks for this.
For those wanting background, here are some links.
Too much to comment on, but do notice that Steve Coll's 2012 article
in nyer supports passing the Magnitsky Act, while Obama opposed it.
Coll refers to Magnitsky as an attorney, which in fact Magnitsky never was.
Without knowing a ton about this character something always seemed off about this guy and
his story just on spec. So it was somewhat entertaining when Browder was invited to speak
at my uncle's PE firm for their Xmas party in Manhattan last year. I told him a little of
the back story, of which I admittedly knew only the broad strokes, and asked him for his
take after the party. He's not a geopolitics kind of guy but he had a similar reaction.
Said Browder had an "odd" vibe and seemed like he was more providing a marketing pitch
than a personal narrative. But most of the other bankers seemed impressed with the PR
from what I could gather from him, for what it's worth.
- In a 1997 New York Times profile, Browder, who at the time aligned his investments
with Yukos oil oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, defended the way Yukos stripped investors
into one of its subsidiaries to enrich the Yukos parent company. Browder crowed: "When a
company does terrible things to the subsidiary, I would rather be on the side with the
power."
- In 2003, Browder backed Putin's authoritarian power and his decision to arrest
Khodorkovsky, saying, "A nice, well-run authoritarian regime is better than an oligarchic
mafia regime -- and those are the choices on offer."
- The day after Khodorkovsky's arrest, Browder scoffed: "People will forget in six months
that Khodorkovsky is still sitting in jail."
- When Putin put Khodorkovsky on trial 2005, Browder attacked the jailed oligarch for the
same asset-stripping Browder supported and profited from, telling the BBC: "Mr
Khodorkovsky is no martyr. He has left in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to
count and is widely credited with masterminding much of the financial trickery that
plagued the Russian capital markets throughout the 1990s."
- That same year, Browder told the New York Times, "Putin cares about foreign investors;
he just doesn't care about them enough to allow one oligarch to use his ill-gotten gains
to hijack the state for his own economic purposes."
I happened to just watch the documentary earlier today. The reaction and mentality of the
German 'Green' MP is priceless, completely blinkered. I just wonder whether we have been,
or ever will be given the full story on what happened in 90s Russia, with the involvement
of Edmumd Safra and his Republic National Bank of New York, the Clinton Administration,
organised crime and people like Browder. Putin was a hate figure in the West pretty early
on and it dovetails with his moves against such characters.
So does the President not have access to most of the story if he asks for it? Why should
the Russians give him information he should already have access to?
2. Steele is surfacing again. This seems to lead to no examination by the US authorities
of the degree to which the UK authorities authorised or assisted him. Nor of the question why
the UK authorities did not disown Steele as soon as the more scabrous elements of his dossier
became public.
Is there some informal agreement between countries that they don't question the workings
of each others' Intelligence Services? If so, that ensures there's no check on one
Intelligence Service farming out its more dubious activities to another. Nor any possibility
of looking into that later.
To this outsider all this therefore looks like shadow boxing. The material needed to clear
things up is to hand. But nobody seems to be able or willing to get at it.
Well, if it's true that Gen Flynn while head of DIA tried to stop the whole "let's
arm a bunch of jihadists to overthrow Assad, nothing can possibly go wrong caper"
(which he did) and Adm Rogers as head of NSA stopped the illegal FISA mining (which
many say he did) then Trump is not without allies among the military. But, it's just
a story from a maybe worthless source (Abraham Lincoln did warn us to be sceptical of
the Internet). But if the story is true, there could be an avalanche of revelations.
I only put all this out there because it's in my Maybe, Keep and Eye on It file.
Still too many ifs, to go farther.
So those Facebook ads posted by Russians in 2016 were just like Pearl Harbor, just like
9/11. It's war, says General Hertling! Get those boats in the water! And Trump is Putin's
tool!
I just put forth a hypothesis in the other comments thread which could also apply to
General Hertling, in my opinion, since he appears to be Catholic:
Hertling was born on September 29, 1953 in St. Louis, Missouri. He attended Christian
Brothers College High School in Clayton, Missouri, graduating in 1971 -- he is also a
member of the CBC Alumni Hall of Fame, having been elected in 2010.
Christian Brothers College High School (CBC High School) is a Lasallian Catholic
college preparatory school for young men in St. Louis, Missouri . It is located in the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Louis and is owned and operated by the De La Salle
Christian Brothers Midwest District.
Most of these guys are Catholic; Brennan, Hayden, Panetta, Morell, etc.
I just wanted to explain why, I believe, them being Catholic is relevant in this
context.
My guess is that most of these guys' parents were likely supporters of Sen. Joseph
McCarthy, since his biggest support base was among Catholic Democrats, so they probably
grew up in a very anti-Soviet/Communist/Russian environment and households.
I believe their obsession with alleged, large-scale Russian interference in the election
and their McCarthy-like attitude and tactics might stem from and be a carryover from their
upbringing.
"This war in which we are now engaged is not -- cannot -- be a war between America's
two great political parties. As I have often said in the past, certainly the millions of
loyal Americans who have long voted the Democrat ticket love America just as much and hate
Communism just as much as the average Republican." -- McCarthy speech to the Irish Fellowship
Club, 1954
"... If Trump is serious about a dramatic realignment of US relations with Russia, why did he surround himself with people who are implacably opposed to his approach: Nikki Haley, John Bolton, Mad Dog Mattis, Pompeo Maximus, Bloody Gina Haspel, Christopher Wray, and Dan Coats, who undermined him before Air Force One lifted off from Helsinki? Either Trump should fire them for insubordination or they should resign. Otherwise, this is all psychology not politics ..."
"... What kind of tyrant would appoint all of his own "deep state" coup plotters? ..."
"... Trump's doltish prevarications have done more to boost Mueller's deflating investigation than 1000 hours of the hyperventilating Rachel Maddow . ..."
"... Trump didn't do Putin any favors. The political over-reaction to Trump's obsequiousness will almost certainly prevent the removal of sanctions on the Russian economy. It may even prompt the imposition of more onerous measures. Russian civilians will almost certainly bear most of the price. ..."
He is pathologically narcissistic and supremely arrogant. He has a grotesque sense of entitlement, never doubting that he can
do whatever he chooses. He loves to bark orders and to watch underlings scurry to carry them out. He expects absolute loyalty, but
he is incapable of gratitude. The feelings of others mean nothing to him. He has no natural grace, no sense of shared humanity, no
decency.
He is not merely indifferent to the law; he hates it and takes pleasure in breaking it. He hates it because it gets in his way
and because it stands for a notion of the public good that he holds in contempt. He divides the world into winners and losers. The
winners arouse his regard insofar as he can use them for his own ends; the losers arouse only his scorn. The public good is something
only losers like to talk about. What he likes to talk about is winning.
He has always had wealth; he was born into it and makes ample use of it. But though he enjoys having what money can get him, it
is not what excites him. What excites him is the joy of domination. He is a bully. Easily enraged, he strikes out at anyone who stands
in his way. He enjoys seeing others cringe, tremble, or wince with pain. He is gifted at detecting weakness and deft at mockery and
insult. These skills attract followers who are drawn to the same cruel delight, even if they know that is dangerous, the followers
help him advance to his goal, which is the possession of supreme power.
His possession of power includes the domination of women, but he despises them far more than desires them. Sexual conquest excites
him, but only for the endlessly reiterated proof that he can have anything he likes. He knows that those he grabs hate him. For that
matter, once he has succeeded in seizing the control that so attracts him, in politics as in sex, he knows that virtually everyone
hates him. At first that knowledge energizes him, making him feverishly alert to rivals and conspiracies. But it soon begins to eat
away at him and exhaust him.
Sooner or later, he is brought down. He dies unloved and unlamented. He leaves behind only wreckage.
Donald Trump? Not exactly. This is Stephen Greenblatt's psychological profile of Richard the Third in his briskly readable new
book, Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics
.
Based on Trump's infantile performance in Helsinki, we'd probably all be better off if Putin just went ahead and annexed the
US.
If Trump is serious about a dramatic realignment of US relations with Russia, why did he surround himself with people
who are implacably opposed to his approach: Nikki Haley, John Bolton, Mad Dog Mattis, Pompeo Maximus, Bloody Gina Haspel, Christopher
Wray, and Dan Coats, who undermined him before Air Force One lifted off from Helsinki? Either Trump should fire them for insubordination
or they should resign. Otherwise, this is all psychology not politics
What kind of tyrant would appoint all of his own "deep state" coup plotters?
Trump's doltish prevarications have done more to boost Mueller's deflating investigation than 1000 hours of the hyperventilating
Rachel Maddow .
Trump was momentarily on track when he wanted to draw a moral equivalence between the brutish global political games of Russia
and the US. But instead of lashing Hillary over her stupid emails, which have nothing to do with antagonizing Russia, why didn't
Trump attack her for her nefarious activities in Ukraine and the decimation of Libya? I know, I know. He's a dotard.
Will Mueller subpoena that soccer ball?
Trump didn't do Putin any favors. The political over-reaction to Trump's obsequiousness will almost certainly prevent
the removal of sanctions on the Russian economy. It may even prompt the imposition of more onerous measures. Russian civilians
will almost certainly bear most of the price.
Trump should have consulted with his Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon. She could have told him from her experience
running the World Wrestling Federation that you have to at least put up a little fight during the Hoedown in Helsinki to make
a fixed outcome look if not real, at least entertaining
For those of us anxious for a de-escalation in tensions between the US and Russia, Trump's petulant display probably ensured
that the opposite will happen
Putin and Trump both sought Bibi's blessing before the summit. Bibi has become the new Billy Graham, who all politicians have
on direct dial for consultation in fraught political moments. Graham always considered him a top notch military strategist, once
urging Nixon to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam which would have killed a million people.
Trump: "What is the server saying?"
The Server: "This subpoena is for you, sir ."
Did QE2 ask Putin to show up 30 minutes late for his huddle with Trump as payback for Trump's tardiness at Windsor?
Ari Melber, MSDNC: "Today, July 16, 2018, will go down in the history books as an inflection point in US-Soviet relations."
The Cold War may be over, as Putin declared, but not the Cold War mentality
"... After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54 Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31 countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying ..."
"... Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow objective truth be aired on on occasion. ..."
"... The Intelligence Agencies are the Praetorian Guard in the United States. ..."
"... Party politics is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor differences and move forward to working for the greater good... ..."
"... I just saw another Tucker Carlson news clip that Tony Podesta is offered immunity to testify against Paul Manafort? WTF? Why aren't Podestas charged?! ..."
"... Neocons, military industrial complex and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities, wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people, even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out. ..."
"... Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2 billion gone, servers gone! ..."
Guys Did you know: After the Creation of the "CIA" Unelected, Unconstitutional CIA
Intelligence Agency Interfered In Foreign Presidential Elections At Least 81 Times In 54
Years. The US was found to have interfered in foreign elections at least 81 times in 31
countries between 1946 and 2000 – not counting Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, The
US-backed military coups or regime change efforts, Proxy-Wars. Just saying.
¯\_(^)_/¯
Tucker Carlson is a special character. 95% of time i disagree with Tucker but 5% of time
he's just exceptionally good. In April his 8 minute monologue was epic. I love Jimmy Dore's
passion... specially when he pronounes "they're lying!!!" Jimmy clearly hates liars ;-) We
love you Jimmy for your integrity and intelligence.
Weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, Bin Laden, Lybia, Gulf of Tonkin, Opium fields in
Afghanistan, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip..... A few reasons not to trust your
CIA and FBI. I am sure you guys can name some more.
Tucker Carlson has been analyzing policies/ideas on a deeper level this year. He is
painting US a big picture for us to see. It's quite refreshing to see Fox News actually allow
objective truth be aired on on occasion.
Pulling off the partisan blinders is the first step toward enlightenment... Party politics
is a means of control. When you come to realize that we all have a tendency to agree that the
major issues have no party loyalty, and we're all on the same side, you can look past minor
differences and move forward to working for the greater good...
THE CIA HAS BEEN OVERTHROWING GOVERMENTS FOR DECADES,and you wonder why Trump doesn't
trust them? It's because he doesn't want war. He ain't no saint but at least we have an anti
war President.
Morning Joe's panel said today that the Democrats need to run on this Russia conspiracy
theory, and nothing else, in order to win the midterms. If they bring up free college or
medicare for all it will "weaken their message and confuse the voters". Once again the
corporate neoliberal warmonger Democrats and their rich TV puppets are setting us up for
failure, no voter gives a damn about Russia, MSNBC wants our progressive candidates to lose
instead of reform their corrupt party!
I think what has happened to the Liberals, is that for decades and decades they were the
most progressive, tolerant party. They really did want to do more for the people and tried to
introduce things that the right would instantly point to and call "socialist!!" Corporations
started to look at these liberals as representatives they could pay off but without suspect,
unlike Republicans, who were widely known to accept money from Corporations, Big Pharma and
huge construction companies (Haliburton anyone?).
Over time, Liberals saw the benefits of
being chummy with these same big $$ companies and voted on bills, etc in the ways that would
make these corps very happy and more profitable. No one wanted to believe that Liberals were
doing the same thing as Republicans but now we know they are. It's not a secret anymore. Most
politicians aren't in it to make their country, their state or their cities better; they're
in it to make their bank accounts unbelievably huge and that's it. They're greedy people with
no integrity, pretending to serve the people.
I'm a righty, and I'm so surprised to see a liberal agree with Tucker in all the things I
care about! Imagine what we could accomplish if we put aside our differences for a time and
work on what we agree on! No more immoral wars for Israel! TRY BUSH, CHENEY, AND ALL NEOCONS
THAT LED US TO WAR WITH IRAQ FOR TREASON!!
You are so right. Thank you for bringout the truth. Neocons, military industrial complex
and liberal leftists have penetrated deeply into the government intelligence communities,
wall street banking, both houses of Us congress, mainstream media as well as Hollywood people,
even in an academia. This country is deep sh*t. I am surprised liberal leftists have not
crucified Tucker Carlson yet for speaking out.
Russiagate is DemoKKKrat horse cookies. Putin is correct. DemoKKKrats are bad losers. $1.2
billion gone, servers gone! DmoKKKrats cannot even prove climate change
"... The Democrats preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Sanders ..."
"... Note that the predominance of these two doctrines undeline a deeper contradiction in the USA: its resources are limited, therefore it can only fight one of the two at a given time. This is funny, because that means the USA is not destined to be the sole superpower in the first place (the underlying objective of both doctrines). ..."
"... It seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans are colluding with each other now. They have agreed to share the Presidency and alternate with each other every 8 years. They wont get serious about winning until 2024, assuming there will still be elections then. ..."
"... Both parties have the same elite controllers. Basically voters chose between 2 flavors of neoliberal imperialism. One is a bitter in your face brew, the other is a sickly sweet poison. Both make you sick ..."
"... USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran. ..."
"... Neo-macarthyism as just another aspect of the Trump psy-op. The 'bad cop' to Trump's 'good cop'. ..."
"... In every case what they are looking for is candidates who are not 'soft.' Not soft on crime. Not soft on Russia. Not soft on welfare etc etc. Thus it is that the primary defenders of "our nation's intelligence services" and cops nowadays are the democrats, and none more than the 'progressives' howling about the treason of not believing in CIA intelligence assessments, as leaked to the Washington Post. ..."
Blaming 'Russian meddling' for their loss of the 2016 elections allowed the democratic
establishment to avoid any discussion about their unelectable candidate and their bad centrist
policies. Meanwhile the party base has moved on. Progressives candidates continue to win in
primaries. The centrist party establishment will now use their genius invention of 'Russian
meddling' to defeat them.
Suddenly a lot of stories about centrists. Somebody must have gotten funding.
The centrists and their big money sources feal endangered. They
try to find strategies to defeat calls for 'medicare for all', demands to 'abolish ICE' and
other progressive aims:
The gathering here was just that -- an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the
rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see
a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better
chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, co-hosted the event and
addressed attendees twice underscored that this group is not interested in the class warfare
vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
...
The invitation-only gathering brought together about 250 Democratic insiders from key swing
states. Third Way unveiled the results of focus groups and polling that it says shows
Americans are more receptive to an economic message built on "opportunity" rather than the
left's message about inequality.
"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," said Third
Way President Jon Cowan.
The 2016 elections have shown that people no longer buy the Third Way nonsense. The
republican electorate moved to the more radical candidate Trump. The democratic electorate is
now well underway to mirror that
move :
[T]rends within the Democratic Party itself could take the Washington-based establishment by
surprise, just as the Republican national security community found itself out of sync with
the broad base of GOP voters as demonstrated in the 2016 election. The muscular
interventionism championed by almost all of the Republican party's standard-bearers was
rejected in favor of an "America First" message which resonated with primary and general
election voters. Similarly, the rise and growing prominence of a more unabashedly progressive
wing of the Democratic Party has similar implications , because the activists' critique of
the status quo does not end at the water's edge. The Democratic foreign policy establishment
may find it difficult to forge a stable marriage with a mobilized voter base and the
candidates it is putting forward.
The republican establishment has now bought into the 'Russian meddling' meme to suppress the
insurgency within its party. It is trying to limit the space for Trump to achieve more radical
measures, especially in foreign policies. The democratic establishment is using the very same
trick. 'Russian meddling' must be responsible for the insurgency within their own party.
Progressive candidates are Putin marionettes.
It seems that Democrats are now incapable of talking about anything but Russian interference
in our sacred elections.
...
We're seeing Dem pundits even accusing Bernie Sanders and other insurgents within their party
of being Russian agents , witting or unwitting. Their indictments of Trump for treason make
them sound like demented right-wingers at the height of the Cold War.
This obsession does relieve mainstream Democrats of concocting an attractive agenda that
might win an election or two, but to do that they'd have to tack left, and Goldman Sachs
wouldn't like that.
This Russia obsession's a win win for the establishment though – subdue Trump and
the domestic left insurgency all at once.
A few days later Henwood points to a Facebook
post by Columbia Law lecturer and Harpersauthor Scott Horton which
accuses progressive Democrats of being Putin's agents. Horton comments on a New York
Timespiece that
discussed the wave of progressive candidates in democratic primaries:
Horton claims to have talked with 'European intelligence analysts' who allegedly told him
that Putin authorized an 'active measure campaign' to split the Democratic party to let Trump
and the Republicans win again:
The Russian operation will also aim, in the classic fashion, to pick Democratic candidates in
the primary period who, for whatever reasons, are seen as likely not electable. Some evidence
for this is clearly at play now. The key thing to look for is not positive messaging
supporting any particular policy program, but negative messaging attacking other Democrats.
To point out what Democratic candidates Putin will pick Horton adds a picture from the
NYT piece which shows a 'progressives' candidate with an 'Abolish ICE' t-shirt.
In other words, we should look at these [progressive] candidates as tainted by a "Russian
operation". Based on nothing other than the word of an individual who cites no facts but
alleged conversations with "European intelligence analysts".
Robin points to historic similarities with McCarthyism. He adds :
If this thing catches on , if it becomes something that now gets reported in the paper,
everything single candidate from the left, who is running in a Democratic primary, will be
tainted by the suspicion that they are somehow or other a Putin operation.
Tainting leftish candidates as Putin stooges is the ideal tool for Democratic centrist to
defeat them. Tuition free colleges, single-payer health care and $15 minimum wage are obviously
Russian conspiracies designed to destroy the United States. This scheme is effective and will
therefore be widely used by the centrists during all primaries and the next federal
elections.
It also guarantees that Trump and the Republicans continue to win.
During the Obama years the Democrats lost over 1,000 positions in state and federal
elections. Centrist policies have been tried and they failed to win votes. More of the same
will not lead to different results. To move even further to the right to catch a few
conservative votes from republican voters disgruntled with Trump will not help to win. The
further the party moves to the right the more people on the left will abstain from voting for
it. These are the decisive few percent that cost the Democrats the presidency and the
majorities in Congress and in various states.
These centrists are the ones who are really helping Trump. Aren't they the real 'Russian
agents'?
how far are we from a civil war in the usa? i think we are a long ways away.. i think most
of the folks buying into this bs will go for a hot war with russia instead..
horton is trying to make like christopher steele with his intel sources, lol.. now if
horton had talked with skripal, i would be impressed!
mccarthyism version 2 seems very prevalent in the usa at this point..
"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," LOL at that
choice piece of advice which has been trotted out by centrists and conservatives at least
since the legion horrors of the capitalist system were mercilessly exposed to the world by
William Wordsworth, Thomas Carlyle, Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Freiderich Engels, and
dozens of other perceptive writers during the 19th Century.
And we have global neoliberal capitalism, the very acme of capitalist cruelty to the vast
mass of humanity forced to labor hard daily, for relatively ever worse wages and under
deteriorating conditions as well, rather than be able to make millions, indeed, even billions
annually simply by being lucky stock holders in a financial market system rigges in favor f
the plutocrats and against everyone else!
The only people daft enough to buy the idea that the vicous, inhuman, indeed, inherently
ever more unequal, irrational, environmentally detructive, and profoundly unjust neoliberal
capitalist system all are subjected to today needs merely to be "mended, not ended" are those
who are historical, social, political, cultural and economic illiterates.
"Capitalism lives on as ruthless totalitarianism, because the moment for the transition to
socialism was missed," said Max Horkeimer as early as the 1930s while observing the rise of
Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. High time we quit missing it and built a movement to end
capitalist exploitation in all its forms once and for all! ON TO SOCIALISM!!
Establishment Democrats have, since 1968, considered holding the left in check a main
function. I forget who formulated this sentence but it is completely accurate: "The Democrats
preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Sanders."
The NBC News article on the so-called moderate Democrats reveals the game of the past five
decades: the Republicans go further and further to the right, and the Establishment Dems
follow them to hold an ever-shifting centre. (not to mention that the party has been
deliberately courting potential candidates who have military and Intelligence
backgrounds)
oops, according to Scott Horton, by using the term "Establishment Democrat" I've revealed
myself as part of a Russian influence campaign.
Bottom line is this: the myth of the end of History of the early 1990s evaporated after
2003-2008 (the period which begun with the Iraq Invasion and ended with the financial
meltdown). After this, there's an ongoing debate in the USA about what the empire must focus
on.
As I've mentioned before many times in this blog, there're three extant doctrines in the
USA, of which only two are accessible to the civilian population.
The first is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, by far the dominant one, so dominant Americans don't
even give it a name (it's just spelled out a common sense), which states that Russia is the
military successor State of the USSR, which inherited its nuclear arsenal, therefore,
objectively, the only country materially capable of turning the entire American territory
into radioactive ash. So, long story short, Russia is still the main enemy.
The second is the "Clash of Civilizations" doctrine, which states that, after the Cold
War, conflict on a global scale would happen only in the cultural front, between many
cultures and creeds. The main conflict in the long term, however, would be the cultural clash
between West and East, i.e. Western Civilization against the "Yellows", a.k.a. China (the
Japanese are the "Westernized yellows", the "honorary whites", as is South Korea, Japan's
carbon copy, so they don't count).
Note that the predominance of these two doctrines undeline a deeper contradiction in the
USA: its resources are limited, therefore it can only fight one of the two at a given time.
This is funny, because that means the USA is not destined to be the sole superpower in the
first place (the underlying objective of both doctrines).
In general, I also think that by banking mainly on the evidencefree Russiagate conspiracy
theory instead of normal political opposition based on issues that are important to most
people, mainstream Democrats set themselves up for losing again.
But increasingly, I also think that we (everyone interested in world peace and fearing an
escalation of conflicts) also have to hope that this is the case. I find it quite strange
that I now think that way because as a center-left European I always used to think that
Democrats are the lesser evil and Republicans are the greater evil.
Now, I think there is a scenario that really seems frightening to me. Progressives have
won some primaries, but in general, the Democratic party is still dominated by the same
forces, and I have read that now, a record number of people from the secret services and
other organizations of the military industrial complex will probably be on the Democrats'
ballots. If Democrats manage to win in the mid-term elections, the establishment forces in
the Democratic forces may see this as a sign that the strategy of banking on the Russiagate
conspiracy theory and extreme hostility towards Russia and treating everyone who doubts the
allegations of secret services a traitor was the right one. Then, if in 2020 a mainstream
Democrat wins the primaries and then the general election, what is he or she going to do?
Their core base will be those people who daily watch Rachel Maddow's minutes (or hours) of
hate against Russia, and there will be an expectation that they will act on these sentiments.
After four years of extreme demonization of Russia, when even just a normal meeting between
the US and Russian presidents was treated as a kind of treason, it will be very difficult to
return to normal international relations. They will hardly be able to say that all this
hatred was just a means to weaken the Trump administration and can be done away with after
winning the elections, they have caged themselves in with their extremely hostile rhetoric,
and their core base will probably expect that they act on their jingoistic rhetoric and
conduct an extremely hostile kind of foreign policy with ultimatums against Russia, which
could have extremely dangerous consequences.
I think that the more likely scenario is that mainstream Democrats' behavior will lead to
losing again and Trump being re-elected, but I think we should not forget about the
possibility of such a horror scenario which could bring the world to the brink of the abyss
or beyond.
It seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans are colluding with each other now.
They have agreed to share the Presidency and alternate with each other every 8 years. They
wont get serious about winning until 2024, assuming there will still be elections then.
Both parties have the same elite controllers. Basically voters chose between 2 flavors
of neoliberal imperialism. One is a bitter in your face brew, the other is a sickly sweet
poison. Both make you sick .
Trump was used by the establishment to "turn the page" on the Obama years.
Just as Obama was used to "turn the page" on the Bush years.
If we surmise that the Presidency is the most important office for the Empire, and is the
"face" of the Empire, if you will, then the Obama Presidency was designed to present a
peaceful and rational public face ( very different from the Bush neocons!) while
covert opts were used to further the interests of the Empire.
The Obama faux populist psy-op worked very well. Putin recently admitted that he
was slow to understand how the game had changed.
The Trump/MAGA psyop lays claim to a new sort of "realist" peaceful and rational
standpoint: ending costly adventurism and ending the new Cold War with Russia. But what does
the establishment really want? They want to recover from the embarrassing Syrian debacle and
stop the rise of SCO. They aim to do this via distractions and splitting Russia from China.
Iran is the anvil for splitting Russia and China.
The howls of protest about Trump's meeting with Putin are NOT because Trump seeks "peace"
with Russia but because he wasn't successful in convincing Putin to play ball.
USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes
into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
1) Neo-macarthyism as just another aspect of the Trump psy-op. The 'bad cop' to
Trump's 'good cop'.
2) Hillary could never have "turned the page" like Trump. In fact, she talked about how
her election would secure Obama's legacy. Conclusion: the 2016 election was a set-up.
some of the targets of these tactics aren't helping themselves; both sanders and
ocasio-cortez have hinted that they actually believe the russiagate stupidity. nor did the
latter score any hits with the stumbling (and possibly cowardly) interview regarding israel's
lunatic tendencies. just letting that idiot get away with saying "the war in the middle east"
is enough to make me question her spine.
the establishment dems - like any "establishment" group - are whores. so are the media who
have their collective backs. at this point it's time to realize they all - like their
financial masters - mistake kindness for weakness. what anyone needs to win at this point is
to (unfortunately) copy pre-election trump's tactics with their own message.
there's no law that says you can't be for $15 minimum wage and single payer while also
saying "shut up you dumb cunt " to any media prostitute that brings up russiagate. the
idiots acting as middle(wo)men for their plutocrat owners rely on forced politeness and
decorum. many people have noted that is their main grievance with trump: it's cool that he's
horrible and surrounded by warmongers but does he have to be so vulgar and gauche? well i
never!
the US is (as it has been for most of its short bloody history) quite angry and wound up
right now. obama showed what good a "polite yes man" does. the left needs a fire-breathing
populist demon. what they have is a pleasant bartender from the bronx.
Bernie Sanders was quick to respond to these attacks by giving in. For every 'progressive'
Democrat who has won in the primaries there have been ex CIA, ex FBI, ex military types to
add the appeal of their blood stained hands to that of the former prosecutors (boasting about
the number of death sentences they have won) and ultra rich candidates.
In every case what they are looking for is candidates who are not 'soft.' Not soft on crime.
Not soft on Russia. Not soft on welfare etc etc.
Thus it is that the primary defenders of "our nation's intelligence services" and cops
nowadays are the democrats, and none more than the 'progressives' howling about the treason
of not believing in CIA intelligence assessments, as leaked to the Washington Post.
Democrats simply cannot understand what the word 'principle' means. That is why they are
continually adopting their opponents' ideas- filling the prisons with black people,
cancelling welfare programmes- and persecuting their own supporters.
Now Sanders, who knows very well why Hillary lost the election, and spent months warning her
that she would do so in the primary campaigns, is front and centre in the farcical campaign
to blame Putin and internet trolls 'sowing discord'!
And what is his evidence? The most dishonest and reactionary deep state warmongers say it is
true. So it must be.
What will be interesting in the coming months is to watch as these "progressive"
Democrats-the victors of primary battles- settle down to agreeing that "Israel has a right to
defend itself" by massacring defenceless Palestinians whenever the mood comes over it. And
attacking Iran.
Watch in the coming weeks for people like Sanders to attack Trump for not changing the
'regime' in Damascus- the way that Obama with their support did in Libya.
The great thing about the Democrats is that they are united-they are all as bad as each
other. This is after all the working man's party that supported slavery with such enthusiasm
that when it had been abolished they re-introduced it, in the form of Jim Crow plus lynching,
in the states that they controlled. In which it lasted until the late 1960s. Its shadow-in
the form of vote suppression and a crooked criminal justice system- still looms over
America.
The dems have nobody. Not at the plate or on deck. After DJT's state of the union, they
trotted out a Kennedy that had vasoline smeared all over the sides of his mouth as he gave
the Dem response. No one remembers what he said, but they do remember that substance.
Now this inexperienced Socialist-airhead from the Bronx who claimed a rough upbringing
only to have forgotten her silver-spoon childhood comes along.
Here on the west coast, in Seattle, a socialist mayor and city council has tried to push
egalitarian policies regarding wages and taxation, allthewhile dealing with a pervasive
homeless population that is tainting the city and its reputation. Their policies have gotten
a stiff rebuke from Amazon and Microsoft and so their ironfisted will has itself been crushed
and they have yielded to these business behemoths. They will be ousted very soon. As will the
wannabe-socialists up and down the west coasts. If they are not...we are talking mass exodus
and floundering economies.
So b is right that the centrists will prevail but it is mostly because the left is lost
right now. Can't drum up a unified beat to march to for the life of them.
At least DJT tapped into what must be done to save this country, irrespective of his
actual will and desire to get there (which I believe is being hampered by both sides of the
aisle).
Does this not come down to a fight for the BRAND - DNC? The establishment wants to keep the
"donors" (same as the Rs) and millions rolling in so they support their interests and try to
freeze out progressives.
It's like an invasion, what happens the next day? The progressives take over the DNC, then
the donors depart and the DNC brand is the worth about as much as the Green brand.
The problem is that the entire system of Western Liberal Democracy is corrupted entirely
and clearly an unmitigated failure.
The so-called "insurgents" are no such thing. That's a standard Democrat scam to keep
potential apostates roped in. Bernie Sanders always has been a con artist. Not that it's any
secret: His entire senate record is of worthless grandstanding and zero real monkey-wrenching
or grid-locking action .
As for his campaign, from day one he proclaimed he was a loyal Democrat soldier and that
he would support Clinton and do all he could to deliver his supporters to her. He dutifully
kept that promise. Along the way and since the 2016 election he's done zero toward building
any kind of grassroots alternative. That's because he never intended to be part of any real
alternative in the first place. And that's why the DNC always has supported his "independent"
senate campaigns - he does an excellent con-job on behalf of their agenda.
And today he's fully on board with the Russiagate campaign, doing all he can to rope in
"progressives" who might be having doubts about the anti-Russia lunacy. His usual job.
As for the latest wave of progressive heroes, for just one typical example I'll observe
that Ocasio-Cortez immediately after her primary win lost no time scrubbing the anti-war
plank from her site and publicly retracting her previous statements on behalf of the
Palestinians. The Democrat con always runs like clock-work.
And as the post describes, with Russiagate the fake insurgents provide a new service to
the Party: To serve as bogeymen for internally-directed Party propaganda, as an
organizational vehicle to "get out the vote" among establishment loyalists.
There's no way forward with the Democrat Party. It always has been a death trap for all
progressive, let alone radical aspirations. The Party and its partisans must politically
perish completely, as a prerequisite for any good transformation of America.
I used to have great admiration for Scott Horton for his intrepid reporting on Gitmo and the
War on Terra during the Bush era, so it's very sad to see how he deep has fallen into silly
Neo-McCarthyian group-think.
I don't think much of Trump as a person or as a politician. But I think he's great as a
trickster performance artist, doing what used to be the task of the 20th century avant-garde:
shocking bourgeois complacency. And boy, is there a lot of that around these days. Trump is
21st century Dada.
The term Progressive is now so mutilated that it's no longer effective as an identifier. To
be a truly modern Progressive: one must 1st be Anti-War, except in the most dire of
circumstances, which includes being Anti-Imperialist/Anti-Empire; 2nd, one must be
Pro-Justice as in promoting Rule of Law over all else; 3rd, one must be tolerant and willing
to listen to others of all stripes--even terrorists (not imitation state-sponsored mercenary
terrorists); and 4th, work for Win-Win outcomes and denounce Zero-sum as the #1 promoter of
inequality. As you might imagine, by that set of criteria there are very few Modern
Progressive Politicians in any nation at any level of government--certainly an endangered
species within the Outlaw US Empire. Bernie Sanders is not even close to being a Progressive
of any sort as he supports and promotes Militarism and Apartheid. The actual differences
between his political stances and Hillary Clinton's is really very small--health care and
social security are the only two with large gaps.
But there appears to be much happening at the grassroots nationally and the next 2 months
will see lots happening--but how will it be reported locally and nationally is my main
concern. Insurrections are being aimed at a great many Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.
IMO, this off-year election will be the most important for the planet ever as the stakes are
very high. IMO, the key factor is if Russiagate's still in play or will it finally be slain
by November.
True progressives and populists (which characterizes a lot of Trump supporters such as
myself) have a lot more in common with each other than with the Centrist Democrats and
Beltway Republicans (A.K.A. Cuckservatives.) If we could only dispense with all the BS
identity politics, we could join forces.
Posted by: William Fusfield | Jul 22, 2018 3:00:18 PM | 13
(Comment lost after Timeout)
Some wag once said "Experience is a good school, but the fees are high."
You can easily bulletproof your draft comment by right-clicking in the comment box and
choosing Select All from the menu. That hilites the entire draft. Right click again and
select Copy. You can then safely refresh the page knowing you've preserved a copy.
All you really need to do is back arrow and refresh. I've never had a draft erased by
refreshing. But then again I usually refresh AFTER copying..
Also Undo (in the right click menu) can usually recover accidentally deleted text.
Wow - Comey, the guy that fixed Hillary's email problem has an urgent centrist plea.
"Democrats, please, please don't lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This
president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America's great
middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."
"... It is clear that Trump's own DoJ acted to sabotage him by releasing the indictments of the twelve russian GRU officials just before Trump's meeting with Putin. ..."
"... A year ago legislators introduced a bill in Sweden to restrict [total] media ownership to no more than 5% by any person, family, company or ethnic group. The Jews wasted no time screaming anti-semitism. ..."
"... It is a ritual, so the purpose is to convey loyalty. It doesn't placate anyone. What it unfortunately does is to undermine all else Derbyshire says. If he is this uninformed, or conformist, about basic facts, how can one take what he says seriously? ..."
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this somewhat jingoistic prefatory note is, or whom it is
intended to placate. It is a farrago of false, outdated stereotypes about Russia based
entirely on the situation there in the 1990s.
Like it or not, Putin is the democratically elected leader of Russia, in elections that
have been generally free and fair. They like him over there, and vote for him in huge
numbers. Given that per capita GDP in Russia is about 3-4 times as high as when he took
office, this is not surprising.
As for its being an "economic non-entity among nations", it is a mid-sized economy, about
the size of an Australia, Italy, India and so on, a $2 trillion economy, give or take, using
the purchasing power parity figures. It is no America, China, Japan or Germany, but is
nestled in the tier of countries just below those. Much of the disparagement of its post 2014
economy is based on the US$ figures of its GDP, a misleading measure that is severely
affected by transient fluctuations in the exchange rate.
Lastly, there is plenty of credible evidence that deaths from alcoholism have fallen by
50% or so, since the bad old days, two decades ago. Yes, that's still twice the rate for
males in the EU, but they're sobering up.
Russia has a number of problems but a rusting military? Derbyshire needs to be put up to date
with Putin's successful drive to modernize the Russian military. In some cases (for example,
the hypersonic missiles announced by Putin early this year) they actually have more advanced
weaponry than the US. And Russia has actually won a war in the Middle East (in Syria)
something that the US gave been unable to do for the last 15 years.
"Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks."
Putin took over on December 31, 1999. The country had been raped by the oligarchs and
suffered hyperinflation. Pensioners were driven into horrific poverty en masse. Life
expectancy plummeted. Putin neutralized the oligarchs without renationalizing industries and
put the economy on a more sustainable upward path. The people are now in much better shape,
including ordinary Jews. Drunkenness has lessened. Putin is reasonably popular. There is
hope. Russia also has new advanced weapons.
Losing the 2016 election was a terrible, colossal psychic trauma for the American Left.
They can't believe Trump did it by himself. They can't believe 63 million Americans voted
for him of our own free will.
This just shows that a lot of people no longer trust the MSM. The next step is to take a closer look at Congressional candidates and get commitments for
1) no ME wars 2) infrastructure spending 3) no mass immigration 3) stop $ billions for Israel
6) active swamp draining.
The poisoning in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty
It was the falsiest false flag in the history of false flags. Nothing about it made any
sense whatsoever. A complete PR operation. The whole(and failed) purpose was to derail the
World Cup.
Mr. Derbyshire is pretty good at spoon feeding people who enjoy being told that they're
superior to blacks, especially those who also think Brits are, in turn, above them.
But Mr. Derbyshire once again genuflects before his adoptive Uncle Sam, mindlessly
parroting the PutinIsEvilTyrant mantra that the likes of Pat Buchanan, Andrew Napolitano, and
occasionally even Tucker Carlson need to keep their spots along the Right side of
Establishia.
That Mr. Derbyshire does so here -- fancying himself a martyr in the war against
institutional thinking like that at National Review -- indicates naïveté or
cravenness.
Before further embarrassing himself by sharing his gulled views on Russia, he should read
and think about the work of the more informed, insightful authors at Unz Review who provide a
broader and better readership than he deserves.
The poisoning in England of Sergei Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it's
disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic retaliation
Agree that "diplomatic retaliation" is called for. The U.S. should break off diplomatic
relations to the UK immediately, and through them out on their ear.
The Skripals are DEAD, murdered by MI5 to extend the useful life of Hillary's
anti-Trump "Steele Dossier" that Sergei Skripal helped concoct.
The fact that Britain claims to have Sergei and Yulia Skripal in custody proves that
Britain is responsible. British media coverage is smothered by "D notices" and blithely play
along with a ridiculous government "narrative" – another bad sign.
Does anyone really expect to see the Skripals alive again?
Who else do you expect will come back from the dead?
I don't think there is any reasonable way in which Trump can be said to be a more legitimate
president of his country than Putin. He did not even receive a majority of votes, after all.
Certainly, the electoral college is the way it is done in the US, so overall, Trump is still
the legitimate president of the US, but there are certainly fewer doubts in Putin's case than
in Trump's.
Calling Russia dysfunctional is completely ignorant. That may have been the case in the
90es when the authoritarian darling of the West, the drunkard Yeltsin was in power and the
Russian economy was ruined by oligarchs and American advisors. Things have changed a lot
since then.
The Romanovs undoing was the collusion of a large part of the Russian elite with the British
Empire – the very same British Empire that had happily contributed to the Japanese
Victory in the war of 1905.
The still-slandered Rasputin was a strong voice against the (for the Romanovs) suicidal
war of 1914, and, surprise, the British consul was present on the occasion of his
murder).
Indeed, our ruling class is crazy, as is any ruling class that sides with the British.
Sure, post-Soviet Russia has done naughty things. [ Crimea ] and they've intervened
energetically in Syria's civil war. Naughty for sure
Intervening in Syria's civil war is naughty? Thus saving a christian tradition of 2.000 years is naughty? Mr. Derbyshire certainly knows who is acting murderously naughty in Syria. What has happened in Syria is a disgrace for the christian West.
Derbyshire articles are always tricky: a sharp intelligence married to the capacity for utter
nonsense.
Once Derbyshire dismounts from his immigration/cultural Marxism hobby horse he often ends up
to his ankles in poo of his own making.
He seems to have swallowed the MSM/establishment line on the Skripnals hook, line, &
sinker. His views on Russia are simply embarrassing.
But, he's spot on re: causes of the Russia hysteria. Russia is the great convenience –
perfect to explain the defeat of the vile Clinton & a perfect stick to constantly bash
the President. (I didn't hear the whole of the Putin press conference, but my impression of
Trump's so-called treason was that he merely implied that the US's IC wasn't correct re
hacking etc So this amounts to treason ? Treason, because Trump is correct & the IC are a
ravening pack of liars & monsters.)
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected
leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is
holding back the tide of people trying to break in across our bordersto share in our
blessed bounty.
So much bullshit. Putin is not an illegitimate leader. The is no country on the face of
the earth more corrupt than the US.
Derbyshire must be under attack by the Deep State.
Derbyshire is a phony. First of all, the deep state in the US is controlled by a certain
ethnic minority. They're not all patriotic Americans by any means. Trump is doing nothing
wrong by winding things up in Syria – or by making peace with Russia, a country with
which the US has little trade. I think Trump is preparing for a bigger clash with China and
the Russia and Middle East things are diversions. Of course, in a clash with China, which
side would Derbyshire be on? 'Nuff said.
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected
leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is holding
back the tide of people trying to break in across our borders to share in our blessed
bounty.
Richard Lowry employed you for the amusement value of an elderly man making throwaway
remarks. In the course of your current employment, you and your readers might benefit if you
actually checked the numbers now and again.
1. You could classify Russia as a high-end middle income country or a 2d tier affluent
country. Depending on the metric you prefer, its productive base is the world's 6th largest
or 12th largest. Since 1998, it has registered a doubling of domestic product per capita with
a growth rate exceeding that of all but 5 European countries and all but 1 European country
from among those with a population exceeding 4 million. Of course, it has been more dynamic
than North America, the Antipodes, and the affluent Far East.
2. Russia's total fertility rate at 1.75 exceeds both the European and occidental means.
Russia, unlike many countries, has seen a dramatic recovery in fertility since 1998. If past
proves to be prologue, they may reach replacement-level fertility within 10 years. Israel is
the only affluent country with replacement-level fertility as we speak.
3. Russian life expectancy at birth (71.6 years) is depressed for an occidental country.
However, they've pulled out of the public health catastrophe they suffered during their
Yeltsin-era economic depression and have added 7 years to life expectancy at birth since that
time.
4. The homicide rate in Russia is high for an occidental country (11 per 100,000).
However, it's been cut by 30% in the last 7 years or so.
5. Russia's military expenditure ranks 4th globally. Persons familiar with proper
performance metrics can weigh in on how effective that military is. Please note, however,
that Russia is one of a small menu of occidental and quasi-occidental countries willing to
act independently abroad. (The others are the United States, Britain, France, and
Israel).
6. It encompasses all territory in the world which is predominantly Great Russian bar the
city of Narva in Estonia and some border counties in Kazakhstan. Over 90% of it's population
lives in territories in which ethnic Russians predominate. The only peripheral areas in which
Great Russians do not form a majority are in the Caucasus. About 4% of the country's total
population lives in those areas. Russia is not territorially over-stretched.
7. The political order is deficient in various ways. It is, however, pluralistic and
pluralistic to a degree matched in Russian history only between 1905 and 1918 and between
1988 and 2005. The degree of public assent to VP and his confederates in the Duma exceeds
that accorded a head of state and government in just about any other occidental country.
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks.
Other commentators have noted how highly inaccurate this statement is, so I'll say only
that I lived in Moscow from September 2016 until January 2018 and the country that I saw in
no way resembles Derb's characterization. Russia has its problems but I don't see demographic
replacement or civil war in the cards, as I do for the [sooner-or-later-to-be] Disunited
States.
Russian control of the Crimea is essential to its national security; the Black Sea is to
Russia what the Gulf of Mexico is to the U.S. Any Russian leader, seeing the Ukrainian
government toppled by a U.S. backed coup, that failed to act to secure Crimea, is
irresponsible. The wisdom of Russian involvement in Syria can be fairly debated among
Russians, but Syria is a lot closer to Russia than to the United States. At least Russian
involvement in Syria is not the result of being a pawn of a foreign power, as it is in the
case of the U.S.
"Sure, post-Soviet Russia has done naughty things. They occupied the Crimea and they've
intervened energetically in Syria's civil war. Naughty for sure, but under strong
geostrategic compulsion: Russia needs those naval bases."
Seriously, you wrote this? Besides the hypocrisy of someone living in the US writing this,
you actually think the Syria thing is about Russia wanting naval bases.
That's so wrong, I don't know where to start. I'd be here for a while writing exactly why
I think Russia is in Syria. Not in my wildest imaginings did any of it involve naval bases
though.
"They've murdered people in foreign countries, too. The poisoning in England of Sergei
Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it's disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic
retaliation -- which indeed it's got: 23 Russian diplomats were expelled from Britain."
So I take it you believe the Russian poisoned this guy?
"On 4 March 2018, he and his daughter Yulia, who was visiting him from Moscow, were
poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent.[5][6] As of 15 March 2018,[7] they were in a critical
condition at Salisbury District Hospital. The poisoning is being investigated as an attempted
murder.[6] He holds both Russian and British citizenship.[8] On 21 March 2018 Russian
ambassador to the UK Alexander Yakovenko said that Sergei Skripal is also a Russian
citizen.[9][10] [7]
On 29 March, Yulia was reported to be out of critical condition, 'conscious and
talking'.[11] A week later, on 6 April, Skripal was said to no longer be in a critical
state.[12] He was discharged on 18 May."
I say it never happened. I think it was made up out of thin air. Just for a talking point
and propaganda piece. And it is a clumsy, ludicrous framing job. Nothing clever about it,
just BS as brazen as Colin Powell lying his ass off to the UN.
So in England people theoretically exposed to nerve toxins get treated by the NHS at a
public facility? Really? Really? That's how they do it? Not by a military doctor trained to
specifically deal with cases like this?
I suspect trashing Russia makes him feel better about his own country going to shit. He
knows America and the West in general are anything, but "buoyant". A healthy, confident society does not elect president Donald Trump.
The 3d of these is apportioned about evenly between Zhirinovsky admirers and the
remainder. The last is apportioned between parties of a more social democratic or populist
bent and parties of a more social-liberal bent. The sort of Europhile element you're calling
'the leading opponent' is generally good for 7% of the ballots. People wanting that choice
had that choice, just not the particular person to whom you refer.
To add insult to the Left's injury, the Russians -- well, some of them -- returned
openly to Christianity. And not only did they drop actual Marxism, they showed no
enthusiasm for Cultural Marxism, marginalizing homosexuals and feminists and keeping
themselves overwhelmingly, shamefully, white.
So called "Cultural Marxism", or whatever is passing under this term in the West, didn't
exist in USSR since Stalin. It was a profoundly conservative society with a huge emphasis on
family values, with homosexuality considered a crime and with many other cultural features,
including "folkish" Russian culture (somebody has to lecture Western "academia" on what were
the most popular TV series in USSR in 1960s-1980s) promoted, including a massive and greatly
influential art-movement of Pochvenniki. But I guess for "connoisseurs" of Russian culture
whose bottom line is founded on Solzhenitsyn with some Pasternak and Hollywood cliches it is
difficult to admit the fact that they pretty much know nothing about Russia's history of the
20th century.
I'll even have to admit I agree with the people who piled on Trump for dissing our
intelligence agencies at the news conference. I'm not a fan of those agencies, or indeed of
intelligence agencies in general, ours or anyone else's. I think Trump's right to distrust
them.
Maybe. Maybe not. It is clear that Trump's own DoJ acted to sabotage him by releasing the
indictments of the twelve russian GRU officials just before Trump's meeting with Putin.
I would like to see a couple questions asked of Trump's critics (maybe Tucker Carlson
could ask them).
1.) When was the last time that the Justice Department indicted foreign intelligence
agents living abroad? Have they ever done it? Are we truly shocked that foreign spies are
spying on us?
2.) Has the CIA ever interfered with a foreign election? Is there any current operation in
which they are interfering with a foreign election? Have they supported any NGO or political
party in Russia that is in opposition to the current russian government?
3.) When did liberals decide that the acid test of loyalty to America is one's loyalty to
the US government's clandestine intelligence agencies?
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks. Trump is the constitutionally elected
leader of a country so prosperous, buoyant, and secure, our main national problem is
holding back the tide of people trying to break in across our borders to share in our
blessed bounty.
Mr. Derbyshire, in what sense is Putin "illegitimate" as the Russian head of state?
I mean, for all my horror of the HellBeast (and it's substantial), let's face it: Trumpy
is the skin-of-his-teeth winner of a Constitutional, yes, but also corrupt and rigged,
election process. And our main national problem isn't holding back the tide of
border-breakers; it's the lack of any interest in doing so on the part of the ruling class,
and the failure of the ruled to rise up and overthrow our corrupt rulers. In a lot of ways,
we make Russia look pretty good.
The Russians went into Crimea after the US instigated a coup ("regime change") against
Ukraine. Crimea is the home to the Black Sea Fleet and has tremendous national importance to
Russia. Think of it as our San Diego.
The Russians went into Syria at the express invitation of the government of the Syrian
Arab Republic. The US is in Syria on the basis of "no one can tell us no." Might makes right?
Is that a principle the Derb really wants to endorse? (If need be, we could go deeper into
the weeds and discuss just who each side, the Americans and the Russians, are supporting in
Syria; that also favors the Russians.)
Perhaps the Derb should educate himself by visiting Pat Lang's site and reading what
non-propagandists are saying.
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military
Watch it there, pal, you are coming dangerously close to what that genius Hitler once said
about Russia – something about Russia being a limp virgin ready to be taken into the
lustful mighty arms of German Mars – or some stupidity like that. It turned out that
our limp virgin by 1945 developed such a phallus that managed to tore a new one to
Germany.
If I was you, I wouldn't worry so much about the condition that Russia is in today, I
would rather worry about the shape that your country of origin – GB is in. On one hand,
Britain still rules over the same eclectic mix of people like in the glory days of its empire
– the only difference is that now they had to scale down their "empire" to about 244
000 sq km and also had to suffer some minor indignities along the way, such as organized gang
rapes from their subjects of indo-pakistani origin, but other than that – it's just
like it used to be.
Putin is the illegitimate leader of a corrupt and dysfunctional country, an economic
nonentity among nations, geographically overstretched, with a rusting military and a
population increasingly composed of aging drunks.
Bullshit!
They've murdered people in foreign countries, too. The poisoning in England of Sergei
Skripal and his daughter is beyond naughty; it's disgraceful, and deserving of diplomatic
retaliation -- which indeed it's got: 23 Russian diplomats were expelled from Britain.
More Bullshit!
I just don't think a news conference in a foreign country is the right place to air that
distrust.
That's your stupid opinion. It was a crappy presentation. And presentation for you means more than substance. You are
NOT helping Derb.
As for its being an "economic non-entity among nations", it is a mid-sized economy,
about the size of an Australia, Italy, India and so on, a $2 trillion economy, give or
take, using the purchasing power parity figures.
It's a $4 trillion economy using the purchasing power parity figures (the same as
Germany).
And many of them are dual citizens, foreign nationals, immigrants or the children of
immigrants, so they are not American at all. No one not a natural born citizen born to natural born citizens should be employed by the
US government in any capacity, including the military.
Mr. JD doesn't appear to keep up with the news about Russia Puzzling.
But even more puzzling: he believes the UK leaders nonsense about the "Skripals affair." A
bad sign, indeed.
As for Trump's performance at Helsinki, I don't see why he should be pained by it: it was no
worse than any of his previous shows.
And Putin was just his usual self: efficient and together. Trump did well to agree that Putin
should present the summary of their talks, as there was no time for producing a written
report for Trump to read. Putin had, as usual, taken notes during the two meetings.
What Trump said in his opening remarks was fine, and he sounded just right and convincing.
The problem arose when he was answering questions, and he certainly shouldn't have run his
intel down as he did, but in all fairness they don't deserve better.
I wonder why nobody denounces the asking of idiotic questions, solemnly to embarrass the
leader of another country [H.E. Mr. Putin] in front of an international audience ?
With the exception of the period 1919 1933 the USA, that is, the ruling class, wanted to
control the world.
In this period the ideas of the ruling class, to be precise, were the same, but the people
had enough of USA blood flowing for imperialism, neutrality laws came, the laws that FDR
hated.
If trying to control the world is crazy, I wonder.
Rome also then wanted to control the then known world, that is, the accessible parts.
The British empire controlled 40% of the world, also the then accessible parts.
So when in fact one man blocks that the whole world is controlled, the ruling class
assumes that after Russia had fallen China will fall too, I wonder if one can say they're
crazy.
If they are, then mankind has been crazy forever.
A historian calculated that on thirteen years of war in Europe on average there were three
years of peace.
If I'm right in my ideas on Trump, he's unique in world history, the first time the ruler
of an empire sees that the empire can no longer be held, and acts accordingly.
Those who still think the USA can conquer those parts of the world the USA does not yet
control, are, of course are near a nervous breakdown. Panic is not good for thoughtful solutions, if one of these days Trump dies unexpectedly,
from whatever cause, it will not surprise me.
What is interesting, to understate, what the reaction will be among those who elected
Trump.
Yeah, what happened to the Novichok story? Last I heard was that a person died 4 months after because she found a novichok dispenser
somewhere, and the UK announced that after painstakingly combing through CCTV footage and
Russian passenger records "they knew who did it".
Trump derangement syndrome makes idiots (greater idiots) of the establishment. These morons
can't see that the alliance between Russia & China is THE greatest threat to US
international ambitions. If appearances are correct Trump wishes to weaken that alliance
– which is diplomacy 101. Trump has a multitude of faults, but his actions re Russia
would possibly gain Bismarck's approval.
It seems this author can't overcome his Cold Warrior past of supporting (((Soviet
dissidents))) against the evils of Communism so he believes what he wants about Russia and
its current state. As others have pointed out here, if he's so wrong about Russia, he's
probably getting a lot else wrong as well. Perhaps Unz should become no country for old men,
and leave the revolution to the younger vanguard who seem much more reality based.
Based commentary by Michael McCaffrey for RT:
Captain America savages
Trump in battle of the useful idiots He just left out Mr. Schwarzenegger's tweets. People playing tough guys doing shouty politics by short message, thinking they are what
they pretend to be on stage. It's pretty liberal out there.
I would add number 7: dismantle the monopoly on American media and internet. You're not going to have a functioning democracy when one small ethnic group controls a
country's media. And expect the inevitable. A year ago legislators introduced a bill in Sweden to restrict
media ownership to no more than 5% by any person, family, company or ethnic group. The Jews
wasted no time screaming anti-semitism.
And expect the inevitable. A year ago legislators introduced a bill in Sweden to
restrict [total] media ownership to no more than 5% by any person, family, company or ethnic group.
The Jews wasted no time screaming anti-semitism.
I can understand person, family and company but ethnic group? Do you mean minority ethnic
group – or are ethnic Swedes not allowed to own more than 5% of their own media?
The Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare just issued a report last week
stating that there is no evidence that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Another false
flag. I really don't believe a word I read in the press any longer. I can't believe that
anyone does.
The left means to take and hold power and that's it.
That idiot Andrew McCarthy from NR has just expressed astonishment that he could have been so
naive as to believe in the integrity of the FISA warrant process. What a load of
codswallop.
last year the BBC had a bunch of nostalgic puff pieces on the 1917 Revolution, this year all
the press is silent about the murder of the Romanovs. The brutal murder of that family was a grisly foreshadow of what was essentially a
government ran by a foreigners was to do to the Russian (and Ukrainian) people. and perhaps its a grisly foreshadow of what the globalists want to do to badwhites. also remember that 'revolution' was sponsored by many wall street firms, who made a ton of
money liquidating the nobility's assets
That stratfor chart is outdated and already proven wrong: It projects a total Russian
population of 137 million in 2020, but in 2018 Russia's population is 146 million (144
without Crimea), and it has been basically stable for years.
It's true that the Muslim share of Russia's population is rising, but it is doing so very
slowly, because the fertility of Russia's Muslims isn't high (below replacement in every
majority-Muslim region except Chechnya). It's currently something 1.9 children per woman for
Muslims, vs. 1.6 for ethnic Russians, and will likely equalize long before Muslims are
anywhere near a majority.
Muslims and the Chinese are taking over the south and east of Russia through high birth
rates and (illegal) immigration.
The trope that Chinese are taking over Russia's east is complete nonsense. Chinese have
little economic incentive to migrate north to Siberia, rather than south to the wealthy
regions of their own country.
what the purpose of this somewhat jingoistic prefatory note is, or whom it is intended
to placate
It is a ritual, so the purpose is to convey loyalty. It doesn't placate anyone. What it
unfortunately does is to undermine all else Derbyshire says. If he is this uninformed, or
conformist, about basic facts, how can one take what he says seriously?
I'm about 65% Russian, 25% Lak (Dagestani), and 10% other (mostly Italian, Jewish).I
have a degree in Political Economy from U.C. Berkeley.
Reminds me of http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/06/high-v-low-m.html
. That Political Economy degree from Berkeley surely is a signal for that. I like humanities.
Problem is a lot of US humanities is garbage, and if you have only a humanities degree from a
US school, smart, knowledgable people will assume you to be problematic.
Maybe I come across as high V low M too, but I'm not, see https://gmachine1729.com/writings-by-category/pure-math/
. Yes, I also consider many people in programming and software engineering to be high V low
M. I've seen Google senior engineers who don't even know what divergence or curl are.
Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups:
pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American
population, they have been prominent in pornography. Many erotica dealers in the book trade
between 1890 and 1940 were immigrant Jews of German origin. According to Jay A. Gertzman,
author of Bookleggers and Smuthounds:The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 'Jews were prominent in the distribution of
gallantiana [fiction on erotic themes and books of dirty jokes and ballads], avant-garde
sexually explicit novels, sex pulps, sexology, and flagitious materials'.
In the postwar era, America's most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the 'Walt
Disney of Porn'. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman
controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country. Born in 1924, Sturman grew up
in Cleveland's East Side. Initially, he sold comics and magazines, but when he realized sex
magazines produced twenty times the revenue of comic books, he moved exclusively into porn,
eventually producing his own titles and setting up retail stores. By the end of the 1960s,
Sturman ranked at the top of adult magazine distributors and by the mid-70s he owned over 200
adult bookstores. Sturman also introduced updated versions of the traditional peepshow booth
(typically a dark room with a small colour TV on which the viewer can view X-rated videos).
It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the
industry. Eventually he was convicted of tax evasion and other crimes and died, disgraced, in
prison in 1997. His son, David, continued running the family business.
The contemporary incarnation of Sturman is 43-year-old Jewish Clevelander Steven Hirsch,
who has been described as 'the Donald Trump of porno'. The link between the two is Steve's
father, Fred, who was a stockbroker-cum-lieutenant to Sturman. Today Hirsch runs the Vivid
Entertainment Group, which has been called the Microsoft of the porn world, the top producer
of 'adult' films in the US. His specialty was to import mainstream marketing techniques into
the porn business. Indeed, Vivid parallels the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and
1940s, particularly in its exclusive contracts to porn stars who are hired and moulded by
Hirsch. Vivid was the subject of a behind-the-scenes reality TV show recently broadcast on
Channel 4.
German Christians whose children are force-fed LGBT sex ed in schools and where home
schooling is not permitted, and where parents will be arrested if they do not put their
children in the schools, have sought asylum in Russia, and there have been more than a few of
them, much as the media likes to ignore it. When the US no longer allows home-schooling, and forces their children into the schools,
you will see the same thing happening in the US. Christian Americans will be seeking asylum in Russia
When Trump said he considers Russia a "competitor", he was right. No truer words were ever
spoken.
But the only way to get Americans on board with the greedy plans of greedy people in and
out of government is to demonize your "competitors."
"Naughty things in Syria"??? Saving the non crazies in Syria from jihadi lunatics is naughty?
I suppose if you an Israeli, Saudi or US Democrat. To others , Russia was a savior. This writer appears to be auditioning for a return to NRO.
Russia's economy is stillborn while China's is booming and feasting on America's assets
and market.
Russia's per capita product exceeds China's. It hasn't been as economically dynamic as
China (a 2-fold increase in per capita produce over 1998-2016, v. China's 3.3-fold), but it
has done quite well and has satisfactory macroeconomic indicators across the board. It's
export sector remains dominated by oil and minerals, there's an excess of state ownership in
the economy, and there are some quality of life issues (street crime). Room for improvement,
but not doing badly.
Not by a whole lot (China=$8,800 vs Russia=$10,900 2017).
Also, China's huge GDP is divided by 1.38 billion people.
I doubt anything more than 200-300 million of those ~1.4 billion are involved in contributing
anything significant to China' GDP. So their $12 trillion GDP is quite impressive.
Russia should be doing much, much better.
{It hasn't been as economically dynamic as China}
China's economic 'miracle' is largely thanks to America, like South Korea before, and like
Japan before SK.
America opened up its rich, practically unlimited market to Chinese goods _and_ American
companies were encouraged to setup shop in China ( .like in South Korea).
Chinese are smart people and they learned, and over time started creating their own.
You go to Home Depot or Lowes today and there is hardly _anything_ manufactured in US: it's
all "Made in China".
Russia, on the other hand, is considered an enemy by US, so everything is done to thwart
its economic progress. Russians are also at fault, but we cannot ignore the fact that China
got a huge boost from the economically advanced West to get its (dynamic) economy going.
The is question about whether that information was classified was really important, but if take classification at face value Clinton
and her associated are guilty in obstruction of justice...
DAAAAAMMMNNN ... IT ... COMEY IS A LIAR ... DAMN IM SICK OF THIS BASTARD LYING !!! ... HE HAS BROKEN THE LAW BIG TIME ... HES
GOING TO BE UNDER THE JAIL !!! ... SON OF BITCH ... LET ONE OF US EVEN TRY TO THINK ABOUT BREAKING ONE OF THOSE CRIMES WE WOULD
BE IN GITMO ... WHAT THE F
Please write to the DOJ fellow Trump Supporter.. Here is a link you send the request to Attorney General.. I have been asking
for a Special Prosuctor to look into Hillary/Comey Hillary Clinton Foundation/Podesta / Russia (He had ties to Russia) And Obama
Hello They are all so damn corrupt.
This is seriously PISSING ME OFF!!!!!!!!!! James Comey is a lying bastard and needs to be fired immediately!!! He is either involved
or completely paid off!
AMERICANS JAMES COMEY WORKED FOR THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BEFORE HE WAS DIRECTOR OF FBI . DOES THIS EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN THAT NOGGIN
? I AM TALKING TO THE LIBTARDS . I WONDER HOW HE GOT HIS PROMOTION ? HHHHHMMMM
Comey's entire testimony and the whole of this investigation is a complete farce and he's made a mockery of one of the highest
and most elite law enforcement agencies in our nation as a result. WHY he is still the director of the FBI is beyond me... his
credibility was obliterated with this ONE case and he will NEVER regain it. As far as most Americans are concerned, everything
that comes out of the FBI and/or Comey's mouth is as worthless as shit on the bottom of your shoe.
+Brian Cunningham -- President Trump is doing HIS OWN job.. running the country. THIS is the job of the Justice department.
IF Comey is "committing perjury", then the Justice Department - NOT the President - will deal with him. Meanwhile, the
hearings have to be completed first . QUIT saying that Trump "isn't doing his job, as he IS. Not every function of our
government is *President TRUMP'S job!!*
*I give up*. Clueless....... +Brian Cunningham , PLEASE learn how our government works. Stay in school - or use the Internet in
front of you to learn something - like, how our government works, for example... that's a start... Please. Please!
+Frank Marshall -- Exactly -- I reported the title as misleading.. Go up above where it says "more"..click, and "report" comes
up. The click bait false titles (and this one is slanderous towards Congressman Gowdy) will NOT stop until enough people
get to reporting them and the uploader is warned to stop it by You Tube themselves... things like that and the filthy language
people use in comments in general. It's ALL out of hand..thus I started reporting it all. It HAS to start somewhere to shut it
down. Take care, have a good week!
In 2015 the Clinton Foundation had $225 million and 2000 employees. The decision to suspend future operations is blamed on (mostly
foreign) unfulfilled donor pledges . I wonder why? The layoff of 22 employees recently made headlines. Gonna be a lot of screaming
for termination bonus' from the rest. Any wagers they'll fall on deaf ears?
Are you kidding me. They and that is the Clintons,Comey should be put in prison then the will follow. Different strokes for different
folks that is what is destroying this country. The big shoots can do whatever they want. If it was the regular Joey they would
have been imprisoned long ago.......thats why this country is crumbles. No rule of law. Well there is for the regular citizens
but not are voted in politicians they can do whatever they want why Illinois sucks.
Wow - Comey, the guy that fixed Hillary's email problem has an urgent centrist plea.
"Democrats, please, please don't lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This
president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America's great
middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."
"... A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order ..."
"... The American ruling class turned to neoliberalism after the failure of Keynesianism -- with its emphasis on state intervention and state-led development -- to overcome the economic crisis of the 1970s and restore profitability and growth in the system. Neoliberalism was not a conspiracy hatched by the Chicago School of Economics, but a strategy that developed in response to globalization and the end of the long postwar boom. ..."
"... For a period, the United States did indeed superintend a new global structure of world imperialism. It integrated most of the world's states into the neoliberal order it dubbed the Washington Consensus, using its international financial and trade institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and the World Trade Organization to compel all nations to adopt neoliberal policies that benefited a handful of powerful players. It used international loans and debt restructuring not only to remove trade and investment restrictions, but also to impose privatization and cuts in health, education, and other vital social services in states all over the world. The Pentagon deployed its military might to police and crush any so-called rogue states like Iraq. ..."
"... The Making of Global Capitalism ..."
"... Washington's attempt to lock in its dominance through its 2003 war and occupation of Iraq backfired. Even before launching the invasion, Bush recognized that the United States needed to do something to contain China and other rising rivals. In a sign of this growing awareness, he and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, rebranded China, which Clinton had called a strategic partner, as a strategic competitor. ..."
"... Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, as part of a plan for serial "regime change" in the region. If it succeeded, the United States hoped it would be able to control rivals, particularly China, which is dependent on the region's strategic energy reserves. Instead, Washington suffered, in the words of General William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency, its "greatest strategic disaster in American history." ..."
"... Iran, one of the projected targets for regime change in Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil," emerged as a beneficiary of the war. It secured a new ally in the form of the sectarian Shia fundamentalist regime in Iraq. And while the United States was bogged down in Iraq, China became increasingly assertive throughout the world, establishing new political and economic pacts throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and a number of African countries. ..."
"... Finally, the Great Recession of 2008 hammered the United States and its allies in the EU particularly hard. By contrast, Beijing's massive state intervention in the economy sustained its long boom and lifted the growth rates of countries in Latin America, Australia, Asia, and sections of Africa that exported raw materials to China. ..."
"... Trump's strategy to restore American dominance in the world is economic nationalism. This is the rational kernel within his erratic shell of bizarre tweets and rants. He wants to combine neoliberalism at home with protectionism against foreign competition. It is a position that breaks with the American establishment's grand strategy of superintending free-trade globalization. ..."
"... Demagogic appeals to labor aside, Trump is doing none of this for the benefit of American workers. His program is intended to restore the competitive position of American capital, particularly manufacturing, against its rivals, especially in China but also in Germany. ..."
"... This economic nationalism is paired with a promise to rearm the American military, which he views as having been weakened by Obama. Thus, Trump has announced plans to increase military spending by $54 billion. He wants to use this 9 percent increase in the military budget to build up the Navy and to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal, even if that provokes other powers to do the same. As he quipped in December, "Let it be an arms race." 21 Trump's fire-breathing chief strategist, former Brietbart editor Steve Bannon, went so far as to promise, "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years. There's no doubt about that." 22 ..."
"... Trump threatens a significant break with some previously hallowed institutions of US foreign policy. He has called NATO outdated. This declaration is really just a bargaining position to get the alliance's other members to increase their military spending. Thus, both his secretary of state and defense secretary have repeatedly reassured European states that the United States remains committed to NATO. More seriously, he denounced the EU as merely a vehicle for German capital. Thus, he supports various right-wing populist parties in Europe running on a promise to imitate Britain and leave the EU. ..."
"... Trump's "transactional" approach comes out most clearly in his stated approach to international alliances and blocs. He promises to evaluate all multilateral alliances and trade blocs from the standpoint of American interests against rivals. He will scrap some, replacing them with bilateral arrangements, and renegotiate others. Much of the establishment has reacted in horror to these threats, denouncing them as a retreat from Washington's responsibilities to its allies. ..."
"... Hoping that he can split Russia away from China and neutralize it as a lesser power, Trump then wants to confront China with tariffs and military challenges to its assertion of control of the South China Sea. Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has already threatened to deny China access to its newly-built island bases in the South China Sea. ..."
"... On top of all this, multinational capital opposes his protectionism. Of course almost all capital is more overjoyed at his domestic neoliberalism, a fact demonstrated in the enormous stock market expansion, but they see his proposals of tariffs, renegotiation of NAFTA, and scrapping of the TPP and the TTIP as threats to their global production, service, and investment strategies. They consider his house economist, Peter Navarro, to be a crackpot. ..."
"... Beneath the governmental shell, whole sections of the unelected state bureaucracy -- what has been ominously described as the "deep state" -- also oppose Trump as a threat to their interests. He has openly attacked the CIA and FBI and threatens enormous cuts to the State Department as well as other key bureaucracies responsible for managing state policy at home and abroad. Many of these bureaucrats have engaged in a campaign of leaks, especially of Trump's connections with the Russian state. ..."
"... One of Trump's key allies, Newt Gingrich, gives a sense of how Trump's backers are framing the dispute with these institutions. "We're up against a permanent bureaucratic structure defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so," he told the New York Times ..."
"... The Democratic Party selectively opposes some of Trump's program. But, instead of attacking him on his manifold reactionary policies, they have portrayed him as Putin's "Manchurian Candidate," posturing as the defenders of US power willing to stand up to Russia. ..."
"... Even if Trump weathers the storm of this resistance from above and below, his foreign policy could flounder on its own internal conflicts and inconsistencies. To take one example: his policy of collaboration with Russia in Syria could flounder on his simultaneous commitment to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. Why? Because Iran is a Russian ally in the region. Most disturbingly, if the Trump administration goes into a deeper crisis, it will double down on its bigoted scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims to deflect attention from its failures. ..."
"... China is accelerating the transformation of its economy. It seeks to push out multinationals that have used it as an export-processing platform and replace them with its own state-owned and private corporations, which, like Germany, will export its surplus manufactured goods to the rest of the world market. 31 No wonder, then, that a survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce found that 80 percent of American multinationals consider China inhospitable for business. ..."
"... China is also aggressively trying to supplant the United States as the economic hegemon in Asia. Immediately after Trump nixed the TPP, China appealed to states in the Asia Pacific region to sign on to its alternative trade treaty, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). China is determined to challenge American imperial rule of the Asia Pacific. Though its navy is far smaller than Washington's, it plans to accelerate efforts to build up its regional naval power against Trump's threats to block Chinese access to the strategic islands in the South China Sea. ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy ..."
"... Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order ..."
"... International Socialism Journal ..."
"... Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... Imperialism and World Economy, ..."
"... International Socialist Review ..."
"... A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and the State in a Transitional World ..."
The neoliberal world order of free-trade globalization that the United States has pioneered
since the end of the Cold War is in crisis. The global slump, triggered by the 2007 Great
Recession, has intensified competition not only between corporations, but also between the
states that represent them and whose disagreements over the terms of trade have paralyzed the
World Trade Organization. Similar conflicts between states have disrupted regional free-trade
deals and regional blocs. Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement failed to come to a
vote in Congress, and now Trump has scrapped it. The vote for Brexit in the United Kingdom is a
precedent that could lead other states to bolt from the European Union. Rising international
tensions, especially between the United States, China, and Russia, fill the daily
headlines.
Indeed, the world has entered a new period of imperialism. As discussed in previous articles
in this journal, the unipolar world order based on the dominance of the United States, which
has been eroding for some time, has been replaced by an asymmetric multipolar
world order. The United States remains the only superpower, and possesses by far the largest
military reach, but it faces a global rival in China and a host of lesser rivals like Russia.
And the competition between nation-states over the balance of geopolitical and economic power
is intensifying.
The multiple crises and conflicts have also confronted all the world's states with the
largest migration crisis in history. Over fifty million migrants and refugees are fleeing
economies devastated by neoliberalism, the economic crisis, political instability, and in the
case of the Middle East -- especially Syria -- counterrevolution against the Arab Spring
uprisings. The bourgeois establishment and their right-wing challengers have scapegoated these
migrants in country after country.
All of this has destabilized bourgeois politics throughout the world, opening the door to
both the Left and the Right posing as alternatives to the establishment. In the United States,
Donald Trump won the presidency with the promise to "Make America Great Again" by putting
"America First." He threatens to retreat from the post-Cold War grand strategy of the United
States overseeing the international free-trade regime, in favor of economic nationalism and
what has been described as a "transactional" approach to international politics.
While Trump aims to continue certain neoliberal policies at home (such as deregulation,
privatization, and tax cuts for the wealthy), his international policies represent a
significant shift away from global "free trade." He has promised to rip up or renegotiate
free-trade deals and impose protectionist tariffs on economic competitors. To enforce this, he
wants to rearm the American military to push back against all rivals -- China in particular --
and conduct what he depicts in racist fashion a civilizational war against Islam in the Middle
East. He marries this militaristic nationalism to a bigoted campaign of scapegoating against
immigrants, Muslims, Blacks, women, and all other oppressed groups.
Panic in the imperial brain trust
The architects and ideologues of American imperialism recognize that their grand strategy is
in crisis, and worry that Trump's new stand will only magnify it. The Financial Times
' Martin Wolf declares,
We are, in short, at the end of both an economic period -- that of western-led
globalization -- and a geopolitical one -- the post-cold war "unipolar moment" of a US-led
global order. The question is whether what follows will be an unraveling of the post-second
world war era into de-globalization and conflict, as happened in the first half of the 20th
century, or a new period in which non-western powers, especially China and India, play a
bigger role in sustaining a co-operative global order. 1
Obama's favorite neocon Robert Kagan warns that Washington's retreat from managing the world
system risks "backing into World War III," the title of the piece in which he writes:
Think of two significant trend lines in the world today. One is the increasing ambition
and activism of the two great revisionist powers, Russia and China. The other is the
declining confidence, capacity, and will of the democratic world, and especially of the
United States, to maintain the dominant position it has held in the international system
since 1945. As those two lines move closer, as the declining will and capacity of the United
States and its allies to maintain the present world order meet the increasing desire and
capacity of the revisionist powers to change it, we will reach the moment at which the
existing order collapses and the world descends into a phase of brutal anarchy, as it has
three times in the past two centuries. The cost of that descent, in lives and treasure, in
lost freedoms and lost hope, will be staggering. 2
In somewhat more measured tones, the imperial brain trust of American imperialism, the
Council on Foreign Relations, is using their journal, Foreign Affairs , to oppose
Trump and defend the existing neoliberal order with minor modifications. 3 Stewart
Patrick, for example, worries that Trump has laid-out
no broader vision of the Unites States' traditional role as defender of the free world,
much less outline how the country play that part. In foreign policy and economics, he has
made clear that the pursuit of narrow national advantage will guide his policies --
apparently regardless of the impact on the liberal world order that the United States has
championed since 1945. That order was fraying well before November 8. It had been battered
from without by challenges from China and Russia and weakened from within by economic malaise
in Japan and crises in Europe, including the epochal Brexit vote last year. No one knows what
Trump will do as president. But as a candidate, he vowed to shake up world politics by
reassessing long-standing U.S. alliances, ripping up existing U.S. trade deals, raising trade
barriers against China, disavowing the Paris climate agreement, and repudiating the nuclear
accord with Iran. Should he follow through on these provocative plans, Trump will unleash
forces beyond his control, sharpening the crisis of the Western-centered order.
The Council's Gideon Rose fears that Trump is introducing "damaging uncertainty into
everything from international commerce to nuclear deterrence. At worst, it could cause other
countries to lose faith in the order's persistence and start to hedge their bets, distancing
themselves from the Unites States, making side deals with China and Russia, and adopting
beggar-thy-neighbor programs." 4
But the Council and the rest of the foreign policy establishment have little to offer as a
solution to the crisis they describe. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations' president,
Richard Haass's, new book, A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of
the Old Order , produces little more than tactical maneuvers designed to incorporate
America's rivals into the existing neoliberal order. 5 But it is within that very
order that the United States has undergone relative decline against its increasingly assertive
rivals, especially China.
Neoliberalism's solution to the crisis last time
The American ruling class turned to neoliberalism after the failure of Keynesianism -- with
its emphasis on state intervention and state-led development -- to overcome the economic crisis
of the 1970s and restore profitability and growth in the system. Neoliberalism was not a
conspiracy hatched by the Chicago School of Economics, but a strategy that developed in
response to globalization and the end of the long postwar boom.
The US ruling class adopted what later came to be known as neoliberalism in coherent form
under the regimes of Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Britain.
6 Neoliberalism had domestic and international dimensions. At home, the mantra was
privatization and deregulation. The ruling class got rid of regulations on capital and launched
a war against workers. They privatized state-run businesses as well as traditionally state-run
institutions like prisons and schools. They busted unions, drove down wages, and cut the
welfare state to ribbons.
Abroad, the United States expanded the program of "free trade" they had pursued since the
end of World War II. Seeking cheap labor, resources, and markets, Washington used its dominance
of international institutions to pry open national economies throughout the world. It aimed
first to incorporate its allies, then its antagonists in this neoliberal world order, with the
promise that it would work in the interests of "the capitalist class" around the world. As
Henry Kissinger once remarked, "What is called globalization is really another name for the
dominant role of the United States." 7 These domestic and international policies
overcame the crises of the 1970s and ushered in a period of economic expansion (interrupted by
a few recessions) that lasted from the early 1980s through to the early 2000s. 8
The brief unipolar moment
Unable to keep pace with the West's economic expansion and the Reagan administration's
massive rearmament program, and beset by its own internal contradictions, the Soviet Union
collapsed in 1991, and the Cold War's bipolar geopolitical order came to an end. The United
States hoped to establish a new unipolar world order in which it would solidify its position as
the world's sole remaining, and unassailable, superpower.
For a period, the United States did indeed superintend a new global structure of world
imperialism. It integrated most of the world's states into the neoliberal order it dubbed the
Washington Consensus, using its international financial and trade institutions like the IMF,
World Bank, and the World Trade Organization to compel all nations to adopt neoliberal policies
that benefited a handful of powerful players. It used international loans and debt
restructuring not only to remove trade and investment restrictions, but also to impose
privatization and cuts in health, education, and other vital social services in states all over
the world. The Pentagon deployed its military might to police and crush any so-called rogue
states like Iraq.
Amidst the heady days of this unipolar moment, much of the left abandoned the classical
Marxist theory of imperialism developed chiefly by the early twentieth century Russian
revolutionaries Vladimir Lenin and Nikolai Bukharin. In brief, Lenin and Bukharin argued that
capitalist development transformed economic competition into interstate rivalry and war for the
political and economic division and redivision of the world system between the dominant
capitalist powers vying for hegemony. 9
"The development of world capitalism leads," wrote Bukharin, "on the one hand, to an
internationalization of the economic life and, on the other, to the leveling of economic
differences, and to an infinitely greater degree, the same process of economic development
intensifies the tendency to 'nationalize' capitalist interests, to form narrow 'national'
groups armed to the teeth and ready to hurl themselves at one another at any moment."
10
Imperialism was a product of the interplay between the creation of a world market and the
division of the world between national states, and as such was a product of the system rather
than simply a policy of a particular state or party. This was in contrast to the German
socialist Karl Kautsky, who argued that imperialism was a policy favored by some sections of
the capitalists but which ran against the interests of ruling classes as a whole, which, as a
result of the economic integration of the world market, had a greater interest in peaceful
competition.
The new period of globalized capitalism produced new theories that rejected Lenin and
Bukharin's approach. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argued in their 2000 book that
globalization had replaced imperialism with a new structure of domination they termed empire.
Nonstate networks of power, like international financial institutions such as the IMF and the
World Bank, were now, in an era where states were increasingly powerless, the dominant world
players. 11 "The United States does not, and indeed no nation-state can today, form
the center of an imperialist project," they famously wrote in the preface. 12 Others
took the argument further, maintaining that a system of globalized transnational production and
trade was fast displacing states, including Washington, as influential centers of power.
13
On the other extreme, Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin argue in their 2012 book The Making of
Global Capitalism that the American state organized globalization and integrated all the
world's states as vassals of its informal empire. 14 Though diametrically opposed at
the start, these arguments ended with the same conclusion -- inter-imperial rivalries between
the world's leading states, including the potential for them to spill over into military
conflict -- are not a necessary outcome of capitalism; and today those rivalries are a thing of
the past.
The return of rivalry in an asymmetric world order
Developments in the real world -- such as the Bush administration's 2001 invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan, and two years later of Iraq -- viscerally disproved these arguments.
Indeed, changes in the real world were already undermining the foundations of the postwar world
order that Kagan and others are frantically holding up against Trump's "America First"
nationalism.
Washington's drive to cement its hegemony in a unipolar world order was undermined in
several ways. The neoliberal boom from the early 1980s to the 2000s produced new centers of
capital accumulation. China is the paradigmatic example. After it abandoned autarkic state
capitalism in favor of state-managed production for the world market, it transformed itself
from a backwater producer to the new workshop of the world. It vaulted from producing about 1.9
percent 15 of global GDP in 1979 to about 15 percent in 2016. 16 It is
now the second-largest economy in the world and predicted to overtake the United States as the
largest economy in the coming years.
But China was not the sole beneficiary of the neoliberal expansion. Brazil and other
regional economies also developed. And Russia, after suffering an enormous collapse of its
empire and its economic power in the 1990s, managed to rebuild itself as a petro-power with
disproportionate geopolitical influence because of its nuclear arsenal. Of course, whole
sections of the world system did not develop at all, but instead suffered dispossession and
economic catastrophe.
Washington's attempt to lock in its dominance through its 2003 war and occupation of Iraq
backfired. Even before launching the invasion, Bush recognized that the United States needed to
do something to contain China and other rising rivals. In a sign of this growing awareness, he
and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, rebranded China, which Clinton had called a
strategic partner, as a strategic competitor.17
Bush used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in
Iraq, as part of a plan for serial "regime change" in the region. If it succeeded, the United
States hoped it would be able to control rivals, particularly China, which is dependent on the
region's strategic energy reserves. Instead, Washington suffered, in the words of General
William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency, its "greatest strategic disaster
in American history."18
Iran, one of the projected targets for regime change in Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil,"
emerged as a beneficiary of the war. It secured a new ally in the form of the sectarian Shia
fundamentalist regime in Iraq. And while the United States was bogged down in Iraq, China
became increasingly assertive throughout the world, establishing new political and economic
pacts throughout Latin America, the Middle East, and a number of African countries.
Russia also took advantage of American setbacks to reassert its power against EU and NATO
expansionism in Eastern Europe. It went to war against US ally Georgia in 2008. In Central
Asia, China and Russia came together to form a new alliance, the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization. They postured against American imperialism in their own imperial interests.
Finally, the Great Recession of 2008 hammered the United States and its allies in the EU
particularly hard. By contrast, Beijing's massive state intervention in the economy sustained
its long boom and lifted the growth rates of countries in Latin America, Australia, Asia, and
sections of Africa that exported raw materials to China.
This was the high-water mark of the so-called BRICS -- Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa. The lesser powers in this bloc hitched their star to Chinese imperialism,
exporting their commodities to fuel China's industrial expansion. Together they launched the
BRICS bank, officially known as the New Development Bank, and China added another, the Asian
Infrastructure Development Bank, as alternatives to the IMF and World Bank. The recent Chinese
slowdown and the consequent drop in commodity prices have, however, hammered the economies of
many of the BRICS.
These developments cracked the unipolar moment and replaced it with today's asymmetric world
order. The United States remains the world's sole superpower; but it now faces an international
rival in China and in lesser powers like Russia. It must also wrestle with regional powers that
pursue their own interests, sometimes in sync with Washington and other times at odds with
it.
Obama's failure to restore dominance
The Obama administration came to power with the hopes of restoring the credibility and
standing of American power in the wake of Bush's disasters in the Middle East. It implemented a
combined program of stimulus and austerity to restore growth and profitability. By imposing a
two-tier wage structure on the auto industry, it set a precedent for competitive
reindustrialization in the United States, and launched the massive fracking expansion to
provide cheap domestic energy to US corporations.
Intending to extract the United States from its costly and inconclusive ground wars in the
Middle East, Obama turned to air power, shifting the focus of the so-called War on Terror to
drone strikes, Special Force operations, and air support for US proxy forces in different
countries.
Once disentangled from Bush's occupations, Obama planned to conduct the ballyhooed "pivot to
Asia" to contain China's ongoing rise, bolster Washington's political and military alliance
with Japan and South Korea, and prevent their economic incorporation into China's growing
sphere of influence. The now dead Trans-Pacific Partnership was meant to ensure American
economic hegemony in the region, which would then be backed up militarily with the deployment
of 60 percent of the US Navy to the Asia Pacific region. 19 Obama also began to push
back against Russian opposition to the EU and NATO expansion into Eastern Europe -- hence the
standoff over Ukraine.
But Obama was unable to fully implement any of this because US forces remained bogged down
in the spiraling crisis in the Middle East. Retreating from the Bush administration's policy of
regime change to balancing between the existing states, Obama, while continuing to support
historic US allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, at the same time struck a deal with Iran
over its nuclear program. But this strategy was undermined by the Arab Spring, the regimes'
counterrevolutions, attempts by regional powers to manipulate the rebellion for their own ends,
and the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. The United States has been unable to resolve many of
these developing crises on its own terms.
Now Russia, after having suffered a long-term decline of its power in the region, has
managed to reassert itself through its intervention in Syria in support of Assad's
counterrevolution. It is now a broker in the Syrian "peace process" and a new player in the
broader Middle East.
While the United States continued to suffer relative decline, China and Russia became even
more assertive. Russia took Crimea, which provoked the United States and Germany to impose
sanctions on the Kremlin. China intensified its economic deal making throughout the world,
increasing its foreign direct investment from a paltry $17.2 billion in 2005 to $187 billion in
2015. 20 At the same time, it engaged in a massive buildup of its navy and air force
(though its military is still dwarfed by the US) and constructed new military bases on various
islands to control the shipping lanes, fisheries, and potential oil fields in the South China
Sea.
Obama did manage to oversee the recovery of the US economy, and China has suffered an
economic slowdown. That has dramatically reversed the economic fortunes of the BRICS, in
particular Brazil, which has experienced economic collapse and a right-wing governmental coup.
The drop in oil prices that accompanied the Chinese slowdown also hammered the OPEC states as
well as Russia.
But China's slowdown has not reversed Beijing's economic and geopolitical ascension. In
fact, China is in the process of rebalancing its economy to replace multinational investment,
expand its domestic market, and increase production for export to the rest of the world. The
aim is to increase its ability to compete with the United States and the EU at all levels.
Thus, well before Trump's election, the United States had been mired in foreign policy
problems that it seemed incapable of resolving.
Trump's break with neoliberalism
Trump's strategy to restore American dominance in the world is economic nationalism. This is
the rational kernel within his erratic shell of bizarre tweets and rants. He wants to combine
neoliberalism at home with protectionism against foreign competition. It is a position that
breaks with the American establishment's grand strategy of superintending free-trade
globalization.
Inside the United States, Trump aims to double down on some aspects of neoliberalism. He
plans to cut taxes on the rich, rip up government regulations that "hamper" business interests,
expand Obama's fracking program to provide corporations cheaper energy, and to go after public
sector unions. He also wants to invest $1 trillion to modernize the country's decrepit
infrastructure. While his Gestapo assault on immigrants is less popular among the business
class, they are salivating over the tax and regulatory cuts. Trump hopes with these economic
carrots to lure American manufacturing companies back to the United States.
At the same time, however, Trump wants to upend the neoliberal Washington Consensus. He is
threatening to impose tariffs on American corporations that move their production to other
countries. He has already nixed the TPP and intends to do the same to the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Europe. He promises to renegotiate NAFTA with Mexico and
Canada to secure better terms, and, in response to Chinese and EU protectionism, he threatens
to impose a border tax of 45 percent on Chinese and others countries' exports to the United
States. These measures could trigger a trade war.
Demagogic appeals to labor aside, Trump is doing none of this for the benefit of American
workers. His program is intended to restore the competitive position of American capital,
particularly manufacturing, against its rivals, especially in China but also in Germany.
This economic nationalism is paired with a promise to rearm the American military, which he
views as having been weakened by Obama. Thus, Trump has announced plans to increase military
spending by $54 billion. He wants to use this 9 percent increase in the military budget to
build up the Navy and to modernize and expand the nuclear arsenal, even if that provokes other
powers to do the same. As he quipped in December, "Let it be an arms race." 21
Trump's fire-breathing chief strategist, former Brietbart editor Steve Bannon, went so far as
to promise, "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years. There's no doubt
about that." 22
Trump also plans to intensify what he sees as a civilizational war with Islam. This will
likely involve ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran, intensifying the war on ISIS in Iraq and
Syria, and conducting further actions against al Qaeda internationally. It will also likely
involve doubling down on Washington's alliance with Israel. Trump's appointment as ambassador
to Israel, David Friedman, is actually to the right of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. 23 Trump has already begun escalating the ongoing war on Muslims
conducted by the last two administrations, with his executive orders that are in effect an
anti-Muslim ban and have increased the profiling, surveillance, and harassment of Muslims
throughout the country.
To pay for this military expansion, the Trump administration, in Bannon's phrase, plans to
carry out the "deconstruction of the administrative state." Thus, the administration has
appointed heads of departments, like Ed Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency, whose
main purpose is to gut them. 24 No doubt this will entail massive cuts to social
programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Trump threatens a significant break with some previously hallowed institutions of US foreign
policy. He has called NATO outdated. This declaration is really just a bargaining position to
get the alliance's other members to increase their military spending. Thus, both his secretary
of state and defense secretary have repeatedly reassured European states that the United States
remains committed to NATO. More seriously, he denounced the EU as merely a vehicle for German
capital. Thus, he supports various right-wing populist parties in Europe running on a promise
to imitate Britain and leave the EU.
Trump's "transactional" approach comes out most clearly in his stated approach to
international alliances and blocs. He promises to evaluate all multilateral alliances and trade
blocs from the standpoint of American interests against rivals. He will scrap some, replacing
them with bilateral arrangements, and renegotiate others. Much of the establishment has reacted
in horror to these threats, denouncing them as a retreat from Washington's responsibilities to
its allies.
In a departure from Obama's policy toward Russia, Trump intends to create a more
transactional relationship with the Kremlin. He does not view Russia as the main threat; he
believes that is China. In addition to considering cutting a deal with Russia to drop sanctions
over its seizure of Crimea, he wants to collaborate with Putin in a joint war against ISIS in
Syria.
Hoping that he can split Russia away from China and neutralize it as a lesser power, Trump
then wants to confront China with tariffs and military challenges to its assertion of control
of the South China Sea. Incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has already threatened to
deny China access to its newly-built island bases in the South China Sea.
Trump's economic nationalism leads directly to his "fortress America" policies. These
policies chiefly target Muslims and immigrants, but they should not be seen in isolation from
other domestic policies. With the wave of protests against his attacks that emerged from the
moment he stepped into office, Trump and his allies in state governments have introduced bills
that impose increasing restrictions on the right to protest and give the police a license for
repression with impunity. Thus the corollary of his "America First" imperialism abroad is
authoritarianism at home.
Can Trump succeed?
Trump faces a vast array of obstacles that could stop him from implementing his new
strategy. To begin with, he is an unpopular president with an approval rating hovering below 40
percent in his first months in office. He and his crony capitalist cabinet will no doubt face
many scandals, compromising their ability to push through their agenda.
He may be his own biggest obstacle. His 6 A.M. tweets are signs of someone more concerned
with his celebrity status than imperial statecraft. He has already lost his national security
adviser, Michael Flynn, due to Flynn's failure to disclose his communication with Russian
diplomats during the campaign, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions took heat on similar
charges, forcing him to recuse himself from any investigations of the Trump campaign with the
Kremlin.
There are also real economic challenges to his ability to follow through on his economic
program. He simultaneously promises to cut taxes for the wealthy, spend hundreds of millions on
domestic infrastructure (not to mention the billions it would cost to build a wall along the
US–Mexico border), and cut the deficit. This does not square with economic reality.
On top of all this, multinational capital opposes his protectionism. Of course almost all
capital is more overjoyed at his domestic neoliberalism, a fact demonstrated in the enormous
stock market expansion, but they see his proposals of tariffs, renegotiation of NAFTA, and
scrapping of the TPP and the TTIP as threats to their global production, service, and
investment strategies. They consider his house economist, Peter Navarro, to be a crackpot.
25
Even his cabinet opposes much of his program. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson testified
that he supports the TTP and American obligations to its NATO allies in Europe, including
recent deployments of American troops to Poland. And Trump's Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog"
Mattis disagrees with Trump's proposal to rip up the nuclear treaty with Iran.
Beneath the governmental shell, whole sections of the unelected state bureaucracy -- what
has been ominously described as the "deep state" -- also oppose Trump as a threat to their
interests. He has openly attacked the CIA and FBI and threatens enormous cuts to the State
Department as well as other key bureaucracies responsible for managing state policy at home and
abroad. Many of these bureaucrats have engaged in a campaign of leaks, especially of Trump's
connections with the Russian state.
One of Trump's key allies, Newt Gingrich, gives a sense of how Trump's backers are framing
the dispute with these institutions. "We're up against a permanent bureaucratic structure
defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so," he told the New York
Times . 26 Thus, the core of the capitalist state is at least attempting to
constrain Trump, bring down some of his appointees and may, if they see it as necessary, do the
same to Trump himself. At the very least, these extraordinary divisions at the top create a
sense of insecurity, and open up space for questioning and struggle from below.
The Democratic Party selectively opposes some of Trump's program. But, instead of attacking
him on his manifold reactionary policies, they have portrayed him as Putin's "Manchurian
Candidate," posturing as the defenders of US power willing to stand up to Russia. As Glenn
Greenwald writes, the Democrats are
not "resisting" Trump from the left or with populist appeals -- by, for instance, devoting
themselves toprotection ofWall Street and environmental regulations
under attack , or supporting the revocation of jobs-killing free trade
agreements, or demanding that Yemini civilians not be massacred. Instead, they're attacking him
on the grounds of insufficient nationalism, militarism, and aggression: equating a desire to
avoid confrontation with Moscow as a form of treason (just like they did when they were the
leading Cold Warriors).
This is why they're finding such common cause with the
nation's most bloodthirsty militarists -- not because it's an alliance of convenience but
rather one of shared convictions (indeed, long before Trump,
neocons were planning a re-alignment with Democrats under a Clinton presidency).
27
Republicans also object to many of Trump's initiatives. For example, John McCain has
attacked his cozy relationship with the Kremlin. And neoliberals in the Republican Party
support the TPP and free trade globalization in general. The neocon Max Boot has gone so far as
to support the Democrat's call for a special counsel to investigate Trump's collusion with
Putin. He explains,
There is a good reason why Trump and his partisans are so apoplectic about the prospect of
a special counsel, and it is precisely why it is imperative to appoint one: because otherwise
we will never know the full story of the Kremlin's tampering with our elections and of the
Kremlin's connections with the president of the United States. As evidenced by his desperate
attempts to change the subject, Trump appears petrified of what such a probe would reveal.
28
Even if Trump weathers the storm of this resistance from above and below, his foreign policy
could flounder on its own internal conflicts and inconsistencies. To take one example: his
policy of collaboration with Russia in Syria could flounder on his simultaneous commitment to
scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. Why? Because Iran is a Russian ally in the region. Most
disturbingly, if the Trump administration goes into a deeper crisis, it will double down on its
bigoted scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims to deflect attention from its failures.
Economic nationalism beyond Trump?
While Trump's contradictions could stymie his ability to impose his economic nationalist
program, that program is not going to disappear any more than the problems it is intended to
address. The reality is that the United States faces continued decline in the neoliberal world
order. China, even taking into account the many contradictions it faces, continues to benefit
from the current setup.
That's why, in an ironic twist of historic proportions, Chinese premier Xi Jing Ping
defended the Washington Consensus in his country's first address at the World Economic Forum in
Davos Switzerland. He even went so far as to promise to come to the rescue of free-trade
globalization if the Trump administration abandoned it. "No one will emerge as a
winner in a trade war ," he declared. "Pursuing protectionism is just like locking one's
self in a dark room. Wind and rain may be kept outside, but so are light and air."
29
One of his underlings, Zhang Jun, remarked, "If anyone were to say China is playing a
leadership role in the world I would say it's not China rushing to the front but rather the
front runners have stepped back leaving the place to China. If China is required to play that
leadership role then China will assume its responsibilities." 30
China is accelerating the transformation of its economy. It seeks to push out multinationals
that have used it as an export-processing platform and replace them with its own state-owned
and private corporations, which, like Germany, will export its surplus manufactured goods to
the rest of the world market. 31 No wonder, then, that a survey conducted by the
American Chamber of Commerce found that 80 percent of American multinationals consider China
inhospitable for business.32
China is also aggressively trying to supplant the United States as the economic hegemon in
Asia. Immediately after Trump nixed the TPP, China appealed to states in the Asia Pacific
region to sign on to its alternative trade treaty, the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP). China is determined to challenge American imperial rule of the Asia
Pacific. Though its navy is far smaller than Washington's, it plans to accelerate efforts to
build up its regional naval power against Trump's threats to block Chinese access to the
strategic islands in the South China Sea.
All of this was underway before Trump. That's why Obama was already inching toward some of
Trump's policies. He initiated the pivot to Asia, deployed the US Navy to the region, and
imposed tariffs on Chinese steel and tires. He also complained about NATO countries and others
freeloading on American military largesse. He thus encouraged Japan's rearmament and
deployments of its forces abroad. He also began the move to on-shoring manufacturing based on a
low-wage America with cheap energy and revitalized infrastructure.
So it's imaginable that another figure could take up and repackage Trump's economic
nationalism. Regardless of whether this happens or not, it is clear that there is a trajectory
deep in the dynamics of the world system toward interimperial rivalry between the United States
and its main imperialist challenger, China. Obviously there are countervailing forces that
mitigate the tendency toward military conflict between them. The high degree of economic
integration makes the ruling classes hesitant to risk war. And, because all the major states
are nuclear powers, each is reluctant to risk armed conflicts turning into mutual
annihilation.
For background on this key institution of American imperialism see Laurence H. Shoup and
William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States
Foreign Policy (New York: Authors Choice Press, 2004), and Laurence H. Shoup, Wall
Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal
Geopolitics (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2015).
Gideon Rose, "Out of Order," Foreign Affairs (January–February,
2017).
Richard Haass, A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old
Order (New York: Penguin Press, 2017).
For one of the best accounts of neoliberalism as a response to globalization and a
strategy to overcome the crisis of the 1970s, see Neil Davidson, "The Neoliberal Era in
Britain: Historical Developments and Current Perspectives," International Socialism
Journal , no. 139 (2013),
http://isj.org.uk/the-neoliberal-era-in-... .
Lecture at Trinity College, Dublin, Oct. 12, 1999, cited by Sam Gindin in "Social Justice
and Globalization: Are They Compatible?" Monthly Review , June 2002, 11.
For an account of the neoliberal boom and consequent crisis and slump, see David McNally,
Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance (Oakland, CA: PM
Press, 2010).
For a summary of the classical theory of imperialism, see Phil Gasper, "Lenin and
Bukharin on Imperialism," International Socialist Review , no. 100 (May 2009),
http://isreview.org/issue/100/lenin-and-...
.
For a summary and critique of Hardt and Negri's ideas see Tom Lewis, "Empire strikes
out," International Socialist Review , no. 24 (July–August 2002), www.isreview.org/issues/24/empire_strike...
.
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2000),
xiii–xiv.
See, for example, William Robinson, A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class,
and the State in a Transitional World (Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins, 2004).
See Ashley Smith, "Global empire or imperialism?" International Socialist Review
, no 92 (Spring 2014), http://isreview.org/issue/92 .
Justin Yifu Lin, "China and the Global Economy," Remarks at the Conference "Asia's Role
in the Post-Crisis Global Economy," November 29, 2011,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/s... .
Ed Pilkington and Martin Pengelly, "'Let it Be an Arms Race': Donald Trump Appears to
Double Down on Nuclear Expansion," The Guardian , December 24, 2016, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/23/...
.
Phillip Rucker and Robert Costa, "Bannon Vows Daily Fight for the "Deconstruction of the
Administrative State," Washington Post , February 23, 2017,
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-wh-s... .
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Rumblings of a 'Deep State' Undermining Trump? It Was Once a
Foreign Concept," New York Times , March 6, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/po... .
Stephen Fidler, Te-Ping Chen, and Lingling Wei, "China's Xi Jingping Seizes Role as
Leader of Globalization," Wall Street Journal , January 17, 2017, www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-xi-jinping-d...
.
For further discussion of this point, see Ashley Smith, "Anti-imperialism and the Syrian
Revolution," Socialist Worker , August 25, 2016, https://socialistworker.org/2016/08/25/a...
.
"... Through neoliberal rationales, they are able to reach many of their social objectives even if they fall short of their policy goals ..."
"... The belief that Trump would alter American conservativism away from neoliberal economics is not without its basis. ..."
"... The marriage between neoliberalism and Christian nationalism that neo-conservatives pursued during the George W. Bush era was going to experience a soft separation under Trump. The pursuit of neoliberalism policies would be relegated in importance, if not abandoned completely, and there would be doubling down on Christian nationalism, with a tripling down on the nationalist element. Unsurprisingly, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reveals that Trump is ready to renege on his end of this bargain with the hope that poor whites will still be willing to keep up their end. ..."
"... The argument that Trump would somehow overturn America's neoliberal economic order myopically focused on Trump's trade policy. In doing so, it both misunderstood what Trump represented and the ideological framework of neoliberalism. Trump's fever pitch agonizing over the United States' trade deficit with China and Mexico are both the wallowing of an economic idiot and the maneuvering of a political savant. ..."
"... The insinuation was for average Americans to take back what was rightfully theirs by engaging in a new round of economic bargaining with these two nations, if not an open trade war. ..."
"... As the latest tax bill has shown, Trump is dedicated to weakening the ability of the government to extract wealth from the rich. This supreme goal takes priority over the Republican gospel of balance budgets. ..."
"... The Right Nation: Conservative Power in ..."
"... The United States now has an Americanized version of European style far Right politics, and its xenophobic ambitious has come about through a constant assertion of neoliberal values. ..."
"... Understood in proper terms, "economic nationalism" is best described as "market statism" -- where, in Milton Friedman's words, the purpose of the state should be "to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets" but nothing else. ..."
The passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has refuted any notion that
Trump's ascension to the White House would mark an end to neoliberalism. Poor whites who
supported Trump expected him to offer America a new version of conservativism that would break
with neoliberalism. Instead, furthering neoliberal policies has become a critical objective
that works in tandem with Trump's xenophobic rhetoric
With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, President Trump secured his first major
policy victory. Despite their federal dominance, the Republican Party has proven to be
legislatively constipated. Below the surface of party unity, sectarian differences between the
competing strains of American conservatism have hindered it from taking advantage of its
historical positioning. Nevertheless, tax cuts proved to be a workable common ground that Trump
was able to take advantage of. While commentary of the passage has tended to focus on this
Republican unity, the most significant aspect of the Act's passage is the refutation that
Donald Trump's ascension to the White House would somehow mark an end to the era of neoliberal
economics. Furthering neoliberal policies has not only been an aspect of Trump's agenda but a
critical goal that works in tandem with his xenophobic rhetoric. Far from being opposed by the
Bannon faction of Trump's coalition, neoliberalism has provided a comforting aerie for their
fascist inclinations to develop. Through neoliberal rationales, they are able to reach many
of their social objectives even if they fall short of their policy goals .
The belief that Trump would alter American conservativism away from neoliberal economics
is not without its basis. In a bizarre case of enveloping ironies, Trump's presidential
campaign was successful in portraying him as both a billionaire business wizard and as an
example of an American everyman. He advocated for "draining the swamp" of corrupt Wall Street
executives, while at the same time paraded his practice of tax evasion has an example of his
shrewd financial acumen. The incompatibility of these two personas is obvious, but it has a
certain appeal within the context of America's poor whites. Poor white Americans are both
spiteful toward and enamored by capitalism. They are spiteful because it retards their own
social mobility, but enamored with it because it provides a basis for their own privilege over
racial minorities. Unlike their counterparts among racial minorities, poor whites do not
consider themselves poor by class, but poor by temporary misfortune. They are not poor per se,
but rather down-on-their-luck millionaires whose are unjustly treated by liberal elites and
coddled minorities. For these people, Trump represented an enchanting example of uncouth
success. The fact that he was crass and despised only reinforced the notion that it is not
connections and education that made a person wealthy, but hard work and an intuition for
affluence. Culturally speaking, these are traits are considered innate to white Americans. Of
course, to believe this mythology, many of Trump's low-class acolytes were only willing to
support his campaign under the pretext of an unspoken bargain: they would ignore the reality
that his wealth was inherited and not earned, and he would refrain from the usual Republican
claptrap about the virtues of privatizing Social Security and Medicare. That way both partners
could remain comfortable in their delusions that all their current and potential future wealth
was a product of their own doing. The result of this unspoken bargain was that Trump was
supposed to offer America a new version of conservativism. The marriage between
neoliberalism and Christian nationalism that neo-conservatives pursued during the George W.
Bush era was going to experience a soft separation under Trump. The pursuit of neoliberalism
policies would be relegated in importance, if not abandoned completely, and there would be
doubling down on Christian nationalism, with a tripling down on the nationalist element.
Unsurprisingly, the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reveals that Trump is ready to renege
on his end of this bargain with the hope that poor whites will still be willing to keep up
their end.
Astute observers saw this betrayal coming. The argument that Trump would somehow
overturn America's neoliberal economic order myopically focused on Trump's trade policy. In
doing so, it both misunderstood what Trump represented and the ideological framework of
neoliberalism. Trump's fever pitch agonizing over the United States' trade deficit with China
and Mexico are both the wallowing of an economic idiot and the maneuvering of a political
savant. The issue was always economically inane. A trade deficit in-and-of-itself reveals
very little about the overall health of an economy. Whether a nation should strive for or
against a trade deficit is more dependent on that nation's strategic position within the global
economy, and not necessarily an indicator of the health of domestic markets. But, trade proved
to be a salient issue for symbolic purposes. Stagnation and automation have compelled American
middle and lower classes to accept an economic torpor. Making trade deficits a central campaign
tenant provided these people with an outlet for their class anxieties without having to
question the nature of class itself. Lethargic economic growth was blamed on Mexicans and the
Chinese. The insinuation was for average Americans to take back what was rightfully theirs
by engaging in a new round of economic bargaining with these two nations, if not an open trade
war.
While Trump's criticism of Mexico and China seemed to imply an undoing of international
market liberalization and a return to an age of greater protectionism, in reality, Trump very
rarely recommended such policies. Instead, he made vague references to "good people" who will
make "good deals" for American workers and openly preferred lowering America's corporate tax
rate in order to encourage businesses to reinvest in the United States. The first proposal was
always understood as meaningless. Its value was in showmanship. A person can hoodwink the world
into thinking that they are a genius just by referring to everyone around them as a moron.
However, the second proposal not only does not overturn the reigning neoliberal order, it
strengthens it. As the latest tax bill has shown, Trump is dedicated to weakening the
ability of the government to extract wealth from the rich. This supreme goal takes priority
over the Republican gospel of balance budgets. The deficit be damned if preventing it
smacks of any hint of expropriation of the wealthy. But, the deficit is not entirely damned. It
is an open secret that Republicans are salivating for a fiscal crisis that will provide them
with a pretext for cutting Social Security and Medicare. It was only a matter of time before
Trump's administration wholeheartedly joins them.
The fact that the real potential for cutting favored government programs has not resulted in
the same outcry among Trump's supporters, even among low-class demographics, as his suggestion
that he might soften his position on immigration is a grave concern. Social Security and
Medicare are extremely popular in the United States among poor and working people regardless of
ethnicity and political ideology. Nevertheless, tolerance for their obliteration has become
palatable to the majority of white Americans. In 2004, journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian
Wooldridge published their exhaustive history of the American Right, The Right Nation: Conservative Power
inAmerica . At the time, Michlethwait and Wooldridge could accurately claim
that "in no other country is the Right defined so much by values rather than class Yet despite
the importance of values, America has failed to produce a xenophobic 'far Right' on anything
like the same scale as Europe has." A little over a decade later, Michlethwait's and
Wooldridge's observation has become obsolete. Trump is inept at policy and governance, but he
is a skilled mobilizer and has managed to shift the American Right into a new direction.
The United States now has an Americanized version of European style far Right politics, and
its xenophobic ambitious has come about through a constant assertion of neoliberal
values.
Trump has not only furthered the neoliberal doctrine of privatization, but also that of the
economization of everyday life, and specifically, the economization of American racism. While
fear of cultural differences between "the west" and "the rest" has always been front and center
for the Bannon wing of Trump's coalition, more tactical voices find economic justifications for
their xenophobia: immigrants steal jobs, freeride on welfare benefits, and don't pay taxes. The
image that emerges when these talking points converge is a political system enamored with
quantifying and dispensing material goods between those who deserve and those who do not. For
most modern conservatives, opposition to immigration is not based on an open fear of
differences; rather, it is a feeling that immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are
unwilling to accept a free market economic system that treats all Americans on fair and equal
terms. Unlike average Americans, who work hard and thus deserve their market remunerations,
immigrants -- and by implication other minorities -- rely on a mixture of government handouts
and liberal acquiescence to the rules. Immigrants cash their welfare checks because liberal
elites look the other way on law enforcement. This worldview suggests that the government
should not only be redirected to strenuous law enforcement but also that it should not be in
the business of providing society with social welfare in the first place. Doing so only creates
an impetus for illegal immigration and lazy minorities. In this manner, Bannon's cheerleading
of "economic nationalism" was always a rhetorical mirage. Understood in proper terms,
"economic nationalism" is best described as "market statism" -- where, in Milton Friedman's
words, the purpose of the state should be "to preserve law and order, to enforce private
contracts, to foster competitive markets" but nothing else.
There is no fundamental difference in the terms of the realpolitik outcomes between
Friedman's neoliberalism and Bannon's economic nationalism, even if they begin from separate
economic philosophies. The only difference is in what should be considered preferable within
market configurations. In Capitalism and Freedom ,
Friedman emphasizes his personal objections to racist ideologies but sees no need for a
government to ensure racial equality. According to Friedman, racism is to be overcome through
individual argumentation, not political struggle; it is the changing of tastes within the
marketplace that will provide the liberation of ethnic minorities, not the paternal hand of the
government preventing discrimination. Friedman's de-politicizing of racial anxieties to mere
matters of "taste," provides an opening for those -- like Bannon -- who are eager to engage in
a culture war, but are well aware of the potentially alienating effects of actually taking up
arms. If racial discrimination is only a matter of "taste," similar to other desires within the
marketplace, then the maintenance of white supremacy is predicated on its profitability. As
long as whiteness can maintain its social hegemony, then Friedman's governmental obligations
"to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets," will
serve to reinforce it. The neoliberal economizing of American racism allows for many of the
effects of white supremacy without necessarily the adoption of any of its core premises.
Trump's coalition of white nationalists and free-market ideologues thus become comfortable
bedfellows, even while maintaining a rhetorical mistrust of each other.
The question is can Trump maintain his coalition of realigned conservatives in time for the
next election cycle? While his low polling numbers and recent Democratic Party successes are
encouraging, they are not foolproof. The destabilizing of the narrative on American racism can
only occur through a refusal to accept the economization of the debate. The exclusion of racial
minorities from social welfare and the utter bureaucratic madness of the United States'
immigration policies have a moral dimension that has to take precedence over concerns regarding
job stealing and tax burdens, no matter how fallacious such arguments are to begin with.
Expecting the Democratic Party's leadership to play a leading role in this de-economization of
the debate is not impossible, but unlikely. Along with Republicans, Democrats have been
complicit in the framing social issues in relations to the economy, and the economy as merely
working in the service of private interests. Only recently has the leftwing of the Democratic
Party been organized and energized enough to counter this influence and return the party to its
New Deal orientation. Whatever its limitations, Roosevelt's "freedom from want" provides a
moral framework for economic policy. It is a reasonable and familiar starting point to break
with a neoliberal credo that economizes all morality within a capitalist framework.
While the left-wing of the Democratic Party has seen tremendous progress, it is still far
from overturning the organization's centrist leadership. In many ways, the passage of the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act is a painful reminder of how weak the American Left is once Republicans are
able to stay united. Like with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
is extremely unpopular. The trickledown theory of economics that the act is based on is rightly
seen a convenient canard for the rich. So much so, that it has been reduced to a cliché
joke among late night talk show hosts. With the exception of Fox News, the mainstream press has
frequently commented on the nearly universal consensus among economists that the Act will
result in a massive transfer of wealth to the upper class. Intellectually, there is no place
for defenders of the Act to hide. However, unlike opposition to repealing the Affordable Care
Act, opposition to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been somewhat muted. While Americans still are
seething from the injustices of the 2007-2008 economic collapse, ten years on, they still have
not found a tangible political venue to express their frustrations. This means that regardless
of the outcome of the next election cycle the American Left is going to have to play a
persistent role creating a meaningful outlet for people's dismay, and fostering a political
discourse that recognizes that the Trump phenomenon is rooted in the neoliberal age that
preceded it. The dangerous tantrum-prone child of Trumpism will only be forced off the
playground when its neoliberal parents no longer own the park.
"... The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi, the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus, perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things. ..."
"... When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those "revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious. ..."
Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment Diana Johnstone July 20, 2018 1,600 Words
7
CommentsReply
Email This Page to Someone
Where to begin to analyze the madness of mainstream media in reaction to the Trump-Putin
meeting in Helsinki? By focusing on the individual, psychology has neglected the problem of
mass insanity, which has now overwhelmed the United States establishment, its mass media and
most of its copycat European subsidiaries. The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are
ready to leap off the cliff.
For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of
power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of
institutional power – by creation of a myth. Mainstream media is known for its herd
behavior, and in this case the editors, commentators, journalists have talked themselves into a
story that initially they themselves could hardly take seriously.
Donald Trump was elected by Russia ?
On the face of it, this is preposterous. Okay, the United States can manage to rig elections
in Honduras, or Serbia, or even Ukraine, but the United States is a bit too big and complex to
leave the choice of the Presidency to a barrage of electronic messages totally unread by most
voters. If this were so, Russia wouldn't need to try to "undermine our democracy". It would
mean that our democracy was already undermined, in tatters, dead. A standing corpse ready to be
knocked over by a tweet.
Even if, as is alleged without evidence, an army of Russian bots (even bigger than the
notorious Israeli army of bots) was besieging social media with its nefarious slanders against
poor innocent Hillary Clinton, this could determine an election only in a vacuum, with no other
influences in the field. But there was a lot of other stuff going on in the 2016 election, some
for Trump and some for Hillary, and Hillary herself scored a crucial own goal by denigrating
millions of Americans as "deplorables" because they didn't fit into her identity politics
constituencies.
The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of
evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so
much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi,
the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the
hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus,
perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things.
When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on
Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much
more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those
"revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working
against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious.
So at worst, "the Russians" are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning
the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal.
But that is enough, after two years of fakery, to send the establishment into a frenzy of
accusations of "treason" when Trump does what he said he would do while campaigning, try to
normalize relations with Russia.
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite
which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the
American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations. They
have based their careers on the illusion of sharing the world empire by following U.S. whims in
the Middle East and transforming the mission of their armed forces from defense into foreign
intervention units of NATO under U.S. command. Having not thought seriously about the
implications of this for over half a century, they panic at the suggestion of being left to
themselves.
The Western elite is now suffering from self-inflicted dementia.
Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small
repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even
brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the "findings" of
US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies "found" that Iraq was bursting
with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else?
But for the mainstream media, "the story" at the Helsinki summit, even the only
story, was Trump's reaction to the, er, trumped up charges of Russian interference in our
democracy. Were you or were you not elected thanks to Russian hackers? All they wanted was a
yes or no answer. Which could not possibly be yes. So they could write their reports in
advance.
Anyone who has frequented mainstream journalists, especially those who cover the "big
stories" on international affairs, is aware of their obligatory conformism, with few
exceptions. To get the job, one must have important "sources", meaning government spokesmen who
are willing to tell you what "the story" is, often without being identified. Once they know
what "the story" is, competition sets in: competition as to how to tell it. That leads to an
escalation of rhetoric, variations on the theme: "The President has betrayed our great country
to the Russian enemy. Treason!"
This demented chorus on "Russian hacking" prevented mainstream media from even doing their
job. Not even mentioning, much less analyzing, any of the real issues at the summit. To find
analysis, one must go on line, away from the official fake news to independent reporting. For
example, "the Moon of Alabama" site offers
an intelligent interpretation of the Trump strategy , which sounds infinitely more
plausible than "the story". In short, Trump is trying to woo Russia away from China, in a
reverse version of Kissinger's strategy forty years ago to woo China away from Russia, thus
avoiding a continental alliance against the United States. This may not work because the United
States has proven so untrustworthy that the cautious Russians are highly unlikely to abandon
their alliance with China for shadows. But it makes perfect sense as an explanation of Trump's
policy, unlike the caterwauling we've been hearing from Senators and talking heads on CNN.
Those people seem to have no idea of what diplomacy is about. They cannot conceive of
agreements that would be beneficial to both sides. No, it's got to be a zero sum game, winner
take all. If they win, we lose, and vice versa.
They also have no idea of the harm to both sides if they do not agree. They have no project,
no strategy. Just hate Trump.
He seems totally isolated, and every morning I look at the news to see if he has been
assassinated yet.
It is unimaginable for our Manichean moralists that Putin might also be under fire at home
for failing to chide the American president for U.S. violations of human rights in Guantanamo,
murderous drone strikes against defenseless citizens throughout the Middle East, the
destruction of Libya in violation of the UN mandate, interference in the elections of countless
countries by government-financed "non-governmental organizations" (the National Endowment of
Democracy), worldwide electronic spying, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the
world's greatest prison population and regular massacres of school children. But the diplomatic
Russians know how to be polite.
Still, if Trump actually makes a "deal", there may be losers – neither the U.S. nor
Russia but third parties. When two great powers reach agreement, it is often at somebody else's
expense. The West Europeans are afraid it will be them, but such fears are groundless. All
Putin wants is normal relations with the West, which is not much to ask.
Rather, candidate number one for paying the price are the Palestinians, or even Iran, in
marginal ways. At the press conference, asked about possible areas of cooperation between the
two nuclear powers, Trump suggested that the two could agree on helping Israel:
"We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would like to do certain things with respect to
Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like to
work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work
jointly."
In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the influence
of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising influence of
Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he does not have
much choice.
On another subject, Trump said that "our militaries" get along with the Russians "better
than our politicians". This is another daring bet, on military realism that could somehow
neutralize military industrial congressional complex lobbying for more and more weapons.
In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from
Israel and the Pentagon!
The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility –
and perhaps this one too.
"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open
new pathways toward peace and stability in our world" Trump declared "I would rather take a
political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
That is more than his political enemies can claim.
This is a frightening, accurate commentary on what we face as a result of an unaccountable
power structure resorting to any and all means to retain power which, if this structure
continues to exercise it, will lead to our extinction.
In the establishment, it's not dementia as such, it's just serving the highest bidder. You
can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery
you have to be alive. If only they die, it would be a great service to the humanity.
Unfortunately, the way things go, they might take us all with them.
Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too
just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous
financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real
base of support. Remember how the Never Trumpers had no one more prominent and well-known
than Evan McMullan (!!) to run as their candidate? Note too the tiny number of views the
YouTube videos of the Aspen Institute get: https://www.youtube.com/user/AspenInstitute/videos
.
On its own, these things aren't conclusive proof but together they add up. The Aspen
Institute crowd is an almost entirely self-contained subculture. They seem to have no base of
support, beyond their stacks of money, job titles and the power that come with the various
offices they hold. That's probably why they can never stop calling their opponents
"populists" or why Bill Kristol keeps tweeting about encountering scrappy shoeshine boys who
shout "give Trump hell, Mr Kristol!" as he goes about his urban peregrinations.
Diana Johnstone is not alone. Others on the alt-Left are starting to wake up, too. This is
Joaquín Flores:
People are seeing through dishonesty, and the old language traps are used up and done
for. If reconquista is the goal, then we need to have an honest conversation about that. If
there's a Latino nation with self determination in the south-west US, or rights 'back' to
the south-west US, then let's speak of it in such terms. Because then we'd be looking at a
Euro-American nation also. Now of course there's issues of interpenetrated peoples, and
identities we carry in our minds in diverse urban centers. But the point here is that we
have to have an honest discourse, and stop hiding reconquista sentiments under the rubric
of 'human rights'. Because European-Americans don't have right of return to Europe, so the
left is promoting what will ultimately be a race war, full scale, if they don't chill the
fuck out and back off this disingenuous approach to policy-wonkism on immigration.
The paradigmatic question today is, how is wealth made, and where does wealth come from?
What is the balance of trade and debts, and how is that is no longer manageable? The US
empire and NATO is no longer manageable. Trump is unwinding NATO. That can't be a bad
thing.
I just finished reading the letters of Thomas Mann, who's an exemplary figure in this
regard. Leading up to World War I, he was a fairly standard old-school conservative
militarist/nationalist. That continued until the end of the war. After the war, he became a
dedicated liberal defender of Weimar. Once the Nazis took over, his liberalism morphed into a
humanist anti-fascism. By the end of the war, that antifascism had come to include overt
sympathy with communism and the Soviet Union (he even praised Mission to Moscow on aesthetic
grounds!) That continued into the late 1940s, when he supported Henry Wallace for president and
was outspoken in his opposition to HUAC .
But then, around 1950 or so, you begin to see, ever so slightly and subtly, Mann's opinions
starting to change once again. He never comes out in defense of McCarthyism, but you begin to
feel a chill and distance toward the left. His criticisms of the repression in the US begin to
modulate and moderate. Till finally, in a 1953 letter to Agnes Meyer, his close friend and
matriarch of The Washington Post, he confesses that he has decided not to publicly oppose
McCarthyism in the New York Times. He reports to her that when he was asked -- "probably by
someone on the 'left'" -- what he thinks about the censorship and restrictions on freedom in
the US, this was his reply: "American democracy felt threatened and, in the struggle for
freedom, considered that there had to be a certain limitation on freedom, a certain
disciplining of individual thought, a certain conformism. This was understandable." Though he
adds some sort of anodyne qualification at the end of that.
It just about broke my heart. That "left" in scare quotes (previously Mann had seen himself
as a part of the left), the clichés about freedom and the Cold War, the betrayal of all
that he had said and done in the preceding decades -- and most important, the seeming inability
to see that he was betraying anything at all.
... ... ....
During the McCarthy years, Arendt wrote in a letter to Jaspers how terrified she was of the
repression. It wasn't just the facts of the coercion she saw everywhere. It was how quickly it
happened, how the mood of the moment had gone so suddenly from a generous and capacious
liberalism to a cramped anticommunism. "Can you see," she wrote, "how far the disintegration
has gone and with what breathtaking speed it has occurred? And up to now hardly any resistance.
Everything melts away like butter in the sun." Victor Klemperer notices and narrates a similar
shift among his friends and colleagues in his diaries of Nazi Germany.
One of the core truths about clever people is that they are very good at coming-up with
clever justifications for whatever it is they happen to believe.
People who were lambasting that kind of politics in 2016 are now embracing it -- without
remarking upon the change, without explaining it, leaving the impression that this is what
they believed all along.
Amusingly, and for essentially the same reasons, a symmetric movement has taken place in
France, with many people self-identifying as socialist (at least nominally) two years ago now
fully behind flat taxes on capital gains, detention of minors up to 90 days if their parents
are undocumented and privatization of passenger trains (three ideas that have historically
been considered outside of the spectrum of reasonnable political opinion, even by the former
mainstream right-wing party).
But coincidentally, I was re-reading Bourdieu's On the State these last weeks so
I'm not so surprised, especially as I don't think that believe is quite the right word
to describe how political and social positions are embraced (and in that respect, I believe
that intellectuals are different only in their vociferous protestations to the contrary, and
their somewhat superior ability to identify with the domineering side).
"In modern societies, the State makes a decisive contribution towards the production and
reproduction of the instruments of construction of social reality. [ ] The State thereby
creates the conditions for an immediate orchestration of habitus which is itself the
foundation for a consensus on this set of shared self-evidences which constitute common
sense ."
So when shifts and breaks in the structure of the field of State power happen, it is
perhaps not so surprising that schemes of perceptions also quickly change so that
single-payer universal health care/the suppression of a capital gain tax can move in a couple
of months from worthy to mention only to summarily dismiss as absurd to common sense.
Glen Tomkins 07.05.18 at 1:48 pm (no link)
I don't understand the problem. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Always. Simple
fact. What's to explain?
Alex Ameter 07.05.18 at 1:49 pm (no link)
American culture is terrifyingly guilty of this. The inability for an empire's people to
understand the concept of blowback when their nation's military incursions into the
surrounding world create deep sources of instability and trauma is one marker of empire in
decline.
That being said, the fact that free will is tenuous at best and humans are so easily
manipulated en masse gives me hope that the species might pull off long-term survival if it
finds the right balance between setting up mutually reinforcing beneficial mechanisms to
guide most human psyches and cultures into generally sustainable behavior and the chaos of a
free reality without socially enforced categorizations or narratives.
Bard the Grim 07.05.18 at 2:02 pm (no link)
I've never liked the wording of the proverbial "When the facts change ." Speaking as a
scientist and pedant, facts don't change. Circumstances, which are facts as a function of
time, can change. Evidence, which is fact revealed by observation, can change. When
discussing how opinions and interpretations change, it's helpful to make those distinctions.
Yan 07.05.18 at 2:50 pm (no link)
Political football @32: "we'd need to know who has changed "in the media, on social media,
among politicians, activists, and citizens"."
"A couple of comments reprimanded me about how Thomas had moved to the right in the 1950s, on
a path similar to Thomas Mann's. [ ] The pressure exerted during McCarthyism was immense and
it took almost superhuman strength to resist it"
I recently read a biography of Bayard Rustin, partially in the hope of getting some
insight into how to integrate civil rights / racial justice and comprehensive
social-democratic reform into one program. One might object: Rustin drifted towards the
neoconservative right in his later years -- did his theoretical framework already carry the
germ of accommodation in the 1960s/70s? But: how easy was it to resist the
neoliberal/Reaganite tide?
SusanC 07.05.18 at 3:37 pm (no link)
Yes, I agree the phenomenon is really interesting.
On the other hand, what other people think can be one of the facts that changed. This is
particularly true of variants of the "lesser evil argument" which were very much in evidence
before the last UK general election and the US presidential election.
If someone was saying, "Look, I know the left of the Democrats prefer Sander's policies,
but the important thing is defeating Trump, and Clinton has the best chance of doing that",
then they can in good faith claim that new facts -- we now know that Clinton didn't win
against Trump -- has caused them to have changed tactics, but their overall objective --
supporting anyone who looks like they could defeat Trump -- is basically unchanged.
The Guardian newspaper became significantly less anti-Corbyn once the general election
results were out (although it still regularly features attack pieces), which looks like
another instance of this.
This entire piece seems to be about big changes in attitude and opinion, leaving me a little
puzzled by the remark about "micro-shifts". But I guess the general drift is this:
the subtle coercions of new opinion, the ever-finer movements we all make to keep up
with the flow, so as not to be left behind.
You want to be engaged with the world, to be part of the conversation, which means you can
be influenced by the conversation, which means you may very well be exposed to some pressures
to conform.
Much like the later Thomas Mann, I have difficulty talking about the left without
quotations (though I'm more likely to use the adjective "lefty"). The present-day right is
certainly a mess, it may indeed have always been a mess (which as I take it is Corey Robin's
main theme) but there were times in the past when the left was also decidedly a mess (and in
some respects it still is [1])–
Why would you be shocked at the lack of intellectual integrity of someone who was a
Stalinist on into the 1940s? Myself, I have a lot of respect from someone like Chomsky who's
managed to be left-wing his entire life without indulging in apologies for Stalin or Mao.
These days, periodically you see someone try to do a i-was-a-righty-until-trump piece but
many people seem to view these with suspicion and regard them as phony ploys for attention of
some sort. We pay lip service to the idea that people should be open to intellectual
change– who could forget the genre where the author demonstrates open-mindedness with
ritual lists of "things I've changed my mind about" (um I see John Quiggin went there)–
but when actually confronted with someone who has changed their mind, the reaction is often
not very positive.
I have a tendency to use the Iraq war as a pundit-litmus test: In principle I'm willing to
continue reading a pro-invasion pundit, but I want to see them recant, and I want to read
their excuses– but really there isn't anything they can say that's going to impress me.
If they're blowing in the wind this badly, if they can ignore the obvious for the sake of
fitting in with the pack, it's unlikely they've got anything of value to add on anything.
[1] my standard example of present-day left-wing madness is the anti-nuclear power stance:
if Jerry Brown were really serious about global warming, he would not have had the Diablo
Canyon plant closed. I would feel happier about Ocasio-Cortez if she were in favor of clean
energy, rather than just "renewable".
Corey: "mainstream liberal opinion -- in the media, on social media, among politicians,
activists, and citizens micro-shifts that happen under the pressure of events the most
pressing fact that seems to change people's opinions is other people's opinions."
1. Most intellectuals aren't guided by intellect but by emotion like everyone else, and so
there is a lot of herd instinct especially in regard to politics.
2. I am not convinced that the media catalogue of mainstream opinion truly reflects the
most widely-held opinions. What is happening out here in the low-income suburbs seems more
amorphous and changeable.
3. A lot of the microshifts are evidence of a political emergence because a compromising
centrist Democrat failed, the new President is no such animal, and the Republican Party is
revealed to centrists as policy obstructionists with lots of false promises, now freely
aiming to destroy the safety-net and distort the justice system. My sense of it is that
consequently a lot more people now see that the time for compromising moderation is over
because it will never be reciprocated by the Republicans in Congress.
This goes along with our old thesis that both parties are breaking up; the only question
was which one would go first. Trump is destroying the Republicans and it opened the cracks
wider in the Democratic Party. Question now is whether the centrist Democrats have the brains
to accept the newbies.
4. Little noticed is that the "intellectuals" and Bernie supporters committed malpractice
by never emphasizing, enough to make it through the media noise, that Sanders' and now
Ocasio-Cortez's "socialism" is not "gov't ownership of the means of production" but rather
New Deal-style social democracy like any sane country. (Bernie's people acted as if everybody
should know this already, but of course they don't.) Next up, will the "intellectuals"
continue to commit malpractice by not helping Ocasio-Cortez explain through the media noise
how it can work?
Speaking as a social democrat who is anti – everything to do with neoliberalism and its
destruction of labour relations and economic safety nets, I was scolded relentlessly by a
brogressive pro-Sanders friend throughout the year of the US election (I'm an Australian, so
is he, so the level of animus was astonishing.) Some of the tropes thrown at me were: Since
you think HC is the least worst candidate, it means you endorse everything she's ever done,
it means you are in favour of neoliberalism, it means you just want to vote for a woman even
though we say Bernie's a better candidate, it means you are pro-war and want to kill Syrian
children, it means you're an elitist who just wants to support the haute bourgeoisie.. on and
on and on.
So fast forward to last week and guess what? of course I'm delighted by a self-described
social democratic (or democratic socialist which seems to be the current wording) winning a
primary. My principles haven't changed. They were just distorted and misrepresented by the
brogressive left. My friend would eagerly adopt the framing employed in the OP (that I've
belatedly seen the light about preferring a social democratic candidate), because of course
that makes him look wise and consistent, and me uneducated and fickle. I completely reject
that frame; it's false.
Mario 07.06.18 at 10:42 pm (no link)
The problem with the modern left is that it has very little political capital (oh, the word!)
apart from principles and morals. Back in the day there was a realistic alternative political
project, which, in principle, had something for everyone. Nowadays though there just isn't
such a project and the result is that all that is left really just is bare morals and
principles, and the resulting piety contests.
As a consequence, the left has, in practice, accepted capitalism as the baseline scenario
and is playing by its rules while pretending something else. (Back when the Damore memo hit
the waves, what really struck me was the idea that the google campus was a "liberal
environment". That was like reading that the death star in star wars was staffed by
budhists.)
The modern left can't provide a constructive answer to the problems of, say, the working
class. Such things are not even much on the radar. Note how trans rights and gender issues
(issues completely irrelevant to the wider population) absolutely dominate the discussion,
while the plight of the working poor, or the well-being of families, is mostly ignored.
Furthermore, many on the modern left use principles and morals as branding tokens (like
wearing Nike shoes, being vegan or driving a hybrid), and don't give much of a damn about
outcomes. That's why they can change opinions overnight without feeling much remorse: it's
not as if these ever were sincere opinions.
But gender is still a construct, no matter how desperately attached to performing their
preferred gender a given person is. That's where people go off the rails. We'll get back
there fairly soon, I'm sure. There are far too many cis men who want to be nice to their
kids and cis women who have ambition toward their careers for us to put up with this gender
role nonsense much longer.
If you pardon me – how do you suggest we negotiate who gets to get pregnant and/or
breast feed?
That "role nonsense" you so attack has reasons to exist. It's not just a whim of the folks
that just happened to be around recently on the planet. A political project that does not
acknowledge that is just plain misanthropy.
mclaren 07.08.18 at 2:23 am (no link)
Does Corey Robin admit how colossally and stupendously wrong he got the entire 2016
zeitgeist?
No? Well, then maybe we shouldn't listen to anything Corey Robin says.
One aspect of his argument that's completely unfair and unrealistic is that people have to
decide on whether to elect a politician or enact a social policy or an economic scheme before
they have any real experience-based empirical information of what the consequences will
be.
Consider: neoliberal globalization was proposed and debated on the basis of books like the
Toffler's Future Shock which got the future entirely wrong. The theory behind these
kind of futurist predictions sounded plausible. Ever-increasing rates of technological change
will result in people constantly moving around the country to new jobs, work will shift from
manufacturing to knowledge work, industries will die off and constantly be replaced by new
ones, the U.S. will offload its manufacturing to 3rd world countries and move to high-profit
knowledge work that will vastly increase the income of the average U.S. worker, and so on.
All completely wrong.
Mobility of workers in the USA has dropped to record lows because the interior of the USA
is now depopulating and mired in poverty and chronic drug addiction due to the destruction of
the middle class by shipping all the high-paid blue collar jobs overseas. Meanwhile, the
areas with high-paying jobs are on both coasts, where housing and everything else has become
so expensive average people can't afford to live there. But the high-paying coastal jobs are
really only for people with artificial licensing barriers to entry that protect their
professions, like doctors or lawyers or lobbyists or defense contractor liaisons who need
special security clearance or financial traders who need to live within 10 blocks of the
stock exchange because any farther away and their high-speed trading internet links will have
too much latency to execute 50,000 trades per second. And so on.
Nobody foresaw that knowledge work would collapse because entire movies or ebooks or music
CDs could be digitized and downloaded and sprayed all over the world with bittorrent. Nobody
foresaw that textbooks and tutorial videos could be digitized and sent to third world
countries where their population would whip our asses by producing centers of technological
innovation like Shenzen or Guangdong or the whole island of Taiwan. No one foresaw that
manufacturing processes prove essential to the very act of technological innovation, so that
when America offshored its factories to Asia, we also lost our ability to innovative
technologically, to the point where even if the USA wanted to bring back industries like iPad
manufacturing to the continential U.S., we couldn't do it because we don't have the essential
process technology engineering knowledge and skills.
So globalization sounded completely reasonable and sensible when it was proposed in the
1970s. Converting the USA to knowledge work seemed like a good economic model. Only in
retrospect does it become clear what a gigantic trainwreck it turned out to be, and why.
Likewise, I supported Obama when he ran in 2008. Obama ran on a bunch of progressive
policies. Single-payer healthcare. Shutting down the drug war. "Not doing stupid stuff." Then
Obama abandons single-payer for a disastrous mandate for-profit ACA system with zero cost
controls guaranteed to raise health insurance premiums limitless forever, and he starts
blowing up wedding parties with drones and prosecutes more whistleblowers than all other
presidents put together. That's not what I signed up for.
But how are voters supposed to know what a politician will really do until he's in office?
The people who voted for FDR voted for a moderate pol who ran on a policy of balancing the
budget. They got a radical progressive who experimented with all sort of wild policies,
including packing the Supreme Court, to find something that would work. That's not what
voters signed up for but it happened to be very successful.
The people who voted for Herbert Hoover voted for a world-famous humanitarian who was
renowned for his 1921 famine relief efforts. Anyone who studied Hoover's life would predict
that he would do a great job spearheading relief efforts for impoverished average workers
thrown onto the street when the Great Depression hit. Instead, Hoover sat around and tried to
rein in the tidal flow of red ink while the U.S. economy crashed and burned.
People change their minds because we live in a fog of uncertainty. No one has the
slightest idea of what the actual results of social or economic policies will be. For
example: crime has plummeted since 1990 in the U.S., but no one has the slightest idea why.
Crime was a huge issue in the 1960s and 1970s and 1980s, and now it's turned out to be a
problem that mysteriously disappeared on its own. No experts predicted this, no experts have
been able to explain it. An awful lot of American history seems to work like this. People
convulse in frenzies of worry over some huge problem that then just disappears. (Cue the
deadly threat of the USSR or Erlich's "population bomb" of the 1960s or Thomas Malthus' dire
predictions or the myth of "future shock" or the worries of eugenics prophets of the 1920s or
the "yellow peril" predictions of late 19th century colonialis or our allegedly inevitable
rush toward thermonuclear armageddon because of the arms race of the 1950s/60s etc.)
Highly-educated experts with PhDs have demonstrated zero ability to predict the actual
real-world results of current trends or technology or socioeconomic policies. We live in a
world dominated by the Cobra Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
Efforts to pass this off on the high-school-educated population of the USA as some kind of
irrationality ("How eerie and unsettling it can seem when people change their minds") seem
infantile and jejune. How about: "How eerie and unsettling it can seem when highly educated
Ivy League PhDs' predictions and policies turn out to be gigantic trainwrecks that produce
the exact opposite of what was claimed and what was calculated in highly sophisticated
mathematical models"?
Larry Summers, anyone? The man responsible both for the rise of Putin (Summers and his
Harvard team blew up & wrecked the Russian economy in an epic debacle from 19911-1998)
_and_ Trump (Summers infamously urged Bill Clinton to deregulate the financial system and ram
through bad "free trade" agreements like NAFTA that turbocharged globalization and destroyed
the U.S. middle class, leading to a 1930s-style financial crash and mass impoverishment of
Americans exactly the kind of circumstances which, in the 1930s, led to the rise of fascism.
Which of course is what's happening today.
Yet our leaders still listen to ignorant incompetent clowns like Larry Summers with the
utmost respect and reverence. Maybe that's what really "eerie," not people changing their
minds when they discover that the results of the policies proposed by our elites turn out to
be the kind of destructive idiocy at which even a brain-damaged three-year-old would
rebel.
nastywoman 07.08.18 at 7:33 am (no link)
– and the following might be really worth repeating:
"Ever-increasing rates of technological change will result in people constantly moving
around the country to new jobs, work will shift from manufacturing to knowledge work,
industries will die off and constantly be replaced by new ones, the U.S. will offload its
manufacturing to 3rd world countries and move to high-profit knowledge work that will vastly
increase the income of the average U.S. worker, and so on. All completely wrong".
Mobility of workers in the USA has dropped to record lows because the interior of the USA
is now depopulating and mired in poverty and chronic drug addiction due to the destruction of
the middle class by shipping all the high-paid blue collar jobs overseas. Meanwhile, the
areas with high-paying jobs are on both coasts, where housing and everything else has become
so expensive average people can't afford to live there".
Yes?
"Converting the USA to knowledge work seemed like a good economic model".
Not – for anybody who know how few jobs "knowledge work" creates.
"So 'globalization sounded completely reasonable and sensible when it was proposed in the
1970s".
It's still "completely reasonable" for any "Producing Country" – where well paying
manufacturing jobs were kept.
"Only in retrospect does it become clear what a gigantic trainwreck it turned out to be,
and why".
Only in "Consuming Countries" -(like the US) – where the inequality of high paying
"knowledge work" and "Finance" and poor paying "service jobs" let to the trainwreck and the
funny idea that it is the fault of "trade" – while trade created million an million of
better and better paying jobs in "Producing Countries" – which could lead us to Mario
and @135
"For example, while it is mostly an illusion, the right offers jobs"
Yes –
it's mostly a illusion – as only "Producing Countries" offer jobs – while
"Consuming Countries" -(with their right wing idiots) – don't – or better said
they NEVER-EVER will offer enough "good" jobs to make our workers happy -(again)- and that's
why we need politicians like AOC!
And that IS – because we actually DON'T live in a fog of uncertainty??!
-(saying: Nearly everybody on CT knows how well "Social-Democratic Producing Countries"
work)
bruce wilder 07.11.18 at 8:53 am (no link)
many very interesting comments, but i find myself puzzled by the OP's implicit premises
concerning what politics as philosophical discourse is (the nature of the beast), and what it
would mean for an individual person to be "consistent" over time.
it seems to me that political discourse is a stream into which it is not possible to step
into at the same place twice. and, it also seems to me that political discourse always
reflects the panoply of human ambivalence amidst deep uncertainty about the consequences of
public choices conditioned against private actions. could anyone strive to either embody the
full range of ambivalence or be "right"? i think not.
our political opinions are in the nature of hedges: expressions of some thing we think we
"know" balanced against a background of things we choose not to focus on or fully consider.
and we bet our hedges socially, aligning with others on the basis of some portfolio of
salients, and in historical time, ephemeral salients at that. dare i add, for and against?
push-pull marching in step
the split that opened in the Democratic coalition in the 2016 primaries was just as
startling and rapid as the current spate of coming together.
It is significant that Presidents Putin and Trump have both spoken out against "haters"
among America's political establishment who would rather see conflict between Russia and the
United States instead of a normalization of bilateral relations.
Following their landmark, successful summit this week in Helsinki, Putin and Trump
separately made public comments deploring the hostile hysterical reaction emanating from broad
sections of the US political establishment and its dutiful, controlled news media.
Speaking in Moscow to his diplomatic corps, President Putin warned that there were "powerful
forces" within the US which are ready to sacrifice the interests of their country and indeed
the interests of world peace in order to pursue selfish ambitions.
For his part, Trump also slammed opponents in the US who "hated" to see him having a good
meeting with Putin. "They would rather see a major confrontation with Russia, even if that
could lead to war," said the American president.
That's it in a nutshell. Rather than welcoming the opening of a cordial dialogue between the
US and Russia, the American political establishment seems to desire the deepening of already
dangerous tensions between the world's two nuclear superpowers. If that's not deranged, then
what is?
Significantly, the hostile reaction was overwhelmingly on the American side. Russians, by
and large, welcomed the long-overdue summit between Trump and Putin, and the potential
beginning of a new spirit of dialogue and partnership on a range of urgent global problems.
Problems including arms control, nuclear proliferation, and working out political settlement to
conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and the Korea Peninsula.
Few people would believe that these problems can be resolved easily. But the main thing is
that the leaders of the US and Russia are at least attempting to open a dialogue for
understanding and political progress. That in itself is a breakthrough from the impasse in
bilateral relations which have frozen into a new Cold War since the previous US
administration.
We dare say that most citizens of the world would also endorse this effort by Trump and
Putin at improving the relations between the US and Russia.
Significantly too, according to recent polls, most ordinary Americans seem to be agreeable
or neutral about Trump's diplomatic engagement with Russia. According to a Gallup poll out this
week, the vast majority of US citizens are far more concerned by economic woes than they are by
anything untoward in American-Russian relations.
Thus, what we are seeing in the explosion of hostility towards the Trump-Putin summit is
twofold. It is an American phenomenon, and secondly, it is an angst that animates only the
political class in Washington and the news media corporations. This constituency, it is fair to
say, is an elite faction within the US, albeit extremely powerful, made up of Washington
politicos, the state intelligence apparatus, the corporate media and think tanks, and the deep
state establishment of imperial planners and strategists. In short, this constituency is what
some observers call the "War Party" that transcends the US ruling class.
Any reasonable person would have to welcome the friendly rapport engendered between Trump
and Putin, and at least their initial commitment to working together on major matters of global
security. The dangerous impasse of recent years in which dialogue was absent must be overcome
for the sake of world peace.
Nevertheless, what has become crystal clear this week following the Helsinki summit is the
"War Party" within the US is more determined than ever to sabotage any rapprochement with
Russia.
No sooner had Trump returned to the US, he was assailed with a tidal wave of vilification
for having met Putin in a mutual, agreeable manner. The most disturbing aspect was the
recurring slander denigrating Trump as a "traitor". The hysterical name-calling was conveyed by
all the major news media, citing former intelligence officials and politicians from both
Democrat and Republican parties.
Which again shows that in the US there is really only one party, the War Party.
President Trump was evidently forced into making an embarrassing U-turn over his views
expressed in Helsinki. He made an unconvincing disavowal of statements made alongside Putin.
Trump had been pilloried for appearing to dismiss allegations of Russian interference in the US
elections while he was in Helsinki. Within 24 hours, he was forced into making a retraction,
saying that he did – kind of – believe that Russia had meddled in US democracy.
What Trump was subjected to by the US establishment was akin to the worst years of
McCarthyite Red-Baiting as seen during the Cold War in the 1950s and 60s, when Americans were
mercilessly humiliated and ostracized for being "Communist sympathizers". Today, official
American paranoia is back with a vengeance. In truth, it never went away.
To be fair to Trump he has not completely capitulated to the American derangement syndrome.
He has since said that he is looking forward to holding a second meeting with his Russian
counterpart and continuing their promises of partnership as announced in Helsinki.
However, it is instructive that the American president is, in effect, being held hostage by
powerful elements in the US ruling class who view any kind of detente with Moscow as an
unforgivable betrayal.
Trump's instincts are correct that the whole so-called Russia-gate mania is a phony
contrivance. That has been orchestrated by the US establishment based on its refusal to accept
Trump's democratic mandate, as well as being based on an abiding hostility towards Russia as an
independent world power.
The object lesson here is that the scope for improving US-Russia relations is limited, in
spite of Trump's favorable personal inclinations.
An entrenched animosity towards Russia remains among the American War Party, and the current
president has evidently little room for implementing his avowed policy of normalizing
relations.
Russia therefore cannot place too much faith in making progress towards peaceful relations,
because all-too apparently President Trump has actually very little freedom to exercise his
democratic mandate. That is a damning indictment on the charade of American formal democracy. A
president is elected partly on the basis of peaceful engagement, but the unelected
powers-that-be have another agenda of conflict which they are pursuing come hell or high
water.
What's more, the American derangement syndrome is becoming even more virulent, as can be
adjudged from this week's hysterical backlash over the successful Helsinki summit.
Trump's willingness for dialogue with Russia is a welcome development. But the far more
disturbing development is the full-tilt belligerence and derangement on display among the
American political class. This American political chizophrenia is a clear and present danger to
world peace. American citizens are as much a victim of the madness as are Russians and the rest
of the world.
One positive aspect of the new phase of Cold War is that before it was largely concealed,
and deceived, as a simplistic bifurcated confrontation of Americans versus Russians. Today it
is evidently a situation of an American deranged elite versus the rest of the world, with the
latter including ordinary American citizens who have much more to gain from standing in
solidarity with Russian citizens.
"... Maybe we can stop with the apologetics and demand he stop funding nazis in Ukraine, terrorists in Syria, "color revolutionaries" in Venezuela and Nicaragua and mostly secret "dirty wars" in Africa. Maybe we can demand he actually serve the interests of the 99% in the US, and not the globalist banksters, MIC contractors and extraction industries who are his real beneficiaries. ..."
"... Who knows? Maybe we can even force him to stop "Making Greater Israel Again" at great cost to the US in prestige, blood and gold. ..."
"... "Admittedly, Trump has many flaws and much of his foreign policy is in keeping with the usual criminal conduct of American imperialism." "The problem for the American establishment is that it doesn't like the way democracy worked out." ..."
"... USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran. ..."
"... Anyone noticed how much personal wealth Obama has gained since he was president? Someone, anyone, please grab a clue... ..."
"... Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Surely the Borg understand this? ..."
"... Mark Blyth is one of my favorite economists. He coined the great phrase, that once the 0.01% screw us bad enough, "The Hamptons is not a defensible position." ..."
"... " The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. " ..."
"... Trump is being given way too much credit. If Russia would have flown all their jets home right after the fake chemical attack in eastern Ghouta, Damascus and the rest of Syrian government controlled areas would lay in rubles by American bombs with jihadi scum committing the most unimaginable atrocities. ..."
"... The whole idea of splitting Russia and China sure, maybe 20 years ago but those days are long gone. The two nations now have deep wide and strategic agreements and interests. Besides, what does the US have to offer? ease sanctions wow how kind. A project to split them can only fail. ..."
"... LOL! Do you really think the US is a democracy? Do you think a real "outsider" populist can be elected via the money-centered US election process? Do you think Obama kept his campaign promises? Do think Trump has? (Prosecute "crooked" Hillary? Eliminated Obamacare "on day one"? Build a wall (and have Mexico pay for it)? Drained the swamp? Pull US troops out of the Middle East?) ..."
"... Consider: The US is NOT a democracy and "the borg" controls the narrative AND the counter-narrative. Obama and Trump were selected and made into the most appealing choice ("lesser evil"). ..."
"... Within days of this press conference, Trump OK'd another $200 million in military aid for the neo-nazis we planted on Russia's border. ..."
"... But all I see is Trump executing the policies of the 0.01% sponsors of the US duopoly. ..."
"... I'm not sure that the borg haven't already won long ago. The hysterical verbal attacks against Trump by the MSM and the swamp are worrying, but I'm starting to notice a similarity between this and Trump's own rhetoric. Trump's "fire and fury," his attacks on journalists, European allies, and "very unfair trade" make a lot of people uncomfortable. ..."
"... The US political circus has been cranked up to maximum volume. The question is whether there are any real actions happening to justify this noise. ..."
"... I would like to see Trump fire some people, but I'm not sure it's necessary (from Trump's perspective) because I'm not sure that the level of conflict is as serious as what is portrayed. Same thing with impeachment. It won't happen, because pretty soon the people would realize that their lot hasn't improved, that Trump wasn't the problem, and the MSM and the swamp would end up with even less credibliity. And if one president can be impeached, the calls for impeachment will continue with the next president and the next... ..."
"... Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after the summit? ..."
"... There is much to suggest that Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to, and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his crimes, including high treason? ..."
"... regarding your last line - i am not so sure.. it looks dicey to me and he is creating a lot of uncertainty with the countries - europe - that typically go along with everything the usa says.. maybe his stirring up stuff is a part of his plan, but he doesn't seem to have a genuine plan... he comes across like a loose cannon mostly.. ..."
"... No one in their right-fucking mind would willingly drag themselves through the festering piles of all possible mammalian fecal matter that DJT has had to endure since the start of his presidency. You're gonna tell me that he didn't mind that they were going to drag his philandering ass through the mud so that his YOUNG BOY and family would know what kind of a real piece of garbage this two-timer is? ..."
When I interviewed him a week ago on Air Force One, Trump explained why he's getting in the
room with traditional US enemies like North Korea and Russia.
'I'd like to see peace. A lot of people thought we're going to be at war with Trump as
President. Well here it is - we're getting rid of wars. We're actually getting out of
wars.'
'Look, if we can get along with Russia that's a good thing. For the United States to get
along with Russia and China and all these other places . Piers that's a good thing, that's
not a bad thing. That's a really good thing.'
For 8 years, I argued with Obama-bots who remained convinced that President CareBear really
wanted to do all these wonderful things he said, but was forced to do the opposite by
"Republican Obstructionism" (ignoring the Democratic super-majority in his first years), and
by threats against him and his family by the very agencies now branded by the MSM as the
"Deep State."
When I pointed out that CitiBank picked his Wall Street revolving door Cabinet, I was told
that this was a "4-D Chess move," and that the brilliant Obama had to hire insiders who knew
how "the system" worked so that he could dismantle that system and bring rainbows and
unicorns to the 99%.
Now we are almost 1/2 way through the (first) term of President Trump®, and even b is
promoting this exact same narrative for the Orange Führer.
Well, I was only able to win over a small percentage of Obama-bots with my pleas to look
at what he was actually doing, and not the pretty words he spoke. Let alone my insistence
that if he was really being threatened then the right thing to do would have been to say so,
and either call for the people to rise up to overthrow the PTSB or resign. If a President is
afraid to serve USAmerican interests, he doesn't deserve to be President.
So maybe I should change tacks for those sucked into either pole of this Trump Derangement
Syndrome. Maybe I should jump on the wagon barreling down the abyss, but try to help steer
that wagon towards the conclusion that we must push our beloved leader (or despised Putin
Puppet) to actually execute those "mumbles, such are promises All lies and jests."
Maybe we can stop with the apologetics and demand he stop funding nazis in Ukraine,
terrorists in Syria, "color revolutionaries" in Venezuela and Nicaragua and mostly secret
"dirty wars" in Africa. Maybe we can demand he actually serve the interests of the 99% in the
US, and not the globalist banksters, MIC contractors and extraction industries who are his
real beneficiaries.
Who knows? Maybe we can even force him to stop "Making Greater Israel Again" at great
cost to the US in prestige, blood and gold.
Yeah, I know. All we'll see is another round of the copyrighted "You're Fired" trope of
our first Reality TV Show President.
A couple of quotes from the Finian Cunningham piece b has linked to.
"Admittedly, Trump has many flaws and much of his foreign policy is in keeping with
the usual criminal conduct of American imperialism."
"The problem for the American establishment is that it doesn't like the way democracy worked
out."
The only two choices the world faces in US leadership is the Russia hating fanatics that
may quickly bring on WWIII, or an imperialist realist US that goes back to attacking
countries that are no match for US military power.
The longer this internal war in the US lasts, the better off the world will be.
Daniel 4
When Trump announced the Goldman boys in his group - after campaigning against Wall Street -
I pointed this out to friends only to have them tell me the exact same thing, that Trump had
to have insiders to help him do what he needed to do. Bah! A pox on both their houses R and
D.
Alternative theory: Trump got NOTHING from Putin and that angered the deep state. The
peace initiative known as "Trump" will be withdrawn (impeach/resign) if Putin doesn't come
around by this fall. The late invitation for Putin to visit Washington - coming after (not before) the
firestorm of deep-state protest is the tell.
USA deep state's Russian gambit expires on November 4th when the embargo on Iran goes into
effect. It is already clear that China will support Iran.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
One more thing. MIC wants weapons contracts, sure. But that doesn't mean that US and Israel doesn't have strategic
goals that go beyond enriching MIC.
really good post b.. thank you! grieved posted a link on the Helsinki thread that aligns with
your view in many regards... others would enjoy watching it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUK5g6v5zrg
@1 virgile.. good quote from trump.. thanks for that.. a moment of sanity and clarity from
the unpredictable usa president!
@3 peter.. good comparison / analogy! and i agree with your last paragraph @5 too.
thanks..
@4 daniel.. some aspects of trumps presidency look very promising... check out that video
grieved shared if you haven't already.. it conforms to your thinking and it especially
interesting coming from a russian! opps - it must be a russian set up!!
Such naivete b, it's very alarming. DJT, despite all his rhetoric, is just another empire
puppet. He'll do what he must to further his, and his families ambitions, throwing the
workers and the "little people" under the bus, along with the rule of law, the constitution,
and anything else that gets in his way. The globalists own him, just like rest of our modern
day presidents. His increase in personal wealth, is just the price he charges for being
"owned" by them.
Anyone noticed how much personal wealth Obama has gained since he was president? Someone, anyone, please grab a clue...
instead of mic, pl likes 'globalist corporate bankster elites.' i can't see the difference
frankly...
@13 ben... on the one hand i agree - another empire puppet, but on another level he
isn't... now, just what is intentional and what isn't is hard to say.. see virgiles quote
@1.. is that the voice of an empire puppet? well - maybe it is and he is fooling his base and
plans to start ww3 sometime soon... why would he want to piss off the globalist corporate
bankster elites - or mic as others refer to it here? okay.. maybe he isn't going to, but
whatever one wants to say about trump, i think the most outstanding thing about him is his
unpredictability and the fact he doesn't appear to give a shit what the msm - that
brianwashing channel - thinks.. he does his own thing and for that - i admire him.. i still
think he is a creep, but i admire that aspect of his.. he does lead, even if one doesn't like
his style..
But I come back to the voter. Part of the reason O-Bomber and the Dems were elected was
due to US public weariness of W's non-stop wars after pronouncing 'Mission Accomplished'.
Part of the reason Trump got in (apart from it was a change election) was the same. The
Borg wants what the Borg wants, but if Trump and his base is the symptom, and Trump is
neutered, what will voters do? The Dems aren't offering anything compelling apart anti-Trump
guff.
Things fall apart. The center cannot hold. Surely the Borg understand this?
Mark Blyth is one of my favorite economists. He coined the great phrase, that once the
0.01% screw us bad enough, "The Hamptons is not a defensible position."
But to imagine that Trump is all alone with just his family is to be blind to the big
money interests that have propped him up and promoted him at least since the Rothschilds (who
are never to be called "globalists") pumped $billions into his failing real estate and
gambling businesses back in the 1980s.
Mercers. Adelson. Princes (including the de Vos branch). It goes on and on.
james @ said in part:"even if one doesn't like his style.."
IMO "his style", is nothing more, nothing less than distraction. Everything of any substance he's done has benefited the giant corporate forms he
serves.
"Globalists" are nothing more than the huge multi-national corporations. Through their
massive profits they buy the politicians like DJT and others that do their bidding. It's not
rocket science. They now own the U$A.
When DJT and his minions propose ANYTHING that benefits the working classes, maybe I'll
change my mind, but, as of now, that hasn't happened.
@18 jsn - ivan @12 spoken like a typical jack ass American - talking to other Americans and
probably thinks this is an American website too.... the freak could start by getting up to
speed..
@20 ben... trump talking with putin and suggesting that peace would be a good thing is a
start! But i hear what you are saying.. Watch peoples actions, not their words.. fully
concur..
Nice appraisal, b.
I'm still in Recovery Mode after the shock of reading Pat Lang's "Political Appointees who
should be fired" musings. I expected to be waiting for Trump's 2nd term before any serious
slime-removal began. But PL makes a persuasive case that time's a-wasting and Trump needs to
grab a fire hose ASAP and flush some muck from the stables, now.
" The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its
end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large
and long-term spending. "
I bet Donald John Trump being such a douchebag bigot will go
for Iran (or else Venezuela) just like his Republican predecessor went for Iraq. To be honest
I don't believe Trump will go for Iran but the "shadow government" (if I can call it like
that) will effectively go for a hot war with Iran. USA presidents are just some nice faces on
a plutocratic system who need to sell policies to the masses and make them feel they have a
say.
" Trump does not buy the nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections
and openly says so. " Imagine he does believe it and says it out loud. "Dear US citizens,
the Russians have tampered with our beloved free and fair democratic voting system so now you
have me!" Of course there was no Russian meddling. But if it were so, who would ever admit
it?
Trump is being given way too much credit. If Russia would have flown all their jets home
right after the fake chemical attack in eastern Ghouta, Damascus and the rest of Syrian
government controlled areas would lay in rubles by American bombs with jihadi scum committing
the most unimaginable atrocities.
The whole idea of splitting Russia and China sure, maybe 20 years ago but those days are long
gone. The two nations now have deep wide and strategic agreements and interests. Besides,
what does the US have to offer? ease sanctions wow how kind. A project to split them can only
fail.
On another point, it has been my understanding that Pentagon policy sinse WWII assumed war
with one would mean war with the other even when they were at odds.
You are right, this is a reality TV intended to try to implant in the US a Nazi regime
through a military junta.
As soon as they have tested that people has become increasingly aware that everything remains
the same, they are willing to throw the American people against each other as a last resort
to impose the so pursued martial law which will allow cutting all rights and liberties at
root, to be able to requisition funds, at whatever price the US workers would have to pay,
and go after the needed wars, for US continuing hegemony, against Iran, Russia and
China....
This is why Trump is playing the card of opposing the DS policies and the others the
role of fighting back to the limit of asking his impeachment, so as enrage his followers
enough to get them rising in arms....In fact there are some "alt-media" just calling for this
online at unison....These was the outcome wished since the beginning of the election campaign
and such aggressive stance by Trump and Nazi and KKK followers, and this is what lays behind
the attack and intends of slamming and undermining every and each US institutions, so as that
people gets enraged and disoriented enough, unable to trust the government or any of its
agencies, and this way easy to fall into chaos and the arms of extremists armed gangs...
That the US is calling for a genuine revolution of the people to the shouts does not mean
that this one in the making has anything to do with genuine US people at all. I bet that it
is the MIC ( which Pat Lang denies existing, btw...!!!) which directs the scene from
behind...
Just found this video posted at other blog in which a man tells it as it is...This is the
perception of the people around the muslim world...( and no muslim as well ), also
increasingly aware...and they know it....Notice that the message Sheik Sudair is advancing
follows the same script than Trump and his, at least part, administration....But so as that
not permeate anybody any more...
LOL! Do you really think the US is a democracy? Do you think a real "outsider" populist
can be elected via the money-centered US election process? Do you think Obama kept his
campaign promises? Do think Trump has? (Prosecute "crooked" Hillary? Eliminated Obamacare
"on day one"? Build a wall (and have Mexico pay for it)? Drained the swamp? Pull US troops
out of the Middle East?)
Consider: The US is NOT a democracy and "the borg" controls the narrative AND the
counter-narrative. Obama and Trump were selected and made into the most appealing choice
("lesser evil").
=
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be
the truth.
I just want to say that the phrase "cold war" or "new cold war" has far outlived its
usefulness and meaning. If there is an indecisive battle and the sides return to base then it
becomes a cold war it just has no meaning in relation to current events. That was then this
is now.
Well, I have to say there is no better person than Karen Shakhnazarov to promote the
standard narrative of our first Reality TV Show President to a Russia audience. He is, after
all a famous TV and film director who brags about being able to sway huge masses of people to
do his bidding.
And he presented quite a performance. He had few, if any actual evidences to back up his
soliloquy, but he presented it with the force of a true believer.
I would have liked to hear the rebuttals of the other guests, but they don't seem to be
online.
For no matter who is promoting it, I find the standard narrative to be specious. Trump is
not, and never was an "outsider." He is not opposing the PTSB, but enriching them.
I don't care what he, or anyone says; I watch what they actually do. Within days of this
press conference, Trump OK'd another $200 million in military aid for the neo-nazis we
planted on Russia's border.
I don't know why some in Russian media promote the US MSM narrative about this "war"
between Trump and "the establishment" and "Deep State." I want to keep believing that
President Putin is acting in the best interests of the Russian people and their allies.
Perhaps they believe that promoting the narrative gives Trump some room to actually
execute the policies which I think Shakhnazarov is correct in saying the US public backs.
But all I see is Trump executing the policies of the 0.01% sponsors of the US duopoly.
I'm not sure that the borg haven't already won long ago. The hysterical verbal attacks
against Trump by the MSM and the swamp are worrying, but I'm starting to notice a similarity
between this and Trump's own rhetoric. Trump's "fire and fury," his attacks on journalists,
European allies, and "very unfair trade" make a lot of people uncomfortable.
The US political
circus has been cranked up to maximum volume. The question is whether there are any real
actions happening to justify this noise.
Trump's public opponents have offered endless predictions of doom and gloom which have not
come to pass. Pulling out of the Iran deal and the climate deal, the nomination of BK for
SCOTUS, and the tariffs have all been condemned but we are still waiting to see how these
situations play out.
The Trump administration's internal dissenters have cried about his gestures toward peace
and nonintervention, at the same time the "defense" spending and the drone strikes continue
as strong as ever.
I would like to see Trump fire some people, but I'm not sure it's necessary (from Trump's
perspective) because I'm not sure that the level of conflict is as serious as what is
portrayed. Same thing with impeachment. It won't happen, because pretty soon the people would
realize that their lot hasn't improved, that Trump wasn't the problem, and the MSM and the
swamp would end up with even less credibliity. And if one president can be impeached, the
calls for impeachment will continue with the next president and the next...
xor @24, "Of course there was no Russian meddling. But if it were so, who would ever admit
it?"
Actually, The Donald has said publicly on several occasions that the accepts the story
that Russia meddled in our election. He just says (as did the Republican committee) that they
didn't change the results.
I believe they're keeping that story alive so they can impose even more draconian
restrictions on voting, and install even more opaque election systems so future rigging is
even less obvious.
Thanks, this is an important post. The coup will be a success when Dissidents are labeled
Russian Collaborators and the internet goes black. Even if Donald Trump doesn't resign or
isn't impeached, the splintering apart will continue. Money making chaos is spreading across
Europe and North America. The counter is to restore government by and for the people and
secure borders.
Who is actually in charge over there, among the Borg? And how much in charge? They cannot
function yet as the collective electronic mind of science fiction, can they?
Was it Rosenstein who ordered the arrest of the Russian gun lobbyist woman the day after
the summit? That looks very much like an act of desperation. There is much to suggest that
Special Counsel Mueller takes his orders from Rosenstein, but who does Rosenstein answer to,
and is he untouchable within the USA legal system? How much cognitive dissonance is the
public supposed to handle in relation to Rosenstein not being held accountable for his
crimes, including high treason?
Who are the 'globalists' actually and which is their chain of command? Which positions do
Soros, Bezos, CIA-MI6 have? What is the role of Mossad?
As it appears, after the ascendance of Trump, the actors are not sure themselves anymore
about any of this, that is about who is in charge, or in particular about how much authority
and insurance their actual real-life handlers do possess and vouch for. They waver, in the
case of media hysterically so.
"The Intelligence Community", in particular CIA, is a central executive force in the
circus, in collaboration with MI6 and the obedient assets in the NATO sphere, but they have
grown so incompetent due to incessant politicizing and sycophantism that they are perhaps
little more a paper tiger by now? If this fact, with the help of Trump and allies, would be
perceived clearer by the political classes of the USA, much good would be the result.
Nah, Trump shouldn't sack them yet but give them more rope to hang themselves.
The only thing he must do is beef up his security detail with some really mean mofos.
Spetsnaz or Hezbollah main force might be best but would be politically unacceptable. I
suspect he could get enough ex-US SF volunteers willing to die for him to ensure his safety
when the Washington Borg goes postal as they will in the next year or so when it dawns on
them how completely Trump has fucked them over. The last week or so has done much to convince
me that Trump is a revolutionary.
@29 ivan.. you're a bit of a lun - short for lunatic.. henceforth, i am skipping your
inanities..
@30 daniel.. i hear what you are saying.. he was and probably still is, a real estate
developer.. he dreams trump towers around the world.. but, he was never a politician until
very recently.. that he won the election came as a surprise to many.. yes - he had powerful
backing - just how much he owes to that, i don't know.. but it is a plutocracy as i see it..
he has very little wiggle room.. he is also a live wire and unpredictable.. i can't think of
a president who was this off script, forthright, ignorant and on and on the characteristics
go.. but i don't see him towing the line exactly... so, maybe i am wrong on trump..
as for the interview, yes - would have been nice to hear some of the other guests rebut
his comments.. the host did a very small bit, but that wasn't much... yes - the guy is in
entertainment - he shares that with trump, lol... but the guy wasn't fickle.. i find trump
quite capricious..
regarding your last line - i am not so sure.. it looks dicey to me and he is creating a
lot of uncertainty with the countries - europe - that typically go along with everything the
usa says.. maybe his stirring up stuff is a part of his plan, but he doesn't seem to have a
genuine plan... he comes across like a loose cannon mostly.. i know one when i see one,
lol... he is more of an outsider then an insider as i see it, but time will tell.. obviously
people and politicians have to be a bit of both to move forward..as with so much - a simple
black and white breakdown is impossible as i see it..
I don't know what the United States is. A quilt? ;)
Trump simply shouldn't have been elected in the first place if the system of political
filtration was working properly. The Borg appears to have done some deft footwork since it
became clear he was a serious contender and prepared for him becoming President. The
Christopher Steele Dossier, courtesy of the UK, looks like just one strand of this.
I'm just not ready to call it. I don't know what will happen. Traditionally it takes two
terms for a President to leave a clear mark, but I don't know if this applies anymore.
I'm also wary of treating the voter as an easily managed moron as much of the media and
many pols do. I think that is an error. There will be fallout.
My head is pessimist, my heart it optimist. Does not compute.
Sasha @26. That's an amazing video! Thanks. The people are awakening.
Frank Zappa observed 30 or 40 years ago that the facade of "democracy" in the US will be
dropped whenever it becomes expedient to do so. And that facade became a lot thinner 3 days
after "the event that changed everything."
The US has been under a form of "Martial Law" since President Bush II signed Executive Order 13223 on
September 14, 2001.
Exactly what this EO established is classified, but even the changes since 9/11 that are
public are horrifying. No more habeas corpus. US military permitted to police the streets.
"Kill lists" of US citizens, even on US territory. Imagine what powers are still
classified!
Since then, every year, each President has extended it for another year.
President Trump extended, and expanded it last year , giving him the authority to recall
into service any "retired member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or
RegularMarine Corps."
Starting with some posts at 4-Chan, some in the "alt-right" were claiming that the purpose
of this power to confiscate private property is Trump's "4-D Chess Move" to eviscerate the
Clinton "Deep State" Globalists.
That 4-Chan thread evolved into "Q" and QAnon which are serving to keep Trump fans chasing
squirrels, and ignoring what this Administration is actually doing.
b has the courage (finally) to admit that passing a summary judgment against Trump at
this juncture is absurd and would exhibit symptoms of TDS and immediately people are here to
remind us (program us) into thinking that this is all theatre and there is no daylight btw
Obama and Trump.
Bullshit.
No one in their right-fucking mind would willingly drag themselves through the festering
piles of all possible mammalian fecal matter that DJT has had to endure since the start of
his presidency. You're gonna tell me that he didn't mind that they were going to drag his
philandering ass through the mud so that his YOUNG BOY and family would know what kind of a
real piece of garbage this two-timer is? You're going to tell me that he willfully signed on
for death threats and to be publically shamed and turned on by all his orchestrated
advisor-elections?
For what? So he could sell more steaks post-presidency or build towers in Pyongyang?
So this is all theater and it doesn't even matter, huh?
Poor DJT. The loneliest dumbass in the world right now. His wife even "shooed" his hand
away on camera at a tarmac meet-and-greet. Gosh...who wouldn't sign up for that?!
And surely he must really be having a lot of fun backstage sniggering at all the gullibles
in his deplorable army. Gosh, do I feel like a twit.
I wouldn't say "the borg have won," because that means the game is over. I'd say this borg
are in power, and are playing us with awesome finesse.
But I still believe that once enough of us see through the deceptions, and unite to take
them down, that we can beat them. The real PTSB are a tiny percentage. Additionally, they
have a few percent of enforcers (cops/militaries/paramilitaries). And a few more percent who
believe that they're benefiting from this borg-dominance enough to support it.
But it really won't take that many dedicated revolutionaries to topple their house of
cards. Once we convince even a significant minority of the enforcers to refuse orders and
stand with us, I expect their rule will fall quickly, as it has in other instances.
Ben @20: said "When DJT and his minions propose ANYTHING that benefits the working classes,
maybe I'll change my mind, but, as of now, that hasn't happened."
I'd have thought that proposing peace with Russia, rather than risking nuclear war with
them as his would-be deposers seemingly want, is a policy that benefits the working
classes.
You seem to have good instincts, but continue to fall back into the MSM narratives.
"i can't think of a president who was this off script,"
Have you seen the script? I haven't. I just watch what his Administration actually does.
The only change in US policies have been escalations of the worst and stripping of the better
ones.
"he doesn't seem to have a genuine plan... he comes across like a loose cannon mostly"
Yep. That is precisely what we see our First Realty TV Show President doing. Especially
through those Tweets that we're told he writes, his character is all those things you say.
But again, what is his Administration actually doing?
" but time will tell.. "
We're almost halfway through his (first) term, and what have we seen? We've seen war
escalated. We're up to one bomb every 12 minutes! That's 3x as many as Obama and 6x as many
as Bush II. We now have unknown thousands of regular troops occupying more than 1/3 of the
sovereign state of Syria, replacing a few hundred Special Ops guys Obama had.
We're still working to overturn countries that displease the 0.01%/globalists/elites/Deep
State/borg or whatever one wants to call them. Within weeks of his Administration floating
the idea that we may need to send troops into Venezuela, we welcome their neighbor, Colombia
into NATO. Article V anyone?
Continuing to "wait and see" benefits whom?
Really, you do see it. You're just letting yourself get swept up into the squirrel cage.
Almost everyone out there is. Heck, even our beloved b is chasing that squirrel today.
But you see it, and several barflies are describing it quite well.
For some reason my screen confused 12&13, it still reads that way on my monitor while the
numbers shift one on my hand held. It was Ivan's content with which I agreed while not liking
his tone.
As far as I could tell, the EO to confiscate property is to mitigate the loss of
funds/assets "instantaneously" transferred by bad guys to unreachable destinations by the US
Treasury. It is a way to beat tipping off confiscations with a warrant. The people affected
by this EO would still have recourse to prove their legitimate and lawful holdings of those
assets.
Daniel, the Federal Gov't already has the law on its side to confiscate your private
property: your gold. Please provide more than this paltry EO to prove DJT's fascist-cred.
"Because many American banks wouldn't lend money to Trump's debt-soaked company, he had to
look elsewhere, like Russia. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a
lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. said in 2008, specifically mentioning projects in SoHo
and Dubai.
Trump could clear up this issue by releasing his tax returns. That he has not, unlike
every other modern presidential candidate, means that he deserves no benefit of the doubt.
The fairest assumption is that he has Russian business ties he wants to keep hidden.
By the looks of the war that has been going on in the US that involves the intelligence
agencies, if there was dirt in trumps tax returns or any other part of his business career,
it would have been 'leaked'. There would have been no need for a fictional 'dossier'.
US to alert public to foreign operations targeting Americans
The question should be whether the US would alert the US public of domestic operations,
disguised "cleverly", by keyboards and spoof IP's as foreign, especially Russian entities.
The best cover for US intelligence, particularly if politically motivated and even if it is
for testing purposes, is to hide behind Russian identities if only to stay out of legal
problems. The argument that every country hacks and steals, so therefore no big deal, misses
the most obvious reasons of motivation. Elements of US intelligence would and logically
should have the biggest motivations to meddle in US politics. Seriously, if you were Pootin,
would you really be interested in getting involved in US electoral politics? I'd run the
other way.
The people you see are marionettes; the people you don't see are pulling the strings.
If you don't know who's running the marionettes, you can't stop the show...
Trump and Deep state... what is it about NA people who analyse NA politics/power that they
almost always resort to dualisms?
Recently (a couple years ago) in N. Syria there were 4 or 5 different factions all
supported by rival power centers in the US, all fighting each other - ignoring their stated
enemy - the SAA, and fighting each other in order to gain points back in Washington!
It is meaningless to talk about either the US, the US government, the US military, The
Corporate world, etc, as if they are single actors. Even the bankers will at times square off
against each other.
Before Obama, each president had a relative stable configuration of power-factions backing
him (in exchange for special access to the public trough). With Obama, they all were all at
the trough, each of them trying to elbow another couple groups out of the way. That is why
there was little ideological coherance to what he actual did legislatively (other than buying
off the faction-flavor of the day for a limited bounce in the polls). Still, the factions
gave nominal assent to Obama as an icon of US power.
With Trump, the factions that under Obama consolidated their control over a sector of
power (Pentagon, Neo-Cons, CIA, Special Ops, Media, Tech/Silicon Valley, Finance, Oil, Health
Care, DHS/FBI, State, EPA, etc) have come out from the shadows and fight for dominance. Why
at this time? Is it the perception of pending collapse that propels them? If so they hasten
their own end.
Trump's antics (ie Verbal welcome to Putin while immediately sending 200 million of
offensive arms to Ukraine) are all a smokescreen, distraction from the real changes to law
that benefit the elite and punish the wage earner. Don't listen to what he says, or what the
media says he says, or what the media says about him. It is all a con.
Look at what is done. By way of example look at the world military scene. Trump talks
withdrawl. What did he do?
- highest budget ever for the Pentagon, more than they asked for!
- more US troops on the ground in Syria
- more US funds for Ukraine
- more US/Nato forces & $costs on the border with Russia
- more confrontation with China in the south China sea
- more US involvement in Yemen
- expanded special ops role in Africa
- expanded economic-military role against Venezuela
Notice too that each of those actions benefits a different power faction
- Pentagon budget rewards republican/conservative supporters
- Syria rewards the Neo-cons/Israel, while controlling EU access to ME energy.
- Nato patrols in Estonia etc play to the anti-Russia MSM and the US as world policeman
meme.
- Confronting China is all about US dollar dominance - which is why the trade war will evolve
into a currency war
- US involvement in Yemen is about supporting the Saudi's
- Like Big Pharma, special ops get a whole continent to play games in & test their
toys.
- Venezuela is ultimately about controlling the worlds second largest oil resource.
My point is that like many presidents before him, Trump actually controls very little.
What he does control is rapidly being eroded by both his actions and the actions of others.
The net effect invariably benefits US elites and penalizes all others.
@45 daniel.. maybe so.. i dunno.. i can tell you i don't partake of any msm, so my sources
are limited, lol.. lets use syria as an example.. how has it worked out since trump has been
in power? now, how much of that is trumps doing, or as a consequence of russia and irans
doing and etc. etc.? i don't know if i see it, but it seems to me trump, or the usa - are not
in the same position they were around the time trump got the presidency... i don't doubt more
bombs and drones are being released... i am not sure how much of that falls at trumps
doorstep.. i would like it if he stopped the madness on yemen, thanks saudi arabia.. he seems
partly paralyzed with regard to ksa, but i too liked the video that @26 sasha linked to..
as for continuing to wait and see... i don't know what other options i have! i don't
believe waxing eloquent on moa is going to make any difference! i am happy to consider others
ideas and explore the possibilities.. no one so far as i know has made a convincing argument
that trump is the consummate insider... i think he is more of a mix of both.. i guess that is
the basis for my wait and see approach here..
@49 ben.. that is the constant insinuation on trump - needed money so he went to russia...
what if we find out he got it from the mercers, sheldon adelson, the rothchilds, ksa, israel
and etc etc? it is only that he could get it from russia that gets repeated ad nauseam in the
msm.. i have a problem with that..
@55 viviana... thanks, but it is in russian with no english subtitles.. that is the video
both daniel and i would like to see more fully and that grieved shared on a previous thread -
but only part of it.. if an english translation comes available, let us know.. thanks.
Did I read this correctly? Fire Mattis and keep Bolton? How someone can be so perceptive in
their foreign policy thoughts but so off the reservation on US politics is incredible.
... immediately people are here to remind us (program us) into thinking that this is all
theatre and there is no daylight btw Obama and Trump .
Allow me to clarify. It's true that Trump isn't "like" Obama as in facing the same issues
and obstacles. It would be foolish to make that claim.
Instead, what Daniel and I (and I think ben and a few others) have pointed out is that
they both follow a similar faux populist political model. They make populist appeals
(which appears genuine because we are told they are "outsiders") but govern for the
benefit of the establishment.
= = = = = =
hopehely @44:
It is kinda double negative . :-D
Yes. And just how a native speaker would say it.
= = = = = =
ben @49:
The fairest assumption is that he has Russian business ties he wants to keep
hidden.
No. There are many other possibilities.
>> Doesn't want crazed antifa/anti-Russians to attack his business interests
It is certainly an act of great courage for a POTUS to go against the PTB. The Kennedy's fate
pops into ones mind.
Standing up against his party's opinion, against the MSM narratives is truly a
remarkable thing.
We live in doxocracy and what governments or leaders do normally is create news that will
entail a reaction from the masses that will implore the government to do exactly what the
Government wanted to do in the first place.
IN other words, as Rove says, the (empire) government creates a reality that the people
gets to study and this entails a reaction which favours the entity taking the action it
wanted to take.
Say for example you want dictatorial powers, you create 9/11 and you get to have all the
dictatorial powers you dreamed off with the blessing and the urgings of the oppressed.
All PsOTUS since G.W.Bush have been granted absolute power by acts of Congress through the
war on terror legislation.
So, Trump can arrest anybody he wants without any process in any form, sequester anybody
he wants to, kill anyone who stands in his way, all this absolutely legally. The legislation
authorises it. Nobody in and out of the US is above it or beyond what Congress has adopted.
He can seize any property, any assets of anyone including and not limited to the Rockefellers
et al and all the banksters.
To do this he only needs a loyal battallion commander.
So the swamp is planning a coup? DT can act swiftly and in his one night of the long
knives do away with his critics, detractors, pursuers, the Clintons, the Soroses etc.
He and his loyalists must prepare a list of enemies and in one night round all of them up
including the newspapers and TV editors, broadcasters et al.
DT's night of the long knives. He might not have the courage to do it. but it's either him
or them.
He has the Congress legislation to back him up. He only needs to prepare a good Speech to
the Nation afterwards.
People believe what they want to believe. Trump of course has many personal business reasons
to want sanctions removed from Russia since quite of lot of money looted from Russia and the
FSU ended up in his pocket by way of loans or investments in his projects. Tracing this money
puts his Empire at risk. He is what they call "Kompromat" in Russia, so he must do the
bidding of the Cold War forces. To say he is sabatoged by people he himself appointed is
curious.
Part of the reason for all this is the drying up of capital flight from Russia and FSU
since 2005 or so. Over a trillion USD flowed into Eurodollar accounts from 1990-2005 and much
of it ended up in the US as multiples of this as these dollars in offshore banks were loaned
10-20 times this amount to the US and European clients/banks. Some of it flowed directly into
US via these tax havens, legally or otherwise. This huge source of cash fueled asset
inflation in that period and when it dried up we had the Great Recession starting in 2006
-2007, and coincidentally that was shortly after Browder was kicked out of Russia
Browder may be an MI6/CIA/Mossad agent that helped facilitate and track this looting in
partnership with the Israeli Safra who owned the Republican Bank of New York and was said to
be Mossad/Mafia connected. At the same time Hermitage Capital began operations Safras bank
was selling up to 1 billion dollars a day in 100 dollar bills to Russian "entities" and
flying it to Russia in what was called the "Money Plane". This obviously was with the support
of the Fed Reserve and Clinton administration which helped to get Yeltsin reelected with IMF
money. Funny how billions of that IMF money still ended up getting sent to the Bank of New
York and Safras Republican Bank before Safra blew the whistle as he neared a deal to sell his
bank and Hermitage holdings to the notorious HSBC
He was killed days after agreeing to sell under mysterious circumstances (fire) in Monaco
despite using a top security company that used ex-Mossad agents, similar to the company he
used in Moscow to protect his "Money Plane" and Browder. Someone was obviously unhappy about
his blowing the whistle. Perhaps Semyon Mogilevitch, who was implicated and is reportedly the
top Don of the Russian mafia
Trumps ex-partner Felix Sater and a number of tenants in the Trump Tower have been
connected to Semyon Mogilevitch
So anyways , now the Fed and ECB plan to end the QE of the last 8 years and must find a
way to replace toxic assets on the balance sheet with quality assets . Otherwise the next
crash, and they seem to happen every 10 -11 years now, will be a whopper.
Thats where Browder and the Magnitsky Act come in. Cold War II besides propping up the MIC
and replacing the fizzling GWOT may be an excuse to seize assets to prop up the Fed
Putin however might like to recover some of those assets from enemy oligarchs in exile for
Russia and himself, and must protect the oligarchs in his camp who have a lot to lose, not to
mention the RCB , Gazprom and oil companies who keep a lot of reserves /assets offshore .
Thats why he has requested interviews with Browder associates and officials that know about
such transfers so he can recover them, or at least provide some leverage as protection
Putin like Trump has his own Deep State he must satisfy.
"Now let's connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled)
faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow Putin
by making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes
"(neo)liberal" economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly
forcing him into (neo)liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (he declared
himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005) and the so-called "patriotic media"
is covering it all up. And Putin cannot change this without shedding blood........
Just like in the West, in Russia the media depends first and foremost on money. Big
financial interests are very good at using the media to promote their agenda, deny or
obfuscate some topics while pushing others. This is why you often see the Russian media
backing WTO/WB/IMF/etc policies to the hilt while never criticizing Israel or, God forbid,
rabidly pro-Israel propagandists on mainstream TV (guys like Vladimir Soloviev, Evgenii
Satanovsky, Iakov Kedmi, Avigdor Eskin and many others). This is the same media which will
gladly criticize Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder why the Russian main TV stations are
spewing pro-Israeli propaganda on a daily basis.
And, of course, they will all mantrically repeat the same chant: "there is no 5th column
in Russia!! None!! Never!!"
This is no different than the paid for corporate media in the USA which denies the
existence of a "deep state" or the US "Israel Lobby".
And yet, many (most?) people in the USA and Russia realize at an almost gut-level that
they are being lied to and that, in reality, a hostile power is ruling over them."
By the looks of the war that has been going on in the US that involves the intelligence
agencies, if there was dirt in trumps tax returns or any other part of his business
career, it would have been 'leaked' .
Good point!
It actually helps to make the case that Trump is part of the establishment. They protect
his business interests by not leaking his tax returns and other info.
This is an insight akin to when Qanon started promoting war with Irran.
Trump and the people behind realize that to be a great power in the coming era, the US must
once again become a manufacturing power. This I believe is behind Trump's push, tarrifs and
so forth, to rebuild US manufacturing. He is pushing for a lower US dollar which means
imported items will be more expensive compared to domestically produced goods.
although there is a lot of automation in todays manufacturing, this overall effort will
create a lot of jobs within the US.
In looking into domestic oil production in the US, one field is held up from expanding output
until a second pipeline is completed. Trucking the oil out in the interim was also a problem
as US trucking is now very busy and in short supply with all sectors in the US.
This is far more than giving money to banks trickle down crap. It is physical rebuilding of
US domestic manufacturing capability.
Trump wants peace my ass! What about IRAAAAAN??? Did you all conveniently forget about
his obsession with Iran, or is everyone back on the Trump juice?
_________________
He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense,
to then be able to better tackle China which is the real threat to the American (economic)
supremacy.
To neutralize China in any sense is a fool's errand and failed mission from the
get-go.
China is a threat to the Empire? And that's a bad thing?...exactly why???
I, for one, will not compromise my soul, and sell out Iran and China and the well-being of
this planet for a fantasy peace with Russia that will never last or come to fruition with the
devious, duplicitous Zionist American Empire.
I ridiculed the "Show Us Your Tax Forms" protests as diversionary and useless. He's not
going to listen to a bunch of "liberals" and his fans have already accepted he's not
releasing them.
But let us remember that he promised his fans several times during the campaign that he
would release them. He made up the excuse of being audited, but he (or his handlers) felt it
necessary to make that promise.
Yet he hasn't. Why? Is it because he's so shy about his wealth? Doesn't want to rub in our
faces how much income he makes? Hardly.
It should be pretty clear there's stuff in there he doesn't want to make public. Chances
are, it's stuff that might turn off some of his fan base (because Trump haters gonna hate no
matter what).
So, the point that the "Deep State" hasn't leaked them came up. That's absolutely true,
and should tell us something.
It tells us that this "Deep State" has chosen not to hurt Trump by releasing them. Maybe
there really is this "war" the MSM shows us daily, and they're waiting for the right time. Or
maybe, this "war" is a psyop.
Thanks James @56 for a reasoned and reasonable reply.
First, we are all enmeshed in the MSM narrative even if we don't read or watch MSM
outlets. Even here at MoA, we are given samples of them, and discuss their meaning. In fact,
personally exposing oneself to the MSM directly may give one a better idea of what narratives
they're trying to sell.
What's happened in Syria since Trump came in is that SAA and its allies have retaken most
of the south, and the US has firmly militarily taken the north, while NATO ally Turkey has
conquered significant portions along their border.
What's happened is the US has killed as many as 200 Russians for daring to get too close
to the US proxy fighters on "their" side of the country. That's separate from the at least 4
times the US has bombed Syrian forces, and the Syrian jet it shot down.
By some accounts, the US coalition killed 40,000 civilians in "liberating" Raqqa, while
firing more artillery shells than any time in the past 1/2 century. We've established about
12 military bases.
Which all boils down to an escalation of Obama's war, with the apparent admission that the
"regime change" failed (which even during Obama's reign, was an on again/off again
issue).
But I grant you that you and I are not in positions to do much about any of this. You
could try to affect your government, and i mine, but we know we have no influence. So,
perhaps just accepting that sitting back and watching the horror show is all we can do
anyway.
Jimmy Dore: [Debbie say that ] "I eat the left Twix first", pretending that one identical
side is different from other. Both sides brought to her by same corporation."
There is no price to pay if you lie in defense of the US neoliberal establishment
Notable quotes:
"... I can't believe she beat Canova. There's some fuckery going on there. ..."
ABOUT THE JIMMY DORE SHOW:
The Jimmy Dore Show is a hilarious and irreverent take on news, politics and culture featuring
Jimmy Dore, a professional stand up comedian, author and podcaster. With over 5 million
downloads on iTunes, the show is also broadcast on KPFK stations throughout the country. It is
part of the Young Turks Network-- the largest online news show in the world.
It was Debbie who headed the corruption of the 2016 presidential primary with fraud and
vote rigging to keep Bernie from the presidency. It was Debbie's corruption that handed the
presidency to Trump. Debbie belongs in prison for election rigging and treason. Russia is
being investigated yet Debbie is not? Why?
What's new. The Dems courted moderate Republicans over progressives, rigged primaries,
disinfranchised half the base, colluded with the media to elevate Trump & lost in the
general for supporting NAFTA & TPP and not campaigning in rust belt. On top of that, they
blamed Russia, caused mass hysteria and public discontent to avoid taking responsibility.
I wouldn't be surprised. Schultz IS a Republican. There's TONS of Republicans in the
democratic party. They did the divide and conquer method. And it worked
Wasserman is a horrible and crooked and evil person, take her down take her down she will
scream loudly, she knows where many many bones are buried, she is an extension of
HRC
Insightful but who do you believe?? James does make many good points but without confirmation from another or two people, i.m
just wondering who is telling the truth. Still something fishy here and I think both parties are full of BS and probably James
as well. But only time will tell when historians can weed through all the smoke and mirrors
This is an interesting read. In years gone I wouldn't have been interested but the current political climate in the US is such
that I felt it worth a read. The polarity in the system and its players appears beyond what I'd expected and while there appears
to be corruption in most systems, it's amazing the Americans have been able to present an appearance of decency and leadership
this long. I guess the vail is down now and the current administration is showing just how broken and morally bankrupt the place
is and has been for a long time.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, the desire for power corrupts the very fabric of humanity
I think the title says it all, Comey has only one true loyalty and that is to himself. I enjoyed this book. It was insightful
trip through the mind of a psychopath. His deviations from procedure, his lies, half truths and lawyerisms litter the book and
highlight the forces that have corrupted this nation and agencies we rely on.
Its clear that Comey did not act independently but with the tacit guidance and approval of those above him. He makes no admission
of guilt about his demonstrated lies, but rathers blames others. His self inflated ego is too commonplace to those who have worked
in Washington DC among various political agencies and dens where politicians and their allies lurk. The book betrays no empathy
for those he shamelessly prosecuted. The book is laden with attempts at manipulation through lies, half truths, and gross distortions.
On one hand I highly recommend this book because it is sure to become the "textbook" on psychopaths and their characteristics.
On the other hand this book serves as a cautionary warning about ambition run wild, corruption at the highest levels of government,
the abuse of power. No author could pen such a novel. As an exhibit it ranks with 1984 as a warning of what evil men do in the
name of "a higher good."
This is a lying, childish, self-serving, narcissistic, money grab from a partisan author who can't even keep his story straight.
His interviews contradict his book and this book is probably illegal in that it talks about an ongoing sham "investigation" that
isn't even an investigation, it's an investigation to find something to investigate.
I went into this book with an open mind after seeing Mr Comey on alot of the morning shows. I didn't like the way he seemed
to be trying to be "holier than thou" regardless of which political he was answering to. It did, in the other hand, explain what
he was thinking on some of his decisions on some of the moves he made during the election season. But truly it just read like
he was making a lot of excuses and sour grapes. I didn't enjoy this book at all. I had to force myself to finish it. I just didn't
think it was very well written.
There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it
If you read the "Author's Note" on the first page of this book, it will tell you all you need to know about this smug arrogant
self righteous man. It reads, "WHO AM I TO TELL others what ethical leadership is?" If you read the book, you may come to the
same conclusion as I did. There is no moral high ground in this book as much as its author would like to claim that he is on it.
You could read that first sentence and be done with it and you would get as much out of the book without reading more.
Just a book filled with Hatred of a former employee. The people who defend this guy are the same people who accused him of
violating the Hatch Act when he announced a few days prior to the election that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation.
I must admit I was touched at nearly drawn to tears when he details the lost of his newborn son. However that does not change
the fact that Comey is a liar. James Comey:'I don't leak.'(In a memo that he leaked.)
This book is second only to What Happened by Hillary Clinton in self-serving drivel. It started out interesting enough with
Cindy's work history, but once he got to the subject of his (supposed) interactions with President Trump, it was downhill from
there. It will be interesting to see what he has to say now in light of the FBI's possible spying on the Trump campaign. I'm just
glad I read it in Overdrive and didn't waste my own money.
A higher loyalty would be to the country - not the ego of a sad individual that hates the president. Love him or hate him the
president is leading the country in a direction that shows promise. The electorate can throw him out after 4 years, just like
it rejected the previous 8 years. In the meantime all Americans should be praying for the president's success and the success
of the country. That's loyalty......
Don't waste your money, Jim wants go for sainthood
Comey is extremely bright, and knows how ( or thinks he does) how to convince his readers he is one step down from sainthood.
I am not that naieve. He could have done away with the first ten chapters, where he was born and what he wore growing up was irrelevant.
I knew what he was doing. It annoyed me. He is absolutely blameless in everything.
Having dinner with Donald ALONE four times, making sure he made a EXTENDIVE note of it and gave it to another " means nothing.
The head of the FBI does NOT meet with the president alone. Saying he did not know what to do each time insults my intelligence.
He is sport on correct what he wrote " in my opinion " about Trump, but, everyone knew all this and it was on the last 4 chapters.
Jim wanted to tell his story, simple as that. Don't waste your money, I did there is not one thing that you do not already
know, if you know politicks .
I really liked the first part of this book, learning about Comey and his background. At some point though, he started to rationalize
and justify his actions and seemed to get on a high horse about defending the reputation of the FBI no matter what. I disagree
with the premise that the honor of the FBI is more important than truth and integrity.
Comey explains that he did the things he did for the greater good of the FBI. Look where we are now. By his actions alone,
Trump won the election and is now daily attacking the FBI and the DOJ. Is this the outcome Comey really wanted? And where is he
beloved FBI's reputation now?
Comey is an excellent writer. No errors or mistakes and a very readable book. He has a sense of humor, but is a little full
of himself. When he got into the rationalization of his actions, I couldn't take it anymore and stopped reading.
I really didn't enjoy this book very much. Only the last two chapters were addressed to the problems with Trump. The rest of
the book was rather boring, mainly talking about how his career progressed, etc. If I had known what this book contained I would
never have bought it. Comey's many TV interviews were misleading in what the majority of the content was. I do not recommend this
book at all.
Yes he is a libral domestcally and nationalsit in forign policy -- that's why the term "national neoliberalism" looks appropriate
for definition of his policies
Notable quotes:
"... When one compares these 10 neoliberal commandments with Trump's policy agenda, it is clear that the president is far more neoliberal than his populist rhetoric would suggest. ..."
"... Trump is clearly and consistently positioning himself to cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulate big business and the financial industry, and pursue a wide range of privatization plans and public-private partnerships that will further weaken American unions. In short, he will govern like the neoliberals who came before him and against whom he campaigned so ardently. ..."
"... In fact, Trump's agenda aims to realize the foremost goals of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax-cutting, anti-unionism, and the strict enforcement of property rights. For example, in his address to Congress , Trump promised "a big, big cut" for American companies and boasted about his administration's "historic effort to massively reduce job-crushing regulations." Ironically, Trump then asserted that he will reduce regulations by "creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency," itself a contradictory expansion of the administrative state he had just sworn to shrink. ..."
"... Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was for a time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under. Trump's victory is the direct result of the fact that American workers have not been well served by the country's policymaking elites. ..."
"... Yet the resistance that Trump's presidency has inspired across the country must also learn from the contradictions between his economic nationalism and neoliberalism. Those who reject his phony populism must be careful not to dismiss the concerns of Trump's voters, which has unfortunately been the response of too many who console themselves by deriding Trump's supporters as ignorant "deplorables" who deserve what they will get. ..."
"... The problem with the last paragraph is that it tries once again to put the election in purely economic terms. It wasn't. It was largely white cultural backlash. Much of his vote was driven by bans on immigration and a promise to maintain a white rural/suburban culture by bringing jobs back like coal mining or manufacturing jobs to Northwood Michigan. ..."
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress, President Trump promised to deliver on his populist campaign pledges to protect
Americans from globalization. "For too long," he bemoaned, "we've watched our middle class shrink as we've exported our jobs and
wealth to foreign countries." But now, he asserted, the time has come to "restart the engine of the American economy" and "bring
back millions of jobs." To achieve his goals, Trump proposed mixing massive tax-cuts and sweeping regulatory rollbacks with increased
spending on the military, infrastructure and border control.
This same messy mix of free market fundamentalism and hyper-nationalistic populism is presently taking shape in Trump's proposed
budget. But the apparent contradiction there isn't likely to slow down Trump's pro-market, pro-Wall Street, pro-wealth agenda. His
supporters may soon discover that his professions of care for those left behind by globalization are -- aside from some mostly symbolic
moves on trade -- empty.
Just look at what has already happened with the GOP's
proposed
replacement for Obamacare , which if enacted would bring increased pain and suffering to the anxious voters who put their trust
in Trump's populism in the first place. While these Americans might have thought their votes would win them protection from the instabilities
and austerities of market-led globalization, what they are getting is a neoliberal president in populist clothing.
Neoliberalism is a term most often used to critique market-fundamentalism rather than to define a particular policy agenda. Nonetheless,
it is most useful to understand neoliberalism's policy implications in terms of 10 norms that have defined its historical practice.
These norms begin with
trade liberalization and extend to
the encouragement of exports;
enticement of foreign investment;
reduction of inflation;
reduction of public spending;
privatization of public services;
deregulation of industry and finance;
reduction and flattening of taxes;
restriction of union organization;
and, finally, enforcement of property and land ownership.
Politicians don't necessarily have to profess faith in all of these norms to be considered neoliberal. Rather, they have to buy
into neoliberalism's general market-based logic and its attendant promise of opportunity.
When one compares these 10 neoliberal commandments with Trump's policy agenda, it is clear that the president is far more
neoliberal than his populist rhetoric would suggest. This conclusion will likely surprise his supporters, especially in light
of Trump's assaults on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Despite these attacks, however,
Trump is clearly and consistently positioning himself to cut taxes on the wealthy, deregulate big business and the financial
industry, and pursue a wide range of privatization plans and public-private partnerships that will further weaken American unions.
In short, he will govern like the neoliberals who came before him and against whom he campaigned so ardently.
In fact, Trump's agenda aims to realize the foremost goals of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax-cutting, anti-unionism,
and the strict enforcement of property rights. For example, in his
address
to Congress , Trump promised "a big, big cut" for American companies and boasted about his administration's "historic effort
to massively reduce job-crushing regulations." Ironically, Trump then asserted that he will reduce regulations by "creating a deregulation
task force inside of every government agency," itself a contradictory expansion of the administrative state he had just sworn to
shrink.
Since so much of Trump's agenda aligns with the long-standing ambitions of the Republican Party, it is likely that Trump will
be able to work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to pass strictly neoliberal
legislation. Unlike his approach to trade, which congressional Republicans will probably scuttle, there is little reason to doubt
that we will see new legislation that privatizes public lands, overturns Dodd-Frank and other Wall Street regulations, cuts taxes
on business, makes organizing unions difficult, and allows big landowners to develop, mine, log, and shoot without restraint. For
all the animosity that may exist between the Trump administration and Republican congressmen, the two groups share a neoliberal vision
of the world.
From his new budget proposal we also know that Trump plans to continue the neoliberal assault on social service provisions --
such as the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act -- as well as public broadcasting, arts funding, scientific research and foreign
aid. As Trump vowed to Congress, he intends to implement a plan in which "Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use
of tax credits and expanded health savings accounts." Moreover, the money he does want to spend will be expended on military and
infrastructure projects that will almost certainly be organized around public-private partnerships that will fill the coffers of
Trump's business cronies.
What does Trump's neoliberal agenda mean for those whose discontent with globalization gave him the presidency? Nothing good.
The irony here is that the same neoliberalism that Trump plans to strengthen created the conditions that allowed him to enter the
White House. Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was
for a time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial
collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under. Trump's victory is the direct result of the fact that American workers have
not been well served by the country's policymaking elites.
Yet the resistance that Trump's presidency has inspired across the country must also learn from the contradictions between
his economic nationalism and neoliberalism. Those who reject his phony populism must be careful not to dismiss the concerns of Trump's
voters, which has unfortunately been the response of too many who console themselves by deriding Trump's supporters as ignorant "deplorables"
who deserve what they will get. Going forward, all of those who want to resist the President's agenda must engage those left
behind by neoliberalism and provide them with an economic vision that addresses their very real concerns. After all, Trump's administration
will probably strengthen the forces that have hurt these citizens, and they will need representatives who are genuinely concerned
with their well-being if our political turmoil is to be put to rest.
Don't let his trade policy fool you: Trump is a neoliberal
(2/2) I think the truth is that many of these people are too far gone mentally and emotionally to ever come around to the "correct"
way of thinking (which is to say, they have been so brainwashed by reacting to facile nonsense like "liberty" and "freedom" that
they will believe anything as long as the argument is couched in those terms, despite the fact that when they vote they are indeed
consigning themselves and the rest of the country to a world without those very freedoms for anybody who's not supposedly "one
of them").
A great man once famously said "Conscience do cost." And boy, does it. Liberals need to get over their conscience once and
for all, and push back against conservatives the way conservatives have been for decades, but that can only happen if we are honest
about who we are arguing with, and call them out, boldly and proudly, on their intellectual failings.
(1/2) It's clear the authors don't expose themselves to right-wing news outlets. Far too much is made in liberal media about the
"deplorables" and how they feel suffocated by the economy (or more realistically, by the natural ebb and flow of capitalism),
but they belie the fact that so much of modern conservatism is more about being anti-liberal than it is about any sort of pro-conservative
ideology. The "deplorable" moniker has been adapted and co-opted by conservatives and is now worn proudly as a badge of honor
(in the same way "fake news" began as a liberal criticism of specific, deliberately-misleading media targeted towards the right,
but is now a term used almost exclusively by the right to blanket-describe literally any media that they disagree with). Any criticisms
of Trump are immediately met with criticisms of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or Democrats in general. Bring up the KKK's support
of Trump 3 months ago? They'll bring up how the KKK was invented by Democrats 150 years ago.
The authors are too nice/professional to say it, but liberals need to stop handling conservatives with kid gloves and start
calling them what they are: rubes. Because it's not enough that they vote against their own self-interest and the interests of
the country, they take it one further and are actively gleeful in depriving liberals of anything liberals might value. Conversely,
most liberals I know and read online don't have an active hatred of conservatives, instead they have compassion and want to educate
them, and I suppose the thought is that if only enough of these articles get written, they'll eventually come around.
Like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Trump was correct to criticize the Obama administration, whose economic team was for a
time staffed by neoliberal Democrats like Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, for saving Wall Street after the financial
collapse of 2008 while allowing Main Street to go under.
And here you have it. This is how Trump got elected. The Bernibots are the unwitting agent that gave us Trump. And they
are planing on doubling down
The problem with the last paragraph is that it tries once again to put the election in purely economic terms. It wasn't. It
was largely white cultural backlash. Much of his vote was driven by bans on immigration and a promise to maintain a white rural/suburban
culture by bringing jobs back like coal mining or manufacturing jobs to Northwood Michigan.
It is quite possible that Trump can win again in these areas despite implementing neoliberal policies. And it isn't that Democrats
don't have an economic message, they do. But it is one that includes and supports a much wider cultural base and one that many
of that WWC that voted for Trump don't want to hear.
I-Myslef 3/22/2017 1:37 PM EDT
NO. The Rust Belt was handed over to him by Bernie and non stop assault on Clinton and trade ...
"... When Trump himself calls the establishment's attitude toward Russia a " rigged witch hunt ," the question must arise: What is going on ..."
"... China is the world's second-largest economy and the top US creditor. It owns 19% of the US debt, more than any other nation. China's military expenditures are almost four times Russia's. Most experts agree that China is about to displace the US as the world's largest and most influential economy. Why Russia, and not China, is being painted as America's chief geopolitical foe is hard to grasp. ..."
As expected, the Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki produced a media circus across the Atlantic.
Western commentators were hell-bent on insulting President Donald Trump as a traitor and
denigrating President Vladimir Putin as an "
autocrat ," "dictator" and the "enemy" of the free world, the United States in
particular.
Never mind that Putin is an elected president and the whole of Russia is dreaming about
normalizing relations with the United States. Never mind that with all Robert Mueller's
indictments there's a long way to go to make a case for a Trump/Putin conspiracy. The point is,
Putin has become the Western media's devil incarnate, and Trump the same media's favorite
whipping boy.
When Trump himself calls the establishment's attitude toward Russia a " rigged witch
hunt ," the question must arise: What is going on and why does Russia have the honor
of being singled out in a world of dozens of real autocrats who hate the West and murder their
political opponents?
Yes, Russia is a big country with nuclear weapons, which allows it to shoot above its weight
in international politics. Yes, it openly supported the pro-Russian referendum in Crimea and
annexed the peninsula soon thereafter. And yes, it does provide military support to the
pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine. But given all the secessionist movements supported by outside
forces across the world, none of this (save nuclear weapons) is remarkable enough to merit the
special treatment.
At the same time, be it in politics or in the economy, Russia's real impact on the United
States is minuscule. Hacking or not, nobody can seriously claim that Moscow could sway the
outcome of the US presidential elections.
Russia does not make it to the list of the top 10 economies in the world, trailing South
Korea and Canada. The value of US goods exports to Russia in 2017 was less than US$7 billion,
while goods imports from Russia were valued at slightly more than $17 billion. The total trade
turnover was barely above 0.1% of the US gross domestic product.
China is the world's second-largest economy and the top US creditor. It owns 19% of the
US debt, more than any other nation. China's military expenditures are almost four times
Russia's. Most experts agree that China is about to displace the US as the world's largest and
most influential economy. Why Russia, and not China, is being painted as America's
chief geopolitical foe is hard to grasp.
Why Russia, and not China, is being painted as America's chief geopolitical foe is hard to
grasp. It is also hard to grasp the intensity of vilification of either Putin or Trump in
Western media
It is also hard to grasp the intensity of vilification of either Putin or Trump in Western
media. The Obama-era director of the US Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, calls the
summit "
nothing short of treasonous " – an accusation never applied to Trump's admittedly
one-sided concessions to Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post talks of
appeasement . The Daily Mirror calls Trump "
Putin's poodle ." The New York Times has muddied itself enough to carry a cartoon depicting
the two leaders as gay
lovers .
Such a level of hostility was not even demonstrated against the Soviet Union at the height
of the Cold War. It is clearly unimaginable with regards to Communist Party-led China or even
one-man-ruled North Korea. Yet it is acceptable and encouraged with respect to the third-rate
capitalist country that Russia has now become.
And it is here, perhaps, where the key to the puzzle lies. It is not wise to hurl
street-level insults at a country that is your real geopolitical competitor and has enough
power to make you regret your behavior. That was the case with the USSR yesterday, and this is
the case with the People's Republic of China today.
The ideological challenge presented to freewheeling capitalist individualism by stern
communist collectivism also helped to maintain a modicum of respect throughout the Cold War
years. It was only when Russia went capitalist, and conspicuously failed to advance into the
ranks of the top economies, that former respect gave way to contempt. It was only after Russia
abandoned its communist ethics that it became subject to the Western media hooliganism
exemplified by The New York Times' distasteful satire.
Western hatred of Putin cannot be explained by Crimea, or Donbass, or the alleged poisoning
of four individuals of no interest to the Kremlin by a military-grade nerve toxin with a
recognizably "Russian" signature. It can be explained by one thing only – Russia's
successful opposition to the US world-domination machine.
Were Russia still a Soviet socialist state, this hatred could yet be complemented by
respect. But a capitalist Russia trying to oppose the world's leading capitalist nation, while
falling ever further behind in trade and economy – such a Russia can only elicit hatred
complemented with contempt. Which makes for ever more vitriolic Russophrenia.
We're at a point now where it's really difficult to have an intelligent conversation, a
serious discussion, a rational debate about this stuff.
The reason being that the John Brennans of the world and the lib-Dem-media-neocon mob of
which he is a member, which now routinely traffic in hyperventilating accusations of treason,
have forfeited any claim to credibility or respect.
Having concocted the conspiracy-fantasy of Trump being a puppet of Putin and having
contrived a farcical criminal investigation of imaginary "collusion," that same mob staged
the latest ludicrous meltdown -- over Trump's bumbling, stumbling press conference in
Helsinki with the Evil Monster Putin.
The only appropriate response now to people like John Brennan and his cabal of fools is
sarcasm, mockery, and contempt. They are beyond the reach of reason or evidence or facts.
Indeed, they have zero interest in evidence or facts. They simply emote and spew.
The main question in my mind is this: are the John Brennans of the world really stupid
enough to believe their vicious nonsense or are they so hopelessly dishonest and lacking in
conscience that they propagate poisonous falsehoods for the simple reason they know it
advances their political agenda of delegitimizing Trump's presidency.
I'm guessing more the second than the first.
And if in the process, they whip up an atmosphere of venomous hysteria and damage
U.S.-Russia relations to the point where scholars like Stephen Cohen and John Mearsheimer
call the environment as dangerous as that which existed at the time of the U.S.-Soviet Cuban
missile crisis and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moves their Doomsday Clock to two
minutes before midnight (as recently happened) well, you gotta break some eggs to make an
omelette, right?
Honest to God, the dimension and character of this vast circus of corruption and lies is
breathtaking. It's downright freaking biblical.
"... The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support Trump and his policies: ..."
"... Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. ..."
"... Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder. ..."
"... The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons. ..."
"... Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy. ..."
President's Trump successful summit with President Putin was used by the 'resistance' and
the deep state to launch a coup-attempt against Trump. Their minimum aim is to put Trump into a
(virtual) political cage where he can no longer pursue his foreign policy agenda.
One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A
situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far
still does not add up to the
disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed.
The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the
military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want
more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital
does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support
Trump and his policies:
[P]olls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters
when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and
Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said
they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country.
Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a
hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled
the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded
these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties
conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder.
The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its
end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and
long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated
target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless
weapons.
Trump does not buy the
nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections and openly says so. He does not
believe that Russia wants to attack anyone. To him Russia is not an enemy.
Trump grand foreign policy is following a
realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese
camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia
out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better
tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy.
Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a "traitor" who had "committed high crimes"
in holding a friendly summit with Putin.
It can't get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire
political and media establishment in the US as a "treasonous" enemy of the state.
Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for
a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five
assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: "If you work for Trump, quit
now".
Some high ranking people working for Trump followed that advice. His chief of staff John
Kelly rallied
others against him:
According to three sources familiar with the situation, Kelly called around to Republicans on
Capitol Hill and gave them the go-ahead to speak out against Trump. (The White House did not
respond to a request for comment.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker
Paul Ryan held televised press conferences to assert that Russia did meddle in the election.
Others who attacked Trump over his diplomatic efforts with Russia
included the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats who used an widely distributed
interview for that:
The White House had little visibility into what Coats might say. The intelligence director's
team had turned down at least one offer from a senior White House official to help prepare
him for the long-scheduled interview, pointing out that he had known Mitchell for years and
was comfortable talking with her.
Coats was extraordinarily candid in the interview, at times questioning Trump's judgment
-- such as the president's decision to meet with Putin for two hours without any aides
present beyond interpreters -- and revealing the rift between the president and the
intelligence community.
FBI Director Wray also
undermined his boss' position:
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday defended Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a
"straight shooter," and said the Russia investigation is no "witch hunt."
Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Wray said he stood by his view that
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election in some capacity and that the threat
remained active.
A day latter Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement that contradicted his
president's policy:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis took his turn doing the implicit disavowing in a statement
about new military aid to Ukraine:
"Russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive, destabilizing behavior and its
illegal occupation of Ukraine. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is do we wish
to strengthen our partners in key regions or leave them with no other options than to turn to
Russia, thereby undermining a once in a generation opportunity to more closely align nations
with the U.S. vision for global security and stability."
Pat Lang
thinks that Trump should fire Coats, Wary and Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who
is overseeing the Mueller investigation.
My advice is to spare Rosenstein, for now, as firing him would lead to a great uproar in
Congress. The Mueller investigation has not brought up anything which is dangerous to Trump and
is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. He and Rosenstein can be fired at a latter
stage.
But Wray and Coats do deserve a pink slip and so do Kelly and Mattis. They are political
appointees who work 'at the pleasure of the President'.
The U.S. has the legislative and the judicative as a counterweight to the president who
leads the executive. The 'deep state' and its moles within the executive should have no role in
that balance. The elected president can and must demand loyalty from those who work for
him.
Those who sabotage him should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but
publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their
rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the
lawful policy directives of their higher up.
All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies.
But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and
doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating
their policies to him.
It will be impossible for Trump to get anything done if his direct subordinates, who work
'at his pleasure', publicly sabotage the implementation of his policies. Either he fires these
people or the borg will have won.
Throughout the day before the
summit in Helsinki, the lead story on the New York Times home page stayed the same: "Just by
Meeting With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead."
The Sunday headline was in harmony with the
tone of U.S. news coverage overall. As for media commentary, the Washington Post was in the
dominant groove as it editorialized that Russia's President Vladimir Putin is "an implacably
hostile foreign adversary."
Contempt for diplomacy with Russia is now extreme.
Mainline U.S.
journalists and top Democrats often bait President Donald Trump in zero-sum terms. No doubt Hillary
Clinton thought she was sending out an applause line in her
tweet
Sunday night:
"Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which team you play for?"
A bellicose stance toward Russia has become so routine and widespread that we might not
give it a second thought -- and that makes it all the more hazardous.
After President George
W. Bush declared "You're either with us or against us," many Americans gradually realized what was
wrong with a Manichean view of the world. Such an outlook is even more dangerous today.
Since early 2017, the U.S. mass media have laid it on thick with the rough political equivalent
of a painting technique known as chiaroscuro -- "the use of strong contrasts between light and dark,
usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition," in the words of Wikipedia.
The
Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and
victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).
Countless stories with selective facts are being told that way.
But other selectively
fact-based stories could also be told to portray the United States as a sinister victimizer and
Russia as an angelic victim.
Those governments and their conformist media outlets are
relentless in telling it either way. As the great journalist
I.F.
Stone
observed long ago, "All governments lie, and nothing they say should be believed." In
other words: don't trust, verify.
Often the biggest lies involve what remains unsaid. For instance, U.S. media rarely mention such
key matters as the promise-breaking huge expansion of NATO to Russia's borders since the fall of
the Berlin Wall, or the
brazen
U.S. intervention
in Russia's pivotal 1996 presidential election, or the U.S. government's 2002
withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the more than 800 U.S. military bases
overseas -- in contrast to Russia's nine.
For human survival on this planet, an overarching truth appears in an open letter published last
week by The Nation magazine:
"No political advantage, real or imagined, could possibly compensate for the
consequences if even a fraction of U.S. and Russian arsenals were to be utilized in a
thermonuclear exchange. The tacit pretense that the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations does not
worsen the odds of survival for the next generations is profoundly false."
The initial 26 signers of the open letter "
Common
Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security
" included Pentagon Papers whistleblower
Daniel Ellsberg, writer and feminist organizer Gloria Steinem, former UN ambassador Gov. Bill
Richardson, political analyst Noam Chomsky, former covert CIA operations officer Valerie Plame,
activist leader Rev. Dr. William Barber II, filmmaker Michael Moore, former Nixon White House
counsel John Dean, Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR Jack F.
Matlock Jr., Pulitzer Prize-winning writers Alice Walker and Viet Thanh Nguyen, The Nation editor
Katrina vanden Heuvel, former senator Adlai Stevenson III, and former longtime House Armed Services
Committee member Patricia Schroeder. (I was also one of the initial signers.)
Since its release five days ago, the open letter has gained support from
a
petition
already
signed by 45,000 people
. The petition campaign aims to amplify the call for protecting the
digital infrastructure of the electoral process that is now "vulnerable to would-be hackers based
anywhere" -- and for taking "concrete steps to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers."
We need a major shift in the U.S. approach toward Russia. Clearly the needed shift won't be
initiated by the Republican or Democratic leaders in Congress; it must come from Americans who make
their voices heard.
The lives -- and even existence -- of future generations are at stake in the
relationship between Washington and Moscow.
Many of the petition's grassroots signers have posted comments along with their names. Here are
a few of my favorites:
* From Nevada: "
We all share the same planet! We better learn how to do it safely or
face the consequences of blowing ourselves up!
"
* From New Mexico: "The earth will not survive a nuclear war. The weapons we have today are
able to cause much more destruction than those of previous eras. We must find a way to common
ground."
* From Massachusetts: "
It is imperative that we take steps to protect the sanctity
of our elections and to prevent nuclear war anywhere on the earth
."
* From Kentucky: "Secure elections are a fundamental part of a democratic system. But this
could become meaningless in the event of thermonuclear war."
* From California: "
There is only madness and hubris in talk of belligerence toward
others, especially when we have such dangerous weapons and human error has almost led to our
annihilation already more than once in the past half-century
."
Yet a wide array of media outlets, notably
the
"Russiagate"-obsessed
network
MSNBC
,
keeps egging on progressives to climb toward peaks of anti-Russian jingoism
. The line of
march is often in virtual lockstep with GOP hyper-hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey
Graham. The incessant drumbeat is in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of
militarism."
Meanwhile, as Dr. King said,
"We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence
or violent coannihilation."
My Father in law is one of the last of the Iwo Jima Marines...he is still of
sound mind, enough to say,
it takes far more courage for a man to solve a
conflict peacefully then to end it violently.
What sickness lies in the
hearts and minds of these people beating the drums of war is beyond me,
especially knowing none of them would ever risk their own lives. Add that to your
definition of Tyranny.
"Fun experiment: of those old enough, how many today who believe the "Trump is a Russian
asset" story, in 2003 believed the Iraq has WMD story? 'Cause the source who lied to you in
2003, the intel community, is your same source today."
Growing up as I did in the Nixon/Vietnam era, I developed a skepticism of the 'official'
story, something that served me well through Iran contra, incubator babies being tossed to
the floor, and WMD's (a skepticism reinforced at the time by Scott Ritter, among others). As
I recall, the WMD story was less a failure of intelligence as much as an administration
insisting on so-called 'stovepiped' intelligence to sell their war to an American public
through a mostly compliant MSM.
Regardless, my conclusion that Trump is a "Russian asset" is a result of my belief that
Trump- who has yet to disclose the financial information that would disprove that belief- is
reliant on Russian money, some or all of it organized crime related, to sustain his 'empire',
and that there is significant overlap between the Russian mob and the Russian government.
His actions as president haven't done anything to dispel me of my belief that he is a
'Russian asset', including his traitorous behavior this past week.
So British were involved in fabricating of 'Guccifer 2.0' persona. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... It was Matt Tait who, using the 'Twitter' handle @pwnallthethings, identified the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky in the 'metadata' of the 'Guccifer 2.0' material on 15 June 2016, the day after Ellen Nakashima first disseminated the BS from 'CrowdStrike' in the 'WP.' ..."
"... 'Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.' ..."
"... As I have noted before on SST, a cursory examination of records at 'Companies House' establishes that 'Capital Alpha Security', which was supposed to have provided Tait with an – independent – source of income at the time he unearthed this 'smoking gun' incriminating the GRU, never did any business at all. So, a question arises: how was Tait making ends meet at that time: busking on the London underground, perhaps? ..."
"... The document, when available, may clarify a few loose ends, but the general picture seems clear. Last November, Tait filed 'dormant company accounts' for the company's first year in existence, up until February 2017. One can only do this if one has absolutely no revenue, and absolutely no expenditure. Not even the smallest contract to sort out malware on someone's computer, or to buy equipment for the office. ..."
"... He then failed to file the 'Confirmation statement', which every company must is legally obliged to produce annually, if it is not to be struck off. This failure led to a 'First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off' in May. ..."
"... However, Tait may well anticipate that there is there will never be any call for him to go back into the big wide world, as the large organisation in which he has now found employment is part of a 'Borgist' network. So much is evident from another entry on the 'Lawfare' site: ..."
"... Also relevant here is the fact that, rather transparently, this placing of the GRU centre stage is bound up with the attempt to suggest that there is some kind of 'Gerasimov doctrine', designed to undermine the West by 'hybrid warfare.' Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted and confessed. In March, he published a piece on the 'Foreign Policy' site, under the title: 'I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'; I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.' ..."
"... Quite clearly, the 'Guccifer 2.0' persona is a crude fabrication by someone who has absolutely no understanding of, or indeed interest in, the bitter complexities of both of the history of Russia and of the 'borderlands', not only in the Soviet period but before and after. ..."
"... Jeffrey Carr is one of the latter, and his familiarity with intelligence matters is clear from his organization of the annual "Suits and Spooks" Conference. I believe he was the first to raise questions about the DNC hack which didn't pass his smell test. ..."
"... One quick way to know their bias is the AC test. Google their name plus "Atlantic Council". Ridd fails badly. ..."
"... The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues. The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the internet speeds to and from numerous test locations abroad and in the U.S., it was determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the DNC computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed of the transfer to a thumb drive. Additionally, it was found that the data had been manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer, when in fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence would be 100 to the 50th power. ..."
"... There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment. The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note. ..."
"... It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced in the Soviet Union when no one trusted the contents in Pravda. ..."
"... What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats. ..."
"... I agree that taken by itself, the Dzerzinsky thing would be an anomaly only and could be dismissed as "black humor" of a kind often found in hackers. However, taken with all the other evidence produced by Adam Carter, it becomes much more obviously an attempt to support a false flag "Russian hacker" narrative that otherwise is porous. ..."
"... You want us to believe that the GRU are so sloppy and so inexperienced that they would launch a hack on the DNC and not take every measure to ensure there was no link whatsoever to anything Russian? Any former intel officer worth a damn knows that an operation to disrupt the election in a country the size of the United States would start with a risk/reward assessment, would require a team of at least 100 persons and would not be writing any code that could in any way be traced to Russia. ..."
"... Doctrine-mongering and repeating birth of new faux-academic "entities", such as a "hybrid war" (any war is hybrid by definition), is a distinct feature of the Western "political science-military history" establishment. Galeotti, who for some strange reason passes as Russia "expert" is a perfect example of such "expertise" and doctrine-mongering. Military professionals largely met this "hybrid warfare" BS with disdain. ..."
"... I have to say that the more I look into this whole Russiagate affair, which is mostly in the minds of democrats (and a few republicans) and the MSM, the more it seems that there is indeed a foreign conspiracy to meddle in the internal affairs of the US (and in the presidential elections) but the meddling entity is not Russia. It is the British! ..."
"... So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don't question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven't been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax. ..."
As some commenters on SST seem still to have difficulty grasping that the presence of 'metadata' alluding to 'Iron Felix' in the
'Guccifer 2.0' material is strong evidence that the GRU were being framed over a leak, rather than that they were responsible for
a hack, an update on the British end of the conspiracy seems in order.
If you look at the 'Lawfare' blog, in which a key figure is James Comey's crony Benjamin Wittes, you will find a long piece published
last Friday, entitled 'Russia Indictment 2.0: What to Make of Mueller's Hacking Indictment.'
Among the authors, in addition to Wittes himself, is the sometime GCHQ employee Matt Tait. It appears that the former head of
that organisation, the Blairite 'trusty' Robert Hannigan, who must know where a good few skeletons are buried, is a figure of some
moment in the conspiracy.
It was Matt Tait who, using the 'Twitter' handle @pwnallthethings, identified the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky in the 'metadata'
of the 'Guccifer 2.0' material on 15 June 2016, the day after Ellen Nakashima first disseminated the BS from 'CrowdStrike' in the
'WP.'
The story was picked up the following day in a report on the 'Ars Technica' site, and Tait's own account appeared on the 'Lawfare'
site, to which he has been a regular contributor, on 28 July.
According to the CV provided in conjunction with the new article:
'Matt Tait is a senior cybersecurity fellow at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University
of Texas at Austin. Previously he was CEO of Capital Alpha Security, a consultancy in the UK, worked at Google Project Zero, was
a principal security consultant for iSEC Partners, and NGS Secure, and worked as an information security specialist for GCHQ.'
As I have noted before on SST, a cursory examination of records at 'Companies House' establishes that 'Capital Alpha Security',
which was supposed to have provided Tait with an – independent – source of income at the time he unearthed this 'smoking gun' incriminating
the GRU, never did any business at all. So, a question arises: how was Tait making ends meet at that time: busking on the London
underground, perhaps?
Actually, there has been a recent update in the records. Somewhat prematurely perhaps, there is an entry dated 24 July 2018, entitled
'Final Gazette dissolved via compulsory strike-off. This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.'
The document, when available, may clarify a few loose ends, but the general picture seems clear. Last November, Tait filed 'dormant
company accounts' for the company's first year in existence, up until February 2017. One can only do this if one has absolutely no
revenue, and absolutely no expenditure. Not even the smallest contract to sort out malware on someone's computer, or to buy equipment
for the office.
He then failed to file the 'Confirmation statement', which every company must is legally obliged to produce annually, if it is
not to be struck off. This failure led to a 'First Gazette notice for compulsory strike-off' in May.
It is, of course, possible that at the time Tait set up the company he was genuinely intending to try to make a go of a consultancy,
and simply got sidetracked by other opportunities.
However – speaking from experience – people who have set up small 'one man band' companies to market skills learnt in large organisations,
and then go back into such organisations, commonly think it worth their while to spend the minimal amount of time required to file
the documentation required to keep the company alive.
If one sees any realistic prospect that one may either want to or need to go back into the big wide world again, this is the sensible
course of action: particularly now when, with the internet, filing the relevant documentation takes about half an hour a year, and
costs a trivial sum.
However, Tait may well anticipate that there is there will never be any call for him to go back into the big wide world, as the
large organisation in which he has now found employment is part of a 'Borgist' network. So much is evident from another entry on
the 'Lawfare' site:
'Bobby Chesney is the Charles I. Francis Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Texas School
of Law. He also serves as the Director of UT-Austin's interdisciplinary research center the Robert S. Strauss Center for International
Security and Law. His scholarship encompasses a wide range of issues relating to national security and the law, including detention,
targeting, prosecution, covert action, and the state secrets privilege; most of it is posted here. Along with Ben Wittes and Jack
Goldsmith, he is one of the co-founders of the blog.'
Also relevant here is the fact that, rather transparently, this placing of the GRU centre stage is bound up with the attempt to
suggest that there is some kind of 'Gerasimov doctrine', designed to undermine the West by 'hybrid warfare.' Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted
and confessed. In March, he published a piece on the 'Foreign Policy' site, under the title: 'I'm Sorry for Creating the 'Gerasimov
Doctrine'; I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.'
If anyone wants to grasp what the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, General Valery Gerasimov,
was actually saying in the crucial February 2013 article which Galeotti was discussing, and how his thinking has developed subsequently,
the place to look is, as so often, the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth.
In relation to the ongoing attempt to frame the GRU, it is material that, in his 2013 piece, Gerasimov harks back to two pivotal
figures in the arguments of the interwar years. Of these, Georgy Isserson, the Jewish doctor's son from Kaunas who became a Civil
War 'political commissar' and then a key associate of Mikhail Tukhachevsky, was the great pioneer theorist of 'deep operations.'
The ideas of the other, Aleksandr Svechin, the former Tsarist 'genstabist', born in Odessa into an ethnically Russian military
family, who was the key opponent of Tukhachevky and Isserson in the arguments of the 'Twenties, provided key parts of the intellectual
basis of the Gorbachev-era 'new thinking.'
The 'Ars Technica' article in which Tait's claims were initially disseminated opened:
'We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 – the nom
de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove
it – left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.'
In his 2013 article, Gerasimov harks back to the catastrophe which overcame the Red Army in June 1941. Ironically, this was the
product of the Stalinist leadership's disregard of the cautions produced not only by Svechin, but by Isserson. In regard to the latter,
the article remarks that:
'The fate of this "prophet of the Fatherland" unfolded tragically. Our country paid in great quantities of blood for not listening
to the conclusions of this professor of the General Staff Academy.'
As it happens, while both Svechin and Tukhachevsky were shot by the heirs of 'Felix Edmundovich', the sentence of death on Isserson
was commuted, and he spent the war in prison and labour camps, while others used his ideas to devastating effect against the Germans.
Quite clearly, the 'Guccifer 2.0' persona is a crude fabrication by someone who has absolutely no understanding of, or indeed
interest in, the bitter complexities of both of the history of Russia and of the 'borderlands', not only in the Soviet period but
before and after.
Using this criterion as a 'filter', the obvious candidates are traditional Anglo-Saxon 'Russophobes', like Sir Richard Dearlove
and Christopher Steele, or the 'insulted and injured' of the erstwhile Russian and Soviet empires, so many of them from the 'borderlands',
of the type of Victoria Nuland, or the various Poles, Ukrainians and Balts and Jews who have had so much influence on American policy.
(I should note that other Jews, not only in Russia, but outside, including in Israel, think quite differently, in particular as
they are very well aware, as Isserson would have been, of the extent to which 'borderlands' nationalists were enthusiastic collaborators
with the Germans in the 'Final Solution'. On this, there is a large and growing academic literature.)
It is not particularly surprising that many of the victims of the Russian and Soviet empires have enjoyed seeing the tables turned,
and getting their own back. But it is rather far from clear that this makes for good intelligence or sound policy. We were unable
to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting
guide .
How does the objective truth get disclosed in an environment of extreme deceit by so many parties?
How to trust western intelligence when they have such a long and sordid track record of deceit, lies and propaganda? At the
same time there is such a long history of Russian and Chinese intelligence and information operations against the west.
Then there is the nexus among the highest levels of US law enforcement and intelligence as well as political elites in both
parties and key individuals in the media complex.
We are living in a hall of mirrors and it seems the trend is towards confirmation bias in information consumption.
Excellent post, especially the debunking of the 'Gerasimov doctrine' which I always thought was more hand-waving and Russian mind-reading.
It's important to realize that there are a number of people in the infosec community who have biases against Russia, just as
there are in the general population. Then there are more cautious people, who recognize the difficulty in attributing a hack to
any specific person absent solid, incontrovertible, non-circumstantial and non-spoofable (and preferably offline) evidence.
Tait doesn't appear to be one of the latter. Thomas Rid would be another. There are others.
Jeffrey Carr is one of the latter, and his familiarity with intelligence matters is clear from his organization of the annual
"Suits and Spooks" Conference. I believe he was the first to raise questions about the DNC hack which didn't pass his smell test.
There are also a number of companies in infosec who rely on latching onto a particular strain of hacker, the more publicly
exploitable for PR purposes the better, as a means of keeping the company name in front of potential high-profile and highly billable
clients. CrowdStrike and its Russia obsession isn't the only one that's been tagged with that propensity.
Mandiant could be referred to as the "Chinese, all the time" company, for example. Richard Bejtlich was at Fireeye and the
became Chief Security Officer when they acquired Mandiant. He spent quite a bit of effort on his blog warning about the Chinese
military buildup as a huge threat to the US. He's former USAF so perhaps that's not surprising.
Glad David's comment has been reproduced as a post in its own right, this is a critically important topic. IMO Matt Tait plays
the role of midwife in this conspiracy. His
Twitter thread
The Comey, Brennan, Mueller claim - indeed a central one upon which the recent indictment rests- that Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian
State agent that hacked the DNC- was discredited and put to rest last year by the forensics conducted by Bill Binney and his colleagues.
The Guccifer 2.0 metadata was analyzed for its transmission speed, and based on the internet speeds to and from numerous test
locations abroad and in the U.S., it was determined to have been impossible for the so-called Guccifer 2.0 to have hacked the
DNC computers over the internet. The transmission speed however did correspond to the speed of the transfer to a thumb drive.
Additionally, it was found that the data had been manipulated and split into two parts to simulate a July and a September transfer,
when in fact the parts merge perfectly as single file, and where, according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence
would be 100 to the 50th power.
As for the crude trace fingerprints (e.g. the referencing of Dzerzinsky), one of the Wikileaks data dumps (Vault 7 Marble)
during a period when Assange was negotiating with the Administration - there were two at the time (Vault 7 Marble and Vault 7
Grasshopper), the release of which apparently enraged Mike Pompeo- was designed to obfuscate, fabricate and frame countries such
as Russia, Iran or North Korea by pretending to be the target country, including in the use of target's alphabet and language.
VIPs has written numerous articles on this in Consortium News. See also the report by Patrick Lawrence Smith in The Nation
at:
https://www.thenation.com/a... . (It was apparently so hot at the time- and disputed by several other VIPs members- that The
Nation sought an independent assessment by third party, though those comments were easily addressed and dismissed in seriatim
by Binney in an annex to the article.)
Binney has explained his forensic analysis and conclusions at numerous forums, and in a sit-down with Secretary Pompeo in October,
2017- though Mueller, the FBI, and mainstream and some of the alternative press seem either deaf, dumb and blind to it all, or
interested in discrediting the study. The irony is, I'd venture to guess, that Binney, with his 40 years of experience, including
as Technical Director and technical guru at the NSA, is, even in retirement, more sophisticated in these matters than any one
at the Agency, or the FBI, or CIA, or certainly, the Congressional Intelligence Committees. So, it is astounding that any or all
of them could have, but did not, invite him to testify as an expert.
Moreover, the NSA has a record of every transmission, and also would have it on backup files. And, the FBI has been sitting
on Seth Rich's computer and his communications with Wikileaks, and presumably has a report that it has not released. And of course,
as Trump asked in his press conference, where's the DNC server, any or all of which would put this question to rest.
The last clause of the first paragraph should have said: "according to Binney, the probability of the split being a coincidence
would be one over 100 to the 50th power
There is a pattern of abuse of formerly well regarded institutions to achieve the propaganda aims of the Deep State establishment.
The depths that were plumbed to push the Iraq WMD falsehoods are well known. Yet no one was held to account nor was there any
honest accounting of the abuse. There have been pretenses like the Owen inquiry that you note.
We see the same situation of sweeping under the rug malfeasance and even outright criminality through obfuscation and obstruction
in the case of the meddling in the 2016 election by top officials in intelligence and law enforcement. Clearly less and less people
are buying what the Deep State sells despite their overwhelming control of the media channels.
It seems that we are marching towards a credibility crisis similar to what was experienced in the Soviet Union when no
one trusted the contents in Pravda.
What is to be gained by the leadership in Britain in promoting these biological weapons cases since Litvinenko? In the
US it is quite apparent that the Deep State have become extremely powerful and the likelihood that Trump recognizes that resistance
is futile is very high. Schumer may be proven right that they have six ways from Sunday to make you kowtow to their dictats.
That was one of the changes being hoped for when Obama was first elected. Instead we got little, except for things such as
bailed out bankers and the IRS scandal which lasted until the end of his 2nd term. The panic from the left over the 2016 election
issues the are still going on is that the expected candidate isn't in office and they are being exposed. Whether they get prosecuted
is another story.
I think Matt Tait, David Habakkuk and many others are reading far more into this Dzerzinsky thing than what it warrants. The government
dependent ID cards used by my family while I was working as a clandestine case officer overseas were signed by Robert Ludlum.
Intelligence officers often have an odd sense of humor.
On a different note, I fully endorse David Habakkuk's recommendation of the writings of Bartles, McDermott and many others
at the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth. They are top notch. I learned a lot from Tim Thomas many years ago.
I agree that taken by itself, the Dzerzinsky thing would be an anomaly only and could be dismissed as "black humor" of a kind
often found in hackers. However, taken with all the other evidence produced by Adam Carter, it becomes much more obviously an
attempt to support a false flag "Russian hacker" narrative that otherwise is porous.
I believe there is a phrase going something like "an attempt to add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."
You want us to believe that the GRU are so sloppy and so inexperienced that they would launch a hack on the DNC and not
take every measure to ensure there was no link whatsoever to anything Russian? Any former intel officer worth a damn knows that
an operation to disrupt the election in a country the size of the United States would start with a risk/reward assessment, would
require a team of at least 100 persons and would not be writing any code that could in any way be traced to Russia.
Unfortunately, the original author of this claptrap, Mark Galeotti, who, I regret to say, is, like Tait, British, has now recanted
and confessed.
Doctrine-mongering and repeating birth of new faux-academic "entities", such as a "hybrid war" (any war is hybrid by definition),
is a distinct feature of the Western "political science-military history" establishment. Galeotti, who for some strange reason
passes as Russia "expert" is a perfect example of such "expertise" and doctrine-mongering. Military professionals largely met
this "hybrid warfare" BS with disdain.
I have to say that the more I look into this whole Russiagate affair, which is mostly in the minds of democrats (and a few
republicans) and the MSM, the more it seems that there is indeed a foreign conspiracy to meddle in the internal affairs of the
US (and in the presidential elections) but the meddling entity is not Russia. It is the British!
So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don't question
the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven't been laggards in adding fuel to the fire
by the whole novichok hoax.
This needs to be looked at in more detail by the alternative media and well informed commentators like the host of this site.
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp
creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees,
on July 12.
In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely
expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."
But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.
Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that
makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.
As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community
Philip Haney's IC
any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired
if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the
authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others.
Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.
Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.
A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers
in the "Intelligence Community"?
As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your
own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr.
Strzok.
Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True
to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan
has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.
The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National
Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful
performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility
of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism
about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.
As one wag
noted
, not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives
and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."
Pray tell, since when does the Deep State --
FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The
president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.
That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's
initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into
quite a few recreational, hobby wars.
And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and
bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to
hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help
shape FBI counterterrorism training.
The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad
media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign
ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."
Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire
stipulated
that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did
we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60
transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,"
wrote
the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from
the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds
to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."
While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question
their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."
Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.
"... By creating an extremely anti-communist state, the elite will never have to worry about losing control over society because their wealth and power remains safe and sound. ..."
It is an evolution of conspiracy theory, not requiring any kind of convoluted logic or
story telling that used to be required for conspiracy theory to stick. Fake News allows for
simple, truthful, and logical information to be dismissed out of hand, without
examination.
Here's an ad about COCs (PDF) from
1942. They're used for tanning leather, in soaps and perfumes, as insect repellents, for
dying cloth, as antiseptics, and for many, many other commercial and industrial
purposes.
Damn those Syrian butchers for dropping perfume on civilians!
Fake News is the 21st century version of Conspiracy Theory.
It is an evolution of conspiracy theory, not requiring any kind of convoluted logic or
story telling that used to be required for conspiracy theory to stick. Fake News allows
for simple, truthful, and logical information to be dismissed out of hand, without
examination.
@The Voice In the
Wilderness In the dim reaches of pre-history, when Walter Cronkite was reporting, a
real journalist wouldn't report that someone launched a chemical weapons attack unless the
journalist had at least two credible, independent sources providing solid evidence that the
story was true. Newspaper editors and television producers knew their reputations were on the
line and that their competitors would make sure the egg on their face stuck if they reported
something blatantly wrong.
Nowadays, there are no competitors, because journalists and news outlets are mostly
hanging out together in one big cheery cartel, every member of which will defend every other
member to protect the reputation of the whole. The goal is not to outdo competitors and gain
more eyeballs or a greater distribution or greater authority over public opinion. The goal is
to defend the status quo by any means necessary, while somehow maintaining the credibility of
the press.
But no, they shouldn't have published a story that Assad had launched a chemical weapons
attack unless they had a significant amount of solid evidence that it was true.
I have a hard time understanding how people can even begin to credit this crap, given how
close it is to what they told us about Saddam Hussein. But it's actually even worse, because
at least Hussein did, at one time, use chemical weapons on the Kurds. I mean, at least he did
it once, even if he didn't have weapons of mass destruction ready to aim at Israel, or the
Saudis, or the U.S.
#7
It was big news. But failure to report it as false with just as much (or more) attention
and timing was journalistic malpractice. They should have been outraged to have been
conned into spreading false propaganda. IF they were legitimate journalists.
@Cant Stop the
Macedonian Signal
I don't know that anyone waits for confirmation anymore. And the two sources could
be the CIA and VOA or one of their tame journalists.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. After they all jumped on Saddam's WMD one can
hardly compare them with Cronkite.
I do remember web blogs asking to please wait for the UN inspectors report. When that
report did come out, anyone with integrity, even if not a professional journalist, would have
highlighted that report and retracted the original and not figuratively bury it on page
56.
But we are substantially together on this. They reported is as fact not as an
unsubstantiated claim.
Chomsky's Five News Filters: A little dated but a good starting point.
The first filter is Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media. Mainstream
media is essentially owned by corporations and the government, because those are the very
agents who fund them. Any favourable studies, studies or information that the government or
corporations want the public to know (or don't want them to know) either ends up being aired
or buried as a result.
The second filter is Advertising License to do Business. Mass media isn't interested in
attracting viewers to educate them, but rather to sell them on something. They're more
interested in engaging an audience with higher buying power than actually making a difference
through education and information. Chomsky provides an excellent example, explaining: "CBS proudly tells its shareholders that while it "continuously seeks to maximize audience
delivery," it has developed a new "sales tool" with which it approaches advertisers: "Client
Audience Profile, or CAP, will help advertisers optimize the effectiveness of their network
television schedules by evaluating audience segments in proportion to usage levels of
advertisers' products and services." In short, the mass media are interested in attracting
audiences with buying power, not audiences per se."
The third filter is Sourcing Mass-Media News. Whatever is aired on mass media needs to be
100% credible, meaning it's viewers need to completely trust what's being aired, without the
need of them using their critical thinking skills. Since the majority of the public trusts
the government and mass corporations, AKA the propaganda machines, most of the "news worthy"
content comes from them. Plus, whatever's aired needs to be approved by corporations or the
government and/or mass media must avoid airing anything that would offend their contributors
and funders.
The fourth filter is Flak and the Enforcers. "Flak" refers to negative responses to a
media statement or program aired on the network. Perhaps the most influential producers of
flak are corporations and the government. Corporations have created large scale organizations
whose sole purpose is to produce flak. The government is also a large producer of flak, as it
constantly corrects or threatens the media based on their interests.
The final filter is Anticommunism as a Control Mechanism. Everything at home seems to be a
lesser evil if there's something on the news that seems much worse (fake terrorist attacks,
false enemies, and/or "radical" states). Anything that sounds too left can also be dismissed
if it sounds too much like "communism." By creating an extremely anti-communist state, the
elite will never have to worry about losing control over society because their wealth and
power remains safe and sound.
@fakenews
namely big, opinion-policing non-profits and their lobbyists and followers, ranging from
religious denominations, to AIPAC and the NRA, to the ADL and SPLC.
So the DNC announced Russia hacked them, and "proved" it with a file they say was
stolen. But that file was not the DNC's. So the "proof" of Russia hacking the DNC is
nonexistent.
Notable quotes:
"... they cite an anonymous former DNC official who asserts that Guccifer 2.0's first document (the Trump opposition report) did not originate in the DNC as initially reported. ..."
"... The importance of this contradiction, combined with earlier allegations of hacking the DNC made by Guccifer 2.0, cannot be overstated. ..."
"... " There were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta's inbox, according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press." ..."
"... By classifying Guccifer 2.0's claim to have obtained the Trump Opposition Report through a breach of the DNC as a sign of dishonesty, the Associated Press uses the Guccifer 2.0 persona's widely held claim as an example of contradiction with their new version of the 'official' Russian hacking narrative. In so doing, the AP makes the hacking allegations entirely nebulous: a fantasy narrative that can be neither proven nor disproven but easily edited and rearranged when convenient. Incredibly, the AP's article also contradicts the claims made by the DNC themselves, and so-called papers of record, including the Washington Post. ..."
"... [Fancy Bear] broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files,[Shawn] Henry said." ..."
"... "Investigators would have been able to rapidly determine if there were textual differences between Guccifer 2.0's document and the DNC's. If there were no textual differences, an initial determination might have been difficult, because Guccifer 2.0 went to some trouble to obscure internal metadata, known as Revision Save ID's (RSID's), which can be used to uniquely identify sections of text that have been changed and added into a Word document. However, when the Podesta emails were published in October 2016, investigators should have been able to source Guccifer 2.0's document to the Podesta emails quickly. They would have been able to do this before the 2016 election, a full year ahead of the AP report." [Emphasis Added] ..."
"... Ultimately, it is the DNC's claim that they were breached by Russian hackers, who stole the Trump opposition report, which directly belies their allegation - because the document did not come from the DNC, but from John Podesta's emails. ..."
"... What is interesting here is that the AP admits that such elements of the document's publication had been fabricated, but did not then follow that realization by questioning other possibly fabricated elements of the documents, such as the Russian-language error messages. The AP certainly did not concern themselves with why a Russian state-sponsored hacker would benefit from airbrushing "confidential" onto such a report. Their claim that it was to attract media attention seems quite weak. ..."
"... AP surmised that Guccifer 2.0 "air-brush[ed]" the word "confidential" into the document to "catch the reporter's attention." Both Carter and the Forensicator have explained that Guccifer 2.0 used a complex process, involving an intermediate template document, to inject this "alluring" fake. The Forensicator told this author that they take the position that this intermediate template file (ostensibly needed to add "CONFIDENTIAL" to the document) had an additional purpose. ..."
"... The Forensicator explained that, for some readers and researchers, the copy/paste of an intermediate (RTF) copy of the Trump opposition report into a template document might be interpreted simply as an unconventional method for injecting "confidential" into 1.doc. However, the Forensicator added, it can also be interpreted as a "cover" for the final copy/paste operation which was a necessary step in the evolution of Guccifer 2.0's first document. It was needed to embed the Russian error messages into the final document (1.doc). ..."
"... In their full analysis, the Forensicator wrote that it was surprising that neither outlet reported on the easily viewed "Last Saved By" property, which listed "Феликс Эдмундович" (aka "Iron Felix") as the user who last saved the document. This unique name was noticed by various social media observers that same day and by Ars Technica the following day. How did the journalists miss this, and why? ..."
"... Both Gawker and The Smoking Gun published Guccifer 2.0's Trump opposition report in full as a PDF file. Their PDF files have the now infamous Cyrillic error messages in them; they appear in the last few pages of their PDF files. Ars Technica dubbed these error messages, "Russian fingerprints." ..."
"... Ars Technica reported on Guccifer 2.0's publication of the Trump Opposition Report the day after Guccifer 2.0 arrived on the scene. They quickly noted that there were Russian language error messages in the PDF file posted by Gawker. They also noticed that when they viewed 1.doc themselves, they didn't see the Russian error messages. The Forensicator told Disobedient Media that this was because Ars Technica used Word for Windows, which displayed the error messages in English. ..."
"... So the DNC announced Russia hacked them, and "proved" it with a file they say was stolen.But that file was not the DNC's. So the "proof" of Russia hacking the DNC is nonexistent. ..."
Disobedient Media recently reported on discoveries made by the Forensicator in their report,
Media Mishaps: Early Guccifer 2 Coverage . In our previous coverage of the Forensicator's work,
we discussed the essential role played by the media in ensuring that the Guccifer 2.0 persona
received wide recognition by successfully linking Guccifer 2.0's documents with the DNC's
claims that Russian state-sponsored hackers had breached their servers.
This report will focus on an unreported story: After the fact, the DNC quietly changed an
important theme in their Russian hacking narrative. Initially, the DNC passively supported the
notion that Guccifer 2.0 stole a copy of a Trump opposition report by penetrating the DNC at
the behest of the Russian state. Then over a year later, an un-named ex-DNC official tells us
that this document in fact came from Podesta's emails, not the DNC. This single statement by a
DNC official invalidated the circumstantial evidence that had been used to support the DNC's
Russian hacking claims, and represents a groundbreaking contradiction that has gone unobserved
by establishment press outlets.
This report will also discuss numerous mistakes made by various legacy press outlets in
their obsessive focus on the Russian hacking narrative and their rush to judgment in the
matter.
A Late (and Quiet) Change in the DNC Russian Hacking Narrative
In November 2017, the DNC changed their Russian hacking narrative via their proxies in the
legacy media. The Associated Press published, Inside story: How Russians hacked the
Democrats' emails ; they cite an anonymous former DNC official who asserts that Guccifer
2.0's first document (the Trump opposition report) did not originate in the DNC as initially
reported.
The importance of this contradiction, combined with earlier allegations of hacking
the DNC made by Guccifer 2.0, cannot be overstated.
The Associated Press wrote in November 2017:
" There were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0
published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta's inbox, according to
a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to
speak to the press."
By classifying Guccifer 2.0's claim to have obtained the Trump Opposition Report through a
breach of the DNC as a sign of dishonesty, the Associated Press uses the Guccifer 2.0
persona's widely held claim as an example of contradiction with their new version of the
'official' Russian hacking narrative. In so doing, the AP makes the hacking allegations
entirely nebulous: a fantasy narrative that can be neither proven nor disproven but easily
edited and rearranged when convenient. Incredibly, the AP's article also contradicts the claims
made by the DNC themselves, and so-called papers of record, including the Washington Post.
By returning to the genesis of the Russian hacking narrative, we find that the AP's November
report runs contrary to the DNC's initial claims, as reported by The Washington Post , in an
article titled, Russian Government Hackers Penetrated DNC, Stole Opposition Research OnTrump . When reviewing this early history of the matter, it becomes clear that it is
logically impossible to separate the Guccifer 2.0 persona from the allegations of a
Kremlin-backed hack of the DNC. Critical statements in that initial report by the Washington
Post are highlighted below for emphasis:
"Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National
Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP Presidential
candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to
the breach
[Fancy Bear] broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research
files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files,[Shawn] Henry
said."
By taking this later (2017) stance, the Associated Press contradicts the "official" Russian
hacking narrative involving Guccifer 2.0 (as implied by the DNC's own security firm) and which
had, until that point, been characterized by the corporate press as
Russian-hacking-gospel-truth. By seamlessly excising Guccifer 2.0 from culpability within a new
timeline of events, the Associated Press makes the entire hacking story a fantasy narrative
that can be neither proven nor disproven but must not be questioned.
The Forensicator explained to Disobedient Media:
"Investigators would have been able to rapidly determine if there were textual
differences between Guccifer 2.0's document and the DNC's. If there were no textual
differences, an initial determination might have been difficult, because Guccifer 2.0 went to
some trouble to obscure internal metadata, known as Revision Save ID's (RSID's), which can be
used to uniquely identify sections of text that have been changed and added into a Word
document. However, when the Podesta emails were published in October 2016, investigators should
have been able to source Guccifer 2.0's document to the Podesta emails quickly. They would have
been able to do this before the 2016 election, a full year ahead of the AP report."
[Emphasis Added]
The Forensicator then referred this author to a table in his report, depicting the metadata
for Podesta's version of the Trump opposition report:
As we can see, the document was saved by Tony Carrk, who worked as Research Director for
Hillary for America at the time. This document was attached to this Podesta email .
The Forensicator continued, saying: "We can see that Mr. Carrk made some change that took
less than one minute to complete. If investigators compared Carrk's version of the document to
the original DNC document, they should have been able to quickly determine that Guccifer 2's
document is sourced from Podesta's emails and not directly from the DNC. For this, an RSID
correlation would have probably been telling."
Why did the DNC, their security consultant firm Crowdstrike, and government investigators
wait so long to tell us that Guccifer 2.0 did not obtain their copy of the Trump opposition
report directly from the DNC? Why did Crowdstrike tell the Washington Post
that the opposition report files had been stolen specifically from the DNC network if that were
not the case?
The legacy press chorus had initially linked Guccifer 2.0's first document, and the "Russian
fingerprints" therein to the Trump opposition report that the DNC claimed to have been stolen
by Russian state-sponsored hackers. What prompted them to change their story, contradicting not
only Guccifer 2.0 but the DNC themselves? Should we now assess the DNC's claim that the
document had been taken by Russian hackers to be untrue?
Ultimately, it is the DNC's claim that they were breached by Russian hackers, who stole
the Trump opposition report, which directly belies their allegation - because the document did
not come from the DNC, but from John Podesta's emails.
Is it possible that Mueller's investigation may have taken a closer look into the origin of
Guccifer 2.0's initial document, realizing that it was sourced from Podesta's email? The DNC
and government investigators may have then decided that the best way to obscure the resulting
contradictory evidence was by letting it quietly leak via a "former DNC official who spoke on
the condition of anonymity," in the November 2017 article published by the Associated
Press.
Given the repeated contradictions from the DNC and corporate media in their description of
Russian interference in the 2016 US Presidential race, how can the public be expected to
believe that their other claims have any legitimacy whatsoever?
The AP's November 2017 article also noticed that Guccifer 2.0's first published document
contained the word CONFIDENTIAL, while the original document did not. This was old news to
anyone who had been paying attention; Adam Carter analyzed this artifact nine months
earlier:
What is interesting here is that the AP admits that such elements of the document's
publication had been fabricated, but did not then follow that realization by questioning other
possibly fabricated elements of the documents, such as the Russian-language error messages. The
AP certainly did not concern themselves with why a Russian state-sponsored hacker would benefit
from airbrushing "confidential" onto such a report. Their claim that it was to attract media
attention seems quite weak.
AP surmised that Guccifer 2.0 "air-brush[ed]" the word "confidential" into the document to
"catch the reporter's attention." Both Carter and the Forensicator have explained that Guccifer
2.0 used a complex process, involving an intermediate template document, to inject this
"alluring" fake. The Forensicator told this author that they take the position that this
intermediate template file (ostensibly needed to add "CONFIDENTIAL" to the document) had an
additional purpose.
The Forensicator explained that, for some readers and researchers, the copy/paste of an
intermediate (RTF) copy of the Trump opposition report into a template document might be
interpreted simply as an unconventional method for injecting "confidential" into 1.doc.
However, the Forensicator added, it can also be interpreted as a "cover" for the final
copy/paste operation which was a necessary step in the evolution of Guccifer 2.0's first
document. It was needed to embed the Russian error messages into the final document
(1.doc).
Once again, establishment media failed to pursue their cited evidence with due diligence.
This is a grave mistake, especially given the way in which Guccifer 2.0's alleged 'hacking' has
been used as a major bolstering point for increased tensions between the United States and
Russia.
Initially, Gawker and The Smoking Gun Didn't Notice Iron Felix
Guccifer 2.0 made his noisy debut on June 15, 2016 (the day after the DNC publicly claimed
it had been breached by Russian state-sponsored hackers). It also appears that Guccifer 2.0
gave advanced copies of their doctored version of the Trump opposition report to two media
outlets, The Smoking Gun and Gawker.
In their full analysis, the Forensicator wrote that it was surprising that neither outlet
reported on the easily viewed "Last Saved By" property, which listed
"Феликс
Эдмундович" (aka "Iron Felix") as
the user who last saved the document. This unique name was noticed by various social media
observers that same day and by Ars Technica the following day. How did the journalists miss
this, and why?
Initially, Gawker and The Smoking Gun Didn't Notice the Russian Error Messages
Both Gawker and The Smoking Gun published Guccifer 2.0's Trump opposition report in full as
a PDF file. Their PDF files have the now infamous Cyrillic error messages in them; they appear
in the last few pages of their PDF files. Ars Technica dubbed these error messages, "Russian
fingerprints."
Although both outlets reviewed this document in some detail, neither outlet noticed the
Russian error messages in their first reports. The Forensicator suggests that, given their
choice of word processing applications, they would have seen the Russian error messages, if
only they had viewed the last few pages of each file. That is, unless (perhaps) they received
their PDF's directly from Guccifer 2.0 or another third party and they just passed them
along.
Ars Technica was Confused When They Didn't See the Russian Error Messages in Guccifer 2.0's
Word Document
Ars Technica reported on Guccifer 2.0's publication of the Trump Opposition Report the day
after Guccifer 2.0 arrived on the scene. They quickly noted that there were Russian language
error messages in the PDF file posted by Gawker. They also noticed that when they viewed 1.doc
themselves, they didn't see the Russian error messages. The Forensicator told Disobedient Media
that this was because Ars Technica used Word for Windows, which displayed the error messages in
English.
Ars Technica suggested that The Smoking Gun's PDF may have been generated by Guccifer
2.0 on a system that had Russian language settings enabled.
While this explanation appears reasonable, it is surprising (if that was the case) that
Gawker didn't tell us that their PDF came directly from Guccifer 2.0 . The Smoking Gun also
published a PDF with Russian error messages in it. Are we to believe that The Smoking Gun also
received their PDF from Guccifer 2.0 or a third party, and failed to report on this fact?
IVN: Did Gawker Outsource Their Analysis to Russia?
An obscure media outlet, Independent Voter Network , raised various theories on the initial
reporting done by The Smoking Gun and Gawker. One of their wilder theories suggested that
Gawker had outsourced their analysis to a Russian sub-contractor. The Forensicator evaluated
that claim, ultimately concluding that Independent Voter Network had gone on a wild goose chase
because the "clue" they followed pointed to Gawker's document management service known as
"DocumentCloud." DocumentCloud uses a technology that they call "CloudCrowd," which is what IVN
saw in the PDF that Gawker uploaded. The Forensicator referred to a DocumentCloud job
advertisement for confirmation of his conclusion.
The Forensicator told Disobedient Media: "We found CloudCrowd; it is not an outsourcing
company. Probably not Russian, either."
Business Insider: Did Guccifer 2.0 Photoshop "Confidential" Into his Document
Screenshots?
When Business Insider noted the presence of "CONFIDENTIAL" in Guccifer 2.0's document, they
claimed that Guccifer 2.0 might have "photoshopped" his screenshots (placed on his blog site)
to create the watermark and page footer with "confidential" in them.
The Forensicator countered that claim by pointing out that the Business Insider journalist
likely viewed the document with "Full-Screen Reading" selected.
This mode will disable the display of the watermark and page headers and footers when viewed
by the journalist, but they will be displayed when printed to PDF. No Photoshop required.
Conclusion
The close timing of the DNC announcement and Guccifer 2.0's publication of the Trump report,
as well as reports of "Russian fingerprints" in those documents, created a strong link between
Guccifer 2.0 and the Russian hackers who allegedly stole DNC files. Over a year later, the
Associated Press tells us that this first narrative was wrong, contradicting the DNC's claims
as well as much of the early legacy press reports on the issue. Must we concurrently accept the
narrative that Russians hacked the DNC if claims that they had done so were not only based on
flimsy evidence but have now been contradicted completely?
As far as documented evidence of election interference goes, one does not have to stray far
from the actors in the Russian hacking saga to discover that the DNC and establishment
Democrats were, instead of victims of meddling, the perpetrators of such abuse of the American
Democratic process. In 2017 the
NYC Board of Elections admitted that it had illegally purged hundreds of thousands of
Democratic voters from the election roles, preventing them from voting in the 2016 Democratic
primaries. This abuse of power represents just one in a constellation of legitimate examples of
abuse that took place at the hands of corporatized Democrats in order to unfairly and illegally
ensure a Clinton nomination.
This is too complicated for the average demon rat nitwit to follow. They don't want to
know this so showing them facts has to be dumbed down. Otherwise, all new revelations will be
ignored.
Really good work and reporting here that will never be understood by the masses.
Everything that's going on is far too complex, too many moving parts, too much
compartmentalization. Trump is doing a good job dumbing it down.
So the DNC announced Russia hacked them, and "proved" it with a file they say was
stolen.But that file was not the DNC's. So the "proof" of Russia hacking the DNC is
nonexistent.
"... Guccifer 2.0's American Fingerprints Reveal An Operation Made In The USA: https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/05/guccifer-2-0s-american-fingerprints-reveal-an-operation-made-in-the-usa/ ..."
"... Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue like Rachel Maddow and her merry band. ..."
"... These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it, especially when directed at them. ..."
"... our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by the Russians. ..."
Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I
ask people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any
that has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of
Russian hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage
Hillary's candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of
a comic book villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the
trustworthy American media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know,
professional paragons of virtue like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.
Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic
handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel,
the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission.
Even the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with
rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs
with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media.
Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better
interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements
and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent
variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it,
especially when directed at them.
Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose
the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all
the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT
by the Russians.
Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people
who must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too
late. All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth
accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests
it may well be far too late.
"... Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance. ..."
"... The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit. ..."
"... "I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah, he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief Strzok on that very fact. ..."
"... As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made. ..."
"... I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. ..."
Here is the Congressional Record with the speech by Rep. Gohmert. The excerpt above starts at the 8th paragraph. The version in
the pdf computer file format is three pages long and starts down in the third column. It can be printed out and shown to your
friends as a conversation starter--
Good stuff. Hangs it around the Dems' necks for sure - now what are they going to do about it?
This part "because they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2 or 3 days"
isn't necessarily correct, if the emails were duplicates of the others the FBI looked at, which is alleged to be the case. Is
it the case? Who knows? But they could verify that in 2 or 3 days by computer using hashes of the originals compared to the new
ones.
But can we trust them on this? Again, who knows, given what we know now.
Watching Strzok perform, I was reminded of another performance of a similar nature by one Oliver North. Back in the days of plausible
deniability and so forth. I recall reading that North got acting coaching for a few months, and intense preparation (as most who
testify substantively before Congressional committees do) before the actual appearance.
The gritty earnestness of Strzok was very
reminiscent of North's gig. In neither case is it likely that any kind of penalty under existing laws or as an exercise of honest
governance will apply, nor will the behaviors of the empire's acting principals change even a whit.
"I'm unconvinced Strzok knew" Knew what, exactly? Did he know that Hillary Clinton's emails were being bcc'ed to China? Yeah,
he know that with a certainty, because ICIG sent investigator Frank Rucker and ICIG attorney Janette McMillan to personally brief
Strzok on that very fact.
So you can't claim that he didn't *know*, and even Strzok is only claiming that he can't remember
that he once knew about this.
Apparently his Alzheimer's is so bad that he forgot about it the moment he walked out of the briefing room, because that's
the only possible explanation for why he failed to pass this new information on to the "FBI's geek squad" for their own investigative
pleasure.
Gee, why am I standing here outside the Briefing Room? Must have been heading to the cafeteria to gra . oh, look, a squirrel!
As one of the top counter-intelligence agents it would have been his duty to ensure that the Chinese stealing of classified
information was investigated by the FBI CI team and a damage assessment made.
Of course from the perspective of the Hillary investigation which he was running this should have tipped the scale to "gross
negligence" on her part for not handling classified information in a secure manner. But as the IG report showed this was always
a political investigation and not a criminal one as it did not follow normal procedures for such cases and exoneration was decided
well in advance. It is good to be the Borg Queen!
I am surprised that you do not wish to understand that it was the sworn duty of the FBI as the chief federal police force
to pursue this, not cover it up for the obvious purpose of improving the felon Clinton's chances. IMO she could be charged
with being an accessory before the fact to espionage against the US.
Intelligence community is a new Praetorian guard which since JFK murder can decide the fate of presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, on July 12. ..."
"... Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that makes up the D.C. comitatus ..."
"... Smug, self-satisfied, cheating creature that he is, Strzok can't take responsibility for his own misconduct, and blames Russia for dividing America. In the largely progressive bureau, moreover, Agent Strzok is neither underling nor outlier, for that matter. ..."
"... A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself. ..."
"... The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden. ..."
"... Pray tell, since when does the Deep State -- FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans. ..."
"... Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into quite a few recreational, hobby wars. ..."
Peter Strzok, the disgraced and disgraceful Federal Bureau of Investigation official, is the very definition of a slimy swamp
creature. Strzok twitched, grimaced and ranted his way to infamy during a joint hearing of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees,
on July 12.
In no way had he failed to discharge his professional unbiased obligation to the public, asserted Strzok. He had merely
expressed the hope that "the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating such horrible, disgusting behavior."
But we did not elect YOU, Mr. Strzok. We elected Mr. Trump.
Strzok is the youthful face of the venerated "Intelligence Community," itself part of the sprawling political machine that
makes up the D.C. comitatus , now writhing like a fire breathing mythical monster against President Donald Trump.
As Ann Coulter observed, the FBI is not the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover. Neither is the Intelligence Community
Philip Haney's IC
any longer. Haney was a heroic, soft-spoken, demure employee at the Department of Homeland Security. Agents like him are often fired
if they don't get with the program. He didn't. Haney's method and the
authentic intelligence he mined and developed might have stopped the likes of the San Bernardino mass murderers and many others.
Instead, his higher-ups in the "Intelligence Community" made Haney and his data disappear.
Post Haney, the FBI failed to adequately screen and stop Syed Farook and blushing bride Tashfeen Malik.
A "blind bootlicking faith in spooks" is certainly unwarranted and may even be foolish. What of odious individuals like former
FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and his predecessor, James Comey, now openly campaigning for the Democrats? Are these leaders outliers
in the "Intelligence Community"?
As Peter Strzok might say to his paramour in a private tweet, "Who ya gonna believe, the Intelligence Community or your
own lying eyes?" The Bureau in particular and the IC cabal, in general, appear to be dominated by the likes of the dull-witted Mr.
Strzok.
Similarly, it's hard to think of a more partisan operator than John O. Brennan -- he ran the CIA under President Obama. True
to type, he cast a vote for Communist Party USA, back in 1976, when the current Russia monomania would have been justified. Brennan
has dubbed President Trump a traitor for having dared to doubt people like himself.
The very embodiment of the Surveillance State at its worst is Michael V. Hayden. Hayden has moved seamlessly from the National
Security Agency and the CIA to CNN where he beats up on Trump. The former Bush employee hollered treason: "One of the most disgraceful
performances of an American president in front of a Russian leader," Hayden inveighed. Not only had POTUS dared to explore the possibility
of a truce with Russia, which is a formidable nuclear power; but the president had the temerity to express a smidgen of skepticism
about a community littered with spooks like Mr. Hayden.
As one wag
noted
, not unreasonably, ours is "a highly-politicized intelligence community, infiltrated over decades by cadres of Deep State operatives
and sleeper agents, whose goal is to bring down this presidency."
Pray tell, since when does the Deep State --
FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, DNI, (Director of National Intelligence), on and on -- represent, or stand for, the American People? The
president, conversely, actually got the support of at least 60 million Americans.
That's a LOT of support. Outside the Beltway, ordinary folks -- Deplorables, if you will -- have to sympathize with the president's
initial and honest appraisal of the Intelligence Community's collective intelligence. This is the community that has sent us into
quite a few recreational, hobby wars.
And this is the community that regularly intercepts but fails to surveys and stop the likes of mass murderers Syed Farook and
bride Tashfeen Malik. Or, Orlando nightclub killer Omar Mateen, whose father the Bureau saw fit to
hire as an informant. The same "community" has invited the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Arab-American Institute to help
shape FBI counterterrorism training.
The FBI might not be very intelligent at all. About the quality of that intelligence, consider: On August 3, 2016, as the mad
media were amping up their Russia monomania, a frenzied BuzzFeed -- it calls itself a news org -- reported that "the Russian foreign
ministry had wired nearly $30,000 through a Kremlin-backed bank to its embassy in Washington, DC."
Intercepted by American intelligence, the Russian wire
stipulated
that the funds were meant "to finance the election campaign of 2016." Was this not "meddling in our election" or what? Did
we finally have irrefutable evidence of Kremlin culpability? The FBI certainly thought so. "Worse still, this was only one of 60
transfers that were being scrutinized by the FBI,"
wrote
the Economist, in November of 2017. "Similar transfers were made to other countries." As it transpired, the money was wired from
the Kremlin to embassies the world over. Its purpose? Russia was preparing to hold parliamentary elections in 2016 and had sent funds
to Russian embassies "to organize the polling for expatriates."
While it did update its Fake News factoids, Buzzfeed felt no compunction whatsoever to remove the erroneous item or publicly question
their sources in the unimpeachable "Intelligence Community."
Most news media are just not as inquisitive as President Trump.
As the saying goes "timing is everything." I have to admit I was incredulous that you were somehow able to link to a functioning
version of the Nekrosov film. I've been trying to get my hands on that documentary for the last few years, but to no avail. I
finally managed to read a comment on another blog that recommended that people who were interested in viewing the film could do
so by reaching out to the producer to request a personalized link, after which you had to request a password from another individual
affiliated with the film.
I managed to do all of that a few weeks ago and was able to watch the video on Vimeo for the full 2 hours. It was riveting,
to say the least. After viewing it again, I thought about making it available to others.
Due to the pressures by Browder and his
lawyers, however, Nekrosov was prevented from making his film available to a wider audience. He got around this limitation by
making it available for private viewing only.
And to prevent a private viewer from uploading it onto the internet he cleverly
placed a watermark on each film, indicating the owner of each copy of the video by displaying a number on the screen.
I was surprised
to see the version you linked to indeed has this watermark shown on the screen. Somehow, this did not deter the individual tied
to that number from uploading it and being the one identified as doing so.
That said, I'm glad the film is more widely available
as it should be viewed by as many people as possible so that they can realize what a despicable liar Browder really is and how
the passage of The Magnitsky Act was a travesty of justice which must be reversed.
The very fact that this movie was deleted almost everywhere suggests that it must be true.
Lies are never so consistently deleted from all Western resources. This is only natural:
nobody is scared of lies much, as they can be debunked. The truth can only be deleted. That's
what Soviet propaganda under Stalin and German propaganda under Hitler did.
You make a good point, nagra, there are many, many evils that demand exposure, most of
them of greater importance than Browder. For example, I don't care a bit abot Clinton-Steele
dossier etc etc etc -can't be bothered to try to figure it out.
She fricking destroyed a country & laughed like a deranged hyena at the
assassination-by-sodomy, on film, of its leader! And women in USA dress up like cunts and
adore her for her righteousness!
But re Browder -- against the forces and the wealth that , ie financed the pussy hat rally
in Jan 2017, and similarly for Browder himself, who can finance his massive PR coverup. From
money he stole! ANDis tied i to HSBC, where Stuart Levey, the former head of US Dept of
Treasury Office of Terror Finance, is now head of legal department -- well, you have to
recognize that all of the things you complain about are connected: Browder is connected to
the Russian Jewish crime gang, which is connected to the American Jewish crime gang thru Ben
Cardin & US Senate, fer chrissske, and tbru Levey to USTreasury, fer chrissake!; US
Treasury may be complicit in Browder's crimes, same for Cardin.
Cicero lost his head for less.
It's a big ball of string, and you have to start somewhere to unravel it. The Loose String
of the Browder case may or may not connect t to the core of this tangled mess, but it is a
start.
First, H/T to commenter tac, who found the link. 2nd, thanks for the background. I had no idea. The whole watermark/private viewing thing
underscores, this is Limited Time Only! 3rd, in 2 days there are over 2000 views. I've been sharing this as much as possible.
Let's keep it going!
You greatly underestimate the significance of Browder re. the inflaming of a new Cold War
and the coup against Pres. Trump. He is a KEY FIGURE behind all this Russia hysteria.
The notorious Trump Tower meeting concerned Browder's Magnitsky Act, money stolen [from
Russia] by Browder, etc.
Looks like MIC is a cancel of the society for which there is no cure....
While this jeremiad raises several valid point the key to understanding the situation should
be understanding of the split of the Us elite into two camp with Democratic party (representing
interests of Wall Street) and large part of intelligence communality fighting to neoliberal
status quo and Pentagon, some part of old money, part of trade unions (especially rank and file
members) and a pert of Republican Party (representing interests of the military) realizing that
neoliberalism came to the natural end and it is time for change which includes downsizing of the
American empire.
This bitter internal struggle in which neoliberals so far have an upper hand over Trump
administration and forced him into retreat.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with Russia. ..."
"... The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte, and the CIA itself. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that the insouciant American voters think that they elect. ..."
"... Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant. ..."
"... They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer, McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the Western press, encourages. ..."
"... The Supply-Side Revolution ..."
"... When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care." ..."
"... Later as a member of a secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from ending the Cold War. ..."
"... Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby, funds the elections of those who rule us. ..."
"... There is no institution in America, government or private, that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is stupid beyond belief. ..."
"... The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. ..."
"... Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. ..."
"... What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society, which the US is. ..."
"... The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. ..."
"... As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton. ..."
"... So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind. In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged. ..."
"... Gore Vidal said there's only one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good for Israel? And the American people be damned. ..."
"... Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this has gone on for a year and a half. ..."
"... It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor. ..."
The US Democratic Party is determined to take the world to thermo-nuclear war rather than to
admit that Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election fair and square. The Democratic Party
was totally corrupted by the Clinton Regime, and now it is totally insane. Leaders of the
Democratic Party, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, my former co-author in the New York
Times, have responded in a non-Democratic way to the first step President Trump has taken to
reduce the extremely dangerous tensions with Russia that the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama
regimes created between the two superpowers.
Yes, Russia is a superpower. Russian weapons are so superior to the junk produced by the
waste-filled US military/security complex that lives high off the hog on the insouciant
American taxpayer that it is questionable if the US is even a second class military power. If
the insane neoconservatives, such as Max Boot, William Kristol, and the rest of the neocon scum
get their way, the US, the UK, and Europe will be a radioactive ruin for thousands of
years.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), Minority Leader of the US House of
Representatives, declared that out of fear of some undefined retribution from Putin, a dossier
on Trump perhaps, the President of the United States sold out the American people to Russia
because he wants to make peace: "It begs the question, what does Vladimir Putin, what do the
Russians have on Donald Trump -- personally, politically and financially that he should behave
in such a manner?" The "such a manner" Pelosi is speaking about is making peace instead of
war.
To be clear, the Democratic Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives has accused
Donald Trump of high treason against the United States. There is no outcry against this
blatantly false accusation, totally devoid of evidence. The presstitute media instead of
protesting this attempt at a coup against the President of the United States, trumpet the
accusation as self-evident truth. Trump is a traitor because he wants peace with
Russia.
Here is Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) repeating Pelosi's false accusation: "Millions
of Americans will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this dangerous
behavior is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President
Trump." If you don't believe that this is orchestrated between Pelosi and Schumer, you are
stupid beyond belief.
Here is disgraced Obama CIA director John Brennan, a leader of the fake Russiagate campaign
against President Trump in order to prevent Trump from making peace with Russia and, thus, by
making the world safer, threatening the massive, unjustified budget of the military/security
complex: "Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to and exceeds the
threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were
Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are
you???"
NOTICE THAT NOT ONE WESTERN MEDIA SOURCE IS CELEBRATING AND THANKING TRUMP AND PUTIN FOR
EASING THE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED TENSIONS THAT WERE LEADING TO NUCLEAR WAR. HOW CAN THIS BE? HOW
CAN IT BE THAT THE WESTERN MEDIA IS SO OPPOSED TO PEACE? WHAT IS THE EXPLANATION?
The Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North Koreans, as well as the rest of
the world, desperately need to notice the extremely hostile reaction to peace on the part of
the US Democratic Party, many members of the Republican Party, including the despicable US
Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and the Western Presstitute Media, a
collection of people on the CIA payroll according to the German newspaper editor, Udo Ulfkotte,
and the CIA itself.
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and the rest of the corrupt
filth that rules over us are all in the pay of the military/security complex. Just go and
investigate the donations to their re-election campaigns. The 1,000 billion dollar budget of
the military/security complex, amplified by the CIA's front corporations and narcotics
business, provides enormous sums with which to purchase the senators and representatives that
the insouciant American voters think that they elect.
Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do
nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients,
and the recipients regard it as worth protecting.
Therefore, the American public gets not representation, but lies that justify war and
conflict. The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned the American
people to no effect, is in desperate need of an enemy. In obedience to the military/security
complex, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have made Russia that enemy. If Trump
and Putin do not understand this, they will easily be made irrelevant.
They both can be assassinated, and that is what the statements from Pelosi, Schumer,
McCain, Lindsey Graham, et. al., repeated endlessly in the propaganda ministry that is the
Western press, encourages. Trump can be assassinated or overthrown in a political coup for
selling out America to Russia, as members of both political parties claim and as the media
trumpets endlessly. Putin can be easily assassinated by the CIA operatives that the Russian
government stupidly permits to operate throughout Russia in NGOs and Western/US owned media and
among the Atlanticist Integrationists, Washington's Firth Column inside Russia serving
Washington's purposes. These Russian traitors serve in Putin's own government!
ORDER IT NOW
Americans are so unaware that they have no idea of the risk that President Trump is taking
by challenging the US military security complex. For example, during the last half of the 1970s
I was a member of the US Senate staff. I was working together with a staffer of the US
Republican Senator from California, S. I. Hayakawa, to advance understanding of a supply-side
economic policy cure to the stagflation that threatened the US budget's ability to meet its
obligations. Republican Senators Hatch, Roth, and Hayakawa were trying to introduce a
supply-side economic policy as a cure for the stagflation that was threatening the US economy
with failure. The Democrats, who later in the Senate led the way to a supply-side policy, were,
at this time, opposed (see Paul Craig Roberts, The Supply-Side Revolution , Harvard
University Press, 1984). The Democrats claimed that the policy would worsen the budget deficit,
the only time in those days Democrats cared about the budget deficit. The Democrats said that
they would support the tax rate reductions if the Republicans would support offsetting cuts in
the budget to support a balanced budget. This was a ploy to put Republicans on the spot for
taking away some groups' handouts in order "to cut tax rates for the rich."
The supply-side policy did not require budget cuts, but in order to demonstrate the
Democrats lack of sincerety, Hayakawa's aid and I had our senators introduce a series of budget
cuts together with tax cuts that, on a static revenue basis (not counting tax revenue feedbacks
from the incentives of the lower tax rates) kept the budget even, and the Democrats voted
against them every time.
When the combination of tax cuts with defense budget cuts came up for a vote, the
legendary senator Strom Thurmond, a 48-year member of the US Senate from South Carolina, tapped
me on the shoulder. He said: "son, never set your senator up against the military/security
complex. He will not be re-elected, and you will be out of a job." I replied that we were just
establishing for the record that under no conditions would the Democrats, who wanted more
government, vote for a tax rate reduction even if there was a case that it would cure
stagflation. He replied: "son, the military/security complex doesn't care."
My emergence from The Matrix began with Thurmond's pat on my shoulder. It grew with my time
at the Wall Street Journal when I learned that some truthful things simply could not be said.
In the Treasury I experienced how those outside interests opposed to a president's policy
marshall their forces and the media that they own to block it. Later as a member of a
secret presidential committee, I saw how the CIA attempted to prevent President Reagan from
ending the Cold War.
Today, right now, at this moment, we are faced with a massive effort of the
military/security complex, the neoconservatives, the Democratic Party, and the presstitute
media to discredit the elected President of the United States and to overthrow him in order
that the utterly corrupt elite that rule American can continue to hold on to power and to
protect the massive budget of the military/security complex that, along with the Israel Lobby,
funds the elections of those who rule us. Trump, like Reagan, was an exception, and it is
the exceptions that accumulate the ire of the corrupt leftwing, bought off with money, and the
ire of the media, concentrated into small tight ownership groups indebted to those who
permitted the illegal concentration of a once independent and diverse American media that once
served, on occasion, as a watchdog over government. The rightwing, wrapped in the flag,
dismisses all truth as "anti-American."
If Putin, Lavrov, the Russian government, the traitorous Russian Fifth Column -- the
Atlanticist Integrationists -- the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans think that any
peace or consideration can come out of America, they are insane. Their delusions are setting
themselves up for destruction. There is no institution in America, government or private,
that can be trusted. Any government or person who trusts America or any Western country is
stupid beyond belief.
The entire Russiagate hoax is an orchestration by the military/security complex, led by
John Brennen, Comey, and Rosenstein. The purpose is to discredit President trump for two
reasons. One is to prevent any normalization of relations with Russia. The other is to remove
Trump's agenda as an alternative to the agenda of the Democratic Party.
President Trump is almost powerless. Putin, the Chinese, the Iranians, and the North
Koreans should recognize this before it is too late for them. President Trump cannot fire and
arrest for high treason Mueller and Rosenstein. And Trump cannot indict Hillary for her
numerous unquestionable crimes in plain view of everyone, or Comey or Brennan, who declares
Trump "to be wholly in the pocket of Putin," for trying to overthrow the elected president of
the United States. Trump cannot have the Secret Service question the likes of Pelosi and
Schumer and McCain and Lindsey Graham for false accusations that encourage assassination of the
President of the United States.
Trump cannot even trust the Secret Service, which accumulated evidence suggests was
complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy.
If Putin and Lavrov, so anxious to be friends of Washington, let their guards down, they are
history.
As I said above, Russiagate is an orchestratration to prevent peace between the US and
Russia. Leading military/security complex experts, including the person who provided the CIA's
daily briefing of the President of the United States for many years, and the person who devised
the spy program for the National Security Agency, have proven conclusively that Russiagate is a
hoax designed for the purpose of preventing President Trump from normalizing relations between
the US and Russia, which has the power to destroy the entirety of the Western World at
will.
If Putin doesn't listen to him, Russia is in the trash can of history.
Keep in mind that no media informs you better than my website. If my website goes down, you
will be left in darkness. No valid information comes from the US government or the Western
presstitutes. If you sit in front of the TV screen watching the Western media, you are
brainwashed beyond all hope. Not even I can rescue you. Nor God himself.
Americans, and indeed the Russians themselves, are incapable of realizing it, but there is a
chance that Trump will be overthrown and a Western assault will be launched against the handful
of countries that insist on sovereignty.
I doubt that few of the Americans who elected Trump will be taken in by the anti-Trump
propagana, but they are not organized and have no armed power. The police, militarized by
George W. Bush and Obama, will be set against them. The rebellions will be local and suppressed
by every violation of the US Constitution by the private powers that rule Washington, as always
has been the case with rebellions in America.
In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead -- freedom of
assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom of privacy,
freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the Constitutional
protections of due process and habeas corpus. Today there are no countries less free than the
United States of America.
Why do the Russian Atlanticist Integrationists want to join an unfree Western world? Are
they that brainwashed by Western Propaganda?
If Putin listens to these deluded fools, Putin will destroy Russia.
There is something wrong with Russian perception of Washington. Apparently the Russian
elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable of comprehending the
neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative determination to destroy
Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. The Russian government somehow, despite all
evidence to the contrary, believes that Washington's hegemony is negotiable. (Republished from
PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
is big question even if Trump wants peace at all. Trump has shown his real face on the very
beginning when he said that they are going to talk about "his friend" Xi, making Putin very
uncomfortable and throwing some worms in Russia~China relationship in front of cameras for
all to see
Trump came to the meeting in hope to impress Putin with his cowboy arrogance, He now says
that he'll be Putin's worst enemy ( if he don't bow to him I guess : ). all Trump cares about
is his ego, nothing else too sweat mouthed sleazy person
Reckless and irresponsible comments about treason from former CIA director Brennan, and
other ranking public figures, echo similar inflammatory rhetoric from far-right-wing rabble
rouser Gen. Edwin Walker, and other members of the John Birch Society, in the days before
Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.
What's going on in the United States of America beats the band what happened under Joe
McCarthy. The witch hunt against a sitting President by 95 percent of the media, major
government institutions such as the criminal CIA, FBI, DOJ and the rest of the crooked Intel
community plus the rascals in the US Congress can only happen in a totalitarian society,
which the US is.
The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many subordinate
political Mafiosi should be put behind bars instead of running from one TV station to the
next and lay the ground for a possibly Trump assassination. Trump is portrayed by these
crooks as a "traitor." In the US, traitors usefully deserve death. If these political Mafiosi
don't bring down Trump "legally," they will hire a kind of Lee Harvey Oswald who "shot"
JFK.
As Mr. Rogers correctly states, President Trump is almost powerless. These US fools
even try to breed discord between the so-called nationalists and the globalists in Russia for
which Medvedev stays. He once served US interests more than Russian ones when he was Prime
Minister and got flattered by the ineffable Bill Clinton.
Let's wait and see what happens in the upcoming mid-term elections. If the Dems win both
Houses of Congress, Trump is done. The obstructionists will have the upper hand. If they
can't remove him from office "legally," there will be a hitman out there somewhere.
President smugly making peace with the Russian nation that was supposed to be the evil enemy
in a 3rd and final brother war to devastate the white race beyond recovery.
Little upstart in the Democrat party making left wing politics less palatable to the
masses with her heavy handed socialist rhetoric. All while preaching BDS and anti-Israel
sentiment too, representing Frankenstein's CultMarx monster turning on it's creator.
And fewer and fewer people on all sides buying what the American Pravda is selling with
each passing day. The resulting hysteria is both par for the course and downright
delectable.
" Apparently the Russian elite, with the exception of Shoigu and a few others are incapable
of comprehending the neoconservative drive for US world hegemony and the neoconservative
determination to destroy Russia as a constraint on US unilateralism. " My idea is that many
in Russia understand quite well, this is why they demonstrate Russia's military capabilities
frequently. Why does Putin support Assad and Syria ? Not because he likes these countries,
but because he understands that if these countries also get the USA yoke the position of
Russia and China deteriorate.
Putin is careful not to give USA public opinion more 'reason' to fear Russia. Already a
few years ago something fell into the E part of the Mediterranean. It was asserted that
Russia had intercepted a USA missile fired from Spain to Syria. USA and Israel declared that
an excercise had been held. Putin said nothing.
Despite all that NATO does at Russia's borders Putin does not let himself be provoked.
MH17, I suppose Putin knows quite well what happened, Russia has radar and satelites, yet
Putin never gave the Russian view.
So what do we see now ? Putin aiding Trump in steering the USA away from trying to
control the whole world, an effort that is destroying the USA, but Deep State does not mind.
In this way Russia indeed meddles in USA politics. Trump now invited Putin to come to
Washington, the MH17 statement is withheld, the hysteria at CNN is such that MH17 is not even
mentioned. In stead: Trump must be mentally deranged.
Good to see PCR accepting comments again. It's not just the Dumbocruds, it's the Rupuglicunts
too. Follow the money, it's coming from the same sources. Gore Vidal said there's only
one party in America, it's the Money Party and it has two branches. It is even more true
today than when he said it. There is no Left or Right anymore, only the question, is it good
for Israel? And the American people be damned.
Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia? The Democrats say he is
The Democrats -- and their wholly-owned MSM -- will call Trump any name that'll stick. It
means little. Even if Trump got everything he wanted on immigration, that particular
toothpaste is already out of the tube and unless we send back some of the millions of
illegal third-world squatters we've no hope of recovering the United States of America.
If you want to talk treason, you need look no further than the Hart-Celler Act of 1965,
whereby the plan was laid to replace the population of this nation with third-world refuse,
which guaranteed cheap labor for GOP capitalists and endless political support for Democrat
traitors.
As the saying goes "timing is everything." I have to admit I was incredulous that you were
somehow able to link to a functioning version of the Nekrosov film. I've been trying to get
my hands on that documentary for the last few years, but to no avail. I finally managed to
read a comment on another blog that recommended that people who were interested in viewing
the film could do so by reaching out to the producer to request a personalized link, after
which you had to request a password from another individual affiliated with the film.
I managed to do all of that a few weeks ago and was able to watch the video on Vimeo for
the full 2 hours. It was riveting, to say the least. After viewing it again, I thought about
making it available to others. Due to the pressures by Browder and his lawyers, however,
Nekrosov was prevented from making his film available to a wider audience. He got around this
limitation by making it available for private viewing only. And to prevent a private viewer
from uploading it onto the internet he cleverly placed a watermark on each film, indicating
the owner of each copy of the video by displaying a number on the screen. I was surprised to
see the version you linked to indeed has this watermark shown on the screen. Somehow, this
did not deter the individual tied to that number from uploading it and being the one
identified as doing so. That said, I'm glad the film is more widely available as it should be
viewed by as many people as possible so that they can realize what a despicable liar Browder
really is and how the passage of The Magnitsky Act was a travesty of justice which must be
reversed.
"Do you know how large 1,000 billion is? You would have to live for thousands of years and do
nothing for 24/7 except count to reach that figure. It is a sum that nurtures the recipients,
and the recipients regard it as worth protecting."
Tens of thousands of years. At one count per second, 31,687 years and a few months.
"In the West, which the Russians are so anxious to join, all freedoms are dead --
freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of inquiry, freedom
of privacy, freedom from arbitrary search, freedom from arbitrary arrest, along with the
Constitutional protections of due process and habeas corpus."
True. That is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. That is what the WASP Empire delivers, and
it does so to destroy more conservative national and local cultures so their peoples are
tossed into the melting pot and reduced into a goop easy to rule.
Oliver Cromwell taking Jewish money, allying with Jews so he would have the funds to wage
permanent war against the vast, vast majority of non-WASP whites within his reach: that is
the definition of WASP culture; that picture tells you what it always will do.
make something serious about Obama and Hillary destroying whole African country of Libya
killing Colonel Gaddafi on the street, which is greatest war crime in the 21st century so far
or, Bill Clinton bombing Bosnian Serbs '95 opening the door to jihadis to continue behead
people in the middle of the Europe or, Bill Clinton and Nato bombing Serbia '99 to give
"Kosovo" independence killing many civilian and destroying infrastructure on purpose or
Madeline Albright confessing killing half of million Iraqi kids on the camera or, Bush and or
Bushes or those such Bill Browder are just small dirty fish who in comparison is almost not
worth filming I appreciate the effort but get seriously real if you are about to get truth to
people
"The Brennan, Clappers, Obamas, Clintons, Comeys, Rosenstein and their many
subordinate political Mafiosi "
What is going on in the US is systematic. Assange, an investigative journalist who became
the light of truth worldwide, is under a grave danger from US' and UK' Intelligence
Communities of the non-intelligent opportunists and real traitors: https://www.rt.com/news/433783-wikileaks-assange-ecuador-uk/
Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton, who was criminally negligent with regard to the most important
classified information, has been protected by the politicking Brennan, Clapper, and Mueller:
" it was over 30,000 emails , emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through
the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out.
There were highly classified -- beyond classified -- top secret-type stuff that had
gone through that server. an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the
email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton
through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to
send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/congressional-record-transcript-on-chinagate.html
The Awan Affair, the most serious ever violation of national cybersecurity, has
demonstrated the spectacular incompetence of the CIA and FBI, which had allowed a family of
Pakistani nationals to surf congressional computers of various committees, including
Intelligence Committee, for years. None of the scoundrels had a security clearance! Their
ardent protector, Wasserman-Schultz (who threatened the DC Marschall) belongs to the
untouchables, unlike Assange:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/awan-congressional-scandal-in-spotlight-as-president-suggests-data-could-be-part-of-court-case_2500703.html
Trump and Putin made a mistake. I do not understand how it could have happened. They should
have issued communiqué that they have agreed to work toward peace and relieve tensions
and suppress conflicts around the world. (I do not have a time for now to write more.)
(sorry)
If Rosenstein & Mueller had done what they did with the publication of the indictments a
few days before the summit -- and were North Koreans -- they'd be in front of a firing squad
within 24 hours. Trump is completely powerless to do anything about these two. And this
has gone on for a year and a half. This is not a strength of democracy.
The US today is like Venezuela was shortly after Maduro was elected (by a narrow margin)
-- after Chavez's death -- and before violence eventually broke out. The losing opposition
refused to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.
Or after Morsi was elected in Egypt and before the military coup. The victory was narrow,
the opposition refused the to accept the result and tensions simmered for a long time.
Or maybe like Bush vs Gore. Bush was kinda saved by 9/11 which completely changed the
atmosphere.
Who knows what will happen. It's clear though that Trump believes he has forced his
opponents to play a bad hand in their outlandish craze the past week. It's why he doubled
down and invited Putin to Washington near the 2018 election time. He perceives this as a
chance to re-enact the 2016 election and coast to victory. The establishment is insane, and
if he brings their insanity out it plays to his favor.
The reception of the Trump- Putin meeting is breathtaking. I have in my 61 years never
witnessed such a hate and slander in the MSM. I have after this begun to actually dismiss
that Americans are sensible people! They have completely forgotten the cost of the Civil War.
We in Europe have not forgotten the cost of war and are not going there again. Ever.
The US has become a lunatic asylum with nuclear weapons, never mind Kim Jong Un, look a
squirrel! But the US is a threat to humanity, included it's protegé Israel, the new
Apartheid state.
"Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace with Russia?"
Wait; what?
From badmouthing Russia to appointing Russophobes to high office, to imposing sanctions,
to illegally seizing Russian diplomatic property, to committing war crimes in Syria, to a
provocative military buildup in Europe, to arming the illegitimate Ukrainian "government,"
etc., presidential poseur Orange Clown has spent 99% of his "presidency" so far antagonizing
Russia; apparently trying to provoke some kind of Russian military response.
If it was anyone else other than Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Russia, WW3 probably
would've happened already. Yet PCR claims Orange Clown wants peace with Russia?
Note to PCR: It is Vladimir Putin who wants peace, not presidential poseur Orange Clown.
If Orange Clown has had some kind of spiritual epiphany/change of heart, he's going to have
to show good faith by taking some kind of unambiguous action; posturing won't suffice.
There is a lot of truth in what you say, but it does not account for the fight we are
currently witnessing. Two factions in the Money Party are at war with each other. Neither one
is willing to level with the public as to its true aims and motives -- they are fighting
viciously but under the bed sheets, which is why the spectacle looks so unhinged and
silly.
It appears that he is trying to save the US from financial collapse. Hence, he is a traitor
to MIC, particularly to the obscenely greedy Pentagon contractors. The US presidents and
Congress always pandered to MIC first and foremost. He broke (or at least tried to break) the
pattern.
Don't blame all Americans. Forty-eight percent of us voted for Trump; it is very likely
that more than half of the rest voted for Hellary only with great reluctance, owing largely
to the unprecedented campaign of vilification directed at Trump. The point is: a very large
majority of people in this country are nowhere near as insane as the media and elites are --
in fact, we're still nowhere near insane enough for their taste!
After another week saw leading Republicans accosted in public places, many on the left are
arguing that harassment is legitimate
The day after Sarah Sanders was asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia, Maxine
Waters, the representative for the California 43rd who has become a leader of the anti-Trump
resistance within Congress, addressed a rally in Los Angeles. Up until that point, national
Democratic leaders had mostly urged respectful protest in response to the Trump
administration.
"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up," she said to cheers from the crowd.
"And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline
station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them
they're not welcome any more, anywhere."
In the days that followed, other leading Democrats, among them Nancy Pelosi and David
Axelrod, distanced themselves from the comments and called for civility. Trump personally
attacked Waters, calling her an "extraordinarily low IQ person". But Waters gave voice, and
perhaps legitimacy, to what has become a prominent form of activism since Trump took office:
accosting members of his team in public places.
Over the weekend, Steve Bannon was called "a piece of trash" by a heckler at a bookstore; a
bartender gave Stephen Miller the middle finger, apparently causing Miller to throw away $80 of
sushi he'd just bought in disgust; and Mitch McConnell was chased out of a restaurant in
Kentucky by protesters, who followed him to this car yelling "turtle head" and "we know where
you live".
These follow similar encounters for other members of Trump's top team. The homeland security
secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, was confronted by protesters chanting "shame" while she ate at a
Mexican restaurant. Last week, Scott Pruitt was accosted by Kristin Mink while he was eating
lunch. Mink, a teacher, held her two-year-old child as she asked him to resign "before your
scandals push you out". Days later, Pruitt did resign, and although he was probably asked to do
so by Trump, in his letter he cited "the unrelenting attacks on me" as his reason for
leaving.
After each case, the merits of such an approach have been debated – many have called
for civility or argued that protesters leave themselves open to attack if they pursue
Trump-like techniques. There has been some consensus that encounters like Mink's, which are
eloquent and non-aggressive, are more acceptable than when protesters chant personal attacks or
use threatening language
... you don't stand with most of C99 and most of progressive society. He is wrong, on this
and many other things. Where was his (and your) outrage when Obama was droning American
citizens, destroying Libya and creating Europe's current refugee crisis, and helping Saudi
Arabia wreak havoc on Houthi civilians? How many pies did he throw then? How many Obama
administration officials did he publicly shame?
administration too? He did many of the same things that Trump is doing to immigrants. He
deported more of them then any president including 56% of them who hadn't committed any crimes.
How about shaming them for his drone policies, killing 3 Americans without due process, bombing
wedding parties and then the people who came to their rescue? Or the many, many other things he
and his admin members did that were absolutely heinous?
Should we have done that to the people in the Bush administration too or how far back should
we have been shaming people who worked in a president's administration?
Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to pass
Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?
Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 5:49pm
Maybe we should be shaming the democrats who have been voting with the republicans to
pass Trump's legislation, cabinet picks and justices? Where would it stop?
Where it should -- with the non-voluntarily-complicit.
the publicly harassing, embarrssing, and running off the oposition then we're really fucked.
Or do you seriousy think those tactics won't be repaid in kind?
on public shaming.
#7
Especially in public restaurants.
There is no better way to protest this admin than to shame them in a public place, confront
them while they attempt to swallow a bite of pork chop.
up 0 users have voted. --
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes,
okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa Submitted by gulfgal98 on
Thu, 07/19/2018 - 12:00pmCritical thinking skills seem
to be non-existent over there.
Again, Markos and his staff refuse to discuss policy from a positive perspective. Instead,
they focus their readers on the outrage de jour and tribalism. The entire purpose of that site is
a massive propaganda push designed to keep us divided. And the narrative they keep pushing are
not only divisive, but extremely dangerous.
I rarely go there any more, mostly because I would like to keep as many of my remaining brain
cells intact. But when I have visited that place, it is a very frightening place to see how
Markos (post purge) has herded the remaining members into a small corral, all of them nodding in
agreement with whatever gruel Markos and his front pagers are serving up. Submitted by
snoopydawg on Thu, 07/19/2018 - 6:29pmDaily Kos should change its name
to
@gulfgal98
BAR Book Forum: Jeremy Kuzmarov's and John Marciano's "The Russians are Coming, Again"
"The American people have been constantly manipulated and made to fear the Russian threat when
it is the United States that has been the aggressive power."
In this series, we ask acclaimed authors to answer five questions about their book. This
week's featured authors are Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano . Kuzmarov is Jay P. Walker
Assistant Professor of American History, University of Tulsa. Marciano is Professor Emeritus at
SUNY Cortland. Their book is The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy,
the Second as Farce.
Roberto Sirvent: How can your book help BAR readers understand the current political and social
climate?
Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano: Our book provides a historical perspective on
contemporary affairs by showing how the Russo-phobia that has been prevalent in our political
discourse over the last four to five years has deep and long historical roots, and has often
been used by government leaders to turn public attention away from domestic inequalities by
channeling societal resources towards the military sector. During the early Cold War, a period
of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism
and the Cold War.The Korean War brought on huge military budgets that have never left us and an
expansion of the U.S. overseas military base network. These policies were underlain by
exaggerated views about the Soviet Union which were stoked by political elites, who had worked
for companies that reaped enormous profit from the permanent warfare state. The same forces are
behind the renewed efforts to demonize Russian President Vladimir Putin and exaggerate the
Russian threat, with serious adverse consequences for society that have already been evident.
The consequences include a revitalization of the arms race, waging of proxy wars, and a further
poisoning of the domestic political culture through the reinvigoration of a McCarthyist
discourse and tactics.
"During the early Cold War, a period of labor militancy and momentum for the expansion of
the New Deal was destroyed by McCarthyism and the Cold War."
The "Deep state" honchos who created this indictment have a working assumption that the USA
remain a sole superpower and that everything is permitted, even if this is a provocation/false
flag operation conducted solely for internal consumption. That might be the assumption that is no
longer true.
Notable quotes:
"... The document itself also provides no information on how the Russian officers and their positions were identified, which suggests that it could have been a US hack or agent in place, either run by CIA or NSA, that came up with a list of those individuals connected to GRU cyber operations. That would be information involving sources and methods, codeword protected material beyond Top Secret. ..."
"... Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly includes the GRU, operates. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
The document itself also provides no information on how the Russian officers and their
positions were identified, which suggests that it could have been a US hack or agent in place,
either run by CIA or NSA, that came up with a list of those individuals connected to GRU cyber
operations. That would be information involving sources and methods, codeword protected
material beyond Top Secret.
If the GRU list is authentic, it would expose US ability to penetrate that organization,
leading to Moscow tightening up security to the detriment of American intelligence. But it
might alternatively be suggested that the drafters needed a group of plausible Russians and
used a generic list provided by either CIA or NSA to come up with the culprits and then used
those identities and the detailed information regarding them to provide credibility to their
account. What they did not do, however, is provide the actual evidence connecting the
individuals to the "hack/interference" or to connect the same to the Russian government. If the
information in the indictment is completely accurate, which may not be the case, there is some
suggestion that alleged Moscow linked proxies may have deliberately sought to undermine the
campaign of Hillary Clinton to favor Bernie Sanders, but absolutely no evidence that they did
anything to help Donald Trump.
Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear
misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly
includes the GRU, operates. If there had been a large-scale Kremlin sanctioned plan to
disrupt the US election, it would not be run by twelve identifiable GRU officers working with
what appears to be only limited cover and resources. If the facts are correct, the activity
might have been a routine probing, collecting and selective dissemination of information effort
that all intelligence agencies engage in. The United States does so routinely in many
countries, interfering in elections worldwide, far more than Russia with its limited resources,
and even carrying out regime change.
If the Kremlin's objective were truly to undermine American democracy, a task that is
already being undertaken very ably by the GOP and Democrats, hundreds of officers would be
involved, all working under deep cover and operating securely out of dispersed sites. And no
one involved would be using computers connected to networks that could be penetrated to enable
personal identification or discovery of the ultimate source of the activity. Everyone would be
working in alias on stand-alone machines and the transmission of information would be done
using cut-outs to break any chain of custody. A cut-out might consist of using thumb drives to
transmit information from one computer to another, for example. There would be no sending or
receiving of information by channels that could be identified by NSA or CIA and
compromised.
So the idea that the United States government identified twelve culprits who were
responsible for trying to overthrow American democracy is by any measure ludicrous, if indeed
there was a major plan to disrupt the election at all. The indictment is little more than a
political document seeking to undermine any effort by Donald Trump to establish rapprochement
with Vladimir Putin. It will also serve to give fuel to the Democrats, who are still at a loss
to understand what happened to Hillary Clinton, and Republican hawks like John McCain, Lindsay
Graham, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse who persist in seeking to refight the Cold War. As Donald
Trump and Vladimir Putin said in their Helsinki press conference, the coming together of the
leaders of the world's two most powerful nuclear armed countries is too important an
opportunity to let pass. Cold Warriors in Washington should take note.
For instance, I was a partner in the publication of the emails of John Podesta, Hillary
Clinton's 2016 campaign manager, which were published by WikiLeaks shortly after the infamous
Access Hollywood video revealed candidate Donald Trump making rude remarks about
women.
Many media outlets continue to report that the Podesta emails were released only minutes
after the Access Hollywood video aired, hinting at some sort of coordination between
WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. In a indictment issued last Friday, Robert S. Mueller III,
the special counsel investigating the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections,
charged 12 officers of the Russian military intelligence service, GRU, for having allegedly
hacked both the DNC and Podesta emails and allegedly passed them on to WikiLeaks for
publication.
I have no idea who WikiLeaks' sources were for the Podesta emails: the whole concept of
WikiLeaks is based on the submission of secret or otherwise restricted documents by anonymous
sources. Assange said numerous times that his source for the Clinton emails was not the Russian
government nor a state party.
As I worked on the Podesta emails, I do know that their publication was not a last-second
decision. I had been alerted the day before, and their staggered release was a choice WikiLeaks
made after the organization was harshly criticized by mainstream media for publishing
the DNC documents all at once. This time the emails would trickle out to make them easier for
the public to digest. But that was criticized too by the U.S. media and the Democrats as an
attempt to leave Clinton bleeding a few weeks before the elections.
... ... ...
Russia perceives Assange as a sort of Western dissident. The country definitely loves the
idea of "Western dissidents" and is happy to stick a finger in the eyes of the West by assuring
wide coverage for Assange and his organization. Russia media highlights the contradictions in
Western democracies which, while preaching aggressive journalism and the protection of
journalistic sources, have instead put Chelsea Manning in prison, charged Snowden, investigated
WikiLeaks for the last eight years and has kept its editor arbitrarily detained with no end in
sight.
Stefania Maurizi works for the Italian daily La Repubblica as an investigative journalist,
after ten years working for the Italian newsmagazine l'Espresso. She has worked on all
WikiLeaks releases of secret documents, and partnered with Glenn Greenwald to reveal the
Snowden files about Italy. She has also interviewed A.Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani
atomic bomb, revealed the condolence payment agreement between the US government and the family
of the Italian aid worker Giovanni Lo Porto killed in a US drone strike, and investigated the
harsh working conditions of Pakistani workers in a major Italian garment factory in Karachi.
She has started a multi-jurisdictional FOIA litigation effort to defend the right of the press
to access the full set of documents on the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks case. She authored two
books: Dossier WikiLeaks. Segreti Italiani and Una Bomba, Dieci Storie, the latter translated
into Japanese. She can be reached at [email protected]
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Under the Constitution, these are the offenses for which
presidents can be impeached.
And to hear our elites, Donald Trump is guilty of them all.
Trump's refusal to challenge Vladimir Putin's claim at Helsinki that his GRU boys did not hack Hillary Clinton's
campaign has been called treason, a refusal to do his sworn duty to protect and defend the United States, by a former
director of the CIA.
Famed journalists and former high officials of the U.S. government have called Russia's hacking of the DNC "an act of
war" comparable to Pearl Harbor.
The
New York Times
ran a story on the many now charging Trump with treason. Others suggest Putin is
blackmailing Trump, or has him on his payroll, or compromised Trump a long time ago.
Wailed Congressman Steve Cohen: "Where is our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!"
Apparently, some on the left believe we need a military coup to save our democracy.
Not since Robert Welch of the John Birch Society called Dwight Eisenhower a "conscious agent of the Communist
conspiracy" have such charges been hurled at a president. But while the Birchers were a bit outside the mainstream,
today it is the establishment itself bawling "Treason!"
What explains the hysteria?
The worst-case scenario would be that the establishment actually believes the nonsense it is spouting. But that is
hard to credit. Like the boy who cried "Wolf!" they have cried "Fascist!" too many times to be taken seriously.
A month ago, the never-Trumpers were comparing the separation of immigrant kids from detained adults, who brought
them to the U.S. illegally, to FDR's concentration camps for Japanese Americans.
Other commentators equated the separations to what the Nazis did at Auschwitz.
If the establishment truly believed this nonsense, it would be an unacceptable security risk to let them near the
levers of power ever again.
Using Occam's razor, the real explanation for this behavior is the simplest one: America's elites have been driven
over the edge by Trump's successes and their failures to block him.
Trump is deregulating the economy, cutting taxes, appointing record numbers of federal judges, reshaping the Supreme
Court, and using tariffs to cut trade deficits and the bully pulpit to castigate freeloading allies.
Worst of all, Trump clearly intends to carry out his campaign pledge to improve relations with Russia and get along
with Vladimir Putin.
"Over our dead bodies!" the Beltway elite seems to be shouting.
Hence the rhetorical WMDs hurled at Trump: liar, dictator, authoritarian, Putin's poodle, fascist, demagogue,
traitor, Nazi.
Such language approaches incitement to violence. One wonders whether the haters are considering the impact of the
words they so casually use. Some of us yet recall how Dallas was charged with complicity in the death of JFK for slurs
far less toxic than this.
The post-Helsinki hysteria reveals not merely the mindset of the president's enemies, but the depth of their
determination to destroy him.
They intend to break Trump and bring him down, to see him impeached, removed, indicted, and prosecuted, and the
agenda on which he ran and was nominated and elected dumped onto the ash heap of history.
Thursday, Trump indicated that he knows exactly what is afoot, and threw down the gauntlet of defiance: "The Fake
News Media wants so badly to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war," he
tweeted. "They are pushing so recklessly hard and hate the fact that I'll probably have a good relationship with Putin."
Spot on. Trump is saying: I am going to call off this Cold War II before it breaks out into the hot war that nine
U.S. presidents avoided, despite Soviet provocations far graver than Putin's pilfering of DNC emails showing how Debbie
Wasserman Schultz stuck it to Bernie Sanders.
Then the White House suggested Vlad may be coming to dinner this fall.
Trump is edging toward the defining battle of his presidency: a reshaping of U.S. foreign policy to avoid clashes and
conflicts with Russia and the shedding of Cold War commitments no longer rooted in the national interests of this
country.
Yet should he attempt to carry out his agenda -- to get out of Syria, pull troops from Germany, and take a second look
at NATO's Article 5 commitment to go to war for 29 nations, some of which, like Montenegro, most Americans have never
heard of -- he is headed for the most brutal battle of his presidency.
This Helsinki hysteria is but a taste.
By cheering Brexit, dissing the EU, suggesting NATO is obsolete, departing Syria, trying to get on with Putin, Trump
is threatening the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment with what it fears most: irrelevance.
For if there is no war on, no war imminent, and no war wanted, what does a War Party do?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book,
Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a
President and Divided America Forever
. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators
writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
There's a small but vocal group of American scholars who say that anti-Russian hysteria is
on the rise. We met with two of them to hear their admittedly unpopular case for the rightness
of Russia.
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian
handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has
not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia. ..."
"... And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment ..."
"... In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor ..."
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his
Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe.
NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
The offices of The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, and MSNBC have not been stormed by squads of jackbooted Trumpian
Gestapo.
The Destabilization of the Middle East, the Privatization of Virtually Everything, the Conversion of the Planet into One Big Shopping
Mall, and other global capitalist projects are all going forward uninterrupted. Apart from Trump making a narcissistic, word-salad-babbling
jackass of himself, which he does on a more or less daily basis, nothing particularly apocalyptic happened.
And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent
paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment (or his removal
from office by other means) were left standing around with their hysteria in their hands. It has become a sadistic ritual at this
point like a twisted, pseudo-Tantric exercise where the media get liberals all lathered up over whatever fresh horror Trump has just
perpetrated (or some non-story story they have invented out of whole cloth), build the tension for several days, until liberals are
moaning and begging for impeachment, or a full-blown CIA-sponsored coup, then pull out abruptly and leave the poor bastards writhing
in agony until the next time which is pretty much exactly what just happened.
In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its
mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor. While continuing to flog the wildly popular
baby concentration
camp story (because the Hitler stimulus never fails to elicit a Pavlovian response from Americans, regardless of how often or
how blatantly you use it), the corporate media began hammering hard on the "Trump is a Russian Agent" hysteria. (Normally, the corporate
media alternates between the Hitler hysteria and the Russia hysteria so as not to completely short-circuit the already scrambled
brains of Western liberals, but given
the
imminent threat of a peace deal , they needed to go the whole hog this time and paint this summit as a secret, internationally
televised assignation between Hitler and well, Hitler).
"... McFaul: "Russia made the whole story up." Typical projection. And Browder only became a critic of Putin (the russian justice system) after his criminal enterprise was uncovered. ..."
"... As a "red blooded, Bible believing American", one who has served under oath, and know the duties and penalties, I suggest it's perhaps the best "diplomatic move" seen since Mr. Putin took up the Secretary of State's offer, took Syria's chemical weapons, and took up truly ridding the Nation of terrorists, both those of Saudi, and those my own government made. ..."
This is pure brilliance on Russia's part. It wont happen, but it draws attention to
the Browder story, and discredits McFaul by association. Very smart. Update : It
appears Michael McFaul is really getting nervous, tweeting like a teenager on meth tonight:
"I hope the White House corrects the record and denounces in categorical terms this
ridiculous request from Putin. Not doing so creates moral equivalency between a legitimacy US
indictment of Russian intelligence officers and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented
by Putin"
With The White House flip-flopping back and forth on what was actually said - and meant to
be said - in Helsinki, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dropped the latest tape-bomb to
blow the establishment's mind during to today's press conference.
Sanders reported that President Trump is open to a proposal from Vladimir Putin to let
Russian authorities question the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul .
While Trump reportedly made no commitments to Putin, the Russian president offered to allow
Special Counsel Robert Mueller to observe interrogations of the 12 Russian intelligence agents
indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week for hacking Democratic Party email accounts.
Trump called it an "interesting idea" and an "incredible offer" at the news conference.
Sanders left the press corps dangling by concluding that:
"The president will work with his team and we'll let you know if there's an announcement
on that front."
As The Hill reports, Russia state-owned outlet RT reported that
Russia wanted to question McFaul and the author of the so-called Steele dossier, Christopher
Steele, among others in its investigation into American financier Bill Browder.
Browder is a prominent critic of Putin who lobbied on behalf of the Magnitsky Act, which
imposed sanctions against Russia.
McFaul has denounced the possibility of his being questioned by Russian officials, and has
called on Trump to condemn the proposal .
"Putin has been harassing me for a long time," McFaul said
on Twitter on Wednesday.
"That he now wants to arrest me, however, takes it to a new level. I expect my government
to defend me and my colleagues in public and private ."
And went on...
Does he seem nervous to you?
Source: Zero HedgePutin Asked Trump Permission to Interrogate Obama's Ambassador This is pure brilliance
on Russia's part. It wont happen, but it draws attention to the Browder story, and discredits
McFaul by association. Very smart. Tyler Durden 11 hours ago | 1,727
41 MORE: Politics Update : It appears Michael
McFaul is really getting nervous, tweeting like a teenager on meth tonight:
"I hope the White House corrects the record and denounces in categorical terms this
ridiculous request from Putin. Not doing so creates moral equivalency between a legitimacy US
indictment of Russian intelligence officers and a crazy, completely fabricated story invented
by Putin"
With The White House flip-flopping back and forth on what was actually said - and meant to
be said - in Helsinki, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dropped the latest tape-bomb to
blow the establishment's mind during to today's press conference.
Sanders reported that President Trump is open to a proposal from Vladimir Putin to let
Russian authorities question the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul .
While Trump reportedly made no commitments to Putin, the Russian president offered to allow
Special Counsel Robert Mueller to observe interrogations of the 12 Russian intelligence agents
indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week for hacking Democratic Party email accounts.
Trump called it an "interesting idea" and an "incredible offer" at the news conference.
Sanders left the press corps dangling by concluding that:
"The president will work with his team and we'll let you know if there's an announcement
on that front."
As The Hill reports, Russia state-owned outlet RT reported that
Russia wanted to question McFaul and the author of the so-called Steele dossier, Christopher
Steele, among others in its investigation into American financier Bill Browder.
Browder is a prominent critic of Putin who lobbied on behalf of the Magnitsky Act, which
imposed sanctions against Russia.
McFaul has denounced the possibility of his being questioned by Russian officials, and has
called on Trump to condemn the proposal .
"Putin has been harassing me for a long time," McFaul said
on Twitter on Wednesday.
"That he now wants to arrest me, however, takes it to a new level. I expect my government
to defend me and my colleagues in public and private ."
McFaul: "Russia made the whole story up." Typical projection.
And Browder only became a critic of Putin (the russian justice system) after his criminal
enterprise was uncovered.
I did like this one review of your insightful book, Mr. McFoul. If I send you the
review, will you sign it? I'd be honored. Russia's Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin By Michael McFaul, Cornell University Press, 2001
http://exiledonline.com/mik...
This book is a four-hundred page testimonial to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy
of the American Russia-watching mafia. In its pages, Michael McFaul condemns himself
again and again with staggering non-sequiturs, self-serving lies, crude
misrepresentations of his own past and the recent history of Russia, and repeated
failures to meet even the most basic standards of academic rigor.
Mr McFaul seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of law and a justice system. If he
is indicted by the Russian courts and required for questioning, why is that any different
from Russian "suspects" being indicted by US courts and required for questioning? Until the justice system has made its inquiries and run its course, no one can know
for sure whether Mr McFaul is guilty of crimes or not. So why does he demand total immunity from justice in such a peremptory, entitled
way?
Surely it can't be because he feels that Americans are in any way "superior",
"exceptional", or immune from justice? Surely Mr McFaul isn't a crude common-or-garden racist? Surely...?
The rub here is the ambassador enjoys diplomatic immunity from prosecution for events
that might have occurred during his tenure in Moscow from Russian courts. If the Trump
DOJ decides he should face the music then he has no immunity.
Your third question answers your second question almost perfectly. Because he feels that Americans are in every way "superior", "exceptional", and should
be immune from justice, no matter how heinous the crimes they have committed.
There fixed it for ya. :-)
What a circus and what a lot of clowns. As they say, nobody is above the law or at least they shouldn't be. I would say that Mr McFaul does protest too much and judging by his rattled statements
appears that he has something to hide. Getting back to basics where is the $400K and how did it get there and did any
go missing on the way?
McFaul is a bag boy shabbos goy for the Jooz that are trying to re-steal (1917, 1991,
2014) Russian wealth. Browder was a discarded Rothschild foreskin.
Earl Browder was lauding Soviet Russia and its successes. He didn't fleece the Russian
people. His grandson is a parasite that hates Russia and has siphoned his ill-gotten
gains from the country. No comparison.
The interesting side of the story is Trump can say yes as president. Not much Michael
McFaul can do then?
It will turn MSM Media upside down.
Btw. NSA can give tips to the Russians about what to ask. They know everything.
Assad probably would also like to question McCain regarding illegal stay in Syria
What I like most of all is Trump´s comment "an interesting idea and an
incredible offer".
ha ha ha ha ha ha.
It will probably not be possible to realize, but it shows Trump is not stupid at all.
Pay Back Time: Puppeticians will be taken out... One at the time...the Longer the Fun
will Last...Russia just make all their Lies Visible... it is a very Strong Weapon...
People are Tired and fed up with Liars, Traitors & Deceivers... Yesterday they caught
our Foreign Minister Blok with some nice Statements...He's like a gut-Shot animal at the
moment...one more Trick and He is Exit....just keep an eye on him...
https://www.aljazeera.com/n...
Stef Blok... You are a complete idiot... take your stuff and Buzz Off...the IMF or the
European Union always can use Some Retarded Ex-Puppeticians Like You...
"Trump invited Putin to Washington for summit: White House".
Washington: President Donald Trump invited Russian leader Vladimir Putin to Washington
for a summit in the northern autumn.
"In Helsinki, @POTUS agreed to ongoing working level dialogue between the two security
council staffs," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a tweet on Thursday.
"President Trump asked @AmbJohnBolton to invite President Putin to Washington in the fall
and those discussions are already underway.
Sanders announced the invitation less than an hour after the
Republican-led Senate effectively rebuked President Donald Trump for considering Russia's
request to question US officials, giving voice to growing unease over the president's
relationship with Putin following their summit in Helsinki on Monday...
Russia should be allowed to question McFaul. We should honor the treaty.
Unfortunately, the intelligence agencies have more power than the president at this
point. They want to assassinate him.
As a "red blooded, Bible believing American", one who has served under oath, and know
the duties and penalties, I suggest it's perhaps the best "diplomatic move" seen since
Mr. Putin took up the Secretary of State's offer, took Syria's chemical weapons, and took
up truly ridding the Nation of terrorists, both those of Saudi, and those my own
government made.
I was afraid for a bit, Syria was going to be broken, and I've served
beside Syrian Army in Beirut, I respect them highly, consider them among the best
professionals, as the world can easily see they are, and I hate what a criminal cadre are
doing to my Country, while we enjoy our sit/coms and beer, and eat snacks and get
fat.
God Bless Russia and President Putin, "it take's a man to make a man", is an old saying,
and the same is true for Nations, I expect.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro, NC, USA
You did not understand the proposal. Russian police interrogates the indicted Russian
officials, and Mueller and team can be given permission to enter Russia and watch the
interrogations. American police interrogates Browder and accomplices, and Russian police
can be given permission to enter the US and watch the proceedings. Completely fair and
transparent, according to existing Treaty between the 2 countries. Nobody can be
extradited, because there is no extradition treaty between the countries.
If Russia is doing killing and poisoning, how come Soros and Browder are not killed,
if anybody deserves - here are two biggest criminals and both of them are Joos.
"... The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept. ..."
"... American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of other countries. ..."
"... The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene ..."
"... There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship. ..."
"... There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is "normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact. ..."
"... A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate. Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true. ..."
The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to
survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No
such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept.
American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative
doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of
other countries. The only way that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea can reach an agreement
with Washington is to become vassals like the UK, all of Europe, Canada, Japan, and
Australia.
The Russians -- especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists -- should take note of the
extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across
the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene. Putin is incorrect that
US-Russian relations are being held hostage to an internal US political struggle between the
two parties. The Republicans are just as insane and just as hostile to President Trump's effort
to improve American-Russian relations as the Democrats, as Donald
Jeffries reminds us .
The American rightwing is just as opposed as the leftwing. Only a few experts, such as
Stephen Cohen and Amb. Jack Matlock , President Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union, have
spoken out in support of Trump's attempt to reduce the dangerous tensions between the nuclear
powers. Only a few pundits have explained the actual facts and the stakes.
There is no support for Trump's agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena.
The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he
declared that "We must deal with Putin's Russia as the rogue state it is." Russia is a " rogue state" simply because Russia does not accept Washington's overlordship.
Not for any other reason.
There is no support even in Trump's own government for normalizing relations with Russia
unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations
neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is
"normal." Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of
normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact.
A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate.
Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put
Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump
is Putin's lackey, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump
stood next to "the murderous thug Putin" and accepted Putin's word that Russia did not
interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in
Putin's pocket and that the Russiagate story is true.
"... Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in America's deep state playbook. ..."
"... Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim. ..."
"... Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington. Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies. ..."
Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it's a key tool in
America's deep state playbook.
Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets
most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim.
Not a shred of evidence suggests Russia meddled in America's political process –
nothing.
Yet an earlier NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed most Americans believe the Russia
did it Big Lie. A months earlier Gallup poll showed three-fourths of Americans view Vladimir
Putin unfavorably.
Americans are easy marks to be fooled. No matter how many times they were deceived before,
they're easily manipulated to believe most anything drummed into their minds by the power of
repetitious propaganda – fed them through through the major media megaphone – in
lockstep with the official falsified narrative.
America's dominant media serve as a propaganda platform for US imperial and monied interests
– acting as agents of deception, betraying their readers and viewers time and again
instead of informing them responsibly.
CNN
presstitute Poppy Harlow played a clip on air of Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asking Putin
in Helsinki the following question:
"Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials
to help him do that?"
Putin said: "Yes," he wanted Trump to win "because he talked about bringing the US-Russia
relationship back to normal," as translated from his Russian language response.
Here's the precise translation of his remark:
"Yes, I wanted him to win, because he talked about the need to normalize US-Russia
relations," adding:
"Isn't it natural to have sympathy towards a man who wants to restore relations with your
country? That's normal."
Putin did not address the fabricated official narrative notion that he directed his
officials to help Trump win. Yet CNN's Harlow claimed otherwise, falsely claiming he ordered
Kremlin officials to help Trump triumph over Hillary.
He did nothing of the kind or say it, nor did any other Kremlin officials. No evidence
proves otherwise – nothing but baseless accusations supported only by the power of
deceptive propaganda.
Time and again, CNN, the NYT, and rest of America's dominant media prove themselves
untrustworthy.
They consistently abandon journalism the way it's supposed to be, notably on geopolitical
issues, especially on war and peace and anything about Russia.
After rejecting, or at least doubting, the official narrative about alleged Russian meddling
in the US political process to aid his election, Trump backtracked post-Helsinki –
capitulating to deep state power.
First in the White House, he said he misspoke abroad – then on CBS News Wednesday
night, saying it's "true," deplorably adding:
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, and he "would" hold Russian President
Vladimir Putin responsible for the interference – that didn't occur, he failed to
stress.
GLOR: "You say you agree with US intelligence that Russia meddled in the election in
2016."
TRUMP: "Yeah and I've said that before, Jeff. I have said that numerous times before, and
I would say that is true, yeah."
GLOR: "But you haven't condemned Putin, specifically. Do you hold him personally
responsible?"
TRUMP: "Well, I would, because he's in charge of the country. Just like I consider myself
to be responsible for things that happen in this country. So certainly as the leader of a
country you would have to hold him responsible, yes."
GLOR: "What did you say to him?"
TRUMP: "Very strong on the fact that we can't have meddling. We can't have any of that
– now look. We're also living in a grown-up world."
"Will a strong statement – you know – President Obama supposedly made a strong
statement. Nobody heard it."
"What they did hear is a statement he made to Putin's very close friend. And that
statement was not acceptable. Didn't get very much play relatively speaking. But that
statement was not acceptable."
"But I let him know we can't have this. We're not going to have it, and that's the way
it's going to be."
There you have it – Trump capitulating to America's deep state over Russia on national
television.
From day one in power, he caved to the national security state, Wall Street, and other
monied interests over popular ones.
The sole redeeming part of his agenda was wanting improved relations with Russia and
Vladimir Putin personally – preferring peace over possible confrontation, wanting the
threat of nuclear war defused.
Despite tweeting post-Helsinki that he and Putin "got along well which truly bothered many
haters who wanted to see a boxing match," his remarks on CBS News showed he'll continue dirty
US business as usual toward Russia.
Anything positive from summit talks appears abandoned by capitulating to deep state power
controlling him and his agenda.
Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington.
Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America's
hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and
populations. Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices
harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies.
Will Americans go along with sacrificing vital freedoms for greater security from invented
enemies – losing both? Will US belligerent confrontation with Russia inevitably follow?
Will mushroom-shaped denouement eventually kill us all?
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research
based in Chicago.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US
Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html "
... I had the privilege of attending the first by invitation only
screening of a documentary"The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes," produced by
Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov. The documentary had been blocked in Europe through lawsuits
filed by some of the parties linked to the prevailing narrative but the Newseum in
Washington eventually
proved willing to permit rental of a viewing room in spite of threats coming from the same
individuals to sue to stop the showing.
Nekrasov by his own account had intended to do a documentary honoring Magnitsky and his
employers as champions for human rights within an increasing fragile Russian democracy. He had
previously produced documentaries highly critical of Russian actions in Chechnya, Georgia and
Ukraine, and also regarding the assassinations of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in
London as well as of journalist Anna Politkovskaya in Moscow. He has been critical of Vladimir
Putin personally and was not regarded as someone who was friendly to the regime, quite the
contrary. Some of his work
has been banned in Russia.
After his documentary was completed using actors to play the various real-life personalities
involved and was being edited Nekrasov returned to some issues that had come up during the
interviews made during the filming. The documentary records how he sought clarification of what
he was reading and hearing but one question inevitably led to another.
The documentary began with the full participation of American born UK citizen William
Browder, who virtually served as narrator for the first section that portrayed the widely
accepted story on Magnitsky. Browder portrays himself as a human rights campaigner dedicated to
promoting the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, but he is inevitably much more complicated than that.
The grandson of Earl Browder the former General Secretary of the American Communist Party,
William Browder
studied economics at the University of Chicago, and obtained an MBA from Stanford.
From the beginning, Browder concentrated on Eastern Europe, which was beginning to open up
to the west. In 1989 he took a position at highly respected Boston Consulting Group dealing
with reviving failing Polish socialist enterprises. He then worked as an Eastern Europe analyst
for Robert Maxwell, the unsavory British press magnate and Mossad spy, before joining the
Russia team at Wall Street's Salomon Brothers in 1992.
He left Salomon in 1996 and partnered with the controversial Edmond Safra, the
Lebanese-Brazilian-Jewish banker who died in a mysterious fire in 1999, to set up Hermitage
Capital Management Fund. Hermitage is registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands.
It is a hedge fund that was focused on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the
loans-for-shares scheme under Boris
Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir Putin's
ascendancy. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.
Browder had renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 and became a British citizen apparently
to avoid American taxes, which are levied on worldwide income. In
his bookRed Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for
Justice he depicts himself as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to
function in a corrupt Russian business world. That may or may not be true, but the
loans-for-shares scheme that made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as
the epitome of corruption, an arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs
to strip the former Soviet economy of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along
the way, Browder
was reportedly involved in making false representations on official documents and
bribery.
As a consequence of what came to be known as the Magnitsky scandal, Browder was eventually
charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering
Russia in 2005, even before Magnitsky died, and began to withdraw his assets from the country.
Three companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities, though it is
not clear if any assets remained in Russia. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in
absentia in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.
Browder has assiduously, and mostly successfully, made his
case that he and Magnitsky have been the victims of Russian corruption both during and
since that time, though there have been skeptics
regarding many details of his personal narrative. He has been able to sell his tale to leading
American politicians like Senators John McCain, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman, always
receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians and
media outlets. But there is, inevitably, another side to the story, something quite different,
which Andrei Nekrasov presents to the viewer.
Nekrasov has discovered what he believes to be holes in the narrative that has been
carefully constructed and nurtured by Browder. He provides documents and also an interview with
Magnitsky's mother maintaining that there is no clear evidence that he was beaten or tortured
and that he died instead due to the failure to provide him with medicine while in prison or
treatment shortly after he had a heart attack. A subsequent investigation ordered by then
Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in 2011 confirmed that Magnitsky had not received medical
treatment, contributing to this death, but could not confirm that he had been beaten even
though there was suspicion that that might have been the case.
Nekrasov also claims that much of the case against the Russian authorities is derived from
English language translations of relevant documents provided by Browder himself. The actual
documents sometimes say something quite different. Magnitsky is referred to as an accountant,
not a lawyer, which would make sense as a document of his deposition is apparently part of a
criminal investigation of possible tax fraud, meaning that he was no whistleblower and was
instead a suspected criminal.
Other discrepancies cited by Nekrasov include documents demonstrating that Magnitsky did not
file any complaint about police and other government officials who were subsequently cited by
Browder as participants in the plot, that the documents allegedly stolen from Magnitsky to
enable the plotters to transfer possession of three Hermitage controlled companies were
irrelevant to how the companies eventually were transferred and that someone else employed by
Hermitage other than Magnitsky actually initiated investigation of the fraud.
In conclusion, Nekrasov believes there was indeed a huge fraud related to Russian taxes but
that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and
engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, the accountant, personally developing and implementing
the scheme used to carry out the deception.
To be sure, Browder and his international legal team have presented documents in the case
that contradict much of what Nekrasov has presented in his film. But in my experience as an
intelligence officer I have learned that documents are easily forged, altered, or destroyed so
considerable care must be exercised in discovering the provenance and authenticity of the
evidence being provided. It is not clear that that has been the case. It might be that Browder
and Magnitsky have been the victims of a corrupt and venal state, but it just might be the
other way around. In my experience perceived wisdom on any given subject usually turns out to
be incorrect.
Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right,
though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both
sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his
business activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about
Russia and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks
named McCain, Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and
reflect on what the consequences of proposed action might be.
One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative
accepted should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono?
standard. And then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder. The film shows him
huffing and puffing to explain himself at times and he has
avoided being served with subpoenas on allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that
are making their way through American courts. In one case he can be seen on YouTube running away from a server,
somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide.
A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov documentary
at the Newseum but it is not clear if any of them actually bothered to attend,
demonstrating once again how America's legislature operates inside a bubble of willful
ignorance of its own making. Nor was the event reported in the local "newspaper of record" the
Washington Post , which has been consistently hostile to Russia on its editorial and
news pages.
A serious effort that a friend of mine described as "hell breaking loose" was also made
to disrupt the question and answer session that followed the viewing of the film, with a
handful of clearly coordinated hecklers interrupting and making it impossible for others to
speak. The organized intruders, who may have gained entry using invitations that were sent to
congressmen, suggested that someone at least considers this game being played out to have very
high stakes.
The point is that neither Nekrasov nor Browder should be taken at their word. Either or both
might be lying and the motivation to make mischief is very high if even a portion of the stolen
$230 million is still floating around and available. And by the same measure, no Congressman or
even the President should trust the established narrative, particularly if they persist in
their hypocritical conceit that global human
Gee, I know G. was a spook of some kind and I always read his articles wherever they turn
up.. but how could he get this wrong unless on purpose: Magnitsky was no lawyer. He was an
accountant and he was a co-conspirator in the frauds being perpetrated that resulted in the
charges. He died alright but there is some shading to the thesis that the fraudsters had him
bumped off because they knew he was a weak link. They bribed somebody in the prison to deny
him medical care. Hey, much like they did to Milosevic knowing they couldn't convict him of
their trumped up charges. Why would G. get wrong such a simple thing to determine? Hmm. I
wonder..
Why would you continue the falsehood of calling Magnitsky a lawyer? He was not a lawyer.
Ever. He is and was an accountant and will remain that until Judgement Day. On the other
other hand, calling him a lawyer is perhaps an even greater insult than calling him an
accountant.
"... That's because US hostility toward Russia being what it is, there is an incredible amount of bipartisan comfort with continuing that acrimony. Trump faced condemnations for even attending the summit, and more still for getting out of it without picking a fight with Putin. ..."
"... Media coverage of the summit was uniformly negative, parroting disputed allegations of election meddling. ..."
"... Allegations of meddling in the 2016 election have become "unquestionable" in the mainstream, both as a talking point and as a justification for picking new fights with Russia. ..."
Congress looks to counter Trump's diplomatic overtures with hostile actions
Monday's summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended with a relatively modest press conference.
Things went well, by both leaders' accounts, and it represented a small but significant attempt at improving bilateral relations
from their recent lows.
That's because US hostility toward Russia being what it is, there is an incredible amount of bipartisan comfort with continuing
that acrimony. Trump faced condemnations for even attending the summit, and more still for getting out of it without picking a fight
with Putin.
Media coverage of the summit was uniformly negative, parroting disputed allegations of election meddling. Fox News' Chris Wallace
interviewed Vladimir Putin, and failing to get Putin to admit to anything, reporters praised Wallace for "
giving Putin the grilling Trump won't ."
Speaker Paul Ryan
termed Russia "a menacing government," and Congress is considering more sanctions, more hearings, and potentially even some non-binding
resolutions endorsing the intelligence community's allegations against Russia. Which is really the center of most of the efforts to stop diplomatic progress.
Allegations of meddling in the 2016 election have
become "unquestionable" in the mainstream, both as a talking point and as a justification for picking new fights with Russia.
Trump has long expressed interest in improving ties with Russia, and this summit was actually one of his first real opportunities
at doing so. Yet it will be difficult for this progress to have any permanence with everyone else so united in undermining it.
"... They secured and and announced the indictments "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States." ..."
"... That language is from 1799's Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953). Its constitutionality is suspect and no one has ever been indicted under it in the 219 years since its passage. Rosenstein and Mueller aren't likely to be the first two, and may not even technically have violated its letter. But I'd be hard put to name a more obvious, intentional, or flagrant act in violation of its spirit. ..."
Friday the 13th is presumably always someone's unlucky day. Just whose may not be obvious at the time, but I suspect that "Russiagate"
special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein already regret picking Friday, July 13 to announce the
indictments of 12 Russian intelligence officers on charges relating to an embarrassing 2016 leak of Democratic National Committee
emails. They should.
Legally, the indictments are of almost no value. Those indicted will never be extradited to the US for trial, and the case that
an external "hack" – as opposed to an internal DNC leak – even occurred is weak at best, if for no other reason than that the DNC
denied the FBI access to its servers, instead commissioning a private "cybersecurity analysis" to reach the conclusion it wanted
reached before hectoring government investigators to join that conclusion.
Diplomatically, on the other hand, the indictments and the timing of the announcement were a veritable pipe bomb, thrown into
preparations for a scheduled Helsinki summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
House Republicans, already incensed with Rosenstein over his attempts to stonewall their probe into the Democratic Party's use
of the FBI as a proprietary political hit squad, are planning a renewed effort to impeach him. If he goes down, Mueller likely does
as well. And at this point, it would take a heck of an actor to argue with a straight face that the effort is unjustified.
Their timing was clearly intentional. Their intent was transparently political. Mueller and Rosenstein were attempting to hijack
the Trump-Putin summit for the purpose of depriving Trump of any possible "wins" that might come out of it.
They secured and and announced the indictments "with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government
or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures
of the United States."
That language is from 1799's Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953). Its constitutionality is suspect and no one has ever been indicted
under it in the 219 years since its passage. Rosenstein and Mueller aren't likely to be the first two, and may not even technically
have violated its letter. But I'd be hard put to name a more obvious, intentional, or flagrant act in violation of its spirit.
Rosenstein and Mueller are attempting to conduct foreign policy by special prosecutor, a way of doing things found nowhere in
the US Constitution. Impeachment or firing should be the least of their worries. I'm guessing that there are laws other than the
Logan Act that could, and should, be invoked to have them fitted for orange coveralls and leg irons pending an appointment with a
judge.
That they even have defenders is proof positive that some of Trump's most prominent opponents consider "rule of law" a quaint
and empty concept – a useful slogan, nothing more – even as they continually, casually, and hypocritically invoke it whenever they
think doing so might politically disadvantage him.
Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William
Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted
with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian
handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has
not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe. NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia. ..."
"... And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment ..."
"... In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor ..."
So it appears America and democracy have miraculously survived the dreaded Trump-Putin summit or Trump's meeting with his
Russian handler, as the neoliberal ruling classes and their mouthpieces in the corporate media would dearly like us all to believe.
NATO has not been summarily dissolved. Poland has not been invaded by Russia.
The offices of The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, and MSNBC have not been stormed by squads of jackbooted Trumpian
Gestapo.
The Destabilization of the Middle East, the Privatization of Virtually Everything, the Conversion of the Planet into One Big Shopping
Mall, and other global capitalist projects are all going forward uninterrupted. Apart from Trump making a narcissistic, word-salad-babbling
jackass of himself, which he does on a more or less daily basis, nothing particularly apocalyptic happened.
And so, once again, Western liberals, and others obsessed with Donald Trump, having been teased into a painfully tumescent
paroxysm of anticipation of some unimaginably horrible event that would finally lead to Trump's impeachment (or his removal
from office by other means) were left standing around with their hysteria in their hands. It has become a sadistic ritual at this
point like a twisted, pseudo-Tantric exercise where the media get liberals all lathered up over whatever fresh horror Trump has just
perpetrated (or some non-story story they have invented out of whole cloth), build the tension for several days, until liberals are
moaning and begging for impeachment, or a full-blown CIA-sponsored coup, then pull out abruptly and leave the poor bastards writhing
in agony until the next time which is pretty much exactly what just happened.
In the days and weeks leading up to the summit, the global capitalist ruling class Resistance deployed every weapon in its
mighty arsenal to whip the Western masses up into a frenzy of anti-Putin-Nazi fervor. While continuing to flog the wildly popular
baby concentration
camp story (because the Hitler stimulus never fails to elicit a Pavlovian response from Americans, regardless of how often or
how blatantly you use it), the corporate media began hammering hard on the "Trump is a Russian Agent" hysteria. (Normally, the corporate
media alternates between the Hitler hysteria and the Russia hysteria so as not to completely short-circuit the already scrambled
brains of Western liberals, but given
the
imminent threat of a peace deal , they needed to go the whole hog this time and paint this summit as a secret, internationally
televised assignation between Hitler and well, Hitler).
"... We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People ..."
"... This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Zen Cash ; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc. ; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; LibertyStickers.com ; and ExpandDesigns.com/Scott . ..."
Peter van Buren discusses the media reaction to President Trump's recent meeting
with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. He compares the entire story of Russian collusion to the
birther conspiracy
movement , in that swaths of Americans have been swept up in a campaign against the
president with very little real evidence presented to support the claims. Van Buren argues that
the divisiveness about Trump being a Russian agent is harmful for the country, and at this
point Robert Mueller and the intelligence community need to "put up or shut up" -- either
present the clear evidence that Trump worked with the Russians, or admit that there is no such
evidence. He goes on to discuss the DNC email leak, Hillary Clinton's private email server, and
the recent indictment of 12 Russian operatives.
"EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT
provide Clinton emails – they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary
for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers" (
Daily Mail )
Consortiumnews Volume 24, Number 199
-- –Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995 -- –July 18, 2018
US Media is Losing Its Mind Over Trump-Putin Press Conference July 16, 2018 •
316 Comments
The media's mania over Trump's Helsinki performance and the so-called Russia-gate scandal reached new depths on Monday, says Joe
Lauria
By Joe Lauria Special to Consortium News
The reaction of the U.S. establishment media and several political leaders to President Donald Trump's press conference
after his summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday has been stunning.
" There are exactly two possible explanations for the shameful performance the world witnessed on Monday, from a serving American
president.
Either Donald Trump is flat-out an agent of Russian interests -- maybe witting, maybe unwitting, from fear of blackmail, in
hope of future deals, out of manly respect for Vladimir Putin, out of gratitude for Russia's help during the election, out of
pathetic inability to see beyond his 306 electoral votes. Whatever the exact mixture of motives might be, it doesn't really matter.
Or he is so profoundly ignorant, insecure, and narcissistic that he did not realize that, at every step, he was advancing the
line that Putin hoped he would advance, and the line that the American intelligence, defense, and law-enforcement agencies most
dreaded.
Conscious tool. Useful idiot. Those are the choices, though both are possibly true, so that the main question is the proportions
never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of another
country over those of his own government and people."
As soon as the press conference ended CNN cut to its panel with these words from TV personality Anderson Cooper: "You have been
watching perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president at a summit in front of a Russian leader, surely,
that I've ever seen."
David Gergen, who for years has gotten away with portraying himself on TV as an impartial political sage, then told CNN viewers:
" I've never heard an American President talk that way but I think it is especially true that when he's with someone like Putin,
who is a thug, a world-class thug, that he sides with him again and again against his own country's interests of his own institutions
that he runs, that he's in charge of the federal government, he's in charge of these intelligence agencies, and he basically dismisses
them and retreats into this, we've heard it before, but on the international stage to talk about Hillary Clinton's computer server
"
" It's embarrassing," interjected Cooper.
" It's embarrassing," agreed Gergen.
Cooper: "Most disgraceful performance by a US president."
White House correspondent Jim Acosta, ostensibly an objective reporter, then gave his opinion: "I think that sums it up nicely.
This is the president of the United States essentially taking the word of the Russian president over his own intelligence community.
It was astonishing, just astonishing to be in the room with the U.S. president and the Russian president on this critical question
of election interference, and to retreat back to these talking points about DNC servers and Hillary Clinton's emails when he had
a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he didn't do it."
In other words Trump should just shut up and not question a questionable indictment, which Acosta, like nearly all the media,
treat as a conviction.
The Media's Handlers
The media's handlers were even worse than their assets. Former CIA director John Brennan
tweeted : "Donald Trump's press conference
performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors,.' It was nothing short of treasonous. Not
only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???"
Here's where the Republican Patriots are, Brennan: " That's how a press conference sounds when an Asset stands next to his Handler,"
former RNC Chairman Michael Steele tweeted.
Representative Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former vice president, said on Twitter: " As a member of the House Armed Services
Committee, I am deeply troubled by President Trump's defense of Putin against the intelligence agencies of the U.S. & his suggestion
of moral equivalence between the U.S. and Russia. Russia poses a grave threat to our national security."
All these were reactions to Trump expressing skepticism about the U.S. indictment on Friday of 12 Russian intelligence agents
for allegedly interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election while he was standing next to Russian President Vladimir Putin at
the press conference following their summit meeting in Helsinki.
" I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia, Trump said. "I have great confidence in my intelligence people,
but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."
The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, of
stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage the candidacy
of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with the clear intention
of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so.
Over the weekend Michael Smerconish on CNN
actually said the indictments proved that Russia had committed a "terrorist attack" against the United States. This is in line
with many pundits who are comparing this indictment, that will most likely
never produce any evidence, to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. The danger inherent in that thinking is clear.
Putin said the allegations are "utter nonsense, just like [Trump] recently mentioned." He added: "The final conclusion in this
kind of dispute can only be delivered by a trial, by the court. Not by the executive, by the law enforcement." He could have added
not by the media.
Trump reasonably questioned why the FBI never examined the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee to see whether
there was a hack and who may have done it. Instead a private company, CrowdStrike, hired by the Democratic Party studied the server
and within a day blamed Russia on very
dubious grounds.
" Why haven't they taken the server?" Trump asked. "Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?
I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social
media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying?"
But being a poor communicator, Trump then mentioned Clinton's missing emails, allowing the media to conflate the two different
servers, and be easily dismissed as Gergen did.
At the press conference, Putin offered to allow American investigators from the team of special counsel Robert Mueller, who put
the indictment together, to travel to Russia and take part in interviews with the 12 accused Russian agents. He also offered to set
up a joint cyber-security group to examine the evidence and asked that in return Russia be allowed to question persons of interest
to Moscow in the United States.
" Let's discuss the specific issues and not use the Russia and U.S. relationship as a loose change for this internal political
struggle," Putin said.
On CNN, Christiane Amanpour called Putin's clear offer "obfuscation."
Even if Trump agreed to this reasonable proposal it seems highly unlikely that his Justice Department will go along with it. Examination
of whatever evidence they have to back up the indictment is not what the DOJ is after. As I
wrote about the indictments in detail on Friday:
" The extremely remote possibility of convictions were not what Mueller was apparently after, but rather the public perception
of Russia's guilt resulting from fevered media coverage of what are after all only accusations, presented as though it is established
fact. Once that impression is settled into the public consciousness, Mueller's mission would appear to be accomplished."
Still No 'Collusion'
The summit begins. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
The indictments did not include any members of Trump's
campaign team for "colluding" with the alleged Russian hacking effort, which has been a core allegation throughout the two years
of the so-called Russia-gate scandal. Those allegations are routinely reported in U.S. media as established fact, though there is
still no evidence of collusion.
Trump emphasised that point in the press conference. "There was no collusion at all," he said forcefully. "Everybody knows it."
On this point corporate media has been more deluded than normal as they clutch for straws to prove the collusion theory. As one
example of many across the media with the same theme, a New York Times
story on Friday , headlined, "Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton. Were They Listening?," said Russia may have absurdly
responded to Trump's call at 10:30 a.m. on July 27, 2016 to hack Clinton's private email server because it was "on or about" that
day that Russia allegedly first made an attempt to hack Clinton's personal emails, according to the indictment, which makes no connection
between the two events.
If Russia is indeed guilty of remotely hacking the emails it would have had no evident need of assistance from anyone on the Trump
team, let alone a public call from Trump on national TV to commence the operation.
More importantly, as Twitter handle "Representative Press" pointed
out: "Trump's July 27, 2016 call to find the missing 30,000 emails could not be a 'call to hack Clinton's server' because at that
point it was no longer online . Long before Trump's statement, Clinton had already
turned
over her email server to the U.S. Department of Justice." Either the indictment was talking about different servers or it is
being intentionally misleading when it says "on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for
the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third party provider and used by Clinton's personal office."
This crucial fact alone, that Clinton had turned over the server in 2015 so that no hack was possible, makes it impossible that
Trump's TV call could be seen as collusion. Only a desperate person would see it otherwise.
But there is a simple explanation why establishment journalists are in unison in their dominant Russian narrative: it is career
suicide to question it.
As Samuel Johnson said as far back as 1745: "The greatest part of mankind have no other reason for their opinions than that they
are in fashion since vanity and credulity cooperate in its favour."
Importance of US-Russia Relations
Trump said the unproven allegation of collusion "has had a negative impact upon the relationship of the two largest nuclear powers
in the world. We have 90 percent of nuclear power between the two countries. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous what's going on with
the probe."
The American president said the U.S. has been "foolish" not to attempt dialogue with Russia before, to cooperate on a range of
issues.
"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats
who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct," Trump said. "Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards
the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of
peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
This main reason for summits between Russian and American leaders was also ignored: to use diplomacy to reduce dangerous tensions.
"I really think the world wants to see us get along," Trump said. "We are the two great nuclear powers. We have 90 percent of the
nuclear. And that's not a good thing, it's a bad thing."
Preventing good relations between the two countries appears to be the heart of the matter for U.S. intelligence and their media
assets. So Trump was vilified for even trying.
Ignoring the Rest of the Story
Obsessed as they are with the "interference" story, the media virtually ignored the other crucial issues that came up at the summit,
such as the Middle East.
Trump sort of thanked Russia for its efforts to defeat ISIS. "When you look at all of the progress that's been made in certain
sections with the eradication of ISIS, about 98 percent, 99 percent there, and other things that have taken place that we have done
and that, frankly, Russia has helped us with in certain respects," he said.
Trump here is falsely taking credit, as he has before, for defeating ISIS with only some "help" from Russia. In Iraq the U.S.
led the way against ISIS coordinating the Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. But in the separate war against ISIS in Syria, Russia,
the Syrian Arab Army, Kurdish forces, Iranian troops and Hizbullah militias were almost entirely responsible for ISIS' defeat.
A grand deal? (Photo: Sputnik)
Also on Syria, Trump appeared to endorse what is being
reported as a deal between Russia and Israel in which Israel would accept Bashar al-Assad remaining as Syrian president, while
Russia would work on Iran to get it to remove its forces away from the northern Golan Heights, which Israel illegally considers its
border with Syria.
After a meeting in Moscow last week with Putin, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he accepted Assad remaining in power.
" President Putin also is helping Israel," Trump said at the press conference. "We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would
like to do certain things with respect to Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like
to work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work jointly."
Trump also said that the U.S. and Russian militaries were coordinating in Syria, but he did not go as far as saying that they
had agreed to fight together there, which has been a longstanding proposal of Putin's dating back to September 2015, just before
Moscow intervened militarily in the country.
" Our militaries have gotten along probably better than our political leaders for years," Trump said. "Our militaries do get along
very well. They do coordinate in Syria and other places."
Trump said Russia and the U.S. should cooperate in humanitarian assistance in Syria.
" If we can do something to help the people of Syria get back into some form of shelter and on a humanitarian basis that's what
the word was, a humanitarian basis," he said. "I think both of us would be very interested in doing that."
Putin said he had agreed on Sunday with French President Emmanuel Macron on a joint effort with Europe to deliver humanitarian
aid. "On our behalf, we will provide military cargo aircraft to deliver humanitarian cargo. Today, I brought up this issue with President
Trump. I think there's plenty of things to look into," Putin said.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street
Journal, Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at
[email protected]and followed on Twitter @unjoe .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
I'm really hard pressed to come up with anything to be optimistic about given the dire nature of our current global and national
predicaments combined with the bat-sheet crazy nature of our current version of the mass psyche. About the only bright spot I
can find is that it is really encouraging to read the overall high quality of the comments here at CN, which suggest that I can
look forward to taking part in some wonderful future conversations in "the camps."
"The Reuters/Ipsos poll gathered responses from 1,011 registered voters throughout the United States, including 453 Republicans
and 399 Democrats. The poll has a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of 4 percentage points."
Independents/anaffiliated make up more than 42% of the registered voters currently in the USA.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 pm
"medium = Social / source = Twitter"
Babyl-on , July 17, 2018 at 9:35 pm
I think we should take heart that they are such a small group – loud yes, they have the corporate press, but it is not a big
group and they have already lost the narrative. This has to be the end for them, they have no political support for impeachment
after all this screeching articles can't even get introduced mostly the "resistance" isn't even trying – they know they don't
have evidence.
The scream these words TREASON and COLLUSION but they are powerless politically to do anything. So a "treasonous" president
goes on. Clearly they are at their wits end their heads have actually exploded. The powerful "liberal" cabal which has run Washington
for decades is disintegrating before there very eyes. Clinton is the witch – Trump is the water.
A , July 17, 2018 at 11:33 pm
Okay , I get it, I will go down , but I am not going down by the orange shit head. You guys win, you wanted your Cheeto to
give us some love, and tax breaks , favorable trade deals, get rid of people like me , be besties with Russia, kill everyone from
central America. Cool. You guys win. I hope you are happy , apparently you have achieved what you wanted.
Thanks, Drew and Realist, i just read Finian Cunningham's essay at Information Clearing House. Yes, this is indeed scary. It
does appear a coup is being planned. All the more reason for us to speak up. The thought of Mike Pence is scarier than Trump.
willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:30 pm
I was a Sanders supporter and donor who voted for Trump because he promised diplomacy, whereas Hillary wanted a no-fly zone
in Syria, and her proven track record of supporting illegal regime change in Iraq, Honduras, Libya, Ukraine and Syria. She was
a faux progressive and ultimate racist in that she has the blood of countless brown people (mostly women and children) on her
hands. What is really scary and disheartening is that the pro-WW3 propaganda seems to be working if the reader comments from the
NYT and WaPo are accurate gauges of public perception. The verdict of commenters in corporate media websites is unanimous: Trump
is a traitor for committing the crime of détente. Consortium news readers are informed because we search truth in alternative
media. I hope it's not naďve to believe we are the silent majority and most Americans still possess the common sense and critical
thinking skills necessary to see through the hysteria even if they don't venture to sites like Consortium news.
AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Don't worry yourself too much. The highest rated MSM news shows only garner about 1.2 million viewers. That's far less than
1% of the American population.
The MSM fancy themselves what they have not been in decades; Relevant.
That was good, mrbt (not enough vowels for me). Yes, we are in a jalopy headed for a cliff. Instead we get a cliffhanger with
this Mueller intel fiasco. I misspoke with the bank bailout, of course, it was 2009 just after Obama got into office; he told
those banksters, "I'm the only one between you and the pitchforks". Now it seems like we're on a roller coaster ready to jump
the track!
mrtmbrnmn , July 17, 2018 at 7:33 pm
This disgraceful and obscene display of pants-wetting by the MSM over the Trump-Putin meeting and press conference was pre-planned
and essentially pre-scripted to advance the deep state regime change op against Trump (and ultimately Putin). I was trying to
imagine these journalistic malpracticers prepped to embarrass and humiliate Obama in a similar setting by asking questions like:
"Mr Obama, which do you prefer, watermelon or chicken bones?"
It is clear beyond doubt that we are helpless passengers in the back seat of the out of control jalopy that is America, barreling
helter skelter down the highway bound to hell and total collapse. The Dementedcrats need to get off the crack pipe and the unconscionable
CIA thug John Brennan might benefit from a frontal lobotomy to get him to chill out.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm
the best description i've read of this insanity is : 'the MSM is (p-faced) drunk on its own p . . . " with appreciation
to the commentor who wrote that !
It sounds like Lisa Page is, unlike Strzok (remember him, from late last week ?) cooperatively providing information which
might implicate China as the 'party which got the 30,000 emails'. Perhaps this is what Trump & Putin talked about ? In which case,
The Donald's walking back his press conference comments may be only a temporary feint. If true, Lisa will need excellent protection
and a new name !
Something big may be in the works, as Stephen says. Now Veterans Today says that a move on Iran by the US was discussed at
Helsinki, and they think that Putin would capitulate in some sort of trade-off -- what, to get off their backs? Putin is much
smarter than that. Zero Hedge just reports that Russia has dumped all their US Treasury bonds, further stating that Russia's close
ties to China indicate a trial run on the market preparatory to China dumping their pile, too. What many feel the big event is
really another economic meltdown, as nothing was done in the 2008 Obama crisis except bail out the banks, which went right back
to their chicanery. The western Deep State always sets up for war to divert attention from internal crisis.
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm
I get far more concerned when the press, intelligence agencies and various other DC gangsters lavish praise on Trump. Judging
by their reactions, it seems likely that Trump must have actually brought us closer to peace.
Stephen J, excellent verse as usual, "Blame It On Putin". It was reported that "the lights went out" in the White House when
Trump did his U-turn on Russian election meddling. Was that supposed to be symbolic of something?
Thanks Jessika. I believe something big is in the works. The powers that be have had things their own way for so long. The
corporate media monopoly are their mouthpieces and are barking like dogs in a frenzy in case they lose their bones. The bones
being the millions dead from planned wars and blood soaked profits that attained to the corporate cannibals. Enemies are needed
to continue the corrupt system. The War Criminals are getting desperate, the gangsters war is just starting. Unfortunately we
are all Prisoners of "Democracy" https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
Antiwar7 , July 17, 2018 at 6:22 pm
David Gergen says Trump acts "against his [Trump's] own country's interests of his own institutions [including] these intelligence
agencies."
There's the rub, isn't it? The interests of our country and of those institutions: are they the same?
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm
Also worth, sorry for broken record but, using Trump's unique "awfulness" as justification for vigilante-style "trial in the
press" or manipulated/propagandized "public opinion" there's a deep deep antidemocratic anti-due process or rule-of-law desperation
here which has had "liberal" (or "illiberal") precedent we've already seen in "political correctness" and #metoo (emanating from
the "progressive camp" often justified by the awfulness / despicable-ness of those they despise.
This is a very very sad devolution (or arguably the unmasking) of the Democratic Party (I vote the latter).
mike k , July 17, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Trump mumbled some sort of half maybe apology about questioning Russian meddling. But he will contradict that apology just
as quickly. They are really having trouble pinning this guy down on anything. His enemies want to nail him, but he just keeps
moving. For a fat guy, he is pretty nimble.
Now, Trump says he misspoke and "accepts US intel on Russian election meddling"! I guess he got anothet 'trip to the woodshed',
as Skip Scott has often said. James Howard Kunstler is right, it's a "Clusterfuck Nation". Well, the Russians are smart enough
never to trust the US.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 9:49 pm
He got the truth out first and for that I have to give him kudos.
He probably knew backtracking and its attendant issues was
Inevitable. Very nice that power went out while he said he misspoke.
as WaPo itself says, "Truth Dies in Darkness".
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:18 pm
Look, this is getting frightening.
Never in my lifetime have I witnessed a group think/mob mentality like what's occurring over Russiagate and the overriding
Russophobia fueling it all. This is washing over virtually all planks of the political spectrum. We just had a damaged and awful
president try to do one of the very few things he actually gets right: make rapprochement with Moscow; he was subsequently browbeaten,
smeared and viciously attacked by every single mainstream Western media outlet on the planet. Not just news media, but also the
entertainment media are completely on board -- Kimmel, Fallon, Colbert, Maddow, etc.
To say one kind word about Putin or the modicum of detente that Trump just unsuccessfully tried to pull off is to be mocked,
ridiculed, scoffed at and laughed at by liberal leaning friends, colleagues and acquaintances.
The militarist-corporate propaganda during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War pales in comparison to this new and scary McCarthyism
that has permeated everything.
I'm 47 y.o. and never experienced anything like this.
The liberal intelligentsia who are falling for this and propagating this have some of the hottest places in heII waiting for
them.
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 5:31 pm
If you think the overwhelming majority of the US cares about what the press and politicians think, then I would suggest you
spend less time with Democrats. I dont agree with many Republican platforms, but on the reliability of media, they are far more
prescient than the Democrats. I wonder if it is because they have more first-hand knowledge than the Democrats because they tend
to send their kids to the meat grinder oil, wars more frequently than Democrats.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 5:40 pm
The best thing we have going right now Deniz is the cynical and skeptical attitude of much the hardworking American population.
The Russians certainly aren't the ones who foisted this unconscionable inequality on the U.S. population, nor was it the Russians
who caused the American heartland to deteriorate into a wasteland of service sector employment and Oxy dependence. It wasn't Putin
who mired recent American college grads in deplorable debt in the range of $30,000 to $400,000, nor was it Putin who demanded
that millions of Americans go without adequate healthcare coverage.
It's economic inequality and it's political enablers who are stalking the towns and cities of America, not the Russian military.
John P , July 17, 2018 at 6:37 pm
That is the real problem, so why arn't kids, their parents and the poor out on the streets like those of my generation during
the Vietnam war stiring things up. Is it social media which kills the urge to go out and protest and make yourself heard? Get
the money and business influence out of modern day politics, Raise hell !
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:15 pm
There was a DRAFT during the Vietnam war. That made a huge difference.
And, I think we were actually better informed than today's young people.
Bringing the war live into people's living rooms was New Thing back then,
and we paid attention. Now, we are habituated and just tune out bad news,
unless it happens to be a domestic shooting spree or other home turf stuff.
willow , July 17, 2018 at 9:36 pm
Irina below is right. The draft was the difference. People would wake up and engage if we had the draft. We have an economic
draft today. It's the only option for poor and lower class kids who will never afford college. It's unfortunate that identity
politics doesn't include the socioeconomic bias of targeting of poor kids being used as cannon fodder
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:12 pm
And moreover, the draft was based on a birthdate lottery.
All in the luck of the draw. (And of course, economic standing
since there were college deferments, etc. etc.)
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:49 pm
I'm 71, Drew, and can tell you that the darkest days of the Vietnam War were not as scary. Our power structure has taken McCarthyism
as practiced during the Korean Conflict and doubled down on it, directing its kinetics at the office of the presidency. This is
as close to a civil war or an actual coup d'etat that I have ever seen, much more divisive and explosive than Nixon and Watergate.
Someone claiming authority they do not have may soon make a move against Trump. They've stirred up enough hate by the mob to mask
their motives.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 6:02 pm
Thanks for kicking some historical info to this Gen Xer. You make some very interesting (and quite scary) points.
Over at 'Information Clearing House' the always excellent Finian Cunningham has just penned a dynamite and trenchant essay
on a possible pending coup against Trump.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 6:32 pm
Thanks. I always read your spot-on posts at the ICH website, Drew.
Drew Hunkins , July 17, 2018 at 8:36 pm
Thanks Realist.
In solidarity,
Drew Hunkins
Madison, WI
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 7:13 pm
Yes. This excellent article by Finian Cunningham really nails it.
Monoloco , July 17, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Trump derangement syndrome is so powerful, it turns liberals into neocons.
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Drew your absolutely correct, this is a unprecedented groupthink & dangerous propaganda on a scale that's never existed before!
It's mass hysteria on steroids! And all because of the simple fact that Trump, a man who was never supposed to win the Election
over the anointed candidate, crooked Hillary Clinton occurred! Trump must be removed by a slow motion coup by any means possible?
Whether it's by undermining his authority or belittering his character. If that doesn't work they will take the JFK removal method?
As Stalin stated, death is the solution to all problems, no man, no problem? It's frightening where all this fake Russiagate nonsense
is going to lead us, it's almost as if they want to start the next great extinction event by starting WW3 & a Nuclear War with
Russia? The arrogance of America & its Deepstate, Propagandist MSM & political system is going to be the death of us all!
I don't know that to say. Whatever was left of the republic is either gone or doomed. If we have a mainstream media that is
so nakedly attempting a coup d'état or calling for one with such universal fury based on little evidence and just embroidering
one myth over another then I will have to just focus my energy elsewhere. My comrades on most of the left have, despite decades
of proof that the media is deeply dishonest and constantly howling for one war after another the only hope is to batten down the
hatches and just survive the next decade through local efforts. The sad part is I oppose many of Trump's policies but this isn't
about policies–this is about re-invigorating American militarism and imperialism.
I've been around a lot of crises but nothing like this madness.
As usual the "media impostors" and propaganda pushers blame Putin.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
January 10, 2017
"Blame It" On Putin
There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
"Blame it" on Putin
The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an "aggressor"
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, "Blame it" on Putin.
The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They "Blame it" on Putin
Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They "Blame it" on Putin
The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that "their democracy" is "lost in transmission"
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They "Blame it" on Putin
One loose canon talks and babbles of "an act of war"
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
"Blame it" on Putin
There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, "Blame it" on Putin
[more info at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:46 pm
This just in: (NYT headline / top of page)
Trump Backtracks on Russian Meddling
Under Fire, He Says He Accepts U.S. Intelligence Reports
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm
and then
Guardian:
Trump flips – then flips again – a day after downplaying Russian interference
President says he supports US intelligence consensus on 2016 election – but then says 'it could be other people also'
I heard him say that. He meant that Russia did it and others could also have been involved.
Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm
Perhaps New York magazine has it right? "The president isn't a traitor: He's just constitutionally incapable of processing
simple information, or prioritizing the national interest above his own egoistic desires." or more maybe New York's earlier article
from last week suggesting Trumpkin has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987 is true.
One thing's for sure: Trumpkin borrowed 100's of millions from shady Russian bankers and other oligarchs, some of whom seem
to have laundered a bunch of money through Trump's real estate holdings by buying condos for dollars on the penny. If you foliks
don't see that as being at least somewhat on the same level as Dick Cheney holding those un-exercised Halliburton stock options
at the time Haliburton was servicing the Iraq invasion
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:06 pm
Or Hillary exchanging access to the State department for donations
Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:40 pm
"Cheney has pursued a political and corporate career to make himself very rich and powerful. He is the personification of a
war profiteer who slid through the revolving door connecting the public and private sectors of the defense establishment on two
occasions in a career that has served his relentless quest for power and profits."
Profiting from the death and destruction of a heinous war of aggression that Cheney himself played a key role in instigating
can in no way be compared with shady business dealings. I harbour disdain for shady businessmen who cheat property owners, honest
contractors or workers. But that type of wrongdoing pales in comparison to the wicked malfeasance of Cheney (or the Bush family
for that matter).
Before you "process" any more simple "information" from New York magazine Will, I suggest you take note of the GIGO truism
and check yourself for leakage.
It seems President Lenin Moreno of Ecuador might have the perfect solution for his "problem" in London.
Free Julian Assange, Allow him to walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy with all the proper rights available for any innocent
man or woman on Earth.
Immediately upon Mr. Assange's exit, allow William (Bill) Browder to enter and occupy the same room at the Ecuadorian Embassy
– whereupon Mr. Browder will reside at that address until July 2024, punished under the identical treatment and conditions as
Julian Assange.
"Problem solved" – President Moreno!
David Otness , July 17, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Not much to say but the USA has gone bat-shit cray-cray.
I'm going to be delighted to be excised from many so-called "friends" – friends of mob mentality.
The US media and Intel complex have induced a national psychosis and a likely Constitutional crisis.
Keep yer powder dry.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:04 pm
I'd guess half the country considers this -- in the end -- just more partisan theatrics sad to suspect that they actually are
the "sane ones" It's ennui versus cynicism as to which is more deadly .
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm
The scary thing is, Americans second amendment right to bear arms against enemies both domestic & foreign! There's a Edward
Abbey saying that a days "a Patriot must always be ready to defend his Country against his Govt"! How long will it be before American
citizens reach a tipping point where they recognise that it's enemies are its own domestic leaders & institutions such as the
false corporate propagandist MSM & corrupt Politicians in both Republican & Democratic Parties who are undermining & sabotaging
their human rights as free people! How long will it be before they say enough's enough we can't stomach this anymore?
Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm
In the Odyssey a witch-goddess named Circe turned Odysseus' men into pigs. I think Trump is a modern day sorcerer. In the GOP
primaries he turned his more intelligent and more experienced competitors into incoherent cartoon characters. He has done the
same to the entire Democratic establishment, and he has done it to the entire mainstream press. There is no effective opposition
because politicians and the media have become stark-raving mad – wild swine, just as dangerous as the monster they oppose. We
are in America's darkest hour and only half the blame goes to the vulgarian in the White House.
The Ministry of Truth has declared that seeking détente with Russia is an act of treason. And peace is war. Long live Oceania!
jsinton , July 17, 2018 at 6:14 pm
I love it.
BobS , July 17, 2018 at 2:37 pm
The POTUS stood on foreign soil and announced to the world that the leader of one of our historical adversaries was more credible
than the US intelligence services.
If it walks like a traitorous duck, and quacks like a traitorous duck, ..
anon , July 17, 2018 at 4:25 pm
Then it is a traitorous troll.
Gregory Herr , July 17, 2018 at 7:47 pm
That's rich! Do please grace us with an explanation as to why "credible" is an adjective aptly applied to either the FBI or
the CIA.
Dario Zuddu , July 17, 2018 at 2:33 pm
Excellent piece. Fortunately, there is still someone here retaining sanity.
The only thing I have to add is that, most regrettably, it is not only the media and opportunistic politicians that have lost
their minds on this matter.
Large segments of the public appear to have too.
Just take a look at the readers' comments on the very same type of press coverage that is indicted by Mr. Lauria.
They overwhelmingly level the same one sided, unbalanced, shallow, wrong-headed and hysterical attacks on Trump as the press articles
they comment – and for the same completely questionable reasons.
Accusations of Trump "surrendering to Putin", being a "traitor" for siding with Russia instead of the US intelligence community
(on a totally unproven matter, by the way; and since when the US intelligence community is necessarily more reliable than foreign
leaders on these matters?) are the norm in the readers' comment (as well as in the mostly recommended ones).
Incredibly, the same public that lambasted at the intelligence community for its appalling record on Iraq, now does not even want
to consider that same community's obvious self interest in Russia-bashing.
In the USA, who stands the most to loose from a possible pacification of foreign relations with the biggest military counterpart,
i.e., well, Russia?
This question just rings as troubling now as it did at the onset of the cold war.
Yet, nobody seems to wonder it.
It's just over for those of us on the old left. The Orwellian nature of the media has taken hold and we are powerless against
it. We have a population utterly uncurious of facts or history, logic or science, rationality or erudition. It's over. People
want to belong, want to share their anger at whatever enemy there is no matter how ludicrous is that threat from the enemy. This
is how the oligarch has decided to use Trump's election–first to divide us on tribal grounds and second to invent some enemy that
uses all the mythology of Hollywood villains with Russian accents. It's working and it means the oligarchs are unassailable and
now are able to control public opinion with a bunch of gestures on the screen and the population will bark on command. Goebbels
is, somewhere, cackling with delight.
We will be lucky if we avoid war, fortunately the professional military understands the situation much better than the civilian
leaders and have put brakes on our drift into permanent major war everywhere.
Paula Densnow , July 17, 2018 at 2:19 pm
The US media tries to browbeat Trump into saying that he stole the 2016 election with the help of Putin, and when he refuses
to do that, they call him a traitor.
We live in an insane asylum.
Will , July 17, 2018 at 3:31 pm
No, trump is clearly a traitor.
Beard681 , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 pm
To who? The military industrial complex? Bill Browder who renounced his citizenship to avoid Taxes? Certainly not average US
people for whom Russia poses no credible threat.
Robin Harper , July 17, 2018 at 10:31 pm
Gee, if this is all made up, explain this: (And keep in mind, to get an indictment, you MUST have proof.)
The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller's probe:
Total of indictments (so far) – 35.
1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements
to the FBI.
2) Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.
3) Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money
laundering, and false statements -- all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He's
pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and
bank fraud charges.
4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort's longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges
to Manafort. But in February he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller's team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge
and one conspiracy charge.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of
identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies
involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a "Russian troll farm," and two other companies that helped finance
it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency's employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments,
and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick
Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.
23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who's currently based in Russia, was charged
alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort's pending case this year.
24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia's military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to
the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats' emails in 2016.
Two ex-Trump advisers lied to the FBI about their contacts with Russians:
Michael Flynn Mario Tama/Getty
No, Trump didn't 'steal' the election. The presidency was handed to him – by Putin.
skipNclair , July 17, 2018 at 2:01 pm
The US media lost its mind long ago.
didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 pm
What has happened on this trip of President Trump is simple. The axis Washington-EU/NATO has been thrown under the bus., It
has been replaced by the axis Washington-Moscow. Whether that is a cause to rejoice remains to be seen. Rejoicing now is wildly
premature. Axes can break.
There will be expectations of better lives by the Russian people. What if that does not happen? There have been far more uprisings
and revolutions in Russian history than in ours.
lizzie dw , July 17, 2018 at 1:34 pm
To respond to one commenter's suggestion that the US get rid of the electoral college; if one looked at the map of the US on
post-election morning, one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue. If we went the
"popular vote" route, every president would be elected by the coastal states because that is where most of the people live. The
coastal population does not represent the country. In my opinion, since we want to have a representative government we need the
electoral college so that each state gets to vote. The people in each state can direct the vote of their state.
didi , July 17, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Sorry Lizzie. The population of all states represent our nation. That is why the vote count, while it does not elect the President
and Vice President, is not wholly without meaning. Governing totally against the views of the majority of voters implies that
they are wrong and stupid. That is my view. It is also arrogant.
strngr-tgthr , July 17, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Thanks you! The MAJORITY should ALWAYS rule. There should be no acceptions especially for President of the United States. Too
few people speak this TRUTH! In this day an age there is no reason to have any system or institutions in place that does not speak
for the MAJORITY! Electoral College down!
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Never heard of the "tyranny of the majority", eh? It's a genuine problem with democracy it's quite possible that many issues
would never have reached majority status -- slavery would never have been abolished (so much fuss about a regional "peculiar institutution"),
""The notion of the tyranny of the majority was popularised by the 19th century political thinkers Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy
in America) and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). It refers to a situation in which the majority enforces its will on a disadvantaged
minority through the democratic process.""
The vote of far too many would be rendered irrelevant if there were no proportional representation mechanism in place too much
of those disenfranchised by the elimination of the electoral college are already amongst the have-nots of our country, at the
further hungry end of income inequality (some do better than other by providing "services" -- vacation homes/destinations and
cheap labor -- to the oligarchs. -- those coasts are where the money and jobs are wealth
The electoral college DOES NOT prevent the "tyranny of the majority" because you do not have equal voting. If every state cast
the same number of votes then you have equal voting. Because each state has different number of electoral votes based on their
populations, candidates can spend their time in a few states while ignoring others.
A national popular vote restores equality
A national popular vote means 3rd party candidates can win because there is no more electoral strategy or asinine argument
of red state / blue state.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:12 pm
We've never had such a system, wise guy. The Senate is inherently undemocratic, based on states' rights, not one man one vote.
Moreover, judges are not elected but appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. Having the president chosen
by the Congress, as is done in all parliamentary systems, would be "tidier" ("fairer?") than the present system, but we've lived
with this mess since 1789 and several times have been governed by a "minority president" without the world coming to an end. The
rules were no excuse for a coup d'etat then, nor are they now.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:22 pm
The Constitution allows Amendments to change with changing times. The vote has been given to free men without property, freed
slaves and women. More than 10% of Presidents did not win the plurality of votes. If people truly want their votes to count more,
they can work to amend the Constitution, or vote with their feet and move to states where their votes count more.
A much bigger issue is the lack of proportional voting practiced by most real Democracies around the world. Gerrymandering districts
can result in the party getting the least votes (of the two) in a state still winning the most representatives. Proportional voting
would eliminate this problem, but was outlawed by LBJ in favor of first-past-the-post, winner takes all Districts.
Sorry, Didi, but our federal constitutional republican form of government is neither stupid nor arrogant.
It is a well designed construct that binds together the entire nation, not only the people but the states, into an organic
being. The electoral college consciously factors in the fact that we are a union of states, not only a union of "demos" (people).
That is why the "New Jersey plan" at the Federal Convention was a high point in your high school civics class. The states are
intended to mean something in our federal republican form of government.
Indeed, for those who view the massive growth of our federal government into an imperial hegemon over the past century or so,
it is no small coincidence that the balance constructed by the founders was tipped in favor of Washington, and BIG MONEY, by the
passage of the 17th Amendment in 1912. That amemdment (for the popular election of Senators instead of their being appointed by
state legislatures as written in the constitution) inexorably led to the growth of our imperial state; immediately thereafter
came the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, enactment of a the personal income tax to replace import tariff's to fund the federal
government, our engagement in WW 1, and increasing alliance with the British Empire that lasts today in our "special relationship",
the NATO alliance, and the Anglo American hegemon.
It is also no coincidence that the root source of "Russia-gate" and "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a sustained effort by British
Intelligence, in cahoots with US deep state intelligence that works not for the people of the US but for the Anglo-American empire
of western capital centered on Wall Street and the medieval City of London. That is why the "golden shower dossier" was written
by a British intelligence officer (Steele), that the basis for the deep state rat Strzok to spy on Trump was an Australian "diplomat"
(read spy) Downer, friend of the globalist Clintons, and US deep state intelligence operatives attempted entrapment of Trump campaign
supporters (such as by Stefan Halper, an Mi-6 and CIA asset).
The entire attack to undermine the results of the Electoral College triumph of Donald Trump is directed by Anglo-American deep
intelligence assets, working for the globalist western capitalist cabal, that cannot permit a mere president to alter their globalist
plans; ergo, deep state rats Brennan and 10 hand picked analysts come up with "Russian collusion", unleasigh Mueller (protector
of the Whitey Bulger Winter Hill Gang), Strzok, Rosenstein, etc. to to find a basis to neuter, if not impeach, the constitutionally
elected President.
Indeed, Pres. Washington foresaw such an eventuality of foreign influence tainting our Republic; see his Farewell Address at
Paragraphs 32-39. Indeed, his prescience amazing; read these warnings:
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite
nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing
into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without
adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which
is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained,
and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And
it
gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or
sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of
a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or
foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened
and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of
seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards
a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people
ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of
republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence
to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another
cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on
the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its
tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."
Indeed, if any nation can be found to be interfering in our domestic politics and seeking to influence the actions of the President,
or more precisely to have him removed from power, it's not Russia, its the United Kingdom.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Interesting, thank you. I will read up on the 17th. I've blamed the "federalization" of politics for a lot of the apparent
decline in citizen interest in Democracy as state and local influence "on people's lives" seemed to have been ceded over to the
fed not entirely a bad thing (when it comes to civil rights, equal opportunity and federal funding for stuff states could never
afford) still, I think something encouraged a complacent electorate even if the educational values of unions (voting for your
interests rather than against) signifies.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Jim in NH – brilliant post! Thank you. Everybody should read it.
Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 pm
If three million more voted for Hillary than Trump, then majority of voters are wrong and stupid. Good thing the Electoral
College saved us from ourselves.
" one saw that practically the entire country was coloured red – only the coasts were blue."
Right, "only the coasts". The ones where nearly 50% of the US population live.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 8:09 pm
And that 50% mostly live in big cities which would not survive long
without the rural areas which provide the resources to support them.
Fred , July 17, 2018 at 10:09 pm
They actually think food comes from the supermarket Irina.
irina , July 17, 2018 at 11:17 pm
And you buy it with EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards.
JoeD , July 17, 2018 at 3:06 pm
The coasts were not blue. Clinton got the west coast. Trump won most of the east: FL, GA, SC, NC and they split Maine. Trump
won 30 out of 50 states. There were also less people who voted in 2016 than did in 2012 and in 2008.
So it does not follow Clinton would win if there was a National Popular vote.
Our electoral system(s) have very serious problems voter access (and apathy) and gerrymandering probably top the list, but
that "neoliberal income inequality" appears to color/overlay everything
Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 1:33 pm
Great article and commentary CN, many thanks. There is an excellent comment by Craig Murray at his site and one should not
miss the commentary there either
Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They voted a Russian bribery hag Hillary and now go far-right John Birch in drumming
up war with Russia -- just because Trump hurt their feelings by beating Hillary. Sad!
I was impressed on the eve of 2016 election how ineffective Clinton's constant beating on Obama's drum wrt to Russia-Russia-Russia
had been I don't remember the polls but the numbers for "major concern" iirc were low, around maybe 12% (after months and months)
I think the media is drunk on their own piss . I remember feeling frustrated when Gore (who had a better case for "stolen electoin"
imho) walked away my suspicion is that on completion of the Mueller inquiry this is going backfire badly . even if Manafort gets
decades in prison for money laundering
Anon , July 17, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a "Danger to America" or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers?
Glenn Greenwald and another thoughtful dude, Joe Cirincione. All substance and strong disagreements without shouting or personal
attacks.
Greenwald:
I also think that that last point that Joe made is actually an important one, and it does put people like me into a difficult
position, which is, you know, on the one hand, of course I don't think that Donald Trump is well intentioned and is going to have
the diplomatic skill to negotiate complicated new agreements of trade and of arms control with very sophisticated regimes like
the one in North Korea, or at least complicated regimes in North Korea, or in Russia. On the other hand, as we've been discussing,
unfortunately, he's the only game in town. There is nobody else who's saying that we ought to question NATO. Democrats, when you
say we ought to question NATO, act like you've committed blasphemy. There is nobody else talking about tariffs and the unfairness
of free trade agreements, except for a couple of fringe people within the Democratic Party. Just like this week, when he said
that the European Union was a foe, what he said was something that for a long time on the left was really kind of just uncontroversial
orthodoxy, which is that of course the European Union is an economic competitor of the U.S., and a lot of what their trade practices
are do harm the American worker. We put up barriers against Chinese products entering the U.S., and yet the EU buys them and then
sells them into the U.S., indirectly helping China circumvent those barriers in a way that directly harms U.S. workers. This is
something that people like Robert Reich and Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders have been talking about for a long time. So it does
make it very difficult when the only person who's raising these kinds of issues and talking about these things-we need to get
along better with Russia and China, we need to reform these old, archaic, destructive institutions-is a megalomaniac, somebody
who's completely devoid of any positive human virtue, which is Donald Trump. So it puts you in the position of kind of trying
to agree with him, while knowing that he's really not going to be able to do anything about those in a positive way.
On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable being aligned with people like Bill Kristol and David Frum and all of those Bush-era
hawks who are now the best friends of MSNBC and the Democratic Party, either, because they're not well intentioned, either. And
so, what I try and do is use Donald Trump and the kind of shifting alliances, that we started off by talking about, to open up
a lot of the debates, that will remain closed if you only look at U.S. politics through the prism of the 2016 election and Republicans
versus Democrats. And I think the most important point is the one that, as I said, Joe made just this week, which is that until
the Democratic Party figures out-and this is true not just of Democrats but of center-left parties all throughout Europe and here
in Brazil-until they figure out how again to reconnect, not with the highly educated class and the rich and the metropolitan enclaves,
but with the working class of these countries, that feel trampled on and ignored, and for that reason are turning to demagogues,
we're going to have more Donald Trumps and worse Donald Trumps, not just in the United States, but throughout the world. And that
is, for me, the greatest problem that we face politically
This is the best article I've read on the topic, hands down.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:38 am
No question about that, TIEDE, but considering the pitifully low standards applied to what emanates from the wreckage of the
American mass media, Mr. Lauria really didn't have much competition to beat. Of course, no matter how deserved, he will not be
winning any Pulitzers, since mediocre groupthink, especially of the warmongering variety, is the new standard of excellence in
American letters.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 12:45 pm
As others have noted, it "treason" isn't impeachable, what is? If not now, when?
Should we go off and invade Somalia in retaliation? The anti-Trump/Democrats are undermining their own credibility -- not to
mention the press, whose credibility might reach nosedive if they still had much of an audience .
More ridiculous than GWB after 09/11 . which reminds me that Trump keeps reminding me of want-to-share-a-beer-with GWB but
stupider and with less "fund of knowledge"
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:26 pm
And how are these "others" defining "treason?" Whatever they say it is, and without any evidence that it genuinely occurred?
This is not a case of treason, it is a case of attempted mob rule, like the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. The
vile media acts as the bull horn of the seditionists, they show some insurrectionists making a hullabaloo on your television screen,
and the coup plotters point and say, "see, it's treason, off with his head!" Meanwhile, your government has been stolen yet again
because some insiders didn't like the results.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:42 pm
To have treason you must have a declared war and a declared enemy. If you look at the list of people convicted of treason in
the US, there are what, a dozen?
The President has broad powers of foreign policy (and immigration) which may be a bad thing, but I applaud Trump's peace overtures
to North Korea and Russia as well as Obama's (reviled by many of the same warmongers) deal with Iran. Unfortunately all these
deals are President-specific and undercut by un-elected Intelligence agencies with agendas of their own, and politicians taking
money from the MIC and foreign lobbyists with war profiteering agendas. No one can believe a President no matter how well meaning
and sincere. Clinton abrogated Reagan's deal with Gorbachev, almost destroying Russia, as did Obama reneging on the deal with
Gaddafi, destroying Libya. Clearly the best option is to build up a cache of nuclear arms and to use them if necessary to protect
sovereignty.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am
At least Cooper used a small window – there haven't been many U.S. Russia summits – but Fallows? Uh, 9/11 and the Saudis anyone?
More evidence there than Russian collusion and three Presidents – including Trump – have given that a pass.
Treason-schmeason, Dave! You don't seem to know much about the real history of the US government, only the manufactured one
of the powers in charge. Pick up a copy of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick's book "The Untold History of the United States".
As for the vaunted democracy these talking bobbleheads and puppet politicians go on about, we don't hear them speaking about
lobbying, do we, or Citizens United or McCutcheon vs Buckley decisions of the Supreme Court? It's not even the Electoral College
that skews the vote and takes democracy out of the citizens' decisions -- it's lobbying, which is legalized fraud and bribery.
No, they go on and on about Russia, Russia, Russia, all to make sure folks look somewhere else while they continue the hijacking.
Dave , July 17, 2018 at 10:35 am
What is amazing is how you and so many GOP are actually defending Russia! This was treason!
Deniz , July 17, 2018 at 10:53 am
What is amazing is the extent that the Democrats are lied to, and the extent that they believe those lies. I am awestruck by
the complete and utter brainwashing of a democratic, educated country by the CIA. Getting Republicans, who are inclined to think
negatively of foreigners is one thing, but Liberal Democrats, who profess to believe in education and equality becoming the brown
shirts, it never occurred to me that was possible.
By the way, i am speaking as a former Democrat, Obama voter.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 10:58 am
Yes, it is quite frightening. I think Trump is dangerously inept but reading the intelligence report on Russia released Jan.,
2017 was the most frightened I have ever been as an American. It provided no evidence (apparently keeping things top secret is
more important than alleged election tampering which should give cause to thought right there) and instead laid out a game plan
for attacking dissenters of U.S. foreign policy.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:18 am
Maybe it's just wishful thinking, because I am one too, but it seems the country must be full of former Democrats (and thoroughly
disillusioned Obama voters), or at least we should be if we want to survive over the long term. Hillary was just another pack
of lies (and threatened violence) too far, which is why she lost. Had NOTHING to do with Russians hacking elections, influencing
the vote or stealing our democracy. That is simply the revisionist bullshit in the aftermath of her self-inflicted debacle, as
she persists in dragging down the party, the country and maybe the world out of self-centered petulance.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 11:24 am
Unless you are trying to be sarcastic, Dave, you added an extraneous letter to the word you should really want. What Mr. Lauria
has written here is pure "reason," not "treason." Go back and consider all the relevant issues again, this time accurately.
Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm
I guess Dave forgot that our intelligence agencies have lied us into war in the past.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 5:29 pm
And YOU are prosecuting Russia on what EVIDENCE? None! That is madness and the ticket to war. You are just the sort of pawn
to make Goebbels tremble with delight, Dave.
Samuel , July 18, 2018 at 12:34 am
I am not American but like so many out there, am concerned by what is going on in your once beautiful country. It amazes to
realize that people have chosen to bury truth and reason for hatred's sake. How can one hope to build a secure, prosperous democracy
based on a fraudulent lie? If one can pick a leaf from the Iraqi war it is that one should never believe unquestioningly everything
that comes from the intelligence community. That deception resulted in perhaps millions dead. This time round it might result
in billions dead including Americans. Is that what people like Dave want? Could this be a secret conspiracy to bring destruction
to the entire universe? To what ends?
David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:00 am
Trump's actual treason:
-- turning environmental policy over to the biggest polluters
-- turning financial regulation over to parasitic elites
-- turning education policy over to anti-public, pro-charter grifters
-- turning the FCC over to the big telecoms
-- turning the Iran-nuke deal over to Netanyahu
What gets Trump called a traitor by the Beltway blob:
-- wanting to talk with Russia, and holding a Soviet/Russia summit just like every president since FDR
Wotta country!
Karen , July 17, 2018 at 11:06 am
Exactly!
BrianS , July 17, 2018 at 7:54 pm
Don't relish the me too, or "same here" moniker, but: Exactly!
mike k , July 17, 2018 at 9:39 am
The enemies of Peace, having failed to prevent the Putin/Trump summit, are now busy saying that it was a disaster, and that
it was meaningless – two seemingly discordant observations. The real religion of America is WAR. Anything that smacks of peace
is Heresy!
David G , July 17, 2018 at 10:08 am
"The stories of how North Korea is now violating an imaginary pledge by Kim to Trump in Singapore are even more outrageous,
because big media had previously peddled the opposite line: that Kim at the Singapore Summit made no firm commitment to give up
his nuclear weapons and that the 'agreement' in Singapore was the weakest of any thus far."
Yeah. The lunatics would have the world believe that Trump was a cowardly traitor because he didn't i) berate President Putin
to his face for rigging the election in his favor (as did the impertinent network goon Chris Wallace whom Putin totally pwned,
though absolutely unbeknownst to the American jingoist corp) and ii) summarily declare war on the Russian Federation to cap everyone's
day of fun and games. Insults and war seem to be what the imbeciles so passionately want. I wish I could give them their suicidal
war that didn't involve me, my relatives, friends and other innocent bystanders, but that's not how it works and they will eagerly
take us all down if given the chance. We are seeing war fever sweep across a crazed nation led astray by the worst demagogues
to come down the pike since the "Greatest Generation" got an invite from Uncle Sam to Hitler's big dance. Everybody is a flag
waving blood-lusting maniac, from the corporate boardrooms, to the residue of what is left skulking around the fake newsrooms,
to the cocky stand-up comedians now inhabiting every late night channel spewing trash and attitude without having the first clue.
Must be as invigorating as sucking in the cordite-perfumed air of Berlin circa 1939. The pity is that this time the glorious experience
will be so short once the rockets are launched. Almost seems a waste to squander the experience on a bunch of lame brains who
probably assume they can get their ticket price back if they don't fully enjoy the show.
Realist, As always, your comments are stunningly accurate, and have literary flavor as well. It is really getting there as
you have described.
As Gore Vidal wrote long ago, this brainwashing started long time ago during the nineteenth century when they started inoculating
the innocent American population against socialism and all that, the ideas which were sweeping across Europe in that century.
Here we are now, it is almost a crazed Nation. My wife reads L.A. Times religiously and being a Hillary fan has been watching
CNN, MSNBC, Judy Woodruff and other channels like these.
It is not going to end up pretty, the atmosphere is frightening.
Doran Zeigler , July 17, 2018 at 9:32 am
I consider my politics as beyond progressive, and I am definitely not a Trump cheerleader, but I must say that this article
by Consortium News is by far the most balanced and fair article I have read on the Trump/Putin press conference. Did the Russians
hack Clinton's emails? Most likely. Were the hacks responsible for Clinton's defeat -- not on your life. Hillary offered nothing
other than the same old tired rhetoric and hostilities toward Russia. She basically defeated herself.
The fact that Clinton won the popular vote by three million should dispel any notion that the Russian hacks were effective.
What this does say is that we should get rid of the antiquated and unfair Electoral College. The press conference was not the
venue to grill or attempt to embarrass Putin, besides, Putin could hurl those same accusations at the US for not only interfering
in the Ukraine election, but also contributing millions of dollars to it. Putin, if he wanted, could point to NATO creeping up
to Russian borders when NATO had promised years ago not to go beyond unified Germany. The Russians have a multitude of complaints,
but are more diplomatic than the provocative Americans and would rather not solve these problems in the press.
Is Trump a bumbler -- no doubt. The conference was not the place to air America's dirty laundry or bring up his usual complaints.
All of this hoopla is a dog and pony show, a theatrical media event to distract the American people from their real problems like
a collapsing economy made worse by Trump's tariffs, like the bloated military budget, the horrific income inequality, the rise
of poverty, and an endless stream of worsening problems of which neither party has a solution. It is the old sleight of the hand
trick -- watch the hand I wave in front of you face, but pay no attention to the hand that is stealing you blind.
I am at least happy to see a media outlet that has broken from the pack of running lemmings that are not heading for a cliff,
but are running in a small circle.
Daniel , July 17, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Where is the evidence that Russia, rather than an insider like Seth Rich, released the emails?
Assange has all but verbally confirmed it was Seth Rich, not Russia.
Zinny , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Begs the question; Why doesn't the NSA either confirm or deny the download?
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:50 pm
Why doesn't Mueller offer Assange immunity to testify? Sounds like Mueller may offer the Podestas (Manafort's partners in crime
in the Ukraine) immunity to testify against Manafort.
TragiCom , July 17, 2018 at 9:28 am
You'd be forgiven if you thought Brennan's rant was an episode from 'Who is America'!!
Brennan & co. behaving absolutely like unaccountable gangsters. Very dangerous gangsters. Nuclear armed gangsters.
"The indictments, which are only unproven accusations, formally accused 12 members of the GRU, Russian military intelligence,
of stealing Democratic Party emails in a hacking operation and giving the materials to WikiLeaks to publish in order to damage
the candidacy of Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton. The indictments were announced on Friday, three days before the summit, with
the clear intention of getting Trump to cancel it. He ignored cries from the media and Congress to do so."
The most blatant and desperate effort to date to sabotage détente, any effort to cooperate on crucial issues. The media and
its sources are hysterical but scary as hell. Using words like treason without a peep from the media or anyone in Washington is
also scary as hell.
Didn't watch much of the news but curious about CNN, turned it on to watch Blitzer and Rand Paul exchange. Last question do
you trust our security folks or Putin. The patriots versus the devil. Rand Paul ignored it and earlier pointed to our less than
Simon pure history of trying to meddle in elections. Hell we ran the campaign of the greatest thief in Russian history, Yeltsin.
Bottom line, folks will do anything to stop the President's efforts to improve relations with Russia. It began before the inauguration
and has not let up since.
There is reason to use the word treason but it is not Trump's.
It's a bizarre world when Donald Trump is actually the voice of reason in the USA. The corporate media (including our "public"
networks) are running around with their hair on fire at the thought of the two nuclear nations having a rational relationship.
Why can't the public see the insanity of what's going on?
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Sedition is the more accurate word for those in the Intelligence agencies seeking a soft coup.
richard vajs , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am
The US Media lost its mind about two years ago. After all this time they are still trying to change the 2016 election. It was
plain then – a dirt-bag vs. a fool. The US Media had a dog in that fight – the dirt-bag. What is driving them insane is that the
"fool" has survived their best efforts to destroy him – should have been easy, but it is not. So the insane manipulators are going
for the throat now – TREASON. It is all ridiculous – America has deep economic problems that need to be addressed, namely the
terminal income inequality that exists. Killing the fool and re-elevating the dirt-bag will accomplish nothing but give the U
S Media and the elites they represent another fifteen minute stroll on the decks of the Titanic
Charron , July 17, 2018 at 8:24 am
The corporate press has been shocked that President Trump would not believe the findings of his own intelligence. Never once
has anyone in the Corporate press ever noted that out intelligence sources, the CIA in particular lied when they said Iraq had
WMDS. It was a terrible lie. And even if you prefer to believe that the intelligence community had merely made a mistake, our
invasion cost us over 3trillion dollars, cost thousands of American soldiers their lives, and ended up causing the death of hundreds
of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and has ignited the middle east, resulting in the rise of ISIS. But no one in the corporate press
sees fit to even mention the fact that the CIA claimed were a "slam dunk." Nor has anyone in the corporate press mentioned the
fact that James Come, when he was in the FBI, who headed up the Anthrax investigation fingered the wrong man, though he had said
when questioned if he had the right man, said he was absolutely certain that Hatfiield was the man who spread the Anthrax. The
government settled the false charges against Hatfiled for 5.82 million, as it turned out a fellow named ivans. P.S. Robert Mueller
was the head of the FBI during most of the investigation. And let me make this clear, I also think Trump is a scoundrel, but the
members of our corporate press are scoundrels too.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:09 am
That the parroted information that got us into Iraq was a lie was widely reported and the intelligence debunked in independent
media at the time. There was no mistake. The information was out there but went ignored by the mainstream media. But it goes back
further. Yugoslavia, the first Gulf War erroneous reporting on such issues has been consistent at CNN.
AnthraxSleuth , July 17, 2018 at 3:18 pm
You could not be more wrong about the Anthrax.
Comey and co. ignored a material witness in that case (me) that caught Hatfill snooping around my house in November of 2001. Approx.
a month and a half after I received an anthrax letter. Mr Comey's Anthrax investigation was no such thing. It was just like Hillary's
email investigation. It was a "matter" not an investigation.
An investigation would have included having agents pay a visit to the man (me) that gave them Hatfill's last name 7 months before
his name became public. I was able to do that b/c I when I caught him snooping around my house he was arrogant enough to wear
his army jacket. Guess what is on your army jacket? Your last name.
MR. Comey's Anthrax matter also ignored when I informed the FBI that Ottillie Lundgren and Cathy Nugyen had posted on the same
internet message board at the same time and to the same article that I did.
Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller lied then and are lying now.
For kicks and giggles you can hear Hatfill admit that he was in North Carolina at the time I caught him snooping around my
house in NC here . https://youtu.be/fSfcIh1WCdg?t=1640
Mike , July 17, 2018 at 8:01 am
"The queen of diamonds the queen of diamonds"
padre , July 17, 2018 at 7:41 am
You ain't seen nothing yet, wait till your allies come tot their senses!
Well now I feel silly. I just saw the ZeroHedge piece and understand that Robert Parry wrote often about Browder, so presumably
most visitors of this site are familiar with the name. I'll have to look for those articles. Is Browder in the same league as
Soros?
Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 1:25 pm
Webb: "Trump and Putin are closing in on this Brennan/Browder gang; that's why you had that incredible reaction from Brennan
"
Putin tried to make the point that private citizens are not the state in a country. A private citizen doesn't speak official
government words.
Russian billionaires perhaps poured money into election campaigns. If so, the head of state is not to blame, nor is the crime
done by authority of the government.
Putin said Browder evaded Russian taxes and laundered $1.2 bn into USA, and moved one-third = $400 mn to Clinton's campaign.
Netted him $800 mn. With one-eighth of that Browder bribed Congress to enact Magnitsky (sp) proclamation to spur sanctions.
Russia filed criminal warrants with US under the 1999 treaty (Putin cited) to question Browder and bring charges; unlawfully
ignoring them, US violated treaty.
Browder money 'meddling' in 2016 campaigns is NOT 'Putin dunnit' and NOT 'Kremlin dunnit' and NOT 'Russia dunnit.' Only truthfully,
'Russian Browder dunnit.'
Trump's right for peace, but deplorable (almost) every other way.
If he did 'collude and conspire' that seems the least of his crimes. Impeach him for being morally unfit. Cripes, he was named
in Florida court indictments as co-defendant against charges of rape and abuse of 13- and 14-yo girls; his partner Jeffrey Epstein
was convicted and did time. Forget Russia, Trump's is a sex pervert, racist, and fascist -- unfit for office.
https://www.justice-integrity.org/1445-welcome-to-waterbury-the-city-that-holds-secrets-that-could-bring-down-trump
No link but find July 10 item at ClubOrlov.com titled, Taking Refuge in Insanity. It may be solace for Joe, in a way, and moreover
a general understanding of media cohort insanity.
If understanding is possible.
And MOST I stopped to say Thank You, thank you Joe Lauria. Your work brought me deep relief and it's refreshing.
_____
PS, I predict the 12 indicted Russians do get their day in US courtroom to defend themselves with lawyers rightfully allowed
to question (Mueller's) prosecution witnesses and testimony, and to present defense , and (Mueller's) prosecution loses there.
PPS, any rich moneybags domestic or foreign who aimed to spend in 2016 to hurt Hillary or help Donald be elected,
put all the money into Bernie's campaign: split the left vote and the rightist candidate skulks into office. Vice versa, Dems
in 2020 may prop up a Republican candidate on the left of Trump; split the R's vote between soft and hard rightwingers.
exiled off mainstreet , July 17, 2018 at 2:25 am
Who are the traitors? Those who seek war with a nuclear power or those who wish to solve the problems. What about Browder's
$400,000,000 to the Clinton campaign. Putin wouldn't make such a statement if there were nothing to back it up, though Mueller
is willing to lay unsubstantiated charges which go against proven evidence that the DNC leak was from a thumb drive, not internet
transmission. In any event, why is it so bad that the crimes of the DNC were revealed? I guess the truth is dangerous to the yankee
form of "managed democracy."
Alcuin , July 17, 2018 at 2:10 am
I don't know if it's true or not, but I once read that Nicholas II actually ordered the de-mobilization of the Russian army
on the eve of WWI, but that his order was ignored by his subordinates who were eager for war. Trump in his interview with Hannity
implies at one point that he doesn't have full control over the military -- that the belligerent rhetoric has been having practical
and dangerous consequences. Frightening. Starting at ca. min. 5. https://youtu.be/dRMW4knpiUo
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:22 am
Just for sh*ts & giggles, try listening to prophecy preachers like Bro. Stair at
http://www.overcomerministry.org (Do NOT belive them!) Such folks
have radically different assumptions. Listening will clear your intellectual pallette, so to say.
David G , July 17, 2018 at 1:11 am
Others may not feel the connection strongly, but watching today's (yesterday's now) media meltdown flashed me back to the day
of Colin Powell's Iraqi WMD presentation to the U.N.
I watched that live, and even at the time – before the specific fabrications were exposed – it was such a self-evidently lame
effort that I was genuinely surprised and confused when all the media people instantly hailed the its supposedly irresistible
power in making the case for the coming war. And it's not like I went into the day with such a high opinion of the corporate media.
As with Trump in Helsinki, it was clear the media was activating a pre-arranged narrative (approval then, opprobrium now) rather
than genuinely reacting to what they had seen and heard.
Jared , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am
That is an excellent assesment.
That is the dumbfound aspect the blatantly preconceived and coordinated attack on the public dialog.
I feel certain the media is being required to sacrifice its reputation for the purpose of distracting the public from some issue.
I dont thing the anderson coopers realise that this is the purpose they belive they are simply acting as political assasins of
the enemy.
Maybe is niave of me but is it possible this is simply to defray discussion of dnc communications and dnc conspiring by which
they pretty much destroyed the democratic brand? Of course there are also the globalists concern with nationalism and populism
and mic with concern fear of outbreak of peace.
gailstorm , July 17, 2018 at 11:23 am
The average journalist, mostly print but even regional TV, statistically makes less money than school teachers. It's quite
different at the national TV level. They are paid ridiculously well and maybe coincidentally (maybe not) removed from the ground
work among the masses. The system has rewarded them so there is natural bias toward the status quo (something that exists to a
degree in objective journalism to begin with). They likely aren't aware but they are hired and keep their jobs based on questions
they are not likely to ask. It's corporate America. Just as in low level administrative job hiring at large companies, blandness
and safe get the jobs.
Chumpsky , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm
"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and
stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
A page taken out of JFK's playbook.
No wonder the democrats/MSM/Deep State are so disturbed and ready to shoot the messenger. He's encroaching on their sanctified
turf!
"As president, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media or Democrats
who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity
to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world. I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to
risk peace in pursuit of politics."
Question for those who have seen the video: were these prepared remarks, or were they spontaneous?
I appreciate them either way, but if Trump crafted those lines on the fly I really might have to give the cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing
shitgibbon (thank you, Scotland!) a fresh look.
Nora De Groote , July 17, 2018 at 3:44 am
I was thinking the exact same thing when reading that quote. That doesn't seem like his rhetoric at all. The "good thing bad
thing" is where you have his level of "eloquence" again. Regardless, even if he had to memorize the statement beforehand, he still
scored in my book.
Vivian O'Blivion , July 17, 2018 at 7:10 am
"cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing, shitgibbon" as a Scotsman I can only apologise for my compatriots sickeningly sycophantic language.
We are normally less diplomatic in our appraisals. In Scotland, if you hear the word "f**k", it's just to let you know a noun
is coming.
Zim , July 17, 2018 at 9:00 am
It's hard to believe that statement came out of Trumps mouth. But I believe it to be spot on.
To Chumpsky : A very courageous statement of Trump! He is no fool . You can't tell a bonk from its cover,
David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:12 pm
Lauria: "The media's handlers were even worse than their assets."
Zing! Props to you, Joe.
David G , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm
I haven't read the article or the comments yet, but I want to chime in now:
I've been watching MSNBC on and off all day, and the summit has clearly caused their brains (already in parlous condition)
to completely liquefy.
"Treason! Worse than Watergate *and* 9/11!!"
Demented.
tom , July 17, 2018 at 10:07 am
+1
Lois Gagnon , July 16, 2018 at 10:38 pm
Once again, the hypocrisy of the media is on full display. Every president including this one pays total fealty to the criminal
state of Israel which we know has interfered in the US political process, not to mention sinking a US naval vessel. But heaven
forbid there be diplomatic talks with Putin who has bent over backwards to accommodate the US when he can. So far all he's gotten
is sand kicked in his face.
The behavior of the media and its fellow juvenile delinquents in Washington are an embarrassment. They are without realizing
it, making Trump look presidential. You can't make this sh*t up.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm
The Evil Monsters destroying our world with their greed and violence are being flushed into the open. But will the brainwashed
masses be able to see this? That is the crucial test that humanity faces at this time. The Rulers will go all out to spin this
in their favor, and if that fails, they will probably try to assassinate this dangerous man, President Donald Trump.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Meanwhile, while everyone is focused on Trump and Putin's summit, the real power of collusion is hard at work.
I'm posting this, because while it's appropriate we talk at length about the disgraceful reception Trump got for his trying
to wage peace, we should not lose sight to what country is using the U.S, as it's useful idiot.
Besides that, an article such as what Phil Giradi wrote should not go unnoticed thank you once again MSM for being the jerks
you are. Did the MSM ever hear of the word 'reporting'? Thank you Joe Lauria & the Parry family for being here when we need you
the most. I don't know what I'd do without the Consortium. Hey kudos to you too Robert Parry, your still number one with me.
For trying to restore a note of sanity and balance in the crucible of journalistic/political dialogue between Russia and the
US centers of power, where we sense the truth will be lost in white hot bombast, and the accepted narrative of reality will be
decided by the heads pushing the correct emotional buttons to fit their nationalistic needs, and their needs for continued employment.
Who can forget the last time all 17 intelligence services were of one mind on weapons of mass destruction – that turned out to
be nonexistent! Let's hope we can catch our breath before we trip into a patriotic war that destroys civilization.
John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Excuse me, but the intelligence service was turned upside down by Bush and his team inserting their own officials to sensor
what was released. The Agencies were very upset that the truth wasn't coming out, and you had the Valerie Plame incident also.
From Slate: "Trump and Putin Met in Helsinki's Hall of Mirrors. Here Are the Highlights." ends with the following:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
On a related note, Rob Goldstone, the British publicist who set up that Trump Tower meeting by promising Trump's son that it was
"part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," just tweeted that Putin had lied earlier in the day when he said
he did not know that Trump would be in Moscow for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant.
Rob Goldstone @GoldstoneRob
President Putin just stated that he had no idea Donald Trump was in Moscow in 2013. I know for sure that he did and tell the full
story in my soon to be released book "Pop Stars, Pageants & Presidents: How an Email Trumped My Life"
1:16 PM – Jul 16, 2018
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
There may not have been collusion but I think we can say there probably was interference, voting machines and misinformation spread
by agents throughout the social communications media of today. And Putin did admit late, that he was for Trump not Hillary.
If there was funding from Russia to the Democrats as some say, and Putin is truthful that he preferred Trump then why did they
give money to the Democrats? Was it to designed to undermine Hillary through its exposure.
Others complain about the timing of the 12 Russian agents, but that was no different from the timing of the Hillary email story
release shortly before the election.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:44 am
"Putin Stole the Election" is fantasy fiction, just like "Obama is a Kenyan" was.
Typingperson , July 17, 2018 at 1:46 am
So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries like
Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?
If lawfully using a govt server, Hillary"s emails would be subject to FOIA petitions. By USA citizen taxpayers and reporters.
Her emails as Sec of State are the property of the American people, who paid her salary. That's what people still don't get.
She used a private server to keep secret the illegal, pay-to-play arms deals–in return for payola bucks to Clinton Foundation.
And Obama turned a blind eye for 4 years. His specialty: Suck-up talking while turning a blind eye.
To Hillary"s incompetence and murderous corruption, to his weekly drone-murders, and to accelerated deportation of innocent
immigrants–and ICE separating parents from kids.
While starting 5 new wars on top of Iraq and Afghanistan–including ongoing genocide of Yemen.
Obama was a good boy for the deep state / war profiteers. And he collected his $60M "book contract." Bribe.
Bill , July 17, 2018 at 3:59 pm
"So you're OK with Hillary using an illegal, off-the-books email server to do pay-to-play arms deals with shitty countries
like Saudi Arabia–that gave millions of $$ to Clinton Foundation in return?"
How is that different from Trumpkin or Bush doing much the same thing?
Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:50 am
Maybe it doesn't make sense because Russia never really worked for either side.
Ron Johnson , July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am
Tracing who, exactly, did the hacking is always difficult because the evidence left behind is usually impossible to trace.
In the case of the hacking or attempted hacking of certain states' data, the only evidence that it was the Russians came from
Russian language characters in the code. Slam dunk, right? Well no, since our CIA/NSA admitted to using exactly such techniques
to misdirect researchers away from their own hacking.
If you read deeper into the story of how the Russians funded Clinton, you'll find that it was not the Russian government. Putin
pointed out that the money was made 'illegally' in Russia and sent out of the country 'illegally', ending up in Clinton's campaign.
There are a number of differences between the indictments of the Russians and the release of information in the Hillary e-mail
investigation. First, there is no chance the Russians will ever end up in a U.S. court so it is an indictment with no future.
Second, Comey, a supporter of Hillary, made the announcement and subsequently cleared her, probably to save his own career because
the field office that was doing the investigating was about to go public with his dereliction of duty in the Clinton investigation.
Subsequent investigations have revealed how the highly politicized FBI and DOJ went out of their way to protect Clinton. Mueller's
indictments, on the other hand, are just pure political malfeasance.
John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 pm
Zhu Ba Jie, I never said that Russia influnced the results of the election. It probably didn't. But what I do think is that
the Russians are probably laughing at how didvided America has become. Neoliberalism which caters to busines rather than liberalism
which caters to the people and the country as a whole is destroying society. People need to get on the streets and voice their
concerns, Get together and form rallies like those who spoke out against the Vietnam War.
Is it social media that makes people babble and rave rather than be active out there getting the much needed attention?
Gather fo support a greener world, a fairer more benevolent world. To get local economies going putting money in needy people's
pockets is far better than trickle down or financing and support for big business. The poor will spend it locally and that's good.
Get out there and make a stir. Trump ain't going to help you. Get rid of PACs, superPACs and other big donor money pots for a
start start. Bernie Sanders and now some new young people are seeing the light. Get in there and help them along. Get out on the
streets and shout for change!
Throw away the smart phone and get marching!
John P , July 17, 2018 at 7:34 pm
Also, Ron Johnson , I'm not American, I didn't know the full story of the mob money and Hillary. My choice was Bernie Sanders
never Hillary or Trump. My fear is, the way things are going, it's like the period between the great wars and the effects of poverty
and big business. Support for the needy and the busting up of big business were two steps which helped the world climb out of
the mire. Perhaps we need to add robotics to the list. People need work and a purpose.
Larry Gates , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm
Donald Trump is a vile human being, and I disagree with 98% of what he says and does, but today he was right and everyone else
was wrong. I've been on a trip in my car most of the day, listening to public radio. It was an endless orgy of misinformation
and deep-state propaganda. PRI was as insane and dangerous as Fox News on a really bad day. I'm starting to think that nuclear
war is a more immanent danger than global warming. It isn't just Rachel Maddow who has gone off the deep end. It is the entire
national media. What kind of country have we become? Pray for peace.
strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 10:45 pm
Larry – Don't buy the Trump CoolAid He is completely wrecking are world order. Last month was Kim, this month was Putin and
now this! Look:
White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
He is meeting with all the dictators of the world now! Guaranteed he will have Assad at the White House before we can get him
impeached. This is 100% out of Putin's play book. He is a trader to American Values. Never have we sunk so low, dissing are true
allies and honoring thugs, killers and despots! 110% vile!
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:00 pm
Do you mean like Pinochet, Somoza, Galtieri, Rios Montt, Suharto, Mobuto, shall I go on?
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 11:02 pm
And it is about time there are direct talks with the Taliban. The U.S. has lost in Afghanistan. It has to try to get something
out of it.
strngr-tgthr , July 16, 2018 at 11:23 pm
We are in Afghanistan for woman's rights! "Hillary: justified by the desire to emancipate Afghan women." And we have all seen
the concern that Trump has for woman (Billy Bush – Babies at the Border, shall I go on?) 120% vile!
You are totally deluded, Mr. Man Without Vowels in His Name, if you think we are in Afghanistan to promote women's rights.
I'm sure you still faithfully watch the Jay Leno Show to stay apprised of Mrs. Leno's featured assessment of that crusade. Ranking
light years ahead of your purported reason for the last 17 years of war in the Hindu Kush are i) the planned oil and gas pipelines*,
ii) the proven deposits of rare earth elements essential to modern electronic devices, and iii) the immediate proximity to Iran,
Russia, China and Pakistan giving Washington the ability to raise hell from its many military bases in Afghanistan on a moment's
notice (all part of Obama's infamous "Pivot to Asia," which implied far more than a new cadre of Peace Corp workers–more like,
we can buy any locals we need with the pallets of Franklins we now air drop on a routine schedule).
* Read "Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden" by Brisard and Dasquie, it's
still relevant 17 years later, while Hillary's "feminist" credentials remain completely irrelevant.
Gene Poole , July 17, 2018 at 5:48 am
An analysis of this contributor's writing style reports a 98.3% likelihood that he/she is Donald Trump.
Larry Gates , July 17, 2018 at 8:04 am
The United States has been "honoring thugs, killers, and despots" at least since Allen Dulles became the director of the CIA
in the 1940s. America is an expansive empire, controlled by our corporate oligarchy. It's all about their money and power. They
talk about human rights, but that is just a cover for their greed. Much of Trump's foreign policy is bad, but it is simply a logical
continuation of the foreign policies of Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Negotiations with Putin is a step in the right direction and
the Orange Beast deserves credit for it. It looks to me like it is you, not me that has swallowed the Kool-Aid.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:02 am
The Taliban, in the last week – 10 days, has said they will not negotiate as long as the USA occupies Afghanistan This was
abbreviated in most headlines to say that the Taliban refuse to negotiate.
The Americans have launched the "time to negotiate with the Taliban" trial balloon before -- "tragically" coming to nothing.
We (USA) interfere when the Baghdad government attempts their own negotiations. (or simply do things that encourage retaliatory
attacks) . Now ISIS in the mix.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 1:47 am
We've become a theater state. A powerful performance is what matters.
Susan Sunflower , July 17, 2018 at 11:08 am
Indeed. The histrionics of the last 48 hours have been beyond belief and credulity. The hardcore news-as-scandal-addicted will
stay tuned, but I lost respect for some "stars" of the news in ways that won't be forgotten I keep expecting Maddow to either
use hand puppets or present "crime reenactment" videos, along with her other show-and-tell visual aids.
BBC is just as bad in terms of prejudice but at least present a professional facade .DW and France 24 are alternatives as is
the (much too short, almost every hour on the hour) RT headline news. RT's interview and talk shows are excellent and quite sober.
It's not that they aren't slanted, they're just not insulting to the audience.
HiggBo , July 17, 2018 at 10:10 am
Maybe now you will think about the things these very same people said about him. Maybe they arent true either.
Hint: The vast majority arent.
Deniz , July 16, 2018 at 9:59 pm
They are losing their minds over Putins announcement of the $400 milion that was transferred Clinton through Browder.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:01 am
Seems Hillary learned a lot from Chinagate (where the Clintons paid the illegal donations from a foreign nation back AFTER
winning the Election). And China only received military technology, offshored jobs and permanent favored nation trading status
in return. Win-win.
You can be sure Hillary will claim that $400 million, if ever traced to her despite bleach bitting all her records, was for the
Clinton Foundation Campaign and it was just an inadvertent mixup.
PuddinNTain , July 16, 2018 at 9:54 pm
Thank you for this reasoned piece amidst a plethora of madness. Most of my friends and colleagues who identify as Democrats,
liberals, progressives, haters of Trump, etc, people I have the most in common with, politically speaking, have completely lost
their freaking minds over this stuff. Critical thinking? Who needs it! Mueller and the intelligence community have surely seen
the light since the "Iraq has WMDs" days.
Exactly when did the intelligence community, the sellers of lies and perpetrators of regime change world-wide, become a friend
to the American people?
Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm
"He had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy,.."
What democracy? 99% of the candidates' campaigns have been almost completely funded by Wall Street, the blood thirsty giant
defense contractors, or paranoid and hegemonic Zionist sociopaths.
It's been proven in a recent academic study by Princeton political scientists (and long lamented before these guys got on the
case by such luminaries as Michael Parents, S. Wollin, James Petras, N. Chomsky, Vidal, Hedges) that the American citizenry has
absolutely no influence whatsoever regarding poltico-economic decisions that emanate from Washington, they're drowned out by big
business and the imperialist ruling elites.
So I ask this warmongering Russophobic talking head once again: what democracy? What democracy do you speak of? The same democracy
that mires millions of newly college grads with $30,000 to $500,000 in student loan debt, or the same democracy that's witnessing
close to 50% of the entire population living close to the poverty level, or that has tens of millions of its denizens without
adequate healthcare coverage
Drew Hunkins , July 16, 2018 at 9:55 pm
typo: such luminaries as Michael Parenti, S. Wollin, James Petras
The editor regrets the error.
John P , July 16, 2018 at 11:26 pm
Trump ain't going to help you on that one. You need to get together with others work to get rid of PACs and Super PACs. In
most western countries they wouldn't be allowed.
Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 7:20 am
The political parties are also corrupt, taking donations fed back directly or indirectly from government funding of contractors.
These are extensive rackets supported by half the population, who have never worked for anything but a political gang operation,
and really believe in gangs.
michael , July 17, 2018 at 7:11 am
Why are you bringing up "ponies" that we will never have, when Hillary's private club (or so the judge ruled when Bernie's
supporters tried to fight their fraud, saying private clubs can do what they please, particularly picking potential presidents)
was hacked into by those supercompetent Russians? Much akin to the Nigerian guy who's been trying to help me collect money from
some dead rich relative I didn't know I had. Still waiting, but I'm sure if this was a fraud Mueller and our Intelligence agencies
would be all over it, just like Hillary's Private Club, the DNC. The Russians didn't steal any money from Hillary, as far as I
know, or there would have been War!
gcw919 , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
These media "pundits" are truly an embarrassment. They become apoplectic about "possible" Russian hacking in our elections,
but one can search in vain for their comments about our own interference in Ukrainian politics, and many other countries around
the globe. (eg, Victoria Nuland, Hillary's pit bull, gloating about the US spending $5 billion in "support" of Ukrainian democracy).
Its as if real concerns, such as nuclear annihilation, or catastrophic climate change, were afterthoughts. We are certainly living
in mystifying times.
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 10:16 pm
I think the same thing. The whole "election meddling" hoopla, even if it was true, pales to insignificance in light of what
we are actually doing.
We have a base – a military base – in Syria. We weren't invited. We didn't get permission to set up a base. But we set up a
military base in another country while announcing that that country's leader "must go." And now – with a total absence of evidence
– we have the gall to condemn Russia for "meddling in our democracy."
What is wrong with these people? Can't they see the utter hypocrisy in it all?
AZ_bob , July 16, 2018 at 11:29 pm
I tell people all the time, if Russia did put their thumb on the scale, then hey – I guess "What Goes Around, Comes Around"
huh? If you CAN'T take it, DON'T dish it out. Quite simple, really
irina , July 17, 2018 at 1:28 am
The US media's hysterical (in the unfunny sense) response to "Russian meddling"
is very like the husband who catches his wife cheating on him and goes totally postal,
although he himself has been cheating on her ever since their courting days . . .
Tony Frede , July 17, 2018 at 1:53 am
No they don't see the hypocrisy. A large percentage of the population suffers from a severe Irony Deficiency and that can't
be cured.
Layne , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am
I beat my head against the wall with the very same question! Thanks for sharing..
Tristan , July 16, 2018 at 9:26 pm
Thank you for doing the real journalism needed for readers to gain perspective and understanding. It is important to call out
propaganda in the face of facts. One thing that stands out significantly is the statement by Trump, "I would rather take a political
risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics." Even if only partially pursued, the goal of peace is indeed
a very worthy endeavor. In fact, this is one of the first times in recent memory that a US president has used the word "Peace".
I don't like the majority of what the Trump administration is doing, it is important to stick to the facts and support efforts
that could lead to a reduction of the tensions and hostility which dominate current US / Russia relations.
F. G. Sanford , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm
"A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia, but it is good for the world."
I could hear in the inflection of that sentence the profoundly courageous and confidently certain voice of John F. Kennedy.
Gergen, Amanpour, Cooper, Cheney, Brennan, Clapper and the rest of them be damned. The usual suspects, the bought and paid-for
mouthpieces of the "deep state" raised their reptilian ire in the expected reprehensible fashion. War is what keeps them on the
"payroll", and they'll tell any lie it takes to keep those checks rolling in. Despicable. It seems likely that their vitriol may
stem as much from fear of exposure as anything else.
I think President Trump gave a laudable and compelling performance. It's a tragedy that this article will probably not get
the circulation it deserves. Thanks to Joe Lauria for having the guts to write it.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:43 pm
Amen.
jaycee , July 16, 2018 at 10:15 pm
Cheers. I noticed the same JFK echo in that sentence.
Brennan and the whole lot of those pundits sound exactly like the paleolithic right from the 50s and 60s, the ones who insisted
MLK was a communist and were so effectively personified by Sterling Hayden in the Dr Strangelove film.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 10:35 pm
Here ya go F.G. your on par with Paul Craig Roberts.
I recall about 16 years ago when the U.S. media almost unanimously reported, with absolute certainty, that Saddam Hussein was
harboring numerous weapons of mass destruction. I also recall their fervent calls for regime change because Hussein was a threat
to our national security. There were a few voices who spoke against it, but they were drowned out by MSM. It would appear that
U.S. media is adamantly against anyone who is opposed to war. Is it because war is so profitable for the media, or is it because
war is so profitable for their masters?
Hey, Johnmichael, you must know that the US is headed by an oligarchy, UK too, France, etc. What runs the world is banks and
multinational corporations. The US could actually be called a corporatocracy, because the people have very little say in their
government. Yes, media bashers do bash media when they lie because they are supposed to ferret out facts but they don't, they
serve their money masters. They all use "Goebbels style" messaging, Putin the least, i notice. It's a western script.
Steve , July 16, 2018 at 9:08 pm
Everything the Main Stream media says about Trump applies ten times over to themselves, the presstitutes that they are useful
Idiots of the Corrupt New World Order.
Bob In Portland , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm
A look at Mueller's career will go far in explaining why Mueller is handling this and what he won't see while investigating:
I did Bob, and I'm encouraging more to read it. Joe
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 3:30 am
Bob – Yes, I have read the article about Mueller's career.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 5:08 am
Bob in Portland – excellent read! Thank you. Mueller is like a fixer, a sweeper, someone who cleans up and, as you said, moves
investigations away from the CIA.
"He knew where to look and where not to look."
No doubt he's a valuable asset to the Deep State. Not a nice man.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:39 am
Great work!
Yes, Mueller's a master of misdirection. Was it Parry who noted (likely others as well) that reporting is now less about lying
than deliberate omission. Hard to fact-check what ain't there (vs. a lie which lays out data which can be tested) Knowledge IS
power: we are not to have knowledge.
Bob Van Noy , July 17, 2018 at 9:34 am
Thanks to all in this thread. I filed this statement recently here, and it was edited out. I'll try again because it's appropriate.
A relatively vibrant Press was modified violently in the days and weeks following November 22, 1963. Some careers were enhanced,
some lives were lost. If some contemporary student of History or Journalism wanted to study the decline of American Democracy
they might begin by reading all of the linked article below about a Journalist named Penn Jones
As much as I loathe Trump, I have to admit this is one time I agree with him. No matter how much Trump screws up, the simple
fact is that no one is 100% wrong, and it's important to recognize when they are not wrong.
I don't agree that the Russians are our enemy. I don't believe they are our friends, but there's a large gap between an enemy
and a friend and I place the Russians somewhere in that gap. I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database, but that doesn't
rise above my threshold of significance and certainly doesn't hold a candle to all the U.S. interference in the politics of most
of the world's nations (which includes deposing democratically elected presidents). And finally, I don't believe in gunboat diplomacy
and I agree that it's better to talk with the Russians than it is to beat the war drums and seek more confrontation.
Having said that, I deplore Trump's behavior toward our European, Canadian and Mexican friends, and his domestic policies are
the worst of any in the last 100 years. But as much as I deplore this buffoon, I believe that he is right in attempting to normalize
relations with Russia.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 9:49 pm
"I don't deny that they hacked into the DNC database,"
Well, you should, because there is zero evidence of a Russian hack.
On what basis in the world do you so confidently assert that you "do not deny" something that is untrue?
The evidence is of an inside leak.
Please, learn the difference between the two, a hack and a leak.
Another indication of the insidious power of the media over common sense.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 3:22 am
Of course it is entirely within the interests of America to have free and friendly relations with Russia. Why? Not only because
peace beats the hell out of war, especially the nuclear variety, but because we, along with the rest of the world, need Russia's
vast resources in a planet rapidly being depleted of everything essential to modern technology. If they don't sell their products
to the West on the open market because Washington thinks it can steal them after some kind of "regime change," all those essential
goodies will go to China, India and the other peoples of the East whom we look down upon, and are also fixing to mess with.
From all I have gleaned, Russia has always aspired to be a part of the West, ever since Peter the Great opened Russia to Europe,
but Washington thinks that being a member of team West means being a totally subservient vassal to it and only it. Look at how
shamelessly Washington has abused the interests of the EU in its efforts to subjugate Russia. There is mostly one party that threatens
the future of Western prosperity and moral values: the United States, or rather its government. Its motives are uncontested power
and greed to benefit its small clique of decadent aristocrats.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm
Why would anyone believe the Liars' Club (the CIA) about anything? Their successes are more shameful than their failures.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:43 am
Ah, but successes and failures are not ours to judge, no, it is for the ruling elite to judge, and given that their power and
wealth has but steadily increased it is safe to say, under their measuring, that the CIA has been quite successful.
Johnmichael2 , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm
Putin brilliantly heads an Oligarchy. Trump obsequiously admires Putin because he too, by all of his actions to date, aspires
to the same power. To all of you media bashers, who are on a very strange campaign of denial, don't forget that Trump and his
Goebbels style messaging received prime time from the electronic media throughout the campaign and was probably key to the win.
The real Deep State is the multinational world order of capitalism, which doesn't care what type of government it owns. Yet
CN seems totally oblivious to their existence. If the media is to blame for anything, it is that their coverage tends to be controlled
by ratings; in other words, by money, and the Deep State controls the money.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:52 pm
The US has oligarchic since 1789.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:53 pm
Goebbels was far smarter and articulate than Trump.
Danny , July 17, 2018 at 9:57 pm
the free $2B from the same media now screeching for his head? (Fox excepted) the 35-40 minutes dedicated to his empty podium
while Sanders talked? I have some REALLY bad news for you 'bout who was behind that
I highly recommend reading James Howard Kunstler's piece on Russia Insider, "Idiotic Russia Meddling Hoax Kept Alive by Trump-Putin
Summit". On his blog 'Clusterfuck Nation' he titles it "12 Ham Sandwiches with Russian Dressing". Kunstler is a great cynicist
humorist called a dystopian by the NYT. This piece he just published is one of the best and will undoubtedly be picked up by others.
Has a funny cartoon on Russia Insider for a musical based on the Mueller never-ending saga. At least it's a few cynical laughs
for this sorry affair.
Mass hysteria is a frightening spectacle to behold. The power with which it grips the minds of virtually everyone is beyond
belief. As I watched the media coverage of Helsinki unfold, it seemed the media minions were perceptibly working themselves into
a collective frenzy, a totally berserk, bonkers group who were bidding the price of tulips up to a million each. The ironic aspect
of all this to me is that even if the commie bastards did what we say they did would it have made any difference? And if indeed
it was they who hacked HC's "personal" email files and made them available to Wikileaks, I'm glad as Hell they did.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:56 pm
It would not make any difference. We Americans are to blame for our own follies and mistakes.
KiwiAntz , July 16, 2018 at 9:03 pm
It's Washington & the MSM's mass hysteria, not the common folk who couldn't give a rats ass about this lunacy? Ask the ordinary
citizen in the US or Worldwide what they care about? It's not the never ending Russiagate BS spewed out by the MSM or corrupt
DEMS! It's about, how will my Family be housed, Fed, & cared for! How will I support myself & my Family's needs & wants! THATS
WHAT WE CARE ABOUT, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FAKE RUSSIAGATE NONSENSE & it's BS! But what do these MSM idiots know, they think
their smarter than those who voted for change & are getting that with Mr Trump!
David G , July 17, 2018 at 12:01 am
Right on, Lester D.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:39 pm
I'm starting to get hopeful about Trump after a lot of doubts.
Whatever his limitations, he at least has some common sense. This is something we would never have seen happen with Crooked Hillary
Clinton, ever. Somebody had to listen to Putin, who actually has quite a lot of sensible things to say about this, and is a very
intelligent and articulate politician.
Given enough time, Trump might actually figure things out in Washington before he leaves office and sees all the treasonous forces
in the permanent security state. I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump in '16 but if he listens to Putin and gives peace a
chance, this will mend all cracks with me.
Maybe they should put up a fence around CNN headquarters and call in a battalion of psychs to provide mental health treatments
to the war profiteers and talking heads.
I voted for peace. I want to see peace. Kudos to Trump and Putin for bringing an oasis of sanity to the world. Nuclear war is
bad for our kids. I am very relieved to see this happening. Even General Eisenhower could not buck the Military Industrial Complex
in 1959 when he tried to reach detente with Khrushchev. Trump will go down in history as a great president if he can pull this
off.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 8:38 pm
The incredible ugliness of the media, spy agencies, military figures, and politicians is unfortunately only the tip of a huge
iceberg. Underneath all that is the deep state oligarchs, who are willing to sacrifice billions of lives and the very continuation
of life on our precious planet – just to fulfill their insatiable greed for wealth and power. These evil monsters are the real
enemies of Humanity.
Lolita , July 16, 2018 at 8:29 pm
Not only the U.S. Media, but also the Canadian, French, British etc that is, the agitprop tools for NATOland/Soros, ready for
selective and well rehearsed indignation, on cue.
Tonight CBC The National managed to invite a "balanced" panel to discuss the Trump-Putin press conference: a researcher from
Stratfor and a journalist from the Washington Post!!!! LOL
Lolita , July 17, 2018 at 5:32 pm
And when CBC's narrative and their fake-debate in the National is challenged in the comment section the CBC sycophants know
only one action:
"Your account has been banned until 10/15/2018. Reason: We have banned this account for 90 days because we believe it is in
violation of our Terms of Use, specifically repeated off-topic comments, uncivil comments, and personal attacks. For more information,
please visit: http://www.cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/submissions.html
."
All of this to mask political censorship
In my last posts, I quoted Joe Lauria and they did not like it one bit:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
Good Bye ICIJ
KiwiAntz , July 17, 2018 at 2:16 am
And add NZ's Media to that shameful list of Propagandists telling lies & expecting us to belithis tripe!
The calls of President Trump being a traitor mimic those of the calls that President Eisenhower was a traitor back in the 1950s.
But what can you expect from the cult followers of the former Goldwater girl who have done their best to turn the Party of Gene
McCarthy into the Party of Joe McCarthy?
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 8:59 pm
Dems have GOP lite for a long time, at least since Reagan.
Pandas4peace , July 16, 2018 at 8:22 pm
Americans need to turn off their damn television sets.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:45 pm
I canceled my cable subscription three months ago and haven't missed it one bit.
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:53 am
One needs to keep apprised of the lies that the enemies of humanity so effectively spread through their propaganda in order
to counter them.
Besides, if you ever need a good emetic, there is always the opportunity to tune in Rachel Maddow until your stomach upchucks
its contents.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:51 am
Ha ha! The Rachel Maddow weight loss program!
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:01 pm
Good idea. I quit watching regularly in the '70s. But does make one somewhat alienated from everyone else.
Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:32 pm
Actually I have Direct TV and for a change I can tune in to channel 321 RT America and listen to some real news instead of
the 24-hr fake news on the rest of the channels.
Skip Scott , July 17, 2018 at 6:55 am
Last night I blocked CNN on the TV where I am currently forced to reside. I am the only one with the p/w to unblock it. Take
that CNN!!!
Well said, as always, Realist, but the scary part is to read the vitriolic anti-Trump responses indicating the 'liberals' would
actually rather risk war! I just read a few of them and honestly wonder if there's any hope for this country, maybe we will have
to take some harsh lessons that will be meted out. They do not realize that they are assisting in bringing down every one of us
with their hate. The controllers who play them love it.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:47 pm
The danger is that they will bring their war hysteria into the next election and get someone elected that is even worse than
Hillary would have been.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:02 pm
I'm not convinced that anyone is control. "Time and chance come to them all."
Realist , July 17, 2018 at 2:46 am
My, how we have come full circle, Jessika. So, now it's the "liberals" who would rather be "dead" than "red?" That used to
be the far right John Birchers back in my youth. (Not that anyone anywhere on the planet is a genuine "communist" any longer,
not even in Cuba or North Korea.) I just wish there was some mechanism to allow them to self-immolate without killing or harming
the rest of us nearly 8 billion human beings. They have some potent demons colonizing what passes for their minds. Perhaps they
could use a convincing exorcist to drive the Hillary entity out of their system.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am
All comes in cycles. Dixiecrats, anyone?
Brad Owen , July 17, 2018 at 12:09 pm
EXACTLY. Actually, FDR was the "Bernie Sanders" of his day, and completely turned the Party upside down with his "New Deal
for the forgotten man" (Labor and farmers). The traditional D-Party was the party of southern plantation aristocracy and their
money handlers on Wall Street, and the original R-Party contained the fire-breathing radicals within its ranks.
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:10 pm
It is my understanding that Russia and US are holding approximately 90% of nuclear weapons worldwide. In a sane world, The
US media should be commending Trump for trying to reach an agreement regarding denuclearization with Putin. Nonetheless, Trump
is being grilled for doing what almost the entire planet is seeking: a world free of nuclear weapons. Indubitably, US national
media are very busy undermining Trump's efforts to reduce the scorch of nuclear war. Do the US media think that in a nuclear exchange
humans will survive? We will all lose.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 8:54 pm
No, the elites on both sides of the political spectrum are living in a mythical Hollywood rich man's fantasy world believing
that the worst that can happen to them is they will retreat to their luxury underground cities and live out the nuclear war, communicating
with their nuclear subs, while the rest of us paeons fry. They don't care about us, at all. They are congenital psychopaths.
It sounds crazy because it is, and it is hard for the rest of us to believe they could be so foolish. They are fatally misguided
in their beliefs that this would ever work and be good for them.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:34 pm
I think your right. Joe
Jean wyman , July 16, 2018 at 9:53 pm
Good comment Jose. In answer to your observations, I'd pose a question: what was Obusha thinking when he proposed a 3TRILLION
dollar upgrade of America's nukes? Who exactly was it that he was placating and that T-rump isn't.
Skip Scott , July 16, 2018 at 8:09 pm
When the talking heads said that Trump trusted Putin more than his own Intelligence Agencies, I screamed at the TV, "ME TOO!".
I can think of no clearer sign that the CIA is still embedded with the MSM. Discussion of the history of our Intelligence Community
in both the near and distant past, and it's utter lack of trustworthiness, is a forbidden topic. My only hope is that enough people
actually listened to what Putin said, instead of the talking heads' rantings, and saw for themselves that Putin is a rational
and fair-minded leader. The near hysteria of Anderson Cooper and his ilk is a sure sign that their grip on the narrative is slipping.
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm
I concur with your post. Personally, I rather listen to Putin than the US national media. You are correct to assert that "Putin
is a rational and fair-minded leader" You would have to be mentally retarded to pay any heed to US national media that have proven
to be a tool of those controlling the livers of power. Well done, Skip.
Joe Lauria , July 16, 2018 at 9:04 pm
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:07 pm
Anderson Cooper, the grandson of Gloria Vanderbilt, and great-grandson of robber baron railroad mogul Cornelius Vanderbilt
is CIA trained in Operation Mockingbird. https://youtu.be/w8NTLVOjas8
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm
I said that once, and got booed out of the room. Joe
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 9:28 pm
Skip I hear ya, but allow me to tell you what I saw, and heard today. So after Trump made his remarks about trusting, or not
trusting, certain intelligence data, I while driving in my car heard callers calling in to the local talk show. The callers who
expressed themselves the way we do on this comment board were berated by the callers who thought this kind of talk (like we here
on CN talk) was treasonous by all known treasonous standards. The callers who sounded like we do here were labeled as their being
crazed Trump supporters, and yet all of them said of how they don't even necessarily like Trump, but right is right and left is
now warmongering. None of the other opposing callers bought this denial of Trump, as they just fluffed it off, as Trump supporters
hiding behind whatever it was their suppose to be hiding behind. Facts are painfully ignored, especially when it comes to analyzing
Trump.
I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the
launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child
against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. The discontent is about where we were back during the Vietnam years,
as the only thing missing are the peace marchs. This time our civil war will be fought strictly on a social level, aided by an
instigating MSM, as division messes up any real citizen advocacy as the citizen may require to straighten out any of this disconnection
of their society or that's at least the way I see it.
We citizens are officially at war with each other. We will all look back upon this period of our evolvement, and laugh over
the Facebook censorship, and dream of a time when it was merely just about politics, and taxes. We are moving in a direction where
the National Security Deep State is beating up an outsider maverick, and this maverick is now in the Deep States crosshairs. It's
darn strange, and I swear if something awful were to happen to President Trump that the MSM would encourage us Americans to make
Trump's ugly fate a new national holiday . I think there are many among this Deep State cabal who still celebrate with joy the
sad happenings of November 22nd, 1963.
The empire is finally going down, and we are all witnessing it first hand. Joe
Dave P. , July 17, 2018 at 4:14 am
"I see the MSM pundits and the strongly patriotic lying legislators taking Trump's remarks while calling him a trader, as the
launching of a great American vs American social confrontation. This new confrontation will pit brother against brother, child
against parent, and wife against husband . just ask my wife. . . ."
Good observation Joe. It already started happening some time back in our home. A truce was reached with a compromise that my
wife would not watch CNN, MSNBC . . . when I am around the house and I will not read CN and make comments, at least when she is
around. This morning my wife went to our retired neighbor's house to watch these channels with her. Both of them have been feeling
today as if some tragedy has happened.
That is what this two years of Russia Gate hysteria fueled by the Media and Politicians has done to the people. Today was probably
the worst day; they are really messing up the population. It is even worse than those cold war days of 1950's which I have read
about. And there is no end in sight.
Killary had a crap platform. That is why she lost. If the platform was something progressives could support, then people would
come out and vote for her. Her record of dependability is crap; just a double talking republican liar. No good. That's why she
lost. I didn't vote for her and won't vote for her if she is forced on us again. Lyle Courtsal
http://www.3mpub.com
jose , July 16, 2018 at 8:20 pm
You are correct Lyle about Hillary's lost. I would like to add the following:Vladimir Putin has not meddled in the US election,
Hillary Clinton has. Leaked emails reveal that the popular socialist Bernie Sanders had his chance of becoming president stolen
from him by Hillary Clinton and her associates at the Democratic National Committee. If defrauding democracy is worth going to
war over, certainly it is worth going to jail over. Millions of Americans had their votes stolen.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:34 pm
Yes, I listened to some of her campaign speeches, and they were embarrassingly awful, and empty of ideas except inciting horror
of "Le Trump"! She was truly pathetic in her confidence that she was in the in-group, addressing others in the "in-group," thus
not needing to actually campaign.
Recently Hillary was awarded the Radcliffe medal, and she spoke at Radcliffe Day. I was horrified that she was given this honor.
I heard that she read from a Teleprompter. That indicates to me that she was and is indeed not physically up to the challenges
of the office, quite apart from her many other deficits.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:07 am
I wouldn't vote for a mass murderer. If you cannot fundamentally be for peace then all else, no matter how wonderful it sounds
(it could be) has nowhere to anchor.
John V. Walsh , July 16, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Great column.
There is no doubt that the Summit moved us away from confrontation with Russia which holds the grave danger of going nuclear.
Bravo for Trump and the brave words he spoke.
Now it is up to us.
If we wish the process to continue which these meetings with Putin initiated, let us raise our voices in support.
If we wish to let the neocons, "Deep State," Dem and GOP elites to stop the process, let us stay silent.
I read the New York times and the comments to the editorial. This is my comment.
The comments here sound like a lynch mob working themselves into a frenzy to hang someone. Proof? Who needs any dang proof.
Clapper the guy who admitted lying to Congress under oath said Trump was guilty and thats good enough for the people who commented
here. The Intelligence Agencies that lied to get the USA to invade Iraq with their WMD claims say he is guilty, well that must
be proof then.
This goes to show that Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute. But a whole nation suckered into believing this
nonsence about Russia having Trump elected with not one shred of evidence presented? Even Barnum would have been shocked and surprised
at that one.
Well, I guess that influential people on the inside figure that the "reign of terror" worked out so well in effecting regime
change during the French Revolution that they'd give it another go approximately two centuries later approximately a hundred years
after the Bolshevik Revolution, so maybe this is a natural phenomenon with a periodicity of about 100 years. Perhaps Hillary thinks
she's gonna pick up the pieces as the next Napoleon after the revolution burns itself out. More like her fate will be as the next
Robespierre, hoisted on her own guillotine.
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:11 am
Yes, the cycle is tied to the controlling currency, the USD in current day form. That control is rapidly slipping away. The
crooks are pulling the fire alarms in the bank and running out the back door and the public is looking for safety from the crooks'
army (MSM, "authority figures" etc.).
There is nothing left to say.
The summit only leaves one to speculate.
Realist , July 16, 2018 at 7:57 pm
It would seem that there is not a single independent, unbought, honest, objective journalist left working for the corporate
mass media in America. They are all mere puppets delivering the propaganda and fake analysis demanded of them by the oligarchy
that owns them. It's absolutely stunning how lock-step they all are in maintaining the false narrative cooked up by the careless
and arrogant tyrants who threw away a sure thing (Hillary's coronation) by pressing too hard to give her what they thought was
the biggest patsy (Trump) in the clown show called the presidential election. They were so confident they actually allowed the
ballots to be counted and have been scrambling to undo the results using every possible mechanism and pretext ever since. If there
is one thing the American people can count on in the future, it is that no election will ever again be semi-free, fair and not
rock-solid rigged with the contrived results agreed upon months before the charade of elections ever goes on.
A rational mind might say, well, give us more reasonable candidates, those in tune with the problems of the voters (mostly
caused by government), and give us more of them, more parties, more platforms, more options. That is exactly what they intend
to avoid. They tried to force feed us Hillary as the only acceptable figure running for the position, but enough people saw through
that and chose the fellow they wanted us to abhor after they deliberately built him up to help the despised Hillary. Now absolutely
every loyal apparatchik in the elite establishment, and most especially the media–the essential propagandists, are working 24/7
for regime change in Washington, what they perceive as the necessary first step towards regime change in Moscow and later Beijing.
Only then will the NWO–in which they give all the orders and control everything and everybody–be complete.
I tell you, the reach of their tentacles and the uniformity of response amongst their minions is impressive in a most foreboding
way. They will brook NO peaceful co-existence with any geopolitical "partners" or competitors and will not give even the slightest
iota of respect to our own elected leader, not even to his office out of formal courtesy. Rather than "going high" when he "goes
low," they choose to up the ante in ad hominem insults and political thuggery. The power structure in this country has become
irretrievably warmongering neo-con and ruthlessly imperialistic. The most catastrophic consequence will be to see the dissolution
of civilisation itself as the myriad of environmental, population and resource crises hit the planet full on as the century unfolds,
for thuggery, tyranny and simplistic political slogans are not the solutions for escaping the impending bottleneck with an actual
future still remaining for humanity.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:42 pm
Hey Realist you brought back memories of the 2016 presidential election to when Trump was given 4.9 billion dollars worth of
free air time (JP Sottile quoted the 4.9). As it has been written about of how early on the Clinton campaign thought Trump was
the best to run up against, because who in their right mind would take the Trumpster serious, was the go to mindset among the
DNCer's. So the MSM turned on the cameras at Trump rallies believing that given enough rope that Trump would hang himself. The
backlash that came from this, was mind boggling on many levels. One no one likes Hillary, number two no one likes the MSM. So
with that the MSM, and Hillary's bend strategy was what loss the election for the Democrats, and oh yeah then there's Bernie.
I don't think in total we Americans are all living on the same planet. Joe
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:55 pm
I am absolutely appalled by the behavior of the American media. They are acting like Trump is a disgrace to the country but
the MSM is a disgrace to journalism.
I don't even like Trump but – to me – he is coming out better in this exchange.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:17 pm
Excellent statement.
Sam F , July 16, 2018 at 9:29 pm
Indeed the US mass media are no more than propagandists for the arrogant tyrants of its government. But despite US bluster
and economic arm-twisting, educated people know that BRICS cannot be dominated so imperialism is theater not policy. Over 20-40
years, the US can only choose cooperation or self-embargo. Few educated people believe the recycled hysteria of invisible threats.
The enmity of the PTB toward Russia and Korea always starts with and returns to the Mideast and centers upon Israel, which
controls the US mass media and both political parties, and thereby appoints the politicians who control the military budget and
agenda. Indeed "no election will ever again be semi-free." The MIC is large and will attack small countries anywhere, but it is
the servant of Israel.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 17, 2018 at 2:22 am
People who complain aboutIsrael somehow never mention Dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, etc.
Sam F , July 17, 2018 at 6:26 am
Thank you for mentioning those; I did not have room in that comment.
Israel also substantially controls the Christian z leaders.
I thought Mueller was playing politics to announce the indictments of 12 Russians mere hours before Trump met Putin more and
more I'm losing faith in Mueller and the Democrats who have damn near destroyed their party themselves
Seer , July 17, 2018 at 9:17 am
If the fact that the Dems managed to undermine the people's choice for president (Sanders) isn't enough to convince you that
the Dems are destroyed then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm almost certain that the CIA had a hand in that: consider their infiltration into the MSM (ensuring that Sanders was not
talked about). Not only was the CIA involved in trying to derail Trump, but it was active in preempting Sanders. For sure, having
meddling in BOTH parties would likely bring out real pitch forks: when it's just one party it's easy to use the other party to
offset the anger. Joe, if you're reading these comments (still), I'd love to get your take on this "theory."
Thanks for this report, Mr. Lauria; you're certainly of stronger mettle than me. I would not have withstood the noxious exhalations
of the US newsmedia (which itself now openly includes newly "retired" intelligence agents as commentators) you've described in
this article; the anecdotes alone almost had me hurling my phone across the room.
Thank you for performing a valuable public service with this report. Peace.
Welcome to what passes for "reality" in 2018 America. If the stakes for humanity were not so frightfully high these bizarre,
slapstick, nonsense comments from the MSM talking heads would be knee-slapping hilarious in their total off the charts lunacy
and patent absurdity. What can one say? Wow – off the freaking charts! You simply can't make this stuff up! Words are inadequate
in an age of mass delusion posing as sanity!
Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 7:34 pm
I think your words "total off the charts lunacy and patent absurdity" are as adequate as they come in this situation.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:42 pm
Not only absurd, though, but also deeply isulting, treasonous, really horrendous that our national-level journalists arrogate
to themselves the right to diss, insult, accuse, charge, condemn, vilify, etc. the president of the United States. I don't like
trump either, I hate waht he is doing in Israel, supporting the rabid Zionists there and here. BUT, standing up to the media and
intelligence onslaught took guts, and he came out of the meeting looking pretty good, I think. The meeting also gave Putin an
opportunity to score a few points for reason, thus an international platform he might otherwise not have had.
I LOVE the Putin points re Browder $$$ (rather, rubles) to Hillary. I do so hope that this topic is taken up and richly sucked
and considered and tasted and finally chewed and swallowed and digested and the real . . . finally is delivered to the AMerican
people regarding Hill's $$$ shenanigans. If that happens it could point once again to an investigation of her emails and those
of her assistant Huma Abedin. Remember her? When do we get the full investigation of this very compromised woman?
These people have no shame, as they take their massive paychecks for lying to keep the fools in line. Well, thanks to websites
like this one and others, there aren't so many fools anymore. They are pathetic, and days of Cronkite, Murrow et al who reported
news objectively are dead and buried.
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Probably they believe their own nonsense, at least when they say. Much as crooked preachers do.
Jean , July 16, 2018 at 10:30 pm
Cronkite wasn't so objective, Jessika. He was pretty bought into the glory of our Viet nam adventuring until the war protesters
(whom he did not represent objectively either) opened Amerika's eyes.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 7:01 pm
FOR ONCE, I AM PROUD TO STAND WITH OUR PRESIDENT.
irina , July 16, 2018 at 7:17 pm
Roger That.
Mike From Jersey , July 16, 2018 at 8:14 pm
Ditto
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:21 pm
Me, too. An act of extraordinary political courage.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That took guts, Mr. Trump. I didn't know you had it in you. Congratulations for standing up to your (deadly) opponents. They
are now showing themselves to be the evil scum they really are.
Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 6:57 pm
There is one small problem with this article. While I trust Consortium News far more than the New York Times, there are those
who trust the latter. And the article is far too long for those who already believe that Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia.
A shorter article by Consortium News with a one two punch is what is needed.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:22 pm
Oh, go pound sand, would you?
Zhu Ba Jie , July 16, 2018 at 9:40 pm
People don't change their minds because of rational arguments. Russiagate will go on, in spite of logic and evidence, much
as Birther nonsense does.
mike k , July 16, 2018 at 6:54 pm
I just listened to NBC nightly news, and CNN. They are screaming treason! And the end of America! They are absolutely aghast
that Trump is making peace moves with Putin. Doesn't he know that America is a Warfare State?? To talk peace is against everything
we hold sacred. Beware Mr. Trump, the CIA hit squads will be champing at the bit to field one of their "lone assassins on you".
Pray for the Donald not being gunned down for doing the right thing (for once).
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:37 pm
I still fear someone will do the president harm as a result of this. Trump is taking chances with the mafia that runs this
shadow permanent government, given this level of hysteria. They just have too much at stake. They are used to getting their way.
I hope I'm wrong. The last time a president took on the entire establishment to this extent was JFK. I wish I could be more optimistic.
Litchfield , July 16, 2018 at 10:44 pm
"They are screaming treason! "
How dare they???
they are the treasonous ones.
These crazed zombies are terrifying.
Gregory Herr , July 16, 2018 at 6:52 pm
"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than risk peace in pursuit of politics."
Bravo Mr. President.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2018 at 8:27 pm
Great quote Gregory. Joe
Bruce Dickson , July 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm
A JFK-worthy quote, that.
And, to quote its deliverer, "Who would think..?"
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:23 pm
That one statement will go down in history, mark my words.
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:40 pm
"never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of
another country over those of his own government and people."
Really? You obviously haven't been paying attention to the US's obeisance to Israel. I can think of no other country that puts
another country's wishes ahead of their own the way the US does with Israel.
"he had a chance right there in front of the world to tell Vladimir Putin to stay the HELL out of American democracy, and he
didn't do it."
And he was wise not to do so. The United States has far more blatantly interfered with Russian elections than what the idiots
in our alphabet soup of intelligence agencies are accusing Russia of now. The reason you call Putin a thug is not because he is
one but because he won't let you get away with that kind of crap. Putin has made it clear that American regime change is off the
table and he intends to see to it that it stays off the table.
Rohit , July 16, 2018 at 7:30 pm
""never before have I seen an American president consistently, repeatedly, publicly, and shockingly advance the interests of
another country over those of his own government and people.""
Is that why he wants NATO to beef up? Is that why he complained about Germany's energy dependence on Russia?
He is not putting Putin above the American people. He is just not accepting the lies told by the FBI which is really pretty
much still controlled by Obama.
JesseJean , July 16, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Bravo, Jeff!
David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:34 pm
If the allegations are true – of GRU officers successfully phishing for HRC campaign dirt from Chairman Podesta's emails –
then the officers are guilty as charged. As I understand it, this was the avenue through which Wikileaks obtained the content
of Hillary Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs. That confirmation of what most already suspected to be true – that Hillary had
been pledging fealty to Wall Street bankers at the expense of the people – probably contributed to Hillary's defeat at the polls.
So, I say "more power to 'em". Those officers show common cause with the common man and woman in America. Hillary was never going
to release those transcripts on her own!
And that same phishing – if true – was certainly no "terrorist attack" or "act of war' or other hyperbolic nonsense like "the
undermining of democracy in America". We have no democracy – only an oligarchy – much like the Russians under Boris Yeltsin. Maybe
the phishing undermined oligarchy here, which would be a good thing. Oligarchy is at the heart of the cruel neo-liberal order
which tyrannizes the people.
Jeff Harrison , July 16, 2018 at 6:42 pm
Julian Assange has consistently said he did not get the files from Russia. Assange has yet to be caught in a lie. The US is
a serial liar and doesn't even look embarrassed when caught in a lie.
David Hamilton , July 16, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Thanks Jeff, maybe I don't understand the transfers to Wikileaks very well. I wonder if the FBI/Justice Department really knows,
like they say they do.
LarcoMarco , July 16, 2018 at 7:41 pm
Well, if DNC's servers and Hillarious' stealth servers and Podesta's email were hacked, the NSA has Hooverd up all the evidence
(if it exists). The Dumpster should demand this material be revealed and also demand disclosure of proof that RussiaGate is more
than Deep State designs.
Something must be done to release Assange! Trump: do something.
backwardsevolution , July 16, 2018 at 8:57 pm
Frederike – I think Trump will release Assange. Patience.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm
911 ushered in the post-truth era.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:25 pm
Maybe they got the information because Hillary took home classified documents and recklessly-knowingly exposed them to hackers
in her private basement server?
Freedom lover , July 16, 2018 at 10:56 pm
"If the allegations are true". Well we probably will never find out will we. Putin was shrewd to offer to have Mueller and
his investigators come to Russia to investigate the indited GRU officers and offering full cooperation with Russian Law enforcement.
Putin and Trump both know that Mueller will make every excuse in the book of why that can't happen. Mueller must be craping his
pants wondering if he will somehow be forced to take his investigation to Russia and have it publically exposed for the fraud
that it is.
backwardsevolution , July 17, 2018 at 3:42 pm
Freedom lover – yes, what a great move by Putin! "Come on, let's work together to get to the bottom of this." Mueller must
just be dying! Unfortunately, Trump is really in danger now.
"I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people." Translation: He has little confidence in Obama and Bush intelligence people.
Good for him.
JRGJRG , July 16, 2018 at 9:32 pm
Wow, that was explosive! Just imagine how bad things would be right now if someone other than Putin were in charge of Russia.
We should count ourselves as lucky.
On the morning of the summit, Charles M. Blow, maestro of alliteration and subtlety, in
The New York Times (which, we must remember, holds itself to the highest journalistic
standards and in no way resembles a rabble-rousing tabloid), published this impassioned piece
entitled "
Trump, Treasonous Traitor ," accusing the President of "betraying the nation," and
basically demanding that he be tried for treason. "America is under attack," Blow announces,
"and its president absolutely refuses to defend it."
If Mother Jones ' David Corn has his way, Senator Rand Paul, who Corn denounces as "a
traitor," would also be taken outside and shot for the crime of noting that the Attack on
America® Russia allegedly perpetrated is fairly standard clandestine behavior, engaged in
by most developed nations, including the United States of America,
whose history of election interference, coup-fomenting, assassinations, and other, more
hamfisted forms of regime change is common knowledge, or at least it was, until the ruling
classes and the corporate media turned the majority of Western liberals into paranoid
McCarthyite fanatics denouncing anyone who questions the honesty of the US Intelligence
Community as a "traitor," and seeing Russians and Nazis coming out of the woodwork.
Washington, DC -800-FOR-DEPO www.aldersonreporting.com
DEPO www.aldersonreporting.com
Alderson Court Reporting
Page 37 Prevezon who were part of the case. Other people were brought in -- you know, were
brought in either by Prevezon or by the lawyers and I didn't always try to pin that down.
Q. In general would the decision whether you would share Fusion's information with them be
dependent then upon the attorneys introducing you to them?
A. It would be dependent on the direction of the attorneys. I basically -- you know, in all
these cases for reasons of privilege and simply just professionalism you work at the direction
of the lawyers and you do what they instruct you to do.
Q. Did anyone from Fusion ever help arrange for other entities to be hired by Prevezon or
Baker Hostetler for the Prevezon case?
A. I don't think you could say we arranged for others to be hired. If you're asking me if we
made referrals, we would refer -- you know, we made quite extensive -- fairly extensive efforts
to get a PR firm hired for the trial that we were expecting and we made a number of referrals
in that case, in that matter.
Q. What was the name of that PR firm?
A. There were several. We actually, you know, had a series of screening sessions. I think
Weber Shandwick was the one we ended up with.
Q. You mentioned that Fusion was conducting litigation support in regard to the Prevezon
case. Could you expand a little more about what type of litigation support activities you
undertook?
MR. LEVY: Beyond what he's already told you?
MR. DAVIS: With a little more detail.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. Yes. In the original period of the case the question -- the client's explanation for or
response to the government's allegations was that they originated with an organized crime
figure in Russia who had been extorting them and who they had reported to the police and who
had been jailed and convicted for blackmailing them, and they claimed that that was where these
allegations originated, which, you know, seemed remarkable because it was in a Justice
Department complaint.
So the first thing, you know, in any case really is to sort of try and figure out whether
your own client's story can be supported or whether it's not true, and the lawyers -- you know,
we work with a lot of prominent law firms and in many cases the first thing the lawyers need to
know is whether their client's story is real, whether it can be supported, you know, because in
any new case you don't know whether your own client is telling you the truth.
So originally one of the first things we were hired to do was to check out whether this was,
in fact, the case. So they claimed that the allegations originated with a mobster named Demetri
Baranovsky, B-A-R-A-N-O-V-S-K-Y, who was, in fact, jailed for running a shake-down operation in
which he posed as an anticorruption campaigner for the purpose of extorting money from people
by threatening to accuse them of some kind of corrupt activities. As you know, Russia is rife
with corruption and there's a lot of anger over corruption.
We were able to ascertain that Mr. Baranovsky was, in fact, associated with Russia's biggest
organized crime family, the Solntsevo Brotherhood, S-O-L-N-T-S-E-V-O brotherhood, which is the
major dominant mafia clan in Moscow. So as far as it went, the client seemed to be telling the
truth. You know, there was extensive record of these events and we found some indications from
western law enforcement that western law enforcement did consider Baranovsky to be a lieutenant
in this organized crime family. So we did that for a while. Edward Baumgartner helped a lot
with that because of his Russian language skills and his ability to interface with the court
system in Russia.
And, you know, around the -- similarly, there was a deposition of a customs agent by one of
the lawyers who -- you know, in this initial effort to trace the origin of these allegations,
where they came from, how they could have ended up with the Justice Department, the first thing
we did was interview the client, got their story, and interviewed the agent who worked on the
case for the DOJ and that agent said he got all his information from William Browder.
So at that point I was asked to help see if we could get an interview with William Browder.
They wrote a letter to Browder and asked him to answer questions and he refused. Then the
lawyers wanted to know, you know, whether he could be subpoenaed. So a lot of what I did in
2014 was help them figure out whether he could be subpoenaed in the United States to give a
deposition, and the first thing that we did was we researched the ownership and registration of
his hedge fund, which was registered in Delaware and filed documents with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
was registered in Delaware and filed documents with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
So we subpoenaed his hedge fund. A lot of the early work I did was just documenting that his
hedge fund had presence in the United States. So we subpoenaed his hedge fund. He then changed
the hedge fund registration, took his name off, said it was on there by accident, it was a
mistake, and said that he had no presence in the United States and that, you know -- as you may
know, he surrendered his citizenship in 1998 and moved outside the United States. That was
around the time he started making all the money in Russia. So he's never had to pay U.S. taxes
on his profits from his time in Russia, which became important in the case later.
In any case, he said he never came to the United States, didn't own any property here,
didn't do any business here, and therefore he was not required to participate in the U.S. court
system even though he admitted that he brought the case to the U.S. Justice Department. So we
found this to be a frustrating and somewhat curious situation.
He was willing to, you know, hand stuff off to the DOJ anonymously in the beginning and
cause them to launch a court case against somebody, but he wasn't interesting in speaking under
oath about, you know, why he did that, his own activities in Russia. So looking at the public
record we determined that he did come to the United States frequently, and I discovered through
public records that he seemed to own a house in Aspen, Colorado, a very expensive mansion, over
$10 million, which he had registered in the name of a shell company in a clear attempt to
disguise the ownership of the property. We were able to ascertain that he does use property. We
were able to ascertain that he does use that property because he registered cars to that
property with the Colorado DMV in the name of William Browder.
So we began looking for public information about when he might be in Aspen, Colorado, and I
found a listing on the Aspen Institute Website about an appearance he was going to make there
in the summer of 2014. So we -- I served him a subpoena in the parking lot of the Aspen
Institute in the summer of 2014 using two people -- two subcontractors. Actually, those other
subcontractors were -- their names escape me, but I forgot about those. We can get you that.
This is all in the Pacer court record, the public court record.
In any event, the three of us served -- there was another subcontractor working for the law
firm whose name I also forget. I did not retain him, but I was asked to work with him on this.
He is a private investigator and we can get you his name. In any event, we served him the
subpoena and he ran away. He dropped it on the ground and he ran away.
He jumped in his car and went back to his mansion.
At that point he tried to suppress -- tried to quash the subpoena on the grounds it hadn't
been properly served. We didn't get a video, but there are sworn affidavits from my servers in
the court record about the service. But he objected to it on a number of grounds. A, he
continued to insist he had nothing to do with the United States and didn't come here very often
even, though we caught him here, clearly has cars in Colorado. He also said that you can't
serve a subpoena for a case in that you can't serve a subpoena for a case in New York in the
state of Colorado, it's outside the primary jurisdiction. He also began to raise questions
about whether Baker Hostetler had a conflict of interest because of some previous work he did
with one of the Baker lawyers.
This led to a long, drawn-out discovery battle that I was in the center of because I served
the subpoenas and I helped find the information for the first set of subpoenas that lasted, you
know, through 2014. This was, you know, a lot of what I did. This was -- the main focus was on
trying to get William Browder to testify under oath about his role in this case and his
activities in Russia.
All of this -- his determined effort to avoid testifying under oath, including running away
from subpoenas and changing -- frequently changing lawyers and making lurid allegations against
us, including that, you know, he thought we were KGB assassins in the parking lot of Aspen,
Colorado when we served the subpoena, all raised questions in my mind about why he was so
determined to not have to answer questions under oath about things that happened in Russia.
I'll add that, you know, I've done a lot of Russia reporting over the years. I originally
met William Browder back when I was a journalist at the Wall Street Journal when I was doing
stories about corruption in Russia. I think the first time I met him he lectured me about -- I
was working on a story about Vladimir Putin corruption and he lectured me about how have
Vladimir Putin was not corrupt and how he was the best thing that ever happened to Russia.
There are numerous documents that he published himself, interviews he gave singing the praises
of Vladimir Putin. At that time I was already investigating corruption in Putin's Russia.
So this made me more curious about the history of his activities in Russia and what that
might tell me about corruption in Russia, and as part of the case we became curious about
whether there was something that he was hiding about his activities in Russia. So through this
period while we were attempting to get him under oath we were also investigating his business
practices in Russia and that research -- and I should add when I say "we," I mean the lawyers
were doing a lot of this work and it wasn't -- I can't take responsibility or pride of place on
having done all this work. We were doing it all together. It was a -- you know, there were a
number of lawyers involved, other people.
In the course of doing this research into
25 what he might not want to be asked about from his history in Russia we began to learn
about the history of his tax avoidance in Russia and we began to deconstruct the way that his
hedge fund structured its investments in Russia and, you know, we gradually accumulated through
public records, not all from Russia, that he set up dozens of shell companies in Cyprus and
other tax havens around the world to funnel money into Russia and to hold Russian
securities.
He also set up shell companies inside of Russia in order to avoid paying taxes in Russia and
he set up shell companies in a remote republic called Kalmykia, K-A-L-M-Y-K-I-A, which is next
to Mongolia. It's the only Buddhist republic in Russia and there's nothing much there, but if
you put your companies there you can lower your taxes. They were putting their companies in
Kalmykia that were holding investments from western investors and they were staffing these
companies -- they were using Afghan war veterans because there's a tax preference for Afghan
war veterans, and what we learned is that they got in trouble for this eventually because one
of Putin's primary rules for business was you can do a lot of things, but you've got to pay
your taxes.
In fact, William Browder famously said in 2005 at Davos everybody knows under Putin you have
to pay your taxes, which is ironic because at the time he was being investigated for not paying
taxes. Ultimately they were caught, some of these companies were prosecuted, and he was forced
to make an enormous tax payment to the government of Russia in 2006.
I will add that Sergei Magnitsky was working
10 for him at this time and all of this happened prior to the events that you are interested
in involving the Russian treasury fraud and his jailing. This precedes all that.
But returning to the detailed discussion of my work, we investigated William Browder's
business practices in Russia, we began to understand maybe what it was he didn't want to talk
about, and as we looked at that we then began to look at his decision to surrender his American
citizenship in 1998. At that point somewhere in there the Panama papers came out and we
discovered that he had incorporated shell companies offshore in the mid 1990s, in 1995 I
believe it was in the British Virgin Islands, and that at some point his hedge fund's shares
had been transferred to this offshore company.
This offshore company was managed -- several of his offshore companies were managed by the
Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca, M-O-S-S-A-C-K, Fonseca, F-O-N-S-E-C-A, which is
known now for setting up offshore companies for drug kingpins, narcos, kleptos, you name it.
They were servicing every bad guy around. And I'm familiar with them from other money
laundering and corruption and tax evasion investigations that I've done.
I'll note parenthetically that William Browder talks a lot about the Panama papers and the
Russians who are in the Panama papers without ever mentioning that he's in the Panama papers.
This is, again, a public fact that you can check on-line.
So that's an overview of the sort of work I was doing on this case. In the course of that I
also began reaching back, I read his book Red Notice to understand his story and the story of
his activities in Russia. I'll add also that I was extremely sympathetic for what happened to
Sergei Magnitsky and I told him that myself and I tried to help him. It was only later from
this other case that I began to be curious and skeptical about William Browder's activities and
history in Russia.
MR. FOSTER: Can I ask you a follow-up question. I appreciate the narrative answer, but at
the very beginning of the narrative you talked about beginning this journey by interviewing --
conducting an interview of the case agent who said he'd gotten all of his information -- the
case agent or the attorney, the primary person at the DOJ, you said they got all their
information from Bill Browder. Can you tell us who that was and who conducted the
interview?
MR. LEVY: Mr. Simpson should definitely answer that question. I just want to make sure for
the record that he hadn't finished his answer. He can talk more extensively about the
litigation support that he provided for Baker -- MR. FOSTER: We're happy to get into that if he
wants to do that. We're just coming up at the end of our hour. MR. LEVY: No problem. MR.
FOSTER: and I wanted to get that follow-up in before --
A. I'll just finish with one last thing and I'm happy to answer that question. So in the
course of this, you know -- I mean, one of my interests or even obsessions over the last decade
has been corruption in Russia and Russian kleptocracy and the police state that was there. I
was stationed in Europe from 2005 to 2007 or '8. So I was there when Putin was consolidating
power and all this wave of power was coming. So it's been a subject that I've read very widely
on and I'm very interested in the history of Putin's rise.
You know, in the course of all this I'll tell you I became personally interested in where
Bill Browder came from, how he made so much money under Vladimir Putin without getting involved
in anything illicit. So I read his book and I began doing other research and I found filings at
the SEC linking him quite directly and his company, Salomon Brothers at the time, to a company
in Russia called Peter Star, and I had, as it happens, vetted Peter Star and I knew that Peter
Star was, you know, at the center of a corruption case that I covered as a reporter at the Wall
Street Journal. When I went back into the history of Peter Star I realized that Bill Browder
did business with the mayor's office in Saint Petersburg when Vladimir Putin was the deputy
mayor and was responsible for dealing with western businessmen and corporations.
I then went and looked in Red Notice, this was a large deal, it was the biggest deal ever
for Salomon at that time, they sold $98 million worth of stock on NASDAQ. There's no mention of
William Browder's deal with Peter Star in Red Notice. I can't tell you why, but I can tell you
that Peter Star later became the subject of a massive Star later became the subject of a
massive corruption investigation, Pan-European, that I exposed a lot of and that led to the
resignation of Putin's telecoms minister. So I assume he might not have -- this is kind of a
pattern with Browder, which is he tends to omit things that aren't helpful to him, and I think
we've seen a good bit of that lately in his allegations against me, which I'm sure you're going
to ask me about.
So your question about the ICE agent, he was deposed by John Moscow of the New York office
of Baker Hostetler. John is an old associate of mine from my days as a journalist. John's an
expert on tax evasion and money laundering. He was the head of the rackets bureau for the
district attorney's office in New York.
MR. FOSTER: You're talking about a formal deposition in the litigation?
MR. SIMPSON: Yeah.
MR. FOSTER: I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. SIMPSON: Again, it's in the court record. One of the frustrating things about this whole
issue for me is everything I'm talking about or most of it is in the court record. You know, I
don't take a lot of credit for my work. So you won't see my name scattered through the court
record, but a lot of this is what I did.
MR. DAVIS: I think that's concludes our first hour. Let's take a short break before we begin
a new one.
"... The documents had been doubted for some linguistic reasons discussed by Gilbert Doctorow who comes to a reasonable conclusion: "Bill Browder['s] intensity and the time he was devoting to anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behaviour of a top level international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play. But at the time, no one could stand up and suggest the man was a fraud, an operative of the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... We do not know whether Browder is, or had been, a spy. This should not surprise us, as he was closely connected to Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky, the financiers with strong ties in the intelligence community. ..."
"... Perhaps he outlived his usefulness, Mr Browder did. He started the Cold war, now is the time to keep it in its healthy limits and to avoid a nuclear disaster or rapid armaments race. This is the task we may hope will be entertained by the next US President, Mr Donald Trump. ..."
Chapeau, Mr Browder! Hats off for this incredible man. Last month, he succeeded in stopping
a film screening in the European parliament and took off a few articles from American web
sites. This week, he turned the only US screening of a film critical to his version of events
into
a ruckus . No freedom of speech for his enemies! His lawyers prowl around and issue summons
to whoever digs in his sordid affairs. His hacks re-wrote his Wikipedia entry,
expunging even discussions of the topic: despite
hundreds of edits, nothing survived but the official version. Only a few powerful men succeed
purifying their record to such an extent. Still, good fortune (a notoriously flighty lady) is
about to desert Mr Browder.
Who is this extremely influential man? A businessman, a politician, a spy? The American-born
Jewish tycoon William Browder, says The Jewish
Chronicle , considers himself Putin's Number One enemy. For him, Putin is "no friend of the
Jews", "cold-blooded killer" and even "criminal dictator who is not too different from Hitler,
Mussolini or Gadhafi". More to a point, Browder is the man who contributed most to the new cold
war between the West and Russia. The roots were there, still he made them blossom. If the US
and Russia haven't yet exchanged nuclear salvos, do not blame Browder: he tried. For a valid
reason, too: he was hit by cruel Hitler-like Mr Putin into his most susceptible spot, namely
his pocket. Or was there even a better reason?
Browder, a grandson of the US Communist leader, came to Russia at its weakest point after
the Soviet collapse, and grabbed an enormous fortune by opaque financial transactions. Such
fortunes are not amassed by the pure of spirit. He was a ruthless man who did as much as any
oligarch to enrich himself.
Eventually he ran afoul of Mr Putin, who was (and is) very tolerant of oligarchs as long as
they play by the rules. The oligarchs would not be oligarchs if they would found that an easy
condition. Some of them tried to fight back: Khodorkovsky landed in jail, Berezovsky and
Gusinsky went to exile. Browder had a special position: he was the only Jewish oligarch in
Russia who never bothered to acquire the Russian citizenship. He was barred from returning to
Russia, and his companies were audited and found wanting.
As you'd expect, huge tax evasion was discovered. Browder thought that as long as he sucked
up to Putin, he'd get away with bloody murder, let alone tax evasion. He was mistaken. Putin is
nobody's fool. Flatterers do not get a free ride in Putin's Russia. And Browder became too big
for his boots.
It turned out that he did two unforgivable things. Russians were afraid the foreigners would
buy all their assets for a song, using favourable exchange rates and lack of native capital, as
had happened in the Baltic states and other ex-Communist East European countries. In order to
avoid that, shares of Russian blue-chip companies (Gazprom and suchlike) were traded among
Russian citizens only. Foreigners had to pay much more. Browder bought many such shares via
Russian frontmen, and he was close to getting control over Russian oil and gas. Putin suspected
that he had acted in the interests of big foreign oil companies, trying to repeat the feat of
Mr Khodorkovsky.
His second mistake was being too greedy. Russian taxation is very low; but Browder did not
want to pay even this low tax. He hired Mr Magnitsky, an experienced auditor, who used
loopholes in the Russian tax code in order to avoid taxes altogether. Magnitsky established
dummy companies based in tax-free zones of Russia, such as pastoral Kalmykia, small, Buddhist,
and autonomous. Their tax-free status had been granted in order to improve their economy and
reduce unemployment; however, Browder's companies did not contribute to economy and did not
employ people; they were paper dummies swiftly bankrupted by the owner.
Another Magnitsky trick was to form companies fronted by handicapped people who were also
freed from paying tax. In the film, some of these persons, often illiterate and of limited
intelligence, told the filmmaker of signing papers they could not read and of being paid a
little money for the millions passing through their account.
(Mr Browder does not deny these accusations; he says there is nothing criminal in trying to
avoid taxes. You can read about Browder and Magnitsky tricks
here and
here , and learn of the ways they attacked companies using minority shareholders and many
other neat schemes.)
Eventually Magnitsky's schemes were discovered and he was arrested. Ten months later, in
2009, he died in jail. By that time, his patron Mr Browder was abroad, and he began his
campaign against Russia hoping to regain his lost assets. He claimed Mr Magnitsky had been his
lawyer, who discovered misdeeds and the outright thievery of government officials, and was
imprisoned and tortured to death for this discovery.
The US Congress rushed in the Magnitsky Act, the first salvo of the Cold War Two. By this
act, any Russian person could be found responsible for Mr Magnitsky's untimely death and for
misappropriation of Browder's assets. His properties could be seized, bank accounts frozen
– without any legal process or representation. This act upset the Russians, who allegedly
had kept a cool $500 billion in the Western banks, so tit for tat started, and it goes to this
very day.
The actual effect of the Magnitsky Act was minimal: some twenty million dollars frozen and a
few dozen not-very-important people were barred from visiting the US. Its psychological effect
was much greater: the Russian elite realized that they could lose their money and houses
anytime – not in godless Putin's Russia, but in the free West, where they had preferred
to look for refuge. The Magnitsky Act paved the road to the Cyprus confiscation of Russian
deposits, to post-Crimean sanctions and to a full-fledged Cold War.
This was painful for Russia, as the first adolescent disillusionment in its love affair with
the West, and rather healthy, in my view. A spot of cold war (very cold, plenty of ice please)
is good for ordinary people, while its opposite, a Russian-American alliance, is good for the
elites. The worst times for ordinary Russian people were 1988-2001, when Russians were in love
with the US. The oligarchs stole everything there was to steal and sold it to the West for
pennies. They bought villas in Florida while Russia fell apart. That was bad time for
everybody: the US invaded Panama and Afghanistan unopposed, Iraq was sanctioned to death,
Yugoslavia was bombed and broken to pieces.
As the Cold War came back, some normalcy was restored: the Russians stopped the US from
destroying Syria, and Russian officials learned to love Sochi instead of Miami. For this reason
alone, Browder can be counted as a part of the power which eternally wills evil and eternally
works good. The Russian government, however, did not enjoy the cold shower.
The Russians denied any wrongdoing or even political reasons for dealing with Browder. They
say Magnitsky was not a lawyer, just an auditor and a tax code expert. They say that he was
arrested and tried for his tax avoidance schemes, and he died of natural causes while in jail.
Nobody listened to them, until they demanded that Browder testify under oath. He refused. For
two years
lawyers tried to give him a summons , but he was a quick runner. There are funny videos showing Browder
running away from summons.
Some good sense began to seep into American minds. The New Republicwondered : if
Browder was indeed the victim of persecution in Russia and had enlisted the U.S. justice system
to right the balance, why was he so reluctant to offer his sworn testimony in an American
courtroom?
Enter Mr Andrey Nekrasov , a
Russian dissident filmmaker. He made a few films considered to be highly critical of Russian
government. He alleged the FSB blew up houses in Moscow in order to justify the Chechnya war.
He condemned the Russian war against Georgia in 2008, and had been given a medal by Georgian
authorities. He did not doubt the official Western version of Browder-Magnitsky affair, and
decided to make a film about the noble American businessman and the brave Russian lawyer
fighting for human rights. The European organisations and parliamentarians provided the budget
for the film. They also expected the film to denounce Putin and glorify Magnitsky, the
martyr.
However, while making the film, Mr Nekrasov had his Road to Damascus moment. He realised
that the whole narrative was hinging on the unsubstantiated words of Mr Browder. After
painstaking research, he came to some totally different conclusions, and in his version,
Browder was a cheat who run afoul of law, while Magnitsky was his sidekick in those crimes.
Nekrasov discovered an interview Magnitsky gave in his jail. In this interview, the
accountant said he was afraid Browder would kill him to prevent him from denouncing Browder,
and would make him his scapegoat. It turned out Browder tried to bribe the journalist who made
the interview to have these words expunged. Browder was the main beneficiary of the
accountant's death, realised Nekrasov, while his investigators were satisfied with Magnitsky's
collaboration with them.
Nekrasov could not find any evidence that Magnitsky tried to investigate the misdeeds of
government officials. He was too busy covering his own tax evasion. And instead of fitting his
preconceived notions, Nekrasov made the film about what he learned. (
Here are some details of Nekrasov's film)
While the screening in the EU Parliament was been stopped by the powerful Mr Browder, in
Washington DC the men are made of sterner stuff. Despite Browder's threats the film was
screened , presented by the best contemporary American investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh, who is 80 if a day, and still going strong. One has to recognise that the US is second
to none for freedom of speech on the globe.
What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This is probably a uniquely
Jewish quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures. The Arabs will
spend more on horses and jets, the Russians prefer real estate, the Jews like politicians. The
Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they present alleged evidence of
money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by Browder's structures officially to
the senators and congressmen in order to promote the Magnitsky Act.
Much bigger sums were transferred via good services of Brothers Ziff, mega-rich Jewish
American businessmen, said the researchers in two articles published on the
Veteran News Network and in The
Huffington Post .
These two articles were taken off the sites very fast under pressure of Browder's lawyers,
but they are available in the cache. They disclose the chief beneficiary of Browder's
generosity. This is Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland. He was the engine behind
Magnitsky Act legislation to such an extent that the Act has been often called the Cardin List . Cardin is a
fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton, also a cold warrior of good standing. More to a point,
Cardin is a prominent member of Israel Lobby.
Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and
international crime. Almost all involved figures appear to be Jewish, not only Browder,
Brothers Ziff and Ben Cardin. Even his enemy, the beneficiary of the scam that (according to
Browder) took over his Russian assets is another Jewish businessman
Dennis Katsiv (he had been partly exonerated by a New York court as is well described in
this thoughtful
piece).
Browder began his way to riches under the patronage of a very rich and very crooked Robert
Maxwell, a Czech-born Jewish businessman who assumed a Scots name. Maxwell stole a few million
dollars from his company pension fund before dying in mysterious circumstances on board of his
yacht in the Atlantic. It was claimed by a member of Israeli Military Intelligence, Ari Ben
Menashe, that Maxwell had been a Mossad agent for years, and he also said Maxwell tipped the
Israelis about Israeli whistle-blower Mordecai Vanunu. Vanunu was kidnapped and spent many
years in Israeli jails.
Geoffrey Goodman wrote
Maxwell "was almost certainly being used as – and using himself as – a two-way
intelligence conduit [between East and West]. This arrangement included passing intelligence to
the Israeli secret forces with whom he became increasingly involved towards the end of his
life."
After Maxwell, Browder switched allegiance to Edmond Safra, a very rich Jewish banker of
Lebanese origin, who also played East vs West. Safra provided him with working capital for his
investment fund. Safra's bank has been the unlikely place where the IMF loan of four billion
dollars to Russia had been transferred -- and disappeared. The Russian authorities say that
Browder has been involved in this "crime of the century," next to Safra. The banker's name has
been connected to Mossad: increasingly fearful for his life, Safra surrounded himself by
Mossad-trained gunmen. This did not help him: he died a horrible death in his bathroom when his
villa was torched by one of the guards.
The third Jewish oligarch on Browder's way was Boris Berezovsky, the king-maker of Yeltsin's
Russia. He also died in his bathroom (which seems to be a constant feature); apparently he
committed suicide. Berezovsky had been a politically active man; he supported every anti-Putin
force in Russia. However, a few months before his death, he asked for permission to return to
Russia, and some negotiations went on between him and Russian authorities.
His chief of security Sergey Sokolov came to Russia and purportedly brought with him some
documents his late master prepared for his return. These documents allege that Browder had been
an agent of Western intelligence services, of the CIA to begin with, and of MI6 in following
years. He was given a code name Solomon, as he worked for Salomon Brothers. His financial
activity was just a cover for his true intentions, that is to collect political and economic
data on Russia, and to carry out economic war on Russia. This revelation has been made in the
Russia-1 TV channel documentary Browder Effect ,
(broadcasted 13.04.2016), asserting that Browder was not after money at all, and his activities
in Russia, beside being very profitable, had a political angle.
The documents had been doubted for some linguistic reasons discussed by Gilbert Doctorow
who comes to a reasonable conclusion: "Bill Browder['s] intensity and the time he was devoting
to anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behaviour of a top level
international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play. But at the
time, no one could stand up and suggest the man was a fraud, an operative of the intelligence
agencies. Whatever the final verdict may be on the documents presented by the film "The
Browder Effect," it raises questions about Browder that should have been asked years ago in
mainstream Western media if journalists were paying attention. Yevgeny Popov deserves credit
for highlighting those questions, even if his documents demand further investigation before we
come to definitive answers".
We do not know whether Browder is, or had been, a spy. This should not surprise us, as
he was closely connected to Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky, the financiers with strong ties in
the intelligence community.
Perhaps he outlived his usefulness, Mr Browder did. He started the Cold war, now is the
time to keep it in its healthy limits and to avoid a nuclear disaster or rapid armaments race.
This is the task we may hope will be entertained by the next US President, Mr Donald
Trump.
" Browder was not after money at all " Uh, no. Browder was notorious for his greed and
obsession with money. This is someone who had a program that calculated his personal net
worth online and would check it no less than every half hour.
Think Gordon Gekko but too
cheap to even buy a decent suit. While there may have been some intelligence connections
somewhere along the way, as the article states, he went political only when his honey pot was
removed. Without Russia, his fund management business quickly tanked.
This is priceless: "We do not know whether Browder is, or had been, a spy. This should not
surprise us, as he was closely connected to Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky, the financiers
with strong ties in the intelligence community."
"Israel's Agent of Influence: Senator Ben Cardin shows how it's done:"
"So who does Cardin actually represent? I would suggest that he fits the mold of the
classic agent of influence in that his allegiance to the United States is constrained by his
greater loyalty to a foreign nation."
In Russia, everybody criticises Putin. No danger at all. Andrey Nekrasov was a foremost
critic of Putin, made him no harm. Russia has as much freedom of speech as Europe; still less
than the US.
Incredible–well, not really–that our mainstream media resolutely refuses to
print, much less discuss, the two main pieces of information here:
1. Browder was the one who gained most from Magnitsky's death as evidenced by the
interview in which the latter asserted a fear of being killed by Browder.
2. Nekrasov, the film's director, has a history of making films very critical of Putin and
the Russian government and state.
US media coverage either omits any mention of these two points or buries allusions to them
in the article. The NYT piece on Browder's attempt to block the film's screening at the
Newseum in Washington was filed in the "Europe" section of the paper.
Freedom of speech is under assault in the West and, again and again, we see the common
denominator of these despicable efforts to suppress key information.
How funny to hear people question Browder's Jewishness, in the Unz comments section of all
places. Lest there be any doubt, he, himself, very much identified as being a Jew, to the
extent that he had a Mezuzah on his office doorway and hired only Jewish employees.
Concerning Magnitsky's indeed unusual posthumous trial, this was actually at the behest of
his own mother who refused to sign the legal papers closing the criminal case due to his
death. This is usually a mere formality. However, the Russian legal system is a stickler for
the letter of the law and so the trial went ahead. His mother's motivation was unclear,
though it probably had something to do with extra publicity.
When I first became aware of Mr. Browder a number of years ago, I was curious about his name,
since I was aware of Earl Browder, the former head of the American Communist Party when I was
growing up. After I subsequently learned of the familial connection, I was highly amused to
discover the leap from Communist to capitalist in three generations. But then I recalled that
Dr. Armand Hammer, eventually the controlling shareholder of Occidental Petroleum, had a
father who was also a doctor, an emigrant from Odessa, and a founder of the Communist Party
U.S.A. That was a mere two generations to make the leap from Communist to capitalist.
A few years ago I happened to read an amusing memoir of the girl who was my date to my
high school prom but who went on to achieve a modest fame and acquaintance with many
prominent Americans and foreigners. (I am being intentionally vague.) When I was dating her
in high school and college, I operated under the false assumption that her mother (whom I
met) was Jewish and her natural father (whom I never met); I met her stepfather, who was
Jewish) was Catholic, which I thought was kind of cool, since I was totally nonreligious. You
can imagine my disappointment to learn nearly a half century later that both of her natural
parents were Jewish. Elsewhere in her memoir, my friend referred to her mother's sister, who
was a member of the Communist Party and got caught up in the Hollywood blacklist and lost her
job. (That was the first I heard of it, btw.) Things turned out well for her since she hooked
up with and married a wealthy Jewish doctor, who left her a sizable fortune when he died. She
eventually moved to Israel where she found nirvana, marrying a much younger man and enjoying
late in life "fantastic sex." So, it appears that what motivates many young Communists is the
dream of becoming fantastically wealthy and enjoying life as a plutocrat, not the BS of
improving life for the downtrodden. If I weren't such a natural skeptic, I would have been
very disillusioned, but not as much as I was to discover late in life that her father was
Jewish and not Catholic. Apologies to all those women I dated in my 20′s and 30′s
whom I regaled with the story of my half-Jewish, half-Catholic prom date.
It became tedious to evoke the murky relations of Bolshevism with the Jewish bank cartel
in the financing of Lenin, Trotsky &Co by Jacob Schiff ("a banker who grew up in House of
Rothschild Frankfurt, monopolized American rail system, funded the Rockefellers through First
City Bank, ADL and the NAACP. Schiff's granddaughter married Al Gore's Son" From his base on
Wall Street, he was the foremost Jewish leader from 1880 to 1920 in what later became known
as the "Schiff era", grappling with all major Jewish issues and problems of the day,
including the plight of Russian Jews under the Tsar, American and international
anti-semitism, care of needy Jewish immigrants, and the rise of Zionism" – per
Wikipedia), and Warburg ("Paul Warburg was a planner for the U.S. Federal Reserve System
which is a collection of private banks, and attended as American representative, the Treaty
of Versailles conference, where his brother Max was on the German side of the bargaining
table" by Wiki). One can see why Lenin was 'permitted' to pass through Germany!
Schiff financed the Japanese for their attack on Russia ("He extended loans to the Empire
of Japan in the amount of $200 million, through Kuhn, Loeb & Co Schiff saw this loan as a
means of answering, on behalf of the Jewish people, the anti-Semitic actions of the Russian
Empire, specifically the then-recent Kishinev pogrom"), the 1905 Revolution and the 1917
Revolution. "In addition to his famous loan to Japan, Schiff financed loans to many other
nations, including those that would come to comprise the Central Powers Schiff made sure none
of the funds from his loans ever went to the Russian Empire, which he felt oppressed Jewish
people. When the Russian Empire fell in 1917, Schiff believed that the oppression of Jews
would end. He formally repealed the impediments within his firm against lending to Russia".
It's true that Communist Russia quickly opened the door for foreign investment (NEP) and the
looting of Russia.
When Stalin tried to reduce USSR's dependence on foreign investments, he became instantly the
monster. It is remarkable that America stood behind Trotsky in the case of the so-called
"Show Trials" (The Dewey Commission).
Particularly interesting is that (per Wikipedia);
"Some ten years later, the Dewey Commission was cited in great detail, when in an open letter
to the British press dated 25 February 1946, written by George Orwell and signed by Arthur
Koestler, C. E. M. Joad, Frank Horrabin, George Padmore, Julian Symons, H. G. Wells, F. A.
Ridley, C. A. Smith and John Baird, among others, it was suggested that the Nuremberg Trials
then underway were an invaluable opportunity for establishing "historical truth and bearing
upon the political integrity" of figures of international standing. Specifically, they called
for Rudolf Hess to be interrogated about his alleged meeting with Trotsky and that the
Gestapo records then in the hands of Allied experts be examined for any proof of any "liaison
between the Nazi Party or State and Trotsky or the other old Bolshevik leaders indicted at
the Moscow trials "
BTW I wonder how many people, including posters here, are aware that the U.S., under
President Wilson, sent a military expedition to Russia after the Communist takeover there in
1917 and kept them there for about a year and a half.
When I was in college in the early 60′s, I bought a paperback of George Kennan's
"Russia and the West, Under Lenin and Stalin" (hardcover ed. 1961), the first book of Kennan
that I read, and was startled to learn of our military invasion of Russia at the end of WWI
and after, something I didn't remember being taught in high school American history a few
years earlier. That was about 50 years ago. This past year I got around to reading A. Scott
Berg's much acclaimed biography, "Wilson." I didn't remember reading anything in that
biography re Wilson's commitment of military forces to Russia. I have just reviewed the index
and found one obscure reference to "military intervention in Russia" (p. 590 of hardcover
ed.) and George Kennan.
More important, I reviewed the Bibliography and found no reference to
George Kennan's "Russia and the West, Under Lenin and Stalin." I don't know what to make of
the gross omission by a highly-regarded biographer, but it is clear that an effort has been
made to downplay this aspect of Wilson's policy, for reasons that escape me.
Maybe because I was educated in a different country I was very well aware of this item of
information. It was not only the US, then most of the Western countries from both sides of
WW1, including Britain, France, Italy, then also Czechoslovakia (Austria-Hungary), Japan,
Germany and so on, which sent troops to Russia on the side of Belaya Gvardiya fighting the
Lenin's Bolsheviks, even whilst WW1 was still ongoing.
They fought with Belaya Gvardiya in
Siberia, Ukraine and Crimea (part of Russia, not part of Ukraine until 1953 when given to
Ukraine by the Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev).
Fascinating, thank you. Reading more, I find that Wilson was motivated to safeguard almost
a billion dollars in armaments and equipment [including railway cars] given to Russia by the
U.S in the hopes of Russia prevailing over the Central Powers and thereafter adopting the
capitalist model.
Alas the men and hardware [including frozen machine guns] did not hit the
right wavelength with the Siberian winter.
Many of us are aware of the 'Allied Intervention in the Russian civil war' which occured in
the aftermath of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk while the Entante was still at war with Germany.
The chaos which ensued as a result of the misguided policies of the HLH (Hindenburg,
Ludendorff, Hoffman), especially the 'Napoleonic complex' of Ludendorff compounded by the
greedy desires of many petty German 'Fuersten' for crowns in the East, determined the Allies
to intervene, motivated by the following considerations:
- prevent the German or Bolshevik capture of Allied material stockpiles in Arkhangelsk
- mount an attack helping the Czechoslovak Legions stranded on the Trans-Siberian
Railroad
– resurrect the Eastern Front by defeating the Bolshevik army with help from the
Czechoslovak Legions and an expanded anti-Bolshevik force of local citizens and stop the
spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia.
Now, this is news only for graduates of American schools where history is no more taught.
The Wikipedia entry ('Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War') would have been
sufficient (for beginners) to set the record straight:
"Severely short of troops to spare, the British and French requested that President Wilson
provide American soldiers for the campaign. In July 1918, against the advice of the United
States Department of War, Wilson agreed to the limited participation of 5,000 United States
Army troops in the campaign. This force, which became known as the "American North Russia
Expeditionary Force" (a.k.a. the Polar Bear Expedition) were sent to Arkhangelsk while
another 8,000 soldiers, organised as the American Expeditionary Force Siberia, were shipped
to Vladivostok from the Philippines and from Camp Fremont in California. That same month, the
Canadian government agreed to the British government's request to command and provide most of
the soldiers for a combined British Empire force, which also included Australian and Indian
troops. Some of this force was the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force; another part was
the North Russia Intervention. A Royal Navy squadron was sent to the Baltic under
Rear-Admiral Edwyn Alexander-Sinclair. This force consisted of modern C-class cruisers and V-
and W-class destroyers. In December 1918, Sinclair sailed into Estonian and Latvian ports,
sending in troops and supplies, and promising to attack the Bolsheviks "as far as my guns can
reach". In January 1919, he was succeeded in command by Rear-Admiral Walter Cowan.
The Japanese, concerned about their northern border, sent the largest military force,
numbering about 70,000. They desired the establishment of a buffer state in Siberia, and the
Imperial Japanese Army General Staff viewed the situation in Russia as an opportunity for
settling Japan's "northern problem". The Japanese government was also intensely hostile to
communism.
The Italians created the special "Corpo di Spedizione" with Alpini troops sent from Italy and
ex-POWs of Italian ethnicity from the former Austro-Hungarian army who were recruited to the
Italian Legione Redenta. They were initially based in the Italian Concession in Tientsin and
numbered about 2,500.
Romania, Greece, Poland, China, and Serbia also sent contingents in support of the
intervention."
All these troops have been involved, in a way or another, in the Russian Civil War, but by
1920 all have been withdrawn. Only the Japanese stayed in the Maritime Provinces of the
Russian Far East until 1922 and in northern Sakhalin until 1925.
There is obviously no space here to talk about the 'Treaty of Rapallo' between Russia and
Germany of 1922 and of the 'Genoa Conference' held in Genoa in 1922, where "the
representatives of 34 countries gathered to discuss global economic problems following World
War I. The purpose was to formulate strategies to rebuild central and eastern Europe,
particularly Russia, after the war, and also to negotiate a relationship between European
capitalist economies, and the new Russian Bolshevik regime". These were signals for the
introduction of NEP (New Economic Policy) and the policy of 'concessions' which was, in
Lenin's terms " a strategic retreat from socialism".
Anyhow, I think that a BA is a minimum requirement in order to gain a modicum of
understanding of these problems. For sure Wikipedia is not sufficient.
There is no question the involvement of U.S. troops in Russia following the Bolshevik
Revolution of 1917 is downplayed in the U.S. As I noted, the issue wasn't touched on in my
high school history class, and I was surprised to learn of our military involvement in
Russia's civil war only when I went to college and bought the small paperback of Kennan's
"Russia and the West Under Lenin and Stalin." In fact, I have a one-volume history of the
U.S. written by one of the U.S.'s leading historians, Samuel Eliot Morison, who was the
highly acclaimed biographer of Christopher Columbus and John Paul Jones and a long-time
professor of history at Harvard. He was also the author of the highly acclaimed "History of
the United States Naval Operations in World War II," a 15-volume effort. In his "The Oxford
History of the American People" (1965, 1122 pages, ending with the 1963 assassination of
JFK), he states briefly at p. 878 that "President Wilson went along [with efforts of France
and Britain to overthrow the Bolsheviks] to the extent of sending a small American force to
Archangel, ostensibly to prevent a cache of military supplies reaching Germany, and
participating in a Japanese-directed invasion of Siberia, to see that Japan did not go too
far." Rather cryptic reference to a somewhat small military involvement that lasted for more
than a year and a half, but, in defense of Morison, his history was a one-volume affair
(published by the Oxford University Press) and the American involvement in Russia had no
effect on the Russian Revolution, other than to sour the relationship between the new
Communist government and the U.S., which did not diplomatically recognize the new regime
until FDR became President in 1933.
A. Scott Berg has no such defense. His detailed biography of Wilson runs to 743 pages, and
he makes no reference at all to the U.S. military contingent that was sent to Russia in 1918
by Wilson and remained there for more than a year and a half. You would think that Berg could
have added a few brief sentences alluding to the military expeditionary force and a brief
summary of its impact, but not a word. This from an author who discusses the infamous "Palmer
raids" at the end of the Wilson Administration and the bombs which set off those raids. I am
just puzzled about the omission and fail to see what agenda is being served, other than it
highlights the utter hypocrisy of Wilson with his vaunted "Fourteen Points," which impliedly
called for respect of international borders. Wilson was also the hypocrite who won reelection
in a close race in 1916 running on a campaign that "he kept us out of war" and the declared
war against Germany a month after he was reinaugurated in March 1917.
BTW I wonder how many people, including posters here, are aware that the U.S., under
President Wilson, sent a military expedition to Russia after the Communist takeover there
in 1917 and kept them there for about a year and a half.
Actually this 'invasion' was to help stabilize Russia during the revolution and to block
Japan in the far east. Russia and the US had been good friends and allies since we helped
Russia during the Crimean War, and with the purchase of Alaska and they had helped us during
the US Civil War.
Harry Truman put an end to all that 'good neighbor policy" when he needed a scapegoat to
launch the National Security State and prevent another depression. On it goes.
Seems like the entire Browder/Magnitsky hustle is nothing more than Jews protecting Jews in a
kind of international crime syndicate. When found out, they even have the network in place to
control the narrative about their crimes to the point that trying to hold them accountable
quickly morphs into a fundamental violation of their human rights.
"What do you mean you can't rip off a country's assets and hide the loot in offshore
accounts? What do you do when you see a $10 bill laying in the street? You take it, of
course! What else is a person suppose to do? When opportunity strikes, you make the best of
it."
Browder and Magnitshy . How history repeats itself! I recall reading that something
similar happened in the Weimar Republic when Germany was stripped of its assets after WWI.
Indeed, even then there was an ((( international syndicate ))) in place to control the
narrative and protect the shysters.
"""Meaning, Putin gets a healthy cut. If he doesn't get a piece of the action, you will
suddenly be found to have evaded taxes, or worse. And, heaven forfend, if you decided to use
your wealth to oppose Putin politically, just as Khodorkovsky."""
What evidence do you have for this libellous allegation?? These assertions are made
habitually in the western media. However this article on Browder demonstrates who are the
parties making such claims and why.
We're talking about his grandson, an international businessman active in Russia at one
time. The WASP grandfather who eventually became CPUSA chief married a Jewish woman and their
mathematician son was the international businessman grandson's father.
Try to get your facts straight before you call everybody and his brother a Nazi.
Being English speaking and brought up in the Anglo-world but with good understanding of
Russia through Communism, made this Jewish Godfather much more damaging to Russia than the
other forced Jewish emigres: Berezovsky, Gusinsky and Khodorovsky.
Browder's ties with Mossad and CIA make him a prototypical Deep-Stater, spreading
Anglo-Zionist dominance of the World (Globalism) and getting personally rich in the process.
If the Anglo-Zionists manage to bring down Russia (say, kill Putin) then Browder could become
the Paul Bremer III of Russia (perhaps titled William Browder I).
There a book, a merciless, factual excoriation of the Browder Hoax: The Killing of William
Browder: Deconstructing Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception by Alex Krainer
Earl Browder, born into a Kansas Methodist farm family became the head of the Communist
party in the U.S. in the 30′s, probably for idealistic reasons. As a Communist, he
became an atheist. He went to Russia and married a Russian Jewish woman. Their son, Felix,
raised as a Jew by his mother, became a mathematician. Felix Browder married a Jewish woman
and their son is the William Browder, subject of this article. William Browder is thus 3/4
Jewish. His one grandfather, from whom he got his name, was born a Christian gentile, but
chucked it up to become a Communist leader. Through marriage to Jewish women, his grandson,
William, is a ruthless capitalist Jewish oligarch who contributed to scavenging the decaying
body of the former Soviet Union.
intensity and the time he was devoting to anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way
comparable to the behaviour of a top level international businessman.
The writer does not know much about the business world, does he? Browder is still looking
to get paid off, and businessmen can be motivated by vengeance (Warren Buffet included).
Anyway, Mr. Browder seems far too focused on his wallet and effective an operator on that
account to have been directed by MI6.
There is this myth that secret intelligence agents are more competent than lesser mortals
(such as policemen). I like reading memoirs and novels about spys as much as anyone, but
rich, tax dodging/philanthropic and litigious people like Browder are the real 007s of this
world. I dare say there are a few holes in his story.
I can only tell Mr. Shamir that if he had stolen as much money as Browder, he'd be
untouchable, too. Look at any dollar bill. It says "IN GOD WE TRUST". This is THE God
Americans trust in. All the other gods are subject to freedom of religion.
Exactly right. Looting Russia– and later working to destroy it for objecting -- is
their YHWH-given right. The Jewish criminality and evil Browder embodies is of so great a
magnitude that it's difficult for a decent person to process such a creature.
Funny, I heard (((Big Media's))) glowing take on Browder the other day and figured he must be
a piece of shit. I don't base conclusions on such hunches, of course, so I guess I'll have to
read the article and check around.
But it's funny how race-realism, countersemitism, and hatred of (((Big Media))) have such
predictive power.
It was a remarkable moment in a remarkable press conference. President Donald Trump had just
finished a controversial summit meeting in Helsinki with his Russian counterpart Vladimir
Putin, and
the two were talking to the media . Jeff Mason, a political affairs reporter with Reuters,
stood up and asked Putin a question pulled straight out of the day's headlines: "Will you
consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a U.S. grand
jury?"
The "12 Russian officials" Mason spoke of were military intelligence officers accused of
carrying out a series of cyberattacks against various American-based computer networks
(including those belonging to the Democratic National Committee), the theft of emails and other
data, and the release of a significant portion of this information to influence the outcome of
the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The names and organizational affiliations of these 12
officers were contained in a detailed 29-page indictment prepared by special
prosecutor Robert Mueller, and subsequently made public by Assistant Attorney General Rob
Rosenstein on July 13 -- a mere three days prior to the Helsinki summit.
Vladimir Putin responded, "We have an existing agreement between the United States of
America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty, that dates back to 1999, the mutual
assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently."
Putin then discussed the relationship between this agreement -- the 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaty -- and the Mueller indictment. "This treaty has specific legal procedures," Putin
noted, that "we can offer the appropriate commission headed by special attorney Mueller. He can
use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal and official request to us so that we
would interrogate, we would hold the questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy
to some crimes and our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the
appropriate materials to the United States."
In the
uproar that followed the Trump-Putin press conference , the exchange between Mason and
Putin was largely forgotten amidst invective over Trump's seeming public capitulation on the
issue of election interference. "Today's press conference in Helsinki," Senator John McCain
observed afterwards in a typical comment, "was one of the most disgraceful performances by an
American president in memory."
It took an
interview with Putin after the summit concluded , conducted by Fox News's Chris Wallace, to
bring the specific issue of the 12 indicted Russians back to the forefront and give it context.
From Putin's perspective, this indictment and the way it was handled by the United States was a
political act. "It's the internal political games of the United States. Don't make the
relationship between Russia and the United States -- don't hold it hostage of this internal
political struggle. And it's quite clear to me that this is used in the internal political
struggle, and it's nothing to be proud of for American democracy, to use such dirty methods in
the political rivalry."
Regarding the indicted 12, Putin reiterated the points he had made earlier to Jeff Mason.
"We -- with the United States -- we have a treaty for assistance in criminal cases, an existing
treaty that exists from 1999. It's still in force, and it works sufficiently. Why wouldn't
Special Counsel Mueller send us an official request within the framework of this agreement? Our
investigators will be acting in accordance with this treaty. They will question each individual
that the American partners are suspecting of something. Why not a single request was filed?
Nobody sent us a single formal letter, a formal request."
There is no extradition treaty between the U.S. and Russia, which makes all the calls for
Trump to demand the extradition of the 12 Russians little more than a continuation of the
"internal political games" Putin alluded to in his interview. There is, however, the treaty
that Putin referenced at both the press conference and during the Wallace interview.
Signed in Moscow on June 17, 1999, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty calls for the
"prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes" by both parties "in accordance with the
provisions of this Treaty where the conduct that is the subject of the request constitutes a
crime under the laws of both Parties."
It should be noted that the indicted 12 have not violated any Russian laws. But the Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaty doesn't close the door on cooperation in this matter. Rather, the
treaty notes that "The Requested Party may, in its discretion, also provide legal assistance
where the conduct that is the subject of the request would not constitute a crime under the
laws of the Requested Party."
It specifically precludes the process of cooperating from inferring a right "on the part of
any other persons to obtain evidence, to have evidence excluded, or to impede the execution of
a request." In short, if the United States were to avail itself of the treaty's terms, Russia
would not be able to use its cooperation as a vehicle to disrupt any legal proceedings underway
in the U.S.
The legal assistance that the treaty facilitates is not inconsequential. Through it, the
requesting party can, among other things, obtain testimony and statements from designated
persons; receive documents, records, and other items; and arrange the transfer of persons in
custody for testimony on the territory of the requesting party.
If the indictment of the 12 Russians wasn't the "dirty method" used in a domestic American
"political rivalry" that Putin described, one would imagine that Assistant Attorney General Rob
Rosenstein would have availed himself of the opportunity to gather additional evidence
regarding the alleged crimes. He would also have, at the very least, made a request to have
these officers appear in court in the United States to face the charges put forward in the
indictment. The treaty specifically identifies the attorney general of the United States "or
persons designated by the Attorney General" as the "Central Authority" for treaty
implementation. Given the fact that Jeff Sessions has recused himself from all matters
pertaining to the investigation by the Department of Justice into allegations of Russian
meddling in the 2016 election, the person empowered to act is Rosenstein.
There are several grounds under the treaty for denying requested legal assistance, including
anything that might prejudice "the security or other essential interests of the Requested
Party." However, it also requires that the reasons for the any denial of requested assistance
be put in writing. Moreover, prior to denying a request, the Requested Party "shall consult
with the Central Authority of the Requesting Party to consider whether legal assistance can be
given subject to such conditions as it deems necessary. If the Requesting Party accepts legal
assistance subject to these conditions, it shall comply with the conditions."
By twice raising the treaty in the context of the 12 Russians, Putin has clearly signaled
that Russia would be prepared to proceed along these lines.
If the indictment issued by the Department of Justice is to be taken seriously, then it is
incumbent upon Rosenstein to call Putin's bluff, and submit a detailed request for legal
assistance per the mandate and procedures specified in the treaty -- in short, compel Russia to
either put up or shut up.
Any failure to do so would only confirm Putin's assertion that the indictment was a
political game to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofDeal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to
War .
Very cogent analysis. Putin, who's incredibly well briefed, knew exactly what he was
offering, and thought that by doing so, would force the DoJ/Mueller to either take him up on
his offer or otherwise display the overt politicism of the indictments. But the American
anti-Trump mindhive is so completely addled, they of course miss the point entirely. The
absence of reason among the anti-Trump/anti-Russia collective is truly something to behold
– it's scary.
The request V. Putin proposed and Scot Ritter writes about, if send to Russia, would be
equivalent to 'go and whistle' and would be treated the same way the Russians treat the
requests from Poland to return the remains of the Polish plane that crashed in controversial
and strange circumstances near Smolensk on April 10, 2010. They, the Russians, did not return
the remains of the plane up until today and the place where the plane crashed they bulldozed
the ground and paved with very thick layer of concrete.
Such request would only give the Russians propaganda tools to delay and dilute any
responsibility from the Russian side and at the end they would blame the USA for the whole
mess with no end to their investigation, because they would investigate until the US
investigators would drop dead. Anybody who seriously thinks about V.
Putin offer to investigate anything with Russia should first have his head examined by a
very good, objective, and politically neutral head specialist.
"If the indictment issued by the Department of Justice is to be taken seriously, then it is
incumbent upon Rosenstein to call Putin's bluff, and submit a detailed request for legal
assistance per the mandate and procedures specified in the treaty -- in short, compel Russia
to either put up or shut up.
Any failure to do so would only confirm Putin's assertion that the indictment was a
political game to undermine the presidency of Donald J. Trump."
That was one long-winded way of recognizing that Putin just told the US biparty
establishment behind the manufactured "Russia!" hysteria to put up or shut up.
I don't think that Pres Putin has anything to lose here.
"ARTICLE 4 DENIAL OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE
The Central Authority of the Requested Party may deny legal assistance if:
(1) the request relates to a crime under military law that is not a crime under general
criminal law;
(2) the execution of the request would prejudice the security or other essential interests
of the Requested Party; or "whether accurate or not the treaty permits a denial of request,
if said requests threaten Russian security."
Almost by definition, an investigation interrogation by the US of the personnel in
question because said questioning might very well stray into other areas , unrelated to the
hacking charge. Now Pres. Putin has played two cards: a treaty is in place that deals with
criminal matters between the two states and surely must have known that and should have
already made the formal requests in conjunction with the treaty or he didn't know either way,
the rush to embarrass the president may very well backfire. As almost everything about this
investigation has.
Right! That's not going to happen .the DOJ has no proof .their indictment was a ploy to
queer any deal with Russia. Anybody that believes anything the 'intelligence' agencies say,
without proof, is an idiot.
"... No Russian interference in America's political process occurred in 2016, earlier, or is being cooked up for the nation's November midterm elections. ..."
"... Trump knows it and said so in Helsinki. When asked if he holds Russia accountable for anything, he said: ..."
"... Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago. ..."
"... VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected]. My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html ..."
No Russian interference in America's political process occurred in 2016, earlier, or is
being cooked up for the nation's November midterm elections.
Trump knows it and said so in Helsinki. When asked if he holds Russia accountable for
anything, he said:
"I hold both countries responsible (for dismal bilateral relations). I think that the
United States has been foolish. I think we've all been foolish And I think we're all to
blame."
Regarding election meddling, he said:
"There was no collusion at all. Everybody knows it. And people are being brought out to
the fore. So far that I know, virtually none of it related to the campaign. And they're going
to have to try really hard to find somebody that did relate to the campaign."
"My people came to me and some others (T)hey think it's Russia President Putin said it's
not Russia. I will say this: I dont see any reason why it would be."
" President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."
Trump is wrong about most things, not this. No evidence, nothing, proves Russian meddling in
the US political process.
If it existed, it would have been revealed long ago. It never was and never will be because
there's nothing credible to reveal, Big Lies alone.
Trump's above remarks were in Helsinki. In response to a raging Russophobic firestorm of
criticism back home, he backtracked from his above comments, saying he misspoke abroad.
He accepts the intelligence community's claim about Russian US election meddling –
knowing it didn't occur.
Russiagate was cooked up by Obama's thuggish Russophobic CIA director John Brennan , media
keeping the Big Lie alive.
DNC/John Podesta emails were leaked, not hacked – an indisputable fact media
scoundrels suppress to their disgrace.
Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray earlier explained that
"(t)he source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all," adding:
"I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam's whistleblower award in
Washington."
"The source of these emails (came) from within official circles in Washington DC. You
should look to Washington, not to Moscow."
"WikiLeaks has never published any material received from the Russian government or from
any proxy of the Russian government. It's simply a completely untrue claim designed to divert
attention from the content of the material" and its true source.
The Big Lie alone matters when it's the official narrative. The Russian meddling hoax and
mythical Kremlin threat to US security are central to maintaining adversarial relations with
America's key invented enemy.
It's vital to unjustifiably justifying the nation's global empire of bases, its outrageous
amount of military spending, its belligerence toward all sovereign independent states, its
endless wars of aggression, its scorn for world peace and stability, its neoliberal harshness
to pay for it all, along with transferring the nation's wealth from ordinary people to its
privileged class.
America's deeply corrupted political process is far too debauched to fix, rigged to serve
wealth, power and privilege exclusively, at war on humanity at home and abroad.
It's a tyrannical plutocracy and oligarchy, a police state, not a democracy, a cesspool of
criminality, inequity and injustice, run by sinister dark forces – monied interests and
bipartisan self-serving political scoundrels, wicked beyond redemption, threatening humanity's
survival.
Today is the most perilous time in world history. What's going on should terrify everyone
everywhere.
Washington's rage for global dominance, its military madness, its unparalleled recklessness,
threatens world peace, stability, and survival.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research
based in Chicago.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
"... Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition. ..."
"... When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created " blowback " that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." ..."
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative. It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically. ..."
"... "It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in our world." ..."
"... "Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia." ..."
"... Jack Hunter is the former political editor of ..."
Ron and Rand Paul Call Out Foreign Policy Hysteria
And like his father, the senator found himself on the wrong end of the media mob this week.
When Mitt Romney called Russia America's "
number
one geopolitical foe
" during the 2012 election campaign, Barack Obama
mocked
him:
"The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back." Vice President Joe Biden
dismissed
Romney as a "Cold War holdover." Hillary Clinton
said
Romney was "looking backward." John Kerry
said
"Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching
Rocky IV
."
But that was then. This week the Cold War seemed to be back in full force for many former Obama supporters, as
President Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the wake of 12 Russian agents
being indicted
for
allegedly meddling in the 2016 election.
In the midst of this hysteria, Senator Rand Paul was
asked
by CNN's Jake
Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling.
"They're not going to admit it in the same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian
elections or the Russian election," Paul
replied
. "So all countries that can
spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they try." Paul insisted that U.S.
and Russian meddling are not "morally equivalent," but said we must still take into account that both nations do this.
That's when "Rand Paul" began trending on Twitter.
"Rand Paul is on TV delivering line after line of Kremlin narrative, and it is absolutely stunning to watch," read
one tweet
with nearly 5,000 likes. Another
tweet, just as popular,
said
, "Between
McConnell hiding election interference and Rand Paul defending it, looks like Russia's already annexed Kentucky." A Raw
Story headline on Paul's CNN interview read, "
Stunned
Jake Tapper explains why NATO exists to a Russia-defending Rand Paul
."
But was Paul really "defending" Russia? Was he even defending Russian meddling in U.S. elections? Or was he merely
trying to pierce through the hysteria and portray American-Russian relations in a more accurate and comprehensive
context -- something partisans left and right won't do and the mainstream media is too lazy to attempt?
Cutting through the crap on foreign policy is something of a Paul family tradition.
When Ron Paul suggested on a Republican presidential primary debate stage in 2008 that U.S. foreign policy created "
blowback
"
that led to 9/11, fellow GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani accused Paul of blaming America and defending the attackers. Paul
didn't relent: "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there.
We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."
No one in the GOP wanted to hear what Ron Paul had to say because it challenged and largely rebutted Republicans'
entire political identity at the time. Paul was roundly denounced. FrontPageMag's David Horowitz called him a "
disgrace
."
RedState
banned
all Paul supporters.
The American Conservative
's Jim Antle would
recall
in 2012: "The optics were
poor: a little-known congressman was standing against the GOP frontrunner on an issue where 90 percent of the party
likely disagreed with him . Support for the war was not only nearly unanimous within the GOP, but bipartisan."
Rand Paul now poses a similar challenge to Russia-obsessed Democrats. Contra Jake Tapper sagely explaining "why NATO
exists" to a supposedly ignoramus Paul, as the liberal Raw Story headline framed it, here's what the senator actually
said:
There are neocons in both parties who still want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO. That's very, very provocative.
It has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan predicted this in 1998 when we still had
Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction. He said, "If you push NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism
will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you may get someone like a Putin," basically.
Do you think Jake Tapper Googled "George Kennan"? That's about as likely as Giuliani Googling "blowback."
"It's a big mistake for us, not to say that we're morally equivalent or that anything Russia does is justified," Paul
told Tapper. "But if we don't understand that everything we do has a reaction, we're not going to be very good at
understanding and trying to have peace in our world."
As for Russian spying -- was Paul just blindly defending that, too? Or did he make an important point in noting both
sides do it?
"Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system," the
New York Times
reported in February. "But intelligence veterans, and scholars who have studied covert
operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view."
The
Times
continued: "'If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something
bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,' said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he
was the chief of Russian operations. The United States 'absolutely' has carried out such election influence operations
historically, he said, 'and I hope we keep doing it.'"
The U.S. will no doubt keep meddling in foreign elections. Russia will do the same, just as it did during the
Obama administration and years prior
. The cries against diplomacy and for war will ebb, flow, flip, and flop,
depending on who sits in the White House and how it makes the screaming partisans feel. Many Democrats who view Trump's
diplomacy with Russia as dangerous would have embraced it (and did) under Obama. Many Republicans who hail Trump's
diplomatic efforts
wouldn't
have done so were he a Democrat. President Hillary Clinton could be having the same meeting with Putin and
most Democrats would be fine with it, Russian meddling or no meddling.
So many
headlines
attempted to portray Paul as the partisan hack on Sunday when the opposite is actually true. It's the left, including
much of the media, that's now turned hawkish towards Russia for largely partisan reasons, while Paul was making the same
realist
foreign policy
arguments
regarding
NATO
and
U.S.-Russia relations
long before the Trump presidency.
Responding to Romney's anti-Russia, anti-Obama comments in 2012, Thomas de Waal, a Russia expert at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace,
told
the
New York Times
, "There's a whole school of thought that Russia is one you need to work with to
solve other problems in the world, rather than being the problem." Rand Paul said Sunday, "People need to think through
these things before they get so eager to rattle their sabers about wanting to have a confrontation with Russia."
But think they won't and sabers they'll rattle, as yesterday's villains become today's heroes and vice versa.
There's the elephant in the room, of course. Nobody seems to want to touch it yet, but everybody knows that
Israeli meddling in US elections puts Russian meddling in the shade. Still, it's fascinating watching the
reporting and waiting to see who will break the silence.
In the meantime, wake me up when there's something
called "the Russia-American Political Action Committee" in DC. Wake me up when US politicians vie to win its
favor, as they vie to win the favor of AIPAC, and win the huge financial contributions that result from getting
its support. Wake me up when Russian oligarchs contribute even a fraction of what Israel donors like Sheldon
Adelson already contribute to US political campaigns – and wake me up when they get results like an American
president moving the US embassy to Jerusalem or an America president sending American troops to stand between
Israel and its enemies Russia may have moved a few thousand votes here or there, but Israel gets American
politicians to send America's children to die in Middle East wars. At the moment, Russia can only dream of
meddling with that degree of success.
Yep – American elections have been corrupted by foreign countries for a long time. Russia's only problem is
that it hasn't learned who to pay off, and how much. Next time Mr. Netanyahu visits Mr. Putin (and he visits
him fairly often), he can give him a few pointers. And then Mr. Putin will be invited to give speeches to joint
sessions of Congress. Just like Mr. Netanyahu. And freshmen US congressmen will be frog-marched to Russia for
instructions, just like they're already frog-marched to Israel.
Russia has been engaging in international espionage dating back at least to Peter the Great. As such, they play
the game as well as, or possibly better, than anyone. They, like we, will do what is necessary-even to the
point of injecting themselves in the internal affairs of another country–if they deem it in their interest to
do so or, as the cliche has it, "in the interest of state". Not very nice but–that's the way the game is
played.
Thank you, Rand Paul and Mr. Hunter, for injecting some much needed sanity into this debate.
There is no need to demonize the Russians. Their country has
national interests and goals. If they are patriots, the Russians will seek to advance those interests and
goals.
We also have interests and goals, and if we are patriots, we seek to advance them (though we disagree on
what our real interests are and what our goals should be).
When our interests concide with that of Russia we collaborate. When they clash, we seek to undermine each
other.
The Russians seem to have been doing it, as their interests now clash with ours. Nothing to be worked out
about. That's how the game is played.
Which does not mean that we should defend ourselves strenuously from such undermining. And the President is
precisely tasked with defending this country and advance its interests. This he seems to be unable to do.
Do not hate the Russians. Do not demonize them. But be aware of what they are doing, because we are NOT in a
Kumbayah moment with them.
Well done, Mr. Hunter. It's a shame that the Pauls' position on foreign policy is not shared by ostensibly
"libertarian" commentators who value DC cocktail parties above all principles.
The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up
their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ
movement.
The real problem with Russia is that it exists, and it is too big for us to control. The real problem with
Putin is that he is the first strong leader Russia has had since the fall of the Soviet Union, and he is
messing up our plans for world hegemony.
As one who grew up during the Cold War (the real one) and lived
through the whole thing (the Iron Curtain, the Warsaw Pact, the crushing of Hungary, communists behind every
door and under every bed), I find it very hard to take all the current hysteria about Russia very seriously.
Sane, reasonable comments. Totally agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, since we live in a
3-ring media circus, so few people will listen or pay heed. In a world possibly even more dangerous than any
time since the Cold War, the act of demonizing one of the two greatest nuclear powers on earth is surely
madness.
CNN etc. headlines are not even thinly veiled editorials against Trump. Not related to just publishing the
news. But telling readers how to think. Mainstream media has an M&M type coating. Remove the outer shell and
you find the good old boys and girls as ever-lurking and ever vigilant Neocon Nation pushing their one and only
agenda on the American people. They are insatiable as long as they do not do the fighting and dying. Stay tough
Trump and realize short of complete capitulation you cannot satisfy these people.
Donald Trump took a step towards peace. Of course, not everyone likes this. As can be seen, Donald Trump has
many enemies, even among Republicans. They want war. These are people dangerous to America and the world.
What is better: peace with Russia, or a global nuclear war?
The Book of Revelation warns: "And another horse, fiery red, came out, and the one who rode it was granted
permission to take peace from the earth, so that people would butcher one another, and he was given a huge
sword." (6:4) "The great sword" – what does it mean?
Jesus gave many important details: "Terrors [φοβητρα] both [τε] and [και] unusual phenomena [σημεια –
unusual occurrences, transcending the common course of nature] from [απ] sky [ουρανου] powerful [μεγαλα] will
be [εσται]." (Luke 21:11)
Some ancient manuscripts contain the words "and frosts" [και χειμωνες] (we call this today "nuclear
winter"), and in Mark 13:8 "and disorders" [και ταραχαι] (in the sense of confusion and chaos). There will be
also significant tremors, food shortages and epidemics along the length and breadth of the regions as a result
of using this weapon.
This weapon will also cause climate change, catastrophic drought and global famine. (cf. Revelation 6:5, 6)
So here we have a complete picture of the consequences of the global nuclear war. Is there any sense in
speeding up this war?
He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and foreign policy officials during the
Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a declining nuclear and regional power,
as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit.
I'm glad to see adults in the room, at long last. The Sixties are over, baby. Good riddance.
"Of course the Paul's are right as they always are."
Always?
"A number of the newsletters criticized civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a
pedophile and "lying socialist satyr".[2][15] These articles told readers that Paul had voted against making
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal public holiday, saying "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national
holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time
again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate
Whitey Day."[2][16][17] During the 2008 and 2012 presidential election campaigns, Paul and his supporters said
that the passages denouncing King were not a reflection of Paul's own views because he considers King a
"hero".[18][19][20″
That last sentence is a hoot. Talk about "hysteria", but, go ahead, repeat Paul's lies that he knew nothing
about his own newsletter.
Johann:
"The left's hatred of Russia goes even deeper than US partisan politics. They hate them because they gave up
their world-wide communism ideology. And they hate them because they are not fully on board with the LGBQTXYZ
movement."
Like the NRA, The American Conservative needs to open "The Russian Conservative" chapters in Putin's
conservative Russia to protect Putin's murderous government.
It could be that the "Left", whatever that is in addlepated minds, merely desires a little real politik in
our relations with relations with Putin's Russia.
It's hard to tell the difference between ex-KGB Putin and ex-republicans like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.
The latter two make "full of crap" seem mild praise.
Off the top of my head, a few egregious examples in which the US government has "meddled" in other countries
during the last 100 years:
Mexico (Woodrow Wilson had thousands of US troops occupying Mexico until calling
them back to "meddle" in Europe's War to End All Wars, setting the stage for an even worse war 20 years later.)
Russia (Woodrow Wilson used the US military to "meddle" in the Russian revolution after the War to End All
Wars.)
Korea (undeclared war)
Vietnam (undeclared war)
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chile, and much of the rest of Central and South America.
Iran (helped overthrow its government in the 1950s and install the Shah of Iran, setting the stage for the
Iranian revolution.)
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt.
Yemen (huge humanitarian disaster as I write this. US government fully supporting head-chopping Saudi
Arabians in their campaign to starve, sicken and blow to bits hundreds of thousands of people. Support includes
US planes in-flight fueling of Saudi fighter/bomber jets.)
And let us not forget the enormous "meddling" in numerous US government elections and policy debates by . .
. Israel.
"He called out the perfidy and incompetence of American intelligence and
foreign policy officials during the Obama era, as he should have. He wants a productive relationship with a
declining nuclear and regional power, as he should have. Is Putin a nice man? No. But neither is he a
pusillanimous Leftist eurotwit."
It's important to understand what the US intelligence community is calling "interference in our election."
There has been no accusation that the Russians hacked into our electronic voting and changed results. Rather,
they did what we have done in other countries–the Russians ran an influence campaign. They bought ads and
created bots to spread the word. This is so utterly tame . . . there is nothing out of the ordinary US playbook
here.
Hacking the DNC server and revealing underhanded DNC doings? Hey, that's on the DNC for being both venal and
incompetent.
Anybody in 1962 shouting wild paranoid conspiracy theories about
THERE ARE RUSSIAN SPIES EVERYWHERE, THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OVER AMERICA
These people in 1962 would be (correctly) dismissed as Right Wing conspiracy kooks, now it's just standard
Lib Dems, RINOs, Neo Conservatives and fake news lying press.
We commissioned this Farstar comics with this theme – I mean like who in 2018 is really scared that Russians
like Anna Kournikova are going to take over America –
Unfortunately, Rand Paul is acting, but not on principle or in good faith. If he really wanted to stand against
manufactured hysteria, he would not accept the US "intelligence" agency claims and refer to their record – e.g.
on Iraq and before regarding stability of the Soviet Union – he would question the staggering difficulties of
attribution and forensics for networked, digital attacks (the main reason why any claims about who hacked whom
have to be read with skepticism), he would point to the corruption of our foreign politics by Saudi and Israeli
interests and money within the Trump-Kushner clan, and both parties, and he would compare the alleged – and
allegedly ineffectual – attempts to influence an already ridiculous election to the very real, pervasive and
corrupting impact of GOP voter disenfranchisement and bipartisan gerrymandering in service of incumbents and
their networks.
Rand Paul is the man who was going to stand against the Haspel appointment. He is a phoney,
but he serves as a weather vane for niche politicians on how the winds are turning.
Nothing about New START, no word about how George Bush made a promise that might have been in bad faith, how
Gorbachev was foolish enough to accept it, and how Bill Clinton broke it across the board, and piled on by
targeting Serbia in the Balkan conflict. Kennan did not refer to the Ukraine on his missive.
If Rand Paul is our last best hope, we are in deep trouble.
Jack Hunter " Senator Rand Paul was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday whether he thought Trump should
demand that Putin acknowledge Russia's meddling."
(0:01) TAPPER: 48 hours ago the US government, the Trump
administration, said the top Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a massive hack to affect the
US election. How much do you want President Trump to try to hold Putin accountable for that?
PAUL: I think really we mistake our response if we think it's about accountability from the Russians.
They're another country. They're going to spy on us. They do spy on us. They're going to interfere in our
elections. We also do the same. Dov Levin at Carnegie Mellon studied this over about a 50-year period in the
last century and found 81 times that the US interfered in other countries' elections. So we all do it. What we
need to do is to make sure that our electoral process is protected. And I think because this has gotten
partisan and it's all about partisan politics we have forgotten that really the most important thing is the
integrity of our election. And there are things we can do and things that I've advocated: Making sure it's
decentralized all the way down to the precinct level; making sure we don't store all the data in one place,
even for a state, and that there's a back-up way so that someone in a precinct can say, 'Two thousand people
signed in, this was the vote tally I sent to headquarters.' There's a lot of ways that we can back-up our
election. Advertising, things like that, it's tricky. Can we restrict the Russians? We might be able to in some
ways, but I think at the bottom line we wanted the Russians to admit it. They're not going to admit it in the
same way we're not going to admit that we were involved in the Ukrainian elections or the Russian elections. So
all countries that can spy do. All countries that want to interfere in elections and have the ability to, they
try."
TAPPER: It sounds as though you are saying that the United States has done the equivalent of what the
Russians did in the 2016 election, and it might sound to some viewers that you're offering that statement as an
excuse for what the Russians did.
PAUL: No, what I would say is it's not morally equivalent, but I think in their mind it is. And I think it's
important to know in your adversary's mind the way that they perceive things. I do think that they react to our
interference in both their elections. One of the reasons they really didn't like Hillary Clinton is they found
her responsible for some of the activity by the US in their elections under the Obama administration. So I'm
not saying it's justified
TAPPER: But surely, Senator Paul, the United States has never done what the Russians did.
PAUL: I'm not saying they're equivalent, or morally equivalent, but I am saying that this is the way that
the Russians respond. So if you want to know how we have better diplomacy, or better reactions, we have to know
their response. But it's not just interference in elections that I think has caused this nationalism in Russia.
Also, I think part of the reason is is we promised them when James Baker, at the end when Germany reunified, we
promised them that we wouldn't go one inch eastward of Germany with NATO, and we've crept up on the borders,
and we still have neocons in both parties who want Ukraine and Georgia to be in NATO.
That's very, very provocative and it has stimulated and encouraged nationalism in Russia. George Kennan
predicted this. In 1998 when we still had Yeltsin and Russia was coming in our direction, he said, if you push
NATO up against Russia's borders, nationalism will arise and their militarist tendencies will increase, and you
may get someone like a Putin, basically.
George Kennan predicted the rise of Putin in 1998. And so we have to understand that for every action we
have, there is a reaction. And it's a big mistake for us -- not to say that we're morally equivalent or that
anything that Russia does is justified – but if we don't realize that everything we do has a reaction, we're
not going to be very good at understanding and trying to have peace in the world (3:38)
This two part, excellent documentary on Russia in the 90's is all about VVP
and Major Russian Jewish Oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Boris took over the
Kremlin. Boris shot himself in the foot, but wound up saving Russia when
he picked Putin to succeed alchoholic Yeltsin. Putin took the country back.
Larry Summers, Harvard Jew American oligarch led the rape and looting
of Russia.
The Rise of Putin and The Fall of The Russian-Jewish Oligarchs (1/2)
Podesta failing to register as a foreign agent for Russia, Browder greasing the palms of
the Klintons with "illicit cash" purloined from Russia...lol...oh man, this is really getting
interesting!
Ahem...and just where in the world is...Mr.Mifsud? ;-)
Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the
threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors." It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only
were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots:
Where are you???
Senator John McCain released a scathing
statement :
... "President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin
seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend
a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested
platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.
...
"No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did
President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the
world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are -- a republic of free
people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. ...
These imbeciles do not understand the realism behind Trump's grand policy. Trump knows the
heartland theory of
Halford John Mackinder. He understands that Russia is the core of the Eurasian landmass. That
landmass, when politically united, can rule the world. A naval power, the U.S. now as the UK
before it, can never defeat it. Trump's opponents do not get what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the
National Security Advisor of President Carter, explained in his book The Grant Chessboard
(pdf). They do not understand why Henry Kissinger
advised Trump to let go of Crimea.
Trump himself professed his view (vid)
of the big picture and of relations with Russia in a 2015 press conference:
"I know Putin. And I tell you that we can get along with Putin. Putin has no respect for
President Obama. Big Problem, big problem. And you know Russia has been driven - you know I
always heard, for years I have heard - one of the worst things that can happen to our
country, is when Russia ever gets driven to China. We have driven them together - with the
big oil deals that are being made. We have driven them together. That's a horrible thing for
this country. We have made them friends because of incompetent leadership. I believe I would
get along very nicely with Putin- okay? And I mean where we have the strength. I don't think
we need the sanctions. I think that we would get along very, very well. I really believe
that. I think we would get along with a lot of countries that we don't get along with today.
And that we would be a lot richer for it than we are today.
It took 45 years, not 20 as Kissinger foresaw, to rebalance the U.S. position.
After the Cold War the U.S. thought it had won the big ideological competition of the
twentieth century. In its exuberance of the 'unilateral moment' it did everything possible to
antagonize Russia.
Against its promises it extended NATO to Russia's border. It wanted to be the peerless
supreme power of the world. At the same time it invited China into the World Trade Organisation
and thereby enabled its explosive economic growth. This unbalanced policy took its toll. The
U.S. lost industrial capacity to China and at the same time drove Russia into China's hands.
Playing the global hegemon
turned out to be very expensive. It led to the 2006 crash of the U.S. economy and its people
have since seen little to no gains. Trump wants to revert this situation by rebalancing towards
Russia while opposing China's growing might.
Not everyone shares that perspective. As security advisor to Jimmy Carter Brzezinski
continued the Nixon/Kissinger policy towards China. The 'one China policy', disregarding Taiwan
for better relations with Beijing, was his work. His
view is still that the U.S. should ally with China against Russia:
"It is not in our interest to antagonize Beijing. It is much better for American interests to
have the Chinese work closely with us, thereby forcing the Russians to follow suit if they
don't want to be left out in the cold. That constellation gives the U.S. the unique ability
to reach out across the world with collective political influence."
But why would China join such a scheme? Brzezinski's view of Russia was always clouded. His
family of minor nobles has its roots in Galicia, now in west-Ukraine. They were driven from
Poland when the Soviets extended their realm into the middle of Europe. To him Russia will
always be the antagonist.
[I]n the emerging multipolar order, Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any
new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States.
Kissinger is again working to
divide Russia from China . But this time around it is Russia that needs to be elevated,
that needs to become a friend.
Trump is following Kissinger's view. He wants good relations with Russia to separate Russia
from China. He (rightly) sees China as the bigger long term (economic) danger to the United
States. That is the reason why he,
immediately after his election , started to beef up the relations with Taiwan and continues
to do so. ( Listen to
Peter Lee for the details). That is the reason why he tries to snatch North Korea from
China's hands. That is the reason why he makes nice with Putin.
It is not likely that Trump will manage to pull Russia out of its profitable alliance with
China. It is true that China's activities, especially in the Central Asian -stans, are a long
term danger to Russia. China's demographic and economic power is far greater than Russia's. But
the U.S. has never been faithful in its relations with Russia. It would take decades to regain
its trust. China on the other hand stands to its commitments. China is not interested in
conquering the 'heartland'. It has bigger fish to fry in south-east Asia, Africa and elsewhere.
It is not in its interest to antagonize Russia.
The maximum Trump can possibly achieve is to neutralize Russia while he attempts to tackle
China's growing economic might via tariffs, sanctions and by cuddling Taiwan, Japan and other
countries with anti-Chinese agendas.
The U.S. blew its 'unilateral moment'. Instead of making friends with Russia it drove it
into China's hands. Hegemonic globalization and unilateral wars proved to be too expensive. The
U.S. people received no gains from it. That is why they elected Trump.
Trump is doing his best to correct the situation. For the foreseeable future the world will
end up with three power centers. Anglo-America, Russia and China. (An aging and disunited
Europe will flap in the winds.) These power centers will never wage direct war against each
other, but will tussle at the peripheries. Korea, Iran and the Ukraine will be centers of these
conflicts. Interests in Central Asia, South America and Africa will also play a role.
Trump understands the big picture. To 'Make America Great Again' he needs to tackle China
and to prevent a deeper Chinese-Russian alliance. It's the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals
who do not get it. They are still stuck in Brzezinski's Cold War view of Russia. They still
believe that economic globalization, which helped China to regain its historic might, is the
one and true path to follow. They do not perceive at all the damage they have done to the
American electorate.
For now Trump's view is winning. But the lunatic reactions to the press conference show that
the powers against him are still strong. They will sabotage him wherever possible. The big
danger for now is that their view of the world might again raise to power.
Posted by b on July 17, 2018 at 07:41 AM |
PermalinkJen , Jul 17, 2018 8:54:40 AM |
8
BTW it is worthwhile to keep in mind that back in 2001, Russia and China signed a treaty of
friendship in which, among other things, both nations renounced all and any territorial
designs on one another's territory. This meant that China would have renounced any claims on
parts of Primorsky Kray in the Russian Far East along the Amur River, that used to be part of
the old Ming and Qing empires.
There is one significant paragraphy to be noted: Neither party will join any alliance or group that harms the other's sovereignty, security
and territorial integrity. Neither of them will conclude such treaties with any third party,
or allow a third country to use its territory to harm the other's sovereignty, security and
territorial integrity.
Well ... there goes any attempt by Trump to prise apart Russian and Chinese
friendship.
"Playing the global hegemon turned out to be very expensive. It led to the 2006 crash of the
U.S. economy and its people have since seen little to no gains".
To continue the theme: "People? We don't need no stinkin' people". US government has long
been directed towards the enrichment of a tiny clique of the super-rich and powerful. It is
nothing more than a bloodsucking parasite on the USA itself.
I guess it was a successful meeting. What was all this news in some American news outlets,
that it was going to be and is disaster? Unfortunately here in New Zealand we get our
international news from cnn abc and BBC. Luckily I search for truth and go online to watch
the full uncut interview. Nice coverage.
"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace, than risk peace in pursuit of
politics". Will any media have the guts and gusto that President Trump has to make this quote
the headline? Or will they once again focus on the size of his hands or the color of his
skin? I pray people wake up and celebrate the gravitas of this man.
I am growing proud to be an American again, President Trump. Thank you for your service
and God bless you... along with the Russian people and their fine leader.
As a foreign observer, I can honestly claim, that this press conference between both
leaders, was a very productive and successful conference. Well done to both presidents!
Browder and his business associates who have not paid taxes in the USA or Russia acquired
400 million dollars illegally and gave it to Hillary Clinton! No wonder the leftist didn't
want this meeting to happen. They didn't want to be exposed
I would have loved to seen the expressions on the faces of the media, and the Democrats
and Mueller when Putin put it out there that there is a way to get the facts of who hacked
the DNC/DCCC servers out there, and also a legal treaty that can allow the indicted people to
be investigated, and Muellers team to be able to be present!! lol.... they really havent
wanted the American public to know that there is a way to actually prove there isnt any
proof!
So obvious that media and deep state and radicals on the left are protesting in a very
exaggerated way after the presser. Notice lots of hastags against POTUS but no hasthags on
the most important developments at the presser = $400 million to Hillary campaign from
Russia. Folks, embrace this President. The better he makes America, the worst the attacks
get. Just the fact that a US reporter ask such a file question against his President, in
front of Putin and other foreign reporters is a disgrace and should be regarded as the utmost
of treasonous acts. God bless your President. Defend him. Protect him. He could have very
easily sided with the witch hunt but he chose to stay neutral knowing that cooperation with
Putin is more important than looking good to the ridiculous media who would have vilified him
in any way he answered that ridiculous question. Vote republican and make 2018 a victory for
the right
Russia is the 'enemy' only because Russia has thrown off the Jewish Mafia death grip
around its throat ! The Jewish owned media and big finance are picking on Russia because they
can't FLEECE Russia anymore !!!
That was a fantastic interview and both President Trump and President Putin did a great
job. We Americans want PEACE ... But the disgusting MSM that are the enemies of America and
the world do all they can to cause discord and trouble. We 'see' through their bullshit and
despise them. All NORMAL people want to live in PEACE and God Bless President Trump and
President Putin for working together to achieve that!!! #MAGA#TRUMP2020
I was a Democrat for 30ys. Bernie was cheated and I voted for Trump. I didn't expect much
from him. But he has shown himself to be an incredible man from day one, when he ripped up
the TTP. An incredible President... God bless you Mr. President and keep you and your family
safe. #WalkAway
So which country gets to arrest Soros? Didn't HRC break some Russian laws so she can be
extradited and end up in a Russian prison? Will Russia sue the DNC for slander? Was the DNC's
pet Pakistani working for Pakistani intelligence? These are the important questions nobody
asked.
After the collapse of the USSR, under Yeltsin, a large handful of
'oligarchs' grew immensely wealthy by buying Russian assets on the cheap.
This was part of a privitization drive largely overseen by American
economists.
The oligarchs were mostly Jews. The chief economic advisors were largely
Jews.
Responding to my thanks for granting me the audience at such a hectic
time, Boris Abramovich commented with a faint smile: "You would be writing
the book in any case ..."
I understood that my visit was somewhat imposed on him so I got right to
the point:
"Boris Abramovich, the real reason for writing this book is this. As you
probably know there is a television show called 'The Puppets.' Puppets of
Yeltsin, Yastrzhembsky, Chernomyrdin, Kulikov, and others perform. But the
main puppeteer is behind the scenes -- his name is Shenderovich. And in
real life there are Yeltsin, Kiriyenko, Fedorov, Stepashin and the others.
But the main puppeteer has a long Jewish name: Berezovsky-Gusinsky-
Smolensky-Khodorkovsky, and so on.
"This is to say that for the first time in a thousand years, since the
first Jews settled in Russia, we hold the real power in this country. I
want to ask you straight out: How do you intend to use it? What do you
intend to do in this country? Cast it into the chaos of poverty or raise it
from the mud? Do you understand that a chance like this comes only once in
a thousand years? Do you understand your responsibility to our [Jewish]
people for your actions?"
Boris Abramovich responded with some difficulty: "Of course, as you see,
financial power is in Jewish hands, but we have never looked at this from
the point of view of historical responsibility."
Putin stopped the fire sale, essentially by dividing the oligarchs,
leveraging some against others.
Browder was heavily involved in the looting. He is heavy in distributing
anti-Russian propaganda in a heavily Jewish controlled media, and he was all
in for Clinton.
And he wants Trump impeached
(I recommend reading the
article below if you read just 1 link)
Most readers will identify Bill Broder with Hermitage Capital, but few
will recall that the investment firm was also funded by one Beny Steimetz,
the Israeli oligarch and financier just arrested (August 14) by Israeli and
Swiss anti-corruption officials for widescale fraud and money laundering.
The Russia privatization shark who was once Israel's richest man is a
subject for another report. I only bring him up here to point at two facets
of this war on Putin. First, the Jewish connection in all this is something
that just needs to come out. Secondly, the ring of profiteers bent on
Putin's demise all have gigantic skeletons in their wardrobes. A story
citing one Putin hater, when investigated, always leads to ten more. This
is no coincidence.
Back to Browder, his Hermitage was at one time was the largest foreign
portfolio investor in Russia. That was before Vladimir Putin put a stop to
the rape of Russia's legacy and the theft of her assets. This is undeniable
fact, and even the lowliest of Russian peasants know it by now. Browder, a
Chicago Jew, set out to profit from Russian privatization after Yeltsin,
but was thwarted like other sharks when Putin's hammer fell on other
mafiosos. RICO suits, libel cases, tax evasion charges, and ties to some of
the seediest characters in world finance highlight the man who pushed the
now famous Magnitsky Act into US foreign policy play. It's no coincidence
that Browder has emerged as a central player in the ongoing investigation
of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. The privateer who made
billions off Russia privatization turned into a human rights activist, and
now he's bent on seeing Donald Trump impeached!
The war on Russia is very heavily a product of Jews pursuing Jewish group
interests, internationally.
A man named Henry Ford once wrote a book on the topic. Of all the
criticism it received and receives, that it is 'hate,' one will seldom find
any effort to dispute its accuracy.
Terrific post I Am Jack. And also thank you for emphasising the unholy
convergence of vested interests in Putin Russia demonization - the Jewish
bankers raping Rusdia in the 90s on a scale not seen since the Mongols
hordes, and Western oligarchs seeing a chance to become even more insanely
wealthy (hence the London, Wall St, Pentagon, Fed, DC, Brussels etc
involvement).
Putin is an extraordinary and immensely intelligent and
brave individual who divided and knee-capped the world mafia. THIS is why
he is demonised, not because he is some evil Tsar of Mordor. That being
said he hasn't done it alone - the people of Russia made huge mistakes by
allowing communism in, and economic genocide in the 1990s was wilful
influcted upon them, but their resilience is extraordinary.
I hope they are all watching their backs. Putin if all people stated
that he is careful about cornering rats with now way out, so i have a
feeling that things are going to get unpredictable ...
Good article. Remember that Bill Browder's grandfather was head
of the American Communist Party in the 1930s ...
The Killing of William Browder is compulsory reading if you
want to sssure yourself about that lying theiving NPD sack of s***
Browder. Lots on him on Sott etc.
I did post about 3 months back that Browder and the trillion
dollar rape Russia in the 1990s , the Money Plane etc are the key
to understand current events, Putin and what is being covered up
now, in my opinion, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to get
traction.
I'd not seen the AP reporters question that triggered this before. It looks like the
reporter was trying to embarrass both Putin and Trump but wound up getting his ass, Clinton's
ass, and the asses of the intelligence community handed to him instead.
too right. If I remember correctly, it was in the context of Putin saying Russia is open
to have FBI guys come to question the 12 GRU guys indicted (no proof yet) by Mueller.
In return, he then said Russia would like to ask a few questions to the US officials
believed to have HELPED Browder funnel $400K to Clinton and probably avoid paying tax on 1.5
billion in Russia AND the US...
Browder has to be on top of the US wanted list in the not too distant future or there
really is no fuckin justice.
Most of you must have heard of the Magnitsky Act or even maybe of William Browder himself. You
probably know that Browder was a British businessman who founded Hermitage Capital Management
investment fund which Sergei Magnitsky represented as a lawyer
and auditor. Finally, you must have heard that Magnitsky died (was killed) in a Russian jail
while Browder was placed by the Russian government on a black list and denied entry. For the
vast majority of you, that is probably as much thought as you ever gave this topic and I have
to confess that this is also true for me. I never bothered really researching this issue
because I knew the context so well that this, by itself, gave me a quasi-certitude that I knew
what had happened. Still, when I read this book I was amazed at the fantastically detailed
account Krainer provides to what is really an amazing story.
In his book Alex Krainer offers us the truth and truly shows us how deep the rabbit hole
goes....
As Congress still swoons over the anti-Kremlin Magnitsky narrative, Western political and
media leaders refuse to let their people view a documentary that debunks the fable, reports
Robert Parry.
"... "Browder's long-standing partners in crime." ..."
"... "on even terms." ..."
"... "meet US authorities half-way" ..."
"... "on the condition" ..."
"... "Realizing that the Russian prosecutors wouldn't let go off him easily, Browder has tried to cultivate connections with political influencers in in the US, and this can be seen through the Ziff brothers, and their support for the Democratic Party in the last election," ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Russia's prosecutor general will demand interviews with American congressmen, security
services staff, and other high-profile individuals as it seeks to involve the US in its
investigation into convicted financier Bill Browder. Moscow accuses Browder of illegally taking
$1.5 billion out of Russia and fabricating evidence that led to the passing of the
sanctions-imposing Magnitsky Act. As part of the investigation, the prosecutor general wants to
speak to ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele, author of the notorious Trump dossier, and former
ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul, who campaigned on behalf of Browder. Michael McFaul and
Hillary Clinton in 2016. / Reuters
Other persons of interest on what Russia said was an incomplete list included David Kramer,
former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and president of
think tank Freedom House, and the billionaire Ziff brothers, who are described as
"Browder's long-standing partners in crime."
This was announced by Aleksandr Kurennoy, the head of the mass media department of the
prosecutor general's office in Moscow, who said that Russia was ready to share its findings
with US law enforcement agencies "on even terms."
The announcement follows hot on the heels of a proposal made by Vladimir Putin during his
press conference with Donald Trump in Helsinki on Monday, in which he offered to "meet US
authorities half-way" and allow the Mueller investigation into Moscow's election meddling
to interview suspects in Russia, "on the condition" that Russian investigators could
speak to suspects in the Browder investigation. Russia has previously tried to extradite
Browder and gain access to others, but without success, though the businessman was briefly
arrested in Spain in May, before being set free.
"Realizing that the Russian prosecutors wouldn't let go off him easily, Browder has
tried to cultivate connections with political influencers in in the US, and this can be seen
through the Ziff brothers, and their support for the Democratic Party in the last
election," said Kurennoy, explaining the intertwining of business and politics that has
led to the current investigation.
Browder has
responded to Putin's words in the Washington Post, claiming that the Russian leader's offer
meant he was "rattled" by Browder's accusations of corruption against Moscow
officials.
US-born Browder made a fortune as an investor in Russia, starting in the 1990s, but was
barred from entering the country in 2005, and has since become an arch-critic of the Kremlin.
His allegations over the treatment of one of his staff, Sergei Magnitsky, while in custody, led
to the sanctioning of select Moscow officials in the 2012 Magnitsky Act, but the legislation
has since been expanded and can be applied to any foreign official, who is deemed to have
violated human rights.
Browder was convicted in Russia in absentia in 2013 for fraud and tax evasion, and again, at
the end of last year.
The 54-year old investor has also been a prominent voice in the Mueller investigation
itself, though it does not concern him directly, and he submitted a scathing testimony about
Russia to the US Senate a year ago.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
In 2015, Bill Browder published Red Notice - purportedly a true story about his experience
in Russia between 1996 and 2005. Upon closer scrutiny however, his story doesn't add up and
demonstrably fails to stand up in a court of law. Nonetheless, on the dubious strength of that
story, Browder has been able to lobby the U.S. Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act in 2012 which
needlessly damaged the relations between the U.S. and Russia. Where he failed in courts of law,
however, his campaign of relentless demonization of Russia and of Vladimir Putin has been
successful in the court of public opinion in the West. As humanity finds itself on the
precipice of yet another great war, what we need are bridges of mutual understanding and
constructive engagement, not demonization. This book's modest hope is to contribute to the
construction of those bridges.
"I consider [this] book as a must read for any person trying to understand modern Russia and
where the new Cold War with Russia came from. ... Krainer offers us the truth and truly shows
us how deep the rabbit hole goes. ... Get the book, read it, and then give it to your friends.
This is one of the most important books to have come out in the recent years (and an excellent
read too!)." --The Saker
"True to form, Alex brings to life the shenanigans and the deception of those who have gone
out of their way to stay in the shadows, in this gripping true-life-detective non-fiction
thriller." --Daniel Estulin, author of The True Story of the Bilderberg Group
"Krainer's book is an indispensable contribution to understanding the connection between the
looting of Russia during the disastrous shock therapy of the Yeltsin years, and the dangerous
anti-Russian provocations of today. His insight into the duplicitous role of Bill Browder
provides compelling evidence of how unscrupulous greed can lead to much larger crimes."
--Harley Schlanger, Schiller Institute
A commodities trader and hedge fund manager by day, Alex Krainer took up writing in an
effort to uncover the truth about the pressing social, economic and political issues of the
day, and share it broadly with the public. He was born in Croatia, one of the republics of
former Yugoslavia, to a Croatian father and a Serbian mother. As a young man in the 1990s he
lived through the downfall of the 'Communist Bloc' and served in the Croatian Army during the
war in that country. Having observed first-hand the events that led to the destructive and
tragic wars in former Yugoslavia, he believes that truth is the single most important
requirement needed to preserve peace. This book represents Alex's personal endeavor to
contribute an important element of truth toward a peaceful resolution of the dangerous yet
needless new Cold War between the United States and Russia so that the relations between these
two great nations may develop in the spirit of friendship, mutual cooperation and widespread
prosperity.
You can visit Alex's blog at thenakedhedgie.com and the website for this book at
thirdalliance.ch.
Russia may be in much better shape economically now than during the 1990s and immediately ...
The book does make a compelling case against much of Browder's version of events in Russia over
the years from the fall of the USSR through most of Putin's time as leader of Russia. But there
is nothing about democracy in Russia since Putin came to power. How is democracy left out of
the equation? Russia may be in much better shape economically now than during the 1990s and
immediately afterward but there is no appearance of anything like democracy. We have seen
nothing in the leadership of Russia; only Putin since 2000 (alternating with Medvedev).
Read more
Very import to look behind the scenes of the demonization of Russia!
I agree with the reviews posted prior to mine. I only want to add that I feel it is
extremely important that Browder's tale, which is based on his word only, be countered. It
amazes me how many have swallowed Browder's (and his backers) bait. Alex Krainer shows that
there is probably a hook hidden by the bait. The demonization of Putin and Russia seems to me
very, very dangerous, and as best I can tell it's completely unfounded. This book shows that
it is not only unfounded, it contradicts various facts.
I bought this book because of the news that Browder was blocking distribution and
screening of Andrei Nekrasov"s documentary "The Magnitsky Act. Behind the Scenes".
This made
me very suspicious that Browder has something to hide. If Nekrasov's documentary is
untruthful I feel it would be much better to let it be distributed and then counter it with
evidence than with legal bullying and other means to prevent it's distribution.
This book starts off slow, but the more you read, the more you will realize the menacing
extent of Browder's deception. Krainer describes how Browder built a web of deception and
lies in order to paint Russia as an evil place and America's enemy. Browder's book preys on
America's wounded sense of global supremacy and casts the US as a victim in a country where
we served as predators. Anyone who read Browder's book should read this one for sure.
A highly intelligent, frank and entertaining take-down of one of the biggest hoaxes ever
perpetrated on the US public and the world - The Magnitsky Act.
The Bill Browder of the title, who has positioned himself both as victim and champion of
the downtrodden is revealed as anything but that.
The picture painted of a vulture/hedge fund manager who took advantage of the lawlessness of
the Yeltsin years to steal from the poorest of the poor of a broken USSR is chilling.
Browder's carefully cultivated and paid for image in the West (he was planning a movie
about himself with the Weinstein brothers) is so at odds with the reality exposed here as to
make up a kind of horror story effect out of Bram Stoker. Yet the way Alex Krainer tells it
is both compelling and convincing. The thing is, no one else has looked at Browder's story
critically. It was accepted as fact, with no corroboration of any sort, by a gullible, and
probably complicit, US political establishment.
An even more terrifying question raised by the very existence of this book is: What was
the interest of the US Senate and Congress in unquestionably believing this 'scheister,' Bill
Browder, and using his outlandish and unsubstantiated claims to restart the Cold War and
bring us to the brink of nuclear confrontation?
Get the book while you can. As with a documentary about him by Nekrasov, called 'The
Magnitsky Act - Behind the Scenes,' Browder has armies of lawyers trying to squelch any
information coming out about him and the events he fabricated. Understandably, since the
story he told is so shabby and full of holes that any light cast on it at all begins to
crumble the fabric of it.
Every Concerned American Should read this, then make up his or her own mind!
An interesting alternative view of Russia, Russia's President Vladimir Putin, and Bill
Browder. Something every concerned American should read and consider, and then make up his or
her own mind. Also some really good background on events in Russia since the fall of the
Soviet Union and the subsequent rise and popularity of Pres. Putin.
His explanation of the Deflationary Gap in the Appendix helped to clarify several related
ideas that I have picked up or thought of in the past,but never put together clearly the way
Mr.Krainer does.
Riveting Expose of one of the Century's Big Hoaxes.
Alex Krainer's second book, "Killing of William Browder: Bill Browder's Dangerous
Deception" is a meticulously scrupulous research of a fascinating tale whose protagonist has
all the traits of a fiendish movie villain. Needless to point out, in the cacophonic
pandemonium of relentless anti-Russian propaganda that permeates both political and
mass-media scene in the West throughout 2017, Bill Browder, by trade a vulture investor, is
depicted as akin to a holy warrior against the Devil himself, the Russian president Vladimir
Putin.
In our increasingly insane world a fascinating tale of William Browder's role in pushing
the Magnitsky Act, that was passed in the U.S. Senate in order "to punish those suspected of
being involved in the death of Russian tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky," might have eluded you.
The Magnitsky Act that has passed the Congress on 3rd of January, 2012 resulted in
blacklisting of five Russian nationals on 9th of January, 2017 and elevated Bill Browder, at
least in his own eyes, to the status of a global human rights activist.
Enters "Killing of William Browder: Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception" and shatters that
delusion. Krainer mercilessly dissects Browder's tale in the most minute details and, as he
examines Browder's numerous statements, he portrays Browder as he truly is: not a magnanimous
human rights champion but rather a wicked purveyor of (other man's) tragedy and salesman of
(his own) self-aggrandizing fantasies. Bill Browder seems to me as a somehow cartoonish
villain who makes us chuckle even while we shudder.
Krainer writing possesses a great sense of drama and a fine sense of irony. His book reads
like a horrific thriller sprinkled with taunting humor. Even when he excoriates Browder's own
"Red Notice" and his posing, he does it with penetrating wit: "Browder didn't neglect to
throw in more ugly smears on Russia and the Russian people. He assures us that – 'Most
Russians don't operate on high-minded principles Everything in Russia was about money. Making
it, keeping it and making sure no one took it ' – (that) stands in stark contrast with
Bill Browder and his goodfellas who did everything they did out of selfless desire to make
the world a better place."
Krainer's study of Bill Browder's book and actions is a riveting, unflinching expose of
what might end up being pivotal in revealing one of this decade's big hoaxes.
"Killing of William Browder: Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception" is a monumental work of
an extraordinary skilled writer who pulls no punches as he bravely swims upstream.
Russia may be in much better shape economically now than during the 1990s and immediately
...
The book does make a compelling case against much of Browder's version of events in Russia
over the years from the fall of the USSR through most of Putin's time as leader of Russia.
But there is nothing about democracy in Russia since Putin came to power. How is democracy
left out of the equation? Russia may be in much better shape economically now than during the
1990s and immediately afterward but there is no appearance of anything like democracy. We
have seen nothing in the leadership of Russia; only Putin since 2000 (alternating with
Medvedev).
It is amazing that Browder has been able to prevent the showing ...
It is amazing that Browder has been able to prevent the showing of an important
documentary by Andrei Nekrasov on the Magnitsky Act and also prevent the distribution on the
Amazon site of this excellent well written intelligent exposé of the fraud perpetrated
by him. One wonders who is behind Browder that gives him such power and influence.
Who should
Browder fear more: those who are supporting him or Vladimir Putin?
In this book, unavailable
on Amazon, can be found:
1. one of the best summaries of the Yeltsin years;
2. a useful
review of US-Russia relations in the XIX century; 3. a counter-view of the personality of
V.V. Putin; 4. copious footnotes and a very valuable bibliography; 5. a deconstruction of
William Browder's thriller, Red Notice.
Only the people who make those decision at Amazon
know why the book is not available on their site.
Putin handed Trump a means of openly investigating Killary's/CIA's manipulation of US politics via the Browder investigation,
the crime of manipulating the DNC to remove Bernie can also loop into the mix.
Let's hope Trump follows through and exposes the nest of vipers. The majority of people are now seeing the light, only the
people with skin the game or those far too controlled through an excellent propaganda/mass mind control experiment do not.
Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebels could only dream that their methods would go this far.
"But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain politicians for news, the newspaper reporters
are obliged to work in harmony with their news sources."
― Edward L. Bernays ,
Propaganda
+50 Overbet. I posted before i read yours. I have tired of trying to convince people that
90s Russia and the thefts then and subsequent covering of crimes is STILL the key to
understanding the Deep States obsession and fear of Putin and Russia. Soros, Clinton's,
Chubias, the FED's off the books money printing, London money laundering , EU buying the
stolen movables etc - they are all there. Browder's animus is also driving much behind the
scenes with 'Russiagate'. Look people - you will see. Putin certainly didn't pluck that lying
idiot's name randomly.
I urge people to at least read the 90s chapter in the Killing of William Browder (free
online PDF) to begin to understand what is going on now.
The appendix on Jacob Rothschild alone and Yukos makes it worth the read. But if you read
nothing else, read the chapters on Browder's interrogation and Russia in the 1990s - easy
reads and give a great introduction to this orgy of psycopathy and mendacity. They are all
connected
How such a sleazy, somewhat feminine guy with pretty mediocre intellectual level could become
the Chief of the Counterespionage Section at FBI can't be explained other the Peter {principle at
work.
Through all these cases I have the impression that the Westerners are relying on Putin's
calm temper, who will always refuse (I hope) to start a nuclear conflict. Do you think that
in the event of a serious threat from Russia to engage in this type of conflict, the West
will do what is necessary to avoid it?
Will it do what is necessary to calm the situation?
irina , July 14, 2018 at 12:53 pm
I am most concerned about who might replace Putin should our rabid overseers
actually succeed in removing him . . . and if you think they're not rabid, may I
refer you to Peter Strzok's very bizarre view of his congressional grilling :
COMMENTARY: FBI agent Peter Strzok may be soon "thrown under the bus" in the ongoing
investigation into Clinton's emails and his alleged role in the Russia-gate investigation,
comments Ray McGovern.
By Ray McGovern Special to Consortium News
If FBI agent Peter Strzok were not so glib,
it would have been easier to feel some sympathy for him during his tough grilling at the House
oversight hearing on Thursday, even though his wounds are self-inflicted. The wounds, of
course, ooze from the content of his own text message exchange with his lover and alleged
co-conspirator, Lisa Page.
Strzok was a top FBI counterintelligence official and Page an attorney working for then-FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The Attorney General fired McCabe in March and DOJ has
criminally referred McCabe to federal prosecutors for lying to Justice Department
investigators.
On Thursday members of the House Judiciary and Oversight/Government Reform Committees
questioned Strzok for eight hours on how he led the investigations of Hillary Clinton's
unauthorized emails and Donald Trump's campaign's ties with Russia, if any.
Strzok did his best to be sincerely slick. Even so, he seemed to feel beleaguered -- even
ambushed -- by the questions of Republicans using his own words against him. "Disingenuous" is
the word a Republican Congresswoman used to describe his performance. Nonetheless, he won
consistent plaudits from the Democrats. He showed zero regret for the predicament he put
himself into, except for regret at his royal screw-up in thinking he and Lisa could "talk about
Hillary" (see below) on their FBI cellphones and no one would ever know. One wag has suggested
that Strzok may have been surreptitiously texting, when he should have been listening to the
briefing on "Cellphone Security 101."
In any case, the chickens have now come home to roost. Most of those chickens, and Strzok's
predicament in general, are demonstrably the result of his own incompetence. Indeed, Strzok
seems the very embodiment of the "Peter Principle." FBI agents down the line -- that is, the
non-peter-principle people -- are painfully aware of this, and resent the discredit that Strzok
and his bosses have brought on the Bureau. Many are reportedly lining up to testify against
what has been going on at the top.
It is always necessary at this point to note that the heads of the FBI, CIA, NSA and even
the Department of Justice were operating, as former FBI Director James Comey later put it, in
an environment "where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump." Most of them expected to
be able to stay in their key positions and were confident they would receive plaudits -- not
indictments -- for the liberties that they, the most senior U.S. law enforcement officials,
took with the law. In other words, once the reality that Mrs. Clinton was seen by virtually
everyone to be a shoo-in is taken into account, the mind boggles a lot less.
Strzok arrives to testify on FBI and DOJ actions during the 2016 Presidential election
during House Joint committee hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday. (Getty)
Peter Principle
In a text sent to Page on April 2, 2016, Strzok assured her that it was safe to use official
cellphones. Page: "So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it
can't be traced." It goes downhill from there for the star-crossed lovers.
Pity Page, who asked for more time to answer a subpoena to testify to the same
joint-committee. It is understandable that she would have trusted Strzok on this.
After all, he was not only her lover, but also one of the FBI's top counterintelligence
officials.
How could she ever have expected to taste the bitter irony that the above text exchange
could be retrieved, find its way to the Department of Justice Inspector General, to Congress,
and then to the rest of us, not to mention far more incriminating exchanges.
The 'Hillary Dispensation'
There were moments of high irony at Thursday's hearing. For example, under questioning by
Darrell Issa (R-CA), Strzok appealed, in essence, for the same kid-gloves treatment that his
FBI and DOJ associates afforded Mrs. Clinton during the Strzok-led investigation of her
emails.
Issa: Mr. Strozk, you were part of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, that's
correct?
Strzok: Yes.
Issa: And in that investigation, uh, you were part of the decision for her to, uh,
and her lawyers, to go through emails that were produced during, uh, you, if you will, during
her time as Secretary, go through and determine which ones were Government, and which ones were
not, both the classified and unclassified, is that correct?
Strzok: I was not.
Issa: You were not involved at all.
Strzok: That's correct.
Issa: But you're aware of it.
Strzok: I..I'm aware of their statements to us about how they did it.
Issa: And do you think it was ok, uh, for Secretary Clinton to determine what could
or couldn't, uh, uh, qualify for her to turn in under the Federal Records Act?
Strzok: I, I can't speak to that. That was a decision, my understanding between her
and her attorneys, and
Issa: Ok, but you were aware that in her production she failed to deliver some items
that've now been ruled were classified, is that correct?
Strzok: I'm aware that we recovered information that was not in the material that she
turned over. I don't know if it was her failure, the failure of the attorneys conducting that
sort, or simply because she didn't have it. I, I don't know the answer to that question.
Issa: So, I bring up something that came up in the previous round. So far, only you
have determined what should be turned over from your private emails, that, or your
non-government emails and texts, what should be delivered because it was government in nature.
You've made that decision.
Strzok: That's right.
Issa: And it's your position that nobody else in the way of a government entity
should be able to look over your shoulder, so to speak, and make that decision.
Strzok: That, that's right.
Issa: So you think it's ok for the target -- and you are a target -- of an
investigation to determine what should be delivered rather than, if you will, the government,
right?
Strzok: Sir, I am not aware of any investigation of which I am a target, not aware
I'm a target of any investigation.
At this point Issa tells Strzok he is indeed a target of investigation by Congress. More
importantly, Issa makes the point that the content of the texts exchanged on the FBI phones
contained a mixture of official business and personal matters.
So why, asks Issa, should we not ask you to provide similar texts from your personal
exchanges, since there is likely to be a similar mixture of official and personal matters in
those texts? Issa suggests they likely "would be similar."
Strzok asks if, by "similar," Issa means "commenting on Mr. Trump or Hillary Clinton or
anything else political in nature." Strzok then adds, "I don't specifically recall but it is
probably a safe assumption."
Uh oh.
Strzok: No Good Options
If Strzok was distracted by texting during the standard briefing on "NSA Capabilities:101,"
he may have missed the part about NSA collecting and storing everything that goes over the
Internet. That would include, of course, his private text messages with Page on private
phones.
There is, admittedly, a very slim chance Strzok is unaware of this. But, given his
naiveté about how well protected the texts on his FBI cellphone were, that possibility
cannot be ruled out. In any case, given the high stakes involved, there seems a chance he might
be tempted to follow Mrs. Clinton's example with her emails and try to delete or destroy texts
that provide additional incriminating evidence -- or get someone else to do so.
More probably, after Thursday's hearing, Strzok will see it as too late for him to try to
cash in on the "Hillary Exemption." Strzok, after all, is not Hillary Clinton. In addition, it
has probably long since dawned on him that his FBI and DOJ co-conspirators may well decide to
"throw him under the bus," one of those delicate expressions we use in Washington. In this
connection, Strzok will have noted that last month McCabe asked the Senate Judiciary Committee
to give him immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony on how senior officials at
the FBI and Justice Department handled the investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private email
server.
If McCabe knows FBI history, he is aware that one of his predecessors as acting director, L.
Patrick Gray, famously was left to "twist slowly in the wind" per the instructions of President
Richard Nixon's aide John Ehrlichman, when the Senate Judiciary Committee could not get
satisfactory answers from Gray.
Nixon had nominated Gray to lead the FBI after J. Edgar Hoover died in May 1972, but he
could never get confirmed by the Senate. Worse still, Gray was forced to resign after less than
a year as acting FBI director, after he admitted to having destroyed Watergate-related
documents.
... ... ...
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. A former U.S. Army officer and CIA analyst, he has closely
watched Washington goings-on like this for five decades. Ray co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Everyone messes with everyone in their elections around the world. My first
question is why is the media on both sides still pounding the American
public with the "Russia did it" bullhorn. What exactly does Russia gain ?
They're 9 times smaller than NATO. China has the most to gain.
The
Ukrainians were working with Hillary against Trump. The Deep State has the
ability to make every act of espionage look like Russia did it. The DNC
didn't turn over their server to the FBI. The Awan server disappeared too.
Something smells terrible, like Kankles Huma hole.
jesus they can accuse you of being a putin puppet if you don't...
and how do you defend yourself.. "how dare you insult every branch of
our intelligence agencies"( and the lying james clapper!!!! )how dare
you...?
Hey Groot, I think these countries hack and spy on each other 24/7.
It's bullshit. They appoint a special prosecutor and with the
exceptions of the BS Flynn and Manafort charges the only others he's
charged are non-americans. Nothing about the elephant in the room, the
billion dollar + money laundering schemes and treason of the
Obama/Clinton and their lackeys.
Looks like it was actually China which implemented forwarding of all 30K email to controlled
by them account. See sic_semper_tyrannis blog for details. This is a bombshell revelation, if
true,
For debunking of the information presented in the indictment see
To me Mueller fiction sounds like a second rate Crowdstrike "security porn" -- a bragging
about non-existent capabilities.
And I agree that the "Le Carre level of details" with names (which are obviously
classified) are extremely suspicious. It also invites a nasty retaliation, because it breaks
de-facto mode of work of intelligence agencies with each other and undermines any remnant of
trust (if such exists in respect to CIA; it probably existed for NSA).
As sessions were encrypted so to decode them you need to steal SSH key, or break SSH
encryption. Both are not very realistic, and, if realistic, disclosing such NSA capabilities
greatly damages those capabilities.
Also Guccifer 2.0 Internet personality looks more and more to me like a false flag
operation with the specific goal to implicate Russians. Mueller is actually pretty adept in
operating in such created for specific purpose "parallel reality" due to specifics of his
career. So nothing new here. Just a strong stench of a false flag operation
Another weak point is the use of CCcleaner. This is not how professionals from state
intelligence agencies operate. Any Flame-style exfiltration software (and Flame was pioneered
by the USA ;-) has those capabilities built-in, so exposing your activities in Windows logs
is just completely stupid.
The Russian government on Friday strongly denied the charges. In a statement, the Foreign
Ministry called the indictments "a shameful farce" that was not backed up by any evidence.
"Obviously, the goal of this 'mud-slinging' is to spoil the atmosphere before the
Russian-American summit," the statement said.
The Ministry added that the 12 named Russians were not agents of the GRU.
" When you dig into this indictment there are huge problems, starting with how in the world
did they identify 12 Russian intelligence officers with the GRU?" said former CIA analyst Larry
Johnson in an interview with Consortium News. Johnson pointed out that the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency was not allowed to take part in the January 2017 Intelligence Community
Assessment on alleged interference by the GRU. Only hand-picked analysts from the FBI, the NSA
and the CIA were involved.
" The experts in the intelligence community on the GRU is the Defense Intelligence Agency
and they were not allowed to clear on that document," Johnson said.
" When you look at the level of detail about what [the indictment is] claiming, there is no
other public source of information on this, and it was not obtained through U.S. law
enforcement submitting warrants and getting affidavits to conduct research in Russia, so it's
clearly intelligence information from the NSA, most likely," Johnson said.
CrowdStrike's Role
The indictment makes clear any evidence of an alleged hack of the DNC and DCCC computers did
not come from the FBI, which was never given access to the computers by the DNC, but instead
from the private firm CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC. It is referred to as Company 1
in the indictment.
" Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May 2016,
both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company
("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions," the indictment says.
Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is also a senior fellow at the anti-Russian
Atlantic Council think tank.
The indictment doesn't mention it, but within a day, CrowdStrike claimed to find Russian
"fingerprints" in the metadata of a DNC opposition research document, which had been revealed
by DCLeaks, showing Cyrillic letters and the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief. That
supposedly implicated Russia in the hack.
CrowdStrike claimed the alleged Russian intelligence operation was extremely sophisticated
and skilled in concealing its external penetration of the server. But CrowdStrike's conclusion
about Russian "fingerprints" resulted from clues that would have been left behind by extremely
sloppy or amateur hackers -- or inserted intentionally to implicate the Russians.
One of CrowdStrike's founders has ties to the anti-Russian Atlantic Council raising
questions of political bias. And the software it used to determine Russia's alleged involvement
in the DNC hack, was later proved to be faulty in a high-profile case in Ukraine, reported
by the Voice of America.
The indictment then is based at least partially on evidence produced by an interested
private company, rather than the FBI.
Evidence Likely Never to be Seen
Other apparent sources for information in the indictment are intelligence agencies, which
normally create hurdles in a criminal prosecution.
" In this indictment there is detail after detail whose only source could be intelligence,
yet you don't use intelligence in documents like this because if these defendants decide to
challenge this in court, it opens the U.S. to having to expose sources and methods," Johnson
said.
If the U.S. invoked the states secret privilege so that
classified evidence could not be revealed in court a conviction before a civilian jury would be
jeopardized.
Such a trial is extremely unlikely however. That makes the indictment essentially a
political and not a legal document because it is almost inconceivable that the U.S. government
will have to present any evidence in court to back up its charges. This is simply because of
the extreme unlikelihood that arrests of Russians living in Russia will ever be made.
In this way it is similar to the indictment earlier this year of the Internet Research
Agency of St. Petersburg, Russia, a private click bait company that was alleged to have
interfered in the 2016 election by buying social media ads and staging political rallies for
both Clinton and Trump. It seemed that no evidence would ever have to back up the indictment
because there would never be arrests in the case.
But Special Counsel Robert Mueller was stunned when lawyers for the internet company showed
up in Washington demanding
discovery in the case. That caused Mueller to scramble and demand a delay in the first hearing,
which was
rejected by a federal judge. Mueller is now battling to keep so-called sensitive material
out of court.
In both the IRA case and Friday's indictments, the extremely remote possibility of
convictions were not what Mueller was apparently after, but rather the public perception of
Russia's guilt resulting from fevered media coverage of what are after all only accusations,
presented as though it is established fact. Once that impression is settled into the public
consciousness, Mueller's mission would appear to be accomplished.
For instance, the Times routinely dispenses with the adjective "alleged" and
reports the matter as though it is already established fact. It called Friday's indictments,
which are only unproven charges, "the most detailed accusation by the American government to
date of the [not alleged] Russian government's interference in the 2016 election, and it
includes a litany of [not alleged] brazen Russian subterfuge operations meant to foment chaos
in the months before Election Day."
GRU Named as WikiLeak's Source
The indictment claims that GRU agents, posing as Guccifer 2.0, (who says he is a Romanian
hacker) stole the Democratic documents and later emailed a link to them to WikiLeaks, named as
"Organization 1." No charges were brought against WikiLeaks on Friday.
Assange: Denied Russia was his source. (CNBC screenshot)
" After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or
about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email
with an attachment titled 'wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg,'" the indictment says. "The Conspirators
explained to Organization 1 that the encrypted file contained instructions on how to access an
online archive of stolen DNC documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it
had 'the 1Gb or so archive' and would make a release of the stolen documents' this week.'"
WikiLeaks founder and editor Julian Assange, who is in exile in the Ecuador embassy in
London, has long denied that he got the emails from any government. Instead Assange has
suggested that his source was a disgruntled Democratic Party worker, Seth Rich, whose
murder on the streets of Washington in July 2016 has never been solved.
On Friday, WikiLeaks did not repeat the denial that a government was its source. Instead it
tweeted: "Interesting timing choice by DoJ today (right before Trump-Putin meet), announcing
indictments against 12 alleged Russian intelligence officers for allegedly releasing info
through DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0."
Assange has had all communication with the outside world shut off by the Ecuadorian
government two months ago.
Since the indictments were announced, WikiLeaks has not addressed the charge that GRU
agents, posing as Guccifer 2.0, were its source. WikiLeaks' policy is to refuse to disclose any
information about its sources. WikiLeaks' denial that the Russian government gave them the
emails could be based on its belief that Guccifer 2.0 was who he said he was, and not what the
U.S. indictments allege.
Those indictments claim that the Russian military intelligence agents adopted the personas
of both Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks to publish the Democratic Party documents online, before the
Russian agents, posing as Guccifer 2.0, allegedly supplied WikiLeaks.
The emails, which the indictment does not say are untrue, damaged the Clinton campaign. They
revealed, for instance, that the campaign and the Democratic Party worked to deny the
nomination to Clinton's Democratic Party primary challenger Bernie Sanders.
The indictments also say that the Russian agents purchased the use of a computer server in
Arizona, using bitcoin to hide their financial transactions. The Arizona server was used to
receive the hacked emails from the servers of the Democratic Party and the chairman of
Clinton's campaign, the indictment alleges. If true it would mean the transfer of the emails
took place within the United States, rather than overseas, presumably to Russia.
Some members of the Veterans' Intelligence Professionals for Sanity argue
that metadata evidence points to a local download from the Democratic computers, in other words
a leak, rather than a hack. They write the NSA would have evidence of a hack and, unlike this
indictment, could make the evidence public: " Given NSA's extensive trace capability, we
conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked. The
evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since
this could be done without any danger to sources and methods."
That argument was either ignored or dismissed by Mueller's team.
The Geopolitical Context
US enabled Yeltsin's reelection.
It is not only allies of Trump, as the Times thinks, who believe the timing of the
indictments, indeed the entire Russia-gate scandal, is intended to prevent Trump from pursuing
detente with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump said of the indictments that, "I think that really
hurts our country and it really hurts our relationship with Russia. I think that we would have
a chance to have a very good relationship with Russia and a very good chance -- a very good
relationship with President Putin."
There certainly appear to be powerful forces in the U.S. that want to stop that.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Wall Street rushed in behind Boris Yeltsin
and Russian oligarchs to asset strip virtually the entire country, impoverishing the
population. Amid widespread accounts of this grotesque corruption, Washington
intervened in Russian politics to help get Yeltsin re-elected in 1996. The political rise
of Vladimir Putin after Yeltsin resigned on New Year's Eve 1999 reversed this course, restoring
Russian sovereignty over its economy and politics.
That inflamed American hawks whose desire is to install another Yeltsin-like figure and
resume U.S. exploitation of Russia's vast natural and financial resources. To advance that
cause, U.S. presidents have supported the eastward expansion of NATO and have deployed 30,000
troops on Russia's borders.
In 2014, the Obama administration helped orchestrate a coup that
toppled the elected government of Ukraine and installed a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The
U.S. also undertook the risky policy of aiding jihadists to overthrow a secular Russian ally in
Syria. The consequences have brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than at
any time
since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
In this context, the Democratic Party-led Russia-gate appears to have been used not only to
explain away Clinton's defeat but to stop Trump -- possibly via impeachment or by inflicting
severe political damage -- because he talks about cooperation with Russia.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday
Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and followed
on Twitter @unjoe .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
They can't allow Assange to speak now, because if he should decide to reveal that Seth
Rich was the leaker, that would create a whole new set of circumstances. Incredible article,
Joe.
Real estate mogul Leona Helmsley is remembered for infamously stating, "Rich people don't
pay taxes. Taxes are for the little people."
Similarly, "Rich people hide evidence (real – or alleged (non-existent) for criminal
or propaganda purposes) under the umbrella of 'national security'. Evidence is for the little
people."
And the great war between truth and lies moves forward
Hank , July 15, 2018 at 9:51 am
As with the last indictment of 'Russian hackers' these GRU officers should retain an
American attorney who can then demand Mueller hand over whatever evidence he has (aka:
discovery). Last time that happened Mueller was forced to refuse (because he had none). That
was embarrassing for Mueller and you'd think he would've learned his lesson not to try the
gimmick again. You'd think.
Sam F , July 15, 2018 at 9:07 am
The entire Russia-gate invention is a diversion from Israel-gate, the control of US
elections and mass media by zionists. That is the story here, not silly disputes over who did
what to reveal DNC emails.
Red_Dog , July 15, 2018 at 8:03 am
1. Lauria is correct when he says, "Some members of the Veterans' Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity argue that metadata evidence points to a local download from the
Democratic computers, in other words a leak, rather than a hack." But he fails to give the
full story. William Binney and some members of the VIPS wrote a memo stating that computer
data showed that the files were downloaded locally to a flash drive because of transmission
speeds. This memo was challenged in a separate memo by Thomas Drake and other members of the
VIPS. To try and resolve the problem The Nation hired an independent computer expert,
Nathanial Freitas, to analyze the memos and date. He concluded that the data did fit the
Binney analysis. But it also fit several other possibilities that used remote access. So the
data could not be used to prove that the files were locally downloaded. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/
2. Perhaps the most important part of the indictments is not in the Lauria article.
500,000 voters had their data stolen and, because most state-local voter systems are running
on outdated and dilapidated computers, it may be impossible to tell if other systems had been
hacked. Unfortunately, very few people are considering this part of the indictment. It means
that if we want a fair election in 2018 paper ballots should be used. In any case all voting
systems must be auditable.
3. Finally, the level of detail and attribution in the indictments indicates to me that
the NSA and CIA were consulted. And it was worth providing this detail because of the
incredible threat our country is under. The fact that we can now track down hacks with such
precision should give others pause.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2018 at 8:18 am
I think you are jumping to a false conclusion about the "level of detail". The NSA and the
CIA have now had enough time to cut the entire indictment out of whole cloth. Are we supposed
to trust their so called "evidence" at this point, when the entire RussiaGate theater of the
absurd was created to cover their ass and hamstring detente with Russia?
Piotr Berman , July 15, 2018 at 5:11 pm
I did not read the indictment, so I do not know if the level of detail rose to heights
exhibited by Gen. Colin Powell in his famous "white powder vial" speech. Today we know that
the white powder he showed to the entire world could be indeed harmful, as the baby powder of
Johnson and Johnson was revealed to have traces of asbestos. But then again, it could be
genuinely harmless.
On top of that, Innocence Project revealed that surprising number of successful
prosecutions leading to the death penalty were based on hoaxes. For example, the "culprit"
was implicated by his blood being found on a seat of the escape car, however when the defense
examined the vial of the sentenced person blood that was in police possession, it had DNA of
two people -- some blood was removed (presumably, splashed in the escape car) and to mask it,
blood of another person was added. This is stuff done without any political motivation, just
to get good number of solved cases -- the race and prior criminal record of the "culprit"
probably being the bonus.
Creating compelling narratives is what prosecutors do for living. I hope that more often
than not these narratives are true, but a true professional is not bound by such
constraints.
j. D. D. , July 15, 2018 at 7:44 am
Thank you for a thorough and damning report on the indicttments by the cowardly and
thuggish Mueller who, as the author notes, is confident that they nevr be answered in a court
of law. Moreover, with all the hullabaloo attached to Robert Mueller's stunt, the fact
remains that the DNC and John Podesta emails revealed a stunning and irrefutable truth:
Hillary Clinton and the DNC were rigging the election against her Democratic primary
opponent, Bernie Sanders. However, I would add two aspects which place into context the
timing of Mueller's publicity stunt. First, that it came on the heels of embattled FBI Agent
Peter Strzok's appearance before a joint House hearing on Thursday at which Strzok claimed
that the Republicans on the House Judiciary and Government Oversight Committees were doing
"Putin's work" by continuing to examine the British and Obama Administration/Democratic Party
origins of Russiagate. Strzok's charge, obviously choreographed with Congressional Democrats,
wasendlessly cycled in the news media. The Democrats otherwise sought to obstruct the
discredited FBI agent's testimony by any and all means necessary to the delight of the
"resist" social media universe. While the Justice Department's independent IG found that
Strzok's prioritization of the Trump Russiagate investigation over the Clinton email
investigation was not free from bias, an inconvenient fact largely glossed over in Thursday's
staged event, it noted that Strzok and his mistress, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
counsel, Lisa Page, exchanged daily texts vowing to stop Trump's election, disparaging
Trump's s supporters, and declaring themselves the saviors of the nation from the current
President. The third element,of this assault on the prospect of peace was meant to cooincide
with Trump's visit to the UK, i.e.the discovery of a bottle or vial of the so-called Novichok
nerve agent allegedly used to poison former British spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The
bottle was discovered at the home of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess in Amesbury, England.
The British went on an international rampage around the March 4, 2018, Skripal poisoning
claiming Putin was conducting a murder of a long-retired British spy on British territory in
some form of retaliaton, demanding war-like sanctions against Russia. When their claims
failed to achieve substantive credibility, even with the British bioweapons lab, Porton Down,
Rowley and Sturgess appeared as new victims of the nerve gas poisoning on June 30th and
Sturgess subsequently died. The British press is filled with the imputation that the found
vial will somehow be traceable back to Russia, a fact which eluded the original Skripal hoax
Yet despite all of this, it appears that the desperate attempt of Mueller and his allies in
the US and British intel community to block or ruin the Helsinki summit lack the suficient
credibiltiy to succeed.
I guess I'm showing my age with this comment, but our military & intelligence
communities, our politicians and our corporate media's non-stop, fact-free, free-association,
paranoid delusional drivel about "Russian election interference" has all the solidity, yet
none of the charm, of a bad acid trip circa 1972. Offered the choice I'd certainly opt for
the bad acid flashback – especially given what is actually at stake in terms of the
prospects for human survival if this absurd and dangerous nonsense continues. The
institutions of the West have shown themselves to be completely, totally and utterly corrupt!
To bear witness to such complete corruption is absolutely breathtaking! Expecting anything
rational, ethical, fact-based or simply honest to emanate from any of our Western
institutions at this point requires an almost child-like level of trust – or –
lacking that – a willingness to enter into and embrace the world of these mad delusions
and their purveyors!
Bjorn Jensen , July 15, 2018 at 12:52 am
This is worth reading as a summary of grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor's case
presentatation and the proposal for indictment through the summary of evidence either oral or
via documents.
I think it is important to remember that grand juries are comprised of ordinary citizens
and are independent of the courts.
Yes, this era of total corruption of the US government is unprecedented.
The disputes between one corrupt branch and another condemn them all.
mrtmbrnmn , July 15, 2018 at 12:09 am
This is not breaking news anymore, but worth repeating:
The odious NY Times inadvertently stepped on its own shtick (and everyone else's) when it
front-paged the FBI's "Operation Hurricane Crossfire" against the Trump campaign. This whole
farcedy was conceived as a rolling scheme to regime change Putin when Hillary ascended the
throne, with Trump as merely a mug and patsy. When the moo-cow Hillary lost, the plan had to
be repurposed to uckfay with Putin AND regime change Trump. If it looks like a Federal crime,
smells like a Federal crime and quacks like a Federal crime, well You be the judge. There are
so many organs of the Federal Gov and the MSM in on this criminal conspiracy, they are going
to need a new wing at Gitmo to house all these scoundrels
Nabi , July 14, 2018 at 10:40 pm
Great right up to the last few paragraphs. Too hard for a logical conservative to swallow
that the prime reason we have troops (small assets at that) near the Russia border is because
of the greed of Wall Street. Up 'til then not a bad piece.
Joe Lauria , July 14, 2018 at 11:10 pm
Nabi, I suggest you read War is a Racket by General Smedley Butler if you think such a
thing is unheard of.
Yes, greed of Wall Street. And perhaps this is the most important motive. But many former
Warsaw Pact countries (or at least the ruling classes and opinion makers in those countries)
wanted to become members of NATO because they apparently feared, perhaps not without reason,
Russian domination in the future. And there's also the sheer libido dominandi of some people
in Washington, not exclusively neoconservatives. So greed, fear, and love of power.
bobzz , July 14, 2018 at 10:08 pm
In all likelihood, we'll never know who killed Seth Rich who probably leaked the emails.
The CIA did not have time to create patsies like Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, or Sirhan
Sirhan. So RIP Rich.
jsinton , July 14, 2018 at 9:28 pm
Wouldn't it be a hoot if the alleged GRU agents decide to defend themselves in court
against the indictments and demand discovery evidence?
Skip Scott , July 15, 2018 at 8:01 am
The problem with that is that you'd be buying into a stage play that the Deep State
players get to direct. Let's not forget about the abilities detailed in the Vault 7 releases.
Unfortunately it is just as Karl Rove has stated: they can create "reality" now, and they've
had plenty of time to "create" their asses off.
jsinton , July 15, 2018 at 11:41 am
Did you not hear about the St Petersburg click-bait operation that Mueller indicted with
great fanfare back in February? Well, the 13 Russians sent lawyers to answer the indictment
and plead not guilty, much to the shock of Mueller and the investigation. The problem is when
you indict someone, they now have the right to examine the EVIDENCE against them . a process
know as "discovery". Mueller has been trying to suppress the evidence in that case ever
since. Will the GRU agents send a lawyer? I'd be laughing if they did.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2018 at 12:12 pm
Yes, I recall the click-bait operation and the demand for discovery, and Mueller's being
caught by surprise. This time will be a little different:
"Seemingly overlooked by most, Rosenstein said the indictment will now be passed-off (code
word for "buried") to the DOJ National Security Division." The public will never even get to
see any evidence due to "National Security".
Considering the actions of the USA elsewhere,and the accepted, even encouraged,
interference by Israel in all elections in the USA (as Chuck Schumer knows very well!), the
whole process is a complete put-up job. Since the emails were true, and Wikileaks is reputed
to keep to valid reports, the emphasis on finding a suitable scapegoat for the election of
DJT is to steer people away from the genuine actions now destroying the USA.
fred54 , July 14, 2018 at 3:11 pm
They won't have to arrest and extradite the Russians because they will show up in court
just like the two indicted Russians did back in May. Mueller had a heart attack and asked the
Judge to deny the defendants right in discovery to see the evidence. He thought the Russians
wouldn't show and he'd get his judgement exparte without having to produce the non-existent
evidence. The Russians knew the evidence didn't exist just like in this latest lie on the
part of Mueller where there is no evidence. The judge denied the motion and Mueller had no
choice to quietly drop the charges. The same thing will happen here. Only this time the
Russians aren't going to be so sanguine.
GM , July 14, 2018 at 7:02 pm
i don't believe that's accurate. Last I heard the judge agreed to deny the defendant
discovery to the bulk of the prosecution's purported evidence based on Mueller's fatuous
assertions of "national security", though he added that it is temporary and subject to change
in the future.
D3F1ANT , July 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm
Democrat smoke and mirrors. Sad that it's worked for so long. This entire Russia collusion
fantasy has blown up in their faces though. Not only has it failed spectacularly it's exposed
the depth and scope of their corrution and the insidious way in which they've coopted
critical components of the Federal government to their exclusive service–at taxpayer
expense (DOJ/FBI)! It really is staggering. Especially since its allowed to continue even
now!
jsinton , July 15, 2018 at 9:00 pm
Not to mention the credibility of the Deep-State MSM apparatus, which has exposed itself
at purveyors of propaganda without investigation
Jeff Harrison , July 14, 2018 at 11:57 am
A couple of things occur to me. One. Have the Russian government respond to the
indictments with discovery as occurred with the other inane indictments that Mueller
produced. Two. Have Putin respond to the Democrat's demands by demanding the same from the
US. On the one hand, the US only has alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election. On the
other, Russia has proof of US meddling in essentially every Russian election since the
collapse of the old SovU. The US won't like this. It was absolutely hilarious when that
blonde bubble head of a State Department spokeswoman complained about VOA, RFE, etc being
required to register as foreign agents only to be told by Russia to take RT off the foreign
agent list. The Russians could also repay the favor by indicting Americans who interfered in
Russian elections. They could start with Slick Willie.
In 1745, Samuel Johnson published a commentary entitled Miscellaneous Observations on
the Tragedy of Macbeth :
"Thus the doctrine of witchcraft was very powerfully inculcated; and as the greatest
part of mankind have no other reason for their opinions than that they are in fashion, it
cannot be doubted but this persuasion made a rapid progress, since vanity and credulity
cooperate in its favor. The infection soon reached the Parliament, who, in the first year
of King James, made a law, by which it was enacted, Chapter XII: That "if any person shall
use any invocation or conjuration of any evil or wicked spirit; 2. or shall consult,
covenant with, entertain, employ, feed or reward any evil or cursed spirit to or for any
intent or purpose; 3. or take up any dead man, woman or child out of the grave, –or
the skin, bone, or any part of the dead person, to be employed or used in any manner of
witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment; 4. or shall use, practice, or exercise any sort
of witchcraft, sorcery, charm, or enchantment; 5. whereby any person shall be destroyed,
killed, wasted, consumed, pined, or lamed in any part of the body; 6. that every such
person being convicted shall suffer death."
"Thus, in the time of Shakespeare, was the doctrine of witchcraft at once established by
law and by the fashion, and it became not only unpolite, but criminal, to doubt it; and as
prodigies are always seen in proportion as they are expected, witches were every day
discovered and multiplied so fast in some places that Bishop Hall mentions a village in
Lancashire where their number was greater than that of the houses."
From Through the Looking Glass , by Lewis Carroll:
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut
your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible
things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always
did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible
things before breakfast."
Two quick comments on the Russiagate hoax:
1. Julian Assange has always refused to compromise his sources, but did the next best thing
by offering a $20,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of Seth Rich's killer(s). There's
only one possible reason he would do this.
2. The truth of the leaked information has never been challenged. For those who insist on
believing in witches and Russiagate, the 12 Russian defendants are guilty only of defending
U.S. democracy, since the content of Clinton's emails helped save the U.S. from a Clinton
presidency.
Excellent article, but it could be improved by including a link to the indictment text:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
. It's a 29-page PDF, but it's double-spaced with large margins, so only requires a few
minutes to read.
Mueller Grand Jury Indictment Does Not Prove Russia Hacked DNCSteven D on
Tue, 07/17/2018 - 1:37pm
="username">detroitmechworks
I'd
disagree, since it's one singular action.
@chuckutzman While the PTB want to think of it as OOOH, 12 indictments, when he
actually just got one group of people to agree with him. Not even ALL of them. Just most of
them. And he could get rid of any he didn't think were going to agree with him. Because of
course he fucking can.
Ugh, I'll go with my own BS stories than the government's rather boring line of same old
shit.
At the crux of the indictment is an outright absurdity – Assange announced that he
would be releasing Clinton-related material on June 10th, 2016, whereas the indictment claims
that Guccifer 2.0 gave him access to the DNC emails on July 14th. Moreover, considerable
evidence points to Guccifer 2,0 as being an affiliate of the DNC.
Mish - Six Questions: (1) Is this a trial or a witch hunt? (2) Do we need to see the evidence or do we believe known liars? (3)
Is Trump guilty of treason? Before we even see proof Putin was involved? (4) Is the CIA incapable of fabricating evidence? (5) Even
if Russia interfered in the election, why should anyone have expected otherwise? (6) Has everyone forgotten the US lies on WMDs already?
Notable quotes:
"... Sending lethal arms to Ukraine, bordering Russia, is a really serious adverse action against the interest of the Russian government. Bombing the Assad regime is, as well. Denouncing one of the most critical projects that the Russian government has, which is the pipeline to sell huge amounts of gas and oil to Germany, is, as well. ..."
"... The United States funds oppositional groups inside Russia. The United States sent advisers and all kinds of operatives to try and elect Boris Yeltsin in the mid-1990s, because they perceived, accurately, that he was a drunk who would serve the interests of the United States more than other candidates who might have won. The United States interferes in Russian politics, and they interfere in their cyber systems, and they invade their email systems, and they invade all kinds of communications all the time. And so, to treat this as though it's some kind of aberrational event, I think, is really kind of naive ..."
"... And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we're simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from George W. Bush's former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism. ..."
For example, reader Brian stated " There is zero doubt now that Putin stole the election
from Hillary. So much so that she MUST be given the nomination again in 2020. All potential
challengers must step aside. To refuse her the 2020 nomination would be evidence of traitorous
activities with Putin."'
I congratulated Brian for brilliant sarcasm but he piled on. It now seems he was
serious. Mainstream media, the Left an the Right were in general condemnation. Numerous cries of treason emerged from the Left and the Right (see the above link)
It Happened - No Trial Necessary
A friend I highly respect commented " There is simply no question that they did it. You can
legitimately claim that it's not important or that there has been no tie to Trump shown. On the
Russians' side, they can say, screw off, we were pursuing our interests. But you can't take the
view it did not happen. It happened. "
There is a question who did it. Indictments are just that, not proof.
The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the
second war in Iraq. US intelligence had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US
meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously thought we could
control him.
They Are All Liars
It's a mystery why anyone would believe these proven liars. That does not mean I believe
Putin either. They are all capable liars. Let's step back from the absurd points of view to reality.
US Meddling
The US tries to influence elections in other countries and has a history of assisting the
forcible overthrow of governments we don't like.
Vietnam
Iran
Iraq
Libya
Drone policy
All of the above are massive disasters of US meddling. They are all actions of war,
non-declared, and illegal. I cannot and do not condone such actions even if they were legal.
911 and ISIS resulted from US meddling. The migration crisis in the EU is a direct
consequence of US meddling. The Iranian revolution was a direct consequence of US meddling.Now we are pissing and moaning that Russia spent a few million dollars on Tweets to steal
the election. Please be serious.
Let's Assume
Let's assume for one second the DNC hack was Russia-based. Is there a reason to not be thankful for evidence that Hillary conspired to deny Bernie
Sanders the nomination? Pity Hillary? We are supposed to pity Hillary? The outrage from the Right is amazing. It's pretty obvious Senator John McCain wanted her to win. Neither faced a war or military
intervention they disapproved of.
Common Sense
Let's move on to a common sense position from Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept.
GLENN GREENWALD : In 2007, during the Democratic presidential debate, Barack Obama
was asked whether he would meet with the leaders of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and
Iran without preconditions. He said he would. Hillary Clinton said she wouldn't, because it
would be used as a propaganda tool for repressive dictators. And liberals celebrated Obama. It
was one of his greatest moments and one of the things that I think helped him to win the
Democratic nomination, based on the theory that it's always better to meet with leaders, even
if they're repressive, than to isolate them or to ignore them. In 1987, when President Reagan
decided that he wanted to meet with Soviet leaders, the far right took out ads against him that
sounded very much just like what we just heard from Joe, accusing him of being a useful idiot
to Soviet and Kremlin propaganda, of legitimizing Russian aggression and domestic repression at
home.
GLENN GREENWALD : It is true that Putin is an authoritarian and is domestically repressive.
That's true of many of the closest allies of the United States, as well, who are even far more
repressive, including ones that fund most of the think tanks in D.C., such as the United Arab
Emirates or Saudi Arabia. And I think the most important issue is the one that we just heard,
which is that 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons are in the hands of two countries --
the United States and Russia -- and having them speak and get along is much better than having
them isolate one another and increase the risk of not just intentional conflict, but
misperception and miscommunication, as well.
JOE CIRINCIONE : Right. Let's be clear. Glenn, there's nothing wrong with meeting. I
agree with you. Leaders should meet, and we should be negotiating with our foes, with those
people we disagree with. We're better off when we do that. And the kind of attacks you saw on
Barack Obama were absolutely uncalled for, and you're right to condemn those.
JOE CIRINCIONE : What I'm worried about is this president meeting with this leader
of Russia and what they're going to do. That's what's so wrong about this summit coming now,
when you have Donald Trump, who just attacked the NATO alliance, who calls our European allies
foes, who turns a blind eye to what his director of national intelligence called the warning
lights that are blinking red. About what? About Russian interference in our elections. So you
just had a leader of Russia, Putin, a skilled tactician, a skilled strategist, interfere in a
U.S. election. To what? To help elect Donald Trump.
GLENN GREENWALD : I think this kind of rhetoric is so unbelievably unhinged, the idea that
the phishing links sent to John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee are the greatest
threat to American democracy in decades. People are now talking about it as though it's on par
with 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, that the lights are blinking red, in terms of the threat level. This
is lunacy, this kind of talk. I spent years reading through the most top-secret documents of
the NSA, and I can tell you that not only do they send phishing links to Russian agencies of
every type continuously on a daily basis, but do far more aggressive interference in the
cybersecurity of every single country than Russia is accused of having done during the 2016
election. To characterize this as some kind of grave existential threat to American democracy
is exactly the kind of rhetoric that we heard throughout the Bush-Cheney administration about
what al-Qaeda was like .
JOE CIRINCIONE : Why does Donald Trump feel that he has to meet alone with Putin? What is
going on there? I mean, that -- when Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev at Reykjavik, at least he
had George Shultz with him. The two of them, you know, were meeting with Gorbachev and his
foreign minister at the time. This is -- it's deeply disturbing. It makes you feel that Trump
is hiding something, that he is either trying to make a deal with Putin, reporting something to
Putin. I tell you, I know U.S. intelligence officials -- I'm probably going right into Glenn's
wheelhouse here. But U.S. intelligence officials are concerned about what Donald Trump might be
revealing to the Russian leader, the way he revealed classified information to the Russian
foreign minister when he met privately with him in the Oval Office at the beginning of his
term. No, I don't like it one bit.
GLENN GREENWALD : I continue to be incredibly frustrated by the claim that we hear over and
over, and that we just heard from Joe, that Donald Trump does everything that Vladimir Putin
wants, and that if he were a paid agent of the Russian government, there'd be -- he would be
doing nothing different. I just went through the entire list of actions that Donald Trump has
taken and statements that he has made that are legitimately adverse to the interest of the
Russian government, that Barack Obama specifically refused to do, despite bipartisan demands
that he do them, exactly because he didn't want to provoke more tensions between the United
States and Russia.
Sending lethal arms to Ukraine, bordering Russia, is a really serious
adverse action against the interest of the Russian government. Bombing the Assad regime is, as
well. Denouncing one of the most critical projects that the Russian government has, which is
the pipeline to sell huge amounts of gas and oil to Germany, is, as well.
So is expelling
Russian diplomats and imposing serious sanctions on oligarchs that are close to the Putin
regime. You can go down the list, over and over and over, in the 18 months that he's been in
office, and see all the things that Donald Trump has done that is adverse, in serious ways, to
the interests of Vladimir Putin, including ones that President Obama refused to do. So, this
film, this movie fairytale, that I know is really exciting -- it's like international intrigue
and blackmail, like the Russians have something over Trump; it's like a Manchurian candidate;
it's from like the 1970s thrillers that we all watched -- is inane -- you know, with all due
respect to Joe. I mean, it's -- but it's in the climate, because it's so contrary to what it is
that we're seeing. Now, this idea of meeting alone with Vladimir Putin, the only way that you
would find that concerning is if you believed all that.
JOE CIRINCIONE : So, Trump knew that this indictment was coming down, before he went to
Europe, and still he never says a word about it. What he does is continue his attacks on our
alliances, i.e. he continues his attacks on our free press, he continues his attacks on FBI
agents who were just doing their job, and supports this 10-hour show hearing that the House of
Representatives had. It's really unbelievable that Trump is doing these things and never says
one word about it. He still has not said a word about those indictments.
GLENN GREENWALD : That's because the reality is -- and I don't know if Donald Trump knows
this or doesn't know this, has stumbled into the truth or what -- but the reality is that what
the Russians did in 2016 is absolutely not aberrational or unusual in any way. The United --
I'm sorry to say this, but it's absolutely true. The United States and Russia have been
interfering in one another's domestic politics for since at least the end of World War II, to
say nothing of what they do in far more extreme ways to the internal politics of other
countries. Noam Chomsky was on this very program several months ago, and he talked about how
the entire world is laughing at this indignation from the United States -- "How dare you
interfere in our democracy!" -- when the United States not only has continuously in the past
done, but continues to do far more extreme interference in the internal politics of all kinds
of countries, including Russia .
GLENN GREENWALD : The United States funds oppositional groups inside Russia. The United
States sent advisers and all kinds of operatives to try and elect Boris Yeltsin in the
mid-1990s, because they perceived, accurately, that he was a drunk who would serve the
interests of the United States more than other candidates who might have won. The United States
interferes in Russian politics, and they interfere in their cyber systems, and they invade
their email systems, and they invade all kinds of communications all the time. And so, to treat
this as though it's some kind of aberrational event, I think, is really kind of naive .
GLENN GREENWALD : It wasn't just Hillary Clinton in 2016 who lost this election. The entire
Democratic Party has collapsed as a national political force over the last decade. They've lost
control of the Senate and of the House and of multiple statehouses and governorships. They're
decimated as a national political force. And the reason is exactly what Joe said. They become
the party of international globalization. They're associated with Silicon Valley and Wall
Street billionaires and corporate interests, and have almost no connection to the working
class. And that is a much harder conversation to have about why the Democrats have lost
elections than just blaming a foreign villain and saying it's because Vladimir Putin ran some
fake Facebook ads and did some phishing emails. And I think that until we put this in
perspective, about what Russia did in 2016 and the reality that the U.S. does that sort of
thing all the time to Russia and so many other countries, we're going to just not have the
conversation that we need to be having about what these international institutions, that are so
sacred -- NATO and free trade and international trade organizations -- have done to people all
over the world, and the reason they're turning to demagogues and right-wing extremists because
of what these institutions have done to them. That's the conversation we need to be having, but
we're not having, because we're evading it by blaming everything on Vladimir Putin. And that,
to me, is even more dangerous for our long-term prospects than this belligerence that's in the
air about how we ought to look at Moscow.
Indictments and First Year Law
Mish : I now wish to return to a statement my friend made regarding the idea " No question
Russia did it ".
From Glenn Greenwald
As far as the indictments from Mueller are concerned, it's certainly the most specific
accounting yet that we've gotten of what the U.S. government claims the Russian government did
in 2016. But it's extremely important to remember what every first-year law student will tell
you, which is that an indictment is nothing more than the assertions of a prosecutor
unaccompanied by evidence. The evidence won't be presented until a trial or until Robert
Mueller actually issues a report to Congress.
And so, I would certainly hope that we are not at
the point, which I think we seem to be at, where we are now back to believing that when the CIA
makes statements and assertions and accusations, or when prosecutors make statements and
assertions and accusations, unaccompanied by evidence that we can actually evaluate, that we're
simply going to believe those accusations on faith, especially when the accusations come from
George W. Bush's former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who repeatedly lied to Congress about Iraq
and a whole variety of other issues. So, I think there we need some skepticism.
But even if the
Russians did everything that Robert Mueller claims in that indictment that they did, in the
scheme of what the U.S. and the Russians do to one another and other countries, I think to say
that this is somehow something that we should treat as a grave threat, that should mean that we
don't talk to them or that we treat them as an enemy, is really irrational and really quite
dangerous.
Mish - Six Questions
Is this a trial or a witch hunt?
Do we need to see the evidence or do we believe known liars?
Is Trump guilty of treason? Before we even see proof Putin was involved?
Is the CIA incapable of fabricating evidence?
Even if Russia interfered in the election, why should anyone have expected
otherwise?
Has everyone forgotten the US lies on WMDs already?
Irrational and Dangerous
I don't know about you, but I have no reason to believe known liars and hypocrites. I
disagree with Trump all the time, in fact, more often than not. The amount of venom on Trump
over this is staggering. Adding a missing word, I stand by my previous statement: " Nearly
every political action that generates this much complete nonsense and hysteria from the Left
and Right is worthy of immense praise."
If you disagree please provide examples. The only two I can come up with are Pearl Harbor
and 911. In both, the US was directly attacked. For rebuttal purposes I offer Vietnam, Syria,
Iraq, Russia, Iran, WWI, treatment of Japanese-American citizens in WWII, and McCarthyism.
Greenwald accurately assesses the situation as "really irrational and really quite dangerous."
Indeed. And if indictments and accusations were crimes, we wouldn't need a jury.
If the DNC servers were hacked, they are evidence, where is the fucking evidence now? At the bottom of the Hudson River with
concrete shoes that's where! Where are the Anwan servers, Podesta's, Wieners....where are Hillary's emails?
Fuck this is getting out of hand. All of the top spooks in the alphabet agencies are complicit, DOJ too, right up to the skinny
faggot in the rainbow house!
Getting close to the time for some real fucking justice in America!
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Here is an update to the map I posted yesterday about where not to be, not sure I agree one way or the other, you decide:
Even if it were found to be true that Russia (and not Seth Rich) was the source of the info that revealed to the American people
(and the world) that the DNC conspired to rig its own primary election, my response would be one of gratitude for shining a light
on the cockroaches.
the zeal with which MSN and especially CNN Wolf Blitzer now defend the 'Intelligence Community' as a singular infallible flawless
entity is incredible ...
... in the context of the war they waged on that very same 'Intelligence Community' in light of it being wrong about WMD in
Iraq
... or the Snowden-gate about it spying on Americans.
most two-faced biased blindly-agended-based manipulative thing I've ever seen on CNN
Russian hack? hahaha, as if. Everybody knows it was an inside job. That sort of thing with all the emails is inside -> Seth
Rich is a good place to look.
BESIDES! LET'S NOT FORGET ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THOSE EMAILS!!!
This guy in the article above that says Hellary "must" be given the nomination because Russia 'hacked' the election. Great!
I'll be very happy to see that nasty bitch go down a second time, based on the substance of her twisted, hypocritical, and consummately
evil character.
" Deep State agent Bill Browder operated at the very nexus of the
U.S. and U.K. Intelligence Communities that conspired to produce
both the fake Russiagate and very real Spygate ."
***It is a tale, full of sound and fury, told by idiots, signifying nothing***
how can we be expected to take any of this shit seriously?
-- avowed globalist-communists opposed to any nation's sovereignty, repulsed at the faintest wiff of patriotism scolding us
for our lack of patriotism?
-- political parties, intelligence agencies, the media and much of the judiciary attempting to undermine the democratic process
for over a year and a half, delegitamize a Presidency, vilify half the nation, stoke the flames of enmity...now they kvetch about
our skepticism?
no, langley, we do not trust you. no, media, your agitprop has no currency.
of all the reasons for hillary's defeat, no one ever mentions the fact that she campaigned on a platform of war...WWIII, no
less. starting in May/June of 2016, cankles started pounding the war drums. in a scenario so stale and overused as to threadbare,
the left initiated the process of demonizing russia and russians.
Trump supporters are not only pro-American, they/we are anti-war. forever spinning in a manic and frenzied swirl of hysterics,
the left often loses sight of this...but as much is to be expected, in that the left doesn't think, they instead parrot the tropes
fed to them on a daily basis, forever unable to assemble the fragments of these disparate priorities into a cogent whole. but
if they were able to arrange this mess into coherence, the image would terrify them with its ghastliness. the left openly and
earnestly serves the forces of evil -- in fact, they are the forces of evil. they depend on the idiocy and credulity of their
minions to keep this reality obscured. fortunately for the left, their supporters are sufficiently dull and benighted to keep
the truth forever blighted.
maybe we should play the victoria nuland tapes again...as a refresher:
we not only interfered with Ukranian/Russian politics, we overtly overthrew a democratically elected government, attempted
to provoke Russia to respond militarily, started a civil war in the Ukraine, (downed a commercial airliner in a disgusting FF),
funded and trained Nazis and left the nation in shambles. these are the same people calling Trump a traitor. these are the same
forces who demand faith and fidelity.
it's gone...no one trusts (((you))) anymore...we know you're nothing but a bunch of bloodthristy satanists...your time is in
eclipse, the more you struggle, the tighter the constraints.
"fuck the EU (for balking at WWIII)" Victoria Nuland, Clinton apparatchik, globalists, communist, satanist, kike.
Zionists are a large part of the problem (and remember what Biden said) but not at all the whole problem. Don't hyperfocus
- the 'Deep State' is chock full of non-Jewish warmongers and traitors. In fact the top traitors are guys like Brennan, Comey,
McCabe, Clapper, Clinton, Obama, and Strozk.
" The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence
had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously
thought we could control him."
YUP! AMEN.
It's amusing to me that the Leftist's NOW have a blind-faith trust in government, whereas during the Vietnam war, and at the
start of the Iraq war the opposite was (justifiably) the case.
And remember, the [neoliberal] Left was all OVER how we manipulated Russia into an Oligarchy:
There is nothing in either the dictionary definition of "Marxism," nor the social facts, which justifies using that label for
the ruling classes, the pyramidion people of the globalized social pyramid systems.
The root of the runaway "mass hysteria" is the long history of the control over the public money supplies being captured by
the best organized gangsters, the banksters. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence regarding how that happened.
See Excellent Videos on Money Systems .
Some of that evidence indicates some of those banksters were behind the promotion of messianic Marxism through the Russian
Revolution which resulted in the Soviet Union. (Less compelling evidence indicates similar factors were at play in the later Chinese
Revolution.)
The original Marxism was relatively scientific, for its time and place in history. However, it was messianic Marxism which
became the ideologies of so-called "communist" movements, all of which necessarily ended up being dominated by their own kinds
of best available professional hypocrites, resulting in even steeper social pyramid systems than previously.
It is RIDICULOUS to label the banksters as "Marxists." The comment posted above by HopefulCynical only begins to make some
sense AFTER one substitutes some label which refers to the banksters , rather than to some ideologies which those banksters used
to covertly advance their overall agenda.
Ideologies which become publicly significant are always systems of organized lies, which operate robberies. There is actually
only one political system: organized crime. Therefore, contemporary geopolitical events make more sense after one recognizes who
are the best organized gangsters , which are dominating civilization, including dominating the mass media's public presentation
of those events.
While President Trump is correctly presenting the degree to which the mainstream media is based on "fake news," President Trump
deliberately does not engage in deeper analysis of that phrase "fake news," but rather, used his oratory skill to capture that
phrase, and thereby turn it against those who originally intended to use that phrase against President Trump.
The comment above by HopefulCynical was overwhelmingly up-voted by its readers. Tragically, the indicates the degree to which
so many people want to believe in bullshit.
"The Marxists who've run America (and the rest of the world) into the ground for so many decades ..."
It was NOT "Marxists," but rather the banksters, who've run America (and the rest of the world) ... for so many decades. In
particular, since 1971, when the American Dollar lost its last connection with the material world, after the last vestiges of
money backed by precious metals were cut, the banksters have been able to astronomically amplify their frauds, as enforced by
governments, to become about exponentially more fraudulent.
That about exponentially increasing fraudulence, as demonstrated by debt slavery systems generating numbers which have become
debt insanities, is at the root of the runaway manifestation of "mass hysteria" in America (and the rest of the world.)
The debt slavery systems were made and maintained by the international bankers, as the best organized gangsters, the banksters,
whose persistent and prolonged participation in the funding of all aspects of the political processes (including schooling and
mass media) has resulted in the public powers of government being primarily used to back up the privatized interests of big banks,
and the big corporations that grew up around those big banks being able to issue the public money supplies out of nothing as debts.
Those real social facts do NOT correspond to the dictionary definition of Marxism, nor to any other goofy ideologies which
were popularized to conceal the real social facts, and permit public discussion of those facts to be drowned under the bullshit
of false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals.
There continues to be a lot of awful nonsense presented in articles and comments published on Zero Hedge , because of the degree
to which the authors of those like to continue to believe in their favourite kinds of impossible ideals, by mislabeling what they
do not like in erroneous ways, which ignore both the actual facts and definitions of those labels.
BANKSTERS' "psychopathic dreams of total control" require that it will be possible for systems based on being able to enforce
frauds can continue to become about exponentially more fraudulent. However, endless exponential growth is absolutely impossible.
Rising popular awareness and resistance to the banksters is manifesting through various political movements. However, so far,
those movements continue to mostly be forms of controlled "opposition." Anyone who continues to misuse the labels such as "capitalism
versus communism," or abuses the label "Marxist," etc., is still actually a form of controlled "opposition," because of the degree
to which their thinking and communication is still based on taking for granted the biggest bullies' bullshit, which has become
the banksters' bullshit .
After the banksters kicked the shit out of Russia during the 20th Century, Russia has returned having learned something from
those experiences. The results are that Russia is slightly more able and willing to advance its national interests against the
international banksters. That is the main reason why Russia is being demonized by those who are still almost totally the banksters'
puppets.
President Trump appears to be a relative anomaly, whose social successfulness was based on the apparently increasing anomalies,
due to the systems based on enforced frauds becoming about exponentially more fraudulent. It was that diffuse awareness of mass
media propaganda being systematic lying, serving the interests of the owners of those mass media, that was one of the factors
which enabled President Trump to win the election.
Some of his most significant campaign promises were to diminish the demonization of Russia, and thereby diminish the threat
of war with weapons of mass destruction spinning out of control, which continues to potentially be the greatest of threats, which
are somewhat under human control, but which look like those are going more and more out of control.
However, in my opinion, President Trump tends to NOT go beyond superficially correct analysis of the accumulating apparent
anomalies, whose root causes are the systems of enforced frauds being amplified by about exponentially advancing technologies
to become about exponentially more fraudulent, which factors are at the root of the accumulating "mass hysteria."
The best overall ways to approach understanding current geopolitical events are that the excessively successful applications
of the methods of organized crime through the political processes are resulting in civilization manifesting runaway criminal insanities,
which situation is so serious that people who attempt to reduce that insanity are attacked by those who want to increase that
insanity.
The deeper reasons for the underlying issues are that there must be some death control systems, precisely because endless exponential
growth is absolutely impossible, and therefore, death control systems develop to stop that happening, which drives those death
control systems to become murder systems which maximize maliciousness.
The longer term consequences of the social successfulness of maximized maliciousness are that the biggest bullies' bullshit
almost totally dominates civilization, including the layers of controlled "opposition" that surround the central core of the best
organized gangsters, which have become the banksters . Hence, most of those who believe that they are "resisting" continue to
think and communicate in ways which still take for granted most of that bullshit .
Two points:
1. This indictment is nearly identical to the Jan. 6, 2017 ODNI Report, which came from a
handful of unnamed analysts from the CIA and FBI. There is very little new information in
well over a year. Right there, this raises red flags. Who were these analysts?
2. Did Mueller/Rosenstein consult with any foreign policy advisors? Does meddling in the
president's national security affairs put the country at ris?
It's a dangerous game and a slippery slope. For the sake of the country, they better be
right.
O Society July 14, 2018 at 6:20 am
Rosenstein makes the announcement. 8 minutes into this video he states:
There are no allegations in the indictment any American knew they were in contact with Russians
or with a Russian operation,
any American committed a crime in relation to this,
or that the operation changed or influenced the election.
Fist thoughts:
If there is no allegation (evidence) the operation influenced the election, then why do we care
about any of this?
Seems odd no Americans did anything worthy of investigating. Exonerating the DNC/ DCCC of all
wrong doing?
How does Rosenstein (or anyone in the FBI) know Russians did this "hack" without having access
to examine the DNC computers? Are we going by what CrowdStrike says they found? John
McCarthy , July 14, 2018 at 5:08 am
Mueller should be prosecuted for violating the Logan Act. The timing of this is an illegal
attempt to interfere with Foreign Policy.
Right on!
Apparently Mueller couldn't get a U-2 to fly over Russia and get shot down (which in 1960
scuttled a summit between President Eisenhower and Soviet Premier Khrushchev).
How coincidental that just the day before the announcement of the indictments , The Daily
Beast published an extensive hit-piece on John Mark Dougan , who has admitted setting up the
DCLeaks website that was used to release some of the earlier leaks :
"Fugitive Cop Says He's Behind the DNC Leaks. It's His Latest Hoax.
A Florida cop turned hacker who fled to Russia to escape the FBI claims Seth Rich leaked him
DNC documents. But his story is full of holes."
George Webb is not a right-winger. He is a Bernie supporter. LOL. Still, the similarity of
the wording suggests that the indictment is meant not only as an attempt to bolster the
Russiagate fiction but also to defend Hillary and Podesta against charges of corruption,
rigging the Dem primary, and incompetence and perhaps allow Hillary to run in 2020 or at
lease to choose who the Dem candidate will be. It is also, of course, meant to sabotage
detente with Russia and damage both Trump and Bernie Sanders. Sanders is probably regarded as
even more dangerous than Trump by the deep state and by the corrupt, no-talent leaders of the
pathetic Dem party -- just look at Shumer's ridiculous and unpatriotic demand that Trump
cancel the summit. The current Dem leaders have absolutely nothing positive to offer the
American people in terms of foreign policy and do nothing but repeat neocon nonsense, but the
deep state supports the Dems at the moment because they want to see Trump impeached and
Bernie make a fool of himself by criticizing Russia with no evidence. Bernie lost a lot of
support with his recent uninformed Russophobic statement. The strong implied focus on
defending Podesta and by further implication Hillary, obvious from the similarities with the
Webb lawsuit, shows the real aim of the indictments. As Lauria points out, it's all for
internal consumption. But there are several apparent contradictions in the indictment, and
those contradictions will be no doubt be pointed out in the coming days by computer experts,
so this indictment may have no lasting effect outside of people who are already True
Believers in Russiagate. Even so, the failure to interview Assange and Craig Murray is truly
shocking and disappointing.
Alcuin , July 14, 2018 at 10:49 am
George Webb has talked with Bill Binney and despite being somewhat eccentric should not be
dismissed out of hand. He is rumored to be former Mossad. From his videos of the last three
days (days 15, 16, 17) it appears that he thinks Russian-born hackers living in the USA were
indeed involved, but that they were not working for the Russian government but rather for
various Americans (including well-known American politicians), concentrating on economic
espionage.
Remember that Assange when questioned repeatedly emphasized that that the emails did not come
from Russian "state" actors. Putin recently seems to have wanted to imply the same point.
According to Webb the hackers received their training from Russian military intelligence.
Webb also ties the hacking and espionage to the wider picture of pipeline politics in Europe
and the Middle East. Even if Webb is wrong, or if he represents Israeli interests, it's an
interesting view that is worth investigating.
Alcuin , July 16, 2018 at 2:18 am
Webb (for what it's worth): "They're really not Trump's Russians; they're really not
Putin's Russians -- they're really Rosenstein and Comey's Russians."
"... Crowdstrike's Danger Close report , which was supposed to be the nail in the coffin that proved the GRU was involved in the DNC hack, has been repudiated by the Ukrainian government, the IISS whose data they misused, and the builder of the military app that they claimed was compromised. ..."
"... The Reality Winner leak of a classified NSA document contained a graphic that used different colors of lines to qualify the data (confirmed, analyst judgment, contextual information). The line that connected the "actors" who sent out the spearphishing email to various electoral organizations with the GRU was yellow (analyst judgment) and included the words "probably within"; meaning that this was not a communications intercept. ..."
"... There are many other problems with the DNC investigation starting with the fact that no government agency actually did the forensics work. It was done by a company with strong ties to the Clinton campaign and an economic incentive to blame foreign governments for cyber attacks on evidence that was either flimsy or non-existent. ..."
"... Does any of this mean that the Russian government didn't do it? No. It only means that there is insufficient public evidence to say that it did. ..."
This gist of the article was, since we can't know what the classified evidence is that
supports the U.S. government's finding in favor of Russian government intereference, there is
plenty of public evidence which should convince us.
Bump is wrong about that. The public evidence isn't enough to identify Russian government
involvement, or even identify the nationality of the hackers involved. That doesn't mean that
the Russian government isn't responsible. It means that we don't know enough to say who is
responsible based solely on the publicly known evidence, including classified evidence that's
been leaked.
Here's a recap:
The X-Agent malware used against the DNC is not exclusive to Russia. The source code
has been acquired by at least one Ukrainian hacker group and one European cybersecurity
company, which means that others have it as well. "Exclusive use" is a myth that responsible
cybersecurity companies need to stop using as proof of attribution.
The various attacks attributed to the GRU were a comedy of errors ; not
the actions of a sophisticated adversary.
The FBI/DHS Grizzly Steppe report was a disaster ( here
,
here , here , and
here ).
Crowdstrike's
Danger Close report , which was supposed to be the nail in the coffin that proved the GRU
was involved in the DNC hack, has been repudiated by the Ukrainian government, the IISS whose
data they misused, and the builder of the military app that they claimed was
compromised.
The Arizona and Illinois attacks against electoral databases that were blamed on the Russian
government were actually conducted by
English-speaking hackers .
The Reality Winner leak of a classified NSA document contained a graphic that used
different colors of lines to qualify the data (confirmed, analyst judgment, contextual
information). The line that connected the "actors" who sent out the spearphishing email to
various electoral organizations with the GRU was yellow (analyst judgment) and included the
words "probably within"; meaning that this was not a communications intercept.
There are many other problems with the DNC investigation starting with the fact that no
government agency actually did the forensics work. It was done by a company with strong ties to
the Clinton campaign and an economic incentive to blame
foreign governments for cyber attacks on evidence that was either flimsy or
non-existent.
Does any of this mean that the Russian government didn't do it? No. It only means that
there is insufficient public evidence to say that it did.
ill-gotten goods are undeserving of protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate
expectation of privacy in their combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.
It's been imputed that the Russians did this to damage the reputation of Hillary Clinton. To
take the alleged damage to reputation angle to its conclusion, truth is an entirely sufficient
defense to any charge of libel. What was revealed by an alleged hack was the truth, something
that is entirely lacking in the rest of this affair.
As for the alleged theft and public release of email, ill-gotten goods are undeserving of
protection of law. The DNC and Podesta had no legitimate expectation of privacy in their
combinations to defraud the public and steal elections.
The Russian GRU is accused of revealing that the people who run the DNC and Clinton campaign
committee colluded with each other to steal the nomination. The allegedly hacked emails show
what they really did and thought during the fraudulent nomination of Hillary Clinton. It might
be argued, that whomever revealed the truth actually did a public service for the American
people. An odd sort of "act of war," that.
Finally, individual officials and military officers have a limited immunity and are not
normally indicted by foreign states for intelligence activities such as electronic surveillance
and hacking across borders. That is where the element of harm comes in. The only real precedent
for this is the Rainbow Warrior case. In 1985, French intelligence officers blew up and sank a
Greenpeace ship by that name anchored in Auckland, NZ harbour, killing a passenger, a Dutch
photographer. A UN arbitrator held in that case the French agents were not immune under
customary international law to prosecution in a New Zealand court and could be individually
tried and jailed, but only because of the death of the victim as part of "a criminal act of
violence against property in New Zealand . . . done without regard for innocent civilians."
Greenpeace was additionally awarded damages in the UK under international Maritime Law because
the vessel was a British-flagged ship.
Also bear in mind, the US and UK both provide immunity to their own intelligence officers
and law enforcement officers for hacking and related computer crimes committed against foreign
powers. The UK takes that a step further and exempts police officers for domestic hacking:
This is a dangerous precedent, and the likely result is to ignite retaliation and further
exacerbate U.S.-Russian tensions. The entire staffs of the NSA, GCHQ and GRU could be similarly
"prosecuted," but what will that accomplish? Even if every word of the indictment is fact, the
indictment itself violates the norms of international law and this latest "Russiagate"
escalation by Mueller seems intended to ratchet up the New Cold War.
That is why "Russiagate" is a legal sham, in my opinion. Even if the alleged Russian hack of
the DNC email actually happened as claimed, and even if the hack was with bad intent, there was
no real crime or harm in the release of that information. That information was no more the
private property of the DNC and Clinton Campaign than a plan to rob a bank belongs to the
robbers. Isn't that so, Mr. Mueller?
Tomorrow, I am going to get in contact with Special Counsel Robert Mueller and tell him
that I have found the real people behind the hacking of the 2016 US election and they aren't
Russian – they are Chinese! I am prepared to give names and so to give everybody the
scoop, here they are-
Li Keqiang, Zhang Dejiang, Yu Zhengsheng, Zhou Qiang, Cao Jianming, Li Yuanchao, Han
Zheng, Sun Chunlan, Hu Chunhua and Liu He.
They are all real names of real Chinese government officials but unfortunately, as they
are Chinese, they cannot be extradited out of China in the same way that Russians can't be
extradited out of Russia. And like Special Counsel Robert Mueller, I have no real proof that
they did it and cannot bring them to a US court for trial so you will all have to take my
word for it so we're cool, right?
"... Rosenstein, Mueller and Strozk are clever, privileged boys who have always been able, to bamboozle their way out of a jam. So we have this scary, claptrap yarn about twelve ethereal "Russian Agents" ((1) Boris (2) Natashia (3) ..) who, being in Russia, can never be extradited or interrogated. Therefore, the narrative can be endlessly developed. The only constraint is the imagination of the second-rate story writers. An ongoing serial wow ..."
"... Credit to Isikoff for having the courage to face a skeptic, even if his attitude is indignant that Mate ain't buying what he's selling. ..."
Rosenstein, Mueller and Strozk are clever, privileged boys who have always been able,
to bamboozle their way out of a jam. So we have this scary, claptrap yarn about twelve
ethereal "Russian Agents" ((1) Boris (2) Natashia (3) ..) who, being in Russia, can never be
extradited or interrogated. Therefore, the narrative can be endlessly developed. The only
constraint is the imagination of the second-rate story writers. An ongoing serial
wow
I believe that Seth Rich was the leaker. What are the FBI/CIA/DOJ doing to investigate
Seth's murder? Not much.
However, the FBI/CIA/DOJ, ARE consumed with The Hunting of the Russian Snark ."It's a
Snark!" was the sound that first came to their ears,
And seemed almost too good to be true.
Then followed a torrent of laughter and cheers:
Then the ominous words "It's a Boo -- "
Then, silence. Some fancied they heard in the air
A weary and wandering sigh
That sounded like "-jum!" but the others declare
It was only a breeze that went by.
They hunted till darkness came on, but they found
Not a button, or feather, or mark,
By which they could tell that they stood on the ground
Where the Baker had met with the Snark.
In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away --
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
I have watched Rosenstein, Mueller and Strozk testifying over the last months. Creeps. I
wouldn't leave a pet Labradoodle in their care, much less entrust them with the defense of
"Our" Democracy
AARON MATE: I have no idea. Whoever it is, I think Guccifer is very sloppy. And given how
sophisticated we're told Russian military intelligence is supposed to be, they didn't do a
very good job of covering their tracks.
Maté makes an excellent observation here. Further, if you go to Guccifer's site,
his style is U.S. hipster English. It is possible that the Russians are that adept at U.S.
hipster English, or have suborned some hipster from Brooklyn, or, maybe, that Guccifer is an
American who has some other agenda.
Interestingly, in all of this hacking, we haven't heard what happened to Hillary Clinton's
30,000 yoga e-mails, which would be a masterpiece of contemplation of yoga, on the level of
Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. We read repeated allegations that the Clinton Family server was
hacked. How is it that the injured party here is only the Democratic National Committee?
And how many of these dangerous Russians will be extradited to the U S of A? You can't
have a finding of fact without a trial, and conveniently for aggrieved people like Isikoff,
there isn't going to be a trial.
Aaron Mate does a fine job in this interview of pushing back against unproven claims. No
hysteria, no yelling. But point by point he just takes Isikoff to task, calmly. He even
manages two separate digs without staking a high moral ground: Isikoff's own previous
reporting on (lack of) WMD, and a clip from a lying Robert Mueller in front of congress in
2003.
So I was very impressed with this interview. As someone who's taught myself the read the
lies in the MSM this was a clinic in how to get a major journalist (Isikoff) to make
concessions that essentially wipe out his argument without getting into a yelling match.
He's done some of the best reporting on this story that I can recall. Credit to Isikoff
for having the courage to face a skeptic, even if his attitude is indignant that Mate ain't
buying what he's selling.
It kills me that the only 'evidence' supporting Russia-gate is the public statements and
testimony of a bunch of high level government officials that are 1) proven liars and 2) have
reason to believe they'll never be held to account for these lies.
If you saw Strzok's testimony the other day, you'd have seen a number of Dems absolutely
willing to lay down in front of oncoming traffic to 'protect' the FBI. If my reps were that
dedicated to protecting me from the horror of facing a series of probing questions, I'd feel
pretty comfortable that I was untouchable, too!
Credit to Isikoff for having the courage to face a skeptic, even if his attitude is
indignant that Mate ain't buying what he's selling.
Good catch! I noticed this also, though I'm not as sure it's to Isikoff's credit. Mate has
positively ripped to shreds at least one other Isikoff like stooge (Luke Harding of The
Guardian ) in this interview: https://therealnews.com/stories/wheres-the-collusion-2
which really makes one wonder why Isikoff accepted such a challenge. (I include the link for
the benefit of others – it looks like you are already aware of it). After all, he has
basically nothing the other one didn't have other than perhaps a conviction he knows some
secret alchemy that: when lies reach a certain volume, or quantity, or momentum, they
miraculously transform to truth.
If anything, I suspect Isikoff is simply as full of himself as Luke Harding. Their basic
argument (it must be true because of the sheer volume and detail of all the allegations) is
exactly the same with Isikoff only having the advantage of yet another heaping helping of
allegation pudding that he knows full well will never see the light of verification.
As an aside, did you notice Isikoff's sour sign off? I think he was quite aware Mate had
served him some serious egg on the chin and was none too happy about it. Just my take on
it.
"... NOTE: There will likely be various amendments made to this article over the next 24 hours. ..."
"... So, in fairness, there is actually circumstantial evidence to suggest an overlap as Guccifer 2.0 clearly had Podesta's emails and it looks like the spearphishing attack used to snare Podesta's emails was identical to one that was attributed to the acquisition of emails published by DCLeaks. ..."
"... (NOTE: CrowdStrike decided to start investigating the NGP-VAN breach within a week of Podesta's emails being acquired, three months after the December 2015 incident) ..."
"... (using the publicly accessible default server in France) ..."
"... (in which he used ":)" at a far higher frequency) ..."
"... (in one of the documents, change tracking had been left on and recorded someone in a PST timezone saving one of Guccifer 2.0's documents after the documents had being manipulated in the Russian timezones!) ..."
"... (which was actually inconsistent with aspects of English language that Russians typically struggle with). ..."
This author is responding to the indictment because it features claims about Guccifer 2.0
that are inconsistent with what has been discovered about the persona, including the
following:
Virtually everything that has been claimed to indicate Guccifer 2.0 was Russian was based
on something he chose to do.
Considering that Guccifer 2.0 had access to Podesta's emails, yet never leaked anything
truly damaging to the Clinton campaign even though he would have had access to it, is highly
suspicious. In fact, Guccifer 2.0 never referenced any of the scandals that would later
explode when the DNC emails and Podesta email collections were published by WikiLeaks.
The first piece of malware at the DNC identified by Crowdstrike as relating to "Fancy Bear,"
was compiled on 25 April, 2016. This used a C2 (command and control) IP address that, for the
purposes of the APT group, had been inoperable for over a year. It was useful mostly as a
signature for attributing it to "Fancy Bear."
Two additional pieces of malware were discovered at the DNC attributed to the same APT
group. These were compiled on 5 May 2016 and 10 May 2016 while Robert Johnston was working with
the DNC on CrowdStrike's behalf to counter the intrusion reported at the end of April and
install Falcon.
This could be inferred from a number of things. DCLeaks was re-registered on 19 April 2016,
however, what they published included Republicans and individuals that were not connected to
the DNC. In fact, DCLeaks didn't start publishing anything relating to Clinton campaign staff
until June/July 2016. There was also the fact that the daily frequency of
emails in the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks increased dramatically from around 19 April
2016 , however, this wasn't indicative of the start of hacking activity but rather caused
by a 30 day email retention policy combined with the fact that the emails were acquired between
May 19th and May 25th.
There has been no technical evidence produced by those who had access to the DNC network
demonstrating files were being manipulated or that malware was engaging in activity prior to
this and by CrowdStrike's own admissions, many of the devices at the DNC were wiped in June. As
such, it's unclear where this may have come from.
There's an issue here with the conflation of Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. Why would Guccifer
2.0 have had an account at DCLeaks with which he had restricted access and could only manage a
subset of the leaks (and only those relating to the DNC) while DCLeaks featured leaks covering
those unconnected to and even opposing the DNC?
It makes no sense that the GRU would have even used Guccifer 2.0 in the manner we now know
he operated – it only caused any harm to Trump and served to undermine leaks due to the
deliberate placement of Russian metadata that would give a false perception of Russians
mishandling those documents (including the Trump research document found in Podesta's
emails).
So, in fairness, there is actually circumstantial evidence to suggest an overlap as
Guccifer 2.0 clearly had Podesta's emails and it looks like the spearphishing attack used to
snare Podesta's emails was identical to one that was attributed to the acquisition of emails
published by DCLeaks.
Is there a reason for ambiguity when referencing WikiLeaks?
While he clearly had access to the Podesta emails (NOTE: CrowdStrike decided to start
investigating the NGP-VAN breach within a week of Podesta's emails being acquired, three months
after the December 2015 incident) , Guccifer 2.0 used those materials to fabricate
evidence on 15 June 2016 implicating Russians and which, coincidentally appeared to support
(but ultimately helped refute) multiple assertions made by
CrowdStrike that the Trump Opposition report (actually sourced from Podesta's emails) was
targeted by Guccifer 2.0 at the DNC in April 2016 – and that the theft of this specific
file from the DNC – which, again, could not have been stolen from the DNC – had set
off the " first
alarm " indicating a security breach.
On 6 July 2016, Guccifer 2.0 released a batch of documents that were exclusively attachments
to DNC emails that would later be released by WikiLeaks.
Guccifer 2.0 certainly didn't make a genuine effort to "conceal a Russian identity," far
from it. The persona made decisions that would leave behind a demonstrable trail of
Russian-themed breadcrumbs, examples include:
Choosing the Russian VPN Service (using the publicly accessible default server in
France) in combination with a mail service provider that would forward the sender's IP
address .
Creating a blog and dropping a Russian emoticon in the second paragraph of the first
post, something he only ever did one other time over months of activity (in which he used
":)" at a far higher frequency) .
Tainting documents with Russian language metadata.
Going through considerable
effort to ensure Russian language errors were in the first documents provided to the
press.
Probable use of a VM set to Russian timezone while manipulating documents so that
datastore objects with timestamps implying a Russian timezone setting are saved (in one
of the documents, change tracking had been left on and recorded someone in a PST timezone
saving one of Guccifer 2.0's documents after the documents had being manipulated in the
Russian timezones!)
The deliberate and inconsistent mangling of English language (which was actually
inconsistent with aspects of English language that Russians typically struggle
with).
Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for a hack that was already being attributed to Russians
without making any effort to counter that perception and only denied it when outright
questioned on it.
How have these identities been connected to the respective GRU officers? This query applies
to additional identities mentioned throughout the indictment.
Where have these pseudonyms been cited in any of the research or evidence published in the
past two years? Most seem to be new and were never referenced by the firms specifically
investigated the relevant phishing campaigns in the past.
Unfortunately, the indictment itself provides no reference for us to ascertain what the
individual attributions are based on.
How do we know for sure Morgachev was developing a version of it and that this is related to
the DNC?
Again, everything found on Google relating to "blablabla1234565" is in relation to the
indictment, where were these details during the past 2 years, where have they come from and how
has X-Agent development/monitoring been traced back to this individual?
It's unlikely technical evidence of his testing was left behind in deployed malware.
There is a "realblatr" profile at https://djangopackages.org/profiles/realblatr/
but this doesn't indicate anything relevant to this and other results for "realblatr" seem to
be about the indictment.
We know that whoever had the Podesta emails had far more damaging content on Hillary than
that produced by Guccifer 2.0 or DCLeaks and we know Guccifer 2.0 had access to Podesta's
emails. If it was the GRU and they wanted to harm Hillary, they had FAR better material do that
with than what they chose to release.
DCLeaks featured leaks from those that were not involved in the US presidential election.
Guccifer 2.0 only released content relating to the Democratic party and only content that was
of little harm to the DNC leadership and Clinton's campaign.
Yandex.com is the domain usually given to people outside of Russia that use the Yandex
service, in Russia it's yandex.ru by default.
"... I have read the entire indictment, more than once. As a lawyer, I suspect that little to none of what it asserts about supposed illegal activities could possibly be proven beyond a reasonable doubt according to the rules of evidence (unless some judge decides that actual evidence need not be presented, on "national-security" grounds, in which event the whole case would be exposed as nothing but a "show trial" or "kangaroo court"). The indictment appears to be little more than political theater, timed to embarrass Trump and Putin. Even Mueller cannot expect that there will ever be an actual trial of the defendants he has named. ..."
"... Even Stalin's show trials (to use a "Russian" analogy) were more credible than what Mueller has produced in the two indictments of Russians which he has obtained so far. ..."
"... More revealing is that the FBI supposedly is able to break through a maze of computer obfuscation and backtrack a highly convoluted e-conspiracy to named individuals in one of the (if not the) premier espionage outfits in the world -- the GRU -- but finds itself helpless in case after case in tracking down various perpetrators of "ransom ware" who have done significant economic damage to Americans over the last several years. How can one believe both of these observations to be true? ..."
"... Also, the indictment claims that the FBI has also broken through the maze of "anonymity" surrounding transactions in bitcoin (and apparently some other e-currencies). If this is true, that selling point for such currencies has now been exposed as hype. ..."
I have read the entire indictment, more than once. As a lawyer, I suspect that little
to none of what it asserts about supposed illegal activities could possibly be proven beyond
a reasonable doubt according to the rules of evidence (unless some judge decides that actual
evidence need not be presented, on "national-security" grounds, in which event the whole case
would be exposed as nothing but a "show trial" or "kangaroo court"). The indictment appears
to be little more than political theater, timed to embarrass Trump and Putin. Even Mueller
cannot expect that there will ever be an actual trial of the defendants he has
named.
If Putin's people have wanted to "undermine our democracy", they must be enjoying a good
laugh. Because Mueller and his team are doing a far better job of that than anything alleged
in the indictment could have done. Mueller is making "our democracy" the laughing stock of
the entire thinking world with this drivel. Even Stalin's show trials (to use a "Russian"
analogy) were more credible than what Mueller has produced in the two indictments of Russians
which he has obtained so far.
More revealing is that the FBI supposedly is able to break through a maze of computer
obfuscation and backtrack a highly convoluted e-conspiracy to named individuals in one of the
(if not the) premier espionage outfits in the world -- the GRU -- but finds itself helpless
in case after case in tracking down various perpetrators of "ransom ware" who have done
significant economic damage to Americans over the last several years. How can one believe
both of these observations to be true?
Also, the indictment claims that the FBI has also broken through the maze of
"anonymity" surrounding transactions in bitcoin (and apparently some other e-currencies). If
this is true, that selling point for such currencies has now been exposed as hype. Will
the bitcoin market now react (as it should) in a violently negative manner? If it does not,
would that not be a further indication that knowledgeable people consider the indictment
fatuous?
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) said at the time that their personal
analysis indicated the data transfer rate was far too high to have occurred over the internet
(22.7 Mbps). The organization concluded the 'hack' favoured an external device such as a
thumb drive, used by someone who had physical access to the DNC server. That does not
necessarily exclude the Russians, but it puts them near the back of a very large pack of
possibilities, and VIPS' explanation is far more compelling than the serving intelligence
agencies with their 'May haves' and 'Probablys'.
The story has always been that Russia slipped the information to Wikileaks, who are an arm
of Kremlin foreign policy. It could just as easily have been the Chinese, but it is more
likely whoever took the data passed it directly to Wikileaks without going through another
country. Regardless who took the information, it was all true, and if it made Mrs. Clinton
look bad, that is a natural consequence of her having done bad things. The sort of bad things
the electorate should know when making its decision. To suggest it should have been kept
under wraps until after the election is monstrous, and Clinton made her case much worse by
lying about the circumstances over and over in an attempt to keep the truth from the voters
until after their decision was registered. It almost worked - she won the popular vote.
"federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation's intelligence can be
punished criminally with prison time or fines." ....
"Memos show that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion
and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, General Counsel James Baker
and chief of staff Jim Rybicki."
I'd say there are plenty of people who need to be charged for their conscious conduct as
well as the cover up. The usual suspects seem to be happy to be talking abut Putin rather
than putt'n her and her associates in jail.
I have been expecting this under the theory of a scorned and frightened woman with a career
as a lawyer at risk (deals made?). Now there is concrete evidence of political bias by Strzok
and others. Inference and speculation based on text message content is over. Not so sure that
it derails Mueller though. He can claim that he dropped Strzok when the bias became obvious.
However, it certainly brings heavy suspicion onto his special investigation. Very interesting
situation.
Can we infer that you consider Mueller's latest indictment factually correct -
specifically wrt the GRU hacking the DNC & DCCC rather than it being a leak & false
flag to try and "taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish", as VIPS allege? Very
interested in your POV, as I am currently drawn towards Adam Carter's view that G2 is someone
deliberately leaving Russian breadcrumbs.
I enjoy reading your comments on this blog. First, for your experience and second you seem to
try to come to conclusions that are fair even if they are not the conclusions you desire.
If the Chinese Government stole Hillary Clinton's emails. That is proof that this whole
narrative of "yea she had a server but so what. Nobody penetrated it so it doesn't matter".
This is all I have heard for 2 plus years.
Now this. There really is no credibility left of the intelligence agency's if this can be
covered over. So why should I believe the Russians hacked the DNC and not a disgruntled
Bernie Sanders supporter named Seth Rich leaked them to Wikileaks. The former British
Ambassador Craig Murray says that is the case. And if anything he seems almost too
honest.
This is becoming a much bigger issue than Left versus Right. Right is right and wrong is
wrong. Donald Trump's thought process is to disorganized and ADD to have colluded with the
Russians.
If ideology is a cover for crime then this country is over.
Mr Podesta, how
long have you used
"PASSWORD" as a password
for your access to the
DNC?
Ons24-%&@yy zfo-%78 -
password the day before the
hack, changed daily
Password - password use
the day of the hack
I can't even buy
something from amazon with
an account password
"Password". Yet he can
control the entire DNC
without one security
question?
Trusting the gov since
Reagan is laughable.
Thinking Bush didn't create
9-11 is inexcusable.
Simply Believing anything
said by Strozck, FBI, CIA,
DOJ Clinton clapper, comer
Brennen et al is idiotic to
the level of drinking
koolaid at the church
retreat. It just isn't
being done (successfully).
Frogs gonna boil.
Say goodbye to your Dem
friends or help them see
the light of reason.
Stupid does not last long
in Darwin's evolutional
theory.
"... Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning. Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki. ..."
"Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings,
revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed
FBI sources.
Alarming new details on allegations of a bureau-wide cover up. Or should we say another
bureau-wide cover up.
The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among
others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed
intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails, federal sources said.
The Russians didn't do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.
And while Democratic lawmakers and the mainstream media prop up Russia as America's
boogeyman, it was the ironically Chinese who acquired Hillary's treasure trove of classified
and top secret intelligence from her home-brewed private server.
And a public revelation of that magnitude -- publicizing that a communist world power
intercepted Hillary's sensitive and top secret emails -- would have derailed Hillary Clinton's
presidential hopes. Overnight. But it didn't simply because it was concealed." True Pundit
------------
A woman scorned? Maybe, but Page has done a real job on these malefactors. And, who knows
how many other penetrations of various kinds there were in Clinton's reign as SecState?
"You mean like with a towel?" Clinton mocked a reporter with that question when asked if her
servers had been wiped clean. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
pl
Putin offered to allow Mueller's team to go to Russia and interrogate the suspects in the
Mueller indictment provided 1) that Russian investigators could sit in on the
interrogations, and 2) that the US would allow Russian investigators to investigate
people like Bill Browder in the US.
This would be done until the existing treaty which allows the US and Russia to
cooperate in criminal investigation cases.
Now, let's get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I
don't know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I
will look into it.
So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an
existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an
existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This
treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100,
150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.
For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by
the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The
appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a
solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate,
hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some
crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the
appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can
make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including
the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the
country. They can be present at questioning.
In this case, there's another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one.
Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials,
including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States
whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And
we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.
End Quote
Putin then proceeds to stick it to Hillary Clinton with the bombshell accusation that
Bill Browder - possibly with the assistance of US intelligence agencies - contributed a
whopping $400 million dollars to Clinton's election campaign!
Quote:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates
of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes.
Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were
transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a
contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. [He presents no evidence to back up that
$400 million claim.] Well, that's their personal case. It might have been legal, the
contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid
reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. [This
allegation, too, is merely an unsupported assertion here.] So we have an interest of
questioning them. That could be a first step. We can also extend it. There are many
options. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
End Quote
This article mentions the above and provides background information on Browder and the
US Magnitsky Act which he finagled Congress into passing which were the original Russian
sanctions.
Despite Putin's claim that this was "off the top of his head", I'd say this was a
calculated response to the Mueller indictment as well as a calculated attack on Hillary
Clinton and the US intelligence agencies who were clearly in support of her election
campaign. Frankly, it's brilliant. It forces Mueller to "put up or shut up" just as much
as the company which challenged the previous indictment over Russian ads.
"US would allow Russian investigators to investigate people like Bill Browder in the US."
The example would be a good one, except, the US has no power to allow anybody to
investigate Bill Browder (grandson of the head of the American Communist Party, btw)
because Browder gave up his US citizenship, it is said, to avoid paying taxes
Skepticism is always prudent when it comes to any news source.
Regarding the issue of "trust"... Putin himself said that he and Trump shouldn't be
basing their discussions on trust of each other. While I trust Putin to be skillful and
strategic that doesn't mean I trust all of his words. After all, he is a politician and a
powerful leader. Respect is the key here, not trust.
From a transcript
http://time.com/5339848/don...
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As to who is to be believed and to who's not to be believed,
you can trust no one if you take this.
Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends
the interests of the United States of America, and I do defend the interests of the
Russian Federation.
We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact. There are
issues where our postures diverge, and we are looking for ways to reconcile our
differences, how to make our effort more meaningful.
-----------------
Of course both countries spy on each other and engage in various forms of cyber
warfare, as do many other countries. It's business as usual. That's why the Mueller
investigation is bullshit. It doesn't acknowledge that most basic fact of geopolitics. It
posits Russia as the only bad actor in the relationship. I was very pleased that Trump
acknowledge that both sides created the issues the countries have with each other, though
of course the Borg and their media puppets went wild over that.
Trump and Putin both have excellent trolling skills. I very much enjoy this aspect of
the great Game!
Though perhaps Putin botched his trolling of Hillary by getting the number wrong. Or
may be he pulled a Trump maneuver and purposely gave the wrong number to force reporters
to research it and post the correction.
Let's see if "China hacked Clinton's server and got the 30,000 e-mails" goes mainstream.
This would nail the Borg dead. What has been peculiar about the last four years is that
there are concerted proxy operations to take down the Iranian and Russian governments to
get at their resources at the risk of crashing the world economy; let alone, a nuclear
war that would destroy the earth. But, nothing against China other than bleating about
freedom of passage in South China Sea. China is #2 and rising by all criteria. It is
restoring its ancient Imperial power to rule the civilized world. Europe has much more in
common with Russia. Over the centuries they keep battling the Kremlin over Crimea.
. It is difficult to believe that there won't be prosecutions.
Sir, in my cynical old age, I have a hard time believing there will be any
prosecution of the Deep State top echelons. The DOJ and FBI it seems are very focused on
protecting their own. If Rosenstein is impeached then one could say the tide is turning.
Otherwise it would appear to be more kabuki.
I don't get why President Trump does not declassify the documents that the DOJ are
withholding from Congress rather than tweet "witch hunt".
"... There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI. ..."
It is hard to reconcile this, "Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails" with that, "the US "defense"
budget is approximately 1.2 trillion dollars a year."
There was also the stunning Awan affair when a family of Pakistanis (with no security
clearance) had been surfing congressional computers for years and perhaps selling the obtained
classified information to the third parties. So much for the mighty mice CIA and FBI.
Everybody should watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu9DMxfTGhY
Billy boy admitting Sergei Magnicky was not a lawyer. He was an accountant who was stealing
money with shitbag Bill Browder.
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
" Deep State agent Bill Browder operated at the very nexus of the U.S. and U.K.
Intelligence Communities that conspired to produce both the fake Russiagate and very real
Spygate ."
" The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on
the second war in Iraq. US intelligence had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US
meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously thought we could
control him."
YUP! AMEN.
It's amusing to me that the Leftist's NOW have a blind-faith trust in government, whereas
during the Vietnam war, and at the start of the Iraq war the opposite was (justifiably) the
case.
And remember, the [neoliberal] Left was all OVER how we manipulated Russia into an
Oligarchy:
Putin handed Trump a means of openly investigating Killary's/CIA's manipulation of US
politics via the Browder investigation, the crime of manipulating the DNC to remove Bernie
can also loop into the mix.
Let's hope Trump follows through and exposes the nest of vipers. The majority of people
are now seeing the light, only the people with skin the game or those far too controlled
through an excellent propaganda/mass mind control experiment do not.
Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebels could only dream that their methods would go this
far.
"But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain
politicians for news, the newspaper reporters are obliged to work in harmony with their news
sources."
― Edward L. Bernays ,
Propaganda
Putin handed Trump a means of openly investigating Killary's/CIA's manipulation of US
politics via the Browder investigation, the crime of manipulating the DNC to remove Bernie
can also loop into the mix.
Let's hope Trump follows through and exposes the nest of vipers. The majority of people
are now seeing the light, only the people with skin the game or those far too controlled
through an excellent propaganda/mass mind control experiment do not.
Edward Bernays and Joseph Goebels could only dream that their methods would go this
far.
"But being dependent, every day of the year and for year after year, upon certain
politicians for news, the newspaper reporters are obliged to work in harmony with their news
sources."
― Edward L. Bernays ,
Propaganda
Unless Herr fuckin Mueller comes up with some damn FUCKIN PROOF, and SOON, he should
hang.
Browder IS a major scumbag and there is plenty of fuckin proof of that. Putin knows. 400
millions to the Clinton campaign. The sooner she fuckin hangs the better.
"... Then there's the fact, and I love this one, that the New York Times, in 2008, directly called Brennan a war criminal for openly supporting torture, rendition, and illegal wiretaps under the Bush Jr. administration, in the CIA, yet now he's the MSM's "main" consultant on these matters: ..."
"... Exactly. People simply have to remember 9/11 and that the US intelligence agencies are the most sophisticated and most controlling monsters on the globe. They are masters of disinformation and deception and if they were not trying to fool all of the people all of the time they would simply be out of work. ..."
"... The only sense we the people - the unwashed and constantly deceived masses - can make of the apparent division in the US over Russia, is through history. Historically Russia has been the arch enemy of both the Zionists and the Brits, and that it was the banksters of Wall Street, London and Zurich which did the most to install a communist regime in Russia, with their efforts beginning years before 1917. The plan was mainly to destroy the Russian establishment and religion, which they largely did, but the communist alternative they used had a life of its own. ..."
"... When the USSR folded in the early 1990's, the Western banksters and capitalists couldn't wait to get their hands on Russian resources and economic opportunities and they started gobbling up everything of value at bargain basement prices from the cash-starved Russians. In reaction, the old guard - the highly trained and efficient Russian intelligence community - reacted to the corruption and installed Putin on the throne. He nationalized the oil and gas industry and other interests and kicked the Western carpetbaggers clean out of Russia. They have never and will not forgive him, and his main opposition in Russia is the Zio establishment. ..."
I posted this in another ZH article, but wanted to spread awareness about these matters:
I cracked up when MSNBC kept showing the headline, "Former CIA Director Calls Trump Treasonous", yet they didn't use Brennan's
name. Plus all the "guests" they had on were intel officers who either served under Obama, Mueller, or both. Definitely attempted
CYA going on.
Then there's the fact, and I love this one, that the New York Times, in 2008, directly called Brennan a war criminal for
openly supporting torture, rendition, and illegal wiretaps under the Bush Jr. administration, in the CIA, yet now he's the MSM's
"main" consultant on these matters:
Exactly. People simply have to remember 9/11 and that the US intelligence agencies are the most sophisticated and most
controlling monsters on the globe. They are masters of disinformation and deception and if they were not trying to fool all of
the people all of the time they would simply be out of work.
The only sense we the people - the unwashed and constantly deceived masses - can make of the apparent division in the US
over Russia, is through history. Historically Russia has been the arch enemy of both the Zionists and the Brits, and that it was
the banksters of Wall Street, London and Zurich which did the most to install a communist regime in Russia, with their efforts
beginning years before 1917. The plan was mainly to destroy the Russian establishment and religion, which they largely did, but
the communist alternative they used had a life of its own.
When the USSR folded in the early 1990's, the Western banksters and capitalists couldn't wait to get their hands on Russian
resources and economic opportunities and they started gobbling up everything of value at bargain basement prices from the cash-starved
Russians. In reaction, the old guard - the highly trained and efficient Russian intelligence community - reacted to the corruption
and installed Putin on the throne. He nationalized the oil and gas industry and other interests and kicked the Western carpetbaggers
clean out of Russia. They have never and will not forgive him, and his main opposition in Russia is the Zio establishment.
Remember, how the US-Anglo-Zionist establishment reacted to the ousting of the Shah of Iran in 1979, and the end of Western
control of Iranian oil and gas. That nation has been on the hit list ever since.
Trump is either not sincere in dealing with Putin and the US-led axis will pull something off very shortly, or he is doing
something quite revolutionary and wants rapprochement.
I didn't vote for Trump. His handling of the Iran deal, Palestine and regurgitation of Likudnik talking points, many of his
appointments... these aren't America First positions. They smack of Adelson and Bibi and using the MEK to foment moar regime change
should trouble everyone.
However, I always conceded that he was better than Hillary. I almost voted for GJ but live in MA so why bother.
But he has my vote next time.
This isn't about Trump anymore - it's about the ability of a shadow government to undo elections with fisa and intel abuse
and with the help of a controlled, CIA-minded legacy media.
I also think these 'deep state' types are determined to get major wars going, and determined to keep flooding the country with
debt serfs and cannon fodder all while attacking our sovereignty and promoting endless wars that benefit the banks and MIC.
I think we are in an incredibly dangerous time and that Brennan and Clapper need to be indicted and arrested for sedition ASAP.
Ditto Hillary, and others, including Obama.
In simple terms its the Republic versus the Empire, and if you support the Republic, I don't care if we deeply disagree on
lots of other stuff - I am on your side.
And if the Left marches on Washington as some are calling for, I think patriots need to go out and meet them with a peaceful
show of our numbers.
James Cook
Verified account @BBCJamesCook
3h3 hours ago
BREAKING Under intense pressure, accused of treachery, President Trump now says he accepts the conclusion of US
intelligence that Russia 'meddled' in the US election. A lot of damage has already been done though.
----------
however....
Trump meets Putin officially in a summit: he's called traitor. By media. So what do we call Russia's opp filing into US
embassy 2012 an election year ?
I sure wish the mainstream media and all those critics of Donald Trump had had better civics
teachers in high school. If they had, they would understand that special counsel Robert
Mueller's indictment against those Russian officials for supposedly illegally meddling in
America's presidential election doesn't mean squat. Instead, the media and the Trump critics
have accepted the indictment as proof, even conclusive proof, that the Russians really did do
what Mueller is charging them with doing.
Of course, it's not really Mueller's indictment. It's a federal grand jury that has returned
the indictment. But, in reality, it's Mueller's indictment. He drafts it up and the grand jury
dutifully signs whatever he presents to them. As the old legal adage goes, prosecutors can get
a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
A prosecutor can say whatever he wants in an indictment. It's not sworn to. Neither the
prosecutor nor the grand jury can be prosecuted for perjury or false allegations in an
indictment.
In this particular case, the matter is even more problematic because Mueller knows that
those Russian officials who he has indicted will never be brought to trial. That's because
there is no reasonable possibility that the Russian government would ever turn them over to the
U.S. government. That means that Mueller knows that whatever he says in that indictment is
never going to be tested in a court of law. He can say whatever he wants in that indictment
knowing full well that he will never be required to prove it.
If only the mainstream media and the Trump critics would just attend one single criminal
case, they would learn that criminal indictments don't mean squat and are not evidence of
anything. Here is what judges always tell juries, in one way or another, in criminal cases:
An indictment is not evidence; it is simply the formal notice to the defendants of the
charges against each of them. The mere fact of an indictment raises no suspicion of guilty.
The government has the burden to prove the charges against the defendants beyond a reasonable
doubt, and that burden stays with the government from start to finish. The defendants have no
burden or obligation to prove anything at all. They are presumed innocent. The defendants
started this trial with a clean slate, with no evidence at all against them, and the law
presumes that they are each innocent. This presumption of innocence stays with each defendant
unless and until the government presents evidence here in court that overcomes the
presumption, and convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty.
Is that the standard that the mainstream media and Trump critics are applying in response to
the Mueller indictment? Are you kidding? They are applying the standard that is used in
communist and other totalitarian regimes. They are pointing to the accusation as proof that
those Russian officials really are guilty! After all, their argument goes, if they weren't
guilty, former FBI Director Mueller would never have secured an indictment against them.
Anyway, everybody knows that the Russians are guilty because America's deep state -- i.e.,
the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA -- say they are. What more proof does anyone need than that?
What even needs a trial? Case closed! Grab them, take them to Gitmo, torture them, and hang
them!
Pardon me, but I thought the special counsel was appointed to determine whether President
Trump somehow illegally "colluded" with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton for president.
What's Mueller doing wasting time and money indicting Russian officials who he knows will never
stand trial? Isn't it time for Mueller to put up or shut up with respect to President Trump and
let the Justice Department handle other criminal prosecutions?
Maybe it's just a coincidence that Mueller announced his indictment on the eve of Trump's
meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Or maybe not.
Ever since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. deep state has done everything it can to gin up
another Cold War with Russia. Recall that at the end of the Cold War in 1989, the U.S. deep
state was caught flat-footed. They had fully expected the Cold War to last forever, which would
guarantee ever-increasing budgets for the deep state and its army of bureaucrats, contractors,
and subcontractors.
In fact, people were talking about a "peace dividend," which would have entailed deep cuts
in expenditures for the military-industrial complex, which was President Eisenhower's term for
the deep state. That threw all elements of the deep state into a full-blown panic.
That's when they went into the Middle East and began poking hornet's nests, knowing full
well that their violent and destructive interventionism would produce terrorist blowback. It
did and the terrorist blowback was then used as the excuse for continuing out of control
deep-state expenditures in order to "keep us safe" from the enemies that their interventionism
was producing. In fact, it's probably worth mentioning that Russia's supposed hacking of some
email accounts pales to insignificance compared to massive U.S. interventionism, including the
destruction of democratic regimes, in the political affairs of other countries since the advent
of the U.S. deep state, including bribery, kidnappings, assassinations, coups, embargoes,
sanctions, and invasions.
At the same time they were intervening in the Middle East, they never gave up hope of
revitalizing the Cold War crisis environment with Russia. That is what NATO expansion into
Eastern Europe, including the hope of absorbing Ukraine into NATO, was all about. The U.S. deep
state knew that the closer NATO got to Russia's border, the more likely it would be that Russia
would have to respond. When Russia finally did respond by taking over Crimea, before the U.S.
deep state could, U.S. officials responded predictably: "We are shocked -- shocked! -- at this
act of aggression, which shows that Russia is preparing to attack and invade Eastern Europe,
the Baltics, Germany, France, and undoubtedly even the United States.
It's really just a repeat of the fears that the U.S. deep state inculcated into the American
people throughout the Cold War, as a way to get Americans to support the conversion of the
federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security or deep states.
The only thing missing is the communist part: Instead of the Reds coming to get us, it's now
just Putin and the Russkies.
What nonsense. Mueller should do the country a favor and shut down his ridiculous and
ridiculously expensive investigation. No matter how much one might dislike Donald Trump, the
fact is that he won the election, fair and square, and Hillary Clinton lost it. Accept it. Deal
with it. Wait until the 2020 election to try to oust Trump from office. Time to shut down all
the regime-change operations, including those of the U.S. deep state.
Share This
Article
(0)
This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger Jacob G. Hornberger is
founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo,
Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree
from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an
adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr.
Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for
Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across
the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as
a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch . View these
interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full
Context . Send him email .
"... Did the Russian government seek to interfere in the 2016 US presidential elections? It's certainly possible, however we don't know. None of the Justice Department's assertions have been tested in a court of law, as is thankfully required by our legal system. It is not enough to make an allegation, as Mueller has done. You have to prove it. ..."
"... That is why we should be very suspicious of these new indictments. Mueller knows he will never have to defend his assertions in a court of law so he can make any allegation he wants. ..."
"... It is interesting that one of the Russian companies indicted by Mueller earlier this year surprised the world by actually entering a "not guilty" plea and demanding to see Mueller's evidence. The Special Counsel proceeded to file several motions to delay the hand-over of his evidence. What does Mueller have to hide? ..."
"... Meanwhile, why is no one talking about the estimated 100 elections the US government has meddled in since World War II? Maybe we need to get our own house in order? ..."
July 17, 2018 The term "deep state" has been so overused in the past few years that it may
seem meaningless. It has become standard practice to label one's political adversaries as
representing the "deep state" as a way of avoiding the defense of one's positions. President
Trump has often blamed the "deep state" for his political troubles. Trump supporters have
created big conspiracies involving the "deep state" to explain why the president places neocons
in key positions or fails to fulfill his campaign promises.
But the "deep state" is no vast and secret conspiracy theory. The deep state is real, it
operates out in the open, and it is far from monolithic. The deep state is simply the
permanent, unelected government that continues to expand its power regardless of how Americans
vote.
There are factions of the deep state that are pleased with President Trump's policies, and
in fact we might say that President Trump represents some factions of the deep state.
Other factions of the deep state are determined to undermine any of President Trump's
actions they perceive as threatening. Any move toward peace with Russia is surely something
they feel to be threatening. There are hundreds of billions of reasons – otherwise known
as dollars – why the Beltway military-industrial complex is terrified of peace breaking
out with Russia and will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.
That is why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's indictment on Friday of 12 Russian
military intelligence officers for allegedly interfering in the 2016 US presidential election
should immediately raise some very serious questions.
First the obvious: after more than a year of investigations which have publicly revealed
zero collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, why drop this bombshell of an allegation
at the end of the news cycle on the last business day before the historic Trump/Putin meeting
in Helsinki? The indictment could not have been announced a month ago or in two weeks? Is it
not suspicious that now no one is talking about reducing tensions with Russia but is all of a
sudden – thanks to Special Counsel Robert Mueller – talking about increasing
tensions?
Unfortunately most Americans don't seem to understand that indictments are not evidence. In
fact they are often evidence-free, as is this indictment.
Did the Russian government seek to interfere in the 2016 US presidential elections? It's
certainly possible, however we don't know. None of the Justice Department's assertions have
been tested in a court of law, as is thankfully required by our legal system. It is not enough
to make an allegation, as Mueller has done. You have to prove it.
That is why we should be very suspicious of these new indictments. Mueller knows he will
never have to defend his assertions in a court of law so he can make any allegation he
wants.
It is interesting that one of the Russian companies indicted by Mueller earlier this
year surprised the world by actually entering a "not guilty" plea and demanding to see
Mueller's evidence. The Special Counsel proceeded to file several motions to delay the
hand-over of his evidence. What does Mueller have to hide?
Meanwhile, why is no one talking about the estimated 100 elections the US government has
meddled in since World War II? Maybe we need to get our own house in order?
"... The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails, federal sources said. ..."
"Former top FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified during two days of closed-door House hearings,
revealing shocking new Intel against her old bosses at the Bureau, according the well-placed
FBI sources.
Alarming new details on allegations of a bureau-wide cover up. Or should we say another
bureau-wide cover up.
The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among
others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed
intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed 'assets' had illegally acquired former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's 30,000+ "missing" emails, federal sources said.
The Russians didn't do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources." True
Pundit
"... The discussion made by William Binney (former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical and Military Analysis), Ed Loomis (computer scientist and former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing), and some others, is about data taken from a computer of the DNC. They assert that it was not an intrusion from the outside over the Internet, but rather was a very high speed data transfer that could be done onto a storage device like a thumb drive (or, I think, onto another nearby device that permitted a very high transfer rate). Assuming the material they are analyzing is genuine, I agree with them. ..."
"... Note: Always remember that Google Gmail is "free" because you are not the customer, you are the product. ..."
There are at least 3 computers, computer servers, and/or computer systems involved in
the 2016 election campaign controversy: Hillary Clinton's e-mail server at her residence
that violated federal law about the handling of classified information, the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) computer system, and Google's Gmail computer system (used by
John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman).
TTG also mentioned a little earlier that multiple systems are involved.
The discussion made by William Binney (former NSA Technical Director for World
Geopolitical and Military Analysis), Ed Loomis (computer scientist and former NSA
Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing), and some others, is about data
taken from a computer of the DNC. They assert that it was not an intrusion from the
outside over the Internet, but rather was a very high speed data transfer that could be
done onto a storage device like a thumb drive (or, I think, onto another nearby device
that permitted a very high transfer rate). Assuming the material they are analyzing is
genuine, I agree with them.
Numerous governments and private computer scientists, programmers, and "hackers" could
have gotten into Hillary Clinton's personal e-mail server from the outside through the
Interrnet and probably did. Furthermore, that does not end the problem. Data can be
intercepted as it goes from one location to another, whether going over a copper phone
line, a fiber optic cable, a computer network cable, the air, and so forth.
Note: Always remember that Google Gmail is "free" because you are not the customer,
you are the product.
Putin statement about $400 million 'donation' to Hillary Clinton by MI6-connected Bill Browder in his Helsinki presser is
obviously of great interest. This has given some new insights into the DNC false flag operation dynamics.
Notable quotes:
"... The FBI would get info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info directly. ..."
"... IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol. ..."
"... What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means to do this. ..."
PT, regarding your questions: "How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC
and DCCC servers", "what is the source of the information?",
"how do they know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?", I believe
the answers are implicit in the first part of this news article:
It describes in considerable detail how, STARTING IN SEPTEMBER 2015, the FBI tried
strenuously to alert the DNC to the fact that it was being hacked by Russia, but the DNC,
remarkably, chose to ignore these warnings.
Here's how the article begins:
When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the
Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its
computer network, he was transferred, naturally [ sic! ], to the help desk.
His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C.
had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named "the Dukes," a
cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the
Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and
even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government's best-protected networks.
BTW, I sincerely thank TTG for providing this link in one of his previous comments.
The FBI warned the DNC of the Dukes (aka APT29, Cozy Bear) in September 2015. These are
the hackers that the Dutch AIVD penetrated and warned the NSA in real time when they attacked
Pentagon systems in 2015. Their goal seemed to be intelligence collection as one would expect
as the Dutch said they are affiliated with the SVR.
The Fancy Bear hackers (aka APT28) are the ones referred to in the recent indictment of
the GRU officers. They penetrated the DNC systems in April 2016 and weren't discovered until
CrowdStrike identified them. They're the ones who took data and released it through DCLeaks,
Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks as part of a coordinated information operation (IO). I'm not at
all surprised that the GRU would lead this IO as a military operation. The FBI would get
info about these hackers through the CrowdStrike team's disk images, memory dumps, network
logs and other reports. CrowdStrike's Robert Johnston also said he worked with FBI
investigators during his work at the DNC so the FBI also got some of their info
directly. There is absolutely no need to take physical possession of the servers.
The detail of some of the GRU officers' online activity indicates their computers were
penetrated by US or allied IC/LEA much like the Dutch AIVD penetrated the FSB computers. This
was probably a main source for much of the indictment's evidence. That the IC would release
information about this penetration for this indictment is extraordinary. Normally this stuff
never sees the light of day. It sets the precedent for the release of further such
intelligence information in future indictments.
IMHO believing in the Crowdstrike analysis is like believing in Santa Claus. They did
propagate unsubstantiated "security porno" like a hack of Ukrainians for a while. After this
incident, Dmitry Alperovich looks like a sleazy used car salesman, not like a real specialist
and, in any case, his qualification is limited to the SMTP protocol.
What if it was Crowdstrike which compiled and planted the malware using Vault 7 tools and
then conducted full-scale false flag operation against Russians to deflect allegations that
Bernie was thrown under the bus deliberately and unlawfully. They have motivation and means
to do this.
Now we also see a DNC motivation of keeping the content of affected servers from FBI eyes
-- Browder money.
"... Fucking bought and paid for by her, just like everything else in America! ..."
"... Trump just broke a tabu by failing to do homage to the sacred cow of our intelligence community. ..."
"... From Strzok testimony we saw (what we knew already) that Shillary's server was compromised by a 'foreign actor' and Strzok and Comey did nothing. What about that?!?!?!? ..."
Our intel agencies ARE corrupt...they walk into DNC HQ and leave without the
server...cause of Hillary you know that right. Fucking bought and paid for by her, just like
everything else in America!
Lookit, Trump is on the up and up, and all the little fags are crying foul? fuck 'em!
Trump just broke a tabu by failing to do homage to the sacred cow of our intelligence
community.
From Strzok testimony we saw (what we knew already) that Shillary's server was compromised
by a 'foreign actor' and Strzok and Comey did nothing. What about that?!?!?!?
I can't believe the drivel I'm reading about this Putin thing. The US is losing its mind, and rapidly becoming a major risk
to the world. A mad country of 320 million armed to the teeth is dangerous. Russia is a minnow by comparison. Putin's not our
problem, China's not our problem, they may not be 'nice'; we don't need them to be nice; WE'RE NOT NICE. But they're sane and
predictable. WE ARE OUR PROBLEM. The madness started in Congress and our appalling phony brainless opinionated media, where we
have passionate imbeciles foaming at the mouth about supposed foreign interference in our elections when it's clear that (1) we
don't know if it's true (2) the result was unaffected anyway, so (3) it doesn't matter a fuck whether they interfered or not and
(4) the major nations have been steaming open each others envelopes forever. Sense would be that even if we think Putin's lying,
we pretend to believe him and move on.
The US is arrogant and has zero insight, so doesn't understand that it's no longer a beacon to the word but loathed by the
world - and that long precedes Trump. The very politicians, like that fool McCain, who urged and organised regime change (not
just cyberfiddling and 'interference' but actually the sending of SOLDIERS to KILL PEOPLE WE DIDN'T LIKE) .. in Central America,
Asia, the Middle East over a long period .. are now ranting and indignant that Russia might be doing what we know we've been doing
for a century.
So the CIA would stop its cyberwarfare if Putin said "please don't"? For Christ's sake. We have to grow up and stop this nonsense,
or some lunatic will do something really stupid and we'll descend into anarchy, which is inevitably and rapidly followed by an
authoritarian 'solution'. This is a terrible time. Right now, in the military, some will be making plans in case the wheels fall
off and we'll need them to replace the 242yr of self-control that we're now incapable of, with external control.
yes. we have 3 eyewitnesses and verifiable proof that Seth Rich leaked the files. Russia had nothing to do with it. real question
is who ordered the murder of seth rich.
Another example of a common tool used by sociopaths and psychopaths . . . if information comes to light that can damage you
attack the messenger and ignore the message. That's high school level psychology. What's interesting is that there is a large
segment of the population that are too stupid to realize what's really going on . . . or maybe they just want to believe the bullshit
regardless.
Someone is at the center of the destruction of the Democratic Party, but who and why? Soros? Comey? Brennan? Muller? Rothchild?
Rockerfells?, Bezo, Fuckerbergs? Finesteein, McStain? Obamer? All, plus 1,000 more?
Think about all the unified media to make the Democrats look like out of control morons (yes, yes, I know what is new). But
this is a clean sweep of all of them with no voice countering this crazy aunt syndrome. Moderates and even what used to be called
liberal Democrats are leaving this extremely radicle party and the party does not seem to care one bit. Is two party time ending?
Nothing makes any sense. The Stock market doesn't either, but folks keep buying it.
Will Bezo or Fuckerberg be the new lords of the land with Schultz of Google? Are these the new kings of America? They are helping
to destroy the Republic from the ground up with their activities. Or Am I the moron?
The problem is, (to the American Deep State that is) is that Trump is not a member of the Puppet Political Cartel that has
been bought and paid for by the shadow rulers, Trump is his own man, and the shadow rulers don`t tolerate disobedience.
Looks like a hacking operation by China. They nailed Clinton's completely unprotected system and then inserted code that gave
them all her traffic over e-mail subsequent to that.
That included all her State Department classified traffic which she had her
staff illegally scan and insert in her private e-mail. We are talking about 30,000+ messages.
Strzok was told that by the Intelligence
Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it. pl
Given the likely culprits, China made the most sense. Thanks for the confirmation!
Meanwhile, under the radar, another segment of the "Gordian knot" is getting ready to be cut.
White House Orders Direct Taliban Talks to Jump-Start Afghan Negotiations
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The Trump administration has told its top diplomats to seek direct talks with the Taliban, a significant shift in American policy
in Afghanistan, done in the hope of jump-starting negotiations to end the 17-year war.
The Taliban have long said they will first discuss peace only with the Americans, who toppled their regime in Afghanistan in
2001. But the United States has mostly insisted that the Afghan government must take part.
The recent strategy shift, which was confirmed by several senior American and Afghan officials, is intended to bring those
two positions closer and lead to broader, formal negotiations to end the long war.
-----------------------
I am an independent. I voted for Obama twice because his opponents were so unappealing. I am starting to hate the left. I view
them and the neocon establishment behavior nothing short of treasonous.
July 16, 2018
"Russia is an adversary." How many times have we heard this lately? Perhaps in some
schoolmarmish reminder from a CNN, MSNBC or Fox anchor. Everybody's just supposed to know this.
But when did it become received wisdom?
How many times did we hear that Russia was an adversary in the 1990s, when Boris Yeltsin
ruled over the Russian Federation, presiding over a bleak decade of economic downward spiral,
banning the Communist Party (1991-93), bombarding the Duma building in 1993 during a
constitutional crisis, colluding with the U.S. to fix the 1996 Russian presidential election,
tolerating repeated U.S./NATO interventions in former Russian ally Yugoslavia from 1994 to
1999, welcoming Harvard Business School advisors to Moscow to reform the Russian economy?
(Oops, I must remind myself that my current university students were for the most part born
in the late 90s. So they might not remember hearing much about Russia at all.)
Actually we didn't as I recall hear anything at all about enmity with Russia.
Russia had gone from being the hulking Eurasian brown bear of the Cold War era to the cuddly
teddy bear of a drunken buffoon, Boris Yeltsin. Russia was not an enemy but a pathetic foil,
the other superpower experiencing abject defeat as the U.S. asserted "full-spectrum dominance"
during the "American Century" of the 2000s, an object of amusement by those crowing over the
U.S.'s (imagined) victory in the Cold War.
Russia was not an adversary when, following the 9/11 attacks, Yeltsin's successor
Vladimir Putin offered NATO a transport route through Russia to supply the alliance in its
Afghan War. I don't recall hearing any official announcement to the effect that Russia had been
judged an adversary at that point -- by anyone I respect, anyway.
Was it in June 1999 when the Russian Army moved to secure Pristina Airport in Kosovo, at the
end of NATO's aggressive campaign in the Serbian province? This incident strikes me not as a
provocation but as a measured move and pointed statement to NATO (the anti-Soviet military
alliance that refuses to fold as the Warsaw Pact did in 1990, and which has increasingly become
a tool of U.S. imperialism) that Russia too retains historical interests in the Balkans.
The fact that Russia opposed the cruelly absurd Rambouillet ultimatum followed by the NATO
war on Serbia did not make Russia my enemy; I absolutely agreed that the war was wrong. My
adversary was Madeleine Albright, who wanted war in Kosovo and delighted in the result (an
independent country of Kosovo, a failed state wrenched illegally from Serbia, a drugs hub and
ceter of human trafficking scheduled for NATO admission).
Did Russia become an adversary in 2008, when (after the U.S. had recognized Kosovo's
independence, as a thing needing no justification because it was as Condi Rice put it "sui
generis") Russia went ahead and recognized two separatist republics in what had been the
Georgian SSR, South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Did it become such when Russia briefly invaded
Georgia, where a poathetic U.S. puppet (Mikhail Saakashvili) brought to power during the "color
revolution" (Rose Revolution) of 2003 emboldened by a promise of foture NATO membership
provoked Russian forces stationed in South Ossetia?
Recall how at the time Sen. John McCain said, "We are all Georgians now" and called for
military aid to Georgia. (McCain's always been clear on who the enemy was, and while you might
suppose that his extreme militarist views would have wholly discredited him, he is every news
anchor's ideal, the ultimate U.S. patriot and war hero.) But the Bush administration declined
to provoke Russia; had not Bush seen into Putin's soul, the soul of a man deeply concerned
about the interests of his country?
Enter the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state intent on arranging
a "reset" of the bilateral relationship. But the expansion of NATO to include Albania and
Croatia was not helpful. Nor was the campaign, waged by the "National Foundation for Democracy"
and other foreign NGOs in Ukraine, to topple the elected president Viktor Yanukovych (an
opponent of Ukraine's NATO entry) and replace him with one that would join the anti-Russian
alliance.
In February 2014 a coup plainly conceptualized in Washington, amply documented by
intercepted calls between Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador in Ukraine, succeeded in
toppling Yanukovych, who fled to Russia. Ethnic Russians who dominate in the eastern Donbas
region predictably rebelled against the fascist-tinged new Kiev government. Russia predictably
annexed (re-annexed) Crimea to insure its continued control over its bases.
Look at the map. Look at how big Russia is. Look at where it has naval bases. Russia is not
like the U.S. with coasts dotted with naval bases. It has some on the Baltic Sea, one in
Vladivostok on the Pacific, Murmansk on the Barents Sea in the far north. The Black Sea Fleet
present in Crimea from the 1770s is important to what any objective professor of international
relations would call "Russian national security." Of course the Russians were angry and
concerned.
That I think was the decisive point. Yes, February 2014. The relentless drive of
the U.S. to complete the expansion of NATO, to integrate the largest nation on the European
continent, which some neocons call "the crown jewel" into the alliance, using in this case the
cause of "the Ukrainian people's European aspirations" failed . It invited an
immediate, decisive Russian response. An investment of $ 5 billion and preposterous
interventions such as the visits of Nuland, John McCain and Lindsey Graham to the Maidan Square
in Kiev had produced a new government of dubious legitimacy as well as a frozen conflict.
Russia became an "adversary" because it refused to accept massive U.S. intervention in the
politics of a neighboring country more closely integrated into Russian history and civilization
that Mexico is integrated into the U.S. in such respects. It's an adversary because it opposes
NATO, which is to say, it resists its own military encirclement. As any U.S. leadership would
under similar circumstances. (Imagine an existing Russia-centered military pact including most
of Central America, Cuba and Venzuela moving to include Mexico. The "Monroe Doctrine" forbids
colonization and the establishment of military bases by Old World powers in the New World. But
the U.S. expects Russia to accept NATO bases on its very borders. And no TV journalist bothers
to raise this, or think historically, critically, comparatively.)
But don't expect cable commentators to dwell on NATO. No, Putin is hostile to the west
because he hates liberal democracy, the value of the free ballot, human rights. He just wants
to divide Europe, supporting nationalists over mainstream parties. He wants to disrupt
democracies like the Grinch wanted to spoil Christmas. It's not a matter of attributing him a
particular ideology like Marxism. He's just evil, and you, dear viewer, are supposed to realize
that.
* * * *
The basis of Kantian ethics is Matthew 7:2. Do unto others what you would have them do unto
you. The U.S. is -- through NATO expansion, provocations of Russia, application of sanctions of
Russia and demand for allies' participation in them -- subjecting its one-time (Yeltsin-era)
"partner" to insulting treatment.
NATO announces expansion. Moscow complains, asks "Why?" NATO responds: "Don't worry. This is
not directed at you." Russia replies: "Of course it's directed against us. Don't be silly."
In its long history, Russia has been attacked from eastern or central Europe many times (as
well as from the Caucasus in southern Europe). German crusader knights invaded in 1242.
Lithuania invaded in the fourteenth century, when the Lithuanian state was greater than
Muscovy. In the seventeenth and eighteenth century there were multiple invasions from Sweden
and/or Poland. Napoleon invaded between 1798 and 1815; Tolstoy's War and Peace
chronicles this epic conflict. Probably around 400,000 civiian casualties. In 1940 the Germans
launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia that took eleven million soldiers' lives
and those of 26 million civilians.
What has the U.S. experienced comparable to these invasions? How well can a brainwashed
North American understand the problem of securing borders, not against poor immigrants, but
against invasion? How many are equipped, by education, media, and political discourse, to
understand geopolitics from the point of view of Russians?
(I do not mean to suggest that Russians have a common view; Russia is a civil society and
debates rage. But my sense is that Russians of many different stripes see NATO as frightening
and threatening and will support the regime in resisting its expansion. As they and all of us
should.)
The summit is imminent. I would hope that Putin in Helsinki says, "Look, let's agree
state-sponsored hacking and surveillance, as conducted by many governments, are big problems.
Let us work to resolve these issues. I'm just glad you were elected, not Hillary, because she
was horrible. Look what she did in Libya and Syria. You seem sincere about improving relations
but we're concerned about apparent divisions in your staff since we keep getting conflicting
messages .
"In Syria we want a stable secular (not religiously-based) regime. We think the Syrian Arab
Army is the best guarantor of stability and the defeat of ISIL and other al-Qaeda spin-offs. We
understand your desire to continue to confront ISIL in northeastern Syria, such as it is, and
although our Damascus ally condemns it as a violation of Syrian sovereignty we have been
cooperating with you off and on against ISIL -- even though in Sept. 2016 you sabotaged an
agreement with us to coordinate strikes when you attacked Deir Ezzor killing 100 of our Syrian
allies.
"We want to facilitate the departure of your forces as you've indicated you want to
accomplish. As for arranging Iranian departure, we do not control Iran and the Iranians have
made it clear they will withdraw advisors from Syria and Iraq only at their governments'
request. I our view they have played a positive role against ISIL and other al-Qaeda factions
and spin-offs. We do not agree with your vilification of Iran and indeed will be expanding
commercial and military ties. We urge you not to pressure your allies to cut all trade ties
with Iran; we and the Chinese will profit in any case.
"On Ukraine, you know, Russia will never return Crimea to Ukraine. You must please decide
whether you want to sanction us forever for something that is not going to change, or do what
Condi Rice did in 2008 (recognize a sui generis ) and reset the U.S.-Russian
relationship as loser Hillary could not do. We can make a deal about concrete implementation of
the Minsk Agreements.
"We are still very interested in an Exxon-Gasprom deal on Arctic oil drilling, the one Rex
Tillerson was negotiating when the sanctions were applied in 2014. Of course we want a Trump
Tower eventually. Why can't we be friends?
"Let's announce U.S. full participation in the Astana negotiations with Syria, Turkey, Iran
and Russia to facilitate inter-Syrian dialogue to produce a peace settlement and new elections,
and in the Minsk talks between Russia, Ukraine, the Ukrainian opposition, and European parties.
And maybe an agreement not to expand NATO to include Ukraine or Georgia. That will show the
world tensions are declining an enhance your prospects for that Nobel Peace prize you so
deserve."
May flattery make Putin a friend. He is not my adversary, or this country's adversary. He's
the adversary of those who, in their desire to topple Trump on any basis whatsoever, are happy
to mentally leapfrog back to the McCarthy era, trash their object of disdain as a Russian
puppet and even demand that Trump cancel his summit because of a suspiciously time Mueller
Investigation announcement of more Russian indictments.
Russophobia has proven as strong as "anticommunism" as a persistent, unquestioned force in
this country at this critical time. Both its strength and stupidity are frightening. If Trump's
uniquely odd presidency sees the possibility of rapprochement with Russia -- smothered by the
traditional wise and evil councilors -- -we might as well have Goldwater Girl Clinton in the
White House, labeling Putin Hitler and likening Crimea to the Sudetenland.
Both individuals are sociopaths, but Mueller is even less trustworthy than Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close] with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together." ..."
"... Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case. ..."
"... Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job. ..."
"... Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning. ..."
"... Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert Mueller waiting in the wings. ..."
President Trump's lawyers believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller is overstepping his bounds in his investigation into Russian
interference in the election. Now, Trump's lawyers are compiling a list of Mueller's numerous conflicts of interest, The Washington
Post reported.
Judge Jeanine Pirro perfectly explains one of Mueller's largest conflicts of interests–his close relationship with the former
FBI director James Comey.
... ... ...
"The most important issue is deciding who is telling the truth: Comey or Trump," Pirro explains. "Bob Mueller is [very close]
with Jim Comey. They have spent a lot of years together."
As Pirro explained, one of Robert Mueller's primary tasks is to determine whether President Trump obstructed justice when he fired
James Comey.
However, Mueller has no oversight from the government as he investigates his close friend's firing. Attorney General Jeff
Sessions recused himself, and the Deputy Attorney General is a witness in the case.
Ultimately, the entire debacle around Mueller was a set-up from the beginning. James Comey was dedicated to ousting President
Trump, and he has tasked Mueller with finishing the job.
Mueller is supposed to be investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but his investigation immediately morphed
into a witch hunt against President Trump. His only aim is to impeach the president, and this has been the plan from the beginning.
Comey forced the Justice Department to hire a special counsel after he broke the law and leaked a government memo accusing
President Trump of obstruction of justice. Comey knew this would force Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel, and he had Robert
Mueller waiting in the wings.
Now, Comey's old friend Mueller is taking over the mission Comey started in November–to impeach President Trump.
We cannot let this witch hunt continue. We need to stand with our duly elected President and let him know that he has our trust.
Trump is the first president in a long time to put America first. He is no foreign agent.
Money quote: "This is just a softer "Saddam has WMDs [scam]" And people fell for it."
The cat fight between two factions of the US elite would be funny, if it was not so dangerous.
Notable quotes:
"... The greatest irony in all this is we have hard evidence that the Clinton machine swayed the MSM to promote T-rump in the primary and squash Bernie. Isn't that election tampering? ..."
"... We also witness the blatant privilege when Comey didn't indict the $hill when she obviously and without a doubt broke the law. So we have the Clinton's above the law laundering money through their foundation But it's Russia's fault....come on. ..."
"... You have totally taken the wind out of the sails of Russia Gate. As you stated, what was the crime? The information that came from the DNC computers and Podesta's emails showed that there was a plan to rig the primary against Bernie so that Hillary would win it. I've said numerous times that was the real election interference. ..."
"... Brennan who had admitted in Jan 2017 that there was no evidence that Russia affected the election in any way has since been prattling on about Russia Gate without every offering any evidence, but that is why this country has been peddling propaganda since Wilson decided it was a great way to get people on board with anything their government want to do. Here is the latest from Brennan. ..."
"... While standing next to the American president, Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of accepting illegal Russian campaign contributions. Trump doesn't push back. ..."
"... Propaganda baby. It works. Every person I have spoken with since Her Majesty lost the election really believes that this country is being run by Putin directly and with the full knowledge and help from the GOP. Because Putin has blackmailed them too or something ..."
"... @lizzyh7 ..."
"... What this episode really proves is that the US finally has joined the USSR as a broken, bankrupt empire that is run by shifting coalitions of international bankers and splinter groups of spooks. The facade of law and democratic norms in America has fallen and shattered on Washington steps. ..."
"... Personally, I accept that in modern times all major intelligence agencies and military general staffs routinely spy on each other and meddle in politics, including elections in their own countries. That's a given and should be obvious to everyone since Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev and Director George H.W Bush had three terms as President of the United States. ..."
"... What is most significant about the current spectacle is how it reveals the polarization and breakdown in discipline within US military and intelligence agencies. The internal policy dispute over Syria and Ukraine and botched election tampering has led to open infighting among the spooks. That's what "Russiagate" is really all about and it's why Flynn and Manafort were the first Mueller indicted. ..."
"... The Mueller investigation is an extension of politics by other means. ..."
"... Social media is completely insane. I've got a very large demographic of fairly open minded people given my trade, and it's unanimous: Drumpf is a Traitor and has committed Treason - both with capital Ts. ..."
The FBI never examined the DNC server. And even if they had, we learned from the vault 7 wikileaks that the CIA can leave evidence
of any country they choose when they hack into a system. I can't believe my normally rational friends can be so brainwashed as
to buy into the whole Russiagate narrative. T-rump has caused them to lose their ability to think.
The greatest irony in all this is we have hard evidence that the Clinton machine swayed the MSM to promote T-rump in the
primary and squash Bernie. Isn't that election tampering?
We also witness the blatant privilege when Comey didn't indict the $hill when she obviously and without a doubt broke the
law. So we have the Clinton's above the law laundering money through their
foundation But it's Russia's fault....come on.
Jimmy accuse people of thinking with their lizard brains...I fear he is right.
You have totally taken the wind out of the sails of Russia Gate. As you stated, what was the crime? The information that came
from the DNC computers and Podesta's emails showed that there was a plan to rig the primary against Bernie so that Hillary would
win it. I've said numerous times that was the real election interference. As to what Russia is accused of doing Obama, Brennan
and others have stated that no votes were changed from Hillary to Trump no were any voting machines hacked. Funny thing about
that though. 3 states have said that they did see signs of some entity trying to hack into their state's voting data bases but
it came from the DHS. Not a foreign country.
Could it be that Mueller is acknowledging something important here without stating it? There is no real victim in "Russiagate."
So, where is the crime? Was anyone harmed? No. Was a U.S. Navy battleship resting at anchor blown up? No, again. Not a scratch
to anything except the reputations of those who were shown to have rigged the Democratic primaries so that the DNC Chair's
favored candidate won.
Putin said that he would welcome the US investigation into those 12 military officers if the US would send someone to interview
them in Russia since the two countries have a treaty to do just that. Will anyone take him up on that offer? Anyone? Bueller?
After Trump's meeting with Putin neocons are doubling down and accusing Trump of doing all kinds of shady things.
Mueller indictments strengthen case that Trump's win was stolen. What's new? a) Strong possibility Russians monkeyed w/
voter rolls, affecting the 11/8/16 outcome and b) Trump's fall strategy may have been driven by stolen Democratic analytics.
My column: https://t.co/io2B8Nhjs7
Brennan who had admitted in Jan 2017 that there was no evidence that Russia affected the election in any way has since been
prattling on about Russia Gate without every offering any evidence, but that is why this country has been peddling propaganda
since Wilson decided it was a great way to get people on board with anything their government want to do. Here is the latest from
Brennan.
Donald Trump's press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of "high crimes & misdemeanors."
It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump's comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican
Patriots: Where are you???
A few other tweets from the joint press conference.
I'm pretty sure that no one will ask Putin a follow up question about what he meant by this.
While standing next to the American president, Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of accepting illegal Russian campaign contributions.
Trump doesn't push back. pic.twitter.com/dDt2TTV24E
Debunked? I don't see that this was debunked. In fact I don't remember anyone ever talking about the content of the emails
that showed that the primary was rigged.
Asked if he believes US intel agencies or Putin about Russia's interference in the 2016 election, Trump immediately starts
pushing debunked DNC & Hillary conspiracy theories.
"I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia, Trump says, affirming he believes Putin's denials.
pic.twitter.com/uciAoRxbxA
PUTIN doesn't deny having blackmail material on Trump
"When Trump was in Moscow back then, I didn't even know that he was there. I treat him with utmost respect, but back then
when he was private person, a businessman, nobody informed me"
What we saw *today* was collusion. Trump's refusal to treat Russian sabotage of our democracy as the crime that it is encourages
Putin to keep it up. https://t.co/9OTDPQUmpWpic.twitter.com/efyNriYSwy
Propaganda baby. It works. Every person I have spoken with since Her Majesty lost the election really believes that this country is
being run by Putin directly and with the full knowledge and help from the GOP. Because Putin has blackmailed them too or something
....
I kept waiting for the day Russia Gate exploded and became known for the farce it is. I really wanted to see Rachel's reaction
and see how she would explain to her viewers that she had just made everything up. But now I'm don't think that is going to happen.
The PTB have invested to much into it and they won't let their agendas be derailed. This is just a softer "Saddam has WMDs." And
people fell for it.
What this episode really proves is that the US finally has joined the USSR as a broken, bankrupt empire that is run by shifting
coalitions of international bankers and splinter groups of spooks. The facade of law and democratic norms in America has fallen
and shattered on Washington steps.
Personally, I accept that in modern times all major intelligence agencies and military general staffs routinely spy on each
other and meddle in politics, including elections in their own countries. That's a given and should be obvious to everyone since
Yuri Andropov succeeded Brezhnev and Director George H.W Bush had three terms as President of the United States.
What is most significant about the current spectacle is how it reveals the polarization and breakdown in discipline within
US military and intelligence agencies. The internal policy dispute over Syria and Ukraine and botched election tampering has led
to open infighting among the spooks. That's what "Russiagate" is really all about and it's why Flynn and Manafort were the first
Mueller indicted.
The Mueller investigation is an extension of politics by other means.
Social media is completely insane. I've got a very large demographic of fairly open minded people given my trade, and it's
unanimous: Drumpf is a Traitor and has committed Treason - both with capital Ts.
I could see Civil War in weeks. Completely terrifying.
@detroitmechworks He ostensibly went to seek advice on how to do his confirmation hearing for SOS. What actually happened
is the Medusa told him who to retain and what policies to pursue. Pompeo had no intention of adopting her policies (except Neocon
points) but he got valuable clues as to Clinton allies in the DOS. He then began purging them. Stupid HRC! But I hope she runs
in 2020.
"... For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case. ..."
"... we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them. ..."
"... Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his death in a Russian jail. ..."
"... William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS. According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times, Washington Post and Politico. ..."
Vladimir Putin made a bombshell claim during Monday's joint press conference with President
Trump in Helsinki, Finland, when the Russian President said some $400 million )should be $400K) in illegally
earned profits was funneled to the Clinton campaign by associates of American-born British
financier Bill Browder - at one time the largest foreign portfolio investors in Russia. The
scheme involved members of the U.S. intelligence community, said Putin, who he said
"accompanied and guided these transactions."
Browder made billions in Russia during the 90's. In December, a Moscow court sentenced
Browder in absentia to nine years in prison for tax fraud, while he was also found guilty of
tax evasion in a separate 2013 case. Putin accused Browder's associates of illegally earning
over than $1.5 billion without paying Russian taxes, before sending $400 million to Clinton.
After offering to allow special counsel Robert Mueller's team to come to Russia for their
investigation - as long as there was a reciprocal arrangement for Russian intelligence to
investigate in the U.S., Putin said this:
For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder, in this particular case. Business associates of
Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia and never paid any taxes neither in
Russia or the United States and yet the money escaped the country. They were transferred to
the United States. They sent [a] huge amount of money, $400,000,000, as a contribution to the
campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well that's their personal case.
It might have been legal, the contribution itself but the way the money was earned was
illegal. So we have solid reason to believe that some [US] intelligence officers accompanied
and guided these transactions. So we have an interest in questioning them.
Israel Shamir, a keen observer of the
American-Russian relationship, and celebrated American journalist Robert
Parryboth think
that one man deserves much of the credit for the new Cold War and that man is William Browder,
a hedge fund operator who made his fortune in the corrupt 1990s world of Russian commodities
trading.
Browder is also symptomatic of why the United States government is so poorly informed about
international developments as he is the source of much of the Congressional "expert testimony"
contributing to the current impasse. He has somehow emerged as a trusted source in spite of the
fact that he has self-interest in cultivating a certain outcome. Also ignored is his
renunciation of American citizenship in 1998, reportedly to avoid taxes. He is now a British
citizen.
Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited Congressional
willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between Washington and
Moscow. The Act sanctioned individual Russian officials, which Moscow has rightly seen as
unwarranted interference in the operation of its judicial system.
Browder, a media favorite who self-promotes as "Putin's enemy #1," portrays himself as a
selfless human rights advocate, but is he? He has used his fortune to threaten lawsuits for
anyone who challenges his version of events, effectively silencing many critics. He claims that
his accountant Sergei Magnitsky was a crusading "lawyer" who discovered a $230 million
tax-fraud scheme that involved the Browder business interest Hermitage Capital but was, in
fact, engineered by corrupt Russian police officers who arrested Magnitsky and enabled his
death in a Russian jail.
Many have been skeptical of the Browder narrative, suspecting that the fraud was in fact
concocted by Browder and his accountant Magnitsky. A Russian court recently
supported that alternative narrative, ruling in late December that Browder had deliberately
bankrupted his company and engaged in tax evasion. He was sentenced to nine years prison in
absentia.
William Browder is again in the news recently in connection with testimony related to
Russiagate. On December 16th Senator Diane Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee released
the transcript of the testimony provided by Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS.
According to James Carden, Browder was mentioned 50 times, but the repeated citations
apparently did not merit inclusion in media coverage of the story by the New York Times,
Washington Post and Politico.
Fusion GPS, which was involved in the research producing the Steele Dossier used to
discredit Donald Trump, was also retained to provide investigative services relating to a
lawsuit in New York City involving a Russian company called Prevezon. As information provided
by Browder was the basis of the lawsuit, his company and business practices while in Russia
became part of the investigation. Simmons maintained that Browder proved to be somewhat evasive
and his accounts of his activities were inconsistent. He claimed never to visit the United
States and not own property or do business there, all of which were untrue, to include his
ownership through a shell company of a $10 million house in Aspen Colorado. He repeatedly
ran away , literally, from attempts to subpoena him so he would have to testify under
oath.
Per Simmons, in Russia, Browder used shell companies locally and also worldwide to avoid
taxes and conceal ownership, suggesting that he was likely one of many corrupt businessmen
operating in what was a wild west business environment.
My question is, "Why was such a man granted credibility and allowed a free run to poison the
vitally important US-Russia relationship?" The answer might be follow the money. Israel Shamir
reports
that Browder was a major contributor to Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, who was the major
force behind the Magnitsky Act.
We have a Strzok in Iran, Peter Sr. We have a Strzok in Russia, Mark. We have a Strzok in
the SEC, Melissa. We have a Strzok in the FBI, Peter jr. We have a Strzok links to Russian
uranium mines that are apart of Uranium One. Enter Clinton, Obama & Mueller. Pay, Play
& Prosecute
The father of Peter Strzok is Peter Strzok Sr. The brother of Peter Strzok Sr is Mark
Strzok. The wife of Mark Strzok is Mariana Strzok. Mariana Strzok is the daughter of General
James Cartwright. General James Cartwright, was pardoned by Barrack Obama on his last day of
office.
The wife of Peter Strzok, Melissa Hodgman. Just so happens she was promoted to the role of
director of the SEC at the same time the FBI was drafting the exoneration letter for the HRC.
Peter Strzok was the last person on earth to see the deleted HRC emails. Nothing to see
here.
The father of Peter Strzok, Peter Strzok Sr, just happened to be in Iran in 1979, the year
that the Shan was removed from power & the 2,500 years of continuous Persian monarchy was
replaced with an Islamic Republic under the Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. CIA?
Dot-Dot-Dot.
You mean the indictments for crimes when Obama was president? The same Kremlin officers
that when Rice was briefed on Russian meddling, she gave a stand down order? You lie
@RepAdamSchiff Nothing today had anything to do with President Trump. Oh, I think we all know
who the coward is here.
The Dems. and journalists are jumping all over themselves to fawn over the intelligence
services as the defenders of democracy.
What is the journalism equivalent for 'regulatory capture'?
And even assuming that everything in the indictments are 100% true, then the DNC were
grossly negligent in handling their communications. And Clinton too, with her email
server. And the Obama administration for letting this happen.
I just finished reading Donna Brazile's book, Hacks .
According to Brazile, the DNC's IT department was alerted by the FBI. This was back in
2015 when a G-man called the DNC headquarters and was transferred to the DNC's help desk,
which had been outsourced to a Chicago-based company called The MIS Department. And, you
guessed it, this company had connections to Obama.
Well, it gets worse. The help desk guy who answered the phone thought it was a crank call.
And, after a cursory examination of the DNC computer network, he concluded that there was no
hack.
"... as Isikoff says, "everything the US government says is a lie, or is concocted, or is made up out of 'whole cloth'." Even the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee report blames the Russians for interference. ..."
This is obviously more horse poop, timed to mess up the Trump-Putin summit. Hardly worth
time to pay any attention to.
I could read about this, or I can read a nifty book I found in PDF format,
https://kalamkopi.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/utsa-patnaik-the-agrarian-question-in-the-neoliberal-era.pdf
The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry
Utsa Patnaik and Sam Moyo with Issa G. Shivji
What do you think I'll spend my time doing? (And also finding other material from Utsa
Patnaik.) No, the deep state does not want people reading about these neoliberal and
imperialist frauds, but wants to distract them from understanding what it is really up to.
Let them keep their fairy tales or tell them to the mystified -- I'm going to keep exploring
the reality.
Mueller the ultimate connoisseur of ham sandwiches. How's the indictment of three Russian
companies coming along?
Federal judge slaps Robert Mueller with humiliating fact check in courtroom over massive
'error' :
U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked one of Concord's attorneys, Eric Dubelier, if
he was also representing Concord Catering. They were not because the company did not exist
during the time period Mueller alleges, Dubelier said.
"What about Concord Catering? The government makes an allegation that there's some
association. I don't mean for you to -- do you represent them, or not, today? And are we
arraigning them as well?" the judge asked. Dubelier responded: "We're not. And the reason for
that, Your Honor, is I think we're dealing with a situation of the government having indicted
the proverbial ham sandwich."
"That company didn't exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the
government.
Yawn I'm waiting for Mueller to take the fifth prior to indicting foreign interference of
Christopher Steele- former British M16 spy, for the Steele dossier during a presidential
election. Oh lest not we forget who the players were and who funded that too .
Now that Mueller has solved the mystery of the Russians "hijacking" an election that the
Democrats wanted to hijack, maybe he could turn his attention to helping OJ find out who
killed Nicole and Ron. The National Enquirer is now our newspaper of record. Adios America.
200 years wasn't a bad run but it's over
Until there's a call for changing the vote tabulation system to something secure and
public, DOJ can indict every single person in Russia and its nothing but tilting at
windmills. It doesn't address the problem at all.
WMD in 2003 = Remember the Maine in 1898 = Russia Russia Russia.
Since we know that CIA has tools to make hacks look like it came from any suspect source,
and this technology has been leaked (after the DNC problem though) we will never know
anything true about this, not the public, not the prosecutors. They don't have the technical
ability, if anyone has, at this point, to distinguish a real from a fake hack.
I wouldn't be surprised now, if the Russians did the hacking, because they were paid by
the Clintons to do it. Certainly the NSA and GCHQ has it all too.
I certainly believe that many folks would like to use this Russian meddling to advance a
neocon agenda and start a new cold war, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that Russians
might have done this. The US certainly does it (and far worse). Israel certainly meddles in
our elections as do the Saudis, most likely. So does the Supreme Court, as do the Republicans
with their gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts. I believe that is what the Left
should be protesting, not joining in to the belief that this is all some giant frame-up of
Putin and Russia.
I've been a cautious skeptic about this whole collusion issue up to now, but after reading
the latest indictment it seems to me that Mueller is very close to closing the ring on Trump.
Perhaps I'm wrong but I find it hard to believe that Mueller, after a lifetime of mostly very
honorable public service, would join in to such a conspiracy. I find it easy to believe Trump
and Co. would.
I can't comment for others, but frankly I have two reasons for not believing "The Russians
Did It!" boondoggle.
1st: Of Course Russia was using the technology available to them to influence the
election. So was Israel, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, France, Great Britain, etc. Any major
nation whose intelligence services were not 'hacking' into our system, using Facebook, and
every other claim against Russia was not doing their job. The idea that this was limited to
Russia, and untenable to any other nation is BS on its face. Just like the idea that we
aren't doing it everywhere else is. It is the job of our intelligence community to either
shut down intelligence breeches. I'm amazed at the everyone who looks at the stories put out
about this who doesn't recognize the level of incompetence of the CIA, FBI, NIS, etc.
2nd: The more that has come out about the so-called hacks has made it clear that the DNC
was largely responsible for being an open sieve. And most of the most the items that were
most damaging to Clinton and the Democrats were, well true, and frankly items that our
so-called free press should have been hunting down if they weren't so captured.
3rd: This truly only became a problem when Clinton wasn't running away with the polls. The
breathless announcement with the Bull about the 17 different agencies when it was a
organization that speaks for the 17 agencies that reported it. Once again what was the Coast
Guard intelligence service doing investigating a hack of DNC servers? It was all PR again.
There still wasn't all that much concern on any one's part because no one was really worried
about the actual election. What were the agencies and the DNC doing to secure things?
4th: The hysteria involved in this hit high gear when Clinton lost because she and her
campaign was incompetent. They had to find an excuse besides Clinton being intensely disliked
by almost half the country, her campaign being stupid and the policies of the Democratic
Party being disliked. They didn't lose all those state houses and governorships and both
Houses of Congress because of the Russians, but the Presidency, nope that was because of
interference.
IOW, sure there was interference, interference that no one much cared about until the guy
willing to upset the apple cart got elected. And the interference that everyone recognizes
was the one that supports further Military action beloved by our NeoCon/NeoLiberal political
class and the MIC. Gosh. Recognizing the overwhelming finger of Israel on our political
system (including with Trump) isn't being addressed at all.
It is like not recognizing that Clinton was treated differently for actual illegal
activity regarding her security breeches at State, but pretending she was cleared. All show
and little actual concern for the problems at hand.
There was a preference by Putin and many others, Russians and other nationalities, for
Trump based on, as Putin said, Clinton wanting to start a war (she said she would do a 'no
fly zone' in Syria) and Trump wanting normal relations -- but that was not tampering or
hacking. Also, as Putin said, he would deal with whoever was elected, it could not be
predicted with confidence what either would do when in office, and it is Russian policy not
to interfere with the sovereignty of other countries. Some Russians preferred Trump and some
Clinton, like most everyone in the world. Most everyone would have preferred Sanders if the
primary hadn't been rigged against him.
Just having a preference is not the same as tampering, or everyone who voted could be
accused of tampering or hacking by casting his/her vote. I don't Russia had anything to do
with swaying the election, and it is only just now, going on two years after, that Putin even
let it be known he preferred Trump and normalization of relations over Clinton and war. Putin
is diplomatic but he plays it straight.
Isikoff's responses made me curious so I went and looked it up (PBS has it as well). It's
a bit under 30 pages long and relatively easy to read. I encourage anyone following the story
to do so.
Of all the Russia theories, the bit about the Russians being behind the DNC e-mail hack
has always seemed the most credible to me, if only because they were apparently able to
convince Trump of it when they presented the evidence to him. The indictment is very detailed
and implies the existence of considerable hard evidence that would have been used to create
it. There are names, dates and times, aliases, specific servers and tasks performed on them,
and so on. Either Mueller is going all in on a bluff or he actually has this stuff. The
former would be very risky because there is so much detail in the indictment that he would
rapidly need to put up or shut up in order to maintain any kind of credibility in court. If
he tried to handwave then it would all fall apart like a house of cards. I don't completely
rule it out (especially given that they did exactly that for the Iraq WMDs) but in this case
I think a legal challenge from one of the accused would expose things pretty quickly. It will
be interesting to see whether anyone does that.
So suppose it's true and Mueller has the evidence. That would mean that agents of the
Russian military were involved in the DNC server hacks. That's it. There have to date been no
claims from the intelligence community that the election itself was compromised, and the only
dirt on the Trump campaign was from the discredited Steele dossier. I think this falls within
the realm of things that big countries do all the time (the US probably did something similar
to obtain the evidence referenced in the indictment). It might have been a bit more serious
because it was politically sensitive material during an election campaign, which likely
merited some kind of response (Obama's "I told the Russians to cut it out" would seem
appropriate). "OMG the Russians stole our democracy!" is a hysterical overreaction.
The other thing is that the activities described in the indictment are nothing
particularly special or unusual. There are bad actors out there doing this kind of thing all
the time, and the DNC would be a high value target. Having a robust security policy and
ensuring it was followed would have been enough to thwart pretty much all of it. The real
story here is that DNC security practices were sloppy enough to allow this to happen. The
fact that it was the Russians that ended up doing it (if it was) is almost incidental.
The "real story" behind all the current brouhaha and kayfabe, is that the DNC is a vastly
corrupt, organized mob (sorry, the court said they are a "private club or association), their
candidate was and is an evil POS, and they played not hardball but dirty tricks all the way
through the 2016 campaign. They are the ones who make a mockery of 'democracy," however
loosely it might be defined, and the electoral process. And one little piece of the rot has
fortuitously been uncovered, all those emails and the existence of that "public-private
partnership" server and the rest.
(If it was) the Russians, and not some little person, maybe an unpaid intern, within the
DNC, with a residue of conscience, or just building some credit with the potential
prosecutorial futures Trying to lay it off as just a failure of the DNC to "have a robust
security policy, what do they call it, "gaslighting?"
i value this site and community but you guys have a real blind spot on this russia issue
and i hope you'll own up to it when the truth is known. i hate the current milquetoast dems
as much as anyone but if you can't smell the rot on this story or see that something big is
lurking under the surface, then you are willfully blind in my opinion.
Of course that's always possible (blind spots), but do you have any particular reasons or
evidence you can point to or link to that support your accusation? Is your opinion based on
the "overwhelming detail" in the current indictment? Doesn't it bother you that these
allegations (for they ARE only allegations) will likely never have to be proven since the
possibility of getting the 12 Russians extradited to the US is virtually nil (meaning no
trial where the facts must be presented)? Doesn't the timing of this indictment also strike
you as suspicious?
i don't want to start a scrum but i'll just say i find chait's recent piece, marcy wheeler
and tpm's coverage very convincing. too many "innocent explanations" don't add up when taken
as a whole and trump's behavior surrounding russia is simply troubling. also, too, he's
pretty clearly a money launderer and criminal with ties to russian money. pile on me if you
will but we'll have to agree to disagree until more facts come out
Help me out, please. What has Trump done that is so beneficial to Russia? I'm asking a
serious question and not trolling whatsoever. I can't follow all of the news, and maybe I
have a blind spot and missed where Trump sold us out to the Russians. All these people are
convinced that "Russia has something on Trump". How are they leveraging this something?
What is Trump doing to the benefit of Russia and the detriment of the USA? If it benefits
both, IMHO, then it doesn't necessarily require Russian leverage.
From the get-go there are two questions that I haven't seen anyone address. This is before
you get to any "substantive" bits of the indictment, or of the whole Evil Russian Hacker
scandal.
1. Why GRU. WHY GRU.
GRU is the Russian military intelligence agency reporting to the General Staff. While it
has many different units and functions, the common denominator is that these have something
to do with MILITARY intelligence or activities. Battlefield intelligence, counter-terrorism
units, special forces, saboteurs, et cetera.
Meanwhile, the Russians also have the SVR – "Service of Foreign Intelligence"
– which is what the foreign intelligence departments of the KGB were folded into in the
1990s (the domestic departments went into the FSB – hence creating a CIA-FBI type
duality). Although much of the structure is classified, the SVR does have an entire
department dedicated to "information systems".
In principle, an operation against a political target with the view of affecting a
political process should involve the SVR – not the GRU. It, in fact, makes absolutely
no sense for the GRU to get involved in this, as hacking Podesta's Gmail has no discernible
military intelligence objective. And yet, the only acronym various US publications (and
indictments) have been pushing since 2017 is the GRU while the SVR does not exist?
This continues to perplex me.
2. Technically speaking, the GRU operates under a very heavy classification regime.
Meaning the names of their operatives themselves are classified information. And yet, here we
have an indictment with not less than a dozen names.
Which means that either the US has infiltrated the GRU top to bottom and sideways, and
Mueller is somehow not gun shy to reveal this fact to the world – or someone is making
stuff up. Unless someone wants to point out to me some other explanation for a dozen
classified – top secret and all that – names showing up in a public US
document
-- -
But hey, I am not a professional journalist, so what do I know about asking questions.
My fear is that many on the Left are jumping into a rabbit hole where, as Isikoff
says, "everything the US government says is a lie, or is concocted, or is made up out of
'whole cloth'." Even the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee report blames the Russians
for interference. This from Charles Blow's column in today's NYT:
"In 2016, cyber actors affiliated with the Russian Government conducted an unprecedented,
coordinated cyber campaign against state election infrastructure. Russian actors scanned
databases for vulnerabilities, attempted intrusions, and in a small number of cases
successfully penetrated a voter registration database. This activity was part of a larger
campaign to prepare to undermine confidence in the voting process."
Rather than be distracted with whether Mueller and DOJ and the Intel Community is making
it all up let's wait and see what the special counsel ultimately finds and the evidence he
produces to support it. In the meantime, the Left should be shining the light on our own,
well documented, interference in other countries' elections, our illegal regime change
operations and calling out the neocons and their fellow travelers for trying to start a new
Cold War with Russia.
isikoff has been in on this from the git go. (Remember judy miller?)
He's the one who wrote a "yahoo" article, after talking to christopher steele of dossier
fame, that was cited as "confirmation" of the dossier "evidence" when it was used to get a
fisa warrant on Carter Paige to justify the Trump campaign "wiretapping" that "never
happened."
christopher steele got "fired from the fbi," and isikoff, claiming he didn't do nuthin'
"wrong," apparently got a book deal. He now seems to have decided that his mission in life is
advocating for nuclear war with Russia because john podesta got sucked in by a phishing email
and gave away his password which was, in perfect keeping with the stupidity of it all,
"password."
Scott Ritter is not buying this,: "this indictment would ever go to trial. It simply couldn't survive the discovery to which any
competent defense would subject the government's assertions." This clearly was a political act by neocons.
Rosenstein and Mueller claim that 12 Russians like 12 Spartan manage to keep Hillary from the coronation is questionable
political backstabbing at best, the act of sedition at worst.
Notable quotes:
"... Rosenstein, by the timing and content of the indictment he publicly released Friday, committed an act that undermined the president of the United States' ability to conduct critical affairs of state -- in this case, a summit with a foreign leader the outcome of which could impact global nuclear nonproliferation policy. The hue and cry among the president's political foes for him to cancel the summit with Putin -- or, failing that, to use the summit to confront the Russian leader with the indictment -- is a direct result of Rosenstein's decision to release the Mueller indictment when he did and how he did. Through its content, the indictment was designed to shape public opinion against Russia. ..."
While the impeachment of Rosenstein is highly unlikely and the likelihood
of the FBI being found guilty of its investigations being corrupted by individual bias is equally slim,
in the world of politics, perception creates its own reality and the Mueller investigation had been
taking a public beating for some time. By releasing an indictment predicated upon the operating assertion
that 12 named Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a series of cyberattacks that resulted
in information being stolen from computer servers belonging to the Democratic Party, and then facilitated
the release of this information in a manner designed to do damage to the candidacy of Clinton, Rosenstein
sought to silence once and for all the voices that have attacked him, along with the Department of
Justice, the FBI and the Mueller investigation, as a participant in a partisan plot against the
president.
There is one major problem with the indictment, however: It doesn't
prove that which it asserts. True, it provides a compelling narrative that reads like a spy novel, and
there is no doubt in my mind that many of the technical details related to the timing and functioning of
the malware described within are accurate. But the leap of logic that takes the reader from the inner
workings of the servers of the Democratic Party to the offices of Russian intelligence officers in Moscow
is not backed up by anything that demonstrates how these connections were made.
That's the point of an indictment, however -- it doesn't exist to provide
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather to provide only enough information to demonstrate probable
cause. No one would, or could, be convicted at trial from the information contained in the indictment
alone. For that to happen, the government would have to produce the specific evidence linking the hacks
to the named Russians, and provide details on how this evidence was collected, and by whom. In short, the
government would have to be willing to reveal some of the most sensitive sources and methods of
intelligence collection by the U.S. intelligence community and expose, and therefore ruin, the careers of
those who collected this information. This is something the government has never been willing to do, and
there is much doubt that if, for some odd reason, the Russians agreed to send one or more of these named
intelligence officers to the United States to answer the indictment, this indictment would ever go to
trial. It simply couldn't survive the discovery to which any competent defense would subject the
government's assertions.
Robert Mueller knew this when he drafted the indictment, and Rob
Rosenstein knew this when he presented it to the public. The assertions set forth in the indictment,
while cloaked in the trappings of American justice, have nothing to do with actual justice or the rule of
law; they cannot, and will never, be proved in a court of law. However, by releasing them in a manner
that suggests that the government is willing to proceed to trial, a perception is created that implies
that they can withstand the scrutiny necessary to prevail at trial.
And as we know, perception is its own reality.
Despite Rosenstein's assertions to the contrary, the decision to
release the indictment of the 12 named Russian military intelligence officers was an act of partisan
warfare designed to tip the scale of public opinion against the supporters of President Trump, and in
favor of those who oppose him politically, Democrat and Republican alike. Based upon the media coverage
since Rosenstein's press conference, it appears that in this he has been wildly successful.
But is the indictment factually correct? The biggest clue that Mueller
and Rosenstein have crafted a criminal espionage narrative from whole
cloth comes from none other than the very intelligence agency whose work
would preclude Rosenstein's indictment from ever going to trial: the National Security Agency. In June
2017 the online investigative journal The Intercept
referenced a highly classified document
from the NSA titled "Spear-Phishing Campaign TTPs Used Against U.S. And Foreign Government Political
Entities." It's a highly technical document, derived from collection sources and methods the NSA has
classified at the Top Secret/SI (i.e., Special Intelligence) level. This document was meant for internal
consumption, not public release. As such, the drafters could be honest about what they knew and what they
didn't know -- unlike those in the Mueller investigation who drafted the aforementioned indictment.
A cursory comparison of the leaked NSA document and the indictment
presented by Rosenstein suggests that the events described in Count 11 of the indictment pertaining to an
effort to penetrate state and county election offices responsible for administering the 2016 U.S.
presidential election are precisely the events captured in the NSA document. While the indictment links
the identity of a named Russian intelligence officer, Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev, to specific actions
detailed therein, the NSA document is much more circumspect. In a diagram supporting the text report, the
NSA document specifically states that the organizational ties between the unnamed operators involved in
the actions described and
an organizational entity, Unit 74455,
affiliated with Russian military intelligence is a product of the judgment of an analyst and not fact.
If we take this piece of information to its logical conclusion, then
the Mueller indictment has taken detailed data related to hacking operations directed against various
American political entities and shoehorned it into what amounts to little more than the organizational
chart of a military intelligence unit assessed -- but not known -- to have overseen the operations described.
This is a far cry from the kind of incontrovertible proof that Mueller's team suggests exists to support
its indictment of the 12 named Russian intelligence officers.
If this is indeed the case, then the indictment, as presented, is a
politically motivated fraud. Mueller doesn't know the identities of those involved in the hacking
operations he describes -- because the intelligence analysts who put the case together don't know those
names. If this case were to go to trial, the indictment would be dismissed in the preliminary hearing
phase for insufficient evidence, even if the government were willing to lay out the totality of its
case -- which, because of classification reasons, it would never do.
But the purpose of the indictment wasn't to bring to justice the
perpetrators of a crime against the American people; it was to manipulate public opinion.
And therein lies the rub.
The timing of the release of the Mueller indictment unleashed a storm
of political backlash directed at President Trump, and specifically at his scheduled July 16 summit with
Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. This summit was never popular with the president's
political opponents, given the current state of affairs between Russia and the U.S., dominated as they
are by events in Syria and Ukraine, perceived Russian threats against the northern flank of NATO,
allegations of election meddling in the U.S. and Europe, and Russia's nuclear arsenal. On that last
point, critics claim Russia's arsenal is irresponsibly expanding, operated in violation of existing arms
control agreements, and is being used to underpin foreign policy objectives through the use of nuclear
blackmail.
President Trump has publicly stated that it is his fervent desire that
relations with Russia can be improved and that he views the Helsinki summit as an appropriate venue for
initiating a process that could facilitate such an outcome. It is the president's sole prerogative to
formulate and implement foreign and national security policy on behalf of the American people. While his
political critics are free to criticize this policy, they cannot undermine it without running afoul of
sedition laws.
Rosenstein, by the timing and content of the indictment he publicly
released Friday, committed an act that undermined the president of the United States' ability to conduct
critical affairs of state -- in this case, a summit with a foreign leader the outcome of which could impact
global nuclear nonproliferation policy. The hue and cry among the president's political foes for him to
cancel the summit with Putin -- or, failing that, to use the summit to confront the Russian leader with the
indictment -- is a direct result of Rosenstein's decision to release the Mueller indictment when he did and
how he did. Through its content, the indictment was designed to shape public opinion against Russia.
This indictment, by any other name, is a political act, and should be
treated as such by the American people and the media.
"This isn't about Trump, his personality, or his other policies. It's about
whether a bunch of unelected bureaucrats are going to be granted a veto power over who sits in
that chair in the Oval Office" 7 hours ago | 2,546
75 MORE: Politics If there was ever any doubt
that the Russia-gate hoax is a scheme by the War Party to salvage their bankrupt foreign
policy, and depose a democratically-elected President, then Robert Mueller's
indictment of twelve alleged GRU agents for "interfering" in the 2016 election settles the
matter once and for all. Are we supposed to believe it was just a coincidence that the
indictment was made public just as Trump was about to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in
Helsinki?
An indictment of twelve individuals who will never contest the charges, and which will not
have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law – to whom is it addressed?
Not to any jury, but to the court of public opinion. It is, in short, pure propaganda, meant to
sabotage Trump's Helsinki peace initiative before it has even convened.
Yet the brazenness of this borderline treason is what makes it so ineffective. The American
people aren't stupid: to the extent that they're paying attention to this Beltway comic opera
they can figure out the motives and meaning of Mueller's accusations without too much
difficulty.
The indictment reads like a fourth-rate spy thriller: we are treated to alleged "real time"
transcripts of Boris and
Natasha in action, draining the DNC's email system as well as our precious bodily fluids.
This material, perhaps supplied by the National Security Agency, contains no evidence that
links either Russia or the named individuals to the actions depicted in the transcripts. We
just have to take Mueller's word for it.
What Mueller is counting on is that the defendants will never show up in court. If they did,
following the example of representatives of the indicted
Internet Research Agency – accused of running Facebook ads on Russia's behalf –
Mueller would have to provide real evidence of the defendant's guilt. In that case, the
indictment would have to be dropped, because the alleged evidence is classified.
Ominously, the indictment points to unnamed US individuals alleged to have collaborated with
supposed Russian agents: Roger Stone has been identified as one of them, and no doubt others
have been targeted by the special prosecutor's office. Anyone who thought the anti-Russian
inquisition would be content with mini-big fish Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort, and the little
tadpoles they'd managed to corral, is about to be proven dead wrong. This fishing expedition
has barely begun.
The whole shoddy affair is meant to distract attention away from the President's ambitious
foreign policy initiatives, the twin diplomatic outreach campaigns to two of our old cold war
enemies. These efforts demonstrate the overarching significance of the President's "America
First" foreign policy: Trump means to abandon the old cold war structures. In their place he
means to build a new so-called international order, one that is not overseen by any one
"superpower" but that is self-regulating, like the market order that has brought unparalleled
prosperity to this country and to the world.
That's the big picture. Focusing in on specifics, what is likely to come out of this summit
is:
· A settlement of the Syrian conflict as a prelude to US withdrawal.
· An agreement to renew and revitalize the INF treaty, which is in danger of being
nullified, and the initiation of new joint efforts to limit nuclear weapons.
· An acknowledgment of the need to normalize Russo-American relations in the interest
of world peace.
I might add that efforts to trace and capture "rogue" nukes, perhaps left over from the
immediate post-Soviet collapse, should also be on the agenda.
The disgusting – and depressing – response of the Democrats to the Helsinki
summit has been a concerted campaign to cancel it. Yes, that's how myopic and in thrall to the
Deep State these flunkies are: world peace, who cares ? Never mind that we're still on
hair-trigger alert, with our nukes aimed at their cities and their nukes targeting ours. The
slightest anomaly could spark a nuclear exchange – the end of the world, the extinction
of human life, and probably of most life, for quite some time to come.
And yet -- what does the survival of the human race matter next to the question of how and
why Hillary Clinton was denied her rightful place in history? I mean, really
!
The American people are not blaming Russia for their problems.
They don't want conflict with the Kremlin, they don't care about Ukraine, and the question of
sanctions never comes up at the dinner table of ordinary Americans. That's why Russia-gate and
the war propaganda coming out of the neocon and liberal thinktanks has had little effect on
public opinion, in marked contrast to its dominance of elite discourse inside the Beltway
bubble.
This latest effort to discredit the President's peace project and sabotage a summit with a
foreign leader underscores the battle lines in this country. On one side is the Deep State,
with its self-interested globalist leadership so invested in our interventionist foreign policy
that even Trump's limited (albeit surprisingly radical) critique poses a deadly threat to their
power. On the other side is Trump, the outsider, who often has to work against and around his
own government in order to pursue his preferred policies.
Yet this isn't about Trump, his personality, or his other policies. It's about whether a
bunch of unelected bureaucrats are going to be granted a veto power over who sits in that chair
in the Oval Office. It's as simple as that.
Watching the various media commentary on Russia and Vladimir Putin I am beyond stunned by
the ignorance, insanity and stupidity that grips the vast multitude of talking heads and
so-called reporters as they opine on the upcoming summit. The memes are simple:
Vladimir Putin is a KGB Thug (he probably taught us how to waterboard nuns),
Vladimir Putin is under great political pressure at home (yeah, he only enjoys a 55%
approval rating, but how can that be? Doesn't he control the media?)
Russia's economy is in the tank.
Russia is isolated internationally.
Russia is backing a mass murderer in Syria.
You got the drift. Now let us get back to reality.
Putin and Russia will welcome improved relationships with the West, especially the United
States. But they will not sell out their soul and they will not acquiesce to our lies. Here is
one simple truth and reality that lurks in the background--despite all of our chest thumping
about Russia involvement in Syria, we are in daily coordination with the Russian military on
deconflicting air space and upcoming ground operations. This does not get covered in the media
therefore it does not exist within the consciousness of the American public.
Russia is appropriately and correctly leery of the United States and its sanctimonious
bullshit. Consider the uproar here over "Russian meddling." The U.S. has a long and blood
soaked history of intervening in other countries and ousting elected leaders. Prominent on that
list are Iran, Guatemala, Chile and Vietnam. Our protests against alleged Russian meddling are
like a whore protesting the fact that a high school cheerleader lost her virginity on prom
night.
The Russians have not forgotten our role in developing and launching the Stuxnet virus in
2010. Although it was supposed to only target the Iranian nuclear reactors, it infected the
Russian Space Station and
a Russian nuclear plant . The ground truth is that the United States, through the
activities of the CIA, the NSA and the Department of Defense, has the largest, most robust
computer network operations aka hacking activity, in the world. We live in the biggest damn
glass house.
Syria? We, the United States, along with the Brits, the Turks, the Saudis and the Qataris,
funded, organized and armed Islamic extremists in Syria. We were giving arms to terrorists. It
was the Russians who intervened to stablize the Syrian regime and turn the tables on all of the
rebel groups. We are just sore damn losers. We were out fought and out thought by Russia in
Syria and have been loath to admit the facts.
How about the question of foreign intervention? Let's put Syria to the side. The U.S. has a
far more disgraceful, shameful history on this point. Since December of 1989, we have invaded
Panama, Iraq (twice), Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria. At the same time we have broken our
promise to the Russians to not expand NATO into the former member of the Soviet Union. In fact,
U.S. and British intelligence operatives played a crucial (albeit covert role) in organizing
the Euromaidan:
These protest led ultimately to the ouster of the democratically and legally elected
Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych. In stark contrast to
the alleged meddling of Russia in our 2016 election, the United States actually succeeded in
helping oust an elected President. Vladimir Putin has not forgotten that fact.
The Deep State keeps harping on the "Russian invasion" of Crimea. As I noted in my previous
piece,
Nato, A Naked Emperor , the Russians did not invade. There was a referendum. I am sure that
Putin will point out the fact that the United States continues to "lease" Guatanamo Bay in Cuba
without the legitimacy of an election. The Cubans want us out but we insist that we have a
legal right to be there. Unlike Crimea, which historically was part of Russia, we have no
historic claim to Cuba other than our own greed.
The Deep State also wants Trump to get the Russians to do something about Iran. Do not be
surprised if Vladimir Putin takes time to explain to Donald that Iran's rise in the Middle East
is not because of Russian support. Nope. It is a direct consequence of the U.S. 2003 invasion
of Iraq.
How about future cooperation? The Russians already are playing Lyft driver for U.S.
astronauts as they ferrying us to and from the Space Station. On the nuclear front, Putin
withdrew in 2016 from a treaty , on the disposal of plutonium, in anger over the U.S.
breaking of its promise to not grow NATO and increase military exercises on Russias border.
Putin does not have alzheimer's. He is not going to back off on this point.
At the core of the U.S. mythology about Russia is the lingering resentment of how the
Soviets treated Jews in the former Soviet Union and our self-delusion that we, the United
States, defeated the Nazis. The largest tank battle in history was not the Battle of the Bulge.
It was Kursk and that was led by a Russian General. The West has refused to acknowledge the
critical role that Russia played in defeating the Nazis. Without the incredible stands at
Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, the West probably would have lost the war and we would be
living under a true fascist regime.
History is not a strong suit for Americans. Embarrassing ignorance is our currency. And we
our flush with that cash.
Thanks! So many excellent points. I sure wish someone would create a television network
that did provide good historical analysis of current topics. I'm so tired of screaming at
my television. Fox News is no exception. It may not be as stupid as the others, but it
certainly isn't unbiased as it claims to be.
During my late teenage years The Ugly American was a must read. I'm sad that it may
have had some influence in creating the mindless progressive lefties. But I am even more
upset that it didn't make the right smarter and less defensive and also self
congratulatory (for little reason) about the U.S.'s involvement in the rest of the
world.
I will have to print off your post to carry with me when I am confronted about foreign
events. Sadly, however, few people now ever do discuss politics or current events both
national and foreign. Everyone is afraid to become involved in an unpleasant
confrontation.
"On the nuclear front, Putin withdrew in 2016 from a treaty, on the disposal of
plutonium, in anger over the U.S. breaking of its promise to not grow NATO.."
I recently read an old Jan 2016 NYT article about the pentagon being in the testing
phase of a range of dial a yield delivery systems. Russia pulled out of the disposal
treaty around October 2016.
I see these dial a yield gadgets are included in the 2018 NPR and their conditions of
use. Pentagon now has much more shock and awe to play with. Pentagon also saying
production of plutonium cores needs to be stepped up.
I am beginning to wonder if the Nazi's shifted west. Operation Paperclip of course, but
they already had support from people within the US and the UK. Is the current US/Russia
conflict a phase 2 of WW2 between the descendants of Nazi's that inflitrated the West and
Russia?
Russian suspension of the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PDMA) was
because USA breached the agreement.
Here's a decent summary:
quote
The
decision to suspend the agreement had been expected. The US was supposed to fabricate MOX
fuel from its plutonium costs for building a facility at the Savannah River Site in South
Carolina but costs spiraledout of control. It prompted the administration to use a
cheaper reversible process instead - a "dilute and dispose" alternative that would simply
mix the plutonium with inert materials and store underground making it more difficult to
recover and dispose of it as waste.
According
to the "downblending" method, the Savannah River Site facility would be used to dilute
plutonium and dispose of it at the waste isolation pilot
plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico, instead of transforming plutonium into nuclear fuel. There
is a problem here - the disposal approach would not
change the mix of isotopes in the plutonium to make it more difficult to reuse in
weapons. Changing the disposition method requires formally amending the agreement, which
cannot be done without Russia's consent. In an open breach of the agreement, Moscow has
not been consulted.
Unlike
the United States, the Russian Federation has carried out its obligations. Russian state
nuclear corporation Rosatom has already started producing MOX fuel. A MOX fuel facility
in the city of Zheleznogorsk in Eastern Siberia. BN-600 and BN-800 fast neutron reactors
have been built to use MOX fuel made of weapons-grade plutonium and ensure it is unusable
for nuclear warheads.
Russia had warned the United States about the violation. The Russian president
expressed its concern over the US unilateral move in April, shortly after a nuclear
security summit held in the US.
Back
then, he noted that that the United States was not honoring the agreement by disposing of
plutonium in a way that allowed it to retain its defence capabilities. Washington was
warned.
Zbig giving a lecture. His views on Russia start at the 10 minute mark. If this is what
is being taught - a cultural hatred, blind hatred of Russia - at universities and places
of higher learning in the US.....
Debsisdead provides some consideration why the level of Mueller investigation is so low and finding are so pathetic...
Notable quotes:
"... I'm always gobsmacked at the cognitive dissonance of those who on the one hand shout that the American empire is on its last legs but as they do that they also claim that America's dumb as a rock alphabet intelligence agencies are successfully developing incredibly arcane and complicated strategies that would require having foresight to the point of omnipotence to successfully manage the plot/s. ..."
"... All that despite the fact that the known measurable outcomes that these agencies and their 'pointy end' the American military do deliver in conflicts mostly of their design and instigation reveal a miserable success rate of I would say, less than 1 in 10. ..."
"... That nonsense just does not compute. Yes they are violent crooks, but they are stupid violent crooks who cannot succeed at the simplest plan much less the intricate tactics outlined by so many here. ..."
this is all about freako psychopaths and their money, nothing more. lot's of blackmail to
keep the gravy train running
they cannot charge the Russians with what they have actually done due to a lot of these
little deep state sh%$ts would go to jail and possibly branches of government shut down if it
ever came out what the various "kompromats" were that the Russians targeted
the Russians are offensive and no innocents, however the US Gov is just disgusting
I'm always gobsmacked at the cognitive dissonance of those who on the one hand shout that the
American empire is on its last legs but as they do that they also claim that America's dumb
as a rock alphabet intelligence agencies are successfully developing incredibly arcane and
complicated strategies that would require having foresight to the point of omnipotence to
successfully manage the plot/s.
All that despite the fact that the known measurable outcomes that these agencies and their
'pointy end' the American military do deliver in conflicts mostly of their design and
instigation reveal a miserable success rate of I would say, less than 1 in 10.
That nonsense just does not compute. Yes they are violent crooks, but they are stupid
violent crooks who cannot succeed at the simplest plan much less the intricate tactics
outlined by so many here.
Once people begin believing the DC airheads' nonsense posturing , they may as well pack
their bags, throw in the towel and take off for parts unknown because falling for scumbag
tosh indicates an inability to accurately perceive the world - just the same as these DC
derps, but with less naked self interest on display.
"... How much proof would I need to lend my voice to the escalation of tensions between two nuclear superpowers? Mountains. I personally would settle for nothing less than hard proof which can be independently verified by trusted experts like the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. ..."
"... Is that a big ask? Yes. Yes it is. That's what happens when government institutions completely discredit themselves as they did with the false narratives advanced in the manufacturing of support for the Iraq invasion. You don't get to butcher a million Iraqis in a war based on lies, turn around a few years later and say "We need new cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower but we can't prove it because the evidence is secret." That's not a thing. Copious amounts of hard, verifiable proof or GTFO. So far we have no evidence besides the confident-sounding assertions of government insiders and their mass media mouthpieces, which is the same as no evidence. ..."
As
we just discussed , some major news stories have recently dropped about what a horrible horrifying menace the Russian Federation
is to the world , and as always I have nothing to offer the breathless pundits on CNN and MSNBC but my completely unsatisfied skepticism.
My skepticism of the official Russia narrative remains so completely unsatisfied that if mainstream media were my husband I would
already be cheating on it with my yoga instructor.
I do not believe the establishment Russia narrative. I do not believe that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to
rig the 2016 election. I do not believe the Russian government did any election rigging for Trump to collude with. This is not because
I believe Vladimir Putin is some kind of blueberry-picking girl scout, and it certainly isn't because I think the Russian government
is unwilling or incapable of meddling in the affairs of other nations to some extent when it suits them. It is simply because I am
aware that the US intelligence community lies constantly as a matter of policy, and because I understand how the burden of proof
works.
At this time, I see no reason to espouse any belief system which embraces as true the assertion that Russia meddled in the 2016
elections in any meaningful way, or that it presents a unique and urgent threat to the world which must be aggressively dealt with.
But all the establishment mouthpieces tell me that I must necessarily embrace these assertions as known, irrefutable fact. Here are
five things that would have to change in order for that to happen:
1. Proof of a hacking conspiracy to elect Trump.
The first step to getting a heretic like myself aboard the Russia hysteria train would be the existence of publicly available
evidence of the claims made about election meddling in 2016, which rises to the level required in a post-Iraq invasion world. So
far, that burden of proof for Russian hacking allegations has not come anywhere remotely close to being met.
How much proof would I need to lend my voice to the escalation of tensions between two nuclear superpowers? Mountains. I personally
would settle for nothing less than hard proof which can be independently verified by trusted experts like the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.
Is that a big ask? Yes. Yes it is. That's what happens when government institutions completely discredit themselves as they did
with the false narratives advanced
in the manufacturing of support for the Iraq invasion. You don't get to butcher a million Iraqis in a war based on lies, turn around
a few years later and say "We need new cold war escalations with a nuclear superpower but we can't prove it because the evidence
is secret." That's not a thing. Copious amounts of hard, verifiable proof or GTFO. So far we have no evidence besides the confident-sounding
assertions of government insiders and their mass media mouthpieces, which is the same as no evidence.
2. Proof that election meddling actually influenced the election in a meaningful way.
Even if Russian hackers did exfiltrate Democratic party emails and give them to WikiLeaks, if it didn't affect the election, who
cares? That's a single-day, second-page story at best, meriting nothing beyond a "Hmm, interesting, turns out Russia tried and failed
to influence the US election," followed by a shrug and moving on to something that actually matters.
After it has been thoroughly proven that Russia meddled in the elections in a meaningful way, it must then be established that
that meddling had an actual impact on the election results.
3. Some reason to believe Russian election meddling was unwarranted and unacceptable.
The US government,
by a very wide margin , interferes in the elections of other countries far, far more than any other government on earth does.
The US government's
own
data shows that it has deliberately meddled in the elections of 81 foreign governments between 1946 and 2000,
including Russia in the nineties.
This is public knowledge. A former CIA Director
cracked jokes about it on Fox News earlier this year.
If I'm going to abandon my skepticism and accept the Gospel According to Maddow, after meaningful, concrete election interference
has been clearly established I'm going to need a very convincing reason to believe that it is somehow wrong or improper for a government
to attempt to respond in kind to the undisputed single worst offender of this exact offense. It makes no sense for the United States
to actively create an environment in which election interference is something that governments do to one another, and then cry like
a spanked child when its election is interfered with by one of the very governments whose elections the US recently meddled in.
This is nonsense. America being far and away the worst election meddler on the planet makes it a fair target for election meddling
by not just Russia, but every country in the world. It is very obviously moral and acceptable for any government on earth to interfere
in America's elections as long as it remains the world's worst offender in that area. In order for Russia to be in the wrong if it
interfered in America's elections, some very convincing argument I've not yet heard will have to be made to support that case.
4. Proof that the election meddling went beyond simply giving Americans access to information about their government.
If all the Russians did was simply show Americans
emails of Democratic Party officials talking
to one another and circulate some
MSM articles as claimed in the
ridiculous Russian troll farm allegations , that's nothing to get upset about. If anything, Americans should be upset that they
had to hear about Democratic Party corruption through the grapevine instead of having light shed on it by the American officials
whose job it is to do so. Complaints about election meddling is only valid if that election meddling isn't comprised of truth and
facts.
5. A valid reason to believe escalated tensions between two nuclear superpowers are worthwhile.
After it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia did indeed meddle in the US elections in a meaningful way, and
after it has then been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia actually influenced election results in a significant way, and
after the case has been clearly made that it was bad and wrong for Russia to do this instead of fair and reasonable, and after it
has been clearly proven that the election meddling went beyond simply telling Americans the truth about their government, the question
then becomes what, if anything, should be done about it?
If you look at the actions that this administration has taken over the last year and a half, the answer to that question appears
to be harsh sanctions, NATO expansionism, selling arms to Ukraine, throwing out diplomats, increasing military presence along Russia's
border, a Nuclear Posture Review which is much more aggressive toward Russia, repeatedly bombing Syria, and just generally creating
more and more opportunities for something to go catastrophically wrong with one of the two nations' aging, outdated nuclear arsenals,
setting off a chain of events from which there is no turning back and no surviving.
And the pundits and politicians keep pushing for more and more escalations, at this very moment braying with one voice that Trump
must aggressively confront Putin about Mueller's indictments or withdraw from the peace talks. But is it worth it? Is it worth risking
the life of every terrestrial organism to, what? What specifically would be gained that makes increasing the risk of nuclear catastrophe
worthwhile? Making sure nobody interferes in America's fake elections? I'd need to see a very clear and specific case made, with
a 'pros' and 'cons' list and "THE POTENTIAL DEATH OF LITERALLY EVERYTHING" written in big red letters at the top of the 'cons' column.
Rallying the world to cut off Russia from the world stage and cripple its economy has been been a goal of the US power establishment
since the collapse of the Soviet Union, so there's no reason to believe that even the people who are making the claims against Russia
actually believe them. The goal is
crippling Russia to handicap China , and ultimately to shore up global hegemony for the US-centralized empire by preventing the
rise of any rival superpowers. The sociopathic alliance of plutocrats and intelligence/defense agencies who control that empire are
willing to threaten nuclear confrontation in order to ensure their continued dominance. All of their actions against Russia since
2016 have had everything to do with establishing long-term planetary dominance and nothing whatsoever to do with election meddling.
Those five things would need to happen before I'd be willing to jump aboard the "Russia! Russia! Russia!" train. Until then I'll
just keep pointing to the total lack of evidence and how very, very far the CIA/CNN Russia narrative is from credibility.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so the best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for
my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I
publish. My articles are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , checking out my
podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
2. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.) court hearing Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is now presiding over the Michael Flynn criminal case in federal
court in Washington D.C. after Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself, set a hearing for a "status conference" to be at 10:00 a.m.
on Tuesday, 10 July, and wants Gen. Flynn to attend. Judge Contreras conducted the hearing at which Flynn pled guilty, and then bailed
out. He was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) on 19 May 2016 and his term expires on 18 May 2023 [3].
This might be a factor in his recusal. Also, more recently, text messages of FBI agent Peter Strzok revealed that he was/is a
friend of Judge Contreras. Probably still hidden from the public and likely from Gen. Flynn himself is information about the FISC
surveillance warrants directed at one or more persons associated with the Trump presidential campaign, and any relationship between
Strzok, his paramour -- former FBI attorney Lisa Page, who has resigned -- and Judge Contreras.
3. House Committees want FBI and Dept. of Justice documents For more than a year, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee has been
trying to get documents from the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ), by both letter requests and by subpoena. As some documents
were disclosed, it became obvious that more information was needed, and on 24 October 2017, a joint investigation was started by
both the Intel Committee and the House Judiciary Committee.
After partial compliance, blacking out some information by "redactions", and tap dancing by the FBI and DOJ, the whole House passed
a resolution on 28 June 2018 that the documents should be provided by last Friday, 6 July.
"...more important to the foundation of the country are questions such as search and seizure, detention without trial, disclosure
of government documents and information to the public (without the new trend of "redactions"), jury trials, and uses and limits
on the police power (the use of force domestically by a government)."
Robert, Dead on right!! Constitutional rule of law is dying on the vine before our very eyes. The judiciary is backing the
authoritarian turn and with mass surveillance and now the weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence for political purposes,
it is only a matter of time when we will be living in a totalitarian state for all intents & purposes.
This Congress has shown themselves to be toothless. They keep making deadlines and issuing subpoenas and threatening contempt
& impeachment and the DOJ keeps giving them the middle finger. This is a good example of kabuki.
The continuous postponement of the sentencing of Gen. Flynn is baffling. But what is even more baffling is why Trump keeps
tweeting "witch hunt" but does not declassify the critical documents like the actual FISA application on Carter Page which Devin
Nunes claims is fraudulent. What does he gain by tweeting "witch hunt" all the time?
The Rigged Witch Hunt, originally headed by FBI lover boy Peter S (for one year) & now, 13 Angry Democrats, should look
into the missing DNC Server, Crooked Hillary's illegally deleted Emails, the Pakistani Fraudster, Uranium One, Podesta & so
much more. It's a Democrat Con Job!
With regard to the Gen. Flynn affair, Marcy Wheeler, the proprietor of the Empty Wheel blog, put up a explosive post last week
in which she discusses how and why she burned a source who had blatantly lied to her.
You may recall that Wheeler was instrumental
in exposing the details of the Bush 43 administration's intentional blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Yesterday
one of her regular readers, Peterr, posted regarding the response to Wheeler's post in the journalism community and elsewhere.
The discussion in the comments section to the latter post was especially thoughtful.
Like TTG here, Wheeler is of the view that there definitely was intentional election meddling on the part of Russia.
As I understand TTG's position, he thinks the Russians probed the electoral system but neither attempted to change the results,
nor succeeded in doing so except by influencing the opinions of the feeble minded.
"For more than a year, the U.S. House Intelligence Committee has been trying to get documents from the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ)."
I mean is this serious, or some weird joke? I was living under the pretext that the US of A is a working liberal democracy
and not a 3rd world banana republic or a weimarian republic where different state branches fight for supremacy over each other.
Has anybody already been dishonorably discharged (if this term applies at all for public servants) from anywhere?
Good luck President Trump to make America great again! You have a lot to do! If you accept a good advice start with your
own backyard!
"... Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that. ..."
"... Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers' it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles. ..."
"... Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue, the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my best friend'. ..."
"... Agreed! But what will the US psychopaths do to maintain their grip when they realize they are really losing it? Nuclear war? ..."
"... Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but it is well worth the wait. ..."
G-7 summits are supposed to symbolize "the west", its unity and its power. The summits pretended to set policy directions for
the world. We are happy to see that they are dead.
Trump was obviously not inclined to compromise.
Before attending the summit Trump trolled his colleagues by inviting Russia to rejoin the G-7/G-8 format without conditions. Russia
had been kicked out after Crimea voted to join its motherland. Merkel, who had negotiated the Minsk agreement with Russia, was furious.
She wants to use such an invitation as an element of future negotiations. (It is stupid talk. Russia is not interested in rejoining
the G-7/G-8 format.)
There are now many fields where the U.S. and its allies disagree: climate change, the Iran deal, trade are only the major ones.
Before leaving the summit Trump again
used
Mafia language against everyone else:
As he prepared to depart early from the G-7 summit in Charlevoix, Canada, to head to Singapore ahead of his planned meeting with
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump delivered an ultimatum to foreign leaders, demanding that their countries reduce trade
barriers for the U.S. or risk losing market access to the world's largest economy.
"They have no choice. I'll be honest with you, they have no choice," Trump told reporters at a news conference, adding that
companies and jobs had left the U.S. to escape trade barriers abroad. "We're going to fix that situation. And if it's not fixed,
then we're not going to deal with these countries. "
The row at the G-7 meeting was in stark contrast to the more important other meeting that happened today, the 18th Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) summit in Qingdao, China:
Dazzling against the city skyline of Qingdao, fireworks lit up the faces of guests who traveled across the vast Eurasian continent
to the coast of the Yellow Sea for the 18th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, on Saturday night.
It is the first such summit since the organization's expansion in June 2017 when India and Pakistan joined as full members.
...
The Shanghai Spirit of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and pursuit
of common development , was stated in the Charter of the SCO, a comprehensive regional organization founded in 2001 by China,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and later expanded to eight member states.
This weekend Xi will chair the summit for the first time as Chinese president, which is attended by leaders of other SCO member
states and four observer states, as well as chiefs of various international organizations.
...
The SCO has grown to be an organization covering over 60 percent of the Eurasian landmass, nearly half the world's population
and over 20 percent of global GDP.
Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia
apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that.
Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought
to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers'
it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles.
Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue,
the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my
best friend'.
The 'west' has lost in Eurasia.
The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big. Trump is off to Singapore to meet Kim Yong-un. Unlike Trump North Korea's supreme leader will be well prepared. It is likely that
he will run rings around Trump during the negotiations. If Trump tries to bully him like he bullies his 'allies', Kim will pack up
and leave. Unlike the U.S. 'allies' he has no need to bow to Trump. China and Russia have his back. They are now the powers that
can lead the world.
The 'west' is past. The future is in the east.
Posted by b on June 9, 2018 at 03:14 PM |
Permalink
Yeah, I was just thinking that. Trump is running full-speed into isolation. It's an ancient policy, which recalls the 1920s. What
does America need of the outside world? Good question.
I would think we will hear in the not too distant future of a European replacement of the US exchange systems, such as VISA.
The Americans have become too unreliable. Obviously the Russians and Chinese do have their own systems, but that won't do for
the EU.
Independence is going to be forced, and the consequences will be permanent.
Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started
it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more
valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but
it is well worth the wait.
Last year during the border standoff with India they had on strident Indian voices arguing the Indian position every day. Imagine
if CNN had on Mexican reps regarding the wall - never happen.
Because Iran was under sanctions levied by the United Nations earlier, it was blocked from admission as a new member of the Shanghai
Cooperation Council [SCO]. The SCO stated that any country under UN sanctions could not be admitted. After the UN sanctions were
lifted, Chinese president Xi Jinping announced its support for Iran's full membership in SCO during a state visit to Iran in January
2016.Iran must join the SCO ASAP it is also a military alliance and should prepare itself for a big effort at regime change by
the US and lackeys. The moral of the story unless they hang together, the US will hang them separately.
Well, China as the text books say was always ' half the human story' - only eclipsed by Western connivance in the 1860's .I remember
my father argueing with high ranking Australian government and commercial figures in 1970.
My father argued Australia needed
to find its own voice with China and Chinese policy . They replied sneeringly '' Ralph , their just red communists and will never
amount to anything ' . Shortly thereafter Nixon flew to Beijing and my father sat back in his living room with a sardonic look
on his face !
You may like Freedland's article yesterday, which unusually I agreed with, that in fact Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives
away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem? Why give away the
honour to NK of a one-to-one with the US president? I'd be surprised if NK surrenders, when they know what will happen if they
do.
"President Putin is the leader of a great country who is influential around the world," Xi said. "He is my best, most intimate
friend." Xi promised Russia and China would increase their coordination in the international arena.
Putin expressed his thanks for the honor and said he saw it as an "evaluation" of his nation's efforts to strengthen its relationship
with its southern neighbor.
"This is an indication of the special attention and respect on which our mutual national interests are based, the interests
of our peoples and, of course, our personal friendship," Putin said.
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time. In cold war 1.0, Soviet Union
was the main enemy of the US and China was split away from the Soviet Union. In this war, Trump sees China's economy as the main
threat to the US and is trying but failing to pull Russia away from China.
They did win the Cold War. That's how they became the'sole superpower'.
If winning the Cold War is about vanquishing communism, they flat out lost. Because, while they were concentrating on the end
of the USSR and celebrating, China was going up and up and up. They never saw her coming, yet to this day and for the foreseeable
future, China is a socialist, Marxist country.
So the new, desperate Western spin is to try to argue that China has "succumbed" to capitalism. Yeah, right, a country where
all the private companies have to have members of the CPC on their board and hand over enough shares to the state to grant it
veto powers, not to mention the Central bank and all its major companies are state-owned... Lol.
After the collapse of the USSR the consensus - even of the alt-media (what little of it existed) was that a new American century
was on the way and the whole world would be better off for it. A decade later in 2003 the consensus (post 'shock & awe' Gulf War
2) was that America had the ability to re-structure the Asian /African world and that it would all be for good.
15 years later we are all sick of the fruit of that delusion. So we look to another power to save us... Do we understand nothing?
Without the accountability of multi-polarity, Western supreme power all became security-obsessed privilege, self-aggrandizement,
blatant plunder and total disregard for moral value and life. Power corrupts - it knows no exceptions.
If the West is truly dead, the East will be no different.
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time.
Thought of a moment to annoy the Europeans. It is obvious that Trump was pissed off about having to attend, and left at the earliest
opportunity. The Europeans heard that, and will draw the inevitable conclusions.
Lea @ 13 Socialist, Marxist, Capitalist, what does it matter: it seems to work for China, at least for the time being. It's success
makes me think that a bit more government control of corporations might not be such a bad thing.
The summit with Kim will be fascinating to observe. In my view, NK has finessed the US and the Trump administration to a degree
I would not have thought possible, even from native US insiders. To do it long range from the other side of the world speaks to
me a lot about the power of Asia, and the clarity of view from there.
I agree with Laguerre @9 that Trump is a terrible negotiator (forgive that I didn't read the Guardian piece). I would take
this much further and say that all the US institutions themselves are culturally crippled in terms of understanding what's happening
in the ascendancy of Asia. All of their negotiation is feeble, because their grasp on their own true position is based on yesterday's
view of their power. You cannot go into negotiation without knowing what you hold.
Every day, I become more confident in the ability of the elder nations to put the young western empires to rest without their
being triggered into death spasms.
Red Ryder @11 - I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to
render the enemy powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked. Russia as the other half of the Double Helix
mesmerizes the west with weaponry while China undercuts the ground. Both countries are fully at war, and winning, while unseeing
commenters complain that it's time for them to "do something." How superb the silk rope drawn so softly around the throat.
It's a beautiful play. I very much hope - and truly expect - that we can all survive to be able to sit back and admire it as
the years unfold.
I have a small quibble with b's wording but thank him for following and reporting on our evolving world.
b's words:"
The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.
"
My rewording:
The global elite have their US puppet acting like a schoolyard bully who beat up his gang members because their former victims
have grown too big.
The West is trying to consolidate power and control while they still have some ghost of a chance. How they hold countries after
this global divorce will be interesting.
At his time the West has little to offer humanistically except its vice grip on most economic interaction and the tools including
banking underpinning the "system". The elite have deluded the public in the West for centuries about private finance behind the
scenes of all/most conflict......pointing to other religions but never their own.
It sure is getting interesting. IMO, the two Koreas are going to announce a reconciliation that requires the removal of America
military forces/bases et al, which fits in with the fake nationalism efforts of Trump.
That the US and the EU and their respective camps are at loggerheads over trade and perhaps other economic issues should not (I
hope) lead readers to assume that one side has the interests of the public it represents uppermost in mind. As the US and the
Anglosphere is dominated by one set of neoliberals, so Germany and the lackey EU nations following Berlin are dominated by another
set of neoliberals in thrall to an export-led mercantilist ideology. Just as the elites in charge of US power structures are only
interested in enriching themselves, the same can be said for those in charge of power structures in Europe. Whether under the
US or the EU, the public suffers.
Notice that Germany benefits from being the major economic power in the EU while its fellow EU nations around the Atlantic
and Mediterranean rim flail under a huge debt (and Greece is being punished back into the impoverished colonial status it held
under Nazi German occupation) and eastern European EU members are following suit running their economies into the ground and having
to beg NATO into setting up bases in their territories to attract money. At the same time German workers are becoming poorer,
they are not benefiting from Berlin's economic policies, they are not reproducing fast enough so Berlin needs to bring in more
foreign workers in the guise of "refugees" to prop up factories and keep wages low.
@ Madderhatter67: The US did not win the Cold War because the Cold War was only ever a propaganda front for the secret war
waged by US / UK elites against Russia and China to dominate and rob these nations and their neighbours of their natural resources.
thanks b - and for the laugh with the marjorie and homer pic for comparison!
i think this parallel you draw is a good one.. the west is certainly floundering... i am not sure how global finance responds
here... i can't imagine the 1% being on the wrong side of a bet on the direction of things here either..
@6 harry law.. did iran make it into the sco? it sounds like it did.. good!
@14 les7.. regarding your last line - i tend to agree with that viewpoint..
@19 jen... do you think it will be somehow different if the power shifts to russia/china? i guess i am not so sanguine over
power, regardless of who holds it.
Very well put, only issue that as to be dealt with is all those Stan Countries, they are a hibernating and breeding ground for
Terrorists and Arms dealers , who don't care who they sell arms to and how they get them to rogue regimes.
I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to render the enemy
powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked.
I do think you're exaggerating there.
China's past history has been one of a country very contented with itself, much like the US, because defended geographically
by vast deserts. A longer history, so some foreigners did traverse the deserts.
The Chinese exported their products by foreign ships (Arabo-Persian) arriving at Canton, and buying cargoes, or camel caravans
arriving in the north and buying silk. The Chinese themselves did not travel abroad very much, and so didn't know very much about
surrounding countries, or the rest of the world. There was a fleet of Chinese junks which arrived in the Gulf in the 14th century,
but it was the only one.
Today's situation is not so different. There are Chinese interventions in Africa, but their diplomacy is pretty ham-fisted.
The Belt-and-Road initiative is in fact intended to bring up to speed Central Asian countries like Tajikistan. Fine, Tajikistan
needs it, but it's not world-changing.
The rail freight from Beijing to Frankfurt works better as an intermediate between sea and air freight, but essentially it
is what has always happened - foreigners export Chinese products. The Chinese don't know how to run a foreign policy.
from their body language, I would say that Japan is surely 'with' Trump and the US, but that's only because that arch-reactionary
Abe is in power.....and when he goes, and go he will, there will be a big period of adjustment...some day.
The scambastic Trump could be inclined to make a slightly more fair deal in Singapore just to make a deal, but he is going extra
early (no jet lag) and will be controlled by Pompeo with his 'Grim Reaper' CIA-dog/warhawk/translator/born & raised S. Korean
with multiple relations in their South KCIA (NIS) and cabinet leadership, Andrew Kim (born Kim Sung-hyun). Kim's purpose will
be to control Trump's spontaneaous decision making, inform him on what he reads as N. Korea's intent, and give baseline hawkish
color to the translations for his own hawkish viewpoint.
bjd, bolton is trump's overseer, making sure he doesn't step out of line.
Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the
US embassy to Jerusalem?
Laguerre, you have it backwards. the embassy move, the iran deal, and the appointment of bolton are all concessions trump made,
as payback for adelson's millions to both the gop and his campaign. possibly also has a little something to do cambridge analytica,
honey traps or whatever.
The imprint of the 84-year-old's political passions is seen in an array of Donald Trump's more controversial decisions, including
violating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and appointing the ultra-hawkish John
Bolton as national security adviser.
......The New York Times reported that Adelson is a member of a "shadow National Security Council" advising Bolton
James @ 21: I think one should always be a bit suspicious of those who hold power, especially those who find themselves holding
the uppermost hand in power as a result of victory in war (whether in the form of actual military combat, trade war or other wars
in soft power).
Russia under Vladimir Putin and China under Xi Jinping may be fine but will their successors know not to abuse the power they
may gain from the New Silk Road projects encompassing Eurasia and Africa?
Of course, it is about Iran. It's the Iranian deal that the EU needs to continue. They benefit as the biggest vendors to Iran.
They want to get inside that developing 70 million person market, also.
Bolton wants regime change. The EU knows that will be worse than Iraq. And economically, the EU will be in the dumps for 2
decades if there's another war they are forced to join. And they will be forced to join. They cannot say No to the Hegemon.
The EU 2, Germany and France, are at a historic moment of truth.
They could have a great future with Russia, China, Iran, the BRICS, SCO, OBOR and EAEU or they could be crippled by the Empire.
"...But Canada, which pushed for Russia to get the boot in 2014, is not onside. 'Russia was invited to be part of this club
and I think that was a very wise initiation, and an invitation full of goodwill,'[FM Chrystia Freeland] she told reporters at
the summit. 'Russia, however, made clear that it had no interest in behaving according to the rules of Western democracies..."
it's kind of wonderful to see all these imperialist and former neo-colonial powers fighting among themselves.
unfortunately, like the old African proverb goes, when the elephants fight it's the grass and small animals that suffer.
I see no reason for optimism for the peoples of europe at this point, as the stranglehold of the Trioka is perhaps as strong
as ever, and hundreds of millions of people are suffering; the people simply have to get organized at all levels and take back
their sovereignty at least as a start
The US still has the power of the dollar in its arsenal. The UK and EU, and any nation that deals with Wall Street, are addicted
to US investment in dollars. Since the EU is run by the banks, and western banks can't function with the dollar, any statements
by the EU that they're going to avoid US sanctions over Iran are meaningless.
The equation is essentially this: you can have your sovereignty or you can have the benefits of the dollar that make your 1%
very rich. You can't have both. Since the EU is ruled by the 1% banker/investor class they will forestall any attempts to regain
sovereignty by the people. In a sense, Europe is like Russia 10-15 years ago, thinking that the US is the key to the golden calf.
Russia learned the hard way they needed to establish some independence (although to this day Russia doesn't have nearly the financial
independence one might hope), and China saw from Russia's example they needed to do so as well. This led them to team up on many
economic initiatives while seeking to reduce the dominance of the dollar.
Perhaps someday Europe will learn this lesson. But as long as the EU exists, I kind of doubt it. The EU-crats will cry and
criticize Trump but the bankers love US money too much to let them actually do anything serious.
If the West is dead and the East is the future, then why are so many Chinese buying houses and living part time in Canada, Australia,
and the USA? Why is there so much emphasis put on Western education facilities by Asians?
Most Americans don't no matter how much explanation I go into.
They insist its a tariff or duty,which its not.
I've given up trying to explain its a sales tax on all,paying at customs is merely a cash flow issue for the importer.A reclaimable
input on his VAT return,did it many times myself.
there is only a bunch of paid of administrators running the countries and the corporations that pay them.
Trumps quid pro quo is deals that benefit his family. I don't thinks he cares one bit about the GOP and how the party fundraises.
He cares about advancing his family and keeping the loot.
maybe we should realize that the concepts of east and west, as much as neo liberalism or neo conservatism or any other moniker
that we could apply to loot and steal - legally and without shame under the guise of trade - are concepts of the past.
the future is for the strongest, irrespective of their origins or philosophy. we are burning this planet down with a vengeance
and we - the people - are to numerous and too expensive to keep.
while we debate and some even chuckle with delight as to how the west is treated by trump, or how much the west deserves to
be made redundant and all hail the Russians and the Chinese - the king is dead, long live the king - it is us who dies in the
wars, it is our children that are being kidnapped and locked up in prison when arriving on the border seeking asylum, it is us
who will watch the women in our live die in childbirth because of lack of medical care, it is us who will die of black lung, hunger,
thirst and general malice.
and while we gossip, they laugh all the way to the bank.
b, we have no doubt that the North Korean leadership is ready for the Americans and know the score with a rising Eurasia and a
sinking NATO. However, your last assumption of Kim being more than ready to go toe-to-toe with DJT smacks of some of the worst
tendencies of many posters here who are ready to venerate Kim without him ever even making formal address of more than a few words
to a) his people, 2) his allies, or D) even the world. This is a laughable assumption from you and it would be like having the
most beautifully-made garment handy for a long while, desperate for anyone to come along so you could fling it on them to prove
they were the most amazing supreme leader in all the world!
This is not to say I do not want the NoKos to succeed in their endeavors of getting a fair deal...hardly: I think they will
succeed eventually because they are shrewd. But this is an attempt to squash the unbelievably propagandistic (or naive) attempts
to place the mantle of imperviousness, all-knowingness, utterly-innocentness, and insurmountably-cleverousness onto the boy that
would be king. DJT could eat a boy like Kim for breakfast if left alone from their advisors.
Trump is very dependent on his base. He knows them well. At risk of hitting a discordant note I suspect a lot of his fans are
happy seeing him sock it to the goddamn ch*nks and euro faggots.
It's a big weekend. G7, SCO, Bilderberg, NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels and the huge NATO "Drills" including the Baltic
States and for the first time, Israel.
Oh, and the US called on NATO to add 30 land battalions, 30 air fighter squadrons, and 30 naval ships to "counter Russian aggression."
I predicted it would become the G6+1 and so it has. Trump told his staffers NOT to sign the Joint Communique, which I believe
is a first.
On the issue of power
and the BRI , the linked item is a trove of info as it focuses on perhaps the most problematic region of the SCO/BRI.
If Europe is to break free from the Outlaw US Empire, Merkel must be jettisoned and independent-minded leaders must take control
of Germany and EU. I'm not at all surprised with how events went in Canada. However, I see the Policy as the Bully, not Trump,
the policy still being the attempt to gain Full Spectrum Domination. What's most important, IMO, is this spectacle will not go
unnoticed by the rest of the world. The Outlaw US Empire cannot make it any plainer that it's the primary enemy state of all except
the Zionist Abomination. I think Abe wonders why he's there and not in Qingdao.
Although this item focuses on Kashmir , it should be read after the longer article linked above. There's little news as of
yet coming from Qingdao other than who's cooking what and sideline meets. I expect more coming out beginning Monday. Of course,
Kim-Trump begins now, it being the 10th in Singapore already.
The difference between the two projects- the western Empire and the Eurasian schemes exemplified by OBOR- is that the former,
as 500 years of experience teaches us, relies on ethnic divisions, wars and competition while the latter requires peace and co-operation.
In a sense that answers Jen @ 32. It really doesn't matter who runs the governments of China and Russia, provided that they
can prevent the imperialists from distracting them into rivalry. It was that which, thanks to plenty of stupidity on both sides,
gave rise to the tensions of which Nixon and Kissinger took advantage.
Had the USSR and China ironed out their small differences on the sixties- and Vietnam gave them a perfect excuse to do so,
history would have been very different and probably much less bloody.
The truth is that, as b asserts, the SCO is already much more important than the G7- America and the Six Dwarfs. How much more
important is shown by the role of Freeland (the neo-Nazi Ukrainian apologist) in insisting on holding the line against Russia's
re-admission to a club that it almost certainly does not want to rejoin.
Trump may not be a 'good negotiator' but he has a position of relative strength vis a vis the rest of the G7 who cannot negotiate
because they do as they are told. If they won't do what Trump tells them to do they will be on the lookout for someone else to
give them orders-they have no idea of independence or sovereignty. Just watch most of them scuttle back to Brussels for ideas,
or set up back channels to Moscow- once a puppet always a puppet.
The Sino-Soviet Split occurred while Stalin was still alive--he refused to allow the Chinese to develop "Communism with Chinese
Characteristics" just like any other European Orientalist. And as the Monthly Review article I linked, the Chinese must
beware of becoming/being seen as Imperialistic in their zeal to push BRI--Imperialist behavior will kill the Win-Win concept as
it will revert to just another Zero-sum Game.
One of the factors which has been killing the 'Democratic' West is that its bribed & blackmailed leaders have alienated themselves
from The People whose views they were elected to represent.
No-one living in a so-called democracy is prepared to tolerate a leader who spends too much time praising, and making excuses
for, the crimes of the racist-supremacist Zionist Abomination (h/t karlof1) and its Piece Process in Palestine. It can be persuasively
argued that embrace of and fealty to the Z.A. is the only factor which Western Leaders have in common. And it's neither a coincidence
nor happenstance.
Grrr! I still don't get why so many humans believe anything good comes from chucking aside one greedy oppressive arsehole then
replacing it with another. Sure the SCO has a founding document laden with flowery words and seemingly wonderful concepts but
I say "So what" check out the UN charter or the amerikan constitution and you'll find the same.
These issues of justice & equity
cannot be fixed by swapping bosses because every society has its share of pathologically fucked up greedies who have the means
and lack of empathy to destroy anything and everyone in their lust for whatever it is they imagine they need.
We have to accept that will never change and that trying to purge the planet of those types just creates more of them from
within the structure most successful in effecting the swap.
I know I sound like a scratched disc but the only fix that could hope to work is one that smashes the conglomerations into
tiny shards, reducing the world to thousands of small self governing entities; sure some places will still end up being taken
over by low self esteem motivated arseholes, but not only will they not be able to do as much damage, arseholes stand out in a
small society where more 'normal' humans interact with them - currently all the pr1cks coagulate in spots such as the G7 and few
non-pr1cks ever get close enough to see them for what they are. A low count on the old degrees of seperation register makes it
much more difficult for the scum to rise. Making sure that no chunk is sufficiently big to force its will on another would also
be vital.
That won't fix everything, but who outside some totally screwed up anal regressive would want that anyway? I just want to live
in a world where no one cops it like the entire Yemeni population currently is. I see no benefit in moving the horror from Yemen
to Uigar-land or whatever place the new bosses decide should be their fun palace of hate, murder and misery.
The Congo and/or Nigeria another coupla sites of misery for money. Timor Leste aka East Timor, now that the Portuguese expats
in the form of the man with the Nobel stamp of obeisance to the monied
Jose Ramos Horta have done over the
locals, something Xanana Gusmăo always said could happen. Horta's arseholeness made the wealthiest nation in the world (divide
resources by population) riven by poverty, lack of health and education services plus of course old favourite, racist oppression.
Check out these kids here untroubled
by issues like getting a decent phone signal or their ranking on Twitch - wondering where their next decent feed is coming from
is prolly their most pressing issue.
Swapping SCO for G7 will do SFA for them or anyone else unlucky enough to be living on top of whatever the current 'must have'
is deemed to be.
Humanity either learns how to live with itself on an equal basis or it will perish; it's really that simple. The likes of the
Outlaw US Empire, its NATO vassals and the Zionist Abomination are shining examples of what MUST be exorcised for ever more.
"... When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the face. ..."
"... McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he would be one of the first two fired, he was told. ..."
"... Fox News reported ..."
"... John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor : Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's "unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. ..."
Rep. Louis Gohmert, a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, said during a hearing
Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's emails were sent to a foreign entity. The FBI, specifically Strzok, did not
follow-up. And, the foreign entity wasn't Russia. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
(ICIG) in 2016 Charles McCullough III found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going
through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her
emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI
official Peter Strzok. "It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia," he added. According to Gohmert, McCullough sent his ICIG
investigator Frank Rucker to present the findings to Strzok who remembered meeting with him but
nothing else.
Conveniently, Strzok couldn't remember what they talked about.
When Rucker spoke with Strzok, he nodded but was remarkably uninterested in what Rucker
had to say, Gohmert said. The DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz received a call about it
four times and never returned the calls. He's the other DoJ official described as having an
impeccable reputation, but he can't seem to find bias when it slaps him in the
face.
In January 2016, in response to an inquiry, Charles McCullough III informed the Republican
leadership on the Senate intelligence and foreign affairs committees that emails beyond the
"Top Secret" level passed through Hillary Clinton's unsecured personal server. Democrats
immediately responded by trying to intimidate McCullough.
Despicable Adam Schiff told Chris Wallace: "I think the inspector general does risk his
reputation. And once you lose that as inspector general, you're not much good to anyone. So I
think the inspector general has to be very careful here."
McCullough, hired during the Obama administration, told
Fox News's Catherine Herridge he faced intense backlash. In a Clinton administration, he
would be one of the first two fired, he was told.
Fox News reported that the emails contained "operational intelligence," which is
information about covert operations to gather intelligence as well as details about the assets
and informants working with the U.S. government.
John Schindler confirmed the Fox News report. He wrote at The Observor :
Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton's
"unclassified" emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage. This included the true
names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse,
some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover.
It appears that the DoJ and FBI like to remain ignorant.
In January, 2016, Robert Gates told Hugh Hewitt that the "odds are pretty high" that Russia,
China, and Iran had compromised Hillary's home-brew server...
So Mueller was a CIA mole in FBI fromthe very beginning. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding. ..."
"... Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections. ..."
"... Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. ..."
"... Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act. ..."
"... Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along. ..."
"... @detroitmechworks ..."
"... Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we? ..."
"... Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it? ..."
"... Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down." ..."
"... that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing." ..."
"... Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... The seas were calm and the skies were clear." ..."
"... "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." ..."
"... It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only ..."
"... as it appears they don't ..."
"... I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
In the 1950s, when the science fiction genre started making itself felt in movies, there was always the pivotal scene where the
protagonist discovers the dark secret but no one will believe him: a flying saucer hidden under the sand in a field, truckloads of
pod people to replace real people, or that the friendly aliens' book "To Serve Man" wasn't a guide to helping humans, but a cookbook.
It's that moment of sudden realization that no one will believe the hero because it sounds too crazy to believe.
Granted, to the uninitiated, coming to a realization so shocking and threatening to your current mental construction of the world
can appear like paranoia. It becomes a question of the discoverer's knowledge and senses over what everyone else believes. Everyone
else seems to be allowing him or herself to be absorbed into the great growing evil.
Today many of us, certainly readers here at Caucus99, are finding ourselves in similar positions. Our political structure is a
lie, the people who are supposed to represent us and our interests don't, our law enforcement protects the property of the rich,
not our lives, and often are in cahoots with the criminals from whom we are supposed to be protected. I am sure that many of our
old friends and acquaintances have been alienated from some of us here when we began talking about Hillary's track record during
the Presidential campaign, for example. In our current pasteboard world, if you are a Republican or Democrat you must assume that
your designated political party, maybe with a couple of exceptions, are there to look after you.
And there that crazy friend goes, yelling about cookbooks.
I suppose my introduction to the corruption of those in power, at thirteen, was the assassination of JFK. Not actually the assassination,
but the murder of Oswald two days later, in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. I had slept overnight at a friend's and
we came back from shooting basketballs to watch the transfer of Oswald to another facility. That was the moment that I realized all
wasn't what it seemed. But, like most kids my age, the Beatles came along in a month or so and I was swept into the world of rock
and roll, which kept me occupied until I began noticing girls. Until 1968. I was still noticing girls and rock and roll, but I was
also noticing the number of progressives being gunned down by "lone nuts". And I was noticing Vietnam.
I'm not sharing this to explain to you how I became (that loathsome term) a "conspiracy theorist". I just want to explain to you
that the democracy of the United States, and all the characters running across the stage in Washington, D.C., are the cookbook.
I wrote an essay here back in April of 2017 explaining how the Russiagate scandal had been designed to give Hillary Clinton a
casus belli for her future war against Russia, and that what we were seeing since she lost has been a recycling of it to get Trump
in line with the goals of the Deep State. So far nothing much has happened that has moved me from that belief. Now that the Deep
State seems to have persuaded our Dear Leader that he can go on being himself as long as he understands the actual hierarchy and
doesn't get in the way the Deep State, everything seems to be back on track. At least until Donald's next tweet.
But in order to understand the depth of criminality in our system one has to understand how things are done. After World War II
a lot of social awareness began putting pressure on the old system that had driven the world into the Great Depression. FDR had demonstrated
that the government could look out for the poor, could give them jobs when there were no other jobs to be had. The GI Bill sent millions
of vets to college and helped to create the middle class we used to have. Unions had real power in negotiating wages and terms of
service. Government could create a system to help the elderly. The African Americans, coming back home from fighting a war against
fascism, refused go to the coloreds only water fountains. In short, the United States were in for some growing pains.
What happened? As I mentioned above there was a rash of murders of progressive political candidates and leaders in the sixties.
But in order for the forces behind a return to the old rules to keep a lid on any revolutions there had to be something better than
shooting every progressive who raised his head above the lectern. Thus the wave of recruitment of agents and assets in the late sixties
by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Although I didn't know it directly at the time, arriving on campus in 1968 it was evident that
there was a "presence" of people looking over the shoulders of student activists.
Which brings me to another great revelation. It's not just politicians and political parties that are serving the Deep State.
Any agency that can be corrupted by power will be, eventually.
Which brings us to the courts.
There are certain things that must be preserved for a ruling class to remain legitimate in the eyes of the public. Some people
don't think much beyond the flag. But there are other things. The media is better than ever at keeping uncomfortable truths from
the majority of Americans. But what happens where the criminality of the Deep State collides with our judicial system?
Let me introduce you to the man of the hour in Washington, Robert Swann Mueller III. Robert was born into the upper crust in our
American class system. At one point in his education in private schools John Kerry was a classmate. (Kerry was also a fellow Bonesman
with the Bushes.) Mueller met his eventual bride, Ann Cabell Standish, at one of the dances they attended. They married in 1966,
three years after John Kennedy's assassination. If you have read much about the JFK assassination you would recognize her middle
name. Her grandfather, Charles Cabell, had been second in command at the CIA when John Kennedy was elected President. In the aftermath
of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy fired three men from leadership positions at the CIA: Director Allen Dulles, Cabell and Richard
Bissell. Charles Cabell was Ann's grandfather. Her grand uncle, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy's murder
there. Recently declassified JFK documents revealed that Mayor Cabell was also an asset of the CIA at the time. Small world.
You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's
family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who
hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out
of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding.
Soon thereafter Mueller decided to go to Vietnam because, he said, a classmate had died there and patriotism and so forth. He
became an officer and eventually ended up as an aide-de-camp for the 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, General William K.
Jones. Something else was going on in Vietnam. The CIA had installed its Phoenix Program. I cannot do justice to the Phoenix Program
and won't considering Doug Valentine's work on it is available for everyone, but the Phoenix Program was the CIA's attempt to totally
control the Vietnamese population. Besides massacres of villages, the program assassinated suspected leaders and spies for the Vietcong,
coerced others into being their agents, and kept up files on all the relevant Vietnamese down to the village level. Like in later
wars, the CIA incorporated torture, murder and psychological techniques in order to control their targets. As an aide-de-camp to
a commanding Marine general, there is no way that Mueller didn't know about the Phoenix Program. He probably saw daily briefings.
When he came back to the US he studied law and quickly became a federal prosecutor.
One of the things to mark his career was to deny a pardon to Patty Hearst for her part in the whole Symbionese Liberation Army's
"terror" campaign. What did the SLA have to do with anything? A short history: Donald DeFreeze, a small-time criminal in Los Angeles
agreed to become an informant for the LAPD in order to stay out of jail. After awhile he got tired of ratting out others and asked
to get out of the program. Instead, DeFreeze was incarcerated at the Vacaville Medical Facility for criminally insane prisoners in
the California penal system. There DeFreeze met Colston Westbrook who gave classes for the "Black Cultural Association", an experimental
behavior modification unit inside the prison. Who was Westbrook? He was a CIA agent, trained in psychological warfare and part of
the Phoenix Program. DeFreeze was modified by Westbrook and company for two years. Soon thereafter, he was transferred to Soledad
Prison, from which he "escaped" and became the infamous "Cinque". Then came the Symbionese Liberation Army, a caricature of a black
militant group filled with mostly white people with military backgrounds. The murder of Marcus Foster, a progressive black leader
in the San Francisco East Bay, was done by white men in blackface, according to eyewitnesses. The SLA claimed credit for it. The
SLA kidnapped Hearst, subjected her to torture, rape, sensory deprivation and mind control tactics, just like the CIA did in the
Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Then came the bank robberies.
I bring up the Patty Hearst case because, in 2000, decades after her prison sentence had been commuted, Mueller still opposed
her pardon. Guess what he didn't notice when he rejected her pardon? This has been his pattern throughout his career. We'll return
to Patty Hearst shortly.
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA. He
prosecuted what was known in the San Francisco Bay Area as the "drug tug" case which had connections to an island in Panama. It was
a drug smuggling case and had tentacles into things like bank frauds in Northern California. He prosecuted Manuel Noriega's drug-smuggling
without noticing Oliver North's drug-smuggling, arms running and money laundering through Panama as a part of Iran-contra.
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections.
For example, he prosecuted Pan Am 103. Initially, and then later confirmed by an insurance investigator's report, the bomb that
brought down the airliner was believed to be placed onboard by baggage handlers working at the Frankfurt Airport. They were given
the bomb by a terrorist cell who in turn got it from one Monzer al-Kassar, who was a very large heroin dealer, estimated at supplying
twenty percent of the US's heroin at the time. A big operator. And, in fact, one of the passengers on the plane was a drug mule for
al-Kassar. Al-Kassar also happened to be a part of the Iran-contra operation, supplying weapons for North's Enterprise. The operation
was, according to the early reports, carried out by a cell of Palestinian terrorists based in Frankfurt, the Palestinian Liberation
Front-General Command, who got the bomb from al-Kassar and put the bomb on that airline.
Mueller, put in charge of the case, pursued an entirely different direction, accusing two Libyans of bombing the plane. At the
time Libya and Khadafy were getting blamed for a lot of terrorist activity, but the case against the two was so weak as to hardly
be circumstantial.
There were other questions arising from Pan Am 103. A top official in the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell, rushed onto the tarmac in
London to pull his son and daughter-in-law off of Pan Am 103 before it went on to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland. Also changing
flight plans were South African President Pik Botha and his negotiating team. Apparently, someone that Revell and Pik Botha knew
gave them the warning.
There was one group that didn't get warned. That was the McKee Team, an assembled group of US intelligence agents tasked to investigate
American hostages in Beruit. They allegedly discovered a link between the hostage takers, drug traffickers and the CIA. They were
returning to the US, against orders, presumably to spill the beans. This was essentially a clean-up operation, tying up loose strings
of the Iran-contra operation. So was Noriega's prosecution.
That's why Mueller got the case. He knew where to look and where not to look.
He also prosecuted ancillary Iran-contra cases. He prosecuted John Gotti for dealing cocaine in the New York City area. The cocaine
he sold was part of the the Iran-contra (CIA) plan where Southern Air Transport flew weapons to Latin America for the contras (whom
Congress had voted against aiding) and bringing back cocaine from Latin America on its return flights, to include Mena, Arkansas.
One of the CIA's pilots, Barry Seal, bragged that he had a "get-out-of-jail" letter written for him by then-Governor Bill Clinton.
At the time, Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor for that corner of Arkansas. He also didn't notice all that cocaine. Hutchson
later served as George W. Bush's first "drug czar" before going into politics. How coincidental.
Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in
time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated
BCCI. As head of our country's biggest law enforcement agency Mueller did not pursue the House of Saud's part in 9/11 even though
fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and a number of them could be traced to Saudi intelligence, and the money
chain could be traced to Saudis living in the US, some of whom flew out of the US while all other US flights were grounded. He did
not investigate Mohammed Atta's time in Frankfort, Germany, where he was employed by a front company for the BND, West Germany's
equivalent to the CIA. Nor did Mueller investigate Huffman Aviation where Mo Atta and another hijacker matriculated in flying planes
into buildings. Huffman is interesting because while Mo was studying in Huffman's Venice, Florida aviation school a Huffman plane
was busted in Orlando with 43 pounds of heroin. Curiously, the pilot walked away from the DEA without being charged and no one was
prosecuted at Huffman.
Ask Colleen Rowley about Mueller's leadership in the 9/11 investigation.
Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building
within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead,
he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the
equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly
"committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two
of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.
Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest,
the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist,
the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along.
A closer examination of Robert Mueller would probably find a lot more of these cases and I encourage others to continue the search.
For example, it's been alleged that Mueller sent innocent men to jail for crimes committed by Whitey Bulger for the benefit of someone
or something within the government and that this allowed Bulger to continue his criminal activities for years.
***
It's been seventy years since the CIA was created, fifty years since JFK was most likely murdered by them. In order to avoid any
consequences for their crimes more and more institutions have had to be infiltrated and corrupted by them. Many of the heroes of
the Left have turned out to be purveyors of "modified limited hangouts" which served the Deep State. Ramsey Clark, who was given
the mantle of "good guy" by the media of the Left, was active as LBJ's Attorney General in blocking Jim Garrison's investigation
into the JFK assassination and was named by Doug Valentine in his THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME as a major proponent of the CIA's OPERATION
CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO. While the media spent a good deal of time talking about how great they were in releasing the Pentagon
Papers to the public, the hero who exposed the military, Daniel Ellsberg, turns out to have been CIA, operating with CIA black ops
in Vietnam. And while the Pentagon Papers exposed our military's great errors in Vietnam the CIA was generally spared. Again. Bob
Woodward, our hero of Watergate, had been a courier for the Office of Naval Intelligence only a few years earlier. Thus, the CIA
and Deep State, which had soured on Nixon, orchestrated that President's departure.
I raise this because Robert Mueller's current task is the investigation of our sitting President. No matter how much you dislike
Trump you can't help but notice that the "evidence" against him conspiring with Putin and Russia is thin gruel. And while Trump,
like most politicians who ascend to the big seat, has a lot of questionable, even indictable business connections around him, the
great dangers of a Putin-Trump conspiracy trumpeted by the media have been fading because, apparently, there was never a there there.
Thus, as Mueller oversees this case, he will find people surrounding Trump who have lied to FBI agents, who have perhaps not registered
as foreign agents, and other crimes that routinely happen out of the public spotlight and aren't prosecuted. What was obvious to
me from the start, that this was a psyop that involved U.S. intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, Clinton and the DNC, will not be
obvious to Mueller. Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a
means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it.
When one begins examining high-profile court cases in post-1963 America one sees a cast of people who keep popping up. Prosecutors,
judges, defense attorneys, coroners, witnesses, reporters, authors. This ensemble keeps reappearing in these show trials. We may
not know what Mueller will find, but we know what he won't find.
There was a review at Truthdig back in 2016 of Jeffrey Toobin's book on Patty Hearst, AMERICAN HEIRESS (Toobin himself worked
as an associate counsel to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh during the investigation Iran–Contra affair and Oliver North's criminal
trial). In part it reads: "Toobin features the characters who populated the edges of Hearst's story. Robert Shapiro, who would later
work with [F. Lee] Bailey on the O.J. Simpson case, makes a cameo appearance. Lance Ito, the judge in that case, briefly shared a
shooting range with a machine-gun toting SLA member. Reverend Jim Jones offered to help with the food distribution effort; that enterprise
also employed Sara Jane Moore, who served 32 years for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford during his 1975 visit to San
Francisco. Congressman Leo Ryan, who represented Randy and Catherine Hearst's district, endorsed the commutation of Patty's sentence.
"Off to Guyana," he wrote Patty in 1978. "See you when I return. Hang in there." Jim Jones' henchmen shot and killed Ryan before
he could board his flight home. Robert Mueller, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco before taking over as FBI director, strenuously
opposed Hearst's pardon, claiming that her attitude, born of wealth and social position, "has always been that she is a person above
the law.""
When Mueller wrote that line he must have laughed out loud.
That isn't connecting the dots. Its painting a bloody Mona Lisa.
I had no idea how dirty this man was. He is the CIA version of Zelig or Forest Gump. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.
Beginning with the double CIA family ties and proceeding through whitewashing 911, this man is so central to our rotten government
that its a wonder someone hasn't done what you just did a lot sooner.
My hat is off to you. Someone should post this article on our blog.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.
It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.
LOL.
The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens
of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...
@arendt even
considering they were working from licenses half the time. They ended up essentially creating the universe bibles for Ghostbusters
and the Star Wars EU prior to the reboots.
Unfortunately, that didn't translate into respect. However, I still to this day am amazed at the complexity of thought that
went into many of the rules and the ability they had to match mechanics to maintaining the play feel.
Paranoia in particular was hilarious. Kafka and Three Stooges, and even a little Joseph Heller. Later editions even managed
to work in criticisms of late stage capitalism by having players ALWAYS broke and any unexpected expenses needing to be made up
through crime... which was illegal, to avoid budget shortfalls... which was also illegal...
Bob, thank you. As detailed and extensive as it is, your essay is concise by making it clear exactly what's so wrong with Mueller:
Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA...
Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections...
Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure
on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it...
For me, the anthrax case is the most important. Biological weapons are no joke. I believe we learned, from whistle-blowing
scientists, not from the FBI investigation, that the CIA had one of the many illegal biological weapons programs being run with
our tax dollars leading up to the anthrax attack. So whether Battelle was one of the CIA's contractors or yet another cut out,
the investigation by Mueller simply stated those entities, all of them, were eliminated from the investigation.
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and
the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is
never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man
until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain
category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out
to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the
less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect"
and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it.
He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies"
like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another
man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4
"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian
replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable
of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation
of objective developments.
The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a
certain category of the population.
"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are,
the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn
out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)
Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by
the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies
wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it?
Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called
"a right wing attempt to bring them down."
I almost skipped reading this one, assumed at first from the headline it was going to be about the Russia "investigation" which
I've been steadfast in not paying any attention to.
But wow, this is so much better than I'd expected, a fascinating tapestry. A lot to absorb. At this point I'm just feeling
overwhelmed at how little "we the people" in this country have any say in, or even any knowledge about, what is going on.
Thank you for this excellent history and synthesis.
from those who believe the fairy tale of Russia Gate. John
Brennan has also become a darling of the left. Greenwald wrote about him after Obama appointed him to his cabinet.
Joe posted this
linkthat explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary
forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing."
Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten.
conclude from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Mueller investigation of "Russiagate" won't get anywhere near the
Oval Office.
Mostly becuz "Deep State" itself is up to its eyebrows in the affair. And also becuz Trump has very little to do with it. I'm
sure they'd Love to bury Hillary in this, but it looks like that won't happen either. A shame.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in
February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers
for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the
firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order
to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed
on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe
that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
@snoopydawg@snoopydawg
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or
are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly
recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
It's obvious that the whole damn Russia Gate conspiracy was just made up. It started when Wikileaks said that they were going
to release the emails between Hillary and Podesta that showed how they rigged the primary against Bernie. The reason why they
did it was to keep people from talking about the contents of the emails. And it worked. The media didn't focus on their contents,
but only on how Wikileaks obtained them.
Another reason for the Russian propaganda crap is so people will give their permission for the upcoming war against Russia
that had already been planned for over two years before the election. And they will. I've seen so many comments that says what
Russia (Putin) did and is still doing was an act of war. Today on ToP one person said that "we need to assassinate Putin." Was
that person HRd for promoting violence which is against the site rules? Nope. Those that believe Russia actually did interfere
with the election also think that the republicans are also Putin's puppets and that is why they won't go against Trump. The front
pagers have been pushing lies about Russia's actions it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. I'll see a definitive
statement like " The seas were calm and the skies were clear." But they will rewrite their statement to "The reason
why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." Hopefully you get my drift on how they're
blatantly lying in their statements.
Hillary's BFF, Nuland and McCain were the ones that worked the hardest on overthrowing the Ukraine government. The USA wanted
to put its own puppet government on Russia's border. Plus the USA and NATO have been installing troops into countries that surround
Russia's borders.
The original reason why the Mueller investigation was created was to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to win the
election. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with that charge. This is why he was taken off guard when the Russian
lawyers showed up to defend their clients. Hope that you read the entire article.
#13#13
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people,
or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were
unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
This also proves my point above how information is selectively posted over there. Just certain parts of the articles are posted,
but the parts of the articles that show the information in a different light are left out. This is from a comment..
It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only , but I'm not much more sure than
you are.
If they don't have a US presence ( as it appears they don't ), I can't understand why they even care that Mueller
has charged them. As you point out, they won't be extradited, so none of this really matters. They could have their lawyers
just play a DVD of them confessing followed by giving Mueller the double birds all around and it wouldn't make any difference,
so the only logical answer for this is to try and pry state secrets out legally via the courts instead of through hacking and
spying.
Oops. From the article ..
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
off the hook. @snoopydawg
Especially Mueller. Finding the 13 Russians guilty that is. Mueller can then claim, "See! The Russians did it," which gives Hillbots
a warm fuzzy and reason to scold BernieBros with a "told ya so!!" AND, no reason to investigate further. Investigation over. Case
closed! Everyone gets what they want. Alas... Their lawyer showed up.
I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies
for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they
did.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted
in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to
lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment
accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters.
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence
services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign
actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations,"
according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say
were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency
placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people
still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR
stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
@snoopydawg
Especially since it's supposed to contain all these names of stooges, duped into participating in US politics by the Kremlin.
It's ridiculous.
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than
a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against
the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying
out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch
Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area
attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management
and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
I have read here in a long time. While I linked ot our Twitter account last night, I did not have time to read it before I
posted it. I am going to link this again because I think it is such an important essay for others to read.
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
"... Goodlatte said lawmakers were forced to call in U.S. Marshals to serve Page with the subpoena. "They had to go back three times before they were finally able to reach her," Goodlatte said. ..."
"... He added that Page's decision to not appear at the deposition were actions consistent with her having "something to hide." ..."
When lawyers investigate other lawyers, expect a legal chess game to ensue.
That's the scenario playing out this week in Washington, as Congress tries to get former FBI
lawyer Lisa Page to testify about anti-Trump texts she exchanged with FBI agent Peter Strzok,
with whom she was having an affair.
Strzok was involved in the investigation of President Donald Trump over allegations his
presidential campaign colluded with Russian officials.
Congress issued a subpoena for Page to testify, but she failed to show up for a Wednesday
deposition.
That prompted Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to threaten Page with contempt of Congress.
"I am very disturbed by this," Ryan said of Page's no-show during
a press conference. "Congressional subpoenas for testimony are not optional. She was a part
of a mess that they have uncovered over at DOJ. She has an obligation to come testify."
"If she wants to come plead the Fifth, that's her choice," Ryan added. "But a subpoena to
testify before Congress is not optional. It's mandatory. She needs to comply."
Not only did Page skip out on the deposition, the mere act of serving her with the subpoena
turned out to be anything but procedural.
Republican Rep. Robert Goodlatte of Virginia said Wednesday that Page's attorney initially
agreed to accept service of the subpoena for Page, but "then turned around and immediately
tried to reject it," according to
Fox News .
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free
of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use . You're logged in
to Facebook. Click here to log out.
Goodlatte said lawmakers were forced to call in U.S. Marshals to serve Page with the
subpoena. "They had to go back three times before they were finally able to reach her,"
Goodlatte said.
He added that Page's decision to not appear at the deposition were actions consistent with
her having "something to hide."
Page's attorney, Amy Jeffress, said her client did not appear Wednesday because she did
not have time to prepare, claiming Page had been denied access to FBI files necessary for her
to prepare for questioning.
"... "In my mind, this is a level of panic and desperation unseen in the annals of Washington D.C. coverups...this is a desperate move by Mueller...this does nothing at all to strengthen Mueller's investigation of Trump himself. It actually weakens his mandate as Special Counsel" ..."
"... Tom is a regular contributor not only here at Russia Insider but also at Seeking Alpha and Newsmax . Check out his blog, Gold Goats 'n Guns and please support his work through his Patreon where he also publishes his monthly investment newsletter. ..."
"... isolationist, conspiracy theorist, nativist and racist ..."
"... Please support my work by joining my Patreon. ..."
"In my mind, this is a level of panic and desperation unseen in the annals of Washington
D.C. coverups...this is a desperate move by Mueller...this does nothing at all to strengthen
Mueller's investigation of Trump himself. It actually weakens his mandate as Special Counsel"
Tom is a regular
contributor not only here at Russia Insider but also at Seeking Alpha and Newsmax . Check out his blog, Gold Goats 'n Guns and please support his work through his
Patreon where he also
publishes his monthly investment newsletter.
So, imagine my shock, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted twelve Russian intelligence
officers on the eve of a summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
Despite his oh-so-earnest protestations to the contrary, Rod Rosenstein, of all people,
knows there are no coincidences in politics.
Trump is on a search and destroy mission all across Europe right now attacking the pillars
of the post-WWII institutional order.
While in Washington, Congress devolved into an episode of Jerry Springer during the Peter
Strzok hearings yesterday. Both Strzok and Rosenstein have literally destroyed their
credibility by stonewalling Congress over the investigations into Hillary Clinton's email
server, which, conveniently Mueller now has enough information to take to the Grand Jury.
In my mind, this is a level of panic and desperation unseen in the annals of Washington D.C.
coverups. Both Strzok and Rosenstein know that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is completely
compromised and can do nothing to stop them from obstructing investigations and turning our
justice system into something worse than farce.
And why do I think this is a desperate move by Mueller? Because the indictments go out of
their way to preclude any Americans having any involvement in these 'hacking events' at
all.
So, this does nothing at all to strengthen Mueller's investigation of Trump himself. It
actually weakens his mandate as Special Counsel.
On the other hand, it does a bang-up job of shifting the news cycle away from Trump's
heavy-handed but effective steam-rolling Germany and the UK over NATO spending, energy policy
and Brexit.
Trump continues, in his circuitous way, to stick a fork in the eye of the globalists whose
water politicians like Angela Merkel and Theresa May have carried for years.
Now with Trump prepared to sit down with Putin and potentially hammer out a major agreement
on many outstanding issues like Syria, arms control, NATO's purpose, energy policy and
terrorism the Deep State/Globalist/Davos Crowd needed something to saddle him with to prevent
this from happening.
The reasoning will be (if not already out there as I write this) that Trump would be a
traitor for sitting down with Putin after these indictments.
These indictments are not of some Russian private citizens Internet trolls like the last
batch. These are Russian military intelligence officers. And the irony of this, of course, is
that the intelligence officers involved in collating and disseminating demonstrably false
information about Trump which led to all this in the first place hail from the country that
Trump is currently visiting, the U.K.
So, the trap is set for the Democrats, Never Trumpers and media to hang Trump next week with
whatever agreement he signs with Putin. In fact, at this point Trump could shoot Putin in the
face with a concealed Derringer and they'd say he killed Putin to shut him
up.
There is no rationality left to this circus. And that's what
these indictments represent.
This is not about right and wrong, it never was. It is, was and always will be about
maintaining power. If this week shows people anything it should show just how far these
powerful people will go to maintain that power, pelf and privilege.
Because winning isn't everything, it's the only thing in politics. Unfortunately, for them,
people all over the West are getting tired of it. And the more they smirk, shuck, jive and cry
"Point of Order!" the angrier the people will get.
As one of my savvy subscribers said to me this morning, the Strzok hearings are brilliant.
They are shifting the Overton Window so far away from the status quo that it will never shift
back to where it was.
I'm sure Mueller, et.al. are thinking they are so smart in doing this today. Just like
Angela Merkel continues to think she's survived the challenge to her power and Theresa May
hers.
They think they've managed these crises.
They haven't. All they are doing is ensuring the next opportunity the people get to rise up
against them at the ballot box the worse it will be for them. And if the ballot box doesn't
work, then pitchforks and torches come out.
It is the way of things. It has happened before and it will happen again.
Those in power and their quislings in the media and the legislatures continue to decry this
growing sense of unfairness as dangerous. Terms like isolationist, conspiracy theorist,
nativist and racist are all used as bludgeons to shame people for feeling outraged at the
corruption they see with their own eyes.
The problem for people like Strzok, Rosenstein and Mueller is that they are simply
expendable pawns. And when the time is right they will be sacrificed to ensure the real
perpetrators walk without a scratch.
"... They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better. ..."
"... That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all. ..."
"... So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government. ..."
"... In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome nor any collusion. ..."
"... In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all, indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money. ..."
"... CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw symptoms coming soon. ..."
"... n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content. ..."
"... Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once. ..."
Another conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact. I remember when MSM in EU dismissed as
conspiracy theory Assange and Wikileaks claims the secret indictment is being prepared for
Assange and that warrant for Julian would be issued immediately upon arriving in Sweden for
pre trial interview as accused ? No, as a person of interest.
Now, after this recent indictment we know for a fact that Assange was or will be indicted
for treason regardless of fact that statute does not apply to him as non US citizen.
Returning to this phony indictment and baseless accusation contained in it.
The same wild accusation as in 2017 CIA report and the same utter lack of any shred of
evidence whatsoever as pointed out by former CIA, NSA directors and agents whistleblowers who
back then demanded hard evidences of hacking (trace routing log) as these would not in anyway
have disclosed any classified information or methods of collection by doing so.
They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their
copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to
achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or
better.
That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from
unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange
himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all.
So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some
Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably
some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with
absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government.
In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be
able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this
nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome
nor any collusion.
In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely
entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all,
indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated
obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug
dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money.
CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible
withdraw symptoms coming soon.
I n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had
no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about
never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting
outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while
in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content.
Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for
cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict
a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once.
What is going on with the Mueller indictments is open public demonstration of how US court
system is submissive to political control and expediences and serves solely as a political
tool in class war and in this case psychological class warfare aimed exactly in sowing
divisions among population along phony partisan or Identity politics lines exactly what they
accused Putin of doing.
Like Hitler shouting murder while he was murdering Jews , as Israel shouting murder while
IDF is murdering Palestinians, not Mueller shouting treason, collusion, attack on democracy
while while doing the same or worse.
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evidence Report from
Decameron
FBI Peter Strzok – the philandering FBI chief investigator who facilitated the FISA surveillance of Trump campaign officials in
2016 – has been exposed for ignoring evidence of major Clinton-related breaches of national security and has been accused of lying
about it.
Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the
distribution l ist," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign
entity unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough, who sent his
investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette McMillan, to brief Strzok.
Gohmert nailed Strozk at the open Congressional hearing on Friday the 13 th in Washington, but Strzok claimed no recollection.
Gohmert accused him of lying. Maybe Strzok's amnesia about the briefing on Hillary Clinton's email server is nothing but standard
FBI training: i.e., when in doubt, don't recall. It's far more likely that there is a campaign of deliberate obstructing justice,
selective prosecution, and political targeting by top officials embedded in the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department,
FBI, and broader IC. Strzok is not alone.
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British Intelligence and those in Israel who want to
manipulate the US presidency – whatever party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington that
it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump advisers. Time to follow that thread.
Both Representatives Gohmert (TX) and Trey Gowdy (SC) did a great job trying to pierce the veil of denials. But, right after Strzok's
amnesia in Congress, the Justice Department announced the indictment of GRU members. Change of subject. The same foul stench noted
by Publius Tacitus about the GRU indictment filled Congress as Agent Strzok testified.
So, a foreign power (not Russia but "hostile" according to Gohmert) modified internal instructions in HC's server so that a blind
copy went to this other country, all 30,000 e-mails. I wonder what was different about the four that were not so copied. What
are likely countries? The UK, China and Israel would be at the top of my list
So the emails were being bcc-ed or the server was set up to copy all emails passing through it to some foreign server? I am curious
about the mechanics.
It seems that the server was the mechanism. Whether that was by physical access to the server or electronically at a distance.
Her entire system was not secure and could be easily penetrated.
FBI did not have the evidence, as they were pushed aside and not allowed to look into it.
Crowdstrike was hired by DNC (read Clinton family) and handles (or more correctly botched)the investigation. No evidence from
Crowdstrike is probably admissible in court as they are clearly played the role Clinton family pawns. NSA can't have such a detailed
evidence because of encryption. So where did it came from? CIA?
The accusations are worded different this time around. No more of "we assess" like the last time. Direct Le Carre style of fiction
;-)
It is amazing to see the detail with which the US supposedly knows of the names and actions of cyber spy organizations personnel
in Russia. If not the NSA, why not the Mossad cyber units? They have a lot of skill and connections with telecom eqpt and companies.
Are these the only spearfishers to be indicted? And did any go into team Trump?
But don't look at other things like how stupid
team Clinton is with cyber security whether HRC's handling of classified emails with her private server or her campaign's handling
of important matters. And what of the comment of those emails.
Our MSM told us not to look. These things only lead to more uncomfortable
questions and tend to drag us into the morass ... while they do ... what?
"... The rising power of China and Russia has been a threat to US power for some time, no matter if its the US globalists trying their useless hegemon crap to stop them or the US nationalists that have scrapped the old hegemonic empire. The nationalists are more dangerous as their thinking is not confined to the box of the last era. ..."
"... They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better. ..."
"... That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all. ..."
"... So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government. ..."
"... In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome nor any collusion. ..."
"... In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all, indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money. ..."
"... CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw symptoms coming soon. ..."
"... n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content. ..."
"... Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once. ..."
The Mueller investigation started with a script allegedly authored by Sergei Skripal;
two tall blonde moscow hotel-room prostitutes peeing on obama's bed; this is genius.
However the hoax unravelled; (the tale was too thin and needed filling out because
Trump
had not even been impeached according to Peter Strozk's dungeon master's original plan.)
The love story of Dawn and Charlie is not Skripal's best work, yet we sense that the
hand
of the master is there somewhere, and look forward to the next episode of his new novela.
In part, this indictment is preparation to drop charges in the Concord Management case, which
will make discovery in the Concord case moot. If they issued these indictments after
dropping the charges in Concord Management, it would be too obvious that this is just a
replacementfor those charges. Won't it be fun if one of the Russians indicted patriotically
volunteers to travel to the use and likewise demands discovery?
Of course, we're all aware that William Binney has analyzed the metadata of the files and
concluded that their transfer was too rapid to have occurred over the internet and must have
been downloaded to a USB drive.
The rising power of China and Russia has been a threat to US power for some time, no matter
if its the US globalists trying their useless hegemon crap to stop them or the US
nationalists that have scrapped the old hegemonic empire. The nationalists are more dangerous
as their thinking is not confined to the box of the last era.
Another conspiracy theory becomes conspiracy fact.
I remember when MSM in EU dismissed as conspiracy theory Assange and Wikileaks claims the
secret indictment is being prepared for Assange and that warrant for Julian would be issued
immediately upon arriving in Sweden for pre trial interview as accused ? No, as a person of
interest.
Now, after this recent indictment we know for a fact that Assange was or will be indicted
for treason regardless of fact that statute does not apply to him as non US citizen.
Returning to this phony indictment and baseless accusation contained in it.
The same wild accusation as in 2017 CIA report and the same utter lack of any shred of
evidence whatsoever as pointed out by former CIA, NSA directors and agents whistleblowers who
back then demanded hard evidences of hacking (trace routing log) as these would not in anyway
have disclosed any classified information or methods of collection by doing so.
They also pointed out that it was likely leak not as hack as their copying/transmission
speeds of alleged email file transfers were high above those possible to achieve via
internet file transfer and hence hinting of local transfer via USB 3.0 or better.
That was confirmed by former British diplomat who stated that he received from
unidentified person FD copy of those Podesta emails while visiting D.C. in 2016. Assange
himself stated that the source of those emails were not Russian at all.
So what we got cooked by Mueller here. Allegedly stolen/fake identities, possibly some
Bitcoin transactions, maybe some rented laptops, perhaps some rented servers, and probably
some phishing,and suspicion of some hacking emails, websites that cannot be ruled out, with
absolutely no hint of any connection to Russian government.
In fact indictment describes nothing that any computer savvy teenager would not be
able to do ..... to do what? RIG US ELECTIONS, not at all as it is clearly stated in this
nonsensical indictment, there was no impact of anything listed above on US elections outcome
nor any collusion.
In other words, completely internet illiterate US grand jury after hearing extremely
entangled tech jargon ridden fantastic tale of supposed crime with no hard evidences at all,
indicted blindly some shadowy likely made up figures of straight from Russophobia instigated
obsession Dream, in last ditch effort to revive long dead corpse of Russia Gate like a drug
dealer giving last credit to hurting client out of money.
CIA stooges who believe that Russia Gate nonsense mudguards prepare for horrible withdraw
symptoms coming soon.
I n fact Mueller himself deepen the absurd by FBI own admission that alleged crime had
no material impact on electoral campaign and election results beyond informing public about
never repudiated truth of Dems machinations, which truth if fact was irrelevant to voting
outcome as most of those who were exposed to Podesta emails were in states Hillary won while
in those critical for Trump voters were largely unaware of them or their content.
Mueller who already defrauded US government of $200 millions desperately looking for
cover of his own futility and waste of FBI resources as he is ready to make grand jury indict
a ham sandwich as long as pig from which the ham came from watch Putin on TV once.
What is going on with the Mueller indictments is open public demonstration of how US court
system is submissive to political control and expediences and serves solely as a political
tool in class war and in this case psychological class warfare aimed exactly in sowing
divisions among population along phony partisan or Identity politics lines exactly what they
accused Putin of doing.
Like Hitler shouting murder while he was murdering Jews , as Israel shouting murder while
IDF is murdering Palestinians, not Mueller shouting treason, collusion, attack on democracy
while while doing the same or worse.
Let's get real here. I don't know if it was part of the original indictment, but there are
now claims that the government, using secret and likely illegal NSA surveillance, _has_ been
able to show a 'trail' from the Russian officers to Guccifer 2.0 and then on to Wikileaks. Is
this true or just more claims without evidence?
U.S. indictments show technical evidence for Russian hacking accusations
Regarding @146, I think I get it now. Mueller can claim anything he wants in this indictment,
including pseudofacts generated through illegal international data collection, because he
knows he will never be asked to present such evidence in a court of law.
Mueller's indictments are not just fraudulent, but easily discoverable as such (as they
are plagiarized). I'm frankly baffled as to why, even if Mueller felt compelled to fabricate
something to blow up Trump's meeting with Putin, he'd go this route.
As we sift through the ashes of Thursday's dumpster-fire Congressional hearing with still employed FBI agent Peter Strzok, Luke Rosiak
of the Daily Caller plucked out a key exchange between Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx) and Strzok which revealed a yet-unknown bombshell
about the Clinton email case.
Nearly all of Hillary Clinton's emails on her homebrew server went to a foreign entity that isn't Russia. When this was discovered
by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), IG Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Ruckner and an attorney to
notify Strzok along with three other people about the "anomaly."
Four separate attempts were also made to notify DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to brief him on the massive security breach
, however Horowitz "never returned the call." Recall that Horowitz concluded last month that despite Strzok's extreme bias towards
Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump - none of it translated to Strzok's work at the FBI.
In other words; Strzok, while investigating Clinton's email server, completely ignored the fact that most of Clinton's emails
were sent to a foreign entity - while IG Horowitz simply didn't want to know about it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an "anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through their private
server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000 ,
were going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing
with FBI official Peter Strzok. - Daily
Caller
Gohmert continued; " It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia. "
Strzok admitted to meeting with Ruckner but said he couldn't remember the "specific" content of their discussion.
"The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that," Gohmert said, "but you were given that information
and you did nothing with it ."
Meanwhile, "Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call,"
Gohmert said - and Horowitz wouldn't return the call.
And while Peter Strzok couldn't remember the specifics of his meeting with the IG about the giant "foreign entity" bombshell,
he texted this to his mistress Lisa Page when the IG discovered the "(C)" classification on several of Clinton's emails - something
the FBI overlooked:
"Holy cow ... if the FBI missed this, what else was missed? Remind me to tell you to flag for Andy [redacted] emails we (actually
ICIG) found that have portion marks (C) on a couple of paras. DoJ was Very Concerned about this."
In November of 2017, IG McCullough - an Obama appointee - revealed to Fox News that
he received pushback when he tried to tell former DNI James Clapper about the foreign entity which had Clinton's emails and other
anomalies.
Instead of being embraced for trying to expose an illegal act, seven senators including Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) wrote a letter
acusing him of politicizing the issue.
"It's absolutely irrelevant whether something is marked classified, it is the character of the information," he said.
McCullough said that from that point forward, he received only criticism and an "adversarial posture" from Congress when he
tried to rectify the situation.
"I expected to be embraced and protected," he said, adding that a Hill staffer "chided" him for failing to consider the "political
consequences" of the information he was blowing the whistle on. -
Fox News
That other Clinton whistleblower...
Meanwhile, a mostly overlooked facet of the Clinton email investigation was unearthed from the official "
FBI Vault " by Twitter researcher Katica (
@GOPPollAnalyst ) in November and updated on July 10 which somehow
never made it into the Inspector General's
report on the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
In January, 2016 a former State department official walked into the FBI with what they felt was smoking gun evidence in the Clinton
email investigation which was so sensitive he wouldn't talk about it unless it was in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information
Facility).
Accompanying the evidence, the whistleblower wrote a letter to former FBI Director James Comey describing Hillary Clinton's mishandling
of clearly marked classified material. Comey ignored it - which led the whistleblower to file a complaint that Peter Strzok and FBI
agent Jonathan Moffa were CC'd on .
" The evidence I am providing, along with what you have already acquired, should lead to convictions for the many people involved
."
"America needs its Attorney General to show us that no employee of the United States Government is above its system of law
and justice."
"Since I am avoiding any classified information in this statement, I will not expand on this issue further in this letter.
I am prepared to discuss this issue in much greater depth in a properly secured location and with those agents having certain
TS/SCI clearances and an FBI letter showing need to know."
The whistleblower describes how there's no way Clinton couldn't have known certain emails were marked "classified."
"During the time that Hillary Rodham Clinton served as Secretary of State, the Department of State (DOS) produced a daily document
classified at the Secret level...
...Each of these daily classified documents began each paragraph with the actual classification of the information contained
in the paragraph...
...An investigation that compares the emails found on the private server or emails used by the Secretary will show the actual
classification any text which appears to be both in the Hillary emails and in the daily classified document produced by her official
office...
"Upon learning of this situation and listening to her saying that the information in these emails were not classified at the
time they were written, I make reference to the above paragraph about the daily classified document summarizing issues presented
to her on a daily basis."
The Whistleblower also goes on to explain that he couldn't find a sensitive communiqué between Clinton and the American Ambassador
in Honduras on the internal State Department archive, and suspected that it was due to being sent over her private email server.
Strzok knew that most of Hillary Clinton's emails were in the hands of a foreign entity
He also knew that a whistleblower from the State Department tried delivering significant evidence in the Clinton email investigation
which went nowhere
The FBI, and Comey in particular, ignored this whistleblower's evidence
So given that we now have at least two major bombshells that the FBI sat on, we revisit the case of CIA whistleblower Dennis Montgomery
- who similarly walked into the Washington D.C. FBI field office in 2015 with 47 hard drives and 600 million pages of information
he says proves that President Trump and others were victims of mass surveillance, according to
NewsMax .
Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives
and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia . There he laid out
how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama
administration .
Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information , much of which is classified,
and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence
committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans,
including the chief justice of the Supreme Court , other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and
even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama's former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama's
former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed "up close and personal" this "Orwellian Big Brother" intrusion
on privacy , likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.
He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election , which illegal
tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House. -
NewsMax
In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.
It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.
I want to see that hags emails dammnit! As we dig deeper every day, the foul stench of this woman keeps popping up. I know
we have not connected Ofaggot to it YET, but we WILL!!!! There are so many complicit pieces of shit that I don't there is enough
hemp in the world to do the job!!
Frog march, trial, death!
Hang them by the neck until dead for HIGH TREASON!!!! tap, tap, tap
In March of 2017, Montgomery and his attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch traveled to D.C. to meet with House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Devin Nunes in the hopes that he would ask Comey about the evidence - only to be "blown off" by the Chairman.
It seems like we have some serious issues to revisit as a country.
Armed revolts have happened for less than this kind of bullshit. It's time that the people of the USA start taking matters
of government into their own hands because the longer this kind of shit happens the more it looks like every one of those motherfuckers
in Dee See is dirty to some extent.
Oh yeah, how about we also make the use of "national security" secrecy claims that are made under false pretenses, or are made
to hide the illegal/unconstitutional actions of a person or group in government, punishable by death by firing squad??
Given they found that these emails were being sent to a server in a foreign country, I'd expect the hackers would know that
this could be found out. Thus, the hackers would have then had the emails forwarded to their server in their country. I wouldn't
be surprised that the owner of the server to which they were sent, never knew of it. My guess, considering all the circumstantial
evidence, is that it was Putin's hackers.
I've long suspected that Putin got all the emails off her server (including Bill's, Chelsea's, and possibly Clinton Foundation
officials), along with the 20 emails exchanged with Obama suspiciously using an alias, and about which he lied claiming he learned
of her server in news reports. That would be plenty for Putin to blackmail them into appeasement and flexibility. Which was exactly
what Obama and Hillary gave Putin and his allies Syria and Iran. Along with the US uranium. They had to cover it up, so Obama
could get re-elected (remember he promised Russian President Medvedev he'd "have more flexibility after the [2012] elections"
on a hot mic) and both could stay in power.
This would explain why the FBI and Strzok did nothing about the hacking of her server (it was too late to do anything about
it, other than arrest Clinton and Obama resign). And any investigation would document evidence Clinton committed a crime and potentially
leak to the press with the implication Clinton and Obama were now Putin puppets. The Democrats have an MO of claiming their political
opponents are doing exactly what the Democrats are doing.
They weren't supposed to deploy it...NSA wanted to save that puppy for a rainy day, but the beaks just couldn't help themselves.
It was too hot to use, because if you didn't make it count then the target now has the virus and can share it, tweak it and send
it back our way.
This will come out soon. Strzok was up to his ass in Stuxnet. General Cartwright was too. All this will come out. It will also
come out that this was another instance where action was taken completely without Obama's authorization or knowledge.
The phony OBL hit was another example. Obama didn't have the stones...and just told Panetta and Hillary to do whatever, he
didn't want to know or be involved. He was golfing. They snatched him off the green for that war room photo op.
"... In December, a letter from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to James Comey's original statement. ..."
"... The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass. ..."
"... In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute. ..."
"... Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook. ..."
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok reportedly ignored "an irregularity in the
metadata" indicating that Hillary Clinton's server may had been breached, while FBI top brass
made significant edits to former Director James Comey's statement specifically minimizing how
likely it was that hostile actors had gained access.
Sources told
Fox News that Strzok, who sent anti-Trump text messages that got him removed from the
ongoing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, was told about the metadata anomaly in
2016, but Strzok did not support a formal damage assessment. One source said: " Nothing
happened. "
In December, a letter
from Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Ron Johnson (R-WI) revealed that Strzok and other
FBI officials effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's behavior through a series of edits to
James Comey's original statement.
The letter described how outgoing Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's
statement with senior FBI officials , including Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan
Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha
Anderson) - in a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass.
It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department for sending
anti-Trump text messages to his mistress -
downgraded the language describing Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross
negligence" to "extremely careless."
Notably, "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with
recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, it is defined as " A severe degree of
negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term
of art.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
In order to justify downgrading Clinton's behavior to "extremely careless," however, FBI
officials also needed to minimize the impact of her crimes. As revealed in the letter from Rep.
Johnson, the FBI downgraded the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors
from " reasonably likely " to " possible ."
"Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained
access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account," Comey said in his statement.
By doing so, the FBI downgraded Clinton's negligence - thus supporting the "extremely
careless" language.
The FBI also edited Clinton's exoneration letter to remove a reference to the "sheer volume"
of classified material on the private server, which - according to the original draft "supports
an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that
information." Furthermore, all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in
investigating Clinton's private email server were removed as well.
Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the
Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private
email server. The original statement read:
W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the
Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile
actors in connection with the private email operation.
In summary; the FBI launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server, ignored
evidence it may have been hacked, downgraded the language in Comey's draft to decriminalize her
behavior, and then exonerated her by recommending the DOJ not prosecute.
Meanwhile, a tip submitted by an Australian diplomat tied to a major Clinton Foundation deal
launched the FBI's counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign - initially
spearheaded by the same Peter Strzok who worked so hard to get Hillary off the hook.
And Strzok still collects a taxpayer-funded paycheck.
The Saker is missing the point of Anglo Warfare. Anglos don't value direct warfare, so they
don't care if another military has better tech. Anglos realized a long time ago it is much
less costly to just play divide and conquer to defeat a more powerful adversary by getting
other countries to do the fighting.
Hence trying to tarpit Russia in Syria which Putin wisely did not fall for.
The Anglo-Zionist Empire would be foolish to directly confront Russia, so they won't.
Instead they will seek to economically strangle Russia and turn close allies against her such
as Ukraine.
This is something Russias weapons cannot protect itself with.
I am very busy at the moment and have little time to comment. However, I did read the Saker's
review of Martyanov's book and its comments. My small insight is that a son of a Soviet sovok
and a son of White-Russian are cooperating. I always wanted for this to happen, but I still
find it amazing and most significant. For me, it is a good explanation why modern Russia is
so successful compared with US and Soviet Union. The Russians are mostly at peace with their
20th century history and look towards the future. Opposite to this, as the generals usually
fight the previous war, US still fights a country which does not exist any more. The new
Russian challenge is to fight the fifth column of the Russian Liberals, the lovers of the
West, exemplified by Anatoly Elliot Karlin-Higgins, the customary Jewish ideologues with
forked tongues.
My apology for using the disparaging word sovok, which I read for the first time in
disparaging comments by the above mentioned big BSer.
Finally, it would be interesting if the current Russian and Chinese weapons development
would initiate a weapons race which would help crush the already precarious US and Western
financial system. It is not that US military spending is a problem as a percentage of GDP,
but its further increase at this time could be the straw which broke camel's back. In my
mind, Saker and Martyanov with their writing, as well as the Russian civilian and military
leadership with their public statements, show an honest wish to deter the West from attacking
Russia. But the unintended effect on somebody bound on world-supremacy will be to spend even
more (as inefficiently as before) to gain back the supremacy. As I have written many times
before, the only possible solution for the preservation of humanity is the financial
collapse of the US/West .
Or maybe it is a bit like with the most recent US Presidential Election, the Russians win
with either of the two terrible candidates winning. If US chase them in military technology
development, they go bankrupt. If US do not chase them, they cannot attack Russia and China
any more. Shaking down "the allies" for more money is already seriously destabilising the
political order of the West. The overall direction of things is obvious.
Communication satellites were mentioned in the article, that is not LEO since the
Motorola's Iridium died. Most if not all US military communication satellites are in the
geo-sync orbit 36,000 km away. Any decent ASAT system would be targeting both GPS in LEO and
C3 satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
FBI agent
Peter Strzok' s testimony before Congress on Thursday collapsed into a full-on
partisan circus , with Republican and Democratic members shouting at each other, House
Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte threatening to hold Strzok in contempt, and Democrats staging
an over-the-top political stunt
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Strzok exchanged
a series of text messages with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having an
affair, that were critical of Trump. In one particularly controversial exchange, Page texted
Strzok that she was worried Trump might win. "No. No, he won't. We'll stop it,"
Strzok reassured her.
Trump and
many of his Republican allies have seized on these text messages as proof of anti-Trump
bias in the FBI and to discredit the Mueller probe -- the investigation Trump calls a "
Rigged Witch Hunt ."
His appearance before a joint session of the House Judiciary and House Oversight
Committees on Thursday was the first time he had publicly testified before Congress since the
revelations about his texts.
It was bound to be a contentious hearing -- and so far, it has been.
Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee,
immediately accused Reps. Goodlatte and Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chair of the House Oversight
Committee, of deliberately trying to interfere with the special counsel investigation after
Mueller obtained five
guilty pleas from people associated with the Trump campaign in recent months.
And Cummings brought along some pretty spectacular signs to make the point.
As he spoke, Democratic staffers held huge signs with the names and photos of the five
people affiliated with the Trump campaign who have already pleaded guilty in the Mueller
probe: former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates,
former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, London lawyer Alexander van
der Zwaan, and Richard Pinedo, a California man who committed identity theft as part of the
Russian election interference campaign.
Republicans first objected to the sign-holding, but seemed to back off when Democrats
asked them to cite which rules the signs violated. The signs stayed up as Cummings listed
what Flynn et al had pleaded guilty to and slammed Republicans for interfering with the
advancement of the Trump-Russia probe.
As the hearing continued, lawmakers fought over what kinds of questions Strzok should be
obligated to answer.
Gowdy's very first question for Strzok -- about how many witnesses he had interviewed in
the opening days of Russia probe --
sparked a huge debate . Strzok responded that he was not permitted to answer the question
based on instructions from the FBI. Then Goodlatte
threatened to hold Strzok in contempt for not answering the question.
"Mr. Strzok, you are under subpoena and are required to answer the question," Goodlatte
said.
Democratic lawmakers interrupted Goodlatte and objected loudly in defense of Strzok.
"This demand puts Mr. Strzok in an impossible position," Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on
the House Judiciary Committee, responded. "If we have a problem with this policy we should
take it up with the FBI, not badger Mr. Strzok."
Strzok then asked to speak to the FBI general counsel before answering the question.
When Goodlatte responded that Strzok could only consult "with your own counsel," that set
off another testy exchange. Per
CNN :
At one point, Strzok suggested that his removal from the special counsel's Russia
investigation was driven by optics. "It is not my understanding that he kicked me off because
of any bias it was done based on the appearance," Strzok said, adding that he "didn't
appreciate" the way Gowdy was framing the issue.
Gowdy replied, "I don't give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strzok."
"I don't appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on
two major investigations during 2016," Gowdy added.
The stakes are high here, which may explain the tense nature of the hearing. If Strzok's
defense of his past actions is received well by the public, he could potentially deal a
serious blow to the power of right-wing narratives about FBI corruption.
But if he comes off looking bad it will do damage to the credibility of the Mueller probe
-- and Mueller's ability to investigate the full extent of Trumpworld's relationship with
Russia.
The salacious "Trump Dossier" that was spread as an amazing example of
"fake news" being treated as real, received a further blow to its own
credibility by none other than FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok on Thursday
in the House Judiciary Committee hearing.
Fox News notes that Mr. Strzok indicated that there was not one dossier,
but
three
variations of this document – one held by
Senator John McCain, a second by Mother Jones writer David Corn, and Fusion
GPS owner Glenn Simpson.
Fox goes on to say:
Rudy Giuliani on Thursday slammed the
"totally phony" Russia probe
after anti-Trump FBI agent Peter
Strzok refused to identify the individuals who apparently handed the
bureau three different copies of the salacious Trump dossier.
"Isn't that called collusion or conspiracy to gin
up a totally inappropriate, totally illegally wire based on national
security? And doesn't it taint the entire Russian probe?" Giuliani told
Fox News' Laura Ingraham
on
"The Ingraham Angle."
"That's a disgrace, [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller should be
ashamed of himself. Those Democrats trying to protect that liar, Strzok,
should be ashamed of themselves. And every FBI agent I know wants to see
this guy drummed out of the bureau," he said.
Giuliani said the dossier led to fake news and the "national
intelligence wiretap" of the Trump campaign officials.
"So how much of it is infecting the investigation today? We may never
know, which is why I think the investigation is totally phony," he
added.
The inquiry
into
the dossier
occurred during a fiery exchange earlier between Rep.
Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Strzok, who appeared before a joint House
committee about his role in the investigation into Russian interference
in the 2016 presidential election.
Jordan pressed Strzok about an email he sent to his colleagues,
including FBI lawyer Lisa Page with whom he had an extramarital
affair,
indicating that he has seen different versions
of the infamous Trump dossier from three different sources.
Jordan said he had the email the he sent to Page and several others
with the subject: "BuzzFeed is about to accomplish the dossier."
"It says this, '
Comparing now the set is only identical to
what (Sen. John) McCain had, parentheses, it has differences from what
was given to us by (Mother Jones' David) Corn and (Fusion GPS founder
Glenn) Simpson.
' Did you write all that?" Jordan asked.
Strzok refused to answer and declined to confirm whether
there were three copies of the dossier the FBI had its hands on
,
saying he can't answer under the directive of the bureau.
Comments
Latest
Greece folds to deep state demands, expels Russian
diplomats over meddling (Video)
The Duran – News in Review – Episode 54.
Published
6 mins ago
on
July 15, 2018
By
Alex Christoforou
Ahead of the NATO summit, Alexis Tsipras made an unprecedented move to
expel two Russian diplomats and bar the entry of two others Russian
diplomats to Greece.
The claim that Tsipras' radical left government
cites in its expulsion is the tried and true Russia meddling narrative. The
SYRIZA Greek government claims alleged "Russian meddling" in an attempt to
foment opposition to the "historic" name deal between Athens and Skopje, a
deal which coincidently paves the way for FYROM to join NATO.
A little creativity would have been nice, but in this specific case
Alexis Tsipras decided to just go with the canned, Deep State script known
as "Russian meddling" in order to guarantee that his very unpopular name
deal with FYROM goes through the rigged approval process.
The fact that a government as corrupt as Greece's SYRIZA is now suddenly
issuing expulsions for bribery is ironic to say the least.
Did Tsipras cut off his nose to please his EU/NATO paymaster to spite
Greece's face?
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris
discuss Greece's recent expulsion of Russian diplomats, in what is clearly
a Deep State orchestrated maneuver to drive a wedge between two countries
that have had traditionally close ties, while fitting another piece into
NATO's geopolitical puzzle to engulf the balkan states.
On July 11, Greece said it would expel two Russian diplomats and barred the entry of
two others.
Published
18 hours ago
on
July 14, 2018
By
Arkady Savitsky
Geoffrey Pyatt, former US ambassador to Ukraine and
current US ambassador to Greece.
The formal reason is alleged meddling in an attempt to foment opposition to
the
"historic"
name deal
between Athens and Skopje paving the way for Macedonia's NATO
membership. Moscow
said it would respond
in kind.
Nothing like this ever happened
before. The relations between the two countries have traditionally been
warm. This year Moscow and Athens mark the 190th anniversary of diplomatic
relations and the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Friendship and
Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Hellenic Republic. They
have signed over 50 treaties and agreements.
The Greek people's positive attitude towards Russia
is
well known
. It had been widely
believed
that
Athens trusted Moscow more than Brussels. Russian ambassador to Athens
Andrey Maslov has recently
described
Greece
"as a reliable partner". More than one million Russian tourists are
expected to visit Greece this year.
Unlike the majority of other Western countries, Greece rejected the
British request to
expel
Russian diplomats
in the wake of London's claims of Moscow's
involvement in the
Skripal
poisoning
. It's also among the few NATO members to have
Russian
weapons
in the armed forces' inventory, including S-300 air defense
systems.
The Greek Kathimerini daily's
report
offers
details on the matter. It's not so important what exactly happened or if
the sources cited are reliable enough to believe them. The information is
too scarce anyway for making any conclusions. New Democracy's shadow
Foreign Minister Giorgos Koumoutsakos on July 12
criticized
the
lack of information from the government on the rift between Greece and
Russia.
Such things happen from time to time and if the relations are good, the
differences can be ironed out behind the scenes without much ado. There is
always a hidden agenda behind making such scoops leaked into media. Nothing
comes from nothing. And timing is never accidental.
Spy scandals never come out of the blue. For instance, the news about
the expulsion coincided with the NATO summit in Brussels demonstrating
Greece's solidarity with the allies. It was also the time preparations for
a visit of Russian FM Sergey Lavrov to Greece were in full swing. Now it's
not known whether the visit will take place.
Kathimerini says the relationship started to gradually worsen behind the
scenes about a couple of years ago. What happened back then? Geoffrey
Pyatt assumed office as US Ambassador to Greece. Before the assignment he
had served as ambassador to Ukraine in 2013-2016 at the time of Euromaidan
– the events the US took active part in. He almost openly contributed into
the Russia-Ukraine rift. Now it's the turn of Greece. The ambassador has
already
warned
Athens
about the "malign influence of Russia". He remains true to himself.
During the two years, Greece has not been opposing the anti-Russia
sanctions as vigorously and resolutely as Italy or Hungary. None of the
planned energy or other economic projects has come into fruition.
Greece is involved in the
EastMed
sea gas project
along with Cyprus, Italy and Israel. The country is
also viewed by the United States as a potential customer for American LNG
exports, especially after it modernized its port facilities near Pireaus.
Greece plans to build a floating storage terminal for LNG in
Alexandroupoli. Economy always shapes foreign policy. Evidently, Greece is
not interested in cheap Russian gas coming to Europe via the North Stream
pipelines. Neither is the United States.
The scandal may be a straw for Greece to catch at as the heavily
indebted nation is balancing on the brink of financial crisis. Athens needs
relief deals to restructure the debt. It makes it dependent on the
US-controlled IMF and the EU (Germany is the largest lender) to bail it
out. Under the circumstances, it cannot be politically independent. As
opposition to the austerity measures is growing, the government needs a
"meddling scandal" to distract the people from everyday life woes.
President Trump
has
promised
Prime Minister Tsipras large investments into economy. The
United States is the sixth-largest foreign investor in that country.
Addressing the
American-Hellenic
Chamber of Commerce
annual New Year's event in Athens, Geoffrey Pyatt
expressed
his optimism
that 2018 would be a year of recovery for Greece, while
all the more US investors are seeking ways to collaborate with Greek
enterprises.
The extension of the agreement for the use of the US naval base in Souda
Bay, Crete, the only deep-water port in southern Europe and the
Mediterranean able to accommodate American aircraft carriers, is a topic
for talks. Upgrading of the Greek fleet of F-16 fighters is also on the
agenda. The US is ready to make it a relief deal.
Its military
is
reportedly harboring thoughts
about developing in Greece a regional
alternative to the use of the crucial Incirlik base in Turkey. The
relationship between Turkey and the West continues to deteriorate. Greece
sees it as a chance to boost its importance for the US in the
Mediterranean, Middle East, and North Africa.
Propaganda also has a role to play. For instance, Russia is blamed by
Western media for
harboring
nefarious plans
to hinder the possible agreement between Cyprus,
Greece, Turkey and the UK to reunify the island. It is also accused of
meddling
in
Macedonia. As usual, one story is invented after another to be spread
around by Western media outlets.
A day after expelling diplomats, Greece
said
it
wants to turn a page seeking good relations with Moscow. Russia has no
desire to seriously deteriorate the relationship but it will retaliate as
it always does. It will also keep in mind that the Greek government is
playing its own games and Russia is supposed to a part of it. Greece is
also used by those it depends on.
National sovereignty happened to be too costly for Athens. Normal
bilateral relations may be preserved but things like trust and sincerity
will be missing. Games change and governments come and go but friendly
relations between the peoples remain. The provocation committed by the
Greek government cannot change the reality. 63% of Greeks hold a favorable
view of Russia. This relationship is
too
strong to be ruined
outside pressure.
During a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May, US
President Donald Trump refuses to take a question from CNN reporter Jim Acosta in a
hilarious jab, rightly calling CNN "fake news."
ACOSTA
: "Mr. President, since you attacked CNN, can I
ask you a question?"
TRUMP
: "[FOX News correspondent] John Roberts go
ahead."
ACOSTA
: "Can I ask you a question?"
TRUMP
: "No."
TRUMP
: "CNN is fake news. I don't take questions from
CNN. CNN is fake news. I don't take questions from CNN."
Acosta brought the press conference to a halt insisting that the U.S.
president take his question. Trump tried to move things along by calling on
Roberts again.
TRUMP
: "John Roberts from FOX, let's go to a real
network."
Trump continued after the press conference in a tweet:
So funny! I just checked out Fake News CNN, for
the first time in a long time (they are dying in the ratings), to see if
they covered my takedown yesterday of Jim Acosta (actually a nice guy).
They didn't! But they did say I already lost in my meeting with Putin.
Fake News
FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who was removed from the special counsel's
investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections, testified before a joint
hearing of two House committees responsible for FBI and Justice Department oversight.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein went before Congress to testify on the DOJ's role
in the DNC email hacks.
According to
Zerohedge , a visibly frustrated Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) unleashed on Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Chris Wray during Congressional testimony on Thursday,
lashing out at FBI agent Peter Strzok's bias against Donald Trump while investigating him
– before telling Rosenstein that the ongoing Russia investigation is tearing the country
apart.
Representative Jim Jordan pressed Rosenstein on a variety of issues (via
Zerohedge ) .
– Slow document delivery from the DOJ
– "Why did you hide the fact that Peter Strzok and Judge Contreras were friends?"
(The original judge in Mike Flynn case)
– "Did you threaten staffers on the House Intelligence committee?"
– Peter Strzok's Wednesday testimony which FBI attorneys repeatedly muzzled
Rosenstein refused to say whether or not any member of the Obama administration tried to
undermine Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris analyze the heated
back and forth between the Assistant AG and Rep. Gowdy and Rep. Jordan.
As
Zerohedge rightly puts it: "In short, GOP sabre rattling was met with smug indignancy as a
visibly annoyed and very confident Rosenstein batted their questions away like gnats."
"Why'd you tell Mr. Strozk not to answer our questions yesterday, Mr. Rosenstein?" -Jim
Jordan
For Peter Strzok – at precisely the same time that Bob Mueller was appointed –
precisely the same time, Peter Strzok was talking about his "unfinished business" and how he
needed to fix and finish it so Donald Trump did not become President. He was talking about
impeachment within three days of special counsel Mueller being appointed!
Three days! That's even quicker than MSNBC and the Democrats were talking about impeaching
him. Within three days, the lead FBI agent is talking about impeaching the president.
We're two years into this investigation, we're a year and a half into the presidency.
We're over a year into the special counsel. You have a counterintelligence investigation
that's become public. You have a criminal investigation that's become political. You have
more bias than I have ever seen manifest in a law enforcement officer in the 20 years I used
to do it for a living. And four other DOJ employees who had manifest animus towards the
person they were supposed to be neutrally and detachedly investigating.
More than 60 Democrats have already voted to proceed with impeachment before Bob Mueller
has found a single solitary damn thing! More than 60 have voted to move forward with
impeachment! And he hasn't presented his first finding!
Russia attacked this country, they should be the target. But Russia isn't being hurt by
this investigation right now, we are. This country is being hurt by it. We are being divided.
We've seen the bias. We need to see the evidence.
If you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the Trump campaign, present it to the
damn grand jury. If you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it
to the American people.
There's an old saying: "Justice delayed is justice denied." I think right now that all of
us are being denied.
"... Further back, congress got lazy and instead of providing oversight, legal agencies were set up to run increments of the government. Congress had oversight, but they gave it away to directors to run the agencies and every year they renewed the budget plus COLA. After a number of years, these agencies took on a life of their own and guaranteed growing budget and never oversight to assure it is an essential element of government. ..."
Unfortunately it looks like thee same old shit. guilty as hell, "but it doesn't
rise to the level to charge anyone? They keep selling and the split public keeps
buying.
They were wondering how this kind of government got started. It was 8 years ago
under Obama when no one would challenge him on the way he was running the
government. Dems were satisfied with his leadership and Repubs were afraid they
would be labeled racist. Congress just completely abdicated its charge to
oversee.
Further back, congress got lazy and instead of providing oversight, legal
agencies were set up to run increments of the government. Congress had oversight,
but they gave it away to directors to run the agencies and every year they
renewed the budget plus COLA. After a number of years, these agencies took on a
life of their own and guaranteed growing budget and never oversight to assure it
is an essential element of government.
'Creepiest person in America': Peter Strzok's bizarre congressional testimony goes viral https://on.rt.com/9a4o
OMG!
At the risk of being attacked by the PC Police, does that look like a heterosexual man? Does
that look like a macho-man who carries on a long and steamy love affair with a cop-woman behind
his wife's back?
I've doubted the narrative around their alleged conspiracy to neutralize a Presidential
candidate since reading that these two FBI agents apparently didn't realize that their phone
communications were monitored and saved. But this adds yet another floor to that particular
rabbit hole.
BTW: Same with General Michael Flynn, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Why was he "fired" again?
Oh, he lied about a phone conversation he had. really? If a DIA had been asked about the
contents of a potentially damning phone call, he would have asked back, "I don't recall that
conversation word-for-word. Why don't you play back the tape you have?"
Yeah, one psychopath questioning another psychopath. But psychopaths come in all
sexual flavors, and even in that clip, where he is going out of his way to sound tough,
he presents as quite effeminate.
Play it sound off in slow motion.
Oh deary me! I can feel the PC Police bearing down.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's foreign ministry said there was no evidence the 12 people indicted by
the United States on Friday were linked to military intelligence or hacking into the computer
networks of the U.S. Democratic party.
The U.S. indictment named 12 Russian officers and indicted them on charges of hacking the
computer networks of 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her party.
The Russian ministry said the indictment was meant to damage the atmosphere before the summit
between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump in Helsinki on Monday.
Lee Stranahan, a host on a Radio SPUTNIK Show, and a former reporter for BREITBART, has said
on air that people have told him that the FBI has been questioning them about him. He says he
thinks that it is possible that he may be indicted.
"... Exactly what I was thinking, he can create multiple indictments and nothing will get to court, he's knows that. What this really is, is a giant PSYOP, crazy propaganda going on in front of us. And how many people protest? Nothing but a witch hunt as Trump have pointed out. ..."
"... I am sure Mueller could create a collusion indictment too, there is no stop against these lying neocons. After all, this is the same guy that was part of the Iraq WMD lies, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqTZF6nyCY ..."
Exactly what I was thinking, he can create multiple indictments and nothing will get
to court, he's knows that. What this really is, is a giant PSYOP, crazy propaganda going on
in front of us. And how many people protest? Nothing but a witch hunt as Trump have pointed
out.
I am sure Mueller could create a collusion indictment too, there is no stop against
these lying neocons. After all, this is the same guy that was part of the Iraq WMD lies,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqTZF6nyCY
Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein announced a bizarre indictment against Russian military intelligence operatives today that,
rather than confirming the case of "Russian meddling" in the U.S. 2016 Presidential election raises more questions. Here are the
major oddities:
How did the FBI obtain information about activity on the DNC and DCCC servers when the DNC/DCCC refused to give the Feds access
to the servers/computers?
Why does Crowdstrike get credit as being a competent computer security firm when, according to the indictment, they completely
and utterly failed to stop the "hacks?"
Why does the indictment refuse to name Wikileaks by name as the Russian collaborator?
Please go read the indictment ( here ) for yourself.
I have taken the time to put together a timeline based on the indictment and other information already on the public record. Here
is the bottomline--if US officials knew as early as April that Russia was hacking the DNC, why did it take US officials more than
six months to stop the activity? The statement of "facts" contained in the indictment also raise another troubling issue--what is
the source of the information? For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they
know what happened on specific dates as alleged in the complaint?
Here is the timeline:
18 April 2016--The Russians hacked into the DNC using DCCC computers and installed malware on the network. (p. 10, para 26)
22 April 2016--The GRU (Russian military intelligence) compressed gigabytes of data using X-tunnel and moved it to a GRU computer
located in ILLINOIS. (p. 11, para 26a)
28 April 2016--The Russians stole documents from the DCCC and moved them on to the computer in Illinois. (p. 11, para 26b).
Late April - 5 May 2016--DNC leaders were tipped to the hack in late April. Chief executive Amy Dacey got a call from her operations
chief saying that their information technology team had noticed some unusual network activity. That evening, she spoke with Michael
Sussmann, a DNC lawyer who is a partner with Perkins Coie in Washington. Soon after, Sussmann, a formerfederal prosecutor who handled
computer crime cases, called Henry, whom he has known for many years. (
Ellen Nakashima's 14 June Washington Post article ) (see p. 12, para 32 of th
13 May 2016--The Russians deleted logs and files from a DNC computer. (p. 11, para 31)
25 May - 1 June 2016--the Russians hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from DNC employees.
(p. 11, para 29).
8 June 2016--DCLeaks.com set up, allegedly by the GRU (no proof offered).
Also created Facebook and Twitter accounts (pp. 13-14, paras. 35, 38, 39)
10 June 2016--Ultimately, the [Crowdstrike] teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10 , all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office. (
Esquire
Magazine offers a different timeline )
22 June 2016--Wikileaks contacts Guccier 2.0 stating, "send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher
impact than what you are doing."
14 July 2016--The GRU, under the guise of Guccifer 2.0, sent Wikileaks an attachment with an encrypted file that explained how
to access an online archive of "stolen" documents.
15 August 2016--Guccifer, alleged to be the GRU, has email exchange with Roger Stone.
22 July 2016--Wikileaks publishes 40,000 plus emails (note, the Indictment INCORRECTLY states that the number was 20,000).
September 2016--The GRU obtained access to a DNC server hosted by a third party and took "data analytics" info. (p. 13, para 34)
October 2016--A functioning Linux-based version of X-agent remained on the DNC server until October. (p. 12, para 32)
Another great curiosity is the timing of the announcement of the indictments. Why today? There was no urgency. No one was on the
verge of fleeing the United States. All of the defendants are in Russia and beyond our reach.
A careful read of the indictment reveals a level of detail that could only have been obtained from intelligence sources (which
means that information would be invalidated if the defendants ever decide to challenge the indictment) or it was provided by an unreliable
third party.
I was shocked to discover, thanks to the indictment, how inept Crowdstrike was in this entire process. Not only did more than
30 days lapse before they attempted to shutdown the Russian hacking by installing new software and issuing new email passwords, but
their so-called security fix left the Russians running an operation until October 2016. How can you be considered a credible cyber
security company yet fail to shutdown the alleged Russian intrusion? It does not make sense.
The most glaring deficit in the indictment is the lack of supporting evidence to back up the charges levied in the indictment.
How do we know that computer files were erased if the FBI did not have access to the computers and the servers? How do we know the
names of the 12 Russian GRU officers? The Russians do not publish directories of secret organizations. Where did this information
come from?
It would appear that the release of the indictment today was a deliberate political act designed to detract and distract from
the Trump visit to the UK and to put pressure on him to confront Vladimir Putin. I have heard from many of my former colleagues who
are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge
from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.
A report appeared yesterday on the 'True Pundit' site entitled 'Mueller Plagiarizes Right-Wing YouTube Journalist's Lawsuit
Against Podesta in New Russian Indictments; DOJ's Big Splash Appears Fabricated.'
''George Webb sued John Podesta in 2017, along with other elected and public officials including Justice Department personnel
but today, exact language, accusations and content from Webb's suit appeared in the Justice Department's indictment. Beyond
strange.
'Mueller swiped Webb's hacking allegations against Imran Awan and simply flipped them -- almost word for word – and made
the exact allegations against Russian operatives.'
The reference is to a class action brought last November against John Podesta and others by one George Webb Sweigert and
so far anonymous others against John Podesta and others.
It has long seemed to me that it is likely that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in relation to the activities of
the Awans. However, I do not feel able to take an informed view on whether the 'True Pundit' report and the material presented
by Sweigert reflect accurate information fed by discontented insiders, genuine 'fake news', or some combination of both.
I would be most interested in what others make of this.
Steven Wasserman, Brother of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to Oversee Awan Family Investigation Jul 27, 2017
https://squawker.org/all/st...
Louie Gohmert, June 5, 2018
"'We need someone assigned to the Awan case that will protect congress from further breaches and from the Awan crime family...
for heavens sake, we need someone in the FBI to step up and do their job'"
In his opening remarks, Gohmert, a former prosecutor, argued that Rosenstein was "disqualified from being able to select
or name" a special counsel because he had counseled Trump on the matter; therefore, Rosenstein would be a material witness.
The truepundit article is fake news IMO. The only 'plagiarism' cited in it is the use of a domain name similar to the Dems
fundraiser site;
actblue.com
. The class action against Podesta alleges the domain was set up by Awan and the DOJ indictment alleges it was set up by the
GRU. Having now read them both, aside from references to 'spearphishing' - a well know hacking technique - I cannot see another
example of significant repeat language.
Thanks for researching! My eyes glaze over whenever I try to read thru generally boring legal docs. Since I had not encountered
Truepundit before, I read some of the other articles on their front page and realized it's a conservative news site. There
are more and more of those lately. Much needed as a balance to the mostly liberal MSM. I put on my "skeptical spectacles" for
both.
My educated guess as to the answer to your three questions is the same as you imply: 1. everything they have they have through
hearsay from Crowdstrike. 2. See #1. 3. Wikileaks is the only party who would actually respond to the indictment and seek discovery,
so leaving them out means they're not in danger of actually having to produce any evidence.
The timing of this announcement illustrates how badly the deep state desires to sabotage Trump's plan to improve US-Russia
relations. Since they have been playing the Russia card for so long with no real results and to the detriment of their credibility,
the urge to try to obstruct Trump at the 11th hour must have been overwhelming.
Between Trumps experience dealing with shady characters in his prior career (esp the casino industry) and what he has no
doubt learned about his enemies in the borg since getting elected, I'm guessing he has contingency plans. And if not, he has
great Road Runner-like instincts :)
I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Mueller, Rosenstein and others are a stalking horse for a complete reorganization of the
DOJ and FBI. By that I mean it appears to now be beyond reasonable doubt that the above have demonstrated that they are highly
political organizations, dripping with partisan agendas.
The question then becomes "how can justice be blind in the USA in the face of incontrovertible evidence it ain't?". To me
that sounds like a call to action for President Trump.
I suspect it is more a case of ineptitude than political bias. They were charged with finding meddling, so they are finding
meddling by using imagination rather than evidence. Can you imagine the uproar if they were to conclude a two-year investigation
by saying, "Sorry, we found nothing" at the end? We don't have to imagine, since that's what happened after the Clinton email
investigation.
I think you could be right. If any agreements are made at the Helsinki summit, Trump will have to reign in the deep state to
implement them. I've been wondering why there hasn't been a complete house cleaning at DOJ and FBI yet. Perhaps Trump is waiting
for them to "jump the shark" so blatantly that when it finally comes it will be seen as the end of their long farce by everyone
but the true believers, who by that point will be seen as delusional by the general public. Trump is the master of the game
of perception. If he pulls it off the Democrats get crushed this fall. If not, we get president Pence next spring. Game on.
I think Rosenstein is bucking to be fired by Trump. This will then allow the Democrats, to claim obstruction of justice, justifying
impeachment. ( Assumption being the Democrats win control of Congress and Senate ) He's been deeply provocative giving ample
reason for said dismissal, Trump has resisted up until now. As long as he resists the temptation Congress will eventually impeach
Rosenstein. As this article went to print documents for his impeachment are being drawn up for release on Monday possibly,
of course subject to politics. ( Please edit the link if you feel it's inappropriate )
https://www.zerohedge.com/n...
PT,
Please excuse me if this is a far out idiotic thought re the timing of the indictment, but doesn't this at least possibly give
Putin some power over Trump? Putin could threaten Trump with having one of the accused "confess" to the hacking per a "collusion"
agreement between Russia and the Trump campaign. If that happened, Trump would be promptly impeached. It would be a whirlwind
circus.
Thx for the confirmation. Sometimes I "war game" these things over a couple of Scotches. I come up with all sorts of notions,
but this one seemed reasonable.
1. How did Mueller arrive at his conclusions? There is no exposition of that in the indictment.
2. Has Mueller established a precedent? Wouldn't other countries use this indictment as an example to indict NSA and other
US intelligence personnel for conducting "normal" intelligence activities.
3. Rosenstein in his press conference reiterated what is written in the indictment that no US person was involved, and that
it did not change the outcome of the election. Does that imply that Mueller & the DOJ are stating that there was no collusion
between the Russian government & the Trump campaign? If that is the case what is the remit of the Mueller special counsel?
4. Why is this indictment handed over to DOJ NSD for prosecution rather than Mueller taking it to the court? Isn't the DOJ
NSD implicated in the FISA abuse being investigated by IG Horowitz?
5. The Russian intelligence agents are innocent until convicted by a court. An indictment is only the prosecution's story.
In this case the prosecution has yet to provide the level of evidence required for a conviction.
6. As is the case with the Russian trolls indicted by Mueller, these agents could ostensibly hire counsel and cause Mueller
much embarrassment by requesting evidentiary discovery. Mueller is now backtracking on the Russian troll case as he either
has no evidence to back the indictment or is unwilling to provide defense counsel with the same which means the prosecution
goes no where.
7. Was this indictment primarily a political document for the TDS afflicted media and people at large? Are Mueller and the
Deep Staters assuming that this indictment goes no where as the Russians will not contest the indictment, so it is a cost free,
politically beneficial indictment?
My personal favourite part is this one :"All twelve defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian Federation
intelligence agency within the Main Intelligence Directorate of the
Russian military." Mueller & Co haven't a clue.
For example, if the FBI was not given access to the DNC/DCCC servers and computers then how do they know what happened on
specific dates as alleged in the complaint?
I believe the NSA records and stores metadata for all Internet traffic, so the FBI asked the NSA for whatever the NSA has
for the DNC/DCCC computers then excluded legitimate sources/destinations for the data before analyzing the rest. Once you have
loaded all the data into a database, it's not difficult.
I have heard from many of my former colleagues who are hoping that Putin calls the Rosenstein bluff. If forced to reveal
the "evidence" behind this indictment because of a challenge from a defendant, the results will be a disaster for the prosecution.
The GRU is part of the military so Putin should order one or two "over the top" to "attack" the Mueller organization. Russia
should be able to afford the best defense lawyers in the United States and should be able to circumvent all and any Treasury
Dept. attempts to block any funding.
I thought immediately that Rosentstein's announcement of this indictment was strangely timed. Your analysis indicates it
was put together hurriedly. Therefore, my first thought was that perhaps Rosenstein was attempting to prevent Trump from meeting
with Putin, as many of the opposition media have suggested Trump should not meet with Putin because of the announcement of
the indictment. After all, they say a POTUS should not hang around with the likes of Putin.
However, most anyone who has followed Trump lately would guess that Trump would not change his planned schedule and would
surely keep his schedule and would indeed confront Putin about the indictment.
Then, if that is what they were hoping, it puts Trump in a spot. If Putin denies the entire story and provides Trump with
a plausible denial and Trump then wants to investigate further, Trump could be accused of doing what the opposition has claimed
all along--"colluding." with the baddest Russian of all.
I think Trump would not be stupid enough to accept either Rosensteein's story or Putin's denial without investigating.
It's Rosentstein's word against the Russians' word in that case, and Trump is caught in the middle and in the same place
he's been all along.
I do hope one or all of the accused do ask for a trial. No way, however, would I look forward to that media circus for weeks
and weeks.
I personally felt the story was made up when Grucifer was mentioned and purported to be Russian. I thought it convenient
that the Russians in America who had been first reported as harmlessly trying to meddle while in the U.S. would be back in
Russia and accused just now. Our FBI is truly inept if that is the case. They let the Boston bombers get away with their attack.
They let the Pulse night club jihadist get away with his, and they let the "professional school shooter" fulfill his destiny.
There are so many tangled webs from those who have practiced to deceive that we are faced with never finding the truth in
our lifetimes.
My only hope for relief from this now, strangely,Lisa Page. I do hope she has been burned badly enough by being stupid enough
to become involved with a married co-worker, who is obviously in love with only himself, that she somehow provides us some
answers.
I know that I will surely be happier when this horror story is over.
If the 12 indicted are actually Russian military intelligence officers then wouldn't it be a simple matter for their superior
to order them to front up and demand their day in court?
Sure, there is a risk that they will be convicted, but spooks willingly undertake far more hazardous missions than this.
A promise could be made that if they are found guilty the Russian government will move heaven and earth to arrange a spy-swap
to get them back and a fabulous recompense for their trouble, so the reward is worth the risk.
Honestly, the prosecutor showed terrible judgement when he included Concord Management in a previous indictment, only to
see that company's lawyer calling his bluff. He appears to be under the impression that naming only Russian persons and not
Russian companies will prevent that from happening again.
Thank you PT for your analysis and commentary on this subject.
It seems this indictment is similar to the indictment filed earlier this year against the Russian astroturfers. And in that
instance, one of the companies charged is defending itself in US court. Not only that, it opted to exercise its right to a
speedy trial!!!
From what I've read, the Mueller team was totally caught off guard since it didn't expect any of the Russians to mount a
defense. According to Andrew McCarthy at National Review who's been diligently commenting on the Mueller probe and related
matters, the special counsel's team made the mistake of filing the indictment when it was evidently unprepared to go to trial.
Mueller's team has consequently asked for delays because it can't produce the DISCOVERY that the defendant has a right to review.
I don't know what the latest news is about the case but at one point the Mueller team provided a HUGE cache of internet postings
allegedly made by the defendant BUT THEY WERE IN RUSSIAN. How on earth did that influence American voters?
Overcome by events. They already are, and the event in question hasn't even happened yet. They are also claiming the this indictment
"proves" treason by Trump, even though it does not even suggest that Trump was involved.
They waited TWO YEARS to produce this "evidence" - which is without evidence, merely assertions.? That in itself condemns
it to complete hogwash.
As for the NSA, they could have produced this stuff at any time in the last two years without compromising any "methods
and sources" since we all know since Snowden and Binney how much they capture and retain. Instead, they had only "moderate
confidence" of Russian "meddling" in the January, 2017, "assessment."
They allegedly had to rely on the Dutch to penetrate the hackers? And that story was hogwash from the get-go.
As for how they "know" that certain files were erased, that could have come from the "certified true images" provided by
CrowdStrike to the FBI - but since CrowdStrike is utterly compromised due to the anti-Russian status of its CEO, that's worthless
"evidence."
If Wikileaks was in contact with Guccifer 2.0, then why did James Clapper expend effort trying to shut down the DoJ negotiations
with Assange who offered "technical evidence" that would prove the Russians had nothing to do with the Wikileaks DNC emails?
Sincerely hope Sy Hersh gets his hands on an actual copy of that FBI Seth Rich report, because if he does, the FBI and the
DoJ are going down. Literally everyone in top management of those agencies (and likely at CIA as well, and possibly NSA) will
be up on charges and headed to jail for actual treason.
They have no choice now but to go all in on this stuff because otherwise everyone involved is going to jail.
You missed the obvious corollary: CrowdStrike is obviously a subsidiary of the GRU. Clever moves disguised as bumbling incompetence!
I second the motion to have one of the Russians "volunteer" to come to the US to clear his name, except that the poor guy will
probably end up in Gitmo.
The Witchfinder General has excelled himself this time. Would I be correct in concluding that more sources & methods have
been burnt here? "KOVALEV deleted his search history" for example is intel that has to have come from inside a GRU computer,
assuming it is true of course.
I'd also just like to highlight that a significant part of this indictment is dedicated to the involvement of both Wikileaks
and Bitcoin. It appears to me that a secondary aim here is to bolster Congressional support to outlaw both.
So, the DOJ is operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party in politicking against the President and Congress
controlled by the other party. Is this correct?
How else is one to read this indictment, its coordination with the Democratic leadership ("he must pull out of the Putin
meeting" squawk), and the "unrelated" matter of attacking Rep. Jordan about 25 year old "abuse" charges dating from his time
at OSU? Who was responsible for those "untraceable" attacks-the MSM, the DOJ, the Democratic Party? Is there any light between
these institutions at this point? The attack seems to have been successfully fought off, and Jordan is now parrying with a
direct attack at Rosenstein.
The pace of all this is dizzying. Is anyone else wondering where it leads to?
By indicting foreign intelligence agents has the USA crossed a line so that now USA intelligence agents are fair game in the
courts of foreign lands?
Looking at this deception over the past few years I have always believed its a game of tit-for-tat where the USA hands are
not clean either and that there was a mutual understanding amongst parties that there is a limit to retribution.
Just saw a would-be meme on my Facebook feed . . . to the general effect that the FBI
still hasn't even looked at the DNC's computer or server, but Mueller's indicted 12 Russians
for 'hacking' them.
Of course, there is that old quote from a New York state judge that a prosecutor could get
a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. (Which also reminds me of a riddle: Why is a ham
sandwich better than perfect happiness? Well, nothing is better than perfect happiness,
right? -- and a ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing. . . .)
The sheer arrogance of the yankee presumption to issue such an indictment is breathtaking.
As soon as the summit is over, why shouldn't Russia issue an indictment of the yankee agents
involved in subverting their country? Italy has already, in the past, under governments more
to the liking of the yankee regime, charged CIA agents for crimes committed in that country.
Since I am sure the yankees favoured those cinque stella and the Lega defeated in the past
election, why shouldn't Italy issue a similar indictment?
The yankees are relying on their hegemony to insulate themselves from the consequences of
their own much more unambiguous much more provable acts of subversion. After the imperium
declines, which is inevitable, this indictment provides an analogous precedent for any of the
former satellites to rise up and smite the yankee aggressors with similar indictments.
Perhaps they should also ignore diplomatic immunity to snag those agents acting within the
country.
The indictment, meanwhile, since it is obviously aimed at preventing the Trump
administration from achieving its foreign policy goals, is arguably an act of treason,
particularly since no real proof is offered and the allegations are trivial and/or absurd.
According to the concepts of the Nuremberg four power trial, since the indictment is intended
to provide support for elements within the yankee regime favouring aggressive war, it also
renders Mueller, Rosenstein and their operatives factually guilty of war crimes.
"... The obvious plan in a potentially so-called 'multipolar' World is to ally with the third power -- it is weaker than the second, and in any case it is more congenial, and ultimately most important! it is Energy-Land rich. ..."
"... IMHO personal interests don't weigh heavily here (as some have suggested) however the Tillerson - Oil axis was and remains a supreme consideration (minus Tillerson.) ..."
"... The blame Russia game is very much a sub-rosa contemp. war between corporate + mafia-like factions for control of parts of the NWO. BOA and power-sharing (in the W) is now very vulnerable, or is even being destroyed, (even NATO is at risk!), everyone is scrambling, therefore the over-the-top moves and fights. ..."
"... Any evidence blaming Russia is good to go - the aim is: a) to convince the public, who will absorb some headlines and 'hate' Russia even more, b) to re-assure the players on the anti-R side, we are doing it, and the public is on our side, etc. having the most powerful propaganda organ(S) is a guarantee of the ultimate 'win' it is said so they make up things out of whole cloth. ..."
IMO Trump isn't trying to achieve anything more than to negotiate an agreement that is
favorable to USA/NATO. The Deep State would be happy if an acceptable agreement could be
reached as it would split Russia from China. Jackrabbit at 13.
I suppose Jackr means achieving 'nothing specific' (e.g. Iran's future role in Syria,
etc.), .. OK. Second part IMHO, Trump was/is trying to organise the New World Order (as the
old order, set up at Bretton Woods, is dead or dying) and he means to ensure or create a
'favorable' position for the US. The obvious plan in a potentially so-called 'multipolar'
World is to ally with the third power -- it is weaker than the second, and in any case it is
more congenial, and ultimately most important! it is Energy-Land rich.
IMHO personal interests don't weigh heavily here (as some have suggested) however the
Tillerson - Oil axis was and remains a supreme consideration (minus Tillerson.)
One reason, not mentioned, for Trump's pro-Russia stance is that his base is pro-R and
détente or even strong cooperation with Russia was a heavily implied electoral
promise. Russians are White and they are Orthodox, Christians of a kind (in the popular US
imagination..) and Putin is seen as a strong, competent and 'savvy' leader. 90% of
evangelicals in the US voted for Trump for ex. (Catch the Boers (white) in S Africa wanting
to emigrate to Russia..see news.) Nothing slant-eyed about the Russkies! (apologies to
sensitive US souls on 'race' issue - i am not up to date re PC speech.)
DT's seeming 'ban' of Muslims (the entry / visa hoopla, hardly an attack that provoked
deaths) also satisfied the base and was a strong and direct jab at the support, payment for
and exploitation of islamists (Muslim brotherhood / mercenary forces / terrorists etc. Killed
off and still feared by Russia on their turf )
Russia always makes positive noises about the presumed / known winner of the US elections.
This worked fine with Bush (remember Georgie glommed Putin's soul), was difficult with Obama
(a secret muslim, not a US citizen, it was said, etc.), link, but a sure fire thing with
Trump, as Putin-Russia knew DT would win (imho.)
The blame Russia game is very much a sub-rosa contemp. war between corporate +
mafia-like factions for control of parts of the NWO. BOA and power-sharing (in the W) is now
very vulnerable, or is even being destroyed, (even NATO is at risk!), everyone is scrambling,
therefore the over-the-top moves and fights.
Any evidence blaming Russia is good to go - the aim is: a) to convince the public, who
will absorb some headlines and 'hate' Russia even more, b) to re-assure the players on the
anti-R side, we are doing it, and the public is on our side, etc. having the most powerful
propaganda organ(S) is a guarantee of the ultimate 'win' it is said so they make up things
out of whole cloth.
- Page 14 and 15: This is hilariously stupid! These Russian super spy agents on June
15, 2016, 4:19 MOSCOW TIME and they DID NOT HACK, BUT LOGGED INTO the DNC server and
spent 37 minutes to search for files or that included words (that is for the techo's out
there, they "grep") for the following words:
* some hundred sheets
* some hundreds of sheets
* dcleaks
* illuminati
* широко
известный
перевод (meaning: widely known translation)
* worldwide known
* think twice about
* company's competence
So what kind of super spies, and super hackers would use "some hundred sheets" and "some
hundreds of sheets" as two separate searches. Every computer geek knows that if you don't
waste time to do virtually two identical searches like those. Who ever did these searches
(after they logged in!) knows nothing about searching. The whole tech. world knows if you are
going to do hacking, you use things like Linux grep/sed tools and you wouldn't waste your
time doing pointless duplicitous searches. Why doesn't FBI state what tools were used, every
is logged, or it should be. Thus this person whom ever it was, was naive.
So here is the big one! Foreign hackers are looking for about people talking about the
Illuminati! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Another stupid one! Russian hackers searching DNC files for RUSSIAN STRINGS This is
turning into a circus.
So you mean to tell me Russian hackers that logged into a computer (that is they didn't
hacked, the FBI stated as much), are looking about for files about nonsensical matter
including Russian Word Strings. You can't even make this stuff up. THE FBI ARE
CLOWNS!!!
So it goes on page 15 and 16, that these search words to comprise the breathtaking proof
that the culprit then was to admit these words:
Worldwide known cyber security company XXXX announced that the DNC servers have been hacked
by "sophisticated" hacker groups. I'm very please the company appreciated my skill highly .
Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it?
I guess XXXX Customers should think twice about company's competence.
F*** the illuminati and their conspiracies
And when did this happen? Some 2 hours later, at 7:02pm.
So think about this! They wrote that paragraph AFTER the search! So how do you search for
something in 37 minutes that you don't know it exists, and with such meaningless words to
write a bragging paragraph, that was supposedly ON the DNC server itself! Meaning, the person
who logged in knew it existed and quickly went looking for where it was to extract it, and
then use later as to frame the Russians!
Look at the time line. The FBI only found that it was a DNC employee that logged in,
looking for something that shouldn't exist in anyway on his server, unless of course he wrote
it himself, and that was to use it frame the Russians. Remember that paragraph was ON THE DNC
Server!!!!
The FBI are morons! This indictment will be thrown out quick smart, and the FBI should be
brought up on charges of aiding and abetting a crime!
Dorian 9
Yeah. That part was funny, too. Why would they launch some oddball searches and then later
use those same words in a post at WordPress? It's like they were trying to get caught ...
unless something else is going on.
Rod Rosenstein had a press conference on July 13th, 2018 where he broke the news that 12
Russians were being indicted for hacking into the DNC server. This was all debunked by former
NSA and father of the surveillance state Bill Binney.
So. I just read the 'indictment charges' from Rosenstein. What I can say about it on
its face is that it is NOT concrete proof of any proven act by these people. It is based
on circumstantial anecdote AND an extensive discussion about where these people fit in
their overall Russian government agency operations.
1. It describes attempts to access (through phishing operations) email IDs and
passwords of selected accounts TWO of whom the government STILL refuses to name (Hillary
Clinton and John Podesta). It also alleges these same nefarious 'Rooskie Military
Meddlers" intended (yes, intended to ) release select emails so that it might upset "the
2016 election."
Clearly here, in order to judge whatever 'effect' this may or may not have had on the
election, the GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FORCED to completely present the actual emails they
feel were problematic. RELEASE ALL THE FECKING EMAILS! Without concrete and complete
information no reasonable assessment can be made using a "bad men do bad things"
accusation coupled with unproven claims. To me, TRUTH if outed isn't "meddling." It is
immutable. SHOW US the damaging emails FIRST!
2. Regarding the abundant and complete description of the Russian Military agency
(right down to names and positions AND who 'hacked' what account, etc. It may not be
clear to a lot of people here but it is clear to me that Rosenstein and whomever is
behind him in this little news-cycle diversion action have almost certainly blown an
embedded source in that unit. I hope it was worth it. Particularly since it is unlikely
the government WILL EVER prove its claims.
This is just a diversion operation by a closet deep-state operative who is the
effective head of the Department of Justice since Sessions has inexplicably washed his
hands of anything that should rightly be his primary duties. Rosenstein was also greatly
assisted by some IC - which one? Could be the FBI, but the asset inside that military
unit is very likely CIA. My guess is FBI and CIA working jointly in a deep-state
diversion. NSA? Reports indicate at least parts of it disagree with the hacking source
assertions.
To me, this is pretty much it. President Trump has to fire sessions and appoint a new
head who will fire Rosenstein. This person should also deadline Mueller on a short leash
and have him put up or shut up - 2 weeks maximum and then he is disbanded. The new AG
also needs to fire Director Wray because he hasn't changed the FBI culture one stinking
bit. Lastly, the clearances of Mueller, Comey, Wray, Rosenstein and the whole cabal need
to be invalidated.
ROD ROSENSTEIN - so looks completely insane. Very similar to Adam Schiff.
Does anybody remember how easy it was for Podesta to hand over his security details,
when spoofed?
Crowd Strike - used old Ukrainian malware. Had the White House Commission, plus, the
DNC allowed Crowdstrike to look at their servers, but, not the FBI. Now why was that?
FISA Judges were also colluding with the FBI in an attempt to unseat Trump.
Lisa Page and Strzok texted about setting up a dinner/cocktail party as a cover to meet
with FISA Judge Rudy Contreras.
Lisa Page has refused to cooperate with the Congressional subpoena to testify.
FISA Judge Rudy Contreras not only signed off on a FISA spying warrant against Trump, he
also sat on the Mueller team to go after General Flynn (he was removed from the Mueller
team with no explanation provided).
---------------------------------
""Rudy is on the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court]!" Page excitedly texted Strzok
on July 25, 2016. "Did you know that? Just appointed two months ago."
"I did," Strzok responded. "I need to get together with him."
"[He] said he'd gotten on a month or two ago at a graduation party we were both
at."
Contreras was appointed to the top surveillance court on May 19, 2016, federal records
show.
The pair even schemed about how to set up a cocktail or dinner party just so
Contreras, Strzok, and Page could speak without arousing suspicion that they were
colluding. Strzok expressed concern that a one-on-one meeting between the two men might
require Contreras' recusal from matters in which Strzok was involved."
http://thefederalist.com/20...
Why is someone like Rod, anywhere near the steering wheel ??? Why are he and the rest
of these political-child-clowns, not in prison ??? Where the hell, are the adults ??? A
spanking is past due !!! These folk are ALL liars and thieves.
Peter Strzok was "out of scope" (lying) during his last Polygraph test in 2016.
Strzok, thus, lost his security clearance to allow his participation with FBI in the
Trump "investigation". So HOW did Strzok participate. Anyone involved in that breach of
security procedure should be immediately arrested.
and the non stop b.s. just flows from Rosendueches mouth.... and of course that
traitor disgrace scumbag McCain has to get his dying words in. Someone put a pillow over
that Rinos' pukehole already.
Seth Rich (DNC database employee) was the likely leaker of the DNC emails (see Assange
and Kim Dot Com).
Awan Bros (Pakistani) were given total access to dozens of Democrat Congressional
computers w/o ANY security clearance. None of the Dem Congressmen questioned that. Awan
Bros seemed to be laundering $$$ through their "car business" called CIA.
-------------------------
"Imran Awan and his family members were congressional IT aides who investigators said
made unauthorized access to the House Democratic Caucus server thousands of times. At the
same time as they worked for and could read all the emails of congressmen who sat on
committees like Intelligence, Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs, they also ran a car
dealership that took money from a Hezbollah-linked fugitive and whose financial books
were indecipherable and business patterns bizarre, according to testimony in court
records."
http://dailycaller.com/2017...
Rosenstein made a pathetic attempt to set the political table to block the scheduled
one-on-one meeting between Trump & Putin. These clowns are so predictable.
Both Chuck Schumer and McCain (Deep State operatives) came out saying that Trump should
not meet with Putin because it would be an insult to our "Democracy".
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called for President Trump to cancel his one-on-one meeting with
Russian President Vladimir Putin. "President Trump should cancel his meeting with
Vladimir Putin until Russia takes demonstrable and transparent steps to prove that they
won't interfere in future elections," he wrote in a statement. "Glad-handing with
Vladimir Putin on the heels of these indictments would be an insult to our democracy."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) also came out against the meeting, writing in a statement that if
Trump "is not prepared to hold Putin accountable, the summit in Helsinki should not move
forward."
https://www.thedailybeast.c...
i like Binney; he's a straight shooter. Glad he's called bs on the MSM and intel
community narrative about the "hacking" of the DNC servers, and the
nonsense/impossibility of the DNC emails being hacked and transmitted from within, as the
data transfer rates were absolutely impossible to perform over the internet; it's why the
likelihood of a dl to a thumb drive or other portable data storage device, a handoff to
an intermediary, and surreptitious delivery to Assange is the MOST likely scenario.
The Liar simply keeps employing the Hitlerian "Big Lie" tactic of her pretending to be
an authority figure, and repeatedly reiterating "Wikileaks Russian hacking," which she
KNOWS is a lie before she opens her face hole and spews the green bile.
Rosensteins failed attempt to sabotage the Trump-Putin summit. Won't happen , I don't
know why this swampie is still in a position to try this. He should be fired, tried and
hung.
"in my remarks I have not identified the victims" (8:27) .....
"we need to work together to hold the perpetrators accountable"(9:21) ... certainly, he
is NOT talking about Peter Strozk, whom DOJ provided an attorney with advice not to
answer Congressional questions.
"what motivation they had, independent of what is required to prove this offense....is
not our responsibility"(10:55)
...apparently a policy change since Comey exhonorated Hillary.
"I only comment on the evidence...without regard to politics, is sufficient..."
(10:15)
The DOJ has selectively chosen what facts to gather and what to zealously avoid: Did not
get the DNC server; Did not get oath for Hillary et al interviews; did not prevent Awan
family computer consultants from fleeing; Did not accurately identify classified
documents marked "c" on Hillary server; FISA judge, Rudolph Contreras, was FORCIBLY
recused from the Michael Flynn Case, after he approved surveillance on Trump campaign
members.
Time to rewrite the rules for DOJ/FBI and/or reorg the entire agencies with better
accountability. Certainly remove auto access to NSA info. Congress needs the power to
indict any current of former federal employee and enforce it through the US Marshals.
Dems are so stupid.
John Podesta's office gave his password to hackers.
Podesta was Hillary's campaign chairman.
"The hack and eventual release of a decade's worth of Hillary Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta's emails may have been caused by a typo, The New York Times
reported Tuesday in an in-depth piece on Russian cyberattacks.
Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried
to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign's IT staff to ask if
the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was "a
legitimate email" and that Podesta should "change his password immediately."
Instead of telling the aide that the email was a threat and that a good response would
be to change his password directly through Google's website, he had inadvertently told
the aide to click on the fraudulent email and give the attackers access to the
account.
http://thehill.com/policy/c...
Delavan told the Times he had intended to type "illegitimate," a typo he still has not
forgiven himself for making.
More importantly: the content of the hacked emails should have been the story not who
hacked or leaked them...........
Thank the Deepstate Project mockingbird media for that....
Rosenstein has the demeanor of a pedophile seducing a child. After listening to this,
I need to take a long, hot shower. Just listening to him makes me feel dirty.
Back to paper ballots. At least the cheating can be done locally!
Timing of this is unbelievable. Deep state really don't want Trump to meet with Putin.
Why?
Putin has some dark secrets Demoncrats don't want Trump to find out? Smells phishy to
me.
All I have to say is that a man that would break his wedding vows is capable of
anything. This man should have lost his FBI Security Clearance the day it was found out
that he was cheating on his wife. Adultery alone is more than enough to remove a security
clearance, and many employers would fire someone that committed adultery.
"Cheating on your spouse can even be grounds for losing your job. This is particularly
true in the military, where adultery has a maximum punishment of a dishonorable discharge
and confinement for one year, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In the
past eight years, 30% of the commanders fired lost their jobs due to sexual misconduct,
including adultery, the Associated Press reports".
We are going full circle now. What this agent is telling us is precisely what we
learned from Alex and from Q. These two are not in contradiction, but they are
complementing each other. They just deal with different aspects of the swamp. It has been
an amazing journey to follow Alex-Q-Fox-Trump. Some uncomfortable details have been
exposed at Strzok's hearing. Some annonymous source exposed RR in connection of Seth
Rich. Trump is about to speak with Russia. All of a sudden RR is feeling the heat under
the pan.He realized he is the frog being cooked in low fire. RR has just raised the white
flag and wants to patch up a nice history that doesn't implicate anybody in America. All
he is praying for is a peaceful resolution of this whole Russia mess. But not so fast, he
still left a knife hanging over Trump's presidency, that is a illegitimate election. RR
still believes in the impeachment depending on the midterm elections.
Who could "plant hundreds of files, containing malicious computer code" on people's
computers. In addition to the Russians, anybody in the world could, after Wikileaks
published the contents of the CIA's "Vault 7" with the exact same code as is known to be
used by foreign governments.
For sure. Look how this psychopathic faced SOB spins as if the Ruskies stole the
entire Electoral College. Let's not also be naive - the US has significantly
(murderously) interfered w/foreign elections past 100 yrs. Then we go about killing those
we select and support - like Noriega, Saddam, Momar (the Shah) and the Assads. Don't buy
this crap. Binney is the most knowledgeable and honest on this matter that I've reviewed.
Look into him and consider trusting his reports.
Dont forget Mossadeq, a dually elected Iranian Prime minister who tried to nationalize
Irans Oil. Installed a minor Grunt by the Name of Reza Shah Pahlavi, whsmgiven Persia on
a Silver platter so long as he was chummy with the Western Oll Barrons. Then the
resulting domino effect with the Islamic Republic of Iran and our current troubles.
Everythiing the Global Deep State touches turns to garbage, they just rape the
resources in all its forms before the Rot goes terminal, oldest tricks are indeed the
best ones.
Another B.S Charge to distract from Strzok, Page Disaster for the Deep State. When the
FBI Lovers turn States Evidence Many of the Top FBI , DOJ Officials will be heading to
Prisons. Rogue FBI has No Credibility any longer after all the Deceit and Corruptions
They engaged in. The reason I Switched from Democrat Voter to Trump Voter is because
Putin called Me at the Last Minute before I sent out My Ballot. He does call me Once in a
While to see If I wanna Go get a Burger at IN N Out and stop and Have a Glass of KGB
Vodka. at a Local Bar in Commiefornia. Just don`t tell the FBI or the Corrupt DemoFreaks
about it. They are so desperate they may come and Bust Me. and Charge Me with Colluding
with the Ruskies.
[RR] has just told America how the DNC was rigging elections ,,,, thanks Rod,
First it was 12 Russians a few months ago with different backgrounds. One of the 12 come
to the USA and demand to see all the evidence against him. Mueller declines and nothing
more is heard about the Russian hacking.
Now its 12 military persons, its a different 12 people but DOJ deep state liars had to
cover for the first set of 12 bs indictments hoping Americans would not remember that
Mueller's indictments go away.
These RR Doj scum bags keep telling lys and they keep getting bigger.
They scumbags picked 12 military people this time because they now the military people
can not com to the USA to ask to see the evidence.
These DOJ traitors are about to have their ass's handed to them, they are so
stupid.
The only thing worse than fake news is, fake indictments.
Rosenstein is dying for credibility, all the while trying to avoid risking prison for
treason.
Rosenstein is J. Edger Hover the second, gathering investigation results to bribe
congressional and federal officials for power and extortion, while shielding criminals
from prosecution.
This creep needs to swing for treason. This isn't why the FBI or DOJ was created. FBI
rank and file and DOJ deserve better.
I'm realizing that in the deep state within the CIA, DOj, and FBI there are a range of
factions. There are RINO factions, progressive factions, and cowboy factions like I think
Rosenstein fits into. Rosenstein may actually be in it for himself, never the less, he is
selling out America, he commits treason.
I'll bet he's even a cross dresser like J Edger was.....
These creeps and clowns share one thing, they have massively abused their power, and
will band together to fight to survive. This is no joke, they may join forces and go to
war against America.
Rosenstein's wife, Lisa Barsoomian, is a protected CIA operative and FOIA shot
blocker....
Barsoomian represented :
Robert Muller three times
James Comey five times
Barack Obama 45 times
Kathleen Sebelius 56 times
Bill Clinton 40 times and
Hillary Clinton 17 times
between 1998 and 2017
She has specialized in opposing Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the
intelligence community.
Just saw a would-be meme on my Facebook feed . . . to the general effect that the FBI
still hasn't even looked at the DNC's computer or server, but Mueller's indicted 12 Russians
for 'hacking' them.
Of course, there is that old quote from a New York state judge that a prosecutor could get
a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. (Which also reminds me of a riddle: Why is a ham
sandwich better than perfect happiness? Well, nothing is better than perfect happiness,
right? -- and a ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing. . . .)
"... Yes, this indictment is an obvious poison pill meant to ruin or postpone the summit. Chuck Shumer immediately called for cancelling the summit after Rod Rosenstein made his indictment announcement. ..."
"... Also consider that the House was just about to impeach Rod Rosenstein for obstruction. He has refused to release evidence to Congress regarding the FBI and it's motivations during the Hillary email investigation and also the Russiagate investigation. ..."
"... Item 38 of the Indictment claims that the "Alice Donovan" persona - which as a journalist submitted articles to CounterPunch and other sites - was used by the alleged Conspirators to set up a DCLeaks Facebook page in June 2016. ..."
"... While I anticipate the MSM Russophobes have already declared a slam dunk, the question, in my mind, is whether the "loyal opposition" (various DNC astrotuf) will actually even ATTEMPT to mobilize protests. (I think there may be ongoing Sunday family demonstrations to "attach" to). ..."
"... The DNC "resistance" has promised that if Mueller is fired, there will be thousands in the street ... Forcing Trump to cancel Helsinki would be an impressive wielding of "power" (numbers) they claim to have ... If they make no effort (my guess), well, that would be predictable ... ..."
"... So we're to believe that the Russian CIA does not have any access to English speaking translators and that when it wants to write a fake email in English as part of an elaborate plot against the United States, it uses Google? This sounds much more like the actions of a lone rogue hacker or small group of private hackers than the action of the secret intelligence agency of a major power. ..."
"... ""SERVERS The hackers used a server in AZ but then ran that through a server "overseas." The hackers leased a DCCC computer in Illinois. The use of infrastructure within the US suggests much of the hot air around transfer times -- one of the key attempts to debunk the hack -- is just that, hot air."" https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/13/the-russian-hack/ . ..."
"... it would have been impossible had the alleged victims not been idiotically, criminally negligent in handling their email accounts. What's more, it's incredible that US intelligence services and the Dem Party apparatus are willing to reveal how easily their systems were compromised and how helpless they were in reacting to it. ..."
"... Most of the information revealed from the DNC emails was either rather innocuous or confirmed what everyone already knew (that the entire Dem political and media establishment had pre-anointed HRC). Anyone who believes that the "Deep State" is some cabal of demonic masterminds is a giant fool. The best and brightest in DC are cack-handed sociopathic gangsters of middling intelligence and no imagination . ..."
"... It does appear that the whole Russian influence/DNC-Gluccifer/etc. stuff is bullshit. Just like the Trump dossier, White Helmets, Assange rape allegations, Skripal poisoning by Russia, and more. Sickening. ..."
"... It occurred to me that while HRC was Secretary of State, one reason to run her business on private servers was to avoid exposing her mix of private/public activities to open view. The same factor would apply at the DNC. Not that the DOS would have state-of-the-art tech security, but playing outside the field leads to depending on savvy conspirators or naive duds for your operations. So, in order to keep things quiet, Crowdstrike is the provider of cover. I would not want to be the provider of record for the Clinton gang or the DNC. Total fail. Although, Podesta was an idiot to be phished. ..."
"... One side of the current indictment scenario that could play into Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin, is that trashing the opposite party prior to negotiations is Trump's modus operandi. ..."
"... On the other hand, this entire kerfuffle has diverted attention away from those individuals, industries and countries that absolutely did collude with both Candidates, and absolutely did influence not just the election, but also US policies ever since. ..."
Cost $95,000 to pull off this 'conspiracy' to interfere in the 2016 presidential election?
Less than took in by Clinton at a single Wall Street Banker cocktail party. Seriously, you
Russian folks need to understand, it will take at least a billion to rig an election in
America ... we don't come cheap.
Correct, he obviously is fed up with this bs witch hunt, he wont give in to deepstate nor
MSM now even though he will say he raised this issue with Putin and so forth.
Yes, this indictment is an obvious poison pill meant to ruin or postpone the summit.
Chuck Shumer immediately called for cancelling the summit after Rod Rosenstein made his
indictment announcement.
Also consider that the House was just about to impeach Rod Rosenstein for obstruction.
He has refused to release evidence to Congress regarding the FBI and it's motivations during
the Hillary email investigation and also the Russiagate investigation.
Now if the House starts impeachment proceedings they will be seen as trying to impeach a
person that just indicted 12 Russians. In other words, they will be seen as protecting
Russians.
11 - I'd like to see VIPS respond to this line by line, it looks ridiculous from first glance
but I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to comment further. Is there any chance that
Assange could prove the source was an internal leak through a release without losing face? My
immediate reaction is that they really played them selves out on this one, its too flimsy of
a production; but than I said the same thing about every chemical attack in Syria, Skribals,
etc, etc.
Thank you Dorian @9 I loved your rant and can absolutely sympathise with your astonishment.
The FBI is clueless and ridiculous and so it should be. The more I follow this Mueller and
Rosenstein circus, the more I see them as Putin's senior agents in the USA. This latest leak
looks to me to be an attempt to do Putin's bidding to derail any meaningful meeting with the
President of the USA. (Not saying that there can ever be a "meaningful meeting with any USA
President") Who in their right mind wants to meet with a lying, thieving yankee? let alone
make a deal with one!
I say Mueller and Rosenstein are Putin's puppets and the whole damn circus is designed for
ridicule. But then I might be way too far down the rabbit hole to see clearly.
""We must speak with one voice in making clear to Vladimir Putin: 'We will not allow you
to interfere in our democratic processes or those of our allies,'" Sanders wrote in a tweet
on Friday."
Gee, I seem to recall the HRC Campaign and the DNC doing far more proven damage to
the electoral process than anything Russia's allegedly done. Where was Sanders denouncement
of HRC and the DNC then?! Clearly, even more than in 2016, Bernie Sanders is a gigantic
fraud every bit as disgusting as HRC, perhaps even more so given the number of people
deluded by his actions. People like him a big part of the problem and have no part in the
solution.
Item 38 of the Indictment claims that the "Alice Donovan" persona - which as a journalist
submitted articles to CounterPunch and other sites - was used by the alleged Conspirators to
set up a DCLeaks Facebook page in June 2016.
b exclaims: "Note: The indictment reinforces the author's hunch that bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies are creations and playgrounds of secret services just like Tor and other
'cool' internet 'privacy' stuff are. Its the very reason why one should avoid their use."
YES!
One of the things that rings my irony alarm is that the sort of "right wing" "Liberty
Movement" crowd has been warning for decades now of the One World Government plans for a
"cashless society." They feared that all transactions would be done via computer entries,
which the NWO could manipulate to either prevent a dissident from being able to buy
something, track every purchase, or simply to steal all of anyone's money.
And now, many of those same Liberty Movement voices are out there selling BitCoin, etc....
and selling it HARD.
This same Liberty Movement has been totally freaked out about the "Jack-Booted Thugs" of
the Police State for decades, too. Some USAmericans might even remember G. Gordon Liddy
telling his Radio Show followers to "go for headshots" when the coppers come (because the
police started wearing body armor).
And now, those same folks are cheering on the Pigs cracking skulls of Black Lives Matter
and anti-Trump hysterics. In fact, the LM is upset that more illegal surveillance,
unwarranted searches and extrajudicial killings aren't being done.
It still looks to me like the PTSB are tearing us apart.
While I anticipate the MSM Russophobes have already declared a slam dunk, the question,
in my mind, is whether the "loyal opposition" (various DNC astrotuf) will actually even
ATTEMPT to mobilize protests. (I think there may be ongoing Sunday family demonstrations to
"attach" to).
The DNC "resistance" has promised that if Mueller is fired, there will be thousands in
the street ... Forcing Trump to cancel Helsinki would be an impressive wielding of "power"
(numbers) they claim to have ... If they make no effort (my guess), well, that would be
predictable ...
Does anyone know if these latest charges are still based on that CrowdStrike "report?"
That is, DNC refused to let FBI have access to their servers so that FBI could run their
own forensics. All previous IC claims have been based on CrowdStrike claims.
Did FBI finally get ahold of those servers, and if so, could they possibly still have had
such evidence on them? Weren't they professionally scrubbed years ago?
See Item 41 in the indictment. "On or about June 15th 2016, the 'Conspirators ...' looked up
certain words and phrases on Google Translate, phrases which were later used by "Guccifer
2.0".
So we're to believe that the Russian CIA does not have any access to English speaking
translators and that when it wants to write a fake email in English as part of an elaborate
plot against the United States, it uses Google? This sounds much more like the actions of a
lone rogue hacker or small group of private hackers than the action of the secret
intelligence agency of a major power.
I have read that the indictment says that different offices/locations were targeted, so no.
""SERVERS The hackers used a server in AZ but then ran that through a server
"overseas." The hackers leased a DCCC computer in Illinois. The use of infrastructure
within the US suggests much of the hot air around transfer times -- one of the key attempts
to debunk the hack -- is just that, hot air."" https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/13/the-russian-hack/
.
about Crowdstrike:
CROWDSTRIKE
The indictment describes Crowdstrike's efforts to oust the hackers, but notes that a Linux
based version of X-Agent remained on DNC's network until October 2016.
Part of the "big reveal" (with apparent date discrepancies) is that "the hackers" had a
lot of targets over a long period of time.
I still think Trump was joking when he suggested "the Russians" could help him out by
finding the missing (HRC deleted) e-mails not recovered / found during the server
investigation .... poppycock ... but his "joke" was leapt on at the time and (embarassingly)
is claimed to be a "smoking gun" or "trigger" for the hacking.
Yeah, there seems to be very very little there there
I posted the following in response to Debsisdead wondering what was going on at
CounterPunch.
Then there was that whole thing where they were publishing articles written by an avatar
going by the name of Alice Donovan. I don't know what to make that whole thing. I will say
that some of her articles did discuss inconvenient truths that the MSM tries to play up as
"conspiracy theories" (eg. Obama Administration sent weapons to Syria that ISIL received).
But, she also wrote really bizarre stuff indicating she was not whom she claimed to be.
"...the question, in my mind, is whether the "loyal opposition" (various DNC astrotuf)
will actually even ATTEMPT to mobilize protests. (I think there may be ongoing Sunday family
demonstrations to "attach" to)."
I've been assigned to a 'Two Minutes Hate" for Saturday morning. ;-)
Honestly, I wouldn't put it past the ruthless and perfidious Russian intel services to have
actually done this, but it would have been impossible had the alleged victims not been
idiotically, criminally negligent in handling their email accounts. What's more, it's
incredible that US intelligence services and the Dem Party apparatus are willing to reveal
how easily their systems were compromised and how helpless they were in reacting to it.
Most of the information revealed from the DNC emails was either rather innocuous or
confirmed what everyone already knew (that the entire Dem political and media establishment
had pre-anointed HRC). Anyone who believes that the "Deep State" is some cabal of demonic
masterminds is a giant fool. The best and brightest in DC are cack-handed sociopathic
gangsters of middling intelligence and no imagination .
And even if this accusation is true, they have yet to find any actual collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russian government officials, which is the entire (official anyway)
point of the investigation. They have yet to prove that there was any effect on the outcome
of the election. If the Russians are guilty of hacking they will deny, if they are innocent
they will deny. This is Whitewater Redux, where flimsy allegation of criminal activity is
used to dig and dig and dig until they find something juicy that can be used to prosecute.
Ironic!
If Mueller is so sure the 12 intelligence officers are guilty and Putin is so sure they
are innocent, he ought to fly them to DC to stand trial. Professional courtesy from one
secret policeman to another.
The indictment flies in the face of the great research of the meta data carried out by the
Forensicator and Adam Carter. Which practically proves the leaks were a download from the
US.
The article above has many links referring to that research and the backdrop.
I - and everyone else here - agree that this pathetic "indictment" is an act of complete
desperation, designed to fool the foolables.
Re: "The indictment reinforces the author's hunch that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are
creations and playgrounds of secret services just like Tor and other 'cool' internet
'privacy' stuff are. Its the very reason why one should avoid their use."
It does appear that the whole Russian influence/DNC-Gluccifer/etc. stuff is bullshit.
Just like the Trump dossier, White Helmets, Assange rape allegations, Skripal poisoning by
Russia, and more. Sickening.
To clarify, the following is from Rosenstein's announcement, not the indictment.
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result. The special counsel's investigation is ongoing and there will be no comments on the
special counsel at this time.""
What's more, it's incredible that US intelligence services and the Dem Party
apparatus are willing to reveal how easily their systems were compromised and how helpless
they were in reacting to it. Most of the information revealed from the DNC emails was
either rather innocuous or confirmed what everyone already knew (that the entire Dem
political and media establishment had pre-anointed HRC)
Exactly. It occurred to me that while HRC was Secretary of State, one reason to run
her business on private servers was to avoid exposing her mix of private/public activities to
open view. The same factor would apply at the DNC. Not that the DOS would have
state-of-the-art tech security, but playing outside the field leads to depending on savvy
conspirators or naive duds for your operations. So, in order to keep things quiet,
Crowdstrike is the provider of cover. I would not want to be the provider of record for the
Clinton gang or the DNC. Total fail. Although, Podesta was an idiot to be phished.
One side of the current indictment scenario that could play into Trump's upcoming
meeting with Putin, is that trashing the opposite party prior to negotiations is Trump's
modus operandi. See his comments re: Brexit a day ago, then the gushing with May over
the special nature of their most special of special relationships. What looks like a dagger
to the back by Rosenstein, while the boss was out of town, will likely get chuckles at the
summit.
Trump knows very well that this "Breaking News" is meant to disrupt the meeting with Putin.
Trump hates Mueller, so I guess he will briefly mentioned the 'crime' to Putin who will ask
for tangible proofs and Trump will throw the request to Mueller and pass to another more
important issue. Trump does care about been criticized for that, he know that he would be
criticized anyway.,
"And even if this accusation is true, they have yet to find any actual collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russian government officials, which is the entire (official anyway)
point of the investigation. They have yet to prove that there was any effect on the outcome
of the election. "
Yep. On the other hand, this entire kerfuffle has diverted attention away from those
individuals, industries and countries that absolutely did collude with both Candidates, and
absolutely did influence not just the election, but also US policies ever since.
Oh look! A squirrel! Gotta go chase that squirrel!
Trump will most likely just let the Russia dunnit garbage run. It doesn't bother him or slow
him down in any way, it is a thorn in the side for Russia, and gives Trump media cover while
setting up energy dominance.
To Trump, Russia is a competitor in the energy business.
So everyone got what they wanted. Trump can claim he has been proven free of collusion with
Russia. Dems and neocons can claim they were right that Russia did it, even though the
indictment lacks any proof of this.
Trump can use indictments to justify his backtracking on his campaign promises to improve
relations with Russia , and justify continued sanctions, increase military spending, push
NATO allies to buy more from American weapons dealers, and push EU members to block Russian
gas lines
Meanwhile the real elephant in the room continues to be ignored and control both parties,
influence elections, dictate foreign policy and economic decisions , disseminate fake news to
alter public perceptions, etc....
Well, heck, the list of defendants is itself proof that Mueller is desperate that this case
never comes before a court.
How do I know that?
Easy. His previous indictment named persons AND companies, which allowed Concord
Management to surprise everyone by demanding its day in court.
This time around he has only indicted individuals.
He pointedly does not indicted any companies.
This means that a Russian individual has to put their freedom at risk by taking up the
challenge, and Mueller obviously believes that nobody will be willing to do that.
I think he is going to be proved wrong yet again.
I predict that one or more of those defendants does, indeed, step foot on US soil and
demands to be put on trial, and this is going to shake the Mueller investigation to its
core.
The reason I am confident that this will happen is that
a) it is likely that at least one of those defendants does indeed work for Russian
intelligence, and
b) Russian intelligence knows full well that Mueller has nothing and is bluffing
So they will take that person aside and say: Boris/Dimitry/Ivan/baby, go over there and
call their bluff. If they fold then you come home and live like a king. If they convict you
then sit tight and we'll arrange a spy-swap, then you come home and live like a king. What do
you say?
Let's not take a look at the U$A's corrupt and horribly broken "election" systems,
suppression of voters, and outright bought and paid for "representatives". That, would be too
much trouble..
George Steele penned many a masterful dossier, some extraordinarily clever counterfeit
handwritten memoirs, and a pot-boiling John LaCarre spin-off cold-war spy-novel or two.
Steel's drinking has paralyzed his brain; he can't think of anything, he lauds
Skripal's
brilliant descriptions of the two russian prostitutes peeing on barak obama's hotel bed.
WHAT does Skripal do for a living? he writes. Sergei sees himself as a new dostoyevski
!
I agree with those who have argued that whole the Skripal meme is Hillary's gang
goofing
on the Brits. This pee-pee dossier is THE evidentiary source of the Mueller investigation
Yeah the Rowdy Lion has blocked and bearded Russia historically, that's why they make
great patsies for the Yankees whose criminal minds can not get over losing that election!
Put yourself in the place of a maniac primed to be a coddled goddess President of the
USA
¿Wouldn't YOU call reliable old insider George Steele (not knowing the man is
ossified)?
Once the gang realized that Steele's brain was fried, they could not let Sergei Skripal
die.
The always sober Prof. Stephen Cohen warned this would happen on the 11/07, and so it came to
pass. He picked these guys like a dirty nose. The Mueller investigation needs to be shut
down, the cloak of what it is pretending to be has fallen off.
***
Summitgate and the Campaign vs. 'Peace'
Not surprisingly, Trump's meetings with NATO and Putin are being portrayed as ominous events
by Russiagaters.
By Stephen F. Cohen
Excerpt
Also not surprisingly, and unlike in the past, mainstream media have found little place for
serious discussion of today's dangerous conflicts between Washington and Moscow: regarding
nuclear-weapons-imitation treaties, cyber-warfare, Syria, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the
Black Sea region, even Afghanistan. It's easy to imagine how Trump and Putin could agree on
conflict-reduction and cooperation in all of these realms. But considering the traducing by
the Post, Times, and Maddow of a group of senators who visited Moscow around July 4, it's
much harder to see how the defamed Trump could implement such "peace deals." (There is a
long history of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage summits and other détente-like
initiatives. Indeed, a few such attempts have been evident in recent months and more may
lie ahead.)
There is nothing illegal in and of itself about influencing an election in a foreign
country. Unless doing so is in violation of other laws, such as hacking or violating campaign
financing laws.
And it is most certainly illegal for people to collude with foreign nationals to interfere
in an election, and I suspect that Mueller's next step will be to connect these 12 indicted
Russians with members of the Trump campaign.
Mueller is proceeding very slowly and keeping his cards close to his chest, he knows that
any case he presents has to be fully free of flaws or contradictions as it will be attacked
from all sides.
the comments here range from delusional to outright psychotic
Trump has no ability to outsmart anyone let alone Putin.....take a look at north
Korea...where he declared the threat of nuclear war was over....he mouths a few slogans and
fools try to spin and interpret for the masses of fools what he is talking about.
his choice of staff and advisors were so comical they have all been removed and in their
place are the lowest slime of any swamp..reflecting the attitudes and racism of their leader
who seeks only to enrich himself which he has been doing through foreign affairs....now with
Russia where there is still enthusiasm for america....and where he gets a lot of cash...he
seeks to cozy up to Putin at the expense of NATO partners where he deflects his ignorance by
creating distraction.....again relying on others to explain.
if you all don't think Mueller is developing a real case because he doesn't expose it
while seeking indictments...that is your choice...but don't go on from there to assert it
someone makes the idiocy of Trump legitimate...it does not!
"They" really don't want Trump talking to Putin. Since they can't stop it; sabotage the
meeting. This harkens back to the Gary Powers shoot down... That one worked.
It's hilarious really! But also frightening. As Dorian pointed out, nobody doing "hacking"
are that amateurish, and certainly not the Russians or Chinese for that matter. It pobably
the clods in Cheltenham that are responsible, it bears all the marks of failure, so its
probably British.
I think the Russians got me last night! I woke up this morning, with tremors and shaking, not
feeling well at at all. I was not foaming at the mouth, but I did have a greenish tinge to
the skin and i looked bad in the mirror. I am sure it is Novichok.
How did the Russians know that i would buy that particular single malt! They probably
spied, and knew I would get an Oban and they poisoned me. If I do not comment again, know,
that I too have fallen victim to their devious games. In the meantime I will try to self
medicate with a stout or too. Pray for me. Donations accepted BTW.
Forensic evidence has already proven that the data on the DNC server was downloaded on a USB
thump drive. The bombshells in Robert Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence
officers, hackers of DNC server, put a damper on Trump's one on one visit with Putin.
Well, you start by blurting out a secret about DNC hack: there was no hack, there was a
leak, but the leaker Seth Rich was conveniently killed during "botched robbery". Guess who
ordered this murder? Obviously, it couldn't have been someone low in the food chain, as the
"investigation" of Seth Rich murder is going exactly nowhere in two years. The Dems via
Mueller just keep whipping the dead horse of "Russiagate" out of desperation.
But next you undermine your credibility claiming that Putin installed Trump. Unfortunately
for Putin, he does not have the resources to do that. Ludicrous sums allegedly spent by
mysterious Russians bandied about by Mueller's "investigation" show that Putin did not have
the money to affect the billion-dollar show that the US presidential elections have become.
Of course, corrupt mad witch, who outspent Trump 2:1 and still lost, would like to blame
someone other than herself, but her story is dead in the water. The Dems betrayed their own
electorate, white working-class people, and lost it forever. The fringe groups they gained
cannot offset that loss.
Trump won the elections not because he was so good, but because his opponent was utterly
repulsive. However, in contrast to Obama and the witch, Trump shows some street smarts: he
prefers to make deals with strong competitors, rather than fight them and sustain huge
losses.
BTW, you forgot that Trump's inclination to make deals includes China, which is certainly
not Christian. Basically, his is a common-sense approach that even an average Joe can
understand. Hence the hysterics of establishment-owned Dems and Republicans. So, I'd say God
bless common sense and the people possessing it.
"... Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that? ..."
"... you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but you were given that information and you did nothing with it." ..."
Regardless of any findings re Russia- Trump -- -I would think a presidential campaign cc-ing
all of its emails to a foreign country, not Russia , needs its own investigation. As Putin
said not long ago 'maybe it was the Jews.
HILLARY CLINTON'S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT
RUSSIA
(excerpts)
"Hillary Clinton's emails, "every single one except for four, over 30,000 of them, were
going to an address that was not on the distribution list," Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert
said on Friday. And they went to "an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity
unrelated to Russia." The information came from Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough, who sent his investigator Frank Rucker, along with an ICIG attorney Janette
McMillan, to brief Strzok
And what "foreign entity" got Hillary's classified emails? Trump haters in British
Intelligence and those in Israel who want to manipulate the US presidency – whatever
party prevails – come to mind. Listen closely and you may hear rumors around Washington
that it was Israel, not Russia, that was the foreign power involved in approaching Trump
advisers. Time to follow that thread
The Gohmert/Strzok exchange:
Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile
foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community
Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary
Clinton's emails?
Strzok: I do not.
Gohmert: Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General
Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette
McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won't name at this
time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton's emails that were going to and from
the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating?
Strzok : I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not
recall the specific content or discussions.
Gohmert: Well then, I'll help you with that too then. Mr. Rucker reported to
those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had
found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through her private server, and when
they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except for
four, over 30,000 of them, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It
was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do
you recall that?
Strozk: Sir, I don't.
Gohmert: He went on the explain it. And you didn't say anything.
Strzok: No.
Gohmert: you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an
unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you've said
here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all
that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary
Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG -- and I can document that -- but
you were given that information and you did nothing with it."
"... The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case, the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State Department. ..."
As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is
this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?
The Donald likes to complain about fake news when these implicate him, but on the
other hand he creates and acts on fake news himself: see the Russian sanctions, Skripal case,
the two Syrian attacks based on fake news created by the White Helmets, paid by the State
Department.
As a personality and politician Trump is infinitely smaller then Putin. So the only trump card he has is "imperial arrogance".
Also Trump is severely constrained by what he do or offer by the Deep State, especially intelligence agencies which have semi-autonomous
power in the USA and are no longer under direct control of the government, representing a shadow government by itself. Brennan attempt
to unseat Trump is just one recent example.
He also has a full of neocons cabinet now. Just Pompeo is very dangerous neocon indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... However, Washington's dominant position has also led to some foreign policy bad habits. Because U.S. leaders have not had to deal with serious peer competitors in a long time, they appear to have lost the art of skillful, nuanced diplomacy. Even before the arrival of the Trump administration, U.S. policy exhibited a growing arrogance and lack of realism about diplomatic objectives. ..."
"... If the hardliners had prevailed, no summit would have taken place. Their demands were multiple poison pills to any feasible negotiations. ..."
"... even more than he did with North Korea, he needs to make major changes in current U.S. policy toward Russia and reject the advice and demands that Russophobic hardliners are pushing. Once again, the president must distinguish between achievable and unachievable goals. And he must be willing to make meaningful concessions to the Russian leader to secure the former. ..."
"... Some of Washington's existing demands are manifestly unrealistic . Russia is not going to reverse its annexation of Crimea and return that territory to Ukraine. The Kremlin's move was at least partly a response to the clumsy and provocative actions that the United States and key European Union powers took to support demonstrators who unseated Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, before the expiration of his term. Moscow was not about to accept that Western power play and watch the region containing Russia's main naval base come under the control of a manifestly hostile Ukrainian regime. ..."
"... With regard to Syria, Trump should inform Putin that the United States is ceasing its efforts to unseat Assad -- a venture that has been a disaster, in any case. To reinforce that pledge, the United States should offer to withdraw all of its forces over the next year. ..."
"... In conducting serious negotiations with Putin, President Trump has an opportunity for a diplomatic (and public relations) success that would exceed his achievement with the Kim summit. To do so, however, he must make a major course correction in how the United States handles delicate and dangerous situations with adversaries. Indeed, he must take an important step in America's willingness to relearn the techniques of achievable diplomacy. ..."
However, Washington's dominant position has also led to some foreign policy bad habits. Because U.S. leaders have not had
to deal with serious peer competitors in a long time, they appear to have lost the art of skillful, nuanced diplomacy. Even before
the arrival of the Trump administration, U.S. policy exhibited a growing arrogance and lack of realism about diplomatic objectives.
The upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin affords an opportunity to relearn the requirements
of effective diplomacy. If handled poorly, though, it will underscore the adverse consequences of Washington's rigid approach to
world affairs.
Too many American politicians, pundits, and foreign policy operatives seem to believe that when dealing with an adversary, diplomacy
should consist of issuing a laundry list of demands, including manifestly unrealistic ones, without offering even a hint of meaningful
concessions. Critics of Trump's summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un epitomized that attitude. Some of them excoriated the president
just for his willingness to accord Kim implicit equal status by approving a bilateral meeting. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
groused
that President Trump "elevated North Korea to the level of the United States while preserving the regime's status quo."
Others grudgingly conceded that the summit theoretically might have been an appropriate move, but argued that Washington should
have demanded major substantive and irreversible North Korean steps toward denuclearization in exchange for such a prestigious meeting.
In other words, they wanted North Korea's capitulation on the central issue before Trump even agreed to a summit. Critics were furious
that such a capitulation was not at least enshrined in the joint statement emerging from the meeting. And if that hardline stance
was not enough, they insisted that Trump should have made North Korea's human rights record a feature of the negotiations. Washington
Post columnist E.J. Dionne
asserted that "our wrongful indifference to human rights in the past should not be used as an excuse to justify apologias for
dictatorships in our time."
The lack of realism such positions exhibit is breathtaking. If the hardliners had prevailed, no summit would have taken place.
Their demands were multiple poison pills to any feasible negotiations. And the consequences flowing from the course they favored
would have been the perpetuation, if not escalation, of alarming tensions on the Korean Peninsula. By spurning their advice, Trump
secured a worthwhile change in the dynamics of the U.S.-North Korean relationship. The rapprochement may yet falter, since there
are still extremely serious disagreements between the two countries, but the summit was a beneficial reset that has reduced the danger
of a catastrophic military confrontation. Because he focused on the achievable, Trump secured a modest, but constructive, gain both
for the United States and the East Asian region.
The president has an opportunity for an even more important success in his upcoming summit with Putin. But even more than he did
with North Korea, he needs to make major changes in current U.S. policy toward Russia and reject the advice and demands that Russophobic
hardliners are pushing. Once again, the president must distinguish between achievable and unachievable goals. And he must be willing
to make meaningful concessions to the Russian leader to secure the former.
Some of Washington's existing demands are
manifestly unrealistic .
Russia is not going to reverse its annexation of Crimea and return that territory to Ukraine. The Kremlin's move was at least partly
a response to the clumsy and provocative
actions that the United States and key European Union powers took to support demonstrators who unseated Ukraine's elected, pro-Russian
president, Viktor Yanukovych, before the expiration of his term. Moscow was not about to accept that Western power play and watch
the region containing Russia's main naval base come under the control of a manifestly hostile Ukrainian regime. Given the stakes
involved, Russia is no more likely to withdraw from Crimea than Israel is likely to return the Golan Heights to Syria or Turkey return
occupied northern Cyprus to the Republic of Cyprus. Persisting in an utterly unattainable demand regarding Crimea before U.S. and
EU sanctions against Russia will be lifted is pointless.
Inducing the Kremlin to reduce and phase out its support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine is more achievable. Indeed,
despite the hysterical allegations
that appear periodically in the Western press, Russia's backing of the insurgents has been quite limited and is far less than constituting
an "invasion." Putin shows little stomach for making Ukraine an arena for a full-fledged confrontation with the West.
A similar situation exists with respect to Syria. The Kremlin clearly wishes to see Bashar al-Assad remain in power, and given
the extreme Islamist orientation of many of Assad's opponents, that is not an outrageous position. Nevertheless, Putin has avoided
establishing a large-scale Russian military, especially ground force, presence in that country. He apparently wishes to confine Moscow's
role to protecting its naval base at Tartus and assisting Assad's military efforts
with Russian air power . There appears to be an
opportunity for Washington to gain assurances from the Kremlin that its involvement in Syria will not escalate and might even recede
gradually.
To secure such goals, though, the U.S. would need to offer some appealing concessions to Putin. In exchange for ending Russian
support of Ukrainian secessionists and confirming Moscow's toleration of the anti-Russian regime in Kiev, Trump should be willing
to sign an agreement pledging that the United States will neither propose not endorse NATO membership for
Ukraine or Georgia . NATO's
previous waves of enlargement right up to Russia's border
were
a key factor in the deterioration of the West's relations with Moscow. It is time to end that provocation. In addition to that
concession, Trump should pledge that NATO military exercises (war games) in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea will come to an end.
In exchange, the United States ought to insist that Russian forces end their provocative deployments in Kaliningrad and along Russia's
frontier with NATO members.
With regard to Syria, Trump should inform Putin that the United States is ceasing its efforts to unseat Assad -- a venture that
has been a disaster, in any case. To reinforce that pledge, the United States should offer to withdraw all of its forces over the
next year. Those moves would tacitly accept Russia as the leading foreign power in terms of influence in Syria. Such a concession
is a simple recognition
of reality . Syria is barely 600 miles from Russia's border; it is 6,000 miles from the American homeland. Moscow's interests
are understandably more central than America's, given that geographic factor alone.
In conducting serious negotiations with Putin, President Trump has an opportunity for a diplomatic (and public relations)
success that would exceed his achievement with the Kim summit. To do so, however, he must make a major course correction in how the
United States handles delicate and dangerous situations with adversaries. Indeed, he must take an important step in America's willingness
to relearn the techniques of achievable diplomacy.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor
at The American Conservative, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles
on international affairs.
Looks like another Steele dossier and it has Brennan fingertips all over. Looks like another
exercise in creation of a parallel reality. The content of the document implies that malware was
installed in GRU computers and those computers were monitored 24/7 by CIA. The documents
describes both GNU officers and DNC employees as unsophisticated idiots. DNC employees who who
should undergo some basic security training were easily deceived by fishing emails from a foreign
country. And a good practice is to disable hotlinks in emails.
I always suspected that Guccifer 2.0 was a false flag operation to hide the leak of DNC
documents. If this is true this was really sophisticated false flag.
BTW GRU is military intelligence unit, so to hack into civil computers is kind of out of
their main sphere of activities. They also should be aware about NSA capabilities of intercepting
the traffic.
I especially like the following tidbit: "On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner." This
is how third rate hackers (wannabes) behave.
First of all the investigation of DNC was botched by hiring a private, connected to
Democratic Party security company (Crowdstrike), so no data from it are acceptable in court. FBI
did not have any access to the data.
Which means that Mueller is a patsy of more powerful forces
How about speed of download that proved to be excessive for Internet connection? Nothing is
said about Dmitri
Alperovitch role is all this investigation, which completely discredit all that results? See for example diuscusstion at
Why
Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear And, again, the question is: Was Guccifer 2.0 in itself a USA false flag operation ?
Looks like Mueller is acting as an operative of Democratic Party. Could not dig up enough
dirt on Trump, so he now saddled his beloved horse, trying to provoke Russia to respond.
And this John Le Carre style details about individuals supposedly involved. Probably were
provided by CIA ;-)
4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") and the Democratic National Committee
("DNC"). The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees,
implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails
and other documents from the DCCC and DNC.
5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials
stolen from the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands
of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including
"DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0."
7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen
documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization Iй), that had
previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government The
Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around
November 2016.
8. To hide their connections to Russia and the Russian government, the Conspirators used
false identities and made false statements about their identities. To further avoid detection,
the Conspirators used a network of computers located across the world, including in the United
States, and paid for this infrastructure using cryptocurrency.
... ... ...
13. Defendant ALEKSEY VIKTOROVICH LUKASHEV
(Лукашсв
Алексей
Викторович) was a Senior Lieutenant
in the Russian military assigned to ANTONOV's department within Unit 26165. LUKASHEV used
various online personas, including "Den Katenberg" and "Yuliana Martynova." In on around 2016,
LUKASHEV sent spcarphisliing emails to members of the Clinton Campaign and affiliated
individuals, including the chairman of the Clinton Campaign.
14. Defendant SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH MORGACHEV
(Моргачев
Сергей
Александрович)
was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Russian military assigned to Unit 26165. MORGACHEV oversaw a
department within Unit 26165 dedicated to developing and managing malware, including a hacking
tool used by the GRU known as "X-Agent." During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks,
MORGACHEV supervised the co-conspirators who developed and monitored the X-Agent malware
implanted on those computers.
15. Defendant NIKOLAY YURYEVICH KOZACHEK (Козачек
Николай
Юрьевич) was a Lieutenant Captain in the Russian
military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. KOZACHEK used a variety of
monikers, including "kazak" and "blablablal234565 " KOZACHEK developed, customized, and
monitored X-Agent malware used to hack the DCCC and DNC networks beginning in or around April
2016.
16. Defendant PAVEL VYACHESLAVOVICH YERSHOV (Ершов
Павел
Вячеславович) was a
Russian military officer assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. In or around
2016, YERSHOV assisted KOZACHEK and other co-conspirators in testing and customizing X-Agent
malware before actual deployment and use.
17. Defendant ARTEM ANDREYEVICH MALYSHEV (Малышев
Арт е м
Андреевич) was a Second Lieutenant in the
Russian military assigned to MORGACHEV's department within Unit 26165. MALYSIIEV used a variety
of monikers, including "djangomagicdev" and "realblatr." In or around 2016, MALYSHEV monitored
X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC and DNC networks.
18. Defendant ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH OSADCHUK
(Осадчук
Александр В
ладимирович) was a Colonel in
the Russian military and the commanding officer of Unit 74455. Unit 74455 was located at 22
Kirova Street, Khimki, Moscow, a building referred to within the GRU as the 'Tower." Unit 74455
assisted in the release of stolen documents through the DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas, the
promotion of those releases, and the publication of anti-Clinton content on social media
accounts operated by the GRU.
19. Defendant ALEKSEY ALEKSANDROVICH POTEMKIN
(Потемкин
Алексей
Александрович)
was an officer in the Russian military assigned to Unit 74455. POTEMKIN was a supervisor in a
department within Unit 7445f responsible for the administration of computer infrastructure used
in cyber operations. Infrastructure and social media accounts administered by POTEMKIN'S
department were used, among other things, to assist in the release of stolen documents through
the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2 0 personas.
21, ANTONOV, BADIN, YKRMAKOV, LUKASHEV, and their co-conspiratore targeted victims using a
technique known as spearphishing to steal victims' passwords or otherwise gain access to their
computers. Beginning by at least March 2016, the Conspirators targeted over 300 individuals
affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC.
a. For example, on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators created and
sent a spearphishing email to the chairman of the Clinton Campaign. LUKASHEV used the account
"John356gh" at an online service that abbreviated lengthy website addresses (referred to as a
"URL-shortcning service"). LIJKASHEV used the account to mask a link contained in the
spearphishing email, which directed the recipient to a GRU-created website. LUKASHEV altered
the a security notification from Google (a technique known as "spoofing"), instructing the user
to change his password by clicking the embedded link. Those instructions wore followed. On or
about March 21, 2016, LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators stole the contents of the
chairman's email account, which consisted of over 50,000 emails.
Starting on or about March 19, 2016, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators sent spearphishing
emails to the personal accounts of other individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign,
including its campaign manager and a senior foreign policy advisor. On or about March 25, 2016,
LUKASHEV used the same john356gh account to mask additional links included in spearphishing
emails sent to numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, including Victims 1
and 2. LUKASliEV sent these emails from the Russia-based email account [email protected] that he spoofed to appear to be from
Google. On or about March 28,2016, YERMAKOV researched the names of Victims 1 and 2 and their
association with Clinton on various social media sites. Through their spearphishing operations,
LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and their co-conspirators successfully stole email credentials and
thousands of emails from numerous individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign. Many of
these stolen emails. Including those from Victims 1 and 2, were later released by the
Conspirators through DCLeaks.
On or about April 6, 2016, the Conspirators created an email account in the name (with a
one-letter deviation from the actual spelling) of a known member of the Clinton Campaign. The
Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more
than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. In the spearphishipg emails, LUKASHEV and his
co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled
"hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx " In fact, this link directed the recipients' computers
to a GRU-crcatcd website.
22. The Conspirators spearphished individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign
throughout the summer of 2016. For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators
attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a
third-
party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also
targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
Hacking into the DCCC Network
23. Beginning in or around March 2016, the Conspirators, in addition to their spearphishing
efforts, researched the DCCC and DNC computer networks to identify technical specifications and
vulnerabilities.
For example, beginning on or about March 15,2016, YERMAKOV ran a technical query for the
DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
On or about the same day, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-source information about the DNC
network, the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton.
On or about April 7. 2016. YKRMAKOV ran я technical query for the DNC's internet
protocol configurations to identify connected devices.
24. By in or around April 2016, within days of YERMAKOV's searches regarding the DCCC, the
Conspirators hacked into the DCCC computer network. Once they gained access, they installed and
managed different types of malware to explore the DCCC network and steal data.
a. On or about April 12,2016. the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a I )CCC On or
about April 12,2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ('"DCCC
Employee 1") to access the DCCC network. DCCC Employee 1 had received a spearphishing email
from the Conspirators on or about April 6,2016, and entered her password after clicking on the
link.
b. Between in or around April 2016 and June 2016, the Conspirators installed multiple
versions of their X-Agent malware on at least ten DCCC computers, which allowed them to monitor
individual employees' computer activity, steal passwords, and maintain access to the DCCC
network.
c. X-Agent malware implanted on the DCCC network transmitted information from the victims'
computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona. The Conspirators referred to this server
as their "AMS" panel. KOZACHEK, MALYSHEV, and their со-conspirators logged into the
AMS panel to use X-Agent's keylog and screenshot functions in the course of monitoring and
surveilling activity on the DCCC computers. 'Ibe keylog function allowed the Conspirators to
capture keystrokes entered by DCCC employees. The screenshot function allowed the Conspirators
to take pictures of the DCCC employees' computer screens.
d. For example, on or about April 14, 2016, the Conspirators repeatedly activated X-Agent's
keylog and screensiot functions to surveil DCCC Employee 1's computer activity over the course
of eight hours. During that time, the Conspirators captured DCCC Employee 1 's communications
with co-workers and the passwords she entered while working on fundraising and voter outreach
projects. Similarly, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agcnt's keylog
and screenshot functions to capture the discussions of another DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee
2") about the DCCC's finances, as well as her individual banking information and other personal
topics.
25. On or about April 19, 2016, KOZAC1IEK, YERSIIOV, and their co-conspirators remotely
configured an overseas computer to relay communications between X-Agent malware and the AMS
panel and then tested X-Agent's ability to connect to this computer. The Conspirators referred
to this computer as a "middle server." The middle server acted as a proxy to obscure the
connection between malware at the DCCC and the Conspirators' AMS panel. On or about April 20,
2016, the Conspirators directed X-Agent malware on the DCCC computers to connect to this middle
server and receive directions from the Conspirators.
Hacking into the DNC Network
26. On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators hacked into the DNC's computers through
their access to the DCCC network. The Conspirators then installed and managed different types
of malware (as they did in the DCCC network) to explore the DNC network and steal documents, a.
On or about April 18, 2016, the Conspirators activated X-Agent's keylog and screenshot
functions to steal credentials of a DCCC employee who was authorized
to access the DNC network. The Conspirators hacked into the DNC network from the DCCC network
using stolen credentials. By in or around June 2016, they gained access to approximately
thirty-three DNC computers.
In or around April 2016, the Conspirators installed X Agent malware on tho DNC network,
including the same versions installed on the DCCC network.
MALYSHEV and his co-conspifators monitored the X-Agent malware from the AMS panel and captured
data from the victim computers. The AMS panel collected thousands of keylog and screenshot
results from the DCCC and DNC computers, such as a screenshot and keystroke capture of DCCC
Employee 2 viewing the DCCC's online banking information.
Theft of DCCC and DNC Documents
27. The Conspirators searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks
that stored information related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, for example, on or
about April 15, 2016, the Conspirators searched one hacked DCCC computer for terms that
included "hillary," "cruz," and "trump." The Conspirators also copied select DCCC folders,
including "Benghazi Investigations." The Conspirators targeted computers containing information
such as opposition research and field operation plans for the 2016 elections.
28. To enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection, the
Conspirators used a publicly available tool to gather and compress multiple documents on the
DCCC and DNC networks. The Conspirators then used other GRU malware, known as "X-Tunncl," to
move the stolen documents cutside the DCCC and DNC networks through encrypted channels.
a. For example, on or about April 22, 2016, the Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data
from DNC computers, including opposition research. The Conspirators later moved the compressed
DNC data using X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois.
b. On or about April 28, 2016, the Conspirators connected to and tested the same computer
located in Illinois. Later that day, the Conspirators used X-Tunnel to connect to that computer
to steal additional documents from the DCCC network.
29. Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC
Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and
managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.
30. On or about May 30, 2016, MALYSHEV accessed the AMS panel in order to upgrade custom AMS
software on die server. That day, the AMS panel received updates from approximately thirteen
different X-Agent malware implants on DCCC and DNC computers.
31. During the hacking of the DCCC and DNC networks, the Conspirators covered their tracks
by Intentionally deleting logs and computer flies. For example, on or about May 13, 2016, the
Conspirators cleared the event logs from a DNC computer. On or about June 20, 2016, the
Conspirators deleted logs from the AMS panel that documented their activities on the panel,
including the login history. Efforts to Remain on the X'CC and PNC Networks
32. Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May
2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company
("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions. By in or around June 2016, Company 1
took steps to exclude intruders from the networks. Despite these efforts, a Linux-based version
of X-Agent, programmed to communicate with the GRU-registercd domain linuxkml.net, remained on
the DNC network until in or around October 2016.
33. In response to Company Ts efforts, the Conspirators took countermeasures to maintain
access to the DCCC and DNC networks.
a. Oil 01 about May 31, 2016, YERMAKOV searched for opcn-sourcc information about Company 1
and its reporting on X-Agent and X-Tunnel. On or about June 1,2016, the Conspirators attempted
to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the computer program CCleaner.
b. On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com,
which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a
DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC
credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblucs.com
domain.
On or about June 20, 2016, after Company 1 had disabled X-Agent on the DCCC
network, the Conspirators spent ever seven hours unsuccessfully trying to connect
to X-Agent. The Conspirators also tried to access the DCCC network using
previously stolen credentials.
34. In or around September 2016, the Conspirators also successfully gained access to DNC
computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service. These computers contained test
applications related to the DNC's analytics. After conducting reconnaissance, the
Conspirators
gathered data by creating backups, or "snapshots," of the DNC's eloud-based systems using
the
cloud provider's own technology. The Conspirators then moved the snapshots to cloud-based
accounts they had registered with the same service, thereby stealing the data from the DNC.
Stolen Documents Released through DCLcaks
35. More than a month before the release of any documents, the Conspirators constructed the
online persona DCLeaks to release and publicize stolen election-related documents. On or about
April 19, 2016, after attempting to register the domain clcctionleaks.com, the Conspirators
registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymizcd the registrant. The funds
used to pay for the dcleaks.com domain originated from an online cryptocutrrecy service that
the Conspirators also used to fund the lease of a virtual private server registered with the
operational email account [email protected]. The dirbinsaabol email account was also used
to register the john356gh URL-shortening account used by LUKASHEV to spearphish the Clinton
Campaign chairman and other campaign-related individuals.
36. On or about June 8,2016, the Conspirators launched the public website dcleaks.com, which
they used to release stolen emails. Before it shut down in or around March 2017, the site
received over one million page views. The Conspirators falsely claimed on the site that DCLeaks
was started by a group of "American hacktivists," when in fact it was started by the
Conspirators.
37. Starting in or around June 2016 and continuing through the 2016 U.S. presidential
election, the Conspirators used DCLeaks to release emails stolen from individuals affiliated
with the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators also released documents they had stolen in other
spearphishing operations, including those they had conducted in 2015 that collected emails from
individuals affiliated with the Republican Party.
38. On or about June 8,2016, and at approximately the same time that the dcleaks.com website
was launched, the Conspirators created a DCLeaks Facebook page using a preexisting social media
account under the fictitious name "Alice Donovan." In addition to the DCLeaks Facebook page,
the Conspirators used other social media accounts in the names of fictitious U.S. persons such
as "Jason Scott" and "Richard Gingrey" to promote the DCLeaks website. The Conspirators
accessed these accounts from computers managed by POTEMKFN and his co-conspirators.
39. On or about June 8, 2016, the Conspirators created the Twitter account @dcleaks_. The
Conspirators operated the @dclcaks_ Twitter account from the same computer used for other
efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. For example, the Conspirators
used the same computer to operate the Twitter account @BaltimorcIsWhr, through which they
encouraged U.S. audiences to "[j]oin our flash mob" opposing Clinton and to post images with
the hashtag #BlacksAgainstHillary.
Stolen Documents Released through Guccifer 2.0
40. On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC -- through Company 1 -- publicly announced that it
had been hacked by Russian government actors. In response, the Conspirators created the online
persona Guccifer 2.0 and falsely claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker to undermine the
allegations of Russian responsibility for the intrusion.
41. On or about June 15,2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and
managed by Unit 74455 and, between 4:19 PM and 4:56 PM Moscow Standard Time, searched for
certain words and phrases, including:
Search terms
"some hundred sheets"
"some hundreds of sheets"
dcleaks
illuminati
широко
известный
перевод [widely known translation]
"worldwide known"
"think twice about"
"company's competence"
42. Later that day, at 7:02 PM Moscow Standard Time, the online persona Guccifer 2.0
published its first post on a blog site created through WordPress. Titled "DNC's servers hacked
by a lone hacker," the post used numerous English words and phrases that the Conspirators had
searched for earlier that day (bolded below):
Worldwide known cyber security company [Company 1] announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by
"sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) [...]
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking
into DNC's network. [...]
Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it? [...]
I guess [Company 1] customers should think twice about company's competence.
F[***J the Illuminati and their conspiracies! МШШ F[***]
[Company 1] !!!!!!!!
43. Between in or around June 2016 and October 2016, the Conspirators used Guccifer 2.0 to
release documents through WordPrcss that they had stolen from the DCCC and DNC. The
Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also shared stolen documents with certain
individuals.
a. On or about August 15,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request
for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using
the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's
opponent. On or about August 22,2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, transferred
approximately 2.5 gigabytes of data stolen from the DCCC to a then-registered state lobbyist
and online source of political news. The stolen data included donor records and personal
identifying information for more than 2,000 Democratic donors.
On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent a reporter
stolen documents pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement. The reporter responded by
discussing when to release the documents and offering to write an article about their
release.
44. The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also communicated with U.S. persons about the
release of stolen documents. On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer
2.0, wrote to a person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential
campaign of Donald J. TVump, "thank u for writing back... do u find anyt[h]ing interesting in
the docs i posted?" On or about August 17, 2016, the Conspirators added, "please tell me if i
can help u anyhow ... it would be a great pleasure to me." On or about September 9,2016, the
Conspirators, again posing as Guccifer 2.0, referred to a stolen DCCC document posted online
and asked the person, "what do u think of the info on the tunout model for the democrats entire
presidential campaign." The person responded, "[p]retty standard."
45. The Conspirators conducted operations as Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks using overlapping
computer infrastructure and financing.
a. For example, between on or about March 14, 2016 and April 28. 2016, the Conspirators used
the same pool of bitcoin funds to purchase a virtual private network ("VPN") account and to
lease a server in Malaysia. In or around June 2016, the Conspirators used the Malaysian server
to host the dcleaks.com website.
On or about July 6, 2016, the Conspirators used the VPN to log into the @Guccifcr_2 Twitter
account. The Conspirators opened that VPN account from
the same server that was also used to register malicious domains for the hacking of the DCCC
and DNC networks.
On or about June 27, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, contacted a U.S.
reporter with an offer to provide stolen emails from "Hillary Clinton's staff." The
Conspirators then sent the reporter the password to access a nonpublic, password-protected
portion of dc.eaks.com containing emails stolen from Victim 1 bу LUKASHEV, YERMAKOV, and
thier co-conspirators in or around March 2016.
46. On or about January 12,2017, the Conspirators published a statement on the Guccifer 2.0
WordPrcss blog, falsely claiming that the intrusions and release of stolen documents had
"totally no relation to the Russian government"
Use of Organization 1
47. In order to expand their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the
Conspirators transferred many of the documents they stole from the DNC and the chairman of the
Clinton Campaign to Organization 1. The Conspirators posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the
release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to
heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
a. On or about Juno 22, 2016, Organization 1 sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to
"[s]end any new material [stolen from the DNC] here for us to review and it will have a much
higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you
have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the
DNC [Democratic National Convention] is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters
behind her after." The Conspirators responded, "ok... i see." Organization I explained, "we
think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary ... so conflict between bernie and
hillary is interesting "
b After failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016, on or
about July 14, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, sent Organization 1 an email
with an attachment titled "wk dnc linkl.txt.gpg." The Conspirators explained to Organization 1
that the encrypted file contained Instructions on how to access an online archive of stolen DNC
documents. On or about July 18, 2016, Organization 1 confirmed it had "the 1Gb or so archive"
and would make a release of the stolen documents "this week."
48. On or about July 22, 2016, Organization 1 released over 20,000 emails and other
documents stolen from the DNC network by the Conspirators. This release occurred approximately
three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention. Organization 1 did not
disclose Guccifer 2.0's role in providing them. The latest-in-time email released through
Organization 1 was dated on or about May 25,2016, approximately the same day the Conspirators
hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server.
49. On or about October 7, 2016, Organization 1 released the first set of emails from the
chairman of the Clinton Campaign that had been stolen by LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators.
Between on or about October 7, 2016 and November 7, 2016, Organization 1 released approximately
thirty-three tranches of documents mat had been stolen from the chairman of the Clinton
Campaign. In total, over 50,000 stolen documents were released.
"... Indictment fuels new calls to cancel Trump-Putin summit ..."
"... Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) demanded substantial changes to the summit saying that complaining to Putin about the indictments needs to be the focus of the entire summit, and that Putin and Trump should never be allowed to be alone in a room during the meeting. ..."
"... Warner was one of the few to not call for the talks to be cancelled outright, with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) saying the meeting needed to be cancelled "now," and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) saying that even shaking Putin's hand would be "a moment of historic cowardice." ..."
Indictment fuels new calls to cancel Trump-Putin summit
On Friday, special counsel Robert Mueller
has indicted 12 Russian GRU officers.
The 12 are
accused
of conspiring
to hack Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC computers to leak information ahead of the 2016 election.
This was the second substantial set of indictments coming out of the investigation.
In
February, the Justice Department
indicted 13 other "conspirators" claiming that they had stolen the identities
of US citizens to manipulate the campaigns. Russia has denied all the charges.
While indictments aren't surprising, as a chance to try to show that the investigation in progressing, the
timing is extremely unfortunate,
to the point that it must
raise suspicions
. The indictment, after all, comes just days before President Trump is to hold a summit with
Russia's President Vladimir Putin.
Trump was already facing bipartisan opposition to having a summit with Putin at all, based on the allegations
of election meddling. The indictments are adding fuel to the fire, sparking more calls from opponents of diplomacy
to pull out of the summit at the last minute.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)
demanded substantial changes to the summit
saying that complaining to Putin about the indictments needs to be
the focus of the entire summit, and that Putin and Trump should never be allowed to be alone in a room during the
meeting.
Warner was one of the few to not call for the talks to be cancelled outright, with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
saying the meeting needed to be cancelled "now," and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) saying that even shaking Putin's hand
would be "a moment of historic cowardice."
Of course, these lawmakers were all attacking the summit long before these indictments dropped, and this simply
is the new excuse for opposing the plan. With the growing sense that the Mueller investigation is
designed
to just keep going, there is also concern it's going to keep being used as a source of excuses to not
talk to Russia.
No Evidence In Mueller's Indictment Of 12 Russians - Release Now May Sabotage Upcoming
Summit
The Special counsel Robert Mueller issued an indictment (pdf, 29 pages) against 12
Russian people alleged to be officers or personal of the Russian Military Intelligence Service
GRU. The people, claims the indictment, work for an operational (26165) and a technical (74455)
subunit of the GRU.
A Grand Jury in Washington DC issued 11 charges which are described and annotated below. A
short assessment follows.
The first charge is for a "Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States" by
stealing emails and leaking them. The indictment claims that the GRU units sent spearfishing
emails to the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party organizations DNC and DCCC.
They used these to get access to email boxes of John Podesta and other people. They are also
accused of installing spyware (X-agent) on DNC computers and of exfiltrating emails and other
data from them. The emails were distributed and published by the online personas DCLeaks,
Guccifer II and later through Wikileaks. The indictment claims that DCLeaks and Guccifer II
were impersonations by the GRU. Wikileaks, "organization 1" in the indictment, is implicated
but so far not accused.
Note: There is a different Grand Jury for the long brewing case against Julian
Assange and Wikileaks. Assange has denied that the emails he published came from a Russian
source. Craig Murray, a former British ambassador, said that he received the emails on a trip
to Washington DC and transported them to Wikileaks.
The indictment describes in some detail how various rented computers and several domain
names were used to access the DNC and DCCC computers. The description is broadly plausible but
there is little if any supporting evidence.
Charge 2 to 9 of the indictment are about "Aggravated Identity Theft" for using usernames
and passwords for the personal email accounts of others.
Charge 10 is about a "Conspiracy to Launder Money". This was allegedly done "through a web
of transaction structured to capitalize on the perceived anonymity of cryptocurrencies such as
bitcoin". It is alleged that the accused mined bitcoins, channeled these through dozens of
accounts and transactions and then used them to rent servers, virtual private network access
and domain names used in the operation.
Note : The indictment reinforces the author's hunch that bitcoin and other
cryptocurrencies are creations and playgrounds of secret services just like Tor and other
'cool' internet 'privacy' stuff are. Its the very reason why one should avoid their use.
Such a convoluted tale in fact authored by the NSA?. Most of what the Russians are accused of
can be attributed to the NSA activities.
As Putin pointed out when the accusations were first made, no matter who is elected, US
policies remain the same. There is no motivation for RUssia to interfere.
Obviously a desperate move to torpedo the Helsinki meeting. Given that the indicted lot is in
Russia the judicial consequences will be nill.
By the way B, what do you say about the Novi-bottle found in a house surely searched over
and over? What took the searchers about ten days to found it?
One small point. Craig Murray has said he met with one of the individuals who were involved
with the DNC email release. Although he's been somewhat hazy on it, on the Scott Horton radio
show, Murray said the emails were already in the possession of Wikileaks before he met with
the individual involved. https://scotthorton.org/?powerpress_pinw=23500-podcast
Good job by Concord Management to challenge the previous bullshit. That makes it likely these
charges will also be challenged. The best thing you can do when someone living in a glass
house accuses you of doing something is to force them to expose themselves to the entire
world via evidentiary discovery; and as with the first case, it's too late to put the genie
back in the bottle. This ought to be seen as the equivalent of Novichok/Skripal debacle in
UK, which I trust people continue to follow Craig
Murray's reporting .
As we've seen, the number of Big Lies produced that end up driving policy has dramatically
increased since the USSR's disillusion, while trillions of dollars are stolen from taxpayers
and given to the global .01%--OWS clearly aimed at the heart of the beast. The indictment
will further roil domestic chaos within the Outlaw US Empire making solidarity more difficult
to obtain.
Meanwhile in other legal news, Assange has won a court order
demanding he be unmolested as he goes from Ecuadorian Embassy to airport for his flight into
Asylum. Bet the UK doesn't obey this ruling either further making it a Banana Republic.
Same ol' Deep State playbook, preaching to the converted while having little effect on
anything else. This will give Rachel Maddow many hours of profitable air time as she and her
ilk require no evidence.
However, ordinary people with lazy minds will see the headlines and think they're true and
there will be more pressure NOT to have any productive, mutually beneficial discussions with
Russia, so mission accomplished for Mueller, I guess. Anything to keep people from realizing
that Hillary was a horrible, corrupt, dangerous candidate who kept herself from winning the
election (which was easily winnable for the Democrats going in) all on her own.
How much hot and stinking air can an Empire blow before it blows itself out? Sadly, no doubt,
much more.
They have lost the narrative and don't even know it, they go on with Putin the Poisoner
and Russia did it and they keep it up because they have no choice and they live in fear
because we don't believe them any more.
- Page 14 and 15: This is hilariously stupid! These Russian super spy agents on June
15, 2016, 4:19 MOSCOW TIME and they DID NOT HACK, BUT LOGGED INTO the DNC server and
spent 37 minutes to search for files or that included words (that is for the techo's out
there, they "grep") for the following words:
* some hundred sheets
* some hundreds of sheets
* dcleaks
* illuminati
* широко
известный
перевод (meaning: widely known translation)
* worldwide known
* think twice about
* company's competence
So what kind of super spies, and super hackers would use "some hundred sheets" and "some
hundreds of sheets" as two separate searches. Every computer geek knows that if you don't
waste time to do virtually two identical searches like those. Who ever did these searches
(after they logged in!) knows nothing about searching. The whole tech. world knows if you are
going to do hacking, you use things like Linux grep/sed tools and you wouldn't waste your
time doing pointless duplicitous searches. Why doesn't FBI state what tools were used, every
is logged, or it should be. Thus this person whom ever it was, was naive.
So here is the big one! Foreign hackers are looking for about people talking about the
Illuminati! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
Another stupid one! Russian hackers searching DNC files for RUSSIAN STRINGS This is
turning into a circus.
So you mean to tell me Russian hackers that logged into a computer (that is they didn't
hacked, the FBI stated as much), are looking about for files about nonsensical matter
including Russian Word Strings. You can't even make this stuff up. THE FBI ARE
CLOWNS!!!
So it goes on page 15 and 16, that these search words to comprise the breathtaking proof
that the culprit then was to admit these words:
Worldwide known cyber security company XXXX announced that the DNC servers have been hacked
by "sophisticated" hacker groups. I'm very please the company appreciated my skill highly .
Some hundred sheets! This's a serious case, isn't it?
I guess XXXX Customers should think twice about company's competence.
F*** the illuminati and their conspiracies
And when did this happen? Some 2 hours later, at 7:02pm.
So think about this! They wrote that paragraph AFTER the search! So how do you search for
something in 37 minutes that you don't know it exists, and with such meaningless words to
write a bragging paragraph, that was supposedly ON the DNC server itself! Meaning, the person
who logged in knew it existed and quickly went looking for where it was to extract it, and
then use later as to frame the Russians!
Look at the time line. The FBI only found that it was a DNC employee that logged in,
looking for something that shouldn't exist in anyway on his server, unless of course he wrote
it himself, and that was to use it frame the Russians. Remember that paragraph was ON THE DNC
Server!!!!
The FBI are morons! This indictment will be thrown out quick smart, and the FBI should be
brought up on charges of aiding and abetting a crime!
So obviously timed to meddle with the Trump-Putin meeting. The United States and its 5 Eyes
partners intercept and store the emails of everyone on the planet, and throws a hissy fit
over the alleged same treatment. No doubt the politicians and media personalities will ascend
their soapboxes to play wounded victims. What a farce. Sad that the public, to a degree, has
now been trained to confuse mere allegations with established fact.
The evidence that the DNC hacks were a local download by someone with legitimate access is
persuasive as shown by the group of former intel professionals who analyzed the metadata.
John Podesta's email was hacked by a phishing email that convinced him to give up his
password. Any half-competent hacker could pull this off, so blaming the Russians is pure
speculation. But, it is consistent with the attempts to blame Russia for the incompetence and
corruption of the Clinton campaign.
The social media efforts by the Internet Research Agency, besides being mostly a
commercial effort as b has shown, are also a rather insignificant portion of the billions of
messages and posts that are posted daily. That these could have had any significant effect is
really stretching the point.
All that being said, I'm still not convinced that Russian intelligence did nothing at all
to attempt to influence the election. Certainly, the US has interfered with many elections
all over the world going back decades, one of the most egregious being our interference in
the Russian elections of 1991. So, there is no logical reason to believe that the Russians
are not doing the same thing.
In addition, I believe that Trump has commercial and financial reasons for being as
friendly as possible with Putin, i.e., Trump Tower Moscow. Trump is not particularly
interested in the politics or diplomacy of detente with Russia (which I would support, in
general), he is purely transactional in his approach and seems to have no interest other than
being the center of attention on media and making as much money as he can.
It is clear that the FBI in an act of desperation, tried to hoodwink the public and the
world, with a false flag operation to blame the Russians for DNC incompetence and criminal
behaviour by Hillary Clinton.
In this attempt of a cover up and foolish attempt of technical miss direction, they have
been caught red handed in gross malfeasance and high crimes.
President Putin should be made immediately aware of this attempt (if he hasn't been
already), and should take Trump to task on these grave crimes and attempts of sedition and
outright treason by US personnel in attempt to trigger a war with Russia.
Under US Code 2381, whomever owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against
them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or
elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death , or shall be imprisoned not
less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.
This treasonous behaviour by the FBI and DNC, should be investigated by Military Court.
And those responsible for attempt to start a war, with another super power, should be held to
the fullest account of US Code 2381. Attempting to precipitate a war, is a war crime and
those guilty should face a military court and held to highest punishment available, namely,
execution by firing squad.
High office demands high responsibility. If we do not hold government officials,
especially officials of the Executive Branch of the USA, then we are allowing a government,
like what is happening Washington DC today, to become a rouge nation. These evil merchants of
death, must face prosecution for their hatred, bigotry and lust for war. Warmongers must not
be tolerated in government. And the FBI and DNC have now shown absolutely they are prepared
to lie, however incompetently, to protect the warmongers and evil doers in government.
This act by the FBI is an act of treason: US Code 2381 must now be applied to all those
part of this treason.
b: The detente with Russia which U.S. president Donald Trump tries to achieve will
now be more difficult to implement and to sustain.
-
IMO Trump isn't trying to achieve anything more than to negotiate an agreement that
is favorable to USA/NATO. The Deep State would be happy if an acceptable agreement could be
reached as it would split Russia from China.
AFAICT, the depiction of Trump as pro-Russian is a fantasy concocted by Hillary-Obama and
their deep-state flunkies.
The entire anti-Russia campaign serves two purposes:
1) distraction
- from illegal wars, CIA color revolutions, Syrian occupation, etc.
what has been done is many times worse than temporarily separating families at the border
- from an undemocratic political system
Hillary's collusion with DNC against Sanders and the overall failure of the Democratic
Party to represent the people
2) negotiation
Trump is the 'good cop' to the anti-Russian deep-state 'bad cop'
Yes, this "indictment" is truly pathetic.
1) According to Mueller the "infrastructure" cost "over $95000" obtained by "money
laundering" using bitcoin etc.. Wow. It does not cost much to threaten "US democracy".
2) "Conspirators attempted to delete traces of their presence on the DCCC network using the
computer program Ccleaner". I wonder if they used the free version of CCleaner or the premium
version available for $35. Another dubious if not laughable accusation.
As I understand it the GRU does not do these things -- it's pure military intelligence. The
Russian intelligence services are 1) very (very) good 2) born in real war. So they don't run
little independent operations like hacking US politics just for fun.
That struck me right from the get-go. The hacking would have been done by
Служба
специальной
связи и
информации (Special Service of
Communications and Information ie their NSA/CSE/GCHQ) which is now owned by
Федеральная
служба охраны
(Federal Protection Service). No way would military intelligence have run this.
In Russia int/security organs are not quasi-independent agencies that do what they want.
Exactly, he is going to test the Russian aims to overcome more bullying either in Syria
itself, even after offering to withdraw, or, better, and most probably, in Afghanistan
The whole thing is horrifying, that government agencies can be so inept while having so much
power. It's one thing when they try to apply it to individuals thousands of miles away but to
think they operate this way in regard to US citizens. And it just gets worse...
Sasha
Not much of an offer, the occupation is untenable with Pakistan in the SCO camp.
Trump has no chips to offer except Crimea.Putin/Xi may offer a face saving way out of
Afghanistan and Syria, but even the venue shows who the supplicant is.
You have to be exceptional not to see that is is far more than symbolic that the mountain
has to go to Mohamed.Trump wanted DC or Vienna.
Paragraph 47 of the indictment -- regarding "Organization 1," presumably Wikileaks --
cites intercepted messages showing that Guccifer 2.0 engaged in "failed attempts" to deliver
the docs to Organization 1 "starting in late June 2016." The problem is that Assange had
announced on June 12, 2016 that Wikileaks already had such documents. Given his history, it
is simply beyond belief that Assange would rely on a promise of unvetted docs.
Moreover, that June 12, 2016 announcement was just two days before the Crowstrike news
story of Russian hacking (June 14), followed by the debut of Guccifer 2.0 (June 15).
Independent analysts have long suggested that the latter events were a ploy by partisans
(Clintonites and their national security state supporters) trying to get ahead of the
Wikileaks release by tainting the source of any such documents as Russian.
The greatest threat to mankind is the ability of otherwise intelligent people
to believe unfounded absurd nonsense. Without critical thinking and diversity of opinion the
window to the truth becomes opaque.
The greatest threat to mankind is the ability of otherwise intelligent people to believe
unfounded absurd nonsense. Without critical thinking and diversity of opinion the window to
the truth becomes opaque.
Trump should just refuse to discuss this nonsense with Putin or anyone else. Don't take the
bait. Do your deals with Putin, and ignore the kibitzers. Of course Donald has trouble
keeping his mouth shut.
Mueller messed up the proven information on the illegal access to the DNC (and congressional)
computers by Awan family and the alleged trolling by the alleged Russian spies.
If Mueller has any worries about nationals security, he must investigate Wasserman and
Clinton.
By the way, the Awans were never cleared for having to access the classified information.
Almost 30 congressional computers had been compromised, and the classified information
obtained, by the fraudsters on the US government payroll.
Must laud Dorian for his enthusiasm @12, but any such trial would be conducted in a Federal
Court. Of course, since its inception, the FBI's played both sides of the legality street,
and it's quite obvious that Obama's Justice Department and its FBI agency obstructed justice
with the entire Clinton/Server fiasco in 2016 and has continued to do so.
As for Russia trying to sway a US presidential election, IMO they're telling the truth
that they don't since they can't hope to compete with all the corrupt interests actually
doing so, like AIPAC and the US Chamber of Commerce. Hell, US policy interferes in US
elections when monies sent to Zionistan get recycled into the election cycle through AIPAC or
other sources. What was HRC's Pay-to-Play Foundation if not a method to influence the
election? Dozens of good books are written about the influence of Big Money on US elections
at every level, yet an extremely "conservative" Supreme Court said all that Big Money's just
another form of speech, so say all you want.
Essentially, all levels of US government and elections have become more corrupt annually
since 1866 and the result is today's indictments, providing ever more proof that they're
under Oligarchical control. And unfortunately for the rest of the planet, it's up to the
USA's citizenry to resolve the problem--really, some of us actually do try. Sadly, we lack
the presence of a US Embassy to train and finance our Color Revolution as is done within
every other nation.
You said "Any half-competent hacker could pull this off. "
Don't you mean "any totally incompetent kiddie-scripter could cut/paste a phishing attack
from the dark net, and pull this off , provided the recipient was dumb enough to
respond"?
Imo Trump went into the Prez campaign with his eyes wide open. How else does one explain his
(seemingly premature) drain the Swamp declaration? I understand from the multitude of Trump
docos I've recorded since the campaign began that He had been contemplating the notion of
running for POTUS for at least a decade before he decided to dive in. So he's had at least 10
years to investigate The Swamp, find its flaws and weaknesses, and work out whether he would
be able to find and recruit powerful 'Patriots' willing to lend a hand when (not if) the
going (for a lone wolf) gets tough.
He'll turn this latest slice of Intellectual Pygmy-ism to his advantage. One really
obvious way to do so would be to "prove" that no time should be wasted in getting as close as
possible to 'dangerous' Putin, as soon as possible. And who better to do that than... Ta Da!
MAGA Trump!
Trump seems to have explored every possibility and evolved umpteen solutions to each. The
Swamp is going to regret trying to outsmart him.
July 11, 2018 When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved and the Warsaw
Pact disappeared, a few of us argued that the appropriate response would be to close down NATO
and develop a new all-European peace system and a policy for conflict-handling to replace the
predominantly military security thinking that had dominated during the First Cold War.
I had a particular reason for arguing that at the time. As part of the research I did for my
PhD (1981) on Denmark's defence and security policy in a global perspective, I had interviewed
a small number of middle-level civilian and military personnel at NATO's HQ in Brussels. They
all basically told me the same three things – remember this was the late 1970s, or about
10 years before the Cold War ended:
– My parents' belong to a generation that knows what war is, we are here at NATO to
prevent a repetition (war prevention goal – which is not the same as peace, but let
that pass).
– NATO is for the maintenance of peace, not for war, and the most important thing is
Art 5 in our Treaty: If one member is attacked, all shall come to its rescue – "all for
one and one for all" (the defensive principle, the musketeer pledge).
– The only – only – reason, NATO exists today is the presence
and nature of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact (raison d'etre, existential argument
– however a little strange, perhaps, in that the Warsaw Pact was established in 1955,
NATO in 1949 – but defining the world in such terms that my own profession seems
utterly important is nothing new to human beings).
Western leaders – that is, until one of the worst, Bill Clinton, took over in 1994
– showed statesmanship and told Gorbachev that they would not expand NATO an inch and
that the divided Germany would be neutral if unified. There was no talk of closing NATO in
those circles, however – nobody who took Gorbachev intellectually sound and visionary
idea about a new European House seriously.
No, they had won the Cold War. The Soviet Union had lost and became a militarily a
dwarf in comparison to what it had been. And that wasn't that strong either: The Warsaw Pact's
military expenditures varied between 60 and 80% per cent of those of NATO and it vastly
inferior in terms of technological quality, innovation capacity and discipline – but
stronger in quantities, e.g. the number of tanks.
The 2nd Cold War
We're in Cold War 2 – of course not a repetition because of all the differences
between that world and today's. Ten of the former Warsaw Pact countries are now full NATO
members, neutral states back then like Sweden and Austria have abolished that – wise
– policy. And, mind you, the military expenditures of Russia – one country facing
NATO's 29 – are 8 per cent of NATO – yes, you got it right: Eight per cent of NATOs
military expenditures in spite of all the propaganda about Russia and Putin representing an
existential threat to Europe and the US if not the whole world. Who said disinformation was
used only by Russia?
The Clinton Administration decided to not give a damn about the promises made and started
the expansion of NATO in 1994, the new (humanitarian!!) interventionism in Yugoslavia –
devoid of knowledge about its complexities, of common sense and without a UN Security Council
mandate and one gross violation of international law after the other including the bombing of
Serbia to carve out a forever-failed state, Kosovo state – the second Albanian state in
Europe. Oh Crimea, what a crime in comparison!
And then came, one-by-one, incrementally – the new NATO members right up under the
skirts of Russia in total defiance of its history psychology and legitimate near-abroad
security perceptions.
The wisdom of softer borders and neutrals, of dialogue and confidence-building – like
Finland that started the OSCE , like Sweden under Palme that started common
security and Germany under Brandt that started rapproachment and Ostpolitik etc
– a ll gone today.
Imagine a Russia-led alliance with 12 times more military than the US making Mexico and
Canada new members. Sure, Washington would love it.
Facts, analyses, intellectual understanding went out of the window long ago – in
Western mainstream media and politics, from Right to Left too, the latter believing in
humanitarian intervention and human rights advocates flying F-16.
We're living in dangerous times because facts, knowledge, science and common sense play
virtually no role anymore. And because the peace discourse has disappeared decades ago.
Today's Western security policy managers are anti-intellectuals, seemingly unaware of their
moral responsibilities and under much less control than when Dwight D. Eisenhower in his
farewell speech in 1961 warned the world and the US itself about the MIC – the
Military-Industrial Complex. (Bless him for doing so and curse those who never listened but
made it a cancer on Western civilisation).
99% of these security managers would not be able to offer an intellectually decent
definition of concepts such as deterrence, defensive/offensive, conflict-resolution, or peace.
They don't write books.
But – at least some of them have a button close to them with which they can kill
millions.
Today we are facing a Western militarist cancer in which policies are run by, not the MIC,
but the MIMAC – the Military-Industrial-MEDIA-ACADEMIC Complex. And it is de facto out of
any democratic control.
Enemies are invented and marketed, one after the other, and the new WMD – Weapons of
Mass Deception – consists marketing companies, military academies, militaries in civilian
institute, military corporations influencing/steering media narratives, social media censorship
(Facebook and Google) etc. (Say Syria since
2011 ).
By and large this is what explains all the wars, in the Middle East in particular, all the
millions dead and wounded, all the hatred, terrorism (which thanks to the idiotic U.S. Global
War on Terror since 9/11 2001 has boosted the number of dead and wounded in political terror
acts from about 1 100 to 32 000.
The inverse proportionality between intellectual and military capacity is in and of itself
the largest threat to humanity's survival.
So is the absence – or woefully inadequate power – of a vibrant public dialogue
about peace, social peace actions and peace policies. No government has peace advisers, no
government even thinks of matching peace research with military research investment and no
government has a peace policy or minister. Don't even know that such things might be a good
idea.
The discourse, as I said, is non-existing. Militarism – the Juggernaut – has no
brakes. And, so, we're in the Second Cold War that more knowledgeable and responsible people
would have avoided.
NATO crisis indicators
People talk far too much about Trump, the person(ality). And far too little about the system
that brought him on stage and runs him to a large extent – as large as anyone can run
Trump. Remember, Kennedy was killed some time after a revolutionary speech about a new world
peace order.
The day we talk as much about MIMAC as we talk about Trump and his sex life or Tweets, there
might be some hope – but don't expect it in media and a Western, Christian culture that
is obsessed with individuals and individual morality and hardly can spell the word
structure . MIMAC is a structure and not exactly benign – but did you ever hear
about it in the mainstream press?
1. Since 1989, the West – not Russia – has destroyed the importance of
international law; it began in Yugoslavia – probably the richest event since 1989 in
terms of consequences for that country, the region, Europe and the world.
2. We got a Middle East destroyed beyond repair – physically, economically (e.g.
sanctions), culturally and in terms of fomenting terrorism.
3. We got a US unilateralism, US First, helter-skelter policy that sees, consistently, the
world out there as its enemies – one way or the other – NATO allies, Russia,
China, Middle Eastern leaders, North Korea – and whose main contribution to the rest of
the world is: threats, trade wars, sanctions, bad words, arms trade to authoritarian allies
like Saudi Arabia that is not exactly a democracy but now the third largest military spender,
larger than Russia.
4. We got a Turkey, NATO's second largest military power, basically having departed,
contributed heavily to the destruction of Syria, have US nukes stored on its territory, is
becoming more and more authoritarian (hardly compatible with NATO's defence of democracy) and
makes deal after deal with arch-enemy Russia. In other words, a very serious problem for
NATO.
5. We got a NATO that has done nothing under its seemingly brainwashed Secretary-General
Stoltenberg – once a highly respected Norwegian PM with a humanist family background
– speaking like a US ventriloquist's dummy about how good all the confrontational,
expansive initiatives are – all legitimated with the same three mantras: Security,
Stabiliy and Peace – none of which will ever appear with those policy kinds of
initiatives.
6. We now get a Trump Administration that tries – for God knows which time the last
4-5 decades – to sell the argument that "the Europeans ought to pay more"! The magic
formula is "2 per cent of GNP" – without the slightest analysis of threats or
opportunities! If a country does well in general, the alliance will get more military? Asn
vice-versa? Intellectually, this is nonsense, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with
security and peace.
Furthermore, anyone knowing just a little about these matters are perfectly aware that the
US is in Europe for the sake of the US itself, not for the blue-eyed people of Europe. Europe
has always been and remains the forward defence area of the American territory and it is in
Europe the war shall be fought, not on US territory. Therefore also the Ballistic Missile
Defence in Europ – shooting down whatever retaliatory missile Moscow might fire in
response to a US attack upon it – and shoot it down over Europe.
Every single forward deployment, every new NATO member is today much much less secure than
before. Why? Because when you join an alliance and make the borders hard – there is no
way to avoid that Russian military defensive preparation for the eventuality of an
attack upon it, will target every single of these countries. Simple military logic – any
NATO general would do the same if situated in a Russian military planning unit.
7. We got a NATO that – running out of raison d'etre with the end of the First Cold
War – tries to reinvent itself. Read its Treaty here
that states that it shall adhere to the UN Charter and solve conflict by peaceful means,
support democracy and freedom and international NATO is today a criminal organisation in the
sense that it consistently violates everything it was founded to work for. Even works against
it own fine priciples!
8. Since the 1990s, NATO member states have violated international law and its own Charter
which states that it pertains to Europe and North America. What does NATO do, then, with a
new office in Kuwait, with commitments way outside its member territories, with formalised
cooperation with the Gulf States with a Danish ambassador there as a go-between?
9. Finally, and most importantly, NATO members have invested trillions of dollars on
increasing their security. How come we are now in a new Cold War? How come everybody is
talking about the need for even larger investments in this one type of security, the
military? How come such a well-endowed alliance can feel threatened – and lack a
genuine trust-building and cooperative policy with its old-time enemy, Russia? How come that
NATO members' War on Terror has only produced much more terror? How come the democracy and
freedom NATO shall protect seem to be in crisis too? Why all these wars, destroyed countries
and refugees problems – instead of peace by peaceful means and much more peaceful
world?
Something is wrong. Very very wrong. With NATO.
NATO is what its members make it: Change it completely or dissolve it
You may now think that I mix "NATO, the alliance" with "NATO members" above. True! There
comes a time when a Club that once had noble purposes falls apart because of its members'
reckless, immoral and constitution-violating behaviour. The centre simply doesn't hold. There
comes a time when you cannot healthily maintain a figleaf distinction between the organisation
and its members. Call it compromised, corruption, de-moralization or decay and
think, for instance, of the Swedish Academy .
NATO turns 70 next year. Age is not itself an argument for or against anything. The UN is
even older and its Charter is still the most important governments have ever signed.
But NATO members, lead by the U.S., have undermined the organisation and all the noble
principles it once stood for. (Also by having nuclear weapons which are not mentioned in the
Treaty but militates against any concept of peace by peaceful means). In particular, since the
end of the First Cold War, its net contribution to the world has become negative, destructive.
NATO today stands for North Atlantic Treaty Obsolescence.
In conclusion, crap NATO as we know it!
Let's use the anniversary to discuss how it can survive in a completely new shape and avoid
the fate of its then beloved enemy, the Warsaw Pact – without which it should have been
heavily reformed or closed down about 30 years ago. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jan Oberg
Strzok declines to answer Russia probe questions, gets heated with Gowdy
11:07 a.m.
The hearing almost immediately devolved into rancorous partisan bickering. Strzok declined
to answer Gowdy's first question -- about how many people he interviewed in the first week of
the federal Russia probe -- on the instructions of the FBI general counsel.
"Based on that, I will not answer that question because it goes to matters related to the
ongoing investigation," Strzok said.
Goodlatte almost immediately stepped in, threatening contempt proceedings: "Mr. Strzok. You
are under subpoena and are required to answer the question."
Strzok disputed the notion that he was there under subpoena, arguing that he was there
voluntarily.
"You have not stated a valid legal basis for not responding to a question from a member of
the House of Representatives," Goodlatte.
Nadler tried to step in, but Goodlatte batted down his objections as "not valid" and "not
well taken."
Democrats continued to raise objections to Goodlatte, whose refusal to entertain them drew
outraged disbelief and laughter from the other side.
An exchange between Gowdy and Strzok became particularly heated.
Strzok claimed Gowdy had twisted his words upon answering a question about Mueller's
decision to remove him from the team overseeing the Russia probe, stating that he does not
"appreciate" what he originally said being "changed."
"I don't give a damn what you appreciate, Agent Strozk," Gowdy replied. "I don't appreciate
having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations
during 2016."
-- Kaite Bo Williams and Olivia Beavers
... ... ...
Gowdy hammers home 'bias' accusations
10:45 a.m.
Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) spent several minutes
rehashing details of Strzok's text messages revealed by the inspector general, accusing Strzok
of exhibiting "textbook bias."
Gowdy's opening remarks set the tone for GOP questioning during what promises to be a highly
tense hearing.
"Agent Strzok had Hillary Clinton winning the White House before
he finished investigating her. Agent Strzok had Donald Trump impeached before he even started
investigating him. That is bias," Gowdy charged. "Agent Strzok might not see it, but the rest
of the country does."
If, like me, you were impressed by the magisterial comprehensiveness of a chart that accompanied
New
York 's cover story , in which Chait outlined his theory that President Trump has
been an agent of the Russian government since 1987, you might assume that he cannot have
missed this crucial personage and is sitting on the info until more becomes clear.
Noble as his intentions might seem, I am not so sure that the revelations can wait this
long. Allow me, in the interest of national security, to rehearse the facts. On April 5,
2013, more than two years before he announced his candidacy for the presidency, Donald Trump
made a cryptic reply to a tweet from an account with the handle @_Mickey_Mouse. "Thanks
Basil," the then-businessman wrote. Unfortunately the tweet to which our future president was
responding seems to have disappeared, along with any information about the account's
provenance. Whoever this "Basil" was, he seems to have covered his tracks exceedingly
well.
But not well enough. Consider the clues that remain in plain sight. "Basil" is, of course,
a Westernized version of "Vasily," one of the most common Russian male first names. St.
Basil, who has given his name to the cathedral that is the single most iconic piece of
Russian architecture, is also the patron saint of Russia and a popular symbol of reactionary
nationalism. A Kremlin operative, of course, would be careful not to select a Twitter handle
easily associated with his employer; he would pick something anodyne and American-sounding.
What could answer better to these descriptions than a cartoon character who helped to win
World War II? If only, you might be thinking, Trump himself were more careful, he would have
avoided using this operative's actual codename in a public forum.
But this is a misapprehension. If there is anything we have learned about the pattern of
Trump-Russia collusion and the antics of the coterie of online nationalists, white
supremacists, anime Nazis, and 4chan memers, it is that they cannot resist making their
little in-jokes and dropping seemingly clever references into their communications. Consider
the wider significance of the date of Trump's tweet. On April 5, in the Year of Our Lord
1242, the great Russian general Alexander Nevsky defeated the Teutonic Knights at Lake Pepius
in the famous Battle of the Ice, an event of enormous significance for nationalists who see
the knights as representative of a proto-liberal globalizing tendency already present in the
European culture of the Middle Ages.
But why that day in 2013, of all years? What is the significance of that gap of some 771
years? Please. To the uninitiated layman this no doubt seems baffling. To someone who
understands the tech-obsessed culture of online neoreactionary pranksters, it is an obvious
(and somewhat amusing) throwback. As any programmer knows, 771 is the code page used in DOS
to produce text in the Russian alphabet. It is, in other words, a retro racist joke, the kind
of thing whose importance would no doubt have been lost on Trump himself while seeming hugely
important (and absolutely hilarious) to "Basil."
But all of this is a distraction from the real question of what exactly Trump and Basil
were discussing. Alas, it may be a long time indeed before most of us know, but that doesn't
mean Bob Mueller doesn't already. It appears that Basil's account has been suspended by
Twitter, which may be the result of a subpoena. It is possible that sources close to Mueller
have told Chait that it would be for the best if Basil, whose communications with the
president and other Kremlin-linked Twitter accounts are in the process of being recovered and
analyzed, remained a secret for the time being. On the other hand, it is possible that this
exchange has escaped both Chait's and Mueller's attention, in which case I draw attention to
it here in the hope of a little-noticed but obvious example of collusion -- one more piece in
the giant, seemingly unsolvable puzzle.
I give voice to the above lunatic fancy, which I was able to concoct with almost minimal
effort in a matter of about 30 seconds with the use of Twitter, Google, and Wikipedia, in the
hope of reminding readers how easy it is to put together a plausible-sounding hypothesis if
you are already convinced of certain premises. In this case, that premise is the fact that
despite the lack of any real evidence, there exists or existed a high-level conspiracy
between Trump and various members of his 2016 campaign and various agents of the Russian
government, up to and potentially including Vladimir Putin himself, to elect Trump president
of the United States two years ago.
This premise has been widely adopted and reiterated in American media on the basis of a
six degrees of Kevin Bacon-like game involving persons as unlikely as a model who once had an
affair with an oligarch who was acquainted with a former Soviet-era ambassador who knows the
president of Ukraine, for whom Paul Manafort once did lobbying many years before his brief
employment by the Trump campaign (phew), and by the appellation of vague but
sinister-sounding adjectives ("Kremlin-linked," "Russia-backed").
Add to this perfervid climate of speculation people's concerns about the species of online
nerd culture known as the "alt-right" and you can pretty much accuse anybody who has ever had
anything to do with Trump of anything. A week before Chait's article appeared, thousands of
persons became convinced that a hitherto-unnoticed press release from the Department of
Homeland Security was
actually a coded neo-Nazi message because the brief declarative sentence in the headline
reminded some observers of a racist slogan that also contains 14 words and because in one
statistic used in the story the natural number 88, which is associated with admirers of Adolf
Hitler, appeared. Did I mention that, like neo-Nazism, which, has its so-called "14 words,"
the press release also contained 14 of what could be considered points, although only 13 of
them appear alongside typographical bullets? Even MSNBC's Chris Hayes, a vociferously
anti-Trump but otherwise level-headed journalist, briefly fell for this nonsense.
The easy flow of ill-gotten Russian money into the economies of Western Europe and the
United States is one of the great unsung evils of the post-Cold War era. The oligarchs do not
particularly care who does their dirty laundry or sells them luxury apartments. This is why
it would be just as
easy , if not in fact
easier , to make a chart like Chait's showing the connections between Hillary Clinton,
Russian business interests, and the Kremlin. Barack Obama's insistence to Dmitry Medvedev that he would
have "more flexibility" after the 2012 election is, considered out of context, subject to the
least generous or responsible interpretation, far more sinister than anything of which Trump
or anyone in his circles has been accused. But the truth is that none of these connections
are especially significant. We are all connected somehow to Russia, just as we are all
complicit in the spoliation of the Third World and the abuse of indigenous peoples because we
all buy products made abroad and use the internet and own stock.
Likewise, there is so much information available about so many people that it has never
been easier to insinuate connections and intentions and conspiracies into meaningless
coincidences. Imagine what Jim Garrison, the New Orleans district attorney who unsuccessfully
prosecuted an area businessman for his supposed involvement in a nonexistent conspiracy to
assassinate President John K. Kennedy, would have been able to accomplish with the resources
of the internet at his disposal. The ease with which we can access information has made it
easier than ever for semi-intelligent persons to concoct lurid stories. It should also make
it easier for those of us who are sensible to dismiss them out of hand.
This is why I do not think it is worth calling New York magazine irresponsible
for publishing conspiracy theories. Bores and scolds might suggest that at a time when the
president seems to be getting away with painting any media outlet that criticizes him as
"fake news," it might be a good idea to stick to facts and leave this kind of thing to
ResistanceHole . I disagree. New York has no duty to its readers except
that of entertainment. If squinting to try to tell the difference between the red line
connecting two oligarchs and the green one linking an unknown Florida-based GOP hack to a
longtime party donor is your idea of fun, knock yourself out. But don't pretend that what
you're reading is journalism.
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Here it comes, the moment we've been waiting for, when Trump and Putin meet in Helsinki to
officially launch the Destruction of Democracy, and very possibly the Apocalypse itself. That's
right, folks, once again, it appears we're looking at the end of everything, because according
to the corporate media, on July 16, 2018, Trump is probably going to
disband NATO so that Putin can invade the Baltic states, then Germany, then the rest of
Europe, and then presumably order an all-out thermonuclear strike on the United States, which
will pretty much end civilization as we know it. Or perhaps the plan is to do away with NATO,
withdraw
all American troops from Poland , let Putin rape and pillage Western Europe, and then have
North Korea nuke both coasts of the US mainland (and Canada, of course) so that a
Putin-Nazified Middle Amerika will have carte blanche to exterminate the Mexicans and make
women wear those "Handmaid" costumes, or some other ridiculously paranoid scenario, possibly
involving Susan Sarandon as some kind of Putin-Nazi triple agent.
Tragically, the global neoliberal establishment is completely powerless to stop Trump and
Putin from carrying out this evil scheme (whatever it turns out to be in the end), because even
the US Intelligence Community has to obey the law, after all, and not do anything sneaky, or
unethical, not even with the fate of democracy at stake. No, unlike the Russians, who go around
blatantly
poisoning people with novichok oatmeal more or less whenever they like, the global
capitalist ruling classes' hands are tied by their own integrity. All they can do is watch in
horror as these two Hitlerian megalomaniacs destroy their entire global empire and establish a
thousand-year Putin-Nazi Reich.
Thank God at least the corporate media are raising their collective voices in protest. In
a recent piece in The Washington Post , Max Bergmann of the Center for American
Progress warns that "this is a summit about appeasement, and we should be terrified that Trump
is going to sell out America and its allies." According to Bergmann, Trump might "accidentally"
share state secrets with Putin, or promise to reduce support for
our freedom-loving Ukrainian Nazis , or stop trying to overthrow the Syrian government so
that Syria, with the help of Russia and Iran, can launch a sneak attack on Israel and drive
"the Jews" into the sea. Worse still, Bergmann speculates, he might make "secret agreements"
with Putin without telling the editors of The Washington Post , which God help us all if
that ever happened.
Not to be out-apocalypsed by The Post ,
Roger Cohen of
The New York Times
published a full-blown dystopian vision wherein Trump, Putin, Marine Le Pen, the AfD, and a
variety of other globalist-hating Hitler-alikes form "the Alliance of Authoritarian and
Reactionary States" (the "AARS"), disband the European Union and NATO, impose international
martial law, and start ethnically cleansing the West of immigrants. Matteo Salvini and Horst
Seehofer, decked out in full Putin-Nazi regalia, personally supervise the genocidal purges,
which frightened Europeans come to support after Putin's irresistible "fake news" bots
brainwash them into believing that a little Russian girl named "Tatiana" has been abducted by
Moroccan migrants off a beach along the Costa del Sol.
... ... ...
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Goodlatte announces Lisa Page interview slated for Friday
12:40 p.m.
In the midst of the fiery hearing, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) released a statement
announcing that former FBI agent Lisa Page has agreed to an interview with the committees on
Friday.
Page, a close adviser to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCab e is scheduled to appear for the
interview on Friday at 1:30 p.m. Lawmakers will then be able to continue their questioning the
following week on Monday, July 16, according to a committee press release.
"Lisa Page has finally agreed to appear before the House Judiciary and Oversight [and
Government Reform] Committees for a transcribed interview tomorrow," Goodlatte said in a
statement, calling the slated hearing "long overdue."
"As part of the Committees' joint investigation into decisions made by the Justice
Department in 2016, we have sought her testimony for seven months, ultimately resulting in a
subpoena demanding her presence," Goodlatte's statement continues.
The kookification of the "mainstream"
continues, with none other than Jonathan Chait – the most conventional sort of boring corporate
liberal –
producing
an
unhinged diatribe
purporting to prove
that Donald Trump has been a Russian agent since 1987
–
and that his path to the presidency was paved by his Russian handlers, who were planning it all
along.
And not to be outdone, formerly rational person Marcy Wheeler, whose investigations
as "emptywheel" won her some renown,
is
now claiming
that she not only has definitive proof of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin, but
that, as a result, she was forced to turn one of her sources into the FBI for some vague
cloak-and-dagger-ish reason.
I looked in on the Chait production, and came upon his reiteration of the Alfa Bank computer
link – this was a story, you'll recall, that
claimed there was a stream of communications
between this "Kremlin-connected" bank and the Trump organization.
This, we were told, was
almost certainly Vladimir Putin sending instructions to his zombie-agents in the Trump White House.
Yes, this was actually the story, backed up by several computer "experts" – except it turned out to
be
advertising spam
.
Chait repeats this story,
adding it on top of the several dozen other conspiracy factoids
he throws in the mix – but without mentioning that the computer signals were simply ad-bots.
On the basis of this, and a string of other "interactions" with Russians, we are supposed to
believe that the omnipotent Russian intelligence agencies hatched a plot 30 years ago to put Trump
into the White House. This is a conspiracy theory that's so shoddy and far-fetched that not even
Alex Jones would touch it with a ten-foot pole.
Which brings us to an interesting question: do these people really believe their
own craziness?
In some instances, it's
pure psychopathology.
That's the case, I believe, for
Marcy Wheeler, Louise Mensch, and the more active online Twitter-paranoids. These people have been
so shocked by the unexpected – the election of Trump – that they have been forced into a dubious
mental state bordering on insanity.
However, in the case of Jonathan Chait, it's pure viciousness and cynicism.
He
even says
of his own theory that it's "unlikely but possible."
It's just a show for
the suckers. The same is true for most of the other journalists who have enlisted in #TheResistance
and given up any pretense at objectivity: they are simply doing what they do best, and that is
taking dictation from their spookish sources. The treatment of Russia-gate in the media parallels
precisely what occurred with Iraq's storied "weapons of mass destruction" – reporters are taking it
all on faith, and they don't even necessarily believe it. Thus the biggest hoax since Piltdown Man
is reported as "fact." And of course all this is coming to the fore as Trump takes on NATO and our
European "allies."
For anti-interventionists, Trump's trip to Europe could not be more timely or
enlightening.
He went to the NATO meeting with a few admonitory
tweets
up
front
,
complaining that America pays far more than a fair share of the alliance's monetary costs, and no
sooner does he get off the plane than he
notes
that
for all the anti-Russian rhetoric coming out of our allies, the Germans are cuddling up to the
Russians on the energy front with the Nord Stream II pipeline. Merkel shot back that Germany is,
after all, an independent country and can do what it likes. True, but then why the weird
contradiction between claiming that Russia is a military threat and also setting up the mechanism
of energy dependence?
Before getting on the plane for his European sojourn, the President
reiterated
his
longstanding position:
"We pay far too much and they pay far too little. The United States is spending far more
on NATO than any other country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable."
And the cost is not just measured in monetary terms: there's also the incalculable cost
of risking war, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which obligates us to come to the aid of a NATO
ally that's under attack, or at least that claims to be under attack.
In which case, the
government of tiny Montenegro, with a population of a bit over half a million, could declare that
the Russians are trying to pull off a coup, and US troops would be in country "defending" it
against an incursion that may not even exist.
Take a look
at the
Euro-weenies squirming in their seats at that "bilateral breakfast," which was turned into a
lecture by the President about why the burden of empire should not fall only on our shoulders.
Pompeo and Kay Bailey Hutchinson don't look happy, either, but that's just too bad, now isn't it?
The President is speaking truth to the once high-and-mighty – and more power to him!
Meanwhile, the main event is going to be in Helsinki: NATO is just a sideshow.
After all, militarily the alliance is really nothing but the United States and a few Brits: the
Europeans carry little actual weight. The really serious business will take place with Putin,
although there is a relentless propaganda campaign in progress to prevent Trump from making the
Helsinki summit a success.
What must be addressed in Helsinki is the backsliding of both countries when it comes to
preventing a nuclear catastrophe. The program to find and secure loose nukes, which became a
problem after the breakup of the Soviet Union, needs to be renewed, in addition to the mutual
disarmament agreements that have
fallen
by the wayside
, with the US and the Russians
re-arming
.
As tensions between Washington and Moscow rise, the possibility of a nuclear conflict increases,
along with the chances of an
accidenta
l nuclear exchange.
The nuclear death
machine is on automatic, with all kinds of scenarios where it could be set off by something other
than an enemy attack
: a terrorist strike in Washington, D.C., or anywhere, involving
nuclear material, or simply a computer software glitch. Americans would be horrified to learn just
how close we are to an extinction event.
The Trump-haters would rather the President fail than give him credit for securing
the peace.
They would much prefer to wage a new cold war with Russia than put an end
to the horrific threat of utter annihilation that's cast a dark shadow over the world for all this
time. In preferring universal ruin to the vindication of their enemies, they fit the very
definition of what it means to be evil.
Trump is out to transform US foreign policy by – finally! – recognizing the reality that's been
in place since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The old
structures that served us when Communism was thought to be a threat to Europe are no longer
functional, and haven't been for quite some time.
NATO today is nothing but a gigantic
subsidy to two major beneficiaries: our European "allies" and the big arms manufacturers such as
Boeing, Raytheon, etc. The current arrangements allow the European welfare states to huddle under
the US nuclear shield while dispensing all kinds of goodies to their citizens. It's quite a racket
for all concerned: as NATO countries must continually update their military equipment to meet
rising standards, American taxpayers are footing most of the bill.
I have a good friend. Intelligent, usually quite well balanced, but
a bad case of TDS. She keeps falling back on "where there is smoke
there must be fire....we keep hearing about Russia and Trump, so it
must be true."
I have yet to point out to her that is precisely
what was behind Goering's philosophy of "tell a lie often enough and
people will believe it to be true". After all, she is also jewish,
and the Goering reference might make her head explode.
RussiaGate was spawned as Trump was calling her out for her
crimes, the ties to the Uranium One scam were obvious and
public. So in typical fashion she paints her opponent with
the the false brush of her crimes to deflect the reality.
Besides the MI6 need to smear the Russians was first on the
agenda anyway, can't have the Russians looking good on
anything.
Thank Q for exposing all the closet zionists. When you
replace the word "Russiagate" with "Israelgate", then all
the 'fire & fury' over the Trump presidency actually
starts to make sense.
No it's just a hollow divide and conquer meme, to keep the
sheeple arguing about nonsense and keep the flow of fake
news at a high level. Don't give the sheeple a moment of a
break, they might start to think for themselves.
I think deep down these people know it's nonsense, they just hate
Trump so much they feel the need to be dishonest just to try and
hurt him.
It blows my mind because these are the same people who would
have a meltdown if a prosecutor went after a black man with these
tactics. Somehow they feel that a malicious prosecution is
acceptable just this one time.
Ancient hatred of ethnic Russians from the old Khazarian empire,
now known as 'Ukraine'...
It is no wonder, nor surprise that
Khazarian cockroaches who infest the halls of U.S. foreign policy
are apoplectic regarding any warming of common-sense relations
with Russia.
Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder induced hysteria. So, crazy. And
yet, many are some of the most cynical creatures you'll ever meet- true
misanthropes. So there's that.
how about something interesting.You know about dick eater McAffe and
the crypto world.We all know the dem/lib shit about Russia and Trump
is already complete bullshit.
Yes, the Libtards that think they're smarter than everyone else are
the most trapped by their ego.
Present fact, logic and reasonable
discourse and these geniuses lose their sheet and produce fallacy,
fake news, and eventually run away from the conversation or end up in
tears.
The anti-Russia hysteria comes from all over the Left as well as parts
of the Right...
But as with Chait, Mensch, Kristol, Appelbaum, Gessen
and on and on and on you find Jews wildly over-represented in the Putin
bashing (which is one thing - he's a politician in bed with some bad
hombres and not at all above criticism) and Russia itself.
It's a hell of a LONG list the evil bastards have going-to try to
destroy western civilization with cutesy little names to deflect from the
truth about what they REALLY support.
But hey, what do I know?
I'm sure there are a lot people who can easily add to my list. Have at
it.
I actually like Russia and hope for a good relationship with them, but the
US must fail and Russia is the best cheer-leading on this site has become
unbearable.
I see lots of folks here who want both the US and Russia to succeed.
That's one of the reasons we support the President and his policy of
peace, commerce and honest friendship with old Cold War enemies. It's
not 1949/1950 anymore.
So the Russians realized that US equipment is crap and can be handled by
what they already have.
No real surprise there. U.S. military equipment
is in many cases relying on electronic components from the 70's and 80's
rather than upgrading their electronic systems.
Special counsel Robert
Mueller is again asking for a delay in the sentencing of former national security adviser
Michael Flynn, according to court documents filed Friday.
The special counsel and attorneys for Flynn are asking for two more months before scheduling
his sentencing, requesting to file another status report by Aug. 24.
"Due to the status of the Special Counsel's investigation, the parties do not believe that
this matter is ready to be scheduled for a sentencing hearing at this time," states a joint
status report filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Friday.
This is the third time that prosecutors have asked to delay sentencing for Flynn, who
pleaded
guilty in December to lying to FBI agents investigating Russian interference in the 2016
election.
Mifsud was most probably MI5 asset. So we can speak about entrapment of people connected to Trump campaign.
The same probably is true for Goldstone.
Notable quotes:
"... The most high-level Trump campaign official to be indicted is Paul Manafort, as well as his former business partner and Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates. The charges, as a Virginia judge observed last month , "manifestly don't have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." ..."
"... There is widespread supposition that Manafort's dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion with Moscow. But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in Kiev. The opposite appears to be the case. The New York Times ..."
"... According to his charge sheet , Flynn falsely told agents that he did not request that Russia respond to new US sanctions "in a reciprocal manner" because the incoming Trump team "did not want Russia to escalate the situation." Flynn also hid from FBI agents that, days before that call, he first asked Kislyak to veto a UN Security Council measure condemning Israeli settlement building, which the outgoing Obama administration had decided to let pass (Russia ultimately rebuffed Flynn and supported the measure). ..."
"... The FBI was able to charge Flynn because it had concrete evidence that his statements to them were false: wiretaps of his conversations with Kislyak. But these calls offer nothing on collusion. As The Washington Post ..."
"... Donald Trump Jr. is often faulted for accepting Goldstone's overture to begin with, since it floated damaging information from a foreign power. He is also faulted for initially providing a misleading statement about the meeting to the media. But lying to reporters is not an indictable offense, and neither is showing a willingness to obtain foreign dirt. During the 2016 contest, the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign accepted help from Ukraine and paid for the salacious and outlandish Steele "dossier" from across the pond. ..."
"... By now the details are well known: About $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads, more than half of that after ..."
"... Yet prominent media and political voices have portrayed the ads as a major component of a "sophisticated" Russian interference campaign akin to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. On his current book tour, former national-intelligence director James Clapper has declared that, taken together, the Russian ads and stolen Democratic e-mails handed Trump the presidency . ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Mueller's indictment reinforces Facebook's initial conclusion. The defendants "used the accounts to receive money from real US persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements" on their social-media pages, for a fee of "between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post." And not only does Mueller say that the troll farm had no ties to the Trump campaign, he doesn't even allege that it worked with the Russian government ..."
"... One of the indicted firms is challenging the case in court, accusing Mueller of inventing "a make-believe crime" in order to "justify his own existence" and "indict a Russian -- any Russian." Whether the troll farm's indictment is make-believe or not, Mueller has yet to indict anyone -- let alone any Russian -- for Russiagate's underlying crime: the theft of Democratic Party e-mails. And more than a year after they accused the Russian government of carrying it out, intelligence officials have yet to produce a shred of proof. ..."
"... The January 2017 intelligence report begat an endless cycle of innuendo and unverified claims, inculcating the public with fears of a massive Russian interference operation and suspicions of the Trump campaign's complicity. The evidence to date casts doubt on the merits of this national preoccupation, and with it, the judgment of the intelligence, political, and media figures who have elevated it to such prominence. ..."
A year of investigations has led to several guilty pleas, but none of them go to the core of the special counsel's mandate.
The Mueller Indictments Still Don't Add Up to Collusion | The Nation
n just over one year, special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign and Russia has generated
five guilty pleas, 20 indictments, and more than 100 charges. None of these have anything to do with Mueller's chief focus: the Russian
government's alleged meddling in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign's suspected involvement.
While it's certainly possible that Mueller will make new indictments that go to the core of his case, what's been revealed so
far does not make a compelling brief for collusion.
The most high-level Trump campaign official to be indicted is Paul Manafort, as well as his former business partner and Trump
campaign deputy Rick Gates. The charges, as a Virginia judge
observed last month
, "manifestly don't have anything to do with the campaign or with Russian collusion." Instead, Manafort and Gates are accused
of financial crimes beginning in 2008, when they worked as political operatives for a Russia-leaning party in Ukraine (and for which
Manafort was previously investigated, but not indicted).
There is widespread supposition that Manafort's dealings in Ukraine make him a prime candidate for collusion with Moscow.
But that stems from the mistaken belief that Manafort promoted Kremlin interests during his time in Kiev. The opposite appears to
be the case. The New York Times recounts that Manafort
"pressed [then–Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor] Yanukovych to sign an agreement with the European Union that would link the country
closer to the West -- and lobbied for the Americans to support Ukraine's membership." If that picture is accurate, then Manafort's
activities in Ukraine during the period for which he has been indicted were diametrically opposed to the Kremlin's agenda.
Manafort's employment of Konstantin Kilimnik, who was indicted last week on obstruction charges in Manafort's case, is seen as
another Kremlin link. Kilimnik studied as a linguist at a Soviet-era military school and went on to become Manafort's translator
and fixer in Ukraine. According to Mueller, Kilimnik has "ties to Russian intelligence" that were active during the 2016 campaign.
The evidence to support that assertion is sealed. For his part, Kilimnik
denies
being a Russian agent . Ukrainian authorities investigated him in August 2016 but did not bring charges.
According to The Atlantic , "insinuations" that Kilimnik worked for Russian intelligence then "were never backed by
more than a smattering of circumstantial evidence."
While Manafort's alleged offenses (aside from the new obstruction charges) occurred well before the 2016 campaign, those of former
national security adviser Michael Flynn came after. Flynn admitted to making "false statements and omissions" about his conversations
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in December 2016. According to
his charge sheet , Flynn falsely told agents that he
did not request that Russia respond to new US sanctions "in a reciprocal manner" because the incoming Trump team "did not want Russia
to escalate the situation." Flynn also hid from FBI agents that, days before that call, he first asked Kislyak to veto a UN Security
Council measure condemning Israeli settlement building, which the outgoing Obama administration had decided to let pass (Russia ultimately
rebuffed Flynn and supported the measure).
The FBI was able to charge Flynn because it had concrete evidence that his statements to them were false: wiretaps of his
conversations with Kislyak. But these calls offer nothing on collusion. As The Washington Post
reported , FBI agents who "reviewed" the calls with Kislyak had "not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the
Russian government."
Like Flynn, George Papadopoulos has also pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI after the election. Although he is the lowest-level
member of the Trump campaign to be charged, his case has emerged front and center. In the months since Papadopoulos's October indictment,
we have been told that the FBI
launched an investigation , code named "
Crossfire Hurricane ," because of him. We also recently learned that the FBI
enlisted an
informant , Cambridge Professor Stefan
Halper , to make contact with Papadopoulos and two other campaign officials, Carter Page and Sam Clovis, in a bid to pry loose
information on potential campaign ties to Russia.
In charging Papadopoulos, Mueller's team raised the prospect that Papadopoulos was told about stolen Democratic e-mails before
the theft of DNC e-mails was publicly known. According to the Statement of Offense, Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud informed
Papadopoulos that "the Russians" had obtained "thousands of emails" containing "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. The two spoke in April
2016, before the first DNC e-mails were released. Papadopoulos volunteered to agents his information on Mifsud's offer; he pleaded
guilty to misrepresenting the timing of when he spoke to Mifsud. All of this would be more explosive if, as the Mueller team suggested,
Mifsud actually "had substantial connections to Russian government officials," and recently "met with some of those officials in
Moscow."
And yet there were ample reasons to question whether Papadopoulos was a plausible conduit for Trump-Kremlin collusion. He was
an unpaid volunteer known for
embellishing
credentials ; who not only didn't land a job in the Trump administration post-election but couldn't even get his
travel
expenses reimbursed during the campaign.
It is also quite possible that Mifsud was referring to the 30,000 State Department e-mails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private
server, by that point a well-publicized controversy. Papadopoulos's wife, Simona Mangiante,
now says that Papadopoulos believes
that to be the case. She also says that Papadopoulos has no knowledge of collusion and pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI only because
Mueller threatened to charge him for having been an unregistered foreign agent of Israel.
If Papadopoulos offers Mueller nothing on collusion, the other main staple of collusion allegations -- the infamous June 2016
meeting at Trump Tower -- is an unlikely alternative. The music publicist who set up the meeting, Rob Goldstone, e-mailed Donald
Trump Jr. with an offer of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia," -- not,
it should be noted, stolen e-mails. But because Goldstone also wrote of "very high level and sensitive information," as "part of
Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," his message has been quoted endlessly as Exhibit A for a Trump-Russia plot. There
were already reasons to question whether an e-mail sent by a kooky publicist is plausible groundwork for such a high-level conspiracy.
The
recently released transcripts of Goldstone's congressional testimony give us more. Goldstone explains that he set up the meeting
on behalf of Emin Agalarov, a Russian pop singer who employed Goldstone as a publicist, and whose father, Aras Agalarov, is a billionaire
who partnered with Trump on the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
Goldstone recounts that Emin gave him "limited information" -- and that was a problem. Emin had told him that a "well-connected
Russian attorney," Natalia Veselnitskaya, had met with his father and "told him that they had some interesting information that could
potentially be damaging regarding funding by Russians to the Democrats and to its candidate, Hillary Clinton." Goldstone's follow-up
attempts to get "more information" from Emin yielded nothing more. So Goldstone drew upon his professional tools. As he told the
Senate Judiciary Committee: "I had puffed it and used some keywords that I thought would attract Don Jr.'s attention." In his field,
he explained, "publicist puff is how they get meetings."
By his telling, Goldstone was not being a Kremlin intermediary; he was being a good publicist. His Russian pop-star client had
passed on vague information based on what his father had told him about what a Russian lawyer said. His "publicist puff" secured
the meeting. All parties contend that the meeting ended quickly after the assembled Trump representatives struggled to understand
what Veselnitskaya was talking about, which included none of the advertised incriminating information. Veselnitskaya says she tried
to discuss repealing the Magnitsky Act sanctions on Russia, which is not hard to believe given that Veselnitskaya and her client,
Prevazon Holdings, have fought those sanctions for years.
Donald Trump Jr. is often faulted for accepting Goldstone's overture to begin with, since it floated damaging information from
a foreign power. He is also faulted for initially providing a misleading statement about the meeting to the media. But lying to reporters
is not an indictable offense, and neither is showing a willingness to obtain foreign dirt. During the 2016 contest, the Democratic
National Committee and the Clinton campaign
accepted help from Ukraine
and paid for the salacious and outlandish Steele "dossier" from across the pond.
This brings us to the last major indictment, and the first one to include Russian nationals: 13 Russians and three companies accused
of running a US-aimed social media campaign out of the St. Petersburg–based Internet Research Agency (IRA). By now the details are
well known: About $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads, more than half of that after the November 2016 vote. The bulk of the
remaining $46,000 in ads ran during the primaries. The majority of the ads did not even reference the election and got little traction.
Yet prominent media and political voices have portrayed the ads as a major component of a "sophisticated" Russian interference
campaign akin to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. On his current book tour, former national-intelligence director James Clapper has declared
that, taken together, the Russian ads and stolen Democratic e-mails
handed Trump the presidency
.
Now that we can
see all of the ads for ourselves , it is difficult to argue with
Facebook executive Rob Goldman , who said
that "swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal." The main goal, in fact, appears to be exactly what Facebook initially found,
according to The Washington Post , before the social-media giant came under pressure from congressional Democrats:
"A review by the company found that most of the groups behind the problematic pages had clear financial motives, which suggested
that they weren't working for a foreign government."
Mueller's indictment reinforces Facebook's initial conclusion. The defendants "used the accounts to receive money from real
US persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements" on their social-media pages, for a fee of "between 25 and 50 U.S.
dollars per post." And not only does Mueller say that the troll farm had no ties to the Trump campaign, he doesn't even allege that
it worked with the Russian government. The IRA's owner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, is said to be close to Putin. But even if the ads
came right from the Kremlin, does anyone think that the bizarre offerings -- from
Buff Bernie to pro-Beyoncé and
anti-Beyoncé to the juvenile
attacks
on
Hillary Clinton
-- impacted the US voters who saw them?
One of the indicted firms is challenging the case in court,
accusing Mueller of inventing "a make-believe crime" in order to "justify his own existence" and "indict a Russian -- any Russian."
Whether the troll farm's indictment is make-believe or not, Mueller has yet to indict anyone -- let alone any Russian -- for Russiagate's
underlying crime: the theft of Democratic Party e-mails. And more than a year after they accused the Russian government of carrying
it out, intelligence officials have yet to produce a shred of proof.
The January 2017 intelligence report begat an endless cycle of innuendo and unverified claims, inculcating the public with
fears of a massive Russian interference operation and suspicions of the Trump campaign's complicity. The evidence to date casts doubt
on the merits of this national preoccupation, and with it, the judgment of the intelligence, political, and media figures who have
elevated it to such prominence.
Are you stupid enough to believe that American voters elected Trump president because
Vladimir Putin influenced them to vote for Russia's candidate? The US Senate Intelligence (sic)
Committee is that stupid. This collection of nitwits actually produced a report that a few ads
allegedly placed online on Putin's instructions, ads that did not cost one-hundredth of one
percent of the huge sum spent by the candidates themselves, both national committees and
everyone else, were decisive in influencing voters who never saw the ads in the first place or
read or responded to tweets.
That a Senate Committee would expect anyone to believe such a far-fetched story shows that
the Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee has no respect whatsoever for the people who elected
President Trump, or, for that matter, for anyone else at home or abroad.
This Senate report is the most incredible bullshit I have every encountered in my life.
There is no evidence whatsoever in the report. Only assertions. And most of these are based on
"open-source" internet postings by trolls and bots financed by the military/security complex
and Democratic Party.
What the report actually tells us is that no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has
enough intelligence or integrity to serve in the US Senate. It is the Senate Intelligence
Committee that is a disgrace to America and to the entire human race.
"... Trump and his fellow neocons want NATO to serve as a sort of US foreign legion in Third World wars in Africa and Asia. NATO was formed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to defend western Europe, not to fight in Afghanistan and who knows where else? ..."
"... In Europe, it's hard to find many people who still consider Russia a serious threat except for some tipsy Danes, right wing Swedes, and assorted Russophobic East Europeans. The main fear of Russia seems concentrated in the minds of American neoconservatives, media, and rural Trump supporters, all victims of the bizarre anti-Russian hysteria that has gripped the US. ..."
"... Equally important, most civilians don't understand that neither US and NATO forces nor Russia's military are in any shape to fight war that lasts more than a few days. Both sides lack munitions, spare parts, lubricants, and battlefield equipment. The overworked US Air Force, busy plastering Muslim nations, has actually run low on bombs. US industry can't seems to keep up supplies. There has even been talk of buying explosives from China! ..."
"... At this point NATO is the muscle for projecting and maintaining Western (read US) hegemony. It's activities are a threat to sovereign nations that refuse to be Washington's vassals. So they react with self-defensive postures and programs that NATO can claim are "aggression" in order to justify its own existence. ..."
`We are the schmucks' thundered President Donald Trump, using a favorite New York City
Yiddish term for penis. The object of Trump's wrath at his Make America Great Again' rally in
Great Falls, Montana was the craven, stingy European members of NATO, only 16 of 22 members are
on budget for their US-commanded military spending. Trump wants them to spend much more.
Trump and his fellow neocons want NATO to serve as a sort of US foreign legion in Third
World wars in Africa and Asia. NATO was formed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to
defend western Europe, not to fight in Afghanistan and who knows where else?
Equally bad, according to Trump, is that the US runs a whopping trade deficit with the
European Union which is busy shipping high-end cars and fine wines to the US. The wicked
foreigners don't buy enough Amerian bourbon, corn and terribly abused pigs.
Trump is quite right that America's NATO allies, particularly Germany and Canada, don't
spend enough on defense. Germany is reported to have less than twenty operational tanks.
Canada's armed forces appear to be smaller than the New York City police department.
But the Europeans ask, 'defense against whom?' The Soviet Union was a huge threat back in
the Cold War when the mighty Red Army had 55,000 tanks pointed West. Today, Russia's land and
navel power has evaporated. Russia has perhaps 5,500 main battle tanks in active service and a
similar number in storage, a far cry from its armored juggernaut of the Cold War.
More important, Russia's military budget for 2018 was only $61 billion, actually down 17%
from last year. That's 4.3% of GDP. Russia is facing hard economic times. Russia has slipped to
third place in military spending after the US, China and Saudi Arabia. The US and its wealthy
allies account for two thirds of world military spending. In fact, the US total military budget
(including for nuclear weapons and foreign wars) is about $1 trillion, 50% of total US
government discretionary spending.
In addition, Russia must defend a vast territory from the Baltic to the Pacific. The US is
fortunate in having Mexico and Canada as neighbors. Russia has North Korea, China, India, the
Mideast and NATO to watch. As with its naval forces, Russia's armies are too far apart to lend
one another mutual support. Two vulnerable rail lines are Russia's main land link between
European Russia and its Pacific Far East.
Trump's supplemental military budget boost this year of $54 billion is almost as large as
Russia's entire 2018 military budget. As for Trump's claim that Europe is not paying its fair
share of NATO expenses, note that that Britain and France combined together spend more on their
military forces than Russia.
ORDER IT NOW
In Europe, it's hard to find many people who still consider Russia a serious threat except
for some tipsy Danes, right wing Swedes, and assorted Russophobic East Europeans. The main fear
of Russia seems concentrated in the minds of American neoconservatives, media, and rural Trump
supporters, all victims of the bizarre anti-Russian hysteria that has gripped the US.
Equally important, most civilians don't understand that neither US and NATO forces nor
Russia's military are in any shape to fight war that lasts more than a few days. Both sides
lack munitions, spare parts, lubricants, and battlefield equipment. The overworked US Air
Force, busy plastering Muslim nations, has actually run low on bombs. US industry can't seems
to keep up supplies. There has even been talk of buying explosives from China!
These essentials of war have been seriously neglected in favor of buying fancy weapons. But
such weapons need spares, electronics, fuel depots, missiles and thousands of essential parts.
As former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld observed, 'you go to war with what you have.'
Neither side has enough. A war would likely peter out in days after supplies were exhausted.
Besides, no side can afford to replace $100 million jet fighters or $5 million apiece tanks
after a war, however brief.
President Trump has learned about war from Fox TV. Europeans have learned from real
experience and don't want any more.
The last time the US put troops into action in North Korea, China lashed out and drove us
back South. In retaliation we dropped more tonnage of bombs and napalm on the North than was
used in the entire Pacific War.
In fact, the US total military budget (including for nuclear weapons and foreign wars)
is about $1 trillion, 50% of total US government discretionary spending.
Disband NATO already. The USSR is gone and Russia has no revanchist plans. Our military
spending on the defense of Europe only frees their budgets for social programs like medical
care and college education.
And what have we gotten for spending the nation's wealth on blowing up the Greater Middle
East, killing a million plus civilians and displacing millions more? Rusting cities,
crumbling infrastructure, a school system that can't compete with even that of India American
Exceptionalism indeed. Exceptionally deluded.
At this point NATO is the muscle for projecting and maintaining Western (read US)
hegemony.
It's activities are a threat to sovereign nations that refuse to be Washington's vassals. So
they react with self-defensive postures and programs that NATO can claim are "aggression" in
order to justify its own existence.
According to Bank of America's
Mike Hartnett
, the "trade war" of 2018 should be recognized for what it really is: the
first stage of a new arms race between the US & China to reach national superiority in
technology over the longer-term via Quantum Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Hypersonic
Warplanes, Electronic Vehicles, Robotics, and Cyber-Security.
This is hardly a secret, as the China strategy is laid out in its "Made in China 2025"
blueprint: It aims to transform "China's industrial base" into a "smart manufacturing"
powerhouse via increase competitiveness and eroding of tech leadership of industrial trading
rivals, e.g. Germany, USA, South Korea; this is precisely what Peter Navarro has been raging
against and hoping to intercept China's ascent early on when it's still feasible.
The China First strategy will be met head-on by an America First strategy. Hence the "arms
race" in tech spending which in both countries is intimately linked with defense spending. Note
military spending by the US and China is forecast by the IMF to rise substantially in coming
decades, but the stunner is that by 2050, China is set to overtake the US, spending $4tn on its
military while the US is $1 trillion less, or $3tn.
This means that some time around 2038, roughly two decades from now, China will surpass the
US in military spending, and become the world's dominant superpower not only in population and
economic growth - China is set to overtake the
US economy by no later than 2032
- but in military strength and global influence as well.
And, as
Thucydides Trap clearly lays out
, that kind of unprecedented superpower transition - one
in which the world's reserve currency moves from state A to state B - always takes place in the
context of a war.
Which explains BofA's long-term strategic recommendation: " We believe investors should thus
own global defense, tech & cybersecurity stocks, particularly companies seen as "national
security champions" over the next 10-year s ."
And
in April
, an
unclassified
50-page transcript on Advance Policy Questions warned that Beijing has the capability and
capacity to control the South China Sea "in all scenarios short of war with the United
States."
In written testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, Adm. Davidson said China is
seeking "a long-term strategy to reduce the U.S. access and influence in the region," which he
claims the U.S. must maintain its critical military assets in the area. He views China as "no
longer a rising power," but rather a "great power and peer competitor to the United States in
the region." Adm. Davidson agreed with President Trump's recent assessment on China, calling
the country a "rival."
In response to questions about how the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea should handle the
increased military presence in the region. Adm. Davidson advocated for a sustained U.S.
military approach, with the increased investment in new high-tech weaponry.
"US operations in the South China Sea -- to include freedom of navigation operations --
must remain regular and routine. In my view, any decrease in air or maritime presence would
likely reinvigorate PRC expansion."
And in regards to the type of weapons, Adm. Davidson outlined some critical technologies for
immediate investment:
" A more effective Joint Force requires sustained investment in the following critical
areas: undersea warfare, critical munitions stockpiles, standoff weapons (Air-Air,
Air-Surface, Surface-Surface, Anti-Ship), intermediate range cruise missiles, low cost / high
capacity cruise missile defense, hypersonic weapons, air and surface lift capacity, cyber
capabilities, air-air refueling capacity, and resilient communication and navigation systems.
"
Adm. Davidson's testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, provided us with the
much-needed knowledge that American exceptionalism is quickly deteriorating in the South China
Sea after more than seventy years of control. The transcript reveals how America's military
will continue to drain the taxpayers, as it will need an increasing amount of investments and
military assets in the Eastern Hemisphere to protect whatever control it has left. The clash of
exceptionalism between Beijing and Washington is well underway, will war come next?
I am waiting for the typical response from the anti Jew ZH
crowd, to the effect that there won't be a wart in China until
Jews want authentic Chinese food on Sunday nights rather than
the American Chinese food.
More to the point, this article
is informative but looks at the trees without considering the
forest. China has a number of problems ahead in the not too
distant future that will sink their battleships and ruin their
plans for an expanded military that can fight wars.
First of all, they are in the early stages of seeing their
export empire get scaled back considerably. First the tariffs
will take a bite out of their income, then the inevitable
global recession, which will be as deep if not deeper than in
2009 and last longer as Central Banks don't have the bullets
this time to save the financial system. On top of that,
production costs inside China have been rising so much that
their huge price advantage over developed countries is
shrinking to the point where outsourcing to China does not
return an adequate enough amount of profit to justify the
outsourcing. In addition, China has some very large debts to
the external world, and the accruing interest over time will
take a progressively larger bite out of Chinese profits in the
future.
And then, in the final analysis, China's size precludes it
from getting involved in a war. Because of their huge
population, the only way to defeat the Chinese at war is to
nuke the rice out of them. As there are so many delivery
systems that can deliver nuclear payloads today, the Chinese
will not be able to defend against such an attack, and the
results would be horrific.
The Chinese are practical people who have little history as
war mongers. Its totally out of their character to be acting
in such a militaristic way. They are doing it to play the part
of the up and coming global power who uses its economic might
to project a military strength. Its all for show. The Chinese
do not want a large scale military war with a significant
world power, and they will not cause such to happen. The best
course for China is to take its export profits and start
developing the interior of its country.
I agree, this article doesn't discuss the increasing
fragility of the Chinese market. A great deal of fraud and
government manipulation underlies the Chinese economy,
including debts which are much greater than those of the
US. Throw in leverage that is based, oftentimes, on
nothing.
And there is always the Mandate of Heaven.
Empires rise and fall based on that and no Chinese leader,
not even the commies, ignore that.
From a purely military and strategic point of view, the USA is extremely vulnerable. It doesn't matter how much money Trump flushes down the toilet to the mega corp war machine, what is missing is a unified nation, under God (let's call it the Highest Good that each person seeks in all good faith on a daily basis). This nation is badly divided, and considerably weakened by the third world invasion. The niggas, la raza, antifa, the luciferians, the asians, they won't show up to fight, nor will the fairies and all their homosexual behaviorist sympathizers. And neither will the feminists and social justice warriors, and nor will the rank and file of the demonrat party. And neither will the hollyscum freaks, and all their sycophantic off shoots.
Did I miss anybody?
This nation has no soul. It is a place inhabited by narcissists, nihilists, the decadent and self indulgent, the immoral, and blasphemous, lovers of self and disloyal to everything and everyone except their carnal appetite.
The nation is overrun by the psychologically insane (definitely from a foreign power's point of view, whose mouths are drooling at the prospect of taking the nation for their own), and a government that promotes the insanity.
The only ppl left that might fight will be the handful of hired mercenaries already on the payroll, but they are only a few in number compared to the 2 billion Chinese. What's left of who else might fight are ppl who hate the government because it is a satanic institution riddled with jews who control it and wish for its total annihilation.
You can't save a country like this from an external attack.
And the US has no allies. Push come to shove, all those 'allies' will just step away and watch the destruction of the USA from afar. The jew can find another 'New York' to infest, or, like they did in Poland, made nice with Hitler once they saw Hitler was the man of the hour - the jew will do the same with the Chinese.
In a country where its own declaration of independence is determined to be 'hate speech' by an American corporation, where the nation is so weak as to not obliterate this corporation (fakebook), you tell me, exactly where is the core strength of the nation to defend itself?
I don't see it.
Don't be surprised to wake up one day to nukes and other sorts of bombs and missiles. Hated by all, totally divided within, controlled by lucifer, the USA is ripe for the picking - low lying fruit.
Which explains BofA's
long-term strategic
recommendation: "
We
believe investors should
thus own global defense,
tech & cybersecurity
stocks, particularly
companies seen as
"national security
champions" over the next
10-year
s
."
The Bankers recommend you
send them your money, so
you
can pay
for
their
war. Isn't that nice of
them.
Historically Japan is China's
rival. The US spends about 2.8X
more on the military, but it's
being wasted meddling in oppressive
countries civil wars. Our economy
(if Chinese numbers are believable)
is about 60% bigger than China's.
And as others have said, there's a
lot of corruption and debt in
China. They also have their MIC.
But most importantly, I don't
believe Xi wants to get into a war,
especially with the US. It's too
destructive, and they prefer to win
in the economic marketplace.
Maybe the US's military spending
is completely wasteful, but
maybe it isn't. What if the
reason for our invasion of
middle eastern countries served
a vital national interest (at
least, in the empire's eyes)
such that they were able to
shore up support for the current
global monetary paradigm (the
petrodollar) and also do the
bidding of Israel in the Middle
East? I mean, we must remember
back in the early aughts when
Saddam threatened to stop
accepting dollars and instead
accept euros and also gold I
believe. This was back when the
US was much more feared and
respected. We did this to
ourselves to some degree, but
also it is the cycle of empire.
Nothing is the same forever.
As bad as we may think the US's
global leadership is (and I'm
not making any apologies for it)
imagine when China assumes this
position how they would act? The
world under Chinese global
governance would probably be
much more authoritarian and much
less free. The US is trying to
continue the last vestiges of
it's republican heritage at home
while practicing Empire abroad.
Hoping to keep the current
global system intact. History
shows us that this is a losing
battle. I believe that the US
will always be a great power if
it's constituted the same as it
is now. Maybe after the mantle
of world hegemony is passed, the
US will revert back to how it
was pre-WW2. By all accounts,
economically, socially, in terms
of technological innovation, we
were the envy of the world and
everybody wanted to be part of
it. I would love to see us
return back to that state.
China's economy is fragile. Just the TALK
of tariffs has brought their stock market
down 25%. US still at record highs. Look
how every little tick up or down in their
currency causes instability. Yet simpletons
here think they can just wave their hands
and become the reserve currency. It's nuts.
China is still a turd world country with a
few showcase modern cities. They still have
600 million dirt poor slaves working for a
daily bowl of rice.
If they upgrade their military, in 2
decades they might challenge japan or south
korea. Right now either of them would stomp
china flat without US help. And Trump is on
to their tricks. The trade war will bring
back not only the jobs, but the investment
capital that they need for modernization.
China fucked up bigly by being too greedy
and arrogant. Now they will see their world
domination dreams fade away.
Stock market shmarket, given the
multicultural genetic crap flushing the
USA down the drain, my money is on the
Chinese long term. They have staying
power of a few thousand year history.
Bush-Clinton-Obama were happy to sell out to
the Chinese. That party is now over. There is a
new crew in charge. I don't know all the
players besides USA and Russia but China is not
invited.
The name of the game now is tech
isolation of the Dragon.
Would those leaks have been anything like the
US leaks, not so leaky. Leaks a way of making a
public statement, whilst neither confirming nor
denying the content of that statement.
The
way for the government of China to issue a
warning, without issuing a warning. No joke the
game they play is one of autocrats, they have
no qualms about taking out corporate leaders,
they are not a part of government in an
espionage assassination sense.
Many main land China businesses will have
little problem with paying bounties on the
random deaths of US troops when the US
interferes with their business via criminal
methods, fake terrorism et al. It will get
pretty messy and the message from China, yeah
they know the US will not attack them but use
terrorist like tactics to damage them and they
have no qualms about engaging in similar
tactics (not the government, just corporate
executives who know the government will not act
against them unless they fuck up in a big way).
They know more about what is going on in the
US deep state and US shadow government, than
those entities realise. Always keep in mind,
the punishment for failure at the high end of
town in China, is to be executed for
corruption, no fucking about, that is what they
do to their own, how do you think they will
treat others. They know, they absolutely know,
the US will not attack directly, as a result
the endless yapping dog screams about attacking
(played that card way, way too often) and when
it comes to a dirty war, China will win because
they will target the real heads of the snake,
not the sellout empty suit politicians or
equally worthless political appointees.
Honestly I am kind of comfortable with the
various psychopaths in suits running
corporations 'er' sanctioning each other (as
long as they avoid collateral damage), US
executives travelling abroad will need to be
quite careful if they are playing attack China
game for global domination, the only thing they
will end up dominating is a very tiny plot of
land. The Chinese are very skilled herbalists
be careful what you eat.
A society that never existed. America's great strength has always been
(and still is) geography. We have the best farmland in the world and
its dissected by a river system that allows us to ship production
anywhere. We have an ocean to the east, and ocean to the west, Canada
(the ultimate beta country) to the north and Mexico (dirt poor and
reliant on us) to the south. Freedom was the most useful concept in
the history of the world. Tell the serfs they own the land and they'll
work their asses off to make it better. When they do, we'll take it
back. I'm not wrong...
This isn't about who's nicer or least war prone. Countries act in their
own best interests, except The Anglo countries, which run chronic trade
debt for their parasitic banking sectors. Since so much of the world
depends on The American export market, they will align with The U.S. The
PRC won't buy their manufactured goods. If the author believes Europe and
East Asia will align with The PRC in a war, he has little experience with
East Asian people, and he ignores NATO.
whilst I agree on a lot of what you say about China, you'd have to
offset this with a state of the union analysis - what is so great about
the decaying US imperium and its zero crumbling infrastructure... on
the subject of debt, well the US has it all - domesric, national,
personal to the extent that unless it can carry on printing the dollar,
it more or less will collapse instantly. And this is really where the
danger is, I agree that China is definitely not interested in a war -
never has been. But Washington on the other hand is fast approaching
the point where war is the only option...
I pray this doesn't happen
but on the other hand, Washington will need to be brought to heel one
way or another for the world to become normal again. And for this, you
can count on China to deliver some strikes the likes of which America
has never seen if it comes to that. Destruction of major american
cities will very quickly bring America down if this war scenario
unfolds. Because america has never seen war on its own turf, it will be
totally unable to cope.
Is this kind of misleading and sensational headline
what's known as "click bait?"
The documents do NOT say "war is unavoidable" as per the headline.
Instead, the leaked documents say that at least someone in China
believes a strong military is the best way to "
escape the
obsession
that war is unavoidable between an emerging power
and a ruling hegemony".
"... On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have WMDs. ..."
"... An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else. ..."
On an optimistic (sort of) note: the US never deliberately attacks a country that has
WMDs. The very fact that the US attacked Iraq and Syria shows that Deep State was 100% sure
that those countries do not have WMDs. The US never attacked North Korea because it does have
WMDs.
An avalanche of mistakes leading to the nuclear war between the US and Russia or China
is still possible. Then we all lose. Consolation prize: warmongering mega-thieves and the
scum serving them in the media will be just as dead as everybody else.
WHEN IS MUELLER GOING TO INVESTIGATE AIPAC MEDDLING IN EVERY ELECTION?
Thanks for the excellent article, like usual, Mr. Giraldi. Great points. Both parties are
on the payroll of AIPAC. USA is banana republic, of Israel.
It is amazing the fake news network called CNN talks about the fake Russian interference
in the last election the whole day, but AIPAC interferes in every election of virtually every
candidate and virtually every President. When is Mueller going to investigate the biggest
foreign lobby in USA -- AIPAC?
Discussion on another thread of motives Israel might have had for killing JFK included
suggestions that the Kennedy brothers attempts to get Zioniist lobbyists to register as
foreign agents might have been very serious for Israel. Without doing the research which a
lawyer being paid for his opinion would put into it I nonetheless formed a confident view
that the argument had no legs.
No it appears AIPAC isn't a foreign lobby. If you don't like what it does you would say it
is much worse – but untouchable by Mueller.
It is perhaps peripheral to your comment but I suggest that the reality is that the same
rich Americans who have long supported Israel have set up perfectly legal American
organizations that happen to reflect Israeli policy in their lobbying without being legally
controlled or controllable by Israel.
but it's a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met
with the same opprobrium.
Also the intentional starving of children in Yemen. And the huge pile of dead babies in
Iraq, Libya and Syria. All of them murdered by Imperial Washington.
I much prefer President Trump to any of the candidates he defeated in the primaries and
general election. But I regret that he is a Jew.
"... "The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines, rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the ministry. ..."
"... "The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have to pay in the U.S. ..."
"... The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the WTO rules," he said. ..."
Whether this is a coordinated response is unclear - and certainly on a much smaller scale -
but Bloomberg reports that Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree this morning
imposing higher tariffs on U.S. products in retaliation for U.S. duties on metals imports,
according to Economy Ministry statement.
Reuters reports that Russia's additional duties will apply to imports of fiber optics,
equipment for road construction, oil and gas industry, metal processing and mining, according
to an economy ministry statement.
Russia will impose duties on goods which have Russian-made substitutes, Economy Minister
Maxim Oreshkin is quoted as saying in the statement.
"The compensation measures will be applied in the form of additional, higher rates of
import duties ranging from 25% to 40% of the price of imported goods. Duties will be imposed on
some U.S. goods, the analogues of which are produced in Russia. In particular, the measures
cover some types of road construction equipment, oil and gas equipment, metalworking machines,
rock drilling equipment, and optical fiber," Minister Maxim Oreshkin said as quoted by the
ministry.
"The financial damage inflicted on Russian exporters by the U.S. trade restrictions
amounts to $537.6 million. This is the amount of additional duties that Russian suppliers have
to pay in the U.S.
The current increase of duties allows us to compensate for only part of the damage
amounting to $87.6 million. This is compensation that Russia has the right to recover under the
WTO rules," he said. Russia will be able to compensate for the remaining part in three
years since the introduction of the U.S. duties or after approval of the WTO dispute settlement
body if it finds the U.S. restrictions violating the organization's rules, the ministry
said.
Makes you wonder how long Russia will stay with WTO - just like Trump - if this is all the
response "you're allowed."
In my last post, I mentioned the fake news that suddenly appeared to undermine President
Trump's peace effort with North Korea. I now learn the sole source of this "news" is Ken
Dilanian, the former national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He was
fired for having a "collaborative relationship" with the CIA . Ken Dilanian was publicly
fired from a major newspaper for inventing fake news in collaboration with the CIA, yet was
hired by NBC News! Now NBC allows him to write national security articles citing unnamed
intelligence sources! The worst part is that dozens of other corporate news organizations cite
his NBC stories. If they insist on repeating fake news, they should print this disclaimer at
the beginning of his articles:
Warning: This writer was fired by the Los Angeles Times for producing fake news in
secret cooperation with the CIA.
My personal opinion: it is exactly "Paris is worth a mass" conversion. It is based on
Putin's actions, which suggest a very pragmatic (you can say cynical) person, who has the
benefits of his country in mind (rather, who believes that benefits for his country are the
best benefits for him). I could be wrong, though.
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of
the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity.
No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back
to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the
secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his
least attractive features.
Thankfully that chapter of history is over
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is -- to
borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song -- is more alive than the living. The Soviet
period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every
area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.
It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet
standards -- culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would
disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the
Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does -- the Soviet Union will live one.
@Quartermaster While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much
truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than
conspiracy theories.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.
Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible
that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he
knows what is going on.
While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron
Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern
Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the
extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate
as well.
Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper
concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished
to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he
impoverishes his people even more.
"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most
unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by
virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American)))
advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up
dead.
The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize
Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the
West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and
prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime
example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted
should we be so inclined?
It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats
cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West
organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate
"government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine
is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and
fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did
was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed
for that.
Why (Oh Why) do they hate the Russians so much? Let me try to answer that question. Most
armies in history were created for the purpose of enriching the host country by looting
foreign lands. US are bucking that trend – they have an army that's looting mostly the
host country for enriching the same army and those who support it (domestically).
Also, the best armies in history usually belonged to whoever happened to be the economic
powerhouse at the moment – examples are too many to list them all – ancient Rome,
Great Britain 16-19 century, France 19 century, Germany 19-20 century.
There are exceptions to this rule, of course – Genghis Khan – the Mongols
hardly an economic powerhouse, yet a number one military power of its time.
Then we come to Russia. I don't know when exactly Russia underwent the Genghis Khanisation
process, but it's apparent that they did and it served them well throughout their history.
Meaning that their army usually outperforms their economy, and that's what's driving the west
mad at least since Napoleon's times.
They think that Russia doesn't deserve to be a powerhouse like they are thanks to their
military, because they believe that other than their military, the Russians are culturally,
economically, civilizationally, and yes – even genetically inferior to the west.
Tough luck, chums. I have one answer to that: Maybe it's not Russia's fault that
militarily they have always managed to outperform the west. Maybe the fault lies with you.
How can you blame Russia for the fact that your armies suck? But, as they say in the US
– you got to support the troops.
It's not just the media. The late night talk show hosts are doing their bit too, as I
heard last night on a Jimmy Kimmel rerun (of a recent show). Can't remember the context as I
was doing the dishes, but did hear him say the usual "Russian illegally annexed Crimea"
standard phrase, immediately followed by "and then invaded Ukraine". The latter just casually
tossed off as a given. People hear these memes constantly repeated and, regardless of their
veracity (suspect to say the least) it becomes part of their worldview.
Who is behind the political preaching of hosts like Jimmy Kimmel ? Inquiring minds want to
know !
Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 2:43 pm
You know what irina, seeing these late night talk shows go all crazy over Putin makes me
think of the Zio-Media executives, and where their allegiance to power resides. Joe
irina -- I quite agree. The same is true of the former Daily Show crew members who now
have their own shows. Several have shown themselves to be quite the little imperialist war
mongers when it comes to gleefully repeating the CIA sponsored Syrian regime change and
Russiagate propaganda. Samantha Bee & John Oliver kept triggering my gag reflex with
their propaganda lines until I found a simple but effective solution and stopped watching
them altogether. We have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in the U.S. One can
chose to either get one's "pro-war regime change propaganda" delivered with barely concealed
racism and misogyny from Fox News, or instead opt for hearing the same nonsense delivered
with pretentious blather and catchy jazz interludes at PBS. American democracy is all about
having "choices."
Jeff Harrison , July 5, 2018 at 7:57 pm
I quite agree. I knew the minute that they started calling RT a propaganda outlet that, in
fact, the USG was running a full scale propaganda operation. I don't know if I simply wasn't
paying enough attention or if they have, in fact ramped the operation up, but I can hardly
read any MSM outlet's output without calling bullshit on it.
irina , July 6, 2018 at 2:55 am
Jimmy Kimmel actually used to be funny and there is a really good clip (somewhere on
youtube no doubt) of him reading a 'doctored' Dr. Seuss
book to The Donald (a live guest) during his primary candidacy.
But since The Donald's election Kimmel has opened almost every show with 'ten minutes
hate' segment on The Donald. I still watch (or at least listen) occasionally because I want
to know what is being fed to The Public.
You are absolutely right though, "we have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in
the US". The average person maybe has 30 minutes to devote to the news, between getting home
and having dinner; they watch some sort of news show and think they are 'informed'. But it
actually takes MANY hours and a knowledge of alternative websites to even begin to piece
together an approximation of what might, in reality, be going on.
The Russians used to say that, at least they knew they were being propagandized.
Unfortunately, probably due to 'American Exceptionalism', most Americans think the MSM is
bringing them 'the truth'. But nothing could be further from The Truth.
"... "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power." ..."
"... Wolfowitz's document was leaked before release, and its bald-faced call for Imperial conquest caused enough of a noise that it was hastily rewritten before its official release a month later. ..."
The personal viciousness of the Neocons' attacks on Putin and Russia may have something to do
with ancient memories (however false they may be), but the geopolitical & geo-economic
challenges that the US & West faces compels even good old-fashioned Anglo-Imperialists to
say nasty things about Russia.
Since Putin came to power, Russia has been working the Plan. Its strategic objectives are
to rejuvenate and consolidate the "Russian World" in Mackinder's Heartland, and from there to
leverage its enormous geographical size & natural resource base to become the
central power on the Eurasian continent. It's unique position culturally and geographically
allows it to aspire to being the Grand Arbiter of Eurasian affairs, the only nation able to
link the two ends of the continent geographically, economically and culturally.
When Wolfowitz wrote his now infamous words
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that
posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new
regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from
dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to
generate global power."
he was channelling Mackinder who said
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.
Wolfowitz's document was leaked before release, and its bald-faced call for Imperial
conquest caused enough of a noise that it was hastily rewritten before its official release a
month later.
The manner of the Wolfowitz Doctrine's emergence was a harbinger of the sort of half-assed
attempt at empire the US embarked on. When it comes to Empire building, one is well advised
to either Go Big, or Go Home. In the event, stretching its half-baked, incoherent doctrines
to the breaking point, a series of inevitable fiascos followed and what we're seeing now is
the last desperate attempts to keep its satraps onside by bamboozling their publics and
making it difficult for clear sighted politicians to lead their countries away from the
increasingly loud sucking sound coming out of Washington. As even that tactic is now failing,
the US will soon face another Go Big, or Go Home moment.
Exactly. "Elites" are doing it. They own Hollywood, too. Republicans like Trump, Ryan,
Graham aren't groveling before organized Int'l Jewry when they take orders from
"billionaires," not at all. It's Chamber of Commerce nerds they secretly answer to, you see,
not Int'l Jewry's Wall Street and Fed, whose business is tricking a profit from honest
American labor wherever it's found, while (apparently for laughs) calling this extortion the
efficient allocation of scarce financial resources. It's all so farcically obvious at this
point yet Conservatism Inc is telling us it's all MAGA magic. Have to love this new face of
Conservatism Inc, too -- a fruitcake whose sexuality derives from an obsession with male
defecation to the extent his kind ingest feces and genital excreta and call it luv.
Nonetheless, the CUFIs will be sending their sons to die and lose their limbs to turn the ME
into one big Tel Aviv and in the process leave poor Moloch seeming like Mickey Mouse in
comparison.
the US will soon face another Go Big, or Go Home moment.
US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option,
unless one wants to start a global war. But I in general agree with your thesis.
Yes, Stalin was not Jewish, but what would you say was the Jewish role (if any) with the
Bolshevik revolution (and the Holodomor and the rest of the horrors visited upon Russia and
beyond, -as described by Solzhenitsyn- by Jewish finance, intrigue, treachery and genocidal
villainy)?
Look first at the list of first Sovnarkom, for starters. Jewish finance and interests were
important but only, again, as part of the puzzle. I do not consider Solzhenitsyn a good
writer, even less a competent Russia historian, not to mention him being a complete amateur
in any affairs pertaining defining military and political factors which led to two Russian
Revolutions (in fact, three, once 1905 is considered). So, I am not interested in discussing
the work of falsifiers.
If the ECB, (an extension of Rothschild's Fed) were in the hands of Gentiles, do you
think Europe would be committing ethnic suicide?
The ongoing White Goyim Genocide project is proof positive that the Tribe is holding the
reigns. Our own gentile "elites" are getting played into this suicide just like everyone
else. Only the lies differ. They don't know that their seat of "power" is at the kiddie table
and that it has an expiration date.
Russia's history is a bit more complex than some Manichean struggle between evil Jews
and noble Russian Orthodox Christians.
obviously
In fact, it is infinitely more complex.
I've delved a bit into it. Read some books and such. But my education is always
incomplete, and I'm an eternal student.
But if you want to view it as one unstoppable Jewish juggernaut against Christ-loving
Russians, who am I to suggest to you otherwise.
naw, that's not how I see it.
The reason I bring up Jews is because I see them as often times bad actors that are
causing dire problems right now, today, in this world. And menacing things I value, like
peace, when peace is practicable.
When you talk about the infinite complexity of Russia's history, so too is that history
tied to her neighbors, and Ukraine's history as well. (I suspect you know where I'm going
with this ; )
So what some very clever and sinister people might do, is use that history and certain
fault lines in the Russian and Ukrainian narratives, to foist strife and death and misery and
war. You see?
Now you may say that Poroshenko is not a Jew, and as far as I know, that's right, (or not,
I don't really know or care), but what I do know, and do care about, is the way neocon Jews
(and goyim stooges) in my country have cynically used those historic fault lines to foment
strife and war.
The way I see contemporary Russian history is one that following the collapse of the SU,
Russia was looted during Yeltin's drunken reign by Rothschild agents known as the "Russian"
oligarchs, (a few of which seem to have been actual ethnic Russians), and from there how
Putin heroically wrested the destiny of Russia from these bad actors.
Then it was on to a bright future, except then Putin grew alarmed by what he saw happening
to Libya, to be followed by Syria and what was it Gen. Clark said.., seven other
countries?
So he put the kibosh in Syria's destabilization, and by doing so, earned the wrath of the
Zionists.
Whereupon neocon Jews like Nuland installed Jews like Yatz in a coup that here in the ZUS
they called "democracy".
The reason ((they)) did that, was to stick a pointed stick into the Russian bear, for
defying ((their)) agenda in the greater Levant.
That's why they blamed Putin for MH17.
That's (probably) why they lowered the price of oil, to harm Putin (and Venezuela and
others)
That's why our media are 24/7, 365 screeching that PUTIN IS HITLER!!!
Because, as far as I can tell, it is Putin that is the only resistance to whatever Bibi
wants.
Because what I can tell you, is that Russia or no Russia, Bibi gets what ever he wants
from "our" fecal government, always.
And so because of this dire paradigm, I do sometimes mention that it is Jewish
supremacists that are foisting these wars. And causing great strife between Russia and the
rest of the world.
I don't fulminate about Jewish supremacists because they stole my twinkle, no.
I talk about Zionist intrigue because that is exactly why the world is demanding that
Putin return Crimea. And pay for the deaths on MH17, and why thousands have died in Donbas,
etc..
These things didn't happen in a vacuum. There are actors involved, and geopolitics, and
Machiavellian intrigues and machinations that should be exposed IMHO.
If the ECB, (an extension of Rothschild's Fed) were in the hands of Gentiles, do you
think Europe would be committing ethnic suicide?
Western Liberalism doesn't have Jewish roots, unless one wants to associate capitalism
with Jews only, which is not the case. This liberalism is flesh and blood of the
Enlightenment and Europe's current problems have roots in this liberalism, together with the
post-WW II cultural shock. It is also rooted in the United States emerging from this war
unscathed. So, no it is not just the tribe, it is the whole clockwork of Western Civilization
and its leader, the United States, which drives it into the gutter. Jews here are just for
the ride and chutzpa–US and Jews were created for each-other. "Rothschild's Fed" in
this case but one of many institutions which was created to enrich a rather substantial (to
put it mildly) American strata of radically not-Jewish waspies who are now trying to find any
justification (and excuses) for them screwing their own country into the increasingly grim
future. Per tribe, ask yourself a question WHO owns this site and who allows, including very
many openly mental people, to freely and openly express their opinions? Is Ron Unz, who is a
real cultural American asset (even though I do not always agree with him) a tribe or not?
Guess who is the most vocal and courageous fighter against anti-Russian madness in US?
Professor Stephen Cohen, is he a tribe?
Here is a great British historian for ya:
"This swift decline in British vigor at home and the failure to exploit the empire were
not owing to some inevitable senescent process of history .That cause was a political
doctrine .The doctrine was liberalism, which criticized and finally demolished the
traditional conception of the nation-state as a collective organism, a community, and
asserted instead the primacy of individual. According to liberal thinking a nation was no
more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws .It was Adam
Smith who formulated the doctrine of Free Trade, the keystone of liberalism, which was to
exercise a long-live and baneful effect on British power .Adam Smith attacked the traditional
"mercantilist" belief that a nation should be generally self-supporting "
"The Collapse Of British Power", Correlli Barnett. William Morrow & Company, Inc. New
York, 1972. Page 91.
Now ask yourself a question–IS the United States a nation-state?
The liberalism of the Enlightenment meant that we should all use our rationality to
question the dogmas (and the leaders) of the day, and put them to the test of reason.
That's why it's also known as the Age of Reason.
You obviously intent on ignoring economics of the issue and transition from one mode of
production to another. It was this thing which predetermined all others. I do have 1929
(IIRC) version of Paine's Age of Reason.
US doesn't have resources anymore of "going big". It is not realistically an option
I know, and should probably have made it clearer that when faced with that decision, the
US will have to go home. The top levels of the USM pyramid know well the limits of the box
they've gotten themselves into. They've built the wrong force structure for the world as it
is and will be.
Madeleine Albright's famous question to Gen. Powell 'What's the point of having this
superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' can now be re-worded to
ask "What's the point of having this enormous military edifice and expenditure if it isn't
superb, or even effective?" The answer is that there is no point. Much of it can be
jettisoned without affecting the US' real strategic situation, and almost all of it if
its mandate were to be shrunk to defence of its homeland and close allies.
The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely to
have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home". I can't even imagine
how they're gonna do this in an organized way, but it's in everybody's interest that it
happens as smoothly as possible. That those two seem to have built a professional rapport and
even understanding is heartening.
The recent 6hr meeting in Finland between Gerasimov and Dunford, is (I believe) likely
to have dealt with some of the parameters governing the USM's "going home"
Most likely, at least Dunford, unlike most of US establishment is professional. Look up
Rostislav Ishenko's latest excellent piece yesterday:
Frankly, I always read Rostislav Ischenko with interest. After all, he worked for the
Ukrainian government, including Ukrainian Foreign Affairs ministry, until 2014, when it
became abundantly clear that project "Ukraine" is an abject failure. He has a lot of inside
knowledge, although he sometimes predicts as imminent things that happen a year or two after
his predictions. But in most things he tends to be right.
jumping the shark ...revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received .. For all your research can you not see a false flag, i.e. manufactured event for public
consumption
confused see Operation Gladio
Few issues generate a bipartisan response in Washington. President Donald Trump's upcoming
summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin is one.
Democrats who once pressed for détente with the Soviet Union act as if Trump will be
giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Neoconservatives and other Republican hawks are equally
horrified, having pressed for something close to war with Moscow since the latter's annexation
of Crimea in 2014. Both sides act as if the Soviet Union has been reborn and Cold War has
restarted.
Russia's critics present a long bill of requirements to be met before they would relax
sanctions or otherwise improve relations. Putin could save time by agreeing to be an American
vassal.
Topping everyone's list is Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was outrageous.
Protecting the integrity of our democratic system is a vital interest, even if the American
people sometimes treat candidates with contempt. Before joining the administration National
Security Adviser John Bolton even called Russian meddling "a casus belli , a true act of
war."
Yet Washington has promiscuously meddled in other nations' elections. Carnegie Mellon's Dov
H. Levin figured that between 1946 and 2000 the U.S. government interfered with 81 foreign
contests, including the 1996 Russian poll. Retired U.S. intelligence officers freely admit that
Washington has routinely sought to influence other nations' elections.
Yes, of course, Americans are the good guys and favor politicians and parties that the other
peoples would vote for if only they better understood their own interests -- as we naturally
do. Unfortunately, foreign governments don't see Uncle Sam as a Vestal Virgin acting on behalf
of mankind. Indeed, Washington typically promotes outcomes more advantageous to, well,
Washington. Perhaps Trump and Putin could make a bilateral commitment to stay out of other
nations' elections.
Another reason to shun Russia, argued Senator Rob Portman, is because "Russia still occupies
Crimea and continues to fuel a violent conflict in eastern Ukraine." Moscow annexed Crimea
after a U.S.-backed street putsch ousted the elected but highly corrupt Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych. The territory historically was Russian, turned over to Ukraine most likely
as part of a political bargain in the power struggle following Joseph Stalin's death. A
majority of Crimeans probably wanted to return to Russia. However, the annexation was
lawless.
Rather like America's dismemberment of Serbia, detaching Kosovo after mighty NATO entered
the final civil war growing out of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Naturally, the U.S. again had
right on its side -- it always does! -- which obviously negated any obligations created by
international law. Ever-virtuous Washington even ignored the post-victory ethnic cleansing by
Albanian Kosovars
Still, this makes Washington's complaints about Russia seem just a bit hypocritical: do as
we say, not as we do. In August 2008 John McCain expressed outrage over Russia's war with
Georgia, exclaiming: "In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." Apparently he
forgot that five years before the U.S. invaded Iraq, with McCain's passionate support. Here,
too, the two presidents could agree to mutual forbearance.
Worse is the conflict in the Donbas, in eastern Ukraine, between the Ukrainian army and
separatists backed by Russia. Casualty estimates vary widely, but are in the thousands. Moscow
successfully weakened Kiev and prevented its accession to NATO. However, that offers neither
legal nor moral justification for underwriting armed revolt.
Alas, the U.S. again comes to Russia with unclean hands. Washington is supporting the brutal
war by Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates against Yemen. Area specialists agree that the
conflict started as just another violent episode in a country which has suffered civil strife
and war for decades. The Houthis, a tribal/ethnic/religious militia, joined with their
long-time enemy, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, to oust his successor, Abdrabbuh Mansur
Hadi. Riyadh and Abu Dhabi attacked to reinstall a pliable regime and win economic control. The
U.S. joined the aggressors . At least Russia could claim national security was at stake,
since it feared Ukraine might join NATO.
The "coalition" attack turned the Yemeni conflict into a sectarian fight, forced the Houthis
to seek Iranian aid, and allowed Tehran to bleed its Gulf rivals at little cost. Human rights
groups agree that the vast majority of civilian deaths and bulk of destruction have been caused
by Saudi and Emirati bombing, with Washington's direct assistance. The humanitarian crisis
includes a massive cholera epidemic. The security consequences include empowering al-Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula. Perhaps the U.S. and Russian governments could commit to jointly forgo
supporting war for frivolous causes.
Human carnage and physical destruction are widespread in Syria. It will take years to
rebuild homes and communities; the hundreds of thousands of dead can never be replaced. Yet
Moscow has gone all out to keep Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power. The Heritage
Foundation's Luke Coffey and Alexis Mrachek demand that Moscow end its support for Assad "and
demonstrate a genuine willingness to work with the international community to bring a political
end to the Syrian civil war." The American Enterprise Institute's Leon Aron urged "a true
Russian withdrawal from Syria, specifically ceding control of the Hmeymim airbase and
dismantling recent expansions to the Tartus naval facility."
But the U.S. is in no position to complain. Washington's intervention has been disastrous,
first discouraging a negotiated settlement, then promoting largely non-existent moderate
insurgents, backing radicals, including the al-Qaeda affiliate (remember 9/11!?) against Assad,
simultaneously allying with Kurds and Turks, and taking over the fight against the Islamic
State even though virtually everyone in the Mideast had reason to oppose the group.
At least Russia, invited by the recognized government, had a reason to be there. Moscow's
alliance with Syria dates back to the Cold War and poses no threat to America, which is allied
with Israel, the Gulf States, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt. Washington also possesses military
facilities in Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and United Arab Emirates. For most Middle Eastern countries Moscow is primarily
a bargaining chip to extort more benefits from America. Trump could propose that both countries
withdraw from Syria.
Coffey and Mracek also express outrage that Moscow "has weaponized its natural gas exports
to Europe, turning off the tap when countries dare go against its wishes." Russia's customers
should not fear coercion via cut-off. Of course, the U.S. never uses its economic power for
political ends. Other than to routinely impose economic sanctions on a variety of nations on
its naughty list. And to penalize not only American firms, but businesses from every other
nation .
Indeed, the Trump administration is insisting that every company in every country stop doing
business with Iran. The U.S. government will bar violators from the U.S. market or impose
ruinous fines on them. The Trump administration plans to sanction even its European allies,
those most vulnerable to Russian energy politics. Which suggests a modus vivendi that
America's friends likely would applaud: both Washington and Moscow could promise not to take
advantage of other nations' economic vulnerabilities for political ends.
Cyberwar is a variant of economic conflict. Heritage's Mracek cited "the calamitous
cyberattack, NotPetya," as "part of Russia's effort to destabilize Ukraine even further than in
the past." Yes, a criminal act. Of course, much the same could be said of Stuxnet, which was
thought to be a joint American-Israeli assault on Iran's nuclear program. And there are reports
of U.S. attempts to similarly hamper North Korean missile development. Some consider such
direct attacks on other governments to be akin to acts of war. Would Washington join Moscow in
a pledge to become a good cyber citizen?
Virtually everyone challenges Russia on human rights. Moscow falls far short, with Putin's
control of the media, manipulation of the electoral process, and violence against those
perceived as regime enemies. In this regard, at least, America is far better.
But many U.S. allies similarly fail this test. For instance, Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan has created an authoritarian state retaining merely the forms of democracy. Egypt's
President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has constructed a tyranny more brutal than that of Hosni
Mubarak. Saudi Arabia's monarchy allows neither religious nor political freedom, and has grown
more repressive under Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. It is not just Trump who remains
largely silent about such assaults on people's basic liberties. So do many of the president's
critics, who express horror that he would deal with such a man as Putin.
Moscow will not be an easy partner for the U.S. Explaining that "nobody wanted to listen to
us" before he took over, in March Putin declared: "You hear us now!" Compromise is inevitable,
but requires respect for both nations' interests. A starting point could be returning the two
nations' embassies to full strength and addressing arms control, such as the faltering
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and soon-expiring Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. A
larger understanding based on NATO ending alliance expansion in return for Russia withdrawing
from the conflict in the Donbas would be worth pursuing.
Neither the U.S. nor the Russian Federation can afford to allow their relations to
deteriorate into another Cold War. Russia is too important on too many issues, including acting
as a counterweight to China, the most serious geopolitical challenge to the U.S. Hopefully the
upcoming summit will begin the difficult process of rebuilding a working relationship between
Washington and Moscow.
A NATO summit approaches that brings Donald Trump to Europe and then on to these shores, and
brings the usual clamour for more of the taxpayers' money to be given to arms
manufacturers.
Yet NATO is a demonstrably useless institution. It's largest ever active military
deployment, for 12 years in Afghanistan, resulted in military defeat throughout 80% of the
country, the installation of a pocket regime whose scrip does not run further than you can
throw the scrip, and a vast outflow of heroin to finance the criminal underworld throughout
NATO countries. In invading Afghanistan and boosting the heroin warlords, NATO countries
destabilised themselves
NATO's second biggest military operation ever was the attack on Libya, where NATO carried
out an incredible 14,200 bombing sorties using high explosive munitions and devastated Libya's
infrastructure and entire cities. Here is Sirte after NATO "liberation".
The direct result of the devastation of Libya and destruction of its government
infrastructure has been the massive untrammelled exodus of migrants, especially from West
Africa, through Libya and across the Mediterranean on boats. This has not only led to the
appalling exploitation and tragic death of many migrants, it has fundamentally weakened the
governments and indeed governing public ethos of European NATO member states and led to a right
wing populist surge throughout much of the EU.
In short, in destroying Libya, NATO members destabilised themselves The direct result of
NATO's destruction of Libya.
Now NATO is focusing once more on the original "threat" it was supposed to combat, a Russian
invasion of Western Europe.
Russia has absolutely no intention of invading Western Europe. The very notion is ludicrous.
It does not require NATO to deter a threat that does not exist.
Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia alone have a combined GNP as big as Russia. On a
purchasing power parity basis, if you add in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania those Eastern
states still match Russia economically. On a PPP basis, the combined GDP of all NATO states is
12 times that of Russia.
Russia does have disproportionate military power for its size – but not that much.
Russia's defence spending is one sixth that of NATO defence spending, though it is slightly
more efficient because, despite corruption, less of Russia's defence spending goes into the
pockets of arms company shareholders, lobbyists, politicians and other fatcats than happens in
the West. But that cannot outweigh Russia's massive economic disadvantage. Nothing can. Russia
is very well placed to defend itself, but in no position to attack major powers.
Russia's foreign policy successes – in Crimea, Syria and Georgia – have been
based not on massive military strength – the NATO powers far outweigh Russia there
– but simply on much better statecraft. And NATO, for all the trillions western taxpayers
spend on it, has been unable to do anything about it, despite the fact that Russian actions in
Crimea and Georgia have been illegal in international law.
In fact if anybody has not worked out by now that our famed nuclear arsenal is a chocolate
teapot, then they have not been paying attention. In none of the recent foreign policy crises
– including the North Korean nuclearisation issue – nobody, anywhere, ever has
mentioned Trident missiles as part of the solution. They are utterly worthless.
The threat of a Russian attack on NATO itself is non-existent. The EU is not officially a
military alliance but the idea that any part of EU territory could be subject to invasion
without the rest of the EU reacting is a political impossibility. It is very plain that
Vladimir Putin's policy is to reincorporate into Russia those bordering pockets of ethnic
Russians in former Soviet states. But this has been approached piecemeal and avoiding major
confrontation. There is no practical threat to the Baltic states whose security is already de
facto guaranteed by EU membership.
So NATO's role of defence against Russia is otiose, and its wider military adventures have
been a total disaster.
Finally, a thought about China. I cannot think of a parallel to China these last two
decades, where any country in history has obtained so much economic pre-eminence in the World
and shown so very little interest in military expansion. The invasion of Tibet occurred before
China's economic flowering, and the South China Sea dispute is hardly the invasion of Iraq. I
do not claim any expertise in Chinese culture or thought, but they appear to realise that
dominance can be achieved by more subtle means than the sword. It is going to be a fascinating
few decades as China rapidly overtakes the USA in the superpower stakes.
This is like a chess party in real with this British journalist carefully prepared traps and
polished ability to misinterpret the statements. Fascinating watch. Lavrow proved to be on the
top of the game, despite severe disadvantages of not knowing what he will be asked.
Levett Prins comment is brilliant "''Are you accusing the British government of a cover-up of
this incident?'' (Skripal) ... Was waiting for Lavrov to say ''Yes, it is highly
likely''
Notable quotes:
"... No shortage of shameless journalists these days. I am sure this woman isn't stupid but probably she willingly accepted to carryout slanderous line of questioning in return for some money. The foreign minister totally schooled her. ..."
Exclusive Channel 4 News interview with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He
accuses Britain of 'extermination of the evidence' in the Skripal poisoning and of 'all kinds
of tricks' to change the rules of the OPCW.
(Click to subscribe for more Channel 4 News videos.
He described that as a 'violation' of the chemical weapons convention and said that if the
OPCW was not repaired 'the days of the OPCW would be counted, at least it would not remain as a
universal organisation'
The BS, smarmy so called journo interview was as embarrassingly short of fact and proper
technique as compared with Lavrov's usual master classic diplomacy and truth telling. Having
been part of this circus called British MSM journalism many years ago I see now just a
cesspit of gutter process measly condoning and supporting the Western Gov narrative. No 4th
estate this
Is it just me or is her go to technique in any interview to completely misinterpret
statements and then asks shitty gotcha questions based on her complete lack of understanding
of what he is saying? A good interviewer holds their interviewee to account for what they
say. not make up a complete competing narrative to what the person in front of them has just
said and then battle that fictional ghost.
C4 thumbnail "we dont like anybody" the guy was saying they keep professional state level
relations between countries and C4 prints this pugnacious bs without the context? how does
this not break any press laws? not that more laws are the answer theyd have a field day with
their 1984 fake news label
What he actually talks about: diplomacy and foreign relations aren't about who you "like"
and don't "like" - they're about pragmatism and interests. Video thumbnail: "We don't like
anybody" This is just clickbait spin. And it doesn't help anyone.
Let's face it, the UK is a postmodern neo-Marxist shithole, which is completely falling
apart. It went passed the point of no return and now it's only a matter of time until it
collapses completely.
these journalists are so embarrassing to watch. they always sadly try to interview Putin
and Lavrov with these silly/fictional/propaganda questions and look stupid after!!!
You know, as Americans, we find it hilarious that outlets like BBC and Channel 4 are
considered legitimate outlets while RT is accused of being a propaganda outlet. The
interviewer here proves the hypocrisy when Lavrov talks about the migrant exit provided by
NATO's bombing of Libya and the interviewer accuses Russia's involvement in Syria for
creating the refugee crisis. We remember - Lavrov is correct: Russia, which had, like us, a
few advisers in place prior to this point, announced full-blown intervention in mid- to late
August, 2015, and the full-blown intervention began in September, 2015. Those images of
hundreds of thousands of migrants tramping through the Balkans, Hungary and Austria were from
June-August, 2015. So, the interviewer was dutifully repeating a government propaganda line
that Russia is causing the migrant crisis by intervening in Syria when the largest migrant
flow preceded Russia's intervention in Syria. And of course, that propaganda line completely
ignores our own State Department's statements encouraging the "Arab Spring" which made messes
from which Libya, Syria and Egypt have never fully recovered. Egypt has a major problem in
Sinai. Libya and Syria are complete messes. Tunisia, where it all started, has economic
problems exacerbated by the attacks on tourists. The Yemen situation was part of it all, and
the U.N. is projecting 18 million dead from starvation, never mind the cholera epidemic. Yes,
indeed, we in the West are bringing freedom and happiness everywhere, aren't we? We learned
nothing from the Soviet Union's peaceful collapse after 75 years (with no whole-hearted
attempts at "regime change") and nothing from our failed experiments in "spreading democracy"
in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as for the "meddling" question, well, isn't that a "When did you
stop beating your wife, sir?" question.
Kathy Newman - clearly biased. All she has is propaganda and conspiracy theories. Almost
all western journalists are like this. This has serious implications for democratic societies
where unbiased professional media are a pillar of democracy, keeping their people informed
and able to make considered voting decisions. To me, every time they do this sort of
interview, Russia looks like the good guy and the West look wicked, twisted and broken. My
heart goes to Russia. They have TRUTH on their side.
Christ this is a socking attempted hit piece from C4 news here. anyone with a brain can
see what is happening. if you actually listen to Lavrov here he talks nothing but common
sense. the thumbnail for this video is also some blatant propaganda. he never said that in
the context it is presented. I am pleased people are seeing the real Russia via the world
cup.
Cathy Newman is resolutely upholding the highest journalistic standards and ethics......of
the Spanish Inquistion. The stranglehold over the media by the corrupted establishment is
simply shameful. Lavrov is the patron saint of patience.
Kathy you really should research before you interview, The OPCW press release on khan
cheykun reads like something from the character Sir Humphry in yes minister. In the field of
chemistry there is no need to rely on credibility.
Lavrov is to be taken seriously as a diplomat and a thinker. His English is most skillful
and it will take a much more qualified person this young lady to lay bare his
shortcomings.
I thought Cathy Newman was inept, or incompetent at her job and had some contempt for
her... after watching this I realize she just has no care for truth at all or for journalism.
She was clearly just pushing her government's agenda while pretending to be a tough
interviewer. No respect for this lady any longer. This interview was painful to watch because
you could tell she wasn't listening to anything Lavrov was saying and was just waiting for an
opening to launch an accusation, regardless of evidence or facts. Sad
No shortage of shameless journalists these days. I am sure this woman isn't stupid but
probably she willingly accepted to carryout slanderous line of questioning in return for some
money. The foreign minister totally schooled her.
Everything is fine, but unfortunately he probably just forgot to respond to this -
5:20 -
"a government responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens ... a
gas-killing animal ..." - that this is also a gross exaggeration based on made-up stories
spun up by venal media.
Cruise missile and drone killing animals sponsoring msm "journalists" to challenge reality
and to promote their sick warmongering propaganda narratives. Disgusting.
I'm amazed this British so called reporter...Doesn't know the United States under Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton...Started the coup in Syria...and Armed the terrorists with fully
automatic weapons... Tow missiles and every weapon they could... to overthrow the Syrian
Government. Why doesn't this woman know this before she asks misleading questions?
Winner 2018 Tinfoil-hat Award: Channel 4 News's Kathy Newman for bringing propaganda, fake
news, and "false narratives" to entirely new levels. During Newman's 34-minute interview with
Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov, Newman aggressively parrots phony, dangerous
accusations/representations and pushes "fake news media speaking points" intended to demonize
Russia. Shockingly, Newman presents no backup, no facts, and no EVIDENCE whatsoever. Boris
Johnson and Theresa May's new rule: "Guilty before trial because we said so, now sit down and
shut up!", risible.
I must admit, love watching these Fake Media prostitutes interview FM Lavrov, they won't
present facts.. They think we the public are morons and we believe everything they say!!
Thanks you BBC and C4 for showing us the people how stupid you really are.. Keep it up !
This is not journalism but failing effort of a propagandist's manipulation. But she simply
fails outplay him. He is a top diplomat for more than 20 years; she is ridiculous trying to
press him.
People like this woman are completely empty. I mean that literally empty. Her assignment
is to ask a sequence of questions try and cause the other person to get angry or emotional by
asking provocative questions. These creatures don't understand the concept of gender.
Nationality. Borders. Etc. They are psychopaths. Lavrov understands who they are that is why
he can manoeuvre around her
Cathy has been trained quite well. There are, however, a couple of moments where she hams
it up a bit too much. Overall, I give the performance a 7 out of 10.
Professionalism is DEAD in the West. Cathy Griffin is supposed to be a senior and
experienced journalist but her questions - both avenue and phrasing - seem like a school
leaver who is doing apprenticeship in reporting(not even journalism)
Wow. When you have as an interviewee someone like Sergei Lavrov, you really need to
prepare your interviewer or try to get someone really knowledgeable about the matters to be
discussed. This was like having a heavyweight on a ring with a newbie to boxing. Anyway,
thanks to Channel 4 for the interview.
Kudos to Cathy Newman for letting him speak! His well-informed and thoughtful views are
valuable to anyone wishing to expand their own understanding, even if their initial questions
are probably as asinine as these. The spasiba was a nice touch, too. Kudos also to
Channel 4 for posting the full interview.
Lavrov only just controlled himself when responding to Newman's ridiculous question about
Russia benefitting from the 'chaos' of Britain leaving the EU. Does she know a failed state
when she sees one? Do France and Germany really need Britain to stop Europe from descending
to the state of Somalia? Has the US really benefitted from the chaos that is Somalia, Iraq,
Libya, Afghanistan? (If your answer to the last question is 'yes', fair enough, but you are
arguing that actual US foreign policy is very different to that which is publicly stated and
I doubt poor little Cathy could get her head around that).
The brass necked bare faced audacity of 'Cathy dishonest Newman.' (In no particular order)
reads notes, adopts an accusatory and dismissive head tilted eyes narrowed posture, then asks
a Channel 4 gem, "Is Russia afraid of the truth."
She got totally owned! Well done Mr Lavrov and well done to all the commentators below.
Nice to see that so many people are recognising the government run MSM for what it is....a
lie factory. Spread the word to all .....
Here's a straight talking politician who works his socks off for his country, put him next
to his British counterpart you can clearly see who is dishonest.
Sergey not only shows up 'Strawman' Newman as a plain and simple moron as Peterson did for
overtly programming the public for a gender war, Sergey does far more and exposes the full
breadth of her treachery, her being a ruthless lame stream actual war propagandist. This
proud feminist woman, this virtue signalling warmongress is at once trying to divide society
against itself and simultaneously pushing it into wars. Ephialtes of Trachis would be
proud.
Is Kathy Newman really the gibbering idiot she appears to be, or merely a nasty piece of
work? I imagine the answer lies somewhere in between. Either way could you please find
someone less aesthetically unpleasant to represent you the woman looks like a demented
reptile.
The immediate presumption is Bashar Assad is evil because "he kills his own people". Then
she dismisses the historical context. How myopic. The insurgency in Syria has everything to
do with history. The Jihadists are inspired bu the resurrection of the Islamic Caliphate.
That is their inspiration, not Jeffersonian Democracy. There is a civil war and in order to
fight, you must kill the enemy.
The Department of Justice won't prosecute Imran Awan, a former IT administrator for Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz and dozens of other Democrats, for allegations of cybersecurity breaches, theft
and potential espionage, as part of a plea agreement one one count of unrelated bank fraud.
After the entry of your client's plea of guilty to the offense identified in paragraph 1
above,
your client will not be charged with any non-violent criminal offense in
violation of Federal or District of Columbia law which was committed within the District of
Columbia by your client prior to the execution of this Agreement
-Awan Plea Agreement
Awan withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars after lying on a mortgage application and
pretending to have a medical emergency that allowed him to drain his wife's retirement account. He
then wired large sums of money to Pakistan in January, 2017.
Awan and several family members worked for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz along with 20% of House
Democrats as IT staffers who held - as the House Inspector General called it - the "
keys
to the kingdom
," when it came to accessing confidential information on Congressional
computer systems.
And while ample evidence of potential crimes were found by the House Inspector General, the DOJ
says they found no evidence of wrongdoing.
The Department of Justice said it "found
no evidence that [Imran] illegally removed
House data from the House network or from House Members' offices, stole the House Democratic
Caucus Server, stole or destroyed House information technology equipment, or improperly accessed
or transferred government information
."
That statement appears to take issue -- without explaining how -- with the findings of the
House's Nancy Pelosi-appointed inspector general, its top law enforcement official, the
sergeant-at-arms, and the statements of multiple Democratic aides.
In September 2016, the
House Office of Inspector General
gave House leaders
a presentation that alleged that Alvi, Imran, brothers Abid Awan and Jamal Awan, and a friend
were logging into the servers of members who had previously fired him and funneling data off the
network. It said
evidence "suggests steps are being taken to conceal their activity" and
that their behavior mirrored a "classic method for insiders to exfiltrate data from an
organization."
Server logs show, it said, that
Awan family members made "unauthorized access"
to congressional servers in violation of House rules by logging into the servers of members who
they didn't work for. -
Daily
Caller
Awan was arrested at Dulles airport while attempting to flee the country - one day after reports
emerged that the FBI had seized a number of "smashed hard drives" and other computer equipment from
his residence. While only charged with bank fraud,
there is ample evidence that the Awans
were spying on members of Congress
through their access to highly-sensitive information on
computers, servers and other electronic devices belonging to members of Congress.
Luke Rosiak of the
Daily Caller
has compiled the most comprehensive coverage of the
Awan situation from start to finish - and outlines exactly why the Awans' conduct warranted serious
inquiry.
On Feb. 3, 2017, Paul Irving, the House's top law enforcement officer,
wrote
in a letter
to the Committee on House Administration that soon after it became evidence, the
server went "missing."
The letter continued: "Based upon the evidence gathered to this point, we have concluded
the employees are an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly
threatening the integrity of our information system
s."
Imran, Abid, Jamal, Alvi and a friend were banned from the House network the same day
Kiko sent the letter.
The alleged wrongdoing consisted of two separate issues.
The first was the cybersecurity issues. In an April 2018
hearing
spurred
by the Awan case, Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko
testified
: "The
bookend to the outside threat is the insider threat. Tremendous efforts are dedicated to
protecting the House against these outside threats, however these efforts are undermined when
these employees do not adhere to and thumb their nose at our information security policy, and
that's a risk in my opinion we cannot afford."
The second was a suspected theft scheme. Wendy Anderson, a former chief of staff for Rep.
Yvette Clarke,
told House investigators
she
believed Abid was working with ex-Clarke aide Shelley Davis
to steal equipment, and
described coming in on a Saturday to find so many pieces of equipment, including iPods and Apple
TVs, that it "looked like Christmas.
"
Meanwhile, as we
noted
i
n June, the judge in the Awan case, Tanya Chutkan, was appointed to the D.C. US District
Court by President Obama on June 5, 2014,
after Chutkan had contributed to him for years
.
Prior to her appointment to the District Court, she was a partner at law firm Boies Schiller &
Flexner (BSF) where
she represented scandal-plagued biotechnology company Theranos
-
which
hired Fusion GPS to threaten the news media
. Because of this,
Chutkan
had
to recuse herself from two cases
involving Fusion GPS
.
In short,
the Judge in the Awan case - appointed by Obama after years of contributing to
him, was a
partner
at a very Clinton-friendly law firm
. It should also be noted
that Obama appointed Chutkan's husband, Peter Krauthammer, to the D.C. Superior Court in 2011.
The left has, of course, seized upon the plea deal to suggest that there was no wrongdoing.
Then who goes down due to his deal? Was his deal just a freebie? Are there any
politicians or swampers (pardon my redundancy) who are not dirty?
Why can't
Trump supporters see how he goes along with these outrages? This ain't no
stinkin' 4D chess.
Just like Obama, who, even in his 2nd term, would read his teleprompter and
talk about a national issue and pretend that it was somebody else's fault.
Trump is no better than the rest of the puppets who have lived at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. Obama = Trump = Clinton = The Shrubs... all alike.
The other thing to remember is that Trump and his puppetmasters knew that the
optics on this Awan deal would look bad. And they let it happen anyway. Folks,
the elites don't give a rat's hind end what we think. They think they've won.
They believe that we cannot resist. It's only going to get worse from here.
Therefore, prepare accordingly.
So, if the "deal" is to turn Awan against his former employers,
why would you pardon him of all previous "non-violent" crimes?
Seems to me, if the deal is not public and he refuses to
testify, they have nothing by which to motivate his testimony.
Is this not true? Else, it is exactly as it appears, the deep
state got their way and justice is again the victim.
Concerned about all
the news today about the
corruption of the FBI and
the Department of Justice?
This is the true legal
thriller that started the
firestorm. It tells the
inside story of the
corrupted prosecutions of
Arthur Andersen LLP, the
Merrill Lynch defendants in
the Enron Barge case, the
Ted Stevens case and many
others.
EDITORIAL
REVIEWS
"Licensed to Lie reads
like a cross between
investigative journalism
and courtroom drama. The
takeaway is that both
Bushies and Obamaites
should be very afraid: over
the last few years, a
coterie of vicious and
unethical prosecutors who
are unfit to practice law
has been harbored within
and enabled by the now
ironically named Department
of Justice." –William Hodes,
Professor of Law Emeritus,
Indiana University, and
coauthor, The Law of
Lawyering
"When you've finished
reading this fast-paced
thriller, you will want to
stand up and applaud
Powell's courage in daring
to shine light into the
darkest recesses of
America's justice system.
The only ax Powell grinds
here is Truth." –Patricia
Falvey, author of The
Yellow House and The Linen
Queen, and former Managing
Director,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
"Last year four
government officials
demonstrably lied under
oath, and nothing has been
done to them–two IRS
officials, the Attorney
General, and James
Clapper-which caused Ed
Snowden to release the fact
that the US is spying on
its citizens and in
violation of the 4th
amendment. That our
government is corrupt is
the only conclusion. This
book helps the people
understand the nature of
this corruption-and how it
is possible for federal
prosecutors to indict and
convict the innocent rather
than the guilty." –Victor
Sperandeo, CEO and author,
Trader Vic: Methods of a
Wall Street Master
"This book is a
testament to the human will
to struggle against
overwhelming odds to right
a wrong and a cautionary
tale to all-that true
justice doesn't just exist
as an abstraction apart
from us. True justice is
us, making it real through
our own actions and our own
vigilance against the
powerful who cavalierly
threaten to take it away."
–Michael Adams, PhD,
University Distinguished
Teaching Associate
Professor of English
Associate Director, James
A. Michener Center for
Writers, University of
Texas–Austinor
"I have covered hundreds
of court cases over the
years and have witnessed
far too often the kind of
duplicity and governmental
heavy-handedness Ms. Powell
describes in her
well-written book, Licensed
to Lie." –Hugh Aynesworth,
journalist, historian,
four-time Pulitzer Prize
finalist, author, November
22, 1963: Witness to
History
just keep being
patient and
give this shit
more
time...they
have to take
down a whole
lot of powerful
monsters all
over the world
all at once and
it all has to
be air-tight.
All while
trying to keep
some kind of
peace without
these fuckers
creating a
world war.
Fake outrage over Russia hacking our
election as the Israhell & US
infiltrate and spur regime change
inside of Iran. It's the juice,
stupid...Always the lying parasitic
juice...
Was this one of Q Anus' unsealed unindictments?
Trust the plan?
Only the prosecution, i.e. the
DOJ, can sign off on a plea bargain. This POS
judge should have recused herself, but plea
bargains are essentially between a defendant and
the DOJ. Under the constitution, the president,
i.e. Trump, can hire and fire any level AG or
attorney (read prosecutor) in the DOJ. So
instead of tweeting in protest like one of us
useless eaters, why doesn't Trump kick some
ass. He could start by firing the prosecutor
who signed this POS plea bargain to set an
example.
Debbie is not going to say one word. Her brother Steve
Wasserman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, will keep her informed of
every step of the investigation, and if it looks like its getting
to hot, she'll be on the next flight to Tel-Aviv. This whole thing
will get buried, as it most likely involves the blackmail of, and
breach of US National Security by several dozen Idiotic democratic
members of Congress. No doubt these pakistani spies are somehow
tied to israeli intelligence.
###
*Attention - The Awans & Pakistani ISI are only "sub
contractors" for Hillary (CIA since young/operative/ratline field
commander) & Israeli Mossad (Debbie Wasserman, Weiner, Shumer &
any other affiliated Zionist Jews). Both the CIA
(Rockefeller>Kissinger down the line to CIA-op Hillary/all
presidents except Trump) + Israel (Rosthchild) & Mossad
(Rothschild private intel/military army) have compromised and
co-opted the White House/US Presidency, US Congress, US Senate and
much of state government.
Both CIA & Mossad farm out dirty work ops to other
international Intelligence agencies & military, as well as
criminal organizations in order to created a spider web of hard to
prove 3rd, 4th, 5th party connections to their illegal operations
in order limit their exposure to being outed by real journalists
like the dead Michael Hastings.
Pakistan ISI, the Muslim Brotherhood or any other seemingly bad
actors have 'not' infiltrated and taken over Congress nor anything
else. The Awans and the Pakistani ISI were 'invited' & brought
here by Mossad-Anthony Weiner & Mossad-Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
here to run operations for CIA-international-crime-boss-Hillary
Clinton.
Blackmail, compromise, threaten & Murder is the name of the
game with these Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious
Psychopaths.
the deal is so he does not testify that all of the democrat members
committed felonies. Can't arrest half the govt and the law enforcement
personnel that are supposed to arrest them. There are not enough FBI to
arrest all the FBI.
Despite your unwavering adulation and constant fawning,
Trump cares only for Trump. He is a narcassist and most
likely a 'path of some flavor. He doesn't give a fuck
about you or me. All he has ever wanted was power. His
supporters are largely tired of the US gov BS and wanted
it to change for the better. If he betrays that, he
betrays them and suddenly you go from being counted as a
supporter to being a domestic terrorist. Do you have more
than 3 days of food, anti-gov beliefs, and a gun? Welcome
to being the enemy.
Get your head out of your ass and
grow a fucking spine. While I'm being hyperbolic, it can,
and has, happened that fast before.
Everyone is trying to blame Sessions, the Judge, the democrates etc.
TRUMP Is Playing those who support him. The Dept of Justice is Under
Trump. The judge did not do this deal, but the Dept of Justice. So,
TRUMP did this deal and is now playing he supporters for fools with
his tweets about being upset (and being unable to do anything about
it).
Trump could force a real investigation and prosecution. Trump is a
zionist swamp creature. During the election Trump said he would
investigate the Clinton's. After the election Trump said the
Clinton's were good people and that he would NOT pursue them.
It is Trump who will make a major move to remove gun rights. While
crying out in protest.
(The jew cries out as he strikes you, type thing.)
Everyone in Congress including Trump on the red side acts like
a slack jawed faggot. I'm just stunned there isn't one fucking
set of brass balls on any of them. There has been a nonstop
treason and sedition show since before Trump was even elected
being perpetrated by the Democrats. Trump is probably happy
with the leaks coming out of the White House. It's more press
and tv time for him.
One fucking person has gone to jail !
One ! That stupid NSA dyke skank Reality Loser. Nobody else has
even gotten a jaywalking ticket. This falls squarely on Trump
and his abortion of an crooked administration.
Just like Obama,
who, even in his 2nd term, would read his teleprompter and talk
about a national issue and pretend that it was somebody else's
fault.
Trump is no better than the rest of the puppets who have lived
at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Obama = Trump = Clinton = The Shrubs
The other thing to remember is that Trump and his puppetmasters
knew that the optics on this Awan deal would look bad. And they
let it happen anyway. Folks, the elites don't give a rat's hind
end what we think. They think they've won. They believe that we
cannot resist. It's only going to get worse from here. Therefore,
prepare accordingly.
1. Trump could have
sealed the US borders and put the military on them by Executive
Order.
2. Trump hasn't put up any resistance to 2nd Amendment rights
being eroded away in his year and a half in office.
3. His Attorney General Sessions is more useless than a set of
tits on a nun, and hasn't been fired for refusing to do his job of
prosecuting criminals and rooting out corruption.
4. Sessions has been increasingly vocal about increasing civil
asset forfeiture which is totally unconstitutional.
5. Trump hasn't pulled any troops out of Syria or Afghanistan.
6. Trump hasn't made Mexico pay for the wall when he could
easily do it by taxing wire transfers to Latin America.
7. Trump hasn't put any pressure on his own justice dept to
cooperate with Congress.
8. Trump still has done nothing to make NATO pay its fair share
of defense spending.
9. Cops are still being praised by Trump even though they
routinely stand down when Antifa are attacking his own supporters,
or showing total cowardice under fire when lives are at stake.
10. Only 1 person has been prosecuted for sedition, treason and
high crimes in the past year and half in spite of these crimes
being committed on a near daily basis.
The president is one man. One man's head can be blown apart in
front of a national audience with no repercussions.
What
might the Founders have meant when they said, "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed?"
If Trump isn't able to do what he was elected to do maybe
instead of attacking him we should thank him for leading us as
far as he has and consider doing our own Constitutional duty.
We have the 'lost' server...now we have first-person, factual
witnesses and the technical perps to prosecute top swamp criminal
links most conclusively, without a shred of doubt even
unto fanatics and trolls. It's happening, it's coming down
worldwide...there will be no civil war. Ignore the fake news. They
are supremely desperate.
And Rosenstein, Wray, and as far down the line as you need to go to
get rid of all the traitors. This is complete bullshit. Some
fucking Pakistani comes and spys on that whore Wasserman and passes
intelligence to who the fuck knows who, and he get's a pass? Might
was well open up the doors to all of the BOP prisons becuase if
Hillary, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, etc. are still wandering out free
then no one in federal prison should be there. These fuckers have
done more damage than any drug dealer, spy, or muderer in federal
custody.
This plea deal is given because they are out to protect the democrat
party and all of the bureaucrats who run the government.... It would
show their ineptitude..... and we can't have that, can we......?
And the big issue is that they expected everyone to buy the
bullshit excuse of" We were just talking about grand kids, blah,
blah" And perhaps even bigger is that there is no actual
representative of the people who calls bullshit and has the power
to demand evidence and demand processing through the justice
system. I know that is the supposed job of the DOJ but if the DOJ
is part of the scam, there needs to be something like a full time
independent prosecutor who is not under anyone.
Bill: "Now, Miss
Lowretta, I know you
are
as
smart
as a whip,
and being that smart, you would know the
consequences
of Mr. Trump being elected...think of your grandchillens; you
want those lil piccaninnies to have a good life...and they will
not be so fortunate under Mr. Trump's administration."
Lowretta: "Yessah Mr Clinton, I do unnerstan' what you
saying. I sho' will work hard to stop that"
Bill: "Miss Lowretta, it's a pleasure meeting with you
again. I figure if you
work real hard
you may even get
to be a Justice in the Supreme Court"
Case settled in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing,
check
obama appointed judge, check
judge worked with clinton law firm, fusion gps, check
Dws protects Awan till the bloody end, check
hard to imagine how it can get much worse in these United States.
The prior administration and its holdover lackeys are making a
mockery of the criminal justice system
Allowed to take plea so the details of all the compromising info he
had on half of Congress would not come out. THIS is how the DEEP
STATE protects itself, and the DOJ goes along, because that's, simply
the deal. There is no possible explanation for this guy getting a
deal unless he is going to hand over the entire Dem leadership now.
Of course, he won't.
Gumint at work. Do some bad stuff, get paid,
investigate, quash, move on.
Isz next, SVIMVEAR!! (10 points for the attribution)
Rule by the elite is one of the cornerstones of government. When
has the elite not ruled us, except perhaps in times immediately
following the collapse of the then current government?
You can't
leave steaks sitting on the kitchen counter and not expect these
dogs to take the biggest one and leave scraps for the general
population.
Given that Trump is the chief law enforcement officer in the
government, how is it that his underlings are able to get away
with such egregious corruption?
now who gets to make an appeal about this seditious corrupt legal proceeding
that is a cover for the direct transmission of the secret workings of
congressional committees and private communications of congress members
DIRECT TO HOSTILE FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS like iran, via pakistan.
Just another day in bizarro world. The good guys are treated like
shit, the bad guys are treated like heroes. There's no rule of
law. There are no borders. This duplicitous scumbag should
be sent to prison, for a long time.
So, commit one crime, go to jail.
Commit several crimes, plead and walk.
But who are they going after by letting him plead?
Who's the bigwig up above who's so valuable that the Awan minions (if
they are minions) can be let go?
I wonder what they'll get HRC to plead
to in order to unlawfully ignore the rest of her crimes.
Announced on the eve of the nation's biggest holiday.
This has to be
the biggest "f**k you" by the DOJ to the American people in the history
of this country.
Note that the prosecuting attorney in this case had someone pinch
hit for him at the actual hearing:
"Only one person sat at the prosecutors' table: J.P. Coomey,
who...was only added to the case Monday. There was no sign of Michael
Marando, who had previously led the prosecution."
Hard to overcome the violent
atk of nauseous rage at this
headline. The stench from the
DOJ is overwhelmingly strong
on this one.
One must step
back and ask, WTF is going
on. Do we have a justice
system or not-I tthink the
answer is clear that it is
prob a two tiered system or
more.
I would guess the clintons
and mossad are in this big
time. DWS seems to be a
poster child for mossad and
the clintons.
Not being one to say 'I told you, blah-blah', but...
I have maintained all along the journey here regarding
Queen
Madame DeFarge
, that this is simply 'Too Big' to prosecute
for the simple reason that there are too many key individuals in .gov
and the business community for the nation to absorb the
socio-political fallout. This in no way infers that prosecution
shouldn't happen, only that the corruption is so deep & wide that
it was never a realistic view to begin with. That said, things
have a way ironing themselves out, and we're seeing it nearly
every day with the implosion of politics-as-usual.
Not only was he a spy but he probably opened the door to every
other entity which wanted to spy on the USA - wide open. There is
no country if this is not treason.
Whatever it is that this plea bargain is covering up, it must be
pretty bad for that cohort of criminals to accept that it's NOT A
GOOD LOOK either way! They're choosing the lesser of evils, but it
will put another nail in their coffin anyway, and they know it. Be
prepared for yet another flash of violent distraction or somesuch
to drive it out of the press. Wait for the mid-terms to find out
if this dodgy strategy pays off...or NOT!
Sorry but no. This is not a deal in exchange for
cooperation. This deal requires nothing of Awan. When you
are giving a deal in exchange for cooperation that deal is
in writing in "the deal" and the Judge decides after you are
finished cooperating if you met your end of the deal. This
is a get out of jail free deal.
Awan has a deal from a Bank Fraud case in DC. Awan is not the
target and Bank Fraud certainly isn't our big complaint. Huber
is
outside
DC and has a prosecution witness. Another
pawn moved into position.
Wait for it...
Look at what Ramenhead looks like these days. The horror of
it is eating her from within:
A couple of notes. First, here's the plea agreement as quoted
by Luke Rosiak at the Daily Caller:
After the entry of your client's plea of guilty to the
offense identified in paragraph 1 above, your client will
not be charged with any non-violent criminal offense in
violation of Federal or District of Columbia law which was
committed within the District of Columbia by your client
prior to the execution of this Agreement and about which
this Office was made aware by your client prior to the
execution of this Agreement, all of which is contained in
the attached Statement of Offense.
Note 1: While the federal government and Washington DC
government are restricted from prosecuting Awan for any
previous non-violent crime, other state jurisdictions can
prosecute him for these crimes. He could be prosecuted in
Florida, Virginia, Maryland or any other state. Remember, Awan
ran most of his money laundering operations (disguised as used
car businesses) outside of the Washington DC jurisdiction. In
fact, most of the evidence that was discovered by independent
investigators has been found at locations in both Maryland and
Virginia (both of which would still be free to prosecute per
this plea agreement).
Note 2: This seems to be an illegitimate plea deal which is
really just an immunity agreement by any other name. We'll see
how this all shakes out, but the plea deal accepted by this
judge will probably not stand up to even the weakest legal
scrutiny. I don't even know if there's any precedent for such a
deal in American law.
There is a lot that smells very funny about this
agreement. It does not provide any leverage to get him to
be a states witness and it does not prevent him from
claiming the 5th in any Grand Jury testimony because the
issue of State Charges remains. I sure hope sometime in
the future we say that Justice knew what they were doing
and people start going to jail. At the moment I don't see
it, I don't smell it and I don't believe it. I have no
problem with this slimeball skating if the Politicians
are prosecuted and convicted. If he spills all Hillary's
crew will punish him better than a jail cell ever will.
Q1671: "Plea: Deal - No Charges for NON-Violent crime."
Awan still liable for VIOLENT Crimes, either committed by
himself, or by being witness to Crimes, or while serving as a
hub in a Criminal Enterprise, where VIOLENT Crimes are
monetized???
Awan's Case is based on 18 U.S. Code § 1344 Bank Fraud.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan is the judge
presiding over Imran Awan's case. She is an Obama
appointee! But, she allowed the case to get really
ridiculous.
She was a Crony of Obama, and kept postponing
the Imran Awan trial, which allowed him to flee to Pakistan,
where co-defendant and wife Hina Alvi has already fled, with
the blessing of the FBI. It's really unheard of, for a
federal criminal 'bank fraud' case to be granted 5 or
6 delays and continuances, as she has in this case. Its
apparent she is running cover for the Democrats.
Records confirm, she was appointed to the federal bench
by Obama after she kicked thousands in campaign donations to
his presidential campaign when he was a U.S. Senator in
Illinois. Obama also appointed Chutkan's husband, Peter
Krauthamer, a judge to the bench in the District of Columbia
Superior Court in 2011.
She a prime example of why judges should never be
politically appointed, voted into office, or have any
political affiliation with any political party.
Now, we have some of the trashiest people on the bench.
Her and her husband needs their asses tossed into jail.
BTW ... neither Imran nor his wife were ever charged with
the most obvious and verifiable crime. Imran intended to
carry and his wife did carry more than $10,000 in undeclared
moneys onboard an international flight. Strangely (which
seems to be the theme of this case), neither was ever
charged with this felony crime.
Why is the DOJ protecting members of Congress or staff
members of Congress?? It appears to be outrageous, yet
whoever made this decision has a calculus. What is the real
reason for the DOJ to protect the illegal actions of the
Awans and those that hired him?
There is a logic behind
it. What is it? If we can find that out we can understand
why this crime was committed by the DOJ.
No no no no, fake news. Plea deal does not cover Federal
crimes.
From Awan plea
Your client further understands that this
Agreement is binding only upon the Criminal and Superior
Court Divisions of the United States Attomey's Office for
the District of Columbia. This Agreement does not bind the
Civil Division of this Office or any other United States
Attomey's Office, nor does it bind any other state, local,
or federal prosecutor. It also does not bar or compromise
any civil, tax, or administrative claim pending or that may
be made against your client.
Deep state manipulated the 2016 'election'. They had
corporate mass media pump Trump 247 as their 'populist'
candidate since their identity politics candidate Clinton
couldn't attract even fleas to her rallies. They wanted to
kill any attention to the masses of Americans countrywide
who were packing arenas & auditoriums to see the old
socialist Sanders.
This plea deal is really a burying of how much corruption
actually occurs on Capitol Hill to keep the phony 2 party
system intact.
"... The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to us." ..."
"... I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was: ..."
"... To steal the nationalized oil ..."
"... To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver. ..."
"... To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF. ..."
"... I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there. Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped. ..."
Hello There! I'm curious to know if any readers have comments about a recent Sy Hersh
interview. In response to a question about Russian interference in the last US presidential
election Hersh replied:
"I have been reporting something, I've been watching something since 2011 in Libya, when we
had a secretary of state that later ran for president, and I will tell you: Some stories take
a long time. And I don't know quite how to package it. I don't know how much to say about it.
I assure you that there's no known intelligence that Russia impacted, cut into the DNC,
Podesta e-mails. That did not happen. I can say that.
I can also say Russia learned other things about what was going on in Libya with us and
instead of blowing -- [. . . lots cut out here before returning to the topic . . . ]
The fact of the matter is, if Russia wanted to do, cause lot of difficulty to the
American election they could have. Instead, they went and talked privately to us. So when the
government says Russia intercepted stuff that was very important to us, I'm being very fuzzy
about it, it wasn't about the election. They told us that there were certain people in
America doing things that were very deleterious to the War on Terrorism for personal and
financial gain, and they could have blown it publicly but they went internally to
us."
I haven't listened to that particular interview yet, but can say the the HRC emails with Sid
Blumenthal show the reason we got in bed with Sarkozy (and Britain) to destroy Libya was:
To steal the nationalized oil
To steal the hundreds of tons of gold and silver.
To prevent Libya from developing a pan-African gold dinar and development bank to complete
with the Federal Reserve petrodollar and the IMF.
I can also say that Hersh documented that Ambassador Stevens was an arms dealer, smuggling
Libyan military weapons into Syria to finish the "regime change" operation still ongoing there.
Also, HRC knew her "rebels" were hunting down and murdering any black Libyans they could find
even before Gaddafi was anally bayonet raped.
If I come up with more after listening, I'll post again.
Looks like Brennan abused his power as a head of CIA and should be held accountable for that.
Notable quotes:
"... Did the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election? ..."
"... it is not that ..."
"... even that is misleading ..."
"... the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it ..."
"... The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography and communications security. ..."
"... Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published. ..."
"... Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication. ..."
"... "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries." ..."
"... DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying ..."
"... Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries. ..."
Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence
Posted on by JackDid the U.S. "Intelligence Community" judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election?
Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the planned meeting of
Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to "Russian interference" as a fact and asks whether
the matter will be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the election
are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S. "intelligence community" proved Russian
interference. In fact, the U.S. "intelligence community" has not done so. The intelligence
community as a whole has not been tasked to make a judgment and some key members of that
community did not participate in the report that is routinely cited as "proof" of "Russian
interference."
I spent the 35 years of my government service with a "top secret" clearance. When I reached
the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant to the President for National
Security, I also had clearances for "codeword" material. At that time, intelligence reports to
the president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through me for comment. I
developed at that time a "feel" for the strengths and weaknesses of the various American
intelligence agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6. 2017 report of three
intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
This report is labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment," but in fact it is not
that . A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the
relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions.
Individual agencies did not hesitate to "take a footnote" or explain their position if they
disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the
"intelligence community" if any relevant agency was omitted.
The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI,
and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of
relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of
analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process
generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told
the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by "two dozen or so analysts --
hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies." If you can hand-pick the
analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what
Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their
careers by not delivering?
What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper
followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam
Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to
inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.
The DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council whose officers can call any
intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessments. It was created by
Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection
revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which is curious since its
duty is "to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities."
During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports
from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included
unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might
have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express
an opinion regarding the substance of reports.
What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of INR or DIA! The
exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its mandate deals primarily with military
forces, except that the report attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian
military intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S. intelligence organ
most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this attribution? The report doesn't say.
The omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political activity could not
have been that of the U.S. intelligence community without its participation. After all, when it
comes to assessments of foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State
Department's intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable and competent. In my day, it
reported accurately on Gorbachev's reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev
had the same aims as his predecessors.
This is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible journalists and
politicians should have asked is "Why is INR not represented? Does it have a different opinion?
If so, what is that opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is
"classified information." But why should it be classified? If some agency heads come to a
conclusion and choose (or are directed) to announce it publicly, doesn't the public deserve to
know that one of the key agencies has a different opinion?
The second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI: did all their
analysts agree with these conclusions or were they divided in their conclusions? What was the
reason behind hand-picking analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting
analysts already in place and already responsible for following the issues involved?
As I was recently informed by a senior official, the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express
it . So the January report was not one of the "intelligence community," but rather of
three intelligence agencies, two of which have no responsibility or necessarily any competence
to judge foreign intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of NSA is to
intercept the communications of others and to protect ours. It is not staffed to assess the
content of what is intercepted; that task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA
(if it is military) or the State Department's INR (if it is political).
The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views
of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts' views. The
heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military
officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except
in the fields of cryptography and communications security.
One striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion of the January
report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and NSA heads is that questions were never
posed regarding the position of the State Department's INR, or whether the analysts in the
agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.
Let's put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report itself. On the first
page of text, the following statement leapt to my attention:
We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of
the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the
intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political
processes or US public opinion.
Now, how can one judge whether activity "interfered" with an election without assessing its
impact? After all, if the activity had no impact on the outcome of the election, it could not
be properly termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented journalists and
politicians from citing the report as proof that "Russia interfered" in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election.
As for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and description of
"capabilities" but largely devoid of any evidence to substantiate its assertions. This is
"explained" by claiming that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed without
revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with "high confidence" or occasionally,
"moderate confidence." Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is
irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The use of the term "high
confidence" is what most normal people would call "our best guess." "Moderate confidence" means
"some of our analysts think this might be true."
Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" is an instrument of
the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee's computer and
conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or
foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with
NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published.
Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the "Guccifer 2.0" data on the web and
have concluded that "Guccifer 2.0's" data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally
downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion
that "Guccifer 2.0" is a total fabrication.
The report's assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to Wikileaks are dubious, but
its final statement in this regard is important: "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not
contain any evident forgeries." In other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So,
Russians are accused of "degrading our democracy" by revealing that the DNC was trying to fix
the nomination of a particular candidate rather than allowing the primaries and state caucuses
to run their course. I had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic
values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade democracy have a rather bizarre
-- to put it mildly–concept of democracy.
Most people, hearing that it is a "fact" that "Russia" interfered in our election must think
that Russian government agents hacked into vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a
particular candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most painful
sanctions. But this is the one thing that the "intelligence" report of January 6, 2017, states
did not happen. Here is what it said: " DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses
that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote
tallying ."
This is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess the impact of
foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not consulted regarding other aspects of the
study? Or -- was it in fact consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious
question any responsible journalist or competent politician should have asked.
Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically
motivated, report as proof of "Russian interference" in the U.S. election without even the
pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block
any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with
common dangers is vital to both countries.
This is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian relations have
become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the crick don't rise, I'll be musing about
other aspects soon.
Thanks to Ray McGovern and Bill Binney for their research assistance.
Jack F. Matlock, Jr.
Booneville, Tennessee
June 29, 2018
I encourage you to give the Escobar article a second reading. I just did to make sure I knew what it was saying. I think karlof1
is making the right points from it.
The collaboration between Saudia Arabia and Russia is a very small part of the article, and no one disputes that this collaboration
is occurring. Russia may even be part of OPEC soon, if it chooses. The relationship works against the US but it's not specifically
made for this reason. Read Adam Garrie's take on this to see that the moves into OPEC by Russia in recent years are clearly from
its own interest as a hugely major supplier, and that Saudi Arabia needs Russia:
The New Russia-Saudi Partnership Has Riyadh's US Ally Over a Barrel
I just skimmed it a third time and I don't see Escobar saying anywhere that the Saudi-Russia relationship is to kill US shale.
He does say that both Russia and Iran are interested in countering it. I think the point here is that all serious oil producers
with profitable reserves take alarm at the US shale oil because it's hard to say that it's a real commodity with an inbuilt profitability.
It's a short-term entry into the market that can serve to disrupt the market temporarily, but it has no staying power. I suspect
most nations would prefer it simply not intrude.
No one actually has to act against US shale - it's something of a pretender in the real oil world anyway, and this has long
been commented upon. Escobar's point that the US shale is largely a myth is not a new concept. At best the reserve will deplete
within 15 years, and that's at best - along the way it will destroy the US potable water table. And its intrinsic value is far
from clear, since the entire industry is dubiously financed using relatively free Federal Reserve money. As Escobar points out,
many call $100 per barrel the profit threshold for shale - that's a ludicrously high bar for profitability in the oil world.
Much of Escobar's article was about the relationship between Russia and Iran, and it served also as a very good primer in world
oil and petro-currency numbers. I found it pretty sound.
"... You don't need to give use Northstream 2. We will build it ourselves. ..."
"... Nordstream II only blocking party is Denmark, and they can and will bypass it at some price, if need be. ..."
"... Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark can say goodbye to its share of transit fees. ..."
"... A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work together against US attacks. ..."
"... Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump. Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are limited and evaporating. ..."
"... The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast. ..."
Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its
construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the
pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark
can say goodbye to its share of transit fees.
Also Crimea is non-negotiable for Russia. It is Russian territory irrespective of what
happens.
A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back
on Putin, Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra
cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work
together against US attacks.
Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump.
Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are
limited and evaporating.
Incidentally it is very easy and probably wise to promise the US, in June, not to buy oil in
November. It costs nothing and fits into bazaar bargaining strategies.
The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on
arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast.
And it goes on today. Just over a year ago, Wikileaks source Seth Rich was assassinated. Fox
News and lefty Jimmy Dore reported this, until the Deep State put the screws on and they both
retracted with bogus stories to "correct" their errors. No one talks about this anymore.
integer @35. Not a fan of George Soros? Ready to peak into the rabbit hole?
Donald Trump has been business partners with George Soros in at least $6 Billion in
properties for more than a decade before his candidacy. They were even codefendants in a RICO
suit (organized crime, as in the Jewish Mafia).
After spending 17 years at Goldman Sachs, Trump's new Treasure Secretary, Steven Mnuchin ran
OneWest Bank in CA. Guess who he worked for? George frigging Soros.
So, Trump is partners with infamous globalist atheist George Soros, Orthodox Jews, Islamic
Extremists, Goldman Sachs and GHW Bush's Carlyle Group.
And one more morsel to ponder. The CEO of CNN (portrayed as rabidly anti-Trump) is one of a
long list of Globalist Zionists who have been Trump supporters for decades.
With Mueller Trump is on a very short leash indeed, so I doubt that he has great freedom of maneuver.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal of the Cold War. ..."
"... John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is! ..."
"... People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed. ..."
"... Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'ętre , and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc. ..."
"... Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be different this time. ..."
"... My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun & other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced. ..."
"... A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to spike the upcoming Putin summit. ..."
On a gestalt basis it seems to me from all the bits and pieces of information and rumor that DJT is attempting "The Deal of the
Century!" (an episode or two of his soon to be award winning series on the subject of "The Greatest President.")
Russian cooperation in this is clearly needed. Trump is blessedly lacking in ideological fervor. His Deplorable base is also a
bit short on ideology being focused on wages, prices, taxes and other everyday living issues. Their patriotism expresses itself in
devotion to the flag and the anthem and a willingness to serve in the armed forces, something increasingly absent in the "resistance."
Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal
with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal
of the Cold War.
John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting
with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging
the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out
rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is!
Trumps is IMO trying for a grand ME bargain to be achieved with Russian help:
Peace in Syria in the context of abandonment of regime change. Trump the pragmatist recognizes that the R+6 forces have won
the civil war and, therefore he wishes to accept the sunk costs of previous American ineptitude in Syria and to walk away. US Embassy
Amman has signaled to the FSA rebels in SW Syria that they should not expect the US to defend them. This is a traditional American
stab in the back for guerrilla allies but the warning indicates to me that some group in the US Government (probably the CIA) has
enough conscience to want to give warning. As soon as that warning was issued the rate of surrenders to the SAA rose.
The US has thus made it clear that the SAA and Russian forces in Syria have a free hand in the SW and it seems that Israeli
air and missile attacks are unlikely against the SW offensive. This has been insured through a Russian mandate that Hizbullah and
IRGC dominated Shia militias stay out of the fight in Deraa and Quneitra Provinces.
The Egyptians have been talking to Hamas about their willingness to enter into a hudna (religiously sanctioned truce) with
Israel. Hamas has frequently offered this before. Such truces are renewable and are often for 10 years. Kushner's team thinks it
has attained Natanyahhu's support for this. The deal would supposedly include; a Gaza-Egyptian industrial zone in the area of Raffa,
an airport, a seaport. In return Hamas would be expected to police the truce from their side of the border. People on SST who have
deep access in Israel doubt the sincerity of apparent Israeli assent, but there is little doubt I think that DJT considers this part
of the Grand Bargain he is attempting to forge.
Nowhere in any of this is anything concerning Iran and I assume that regime change remains the policy. Nor is there anything about
Saudi Arabia and the UAE's mercenary manned war in Yemen. Ah, well, pilgrims, everything in its time. pl
People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made
noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked
twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed.
Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'ętre
, and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on
Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc.
No, I mean the Army is especially invested in Europe and has been. I attended C&GSC at the peak of Vietnam and in exercises they
were still mostly concerned with the Fulda Gap, division trains, etc. Big Army. Similar to how Army is going now, back to their
roots so to speak. Even when they claimed they were short of funds, they found a way to send forces to Europe based on the claims
that after Crimea, Russia was (and is) a threat to. . .the U.S.?
Peace with Russia would be a severe blow to Army especially
with the shift to Indo-Pacific which involves Navy and Marines, and Army not much. I know Army was greatly involved with island
operations in WWII, but China is not Japan regarding imperialism, IMO, and anyhow island invasions are not popular in Army.
So I look for a beefed up "Russia threat" campaign to counter Trump, and insider Bolton to be a big part of it.
Good analysis of the political implications of having Bolton establishing a summit as it worked with Pompeo. Always keep your
friends close and your enemies closer good way to clean up the nest of venomous asps.
Gen Sisi must have made an offer too good to resist. We know the House of Saud will finance it. Are they going to political legitimatize
Hamas, turn Gaza in a statelet ? Perhaps Hamas sees, or is being threaten with the money spigot being turned off ? The only way
to get money will be their share of offshore Natural Gas ? All for Hamas perhaps ? Nothing buys peace faster then lining a whole
lot of pockets. With more money and Airports and a Shipping port, opens dangerous doors. Is Israel ready for that ? How will that
be monitored ? So many damn questions. This may prove more problematic then the status quo, in the long run. Something does have
to be done, the conditions in Gaza are unacceptable.
Excellent analysis. In related news, a week or so ago semi-official Russian Vzglyad made a first media shot across the bow for
Iran in which it stressed that the manner of Iran's "presence" in Syria is a complicating factor.
Russia doesn't want to "dislodge" Iran from Syria but she needs Iran out of the border area with Israel. This is the key to a
new arrangement, including, in the long run, Iran's security.
Is there a new ABM Treaty in the works? Another SALT? Another Peace of Yalta?
First two are important but are not clear and present danger for Russia for a number of reasons. Militarization of space is
more important now. The last point, however, is extremely important because either there will be some kind of new geopolitical
arrangement or we will see probability of a global military conflict grow exponentially.
Iranians do not need to be at the border area. All they need is to deploy their true and tested method of arming Syria with tens
of thousands of precision rockets aimed at Haifa and Tel-Aviv. It worked for North Koreans.
No global peace is in the works.
Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars.
Let us hope it be different this time.
Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there
was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be
different this time.
It must be different, plus I disagree with historic parallel--two entirely different paradigms both in warfare, geopolitical
balance and media.
Well I certainly wish The Greatest President luck. Who knows, I'm done underestimating the guy.
My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements
in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun &
other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced.
The point of maximum danger appears to be at hand, given your characterization of the Daraa op as "betting the farm". Today's
grant of new powers to the OPCW to apportion blame (designed to side-step the Russian veto at the UNSC) now means this body can
effectively determine casus belli . Let us pray the OPCW will not have reason to exercise its new powers in Syria.
A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to
spike the upcoming Putin summit.
On topic #2. If the SAA isn't feeling it's oats by now, forcing them fight a major battle that culminates a campaign by themselves
would seem to be the ideal way to exorcise any remaining self doubts and engender a lasting esprit de corps. Stupid is what stupid
does... Once these guys finish up in the SW and head east enforce it'll be show time.
" Putin has invaded Ukraine, stealing the Crimea, and attempting to gain a land bridge by
backing a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment."
Of course Russia has strategic interests in the Ukraine and the the Crimea is virtually
100% Russian speaking. The Russians remember WW2 and the 20 million Russian dead inflicted
upon them by western Europeans.
If Putin's behavior in the near abroad makes him a "thug," what can we say about Bush,
Obama and Trump?
I find it interesting how while the neocons demonize Putin and are trying to start WW3,
Netanyahu and Putin seem to get along fine. This suggests that the neocons really have
something else in mind besides towing the Israeli line. Namely, keeping the American public
in a state of confusion and acquiescence and ensuring the endless flow of weapons to their
favorite ethnostate.
Putin is just another thug that has imperial desires and is willing to steal his people
blind to realize them.
Other than reliable sources like John Brennan, James Clapper, the New York Times
and the Washington Post , I presume you have evidence to share of this
Putin has invaded Ukraine,
and this.
stealing the Crimea
Two referenda are "stealing"?
a fake revolt in the Donbas with Russian troops, mercenaries, and equipment.
Well, the dead people in Donbas, and their families, would probably disagree it was fake,
particularly since the victim of the US coup d'etat (with its mercenaries) and rightful
President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, was from Donbas. As for the allegations of Russian
troops and equipment, I return to my request for evidence.
Russian troops shot down MH-17. deal with it.
Yup, and Assad gassed his own people, so did Saddam, six kajillion were gassed in a 2 car
garage located next to crematoria at Auschwitz using explosive bug spray, and the Easter
Bunny leaves chocolate eggs at my house every year.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle,
N.Y.
describes how Wall Street supported bolshevism in order to prevent that German, suppose also
Dutch and other, trade, with Russia was resumed.
WII and the aftermath created the Atlantic alliance.
Just yesterday Pieter Hoekstra, USA ambassador in the Netherlands, stated that Russia
should be punished for MH17 by more sanctions, no new gas pipeline from Russia to
Germany.
What he did not say that this implies our buying of USA gas, 20% more expensive.
The MH17 show, in my opinion is run like the Sept 11 show...
The USA fear about Russia and the EU member states seems to be twofold:
- more trade with Russia makes subjugation of Russia impossible
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
You seem to be obsessed with neocons, jews etc. Russia is arch-nemesis of the West long
before them. Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons
or Knight Templars.
Since Western Capitalism arose, Russia stands as anti-system to the West. As a model of
decent society that is possible without usury, exploitation, violence, enslaving and
pillaging other nations – i.e. outside imperialism-colonialism model. Powers that
control the West live in constant fear since with mighty Russia their time is always limited,
and their power is finite.
"Or we should admit Napoleon and Charles XII of Sweden were manipulated by Masons or
Knight Templars."
They were.
Of course, the Freemasons also penetrated Russia under Peter the Great and were necessary
to all revolutionary activity in the Russian Empire from at least the 1820s.
After Peter Strzok
failed to address the concerns of Republicans by trying to explain away his anti-Trump texts as "just an intimate conversation"
with his mistress (former FBI lawyer Lisa Page) during yesterday's marathon closed-door session, President Trump chimed in this morning
with a tweet claiming that Strzok had been given "poor marks" on the hearing because he "refused to answer many questions."
The president also reaffirmed that there was "no Collusion and the Witch Hunt, headed by 14 Angry Democrats and others who are
totally conflicted, is Rigged!"
The president then turned his attention to the DNC Server, asking once again why the FBI wasn't allowed to closely examine it?
The DNC never furnished an explanation, despite Wikileaks emails revealing that former spy Christopher Steele had once filed a memo
claiming that "
Russian agents within the Democratic party structure itself" were involved with the theft.
This guy. This fucking guy. Still drawing a salary. That's what is incredible here.
The wheels of justice grind slowly and exceedingly fine. As a Marine I sometimes escorted Marines to courts martial hearings.
They were still drawing their pay, still eating in the mess hall, maybe they were sleeping on a bunk in a holding cell. But, they
were still Marines until the sentence was pronounced and any appeals exhausted. Some were still Marines afterwards just a little
poorer and missing some stripes. But, they got what were largely fair hearings for the military. Strzok is going to get his Justice
unless someone a little more impatient splatters his brains all over the sidewalk.
Gregg, yesterday you were raising hell saying the Marines will save the day. I need to tell you and I know it's hard to believe.
There are young Marine social justice warrior communist. I've met them. Not one or two many Marines and Army, vets in general.
So not all of the Marine Corps is right wing conservative. That was the impression you gave and I didn't have time to add the
data of the Marines that I've met who are in the activist movement of the social justice warrior communist. This is a generational
issue, our generation is in conflict with their generation.
I don't blame them because of the high level of corruption in this nation, perhaps the shock of 9/11 being a fraud, I don't
know, but I noticed this back in 2010.
The 9/11 event had a big impact on many young peoples mind, the trust of government issue is big.
And another anecdotal is a young 82nd Airborne soldier who kept asking me at work about what was behind the curtain, like one
world government etc. he wanted to know everything, so young people are not following the line of reasoning we followed and MSM
parrots.
Yes, prior service older vets like you are important to us, but I want to make sure you understand, just because someone is
a Marine or 82nd soldier doesn't mean they're politically reliable for our way of thinking. That's concerning when five police
officer were killed and many wounded in Dallas by a radicalized vet.
That's the danger, and we think the army of vets in this nation will automatically side with us in a race/civil war. The military
skills demonstrated in Dallas was a warning of things to come. The other component, the number of vets still killing themselves
each day is around 30-40 and suicide is increasing, not decreasing in the overall population.
So much for the idea that Strzok is co-operating with the investigation. It's pretty clear that he isn't and that this whole
meme that Priestap, Page, et al are co-operating witnesses is pretty much bullshit, unfortunately.
PS "Texts taken out of context"
PS "While emotional over the election, I conduct myself w/ upmost integrity w/o bias while undertaking any such investigation,
especially a high-profile case against the POTUS."
PS "In hindsight, it was a bad idea to openly discuss my feelings, but, in no way did those feelings impact my ability to conduct
a fair and proper investigation - we followed where the "facts" took us."
PS "I decline to answer that question on advice from counsel."
: When you state "where 'facts' led us" - what 'facts' are you referring to? To date, there has been zero evidence of any such
collusion or connections between the Trump campaign and Russia." In fact, the only facts discovered thus far have been between
the Clinton camp and Russia and other foreign groups ."
PS "On advice of counsel, I decline to answer that question"
PS "Because of the ongoing investigation, such answers may violate the security of such investigations ."
: "Mr S, I believe nobody here is buying what you are selling. I believe there was/is a serious effort on the part of people more
senior than you to remove Mr Trump from office out of fear of what this Administration may uncover. I believe you are being dishonest
in your answers and frankly shocked you agreed to come here today. I believe everyone on this panel (minus those from the other
side of the aisle) knew exactly what your answers would be and if you think we are going to sit here and accept these answers
you would be a foolish. We are also following the facts and once we uncover more (which we will) we will act accordingly. I'm
glad you retained counsel - you'll need one and hopefully they are very good."
.
"... The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains. ..."
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails. ..."
"... If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk, rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC leak. ..."
"... On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. ..."
"... In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its key findings with supporting data. ..."
"... Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers? (Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out. ..."
Did Sen. Warner and Comey 'Collude' on Russia-gate? June 27, 2018 •
68 Comments
The U.S. was in talks for a deal with Julian Assange but then FBI Director James Comey
ordered an end to negotiations after Assange offered to prove Russia was not involved in the
DNC leak, as Ray McGovern explains.
By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News
An explosive
report by investigative journalist John Solomon on the opinion page of Monday's edition of
The Hill sheds a bright light on how Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and then-FBI Director
James Comey collaborated to prevent WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange from discussing "technical
evidence ruling out certain parties [read Russia]" in the controversial leak of Democratic
Party emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 election.
A deal that was being discussed last year between Assange and U.S. government officials
would have given Assange "limited immunity" to allow him to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in
London, where he has been exiled for six years. In exchange, Assange would agree to limit
through redactions "some classified CIA information he might release in the future," according
to Solomon, who cited "interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned over to Senate
investigators." Solomon even provided a
copy of the draft immunity deal with Assange.
But Comey's intervention to stop the negotiations with Assange ultimately ruined the deal,
Solomon says, quoting "multiple sources." With the prospective agreement thrown into serious
doubt, Assange "unleashed a series of leaks that U.S. officials say damaged their cyber warfare
capabilities for a long time to come." These were the Vault 7 releases, which led then CIA
Director Mike Pompeo to call WikiLeaks "a hostile intelligence service."
Solomon's report provides reasons why Official Washington has now put so much pressure on
Ecuador to keep Assange incommunicado in its embassy in London.
Assange: Came close to a deal with the U.S. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter
Erichsen)
The report does not say what led Comey to intervene to ruin the talks with Assange. But it
came after Assange had offered to "provide technical evidence and discussion regarding who did
not engage in the DNC releases," Solomon quotes WikiLeaks' intermediary with the government as
saying. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove that Russia was not
WikiLeaks' source of the DNC emails.
If that was the reason Comey and Warner ruined the talks, as is likely, it would reveal a
cynical decision to put U.S. intelligence agents and highly sophisticated cybertools at risk,
rather than allow Assange to at least attempt to prove that Russia was not behind the DNC
leak.
The greater risk to Warner and Comey apparently would have been if Assange provided evidence
that Russia played no role in the 2016 leaks of DNC documents.
Missteps and Stand Down
In mid-February 2017, in a remarkable display of naiveté, Adam Waldman, Assange's pro
bono attorney who acted as the intermediary in the talks, asked Warner if the Senate
Intelligence Committee staff would like any contact with Assange to ask about Russia or other
issues. Waldman was apparently oblivious to Sen. Warner's stoking of Russia-gate.
Warner contacted Comey and, invoking his name, instructed Waldman to "stand down and end the
discussions with Assange," Waldman told Solomon. The "stand down" instruction "did happen,"
according to another of Solomon's sources with good access to Warner. However, Waldman's
counterpart attorney David Laufman , an accomplished federal prosecutor picked by the
Justice Departent to work the government side of the CIA-Assange fledgling deal, told Waldman,
"That's B.S. You're not standing down, and neither am I."
But the damage had been done. When word of the original stand-down order reached WikiLeaks,
trust evaporated, putting an end to two months of what Waldman called "constructive, principled
discussions that included the Department of Justice."
The two sides had come within inches of sealing the deal. Writing to Laufman on March 28,
2017, Waldman gave him Assange's offer to discuss "risk mitigation approaches relating to CIA
documents in WikiLeaks' possession or control, such as the redaction of Agency personnel in
hostile jurisdictions," in return for "an acceptable immunity and safe passage agreement."
On March 31, 2017, though, WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that
point from what it called "Vault 7" -- a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA
files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into
computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving
so-called tell-tale signs -- like Cyrillic, for example. The CIA documents also showed that the
"Marble" tool had been employed in 2016.
Misfeasance or Malfeasance
Comey: Ordered an end to talks with Assange.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which includes among our members two former
Technical Directors of the National Security Agency, has repeatedly called
attention to its conclusion that the DNC emails were leaked -- not "hacked" by Russia or
anyone else (and, later, our suspicion that someone may have been playing Marbles, so to
speak).
In fact, VIPS and independent forensic investigators, have performed what former FBI
Director Comey -- at first inexplicably, now not so inexplicably -- failed to do when the
so-called "Russian hack" of the DNC was first reported. In July 2017 VIPS published its
key
findings with supporting data.
Two month later , VIPS published the results of
follow-up experiments conducted to test the conclusions reached in July.
Why did then FBI Director Comey fail to insist on getting direct access to the DNC computers
in order to follow best-practice forensics to discover who intruded into the DNC computers?
(Recall, at the time Sen. John McCain and others were calling the "Russian hack" no less than
an "act of war.") A 7th grader can now figure that out.
Asked on January 10, 2017 by Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr (R-NC) whether
direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation,
Comey replied
: "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server
that's involved, so it's the best evidence."
At that point, Burr and Warner let Comey down easy. Hence, it should come as no surprise
that, according to one of John Solomon's sources, Sen. Warner (who is co-chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee) kept Sen. Burr apprised of his intervention into the negotiation with
Assange, leading to its collapse.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and then a CIA
analyst for a total of 30 years and prepared and briefed, one-on-one, the President's Daily
Brief from 1981 to 1985.
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
China and the B&R have been topics of interest to me for a while, B&R I have follow
from its first announcement in 2013. (I have often found it curious that B&R and the US
Imperial "Pivot to Asia" announced by Obama came so close together in time.)
I think it is a mistaken point of view that accuses China of "economic imperialism." The
big problem with Western analysis, in my view, is that it assumes a zero sum game, a game
where trade is a weapon in hegemonic zero sum game of monopoly control of markets. China does
not seek hegemony commercially or in any other way. China has no interest - as does the
Imperial US - to take over the world. Building a community of common destiny is not
"Imperial."
I would urge everyone to spend time watching the comment and analysis shows on CGTN -
compare them to CNN and you'll see the Chinese "censored" news is so much more informative
and offers a wider range of views.
We already live in a multi-polar world, China is very important, so is Russia and India.
If you read the international press the impression you get is that all these countries plus
Europe and even Canada now are trying to trade and get along while they all have to manage
the burden of the US military interventions and aggression, the world's biggest problem for
the vast majority of the 7+ billion people, over half of global land mass is not trade it is
how to manage the threats of the Imperial US. Today without question the SCO is more
important than the G7-6-8 but of course it is almost impossible to find coverage about the
organization even in the most progressive of press outlets.
The so called left in the West needs to get over its elevation of democracy to that of a
timeless law of nature (there is no such thing)- that "free speech" supposedly suppressed in
China negates China bringing 700+ million people out of poverty, something no nation or
culture has ever achieved in human history.
Please at least try to find some survey courses on Chinese history, nothing in it would
suggest China has any interest what-so-ever in Western style Imperialism. China spent
thousands of years focusing on uniting China from the 56+ ethnic groups that make up modern
China not project power elsewhere.
Progressives are still living in a unipolar world they seem to know almost nothing about
China especially, but Russia, India and more. The progressive view is limited to zero sum
geopolitical hegemony much of its analysis is based on analysis of Zbigniew Brzezinski in the
70s and 80s.
China and the rest of the world has a far different view of Central Asia as a place of
commerce and trade, not territory essential to global domination as Brzezinski
calculated.
I hope to see more China coverage here and everywhere, covering China opens thought to
question long held underlying assumptions.
There is no god - there is lust for power. No creator "endowed" us with "rights" or
anything else - we have them and something better "The Will to Power" without mystical
permission.
I think it's important to point out that Putin is rather philo-semitic. As evident by his
friendship with Roman Abramovich, Putin is ok with Jewish oligarchs, as long as they play by
his rules ( http://www.unz.com/isteve/israel-admits-a-refugee
). Also, despite being allies with Syria and Iran, Putin has always been on relatively good
terms with Israel and its leaders, especially Avigdor Lieberman.
Ironically, Mark Weber, whose work Mr. Giraldi links to, could be arrested in Putin's
Russia. Thus, the idea that Putin is hostile to Jewish interests is absurd.
First, Putin is a pragmatist and nationalist ..Russia is his only favoritism.
Second, due to Jewish narcissism they think the law was all about them. It wasn't. It
doesn't mention the holocaust. It says :
'Denial of Nazi crimes and "wittingly spreading false information about the activity of
the USSR during the years of World War Two"
This was Putin's "Polish Lite' law ..i.e ..divorcing Russia from any crimes during WWII
and throwing all blame on the Nazis for any war crimes . 'like' killing Jews. Its his
'balancing act' after also condemning anti-Islam attitudes .
Putin is nipping in the bud any and all ethnic attitudes that could cause the same
domestic and political 'unrest' that is now rampant in Europe and the US.
Which is why he also did this: .no 'ethnic ' or 'foreign' agents are going to get a
foothold in Russia .
Russia Deports Israeli Rabbi, Second Deportation of Chabad Rabbi in 2017
For the second time this year, Russian authorities have ordered out of the country a foreign
Chabad rabbi who had lived there for years.
"This week, a Moscow district court ordered Yosef Khersonsky, an Israeli who heads one of
the capital's communities, to leave the Russian Federation in connection with his "setting up
without permission a for-profit foreign entity," the RIA Novosti news agency reported. The
court did not specify the nature of the entity.
In its ruling against Ari Edelkopf, the Krasnodar Court of Appeals accepted the determination
of a Sochi tribunal that Edelkopf, who had been working as Chabad's emissary to the city, was
a threat to national security
Approximately half of the 70 rabbis working for the Chabad-affiliated Federation of Jewish
Communities of Russia are foreign. At least eight of them have been denied permission to work
in Russia over the past decade, Gorin told JTA in March
Under legislation from 2012 that imposed major limitations on the work of groups with foreign
funding, a Jewish charitable group from Ryazan, near Moscow, was flagged in 2015 by the
Justice Ministry as a "foreign agent" over its funding from the American Jewish Joint
Distribution Committee and its reproduction in a newsletter of political op-eds that appeared
in the L'chaim Jewish weekly
Last year, a court in Sverdlovsk convicted a teacher, Semen Tykman, of inciting hatred among
students at his Chabad school against Germans and propagating the idea of Jewish superiority.
Authorities raided his school and another one in 2015, confiscating textbooks, which some
Russian Jews suggested was to create a semblance of equivalence with Russia's crackdown on
radical Islam.
From the Bloomberg article: "The U.S. plans to speak with the governments of Turkey, India
and China, all of which import Iranian oil, about finding other supplies."
Iranian condensate will most likely replace US condensate to China as much as possible.
China is the key to if/when this harsh "embargo" of Iran will ease. They have the strength to
stand up against the US and then others will follow suit (e.g. India). A barter system (goods
vs. goods trade) or payment in yuan could probably be a good enough way to avoid american
banking sanctions. But if China wants to stand up against US at this point is uncertain. If
this strangling of Iran is highly successful, it is hard to see the rewards. A high oil price
that will be the tipping point for the global economy in the wrong direction or indirectly
(hopefully not directly – who needs another war now?) overthrow the Iranian government
and thus the creation of new political problems in the country; a repeat of the Iraq
experience almost. I almost forgot that there is the nuclear issue there as well, maybe that
is also a driver
The Communist diaspora in Europe and America was also largely Jewish, including the cabal
of founders of neoconservativism in New York City. The United States Communist Party was from
the start predominantly Jewish. It was in the 1930s headed by Jew Earl Browder, grandfather
of the current snake oil salesman Bill Browder, who has been sanctimoniously proclaiming his
desire to punish Vladimir Putin for various alleged high crimes.
Earl Browder was not, so far as I know, born a Jew. While living in the Soviet Union he
married a Russian Jewess named Raisa Berkman. One of their sons, Felix, married another Jewess,
Eva Tislowitz, and Bill Browder was their son. He is matrilineally Jewish.
Apart from this minor quibble, the description of Bill Browder's career seems quite
accurate.
Reports have come in that WADA informer Rodchenkov, who fled Russia after allegedly
committing crimes, has 'attempted suicide' in Washington.
You may remember Grigory Rodchenkov as the erstwhile head of Russia's Olympic anti-doping
lab, before he resigned under shame, and fled to Washington, where he made his accusations of
"state-sponsored doping" against the Russian Olympic committee.
His accusations, however, were DEMOLISHED by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), who
ruled that Grigory Rodchenkov's evidence against Russian athletes was "hearsay with limited
probative value."
Now, sources say that Rodchenkov has attempted suicide,
Sputnik reports :
In 2016, Rodchenkov told The New York Times that at least 15 Russian Olympic medalists were
part of an alleged state-run doping program, and his testimony served as a basis for the WADA
independent commission's report on doping in Russian athletics. However, later he retracted a
major part of his accusations against the Russian athletes. According to a source within the
US law enforcement services, the informant tried to commit suicide on June 19 in his
apartment in New York city.
Peter Strzok, the FBI counterintelligence agent removed from Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's Russia investigation over anti-Trump bias, appeared before a closed door session in
front of two House committees on Wednesday, where he tried to explain anti-Trump text exchanges
with his FBI mistress as " Just an intimate conversation between intimate friends, "
according to Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee , quoting Strzok's description of the
controversial messages.
While Jackson Lee gladly accepted Strzok's answer, Republican Mark
Meadows of North Carolina wasn't buying it:
While Jackson Lee said she believed Strzok's account that his "intimate" messages didn't
reflect political bias in his work, Republican Representative Mark Meadows said, " None of my
concerns about political bias have been alleviated based on what I've heard so far ." -
Bloomberg
" If you have intimate personal conversations between two people, that normally would show
the intent more so than perhaps something that would be said out in public ," said Meadows.
Meadows said that some of the questions on Wednesday revolved around "who knew what when -
and what was the genesis of the Russia collusion investigation," into Trump's campaign.
Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL) wasn't buying it either, as Sara Carter details : "
It was a waste -- Strzok is full of it and he kept hiding behind [the] classified information
excuse."
Others had similarly disappointed reactions: Freedom Caucus & Judiciary Committee
member, Matt Gaetz (R-FL) attended today's deposition and reacted to Strzok's testimony,
telling the Sean Hannity Radio Show, that " I am shocked at the lack of curiosity with Robert
Mueller. I mean Sean, if you were in Mueller's shoes, and you had found these text messages, I
would think that you would want to ask whether or not they impacted the investigative decisions
that were made, whether there was bias, whether there was contact with other members of the FBI
regarding the investigation and where it was going and who was making the critical judgment
calls," the Florida Congressman said. " I just cannot believe the lack of curiosity on the part
of Robert Mueller. It was the strongest reaction I had today from Peter Strzok's
testimony."
* * *
Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page - known as the FBI "lovebirds" - harbored extreme
political bias for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump while actively involved in cases
against each candidate during the 2016 US election.
Their raging hatred of Donald Trump was discovered in a trove of over 50,000 texts between
Strzok and Page which were discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. While Strzok
was relegated to the HR department and marched out of his FBI office in mid-June, Page
tendered her resignation in May.
In one of the most controversial text exchanges - perhaps because the DOJ withheld it until
it came to light in the Inspector Genera's report, Page asks Strzok whether Trump will ever
become President:
Page: "(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he's not. We'll stop it. "
After the Inspector Genera's report came out in mid-June, President Trump tweeted: "The IG
Report totally destroys James Comey and all of his minions including the great lovers, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, who started the disgraceful Witch Hunt against so many innocent
people."
The Judiciary Committee will be meeting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI
Director Christopher Wray on Thursday to discuss the OIG report. Moreover, GOP Rep. Jim Jordan
of Ohio is expected to bring a House floor vote demanding that the DOJ turn over documents.
Also Thursday, a Republican resolution demanding that Rosenstein and the Justice
Department turn over more internal documents is expected to be brought to the House floor for
a vote. It will be a test of how widely Republicans back the push by party conservatives to
probe inner workings of the FBI and Justice Department and cast doubt on the legitimacy of
the continuing Russia probe. -
Bloomberg
"All we are asking for are documents we deserve to get -- and they are giving us the
finger," said Jordan.
Meanwhile, every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to protest Jordan's
resolution on "emergency bias," as they say that it shows the committee "has been hijacked by
its most extreme majority members at the expense of upholding longstanding committee rules and
minority rights."
It was not exactly clear how Congress asking the DOJ to see documents related to a massive
political scandal constitute a hijacking.
No one ever mentions how fucking stupid the FBI idiots must be to have ever text this
stupidity with each other. These people are overpaid clowns. Get rid of them ALL.
No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller has yet to bring
collusion-related charges against anyone. Evidence suggests one of his targets, George
Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damaging to
Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that he'd heard about such dirt but
never seen it. These circumstances not only fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime,
they reek of entrapment
Mueller's
Fruit of the Poisonous TreeIt makes no difference how honorable he is. His
investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its origin in 2016. By David B. Rivkin
Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley June 22, 2018 6:38 p.m. ET Special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias.
The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department's inspector general, unearthed
a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Some of their communications, the report says, were "not only indicative of a biased state of
mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral
prospects." Although Mr. Horowitz could not...
Teh author stated: "The story of the Trump collusion plot started with an intelligence
fabrication scheme hatched by US and British Government officials and their agents, including
journalists in Washington, New York and London. This started with the Golden Showers
dossier ; the sequel can be followed here . "
Over weeks and months of last year, Adam Waldman (lead image, left), a Washington lobbyist
with ties to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, tried to lure Julian Assange (second
from left) into making incriminating admissions to benefit the Democrats' campaign alleging
Russian collusion in Clinton's defeat by President Donald Trump. Assange tried to use Waldman
for a deal with the US Department of Justice, exchanging an offer to withhold disclosure of
classified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents and trade other secrets, some Russian,
in exchange for a grant of immunity from US prosecution.
At the same time, Oleg Deripaska (third from left), the oligarch in control of the Russian
aluminium industry, paid Waldman to offer US prosecutors information about the Trump election
campaign manager Paul Manafort and others connected to the Trump campaign, including Russians,
in exchange for a US Government promise not to impose sanctions on Deripaska. Last week Luke
Harding (right), a reporter for the Guardian, a London newspaper, sold the story of Waldman's
meetings with Assange and Deripaska as a conspiracy to advance a scheme by President Vladimir
Putin to control the US Government.
Four plotters; more than four schemes; money in Waldman's and Harding's pockets; not a shred
of truth.
The story of the Trump collusion plot started with an intelligence fabrication scheme
hatched by US and British Government officials and their agents, including journalists in
Washington, New York and London. This started with the Golden Showers
dossier ; the sequel can be followed here .
The story of Deripaska's engagement of Waldman as his lobbyist with Hillary Clinton at the
State Department and other officials in the Obama Administration has been running for nine
years. Deripaska's payments to Waldman have averaged half a million dollars a year; that's a
total to date of about $5 million. The failure of every one of Waldman's operations on
Deripaska's behalf can be read at this click .
A semi-annual report of Waldman's lobbying activities for Deripaska is required to be
disclosed by the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA); the record is accessible at the
FARA unit of the Justice
Department in Washington. For example, details of which US officials Waldman met and what he
wanted them to do for Deripaska were accessible in the FARA filings for 2011
here .
Since then the filings can be followed at six-monthly intervals through December 15, 2017.
In last December's filing Waldman claimed to the Justice Department that, among the purposes of
Deripaska's engagement, he was being paid for selecting animal welfare charities and promotion
of a Russian vaccine for ebola.
Waldman claims on his company website that "Endeavor acts as a core member of its Client's
[Deripaska] holding company executive team, and is the sole representative of its Client's
myriad interests before the U.S. government." Today the FARA dossier on Waldman's Russian
clients shows this:
Source:
https://efile.fara.gov/ When Waldman registered himself as lobbying for the Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov, he was doing Deripaska's bidding; Lavrov usually
does .
This means that Waldman's registration as Deripaska's agent in Washington remains active and
he continues to be paid, even though the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
ordered all US individuals and institutions to cease doing business with Deripaska and his
companies from April 6.
The US Treasury did not sanction Deripaska for supporting animal welfare and an ebola
vaccine. The reasons for Deripaska's sanction, according to the Treasury, were that "having
acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, a senior official of the
Government of the Russian Federation, as well as pursuant to E.O. 13662 for operating in the
energy sector of the Russian Federation economy. Deripaska has said that he does not separate
himself from the Russian state. He has also acknowledged possessing a Russian diplomatic
passport, and claims to have represented the Russian government in other countries. Deripaska
has been investigated for money laundering, and has been accused of threatening the lives of
business rivals, illegally wiretapping a government official, and taking part in extortion and
racketeering. There are also allegations that Deripaska bribed a government official, ordered
the murder of a businessman, and had links to a Russian organized crime group." For more on the
US action against Deripaska, read
this .
Waldman has sidestepped the ban on taking money from Deripaska by changing his registration
from Endeavor Group -- a lobbying company covered by the OFAC sanction – to "Endeavor Law
Firm PC". That's a one-man company whose only employee is Waldman; it isn't mentioned by the
Endeavor Group's website. As a law firm acting for Deripaska, Waldman isn't banned by the new
sanction.
In February of this year the Murdoch media reported that on Deripaska's instructions,
Waldman was attempting to arrange appearances before the US Senate Intelligence Committee for
Deripaska and for Christopher Steele, one of the authors of the Golden Showers dossier. Both of
them wanted the Democratic minority on the committee to issue the invitations and secure
advance undertakings in writing from the Committee, including immunity from
US prosecution .
Waldman's telephone texts were exchanged with Senator Mark Warner, a former governor of
Virginia; Democratic Party runner for president; and at present vice-chairman of the
Intelligence Committee. The messages were leaked by Republicans in Congress to the Murdoch
media, and then confirmed by Warner himself.
Deripaska, Waldman told Warner, was trying to negotiate his testimony at the Intelligence
Committee against Manafort and the Trump presidential campaign in exchange for protection from
US Government sanctions. Exactly what Deripaska told Waldman he was ready to tell the Senate
Committee about Russian Government involvement with Manafort and the Trump election campaign
has not been disclosed because Waldman failed to get any concession for Deripaska from either
the Senators or from the Justice Department officials whom he was lobbying at the same
time.
Interpreting the series, a Fox News reporter claimed: "Over the course of four months
between February and May 2017, Warner and Waldman also exchanged dozens of [telephone] texts
about possible testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee from Deripaska, Waldman's primary
Russian billionaire client .In the dozens of text messages between February 2017 and May 2017,
Waldman also talked to Warner about getting Deripaska to cooperate with the intelligence
committee. There have been reports that Deripaska, who has sued Manafort over a failed business
deal, has information to share about the former Trump aide. In May 2017, the Senate and House
intelligence committees decided not to give Deripaska legal immunity in exchange for testimony
to the panels. The text messages between Warner and Waldman appeared to stop that month." Trump
responded by tweeting: "All tied into Crooked Hillary."
For the full story of Deripaska's relationship with Manafort, read this .
Assange was first mentioned by Waldman in a message to Warner on February 15, 2017. By then,
according to Ecuadorian Embassy meeting logs exposed only now, Waldman had met Assange
three times in January, and was planning to meet him again in March. Waldman told Warner that
for this he was acting "pro bono"; that's to say, Assange wasn't paying Waldman's bill. To
protect himself, Waldman also claimed that if US officials, including Warner, didn't appreciate
the value of Waldman's negotiations with Assange, he would stop them. In retrospect, Waldman
continued meeting Assange for another nine months. Waldman's trips to London and his expenses
there for at least some of those occasions were charged to other clients of Waldman's.
The significance of Waldman's messages about Assange were ignored in the US at the time of
their first release because US reporters were focused on Waldman's Russian connexion, and the
potential for damage the reporters believed this might do to Trump. Likewise, Waldman's reports
of what Assange told him have been ignored in the London media until the Guardian revealed the
Ecuadorian government reports on Assange and the visit logs. The Guardian's purpose, like the
earlier Murdoch media reporting, was to find a Kremlin connection.
In retrospect, the Waldman-Warner texts reveal that it was Assange's intention to use
Waldman to make a connection, not to the Kremlin, but to the US Government, trading Wikileaks
for Assange's freedom. Assange was requesting, so Waldman told Warner, safe passage to
Washington and release from threats of US prosecution in return for information regarding
"future leaks" and a promise not "to do something catastrophic for the dems, Obama, CIA and
national security". Waldman wrote that to Warner on February 16, 2017, adding: "I hope someone
will consider getting him to the US to ameliorate the damage".
On March 7, 2017, Wikileaks released publicly what Assange had already described to Waldman.
This was the start of publication of the CIA's Vault-7 and Vault-8 files. The files, claimed
Wikileaks, were "the largest ever publication of confidential documents by the agency." They
revealed the extent, cost and penetration, inside the US as well as globally, of CIA
cyber-warfare operations of many kinds, including hacker attacks which the CIA created as false
flags, making them appear to originate from Russian sources.
"Since 2001," Wikileaks announced , "the CIA has gained political and budgetary
preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not
just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force --
its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to
disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in
order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division,
which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000
registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and
other 'weaponized' malware."
Assange was quoted in the Wikileaks release as saying: "There is an extreme proliferation
risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled
proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with
their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of 'Year Zero' goes
well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from
a political, legal and forensic perspective."
This was what Assange had told Waldman, days earlier, was the "something catastrophic" he
was planning. But Assange told Waldman more. He was willing to deal if the Justice Department
would agree to a quid pro quo. Waldman's messages to Warner confirm this; they also reveal that
Waldman got no swift response from Justice Department officials, so he asked Warner for his
help. Assange then started his slow release of the Vault-7 archive, one week at a time:
Assange's last publication in the CIA Vault series was on November 9. Waldman's last
meetings with Assange were in the same month.
What exactly were the terms Assange asked Waldman to trade with the Justice Department and
Warner's Intelligence Committee? Was he telling Waldman that he would stop the release of more
CIA Vault-7 documents in return for immunity from prosecution? Did he reveal to Waldman enough
information for the CIA and Justice Department to identify the source of the CIA documents?
Last week, on June 18, the US Attorney's office in Manhattan
announced that it had indicted a former CIA software engineer,
Joshua Schulte (right), as the source of the Wikileaks releases. Read the 14-page indictment
here .
Schulte, 29, had worked in the CIA's Engineering Development Group, which designed the hacking
tools used by its Center for Cyber Intelligence. In late 2016, he left the Agency and moved to
New York to work for Bloomberg. The prosecutors have charged thirteen counts against Schulte;
nine of them relate to the Wikileaks releases, and carry a total of 90 years' imprisonment on
conviction. Schulte has pleaded not guilty.
Bloomberg has
reported Schulte's indictment and court appearance, noting that after he left the CIA in
November 2016 he "worked briefly for Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News,
leaving the company in March 2017." Bloomberg has not been charged with gaining unlawful
advantage from Schulte's expertise. US media reporting the Schulte charges claim his
disclosures were one of the worst losses of classified documents in the CIA's history. Earlier
document releases through Wikileaks by Edward Snowden in 2013 came for the most part from the
National Security Agency (NSA), for which Snowden had been a contractor. He has been charged by
US prosecutors with espionage, and been granted asylum in Russia.
Wikileaks isn't named in the Schulte indictment; instead, it is referred to as
"Organization-1 which posted the Classified Information online". Schulte, the court papers
imply, obtained the classified information during 2016, in the months leading up to his
departure from the CIA in November of that year. Two months later Assange had the files,
because he told Waldman about them during their January meetings.
By the time in March, when Assange started publishing from Vault-7, investigators from the
CIA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had already identified Schulte as their
suspect. In last week's court papers it is revealed that Schulte was first interrogated by the
FBI within days of the first Wikileaks publication.
How did the FBI find its way so swiftly to Schulte? Had Waldman's contacts with the Justice
Department in February, relaying what Assange had told him, helped pinpoint Schulte as the
Wikileaks source?
Assange's current barrister in London is Jennifer Robinson of Doughty Street Chambers . She and a press spokesman,
Elina Gibbons-Plowright, were asked to clarify the meetings between Waldman and Assange which
had taken place in 2017. In addition to multiple telephone-calls to their offices, the
questions were recorded on Robinson's answer-phone and emailed. She and Gibbons-Plowright were
initially reluctant to respond.
Julian Assange and Jennifer Robinson during London court proceedings in 2011. Assange
took refuge at the Ecuador Embassy in June 2012; he was granted diplomatic asylum by the
Ecuador Government in August 2012, and Ecuadorian citizenship in December 2017. US threats to
have the UK Government arrest him and extradite him have been renewed by the Schulte indictment
of last week.
Then on Friday Robinson replied by email: "Mr Assange is cut off from phone and internet,
and is only permitted legal visits, so the only way I can put your questions to him is to
physically go into the embassy. I have no scheduled visits until next week. I trust you
understand the difficulties of his current circumstances and the impact of this in terms of
ability to provide comment and will acknowledge this in however you report this story."
I replied: "The Waldman-Assange meetings commenced, with your knowledge and counsel for your
client, more than a year ago. The SMS texts were published four months ago. Consequently, the
questions are for you to answer. You will know that Mr Waldman purports to be the one-man
employee of the Endeavor Law Firm PC, as well as the principal of Endeavor Group, a lobbying
firm. You knew that he and Mr Assange discussed matters of law and proposals for the US
Department of Justice."
The questions for Robinson were: 1. After meeting with Mr Assange in mid-February 2017, Mr
Waldman sent an SMS to Senator Mark Warner saying Mr Assange wanted "safe passage from the USG
to discuss the past and future leaks". Please explain what "safe passage" meant then. 2. In
February Mr Assange told Mr Waldman that he was planning "something catastrophic for the dems,
Obama, CIA and national security" – was that the Vault 7 disclosure? 3. Mr Waldman also
quoted Mr Assange as saying he wanted to go to the US "to ameliorate the damage" – what
did Mr Assange mean by "ameliorate the damage"? 4. Mr Waldman says Mr Assange agreed to
"serious and important concessions" for Mr Waldman to take directly to the US Department of
Justice and discuss with those officials. What were these concessions? 5. Within hours or days
of the first Wikileaks publication of the Vault 7 files, the FBI went to interview Joshua
Schulte. Did Mr Assange give Mr Waldman information or promise information about Mr Schulte to
help the FBI and CIA to identify him as a source for the Vault 7 files?
Robinson has not answered.
In Washington Waldman hides from email and telephone contact. His website contact email
address is secured behind a password barrier set up in Germany. His office telephone number
202-715-0966 provides an extension number 1006 for Waldman, but no message can be left on the
answer-phone. Waldman himself does not pick up during office hours. Neither is there an office
receptionist. The telephone directory number, like the email address, is a blind.
Questions were sent to Waldman's personal email address, which he has used to communicate
with me in the past. Waldman was asked to "clarify what were the client relationships and
purposes you held out to Mr Assange which the latter believed to be in his interest to pursue
as often with you as he appears to have done?" Waldman refuses to answer.
Harding, a Guardian correspondent in Moscow between 2007 and 2011, reported last week that
"US intelligence agencies concluded with 'high confidence' last year, in an unclassified
intelligence assessment, that the Kremlin shared hacked emails with WikiLeaks that undermined
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign as part of its effort to sway the 2016 election in
favour of Donald Trump." For identification of the faults of the US intelligence agency report,
read
this .
For months after the election in November 2016, Harding has suggested by innuendo, the
visits Waldman made to Assange from January to November 2017 – ten reportedly counted
from secret logs
obtained from the Ecuadorian Government -- indicate that Waldman, Assange and Deripaska
were scheming to advance Russian interests in the defeat of the Democratic Party campaign
against Trump.
"It is not clear why Waldman went to the WikiLeaks founder or whether the meetings had any
connection to the Russian billionaire, who is now subject to US sanctions", Harding reported,
then drawing his own conclusion: "But the disclosure is likely to raise further questions about
the extent and nature of Assange's alleged ties to Russia." This was Harding's cue for the
answer he has already decided – Waldman was Assange's back-channel to the Kremlin. In
November 2017, Harding had published a book with this conclusion in the
title, "Collusion – How Russia [sic] Helped [sic] Trump [sic] Win the White House". The
Latin qualifier has been added to identify the innuendoes for which Harding has reported no
conclusive evidence.
The headline claims the Ecuadorian surveillance reports on Assange count nine visits by
Waldman. In Harding's text, he reports three Waldman visits to Assange in January 2017; two in
March; three in April; and two in November. If accurately counted, they add up to ten. Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/ The Waldman telephone texts to Senator Warner which have been
published start in February 2017, and refer to contact with Assange which Waldman had had
already. In March, when Waldman met Assange twice, he told Warner he had "convinced him to make
serious and important concessions and am discussing those w/DOJ [with US Department of
Justice]."
The web and print displays of the story don't provide evidence for the reported connection
between Deripaska and Assange on which Harding sets store. Assange refused to reply to the
questions Harding had sent him; Waldman and Deripaska likewise.
Harding believes Assange met Waldman as a go-between through Deripaska to Moscow. It did not
occur to Harding that Assange was negotiating with Waldman for a deal with Washington.
Got my Economics Degree in 1971 – when they still taught the stuff. Maybe I
shouldn't, but I still go nuts when educated writers like yourself distort the origins of
Fascism. It was a three legged stool consisting of government, industry and labor. Taking
care of the working class was a key element. Also, being socialist, it was not market
oriented. Neoliberalism is exactly the opposite with it's 'lump of labor' and unregulated
markets. It arose in defense of the crushing fist of western capitalism and, had it not
been taken over by dictators, might have done the world a lot of good. Other than that you
wrote a nice piece. Keep it up
Now halfway into the 2 nd year of the Trump presidency it is clear that what
seemed to be a severe national hissy fit being thrown by bitterly-defeated leftist Democrats
after the 2016 election, gradually morphing into a chronic collective temper tantrum, has in
fact turned out to be one of the most severe cases of mass psychosis in modern history.
This all-too-real mental derangement is manifested in seething, unhinged, pathological rage
that has utterly consumed the entire Democrat party and countless authoritarian leftist
malcontents across America, who have literally lost their minds thanks to Donald Trump's
stunning victory. Their inability to control or contain it, even as it is becomes their steady
undoing on a national scale, only makes it that much more disturbing.
The Democrat party's legion of arrogant simple-minded fake news media propagandists have
only made matters worse for their fellow traveler politicians. No matter how badly their
clumsy, malignant subversions are backfiring in their faces (the Russian collusion hoax being
Exhibit A), no matter how sloppy, desperate and even absurd their ham-handed manipulations have
become, apparently they will simply never cease their vicious crusade to inflict malicious harm
on and, if possible, destroy the lives of their political opponents.
President Trump's strongest supporters and closest allies have the misfortune of being the
central targets of their psychotic obsession and their most vile, degenerate misbehavior. In
one sense it is a badge of honor to be a target of the seditious American left. But it is also
a serious challenge to live a normal life at the top of their political kill list. Life as a
highly-prized, ruthlessly-hunted target of a rage-driven leftist Democrat/corporate media/deep
state lynch mob is no picnic.
"Greenberg", whose real name turned out to be Gennady Vasilievich Vostretsov, solicited a
meeting with me through my longtime colleague and fellow diehard Trump loyalist Michael
Caputo.
I took the meeting. It barely lasted 20 minutes before I walked out, having neither given
nor received anything whatsoever from Vostretsov, who I never saw or talked to again. My sole
comment after the meeting was to text Michael Caputo that it had been waste of time. We never
discussed it again.
Until a few weeks ago, I had not even recalled having the meeting, given that it was the
only contact I have ever had with Vostretsov and the result was zilch.
Vostretsov's Russian nationality was of no consequence at the time of the meeting and is of
no consequence today, EXCEPT in how it has conveniently created yet another fake news cycle
opportunity wherein the media lynch mob could screech for awhile about how a "Trump ally met
with a Russian!!!!"
(In case you missed the memo, apparently now it is a crime just to meet with anyone even
remotely Russian. Same goes for considering any offer of opposition research .it's all ILLEGAL,
no??).
My short-lived one-off meeting with Vostretsov is of no relevance to anything or anyone
outside of the fake news unreality that is the Russian collusion delusion world.
Just because Democrats and the media cooked up this hoax to sustain their perpetual campaign
of public disinformation and personal destruction doesn't mean sane people have to buy into
it.
There is no dispute that the meeting with Vostretsov was a non-starter and I summarily
walked away from any involvement with him. The substance of the meeting (or more accurately the
lack thereof) is 100% exculpatory of me.
Beyond this, no one has the slightest obligation to entertain or otherwise indulge this
Russian collusion madness merely because some cabal of Democrat spinmeisters and their media
whores are consumed with chasing their own hoax and dragging the world along with them.
Clearly this cabal is willing to twist any and every conceivable circumstance however it
suits their mania to persecute any Trump allies they can. Their attempts to frame and defame
their political opponents are, frankly, pure rubbish, along with their histrionic chest-beating
in favor of their sleazy objectives.
This story, however, does have a real bombshell. It is not that Vostretsov is a Russian
national but that he was an FBI informant for at least 17 years prior to the time he
solicited a meeting with me.
Even more explosive is Vostrestov's extensive criminal history, including violent crimes
that landed him serious prison time in both Russia (10 years) and the United States.
The bombshell becomes nuclear when one considers how Vostretsov's criminal past would have
excluded him from ever being in the United States at the time he tried to lure me into
purchasing campaign intelligence, unless he had some sort of U.S. government
dispensation such as is given only to criminal informants who are doing the bidding of
their FBI patrons and handlers.
These extremely-relevant details, however, have quite deceitfully been either omitted or
glossed over by the leftist media megaphonies, in a brazenly-deceitful attempt to re-cast a
nothing-nowhere one-time meeting I had over two years ago as some sort of puzzle piece in their
disintegrating Russian collusion hoax.
Leftstream media manipulators have purposefully disregarded the most relevant and revealing
facts in order to dishonestly reduce their reporting to: "Stone met with a Russian!!!"
Incredible detail and documentation about Vostretsov's murky past and his decades of work as
an FBI stooge may be found at the website democratdossier.org
Now the FBI is righteously under massive fire for its unprecedented, undeniable
politicization and abuse of its extraordinary law enforcement powers in order to protect
Hillary Clinton from prosecution, despite her clear cut crimes, while conspiring to frame
Donald Trump and those around him with this bogus Russian collusion rap that the kill-Trump
media have been gleefully peddling for nearly two years now.
From democratdossier.org:
" In a
remarkable 2015 court affidavit (attached), Vostretsov admitted that he is FBI informant
who worked for the agency for more than 17 years. He appears to have traded information about
criminal activity for temporary visas provided to him by the FBI. We were able to collect 14
different Significant Public Benefit Parole (SPBP) documents allowing him to enter the US. This
type of visa waiver is made available to international persons participating in a law
enforcement action as an informant. The steady flow of these special waivers, with upgrades
like multi-entry status and extensions, indicate his involvement and success in FBI informant
projects. While Vostretsov claimed in the 2015 affidavit he sent to an immigration judge that
he stopped working for the FBI that year, it would be safe to assume that if a criminal alien
with his immigration background is still in the US today, he is only here with the support from
the US government and is still working with the FBI."
So, to summarize: in May 2016 a person using the alias Henry Greenberg solicited a meeting
with me, claiming they had information of importance to the presidential race. When I met with
this person (who incidentally dressed up like a Trump campaign volunteer) he made no mention of
Russia or Russian affairs and said he wanted $2M for what he had and, further, that he expected
it would be paid for not by me but by Donald Trump himself.
I immediately suspected this was some sort of shakedown and told the person I was not
interested, ending the meeting barely 20 minutes after it began. I never had any contact with
this person again.
Two years later, this individual's name comes up, again via my colleague Michael Caputo, and
I was reminded of this brief, one-off meeting, so wasteful of my time and pointless, from my
view, that I never even recalled it. But then this is the case with 100's upon 100's of
glancing encounters I've had with strangers over the course of a nearly two-year presidential
campaign, not to mention my other professional and personal pursuits, from filming a
documentary to writing multiple books to organizing efforts to beat back the establishment GOP
machinations against Trump in the lead-up to the convention.
I most certainly had not thought at the time of the meeting that is was anything in the same
universe as doing business with a "Russian", as opposed to being solicited by some random
grifter whom I knew little about, either before or after the meeting, and from whom nothing
came but a total waste of my time.
Once I recalled this meeting and pieced it together as something far more sinister than I
had ever thought, with far greater implications than merely a glancing contact with some
shakedown artist, I notified the House Intelligence Committee, and the information was
simultaneously provided to the Washington Post.
A normal, rational, objective observer would conclude from all this that 2 years ago, in the
midst of a whirlwind presidential campaign, I had a single 20-minute meeting with a random con
man who used an alias, who may have been Russian, and about whom I knew literally nothing
else.
Further, the meeting produced literally nothing, I took no further action, there was no
further contact and I had no further thought about or even recall of it until the individual's
name came up recently and took onfar greater dimension once we pieced together what was really
going on (an attempted FBI set-up), after which I reported the truth about Mr. Vostrestov's
(that he was yet another FBI "lure") to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes.
Seems pretty simple, yes?
Well, not according to the Clinton-Obama leftist media juggernaut, which not only spun this
meeting as 'another contact with Russia by a Trump loyalist', but even twisted my own
pro-active revelation of it into some sort of proof that I had lied previously. Some of the
more brazen propagandists went so far as to misportray my voluntary disclosure as a murky
scheme to somehow conceal (in plain sight, no less) long-absent proof they so far have had to
manufacture as they go, in order to prop up their Russian collusion conspiracy theory.
Predictably, the most nasty, malicious and pathologically-deceitful partisan media
manipulators, epitomized by the glib, shifty leftist ambulance chaser and wannabe Watergate
hero narrative flamekeeper Ariel Melber, immediately set about spouting their sanitized
half-truth version of this story out of the usual Clinton-Obama propaganda defamation outlets,
like MSNBC.
A full complement of fake news artists seized on my revelation of this incident as yet
another cheap opportunity to mislead their audiences and, yet again, fire up their tired,
repetitious false narrative, based solely on the same manipulative insinuations and factual
distortions they have used before in an attempt to cast me as having somehow engaged in some
sinister conspiracy.
These media hyenas will never miss a chance to peddle their fabricated version of reality,
even where it completely flies in the face of demonstrable facts (unless, of course, you have
the clairvoyance to read between the lines, aided by a giant pair of leftist lunatic
lenses.)
Rather than highlight that I walked away from this meeting after maybe 20 minutes, never
looking back, taking no action to avail myself of what was offered or even to pass it along to
anyone in the Trump Campaign to pursue, Melber and his fake news wannabes twisted their
coverage of it into a 10 minute roundtable spouting off ways in which they think I have somehow
lied, not been fully honest or am a Soviet spy.
Naturally they simply ignored, or summarily dismissed as mere speculation and a ploy on my
part, the most relevant data point of all -- that "Mr. Greenberg" turned out to be a
17-year FBI informant , who just so happened to be inspired in May 2016, of all times, to
approach someone close to Donald Trump to sell information he supposedly had.
Returning to Melber and his stunted panel of forgettable nobodies looking for their 15
minutes of fame, these bullshitters epitomize the dishonesty and unhinged animus I described
above. These are cheap partisan propagandists who do not report news or analyze facts or
illuminate their audience with insights, but instead manipulate data points and spin the
conclusions that suit their partisan orthodoxy.
Were it not for the Russian collusion hoax, what ever would the likes of Melber and his
fellow dreck peddlers do to fill their airtime? Perhaps when the witch hunt is finally
exhausted and their fake scandal finally falls apart, and I continue to walk the earth a free
man, Ari Melber will have the opportunity to go out and get a real job and do some real work,
rather than further pollute the world with his phony malicious propaganda.
I know beyond question that it is the absolute, unalterable operating premise of leftist
lynch mobsters in anything and everything they either say, write, report or do concerning me
that NOTHING that I say, or have ever said, will not be automatically presumed to be a lie, and
that NOTHING I do, or have ever done, even in the most mundane and transparent of day-to-day
activities, will not automatically be construed as some sort of criminal act or part of some
larger criminal conspiracy (i.e. anything and everything I do or say is, per the jackass media
manipulators, RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!!).
No matter what is said, no matter what facts come to light, no matter how many defamatory
leftist fabrications about me are serially and conclusively debunked, no matter how
consistently my statements all along are subsequently validated as truthful and correct none of
it matters because deceitful leftist attackbots and cheap Democrat propagandists will
cherry-pick, parse or otherwise manipulate the facts and twist my statements to cast me as a
suspicious villain.
No amount of debunking of their defamatory hoax-peddling spin and lies will dissuade them
from persisting in their deceitful malpractice and their continued pollution of the airwaves
and print outlets with their wildly-false, reckless, baseless allegations and defamatory
suspicion-manufacturing. This is just the bottom line with these news fakers.
From the moment they first hatched their cynical, vindictive partisan charade against the
American people (and sanity generally), almost 2 years ago, the leftist Democrats' sleazy
Russian collusion hoax peddlers, along with their fake news media collaborators, have been
nothing if not consistent.
In their spastic mania to prop up and prolong their Trump-Russia collusion fantasy they have
proven themselves consistently deceitful, consistently manipulative, and consistently consumed
with propagating and perpetuating a pure fiction they know damn well is not simply erroneous or
exaggerated, but in fact is a complete and total fabrication, unparalleled in the amount of
wanton malevolence that is behind it.
Underhanded and calculating as the leftist Democrats' manufactured torrent of breathless
sensationalism, phony outrage and fake news recycling may be, these political bunco artists are
not fooling anyone, at least who has an iota of common sense and rational discernment.
In fact, I doubt that the Russian collusion hoax is genuinely believed even by many of the
vicious profane malcontents who lap up this sort of leftist sewage and hatefully spew it
anywhere and everywhere possible, from social media to the family dinner table.
Of course, leftist Democrats and the Trump-hating national media are far too arrogant and
self-serving to limit their deceitful machinations to merely concocting and proliferating a
cynical treason hoax as a partisan weapon to take down a duly-elected President of the United
States. No, they must also be able to cast their seditious skullduggery as some sort of high
holy public service, saving America from itself by torpedoing the hated president it had the
gall to elect.
[It is precisely this variety of boundlessly hypocritical self-regard that pretty much sums
up the leftist attitude towards everything they do in their ceaseless lust to seize
and wield supreme power.]
Back in reality, no one with even half of a functioning brain buys this patently-absurd
notion that preening partisan pygmies from the megalomaniacal left actually give a rat's ass
about serving the public interest or preserving the sanctity of our Republic.
Only the left's most repulsive partisan parasites (see e.g. Adam Schiff; Eric Swalwell) and
deceitful media propagandists (see e.g. Ari Melber; Don Lemon; MSNBC; CNN; NY Times; WaPo .too
many to possibly list) actually seem to believe there is some high holy civic purpose behind
their endlessly-malicious, pathologically-dishonest scheming to frame, shame and defame
President Donald Trump.
It would take a truly-mindless hoaxster to think they are somehow serving their country by
conspiring to give constant false cover and perverted quasi-legitimacy to a lawless corrupt
bureaucratic hit squad of Trump-hating Hillarybot lawyers and power-crazed federal bullies set
loose, like a pack of rabid hyenas, to gleefully wage a ruthless legal jihad against President
Trump, his family members, staff, political associates, loyal longtime supporters and anyone
even marginally connected to his amazing 2016 victory and his (so far) stunningly- successful
presidency.
Even the seditious trash perpetrating this Russia collusion scam know all too well what
Trump's presidency and, above all, his singular leadership portend for the continued survival
of the undeserved power and illegitimate control that these lowlife self-dealing elites
consider to be theirs by divine right. (Suffice to say, it is not a pretty picture for
them.)
The bottom line is that Russian collusion hoaxsters serve no higher or more noble purpose
than to exact malicious petty revenge on the hated Trump and his allies, and fraudulently undo
the epic smackdown that America handed them and their corrupt fellow swamp dwellers in November
2016 -- once and for all smiting the repulsive amoral witch their party has in the greedy
self-entitled criminal hag Hillary Clinton.
Whether the Russia collusion hoaxsters like it or not, whatever minuscule shards of
credibility, believability and basic dignity they might have once had long ago vaporized into
their own toxic smoke-and-mirrors shit cloud of seething partisan malevolence and brazen
underhanded deceit. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of scoundrels
"... Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared to the US/NATO. ..."
"... Who wants to go to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly ! ..."
"... So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates" enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing). ..."
I thank the author for his timely apology. At this critical juncture we must be wise to these
Slavic wiles.
Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be
tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared
to the US/NATO.
No, Russia/Putin's guile is at the level of 3D chess. Everyone knows that behind such
obvious inadequacy lies a Cujo- like bear, taunt, ready to spring at an instinctively
guileless US .
And, let's be honest here, the US deserves a better enemy than a bunch of shabby
"terrorists". There's something just so common about these ". "terrorists". Who wants to go
to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot
like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly !
Can you imagine Ellen doing an interview with him ? No !
So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates"
enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble
getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new
nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing).
Only trouble is all this does tend to cast aspersions on such a great German/American as
Mr Hitler, who, 70 years ago did such sterling work combating the Russia/communist Evil .
What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians,
journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's
like speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)
Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to
feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.
The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the
world is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.
Hey uh, not to torque your cognitive dissonance, I know you have a lot of Democrat Party
revolutionary self-criticism sessions to go through, but when Putinhitlernazi takes over, we
get all our human rights, not just the niggardly hind-tit worthless US Bill of Rights that
DHS revoked. The Putinhitlernazi constitution prohibits the bad-faith phony rights the US
government screws us with. And the Putinhitlernazi constitution lets us go over the head of
the government to the international human rights authorities if we get no satisfaction at
home.
Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says rights and freedoms of person and citizen are
recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles and norms of
international law. Ratified international treaties supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise. Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person and citizen
are directly applicable. That prohibits bad-faith tricks like the US pulls, declaring
"non-self executing" treaties, making legally-void reservations, declarations,
understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article 46(3) gives citizens a
constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and
freedoms if all available internal means of legal redress are exhausted.
So where can I sign up for the Putinhitlernazi waffle SS commandos? I wanna overthrow this
shitcrap crapshit USA and get my rights.
=>
◄
►
◄
❌
►
▲
▼
Remove from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Add to Library
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Technically, this is flag desecration--but Olbermann has hate America for years.
Of course, this begs
an obvious question. Traitor to
what?
In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture,
language,
ethnos
, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?
The open celebration of what any other
generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully self-discrediting is the Russian "interference"
narrative.
John Harington
famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper,
none dare call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly
denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia isn't
very powerful within our government and society.
In contrast, our government and media
seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile actions by foreign governments against the
United States, but celebrate them.
To criticize any of these countries, or
to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters in this country, is political death. Of course, that
is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.
Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual
loyalty would be a massive improvement.
The only reason we can't call men like
these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever considered themselves Americans in any meaningful
way. What could be more ridiculous than considering
Chuck Schumer
"a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?
It's not double loyalty; that would be
giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own
standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the
Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.
Of course, there is a Trump associate
who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that. The main focus of the investigation into "Russian
collusion" is focusing on former
National Security Advisor Michael Flynn
. But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem to be to be
increasingly extreme and anti-European Turkey
of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn
even wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey
on election day itself.
[
Our
ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support
, by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November 8, 2016]
As Turkey is quite openly facilitating
the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a
threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian
websites [
Best-selling
author predicted Flynn's departure
, WND,
February 14, 2017]. The MSM is utterly
indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated to destroying General
Flynn personally.
Part of it simply could be the defense
industry and the
"Deep State"
need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and power. As
it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.
The real reason Russia is hated is
because it is a
media threat.
Russia is funding, or at least is tied to, several alternative media
sources such as
RT,
possibly
Wikileaks, Sputnik etc.
Contrary to MSM claims,
RT
is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there
is at least a slightly different point of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night
comedy show, network news broadcast, cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [
The
Hard Road For Putin
,
by Gregory Hood,
Radix,
July 22, 2014].
There is also an undeniable,
and openly articulated
, sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members of the
media. Russians are hated both as a specific
ethnos
and as a white nation which does not seem to be
fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class, consists of various
forms of degeneracy. [
Welcome
to Weimerica
,
by Ryan Landry,
Daily Caller,
May 5, 2017].
John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill"
we are not.
It's not just idiotic but obscene that
the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing the American identity now demand Middle America
rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War nostalgia. Needless to say,
these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist
and killing millions of Orthodox
Christians.
For immigration patriots, it's
especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity is a result of mass immigration. And
immigration is more important than every other issue for two reasons.
Immigration cuts to the heart of what a country is, of who you mean when you say "my people." Are
Americans still one people? Indeed, it's hard to claim America is even a geographic expression: referring
to the United States shorthand
as "America" is now designated as offensive
. The replacement of existing American citizens is
celebrated
by the media and
funded
by our own government.
And even citizenship means nothing, The
MSM constantly promotes
Jose Antonio Vargas
and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags not just as
"Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.
It's a strange definition of patriotism
where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason" but banning the American flag in public schools
because it might offend Mexicans
is government policy
.
Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the
reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea of "American" identity -- that of a "proposition" or
"universal" nation which exists only to fight a global struggle for equality [
Superpowers
,
by James Kirkpatrick,
NPI,
June 24, 2013].
But can you betray a "proposition
nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"
Actually, you can. If you are part of
the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans who actually think of this country as a real
nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way the only people left out of what it means to be a
modern "American." To consider America a particular place with a specific culture and history that not
everyone in the world can join simply by existing is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world
can be an "American," except, you know, actual Americans.
This is why the MSM is insistent that
the governing philosophy of "
America
First
," which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead
something subversive and dangerous
.
The hard truth is that "our" rulers
aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat to our independence.
And this isn't an unprecedented
circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia, Carl von Clausewitz
violated
his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces in the
hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying Prussia;
it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia that would
unite all of Germany.
The same situation applies today. Today,
those actively pursuing the destruction of my people, culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't
even concede those are enemies at all.
Our enemies are in New York, Washington,
and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.
The real America is under occupation –
and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country. We elected Donald Trump because we thought he
could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation so we could have a country once again.
The attempt to destroy the President has
ripped the mask off
the forces behind this occupation
. And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy
his administration, dispossess our people, and destroy our country.
Because in the end, "treason" to the
occupation is loyalty to America.
(Republished from
VDare
by permission of author or representative)
I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet
behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with
flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and
deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American
people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.
Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of
Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders.
The corporate media is reporting intrepid crusader Robert Mueller is preparing to do a
Pontius Pilate on his special council investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign.
According to WaPo, Mueller has beefed up his team with a number of prosecutors and the job
of prosecuting Russian nationals for supposedly influencing the 2016 election will be fobbed
off on them.
"The Post reports that the new hires are the first indication of Mueller preparing for the
end of his investigation," WaPo reported.
The Trump component is in the process of performing a disappearing act in slow motion. The
investigation petered out months ago. Democrats continued to pound on it. Because it's all they
have. The establishment Resistance run by Pelosi and Schumer is treading water and looking
toward the midterms.
It's like simple math. There is no evidence Trump or his associates colluded with Putin and
the Russians to somehow - through the exaggerated influence of social media - throw the
election in his favor.
This nonsense was dispelled early on.
It's true. Enterprising Russians ran a lucrative clickbait scheme on social media - just
like hundreds of other entrepreneurs. It took the the Democrats - fresh off a humiliating
defeat to a casino and real estate windbag - to make up a fantasy deserving of a novel discount
bin.
Establishment Dems counted on the corporate media to whip up the required hysteria and
frenzy among already hysterical and frenzied liberals. Many apparently sought trauma counseling
after the election.
Even with the media lavishing coverage on the Mueller investigation, it has failed to do
much of anything except get Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, and others in trouble - not for
working under Putin's direction to get the MAGA candidate elected, but for alleged bank fraud
and violation of campaign finance laws.
This is pretty routine stuff in Washington.
Mueller doesn't have a case and he knows it. Now he will save face by passing off the
investigation to underlings.
Meanwhile, the rest of us get respite - until the next drummed up load of horse manure
masquerading as high crimes and misdemeanors appears on the scene.
Not to worry. There are always stories of political intrigue to fascinate the proles - for
fifteen minutes at least - and distract from the real issues: endless war and a bankster rigged
economy slowly turning America into a third world cesspool.
I am celebrating this decision.
I am celebrating that it will mostly disappear from the news cycle.
I am celebrating petulant Democrats suffering another defeat and also celebrating denying
self-righteous Republicans a chance to climb up on their soapboxes.
Of course, they'll come up with something else, they always do.
The establishment political class is not about to stop rolling out distractions that are
poorly planned political theater stunts that could use better writing and managerial
skills.
"... Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared to the US/NATO. ..."
"... Who wants to go to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly ! ..."
"... So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates" enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing). ..."
I thank the author for his timely apology. At this critical juncture we must be wise to these
Slavic wiles.
Thank God for the US ruling class. Less acute, less imaginative ruling classes might be
tricked by the fact that Russia spends but a tiny fraction of its GDP on "defence" compared
to the US/NATO.
No, Russia/Putin's guile is at the level of 3D chess. Everyone knows that behind such
obvious inadequacy lies a Cujo- like bear, taunt, ready to spring at an instinctively
guileless US .
And, let's be honest here, the US deserves a better enemy than a bunch of shabby
"terrorists". There's something just so common about these ". "terrorists". Who wants to go
to an Ivy League college for years & years, only to end up "fighting" a complete grot
like Osama ? He was just so -- well, ugly !
Can you imagine Ellen doing an interview with him ? No !
So, the Putin/Nazi enemy is just scads better. Putin is a living "Hannibal's at the gates"
enemy (And let's face it: even your most blinkered six-pack flag waver was having trouble
getting his head around new aircraft carriers, new submarines, new F35′s & new
nuclear missiles to defend against the whole motley terrorist thing).
Only trouble is all this does tend to cast aspersions on such a great German/American as
Mr Hitler, who, 70 years ago did such sterling work combating the Russia/communist Evil .
"... Comey's memo was a key component in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's decision to launch a special counsel investigation headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Some have also suggested ( Paul Sperry to be exact) that Cambridge professor and FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper, may have had a much larger role in the operation. ..."
"... Halper is a longtime spook whose ex-father-in-law, Ray Cline , was the former chief Soviet analyst and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1962 - 1966. Halper also spied on the Carter campaign during the 1980 election for Reagan - whose Vice President was former CIA director George H.W. Bush ( Ray Cline denied the spying took place). ..."
"... Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials." Mifsud explained "that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton." Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." - The Federalist ..."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says he'll issue subpoenas for former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, but the panel's top Democrat Dianne Feinstein (CA) has to agree to it per committee rules. Grassley also said
he would be open to exploring immunity for Comey's former #2, Andrew McCabe.
"I will want to subpoena him," Grassley said of Comey during an appearance on C-SPAN's Newsmakers ."
The Iowan added that committee rules require that he and Feinstein "agree to it, and at this point I can't tell you if she
would agree to it. But if she will, yeah, then we will subpoena . " -
Politico
Feinstein may be hesitant to sign on, as she says she thinks Comey acted in good faith - which means she thinks Congress shouldn't
have a crack at questioning a key figure in the largest political scandal in modern history.
"While I disagree with his actions, I have seen no evidence that Mr. Comey acted in bad faith or that he lied about any of his
actions," said Feinstein during a Monday Judiciary panel hearing. Former Feinstein staffer and FBI investigator Dan Jones, meanwhile,
continues to work with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS on a
$50 million investigation privately funded by George Soros and other "wealthy donors" to continue the investigation into Donald
Trump.
Also recall that
Feinstein
leaked Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson's Congressional testimony in January.
Comey skipped out on appearing before Grassley's committee this week following the June 14 release of DOJ Inspector General Michael
Horowitz's (OIG) report on FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation - which dinged Comey for being "insubordinate"
and showing poor judgement. Horowitz is conducting a separate investigation into the FBI's counterintelligence operation on the Trump
campaign, including allegations of FISA surveillance abuse.
Maybe Comey also decided to bail after Horowitz admitted on Monday that
he's under a separate investigation for mishandling classified information after leaking a memo to the press documenting what
he felt was President Trump obstructing the FBI's probe into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn - which was conducted
by the FBI under dubious circumstances, and for which evidence may have been
tampered
with .
Comey's memo was a key component in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's decision to launch a special counsel investigation
headed by former FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Loretta Lynch, on the other hand , was dinged in the IG report over an "ambiguous" incomplete recusal from the Clinton email "matter"
despite a clandestine 30-minute "tarmac" meeting with Bill Clinton
one week before the FBI exonerated
Hillary Clinton .
All part of the bigger picture...
Despite IG Horowitz ultimately concluding that pro-Clinton / anti-Trump bias among the FBI's top brass did not make its way into
the Clinton email investigation, his report revealed alarming facts about FBI officials handling parallel investigations into each
candidate who received vastly different treatment.
For starters, it's clear that the FBI rushed to wrap up the Clinton email investigation before the election, while at the same
time the agency launched an open-ended counterintelligence operation against those in Trump's orbit.
We also know that opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton was used by the FBI to justify surveilling the Trump campaign
- while new facts point to a multi-pronged campaign of espionage and deceit spanning several continents, governments and agencies
which was deployed at the highest levels in an effort to undermine Donald Trump before and after the 2016 U.S. election.
Some have also suggested ( Paul Sperry to be exact) that Cambridge
professor and FBI "informant" (spy) Stefan Halper, may have had a much larger role in the operation.
Halper is a longtime spook whose ex-father-in-law, Ray Cline , was the
former chief Soviet analyst and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1962 - 1966. Halper also
spied on the Carter campaign during the 1980 election for Reagan - whose Vice President was former CIA director
George H.W. Bush (
Ray Cline denied the spying took place).
From 2012 - 2017, the Pentagon under Obama awarded Halper over
$1 million in "research" contracts - nearly half of which was awarded during the 2016 US election .
Then there's the mysterious Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud - a key witness in the Mueller investigation who
disappeared last fall , and who told Trump aide George Papadopoulos that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos would
drunkenly repeat the rumor to seasoned Australian diplomat (and
Clinton ally ) Alexander Downer in a London Bar, only to be construed by the FBI as potential collusion in order to justify their
counterintelligence operation against Trump.
And just Monday Trump advisor Roger Stone said that a
second FBI informant , Henry Greenberg, tried to entrap the Trump campaign with an offer to sell dirt on Hillary Clinton in exchange
for $2 million.
While the entire mosaic of events is multi-faceted and requires perhaps the world's biggest corkboard - here's a basic timeline
of various espionage or other spycraft conducted against the Trump campaign.
Papadopoulos' statement of offense also detailed his April 26, 2016, meeting with Mifsud at a London hotel. Over breakfast
Mifsud told Papadopoulos "he had just returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian governmental officials."
Mifsud explained "that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton."
Mifsud told Papadopoulos "the Russians had emails of Clinton." -
The Federalist
May 10, 2016 - Papadopoulos tells this to former Australian Diplomat Alexander Downer during an alleged "
drunken barroom admission ."
Late May, 2016 - Roger Stone is approached by Greenberg with the $2 million offer for dirt on Clinton
July 2016 - FBI informant (spy) Stefan Halper meets with Trump campaign aide Carter Page for the first time, which would be one
of many encounters.
July 31, 2016 - the FBI officially launches operation
Crossfire Hurricane , the code name given to the counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign.
September, 2016 - Halper invites Papadopoulos to London, paying him $3,000 to work on an energy policy paper while wining and
dining him at a 200-year-old private London club on September 15.
While the FBI has yet to find any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, they were able to use information Mifsud
planted with Papadopoulos to launch a
counterintelligence operation .
And as new facts and revelations continue to emerge, and IG Horowitz continues to unravel the FBI's counterintelligence operation
on Donald Trump, several rank-and-file FBI employees say
they want Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and testify against Comey and Andrew McCabe.
Funny - for two "innocent" people, Comey and Lynch want the exact opposite!
~Grassley also said he would be open to exploring immunity for Comey's former #2, Andrew McCabe.~
Screw you, Chuck. No one gets immunity. Stay the fuck out of what should be the business of a federal criminal grand jury.
Diane has enough trouble of her own with the leaky aide.
No, I think she will. They have the goods on her for leaking like a sieve through her aide and on to the entry level Pulitzer
Prize media whore (remember, they raided the newspaper. The goods are still there).
Rumor has it there is a subpoena waiting for DiFi out there. It would be best if she complied.
If two or more
persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States , conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the
United States , or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder,
or delay the execution of any law of the
United States , or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the
United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty
years, or both.
We don't need Commey and Lynch questioned by those losers on Capitol Hill, that is a waste of money and time. What is required
is a DOJ inquiry, or better yet, a special council for the HRC Mail Server and Corruption in the Meuller probe.
I am normally against a special council, but in this case the DOJ is clearly biased. They should get to the bottom of the crimes
committed by hillery on her mail server including realated crime transacted on the server like uranium one. That is what the FBI
would do to us, and they should be no different. Equal protection under the law means equal punishment under the law as well.
An additional special council should be formed to get to the bottom of the FISA warrant to used for surveillance on the Trump
team and find out if there was any malfeasance obtaining those warrants. This would also bring up the question of whether the
meuller probe obstructed justice by obscuring exonerating evidence that the probe was established with junk evidence.
If a good prosecutor was used, there is enough evidence in the public forum now to throw a bunch of the obama administration
in prison for political corruption and the higher echelon members of the FBI in jail for bribery. That's right, the FBI can't
take gifts, even if the media are offering them. This is corruption of the highest order and our country will not survive this
if it is not prosecuted properly.
IF WE WANT THE SWAMP DRAINED PEOPLE HAVE TO GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE TO PUT THE FEAR OF GOD AND THE PEOPLE BACK INTO BUTEAUCRATS.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed publicly Monday that his
office is investigating James Comey for his handling of classified information as part of memos
he shared documenting discussions with President Trump.
The inspector general's comments confirmed reports dating back to April that the ex-FBI
director was facing scrutiny, amid revelations that at least two of the memos he shared with
his friend, Columbia University Professor Daniel Richman, contained information now deemed
classified.
The confirmation came during Monday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where Horowitz and
FBI Director Christopher Wray testified on the findings in the IG's report on the handling of
the Hillary Clinton email probe.
"We received a referral on that from the FBI," Horowitz said, in response to questioning
from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, about the Comey memos. "We are
handling that referral and we will issue a report when the matter is complete and consistent
with the law and rules." Comey, back in April, confirmed to Fox News' Bret Baier that the IG's
office had interviewed him with regard to the memos, but downplayed the questions over
classified information as "frivolous" -- saying the real issue was whether he complied with
internal policies.
Grassley, though, told Horowitz on Monday, "I don't happen to think that is frivolous."
Comey, in testimony before Congress last year, acknowledged he shared the memos with the
intention of leaking to the press and spurring the appointment of a special counsel.
In April, Fox News initially learned that Horowitz was looking into whether classified
information was given to unauthorized sources as part of a broader review of Comey's
communications outside the bureau -- including media contact.
Comey, whom Trump fired in May 2017, denied that sharing the memos with his legal team
constituted a leak of classified information. Instead, he compared the process to keeping "a
diary."
"I didn't consider it part of an FBI file," Comey said. "It was my personal aide-memoire I
always thought of it as mine."
In his testimony last year before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey said he made the
decision to document the interactions in a way that would not trigger security
classification.
But in seven Comey memos handed over to Congress in April, eight of the 15 pages had
redactions under classified exceptions.
Looks like Fox and Free Beacon are part of the Deep state as they repeat the Deep State memo that DNC was hacked, not
that information was leaked by an insider and then false flag was performed by intelligence agencies to attribute it to Russia.
Former Obama administration National Security Council cybersecurity coordinator Michael
Daniel confirmed on Wednesday that a "stand down" order was given to counter Russian
cyberattacks during the 2016 election.
During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, asked Daniel
about a passage in the book Russian Roluette. The passage was about a staffer from Daniel's
team, Daniel Prieto, retelling the time that Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice told
Daniel and his team to halt their efforts and to "stand down" in countering Russia's
cyberattacks.
Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the
Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in
disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"
"That is an accurate rendering of the conversation at the staff meeting but the larger
context is something that we can discuss in the classified session," Daniel said. "But I can
say there were many concerns about how many people were involved in the development of the
options so the decision at that point was to neck down the number of people that were involved
in our ongoing response options. It's not accurate to say all activities ceased at that point.
"
Daniel and his team were tasked in developing options to Russia's cyberattacks on the United
States. Russian hacked the Democratic National Committee servers in 2015 and into voter
registration systems of several U.S. states in 2016.
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...
Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent
Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation
that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations
for the summit.
As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.
Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by
confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.
It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican
member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently
discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video
), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is
giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long
favoured.
One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.
In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the
obsessive
quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today
in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.
As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still
contains comments like these
Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after
the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special
criticism.
The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or
before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to
an already colourful week." .
A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding:
"It would be a highly negative thing to do."
Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and
is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.
I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a
rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald
Trump.
In my
article
for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various
British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former
chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic
Stefan Halper.
I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also
had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had
connections to British intelligence.
A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly
the opposite outcome which some people in London want.
"... In my article for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic Stefan Halper. ..."
"... I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had connections to British intelligence. ..."
"... As this article in Zerohedge says, all roads in Russiagate lead to London, not, be it noted, Moscow. ..."
Britain alarmed as John Bolton travels to Moscow to prepare summit...
Days after I discussed rumours of an imminent
Trump-Putin summit , seeming confirmation that such a summit is indeed in the works has been provided with the Kremlin's confirmation
that President Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton is travelling to Moscow next week apparently to discuss preparations
for the summit.
As far as we know, such a visit is going to take place. This is all we can say for now.
Further suggestions that some sort of easing of tensions between Washington and Moscow may be in the works has been provided by
confirmation that a group of US Republican Senators will shortly be visiting Moscow.
It seems that a combination of the collapse in the credibility of the Russiagate collusion allegations – which I suspect no Republican
member of the House or Senate any longer believes – unease in the US at Russia's breakthrough in hypersonic weapons technology (recently
discussed by Alex Christoforou and myself in this video
), and the failure of the recent sanctions the US Treasury announced against Rusal, has concentrated minds in Washington, and is
giving President Trump the political space he needs to push for the easing of tensions with Russia which he is known to have long
favoured.
One important European capital cannot conceal its dismay.
In a recent article for Consortium News I discussed the
obsessive
quality of the British establishment's paranoia about Russia , and not surprisingly in light of it an article has appeared today
in The Times of London which made clear the British government's alarm as the prospect of a Trump-Putin summit looms.
As is often the way with articles in The Times of London, this article has now been "updated" beyond recognition. However it still
contains comments like these
Mr Trump called for Russia to be readmitted to the G8 this month, wrecking Mrs May's efforts to further isolate Mr Putin after
the Salisbury poisonings. Mr Trump then linked US funding of Nato to the trade dispute with the EU, singling out Germany for special
criticism.
The prospect of a meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Putin appalls British officials. "It's unclear if this meeting is after or
before Nato and the UK visit," a Whitehall official said. "Obviously after would be better for us. It adds another dynamic to
an already colourful week." .
A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin meeting before the Nato summit would cause "dismay and alarm", adding:
"It would be a highly negative thing to do."
Nato is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter Russian aggression. "Everyone is perturbed by what is going on and
is fearing for the future of the alliance," a Whitehall source said.
I will here express my view that the Russiagate scandal was at least in part an attempt by some people in Britain to prevent a
rapprochement between the US and Russia once it became clear that achieving such a rapprochement was a policy priority for Donald
Trump.
In my
article
for Consortium News I discussed at length the size of the British footprint in the scandal, and the outsized role in it of various
British or British connected individuals such as the ex British spy Christopher Steele who compiled the Trump Dossier, the former
chief of Britain's NSA equivalent GCHQ Robert Hannigan, the former MI6 chief Sir Richard Dearlove, and the Cambridge based US academic
Stefan Halper.
I would add that there are now rumours that Professor Joseph Mifsud, the mysterious London based Maltese Professor who also
had a big role in the Russiagate affair, may also have had
connections to British intelligence.
A summit meeting between the US and Russian Presidents inaugurated an improvement in relations between the US and Russia is exactly
the opposite outcome which some people in London want.
"... the 'news' media don't care about that evil, and that falsehood, and that dangerousness -- they do it anyway, and none of them attacks the others for perpetrating this vicious war-mongering lie, that lying provocation to yet more and worse war than already exists there. ..."
"... accepted the request from Syria's Government, for assistance in protecting Syria's Government, ..."
Both President Trump and former President Obama are commonly said in America's 'news' media
to be or to have been "ceding Syria to Russia" or "ceding Syria to Russia and Iran," or similar
allegations. They imply that 'we' own (or have some right to control) Syria. That's not only a
lie; it is a very evil and harmful one, dangerously goading the US President to go even more
against Russia (and Iran) (and, of course, against Syria ) than has yet been done --
but the 'news' media don't care about that evil, and that falsehood, and that dangerousness --
they do it anyway, and none of them attacks the others for perpetrating this vicious
war-mongering lie, that lying provocation to yet more and worse war than already exists there.
And the fact that none is exposing the fraudulence of the others on this important matter, is a
yet-bigger additional scandal, beyond and amplifying the media's common lying itself. Because
they all function here like a mob, goading to more and worse invasions, and doing it on the the
basis of dangerous lies -- that America, and not the Syrians themselves, own Syria.
These lies simply assume that America (probably referring to the US Government, but
whatever) somehow "has" or else "had" Syria (so that America can now 'cede' it, to anyone); and
this assumption (that the US somehow owns Syria) is not only an imperialistic one
(which is bad, and wrong, in itself), but it reduces to nothingness the rights (in the minds of
the American public) of the Syrian people, to control their own land . That lie is
what America's 'news'media won't expose, but instead they all cooperate with it, when they're
not actually participating, themselves, in spreading these lies.
What they are doing is also to slur Russia, and to slur Iran, for having accepted the
request from Syria's Government, for assistance in protecting Syria's Government, against
the tens of thousands of jihadists who had been recruited throughout the world by the
Saudi-American alliance, to overthrow and replace Syria's Government, to replace it with one
that would be appointed by the Saud family ('America's ally'), the fundamentalist-Sunni royal
family who (as the absolute monarchy there) do actually own Saudi Arabia -- a monarchical
dictatorship, which the US Government calls an 'ally'.
The evilness of this imperialistic assumption, which is being constantly spread by the
US-and-allied 'news'media, is as bad as is its falseness, because "America" (however one wishes
to use that term) never had, never possessed, any right whatsoever to control Syria. Of course,
neither does Russia possess such a right, nor does Iran, but neither Russia nor Iran is
asserting any such right; both instead are there to protect Syria's national
sovereignty, against the invaders (including the US, and the Sauds' regime). But the
US-and-allied 'news'media don't present it that way -- the honest way -- not at all. Such
truths are instead suppressed.
I was immediately struck by this false and evil assumption that the US owns Syria, when
reading the June 15th issue of The Week magazine. It contained, under its "Best
Columns" section, a piece by Matthew Continetti ( "Obama Too Good for
America" ), which says, among other falsehoods, "Obama was wrong about a lot of other
things, too, like ceding Syria to Russia." That phrase, "ceding Syria to Russia" rose straight
out from the page to me as being remarkable, stunning, and not only because it suggests that
America owns that sovereign nation, Syria. I was especially struck by it because the CIA has
several times attempted Syrian coups and once did briefly, in 1949, overthrow and replace
Syria's democratically elected President. But is that really something which today's America's
'news'media should encourage the American public to be demanding today's American
politicians to be demanding from today's American President? How bizarre, even evil, an idea is
that? But it is so normal that it's a fair indication of how evil and untrustworthy today's
American 'news'media actually are. I just hadn't noticed it before.
Publishing such a false and evil idea, without any accompanying commentary that truthfully
presents its context and that doesn't simply let the false and evil allegation stand
unchallenged -- that instead lets it be unchallenged both factually and morally -- is not
acceptable either factually or morally, but then I checked and found that it's the almost
universal norm, in today's US 'news'media. For examples:
On 17 April 2018, CBS News headlined
"Lindsey Graham 'unnerved' after Syria briefing: 'Everything in that briefing made me more
worried'" and presented that US Senator saying, "It seems to me we are willing to give
Syria to Assad, Russia, and Iran." He was criticizing President Trump as being "all tweet and
no action." He wanted more war, and more threat of war. But when President Obama had repeatedly
denied in public that only the Syrian people should have any say-so over whom Syria's
leaders ought to be, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon repeatedly contradicted the US
President's viewpoint on this, and he said,
"The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people." If the American people have
become so dismissive of international law as this, then is it because the US 'news'media start
with the ridiculously false presumption that "America" (whatever that refers to) is the arbiter
of international law, and therefore has the right to dictate to the entire world what that law
is, and what it means? Is America, as being the dictator over the whole planet, supposed to be
something that Americans' tax-dollars ought to be funding -- that objective: global
dictatorship? How does that viewpoint differ, then, from perpetual war for perpetual 'peace' --
a dictum that's enormously profitable for America's big 'Defense' contractors, such as Lockheed
Martin, but that impoverishes the general public, both in America, and especially in the
countries (such as Syria) where 'our' Government drops bombs in order to enforce its own will
and demand, that: "Assad must go!"
In fact, as any journalist who writes or speaks about the Syrian situation and who isn't a
complete ignoramus knows, Bashar al-Assad would easily win any free and fair Presidential
election in Syria, against any contender. His public support, as shown not only in
the 2014 Syrian Presidential election , but also in the many
Western-sponsored opinion-polls in Syria (since the CIA is always eager to find potential
candidates to support against him), show this.
On 17 December 2016, Eric Chenoweth, a typical neocon Democratic Party hack, headlined
"Let Hamilton Speak: Recapturing American Democracy" , and he wrote: "Trump's statements
and appointments make clear he intends to tilt American policy to serve Russian interests:
ceding Syria to Russia by ending support to pro-Western rebels; possibly lifting economic
sanctions and recognizing the annexation of Crimea; proposing an alliance with Russia in the
war on terror while remaining uncommitted to the defense of NATO allies, in particular the
Baltic countries vulnerable to Russian aggression. Restoring American Democracy When they meet
on December 19, Republican Electors who reflect on their constitutional duty should not then
affirm Trump's election." Those
"pro-Western rebels" in Syria were actually led by Al Qaeda's Syrian branch. Without them, the
US regime wouldn't have had any "boots on the ground" forces to speak of there. In fact,
the US regime has
actually been fronting for the Saud family to take over control of Syria if and when Syria's
Government falls. The Saud family
even selected the people who in the U.N. peace talks on Syria represent 'the rebels' -- the
Sauds, who have been Syria's enemy ever since 1950, selected 'Syria's opposition', who were now
seeking to take over Syria if and when 'America's moderate rebels' succeed. Both Al Qaeda and
ISIS are actually fundamentalist-Sunnis, like the Saud family are, and Assad's Government is
resolutely non-sectarian. Assad himself is a non-Islamist Alawite Shiite secularist, which
virtually all fundamentalist Sunnis (such as the Sauds are) are taught to despise and to hate
-- especially because he's Shiite. The US regime knows that neither it, which is considered
Christian, nor Israel, which is theocratically Jewish, could practically succeed at imposing
rule in Syria, but that maybe the Sauds could -- so, they are the actual leaders of the
'pro-Western' forces, seeking to replace Syria's secularist Government. Overthrowing Syria's
Government would be their victory. It would be the Saud
family's victory. But this fact is kept a secret from the American public, by the US
'news'media.
Already by late September of 2015, even prior to Russia's having been requested by President
Assad to enter the war in order to speed up the defeat of what Washington still calls 'the
rebels', it was clear that Washington (actually Riyadh) wasn't going to take over Syria; and
Americans were -- and are -- being taught by the 'news'media, that this was because Obama was
'weak' and didn't care enough about 'human rights' in Syria, and about 'democracy' in Syria.
So, on 28 September 2015, Matt Purple at the libertarian
"Rare Politics" site, headlined
"Pentagon admits that the Syrian rebels it trained handed over weapons to al Qaeda" , and
he wrote "Neoconservatives wail that President Obama is ceding Syria to Russia -- but the
reason the Russians are taking the lead is precisely because America has sidelined itself." But
the US regime hadn't at all "sidelined itself"; it continued -- and it continues to this day --
its invasion and occupation of that land. Trump's
policy on Syria is basically a continuation of Obama's -- and it's not at all "ceding Syria to Russia," or "ceding Syria to Russia and
Iran."
Because of America's 'news'media, it still isn't "ceding Syria to the Syrians" -- as Ban
ki-Moon and international law would. That wouldn't be profitable for Lockheed Martin etc.
(whose biggest customers other than the US Government are the Sauds, and
Trump alone sold $400 billion of US weapons to them ); so, it's not done.
Syria's sovereignty is utterly denied by the US regime, but if the US regime were to
succeed, the big winners would actually be the Saud family.
Do the American people have sovereignty, over 'their' ( our ) Government? US
'news'media effectively ban that question. Perhaps what controls the US Government is
the
Saudi-Israeli alliance: the Sauds have the money, and the Israelis have the lobbyists. Of
course, the US 'news'media are obsessed whether Russia controls the US Government.
That diversionary tactic is extremely profitable to companies such as General Dynamics, and
America's other weapons-manufacturers, which thrive on wars -- especially by selling to the
Sauds, and to their allies (and, obviously, not at all to Russia).
When I saw that Shawn Walker Tweet, and the mostly brilliant take-down responses, I hoped b
would mention it. I can think of no one better suited to address this particularly putrid
propaganda. Bravo! And to the (almost) universally excellent barfly commentariat.
BBC created a whole genre of Russian World Cup scare mongering. One they did was on the
deadly threat of "Russian Football Hooligans." RT did an excellent 4 minute job of combining
journalism with humor to expose that bit of 100% Fake News.
The Media is a complete weapon for propaganda. The "writers" are propagandists. There never
is a report on Russia from the Western media that does not vilify or demonize Russia or
Russians in some way.
The World Cup is experienced by hundreds of thousands of tourists in Russia. They are
going to be the truth-tellers.
The event, like Sochi Winter Olympics will stand for itself. It will be splendid.
And the lies will die.
Never expect the truth from the Media.
Always expect the Russian people to be extraordinary. They have demonstrated it for a
century.
The problem the MSMs have is that the World Cup so far has been a success.
Notable quotes:
"... Also just like the Trump bizzo, when his employers dipped out, Steele's unsubstantiated gossip & slander having done nothing useful, Steele leaked his report to the feds. ..."
"... The claims he makes are utterly fantastic ( WARNING the link is to a graun 'long read' and is brimming with tedious & tendentious bulldust) the most laughable being that 'Putin' - always Putin never any of the many thousands of astute bureaucrats who work in the Russian government, stole a bunch of valuable old paintings from the Hermitage and gave them to the blokes on the World Cup venue committee as a bribe. The feds who went through these poor old buggers' lives with a fine tooth comb found nothing to substantiate that libel. ..."
"... The worst thing about these slanders and the harassment of a few old geezers who prefer sport as a mechanism for nations to interact than war, is that these old fellas were all (well just about all) socialists who yeah probably did allow a coupla mill to fall into their wallets, but who were dedicated to their sport remaining egalitarian. They invested billions into developing their sport all over the world especially in Africa, Latin America and the Mid-East where a shortage of venues, kit and professional coaches used to really hold those nations back. ..."
"... The 'clean sweep' of FIFA has opened the door to neolibs who are talking about corporatising the World Cup like the Olympics, then the billions will all go to corporations and their shareholders ..."
"... It is stuff like this about Skirpal's boss Steele, which really opens up the field of suspects on the 'poisoning'. I have no doubt Skirpal would have been the alleged 'proof' for this farrago of tosh. Russia and Qatar got their world cup final, but england and amerika (who were the finalists against Qatar for hosting in 2022) didn't, surely it is the latter two who are more likely to have a grudge against old Sergei. ..."
"... The Western corporate media is a sorry spectacle to behold. The Baltic and the Scandinavian branches are the most pathetic. Combining native stupidity with pig-headed tenacity to hold on to the past. ..."
And another thing - the other day I came a cross an interesting tidbit, I would include a
link if I can remember where I saw it, it may in fact have even been the graun. It goes like
this:
A few years back the FBI raided the FIFA HQ in Switzerland eventually arresting and charging
many FIFA commissioners alleging they were taking backhanders and at the time I, along with
many other sort of assumed that the amerikans shoving their stickbeaks into an organisation
which was none of their damn business was down to an announcement from FIFA president Blatter
that if the Israeli army and police didn't cease harassing the Palestinian team preventing
players from getting to international games by holding the players up at checkpoints, sometimes
for days, FIFA would have no choice but to penalise the Israeli football team who had already
been granted special dispensation by FIFA to play in the Euro conference rather than the ME one
that their geography should have demanded.
Nuttytahoo did his usual 'antisemite' victim whine so it was a reasonable assumption to think
the fed raid the next week was connected.
It may have been the issue which caused the amerikan sheet sniffers to move, but the actual
investigation was caused by something completely different. Two nations competed for the 2018 world cup hosting rights. One was Russia and the second one
was . . .drumroll. . . England! Yep the perfidious poms had put in their bid and one of the tools in their 'kit' was none other
than the old fibber Christopher Steele, who just as with the Trump investigation, did his
'inquiry' by remote control as he is persona non grata in Russia.
Also just like the Trump bizzo, when his employers dipped out, Steele's unsubstantiated gossip
& slander having done nothing useful, Steele leaked his report to the feds.
The claims he makes
are utterly fantastic ( WARNING the link is to a graun 'long read' and is brimming with
tedious & tendentious bulldust) the most laughable being that 'Putin' - always Putin never
any of the many thousands of astute bureaucrats who work in the Russian government, stole a
bunch of valuable old paintings from the Hermitage and gave them to the blokes on the World Cup
venue committee as a bribe. The feds who went through these poor old buggers' lives with a fine
tooth comb found nothing to substantiate that libel.
The other big lie was that while the Russian president was in Qatar finalising the joint gas
pipeline deal he cut another deal of the 'you vote for us we'll vote for you' as world cup host
in 2018 and 2022 respectively. Yeah that sounds just like President Putin tossing Russia's
economic future to the side while he organised a few soccer games - not.
The worst thing about these slanders and the harassment of a few old geezers who prefer
sport as a mechanism for nations to interact than war, is that these old fellas were all (well
just about all) socialists who yeah probably did allow a coupla mill to fall into their
wallets, but who were dedicated to their sport remaining egalitarian. They invested billions
into developing their sport all over the world especially in Africa, Latin America and the
Mid-East where a shortage of venues, kit and professional coaches used to really hold those
nations back.
The 'clean sweep' of FIFA has opened the door to neolibs who are talking about corporatising
the World Cup like the Olympics, then the billions will all go to corporations and their
shareholders.
No one should begrudge these guys the few quid they grabbed, I know puritans hate it but in
a truly tolerant society we should expect that a few otherwise dedicated types will always
'tickle the peter'. I used to get pissed about it in the union movement but the amounts are
usually small compared to turn-over and I'd rather have a dodgy member of the proletariat who
grabs a little in a position of power than a slimy neolib forever manouvering to flog the
entire kit & kaboodle off to a bunch of anonymous 'financiers'.
It is stuff like this about Skirpal's boss Steele, which really opens up the field of
suspects on the 'poisoning'. I have no doubt Skirpal would have been the alleged 'proof' for
this farrago of tosh. Russia and Qatar got their world cup final, but england and amerika (who
were the finalists against Qatar for hosting in 2022) didn't, surely it is the latter two who
are more likely to have a grudge against old Sergei.
The UK hates the idea that the EU that they left would turn to Russia for friendship. Their
propaganda goes along with the USA that shares this apprehension. Now that Trump has
humiliated the EU, the EU is turning toward Russia despite the UK...
The Western corporate media is a sorry spectacle to behold. The Baltic and the Scandinavian
branches are the most pathetic. Combining native stupidity with pig-headed tenacity to hold
on to the past.
I'm glad you linked to C J Hopkins. I am impressed with his wit, intelligence and writing
style. He got booted off Counterpunch as I understand and is now published by the Unz Review,
a rather strange but interesting site that picks up talented writers and thinkers from the
left and from the right and appears to pay them.
I say strange because, judging by the
comments, the alt-right appear to imagine that like zero hedge it is their forum and attack
perfectly good articles because they do not fit in with their ideological mindset.
There is a
sort of muddiness in the identity of the site (unlike MOA), but I am pleased that people like
C J Hopkins may get something for their brilliant efforts. Diana Johnstone, someone I have
huge regard for, is another who appears on Unz.
"... For Mattis to lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting Washington. ..."
"... Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's "actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals." ..."
"... It is classic "in denial" ..."
"... "What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with," ..."
"... "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of its own criminal foreign conduct." ..."
"... "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen." ..."
"... Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of sociopaths." ..."
Jun 20, 2018, RT Op-ed The statements, views and opinions expressed
in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
It's parallel
universe time when US Pentagon chief James 'Mad Dog' Mattis complains that America's "moral
authority" is being undermined by others – specifically Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
This is the ex-Marine general who gained his ruthless reputation from when illegally occupying
US troops razed the
Iraqi city of Fallujah in the 2004-2005 using "shake and bake" bombardment of
inhabitants with banned white phosphorus incendiaries.
A repeat of those war crimes happened again last year under Mattis' watch as Pentagon chief
when US warplanes obliterated the Syrian city of Raqqa, killing thousands of civilians. Even
the pro-US Human Rights Watch
abhorred the repeated use of white phosphorus during that campaign to "liberate"
Raqqa, supposedly from jihadists.
These are but two examples from dense archives of US war crimes committed over several
decades, from its illegal intervention in Syria to Libya, from Iraq to Vietnam, back to the
Korean War in the early 1950s when American carpet bombing killed millions of innocent
civilians.
For Mattis to
lament during a speech at a naval college last week that America's moral authority is being
eroded by Putin is a symptom of the delusional official thinking infesting
Washington.
According to Mattis, the problem of America's diminishing global reputation has
nothing to do with US misconduct – even though the evidence is replete to prove that
systematic misconduct. No, the problem, according to him, is that Russia's Putin is somehow
sneakily undermining Washington's moral authority.
Mattis told his audience: "Putin aims to diminish the appeal of the western democratic
model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority." He added that the Russian leader's
"actions are designed not to challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise
our belief in our ideals."
The US Secretary of Defense doesn't elaborate on how he thinks Russia is achieving this
dastardly plot to demean America. It is simply asserted as fact. This has been a theme recycled
over and over by officials in Washington and Brussels, other Western government leaders and of
course NATO and its affiliated think-tanks. All of which has been dutifully peddled by Western
news media.
It is classic "in denial" thinking. The general loss of legitimacy and
authority by Western governments is supposedly nothing to do with their own inherent failures
and transgressions, from bankrupt austerity economics, to deteriorating social conditions, to
illegal US-led wars and the repercussions of blowback terrorism and mass migration of refugees.
Oh no. What the ruling elites are trying to do is shift the blame from their own culpability
on to others, principally Russia. American political analyst Randy Martin says that Mattis'
latest remarks show a form of collective delusion among Western political establishments and
their aligned mainstream news media.
"What a powerful delusion Mattis and Western leaders like him are encumbered with,"
says Martin. "The US undercuts and compromises its own avowed beliefs and ideals because it
has lost any moral integrity that it might have feasibly pretended to have due to decades of
its own criminal foreign conduct."
The analyst added: "America's so-called moral authority is the free pass it gives itself
to topple democracy in Ukraine, replacing it with neo-Nazis; it has turned economically
prosperous Libya into a wasteland, after murdering its leader Muammar Gaddafi; it funds and
openly sponsors the MKO terror group in Iran for regime change in Tehran; and it is neck deep
in fueling the Saudi coalition's genocidal war in Yemen."
Despite this litany of criminality committed by the US with the acquiescence of European
allies, Washington, says Martin, "preaches a bizarre doctrine of 'exceptionalism' and somehow
arrogates a moral right to dominate the world. This is the fruit of the diseased minds of
sociopaths."
This week, three headline-making issues speak volumes about America's declining moral
authority.
... ... ...
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with
articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a
Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal
Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including
The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his
columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little tired of waiting for the Hitlerian
nightmare that the corporate media promised us was coming back in 2016. Frankly, I'm beginning
to suspect that all their apocalyptic pronouncements were just parts of some elaborate
cocktease. I mean, here we are, a year and half into the reign of the Trumpian Reich, and,
well, where are all the concentration camps, the SS units with their death's head insignia, the
Riefenstahlian parades and rallies? Trump hasn't even banned the Democratic Party, or annexed
Canada, or invaded Mexico, or made anybody wear color-coded armbands. If he doesn't start
Hitlering relatively soon, the oracles of the corporate media are going to have some serious
explaining to do.
I don't think I'm overreacting. After all, back in 2016, The Guardian promised us an
"
Age of Darkness ," and the end of "civilized order" as we know it. "
Globalization is dead, and white supremacy has triumphed ," one of its more hysterical
pundits proclaimed. "
Donald Trump is actually a fascist ," Michael Kinsley assured us in The Washington
Post . Charles Blow of The New York Times warned that Trump's election was "the
beginning of the end," the descent of the republic into "
racial Orwellianism ," whatever that's supposed to mean. Thomas Friedman called it "
a moral 911 ." Paul Krugman predicted nothing short of " a global
recession with no end in sight ." Jonathan Chait, after heroically vowing not to flee the
country with his terrified family, but to stay and fight to the bitter end, guaranteed us that
the "monster," Trump, would "
shake the republic to its foundations ."
Perhaps my seismometer is on the fritz, but I haven't detected much foundation shaking. Yes,
Trump repulses me, personally. I do not like the man. I never have. I was based in New York for
fifteen years, in the 1990s and early 2000s, before he became a game show host, when he was
still just a
shady real estate mogul with alleged ties to organized crime who occasionally appeared on
Wrestlemania and just generally went about the city making a narcissistic ass of himself
and plastering his gold-plated name onto everything. So I have no illusions about his character
the man is an inveterate snake oil salesman with the moral compass of a Tijuana pimp. All I'm
saying is, we were promised Hitler, or Mussolini at the very least, and it seems like all we're
getting so far is just regular old narcissistic Donald Trump.
Of course, he could just be laying low and holding back on the Hitler stuff as part of the
evil master plan personally developed by Vladimir Putin to systematically brainwash Americans
(with state-of-the-art mind-control Facebook ads) into embracing all-out National Socialism and
marching through the streets in full Nazi regalia singing Amerika Über Alles at which
point Trump will rip off his mask, reveal his true Hitlerian face, Steve Bannon will suddenly
reappear in the turret of an M1 Abrams tank at the head of a division of rebel infantry flying
giant Confederate flags as they hideously rumble down Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Putin-Nazi
Holocaust will begin.
Or maybe the extremely serious, Pulitzer Prize-winning political pundit David Leonhardt is
onto something. In
a prominent op-ed in The New York Times , he wonders if Putin's "secret plan" is for
Trump to destroy "the Atlantic alliance" by arriving late for the G7 meeting and "picking
fights over artificial issues," not to mention insulting the Canadian prime minister, which, it
doesn't get much more hair-raising than that. OK, I know you're probably thinking that sounds
like the hopelessly paranoid jabber of some conspiracy theorist nut on YouTube, but we're
talking The New York Times here, folks, and a bona fide "respectable pundit" who wrote a
whole 15,000-word ebook and has been interviewed by Stephen Colbert, among his many other
distinguished accomplishments.
Examined in the context of other blatantly loony theories the corporate media are currently
attempting to ram down our throats, Leonhardt's theory kind of makes sense. The Guardian
, another very serious newspaper, in addition to covering the repercussions of its coverage of
Corbyn's Nazi Death
Cult , is hot on the trail of the soon-to-be-infamous Putin-Banks-Brexit
Connection . According to "documents seen by The Observer ," a Guardian
sister publication, Arron Banks, a "Brexit bankroller," allegedly
had brunch with the Russian ambassador three times , instead of just once, as he had
claimed. He was also allegedly offered a piece of some shady gold deal in exchange for the
number of someone on Trump transition team, which for some reason it was otherwise impossible
to obtain. Or whatever. It doesn't really matter what happened. The point is, Putin
orchestrated the Brexit, presumably as part of his secret plan to destabilize the Atlantic
alliance, and then blackmailed Trump into running for president with
that "pee-tape" the Democrats paid a former British spook to allege exists .
Paul Krugman of The New York Times concurs. In
his latest extremely serious piece of totally respectable grown-up opinionating , he once
again calls Trump "a quisling" (he's developed a fondness for this term, which goes over well
with New York Times readers) and reiterates that Trump is "a de facto foreign agent" and
that "America as we know it is finished." Tragically, according to Krugman, the FBI, CIA, and
other Guardians of Western Democracy are utterly powerless to deal with this quisling, and his
evil puppet master, Putin, because it turns out the entire Republican Party is "hopelessly,
irredeemably corrupt." Yes, it appears the only chance we have to save the world from
Trumpzilla, and imminent Putin-Nazi Holocaust, is to elect a buttload of Democrats to office,
and eventually an Obama-like Democratic President, so they can launch an all-out thermonuclear
war against Russia and North Korea that'll teach these Putin-Nazis to screw around with our
trade agreements!
Oh, and also, we need to cancel the Brexit, and do away with all these "populist" movements
that Putin has fomented all over Europe. For example,
according to billionaire George Soros , the refugee-hating League in Italy is likely
another Putin-backed front, part of his scheme to "dominate the West." One can only assume that
the AfD, the FPÖ, Rassemblement National, and every other extreme-Right party exploiting
people's rage and fear in Europe are parts of Putin's grand conspiracy (except, of course, for
the Ukrainian Nazis the
Western alliance put into power ). Soros, like billionaire Bruce Wayne before him, tired of
waiting for the West to strike back, is taking matters into his own hands. Not only has he been
tirelessly laboring to prevent Donald Trump from "
destroying the world ," now
he's financing "Best for Britain," a campaign to de-brainwash the British people, who,
obviously, only voted for Brexit because they'd been brainwashed by the Putin-Nazis.
I'm not sure how much more bizarre things can get. This level of bull goose loony paranoia,
media-generated mass hysteria, and mindless conformity would be hysterically funny if it
weren't so fucking horrifying in terms of what it says about millions of Westerners, who are
apparently prepared to believe almost anything the authorities tell them, no matter how nuts.
That famous Voltaire quote comes to mind "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make
you commit atrocities," he wrote. Another, more disturbing way of looking at it is, people
willing to believe absurdities, to switch off their critical thinking faculties in order to
conform to an official narrative as blatantly ridiculous as the Putin-Nazi narrative, are
people who have already surrendered their autonomy, who have traded it for the comfort of the
herd. Such people cannot be reasoned with, because there isn't really anyone in there. There is
only whatever mindless jabber got injected into their brain that day, the dutiful repetition of
which guarantees they remain a "normal" person (who believes what other normal persons
believe), and not some sort of "radical" or "extremist."
These people are the people who worry me these "normal" people who, completely calmly, as if
what they are saying wasn't batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and how Putin
is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these people, some of
whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who genuinely like me in
return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by and watch me marched into
prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
These people are the people who worry me these "normal" people who, completely calmly,
as if what they are saying wasn't batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and
how Putin is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these
people, some of whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who
genuinely like me in return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by
and watch me marched into prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest.
I've got the same friends. Liberal Putin haters. Dupes, and suckers.
It's true that some of this is a matter of loony cultish shibboleths imposed to enforce
conformity. But there's more to it. This hysterical vilification of Trump is rational and
purposive. The system depends on everybody blaming the other party for what CIA does to you.
CIA has impunity and an illegal state of emergency based on secret law. They can kill anybody
they want and get away with it, including the presidential puppet ruler, ask JFK, oh wait,
you can't, he's dead. That absolute sovereignty means CIA's in charge, the buck stops there.
So it's crucial to keep the public's attention and emotional energy fixed on the puppet.
Russia does pose a threat, but it's not what we're told. Tying the demonized political
enemy to Russia is CIA's way of disguising the real threat Russia poses. Russia is the
world's most effective advocate for black-letter rule of law, including human rights law that
would destroy the CIA police state. The CIA regime's fulla-shitness is obvious to everyone in
the world except the American public.
Russia complies with international law. The USA does not. The largest bloc Russia leads is
not the SCO or the BRICS, it's the G-192, the rule-of-law advocates in UNCTAD, UNESCO, and
the General Assembly. People are now discussing Uniting for Peace as a means to counter US
abuse of veto impunity in the UNSC. Uniting for Peace was originally devised in response to
Soviet obstruction, so the tables have turned in a striking way. The free world is ~USA, and
they're going from strength to strength under the Russian nuclear umbrella. They're going to
break down the Iron Curtain and let us out.
Vlad Putin is the leader of the free World, most popular leader in the World, his people like
what he's doing and that would be delivering them a better life while minding his own
business internationally. Again I ask "what has Russia ever done to the USA"?
The left is sinking fast these days, most people aren't interested in being over run with
immigrants or watching the faggots make fools of themselves or having the State in their
business all the time. Time to pave the roads, give us decent schools and Hospitals, put the
junkies into leaky boats and send them out to Sea and make sure everyone gets fed. That's
what we want, fuck that war shit, nobody wants that. America is nothing but a Thug Nation, at
least Trump is something different, anything would be better than the status quo down
there.
Never mind, they'll be broke soon and the World will be wrecked for ten years, worth it I
say.
Agree.
In their feverish desire to be correct in the eyes of their paymasters, the
ever-opportunistic Paul Krugman of The New York Times, the ever-opportunistic "psychologist"
David Brooks, and the "progressively" profiteering Rachel Maddow of MSNBC have crossed all
barriers of decent behavior. They are the product of Rovian creation of reality , when
facts -- the documented facts -- have no weight anymore.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities," indeed.
Meanwhile, in Syria, "Drivers Behind the War on Syria and the Impoverishment of Us All:"
https://www.globalresearch.ca/drivers-behind-the-war-on-syria-and-the-impoverishment-of-us-all/5644381
"We know that the Western narratives about the war on Syria are entirely false, so what are
some of the real reasons that are driving this overseas holocaust, and who is benefiting from
it?
To be blunt, Western policymakers seek to destroy secular democracy in Syria, along with its
socially uplifting political economy, with a view to installing a compliant fascist Wahhabi
government. The end result is chaos, the enrichment of the transnational "oligarchs" and the
impoverishment of Syria.
In doing this, the policymakers are also impoverishing the vast majority of people in Western
countries1, destroying nation-state sovereignties, and endeavouring to create a totalitarian
World Order.
International financial institutions see local banking as a threat. Consequently, in Aleppo,
Syria, terrorists destroyed local banking institutions."
– Same as in Libya. The banking cabal had led the US/EU coalition of war criminals to
murder hundreds of thousands of people in order to destroy Libyan banking system and to
satisfy Israel's aspirations for Ertez Israel: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38009.htm
"America's Collusion With Neo-Nazis," by Stephen F. Cohen:
ttps://www.thenation.com/article/americas-collusion-with-neo-nazis/
"– That the pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa
shortly later in 2014 reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during
World War II has been all but deleted from the American mainstream narrative even though it
remains a painful and revelatory experience for many Ukrainians.
-- That the Azov Battalion of some 3,000 well-armed fighters, which has played a major combat
role in the Ukrainian civil war and now is an official component of Kiev's armed forces, is
avowedly "partially" pro-Nazi, as evidenced by its regalia, slogans, and programmatic
statements, and well-documented as such by several international monitoring organizations.
[The Azov Battalion was financed by a Jewish oligarch Kolomojsky]. (
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Frussia-insider.com%2Fsites%2Finsider%2Ffiles%2F-DaRo81rUvA.jpg&f=1
" -- That stormtroop-like assaults on gays, Jews, elderly ethnic Russians, and other "impure"
citizens are widespread throughout Kiev-ruled Ukraine, along with torchlight marches
reminiscent of those that eventually inflamed Germany in the late 1920s and 1930s. And that
the police and official legal authorities do virtually nothing to prevent these neo-fascist
acts or to prosecute them. On the contrary, Kiev has officially encouraged them by
systematically rehabilitating and even memorializing Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi German
extermination pogroms and their leaders during World War II, renaming streets in their honor,
building monuments to them, rewriting history to glorify them, and more."
– None of the 52 main Jewish American organizations raised their voices to condemn the
revival of neo-Nazism (banderism) in Ukraine. Is this because of the ethnicity of the State
Dept. organizers of the putsch, Nuland-Kagan and Pyatt? Or is it because of the zionists'
visceral hatred towards Russia that has been protecting the sovereign state of Syria from the
supremacist Israeli thugs?
I loved this article! Funny as hell! I do not have quite the negative view of Trump – I
do think he has matured some from his playboy days and clearly is serious about doing some
good things – but the author's depiction of the posturing buffoons of the media is spot
on. Hitler indeed! Ha ha!
When Hillary started ranting about Trump being "Putin's Puppet", I wondered "Where did that
come from?". I decided that she probably had a pot of evil warming on the stove and needed a
scapegoat to go along with it. Later events haven't proven me wrong.
I just discovered the brilliant Shadia Drury, one of the best resources on the Neocon and
Straussian concept of the 'Noble Lie', and the enemy (previously War On Terror, now Russia
Threat) to unite the nihilism of liberal society and prevent it from disintegrating.
trump derangement syndrome here with Hopkins. Trump was a showman, like thousands of others.
He also enjoyed celebrity , again, only this time, like millions of others.
He likes women, especially in a state of undress. Who doesn't? Women as much as men, like
to look at pictures of naked ladies, maybe more than men.
Maybe the whole article by Hopkins is a joke.
What I do not fully understand, and Hopkins does not help is how lunatic-hatred on the
part of liberals has become so powerful.
I talked some race, as in global North and global South and natural selection, to a
liberal gal the other day, and she thought it made sense. But she still hates Trump.
Or take the current moral Outrage over baby Mexicans at the border. None of it makes any
sense, especially inasmuch as Mom and Pop can just keep family together by going home, which
is not an option for the average burglary suspect, etc. here at home.
Trump has become the default target for every aggrieved world-hating liberal sap. The
world must be changed! I demand it!
It may have something to do also with the perception that maybe they picked the wrong
team, and that various career choices may have been wrong, in terms of jobs/career and so on.
Given the armies of professional liberals wearing badges of Equality but scrambling for
Privilege, Trump's laughter at their expense must drive them nuts.
And/or, the SJW types of youngsters (like I was at the time of Vietnam Slaughters) Trump
is the Absolute Negation of everything they dream about the Perfect World, and their own
badges of Revolutionary Correctness/Rectitude which they desperately seek to pin on their
chests/breasts.
( curiously, many young women bare their breasts in protest about something or other. More
sexual politics, I guess, especially if they have nice tits.)
I am you and you are me and we are all together. Milan Kundera has a great image in one of
his novels about the Revolution in Hungary (?), the communist Revolution that is: A circle
dance of young pioneer dancers spiraling up into the sky, like the Ascent of Christians to
heaven. He admitted that he was of that delusion at the time. Hope morphed into Belief.
The Delusions of Race Equality are also at hand. And even though Trump declares himself
politically correct on that score, the Trump Deranged syndrome SJW children and their
parents, deny that Trump is a fellow true-believer. Trump is a Racist! really, and so on.
After a half-century of blatant failure of Blacks to improve the Content of Their
Character, never mind getting grades good enough to get into college without privileged
access, quotas, etc. older liberals, at least, smell Failure. Disillusion dreams dying hard
contributes to the hatreds afoot.
The kids vote for Bernie, but the parents are also disillusioned about socialism, yet the
kids luv Bernie and even now blame Billary, etc. for Trump. Who can blame the kids what with
the economy punishing their generation like we have not seen for generations
(The ten year cycle of recessions is about to recycle another recession, if history means
anything in this regard. Trump is not out of trouble and his standard issue GOP economics is
not going to save him if a recession roars in. Wages are still super low, etc, etc and will
plummet in another recession, never mind Mexicans.)
So, the desperation of adult liberals is two-fold, or three-fold. Socialism failed. Racial
Equality has failed. They know it but cannot admit it to one-another. Trump has won, a
repudiation of Everything they Luv.
Hatred simmers in the melting-pot, acrid fumes enter the Body Politic. Liberals stagger
while genuine conservatives have adjusted over the last couple decades to the stench of
liberalism, all the while buying guns and waiting for the Tipping Point.
Maybe this begins to account for the hatreds swirling out there. I have not even mentioned
the hatreds of Blacks who are the most aware of their Failure, and register it for example in
their admiration of Elijah Muhammed, Reveredn Wright, and of course, the Obama Zip.
Trump is just the Beginning as the American and European peasantry grab their pitchforks
and head for Brussels and D.C.
On origins of the Russia Threat: just more 'perpetual war' to rescue society from the
inherent nihilism of liberalism:
This is made clear in Strauss's exchange with Kojève (reprinted in Strauss's On
Tyranny), and in his commentary on Schmitt's The Concept of the Political (reprinted in
Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue). Kojève lamented
the animalisation of man and Schmitt worried about the trivialisation of life. All three of
them were convinced that liberal economics would turn life into entertainment and destroy
politics; all three understood politics as a conflict between mutually hostile groups
willing to fight each other to the death. In short, they all thought that man's humanity
depended on his willingness to rush naked into battle and headlong to his death. Only
perpetual war can overturn the modern project, with its emphasis on self-preservation and
"creature comforts." Life can be politicised once more, and man's humanity can be
restored.
This terrifying vision fits perfectly well with the desire for honour and glory that the
neo-conservative gentlemen covet. It also fits very well with the religious sensibilities
of gentlemen. The combination of religion and nationalism is the elixir that Strauss
advocates as the way to turn natural, relaxed, hedonistic men into devout nationalists
willing to fight and die for their God and country.
You're right, Drury did give good insight into Strauss & his impact. Whoever compiled
these clips, from Drury on Strauss to the Wolfowitz interview just after 9/11, made all the
right connections.
And the chain of attitudes and actions can be examined in both directions, backward, to
Strauss's expectations of Jew-power in Weimar -- he expected Jews to be the elite overseers
of the "vulgar masses" who resented being resented by said vulgar masses.
It's projection. They fantasize about doing the same things they falsely imagine Trump will
do to them, but to their enemies. They are dangerous. The internet has also allowed the
masses to see just how utterly incompetent the Ruling Class is. Neopotism, networking, and
geography got them their positions, not talent or erudition.
"These people are the people who worry me these "normal" people who, completely calmly, as
if what they are saying wasn't batshit crazy, explain how Trump is just like Hitler, and how
Putin is trying to take over the world. I sit there and listen and smile at these people,
some of whom are friends and colleagues, people who I genuinely like, and who genuinely like
me in return, but who, under the right set of circumstances, would stand by and watch me
marched into prison, or worse, and not utter a word in protest."
They can never be allowed to come to power. Ever. Their hysteria over Trump has let the
mask slip too much. They have been revealed. It is no different than if Hitler had announced
the Holocaust before taking office. At that point, it would have been morally correct to deny
him regardless of the vote. We may very well have to consider this in 2020. Do you really
want to hand your fate over to these people? They have made their psychotic feelings plain.
On top of that, they are incompetent buffoons.
Correct.
Meanwhile, the anonymous "nazi-hunters" at stopantisemitism.org have produced another
anti-First Amendment battle cry, this time again a professor at Columbia University, who
dared to speak the truth about The Lobby: http://hamiddabashi.com
The "nazi-hunters" at stopantisemitism.org should visit the Nuland-liberated Ukraine,
where the activities of the US Zionists (specifically, Nuland-Kagan and Pyatt) have brought
about a revival of neo-Nazism (banderism) and the consequent rise in real anti-semitism --
not the one invented by the Jewish vigilantes at stopantisemitism.org
If the "nazi-hunters" from stopantisemitism.org are serious about the memory of the WWII,
they should better start investigating the pro-Nazi activities of the Kagans' clan first and
foremost (see the "liberated" Ukraine) and then proceed with investigating the Israeli
citizen Kolomojsky, who was the main financier of the openly neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.
" the Azov Battalion of some 3,000 well-armed fighters is avowedly pro-Nazi, as evidenced
by its regalia, slogans, and programmatic statements, and well-documented as such by several
international monitoring organizations."
"... Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign. Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there. ..."
"... Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party #Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump. ..."
"... Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone. ..."
"... You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the opinion sections and then log off. ..."
"... I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable journalism. ..."
"... The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell.. ..."
"... If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50. ..."
"... Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift, Waugh. ..."
"... I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again. ..."
"... Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective. ..."
"... As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz', because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle. ..."
From George Orwell's "Inside the Whale," 1940, on the mental atmosphere of English writers
in 1937 (slightly updated):
By 2018 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Establishment thought had
narrowed down to 'anti-Trumpism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature
directed against Russia and the politicians supposedly friendly to Russia was pouring from
the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in America was not such
Twitter spats as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds on Instagram, but the immediate
reappearance in respectable circles of the mental atmosphere of the McCarthy Era. The very
people who for 65 years had sniggered over their own superiority to Kremlin hysteria were the
ones who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1950. All the familiar wartime
idiocies, spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Trumpist?), the
retailing of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never
happened.
Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their hysteria.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone.
Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign.
Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach
children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has gone.
Orwell's 1984 is no longer a warning – it's a primer on how to to run your campaign.
Use of social media to enforce absolute conformity of opinion, rampant doublethink, teach
children to turn in the parents, four fingers equals five fingers – it's all there.
By 1937 the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. Left-wing thought had
narrowed down to 'anti-Fascism', i.e. to a negative, and a torrent of hate-literature
directed against Germany and the politicians supposedly friendly to Germany was pouring from
the Press. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in Spain was not such
violence as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds behind the lines, but the immediate
reappearance in left-wing circles of the mental atmosphere of the Great War. The very people
who for twenty years had sniggered over their own superiority to war hysteria were the ones
who rushed straight back into the mental slum of 1915. All the familiar wartime idiocies,
spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing (Sniff, sniff. Are you a good anti-Fascist?), the retailing
of atrocity stories, came back into vogue as though the intervening years had never
happened.
Our present cycle of Two-Minutes-Hate seems pretty effective at keeping the Outer Party
#Resistance fired up against Donald "Emmanuel Goldstein" Trump.
I like the acting ability of the Welsh guy tormenting the English guy from the Burton/Hurt
version of 1984. John Hurt could have done a great O'Brien and Richard Burton could have done
a smashing Winston Smith.
...Orwell and Boxer and Whites Without College Degrees from 2017:
I know what happened to Boxer -- Russian working class -- the work horse in George
Orwell's Animal Farm. Boxer busted his arse building the farm back up to snuff after it had
undergone the revolution and other problems. The pigs -- Stalinists -- rewarded Boxer by
carting him away to the glue factory. Poor Boxer finally realized he was going to the glue
factory while in the truck, but he was so exhausted from his labors in working on the farm
that he didn't have enough strength to kick the truck to pieces to escape.
Whites Without College Degrees(WWCDs) are the new Boxer of the present day. The
Stalinists are now the Globalizers. The Globalizers have decided that all the hard work and
all the soldiering over generations by the WWCDs will be rewarded with deliberate attacks
and sneaky ways to harm them. From mass immigration to de-industrialization to hooking the
WWCDs on drugs, the Globalizer pigs have used every trick in the book to destroy Whites
Without Colllege Degrees. Two academics have described this demographic phenomenom as the
WHITE DEATH.
Regular decent folks Democrats really have no idea how far to the Left their party has
gone.
You can see it in the NY Times. I dropped it recently after reading it for 30 years as I
got so sick of their anti-white, gentile, male, heterosexual agenda. I still look at it
through a free online subscription from my college, and get disgusted by the pieces in the
opinion sections and then log off.
Somehow, though, the Left persuaded itself early on that "1984″ was a prophecy of
the Trump Era. IIRC the book actually saw a jump in sales, and a stage adaptation was mounted
in New York.
I was thinking along your lines (and as yet unaware of the above-mentioned trends) when I
saw someone reading it on a commuter train. I cautiously passed a word to him thinking I
might be making contact with a fellow Rightist; but was quickly disabused of the notion when
he responded with some "resistance" B.S., in the nasally whine typical of the species.
I subscribed to the NYT for a number of years. After the recent campaign and the current
treatment of our President, Donald Trump, I quit. I am stunned at how these old media
properties are being purchased and used for political activism on behalf of their owners and
advertisers. They're another example of extreme Left propaganda presented as respectable
journalism.
The Gray Lady is an old SJW tranny, as far as I can tell..
Yes, most Britons would agree that Orwell needs updating: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of
democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." He sounds awfully American here.
If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart. If a man is still a
committed socialist in 1984, he has no brain. Orwell was moving to the right, but there are so many "rights" that we can only guess
which one he'd have ended up on. Neocon, nationalist, libertarian, who knows. But it's a
common arc in one's forties. He didn't make it to 50.
Classic satire is often the work of reactionaries: Aristophanes, Juvenal, Swift,
Waugh.
Of course, people in 1937 or 1950 at least had some justification for their
hysteria.
This is true, and then some. Just as today, the mainstream media was in on promoting the
leftist agenda, though maybe to a lesser degree. Here's the New York Times' obituary
(or, more accurately, eulogy) for Joseph Stalin back in 1953. Yes, they acknowledge some of
his murderous tendencies, but it seems hard for them to condemn such a great guy for such a
minor flaw. The headline reads, Stalin Rose From Czarist Oppression to Transform Russia
Into Mighty Socialist State . That's the tone of the the whole article, generally
speaking. It's hard for them to conceal their reverence.
The EU is attempting to surreptitiously ban criticism of the Ruling Class using some
copyright/link tax nonsense that will essentially ban memes and expose anonymous critics. The
mask slips ever more.
If a man isn't a committed socialist in 1948, he has no heart.
Wrong.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy,
its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. –Winston Churchill
And just two years later, the anti-fascist rhetoric was completely reversed and became
anti-anti-fascist with the Nazi-Soviet pact. And two years after that, it went back to being
anti-fascist when Hitler broke the pact.
Quite
Orwell was clearly moving to the right being very anti Communist ( and fellow travellers )
but at all times he was first and foremost an English nationalist . Certainly he was no
supporter of Left solidarity
In his time perhaps it was still maybe just possible to consider oneself to be of the left
and to be a nationalist.
That era has long finished.
I have started calling the mass media furies a 'propaganda blitz'. The recent explosion around child separation is a perfect example. It is a combination of
major media outlets all going into a froth, the expert use of social media, and the complete
shaming of any other viewpoint. They announce a crisis precisely at the time there is
movement on an issue, as a means of achieving a purely political objective. Thus, this crisis
was timed to coincide with immigration legislation being discussed again.
The left is getting more skilled at it, too, and is significantly helped by the
suppression of right-wing accounts on social media platforms since November 2016. Trayvon was
an early example of this, and they have only gotten better at using the tactics. The
propaganda is often a mix of true and false components.
Even small-time progressive players like Russell Moore of the SBC successfully used this
recently. They announced a crisis prior to their yearly convention (think voting day for the
SBC), used friendly media to spread the word and erupt in hysteria, and used social media to
bludgeon their political opponents. It was wicked, but HIGHLY effective.
As Steve likes to point out, we need a word for this. I am using 'propaganda blitz',
because if you are on the receiving end it is akin to the blitzes over London in WWII, except
instead of bombs it is 7-14 days of a brutal, propagandistic news cycle.
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/19/2018 - 17:53 454 SHARES
In the aftermath of the publication of the Inspector General's report on FBI abuse, if there
was one thing that was made abundantly clear, it was that FBI special agent Peter Strzok - who
was in charge of the Clinton email investigation and then probed Trump for "Russian collusion"
while texting his lover Lisa Page that "we'll stop" Trump from becoming president - was acting
out of pure, political bias and anger at Clinton's loss. It was certainly not lost on Trump,
who made his feelings on the subject abundantly clear on twitter:
Comey gave Strozk his marching orders. Mueller is Comey's best friend. Witch Hunt! (
source )
"The highest level of bias I've ever witnessed in any law enforcement officer." Trey
Gowdy on the FBI's own, Peter Strzok. Also remember that they all worked for Slippery James
Comey and that Comey is best friends with Robert Mueller. A really sick deal, isn't it? (
source )
The IG Report totally destroys James Comey and all of his minions including the great
lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who started the disgraceful Witch Hunt against so many
innocent people. It will go down as a dark and dangerous period in American History! (
source )
FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who headed the Clinton & Russia investigations, texted to his
lover Lisa Page, in the IG Report, that "we'll stop" candidate Trump from becoming President.
Doesn't get any lower than that! ( source )
And while Lisa Page had the wits to quit shortly before the publication of the OIG report,
Strzok did not and in fact was still employed at the time of the report's publication last
Thursday. But maybe not much longer because as CNN
first reported , Strzok was escorted out of the FBI building on Friday, even though he is
still technically employed and, as we reported some time ago, he has been stationed in Human
Resources since dismissal from Mueller team.
Shortly after the report, Strzok's attorney confirmed the report saying that Strzok was
escorted from the building amid an internal review of his conduct.
"Pete has steadfastly played by the rules and respected the process, and yet he continues to
be the target of unfounded personal attacks, political games and inappropriate information
leaks," his attorney Aitan Goelman said in a statement.
It gets better : in the layer letter, attorney Goelman writes that "Pete has steadfastly
played by the rules and respected the process, and yet he continues to be the target of
unfounded personal attacks, political games and inappropriate information leaks."
But wait, it gets even better , because in the very next line Strzok's attorney complains
about the " impartiality of the disciplinary process, which now appears tainted by political
influence ." Yes, this coming from the "impartial" and "unbiased" FBI agent who led a failed
coup against the president, vowing to "stop" Trump , an act which in another time would have
much more serious consequences than simple termination and being expelled from the FBI.
And speaking of that, the lawyer next complained that "instead of publicly calling for a
long-serving FBI agent to be summarily fired, politicians should allow the disciplinary process
to play out free from political pressure." We are confident that everyone will be very
interested in watching the "impartial" disciplinary process play out fully in the coming
months.
Goelman's conclusion: "Despite being put through a highly questionable process, Pete has
complied with every FBI procedure, including being escorted from the building as part of the
ongoing internal proceedings." It was not clear how Pete could not have complied with being
escorted from the building but we'll leave it at that.
While Strzok's career at the FBI now finally appears over (with possible disciplinary
consequences to follow), many questions remain including some revelations made later in day by
the Inspector General Horowitz, who during a hearing on Tuesday said that he's no longer
convinced the FBI was collecting all of Strzok's and Page's text messages even outside the
5-month blackout period when it archived none of the texts due to a technical "glitch", which
means a number of other Strzok responses to Page likely missing.
Most importantly however, Horowitz ended an MSM talking point, clarifying that "we did NOT
find no bias in regard to the October 2016 events." Strzok's choice to make pursuing the Russia
espionage case a bigger priority than reopening the Clinton espionage case suggested "that was
a BIASED decision." In other words, as we noted last week, Strzok was clearly biased in his
pursuit of Trump and dismissal of Clinton: a perversion of the entire FBI process.
To all this, all we can add is that while there is still zero evidence that Trump "colluded"
with Russian, Strzok's expulsion from the FBI building is sufficient
"Despite being put through a highly questionable process, Pete has complied with every FBI
procedure ."
Get a good Lawyer and they can build a friendly face on Sedition ?
Now it's 'Pete', the friendly down home guy that used his position to try to Nobble an
Election and a Government ?
He will be in magazines doing a BBQ with crippled children from the orphanage next.
Pictures by the pool with a Cripple.
Pete, St Pete, is his Lawyer joking or something ? This guy has made himself an historical
figure in future American history, if their is any. Unfuckingbeleivable to be honest. Fuck
me! The people in the Goobermint can't possibly be this Stupid, can they ?
Hey, he was just THE HEAD OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE. Not just "a agent", the head, chief
domestic spy. And, as if he shouldn't be busy enough, what with those people who we will
never know their true motives, stabbing, running over, pressure cooker bombing, van truck and
car bombing, mowing down fags. ...nope he's got time to text like a ADD 14 year old
girl...AND...heroically investigate the Secretary of State, Presidential Cannidacandidate te.
Himself investigate. Yup, The big guy, corner office, G5 Gulfstream on call 24/7, body
guards. He stoops to does the leg work. Yup. Superman. If only Hoover was alive. Oh, oh( I
close fist punch my forehesd. Twice ) He has time to investigate DJT too! O-M-(fkn) God!Where
do we get some men? Head of counterintel. Texting like a Jap schoolgirl on meth, clears
Hillary of Rose Law firm, and finds Russians in Trumps tighty whiteys.
"... Trump's vision would seem to include protection of core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of "democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats. ..."
"... Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior. ..."
"... Trump's basic objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between Russia and the West. ..."
"... And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room. Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left." ..."
"... There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S., which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by terrorists. ..."
"... In Syria there have been two pointless cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will work. ..."
"... The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. ..."
"... And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't. ..."
"... Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war." As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present, it is not pretty. ..."
"... Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities. ..."
I had coffee with a foreign friend a week ago. The subject of Donald Trump inevitably came
up and my friend said that he was torn between describing Trump as a genius or as an idiot, but
was inclined to lean towards genius. He explained that Trump was willy-nilly establishing a new
world order that will succeed the institutionally exhausted post-World War 2 financial and
political arrangements that more-or-less established U.S. hegemony over the "free world." The
Bretton Woods agreement and the founding of the United Nations institutionalized the spread of
liberal democracy and free trade, creating a new, post war international order under the firm
control of the United States with the American dollar as the benchmark currency. Trump is now
rejecting what has become an increasingly dominant global world order in favor of returning to
a nineteenth century style nationalism that has become popular as countries struggle to retain
their cultural and political identifies. Trump's vision would seem to include protection of
core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of
"democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming
regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats.
Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be
called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute
hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend
either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior.
Inevitably, I have other friends who follow foreign policy closely that have various
interpretations of the Trump phenomenon. One sees the respectful meeting with Kim Jong-un of
North Korea as a bit of brilliant statesmanship, potentially breaking a sixty-five year logjam
and possibly opening the door to further discussions that might well avert a nuclear war. And
the week also brought a Trump welcome suggestion that Russia should be asked to rejoin the G-7
group of major industrialized democracies, which also has to be seen as a positive step. There
has also been talk of a Russia-U.S. summit similar to that with North Korea to iron out
differences, an initiative that was first suggested by Trump and then agreed to by Russian
President Vladimir Putin. There will inevitably be powerful resistance to such an arrangement
coming primarily from the U.S. media and from Congress, but Donald Trump seems to fancy the
prospect and it just might take place.
One good friend even puts a positive spin on Trump's insulting behavior towards America's
traditional allies at the recent G-7 meeting in Canada. She observes that Trump's basic
objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby
maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between
Russia and the West. And the military costs exacerbate some genuine serious trade imbalances
that damage the U.S. economy. If Trumpism prevails, G-7 will become a forum for discussions of
trade and economic relations and will become less a club of nations aligned military against
Russia and, eventually, China. As she put it, changing its constituency would be a triumph of
"mercantilism" over "imperialism." The now pointless NATO alliance might well find itself
without much support if the members actually have to fully fund it proportionate to their GDPs
and could easily fade away, which would be a blessing for everyone.
My objection to nearly all the arguments being made in favor or opposed to what occurred in
Singapore last week is that the summit is being seen out of context, as is the outreach to
Russia at G-7. Those who are in some cases violently opposed to the outcome of the talks with
North Korea are, to be sure, sufferers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, where they hate
anything he does and spin their responses to cast him in the most negative terms possible. Some
others who choose to see daylight in spite of the essential emptiness of the "agreement" are
perhaps being overly optimistic while likewise ignoring what else is going on.
And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that
détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room.
Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something
called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and
the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne
Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations.
RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from
different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of
liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting
that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly
deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some
satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for
the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take
action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the
country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S.,
which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not
attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by
terrorists.
And then there is also Donald Trump's recent renunciation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), eliminating a successful program that was preventing nuclear proliferation on
the part of Iran and replacing it with nothing whatsoever apart from war as a possible way of
dealing with the potential problem. Indeed, Trump has been prepared to use military force on
impulse, even when there is no clear casus belli. In Syria there have been two pointless
cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated
intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the
occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground
than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported
that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will
work.
The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new
military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if
Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians.
In Latin America, Washington has backed off from détente with Cuba and has been
periodically threatening some kind of intervention in Venezuela. In Europe, it is engaged in
aggressive war games on the Russian borders, most recently in Norway and Poland. The
Administration has ordered increased involvement in Somalia and has special ops units operating
– and dying – worldwide. Overall, it is hardly a return to the Garden of Eden.
And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently
attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that
the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe
and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes
attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is
precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks
that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to
attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't.
Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war."
As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in
principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the
G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential
grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present,
it is not pretty.
The Establishment (which includes both major political parties) is furious that Trump may be
defusing the (very real) nuclear threat from Kim for the price of a few plane tickets and
dinners, while the Establishment was gung-ho for throwing away a few trillion dollars,
hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, and our nation's once-good reputation in the process
of neutralizing Saddam Hussein, who didn't even have any nukes to begin with. Yep, they're
sore all right.
Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or
disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the
government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The
continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities.
A 29-year-old former CIA computer engineer, Joshua Adam Schulte, was indicted Monday by the
Department of Justice on charges of masterminding the largest leak of classified information in the spy agency's history .
Schulte, who created malware for the U.S. Government to break into adversaries computers, has been sitting in jail since his August
24, 2017 arrest on unrelated charges of posessing and transporting child pornography - which was discovered in a search of his New
York apartment after Schulte was named as the prime suspect in the cyber-breach one week after WikiLeaks published the "Vault 7"
series of classified files. Schulte was arrested and jailed on the child porn charges while the DOJ ostensibly built their case leading
to Monday's additional charges.
[I]nstead of charging Mr. Schulte in the breach, referred to as the Vault 7 leak, prosecutors charged him last August with
possessing child pornography, saying agents had found 10,000 illicit images on a server he created as a business in 2009 while
studying at the University of Texas at Austin.
Court papers quote messages from Mr. Schulte that suggest he was aware of the encrypted images of children being molested by
adults on his computer, though he advised one user, "Just don't put anything too illegal on there." -
New York Times
Monday's DOJ announcement adds new charges related to stealing classified national defense information from the Central Intelligence
Agency in 2016 and transmitting it to WikiLeaks ("Organization-1").
The Vault 7 release - a series of 24 documents which began to publish on March 7, 2017 - reveal that the CIA had a wide variety
of tools to use against adversaries, including the
ability to "spoof" its malware to appear as though it was created by a foreign intelligence agency , as well as the ability to
take control of Samsung Smart TV's and surveil a target using a "Fake Off" mode in which they appear to be powered down while eavesdropping.
The CIA's hand crafted hacking techniques pose a problem for the agency. Each technique it has created forms a "fingerprint"
that can be used by forensic investigators to attribute multiple different attacks to the same entity .
...
The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen'
from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.
With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution
by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from .
Schulte previously worked for the NSA before joining the CIA, then "left the intelligence community in 2016 and took a job in
the private sector," according to a statement reviewed in May by
The Washington Post .
Schulte also claimed that he reported "incompetent management and bureaucracy" at the CIA to that agency's inspector general
as well as a congressional oversight committee. That painted him as a disgruntled employee, he said, and when he left the CIA
in 2016, suspicion fell upon him as "the only one to have recently departed [the CIA engineering group] on poor terms," Schulte
wrote. - WaPo
Part of that investigation, reported WaPo, has been analyzing whether the Tor network - which allows internet users to hide their
location (in theory) "was used in transmitting classified information."
In other hearings in Schulte's case, prosecutors have alleged that he used Tor at his New York apartment, but they have provided
no evidence that he did so to disclose classified information. Schulte's attorneys have said that Tor is used for all kinds of
communications and have maintained that he played no role in the Vault 7 leaks. - WaPo
Schulte says he's innocent: " Due to these unfortunate coincidences the FBI ultimately made the snap judgment that I was guilty
of the leaks and targeted me," Schulte said. He launched
Facebook and GoFundMe pages
to raise money for his defense, which despite a $50 million goal,
has yet to r eceive a single donation.
The Post noted in May, the Vault 7 release was one of the most significant leaks in the CIA's history , "exposing secret cyberweapons
and spying techniques that might be used against the United States, according to current and former intelligence officials."
The CIA's toy chest includes:
Tools code named " Marble " can misdirect forensic investigators from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to
their agency by inserted code fragments in foreign languages. The tool was in use as recently as 2016. Per the
WikiLeaks release:
"The source code shows that Marble has test examples not just in English but also in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
This would permit a forensic attribution double game, for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator
was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators
even more strongly to the wrong conclusion, --- but there are other possibilities, such as hiding fake error messages."
iPads / iPhones / Android devices and Smart TV's are all susceptible to hacks and malware. The agency's "Dark Matter" project
reveals that the CIA has been bugging "factory fresh" iPhones since at least 2008 through suppliers. Another, " Sonic Screwdriver
" allows the CIA to execute code on a Mac laptop or desktop while it's booting up.
The increasing sophistication of surveillance techniques has drawn comparisons with George Orwell's 1984, but "Weeping Angel",
developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB)
, which infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones, is surely its most emblematic realization.
The Obama administration promised to disclose all serious vulnerabilities they found to Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other
US-based manufacturers. The US Government broke that commitment.
"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments. Many of the vulnerabilities used in
the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.
In addition to its operations in Langley, Virginia the CIA also uses the U.S. consulate in Frankfurt as a covert base for its
hackers covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
CIA hackers operating out of the Frankfurt consulate (
"Center for Cyber Intelligence Europe" or CCIE)
are given diplomatic ("black") passports and State Department cover.
Instant messaging encryption is a joke.
These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption of WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hacking
the "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audio and message traffic before encryption is applied.
The CIA laughs at Anti-Virus / Anti-Malware programs.
"Joshua Schulte, a former employee of the CIA, allegedly used his access at the agency to transmit classified material to an outside
organization . During the course of this investigation, federal agents also discovered alleged child pornography in Schulte's New
York City residence ," said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman.
On March 7, 2017, Organization-1 released on the Internet classified national defense material belonging to the CIA (the "Classified
Information"). In 2016, SCHULTE, who was then employed by the CIA, stole the Classified Information from a computer network at
the CIA and later transmitted it to Organization-1. SCHULTE also intentionally caused damage without authorization to a CIA computer
system by granting himself unauthorized access to the system, deleting records of his activities, and denying others access to
the system . SCHULTE subsequently made material false statements to FBI agents concerning his conduct at the CIA.
Schulte faces 135 years in prison if convicted on all 13 charges:
Illegal Gathering of National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(b) and 2
Illegal Transmission of Lawfully Possessed National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(d) and 2
Illegal Transmission of Unlawfully Possessed National Defense Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e) and 2
Unauthorized Access to a Computer To Obtain Classified Information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(1) and 2
Theft of Government Property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2
Unauthorized Access of a Computer to Obtain Information from a Department or Agency of the United States, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)
and 2
Causing Transmission of a Harmful Computer Program, Information, Code, or Command, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(5) and 2
Making False Statements, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2
Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 2
Receipt of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(B), (b)(1), and 2
Possession of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2), and 2
Transportation of Child Pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1)
Seems like everyone has kiddy porn magically appear and get discovered after they piss off the deep state bastards.
And the best part is that it's probably just the deep state operatives' own private pedo collections that they use to frame
anyone who they don't like.
I was thinking about the advancement of the technology necessary for that. They can do perfect fake stills already.
My thought is that you will soon need to film yourself 24/7 (with timestamps, shared with a blockchain-like verifiably) so
that you can disprove fake video evidence by having a filmed alibi.
Ironically, every single ex gov whistle blower (/pedophile) has the exact same kiddie porn data on their secret server (hidden
in plane view at the apartment). Joe CIA probably has a zip drive preloaded with titled data sets like "Podesta's Greatest Hits",
"Hillary's Honey bunnies" or "Willy go to the zoo". Like the mix tapes you used to make for a new gal you were trying to date.
Depending upon the mood of the agent in charge, 10,000 images of Weiner's "Warm Pizza" playlist magically appear on the server
in 3-2-1... Gotcha!
These false fingerprint tactics were all over the trump accusations which started the whole Russia Russia Russia ordeal. And
the Russia ordeal was conceptualized in a paid report to Podesta by the Bensenson Group called the Salvage Program when it was
appearant that Trump could possible win and the DNC needed ideas on how to throw the voters off at the polls. Russia is coming
/Red dawn was #1 or #2 on the list of 7 recommended ploys. The final one was crazy.. If Trump appeared to win the election, imagery
of Jesus and an Alien Invasion was to be projected into the skies to cause mass panic and create a demand for free zanex to be
handed out to the panic stricken.
Don't forget Black Lives Matters. That was idea #4 of this Bensenson report, to create civil unrest and a race war. Notice
how BLM and Antifa manically disappeared after Nov 4. All a ploy by the Dems & the deep state to remain in control of the countrys
power.
Back to the topic at hand. Its a wonder he didn't get Seth Riched. Too many porn servers and we will begin to question the
legitimacy. Oh wait...
You won't find any kiddie porn on Hillary's or DeNiros laptop. Oh its there. You just will never ever hear about it.
The Vault 7 release - a series of 24 documents which began to publish on March 7, 2017 - reveal that the CIA had a wide
variety of tools to use against adversaries, including
the ability to "spoof" its malware to appear
as though it was created by a foreign intelligence agency ....
It probably can spoof child porn as well.
Is he charged with copyright infringement for pirating child porn?
The intel community sure has a knack for sussing out purveyors of child pornography. It's probably just a coincidence govt
agencies and child pornography are inextricably linked.
It's very easy for a criminal spook to plant child porn on some poor slob's machine - especially when they want to keep him
on the hook to sink his ass for something bigger in the future. Who knows... this guy may have done some shit but I'm willing
to bet he was entirely targeted by these IC assholes. Facing 135 years in prison... yet that baggy ass cunt Hillary walks free...
Funny how they always seem to have a "sting" operation in progress when there's anyone the DC rats want to destroy but strangely,
or not, silent as the grave when one of the special people are fingered.
Of all these things the C_A can do, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that planting CP on a computer of someone you
don't like would be a piece of cake, comparatively speaking.
Of all these things the C_A can do, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that planting CP on a computer of someone you
don't like would be a piece of cake, comparatively speaking.
The "Spoofing" or Digital Finger Print & Parallel Construction tools that can be used against Governments, Individuals, enemies
& adversaries are Chilling.
The CIA can not only hack into anything -- they can download any "evidence" they want onto your phone or computer. Child pornography,
national secrets, you name it. Then they can blackmail you, threatening prosecution for whatever crap they have planted, then
"found" on your computer. They can also "spoof" the source of such downloads -- for instance, if they want to "prove" that something
on your computer (or Donald Trump's computer) came from a "Russian source" -- they can spoof the IP address of a Russian source.
The take-away: no digital evidence the CIA or NSA produces on any subject whatsoever can be trusted. No digital evidence should
be acceptable in any case where the government has an interest, because they have the complete ability to fabricate and implant
any evidence on any iphone or computer. And worse: they have intentionally created these digital vulnerabilities and pushed them
onto the whole world via Microsoft and Google. Government has long been at war with liberty, claiming that we need to give up
liberty to be secure. Now we learn that they have been deliberately sabotaging our security, in order to augment their own power.
Time to shut down the CIA and all the other spy agencies. They're not keeping us free OR secure, and they're doing it deliberately.
Their main function nowadays seems to be lying us into wars against countries that never attacked us, and had no plans to do so.
The Echelon Computer System Catch Everything
The Flagging goes to Notify the Appropriate Alphabet,,,...Key Words Phrases...Algorithms,...It all gets sucked up and chewed
on and spat out to the surmised computed correct departments...That simple.
Effective immediately defund, Eliminate & Supeona it's Agents, Officials & Dept. Heads in regard to the Mass Surveillance,
Global Espionage Spying network & monitoring of a President Elect by aforementioned Agencies & former President Obama, AG Lynch
& DIA James Clapper, CIA John Breanan.
Since 911, they've been "protecting" the shit out of us. "protecting" away every last fiber of liberty. Was watching some fact-based
media about the CIA's failed plan to install Yeltsin's successor via a Wallstreet banking cartel bet (see, LTCM implosion). The
ultimate objectives were to rape and loot post-Soviet Russian resources and enforce regime change. It's such a tired playbook
at this point. Who DOESNT know about this sort of affront? Apparently even nobel prize economists cant prevent a nation from failing
lol. The ultimate in vanity; our gubmint and its' shadow controllers.
This is because people who are smart enough to write walware for the CIA send messages in the clear about child porn and are
too dumb to encrypt images with a key that would take the lifetime of the universe to break.
Next his mother will be found to have a tax problem and his brother's credit rating zeroed out.
Meanwhile Comey will be found to have been "careless".
Yeah I don't believe for a second that this guy had anything to do with child porn. Not like Obama and his hotdogs or Clintons
at pedo island, or how bout uncle pervie podesta? go after them, goons and spooks. They (intelligence agencies) falsely accuse
people of exactly what they are ass-deep in. loses credibility with me when the CIA clowns or NSA fuck ups accuse anyone of child
porn; especially one of their former employees who is 'disgruntled'. LOL. another spook railroad job done on a whistleblower.
fuck the CIA and all 17 alphabet agencies who spy on us 24/7. Just ask, if you want to snoop on me. I may even tell you what I'm
up to because I have nothing that I would hide since, I don't give a shit about you or whether you approve of what I am doing.
"Yeah I don't believe for a second that this guy had anything to do with child porn."
Speculation by my part: He was running a Tor server, and the porn originated from other Tor users. If that is the case ( it
would be easy for law enforcement to just assume it was his) law enforcement enjoys a quick and easy case.
It really doesn't matter if someone wants to hide. That is their right. Only Nazi's like our spy agencies would use the old
Gestapo line, "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. Or better yet, you should let me turn your life
upside down if you have nothing to hide. " Bullshit! It's none of their fucking business. How bout that? Spooks and secret clowns
CAN and DO frame anybody for whatever or murder whomever they wish. So why WOULDNT people be afraid when government goons start
sticking their big snouts into their lives??? They can ruin your life for the sake of convenience. Zee Furor is not pleased with
your attitude, comrade.
"... Assad is adamant that the price demanded by the Americans, that of absolute US hegemony, is one that Syria will never pay ..."
"... For the Americans, there is a general principle they follow in dealing with any problem in the world. The only price they ask for is absolute hegemony, regardless of the issue and the place. Of course, we shall never provide that price; otherwise we wouldn't have fought this war for years . We have been fighting for the independence of Syrian decision-making, for the Syrian homeland, and for the unity of Syrian territory. As for Iran in particular, let me be very clear: the Syrian-Iranian relationship is a strategic one not subject to a deal in the south or in the north. This relationship, in terms of its implications and results on the ground, is linked to the present and future of the region ..."
Assad is adamant that the price demanded by the Americans, that of absolute US hegemony, is one that Syria will never pay
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad revealed in a recent interview with Iranian media al-Alam TV that attempts at achieving non military
resolutions to conflicts inside Syria via reconciliation is being actively prevented by intervention from Israel and the US. He is
adamant that the price demanded by the Americans, that of absolute US hegemony, is one that Syria will never pay. Video of the interview
is furnished below in English,
courtesy of Press TV ,
followed by
a transcript
obtained from Syria 360 Internationalist News Agency . Added emphasis on certain statements is mine.
President Bashar al-Assad affirmed that the Syrian south is in front of two options; reconciliation or liberation by force, indicating
that at this point, there are no concrete results for a simple reason which is Israeli and American interference, for they put pressure
on the terrorists in that area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution.
The President added in an interview given to Iran's Al-ALAM TV that the Syrian-Iranian relation is strategic not subject to a
deal and it is linked to the present and future of the region , affirming that neither Syria nor Iran has floated this relationship
on the international political bazaar for it to be subject to haggling.
President al-Assad affirmed that since the beginning of the war, particularly when it started to have a clear military nature
on the southern front in particular, the Israelis used to shell Syrian forces continuously, and consequently provide direct support
to the terrorists. Israeli artillery and aircraft are the terrorists' artillery and aircraft Despite Israeli support to the terrorists,
we have been doing our job, and the Syrian Army is fighting its way towards the southern front, and has liberated a number of areas
within the limits of its capabilities. So, with or without its approval, the decision is a Syrian one, and this is a national duty
we shall carry out.
Following the full text of the interview;
Question 1: Mr. President, there are many issues which we will talk about, but in the light of the victories you have achieved,
the main focus remains the south of Syria. What's happening exactly, or what is the nature of what is happening in the south of Syria?
President Assad: To put it simply, after the liberation of al-Ghouta, it was suggested that we should move south. We were faced
with two options, as is the case in all other areas in Syria: reconciliation or liberation by force. At this point, the Russians
suggested the possibility of giving reconciliation an opportunity, similar to what happened in other areas, in order to restore the
situation that prevailed before 2011. In other words, for the Syrian Army to be deployed in that area, which is an area of confrontation
with the Zionist enemy. And of course the terrorists should leave the area. This proposition suits us. Up till now, there are no
concrete results for a simple reason which is Israeli and American interference; for they put pressure on the terrorists in that
area in order to prevent reaching any compromise or peaceful resolution . That is how the situation stands now.
Question 2: So, it hasn't been decided whether to move towards a military operation or towards reconciliation?
President Assad: No, contacts are still ongoing between the Russians, the Americans, and the Israelis, while nobody is communicating
with the terrorists, because they are mere tools, and they implement what their masters decide ultimately. This is what happened,
i.e. there was an opportunity to reach reconciliation, but the American and Israeli interference prevented that possibility .
Question 3: Of course, this is the reality there. But on the other hand, there are those who talk about many things taking
place in the south. Mr. President, is there a certain deal, what is the price? Is there really a price for concluding this deal in
the south? Let me talk frankly about the issue of getting the Iranians to leave the southern region in return for al-Tanf, for example.
What did the Americans demand, or let's say, what was the price the Americans asked to approve the reconciliation process in the
south?
President Assad: For the Americans, there is a general principle they follow in dealing with any problem in the world. The
only price they ask for is absolute hegemony, regardless of the issue and the place. Of course, we shall never provide that price;
otherwise we wouldn't have fought this war for years . We have been fighting for the independence of Syrian decision-making, for
the Syrian homeland, and for the unity of Syrian territory. As for Iran in particular, let me be very clear: the Syrian-Iranian relationship
is a strategic one not subject to a deal in the south or in the north. This relationship, in terms of its implications and results
on the ground, is linked to the present and future of the region. Consequently, it is not subject to the price tags of the international
bazaar. Neither Syria nor Iran has floated this relationship on the international political bazaar for it to be subject to haggling.
The proposition was made by the Israelis with the objective of provoking and embarrassing Iran. At the same time, this comes in line
with the international propaganda campaign launched against Iran regarding the nuclear file. It is not a separate issue; for everything
happening now is linked to Iran in order to create an international position against it. As for us in Syria, the decision concerning
our land is an exclusively Syrian decision. We are fighting the same battle, and when we have a decision concerning Iran, we will
talk about it with the Iranians and not with any other party .
Question 4: Of course, we will talk more about Iran and in more detail, but since we are talking about the southern front, let's
explore it further. Practically, in the same context, there is the MOC which hasn't stopped its operations since the beginning of
the war on Syria about eight years ago. It is working and is still active, and is directly linked to the Israelis. But we have noticed
recently that it has been reactivated, and there are more communications. Mr. President, does this mean that the Syrian state is
practically moving towards a military decisive action in the south regardless of the consequences, whether things reach a stalemate
or not? Is a decisive action in the cards for the Syrian leadership?
President Assad: No, MOC has nothing to do with this decision. MOC has been linked to the presence and the role of the terrorists
since the beginning of the war on Syria. That's why it existed: in order to lead them militarily. Consequently, the continued existence
of this operations room means the continuation of the role given to these terrorists, i.e. they are equipped and prepared to carry
out more terrorist acts. MOC is linked to the terrorists and not to the role of the Syrian state. Our role has nothing to do with
it. Our decision has been clear from the beginning: we will liberate all Syrian lands. As to when to move south, north, east, or
west, this is a purely military issue. But regardless of MOC, we have moved towards the south and we are giving the political process
a chance. If that doesn't succeed, we have no other option but to liberate it by force.
Question 5: But there is a confrontation in the south, and the issue is not limited geographically to Syria in the larger political
sense. There are the Americans, the Russians, the Iranians, the Israelis, and Hezbollah. All these parties are there in the area.
What does that mean? How are you going to deal with this?
President Assad: You are talking about two axes: one supporting terrorism, and represented by the US, Israel, and some flunkies
in the region including some Arab and non-Arab states, and an anti-terrorist axis. The first axis supports terrorism and seeks hegemony,
while the second axis seeks independence. So, there can be only one result for this confrontation, i.e. the victory of one of these
axes. At least, as far as the anti-terrorist axis is concerned, it will not give up the process of cleaning Syria and the region
of terrorism and will not give up on the unity of Syrian territory .
As to the other axis, will it change as a result of the reality on the ground? Let's wait and see. But in terms of substance and
convictions, it will not change, while in terms of the political practices dictated by reality and the facts on the ground, it might.
Question 6: Will the Americans leave al-Tanf?
President Assad: The Americans say they are ready, but everyone knows that the Americans are historically professional liars in
politics. So why should we believe them? Also, we have to wait and see.
Question 7: Mr. President, what's happening now in Jordan? Is it linked to what's happening on the southern front in particular,
i.e. is it linked to what is being plotted in that region, in your view?
President Assad: In fact, the only information we have is what we hear in the media. In any case, we wish Jordan stability, not
chaos, because the latter will have a negative impact on us.
Question 8: Since we are talking about the south, let's close this file. Mr. President, what would make the Israeli occupation
agree to the return of the Syrian Army to the borders, i.e. a return to the situation which existed at the beginning of 2011, after
seven years of repeated Zionist attempts, directly and indirectly, to undermine the Syrian state, the regime in Syria, and stability
in Syria. Why would it agree now to the return of the Syrian Army to the borders and to the occupied Golan?
President Assad: Certainly, neither conviction, morality, nor international law means anything to the Israelis. Since the beginning
of the war, particularly when it started to have a clear military nature on the southern front in particular, the Israelis used to
shell Syrian forces continuously, and consequently provide direct support to the terrorists. Israeli artillery and aircraft are the
terrorists' artillery and aircraft. That applies to Jabhat al-Nusra of course . Nothing is going to change this Israeli approach.
As far as we are concerned, Israel's approval had no role at all. Despite Israeli support to the terrorists, we have been doing our
job, and the Syrian Army is fighting its way towards the southern front, and has liberated a number of areas within the limits of
its capabilities. So, with or without its approval, the decision is a Syrian one, and this is a national duty we shall carry out.
Question 9: So, a return of the Syrian Army is better than having resistance in the Golan, for instance?
President Assad: For the Israelis?
Journalist: Yes.
President Assad: I think the two options are bad for the Israelis. Both of them are bad. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah has repeatedly
talked about Syria's relationship with the resistance and a Syrian role in the resistance. So, how would the Israelis choose between
two bad things for them?
Question 10: As you said, Mr. President, Israel has financed, supported, and more dangerously was capable of enlisting a large
number of Syrians, some of whom were treated inside occupied Palestine. They talked about it. In the future, how would you deal with
this large number of Israeli agents? Maybe some of them were misled and Israel might have exploited the financial and living conditions
of some; and some have chosen to side with the Israelis. How would you deal with them in the future?
President Assad: This is true; we cannot put everyone in the same basket. There are different reasons for moving in this wrong
direction; and these people have wronged the homeland and every Syrian citizen. Ultimately, they are the children of this homeland,
and we all bear responsibility for this problem, not only those who have done wrong. When crime, for instance, becomes widespread
in a certain country, the whole society bears responsibility for this crime, not only the security agencies or the criminals themselves.
The first thing that should be done is to accommodate these people. Second, we need to address the root causes which led to this
case of weak patriotism. The causes here are many and complicated, and the scope of this interview doesn't allow for all of them
to be mentioned.
Question 11: In the same context, while you are talking about restoring the Syrian air defense systems and confronting the Zionist
occupation, statements have been made by leaders of the Israeli entity that they will strike at the depth of Syrian territory. How
would you deal with that situation, particularly that balance has been achieved recently, i.e. balance between Israeli aggressions
and Syrian responses?
President Assad: Basically, we haven't stopped responding. First of all, we haven't stopped fighting terrorists, and at the same
time we haven't stopped responding to Israeli aggression within the capabilities available to us, militarily and technically. Moreover,
the more these capabilities improve; the response will be better and higher. But in fact the strongest response to Israel now is
to strike the Israeli army existing in Syria which consists practically of the terrorists .
Journalist: You consider them an Israeli army?
President Assad: Of course, for they are acting clearly and starkly in Israel's interest. The first acts they carried out were
attacks against the air defense systems. What is the link between air defense systems and the terrorists acting as infantry on the
ground? This was an Israeli order. It was an Israeli-American order because it is the same thing. So, they are Israel's army inside
Syria; and the first strike against Israel, politically, militarily, and in every other area, is to strike Israel's terrorists inside
Syria, whether they belong to ISIS, al-Nusra, or the other groups linked to the Israeli plan and strategy.
Journalist: If Israel escalates, are you prepared to respond more forcefully?
President Assad: This is what's happening. It is escalating, and we are responding. Ultimately, we are fighting the war within
the capabilities available to us, and we are doing our best within these capabilities. A response does not need a political decision.
I stress that responding or not responding is not a political decision. It is a national decision, and it was taken from day one.
But implementing this decision depends on what we can do militarily and not politically.
Question 12: In terms of capabilities, there is one issue in the media which we are always following, i.e. the S300 Russian missiles.
Russia says, "We will deliver these missiles", and then says, "We will not deliver them", which means that the issue is not clear.
What is happening exactly? Why this Russian hesitation, in your view, in delivering the S300 missiles to Syria, while some other
countries have been seeking S400, i.e. they are ahead of us in this regard.
President Assad: You know that military action and military considerations are part of political considerations. Consequently,
a statement, even if it is of a military nature, carries at the same time political messages. So, why did the Russians say that they
want to send or not send? This is a statement that the Russians should be asked about because it might be part of their political
tactics. As to the military aspect of the statement, which concerns Syria, it's not our custom to talk about the weapon which will
be delivered or not delivered. The evidence was that the weapons used in response to the last two aggressions, the tripartite aggression
and after that the Israeli aggression, were not announced by Syria. We traditionally do not announce cases of a technical military
nature.
Journalist: So, even the nature of the response is not linked to the issue of the S300 missiles?
President Assad: No. The same applies. Even if the S300 missiles will be provided or not provided, we will not say that they were
delivered to Syria. A weapon is used when it must be used.
Journalist: Is there a possibility that you have developed certain weapons?
President Assad: This remains a possibility. In any case, the result is the same: weapons shouldn't be talked about until they
are used. Weapons announce themselves only when they are used.
Question 13: Mr. President, let's return to the political aspect, since we are talking about the southern front. Regarding the
general situation, in light of all that has been achieved on the Syrian arena today, the most prominent actor is the tripartite alliance,
or what is being called the tripartite alliance. I mean Syria, Iran, and Russia. What is the nature of this alliance? Is it a temporary
alliance, in the sense that it is linked to fighting terrorism or to certain developments on the Syrian arena? Recently, we have
started to see – or let's say some have focused on certain points in order to show – a certain fracture in this alliance. What is
your take on that and what is the actual reality of this alliance?
President Assad: If we talk first about the Syrian-Iranian part, for 40 years, and in the different conditions that the Middle
East region has gone through, this alliance remained solid. So, there is no reason to say that it is temporary or otherwise. The
new element in the war on Syria is the Russian element, and that's why this tripartite alliance came into existence. Our relationship
with Russia is now about seven decades old. Despite the fluctuations and the fall of the Soviet Union, the rule of President Yeltsin,
and the deterioration of these relations to a large degree for us, it has never reached the stage of reversing this relationship
with Syria. Russia continued to deal with Syria as a friendly state, and we have imported everything from Russia, including weapons,
during the different stages of the sanctions imposed on Syria. It is not in the nature of the Russians to build temporary or self-serving
alliances or to sell out on relations in order to get deals done. The relationship is definitely a strategic one, but the political
statements allowed for these speculations.
These statements also aim at sending messages in different directions. Maybe, sometimes the language or the choice of particular
terminology might not be helpful and might take the statement in a different direction at odds with the content of the statement.
This happens from time to time. However, these statements shouldn't be taken out of context: the Russian view of the relationship
with Iran is a strategic one. As for Syria, the Russians do not interfere in Syrian affairs. If they have a certain opinion, they
raise it with us and say that in the end, the decision is that of the Syrian leadership and the Syrian people. This is a constant
principle for Russia. Therefore, the alliance is a strategic one, and if there are differences, such differences happen within the
Syrian state, and you see differences within the Iranian state and within the Russian state. It is natural for us to differ on daily
tactical details, for why conduct a dialogue if we agree on everything? We meet extensively in order to reach agreement.
Journalist: So, this tripartite alliance is being consolidated.
President Assad: Of course. This is dictated by reality, interest, and international changes that make it necessary for this alliance
to be consolidated. As long as the other axis supports terrorism, and as long as we, together with Iran and Russia, feel the danger
of terrorism, not only in Syria, but also on all these countries and on the whole world, and as long as Syria, Iran, and Russia realize
the importance of abiding by international law, these facts make the existence of this alliance necessary.
Question 14: But there are those who say that Syria will get a price if the Iranians leave Syrian territories. Is there a certain
political, moral, or military price in this regard?
President Assad: As I said in the beginning, as long as this relationship is not floated in the bazaar, they cannot offer a price,
and the answer will be clear. That's why they don't dare suggest this price. This issue was raised by different countries, including
Saudi Arabia for instance, at the beginning of the war, and not only at the beginning, but at different stages. The proposition was
that if Syria cut its relationship with Iran, the situation in Syria will be normal. This principle is basically rejected by us.
Journalist: So, there were initiatives, so to speak, made in this regard by Saudi Arabia.
President Assad: During the war?
Journalist: Yes.
President Assad: Of course, more than once, and in a clear manner.
Journalist: Directly?
President Assad: Directly. The relationship with Iran was the basis for every proposition; and Saudi Arabia's position on this
subject is public. I'm not revealing a secret.
Question 15: An issue is raised, whether in Syria, Iran, or Lebanon, about the nature of Iranian presence in Syria. Some call
them Iranian advisors. Even the Syrian Foreign Minister used the same term. At the same time, we notice that there are Iranian martyrs.
Frankly, Mr. President, what is the nature of Iranian presence in Syria now?
President Assad: The term adviser is sometimes used in a broad manner, i.e. these advisers have been with us, through the longstanding
relationship with Iran, even before the war, because the military relationship is close. When a military formation moves to a fighting
position, the adviser becomes a fighter. So, the word can be used in different senses. There are certainly Iranian advisers in Syria,
and there are groups of Iranian volunteers who came to Syria, and they are led by Iranian officers. Iran has fought with and defended
the Syrian people. It offered blood. That's why when we say "advisers" this is a generic term, but this doesn't mean that we are
ashamed of any Iranian presence, even if it is official. But we use the word "advisers" because there are no regular Iranian fighting
units in Syria.
Journalist: Full formations.
President Assad: Exactly. There are no battalions, or brigades, or divisions. First, we can't hide them, and then why should we
be ashamed of that? When we invited the Russians legally to come to Syria, we were not ashamed of that. And if there were an Iranian
formation, we would announce it, because such relations need agreements between the two states endorsed by parliaments. Such relations
cannot be concealed.
Journalist: And you invited Iranian advisers to come?
President Assad: Of course, from the beginning we invited the Iranians, and then we invited the Russians. We needed the support
of these countries, and they answered the call.
Journalist: Mr. President, you said more than once that there are no Iranian bases in Syria.
President Assad: That's correct.
Journalist: Why there are no Iranian bases, while we notice that there are a number of Russian bases?
President Assad: There's nothing that prevents the existence of such bases as long as Iran is an ally as is Russia.
Journalist: This means that if Iran requested the existence of such bases, you would agree?
President Assad: If we ask. We will ask them to agree. I mean that we could ask for the existence of such forces to support us.
Iran has never asked and does not have an interest except in fighting terrorism. But the evolution of the war made it necessary to
develop the nature of this presence.
This happened as far as the Russians are concerned. In the beginning, Russian support, like Iranian support, was different from
what it is today. The support for terrorism has developed internationally and globally when the Syrian Army confronted those terrorists,
and with that Russian and Iranian military presence developed. At a certain stage, we found – with the Russians of course – that
the existence of air bases was necessary to provide air support to the Syrian Army. And now, if we find, in cooperation, coordination,
or dialogue with the Iranians, that there is a need for Iranian military bases, we will not hesitate. But now, Iranian support in
its present form is good and effective.
Question 16: Why haven't you visited Iran so far, although you visited Russia more than once?
President Assad: That's correct. In fact, there was a scheduled visit to Iran a few months ago, and it was postponed and not cancelled.
It was postponed because of an emergency in Syria related to the development of battles. There is certainly no reason which prevents
such a visit, and I'll visit Iran hopefully soon on the earliest opportunity. This is natural, but the issue is logistic, no more,
no less.
Question 17: Mr. President, I move to another file. Last week, it was the Jerusalem International Day, and the Palestinian cause
is going through its most difficult stages. We are talking about the "deal of the century", and moving the American Embassy to occupied
Jerusalem. What do you have to say about Palestine? Is Syria still capable of supporting the Palestine cause? Basically, wasn't one
of the most important objectives of the war on Syria to get Syria out of the axis of resistance and to prevent it from supporting
resistance, whether in Lebanon or Palestine?
President Assad: The Palestine context, since 1948 up till now, has been a complicated one, because the regional context is complicated.
Of course, it is complicated because the colonial West, which is particularly supportive of Israel, has always created elements which
aim at one single thing. First, to drive to desperation the Arab citizen who is historically attached to the cause of Palestine and
who has always considered it a pan-Arab cause that touched him even on the national level.
The other objective has been to distract the Arab peoples together with states or societies in general to marginal causes so that
they do not have time to think about Israel. And they have succeeded to a great extent, most recently through the so-called Arab
spring which has aimed at destroying the political, military, and psychological infrastructure of Arab societies.
Nevertheless, recent development have proven that the Arab people is still conscientiously attached to the cause of Palestine.
As for Syria – since it has been part of these plots to undermine the Arab condition in general – first, for Syria to support the
cause of Palestine, it should first of all destroy the Israeli army in Syria. Restoring stability in Syria, striking terrorism, and
foiling the Israeli plot in Syria is certainly part of supporting the cause of Palestine. The support might be indirect with direct
consequences, but these direct consequences are linked to the internal Palestinian condition. We shouldn't forget that the Palestinians
are divided between groups which resist Israel and are genuinely linked to the cause of Palestine, and other groups which are against
the resistance and support surrenderist and defeatist peace, while there are other groups which use resistance as a title in order
to achieve their political objectives under the slogan of religion. This is of course the Muslim Brotherhood's approach.
Question 18: Are you prepared to offer whatever the resistance asks of you, whether in the form of political, military, or any
other form of support?
President Assad: Politically, we haven't changed. The Palestinian question for us is still as it was ten years ago and decades
ago. It hasn't changed. As to what we can offer, this has to do with two things: first, Syria's current capabilities; and there's
no doubt that the priority is given now to cleaning Syria of terrorism. Second, it has to do with the Palestinian condition and the
parties with which we can deal within the Palestinian arena.
Question 19: Since we are talking about resistance, there is the other side. In addition to some countries which stood beside
Syria in fighting terrorism, there was also a role played by the resistance in Lebanon, particularly Hezbollah, which provided a
great deal and contributed to fighting terrorism. What do you say, Mr. President, to resistance fighters and families of martyrs
and the wounded?
President Assad: When all these groups of resistance get together to defend Syrian soil and Syrian citizens, including the Lebanese
resistance and the brothers who came from Iraq some of whom reproached me for not mentioning them by name, I take this opportunity
to stress that there are brothers from Iraq to whom we give the same weight of any resistance fighter who came from any other country.
There are also the families of resistance fighters who came from Iran and sacrificed their blood in Syria. We should put all these
in the same basket next to the Syrian martyrs, fighters, and their families. To those I say that all the letters, the words, the
sentences, and the whole of literature are much less than a single drop of blood. Therefore, words are of a much lesser value than
what they have offered. What's more important is what history will write about them.
In fact, when we talk about writing history, we need to highlight that history needs a strategy and needs tactics, but the fact
remains that strategy without implementation on the ground has no value. It remains mere thought which we might include in books
and essays. But the reality is that these individuals in these countries, this group of resistance fighters, not politics, write
history. I would like to use the answer to this question to express to them all my love, respect, and appreciation, and my reverence
to the fighters, the wounded, and martyrs, and to all their families who are courage incarnated and who sent these individuals to
Syria to defend it and fight terrorism, so that these families become models of morality and principles for present and future generations.
Question 20: Have you asked Hezbollah to leave Syria? A few days ago His Eminence Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah talked about this issue
and said that nobody can get us out of Syria unless the Syrian leadership asked us to do so.
President Assad: The battle is long and ongoing. When we talk about this tripartite alliance – and if we consider it a quadruple
alliance when we add Hezbollah, we talk about the tripartite alliance in terms of the states included, but in the end Hezbollah is
a basic element in this war – the battle is long, and the need for these military forces will continue for a long time. When there
is a need, and when Hezbollah, Iran, or others believe that terrorism has been eliminated, they will tell us that they want to go
home. As Sayyed Hasan said, they have families and daily interests, which is normal, but it is still early to talk about this subject.
Question 21: Up till now, there are still areas under the control of terrorism and areas under occupation. At the same time, regretfully,
some Arab countries, and here I am talking particularly about Saudi Arabia, announced that it is ready to send forcers to Syria.
On the other hand, a few days ago popular tribal units were formed to resist occupation. Are these really popular resistance units?
Do they receive support from the Syrian government? Does this mean that the army cannot liberate those areas, and that's why it is
asking for the help of the tribes? What is the nature of this issue?
President Assad: There are different forms of this resistance which appeared a few years ago. In the beginning they were fighting
ISIS before they started to fight the occupiers. They were against ISIS in the central and eastern regions, and there were cases
where they appeared in other regions which were not given media coverage and about which we hear sometimes through information and
indications.
Now, this situation has started to expand. So, it's not one single case. There are a number of cases which might be individual
sometimes, or in the form of small groups not affiliated to an organization. In any case, our position as a state has been from the
beginning to support any act of resistance, whether against terrorists or against occupying forces, regardless of their nationality,
i.e. American, French, Turkish, or Israeli. We support these resistance forces based on our national role as a government.
Question 22: What about Saudi Arabia and sending Saudi forces to Syria?
President Assad: First, when we talk about a state, we should assume that such a state can take decisions independently. That's
why we will not talk about the role of Saudi Arabia. You better ask me about the American decision on this issue.
Question 23: On the other hand, there are a number of Arab countries which we talk about and which had a role or contributed to
the role or to the destruction of Syria. These countries are now trying to get to Syria through the reconstruction process. What
do you say in this regard, particularly that these countries are the ones which have capital and huge financial power? How are you
going to deal with that?
President Assad: Reconstruction in Syria is not a cause for concern for us. It needs two factors: first, the human factor which
is more important than the financial factor. When a country like Syria possesses the human factor, the financial cost will be less
when it comes to reconstruction. This is self-evident, and we possess all these factors despite the fact that many competent and
qualified Syrians have immigrated because of the war.
But we still have the capability to start reconstruction. And the evidence is clear now, for the state is moving forward and reconstruction
has begun. As to money, the Syrian people have financial capabilities, capital, most of which is not in Syria, but outside Syria.
But there is capital waiting for reconstruction to begin, so it will begin investing. On the other hand, there are the friendly countries
which have capabilities and have the desire; and we have the desire to have them participate in reconstruction, so that they benefit
and we Syrians benefit from this process. In the end, we do not need those countries and we will never allow them to be part of reconstruction.
Journalist: Never?
President Assad: Absolutely.
Journalist: Not even if there was a need in this regard, I mean in terms of financial resources?
President Assad: Financial resources are not everything. As I said, this is available. There are different sources in the world
and in Syria for capital.
Question 24: With these tough years, we are talking about the legendary steadfastness of the Syrian Army, the Syrian people, the
Armed Forces. If you wanted to talk about two cases, the most difficult case or incident that you have encountered during these years,
and on the other hand the best and most beautiful case.
President Assad: It is natural, at the heart of the military battle, for the best and worst cases to be linked to the development
of the military battle. If I say that the worst cases were when terrorists used to control a certain area, this is self-evident,
but it is related more to specific battles, particularly when the area is strategic or the city is big with a large population. Consequently,
the impact will be much greater psychologically and in terms of morale.
But there was an ongoing situation which we are still living and we must think about: when a martyr or a group of martyrs fall,
and this is ongoing on a weekly basis for us, we must think that a family lost a dear one who cannot be compensated. He might be
compensated by achieving victory at a certain stage, but on the family, psychological and human level, you cannot compensate a dear
one lost to a certain family, or maybe a friend. This is a very painful situation which we have lived and continue to live. This
will not stop until the war itself stops. But there were painful cases at the beginning of the war, when you see this huge lack of
patriotism. They were perhaps a minority, but a large minority, of individuals who were prepared to sell the homeland and trade it
together with their principles, if they had ones, in return for money or a certain interest, in addition to a certain percentage
of extremism.
On the other hand, there were victories, particularly when victories started in the city of al-Qsair in 2013, and culminated in
the city of Aleppo in 2016, that was the beginning of the major victories. That was followed by Deir Ezzor, and today we are living
the joy of liberating Damascus and its countryside. This is a situation we have all lived through, and you were with us, and I am
sure you feel the same joy.
Question 25: Have you felt tired at a certain moment? Have you felt hesitant at a certain moment, in light of all the decisions
you have taken, have you ever, even for a moment, thought of leaving? Haven't you said to yourself: let me save my family and resign,
as some people did at a certain point in time?
President Assad: This question might be raised in a personal manner. When I am faced with a personal situation as an individual,
I might feel despair after a few months. I might feel tired or bored or I might want to move to a different situation, or give up.
That is possible.
Journalist: As an individual?
President Assad: Of course, as an individual, but the case you are proposing is not personal, it is national. Imagine yourself
in a different condition, perhaps building something on your own. You feel tired, but when you see a large number of people helping
you build it and share the same determination, you forget the tiredness.
Now we are in a national situation. We are talking about millions of Syrians. When you see a shell striking and victims falling
anywhere in Syria, you feel frustrated. But when you see life being restored to the same area after one hour, your psychological
condition changes. When you see that the electricity worker, the oil worker, the teacher, the employee, are moving side by side with
fighters, moving without despair and without tiredness, how can you feel tired? This is a collective condition not related to me
as a person. It has to do with our human condition when we are together as a society. How do we live? This defines whether you are
tired or not. Would the Syrian society have arrived at this stage of despair and surrender, I would certainly have been with it.
I would have surrendered because I do not have the necessary elements for steadfastness. This is self-evident.
Journalist: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for giving us this opportunity, and for your candidness in answering these questions.
Thank you very much.
Re Aaron Mate It's entirely possible he reads you regularly and saw your post when you first published, but
on
2/20/18 :
AARON MATÉ: Let's talk about the indictment, Max. Reading through it, the prosecution
alleges some clear political motives, a preference, basically, for Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump and a strong distaste for Hillary Clinton, also support for some, also, the
encouragement of Russian trolls to disparage Republicans like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
There
does appear to be some political motives there in whatever the Russians, whatever these
alleged suspects were doing. But also, there's a strong commercial component in the sense
that the accounts that the Russians are accused of creating were used to essentially, as a
scheme in which vendors would pay them money for retweets at sometimes $25 to $50 a pop.
It
seems to me that there is both a commercial motive here as well as a political imperative, as
well. I'm wondering your thoughts on what this indictment tells us.
So your Tweet on 6/5/18 wasn't telling him anything he hadn't already said publicly.
"... "The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW ..."
"... The Deep State may not have been very competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should make all of us uneasy. ..."
"... I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the election. ..."
"... I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally apply to any other human organization. ..."
"... Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case. Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination". ..."
"... there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau. ..."
"... What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened! ..."
"... The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general? ) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to business as usual in DC. ..."
"... Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week with the release of the IG report. They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates). ..."
"... jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way. ..."
"... The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security, which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking. ..."
"... Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation. ..."
"a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau"
Which is what the FBI looked like at the time and over the last two years, the
anti-Clinton faction seeming to be centered in New York, and the anti-Trump faction in, what,
D.C.?
This report merely provides more talking points for politicians. And, talk they will.
IG Michael Horowitz had a specific mandate. It was to investigate "violations of criminal
and civil law." It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic
regulations.
This report makes no allegations of criminal activity. As such, it can only be read as
exonerating those under investigation, of same. The ultimate remedy for "breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations" is termination
of employment. And, Comey has already been fired. The rest is irrelevant and/or superfluous.
Agreed. the report sheds light on some truly incompetent (and unprofessional, inappropriate
behavior). Disagree – the 'deep state' is behind this. perhaps the most depressing
aspect of this circus is the realization there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Obama
administration. there was incompetence and malfeasance in the Clinton campaign.
There was incompetence and malfeasance in the DoJ, there was incompetence and malfeasance
in the Trump campaign, and there is a whole lot of incompetence and malfeasance in the
current administration. see where this is going? "malfeasance" recognized and leveraged by
"foreign actors" (some other 'deep state' as it were) demonstrates competence in terms of
their job(s).
I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which "Puddy" and "Elaine" meet with a priest to
discuss their relationship and its impact on their eternal lives – with Puddy being
Christian and Elaine not. the priest says, "oh that's easy, you're both going to hell "
"It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there is
no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role
in the 2016 election."
SO we are expected to believe the FBI, et. al; never played a role before? Spare me
"The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared" -Well, obviously; or Hillary would be President NOW
Way funny, this! And all the time we've been looking for enemies abroad-in this case the
Rooshians-the real enemy was right in our own backyard. The Deep State may not have been very
competent ( Gee,whudda surprise!)) but– it's still in place. And that fact alone should
make all of us uneasy.
If you are going to have a deep state, and in a large nation, it does seem necessary, then it
should be a meritocracy. Clearly the system of recruiting high level officials from certain
Ivy League schools does not result in a meritocracy.
Erik: "It was not to investigate breaches of protocol and bureaucratic regulations."
Well, he did, and thank goodness. I'm satisfied that we have the final word on Clinton's guilt and the special treatment she
and her staff were given by criminal investigators who believed she was going to win the
election.
If that's not political bias, then we need another word for it. Political consideration in
the outcome of a criminal probe.
Think about that if it had been a GOP candidate, what would the progressives be saying
about the same behavior?
I think a good book to explain what we are seeing is The Fiefdom Syndrome by Robert Herbold. That highlights how various managers set up
their own sub organizations in a groups. It focuses on the corporate model yet it can equally
apply to any other human organization.
What I find amusing is the emphasis on texts between Strzok and Page. They sure were sloppy
in using govt cell phones for their texting. However, at the end of the day, their texts were
the equivalent of pillow talk. What's the remedy? Everybody wear a wire to bed to trap people
in the act of gossiping? Does anybody think that these casual conversations go on all the
time. There is no group of people more cynical that law enforcement people.
At the end of the day, people did their jobs and prevented their opinions from the proper
execution of their jobs.
Comey took Lynch completely off the hook. She had not recused herself from the case.
Prosecution or not was her decision, not Comey's. And even if she had recused herself, the
decision would have gone to Yates. Lynch had no good options. If she had said there were no
grounds for prosecution, she would have been crucified for partisanship. If she had decided
that Clinton should be prosecuted, all hell would have broken loose. Well, there is no way
she would have ever made the decision to prosecute, but point is, Comey took her completely
off the hook. No wonder Lynch made no big deal about his "insubordination".
H. Clinton squirreled away over 30 thousand emails into a private server. I am reliably
informed that if any other federal employee pulled a move like that they would have been
fired, with loss of pension and possible jail time in as much as this is grand jury fodder.
Not ol' Hillary though.
"There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a
coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump
factions inside the Bureau. "
More fake news – there were NO pro-Trump factions inside the Bureau.
Michael Kenny
June 15, 2018 at 11:29 am
The important point is that Trump has no need to worry about any of this if he really is as
innocent as he claims. In fact, infiltrated informers, wiretaps etc. are a godsend to Trump
if he's innocent because they prove that innocence. Thus, Trump's making such a fuss about
these things is a tacit admission of guilt.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
Yes, of course. Because if someone spied on you looking for a crime of which you were
innocent, you'd be totally ok with it and would keep quiet. Only someone who's guilty of a
crime would speak up being spied upon.
"There is only to argue whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a
chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau."
What anti-Clinton faction? Every one of the five agents identified as sending politically
biased communications was anti-Trump. As best I can determine every decision by biased
decision makers that Horowitz is baffled by, or reports himself "unpersuaded" by the
explanations advanced, was anti-Trump. Even when Strzok writes a text message that Horowitz
admits is a smoking gun (~"We'll stop Trump") Horowitz says it's no biggie because other
decision-makers were involved, "unbiased" ones like, explicitly, Bill Priestap, he of the
procedures-violating spy launch against Trump BEFORE any investigation was opened!
To believe Horowitz' conclusions about lack of bias in decision making you have to be as
willfully reluctant to connect the dots as he is. And I'm not, nor should you be.
The real take away is that the Deep State is a reality, far more entrenched than anyone of us
knows. Whether it is particularly competent or not ( compared to what? Government in general?
) is irrelevant. No one of any stature in any part of the government bureaucracy will be held
accountable ever. They never are. As soon as the media circus moves on, it will be back to
business as usual in DC.
Those Russians are so clever. They trained agents for a lifetime to master accents of rural
Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin then duped the bible thumping gun lovers into rejecting her
highness Hillary. The immense Russian powers are extraordinary when one considers the Russian
economy is smaller than Texas.
But seriously, we had eight years of a Democratic president and people had enough and
chose a Republican even though he was outspent. That is the consistent pattern. After Trump
another Democrat will move into the White House.
Speaking of idiocracy, some personal emails between FBI agents were made public this week
with the release of the IG report.
They give a glimpse into the infantilisation of our ruling "class". It is clear that
fatherlessness and the replacement of education with indoctrination have produced a
generation of child-men and child-women who view the State as parent, provider, deity (even
as lover – supplier of ideologically acceptable bed-mates).
A cosmic ignorance radiates from these email exchanges. These agents appear to have been
dropped here from another planet. They not only seem to have been disconnected from or to
have forgotten the Civilisation that gave birth to the society in which they live, but they
seem never to have had any knowledge or awareness of it in the first place.
(Reading between the lines, deducing their "principles" from their mentality, one could
confidently conclude that these adolescents truly believe that State is God and Marx is His
prophet.)
They're going to get away with it with no adequately serious repercussions meaning they're
competent enough, aren't they? That also means they won't be properly deterred and will
simply do it better next time.
jp: "Hard to see how the FBI's mistakes didn't benefit one candidate over the other." That's the standard line from the Clinton campaign. They believe everything begins and
ends with Comey causing her to lose. Of course, they never mention why the FBI was investigating her, personally, and key
members of her State Dept. staff, not her campaign by the way.
The FBI may have hurt her campaign, but only because they were doing their job, albiet
badly. She hurt her campaign infinitely by breaking the law and compromising national security,
which required a criminal probe into her lawbreaking.
If you're going to fault the FBI, you can't then not fault Secretary Clinton. The two go
hand-in-hand, and she comes first in the chain of event.
Case closed. Though she didn't get her just desserts in court, at least she received
political justice. 🙂
Dave: "Peter and Lisa were 2 cops talking about a criminal." Well, that's one more reason not to trust federal law enforcement. I can cite the criminal statutes Hillary Clinton was being personally investigated
for. Can anyone cite any criminal statute that Donald Trump was being personally investigated
for at the same time? Was he even being personally investigated? A counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation.
In a way we now can talk about Intelligence Industrial complex
Notable quotes:
"... The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. ..."
"... In a damning passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications. ..."
"... Enough: The DOJ Must Show Its Cards to the American Public A Higher Loyalty is Jim Comey's Revenge, Served Lukewarm ..."
"... Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the situation." ..."
"... Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President" and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by Clinton. ..."
"... Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like "adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements." ..."
"... In that sense, the IG just poured a can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn. ..."
"... One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. ..."
"... The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss' job. ..."
"... the most important conclusion of the report: there is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA warrants and pseudo-legal warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition research from the Steele Dossier , and so on. ..."
June
15, 2018The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally
feared.
It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI's Clinton email
investigation really means.
While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey
as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this:
the FBI influenced the election of a president.
In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who
previously worked on the 2012 study of "Fast and Furious"), opened his probe into the FBI's
Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the
presidential campaign. Horowitz's focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to
re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding
Russiagate.
In a damning
passage , the 568 page report found it "extraordinary and
insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors for the admitted purpose
of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates
in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department
norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair
administrators of justice." Comey's drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for
Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch
though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early
indications.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public
perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI
investigation into Hillary unfolded. "Lynch's failure to recognize the appearance problem and
to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment." Her statements later about her
decision not to recuse further "created public confusion and didn't adequately address the
situation."
The report also
criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging
Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts
"brought discredit" to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one
exchange that read, "Page: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: "No.
No he's not. We'll stop it." Another Strzok document
stated "we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least
one secret message."
Page and Strzok also discussed cutting back the number of investigators present for
Clinton's in-person interview in light of the fact she might soon be president, and thus their
new boss. Someone identified only as Agent One went on to refer to Clinton as "the President"
and in a message told a friend "I'm with her." The FBI also allowed Clinton's lawyers to attend
her interview, even though they were also witnesses to a possible crimes committed by
Clinton.
Page and Strzok were among five FBI officials the report found expressed hostility
toward Trump and have been referred to the FBI's internal disciple system. The report otherwise
makes only wishy-washy recommendations about things every agent should already know, like
"adopting a policy addressing the appropriateness of department employees discussing the
conduct of uncharged individuals in public statements."
But at the end of it all, the details really don't matter, because the report broadly found
no political bias, no purposeful efforts or strategy to sway the election. In aviation disaster
terms, it was all pilot error. Like an accident of sorts, as opposed to the pilot boarding
drunk, but the plane crashed and killed 300 people either way.
The report is already being welcomed by Democrats -- who feel Comey
shattered Clinton's chances of winning the election by reopening the email probe just days
before the election -- and by Republicans, who feel Comey let Clinton off easy. Many are now
celebrating it was only gross incompetence, unethical behavior, serial bad judgment, and
insubordination that led the FBI to help determine the election. No Constitutional crisis.
A lot of details in those 568 pages to yet fully parse, but at first glance there is not
much worthy of prosecution (though Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he will review the
report for possible
prosecutions and IG Horowitz will testify in front of Congress on Monday and may reveal
more information.) Each side will point to the IG's conclusion of "no bias" to shut down calls
for this or that in a tsunami of blaming each other. In that sense, the IG just poured a
can of jet fuel onto the fires of the 2016 election and walked away to watch it burn.
One concrete outcome, however, is to weaken a line of
prosecution for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The chief Russiagate investigator has just
seen a key witness degraded -- any defense lawyer will characterize Comey's testimony as
tainted now -- and a possible example of obstruction weakened. As justification for firing
Comey, the White House initially pointed to an earlier Justice Department memo criticizing
Comey for many of the same actions now highlighted by the IG (Trump later added concerns about
the handling of Russiagate.) The report thus underscores one of the stated reasons for
Comey's dismissal. Firing someone for incompetence isn't obstructing justice; it's the boss'
job.
It will be too easy, however, to miss the most important conclusion of the report: there
is no longer a way to claim America's internal intelligence agency, the FBI, did not play a
role in the 2016 election. There is only to argue which side they favored and whether they
meddled via clumsiness, as a coordinated action, or as a chaotic cluster of competing pro- and
anti- Clinton/Trump factions inside the Bureau. And that's the tally before anyone brings up
the FBI's use of a human informant inside the Trump campaign, the FBI's use of both FISA
warrants and pseudo-legal
warrantless surveillance against key members of the Trump team, the FBI's use of opposition
research from the
Steele Dossier , and so on.
The good news is the Deep State seems less competent than we originally feared. But even if
one fully accepts the IG report's conclusion that all this -- and there's a lot -- was not
intentional, at a minimum it makes clear to those watching ahead of 2020 what tools are
available and the impact they can have. While we continue to look for the bad guy abroad, we
have already met the enemy and he is us.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. Follow him on Twitter
@WeMeantWell .
The current anti-Russian hysteria is the attempt to unite the society which become hostile to neoliberal elite.
Notable quotes:
"... A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever, and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. ..."
"... In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world. ..."
"... All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog" get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake? ..."
"... As we've been discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that. ..."
"... It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing. Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff. ..."
"... You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care. ..."
At a graduation ceremony for the US Naval War College (barf), US Secretary of Defense James Mattis
asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin "aims to diminish the appeal
of the western democratic model and attempts to undermine America's moral authority," and that "his actions are designed not to challenge
our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."
A casual glance at facts and history makes it instantly clear that the United States has no "moral authority" of any kind whatsoever,
and is arguably the hub of the most pernicious and dangerous force ever assembled in human history. But the establishment Russia
narrative really is that cartoonishly ridiculous: you really do have to believe that the US government is 100 percent pure good and
the Russian government is 100 percent pure evil to prevent the whole narrative from falling to pieces. If you accept the idea that
the exchange is anything close to 50/50, with Russia giving back more or less what it's getting and simply protecting its own interests
from the interests of geopolitical rivals, it no longer makes any sense to view Putin as a leader who poses a unique threat to the
world. If you accept the idea that the west is actually being far more aggressive and antagonistic toward Russia than Russia is being
toward the west, it gets even more laughable.
In order to believe that the US has anything resembling "moral authority" you have to shove your head so far into the sand you
get lava burns, but that really is what is needed to keep western anti-Russia hysteria going. None of the things the Russian government
has been accused of doing (let alone the very legitimate questions about whether or not they even did all of them) merit anything
but an indifferent shrug when compared with the unforgivable evils that America's unelected power establishment has been inflicting
upon the world, so they need to weave a narrative about "moral authority" in order to give those accusations meaning and relevance.
And, since the notion of America having moral authority is contradicted by all facts in evidence, that narrative is necessarily woven
of threads of fantasy and denial.
Establishment anti-Russia hysteria is all narrative, no substance. It's sustained by the talking heads of plutocrat-owned western
media making the same unanimous assertions over and over again in authoritative, confident-sounding tones of voice without presenting
any evidence or engaging with the reality of what Russia or its rivals are actually doing. The only reason American liberals believe
that Putin is a dangerous boogieman who has taken over their government, but don't believe for example that America is ruled by a
baby-eating pedophile cabal, is because the Jake Tappers and Rachel Maddows have told them to believe one conspiracy theory and not
the other. They could have employed the exact same strategy with any other wholly unsubstantiated conspiracy narrative and had just
as much success.
In reality, Russia is nothing other than a rival power structure that the US-centralized empire wants to either collapse or
absorb, but they can't just come right out and tell the public that they're dangerously escalating tensions with a nuclear superpower
because westerners live in an invisible empire ruled by insatiably greedy plutocrats, so they make up nonsense about Putin being
some kind of omnipotent supervillain who has infiltrated the highest levels of US government and is trying to take over the world.
Of equal interest to the Defense Secretary's "moral authority" gibberish is his claim that Putin's actions "are designed not to
challenge our arms at this point but to undercut and compromise our belief in our ideals."
I mean, like what? So Russia isn't challenging America militarily and isn't taking any actions to attempt to, but it's trying
to, what, hurt America's feelings? All this new cold war hysteria and nuclear brinkmanship has basically been America acting
like a bitchy high school drama queen because Russia is saying mean things about it behind its back? How does a guy named "Mad Dog"
get to be such a thin-skinned little snowflake?
I'm just playing. Actually, when Mattis says that the Russian government is trying to "undercut and compromise our belief in our
ideals," he is saying that Moscow is interrupting the lies that Americans are being told about their government by the plutocrat-owned
media. As we've
been
discussing a lot recently, control of the narrative is absolutely essential for rulers to maintain their rule. When you hear
establishment policy makers babbling about "Russian propaganda" and Putin's attempts to "undercut and compromise our belief in our
ideals," all that they are saying is that the plutocrats who rule America need to be able to control the way Americans think and
vote, and that the Russian government is making it a bit harder for them to do that.
More and more, the threads of the establishment narrative are ceasing to be unconsciously absorbed and are being increasingly
consciously examined instead. This development has ultimately nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with our species
moving
out of its old relationship with mental narrative as it approaches evolve-or-die time in our challenging new world. I am greatly
encouraged by what I am seeing.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing the stuff I publish is to get on the mailing list for my
website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish.
My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , checking out my
podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
This is so right on that it is scary. The only problem, while more are questioning, is the fact that the majority of Americans
actually believe the bullshit that people like Mattis says. And, with a nickname like Mad Dog, it's a wonder that he hasn't been
put down yet.
Even today I had to deal with a typical American – 'swallow-it-hook-line-and-sinker' – idiot.
"The stock market is honest and above board.' 'All immigrants don't belong here.' 'It's fine if the government violates your
civil rights' 'Oh and immigrants don't have any.'
I could go on, but I learned long ago to say my piece and move on. For some people, there is no changing their minds, nor even
opening them up to considering the truth. There are the descendants of those who were protested against in the 1960s. The 'My
country right or wrong' people. Most likely they never had the balls, as children, to speak back to their parents, when those
adults were in the wrong. I always wondered whether intellectual blindness is a learned trait. I'm pretty sure that it must be.
William / June 17, 2018
Much or most of what you write about the American narrative is true. However, you weave it into a narrative that ignores central
historical facts and themes. Examples; Russia's behavior in Poland after WW2, the Hungarian revolution, the Check invasion and
oppression, the take over of Manchuria in the last weeks of WW2.
Stalin killing 20-40 million of his own people, Chechnya, the
Korean war, the Berlin wall. Not to mention recent assassinations of its own citizens. Yes, America has done cruel and horrific
things in many countries, but it pales to what the Russians have done throughout the ages. It would be akin to comparing what
the Nazis did to what the French underground did in response. Both killed, both did things that were horrific, but the French
did it in response and not nearly in the same magnitude. Historical contrast is very important when viewing these issues. It is
very easy to criticize one's own country but balance is called for. Was Russia justified in taking Crimea, perhaps, but then was
Hitler justified in taking the Sudetenland?
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
What Lee Yates just did there is a beautiful example of Advantageous Comparison defense in Bandera's Moral Disengagement Theory.
Yes, the US is morally bankrupt, but so what? The Soviets or Hitler or somebody else was worse. Sorry, that is bullshit.
What did the US overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran have to do with the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia? Nothing. And he brings
up Russian Crimea, which voted 95% to rejoin Russia, an example of democracy in action.
william / June 17, 2018
The so what is this: when dealing with monsters one has to stoop as low to defend against it. What happened in Iran was Brittain's
provocation. They approached Eisenhower once previously and he refused to intervene. It was only after they convinced him that
it was a Russian plot to take over the oil fields that he relented. So yes it was wrong and even monstrous but put in the historical
perspective at the time, it made sense. At that time, France was in danger of collapsing and with it the rest of Europe. I am
of Middle Eastern ethnicity so I too am sensitive to Western colonialization of the region. However, things are not always as
simple as we would like them to be.
I really enjoy when people lower themselves to using vulgarities because they disagree with a point of view-most flattering and
intelligent.
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Just more evasive moral disengagement. So the Dulles boys finally duped Ike into giving the green light to the overthrow of democratically
elected Mossadegh installing a bloodthirsty tyrant that ended up destabilizing the Middle East for the next 50years and running,
based on the pretext of Russia hysteria.
Was it true the Russians were really going to take over the oilfields? I never heard
that story before. I doubt it very much. History teaches a different lesson. Mossadegh had the temerity to want to share oil profits
with the Iranian people who owned it. Thats too much democracy for any country.
Just like Truman was tricked into Korea. Or Johnson was duped into Vietnam.
And so how do you explain why the CIA overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala beginning a reign of terror with genocude lasting 50 years
against unarmed peasant villages? East Timor? Chile? Brazil and Argentina? Greece? Angola?
This is just more Advantageous Comparison to justify moral bankruptcy. Sorry, sometimes things are as simple as they look.
No I respectfully disagree. If these seem like difficult moral choices to you, I pity you.
JRGJRG / June 17, 2018
Although I must apologize for not recognizing your rank as a cut above the usual G-7 troll with your knowledge of the advanced
techniques of argument for moral disengagement, defending your country against the indefensible. Tough job that calls for an expert.
You must be one of those G-12 trolls called to fill in for overtime duty on fathers day. I'm sorry your wife and kids are going
to be missing you today. You can make it up to them tomorrow.
William / June 18, 2018
Funny thing, I agree that the overthrow was wrong, and horrible. I also think it was wrong and perhaps criminal when we invaded
both Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of my relatives were killed by tyrants in the Middle East and much of what has happened there
is ugly. But again, I do not stoop to personal disparagement. It has no place in honest debate. Same tactic used by the deplorable
. Trump and McCarthy for that matter, and of course, now you. As for Mossadegh, he was truly a statesman. England owned the oil
fields and he went to the UN to mediate the purchase of the oil fields at market value. The English refused and tried to convince
Eisenhower that it was a Russian plot. He tried again and finally Eisenhower relented, wrongly I might add. But do remember, that
Eisenhower also stopped the English and French when they wanted to invade Egypt to take over the Suez.
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
Thank You, JRGJRG. I did not know that I knew that much philosophy. What I said was more in light of current events circa the
1990s. Our "bankers" went to Russia and "helped" them get capitalism. Well they got it, and now their gangsters/bankers are just
as wealthy and sophisticated as ours, or more so. Politically, I cannot really blame Putin for holding a grudge about our meddling
in Russia and general promotion of Boris Yeltsin. Still I doubt that he would make it easy for us to install another Yeltsin or
buy all of Russia's resources either, so why would we make it easy for him to meddle in our country, or do what we do overseas?
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
This is what you're doing, even if you don't recognize it. If you understand this you will begin to understand the errors of your
own ways. This is how totalitarianship develops. Read and learn.
Take off the blinders and fully explain how the U.S. genocide of native Americans – and the ongoing horrific treatment of them
– pales in comparison to anything except, possibly, the unnecessary dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan.
Sorry, but your
dissertation of an excuse just doesn't cut the mustard – or maybe your mother never told you that two wrongs don't make a right.
Or in the case of the U.S., dozens of never ending wrongs. Unless you really open your eyes and mind and understand the truth,
you will never come off as anything more than an apologist for the top 1/10th of the top 1%.
Harry S Nydick / June 17, 2018
This was a reply to William, but comes off looking as an original comment and criticism of Caity, with whom I am in complete agreement
on todays article.
jrgjrg / June 18, 2018
Not just the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, but remember that Gen. LeMay firebombed every city in Japan before the bombs
were dropped, causing at least another half million deaths. Robert MacNamara said in an interview that if the US had lost the
Second World War they both would have been tried as war criminals, and it would be right. See:
Always impressed by Caitlin driving a bulldozer through lying narratives. We need more Caitlin's; we need an antiwar mass movement
of Caitlin's. But the antiwar movement is very weak and it is divided against itself.
In the 1990's there was a coming together of the Chronicles paleoconservatives and the CounterPunch progressives against the
US/NATO attack on Yugoslavia. But today Thomas Fleming and Chronicles have retreated and those controlling CounterPunch have explicitly
rejected an alliance with the 'right' against the US march to war.
I wish I could share the Caitlin enthusiasm for the future but I am depressed and fearful for the future. The US public is
asleep. The US is gearing up for war in Europe and Asia. Starting with Clinton each president has murdered about a million souls.
They are gearing up for a bigger war in the MENA and even Eastern Europe with Iran as the major target and will likely claim another
million+.
From Jungian psychology I learned that unless the opposites come close together change (a birth out of the tyranny of the status
quo) will not happen. The elites in control of the US use the fake dialectic of the major two parties to keep us apart. Those
in charge of each pole of the fake dialectic derive power from defending it against the 'other' and see alliance with the 'other'
as a diminution of their power (a good example is those in control of CounterPunch arguing against antiwar alliance with the 'right';
that they are captured by their power drive is plain to see).
Liberals (neolibs) and many progressives have walked straight into a trap set by the CIA that engineered a Cold War v2. They
knew the neocons would come along. The CIA, Wall Street, military, NSA are marching to war. They thirst for their holy war. They
are the supremacist 'exceptional and indispensable' while the rest of the world is unexceptional and dispensable.
If the left and right do not come together in an antiwar alliance then how can the warmongering trajectory of the US change?
geoffreyskoll / June 17, 2018
It's just like you, Caitlin, to bring up such quibbles as genocide, slavery, torture, and a few others too minor to even mention.
We're talking IDEALS here. You know like complete global domination, slavish catering to the most exploitive class in human history–the
stuff that makes America great!
Lee Yates / June 17, 2018
I agree that the U.S. is Imperialist and has been for a long time. However, it is false that Russia opposes the US kleptocracy
or represents anything other than the same bankster/gangsters that run the West. They came into the fold after the end of the
Soviet Union, and there they remain, probably not too happy about it, but neither are we right. The elites from all over launder
money, hide wealth enjoy power and luxury beyond our imagination. A small spat between them is death sentence for the rest of
us, but they will make up and enjoy their stolen wealth again.
The moral authority that the West or USA enjoys is a hollow thing,
much like Christianity at the height of the Church's power. But the words are still there maybe some day a true believer will
come along and do something about them.
Forgive me, I could not get beyond the 'undermine America's moral authority'. I take it, Mattis means the 'moral authority' to
starve the Yemenis to death and deny them medicine while they are dying . aided by our French Poodle and a mad woman from the
Isles! Or maybe the 'moral authority' of Albright when she said killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children 'was worth it'.
Or maybe it was 'moral authority' of Clinton, giggling over the sadist murder of Kaddafi. Some how, as an American I don't feel
'moral authority' , all I feel is the pain of inhumanity.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No, no, no, you're still not getting it. Let me explain it to you. It means the authority of the autocrats to determine what's
moral for you. They themselves are above morality, like Nietzsche taught, remember? Authoritarianism.
Now do you understand?
elkojohn / June 17, 2018
As was hinted at by the FBI-IG report, neither political party in the criminal U.S. government is complying with law (domestic
nor international). The U.S. government system is an organized crime syndicate of liars, thieves and murders. The ruling class
and the inside players of the secret government consider the common folk to be deplorable, trailer-park trash.
That's the mind-set of the "holier-than-thou" professionals working inside the U.S. government. Whatever trust, loyalty and
respect citizens had for this government has been completely squandered – and voters (not Putin) gave the FU finger to the status
quo by electing Trump.
The treasonous, seditious, murdering 2-party dictatorship has absolutely NO ONE to blame but themselves. The time has come
to eliminate and defund the secret espionage agencies that run our government, – and which have morphed into crime syndicates.
Ditto the two political parties. Until we see all the top level law-breakers in jail (i.e., Clinton, Bush, Obama), until we witness
2/3's of the House and the Senate being purged and replaced, until we witness the complete dismantling of the FED, until we witness
ALL military bases around the world being closed and our troops brought home, until we witness the M-I-C's budget cut down to
1/4th and used ONLY for national protection, until we witness a purge of the CIA/FBI cartel, until we witness manufacturing being
restored to this country, until we witness the USA cutting all special interest lobbying (in particular, Israel and Saudi Arabia),
until we witness the break-up of the death grip that Wall St. and the banking monopoly has on our economy, until we witness the
full restoration of the "rule of law" in our government, – until then, it will be the absolute, open, in-your-face, tyrannical,
24/7, lawlessness of the U.S. government that destroys this nation.
So I disagree with James Mattis, that the U.S. holds the moral high ground.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological
defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. They're playing the "I'm rubber and you're
glue" game. It's not like the assholes don't know they are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't
care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
Mattis didn't realise how well he described Trump. When you look at what Trump's regime has done since taking office last year,
it 'trumps' [pun intended] Putin's efforts, such as they are, by a mile. Putin could never hope to achieve so much in such a short
time, if that's what he wanted to do.
It seems to be that every criticism leveled at Russia, and China even, is a simple reflection of what the USA is doing.
Deflection. Classic 'pot calling the kettle black' stuff.
All one has to do is change a few names in the narrative – replace Putin with Trump, Russia / China with USA. That's it. Easy.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
You're paying more respect to it than it deserves by giving it a clinical diagnosis, implying "projection" as a psychological
defense. Let's call it by its simple name: dirty rotten lying, propaganda, trickery. It's not like the assholes don't know they
are lying – of course they do! And they know we know it, too, and don't care.
WillD / June 17, 2018
No, you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying he/they use it as a defense, but that they don't realize how close it
is to what it (the USA) is doing.
Believe me, I have no respect for Mattis & that mob, nor Putin for that matter. None of them deserve respect.
I agree with you on the dirty rotten lying, too. They do know they are lying, but don't know how close to the truth it is when
applied to them.
jrgjrg / June 17, 2018
No worries. We are in the "post-truth era." That sounds crazy, I know. The plutocrats are discussing this exact topic this year
at the Bilderberg Conference.
As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of
international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be
suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing
publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that
sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership
for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other,
territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on
historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.
Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic
criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting
a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these
guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.
As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of
above, he must somehow understand (Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior
to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian
nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political
tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese
consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible
actors as Putin, Trump, Xi (affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war
cannot be anything more then policing.
To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse,
after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior).
No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into
quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China
dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in
International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.
Honest writing of Saker.
How good are these supranational, corporatacracy (another commenter), "globally organized
elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way
above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular
dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough.
Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in
itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies
on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve
this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better
tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods.
It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual
fate.
War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be
seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity,
migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of
humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans.
Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the
only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub,
that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plague if
not.
I'm not sure how far up the military-industrial complex's ass one's head needs to be to
think that one single step toward peace is a gigantic take-all-the-chips win for the
impoverished North Korea, but many of Trump's political enemies are taking it even further.
Senate Democrats have
introduced a bill to make it more difficult for Trump to withdraw US troops from South
Korea, because while you can always count on Capitol Hill to make it incredibly easy for a
president to deploy military personnel around the globe, giving that same office the power to
bring troops home is a completely different matter.
Surprising no one, MSNBC's cartoon children's program The Rachel Maddow Show took
home the trophy for jaw-dropping, shark-jumping ridiculousness with an eighteen-minute Alex Jones impression
claiming that the chief architect of the Korean negotiations was none other than (and if you
can't guess whose name I'm going to write once we get out of these parentheses I deeply envy
your ignorance on this matter) Vladimir Putin.
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that would
run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project would
threaten the security of its European allies.
Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would
extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern Germany.
Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia could
provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told reporters in
Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in the region and
that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop it, according to
the Associated Press.
Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr 20, 2018 - A Europe-wide
diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump administration to ease US sanctions
targeting Russia, as fears mount that ...
We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export
to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the
dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the
security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed
in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of
history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about
perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards
anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional
hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays,
stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on
reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is
also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is
neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between
EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and
EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility
will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional
anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination
were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20
years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.
My advise to Russia would be to mind its
own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired
because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in
general. Business doesn't change that.
First, there is no "EU", at least not in political terms . More crucially, there is no "EU
foreign policy". Yes, there are EU member states, who have political leaders, there is a big
business community in the EU and there are many EU organizations, but as such, the "EU" does
not exist, especially not in terms of foreign policy. The best proof of that is how clueless
the so-called "EU" has been in the Ukraine, then with the anti-Russian sanctions, in dealing
with an invasion of illegal immigrants, and now with Trump. At best, the EU can be considered a
US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus
Greece). Most (all?) EU member states are abjectly obedient to the US, and this is no surprise
considering that even the so-called "EU leader" or "EU heavyweight" – Germany –
only has very limited sovereignty. The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite
which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe. The
undeniable fact is that the so-called "EU foreign policy" has gone against the vital interests
of the people of Europe for decades and that phenomenon is only getting worse.
Second, the single most powerful and unified organization in Europe is not even an EU
organization, but NATO. And NATO, in real terms, is no less than 80% US . Forget about those
fierce looking European armies, they are all a joke. Not only do they represent no credible
force (being too small, too poorly trained, under-equipped and poorly commanded), but they are
completely dependent on the US for a long list of critical capabilities and " force
multipliers ": command, control, communications, intelligence, networking, surveillance,
reconnaissance, target acquisition, logistics, etc. Furthermore, in terms of training, force
planning, weapon systems procurement, deployment and maintenance, EU states are also totally
dependent on the US. The reason? The US military budget totally dwarfs anything individual EU
states can spend, so they all depend on Uncle Sam. Of sure, the NATO figurehead – the
Secretary General – is usually a non-entity which makes loud statements and is European
(I think of that clown Stoltenberg as the prefect example), but NATO is not run by the NATO
Secretary General. In reality, it is run by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who
is the head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and these guys are as red,
white and blue as it gets. Forget about the "Eurocorps" or any other so-called "European
armies" – it's all hot air, like Trudeau's recent outburst at Trump. In reality in the
EU, as in Canada, they all know who is boss. And here is the single most important fact: NATO
desperately needs Russia as justification for its own existence: if relations with Russia
improve, then NATO would have no more reason to exist. Do you really think that anybody will
let that happen? I sure don't! And right now, the Europeans are busy asking for more
US troops on their soil, not less and they are all
pretending to be terrified by a Russian invasion , hence the need for more and bigger military
exercises close to the Russian border . And just to cover all its bases,
NATO is now gradually expanding into Latin America .
Third, there is a long list of EU governments which vitally need further bad relationships
with Russia . They include:
Unpopular governments which need to explain their own
failures by the nefarious actions of an external bogyman . A good example is how the
Spanish authorities blamed Russia for the crisis in Catalonia. Or the British with their
"Brexit". The Swedes are doing even better, they are already preparing their public opinion for a
"Russian interference" in case the election results don't turn out to be what they need.
Governments whose rhetoric has been so hysterically anti-Russian that they cannot possibly
back down from it. Best examples: the UK and Merkel. But since most (but not all) EU states
did act on the Skripal false-flag on the basis of the British "highly likely" and in the name
of "solidarity", they are now all stuck as accomplices of this policy. There is no way they are
simply going to admit that they were conned by the Brits.
EU prostitutes : states whose
only policy is to serve the US against Russia. These states compete against each other in the
most abject way to see who can out-brown-nose each other for the position of "most faithful and
willing loyal servant of the US". The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets,
but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now
willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same
Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars ). True, now that EU
subsidies are running out, the situation of these states is becoming even more dire, and they
know that the only place where they can still get money is the US. So don't expect them to
change their tune anytime soon (even if
Bulgaria has
already realized that nobody in the West gives a damn about it ).
Governments who want
to crack down on internal dissent by accusing any patriotic or independent political
party/movement to be "paid by the Kremlin" and representing Russian interests. The best
example is France and how it treated the National Front. I would argue that most EU states are,
in one way or another, working on creating a "national security state" because they do realize
(correctly) that the European people are deeply frustrated and oppose EU policies (hence all
the anti-EU referendums lost by the ruling elites).
Contrary to a very often repeated myth, European business interests do not represent a
powerful anti-russophobic force . Why? Just look at Germany: for all the involvement of Germany
(and Merkel personally) in the Ukraine, for all the stupid rhetoric about "Russia being an
aggressor" which "does not comply with the Mink Agreements", North Stream is going ahead! Yes,
money talks, and the truth is that while anti-Russian sanctions have cost Europe billions, the
big financial interests (say the French company Total) have found ways to ignore/bypass these
sanctions. Oh sure, there is a pro-trade lobby with Russian interest in Europe. It is real, but
it simply does not have anywhere near the power the anti-Russian forces in the EU have. This is
why for years now various EU politicians and public figures have made noises about lifting the
sanctions, but when it came to the vote – they all voted as told by the real bosses.
Not all EU Russophobia is US-generated , by the way. We have clearly seen that these days
when Trump suggested that the G7 (or, more accurately, the G6+1) needed to re-invite Russia, it
was the Europeans who said "nope!". To the extend that there is a "EU position" (even a very
demure and weak one), it is mostly anti-Russian, especially in the northern part of Europe. So
when Uncle Sam tells the Europeans to obey and engage in the usual Russia-bashing, they all
quickly fall in line, but in the rare case when the US does not push a rabidly anti-Russian
agenda, EU politicians suddenly find enough willpower to say "no". By the way, for all the
Trump's statements about re-inviting Russia into the G6+1 the US is still busy slapping more
sanctions on Russia .
The current mini-wars between the US and the EU (on trade, on Iran, on Jerusalem) do not at
all mean that Russia automatically can benefit from this . Again, the best example of this is
the disastrous G6+1 summit in which Trump basically alienated everybody only to have the G6
reiterate its anti-Russian position even though the G6+1 needs Russia far more than Russia
needs the G7 (she really doesn't!). Just like the US and Israeli leaders can disagree and, on
occasion, fight each other, that does not at all mean that somehow they are not fundamentally
joined at the hip. Just think of mob "families" who can even have "wars" against each other,
but that does not at all mean that this will benefit the rest of the population whom all
mobsters prey upon.
The Ukrainian crisis will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe . There is a very high
probability that in the near future the Ukronazi regime will try to reconquer Novorussia
(DNR/LRN). I submit that the outcome of such an attack is not in doubt – the Ukronazis
will lose. The only question is this: to whom will they lose:
Option one: they lose to the combined forces of the DNR and LNR. This is probably the most
likely outcome. Should this happen, there is a very high probability of a Novorussian counter
attack to liberate most of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, especially the cities of
Slaviansk and Mariupol. Since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, we can
be pretty darn sure of what the reaction in Kiev and in the West will be: Russia will be
blamed for it all. The AngloZionists will never admit that the Ukronazi regime lost a civil
war to its own people because the Novorussians will never accept a Nazi regime ruling over
them. Thus, a Novorussian victory will result in more hysterical Russophobia.
Option two: the Ukronazis succeed in their attack and threaten to overrun Donetsk, Lugansk and the rest of
Novorussia. Putin simply cannot allow this to happen. He has made that promise many times and
he has recently repeated it during his "open line" with the Russian people. If the Russians
are forced to intervene, this will not be a massive ground invasion – there is no need
for that. Russia has the firepower needed in the form of missile and artillery strikes to
destroy the attacking Urkonazi forces and to impose a no-fly zone over all of Novorussia. If
Kiev pushes on and launches a full-scale attack on Russia proper, the Ukrainian armed forces
will be totally disorganized and cease combat in about 48 hours. This scenario is what I call
the "Neocon dream" since such a Russian intervention will not be imaginary, but quite real
and the Kremlin will even confirm it all very publicly and probably recognize the two
Novorussian Republics just like what happened in 08.08.08 when Saakashvili decided to invade
South Ossetia. So, AngloZionists will (finally!) have the "proof" that Russia is the
aggressor, the Poles and Balts will prepare for an "imminent" Russian invasion and I think
that there is a pretty good chance that NATO forces will move into the Western Ukraine to
"stop the Russians", even if the said Russians will have absolutely no desire (or even
possible motive) to want to invade the rest of the Ukraine or, even less so, Poland, Sweden
or the Baltic statelets.
I will admit that there is still a small possibility that a Ukronazi attack might not
happen. Maybe Poroshenko & Co. will get cold feet (they know the real condition of the Ukie
military and "dobrobat" death squads) and maybe Putin's recent not-so-veiled threat about "
grave consequences for the Ukrainian statehood " will have the needed effect. But what will
happen even if this attack does not take place? The EU leaders and the Ukronazi regime in Kiev
will still blame Russia for the Ukraine now clearly being a failed state. Whatever scenario you
find more likely for the Ukraine, things there will only get worse and everybody will blame
Russia.
The crisis in Syria will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe. It is becoming pretty
clear that the US is now attempting a reconquista of Syria or, at least, a break-up of
Syria into several zones, including US-controlled ones. Right now, the US and the "good
terrorists" have lost the war, but that does not stop them from re-igniting a new one, mostly
by reorganizing, retraining, redeploying and, most importantly, re-branding the surviving "bad
terrorists" into "good ones". This plan is backed by Saudi money and Israeli firepower.
Furthermore, Russia is now reporting
that US Special Forces are already working with the (new) "good terrorists" to – you
guessed it – prepare yet another fake chemical attack and blame it on the Syrians. And
why not? It worked perfectly already several times, why not do that again? At the very least,
it would give the US another try at getting their Tomahawks to show their effectiveness (even
if they fail again, facts don't matter here). And make no mistake, a US "victory" in Syria (or
in Venezuela) would be a disaster not only for the region, but for every country wanting to
become sovereign (see Andre Vltchek's excellent article on this topic here ). And, again, Russia will be
blamed for it all and, with certifiable nutcasts like Bolton, Russian forces might even be
attacked. As I wrote already many times, this is far from
over . Just as in the Ukrainian case, some deal might be made (at least
US and Russian military officials are still talking to each other ) but my personal opinion
is that making any kind of deal with Trump is as futile as making deals with Netanyahu: neither
of them can be trusted and they both will break any and all promises in a blink of an eye. And
if all hell breaks loose in Syria and/or Iran, NATO will make sure that the Europeans all
quickly and obediently fall in line ("solidarity", remember?).
The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for
Russia and the future does look rather bleak.
One objection to my pessimism is the undeniable success of the recent Saint Petersburg
summit and the Parliamentary Forum. However, I believe that neither of these events was really
centered around Europe at all, but about the world at large (see excellent report by Gilbert
Doctorow on this topic
here ). Yes, Russia is doing great and while the AngloZionist media loves to speak about
the "isolation" of Russia, the truth is that it is the Empire which is isolated, while
Russia and China are
having tremendous success building the multi-polar world they want to replace the Empire
with. So while it is true that the western leaders might prefer to see a liberal "economic
block" in the new Russian government, the rest of the world has no such desire at all
(especially considering how many countries out there have suffered terrible hardships at the
hands of the WTO/WB/IMF/etc types).
Conclusion :
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on
the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different
interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang
racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face
to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about
your face: what they want is your submission. Vladimir Putin put it best
when he said " They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their
problems at our expense ".
However, if the EU is, for all practical purposes, non-existent, Russia can, and will,
engage with individual EU member states. There is a huge difference between, say, Poland and
Italy, or the UK and Austria. Furthermore, the EU is not only dysfunctional, it is also
non-viable. Russia would immensely benefit from the current EU either falling apart or being
deeply reformed because the current EU is a pure creation of the US-backed Bilderberger types
and not the kind of Europe the European people need. In fact, I would even argue that the EU is
the single biggest danger for the people of the European continent. Thus Russia should use her
resources to foster bi-lateral cooperation with individual EU member states and never take any
action which would strengthen (or even legitimize) EU-derived organizations such as the EU
Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. These are all entities which seek to
undermine the sovereignty of all its members, including Russia. Again, Putin put it best when
he
recently declared that " either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no
Russia ".
Whatever the ideology and slogans, all empires are inherently evil and inherently dangerous
to any country wanting to be truly sovereign. If Russia (and China) want to create a
multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are
totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple. Instead, Russia needs to engage
those countries, political parties and forces who advocate for what de Gaulle called "
the Europe of
fatherlands ". Both the AngloZionist Empire and the EU are undergoing the most profound
crisis in their history and the writing is on the wall. Sooner rather than later, one by one,
European countries will recover their sovereignty, as will Russia. Only if the people of Europe
succeed in recovering their sovereignty could Russia look for real partnerships in the West, if
only because the gradually developing and integrating Eurasian landmass offer tremendous
economic opportunities which could be most beneficial to the nations of Europe. A prosperous
Europe " from the Atlantic to the
Urals " is still a possibility, but that will happen only when the current European Union
and NATO are replaced by truly European institutions and the current European elites replaced
by sovereignists.
The people of Russia, EU and, I would argue, the United States all have the same goal and
the same enemy: they want to recover their sovereignty, get rid of their corrupt and, frankly,
treacherous elites and liberates themselves from the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire. This
is why pushing the issue of "true sovereignty" (and national traditional values) is, I believe,
the most unifying and powerful political idea to defeat the Empire. This will be a long
struggle but the outcome is not in doubt.
The usual Saker, but, there are a couple of not bad snippets:
The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the
opinions and interests of the people of Europe.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella.
They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our
expense".
As for this:
If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually
disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it
is really that simple.
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events.
He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining
the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups
in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London
and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each
other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't
see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self
evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we
haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at
stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude
towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the
US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is
right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the
Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the
position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a
subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know
people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but
this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his
latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario,
it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also
put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is
Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This
interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos
seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian
institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is
again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that
would run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project
would threaten the security of its European allies.
Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would
extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern
Germany. Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia
could provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told
reporters in Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in
the region and that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop
it, according to the Associated Press.
Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr
20, 2018 – A Europe-wide diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump
administration to ease US sanctions targeting Russia, as fears mount that
Excellent comment as usual Beckow, I could have typed the same. In fact, I have been
commenting online since 1992 that neither EU, nor most European states can be friends of
Russia. This was based on how those treated Yugoslavia/Serbia during the recent Balkan wars
that the same entities helped initiate. Because Serbia is Russia without nuclear weapons.
Russia would have gotten exactly the same treatment (Barbarossa 2) as Yugoslavia if it did
not have them. Nobody expected Russia to recover so quickly from Yeltsin and even
develop the world leading stand-off weapons on a budget. This is the only reason that
Barbarossa 2 will never happen. But they cannot stop hoping for a US-lead miracle.
Yet, the economic interest is there and if China and Russia manage to economically
integrate Europe and Asia, then the Euro-doggies will stop yapping and biting at the Russian
heels and will fall in line. What else could one expect from such pathetic shameless trash?
Give the One-Road another 15 years and watch this unfurle.
Finally, although I believed that Ukronazis would attack Novorussians, I now think that
Ukraine may have run out of suicidal dumb maniacs. It is much cheaper to make noise and beat
your Galician chest then to engage the enemy protected by Russia. Ukraine is, unfortunately,
already a total economic basket case, plus all One-Road plans circumvent it (as MH17 should
have, due to instability). Will there ever be a better example than Ukraine of the benevolent
influence of the Anglo-Zionist on a country?
As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of
international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be
suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing
publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that
sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership
for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other,
territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on
historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.
Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic
criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting
a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these
guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.
As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of
above, he must somehow understand(Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior
to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian
nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political
tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese
consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible
actors as Putin, Trump, Xi(affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot
be anything more then policing.
To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse,
after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior).
No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into
quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China
dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in
International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.
Honest writing of Saker.
How good are these supranational, corporatacracy(another commenter), "globally organized
elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way
above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular
dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough.
Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in
itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies
on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve
this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better
tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods.
It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual
fate.
War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be
seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity,
migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of
humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans.
Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the
only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub,
that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plage if
not.
The CIA seems to have spent five billion $ in Ukraine.
Who wants to incorporate Ukraine in the west therefore is not clear, the USA, NATO or EU, or
all of them ?
In any case, many in Europe see Putin just as an honest gas supplier.
Trump's gas is much more expensive.
Definitely. He stays well within the Judeo-Overton window. He is kosher, so to speak.
Sure, like Alex Jones, he will make the occasional slap at Israel or Zionism, but he will not
verge outside of the window's "Nazi Germany was the ultimate evil" or the holy 6 million
martyrs. I also have never read any of his work where he delves into 9/11, and what it means
about everything that has happened since.
You have three "not bad snippets" that I don't really agree with:
The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the
opinions and interests of the people of Europe.
It is not that they don't give a damn, it is that they take their orders from a higher
source. Euro-serfs see the coerced passage of Lisbon and Maastricht, the ongoing 3rd world
invasion, the restriction of free speech, the increasing criminality, the ECB destruction and
removal of elected officials in Greece and Italy. They know it is a sham, they just don't
understand why, because they are constantly being lied to. Saker is not helping here.
The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere
else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which
includes different interest groups under its umbrella.
Saker is not willing to tell us exactly who this entity is. He is not going to take us
outside of the Judeo-Overton window.
They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our
expense
With this dog whistle he is treading on thin ice. Sure, "their problems" could describe
past crimes like Maidan that may be catching up with them, but it could also cover such
things as Gaza, the Liberty, the King David Hotel, or even the targeting of Nagasaki in 1945.
As usual though, he won't confront the serpent.
The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to
go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be
militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for
billions of dollars).
Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer
dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive
co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with
"historic enemy" Russia?
There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases
on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are
under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.
"For targeting purposes, the bombing crew used St. Mary's Urakami Cathedral, the largest
Christian church in East Asia. At 11:02 a.m., on Aug. 9, 1945, when the bomb was dropped over
the cathedral, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan."
Hey, Quartermaster, why don't you tell us more about the amazing progress achieved by
Ukraine after the Kagans-sponsored revolution of 2014? For instance, you could tell us
(proudly?) about the rise of neo-Nazi power in Ukraine and about certain Kolomojsky, the
Ukrainian/Israeli thug, and his financing of the Azov battalion.
The EU countries put people in prison for questioning the tight official narrative/numbers of
holocaust biz.
What is wrong with using the word "Ukronazis?"
How would you name the happy warriors beholden to the memory of the 14th Waffen Grenadier
Division of the SS (1st Galician)?
"The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater
Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in
Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite
occupation.
The Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will
continue to fight with the Allied German Army against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign
and united State and a new order in the whole world.
Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists! Long live the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the
Ukrainian people – STEPAN BANDERA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Ukrainian_State_Act
We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to
export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But
the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the
security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed
in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of
history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about
perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards
anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional
hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays,
stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on
reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is
also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is
neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between
EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and
EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility
will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional
anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination
were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20
years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. My advise to Russia would be to mind its
own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired
because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in
general. Business doesn't change that.
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
"... Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm. ..."
"... And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :). ..."
"... On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade. ..."
... EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without
interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed
by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because
that's just the way they are.
There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany,
Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and
contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been
added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push.
Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.
There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German
world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement
between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such
an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.
After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases,
nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in
Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.
My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always
backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change
that.
Thanks. Current trends strengthen Euro-asia (and thus China and Russia), so West will have to do something, otherwise they
get weaker over time.
There has been a maximalist group in the West who believe that ' anything is possible ', that even with nukes it is
possible to defeat and dismember Russia. The key factor would be internal instability inside Russia. Maidan, Saaksavilli's mad
dash in 2008, and the support for Caucas separatists were all done with that in mind. It has mostly failed with Russia becoming
more united in the process.
Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty
of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm.
And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether
this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :).
On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that
they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then
Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate.
Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) revealed that in late September 2016,
"Good FBI agents" stepped forward as whistleblowers to tell them about additional Hillary Clinton
emails "sitting" on Anthony Weiner's laptop.
"I've never actually said this before," said Nunes.
"
We had whistleblowers that came to us in late September of 2016 who talked to us about
this laptop sitting up in New York that had additional emails on it."
In other words,
the New York FBI "rebelled"
- as Rudy Giuliani puts it - which former FBI
Director James Comey tried to quash,
twice
.
The FBI sat on the revelation that previously unknown emails from Hillary Clinton's
private server were recovered on the laptop of sex-crimes convict Anthony Weiner for just under
a month, according to a review by the Department of Justice's Inspector General.
The stated rationale was to prioritize the Russia investigation, which was a decision made by
Peter Strzok,
a top FBI agent involved in both investigations and who texted his lover
that he would "stop" Donald Trump from becoming president
. -
Daily
Caller
Appearing Friday on
Fox and Friends
, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said that FBI agents in the New York
office "rebelled" and "had a revolution" which Comey could not keep quiet - forcing him to reopen
the Clinton email investigation.
"
The agents in the NY office - we all know this, rebelled. They had a revolution.
And
Comey made two attempts to quiet them down and then realized "I can't do
that, I'm gonna look terrible here.
If she gets elected I'll look terrible, if she
doesn't.." -Rudy Giuliani
Recall that the DOJ Inspector General found that Andrew McCabe lied about
leaking a
self-serving story to Devlin Barrett of the
Wall Street
Journal
that he was not stalling (or "slow walking") the Hillary Clinton email
investigation
at a time in which McCabe had come under fire for his wife taking a
$467,500 campaign contribution
from Clinton
proxy
pal, Terry McAuliffe.
Last month we reported
that "rank and file" FBI agents want Congress to subpoena them
so that they can step forward and reveal dirt on Comey and McCabe
, reports the
Daily
Caller
, citing three active field agents and former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova.
"
There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by
[James] Comey's behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs
like [John] Brennan
–who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of
political intelligence by the Obama administration thugs," former federal prosecutor Joe
DiGenova told The Daily Caller Tuesday.
"
They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify
." -Joe
diGenova
DiGenova - a veteran D.C. attorney who President Trump initially wanted to hire to represent him
in the Mueller probe - only to have to step aside
due
to conflicts
, has maintained contact with "rank and file" FBI agents as well as a
counterintelligence consultant who interviewed an active special agent in the FBI's Washington
Field Office (WFO) - producing a transcript reviewed by
The Caller
.
These agents prefer to be subpoenaed to becoming an official government whistleblower
,
since they fear political and professional backlash, the former Trump administration official
explained to TheDC.
More than just Hillary's emails...
The FBI's whistleblowers didn't stop Weiner's laptop... In March of 2017, House Speaker Paul
Ryan said that Rep. Nunes revealed to him that a "whistleblower type person" had stepped forward
with information
about the surveillance of the Trump campaign
.
"He had told me that a whistleblower type person had given him some information that was new,
that spoke to the last administration and part of this investigation," Ryan said in late March.
"What Chairman Nunes said was he came into possession of new information he thought was valuable
to this investigation and he was going to go and inform people about it."
The week before Ryan made these statements,
Nunes revealed that an unidentified source
showed him evidence that the U.S. intelligence community "incidentally surveilled" Trump's
transition team
before inauguration day.
Of course, we now know it goes much, much deeper. As Rudy Giuliani also said on Friday:
Let's look at it this way ...
Peter Strzok was running the Hillary investigation.
That's a total fix
. That's a closed-book now, total fix.
Comey should go to
jail for that. And Strzok.
But then what does Comey do?
He takes Strzok -
who wanted to get Trump in any way possible - he puts him in charge of the Russia investigation
.
How come they're not finding any evidence of collusion?
Because
the President
didn't do anything wrong and
he's being investigated corruptly.
This is what you get under imperium, under a Republic, it's almost
impossible! Patriots will stand up, and answer to their pedigree but under
imperium, integrity is the first virtue to wither, after that the other
virtues quickly atrophy.
Let us my friends, determine with every fiber of
our being, fight to RESTORE THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC!!!...
Looking retrospectively I always thought that it was uncanny how the Trump
campaign parted with Carter Page and then Paul Manafort,brought in Kellyanne
Conway. They seemed to be dodging bullets.
99% are not cops, most wouldn't even make it as a cop. They are
lawyers, accountants, statisticians, analysts and scientists with
a basic gun qualification. They have a lot of cool forensic things
at their disposal and in some instances can be helpful in a major
investigation. Real cops (like the NYPD investigators that caught
the Weiner laptop fiasco and preserved the evidence) don't need
the FBI other than to access some of their whiz-bang shit.
They'll talk for hours over a two minute task. The rest in
higher echelons is politics, dirty politics.
That said. My biggest complaint is the lack of action taken by
the 'concerned agents'. Horseshit, cops get arrested 'in house'
for stupid shit they've done and the info doesn't get printed
because in local areas it can ruin families. This by no means
infers light treatment, for example DUI (misdemeanor level in CA)
will get you all the aspects of a first DUI that any citizen gets,
plus 30-60 days off with no pay, a 'work improvement contract' for
a year or two, and a stint in a dry out center. You will possibly
keep your job. Repeat offense, fired. Embezzlement, fires, lying
in an investigation, fired with a Brady Jacket.
Domestic Violence, fired. The Thin Blue Line is just that,
'thin'. If you think the old days of saying nothing still exists
or a partner will cover you, your not living in modern times. No
one will risk their pension for your sorry ass. You'll be advised
by old dogs, don't be a dumbass, dumbass.
It is completely unnecessary and foolish to bring up and try to argue about
the faith of another man, especially by superimposing one's own views onto the matter. It's
clear that you believe it is impossible or highly unlikely to have high intelligence and be a
true believer, but to me that is neither here nor there.
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the
Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity. Yes! Russia's history and the levers of power were wrenched away from
its traditional Orthodox roots by those intent on revenge, those with a mad desire to unite the
world under the banner of international communism, bringing about (so they hoped and continue
to hope) the birth of their messiah. Thankfully that chapter of history is over, but it's not
over for the chosen: intent on revenge on Russia, just as they are forever intent on their
innocence in all historical matters, they have moved on and rooted themselves into another
host: the USA. They will be smacked down and put in their place again, but I hesitate to
estimate the scheduling. The main question is how many human lives will they end through their
machinations before the smack down.
The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of
the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands
Orthodox Christianity.
No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back
to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the
secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his
least attractive features.
Thankfully that chapter of history is over
It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the
Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.
The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is –
to borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song – is more alive than the living. The
Soviet period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in
every area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.
It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet
standards – culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would
disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the
Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does – the Soviet Union will live
one.
Found an interesting article about some developments with Seth
Rich. Hard to make sense of. I noticed the DNC created a tiny
plaque above a crappy bike rack for him. They don't want anybody
to remember him. Probably Hillary's idea.
Seth uploaded the files into a DropBox (per Sy Hersh) and
also may have given others the password to it. He was trying
to make sure that the information got out. He very likely also
asked that he never be named as the leaker, for obvious
reasons.
His family could possibly confirm that he was the leaker if
they knew at the time, though I'm sure that they were heavily
pressured to do otherwise as soon as Seth Rich was murdered.
They would have simply been given a choice along with some
thinly veiled threats.
Bernie sold his mooing cow followers out last time. The DNC will make
him an offer he can't refuse. Biden is a tit grabbing corrupt
cartoon. I say Crusty the clown has a good chance. Do it for the
children!
"... "We are going to do the worst thing we can do to you. We are going to take your enemy way from you." ..."
"... "There's no way I would ever agree to give [Russia] that legitimacy," ..."
"... "The Soviet Union may have fallen, but the evil it represents is alive and well in Putin's Russia." ..."
"... "He is no friend of the United States," ..."
"... "He's dismembering democracies everywhere and trying to do so in our own backyard." ..."
"... In order to put to rest this tortured Soviet ghost, it needs to be reminded that the business of "dismembering democracies" ..."
"... "move to re-Sovietize the region." ..."
"... "In respect of Karl Marx, I think he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting Syria by condoning the use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory." ..."
"... "recapturing the Soviet position on the world stage." ..."
"... "America's Putin apologist" ..."
"... "The intelligence committees have never produced any evidence," ..."
"... "They never even did a forensic exam of the DNC computers." ..."
"... "genetically driven to co-opt." ..."
"... "The parting with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be long and difficult," ..."
"... "We must acknowledge that many will not believe or agree with the death warrant written in Minsk and confirmed in Alma-Ata." ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Listening to Western media and politicians these days, you would never guess that nearly
three decades ago the Soviet hammer and sickle lowered for the last time over the Kremlin,
replaced by the Russian tricolor. Ironically, the collapse of the Soviet Union - an empire made
up of 15 republics encompassing some 12 million
square miles - has been far more difficult for the West to come to grips with than it has
been for the Russian people, who witnessed the decline and fall firsthand. Indeed, many
Westerners are ardent believers that the Soviet Union is still alive and kicking.
This apparent paradox was foreseen many years ago by the Soviet political scientist, Georgi
Arbatov, when he told a
US diplomat shortly after the collapse: "We are going to do the worst thing we can do to
you. We are going to take your enemy way from you."
Thirty years later the West still revisits the grave of its former Soviet nemesis, yearning
for its rise from the ashes. Just this week, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham conjured up the
spirit of America's ex arch-enemy when responding to Donald Trump's suggestion that Russia be
readmitted into the G7.
"There's no way I would ever agree to give [Russia] that legitimacy," Graham
said
. "The Soviet Union may have fallen, but the evil it represents is alive and well in
Putin's Russia."
"He is no friend of the United States," he continued. "He's dismembering
democracies everywhere and trying to do so in our own backyard."
In order to put to
rest this tortured Soviet ghost, it needs to be reminded that the business of "dismembering
democracies" has been solely the purview of the US and its NATO allies. At a time when the
world lacked a countervailing force to check Western military aggression – which the
Soviet Union duly provided – the West eagerly pursued a regime-change agenda
that not only destroyed viable governments, like Iraq and Libya, but set in motion a migrant
crisis that the European Union is
at pains to control today. Read more Russia should be
back in G7 as 'we spend 25% of time' talking about it anyway – Trump
For its part, Russia has resorted to military action against a foreign country on just one
occasion. In August 2008, in response to a deadly attack on Russian peacekeepers in South
Ossetia, Russian forces entered Georgian territory. Even the EU
concluded that the government of ex Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili, was to blame
for sparking the five-day conflict.
So, what is the reason for Graham's gross distortion of the historical record? And why the
apparent need to conflate modern, democratic Russia with the vanquished Soviet Union? For the
answer, it is always helpful to follow the money trail, and unsurprisingly it leads straight to
the door of America's largest defense contractors.
It is no secret that Lindsey Graham – perhaps second only to John McCain - is one of
the most notorious war hawks in Washington. During his failed run for the 2016 presidential
elections, the Super PAC supporting his bid collected $2.9 million, the bulk of which came from the
coffers of defense contractors.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, another darling of the military industrial complex, who
raked in just under $500 million from the defense industry for her presidential bid, was
portraying Russia as some sort of Soviet-style menace as early as 2012.
Discussing Vladimir Putin's efforts to promote greater economic integration in Eurasia,
Clinton
depicted the venture as a "move to re-Sovietize the region." Unfortunately, no one
challenged the Democrat to explain how one of the largest capitalistic ventures in the world
could be confused with communism.
Clearly, Western leaders are intentionally dragging up memories of the bygone Cold War-era
in order to incite an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty - the ultimate stimulant for military
spending, corporate profit-taking and, last but not least, NATO sprawl up to Russia's border.
For defense sector lobbyists, the rhetoric is music to the ears.
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but
very few outlets have covered it because it doesn't align with the main media narrative of
Tump and the election. https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof
The threat of peace
does not boost the bottom line of the defense contractors, who represent some of the most
influential people in Washington, while the politicians who are most hawkish on foreign policy
are richly rewarded. In short, it is a marriage made in hell, with a 'honeymoon' somewhere in
the Middle East. Russia, due to its stunning resurgence, which was put on full display in Syria
as it foiled another Western scheme for regime change, has also appeared on the radar.
Thus, we see Western politicians and pundits on both sides of the Atlantic attempting to
make a strained connection between Russia and the Soviet Union, and even more now with
'Russiagate' and the Skripal saga in full hysteria mode. This is clearly being done in an
effort to isolate Russia on the global stage.
Britain's Ambassador to the United Nations Karen Pierce, for example, in a heated debate
with her Russian counterpart, Vassily Nebenzia, lectured Russia for its 'regrettable behavior'
in Syria, saying : "In respect of
Karl Marx, I think he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on
many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting Syria by condoning the use of chemical
weapons on Syrian territory."
One wonders how such a high-ranking official could possibly understand what is happening in
Syria today when the collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have escaped her attention.
Meanwhile, perennial Russophobes, which make up the overwhelming majority of fellowship
positions among US think tanks, regularly argue that Russia is somehow 'nostalgic for empire,'
and determined to 'restore the glory of the Soviet times.'
Anne Applebaum, a member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations, gave a distorted version of reality on
Ukrainian television, arguing that Vladimir Putin is interested in "recapturing the Soviet
position on the world stage." There is just one problem with that position: Not a single
thing the Russian leader has done or not done to date would reasonably support that thesis. But
good luck finding an academic to challenge such misguided notions.
Whenever the tiny cadre of Western academics strays from the reservation and argues from the
Russian perspective, they are exiled to academia's version of the Gulag Archipelago seldom to
be heard from again. Stephen Cohen, emeritus at Princeton University and NYU, is referred
to as "America's Putin apologist" among his peers for daring to suggest there might
just be an alternative reality to the mainstream media madness we are being fed about 'Putin's
Russia' on a daily basis.
Speaking on the subject of 'Russiagate,' Cohen acknowledged what so few academics have the
intellectual courage to say: there is no evidence whatsoever to show that Putin ordered the
hacking of the Democratic National Committee in 2016. "The intelligence committees have
never produced any evidence," Cohen said
. "They never even did a forensic exam of the DNC computers."
Obviously, this sort of 'crazy talk' is not well received in US policy circles, and if it
were not for Cohen's serious credentials as a leading expert on Russia he would be simply
'exiled' from the mainstream discourse. That is because the US has entered a dark,
unrecognizable place where top officials, like James Clapper, the former Director of National
Intelligence, can actually describe the Russian people
in racist overtones, saying they are "genetically driven to co-opt."
The reality is that the West is acquiring a dangerous totalitarian mindset (genetically
driven?) in that it has become – similar perhaps to the Soviet times - nearly impossible
to question anything that the mainstream media, think tanks and academia disseminates.
"The parting with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be long and
difficult," Izvestia
warned with uncanny foresight. "We must acknowledge that many will not believe or agree
with the death warrant written in Minsk and confirmed in Alma-Ata."
Indeed, nostalgia for the Soviet times – complete with a new cold war and lucrative
arms race - is so rampant in the West that its roots are beginning to crack through the
surface. Such a repressive climate chokes off all any discussion that presents a challenge to
the official narrative which proclaims, as absolute fact, that 'Russia is aspiring for
Soviet-style empire,' a groundless assertion that is every bit as ridiculous as it is
dangerous.
If the current trend towards the homogenization of thought continues - like a chapter torn
from Orwell's 1984 - Westerners will awake one sunny morning to a shiny new totalitarian state
of their own design and making, complete with jackboots on the streets, under an awning falsely
proclaiming 'democracy'.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The Moscow
News, he is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in 2013.
...Robert Mueller, who was Director of the FBI from September 4, 2001 to September 4,
2013. In those 12 years as Director, he served as Obama's FBI Director for 5 years, from Jan.
2009 until Sept. 2013. "President Barack Obama gave his original ten-year term
a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover ."
He knows where every unconstitutional skeleton in both Baby Bush and Barack Obama's is
buried...
An interesting point about refugees and emigration of Ukrainians to Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president. ..."
"... During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem less legit than the American revolutionaries. ..."
"... Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to Russia. ..."
"... Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11. The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties (even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton. ..."
"... the Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true. However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance. ..."
Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, received well deserved praise for taking to
task the permeating anti-Russian biases. The highlight of Carlson's exchanges was his
encounter with Ralph Peters, who for years has spouted grossly inaccurate propaganda
against Russia. Antiwar.com and Russia Insider, are among the counter-establishment English
language venues commenting on the Carlson-Peters discussion. The US foreign policy
establishment realist leaning National Interest carried a lengthy piece on Carlson's
challenge to the neocon/neolib foreign policy perceptions. For the record, more can and
should be said in reply to Peter's comments.
Peters falsely claims that Russia hasn't made a concerted effort in confronting ISIS. In
one of his more accurate moments, CNN's Wolf Blitzer said that the ISIS claimed shoot down
of a Russian civilian airliner over Egypt, was in response to Russia's war against ISIS.
You've to be either a liar or clueless to not recognize why Russia has actively opposed
ISIS. The latter sees Russia as an enemy, while having a good number of individuals with
roots in Russia and some other parts of the former USSR.
Peters' characterization of Russia targeting civilian areas is disingenuous. Over the
years, the matter of collateral damage is something periodically brought up in response to
those killed by US and Israeli military actions.
Peters offers no proof to his suspect claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills
journalists. There're numerous anti-Putin advocates alive and well in Russia. That country
does have a violence problem. Recall what the US was like in the 1960s thru early
1970′s. For that matter, Bernie Sanders isn't blamed for the pro-Sanders person who
attempted to kill Republican lawmakers.
Given the situations concerning Kosovo and northern Cyprus, Peters is being a flat out
hypocrite regarding Crimea. Donbass is a civil conflict involving some Russian support for
the rebels, who're overwhelmingly from the territory of the former Ukrainian SSR. These
individuals have a realistic basis to oppose the Kiev based regimes that came after the
overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian president.
During the American Revolution, most of the pro-British fighters were said to be
colonists already based in America. Furthermore, the American revolutionaries received
significant support from France. With these factors in mind, the Donbass rebels don't seem
less legit than the American revolutionaries.
Some Kiev regime elements positively reference the 1995 Croat ethnic cleansing of
Krajina Serbs (known as Operation Storm) as a solution for ending the rebel position in
Donbass. Russia doesn't seek a massive refugee problem in Donbass and some other parts of
the former Ukrainian SSR. As is, a sizeable number of Ukrainian residents have fled to
Russia.
Putin isn't anti-US in the manner claimed by Peters. Moreover, Peters is clearly more
anti-Russian (in a narrow minded way at that) than what can be reasonably said of how Putin
views the US. Putin's obvious differences with neocons, neolibs and flat out Russia haters
isn't by default anti-US. He was the first foreign leader to console the US following 9/11.
The Russian president has been consistently on record for favoring better US-Russian ties
(even inquiring about Russia joining NATO at one point), thereby explaining why he has
appeared to have preferred Trump over Clinton.
Some (including Trump) disagree with that view, which includes the notion that the
Russians (by and large) prefer predictability. As a general rule this is otherwise true.
However, Clinton's neocon/neolib stated views on Russia have been to the point where many
Russians felt willing to take a chance with Trump, whose campaign included a comparatively
more sympathetic take of their country. At the same time, a good number of Russians
questioned whether Trump would maintain that stance.
I suppose many of us saw the Tucker with Max Boot. Boot seemed unhinged, really
emotionally overwrought by Tucker raising commonsensical challenges to his neocon orthodoxy.
Sad, angry man.
The "collective West" clearly pursued its own goals in Ukraine, and the last thing they were concerned was well being of
Ukraine people. Russia also viewed Ukraine mainly from the position of its own interests, although being isolated they provided
somewhat better terms for economic cooperation, just to counter influence of the EU and the USA.
The USA wanted the Ukraine to became yet another Baltic republic as a part of its geopolitical efforts of encircling Russia
and, if possible, installing another Yeltsin-style comprador government. EU wanted a market for its good and to exclude
Russia from using Ukrainian resources as well as the leverage to get better prices for Russian natural resources.
So the Ukrainian people got on the receiving end of those efforts and paid a huge price. Was it unavoidable or not is
difficult to say. May be less bloodshed was possible but economic decimation of Ukraine and conversion it into a debt slave was in
the cards, and probably was not avoidable. It just occurred faster and the drop of the standard of living went deeper that
in other circumstance.
For all his corruption and thugishness Yanukovich tried to play Russia against the West and get some concession from both. Now
such a policy is impossible as the country de-facto lost independence as happens with any debt-slave.
So the conflict in Donbass became important for Poroshenko government as the mean of uniting people, who became disillusioned
in the results of EuroMaydan and pointing to Russia as a scapegoat for all their difficulties. In a way Poroshenko now needs
Donbass conflict to survive politically.
While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there,
some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.
Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is
possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is
likely he knows what is going on.
While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form
iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly,
that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist
appropriate as well.
Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper
concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished
to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path,
he impoverishes his people even more.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up
dead.
The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize
Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the
West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and
prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime
example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted
should we be so inclined?
It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats
cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West
organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate
"government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine
is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and
fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did
was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed
for that.
"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most
unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by
virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American)))
advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.
The Justice Department inspector general issued a 500-page report Thursday that charged
former FBI Director James Comey with deliberately violating longstanding procedures during the
Hillary Clinton email investigation, while claiming that Comey was not motivated by political
bias when he damaged her campaign.
These "extraordinary and insubordinate" actions included both Comey's harsh public criticism
of Clinton at a press conference in July 2016 and his letter to Congress in late October 2016,
just ten days before the election, announcing the investigation was being reopened. In each
instance, Comey did not clear his actions with his nominal supervisors, Attorney General
Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
The Trump White House and its congressional supporters have been hyping the report by
Inspector-General Michael Horowitz for weeks in advance, suggesting that it would provide
evidence of systematic anti-Trump bias in the FBI and thus discredit the investigation into
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and Trump campaign collusion with it, begun
initially by the FBI and now run by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller.
The content of the report appears to be rather the opposite, or at best a mixed bag,
documenting both pro-Clinton sentiments among a handful of top FBI officials, and a series of
decisions by Comey that had a devastating negative effect on the Clinton campaign.
The White House cited the report as a vindication of Trump's repeated public denunciations
of FBI bias against him, which he claimed was the basis of the Mueller investigation. Press
secretary Sarah Sanders said during Thursday's press briefing, "The President was briefed on
the IG's report earlier today and it reaffirmed the President's suspicions about Comey's
conduct and the political bias among some of the members of the FBI."
Only two hours later, FBI Director Christopher Wray held an extraordinary press conference
to defend the bureau against the attacks of the man who appointed him. He cited the finding of
the inspector-general that there was no systematic political bias, either pro-Clinton or
pro-Trump, driving the FBI's decision-making process during its investigations into Clinton's
use of a private email server and Trump's relationship with various individuals claiming to
represent the Russian government or to have derogatory information about Clinton derived from
Russian sources.
Wray's remarks, and comments by other officials to the press, suggested that the IG report
would be the basis for several personnel decisions in the next few days. The most widely
expected action would be the firing of Peter Strzok, the FBI assistant director who worked on
both the Clinton and Russia investigations. Strzok was removed from the Russia investigation
after it came to light that he had exchanged anti-Trump text messages with his girlfriend at
the time, Lisa Page, then counsel to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was in charge of
both probes.
Congressional Democrats sought to insulate the Mueller investigation from any negative
repercussions from the inspector-general's report. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, in a
speech on the Senate floor only hours before the release of the report, declared, "There is no
reason -- no reason -- to believe that it will provide any basis to call the special counsel's
work into question The IG report concerns an entirely separate investigation from the Russia
probe that special counsel Mueller is conducting."
Two leading House Democrats, Representatives Jerry Nadler and Elijah Cummings, issued a
joint statement arguing, "The stark conclusion we draw after reviewing this report is that the
FBI's actions helped Donald Trump become President." They added, "As we warned before the
election, Director Comey had a double-standard: he spoke publicly about the Clinton
investigation while keeping secret from the American people the investigation of Donald Trump
and Russia."
There is little doubt that the principal result of FBI Director Comey's actions during 2016
was to undermine the Clinton campaign. The IG report notes that Comey decided on his own to
denounce Clinton's conduct publicly at a press conference in July 2016, at which he called her
conduct "extremely careless" while saying he would not recommend she be prosecuted. He did not
clear his statement in advance with the leadership of the Justice Department, Lynch and
Yates.
"We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions
from his superiors, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, for the admitted purpose
of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates
in the FBI to do the same," Horowitz's report says.
Again, in October 2016, Comey decided on his own to send a letter to Congress making public
the reopening of the investigation after the discovery of more Clinton emails on a laptop
belonging to former Representative Anthony Weiner, husband of Clinton's closest aide, Huma
Abedin.
This was a gross violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy against making any
public prosecutorial move, positive or negative, related to a political candidate, within 90
days of an election. But Comey did not inform either Lynch or Yates that he intended to breach
this policy.
Inspector-General Horowitz said his office reviewed more than 1.2 million documents and
interviewed more than 100 witnesses. His report endorses the substance of Comey's decision in
July 2016 against recommending prosecution of Clinton, while harshly criticizing both the scale
of the announcement -- the FBI normally says nothing about investigations that are closed
without bringing charges -- and the harsh tone of Comey's statement.
Besides Comey, the report's main criticism falls on Strzok, suggesting that his pro-Clinton
bias led him to direct resources to the Russia investigation in late September 2016, when top
FBI officials first learned of the Anthony Weiner laptop.
The report states: "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision to prioritize the
Russia investigation over following up on the midyear-related investigative lead discovered on
the Weiner laptop was free from bias." This contributed to a delay in taking action on the
laptop, which, ironically, multiplied the political impact of the revelation, made by Comey
only ten days before the election, that the email probe was to be reopened.
One thing is clear, even from press accounts of the 500-page report: the FBI, far from being
a "politically neutral" or "apolitical" agency, is very much a political police force. The same
factional disputes within the ruling elite that rage through Congress, the corporate-controlled
media, and the rest of official Washington, also consume the FBI.
How could it be otherwise, given that the FBI has long been one of the principal instruments
for the defense of corporate America against political opposition from below, persecuting
left-wing, socialist, labor and civil rights organizations for more than a century since it was
first founded.
For nearly half that period, from 1924 to his death in 1972, the FBI was under the direction
of the loathsome J. Edgar Hoover, who accumulated dossiers on virtually every figure in
American political life, guaranteeing his own untouchability, regardless of changes of party or
administration, since he "had something" on everyone.
The exposures of mass US government spying on the antiwar and civil rights movement
thoroughly discredited the FBI in the 1970s. The FBI wiretapped Martin Luther King Jr. and
other civil rights leaders, conspired with Ku Klux Klan terrorists, and may have played a role
in King's assassination. It systematically spied on anti-war and left-wing organizations,
sending so many agents into the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party that it
effectively controlled both groups.
In the decades since Hoover's death, there has been a systematic effort to build up the FBI
and repair the damage done by the exposures of illegal surveillance and other crimes. But these
were not merely the crimes of Hoover personally, but intrinsic characteristics of an agency
which is one of the most important instruments of repression for the American ruling elite.
Thursday's DOJ Inspector General report covering the
Obama DOJ/FBI conduct during the Hillary Clinton email investigation confirms a bombshell that had previously been hinted at through
WikiLeaks disclosures:
Obama lied when he said in 2015 that he learned of Hillary Clinton's private email server through a New York Times report.
Specifically, Obama told CBS News the following a March 7, 2015 report:
President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a
New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after
his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.
' The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,' the president told Plante. -
CBS
The OIG report reveals this was a lie . A footnote on page 89 reads " President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with
whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account "
What's more, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok told the Inspector General that the top brass of the agency wrestled over
whether or not to include Obama's involvement in Clinton's exoneration statement - and that former FBI Director James Comey knew
Obama had lied :
"A paragraph [in Comey's "exoneration" statement] summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that
hostile actors accessed Clinton's server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton's use of her private email for an exchange
with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary, " the IG report reads. " This reference later was changed
to 'another senior government official,' and ultimately was omitted ."
My recollection is that the early Comey speech drafts included references to emails that Secretary Clinton had with President
Obama and I think there was some conversation about, well do we want to be that specific? -Peter Strzok
We already knew all of this though...
In October of 2016, a round of emails released by WikiLeaks featured an email from top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills reacting Obama's
statement that he didn't know about Obama's server - writing to John Podesta "we need to clean this up - he has emails from her -
they do not say state.gov"
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest
later claimed
that Obama was simply "not aware of the details of how that email address and that server had been set up," and that "The President,
as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office exchange emails with his Secretary of State."
The
Washington Examiner , meanwhile, reported in October 2016 that FBI agents "revealed in notes from their closed investigative
file that Obama communicated with Clinton on her private server using a pseudonym . "
The ramifications of what the World is witnessing are Gargantuan to say the least.
"Clinton, Obama might have be labeled Democrat but their Foreign Policy was 100% percent neocon"
Suffice it to, say, you can add Bush Senior, Jr to you list & the last 30 years of a Globalist Foreign Policy.
We're at a National Emergency & Constitutional Crises.
"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple pieces of information in a Fake Dossier,
I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday, Brennan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know
much about the Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."
"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Brennan doing this? Because Brennan knows that the Dossier was his
case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John
Brennan started a Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified. John Brennan is
going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."
"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show you that Brennan has run from this
Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And, he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen
to how he emphasizes on the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him with Chuck
Todd:"
Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath John Brennan admits the Fake Dossier
Played:
"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was done. That was presented to then...President
Obama & President Elect Trump."
It was Brennan, Obama and Clapper. I can remember when Obama said we were going after the Russians for election interference.
It became so big, the Homeland Security director said he would have to federalize elections, then the push back-out cry from states
shut that down.
Brennan has always worked with Obama in political dirty tricks operations, Brennan worked for the Obama election campaign,
providing political intelligence.
Clapper created his own intelligence network. He conducted political dirty tricks to damage Trump before and after. The secret
wars conducted by the CIA, involved Clinton, Brennan, Clapper and Obama, I remember when Obama was asked when he was on his way
to the UN to be crowned president of the world, he said the secret wars was "smart war". Nobel Prize winning Obama, conducted
genocide smart war on the Christians of Syria, killing over 500K using Brennan CIA funded by Saudi and Qatar money. Look at what
they have done, and how the MSM spewed lies to hide and are still hiding the crimes. Ukraine, Libya, Egypt? Why?
Clinton, Brennan, Obama, Clapper is the center of the Russian collusion narrative, it's a coordinated plan to prevent Trump
from being president, and when it was known Trump would be president, to sabotage Trump by destroying the last vestige of relations
with Russia and to accuse Trump of campaign collusion with the Russians, knowingly using false information paid for by Clinton,
coordinated with operatives of MI6. Who made the contacts with MI6, and the UK GHQ, the NSA of the UK? Clapper. Also remember
McCain hand carrying the false data, the Steele Dossier to the FBI? How sick was that? McCain is lower than dog shit and can't
vote on his death bed, thus why won't he resign for health reasons to allow his vote to be used to help rebuild the nation? It's
because he's mentally ill and wants to do as much damage, working with the communist, to this nation as possible, ask anyone who
is for this nation.
The extent of the criminal activity is so great, it can't see the light of day, it would cause a civil war to take down the
last administration. The precedence for Obama crimes were Bush II crimes, it was a continuation. The Bush II imperial presidency,
created the foundation, the huge intelligence apparatus created by Bush II, the Homeland Security police state, all built by Bush
II, was expanded and used against the American people. Not the terrorist the extreme corrupt media brainwashed into everyone to
submit to the state and to give up our rights.
The reason Clapper and Brennan are giving the most delusional analysis to confuse the truth is they know they are guilty so
they must take Trump down to survive. Obama is quite because he knows he is guilty, and more questions of real crimes are coming
out. Clinton, she's taunting everyone and believes she will be able to have revenge on the American people through a long term
plan to use the Clinton Foundation billions to build her revenge socialist communist homosexual reform of the American people.
They plan on buying the government through more manipulation of the vote and political campaigns, money rules and the Clinton's
have the money to rule America.
That's where we are, the Clinton Foundation is a racketeering operation, most all of the money was acquired illegally. If it
wasn't for loans provided by the Clinton Foundation, the DNC wouldn't have been able to run the election campaign.
Have a listen to this Greg Hunter/USA Watchdog interview with Dr David Janda. He's a courageous individual and he addresses
Zero Hedge commenters specifically in parts. Here's what he says about all this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rri-Ngj8QoE
"but his name was removed from the IG report and replaced with "government agent"..."
Correction: I believe you mean Comey's exoneration speech. The IG report (which is referenced above in the article we are commenting
on) did just the opposite and clearly stated that Obama emailed the wicked wench.
"The IG report was a whitewash, nothing about clinton herself".
I'm surprised to read that here on ZH. I've not been spending much time in the comments section here lately, but hadn't realized
that things had gotten this bad. ZHers used to be more aware.
The IG was not a whitewash. It is loaded with absolute bombshells. We're talking game-changing-save-the-republic bombshells.
There are tons of findings that will likely end up in criminal charges.
But, see, that's the point. IG's do not make criminal charges. They investigate internal processes. They can share their findings
or coordinate with actual US Attorney Generals, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE CRIMINAL DETERMINATIONS!
What's nice is, is that this is exactly what is happening. Horowitz has been working side by side with Huber, who is actually
an AUSAG, and who has already convened at least one grand jury (meaning criminal charges are likely).
"no one implicated other than underlings and it's obvious that Horowitz is on the deep state team"
The key to getting kingpins is to get his underlings first and have them turn on the kingpins to save their own skin.
I disagree with your conclusions on Horowitz. I think he is exactly what his reputation says he is: a rigidly straight arrow
who is narrowly focused on his holy mission to preserve the proper procedures in his blessed Bureau of Matters. This makes him
a White Hat in this whole saga.
Sorry if I picked on you with my reply, but I just think this story is so important to get right, particularly in light of
how blatantly untruthful CNN and the MSM are being (even more blatant than normal).
When the real bombshell hits, a lot of our fellow Americans are going to be very confused as their entire worldview is shaken.
It is our job to make that as painless as possible, and setting expectations based on what is actually happening/going to happen
is a huge step towards that worthy goal.
"... More fundamentally, the quarter-century of invasions and occupations that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union is rapidly developing into a conflict between major nuclear-armed powers. The effort of the American ruling class to offset its economic decline using military force is leading mankind to the brink of another world war. As the National Defense Strategy, published less than a month before the release of the indictments, declared, "Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national security." ..."
"... The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political dissent effectively treasonous. ..."
"... Already, this campaign has led the major US technology firms to implement far-reaching measures to censor political speech on the Internet. Google is manipulating its search results and Facebook is manipulating its news feeds, while seeking to turn the social media platform it has developed into an instrument of corporate-state surveillance. ..."
"... Now, the Democrats, along with their appendages among the organizations of the upper-middle class, are at the forefront of the campaign for war, employing neo-McCarthyite tactics to criminalize opposition while seeking to subordinate all popular opposition to the Trump administration to its right-wing and militarist agenda. ..."
Fifteen years ago, on February 5, 2003, against the backdrop of worldwide mass
demonstrations in opposition to the impending invasion of Iraq, then-US Secretary of State
Colin Powell argued before the United Nations that the government of Saddam Hussein was rapidly
stockpiling "weapons of mass destruction," which Iraq, together with Al Qaeda, was planning to
use against the United States.
In what was the climax of the Bush administration's campaign to justify war, Powell held up
a model vial of anthrax, showed aerial photographs and presented detailed slides purporting to
show the layout of Iraq's "mobile production facilities."
There was only one problem with
Powell's presentation: it was a lie from beginning to end.
The World Socialist Web Site , in an editorial board statement published the next day,
declared the brief for war "the latest act in a diplomatic charade laced with cynicism and
deceit." War against Iraq, the WSWS wrote, was not about "weapons of mass destruction." Rather,
"it is a war of colonial conquest, driven by a series of economic and geo-political aims that
center on the seizure of Iraq's oil resources and the assertion of US global hegemony."
The response of the American media, and particularly its liberal wing, was very different.
Powell's litany of lies was presented as the gospel truth, an unanswerable indictment of the
Iraqi government.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who rushed off a column before he could
have examined Powell's allegations, declared, "The evidence he presented to the United Nations
-- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove
to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a
doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude
otherwise."
The editorial board of the New York Times -- whose reporter Judith Miller was at
the center of the Bush administration's campaign of lies -- declared one week later that there
"is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the
capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more
recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors."
Subsequent developments would prove who was lying. The Bush administration and its media
accomplices conspired to drag the US into a war that led to the deaths of more than one million
people -- a colossal crime for which no one has yet been held accountable.
Fifteen years later, the script has been pulled from the closet and dusted off. This time,
instead of "weapons of mass destruction," it is "Russian meddling in the US elections." Once
again, assertions by US intelligence agencies and operatives are treated as fact. Once again,
the media is braying for war. Once again, the cynicism and hypocrisy of the American government
-- which intervenes in the domestic politics of every state on the planet and has been
relentlessly expanding its operations in Eastern Europe -- are ignored.
The argument presented by the American media is that the alleged existence of a fly-by-night
operation, employing a few hundred people, with a budget amounting to a minuscule fraction of
total election spending in the US, constitutes a "a virtual war against the United States
through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda" ( New York Times ).
In the countless articles and media commentary along this vein, nowhere can one find a
serious analysis of the Mueller indictment of the Russians itself, let alone an examination of
the real motivations behind the US campaign against Russia. The fact that the indictment does
not even involve the Russian government or state officials is treated as a nonissue.
While the present campaign over Russian "meddling" has much in common with the claims about
"weapons of mass destruction," the implications are far more ominous. The "war on terror" is
exhausted, in part because the US is allied in Syria and elsewhere with the Islamic
fundamentalist organizations it was purportedly fighting.
More fundamentally, the quarter-century of invasions and occupations that followed the
dissolution of the Soviet Union is rapidly developing into a conflict between major
nuclear-armed powers. The effort of the American ruling class to offset its economic decline
using military force is leading mankind to the brink of another world war. As the National
Defense Strategy, published less than a month before the release of the indictments, declared,
"Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US national
security."
Russia is seen by dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus as a principal
obstacle to US efforts to control the Middle East and to take on China -- and it is this that
has been at the center of the conflict between the Democratic Party and the Trump
administration.
There have already been a series of clashes in recent weeks between the world's two largest
nuclear-armed powers. On February 3, a Russian close-air support fighter was shot down by
al-Nusra Front fighters, which are indirectly allied with the United States in its proxy war
against the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Then, on February 7 and 8, Russian soldiers were
killed in US air and artillery barrages in Deir Ezzor, in what survivors called a "massacre."
Both the US and Russian governments have sought to downplay the scale of the clash, but some
sources have reported the number killed to be in the hundreds.
Even as US and Russian forces clashed in Syria, representatives of the Kremlin and the
Pentagon sparred at the Munich security conference this weekend over the deployment and
development of nuclear weapons. While accusing Russia of violating the Intermediate Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Washington this month issued a nuclear posture review envisioning
a massive expansion of the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons.
The Mueller indictment is intended to provide an appropriate "narrative" for military
aggression motivated by different aims. At the same time, it serves as a ready-made pretext for
censorship and domestic repression that goes far beyond the extraordinary measures adopted
under the framework of the "war on terror." Russia, the American people are supposed to
believe, uses domestic social opposition to weaken the United States, rendering political
dissent effectively treasonous.
Already, this campaign has led the major US technology firms to implement far-reaching
measures to censor political speech on the Internet. Google is manipulating its search results
and Facebook is manipulating its news feeds, while seeking to turn the social media platform it
has developed into an instrument of corporate-state surveillance.
Even more extreme measures are being planned and implemented, motivated by the basic
principle that the greater the lie, the more aggressive the methods required to enforce it. The
target of the repressive measures is not Russia, but the American working class. The ruling
elite is well aware that as it plots war abroad, it stands upon a social powder keg at
home.
The working class must draw the necessary conclusions from its past experiences. In 2003,
the Democratic Party supported the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and provided it with
the necessary political cover. Now, the Democrats, along with their appendages among the
organizations of the upper-middle class, are at the forefront of the campaign for war,
employing neo-McCarthyite tactics to criminalize opposition while seeking to subordinate all
popular opposition to the Trump administration to its right-wing and militarist
agenda.
Pathological Russophobia of neocons is explanation by two factors: (1) they are lobbyists for
MIC and this is the way MIC wants the US foreign policy to be execute; (2) this is the way of
earning money for people, many of whom are good no nothing else.
Notable quotes:
"... Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or ..."
"... From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." ..."
Almost one year ago the United States Congress (with only a handful of "nay" votes)
adopted
new and severe sanctions against Russia for its supposed attempt to influence and interfere
in the 2016 national elections. Included in that legislation was a provision -- specifically
placed there by Russophobe Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) -- that President Trump cannot alter
or lift any of the sanctions without future Congressional approbation.
The government of Vladimir Putin, in response to this provocation, announced that the
American diplomatic presence in Russia would be reduced by 755 persons, a drastic move by any
standards. But we cannot say it was unexpected -- or undeserved.
That sanctions vote was fascinating as it illustrated during the first year of the
contentious Trump presidency a rare point of political unity between the socialist
Left, the Democrats and the mainstream media -- formerly noted for their "soft" and favorable
attitude to the old and unloved Soviet Communist Russian regime -- and the conservative/GOP
mainstream, dominated by the Neoconservatives. Of course, perspectives and approaches to the
question differ, whether it was the Trump campaign that was colluding with Moscow, or if it was
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation that had collaborated in some way, but their target remained
the same: that man in the Kremlin and the country he governs.
One thing was clear: the result of the 2016 presidential election had the most unheard of
and remarkable result in recent American political history: a de facto alliance of
these supposedly antipodal political forces. And what we have witnessed is a phalanx of the
pseudo-Right Neocons and the formerly pro-Soviet Left linked together, competing to see who
could be more "anti" and who could come up with the more far-fetched Russia conspiracy
theories, and -- as with the 2017 sanctions -- the latest unwarranted, over the top
legislation.
Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew
Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right."
Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington
Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and
Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons &
Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges
"the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects
in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis
around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces.
Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia
and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or
the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin,
calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the
German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally
left the Fox News network in March 2018 )
When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters
provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters
immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was
a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum .
Of course, such examples aren't rare in the establishment "conservative movement" media.
Pick up any issue of National Review or The Weekly Standard or listen to the
Glenn Beck radio program and you can find the same hysteria, largely laced with faked quotes or
disinformation (e.g., "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was
head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad
nauseum ).
Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the
grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's
nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils lost big time
financially in his manipulations in Russia, as investigative journalists Philip
Giraldi and Robert
Parry have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir
Putin.
For the Neoconservative leaders of what passes for "conservatism" these days, it is as if
nothing has changed since 1991, since the ignominious fall of Communism. It's even
arguable that their hostility to Moscow has increased since then.
Let me suggest several reasons for this: First, many of the more prominent Neoconservatives
descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the
pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin
and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and
apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until
Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II. [See the partially
translated excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together at: https://200yearstogether.wordpress.com , and the
commentary
]
Putin, despite his strong support from native Russian Jews and from the Moscow Rabbinate, is
a Russian nationalist and fervent supporter of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church, and
those two factors bring up painful memories of the "bad old days" of discrimination and Jewish
persecution for the Neocons.
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and
homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The
End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously
in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants
from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle
"holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert
national traditions and Christian identity;
for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia
seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox
Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time"
religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and
"extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and
equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board
equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, " George Soros Aghast
as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent, " January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic
considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and
Bruxelles, or Russia, itself. Unlike the weak and pliant Boris Yeltsin, Putin the
nationalist ended the strangle-hold of Russian industry, in particular control of Russia's
important energy sector, by those few international businessmen, the oligarchs (many of them
Jewish), most of whom fled the country. That could not stand! How dare Russia -- and its
president -- oppose the economic diktats of Bruxelles and Wall Street!
Lastly, we should add one more reason for hostility, and that is Russia's remaining
international presence, in particular, in Syria. It is very simple: you don't go from being one
of the world's two "superpowers" to all of a sudden a second-rate, economically-handicapped
"has been" without some remorse. As a patriot and nationalist President Putin has,
understandably, attempted to reassert Russian prosperity and power -- certainly, not as much or
in the same manner as the old Communist leaders. But, from his reasonable point of view, the
largest country in the world does have interests, and not just in what goes on in neighboring
nations where millions of Russians (formerly within Russia) reside, but also with long-time
allies such as Syria.
Is not this same criterion true for the United States and its dealings with its neighbors
and allies?
More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic
terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the
horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin
has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic
terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul
Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't
need your assistance or intel."
And thus, the revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received.
But, as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there
is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with
equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its
traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have
witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality.
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall
an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition
problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.
He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a
monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I
once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring
Europe, as Fred Reed explained:
Nothing new in the above article. That such people are elevated to the stature of cushy
mainstream propping and ridicule by some non-mainstream others is a tell all sign on what's
wrong with the coverage.
Regarding this excerpt:
A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist
and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick:
The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of
Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening
ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim
immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a
subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to
reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than
attempts to bring back "fascism."
Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable:
Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its
age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and
the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry,
anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal
democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage,
across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).
Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and
dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these
days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian
state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, "George Soros
Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent," January 19, 2018]
But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros
defend?
The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the
positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)
A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistically references the Cold War period with
present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has
transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of
"lazy".
To me it is all quite simple.
FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and a smaller Britain.
Stalin had other ideas.
Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government, in
my view.
Deep State still tries to impose this world government.
Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons
are back'.
Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.
The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingless to realise that it could no longer
maintain the empire.
This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standars became too expensive, the one
fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.
Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half.
What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria.
Alas, seldom in history did reason rule.
If it will in the present USA, I doubt it.
Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. Putin's mistake
was in thinking he could reason with the Neoconservatives. The Neocons are not guided by
pragmatic or rational concerns. Of course, many are starting to think Putin was just "part of
the show" all along, as evidenced by his recent capitulation to Netanyahu.
The American Government are a bunch of morons. I ask again "what has Russia ever done to the
USA"? A real thin book as far as I can see, time to grow up and be big boys, there's money
over there.
The American diplomat, Bruce P Jackson, who is credited with expanding NATO, made a statement
several years ago. He heavily criticized Putin, saying he was responsible for "the largest
theft of Jewish property since the Nazis."
Excellent analysis by Dr. Cathey of the roots of the anti-Russian hysteria. This is also
reflected in popular culture – Hollywood movies and the various spy/covert ops novels
of people like Ted Bell and Brad Thor, who has hinted that he may run against Trump in the
2020 Republican primaries. Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains.
Was Jackson referring to some of the oligarchs who had fallen out with Putin and was he
suggesting Putin rather than the state benefitted? Would he have included the Orthodox
Khordokovsky as Jewish?
The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have
turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control
and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their
psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world,
but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of
this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader
they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and
dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.
Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting
individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.
I wonder what jewish property Putin stole.
In the USSR there was hardly any private property.
What was stolen, sold for ridiculously low prices, was state property, to former USSR
managers, and/or foreign 'investors'.
As far as I understand it, some crooks have been persecuted.
Any foreigner who, after 1990, went to live in a former USSR state can explain it.
Some did to me.
Possibly Jackson is referring to how Putin threw out Soros, and his Open Society
indoctrination organisation.
Hungary just now also threw him out.
Timmermans of the EU again threatened the E European nations, for refusing to let migrants
enter.
Soros wants multi ethnic countries
"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."
And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it
existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of
the Federal Reserve.
There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the
former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool
right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then
virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.
The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver
Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made
precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white
Christian cultures and identities.
That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever
they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of
Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and
World War 2.
What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major
voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original
junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.
But the original alliance is the same.
You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon
problem without also solving the WASP problem.
This is true only in the loosest sense. There is a huge difference between holding church
membership, or attending church, and being a Christian. Putin may have done the 1st two, but
the last is utterly unknown to him.
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis
players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black
street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs
with their machetes.
We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but
the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind
every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!
While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there,
some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.
Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is
possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is
likely he knows what is going on.
While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form
iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly,
that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist
appropriate as well.
Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper
concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished
to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path,
he impoverishes his people even more.
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since
1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR
agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the
Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.
Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in
point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in
the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists
have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and
historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia
in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist
communists.
The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel
and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person
knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.
While I defer to no one in my loathing and contempt for the WASPs of the Northeastern
U.S., whose career of mischief began with the brutal war of conquest against my native South,
I'd would like to point out what I see as some problems in your assigning to Oliver Cromwell
to baleful title of WASP the first.
To wit: "Oliver Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and
privileges."
This simply isn't true. Menasseh ben Israel did indeed present a "Humble Address on Behalf
of the Jewish Nation" to the Lord Protector and the Counsel of State in 1655. Readmission was
opposed by most of the English people and of the Puritan pastorate. However, there was no Act
of Parliament, proclamation by Cromwell or notice from the Council of State allowing
readmittance. Some historians have "deduced" that Cromwell have Menasseh "verbal assurance
that they'd be allowed it, but those are deductions and speculation and no more. As far as sa
subsequent petition for Jews to be allowed to practice Judaism in their homes and have a
burial place outside the City of London, Cromwell referred that to the Council of State,
which took no action.
Who did grant the Jews religious tolerance and naturalized a number of Jews by an Act of
Parliament? Why, Charles II – after the Restoration.
You wrote: "made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate
non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities."
I can only assume you are referring to the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, which began in
May 1649. I assume you're aware that Ireland had been engulfed in a bloody and brutal civil
war since 1641; indeed, one of the precipitating causes of the English Civil War was the
matter of who would control the army raised to suppress the rebellion (Charles I or
Parliament). Also as you know, England was swept by fear that Charles meant to bring an Irish
army to England to suppress Parliament (and, indeed, there's probably more evidence that this
was the actual case than there is that Cromwell cut a deal with the Jews). At any rate, there
is no one single shred of evidence or even contemporary speculation that the Cromwellian
conquest was at the behest of the Jews. It should be instead regarded in the context of the
17th century wars of religion, rather than 21st century conspiracy theory. Cromwell ended the
civil war and pacified Ireland – in a brutal fashion, of course, but probably less
vicious than Wallenstein in Germany.
Or are you referring to the Scots, crushed at Preston, Dunbar and Worcester? Again, the
quarrel with the scots was over the matter of church governance, and the English
unwillingness to impost the Presbyterian system on England. If Cromwell stood for anything,
it was religious tolerance for the various sects that exploded after the Civil War; the sort
of forced conformity demanded by the Scots displeased him (see the letters to Major Crawford
in 1643).
And while both the New Englanders and English are labeled "Puritan," may I point out that
the Puritan movement was a large one, with considerable variance. Cromwell favored tolerance
and theologically tended toward a sort of univeralism (to judge by his pastors, eg Jeremiah
Burroughs); I imagine that if he had gone to New England, he'd have been chased out along
with Sarah Hutchinson and Roger Williams by the fanatical shits of Boston.
Boston is the "urgrund" of the WASP plague; not Cromwell. And while there's any number of
things to fault him for, creation of the WASP was not one of them. In theological and
existential terms, Cromwell and the New Model were probably closer to the Puritan "pioneers"
of the Appalachian and Southern frontiers – many of whom were descended of troops
planted in Ireland by Cromwell – and who of course made up the rank and file of the
Confederate States Army.
You might want to take a look at the history of the Unitarian movement. You'd find
everything you need to support your dislike of the WASP plaque there; I certainly have.
1 undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right
and left."
Think of Israel. But no don't think of Isreal. That is anti Semitism
2 "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has
had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum)."
Think of US – harking back to the past of Roosevelt and Reagan and Eisenhower or to
Monroe
Think of Pap Bush working for CIA
Thinks of thousands of people – leaders, trade unionists, communist, socialists killed
by USA
3 Bill Browder, the grandson of -- – have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious
personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin."
Think of -
be afraid of the screwing the neocons They will move to China or India and denounce US sue
the country, and poison the well of the democracy and the well of the justice ,media,
religious organizations to get back at US
4 James Kirchick: -- efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants "
Think of the perversions of the beliefs and attitudes within the psyche of this false
man
He is of the same mindset that encourages Islamophobia among the clueless , zealous fervent
bible thump er and among the poor indigent uneducated misinformed white populations of France
USA Australia and Poland . He does same to the military and leftists secular outfit of
Richard Dawkins .
He then encourages to dismember Arabs countries . The half-baked moron Richard Dawkins type,
and military, and the white trash fall for it and get ready to pick up the gun for the
invisible pervasive psychopathic chants of Kirchick. He also makes sure that each and every
members of the opposite conflicting groups never stray way from kowtowing to Zionism who is
the enemy of the Islam and the Christianity and the of the respective people.
Jews definitely feel comfortable in all weather and among the separates and in all kind of
geography
The more Christian that country and its leaders become, the more the atheistic west hates
them. Too bad "Uncle Joe" wasn't still the Premier. We would treat that murderous atheist as
a beloved relative, maybe even hand him over half of eastern Europe like we did last time.
Instead, we send in LGBT protesters to disturb their new found faith.
From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.
Also waiting for that other nut who always comes with his tirades about "surrendering ukraine
to Putin", no matter what article is about.
Mike something, was it?
"talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had
committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator."
Classic garbage in, garbage out.
fact: Hitler and the Germans did not, could not have committed the crimes they are
alleged to have committed.
"we've often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And
to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in
Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do?
We didn't have the evidence."
- so called "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous
'holocaust' storyline is the message.
The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
"Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go
back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally
welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest
supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka
and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II."
There is no proof of these "pogroms" and the fake "wave of anti-semitism after World War
II".
The source of such claims are Jews who benefit / profit from making such claims.
The umpteenth serving of the classic US hegemonist pro-Putin/anti-EU line. The distinction is
thus not between those who favour the maintenance of US global hegemony and those who oppose
it. It is whether Putin is still useful as a battering ram to destroy the EU precisely so as
to maintain US global hegemony into the indefinite future. The most logical explanation of
the known facts surrounding the Ukrainian coup is that Victoria Nuland was in cahoots with
Putin. Behind Nuland, of course were the US neocons. The split came when Putin waded into the
Syrian civil war on Assad's side. By doing so he made himself a threat to Israel and, for the
neocons, the whole point of maintaining US global hegemony is to prop up Israel. Logically,
therefore, their priority became Putin's defeat and removal. The other side of the US
hegemonist camp, which seems to be motivated by something like hubris or a master race
delusion, still believes that Putin can be used to break up the EU. That's the position Mr
Cathey is arguing.
I don't think Putin is still viable as an anti-EU battering ram. The American groups that
have been financing far-right nationalism in Europe have got caught in the web of their own
contradictions. On the one hand, they preach national identity and sovereignty to us but
then, as Mr Cathey is doing here, they justify Putin's refusal to respect Ukrainian
sovereignty and the Ukrainian national identity. Secondly, European nationalism is
essentially "anti-other". That means that it is inherently anti-American, which makes newly
nationalist Europe the inevitable enemy of US domination. It also means that anti-Semitism is
inherent in European nationalism, which is probably what has Soros up in arms. The final
contradiction is that, very often, the same people who preach nationalism at us in Europe
preach white nationalism in the US. If white Americans are a single ethnic group and entitled
to live in a single political entity, then we white Europeans must also be a single ethnic
group and should also live in a single political entity (the EU, for example).
I never cease to be amused at the way in which the various American anti-EU scams cut across
each other and cancel each other out!
"WASP" in the "USA" refers fairly specifically to the Protestants of New England and New
York who as a result of the War of Northern Aggression attained complete power over the
development of the American empire. Their interests were concentrated in banking, railroads,
industry and so on. While descended from the Puritans of New England, most of them had lost
any traditional religious fervor by, oh, 1700 or so and gradually moved into loopy,
nonsensical ideologies like Transcendentalism, Unitarianism, the Social Gospel, and various
other creation-fixing endeavors like temperance, abolitionist, progressivism and so on. To
them can be attributed the Gnostic notion of the United States as God's appointed righter of
wrongs around the world, with quite coincidentally matched up with their commercial
interests. On the whole about as nasty and horrible group of people that ever walked the
earth; however. WASP does not include the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of Appalachia, the
Deep South, Texas and so on. The Bush family are WASPs. Robert E. Lee was not a WASP. Jake is
correct to disdain them; he's wrong in saying Cromwell was the archetype.
@ Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement.. yes but the Lenin
crowd were from Salonkia (1908) and Hertzl's Germany @ many above Exactly, the by name, rank
and serial number identification including dual nationalities, corporate by name ownership,
board membership, and positions, management, advisory positions or whatever.
Deeper yet into the deep state might identify the corporate officers, directors and
outside auditors who serve the needs of those identified. Bureaucrat who echo deep state
intentions might be a problem?
Who cannot name the few corporations and their owners and directors that strongly support
the neocon ideology on the Internet? Which does the intelligence gathering (spying), which
processes the data(data mining), which produces and sells OS(limits user security), which
makes sleuthing back doors for browsers and application software, which make the devices that
negotiate the bits between hardware (CPU) and software (OS), you know one bit for you the
user and a duplicate bit of your bit for deep state intelligence units.
At the next level is the global benefactors(Profiteers) . expensive war equipment makers,
oil well production gear makers, robot makers, transport organizations, phantom for hire
mercenary armies labor agencies, Democrat and Republican candidates managers to be placed on
the "vote for 5 election" ballots, inventors of the fake, producers of "the fake" into
propaganda, distributors of the propaganda designed fake news to masses in the public, and
access managers who gate, for massive fees, lobbyist into see and deal with politicians,
media giants, and power wielding bureaucrats.
As I looked through this list I realized that if the public were to deny its elected
government authority to support its neocon capitalist, the entire economy would be forced to
switch from Global to Domestic.. showering all kinds of benefits on the governed sheep
. No wonder the government is so insistent: without globalism there is no neocon-ism, without
neocon-ism open competition would flourish, the restrictions on human progress in copyrights
and patents would disappear and prices would move from controlled levels to competitive
levels.
But I do not think the neocons are "ideologues" ; unless lawless disregard for
humanity in search of profit, is an ideology. I am not even sure they are tightly organized,
they are not colonist, they are monopolist (meaning any profit potential (tangible or
intangible) will soon belong to them or be within their control. They will write laws, or get
nations to sanction, start wars, regime change, terrorize, whatever to advance and to protect
their exclusive right to competition free profit making); you might call it ownership of all
of the factors of production by whatever means is necessary. I look at them as capitalist,
who have co-opted many different governments, who have forgone their humanity, who
independently profiteer, interactively, and for a multitude of different reasons, to produce
a common collective set of extremely effective outcomes.
Interesting, the video asserts that part of Leo Strauss's philosophy was the introduction of
Plato's 'Noble Lie', which, in this case, was the bugaboo of an evil Russian Empire as a foil
to bring Americans together and avoid the inevitable collapse of liberalism into nihilism. I
wonder if anyone can confirm this as part of Strauss's gift the the neopsychoticons?
Also, pretty obvious reason for hatred of Russia is the closeness of the State and the
Church. Strauss here talks about how the secular sphere has but one purpose, providing room
for the meddlers to thrive:
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the
name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the
whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they
accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25
years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't
do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence"
budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's
their incompetence.
James Kirchick: by encouraging balkanization of ME per the plans advocated by PNAC now FDD
and Friends of Syria or SITE -Sharon-Netanahyu Joe Lieberman Kirchick favorite White Helmet
or Jishs Fishas Islam Whitewash ludicrous Jihadist and cemented in stone by Yoneen Yidod ( or
what ever is the name of that Jew ) sends those same muslims he encourages the "deplorable"
to feel suspicious and hate and same time advocating the acceptance by the countries .
"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most
unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by
virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American)))
advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense
elsewhere.
My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:
10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is
based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to
problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and
mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law
only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive
rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established
facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal
democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with
practical programs grounded in fact and reason.
Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their
status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a
permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that
globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.
I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the
drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the
USA .
Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its
age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and
the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry,
anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal
democracy and equality".
more so even than any concern for Jewish supremacy or glorification of sodomy or all the
other shibboleths oozing out of the gaping orifices of Jewish fudge packers like Kirchick, is
a visceral, unearthly animosity (hatred) for the Western world and its (comparatively)
beautiful, well-adjusted, happy and prosperous people.
Indeed, it is the 'happy' part that drives them insane with stinging malice and seething,
rancorous rage.
I remember as a kid celebrating Christmas, and how the Jewish children I knew were not
allowed. This is all part of the carefully constructed paradigm that the Jewish elite impose
on their people to keep them resentful and envious. Eventually metastasizing into a
deep-seated hatred.
They want to see all those ruddy-cheeked Christians pay! for their pain during those
terrible years.
Like the boy who was picked last for sports or never 'got the girl', they develop a
psychological imperium of wrath, which their religion bolsters in spades.
That is why when ever they get the drop on the Gentiles (who tormented them with
good-natured hails of 'Merry Christmas!, which stung to their core, because all that love and
happiness was not for them. ) – regardless of the obvious sincerity of the
Christians. – [which made it even worse]
Eventually it roils and burns in their ids like an acid. And they want revenge. And
that's why the Palestinians, and the Syrians and Lebanese are menaced day and night.
That's why the Russians and Ukrainians and Estonians and Poles, and so many others
suffered to monstrously under the cruel Jewish, Bolshevik yoke.
It has nothing to do with fear over a re-ascendant Russia. Hardly. That's laughable.
Rather, the reason they can't abide Russians going to church and thriving and prospering,
is because it means the Russians have become happy again, and that drives them
absolutely bonkers with murderous, Talmudic rage.
Good description of them. Basically I see all their anti Russian crap, as a revenge minded
attitude so often seen from jews. They tried to overtake the largest nation, of mainly Whites
and Christians, at least once prior to 1917 jewish revolt against Russia. That was I believe
in 1905, it ended when the $$$ ended. But with another better funded, by usa and german
fellow jew banksters, attempt in 1917.
Those Bolshevik jews took over Russia first, then every eastern nation which also was
mainly a White and Christian peoples nation's. They did so basically by mass Murdering aprox
1/2 of orig populations in those nations. And now 100 years later, after Russian soviet
commies has crashed, and a huge return to prior Christian ways etc, is going gangbusters Due
to Bolsheviks and jews for the most part getting that Big Boot Out jews are so famous
for.
So now here in America we have inherited most of those Children and especially Grand Kid
jew commies of the Orig 100 years ago Russian Bolshevik butchers, torturers, and mass
murderous bastards. And besides infiltrated into All what matters in usa society and govnt
and culture, they also have as a "side agenda" of sorts a massive huge Lusting for typical
jewish blood thirsty revenge upon Russia and its Christian Whites,and of course its leader
Putin. Those jews had Russia in palm of hand, then totally Lost it. They began with around
8.5 to maybe 10-million jews in Russia/Poland soviet and today have around less than 27o,ooo
total jews within Russia iirc.
Likely it was Putin more than all other issues or reasons those, mostly jewish swindlers,
finally were also Booted Out and their scammed assets from their Raping of Russia resources
etc Taken away from them Being such mamon/money worshipers they are also so famous for, no
other thing would so piss them scamming jews off eh.
I also believe that after the jewish 1917 revolt in Russia, when top control jews there
with plans to use control of Russia as largest nation on earth, to gain their foamed at mouth
lust of a JWO control made reality. That it finally dawned on them that in order to Rule as a
JWO one world govnt of jewry Vs all gentile others, they could never do so without a huge
Navy like usa has.
You must have Navy ships to Carry Jet fighter planes To distant areas you wish to rule
over, because most other nations wont simply agree to being jew-ruled with a JWO clan of
fanatical jewry. Ergo you need also Ocean Waters, warm waters to Park said ships and navigate
those waters to get to those other reluctant nations. Russia failed for such scheme plans for
jewry.
So since so many of the tribe were in usa already .Just join fellow tribe in usa, and turn
America and its military etc into a huge Tool of international jewry so to complete jwo plans
that Russia didn't fulfill.
And both the agenda of jewish revenge, as well as their desired jwo plans probably play an
equal part within those evil nasty minds that they are also so famous for having.
In response to your query, the difference between the US and Russia is that in geopolitics
the latter has performed well above the cards it has been dealt with.
And where, dear sir, can we find any "religious fervor" in the likes of that beau ideal of
the Southern antebellum statesman, John C. Calhoun? Calhoun began life as a Calvinist (a
Presbyterian) and ended it as a kind of Unitarian. This is almost the exact trajectory as the
religious life of the Boston Yankee culture. The Old Nullificator was backcountry
Scotch-Irish – as opposed to WASP – but Unitarian crap is Unitarian crap no
matter where it exists.
Calhoun was, of course, a giant among those of the 1830s and '40s who pushed the South
from the 18th century American conception of slavery – as something that should be
contained until its eventual death – to a new conception that exclaimed, vigorously,
that slavery was a legitimate part of the American way of life. No, no. I cannot abide this
poison. If you all want to condemn Hamilton and Sumner and all, go ahead. I'll agree. But
when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the American republic as
the protection of slavery, he was right. And he was neither fanatical nor alone in his view.
To this day, we tend to conflate Lincoln and the anti-slavery bloc with the radical
Republican abolitionist bloc. This is unfair.
General Meade, the victor of Gettysburg, was condemned by the radical Republicans in
Congress because of their hatred for Lincoln. Some unity there.
The Anti-Federalist Marylander Luther Martin was right to criticize the powerful framers
for allowing the slavery problem to go on, for enshrining it in the Constitution. Too many
antebellum Southern elites decided that the likes of Martin were wrong.
You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few
miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin. One was even born
in Pennsylvania, and fought in his own hometown during Lee's invasion.
But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. No one in the North
forced the Southern elites to accept a conception of black slavery as a "positive good" (i.e.
James Henry Hammond). The idea of a "War of Northern Aggression" is convenient and cute, but
I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I have.
And it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had, then
it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and the
Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types
in the South as there were in Boston.
P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described
himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading.
Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true
believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US
elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to
be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse
"righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and
bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right"
and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot
and resent being thwarted from stealing even more. Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to
be exposed as a king with no clothes by various countries switching the trade to their own
currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the US dollar and US government debt. The
hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal
aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain, like
all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about inevitable course of history.
Wally, by keeping Americans always focused on Hitler and Nazis and SS storm troops, they
will not have time, nor ever find out what the Real True 20th century crimes against humanity
were. When starting in 1917 JEWS that invented communism, and Used it as main means to mass
murder almost 1/2 of eastern euro nations and Russia itself Those crimes and mass killings
jewry should get blame for makes whatever bads or evils done by Hitler and Nazis Pale in
comparison, and makes german Nazis look like small kindergarten kiddies at play in back yard
sand box with wooden swords.
Thanks to internet over past 15 years, many usa folks are waking up and getting very
jewized up.
Which we know is main reason such massive attempts at internet censorship has been
occurring. And is happening at a furious pace like no other agenda we have seen in our lives.
Plus the EU and Canada nations non stop Prison terms for truth tellers of any jew issues.
Soon to arrive here in usa with 99.9% of us senate and congress full approval votes when
pressed by AIPAC and 599 Other jewish usa orgs.
We can toss out our sun glasses as our American future does Not look bright at all. Unless
we see soon a massive wake up call and enough armed citizens willing to take back America.
That too looks very dim so far.
I think Jake should say WASP elites rather than just WASP. The majority of the US Anglo-Saxon
stock are working class and middle class who, along with the Catholic Irish, German, and
Italian, have made this country what it is; and in their demographic decline we see the
decline of the United States. The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
In every political question we should remember to look past grandiose abstractions and see
the operative gut loyalties, both our own and those of the competing sides. What is going on
with Russia is simply Jewish mania to prevent Russia from being Russian and keep it under
Jewish or surrogate rule. Similarly, NATO and the EU are now just enforcers of political
correctness. The Slavs and other illiberal peoples of central and eastern Europe are to be
re-subjugated now that Communism is not there to persecute the priests and re-educate the
sexists. The author, in citing ancient persecutions of Jews to excuse the machinations of
current Jews, attempts to meet his critic half-way. Some day perhaps we will be able to state
the truth without the dance of apology.
Here is an analogy: Suppose in the 90s we thought it critical to weigh in on the Northern
Irish Question. Suppose we had a Department of Irish Affairs to formulate US policy, and it
was staffed by Clancy, Reilly, Finnegan, O'Toole and O'Meara. Would anyone hesitate to raise
the issue of objectivity? Or suppose our middle-eastern team consisted of 5 guys named
Muhammad. Do you think there might be questions?
The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)
ah, so it was Dubya all along!
what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a
tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!
So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of
((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind
the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !
sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American
middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!
The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless
suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going
down the drain,
what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class
Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a
transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and
catastrophic expense of America and the American people.
I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to
Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As
Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?
Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that
printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the
ZUSA?
Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to
benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing
so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their
marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians
to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?
It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up
dead.
The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize
Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the
West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and
prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime
example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted
should we be so inclined?
It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats
cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?
What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.
He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West
organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate
"government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine
is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and
fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did
was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed
for that.
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best.
Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as
Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater
Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria
Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria
Thanks for your eloquent response. A few thoughts:
1. I wouldn't extend Calhoun's religion, ot the lack thereof, to the "common soldier" of
the Confederacy. You might take a look at Fehrenbach's "Lone Star" history of Texas; he
understands the "puritanism" of the South.
2.
But when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the
American republic as the protection of slavery, he was right.
–> sorry, I don't think "original sin" is attributable to nations. History is a
bloodbath, and always will be, and the whole notion that slavery is some sort of "sin"
demanding atonement is quite ridiculous. That's the sort of gnosticism practiced by the
Bostonians that played sure a huge part in causing the War of Nort.. er. War for Southern
Independence. Far as antebellum slavery itself, might I recommend the work of Genovese and
Fogelberg on the character of American slavery? A review of how exactly the victorious
Yankees and their Republican bosses provided for the liberated slaves after Appomattox is
enlightening.
3.
But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter.
Saint Abe himself admitted he connived South Carolina into opening fire.
4.
I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I
have.
So we have that in common!
5.
nd it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had,
then it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and
the Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone
types in the South as there were in Boston.
This is speculation on your part, so hardly the truth. Stonewall Jackson, of course, would
have been happy to bring fire and sword to the North. Probably Edward Ruffin, too. But at the
same time, the South was primarily acting a defensive capacity during the war, not as a force
of invasion.
5.a: "
Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were
in Boston."
hellfire and brimstone in what sense?
6,
P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described
himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.
-- yes, AND? What's your point? what's this to do with anything? When the Confederate
memorial in Beaumont, Texas was dedicated around the turn of the last century, the local
rabbi gave opening remarks. Different creeds tended to get along somewhat better in Dixie.
That's a well known fact.
7.
You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few
miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin.
Why would I find that controversial? Are you suggesting I was arguing for a "celtic
south"? I always thought the notion ridiculous. I know Grady McWhiney and others push it, but
it's inaccurate to say the least.
Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some
crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair
global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in
the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading
lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those
"black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any
protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep
don't protest, they just follow the leader.
However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than
similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he
become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy
becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The
only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.
As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like
Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in
the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon
Adelson.
See comment 51:
The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
"... Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted. ..."
James Comey once
described his position in the Clinton investigation as being the victim of a "500-year flood."
The point of the analogy was that he was unwittingly carried away by events rather than
directly causing much of the damage to the FBI. His "500-year flood" just collided with the
500-page report of
the Justice Department inspector general (IG) Michael Horowitz.
The IG sinks Comey's narrative with a finding that he "deviated" from Justice Department
rules and acted in open insubordination.
Rather than portraying Comey as carried away by his
biblical flood, the report finds that he was the destructive force behind the controversy. The
import of the report can be summed up in Comeyesque terms as the distinction between flotsam
and jetsam. Comey portrayed the broken rules as mere flotsam, or debris that floats away after
a shipwreck. The IG report suggests that this was really a case of jetsam, or rules
intentionally tossed over the side by Comey to lighten his load. Comey's jetsam included rules
protecting the integrity and professionalism of his agency, as represented by his public
comments on the Clinton investigation.
The IG report concludes, "While we did not find that these decisions were the result of
political bias on Comey's part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and
dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of
the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice."
The report will leave many unsatisfied and undeterred. Comey went from a persona non grata
to a patron saint for many Clinton supporters. Comey, who has made millions of dollars with a
tell-all book portraying himself as the paragon of "ethical leadership," continues to maintain
that he would take precisely the same actions again.
Ironically, Comey, fired FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe , former FBI agent Peter Strzok and
others, by their actions, just made it more difficult for special counsel Robert Mueller to prosecute Trump for
obstruction. There is now a comprehensive conclusion by career investigators that Comey
violated core agency rules and undermined the integrity of the FBI. In other words, there was
ample reason to fire James Comey.
Had Trump fired Comey immediately upon taking office, there would be little question about
his conduct warranting such termination. Instead, Trump waited to fire him and proceeded to
make damaging statements about how the Russian investigation was on his mind at the time, as
well as telling Russian diplomats the day after that the firing took "pressure off" him.
Nevertheless, Mueller will have to acknowledge that there were solid, if not overwhelming,
grounds to fire Comey.
To use the Comey firing now in an obstruction case, Mueller will have to assume that the
firing of an "insubordinate" official was done for the wrong reason. Horowitz faced precisely
this same problem in his review and refused to make such assumptions about Comey and others.
The IG report found additional emails showing a political bias against Trump and again
featuring the relationship of Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page. In one exchange, Page
again sought reassurance from Strzok, who was a critical player in the investigations of both
Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump , that Trump
is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok responded, "No. No he won't.
We'll stop it."
The IG noted that some of these shocking emails occurred at that point in October 2016 when
the FBI was dragging its feet on the Clinton email investigation and Strzok was a critical
player in that investigation. The IG concluded that bias was reflected in that part of the
investigation with regard to Strzok and his role. Notably, the IG was in the same position as
Mueller: The IG admits that the Strzok-Page emails "potentially indicated or created the
appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations." This
includes the decision by Strzok to prioritize the Russian investigation over the Clinton
investigation. The IG states that "[w]e concluded that we did not have confidence that this
decision by Strzok was free from bias."
However, rather than assume motivations, the IG concluded that it could not "find
documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias,
directly affected the specific investigative decisions." Thus, there was bias reflected in the
statements of key investigatory figures like Strzok but there were also objective alternative
reasons for the actions taken by the FBI. That is precisely the argument of Trump on the Comey
firing. While he may have harbored animus toward Comey or made disconcerting statements, the
act of firing Comey can be justified on Comey's own misconduct as opposed to assumptions about
his motives.
Many of us who have criticized Comey in the past, including former Republican and Democratic
Justice Department officials, have not alleged a political bias. As noted by the IG report,
Comey's actions did not benefit the FBI or Justice Department but, rather, caused untold harm
to those institutions. The actions benefited Comey as he tried to lighten his load in heading
into a new administration. It was the same motive that led Comey to improperly remove FBI memos
and then leak information to the media after he was fired by Trump. It was jetsam thrown
overboard intentionally by Comey to save himself, not his agency.
The Horowitz report is characteristically balanced. It finds evidence of political bias
among key FBI officials against Trump and criticizes officials in giving the investigation of
Trump priority over the investigation of Clinton. However, it could not find conclusive
evidence that such political bias was the sole reason for the actions taken in the
investigation. The question is whether those supporting the inspector general in reaching such
conclusions would support the same approach by the special counsel when the subject is not
Comey but Trump.
Comey is simply two-legged pond scum. He did what he thought would preserve his privileged
position. No way a POS like him would go against the wishes of Barry, Loretta and Hillary.
The question I have is this: were those three acting in concert to beat Trump or did Barry
direct Jimmy to do in Hillary with that late-stage reopening of the inquiry? Barry would have
hated to have Hillary replace him, because - if she actually lived through it - she would
probably have reduced him to a minor historical footnote. His ego couldn't handle that. Heck,
I wouldn't even exclude the possibility that Bubba's meeting with Loretta, perhaps including
a phone call with Barry, was about keeping Hillary out of the White House. It might have
cramped Bubba's style, being first dude and all and under close scrutiny.
Although damning in many respects, the IG's report falls short in identifying prosecutable
actions on the part of FbI / DoJ officials... There may be some firings, but that's about
it...
Comey will get to skate with the $$$ from his book tour / Trump bashing tour, Stroczk
and Page sail off into the sunset and likely go to work for some Dim think tank, the rank and
file all go back to work thinking, phew, that one was close...
McCabe is going to be the
poster child that gets the stick, while at the same time the underlying bias in these two
agencies will continue unabated...
This report whitewashed the worst crimes.... The OIG reports recommendations and what they
chose to ignore is reminiscing of Comey's now infamous indictment and exoneration of Hillary Clinton from that 2016 press conference.
The FBI takes bribes from the media for secret insider information and used the media
connections for disinformation to twist the narrative for Clinton. Hundreds of interactions
with MSM, bribes being handed out. These jerks must feel their power to be the unnamed
sources, looks like they've dug their own grave. Literally hundreds of contacts, recorded
bribes and an extreme close relation with CNN and New York Times. This is the source of all
the disinformation, lies, rumors and destruction to our nation. The FBI is the enemy with
their unlawful alliance with communist and homosexuals in the media. I wonder how many FBI
agents are communist and homosexuals?
The key in all this is the political slush fund of over a $100 billion which everyone
ignores, the Clinton Foundation will make or break politicians for a corrupt elitist
communist agenda for the next generation. It's being protected from investigation because of
the previous crimes of Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and who knows how many others. The Clinton
Foundation was bribed by foreigners for access, favors and the plan to use the money to take
over the US government.
Uranium One is just one covert operation which ensnares all of these opportunist. The
Haitian relief money, remember Bush II sat right next to Clinton stating the reason or his
purpose was to prevent the Haitian money from being stolen. That was on national full
throated MSM. Are there murders connected to the Clinton Foundation? Considering
Congresswoman Wasserman Shultz most likely ordered an FBI agent to look into Seth Rich,
Pakistanis infiltrating the highest level of leadership, Iranian cocaine smuggling network
the FBI was prepared to take down stopped by Obama because it would interfere with the Iran
nuke deal. None of this is being added to the equation, incredible FBI and overall government
corruption.
It's worse than a swamp, it's an army aligned against us with no honor, decency or even
allegiance to this nation, only their gang, allegiance to an organization, a gang covering up
to continue to do the same. Each agency of the federal government is of this culture, the
break down in this country is apart of every aspect of the government.
Excellent piece, dexterously explaining the similarity between the IG's dilemma and
Mueller's shot at obstruction. If Mueller claims Trump obstructed, and must be prosecuted, Comey must be prosecuted.
Slow-walking an investigation resulting in no charges being filed despite clear evidence
of multiple crimes -- I would call THAT clear obstruction. McCabe and Comey have conspired to
try to dump this on Strzok. It would be funny if it weren't so despicable.
What can you expect from Comey, paid $7 million a year by HSBC, the bank that laundered
some $12 billion in narco trafficker (read CIA proxy) narcotic money? Lock him up in SuperMax
in a narrow cell next to jewboy Rosenstein.i
The thing is, Trump was his boss, and if he decided the Russia coup was a waste of FBI
time, he has every right to fire the head of the FBI, for continuing to waist time and money,
purposely trying to undermine the election.
Remember, this is before there was a special counsel, and if after a year of investigating
there's no there there, there sure as shit wasn't anything back then to investigate!
There is nothing illegal about the President telling Comey to knock it off, or else.
He should tell the press what they want to here. Of course the phony Russia scam played a
part in getting Comey fired, rightfully so. Then stand with his fist in the air shouting Fuck
the Prestitutes!
For a year now, they've been in a search for something, anything, to investigate.
He should fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller, TODAY, and watch their heads
explode!
There is an evil intent in all this, beyond the obvious.
Many believe WWG1WGA means, "Where we go one we go all".
A Ponzi always collapses the minute it stops growing, it's a 100% certainty. From the
start, ~100 years ago, the Oligarchs who gathered on Jekyll Island knew that their debt money
would grow right up to the day it suddenly collapsed, and planned it with all it's allure,
hooks, and traps, to consume everything, before that day, so that all would be in the same
boat when it collapses. They planned it to fail from the start. It's a mutual suicide Trap,
set up to consume the world, consolidate power, then collapse all the Nation's currencies in
one fail swoop!
For in a single hour such fabulous wealth has been destroyed!
They'll have their grand New World Order, and a knew single currency waiting in the wings,
to rescue the useful idiots from the disaster they've planned.
They'll attempt to number us all, track everything, and dictate how you buy and sell -
through them of course. But not just what you buy with, but what you buy, who you buy from,
how much you buy, and how much you will pay!
That is their plan. How far they'll get nobody knows. I suspect they'll fail miserably,
but the truth is, they're already a long way down this road.
It did not just impact perception. It factually altered the FBI protocol. Comey was high on power of co-running the deep state and subverting justice and the
Constitution. This is high treason, covering high crimes and attempting to unseat Trump at every
juncture.
The FBI isn't and you still think J.Edgar was an aberration ? The FBI is the swamps gamekeeper, nurturing the critters, weeding out the weak, until
only the foulest and strongest they can be unleashed on us. Take two red pills and report back in the morning.
Some reader are close: "It looks like Justice/FBI usurped the role of the vote by the electorate."
Notable quotes:
"... OK, so if Comey broke protocols and was insubordinate in the Clinton probe, then the "probe" and exoneration is bogus. She never really was investigated and cleared and It should be re-opened. Investigate and Prosecute Clinton for real. Make it a sting operation. Get wire tap and surveillance warrants for the entire DOJ, FBI, all courts and judges, heck the entire bureaucracy and all umpteen intelligence organizations, and all known Clinton associates. A dragnet for all the corruption and obstruction of justice by the deep state. Root out the corrupt Clinton crime organization once and for all. ..."
"... It looks like Justice/FBI usurped the role of the vote by the electorate. ..."
"... They live in a Matrix like false reality generated by the Fake media. ..."
"... The champagne is flowing -- they got off the hook. All of the FBI screwballs are probably well past the drunkard stage and well into the sleeping under the table and on park benches stage. ..."
"... This whole article is a one sided view of a complex situation. Nothing is mentioned about the OIG stating that Comey was insubordinate in disclosing that he is investigating Clinton, that too in a press conference. This is clearly against FBI policy and had the purpose of muddying up the race and giving Trump momentum. ..."
"... The government just got done investigating itself. It found after an exhaustive taxpayer funded audit that it made a few errors, but that it was generally well meaning. I mean, what did anyone really expect? ..."
"... These FBI weasels fell all over themselves to demonstrate fealty to te incoming Hillary Clinton administration and the Democratic National Committee's interests. If they hoped to get anywhere in the next 4-8 years they had to be clearly "friendly" to the people at the top. Then Trump won instead. Fuck!!! ..."
"... Carreer-minded weasels entrenched in the Washington Deep State will happily show support for whatever "winning side" comes along. Romney, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Obama, it doen't matter who wins to them so long as they consider you "friendly" to their ambitions. ..."
As we digest and unpack the DOJ Inspector General's 500-page report on the FBI's conduct during the
Hillary Clinton email
investigation
"
matter
," damning
quotes from the OIG's findings have begun to circulate, leaving many to wonder exactly how
Inspector General Michael Horowitz was able to conclude:
"
We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations,
including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed"
We're sorry, that just doesn't comport with reality whatsoever. And it
really
feels
like the OIG report may have had a different conclusion at some point. Just read IG Horowitz's own
assessment that "These texts are "
Indicative of a biased state of mind but even more
seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the Presidential candidate's
electoral prospects
."
Of course,
today's crown jewel
is a
previously undisclosed exchange
between Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page in which Page asks "
(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
to
which Strzok replies "
No. No he's not. We'll stop it.
"
Nevermind the fact that
the FBI Director, who used personal emails for work
purposes, tasked Strzok, who used personal emails for work purposes, to investigate Hillary
Clinton's use of personal emails for work purposes
. Of course, we know it goes far
deeper than that...
1) Don't believe anyone who claims Horowitz didn't find bias. He very carefully says that he
found no "documentary" evidence that bias produced "specific investigatory decisions." That's
different
2) It means he didn't catch anyone doing anything so dumb as writing down that they took a
specific step to aid a candidate. You know, like: "Let's give out this Combetta immunity deal so
nothing comes out that will derail Hillary for President."
3)
But he in fact finds bias everywhere. The examples are shocking and concerning, and he
devotes entire sections to them. And he very specifically says in the summary that they "cast a
cloud" on the entire "investigation's credibility." That's pretty damning.
4)
Meanwhile this same cast of characters who the IG has now found to have made a hash of
the Clinton investigation and who demonstrate such bias, seamlessly moved to the Trump
investigation. And we're supposed to think they got that one right?
5)
Also don't believe anyone who says this is just about Comey and his instances of
insubordination. (Though they are bad enough.) This is an indictment broadly of an FBI culture
that believes itself above the rules it imposes on others.
6)
People failing to adhere to their recusals (Kadzik/McCabe). Lynch hanging with Bill.
Staff helping Comey conceal details of presser from DOJ bosses. Use of personal email and
laptops. Leaks. Accepting gifts from media. Agent affairs/relationships.
7)
It also contains stunning examples of incompetence. Comey explains that he wasn't aware
the Weiner laptop was big deal because he didn't know Weiner was married to Abedin? Then they
sit on it a month, either cuz it fell through cracks (wow) or were more obsessed w/Trump
8) And I can still hear the echo of the howls from when Trump fired Comey. Still waiting
to hear the apologies now that this report has backstopped the Rosenstein memo and the obvious
grounds for dismissal.
So, let's review more of the exchanges which had no bearing on the "unbiased" report:
"
OIG discovered texts and instant messages
between employees on the
investigative team, on FBI devices,
expressing hostility toward then candidate Donald
Trump and statements of support for then candidate Hillary Clinton.
"
Viva le resistance!
In one shocking exchange between two unnamed FBI employees which we assume to be Strzok and
Page, "Attorney 1" asks "Attorney 2" "Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump
administration?" to which "Attorney 2" replied "
Hell no
," adding "
Viva le
resistance
."
Some of Strzok and Page's greatest hits:
August 16, 2015, Strzok: "
[Bernie Sanders is] an idiot like Trump.
Figure they
cancel each other out."
February 12, 2016, Page: "I'm no prude, but I'm really appalled by this. So you don't have to
go looking (in case you hadn't heard),
Trump called him the p-word.
The man has no dignity or class
.
[texted the FBI
agents having an extramarital affair]
He simply cannot be president.
February 12, 2016, Strzok:
"Oh, [Trump's] abysmal
. I keep hoping the charade
will end and people will just dump him. The problem, then, is Rubio will likely lose to Cruz. The
Republican party is in utter shambles. When was the last competitive ticket they offered?"
March 3, 2016, Page:
"God trump is a loathsome human.
"
March 3, 2016, Strzok: "Omg
[Trump's] an idiot.
March 3, 2016, Page:
"He's awful."
March 3, 2016, Strzok:
"God Hillary should win 100,000,000-0."
March 3, 2016, Page: "
Also did you hear [Trump] make a comment about the size of his
d*ck earlier?
This man cannot be president."
March 12, 2016: Page forwarded an article about a "far right" candidate in Texas, stating,
"[W]hat the f is wrong with people?" Strzok replied, "That Texas article is depressing as hell.
But answers how we could end up with President trump."
March 16, 2016, Page: "
I cannot believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious
candidate for president
."
June 11, 2016, Strzok: "They fully deserve to go, and demonstrate
the absolute bigoted
nonsense of Trump
."
July 18, 2016, Page: "...
Donald Trump is an enormous d*uche
."
July 19, 2016, Page: "Trump barely spoke, but the first thing out of his mouth was 'we're going
to win soooo big.
'The whole thing is like living in a bad dream
."
July 21, 2016, Strzok: "Trump is a disaster.
I have no idea how destabilizing his
Presidency would be
."
August 26, 2016, Strzok: "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart.
I could SMELL the
Trump support....
"
September 26, 2016, Page: Page sent an article to Strzok entitled, "
Why
Donald Trump Should Not Be President
," stating, "Did you read this? It's scathing. And
I'm scared."
October 19, 2016, Strzok: "I am riled up.
Trump is a fucking idiot
, is unable
to provide a coherent answer."
November 7, 2016, Strzok: Referencing an article entitled "
A victory by Mr. Trump
remains possible," Strzok stated, "OMG THIS IS F*CKING TERRIFYING."
November 13, 2016, Page: "I bought all the president's men.
Figure I needed to
brush up on watergate
."
Strzok also refers to having "unfinished business" and a need to "fix it"
-
while also admitting that "
there's no big there, there
" presumably regarding the
Trump-Russia investigation.
While there are
many
more damning revelations in the OIG report, one would
think that given the above, there was more than enough evidence to, at minimum, launch a special
counsel - especially when you consider the weak sauce used to justify Mueller's special counsel
probe.
FBI management in offices around the world will be having
their Friday poker and whiskey (this actually happens) and will lean
back and their chairs and say, "Give it a couple months, it'll blow
over," and back to business.
In fact, it's back to business right at this moment.
Let's just hope that in their brilliant incompetence, the DOJ
missed some real nuggets in those 500 pages. I'm hopeful (but
doubtful) that we we will find some more bombshells that will
prompt more outrage and uprising/waking of the sheep.
OK, so if Comey broke protocols and was insubordinate in the
Clinton probe, then the "probe" and exoneration is bogus. She
never really was investigated and cleared and It should be
re-opened. Investigate and Prosecute Clinton for real. Make it
a sting operation. Get wire tap and surveillance warrants for
the entire DOJ, FBI, all courts and judges, heck the entire
bureaucracy and all umpteen intelligence organizations, and all
known Clinton associates. A dragnet for all the corruption and
obstruction of justice by the deep state. Root out the corrupt
Clinton crime organization once and for all.
It looks like Justice/FBI usurped the role of the vote by
the electorate. I suggest the electorate go to DC and
usurp the role of Justice/FBI and vote on who to hang.
From the report...I'm going to pull a
ravolla-type spam ;-)
"Combetta was
interviewed subject to the terms of the immunity
agreement on May 3, 2016, by the same two FBI
case agents, this time in the presence of the
SSA, the CART examiner, all four line
prosecutors, and Combetta's attorneys. According
to the FD-302 and contemporaneous notes of the
two agents and the CART Examiner, Combetta
provided the FBI additional detail regarding his
removal of emails from the culling laptops,
stating that Mills had requested that he
"securely delete the .pst files" in November or
December 2014 but had not specifically requested
that he use "deletion software." He told the FBI
that he was the one who recommended the use of
"BleachBit" because he had used it for other
clients. He also acknowledged removing the HRC
Archive mailbox from the PRN server between
March 25, 2015, and March 31, 2015
,
and using BleachBit to "shred" any remaining
copies of Clinton's email on the server (Edit:
To include certain emails to Chelsea of all
people...lol...and the Egyptian Prime Minister
about yoga classes & wedding invitations that
happened the day before Sept 12 2012, no
doubt)...
...despite his awareness of
Congress's preservation order
and
his understanding that the order meant that "he
should not disturb Clinton's email data on the
PRN server."
So clearly no "obstruction"!
Addendum:
The May 22, 2015,
letter
from Under Secretary of State for Management
Patrick F. to Clinton attorney Kendall reads in
part:
I am writing in reference to the following
e-mail that is among the approximately 55,000
pages that were identified as potential
federal records and produced on behalf of
former Secretary Clinton to the Depatment of
State on
December 5, 2014: E-mail
forwarded by Jacob Sullivan to Secretary
Clinton on November 18, 2012 at 8:44 pm
(Subject: Fw: FYI- Report of arrests
-possible Benghazi connection).
Please be advised that today the above
referenced e-mail,
which previously
was unclassified
, has been
classified as "Secret" pursuant to Section
1.7(d) of Executive Order 13526 in connection
with a review and release under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA). In order to
safeguard and protect the classified
information, I ask – consistent with my
letter to you dated March 23 2015 – that you,
Secretary Clinton and others assisting her in
responding to congressional and related
inquiries coordinate in taking the steps set
forth below. A copy of the document as
redacted under the FOIA is attached to assist
you in your search.
****
Once you have made the electronic copy of
the documents for the Department, please
locate any electronic copies of the
above-referenced classified document in your
possession.
If you locate any
electronic copies, please delete them.
Additionally, once you have done that, please
empty your "Deleted Items" folder.
Because it just wouldn't do to have Hillary's
emails stating the obvious while Rice is out
saying something else so, we've classified it!
//////
Resuming...
"The agents asked Bentel about
allegations
by two S/ES-IRM staff members
that
they had raised concerns about Clinton's use of
personal email to him during separate meetings.
According
to the State IG report,
one of the staff
members told the State IG that Bentel told the
staff member that "the mission of S/ES-IRM is to
support the Secretary" and instructed the staff
member to "never speak of the Secretary's
personal email system again."94 .
According
to the FD-302 and agent notes,
the
agents showed Bentel documents that suggested
that he was aware that Clinton had a private
email server
that she used for official
business during their joint tenure. One of the
agents explained that the purpose of asking
Bentel about his knowledge of the server was to
assess whether Clinton's use of the server was
sanctioned by the State Department.
However,
Bentel maintained that he was unaware that
Clinton used personal email to conduct official
business until it was reported in the news and
denied that anyone had raised concerns about it
to him."
The staff are obviously lying Trumptards!
/////
"On April 9, 2016, Mills appeared with
Wilkinson for a voluntary interview concerning
Mills's tenure at State. According to a FBI
memorandum ("Mills Interview Memorandum"),
shortly before the interview
Strzok
advised the prosecutors
and Laufman
that the agent conducting the interview would be
making a statement at the start of the interview
"concerning the scope of [the] interview, the
FBI's view of the importance of the email
sorting process,
and the expectation of
a follow-up interview
once legal issues
had been resolved." Witnesses referred to this
statement as "the preamble."
Comey told the OIG that
he approved
of the preamble
but did not suggest it,
and McCabe stated that
he "authorized"
the
preamble. McCabe told us that he directed the
FBI team not to discuss the preamble with the
prosecutors before the day of the interview
because he was "concerned that if we raised
another issue with DOJ, we would spend another
two weeks arguing over the drafting of the
preamble to the interview, which I just was not
prepared to do."
The prosecutors told us that they
were surprised and upset because the preamble
was inconsistent with their prior
representations to Wilkinson and they believed
it was strategically ill-advised.
The
Mills Interview Memorandum states that the
prosecutors objected to the preamble but that
they were told that "the FBI's position was not
subject to further discussion." According to the
Mills Interview Memorandum, the interviewing
agents delivered the preamble at the outset of
the interview as planned. Witnesses told us...
Footnote 100:
Baker told us that he
had known Wilkinson for many years, and
documents show that she had previously reached
out to him in Midyear as part of a broad effort
to speak with senior Department and FBI
officials, up to and including Attorney General
Lynch. Lynch and other high level Department
officials told us that they did not speak with
Wilkinson during the course of the
investigation.
...that Wilkinson was visibly angered by the
preamble and that she and Mills stepped outside
the interview room after the agent delivered it.
The prosecutors stated that they convinced
Wilkinson and Mills to return for the remainder
of the scheduled interview concerning Mills's
tenure. However, according to Prosecutor 1,
Mills was "on edge the whole time."
Footnote 101: According to notes of the
interview, the prosecutors told Wilkinson that
they were
"sandbagged" by the FBI
and
that they did not know in advance about the
preamble. Additionally, according to the notes,
Wilkinson
informed the prosecutors of the call the
previous day from a "senior FBI official."
Baker or McCabe? I would say Baker, no wonder
she was blindsided & pissed, they'll screw
anyone & everyone over. Even "close confidantes"
at her (and the prosecutors) inferior levels,
just to muck up..."the process"
/////
Ah yes, here it is...
"Prosecutors and FBI agents told us that the
events surrounding the April 9 Mills interview,
including
both the preamble and Baker phone call
that
were planned without Department coordination,
caused significant strife and mistrust between
the line prosecutors and the FBI.
AAG Carlin told us that the prosecution team
asked him to call McCabe and "deliver a message
that this is just not an acceptable way to run
an investigation." Carlin told us that he
delivered this message to McCabe and also
briefed Lynch and Yates on the issues.
Witnesses told us that the strife between the
prosecutors and the FBI team culminated in a
contentious meeting
chaired by McCabe
a
few days later. On the Department side, this
meeting was attended by the line prosecutors,
Laufman, and Toscas. Prosecutor 2 told us that
during this meeting the prosecutors explained
that they were trying to be "careful" in their
handling of complicated issues, and that McCabe
responded that they should
"be careful
faster."
Laufman stated that McCabe's
comment "undervalued what we had been able to
accomplish to date investigatively through
negotiating consent agreements." According to
Laufman's notes, McCabe agreed that Baker's
unilateral contacts with Wilkinson should not
have happened, and Baker agreed not to have
further contact with Wilkinson. With respect to
the preamble, however, the prosecutors told us
that
McCabe stated that he would "do it
again."
"Be careful faster"...lol...I mean, what the
hell is the matter with you people! There's an
election on the line here and my wife Jill is on
the ballot
riding Hillary's
skirt while pocketing $675k from Hillary cronies
and...I would "do it again"...well, of course
you would.
/////
"On May 4, 2016, a few weeks before Mills and
Samuelson were voluntarily interviewed regarding
the culling process and a little over a month
before the FBI obtained the culling laptops,
Strzok and Page exchanged the following text
messages. The sender of each message is
identified after the timestamp.
8:40 p.m., Page: "And holy shit Cruz just
dropped out of the race. It's going to be a
Clinton Trump race. Unbelievable."
8:41 p.m., Strzok: "What?!?!??"
8:41 p.m., Page: "You heard that right my
friend."
8:41 p.m., Strzok: "I saw trump won, figured
it would be a bit."
8:41 p.m., Strzok: "Now the pressure really
starts to finish MYE "
8:42 p.m., Page: "It sure does. We need to
talk about follow up call tomorrow. We still
never have."
They ignored the political bias showing
us all the deep state is still in charge
Nothing will happen to hillary
They won't name the chosen scapegoats
thus showing us all the deep state is
running things
They doubled down on Trump and Jr with
an investigation into a charity they were
involved with and continue to ignore the
Clinton Foundation showing us all the deep
state's in charge
I hate to even say this, but reading and seeing
the self-righteous douchebags in DC who
sanctimoniously talk about the rule of law and
the interference in our system by Russian trolls
on the internet, I can not help but be struck by
what Comey, McCabe and Strzok have managed to do
by themselves. If there is no punishment for
these people, no punishment for Hillary
Clinton's gross malfeasance, then what
difference is there between Putin's regime and
our "Republic?" How is it that the law does not
apply to these people/
Hillary willfully
mishandled classified information. Seaman
Saucier did less, and spent a year in jail.
Hillary has done so much, so wrong for so long,
and gotten so wealthy through influence peddling
and payoffs she might as well be an oligarch -
in fact, she is a political oligarch. McCabe
lied under oath, and it is clear he and Comey
are covering for each other in their political
plot to see their padron elected. Comey wanted
to be AG, and McCabe Director. Hillary no doubt
promised them their dreams. Strzok likely would
move up into McCabe's job. So they obstructed
justice, but didn't write each other explicit
memos about it - and therefore there is no
case???? This is a cabal protecting their own,
just as they do in Russia and Syria and corrupt
South American banana republics.
If the trolls start calling for protest
rallies in the streets, they might get them.
This kind of blatant abuse of the system with no
consequences should get true Americans out in
the streets to protest. This is not about Trump.
This is about pure political corruption in law
enforcement and the Obama Administration.
Hilary writes "but my emails" about Comey -
as if. Hillary, STFU. You lost an election a
goddamn platypus could have won. Your utter
venality, your shrill self-righteousness, you
repugnant enabling of your pig husband... you
are personally responsible for Trump's election,
and you should be in jail. It feels as if the
Mueller investigation is another set up by your
boys to ensure the Administration is too
distracted to prosecute you.
The Fake News Liberal Media has everyone in that delusion. They live in a Matrix like false reality generated by the Fake media. All the magazines and papers follow the same editorial stance. It is a giant echo chamber. They are all zombies doing the bidding of the Deep state and elite interests.
Trump did just tweet after Singapore that enemy #1 is Fake News. Hopefully he will have action coming.
The champagne is flowing -- they got off the hook.
All of the FBI screwballs are probably well past the
drunkard stage and well into the sleeping under the
table and on park benches stage.
Any one in trouble for abusing information in any
way should keep all these proceedings handy for the
court hearing.
After all, if the vaunted FBI can get off the hook
for abusing national security information for sport,
why should anyone else get into trouble for less?
Any health professional who treats confidential
medical information for gossip or personal gain would
get fired, raked over the coals, and possibly
prosecuted.
But any smart defense lawyer can now refer to the
DoJ as the standard and precedent for dismissing the
charge of information abuse.
Any financial professional who treats confidential
financial information for gossip, or monetary gain for
him/her or his/her friends and associates would get
fired, raked over the coals, and possibly prosecuted.
But any smart defense lawyer can now refer to the
DoJ as the standard and precedent for dismissing the
charge of information abuse.
Any legal professional who treats confidential
legal information for gossip, jury and
evidence tampering, payoffs, bribes, etc., would get
fired, raked over the coals, and possibly prosecuted.
But any smart defense lawyer can now refer to the
DoJ as the standard and precedent for dismissing the
charge of information abuse.
Any professional or employee in any field has an
obligation to treat confidential information with
respect or at least according to protocol or face
being fired, raked over the coals, or possibly
prosecuted.
But thanks to the FBICIANSA psychos and
psychotic Swamp Dwellers anyone can now abuse
information of any kind and thank the DC Swamp for so
generously providing a precedent to get away with it.
Nothing will happen outside of McCabe and some low level losers.
This is a nightmare because if validates the use of the FBI/CIA/DIA,
etc. against the American people. I mean seriously, does anyone
think that a government agency which supported incinerating women
and children in Waco would actually go after their own vile souls?
That's exactly what needs to occur for the futile system of
Tyrannical Lawlessness & Political Police Surveillance State to
be accepted / instituted by State onto the Serfs.
The State
has to Gas Light the populace into thinking that even a sitting
President is "Guilty until proven innocent." And, if a
President is powerless against & can be removed by
a Totalitarian, Authoritarian, Tyrannical Lawless, Political
Police State, then anyone who poses a threat to said State can
be threatened, persecuted & or Eliminated.
President has to be set, that if a sitting President can be
taken down. Anyone can be taken, disappeared, droned,
Murdered, Tortured, Rendered & never seen from again.
The Slaves won't stand a chance.
Welcome to Serfdom.
This whole article is a one sided view of a complex situation. Nothing is
mentioned about the OIG stating that Comey was insubordinate in disclosing
that he is investigating Clinton, that too in a press conference. This is
clearly against FBI policy and had the purpose of muddying up the race and
giving Trump momentum.
These conspiracy theories are really the kind of
stuff that goes on in pakistan, middle east, north korea where they want to
blame everyone else but themselves for supporting the wrong people/clowns.
Life is complicated, learn to think thru issues and follow a chain of logic
thru multiple levels.
The government just got done investigating itself. It found after an
exhaustive taxpayer funded audit that it made a few errors, but that it was
generally well meaning.
I mean, what did anyone really expect?
Trump pulled a major political upset, defying all
the pre-election polls and predictions, and caught a lot of career-track
Federal employees completely off guard. Political contacts and friends
count a LOT when you work for a Federal cabinet-level organization and
hope to climb the career ladder to a high level position. They count
more than talent, devotion to Country, ethics, everything. That's how
it works.
These FBI weasels fell all over themselves to demonstrate
fealty to te incoming Hillary Clinton administration and the Democratic
National Committee's interests.
If they hoped to get anywhere in
the next 4-8 years they had to be clearly "friendly" to the people at
the top. Then Trump won instead. Fuck!!!
Carreer-minded weasels entrenched in the Washington Deep State will
happily show support for whatever "winning side" comes along. Romney,
McCain, Bush, Clinton, Obama, it doen't matter who wins to them so long
as they consider you "friendly" to their ambitions. Hell, they'd ardently support Hitler or Stalin if it would advance their
careers. No integrity whatsoever.
Whitewash.
Swamp wins again.
These cats haven't lost an hour of sleep worrying about consequences.
I say, oh well....games have new rules now. Do whatever it takes to get
ahead...and fuck em. Laws have no meaning anymore.
Oh no, I do believe Page is scared and Strzok is terrified, as they
predicted they would be. But like raccoons they just exist to fight and
kill you. They have to be criminally charged, and for that all that
matters is the evidence (in this version of the report and the more
secure ones) provided by the IG, not his carefully wordsmithed
conclusions.
So now we know Comey was really a drama queen and used private emails for
government business. (let that sink in) Now let's play along, the head of the
IRS did the same thing, the head of the EPA did the same thing and move on
down the line. Looks like more than a smidgen.
It's so ridiculous on its face (Trump inner circle guy hangs around
4-chan and then 8-chan to plant clues), that I suppose I can't blame
people for not wanting to admit how stupid they were for believing
it. Then again, it is that very "I won't admit I was wrong and I
believe anyone who supports my ideology" attitude that explains why
politician after politician gets away with literal murder.
The clues Q provides are interesting. Real time photos, etc.
Some of it involves the "Russia investigation", some about NK
stuff, some about other stuff. It's an interesting source of
news, like those photos.
For fucking starters, where is the criminal referrals for allowing Hillary to
smash her hard drives, wipe her server, and for not confiscating her server
and examining it?
Everyone knows Comey is not professional FBI nor an
investigator. He is a
political
appointee and he took the astounding
unprecedented step of taking the investigation away from professional
investigators in the field office to directly manage it and be fluffed in the
7th Floor Hoover Bldg.
Where's the scathing rebuke and criminal investigation into the obstruction
that ensued? That is not 'insubordination'.... that conspiracy.
IG's don't make criminal referrals. AG's and others do. That's why the
evidence Horowitz came up with, which we all see is damning, is
important. (Probably much better stuff in the LES and classified
parts.) His artfully worded conclusions, carefully stepping around
blaming anyone very much, don't matter.
Even WaPo sees this and isn't
downplaying the report or taking comfort in those conclusions.
Come to think of it, it's disappointing that apparently Horowitz didn't
follow the trails that led up to Obama. Maybe those were on private
servers, hence outside his scope. But not outside the scope of a criminal
investigation.
"
Also did you
hear [Trump] make a
comment about the
size of his d*ck
earlier?
This man
cannot be president.
"
Yet I guess it's OK
for you that the
Magic Negro
can make a video of
his erection while
flying on Air Force
One? That his
entourage is nothing
but a bacchanal of
drugs and a continuum
of sexual orgies and
illicit affairs
according to former
White House
stenographer Beck
Dorey-Stein's
upcoming memoir,
From
the Corner of the
Oval?
Lisa Page, you're
nothing but a
Hypocrite Ho!
"
Just went
to a southern
Virginia Walmart.
I could SMELL the
Trump support....
"
That's the smell
of hard working,
sweaty poorly paid
workers suffering
from illegal
immigration, the
forgotten American
people. You are just
like Marie Antoinette
and Hillary,
elitists who forgot
their roots and what
made this country.
"Comey explains that he wasn't aware the Weiner laptop was big deal because he didn't know Weiner was married to Abedin? "
Someone pointed out that this means that Comey believed Hillary's emails appeared on the computer of some random pervert, and didn't think twice about it. It's even more outrageous than the truth of the matter, that's how desperately this guy is lying.
Comey caught lying when he says he didn't know Weiner was married to
Abedin.
If this was true, why didn't he prosecute Weiner for owning a
laptop that had classified State Department emails on them? Weiner didn't
have any business having State Department emails.
Weiner and Abedin should have been charged for possessing these emails
but Comey's "investigation" found nothing new.
So, Strozk, what will you do to stop Trump from being POTUS?
Strzok also refers to having "unfinished business" and a need to "fix it"
What "unfinished business," Strzok? Tell us all here what sedition y'all
been plotting against POTUS. Amazing that this guy was
counter-intelligence (supposedly knowing that electronic communications are
all conveyed over an "uncovered wire.")
while also admitting that "
there's no big there, there
"
presumably regarding the Trump-Russia investigation. I have no doubt that
Strzok moved heaven and earth to find the "there there."
The OIG Report Drops Tomorrow On Trump's Birthday; Here's What To Expect
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/13/2018 - 19:05 205 SHARES
The highly anticipated OIG report from the Justice Department's internal watchdog will
hit tomorrow at 3pm EST , on President Trump's 72nd birthday. The 400-500 page document,
prepared by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, will specifically address the DOJ/FBI's conduct
surrounding the Hillary Clinton email investigation . It will not cover any of the FISA abuse /
surveillance on the Trump campaign - for which a separate OIG investigation was launched in
late March .
Here's what to look for:
Hillary Clinton's exoneration letter
In December, Congressional
investigators discovered that edits made to former FBI Director James Comey's statement
exonerating Hillary Clinton for transmitting classified info over an unsecured, private email
server went
far beyond what was previously known.
While Comey's original draft criminalized Clinton's behavior by using the term "gross
negligence" and other language supportive of criminal charges, the FBI's top brass passed the
draft around and neutered it. Instead of "grossly negligent," Clinton's conduct was
reclassified as "extremely careless" - a term which carries no legal significance.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to
"gross negligence": "What my client did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it
was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option but to recommend
prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
Involved in the edits were Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa
and DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson .
Immunity agreements
The FBI granted immunity in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and aide Heather
Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the
remaining 30,000 records to the State Department . Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence
on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over in the investigation.
The FBI also granted immunity to the guy who wiped Hillary's server with "BleachBit" , P
aul Combetta .
For those who "do not recall" the specific timeline leading up to Combetta wiping Hillary's
server,
here is a breif recap :
December 2014 / January 2015 – "Undisclosed Clinton staff member" instructs Combetta
to remove archives of Clinton emails from PRN server but he forgets.
March 4, 2015 – Hillary receives subpoena from House Select Committee on Benghazi
instructing her to preserve and deliver all emails from her personal servers.
March 25, 2015 – Combetta has a conference call with "President Clinton's
Staff."
March 25 – 31, 2015 – Combetta has "oh shit" moment and realizes he forgot to
wipe Hillary's email archive from the PRN server back in December which he promptly does
using BleachBit.
February 18, 2016 - Combetta meets with FBI and denies knowing about the existense of the
subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi at the time he wiped Hillary's
server.
May 3, 2016 - Combetta has follow-up meeting with the FBI and admits that he "was aware of
the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb
Clinton's e-mail data on the PRN server."
McCabe's conflicts of interest
While an earlier IG report which led to former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's firing
focused on McCabe leaking self-serving information to the press and then lying about it (four
times), this portion of the IG report will focus on " [a]llegations that the FBI Deputy
Director should have been recused from participating in certain investigative matters," after
his, Jill McCabe, accepted $675,000 from "groups aligned with Clinton and McAuliffe" during her
unsuccessful Senate bid - which constituted nearly 40% of the campaign's total
funds.
In addition to discussing whether McCabe should have recused from the investigation,
Horowitz's report will likely discuss the FBI's ethics office
decision that recusal was not required, and the FBI's
creation of "talking points" to counter complaints about McCabe's participation in the
Clinton probe. -
The Federalist
Comey's higher loyalties
The report will also focus on Comey's conduct during the investigation - as IG Horowitz
outlined "Allegations that Department or FBI policies or procedures were not followed in
connection with, or in actions leading up to or related to, the FBI Director's public
announcement on July 5, 2016, and the Director's letters to Congress on October 28 and November
6, 2016, and that certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper
considerations ."
Also under investigation will be the FBI's decision to reopen the Clinton email
investigation on October 28, 2016 after additional emails were found on the laptop of Clinton's
top aide, Anthony Weiner - who is currently in prison for sex crimes involving a minor. After a
very fast review , Comey told Congress on November 6, 2016 that the FBI's assessment that
Clinton should not be charged had not changed.
"I think the report of Horowitz, the [inspector general], and the Justice Department will
confirm that Comey acted improperly with regard to the Hillary Clinton investigation," Trump's
lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently told New York radio host John Catsimatidis.
"Comey, really, has a chance of being prosecuted as a result of [this report], but we'll
see," Giuliani said.
Criminal prosecution?
While the IG has already issued a criminal referral for Andrew McCabe based on the earlier
report, tomorrow's release will similarly shed light on others who may receive (or have already
received) criminal referrals.
Anyone within the senior ranks of the FBI who was involved with the Clinton email
investigation is at risk - including James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap,
Jonathan Moffa, Peter Kadzik and DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson .
A tipoff?
The OIG investigation will also cover "[a]llegations that the Department's Assistant
Attorney General for Legislative Affairs improperly disclosed non-public information to the
Clinton campaign and/or should have been recused from participating in certain matters."
In particular, the report will look at former Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik 's
role in the investigation and whether he " tipped off Clinton presidential campaign chairman
John Podesta about two issues: an upcoming hearing where a Justice Department official would be
asked about the Clinton emails, and the timing of the release of some Clinton emails"
Notably, Kadzik "previously worked for Podesta as an attorney."
That weird FBI twitter account
The OIG will also look at " [a]llegations that decisions regarding the timing of the FBI's
release of certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents on October 30 and November 1,
2016, and the use of a Twitter account to publicize same, were influenced by improper
considerations ."
This is related to a series of tweets issued by the largely dormant @FBIRecordsVault account
which began one day after Comey reopened the Clinton email investigation. On October 30 at 4
a.m., the account released a series of documents - including information on the Clinton
Foundation, and President Clinton's controversial pardon of Marc Rich, along with several other
notable files.
Two days before the Clinton Foundation tweet, the @FBIRecordsVault account tweeted records
of Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump, which referred to him as a philanthropist.
At the time, the FBI said that the timing reflected " standard procedure for FOIA " in
which records that requested three or more times are released publicly and processed on a "
first in, first out " basis.
Rod Rosenstein should be fired immediately after this report comes out.
There's no excuse for a government employee like Rosenstein to be illegally stonewalling
Congress's request for documents. Rosenstein is covering up the fact that it was Obama who
ordered FBI informants to spy on the Trump campaign!
I see nothing damning in any of these details... Nothing that the guilty won't be able to
explain away... There will be at least one fall guy and my bet it will be either McCabe or
Stroczk... Everyone else will walk, same as it always was...
Immunity deals are vacated if the person granted immunity is later found to have lied, or
found to have willfully omitted relevant information in their affidavits.
I expect the report to be heavily redacted, I expect it to be "for national security
reasons" I expect it to be un-redacted about a week or 2 later, I expect when comparisons of
the redacted to the less redacted ones is done we will again see the mass abuse of the use of
"for National security" reason and I expect this Muller's sudo investigation to come to a
close. I hope for indictments and arrest of ex-heads of the Intel agencies for treason. I
hope for Clinton to be in chains and many others. I want the people involved with the Iranian
deal (never signed) to also face criminal charges as it looks like it was a drug money
laundering operation. Watch this for some info on that https://youtu.be/Rri-Ngj8QoE
Preistap rolled without a doubt, Page got caught red handed conspiring to commit a crime
by having the FISA judge just happen to be at a cocktail party. She rolled, she is a woman
and it's in their natural to save themselves.
Every week the Kabuki theater has a new Act. I can remember when "Release the Memo" was
going to tell all and all the bad guys were going to prison and Trump would put on a big
white hat and all would be right in the world.
Well, that came and went.....what changed?.........crickets........that's right nothing!
The only thing that ever changes are the costumes....cause the players are all the same.
Every time we turn around there is a new villain out to get Trump.....but then there is
documentation to prove they were out to get Trump.....and the documentation shows they broke
the law trying to get Trump.....then there are Congressional subpoenas.....Congressional
hearings......George Soros is funding something....to get Trump.....all the people that work
for Trump....are hired by Trump.....are out to get Trump or obstruct him from doing his job
for the American people.....Trump can't fire them.....So Trump tweets out to the American
people as if we can solve his problems for him. And on and on and on it goes.......BUT
NOTHING CHANGES.
Brexit? Yeah I remember that. The British people should be happy they let them
vote....cause that is all they are going to get......NOTHING CHANGES.
Immunity deals are vacated if the person granted immunity is later found to have lied, or
found to have willfully omitted relevant information in their affidavits.
Well God only knows if what was written on the 302's has any resemblance to any reality at
all. Frankly at this point I am not sure if that increases or decreases their chances of
being shown to have lied in order to get immunity.
When the info is released [RR] no more.
When the info is released no more Russia investigation.
It will factually conclude the corrupt nature by which the entire false narrative was created
all to 1) prevent the election of POTUS 2) delay/shelter/mask/hide all illegal activities by
Hussein/others during past 8 years.
DOJ/FBI cleanse vital as primary.
Huber coming.
These people HATE America.
FBI granting immunity for Absolutely nothing in return = free ticket.
sooo much more. Internal conflicts galore. Closed loop CYA INSIDER destruction of evidence
all over the place. Their job is to preserve not destroy evidence.
As I pointed out in my last comment on the previous Korea thread, only the UNSC sanctions
are legal--Outlaw US Empire sanctions have no legal force outside its borders and can be freely
ignored. It's entirely possible Russia will use its position as UNSC President this month to
introduce a resolution canceling or greatly scaling back UNSC sanctions.
That almost the entire Imperial Establishment has given the Finger to the entire affair
isn't being ignored by the rest of the world, the EU in particular.
Although short, the Global Times link I provided has useful information as does the
Black Agenda Report item I linked to in my comment previous to my last on that
thread.
I very much approve of b's linking what was just accomplished with the NPT and hope other
writers pick it up and help further broadcast his very important point.
As for 100% denuclearization of Korea, lots of nuclear power plants will need to be replaced
and decommissioned, and that will likely take several decades to attain.
One can hope that an historical movement's begun to finally decolonize those nations
occupied by the Outlaw US Empire upon WW2's end. Admittedly, the Asian nations will find such a
process much easier than those in Europe. I doubt I'll live to see it, but somehow I can't find
any reason for Germany to continue being occupied in 2045, a full century after the end of WW2.
But if Germany is to become free, it cannot afford any more Merkels.
During their push to turn public opinion against Mueller, Trump's lawyers, led by Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani, have engaged
in selective leaking, including back in early May when they leaked
a list of 49 questions
purportedly turned. As one lawyer who spoke with Bloomberg pointed out, the ongoing negotiations have turned into "a bit of a
game." Others have claimed that the leak
was intended to pressure Mueller into killing the interview (of course, we all know how that turned out).
"It's a little bit of a game," said Harry Sandick, a former federal prosecutor who's now a partner with law firm Patterson
Belknap Webb & Tyler. "Mueller could subpoena the president but probably doesn't want to. He faces some litigation risk. Trump
could fight the subpoena, but he also faces a political risk."
The interview is key to Mueller's investigation into whether Trump or any of his associates helped Russia interfere in the
2016 U.S. election and whether Trump acted to obstruct the probe, one official said.
Meanwhile, Giuliani claimed late last month that he and Trump have
already been rehearsing for an in-person interview with Mueller after the special counsel summarily rejected the Trump legal
team's request to conduct some of the interview in a written format.
However, since FBI agents raided Trump attorney Michael Cohen's home, office and hotel room and are reportedly preparing to charge
him with a crime, the president has grown increasingly wary of an interview.
One problem for Trump, though, is that if Mueller wins at the Supreme Court, he could compel Trump to sit for a Grand Jury for
as long as he wants, and subject Trump to questions on a range of topics without providing any advanced warning.
"I think the Supreme Court will rule in Mueller's favor, but we don't really know," Sandick said. "If Mueller wins, he can
actually put Trump in the grand jury without his lawyer for as long as he wants and ask about any subject he wants."
Furthermore, if Trump chooses the court battle route, Mueller's probe would encounter further delays, as the ruling likely wouldn't
arrive until October at the earliest, after the Court returns from its summer recess. That would mean the investigation likely wouldn't
wrap up until late this year - or early next year - at the very earliest. It also would open the Republican Party up to a high degree
of political risk, because the Court's final ruling could arrive just before the midterms.
But since the beginning of the probe, the biggest obstacle to a direct interview is Trump. The president's legal team came within
a hair's breadth of an agreement back in January. But as Trump got cold feet, his team sent Mueller a 20-page letter arguing that
Trump isn't entitled to answer Mueller's questions as they invoked Trump's executive privilege.
Regardless of whether the interview happens, Mueller has told Trump's team that he will prepare a report summarizing his findings
that will be turned over to the DOJ and, eventually, Congress. Then it will be up to Congress whether to release the report.
That will ultimately depend on the outcome of the midterm vote.
This is becoming the biggest shit show in the US. There is no evidence of Russian collusion at all Mueller has nothing. There's
nothing to find but it drags on and wastes tax payer dollars.
You can't impeach a President for performing his duties as set out in the Constitution. Firing Comey was perfectly legitimate,
especially now that the facts are coming out that the FBI needs to be completely purged from top to bottom.
Mueller needs to pack his bags and conclude this sucker and admit there was never anything to find, either that or arrest Hillary
for the actual collusion with Russians plus go after her for the hacked email server.
Watched an interview with Rudy tonight. He started going after Weismann and the other corrupt thugs Mueller hired. Always a
plan within and it was tailored for IG report today...I expect Trump to crank it up on this obvious Deep State axis of hitmen
populating DOJ and FBI...Rosenstein was getting pummeled today as well....
In politics, as in professional wrestling, it's always important to have a heel.
Trump understands this.
Hillary was the perfect heel in 2016.
>The lack of a single heel in 2018 was always going to be a challenge for him, but media/Mueller etc are doing an incredible
job of filling that role.
When the media is controlled by people responsible for false flag operation chances to use investigation to
discredit this false flag operation, no matter how many evidence they have is close to zero
In other word false flag operation is perfect weapon for the "sole superpower" and due to this status entail very little
risks.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. ..."
"... Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful. ..."
"... The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime. ..."
"... The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. ..."
"... Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA. ..."
"... The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. ..."
False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries. It was considered to be a legitimate ploy
by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to
an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation
just before launching an attack. In the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain,
France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was
considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one
reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.
Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and
non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if
the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as
their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been
a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of
other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports
that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major
corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look
like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable
speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016
national elections in the United States.
False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major
alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald
Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations
carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time.
The most recent reported attack on April 7th might not have occurred at all
according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels
succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the
attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.
The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to
avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the
evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring
instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation
of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will
apologize for having committed a war crime.
The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and
his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4th. Russia had no credible
motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations
made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely"
Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical
weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful
enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared
to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in
London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included
the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe
that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion
suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the
CIA.
The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like
it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit
of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate
and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.
Famous story in the FBI. Young Special Agent selected to drive Mr Hoover
from the office to the airport. As the SA opens the door for the Director
he overhears a fragment of the Director and SAC's farewell conversation...
".............I am very angry about too many Left turns in this country".
Later in the day, "standing tall" in front of the SAC's desk he explains
why a normal 45 minute drive turned into a 3 hour fiasco. Not wishing to anger
the Director any further he explained, he plotted a course to the airport which involved only "Right" turns.
Famous story in the FBI. Young Special Agent selected to drive Mr Hoover
from the office to the airport. As the SA opens the door for the Director
he overhears a fragment of the Director and SAC's farewell conversation...
".............I am very angry about too many Left turns in this country".
Later in the day, "standing tall" in front of the SAC's desk he explains
why a normal 45 minute drive turned into a 3 hour fiasco. Not wishing to anger
the Director any further he explained, he plotted a course to the airport which involved only "Right" turns.
Oh it's way more than that.
That is the kind of language Oliver Wendell Holmes would have used back in the
day. It also brings to mind Samuel Clemens. This is a very sharp team indeed.
Mule-er basically drew to an inside straight, and got busted. The Russkies
called his bluff, and his hand is 7-8-10-Jack-four. Sorry, Ereberto,
no nine, just a "nein." Discovery is a bitch! I suspect that further
developments are going to be highly entertaining. Judge: "can we see your
evidence of wrongdoing." Mule-er: "That's highly classified."
In its earliest English uses, "pettifogger" was two separate words: "pettie
fogger." "Pettie" was a variant spelling of "petty," a reasonable inclusion in
a word for someone who is disreputable and small-minded.
Who would have believed decent Americans would ever applaud Russians
kicking the shit out of federal law enforcement? Do I hear "The World
Turned Upside Down" in the distance? Should Mueller change his name
to Cornwallis?
How about "corrupt" shill? Remember, Mueller headed the FBI before and
after the 9/11 attacks. Did Mueller's FBI investigate? No; they covered up
for 9/11 perpetrators. Thanks a lot Mueller.
If I were the judge, I would refuse any motion Mueller makes to avoid
releasing evidence, and if he doesn't do it within a matter of hours, his
entire staff would be getting perp walked for contempt. Let Mueller manage
his investigation from a prison cell, like some drug kingpin.
The US government has already wasted $200 million on this stupid "pettifoggery".
Some one, any one, put an end to this ridiculous dog and pony show.
Mueller, and the Justice Dept. are now the laughing stock of the world. We
need to save a little face, and have this SOB shot for the good of the
nation. This Prick doesn't give two shits for the American people, or the
nation that he is paid to serve.
These guys were likely just pushing click-bait on Facebook. And since it is
election season, it is easy for them to riff off the candidates.
Mueller
giving it any legitimacy shows he is either out of touch with how the internet
works or has his own special case of Trump derangement syndrome.
Accuse others for which you are guilty is in the dnc handbook. The only
illegal activity involved the DNC, team Hillary, and operatives in the FBI,
CIA, DOJ, and the IRS.
This indictment is a total fujkin joke. In Mueller's world he can charge
you with a crime but refuse to show the evidence. Proves that he has no
interest in serving justice. His goals are to defame and bankrupt enemies
of the deep swamp.
When the truth comes out and i was Russian company or individual affected
by this assholes i would sue US for lost business and for defamation and
demand reparations and let THe black Jesus and Clinton Killer Gang and
their lackies pay for it.
Yes, very good links but, this is different in my opinion.
Mueller attempted to bring a criminal
domestic
case
against
international
personas that he is now
unwilling to go through the
discovery process with
(his claim) because of...wait for it...national security.
He never intended or wanted for
this case
to go to trial (but he had to show "something" for
his efforts) it is malpractice (at the American bar level)
and he knew it when he filed it.
When a prosecutor files charges against anyone (here) he
is in essence saying
"We have the evidence to
prosecute your honor and we are going to show it to you."
now he is saying he can't or will not produce that evidence
in the venue he chose to prosecute in.
Probably because he (and his crack Hillary lawyers)
didn't do the homework required until after filing charges
(idiot
fucktard that he and they are...lol)
as Concord's
new CEO is none other than one Dimitry Utkin, founder of the
Wagner Group, a Rodnover, for whatever thats worth ;-)
It's not just embarrassing it's criminal. He wants unlimited scope to
find "something". He indicts Russians knowing they won't show up for
court or so he thought and now he wants to limit the evidence because
he has no hand. Don't interfere with your enemy when he's mucking it
up. Mueller is going to be indicted for all of this, Uranium One
being the least of his problems. If Mr. Mueller wants to question me
the first thing I say is how much money did you give Whitey Bulger?
Muller got caught, tried to make headlines with Real Russians thinking they
would not show up and one did he is now in a PANIC - Muller needs to
produce the evidence or shut up and go away with his band of 13 anti Trump
staff.
"The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to
be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media
in order to sow discord among American voters."
Cough cough, none of that is illegal, 1st Amendment, even for
Russians
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a
Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election,
according to
Bloomberg .
Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the
delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of
three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing
propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social
media in order to sow discord among American voters .
The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into
the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's
active "interference operations" against the United States.
"The substance of the government's evidence identifies uncharged individuals and entities
that the government believes are continuing to engage in interference operations like those
charged in the present indictment," prosecutors wrote.
Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates,
which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus
undermining ongoing and future national security operations ," according to the filing.
The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with
crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and
co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors wrote. -
Bloomberg
Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with
the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
And Concord Management decided to fight it...
As
Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was
perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would
appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have
obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for
interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the
Mueller Switch Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges.
In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith
firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting . Josh
Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here
. -
Powerline Blog
Politico' s Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, " Concord could force
prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled as well as evidence that
might undermine the prosecution's theories ."
In a mad scramble to put the brakes on the case, Mueller's team tried to delay the trial -
saying that Concord never formally accepted the court summons related to the case , wrapping
themselves in a "cloud of confusion" as Powerline puts it. "Until the Court has an opportunity
to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial
appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea
entertained."
The Judge, Dabney Friedrich - a Trump appointee, didn't buy it - denying Mueller a delay in
the high-profile trial.
The Russians hit back - filing a
response to let the court know that " [Concord] voluntarily appeared through counsel as
provided for in [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], and further intends to enter a plea
of not guilty . [Concord] has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the
summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel's motion is pettifoggery. "
And the Judge agreed ...
A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller's request to delay the first
court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens
with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the
2016 U.S. presidential election.
In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no
explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the
scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms
charged in the case . -
Politico
In other words, Mueller was denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, forcing
him to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment , potentially jeopardizing the
PR aspect of the entire "Trump collusion" probe.
And now Mueller is pointing to Russian "interference operations" in a last-ditch effort
.
Of note, Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a major hand grenade in the
"pro-Trump" Russian meddling narrative in February when he fired off a series of tweets the day
of the Russian indictments. Most notably, Goldman pointed out that the majority of advertising
purchased by Russians on Facebook occurred after the election, were hardly pro-Trump, and they
was designed to "sow discord and divide Americans", something which Americans have been quite
adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed decided to unleash a record class, wealth,
income divide by keeping capital markets artificially afloat at any cost.
The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists
online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American
voters .
...
"knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social
media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.
Wait a minute, hold on - what exactly is the 'crime' here? Facebook ads that said Clinton
sucks? That's a crime now? I'm missing something obviously - I just don't know what. Anyone
willing and able to shed light on the crime alleged here?
How about CNN and NYT absolutely slanted and biased coverage? [And no - 'the press' in the
1st Amendment meant and means still the written word, not news corporations].
So far as I know "meddling" isn't a crime outside of Scooby Doo cartoons and MSNBC
I believe that Mueller is, rightly, being told to "Put up or shut up"? The discovery phase
should be very interesting and the only way to avoid that is to drop the charges, which will
indeed completely destroy Mueller's PR strategy. And with it, what remains of his
credibility...
I can picture Mueller sitting at the poker table with a huge stack. As he looks over his
hand, with a sly look on his face and a wink, he goes all in. Surprise suprise, they call his
bet. Now we wait for the reveal except that Bobby is screaming, wait, no fair, it was an
accident, I didn't mean to go all in. Turn those machines back on! The dealer then looks him
dead in the eye and says "Tough shit" as he turns over Mueller's losing hand.
mueller, you are so screwed. so supremely and royally screwed. now your investigation is
coming to a crashing halt without POTUS having to step in. all that was ever needed is
transparency. and now the good guys will have the IG report, Session's investigation, the
declassification of spy-gate materials and discovery from your Keystone cop operation all at
once.
best timeline ever.
take it from janus, extracting a troll from the interwebs and thinking you can crush him
IRL ALWAYS blows up in your face.
the only way you can win the game is with the deck stacked like a tower in your favor and
warping the rules to effect a desired outcome. tptb, you are up against superior people with
superior minds animated by an indomitable will. devastating defeat is inevitable.
That is part of the defense's argument. Many are asking "what is the actual crime" being
charged. Mueller charged them with campaign finance violations and failing to register as a
foreign agent. These crimes have a high burden of proof in that they require the state to
prove that the defendant knowingly broke the laws. No foreign corporation has ever been
charged with these crimes before. And the defense argues that there is nothing in the
indictment to show that they knew they were breaking these laws - hence no way to prove the
case against them. They also raise the 1st Amendment as defense saying political speech is
protected.
Did/do these companies have any other function besides buying $500 worth of "I Like Trump"
ads like selling something? So only Americans can have free speech in America, unless you
identify you and your coworkers as foreign free speech speaker-people? It sounds too tricky.
Only a progressive could figure out the legalities involved, as they are the free speech
professionals. The rest of us must get permission first, and then it will only be grafted IF
we say things that are officially approved by the free speech Nazi party.
Just think if these Ruskies could have voted! It would have been 30-40 more Trump votes
and he would have really really won bigly.
Can't Mueller be prosecuted himself if he knows there is no collusion or whatever... No
Russian anything, yet he continues to steal tax payer monies to fabricate false leads? He has
no incentive to be honest or to limit the investigation and if having the case remain open
benefits his party affiliates and he himself financially. If I got hired to do a one day job
and lied to make it a one year job, wouldn't that be theft of services?? The cuss must show
or he must go!
Soros and his band of colluding commodities fund managers have done more damage in the
world than any communist, socialist, or American exceptionalist. These soulless pathological
misers' need to accumulate endless wealth leads to their trampling the rules and laws of free
nations, bought off by their ownership of the regulatory apparatus.
I speak from first hand knowledge. This is no fantasy. What IS a fantasy is that it is any
religion or group ("the Rothschilds," "the Joos") who are behind this clique. It is the heads
of the largest funds and money managers who work together like sharks on the body politic.
Some are Jews, but far more are not. Greed knows no religion, no country, no creed or
color.
Bill and Hillary are at the vanguard of this group. Bill's administration did more to abet
the metastatisis of this group than any other. Hillary tried to cash the IOU but failed
because of her transparent venality, and Trump's appeal.
But, Trump isn't a pimple on their ass. He will come and go, and they will still be with
us. They co-opt useful idiots like Comey and McCabe, and will laugh as their heads, most
deservedly roll. But until the corrupt financial complex is brought to justice, nothing will
change.
See my comment above. I have personal, first hand knowledge of how the "money changers"
work, and how they control the regulatory and legal apparatus.
Your hatred at Jews is misdirected, my friend. They are a small part of it. Slightly
over-represented, but not with their hands on the ultimate levers of power. Those are good
old world Christians in vast majority.
But, you want to go on believing that a small majority which controls all the money and
power in the world would allow their people to be the most persecuted in history, to be
exiled to a tiny, endangered strip of desert, would allow their leadership to be high-profile
and obvious like Soros, go ahead. Be delusional.
The Jews in the inner sanctum are along for the ride, not at the wheel.
I guess the "Deep State" is deeper than the White House is reporting.....
Jared Kushner didn't disclose his business ties with George Soros, Peter Thiel, and
Goldman Sachs, or that he owes $1 billion in loans, The Wall Street Journal reported on
Tuesday.
The top White House adviser and son-in-law of Trump failed to identify his part ownership
of Cadre, a real-estate startup he founded, which links him to the Goldman Sachs Group and
the mega-investors George Soros and Peter Thiel, sources told The Journal.
The real reason for which 'information apocalypse' terrifies the mainstream mediaIn short: because they are rapidly losing the propaganda monopoly by system failure
No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't find a source to inform me about the exact origin
(who and when) of the term 'fake news'. Generally, the term became mainstream during the last
years, and especially after some shocking events for the Western neoliberal establishment, like
Trump's presidency and Brexit.
Very briefly, it appears that the term was suspiciously invented by the neoliberal apparatus
to discredit people who supported such events, through social media and other Internet
platforms completely independent from the mainstream media control. Of course, one can easily
discredit this perception as 'conspiracy theory' or even 'fake news', as well.
While it's true that there has been a lot of hyperbole, misinformation and hard propaganda
circulated inside the cyberspace, it seems that the 'fake news' term was expanded somehow to
include even opinions and positions outside the dominant neoliberal orthodoxy expressed by the
political center in the West.
What's perhaps most interesting in the whole story, is that the term 'fake news' eventually
backfired against the establishment, as it was immediately adopted by the political 'extremes'
outside the neoliberal center, to include the misinformation and the smearing campaigns by the
mainstream media against those who didn't comply with the neoliberal narratives. Mainstream
media propaganda is what brought us numerous wars and plenty of disaster in previous decades,
after all.
numerous wars and plenty of disaster in previous decades, after all.
Now, a
relatively new technology with its origins in the beginning of the previous decade,
seems that it spreads a sort of panic among the mainstream media, often described as
'information apocalypse'.
What is new is the democratisation of
advanced IT, the fact that anyone with a computer can now engage in the weaponisation of
information. 2016 was the year we woke up to the power of fake news, with internet
conspiracy theories and lies used to bolster the case for both Brexit and Donald Trump. We
may, however, look back on it as a kind of phoney war, when photoshopping and video
manipulation were still easily detectable. That window is closing fast. A program developed
at Stanford University allows users to convincingly put words into politicians' mouths.
Celebrities can be inserted into porn videos. Quite soon it will be all but impossible for
ordinary people to tell what's real and what's not. What will the effects of this be? When a public figure claims the racist or sexist audio of
them is simply fake, will we believe them? How will political campaigns work when millions
of voters have the power to engage in dirty tricks? What about health messages on the
dangers of diesel or the safety of vaccines? Will vested interests or conspiracy theorists
attempt to manipulate them? Unable to trust what they see or hear, will people retreat into
lives of non-engagement, ceding the public sphere to the already powerful or the
unscrupulous? The potential for an "information apocalypse" is beginning to be taken seriously. The
problem is we have no idea what a world in which all words and images are suspect will look
like, so it's hard to come up with solutions. Perhaps not very much will change –
perhaps we will develop a sixth sense for bullshit and propaganda, in the same way that it
has become easy to distinguish sales calls from genuine inquiries, and scam emails with
fake bank logos from the real thing. But there's no guarantee we'll be able to defend
ourselves from the onslaught, and society could start to change in unpredictable ways as a
result.
The perspective described here is indeed frightening. Yet, what's really impressive in this
article and in other similar articles by the big media on the Internet, is that there is a type
of information elitism, implying that there is a media priesthood, which has the copyright of
Truth. You can tell that by the fact that the article completely ignores the possibility that
this technology could be used by the mainstream media too, to manipulate the public.
Inside this increasingly artificial reality, is there really anyone today who holds the keys of
the 'ultimate' truth? I don't think so.
So, this bizarre panic around the mainstream media about this new, and indeed frightening
technology, is not coming from their concern that you will be heavily misinformed. It's coming
from the fact that they want the monopoly to misinform you. Because they know that after
decades of lies and propaganda being upgraded to a literally scientific level, their
credibility today has reached a record low.
Celebrities can be inserted into porn videos by anyone. I don't like it. I don't think is
right.
Personalities should be protected and perhaps we need a new legislation code to achieve
that.
But what about the mainstream media pundits who will use this frightening technology to grab
the consent of the masses for another devastating war with millions of dead?
Marine Le Pen says Putin is liberating Europe, and she's right. Le Pen, says she sees signs of what in her opinion is the beginning
of Europe's liberation. Soaring popularity of right-of-center forces in several European nations, coupled with Putin's meeting with
Austrian Chancellor Kurz during his visit to Vienna. "The world today is making a choice different from that made over the past 30
years. It is going to be a genuine peaceful and democratic revolution, a turn away from savage globalization, universal free exchange
and immigration. It will be a turn towards protection," she stated. "Italy, Hungary, Austria - we are witnesses to the beginning
of the liberation of Europe!" In her opinion, in Europe there should be no place for supra-national entities whose decisions would
outweigh those made by national governments.
Five-Star party supporters gather for a rally in Piazza del Popolo two days before the March 4 elections in downtown Rome. Italian
voters delivered a shock to Europe not felt since the UK's Brexit vote in June 2016. Two populist parties came out on top: The NATO/EU-skeptic
Five-Star Movement took home over 32 percent, of the vote while the right-wing Lega party garnered a surprising 17 percent. The fact
that both parties have called for better relations with Russia led immediately to the seemingly inevitable accusation that it was
the Kremlin, not Italian voters, who was ultimately responsible for the outcome. Two populist parties won big time in Italy, favoring
Putin.
What's Putin's secret?
Putin turned towards the most unlikely of sources, an American think tank based in Oakland, the Independent Institute -- whose
founding member of their Board of Advisors, is Lawrence Kudlow (who now serves as Director of the National Economic Council under
President Trump), had detailed how the tax cut policies of Democratic Party President John Kennedy, and Republican Party President
Ronald Reagan saved the American economy during some of its most dangerous economic times, that Mr. Kudlow described about in his
2016 book entitled "JFK and the Reagan Revolution: A Secret History of American Prosperity".
Putin has restored Russia's economic health using Kennedy/Reagan tax cut policies. In 2001, a mere 18 months after Putin assumed
the mantle of pulling Russia out of the toilet that the Globalist had tried to create, Putin pushed through the Duma an American
style flat tax rate giving the Russian citizenry and businesses the lowest tax rates in the world. Such a move by Putin has been
hailed by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D, and whose Russia's
Christian leadership has declared as a miracle of God.
Russia's economy today:
National Debit -- a mere $200 Billion
National Wealth Fund -- over $66 Billion
Gold stockpiles of 223 tons valued over $76 Billion
International Reserves -- over $456 Billion
Russia's national resources valued at over $75 Trillion
Thanks to Putin's level-headed economic thinking, Russia's 143 Million Citizens can expect a life time of prosperity.
Where as the Borg/Globalist/Deep State has levied upon the U.S. Citizens a debt collar of:
U.S. National Debt -- over $21 Trillion
Unfunded Debt -- over $113 Trillion
When you combine the two, this means that every man, woman, and child in the U.S. now owes $933,000 each. Thanks to the Borg,
POTUS Trump has a mighty job to reverse their economic lunacy.
Putin has put Russia's flag firmly planted in Traditional Christianity, which is what POTUS Trump is restoring in the U.S. the
Christian principles of Home, Family, and Love of Nation. The vile Borg/Globalist/Deep State have tried to use identity politics
in hopes of dividing Russia's citizens against each other and their nation -- and has failed thanks to Putin. POTUS Trump has followed
in Putin's footsteps returning the power of the government and economic prosperity back to the people where it rightfully belongs.
That is why the Borg/Globalist/Deep State are in such a tizzy, they have been shown for what they really are, enemies of both the
U.S. and Russia, and mankind.
The Borg/Globalist/Deep State need to understand that their old order is over, that is what was shown at the G7. The populist
wave first ignited by Putin, and now championed by Trump, is sweeping across the Western World capturing the attention of freedom-seeking
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Slovenia.
I wouldn't give the credit to Putin: he may present an example, but I don't see any of this as being his doing. It's the failure
of the old system that's doing it. In short, the West (like the USSR in the Brezhnev time) just doesn't work. People are coming
to realise it.
"The populist wave first ignited by Putin, and now championed by Trump, is sweeping across the Western World capturing the attention
of freedom-seeking Greece, Hungary, Italy, Austria, Slovenia. "
With great respect, I believe it is not the case that Putin ignited a populist wave. In England I don't think that can be said.
That is also so in the US. I find it difficult to believe that what Marine Le Pen said can be taken as evidence that Putin ignited
a populist wave in France. In Germany - well, the Colonel's German correspondents could speak on that. I believe it is true most
"populist" movements have a more realistic outlook on Russia and many would welcome good relations, but that is common sense rather
than an ideological or political stance that owes anything to Putin.
The consciousness that we in the West have lost a good deal by rejecting "Traditional Values" is as far as I can see on the
rise. But there's a lot of nonsense talked about traditional values, as if they constituted some rarified value system that we
have to painfully re-discover. It is rather the assault on our values by doctrinaire ideologues that is abnormal. Remove that
assault and normality returns of itself. It cannot be imposed by the politicians, and in fact in such matters the politicians
would do well to simply get out of the way. It's a novel concept today, but in the cases where there are matters of Faith, values,
and morality that need a communal approach, we should tell the politicians what we want, rather than allowing politicians, progressive
or "populist" or traditional or of any other stripe, to tell us what we ought to want.
It should also be remembered that Faith, values and morality are continually evolving and that that evolution is best kept
as far as possible away from the politicians. I think Putin's got the sense to realise that. Most Western politicians haven't.
Speaking figuratively, we don't need to import a Putin to run such matters for us. We simply need to get ourselves some half-way
decent politicians and thereby run matters for ourselves.
On ecclesiastical matters, the relationship between the Russian establishment and the Orthodox Church is sui generis and can
have little relevance to us in the West.
On foreign policy it is true that Putin's approach to foreign policy is very different from the current Western approach. We
don't know whether that's merely because he's in a weak defensive position or whether his statements on foreign policy are genuine.
But it they're genuine (as I personally believe they are) so what? We shouldn't need a foreign statesman, no matter how personable,
to tell us that in the modern world wholesale murder and destabilisation should not be used as a means of pursuing our interests.
J - all this sounds a little hostile to Putin but I can assure you it's not. Putin is a great statesman and the Russians are
lucky he came along. To go further than that and to suggest he offers us or ever offered us a solution to our own problems is
I believe unrealistic. Our problems can only be solved by us.
I strongly disagree. Look what GB has become, and it will only grow worse. Inequality like in the US, homeless and jobless to
match, people relying on food banks to get by, and zero hour contracts, healthcare system crumbling and worst of all: inept ,
arrogant useless politicians, all very wealthy.
Naked unabated capitalism and deregulation at its worst.
The populist parties here on the continent appeals to the lowest denominator, they all need an enemy :immigrants!
Herman Göring explained it well at his trial (Read his comments from the trial)
The Populist have done the same.
"The populist parties here on the continent appeals to the lowest denominator, they all need an enemy :immigrants!"
1. We already have a common enemy. By "we" I mean all of us, immigrants, non-immigrants, and those who don't know who they
are. That common enemy is the interest group loosely called the "crony classes" that runs our politics and that is currently engaged
in running our respective economies into the ground.
If we squabble among ourselves, as your comment implies we do, then it's divide et impera and we lose.
2. It is a serious mistake to believe that concern over mass immigration implies hostility to immigrants themselves. In fact
mass immigration is just as disadvantageous for the immigrants and for the countries they come from as it is for non-immigrants.
Would you really like to be a Ukrainian immigrant in Poland? Wouldn't you prefer it if the Ukraine were still a fit place to live
in and you could prosper at home? Even more is that the case for the Syrians.
3. It is cant to assert that we must promote mass immigration for humanitarian reasons. The argument does not stand up to a
moment's inspection. Such cant aside, you'll find the arguments advanced for mass immigration are economic arguments. We need
more health workers and the like. The talk in the most successful of the large Western economies, Germany, is always "We have
a declining population. Who will look after us when we're old if we don't import more care workers?"
The use of cheap imported labour to solve problems wealthy Western countries should be able to solve for themselves is not
a humanitarian project. As I have been permitted to argue before in these pages, it is simply a modern adaptation of the previous
indentured labour system. It is profitable for some in the crony classes. It is not profitable in any sense for the rest of us.
4. If we are truly concerned for the welfare of those who do not live in our countries - and we certainly ought to be - then
let's put our hands in our pockets and give them some genuine help! Not fake help that benefits neither them nor us.
In short, DenLilleAbe, we've been sold a pup on mass immigration. One doesn't have to be a "populist" to see through the scam.
Even we Deplorables can.
EO, as it is local to you I am curious what your thoughts are about Tommy Robinson and the #FreeTommyRobinson movement. I just
learned about him recently and am trying to understand the background. How serious a problem are these immigrant "grooming gangs"
and is it true that the UK gov't is downplaying the rape issue out of PC concerns? I was shocked by the media gag on the Robinson
story. Seemed like overkill if there is no truth to his allegations against the gov't.
The enemy of the European populists isn't "immigrants". At best, it would be "immigration" - the deregulated chaotic phenomenon.
That's what people are against, and rightly so.
But, in fact, wherever populist have actually won elections, the main points of the campaign have been social and economic
- see Hungary or Italy. It's the EU and the Brussels-doctrine that have won them the elections. Same for Brexit.
As far I know, the only populist to have put immigration and identitarianism forth was Marine Le Pen, and she failed miserably
in the second turn, especially the debate against Macron.
It's, unsurprisingly, the bread and butter that people care most about. The strawman of xenophobia is put forth by the Borg,
especially the morally libertine wing, aka the left, to cover for their abandonment of any labour, social or economic difference
with the economically liberal wing, aka the right.
I think European are quite familiar with the history of earlier episodes of Barbarian Invasions in Europe - that many historians
blame for the demise of the Roman Empire - and wish to avoid its repetition.
Babak
The Borg will certainly do everything in its power to stop the disintegration of the Eurozone, but I'm not sure that the Italians
will be willing to live with youth unemployment of 40% forever. If either Greece, Italy, or Spain leave the EMU I am confident
that they will see an economic upturn within 16 months - then the EMU is doomed.
I do not think they have it in them to leave, specially Spain. They would be leaving America, the highest exponent of their civilization.
Neither the Flesh nor the Spirit would be so willing.
Comfort is one thing. But I think mentally they are not prepared to say "No" to the United States; US enjoys great prestige in
Europe and they won't abandon their anchor.
I mean, if they reject US and what she stands for, then what is left in Europe but Christianity?
Putin has restored Russia's economic health using Kennedy/Reagan tax cut policies.
Sorry to disagree in such a dramatic fashion but it was nothing like Kennedy, let alone Reagan. It also had very little to
do with taxation it did, however, have everything to do with stopping "privatization" (or robbery) and the start of nationalization
of strategic industries. Russia IS NOT the United States in any cultural-economic sense. Not even close.
I love the Kendedy Reagan Tax Cuts and how wonderful they were. I kinda remember the Reagan era as that was when my sweet, kind,
gentle and very intelligent wife passed all 4 sections of the CPA exam in one sitting and achieved an award for her high score.
I also remember how Bill Clinton's tax increase destroyed the American economy. Then came G.W.Bush's tax cuts that saved America.
Then that Obama guy raised taxes again and drove America into a Deep Recession. Thank God for Mr. Trump's tax cuts.
If the trends described are accurate, a big if, then the causes ascribed are only among a set of possible causes. Certainly, you
will admit there are others. If the ship of state founders, it may well be because other causes were not sought out diligently
enough.
Trump assumes the mantle of Saint Ronald? Thank God.
I personally find Russia's relapse into Orthodox Christianity and the US rise of fundamentalist Christianity to be appalling.
Religion is one of humanity's worst curses.
The only "religions" - more properly described as :"spiritual philosophies" - which I recommend are Chinese Taoism and Zen
Buddhism (as opposed to "orthodox" Buddhism.)
Also, I wouldn't be celebrating the "end of the old order" until it actually has ended without destroying everyone in the process.
How debased the message of the Prophets must have become that we should look to Taoist Thought and Zen Budhism for moral and spiritual
guidence and succor!
Neither Taoist Thought, nor Budhism in all its forms, nor any of the multitudes of sects and schools of Hinduism ever showed
a concern for any thing other than the "salvation" of one single individual. Concern for the other man, actual physical material
charity is non existent in them. Billions and billions of Bodhisattvas always supply worthless spiritual charity while neglecting
feeding or clothing the wretched human being that needs actual physical help.
Every evil that has afflicted East Asians in historical times may be traced back to this absence of the Prophetc Tradition
that began in Western Asia 8600 years ago by the Great Zoroaster.
Your own political position, discernible through your comments, critically is informed by the 3 and a half year long ministry
of Jesus, the Blessed Son of Mary.
Not only that, but in rational terms there is simply no comparison.
To mention but Scholastic thought, that's thousands and thousands of years of philosophy going back to Plato and Aristotle.
That's a level of rational thought that goes far beyond pretty much anything produced today and eclipses the platitudes and quizzes
of the Zen sayings.
This allure of the exotic religion or spirituality is probably is akin to the phenomenon of telescopic philanthropy described
by Dickens.
While I don't necessarily agree with every point of either Taoism or Zen, your comment clearly shows a complete lack of comprehension
of what Zen "quizzes" are actually about.
Also, Plato lived around 2,400 years ago which is not "thousands and thousands".
I was thinking the other day that we are now in possession of the technology to destroy, once and for all, the Wheel of Samsara
- just explode a few dozen hydrogen bombs in the oceans and the atmosphere of the Earth to make it sterile for ever and ever.
Once all life is extinguished on Earth, surely those souls cannot get reincarnated and the Wheel of Samsara would no longer
operate.
The creation of hydrogen bomb, therefore, is of greatest spiritual significance to Hinduism and Buddhism.
I wonder when they will start putting effigies of Edward Teller in Kali Temples - or in Shin-Tao shrines.
Sorry Babak, that won't do it. The departed still have physical bodies - although a much more rarified material (think along the
lines of photons are still material to help understand). They are also still very much attached to the physical dimensions because
physical matter is merely a form of thought in the universal mind of God and the souls he created and those souls are bound to
the physical realm until such time that they have transcended the karma and mentality that brought them into the physical in the
first place; which can take many lifetimes and dedication to truth and knowledge. So we can blow up the earth and its inhabitants,
toxify it or damage it in other ways and the souls will just build a new earth to inhabit and work through the thoughts and energies
that created it. Yes. I have consulted God on this several times.
I consulted with me, who is the only person I consult on such matters (although I do read a fair amount about such matters.)
For example, I know that Saul of Tarsus was a Roman double agent who founded the Christian doctrine and that he was denounced
by Jesus' own brother and run out of town under Roman escort to avoid being killed by Jesus' followers.
Jesus (assuming he actually lived) was a devout Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion, still less one that would
persecute his own people for two thousand years.
Kind of makes Christianity a bit of a fraud from the get-go.
Any Believer could easily discern in your account that God works in mysterious ways, causing a cynical double agent to become
His Instrumentality to alter History and create a new religion.
Russia didn't "relapse" into Orthodox Christianity since majority of Russians are either agnostics, atheists or Orthodox mostly
in form. Tradition also plays huge role and that is why manifestations of Russian Orthodox aesthetics are so prevalent--it is
normal for a nation which grew out of Orthodoxy and minded that even in Soviet times, however unofficially. This is not to mention
a major pagan element in Russian culture which is also present. In general, Russian spirituality is much more complex than religiosity
as one may observe things during mammoth Immortal Regiment marches.
Science shows that humans are adept at copying and rely on a massive transfer of cultural traditions to define ideas, values,
and actions and this shapes the capacity for logic, thought process, and various behaviors. These capacities vary tremendously
between cultural traditions. People will faithfully copy errors or obviously unnecessary actions when taught. Given the low iq
of the majority, "innovations" introduced are usually wrong or of low quality but again are faithfully copied. Chimps have been
shown to be more creative and with better short term memory whereas humans have sacrificed some of that to be able to rapidly
copy. Most have little incentive or ability to think about what they have copied and are more robotic than fully human.
I think the case is clear that much of western progress and science has roots in the deep self reflection, critical examination,
and mysticism of religious thought about how the world works - cosmologies, theologies, and attempts to understand the workings
of nature. Even our self concepts, soul, mind, spirit, self/other as separate from the tribes or natural forces, egoism, etc originate
from religious thought and people working to understand the relationship between God and mankind.
But then, of course, it all gets packaged for cultural transmission, doctrines get introduced, and original thinkers need to
break through all that. My point is though that some cultural transmissions create a rich soil for thought and innovation, and
some make it very difficult.
I believe that ground zero for the west isn't the Greeks. The Greeks copied much from the Persians but like most people claim
it as their own, and much of the culture they copied originated in the thought of Zoroaster. He defined a world view of right/wrong,
good/evil, where good thoughts, deeds, and actions are important vs. a world in which people are subject to the whim of the gods.
Dualism formed a basis that evolved into the objective observation, the dualism of observer/ objective universe of science.
Russia's preservation of Orthodox Christianity, which has a beautiful mystic core, keeps alive the foundation on which the
west, and science was built. I can see no way of comparing the Orthodox to fundamental christianity which is shamanistic, and
isn't even a relapse - it is the re-emergence of a more primitive and animistic worldview. It is like lumping the stone age and
21st century together and saying they are the same.
Humanism and the enlightenment sprang from a deeply religious society. Unfortunately our culture has devolved away from the
enlightenment towards a mushy sentimentalism that elevates and values "feelings" over everything else and debases the rational
mind. Liberal new age or fundamentalism - both are tribal and animistic and anti-science as they are at the core anti-religion
and both are busy chopping away the very roots that created greatness and neither can sustain it. As a minor example - Russia
has as many stem students as the US with half the population
Thank you for your kind words about Ancient Persians as well as Zoroaster.
In my opinion, the Zoroastrian religion is the only one extant in which the extinction of Human Race would actually be a disaster
for God himself and not just one consequence of his inscrutable will.
ok, maybe we should link Putin's interview with Austria's public channnel ORF too?
Soaring popularity of right-of-center
forces in several European nations, coupled with Putin's meeting with
Austrian Chancellor Kurz during his visit to Vienna.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events...
The very moment post 1945 Europe chose to embrace the so-called "liberal democracy" as the only viable form of rule it
turned into self-perpetuating elitist regime. Logic was impeccable – if the Liberalism as the ideology is the best thing that
happened to the Humanity, therefore it must be maintained at all costs. Democratic process presents a danger to the liberalism,
because gives a chance for non-liberal political forces to get to the power. Therefore, democracy must be eliminated. In the bourgeois
democracies of the West it is ludicrously easy to accomplish – as could be gleamed from the name, only people with money are your
lucky ticket into the politics. They are "the people" who rule. And international capital is the biggest Man of them all.
The "so-called liberal democracy" is usually termed neo-liberalism, if used as fighting term. What's the idea behind the we-are-the-people
takeover from the right? A more sunny future?
Great quote, LeaNder. You come up with some lovely stuff. But what's all this about a "we-are-the-people takeover from the right?".
Left and right have virtually no meaning any more. As for a more sunny future, that's in the lap of the gods. But if we bestir
ourselves we might just avoid a more dismal one.
Yes, I may have taken David Habakkuk's advice that there is often more wisdom in the comment section beneath the article then
in the article itself one step to far? ...
But yes, considering Lyttenbourg, who surfaced here too. ... We seem to be able to cross national frontiers via the arts, or
the history of culture, but beyond that for me he had the initial instinctive feel and touch of national pride. You would need
to go back to one of TTG's heavily contested contributions to Russia Gate to understand. My struggles should still show there.
When discussing Russia Kotkin look like primitive and naive provincial. which most the US
scholars are. He was unable to mention neoliberalism even once. Which completely discredit his as
a scholar.
As one commenter quipped: "Insane introductory joke." If this is a professor, then US
universities political department are just cheap propaganda outlets.
Such a true agent of US hegemony and global capitalism - regardless of which oligarchic
dynasty is in power in DC. But still, I can always personally respect a white Jewish liberal
who can praise the Bolshevik revolution like Kotkin did in Stalin Vol. I.
USA WAR ECONOMY a 2 party system owned by one large military that says, "Full spectrum
domination" we own the land,sea,air,cyber and outer space. We own the world. USA regime boots
on the ground in over 150 countries large military bases 1000 spread around the world. USA
owns United NATIONS and NATO pays most of the budget, pays to be the boss. However Europe
military occupied by USA and silent hatred for USA keeps growing, brewing. Germany and Japan
still USA regime military outposts. USA regime largest weapon sales always first to kill,
nukes ,napalm, depleted Uranium, agent orange, cluster bombs, DRONE kills that flood Europe
with refugees and fear. Thanks AMERICA.
Americans boast how they brought Soviet Union down. Only to form European Union under
their
nose. Lol. ..good job. Europe generally dislikes USA and has enough of US
why all this ? A close relationship between Moscow and Europe would remove the rationale
for America's military role in NATO and thereby its political influence in Europe. The US is
prepared to plunge Europe into a war with Russia in order for Washington to preserve its
hegemony over the transatlantic axis. The key issues are the prevention of Russia and Europe
developing closer trade and political ties - stemming primarily from a vast trade in energy
fuels; and, secondly, the survival of the American dollar as the world's reserve
currency.
Russia collapsed because its elite changed side and adopted neoliberalism. So the US did won
the cold war, not question about it. Yeltsin and Russian constitution was the equivalent a
signing of capitulation. And economic devastation the followed is equitant of full and
unconditional capitulation.
Besides being good and observant on a given topic (G7-SCO summits), the article in passing
fixed two important facts, to which I drew attention.
(1) "...Russia had been kicked out after Crimea voted to join its motherland
".
(2) "...Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War
".
Good to see here an accurate and correct wordings, not some usual [western] propaganda
stamps aka "annexation of Crimea" or "occupied Crimea".
Good to see an adult and sober estimation of the event.
One might like or don't like it, but Crimea joined Russia in full accordance with international
law.
A precedent for this appeared when the West recognized a separation of Kosovo from Serbia.
A [West's] decision on Kosovo clearly stated a primacy of the right of nations to
self-determination over the territorial integrity of state.
At that time, Russia was warning that recognizing Kosovo the West opens the Pandora's box, and
that possible results in the future can be regrettable and dangerous.
As usual, western elites were not listening. Well, they got a result in 2014.
Btw, one might notice that since 2014 no one (first of all Ukraine) ever tried to start a
trial against Russia because of Crimea.
They could, for example, appeal to the ICC or ECHR. Why not?
If there would be any violations (from Russian side), the court, of course, would clearly state
"Russia is guilty here, here and here..".
But no one ever appealed to the ICC or ECHR (or any other court\institution).
Because they know they will fail in court, since Russia did not violate any laws\norms of the
international law.
That's why all they can do is just to scream about "Russian aggression" and "annexation of
Crimea".
Btw, that's interesting (and very characteristic) - Ukrainian Nazi regime did not refuse to
use courts to argue with a Russian company "Gazprom" on gas prices and other stuff. But they're
refuse to use courts to dispute a legitimacy of Crimea's status.
-
The myth that US had 'won' the Cold War is another interesting moment. First of all, because
the Cold War was not over. It's easy to prove by concrete facts. To name just a few:
NATO was not dissolved and continued to expand to the East even after 1991, when the USSR
collapsed.
Russia still was under sanctions ("Jackson-Vanik amendment", repealed only in 2012) even
after 1991, when the USSR collapsed.
The West (in particular, the US) widely supported separatist sentiments & terrorists
on Russian Caucasus in 90-es/early 2000-es.
The US' meddling into a Russian elections (well-known story of 1996 President elections
in Russia).
NATO\US aggression against Yugoslavia in late 90-es, completely ignoring Russia's opinion
& concern. Not mentioning bombardment of Saraevo in the middle of 90-es, again, ignoring
Russia's opinion & concern.
The Cold War was never finished. In 90-es it was just transferred into some kind of a
"lightened form", since Russia was weakened (but not defeated) by the collapse of USSR,
therefore it was no need for the West to 'try hard' against Russia. Since 2000-es (unilateral
withdrawal of the US from the ABM Treaty in 2002, aggression against Iraq in 2003 etc.) the
Cold War "woke up" and was steadily increasing till our days.
That's why the US did not win the Cold War - you can't be a winner in the unfinished,
continuous process. The results of WWII is a good example to compare (for Russia it's 1941-1945
war). There were concrete winners and there clearly was a side who lost the war. Those who lost
the war signed a concrete documents, signed a capitulation. All these documents are official
documents, they have a concrete names, signatures, dates, conditions etc.
So what's with "victory in Cold War"? Any concrete date of "victory"? Maybe there's some
concrete documents signed by Russia (where the country admitts it lost the "Cold War")? Maybe
some conditions for the "losing side" (that it must completely disarm, abandon the army, let
foreign troops enter its territory or change its constitution etc.)? Maybe Russia lost its
place\role in UNSC, and in the United Nations on the whole? Maybe there were some 'obligations'
of Russia regarding a "winner side"?
For all questions the answer is no.
The problem is that from some moment the US unilaterally started to think they 'won'
a Cold War (though, i repeat, the Cold War was not over, and Russia never admitted it lost any
war). Some kind of a voluntary delusion, self-deception.
This gave birth to the unprecedented level of arrogance and impudence of the US leadership.
This arrogance and impudence now is the main factor of unstability of the worldorder.
-
The article itself is well written and observant, though i maybe disagree with some
moments.
For example, that A.Merkel wished to use a suggestion to Russia to come back into G8 as a
possible trump card\reward.
Of course, Merkel is not Otto von Bismarck or Helmut Kohl, but even with her level of political
mastery i don't think she's SO naive\stupid to think this weak proposal to Russia would
work.
Also, in my opinion a statement that "the West is Past" is too much.
It would be unreasonable to deny the West still have a lot advantages and impressive
achievements - education, technologies, market, good & developed medicine, science, clever
and qualified people, strong economics...
Plus, must not forget the West still control the main world media, and, in fact, form an
everyday news agenda - i.e. controls the minds of most people.
I would say the West (the western political system, elites) is in serious crisis now - that's
obvious, yes.
But i wouldn't say "the West is Past".
--
@ Madderhatter67, #10
They did win the Cold War. That's how they became the'sole superpower'.
Explained above in detail why you're wrong.
The US did not win the Cold War. It is a myth that they themselves came up with and
sincerely believed in.
Here's point 13 of the Joint Communique issued by the G6+1 as provided by Southfront.
How many BigLies can you find?
13. We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing behaviour to undermine democratic systems
and its support of the Syrian regime. We condemn the attack using a military-grade nerve agent
in Salisbury, United Kingdom. We share and agree with the United Kingdom's assessment that it
is highly likely that the Russian Federation was responsible for the attack, and that there is
no plausible alternative explanation. We urge Russia to live up to its international
obligations, as well as its responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council,
to uphold international peace and security. Notwithstanding, we will continue to engage with
Russia on addressing regional crises and global challenges, where it is in our interests. We
reiterate our condemnation of the illegal annexation of Crimea and reaffirm our enduring
support for Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity within its
internationally-recognized borders. We maintain our commitment to assisting Ukraine in
implementing its ambitious and necessary reform agenda. We recall that the continuation of
sanctions is clearly linked to Russia's failure to demonstrate complete implementation of its
commitments in the Minsk Agreements and respect for Ukraine's sovereignty and we fully support
the efforts within the Normandy Format and of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe for a solution to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Should its actions so require, we
also stand ready to take further restrictive measures in order to increase costs on Russia. We
remain committed to support Russian civil society and to engage and invest in people-to-people
contact.
Is it any wonder why the G6+1 is becoming irrelevant?
james @89--
Your concerns were aired at the
SCO by "Tajik President Emomali Rahmon spoke about the need to use environmentally friendly
technology to enhance self-sufficiency and sustainable development across the SCO."
Furthermore, Both Putin and Xi have taken the lead at SCO in calling for sustainable
development, which means taking environmental impacts into the economic equation and not
treating the environment as an unaffected externality as the West has always done. Since 2013,
China's been #1 in solar production and implementation. I invite you to go to the Yandex search
engine, type in China solar then select images to see some of the immense installations already
constructed. FYI, China sees its air pollution problem as a form of poverty which must be
eliminated if China is to become a truly prosperous nation as planned by 2025. Plus there's the
pan-Asian philosophical outlook of humanity being within Nature and needing to remain in
balance versus the Western credo of being set apart above Nature to become its master.
Fueling hysteria about "Russian disinformation," "Russian meddling," and "Russian
propaganda" has quickly become a lucrative pastime. Now NATO's Atlantic Council has gathered
the leading proponents under one umbrella.
"Russian's everywhere, everywhere Russians" – that's long been the mantra of NATO's
propaganda wing, the Atlantic Council. And, since 1961, the American lobby group's raison
d'être has been to convince the world that Moscow presents an existential threat to
the rest of Europe.
And as NATO has expanded, the "think tank's" agitprop has evolved from the "reds in the bed"
whispers of the Soviet-era to today's new racket: "disinformation."
This week, Atlantic Council
announced a new initiative known as the "DisinfoPortal."
Their latest wheeze is pitched as "an interactive online guide to track the Kremlin's
disinformation campaigns abroad." Something you can take to mean pretty much everything which
contradicts NATO-friendly messaging, whether accurate or not.
As we await info on Kim-Trump, I think it wise to examine what Trump's outbursts at and
beyond the G6+1 are based upon--his understanding of Economic Nationalism. Fortunately,
we have
an excellent, recent, Valdai Club paper addressing the topic that's not too technical or
lengthy. The author references two important papers by Lavrov and Putin that ought to be read
afterwards. Lavrov's
is the elder and ought to be first. Putin's Belt & Road International Forum
Address, 2017 provides an excellent example of the methods outlined in the first paper.
I
could certainly add more, but IMO these provide an excellent basis for comprehending Trump's
motivations as he's clearly reacting to the Russian and Chinese initiatives. Furthermore, one
can discover why Russia now holds the EU at arms length while
Putin's "I told
you so" reminder had to sting just a bit.
Then to recap it all, I highly suggest reading Pepe Escobar's excellent article I linked to yesterday higher up in the thread.
"... the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block " Siberian candidate " Trump. ..."
"... The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The Washington Post , Dearlove told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers" opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in communication with the Kremlin." ..."
"... Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down. When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA Director (and now NBC News analyst). ..."
"... Dearlove and Halper are now partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another MI6 vet. Alexander Downer served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an unpaid advisor . ..."
"... Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom every Russian is a Boris Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that Lokhova convincingly argues are absurd. ..."
"... As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known, Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, argued that the Iraqi military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too. ..."
"... Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult" hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... describes Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr. Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort. ..."
"... But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK. ..."
"... Stefan Halper then infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign. Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other. ..."
"... The rightwing Federalist website speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating it." Clovis believes that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue after inauguration. ..."
"... Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a "nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency with violating US election laws. ..."
"... As The Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2 article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election Day. ..."
"... Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not his government. ..."
"... Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker ..."
"... But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press." ..."
"... It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice. ..."
"... "Russiagate" continues to attract mounting blowback at Clinton, Obama and the Dems. Might well be they who end up charged with lawbreaking, though I'd be surprised if anyone in authority is ever really punished. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-02/fbi-spying-trump-started-london-earlier-thought-new-texts-implicate-obama-white ..."
"... I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb, Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged "puppet." ..."
"... The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what really happened. ..."
"... I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump did. ..."
"... Long-time CIA asset named as FBI's spy on Trump campaign By Bill Van Auken https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/21/poli-m21.html ..."
"... What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was "in the lead". ..."
"... Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House. Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal ideology for the most part. ..."
"... The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White House. ..."
"... It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its existence based on foreign enemies. ..."
"... So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab. ..."
As the role of a well-connected group of British and U.S. intelligence agents begins to
emerge, new suspicions are growing about what hand they may have had in weaving the Russia-gate
story, as Daniel Lazare explains.
Special to Consortium News
With the news that a Cambridge academic-cum-spy
named Stefan Halper infiltrated the Trump campaign, the role of the intelligence agencies in
shaping the great Russiagate saga is at last coming into focus.
It's looking more and more massive. The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald
Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread
the word to the press and key government officials. Reportedly, they even tried to use these
reports to force Trump to step down prior to his inauguration. Although the corporate press
accuses Trump of conspiring with Russia to stop Hillary Clinton, the reverse now seems to be
the case: the Obama administration intelligence agencies worked with Clinton to block "
Siberian
candidate " Trump.
The template was provided by ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove , Halper's friend and business
partner. Sitting in winged chairs in London's venerable Garrick Club, according to The
Washington Post , Dearlove
told fellow MI6 veteran Christopher Steele, author of the famous "golden showers"
opposition research dossier, that Trump "reminded him of a predicament he had faced years
earlier, when he was chief of station for British intelligence in Washington and alerted US
authorities to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once been in
communication with the Kremlin."
Apparently, one word from the Brits was enough to make the candidate in question step down.
When that didn't work with Trump, Dearlove and his colleagues ratcheted up the pressure to make
him see the light. A major scandal was thus born – or, rather, a very questionable
scandal. Besides Dearlove, Steele, and Halper, a bon-vivant known as "The Walrus" for
his impressive girth , other participants include: Robert Hannigan, former director
Government Communications Headquarters, GCHQ, UK equivalent of the NSA. Alexander Downer, top
Australian diplomat. Andrew Wood, ex-British ambassador to Moscow. Joseph Mifsud, Maltese
academic. James Clapper, ex-US Director of National Intelligence. John Brennan, former CIA
Director (and now NBC News analyst).
In-Bred
A few things stand out about this august group. One is its in-bred quality. After helping to
run an annual confab known as the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar, Dearlove and Halper are now
partners in a private venture calling itself "The Cambridge Security Initiative." Both are
connected to another London-based intelligence firm known as Hakluyt & Co. Halper is also
connected via two books he wrote with Hakluyt representative Jonathan Clarke
and Dearlove has a close personal friendship with Hakluyt founder Mike Reynolds, yet another
MI6 vet. Alexander Downer
served a half-dozen years on Hakluyt's international advisory board, while Andrew Wood is
linked to Steele via Orbis Business Intelligence, the private research firm that Steele helped
found, and which produced the anti-Trump dossier, and where Wood now serves as an
unpaid
advisor .
Everyone, in short, seems to know everyone else. But another thing that stands out about
this group is its incompetence. Dearlove and Halper appear to be old-school paranoids for whom
every Russian is a Boris
Badenov or a Natasha Fatale . In February 2014, Halper notified US intelligence that Mike
Flynn, Trump's future national security adviser, had grown overly chummy with an Anglo-Russian
scholar named Svetlana Lokhova whom Halper suspected of being a spy – suspicions that
Lokhova convincingly
argues are absurd.
Halper: Infiltrated Trump campaign
In December 2016, Halper and Dearlove both resigned from the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar
because they suspected that a company footing some of the costs was tied up with Russian
intelligence – suspicions that Christopher Andrew, former chairman of the Cambridge
history department and the seminar's founder, regards as " absurd " as well.
As head of Britain's foreign Secret Intelligence Service, as MI6 is formally known,
Dearlove played a major role in drumming up support for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of
Iraq even while confessing at a secret Downing Street meeting that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the [regime-change] policy." When the search for weapons of mass
destruction turned up dry, Clapper, as then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency,
argued that the Iraqi
military must have smuggled them into neighboring Syria, a charge with absolutely no basis in
fact but which helped pave the way for US regime-change efforts in that country too.
Brennan was meanwhile a high-level CIA official when the agency was fabricating evidence
against Saddam Hussein and covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Wood not only continues to defend
the Iraqi invasion, but dismisses
fears of a rising fascist tide in the Ukraine as nothing more than "a crude political insult"
hurled by Vladimir Putin for his own political benefit. Such views now seem distressingly
misguided in view of the alt-right torchlight parades and
spiraling anti-Semitism that are now a regular feature of life in the Ukraine.
The result is a diplo-espionage gang that is very bad at the facts but very good at public
manipulation – and which therefore decided to use its skill set out to create a public
furor over alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
It Started Late 2015
The effort began in late 2015 when GCHQ, along with intelligence agencies in Poland,
Estonia, and Germany, began monitoring
what they said were " suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and
known or suspected Russian agents."
Since Trump was surging ahead in the polls and scaring the pants off the foreign-policy
establishment by calling for a rapprochement with Moscow, the agencies figured that Russia was
somehow behind it. The pace accelerated in March 2016 when a 30-year-old policy consultant
named George Papadopoulos joined the Trump campaign as a foreign-policy adviser. Traveling in
Italy a week later, he ran into Mifsud, the London-based Maltese academic, who reportedly set
about cultivating him after learning of his position with Trump. Mifsud claimed
to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," according to prosecutors.
Over breakfast at a London hotel, he told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow
where he had learned that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands
of emails."
This was the remark that supposedly triggered an FBI investigation. The New York
Timesdescribes
Mifsud as "an enthusiastic promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia" and "a regular at
meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, that Mr.
Putin attends," which tried to suggest that he is a Kremlin agent of some sort.
But WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange later
tweeted photos of Mifsud with British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a high-ranking
British intelligence official named Claire Smith at a training session for Italian security
agents in Rome. Since it's unlikely that British intelligence would rely on a Russian agent in
such circumstances, Mifsud's intelligence ties are more likely with the UK.
After Papadopoulos caused a minor political ruckus by
telling a reporter that Prime Minister David Cameron should apologize for criticizing
Trump's anti-Muslim pronouncements, a friend in the Israeli embassy put him in touch with a
friend in the Australian embassy, who introduced him to Downer, her boss. Over drinks, Downer
advised him to be more diplomatic. After Papadopoulos then passed along Misfud's tip about
Clinton's emails, Downer informed his government, which, in late July, informed the FBI.
Was Papadopoulos Set Up?
Suspicions are unavoidable but evidence is lacking. Other pieces were meanwhile clicking
into place. In late May or early June 2016, Fusion GPS, a private Washington intelligence firm
employed by the Democratic National Committee, hired Steele to look into the Russian angle.
On June 20, he turned in the first of eighteen memos that would eventually comprise
the
Steele dossier , in this instance a three-page document asserting that Putin "has been
cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" and that Russian intelligence
possessed "kompromat" in the form of a video of prostitutes performing a "golden showers" show
for his benefit at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton. A week or two later, Steele
briefed the FBI on his findings. Around the same time, Robert Hannigan flew to Washington
to brief CIA Director John Brennan about additional material that had come GCHQ's way, material
so sensitive that it could only be handled at "director level."
One player was filling Papadopoulos's head with tales of Russian dirty tricks, another was
telling the FBI, while a third was collecting more information and passing it on to the bureau
as well.
Page: Took Russia's side.
On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on
U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in which he complained that " Washington and other western
capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such
as democratization, inequality, corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "
unease " that someone representing the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's
side in a growing neo-Cold War.
Stefan Halper then
infiltrated the Trump campaign on behalf of the FBI as an informant in early July, weeks
before the FBI launched its investigation. Halper had 36 years earlier infiltrated the Carter
re-election campaign in 1980 using CIA agents to turn information over to the Reagan campaign.
Now Halper began to court both Page and Papadopoulous, independently of each other.
On July 11, Page showed up at a Cambridge symposium at which Halper and Dearlove both spoke.
In early September, Halper sent Papadopoulos an email offering $3,000 and a paid trip to London
to write a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean, his specialty.
"George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper asked when he got there,
but Papadopoulos said he knew nothing. Halper also sought out Sam Clovis, Trump's national
campaign co-chairman, with whom he chatted about China for an hour or so over coffee in
Washington.
The rightwing Federalist website
speculates that Halper was working with Steele to flesh out a Sept. 14 memo claiming that
"Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and [are] considering disseminating
it." Clovis believes
that Halper was trying "to create an audit trail back to those [Clinton] emails from someone in
the campaign so they could develop a stronger case for probable cause to continue to issue
warrants and to further an investigation." Reports that Halper apparently sought
a permanent post in the new administration suggest that the effort was meant to continue
after inauguration.
Notwithstanding Clovis's nutty
rightwing politics , his description of what Halper may have been up to makes sense as does
his observation that Halper was trying " to build something that did not exist ." Despite
countless hyper-ventilating headlines about mysterious Trump Tower meetings and the like, the
sad truth is that Russiagate after all these months is shaping up as even more of a
"nothing-burger" than Obama administration veteran Van Jones said
it was back in mid-2017. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller has indicted Papadopoulos and others
on procedural grounds, he has indicted former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for
corruption, and he has charged a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency
with violating US election laws.
But the corruption charges have nothing to do with Russian collusion and nothing in the
indictment against IRA indicates that either the Kremlin or the Trump campaign were involved.
Indeed, the activities that got IRA in trouble in the first place are so unimpressive –
just $46,000 worth of Facebook
ads that it purchased prior to election day, some pro-Trump, some anti, and some with
no particular slant
at all – that Mueller probably wouldn't even have bothered if he hadn't been under
intense pressure to come up with anything at all.
The same goes for the army of bots that Russia supposedly deployed on Twitter. As The
Washington Post noted in an oddly, cool-headed Dec. 2
article , 2, 700 suspected Russian-linked accounts generated just 202,000 tweets in a
six-year period ending in August 2017, a drop in a bucket compared to the one
billion election-related tweets sent out during the fourteen months leading up to Election
Day.
The Steele dossier is also underwhelming. It declares on one page that the Kremlin sought to
cultivate Trump by throwing "various lucrative real estate development business deals" his way
but says on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business were unavailing and that he thus
"had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather
than business success."
Why would Trump turn down business offers when he couldn't generate any on his own? The idea
that Putin would spot a U.S. reality-TV star somewhere around 2011 and conclude that he was
destined for the Oval Office five years later is ludicrous. The fact that the Democratic
National Committee funded the dossier via its law firm Perkins Coie renders it less credible
still, as does the fact that the world has heard nothing more about the alleged video despite
the ongoing deterioration in US-Russian relations. What's the point of making a blackmail tape
if you don't use it?
Steele: Paid for political research, not intelligence.
Even Steele is backing off. In a legal paper filed in response to a libel suit last May, he
said the document "did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but
were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation
given their potential national security implications." The fact is that the "dossier" was
opposition research, not an intelligence report. It was neither vetted by Steele nor anyone in
an intelligence agency. Opposition research is intended to mix truths and fiction, to dig
up plausible dirt to throw at your opponent, not to produce an intelligence assessment at
taxpayer's expense to "protect" the country. And Steele was paid for it by the Democrats, not
his government.
Using it Anyway
Nonetheless, the spooks have made the most of such pseudo-evidence. Dearlove and Wood both
advised Steele to take his "findings" to the FBI, while, after the election, Wood pulled
Sen. John McCain aside at a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to let him know that
the Russians might be blackmailing the president-elect. McCain dispatched long-time aide David
J. Kramer to the UK to discuss the dossier with Steele directly.
Although Kramer denies it, The New Yorker found a former national-security
official who
says he spoke with him at the time and that Kramer's goal was to have McCain confront Trump
with the dossier in the hope that he would resign on the spot. When that didn't happen, Clapper
and Brennan arranged for FBI Director James Comey to confront Trump instead. Comey later
testified that he didn't want Trump to think he was creating "a J. Edgar Hoover-type
situation – I didn't want him thinking I was briefing him on this to sort of hang it over
him in some way."
But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few
days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on
government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure
hate to see end up in the press."
Since then, the Democrats have touted the dossier at every opportunity, TheNew
Yorker
continues to defend it , while Times columnist Michelle Goldberg cites it as well,
saying it's a
"rather obvious possibility that Trump is being blackmailed." CNN, for its part, suggested not
long ago that the dossier may actually be Russian
disinformation designed to throw everyone off base, Republicans and Democrats alike.
It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth degree. But that's what the
intelligence agencies are for, i.e. to spread fear and propaganda in order to stampede the
public into supporting their imperial agenda. In this case, their efforts are so effective that
they've gotten lost in a fog of their own making. If the corporate press fails to point this
out, it's because reporters are too befogged themselves to notice.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique , and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
Mueller is trying to omit the normal burden of legal liability, "wilful intent" in his
charges against the St Petersburg, social media operation. In a horrifically complex area
such as tax, campaign contributions or lobbying, a foreign entity can be found guilty of
breaking a law that they cannot reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of.
But the omission or inclusion of "wilful intent" is applied on a selective basis depending on
the advantage to the deep state.
From a practical standpoint, omission of "wilful intent" makes it easier for Mueller to get a
guilty verdict (in adsentia assuming this is legally valid in America). Once the "guilt" of
the St Petersburg staff is established, any communication between an American and them
becomes "collusion".
I've always thought that the great animus between Obama and Trump stemmed from Trump's
persistent birtherist attacks on Obama followed by Obama's public ridicule of Trump at the
White House Correspondants' Dinner. Without the latter, Trump probably would not have been
motivated to run for the presidency. Without the former, Obama would probably not have gotten
into the gutter to defeat and embarrass Trump at all costs. Clinton and Obama probably never
recruit British spooks to sabotage and provide a pretense for spying on the campaigns of Jeb,
Ted or Little Marco. Since these were all warmongers like Hillary and Obama, the issues would
have been different, Russia would not have been a factor, and Putin would have had no alleged
"puppet."
The irony is that Clinton and Obama wanted Trump as her opponent. They cultivated his
candidacy via liberal media bias throughout the primaries. (MSNBC and Rachel Maddow were
always cutting away to another full length Trump victory speech and rally, including lots of
jibber jabber with the faithful supporters.) Why? Because they thought he was the easiest to
beat. The polls actually had Hillary losing against the other GOP candidates. The Dems beat
themselves with their own choice of candidate and all the intrigue, false narratives and
other questionable practices they employed in both the primaries and the general. That's what
really happened.
backwardsevolution , June 3, 2018 at 2:50 pm
Realist – good post. I think what you say is true. Trump got too caught up in the
birther crap, and Obama retaliated. But I think that Trump had been thinking about the
presidency long before Obama came along. He sees the country differently than Obama and
Clinton do. Trump would never have built up China to the point where all American technology
has been given away for free, with millions of jobs lost and a huge trade deficit, and he
would have probably left Russia alone, not ransacked it.
I saw Obama as a somewhat reluctant globalist and Hillary as an eager globalist. They are
both insiders. Trump is not. He's interested in what is best for the U.S., whereas the
Clinton's and the Bush's were interested in what their corporate masters wanted. The
multinationals have been selling the U.S. out, Trump is trying to put a stop to this, and it
is going to be a fight to the death. Trump is playing hardball with China (who ARE U.S.
multinationals), and it is working. Beginning July 1, 2018, China has agreed to reduce its
tariffs:
"Import tariffs for apparel, footwear and headgear, kitchen supplies and fitness products
will be more than halved to an average of 7.1 percent from 15.9 percent, with those on
washing machines and refrigerators slashed to just 8 percent, from 20.5 percent.
Tariffs will also be cut on processed foods such as aquaculture and fishing products and
mineral water, from 15.2 percent to 6.9 percent.
Cosmetics, such as skin and hair products, and some medical and health products, will also
benefit from a tariff cut to 2.9 percent from 8.4 percent.
In particular, tariffs on drugs ranging from penicillin, cephalosporin to insulin will be
slashed to zero from 6 percent before.
In the meantime, temporary tariff rates on 210 imported products from most favored nations
will be scrapped as they are no longer favorable compared with new rates."
Trade with China has been all one way. At least Trump is leveling the playing field. He at
least is trying to bring back jobs, something the "insiders" could care less about.
I agree that Hillary wanted Trump as an opponent, thought she could easily win. I've
underestimated idiot opponents before, always to my detriment. Why is it that they are always
the most formidable? The "insiders" are so used to voters rolling over, taking it on the
chin. They gave away their jobs, replaced them with the service industry, killed their sons
and daughters in wars abroad, and still the American people cast their ballots in their
favor. This time was different. The insiders just did not see the sea change, not like Trump
did.
Abe , June 2, 2018 at 2:20 am
"Pentagon documents indicate that the Department of Defense's shadowy intelligence arm,
the Office of Net Assessment, paid Halper $282,000 in 2016 and $129,000 in 2017. According to
reports, Halper sought to secure Papadopoulos's collaboration by offering him $3,000 and an
all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to produce a research paper on energy issues in
the eastern Mediterranean.
"The choice of Halper for this spying operation has ominous implications. His deep ties to
the US intelligence apparatus date back decades. His father-in-law was Ray Cline, who headed
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War. Halper served as an aide
to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Alexander Haig in the Nixon and Ford administrations.
"In 1980, as the director of policy coordination for Ronald Reagan's presidential
campaign, Halper oversaw an operation in which CIA officials gave the campaign confidential
information on the Carter administration and its foreign policy. This intelligence was in
turn utilized to further back-channel negotiations between Reagan's campaign manager and
subsequent CIA director William Casey and representatives of Iran to delay the release of the
American embassy hostages until after the election, in order to prevent Carter from scoring a
foreign policy victory on the eve of the November vote.
"Halper subsequently held posts as deputy assistant secretary of state for
political-military affairs and senior adviser to the Pentagon and Justice Department. More
recently, Halper has collaborated with Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British
intelligence service, in directing the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSi), a security think
tank that lists the US and UK governments as its principal clients.
"Before the 2016 election, Halper had expressed his view – shared by predominant
layers within the intelligence agencies – that Clinton's election would prove 'less
disruptive' than Trump's.
"The revelations of the role played by Halper point to an intervention in the 2016
elections by the US intelligence agencies that far eclipsed anything one could even imagine
the Kremlin attempting."
Sorry for not commenting on other posts as of yet. But I think I have a different
perspective. Russia Gate is not about Hillary Clinton or Putin but it is about Donald Trump.
Specifically an effort to get rid of him by the intelligence agencies and the MSM. The fact
is the MSM created Trump and were chiefly responsible for his election. Trump is their
brainchild starlet used to fleece all the republican campaigns like a huckster fleeces an
audience. It all ties to key Supreme Court rulings eliminating campaign finance regulations
which ushered in the age of dark money.
When billionaires can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to the candidate of
their choosing what ends up is a field of fourteen wannabes in a primary race each backed by
their own investor(s). The only way these candidates can win is to convince us to vote. The
only way they can do that is to spend on advertising.
What the MSM dreamed of in a purely capitalistic way was a way to drain the wallets of
every single one of the republican Super PACs. The mission was fraught with potential
checkmates. Foe example, there could be an early leader who snatched up the needed delegates
for the nomination early on which would have stopped the flow of advertising cash flowing to
the MSM. Such possibilities worried the MSM and caused great angst since this might just be
the biggest haul they ever took in during a primary season. How would they prevent a
premature end of the money river. Like financial vampire bats, ticks and leeches they needed
a way to keep the money flowing from the veins of the republican Super PACs until they were
sucked dry.
What the MSM really needed was a bait which they could use to lure more dollars just like
a horse race where the track owners needed a fast underdog horse to clean up. I believe the
term is to be "hustled". The con men of the media hustlers decided they needed a way to cause
all of the candidates to squirm uneasily and to then react to the news that Donald Trump was
"in the lead".
It was a pure stroke of genius and it worked so well that Carl Rove is looking for a job
and Donald Trump is sitting in the White House.
Those clever media folks. What a gift the Supreme Court handed them. But there was one
little (or big) problem. The problem was the result of the scam put Trump in the White House.
Something that no conservative republican would ever sign onto. Trump had spent years as a
democrat, hobnobbed with the Clinton's and was an avowed agnostic who favored the liberal
ideology for the most part.
What to do? Trump was now the Commander in Chief and was spouting nonsense that the
establishment recoiled at such as Trumps plans to form economic ties with Russia rather than
continue to wage a cold war spanning 65 years which the MIC used year after year to spook us
all and guarantee their billions annual increase in funding. Trump directly attacked defense
projects and called for de-funding major initiatives like F35 etc.
The new guy in the White House with his crazy ideas of making friends with Vladimir Putin
horrified a national arms industry funded with hundreds of billions of our tax dollars every
year propped up by all the neocons with their paranoid beliefs and plans to make America the
hegemon of the World. Our foreign allies who use the USA to fight their perceived enemies and
entice our government to sell them weapons and who urge us to orchestrate the overthrow of
governments were all alarmed by the "not a real republican" peace-nick occupying the White
House.
What to do? There was clearly a need to eliminate this bad guy since his avowed policies
were in direct opposition to the game plan that had successfully compromised the former
administration. They felt powerless to dissuade the Administration to continue the course and
form strategies to eliminate Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, Ukraine and other vulnerable
targets swaying toward China and Russia. They faced a new threat with the Trump
Administration which seemed hell bent to discontinue the wars in these regions robbing them
of many dollars.
It is probable that the casino and hotel owner in the White House posed an very
threatening alternate strategy of forming economic ties with former enemies which scared the
hell out of the arms industry which built its economy on scaring all of us and justifying its
existence based on foreign enemies.
So the MSM and the MIC created a new cold war with their friends at the New York Times and
the Washington Post which published endless stories about the new Russian threat we faced. It
had nothing to do with the 0.02% Twitter and Facebook "influence" that Russia actually had in
the election. It was billed as the crime of the century. The real crime was that they
committed the crime of the century that they mightily profited from by putting Trump in the
White House in the first place with a plan to grab all the election cash they could grab.
In the interim, they also forgot on purpose to tell anyone about the election campaign
finance fraud that they were the chief beneficiaries of. They also of course forgot to tell
anyone what the fight was about for the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Twenty seven
million dollars in dark money was donated by dark money donors enabled by the Supreme Court's
decisions to eliminate campaign finance regulations which enabled these donors to buy out
Congress and elect and confirm a Supreme Court Justice who would uphold the laws which
eliminate all the election rules and campaign finance regulations dating back to the Tillman
Act of 1907 which was an attempt to eliminate corporate contributions in political campaigns
with associated meager fines as penalties. The law was weak then and has now been
eliminated.
In an era of dark money in politics protected by revisionist judges laying at the top of
our federal judicial branch posing as strict constructionists while being funded by the
corporatocracy that viciously fights over control of the highest court by a panicked
republican party that seeks to tie up their domination in our Congress by any means including
the abdication of the Constitutional authority granted to the citizens of the nation we now
face a new internal enemy.
That enemy is not some foreign nation but our own government which conspires to represent
the wealthy and the powerful and which exalts them and which enacts laws to defend their
control of our nation. Here is a quote:
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they
create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral
code that glorifies it.
Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:32 am
Different journalist covering much the same ground:
"Russiagate" is strictly a contrivance of the Deep State, American & British Spookery,
and the corporate media propagandists. It clearly needs to be genuinely investigated (unlike
the mockery being orchestrated by Herr Mueller from the Ministry of Truth), re-christened
"Intellgate" (after the real perpetrators of crime), pursued until all the guilty traitors
(including Mueller) who really tried to steal our democratic election are tried, convicted
and incarcerated (including probably hundreds complicit from the media) and given its own
lengthy chapter in all the history books about "The Election They Tried to Steal and Blame on
Russia: How America Nearly Lost its Constitution." If not done, America will lose its
constitution, or rather the incipient process will become totally irreversible.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 6:25 am
Your timing of events is confused.
The deep state didn't try and steal the election because they were overly complacent that
their woman would win. Remember, they didn't try to use the dodgy, Steele dossier before the
election.
What the deep state has done is reactively try to overcome the election outcome by launching
an investigation into Trump. The egregious element of the investigation is giving it the
title "investigation into collusion" when they in all probability knew that collusion was
unlikely to have taken place. To achieve their aim (removing Trump) they included the line
"and matters arising" in the brief to give them an open ended remit which allowed them to
investigate Trump's business dealings of a Russian / Ukrainian nature (which may venture
uncomfortably close to Semion Mogilevich).
If as you state (and I concur) there was no Russian collusion, then barring fabrication of
evidence by Mueller (and there is little evidence of that to date) you have nothing to worry
about on the collusion front. Remember, to date, Mueller has stuck (almost exclusively) to
meat and potatoes charges like tax evasion and money laundering. If however the investigation
leads to credible evidence that Trump broke substantive laws in the past for financial gain,
then it is not reasonable to cry foul.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:02 am
The Deep State assisted the DNC in knocking out Sanders. THAT was ground zero. Everything
since then has been to cover this up and to discredit Trump (using him as the distraction).
Consider that the Deep State never bothered to investigate the DNC servers/data; reason being
is that they'd (Deep State) be implicated.
Skip Scott , June 1, 2018 at 7:29 am
Very true Seer. That is the real genesis of RussiaGate. It was a diversion tactic to keep
people from looking at the DNC's behavior during the primaries. They are the reason Trump is
president, not the evil Ruskies.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:13 am
We all seem agreed that the Russia collusion is an exercise in distraction. I can't say I
know enough to comment with authority on whether the DNC would require assistance from the
deep state to trash Bernie. From an outsider perspective it looked more like an application
of massively disproportionate spending and standard, back room dirty tricks.
There is a saying; don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
In this case, try replacing incompetence with MONEY.
dikcheney , June 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm
Totally agree with you Skip and the Mueller performance is there to keep up the
intimidation and distraction by regularly finding turds to throw at Trump. Mueller doesnt
need to find anything, he just needs to create vague intimations of 'guilty Trump' and
suspicious associates so that no one will look at the DNC or the Clinton corruption or the
smashing of the Sanders campaign.
Their actual agenda is to smother analysis and clear thinking. Thankfully there is the
forensicator piecing the jigsaw as well as consortium news.
robjira , June 1, 2018 at 11:55 am
Spot on, Seer.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Those servers probably had a lot more pay-to-play secrets from the Clinton Foundation and
ring-kissing from foreign big donors than what was released by Wikileaks, which mostly was
just screwing over Bernie, which the judge ruled was Hillary's prerogative. Some email chains
were probably construed as National Security and were discreetly not leaked.
The 30,000 emails Hillary had bit bleached from her private servers are likely in the hands
of Russians and every other major country, all biding their time for leverage. This was the
carrot the British (who undoubtedly have copies as well) dangled over idiot Popodopolous.
Uncle Bob , June 1, 2018 at 10:33 pm
Seth Rich
anon , June 1, 2018 at 7:42 am
Realist is likely referring to events before the election which involved people with
secret agency connections, such as the opposition research (Steele dossier and Skripal
affair).
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:32 am
Realist responded but is being "moderated" as per usual.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 9:31 am
Hillary herself was a prime force in cooking up the smear against Trump for being "Putin's
puppet." This even before the Democratic convention. Then she used it big time during the
debates. It wasn't something merely reactive after she lost. Certainly she and her
collaborators inside the deep state and the intelligence agencies never imagined that she
would lose and have to distract from what she and her people did by projecting the blame onto
Trump. That part was reactive. The rest of the conspiracy was totally proactive on her part
and that of the DNC, even during the primaries.
Don't forget, the intel agencies led by Clapper, Brennan and Comey were all working for
Obama at the time and were totally acquiescent in spying on the Trump campaign and
"unmasking" the identities and actions of his would-be administration, including individuals
like General Flynn. The cooked up Steele dossier was paid for by money from the Clinton
campaign and used as a pretext for the intel agencies to spy on the Trump campaign. There is
no issue on timing. The establishment was fully behind Clinton by hook or crook from the
moment Trump had the delegates to win the GOP nomination. (OBTW, I am not a Trump supporter
or even a Republican, so I KNOW that I "have nothing to worry about on the collusion front."
I'm a registered Dem, though not a Hillary supporter.)
Moreover, if you think that Mueller (and the other intel chiefs) have been on the
impartial up-and-up, why did the FBI never seize and examine the DNC servers? Why simply
accept the interpretation of events given by the private cybersecurity firm (Crowdstrike)
that the Clinton campaign hired to very likely mastermind a cover-up? That is exceptional
(nay, unheard of!) "professional courtesy." Why has Mueller to this day not deposed Julian
Assange or former British Ambassador Craig Murray, both of whom admit to knowing precisely
who provided the leaked (not hacked) Podesta and DNC emails to Wikileaks? Why has Mueller not
pursued the potential role of the late Seth Rich in the leaking of said emails? Why has
Mueller not pursued the robust theory, based on actual evidence, proposed by VIPS, and
supported by computer experts like Bill Binney and John McAfee, that the emails were not, as
the Dems and the intel agencies would have you believe on NO EVIDENCE, hacked (by the
"Russians" or anyone else) but were downloaded to a flash drive directly from the DNC
servers? Why has Mueller not deposed Binney or Ray McGovern who claim to have evidence to
bear on this and have discussed it freely in the media (to the miniscule extent that the
corporate media will give them an audience)? Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a
kangaroo court he is running? Is the media really independent and impartial or are they part
of a cover-up, perpetrating numerous sins of both commission and omission in their highly
flawed reportage?
I don't see clarity in what has been thus far been propounded by Mueller or any of Trump's
other accusers, but I don't think I am the one who is confused here, Vivian. If you want to
meet a thoroughly confused individual on what transpired leading up to this moment in
American political history, just go read Hillary's book. Absolutely everyone under the sun
shares in the blame but her for the fact that she does not presently reside in the White
House.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 1:48 pm
You have presented your case with a great deal more detail and clarity than the original
post that prompted my reply. You are also a great deal more knowledgeable than I on the
details. I think we are 98% in agreement and I wouldn't like to say who's correct on the
remaining 2%.
For clarity, I didn't follow the debates and wouldn't do so now if they were repeated. Much
heat very little light.
The "pretext" that the intel agencies claim launched their actions against Trump was not the
Steele dossier, at least that is what the intel agencies say. Either way your assertion that
it was the dossier that set things off is just that, an assertion. I think this is a minor
point.
On the DNC servers and the FBI we are 100% singing from the same hymn book and it all sticks.
Mueller's apparent disinterest in the question of hack or USB drive does rather taint his
investigation and thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't thought of that angle. I still think
Mueller will stick to tax and money laundering and stay well clear of "collusion", so yes he
may be running a kangaroo court investigation but the charges will be real world.
The MSM as a whole are a sick joke which is why we collectively find ourselves at CN, Craig
Murray's blog, etc. I wouldn't like to attribute "collaboration" to any individual in the
media. It was the reference to hundreds of journalists being sent to jail in your original
post that set me off in the first place. When considering the "culpability" of any individual
journalist you can have any position on a spectrum from; fully cognisant collaborator with a
deep state conspiracy, to; a bit dim and running with the "sexy" story 'cause it's the
biggest thing ever, the bosses can't get enough of it and the overtime is great. If American
journalists are anything like their UK counterparts, 99% will fall into the latter
category.
Don't have any issue with your final point. Hillary on stage and on camera was phoney as
rocking horse s**te and everyone outside her extremely highly remunerated team could see
it.
Sorry for any inconvenience, but your second post makes your points a hell of a lot clearer
than the original.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:26 pm
My purpose for the first post in this thread was to direct readers to the article in Unz
by Mike Whitney, not to compress a full-blown amateur expose' by myself into a three-sentence
paragraph. You would have found much more in the way of facts, analysis and opinion in his
article to which my terse comments did not even serve as an abstract.
Quoting his last paragraph may give you the flavor of this piece, which is definitely not
a one-off by him or other actual journalists who have delved into the issues:
"Let's see if I got this right: Brennan gets his buddies in the UK to feed fake
information on Russia to members of the Trump campaign, after which the FBI uses the
suspicious communications about Russia as a pretext to unmask, wiretap, issue FISA warrants,
and infiltrate the campaign, after which the incriminating evidence that was collected in the
process of entrapping Trump campaign assistants is compiled in a legal case that is used to
remove Trump from office. Is that how it's supposed to work?
It certainly looks like it. But don't expect to read about it in the Times."
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm
Vivian – 90% of all major media is owned by six corporations. There most definitely
was and IS collusion between some of them to bring down the outsider, Trump.
As far as individual journalists go, yeah, they're trying to pay their mortgage, I get it,
and they're going to spin what their boss bloody well tells them to spin. But there is
evidence coming out that "some" journalists did accept money from either Fusion GPS, Perkins
Coie (sp) or Christopher Steele to leak information, which they did.
Bill Clinton passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that enabled these six media
conglomerates to dominate the news. Of course they're political. They need to be split up,
like yesterday, into a thousand pieces (ditto for the banks). They have purposely and with
intent been feeding lies to the American people. Yes, some SHOULD go to jail.
As Peter Strzok of the FBI said re Trump colluding with Russia, "There was never any
there, there." The collusion has come from the intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Hillary
Clinton, perhaps even as high as Obama, to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed,
they set out to get him impeached on whatever they could find. Of course Mueller is going to
stick with tax and money laundering because he already KNOWS there was never any collusion
with Russia.
This is the Swamp versus the People.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Realist – another excellent post. "Is Mueller after the truth, or is this a kangaroo
court he is running?" As you rightly point out, Mueller IS being very selective in what he
examines and doesn't examine. He's not after the whole truth, just a particular kind of
truth, one that gets him a very specific result – to take down or severely cripple the
President.
Evidence continues to trickle out. Former and active members of the FBI are now even
begging to testify as they are disgusted with what is being purposely omitted from this
so-called "impartial" investigation. This whole affair is "kangaroo" all the way.
I'm not so much a fan of Trump as I am a fan of the truth. I don't like to see him –
anyone – being railroaded. That bothers me more than anything. But he's right about
what he calls "the Swamp". If these people are not uncovered and brought to justice, then the
country is truly lost.
Realist , June 1, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Precisely. Destroy the man on false pretenses and you destroy our entire system, whether
you like him and his questionable policies or not.
Some people would say it's already gone, but we do what we can to get it back or hold onto
to what's left of it. Besides, all the transparent lies and skullduggery in the service of
politics rather than principles are just making our entire system look as corrupt as
hell.
michael , June 1, 2018 at 5:00 pm
When Mueller arrested slimy Manafort for crimes committed in the Ukraine and gave a pass
to the Podesta Brothers who worked closely with Manafort, it was clear that Russiagate was a
partisan operation.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Michael – good point!
KiwiAntz , June 1, 2018 at 1:00 am
Its becoming abundantly clear now, that the whole Russiagate charade was had nothibg to do
with Russia & is about a elaborate smokescreen & shellgame coverup designed to divert
attention away from, firstly the Democratic Party's woeful defeat & its lousy Candidate
choice in the corrupt Hillary Clinton? & also the DNC's sabotaging of Bernie Saunders
campaign run! But the most henious & treacherous parts was Obama's, weaponising the
intelligence agencies to spy (Halper) on the imaginary Mancharian Candidate Trump & to
set him up as a Russia stooge? Obama & Hillary Clinton are complicent in this disgraceful
& illegal activity to get dirt on Trump withe goal of ensuring Clinton's election win?
This is bigger than Watergate & more scandalous? But despite the cheating & stacking
of the card deck, she still lost out to the Donald? And this isn't just illegal its
treasonous & willful actions deserving of a lengthy jail incarceration? HRC & her
crooked Clinton foundation's funding of the fraudulent & discredited "Steele Dosier" was
also used to implement Trump & Russia in a made up, pile of fictitious gargage that was
pure offal? Obama & HRC along with their FBI & CIA spys need to be rounded up,
convicted & thrown in jail? Perhaps if Trump could just shut his damn mouuth for once
& get off twitter long enough to be able too get some Justice Dept officials looking into
this, without being distracted by this Russiagate shellgame fakery, then perhaps the real
criminal's like Halpert, Obama,HRC & these corrupt spooks & spies can be rounded up
& held to account for this treasonous behaviour?
Sean Ahern , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 pm
Attention should be paid also to the role of so called progressive media outlets such as
Mother Jones which served as an outlets for the disinformation campaign described in Lazare's
article.
Here from David Corn's Mother Jones 2016 article:
"And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian
counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with
memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more
information from him."
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/
Not only was Corn and Mother Jones selected by the spooks as an outlet, but these so
called progressives lauded their 'expose' as a great investigative coup on their part and it
paved the way for Corn's elevation on MSNBC for a while as a 'pundit.'
Paul G. , May 31, 2018 at 8:46 pm
In that vein did the spooks influence Rachel Maddow or is her $30,000. a day salary
adequate to totally compromise her microscopic journalistic integrity.
dikcheney , June 3, 2018 at 6:57 am
Passing around references to Mother Jones is like passing round used toilet paper for
another try. MJ is BS it is entirely controlled fake press.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Stefan Halper was being paid by the Clinton's foundation during the time he was spying on
the Trump campaign. This is further evidence that Hillary Clinton's hands are all over
getting Russia Gate started. Then there's the role that Obama's justice department played in
setting up the spying on people who were working with the Trump campaign. This is worse than
Watergate, IMO.
Rumors are that a few ex FBI agents are going to testify to congress in Comey's role in
covering up Hillary's crimes when she used her private email server to send classified
information to people who did not have clearance to read it. Sydney Bluementhol was working
for Hillary's foundation and sending her classified information that he stole from the
NSA.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were concerned about Obama knowing that Hillary wasn't using
her government email account after he told the press that he only found out about it at the
same time they did. He had been sending and receiving emails from her Clintonone email
address during her whole tenure as SOS.
Obama was also aware of her using her foundation for pay to play which she was told by
both congress and Obama to keep far away from her duties. Why did she use her private email
server? So that Chelsea could know where Hillary was doing business so she could send Bill
there to give his speeches to the same organizations, foreign governments and people who had
just donated to their foundation.
Has any previous Secretary of State in history used their position to enrich their spouses
or their foundations? I think not.
The secrets of how the FBI covered for Hillary are coming out. Whether she is charged for
her crimes is a different matter.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 7:48 pm
If Hillary paid a political operative using Clinton Foundation funds – those are tax
exempt charitable contributions – she would be guilty of tax fraud, charity fraud and
campaign finance violations. Hillary may be evil, but she's not stupid. The U.S.Government
paid Halper, which might be "waste, fraud and abuse", but it doesn't implicate Hillary at
all. Not that she's innocent, mind you
Rob , June 1, 2018 at 2:14 am
I need some references to take any of your multitude of claims seriously. With all due
respect, this sound like something taken from info wars and stylized in smartened up a little
bit.
the idea that Stefan Halper was some sort a of mastermind spy behind the so called
"Russiagate" fiasco
seems very implausible considering what he seems to have spent doing for the past 40
years
going back to the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980 and his efforts then.
i think he must have had a fairly peripheral role as to whatever or not was going on
behind the scenes from 2016 election campaign, and the campaign to first stop Trump getting
elected, and secondly, when that failed, to bring down his Presidency.
of course, the moment his name was revealed in recent days, would have shocked or
surprised those of in the general
public, but not certainly amongst those in Government aka FBI/CIA/Military-industrial
circles.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 4:36 pm
chris m – Halper is probably one of those people who hide behind their professor (or
other legitimate) jobs, but are there at the ready to serve the Deep State. "I understand.
You want me to set up some dupes in order to make it look like there was or could be actual
Russian meddling. Gotcha." All you've got to do is make it "look like" something nefarious
was going on. This facilitates a "reason" to have a phony investigation, and of course they
make it as open-ended an investigation as possible, hoping to get the target on something,
anything.
Well, they've no doubt looked long and hard for almost two years now, but zip. However, in
their zeal to get rid of their opponent, who they did not think would win the election, they
left themselves open, left a trail of crimes. Whoops!
This is the Swamp that Trump talked about during the election. He's probably not squeaky
clean either, but he pales in comparison to what these guys have done. They have tried to
take down a duly-elected President.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm
His role may have been peripheral, but I seem to recall that the Office of Net Assessments
paid him roughly a million bucks to play it. That office, run from the Pentagon, is about as
deep into the world of "black ops" spookdom as you can get. Hardly "peripheral", I'd say.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:13 pm
F. G. Sanford – yes, a million bucks implies something more than just a peripheral
involvement, more like something essential to the plot, like the actual setting up of the
plot. Risk of exposure costs money.
ranney , May 31, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Chris, I think the Halper inclusion in this complex tale is simply an example of how these
things work in the ultra paranoid style of spy agencies. As Lazare explains, every one knew
every one else – at least at the start of this, and it just kind of built from there,
and Halper may have been the spark – but the spark landed on a highly combustible pile
of paranoia that caught on fire right away. This is how our and the UK agencies function.
There is an interesting companion piece to this story today at Common Dreams by Robert Kohler
titled The American Way of War. It describes basically the same sort of mind set and action
as this story. I'd link it for you if I knew how, but I'm not very adept at the computer.
(Maybe another reader knows how?)
We (that is the American people who are paying the salaries of these brain blocked, stiff
necked idiots) need to start getting vocal and visible about the destructive path our
politicians, banks and generals have rigidly put us on. Does any average working stiff still
believe that all this hate, death and destruction is to "protect" us?
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:07 pm
ranney – when you are on the page that you want to link to, take your cursor (the
little arrow on your screen) to the top of the page to the address bar (for instance, the
address for this article is:
"https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking ")
Once your cursor is over the address bar, right click on your mouse. A little menu will
come up. Then position your cursor down to the word "copy" and then left click on your mouse.
This will copy the link.
Then proceed back to the blog (like Consortium) where you want to provide the link in your
post. You might say, "Here is the link for the article I just described above." Then at this
point you would right click on your mouse again, position your cursor over the word "paste",
and then left click on your mouse. Voila, your link magically appears.
If you don't have a mouse and are using a laptop pad, then someone else will have to help
you. That's above my pay grade. Good luck, ranney.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:13 pm
If you are using a Mac, either laptop w/touch screen or with a mouse, the copy/paste
function
works similarly. Use either the mouse (no need to 'right click, left click') or the touch
screen
to highlight the address bar once you have the cursor flashing away on the left side of
it.
You may need to scroll right to highlight the whole address. Then go up to Edit (there's
also
a keyboard command you can use, but I don't) in your tool bar at the top of your screen.
Click on 'copy'. Now your address is in memory. Then do the same as described above to
get back to where you want to paste it. Put your cursor where you want it to be 'pasted'.
Go back to 'edit' and click 'paste'. Voila !
This is a very handy function and can be used to copy text, web addresses, whatever you
want.
Explore it a little bit. (Students definitely overuse the 'paste and match style' option,
which allows
a person to 'paste' text into for example an essay and 'match the style' so it looks
seamless, although
unless carefully edited it usually doesn't read seamlessly !)
Remember that whatever is in 'copy' will remain there until you 'copy' something else. (Or
your
computer crashes . . . )
ranney , June 1, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Irina and Backwards Evolution – Thanks guys for the computer advice! I'll try it,
but I think I need someone at my shoulder the first time I try it.
backwardsevolution , June 1, 2018 at 8:53 pm
ranney – you're welcome! Snag one of your kids or a friend, and then do it together.
Sometimes I see people posting things like: "Testing. I'm trying to provide a link, bear with
me." Throw caution to the wind, ranney. I don't worry about embarrassing myself anymore. I do
it every day and the world still goes on.
I heard a good bit of advice once, something I remind my kids: when you're young, you
think everybody is watching you and so you're afraid to step out of line. When you're
middle-aged, you think everybody is watching you, but you don't care. When you're older, you
realize nobody is really watching you because they're more concerned about themselves.
Good luck, ranney.
irina , June 2, 2018 at 10:00 pm
I find it helpful to write down the steps (on an old fashioned piece of paper, with old
fashioned ink)
when learning to use a new computer tool, because while I think I'll remember, it doesn't
usually
'stick' until after using it for quite a while. And yes, definitely recruit a member of the
younger set
or someone familiar with computers. My daughter showed me many years ago how to 'cut &
paste'
and to her credit she was very gracious about it. Remember that you need a place to 'paste'
what-
ever you copied -- either a comment board like this, or a document you are working on, or
(this is
handy) an email where you want to send someone a link to something. Lots of other
possibilities too!
mike , June 1, 2018 at 7:43 pm
No one is presenting Halper as a mastermind spy. He was a tool of the deep state nothing
more.
It seems a mistake to frame the "Russiagate" nonsense as a "Democrat vs Republican"
affair, except at the most surface level of understanding in terms of our political
realities. If one considers that the Bush family has been effectively the Republican Party's
face of the CIA/deep state nexus for decades, as the Clinton/Obama's have been the Democratic
Party's face for decades now, what comes into focus is Trump as a sort of unknown, unexpected
wild card not appropriately tethered to the control structure. Simply noting that the U.S.
and Russia need not be enemies is alone enough to require an operation to get Trump into
line.
This hardly means this is some sort of "partisan" issue as the involvement of McCain and
others demonstrates.
One of the true "you can't make this stuff up" ironies of the Bush/Clinton CIA/deep state
nexus history is worth remembering if one still maintains any illusions about how the CIA
vets potential presidents since they killed JFK. During Iran/Contra we had Bush, the former
CIA director now vice president, running a drugs for arms operation out the White House
through Ollie North, WHILE then unknown Arkansas governor Bill Clinton was busy squashing
Arkansas State Police investigations into said narcotics trafficking. Clinton obviously
proved his bona fides to the CIA/deep state with such service and was appropriately rewarded
as an asset who could function as a reliable president. Here in one operation we had two
future presidents in Bush and Clinton both engaged in THE SAME CIA drug running operation.
You truly can't make this stuff up.
Russiagate seems to be in the end all about keeping deep state policy moving in the "right
direction" and "hating Russia" is the only entree on the menu at this time for the whole
cadre of CIA/deep state, MIC, neocons, Zionists, and all their minions in the MSM. The Obama
White House would have gladly supported Vlad the Impaler as the Republican candidate that
beat Hillary if Vlad were to have the appropriate foaming at the mouth "hate-Russia" vibe
going on.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Gary – great post.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Roger that. I would really like to see an inquiry re-opened into the
teenage boys who died 'on the train tracks' in Arkansas during the
early years of the Clinton-Bush trafficking. Many questions are still
unanswered. Speculation is that they saw something they weren't
supposed to see.
Mark Thomason , May 31, 2018 at 1:12 pm
This all grows out of the failure to clean up the mess revealed by the Iraq fiasco.
Instead, those who did that remained, got away with it, and are doing more of the same.
Babyl-on , May 31, 2018 at 12:46 pm
So, here is my question – Who, ultimately does the
permanent/bureaucratic/deep/Imperial* state finally answer to? Who's interests are they
serving? How do they know what those interests are?
It could be, and increasingly it looks as if, the answer is – no one in particular
– but the Saud family, the Zionist cabal of billionaires, the German industrialist
dynasties, the Japanese oligarchy and never forget the arms dealers, all of them once part of
the Empire now fighting for themselves so we end up with the high level apparatchiks not
knowing what to do or who to follow so they lie outright to Congress and go on TV and babble
more lies for money.
It's a great contradiction that the greatest armed force ever assembled with cutting edge
robotics and AI yet at the same time so weak and pathetic it can not exercise hegemony over
the Middle East as it seems to desire more than anything. Being defeated by forces with less
than 20% of the US spend.
Abby , May 31, 2018 at 6:36 pm
You're right. They answer to no one because they are not just working in this country, but
they think that the whole world is theirs.
To these people there are no borders. They meet at places like the G20, Davos and wherever
the Bilderberg group decides to meet every year. No leader of any country gets to be one
unless they are acceptable to the Deep State. The council of foreign relations is one of the
groups that run the world. How we take them down is a good question.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Following the pattern of mainstream media, Daniel Lazare assiduously avoids mentioning
Israel and pro-Israel Lobby interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the
Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.
For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing
Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy
resources.
Lazare mentions that Papadapoulos had "a friend in the Israeli embassy".
But Lazare conspicuously neglects to mention numerous Israeli and pro-Israel Lobby players
interested in "filling Papadopoulos's head" with "tales of Russian dirty tricks".
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the pro-Israel
neoconservative think tank in 2014.
In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.
In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.
Israeli plans to develop energy resources and expand territorial holdings in the Syrian
Golan are threatened by the Russian military presence in Syria. Russian diplomatic efforts,
and the Russian military intervention that began in September 2015 after an official request
by the Syrian government, have interfered with the Israeli-Saudi-U.S. Axis "dirty war" in
Syria.
Israeli activities and Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream
media, which continues to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.
Lazare need no be so circumspect, unless he has somehow been spooked.
"Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region."
And water. Rating energy and water, what's at the top for Israel. Israel would probably
say both but Israel shielded by the US will take what it wants. That is already true with the
Palestinians.. The last figure I heard is that the Palestinians are allocated one fifth per
capita what is allocated to Israel's
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:59 am
A large swamp is actually an ancient and highly organized ecosystem. Only humans could
create a lawless madness like Washington DC.
irina , May 31, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Yes that is a good description of a swamp. BUT, if it loses what sustains it --
water, in the case of a 'real' swamp and money in the case of this swamp --
it changes character very quickly and becomes first a bog, then a meadow.
I am definitely ready for more meadowland ! But the only way to create it
is to voluntarily redirect federal taxes into escrow accounts which stipulate
that the funds are to be used for (fill in the blank) Public Services at the
Local and Regional levels. Much more efficient than filtering them through
the federal bureaucracy !
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:21 pm
But how would one avoid prosecution for nonpayment of taxes?
That seems a very quiet way to be rendered ineffective as a resister.
irina , June 1, 2018 at 2:30 am
The thing is, you don't 'nonpay' them. The way it used to work, through the
Con$cience and Military Tax Campaign Escrow Account, was that you filed
your taxes as usual. (This does require having less withholding than you owe).
BUT instead of paying what is due to the IRS, you send it to the Escrow Account.
You attach a letter to your tax return, explaining where the money is and why it
is there. That is, you want it to be spent on _________________(fill in the blank)
worthy public social service. Then you send your return to the IRS.
When I used to do this, I stated that I wanted my tax dollars to be spent to develop
public health clinics at neighborhood schools. Said clinics would be staffed by nurse
practitioners, would be open 24-7 and nurses would be equipped with vans to make
House Calls. Security would be provided.
So you're not 'nonpaying' your taxes, you are (attempting) to redirect them.
Eventually,
after several rounds of letters back and forth, the IRS would seize the monies from the
escrow account, which would only release them to the IRS upon being told to by the
tax re-director. Unfortunately, not enough people participated to make it a going
concern.
But the potential is still there, and the template has been made and used. It's very
scale-
able, from local to international. And it would not take that many 're-directors' to shift
the
focus of tax liability from the collector to the payor. Because ultimately we are liable
for
how our funds are used !
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:19 pm
this was done a lot during the Vietnam conflict, especially by Quakers. the first thing,
if you are a wage earner, is to re-file a W2 with maximum withholdings-that has two effects:
1) it means you owe all your taxes in April. 2) it means the feds are deprived of the hidden
tax in which they use or invest your withholding throughout the year before it's actually
due(and un-owed taxes if you over over-withhold). Pretty sure that if a large number of
people deprive the government of that hidden tax by under-withholding, they will begin to
take notice.
Abe , May 31, 2018 at 11:54 am
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is an intelligence agency of the government
and armed forces of the United Kingdom.
In 2013, GCHQ received considerable media attention when the former National Security
Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the agency was in the process of collecting
all online and telephone data in the UK. Snowden's revelations began a spate of ongoing
disclosures of global surveillance and manipulation.
For example, NSA files from the Snowden archive published by Glenn Greenwald reveal
details about GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) unit, which uses "dirty
trick" tactics to covertly manipulate and control online communities.
In 2017, officials from the UK and Israel made an unprecedented confirmation of the close
relationship between the GCHQ and Israeli intelligence services.
Robert Hannigan, outgoing Director-General of the GCHQ, revealed for the first time that
his organization has a "strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals
intelligence." He claimed the relationship "is protecting people from terrorism not only in
the UK and Israel but in many other countries."
Mark Regev, Israeli ambassador to the UK, commented on the close relationship between
British and Israeli intelligence agencies. During remarks at a Conservative Friends of Israel
reception, Regev opined: "I have no doubt the cooperation between our two democracies is
saving British lives."
Hannigan added that GCHQ was "building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of
Israeli bodies and the remarkable cyber industry in Be'er Sheva."
The IDF's most important signal intelligence–gathering installation is the Urim
SIGINT Base, a part of Unit 8200, located in the Negev desert approximately 30 km from Be'er
Sheva.
Snowden revealed how Unit 8200 receives raw, unfiltered data of U.S. citizens, as part of
a secret agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency.
After his departure from GCHQ, Hannigan joined BlueteamGlobal, a cybersecurity services
firm, later re-named BlueVoyant.
BlueVoyant's board of directors includes Nadav Zafrir, former Commander of the Israel
Defense Forces' Unit 8200. The senior leadership team at BlueVoyant includes Ron Feler,
formerly Deputy Commander of the IDF's Unit 8200, and Gad Goldstein, who served as a division
head in the Israel Security Agency, Shin Bet, in the rank equivalent to Major General.
In addition to their purported cybersecurity activities, Israeli. American, and British
private companies have enormous access and potential to promote government and military
deception operations.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like a manual for slave owners and con men. What a tangled wed the rich
bastards weave. The simple truth is their sworn enemy.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:19 pm
Interesting that a foreign power would be given all US communications data, which implies
that the US has seized it all without a warrant and revealed it all in violation of the
Constitution. If extensive, this use of information power amounts to information warfare
against the US by its own secret agencies in collusion with a foreign power, an act of
treason.
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:18 am
This has been going on for a LONG time, it's nothing new. I seem to recall 60 Minutes
covering it way back in the 70s(?). UK was allowed to do the snooping in the US (and, likely,
vice versa) and then providing info to the US. This way the US govt could claim that it
didn't spy/snoop on its citizens. Without a doubt Israel has been extensively intercepting
communications in the US..
Secrecy kills.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:23 am
Yes, but the act of allowing unregulated foreign agencies unwarranted access to US
telecoms is federal crime, and it is treason when it goes so far as to allow them full
access, and even direct US bulk traffic to their spy agencies. If this is so, these people
should be prosecuted for treason.
F. G. Sanford , May 31, 2018 at 11:36 am
To listen to the media coverage of these events, it is tempting to believe that two
entirely different planets are being discussed. Fox comes out and says Mueller was "owned" by
Trump. Then, CNN comes out and says Trump was "owned" by Clapper. Clapper claims the evidence
is "staggering", while video clips of his testimony reveal irrefutable perjury. Some of
President Trump's policies are understandably abhorrent to Democrats, while Clinton's email
server and charity frauds are indisputably violations of Federal statutes. Democrats are
attempting to claim that a "spy" in the Trump campaign was perfectly reasonable to protect
"national security", but evidence seems to indicate that the spy was placed BEFORE there was
a legitimate national security concern. Some analysts note that, while Mueller's team appears
to be Democratic partisan hacks, their native "skill set" is actually expertise in money
laundering investigations. They claim that although Mr. Trump may not be compromised by the
Russian government, he is involved with nefarious Russian organized crime figures. It
follows, according to them, that given time, Mueller will reveal these illicit connections,
and prosecution will become inevitable.
Let's assume, for argument, that both sides are right. That means that our entire
government is irretrievably corrupt. Republicans claim that it could " go all the way to
Obama". Democrats, of course, play the "moral high ground" card, insinuating that the current
administration is so base and immoral that somehow, the "ends justify the means". No matter
how you slice it, the Clinton campaign has a lot more liability on its hands. The problem is,
if prosecutions begin, people will "talk" to save their own skins. The puppet masters can't
really afford that.
"All the way to Obama", you say? I think it could go higher than that. Personally, I think
it could go all the way to Dick Cheney, and the 'powers that be' are in no mood to let that
happen.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 31, 2018 at 12:19 pm
The issue as I see it is that from the start everyone was calling the Mueller probe an
investigation into collusion and not really grasping the catch all nature of his brief.
It's the "any matters arising " that is the real kicker. So any dodgy dealing / possible
criminal activity in the past is fair game. And this is exactly what in happening with
Manafort.
Morally you can apply the Nucky Johnson defence and state that everyone knew Trump was a
crook when they voted for him, but legally this has no value.
There is an unpleasant whiff of deep state interference with the will of the people
(electoral college). Perhaps if most bodies hadn't written Trump's chances off in such an off
hand manner, proper due diligence of his background would have uncovered any liabilities
before the election.
If there is actionable dirt, can't say I am overly sympathetic to Trump. Big prizes sometimes
come with big risks.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 5:14 pm
My own feeling from the start has been that Mueller was never going to track down any
"collusion" or "meddling" (at least not to any significant degree) because the whole,
sprawling Russia-gate narrative – to the extent one can be discerned – is
obviously phony.
But at the same time, there's no way the completely lawless, unethical Trump, along with
his scummy associates, would be able to escape that kind of scrutiny without criminal conduct
being exposed.
So far, on both scores, that still seems to me to be a likely outcome, and for my part I'm
fine with it.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 5:29 am
My thoughts exactly. Collusion was never a viable proposition because the Russians aren't
that stupid. Regardless of any personal opinion regarding the intelligence and mental
stability of Donald Snr., the people he surrounds himself with are weapons grade stupid. I
don't see the Russians touching the Trump campaign with a proverbial barge pole.
Bill , June 2, 2018 at 3:26 pm
it just happens that Trump appears to have been involved (wittingly or not), with the
laundering a whole lot of Russian money and so many of his friends seem to be connected with
wealthy Russian oligarchs as well plus they are so stupid, they keep appearing to (and
probably are) obstructing justice. The Cohen thing doesn't get much attention here, but it's
significant that they have all this stuff on a guy who is clearly Trump's bagman.
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:15 pm
There is also quite an indication that the entire Mueller investigation is a complete
smoke screen to be used as cannon fodder in the mainstream media.
On the one hand, Mueller and his hacks have found nothing of import to link Trump to
anything close to collusion with members of the Russian government. And I am by no means a
Trump supporter by any stretch of the imagination, except as a foil to Clinton. However, even
my minimalist expectations for Trump have not worked out either.
In addition. the Mueller investigation has been spending what appears to be a majority of
its time on ancillary matters that were not within the supposed scope and mandate of this
investigation. Further, a number of indictments have come down against people involved with
such ancillary matters.
The result is that if Mueller is going beyond the scope of his investigatory mandate, this
may come in as a technicality that will allow indicted persons to escape prosecution on
appeal.
Such a mandate, I would think, is the same thing as a police warrant, which can find only
admissible evidence covered by the warrant. Anything else found to be criminally liable must
be found to be as a result of a completely different investigation that has nothing to do
with the original warrant.
In other words, it appears that the Mueller investigation was allowed to commence under a
Republican controlled Congress for the very reason that its intent is simply to go in circles
long enough for Republicans to get their agendas through, which does not appear to be working
all too well as a result of their high levels of internecine party conflicts.
This entire affair is coming to show just how dysfunctional, corrupt, and incompetent the
entirety of the US federal government has become. And to the chagrin of all sincere
activists, no amount of organized protesting and political action will ever rid the country
of this grotesque political quagmire that now engulfs the entirety of our political
infrastructure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Very true that the US federal government is now "dysfunctional, corrupt, and
incompetent."
What are your thoughts on forms of action to rid us this political quagmire?
(other than ineffective "organized protesting and political action")
Have you considered new forms of public debate and public information?
Seer , June 1, 2018 at 7:34 am
All of this is blackmail to hold Trump's feet to the fire of the Israel firsters (such
actions pull in all the dark swampy things). By creating the Russia blackmail story they've
effectively redirected away from themselves. The moment Trump balks the Deep State will reel
in some more, airing innuendos to overwhelm Trump. Better believe that Trump has been fully
"briefed" on all of this. John Bolton was able to push out a former OPCW head with threats
(knew where his, the OPCW head's children were). And now John Bolton is sitting right next to
Trump (whispering in his ear that he knows ways in which to oust Trump).
What actual "ideas" were in Trump's head going in to all of this (POTUS run) is hard to
say. But, anything that can be considered a threat to the Deep State has been effectively
nullified now.
Vivian O'Blivion , June 1, 2018 at 8:22 am
Possible, but Manafort already tried to get his charges thrown out as being the outcome of
investigations beyond the remit He failed.
Brendan , May 31, 2018 at 10:26 am
There's no doubt at all that Joseph Mifsud was closely connected with western
intelligence, and with MI6 in particular. His contacts with Russia are insignificant compared
with his long career working amongst the elite of western officials.
Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations lists some of the places where Mifsud worked, including
two universities:
"he taught at Link Campus University in Rome, ( ) whose lecturers and professors include
senior Western diplomats and intelligence officials from a number of NATO countries,
especially Italy and the United Kingdom.
Mifsud also taught at the University of Stirling in Scotland, and the London Academy of
Diplomacy, which trained diplomats and government officials, some of them sponsored by the
UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, or by their own governments."
Two former colleagues of Mifsud's, Roh and Pastor, recently interviewed him for a book
they have written. Those authors could very well be biased, but one of them makes a valid
point, similar to one that Daniel Lazare makes above:
"Given the affiliations of Link's faculty and staff, as well as Mifsud's pedigree, Roh thinks
it's impossible that the man he hired as a business development consultant is a Russian
agent."
Politically, Mifsud identifies with the Clintons more than anyone else, and claims to
belong to the Clinton Foundation, which has often been accused of being just a way of
funneling money into Hillary Clinton's campaign.
As Lee Smith says, if Mifsud really is a Russian spy, "Western intelligence services are
looking at one of the largest and most embarrassing breaches in a generation. But none of the
governments or intelligence agencies potentially compromised is acting like there's anything
wrong."
From all that we know about Joseph Mifsud, it's safe to say that he was never a Russian
spy. If not, then what was he doing when he was allegedly feeding stories to George
Papadopoulos about Russians having 'dirt' on Clinton?
I read somewhere that Mifsud had disappeared. Was that true? If so, is he back, or still
missing?
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Here are some excerpts that will answer your question from an article by Lee Smith at
Realclearinvestigations, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate".
A new book by former colleagues of Mifsud's – Stephan Roh, a 50-year-old
Swiss-German lawyer, and Thierry Pastor, a 35-year-old French political analyst –
reports that he is alive and well. Their account includes a recent interview with him.
Their self-published book, "The Faking of Russia-gate: The Papadopoulos Case, an
Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with Mifsud in which he denies saying
anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they write, stated "vehemently that he
never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos." Mifsud asked rhetorically: "From where
should I have this [information]?"
Mifsud's account seems to be supported by Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat who
alerted authorities about Papadopoulos. As reported in the Daily Caller, Downer said
Papadopoulos never mentioned emails; he spoke, instead, about the Russians possessing
material that could be damaging to Clinton. This new detail raises the possibility that
Mifsud, Papadopoulos' alleged source for the information, never said anything about
Clinton-related emails either.
In interviews with RealClearInvestigations, Roh and Pastor said Mifsud is anything but a
Russian spy. Rather, he is more likely a Western intelligence asset.
According to the two authors, it was a former Italian intelligence official, Vincenzo
Scotti, a colleague of Mifsud's and onetime interior minister, who told the professor to go
into hiding. "I don't know who was hiding him," said Roh, "but I'm sure it was organized by
someone. And I am sure it will be difficult to get to the bottom of it."
Toby McCrossin , June 1, 2018 at 1:54 am
" The Papadopoulos Case, an Investigative Analysis," includes a recent interview with
Mifsud in which he denies saying anything about Clinton emails to Papadopoulos. Mifsud, they
write, stated "vehemently that he never told anything like this to George Papadopoulos.""
Thank you for providing that explosive piece of information. If true, and I suspect it is,
that's one more nail in the Russiagate narrative. Who, then, is making the claim that Misfud
mentioned emails? The only source for the statement I can find is "court documents".
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:20 am
The election scams serve only to distract from the Israel-gate scandal and the oligarchy
destruction of our former democracy. Mr. Lazare neglects to tell us about that. All of
Hillary's top ten campaign bribers were zionists, and Trump let Goldman-Sachs take over the
economy. KSA and big business also bribed heavily.
We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious preference.
Otherwise the United States is lost, and our lives have no historical meaning beyond
slavery to oligarchy.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 9:51 am
You are right Sam. Israel does work the fence under the guise of the Breaking News.
Joe
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:18 pm
My response was that Israel massacres at the fence, ignored by the zionist US mass
media.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am
The extreme wealth and privileges of oligarchy depend on the poverty and slavery of
others. Inequality of income is the root cause of most of our ills. Try to imagine what a
world of economic equals would be like. No striving for more and more wealth at the expense
of others. No wars. What would there be to fight over – everyone would be content with
what they already had.
If you automatically think such a world would be impossible, try to state why. You might
discover that the only obstacle to such a world is the greedy bastards who are sitting on top
of everybody, and will do anything to maintain their advantages.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 11:52 am
How do the oligarchs ensure your slavery? With the little green tickets they have hoarded
that the rest of us need just to eat and have a roof over our heads. The people sleeping in
the streets tell us the penalty for not being good slaves.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Very true, Mike. Those who say that equality or fairness of income implies breaking the
productivity incentive system are wrong. No matter how much or how little wage incentive we
offer for making an effort in work, we need not have great disparities of income. Those who
can work should have work, and we should all make an effort to do well in our work, but none
of us need the fanciest cars or grand monuments to live in, just to do our best.
Getting rid of oligarchy, and getting money out of mass media and elections, would be the
greatest achievement of our times.
Joe Tedesky , May 31, 2018 at 5:30 pm
An old socialist friend of my dad's generation who claimed to have read the biography of
Andrew Carnegie had told me over a few beers that Carnegie said, "that at a time when he was
paying his workers $5 a week he 'could' have been paying them $50 a day, but then he could
not figure out what kind of life they would lead with all that money". Think about it mike,
if his workers would have had that kind of money it would not be long before Carnegie's
workers became his competition and opened up next door to him the worst case scenario would
be his former workers would sell their steel at a cheaper price, kind of, well no exactly
like what Rockefeller did with oil, or as Carnegie did with steel innovation. How's that
saying go, keep them down on the farm . well. Remember Carnegie was a low level stooge for
the railroads at one time, and rose to the top .mike. Great point to make mike, because there
could be more to go around. Joe
Steve Naidamast , May 31, 2018 at 3:16 pm
"We must restrict funding of elections and mass media to limited individual donations, for
democracy is lost.
We must eliminate zionist fascism from our political parties, federal government, and
foreign policy. Obviously that has nothing to do with any ethnic or religious
preference."
Good luck with that!!!
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 8:19 pm
Well, you are welcome to make suggestions on how to save the republic.
john wilson , May 31, 2018 at 9:10 am
The depths of the deep state has no limits, but as a UK citizen, I fail to see why the
American "spooks" need any help from we Brits when it comes state criminal activity. Sure, we
are masters at underhand dirty tricks, but the US has a basket full of tricks that 'Trump'
(lol) anything we've got. It was the Russians wot done mantra has been going on for many
decades and is ever good for another turn around the political mulberry tree of corruption
and underhand dealings. Whether the Democrats or the Republicans win its all the same to the
deep state as they are in control whoever is in the White House. Trump was an outsider and
there for election colour and the "ho ho ho" look what a great democracy we are, anyone can
be president. He is in fact the very essence of the 'wild card' and when he actually won
there was total confusion, panic, disbelief and probably terror in the caves and dungeons of
the deep state.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:33 am
I'm sure the result was so unexpected that the shadowy fixers, the IT mavens who could
have "adjusted" the numbers, were totally caught off guard and unable to do "cleanly." Not
that they didn't try to re-jigger the results in the four state recounts that were ordered,
but it was simply too late to effectively cheat at that point, as there were already massive
overvotes detected in key urban precincts. Such a thing will never happen again, I am
sure.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 9:36 am
It appears that UK has long had a supply of anti-Russia fearmongers, presumably backed by
its anti-socialist oligarchy as in the US. Perhaps the US oligarchy is the dumbest salesman,
who believes that all customers are even dumber, so that UK can sell Russophobia here thirty
years after the USSR.
Bob Van Noy , May 31, 2018 at 8:49 am
"But how could Trump think otherwise? As Consortium News founding editor Robert Parry
observed a few days later, the maneuver "resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information
about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press."
Perfect.
Recently, while trying to justify my arguement that a new investigation into the RFK Killing
was necessary, I was asked why I thought that, and my response was "Modus operandi," exactly
what Robert Parry learned by experience, and that is the fundamental similarity to all of the
institutionalized crime that takes place by the IC. Once one realizes the literary approach
to disinformation that was fundamental to Alan Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, even Ian
Fleming, one can easily see the Themes being applied. I suppose that the very feature of
believability offered by propaganda, once recognized, becomes its undoing. That could be our
current reality; the old Lines simply are beginning to appear to be ridiculous
Thank you Daniel Lazar.
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 8:39 am
The recognition of themes of propaganda as literary themes and modus operandi is helping
to discredit propaganda. The similarities of the CW false-flag operations (Iraq, Syria, and
UK), and the fake assassinations (Skripal and Babchenko) by the anti-Russia crowd help reveal
and persuade on the falsehood of the Iraq WMD, Syria CW, and MH-17 propaganda ops. Just as
the similarities of the JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations persuade us that commonalities exist long
before we see evidence.
Bob Van Noy , June 1, 2018 at 1:11 pm
Many thanks Sam F for recognizing that. As we begin to achieve a resolution of the 60's
Kllings, we can begin to see the general and specific themes utilized to direct the programs
of Assassination. The other aspect is that real investigation Never followed; and that took
Real Power.
In a truly insightful book by author Sally Denton entitled "The Profiteers" she puts
together a very cogent theory that it isn't the Mafia, it's the Syndicate, which means (for
me at least) real, criminal power with somewhat divergent interests ok with one another, to
the extent that they can maintain their Own Turf. I think that's a profound insight
Too, in a similar vain, the Grand Deceptions of American Foreign Policy, "scenarios" are
simply and only that, not a Real possible solution. Always resulting in failure
Sam F , June 1, 2018 at 9:23 pm
Yes, it is difficult to determine the structure of a subculture of gangsterism in power,
which can have many specialized factions in loose cooperation, agreeing on some general
policy points, like benefits for the rich, hatred of socialism, institutionalized bribery of
politicians and judges, militarized policing, destruction of welfare and social security,
deregulation of everything, essentially the neocon/neolib line of the DemReps. The party line
of oligarchy in any form.
Indeed the foreign policy of such gangsters is designed to "fail" because destruction of
cultures, waste, and fragmentation most efficiently exploits the bribery structure available,
and serves the anti-socialist oligarchy. Failure of the declared foreign policy is success,
because that is only propaganda to cover the corruption.
You know, not only Gay Trowdy but even Dracula Napolitano think people like Lazare ,
McGovern, etc. are overblown on this issue.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 1:47 pm
SocraticGadfly – Trey Gowdy hasn't even seen the documents yet, so he's hardly in a
position to say anything. The House Intelligence Committee, under Chairman Nunes, are being
stymied by the FBI and the Department of Justice who are refusing to hand over documents.
Refusing! Refusing to disclose documents to the very people who, by law, have oversight.
Nunes is threatening to hit them with Contempt of Congress.
Let's see the documents. Then Trey Gowdy can open his mouth.
What I take from this head spinning article is the paragraph about Carter Page.
"On July 7, 2016 Carter Page delivered a lecture on U.S.-Russian relations in Moscow in
which he complained that "Washington and other western capitals have impeded potential
progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality,
corruption, and regime change." Washington hawks expressed "unease" that someone representing
the presumptive Republican nominee would take Russia's side in a growing neo-Cold War
Mr. Page hit the nail on the head. There is no greater sin to entrenched power than to
spell out what is going on with Russia. It helps us understand why terms like dupe and
naïve were stuck on Carter Page's back.. Truth to power is not always good for your
health.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:07 am
The tyrant accuses of disloyalty, all who question the reality of his foreign
monsters.
And so do his monster-fighting agencies, whose budgets depend upon the fiction.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:25 am
Daniel Lazare – good report. "It sounds more like CIA paranoia raised to the nth
degree." This wasn't a case of paranoia. This was a blatant attempt to bring down a rival
opponent and, failing that, the President of the United States. This was intentional and
required collusion between top officials of the government. They fabricated the phony Steele
dossier (paid for by the Clinton campaign), exonerated Hillary Clinton, and then went to town
on bringing down Trump.
"Was George Popodopolous set up?" Of course he was. Set up a patsy in order to give you
reason to carry out a phony investigation.
"If the corporate press fails to point this out, it's because reporters are too befogged
themselves to notice." They're not befogged; they're following orders (the major television
and newspaper outfits). Without their 24/7 spin and lies, Russiagate would never have been
kept alive.
These guys got the biggest surprise of their life when Hillary Clinton lost the election.
None of this would have come out had she won. During the campaign, as Trump gained in the
polls, she was heard to say, "If they ever find out what we've done, we'll all hang."
I hope they see jail time for what they've done.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:38 am
Apparently what has come out so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Some are saying this
could lead all the way up to Obama. I hope not, but they have certainly done all they can to
ruin the Trump Presidency.
JohnM , May 31, 2018 at 9:58 am
I'm adjusting my tinfoil hat right now. I'm wondering if Skripal had something to do with
the Steel dossier. The iceberg may be even bigger than thought.
Sam F , May 31, 2018 at 10:18 am
It is known that Skripal's close friend living nearby was an employee of Steele's firm
Orbis.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Exactly, his name is Pablo Miller and he is the MI6 agent who initially recruited Sergei
Skripal. Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's company and listed that in his resume on LinkedIn
but later deleted it. But once it's on the internet it can always be found and it was and it
was published.
robjira , May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm
John, both Moon Of Alabama and OffGuardian have had excellent coverage of the Skripal
affair. Informed opinions wonder if Sergei Skripal was one of Steele's "Russian sources," and
that he may have been poisoned for the purpose of either a) bolstering the whole "Russia =
evil" narrative, or b) a warning not to ask for more than what he may have conceivably
received for any contribution he may or may not have made to the "dossiere."
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:20 am
Interesting details in this article, but we have known this whole Russiagate affair was a
scam from the get go. It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over
Hillary. The chagrined dems came together and concocted their sore loser alibi – the
Russians did it. They scooped up a lot of pre-election dirt, rolled it into a ball and
directed it at Trump. It is a testament to the media's determination to stick with their
story, that in spite of not a single scrap of real evidence after over a year of digging by a
huge team of democratic hit men and women, this ridiculous story still has supporters.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 10:31 am
"It all started the day after Trump's unexpected electoral win over Hillary."
Not so.
Daniel Lazare's first link in the above piece is to Paul Krugman's July 22, 2016 NY Times
op-ed, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate". (Note how that headline doesn't even bother to
employ a question mark.)
I appreciate that that Krugman column gets pride of place here since I distinctly remember
reading it in my copy of the Times that day, months before the election, and my immediate
reaction to it: nonplussed that such a risible thesis was being aired so prominently, along
with a deep realization that this was only the first shot in what would be a co-ordinated
media disinformation campaign, à la Saddam's WMDs.
Chet Roman , May 31, 2018 at 3:37 pm
Actually, I think the intelligence agencies' (CIA/FBI/DNI) plan started shortly after
Trump gave the names of Page and Papadopoulos to the Washington Post (CIA annex) in a meeting
on March 21, 2016 outlining his foreign policy team.
Carter Page (Naval Academy distinguished graduate and Naval intelligence officer) in 2013
worked as an "under-cover employee" of the FBI in a case that convicted Evgeny Buryakov and
it was reported that he was still an UCE in March of 2016. The FBI never charged or even
hinted that Page was anything but innocent and patriotic. However, in October 2016 the FBI
told the FISA Court that he was a spy to support spying on him. Remember the FISA Court
allows spying on him AND the persons he is in contact, which means almost everyone on the
Trump transition team/administration.
Here is an excerpt from an article by WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort
joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had
previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing,
Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had
eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such
explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections.
David G , May 31, 2018 at 4:56 pm
Most interesting, Chet Roman. Thanks.
My understanding is that Trump more or less pulled Page's name out of a hat to show the
WashPost that he had a "foreign policy team", and thus that his campaign wasn't just a hollow
sham, but that at that point he really had had no significant contact at all with Page
– maybe hadn't even met him. It was just a name from his new political world that
sprang to "mind" (or the Trumpian equivalent).
Of course, the Trump campaign *was* just a sham, by conventional Beltway standards: a
ramshackle road show with no actual "foreign policy team", or any other policy team.
So maybe that random piece of B.S. from Trump has caused him a heap of trouble. This is
part of why – no matter how bogus "Russia-gate" is – I just can't bring myself to
feel sorry for old Cheeto Dust.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 6:56 am
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal had some good advice:
"Mr. Trump has an even quicker way to bring the hostility to an end.
He can – and should – declassify everything possible, letting Congress and the
public see the truth.
That would put an end to the daily spin and conspiracy theories. It would puncture
Democratic arguments that the administration is seeking to gain this information only for
itself, to "undermine" an investigation.
And it would end the Justice Department's campaign of secrecy, which has done such harm to
its reputation with the public and with Congress."
What do you bet he does?
RickD , May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am
I have serious doubts about the article's veracity. There seems to be a thread running
through it indicating an attempt to whitewash any Russian efforts to get Trump elected. To
dismiss all the evidence of such efforts, and , despite this author's words, there is enough
such evidence, seems more than a bit partisan.
What evidence? I've seen none so far. A lot of claims that there is such evidence but no
one seems to ever say what it is.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:06 am
RickD – thanks for the good laugh before bedtime. I'm with Mr. Merrell and I
actually want to see some evidence. Maybe it was Professor Halper in the kitchen with the
paring knife.
Realist , May 31, 2018 at 9:21 am
Unfortunately, what this guy says is what most Americans still seem to believe. When I ask
people what is the actual hard evidence for "Russiagate" (because I don't know of any that
has been corroborated), I get a response that there have been massive examples of Russian
hacks, Russian posts, tweets and internet adverts–all meant to sabotage Hillary's
candidacy, and very effective, mind you. Putin has been an evil genius worthy of a comic book
villain (to date myself, a regular Lex Luthor). Sez who, ask I? Sez the trustworthy American
media that would never lie to the public, sez they. You know, professional paragons of virtue
like Rachel Maddow and her merry band.
Nobody seems aware of the recent findings about Halpern, none seem to have a realistic
handle on the miniscule scope of the Russian "offenses" against American democracy. Rachel,
the NY Times and WaPo have seen to that with their sins of both commission and omission. Even
the Republican party is doing a half-hearted job of defending its own power base with
rigorous and openly disseminated fact checking. It's like even many of the committee chairs
with long seniority are reluctant to buck the conventional narrative peddled by the media.
Many have chosen to retire rather than fight the media and the Deep State. What's a better
interpretation of events? Or is one to believe that the silent voices, curious retirements
and political heat generated by the Dems, the prosecutors and the media are all independent
variables with no connections? These old pols recognise a good demonizing when they see it,
especially when directed at them.
Personally, I think that not only the GOPers should be fighting like the devil to expose
the truth (which should benefit them in this circumstance) but so should the media and all
the watchdog agencies (ngo's) out there because our democracy WAS hijacked, but it was NOT by
the Russians. Worse than that, it was done by internal domestic enemies of the people who
must be outed and punished to save the constitution and the republic, if it is not too late.
All the misinformation by influential insiders and the purported purveyors of truth
accompanied by the deliberate silence by those who should be chirping like birds suggests it
may well be far too late.
backwardsevolution , May 31, 2018 at 7:53 pm
Realist – a most excellent post! Some poll result I read about the other day
mentioned that well over half of the American public do NOT believe what they are being told
by the media. That was good to hear. But you are right, there are still way too many who
never question anything. If I ever get in trouble, I wouldn't want those types on my jury.
They'd be wide awake during the prosecution's case and fast asleep during my defense.
This is the Swamp at work on both sides of the aisle. Most of the Republicans are hanging
Trump out to dry. They've probably got too much dirt they want to keep hidden themselves, so
retirement looks like a good idea. Get out of Dodge while the going is good, before the real
fighting begins! The Democrats are battling for all they're worth, and I've got to hand it to
them – they're dirty little fighters.
Yes, democracy has been hijacked. Hard to say how long this has been going on –
maybe forever. If there is anything good about Trump's presidency, it's that the Deep State
is being laid out and delivered up on a silver platter for all to see.
There has never been a better chance to take back the country than this. If this
opportunity passes, it will never come again. They will make sure of it.
The greatest thing that Trump could do for the country would be to declassify all
documents. Jeff Sessions is either part of the Deep State or he's been scared off. He's not
going to act. Rosenstein is up to his eyeballs in this mess and he's not going to act. In
fact, he's preventing Nunes from getting documents. It is up to Trump to act. I just hope
he's not being surrounded by a bunch of bad apple lawyers who are giving him bad advice. He
needs to go above the Department of Justice and declassify ALL documents. If he did that, a
lot of these people would probably die of a heart attack within a minute.
mike k , May 31, 2018 at 7:11 am
You sure came out of the woodwork quickly to express your "serious doubts" RickD.
Skip Scott , May 31, 2018 at 8:07 am
Please provide "such evidence". I've yet to see any. The entire prosecution of RussiaGate
has been one big Gish Gallop.
strgr-tgther , May 31, 2018 at 9:39 pm
RickD – Thank you for pointing that out! You were the only one!!! It is a very
strange article leaving Putin and the Russians evidence out and also not a single word about
Stromy Daniels witch is also very strange. I know Hillary would never have approved of any of
this and they don't say that either.
John , June 1, 2018 at 2:26 am
What does Stormy Daniels have to do with RussiaGate?
You know that someone who committed the ultimate war crime by lying us into war to destroy
Libya and re-institute slavery there, and who laughed after watching video of a man that
Nelson Mandela called "The Greatest Living Champion of Human Rights on the Planet" be
sodomized to death with a knife, is somehow too "moral" to do such a thing? Really?
It amazes me how utterly cultish those who support the Red Queen have shown themselves to
be – without apparently realizing that they are obviously on par with the followers of
Jim Jones!
strgr-tgther , June 1, 2018 at 12:17 pm
That is like saying what does income tax have to do with Al Capone. Who went to Alctraz
because he did not pay income tax not for being a gangster. So we know Trump has sexual
relations with Stormy Daniels, then afterward PAID her not to talk about it. So he paid Story
Daniels for sex! That is Prostitution! Same thing. And that is inpeachable, using womens
bodies as objects. If we don't prosecute Trump here then from now on all a John needs to say
to the police is that he was not paying for sex but paying to keep quiet about it. And
Cogress can get Trump for prostitution and disgracing the office of President. Without Russia
investigations we would never have found out about this important fact, so that is what it
has to do with Russia Gate.
"... That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say. ..."
"... The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... "No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.] ..."
"... "Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has never been mentioned since . ..."
"... "More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi." ..."
"... The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [ President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ] ..."
"... Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies. MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers. ..."
"... The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. ..."
"... I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed out" propaganda. One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not. No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin supply." ..."
"... There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths. ..."
"... Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked" to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another ..."
"... (FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and printed. ..."
"... Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden. ..."
"... Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their "investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again. ..."
"... Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's activities are a complete sham. ..."
"... Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely cause of the Russiagate scams. ..."
"... Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." ..."
"... For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic conspiracy. ..."
"... Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB drive, it is not a known. ..."
"... There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings. ..."
"... Don't forget this Twitter post by Wikileaks on October 30, 2016: Podesta: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it." https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH- ..."
"... Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face? ..."
"... If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars. ..."
"... My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody? ..."
If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked
into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand
close scrutiny . It
could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to
investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with
WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity -- including two "alumni" who were former
National Security Agency technical directors -- have long since concluded that Julian Assange
did not acquire what he called the "emails related to Hillary Clinton" via a "hack" by the
Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access
to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage
device -- probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained
this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.
On January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted
that the "conclusions" of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged Russian hacking got to
WikiLeaks were "inconclusive." Even the vapid FBI/CIA/NSA "Intelligence Community Assessment of
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections" of January 6, 2017, which tried to
blame Russian President Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained
no direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent the "handpicked" authors of
that poor excuse for intelligence analysis from expressing "high confidence" that Russian
intelligence "relayed material it acquired from the Democratic National Committee to
WikiLeaks." Handpicked analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.
Never mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA "assessment" became bible truth for partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the
blocks to blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not have been that
Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat out of victory all by herself. No, it had
to have been the Russians.
Five days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to
challenge Schiff personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and WikiLeaks.
Schiff still "can't share the evidence" with me or with anyone else, because it does not
exist.
WikiLeaks
It was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National Convention, that
Assange announced the pending publication of "emails related to Hillary Clinton," throwing the
Clinton campaign into panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders. When the emails
were published on July 22, just three days before the convention began, the campaign decided to
create what I call a Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of the
emails by blaming Russia for their release.
Clinton's PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that she golf-carted around to various
media outlets at the convention with instructions "to get the press to focus on something even
we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails
from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton." The
diversion worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting "The Russians did it," and gave
little, if any, play to the DNC skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer'
Fox, Bernie didn't say nothin'.
Meanwhile, highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating "forensic
facts" to "prove" the Russians did it. Here's how it played out:
June 12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to
Hillary Clinton."
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there
is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the
"hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
The June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was the start of a
pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish
and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
Enter Independent Investigators
A year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of forensic work that, for
reasons best known to then-FBI Director James Comey, neither he nor the "handpicked analysts"
who wrote the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent investigators found
verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5,
2016 showing that the "hack" that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or
anyone else.
Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example) by an insider -- the same process used by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016
for an altogether different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the "fluid dynamics"
principle of physics applied, this was not difficult to
disprove the validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
One of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The Forensicator on May
31
published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of the United States, and not
from Russia.
In our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated ,
"We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI."
Our July 24 Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be
related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this
general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA
documents that WikiLeaks labeled 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or
former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the
information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
"No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which
disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA's
Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital
Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPS warned
President Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the time.]
Marbled
"Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it
race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described
and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part
3 release on March 31 that exposed the "Marble Framework" program apparently was judged too
delicate to qualify as 'news fit to print' and was kept out of the Times at the time, and has
never been mentioned since .
"The Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, it seems, 'did not get the memo' in time. Her March
31
article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: 'WikiLeaks' latest release of CIA
cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.'
"The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use
'obfuscation,' and that Marble source code includes a "de-obfuscator" to reverse CIA text
obfuscation.
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report , Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic attribution
double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
A few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical, and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed version
published in The Baltimore Sun
The CIA's reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework tool was
neuralgic. Then Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his
associates "demons," and insisting; "It's time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a
non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia."Our July 24
Memorandum continued: "Mr. President, we do not know if CIA's Marble Framework, or tools like
it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we
know how candid the denizens of CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and
with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the authors of the July 24, 2017
VIPS Memorandum to the President, to discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together
at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed Pompeo with his customary
straightforwardness. ]
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin.
In his interview with NBC's Megyn Kelly he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager
– to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today's
technology enables hacking to be 'masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can
understand the origin' [of the hack] And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or
any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.
"'Hackers may be anywhere,' he said. 'There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a
scenario? I can.'
New attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a widely published
16-minute
interview last Friday.
In view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues, I believe I must
append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled to add to our key Memorandum of July 24,
2017:
"Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in
the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political
agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our
former intelligence colleagues.
"We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say
and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental." The fact we find it
is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer before serving as
a CIA analyst for 27 years. His duties included preparing, and briefing one-on-one, the
President's Daily Brief.
ThomasGilroy , June 9, 2018 at 9:44 am
"More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post
report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by
WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a 'forensic
attribution double game' or false-flag operation because it included test samples in
Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi."
Another false flag operation? Suddenly false flag operations have become the weapon of
choice. Interestingly enough, they are nefariously (always) committed by the US or US allies.
MH17 was a false flag with an SU-25 Ukraine jet responsible for downing the passenger jet (to
blame Russia). All of the chemical attacks in Syria were false flag operations with the
supply of sarin/chlorine made in Turkey or directly given to the "rebels" by the CIA or US
allies. The White Helmets were of course in on all of the details. Assad was just simply not
capable of doing that to "his" people. Forget that the sarin had the chemical signature of
the Assad regime sarin supply. Next it was the snipers who used a false flag operation during
the Maidan revolution to shoot protesters and police to oust Yanukovych. Only the neo-Nazis
could be capable of shooting the Maidan protesters so they could take power. And then Seth
Rich was murdered so he couldn't reveal he was the "real" source of the leak. This was hinted
by Assange when he offered a reward to find the killers.
The author tosses out that the DNC hack was (potentially) a false flag operation by the
CIA obviously to undermine Trump while victimizing Russia. It must be the Gulf of Tonkin all
over again. While Crowdstrike might have a "dubious professional record and multiple
conflicts of interest", their results were also confirmed by several other cyber-security
firms (Wikipedia):
cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant,
SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, have rejected the claims of
"Guccifer 2.0" and have determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the
cyberattacks were committed by two Russian state-sponsored groups (Cozy Bear and Fancy
Bear).
Then there was Papadopoulas who coincidentally was given the information that Russia had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Obviously, they were illegally
obtained (unless this was another CIA false flag operation). This was before the release of
the emails by WikiLeaks. This was followed by the Trump Tower meeting with Russians with
connections to the Russian government and the release of the emails by WikiLeaks shortly
thereafter. Additionally, Russia had the motive to defeat HRC and elect Trump. Yesterday,
Trump pushed for the reinstatement of Russia at the G-7 summit. What a shock! All known
evidence and motive points the finger directly at Russia.
Calling everything a false flag operation is really the easy way out, but ultimately, it
lets the responsible culprits off of the hook.
anon , June 9, 2018 at 11:28 am
I don't seen any cause to say that any false-flag theory you don't like is merely "tossed
out" propaganda.
One cannot tell in your comment where you think the accounts are credible and where not.
No evidence that the Syria CW attacks "had the chemical signature of the Assad regime sarin
supply."
CitizenOne , June 8, 2018 at 11:40 pm
There can be no doubt that counterintelligence tools would be pursued by our intelligence
agencies as a means to create narratives and false evidence based on the production of false
flags which support desired geopolitical outcomes. There would be a need to create false
flags using technology to support the geopolitical agenda which would be hard or impossible
to trace using the forensic tools used by cyber sleuths.
In pre computer technology days there were also many false flags which were set up to
create real world scenarios which suited the geopolitical agenda. Even today, there are many
examples of tactical false flag operations either organized and orchestrated or utilized by
the intelligence agencies to create the narrative which supports geopolitical objectives.
Examples:
The US loaded munitions in broad daylight visible to German spies onto the passenger ship
Lusitania despite German warnings that they would torpedo any vessels suspected of carrying
munitions. The Lusitania then proceeded to loiter unaccompanied by escorts in an area off the
Ireland coast treading over the same waters until it was spotted by a German U-Boat and was
torpedoed. This was not exactly a false flag since the German U-Boat pulled the trigger but
it was required to gain public support for the entrance of the US into WWI. It worked.
There is evidence that the US was deliberately caught "off guard" in the Pearl Harbor
Attack. Numerous coded communication intercepts were made but somehow the advanced warning
radar on the island of Hawaii was mysteriously turned off in the hours before and during the
Japanese attack which guaranteed that the attack would be successful and also guaranteed that
our population would instantly sign on to the war against Japan. It worked.
There is evidence that the US deliberately ignored the intelligence reports that UBL was
planning to conduct an attack on the US using planes as bombs. The terrorists who carried out
the attacks on the twin towers were "allowed" to conduct them. The result was the war in Iraq
which was sold based on a pack of lies about WMDs and which we used to go to war with
Iraq.
The Tonkin Gulf incident which historians doubt actually happened or believe if it did was
greatly exaggerated by intelligence and military sources was used to justify the war in
Vietnam.
The Spanish American War was ginned up by William Randolph Hearst and his yellow
journalism empire to justify attacking Cuba, Panama and the Philippines. The facts revealed
by forensic analysis of the exploded USS Maine have shown that the cataclysm was caused by a
boiler explosion not an enemy mine. At the time this was also widely believed to not be
caused by a Spanish mine in the harbor but the news sold the story of Spanish treachery and
war was waged.
In each case of physical false flags created on purpose, or allowed to happen or just made
up by fictions based on useful information that could be manipulated and distorted the US was
led to war. Some of these wars were just wars and others were wars of choice but in every
case a false flag was needed to bring the nation into a state where we believed we were under
attack and under the circumstances flocked to war. I will not be the judge of history or
justice here since each of these events had both negative and positive consequences for our
nation. What I will state is that it is obvious that the willingness to allow or create or
just capitalize on the events which have led to war are an essential ingredient. Without a
publicly perceived and publicly supported cause for war there can be no widespread support
for war. I can also say our leaders have always known this.
Enter the age of technology and the computer age with the electronic contraptions which
enable global communication and commerce.
Is it such a stretch to imagine that the governments desire to shape world events based on
military actions would result in a plan to use these modern technologies to once again create
in our minds a cyber scenario in which we are once again as a result of the "cyber" false
flag prepared for us to go to war? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that the
government would use the new electronic frontier just as it used the old physical world
events to justify military action?
Again, I will not go on to condemn any action by our military but will focus on how did we
get there and how did we arrive at a place where a majority favored war.
Whether created by physical or cyberspace methods we can conclude that such false flags
will happen for better or worse in any medium available.
susan sunflower , June 8, 2018 at 7:52 pm
I'd like "evidence" and I'd also like "context" since apparently international electoral
"highjinks" and monkey-wrenching and rat-f*cking have a long tradition and history (before
anyone draws a weapon, kills a candidate or sicc's death squads on the citizenry.
The DNC e-mail publication "theft" I suspect represents very small small potatoes for so
many reasons As Dixon at Black Agenda Report put it . Russia-gate is American Exceptionalism
writ large which takes on a more sinister aspect as groups like BLM and others are "linked"
to alleged "Russian funding"on one and and Soros funding on another
(FWIW, this is a new neoliberal phenomenon when the ultra-rich "liberals" can quietly fund
marches on Washington and "grassroots" networking making those neophyte movements too easy
targets with questionable robust foundation (color revolutions are possible when anyone is
able to foot the cost of 1,000 or 2000 "free" signs or t-shirts -- impecccably designed and
printed.
Excellent post. Thanks also for reminding me I need to revisit the Vault 7 information as
source material. These are incredibly important leaks that help connect the dots of criminal
State intelligence activities designed to have remained forever hidden.
Skip Scott , June 8, 2018 at 1:07 pm
I can't think of any single piece of evidence that our MSM is under the very strict
control of our so-called intelligence agencies than how fast and completely the Vault 7
releases got flushed down the memory hole. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."
I don't think anyone can predict whether or not Sanders would have won as a 3rd party
candidate. He ran a remarkable campaign, but when he caved to the Clinton machine he lost a
lot of supporters, including me. If he had stood up at the convention and talked of the DNC
skullduggery exposed by Wikileaks, and said "either I run as a democrat, or I run as a Green,
but I'm running", he would have at least gotten 15 pct to make the TV debates, and who knows
what could have happened after that. 40 pct of registered voters didn't vote. That alone
tells you it is possible he might have won.
Instead he expected us to follow him like he was the f'ing Pied Piper to elect another
Wall St. loving warmonger. That's why he gets no "pass" from me. He (and the Queen of Chaos)
gave us Trump. BTW, Obama doesn't get a "pass" either.
willow , June 8, 2018 at 9:24 pm
It's all about the money. A big motive for the DNC to conjure up Russia-gate was to keep
donors from abandoning any future
Good Ship Hillary or other Blue Dog Democrat campaigns: "Our brand/platform wasn't flawed. It
was the Rooskies."
Vivian O'Blivion , June 8, 2018 at 8:22 am
An earlier time line.
March 14th. Popadopoulos has first encounter with Mifsud.
April 26th. Mifsud tells Popadopoulos that Russians have "dirt" on Clinton, including "thousands of e-mails".
May 4th. Trump last man standing in Republican primary.
May 10th. Popadopoulos gets drunk with London based Australian diplomat and talks about "dirt" but not specifically
e-mails.
June 9th. Don. Jr meets in Trump tower with Russians promising "dirt" but not specifically in form of e-mails.
It all comes down to who Mifsud is, who he is working for and why he has been "off grid" to journalists (but not presumably
Intelligence services) for > 6 months.
Specific points.
On March 14th Popadopoulos knew he was transferring from team Carson to team Trump but this was not announced to the
(presumably underwhelmed) world 'till March 21st. Whoever put Mifsud onto Popadopoulos was very quick on their feet.
The Australian diplomat broke chain of command by reporting the drunken conversation to the State Department as opposed to his
domestic Intelligence service. If Mifsud was a western asset, Australian Intelligence would likely be aware of his status.
If Mifsud was a Russian asset why would demonstrably genuine Russians be trying to dish up the dirt on Clinton in June?
There are missing pieces to this jigsaw puzzle but it's starting to look like a deep state operation to dirty Trump in the
unlikely event that he went on to win.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Ms. Clinton was personally trying to tar Trump with allusions to "Russia" and being
"Putin's puppet" long before he won the presidency, in fact, quite conspicuously during the
two conventions and most pointedly during the debates. She was willing to use that ruse long
before her defeat at the ballot box. It was the straw that she clung to and was willing to
use as a pretext for overturning the election after the unthinkable happened. But, you are
right, smearing Trump through association with Russia was part of her long game going back to
the early primaries, especially since her forces (both in politics and in the media) were
trying mightily to get him the nomination under the assumption that he would be the easiest
(more like the only) Republican candidate that she could defeat come November.
Wcb , June 8, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Steven Halper?
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:33 am
I might add to this informative article that the reason why Julian Assange has been
ostracized and isolated from any public appearance, denied a cell phone, internet and
visitors is that he tells the truth, and TPTB don't want him to say yet again that the emails
were leaked from the DNC. I've heard him say it several times. H. Clinton was so shocked and
angry that she didn't become president as she so confidently expected that her, almost
knee-jerk, reaction was to find a reason that was outside of herself on which to blame her
defeat. It's always surprised me that no one talks about what was in those emails which
covered her plans for Iran and Russia (disgusting).
Trump is a sociopath, but the Russians had nothing to do with him becoming elected. I was
please to read here that he or perhaps just Pompeo? met with Binney. That's a good thing,
though Pompeo, too, is unstable and war hungry to follow Israel into bombing yet another
innocent sovereign country. Thank, Mr. McGovern for another excellent coverage of this
story.
MLS , June 7, 2018 at 9:59 pm
"no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team"
Do tell, Ray: How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's investigation –
with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks – has and has not
done?
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:14 am
MLS: Thank you! No one stands up for what is right any more. We have 17 Intelligency
agencies that say are election was stolen. And just last week the Republicans Paul Ryan,
Mitch McConnel and Trey Gowdy (who I detest) said the FBI and CIA and NSA were just doing
there jobs the way ALL AMERICANS woudl want them to. And even Adam Schiff, do you think he
will tell any reporter what evidence he does have? #1 It is probably classified and #2 he is
probably saving it for the inpeachment. We did not find out about the Nixon missing 18
minutes until the end anyways. All of these articles sound like the writer just copied Sean
Hannity and wrote everything down he said, and yesterday he told all suspects in the Mueller
investigation to Smash and Bleach there mobile devices, witch is OBSTRUCTION of justice and
witness TAMPERING. A great American there!
Rob Roy , June 8, 2018 at 1:48 am
strgr-tgther:
Sean Hannity??? Ha, ha, ha.
As Mr. McGoven wrote .."any resemblance between what we say and what presidents,
politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental."
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:48 am
Sorry I had to come back and point out the ultimate irony of ANYONE who supports the
Butcher of Libya complaining about having an election stolen from them (after the blatant
rigging of the primary that caused her to take the nomination away from the ONE PERSON who
was polling ahead of Trump beyond the margin of error of the polls.)
It is people like you who gave us Trump. The Pied Piper Candidate promoted by the DNC
machine (as the emails that were LEAKED, not "hacked", as the metadata proves conclusively,
show.)
incontinent reader , June 8, 2018 at 7:14 am
What is this baloney? Seventeen Intelligence agencies DID NOT conclude what you are
alleging, And in fact, Brennan and his cabal avoided using a National intelligence Estimate,
which would have shot down his cherry-picked 'assessment' before it got off the ground
– and it would have been published for all to read.
The NSA has everything on everybody, yet has never released anything remotely indicating
Russian collusion. Do you think the NSA Director, who, as you may recall, did not give a
strong endorsement to the Brennan-Comey assessment, would have held back from the Congress
such information, if it had existed, when he was questioned? Furthermore, former technical
directors of the NSA, Binney, Wiebe and Loomis- the very best of the best- have proven
through forensics that the Wikileaks disclosures were not obtained by hacking the DNC
computers, but by a leak, most likely to a thumb drive on the East Coast of the U.S. How many
times does it have to be laid out for you before you are willing and able to absorb the
facts?
As for Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, (and Trey Gowdy, who was quite skilled on the
Benghazi and the Clinton private email server investigations- investigations during which
Schiff ran interference for Clinton- but has seemed unwilling to digest the Strozk, Page,
McCabe, et al emails and demand a Bureau housecleaning), who cares what they think or say,
what matters is the evidence.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts- and start by rereading Ray's articles,
and the piece by Joe diGenova posted on Ray's website.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 4:12 pm
The guy's got Schiff for brains. Everyone who cares about the truth has known since before
Mueller started his charade that the "17 intelligence agency" claim was entirely a ruse,
bald-faced confected propaganda to anger the public to support the coup attempted by Ms.
Clinton and her zombie followers. People are NOT going to support the Democratic party now or
in the future when its tactics include subverting our public institutions, including the
electoral process under the constitution–whether you like the results or not! If the
Democratic party is to be saved, those honest people still in it should endeavor to drain the
septic tank that has become their party before we can all drain the swamp that is the federal
government and its ex-officio manipulators (otherwise known as the "deep state") in
Washington.
Farmer Pete , June 8, 2018 at 7:30 am
"We have 17 Intelligency agencies that say are election was stolen."
You opened up with a talking point that is factually incorrect. The team of hand-picked
spooks that slapped the "high confidence" report together came from 3 agencies. I know, 17
sounds like a lot and very convincing to us peasants. Regardless, it's important to practice
a few ounces of skepticism when it comes to institutions with a long rap sheet of crime and
deception. Taking their word for it as a substitute for actual observable evidence is naive
to say the least. The rest of your hollow argument is filled with "probably(s)". If I were
you, I'd turn off my TV and stop looking for scapegoats for an epically horrible presidential
campaign and candidate.
strgr-tgther , June 8, 2018 at 12:50 pm
/horrible presidential campaign and candidate/ Say you. But we all went to sleep
comfortable the night before the election where 97% of all poles said Clinton was going to be
are next President. And that did not happen! So Robert Mueller is going to find out EXACTLY
why. Stay tuned!!!
irina , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Not 'all'. I knew she was toast after reading that she had cancelled her election night
fireworks
celebration, early on the morning of Election Day. She must have known it also, too.
And she was toast in my mind after seeing the ridiculous scene of her virtual image
'breaking the glass ceiling' during the Democratic Convention. So expensively stupid.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Mueller is simply orchestrating a dramatic charade to distract you from the obvious reason
why she lost: Trump garnered more electoral votes, even after the popular votes were counted
and recounted. Any evidence of ballot box stuffing in the key states pointed to the
Democrats, so they gave that up. She and her supporters like you have never stopped trying to
hoodwink the public either before or after the election. Too many voters were on to you,
that's why she lost.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm
Indeed, stop the nonsense which can't be changed short of a coup d'etat, and start
focusing on opposing the bad policy which this administration has been pursuing. I don't see
the Dems doing that even in their incipient campaigns leading up to the November elections.
Fact is, they are not inclined to change the policies, which are the same ones that got them
"shellacked" at the ballot box in 2016. (I think Obama must own lots of stock in the shellack
trade.)
Curious , June 8, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Ignorance of th facts keep showing up in your posts for some unknown reason. Sentence two:
"we have 17 intelligency (sic) agencies that say ". this statement was debunked a long time
ago.
Have you learned nothing yet regarding the hand-picked people out of three agencies after all
this time? Given that set of lies it makes your post impossible to read.
I would suggest a review of what really happened before you perpetuate more myths and this
will benefit all.
Also, a good reading of the Snowden Docs and vault 7 should scare you out of your shell since
our "intelligeny" community can pretend to be Chinese, Russian, Iranian just for starters,
and the blame game can start after hours instead of the needed weeks and/or months to
determine the veracity of a hack and/or leak.
It's past trying to win you over with the actual 'time lines' and truths. Mr McGovern has
re-emphasized in this article the very things you should be reading.
Start with Mr Binney and his technical evaluation of the forensics in the DNC docs and build
out from there This is just a suggestion.
What never ceases to amaze me in your posts is the 'issue' that many of the docs were
bought and paid for by the Clinton team, and yet amnesia has taken over those aspects as
well. Shouldn't you start with the Clintons paying for this dirt before it was ever
attributed to Trump?
Daniel , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm
Actually, both Brennan and Hayden testified to Congress that only 3 agencies signed off on
their claim. They also said that they'd "hand picked" a special team to run their
"investigation," and no other people were involved. So, people known to be perjurers cherry
picked "evidence" to make a claim. Let's invade Iraq again.
More than 1/2 of their report was about RT, and even though that was all easily viewable
public record, they got huge claims wrong. Basically, the best they had was that RT covered
Occupy Wall Street and the NO DAPL and BLM protests, and horror of horrors, aired third party
debates! In a democracy! How dare they?
Why didn't FBI subpoena DNC's servers so they could run their own forensics on them? Why
did they just accept the claims of a private company founded by an Atlantic Council board
member? Did you know that CrowdStrike had to backpedal on the exact same claim they made
about the DNC server when Ukraine showed they were completely wrong regarding Ukie
artillery?
Joe Lauria , June 8, 2018 at 2:12 am
Until he went incommunicado Assange stated on several occasions that he was never
questioned by Muellers team. Craig Murray has said the same. And Kim Dotcom has written to
Mueller offering evidence about the source and he says they have never replied to him.
Realist , June 8, 2018 at 3:40 pm
Mueller is not interested in the truth. He can't handle the truth. His purpose is not to
divulge the truth. He has no use for truthtellers including the critical possessors of the
truth whom you mentioned. This aversion to the truth is the biggest clue that Mueller's
activities are a complete sham.
MLS wrote, "How do you know what the GOP Congress appointed Special Prosecutor's
investigation – with its unlimited budget, wide mandate, and notable paucity of leaks
– has and has not done?"
Robert Mueller is NOT a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Congress. He is a special
counsel appointed by the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, and is part of the
Department of Justice.
I know no one who dislikes Trumps wants to hear it. But all Mueller's authority and power
to act is derived from Donald J. Trump's executive authority because he won the 2016
presidential election. Mueller is down the chain of command in the Executive Department.
That's why this is all nonsense. What we basically have is Trump investigating himself.
The framers of the Constitution never intended this. They intended Congress to investigate
the Executive and that's why they gave Congress the power to remove him or her via
impeachment.
As long as we continue with this folly of expecting the Justice Department to somehow
investigate and prosecute a president we end up with two terrible possibilities. Either a
corrupt president will exercise his legitimate authority to end the investigation like Nixon
did -or- we have a Deep State beyond the reach of the elected president that can effectively
investigate and prosecute a corrupt president, but also then has other powers with no
democratic control.
The solution to this dilemma? An empowered Congress elected by the People operating as the
Constitution intended.
As to the rest of your post? It is an example of the "will to believe." Me? I'll not act
as if there is evidence of Russian interference until I'm shown evidence, not act as if it
must be true, because I want to believe that, until it's fully proven that it didn't
happen.
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 8:22 pm
There must be some Trump-Russia ties.
Or so claim those CIA spies-
McCabe wants a deal, or else he won't squeal,
He'll dissemble when he testifies!
No one knows what's on Huma's computer.
There's no jury and no prosecutor.
Poor Adam Schiff hopes McCabe takes the fifth,
Special council might someday recruit her!
Assange is still embassy bound.
Mueller's case hasn't quite come unwound.
Wayne Madsen implies that there might be some ties,
To Israelis they haven't yet found!
Halper and Mifsud are players.
John Brennan used cutouts in layers.
If the scheme falls apart and the bureau is smart,
They'll go after them all as betrayers!
They needed historical fiction.
A dossier with salacious depiction!
Some urinous whores could get down on all fours,
They'd accomplish some bed sheet emiction!
Pablo Miller and Skripal were cited.
Sidney Blumenthal might have been slighted.
Christopher Steele offered Sidney a deal,
But the dossier's not copyrighted!
That story about Novichok,
Smells a lot like a very large crock.
But they can't be deposed or the story disclosed,
The Skripals have toxic brain block!
Papadopolis shot off his yap.
He told Downer, that affable chap-
There was dirt to report on the Clinton cohort,
Mifsud hooked him with that honey trap!
She was blond and a bombshell to boot.
Papadopolis thought she was cute.
She worked for Mifsud, a mysterious dude,
Now poor Paps is in grave disrepute!
But the trick was to tie it to Russians.
The Clinton team had some discussions.
Their big email scandal was easy to handle,
They'd blame Vlad for the bad repercussions!
There must have been Russian collusion.
That explained all the vote count confusion.
Guccifer Two made the Trump team come through,
If he won, it was just an illusion!
Lisa Page and Pete Strzok were disgusted
They schemed and they plotted and lusted.
If bald-headed Clapper appealed to Jake Tapper,
Brennan's Tweets might get Donald Trump busted!
There had to be cyber subversion.
It would serve as the perfect perversion.
They would claim it was missed if it didn't exist,
It's a logically perfect diversion!
F.G., you've done it again, and I might add, topped even yourself! Thanks.
KiwiAntz , June 7, 2018 at 7:30 pm
What a joke, America, the most dishonest Country on Earth, has meddled, murdered &
committed coups to overturn other Govts & interfered & continues to do so in just
about every Country on Earth by using Trade sanctions, arming Terrorists & illegal
invasions, has the barefaced cheek to puff out its chest & hypocritcally blame Russia for
something that it does on a daily basis?? And the point with Mueller's investigation is not
to find any Russian collusion evidence, who needs evidence when you can just make it up? The
point is provide the US with a list of unfounded lies & excuses, FIRSTLY to slander &
demonise RUSSIA for something they clearly didn't do! SECONDLY, was to provide a excuse for
the Democrats dismal election loss result to the DONALD & his Trump Party which just
happens to contain some Republicans? THIRDLY, to conduct a soft Coup by trying to get Trump
impeached on "TRUMPED UP CHARGES OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION"? And FOURTLY to divert attention away
from scrutiny & cover up Obama & Hillary Clinton's illegal, money grubbing activities
& her treasonous behaviour with her private email server?? After two years of Russiagate
nonsense with NOTHING to show for it, I think it's about time America owes Russia a public
apology & compensation for its blatant lying & slander of a innocent Country for a
crime they never committed?
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 7:11 pm
Thanks, Ray, for revealing that the CIA's Digital Innovation Directorate is the likely
cause of the Russiagate scams.
I am sure that they manipulate the digital voting machines directly and indirectly. True
elections are now impossible.
Your disclaimer is hilarious: "We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any
resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely
coincidental."
Antiwar7 , June 7, 2018 at 6:23 pm
Expecting the evil people running the show to respond to reason is futile, of course. All
of these reports are really addressed to the peanut gallery, where true power lies, if only
they could realize it.
Thanks, Ray and VIPS, for keeping up the good fight.
mike k , June 7, 2018 at 5:55 pm
For whatever reason, Ray McGovern chose not to mention the murder of Seth Rich, which
pretty clearly points to the real source of the leak being him, as hinted by Assange offering
a reward for anyone uncovering his killer. The whole thing stinks of a democratic
conspiracy.
And BTW people have become shy about using the word conspiracy, for fear it will
automatically brand one as a hoaxer. On the contrary, conspiracies are extremely common, the
higher one climbs in the power hierarchy. Like monopolies, conspiracies are central to the
way the oligarchs do business.
John , June 8, 2018 at 5:42 am
Ray, from what I have seen in following his writing for years, meticulously only deals in
knowns. The Seth Rich issue is not a known, it is speculation still. Yes, it probably is
involved, but unless Craig Murray states that Seth Rich was the one who handed him the USB
drive, it is not a known.
There is a possibility that Seth Rich was not the one who leaked the information, but that
the DNC bigwigs THOUGHT he was, in which case, by neither confirming nor denying that Seth
Rich was the leaker, it may be that letting the DNC continue to think it was him is being
done in protection of the actual leaker. Seth Rich could also have been killed for unrelated
reasons, perhaps Imran Awan thought he was on to his doings.
" whether or not"?!! Wow. That's an imperialistic statement.
Drew Hunkins , June 7, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians. Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the
mass media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump. Which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein and Mueller's crusade on behalf of the deplorable
DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. Sure be interesting to see how Mueller and his
crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent edifice of deceit. Will they
even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was arguably in bed with the Winter Hill
Gang!
jose , June 7, 2018 at 5:13 pm
If they had had any evidence to inculpate Russia, we would have all seen it by now. They
know that by stating that there is an investigation going on: they can blame Russia. The
Democratic National Committee is integrated by a pack of liars.
Jeff , June 7, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Thanx, Ray. The sad news is that everybody now believes that Russia tried to "meddle" in
our election and, since it's a belief, neither facts nor reality will dislodge it. Your
disclaimer should also probably carry the warning – never believe a word a government
official says especially if they are in the CIA, NSA, or FBI unless they provide proof. If
they tell you that it's classified, that they can't divulge it, or anything of that sort, you
know they are lying.
john wilson , June 7, 2018 at 4:09 pm
I suspect the real reason no evidence has been produced is because there isn't any. I know
this is stating the obvious, but if you think about it, as long as the non extent evidence is
supposedly being "investigated" the story remains alive. They know they aren't going to find
anything even remotely plausible that would stand up to any kind of scrutiny, but as long as
they are looking, it has the appearance that there might be something.
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 4:08 pm
I first want to thank Ray and the VIPS for their continuing to follow through on this
Russia-Gate story. And it is a story.
My question is simple, when will we concentrate on reading Hillary's many emails? After
all wasn't this the reason for the Russian interference mania? Until we do, take apart
Hillary's correspondence with her lackeys, nothing will transpire of any worth. I should not
be the one saying this, in as much as Bernie Sanders should be the one screaming it for
justice from the highest roof tops, but he isn't. So what's up with that? Who all is involved
in this scandalous coverup? What do the masters of corruption have on everybody?
Now we have Sean Hannity making a strong case against the Clinton's and the FBI's careful
handling of their crimes. What seems out of place, since this should be big news, is that CNN
nor MSNBC seems to be covering this story in the same way Hannity is. I mean isn't this news,
meant to be reported as news? Why avoid reporting on Hillary in such a manner? This must be
that 'fake news' they all talk about boy am I smart.
In the end I have decided to be merely an observer, because there are no good guys or gals
in our nation's capital worth believing. In the end even Hannity's version of what took place
leads back to a guilty Russia. So, the way I see it, the swamp is being drained only to make
more room for more, and new swamp creatures to emerge. Talk about spinning our wheels. When
will good people arrive to finally once and for all drain this freaking swamp, once and for
all?
Realist , June 7, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Ha, ha! Don't you enjoy the magic show being put on by the insiders desperately trying to
hang onto their power even after being voted out of office? Their attempt to distract your
attention from reality whilst feeding you their false illusions is worthy of Penn &
Teller, or David Copperfield (the magician). Who ya gonna believe? Them or your lying
eyes?
Joe Tedesky , June 7, 2018 at 10:00 pm
Realist, You can bet they will investigate everything but what needs investigated, as our
Politico class devolves into survivalist in fighting, the mechanism of war goes
uninterrupted. Joe
F. G. Sanford , June 7, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Joe, speaking of draining the swamp, check out my comment under Ray's June 1 article about
Freddy Fleitz!
Sam F , June 7, 2018 at 6:59 pm
That is just what I was reminded of; here is an antiseptic but less emphatic last
line:
"Swamp draining progresses apace.
It's being accomplished with grace:
They're taking great pains to clean out the drains,"
New swamp creatures will need all that space!
Unfettered Fire , June 8, 2018 at 11:00 am
We must realize that to them, "the Swamp" refers to those in office who still abide by New
Deal policy. Despite the thoroughly discredited neoliberal economic policy, the radical right
are driving the world in the libertarian direction of privatization, austerity, private bank
control of money creation, dismantling the nation-state, contempt for the Constitution,
etc.
"... Charles is the founder and editor of Russia Insider . He can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter and on Steemit . ..."
"... We will gradually be updating this post to include several collages representing about 15 publications. This one includes NEWSWEEK, TIME and THE ECONOMIST. Scroll down to see them all. ..."
We will gradually be updating this post to include several collages representing about
15 publications. This one includes NEWSWEEK, TIME and THE ECONOMIST. Scroll down to see them
all.
UPDATE 2 , June 7: Newsweek is one of most shameful spreaders of vitriolic Putin hatred. It
is a magazine which has gone from ownership by Katherine Graham's (Jewish) Washington Post
Group, where it went bust, losing out to its long-time rival TIME, and has since been passed
around by a string of shady owners. A Jewish electronics billionaire bought if from The
Washington Post for $1.
Meanwhile, its anti-Russian rhetoric has steadily ratcheted up, to the point where it really
does seem like it has just become a mouthpiece for US government agencies and / or Neocon
zealots who enjoy working themselves into a frenzy over how evil Putin and Russia are.
It is the worst kind of trash journalism, epitomized by truly psychotic Putin haters Anna
Nemtsova and Owen Matthews, both Jewish (Nemtsova is married to NY Times correspondent Andrew
Higgins, another great spreader of deception about Russia). It's main reason for existence
seems to be to churn out a relentless series of hit pieces against the Russian president. It is
closely connected with the Daily Beast .
UPDATE 1 , June 2: Here is The Economist , which I personally think is the worst of the lot,
because it has successfully cemented a reputation for excellent business coverage, inspiring a
lot of trust from people in business who don't follow politics too closely and pretty much
believe what they hear from trusted sources. It is definitely Jewish-owned, controlled by the
Rothschild family. It's editors and writers are also largely Jewish. Their completely
irresponsible and relentless demonization of Putin has been off the charts over the past 15
years.
We know. We watch who is saying what.
ORIGINAL POST , May 18, 2018:
A reader sent in cover collages for a whole bunch of magazines, and we will be publishing
them as a series, updated in this post. The first is Time Magazine , a big-time liar when it
comes to Russia.
Can Time be described as 'Jewish', in ownership or staff? Let's throw that one out to the
comments section. Maybe someone can do some quick research and figure that out. I will update
this article if any compelling info materializes, one way or the other.
In my article, It's Time to Drop the Jew
Taboo , I argued that the relentless demonization of Putin and Russia is largely a Jewish
phenomenon, pushed very hard in Jewish-owned media, and most obsessively by Jewish journalists,
and that this peculiarity warrants a balanced, public discussion. I think this reader sought to
provide evidence backing up that assertion.
If we, as a society, want to unpack this endemic lying about Russia, we have to be able to
discuss who is behind it, and why. This is not a complaint against Jews in general, just the
small group of them who dominate our media, and mislead us so outrageously about Russia, and a
lot of other things.
Stay tuned for more. We'll gradually update this post until they are all here.
When you see them all in one go, you realize something extraordinary is going on.
NEWSWEEK:
* *
THE ECONOMIST:
* *
TIME MAGAZINE
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the
images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon
it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider .
It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
You may be right! But I am optimistic about this change of paradigm,
because now it appears that the 3 biggest World powers are collaborating in
this planet-wide "draining of the swamp". We will soon know if the Trump
military gov has been able to do its part, because Q Anon says that US
interventionism will be over, and their troops back home by November 2018
I'm also optimistic and btw I truly admire how well Putin is implementing
principles of conceptual power. But Putin along can't change the world. It is
a question of individual and collective awareness and that's where in this
dangerous times of global changes and humanity on the verge of next
technological stage/level there's a window of opportunity opening for us -
people of this planet. An opportunity to escape that tunnel scenario that was
imposed on humanity by current (centuries old) paradigm. Everyone knows what
that scenario is. Not many are realizing it yet.
But that is changing.
"... Orlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the Boston area. ..."
"... He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with James Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. ..."
"... He is best known for his 2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse (he thinks America's will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array of subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon. ..."
"... He has a large following on the web, and on Patreon, and we urge you to support him there , as Russia Insider does. ..."
"... His current project is organizing the production of affordable house boats for living on. He lives on a boat himself. ..."
"... If you haven't discovered his work yet, please take a look at his archive of articles on RI . They are a real treasure, full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related. ..."
Russia's Maddening Patience - Why Doesn't She Strike Back When Attacked? Russian behavior often mystifies Westerners -
this is an excellent explanation from one of the best analysts out there. Highly recommended.
Dmitry OrlovFri, Jun 1, 2018 | 14,484
368MORE:
PoliticsOrlov is one of our favorite essayists on Russia
and all sorts of other things. He moved to the US as a child, and lives in the Boston area.
He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in
an excellent 2009 profile , along with
James Howard Kunstler, another regular contributor
to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up.
He is best known for his
2011 book comparing Soviet and American collapse (he thinks America's will be worse). He is a prolific author on a wide array
of subjects, and you can see his work by searching him on Amazon.
If you haven't discovered his work yet, please take a look at
his archive of articles on RI . They are a real treasure,
full of invaluable insight into both the US and Russia and how they are related.
A lot of commentators noticed a curious fact: during the May 9 parade in the Red Square in Moscow, Putin appeared in the presence
of Israeli prime minister Netanyahu. Around that same time, Israeli air force was firing rockets at Syrian and Iranian targets in
Syria (lots of which the Syrian air defenses shot down) and the Syrians were firing back at Israeli positions on the Golan Heights
(which are occupied Syrian territory, so it didn't count as an attack on Israel proper).
Why didn't Russia rise to the defense of its ally Syria? Moreover, there was talk of selling Russia's very powerful S-300 air
defense system to Syria, and that offer was subsequently withdrawn. Is this really how an ally behaves?
Or take another example: relations between Russia and the Ukraine has been in a downward spiral ever since the 2014 Kiev putsch
which overthrew the constitutional government. There is a festering sore of a military standoff in the Donbass region in eastern
Ukraine, a constant drumbeat of Ukrainian provocations against Russia, and Russia has been saddled with economic and political sanctions
by the US and the EU supposedly in response to the annexation of Crimea and the unsettled conflict in the Donbass that has claimed
some ten thousand lives.
And yet the Ukraine's largest trading partner remains Russia. Not only does Russia continue to trade with the Ukraine, but it
has also absorbed an exodus of economic refugees from the collapsed Ukrainian economy which numbers in the millions. Russia has resettled
these refugees, allowed them to find work, and is allowing them to send money back to their relatives in the Ukraine. Also, Russia
has declined to give political recognition to the two separatist republics in eastern Ukraine.
The only real stand Russia has taken with regard to the Ukraine is in claiming Crimea as its own. But this is more or less cut
and dried: Crimea was part of Russia ever since 1783, and the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which
occurred under Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, violated the constitution of the USSR that was in effect at the time.
Yet another example: the US, with the European Union acting as its obedient servant, have been imposing various kinds of sanctions
on Russia ever since the Magnitsky Act in 2012 which was pushed through by the fantastically corrupt oligarch William Browder. These
sanctions have been sometimes somewhat damaging, sometimes helpful (stimulating import replacement within Russia) and sometimes simply
annoying. Russia is too big, too important and too powerful for anyone, even an entity as large as the US and the EU combined, to
isolate it or to bend it to its will by imposing sanctions.
In some cases, there is a powerful boomerang effect that causes more pain for the sanctioners than the sanctioned. But Russia
really hasn't done much in response -- other than working on import replacement and establishing trade relationships with other,
friendlier nations. It could have actually hurt the US, for instance, by blocking the sale of titanium parts without which Boeing
wouldn't be able to build its planes.
Or it could prohibit the sale of rocket engines to the US, and the US would then be unable to launch satellites. But Russia hasn't
done any of that; instead, it just kept repeating that these sanctions are unproductive and unhelpful.
One more: in violation of agreements that Russia and the NATO nations have entered into, NATO has expanded all the way to the
Russian border and has recently turned the tiny Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into a sort of militaristic playpen,
holding military exercises right next to the Russian border, stationing thousands of troops there and training them to attack Russia.
Russia has complained about this, but has continued to trade with all of the countries involved. In particular, it has continued
to supply the Baltic states with electricity and to use Baltic ports to ship out its products.
When recently Latvia banned the use of Russian in schools (a third of Latvia's population is Russian) and started violating the
rights of Lithuanian Russians who tried fighting back against this affront, the Russians took even this blatant act of anti-Russian
discrimination in stride. In Latvia, the lights are still on and the loaded Russian freight trains are still rolling in across the
border.
"Why is that?" you might ask. "Why such a passive attitude against these numerous sleights, offenses and injuries?" It can't be
said that Russia is too big to hurt. The sanctions in 2012 were a piffle, but in 2014 the Russian economy did take a hit (though
mostly from lower energy prices, not from sanctions). The ruble lost half its value and Russia's poverty rate crept up. What's going
on, then?
To understand that, you have to take a step back and look at the overall context.
• Russia is the largest country in the world in size, but certainly not in population. Its borders are very well defended, but
they stretch over 61 thousand kilometers.
• The Russian Federation is Russian in name, but it includes over a hundred different nations, with ethnic Russians making up
just over 80%, and with six other nations that are each over a million strong.
• It borders 16 sovereign states -- more than any other country -- including two maritime boundaries (with Japan and the US),
and two more internationally unrecognized states (Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
• It has the largest diaspora in the world, with between 20 and 40 million Russians (depending on how you count them) living outside
of Russia proper. The largest Russian community overseas is in the US at around 3 million.
• Russian peacekeeping troops have served in numerous countries around Russia itself and across the world -- Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
Armenia, Transnistria, Tadjikistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Angola, Chad, Sierra Leone, Sudan -- and remain instrumental in keeping latent
conflicts from escalating to war.
• Russia's huge landmass and enormous wealth in natural resources make it one of the main purveyors of economically essential
products to the world, especially oil, gas, uranium and coal, which keep the lights on and the pipes from freezing in dozens of countries.
No matter what goes wrong in international relations, it must remain a stable and reliable supplier.
In this environment, countering hostile (and mostly futile) gestures emanating from across the ocean with hostile (and mostly
futile) gestures of one's own would be counterproductive: some people would get hurt, and there is some likelihood that they would
be Russian.
Thus, part of the winning approach is to just muddle through, maintaining the best relations achievable with as many countries
as possible, the neighbors especially, talking to every side in every conflict and trying to defuse it and carefully balancing the
disparate interests of all involved. Russia has good relations with both Iran and Saudi Arabia, who are sworn enemies, and with both
Syria and Israel, who are shooting at each other.
The other part of the winning approach to confronting an increasingly hostile outside world is to move in the direction of limited
autarky; not closing itself off to the world, but taking measured steps to become relatively invulnerable to its vicissitudes. Russia
is already self-sufficient in energy, making strides in becoming self-sufficient in food, and the next challenge is to reach self-sufficiency
in technology and finance.
Viewed in this context, Russia's seeming failures to act forcefully turn out to be parts of a careful balancing act:
• Israelis bomb Syria while Netanyahu sits at a place of honor during the parade in Moscow. Syria strikes back by bombing its
own territory in the Golan Heights. Then Russia decides not to sell the S-300 system to Syria. What just happened? Well, Israel just
recognized Victory Day -- May 9th -- as its own national holiday. A third of Israelis are in fact Russian, and a lot of them felt
very proud to be Russian that day, and took part in big parades that were broadcast on Russian television. In the face of a rising
wave of antisemitism in Europe and with neo-Nazis running amok in the Ukraine, Russia and Israel stand united.
Then there is the fact that Israel doesn't like the fact that there are Iranians in Syria. It certainly has the right to feel
that way, given the fact that the Iranians keep talking about how Israel should be destroyed. But Iranian presence in Syria is by
invitation, so that's not Russia's concern. Having Israel bomb Syria isn't helpful to Russia, but this wasn't the first time and
won't be the last.
Syria successfully shooting down Israeli missiles and then firing on Israelis in the Golan Heights was a new development, and
an escalation, and escalations are always bad. Selling the S-300 system to the Syrians would have enabled Syria to shoot down anything
in the air over all of Israel, and since they had just escalated, giving them the ability to escalate even further would seem to
be wrong.
• The Ukraine continuously provokes Russia and violates the rights of the eight million Russians living there, and yet Russia
remains the Ukraine's largest trading partner. What gives? Well, there is the unpleasant fact that the Ukraine is currently ruled
by people who are, to use a very specific Russian term, "inadequate." It is an illegal, immensely corrupt regime that is supported
by another regime that's across the ocean, which is, by the way, also rather "inadequate" -- headed by a ridiculous buffoon who is
in turn being thwarted at every turn by an immensely corrupt "deep state."
But these are temporary facts, and in no way do they override the permanent fact that the Russians and the Ukrainians are essentially
the same people (with the exception of a few tribes that mainly inhabit the west of the country that was for centuries a Central
European no man's land -- next door to Transylvania, where the vampires come from).
The Russians and the Ukrainians are genetically indistinguishable, and there are numerous nations within Russia that are far more
culturally different from the Russians than the Ukrainians. The winning strategy in this case is to avoid hurting the Ukraine, because
it is already hurting itself quite enough, and because doing so would in essence just hurt some Russians.
Instead, it makes more sense to simply be patient and wait things out. Eventually, the people in the Ukraine will have had enough
and will take matters into their own hands, throw the bums out together with their overseas handlers, and the relationship will eventually
become more normal.
• On the Western sanctions , Russia has imposed some counter-sanctions, and they were clever ones. Russia banned various categories
of food imports from the EU. This made it possible to ramp up food production within Russia and to move Russia toward self-sufficiency
in food. Since within the EU farmers are politically quite powerful, this made US sanctions unpopular in Europe.
Add to this the fact that the US now wants to sanction Russian energy imports in Europe, forcing the Europeans to buy from the
US, whose supplies are much more expensive and far less reliable, and you can see why the Europeans have by now had enough of Washington's
meddling. Of course, having surrendered much of their sovereignty a long time ago, the Europeans face fantastic difficulties in trying
to claw it back, but at least they are starting to think about it.
This is already a win for Russia: it needs independent, sovereign nations for neighbors, not a bunch of Washington's feckless
vassals. As far as imposing countersanctions on the US itself, that would just cause some more economic damage without securing any
political advantages.
• On NATO encroachment on Russian borders , anti-Russian slights by the Baltic midgets and NATO troops training to "attack Russia"
-- well, frankly, the Russians are a little bit insulted, but they are not exactly afraid. Everybody knows that NATO is part of the
American defense establishment racket. Its purpose is to steal boatloads of money, not to make weapons that work or to train armies
that can fight. There is now quite a bit of NATO armor and manpower prepositioned in the Baltics, but not enough to actually invade
Russia in any meaningful way.
And if they ever do, they will get lonely very quickly. You see, NATO armor doesn't fit under most bridges and can't move large
distances over rough terrain like Russian armor can. It has to be transported to the field of battle by train or on flatbed trucks
over federal highways. Or it has to be shipped in via deepwater ports.
So, all that Russia has to do is take out some bridges and some port facilities by launching rockets from pretty much anywhere,
then kettle and destroy the relatively small contingent of invaders, and it will be game over. NATO knows this, and so all of this
activity in the Baltics is just a way to funnel some money to the economically anemic and rapidly depopulating Baltic states.
They are suffering already; why hurt them more? As for the rights of the Russians in Latvia, one might think that they don't really
mind having them violated -- or they'd be moving to Russia where there is plenty of room for them. They deserve lots of moral support,
of course, but it's really their battle, not Russia's.
This doesn't make the most exciting reading in the world, but so be it. People search the internet for stories about dramatic
turns of events, mostly because they are bored. It often happens that the most important developments fail to thrill, but this doesn't
make them any less important. For example, Russia is reducing its defense spending, because it will soon be fully rearmed.
Can the US and NATO do the same? No! If they ever tried, the American defense establishment would get a new set of congressmen
and senators voted in, and the profligate spending would resume forthwith. And so the Russians can just sit calmly, arms folded,
and watch the US bankrupt itself.
That will certainly be a dramatic turn of events; you'll just have to wait for it.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format,
with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia
Insider . It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider . Licensed Creative Commons
The part about ' Israel and Russia ' stand together is wrong.
Putin is just displaying cold, hard, diplomacy, by hosting Netanyahu.
Netanyahu has been to Moscow 8 times in 3 years, obviously pleading and begging, sometimes demanding and shouting matches happen
at the Kremlin, with Israeli officials losing it. Putin on the other hand has not visited Israel. So, its a total one-way street.
Its Israel that needs , not Russia.
Israel offers Russia nothing at all. Even though a million Israeli's are of Russian origin, Russia has 20 million Muslim citizens.
Iran and Russia, on the other hand, have very large trade agreements, in many fields, with Iran being a critical, integral, and
indispensable part of the Chinese OR-OB initiative that Russia is also heavily into.
Iran is to become a full member in the many trade and financial organizations of Eurasia/Asia.
Israel, is a tiny apartheid state/outpost that is a warmonger hiding behind the U.S., Britain and France. While being in direct
, blatant violation of 70 U.N. Resolutions, far too many conventions and civilized norms. Not exactly the country/outpost that
Russia see's a mutually beneficial relationship with.
On the other hand, Russia, along with China and Iran are going to re-build Syria, and also Iraq. Russia stands to gain enormously
from this. Russia is slated to build more nuclear reactors for Iran, while rail links and cultural exchanges are growing by leaps
and bounds.
Israel offers Russia nothing. Israel shields criminal Russian Jews who looted the Russian people during the 1990's and refuses
to hand them over to Russia for justice, or even return the money.
So, I'm afraid your wrong. Putin, his administration and the astute Russian people know who the global troublemakers are. They
are the ones pushing for more and more sanctions, war talk and out-right lies and smear against Russia, Putin etc. They are international
Jews, who operate from ' think tanks ' , columnists , moguls, government officials etc. Victoria Nuland, the author of the Ukraine
debacle is Jewish. The Kiev junta is mostly Jewish.
And I firmly believe that Russians have not forgot about the bloody 20th century they had at the hands of Bolshevik Jews, and
then the criminal Jewish vultures who descended on it when it was weak in the 90's.
I am reminded of a press conference between Putin and Nuttygetpoo, and Putin quickly said ( As Nutty was having a mental seizure
about ancient Persian and Judea)
that happened thousands of years ago it's our job to solve problems of the here and now
"... A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely source of today's leafletting. ..."
DOJ Watchdog Finds Comey "Defied Authority" And Was "Insubordinate"
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/06/2018 - 22:44 763 SHARES
The Department of Justice's internal watchdog has found that James Comey defied authority
several times while he was director of the FBI,
according to ABC , citing sources familiar with the draft of a highly anticipated OIG
report on the FBI's conduct during the Clinton email investigation .
One source told ABC News that the draft report explicitly used the word "insubordinate" to
describe Comey's behavior . Another source agreed with that characterization but could not
confirm the use of the term.
In the draft report, Inspector General Michael Horowitz also rebuked former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch for her handling of the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's
personal email server, the sources said. -
ABC
President Trump complained on Tuesday of "numerous delays" in the release of the Inspector
General's report, which some have accused of being slow
walked or altered to minimize its impact on the FBI and DOJ.
"What is taking so long with the Inspector General's Report on Crooked Hillary and Slippery
James Comey," Trump said on Twitter. "Hope report is not being changed and made weaker!"
"It's been almost a year and a half and it is time that Congress receives the IG report,"
said Congressman Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who has been on the front lines of the battle against
the DOJ and FBI's stonewalling of lawmakers requesting documentation. "This has gone on long
enough and the American people's patience is wearing thin. We need accountability," said
DeSantis.
Another congressional official, who's been fighting to obtain documents from the DOJ and
FBI, said it is no surprise that they are putting pressure on Horowitz. According to the
official, "They continue to slow roll documents, fail to adhere to congressional oversight
and concern is growing that they will wait until summer and then turn over documents that are
heavily redacted."
ABC reports that there is no indication Trump has seen - or will see - the draft of the
report prior to its release. Inspector General Horowitz, however, could revise the draft report
now that current and former officials have offered their responses to the report's conclusions,
according to the sources.
The draft of Horowitz's wide-ranging report specifically called out Comey for ignoring
objections from the Justice Department when he disclosed in a letter to Congress just days
before the 2016 presidential election that FBI agents had reopened the Clinton probe,
according to sources . Clinton has said that letter doomed her campaign.
Before Comey sent the letter to Congress, at least one senior Justice Department official
told the FBI that publicizing the bombshell move so close to an election would violate
longstanding department policy , and it would ignore federal guidelines prohibiting the
disclosure of information related to an ongoing investigation, ABC News was told. -
ABC
During an April interview, Comey was asked by ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos "If
Attorney General Lynch had ordered you not to send the letter, would you have sent it?"
"No," replied Comey. "I believe in the chain of command."
Deputy Attorney General slammed Comey's letter to congress while recommending that Trump
fire Comey last year - saying it "was wrong" for Comey "to usurp the Attorney General's
authority" when he revealed in July 2016 that he would not be filing charges against Hillary
Clinton or her aides (many of whom were granted immunity).
"It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement," Rosenstein wrote in a
letter recommending that Comey be fired. "At most, the Director should have said the FBI had
completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors."
The draft OIG report dings Comey for not consulting with Lynch and other senior DOJ
officials before making his announcement on national TV. Furthermore, while Comey said there
was no "clear evidence" that Hillary Clinton "intended to violate" the law, he also said that
Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her "handling of very sensitive, highly
classified information."
And as we now know, Comey's senior counterintelligence team at the FBI made
extensive edits to Clinton's exoneration letter, effectively decriminalizing her behavior
.
"I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice
or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say," Comey said on
live TV July 5, 2016.
By then, Lynch had taken the unusual step of publicly declaring she would accept the FBI's
recommendations in the case, after an impromptu meeting with former president Bill Clinton
sparked questions about her impartiality.
Comey has defended his decisions as director, insisting he was trying to protect the FBI
from even further criticism and "didn't see that I had a choice." -
ABC
"The honest answer is I screwed up a couple of things, but ... I think given what I knew at
the time, these were the decisions that were best calculated to preserve the values of the
institutions," Comey told ABC News. " I still think it was the right thing to do. "
Comey is currently on a tour promoting his new book, " A Higher Loyalty."
About that delay...
As many wonder just where the OIG report is after supposedly being "finished" for a while,
the Washington Examiner 's Chief political correspondent, Byron York, offers some keen insight
(tweeted before details of the draft were leaked):
• Byron York
A series of tweets on what to expect from the much-anticipated inspector general report on
DOJ/FBI handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation... 1/
10:42 AM - Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
First, looks like it might be delayed yet again. Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a June
5 hearing to discuss IG report.
After delay, had to be rescheduled for next Monday, June 11.
Now looks like might be delayed again.
10:42 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Why delays? Feet are clearly being dragged. There are snags over classified information.
Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information, interviewed
new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about. 3/
10:43 AM-Jun6, 2018
Byron York
@ByronYork
Replying to @ByronYork
So, when IG report is finally released-looking like mid-June -- what will it cover? Don't
know its conclusions, but here are some subjects you can expect to be reading about: 4/
10:43 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of 6/27/16 Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting on tarmac in Arizona. IG has
done extensive investigation.
What was said? What were the intentions of those involved? Expect it to be covered
carefully. 5/
10:44 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of James Comey's decision to begin drafting an exoneration memo for
Hillary Clinton long before the FBI had even interviewed her, or at least a dozen other key
figures in the case.
Also: Why hand out so much immunity? 6/
10:45 AM-Jun6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of Comey's intentions when he announced reopening of Clinton investigation
on 10/28/16, shortly before election day. Democrats specifically asked IG to investigate
that.
10:45 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of Clinton
emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on information? If so, why?
What did Comey know? 8/
10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion on rationale for Comey's controversial 7/5/16 statement announcing no
charges would be filed against Clinton.
To say it was unorthodox would be an understatement. What was he doing? 9/
10:46 AM-Jun 6, 2018
• Byron York
Expect discussion of Lynch's refusal to recuse herself from investigation or to appoint
special counsel. Plus, look for discussion of why McCabe waited so long to recuse himself
even after public reporting of Clinton-related political contributions to his wife. 10/
10:47 AM-Jun6, 2018
• Byron York
Finally, don't expect to learn much new about McCabe 'lack of candor' situation re:
leaks.
Not clear whether IG will reveal much beyond what has already been released in wake of
McCabe firing. End/
10:48 AM-Jun 6, 2018
Also, and this is intriguing: appears in last several weeks IG got new information,
interviewed new witnesses. Could have contributed to delay. Don't know what it's about.
How many more new witnesses with new information will crawl out of the woodwork at the
most opportune moment to delay releasing the report. I'm guessing they interviewed McCabe's
hairdresser at Sport Clips to see which direction he combs.
If the strongest language in this report to describe Comey's actions is merely
"insubordinate" and "defied authority", then it's a big, fat, nothingburger... Not a GD thing
is going to happen, lift rug, sweep vigorously...
If the blue team leaked this, then they're trying to get ahead of damaging
information. If it's the red team, then you're right Keyser and a behind the scenes agreement has been
reached letting both teams off the hook for some unleaked transgression.
"Expect discussion of what Andrew McCabe did when he first learned about existence of
Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop in early October 2016. Did he sit on
information"
I wouldn't sit on anything related to Weiner or his LAPtop.
A lot of water muddying today - and it's being stirred from a lot of seemingly unrelated
directions. Distract and confuse, great ploys - now who benefits more is the most likely
source of today's leafletting.
Your lips to God's ears! This is ridiculous! Insubordinate? That's it? 90% of the people in DC need a good wearing out with a belt! This politically correct nonsense has to end. Call it what it is you lily-livered pansies!
It's treason and sedition. It's a den of snakes!
You want to see America bounce back as a strong and proud nation? START HANDING OUT REAL
PUNISHMENT! Otherwise, it will be the same old sleazy crap over and over again.
agree...that's why we need to stay diligent and demand the proper dissemination of the
impartial facts...
with McCabe seeking immunity...and Comey playing 'Patriot'...and Brennon being and old
lair...and Clapper portraying all previous actions were 'honorable'...we have to ask
ourselves a question...
Anything I hear/see involving Clapper and Brennan I figure is a fictitious psyop. Brian
Cox and Albert Finney already portrayed them in the Bourne films.
SEVERAL Ex FBI agents and current FBI Agents are BEGGING to be subpoenaed, WHY hasn't this
happened, THEY want this MESS OUT in the open, yet TRUMP does nothing?. I would have Congress
do it asap, under OATH and with Criminal repercussions. Horowitz is a EUNUCH.
Exactly. That's why Lockheed Martin paid him $6 million a year. Does anyone think they hired him for his abilities as an attorney when he lacked any
experience in corporate law? Then he went on to Ray Dalio's Bridgewater associates. Wonder how much they paid him
there. What experience did he have for working as an attorney for a hedge fund?
Then he leaves these extremely lucrative jobs to go back to government at $170,00 a
year.
I'd be insubordinate too if Satan's Slut Hillary was breathing hellfire down my neck.
Comey probably likes living as much as the rest of us. Now that the noose is getting tighter,
will he give up the slut???? Hopefully a few of these pukes will turn on her in unison. The
Magical Homo will be tougher to snare.
The former ever-so-sanctimonious FBI Director, classified document leaker and Clinton
water boy Jimmy Comey was "Insubordinate?" Who could have guessed? But remember, Trump fired
the asswipe in order to "obstruct justice." Jail Jimmy without delay.
While we are on the subject, this shows you the type of "friends" that Saint Mueller
keeps.
If reports are true, then IG Horowitz is fudging Coney-Lynch's real crimes; namely the
events leading up to the July whitewash of Killary which include drafting the exoneration
letter before interviewing Clinton, twisting the facts to decriminalize Clinton's offenses
and pressuring FBI agents to alter reports regarding the Clinton investigation.
If the IG brushes past these matters, whatever else he says is worthless. Just tarnishes
Comey's image a tad bit and will be forgotten.
This sounds like they are trying to decriminalize Comey's actions, not indict him. How the fuck does the headline equate
to a criminal charge? Maybe they (OIG) are trying to let this asshole off the hook? What's he going to get? A severe tongue
lashing because he was insubordinate?
From comments: "Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries." But the problem with this statement is the dynamics of American Imperialism, which would not tolerate any
government which is not a vassal.
Notable quotes:
"... Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality. Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example, the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but dangerous. ..."
"... When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs. ..."
"... For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is indispensable in analyzing world events. ..."
"... However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in Westphalian terms. ..."
"... Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive, idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of their own nations but that of the others. ..."
"... Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American companies and capitalists. ..."
"... The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood, from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions (Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard, too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence of the Emirs of Kuwait). ..."
"... An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank. ..."
"... What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for it to protect the nation. ..."
"... Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other countries. ..."
"... Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other, leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914. ..."
"... There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables). ..."
"... Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just and moral", which is an idealistic a notion. ..."
Great power competition is everywhere these days -- in Syria, Ukraine, the South China Sea,
North Korea. With the rise of China and the rejuvenation of Russian military power, realist
thinking is suddenly back in vogue, as it should be.
Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world that does not seriously ask whether the ideal is actually compatible with reality.
Illusions set idealists up for terrible surprises. Addressing problems through, for example,
the lens of Fukuyama-style Hegelian idealism, according to which the world is inexorably
progressing toward liberal democratic values, would in today's world be not only absurd but
dangerous. The liberal idea that the UN can foster world order through international
institutions is likewise naïve and perilous. Fantasy lands in art and literature can be
wonderful divertissements , but using them as the basis for great nation's foreign
policy can produce nightmares.
George W. Bush created a dream world in his mind where it seemed plausible for American
military power to end "tyranny in our world." Tyranny, as anyone who has not slipped the bonds
of reality knows, is rooted in the human soul and cannot be "ended." Tyranny can be checked and
mitigated, but only through extraordinary effort and with the help of a rich tradition.
But it is always easier to assign oneself virtue based on self-applauding and unrealistic
notions about world peace. When realist thinkers -- from Machiavelli to Kissinger -- prick the
bubbles of the dreamers, they incur only wrath. For idealists, it is the height of cynicism and
bad manners to point out that cunning and force are what actually dominate world affairs.
Yet for all their sagacity, realist thinkers are not without their problems either. They
tend to deny the moral nature of human beings and the role that this may play in world events.
Because they have seen the great danger of moralistic idealism in foreign policy, they
sometimes don't think morality should be considered at all. Realist theory has a cold, inhumane
quality that makes it inattentive to the moral dimension of human existence.
The failure of realists to incorporate moral considerations into their thinking has made
realism unpopular with the American people, who historically believe that their nation's
foreign policy should have at least some moral content. They, after all, send their own boys
and girls to war, and they would like to think that those sacrifices are not made for some
mechanistic balance of power. They know that statesmen must often make cold calculations in the
national interest, but surely somewhere in there must be right and wrong, as in all human
endeavors.
Because some realists have adopted the philosophically untenable position that morality has
no role in world affairs, many Americans have signed on with the moralists' disastrous crusades
instead. The realists have the stronger policy case, but they have ceded the moral ground to
the idealists.
Ironically, it may be the work of Henry Kissinger that can show realists an intellectual
path toward restoring a sense of morality in foreign policy.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of independent states refraining from
interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a
general equilibrium of power." The Peace of Westphalia and, to some degree, the Congress of
Vienna embodied such an arrangement, offering the lesson that balance-of-power theory is
indispensable in analyzing world events.
However, Kissinger was intellectually astute enough to recognize that, in order to
create and maintain this equilibrium of power, something more than a mechanical balance is
required: enlightened statesmen. Kissinger states explicitly that balance-of-power "does not in
itself secure peace." If world leaders refuse to play by Westphalian rules, the system will
break down. He warns of the rise of radical Islamists, for example, who refuse to think in
Westphalian terms.
Kissinger also says that enlightened leaders must not only recognize the realities of power
politics and the hard Machiavellian truths of international competition, but possess a certain
moral quality that he calls "restraint." Without a willingness to restrain themselves and to
act dispassionately, world leaders will be incapable of building an international order. When
facing difficult challenges, enlightened diplomats and statesmen must have the moral courage to
accept certain "limits of permissible action." Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that
morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a
certain temperament and moral character can support the Westphalian model.
Morality in foreign affairs, then, is not found in a set of abstract rules of behavior
for nation-states, nor is it found in deploying military power to advance some progressive,
idealistic cause. Morality can be found only in the souls of righteous statesmen who, under
complex international circumstances, act not out of malice or hatred, nor out of greed or pure
self-interest, but who find a path to peace that is compatible not only with the interest of
their own nations but that of the others. Such a policy cannot be sketched out in the
abstract in advance; it can emerge only through the moral leadership of genuine statesmen who
act to find a specific solution in a set of complex, concrete circumstances. This is one of the
great lessons of classical political philosophy: justice is not an abstraction but found
concretely in the soul of the just man.
The answer to the question of what a just and moral foreign policy might look like is that
it's the kind that truly just and moral, but also supremely realistic, statesmen will adopt.
That such statesmen are rare is what has caused the great philosophers to lament that only the
dead have seen the end of war.
William S. Smith is managing director and research fellow at the Center for the Study of
Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America.
Implicit in Kissinger's thought is that morality, though of a realistic kind, is essential
in foreign policy. Only statesmen of a certain temperament and moral character can support
the Westphalian model.
1) In 1971, the government of Pakistan carried out a genocide of its Hindu minority in
what is now Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). Somewhere between 1 and 3 million Hindus were
killed, and many thousands of Bengali Muslim leaders and intellectuals were murdered by the
Pakistani regime.
Kissinger and Nixon supported Yahya Khan's government, and even shipped weapons to
Pakistan while the genocide was going on.
From Gary Bass's article in the New Yorker:
While the slaughter in what would soon become an independent Bangladesh was underway,
the C.I.A. and State Department conservatively estimated that roughly two hundred thousand
people had died (the official Bangladeshi death toll is three million). Some ten million
Bengali refugees fled to India, where untold numbers died in miserable conditions in refugee
camps. Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United States, and Richard Nixon and his
national-security advisor, Henry Kissinger, resolutely supported its military dictatorship;
they refused to impose pressure on Pakistan's generals to forestall further
atrocities.
2) Kissinger was one of key organizers of the 1973 coup against the democratically elected
Allende government in Chile. When Allende was elected, this moral stalwart told his staff "I
don't see any reason why we should stand around and do nothing when a country goes communist
because of the irresponsibility of its own people."
In the first months after the coup d'état, the military killed thousands of
Chilean leftists, both real and suspected, or forced their "disappearance". The military
imprisoned 40,000 political enemies in the National Stadium of Chile In October 1973, the
Chilean songwriter Víctor Jara, and 70 other political killings were perpetrated by
the death squad, Caravan of Death (Caravana de la Muerte).
The government arrested some 130,000 people in a three-year period; the dead and
disappeared numbered thousands.
****************
Tom Lehrer once said that satire died when Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Fortunately William Smith's article about Kissinger's "morality" shows that comedy is not yet
dead, even if the comic relief is inadvertent.
For Kissinger, peace depends upon "a system of MAJOR POWERS refraining from interference in
each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general
equilibrium of power."
Just had to correct that one sentence, there. Kissinger had no problem intervening in the
affairs of "independent states" that posed little military or political threat to the United
States, but perhaps threatened the commercial interests, profits or market share of American
companies and capitalists.
The record of the foreign policy realists, Republican or Democratic, is drenched in blood,
from Afghanistan, Indonesia and Angola to Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, not to mention
Cambodia from Nixon to Carter to Reagan. And the long-term consequences of their decisions
(Iran in 1953, Afghanistan under Carter and Brezinski) can bite the rest of us pretty hard,
too. Hell, George H.W. Bush and James Baker brought us the first Iraq War, which should have
been left to the Arab League to solve (and, frankly, I give not a whit for the independence
of the Emirs of Kuwait).
Would the realists have responded to the 2009 coup in Honduras with any more morality than
Hilary Clinton did? Would the economic war upon Venezuela be any less damaging than it has
been under Bush II, Obama or Trump? Yes, some of the realists would not have launched the
invasion of Iraq, but would they have lifted the sanctions regime on Iraq? Would they have
restrained the Saudis in Yemen?
An American imperialist is still, when all is said and done, an American imperialist, and
woe be to any small, non-nuclear independent state that gets in the way of said imperialist
making the world safe for ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs or Citibank.
Dr. Smith apparently has a misunderstanding about Machiavelli's realism being devoid of
morality.
What Machiavelli wrote is that statesmen should advocate conventional religious morality
as the default position in most circumstances but when faced with an existential emergency
they must sacrifice their soul to not do good and use evil but only as an occasion calls for
it to protect the nation.
Example: Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan;
Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in WW II
because to warn them would have revealed that the Brits had cracked the German secret codes;
and Pres. Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua.
This is in sharp contrast to statesmen (women) such as Hillary Clinton
who used evil gratuitously by taking bribes from foreign nations to fund her foundation; or
Pres. Bill Clinton who "wagged the dog" by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to divert
attention away from a sex scandal.
Machiavelli was not anti-religious or anti-morality,
contrary to pop explanations by liberal media, novels and academics (read Erica Benner's book
Machiavelli's Ethics).
Henry Kissinger as a moral man? I really wish you had a better example to prove your valid
point. The man who was responsible for the murder of millions in Indo China including the
bombing of non combatant countries like Laos is hardly qualified to talk about morality of
anything.
Im not sure morality is even possible. I wonder if it ever was possible.
Everyone in the west is taught the values of multicultural and diversity while the rest of
the world is still tribal. It is those tribes who we (US) considers allies which are
controlling much of our foreign policy. The other constituency is just as old and its the
monied class or the corporations whose only goal is to maintain and grow revenue.
Thank god we have domestic and international law which constrains our foreign policy to
moral issues.
These terms get murky.
Neocons are idealists but most definitely believe in great power competition and dominance.
U.S. interests can only be protected if authoritarian regimes are replaced by pro-U.S.
Democratic govts which is why we were so aggressive in expanding our influence in Eastern
Europe, often through covert means and by force in the M.E. I never had much use for the term 'realism'.
Putin, if people would listen, proposes a model that I find acceptable. Respect for
national sovereignty and government institutions. In this model, yes, we would tolerate
authoritarian governments as long as they respect the sovereignty and stability of other
countries.
We have been brainwashed to consider him an offender in this model because of Ukraine but
his response was a minimalist response to a crisis on his border. We go on crusades and
experiment on other countries thousands of miles away from our shores.
Kissinger is famous for his attachment to the balance of power concept, particularly in
relation to the Congress of Vienna, but I always think that he leaves out the main point. The
balance of power wasn't an end in itself. It was a means to the end that the European powers
wanted to achieve, namely, the restoration of the "ancien régime". The idea of the
balance of powers was to prevent the Great Powers getting into fights with each other,
leading to mutual destruction, which, indeed, is what ultimately happened in 1914.
Westphalia
was a slightly different situation. A 30-year, on again–off again, triangular German
"civil war" between Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists, with much foreign interference, had
reached a stalemate, which, in practice, amounted to a Catholic defeat. The only way out was
to let everybody keep what they had and agree not to try to take more. It was forced
forbearance rather than balance.
In Europe, at least, peace certainly depends upon "a system of independent states refraining
from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions
through a general equilibrium of power". The European Union is the modern expression of that
principle.
That's why Putin's interferences in Ukraine's domestic affairs and his undisguised
attempts to destroy the EU have set off alarm bells all across Europe and why US
unwillingness to check his ambitions is making the EU the only viable option to ensure peace
in Europe.
Kissinger is an extremely bad person to cite on the subject of morality in a realist foreign
policy. John Quincey Adam's would be better. Coincidentally, TAC printed him on this very
subject --
"Idealism in foreign policy is, by definition, the pursuit of a dreamy vision of a better
world"
It need not be that. The "vision thing" that Bush I famously did not do could well be a
part of our national interest, one of the things coldly evaluated, and contributing to our
strength when done correctly.
Of Wayne Lusvardi's examples of "existential" emergencies for which evil can be done to
"protect the nation," "Truman authorizing the dropping on A-bombs on Japan" is at best
debatable given the evidence that the Japanese were willing to surrender as long as they
could keep their emperor, and especially to keep the Soviets from declaring war on them,
while "Churchill not warning the City of Coventry they were to be bombed by the Luftwaffe in
WW II" is legitimate, in my opinion.
But "Reagan freeing American hostages in Iran in exchange for drug money to fund the
Contras in Nicaragua" is laughable. American pride may have needed protection from the
hostage "crisis," but the American nation certainly did not, as it was not threatened in any
way. American foreign policy continued on its way, funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan,
backing the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese Stalinists who drove them from power in
Cambodia, and buying off Egypt, so you can't even say that America's "standing in the world"
particularly suffered from the hostage "crisis."
And as for "Pres. Bill Clinton who 'wagged the dog' by bombing a drug factory in Sudan to
divert attention away from a sex scandal," I'll trump that shameful episode with Pres. Ronald
Reagan invading Grenada two days after the Beirut barracks bombing.
Our D.I. In basic training in his frustration to turn raw recruits into soldiers would raise
his arms to the sky imploring the aid of the Commander-in-Chief in the heavens and holler,
"Dear Lord, give'em books and all they do is eat'em!" That's the way I viewed William Smith's
essay on the need for an infusion of a reconstituted morality in our foreign policy.
After
basic training, I then served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam, where I was confronted with
the grim and brutal reality of that quagmire and learned that the road to hell is paved with
good intentions. LBJ would come to regret calling South Vietnam President Ndo Dinh Diem the
"Churchill of Asia." There lies the dilemma when idealism confronts reality.
More generally,
I disagree with the centrality of the Westphalian concept of what constitutes a nation in the
post-modern world. Smith mentions the influence of non-actors such as jihadists to alter our
foreign policy goals but overlooks how corporations have also altered that concept with their
doctrine of globalization for profits which undercuts national sovereignty established in
Westphalia. Smith seems to be wandering between two worlds, "one dead / The other peerless to
be born" as Mathew Arnold lamented in his poem "Stanzas from the Grande Chartreuse."
Smith is
trying to promote a revisionist history of the last fifty years just as Niall Ferguson did in
the first volume of his authorized biography of Henry Kissinger as an idealist. Ferguson
notes even Kissinger obviously knew the war was a lost cause after he did two fact-finding
tours in South Vietnam early in the war but thought the war was still necessary to prosecute
to save a vestige of our credibility as policeman to the world. Ken Burns also attempts a
revisionist coup of the Vietnam War when he editorialized in his documentary that our
fearless leaders prosecuted that war with the best intentions. So unfortunately, I view this
essay as a current trend to to promote revisionism in our history of the last fifty years
despite the contrary conclusions of the historical facts.
But as John Adams, a foundering
father, once observed "facts are stubborn things."
I agree-Putin's response to our actions is often not even considered: The biggest flaw with realism that it's like a multivariate experiment
-- with everyone
having different variables they think to be relevant. For instance, Kissinger thought Vietnam would fall under Chinese influence under Communist
NVA, yet he ignored the variable of ethnic rivalries between Chinese and Vietnamese. GWB ignored the variables of Iran -- how it would swoop in and nurture newly Shia Iraq..
There are countless examples where realists cherry-picked the facts (variables).
Vietnam: perhaps the only conflict fought on half of another of but minor, if any real
benefit to the US. That with or without Sec. Kissinger is clear as day. As for quagmires --
it seems that all ward have them. Vietnam was a quagmire because our policy was one of
protect and hold as opposed to invade and conquer -- an unfortunate choice. In the world of a
realist, we should have killed any and all Vietcong, raced up to Hanoi and ended the matter.
'nough said.
I am not sure many here are reading the same article, because my take is that the author
is claiming that Sec Kissinger was a realist -- practical – what needed to be done to
accomplish task A -- morality doesn't enter into it. That explains why he found Pres Nixon's
faith amusing. So all of the comments bemoaning the Sec lack of moral attend, only confirms
the realists perspective.
Nonetheless,
I disagree with your version of the last seventeen years. it has not been orchestrated or
led by realists. Quite the opposite. The rhetoric may be couched in all manner of idealism ,
but so was their application of force.
A realist would not give a lick aboy religious affiliation to the aims of regime chang,
cpital market or democracy creation. The onlu factor that would have mattered is who was on
board, or not in the way -- all challengers regardless of their faith, political agendas,
personality, or concerned about symbols as nonsensical historical artifacts would moved aside
by any means necessary. A realist so engaging such large opposition would decided the matter
-- to utter destruction to complete compliance – period.
In fact, I will contend that these pseudo realists, were thwarted by their own bouts if
idealist moral relativity and were the worst sort for the job at hand.
What a joke of an article, Kissinger as a moralist. He is one of the major war criminals of
the second half of the 20th Century. He has the blood of hundreds of thousands if not
millions on his hands, as others above have details. And not all foreigners. Lest we forget
the part he played in Nixon's great lies about Vietnam that delayed a peace settlement to
help Nixon get elected. 30,000 dead Americans later we got pretty much the same settlement.
The author of this article has entered into the realm of the absurd.
Wow, I thought I wasn't ever going to read anything on economic war on Venezuela! Finally,
even if it is from the comments.
There is an article about not to support/encourage a cup here, but obviously, when it is
about the bad economic situation, only the leftish govenrments are blamed, as if Venezuela
wasn't thoroughly dependet on debt.
Besides of that, even if that mention weren't thre, I agree and thanks most of the
comments in this article.
Good discussion. Machiavelli's central insight is that a national leader must get their
hands dirty, even to the point of committing evil, to protect the nation from disaster, to
reform corruption, to remove internal insurrectionists. But using evil for good is limited to
only those real (realistic) threats against the nation. According to Machiavelli in his
Discourses, glory is reserved for those who are the founders of republics, reformers or
religious leaders of a nation, military leaders followed by literature writers and artists
who reflect republican virtues. Contra William Smith, foreign policy can not ALWAYS be "just
and moral", which is an idealistic a notion.
If, as Samuel Johnson is reputed to have said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
then using Kissinger as an example of realism is the last refuge of a fantasist.
Such a deep provisionalism and burning desire to revive McCarthyism. "Russians under each bed" type of story... To
this guy if you are not CIA agent, then you agent of GRU or FSB. And he does not understand that Manafort essentially pushed
Yanukovich into Joe Biden hands.
If we consider all people who left Ukraine after EuroMaydan as Putin's agents, then it is unclear how EuroMaydan managed to
sucessed with such an wast netwrok of Russian spies.
Also it is unknown to Foer that Yanukovich was a moderate Ukrainian nationalist, who flirted w and supported far right parties
such as Svoboda and organizations, rise of which under his Presidency was the instrumental in his demise.
But
then
, last winter, Robert Mueller described Kostya as a "long-time Russian colleague of Manafort's" with "ties to a
Russian intelligence service." The reference came in a casual aside, buried in a brief arguing that Manafort should be
subjected to stringent bail conditions. It was a strange way to inject such a crucial fact. But Mueller
repeated
the allegation a few months later, as if to remove ambiguity. These ties weren't vestiges of a distant past,
but were said to be active through 2016. In a footnote, Mueller asked for permission to submit evidence substantiating the
charge in a sealed filing.
All the while, Manafort and Kilimnik remained attached to each other. During the past few months, Manafort's
inner circle has collapsed. Rick Gates, his primary American deputy for the past decade, pleaded guilty and began supplying
evidence against him. Manafort's ex-son-in-law also cut a
deal
to cooperate with Mueller. Through it all, Kilimnik has continued to trail after Manafort. When Manafort allegedly
hatched a ploy to tamper with witnesses this past February, Kilimnik seems to have served as his loyal co-conspirator. When
Manafort wanted a dose of positive press, Kilimnik attempted to arrange an op-ed in the
Kyiv Post.
When I recently emailed Kilimnik, he responded quickly. He wanted to let me know that he disapproved of the
media's coverage of Manafort, including my own, which he ascribed to "a hatred against certain people in the US
Government." He told me, "I don't want to play a role in this zoo." I replied and asked Kilimnik about his present
whereabouts, a question he left hanging. In December, Robert Mueller hinted, in passing, that Kostya had relocated to
Russia. When I asked around Kiev, nobody had any evidence to the contrary. It was a prospect that Kostya suggested was a
possibility last year in a
text
to Christopher Miller. "I hope I am able to get out of the country. Before 'patriots' start hunting me down."
Fleeing the accusation of spying for Vladimir Putin, he has apparently taken refuge with him.
Franklin Foer
is a national
correspondent for The Atlantic. He is the former editor of The New Republic and the author of
World Without Mind
.
"... Hopefully that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but only discuss one of those investigations in public . ..."
A Higher Loyalty drops on Tuesday, but, in keeping with longstanding publishing tradition, the good bits have already been
selectively leaked to outlets in advance. We've learned that the former FBI director compares Trump to
a mafia boss , that
Trump's "leadership is transactional, ego driven, and about personal loyalty," and that Comey admits that the widespread belief that
Clinton would become president may have
played a role in his decision to announce that the FBI was reopening an investigation into her use of a private email server
less than two weeks before the election.
We also learn that Trump was
obsessed
with the "pee tape," the most salacious allegation in the infamous Steele Dossier. Comey writes that Trump "strongly denied the
allegations, asking -- rhetorically, I assumed -- whether he seemed like a guy who needed the service of prostitutes. He then began
discussing cases where women had accused him of sexual assault, a subject I had not raised. He mentioned a number of women, and seemed
to have memorized their allegations."
Trump took the bait, sending out two tweets attacking Comey on Friday morning.
James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR. Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he
did-until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress under
OATH. He is a weak and.....
....untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI. His handling of the Crooked Hillary
Clinton case, and the events surrounding it, will go down as one of the worst "botch jobs" of history. It was my great honor to
fire James Comey!
But of course, Trump admitted, only days after Comey's dismissal, that he really fired Comey over the Russia investigation.
... ... ...
The Republicans are scared of James Comey.
The Republican National Committee just unveiled a new website, LyinComey.com
, to counter whatever allegations the former FBI director levels against President Donald Trump in his new book, which goes on sale
next week. As CNN reports, the RNC is also buying digital ads and sending talking points sent to GOP politicians. This counter-information
campaign is a sign of how worried Republicans are about Comey's potential to inflict political damage -- and is wholly unconvincing.
For example, the RNC's Comey site says that he "stated under oath that he never posed as an anonymous source to leak information
to the press," then notes that he "later testified that he 'asked a friend of [his] to share the content of the memo with a reporter.'"
The presentation makes these two factual statements seem contradictory when they're not. Comey
testified in a May 3, 2017, congressional hearing that he had never been an anonymous source; he
told lawmakers
the following June that he sent his bombshell memos to The New York Times through an intermediary only after his
May 9 ouster.
Those memos laid the groundwork for allegations that Trump obstructed justice by firing the FBI director. "Comey may use his book
tour to push the phony narrative that President Trump obstructed the Russia investigation," the website warns, citing Comey's testimony
last June in which he said Trump never ordered him to halt the Russia investigation. The framing is somewhat misleading, since legal
experts believe the obstruction question
instead revolves
around Comey's firing itself.
The website's release comes after Comey taped an interview with ABC News that's set to air on Sunday night. Axios
quoted an unnamed source present during the interview who said that Comey "answered every question" posed to him. Hopefully
that means he'll respond to genuine lines of criticism against him, including his decision to investigate both Hillary Clinton and
the Trump campaign during the 2016 election but
only discuss one of those investigations in public .
The
New York Times
reported on Monday that federal agents seized "records related to several topics including
payments to a pornographic-film actress," presumably referring to the $130,000 payments Cohen
made to Stephanie Clifford -- who is known professionally as Stormy Daniels -- during the 2016
campaign. According to the Times , the search warrants were obtained by the federal
prosecutor in Manhattan after receiving a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller.
Executing a search warrant against any attorney's office, let alone a personal lawyer for
the president of the United States, is no small matter. Attorney and legal blogger Ken White
noted that
the federal guidelines require prosecutors
to seek approval from the Justice Department's upper echelons before applying for a warrant
targeting a lawyer's office. That DOJ officials approved the raid suggests that the U.S.
attorney's office in Manhattan had an extremely good reason to search Cohen's workplace.
This is the first public indication that Cohen is involved in a federal investigation that's
unrelated to Mueller's inquiry into Russian election meddling. The Washington Post
reported last month that Mueller had
requested documents and other materials related to Russian interference, but added that
there was "no indication" that Cohen is a subject or target of the special counsel's
investigation.
That'll likely come as little relief to Cohen himself as he now faces a federal
investigation of his own. One possible avenue of inquiry for federal prosecutors is whether the
president compensated Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Clifford during the 2016 campaign as
part of a non-disclosure agreement about her alleged past sexual liaisons with Trump. If he
wasn't reimbursed, Cohen may have run
afoul of federal campaign-finance laws, since the payment could be considered an in-kind
donation to Trump's campaign beyond the individual legal limit.
Russian president Vladimir Putin gave a tense interview to Austria's ORF television channel which
at times got so heated, he spoke in German to ask host Armin Wolf to let him finish his answers.
The interview was held ahead of Putin's Tuesday meeting with Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and
Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache during a trip to Vienna, the first since Putin's March
inauguration to his second consecutive term (and fourth term in total).
After several interruptions by Wolf, Putin asked the host to "be patient," before switching to
Wolf's mother tongue of German to ask him to put a cork in it. "Seien Sie so nett, lassen Sie mich
etwas sagen (Please be so kind as to let me say something)," said Putin.
When the topic of troll farms came up, Putin said that Moscow "has nothing to do" with them,
adding that claims by Western media that a single Russian businessman, Yevgeny Prigozhin, was able
to influence the US election.
Prigozhin and Putin are associates, however Putin said he has no knowledge of his online
activities. The Russian president then brought up George Soros as an example of the double
standards being applied to those accused of meddling in foreign affairs.
"
There are rumors circulating now that Mr. Soros is planning to make the Euro highly
volatile,
" Putin said
quoted by RT.
"Experts are already discussing this. Ask the [US] State Department why he is
doing this.
The State Department will say that it has nothing to do with them - rather it
is Mr. Soros' private affair. With us, it is Mr. Prigozhin's private affair. This is my answer
.
Are you satisfied with it?"
* * *
MH17
Putin said that Russia has been blocked from participating in the ongoing international
investigation into the 2014 downing of flight MH17, which Russia has been recently blamed for.
Russian experts "have been denied access to the investigation," said Putin, while Russia's
arguments are "not taken into consideration" because nobody "is interested in hearing us out."
Ukraine, meanwhile, has been given access to the probe.
* * *
North Korea
On North Korea, Putin says that the prospect of a full-scale military conflict with Pyonyang
would be "dreadful," considering that the two nations are neighbors - and some North Korean nuclear
test sites are located near the Russian border.
Although Russia "pins great hopes on the personal meeting between [US] President
Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un," the path to the denuclearization of the Korean
peninsula is a "two-way road,"
Putin explained. "
If the North Korean leader is
backing up his intentions with practical actions, for example, giving up new tests of ballistic
missiles, new nuclear tests, the other side should reciprocate in a tangible manner
,"
he said, calling regular US military drills in the area "counterproductive." -
RT
* * *
Crimea
During perhaps the most heated moment in the interview, Putin was asked under what conditions
Russia would hand Crimea back to Ukraine, to which the Russian president firmy stated: "There are
no such conditions and there can never be."
Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to rejoin Russia in a hotly contested 2014 vote that the West
considers illegitimate and rigged. Putin stressed that the annexation happened after an
"unconstitutional armed coup" in Kiev, and it was the Crimeans who decided their own fate.
"Crimea gained independence through the free will of the Crimeans, expressed in an open
referendum, not as a result of an invasion by Russian forces." -Vladimir Putin
Following the annexation, Putin said "the first thing we did was increase our contingent to
guard our Armed Forces, our military facilities, because we immediately saw that they were being
threatened," adding that the mostly Russian population in Crimea "
sensed danger, when
trains started bringing aggressive nationalists there, when buses and personal vehicles were
blocked, people naturally wanted to protect themselves.
"
"The first thing that occurred was to restore the rights that Ukraine itself had issued by
granting Crimea autonomy."
watching the full interview. i have noticed that Putin
always shifts his posture when he wants to call
someone a fucking idiot but restrains himself with
more appropriate words. He never gets nervous or
rattled...
I watched it too. If you compare his patient,
methodical answers, based on fact (IMO) to those of
every US/EU NATO leader, then you see why he is
demonized by the parasitoid corporate fascists and
their media. They covet Russia's resources and are
desperate to control them, having brought us to the
brink of nuclear war in threatening Russian with
troops, weapons, war games and missiles on its
border. Imagine what would have happened if the
geography were the borders of the US and Canada and
Mexico.
It is possible that Putin's patience will
be taken as weakness, especially in Syria and
Ukraine. At some point he will have to give an
order to respond militarily, if he doesn't respond,
then the parasitoid corporate fascists will commit
a full scale military assault in an area of
conflict of their choice.
Lord Jacob Rothchild HATES Putin. Just look at the
Yukos Oil case in the London courts. Try to find
(keeps getting scrubbed) online
The Sunday
Times article from November 2, 2003 "Rothschild is the
New Power Behind Yukos"
for a rare
glimpse behind the curtain.
Vladimir
Vladimirovich took back for the state Ł8,000,000,000
of shares, thought to be the property of Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, but actually it emerged were controlled
by Lord Rothschild.
This is just one
Rothchild-1990s-theft-repatriated that we know of.
There would be more i suspect.
The beauty of your comments shows that you are becoming a minority by
the day. So many people are waking up to the idiocy of the propaganda
spewed by you and your "highly educated" ilk - as I suppose you view
yourself.
"America" is an Israeli colony "controlled" by mostly
Jewish Zionists
Russian ads did not have anything to do with the election results. It
was a minuscule number of ads, compared to what both of the campaigns
ran. We all comment on foreign elections, and I am sure the people in
those countries take it with a grain of salt, thinking we do not know
what we are talking about.
We have a bunch of people in the USA who take quite an interest in
saving the global people, while their own country is full of major
underemployment, with another housing crisis of an even worse type
than the one in 2008 mounting. Despite all of that, these Anericans sink
all kinds of money into trying to control what happens in foreign
countries. They think they can take on famines and dictators in
countries with very different social structures, 8,000 miles away.
Some of it is likely naively sincere and arising from a natural
interest. It is also a common PR maneuver with money-motivated
people, with everyone from rock stars to politicians getting pretty
absorbed in what goes on in other countries for whatever reason.
It is not without plausibility that a businessperson launched that ad
campaign on his own.
No wonder all US official assets are fully engaged to discourage Americans
from listening to what foreign leaders actually say. We are to rely on
our apparatchiks -- and their clerical assistants in the ever-trusty US press
corp -- to tell us what they are "really" saying and doing.
The key
word Putin uttered in this interview is that they do what is
pragmatic
.
His political party specifically eschews any particular ideological basis for
policy. That's rather novel, when you think about it. If that attitude were to
sweep the world, it seems likely diplomacy would achieve a lot more tangible
progress and require a lot less frequent fallback on primitive kinetic
"negotiations".
I don't trust Putin on much of anything but I LOVE the way he was handling
himself during that interview. Cool as a cucumber. The man deserves credit
for being that smooth. He is a master of the art of being interviewed.
The handful of other
Russian elites present at Davos-among them the oligarchs Boris Berezovsky,
VladimirGusinsky, and MikhailKhodorkovsky, and the politician
Anatoly Chubais-watched in dismay, fearing a Communist takeover,
The American billionaire George Soros feared it too and reportedly tol
the bankers and businessmen over coffee, "Boys, your time is over,"
Chubais recalled, "I saw many of my good friends, presidents of maj
American companies, European companies, who were simply dancing
around Zyuganov, trying to catch his eye, peering at him. These were
the world's most powerful businessmen, with world-famous' names.
who with their entire appearance demonstrated that they were seeking
support of the future president of Russia, because it was clear to everyone
that Zyuganov was going to be the future president of Russia, an
now they needed to build a relationship with him. So, this shook me up!"
It
was at this moment, according to Hoffman, that Chubais and the
Russian tycoons "decided on the spot to try and save Boris Yeltsin."
Chubais phoned Moscow to alert others to the situation. He then heI,
a press conference in which he denounced Zyuganov's "classic Cornmunist
lie" and warned that his election would "lead to bloodshed and
civil war." The oligarchs set aside differences and held several private
meetings in Davos hotel rooms, where they strategized over how to
defeat the Zyuganov threat. The result was the "Davos Pact": an agreement
between Chubais and the oligarchs that he would lead the anti-
Communist campaign and they would fund it-and him-generously.
The subsequent months saw a massive media offensive as "money
poured into advertising campaigns, into regional tours, into bribing
journalists"-all supported by the oligarchs (who owned the major TV
stations and newspapers) and orchestrated by Chubais. Yeltsin's subsequent
victory over Zyuganov later that summer changed the course of
Russia and can be traced back in part to the events that took place in
an otherwise sleepy alpine village that February.
Excerpted from "Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are
Making"
At last some one with
BALLS
to take on the
Mother
Fucker SOROS
, if the Sicilians do not finish the Italian job,
Soros mother fucker already has pissed off the Italians.
Amid 'Russiagate' Hysteria, What Are the Facts? | The Nation
"W
hom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
That saying -- often misattributed to Euripides -- comes to mind most mornings when I pick up
The New York Times
and read the latest "Russiagate" headlines, which are frequently featured across two or three columns on the front
page above the fold. This is an almost daily reminder of the hysteria that dominates our Congress and much of our
media.
A glaring example, just one of many from recent months, arrived at my door on February 17. My outrage spiked
when I opened to the
Times
'
lead editorial
: "Stop Letting the Russians Get Away With It, Mr. Trump." I had to ask myself: "Did the
Times
' editors perform even the rudiments of due diligence before they climbed on their high horse in this
long editorial, which excoriated 'Russia' (not individual Russians) for 'interference' in the election and
demanded increased sanctions against Russia 'to protect American democracy'?"
It had never occurred to me that our admittedly dysfunctional political system is so weak, undeveloped, or
diseased that inept Internet trolls could damage it. If that is the case, we better look at a lot of other
countries as well, not just Russia!
The New York Times
, of course, is not the only offender. Its editorial attitude has been duplicated or
exaggerated by most other media outlets in the United States, electronic and print. Unless there is a mass
shooting in progress, it can be hard to find a discussion of anything else on CNN. Increasingly, both in Congress
and in our media, it has been accepted as a fact that "Russia" interfered in the 2016 election.
So what are the facts?
It is a fact that some Russians paid people to act as online trolls and bought advertisements on Facebook
during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Most of these were taken from elsewhere, and they comprised a
tiny fraction of all the advertisements purchased on Facebook during this period. This continued after the
election and included organizing a demonstration against President-elect Trump.
It is a fact that e-mails in the memory of the Democratic National Committee's computer were furnished to
Wikileaks. The US intelligence agencies that issued the January 2017 report were confident that Russians hacked
the e-mails and supplied them to Wikileaks, but offered no evidence to substantiate their claim. Even if one
accepts that Russians were the perpetrators, however, the e-mails were genuine, as the US intelligence report
certified. I have always thought that the truth was supposed to make us free, not degrade our democracy.
It is a fact that the Russian government established a sophisticated television service (RT) that purveyed
entertainment, news, and -- yes -- propaganda to foreign audiences, including those in the United States. Its
audience is several magnitudes smaller than that of Fox News. Basically, its task is to picture Russia in a
more favorable light than has been available in Western media. There has been no analysis of its effect, if
any, on voting in the United States. The January 2017 US intelligence report states at the outset, "We did not
make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election."
Nevertheless, that report has been cited repeatedly by politicians and the media as having done so.
It is a fact that many senior Russian officials (though not all, by any means) expressed a preference for
Trump's candidacy. After all, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had compared President Putin to Hitler and had
urged more active US military intervention abroad, while Trump had said it would be better to cooperate with
Russia than to treat it as an enemy. It should not require the judgment of professional analysts to understand
why many Russians would find Trump's statements more congenial than Clinton's. On a personal level, most of my
Russian friends and contacts were dubious of Trump, but all resented Clinton's Russophobic tone, as well as
statements made by Obama from 2014 onward. They considered Obama's
public comment
that "Russia doesn't make anything" a gratuitous insult (which it was), and were alarmed by
Clinton's expressed desire to provide additional military support to the "moderates" in Syria. But the average
Russian, and certainly the typical Putin administration official, understood Trump's comments as favoring
improved relations, which they definitely favored.
There is no evidence that Russian leaders thought Trump would win or that they could have a direct
influence on the outcome. This is an allegation that has not been substantiated. The January 2017 report from
the intelligence community actually states that Russian leaders, like most others, thought Clinton would be
elected.
There is no evidence that Russian activities had any tangible impact on the outcome of the election. Nobody
seems to have done even a superficial study of the effect Russian actions actually had on the vote. The
intelligence-community report, however, states explicitly that "the types of systems we observed Russian actors
targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying." Also both former FBI director James Comey and NSA
director Mike Rogers
have testified
that there is no proof Russian activities had an effect on the vote count.
There is also no evidence that there was direct coordination between the Trump campaign (hardly a
well-organized effort) and Russian officials. The indictments brought by the special prosecutor so far are
either for lying to the FBI or for offenses unrelated to the campaign such as money laundering or not
registering as a foreign agent.
So, what is the most important fact regarding the 2016 US presidential election?
The most important fact, obscured in Russiagate hysteria, is that Americans elected Trump under the terms set
forth in the Constitution. Americans created the Electoral College, which allows a candidate with a minority of
popular votes to become president. Americans were those who gerrymandered electoral districts to rig them in favor
of a given political party. The Supreme Court issued the infamous
Citizens United
decision that allows
corporate financing of candidates for political office. (Hey, money talks and exercises freedom of speech;
corporations are people!) Americans created a Senate that is anything but democratic, since it gives
disproportionate representation to states with relatively small populations. It was American senators who
established non-democratic procedures that allow minorities, even sometimes single senators, to block legislation
or confirmation of appointments.
Now, that does not mean that Trump's presidency is good for the country, just because Americans elected him. In
my opinion, the 2016 presidential and congressional elections pose an imminent danger to the republic. They have
created potential disasters that will severely try the checks and balances built into our Constitution. This is
especially true since both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republican Party, which itself represents
fewer voters than the opposition party.
I did not personally vote for Trump, but I consider the charges that Russian actions interfered in the
election, or -- for that matter -- damaged the quality of our democracy ludicrous, pathetic, and shameful.
"Ludicrous" because there is no logical reason to think that anything that the Russians did affected how people
voted. In the past, when Soviet leaders tried to influence American elections, it backfired -- as foreign
interference usually does everywhere. In 1984, Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader then, made preventing Ronald
Reagan's reelection the second-most-important task of the KGB. (The first was to detect US plans for a nuclear
strike on the Soviet Union.) Everything the Soviets did -- in painting Reagan out to be a warmonger while Andropov
refused to negotiate on nuclear weapons -- helped Reagan win 49 out of 50 states.
Support Progressive Journalism
If you like this article, please give today to help fund
The Nation
's work.
"Pathetic" because it is clear that the Democratic Party lost the election. Yes, it won the popular vote, but
presidents are not elected by popular vote. To blame someone else for one's own mistakes is a pathetic case of
self-deception.
"Shameful" because it is an evasion of responsibility. It prevents the Democrats, and those Republicans who
want responsible, fact-based government in Washington, from concentrating on practical ways to reduce the threat
the Trump presidency poses to our political values and even to our future existence. After all, Trump would not be
president if the Republican Party had not nominated him. He also is most unlikely to have won the Electoral
College if the Democrats had nominated someone -- almost anyone -- other than the candidate they chose, or if that
candidate had run a more competent campaign. I don't argue that any of this was fair, or rational, but then who is
so naive as to assume that American politics are either fair or rational?
Instead of facing the facts and coping with the current reality, the Russiagate promoters, in both the
government and the media, are diverting our attention from the real threats.
I should add "dangerous" to those three adjectives. "Dangerous" because making an enemy of Russia, the other
nuclear superpower -- yes, there are still two -- comes as close to political insanity as anything I can think of.
Denying global warming may rank up there too in the long run, but only nuclear weapons pose, by their very
existence in the quantities that are on station in Russia and the United States, an immediate threat to
mankind -- not just to the United States and Russia and not just to "civilization." The sad, frequently forgotten
fact is that, since the creation of nuclear weapons, mankind has the capacity to destroy itself and join other
extinct species.
In their first meeting, President Ronald Reagan and then General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev agreed that "a
nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." Both believed that simple and obvious truth and their
conviction enabled them to set both countries on a course that ended the Cold War. We should think hard to
determine how and why that simple and obvious truth has been ignored of late by the governments of both countries.
Everything is so convoluted. Sometime I have impression that I am reading depiction of the operations of
Meyer Lansky not a government agency.
Notable quotes:
"... Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a twitter thread about him last year and wrote about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines. ..."
"... So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn't do it. ..."
"... Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016. (9 months prior). ..."
"... In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up. ..."
"... Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation. ..."
"... Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme team, despite his centrality to all of it. ..."
"... Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct 21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application. ..."
"... Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly invisible – still in position. ..."
"... With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities. ..."
"... Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki quit, Priestap went back to work. ..."
FBI Counterintelligence chief, Bill Priestap, will sit down for a closed-door session with lawmakers on Tuesday, according to
John Solomon of The Hill .
Priestap will be answering questions about the Hillary Clinton email case as well as the counterintelligence operation on the
Trump campaign - both of which he oversaw . Priestap was the direct supervisor of Peter Strzok - the FBI agent whose anti-Trump /
pro-Clinton bias was revealed after 50,000 text messages to his FBI-attorney mistress, Lisa Page, were discovered by the DOJ's Inspector
General, Michael Horowitz.
All accounts say that Priestap is a cooperating witness . In other words, if there's one person who can confirm that the FBI counterintelligence
operation on the Trump campaign was politically motivated - or that malfeasance occurred during the process, it's Bill Priestap.
Note how excited Solomon looks breaking the news of Priestap's testimony...
Solomon: "I think tomorrow is going to be a pivotal day. I think Congress is going to learn a lot of new information tomorrow
during these interviews."
Dobbs: He is going to be speaking candidly about his employer, the FBI, and those who were running the agency during that period.
Solomon: He was very high up. Had a bird's-eye view of everything that went on in both of these investigations.
While the session will be closed-door, we imagine leaks will be forthcoming as seems to be standard operating procedure these
days.
Just who is Bill Priestap really?
The Conservative Treehouse presented an in-depth analysis in February. We recommend reading this before deciding on what size
popcorn to buy:
***
The game is over. The jig is up. Victory is certain... the trench was ignited... the enemy funneled themselves into the valley...
all bait was taken everything from here on out is simply mopping up the details. All suspicions confirmed.
Why has Devin Nunes been so confident? Why did all GOP HPSCI members happily allow the Democrats to create a 10-page narrative?
All questions are answered.
Fughettaboudit.
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence member
Chris Stewart appeared on Fox News with
Judge Jeanine Pirro, and didn't want to "make news" or spill the beans, but the unstated, between-the-lines, discussion was as subtle
as a brick through a window. Judge Jeannie has been on the cusp of this for a few weeks.
Listen carefully around 2:30 , Judge Jeanine hits the bulls-eye; and listen to how Chris Stewart talks about not wanting to make
news and is unsure what he can say on this...
...Bill Priestap is cooperating. When you understand how central E.W. "Bill" Priestap was to the entire 2016/2017 ' Russian
Conspiracy Operation ', the absence of his name, amid all others, created a curiosity. I wrote a
twitter thread about him last year and wrote
about him extensively, because it seemed unfathomable his name has not been a part of any of the recent story-lines.
E.W. "Bill" Priestap is the head of the FBI Counterintelligence operation. He was FBI Agent Peter Strozk's direct boss. If anyone
in congress really wanted to know if the FBI paid for the Christopher Steele Dossier, Bill Priestap is the guy who would know everything
about everything.
FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap was the immediate supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy
Peter Strzok.
Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.
The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation began in July 2016. Bill Priestap
would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI counterintelligence operations. FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically
in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn't (according
to structure anyway) make a move without Priestap approval.
On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight
about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because
the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.* I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important
detail . Again, notice how Comey doesn't use Priestap's actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]
FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn't anticipate
it.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence "Gang of Eight" of any counterintelligence
operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began,
oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight: Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want
to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent
Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an "insurance policy".
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the reason he didn't inform the statutory
oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. Apparently,
according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation
simply by recommending he doesn't do it.
Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy". FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility
in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began
in July 2016. (9 months prior).
At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches these hearings closely could see
FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance
operation of candidate Trump, President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.
In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy . We knew it at the time that Bill Priestap would likely see this the
same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James Comey to set him up.
Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the hidden machinations. Why
should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the
operation.
Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in any future revelations of the scheme
team, despite his centrality to all of it.
Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill
Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct
21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian
Dossier used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.
Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence operation just doesn't happen. Heck,
James Comey's own March 20th testimony in that regard is concrete evidence of Priestap's importance. Everyone around Bill Priestap, above and below, were caught inside the investigative net.
Above him: James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
Below him: Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Jim Rybicki, Trisha Beth Anderson and Mike Kortan.
Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted
twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly
invisible – still in position.
The reason was obvious. Likely Bill Priestap made the decision after James Comey's testimony on March 20th, 2017, when he realized what was coming. Priestap
is well-off financially; he has too much to lose. He and his wife, Sabina Menschel, live a comfortable life in a $3.8 million DC
home; she comes from a family of money.
While ideologically Bill and Sabina are aligned with Clinton support, and their circle of family and friends likely lean toward
more liberal friends; no-one in his position would willingly allow themselves to be the scape-goat for the unlawful action that was
happening around them. Bill Priestap had too much to lose and for what? With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small group can escape their accountability
with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative authorities.
Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the memo process into place. Rybicki
quit, Priestap went back to work.
Bill Priestap remains the Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence operations.
It's over.
I don't want to see this guy, or his family, compromised. This is probably the last I am ever going to write about him unless
it's in the media bloodstream. I can't fathom the gauntlet of hatred and threats he is likely to face from the media and his former
political social network if they recognize what's going on. BP is Deep-Throat x infinity nuf said.
The rest of this entire enterprise is just joyfully dragging out the timing of the investigative releases in order to inflict
maximum political pain upon the party of those who will attempt to excuse the inexcusable.
"... Specifically, he quoted from American senator and historian Albert Beveridge who said in 1897 : ..."
"... It is an American question. It is a world question. Shall the American people continue their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength until the empire of our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind? ..."
"... That was a quote from the speech of a famous American senator, the entire speech is honestly quite frightening. It could literally be taken out of Mien Kampf had the references to America simply be changed to Germany. Later in the speech, it goes on to say : ..."
"... Has the Almighty Father endowed us with gifts beyond our deserts, and marked us as the people of His peculiar favor ..."
"... Fellow-Americans, we are God's chosen people .. ..."
"... We cannot retreat from any soil where Providence has unfurled our banner ; ..."
"... One of the most interesting observations Zhirinovsky had, was that exceptionalism seems to come from ignorance of the world, and it does seem that anti-intellectualism, identity politics, and a special lack of cultural awareness has helped create this concept. For example, the speech about exceptionalism does not mention the French or the British, because early American exceptionalism was in its roots, not a Trans-Atlantic idea. It was formed by Anti-Monarchist people, who believed it was their destiny to defy the world's traditions, and establish their own utopia. As a result, Americans do this day often instinctively believe in how many "rights" they have, and how "free" their country is, compared to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Americans think Europe is dirty, the world is filled with good for nothing barbarians, that they gained supremacy, and that the US is the Land of Milk and Honey, Cannan, a Big Israel. ..."
"... This is true. Many Americans genuinely feel that their country is so advanced and safe, whereas the rest of the world is scary and dangerous. This often wrong, and in actually dangerous places, like some countries the US invaded, they often only became dangerous AFTER America came, and brought freedom and democracy. ..."
"... They often say this completely ignorant of the fact that MANY countries have a higher living standard than the US. For example, the US is not even in the TOP 10 countries by living standards , compiled by this non-profit. According to the United Nations Human Development Index, the US is ONLY in the tenth place. ..."
"... American exceptionalism, according to Zhirinovsky, inspired Hitler, and we all know what he felt about other people's rights. ..."
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (a popular
opposition party), appeared on the Russian evening news criticizing strongly American
exceptionalism. It is worth noting briefly that Zhirinovsky leads an opposition party, and was
the third most popular candidate in the Russian election.
Due to the fact he ran in the Russian election, he obviously ran against Putin, meaning
Zhirinovsky is NOT for the record, a Kremlinbot these are the words of an opposition candidate,
so the west should be careful what they wish for, when they wish for a different Russian
leader.
Amercian exceptionalism is perhaps the greatest issue plaguing the American consciousness,
and has been since the early days of manifest destiny. If anyone is wondering, that actually
manifested itself, in the whole scale destruction of native American civilization, upon the
bones of which America stands.
We've criticized American exceptionalism here at The Duran , because it's dangerous
to the world, as well as to the rights of normal American civilians, who want to live in a
peaceful earth, that hasn't been destroyed by the military-industrial complex. Exceptionalism
creates in an individual, immense pride, not unlike that in Nazi Germany before the war, and as
we've seen since the beginning, pride comes before the fall.
That is what I wrote in
this article below , which was quoted
here and
here by major Russian news agencies.
Благодарю вас
уважаемые
коллеги! Спаси
Господи! That is thanks to YOUR readership by
the way, and I am very grateful to everyone!
Zhirinovsky was asked to comment on the American Idea of a "city on a hill",
specifically, he was asked why many Americans feel this way. Zhirinovsky went back to history,
which is one of the most forgotten yet most important fields of study, crucial to understanding
everything in life. Specifically, he quoted from American senator and historian Albert Beveridge
who said in 1897 :
It is an American question. It is a world question. Shall the American people continue
their resistless march toward the commercial supremacy of the world? Shall free institutions
broaden their blessed reign as the children of liberty wax in strength until the empire of
our principles is established over the hearts of all mankind?
That was a quote from the speech of a famous American senator, the entire speech is
honestly quite frightening. It could literally be taken out of Mien Kampf had the references to
America simply be changed to Germany. Later in the
speech, it goes on to say :
Has the Almighty Father endowed us with gifts beyond our deserts, and marked us as the
people of His peculiar favor
[and close to the end it says:
Fellow-Americans, we are God's chosen people .. . We cannot retreat from any
soil where Providence has unfurled our banner ; it is ours to save that soil for liberty
and civilization. For liberty and civilization and God's promises fulfilled, the flag must
henceforth be the symbol and the sign to all mankind.
This was written in 1897, and represents how deep-rooted and cult-like American
Exceptionalism is, based on a pseudo-religious idea of the inherent superiority of a single
nation.
One of the most interesting observations Zhirinovsky had, was that exceptionalism seems
to come from ignorance of the world, and it does seem that anti-intellectualism, identity
politics, and a special lack of cultural awareness has helped create this concept. For example,
the speech about exceptionalism does not mention the French or the British, because early
American exceptionalism was in its roots, not a Trans-Atlantic idea. It was formed by
Anti-Monarchist people, who believed it was their destiny to defy the world's traditions, and
establish their own utopia. As a result, Americans do this day often instinctively believe in
how many "rights" they have, and how "free" their country is, compared to the rest of the
world.
For example, Zhirinovsky said:
Americans think Europe is dirty, the world is filled with good for nothing barbarians,
that they gained supremacy, and that the US is the Land of Milk and Honey, Cannan, a Big
Israel.
This is true. Many Americans genuinely feel that their country is so advanced and safe,
whereas the rest of the world is scary and dangerous. This often wrong, and in actually
dangerous places, like some countries the US invaded, they often only became dangerous AFTER
America came, and brought freedom and democracy.
It's not uncommon for Americans to talk about everything "over there", or "overseas" like
its hell on earth, and for them to say "Thank God I live in America, I am so free and safe
here."
They often say this completely ignorant of the fact that MANY countries have a higher
living standard than the US. For example, the
US is not even in the TOP 10 countries by living standards , compiled by this non-profit.
According to the United Nations Human Development Index, the US is ONLY in the tenth
place.
These are just simple examples from broader sources that know the real world.
Americans are perfectly within their rights to love their country. No one is arguing against
this, nor does any peace-loving person want to take rights away from anyone else. The only
issue is when one person, or group, believes they have the right to take away other people's
rights.
American exceptionalism, according to Zhirinovsky, inspired Hitler, and we all know what
he felt about other people's rights.
All this is an interesting information. But Trump folded long ago. So why they continues so relentlessly pursue him.
Some of the statements are iether naive, or incorrect, or both. For example: ""The Anglo-American response to this development can
be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014,
overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych, because he refused to turn his country into a western
satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia. " also " We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American
swamp circles by 2014, because of his Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions. He apparently chose the wrong side
by fighting against a Nazi coup. The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on
Ukraine and were subject to the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant"
Notable quotes:
"... Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion. ..."
"... The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events. ..."
"... Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him. ..."
"... Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures, and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia. ..."
"... Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President. ..."
"... Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Service. ..."
"... What exactly was the relationship of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and the other black propagandists operating against the President, together with their reporters, with the NED, the Information Warfare Initiative, NATO's Strategic Communications Service, and The Institute for Modern Russia in New York City, or other British or U.S. intelligence agencies during the Obama Administration and subsequently? ..."
"... Steele and Orbis claim that the 17th memo, produced in December 2016, which referenced the salacious and disgusting claim that Trump engaged in perverse sexual activities at a Russian hotel, was solely produced to one David Kramer as a representative of John McCain, Senator John McCain himself, and a representative of the British security services. ..."
"... It has been widely reported that James Comey's FBI was also offering Steele and Orbis $50,000 or more at this point to corroborate aspects of the dodgy dossier smearing the President-elect. ..."
"... David Kramer is the former President of the CIA and NED quango, Freedom House, was a fellow of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, held State Department positions dedicated to Project Democracy and soft power coups in Russia and the former East Bloc, and presently serves as Senior Director for Human Rights and Human Freedoms at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership in Arizona. ..."
"... Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities, namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence. ..."
The Real Story: Issues of War, Peace, and the Future
Beginning with an announcement of President Xi Jinping, at a conference in Kazakhstan in July of 2013, China has set into motion
an entirely new dynamic in the world, a new paradigm of cooperation between nation states, to build vital modern infrastructure allowing
nations in the former "developing sector" to reach their full economic potentials.
Xi Jinping's vision of the New Silk Road or "One Belt, One Road" project has been endorsed by Russia's Vladimir Putin.
Russia and China are joining in projects which will fully develop the Eurasian landmass, creating a "new financial architecture"
in the Asia-Pacific region.
On July 16, 2014, the BRICS group of nations meeting in Fortaleza, Brazil, joined by the Latin American heads of state, agreed
with Xi Jinping's proposal on the creation of an entirely new economic and financial system, representing a fundamental alternative
to the casino economy of the present system of globalization.
The Anglo-American globalist system is based on maximized profit of the few, and the impoverishment of billions of people.
In the new paradigm, financing for joint great projects is to come from development banks, such as the newly created Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, ending dependence on such globalist institutions as the IMF or World Bank.
Globalization as administered by the IMF and World Bank is effectively a system of imperial debt slavery, keeping the nations
dependent on their loans in primitive economic conditions, while their raw materials are looted.
As Prime Minister Narenda Modi from India remarked,
"The BRICS is unique as an international institution.
In this first instance, it unifies a group of nations, not on the basis of their existing prosperity or common identities, but
rather their future potentials.
The idea of the BRICS itself is thus aligned with the future.
"
It is not incidental to this remark that Russia, China, and India have set future goals for space exploration, including most
specifically exploration of the Moon and possible exploitation of Helium 3 on the Moon, which has the potential of finally realizing
nuclear fusion power as a primary energy source powering the world.
China has made clear that no small part of this initiative is inspired by the work of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.
The methods employed echo the ideas of political economy first developed by Alexander Hamilton, and deployed by Abraham Lincoln
and Franklin Roosevelt -- ideas uniquely developed and expanded by Lyndon LaRouche.
Xi Jinping has asked the United States to join this great venture, which could produce thousands of productive jobs and jump-start
infrastructure projects in this country.
Obama adamantly refused Xi's offer, and did everything in his power to block and defeat the Chinese initiative.
President Trump has indicated an openness to the proposition.
These 2013-2014 events were and are a direct challenge to the British imperial system.
They directly challenge the monetary system which is the source of Anglo-American domination of the world.
They directly challenge fundamental British strategic policy extant since the days of Halford Mackinder.
Under the "One Belt, One Road" initiative, joined with Russia's Eurasian Union, Mackinder's "world island" of Eurasia and Africa
will be developed, crisscrossed with new high-speed rail links, new cities, and vital modern infrastructure, based on the mutual
benefit of all of the nation states existing there.
Under the British geopolitical model, this area of the world has been subjected to endless instability, war, and raw materials
looting.
Xi Jinping has also attacked the geopolitical axioms by which the United States and the British have operated.
He proposes instead a model of "win-win" cooperation in which nation states collaborate for development based on the common aims
of mankind.
The Anglo-American response to this development can be seen in the events in Ukraine, where Obama, the British, and the National
Endowment for Democracy staged a coup in February 2014, overthrowing the government of the duly elected President, Victor Yanukovych,
because he refused to turn his country into a western satrapy to be wielded against Putin's Russia.
Victoria Nuland, who helped oversee the coup from her perch at Hillary Clinton's State Department, was famously caught on tape
dictating the Ukraine succession, after bands of murderous neo-Nazis did the scut-work for the coup. According to Nuland, the price for this handiwork was some $5 billion.
The actual "swamp" of the British and their accomplices in the U.S. intelligence community and aligned trans-Atlantic institutions, like NATO, have viewed themselves as being in a state of war against
Russia and China since the 2013-2014 events.
Think about former DNI Clapper's unhinged speech in Australia of June 7, 2017. Clapper ranted that it was in Putin's and Russia's "genes" to attack the United States. Since Trump pursues better relations and shared intelligence with Russia on terrorism, Clapper ranted, Watergate (where Richard
Nixon committed proven crimes) paled in comparison to Russiagate (where both Clapper and Comey have testified that to date the President
has committed no crimes). Clapper told the Aussies also to target China, accusing the Chinese, without any offer of proof, of meddling in Australia's elections.
Former FBI Director James Comey backed Clapper in his testimony on June 8, 2017, attempting to wax eloquent in response to Senator
Joe Manchin, about how Putin exists with one purpose in mind -- to shred and dismember the United States. But China and Russia have completely outflanked these cretins, and the new paradigm is rapidly coming to life with "shovels in
the ground" everywhere.
In response, the Anglo-American elites have absolutely nothing to offer the world except the same dying, decadent globalist "order."
This explains why many in official Washington let loose their inner alien monster every time the President mentions a desire for
better relations with Russia, or evinces his friendship with President Xi Jinping of China.
This is why Hillary Clinton has literally gone insane, raving like Lady Macbeth, and obsessing about Putin's "man-spreading."
That is why, also, they would risk World War III rather than see the "Belt and Road," the New Silk Road, go forward with its "community
of principle" idea of relations among nations.
What Did Trump Do?
Like LaRouche, Trump represents an existential challenge to the post-War British-dictated monetarist and imperial order.
In his campaign platform he called for the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall banking separation.
This would end the casino economy which is about to blow up again -- the real economy never having recovered from the collapse
of 2008.
He wants to build huge modern infrastructure and revitalize the manufacturing sector of the economy with modern manufacturing
techniques.
He wants to return the United States to space exploration and the funding of fundamental science, recognizing the optimistic national
morale which will result from that.
In his public speeches, Trump has repeatedly invoked what he understands as "The American System" of political economy, a concept
developed and elaborated in recent history by only one man, Lyndon LaRouche.
This centers economic systems in nation states, rather than global institutions, and calls for harnessing the resources of the
nation state to develop the economy to higher and higher levels of physical productivity and human culture.
While Trump has features in his version of the American System which LaRouche would not endorse as historically accurate or politically
wise, even the use of the term, invoking Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln's economist Henry Carey, is a direct challenge to the free
trade, small-government nostrums foisted on the United States by a parade of British agents during the Twentieth Century.
The British, up to this point, have been largely successful in burying the actual ideas of Alexander Hamilton and Franklin Roosevelt,
and burying the fundamental advances in these ideas resulting from original discoveries by LaRouche.
Through deliberate miseducation of Americans, the British have made their economic theories and systems, against which Americans
explicitly fought in our Revolution, appear to be universal laws of human behavior.
As his recent speech to the United Nations emphasized, Trump envisions a system of sovereign nations, each striving to develop
and enrich their populations, engaged in cooperative trade relationships, reciprocal in nature and targeted for the benefit of each
party.
His U.N.
speech echoed the foreign policy of John Quincy Adams, a policy which forbade our nation from "going abroad, seeking monsters
to destroy." This is the very opposite of the imperial-gendarme, perpetual-war policy long favored by the British for the United
States.
Trump's positive vision, under present circumstances, requires active collaboration with Russia and China.
To stop the coup, the President's team and his supporters must stop reacting defensively.
He must act on the aspects of his program -- Glass-Steagall, large scale infrastructure development funded by national banking
mechanism devoted to that purpose, space exploration, fusion power development, and joining the "One Belt, One Road" program with
China, which can actually save the economy and produce high paying jobs.
At the same time, they should look at the actual crimes involved in the coup which are already on the public record, investigate
them -- including in the Congress -- and prosecute them.
With respect to Mueller, they should investigate his obstruction of the investigation into the crimes committed on 9/11, together
with a full public unveiling of the Saudi and British role in international terrorism.
In aid of such an effort we present seven crimes implicated in the events in the coup against the President to date.
Seven Actual Crimes
The crimes outlined below make clear that a Special Counsel, not Robert Mueller, should be investigating the U.S.-British response
to China's Belt and Road Initiative, beginning with the illegal coup in Ukraine which has resulted in the targeting of Paul Manafort.
In the British account of the American election, largely published in pieces in the Guardian, they began warning their American
counterparts about the dangers of Donald Trump's accommodating views toward Putin and Russia in 2015.
These warnings were followed by the specific claim that the Democratic National Committee's servers had been hacked by the Russians
as of July of 2015.
According to the British account, their American counterparts were slow to respond, although the FBI says it notified the DNC,
which did nothing about the alleged Russian hack until June of 2016.
The obvious should be stated here.
If the British were developing dossiers on Trump and his associates as early as 2015, Trump and his associates were under surveillance
as of that date or sooner by British GCHQ and/or the NSA.
We know that Paul Manafort was considered practically an enemy combatant in Anglo-American swamp circles by 2014, because of his
Ukraine work with Yanukovych and the Party of the Regions.
He apparently chose the wrong side by fighting against a Nazi coup.
The same was true even of Democratic consultants such as Tony Podesta, who worked with Manafort on Ukraine and were subject to
the same reported 2014 FISA surveillance warrant.
What was the FBI affidavit which justified the 2014 Manafort, Podesta FISA court surveillance warrant, and what was the British
role in obtaining it? What role did the British play, including GCHQ and MI6, in the Manafort counterintelligence investigation?
What were the British "concerns" about Trump communicated to U.S.
intelligence as early as 2015? What was the specific British warning about hacks of the DNC computer in July 2015? By December
of 2015, according to James Clapper's dodgy January, 2017 report on alleged Russian meddling in the election, hundreds of paid Russian
trolls associated with the St.
Petersburg, Russia, Internet Research Agency had begun to advocate for Trump's election.
At the same time, Michael Flynn attended a dinner at RT in Russia, sitting across the table from Putin.
Flynn had already driven Obama crazy by proposing a determined U.S.-Russian collaboration in the war on terror, and going
after the Administration's policy aimed at dismembering Syria. Obama had fired him.
Is this the date when surveillance on Flynn actually began, or did it begin sooner? What was the British role in this surveillance?
Carter Page has also been a subject in Mueller's Russiagate hysteria.
He apparently walked in to volunteer for the Trump campaign without any prior association with the President, and was disavowed
by the campaign soon after.
He went to school in London, had a variety of business dealings in Russia, and had volunteered for the Trump campaign as a foreign
policy advisor by simply walking in the door.
Page had already functioned as an FBI informant in a major 2013 New York City FBI case against Russian organized crime figures,
and stated on CNN that he briefed both the CIA and FBI regularly on these business dealings in Russia.
Was he used as a front to get a FISA warrant directed at the Trump campaign? Was he a spy sent by the FBI both to Russia and
into the Trump campaign? The targeting of the alleged activities of the St.Petersburg Internet Research Agency (IRA) in DNI Clapper's
January report, again points to the heavy British hand in the coup against the President.
According to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, in September 2014, the British government created the 77th Brigade, a unit tasked
with countering foreign propaganda, which worked with the U.S. military in Europe to interfere with websites considered to be distributing
Russian propaganda. This project ultimately morphed into NATO's Strategic Communications Service, tasked with suppressing any news
or person favorable to the Russian position concerning strategic topics, but particularly Ukraine. From its inception, the NATO Strategic
Communications Service incorporated a service of the Atlantic Council, the Digital Forensics Service.
Crowdstrike's Dimitri Alperovitch -- the person with sole access to the DNC's allegedly "hacked" computers, whose forensic
analysis was adopted wholesale by James Comey's FBI and the U.S. intelligence community -- is a senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's
Digital Forensic Service.
News about Russian trolls operating out of the IRA and poisoning the Western mind filled the British press in 2015. In line with
this NATO project is the Information Warfare Initiative in the U.S., centered at the Washington Center for European Policy Analysis
and founded by Washington Post neo-con Anne Applebaum. It is a pseudopod of the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. intelligence
community, and has concentrated its attacks on the Russian broadcasters RT and Sputnik.
2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/uc-JTs2BkDw?wmode=opaque&controls=&rel=0
Watch LaRouchePAC's full interview of former CIA Officer Ray McGovern and the VIPS report.
William Binney has insisted from the first reference to Russian hacking as the source of the WikiLeaks Podesta/DNC documents,
that if such an event had occurred, the NSA would have traced it and could say so with certainty. In their report, the VIPS point
out that the CIA's "Marble Framework" program allows for obfuscation of cyberattacks and false flag attribution to other state actors.
WikiLeaks has consistently claimed that the source of its dossier was an inside leak from the DNC, implying that Seth Rich, a DNC
data management staffer who supported Bernie Sanders, was one of its sources.
Rich was murdered in July of 2016 in Washington, D.C., in a crime which remains unsolved at this date.
Congressman Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) recently met with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, and states that he has evidence confirming that
the WikiLeaks DNC/John Podesta email trove was the result of a leak, not a Russian hack.
(3). The Trump Tower Meeting -- Entrapping a Presidential Campaign
On June 9, 2016, a meeting took place in Trump Tower involving Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, at the time the campaign manager
for the Trump Presidential campaign, Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, and five other people. As opposed to media accounts,
only one of the participants in the Trump Tower meeting was a Russian, the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. By all accounts provided
by participants, the meeting was very short, and involved the Magnitsky Act sanctions imposed by the U.S. Congress on certain Russians.
Many consider these 2012 sanctions to be the opening shot of the New Cold War. This meeting has attracted extensive attention
from Special Counsel Mueller, as the media has painted it as a "smoking gun." The emails setting up the meeting do not reflect
what actually happened at the meeting.
Instead, they bear all the marks of an intelligence-agency entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr., designed to fix the "Manchurian
candidate" label on Trump early in the general election campaign. The emails setting up the meeting specifically offered "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton to be provided by the Russian government itself.
On July 15, 2016, at the same time as the FBI was opening an investigation of the Russians for interfering in the U.S.election
and of the Trump campaign for colluding with them, another British intelligence operative, Bill Browder, was filing a complaint with
the U.S.
Department of Justice concerning four participants in the Trump Tower meeting and others for failure to register under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act. Browder's complaint claimed that these people were engaged in unregistered Russian lobbying activities,
namely, attempting to overturn the Magnitsky Act. Browder renounced his American citizenship in 1989 to become a British subject
and has operated at the highest levels of British finance and intelligence.
Undoubtedly, by the time of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the British government's Trump file already included a full
history of Donald Trump's sponsorship of the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow and its players, Trump's real estate dealings with
Russians anywhere in the world, all of candidate Trump's conciliatory statements toward Russia, and complaints that campaign advisor
Michael Flynn was soft on Russia, and a rebel against the U.S. intelligence establishment from within that establishment.
The file also included surveillance of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was considered an outright enemy of Anglo-American
interests given his political work for the former President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions, and Trump's
relationship with Felix Sater, a Russian-American and high level FBI informant.
3 The official British government file also probably included surveillance of apartments at Trump Tower associated with a then
ongoing investigation of a Russian organized crime ring said to operate there and figures involved in the FIFA corruption investigation
who also lived there. The FIFA investigation was worked by the FBI Eurasian Organized Crime Strike Force and Christopher Steele.
So, even before the Trump Tower meeting, we find following intelligence services in motion and attempting to concoct illicit dirt
about Trump and Putin: British intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, the DNI and the CIA in the United States, the FBI, and NATO's
Strategic Communications Service and its U.S. offshoots.
But wait, as they say in infomercial sales, that's not even close to all involved. According to Foreign Policy Magazine
and others, on July 11, 2017, a hacker going by the name of "Johnnie Walker" published a trove of emails from the private account
of Lieutenant Robert J.Otto, who is tasked to a secretive unit in the U.S.State Department focused on Russia. Newsweek magazine states
that Otto is the nation's "foremost" intelligence guy concerning Russia. The emails have not been authenticated. However, they contain
an email purported to be on the day of the Trump Tower meeting between Otto and Kyle Parker, of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
featuring a picture of Russian attorney Natalia Velselnitskaya's house in Russia.
Parker credits himself as the actual author of the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, and a close friend of Bill Browder.
Velselnitskaya claims that her children have been threatened as a result of her participation in a legal case questioning the bona
fides of Bill Browder and the factual foundations of the Magnitsky Act. The picture of her house in this context suggests another
level of intense surveillance directed at Trump Tower on the day of the meeting, and the possibility that threats to her family were
actually governing Veselnitskaya's behavior.
The Set-Up
On June 3rd, Trump Jr.was emailed by publicist Ron Goldstone, a British national who operates out of the U.S., whose first career
was as a British tabloid journalist. Goldstone's Facebook account appears to indicate that he is presently on a break from his businesses
and on a world tour of gay bathhouses in which the proudly obese Goldstone takes pictures of himself wearing various strange hats
and shirts in the company of young men.
Who is financing this tour apparently outside the reach of Grand Jury subpoenas? Goldstone has also been photographed with Kathy
Griffin, who famously posted a picture of herself with President Trump's severed head. Goldstone emailed Donald Trump, Jr.
that Aras Agalarov wanted Goldstone to set up a meeting with Trump, Jr. in which sensitive Russian government files about Hillary
Clinton's dealings with Russia would be provided to the Trump campaign as a gesture of official Russian government support of the
campaign. Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting. Goldstone is the publicist for Emin Agalarov, an Azerbarjani pop star. Aras Agalarov
and his son Emin partnered with Trump for the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. The base of operations for the Agalarov family
is the Moscow regional government, not Putin's Kremlin.
The actual twenty-minute meeting involved Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who did most of the speaking by all accounts;
Rinat Akhmetshin, a well-known Washington D.C.-based lobbyist and American citizen; Ike Kaveladze, a U.S. citizen and vice-president
at one of the Agalarov's companies; Ron Goldstone; and the translator for Natalia Veselnitskaya, Anatoli Samochornov. Samochornov
is also an American citizen who worked with Veselnitskaya frequently, since she does not speak English. He has also worked extensively
for the FBI and the U.S. State Department.
Although Akhmetshin has been linked to Russian counterintelligence repeatedly in the news media, that all appears to be based
on his bragging about his two-year stint in the Russian military as a young man.
The topic addressed by Veselnitskaya was the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia, which resulted from a campaign conducted
by violently anti-Putin British operative William Browder, allied with Senator John McCain and the D.C. public relations firm Ashcroft
and Glover.
Any sound investigation about this meeting would focus on who, out of the small army of intelligence operatives watching this
meeting, designed and implemented the clear entrapment attempt against Donald Trump, Jr. for later use.
Since it was surveilled and recorded by multiple intelligence agencies tripping all over one another at the time, (you get the
image of Keystone cops), why was it only surfaced as the "smoking gun" recently? Natalia Veselnitskaya had been paroled into the
United States to serve as the Russian lawyer in a legal case in the Southern District of New York based solely on money-laundering
allegations made by Bill Browder against her Russian clients.
At the time of the Trump Tower meeting, however, Veselnitskaya was traveling on a business visa issued by the U.S. Department
of State after having been previously denied such a visa, and after efforts by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York to prevent any free travel by her in the U.S. at all. Immigration attorneys I have spoken to describe this situation as extremely
strange.
(4). Obama's Final Days In Office -- Insurrection Against the President-Elect, Felonious Leaks
In an apparent effort to influence the Electoral College vote following the election, the Obama Administration leaked a preliminary
intelligence community "assessment" that the Russians had hacked the Democrats' computers and otherwise intervened to swing the election
to Donald Trump.
According to the New York Times of March 1, 2017, Obama and his national security colleagues additionally spent the months after
the election and prior to President Trump's inauguration dropping a trail of "leads" in official documents and leaking information,
in the effort to delegitimize Trump and to continue their policies against Russia and China.
Certainly, there is a document trail on this process which appears to be confined to a period of a little over two months.
Evelyn Farkas, formerly of the Defense Department's Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia Desk and the Atlantic Council, virtually admitted
to MSNBC in March that she had participated in this process. This is where the illegal unmasking of names in FISA and E.O. 12333
surveillance occurred, when these crimes were committed. Samantha Power, the U.N. Ambassador, was reportedly involved in 260 unmasking
requests bearing little relationship to her function. Other targets of the House Intelligence Committee concerning illegal unmasking
and leaks include Susan Rice, John Brennan, and Ben Rhodes.
On December 15, 2016, DNI James Clapper signed new procedures allowing the NSA to distribute raw intercept data throughout the
entire intelligence community. These procedures became official on January 3, 2017 when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed off
on them.
At issue is modification of secret procedures under E.O. 12333, deemed by Edward Snowden and others as the most significant authority
for our present, completely unconstitutional surveillance state. Previously, the NSA was required to filter and redact information
regarding U.S. citizens monitored in foreign counterintelligence activities. DNI Clapper had also implemented a cloud intelligence
data platform accessible by all intelligence agencies, and obliterating many paper and digital access trails and safeguards.
Were these new procedures implemented in any way based on a desire to facilitate leaks and obscure their origin to future investigators?
(5). The January Blackmail/Extortion Attempt
On January 6, 2017, according to James Comey's June 8th Congressional testimony, the intelligence chiefs went to Trump Tower to
present the Obama Administration's report on Russian hacking, hoping to convince the skeptical President-elect to abandon his campaign
promise for better relations with Putin and Russia.
Following that briefing, in a pre-arranged move with the rest of Obama's intelligence directors, Comey cleared the room of everyone
but himself and Trump.
He presented Trump with the Steele dossier's most salacious allegations, namely that Trump had engaged in sexually perverse acts
with Russian prostitutes while visiting Moscow, and Putin had taped it. This is exactly what the infamous J.Edgar Hoover did -- blackmail
Washington politicians with FBI dossiers, assuring them that he could protect them so long as they did as Hoover wished.
In fact, Comey described this as a "J.Edgar Hoover moment" in answers to questions by Senator Susan Collins on June 8th. Dick
Morris describes the entire affair as "just about as close as you can get to a political assassination without holding a gun to the
President's head." Trump appears to have demanded that the entirely fake dossier be investigated, and refused to back down
in efforts to achieve better relations with Russia. In fact, Trump denounced the intelligence community publicly as acting like Nazis.
He also denounced the McCarthyite hysteria they were generating.
While Comey recorded the President-elect's responses on a classified computer moments after leaving him, Buzzfeed, which had frequently
published raw Clinton/Obama "oppo" stories, published the December 2016 British/Clinton dodgy dossier in full.
The U.S.
intelligence community, particularly Obama's ghoulish grand inquisitor, CIA head John Brennan, proceeded to give it credibility
by leaking that both President-elect Trump and President Obama had been briefed on its contents.
Publication of the Trump Russian sex allegations accompanied James Clapper's factless "official intelligence community assessment"
that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta, and that they did so to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.
Put together by analysts "hand-picked" by the CIA's John Brennan, that assessment was backed by no actual evidence.
It has now been thoroughly debunked as "the hack that wasn't" by the analysis presented by the Veteran's Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity.
John Brennan subsequently explained to Congress and the public that he does not "do evidence."
The Democrats, the news media, and their Republican allies led by John McCain and Lindsay Graham, went berserk over the factless
Obama Administration "assessment," demanding special prosecutors and Congressional investigations, and sneering that "other shoes"
were about to drop.
The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, having clearly lost it, claimed that Russia had committed an "act of war," presumably seeking
to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
(6).
The President Calls Out Comey, Brennan et al.
for Wiretapping Him, They Lie About It To Congress
On March 4, 2017, after General Flynn was fired, and after a deluge of leaks of classified surveillance of members of Trump's
transition and national defense teams, President Trump interrupted the entire fake media narrative by tweeting what had become obvious:
that Obama had him "wiretapped" in Trump Tower prior to the election, and that what was happening to him reeked of McCarthyism.
The media, which had been publishing allegations about FISA warrants and intercepts of Trump or his associates for months, erupted
in what has to be one the most shameless demonstrations of the Big Lie ever known.
They declared that Trump was offering wild claims with no evidence, essentially circling back on their very own reporting and
labeling it, "fake news."
Now it has been revealed that FISA warrants existed on Paul Manafort from 2014 through some period in 2016, and from some period
in 2016 through this year, conveniently omitting the period when he was Trump's campaign manager.
Manafort lives in Trump Tower, and was originally investigated under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for his Ukraine activities.
It is fairly obvious that the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower was the subject of massive surveillance.
It is also abundantly clear from the leaks which occurred concerning contacts with the Russians by Trump's campaign officials
and supporters, that the Trump Tower offices of his transition were subject to massive surveillance, either as the result of extant
FISA warrants or under E.O.
12333.
James Comey and James Clapper were both asked directly in their appearances before Congressional Committees whether there was
any evidence at all to substantiate the President's wiretapping claims.
Both of them gave emphatic answers that there was not, and went out of their respective ways to paint the President as a paranoid
wacko.
So now, Robert Mueller is investigating the President of the United States for obstruction of justice, because he fired an FBI
Director who lied to Congress.
Really?
(7).
The Comey Firing-Attempted Entrapment of the President
On March 20, 2017, former FBI Director Comey breathed new life into what was, by then, an insurrection which had run out of steam.
People were simply tired of Democrats, like Adam Schiff,
4 Schiff has a watermelon face combining features of the comic Charlie Brown and a Conehead; his personality is like the grasping
and crazy personality of Peanuts cartoon character, Lucy Van Pelt.
As a prosecutor it took him three tries to convict the hapless former FBI agent Richard Miller of espionage despite overwhelming
and salacious evidence. trying on McCarthyite tinfoil hats before TV cameras and pontificating about the outrage du jour.
Comey, in testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence, made it officially public, for the first time, that the
FBI had been investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the election since July of 2016.
He opined that the FBI counterintelligence investigation (which had been leaking like a sieve since its instigation in July, without
producing any verifiable facts about either Russian interference or Trump campaign collusion) could continue for many more months,
if not years.
He refused to say whether the President himself was under investigation, despite the fact that he had told the President that
he was not, and had told Congress the same thing behind closed doors.
Despite the daily press instructions about events which the public must view as scandalous (why scandalous was never explained),
and highly publicized Congressional hearings concerning "Russia! Russia! Russia!" all of President Obama's men, at this late date,
had only managed to arrange the human sacrifice of Michael Flynn for lying to the Vice-President about his conversations with the
Russian ambassador in December.
5 Flynn's scalping itself was the result of the unmasking of Flynn's name and illegal leaks of same to the press as a result
of classified surveillance.
This fact was obliterated by sensational press coverage of the hyperventilated visit of Obama Assistant Attorney General Sally
Yates to the White House to warn, nonsensically, that Flynn had been "compromised" by the Russians because he lied to the Vice-President.
Exactly how this makes any sense at all we have not been told.
As Shakespeare's MacBeth intoned, "it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." They had
also generated ethics, foreign intelligence registration, and tax questions about their other Trump campaign targets -- typical of
what happens when an entire life is put under a microscope, in a dedicated search for something, anything, that could be construed
feasibly as wrongdoing.
Ask yourself, what have any of these people allegedly done? Spoken with the Russians? Talked about lifting sanctions imposed because
Putin reacted to a coup Obama ran against the duly elected government of Ukraine? Lobbied on behalf of foreign governments? Really?
The actual testimony of Obama's intelligence officials before Congressional Committees, shorn of the media hype surrounding it,
was that there was absolutely no evidence of any Trump campaign collusion with alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S.
elections.
In fact, on March 15, 2017, Comey himself had told Senators Chuck Grassley and Diane Feinstein behind closed doors, that the President
was not a target of his investigations, despite planted press stories to the contrary.
Comey had otherwise continually stone-walled Grassley concerning the Senator's persistent questions about the FBI's relationship
to British operative Christopher Steele.
While unable to produce any saleable legal goods, the illicit investigations had significantly bogged down the President's political
agenda, while fostering an increasingly toxic and divisive national political environment.
The strategy of official Washington, the Republicans who opposed the President's election, the Obama/Clinton Democratic establishment,
and the intelligence agencies operating on behalf of British strategic policies and axioms is clear -- use complicit Republicans
to trap the President in failed and obnoxious policies, such as the healthcare bill; hope that the President's silent majority remains
exactly that -- silent; hope that some of the smelly stuff they are throwing up against the wall actually sticks; distract, distract,
distract the President, and prevent him from working with Russia and China to develop the world, end wars, and implement the massive
infrastructure and space exploration projects which will actually save our economy.
On May 3, 2017, Comey followed his March drama-queen performance before the House, with even more theatrical speechifying before
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He bloviated that despite the fact that his unprecedented disclosures and handling of the Clinton email investigation may have
impacted the election, and it made him nauseous, he, Mr.
Eagle Scout and True Crime Detective rolled into one, would do the same thing all over again.
He exaggerated the significance of the Anthony Weiner computer discovery by stating that it contained thousands of new Clinton
emails, not previously produced, some of which were classified -- a statement the FBI had to subsequently correct.
As Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein rightly argued, Comey violated numerous Justice Department regulations and ethical
norms in his outrageous actions in the Clinton email investigation.
It is the Attorney General's job to prosecute cases -- to open and close them -- not that of the FBI.
At the same Senate Judiciary hearing, Comey refused to state publicly that President Trump was not under investigation, despite
repeatedly assuring the President of that fact privately.
He knew this allowed the media and Democratic party "color revolution" to continue.
He refused to confirm that there was any investigation into the torrent of illegal classified leaks at the center of the media
campaign.
On May 9th, President Trump fired Comey, setting the stage for Robert Mueller's appointment as Special Prosecutor.
At the center of Mueller's inquiry will be a conspiracy to obstruct justice charge against the President for firing James Comey,
along with any so-called process crimes he can find during his investigation -- registration offenses under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act, tax offenses, or false statements to FBI agents or Congress.
As he builds his case, Mueller will follow his standard playbook, putting unrelenting psychological pressure on those Trump loyalists
he can implicate in the process crimes.
He will continue to target and investigate the President's family for similar offenses in order to destabilize the President himself.
He will continue the relentless demonization of the President, in order to ensure that neutral officials in Washington who witnessed
key events will testify not according to the truth, but according to what they see as future career prospects.
Following his firing, Comey and friends leaked to the press notes which he had allegedly taken following most of his encounters
with the President.
With each encounter, Comey's leaked account says, he returned to discuss what was said and its implications with a close circle
of his FBI comrades.
He prepared for each encounter with the President based on "murder boards" conducted by his FBI colleagues.
In the course of their meetings, Comey says, the President asked for his loyalty, which Comey portrayed like the request of some
mafia don in a bad Hollywood movie.
If it happened, such a request, in the context of what appeared to be an open insurrection against the President by the intelligence
community, is hardly surprising.
The President denies that it happened.
On the day after the President fired Flynn, according to Comey, the President cleared the room and went one on one with him, expressing
the "hope" that Comey could let the matter of Michael Flynn go.
Comey whines that he took the President's "hope" as an "order," giving rise to concerns about possible obstruction of justice.
This line of reasoning was thoroughly eviscerated by Senator James Risch in the Senate Judicary Committee hearing on June 8, 2017.
Senator Risch forced Comey to admit that Trump never ordered him to let the Flynn matter go, but only expressed a "hope" that
he would do so, and no prosecution that Comey knew of ever went forward, based on someone expressing "hope" for something.
While the President denies he ever asked Comey to let the Flynn matter go, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and famed trial lawyer
Alan Dershowitz writes that the President would be fully within his legal and constitutional prerogatives to order Comey to back
off Flynn.
He could have simply told Comey, I am going to pardon Flynn.
So, it is clear by James Comey's own account that he was trying to set the President up, to entrap him -- an escapade which was
"crudely" interrupted when the President fired him.
Again, confirming this, Comey told Senator Susan Collins in his testimony, that the reason why he did not stop the President from
improper interactions, if he thought they were such, the reason he concealed the alleged improper and possibly illegal conduct from
his superiors at the Justice Department, and the reason he did not resign, was because his encounters with the President were of
"investigative interest" to the FBI.
Otherwise, Comey's leaks reveal a man so leery of even shaking the President's hand (or being photographed doing it) that once
in January he tried to hide himself in the White House drapes in the hopes that Trump would not see him.
The problem for Robert Mueller's obstruction case, among others, is that both Comey and his Assistant Andrew McCabe have previously
testified, under oath, to Congress that there was no pressure to end the FBI's investigations from anyone in the Trump Administration.
And, Comey confirmed in his testimony that prior to his firing, Trump was not under investigation for collusion with Russia, obstruction,
or any other offense.
Further, Comey has proved that he is willing to violate professional norms and Justice Department regulations, if not laws, by
leaking government documents.
The question is, what else was leaked by Comey and his FBI circle? Finally, we now know that Comey lied to or misled Congress
about the "wiretaps" on Trump Tower -- the Manafort FISA warrants prove the case.
Senator Grassley has asked the FBI: Why, if you were wiretapping a close associate of the President, wouldn't you warn the President
about him as is customarily done? The true answer is that the President himself was and is the target of an unprecedented and illegal
coup-attempt conducted by those sworn to uphold the Constitution and the nation's laws.
Those familiar with the relationship between Comey and Robert Mueller describe them as "joined at the hip," "cut from the same
cloth" (can't help thinking of the Union Jack), close personal friends, and mentor (Mueller) to mentee (Comey).
The problem with this relationship is that Department of Justice conflict guidelines specifically bar prosecutors (Mueller) from
investigating issues where close friends (Comey) have a significant role, such as material witnesses.
Official Washington knows all of this and yet touts this investigation as somehow "independent," "apolitical," and "unconflicted."
Will You Help Us End This Coup?
So, now you know.
Since the election and before, we have been stuck in a very elaborate and dangerous British hoax, gambling the future of our nation
in a cold coup against an elected president.
Actual crimes have been committed -- not by the President -- but against the President and the Constitution.
What has happened is that political differences, ideas, have been criminalized, the very danger most provisions of our Constitution
and its Bill of Rights were explicitly designed to guard against.
We have shown you the prosecutorial robot named Robert Mueller, whom others have always pointed to shoot, and why he has been
deployed to take out the President of the United States.
We have told you the real reasons why the President has been attacked by a foreign power, the British and their allies in our
country.
We have shown you that many of the same people and methods were deployed on a smaller scale to deprive the world of the beautiful
ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.
Now, at a point where this President, freed of Mueller and adequately advised, could join with China's Belt and Road and usher
in a new renaissance for mankind, shouldn't we really, finally, win our future, this time?
"... These and other nefarious plans, such as fomenting color revolutions in Russia's near abroad (one recently came to fruition in tiny Armenia), can be all the more easily pursued that the public associates international money laundering and bank fraud with 'Russian oligarchs close to Putin." ..."
"... A comparison of the Russian population's standard of living then and now, as well as the country's defense capabilities compared with eighteen years ago should make clear that Vladimir Putin has been fulfilling his promises to the Russian people, who recently returned him to power for the fourth time. ..."
"... But while it is the largest country in the world, with eleven time zones, its population is relatively small, as is the number of movers and shakers in Moscow. Inevitably, the oligarchs may move in proximity to the Kremlin, making it easy for the US to link Putin with their criminal activities. ..."
"... Deena Stryker is an international expert, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years, exlusively for the online journal " New Eastern Outlook ". https://journal-neo.org/2018/06/01/russiagate-manipulating-globalization/ ..."
Russiagate has revealed the ease with which globalization's rules can be exploited,
overshadowing the world's real political and economic problems. And as long as audiences --
especially in the US -- are obsessed with the pursuit of political 'crimes', war crimes will
continue unabated. I'm not saying that this situation was created deliberately, however it is
impossible to deny that it has pushed the Iran Nuclear Treaty into a background where National
Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo can ensure that it is never
revived, making way for eventual 'regime change' in Teheran, and making it less likely that
North Korea's young leader will give up the weapons that forced the US to talk to him.
These and other nefarious plans, such as fomenting color revolutions in Russia's near
abroad (one recently came to fruition in tiny Armenia), can be all the more easily pursued that
the public associates international money laundering and bank fraud with 'Russian oligarchs
close to Putin." Americans have never been told that when he came to power in 2000 on the
back of state pilfering under 'our man in the Kremlin' Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin made a
deal with those who had become 'oligarchs' via those privatizations: "You will be free to
continue your games as long as you leave politics up to me."
Vladimir Putin has kept his part of the bargain, bringing Russia up to speed economically
and militarily, but here's the thing: while it is the largest country in the world, with eleven
time zones, its population is relatively small, as is the ruling coterie. Inevitably, the
oligarchs' business may bring them in proximity to the Kremlin, making it easy for the US to
link Putin with their criminal activities. A comparison of the Russian population's
standard of living then and now, as well as the country's defense capabilities compared with
eighteen years ago should make clear that Vladimir Putin has been fulfilling his promises to
the Russian people, who recently returned him to power for the fourth time. (After being
asked to take over the leadership of the country by an ailing Yeltsin in 1999, he was elected
for the first time in 2000.) But while it is the largest country in the world, with eleven
time zones, its population is relatively small, as is the number of movers and shakers in
Moscow. Inevitably, the oligarchs may move in proximity to the Kremlin, making it easy for the
US to link Putin with their criminal activities.
All those Russian names that are (with difficulty) coming out of the mouths of English-only
American anchors have nothing to do with the war in Syria or the rebellion in eastern Ukraine,
let alone the impending reunification of the Koreas after 65 years of a barbed-wire truce. They
have to do with bank fraud and money laundering, which were once the realm of gangsters. What
the Muller investigation has revealed is an international 'crime syndicate' whose claim to fame
is its association with the President of the United States (and suggestions that is associated
with the President of Russia).
But rather than being a strongman who uses his power for personal enrichment, such as for
example Panama's President Noriega, Putin's relations with shady oligarchs are probably more
like those of the Kennedy brothers, Jack and Robert, with Meyer Lansky and his cohorts based in
pre-Castro Havana. (When, fifty years later, I read about the mob's 'interest' in the Cuban
revolution, I realized with a shudder that they were lurking in Havana when I arrived there a
week after the Kennedy assassination.)
Russiagate shows how far the US has regressed since the days of Camelot.
The FBI has obtained 'indisputable evidence' that Obama-era CIA officials paid British spies to fabricate the Trump-Russia dossier
in order to justify wiretapping the Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him. ..."
"... It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset. ..."
"... The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House. ..."
The U.K.'s Joint Intelligence Committee was the venue used by the CIA and the DNI to share and receive "intelligence" allegedly
linking Trump to Russia.
The sources believe that John Brennan and James Clapper used highly classified intelligence channels to create a trail of fake
evidence linking Trump to Russia.
George Papadopoulos was targeted deliberately by U.K. intel operatives in a plot to trick him.
It was Joseph Mifsud, not Papadopoulos, who raised the prospect of meeting with the Russians and introduced the claim that
Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
Joeseph Mifsud was a British operative, not a Russian asset.
The only entity that could have coordinated the entire operation was the Obama White House.
"Britain's spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald
Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives..
GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected
Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine exchange of
information, they added."
"... In Hillary's defense, by this point she probably would have had a brain aneurism or tumor or whatever was causing the neurological ticks she exhibited and we would be stuck with her vice president, whose name I cant recall (and dont care) and the same neocons in the cabinet. ..."
"Washington is
exerting pressure on Turkey to make it
abandon the plans to purchase Russia S-400 Triumf state-of-the-art air defense systems. So far,
Ankara stood tall refusing to bow. US Congress is already considering the
proposals
on halting US arms sales to that country." Korzun "Unlike Turkey, India is not a NATO ally but
its desire to acquire the Triumf triggers a
negative reaction in the US. American lawmakers not only express concern over the planned
deal but also issue
warnings that sensitive American military technology may be banned from being shared with
India in future.
According to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, "There is a lot of
concern in the US administration and Congress with the S-400." India's decision
will be made final before the October Russia-India summit. During the informal talks in Sochi
in May 2018, President Putin and Prime Minister Modi discussed the ways to get around the US
potential sanctions when the deal goes through. Both countries
have pledged to jointly create a plan to keep it out of CAATSA.
New Delhi has just
concluded price talks on the S-400 deal with Moscow, saying it will go ahead, no matter what
the US says or does. Those who follow the news on arms trade know well that India is interested
in purchasing 22 American Predator Guardian drones for its Navy. It's also willing to acquire the
weapon the US has not sold anyone so far: 80-100 Avenger (Predator C) armed drones for the Air
Force. The price may be as high as $8 billion .
The F-16 production on Indian soil is also in
doubt. All these projects are questioned as the US sticks to its guns implementing the "do it or
else" policy. But it will hardly work with India, a nation known for its independent foreign
policy. It has never bowed to any pressure from outside since its independence.
America leads the way! Or else. Well, folks the international situation would be at
least this bad with the wandering basket case Hillary Clinton in charge. It appears that Israel
is wasting American money by maintaining its own ambassador at the UN since they already have
Nikki Haley. They should make her status official and save money.
Yesterday she vetoed Kuwait's
draft resolution on Gaza and was joined by no other country on that. Then she offered a US
resolution condemning Hamas for the Palestinian deaths on the Gaza border and was joined by none.
Not even the usual European toadies would sign up to support that. Haley must be planning to run
for president on the new Ziotrumpian Party ticket. The control wielded by the Zionists over Trump
appears to be complete at this point.
I doubt if Trump really understands anything about the
Middle East. His "thinking" appears to be a melange and reflection of the Grima Wormtongue
murmurings of his family members, the flickering images on the Fox channels, (Hannity the Wise,
Jack Keane and Stewart Varney) and his own lack of a reflective mind.
The Saudis get s big
response from him as well. But, after all, they have disposable cash. They don't have as much as
they did, but they still have a lot. That counts in the narrow world of The Art of the Deal." In
the arms trade, the objective seems to be to dragoon all these countries into accepting their
roles as satrapies of the Peacock Throne, Will that work? We will see.
The name of US Pacific
Command has been changed to US Indo-Pacific Command. I don't quite see the significance of that
unless it is accompanied by AOR boundary changes in the Unified Command Plan (UCP). pl
Equally telling is that we were not even joined by the Solomon Islands, which to me
indicates that the US is not even bothering to try.
Russian AD has gotten really good advertising in Syria, but somehow, whereas the US
THAAD did not even try to shoot down Kim's missile. I suppose that is what happens when
supporting US industries is from fact-free marketing and strong-arming sales "or else"
rather than having the best. Sad. very sad.
In Hillary's defense, by this point she probably would have had a brain aneurism or
tumor or whatever was causing the neurological ticks she exhibited and we would be stuck
with her vice president, whose name I cant recall (and dont care) and the same neocons in
the cabinet.
America is acting stupid as usual. It is becoming a rule now.
The US did not win WWII the provided material and little else (Apologies to the
servicemen who gave their life, eternal respect from a former soldier, your sacrifice is
not forgotten) but neither are the 22 million Russians Who died in the great War. Largely
forgotten by the MSM. 22 million. It is an unnatural figure, that most Americans cant
even comprehend, its a figure that is offensive!!
Yanks fok off, you have never seen blood on your soil, but you will, it is just a
matter of time, inequalities growing and all, you will. And we will do nothing. You
brought 75 years of destruction on us, ordinary people, enjoy your palms. Written as a former NATO officer.
'Realising CAATSA's potential for damaging relations with key partners like India,
Secretary of Defence James Mattis has been campaigning for a national security waiver
from CAATSA for key allies, including in recent testimony before the US Congress.
However, Democratic Congresspersons are virulently opposed to any waiver that might allow Mr Trump's administration to bypass CAATSA. The Republicans might be more open to the
notion of a waiver for a small handful of countries, but they do not want to give Mr
Trump a free hand on Russia either.'
Putin & Moscow denounce Iran for anti-Israeli activity From retired Indian Ambassador M
K Bhadrakumar,
'Russia Censures Iran' :
Close ties between Russia and Israel are sailing into full view it all does seem a cosy
condominium between Putin and Netanyahu Extraordinary statements for an establishment think
tank known to be close to the Kremlin:
The commentary contextualised Putin's recent call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces
from Syrian soil. It openly rapped the Iranians on the knuckle: "Iran's operations in Syria
go far beyond fighting terrorists and are hardly welcomed by anyone within the region and
beyond. This heightens tensions in Israel's relations with its bitter rivals Serving as a
platform for fighting the 'Zionist' enemy is something Syria needs the least."
Key elements [according to the Kremlin-tied think tank]:
a) Russia holds Iran as responsible for ratcheting up tensions with Israel;
b) Russia thoroughly disapproves of Syria being turned into a turf for Iran's policy of
'Resistance' against Israel; and,
c) Moscow expects the Assad regime to distance itself from Iran's anti-Israeli
activities.
"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad."
That saying - often misattributed to Euripides - comes to mind most mornings when I pick
up The New York Times and read the latest "Russiagate" headlines,
which are frequently
featured across two or three columns on the front page above the fold. This is an almost daily
reminder of the hysteria that dominates our Congress and much of our media.
A glaring example, just one of many from recent months, arrived at my door on February 17. My
outrage spiked when I opened to the Times'
lead
editorial
:
"Stop Letting the Russians Get Away With It, Mr. Trump."
I
had to ask myself:
"Did the Times' editors perform even the rudiments of due diligence before they climbed on
their high horse in this long editorial, which excoriated 'Russia' (not individual Russians) for
'interference' in the election and demanded increased sanctions against Russia 'to protect
American democracy'?"
It had never occurred to me that our admittedly dysfunctional political system is so
weak, undeveloped, or diseased that inept internet trolls could damage it. If that is the case, we
better look at a lot of other countries as well, not just Russia!
The New York Times, of course, is not the only offender.
Their editorial
attitude has been duplicated or exaggerated by most other media outlets in the United States,
electronic and print. Unless there is a mass shooting in progress, it can be hard to find a
discussion of anything else on CNN. Increasingly, both in Congress and in our media, it has been
accepted as a fact that "Russia" interfered in the 2016 election.
So what are the facts?
It is a fact that some Russians paid people to act as online trolls and bought
advertisements on Facebook during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Most of these were
taken from elsewhere, and they comprised a tiny fraction of all the advertisements purchased on
Facebook during this period. This continued after the election and included organizing a
demonstration against President-elect Trump.
It is a fact that e-mails in the memory of the Democratic National Committee's computer were
furnished to Wikileaks. The US intelligence agencies that issued the January 2017 report were
confident that Russians hacked the e-mails and supplied them to Wikileaks, but offered no
evidence to substantiate their claim. Even if one accepts that Russians were the perpetrators,
however, the e-mails were genuine, as the US intelligence report certified. I have always
thought that the truth was supposed to make us free, not degrade our democracy.
It is a fact that the Russian government established a sophisticated television service (RT)
that purveyed entertainment, news, and -- yes -- propaganda to foreign audiences, including those in
the United States. Its audience is several magnitudes smaller than that of Fox News. Basically,
its task is to picture Russia in more favorable light than has been available in Western media.
There has been no analysis of its effect, if any, on voting in the United States. The January
2017 US intelligence report states at the outset, "We did not make an assessment of the impact
that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election." Nevertheless, that report has
been cited repeatedly by politicians and the media as having done so.
It is a fact that many senior Russian officials (though not all, by any means) expressed a
preference for Trump's candidacy. After all, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had compared
President Putin to Hitler and had urged more active US military intervention abroad, while Trump
had said it would be better to cooperate with Russia than to treat it as an enemy. It should not
require the judgment of professional analysts to understand why many Russians would find Trump's
statements more congenial than Clinton's. On a personal level, most of my Russian friends and
contacts were dubious of Trump, but all resented the Clinton's Russophobic tone, as well as
those made by Obama from 2014 onward. They considered Obama's
public
comment
that "Russia doesn't make anything" a gratuitous insult (which it was), and were
alarmed by Clinton's expressed desire to provide additional military support to the "moderates"
in Syria. But the average Russian, and certainly the typical Putin administration official,
understood Trump's comments as favoring improved relations, which they definitely favored.
There is no evidence that Russian leaders thought Trump would win or that they could have a
direct influence on the outcome. This is an allegation that has not been substantiated. The
January 2017 report from the intelligence community actually states that Russian leaders, like
most others, thought Clinton would be elected.
There is no evidence that Russian activities had any tangible impact on the outcome of the
election. Nobody seems to have done even a superficial study of the effect Russian actions
actually had on the vote. The intelligence-community report, however, states explicitly, "the
types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote
tallying." Also both former FBI director James Comey and NSA director Mike Rogers
have
testified
that there is no proof Russian activities had an effect on the vote count.
There is also no evidence that there was direct coordination between the Trump campaign
(hardly a well-organized effort) and Russian officials. The indictments brought by the special
prosecutor so far are either for lying to the FBI or for offenses unrelated to the campaign such
as money laundering or not registering as a foreign agent.
So, what is the most important fact regarding the 2016 US presidential election?
The most important fact, obscured in Russiagate hysteria, is that Americans elected
Trump under the terms set forth in the Constitution.
Americans created the Electoral
College, which allows a candidate with the minority of popular votes to become president. Americans
were those who gerrymandered electoral districts to rig them in favor of a given political party.
The Supreme Court issued the infamous Citizens United decision that allows corporate financing of
candidates for political office. (Hey, money talks and exercises freedom of speech; corporations
are people!) Americans created a Senate that is anything but democratic since it gives
disproportionate representation to states with relatively small populations. It was American
senators who established non-democratic procedures that allow minorities, even sometimes single
senators, to block legislation or confirmation of appointments.
Now, that does not mean that Trump's presidency is good for the country just because Americans
elected him. In my opinion, the 2016 presidential and congressional elections pose an imminent
danger to the republic. They have created potential disasters that will severely try the checks and
balances built into our Constitution. This is especially true since both houses of Congress are
controlled by the Republican Party, which itself represents fewer voters than the opposition party.
I did not personally vote for Trump, but I consider the charges that Russian actions
interfered in the election, or - for that matter - damaged the quality of our democracy ludicrous,
pathetic, and shameful.
"
Ludicrous
" because there is no logical reason to think that anything
that the Russians did affected how people voted. In the past, when Soviet leaders tried to
influence American elections, it backfired -- as foreign interference usually does everywhere. In
1984, Yuri Andropov, the then Soviet leader made preventing Ronald Reagan's reelection the
second-most-important task of the KGB. (The first was to detect US plans for a nuclear strike on
the Soviet Union.) Everything the Soviets did -- in painting Reagan out to be a warmonger while
Andropov refused to negotiate on nuclear weapons -- helped Reagan win 49 out of 50 states.
"
Pathetic
" because it is clear that the Democratic Party lost the
election. Yes, it won the popular vote, but presidents are not elected by popular vote. To blame
someone else for one's own mistakes is a pathetic case of self-deception.
"
Shameful
" because it is an evasion of responsibility. It prevents
the Democrats, and those Republicans who want responsible, fact-based government in Washington,
from concentrating on practical ways to reduce the threat the Trump presidency poses to our
political values and even to our future existence. After all, Trump would not be president if
the Republican Party had not nominated him. He also is most unlikely to have won the Electoral
College if the Democrats had nominated someone -- almost anyone -- other than the candidate they
chose, or if that candidate had run a more competent campaign. I don't argue that any of this
was fair, or rational, but then who is so naive as to assume that American politics are either
fair or rational?
Instead of facing the facts and coping with the current reality, the Russiagate
promoters in both the government and the media, are diverting our attention from the real threats.
I should add "dangerous" to those three adjectives. "Dangerous" because making an enemy of
Russia, the other nuclear superpower -- yes, there are still two -- comes as close to political insanity
as anything I can think of. Denying global warming may rank up there too in the long run, but only
nuclear weapons pose, by their very existence in the quantities that are on station in Russia and
the United States, an immediate threat to mankind -- not just to the United States and Russia and not
just to "civilization." The sad, frequently forgotten fact is that since the creation of nuclear
weapons, mankind has the capacity to destroy itself and join other extinct species.
In their first meeting, President Ronald Reagan and then General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev
agreed that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." Both believed that simple and
obvious truth and their conviction enabled them to set both countries on a course that ended the
Cold War. We should think hard to determine how and why that simple and obvious truth has been
ignored of late by the governments of both countries.
We must desist from our current Russophobic insanity and encourage Presidents Trump and
Putin to restore cooperation in issues of nuclear safety, non-proliferation, control of nuclear
materials, and nuclear-arms reduction. This is in the vital interest of both the United States and
Russia. That is the central issue on which sane governments, and sane publics, would focus their
attention.
Vote up!
8
Vote down!
2
A 20-page confidential letter from President Trump's legal team leaked to the New
York Times argues that President Trump could not have obstructed justice at any point
during his presidency due to his Constitutional authority, and that he cannot be compelled to
testify in front of Special Counsel Robert Mueller due to his Constitutional powers as
President.
The letter, crafted by Trump's legal team, reveals that the White House has been waging a
quiet campaign for several months to prevent Mueller from trying to subpoena the president -
contending that because the Constitution empowers him to "if he wished, terminate the inquiry,
or even exercise his power to pardon," Trump could not have illegally obstucted any aspect of
the investigation into potential collusion between his campaign and Russia during the 2016 US
election.
Mr. Trump's defense is a wide-ranging interpretation of presidential power. In saying he
has the authority to end a law enforcement inquiry or pardon people, his lawyers ambiguously
left open the possibility that they were referring only to the investigation into his former
national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn , which he is accused of pressuring the F.B.I. to
drop -- or perhaps the one Mr. Mueller is pursuing into Mr. Trump himself as well.
Mr. Dowd and Mr. Sekulow outlined 16 areas they said the special counsel was scrutinizing
as part of the obstruction investigation, i ncluding the firings of Mr. Comey and of Mr.
Flynn , and the president's reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions's recusal from the
Russia investigation. -NYT
"It remains our position that the president's actions here, by virtue of his position as the
chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute
obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself , and that he could, if he
wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired," writes
President Trump's former attorney John Dowd, who left the team in March.
The leaked letter effectively reveals Trump's trump card in the event Mueller proceeds with
a subpoena.
"We are reminded of our duty to protect the president and his office," wrote the lawyers,
who stressed that " Ensuring that the office remains sacred and above the fray of shifting
political winds and gamesmanship is of critical importance. "
Translation - this is a clown show, go pound sand.
Mueller's office has told Trump's lawyers they need to speak with the president to determine
whether he criminally obstructed any aspect of the Russia investigation. If Trump refuses to be
questioned, Mueller will be forced to choose whether or not to try and subpoena him - which, as
Trump's lawyers have made abundantly clear, will result in a Constitutional crisis.
They argued that the president holds a special position in the government and is busy
running the country , making it difficult for him to prepare and sit for an interview. They
said that because of those demands on Mr. Trump's time, the special counsel's office should
have to clear a higher bar to get him to talk. Mr. Mueller, the president's attorneys argued,
needs to prove that the president is the only person who can give him the information he
seeks and that he has exhausted all other avenues for getting it. -NYT
" The president's prime function as the chief executive ought not be hampered by requests
for interview ," they wrote. " Having him testify demeans the office of the president before
the world ."
Trump's attorneys also argued that the president did nothing to technically violate
obstruction-of-justice statutes.
"Every action that the president took was taken with full constitutional authority pursuant
to Article II of the United States Constitution," they wrote of the part of the Constitution
that created the executive branch. "As such, these actions cannot constitute obstruction,
whether viewed separately or even as a totality."
According to legal experts cited by the Times , the president wields broad authority to
control the actions of the executive branch, which includes the Department of Justice and the
FBI. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that Congress can impose some restrictions on that
power, including limiting a president's ability to fire certain officials.
"As a result, it is not clear whether statutes criminalizing obstruction of justice apply to
the president and amount to another legal limit on how he may wield his powers ," notes the
Times .
About that Russia probe...
And while Trump's team works to make the case against testifying, media reports and
Congressional investigations have revealed what appears to be
grave misconduct by the FBI and Department of Justice in order to prevent Trump from
winning the 2016 US election, and then once he won - discredit him with a Russia allegations
fabricated by US Intelligence agencies, UK intelligence assets - in collusion with the Clinton
campaign and the Obama administration.
We now know that Trump campaign aides were likely
fed rumors that Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, and then used as
patsies by Clinton-linked operatives in what appears to have been a set-up, something Trump
once again hinted in his latest tweet, in which he also asked if the Mueller team or the DOJ is
leaking his lawyers' letters to the "Fake News Media."
Trump's attorneys have also attacked the credibility of former FBI Director James Comey,
while also contesting what they believe are Mueller's version of significant facts.
Mr. Giuliani said in an interview that Mr. Trump is telling the truth but that
investigators "have a false version of it, we believe, so you're trapped." And the stakes are
too high to risk being interviewed under those circumstances, he added: "That becomes not
just a prosecutable offense, but an impeachable offense." -NYT
They argue that Trump couldn't have intentionally obstructed justice anyway based on the
fact that he did not know that Mike Flynn was under investigation when Trump spoke to
Comey.
"There could not possibly have been intent to obstruct an 'investigation' that had been
neither confirmed nor denied to White House counsel," the president's lawyers wrote, adding
that FBI investigations generally do not qualify as the type of "proceeding" covered by an
obstruction-of-justice statute.
"Of course, the president of the United States is not above the law, but just as obvious and
equally as true is the fact that the president should not be subjected to strained readings and
forced applications of clearly irrelevant statutes," wrote Mr. Dowd and Mr. Sekulow.
The Times, however, suggests that their argument may be outdated, as a 2002 law passed by
Congress makes it a crime to obstruct proceedings that have not yet begun.
But the lawyers based those arguments on an outdated statute , without
mentioning that Congress passed a broader law in 2002 that makes it a
crime to obstruct proceedings that have not yet started.
Samuel W. Buell, a Duke Law School professor and white-collar criminal law specialist who
was a lead prosecutor for the Justice Department's Enron task force, said the real issue was
whether Mr. Trump obstructed a potential grand jury investigation or trial -- which do count
as proceedings -- even if the F.B.I. investigation had not yet developed into one of those .
He called it inexplicable why the president's legal team was making arguments that were
focused on the wrong obstruction-of-justice statute.
Regardless, it appears Trump's team is going to tell Mueller to take a hike if he tries to
subpoena the president, and that it will simply further embarrass the United States on the
world stage.
"We write to address news reports, purportedly based on leaks, indicating that you may have
begun a preliminary inquiry into whether the president's termination of former FBI Director James Comey
constituted obstruction of justice," the June 2017 memo from Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz to
Mueller reads - while a more recent memo outlines the 16 areas they believe Mueller is focusing
on (via
CBS News )
Former National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- information regarding his
contacts with Ambassador Kislyak about sanctions during the transition process;
Lt. Gen. Flynn's communications with Vice President Mike Pence regarding those
contacts;
Lt. Gen. Flynn's interview with the FBI regarding the same;
Then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates coming to the White House to discuss same;
The president's meeting on Feb. 14, 2017, with then-Director James Comey;
Any other relevant information regarding former National Security Advisor Michael
Flynn;
The president's awareness of and reaction to investigations by the FBI, the House and the
Senate into possible collusion;
The president's reaction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' recusal from the Russia
investigation;
The president's reaction to former FBI Director James Comey's testimony on March 20,
2017, before the House Intelligence Committee;
Information related to conversations with intelligence officials generally regarding
ongoing investigations;
Information regarding who the president had had conversations with concerning Mr. Comey's
performance;
Whether or not Mr. Comey's May 3, 2017, testimony lead to his termination;
Information regarding communications with Ambassador Kislyak, Minister Lavrov, and Lester
Holt;
The president's reaction to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel;
The president's interaction with Attorney General Sessions as it relates to the
appointment of Special Counsel; and,
The statement of July 8, 2017, concerning Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting in Trump
Tower.
One interesting fact I don't see mentioned in this article, or the comments so far, is
that this letter from Trump's attorneys to Mueller was written and delivered to Mueller in
January, 2018. 5 months ago. One of the authors has since left the Trump team (Dowd). Mueller
does not appear to have shut up shop and left town.
The only new thing about this letter is that somebody, presumably from Team Trump, has
leaked it to the New York Times. Could easily be Giuliani.
This may very well end up at the Supreme Court. If that happens, I expect a 5-4 decision
to exempt the President of the United States from the rule of law. Won't that be fun when
somebody like Elizabeth Warren becomes President in 2, 6, or however-many years?
A lot of Republicans loved how George W. Bush amassed a lot of King-like powers, and then
bemoaned it when Barack Obama used those powers of the "Unitary Executive." That shoe cramps
badly on the other foot, doesn't it.
Uhm, so what you're saying is the Supreme Court, which IS the rule of law, will likely
interpret the Constitution correctly and UPHOLD the portions of the constitution that speak
to not allowing the President to be encumbered with frivolous, unfounded charges that render
him unable to execute the charge of his office while he is a sitting President, even though
those charges CAN be brought as soon as he steps down. So this RULING OF THE LAW would be
uncomfortable for you? Tough shit, you live in America where the Constitution reigns supreme.
Are you one of those that wants to toss the constitution into the garbage all based upon, but
but but we may not be able to bring our OWN unjustified, frivolous, unfounded charges on
Presidents we don't agree with and are SUPER angry they got elected?
CONGRESS amassed a bunch of King-like powers for Bush and Obama, ignorantly. The Supreme
Court does not give any powers to the President and I have no problem with that court being
the final word.
Mueller is assholes and elbows deep in his own stinky poo poo.
If the IG report is that damning, and a second council is appointed, Mueller should buy an
apple orchard, to feed his horse face, during his incarceration.
Trump should stay "light years" AWAY>from Mueller desperation's<
They remind me of roach nests where the vermin are always nesting cozy cozy together until
an opportunity arises that allows them to bug the s**t out of the rest of us.
And of course they produce nothing, and mooch off everybody else's work.
Except these DC Swamp roaches carry badges and guns.
Only the DC Swamp could produce such freaks.
They are a step below regular six legged roaches.
At least those roaches are better behaved than their DC cousins.
America doesn't need THEIR kind of protections if it requires a handful of people to run
amuck breaking every law they vowed to uphold simply because shits like YOU are so damn
stupid you couldn't even beat a clown like Trump. Why don't you people just admit it. You're
too damn stupid to accomplish anything anymore. You couldn't win what SHOULD have been the
easiest election to win in all of American history. THEN you couldn't even run an
intelligence op "intelligently". On top of THAT you all convict yourselves as you go on "book
tours" and "political commentary" junkets because your greed surpasses your stupidity.
You have no one but yourselves to blame for everything that upsets you.
"This entire case is built on a fake piece of information in the Dossier. Or multiple
pieces of information in a Fake Dossier, I should say to be more precise. Breaking yesterday,
Breanan has insisted that to multiple people by the way, that he didn't know much about the
Dossier. Wait till we play this audio. Get the Chuck Todd one ready Joe."
"This is Devastating audio. But hold on a minute. Why is Breanan doing this? Because
Breanan knows that the Dossier was his case. And, the minute he admits on the record. That as
a Senior Level, powerful member of the Intelligence Community. That John Breanan started a
Political Investigation based on Fake Information he may very well of known was not verified.
John Breanan is going to be in a World of trouble. So he has to run from this thing."
"Now I'll get to this Sberry piece in a second. And, why it's important. But just to show
you that Breanan has run from this Dossier. Despite the fact, we know he knew about it. And,
he Lied about it. Here's him basically telling Chuck Todd....listen to how he emphasizes on
the Dossier played no role, no, no, no role, no, no, no, no, no to the Dossier. Listen to him
with Chuck Todd:"
Chuck Todd Interview 3:30 Mark. Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath
John Breanan admits the Fake Dossier Played:
"and it did not play any role whatsoever in the Intelligence Community Assessment that was
done. That was presented to then...Pesident Obama & President Elect Trump."
Mueller reminds me of the 'preacher' character in the 'Right Stuff' movie. Death made
visible. A year and a half and the only result has been to damage a freely-elected president.
Mueller's end game is to drag this s - - - out until the midterms when it is hoped the Dems
can regain the House and impeach Trump.
Mueller should be issuing a subpoena to Comey for obstructing justice and the
theft/transference of classified government documents...lol...but of course, it is not in
"Muellers mandate" to pursue justice ;-)
You're correct. I just checked. CNN is hemorrhaging slobbering viewers.
Ow, my Ballz! Is still number one slot followed by Fox.
So the joy of CNN withering only goes so far when the only refuge is FOX and Ow, my
Ballz.
Fox and friends makes me violently ill - it's soooo saccharine sweet. Steve Docey is
tolerable but that dip shit Kilmeade is such a bloodthirsty war mongering chickenhawk and
airhead Ainsley reminds me of Barbies little sister Skipper who thinks every day is Summer
and wonderful. It seriously gives me the trots in the morning. Used to like Greta, super
smart but a face for radio so they ditched her. Still like Tucker but I seriously doubt he
will stay there long term.
The time has never been more ripe for someone to buck up and create a serious media
channel that is a red pilling machine gun. 100% Mockingbird and Sheeny free, too.
"... Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. " These types of investigations aren't normally run by assistant directors and deputy directors at headquarters ," he told me. "All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn't the case here and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting of a confidential human source against a U.S. person." -The Hill ..."
"... A series of text messages recovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and special agent Peter Strzok reveal political pressure around the same time as the Trump-Russia probe officially opened. ..."
"... "We're not going to withstand the pressure soon," Page texted Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016 - days after Strzok returned from London and opened the official Trump-Russia investigation. ..."
"... John Solomon of The Hill notes, "they were dealing with simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe." ..."
"... The texts reveal that Strzok and Page were also concerned about someone within the DOJ leaking details of their investigation ("This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak," Strzok texted Page), as well as concerns that the White House was spearheading the investigation. ..."
A new report from John Solomon of
The Hill ties together several loose threads floating around over the genesis of the FBI/DOJ espionage operation against the
Trump campaign, who was involved in the "setup" of campaign aides, and how text messages between FBI employees suggest that the Obama
White House was not only aware of the operation - but possibly directing it .
Not only is the timeline moved up from the summer of 2016 to spring, Solomon provides clarification on early contacts between
the players involved in DOJ/FBI sting and Trump campaign aides.
The bridge to the Russia investigation wasn't erected in Moscow during the summer of the 2016 election.
It originated earlier, 1,700 miles away in London, where foreign figures contacted Trump campaign advisers and provided the
FBI with hearsay allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, bureau documents and interviews of government insiders reveal. These contacts
in spring 2016 -- some from trusted intelligence sources, others from Hillary Clinton supporters -- occurred well before FBI headquarters
authorized an official counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.
The new timeline makes one wonder: Did the FBI follow its rules governing informants? -
The Hill
" The revelation of purposeful contact initiated by alleged confidential human sources prior to any FBI investigation is troublesome
," Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), an ally of President Trump and chairman of a House subcommittee that's taking an increasingly aggressive
oversight role in the scandal, told me. " This new information begs the questions: Who were the informants working for, who were
they reporting to and why has the [Department of Justice] and FBI gone to such great lengths to hide these contacts ? "
Retired assistant FBI director for intelligence Kevin Brock also has questions. Brock supervised an agency update to their longstanding
bureau rules governing the use of sources while working under then-director Robert Mueller. These rules prohibit the FBI from directing
a human source to perform espionage on an American until a formal investigation has been opened - paperwork and all.
Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. " These types of investigations aren't normally run by assistant directors
and deputy directors at headquarters ," he told me. "All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn't the case here
and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting
of a confidential human source against a U.S. person." -The Hill
The Text Messages
A series of text messages recovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and special agent
Peter Strzok reveal political pressure around the same time as the Trump-Russia probe officially opened.
"We're not going to withstand the pressure soon," Page texted Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016 - days after Strzok returned from London
and opened the official Trump-Russia investigation. At the time, as John Solomon of The Hill notes, "they were dealing with
simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe."
The texts reveal that Strzok and Page were also concerned about someone within the DOJ leaking details of their investigation
("This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak," Strzok texted Page), as well as concerns that the White House was
spearheading the investigation.
"Went well, best we could have expected," Strzok texted Page after an Aug. 5, 2016, meeting. "Other than Liz quote 'the
White House is running this.' " Page then texted to assure Strzok of a paper trail showing the FBI in charge: "We got emails that
say otherwise."
Federal investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office recently interviewed former FBI
director James Comey as part of an ongoing probe into whether former FBI #2 Andrew McCabe broke
the law when he lied to federal agents, reports the
Washington Post .
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office recently interviewed former FBI
director James B. Comey as part of a probe into whether his deputy, Andrew McCabe, broke the
law by lying to federal agents -- an indication the office is seriously considering whether
McCabe should be charged with a crime, a person familiar with the matter said. -
Washington Po st
What makes the interview particularly interesting is that Comey and McCabe have given
conflicting reports over the events leading up to McCabe's firing, with
Comey calling his former deputy a liar in an April appearance on The View .
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a criminal referral for McCabe
following a months-long probe which found that the former acting FBI Director leaked a
self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath. McCabe was fired on March 16
after Horowitz found that he " had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked
candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions. "
Specifically, McCabe was fired for lying about authorizing an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney
to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St.
Journal - just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not put the brakes on a
separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation, at a time in which McCabe was coming under
fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry
McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the
strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to
condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people
familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the
foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence
peddling occurred related to the charity.
...
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the
charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and
saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for
control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case
.
So McCabe was found to have leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that
Clinton had indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then
lied about it four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
McCabe vs. Comey
Investigators from the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office were likely to be keenly interested in
Comey's version of whether or not he knew about McCabe's disclosure.
Comey and McCabe offered varying accounts of who authorized the disclosure for the
article. They discussed the story the day after it was published, and Comey, according to the
inspector general's report, told investigators McCabe "definitely did not tell me that he
authorized" the disclosure . -WaPo
"I have a strong impression he conveyed to me 'it wasn't me boss.' And I don't think that
was by saying those words, I think it was most likely by saying 'I don't know how this s---
gets in the media or why would people talk about this kind of thing,' words that I would fairly
take as 'I, Andy, didn't do it,' " Comey said, according to the inspector general.
During an April appearance on ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty
Loyalty, where he called McCabe a liar , and said he actually "ordered the [IG] report" which
found McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several
times.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so.
Following McCabe's firing, his attorney Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the
disgraced Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe
campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .
" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has
relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the
report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that
prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall
Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.
McCabe vs. the DOJ
McCabe may also find himself at odds with the Department of Justice, as notes he kept
allegedly detailing an interaction with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein raise questions
about a memo Rosenstein wrote justifying Comey's firing. While Rosenstein's memo took aim at
Comey for his mishandling of the Clinton email investigation, McCabe's notes suggest that Trump
told Rosenstein to point to the Russia investigation. Rosenstein's recommendation ultimately
did not mention Russia.
McCabe's interactions with Rosenstein could complicate any potential prosecution of McCabe
because Rosenstein would likely be involved in a final decision on filing charges. McCabe has
argued that the Justice Department's actions against him, including his firing, are
retaliatory for his work on the Russia investigation. -WaPo
As the Washington Post notes, lying to federal investigators can carry a five-year prison
sentence - however McCabe says he did not intentionally mislead anyone. The Post also notes
that while Comey's interview is significant, it does not indicated that prosecutors have
reached any conclusions.
Lying to Comey might not itself be a crime. But the inspector general alleged McCabe
misled investigators three other times.
He told agents from the FBI inspection division on May 9, 2017, that he had not authorized
the disclosure and did not know who had, the inspector general alleged. McCabe similarly told
inspector general investigators on July 28 that he was not aware of one of the FBI officials,
lawyer Lisa Page, having been authorized to speak to reporters, and because he was not in
Washington on the days she did so, he could not say what she was doing. McCabe later admitted
he authorized Page to talk to reporters.
The inspector general also alleged that McCabe lied in a final conversation in November,
claiming that he had told Comey he had authorized the disclosure and that he had not claimed
otherwise to inspection division agents in May.
Michael Bromwich replied in a statement: "A little more than a month ago, we confirmed that
we had been advised that a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office had been made
regarding Mr. McCabe. We said at that time that we were confident that, unless there is
inappropriate pressure from high levels of the Administration, the U.S. Attorney's Office would
conclude that it should decline to prosecute. Our view has not changed.
He added that " leaks concerning specific investigative steps the US Attorney's Office has
allegedly taken are extremely disturbing ."
Whatever Comey told federal investigators, we suspect it eventually boiled down to "McCabe
didn't tell me," squarely placing responsibility for the leaks - and the lies, on McCabe's
shoulders.
"... The reports delivered during the four-hour meeting provided a devastating exposure of the connection between propaganda and censorship by the media and the warmongering of governments in Britain, the United States and across the world. ..."
"... Professor Piers Robinson (Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism) spoke on the rebranding of government propaganda as "public relations." Drawing on his research into the Iraq war, he cited material from the Chilcot Inquiry into the war confirming the systematic manipulation and exaggeration of "intelligence" on Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction. This included discussions between the US and British governments over how the 9/11 terror attacks could be used for regime change operations, under the slogan of the "war on terror", which Robinson described as a propaganda slogan for mobilising support for military operations. ..."
"... Stuart gave a presentation on his examination of film recorded by BBC personnel at Atareb Hospital in Aleppo on August 26, 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of a napalm-style bombing by Syrian government forces. The footage was broadcast the same evening that parliament delivered a shock vote against a military attack on Syria. He showed that much of it was staged. Not only did this potentially include the use of military casualty trauma simulations, but BBC personnel were travelling in vehicles displaying ISIS flags and alongside senior members of the western-funded White Helmets. ..."
"... It was impossible to have a functioning democracy without a functioning fourth estate, he said. This had been the gold standard but was no longer the case. Henningsen noted widespread popular opposition to war in the US that successive presidential candidates had sought to manipulate, only to betray once in power -- from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Donald Trump. ..."
"... The mainstream media have enormous assets and resources but claim democracy is threatened by "fake news", when they are the purveyors of fake news and the real threat to democracy. ..."
"Government propaganda and the war on terror from 9/11 to Syria"
Media on Trial held a successful event in Leeds on Sunday, in the face of sustained efforts
to prevent the meeting taking place.
The group was formed by Frome Stop War, based in Somerset. Working with academics,
investigative journalists and other interested parties and individuals, and drawing on the
illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, Media on Trial seeks to "cultivate public scepticism when faced
with establishment and corporate media's partisan reporting at times of conflict". It held
well-attended meetings in Frome and London last year. Its success in exposing the ongoing
regime-change operations in Syria, and government/media propaganda to this end, has made its
members the subject of an organised media smear campaign, culminating in efforts to silence it
altogether.
" Government propaganda and the war on terror from 9/11 to Syria" was booked at
Leeds City Museum. But in an assault on free speech, Labour-run Leeds City Council in West
Yorkshire cancelled the event .
Sheila
Coombes speaking at Media on Trial
Sheila Coombes (Frome Stop War) has reported that the ban, made on May 3 -- World Press
Freedom Day -- came after a series of attacks on several of the
featured speakers by the Huffington Post , Guardian and Times
newspapers as "Assad Apologists".
Among those targeted were Professor Piers Robinson
(University of Sheffield), Professor Tim Hayward (University of Edinburgh) -- both of the
Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM) -- and investigative journalist Vanessa
Beeley.
Having travelled to Leeds to check out the venue, Coombes was told that Leeds City Council
had cancelled the event, suggesting that "security issues" were involved. She was informed that
it was a blanket ban and that no other council-run venue would host it.
Less than an hour after she had been informed, the Yorkshire Post ran an online
article welcoming the ban, followed by a similar report in the Huffington Post . The
speed of publication suggests that these media outlets were aware of the ban before Coombes
herself had been informed.
Piers Robinson speaking at the Media on Trial event
Coombes reports that she was in contact with police regarding security arrangements for the
event and that she had been informed by the police officer in charge that he had advised Leeds
City Council there was "no intelligence to assess a threat". A second alternative private venue
was also cancelled.
Media on Trial was forced to keep details of the third venue secret until shortly before it
was due to open and restrict entrance to those who had already purchased tickets. The panel was
eventually able to go ahead on Sunday at the Baab-ul-llm Islamic education centre, one of the
few venues prepared to stand in defiance of this campaign of censorship. Approximately 200
people attended.
The reports delivered during the four-hour meeting provided a devastating exposure of
the connection between propaganda and censorship by the media and the warmongering of
governments in Britain, the United States and across the world.
Professor Piers Robinson (Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism) spoke on
the rebranding of government propaganda as "public relations." Drawing on his research into the
Iraq war, he cited material from the Chilcot Inquiry into the war confirming the systematic
manipulation and exaggeration of "intelligence" on Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction.
This included discussions between the US and British governments over how the 9/11 terror
attacks could be used for regime change operations, under the slogan of the "war on terror",
which Robinson described as a propaganda slogan for mobilising support for military
operations.
Robert Stuart is an independent researcher whose presentation on the "irregularities" in the
BBC Panorama documentary, "Saving Syria's Children," encouraged film producer and
writer Victor Lewis-Smith to tear up his BBC contract in disgust.
Robert Stuart speaking at
the Media on Trial event
Stuart gave a presentation on his examination of film recorded by BBC personnel at
Atareb Hospital in Aleppo on August 26, 2013 purporting to show the aftermath of a napalm-style
bombing by Syrian government forces. The footage was broadcast the same evening that parliament
delivered a shock vote against a military attack on Syria. He showed that much of it was
staged. Not only did this potentially include the use of military casualty trauma simulations,
but BBC personnel were travelling in vehicles displaying ISIS flags and alongside senior
members of the western-funded White Helmets.
Professor Tim Hayward (Environmental Political Theory) questioned the morality of the media
presenting information that was untrue and its implications for democracy and society. He
questioned the media's complicity in glorifying jihadi figures, despite this being in
contravention of the British governments' own anti-terror laws. He drew attention to broadcasts
on Channel 4 that provided flattering accounts of British women signing up for jihad. The media
were guilty of inverting the truth and placing a "lockdown" on information that breached the
rudiments of journalistic integrity.
American journalist and broadcaster Patrick Henningsen (21st Century Wire), drew attention
to the unprecedented conditions in which the meeting was being held, "in secret, in a
tent".
It was impossible to have a functioning democracy without a functioning fourth estate, he
said. This had been the gold standard but was no longer the case. Henningsen noted widespread
popular opposition to war in the US that successive presidential candidates had sought to
manipulate, only to betray once in power -- from George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Donald
Trump.
The mainstream media have enormous assets and resources but claim democracy is threatened by
"fake news", when they are the purveyors of fake news and the real threat to democracy.
Peter Ford is a former UK ambassador to Syria (2003–2006) and now Director of the
British Syrian Society. He noted that the government had been forced to convene the Leveson
Inquiry into the media after the phone-hacking scandal involving Murdoch's News of the
World . But those actions were trivial in comparison with the real charge sheet that
needed to be presented against the media: that of "war mongering and aiding and abetting war
mongering".
Vanessa Beeley is an international investigative journalist and photographer who had
reported from inside Syria (including East Aleppo), Egypt and Palestine. She played an
important role in exposing Syria's White Helmets as an arm of western propaganda and regime
change operations.
She delivered a moving account of the situation within Syria and the capital Damascus. In
addition to detailing the role of the White Helmets and other institutions financed and backed
by western governments, Beeley noted that, especially following the Second World War, pro-war
propaganda was deemed a threat to peace. The Nuremberg Trials in 1946 characterised propaganda
to facilitate war as a serious crime against humanity; one of the gravest that could be
committed. Today, those who advocate peace and the defence of international law are smeared and
silenced, while those who promote war are being lauded in the media.
In the short time available for questions, contributions were made, including the
possibility of practical action against war-mongering.
Julie Hyland, speaking for the World Socialist Web Site , was greeted warmly by the
audience for raising that the high point of the international campaign of smears and censorship
is the attack on Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who is in grave danger of eviction from
the Ecuadorian Embassy and extradition to the United States.
Henningson replied that the embassy had determined to cut Assange's internet access and
personal communications while Syria was being targeted for military strikes. "I don't
underestimate the influence of Julian Assange at those critical times. His own website was
taken offline as the air strike by the US, Britain and France were happening, along with
several other web sites". He added, "Julian Assange is being silenced because they don't want
someone like him to have a platform".
Video of the Media on Trial Leeds event can be viewed here
"... This effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by The Federalist , after a series of leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was " intimately involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS. " ..."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has accused Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson of giving "extremely misleading"
testimony that may have been an "outright lie" regarding his post-election work conducting opposition research on the Trump matter.
Of note, when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) asked Simpson if he was still being paid for work related to the dossier,
Simpson refused
to answer .
" So you didn't do any work on the Trump matter after the election date; that was the end of your work? " Schiff asked.
Simpson responded, saying: " I had no client after the election. "
where we do have actual evidence of misleading testimony in Committee interviews, we should treat it seriously. For example,
when the Committee staff interviewed Glenn Simpson in August of 2017, Majority staff asked him: "So you didn't do any work on
the Trump matter after the election date, that was the end of your work?" Mr. Simpson answered: "I had no client after the election."
As we now know, that was extremely misleading, if not an outright lie . -Sen. Chuck Grassley
"Contrary to Mr. Simpson's denial in the staff interview, according to the FBI and others," Grassley notes, " Fusion actually
did continue Trump dossier work for a new client after the election ."
Grassley also noted comments made by Senate Intelligence Committee staffer Daniel Jones, who is conducting an ongoing,
private investigation into Trump-Russia claims is being funded with $50 million supplied by George Soros and a group of 7-10
wealthy donors from California and New York.
This effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by
The Federalist , after a series of
leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI
investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was " intimately involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious
and unverified memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS. "
In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50
million war chest just revealed by the House Intel Committee report.
Simpson was commissioned by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign to perform opposition research on the Trump campaign during the
2016 election. Through their efforts they recruited former MI6 spy Christopher Steele to compile the salacious and unverified "Steele
Dossier" used in part by the FBI to apply for a FISA surveillance warrant on Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
"So, despite the fact Mr. Simpson said he had no client after the election, he in fact did, and that client revealed himself to
the FBI," Grassley said.
Hey Grassley, We have had 2 years of obviously guilty people who never go to jail and are never punished in any way. It's time
to stop talking about what these people have done wrong and start doing something about it instead.
True.. when was the last time someone was prosecuted for Treason? For Sedition? How about 18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow
of Government? How about Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the
United States , levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death......
In his final report in a three-part series, Guccifer 2's West
Coast Fingerprint , the Forensicator discovers evidence that at least one operator behind
the Guccifer 2.0 persona worked from the West Coast of the United States.
The Forensicator's earlier findings stated that Guccifer 2.0's NGP-VAN files were
accessed locally on the East Coast, and in another analysis they suggested
that a file published by Guccifer 2.0 was created in the Central time zone of the United
States. Most recently, a former DNC official refuted the DNC's initial allegations that Trump opposition files
had been ex-filtrated from the DNC by Russian state-sponsored operatives.
So, if Guccifer 2.0's role was negated by the statements of the DNC's own former "official"
in a 2017 report by the Associated Press
, why do we now return our attention to the Guccifer 2.0 persona, as we reflect on the last
section of new findings from the Forensicator?
The answer: Despite almost two years having passed since the appearance of the Guccifer 2.0
persona, legacy media is still trotting
out the shambling corpse of Guccifer 2.0 to revive the legitimacy of the Russian hacking
narrative. In other words, it is necessary to hammer the final nail into the coffin of the
Guccifer 2.0 persona.
As previously noted, In his final report in
a three-part series, the Forensicator
discusses concrete evidence that at least one operator behind the Guccifer 2.0 persona worked
from the West Coast of the United States. He writes:
"Finally, we look at one particular Word document that Guccifer 2 uploaded, which had
"track changes" enabled. From the tracking metadata we deduce the timezone offset in effect
when Guccifer 2 made that change -- we reach a surprising conclusion: The document was likely
saved by Guccifer 2 on the West Coast, US ."
The Forensicator spends the first part of his report evaluating indications that Guccifer
2.0 may have operated out of Russia. Ultimately, the Forensicator discards those tentative
results. He emphatically notes:
"The PDT finding draws into question the premise that Guccifer 2 was operating out of
Russia, or any other region that would have had GMT+3 timezone offsets in force. Essentially,
the Pacific Timezone finding invalidates the GMT+3 timezone findings previously
described."
The Forensicator's new West Coast finding is not the first evidence to indicate that
operators behind the Guccifer 2.0 persona were based in the US. Nine months ago,
Disobedient Media , reported on the Forensicator's analysis ,
which showed (among other things) that Guccifer 2.0's "ngpvan" archive was created on the East
Coast. While that report received the vast majority of attention from the public and legacy
media,
Disobedient Media later reported on another analysis done by the Forensicator, which
found that a file published by Guccifer 2.0 (on a different occasion) was probably created in
the Central Timezone of the US.
Adding to all of this, UK based analyst and independent journalist Adam Carter presented his own analysis which also showed
that the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter persona interacted on a schedule which was best explained by
having been based within the United States.
The chart above shows a box which spans regular working hours. It indicates that unless
Guccifer 2.0 worked the night shift, they were likely working out of the US. Though this last
data point is circumstantial, it is corroborated by the previously discussed pieces of
independently verifiable hard evidence described by the Forensicator.
When taking all of these separate pieces into account, one observes a convergence of
evidence that multiple US-based operators were behind the Guccifer 2.0 persona and its
publications. This is incredibly significant because it is based on multiple pieces of concrete
data; it does not rely on "anonymous sources within the government," nor contractors hired by
the DNC. As a result, much of the prior legacy press coverage of Guccifer 2.0 as a Russia-based
agent can be readily debunked.
Such tangible evidence stands in contrast to the claims made in a recently published
Daily Beast article, which reads more
like a gossip column than serious journalism. In the Daily Beast's recital, the outlet cites an
anonymous source who claims that a Moscow-based GRU agent was behind the Guccifer 2.0
operation, writing :
"Guccifer 2.0, the "lone hacker" who took credit for providing WikiLeaks with stolen
emails from the Democratic National Committee, was in fact an officer of Russia's military
intelligence directorate (GRU), The Daily Beast has learned. It's an attribution that
resulted from a fleeting but critical slip-up in GRU tradecraft.
But on one occasion, The Daily Beast has learned, Guccifer failed to activate the VPN
client before logging on. As a result, he left a real, Moscow-based Internet Protocol address
in the server logs of an American social media company, according to a source familiar with
the government's Guccifer investigation.
Working off the IP address, U.S. investigators identified Guccifer 2.0 as a particular GRU
officer working out of the agency's headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street in Moscow."
[The Daily Beast , March 22, 2018]
Clearly, the claim made in the Daily Beast's report is in direct contradiction with the
growing mound of evidence suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 operated out of the United States. A
detailed technical breakdown of the evidence confirming a West-Coast "last saved" time and how
this counters the claims of the Daily Beast can be found in the Forensicator's
work.
The Forensicator explained to Disobedient Media that their discovery process was initiated
by the following Tweet by Matt Tait ( @pwnallthings ), a security blogger and journalist.
Tait noticed a change revision entry in one of the Word documents published in Guccifer 2.0's
second
batch of documents, (uploaded 3 days after Guccifer 2.0 first appeared on the scene).
The Forensicator corrects Tait, stating that the timestamp is in "wall time," (local time)
not UTC. The Forensicator explains that Tait's mistake is understandable because the "Z" suffix
usually implies "Zulu" (GMT) time, but that isn't the case for "track changes" timestamps. The
Forensicator writes that the document Tait refers to in his Tweet is named
Hillary-for-America-fundraising-guidelines-from-agent-letter.docx ; it has Word's "track
changes" feature enabled. Guccifer 2.0 made a trivial change to the document, using the
pseudonym, "Ernesto Che," portrayed below:
The Forensicator correlated that timestamp ("12:56:00 AM") with the document's "last saved"
timestamp expressed in GMT, as shown below courtesy of the Forensicator's
study :
Based on the evidence discussed above, the Forensicator concludes that Guccifer 2.0 saved
this file on a system that had a timezone offset of -7 hours (the difference between 0:56 AM
and 7:56 AM GMT). Thus, the system where this document was last changed used Pacific Timezone
settings.
The logical conclusion drawn from the preceding analysis is that Guccifer 2.0 was operating
somewhere on the West Coast of the United States when they made their change to that document .
This single finding throws into shambles any other conclusions that might indicate that
Guccifer 2.0 was operating out of Russia. This latest finding also adds to the previously cited
evidence that the persona was probably operated by multiple individuals located in the United
States.
Taken all together, the factual basis of the Russian hacking story totally collapses. We are
left instead with multiple traces of a US-based operation that created the appearance of
evidence that Kremlin-allied hackers had breached the DNC network. Publicly available data
suggests that Guccifer 2.0 is a US-based operation. To this, we add:
The Forensicator's
recent findings that Guccifer 2.0 deliberately planted "Russian fingerprints" into his first
document, as reported by
Disobedient Media.
A former DNC official's statement that a document with so-called "Russian fingerprints"
was not in fact taken from the DNC, as reported by Disobedient
Media .
In the course of the last nine months this outlet has documented the work of the
Forensicator, which has indicated that not only were Guccifer 2.0's "ngp-van" files accessed
locally on the East Coast of the US, but also that several files published by the Guccifer 2.0
persona were altered and saved within the United States. The "Russian fingerprints" left on
Guccifer 2.0's first document have been debunked, as has the claim that the file itself was
extracted from the DNC network in the first place. On top of all this, a former DNC official
withdrew the DNC's initial allegations that supported the "Russian hack" claim in the first
place.
One hopes that with all of this information in mind, the long-suffering Guccifer 2.0 saga
can be laid to rest once and for all, at least for unbiased and critically thinking
observers.
Snowden talked about the NSA or is it CIA, had the ability to leave Russian
fingerprints.
All of this was the "insurance" to frame Trump who they knew would win when they saw that
Hillary rallies had 20 people only showing up few old lesbians and nobody else.
Meanwhile, Snowden risked his life and liberty to show us evidence that the NSA developed
technology to make it appear even with expert analysis that NSA hacking originated from a
foreign power.
"... According to Russian and Chinese law enforcement agencies, militants fleeing by sea from Syria and Iraq follow a route from the Qasim port in the Pakistani city of Karachi to Peshawar, and are then distributed along the Nangarhar province in the east of the country. ..."
"... Since late 2017 the leaders of the Islamic State managed to transfer from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan an additional 500 foreign fighters, including more than two dozen women. A source in one of the Russian law enforcement agencies says: "All of them are also in the province of Nangarhar. They are citizens of Sudan, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic, Uzbekistan, France and so on." ..."
"... Movement of militants to the north is planned to be organized in two directions. In Tajikistan, the radicals will penetrate the provinces of Nuristan and Badakhshan, and to Turkmenistan - through the provinces of Farah, Ghor, Sari-Pul and Faryab. ..."
"... Governor of Nangarhar Province, Gulab Mangal ..."
"... personally oversees militant activities in the region. ..."
"... Mangal has a long-standing relationship with the US intelligence services. In particular, he fought against the Soviet forces during the Afghan campaign of the USSR. Immediately after the US invasion in 2001, he was appointed as the head of the local government of the Pashtuns, the people to which he belongs. Also, Mangal is loved by the Western press. Most of the publications in the major American and British media contain exceptionally positive information about him, and the BBC called him "the hope of Helmand province," which Mangal previously headed. ..."
"... According to the Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan, in the near future the leadership of the Islamic State plans to expand the grouping by another 1.2 thousand militants. Most of them will also be located in the province, under the control of Gulab Mangal and his people. ..."
"... It is worth noting that the two largest US bases in Afghanistan are in the immediate vicinity of the Nangarhar province, which is hardly a coincidence. ..."
"... At the same time, the expert community points out that the pressure on Tajikistan and Turkmenistan will be only one of the vectors of the new hybrid attack on Russia. Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise Valery Korovin ..."
"... is confident that Moscow should prepare for a large-scale offensive of geopolitical opponents on all fronts: in Ukraine, possibly through Armenia, as well as a number of other post-Soviet countries. ..."
"... " Destabilizing the situation in Central Asia, the US and its allies will achieve several goals at once. First, in this way, Washington can distract Moscow and Tehran from Syria. Secondly, if the operation succeeds, a focus of instability will be created along the path of the One-Belt-One-Road project, which is designed to strengthen the economic and logistical integration of Eurasia. Afghanistan also borders Iran in the west, which opens a new front against Tehran. Starting with economic pressure through new sanctions, ending with "color revolutions" that will continue in the post-Soviet space, and direct aggression from American networks. Obviously, the United States did not seize Afghanistan, by rigging its military dictatorship there, in order to build democracy and civil society there. This is a springboard for the creation of terrorist networks, with the help of which the US is preparing an aggression against Iran and Russia." ..."
Katehon, a think-tank dedicated to the protection of nations' sovereignty against invasions
and coups from abroad, headlined, on May 15th, "Special
Services Agent: Attack on Russia Is Being Prepared" , and reported that [with editorial
clarifications and links supplied by me in brackets]:
According to Russian and Chinese law enforcement agencies, militants fleeing by sea from
Syria and Iraq follow a route from the Qasim port in the Pakistani city of Karachi to Peshawar,
and are then distributed along the Nangarhar province in the east of the country.
Since late 2017 the leaders of the Islamic State managed to transfer from Syria and Iraq
to Afghanistan an additional 500 foreign fighters, including more than two dozen women. A
source in one of the Russian law enforcement agencies says: "All of them are also in the
province of Nangarhar. They are citizens of Sudan, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic, Uzbekistan,
France and so on."
Movement of militants to the north is planned to be organized in two directions. In
Tajikistan, the radicals will penetrate the provinces of Nuristan and Badakhshan, and to
Turkmenistan - through the provinces of Farah, Ghor, Sari-Pul and Faryab.
Mangal has a long-standing relationship with the US intelligence services. In
particular, he fought against the Soviet forces during the Afghan campaign of the USSR.
Immediately after the US invasion in 2001, he was appointed as the head of the local government
of the Pashtuns, the people to which he belongs. Also, Mangal is loved by the Western press.
Most of the publications in the major American and British media contain exceptionally positive
information about him, and the BBC called him "the hope of Helmand province," which Mangal
previously headed.
According to the Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan, in the near future the leadership
of the Islamic State plans to expand the grouping by another 1.2 thousand militants. Most of
them will also be located in the province, under the control of Gulab Mangal and his
people.
It is worth noting that the two largest US bases in Afghanistan are in the immediate
vicinity of the Nangarhar province, which is hardly a coincidence.
At the same time, the expert community points out that the pressure on Tajikistan and
Turkmenistan will be only one of the vectors of the new hybrid attack on Russia. Director of
the Center for Geopolitical Expertise
Valery Korovin [and
here is more about him] is confident that Moscow should prepare for a large-scale
offensive of geopolitical opponents on all fronts: in Ukraine, possibly through Armenia, as
well as a number of other post-Soviet countries. [Korovin states]:
" Destabilizing the situation in Central Asia, the US and its allies will achieve
several goals at once. First, in this way, Washington can distract Moscow and Tehran from
Syria. Secondly, if the operation succeeds, a focus of instability will be created along the
path of the One-Belt-One-Road project, which is designed to strengthen the economic and
logistical integration of Eurasia. Afghanistan also borders Iran in the west, which opens a new
front against Tehran. Starting with economic pressure through new sanctions, ending with "color
revolutions" that will continue in the post-Soviet space, and direct aggression from American
networks. Obviously, the United States did not seize Afghanistan, by rigging its military
dictatorship there, in order to build democracy and civil society there. This is a springboard
for the creation of terrorist networks, with the help of which the US is preparing an
aggression against Iran and Russia."
Peter Korzun, my colleague at the Strategic Culture Fundation, has presented a case that
"Despite its recent claims to the contrary, the US is hunkering down in Syria for the long
haul." He noted that: "Last month US forces were also reported to be building a new outpost
at the al-Omar oil field in southeastern Deir ez-Zor. They were deployed to positions around
the Conoco and al-Jafreh oil fields. On April 7, the area around the oil fields in Deir ez-Zor
was declared a military zone by the US-led SDF . That group has already
clashed
with Syrian forces in the fight to control the province."
On 25 June 2017, I noted that
in December 2016, "Obama and Turkey's Erdogan, began their joint effort to relocate ISIS from
Mosul Iraq, into Der Zor Syria, in order to culminate their (and the Sauds') joint plan to use
ISIS so as to bring down Assad." And "Trump has been continuing Obama's Policy" of supporting
Al Qaeda and even sometimes ISIS in Syria so as to carve out Syria's oil-producing region as a
separate US-controlled nation, in the event that America and the Sauds fail to replace Assad in
all of Syria.
Perhaps the US, which clearly was not satisfied when the Soviet side ended its side of the
Cold War in 1991, is going all the way to seek a hot-war victory against Russia. Pushing Russia
this hard and this far and this long -- using even the "Putin stole
Crimea" hoax and other
such hoaxes to justify 'restoring' a Cold War which was actually supposed to have ended
when the Soviet Union's communism did -- suggests that Russia might soon need to respond in a
direct military way, taking America's war as the existential threat to Russian national
sovereignty over Russia, that it is. The alternative -- Russian surrender to the US -- seems
far less likely, even though taking the war to America would entail global annihilation.
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, has said many times -- and the Russian public seems to be
overwhelmingly supportive of him in this -- that for the US to push much farther in this
direction will result in nuclear war, and that the US must recognize this fact. Trump seems not
to recognize it.
"... Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records. ..."
"... The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny. ..."
"... Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey testified last June in response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey continued . "And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School," Comey responded . ..."
Daniel Richman, the law professor who leaked classified FBI records to the media at Comey's request, refused to disclose
when exactly he became Comey's attorney.
Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia University
, told The Federalist via phone on Tuesday afternoon that he was now personally representing Comey.
According to The New York Times
, the line of questioning from the office of special counsel Robert Mueller focused on memos that Comey wrote and later
leaked after he was fired from his job by President Donald Trump.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote
in a letter to the Department of Justice on January 3 that at least one of the memos Comey provided to his friend was classified.
"My staff has since reviewed these memoranda in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI, and I reviewed
them in a SCIF at the Office of Senate Security," Grassley
wrote .
"The FBI insisted that these reviews take place in a SCIF because the majority of the memos are classified.
Of the seven memos, four are marked classified at the 'SECRET' or 'CONFIDENTIAL' levels." "If it's true that Professor Richman
had four of the seven memos, then in light of the fact that four of the seven memos the Committee reviewed are classified, it would
appear that at least one memo the former FBI director gave Professor Richman contained classified information," Grassley
noted in the letter.
Reached by phone on Tuesday, Richman refused to say when his legal representation of Comey began or whether he was personally
representing Comey when the former FBI director testified before Congress in June 2017 about his deliberate leaking of the FBI records.
The specific timing of the attorney-client relationship is important, because it may shield conversations between Comey and
Richman regarding the coordinated leak of FBI records to the media from law enforcement scrutiny.
Richman's legal work on behalf of Comey was not known before today, as Comey testified before Congress in 2017 that Richman
was merely a friend . "I asked a friend of mine to share
the content of the memo with a reporter," Comey
testified last June in
response to a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). "Didn't do it myself, for a variety of reasons." "But I asked him to, because
I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel," Comey
continued . "And so I
asked a close friend of mine to do it." "Who was that?" Collins asked. "A good friend of mine who's a professor at Columbia Law School,"
Comey responded .
Despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, Comey never characterized Richman as his attorney, nor did he suggest that
his directions to Richman to leak the memos to the media were privileged attorney-client communications.
The news that Richman is now representing Comey raises questions about whether the special counsel may be investigating Comey
and Richman for their roles in leaking classified information to the news media in order to get revenge on Trump for firing Comey.
The tactic of using attorney-client privilege to shield potentially illegal communications from law enforcement scrutiny is not
a new one.
During the FBI investigation of then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton's potential mishandling of classified information, Cheryl
Mills, one of Clinton's top government aides at the State Department, also claimed that she could not testify about her communications
with Clinton on the matter because
she was also serving
as Clinton's personal attorney .
"I have nothing to say about any of this," Richman responded, when asked directly whether attorney-client privilege was being
asserted in order to shield his communications with Comey regarding the deliberate leaking of classified documents to the media.
Richman was first licensed to practice law in the state of New York in 1986, according to
public records , and his current law license in that state is valid through October 2018.
"... As it turns out, George Papadopoulos made several new friends in London. There was Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor living in London who has ties to British intelligence. It was Mifsud - who has since disappeared - who told Papadopoulos in March 2016 that the Kremlin had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... A cabal of CIA and FBI operatives, including the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, along with other members of the intelligence "community," prominently including James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and various members of the Obama administration, colluded to undermine Donald Trump's campaign. ..."
"... It is banana republic behaviour, but it looks now as if those responsible for this effort to undermine American democracy and repeal the results of a free, open, and democratic election will be exposed. Let's hope that they are also held to account ..."
"... Certainly they will be able to do it with Comey, Brennen, Clapper, McCabe, Strzok, Page and the rest of the sweet potatoes who got paid to set up candidate and then President Trump, don't they? ..."
"... "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power" - Orwell ..."
"... Anyone that's part of this anti-constitutional movement should be purged from government and barred for life from participating in government in any capacity. ..."
"... Don't forget Trump interviewed Mueller for the FBI position just days before Rosenputz made him the special counsel. That, in and of itself, is a conflict of interest. If that idiot Sessions had any balls, he would've stepped in and pointed that out. ..."
How highly placed members of one administration mobilised the intelligence services to undermine their successors...
Who, what, where, when, why? The desiderata school teachers drill into their charges trying to master effective writing skills
apply also in the effort to understand that byzantine drama known to the world as the Trump-Russia-collusion investigation.
Let's start with "when." When did it start? We know that the FBI opened its official investigation on 31 July 2016. An obscure,
low-level volunteer to the Trump campaign called Carter Page was front and centre then. He'd been the FBI's radar for a long time.
Years before, it was known, the Russians had made some overtures to him but 1) they concluded that he was an "idiot" not worth recruiting
and 2) he had actually aided the FBI in prosecuting at least two Russian spies.
But we now know that the Trump-Russia investigation began before Carter Page. In December 2017, The New York Times excitedly reported
in an article called "How the Russia Inquiry Began" that, contrary to their reporting during the previous year, it wasn't Carter
Page who precipitated the inquiry. It was someone called George Papadopoulous, an even more obscure and lower-level factotum than
Carter Page. Back in May 2016, the twenty-something Papadopoulous had gotten outside a number of drinks with one Alexander Downer,
an Australian diplomat in London and had let slip that "the Russians" had compromising information about Hillary Clinton. When Wikileaks
began releasing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee in June and July, news of the conversation between Downer and
Papadopoulos was communicated to the FBI. Thus, according to the Times , the investigation was born.
There were, however, a couple of tiny details that the Times omitted. One was that Downer, an avid Clinton supporter, had arranged
for a $25 million donation from the Australian government to the Clinton Foundation. Twenty-five million of the crispest, Kemo Sabe.
They also neglected say exactly how Papadopoulos met Alexander Downer.
As it turns out, George Papadopoulos made several new friends in London. There was Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor living
in London who has ties to British intelligence. It was Mifsud - who has since disappeared - who told Papadopoulos in March 2016 that
the Kremlin had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
Then there is Stefan Halper, an American-born Cambridge prof and Hillary supporter. Out of the blue, Halper reached out to Papadopoulos
in September 2016. He invited him to meet in London and then offered Papadopoulos $3,000 to write a paper on an unrelated topic.
He also pumped him about "Russian hacking." "George, you know about hacking the emails from Russia, right?" Halper is said to have
asked him. He also made sure Papadopoulos met for drinks with his assistant, a woman called Azra Turk, who flirted with him over
the Chardonnay while pumping him about Russia.
Halper also contacted Carter Page and Sam Clovis, Trump's campaign co-chair. Is Stefan Halper, the "spy" on the Trump campaign,
at the origin of the Trump-Russia meme?
Not really. The real fons et origo is John Brennan, Director of the CIA under Obama. As Trump's victories in the primaries piled
up, Brennan convened a "working group" at CIA headquarters that included Peter Strzok, the disgraced FBI agent, and James Clapper,
then Director of National Intelligence, in order to stymie Trump's campaign.
So much of this story still dwells in the tenebrous realm of redaction. But little by little the truth is emerging, a mosaic whose
story is gradually taking shape as one piece after the next completes now this face, now another.
There are details yet to come, but here is the bottom line, the irreducible minimum ...
A cabal of CIA and FBI operatives, including the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, along with other members of the intelligence
"community," prominently including James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and various members of the Obama administration,
colluded to undermine Donald Trump's campaign.
Like almost everyone else, they assumed that Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in, so they were careless about covering their tracks.
If Hillary had won, the department of Justice would have been her Department of Justice, John Brennan would still be head of
the CIA, and the public would never have known about the spies, the set-ups, the skulduggery.
But Hillary did not win. For the last 16 months, we've watched as that exiled cabal shifted its efforts from stopping Trump
from winning to a desperate effort to destroy his Presidency. Thanks to the patient work of Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, and a handful of GOP Senators, that effort is now disintegrating.
What is being exposed is the biggest political scandal in the history of the United States : the effort by highly placed -
exactly how highly placed we still do not know - members of one administration to mobilise the intelligence services and police
power of the state to spy upon and destroy first the candidacy and then, when that didn't work, the administration of a political
rival.
It is banana republic behaviour, but it looks now as if those responsible for this effort to undermine American democracy
and repeal the results of a free, open, and democratic election will be exposed. Let's hope that they are also held to account.
If the proof is there, does America have the balls to indict, prosecute and then jail a former president who happens to have
black skin?
Certainly they will be able to do it with Comey, Brennen, Clapper, McCabe, Strzok, Page and the rest of the sweet potatoes
who got paid to set up candidate and then President Trump, don't they?
Corruption! It's what's for breakfast. - Judas Sessions
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely
in power, pure power. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power"
- Orwell
Important to note that all of these illegal DOJ actions have been undertaken in the context of a political movement calling
itself "Resistance" whose openly stated goal is to destroy the candidacy and presidency of the people's chosen leader. And whose
implicit goal has been to ensure one-party rule, eliminate the people from involvement in self governance and implement an anti-American
globalist agenda.
Anyone that's part of this anti-constitutional movement should be purged from government and barred for life from participating
in government in any capacity.
Try going to work and announcing to your boss that you're part of a movement to destroy the company from within. See if you
keep your job.
Don't forget Trump interviewed Mueller for the FBI position just days before Rosenputz made him the special counsel. That,
in and of itself, is a conflict of interest. If that idiot Sessions had any balls, he would've stepped in and pointed that out.
So Strzok was involved with this part of the story too. Strzokgate now has distinct British accent and probably was coordinated
by CIA and MI6.
Harper was definitely acted like an "agent provocateur", whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to
say things that would corroborate-or seem to corroborate-evidence that the FBI believed it already had in hand. It looks like among
other things Halper was tasked with the attempt elaborate on the claims made in Steele's
September 14 dossier memo: "Russians
do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
London was the perfect place for such dirty games -- the territory where the agent knew he could operate safely.
"Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore
the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and now
by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to take over
the White House."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times' ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names? What were they doing? ..."
"... Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta? ..."
The New York Times'
4,000-word report last week on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign's possible ties to Russia
revealed for the first time that the investigation was called "Crossfire Hurricane."
The name, explains the paper, refers to the Rolling Stones lyric "I was born in a crossfire hurricane," from the 1968 hit "Jumpin'
Jack Flash." Mick Jagger, one of the songwriters, said the song was a "metaphor" for psychedelic-drug induced states. The other,
Keith Richards, said it "refers to his being born amid the bombing and air raid sirens of Dartford, England, in 1943 during World
War II."
Investigation names, say senior U.S. law enforcement officials, are designed to refer to facts, ideas, or people related to the
investigation. Sometimes they're explicit, and other times playful or even allusive. So what did the Russia investigation have to
do with World War II, psychedelic drugs, or Keith's childhood?
The answer may be found in the 1986 Penny Marshall film named after the song, "Jumpin' Jack Flash." In the Cold War-era comedy,
a quirky bank officer played by Whoopi Goldberg comes to the aid of Jonathan Pryce, who plays a British spy being chased by the KGB.
The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is therefore most likely a reference to the former British spy whose allegedly Russian-sourced
reports on the Trump team's alleged ties to Russia were used as evidence to secure a Foreign Intelligence Service Act secret warrant
on Trump adviser Carter Page in October 2016: ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele.
Helping Spin a New Origin Story
It is hardly surprising that the Times refrained from exploring the meaning of the code name. The paper of record has
apparently joined a campaign, spearheaded by the Department of Justice, FBI, and political operatives pushing the Trump-Russia collusion
story, to minimize Steele's role in the Russia investigation.
After an October news report showed his dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, facts that
further challenged the credibility of Steele's research, the FBI investigation's origin story shifted.
In December, The New York Times
published a "scoop " on the new origin story. In the revised narrative, the probe didn't start with the Steele dossier at all.
Rather, it began with an April 2016 meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and a Maltese professor named Joseph
Mifsud. The professor informed him that "he had just learned from high-level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had 'dirt'
on Mrs. Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails.'"
Weeks later, Papadopoulos boasted to the Australian ambassador to London, Alexander Downer, that he was told the Russians had
Clinton-related emails. Two months later, according to the Times , the Australians reported Papadopoulos' boasts to the
FBI, and on July 31, 2016, the bureau began its investigation.
Further reinforcement of the new origin story came from congressional Democrats. A
January 29 memo
written by House Intelligence Committee minority staff under ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff further distances Steele from the opening
of the investigation. "Christopher Steele's raw reporting did not inform the FBI's decision to initiate its counterintelligence investigation
in late July 2016. In fact, the FBI's closely-held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September."
Last week's major Times article echoes the Schiff memo. Steele's reports, according to the paper, reached the "Crossfire
Hurricane team" "in mid-September."
Yet the new account of how the government spying campaign against Trump started is highly unlikely. According to the thousands
of favorable press reports asserting his credibility, Steele was well-respected at the FBI for his work on a 2015 case that helped
win indictments of more than a dozen officials working for soccer's international governing body, FIFA. In July 2016, Steele met
with the agent he worked with on the FIFA case to show his early findings on the Trump team's ties to Russia.
The FBI took Steele's reporting on Trump's ties to Russia so seriously it was later used as evidence to monitor the electronic
communications of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But, according to Schiff and the Times , the FBI somehow lost track
of reports from a "credible" source who claimed to have information showing that the Republican candidate for president was compromised
by a foreign government. That makes no sense.
The code name "Crossfire Hurricane" is further evidence that the FBI's cover story is absurd. A reference to a movie about a British
spy evading Russian spies behind enemy lines suggests the Steele dossier was always the core of the bureau's investigation into the
Trump campaign.
Was Halper an Informant, Spy, Or Agent Provocateur?
Taken together with the other significant revelation from last Times story, the purpose and structure of Crossfire Hurricane
may be coming into clearer focus. According to the Times story: "At least one government informant met several times with
[Trump campaign advisers Carter] Page and [George] Papadopoulos, current and former officials said."
As we now know, the informant is Stefan Halper, a
former classmate of Bill Clinton's at Oxford University who worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. Halper is
known for his good connections in intelligence circles. His father-in-law
was Ray Cline , former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Halper
is also reported to have led the 1980 Ronald Reagan campaign team that collected intelligence on sitting U.S. President Jimmy
Carter's foreign policy.
So what was Halper doing in this instance? He wasn't really a spy (a person who is generally tasked with stealing secrets) or
an informant (a person who provides information about criminal activities from the inside). Rather, it seems he was more like an
agent provocateur, whose job was to ask leading questions to get Trump campaign advisers to say things that would corroborate --
or seem to corroborate -- evidence that the bureau believed it already had in hand.
It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things.
Halper met with at least three Trump campaign advisers: Sam Clovis, Page, and George Papadopoulos. The latter two he met with
in London, where Halper had reason to feel comfortable operating.
Halper's close contacts in the intelligence world weren't limited to the CIA. They also include foreign intelligence officials
like Richard Dearlove , the former head of the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence service, MI6. According to
a Washington Times report , Halper and Dearlove are partners in a UK consulting firm, Cambridge Security Initiative.
Dearlove is also close to Steele. According
to the Washington Post , Dearlove met with Steele in the early fall of 2016, when his former charge shared his "worries"
about what he'd found on the Trump campaign and "asked for his guidance."
London was therefore the perfect place for Halper to spring a trap -- outside the direct purview of the FBI, but on territory
where he knew he could operate safely. It appears Halper's job was to induce inexperienced Trump campaign figures to say things that
corroborated the 35-page series of memos written by Steele -- the centerpiece of the Russiagate investigation -- in order to license
a broader campaign of government spying against Trump and his associates in the middle of a presidential election.
Halper Reached Out to Trump Campaign Members
Chuck Ross's reporting in The Daily Caller provides invaluable details and insight. As Ross
explained in The Daily Caller back
in March, Halper emailed Papadopoulos on September 2, 2016 with an invitation to write a research paper, for which he'd be paid $3,000,
and a paid trip to London. According to Ross, "Papadopoulos and Halper met several times during the London trip," with one meeting
scheduled for September 13 and another two days later.
Ross writes: "According to a source with knowledge of the meeting, Halper asked Papadopoulos: 'George, you know about hacking
the emails from Russia, right?' Papadopoulos told Halper he didn't know anything about emails or Russian hacking." It seems Halper
was looking to elaborate on the claims made in Steele's
September 14 dossier
memo : "Russians do have further 'kompromat' on CLINTON (e-mails) and considering disseminating it."
Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true.
Had Papadopoulos confirmed that a shadowy Maltese academic had told him in April about Russians holding Clinton-related emails,
presumably that would have entered the dossier as something like, "Trump campaign adviser PAPADOPOULOS confirms knowledge of Russian
'kompromat.'"
Another Trump campaign adviser Halper contacted was Page. They first met in Cambridge, England at a July 11, 2016 symposium. Halper's
partner Dearlove spoke at the conference, which was held just days after Page had delivered a widely reported speech at the New Economic
School in Moscow. According to another
Ross article reporting on Page and Halper's interactions, the Trump adviser "recalls nothing of substance being discussed other
than Halper's passing mention that he knew then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort."
Page and Manafort both figure prominently in the Steele dossier's July 19 memos. According to
the document ,
Manafort "was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries." Page had also, according to the dossier,
met with senior Kremlin officials -- a charge he later denied in
his November
2, 2017 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Evidently, he also gave Halper nothing to use in verifying the charges
made against him.
Halper's fishing expedition therefore came up with nothing to suggest the Steele dossier was true. The real story is therefore
the continuing attempt to assert that the dossier, or key parts of it, are true, after large-scale investigations by the FBI, and
now by special counsel Robert Mueller, have failed to turn up any evidence of a plot hatched between Trump and Vladimir Putin to
take over the White House.
Using Spy Powers on Political Opponents Is a Big Problem
That portions of the American national security apparatus would put their considerable powers -- surveillance, spying, legal pressure
-- at the service of a partisan political campaign is a sign that something very big is broken in Washington. Our Founding Fathers
would not be surprised to learn that the post-9/11 surveillance and spying apparatus built to protect Americans from al-Qaeda has
now become a political tool that targets Americans for partisan purposes. That the rest of us are surprised is a sign that we have
stopped taking the U.S. Constitution as seriously as we should.
The damage done to the American press is equally large. Since the November 2016 presidential election, a financially imperiled
media industry gambled its remaining prestige on Russiagate. Yet after nearly a year and a half filled with thousands of stories
feeding the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, last week still represented a landmark moment in American journalism. The New
York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential campaign.
The New York Times , which proudly published the Pentagon Papers, provided cover for an espionage operation against a presidential
campaign.
There are significant errors and misrepresentations in the article that the Times could've easily checked, if it weren't
in such a hurry to hide the FBI and DOJ's crimes and abuses. Perhaps most significantly, the Times avoided asking the key
questions that the article raised with its revelation that "at least one government informant" met with Trump campaign figures.
So, how many "informants" targeted the Trump campaign? Were they being paid by the U.S. government? What are their names?
What were they doing?
Under whose authority were they spying on a political campaign? Did FBI and DOJ leadership sign off? Did FBI director James
Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch know about it? What about other senior Obama administration officials? CIA Director John
Brennan? Did President Obama know the FBI was spying on a presidential campaign? Did Hillary Clinton know? What about Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta?
These questions are sure to be asked. What we know already is that the Times reporters did not ask them, because they
do not bother to indicate that the officials interviewed for the story had declined to answer. That they did not ask these questions
is evidence the Times is no longer a newspaper that sees its job as reporting the truth or holding high government officials
responsible for their crimes. Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday bemoaned troubled relations with the United
States, saying Russia wants to improve them but is effectively held hostage by the disputes
surrounding President Donald Trump.
Putin's comments in a meeting with top editors of international news agencies underlined how
Russia's once-high hopes for improved relations under Trump have eroded. Although the Trump
administration has imposed sanctions on Russia and expelled scores of its diplomats, Russian
politicians generally portray Trump as blocked by domestic opposition from fulfilling his
campaign promises of improving relations with Moscow.
Earlier in the day, speaking at an annual economic forum, Putin sharply criticized Trump's
decision to pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal, saying it could trigger dangerous
instability.
The Russian leader said the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 agreement came even as the
international nuclear watchdog confirmed that Tehran was fulfilling its obligations. "What
should it be punished for, then?" Putin asked.
Trump's administration has demanded that Iran stop the enrichment of uranium and end its
involvement in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Afghanistan in order to negotiate a new deal.
"If international agreements are revised every four years it would offer zero horizon for
planning," Putin said. "It will create the atmosphere of nervousness and lack of trust."
In the meeting with editors, Putin declined to assess relations between Trump and North
Korea's Kim Jong Un, but said the United States should not try to take a hard line with the
country.
"In order to talk about a full denuclearization of North Korea, I believe we should give
North Korea a guarantee of their sovereignty and inviolability," the Russian president said. "I
am deeply convinced that if you don't impose anything, if you don't behave aggressively and if
you don't corner North Korea, the result that we need will be achieved faster than many would
think, and at less cost."
Putin also expressed frustration at having little contact with Trump and faulted the
investigation into whether there was collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia and whether
Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election.
"We are hostages to this internal strife in the United States," Putin said. "I hope that it
will end some day and the objective need for the development of Russian-American relationships
will prevail."
At the economic forum, Putin also engaged in a tongue-in-cheek exchange with French
President Emmanuel Macron, saying with a smile that Russia could help protect Europe if its
rift with the U.S. widens over Iran.
"Don't you worry, we will help ensure your security," Putin said. Macron responded on a
serious note that France and its allies could stand for themselves.
In his speech at the forum and during talks with Putin on Thursday, Macron called for closer
ties between France and Russia despite their differences.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also spoke at the forum and called for closer cooperation
with Russia.
The presence of Macron and Abe and their statements in favor of cooperation were important
for Putin, indicating that the U.S.-led efforts to isolate Russia face increasing
obstacles.
The U.S. and its allies have hit Russia with several waves of sanctions that badly hurt its
economy.
Putin sharply criticized the sanctions, saying they signal "not just erosion but the
dismantling of a system of multilateral cooperation that took decades to build."
Putin told the editors that he would observe constitutional term limits that would prevent
him from running for a new term in 2024. However, some observers have suggested he might seek
to have the constitution changed.
On tensions with Britain over allegations that Russia was behind the March poisoning of a
Russian former spy in Britain, Putin said there should "either be a joint, full-value,
objective investigation or simply stop talking about this subject because it doesn't lead to
anything except worsening relations."
Russia has repeatedly demanded that Britain let it take part in investigating the case.
Paul Craig Roberts is right about dominance of neoliberal economics in Russia. But what is the alternative?
Notable quotes:
"... If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught, the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful America was there with a helping hand. ..."
"... For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation, and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards. Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments. ..."
"... Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the West. ..."
"... As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go? They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself into the hands of her enemies. ..."
"... Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development. ..."
This is the lecture I would have given if I had been able to accept the invitation to
address the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia this weekend.
Executive Summary:
From the standpoint of Russia's dilemma, this is an important column.
Putin's partial impotence via-a-vis Washington is due to the grip that neoliberal economics
exercises over the Russian government. Putin cannot break with the West, because he believes
that Russian economic development is dependent on Russia's integration within the Western
economy. That is what neoliberal economics tells the Russian economic and financial
establishment.
Everyone should understand that I am not a pro-Russian anti-American. I am anti-war,
especially nuclear war. My concern is that the inability of the Russian government to put its
foot down is due to its belief that Russian development, despite all the talk about the
Eurasian partnership and the Silk Road, is dependent on being integrated with the West. This
totally erroneous belief prevents the Russian government from any decisive break with the West.
Consequently, Putin continues to accept provocations in order to avoid a decisive break that
would cut Russia off from the West. In Washington and the UK this is interpreted as a lack of
resolve on Putin's part and encourages an escalation in provocations that will intensify until
Russia's only option is surrender or war.
If the Russian government did not believe that it needed the West, the government could
give stronger responses to provocations that would make clear that there are limits to what
Russia will tolerate. It would also make Europe aware that its existence hangs in the balance.
The combination of Trump abusing Europe and Europe's recognition of the threat to its own
existence of its alignment with an aggressive Washington would break the Western alliance and
NATO. But Putin cannot bring this about because he erroneously believes that Russia needs the
West.
If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth
Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the
country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal
economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught,
the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful
America was there with a helping hand.
In reality the helping hand was a grasping hand. The hand grasped Russian resources through
privatization and gave control to American-friendly oligarchs. Russian economists had no clue
about how financial capitalism in its neoliberal guise strips economies of their assets while
loading them up with debt.
But worse happened. Russia's economists were brainwashed into an economic way of thinking
that serves Western imperialism.
For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation,
and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then
at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up
domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards.
Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments.
Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that
Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief
threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all
internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not
realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would
be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American
neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with
foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the
West.
As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from
the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia
cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go?
They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central
bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the
project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar
debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself
into the hands of her enemies.
Indeed, it is the Russian government's mistaken belief that Russian economic development is
dependent on Russia being included as part of the West that has caused Putin to accept the
provocations and humiliations that the West has heaped upon Russia. The lack of response to
these provocations will eventually cause the Russian government to lose the support of the
nationalist elements in Russia.
Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while
retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the
element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic
development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic
elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept
Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development.
Russian economists are so indoctrinated with neoliberal economics that they cannot even look
to America to see how a once great economy has been completely destroyed by neoliberal
economics.
The US has the largest public debt of any country in history. The US has the largest trade
and budget deficits of any country in history. The US has 22 percent unemployment, which it
hides by not counting among the unemployed millions of discouraged workers who, unable to find
jobs, ceased looking for jobs and are arbitrarily excluded from the measure of unemployment.
The US has a retired class that has been stripped of any interest payment on their savings for
a decade, because it was more important to the Federal Reserve to bail out the bad loans of a
handful of "banks too big to fail," banks that became too big to fail because of the
deregulation fostered by neoliberal economics. By misrepresenting "free trade" and "globalism,"
neoliberal economics sent America's manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs abroad
where wages were lower, thus boosting the incomes of owners at the expense of the incomes of US
wage-earners, leaving Americans with the lowly paid domestic service jobs of a Third World
country. Real median family income in the US has been stagnant for decades. The Federal Reserve
recently reported that Americans are so poor that 41 percent of the population cannot raise
$400 without selling personal possessions.
Young Americans, if they have university educations, begin life as debt slaves. Currently
there are 44,200,000 Americans with student loan debt totalling $1,048,000,000,000 -- $1.48
trillion! https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/
In the US all 50 states have publicly supported universities where tuition is supposed to be
nominal in order to encourage education. When I went to Georgia Tech, a premier engineering
school, my annual tuition was less than $500. Loans were not needed and did not exist.
What happened? Financial capitalism discovered how to turn university students into
indentured servants, and the university administrations cooperated. Tuitions rose and rose and
were increasingly allocated to administration, the cost of which exploded. Today many
university administrations absorb 75% of the annual budget, leaving little for professors' pay
and student aid. An obedient Congress created a loan program that ensnares young American men
and women into huge debt in order to acquire an university education. With so many of the
well-paying jobs moved offshore by neoliberal economics, the jobs available cannot service the
student loan debts. A large percentage of Americans aged 24-34 live at home with parents,
because their jobs do not pay enough to service their student loan debt and pay an apartment
rent. Debt prevents them from living an independent existence.
In America the indebtedness of the population produced by neoliberal economics -- privatize,
privatize, deregulate, deregulate, indebt, indebt -- prevents any economic growth as the
American public has no discretionary income after debt service to drive the economy. In America
the way cars, trucks, and SUVs are sold is via zero downpayment and seven years of loans. From
the minute a vehicle is purchased, the loan obligation exceeds the value of the vehicle.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Mike Meru, a dentist earning $225,000 annually, has
$1,060,945.42 in student loan debt. He pays $1,589.97 monthly, which is not enough to cover the
interest, much less reduce the principal. Consequently, his debt from seven years at the
University of Southern California grows by $130 per day. In two decades, his loan balance will
be $2 million.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-meru-has-1-million-in-student-loans-how-did-that-happen-1527252975
If neoliberal economics does not work for America, why will it work for Russia? Neoliberal
economics only works for oligarchs and their institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, who are
bankrolled by the central bank to keep the economy partially afloat. Washington will agree to
Russia being integrated into the Western system when Putin agrees to resurrect the Yeltsin-era
practice of permitting Western financial institutions to strip Russia of her assets while
loading her up with debt.
I could continue at length about the junk economics, to use Michael Hudson's term, that is
neoliberal economics. The United States is failing because of it, and so will Russia.
John Bolton and the neocons should just relax. Neoliberal economics, which has the Russian
financial interests, the Russian government and apparently Putin himself in its grip, will
destroy Russia without war.
"... The panel showcased the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to 2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s. ..."
"... obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government: its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said. ..."
"... Read also: Is (or can be) the western Far (Hard) Right a friend of Russia? The Ukrainian Test ..."
"... To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a Cold War." ..."
"... Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice, deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American intervention in Ukrainian politics. ..."
"... Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan. And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man, do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear weapons and chaos." ..."
"... The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern -- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military strategy. ..."
The Northwestern University Buffett Institute for Global Studies hosted a roundtable event
in the Chicago area on May 23 titled, "The Kremlin's Global Reach," moderated by Medill
journalism professor and Washington Post veteran Peter Slevin. The panel showcased
the institute's first "Distinguished Visitor," Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state
in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to
2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in
the 1990s.
Also present were political science professor Jordan Gans-Morse, public opinion pollster
Dina Smeltz, lecturer and former US ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly and historian John
Bushnell.
The event took place amid a steady escalation of US militarism against Syria, Iran and
Russia. Just two days earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an ultimatum to Iran
demanding a capitulation to the US in the face of additional sanctions. This followed on the
heels of the Trump administration's scrapping of a nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between
Iran and the P5+1 group, the US, UK, France, Germany, China and Russia. Earlier this month, the
US relaunched a naval force, the Second Fleet, in the North Atlantic in preparation for
military confrontation with Russia.
The political perspective of the event was clear from Slevin's opening questions: "What is
to be done? How do you solve a problem like Vladimir Putin?"
Str obe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government:
its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the "threat from the Islamic
world, it's the southern belly and it's very vulnerable;" and finally, potential conflict with
China over access to natural resources. "They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty
that could spell trouble down the line," Talbott said.
To the question, "Do we have another Cold War?" Talbott answered, "Yes, we've got a Cold
War. It's the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it's a
Cold War."
In line with this reactionary narrative, Talbott presented the conflict between the US and
Russia as one between "democracy" and "tyranny," while some of the other panelists admitted
that is not the way the conflict is viewed in Russia and Europe.
Later, Talbott emphasized the challenge to US hegemony posed by the Balkans, particularly
Serbia, citing their cultural and religious affinities with Russia. In 2015, Montenegro entered
NATO.
Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel's official State
Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, "The Russians, I
think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn't need to show up in Kiev. There
was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice,
deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American
intervention in Ukrainian politics. "
A number of the panelists interrupted at this point, some laughing nervously, others
strongly protesting.
Slevin, in concluding the discussion, posed the question of regime change in Russia,
stating, "How does this end? How does Putin fall? Retire? Get replaced? What is the fate of
Vladimir Putin?"
The main obstacle to regime change in Russia was, according to the panelists, the chaos it
would inevitably unleash. Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there
is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, "There really is no succession plan.
And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man,
do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their
regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of
management of the transition that we had in '91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear
weapons and chaos."
However, expressing the position of significant sections of the Democratic Party, aligned
with the US state-military-intelligence apparatus, Talbott concluded, "Putin has presided over
Russia in a way that is very, very much like the Soviet Union. That didn't work. This won't
work. He will be an aberration. It would also help if we had a different president in the
United States."
A notable feature of the event was its casual militarism. In introducing himself, Kelly
noted that the US has recently provided both Georgia and Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank
weaponry.
In line with the propaganda pumped out about the US media and political establishment, the
panel speakers presented a picture of reality turned upside down: Russia was presented as an
aggressive, expansionist power, and a growing threat to the American way of life. In fact, it
is the US government and its imperialist allies which have increasingly encircled Russia via
NATO expansion, crippled its economy with sanctions and sought to provoke a military
conflict.
As US Defense Secretary James Mattis noted in releasing the Pentagon's new National Security
Strategy, "Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national
security."
Before the audience assembled by this national security institute, which appeared to include
only a handful of undergraduate students, these leading political figures spoke more bluntly
about imperialist foreign policy than they would normally do on national television or in
supposedly democratic arenas like the US Congress.
The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern
-- with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of
billionaire Warren Buffett -- was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to
transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military
strategy.
At the time of the Buffett Institute's founding, university students and faculty protested
the appointment as its head of former the US commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl
Eikenberry, whose qualifications were based on military rank and bellicose politics, rather
than any academic credentials. Northwestern faculty members charged that he "advocates
instrumentalizing the humanities and social sciences research to advance US soft power."
The International Youth and Students for Social Equality are leading the opposition
internationally to the transformation of colleges and universities into think tanks for
imperialism and militarism. Contact the Socialist Equality
Party to start an IYSSE chapter on your campus.
"... Coming Next, Part 2: The post WWII global strategy of the neocons has been shaped chiefly by Russophobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia ..."
"... * Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk .com ..."
In this first of a two-part series, Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould trace the origins
of the neoconservative targeting of Russia.
By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould April 29.2018
The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel last September reported
that, "Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is
familiar with the decline of the world's rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British
protectorate of Rhodesia before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies.
There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire Now an American citizen,
Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage the
United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently. The U.S.
political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction "
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz
Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States
claimed the mantle of the world's first and only. Unipower with the intention of crushing any
nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order, foreseen just a few
short years ago, becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of
incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington.
As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America's claim to leadership, by
the time Fischer's interview appeared in the online version of the Der Spiegel , he had
already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve -- eight months ahead of
schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the "globalist" and
former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of
the British Empire as a young student in London, he directly assisted in the wholesale
dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.
As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims,
that makes Fischer not just empire's Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.
Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei
Shleifer, and Jeffry Sachs, in the "Harvard Project," plus Anatoly Chubais, the chief Russian
economic adviser, Fischer helped throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight –
privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never
got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the
robbery from beginning to end.
As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book
Shadow Elite: "Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying
to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them,
this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial,
even among communists the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the
groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but
in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it
was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament."
Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false
narrative, she continues "The outcome rendered privatization 'a de facto fraud,' as one
economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to 'offer
fertile ground for criminal activity' was proven right."
If Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to
post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire
Americans to ask what role he played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Little known
to Americans is the blunt force trauma Fischer and the "prestigious" Harvard Project delivered
to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative's James Carden "As the Center for Economic and Policy
Research noted back in 2011 'the IMF's intervention in Russia during Fischer's tenure led to
one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.'
Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF's
intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack."
Neither do most Americans know that it was President Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that
boomeranged to terrorize Europe and America in the 21 st century. Brzezinski spent
much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying
about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that
hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the
President's top national security officer was that he couldn't find Nicaragua on a map.
If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following
the Soviet Union's collapse it was Brzezinski. And if anyone could be said to represent the
debt driven financial system that fueled America's post-Vietnam Imperialism, it's Fischer. His
departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative's spine. Their dream of a New
World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.
Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to
feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. From the chaos
created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy
to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists, but directed by
the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives' goal,
working with their Chicago School neoliberal partners, was to deconstruct the nation-state
through cultural co-optation and financial subversion and to project American power abroad. So
far they have been overwhelmingly successful to the detriment of much of the
world.
From the end of the Second World War through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the
Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any
and all opposition to their global dominion.
Pentagon Capitalism
Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA's
founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them
with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987's Hot Money and the
Politics of Debt , described how "Pentagon Capitalism" had made the Vietnam War
possible by selling the Pentagon's debt to the rest of the world.
"In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky's couriers , and the European central
banks arranged the 'loan-back,'" Naylor writes. "When the mechanism was explained to the late
[neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era's chief 'think tank' and a man who
popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he
reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, 'We've pulled off the biggest ripoff in
history! We've run rings around the British Empire.'" In addition to their core of
ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such
establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Brzezinski himself.
From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was
known that their emergence could imperil democracy in America and yet Washington's more
moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight.
Peter Steinfels' 1979 classic The
Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America's politics begins with these fateful
words. "THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First, that a distinct and powerful political
outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with
certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics
which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American
democracy."
But long before Steinfels' 1979 account, the neoconservative's agenda of inserting their own
interests ahead of America's was well underway, attenuating U.S. democracy, undermining
détente and angering America's NATO partners that supported it. According to the
distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been
under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces ( led by Senator "Scoop"
Jackson ) from its inception. But America's ownership of that policy underwent a shift
following U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in
his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente
and Confrontation , "To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet
Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without
consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces
in Europe was too much."
In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in
U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, "The United
States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had
plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse
to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble
over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of
alliance unity."
In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a
cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of
détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by
Israel's "politically significant supporters" in the U.S. to begin opposing any
cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all.
Garthoff writes, "The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet
Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete
encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez Thus they [Israel's politically
significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective
cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two
superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem."
Who knew? Not me. The FBI does not discuss its operations with other agencies
of the US Government. Period. I made liaison with the FBI on many occasions when I was with DIA and they were always careful to make
it clear that whatever you might give them in the way of information they would give you exactly nothing in return. In retirement
from government I have often observed the FBI working in support of DoJ in court cases.
It has always been my understanding that when the FBI investigated you they searched through records, listened to your telephone,
read your E-mail and in the end interviewed you.
Now I learn that they also recruit "confidential sources" to speak to you about the subject of FBI interest WITHOUT bothering
to inform you that they are going to tell the FBI what you said about things. Some of these "confidential sources" are employed by
the FBI for long periods of time. The American professor now teaching at a UK university who was sent by the FBI to talk to several
Trump campaign people was one such. Other "confidential sources" are recruited for a particular case Sometimes they are recruited
from among the existing acquaintances or "friends" of the person targeted by the FBI. In other words if DoJ, the WH, or the Bureau
(FBI) want to know what I, or anyone else, really says about a given topic, they can recruit someone I know using pressure, persuasion
or money to "rat" me out.
Felix Dzerzhinsky would have been proud of their skills if they had been his men. pl
Of course the FBI uses confidential informants. So does the DEA, ICE and every state and local LEA. It's a staple of every TV
crime show and novel dealing with police. Every gangster, crook, drug dealer, pedophile, terrorist and spy is obsessed with the
idea that some snitch is going to rat him out. The rest of us are rightfully incensed that this could possibly happen to us. There
best be a solid paper trail behind every confidential informant used by all the various cops. And these paper trails need to be
examined by IGs or others outside these users of confidential informants.
To those of us in the intelligence field rather than the LE field, the use of US Persons to inform on other US Persons is anathema.
We are specifically prohibited from targeting US Persons without informing them of our USI affiliation except possibly under rare
and specific circumstances. In those circumstances we have to call in the FBI. The NSA once found the targeting of US Persons
to be beyond anathema. It was a mortal sin condemning one's soul to eternal damnation. That certainly changed after 9/11.
As far as the sharing of information with the FBI, CIA and even NSA goes, I had a very different experience than Colonel Lang
when I was in DIA. In digital operations, we shared information on a daily basis. Our operations were often intertwined and interdependent.
However, I doubt this extended beyond digital operations.
https://trevoraaronson.com/... the war on terror, for the FBI has been one giant entrapment free for all, fueled
entirely on informants of dubious trustworthiness at best.
"... The following is the third part of a three-part interview with Professor Piers Robinson, an academic at the University of Sheffield and a member of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Parts one and two appeared on May 24 and May 25. ..."
"... We initially issued two briefing notes on Skripal. That was partly because some of the people in the Working Group who had been looking at chemical/biological events in Syria had relevant knowledge and were aware that what the British government was saying straight off was inaccurate, i.e., the idea that the nerve agent used was Russian and only the Russians could have produced it, etc. ..."
"... I did feel, because at the time the Syrian government was retaking large portions of territory, that the representation of Skripal might be being exploited as part of a broader propaganda drive against Russia (which was providing military support to Syria). ..."
"... If there was going to be an escalation in Syria, beyond the bombing that occurred, that would take us up against the Russians. There was a good possibility that the Skripal event was going to be exploited as part of a broader anti-Russian propaganda drive. ..."
"... when [Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson pretty much said it was the Russians who must have poisoned the Skripals, that appeared to be a statement of certainty that was not warranted. And, of course, the recent history of Iraq and UK government claims regarding alleged WMD stockpiles was an important reminder that governments can be strongly motivated to distort and manipulate their claims, especially when intelligence is involved. ..."
"... I think the Skripal poisoning might be connected to events in the US. We do know, because Alex Thomson from Channel 4 tweeted on March 12 that the government had put a D-notice restriction on the reporting of [MI6 agent] Pablo Miller. Professor Paul McKeigue (University of Edinburgh) has issued a new briefing talking about this matter. ..."
"... Pablo Miller was Skripal's handler. He was connected to [former MI6 officer] Christopher Steele. He was responsible for the dossier alleging Trump's collusion with Russia. That, as I understand it, was a key part of initiating proceedings and investigations against Trump. It appears that the dossier was linked to the Democratic National Committee in that they apparently commissioned it. ..."
"... If it is the case that Skripal was in any way connected with that, it forms a possibility that there was a motive for someone other than Russia to have carried out the poisoning. ..."
"... More broadly, there is the possibility that the whole Russia-gate narrative is being used for bigger political purposes -- to influence Trump, to try and shore up action in the Middle East, perhaps on some level to distract Western publics from increasing awareness of how we have been involved in wars in the Middle East. ..."
The following is the third part of a three-part interview with Professor Piers Robinson,
an academic at the University of Sheffield and a member of the Working Group on Syria,
Propaganda and Media. Parts one and two appeared on May 24 and
May 25.
Julie Hyland: What is your estimation of the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
by Russia, and how do they relate to the war in Syria?
PR: We initially issued two briefing notes on Skripal. That was partly because some of
the people in the Working Group who had been looking at chemical/biological events in Syria had
relevant knowledge and were aware that what the British government was saying straight off was
inaccurate, i.e., the idea that the nerve agent used was Russian and only the Russians could
have produced it, etc.
I did feel, because at the time the Syrian government was retaking large portions of
territory, that the representation of Skripal might be being exploited as part of a broader
propaganda drive against Russia (which was providing military support to Syria).
If there was going to be an escalation in Syria, beyond the bombing that occurred, that
would take us up against the Russians. There was a good possibility that the Skripal event was
going to be exploited as part of a broader anti-Russian propaganda drive.
It's not something you can pinpoint for sure at this stage because you don't have access to
the information. I don't think we will know the full truth of exactly what is happening for
some time. But you can make an informed judgement call.
What we do know is that the claims being made at the time were not tenable. So when
[Foreign Secretary] Boris Johnson pretty much said it was the Russians who must have poisoned
the Skripals, that appeared to be a statement of certainty that was not warranted. And, of
course, the recent history of Iraq and UK government claims regarding alleged WMD stockpiles
was an important reminder that governments can be strongly motivated to distort and manipulate
their claims, especially when intelligence is involved.
I think the Skripal poisoning might be connected to events in the US. We do know, because
Alex Thomson from Channel 4 tweeted on March 12 that the government had put a D-notice
restriction on the reporting of [MI6 agent] Pablo Miller. Professor Paul McKeigue (University
of Edinburgh) has issued
a new briefing talking about this matter.
Pablo Miller was Skripal's handler. He was connected to [former MI6 officer] Christopher
Steele. He was responsible for the dossier alleging Trump's collusion with Russia. That, as I
understand it, was a key part of initiating proceedings and investigations against Trump. It
appears that the dossier was linked to the Democratic National Committee in that they
apparently commissioned it.
If it is the case that Skripal was in any way connected with that, it forms a possibility
that there was a motive for someone other than Russia to have carried out the poisoning.
More broadly, there is the possibility that the whole Russia-gate narrative is being used
for bigger political purposes -- to influence Trump, to try and shore up action in the Middle
East, perhaps on some level to distract Western publics from increasing awareness of how we
have been involved in wars in the Middle East.
In a related area that people don't usually connect, the same psychological warfare methods
being used in the Middle East are being used in the attack on public education to privatize
education globally.
I've had a degree of dialogue with Piers on Facebook .
Despite the fact that he has done some important work here regards state propaganda and
Syria I have found his political positions very much the typical University sociology
professor , where bourgeois ideology and Post modernism runs rampant .
Not immune to running off a line of expletives and ad hominems as if they constitute an
argument, Piers came to the defence of Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Bealey when I had the
audacity to make a distinction between the defence of Syria against US Imperialism and a
defence of Assad per se and Putin
Both engaged in a somewhat lumpen diatribe on the question, despite the fact that I
clearly never once promoted an Imperialist line . The situation was in fact reminiscent of
what in more recent times the WSWS faced in regards Iran , when it seemingly ''had the
audacity'' to support the Iranian working class against its own bourgeois rulers.
"... FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. ..."
"... IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up. ..."
'Collusion' would mean actively conspiring with a foreign government. To this day there is no evidence that the Russian lawyer
was working for the Russian government (I have seen some media simply assert that she has Kremlin 'connections', whatever that's
supposed to mean). Also, why exactly would the Trump campaign have any need to meet with someone promising dirt if, as the Steele
Dossier claims, Trump had been a Russian agent for 5 years? The Kremlin would surely have already been providing any possible
dirt, and more besides.
And is this really where we are now? Is this what we've come to? Russia is a country of 144 million people. Is simply being
Russian, or talking to a Russian, now a crime? Because that's what our current atmosphere seems to think. It's shocking to see
so many people, especially supposedly tolerant and multicultural liberals, ignore any distinction between a government and private
citizens, and engage in what can only be called bigotry about 'Russians'. Replace 'Russian' with 'Jew', or a slur like 'Jap',
and how incredibly ugly the atmosphere has become in the last 18 months or so becomes obvious.
That Trump is comically corrupt is a given. But the two central claims of Russiagate were that a. Trump is a Russian agent
(or at least being blackmailed by Russia), and that b. Russia in some way hacked or interfered in the election to get Trump elected.
There is, to this day, exactly zero evidence for either.
No, his son meeting with a Russian citizen promising political dirt (even if dirt had been exchanged, which it wasn't because
she was lying and just wanted to get a meeting to lobby for some business interests), doesn't constitute 'collusion', or interference
by a foreign government.
Nor does some St. Petersburg company spending a paltry amount of money to run a clickbait ad revenue scheme on Facebook. Nor
do Macedonian teenagers running troll accounts (Macedonia isn't even in Russia, and to this day I've never seen any evidence that
any Russian, much less the Russian government, is behind their activities).
The above two are especially damning, because they make it painfully obvious that Russiagate has exactly nothing. In the absence
of any evidence that Russia hacked the election, proponents have been forced to venture far and wide to find something, anything,
they can remotely pin on Russia. A few hundred thousand dollars spent on social media ads, including ads for Clinton and Sanders,
many of which were seen by literally no one, and half of which didn't run until AFTER the election? Are you freaking kidding me?
As for 'shady Russian money', maybe Trump has taken some. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that he's done something like launder
money for Russian oligarchs. Now prove to me took money from the Russian government. Because, again, those are two very different
prospects. And if you think the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs are interchangeable or in lockstep with each other, you clearly
don't know much about recent Russian history.
The Russiagate claim wasn't that Trump is skeevy and corrupt. Of course he is. The claim is that he is corrupt in very specific
ways, ways that constitute treason.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 21, 2018 at 6:30 am
Marasmus.
Difficult to argue with any of your points.
Mueller has filed charges against some of the staff in the St Petersburg operation, if you can connect Trump to this entity
then cooperation becomes criminal collusion. As charges have already been filed it matters not whether the St Petersburg staff
are private or state employees.
The fact that America has laws prohibiting foreign interference in its elections is I guess understandable, but hypocritical
and exceptionalist in the extreme given the cart blanch attitude America takes to interfering in the internal affairs of other
nations.
The Donald Jr meeting with Russians is just a rats nest of conflicting stupidities. If as many others state (and I don't disagree)
everyone tries to get dirt on the opposition and foreign sources of information are regularly tapped, then the secret is not to
get caught. The Democrats have a plausible cut out (or two) in place between the Russian sources for the Steele dossier and themselves.
As Steve Bannon has stated, meeting directly with the Russians was weapons grade stupid, but hey it's Don Jr. and Jared Kushner
we're talking about.
The really odd part is that the Russians would attend given that they must have known that their names would be logged by the
Secret Service detail providing security for the Republican candidate. To me, this does not suggest an attempt to help Trump as
"their man", but rather to dirty by association a candidate that could become President. This interpretation would concur with
analysis of the activities of the St Petersburg operation, which was to sow chaos into American social and political discourse.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:13 am
Heres the problem with that. FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. The Russians paid them to connect with the trump campaign in order to
discuss the magnitsky act. They did not come to the meeting with any notion of DIRT. Trump Jr was told they had DIRT.
THe problem the FBI has, is that they never investigated the Russian contacts to the extent that they investigated the Americans
being contacted. Dig? :) IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for
him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up.
PapaD got nailed for not being able to remember if the meeting was the tuesday prior or after joing the trump Campaign. It
doesnt make sense unless the FBI was looking to spy
Let's all assume for one second that all the fantasies of Russia gate are true. That every Russian that Trump and his associates/family
ever had any contact with are directed by Putin himself. Who believes for one second that this collusion has had more of a negative
impact 2016 election then the collusion that occured between Clinton and the DNC to subvert Sanders, Clinton and the media to
1st subvert Sanders and then Trump (side note, why doesn't Clinton/MSM collusion against Trump balance with the Trump/Russian
collusion for Trump?) How about the collusion between Wall Street and the DNC to such an extent that Citi Group was exposed as
having picked Obama's cabinet. And then let's remember that the Trump collusion with Kremlin has alot of guilt by association
through 6 degrees of separation and the Clinton/DNC/MSM/Wall Street collusion was proven in black and white through the publication
of Clinton/DNC/Podesta emails in Wikileaks.
That this point gets ignored by the MSM, is proof to me that they have lost all objectivity.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:16 am
MOre so.. Homer If Clintons personal server was a nothing burger not worthy of a single indictment, then why was it a national
security issue when some stranger offered the emails to Papadopoulos? They didnt bother investigating the stranger. they investigated
Papadopoulos!
Nobody will touch that with a ten foot poll in the main stream media.
strngr
You cite quite a number of examples, presumably without detailed knowledge of few, if any. I
will not fall into the same trap.
The Brexit vote was an outbreak of mass hysteria amongst English and Welsh working class
voters. The sentiment that powered the grass roots "rebellion" against the perceived wisdom
of the ruling elite was understandable frustration at social and economic neglect. My guess
is that in this regard it was a mirror of the rise of Trumpism. Interestingly Scotland voted
to remain in the EU by a substantially stronger margin than England voted to leave, because
there was already established a vivid, informed, grass roots political discourse mainly based
on Scottish social media. The Brexit outcome was influenced by some pretty underhand digital
media manipulation, but those doing the manipulation were domestic and hard right wing, not
Russian. The Guardian cannot be considered a source of untainted information, it is
increasingly Atlantasist and Zionist.
The Scottish independence vote in 2014 was heavily influenced by digital media but it was
entirely indigenous and grass roots. There was no credible claim of Russian interference then
or since. The Daily Express is a far right rag owned at the time of the article you cite by a
pornographer, and deeply unpleasant Zionist.
Over to a more general discussion.
Is there on any level a Russian state programme using a digital platform to influence
politics and social cohesion in other states? Frankly I would be astonished if there
wasn't.
The UK has had the British Council working out of its embassies since the beginning of
time.
The American State Department has been creating and financing Atlantasist think tanks and
associations for decades to skew British politics to meet American ends.
I doubt there is a country on the planet that has not felt the malign influence of the
State Department or CIA.
In the circumstances, Russia would be entirely justified in operating troll factories and
similar vehicles.
Next, what would the objectives of a Russian cyber operation be in the run up to the
American Presidential election? All academic evaluation of content believed to originate in
Russia and to be presented as domestic American input, suggests that the goal of the
intervention was to sew discord and chaos in society. That is to say that the Kremlin did not
have a favoured candidate.
How effective would the efforts of the St Petersburg troll factory be in exasperating
social divisions? My guess is that it would have been analogous with taking a hair dryer
outside in a category 5 hurricane.
Let us consider the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian delegation. As Steve Bannon
stated, meeting with the Russians at a venue under Secret Service control was monumentally
stupid. Monumentally stupid is entirely believable of Donald Jr., Jared Kushner and possibly
Manafort, but the Russians can't have been that dumb. By meeting at a venue where their names
would be openly logged by the State, they would be sabotaging any serious attempt to "get
their man into the White House", if that was their true goal. Taking this into account, the
object of the meeting from a Russian perspective can only have been to generate chaos.
Seventeen months on in the new administration and if I were them I would be awarding myself
an A+.
Try this though experiment and subdue your moral indignation at Russian interference for a
minute. In the circumstances is Russia entitled to do that which it you accuse it of? I will
not offer an answer to the question I pose, I am genuinely asking that you try and project to
see an alternative perspective.
"... Keep in mind this Halper guy was an old Bush operative. And Bush began the Dossier thing. ..."
"... It's quite likely that Christopher Steele, a former MI6 spy, knew Stepan Halper (CIA and FBI spy who began his spying on Trump campaign long before the FBI "officially" started spying) who is a friend of the head of MI6, Richard Dearlove and may have used him to support the dossier. ..."
"... Also, Christopher Steele's company Orbis also hired another MI6 agent by the name of Pablo Miller who lives in Salisbury and who is the MI6 agent that originally recruited MI6 spy Sergei Skripal. ..."
"... All this seems to indicate that Skripal may have been a source of the misinformation in the dossier and poisoned by MI6/CIA spooks to shift more blame on the Russians ..."
"... The Zenith occures when Fusion GPS hires Chris Steel, april 2016, same time DNC money gets to them. Fusion GPS immediatly hire Nellie Orh. Nelli'es husband Bruce then fed NSA query data to Fusion GPS and steel assembled it. ..."
The Bush mention you made I think is quite on the target in one, the Bushes were/are
anti-Trumpers RINOs to their marrow
chet roman , May 19, 2018 at 4:21 pm
Not even close. Fusion GPS was initially hired by the Washington Free Beacon (a neocon rag
funded by billionaire Paul Singer) to do some background investigation on all Republican
presidential candidates. After Trump won the nomination the Beacon ended its business ties to
Fusion GPS and then, and only then, did the DNC/Hillary Campaign begin their funding of
Fusion GPS through a "cut out" law firm (Perkins Coie) to hide their activities. Christopher
Steele was hired by Fusion GPS only after the DNC/Hillary got involved, it had nothing to do
with Bush or the Republican party.
It's quite likely that Christopher Steele, a former MI6 spy, knew Stepan Halper (CIA and
FBI spy who began his spying on Trump campaign long before the FBI "officially" started
spying) who is a friend of the head of MI6, Richard Dearlove and may have used him to support
the dossier.
Also, Christopher Steele's company Orbis also hired another MI6 agent by the
name of Pablo Miller who lives in Salisbury and who is the MI6 agent that originally
recruited MI6 spy Sergei Skripal. Miller deleted his ties to Orbis on his Linkedin account
but reporters found archival evidence. All this seems to indicate that Skripal may have been
a source of the misinformation in the dossier and poisoned by MI6/CIA spooks to shift more
blame on the Russians.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:34 am
The Zenith occures when Fusion GPS hires Chris Steel, april 2016, same time DNC money
gets to them. Fusion GPS immediatly hire Nellie Orh. Nelli'es husband Bruce then fed NSA
query data to Fusion GPS and steel assembled it.
Meanwhile "dual-citizen" John "freaking" Bolton our U.S. National Security Advisor is
lobbying for policies toward Iran that miraculously somehow manage to mirror those of
Israel's psychopath-in-chief Netanyahu -- what a "freaking" coincidence, but, we're all
supposed to keep repeating the official deep state mantra: "Russia, Russia, Russia, Putin, oh
my!" -- like good little zombies.
"... Daniel Lazare's article makes no mention of Israel and Israeli interference in the 2016 presidential election, the Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions. For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources. ..."
Daniel Lazare's article makes no mention of Israel and Israeli interference in the
2016 presidential election, the Israel-gate reality underlying all the Russia-gate fictions.
For example, George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing
Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy
resources.
Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute.
The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security
policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.
The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the
neoconservative think tank in 2014.
In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.
In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist
movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should
focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent
Russian fleet".
In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit
its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.
In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the
export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government
officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.
Among Israel's numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242 was its annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. Recent Israeli threatened military threats against Lebanon
and Syria have a lot to do with control of natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and
on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.
The Israel-gate realities are predictably ignored by the mainstream media, which continues
to salivate at every moldy scrap of Russia-gate fiction.
Eliot Higgins and his UK-based bogus "online investigations" crew assiduously avoid
performing any actual journalism or substantive investigation. The function of the Atlantic
Council's Bellingcat site is to serve as a propaganda channel for "fake news" and
"alternative facts".
"... "Russiagate" was clearly a confabulation by Hillary herself, first to stop bleeding at the polls, later to explain away her loss at the ballot box. ..."
"... Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. ..."
"... "We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." [VIDEO minutes 2:15-8:06] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBwBw7R-U ..."
"... Candidate Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, view of the war in Syria, and attitude about relations with Russia, were all stage-managed for the campaign. Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has received unconditional support from the Trump regime. 1000-percent Israel Firster Trump's purported erratic behavior is a managed propaganda script, as is the response from the loyal opposition. ..."
Russia-gate distractions are perpetuated to divert attention from the reality of Israel's
interference in American electoral politics and U.S. foreign policy.
Of urgent concern is Trump's decision the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
agreement on the nuclear program of Iran, which provokes a situation of extreme danger not
only for the Middle East.
To understand the implications of such decision, taken under pressure by Israel that
describes the agreement as "the surrender of the West to the axis of evil led by Iran", we
must start from a precise fact: Israel has the Bomb, not Iran.
In "The Art of War" series for independent Pandora TV, political scientist Manlio Dinucci
examines the threat posed by the Israeli nuclear arsenal
For over fifty years, Israel has been producing nuclear weapons at the Dimona plant, built
with the help mainly of France and the United States. It is not subject to inspections
because Israel, the only nuclear power in the Middle East, does not adhere to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed fifty years ago.
Dinucci notes that Israeli nuclear forces are integrated into the NATO electronic system,
within the framework of the "Individual Cooperation Program" with Israel, a country which,
although not a member of the Alliance, has a permanent mission to NATO headquarters in
Brussels.
According to the plan tested in the US-Israel Juniper Cobra 2018 exercise, US and NATO
forces would come from Europe (especially from the bases in Italy) to support Israel in a war
against Iran.
Trump was a total political naif before the campaign with no record or experience in
cheating at that game, let alone with the Russians (who are also pikers in comparison to
American meddlers)! "Russiagate" was clearly a confabulation by Hillary herself, first to
stop bleeding at the polls, later to explain away her loss at the ballot box.
If your mechanism for nailing his hide to the wall is to prove that he has been a master
criminal in money laundering, extortion, fraud, tax evasion and other proscribed activities
in the business world, why, for the love of god, did you anti-Trumpsters not begin
investigations on such things years ago? Mueller easily caught Manafort in his shady dealings
with the Ukrainians, and found no connection to Trump. And why, in spite of your furious
activity after the election, do your wells keep coming up dry? It's because your whole
premise, based on Hillary's desperate accusations, is strictly ad hoc, without a real history
or logical rationale.
Abe , May 19, 2018 at 12:06 pm
Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3
February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering
American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Candidate Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's
commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, refusal to
call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, view of the war in Syria, and attitude
about relations with Russia, were all stage-managed for the campaign. Cheap theatrics
notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has received unconditional support from the
Trump regime. 1000-percent Israel Firster Trump's purported erratic behavior is a managed
propaganda script, as is the response from the loyal opposition.
I would think it is quite obvious why Mueller doesn't want to step on Israel's toes. They
own us! Look at the power of people like Bill Browder, and what they are capable of
accomplishing through Congress. I was able to view Nekrasov's film "The Magnitsky Act, Behind
the Scenes", and it was a big eye opener. If you're interested let me know. It takes a while
to pursue, but is well worth the effort.
AIPAC is a HUGE player as well.
Drew Hunkins , May 19, 2018 at 5:11 pm
I'm so proud of Consortiumnews and 95% of the fine folks who post on this website. We were
correct all along, the establishment that ridiculed, mocked or ignored us was wrong, period.
We saw through the charade. Of course we all fully realize we'll never get a mea culpa.
I'm proud that during the initial hysteria way back in November/Dec. of 2016 the Milwaukee
Journal-Sentinel newspaper published the following letter of mine:
Dear editor: The absurd propaganda over Russia purportedly "hacking the election" is now
reaching a fevered pitch. It's this type of group think that ultimately hardens into
orthodoxy after it's repeated ad nauseam by all the "smart and most important people" in
Washington and the mass media.
This hysteria we're witnessing is genuinely disconcerting. Like him or not, Donald Trump's
recent riposte that 'these are the same hucksters who assured you that Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction' was right on target. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but right here he's
spot-on.
On one side is the small group of critical thinking citizens who haven't been brainwashed
along with Trump and members of his administration and Julian Assange; while on the other
side sits the entire mainstream press along with the Marco Rubio types, Mitch McConnell,
Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, Rachel Maddow, and much of the CIA who are
peddling this outlandish notion that the Kremlin hacked the election.
What we're witnessing is a squalid demonstration of where intelligent critical thinking is
among the public and Washington intelligentsia. That so many otherwise peace-loving and
intelligent people are being manipulated on this issue has the potential to spiral out of
control.
Drew Hunkins
Madison, WI
Then recently in Feb 2018 I had the following letter published in the Madison Capital
Times and Wisconsin State Journal newspapers:
Dear Editor: Since we all know -- at least the few of us who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid
and are astute observers of the politico-economic scene -- that there's absolutely no
credible evidence whatsoever pointing to the Kremlin hacking or interfering in the 2016
presidential election to favor Trump, this indicates there must be a faction of our elites
that's wholly intent on propagating all this group think about Russia-gate.
I believe I've identified two of the key elements of our ruling class that are committed
to this alarming Russophobic narrative:
1) The biggest purveyors and prevaricators are the establishment DNC along with Rachel
Maddow, Masha Gessen (the nauseating intellectual muscle behind much of this) and the DNC
sycophants at MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, NPR and WaPo. They simply cannot accept that they ran a
repellent Wall Street warmongering candidate who lost to the deplorable Trump, of all people.
Ergo, they must discredit and delegitimize the Trump election and presidency at all
costs.
2) The careerist Washington militarists (both public and private entities) who make their
promotions and budgets off the vilification of Putin and Moscow. These dangerous sociopaths
were genuinely terrified when Trump advocated a rapprochement of sorts with Russia. One of
the very, very few issues Trump actually got right.
That these two groups are coalescing on this fraudulent Russiagate baloney is putting the
world on the brink of nuclear war. How long will Moscow continue to be a stoic punching bag
in the face of all the Western disinformation and provocations?
Drew Hunkins
Madison
Very gratifying to be on the record. And I'm so happy that so many fellow CN enthusiasts
were also on the record a long time ago.
Let's keep up the good fight.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 2:54 am
That the newspapers actually printed them is the most remarkable thing. Most of us
expressing Drew's point of view can't even get a post up on "mainstream" newspaper forums,
since everything is now instantaneously moderated.
Yes, Wisconsin is a "liberal" blue state, but it also displays uncommon deviance from the
herd when pressed by fantastical narratives, hence the abandonment of Clinton's candidacy. If
the cheeseheads simply did as expected, Madam President would be leading the war effort right
now and domestic turmoil might even be greater than it is. What a special prosecutor would be
subpoenaing now would, in fact, be the emails of John Podesta and the DNC. The corruption of
ALL the major players in American politics is so blatant it is just out there in plain
sight.
Al Pinto , May 20, 2018 at 8:44 am
@Realist
"That the newspapers actually printed them is the most remarkable thing. Most of us
expressing Drew's point of view can't even get a post up on "mainstream" newspaper forums,
since everything is now instantaneously moderated."
In my view, the article pretty much summarizes why HRC lost the election; nor, it's not
the Russians:
"The frustrated, disillusioned Americans who voted for President Trump committed the
ultimate act of rejecting the meritocrats – epitomized by the hardworking, always
prepared, Yale Law – educated Hillary Clinton – in favor of an inexperienced,
never-prepared, shoot-from-the-hip heir to a real estate fortune whose businesses had
declared bankruptcy six times. He would "drain the swamp" in Washington, he promised. He
would take the coal industry back to the greatness it had enjoyed 80 years before. He would
rebuild the cities, block immigrants with a great wall, provide health care for all and make
the country's infrastructure the envy of the world, while cutting everyone's taxes. Forty-six
percent of those who voted figured that things were so bad, they might as well let him
try."
"The FBI thus made the classic methodological error of allowing its investigation to be
contaminated by its preconceived beliefs. Objectivity fell by the wayside."
This part I cannot agree with, though. I do not think for one second that the FBI made an
"error". The whole lot of them conspired to get Hillary Clinton exonerated of her email
crimes, and then get her elected. They set out purposely and with intent to infiltrate
Trump's campaign, spy on him, leak information and disparage him as much as humanely
possible. Once he did get elected, they set out to impeach him any way they could. The media
has been on side.
This was all done with "intent". They knew from the get-go that there was no Russian
collusion. They made it up. Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the phony Steele dossier,
although this information was not made apparent to the FISA Court.
This has all been an attempted coup to unseat the President of the United States. Criminal
referrals have been made by Horowitz (the Inspector General). Heads are going to roll.
To paraphrase what Hillary said during the campaign: "If they find out what we've done,
we'll all hang."
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:29 am
Further more Conservatives and a leftie, (me) are convinced that the bad actors got busted
using the NSA database in April 2016(look up Admiral Rodgers) and they needed a cover to keep
spying on Trump and retro activly legitimize the NSA query abuse.
Read 70 page summary of FISA abust from judge Collier. .
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 4:01 pm
Tucker Carlson's three-minute interview with Don Di Genova, former U.S. attorney:
"We know that Hillary Clinton was illegally exonerated. We knew that a year ago. We know
that there was a substantial effort to frame the current President of the United States with
crimes by infiltrating his campaign and then his administration with spies that the FBI had
set upon them. We have learned that the crimes were committed by the FBI, senior members of
the Department of Justice, John Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey and others associated with
the Democratic Party, and that Donald Trump and his associates committed no crimes. [ ]
As of today, I understand that a referral for criminal prosecution has been made by Mr.
Horowitz [Inspector General] to Mr. Huber, who is investigating the FISA leaks, the
unmasking, the leaks of the unmasking, and everything we described tonight. Criminal
referrals have already been made.
l suggest that Mr. Brennan, who loves to make comment about the process, get himself a
good lawyer, not a good writer. [ ]
Yes, NBC News' consultant, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the
most partisan hack leader of the CIA in history, needs a very, very good lawyer. [ ] Yes, a
criminal lawyer. He doesn't need a 'slip and fall' lawyer, although he's going to slip and
fall. He's going to be in front of a Grand Jury shortly."
Forces which launched color revolution against Trump were trying to save neoliberalism, which
was collapsing int he USA -- and defeat of Hillary is a clear sign of the collapse.
They succeeded into turning him into a puppet (he folded just two months after inaguration)
and kept him oh a short leash sinse then, but they want to get rid of him completely as they feel
that he can change sides again.
Russiagate is a smoke screen to hide internal problem which now are evident in the USA
sociery and first of all huge level of unequlity. the latter is nagatively correlated with the
political stability. This is essentially a neo-McCarthyism campaign, when the fact that the USA
"imported" a lot of Nazi criminals was hidden by witch hunt for communists in the government.
Which also help to destroy the US left for the next 60 years by branding them as Communists. Not
that communists were saints (far form that), but this was pretty nasty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... As months turn into nearly two years and no slid evidence emerges to nail Russia for nabbing Election 2016, some big Russia-gate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks, as Daniel Lazare explains. ..."
"... Page was not a spy pace the Times, but a government informant as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has pointed out – in other words, a good guy, as the Times would undoubtedly see it, helping the catch a couple of baddies. ..."
"... Andrew McCarthy, who has done a masterful job of reconstructing the sequence, notes that in late July 2016, Page mentioned an article she had come across on a liberal web site discussing Trump's alleged Russia ties. Strzok texted back that he's "partial to any women sending articles about nasty the Russians are." Page replied that the Russians "are probably the worst. Very little I finding redeeming about this. Even in history. Couple of good writers and artists I guess." Strzok heartily agreed: "f***ing conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it. I'm glad I'm on Team USA." ..."
As months turn into nearly two years and no slid evidence emerges to nail Russia for
nabbing Election 2016, some big Russia-gate cheerleaders are starting to cover their tracks, as
Daniel Lazare explains.
The best evidence that Russia-gate is sinking
beneath the waves is the way those pushing the pseudo-scandal are now busily covering their
tracks. The Guardian
complains that " as the inquiry has expanded and dominated the news agenda over the last
year, the real issues of people's lives are in danger of being drowned out by obsessive cable
television coverage of the Russia investigation" – as if The Guardian 's own
coverage hasn't been every bit as obsessive as anything CNN has come up with.
The Washington Post , second to none when it comes to painting Putin as a real-life
Lord Voldemort , now
says that Special counsel Robert Mueller "faces a particular challenge maintaining the
confidence of the citizenry" as his investigation enters its second year – although it's
sticking to its guns that the problem is not the inquiry itself, but "the regular attacks he
faces from President Trump, who has decried the probe as a 'witch hunt.'"
And then there's The New York Times , which this week devoted a 3,600-word
front-page article to explain why the FBI had no choice but to launch an investigation into
Trump's alleged Russian links and how, if anything, the inquiry wasn't aggressive enough. As
the article puts it, "In terviews with a dozen current and former government officials and a
review of documents show that the FBI was even more circumspect in that case than has been
previously known."
It's Nobody's Fault
The result is a late-breaking media chorus to the effect that it's not the fault of the FBI
that the investigation has dragged on with so little to show for it; it's not the fault of
Mueller either, and, most of all, it's not the fault of the corporate press, even though it's
done little over the last two years than scream about Russia. It's not anyone's fault,
evidently, but simply how the system works.
This is nonsense, and the gaping holes in the Times article show why.
The piece, written by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Nicholas Fandos and entitled " Code
Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation," is pretty much like
everything else the Times has written on the subject, i.e. biased, misleading, and incomplete.
Its main argument is that the FBI had no option but to step in because four Trump campaign
aides had "obvious or suspected Russian ties."
' At Putin's Arm'
One was Michael Flynn, who would briefly serve as Donald Trump's national security adviser
and who, according to the Times, "was paid $45,000 by the Russian government's media arm for a
2015 speech and dined at the arm of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin." Another was P
aul Manafort, who briefly served as Trump's campaign chairman and was a source of concern
because he had "lobbied for pro-Russia interests in Ukraine and worked with an associate who
has been identified as having connections to Russian intelligence." A third was Carter Page, a
Trump foreign-policy adviser who "was well known to the FBI" because "[h]e had previously been
recruited by Russian spies and was suspected of meeting one in Moscow during the campaign."
The fourth was George Papadopoulos, a "young and inexperienced campaign aide whose
wine-fueled conversation with the Australian ambassador set off the investigation. Before
hacked Democratic emails appeared online, he had seemed to know that Russia had political dirt
on Mrs. Clinton."
Seems incriminating, eh? But in each case the connection was more tenuous than the
Times lets on. Flynn, for example, didn't dine "at the arm of the Russian president" at
a now-famous December 2015 Moscow banquet honoring the Russian media outlet RT. He was merely
at a table at which Putin happened to sit down for "m aybe five minutes, maybe twenty, tops,"
according to Green Party presidential candidate Jill
Stein who was just a few chairs away. No words were exchanged, Stein says, and "[n]obody
introduced anybody to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians spoke Russian. The four
people who spoke English spoke English."
The Manafort associate with the supposed Russian intelligence links turns out to be a
Russian-Ukrainian translator named Konstantin Kilimnik who studied English at a Soviet military
school and who
vehemently denies any such connection . It seems that the Ukrainian authorities did
investigate the allegations at one point but declined to
press charges . So the connection is unproven.
Page Was No Spy
The same goes for Carter Page, who was not "recruited" by Russian intelligence, but, rather,
approached by what he thought were Russian trade representatives at a January 2013 energy
symposium in New York. When the FBI informed him five or six months later that it believed the
men were intelligence agents, Page appears to have cooperated fully based on a federal
indictment filed with the Southern District of New York. Thus, Page was not a spy
pace the Times, but a government informant as ex-federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy
has pointed out – in other words, a good guy, as the Times would undoubtedly see it,
helping the catch a couple of baddies.
As for Papadopoulos, who the Times suggests somehow got advance word that WikiLeaks was
about to dump a treasure trove of Hillary Clinton emails, the article fails to mention that at
the time the conversation with the Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications
in the news were the 30,000 State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her
private computer. These were the emails that "the American people are sick and tired of hearing
about," as Bernie Sanders put it . Instead of spilling the beans about a data breach yet to
come, it's more likely that Papadopoulos was referring to emails that were already in the news
– a possibility the Times fails to discuss.
FBI 'Perplexed'
One could go on. But not only does the Times article get the details wrong, it paints
the big picture in misleading tones as well. It says that the FBI was "perplexed" by such Trump
antics as calling on Russia to release still more Clinton emails after WikiLeaks went public
with its disclosure. The word suggests a disinterested observer who can't figure out what's
going on. But it ignores how poisonous the atmosphere had become by that point and how
everyone's mind was seemingly made up.
By July 2016, Clinton was
striking out at Trump at every opportunity about his Russian ties – not because they
were true, but because a candidate who had struggled to come up with a winning slogan had at
last come across an issue that seemed to resonate with her fan base. Consequently, an
intelligence report that Russia was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee
"was a godsend," wrote Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in Shattered, their best-selling account of the Clinton campaign, because it
was "hard evidence upon which Hillary could start to really build the case that Trump was
actually in league with Moscow."
Not only did Clinton believe this, but her followers did as well, as did the corporate media
and, evidently, the FBI. This is the takeaway from text messages that FBI counterintelligence
chief Peter Strzok exchanged with FBI staff attorney Lisa Page.
Andrew McCarthy, who has done a masterful job of reconstructing the sequence, notes
that in late July 2016, Page mentioned an article she had
come across on a liberal web site discussing Trump's alleged Russia ties. Strzok texted back
that he's "partial to any women sending articles about nasty the Russians are." Page replied
that the Russians "are probably the worst. Very little I finding redeeming about this. Even in
history. Couple of good writers and artists I guess." Strzok heartily agreed: "f***ing
conniving cheating savages. At statecraft, athletics, you name it. I'm glad I'm on Team
USA."
The F'ing Russian 'Savages'
This is the institutional bias that the Times doesn't dare mention. An agency whose
top officials believe that "f***ing conniving cheating savages" are breaking down the door is
one that is fairly guaranteed to construe evidence in the most negative, anti-Russian way
possible while ignoring anything to the contrary. So what if Carter Page had cooperated with
the FBI? What's important is that he had had contact with Russian intelligence at all, which
was enough to render him suspicious in the bureau's eyes. Ditto Konstantin Kilimnik. So what if
the Ukrainian authorities had declined to press charges? The fact that they had even looked was
damning enough.
The FBI thus made the classic methodological error of allowing its investigation to be
contaminated by its preconceived beliefs. Objectivity fell by the wayside. The Times says that
Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 agent whose infamous, DNC and Clinton camp paid-for opposition
research dossier turned "golden showers" into a household term, struck the FBI as " highly
credible" because he had "helped agents unravel complicated cases" in the past. Perhaps. But
the real reason is that he told agents what they wanted to hear, which is that the "Russian
regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years" with the
"[a]im, endorsed by PUTIN, [of] encourage[ing] splits and divisions in [the] western alliance"
(which can be construed as a shrewd defensive move against a Western alliance massing troops on
Russian borders.)
What else would one expect of people as "nasty" as these? In fact, the Steele dossier should
have caused alarm bells to go off. How could Putin have possibly known five years before that
Trump would be a viable presidential candidate? Why would high-level Kremlin officials share
inside information with an ex-intelligence official thousands of miles away? Why would the
dossier declare
on one page that the Kremlin has offered Trump "various lucrative real estate development
business deals" but then say on another that Trump's efforts to drum up business had gone
nowhere and that he therefore "had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there
from local prostitutes rather than business success"? Given that the dossier was little more
than "oppo research" commissioned and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the
Clinton campaign, why was it worthy of consideration at all?
The Rush to Believe
But all such questions disappeared amid the general rush to believe. The Times is
right that the FBI slow-walked the investigation until Election Day. This is because agents
assumed that Trump would lose and that therefore there was no need to rush. But when he didn't,
the mood turned to one of panic and fury.
Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper issued a formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017,
that " Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election [in
order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and
harm her electability and potential presidency." The "assessment" contains this disclaimer:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.
Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as
well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
The New Yorker
reports that an ex-aide to John McCain hoped to persuade the senator to use the Steele
dossier to force Trump to resign even before taking office. (The ex-aide denies that this was
the case.)
When FBI Director James Comey personally confronted Trump with news of the dossier two weeks
prior to inauguration, the Times says he " feared making this conversation a 'J. Edgar
Hoover-type situation,' with the FBI presenting embarrassing information "to lord over a
president-elect."
But that is precisely what happened. When someone – most likely CIA Director John
Brennan, now a commentator with NBC News – leaked word of the meeting and Buzzfeed
published the dossier four days later, the corporate media went wild. Trump was gravely
wounded, while Adam Schiff, Democratic point man on the House Intelligence Committee, would
subsequently trumpet the Steele dossier as the unvarnished truth .
According to the Times account, Trump was unpersuaded by Comey's assurances that he was there
to help. "Hours earlier," the paper says, " he debuted what would quickly become a favorite
phrase: 'This is a political witch hunt.'"
The Times clearly regards the idea as preposterous on its face. But while Trump is
wrong about many things, on this one subject he happens to be right. The press, the
intelligence community, and the Democrats have all gone off the deep end in search of a Russia
connection that doesn't exist. They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and
they committed a crime against journalism. And now they're trying to dodge the blame.
Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing
Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a
wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique, and his articles about
the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites
as Jacobin and The American Conservative.
andy--s , May 22, 2018 at 6:30 pm
rewind just a little .
If the FBI felt the clinton private server was a monumental nothing burger, then why was
it necessary to open a counterintellegence investigation upon Papadopoulos using a National
security letter(july 31 2016), and NOT investigate or bother even questioning the person who
claimed to have access to Clinton emails until 9 months later?
News outlets inform us that the FBI 'informant' acted properly in their case, but fail to
disclose that the FBI inherited a political investigation from fusion GPS, which only
targeted Trump members whom they were interested in to find out whether Trump had them or
knew someone who did. Chris Steele set up a honey pot for papadopoulos.
ANy news media that ommits the inheritance aspect and/or the down-playing of the hillary's
emails prior to the possibility of Trump getting them is not telling the whole story.
When did it become the duty of the FBI to protect Hillary from blackmail if her emails
were of no 'national security' value, as demonstrated by the conclusion of the server
investigation.
Den Lille Abe , May 21, 2018 at 2:46 pm
American politics and media mostly resembles an asylum for rabid wild animals. Its even
beyond psychopathy.
I wonder if some of these beings DNA wise classify as human beings.
If the US political media elite believe (as they claim they do) that meddling in the
domestic politics of another country is wrong, illegal, an act of war, when will we see
investigations into US meddling in the domestic politics of other countries. When will there
be an investigation into the US conspiracy with the Ukrainian neo-Nazis to overthrow the
elected government? Or the US support for jihadis in Syria? Or any of the many, many other
cases of US meddling?
Arioch , May 22, 2018 at 7:11 am
US ruling elits are infected with exceptionalism=nazism.
They genuinely believe they can run subhuman nations as they wish and that is their "white
burden".
They equally sincerely believe that the said subhuman nations dare not resist their America
1% masters guidance, in particular they dare not influence those masters as a mean to have a
say in what the masters impose upon them
eric , May 22, 2018 at 7:00 pm
Could we all write our congressman and bring our troops home unyil we can understand
what's been going on for more than the last twenty years .
Great article and comments. I find some satisfaction in seeing the MSM "making excuses" as
it at least represents a tacit admission of their guilt in misinforming the public on this
subject. A weak one , as even tacit admissions go , but more than we've seen for past abuses
– Libya , Ukraine , Syria , 9/11 , etc.
Aside from that , just a short administrative note for Stranger Together : Please add me
to your "de-friend" list. I assure you , I fully qualify. Thanks.
Robert , May 20, 2018 at 6:44 pm
What a pathetic waste of time and money (20,000,000) trying to perpetuate the rissiagate
lie. Even worse, the powers that be are guilty of the very election meddling of many
sovereign nations.
Russigate is nothing but a deep state distraction deflection strategy to provide cover for
their own election meddling crimes.
Rule of thumb: when you hear the DS media complex incessantly demonizing a foreign leader
or country, it's just an exposition of its own guilt.
KiwiAntz , May 20, 2018 at 7:23 am
The really sad thing about all this Russiagate nonsense is that there will be no apologies
given to either Putin or Russia, once its confirmed that no evidence has been found of
Russian interference & then this story will quietly disappear beneath the waves, as it
seems to be starting now, before being confined to the scrap heap of History?
These scumbags who pushed this narrative get away scott free, without suffering any
consequences from their falsehoods, having slandered & dragged Russia's reputation
through the mud, permanently & maliciously destroying it & ramping up global tensions
in the process? All because the out of touch Democratic Party & a evil, shameful woman
called Hillary Clinton lost the election? Also, no apologies will be given to the American
people as well, who have, for 12 mths, been subjected too a 24hr, 24/7, constant, MSM &
Political, psychological operation of brainwashing propaganda & gaslighting, to promote
cognitive dissonance in these citizens so that they question their own sanity, values &
belief systems?
As many people have commented here, their real concerns such as inadequate healthcare,
putting food on the table etc have been drowned out by all this Russiagate garbage!
That's the two real tragedies & outcome from these blantant, orchestrated lies by the
Dems, to demonise Russia & apportion blame to others rather than looking at yourselves in
the mirror?
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 9:37 am
Great analogy KiwiAntz. You know a lot about how our American politics works, no doubt
about it. You are right the real tragedy is to how no one will suffer any consequences for
taking the American public down this road of international disruption, and on top of that for
defaming a head of state of a foreign government. In fact if the Democrats get their way
Mueller will receive a medal. This will be another moment in time where Washington will
instill it's vision onto all that's good and right, as worldleaders and the American people
will be ignored. There will be nothing to apologize for, as once again the DC Masters will
set the narrative, and the world will roll it's eyes and go back to work. Arrogance becomes a
virtue, and believe you me Washington has enough of that disgusting defect and more to go
around to conduct hundreds of investigation and think nothing of it. Joe
Dave P. , May 20, 2018 at 4:56 pm
KiwiAntz, Joe – Great posts.
"The really sad thing about all this Russiagate nonsense is that there will be no
apologies given to either Putin or Russia, once its confirmed that no evidence has been found
of Russian interference & then this story will quietly disappear beneath the waves, as it
seems to be starting now, before being confined to the scrap heap of History?"
I don't believe this Russia Gate nonsense or similar malign fabrications against Russia
are going to end unless The West's goal of complete domination of the world led by U.S. is
abandoned, which – looking at what has been in play since 1991 – I don't think
will happen.
"Also, no apologies will be given to the American people as well, who have, for 12 months,
been subjected too a 24hr, 24/7, constant, MSM & Political, psychological operation of
brainwashing propaganda & gaslighting, to promote cognitive dissonance in these citizens
so that they question their own sanity, values & belief systems? "
This cognitive dissonance in a significant segment of population is going to be long
lasting, and that is what I think its purpose was. The great damage done during the 1950's by
McCarthyism and nuclear scare drum beating was very visible when I arrived here during mid
1960's. This time, with this constant 24/7 demonizing of Russia and Putin depicting them as
evil enemies, with all these fabrications, lies, and other such garbage, for many years now,
has done far more damage to the gullible American public than during 1950's.
I think this whole show going on in Washington is being orchestrated by the same
Puppet-master, keeping the public in suspense deliberately. Both sides are in collusion. One
day Trump makes a tweet like "We are going to withdraw from Syria", and public like us gets
all optimistic for peace to prevail in the World. Next day the bombs, missiles are falling
over Syria, Yemen or in Afghanistan. Both sides are beating up Russia, from different angles.
Trump has fallen in line. He had no choice.
There was several articles some months ago about Central Asia. The link for one of these
articles in Strategic Culture is below:
Joe, it seems like there is not goingto be peace in the World as some us always keep
wishing for. But I still want to keep my optimism about a peaceful World.
Anna , May 20, 2018 at 5:33 pm
Don't forget the Skripal affair that -- surprise! -- made bare a connection between
Skripal and the infamous Mr. Christopher Steele (and the M16). The stupidity of the affair
can be explained only in the context of the aggression against Syria, a destruction of which
is one of the goals of Oded Yinon plan for Geater Israel.
The Skripal affair in the UK and the White Helmets fraud in Douma have the same root. The
puppet-masters exposed their life-size marionettes in the European Union countries when the
marionettes have collectively risen to expel Russian diplomats. That was a geat Novichok
story for the future historians!
KiwiAntz , May 20, 2018 at 6:29 pm
Great comments as usual Joe & Dave you may be right in that this Russiagate nonsense
may not end exactly, but it's certainly winding down as the article has noted? I'm of the
belief that everything that has a beginning, has & a ending, which maybe naive, but even
McCathyism had a beginning an a ending as a comparison? You can't maintain BS &
falsehoods indefinitely, its a proven fact! The Powers, who masterminded this operation know
that this false narrative has a shelf life & that the Public can only stomach this BS, up
to a point? The American people have reached that saturation point & hell, even the
Fakestream media & their commentators have had a gutsful of this & going off script
saying enough is enough & that too much time has been wasted on this crap? But then
unapologetically, never acknowledging their complicity & role in publishing these
falsehoods! One enormous positive can be taken out of all of this nonsense & that is, the
American people are not as stupid as "THEY" (Deepstate & cronies) like to think they are
& are extremely strong & resilient to the cognitive dissonance that have been
subjected too? US Citizens & people of the World are waking up to what's really going on,
thanks to the brutish presidency of D.Trump & the thuggish activities of the MIC &
Intelligence States?
Funny that. A few days ago you were claiming that all United States of A**holes citizens
were brainwashed. Now you are changing your mind I see. Now we all are "extremely strong
& resilient to the cognitive dissonance that (we) have been subjected too". Or maybe you
just enjoy ranting on comment boards! LOL
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 7:07 pm
Dennis take it easy KiwiAntz always puts a context to his narrative. I've read some of
those last comments of his, and if anything KiwiAntz sounds like a disgruntled American. Like
most of us on this board. So when KiwiAntz does say something good about the American
citizens let's not slap him down. You can say whatever you'd like Dennis it's a free country
(kind of), but don't be to hard on KiwiAntz because he's one of us. Joe
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 6:40 pm
Dave among the great comments made here today I suggest you scroll down and read
CitizenOne, for CitizenOne captured the essence of our times fairly well, no change that to
extremely well.
I'm a tad burned out, and throughly up to here, with this RussiaGate story. Although if we
didn't have Russian interference to talk about, then who would we Americans blame for our
declining empire? This is a result of a Washington where no one is held accountable, and
where talking points are only meant to be a distraction away from what we should be
discussing at length.
This obsession with Russia is self made, and is aimed at not only hurting Russia, or
better said Putin, as its aim is to take our eyes off of who really is at fault for all of
our debt, and wars of choice. This is how you cover up a lie, by using another lie in it's
place. Like my mother always warned me Dave, 'one lie only leads to another lie until the
truth jumps up and bites you in the ass'. In fact my mother distrusted almost all
politicians.
So Dave while we pull our hair out of our heads, while hearing the MSM everyday breakdown
into excruciating blabber another Presidential Tweet, or we hear words of encouragement
(sarcasm here) of how Mueller is still valiantly pushing ahead with the Investigation, we
hear very little about what else is going on with in regard to our planet. If peace did
breakout, why would we even know it Dave?
Even sadder Dave are the American citizens who don't know, or research, the truth. This is
the most dangerous element of all to consider, and that is an uninformed public votes in the
person to run the most powerful nation on this once proud green earth with the biggest ever
military apparatus the world has ever seen. Talk about the patients taking over the asylum.
Seriously who in America isn't on meds, and getting their news from our corrupted MSM?
The MSM should be proud of themselves, for they have totally buffaloed the American public
into oblivion.
Joe, there is no "reply' button on your comment of 7.07pm. I guess why I don't take
KiwiAntz comments seriously is that he just has a grab bag of cliches and generalizations
that he strings together and thrashes out on his keyboard ad nausea. Mostly naive. Maybe he
is disgruntled, and maybe he is an American. But I doubt it. More likely he sits in his
mothers basement in a far away Isle reading rubbish on the internet.
His knowledge of Americans surely doesn't come from living and working in American
communities, and interacting with everyday Americans. I am a Kiwi who has lived in Seattle
for 45-years. My job has taken me to Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii and The Bahamas.
I have got to kinda' understand "America" and Americans" from first hand experience. Until
you have done that your knowledge of the American psyche is superficial and academic. As I
judge KiwiAntz's to be.
He also reminds me of the old saying.."Everybody knows how to run the ship but the
Captain." I can tell you you from hard experience, once you get to be the Captain, things
things turn out to be a whole lot more complex and one learns humility real fast.
Yes, in this respect the Mueller investigation has done it's job perfectly. They just yank
on Trump's leash whenever necessary. What will be interesting is how they manage to quash the
referral for prosecution of Deep State players by I.G. Horowitz. Nunes has been a rogue
player as well, and will need to be corralled. We hear nothings but "crickets" from the MSM
regarding this with the exception of Fox, which is telling; but it has me wondering how and
why Fox has gotten away with it.
Skip Scott , May 20, 2018 at 7:44 am
ranney-
I think Mueller has "slow walked" this thing because he has to be careful of stepping on
the wrong toes. As Abe has pointed out, a lot of RussiaGate is actually IsraelGate. His
questionable business dealings were with duel Russian/Israeli citizens. My guess is Mueller
will have to settle for Trump's paying hush money to a porn star.
michael , May 20, 2018 at 10:05 am
While others in this thread have noted that the "Russian Investigation" is mostly for
keeping Trump in line with the the neolib/ neocon agenda for WWIII, the pure partisanship of
the Investigation (which would be more interesting and effective if not solely focused on
Trump but rather any Americans interacting with Russia) suggests that Mueller's slow walking
is to keep this issue out in front of the Public until the Midterm Elections.
The big question is whether the tone-deaf MSM will trash and demean Trump to the point
that there is backlash, much as put him in office in the first place.
ranney , May 20, 2018 at 5:40 pm
Skip and Michael,
Thanks for your responses. Maybe you're right. Maybe Muller doesn't want to step on Israeli
toes, but why not? And maybe the idea is to keep people worked up so they'll vote against
Republicans in the 2018 elections, but I find it hard to think that Muller is that partisan
for Democrats.
I wonder if the prevailing plan of the "dark state" is to keep Trump in, but with no power,
since a Pence presidency could be worse than Trump – though at this point it's hard to
see how. Whatever the plan and whatever we think we see going on is probably not what is
actually happening. Hopefully we'll see a glimmer of the truth in six months.
"... FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. ..."
"... IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up. ..."
'Collusion' would mean actively conspiring with a foreign government. To this day there is no evidence that the Russian lawyer
was working for the Russian government (I have seen some media simply assert that she has Kremlin 'connections', whatever that's
supposed to mean). Also, why exactly would the Trump campaign have any need to meet with someone promising dirt if, as the Steele
Dossier claims, Trump had been a Russian agent for 5 years? The Kremlin would surely have already been providing any possible
dirt, and more besides.
And is this really where we are now? Is this what we've come to? Russia is a country of 144 million people. Is simply being
Russian, or talking to a Russian, now a crime? Because that's what our current atmosphere seems to think. It's shocking to see
so many people, especially supposedly tolerant and multicultural liberals, ignore any distinction between a government and private
citizens, and engage in what can only be called bigotry about 'Russians'. Replace 'Russian' with 'Jew', or a slur like 'Jap',
and how incredibly ugly the atmosphere has become in the last 18 months or so becomes obvious.
That Trump is comically corrupt is a given. But the two central claims of Russiagate were that a. Trump is a Russian agent
(or at least being blackmailed by Russia), and that b. Russia in some way hacked or interfered in the election to get Trump elected.
There is, to this day, exactly zero evidence for either.
No, his son meeting with a Russian citizen promising political dirt (even if dirt had been exchanged, which it wasn't because
she was lying and just wanted to get a meeting to lobby for some business interests), doesn't constitute 'collusion', or interference
by a foreign government.
Nor does some St. Petersburg company spending a paltry amount of money to run a clickbait ad revenue scheme on Facebook. Nor
do Macedonian teenagers running troll accounts (Macedonia isn't even in Russia, and to this day I've never seen any evidence that
any Russian, much less the Russian government, is behind their activities).
The above two are especially damning, because they make it painfully obvious that Russiagate has exactly nothing. In the absence
of any evidence that Russia hacked the election, proponents have been forced to venture far and wide to find something, anything,
they can remotely pin on Russia. A few hundred thousand dollars spent on social media ads, including ads for Clinton and Sanders,
many of which were seen by literally no one, and half of which didn't run until AFTER the election? Are you freaking kidding me?
As for 'shady Russian money', maybe Trump has taken some. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that he's done something like launder
money for Russian oligarchs. Now prove to me took money from the Russian government. Because, again, those are two very different
prospects. And if you think the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs are interchangeable or in lockstep with each other, you clearly
don't know much about recent Russian history.
The Russiagate claim wasn't that Trump is skeevy and corrupt. Of course he is. The claim is that he is corrupt in very specific
ways, ways that constitute treason.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 21, 2018 at 6:30 am
Marasmus.
Difficult to argue with any of your points.
Mueller has filed charges against some of the staff in the St Petersburg operation, if you can connect Trump to this entity
then cooperation becomes criminal collusion. As charges have already been filed it matters not whether the St Petersburg staff
are private or state employees.
The fact that America has laws prohibiting foreign interference in its elections is I guess understandable, but hypocritical
and exceptionalist in the extreme given the cart blanch attitude America takes to interfering in the internal affairs of other
nations.
The Donald Jr meeting with Russians is just a rats nest of conflicting stupidities. If as many others state (and I don't disagree)
everyone tries to get dirt on the opposition and foreign sources of information are regularly tapped, then the secret is not to
get caught. The Democrats have a plausible cut out (or two) in place between the Russian sources for the Steele dossier and themselves.
As Steve Bannon has stated, meeting directly with the Russians was weapons grade stupid, but hey it's Don Jr. and Jared Kushner
we're talking about.
The really odd part is that the Russians would attend given that they must have known that their names would be logged by the
Secret Service detail providing security for the Republican candidate. To me, this does not suggest an attempt to help Trump as
"their man", but rather to dirty by association a candidate that could become President. This interpretation would concur with
analysis of the activities of the St Petersburg operation, which was to sow chaos into American social and political discourse.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:13 am
Heres the problem with that. FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. The Russians paid them to connect with the trump campaign in order to
discuss the magnitsky act. They did not come to the meeting with any notion of DIRT. Trump Jr was told they had DIRT.
THe problem the FBI has, is that they never investigated the Russian contacts to the extent that they investigated the Americans
being contacted. Dig? :) IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for
him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up.
PapaD got nailed for not being able to remember if the meeting was the tuesday prior or after joing the trump Campaign. It
doesnt make sense unless the FBI was looking to spy
Let's all assume for one second that all the fantasies of Russia gate are true. That every Russian that Trump and his associates/family
ever had any contact with are directed by Putin himself. Who believes for one second that this collusion has had more of a negative
impact 2016 election then the collusion that occured between Clinton and the DNC to subvert Sanders, Clinton and the media to
1st subvert Sanders and then Trump (side note, why doesn't Clinton/MSM collusion against Trump balance with the Trump/Russian
collusion for Trump?) How about the collusion between Wall Street and the DNC to such an extent that Citi Group was exposed as
having picked Obama's cabinet. And then let's remember that the Trump collusion with Kremlin has alot of guilt by association
through 6 degrees of separation and the Clinton/DNC/MSM/Wall Street collusion was proven in black and white through the publication
of Clinton/DNC/Podesta emails in Wikileaks.
That this point gets ignored by the MSM, is proof to me that they have lost all objectivity.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:16 am
MOre so.. Homer If Clintons personal server was a nothing burger not worthy of a single indictment, then why was it a national
security issue when some stranger offered the emails to Papadopoulos? They didnt bother investigating the stranger. they investigated
Papadopoulos!
Nobody will touch that with a ten foot poll in the main stream media.
"... " . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ." ..."
"... A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence ..."
"... " personally i blame clinton" Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another scapegoat-puppet. ..."
"... It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the division of the world into East and West. ..."
"... In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS. That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept. Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the republicans for the upcoming elections. ..."
Since day one, I felt the entire Russia-gate fiasco was horse excrement. It just never
passed the smell test. My suspicions were confirmed day by day as Mueller came up with
nothing. To my amazement, the MSM pushed the story to the limit with no objectivity, agenda
driven, politically motivated, journalistic suicide. They've shown themselves as the
propaganda outlets they always were, but we were loath to admit.
Robert Emmett , May 19, 2018 at 8:43 am
"They misled their readers, they made fools of themselves, and they committed a crime
against journalism. And now they're trying to dodge the blame."
That may well be. And Robert Parry meticulously documented such a case. Nevertheless,
their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been planted in millions of
unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average consumer of "news" and
will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up the first lies and on
and on and on it goes. That's the nature of a infectious culture of lies. The cultured medium
explodes, escapes the lab and runs rampant, leaving those who initiated the whole mess to
scramble in a mad attempt to "save face". It wouldn't surprise me if the H-ill-re eventually
becomes the first, and last, U.S. woman CEO to drop the big one. If you sometimes hear a
faint glug-glug-glug pulsing in your ears, that's the sound of U.S. circling the drain.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:03 am
Very well stated Robert. I like the virus metaphor for propaganda. It's like gossip --
spreading, infecting the gullible with lies .
Rob , May 19, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Excellent point. As you say, their work is done. The Russiagate meme is now firmly
implanted in the minds of tens of millions of Americans, and nothing short of a public
confession by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton that they fabricated the story and
fanned the flames in the media will dislodge it. I cannot envision any other means of killing
this particular virus. All contrary facts and logic will be brushed aside as fake news
created by Russian agents or stooges.
Dave P. , May 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm
Robert Emmet,
" . . . Nevertheless, their work is done. The poison seeds of their lies have been
planted in millions of unquestioning U.S. brains, from the high and mighty to the average
consumer of "news" and will continue to sprout and spread. More lies are needed to cover up
the first lies and on and on and on it goes. . ."
Yes. You have summarized it very well. That is how it is in our home too. My wife had been
listening to this for some time, Russia, Russia, Russia, and Putin , Putin, evil Putin
destroying our democracy, and so on on TV and in Newspapers, that it has gone into the
subconscious now. And I read that they, the Ruling Power Structures have done the same to
people in Western Europe too.
j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 7:54 am
While many of the particulars are correct regaring the paucity of evidence against
associates of the President, the author misses two key points, upon which the entire Mueller
coup operation rests. First, that the campaign against Trump started not in the Clinton
campaign or anywhere related, but rather in London with British intelligence, as the Guardian
itself has boasted. Not only did MI6's Steele prepare the document that formed the basis of
the allegations of "collusion" but it is well known that GCHQ's Hannigan met personally with
Brennan in the summer of 2016 to sound the alarm with a "not yet with it" US intel community.
Second, the basis of the investigation itself hinges on the alleged "hacking" of the
Clinton/DNC emailswhich showed her to be a craven puppet of Wall Street, released just prior
to the Democratic Convention. That entire scenario, that the source of the infamous emails
were a result of "Russian hacking," was conclusively and repeatedly demolished on this
website by fomer top NSA analyst William Binney, and his cohorts at the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am
The Clinton campaign paid Steele to do his thing. Their operation against Trump began the
day after his surprise victory.
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:16 pm
Their operation began long before Trump's victory. It began in earnest just a few days
after Hillary Clinton was wrongfully exonerated, way back in July of 2016.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:29 am
The funniest part of all this nonsense is that the democrats are going to keep this
Illusion of RUSSIAGATE alive until the next elections!
So after the next loss in the upcoming elections we all know who to blame for another
democratic loss, right?!
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 3:34 am
You paint a nearly hopeless picture, Mike.
Let us all trust that Mr. Trump, who, despite the intentions of the Totalitarians outed in
Daniel Lazare's fine summary article, is the DULY ELECTED POTUS (by the common folk -- no one
has made a serious demonstration of vote counting fraud, from my recollections), continues in
office.
The American Experiment (in enlightened governance of, by, and for the governed) is in grave
jeopardy. The enemy of the Enlightenment's fine accomplishment is Monotheism, which is the
philosophical parent of Monarchy, which is the civic governing manifestation of said
religious thought patterns.
Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 8:52 am
I'll suggest that the "American Experiment" is threatened by money power, more than
religion, although many fundamentalists are deluded to support zionism. Religion is a problem
where it rationalizes simplistic political views, but the root causes are ignorance and
selfishness. Monotheism is not really the problem now that there are few monarchies. The
Enlightenment, and enlightenment of individuals, has many enemies.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 10:12 am
The enemies of good government are the greedy and powerful oligarchs who hate democracy,
and do everything to distort and destroy it. No need to drag monotheism into it.
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:25 pm
My career was spent working with local rural politics. Good governance is by far imperiled
by corrupt locals on the take.
Also, Stalin did his purging by setting up secret local committees of three, who fed him
names through a beaurocratic pipeline. The Big Guy gets the blame (or credit), but the little
fellas do the dirty work.
Sam F , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 pm
You are very right about local government corruption, which may have factions based upon
tribal loyalties, but is caused by poor moral standards throughout our society. Most local
officials are elected with little or no public knowledge of who they are, and as a result are
mere low-end power-seekers who will abuse whatever power they can get.
David G , May 19, 2018 at 2:50 am
"[The NY Times] article fails to mention that at the time the conversation with the
Australian ambassador took place, the Clinton communications in the news were the 30,000
State Department emails that she had improperly stored on her private computer. Instead of
spilling the beans about a data breach yet to come, it's more likely that Papadopoulos was
referring to emails that were already in the news -- a possibility the Times fails to
discuss."
I've been shouting just this at my TV set (oddly, to little effect). And the same goes for
other allegedly damning references to "Clinton emails" in connection with the infamous Trump
Tower meeting and probably elsewhere.
But unfortunately, there are many people who don't care about evidence and rational
inquiry, and they prefer believing in evidencefree conspiracy theories that match their
prejudices. One accusation that is not backed up by any evidence is used to making other
accusations that are not based on evidence look more likely.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:49 am
:lol: " A lot of accusations that are not backed up by any evidence " the good
old PROPAGANDA ! It's alive and kicking
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 6:47 am
Russia is in fact the only REAL EMPIRE in this world!
They hack and manipulate everything and everyone
Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:26 am
Have you checked the number of US overseas military bases recently?
Do you know why the US Congress is called "Israel-occupied territory?"
Don't you love -- love! -- MSM.
voza0db , May 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm
Hello Anna!
I know that my written sarcasm is very bad sorry about that! And yes I do love MainShitMedia! Their the best.
Sam F , May 19, 2018 at 7:08 am
Try defining "hacking an election." The term pretends that a few techies tampered
machines.
In the US the election machine makers do that, no doubt, but not likely elsewhere. The US has a very long history of manipulating elections throughout the world and in the
US.
Even while it pretends to be "promoting democracy" it is installing dictators and faking
elections.
The ultimate election hack is allowing big money to control mass media and political
campaigns, as in the US.
Only when we restrict funding of mass media and elections to limited contributions will we
restore democracy.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:21 am
Washington and its media tools have hacked this guy's brain is what it amounts to.
They could tell the American public anything and have it believed, like, for instance,
that the ideal gas law does not apply to inflated footballs in cold weather.
Realist , May 21, 2018 at 3:32 am
Correction: All your unfounded assertions are bogus. Just read this one simple piece that just came out for the accurate course of events.
While I am fully on board with rubbishing Russia-gate as malignant nonsense, I do think it
may be a mistake to rely too much on there turning out to be no nefarious nexus between Trump
and Russia.
In Trump we have someone devoid of knowledge, sense, or character, an almost altogether
wrong guy -- very much including his views on U.S. foreign policy -- who for some reason has
a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and Putin (though, of course, he has
mostly gone along with the anti-Russia Beltway consensus in his actions as president when
pressured).
It's possibly it's just an isolated, unexplained instance of Trumpian sanity, but to me
it's at least as likely to be the result of greed or fear, based on some grubby link to
Russia that is as yet undisclosed.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:43 am
"who for some reason has a positive and constructive attitude toward Russia and
Putin".
Maybe the reason is that Putin is one of history's penultimate statesman who presents the
strongest opposition to the global war/banking beast and last bastion of hope? Time
magazine's Most Powerful Man of the Year (or something like that as I wouldn't be caught dead
reading it.
So does that make Trump a puppet for Russia or a keen observer?
David G , May 19, 2018 at 11:54 am
Do you think Cheeto Dust really capable of appreciating Putin for the reasons you
cite?
"Keen" isn't a word that springs to my mind when I think of Trump.
backwardsevolution , May 20, 2018 at 2:32 am
David G -- maybe you need to oil your springs. When you're trying to navigate your way
through the swamp, you tend to notice capable players who are doing it and admire them for
it.
Anna , May 19, 2018 at 8:28 am
Let's begin with Uranium One and the $500.000 fee for a half-hour speech by Bill.
Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 pm
I am also a Green voter. When the choice became Hillary vs Donald that -- for me -- was
the last straw. I de-registered as a Democrat and registered as a Green.
Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:32 am
Good for you Mike. I refuse to be a part of the "lesser of two evils" gambit any longer.
Let's hope we can build a movement.
andrew , May 18, 2018 at 10:40 pm
the core accusations are
1. that the russians hacked the dnc, there is no evidence and no basis for this accusation.
none.
2. that the russians spread a deadly fake news virus that was incredibly damaging to
hillary's campaign. there is no evidence of this and it is a completely ridiculous idea if
one just stops for a moment to contemplate the astronomical amount of fake news available at
all times on the internet and television. what was the fake news lie that was so supremely
effective? nobody knows. there wasn't one. there was for hillary unfortunately a real news
truth about the dnc released by wikileaks but that was not from russians or a lie.
3. that the russians hacked the election. again absolutely no proof or evidence of this has
been offered.
it is in fact a political witch hunt that has been incredibly destructive. it has
distracted energy and attention away from real things that have happened. it has instigated
proxy warfare with russia in syria. it has discredited journalism. it has made an honest man
out of trump.
personally i blame clinton. this mendacious , self defeating , and bizarre ruse is so in
keeping with so many of her and bill's greatest hits. these two people continue to damage the
progressive movement . they won't go away it would seem. i hope after russiagate sputters to
a stop the clintons will finally be finished.
David G , May 19, 2018 at 1:59 am
well said, andrew
RnM , May 19, 2018 at 4:37 am
A Witch Hunt, alright! Not FOR a witch, but BY a witch.
J. Decker , May 19, 2018 at 7:51 am
" personally i blame clinton"
Personally I blame AIPAC, BIS, and the Shadow Masters Clinton is just another
scapegoat-puppet.
j. D. D. , May 19, 2018 at 11:41 am
Yes, all true but you fail to identify the cause, which goes well beyond naming Russia as
an excuse for Hillary's defeat. It was British Intelligence which first sounded the alarm wrt
pre-candidate Trump due to his stated intention to establish a positive relationship with
Putin and Russia, thus overturning the basis for the entire post-war paradigm based on the
division of the world into East and West.
Jeff , May 19, 2018 at 11:59 am
Thanx, Andrew. You wrote the comment I was going to write. I do, however, have one nit.
Russia-gate has not made an honest man out of Trump. Nothing could make an honest man out of
Trump. He is nothing but an incompetent con artist whose real skill was getting people to
lend him money after he had blown it all on bad deals and lousy management. I personally
suspect that the connection between Trump and Russia is not with the Russian government but
with the Russian oligarchs who are laundering their ill-gotten gains looting Russian state
enterprises through Trump.
mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:28 pm
The slimy rats always indulge in phony alibis for their criminal tricks. They should be
investigated and charged with falsely accusing an elected President, in order to unseat him.
Anyone who votes for a "democrat" in the future is just a simple clueless idiot. Trump is a
horrible President, but this does not justify the criminal conspiracy to unseat him through
slander and innuendo lacking any evidence whatever. The appointment of a "special council"
was meant to change the result of the presidential election, and nothing else.
mike k , May 18, 2018 at 10:32 pm
If Trump were to be impeached on the basis of this phony witch hunt, it would be the end
of whatever semblance we have of a democracy forever. The whole affair reminds me of the
criminal removal of the President of Brazil recently.
Al Pinto , May 19, 2018 at 11:01 am
In my view, the purpose of the congress authorized investigation is not to impeach POTUS.
That would provide a precedent that neither the democrats, nor the republican would accept.
Instead, the investigation is intended to discredit the president and by proxy, the
republicans for the upcoming elections.
The results of the investigations, actual and/or
fabricated, will be invaluable campaign material for the democrats. Especially with the help
of the main stream media, it's going to very effective headlines to grab the limited
attention that most people in the US have for politics
Sam F , May 18, 2018 at 10:10 pm
The Russia-gate hysteria worked fine as a distraction from Israel-gate.
All of Hillary's top ten donors were zionists, and Trump appointed Goldman Sachs to run the
economy.
Not that KSA, the MIC, or WallSt et al lost any bribery chances.
Russia-gate also pressured Trump into the zionist camp. Just what Israel ordered.
Of course the US mass media are almost entirely owned by zionists.
Mission accomplished; time to backtrack; we never really said that.
"... Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI. The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news. ..."
"... Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it. ..."
"... I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super multi-million dollar lotto. ..."
"... The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7 anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia, and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking? ..."
"... No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals. ..."
It also seems that Yahoo also has the total (if not enthusiastic) support of Putin these
days. Pretty tough to buck Israel and achieve peace in the Middle East when it has the full
support of both the American Zionist oligarchs and the Russian Zionist oligarchs (who harbor
most of their wealth in the West and represent the Atlanticist faction in Russia, in other
words play for team USA) who probably comprise the largest and most influential power
factions in both countries. No wonder AIPAC is the most powerful lobby whose existence is
vehemently denied. If it comes to pass, World War III may essentially be fought because of
perceived grievances by thin-skinned megalomaniacs like Adelson and Browder and their ability
to wrap politicians around their pinkies using their billions in wealth. I think the Russians
especially dislike being played by con-men like Browder, who gets full support from the
bought-off American Congress.
Excellent in the facts and your conclusions. It is difficult to imagine what you have done
in so few words -- summarize so clearly what became a maze of groundless speculation early on
only to end as major byzantine monument to almost nothing but empty accusation, political
invective, widespread loose talk and media posturing/gossiping. You described, in the end, a
failed circus of second-rate illusions.
Mike From Jersey , May 19, 2018 at 10:07 am
The Times used to be a credible source of information. Now, I won't even read Times
article unless it is on an issue in which I am very well versed. I simply don't want to be
propagandized. And when I read an article in a matter in which I am well versed, I am often
outraged at the slants and selective omissions.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:22 am
I have come to the conclusion that they are all bad, and that this constant pounding of
Russia interference in our American political establishments is nonsense.
Whether it be Russia-Gate or Uranium One scandals, it always leads back to Russian
collusion, or how Putin is hell bent on subverting American democracy. It's like the word
come down from a Bilderberg high echelon get together where the supreme elite said, 'now you
political puppies go fight amongst yourselves but remember Putin is our target'. After all
Putin's handling of the Rothschild oligarchs is enough to get even the most least powerful
leaders into hot water, let a lone the world's other nuclear super power. So Putin must
go.
So while Palestinians this week died protesting their confinement, N Korea was insulted
away from the negotiating table over a Gaddafi inspired threat, as Europeans looked for
another currency to replace the U.S. Dollar, our American news media gave little time to
those news stories, as it stayed stuck on Russia-Gate, or as FOX is attempting to do with
their trying to launch a Hillary investigation into her poor use of computer servers added to
her selling off uranium stock, we Americans are isolated by what really should matter. Please
keep your eyes on the center ring, for what's around it doesn't matter, is the mantra.
What I'm saying, is that these scandals are in house fights, and that the MSM's
circumventing of any real news, is just another way to dumb us Americans down. Not to say
that investigating political chicanery isn't a priority, but should these investigations be
so overwhelmingly reported over any or all other news? If you answered no to that, then
should we next begin to wonder to what we are not being told, is exactly the very news we
should be talking about?
Back in 1973 there was a feeling of inevitability as the Watergate investigation
progressed, every week more incriminating details that we know now came from inside the FBI.
The Mueller probe, on the contrary, seems to be stumbling forward and not really getting
anywhere as it goes fishing for info and issues like Stormy's accusations take over the news.
It's possible, I suppose, that Mueller will come up with something before November, but
there's no sense of inevitability. How could there be? Sixty three American citizens voted
for Trump. Bad news for the country, bad news for Clinton, bad news for the MSM, bad news for
the Deep State. Ironies abound.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 2:58 pm
The one comparison between 1973 and 2018, is that they have the exact same calendar dates.
In my mind, the only thing WaterGate has in common with Russia-Gate is that the MSM likes to
say that the two scandals are the same. And why not, when you are huckstering the news to
sell insurance and pharmaceutical commercials?
WaterGate was of course a break in, and finding Nixon's involvement was key. Russia-Gate
wasn't a break in, and as Mueller's Investigation is struggling to find Russian collusion,
Mueller gives the impression that he's on to something, when eventually we find out he has
nothing. I mean the WaterGate investigation started out with the knowledge that there was a
break in, but the Russia-Gate investigation began with lots of allegations with no proof to
be found. WaterGate didn't, at least in my opinion, start out as a fishing expedition, but
the Russia-Gate Investigation was not only a fishing expedition in as much as it has been a
deep sea fishing trip at its best.
You pointed out the voter support of Trump phillip but might I reference you to the many
who didn't vote, or at least the bunches of voters who left the presidential pick a blank?
America is broken phillip, every institution and every agency which operates inside of it is
too. In my estimation to make it right we Americans will need to go back to starting from
scratch. Let it begin!
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Joe -- Russiagate was made up, fashioned out of nothing. If we want to talk about
collusion, we need to talk about Uranium One. Now there's where some serious money changed
hands, and the Clinton's hands are all over it.
What is comparable to Watergate, but a hundred times worse, is what is trickling out now
and what the media have gone out of their way to cover up -- the plot by James Comey and
other members of the FBI, John Brennan and others in the CIA, Clapper, the Department of
Justice (Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton) to overthrow a
duly-elected President.
The Inspector General's report on the FBI and the Department of Justice's role in all of
this is apparently damning. Some of these people may end up in jail.
I think Russiagate was invented because, as Hillary said, "If they find out what we've
done, we'll all hang." She was trading favors with foreign governments in exchange for cash
into the Clinton Foundation. That's why she was using a private server. She didn't want to
use the government servers as they would have a back-up of her files, and when you're intent
on stealing, the last thing you want is a "back-up" of your dirty dealings.
All of this Russiagate insanity has been one great big deflection away from the true
crimes.
It looks like all of them are going to have a date with a Grand Jury.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 9:03 pm
I think RussiaGate was invented also. I also think it's pretty obvious that Hillary gets a
free get out of jail card when it comes to any FBI investigation over her. I also believe
that if Trump were in cahoots with Putin, that Mueller by now would have revealed it, as
Democrates would be whooping it up better than a homeless person hitting the super
multi-million dollar lotto.
The Empire is falling, and the Empire is blaming all it's idiotic decisions on the
Russians. Our MSM which was always a subject of debate, has gone off the rails with this 24/7
anti-Trump, anti-Russian, news business. I'm suffering from all this hate aimed at Russia,
and I'm believing that our MSM is winning on that front. Like I said, both Hillary and
Donald's past practices may need investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing
the many other issues of our day, is all I'm asking?
I'm tired of the constant insinuating that Trump is a Putin puppet, as I'm also
experiencing fatigue over Hillary's being continually left off the hook. Although even more
so, I'm sick of all of them, I'm just venting over our sad state of us citizens being well
informed.
Good to hear from you backwardsevolution. Joe
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 9:48 pm
Joe Tedesky -- "Like I said, both Hillary and Donald's past practices may need
investigated, but when will we Americans start discussing the many other issues of our day,
is all I'm asking?"
Yes, you are so right, Joe, because those other issues are what the average American
really cares about: the price of health care and housing, and whether they're going to be
able to put food on the table.
Of course, had Donald Trump been colluding with the Russians, that certainly would have
been of importance to the country, but they've been looking under every rock for almost two
years now and haven't found anything. Well, Stormy Daniels did pop up, but, hey, Trump never
professed to be an angel. All they've done is tied him up in knots and prevented him from
dealing with the important issues. They have also left far too many Americans with the
impression that he's a traitor when he's not, and by holding these charges above his head,
they've probably pushed him into doing things that he wouldn't ordinarily have done.
If what I'm hearing about the Inspector General's report is anything close to the truth,
then these people (the Deep State people I mentioned above) tried to overthrow a sitting
President. These people are running a parallel government. That is very dangerous and will
have to be dealt with severely, with criminal charges.
Hey, Joe, on that happy note, you have a good night.
Joe Tedesky , May 19, 2018 at 10:37 pm
I'm suffering from RussiaGate fatigue, like I said. I never bought into the Russian
collusion thing. I'm more bothered by the forever nonsense the MSM has us on, where there is
no closure. I mean you sit and listen to people like Rachel go through their hysterics and
after 20 minutes per monologue she gives you nothing.
The Hillary crimes are frustrating because nothing comes of her getting to meet the hard
justice she deserves. Seriously this evil witch starts a civil war withinside of our
governments bureaucracy, and yet no one hears that much about it the way it's going down. On
the other hand Donald Trump for mostly the bad of it, gets news coverage beyond what any
America politician ever gets, and we're suppose to believe we are operating on normal.
No backwardsevolution the Empire is in trouble, and we are watching it make an ass out of
itself while it goes down the drain. I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good
guys, or gals.
I might add Trump's Middle East policies among his other hard nosed geopolitical endeavors
leaves me exhausted trying to figure him out. Hillary should no doubt be in jail, but here we
are still on the down low and nothing seems to be working as it should.
Thanks, I do value your opinion. Joe
backwardsevolution , May 19, 2018 at 11:38 pm
Joe Tedesky -- "I'm sorry at this point in time I don't see any good guys, or gals."
Yes, I agree. One good thing about Trump's presidency is that it has exposed the Deep
State actors. These are the people who run the government, not the President, and it doesn't
matter who is elected. If you don't play along, you're Kennedy'd! That's why so few good
people ever vie for top positions; you get hammered.
Joe, the World Cup is coming and all is well! I'm going to knock off, watch some old
videos, and get myself psyched up. Good talking to you, Joe, as always.
Realist , May 20, 2018 at 4:06 am
Watergate was focussed. Iran-Contra was focussed. Underlings were convicted in both on
charges directly related to the main issues. Nixon resigned and Reagan retired, the Congress
not having the will to impeach him, which would have been politically unpopular.
"Out-of-the-loop" Bushdaddy saved himself from later impeachment by pardoning some key
cabinet members under Reagan (most notably Caspar Weinberger). In contrast, Whitewater
blossomed into a full-blown fishing expedition, as has so-called Russiagate. Ken Starr didn't
just investigate a land deal or management of the White House travel office, but went over
the lives of both Clinton's with a fine tooth comb, eventually precipitating impeachment
charges over a stained blue dress. Now, I suppose, the Clinton's and their Democratic
adherents feel that turnabout is fair play, though it is undoubtedly just as divisive and
destructive to the country as their go round. The woman has obviously been traumatized during
her years in the public arena and in the aftermath of the election, but she does the country
a great disservice by pushing her vendetta.
Joe Tedesky , May 20, 2018 at 9:09 am
The Clinton pass was always going to be a problem, and many people knew that going into
the 2016 Presidential Election Campaign. This didn't stop Hillary though. Why, many here on
this comment board wrote with good reason why the Clintons should remain in retirement, but
oh no Hillary was going to run come hell or high water. Only a sociopath would overlook so
many good reasons of why not to run.
Great perspective Realist. One would think you had a scientific mind . oh wait you do.
Joe
As I'm sure others commenters on this site will note, those guilty of trying to create a
lynch mob and encourage hysteria, will as with Iraq WMD's, emerge unscathed, even more
honored for their service to America. And with and increasing number of Americans, we will
feel more and more that you cant believe anything anymore and that is a disastrous position
to be in for a nation.
mike k , May 19, 2018 at 9:59 am
Herman, it has always been a mistake to rely on belief without careful examination. Plato
said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Discerning the truth is intellectual work
-- something our false educational system does not teach us to do. Those who learn to sort
things out and demand the real truth are mostly self-educated. To wake others up who have
been taught to conform and accept authorities, is a lengthy and often thankless task. The
tenacity with which many hold onto their false beliefs, is a formidable obstacle to creating
a new and better society. I wish I knew a way to accomplish this awakening of our fellows,
but I do not. We are left with the option of shortcuts, which are no better than new forms of
propaganda to compete with those our subjects have already incorporated in their thinking and
character. Following a new leader or movement seems the most one can expect from our
brainwashed brothers and sisters
"... In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry. ..."
"... We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military. ..."
"... The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own the megaphone. ..."
"... From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party) into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout we are now on the hook for. ..."
"... How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors. ..."
"... So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War. ..."
"... The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all. ..."
"... Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah, sure, whatever you say. ..."
"... It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line. ..."
"... Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the off shore industry is. ..."
"... I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats " ..."
"... Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. ..."
The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which
was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain
more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy.
In the case of the fabricated Russia Gate narrative the results of the Trump election and widespread public distrust of the election
process was turned into a new cold war with Russia which benefited major defense contractors and resulted in sanctions against Russia
and huge windfalls for the Military Industrial Complex as the US ponied up to fund our national defense industry.
We should by now be educated that major failures of our economy and political processes precipitated by government deregulation
or corrupted elections will be used by the main stream media to create fictional enemies of our nation to turn public anger into
a public movement to blame a target of opportunity which will benefit the wealth and power structures which is based on fiction and
contrived plots to benefit the very powerful and wealthy organizations such as big banks and the military.
Trump won because the media cleaned up big time by playing the Super PACs for suckers just as deregulation of the big banks enabled
them to clean up by merging savings banks with investment banks which moved all the savings banks deposits into risky investments.
There is a clear and present danger born out and evidenced by former economic collapses that the media and the big financial institutions
will create public relations campaigns based on the mantra of deregulation to swindle Americans even further. They have a proven
ability to use their power to persuade Americans that some other reason is responsible for the latest swindle.
The root cause of this is that they (the MSM) own the microphone. They have the ability to lie without rebuttal because they own
that single megaphone to tell lies. They have the ability to create fictions and fantasies which go unchallenged because they own
the megaphone.
From our history: The creation of the Tea Party was a watershed moment where the big banks turned their bailout by the US government
into a political movement which was manufactured by the press as a new and never heard about new political party (The Tea Party)
into a political movement aimed to grant the big banks and wealthy Americans tax breaks which resulted in a 3.5 trillion bailout
we are now on the hook for.
How many media/news organizations signed onto the Tea Party after the implosion of the banking industry and beat the drums to
grant tax breaks for billionaires? All of them.
How many of the media corporations beat the drums to blame Russia for the election results which resulted in sanctions against
Russia and a new Cold War with Russia which resulted in windfall profits for the defense industry? All of them.
How many news corporations supported the lies about WMDs and Iraq's secret stockpiles of Uranium and chemical weapons? The NY
Times and the Washington Post were among the most fervent supporters of those lies and they have never acknowledged their errors.
The facts are clear in all of these major failures of our free press to get it right. In every case the media have conspired to
fool most of the people into believing the lies of the government and the financial sectors published by main stream press as facts
which are giant falsehoods.
The result of this collaboration between the press and the wealth in our nation has been to deceive us and to lead us down paths
that twist our understanding to a new understanding that benefits the wealthy in times of prosperity and in times of crisis.
So it is with the Trump administration and the media's aim to turn our attention away from the real reasons our election system
is corrupted by dark money by creating fake facts to convince us that Russia is a war monger which stole the election and must be
countered by more massive military spending and a renewal of the old Cold War.
The NY Times got it wrong in Iraq. They got it wrong in Ukraine. They got it wrong in the last election. They got it wrong on
savings and loan deregulation under Reagan. They got it wrong on banking deregulation under Clinton. They got it wrong with Russia
Gate. They have gotten it wrong so many times that the statement "they got it wrong" is a testament of their ability to fool us all.
CitizenOne – "'They got it wrong' is a testament of their ability to fool us."
Yes, I continually read that the government was "in error", they "didn't understand", or "their models were incorrect". Yeah,
sure, whatever you say. They can't come out and inform us that they lied from the get-go because that would prove intent to deceive,
so they cover up their tracks by saying they made an "error" whenever things fall apart, as they knew they would.
It's all just one big "Fleece the Sheep" game, except they can't let the sheep know they're being fleeced. Errors and omissions
are all part of the game, and the media act to call the sheep to the starting line.
Dave P. , May 20, 2018 at 11:49 pm
Citizen One – Excellent post. Very informed comments indeed.
Skip Scott , May 21, 2018 at 7:15 am
Citizen One-
Great post. It reminded me of a joke I saw the other day:
"A unionized public employee, a member of the Tea Party, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table there
is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the Tea Partier and says, "look out
for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."
munchma quchi , May 19, 2018 at 11:51 pm
re: "Without offering a shred of evidence, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a
formal assessment on Jan. 6, 2017, that "Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election [in
order] to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency." The "assessment" contains this disclaimer: " [You (the author) did not include a disclaimer. please remedy this.]
F. G. Sanford , May 20, 2018 at 9:39 am
Ms. Quchi,
I think the disclaimer said that intelligence assessments are based on sources, methods and interpretations and rely on raw data.
It's raw, so it has to be properly marinated until it's fit for consumption. Addenda to the disclaimer indicate that the Intelligence
Community will not accept outrageous conspiracy theories, noting specifically that, "They hate us for our freedom, and those weapons
of mass destruction must be here somewhere." It's the standard "release from liability" which accompanies all official narratives.
Kinda like eating tuna fish: It's pretty good once you get past the smell.
Chet Roman , May 20, 2018 at 11:35 am
Page 13 of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017
explains: "High confidence does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong. Judgments
are not intended to imply that we have proof that show something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information,
which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
robert e williamson jr , May 19, 2018 at 7:35 pm
Dan I really can not disagree with much you have to say here. Except there are a few things about this whole affair that bug
the hell out of me. For instance the fact that the village idiot from new york spent over $400 million in cash the last 9 years
before he ran for president.
Your effort here sounds quite a lot like whining about having nothing to report. Calm down these things take time. If Russia
isn't to blame fine but Mueller is not talking and seems to be conducting himself very professionally.
Dan if Robert Blum had had his way the CIA would have been privately funded by secret donations. CIA got caught laundering
money in the middle to late 60″s and as always CIA makes investigations go away. A recount of the episode can be found in Jane
Mayers book Dark Money. The CIA wrote the book on laundering money. Then the ICIJ and the Paradise Papers expose how large the
off shore industry is.
Trump like doing business with Russians during a time when Russian oligarchs were hiding the money they pulled from the Soviet
coffers. I think it has gotten him in trouble.
Also interesting is the accounts of what has happen with the Inslaw / PROMIS case and Bill Hamilton. Was this software and
early version of what CIA and NSA use to monitor the world now?
One last thing in your last paragraph here you claim the Dimocraps have gone off the deep end with the Russian Connection thing.
Dan the dimocraps went off the deep end with their undying allegiance to Israel. And they do little damned else.
When this is finished if CIA allows the release of the Dogdamned files maybe we will learn what happened. Chill my brotha !
kntlt , May 20, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Listen to this man.
drC , May 19, 2018 at 7:27 pm
"The press, the intelligence community, and the Democrats" have committed FAR MORE than a mere "crime against journalism".
For kryssakes, this isn't a debating society at Yale! They have provoked international tensions, suspicions and distrust that
have pushed the world far closer to the brink of a third world war, damaging national economies across the globe & negatively
impacting the lives of millions.
jose , May 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm
I was convinced that Russiagate was a complete fabrication after reading the following penned by Caitling Johnstone:" this
administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms
to Ukraine, established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik
to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative
to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats "
Since the US national media have been
aware of the lack of solid evidence against Russia allege meddling case, they now want to pretend it has not been their fault.
Their sheer dishonesty underscores their deviant reporting.
ranney , May 19, 2018 at 5:54 pm
Joe, Abe, Andrew, Sam, Mike,
You are all correct in blaming the MSM for ignoring Israel in all this and whitewashing the main cause of our problems in the
middle east. I agree that Russia has not been interfering in our politics any more than virtually all the other countries in the
world who have embassys here and things they want to "lobby" for. I believe spying is universal and the US does it more than most,
but everyone does it including Russia (and UK, France Germany Israel, Ukraine and on and on for everyone on the map).
What I find increasingly strange is the fact that the MSM and just about everyone else is ignoring the fact that Trump did indeed
have business with Russia. He was trying to get permission and financial backing for a Trump tower to be built in Moscow. and
he had been trying for a while before he even thought of running for president. THAT is what his now indicted lawyer was doing
initially, along with others in Trump's employ. That is why there is indeed evidence of contact with Russians during the pre-
campaign and during the campaign as well. Trump didn't want to lose this lucrative deal which, also involves money laundering
and other illegal, and/or shady dealings.
I can't figure out why Muller hasn't subpoenaed or somehow got hold of Trump's tax returns. I'm pretty sure he'd find all the
crimes we need to impeach him.
Trump is a thug and a money laundering crook, not a machievelian plotter. His total ignorance of
world politics is dangerously leading us to armagedden. And I can't help but wonder why Muller is slow walking this whole investigation.
I'm pretty sure he can see what I can see. Trump is a crooked, money launderer, ultra con man with his Trump towers and other
ploys, and too dumb and ignorant of history and science to understand how dangerous the game he plays is to the world when he
has the power of the presidency. But Muller knows that! So what else is really going on that explains why he has moved at snails
pace to stop the damage?
Does anyone have a good guess at that? I'd really like to read it.
"... The FBI Informant Who Monitored the Trump Campaign, Stefan Halper, Oversaw a CIA Spying Operation in the 1980 Presidential Election https://theintercept.com/20... ..."
"... Put the two together - Mifsud and Halper - and you get a clear effort by the CIA and FBI to "entrap" hapless Trump associates into the Russiagate narrative as a deliberate project to undermine the Trump campaign and the subsequent Trump Presidency. ..."
"... It is worth noting that Halper was paid $1,058,161 by the Department of Defense - I presume for his work as an "informant". ..."
"... I think it is insane that Rosenstein keeps getting away with telling the House Intelligence Committee to go jump in a lake. ..."
"... Did you know that Trump refuses to use a secure cellphone? https://www.politico.com/st... ..."
"... However, to further flesh out the ever-clearer role of MI6 in the set-up, you might want to cast an eye at this recent post from Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com that ties together Papadapoulos, Mifsud, Richard Dearlove, and Stefan Halper, a dual-national (UK & US) who had been active in the Trump campaign. A rather dodgy dude, from appearances... ..."
"... Because nobody thought Trump would win. It waq only after the election that the heat was really cranked up, in order make it clear to Trump that he may be titular president, but he is not the one in charge. ..."
"... if Papadopoulos was actually a secret FBI asset, perhaps Papadopoulos was trying hard to become an important member of the Trump campaign in order to compromise or entrap both Trump and members of the campaign with his (fake) info about being an expert on Russia who had met Putin and had access to lots of Russian-held dirt about Hillary. If Mifsud's whereabouts are known, the House Intel Committee really ought to call him as a witness. ..."
"... Mifsud's belated efforts to cover his tracks failed. His denials don't matter. The Statement of Offense establishes the "facts." You are missing the key point -- how would anyone know about thousands of "stolen" emails on 26 April when the so-called hack of the DNC and Clinton did not occur until 31 May? ..."
There are still many unanswered questions, but the evidence that now is part of the public
record removes any doubt that British and US Intelligence services collaborated in a devious
and fabricated scheme to portray the Trump campaign as intent on collaborating with Russia. The
evidence was planted and cleverly fabricated. It was done through highly classified
intelligence channels, which created a paper trail and provided prima facie "evidence" that
individuals with tenuous ties to the Trump campaign where seeking meetings with Russian
officials. What was not reported, however, was the fact that the original impetus for those
reporting on those communications originated with an individual who appears to be an MI-6
intelligence asset. His name is Joseph Mifsud and I believe that evidence ultimately will
establish that he was directed to contact and then feed incriminating information to George
Papadopoulos. That information became the foundation of creating a counter intelligence
investigation of Donald Trump and his campaign.
First a word about Joseph Mifsud. He is currently missing. But the public record on him
strongly suggests that he was working as an intelligence asset of the United Kingdom's MI-6.
Elizabeth Vos at Disobedient Media provides an excellent review of Mifsud and his links to
British intel (
her article appears to have been taken down , but it is solid and I saved a copy):
Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese scholar with an eclectic academic history who Quartz described as
an "enigma," while legacy press has enthusiastically characterized him as a central personality
in the Trump-Russia scandal. The New York Times described Mifsud as an "enthusiastic promoter
of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia", citing his regular involvement in the annual
meetings of the Valdai Discussion Club, a Russian-based think-tank, as well as three short
articles he wrote in support of Russian policies.
Mifsud strongly denied claims that he was associated with Russian intelligence, telling
Italian newspaper Repubblica that he was a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations
and the Clinton Foundation, adding that his political outlook was "left-leaning." Last month,
Slate reported Mifsud had 'disappeared', as did some of the other figures linking the UK to the
Trump-Russia scandal.
Mifsud's alleged links to Russian intelligence are summarily debunked by his close working
relationship with Claire Smith, a major figure in the upper echelons of British intelligence. A
number of Twitter users recently observed that Joseph Mifsud had been photographed standing
next to Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee at Mifsud's LINK campus in Rome.
Newsmax and Buzzfeed later reported that the professor's name and biography had been removed
from the campus' website, writing that the mysterious removal took place after Mifsud had
served the institution for "years."
The FBI got its foot in the door to investigate Trump for Russian ties because of
"intelligence" about George Papadopoulos. But that intelligence was fabricated. Let me show you
how this happened. Let's go to the Statement of Offense filed against
Papadopoulos . It states that Papadopoulos made "material false statements and material
omissions to the FBI:"
Papadopoulos claimed that his interactions with Joseph Mifsud occurred before Papadopoulos
"became a foreign policy advisor to the Campaign."
Defendant PAPADOPOULOS further told the investigating agents that the professor was "a
nothing" and "just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something." In truth and in fact, however,
defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood that the professor had substantial connections to Russian
government officials (and had met with some of those officials in Moscow immediately prior to
telling defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails") and, over a period of months,
defendant PAPADOPOULOS repeatedly sought to use the professor's Russian connections in an
effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.
Defendant
PAPADOPOULOS claimed he met a certain female Russian national before he joined the Campaign and
that their communications consisted of emails such as,'"Hi, how are you?"'In truth and in fact,
however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the female Russian national on or about March 24, 2016,
after he had become an adviser to the Campaign; he believed that she had connections to Russian
government officials; and he sought to use her Russian connections over a period of months in
an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.
Pay close attention to the actual facts. Papadopoulos met with Mifsud in Italy on 14 March
2016. Although both shared an affiliation prior to that 14 March meeting with the
London Centre of International Law Practice, they were not buddies nor in regular
communication. According to the
NY Times , Mifsud had little interest in Papadopoulos until the latter was named a Trump
foreign policy advisor.
Traveling in Italy that March, Mr. Papadopoulos met Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor at a
now-defunct London academy who had valuable contacts with the Russian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. Mr. Mifsud showed little interest in Mr. Papadopoulos at first.
But when he found out he was a Trump campaign adviser, he latched onto him, according to
court records and emails obtained by The New York Times. Their joint goal was to arrange a
meeting between Mr. Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Moscow, or between their
respective aides.
Only one tiny problem--Mifsud met in Italy with Papadopoulos on the 14th of March but George
was not announced publicly as an advisor until ONE WEEK later, on the 21st. So how did Joseph
Mifsud know about Papadopoulos' new job? Why was Mifsud so eager to meet with Papadopoulos?
Once Papdopolous was announced, Mifsud kicked into overdrive trying to introduce George to
Russians. On 24 March Mifsud hosted Papadopolous, who reported the meeting to Stephen Miller on
the Trump campaign:
Papadopoulos: "just finished a very productive lunch with a good friend of mine, [Mifsud ] .
. . ‐ who introduced me to both Putin's niece and the Russian Ambassador in London
‐ who also acts as the Deputy Foreign Minister."
"The topic of the lunch was to arrange a meeting between us and the Russian leadership to
discuss U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump. They are keen to host us in a 'neutral' city,
or directly in Moscow. They said the leadership, including Putin, is ready to meet with us and
Mr. Trump should there be interest. Waiting for everyone's thoughts on moving forward with this
very important issue."
Here is what you need to understand. When Papadopoulos communicated to persons in the Trump
campaign the results of his meetings with Mifsud and Mifsud's Russian contacts, that
information was relayed from the UK to America via telephone and email. Those conversations,
without one doubt, were intercepted and put into a Top Secret intel reports (known in intel
circles as SIGINT) by GCHQ.
It would be damning if Papadopoulos had initiated the contact with Russian sources and was
lighting up the web with requests for info about Russians willing to work with or help Trump.
But that did not happen. The impetus to talk about Russia originated with Mifsud, who, based on
circumstantial evidence, was a British intelligence asset and was directed to target and bait
Papadopoulos. It was Mifsud who raised the specter of the Russians targeting Hillary Clinton
(see pp 6-7 of the Statement of Offense):
On or about April 26, 2016, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for breakfast at a
London hotel. During this meeting, the Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that he had just
returned from a trip to Moscow where he had met with high-level Russian government officials.
The Professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS that on that trip he (the Professor) learned that the
Russians had obtained "dirt" on then-candidate Clinton. The Professor told defendant
PAPADOPOULOS, as defendant PAPADOPOULOS later described to the FBI, that "They [the Russians]
have dirt on her; the Russians had emails of Clinton; "they have thousands of emails."
Mifsud provided the Russian information. Not Papadopoulos. Mifsud's mission of feeding
Papadopoulos "Russian intelligence," which the later then reported back to the Trump campaign
produced the casus belli (of sorts) to justify opening an FBI counter intelligence
investigation. The FBI also was ensnared, most likely. It does not appear the FBI was briefed
immediately on these matters. Instead, John Brennan and Jim Clapper built up a pretty sizable
intel file, filled with SIGINT reports from the UK's GCHQ, which contained American names and
reports of efforts to broker a meeting with Vladimir Putin. Of course they (Clapper and
Brennan) conveniently failed to mention to the FBI that the information originated with a UK
plant. But it did provide legal cover for unmasking the identities of Trump campaign
personnel.
This was not the only "information dump" in place. MI-6 also helped ensure that there was an
"independent" source of intelligence--human intelligence. Hence the Steele Dossier, with the
first reports being produced in June 2016. It is this combination of SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE and
HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, which persuaded the FBI that something serious was going on. While it may
be possible that Comey and McCabe conspired initially with Brennan and Clapper, I do not think
that is what happened. Comey and McCabe were duped by Brennan and Clapper into believing that
there was actual malfeasance underway with the Trump campaign. They were naive, even stupid,
but not engaged in sedition.
What I have outlined above is the circumstantial case for how the so-called intelligence was
generated to create a feasible foundation for opening a counter intelligence investigation of
President Trump and his campaign. But if Vegas allowed a bet on this scenario I would bet my
house and feel confident of collecting a big payoff.
Meanwhile, we also have an FBI informant who was a CIA spy who ran a spying operation for
a previous election campaign. Nothing like hiring people with experience!
The FBI Informant Who Monitored the Trump Campaign, Stefan Halper, Oversaw a CIA
Spying Operation in the 1980 Presidential Election
https://theintercept.com/20...
Put the two together - Mifsud and Halper - and you get a clear effort by the CIA and
FBI to "entrap" hapless Trump associates into the Russiagate narrative as a deliberate
project to undermine the Trump campaign and the subsequent Trump Presidency.
July comes after April in the calendar. "Weeks after..." is even further after that.
Try reading the actual article. Then read the publicly available ones that state how
Comey left out details in that briefing. Nice try though.
Total bullshit and irrelevant. The briefing each received was routine and had nothing to
do with the clandestine campaign to frame Trump and his team as colluding with the
Russians. Is that the best you got?
However, to further flesh out the ever-clearer role of MI6 in the set-up, you might
want to cast an eye at this recent post from Justin Raimondo at
antiwar.com that ties together Papadapoulos, Mifsud, Richard Dearlove, and Stefan
Halper, a dual-national (UK & US) who had been active in the Trump campaign. A rather
dodgy dude, from appearances...
Thanks for the link. However, Raimondo's piece is dreadful. He fails to grasp what
actually happened. I will do a longer piece that will connect the dots.
Because nobody thought Trump would win.
It waq only after the election that the heat was really cranked up, in order make it
clear to Trump that he may be titular president, but he is not the one in charge.
Thank you very much for this very penetrating article. I think it should also be
mentioned that Mifsud himself explicitly denies most of the allegations quoted in the
Statement of Offense, a situation that opens up the possibility that many of
Papadopoulos' later confessions to the FBI regarding Mifsud were just as fictional as the
earlier statements for which he was arrested.
Mifsud told The Telegraph last year that
many of the contents of the alleged April 26 conversation with Papadopoulos, quoted in
your article, have no basis in reality.
Mifsud denied that he pushed Papadopoulos toward
the Russian government. Instead, he says he introduced Papadopoulos to 1) the director of
an academic Russian think tank and 2) experts connected with the EU.
Mifsud also said he
never told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Russia after meeting with senior
Russian government officials, and he also denied he had mentioned anything about the
Russians allegedly having lots of "dirt" about Hillary. In addition, Mifsud thought the
claim that he had introduced a female "Russian national" to Papadopoulos was completely
ridiculous.
Why might Papadopoulos have made up fictional stories and told them to the FBI and the
Trump campaign? No one knows, but perhaps Papadopoulos wanted to please the FBI by
telling them what he thought they wanted to hear. As for the Trump campaign, The
Telegraph comments: "Papadopoulos also appeared to over-exaggerate the extent of his
Russian contacts in messages to the Trump campaign, according to court documents. In one
email sent to the Trump campaign Mr Papadopoulos says he has just been introduced to the
Russian Ambassador in London.
He has since admitted
the pair never met." Possibly Papadopoulos wanted to impress the Trump campaign and make
them think he was an important figure with crucial info. Or, if Papadopoulos was actually
a secret FBI asset, perhaps Papadopoulos was trying hard to become an important member of
the Trump campaign in order to compromise or entrap both Trump and members of the
campaign with his (fake) info about being an expert on Russia who had met Putin and had
access to lots of Russian-held dirt about Hillary. If Mifsud's whereabouts are known, the
House Intel Committee really ought to call him as a witness.
Mifsud's belated efforts to cover his tracks failed. His denials don't matter. The
Statement of Offense establishes the "facts." You are missing the key point -- how would
anyone know about thousands of "stolen" emails on 26 April when the so-called hack of the
DNC and Clinton did not occur until 31 May?
the risks of pre-emption...by covertly instigating a crime to a party one suspects as
criminal,,,one may miss out on the chance to prosecute a self-initiated crime
Several FBI agents would like Congress to subpoena them so that they can step forward and
reveal dirt on former FBI Director James Comey and his Deputy Andrew McCabe, reports the
Daily Caller , citing three active field agents and former federal prosecutor Joe
DiGenova.
" There are agents all over this country who love the bureau and are sickened by [James]
Comey's behavior and [Andrew] McCabe and [Eric] Holder and [Loretta] Lynch and the thugs like
[John] Brennan –who despise the fact that the bureau was used as a tool of political
intelligence by the Obama administration thugs," former federal prosecutor Joe DiGenova told
The Daily Caller Tuesday.
" They are just waiting for a chance to come forward and testify ."
DiGenova - a veteran D.C. attorney who President Trump initially wanted to hire to represent
him in the Mueller probe - only to have to step aside
due to conflicts , has maintained contact with "rank and file" FBI agents as well as a
counterintelligence consultant who interviewed an active special agent in the FBI's Washington
Field Office (WFO) - producing a transcript reviewed by The Caller .
These agents prefer to be subpoenaed to becoming an official government whistleblower ,
since they fear political and professional backlash, the former Trump administration official
explained to TheDC.
The subpoena is preferred, said diGenova, " because when you are subpoenaed, Congress then
pays for your legal counsel and the subpoena protects [the agent] from any organizational
retaliation . they are on their own as whistleblowers, they get no legal protection and there
will be organizational retaliation against them."
DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing have long represented government whistleblowers.
Most recently, Toensing became council for William D. Campbell, the former CIA and FBI
operative that was
deeply embedded in the Russian uranium industry - only to be smeared by the Obama
administration when he gathered evidence of two related bribery schemes involving Russian
nuclear officials, an American trucking company, and efforts to route money to the Clinton
Global Initiative (CGI) through an American lobbying firm in order to overcome regulatory
hurdles, according to reports by The Hill and Circa .
diGenova told the Daily Caller that asking for a Congressional subpoena is "an intelligent
approach to the situation given the vindictive nature of the bureau under Comey and McCabe . I
have no idea how to read Chris Ray who is not a leader and who has disappeared from the public
eye during this entire crisis. You know he may be cleaning house but if he's doing so, he's
doing it very quietly."
"I don't blame them," added diGenova. " I don't blame the agents one bit. I think that the
FBI is in a freefall . James Comey has destroyed the institution he claims to love. And it is
beyond a doubt that it is going to take a decade to restore public confidence because of Comey
and Clapper and Brennan and Obama and Lynch."
Meanwhile, the agent from the Washington field office says that rank and file FBI agents are
"fed up" and desperately want the DOJ to take action, according to transcripts of the
interview.
"Every special agent I have spoken to in the Washington Field Office wants to see McCabe
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They feel the same way about Comey," said the
agent.
"The administrations are so politicized that any time a Special Agent comes forward as a
whistleblower, they can expect to be thrown under the bus by leadership . Go against the Muslim
Brotherhood, you're crushed. Go against the Clintons, you're crushed. The FBI has long been
politicized to the detriment of national security and law enforcement."
The special agent added, " Activity that Congress is investigating is being stonewalled by
leadership and rank-and-file FBI employees in the periphery are just doing their jobs . All
Congress needs to do is subpoena involved personnel and they will tell you what they know.
These are honest people. Leadership cannot stop anyone from responding to a subpoena. Those
subpoenaed also get legal counsel provided by the government to represent them."
Meanwhile, the former Trump administration official who spoke with The Caller explained that
the FBI's problems go way beyond Comey and McCabe.
" They know that it wasn't just Comey and McCabe in this case. That's too narrow a net to
cast over these guys. There's a much broader corruption that seeped into the seventh floor at
the bureau ."
" They ruined the credibility of the bureau and the technical ability of the bureau, so
systemically, over the past several years, they're worried about their organizational
reputation and their professional careers."
Was Rosenstein-Comey-Mueller gambit so called "insurance" about which Strzok told Lisa Page ? It looks more and more
likely that it was. So Trump was declared illegitimate president by intelligence community even before he was elected. And
actions against him were actins typically done during color revolutions by the State Department and CIA. Role of FBI
in "regime change" efforts was to implement directives from those agencies. It is doubtful that FBI acted as an independent
player.
Notable quotes:
"... The regulations require that such an appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue. Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it. ..."
"Stopping Robert Mueller to protect us all" [Mark Penn (!), The
Hill ]. "Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation
became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who
ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again. Its prosecutions
have all been principally to pressure witnesses with unrelated charges and threats to family,
or just for a public relations effect, like the indictment of Russian internet trolls.
Unfortunately, just like the Doomsday Machine in 'Dr. Strangelove; that was supposed to save
the world but instead destroys it, the Mueller investigation comes with no 'off' switch: You
can't fire Mueller. He needs to be defeated, like Ken Starr, the independent counsel who
investigated President Clinton. Finding the 'off' switch will not be easy. Step one here is for
the Justice Department inspector general report to knock Comey out of the witness box. Next,
the full origins of the investigation and its lack of any real intelligence needs to come out
in the open." ( Penn was a
chief strategist and pollster for the 2008 Clinton campaign .)
"End Robert Mueller's investigation: Michael Mukasey" [
USA Today ]. "Recall that the investigation was begun to learn whether the Trump campaign
had gotten help unlawfully from Russia . Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions had worked on
the Trump campaign, he recused himself from the matter, and so the deputy -- Rod Rosenstein --
took the decision to appoint a special counsel. The regulations require that such an
appointment recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and
specify the crime. However, the initial appointment of Robert Mueller did neither, referring
instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.
Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has
thus far refused to disclose, even to a federal judge, a complete copy of it.
In other investigations supposedly implicating a president -- Watergate and Whitewater
come to mind -- we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not
here . Nor have any of the charges filed in the Mueller investigation disclosed the Trump
campaign's criminal acceptance or solicitation of help from the Russians." I missed that detail
about the lettre
de cachet aspect of the appointment memo
"The FBI Informant Who Wasn't Spying" [Editorial Board,
Wall Street Journal ]. "Could a Trump FBI task agents to look into the foreign ties of
advisers to the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign in 2020?"
"Hayden: The Intel Community and Presidents -- Facts vs. Vision" [
RealClearPolitics ]. Hayden on Presidential transitions and the intelligence community:
"HAYDEN : We knew that if it were to be a President Trump this [transition] would be a big
speed bump because these attributes I described over here, I think the creator gave him an
extra measure. He is inherently instinctive, spontaneous, not very reflective, prone to
action, has an almost preternatural view of his own preternatural confidence in his own a
priori narrative of how things work. So we well, this one's gonna be tough. To your point, it
is a national tragedy and a perfect storm that the first time we had to do that with the new
president, we knew it's always tough but it was gonna be especially tough with this one,
through no one's fault, it was on an issue as you described. An issue that other
Americans, not the intel guys, other Americans were using to challenge his legitimacy of
President of the United States ."
"... Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for. ..."
"... Presumably the op would have allowed HRC to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right? ..."
Could it be that Mueller is there for some other reason? we know there are special interests
that the democrats represent and since the US federal system doesn't really lend itself to any
sort of coalition govt of any form, that the investigation is cover for the those interests
being represented in some fashion the form doesn't allow for.
That's what I'm thinking. It is apparent the "The Mueller Investigation" is - firstly - a
major distraction. It is also apparent that it doesn't make any headway, lead to any
conclusions or indictments of any big fish.
Re: Mueller. If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was
undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you
never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA
coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump.
Presumably the op would have allowed HRC
to undertake just the sort of actions against Russia that, after Trump's election, have been
undertaken in any case. The difference being that there is at least some reason to bet that
HRC along with Obama knew something of the operation, and that in conjunction with
UK/Ukrainian interests was planning her early foreign policy directives. The election of
Trump on this reading was accidental to the op as originally designed. Is this right?
The other possibility being that the operation was demanded by Trump winning the Republican
primary, as a kind of insurance policy. He being the only candidate who could not be
predictably counted on to follow the anti-Putin hard liners in the Military-intelligence
community, something needed to be done to ensure that, on the off chance that he won, the
anti-Russian measures already being planned for would not be affected.
So it is perhaps
unlikely that this op would have been necessary had, say, Jeb Bush or Rubio won the primary.
What made it necessary was the unknown quantity that Trump represented. This would mean,
again, that the op was not so much partisan (Dem v Rep) as it was about ensuring continuity
of military-intelligence decisions in face of relatively unknown entity. Had Bush won the R
nomination, there would have been no op because the Bush family like the Clintons are down
for whatever.
The NYT thinks it's a nothing-burger until someone proves Halper was spying? Right, it wasn't
spying; it was an insurance policy. Just ask Strozk and whomever else was meeting over that
topic.
Didn't they all decide they needed an insurance policy when it looked like Clinton might
not win? Hadn't they already completely screwed the pooch covering up for her?
Early in her candidacy, the issue of the private server for government business was
already out there. They–media and law enforcement–let it ride.
What extraordinary treatment she got! In the end it was immunity and destroyed evidence,
party favors all around. Then, she lost. Oops?
The DNC didn't have to provide their server as evidence. Congress's completely odd choice
of IT services went down the rabbit hole. The Clinton Foundation was never investigated as
political slush funds are SOP. There is plenty of evidence that the State's power is being
abused. This can't stand. If this is all accepted and passed or forgotten with the next
financial crisis and/or war, our country is truly gone.
And I agree with Ma Laoshi that twitting is venting, not fighting back. Until these crimes
against the country are addressed with actions taken in public, not behind closed doors and
redacted into oblivion, I have no confidence thatTrump will be more than a speed bump for the
Deep State.
Looks like Putin does not see alternative to neoliberalism... Also he need to provide for
Russia a time to get from knees it was put by yeltzin regime. Russia is still very week
economically in comparison with the alliance of US and EU. It does not have China advantage of
hosting manufacturing of many high tech products.
Notable quotes:
"... to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. ..."
Meh. I am personally unconvinced. How can Putin say that he wants serious reforms while
keeping the exact same type of people in command? If indeed the Medvedev government did such a
great job, then why is there any need for such major reforms? If Putin's power base is indeed,
as I believe it to be, in the people, then why is he trying to appease the financial elites by
catering to their interests and agenda? Most crucially, how can Russia free herself from the
financial and economic grip of the Empire when the Empire's 5 th column agents are
(re-)appointed to key positions? And in all of Russia was there really nobody more qualified
than Mutko or Kudrin to appoint to these positions?
Of course, there always this "Putin knows something you don't" but I have always had a
problem with that kind of logic which is essentially an open-ended universal cop-out. I hope
that I am wrong, but to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he
has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. And I will gladly
admit that I have yet to hear an explanation which would explain this, never mind offer one of
my own.
On the external front, has Russia caved in to Israeli pressure? Ruslan Ostashko offers a
very good analysis of why this is hardly the case: (I don't necessarily agree with his every
conclusion, but he does make a very good case:
Yes, Netanyahu *did* with his repeated strikes on Syria, thumb his nose at Putin (that
famous Israeli chutzpah at work for you!), and yes, Putin wining and dining Netanyahu
was a painful sight and a PR-disaster. But on substance, did Israel get Russia to "betray
Iran"? No, and not because the Russians are so heroically principled, but because Israel really
has nothing to offer Russia. All Israel has is a powerful pro-Israel lobby inside Russia, that
is true. But the more they use that lobby the more visible it becomes, the more questions at
least Eurasian Sovereignists will ask.
The Israelis sure don't want to give the impression that the run Russia the way they run the
US, and Netanyahu's reception in the Kremlin recently has already raised a lot of eyebrows and
the impression that Putin caved in to the demands of this arrogant bastard are not helping
Putin, to put it mildly. A lot of Russian analysts (Viktor Baranets, Maksim Shevchenko, Leonid
Ivashev) wonder what kind of arguments Netanyahu used with Putin, and the list of possibilities
is an outright uninspiring one.
Part five – another truism: there is a difference between excellent, good, average,
bad and terrible
Even if the situation in Russia has changed for the worse, this is hardly a reason to engage
in the usual "Putin sold out" hysteria or to declare that "Russia caved in". Even when things
are bad, there is still a huge difference between bad and worse. As of right now, Putin is not
only the best possible person to be the President of Russia, Russia also continues to be the
objective leader of the resistance to the Empire. Again, the black-and-white "Hollywood" type
of mindset entirely misses the dynamic nature of what is going on. For example, it is quite
clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed,
really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and
who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that
Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the
voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin
(again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western
liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist
politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension.
For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported
Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension
around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might
witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It
will be interesting to see if Putin's personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will
have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition.
Much will depend on how the Russian economy will perform. If, courtesy of Trump's
megalomaniacal policies towards Iran and the EU, Russia's economy receives a massive injection
of funds (via high energy prices), then things will probably stabilize. But if the European
leaders meekly cave in and join the sanctions against Iran and if the US succeeds in imposing
even further sanctions on Russia, then the Medvedev government will face a serious crisis and
the revival of the Russian economy promised by Putin will end up in an embarrassing failure and
things could also go from bad to even worse.
... ... ...
For Hezbollah, Iran or Russia to defeat Israel, the US or the entire Empire, there is no
need to plant a flag on the enemy's main symbolic building like what Soviet soldiers did in
Germany. All they need to do to win is simply to survive because the other's sides survival is
predicated upon their elimination, it's really that simple. Israel cannot claim victory as long
as Hezbollah exists, the US cannot claim world Hegemony if Iran openly defies it, and the
AngloZionist Empire cannot clain world hegemony over the our planet as long as the Russian
civilizational realm openly challenges it. So while all the talk about the Iranians wanting to
"
wipe Israel off the map " is just a typical ziomedia invention, it is true that by
their very existence Hezbollah, Iran and Russia do represent an existential threat to Israel,
the US and the Empire .
This is the biggest and the fatal weakness of the AngloZionist Empire: its survival depends
on the colonization or destruction of every other country out there. Every independent country,
whether big and powerful, or small and weak, represents an unacceptable challenge to the
hegemony of the "indispensable nation" and the "chosen people", which now try to rule over us
all. This might well be the ultimate example of Hegelian dialectics at work in geopolitics: an
Empire whose power generates it's own demise. Many empires have come and gone in history, but
the globalized world we live in, this dialectical contradiction is tremendously potentialized
by the finite conditions in which empires have to operate.
... ... ...
Right now Putin still has a lot of "credibility capital" left in spite of his recent
mistakes. However, Putin recent decisions have raised a lot of unpleasant questions which must
be answered and will so in time. In the meantime, as they say in the US, " hope for the
best, prepare for the worst, and settle for anything in the middle ". The Scripture also
warns us not to make idols of leaders: " Trust not in princes, nor in the children of men,
in whom there is no safety " (Ps 145:3 LXX). The worldly evil we are fighting, today in the
shape of the AngloZionist Empire, is but a manifestation of a much deeper, spiritual evil: "
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places " (Eph. 6:12). The young men and women from the Shia movement Amal got it right when
they chose the name "Party of God" for their movement when they created Hezbollah in 1985. And
Iran was right when it became an Islamic Republic: if we want to defeat the Empire we need to
always let spiritual matters and moral crieria remain above any of our "pragmatic" worldly
political considerations or national/ethnic loyalties: that is how we can defeat those who
place a dollar value on absolutely everything they see in their narrow materialistic
worldview.
A truly amazing article and the most amazing thing of all is the total lack of even
one paragraph of the existence of China. This article could have been written, word for word,
by a defender of the Empire and the China omission would have been identical.
The Key player on the world scene manages to wear the clock of invisibility like
the Shadow of old time radio and movies. Quite a feat!
robertmagill.wordpress.com
Second, each process carries within itself the seeds of its own contradiction. This is
what makes processes dynamic.
"what makes processes dynamic", could it be "more then just linear"? Referring to changes
of direction regardless of interaction(group dynamics) with other processes. Example: the
Roman Empire process, growing then imploding?
Even the Pantsir which was recently destroyed by the Israelis (with the usual
pro-Israeli PR campaign) was not even on combat alert: the unit was not even camouflaged
and its crew was standing around and smoking. The Israelis are masters at making this look
all very impressive and heroic, but in military terms, this is nonsense: they clearly hit a
unit which was not even part of the action (whatever that "action" was).
Not sure how an AD unit can be "not part of the action" anywhere in any meaningful sense
in the midst of an ongoing surge of strikes within a strategic campaign of air attacks such
as Israel is waging against Syria.
Without knowing the context (how long had it been stationary and out of ammo/action, as it
reportedly was at the time of the strike, and what was the context for the Israelis getting a
missile through to it when it should have been covered by other operational defences), it's
hard to know how much its loss should be put down to Syrian fault, and how much to Israeli/US
technical competence or just to the vagaries of war.
But it certainly doesn't look good and that's of course why the Israelis are so keen to
publicise it.
As for the Saker piece, as usual lots of good points and some not so good, but that's
about all one can expect on such complex topics. Imo he's rather over-stating the case in
excusing the Russian failure to halt the ongoing Israeli assault on Syria. Yes, Russia has no
formal alliance with Syria or Iran committing it to defend them (and by the way these are
attacks on Syria not just Iran, though occasionally they hit Iranian forces within Syria and
allied with Syria – the claims of targeting just Iranian forces are Israeli propaganda
to create a seeming pretext good enough for the pro-Israeli media in the US sphere). But to
say there is no moral onus on Russia whatsoever to do so is simply overstating it –
Iranians, Syrians and Russians are fighting side by side in Syria and that in itself creates
some moral pressure not to stand by and watch your allies get butchered with impunity when
you can do something about it.
But from a purely pragmatic point of view, failing to halt the Israeli attacks is damaging
to Russia, on at least two counts. First, it unavoidably creates a perception of weakness
and/or betrayal, and of unreliability and two-facedness. In a more concrete sense, though,
the simple fact is that Iranian, Syrian and Russian interests are in fact fundamentally
aligned in Syria and diametrically opposed to the Israeli objective, on the core issue, which
is the survival and stabilisation of the Syrian state. Israeli impunity and the level of
attacks it is now carrying out are incompatible with the goal of stabilising Syria, and will
have to be stopped at some time if that goal is to be achieved.
If the Russian government thinks that by appeasing the Israelis it can somehow hope that
they might be persuaded to slow down or halt the attacks, perhaps if the Iranians pull out,
then the Russian government is profoundly naïve. Claims that the strikes are motivated
by Iranian presence are pretexts, not reasons. If that pretext goes, another will be found.
The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran as a
regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it is
under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order to
gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and
escalate its ongoing settler colonisation programs enabled by the US.
Those objectives are important enough that it isn't going to halt in pursuing them as a
favour to Russia, no matter how meek and submissive the Russian government acts, but they are
not important enough for Israel to face open conflict with a major power for them. Israel
does these things because it can. When it is forcefully told that it can no longer do them,
it will stop doing them.
One can certainly argue (and I have done so in the past) that the time isn't right for
Russia to put a halt to Israeli attempts to destabilise the Syria government, though that
argument grows increasingly threadbare. One cannot argue credibly, I think, that it will not
be necessary to do so at some point soon.
This is a very good interpretation of the recent events which have confused us all.
Personally I think any and, all deals Putin has made with the Western Zionists have a short
shelf life as, there seems to be no contract the West will honor short of complete
capitulation.
Patience is a good thing here and,, Putin knows in the end Russia is the prize. So, I
believe right now he is smart to play short ball with Washington and, Tel Aviv. There's a
level of immaturity in guys like Netanyahu and, Trump. Let me just say, they have their egos
to protect.
Saker, what do you know about AI as it relates to Tyler, anything? Is this a topic which can
excite from you an article or, two?
"the "New Russia" (as I like to call it) is not based on anything other than a Constitution
written mostly by US advisors"
That's a bit harsh. Judging by what the Russian command structure has been seen to say and
do, they are evidently based on rights and rule of law, not on the perverted US model but on
black-letter customary and conventional international law. Russia dominates US performance in
terms of human rights,
They took over from France as the world's most articulate advocate of rule of law, and did
it better. In Syria they stressed pacific resolution of disputes, notably by brokering Syrian
chemical weapons disarmament through OPCW. They also press-ganged a military staff committee
and enforced UN Charter Article 47 at gunpoint, using all the megatonnage needed. Now they're
the world's policeman, and they're not USA-style asshole cops. They're taking the role of
international civil servants in the UN Charter's sense. That may be one reason why they're
not consistently kicking US ass, as we would wish: Peace is the law. Friendly relations
– it's the law, A/RES/25/2625.
Not that they're perfect examples of rights or law – the indicators show that in the
specific respect of invitations to special procedures, they're about as bad as the USA, and
that's pretty bad. And your point about double standards on Israeli impunity is very
important. But their opposition to the West is not general, but meticulously grounded in law.
Recall that they justified even a vital interest, Crimean accession, in terms of the Kosovo
precedent set out by the ICJ.
the pantsir was being reloaded.. no rockets in the tubes, maybe that is how it was not
part of the action;)
weapons without ammo cant do their intended operations as far as i know,,
Being out of ammo doesn't mean being "not part of the action". It means you should be
either be being reloaded or getting under cover to reload, or be covered by other systems, or
both.
Were the autocannons out of ammo as well? If it was running low on ammo shortly before,
why wasn't it already on the move towards cover, since the S1 can reportedly fire on the
move? If it was under such rapid and sustained attack that its ammo was exhausted in a
saturation attack (and that of its covering systems as well, bearing in mind it was
reportedly located at a major airbase), and it had no time to move or be reloaded before it
was hit, then it absolutely was not "not part of the action".
I take no joy in pointing it out, but this was a clear defeat for the Syrian AD systems,
however you explain it. It's not the end of the world – losses are inevitable in
combat. Lessons can be learned. But it can't be airily dismissed as "not part of the
action".
What "cancellation" of which promise to supply the S-300?? There never was any promise to do
so to start with. There were only certain questions asked by the JMSM in certain time before
the long-planned visit of Netanyahu on May, 9. The Russian generals had to give some sort of
replies. An ambiguous ones. But the JMSM of course made a conclusion that Russia indeed is
planning the sale. Fast-forward to 9th of May, Bibi comes/Bibi leaves, and the same JMSM
would ask the new questions. To which Moscow obviously had to voice a denial. As a result
– Bibi is a hero at home, while Putin was made look weak. http://www.ancreport.com/report/the-phantom-s-300/
The photos I've seen indicate that the system (if really the same one) had indeed fired
off its missiles and was ready to move as its hydraulic stabilizers had been retracted, and
its radar panel folded. If the crew left the system uncamouflaged and were "standing around
smoking", that can suggest a number of different possibilities. It may indicate a breakdown
in discipline, but they may have been awaiting orders, or even had a mechanical breakdown en
route to a new location. Likely a combination. Who knows?
So, maybe not "part of the action" in the sense that it was actively targeting/firing at
incoming missiles, but definitely "part of the action" in the sense that it had been
obviously doing just that moments before. If its missiles and auto-cannon had seen some
successes, it may even be seen to have "won" rather than been part of a "clear defeat".
In any case, it seems that surprisingly little damage was done. The system was hit in the
front cab area and looked eminently repairable in the photos.
The SAA has seen some discipline problems in the field, and since a number of the the
general staff defected early in the war, a disjointed command & control system. Under
Russian tutelage, they're vastly better today than they were 2 years ago, but perhaps not
quite there yet. If the reports from late 2015 are to be believed, the Russians were very
frustrated with how the SAA operated, and basically had to impose discipline by threatening,
and then actually leaving.
My guess is that that's a large part of why the Russians are reluctant to provide potent
weapons such as the S300. The political implications of using them can outweigh their
military utility, and so must remain under strict control. If somebody starts shooting down
US or IL jets at stand-off distances, things can get uncomfortably complex very quickly. The
Russians don't need that to worry about along with everything else.
Russia and Russians will have to come to terms with the fact they are disliked in large parts
of Eastern Europe, with the possible exception of Serbia.
There are reasons for this, whether just or unjust.
The reaction to comment #1 which might be seen as sarcastic seems a case in point.
I am certain that unfortunate accidents like the coup in Ukraine might in the future be
avoided by a bit more self-awareness and awareness of massive prejudices inherited from an
often less than glorious past.
One has to see, however, that in the Ukrainian case, like in the Georgian case before,
Russia acted swiftly and decisively to reach a position which might be considered better than
the status quo ante before the Free West™ started its sheganigans. So perhaps the
awareness exists and the contingency planning is in place?
That is why I still have more than a little hope for Syria and by extension christendom in
Syria and Lebanon. All to often it is forgotten that these wars in Arabia are also wars
against the christion minorities in Arabia.
The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran
as a regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it
is under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order
to gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and
escalate its ongoing settler colonization programs enabled by the US.
In fact it seems to go further. Planned Greater Israel expands territorially to include
Jordan, Lebanon, most of Syria, western Iraq (oil producing regions), all the Gulf States,
all northern Saudi Arabia (oil producing regions) and the Sinai and other parts of Egypt.
It's the Israeli Imperial dream of becoming a World Power and also controlling the world's
oil supply, somewhat analogous to Hitler's dream of a German World Empire based on
colonization of the East and a Greater Germany extending to the Urals.
Both are/were racist-Imperialist projects with the difference that the Germans tried to
realize the dream using their own military (insufficient) while the Israelis are trying to do
it using US forces.
How long the US plays along (or rather is intimidated into playing along) with this one
sided project is an open question – and there's clearly the issue of how Israel is
going to win these wars without troops on the ground. At least Hitler had most of his army in
Russia and detailed plans for post-war ethnic German settlement.
The Americans aren't going to fight more large scale ground wars in the Middle East and
Israeli/US proxy forces have failed – so that leaves the destruction of the Middle East
from the air – which doesn't really further the Greater Israel project. Political
control on the ground stays the same – generating even greater
anti-Israeli/anti-American sentiment (if that is possible).
Russia correctly opts to keep clear of this mess, and there is only negative blowback for
Israel and the United States – actually serving to isolate internally destabilize these
countries.
At the moment the Russians look either two-faced or weak (and perhaps they are both) in
the face of Israel. That's not a look Russia can afford to have come to be their
characterising feature, in the long run.
Yes, from certain perspectives it does indeed look like that, but I doubt many of us here
are very aware of the calculi being used at the state level, and especially of Russia's.
"Losing face" may be the equivalent of sacrificing a pawn.
There are some complex processes underway, involving a bewildering number of moving parts.
"Russiagate" is imploding in the US at an accelerating rate, heading for a constitutional
crisis. The 2 Koreas are cooking up a scheme between them (w/ support) to end the US'
domination of the W. Pacific. More critical than all, in my view, is Trump's abrogation of
the JCPOA. This has put the US on a trajectory at odds with its allies, and played directly
into the hands of its adversaries. As evidence of the latter, Merkel and Putin have met 2x in
May, and Germany's new foreign minister has also visited with Lavrov. It may well be the
geo-political tipping point.
Remembering Obama's & Kerry's words at the the time the JCPOA was agreed
Obama in Aug '15: "Instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, Congress's rejection would
almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling We'd have to cut off countries
like China from the American financial system trigger(ing) severe disruptions in our own
economy and, by the way, rais(ing) questions internationally about the dollar's role as
the world's reserve currency. "
John Kerry, a few days later: "If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them, 'you're going to have to obey our
rules and sanctions anyway,' that is a recipe, very quickly, for the American dollar to
cease to be the reserve currency of the world. "
With the EU now agreeing to transact with Iran in EURs, Obama's & Kerry's words look
to have been much more than hyperbole, "Losing face", in these circumstances may be nothing
more than what you do as you play rope-a-dope while the big guy punches himself out.
We shall see what happens after the World Cup.
I think that's colouring current events more than we give it credit for. It's an opportune
time for rogue nations to play games and throw tantrums, but I think a new set of rules will
be introduced after the show is over.
{Maybe it would have been better if the Germans had defeated and occupied Russia and
killed all the commies.}
Maybe it would have been much better for Nazis to have occupied whatever putrid swamp you
are from and killed off pond scum like you.
Nazis invaded Soviet Union in order to exterminate the Slavic peoples, the supposed
Untermenschen , take their fast, fertile lands, and populate them with the alleged
"Master Race".
Except they turned out to be somewhat less than "Master", because those
Untermenschen chased the pitiful remainders of the Nazi invaders all the way back to
Berlin, and those Untermenschen Red Army soldiers pissed on the ashes of the supposed
"Master Race" leader.
(Hitler's bloviations about Bolsheviks and all that was just a convenient excuse and to
snow his military who might be less than enthusiastic about murdering civilians of SU.)
btw: it is not too late for youse and your buddies to put on your uniforms, polish up your
jack-boots, grab your weapons .and invade Russia. Who know maybe youse will get lucky and
will get a gift wrapped Sarmat express -delivered right to your address.
"... Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . . ..."
"... Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation? ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as
"possible
bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone - leftist and right - should consider ... (that's
wishful thinking)...
1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew
had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so
bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.
2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT
kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is
a very big deal.
3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details
about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will
be outed. That's on them
4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena .
They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?
5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence
operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .
6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was
delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did
inspire the CI investigation?
7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment
is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in
our election.
8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew
about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved,
it means u know you didn't.)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive
hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign
was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."
Or an understatement. Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this week his efforts
did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York
Times apologia in which government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy
on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the middle of an otherwise glowing
profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.
But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain direction. Getting to the conclusion
requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the FBI's actions.
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side
involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald
Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point
these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee's recent
Russia report .
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National Security Council Principals" that the FBI
had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul
Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law
enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama
that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion
turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the
opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged
FBI investigation?
We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It hired former British spy Christopher
Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr. Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two
particular Trump campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the duo, those allegations
might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them. Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team
decided it was a matter of urgent national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political opposition
research to the FBI.
The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any -- were engineered in the spring,
summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful
of odd invitations and meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all emanating from
the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr. Steele, which could mean the political actors with
whom he was working were involved. On the other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could
mean government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.
Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and
that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs.
Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were
converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling
the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment?
Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have
a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse
for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.
Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine:
You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle
in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this
and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken?
Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with
the election?
Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to
interfere with the election?
Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper)
or if he refuses to answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is will be escorted to his office to
turn over all records gathered in the investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his findings and then is
fired and all security clearances revoked.
Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to find evidence for your phony allegations with your top
investigator on the job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars. You failed because there was no crime
committed. Time to move on.
Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about.
I think it's more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with Trump the day before being appointed as SC
and this whole thing was nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their guy. This way they put all their
attention and energy into this investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the midterms when Trump is fully
vindicated by the guy all his enemies said was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on Mueller and every
MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next morning.
Mollie Hemingway's piece on a similar vein in The Federalist. Cunts leak like a sieve to their collusional media scum, but
woe-betied Congress getting access. Fuckers should be hanging from lamposts.
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as
"possible bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone -
leftist and right - should consider ... (that's wishful thinking)...
1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that,
BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get
in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's
bad.
2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the
Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation
far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.
3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers
are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying
was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will be outed.
That's on them
4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming
they cannot comply with subpoena . They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but
not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?
5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to
launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since
it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .
6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no
"official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31.
So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI
investigation?
7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016,
a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it
all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election.
8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure
everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few
details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u
know you didn't.)
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday,
where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents
related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was
somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."
Or an understatement.
Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this
week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump
campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government
"officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on
both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the
middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.
But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain
direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the
FBI's actions.
Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law
enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton
campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The
law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump
investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early
that happened.
What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the
House Intelligence Committee's recent Russia report .
In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National
Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump
campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined
the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been
on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey
officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald
Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive
information.
And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton
campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The
job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition
candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion
that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?
We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It
hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr.
Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump
campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the
duo, those allegations might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them.
Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent
national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political
opposition research to the FBI.
The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any
-- were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The
conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and
meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all
emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr.
Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the
other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean
government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.
Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early
July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But
given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and
Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some
wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence
Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was
the goal? Information? Or entrapment?
Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public
have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no
excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.
Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need
you to answer a few of mine:
You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my
campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election.
Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your
ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action
have you taken or requested be taken?
Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime
involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?
Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign
committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere
with the election?
Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such
evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper) or if he refuses to
answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is
will be escorted to his office to turn over all records gathered in the
investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his
findings and then is fired and all security clearances revoked.
Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to
find evidence for your phony allegations with your top investigator on the
job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars.
You failed because there was no crime committed. Time to move on.
Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what
it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about. I think it's
more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with
Trump the day before being appointed as SC and this whole thing was
nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their
guy. This way they put all their attention and energy into this
investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the
midterms when Trump is fully vindicated by the guy all his enemies said
was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on
Mueller and every MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next
morning.
The First Rule
bowie28
Permalink
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
As we reported on
Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation
has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it
by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people
familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which
will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . -
WSJ
Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation
of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal
misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."
Who is Huber?
As we
reported
in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz
to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came
one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .
While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens
alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly
limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel
witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel
investigation ,"
Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator
.
***
Who is Horowitz?
In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think
the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening,
so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.
Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled
the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for
all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed
Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.
What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it,
he went to war ...
In March of 2015, Horowitz's office
prepared
a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating
among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.
After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450
- the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on
December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .
1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency
possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and
documented.
See here for a complete overview of the
OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big
on public disclosure:
Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the
Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to
be on the same page
Which brings us back to the OIG report
expected by Congress a week from Monday.
On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking
Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."
The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew
McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over
$700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential
collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the
OIG report expected by Congress a week from
Monday.
On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in
14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey,
and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation,
Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's
failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the
FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.
On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that
former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton
until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.
And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also
satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.
As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees
of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .
Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations
, which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint
a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass
legislation to force an the appointment.
And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely
that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.
After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017
letter forwarded to the Inspector General:
... ... ...
With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG
report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed
Special Counsel.
"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution,
including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."
Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi
I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove
a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.
Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old
dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."
Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive
look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.
Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)
There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat"
Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from
us until rooted out.
That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris
Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign
some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their
tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.
Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!
It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.
For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and
they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of
them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?
Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!
"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis,
the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about
everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "
Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way
to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame
Trump and the American people.
Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???
Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!
As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two
are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but
many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive
stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any
kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.
Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black
hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to
crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.
Fake news, trying to create false connections between police psychological issues and a rather dubious UK poisoning false flag.
Via The Guardian
Almost 100 Wiltshire police officers and staff have sought psychological support after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury,
the Guardian can reveal.
Among those who have asked for help were officers who initially responded to the collapse of the former Russian spy Sergei
Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, and those who were at or close to the various investigation sites in subsequent days and weeks.
Some reported feeling disorientated and anxious while others were concerned about the possible long-term health effects on
the public.
While the Skripal poisoning story has faded from much of the mainstream media news cycle, as it was increasingly exposed as a
complete hoax and embarrassment for the May government, the Guardian appears to be trying to resurrect "the Russians did"
Novichok narrative.
It is about time your stupid leader and her clown were put on the stage to explain to all the world why they chose to defame
the integrity of Russia in such an unbelievable set of circumstances that only children under the age of ten would not understand
!! How can any Nation since this demonic happening , ever trust this self - centred Bozo from ever making a sensible judgement
for the future of mankind !
UK has lost it completely and the Guardian has fallen prey to the CIA Mockingbird Operation (infiltration and manipulation
of media). Used to be a good paper under Alan Rushbridger and protection of Snowden, Assange etc. Now it has lost it altogether
with useless editorial board. The woman in charge must have something in common with Nikki Haley: incapable of nuance and irrationally
convinced of her being right (without research lots of claims about Assad, Putin etc.).
"... In my opinion the key points are: - Obama spied on Trump and many other Senator's Congressmen, Judges, and the press without warrants they only did Trump warrants well after they started spying. ..."
"... This was to cover their a$$ because they had no warrants when the spying started. ..."
"... Obama spied using our allies (GCHQ) 5 eyes etc. and DOJ, IRS, FBI, CIA, Treasury and all the Alphabet Obamagate will be 10,000 x worse than Watergate, ..."
"... They're covering up an attempted coup. ..."
"... essions (via his absurd recusal) and Rosenstein allowed the Statute of Limitations to run out against Clapper without filing a perjury charge. ..."
"... It's a bit ironic that Comey has been the focus of so much ire from the Trump people. Brennan and Clapper, not Comey, were the Obama political hacks who were pushing the Russian collusion angle. ..."
"... They forced the FBI to open a Trump/Russia investigation, even though Strzok and Comey were skeptical that any real evidence existed. ..."
"... It's hard to believe that Clapper and Brennan (and Lynch, Yates, and Ohr from DoJ) cooked-up the scheme without the approval/direction of Obama. In fact, the sheer political evil genius of the Trump/Russia collusion plot, including how it "explained" the DNC hack, reeks of the only person capable of inventing it: that 'ol silver fox himself, Bill Clinton. ..."
"... I think it is Comey's sanctimonious self-righteousness that brings that reaction. It always does. No matter who the parties are or what event it is. Even though their crimes are greater, it is easier to tolerate the obviously slimy swamp critters like Clapper and Brennan than it is the pious hypocrite like Comey. ..."
"... The DNC was caught in the act of rigging the Primaries. Fact. ..."
"... And someone inside hacked their computers for all those emails, too. That's why they didn't turn over their computers to the F.B.I. because it would bear that out. ..."
"... Brennan and Clapper may have been the puppetmasters, with Comey, McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Ohr and Yates dancing to their tune, but Rogers didn't play nice and they didn't even invite the Defense Intelligence Agency to play. ..."
"... Rogers is a white hat in a sea of black hats who tried to fire him for being a patriot. Rogers is a true American hero, without whom the extent of this coup and treasonous plot may never have been fully uncovered. The big ugly awaits the traitors and hopefully, the great awakening begins. ..."
"... I believe the name you're looking for is "Seth Rich." ..."
"... Aside from the obvious crimes of espionage and certainly extortion and fraud, why was Imran Awan trying to flee the country just after Seth Rich's assassination? Was Rich spilling the beans about Debbie Schultz's Pakistani mole and not just the Hillary scam? ..."
"... Brennan and Clapper are dirty as can be. They are both corrupt deep state agents, and should go to prison for their lies and corruption. Adm. Rogers looks like the only straight-shooter in the bunch. ..."
"... There are 2 sets of Laws in America. One for the elite, power political people and one for the Joe Sixpacks ..."
"... Former FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up favorable to the Clintons. ..."
"... FBI has had its ups and downs, certainly, but usually it found those low times due to some mishap or bad policy decisions based on matters of process by its upper management. But despite some of the worst 1970s conspiracy theories, rarely has the FBI been considered a bald-faced political actor until Director James Comey tarnished the shield by becoming a member of the Hillary Clinton's election campaign. ..."
"... If these yokels better knew history, they would better understand the dangers of fomenting revolution. ..."
Former CIA Director John Brennan's insistence that the salacious and unverified Steele
dossier was not part of the official Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election is being
contradicted by two top former officials.
Recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers stated in a classified letter to Congress that the Clinton campaign-funded
memos did factor into the ICA . And James Clapper,
Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, conceded in a recent CNN interview that the assessment was based on "some
of the substantive content of the dossier." Without elaborating, he maintained that "we were able to corroborate" certain allegations.
In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page
summary of the dossier -- described as "the Christopher Steele information" -- was "added" as an "appendix to the ICA draft," and
that consideration of that appendix was "part of the overall ICA review/approval process."
His skepticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of
its crucial conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton's campaign to help Donald Trump
win the White House.
Rogers
has testified that while he was sure the Russians wanted to hurt Clinton, he wasn't as confident as CIA and FBI officials that
their actions were designed to help Trump, explaining that such as assessment "didn't have the same level of sourcing and the same
level of multiple sources."
Here and in photo at top, from left, the National Security Agency Director, Adm. Michael Rogers; FBI Director James Comey; Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper; CIA Director John Brennan; and the Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lt. Gen. Vincent
Stewart, testifying before the
The dossier, which is made up of 16 opposition research-style memos on Trump underwritten by the Democratic National Committee
and Clinton's own campaign, is based mostly on uncorroborated third-hand sources. Still, the ICA has been viewed by much of the Washington
establishment as the unimpeachable consensus of the U.S. intelligence community. Its conclusions that "Vladimir Putin ordered" the
hacking and leaking of Clinton campaign emails "to help Trump's chances of victory" have driven the "Russia collusion" narrative
and subsequent investigations besieging the Trump presidency.
Except that the ICA did not reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. Clapper broke with tradition and decided not
to put the assessment out to all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies for review. Instead, he limited input to a couple dozen chosen analysts
from just three agencies -- the CIA, NSA and FBI. Agencies with relevant expertise on Russia, such as the Department of Homeland
Security, Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department's intelligence bureau, were excluded from the process.
While faulting Clapper for not following intelligence community tradecraft standards that
Clapper himself ordered
in 2015, the House Intelligence Committee's
250-page report
also found that the ICA did not properly describe the "quality and credibility of underlying sources" and was not "independent of
political considerations."
In another departure from custom, the report is missing any dissenting views or an annex with evaluations of the conclusions from
outside reviewers. "Traditionally, controversial intelligence community assessments like this include dissenting views and the views
of an outside review group," said Fred Fleitz, who worked as a CIA analyst for 19 years and helped draft national intelligence estimates
at Langley. "It also should have been thoroughly vetted with all relevant IC agencies," he added. "Why were DHS and DIA excluded?"
Fleitz suggests that the Obama administration limited the number of players involved in the analysis to skew the results. He believes
the process was "manipulated" to reach a "predetermined political conclusion" that the incoming Republican president was compromised
by the Russians.
"I've never viewed the ICA as credible," the CIA veteran added.
A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that
they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.
"Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,"
according to the source.
Last year, Strzok was reassigned to another department and removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation after anti-Trump
and pro-Clinton text messages he wrote to another investigator during the 2016 campaign were discovered by the Justice Department's
inspector general. Strzok remains under IG investigation, along with other senior FBI officials, for possible misconduct.
Strzok led the FBI's investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia during 2016, including obtaining electronic surveillance warrants
on Carter Page and other campaign advisers. The Page warrant relied heavily on unverified allegations contained in the Democratic
Party-funded dossier.
Brennan has sworn the dossier was not "in any way" used as a basis for the ICA. He explains he heard snippets of the dossier from
the press in the summer of 2016, but insists he did not see it or read it for himself until late 2016. "Brennan's claims are impossible
to believe," Fleitz asserted.
"Brennan was pushing the Trump collusion line in mid-2016 and claimed to start the FBI collusion investigation in August 2016,"
he said. "It's impossible to believe Brennan was pushing for this investigation without having read the dossier."
He also pointed out that the key findings of the ICA match the central allegations in the dossier. The House Intelligence Committee
concluded that Brennan, who previously worked in the White House as Obama's deputy national security adviser, created a "fusion cell"
on Russian election interference made up of analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, who produced a series of related papers for the White
House during the 2016 campaign.
Less than a month after Trump won the election, Obama directed Brennan to conduct a review of all intelligence relating to Russian
involvement in the 2016 election and produce a single, comprehensive assessment. Obama was briefed on the findings, along with President-elect
Trump, in early January.
"Brennan put some of the dossier material into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from
a 'credible source,' which is how they viewed Steele," said the source familiar with the House investigation. "But they never corroborated
his sources."
Attempts to reach Brennan for comment were unsuccessful. Several prominent Washington news outlets had access to the dossier during
the 2016 campaign -- or at least portions of it -- but also could not confirm Steele's allegations. So they shied away from covering
them. All that changed in early January 2017, after CNN and The Washington Post learned through Obama administration leaks that the
CIA had briefed the president and president-elect about them. Then the allegations became a media feeding frenzy. On Jan. 11, 2017,
within days of the dossier briefings and release of the declassified ICA report, BuzzFeed published virtually all of the dossier
memos on its website.
The House committee found "significant leaks" of classified information around the time of the ICA -- and "many of these leaks
were likely from senior officials within the IC." Its recently released report points to Clapper as the main source of leaks about
the presidential briefings involving the dossier. It also suggests that during his July 17, 2017, testimony behind closed doors in
executive session, he misled House investigators.
When first asked about leaks related to the ICA in July 2017, Clapper flatly denied "discuss[ing] the dossier or any other intelligence
related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists." But he subsequently acknowledged discussing the "dossier with CNN
journalist Jake Tapper," and admitted he might have spoken with other journalists about the same issue.
On Jan. 10, 2017, CNN published an
article by Tapper
and others about the dossier briefings sourced to "multiple U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the briefings." Tapper shared
a byline with lead writer Evan Perez, a close friend of the founders of Fusion GPS, which hired Steele as a subcontractor on the
dossier project.
The next day, Clapper expressed his "profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press," while stressing that
"I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC." A month after his misleading testimony to House investigators, Clapper joined
CNN as a "national security analyst."
Attempts to reach Clapper for comment were unsuccessful.
Tom JonesLeader 3d
My, My, My.....what a tangled web they weave. Interesting that both Rogers and Clapper indicated the dossier was part of the assessment
and Brennan does not. All while Obama was assuring the public that in no way could Russia impact our elections. With the recent
allegations of a plant in the Trump campaign organization and the continued reluctance of the DOJ to release documents, it's becoming
more evident by the day of significant irregularities that took place. Certainly, one would hope that only under the most severe
probabilities would a President allow his intelligence agencies to spy on an opponents campaign....but it's looking more and more
like it was an intended political operation rather than a national security issue. And if so, it's a direct threat to our democracy
and should be addressed with the full power and legal impact of our judicial system. If it was political, EVERYONE involved should
be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law and they should spend significant time behind bars.
magic_worker 1d
In my opinion the key points are: - Obama spied on Trump and many other Senator's Congressmen, Judges, and the press without
warrants they only did Trump warrants well after they started spying.
This was to cover their a$$ because they had no warrants when the spying started. Did it start the second a billionaire
stepped on the escalator or before? - Obama spied using our allies (GCHQ) 5 eyes etc. and DOJ, IRS, FBI, CIA, Treasury and
all the Alphabet Obamagate will be 10,000 x worse than Watergate, Don't fall for the golly gee Obama knew nothing Schultz
defense. - Awan's were hired by Obama to run the DNC server, you really don't think Debbie hired them do you? ... See more
Rosa1984 Leader 3d
They're covering up an attempted coup. What we've witnessed the past 15 months is HORRIFIC, Deeply Disturbing, and a
Threat to the U.S. We CANNOT allow Democrats and Deep State to get away with this.
NoBS NoSpam Influencer 3d Edited
Did you know the President was in Nevada and Las Vegas during the Mandalay Assassination? Err, I mean the mass shooting by an
FBI informant, of course. We assume Trump is free to govern. Why? If the Deep State owns the FBI, CIA, NSA and the most powerful
weapon on Earth, the IRS. Martial Law of all Security clearance holders who are still alive "off" the books or not. Operative
word is "Ex" spooks and their active psychopath cousins in the Military Industrial Complex.
Peps Leader 3d
All of which means precisely nothing, because Sessions (via his absurd recusal) and Rosenstein allowed the Statute of Limitations
to run out against Clapper without filing a perjury charge. So, once again, if you are a high-ranking DC insider, you can
commit a felony for which any average citizen would be arrested, prosecuted and jailed, and do so with absolute, arrogant impunity,
regardless of which party is technically in charge of the Department of Justice.
KathyMcP 3d
What is the limitation period for a perjury charge???
carolinaswampfox Leader 3d
What is the limitations period for sedition, treason, conspiring to interfere with a presidential election, conspiring to overturn
the results of an American presidential election, obstruction of justice, illegal abuse of the FISA process, perjury in sworn
testimony and in the FISA process, etc.
Sam Hyde Leader 3d Edited
Mr. Clapper, did you leak any information on the briefings that took place with the President and President-elect? Clapper: Not
wittingly. How many times has this guy committed perjury and gotten away with it? lol
Carolinatarheel Leader 3d
Obama lowered the bar substantially for ethical standards and telling the truth! Our FBI is corrupt and dangerous! Mueller and
Comey are dirty cops! ...
chris_zzz Leader 3d
It's a bit ironic that Comey has been the focus of so much ire from the Trump people. Brennan and Clapper, not Comey, were
the Obama political hacks who were pushing the Russian collusion angle.
They forced the FBI to open a Trump/Russia investigation, even though Strzok and Comey were skeptical that any real evidence
existed. Congressional investigators as well as the relevant IGs need to look at whether Obama himself, as well as the White
House staff, engineered the Trump/Russia collusion hocus-pocus. It's hard to believe that Clapper and Brennan (and Lynch,
Yates, and Ohr from DoJ) cooked-up the scheme without the approval/direction of Obama. In fact, the sheer political evil genius
of the Trump/Russia collusion plot, including how it "explained" the DNC hack, reeks of the only person capable of inventing it:
that 'ol silver fox himself, Bill Clinton.
Greg Bed 2d
I think it is Comey's sanctimonious self-righteousness that brings that reaction. It always does. No matter who the parties
are or what event it is. Even though their crimes are greater, it is easier to tolerate the obviously slimy swamp critters like
Clapper and Brennan than it is the pious hypocrite like Comey.
GameTime68 Leader 3d
How much more of this are we going to have to read about before someone with authority begins investigating this entire sordid
mess? Until someone is indicated and charged with something, there is no incentive for the truth - just more media stories about
conflicting congressional testimony, colleague disagreements on the veracity of statements, and so forth. Those of us who sat
through Watergate were not naive enough to think it was a one-off. What is Sessions doing? Where is the special investigator for
Dossiergate?
NoBS NoSpam Influencer 3d
The DNC was caught in the act of rigging the Primaries. Fact. Do we really think they stopped at only the level of the
DNC Primaries? I wish to be that naive so my love for America was still alive and not dead like Seth Rich. The low lives could
not even cheat well, but not from lack of trying.
GameTime68 Leader span 3d
And someone inside hacked their computers for all those emails, too. That's why they didn't turn over their computers to the
F.B.I. because it would bear that out.
Old Paratrooper Contributor 3d
Brennan and Clapper may have been the puppetmasters, with Comey, McCabe, Stzrok, Page, Ohr and Yates dancing to their tune,
but Rogers didn't play nice and they didn't even invite the Defense Intelligence Agency to play. But I suspect the conspiracy
went to the White House. Didn't Page say that the President "wanted to know everything we do"? And I suspect that Susan Rice,
Valarie Jarrett and Ben Rhodes left fingerprints all over this crime.
chris_zzz Leader span oper 3d
The NSA director at the time, Adm. Rogers, reportedly visited Trump (without Clapper's authorization) during the transition to
inform Trump about the FBI's surveillance of his operation. The next day Trump tweeted that Obama was wiretapping Trump Tower.
carolinaswampfox Leader 3d
Rogers is a white hat in a sea of black hats who tried to fire him for being a patriot. Rogers is a true American hero, without
whom the extent of this coup and treasonous plot may never have been fully uncovered. The big ugly awaits the traitors and hopefully,
the great awakening begins.
carolinaswampfox Leader span oper 3d
--and BHO communicated with Hillary at her private email address. The computers were smashed and bleach bit and Comey and company
obstructed justice in whitewashing the Clinton investigation because all roads lead to BHO.
Right-Here; Right Now ! Influencer 3d
The cogent fact is that none of that matters since the entire premise is that the Russians hacked the emails.....the ENTIRE Russia
collusion theory collapses without the hacking of emails. And of course the Russians did not hack the DNC emails (time stamps
on the meta data PROVE that they were copied at speeds too fast for any internet hack) ....they were downloaded on site on to
a portable storage devise. We Know that the DNC denied law enforcement access to its server, (why would any "victim," of a crime
refuse to cooperate with investigators?) Even more remarkable, experts determined that the files released by Guccifer 2.0 have
been "run, via ordinary cut and paste, through a template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian
fingerprints." Brennan Clapper and Comey ALL testified to congress that the CIA...and many others.. had this capability to leave
"fingerprints" of whomever they wished to implicate. Moreover, for what it is worth, Julian Assange has repeatedly denied that
Russia "or any state actor" was the source of the stolen DNC data published by WikiLeaks...but rather a staffer who passed a portable
drive on the Mall in DC I think its safe to assume that the downloading was done by Imran Awan who we KNOW had access and we KNOW
downloaded material and we KNOW used unauthorized methods to access unauthorized areas of Congressional servers and TOTAL ...
See more
James Fitzpatrick Influencer span Right Now ! 3d Edited
I believe the name you're looking for is "Seth Rich." This is a case that requires a bull dog, not Droopy Dog. It's got
murder, blackmail, extortion, Deep State conspiracy, high treason, low-level corruption, perverted sex cults... c'mon! Why are
we still hearing about how a Senator met a Russian Ambassador at a meet-and-greet?! This is real drama!
NoBS NoSpam Influencer span atrick 3d
They are mocking Seth Rich as the Russian Hacker. They keep dragging this kids hard work through the mud!
JayTeigh Leader span Right Now ! 3d
I think you're right about Awan being the hacker. I now wonder if the somehow sold the emails to someone who sent them to Assange.
James Fitzpatrick Influencer 3d
Here are some things that need investigation:
Aside from the obvious crimes of espionage and certainly extortion and fraud, why was Imran Awan trying to flee the
country just after Seth Rich's assassination? Was Rich spilling the beans about Debbie Schultz's Pakistani mole and not just
the Hillary scam?
Russia expert Nellie Ohr was hired by FusionGPS during the launch of the Steele scam. But she was CIA. Was Fusion itself
a rogue CIA shell org? And nobody seems to get the connection to the CIA OpenSource hackers' toolbox that was leaked into the
wild, just as the "resist" people were expressing concern that THEY would lose access to these spying malware products and
could no longer spy on Trump. And who worked for the OpenSource project? Why, Nellie Ohr, of course. Funny.
pmidas span atrick 3d
Didn't Nellie state in some format that "i am going to be purchasing short-wave radios for our communications going forward"....?
James Fitzpatrick Influencer 3d
Yes. One of many attempts to dodge a trail for investigators, oversight and FOIA.
BorisBadinov Leader 3d
Brennan and Clapper are dirty as can be. They are both corrupt deep state agents, and should go to prison for their lies and
corruption. Adm. Rogers looks like the only straight-shooter in the bunch.
NoBS NoSpam Influencer span v 3d
General Flynn was the main crusader for our children's dignity. The son of a b*censured*ich is still fighting for them!
Grandmother of 7 Contributor 3d
May Brennan and all his cohorts, including Obama, rot from the inside out because I doubt anything we could punish them with would
be enough. They did more damage to the Republic than Osama bin Laden and his ilk ever could.
Mcgovern72 Leader 3d
The Clap-Man and Jimmy the B continue to be the best sources of intrigue on the whole collusion confusion, huh? Their legacy tarnished
by all the lies, they now get to spew it on 'fake news', further tarnishing the credibility of 'faux news'. Brilliant!!
Sam Hyde Leader span 3d Edited
DNI Clapper doing what DNI Clapper does best. I can see him rubbing his greasy egg head right now for not having his story straight.
dadling 3d
There are 2 sets of Laws in America. One for the elite, power political people and one for the Joe Sixpacks.....there
is NO Law in America...the people are still asleep and have yet to be roused. However, when they do wake up, pitchforks, tar &
feathers will be the order of the day for these criminals.
dawg1234 3d
Ouch! Quite a scathing article from Real Clear! Impressive! Brennan? Brennan? Calling Mister, John, Brennan! LOL, this is getting
fun!
cjones1 Leader 3d
The plot thickens!
leestauf4 Leader 2d
The democrats accuse Trump of colluding with the Russians to get elected, have ZERO proof of it after two years of trying to invent
it, and yet it is a proven fact that Hillary and the DNC, through the middlemen Fusion GPS and Steele, COLLUDED with and paid
high level Russian officials millions of dollars to produce the "salacious and completely unverified dossier" (Comey's words),
in an attempt to throw our election like they did in their own primary, and to then try to impeach a constitutionally elected
president with the same Russian supplied lies when that failed! So where was the actual collusion with the enemy? And why is Mueller
completely ignoring those facts?
jrc_mrc 2d
Former FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up
favorable to the Clintons. In 2001, following the original 9/11 mass murder by the Muslim jihadists, President Bush asked
the FBI to track the movements of likely Muslim jihadists; Comey and Mueller refused that request on the basis that such tracking
would be "un-American". The jihadist mass murders of Americans in Boston, Chattanooga, Orlando, Fort Hood, and San Bernardino
are therefore the direct result of that irresponsible refusal. In 2004 Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the
Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton
administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National
Archives. The documents were relevant to the accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the
9/11 terrorist attack. Back a year or two ago, FBI director Comey announced that despite the evidence of "extreme negligence"
by Hillary Clinton and her top aides regarding the handling of classified information through her unprotected private email server,
the FBI would not refer criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department since it was just a case
of innocent negligence.
jrc_mrc 2d
FBI has had its ups and downs, certainly, but usually it found those low times due to some mishap or bad policy decisions
based on matters of process by its upper management. But despite some of the worst 1970s conspiracy theories, rarely has the FBI
been considered a bald-faced political actor until Director James Comey tarnished the shield by becoming a member of the Hillary
Clinton's election campaign.
The FBI is no longer a legitimate or competent law enforcement agency. The FBI has become nothing more than a bunch of goons
for the DNC and the Democrat Party. The FBI should now be considered a domestic corrupt terrorist organization. Due to the FBI's
corruption and political affiliation with the Democrat Party, they should no longer have jurisdiction over a single American citizen.
Comey is now guilty of treason by default and association. He has violated his sworn oath and must be removed. "Yes – Hillary
Clinton is guilty but we will not recommend prosecution" – he declared to the congressional inquiry with a straight face. In other
words, and for all practical purposes our FBI had become the American KGB.
KenPittman 2d
Clapper, Brennan and Comey have al likely retained legal counsel as Nunes has brilliantly followed the trail methodically backwards
to the source. The Ohr couple, the intercepts of Strzok and the common denominators linking Stefan Halper are going to rock the
Deep State to its foundation. Thankfully there are enough patriots in Washington to continue to outflank the framing of the POTUS.
johnmike 2d
The butts of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey should be hauled before a Grand Jury by John Huber, the US Attorney, as stated by Joe
DiGenova. I believe all three are enemies of the US and the biggest threats to our constitutional republic. Brennan once voted
for a communist. All three are pathological liars...it's scary that these three scumbags held the highest and most critical intelligence
and law enforcement positions in the nation.
Ralph Lynch Contributor 1d
If these yokels better knew history, they would better understand the dangers of fomenting revolution.
In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers
informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier -- described as "the Christopher
Steele information" -- was "added" as an "appendix to the ICA draft," and that consideration of
that appendix was "part of the overall ICA review/approval process."
A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI
analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter
Strzok.
"Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he
was one of the authors of the ICA," according to the source.
Clapper's Assessment Report was the third in series of reports – each building on the
other.
The first report, an assessment of Russian Intervention, was made in an October 7, 2016,
Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence noting the Intelligence Community was confident of Russian involvement in
our election.
Later testimony by our various Intelligence Directors confirmed that Russia is always
involved in Presidential elections.
This report was meant to directly tie Russian hacking to the election.
What the report actually did was use technical language to describe a generalized hacking
process – and the means by which hacking and phishing can be generally prevented.
I strongly encourage you to read the report. Its lack of actual detail is eye-opening.
3. John Brennan, James Clapper and Admiral Rogers stage-managed a paper in January, 2017
that asserted that the Intelligence Community believed various things about Russian government
tinkering with the US election (much as the US does in other countries' elections). The
paper was represented to be an IC wide opinion (like an NIE).
Clapper gave it his imprimatur as Director of National Intelligence but Admiral
Rogers at the National Security Agency could not get his people to express more than limited
confidence in the document. DIA, State Department INR, the Army, Navy, Air Force and other
agencies were either not consulted or did not deign to "sign on." Donald J Trump thinks this is
a "rum deal," a phony politically motivated procedure run by a group of "hacks". Why would he
not think that? The reaction of the Left is to excoriate him for his lack of "respect", for the
people who "cooked up" this document. We should remember that the people who "cooked" the
document have no legal or constitutional existence outside the framework of the Executive
Branch. Any president, in any circumstance could dismiss them all at will. No president is
under any obligation at all to accept their opinion or that of anyone in the Executive Branch
on anything. They are his advisers and subordinates, tools in his kit box, and that is all they
are.
The 2016 Trump Tower meeting set up to reveal dirt on Hillary Clinton "infuriated" Jared
Kushner, was a "waste of time" and had nothing to do with Clinton, according to transcripts of
interviews with the meeting's participants. The US Senate Judiciary Committee has released more
than 1,800 pages of transcripts, which provide new insight into the controversial meeting
during which Donald Trump Jr, along with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and then campaign
chairman Paul Manafort, was expecting to receive "dirt" on Hillary Clinton from
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
Overall, the newly-released documents seem to indicate that a short 20-minute meeting
resulted in hours of interviews and thousands of pages of documents for little reason.
In the transcripts, Trump Jr. said that he was skeptical that Rob Goldstone, the publicist
who had been the first to contact him about a meeting, had colleagues who possessed
incriminating information about Clinton, but said felt he should at least "hear them
out." Read more 'Wasting taxpayers'
money': Lawyer Veselnitskaya talks Trump's dossier & Fusion GPS
He also said that it was important to note that when he accepted the invitation to go to the
meeting there was "no focus on Russian activities" surrounding the campaign and
claimed that Goldstone had not even confirmed the names of the attendees who would join them at
the meeting.
Goldstone had set up the meeting on behalf of Russian musical artist Emin Agaralov, the son
of a wealthy Russian businessman, but revealed in his interview that he later told Agaralov
that the meeting was "the most embarrassing thing you've ever asked me to do" given
that it ended up having nothing to do with Clinton. Goldstone also revealed that
Veselnitskaya's apparently Clinton-free presentation in the meeting had "infuriated"
Kushner.
In another indication that the meeting was not supposed to be a top-secret attempt for the
Trump campaign to collude with Russia, Goldstone also revealed that he "checked in" to
Trump Tower on Facebook when he arrived.
In a supplemental interview, Goldstone also told investigators that Russian President
Vladimir Putin was not able to meet Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, but
invited him through a phone call with his spokesman Dmitry Peskov, organized by Agaralov, to
attend the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi instead. According to Goldstone, Peskov said Putin
would be happy to meet him there -- but that meeting did not end up happening.
Anatoli Samochornov, a Russian translator who attended the meeting, said that no one present
had said the Russian government either supported Trump or opposed Clinton for president. He
also said there were no offers from the Russian side to release hacked emails, hack voting
totals or anything else.
The other translator present, Ike Kaveladze, said he spoke to Agaralov about two hours after
the meeting and told him it was a "complete loss of time" and a "useless"
meeting.
The committee released the thousands of pages of transcripts along with hundreds of
additional pages of related material, including the interviews with Goldstone, Russian-American
lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin and translators Samochornov and Kaveladze.
The meeting has been the subject of controversy, particularly the question of whether
then-candidate Trump knew about it. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has looked closely at the
meeting as part of his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which
has not yet turned up any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.
Following the publication of the documents, Trump Jr. said they showed that he "answered
every question asked" by the committee.
"I appreciate the opportunity to have assisted the Judiciary Committee in its
inquiry," he said in a statement. "The public can now see that for over five hours I
answered every question asked and was candid and forthright with the Committee."
Note how NYT try to hide the fact that the meeting was most probably yet another a false flag operation (along with Steele
dossier) to implicate
Russia staged with the help of a person connected to British intelligence service, Mr. Goldstone,
a British music promoter. That in an interesting fact in additional to CIA mode within Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin. ..."
Most of the participants in the meeting have already publicly described their version of
events. Nonetheless, the records reveal some new details about the players involved and what
happened after the meeting was reported
by The New York Times last summer.
Among them: Six months after the Trump
Tower meeting , an intermediary contacted Donald J. Trump's office asking for a follow-up,
the newly released documents showed.
The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting
between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He
said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a
Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin.
The second session never took place. But the invitation shows the determination of Russians
with close Kremlin connections to convince the Trump team that the Magnitsky Act, which imposed
sanctions on a host of Russian officials for human rights abuses, was a mistake. The 2012 law,
which froze the bank accounts of some Russian officials and barred them from entering the
United States, infuriated Mr. Putin.
In a late November 2016 email to Mr. Trump's assistant, Mr. Goldstone, a British music
promoter, attached a three-page document marked "confidential" that called for "the launch of a
congressional investigation into the circumstances of passing the Magnitsky Act." He wrote that
Mr. Agalarov hoped the document would be delivered to "the appropriate team." Ms. Veselnitskaya
also attacked the
law in the June meeting.
The transcripts also highlight how lawyers for the Trump Organization tried to manage
the fallout by coordinating the statements of Mr. Goldstone and others.
In testimony, Donald Trump Jr. acknowledged that his father may have helped draft the
statement that he put out to the press after the meeting became public, but he said that they
had not discussed the meeting when it happened.
Questionable but interesting. "Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant
bully.
To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again." Trump really believe like a typical bully.
In case of tough resistance he folds and appologize. Otherwise he tries to press opooneent into complete submission.
Notable quotes:
"... The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. ..."
"... Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense strategy. ..."
"... Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change, reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the Shah. ..."
"... Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the executive branch. ..."
"... Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street. ..."
"... Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear program. ..."
"... Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman' tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or face the worst from the President? I don't think so. ..."
"... China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no longer a threat to US security. ..."
"... "Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday, Tillerson dropped this truth bomb: "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom." Woof. ..."
For some time, critics of President Trump's policies have attributed them to a mental
disorder; uncontrolled manic-depression, narcissus bullying and other pathologies. The question
of Trump's mental health raises a deeper question: why do his pathologies take a specific
political direction? Moreover, Trump's decisions have a political history and background, and
follow from a logic and belief in the reason and logic of imperial power.
We will examine the reason why Trump has embraced three strategic decisions which have
world-historic consequences, namely: Trump's reneging the nuclear accord with Iran ;Trump's
declaration of a trade war with China; and Trump's meeting with North Korea.
In brief we will explore the political reasons for his decisions; what he expects to gain;
and what is his game plan if he fails to secure his expected outcome and his adversaries take
reprisals.
Trump's Strategic Framework
The underlying assumption of Trump's strategic thinking is that 'power works': the more
intransigent his posture, the greater his belief in a unipolar world based on US power. As a
corollary, Trump interprets any ally, adversary, competitor who seeks negotiations, reciprocity
or concessions is 'weak' and should be pressured or forced to concede greater concessions and
further retreats and sacrifices, up to the ultimate goal of surrender and submission. In
other words, Trump's politics of force only recognizes counter-force: limitations in Trump's
policies will only result when tangible economic and military losses and costs in US lives
would undermine US imperial rule.
Reasons Why Trump Broke the Peace Accord with Iran
Trump broke the accord with Iran because the original agreement was based on retaining US
sanctions against Iran; the total dismantling of its nuclear program and calling into question
Iran's limited role on behalf of possible allies in the Middle East.
Iran's one-sided concessions; trading military defense for market opportunities encouraged
Trump to believe that he could intimidate Iran militarily by closing all its markets.
Trump views President Rohani as a rug seller not a military strategist. Trump believes
that an economic squeeze will lead President Rohani to sacrifice his allies in Syria, Lebanon
(Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthi), Palestine (Hamas) and Iraq (Shia)and to dismantle its ICBM defense
strategy.
Trump pursues the strategic goal of weakening Iran and preparing a regime change,
reverting Iran into a client state – as it was prior to the 1979 revolution under the
Shah.
The second reason for Trump's policy is to strengthen Israel's military power in the Middle
East. The Trump regime is deeply influenced by the Zionist power configuration (ZPC) in the US,
dubbed 'the Lobby'.
Trump recognizes and submits to Zionist-Israeli dictates because they have unprecedented
power in the media, real estate, finance and insurance (FIRE). Trump recognizes the ZPC's power
to buy Congressional votes, control both political parties and secure appointments in the
executive branch.
Trump is the typical authoritarian: at the throat of the weak, citizens, allies and
adversaries and on his knees before the powerful ZPC, the military and Wall Street.
Trump's submission to Zionist power reinforces and even dictates his decision to break the
peace accord with Iran and his willingness to pressure. France, Germany, the UK and Russia to
sacrifice billion-dollar trade agreements with Iran and to pursue a policy of pressuring
Teheran to accept part of Trump's agenda of unilateral disarmament and isolation. Trump
believes he can force the EU multi-nationals to disobey their governments and abide by
sanctions.
Reasons for Trump's Trade War with China
Prior to Trump's presidency, especially under President Obama, the US launched a trade war
and 'military pivot' to China. Obama proposed the Trans-Pacific Pact to exclude China and
directed an air and naval armada to the South China Sea. Obama established a high-powered
surveillance system in South Korea and supported war exercises on North Korea's border. Trump's
policy deepened and radicalized Obama's policies.
Trump extended Obama's bellicose policy toward North Korea, demanding the de-nuclearization
of its defense program. President Kim of North Korea and President Moon of South Korea reached
an agreement to open negotiations toward a peace accord ending nearly 60 years of
hostility.
However, President Trump joined the conversation on the presumption that North Korea's peace
overtures were due to his threats of war and intimidation. He insisted that any peace
settlement and end of economic sanctions would only be achieved by unilateral nuclear
disarmament, the maintenance of US forces on the peninsula and supervision by US approved
inspectors.
Trump's unilateral declaration of a trade war against China accompanied his belief that
military threats led to North Korea's "capitulation" – its promise to end its nuclear
program.
Trump slapped a trade tariff on over $100 billion dollars of Chinese exports in order to
reduce its trade imbalance by $200 billion over two years. He demanded China unilaterally end
industrial 'espionage', technological 'theft' (all phony accusations) and China's compliance
monitored quarterly by the US. Trump demanded that China not retaliate with tariffs or restrictions or face bigger
sanctions. Trump threatened to respond to any reciprocal tariff by Beijing, with greater tariffs, and
restrictions on Chinese goods and services.
Trump's goals seek to convert North Korea into a military satellite encroaching on China's
northern border; and a trade war that drives China into an economic crisis. Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and
dominate the Asian and world economy.
Trump believes a successful trade war will lead to a successful military war. Trump believes
that a submissive China, based on its isolation from the 'dynamic' US market, will enhance
Washington's quest for uncontested world domination.
Trump's Ten Erroneous Thesis
Trump's political agenda is deeply flawed! Breaking the nuclear agreement and imposing harsh
sanctions has isolated Trump from his European and Asian allies. His military intervention will
inflame a regional war that would destroy the Saudi oil fields. He will force Iran to pursue a
nuclear shield against US-Israeli aggression and lead to a prolonged, costly and ultimately
losing war.
Trump's policies will unify all Iranians, liberals and nationalist, and undermine US
collaborators. The entire Muslim world will unify forces and carry the conflict throughout
Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Tel Aviv's bombing [of Iran] will lead to counter-attacks
in Israel.
Oil prices will skyrocket, financial markets will collapse, industries will go bankrupt.
Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic
destruction.
Trump's trade war with China will lead to the disruption of the supply chain which sustains
the US economy and especially the 500 US multi-nationals who depend on the Chinese economy for
exports to the US. China will increase domestic consumption, diversify its markets and trading
partners and reinforce its military alliance with Russia. China has greater resilience and
capacity to overcome short-term disruption and regain its dominant role as a global economic
power house.
Wall Street will suffer a catastrophic financial collapse and send the US into a world
depression.
Trump's negotiations with North Korea will go nowhere as long as he demands unilateral
nuclear disarmament, US military control over the peninsula and political isolation from
China.
Kim will insist on the end of sanctions, and a mutual defense treaty with China. Kim will
offer to end nuclear testing but not nuclear weapons. After Trump's reneged on the Iran deal,
Kim will recognize that agreements with the US are not trustworthy.
Conclusion
Trump's loud, threatening gestures are a real danger to world peace and justice. But his
assumptions about the consequences of his policy are deeply flawed. There is no basis to think
his sanctions will topple the Iranian regime; that Israel will survive unscathed from a war
with Iran: that an oil war will not undermine the US economy; that Europe will allow its
companies to be frozen out of the Iran market.
Trump's trade war with China is dead in the water. He cannot find alternative production
sites for US multi-nationals. He cannot freeze China out of the world market, since they have
links with five continents. Trump cannot dominate North Korea and force it to sacrifice its
sovereignty on the basis of empty economic promises to lift sanctions. Trump is heading for
defeats on all counts. But he may take the American people into the nuclear abyss in the
process.
Epilogue
Are Trump's threats of war part of a strategy of bluff and bombast designed to intimidate,
in order to secure political advantages? Is Trump playing the Nixon-Kissinger 'madman'
tactic, in which the Secretary of State tells adversaries to accept his 'reasonable' demands or
face the worst from the President? I don't think so.
Nixon unlike Trump was not led by the nose by Israel. Nixon unlike Trump was not led by
pro-nuclear war advisers. Nixon in contrast to Trump opened the US to trade with China and
signed nuclear reduction agreements with Russia. Nixon successfully promoted peaceful
co-existence.
"Trump's sanctions and military aggression against Iran will lead to mutual economic
destruction."
indeed they will, and sadly it well deserved after the last 20yrs off US terrorism.
the US hubris will soon meet karma, and we all know karma is a bitch..
You didn't have to be genius to see this coming. In fact, NK played Trump as
expected. Anything else would have been gross negligence by their diplomatic
negotiators. Getting Trump to speculate about a prospective Nobel (for himself) for bringing nuclear
peace to the Pacific was baiting the hook nicely.
The US is now dealing from a position of weakness. Let's see what NK can extract in terms of
keeping their weapons and gaining economic assistance in return for getting the meetings back
on track.
This theory is the opposite of what I suppose is the right explanation, the explanation also
given by prof Laslo Maracs, UVA Amsterdam, that Trump and his rich friends understand that
the USA can to longer control the world, conquering the rest of the world totally out of the
question.
The end of the British empire began before 1914, when the twe fleet standard had to lowered
to one fleet.
Obama had to do something similar, the USA capability of fighting two wars at the time was
lowered to one and half.
What half a war accomplishes we see in Syria.
In the thirties the British, some of them, knew quite well they could no longer defend their
empire, at the time this meant controlling the Meditarranean and the Far East.
Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
The British guarantees to Poland and countries bordering on the Med lighted the fuse to the
powder keg that had been standing for a long time.
Churchill won, the British thought, and some of them think it still, WWII.
But shortly after WWII some British understood 'we won the war, but lost the peace'.
I still have the idea that Trump has no intention of losing the peace, but time will tell.
I suppose Trump just is buying time against Deep State and Netanyahu.
The fool Netanyahu is happy with having got Jerusalem, he does not see the cost in increased
hatred among Muslims, and Israel having won the Eurovision Song Festival.
Trump's "policy" is simply a reflection of his character as a narcissistic, arrogant
bully.
To "make America great again" means for him "make America the Global Bully" again.
However, behind the facade of all his bravado hides a puppet of the Jewish Power Structure,
which is even more dangerous than Trump himself. "Make Zion Great Again" would be a more
apposite slogan.
Wall Street collapsing will not cause a world depression, but will reflect the very real
depression that will arise from huge disruptions to the US supply chain and energy costs and
the knock-on effect that will have on the global economy.
A strike on Iran won't by itself be enough to cripple the US economy, but the loss of a
single aircraft carrier might be enough of a pull on a thread that unravels the magical
mantle of military force that currently holds the empire together and keeps the vassal-states
in line to cause things to go pear-shaped quickly.
Nobody can accuse Donald of not being obedient executioner of tasks given by his Masters.
You don't have to be dark skinned to reside in Masters quarters, orange haired and white is
ok too..
Overall a good analysis, but as far as his support of Israel is concerned, his family
connections with the most ultra-Zionist factions should not be overlooked.
Trump believes that as China declines as a world economic power, the US will grow and
dominate the Asian and world economy.
On what basis does the author say that? Trump is smart enough to know that China is
growing as an economic and military power, not declining.
A fairly poorly (and likely hastily) written article.
Trump is under the control of Zionists just as is the U.S. gov with Zionist dual citizens in
control of every facet and has been since 1913 when the Zionists created the FED and the IRS.
Trump is like the Roman emperor Caligula and is a Trojan Horse for the Zionist agenda of a
NWO and is continuing the tradition of the U.S. gov breaking its word about everything, just
ask the native American Indians.
The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing. The agreement
had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified. Our "allies" in Europe and
Asia knew that and their reaction has not been nearly as negative as the author of this
column has claimed.
I continue to admire President Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi of China. WHY? .because
RESULTS matter more than opinions on internet websites, T.V., or in printed publications.
N. Korea has stopped performing ICBM or nuke tests, a less extremist regime change "coup"
took place in Saudi Arabia, financing/ weapons flows / intelligence to Syrian terrorists has
dried up with resulting collapse of ISIS, Iran is threatening to release the names of
European & American politicians who previously made millions / billions off the Iran nuke
deal if it is dropped, Harvey Weinstein, Allison Mack, and "Weiner" were untouchable before
Trump, the list just goes on and continues to get bigger.
A major reason for admiration of Putin is that the Mainstream Media (MSM) can't stop
demonizing him. So of course I'm logically led to believe that he is mostly a good guy since
the MSM has proven itself repeatedly to distort the Truth. Putin also largely ended the
oligarchs power, doubled Russian citizens income, used an tiny Russian military in Syria to
gradually reverse ISIS expansion there, improved Russia's internal manufacturing,
agricultural, mining, and technological research/ development, intellectually crushed
international debate opponents repeated using only logic and facts (You should watch the
videos!), built / rebuilt over 10 thousand churches, has patriotic Muslims (Crimea) fighting
for Russia in Syria, etc. etc.
Xi of China has pretty impressive creditials but this post is
overly long anyway.
RESULTS COUNT MORE THAN WORDS!
Of course they do this, they would be stupid if they didn't.
• Agree: CalDre
I like your frankness. Every countries is into this at different degree, with ZUS the
apex. But been leading in most tech area currently & lazy to produce any useful things,
ZUS is very unhappy that their esponage net result is negative, hence the continuous
whining.
When tide reverse with China leading in most tech, ZUS will complaint about complex patent
system as been flawed in exploitating & suppressing of weaker country innovation, juz as
it did for WTO & Globalization now.
Of course any moronic comments about only China is espionaging US IPR & rise purely due
to US FDI & Tech transfer will resonate CalDre into high chime.
Well, he is not meeting with North Korea either, since Kim didn't chicken out, and is not
that stupid as to offer his head on the plate! Bolton made sure of that.
Hastily written article cobbled by bits of public info here & there without deep
analysis.
1. Today NK declared they have indefinitely terminate all high level exchange with SK. If
Trumps insisted on another Libya & Iraq defank & ending model advocate by Bolton,
meeting with Trumps will be cancelled. Trumps needs the Korea peace credit to get his Nobel
Prize, so as to booster his coming Nov election win. Kim has baited Trumps to put him in
tight corner now, hence WH still insisting to go ahead prepare for the meeting.
If venue does changed to Beijing from Trumps' choice of Spore (Kim's cargo plane can't fly
his limousine so far, also a risk of him as Spore is US vassal), we will see Kim has K.O.
Trumps in another round. Kim will get to keep its nuke weapon until USM remove its Korea
present, clear all sanctions, with UNSC guaranteed its safety. If Trumps has the meeting
cancelled, then China can roll out its own play book as unchallenged leader in solving Korea
crisis. Either way, Trumps will lost influence to China.
2. Trade war with China has exposed ZUS deep weakness in its brinkmanship when china
retaliated with no compromise. Four most senior trade & treasury secs scrambled 10,000
miles to Beijing to seek detente, but return empty handed in 2 days with their ridiculous
demands in hubris. Still China got Trumps to waiver ZTE ruling, with Huawei declared no
longer a threat to US security.
Btw, this author has wrongly written about the $100B trade tariff, its only $50B so far.
Another additional $100B is only a empty threat ZUS dare not release to avoid China
retaliation.
3. JCPOA cancelling is godsend move.
First, EU with Germany & France having huge investments in Iran is crying loud that they
have to be free from been ZUS vassal. If they caved in to ZUS sanction threat, then EU bosses – Macron & Merkel will
face revolt from Europe business sector. China & Russia will be happy to pick up whatever
investments in fire sales.
If EU decided to rebel & chart its own destiny with a little spine, then ZUS has lost
its tight clutch over EU. EU has juz announced to trade Iran oil in Euro, hasten
de-dollarization. The geopolitical game is changing tide. In either way of EU decision, China
& Russia win.
Now Iran will continue to enjoy free trades with everyone except ZUS that it dislike most,
& win moral high ground in international standing by keeping to JCPOA.
ZUS has juz ordered Trumps to shoot its own foot. It pay the high price of losing every
credibility in international agreement, forced EU into seeking independency, have EU trade in
Euro, with Iran, China & Russia all smiling.
Of course, but I just wanted to make a point not write a book or even a PhD thesis. thanks
for the supplementary material though. Your comments about oil are spot on as you know. The wars were about smashing some real
competition.
Somebody has to shovel the BS occasionally, to keep the smell down here. I guess it's my
turn today, sigh.
The nuke agreement with Iran was a sham. Iran lied about what they were doing.
Then the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and many of the major European
countries must also be lying when they say that Iran is fully complying with the JCPOA.
The agreement had never been submitted to the Senate and so was never ratified.
The United Nations Security Council endorsed the JCPOA; see UNSC resolution 2231.
According to the UN treaty, UNSC resolutions are automatically the law of the land,
even in the USA -- no Senate ratification needed.
Have you ever made a comment that was other than your mere and clearly biased opinion? Try
it sometime; it would be interesting to see what evidence you provide to support such
transparently erroneous ideas.
Trump's only strategy is to do what Israel orders him to do. The Neocon Jews and their friends including the Jew In Chief of
the White House Jared Kushner are running the show. You can easily see this in ... Niki Haley's presentation before the UN including
walking out before the Palestinian Rep had a chance to speak.
Trump is up to his arms in shady deals with Jewish financiers of his properties and they
will get what they want from him politically. It's Israel against the world and the US is
nothing more than their war whore. More people will die for this strategy that comes from
formerly Tel Aviv and now from the Magic Jewish Capital called Jerusalem.
New York City's Hip Hop station Hot 97's morning show, "Ebro in the Morning," dedicated an
entire segment to yesterday's demonstration in Gaza where the two blasted Israel and
President Donald Trump http://pic.twitter.com/43XIqhKFWZ
-- Gigi Hadid (@GiGiHadid) May 15, 2018
Hadid posted screen shots of Al Jazeera's coverage alongside an image of the Nakba with text
written by a relative,
"Almost One Million Palestinians were violently forced out of their country and never allowed
back to Palestine. The Hadid family was amongst them and they fled in fear to Syria where
they became refugees."
Why are these important? Because they have millions of followers on social media .because
their audience and followers are the coming voter and leadership force .for better or worse
..and for Israel its the 'worse'.
Gigi Hadid for instance has 9 million followers on twitter.
Giuliani: Mueller's team told Trump's lawyers they can't indict a president
This true. BUT ..'if' any criminal wrong doing by Trump before he was president is revealed in the
course of the Russia investigation he can be indicted for that after he is out of office. IN ADDITION ..'if' any criminal wrong doing is revealed in Trump's businesses then any
persons involved in it within his businesses including his sons or daughter can be indicted. And now, as they have no presidential protection.
imo .this is what Trump is most afraid of ..some criminal business like money laundering
being exposed. not that Mueller will find Russian election collusion.
"Speaking to soon-to-be graduates of the Virginia Military Institute on Wednesday,
Tillerson dropped this truth bomb:
"If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative
realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway
to relinquishing our freedom."
Woof.
..
Why is this important? Because the graduating class of VMI selects its speakers so that
tells you where the minds of the elite military schools are on Trumpism.
This diary may
be on the absurd side, but I know that this issue's bothered any number of us (including many
tankies on Twitter), but this comment thread posits some opinions and offers many links to
buttress arguments. Of course there were disagreements I haven't included, but not wanting to
risk a wider war with Israel at this point, with so many dangers on Russia's borders makes sense
to me. Can't say I've checked out more than a couple links
It really was disgusting it was to see Bibi with Putin at the V-day celebration in Moscow
while the IDF was striking 'Iranian' (not so much) installations in Syria. Some say having Bibi
there was by way of an object lesson: 'See what we've got?' I'm agnostic on that point, but I've
grabbed these comments for your consideration and have just pasted them in raw with no quotations
marks. Happy digging; dunno what a comment might on this PSA might include, but let's just see
how it goes. They're out of time order, as I'd forgotten to Save the ones I'd grabbed early on,
and have had to go back to copy more.
From Moon of Alabama's '
open thread' (2
pages of comments) on May 11:
..
Also not a good sign that President Putin re-nominated
Medvedev (not the URL)
as Prime Minister. The Saker lays out the rationale for this view.
Posted by: Trisha Driscoll | May 11, 2018
With regard to Medvedev. Let's just end this now.
Vesti news has a 10-minute clip showing the Duma in session to approve or disapprove Medvedev
as Prime Minister. It's a great glimpse into the parliamentary side of things that we rarely see.
Putin states that the social reforms he has called for and intends to carry out have been planned
and examined with a fine tooth comb for a year and a half – by a team led by Medvedev. It
makes sense to him, he says, that this same team would now carry these plans forward.
Can we not get beyond our own particular preferences of policy flavor and understand that
Medvedev long ago ago gave up the Atlanticist affiliation – when, indeed, that option
politically receded from his country's shores – and is simply a team player now,
subservient to Russia and to Putin? And what he thinks in his own mind is nobody's business but
his? He has no power outside of being a Prime Minister who effectuates Putin's vision.
And personally, I suspect he takes some satisfaction from doing this well. I don't care what
transforms or redeems a man. I just care what fits the need of the moment. The hour produces the
man, be he ever so tainted from former allegiances.
pa..Vesti is cranking out so much Russian news and news shows now, in short clips with English
subtitles – often half a dozen per day – that I've added it to my daily news scan. I
reccomend the YouTube channel: Vesti News
Putin has done more to stop, blunt or block US military aggression than any other country.
He picked Syria to put Russian military up against US military. If he had not not done so, the
Syrians that are still dying due to the terrorists and their sponsors would, along with hundreds
of thousands of others have been dead in the jihadist takeover in 2015.
the Palestinians? What is the rest of the world doing about this? How many other countries
deal with Israel. What is you country doing for the Palestinians.
There have been many proposed resolutions against Syria in the UN but US has vetoed them all.
Israel can be brought into line only when US power is destroyed.
Many of the worlds conflicts that exist today can never be resolved until US power is
destroyed as it is the US that keeps those conflicts as open wounds.
For Russia putting all their efforts into say Palestine or Yemen and the many other conflicts
is like running around putting out spot fires rather than catching the arsonist.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 11, 2018 9:02:14 PM |
..
Korybko interprets Russian signals as message to Assad to "compromise," which I don't agree
with at all as such a "demand" backwalks numerous previous statements about Syria by Russia,
which isn't normal Kremlin behavior. In essence, Korybko's arguing that the relationship between
Zionists and Russia is more important than Russia's relations with Syria, Iraq, and Iran–a
huge misread on his part, IMO.
"The reckless, reprehensible behavior of the US towards international law, multilateralism and
diplomacy – all of which it falsely projects onto Russia, China and others – is, or
should be, a watershed moment for all of the world to recognize that such rogue conduct is
intolerable and unacceptable.
"Either there is multilateral accord or there is not. Either there is a multipolar world as
envisaged by a democracy of nations, or there is brutish hegemony of unipolar ambitions. The
latter is not law-abiding. It is predicated on the brutish principle of "might is right". The
world cannot afford such a hegemon for the sake of peace and survival."
It certainly echoes much of what's written by b and us Barflies.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018
Russia's catching a lot of blogger-flak regarding its failure to go to war with Israel. That's
not smart.
Here's the probable scenario as I see it, keeping in mind that the #1 priority for Russia is
its own political interests and its own security, which is true of every country.
There are three allies concerned with Syria led by Russia, and including Turkey and Iran.
Three unlkely allies, actually. But they are trying to get along, with Russia's objective a
return of Syria to full sovereignty of all its territory, and a cessation of hostilities, with a
Russian military presence. It's not been easy but there has been progress and it looks like
Russia and its allies will be successful.
Iran has that objective too, but also has a strong interest in aiding Hezbollah as a powerful
anti-Israel force. That includes provisioning Hezbollah in Syria with ballistic missiles.
Russia (in my probable scenario) said to Iran don't do that. It endangers our chief interest
in Syria which is to win the war against US/Israel and end the warfare. Don't do anything that
endangers that. But Iran did it anyhow, and has paid a price which Syria shares. And as a part of
that, Russia has taken no action against Israel because it expected this might happen, that's why
Iran was cautioned. Iran thought it could do whatever it wanted in Syria and it got burned.
So I say to anti-Russia bloggers, wake up and smell the coffee.
"Naturally, we will use your visit today to discuss bilateral relations and problems in the
region. Unfortunately, the situation is very acute. I would like to express hope that you and I
will not only manage to discuss, but also find solutions which will lead to a shift in the
situation, and which will also allow us to find ways to resolve heated conflicts."
Putin's clearly aiming at de-escalation, while Nutty's all about escalating.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018
I used to admire Korybko enormously, and I thought him a brilliant talent. I don't know what's
happened in the last few months. Every one of his articles seems to be a mis-read. He's chosen a
view of reality that I think is wrong, and everything he extrapolates from that is
off-kilter.
We all choose at what level down the rabbit hole we want to go, but whatever it is, our
predictions should accord with subsequent events, or we can know it's an inaccurate ledge to
perch on. Korybko keeps saying there's a hidden agenda and a secret union between Israel and
Russia that makes all the rest of the Syria campaign a sham. He's become as unreliable as Paul
Craig Roberts at reading the true balances, and as unreliable, it pains me to say, as the Saker
appears at times lately. They all call for the sky to fall tomorrow, or else say that it already
has and the fix is in, and resistance is futile.
Miracles abound. But everyone is so damn gloomy. Is it a new CIA manic-depression drug? Radio
waves? Crazy.
Posted by: Grieved | May 11, 2018
.
Too many cast Putin as Tsar; he is not. National security issues are discussed and solved by a
council of same name through consensus. Same with Foreign Relations. One aspect of Russia that
differs greatly from almost every Western nation is the Russian government acts in the best
interest of all Russians , not just a select nomenclatura as in Outlaw US Empire and UK.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 11, 2018
During the course of the Ukraine war I, and I imagine many others, went through some of the
feelings about Vladimir Putin that many people are expressing now. We grew impatient. We wanted
Russia to go in and kick Porky's ass into the high heavens. We wanted the Chocolate King toasted.
But Putin carried on with his minimalist strategy, his control over emotion and ego, his resource
stinginess, providing just enough to the Donbas warriors, just enough. It was nail-biting and
frustrating at times, but If Russia had gone into Ukraine, guns blazing (as Russia's enemies
wanted) it would probably be bankrupt by now.
Scene change to Syria and we have the same minimum aircraft, troops, special forces Minimum
but enough. Israel feels very strongly about the S-300. Putin and his generals have probably
verified for themselves what they long suspected – that many products built by the US
military industrials since the 1990s are pretty crap. Just look at the F-35 and the Boeing 787
"Dreamliner", which pilots and cabin crew refer to as the "binliner" due to its continuous
faults. After a PHD on more-or-less this subject my humble self came to the same conclusion.
So do the Syrians really need the S-300 when they seem to be doing fine with what they have
got? They could be beefed up with some Pantsirs and Buks. Why antagonize Israel needlessly? Why
risk WWIII? Why risk Russia's World Cup – when sabotage and stealth are what the Israelis
are best at? Why not just keep slipping Assad stuff that will keep the Israeli's guessing?
Posted by: Lochearn | May 11, 2018
.
@ Grieved who wrote: "Miracles abound. But everyone is so damn gloomy. Is it a new CIA
manic-depression drug? Radio waves? Crazy."
The more the elite can rile the public with fear and anger against others the better their
chances of manipulating events to their ends at least that is their plan and I am not seeing
white flags yet.
Yes, we are in the middle of a watershed event for humanity where the real issue of whether a
small elite continue to control the tools of finance is being fought as a battle between Israel
et al and the rest of the world through Syria/Iran/??? That the issues are so intertwined and so
misunderstood by the public is a human travesty that I attribute to brainwashing by the Western
media.
The good thing about this situation is that we are in it because the old way is breaking down
all around us and energy abounds for supporting structural change. For someone who has been
watching and waiting for 40+ years, I am DAMN happy to see such an opportunity for human growth
present itself in my lifetime.
May 11. /TASS/. The refusal to supply the S-300 air defense missile systems to Syria is not
linked in any way with the recent visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Moscow,
acting Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday.
Peskov commented on a statement, which acting Russian Presidential Aide for Military and
Technical Cooperation Vladimir Kozhin gave in an interview with the newspaper Izvestia.
"Technologically, it is absolutely incorrect to link this [Kozhin's words] with Netanyahu's
visit because the interview was given before Netanyahu's visit," the acting Kremlin spokesman
pointed out.
Russia has never announced such deliveries and only specified that it reserves the right in
the wake of US-led airstrikes against Syria to do everything possible in this situation.
In an interview published on Friday, Kozhin said that Russia was not delivering the S-300 air
defense missile systems to Syria and no talks had been underway on their delivery thus far.
As the acting Kremlin spokesman added, the Syrian army "has everything it needs."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on April 16 that Russia was ready to consider
all necessary steps to reinforce Syria's defense capabilities, including the delivery of the
S-300 systems.
Unlike the West, RF does not pre-announce. Just do it!
Do you think Putin is pleased about this?
Israeli Weapons Among Arms Handed Over to Syrian Army By Terrorists in Damascus
Oh, not just medical aid!
Posted by: Likklemore | May 11, 2018
..
Explanation of Russia's approach by Andrei Korybko. Russia is taking a balance-of-power
approach, not a bloc approach, to Syria. Hence its ambiguous stances towards Turkey, Iran, and
Israel. Beyond what is required to defeat the Takfiris and assure the stability of the Syrian
government, the rest is negotiable. Putin does not want the situation between Iran and Israel to
escalate, and to that end is seeking greater influence in Syria vis-a-vis Iran.
Such a massive organized aggression has been inflicted on Syria, so much effort has been put
into sujugating and destroying Syria, the Syrians have suffered so horribly. Years of economic
warfare – sanctions, tens of thousands of mercenary madmen from dozens of countries
deployed against Syria, entire cities destroyed, massive amounts of arms and financing provided
to the madmen, global mass media disinformation deployed, oil stolen, thousands of US bombs
dropped, continual Israeli attacks and subterfuge, NATO special forces deployed, massive
mercenary underground construction project at Douma, false flags, Turkish aggression, Saudi
complicity, and more.
And how do things stand, after seven years of this? Syrians are inspirational for their
resistance, Syria is battered but winning, Russia's standing has risen as she has saved Syria,
the mercenaries are largely eliminated or herded into specific areas; Israelis and Americans have
lost yet more international standing, are more obviously outlaw regimes, and have lost self
confidence; their military intimidation is more and more lacking in real authority. NATO is
licking its wounds and is less cohesive, occupied Germany is showing signs of awakening, Turkey
and the US are at odds, the British are a malicious joke, the Saudis are weaker, Iran and Lebanon
are stronger, Iraqis despise the Americans, China is stronger.
Meanwhile, Russia too has been under US led economic warfare attack, and near global
disinformation attack, and demonization. And yet she too is stronger in many ways than she was
just a few years ago.
Posted by: Robert Snefjella | May 11, 2018
..
karlof1 @20
There's nothing in that statement that approves of Israel's attack. And informing Putin of a
changed stance due to a perception that 'red lines' were crossed (red lines that would've been
discussed weeks or months prior) would be positioned by Netanyahu as a courtesy ( when it is
really just a sneaky attempt at battlefield advantage).
Here's a thought (not fully baked):the Russians have their eye on the ball. Those who are
focused on Zionists as a problem for a West easily miss the fact that USA is a bigger problem for
Russia than Israel. USA is the "power behind the throne". Zionists and neocons may manipulate
that power but it is better for Russia to make an effort to separate Israel from the West. You
catch more flies with honey.
If SCO becomes strong enough to offer meaningful security guarantees and Israel also has an
opportunity to participate in lucrative economic opportunities in Eurasia then Israel might be
enticed to end it's belligerent manipulation of US. It may require a new generation of leadership
in Israel before that happens. Russia-China are playing long games.
So you run around spouting your hatred for Putin because he does not proclaim himself world
policeman and and does not crap on about R2P. As he has said, he is not anybodies friend. He is
the president of the Russian federation.
In this video I linked earlier, he plainly states his position on Israel.
Like it or not Putin recognizes and operates within International law and Russian law, and
respects UN recognized borders. Putin, all the time he has been President has operated on the
principle of evolution not revolution. He is not about to change now.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | May 11, 2018
The more the elite can rile the public with fear and anger against others the better their
chances of manipulating events to their ends at least that is their plan and I am not seeing
white flags yet.
Yes, we are in the middle of a watershed event for humanity where the real issue of whether a
small elite continue to control the tools of finance is being fought as a battle between Israel
et al and the rest of the world through Syria/Iran/??? That the issues are so intertwined and so
misunderstood by the public is a human travesty that I attribute to brainwashing by the Western
media.
The good thing about this situation is that we are in it because the old way is breaking down
all around us and energy abounds for supporting structural change. For someone who has been
watching and waiting for 40+ years, I am DAMN happy to see such an opportunity for human growth
present itself in my lifetime.
I'll add a few other things that may or may not be of interest:
'Who we are, why we're digging: Team probing Syrian war & Skripal poisoning case reveal
all', the UK working group on Syria, propaganda, and media,
via RT (with this video,
9:26)
"... Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage that she would rather ignore. ..."
The Trump administration's Iran obsession would almost be comical if it didn't have such a dangerous distorting effect on our
foreign policy. Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly
about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage
that she would rather ignore. Whether she is busy whitewashing Saudi coalition crimes in Yemen or running interference for Israel
after it massacres over 60 people, Haley's m.o. is to change the subject.
Haley also risibly
claimed that Israel was acting with restraint yesterday:
"No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today
suggest they would be much less restrained," she said.
The ambassador's claim is absurd on its face, and it is an insult to the dozens of democratic states around the world that do
not behave this way. Haley also ignores that there are no other states in the world that keep millions of people trapped in a blockaded
enclave as Israel does with the inhabitants of Gaza. Not only would the vast majority of democratic governments not act as Israel's
government has acted over the last few weeks, but none would have any need to confront massive protests from a population that has
been deliberately starved and impoverished for more than a decade. The excessively violent response to the Gaza protests calls attention
to the cruel policy of collective punishment imposed on all of the people living in Gaza, and there is no excuse for either of them.
"... At this point I have no belief that we'll ever see the entirety of the shenanigans or that any will be held to account. The bureaucratic gamesmanship with Nunes, Grassley and others to block, obfuscate and prevent any disclosure on one side and the complexity and extensiveness of the misuse of law enforcement and intelligence powers ensures that the American people will never know how warped their national security institutions have become. ..."
"... Net net, it seems to me that our national security apparatus along with our equally compromised political establishment will through sheer hubris and ineptitude, bungle into a situation that could be very dangerous not only to us but to the world at large. ..."
"... In other news: the Praetorian Guard is so embroiled in extracurricular activities that it doesn't actually spend any time guarding the Emperor. ..."
"... It is interesting that I don't see a headline on WSJ which reads something like "FBI spy infiltrated the Trump campaign". Of course I don't see such a headline on CNN or the NYTimes. To think that I once looked down my nose at Fox News. ..."
"... This article by Andy McCarthy reviews some of the Page-Strzok text messages and looks at what was redacted especially in light of Nunes pushing for the unredaction of the name of the person who is apparently associated with both US and British intelligence and apparently met with George Papadapolous prior to his meeting with the Australian ambassador Downer. ..."
"... A couple of interesting posts on Nunes. The Deep State Mob Targets Nunes https://www.zerohedge.com/n... Devin Nunes is a Badass https://amgreatness.com/201... ..."
"... The Trump campaign and presidency show similar characteristics. Placing a mole in that chaos seems to have been about the easiest possible intelligence operation. If we knew the details, would we find ANYONE who made the effort and failed to get past Trump level "vetting"? Does anyone think that Michael Wolf's experience was unique? It seems plausible that over time more and more of the real work is getting done by such people simply because they are careful not to do the sorts of things that lead to actual believers leaving at such impressive rates. ..."
"... The significance is pretty simple. What was the actual intelligence information to launch the counter-intelligence investigation of the Trump campaign? None. It was all a fabrication by Brennan and Clapper that was then laundered through to Comey to use the investigatory authorities and tools. ..."
"... The bottom line is that an incumbent administration used the national security apparatus to spy and frame a presidential campaign of the other party and directly intervene and manipulate a presidential election. And when they failed created media hysteria to launch an effort to find impeachable offenses of a duly elected president. This is what happens in a banana republic. We are one now, That is the significance. ..."
"... In my mind after 2 years of investigation both by the FBI/DOJ and then Mueller they've yet to provide any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. On the other hand there is increasing evidence that the FBI/DOJ were weaponized for political purposes. ..."
"... The executive branch of government, in this case the Obama administration, planting a federal agent inside the political campaign of the Democratic Party's opponent to entrap members of that campaign or the candidate himself. ..."
"... I recall Carter Page being identified several months back in a SST comments section as the probable US intel source enabling the broad FISA order ..."
"... I suppose that this is the usual foreign (often ME) belief that America is about them rather than about itself. In fact Trump is leading an attempt at counter-revolution, a revolt of the heartland against the elites of the left and right coasts and islands in the stream like Chicago. The counter-revolution is against globalist internationalism that discounts the welfare of the heartland as well as against "progressivism" which denies the faith writ large of the heartland. ..."
As the onion gets slowly peeled back what we are seeing is staggering in its scope and depth. It is starting to make sense to
me as to why the immense failures across the entire national security and law enforcement apparatus. Their leadership have been
far too busy and immersed in playing political games, bureaucratic games and engaging in media operations. They've had no time
or mental energy remaining to do the actual work that they've been paid to do.
At this point I have no belief that we'll ever see the entirety of the shenanigans or that any will be held to account.
The bureaucratic gamesmanship with Nunes, Grassley and others to block, obfuscate and prevent any disclosure on one side and the
complexity and extensiveness of the misuse of law enforcement and intelligence powers ensures that the American people will never
know how warped their national security institutions have become.
The other side is that it seems that for Trump himself it is not about getting it out to the public as he could declassify
all these documents with a stroke of a pen, but to use this to play up his victimization and rile up his base. That seems to be
working if the attendance at his recent public rallies are an indicator.
Net net, it seems to me that our national security apparatus along with our equally compromised political establishment
will through sheer hubris and ineptitude, bungle into a situation that could be very dangerous not only to us but to the world
at large.
It is interesting that I don't see a headline on WSJ which reads something like "FBI spy infiltrated the Trump campaign".
Of course I don't see such a headline on CNN or the NYTimes. To think that I once looked down my nose at Fox News.
This article by Andy McCarthy reviews some of the Page-Strzok text messages and looks at what was redacted especially in light
of Nunes pushing for the unredaction of the name of the person who is apparently associated with both US and British intelligence
and apparently met with George Papadapolous prior to his meeting with the Australian ambassador Downer.
The incoherence is stunning. And in the same kind of way as the hullabaloo on the left over Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
Let's start with the Russian participation since we now know a lot more about that. It was obnoxious. It showed potential for
future serious damage to the US electoral system. But did it elect Donald Trump? No. The Russians were dabbling in a game being
run at much larger scale by world class practitioners. They brought to the table neither the sophisticated understanding of American
politics not the resources required to make a difference. They picked some targets of opportunity and were able to use pre-existing
cleavages to their advantage.
The Trump campaign and presidency show similar characteristics. Placing a mole in that chaos seems to have been about the
easiest possible intelligence operation. If we knew the details, would we find ANYONE who made the effort and failed to get past
Trump level "vetting"? Does anyone think that Michael Wolf's experience was unique? It seems plausible that over time more and
more of the real work is getting done by such people simply because they are careful not to do the sorts of things that lead to
actual believers leaving at such impressive rates.
And what is the significance of the possible mole? Do we see a pattern of Trump administration initiatives being frustrated
by subtle maneuvers by people who always seem to know what is the next planned move? No. Even their closest allies don't seem
to have any idea what to expect. What would be the content of reports from such a mole?
So the contention is that that the FBI (or CIA?) opened up a channel of communication with someone in an inside position. Or
placed someone in an inside position. For valid reasons or bad. I'm inclined to think probably good reasons; the WSJ writers are
inclined to think bad. Did this happen before or after the famous Papadopoulis drunken indiscretions? If before, then indeed they
need to have had reasons beyond what they have expressed.
But again, what is the significance? The WSJ article makes a brief foray into the suspicious nature of other (non-Russian)
foreigners and leaves it at that. Did the intelligence agencies then undertake investigations that they shouldn't have? Regardless
of where allegations come from, do we really want an intelligence service that follows up only on data from "approved" sources?
If there was nothing going on, the proper action for the intelligence agencies was to determine that fact.
The significance is pretty simple. What was the actual intelligence information to launch the counter-intelligence investigation
of the Trump campaign? None. It was all a fabrication by Brennan and Clapper that was then laundered through to Comey to use the
investigatory authorities and tools.
The bottom line is that an incumbent administration used the national security
apparatus to spy and frame a presidential campaign of the other party and directly intervene and manipulate a presidential election.
And when they failed created media hysteria to launch an effort to find impeachable offenses of a duly elected president. This
is what happens in a banana republic. We are one now, That is the significance.
What I meant by significance was actual use of the data obtained. Discerning that can be logically dicey, but in general the investigation
seems to have held data about as tight as it can be held. Other investigators don't seem to have much trouble turning up interesting
(and embarrassing) history, but nobody seems to know what the FBI investigation has or doesn't have.
You do reference a "media
hysteria to launch an effort to find impeachable offenses". That did happen. Media hysteria is how America does things these days.
But any connection to the FBI investigation is problematic. That seems to have started with people deliberately going around the
FBI and CIA, which initially wouldn't even confirm the existence of an investigation.
You don't like the fact that they investigated at all, and you may be right. But rightness or wrongness of initiating an investigation
is certain to be contentious and to depend on facts that you and I don't have. Please correct me if in fact you do have access
to the detailed fact set and timeline that went into the decision making. In the meantime I will assume only access to publicly
available data. If the investigation was started capriciously, that would qualify as a serious problem. If facts or allegations
with major national security implications only became available after other less damning data had caused investigation to begin,
I am not very interested. This is about protecting the country, not about checking the right boxes. In the long term, failing
to investigate serious charges will seem a lot more damning than overreacting to spurious ones.
This all seems to come down to matters of trust. Do we trust the FBI to have done its job professionally and without any overriding
partisan bias? Yeah. My trust levels are pretty low, actually but I don't see much evidence to stoke the suspicions that are being
so flagrantly marketed. To begin with, if you wanted to locate a cabal of hard-core leftist partisans in the US government, FBI
agents would seem an unlikely place to look. If anything the known occurrences of bias seem to been directed against Hillary Clinton
as much as than Donald Trump. Then there is the lack of instances of using investigation data in blatantly political ways. Their
data is held very tightly. And what is the theory of how such a widespread conspiracy could have been put in place without anyone
noticing at the time?
In the real world trustworthiness is always limited and relative. For this issue, would you trust the FBI more than self-interested
politicians? Devin Nunes in particular with his history of leaking out-of-context mini-quotes, but really any politician. Would
you trust the current FBI more than any replacement that could be formed? Would you trust that they are not carrying on the sort
of activities uncovered by the Church committee? I know of no reason to withhold trust at that level.
And again we come back to significance. It might be worth digging out all the details if the investigation was being used to
blackmail and intimidate people. (How would you set about intimidating Donald Trump?) Or if false charges were being filed against
people. (The charges don't look false. The scandal may be that no one seems to have looked before at some of this. In any case
false charges are a technique for people without the resources to defend themselves. Not these guys.) What has occurred to justify
throwing away the system we have built over the years?
I don't see American political players being abused by an out-of-control FBI. I see some American political players desperately
wanting to keep facts from coming out. "If you have an innocent client, act like it!"
This whole Russia collusion affair speaks volumes about the state of our nation.
The testimony from Brennan, Clapper and Comey points to Electronic Communication as the original basis for the launch of the
counter-intelligence probe of the Trump campaign. The DOJ and FBI have not been forthcoming on what exactly that was. They've
continuously fought disclosure and then when the pressure rose from Congressional oversight they redacted critical elements. When
some of the redactions were unredacted it showed it had nothing to do with national security and everything to do with preventing
malfeasance and politicization from being disclosed. Nunes has disclosed that the electronic communication did not originate from
a 5 Eyes party. From testimony and other public disclosures it seems that the electronic communication originated from Brennan
and Clapper.
There's something fishy for sure that happened during the Summer/Fall 2016. In my mind after 2 years of investigation both
by the FBI/DOJ and then Mueller they've yet to provide any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.
On the other hand there is increasing evidence that the FBI/DOJ were weaponized for political purposes.
"...dabbling in a game being run at much larger scale by world class practitioners."
And who might those practitioners be?
You ask about significance twice: "And what is the significance of the possible mole?" and "But again, what is the significance?"
The executive branch of government, in this case the Obama administration, planting a federal agent inside the political
campaign of the Democratic Party's opponent to entrap members of that campaign or the candidate himself.
Those are Alinsky's rules, not constitutional principles in a democratic society. The follow on question is how many other
times was this done in political campaigns inside the US to favor the political party in power, in this case the Democratic Party?
Trump by chance may have hired someone who came already with a past (and unrelated to anything Trump) FBI or CIA relationship.
So it may not be a case of "planting" but of asset activation, or the source itself may have initiated the contact with law enforcement
regarding possible crimes.
You mean it was just oh so coincidental that "someone who came with a past....FBI" How many other elections for President,
or any other elected office, did this happen in previously? Perhaps an audit of all the FISA applications previously made would
be helpful.
"To entrap members of the campaign or the candidate himself"
You are assuming a motive. I have long since learned not to make assumptions about other people's motives. My mind-reading
credentials expired long ago. In any case, one of the very first rules of intelligence is to avoid such assumptions.
In any case, your theory suffers from a lack of examples of such entrapment. The embarassments experienced all seem to have
derived from much more basic and public sources. Whatever the intelligence agencies found on their own has remained private except
for actual indictments. None of those qualify in my mind as "entrapment".
I suppose that this is the usual foreign (often ME) belief that America is about them rather than about itself. In fact Trump
is leading an attempt at counter-revolution, a revolt of the heartland against the elites of the left and right coasts and islands
in the stream like Chicago. The counter-revolution is against globalist internationalism that discounts the welfare of the heartland
as well as against "progressivism" which denies the faith writ large of the heartland.
The Iran as enemy issue is derived from generations of pro-Zionist propaganda from those coastal elites. This has had a profound
effect on the Christian evangelicals of the heartland who think Zion fulfills prophecy as a harbinger of the end of days. They
are many of Trump's "troops."
"... Although Carter Page may have been also acting as a knowing informant, he was at least and maybe was no more than a "walking wiretap" under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during his interactions with the Trump campaign. A clue in the 18 January 2018 memo of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence which was declassified by order of the president on 2 February 2018 said that the FISA probable cause order on Carter Page "was not under Title 7" of FISA. It was under Title 1, which is the most expansive authorization under that law [1]. ..."
Bubbling up in the last several days is a story separate from but perhaps more highly
charged and incriminating than the surveillance of Carter Page through a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court warrant that followed Page into the Donald Trump campaign for president. A
U.S. citizen who had been an informant for the FBI and CIA may have been acting as an informant
gathering information from inside and around the Trump campaign for one or both of them.
Even though everybody and their dog want to get a mole inside the campaign of a political
opponent, this appears to be action by one or more governmental agencies to spy on a political
campaign through an inside source, a/k/a HUMINT.
Although Carter Page may have been also acting as a knowing informant, he was at least and
maybe was no more than a "walking wiretap" under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) during his interactions with the Trump campaign. A clue in the 18 January 2018 memo of
the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence which was declassified by order of
the president on 2 February 2018 said that the FISA probable cause order on Carter Page "was
not under Title 7" of FISA. It was under Title 1, which is the most expansive authorization
under that law [1].
This new misconduct is being explored by U.S. Representative Devin Nunes (Repub.,
California, 22nd District), who is chairman of the House Intel Committee and is actually trying
to do his job . He was first elected to Congress in 2002.
[1] Summary of Title 1 of FISA from the House Intel Committee--
"... According to Giuliani, setting up shell companies is a trick people of wealth learned from either the Israeli Mafia or the CIA. Though it could be the other way around. ..."
"... Rhetorical question: What could somebody do with $250,000? Answer: pay off two prostitutes! ..."
Donald
Trump's sex life is nobody's business but his own. And maybe Melania's, if her Pre-Nuptial
Agreement (PNA) stipulates that she can sue his fat ass for divorce and receive a huge
percentage of his rumored wealth if he cheats on her, too often.
Like the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, signed with porn star
Stormy Daniels (who had a quickie with Trump in 2006), prenups and private goon squads are
standard fare for people of wealth.
But is Trump wealthy? And if so, where did he get his cash?
Some people say he laundered about $400 million in drug money for the Israeli Mafia's
Russian franchise back in the early 1990's, in exchange for everything he ever wanted. I don't
know if that's a fact. That's what I hear. People say it. Maybe somebody like Robert Mueller
should investigate?
Fox News says the president isn't mobbed up, that everyone in New York City has to work with
the Mafia if they want a hotel constructed on time. And that could be true.
But what is Truth? It's impossible to tell anymore.
The Truth could be that either the Deep State or the Israeli Mafia is forcing Trump to do
many terrible things he doesn't really want to do. Like deep-sixing the Iran deal. Somebody's
fingerprints are all over that baby's behind. Maybe Michael Cohen knows? Somebody should ask
him.
Trump is obviously a victim of either the Deep State or the Israeli Mafia and its American
franchise. You choose. But consider this: On the same day Trump scrapped the Iran deal, someone
said that Russian billionaire Victor Vekselberg (who just happens to be Putin's BFF) wired
$500,000 into a bank account that hatchet man Cohen (who doubles as Trump's real estate broker)
set up for the purpose of issuing the $130,000 hush payment to Stormy Daniels.
I don't know if that's true. Sean Hannity says it isn't true. Rudy Giuliani says it might be
true, and that it doesn't matter even if it is True, because people of wealth often set up
shell companies to hide their business dealings from the Public Eye, which is their right as
people of wealth.
According to Giuliani, setting up shell companies is a trick people of wealth learned from
either the Israeli Mafia or the CIA. Though it could be the other way around.
Another one of Trump's prerogatives as a person of wealth is the right to charge people
money to play with him. Trump's business consultant, Michael Cohen (who may work for the
Israeli Mafia, I don't know), funnels such "pay to play" money into the same bank accounts he,
Cohen, uses to pay off the women Trump has casual and unsatisfactory (for them ) sex with.
BTW, I forgot to mention it, but Vekselberg's cousin, American citizen Andrew Intrater,
donated $250,000 to Trump's inauguration fund.
Rhetorical question: What could somebody do with $250,000? Answer: pay off two
prostitutes!
Somebody in the Deep State (which, according to Hannity, is the code name for the Justice
Department) knows about this, but let's it happen, because Trump is, after all, a person of
wealth with certain rights to privacy.
... ... ...
Stormy, who whipped Trump's fat ass with a copy of Trump Magazine back in 2006, is an
eyewitness to The Thing. When asked by Penthouse to compare his penis size to "his fingers,"
Daniels said, "I don't want to shame anybody."
"... Suppose there were no Russia in Syria, what would have happened? Libya would have been the fate. Most likely US would have recognized Golan Ht as Israel's. Oil harvesting companies would become more visible. Lebanon would have been in flames. Nothing else in ME. Some more terror attacks in EU may be. ..."
"... The real purpose of the Donald's missile-rattling is nothing more than helping Bibi Netanyahu keep his coalition of right wing religious and settler parties (Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu and the Jewish Home) together, thereby maintaining his slim 61-vote majority in the 120-seat Knesset. ..."
"... Netanyahu's malefic political glue is the utterly false claim that Iran is an "existential threat" to Israel because it is hell-bent on getting the bomb. ..."
"... As a matter of record, of course, Netanyahu has been saying this since the early 1990s and he has always been wrong because there were never any facts or logic to support his blatant fear-mongering. ..."
There have been major developments this week, all of them bad, including Putin re-nominating
Medvedev as his Prime Minister, and Bibi Netanyahu invited to Moscow to the Victory Day Parade
in spite of him bombing Syria, a Russian ally, just on the eve of his visit. Once in Moscow,
Netanyahu compared Iran to, what else, Nazi
Germany . How original and profound indeed! Then he proceeded to order the bombing of Syria
for a second time , while still in
Moscow. But then, what can we expect from a self-worshiping narcissist who finds it appropriate
to serve
food to the Japanese Prime Minister in a specially made shoe ? The man is clearly batshit
crazy (which in no way makes him less evil or dangerous). But it is the Russian reaction which
is so totally disgusting: nothing, absolutely nothing. Unlike others, I have clearly said
that it is not the Russian responsibility to "protect" Syria (or Iran) from the Israelis. But
there is no doubt in my mind that Netanyahu has just publicly thumbed his nose at Putin and
that Putin took it. For all my respect for Putin, this time he allowed Netanyahu to treat him
just like Trump treated Macron. Except that in the case of Putin, he was so treated in his own
capital. That makes it even worse.
[Interestingly, while whining about "Nazi Iran" Netanyahu did say something truly profound
and true. He said " an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges, one has
to push back against it before it is too late". That is indeed exactly what most people
across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice is
completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is becoming
"too late" and that the consequences for our collective cowardice -- most of us are absolutely
terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords - will cost us all a
terrible price.]
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the US does
not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral agreement. But being the
megalomaniac that he is, and not to mention the spineless lackey of the Israel Lobby, Trump
ignored all that and thereby created further tensions between the US and the rest of the world
whom the US will now blackmail and bully to try to force it to support the US in its rabid
subservience to Israel. As for the Israelis, their "sophisticated" "strategy" is primitive to
the extreme: first get Trump to create maximal tensions with Iran, then attack the Iranians in
Syria as visibly and arrogantly as possible, bait the Iranians into a retaliation, then bellow
"OI VEY!!!" with your loudest voice, mention the Holocaust once or twice, toss in a "6 million
people" figure, and get the US to attack Syria.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I
sure can't think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs (and
cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?
Nonetheless, it appears undeniable that the Zionists have enough power to simultaneously
force not one, but two (supposed) superpowers to cave into their demands. Not only that, they
have the power to do that while also putting these two superpowers on a collision course
against each other. At the very least, this shows two things: the United States has completely
lost its sovereignty and is now an Israeli protectorate. As for Russia, well, she is doing
comparatively better, but the full re-sovereignization the Russian people have voted for when
they gave their overwhelming support to Putin will not happen. A comment I read on a Russian
chat put it: "Путин кинул
народ -- мы не за
Медведева
голосовали" or " Putin betrayed
the people -- we did not vote for Medvedev ". I am not sure that "betrayed the people" is
fair, but the fact that he has disappointed a lot of people is, I think, simply undeniable.
It is still way too early to reach any conclusions at this point, and there are still way
too many unknown variables, but I will admit that I am very worried and that for the first time
in 4 years I am having major doubts about a fundamental policy decision by Putin. I sure hope
that I am wrong. We will find out relatively soon. I just hope that this will not be in the
form of a major war.
Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly, for some years now, questioned Putin's apparent
willingness to bend over backwards to placate his "partners" in the West.
PCR has maintained consistently that the West can not be trusted, that Russia's attempts
at accommodation are taken as signs of weakness, acting only to embolden the West in its
continuing vicious assaults.
Of course, Russia is playing for time: hoping that over time the strategic tables will
increasing tip in its own & China's etc favour.
However, I suspect Saker & PCR are right: further submission will only lead to ever more
vicious attacks. This is made all the worse by China's unwillingness to assert itself
internationally as the 2nd largest economic power. (As if it can't see the US strategy, via
tariffs etc to retard, if not destroy its future economic development)
One might have a tiny mite of hope that the West might ultimately act sanely. However, with
the Zionists now pulling all the strings sanity is over & out.
Netanyahu is regarded in Washington, and perhaps also Moscow, as almost Churchillian for his
efforts to protect Israel and by extension the region and the US.
Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with
ICBM's?
I've been waiting to hear your take, Saker, since things are very bad indeed. I did not like
what I saw happen on May 9th. Here is my very abbreviated take on it.
Bibi knows that he's pulled Trump fully into the Israeli orbit. He as much as told Putin
he would attack Syria and dared him to do anything about it. If Putin responded with force,
that would provide Israel and America with all the provocation they need to go all-in against
Syria, Iran, and Russia, which is what the Ziocons were hoping to accomplish anyway. Putin,
seeing all this and being the better man, can only sit back and take it. For now.
Bibi pissed in Putin's face and nobody could do a thing about it. But the whole world saw
what happened and nobody with half a brain is on the side of the Israelis. I'm no longer
upset that Putin didn't respond. He has admirable restraint and patience. The very hand of
God Himself will move against the Israelis for all their crimes and treachery, and Putin will
still be one of His chief instruments.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension.
I sure can't think of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomanical thugs
(and cowards) than the Israelis. Can you?
Yes I can, Saker, you live among them.
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the
US does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral
agreement
.
See Club Orlov http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/ 5/10 regarding the
120+ billion of Iranian money we hold in dollars the dead broke US gets to keep by pulling
out of the deal.
Good call.
That is why we follow you Saker.
It is the responsability of the american men to rebel and fix this goverment.
Im from cuba and the worst part here is that we have been delivered to be control and saked
by people that we took the lunch from them when we where kids,in the school yard.
Agree. Putin seems to have rolled over and is crying uncle. Sad. Perhaps he is waiting
until his new weapons are fully stockpiled before he makes any serious attempts to defend --
ultimately -- himself and his nation.
Without Russia putting some brakes on the Empire's unopposed oppressions, there is little
hope for truth, justice, etc. in the world. There is no attempt to print the truth in
national publications (that has been going on for a long time), and increasingly, little
attempt to hide the fact that they are not printing the truth. The masses, instead of
rebelling against obvious lies, seem to have internalized doublethink and do not have any
significant impulse to rise up and defend their own interests. The propaganda is too thick,
too strong, and too unopposed. Things look grim.
Who among us wants horizontal nuclear proliferation and a nuked up Iran armed with
ICBM's?
I think that would be a good check of Israel's power that could stabilize the ME and
return to the path of development that existed there still till early 1980s when the process
of destabilization began which was a part of the Yinon plan. If Israel remains the absolutely
dominant power people in ME countries will be allowed to live in Hobbesian chaotic world only
where they will be encouraged to engage in ethnic and sectarian fighting forever.
How anybody can respect, nevermind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond
comprehension.
Why not? Israel has been successfully expanding its territory, and getting two superpowers
to cave into its demands (Saker's own words). That is pretty admirable in my book. This is certainly worth of both respect and admiration, even if one otherwise wishes to
see Israel burn in a sea of atomic fire.
Anyhow, there's no reason for Russia to care. Increased American tensions with Iran will
raise the price of oil. Also a reminder that the Kremlin couldn't care less about American
murders of Russian mercenaries. So in what world will they concern themselves with
Iranian ones.
A comment I read on a Russian chat put it: "Путин
кинул народ -- мы
не за
Медведева
голосовали" or "Putin betrayed
the people -- we did not vote for Medvedev".
Ah yes, the сирийские
братушки ("Syrian brothers"). Perhaps Western
Russophiles consider them such, but few Russians do.
So The Saker is correct, Putin did not betray "his" people. (Well, he did, but that
happened in 2014, not now).
I'm no longer upset that Putin didn't respond. He has admirable restraint and patience.
The very hand of God Himself will move against the Israelis for all their crimes and
treachery, and Putin will still be one of His chief instruments.
This is your wishful thinking talking. You are still upset with Putin and you should be.
May 9 parade with Netanyahu and bombing in Syria really looked very bad. To me it signified
Putin's capitulation. At least it is the end game and Russia realized she was outplayed as
she is apparently not ready to go all the way with the nuclear blackmail. Putin will stay put
waiting for the stupid World Cup while Netanyahu will be escalating or some face saving
measure will be found for Russia to withdraw from Syria or Russia will be invited to be a
part of occupational government there.
Chinese looking from afar probably are disappointed but they never trusted Russian corrupt
elite staying the course.
Suppose there were no Russia in Syria, what would have happened? Libya would have been the fate. Most likely US would have recognized Golan Ht as Israel's.
Oil harvesting companies would become more visible. Lebanon would have been in flames.
Nothing else in ME. Some more terror attacks in EU may be.
But would these have changed the internal dynamics within US ? No It would not. US would
still be going down the path it has been and that path would still be what it is today at
home and abroad.
Social anarchy, takeover of Democrats by non-whites , takeover of GOP by religious
militant and bipartisan tax cutting for pro big business will continue unhindered . Is it
good? No. But good for the destruction of the country. That is good .
ME without USA would then look like no different until Russia also faces the same fate that
has happened to Wiemar Germany and Egyptian/ Persian in the historical past.
on another note after seeing shabas putin next to netanyahu holding picture of a commie
terrorist commissar let me say Saker the "ukronazis" have the stalinist russians pegged right
thank God they left Russia some hope for a jew free state
Paul Craig Roberts has repeatedly, for some years now, questioned Putin's apparent
willingness to bend over backwards to placate his "partners" in the West.
The problem isn't bending over backward .it's bending over forward.
Netanyahu is regarded in Washington, and perhaps also Moscow, as almost Churchillian for
his efforts to protect Israel and by extension the region and the US.
"With Sharon's backing, terrible things were done. I am no vegetarian, and I supported
and even participated in some of the assassination operations Israel carried out. But we are
speaking here about mass killing for killing's sake, to sow chaos and alarm, among civilians,
too. Since when do we send donkeys carrying bombs to blow up in marketplaces?"
-- Mossad officer, quoted in Ronen Bergman's Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of
Israel's Targeted Assassinations
[Interestingly, while whining about "Nazi Iran" Netanyahu did say something truly
profound and true. He said "an important history lesson: when a murderous ideology emerges,
one has to push back against it before it is too late". That is indeed exactly what most
people across the world feel about Israel and its Zionist ideology but, alas, their voice
is completely ignored by those who rule over them. So yes, it sure looks to me like it is
becoming "too late" and that the consequences for our collective cowardice -- most of us
are absolutely terrified from speaking the plain truth about our Zionist overlords - will
cost us all a terrible price.]
Add to that the Jews' other genocidal favorites; diversity, multiculturalism, open
borders, and anti-nationalism-fur-de-goyim.
Of course, Saker and his fellow cucked "Russian nationalists" don't add them, which
is part of the reason that I'm indifferent to Russian nationalists anymore.
Then, of course, there is Donald Trump pulling out of the so-called Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) in spite of Iran's full compliance and in spite of the fact that the
US does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw from this multilateral
agreement.
Let's just say I'm not taking flatheads' word on this one.
In the meantime, I want to refocus on the Skripal case.
Only took you like a thousand words to get around to the point; congratulations.
This is made all the worse by China's unwillingness to assert itself internationally as
the 2nd largest economic power. (As if it can't see the US strategy, via tariffs etc to
retard, if not destroy its future economic development)
In reality the US strategy is now to be a bit less than a total globalist-run whorehouse.
Which will probably be changed back with the next new president. China's main concern will be
internal stability and security for the foreseeable future.
One indeed can admire how a few thousand jews wield such power.
I consider the rest of jewry as their victims.
But then, why not admire Hitler, he was on his own.
In both cases, disaster struck.
Jews still do not see that the present situation in the USA resembles the Weimar
Republic.
Henry Ford knew this quite well 'in the end most Jewish enterprises fail through
overconfidence'.
Possibly the first time was when they were, as is asserted, implicated in the murder of the
Roman emperor.
Rome twice sent big armies to Palestine.
If Rome also invented Christianity to undermine them, it remains an interesting theory.
I am inclined to agree with you Putin is smarter and would not/cannot fall for the bait. I
believe history will confirm that he will save the human race from total annihilation that we
possibly face in months/years to come. I was hoping that Trump would also be a force for good
but my view is changing as each day passes. I do not understand the subservient position that
the US takes with Israel. Yes there is an aggressive Zionist faction who control America and
yes nobody dares speak out against them but there must come a time when enough is enough.
Unfortunately if Trump meant it when he said he would drain the swamp he has been prevented
from doing so.
I wouldn't be too hard on Putin. I have a whacked theory that the Jews see the control of the
USA slipping. 9-11 was a huge screw up and more and more people know. They had talked of
moving to India or China but I don't think that will work. Neither will allow the same stunts
they have pulled around Whites. I think the psychopathic Jews are breed to be a parasite on
the White Man and it will never work elsewhere. So they're fucked. What can they do? Well if
you're a psychopath then the best thing to do would be to start a China/Russia vs. USA nuke
war and while this goes on nuke the Europeans, Arabs and maybe a little germ warfare thrown
in for good measure. You sit in the middle and hunker down then start over.
Now this may be completely crazy but psychopaths are crazy by most peoples definition and
the above is perfectly logical. Maybe Putin doesn't think of it in directly these terms like
I laid out but he can't help but notice that these animals are off, a lot. The Jews position
gets worse every single day. They will have no luck at all disarming the Americans and the
internet, despite their censorship, can;t be completely closed down. Their media platform is
failing. No one believes what they say.
We should get rid of the Jews. Peacefully if we can but by any means necessary. Jewish
populations upon moving into another territory are in no way distinguishable from a tribe of
psychopaths over the long term. No one wants to live with psychopaths.
Mr Saker,
I agree with your first part of the article and if I may add, Putin is a corrupt capitalist
much like his brother in the US, Trump! They do love wealth and power so much that they both
are prime targets for corruption by the wealthy Z's. Now that they both have become pawns and
subservient to a third party, the Z's are dancing in street for taking control of the 2
superpowers! The one point that I'd disagree with is about your concerns of the 2 super
powers having to come closer to a potential military conflict! Since a third party has taken
control of the two superpowers the 2 countries are NOT allowed to challenge each other
militarily because there's zero or even less than zero benefits for the real people who are
in charge!
It was a real stab in the back for our allies and that's really hard to see.
I definitely see yours and the Saker's arguments in making this point, however,
personally, it all looks to me like act 1 of a bigger play. Like Trump, Putin seems to make
his concessions up front, but there must, by necessity be a payback concession somewhere down
the road; if their allowed survival itself isn't the original concession already.
The nature of the understanding between Russia and Israel, which has not been covered
anywhere in the news, must ultimately not be so difficult to determine for journalists
investigating it, if such journalists actually existed.
None of them has any interest in covering this, however, because: the west can't deviate
from the onslaught of Russian vilification; Russia, doesn't want to show its vulnerabilities
and Israel doesn't want to show its power.
But I suspect some of this will come to light as the next phase of operations against
Iran.
The mere threat of a military attack from the White House is madness because it arises
from blatant lies that have absolutely nothing to do with US national security. Nor, for
that matter, the security of any other country in the region, including Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
The real purpose of the Donald's missile-rattling is nothing more than helping Bibi
Netanyahu keep his coalition of right wing religious and settler parties (Likud, United
Torah Judaism, Shas, Kulanu and the Jewish Home) together, thereby maintaining his slim
61-vote majority in the 120-seat Knesset.
Netanyahu's malefic political glue is the utterly false claim that Iran is an
"existential threat" to Israel because it is hell-bent on getting the bomb.
But that's where the whopper comes in. It amounts to the ridiculous postulate that Iran
is so fiendishly evil that if it is involved in the nuclear fuel cycle in any way, shape or
form -- presumably even just operating a uranium mine -- it is only a matter of months
before it will have a bomb.
As a matter of record, of course, Netanyahu has been saying this since the early 1990s
and he has always been wrong because there were never any facts or logic to support his
blatant fear-mongering.
But maybe this will blow the top on the economic fiction that's been going on since at
leads Greenspan:
And that gets us to the madness at the other end of the Acela Corridor. On a day in
which there was no good news whatsoever -- except that defense spending will go ever higher
making the impending yield shock even worse -- the stock market rose by another 1%.
There is no mystery as to why, however. Honest price discovery and the discounting of
real world information was totally destroyed by the Fed's monetary central planners years
ago.
The only thing the casino discounts today is the trading points on the hourly, daily and
weekly stock charts, and the presumption that both the fiscal and central banking branches
of the state stand ready to "stimulate" whenever a serious breach occurs on the charts.
Nothing could be more mistaken -- and for reasons we will amplify upon in Part 2.
But the spoiler alert is this: The private sector is now swamped under record and
unsustainable debt in both the household and business sectors. By succumbing to the most
incendiary Deep State meme of all -- the Iranian Nuke lie -- the Donald has now made a
public debt catastrophe an absolute certainty.
It looks like a smackdown following the announcement of the superweapons. My thought on
Putin's gloating show was why not keep these weaponse developments secret. Once the
toothpaste is out of the tube you can't push it back in. One explanation may be that Putin
thought he was in charge up to that point, but may have found out differently. I don't know
if Russia has a Rothschild central bank. But agreed, it certainly looks bad. Plus Israel has
hit Syria again. It all looks very bad.
Don't be ridiculous,. Most of us would trust Iran with nukes even if they wanted them,
which they do not, before the Zionist terrorist state. As the Saker said. "How anybody can
respect, never mind admire, the Israelis is simply beyond comprehension. I sure can't think
of a more contemptible, nasty, psychopathic gang of megalomaniacal thugs (and cowards) than
the Israelis. "
ussia's objectives in Syria are not identical
to their own? Are they not students of history?
I can only imagine the negotiations that went on in Russia among Netanyahu and company and
the Russian government. I'm certain that Russia made assurances that it would not provide
S-300 systems. What did Netanyahu have to pay for that? Perhaps assurances that he would stop
pushing the Americans to bomb Syrian positions? I don't know. You have an imagination. Think
of what Putin wants that Netanyahu could provide.
I congratulate Mr Roberts for his courage.
"We must take it on faith alone."
I also agree with all his references to Israel. I loathe people who demand acts of faith (or
self induced stupidity)
Russia has a national, sovereign, bank , led by a very competent economist, Elvira
Nabiulina.
However, Russia's economy is not a match to its military status. Russia's entire GDP is
lower than South Korea's, and is only slightly over twice the Pentagon's budget.
I think this is one of the reasons why President Putin must tread carefully: Russia's
economy and internal stability are very vulnerable to external economic and financial
pressure.
I am a supporter of the Resistance. I support resistance to American hegmony, the idea of a unipolar world with the rest of
the nations following American dictates. I support resistance by American citizens against the ideas of American exceptionalism,
ongoing foreign belligerence that benefits only the Military Industrial Complex and a certain "shitty little country in the Levant".
I support resistance to the Zionist State, the ongoing crimes perpetrated by the Zionists against both the indigenous Palestinians
in their own nation and against their neighboring Arab countries. I support American resistance to the stranglehold that supporters
of Israel enjoy on the political system in the US.
Therefore, I support actors such as China and Russia in that they are cooperating to balance the unbridled hubris and exceptionalism
of my country, providing a balance, a multi-polar future. Iran has become a lynchpin in this geopolitical competition, being positioned
smack in the middle of a horizontal (OBOR/BRI initiative) and vertical (Russia's energy cooperation ideas) axis of the future.
I support Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (Hizbollah) in their desire to remain independent, complete nations while supporting
the Palestinians and fighting against the Zionists.
I am not so naive, however, to imagine that all the components of the resistance have similar goals in specific areas, in this
case the Syrian situation. It is more than curious to see people saying that Putin "sold out" Syria and Iran. Do you not consider
that Putin is acting for the benefit of the Russian nation and Russian interests, and not for the benefit of the rest of the resistance
and their program? Do you not realize that without the Russian action in support of the Assad administration, he would certainly
have lost his nation, a nation that would currently be a destabilized basket case, a series of fragments falling under control
of various Sunnite head choppers, Kurdish militias, and government remnants?
It is important to consider the objectives of the resistance players in Syria, both short- and long-term. Russia's objectives
in Syria have been to keep the nation united and integrated, under the control of the current legitimate government until democratic
elections can be held at some future date. Russia wants to prevent a radical Sunni movement from threatening its southern flank,
sending activists to radicalize the Sunni populations in its Caucasus region. Another more recent objective of Russia in this
long-term goal is to keep the Americans out of Syria as much as possible, hoping that the cessation of military action and the
return of Syrian government control will lead to removal of all US troops.
The Russian goals do NOT include the destruction of the Zionist State, the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, or the emancipation
of the Palestinian people. It is very important to keep this in mind.
The goals of the providers of the boots on the ground that saved the Syrian government, namely Hizbollah, Iran, and the Iraqi
Shiite militias, extend beyond the scope of the Russian goals, at least as far as long-term targets are concerned. These players
certainly share the Russian goals of shoring up the Assad regime, destroying the Daesh forces, both mercenary and local, and returning
Syria to the stable ally that it was. There are more goals for these forces, though, and these goals are clear for all to see.
Hizbollah wants the return of all Lebanese territory to Lebanon. Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria want the return of the Golan Heights
to Syrian control. They rightfully see the stabilization of the situation in Syria, the massing of their forces, hardened, battle
tested forces, as an excellent opportunity to engage Israel and take back territory.
They realize that the Syrian air defenses are much improved, and although Israel is still able to attack Syrian targets with
impunity, there is more risk.
They have made plans and accumulated missiles, accurate, precision missiles that will be able to attack Israeli military positions
in the Golan Heights, for example, the IDF electronic surveillance / EW positions on Mt. Hermon. These provide the Israelis with
direct line-of-sight to most of the Damascus Plain. What would happen if Syria/Iran/Hizbollah used a precision missile strike
to take out the Israeli's eyes, as well as the AD jammers and other equipment? All of these players also want a fair and just
solution for the Palestinian people, the recovery of their ability to determine their own future on terms that are acceptable
to them. I support these goals. I am not Putin.
Remember, an escalation in military action between the Israelis and the Syrian/Iranian/Hizbollah forces in southern Syria will
be viewed by Russia as a greater risk for its own troops, and a greater chance that the US will interfere more forcefully in the
country. The Russians want to avoid this. Do I like this? Of course not. Keep in mind my own views, and the forces of the resistance
that I said that I support. Do I feel that the Russians sold out thier allies? No way. Do you really think that the generals of
the IRGC and Hassan Nasrallah are unaware of the fact that R
"... In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets ..."
"... You might find this article on mifsud of interest.. there are some earlier ones on that site too worth a read.. the gist of the articles are essentially mifsud is a british or cia intel asset, as opposed to how he is portrayed in the west.. ..."
@JulianAssange There is something very odd about the Joseph Mifsud story and the role of the UK in the 2016 US presidential election: (thread) 5:07 PM · Mar 22, 2018
DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok,
along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets
@96 wj... You might find
this article on mifsud of interest.. there are some earlier ones on that site too worth a read.. the gist of the articles
are essentially mifsud is a british or cia intel asset, as opposed to how he is portrayed in the west..
@99 / 100 a p.. thanks for your perspective and your many fine posts! i guess we can wait and see how it unfolds..
"... In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets ..."
"... You might find this article on mifsud of interest.. there are some earlier ones on that site too worth a read.. the gist of the articles are essentially mifsud is a british or cia intel asset, as opposed to how he is portrayed in the west.. ..."
@JulianAssange There is something very odd about the Joseph Mifsud story and the role of the UK in the 2016 US presidential election: (thread) 5:07 PM · Mar 22, 2018
DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok,
along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets
@96 wj... You might find
this article on mifsud of interest.. there are some earlier ones on that site too worth a read.. the gist of the articles
are essentially mifsud is a british or cia intel asset, as opposed to how he is portrayed in the west..
@99 / 100 a p.. thanks for your perspective and your many fine posts! i guess we can wait and see how it unfolds..
"... A McClatchy journalist investigated further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was disinformation. ..."
"... Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma. ..."
"... The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation. ..."
"... Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them, anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them. ..."
"... No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered. ..."
"... Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation. ..."
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
"... 1984, anyone? ..."
"... The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and other sites is just so stupid its painful. ..."
"... Presumably the Skripals touch the cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW can't even get the amounts of the chemical right. ..."
"... Biggest problem with the world today is lazy insouciant citizens. ..."
"... One very important point Lavrov made was the anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction of humanity; ..."
"... while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter envisioned. ..."
"... Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation. ..."
"... Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™. ..."
"... Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar. ..."
"... And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™ apparatus. ..."
"... Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill Clinton in charge of a girls' school. ..."
"... In the Guardian I only read the comments, never the article. Here, I read both. That is the difference between propaganda and good reporting. ..."
The Grauniad is slipping deeper into the disinformation business:
Revealed: UK's push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance is the headline of a page one piece
which reveals exactly nothing. There is no secret lifted and no one was discomforted by a
questioning journalist.
Like other such pieces it uses disinformation to accuse Russia of spreading such.
The main 'revelation' is stenographed from a British government official. Some quotes from
the usual anti-Russian propagandists were added. Dubious or false 'western' government claims
are held up as truth. That Russia does not endorse them is proof for Russian mischievousness
and its 'disinformation'.
The opener:
The UK will use a series of international summits this year to call for a comprehensive
strategy to combat Russian disinformation and urge a rethink over traditional diplomatic
dialogue with Moscow, following the Kremlin's aggressive campaign of denials over the use of
chemical weapons in the UK and Syria.
...
"The foreign secretary regards Russia's response to Douma and Salisbury as a turning point
and thinks there is international support to do more," a Whitehall official said. "The areas
the UK are most likely to pursue are countering Russian disinformation and finding a
mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons."
There is a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons. It is the
Chemical Weapon Convention and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
It was the British government which at first
rejected the use of these instruments during the Skripal incident:
Early involvement of the OPCW, as demanded by Russia, was resisted by the British
government. Only on March 14, ten days after the incident happened and two days after Prime
Minister Theresa may had made accusations against Russia, did the British government invite
the OPCW. Only on March 19, 15 days after the incident happen did the OPCW technical team
arrive and took blood samples.
Now back to the Guardian disinformation:
In making its case to foreign ministries, the UK is arguing that Russian denials over
Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common
understanding of the truth , but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide
western electorates and sow doubt.
A 'common understanding of the truth' is an interesting term. What is the truth? Whatever
the British government claims? It accused Russia of the Skripal incident a mere eight days
after it happened. Now, two month later, it admits that it
does not know who poisoned the Skripals:
Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to identify the individual or
individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security
adviser has disclosed.
Do the Brits know where the alleged Novichok poison came from? Unless they produced it
themselves they likely have no idea. The Czech Republic just admitted that it
made small doses of a Novichok nerve agent for testing purposes. Others did too.
Back to the Guardian :
British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia's record of mendacity is not a personal
trait of Putin's, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy
ineffective.
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin
– she had more than 40 in a year – to say he lived in a different world.
No, Merkel never said that. An Obama administration flunky planted that
in the New York Times :
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking
with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call
said. "In another world," she said.
When that claim was made in March 2014 we were immediately suspicious
of it:
This does not sound like typically Merkel but rather strange for her. I doubt that she said
that the way the "people briefed on the call" told it to the Times stenographer. It is rather
an attempt to discredit Merkel and to make it more difficult for her to find a solution with
Russia outside of U.S. control.
A day later the German government
denied (ger) that Merkel ever said such (my translation):
The chancellery is unhappy about the report in the New York Times. Merkel by no means meant
to express that Putin behaved irrational. In fact she told Obama that Putin has a different
perspective about the Crimea [than Obama has].
A McClatchy journalist investigated
further and came to the same conclusion as I did. The 'leak' to the New York Times was
disinformation.
That disinformation, spread by the Obama administration but immediately exposed as false, is
now held up as proof by Patrick Wintour, the Diplomatic editor of the Guardian , that
Russia uses disinformation and that Putin is a naughty man.
The British Defense Minister Gavin Williamson
wants journalists to enter the UK reserve forces to help with the creation of
propaganda:
He said army recruitment should be about "looking to different people who maybe think, as a
journalist: 'What are my skills in terms of how are they relevant to the armed forces?'
Patrick Wintour seems to be a qualified candidate.
Or maybe he should join the NATO for Information Warfare the Atlantic Council wants to
create to further disinform about those damned Russkies:
What we need now is a cross-border defense alliance against disinformation -- call it
Communications NATO. Such an alliance is, in fact, nearly as important as its military
counterpart.
Like the Guardian piece above writer of the NATO propaganda lobby Atlantic Council
makes claims of Russian disinformation that do not hold up to the slightest test:
By pinning the Novichok nerve agent on Sweden or the Czech Republic, or blaming the UK for
the nerve gas attack in Syria, the Kremlin sows confusion among our populations and makes us
lose trust in our institutions.
Russia has not pinned the Novichok to Sweden or the Czech Republic. It said, correctly, that
several countries produced Novichok. Russia did not blame the UK for the 'nerve gas attack' in
Syria. Russia says that there was no gas attack in Douma.
The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make to not hold up to scrutiny.
Meanwhile there pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation.
The bigger aim behind all these activities, demanding a myriad of new organizations to
propagandize against Russia, is to introduce a strict control over information within 'western'
societies.
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation.
That scheme will be used against anyone who deviates from the ordered norm. You dislike that
pipeline in your backyard? You must be falling for
Russian trolls or maybe you yourself are an agent of a foreign power. Social Security? The
Russians like that. It is a disinformation thing. You better forget about it.
Excellent article, in an ongoing run of great journalism.
I am curious - have you read this? https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
It purports to be a book by an American military man intimately familiar with the covert ops
portion of the US government. The internal Kafka-esque dynamics described certainly feel
true.
One of the reasons newspapers are getting worse is the economics. They aren't really viable
anymore. Their future is as some form of government sanctioned oligopoly. Two national papers
-- a "left" and a "right" -- and then a handful of regional papers. All spouting the same
neoliberal, neoconservative chicanery.
Genuine journalist Matt Taibbi warned of this sort of branding of disparate views as enemy a
month ago. He was also correct. Evil and insidious. The enemy of a free society.
Wait for an outbreak of hostilities on the Ukraine-Donbass front shortly before the beginning
of the World Cup competition which is as internationally important as the Olympic Games -- as
they did in 2014 with Maidan and 2016 with the Sochi Winter Olympics drug uproar, the CIA
will create chaos that will take the emphasis off any Russian success, since as to them,
anything negative regarding Russia is a positive for them.
I agree that it's difficult to see how the drive to renew the Cold War is going to be
stopped. I presume that, with the exception of certain NeoCon circles, there isn't a desire
for Hot War. Certainly not in the British sources you quote. Britain wouldn't want Hot War
with Russia. It's all a question of going to the limit for internal consumption. Do a 1984,
in order to keep the population in-line.
thanks b... i can't understand how any intelligent thinking person would read the guardian,
let alone something like the huff post, and etc. etc... why? the propaganda money that pays
for the white helmets, certainly goes to these outlets as well..
the uk have gone completely nuts! i guess it comes with reading the guardian, although, in
fairness, all british media seems very skewed - sky news, bbc, and etc. etc.
it does appear as though Patrick Wintour is on Gavin Williamson's propaganda
bandwagon/payroll already... in reading the comments and articles at craig murrays site, i
have become more familiar with just how crazy things are in the uk.. his latest article
freedom no
more sums it up well... throw the uk msm in the trash can... it is for all intensive
purposes, done..
Meanwhile, OPCW chief Uzumcu seems to have been pranked again, this time by his own staff
(this is how I interpret it):
He claimed that the amount of Novichok found was about 100 g and therefore more than
research laboratories would produce, i.e. this was weaponized Novichok.
Q: What is our reaction to the Guardian article on a "comprehensive strategy" to "deepen
the alliance against Russia" to be pursued by the UK Government at international forums?
A: Judging by the publication, the main current challenge for Whitehall is to preserve
the anti-Russian coalition that the Conservatives tried to build after the Salisbury
incident. This task is challenging indeed. The "fusion doctrine" promoted by the national
security apparatus has led to the Western bloc taking hasty decisions that, as life has
shown, were not based on any facts.
No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the
US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political
justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of
Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was
built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of
Russian responsibility) have been shattered.
Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian
logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are the Russian denials! It is hard to
see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting
countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation.
Hmmm... My reply to c1ue went sideways it seems. Yes, The late Mr. Prouty's book's the real
deal and the website hosting his very rare book is a rare gem itself. Click the JFK at page
top left to be transported to that sites archive of writings about his murder. The very important essay by
Prouty's there too.
The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is
his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."
This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be
defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of
historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs
of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection
between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present
reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do. What b points out is
something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly
rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes
b's analysis uniquely indispensable.
Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime,
"whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: "Whataboutism" is the attempt to
understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted
contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does
this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"
Whataboutism seems to deny that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no
essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.
The absurd story that the OPCW says there was a 100gm/100mg who knows which on the door and
other sites is just so stupid its painful. This implies that the Skripals both closed the
door together and then went off on their day spreading the stuff everywhere, yet no one else
was contaminated (apart from the fantasy policeman).
Presumably the Skripals touch the
cutlery, plates and wine glasses in the restaurant, so why weren't the staff there infected
as they must have had to pick up the plates etc after the meal. Even the door to the entrance
of the restaurant should be affected as they would have to push it open, thus leaving the
chemical for other people to touch. Nope, nothing in this stupid story adds up and the OPCW
can't even get the amounts of the chemical right.
The problem is,,, most know it's all BS but find it 'easier' to believe or at most ignore, as
then there is no responsibility to 'do something'. Biggest problem with the world today is
lazy insouciant citizens. (Yes,,, I'm a PCR reader) :))
Did you catch the Lavrov interview I linked to on previous Yemen thread? As you might
imagine, the verbiage used is quite similar. One very important point Lavrov made was the
anti-Russian group consists of a very small number of nations representing a small fraction
of humanity; and that while they have some economic and military clout, it's possible for the
rest of the world's nations to sideline them and get on with the important business of
forming a genuine Multipolar World Order, which is what the UN and its Charter
envisioned.
"I cannot sufficiently express my outrage that Leeds City Council feels it is right to ban
a meeting with very distinguished speakers, because it is questioning the government and
establishment line on Syria. Freedom of speech really is dead."
Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed
with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy'
disinformation. _______________________________________
Yes, exactly. The Western hegemony, i.e. the true "Axis of Evil" led by the US, and
including the EU and non-Western allies, have invented the Perpetual Big Lie™.
This isn't a new insight, but it's worth repeating. It struck me anew while I was
listening to a couple of UK "journalists" hectoring OPCW Representative Shulgin, and
directing scurrilous and provocative innuendo disguised as "questions" to Mr. Shulgin and the
Syrian witnesses testifying during his presentation.
It flashed upon me that there is no longer a reasonable expectation that the Perpetual Big
Liars must eventually abandon, much less confess, their heinous mendacity. Just as B points
out, there are no countervailing facts, evidence, rebuttals, theories, or explanations
that can't be countered with further iterations of Big Lies, however offensively incredible
and absurd.
Witnesses? They're either confederates, dupes, or terrified by coercion. Evidence and/or
technical analysis? All faked! A nominally reliable party, e.g. the president of the Czech
Republic, makes statements that undermine the Big Lie Nexus? Again-- he's either been bought
off or frightened into making such inconvenient claims. Or he's just a mischievous liar.
And, as I seemingly never get tired of pointing out, the Perpetual Big Lie™ strategy
arose, and succeeds, because the "natural enemies" of authoritarian government overreach have
been coerced or co-opted to a fare-thee-well. So mass-media venues, and even supposedly
independent technical and scientific organizations, are part of the Perpetual Big Lie™
apparatus.
Even as the Big Liars reach a point of diminishing returns, they respond with more of the
same. I wish I were more confident that this reprehensible practice will eventually fail due
to the excess of malignant hubris; I'm not holding my breath.
Is Putin capitulating? Pro US Alexei Kudrin could join new government to negotiate "end of
sanctions" with the West.
Former finance minister Alexei Kudrin will be brought back to "mend fences with the West"
in order to revive Russia's economy. Kudrin has repeatedly said that unless Russia makes her
political system more democratic and ends its confrontation with Europe and the United
States, she will not be able to achieve economic growth. Russia's fifth-columnists were
exalted: "If Kudrin joined the administration or government, it would indicate that they have
agreed on a certain agenda of change, including in foreign policy, because without change in
foreign policy, reforms are simply impossible in Russia," said Yevgeny Gontmakher . . . who
works with a civil society organization set up by Mr. Kudrin. "It would be a powerful
message, because Kudrin is the only one in the top echelons with whom they will talk in the
west and towards whom there is a certain trust."
Putting Kudrin -- an opponent of de-dollarization and an upholder of the Washington
Consensus -- in charge of Russia's international outreach would be equal to putting Bill
Clinton in charge of a girls' school.
It would mark Putin's de facto collapse as a leader. We
shall know very soon. Either way, if anyone wondered what the approach to Russia would be
from Bolton and Pompeo, we now know: they will play very hard ball with Putin, regardless of
what he does (or doesn't do), and with carefree readiness to risk an eventual snap.
Certainly looks like @ 18 is a fine example of what b is presenting.
A good way to extract one's self from the propaganda is to refuse using whatever meme the
disinformation uses, e.g. that Sergei Skripal was a double agent -- that is not a known, only
a convenient suggestion.
Military intelligence is far better described as military
information needed for some project or mission. Not surreptitious cloak and dagger spying.
This is not to say Sergei Scripal was a British spy for which he was convicted, stripped of
rank and career and exiled through a spy swap. To continue using Sergei Scripal was a double
agent only repeats and verifies the disinformation meme and all the framing that goes with
it. Find some alternative to what MSM produces that does not embed truthiness to their
efforts.
I realize it's from one of the biggest propaganda organs in the world... take this New
York Times report of the OPCW's retraction with a 100 grams -- 100mg? -- of salt:
Kudrin is a neoliberal and as such is an
enemy of humanity and will never again be allowed to hold a position of power within Russia's
government. Let him emigrate to the West like his fellow parasites and teach junk economics
at some likeminded university.
Attention
Hookers : Special Counsel urgently needs your stories. We pay top dollar. Big tits, role-play,
and lying required. Television experience preferred. No drug screening. No background check.
Transportation included.
Call 1-800-George-Soros or contact the Law Offices of Wray, Mueller, and Rosenstein,
LLC.
Investigators stopped the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg at a New York-area airport
after he stepped off a private plane, according to the Times. They proceeded to search his
electronic devices and question him.
There is no indication that Vekselberg is suspected of wrongdoing. But the search and
interview suggests that Mueller's team is homing in on the Trump campaign and inauguration
committee's potential ties with Russians.
Judge Mulls Dismissal Of Manafort Charges, "Sharply Questioned" Mueller Overreach
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/04/2018 - 11:39 4.1K SHARES
Like most motions to dismiss, Paul Manafort's was initially viewed as a long-shot bid to win
the political operative his freedom and get out from under the thumb of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller.
But after today's hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by Manafort's lawyers, it's looking
increasingly likely that Manafort could escape his charges - and be free of his ankle bracelets
- because in a surprising rebuke of Mueller's "overreach", Eastern District of Virginia Judge
T.S. Ellis, a Reagan appointee, said Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute
over charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Russians.
Ellis said he's concerned Mueller is only pursuing charges against Manafort (and presumably
other individuals) to pressure them into turning on Trump. The Judge added that the charges
brought against Manafort didn't appear to stem from Mueller's collusion probe. Instead, they
appeared to be the work of an older investigation into Manafort that was eventually
dropped.
"I don't see how this indictment has anything to do with anything the special prosecutor is
authorized to investigate," Ellis said at a hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia,
concerning a motion by Manafort to dismiss the case.
It got better: Ellis also slammed prosecutors saying it appeared they were using the
indictment of Manafort to pressure him to cooperate against Trump. Manafort, 69, has pleaded
not guilty and disputes Mueller's assertion that he violated U.S. laws when he worked for a
decade as a political consultant for pro-Russian groups in Ukraine.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said. "You really care about
what information he might give you about Mr. Trump and what might lead to his impeachment or
prosecution. "
According to Bloomberg, Ellis is overseeing one of two indictments against Manafort.
Manafort is also charged in Washington with money laundering and failing to register as a
foreign agent of Ukraine.
* * *
Manafort's lawyers had asked the judge in the Virginia case to dismiss an indictment filed
against him in what was their third effort to beat back criminal charges by attacking Mueller's
authority. The judge also questioned why Manafort's case there could not be handled by the U.S.
attorney's office in Virginia, rather than the special counsel's office, as it is not
Russia-related . A question many others have asked, as well.
Ellis has given prosecutors two weeks to show what evidence they have that Manafort was
complicit in colluding with the Russians. If they can't come up with any, he may, presumably,
dismiss the case. Ellis also asked the special counsel's office to share privately with him a
copy of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein's August 2017 memo elaborating on the scope of
Mueller's Russia probe. He said the current version he has been heavily redacted.
At that point, should nothing change materially, Manafort may be a free man; needless to
say, a dismissal would set precedent and be nothing short of groundbreaking by potentially
making it much harder for Mueller to turn other witnesses against the president.
The shadow of 9/11 hangs over Mueller. The Deep State keeps him by the balls and wants
results. And that means impeachment.
CIA-democrats which now is the ruling wing of Democratic Party wants to get to power but they
have no that many viable candidates for midterm elections. If they overplay their hand then the
attempt to cover betrayal of ordinary Americans with former military CIA candidates might
backfire.
Notable quotes:
"... By now, witnesses have testified in ways that contradict what Trump has said. This, plus Trump's impulsiveness, propensity to exaggerate, and often rash responses to hostile questions, would make him easy prey for the perjury traps prosecutors set up when they cannot convict their targets on the evidence. Mueller and his team are the ones who need this interrogation. ..."
"... For, after almost two years, their Russiagate investigation has produced no conclusive proof of the foundational charge: that Trump's team colluded with Vladimir Putin's Russia to hack and thieve the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC. ..."
"... Having failed, Mueller & Co. now seek to prove that, even if Trump did not collude with the Russians, he interfered with their investigation. How did Trump obstruct justice? ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Should Mueller subpoena him, as he has threatened to do, Trump should ignore the subpoena
and frame it for viewing in Trump Tower.
If Mueller goes to the Supreme Court and wins an order for Trump to comply and testify
before a grand jury, Trump should defy the Court.
The only institution that is empowered to prosecute a president is Congress. If charges
against Trump are to be brought, this is the arena, this is the forum, where the battle should
be fought and the fate and future of the Trump presidency decided.
The goal of Mueller's prosecutors is to take down Trump on the cheap. If they can get him
behind closed doors and make him respond in detail to questions -- to which they already know
the answers -- any misstep by Trump could be converted into a perjury charge.
Trump has to score 100 on a test to which Mueller's team has all the answers in advance
while he must rely upon memory.
Why take this risk?
By now, witnesses have testified in ways that contradict what Trump has said. This, plus
Trump's impulsiveness, propensity to exaggerate, and often rash responses to hostile questions,
would make him easy prey for the perjury traps prosecutors set up when they cannot convict
their targets on the evidence. Mueller and his team are the ones who need this
interrogation.
For, after almost two years, their Russiagate investigation has produced no conclusive
proof of the foundational charge: that Trump's team colluded with Vladimir Putin's Russia to
hack and thieve the emails of the Clinton campaign and DNC.
Having failed, Mueller & Co. now seek to prove that, even if Trump did not collude
with the Russians, he interfered with their investigation. How did Trump obstruct
justice?
Did he suggest that fired national security advisor General Mike Flynn might get a pardon?
What was his motive in sacking FBI director James Comey? Did Trump edit the Air Force One
explanation of the meeting in June 2016 between his campaign officials and Russians? Did he
pressure Attorney General Jeff Sessions to fire Mueller?
Mueller's problem: These questions and more have all been aired and argued endlessly in the
public square. Yet no national consensus has formed that Trump committed an offense to justify
his removal. Even Democrats are backing away from talk of impeachment.
Trump's lawyers should tell Mueller to wrap up his work, as Trump will not be testifying, no
matter what subpoena he draws up or what the courts say he must do. And if Congress threatens
impeachment for defying a court order, Trump should tell them: impeach me and be damned.
Would a new Congress really impeach and convict an elected president?
An impeachment battle would be a titanic struggle between a capital that detests Trump and a
vast slice of Middle America that voted to repudiate that capital's elite, trusts Trump, and
will stand by him to the end.
And in any impeachment debate before Congress and the cameras of the world, not one but two
narratives will be heard.
The first is that Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton and then sought
to obstruct an investigation of his collusion.
The second is the story of how an FBI cabal went into the tank on an investigation of
Clinton to save her campaign. Then it used the product of a Clinton-DNC dirt-diving operation,
created by a British spy with Russian contacts, to attempt to destroy the Trump candidacy. Now,
failing that, it's looking to overthrow the elected president of the United States.
In short, the second narrative is that the "deep state" and its media auxiliaries are
colluding to overturn the results of the 2016 election.
Unlike Watergate, with Russiagate, the investigators will be on trial as well.
Trump needs to shift the struggle out of the legal arena, where Mueller and his men have
superior weapons, and into the political arena, where he can bring his populous forces to bear
on the decision as to his fate.
This is the terrain on which Trump can win: an us-vs-them fight, before Congress and
country, where not only the alleged crimes of Trump are aired but also the actual crimes
committed to destroy him and to overturn his victory.
Trump is a nationalist who puts America first both in trade and securing her frontiers
against an historic invasion from the South. If he is overthrown, and the agenda for which
America voted is trashed as well, it may be Middle America in the streets this time.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
Pat is correct, Trump should try to avoid answering any questions as he is incapable of
keeping his lies straight. He can't even keep then straight in two consecutive sentences. A
couple of hours of answering questions will result in a incoherent transcript that will take
many teams of layers years to decipher.
"Trump's lawyers should tell Mueller to wrap up his work, as Trump will not be testifying,
no matter what subpoena he draws up or what the courts say he must do. And if Congress
threatens impeachment for defying a court order, Trump should tell them: impeach me and be
damned."
The Deep State, the mainstream media, Establishment Democrats, and (yes) Establishment
Republicans have been conspiring to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election
since the early hours of Nov. 9, 2016.
But we're not going to let that happen!
You're right, Pat, that "Trump is a nationalist who puts America first both in trade and
securing her frontiers against an historic invasion from the South. If he is overthrown, and
the agenda for which America voted is trashed as well, it may be Middle America in the
streets this time."
Yes! If we have to go into the streets to protect our duly-elected President and our
country, then we will take the fight into the streets.
If we don't stand and fight now, we'll lose our country! It's that simple!
Pat is right: "The goal of Mueller's prosecutors is to take down Trump on the cheap."
A good example of this came this morning at the Paul Manafort trial in federal court in
Virginia, where Judge T.S. Ellis III scolded Mueller's prosecuters:
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud. You really care about getting
information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump and lead to his
prosecution or impeachment I don't see what relationship this indictment [against Manafort]
has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate."
Because Mueller's entire team consists of Democrats, who are presumptively partisan, his
investigation lacks even *prima facie* credibility.
It would be nice if Trump's team makes this point. Rudy G. could explain to dimwitted
journos, "That means 'on its face.' The point being, what kind of charade is this
investigation, and what kind of person doesn't think it's inevitably a charade?"
The longer the left pursues this impeachment strategy the bigger hole they are digging for
themselves. They never come forth with our Obama replacement or a plan.
FBI monitored phone calls of Trump's personal lawyer
Notable quotes:
"... US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails. ..."
"... Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client privilege. However, the Daily Beast ..."
"... Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system. ..."
"... That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic. The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor. ..."
"... This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating foreign-inspired "fake news." ..."
"... The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation of John Dowd in March. ..."
"... This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred, but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators. ..."
"... Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court. ..."
"... In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation. ..."
Multiple media reports on Thursday revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation monitored and logged the phone calls of President
Donald Trump's personal lawyer and confidante, Michael Cohen, in the period leading up to the FBI raid on Cohen's office and residences
in April.
According to NBC News, at least one of the calls that were tracked was between Cohen and Trump.
The extraordinary fact that the federal government's chief police agency, an integral part of the country's intelligence network,
is monitoring telephone communications between the president and his self-described "fixer" points to the explosive level of conflict
within the American ruling class and its state.
The revelation comes a month after the FBI, based on a referral from Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion by the Trump campaign, raided Cohen's office and residences
as part of a criminal probe into his business dealings. FBI agents seized Cohen's financial records, computer hard drive, cell phones
and taped recordings of conversations. Ostensibly, the main concern of federal prosecutors is Cohen's involvement in hush-money payoffs
to two women, a porn star and a former Playboy playmate, who claim to have had sexual relations with Trump.
US prosecutors, according to news reports, have also been covertly reading Cohen's emails.
Spying on a lawyer's phone calls and Internet communications is considered highly unusual, given the principle of lawyer-client
privilege. However, the Daily Beast quoted Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, as saying, "That sort of thing happens
all the time if you're dealing with mob wiretaps."
Indeed, Trump's enemies within the ruling elite and the state apparatus know with whom they are dealing. The billionaire president
is a representative of the criminal American financial oligarchy, a product of the New York real estate, casino gambling and reality
TV milieu. His election expressed the degradation of American bourgeois politics and the entire political system.
There is little doubt that the FBI and Mueller have seized more than enough evidence of wrong-doing in Trump's business dealings
to bring down an indictment, either to attempt a criminal prosecution -- never before carried out against a sitting president --
or force Trump to resign. Alternately, an indictment could become part of an impeachment effort should the Democrats win control
of the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections.
No one is more aware of the threat posed by these developments than Trump himself.
That being said, the methods being employed by Trump's factional opponents within the ruling elite are profoundly anti-democratic.
The Mueller investigation itself is based on concocted and unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "meddling" in the elections and
collusion by the Trump campaign in Moscow's supposed efforts to swing the election in his favor.
This narrative, which has dominated US politics for nearly two years, has been used by the Democratic Party and most of the corporate
media to attempt to whip up a war hysteria against Russia and force Trump to more rapidly escalate Washington's wars in the Middle
East. It is also the pretext for the expanding campaign to censor the Internet and criminalize political dissent in the name of combating
foreign-inspired "fake news."
These are the methods of palace coup, without the slightest democratic or progressive content. Should Trump be removed as a result
of such a campaign, the result would be to shift the political system even further to the right.
The context for the latest revelations is a sharpening of the conflict between the Trump White House and Mueller. Over the past
several weeks, Trump has reshuffled the legal team handling his dealings with the special counsel to pursue a more aggressive legal
response to the investigation. Last month, Trump named former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to head the team, following the resignation
of John Dowd in March.
This week, the White House announced the resignation of Ty Cobb, who had counseled Trump to adopt a cooperative posture toward
Mueller, advising that such a course would lead to a more rapid conclusion to the investigation. Not only has that not occurred,
but Mueller has increased pressure on Trump to agree to an interview with his investigators.
This week, it was reported that in discussions with Trump's lawyers in March, Mueller threatened to subpoena Trump to appear before
a grand jury if he did not voluntarily agree to an interview. On Wednesday, it was announced that Emmet Flood, a Republican who served
as one of Bill Clinton's lawyers during the House of Representatives impeachment process in 1998, would replace Cobb.
Flood has been described in the press as a "wartime consigliere." His appointment is seen as increasing the possibility of a legal
fight to block an interview with Mueller that could ultimately go to the US Supreme Court.
In a Wednesday night television interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Giuliani excoriated former FBI Director James Comey, whom
Trump fired last May after Comey announced that the FBI was investigating possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Giuliani
called him "a disgraceful liar" and said he should be indicted for leaking "confidential FBI information." He called the Mueller
probe "a completely tainted investigation" and denounced the FBI raid on Cohen as a "storm trooper" operation.
He cited a list of 49 questions for Trump prepared by Trump's lawyers on the basis of an oral presentation by Mueller's investigators
and called the wide-ranging queries concerning links to Russians and potential obstruction of justice, including the firing of Comey,
a "perjury trap." The questions were leaked and published earlier this week by the New York Times . The Times ,
along with the Washington Post , have been in the forefront of the media witch hunt against Russia.
On the question of Trump agreeing to be interviewed by Mueller, Giuliani said, "Right now, the odds are against it."
Most of the media commentary on the interview has focused on Giuliani's statement that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the $130,000
in hush money he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Cohen has said he paid the money from his own
funds and without Trump's knowledge, and last month Trump told reporters that he had no knowledge of the payoff.
It is striking that despite the media obsession with Trump and Russia, and the single-minded focus of the Democratic Party on
this reactionary campaign, the public remains skeptical, if not hostile, to the entire matter. The Democrats have said virtually
nothing about Trump's war on immigrants, including the barbaric treatment of the Central American caravan of refugees forced to camp
out at the US border and the denial of their right to asylum. The Democratic Party has dropped its phony opposition to Trump's tax
cut for corporations and the rich and barely noted the mounting assault on social programs, from Medicaid to food stamps to housing
subsidies for the poor.
This is reflected in recent polls, which show Trump's approval rating actually increasing and the Democrats' edge in the coming
midterm elections cut in half since the beginning of the year.
There is mass opposition in the working class and among young people to Trump and his chauvinist, militarist and pro-corporate
policies. It is reflected in the upsurge of teachers' strikes and protests in defiance of the corporatist unions, which the unions
and the Democrats are doing everything they can to isolate and suppress.
This emerging movement of the working class in the US and internationally is intensifying the warfare within the American ruling
class and state. The crisis is being fueled not only by sharp differences over foreign policy -- including tactical differences over
Trump's threat to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and his trade war measures -- but also by a general loss of confidence in Trump's
ability to manage either the global affairs of US imperialism or the tense internal social and political situation.
The independent social and political struggle of the working class is the only basis for a progressive solution to the crisis
of American capitalism. The opposition of workers to Trump can find no progressive outlet within the framework of the capitalist
two-party system. Both factions in the current political wars, notwithstanding their bitter differences, agree on a strategy of expanding
war abroad and austerity and repression at home.
Attention
Hookers : Special Counsel urgently needs your stories. We pay top dollar. Big tits, role-play,
and lying required. Television experience preferred. No drug screening. No background check.
Transportation included.
Call 1-800-George-Soros or contact the Law Offices of Wray, Mueller, and Rosenstein,
LLC.
"... Rep. Todd Rokita who is in a heated three-way primary in Indiana, appears to be the first Republican Senate candidate to include Mueller in a TV spot, telling GOP voters he will "fight the Mueller witch hunt" if he wins. ..."
"... they are using "fake news to try to destroy our president." ..."
Special counsel Robert
Mueller 's investigation is emerging as a new litmus test in key Republican Senate
primaries.
GOP hopefuls locked in nasty primary fights are increasingly denouncing the Russia probe as
they try to position themselves as the candidate aligned closest with President Trump
The volleys against the special counsel -- who has been investigating potential collusion
between Moscow and the Trump campaign for nearly a year -- come at a time when elections in
several battleground states have entered a crucial stretch.
Rep. Todd Rokita who
is in a heated three-way primary in Indiana, appears to be the first Republican Senate
candidate to include Mueller in a TV spot, telling GOP voters he will "fight the Mueller witch
hunt" if he wins.
The ad unfavorably compares the former FBI director, who is widely respected in the Beltway,
to House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly , saying they are using "fake
news to try to destroy our president."
"... Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence. ..."
"... The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information" related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
"... It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director James Comey , which the White House ultimately used to justify his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to charges of obstruction of justice. ..."
"... After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as special counsel to handle the Russia probe. ..."
"... Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed, according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure. ..."
"... He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable." ..."
"... "If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment, I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations. ..."
Rosenstein defiant as impeachment talk rises By Olivia Beavers and Morgan Chalfant - 05/03/18 06:00 AM EDT
2,577 63 Ex-doctor says Trump dictated letter claiming he would be 'healthiest' president ever Trump- South Korean president
gives us all the credit Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking their own drafts'
White House dodges on Mueller questions Sanders: White House tries to 'never be concerned' with Adam Schiff White House talking to
Waffle House hero about Trump meeting White House says Trump is 'very happy' with chief of staff White House: Jackson no longer serving
as Trump's lead physician Chaplain controversy shifts spotlight to rising GOP star Pruitt's head of security resigns Trump’s
ex-doctor says Trump associates 'raided' his office Romney praises Trump's first year in office: It's similar to things 'I'd have
done' WHCD host: Sarah Sanders lies Netanyahu: iran deal flawed, based on lies WHCD host: Trump is not rich Conservative House lawmakers
draft articles of impeachment against Rosenstein List reveals questions Mueller wants to ask Trump: report NBC: White House chief
of staff told aides women 'more emotional' than men McCain torches Trump in new book: He prioritizes appearance of toughness over
American values White House chief of staff denies report he called Trump an idiot Trump: Threats to pull out of Iran deal 'sends
the right message' Trump: We don't want to be the policemen of the world Trump campaign covered some of Cohen's legal costs: report
Democrats losing support of millennials: poll Cruz again questioning McConnell’s strategies Ex-Bush ethics official to run
for Franken's former Senate seat as Dem: report Parkland survivor calls out NRA for banning guns at convention Michelle Wolf pushes
back on criticism of Sarah Sanders jokes 7 targets Michelle Wolf took aim at during the White House correspondents’ dinner
Trump: If Dems win in 2018 midterms, they'll impeach me WHCD host calls Trump ‘cowardly’ for skipping event again Trump
threatens to 'close down the country' over funding for border wall GOP chairman 'doesn't have a problem' with Tester's handling of
Jackson allegations Election forecaster: Nunes seat no longer ‘safe’ Republican Washington’s heavy-drinking ways
in spotlight Stars of 'Veep,' 'West Wing' to lobby lawmakers ahead of White House correspondents' dinner Republican worries 'assassination
risk' prompting lawmaker resignations Gillibrand unveils bill to offer banking services at post offices Meehan resigns with promise
to pay back alleged sexual harassment claim Rosenstein knocks Republicans who want to impeach him: 'They can't even resist leaking
their own drafts'
On Tuesday, the deputy attorney general
rebuked the nascent conservative effort to impeach him, likely exacerbating tensions with conservatives in the House. House Republicans
are demanding access to classified documents related to special counsel
Robert Mueller's investigation, including a heavily redacted
memo that spells out the scope of the investigation.
"There is really nothing to comment on there, but just give me the documents. The bottom line is, he needs to be give me the documents,"
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said during an interview with
The Hill on Wednesday when asked about his response to Rosenstein.
"I have one goal in mind, and that is not somebody's job or the termination of somebody's job, it is getting the documents and
making sure we can do proper oversight," he said, adding that there are "no current plans to introduce an impeachment resolution."
Republican lawmakers led by Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus one of
President Trump's top allies in Congress, have
drafted eight articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. The articles make a series of charges against Rosenstein and question
his credibility, reputation and fitness to serve.
Conservatives have called the impeachment articles a last resort. Rosenstein dismissed the impeachment threat and went a step
further by suggesting the Justice Department's independence is being threatened. "There have been people who have been making threats
privately and publicly against me for quite some time, and I think they should understand by now the Department of Justice is not
going to be extorted," Rosenstein said during an appearance at the Newseum. "I just don't have anything to say about documents like
that that nobody has the courage to put their name on and they leak in that way," he continued, after quipping earlier that the lawmakers
"can't even resist leaking their own drafts."
Rosenstein, a career Justice Department official, is widely respected in legal circles. He has been praised for his work leading
the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland, a position to which he was appointed by President George W. Bush and served in for 12 years,
spanning Republican and Democratic administrations. Rosenstein's years of service at the department came through in his public remarks,
lawyers say.
"With a guy like Rosenstein, you can't underestimate the deep connection that many career -- not all -- but many career Justice
Department officials have to the department," said Steven Cash, a lawyer at Day Pitney. "It defines their self image as participating
in ensuring the rule of law in a way you often don't see in other departments -- they are very, very proud of their association with
the department, its traditions, history and independence."
But Rosenstein has plenty of critics on Capitol Hill, where some Republicans accuse him of hindering legitimate oversight.
Republicans have repeatedly accused Rosenstein of being unnecessarily slow in providing the documents they say are necessary
for carrying out several parallel congressional investigations into FBI decision-making. Some of them have suggested the Justice
Department is biased against Trump and now seeking to hide the evidence.
The seventh and eighth articles of impeachment
in the draft document charge Rosenstein of "knowingly and intentionally prevented the production of all documents and information"
related to potential abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the federal government's initial investigation
into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The charges appear to have caught the attention of the president, who threatened to get involved on Wednesday morning.
"A Rigged System -- They don't want to turn over Documents to Congress. What are they afraid of? Why so much redacting? Why such
unequal 'justice?' At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved," Trump tweeted.
Since Trump appointed Rosenstein to serve as deputy attorney general, he has become a key player in the drama surrounding the
Mueller investigation.
It was Rosenstein who authored the memo criticizing former FBI Director
James Comey, which the White House ultimately used to justify
his firing. Trump later indicated that he removed Comey in part because of the Russia investigation, which helped open him up to
charges of obstruction of justice.
Rosenstein has defended the memo on Comey, pointing to criticism from both parties about Comey's handling of the investigation
into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 's use of
a private email server before the 2016 presidential election.
After Comey's firing, it was Rosenstein
who decided to appoint Mueller, a former FBI director who is widely respected for his prosecutorial skill and independence, as
special counsel to handle the Russia probe.
Since then, Rosenstein has given Mueller a
broad mandat e to investigate any criminal activity uncovered by his work, angering the president and his allies.
In addition, Rosenstein
reportedly signed off on the FBI's raid of Michael Cohen, Trump's long-time personal attorney, fueling widespread speculation
that the president might fire him. Rosenstein has privately told allies that he is prepared for the possibility of being dismissed,
according to NBC News , but his appearance Tuesday made clear he has no intention of caving to outside pressure.
Rosenstein took issue with allegations detailed in the impeachment draft, including the charge that he failed to properly supervise
surveillance applications.
He described a process in which a career federal law enforcement officer swears on an affidavit that the information they
presented in a FISA application is both "true and correct" to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. While mistakes do happen
and there are consequences for those who erred, he said, the agency employs "people who are accountable."
It's unclear yet whether an impeachment push will gain traction among rank-and-file Republicans; GOP leaders have remained silent
on the matter. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.), indicated Wednesday that he sees no reason to fire Rosenstein, as he said earlier this year. Some GOP lawmakers in
recent weeks have also said they've seen improvement from the Justice Department in responding to documents requests.
"If the focus is Rod Rosenstein and whether he has done something or failed to do something that could remotely warrant impeachment,
I think it's just groundless," said Jack Sharman, a former special counsel to Congress during the Whitewater investigations.
Still, Rosenstein's remarks are sure to ramp up tensions between two sides. Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategist, said Rosenstein
came off as "cagey" in his defense and raised questions about what he may be trying to hide. "Everyone knows that this is heating
up and both sides are gearing up for a fight," O'Connell told The Hill.
"... The leak, and the cover up, shows the "collaboration between the media and the intelligence community in building up Russiagate," ..."
"... The report also states that Clapper "subsequently acknowledged discussing the dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic." ..."
Former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, who landed a job at CNN in
August 2017 after leaving the government, leaked information to CNN's Jake Tapper regarding the
infamous Steele dossier and its salacious allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump -
then denied his actions to Congress under oath.
The leak, and the cover up, shows the
"collaboration between the media and the intelligence community in building up Russiagate," Max
Blumenthal, a journalist and bestselling author, told Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear.
... ... ...
The report also states that Clapper "subsequently acknowledged discussing the dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper and
admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic."
Blumenthal explained that the dossier was the catalyst for the Russiagate scandal.
"I think this should be a bigger scandal than it is," he told hosts Brian Becker and John Kiriakou.
Mueller's proposed questions to Trump show that Trump remains Mueller's ultimate target
Notable quotes:
"... (1) Robert Mueller is in possession of no facts which have not previously been made public. ..."
"... (2) Donald Trump continues to be Robert Mueller's target ..."
"... Frankly they do not look like the sort of questions an investigator asks if he searching for the truth. Rather they look like cross examination by prosecuting Counsel. ..."
"... (3) Obstruction of Justice has replaced collusion with Russia as the focus of the Mueller probe ..."
"... the Russiagate investigation did become a criminal inquiry and not just a counterespionage inquiry. ..."
"... When he finished, I said that I agreed very much that it was terrible that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence ..."
"... The memo shows Trump putting pressure on Comey to investigate the leaks and Comey resisting doing so. Whilst Comey purported to agree with Trump that the leaks were terrible and that the leakers should be punished, he resisted Trump's suggestion that the most effective way to go after the leakers was to go after the reporters they were leaking to. ..."
"... The reason Trump brought up the subject of Flynn was because his case was a particularly egregious example of a career that had been destroyed by unauthorised and illegal leaking. ..."
"... In addition Mueller wants to ask Trump questions about his thoughts about Comey and his reasons for dismissing Comey, all of which suggest an attempt to catch Trump in some sort of obstruction of justice charge in relation to the circumstances of Comey's dismissal, about which however see above. ..."
"... (4) The collusion narrative has collapsed ..."
"... The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, duped Don Jr. into setting up the meeting by claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. In fact, the meeting was a bait and switch. It turned out the lawyer had no meaningful information to offer on Mrs. Clinton. Rather, she wanted to interest the Trump team in a Moscow initiative to allow American families to adopt Russian children. ..."
"... In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign actually helped pay for a dossier of almost entirely false accusations about Mr. Trump , some of which a British former intelligence official obtained from Russian contacts. ..."
"... Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to Mueller's investigation as a witch-hunt, and he is right. The questions Mueller is seeking to ask Trump confirm as much. ..."
(1) Robert Mueller is in possession of no facts which have not previously been made
public.
Every single one of the questions is obviously drawn on information which has already been
made public and which has been widely discussed.
... ... ...
(2) Donald Trump continues to be Robert Mueller's target
Recently there have been media reports that Robert Mueller's investigators have informed
Donald Trump that he is not a target of the Mueller investigation.
The highly aggressive questions Mueller wants to ask Trump however tell a very different
story. The consistent theme behind them is of a Donald Trump who is very much at the centre of
all sorts of nefarious activities. Frankly they do not look like the sort of questions an
investigator asks if he searching for the truth. Rather they look like cross examination by
prosecuting Counsel.
In light of this Trump's hesitation in submitting himself to an interview by Mueller in
which these sort of questions are asked is fully understandable.
I suspect his lawyers are advising him against it.
(3) Obstruction of Justice has replaced collusion with Russia as the focus of the
Mueller probe
When around the time of former FBI Director James Comey's admittedly botched dismissal the
issue of obstruction of justice first arose, it seemed to me so farfetched that I could not
bring myself to believe that Mueller or anyone else would seriously entertain it.
As I pointed out at the time the Russiagate investigation was at that point in time still a
counterespionage inquiry rather than a crime inquiry, as had recently been confirmed by no less
a person than James Comey himself in his March 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence
Committee.
As it happens it is a moot point when exactly the Russiagate investigation did become a
criminal inquiry and not just a counterespionage inquiry.
My guess is that no such formal decision was ever taken, but that Mueller himself simply
decided as soon as he was appointed Special Counsel that he was conducting a criminal inquiry
as well as a counterespionage inquiry. The point is apparently being pursued by Paul Manafort's
lawyers in the case Mueller has brought against him. It will be interesting to see what comes
of it. Irrespective of this, the fact that the Russiagate investigation was apparently still a
counterespionage inquiry as opposed to a criminal inquiry when Comey was sacked made it
impossible for me to see how
Comey's sacking could amount to an obstruction of justice.
What I was of course at that time completely unaware of was of the discussions which had
previously passed between Trump and Comey about General Flynn.
A memo Comey wrote up after one of these discussions has been seized on by Trump's critics
as evidence that he attempted to block the FBI's investigation into whether or not General
Flynn had committed an offence under the Logan Act by talking whilst a member of the Trump
transition team to Russian ambassador Kislyak, and that this amounts to an obstruction of
justice.
When early accounts of the contents of this memo appeared I expressed my strong doubt that its contents as
they were being reported showed that there had been any obstruction of justice by Donald Trump
of the investigation of General Flynn
..since Comey's note shows Trump neither instructing Comey nor requesting Comey to drop
the investigation against Flynn, nor of Trump putting pressure on Comey to do so, but merely
shows Trump expressing the "hope" Comey would do so, in any sane world no charge of
obstructing
justice or of perverting the course of
justice brought upon it could possibly stick.
The redacted text of this
and of Comey's other memos has now been published, and the relevant sections of the memo read
as follows
He [Donald Trump – AM] began by saying he "wanted to talk about Mike Flynn". He then
said that although Flynn "hadn't done anything wrong" in his call with the Russians (a point
he made at least two more times in the conversation), he had to let him go because he misled
the Vice-President and, in any event, he had concerns about Flynn, and had a great guy coming
in, so he had to let Flynn go ..
..He then referred at length to the leaks relating to Mike Flynn's call with the Russians,
which he stressed was not wrong in any way ("he made lots of calls"), but that the leaks were
terrible.
I tried to interject several times to agree with him about the leaks being terrible, but
was unsuccessful. When he finished, I said that I agreed very much that it was terrible
that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be
able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence ..
He then returned to the subject of Mike Flynn, saying that Flynn is a good guy, and has
been through a lot. He misled the Vice-President but he didn't do anything wrong in the call.
He said, "I hope you can see your way to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good
guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied by saying, "I agree he is a good guy", but said
no more.
(bold italics added)
The entirety of the memo in fact shows that the main subject of the conversation and Donald
Trump's major concern as of the time when the conversation took place was not General Flynn or
the case against him but the systematic campaign of leaks which were undermining his
administration.
The memo shows Trump putting pressure on Comey to investigate the leaks and Comey
resisting doing so. Whilst Comey purported to agree with Trump that the leaks were terrible and
that the leakers should be punished, he resisted Trump's suggestion that the most effective way
to go after the leakers was to go after the reporters they were leaking
to.
The reason Trump brought up the subject of Flynn was because his case was a particularly
egregious example of a career that had been destroyed by unauthorised and illegal
leaking.
In this Trump was undoubtedly right.
Over the course of this discussion – and obviously so as to emphasise the point -Trump
made the further point – which is no longer disputed by anyone – that Flynn had
done nothing wrong in his conversations with Kislyak, and had done nothing to deserve having
his career and reputation destroyed by illegal leaking.
The memo shows that it was in the context of these observations about the way Flynn was
brought down by illegal leaking that Trump made his comments about the investigation of
Flynn.
Trump's point was that the investigation of Flynn for committing an offence under the Logan
Act (initiated by former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates). coming on top of the illegal
leaks which had destroyed his career, was tough on Flynn given that he had done nothing
wrong.
Accordingly Trump said to Comey that he hoped Comey would be able to find a way to "letting
[the case against Flynn] go".
It was a minor aside and it is unlikely Trump gave much thought to it. Certainly it was not
intended as any sort of instruction to Comey to drop the inquiry, and the entirety of the text
of the memo shows that Comey never thought it was.
In fact the memo shows that Comey agreed with Trump.
The words in the memo which I have highlighted ("I agreed very much that it was terrible
that his calls with foreign leaders leaked. I said they were classified and he needed to be
able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence") have attracted remarkably little attention.
However they show clearly that Comey also thought that Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was
lawful.
No other explanation for his words as he himself has reported them in his memo – "he
needed to be able to speak to foreign leaders in confidence" – is possible.
In other words the memo shows that not only did Trump not instruct or request Comey to drop
the investigation of Flynn or put pressure on Comey to do so, but on the contrary he and Comey
had what was essentially a consensual conversation in which they both agreed with each other
that (1) leaks are terrible; (2) Flynn had been appallingly treated by having his career and
reputation destroyed by leaks; and (3) in his conversation with Kislyak Flynn had done nothing
wrong.
Given that this is so it is simply impossible to see how an obstruction of justice charge
can be put together from this material.
Nonetheless the drift of Mueller's questions to Trump suggests that this is still what
Mueller is trying to do.
A disproportionate number of Mueller's questions concern Trump's various interactions with
Comey. These include but are not limited to Trump's interactions with Comey which concerned
Flynn.
In addition Mueller wants to ask Trump questions about his thoughts about Comey and his
reasons for dismissing Comey, all of which suggest an attempt to catch Trump in some sort of
obstruction of justice charge in relation to the circumstances of Comey's dismissal, about
which however see above.
There is also a number of questions concerning Trump's sometimes fraught relationship with
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the clear implication of which is that Trump's widely known and
publicly expressed anger about Sessions's decision to recuse himself from the Russiagate
inquiry stems from anger that Sessions would no longer be able to protect Trump from it.
Even if that is so – which it probably is – I cannot see how it amounts to
obstruction of justice. Anger that Sessions had recused himself from the Russiagate inquiry and
would no longer be able to protect the President is surely no more than a thought crime even if it were true, which
it probably is.
Last I heard thought crimes are not actionable in America. However,judging from his
questions, Mueller still seems intent on pursuing this one.
(4) The collusion narrative has collapsed
By comparison with the disproportionate number of questions devoted to the obstruction of
justice allegations, the questions about the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia – the investigation of which was supposed to be the object of the Mueller inquiry
– look threadbare.
All of them cover old ground, in which all the facts are known.
The first two questions concern the now notorious meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016
between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The lack of substance
to this meeting, and the extent to which it is truly a non-story, has been brilliantly
explained by Ronald Kessler in The Washington
Times
When it comes to President Trump and the question of
collusion with Russia , there is indeed a smoking gun.
But it's not the June 2016 meeting that Donald Trump Jr. , along with
campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner,
held in Trump
Tower with a Russian lawyer.
The lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, duped Don Jr. into setting up the meeting by
claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. In fact, the meeting was a bait and switch. It
turned out the lawyer had no meaningful information to offer on Mrs. Clinton. Rather, she
wanted to interest the Trump team in a Moscow initiative to allow American families to adopt
Russian children.
The meeting, which lasted 20 minutes, was the sort any political campaign or media outlet
would have agreed to. Like investigative reporters, political operatives want to obtain tips,
even if most of the time the proffered information turns out to be of no value. In this case,
nothing came of the meeting. In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign actually helped pay
for a dossier of almost entirely false accusations about Mr. Trump , some of which a
British former intelligence official obtained from Russian contacts.
According to journalistic standards that existed decades ago, the fact that such a meeting
took place would not have even been a story. The pretext for the meeting was a hoax, and
nothing resulted from it. To suggest by running a story that there was something nefarious
about it was unfair. But in today's politically charged media world, the meeting became an
immediate sensation as part of a narrative -- pushed by the media and Democrats -- suggesting
that the Trump campaign illegally colluded with Russia .
I have nothing to add to this masterful analysis save to say that the fact that Mueller is
continuing to ask questions about a meeting at which exactly nothing happened is testimony to
the hollowness of the whole collusion narrative the investigation of which Mueller's inquiry is
supposed to be about.
Summary
When Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel I welcomed his appointment. What I had
heard about Mueller suggested that he would be a safe pair of hands who would put the whole
preposterous Russiagate conspiracy theory to bed. It is with frank embarrassment that
I
repeat what I wrote about him at the time of his appointment
.it is essential that with Comey gone the Russiagate investigation is put in the charge of
a safe pair of hands, and of someone who will not be seen as the President's defender, and
whose eventual findings are accepted, and Mueller seems by most accounts to be the sort of
person to do that ..
Mueller appears to be a good choice for the job. He was a well regarded FBI director,
staying in post from 2001 – when he was appointed by George W. Bush – until his
retirement in 2013, when Comey replaced him. During that period he resisted the George W.
Bush administration's attempts to introduce interrogation methods since characterised as
torture as part of the so-called 'war on terror'. As someone well known to the staff of the
FBI, he looks like the obvious person to do the job, and to steady the ship, and –
hopefully – to bring some sanity to this investigation.
Mueller's job will now be to bring order to the mess Comey has created, and to bring the
various investigations into Russiagate that Obama's Justice Department initiated to a proper
close. If he does his job properly – and if he is left alone to do it – it should
all be over by the summer.
It has long since become clear that far from Mueller being the safe pair of hands I took him
for, he is someone who sees his task as protecting the Justice Department and the FBI (which he
largely built up) from someone who he obviously considers to be an angry and potentially
vengeful President. His proposed questions show that he still has the President in his sights,
and that Mueller is pulling out all the stops to bring him down.
Donald Trump has repeatedly referred to Mueller's investigation as a witch-hunt, and he
is right. The questions Mueller is seeking to ask Trump confirm as much.
"... Testimony by Sir Mark Sedwill, British Prime Minister Theresa May's National Security Adviser, to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 1st May 2018 has now revealed that all the claims about a breakthrough in the Skripal case – not to mention the claims about "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" – were (as I suspected) nonsense. ..."
"... In other words the investigation is going nowhere and has drawn a complete blank. ..."
"... All this comes hot on the heels of suggestions – which are very likely true – that the wall of silence which has recently descended on the British media's reporting of the Skripal case is the product of a British government D-Notice , ie. of a formal request by the British government to the media to limit their coverage of the Skripal story on grounds of national security. ..."
"... It has also been suggested that despite formal denials the most likely reason for the D-Notice is the desire of the British authorities to conceal a possible connection between Sergey Skripal, his former MI6 controller Pablo Miller, and Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier. ..."
Amidst speculation that British government has imposed reporting restrictions, British authorities admit they have no suspect
in Skripal case
A week ago the British media were full of reports from the usual anonymous sources of a breakthrough in the Skripal case.
Allegedly the British authorities by comparing CCTV pictures from Salisbury and details of travellers to and from Britain had
been to identify the persons who were supposedly responsible for the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal. These stories came with
further stories of a Russian James Bond style assassin – "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" – who together with his team had supposedly
carried out the attack. The stories about "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" came with a bizarre identikit picture supposedly of him,
which was too ridiculous to take seriously.
In an
article
I wrote for The Duran on 24th April 2018 I expressed skepticism about these claims
.it looks to me as if despite all the claims to the contrary the police investigation of the Skripal case has made little actual
progress. The British seem to have little more knowledge of who carried out the attack on Sergey and Yulia Skripal and why than
they did when the investigation began. Could it possibly be because they are looking in the wrong place?
Testimony by Sir Mark Sedwill, British Prime Minister Theresa May's National Security Adviser, to the House of Commons Defence
Committee on 1st May 2018 has now revealed that all the claims about a breakthrough in the Skripal case – not to mention the claims
about "Gordon" aka "Mihails Savickis" – were (as I suspected) nonsense.
Here is how Sir Mark Sedwill's testimony is reported by
The Guardian
Police and intelligence agencies have failed so far to
identify the individual or individuals who carried out the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the UK's national security adviser
has disclosed.
The comments by Sir Mark Sedwill punctured hopes that the police and other security agencies had pinpointed suspects but were
withholding the name or names from the public.
Asked by an MP at a Commons defence committee hearing if he knew the individuals responsible, he replied curtly: "Not yet."
Sedwill, who coordinates the work of the MI6, MI5, the surveillance agency
GCHQ and others, did not elaborate but among problems that have
hampered the agencies is a lack of CCTV coverage in Salisbury compared with London. Known Russian spies based in Britain have
also been investigated and ruled out.
In other words the investigation is going nowhere and has drawn a complete blank.
All this comes hot on the heels of suggestions – which are very likely true – that the wall of silence which has recently
descended on the British media's reporting of the Skripal case is the
product of a British government D-Notice , ie. of a formal
request by the British government to the media to limit their coverage of the Skripal story on grounds of national security.
It has also been suggested that despite formal denials the most likely reason for the D-Notice is the desire of the British
authorities to conceal a possible connection between Sergey Skripal, his former MI6 controller Pablo Miller, and Christopher Steele,
the compiler of the Trump Dossier.
There are even suggestions that Sergey Skripal may have had a hand in producing the Trump Dossier, and that this was the reason
for the attack on him.
Whilst all this may be true, I have to say that Sergey Skripal – identified as a British spy by the Russians in 2004 and isolated
from Russia in the leafy British town of Salisbury since 2010 – seems an unlikely source for the Trump Dossier, largely fictitious
though that strange concoction is.
"... Inside the Tent gatekeepers have relentlessly attacked those brave individuals who have questioned the official narratives, but its these individuals- smeared as 'crackpots' and 'conspiracy theorists' who the public are turning to for their analysis. ..."
"... After the lies told about Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya people no longer tamely accept what the NeoCon Establishment tells us. ..."
"... We're at an 'Emperor's New Clothes' moment in British politics where more and more people have found the courage to say out loud 'The Emperor has no clothes!'. ..."
"... The elite have been lying to us and they know that we know they've been lying. The question is: what are we going to do about it?" ..."
"Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased
coverage, the British haven't bought it. Literally or metaphorically. Inside the Tent
gatekeepers have relentlessly attacked those brave individuals who have questioned the official
narratives, but its these individuals- smeared as 'crackpots' and 'conspiracy theorists' who
the public are turning to for their analysis.
Compare the number of retweets the former UK
Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray gets when he publishes on the Skripal case, with those
who try and denigrate him. My own Twitter following has increased by several thousands since
early March.
Citizen Halo got a big boost in followers after she was smeared by The Times.
After the lies told about Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya people no longer tamely accept what the NeoCon Establishment tells us.
We're at an 'Emperor's New Clothes' moment in British politics
where more and more people have found the courage to say out loud 'The Emperor has no
clothes!'.
The elite have been lying to us and they know that we know they've been lying. The
question is: what are we going to do about it?"
Comey, who was FBI chief from 2013 to 2017, was quoting a line reputedly uttered by
Martin Luther in 1521, when he told Holy Roman Emperor Charles V that he would not recan t his sweeping criticisms of the Catholic
Church. Comey's quotation of himself quoting the father of the Reformation is par for the self-reverence of his new memoir, A Higher
Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership .
MSNBC host Chris Matthews recently declared,
"James Comey made his bones by standing up against torture. He was a made man before Trump came along."
Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria , in a column declaring that Americans should be "deeply grateful" to lawyers like Comey,
declared, "The Bush administration wanted to claim that its 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were lawful. Comey believed they
were not... So Comey pushed back as much as he could."
Martin Luther risked death to fight against what he considered the heresies of his time. Comey, a top Bush administration policymaker,
found a safer way to oppose the worldwide secret U.S. torture regime widely considered a heresy against American values. Comey
approved brutal practices and then wrote some memos and emails fretting about the optics.
Rather than ending the abuses, Comey repudiated the memo. Speaking to the media in a not-for-attribution session on June 22, 2004,
Comey declared that
the 2002 memo was "overbroad," "abstract academic theory," and "legally unnecessary ." Comey helped oversee crafting a new memo
with different legal footing to justify the same interrogation methods.
In 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee finally released a massive report, Americans learned grisly details of the CIA torture
regime that Comey helped legally sanctify - including
death via hypothermia, rape-like rectal feeding of detainees, compelling detainees to stand long periods on broken legs, and dozens
of cases of innocent people pointlessly brutalized. Psychologists aided the torture regime, offering hints on how to destroy
the will and resistance of prisoners. The only CIA official to go to prison for the torture scandal was courageous whistleblower
John Kiriakou.
If Comey had resigned in 2004 or 2005 to protest the torture techniques he now claims to abhor, he would deserve some of the praise
he is now receiving. Instead, he remained in the Bush administration but wrote an email summarizing his objections, declaring that
"it was my job to protect the department
and the A.G. [Attorney General] and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong." A 2009 New York Times analysis noted
that Comey and two colleagues "have largely escaped criticism [for approving torture] because
they raised questions about interrogation
and the law." In Washington, writing emails is "close enough for government work" to convey sainthood.
Fl*ck Comey. OMG. I've been wanting to puke into a wastebasket over all of Comey's crap lately. Actually, wanting to puke is
one of my best bullshit barometers. He's a lying sack of shit, strutting his sanctimonious arrogance all over the tee-vee. Meanwhile
back home his family of women wear pink hats to protest Trump. Wonder if James the Great told his family members he approved torture?
"... Israel is annoying everyone in the Syrian theater. Note well that the scale of impact is in the "annoying" range. Kind of like the "bluster" of the US but even more constrained by forces on the ground all around it. ..."
"... No one in the region believes that Russia or Iran have failed at anything. Observers simply hope they have the good fortune to see the revenge, knowing that they may never know how Iran counters - if in fact it ever does. ..."
"... Russia is working to move the final resolution of Syria into political methods rather than military - this is very important to keep in mind with all appraisals of the situation. It's time to repeat that Russia is working for peace, not to win battles. The two efforts are very different, and create different tactics. ..."
"... I echo that feeling. The explosions in Hama and Aleppo, for which there still remains no official report, have kicked up rampant speculation and many strange comments on this site. ..."
"... The idea that Russia is all bluster, has no clue what's going on, has abandoned Syria, or that the whole Russian exercise is due to Putin "begging to be admitted in the Western Club," flies in the face of facts on the ground. ..."
"... Putin is where he says he is. He was already part of the club (G8) and he left because the club was filled with jackasses. Putin is forming his own club, with Xi. ..."
Thanks to posters for links to
Garrie on a possible "white hat" false flag and to
Magnier for a plum-rich storytelling of how Israel is on the losing end of a shift in the
balance of power, something that as yet it cannot admit to itself.
Israel is annoying everyone in the Syrian theater. Note well that the scale of impact
is in the "annoying" range. Kind of like the "bluster" of the US but even more constrained by
forces on the ground all around it.
I'm astonished that anyone would think that Putin doesn't understand the US or what is
going on in the Syria theater. Russian commanders are in constant contact with all forces
that bear on the situation, including those of the US, and Israel. And Putin has spelled out
on numerous occasions - in interviews, from the Valdai Club, from his remarks directly to
journalists and his people - what the empire is doing.
No one has lost face in this latest event, except Israel with Netanyahu's inane
presentation, currently being called out as empty by Europeans.
No one in the region believes that Russia or Iran have failed at anything. Observers
simply hope they have the good fortune to see the revenge, knowing that they may never know
how Iran counters - if in fact it ever does.
Russia is working to move the final resolution of Syria into political methods rather
than military - this is very important to keep in mind with all appraisals of the situation.
It's time to repeat that Russia is working for peace, not to win battles. The two efforts are
very different, and create different tactics.
With each situation that Russia confronts, from military attacks to diplomatic property
seizures, Russia looks for the peace dividend. Armchair punters are watching one horse race,
while Russia is looking decades down the road and asking what it takes to create stability
that endures, out of each situation.
Yes, some don't appreciate the giant step that Putin took moving into Syria to oppose The
Leader Of The Free World™ with its president Obama threatening that Russians would soon
be going home in body-bags.
But Russia survived and endured, and made a major point that
right can win over might.
The strategy was brave and the tactics were revolutionary,
including the busing of combatants away from combat. Credit where credit is due, Putin is a
winner at home and abroad, as in Syria (and Crimea, BTW).
"I'm astonished that anyone would think that Putin doesn't understand the US or what is
going on in the Syria theater." Posted by: Grieved | Apr 30, 2018 9:24:11 PM | 107
I echo that feeling. The explosions in Hama and Aleppo, for which there still remains
no official report, have kicked up rampant speculation and many strange comments on this
site.
The idea that Russia is all bluster, has no clue what's going on, has abandoned Syria,
or that the whole Russian exercise is due to Putin "begging to be admitted in the Western
Club," flies in the face of facts on the ground.
Putin is where he says he is. He was already part of the club (G8) and he left because
the club was filled with jackasses. Putin is forming his own club, with Xi.
Saturday's White House Correspondents' Association dinner, billed as a celebration of the
First Amendment and a tribute to journalists who "speak truth to power," has to be the worst
advertisement in memory for our national press corps.
Comedian Michelle Wolf, the guest speaker, recited one filthy joke after another at the
expense of President Trump and his people, using words that would have gotten her kicked out of
school not so long ago.
Media critic Howard Kurtz said he had "never seen a performance like that," adding that Wolf
"was not only nasty but dropping F-bombs on live television." Some of her stuff was grungier
than that.
The anti-Trump media at the black-tie dinner laughed and whooped it up, and occasionally
"oohed" as Wolf went too far even for them, lending confirmation to Trump's depiction of who
and what they are.
While the journalistic elite at the black-tie dinner was reveling in the raw sewage served
up by Wolf, Trump had just wrapped up a rally in Michigan.
The contrast between the two assemblies could not have been more stark. We are truly two
Americas now.
"Why would I want to be stuck in a room with a bunch of fake-news liberals who hate me?"
said Trump in an email to supporters, adding that he would much rather "spend the evening with
my favorite deplorables who love our movement and love America."
The Deep State is still going after Trump, after all his concession to neocons. amazing
staff. This is a clear attempt of entrapment, similar to one that worked in Flynn case
Notable quotes:
"... Read the full list here . ..."
"... This article has been updated with more details on the questions and Trump's changing legal team. ..."
Special counsel Robert Mueller hopes to ask President
Donald Trump
dozens of open-ended questions as part of his inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016
election.
Many of those
questions , which were published by The New York Times on Monday, focus on determining if
Trump obstructed justice through his firings of FBI Director James Comey and national security
adviser Michael Flynn, or his attempts to fire Mueller himself, among other events. "What
efforts were made to reach out to Mr. Flynn about seeking immunity or possible pardon?" reads
one of the queries supplied to the Times by an unnamed official separate from the president's
legal team. "What consideration and discussions did you have regarding terminating the special
counsel in June of 2017?" another asks. Read the full list
here . The questions shed light on what's been a tight-lipped investigation and show
Mueller is homing in on the president's behavior in office. Some of the inquiries hope to shed
light on Trump's interactions, if there are any, with Russian officials or those connected to
the Kremlin during the campaign. Trump himself has publicly said he'd be willing to talk with
Mueller and has vehemently denied there was any collusion with the Russians during the
campaign. He said in January he was "
looking forward " to speaking with the special counsel. But the president's lawyers have
cautioned against the interview and have sought to strictly limit the terms of any sit-down,
worried that Trump could go off-script and end up making false statements. The Times noted that
four people in the president's orbit have already
pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators. The questions obtained by the Times are
said to be the result of months of negotiations between the special counsel and Trump's
squadron of lawyers. The Times noted that the back and forth led to Mueller providing his ideal
list to Trump's former lead lawyer in the Russia inquiry, John Dowd, in March. Dowd, who had
urged Trump to reject any request for an interview in the investigation, was reportedly even
more wary about a meeting after seeing the list. But the
lawyer resigned later in March amid reports that his
relationship with the president had frayed and that Trump planned to ignore his advice.
Dowd was replaced last week by former New York City Mayor
Rudy Giuliani . Trump has ramped up his criticism of the special counsel's office in recent
weeks following
FBI raids at the home and offices of his longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen. "It's a
total witch-hunt . I've been saying it for a long time," Trump said at the time. The
president, however, has since moved to distance himself from Cohen, saying on "Fox &
Friends" last week that the lawyer handled only a " tiny,
tiny little fraction " of his overall legal work. Mueller's list of questions also includes
some involving Cohen's business deals in Moscow, according to the Times. This article has
been updated with more details on the questions and Trump's changing legal team.
"... I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find the answers to my own questions. ..."
@ anon with the Niki Haley approval rating of 63% etc.
I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported
result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the
data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do
they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find
the answers to my own questions.
The current geo-political world is exposing all sorts of folks that support what I call the
God of Mammon narrative and their associated moral failings. As a species it is way past time
that we confront the centuries old assumptions that make up our "social contract"...such as it
is/is not.
The Netanyahoo circus is not the underlying friction in our world. The underlying friction
in our world is about debt, global/local investment and the cost of doing business including
geo-political stability. We have enough food to feed everyone but there are distribution
problems because of greed and social control desires. The same is true for housing, health
care, education, etc. Our current social contract precludes everyone from having all those
things because our social contract says that in the Western world all the tools of finance
shall be owned/controlled privately. And furthermore that social contract (didn't you sign it?)
says that there are these rules called laws that give not only "ownership" but that ownership
in perpetuity through other rules/laws of inheritance to individuals/families.
IMO, if we want to change the world for the better or ever to save our asses we need to
confront the underlying social contract that none ever discuss openly.
Your assessment of Nikki Haley as a 'mental lightweight' is likely right. However zionists
probably like that in their manchurian candidates. See this thread from the saker... note her
zionist righthand man, jon lerner...
"In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands
out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence
combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is
our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who surfaced in the news lately after she
unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House
suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't
get confused."
For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley for president,
a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah Palin. Indeed,
the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very cerebral or much
given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are reflexively
aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both are
passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley
regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the
Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.
Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on
a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which
are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her
speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah
Goldberg. "
"
Anonymous on April 26, 2018 · at 2:24 pm EST/EDT
One might be inclined to dismiss Haley as another sarah palin, not too bright. This shows she
might become relevant as a zionist manchurian candidate. They already seem to be grooming her.
See the article below about her key aide, jonlerner
Zionists may prefer not-too-bright frontmen because they can be more easily controlled,
think georgewbush, ronaldreagan, donaldtrump etc someone who is too bright might think
themselves out of their control e.g. billclinton started off strongly proisrael, but by the end
he becoming more savvy about israel his wifes political ambitions may have shorted that,
" 5 Things To Know About Nikki Haley's Jewish Right-Hand Man Jon Lerner
Nathan Guttman December 11, 2017
He holds a senior position in the Trump administration and has made a name for himself as
one of the most successful political consultants, yet Jon Lerner, manages to steer clear from
the spotlight. Currently serving as America's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, under
Nikki Haley, Lerner, 49, was recently described in a New York Magazine article as "the No. 1
person [Haley] listens to," and with speculations that Haley's political ambition could lead
her all the way to the White House, Lerner is the man to follow.
Here are a few facts about Jon Lerner:
He May Pave Haley's Road to the White House
The New York Magazine reported that Lerner "has a long-term plan for Haley, and he is there
to make sure nothing derails it." This long term plan began back in South Carolina when Lerner
managed Haley's 2010 successful gubernatorial race and maintained its momentum when she entered
the Trump administration as top United Nations representative. Lerner was appointed deputy
ambassador but stayed behind to run Haley's Washington office.
senator Jim DeMint, [described] Lerner as having "a very good strategic mind."
"Where I follow my gut, Jon relies on facts and the statistics he finds in his polling,"
Haley wrote in her 2012 autobiography "
Reply
Anonymous on April 30, 2018 · at 4:41 am EST/EDT
nikki haley is the most popular active politician in america, with 63% approval, trump 39% (
obama is top 66%) in one poll. perhaps this shows the ongoing crumbling of american democracy,
the principled design of its fundamental institutions (like the elections, the press, the
supremecourt etc) being massively gamed in reality by the minions of the 1%.., sad !!
Key figures on anti-trump color revolution including Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey are closely connected with Clinton foundation
Notable quotes:
"... Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey. ..."
"... Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween. ..."
"... The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. ..."
"... It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues. ..."
I'm on the other side of the planet but a friend in the Mid-West sent me this and I thought I'd ask if anyone else had seen
it?
Is there corruption in DC?
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been empaneled. The investigation
was triggered by the pardon of Marc Rich ..
Governments from around the world had donated to the "Charity". Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those "Donations" to the Clinton
Foundation were declared.
Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey.
Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine,
Lois "Be on The Look Out" (BOLO) Lerner.
It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney
General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.
Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just
a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller.
What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and were front line investigators into the Clinton
Foundation Investigation.
Now that's just a coincidence, right? Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.
Let's fast forward to 2009. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server.
The Uranium One "issue" comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America's
best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.
Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn't, I question what did the People get out of it??
Oddly enough, prior to the sales approval, Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech then meets with Vladimir
Putin at his home for a few hours.
Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside this scheme.
Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, Robert Mueller. He requested the State Department allow himself
to deliver a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009, under the guise of a "sting" operation -- (see leaked secret cable 09STATE38943)..
while it is never clear if Mueller did deliver the sample, the "implication" is there ..
Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney's Office in Maryland ?? No other than,
Rod Rosenstein.
Remember the "informant" inside the FBI -- - Guess what happened to the informant? Department of Justice placed a GAG order
on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke about the Uranium Deal. Personally, I have to question how does 20% of the most
strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands??? The FBI had an informant, a mole providing inside information
to the FBI on the criminal enterprise and NOTHING happens, except to the informant -- Strange !!
Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? 145 million dollars in "donations" made their way into the Clinton Foundation
from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.
Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?
No other than, Lois Lerner. Ok, that's all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right? Let's fast forward
to 2015.
Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the nine "investigations" the House, Senate and at State Department,
Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, discovers that the Hillary
ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.
He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her "Public Service" as Secretary of State
which was required by law.
He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. Sparing you the State
Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth
from the necks of the Kerry State Department, they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.
Guess who became FBI Director in 2013? Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State
Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer. No other than James Comey.
Folks if I did this when I worked for the government, I would have been locked up -- The State Department didn't even comply with
the EEO and small business requirements the government places on all Request For Proposals (RFP) on contracts -- It amazes me
how all those no-bids just went right through at State -- simply amazing and no Inspector General investigation !!
Next after leaving the private sector Comey is the FBI Director in charge of the "Clinton Email Investigation" after of course
his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner "Matter" at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her. Nope couldn't find any crimes
there. Nothing here to report --
Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the
DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween.
The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself,
like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and
exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. As I've said many times, July 8, 2016 is the date that will live in infamy of
the American Justice System ..
Can you see the pattern?
It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey
leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide
cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.
FISA Abuse, political espionage .. pick a crime, any crime, chances are this group and a few others did it. All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted. All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves. All connected in one way or another to the
Clinton's. They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have the Clinton's destroyed?
As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud
in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.
Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.
Putin blocking the delivery of S-300 in Syria against the demands of the Russian Military
This was discussed by Putin with General Staff chief Valery Gerasimov and Defence Minister
Sergei Shoigu on April 20. The Russian military, they told the President, want the go-ahead
to deploy S-300 missile batteries to cover Syrian and Iranian forces against US and Israeli
attack from the air. They believe Israeli threats to attack the S-300 batteries as soon as
they are operational are a bluff which Russia must call if Russia's positions in Syria, and
Iran itself, are not to come under subsequent attack from the American-Israeli combination.
Testing the threat in Syria, they argue, is the less threatening, less costly option than
encouraging the Americans and Israelis to prepare their
offensive against Iran. Putin won't agree.
To respond to Putin's reluctance, the General Staff and the Defence Ministry have devised
a step short of the S-300, but with potentially enough defensive power to intercept or deter
American and Israeli air attacks. This is the deployment of more Russian electronic warfare
systems with the capacity to jam the surveillance, targeting, fire control and command
signals on which the attackers rely. It is the Samson Haircut option – deprive the
giant of control of his firepower, blind him.
Silently, Putin has decided to protect Deripaska; not to call the US attack on Rusal an
act of war; and to test the Americans with an offer of armistice. International bankers close
to Russian business believe it is a Russian illusion that an armistice with the US can be
anything but temporary; pursuing it is a miscalculation of US intentions, the sources add.
They warn that new attacks will come.
Putin Reportedly "Ready For Deep Concessions", Seeks Deal With Trump
He understands Russia can't compete with the West economically and he doesn't plan to go
to war with the West.
Kremlin has ordered officials to curb their anti-U.S. rhetoric.
Putin's decision explains why lawmakers Monday suddenly pulled a draft law that would've
imposed sweeping counter-sanctions on U.S. companies, two of the people said.
Russian Senators to soften counter sanctions against US
RBC: Russian senators to water down Moscow's response to US sanctions. Two Federation
Council members told the newspaper that the final version of the amendments to the
'anti-sanctions' bill initiated by State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin and leaders of all
parliamentary factions, will be "quite mild."
Passer by | Apr 30, 2018 3:53:05 PM | 45
I believe Putin is playing for time. The March 1 weaponry display didn't include production
numbers but I think it is a safe bet they don't exist in sufficient numbers..yet.
So US&Co have a small window left to create hell on earth for as many as possible and
they IMO will hit Iran before the football playoffs that Putin so wants to go smoothly.
I would assume Iran is/was responsible for Iranian defense of these sites so I am
surprised they didn't respond, maybe there was no time?? Couldn't Russia have warned them??
And does anyone know what weaponry the Russians brought into Syria recently under cover of
smoke?
I think the World Cup is playing a big role in the decision making as you have said. There
is a lot at stake: investments already made and international exposure also. I can't wait for
it to be finished so we can get back to war !! (sarc)
Russia began its Syria intervention with an S-400 deployed in Latakia and has introduced
several more since, one being in
Sept 2017 . Syria also has the BUK-M2E AA system and the Pantsir to go with its older and
upgraded S-200 systems along with who knows what else. Just what was off loaded from Russian
supply vessels under the cover of smoke last week (don't know if such veiling's continuing)?
My guess is more AA systems of the type causing Zionists on both sides of Atlantic to
freakout.
As for the Zionists attacking Iranian military bases, those Iran uses in Syria are
joint-use with Syria regardless of what's said by Zionists; so, any such attack will need to
be aimed at Iran proper. The consequences for the region would be horrible--particularly for
Zionists and Saudis: Dimona would be leveled as would Saudi oil infrastructure. The fallout
and other pollution would be appalling. If the Zionists want to keep their skin, they'll
arrest Nutty before he gets his get-out-of-jail war started.
Zionists know they've lost and are contained and constrained, so they're moving into
desperation mode. Too bad they lack the courage to put a pistol to their head and pull the
trigger.
Russia could easily give Syria the s300 system. But Putin clearly does not want to hurt his
buddy Netanyahu's feelings. They are always so chummy you can see there is a mutual respect
between them whenever they meet. Russia is only in Syria to fight terrorism. They will
obviously not confront Israel and go to war, and that is of course, understandable. But whats
even worse is that they seem to refuse to give Syria/Iran the means to defend themselves from
Israeli attacks.
If its true Putin is blocking the delivery himself against the request of the Russian
Army, that is even more shameful. I guess in terms of preventing a World War, it is good that
Putin is chummy with Netanyahu. However a regional war is looking very likely at this point.
Unfortunately the only way Israel will learn is by being smashed in the teeth. I'm sure in
time Syria, Iran or Hezbollah will have to teach them another lesson.
A lot of Russian oligarchs are dual Israeli or American -Russian citizens. Even in the Soviet
era while they provided just enough support to prevent the Arab countries from being totally
defeated they stopped short of giving them enough to threaten Israel or defeat them. Putin
has made peace with a number of the oligarchs that remain in Russia but he has to take care
not to get the pro Israeli -US faction riled or threaten their overseas financial interests
which Trump has threatened to do with sanctions targeted at the oligarchs
So Russia will prevent Syria from being totally overwhelmed but concede the US the
northeast oil rich fields and Israel gets the gas fields in Golan. They will allow isolated
missile attacks and bombing by US and Israel that both resort to for show to appease their
hawks. In the meantime if Assad has an accident or gets overthrown due to economic reasons
then israel and US may get their puppet state and Russia/Iran may exit. Then on to Lebanon
and Iran.
Wars are not fought to be won anymore. They are fought to be long lasting. Perpetual War
Abroad is Peace at Home
Stormy Daniels' legal team - led by lawyer Michael Avenatti - must be getting bored since a federal judge in Los Angeles
ordered a 90-day delay of her lawsuit against President Trump and his former personal attorney Mike Cohen (who has promised to
plead the fifth during the proceedings). Because Stormy has filed another defamation lawsuit, this time exclusively against
President Trump, as
Reuters
reports.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New York on Monday, seeks damages from Trump for a
tweet he sent earlier this month where he criticized a composite sketch that, Daniels said,
depicted a man who had threatened her in 2011. He reportedly demanded that she stay quiet about her
sexual encounter with Trump. That would've been around the time she gave an interview about her
affair with Trump to In Touch magazine which wasn't published until recently.
Her previous lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, sought to have her released from an NDA she signed
shortly before the 2016 vote where she also accepted a $130,000 "hush money" payment from Cohen.
"A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job,
playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!," Trump
said.
According to the filing, cited by the
Associate Press
and Reuters, the tweet was "false and defamatory"
arguing that Trump knew what he was saying out Daniels' claim was
false and also disparaging.
The lawsuit also claims Daniels has been exposed to death threats
and other threats of "physical violence."
Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford, is seeking a jury
trial and unspecified damages.
"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make
things up about someone and disseminate them without serious
consequences," Avenatti said.
As the
Associated Press
points out, Daniels, aided by Avenatti, has
sought to keep her case in the public eye. She revealed the sketch
that Trump mocked during an appearance on the View earlier this
month. Trump is facing another defamation lawsuit in New York, this
one filed by Summer Zervos, a former "The Apprentice" contestant who
says Trump made unwanted sexual contact with her in 2007. She sued
him after Trump dismissed her claims.
0
" Now, that your tastes at this time should incline
towards the juvenile is understandable; but for you to marry
that boy would be a disaster. Because there's two kinds of
women. There are two kinds of women and you, as we well
know, are not the first kind. You, my dear, are a slut. "
"We intend on teaching Mr. Trump that you cannot simply make things up about
someone and disseminate them without serious consequences," Avenatti said.
"We intend on teaching
THE PRESS
that you cannot simply make
things up about someone and disseminate them without serious consequences,"
Avenatti said.
If Nikki Haley was supposedly voted most likable US politician hence I suggest, lock the US
insane asylum and throw out the key, since now anything will be blabbermouthed and nothing of
substance will really happen except some unwitting crisis actors will die, a fact of inhumane
cruelty of imperial rulers.
Where are dire warnings from Russia about severe consequences if Syria attacked.
Russians lost credibility of their threats which is even worse if they have never made
them.
I do not know what it would take for people to see what cruel charade all this is, what
would it take for people to realize that it is all Roman type of theater of wilderness and
pain and we are audience and targets of this propaganda of fear of global nuke war and
destruction that they want us to believe is behind all this cruel soap opera.
There will be no global war since there are no fundamental conflicts within global elites
despite what propaganda from all sides claims and that including b, trying to make sense of
utter unadulterated nonsense of MSM, for those establishment people in west who are already
in it are not idiots but rational people who do that immoral, opportunist job for money
knowing what they lie about, knowing that there is no danger of global nuke catastrophe
whatsoever, otherwise they would act more sober like it was during Cold War.
However, there is logic in this madness, namely to forcefully align nations with
discredited ruling elites who attempt to take role of saviors, when no other method of
control over population works any more and policies of deliberated destruction of welfare and
civil society, openly provoked mass unrest or revolution and instigated natural growth of
working class movements in self defense. Warmongering was classical ploy against discontented
population used many times in history and nor mere speculation.
Spreading of fear of global anihilation among populations is the ultimate objective of
this unheard of verbal and acting belligerence on world stage, which upon examination of
basic socioeconomic facts especially soundness and calm of global financial system indicates
mood of world peace and love among oligarchic elites who have a good thing going while
sheeple are orderly dying of starvation and fear.
But I guess even on this quite brainy blog people are more interested in menacing tabloid
surrealism than boring naked truth. Otherwise, b would not have much to write about in his
devastating reports on masive MSM lying, with implicit hope that one day may be NYT writes
some truth.
It ain's gonna happen b , their business is lies yo
"... "He doesn't even understand what DACA is. He's an idiot," Kelly said in one meeting, according to two officials who were present. "We've got to save him from himself." ..."
"... According to NBC's sources, Kelly has been hiding behind his public image as a four-star, while in truth operating in an "undisciplined and indiscreet" manner. "The private manner aides describe may shed new light on why Kelly now finds himself -- just nine months into the job -- grappling with diminished influence and a drumbeat of questions about how long he'll remain at the White House . ..."
Update 2: President Trump has now responded directly, blasting the "fake news making up
false stories" as "totally unhinged."
Update 1 : Bloomberg's White House correspondent Jennifer Jacobs reports that John Kelly has responded to MSNBC's claim he calls Trump an "idiot.
"I spend more time with the president than anyone else and we have an incredibly candid
and strong relationship.
He always knows where I stand and he and I both know this story is total BS. I am
committed to the president, his agenda, and our country."
"This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump..."
* * *
White House chief of staff John Kelly has reportedly been undermining morale in the West
Wing in recent months - commenting to aides that President Trump is an idiot, while touting
himself as the "savior of the country,"
reports NBC News , citing "eight current and former White House officials."
The officials said Kelly portrays himself to Trump administration aides as the lone
bulwark against catastrophe , curbing the erratic urges of a president who has a questionable
grasp on policy issues and the functions of government. He has referred to Trump as "an
idiot" multiple times to underscore his point , according to four officials who say they've
witnessed the comments. -
NBC News
NBC notes that three White House spokespeople say the "idiot" thing just isn't true, and he
may have spoken in jest about saving the country.
In one heated exchange between the two men before February's Winter Olympics in South
Korea, Kelly strongly -- and successfully -- dissuaded Trump from ordering the withdrawal of
all U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula , according to two officials.
For Kelly, the exchange underscored the reasoning behind one of his common refrains, which
multiple officials described as some version of " I'm the one saving the country. "
"The strong implication being ' if I weren't here we would've entered WWIII or the
president would have been impeached ,'" one former senior White House official said. - NBC
News
"He doesn't even understand what DACA is. He's an idiot," Kelly said in one meeting,
according to two officials who were present. "We've got to save him from himself."
According to NBC's sources, Kelly has been hiding behind his public image as a four-star,
while in truth operating in an "undisciplined and indiscreet" manner. "The private manner aides
describe may shed new light on why Kelly now finds himself -- just nine months into the job --
grappling with diminished influence and a drumbeat of questions about how long he'll remain at
the White House ."
"He says stuff you can't believe," one senior White House official tells NBC News . " He'll
say it and you think, 'That is not what you should be saying. '"
According to presidential historian Michael Beschloss, Kelly's comments about Trump vs.
prior White House chiefs of "suggest a lack of respect for the sitting president of a kind that
we haven't seen before," adding that the closest would have to be President Ronald Reagan's
chief of staff, Don Regan, who "somewhat looked down on" The Gipper, and eventually lost
Reagan's support - having been replaced after two years by Howard Baker.
Meanwhile, insults or not, Trump is said to have soured on Kelly - and is aware of some,
"though not all" of Kelly's comments. And as NBC News points out, " The last time it became
public that one of Trump's top advisers insulted his intelligence behind his back, it didn't go
over well with the president . White House aides have said Trump never got over former
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson calling him a "moron" in front of colleagues , which was first
reported by NBC News. Trump later challenged Tillerson to an IQ test and fired him several
months after the remark became public."
Current and former White House officials said Kelly has at times made remarks that have
rattled female staffers . Kelly has told aides multiple times that women are more emotional
than men , including at least once in front of the president, four current and former
officials said.
And during a firestorm in February over accusations of domestic abuse against then-White
House staff secretary Rob Porter, Kelly wondered aloud how much more Porter would have to
endure before his honor could be restored , according to three officials who were present for
the comments. He also questioned why Porter's ex-wives wouldn't just move on based on the
information he said he had about his marriages, the officials said.
So in addition to Kelly allegedly calling Trump an idiot, he's also a misogynist, according
to NBC.
Kelly is expected to leave by July - his one-year mark, according to sources, however others
say it's anyone's guess. That said, "what's clear is both Trump and Kelly seem to have tired of
each other."
" Kelly appears to be less engaged, which may be to the president's detriment ," a second
senior White House official said. If NBC is correct, we're about to once again play White House
Musical Chairs.
That said, when reached for comment, Kelly that it's all more fake news:
"He and I both know this story is total BS. I am committed to the president, his agenda,
and our country. This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump...
"
One hopes that is the case, then again one also remembers the Rex Tillerson incident...
The lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), naming WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange as co-conspirators
with Russia and the Trump campaign in a criminal effort to steal the 2016 US presidential election, is a frontal assault on democratic
rights. It tramples on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of the press and freedom of speech as
fundamental rights.
Neither the Democratic Party lawsuit nor the media commentaries on it acknowledge that WikiLeaks is engaged in journalism, not
espionage; that its work consists of publishing material supplied to it by whistleblowers seeking to expose the crimes of governments,
giant corporations and other powerful organizations; and that this courageous campaign of exposure has made both the website and
its founder and publisher the targets of state repression all over the world.
Assange himself has been effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past six years, since he fled there
to escape efforts by the British, Swedish and American governments to engineer his extradition to the United States, where a secret
grand jury has reportedly indicted him on espionage and treason charges that could bring the death penalty. Since the end of March,
the Ecuadorian government, responding to increasing pressure from US and British imperialism, has cut off all outside communication
with him.
The reason for the indictment and persecution of Assange is that WikiLeaks published secret military documents, supplied by whistleblower
Chelsea Manning, revealing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables embarrassing to the US State Department
because they detailed US attempts to manipulate and subvert governments around the world.
The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a 66-page complaint that reeks of McCarthyism, with overtones of the Wisconsin
senator's demagogy about "a conspiracy so vast" when he was spearheading the anticommunist witch hunts more than 70 years ago. After
detailing a long list of supposed conspirators, ranging from the Russian government and its military intelligence agency GRU to the
Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the complaint declares: "The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery:
the campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power to bolster its own chance to win
the Presidency."
"... BraaaaVO! Killer post....Ironically, at age 57, I NOW do what Russians TOLD ME they did over 30 years ago: Whatever I read in the papers or hear from the U.S. gov, I automatically believe the OPPOSITE! ..."
The Russia bashing is indeed perplexing. But it is not universal. One explanation is
that Americans are afraid of the rivalry. Also Americans have been brought up with a
negative imagine of "KGB" and it is impossible to shake this. Russia would love to be
part of Europe and increase ties and business. Europe is game; but not USA. It represents
a challenge to its own supremacy. I think this is the underlying problem. Putin came out
of nowhere, as many of the "Putin Videos" show. His first priority was to rebuild the
morale of the Russian army and to do this he picked on Chechnia. Perhaps today he would
do things differently. He also turned on many oligarchs who had helped him. But he did
this because he did not ask nor want their "help" which he considered self-serving; they
wanted to control him, not the other way round. He may regret having been too hard on
some (Boris Bereshovski for instance) but it had to be done. All these things played into
the hands of the anti-Russians in US. One thing is sure. Neither Russia nor Putin had
anything to do with the riots in Maidan which are the root cause of all the disasters
occurring in that country. If Putin "took advantage" of the break-down in Kiev to retake
Crimea so much to his credit. It was certainly not "planned". The State Dept got faked
out. Now they are licking their wounds by Putin bashing day in day out. Rather pathetic
really. The best would be to welcome Russia into the world economy. It can make a great
contribution.
I was brought up to hate Russia, to fear Russia but not anymore! It was all lies and
manipulation! Do not include all Americans because its just not true but yes, Russophobia
is from decades and decades of brainshing in America.. Believe me, since literally the
age of 5 I was taught to fear Russia.
From school drills in preparation of " Russia
coming to get us" to Putin being a communist dictator to now, Russia is more dangerous
than terrorists organization is ALL lies by our government and media! People need to wake
the hell up !
It is our government bombing and invading countries, our government funding
millions to Isreal to slaughter Palestines, funding Nazi Ukraine president to kill
Russian speaking E Ukrainians!
Our government funded and trained ISIS! The world is not n
chaos because of your government!
Well, Washington D.C. IS afraid of rivalry.
Remeber the 1992 ,Wolfowitz Doctrine'? Even one of the mouthpieces, the NYT, was slightly
disgusted.
The essence of that vile doctrine: do not allow any rival to rise and challenge US power,
hegemony.
I am not at all afraid of Russia. In fact they're much like us , who want peace and
wished our countries were friends and allies like we should be ! But NO ! We have twisted
butthead warmongers who want to cause trouble and keep Russia down because heaven forbid
they might be bigger and better than us! I say good for them ! We are NOT excepectionals
, we should be equals !
Guess what, the Russians are not afraid of USA either.
But we all ARE afraid of a wounded animal, they are the most dangerous. And USA is a
wounded dying animal. I will be very surprised if humanity managed to avoid a nuclear war
within the next 10 years. The fake "capitalism" is collapsing and the only way out is a
major war.
IMO -- WHAT the americans among us are saying "'not afraid of russia\|"
is that they don't fear Russia the WAY the warmongers told them to fear Russia...
as if russians have some malicious nefarious intent towards americans...and they are
right. americans should NOT fear russia nor russia americans in the sense that everyone
are just PEOPLE -- ordinary folks who just want to grow up , live, have families and
friends and work a good decent job, leave something for their children , etc..and then
grow old with grace .
buit these warmongers of leaders are just so EVIL - who sit around with their cronies
and their families and friends SCHEMING and makng their 'inner circle" decisions about
'shaping the world" as they see fit...and create MISERY for everyone.
There is nothing being implied into my statement. "Capitalism" has ALWAYS been fake
and bunch of lies. With a major war, they will be able to keep the charade a bit longer,
the same way thy did it with WWII.
EUROPE and its ''invasion" by the USA is the USA'S STEPPING STONE and war front
towards Moscow n order to rule over all of Eurasia -- all that resource and land,
magine...
it is just a mirror of the USA'S ''conquering the west" ..by the other direction. as
is JAPAN, peripeheral asian countries to china /russia is from the pacific end...
THAT'S really teh USA''s obsession - always was - and this has been OPENLY declared by
no less than the likes of THEODORE ROOSEVELT, "the pacific shall be ours, the philippines
shall be our doorstep and forever ours - and then on to the mainland of asia"...things of
that kind...
no less than MANIFEST DESTINY to rule the world, or "OUR SOUTH AMERICAN
BACKYARD"..
and were russia and europe to unite and have peaceful cooperation , trade, friendship
and tighten their commonalities of cultures --
WHAT WOULD EUROPE AND EURASIA really need THE usa FOR?
DEFENSE AND SECURITY against WHOM exactly? a europe at peace with russia would SOON be
a europe at peace WITH the middle east and africa -- and asia --
and the extremists would SO ISOLATED within that landmass they would simp;ly wither
away for STARVATION as peoples ignore them
people who find meaningful decent jobs , children growing up with families intact and
with futures to look forward to and travel everywhere their dreams allowed...etc...
WHAT WOULD the landmasses and their peoples and cultures NEED USA for? resources?
technology? science? medicine/ / agriculture? food? ships? cars? .......security?
defense/ ?
safety? rights? entertainment? cultural enrichment? stories? friends? nope
they would NOT NEED the USA at all. the wil.l welcome american FRIENDS and traders as
it ought to be...but NOT as rulers and ''security and defense " SCAM ARTISTS.
THAT'S WHAT THE USA FEARS from russian/european integration...and become what it
really IS..
look at all the blogs/comments in Uk nationalistic papers eg Daily mail-readers
comments are full of vile nonsense and insane idiocy-there is no hope of peaceful
resolution Rus and west while ordinary people are so ill informed, do not even wish to
understand, completely prejudiced, have such entrenched attitudes perpetuated by mass
media, playstation/xbox games and zombie films exported from USA that have morally
corrupted peoples and nations.
NGO's being funded by USA to subvert other states, look
out for cyberwarfare too.
Please support The Saker too, very high intelligence from this
analyst.
Just consider the speech's given by Western Leader's at the opening session of the UN
recently -- Cameron posits critical thinking as being aligned with ISIS-Obama casting Russia
as a threat equal to ISIS and Ebola
Just consider the speech's given by Western Leader's at the opening session of the UN
recently -- Cameron posits critical thinking as being aligned with ISIS-Obama casting Russia
as a threat equal to ISIS and Ebola, ...these statements are allowed to pass uncritically
into the mainstream without a second thought. This depraved leadership sends shivers down
my spine as it indicates just serious our problems are and how far down the rabbit hole
we have fallen. Capitalism in crisis produces fascism at home and primitive accumulation
in the form of Imperialism abroad. America is broke and going from Broke having invested
trillions in PNAC they are doubling down on full spectrum dominance-a fallacy that will
never be reached leaving poverty stricken societies in their wake. Societies akin to the
Hunger Games-quasi-feudal fiefdoms only serfs had more rights than today's wage
slaves-tenure on the land,access to the mode of production ability the keep and trade the
fruits of their labour at least to an extent. The fall of the Soviet Union was a
catastrophe for the workers of the world-Not only did we not get a peace dividend from
the end of the cold war but a century of social gains won by labour have been rolled back
to practically nothing the finishing touches being put into place with the free trade
deals about to be unleashed upon the Western Worker-notice austerity was and is not an
option for Putin's Russia-he has put his neck on the line for his people and his country
and they will do the same for him and the Motherland.
America has to hire mercenaries to fight their battles which is why they can't win. And
these false flags are getting a little tiresome. And Mr. Lavrov as FM he is the
consummate diplomat, he does not brow beat or chest pound,nor does he humiliate his
adversaries even though circumstances have offered him ample opportunities-people like
MCCAIN OBAMA and KERRY embarrass themselves and their nation often enough without Russia
having to add insult to injury-Russia is above that but truth telling is another matter
and must be pursued no matter how embarrassing for certain parties the exercise maybe
Russia does need to increase it's public relations budget every thing from student
exchanges on up to film festivals Sochi would make an excellent venue for the
glitterati......and serves as a reminder of just how immature the West truly is when one
harken's back to the coverage of the Olympics. This Ukraine situation needs to be
resolved in opposition to the fascists putsch ruling now before it blows up in all of our
faces. Cohen nailed it-we are 5 min. to midnight and closing.
Our real enemy is not in
the Kremlin or the Middle East-but right here on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue-time
for Occupy 2.0 with Agenda.
Yes, and Ebola isn't a real threat. The only reason it's in the US is because people
have been idiots and have not taken the proper precautions. Russia has a vaccine ready to
go. ISIS was created by the US, and they're not a real threat. I am not afraid of Russia
or the KGB or Putin or Boris and Natasha. All of it is fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.
Oh Yes, and not forgetting the hybrid not so Holy Hollywood, the entertainment
industry who of course are run by the Banksters. The missing link in humanity the genetic
modification from apes to human form, the Banksters. Do you remember the "Man from
Atlantis" and the "Planet of the Apes" and the oil magnets "Dallas"
https://encrypted-tbn1.gsta... Play
Hide
What this shows more than anything is how desperate the western elites are. They know
Russia, China and others are rising powers and that the US empire's days are numbered.
The dollar's reign as world reserve currency is coming to an end and they know that the
US a busted, bankrupt economic house of cards that could completely collapse at any time
taking down US power with it. Hence, the risk taking and recklessness. We're in a very
dangerous time.
It just takes a few to manipulate the minds of public opinion and perception. That is
mind control and you have to ignore mainstream media and go online to find unadulterated
truth. Putin has other means to deal with the US; he doesn't have to stoop so low to call
obama what he really is: an illegitimate child who became an illegitimate president, a
man who came from nowhere and has nothing to offer but war with third world nations who
have no nuclear defense. America is as confused as Africa and his zionist handlers like
it that way.
The basic problem is, and always will be, that people believe what they want to
believe irregardless of facts, evidence, proof or common sense. The believe that which
they think will benefit themselves, soothe their ego, fill their pockets, bring tem
pleasure etc and deliberatly ignore, condemn, and close their eyes to learning something
that may not fit that goal. They rationalize away their deliberate ignorance and refuse
to look for truth under some morally relative "label" or "cause" so that they don't have
to face truth about themselves and their true intentions.
The Valdai Speech is on the "President of Russia" website - or at least three quarters
of it, with the rest still being translated from Russian:
http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/...
The Economist is the voice of the british oligarchy and security services. They don't need to
be advised by the CIA, because the English oligarchy is dictating US politics and
strategy.
Is the Pope Catholic? Do you even have to ask? After almost 25 years of documented USA
lies against Iraq/Iran do we even have to discuss this?
documented USA/NATO lies that have been proven to be lies:
1990 babies taken out of incubators and left to die on cold hospital floor
1990-1999 Saddam working on nuclear weapons
2001 Osama engineered and did 9-11
2001-2003 Saddam has ties with Ali Queda
2001-2003 Saddam has weapons of mass distraction (Colin Powell, Bush jr, Cheney, Condy
Rice, etc)
2002-2203 Saddam working on weapons of mass distraction
2002-2003 Saddam working on acquiring nuclear weapons
2001 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2001 Iran has ties with Ali Queda
2002 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2003 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2004 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2005 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2006 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2007 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2008 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2009 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2010 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2011 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2012 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2013 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2013 Assad gassed his own people (part 1)
2013 Assad gassed his own people (part 2)
2014 Iran will have nuclear bomb
2014 Assad gassed his own people (part 3)
BraaaaVO! Killer post....Ironically, at age 57, I NOW do what Russians TOLD ME they
did over 30 years ago: Whatever I read in the papers or hear from the U.S. gov, I
automatically believe the OPPOSITE! Auto-freakin'-matically.....works like a chahm...
A very interesting professionally made video of the entire Valdai speech of the
President of Russia (24 Oct 14) along with all the pointed questions asked of him by the
Russian, Bulgarian, Palestinian, English, and American audience, and his complete answers
to these, can be found at the "Vineyard of the Saker" site (h t t p : / /
vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/... .
Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin?
No!! Fancy that!! Where have you been for the last 3 years? and why bring it up now?
The CIA has been waging full-spectrum media warfare, propaganda, dis-information and
covert destabilisation of Russia and the Russian president for many years. (What do you
think they are paid for? making tea?)
It's just a coincidence that we chosen people own and run Newsweek, The Economist, The
Daily Express, The Daily Mirror, The New York Times, The New York Post, The Washington
Post, News International (The Sun Newspaper, Sky News, Fox News), The Independent, The
London Evening Standard, the Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, ABC News,
CBS News, NBC News, Bloomberg News, and Reuters. And run the BBC.
It's just a coincidence, goyim. Nothing to see here. Move along. And keep thinking
what we tell you to think.
Russia is establishing a BRICS development bank and consequently becoming a threat to
the IMF and WB, this is why the global eite want Putin removed and a puppet regime put in
place.
It's also good to remember that this has been going on for years and years, and in
spite of that, Pr. Vladimir Putin kept offering his friendship, insisting on the
importance of collaboration, equal terms, exchange, peace, and even disarmament ! For
years and years !
Considerable Ukrainian money has gone into influencing US, EU and Israeli press and
politicians ($12m to the Clinton foundation gets Hilary's attention). It is not necessary
to invoke the CIA.
Beresovsky is only recently dead.
Khordokovsky is free.
Gusinsky and
Lebedev have major media interests.
The remnants of Mockingbird work for defense
institutes in Estonia, Universities in Azerbaijan and think tanks in Poland. It is not
necessary to invoke the current US government. One thing fascinates me. Every year or so
there is yet another negative biography of Putin. I do not believe the market is so big. Beresovsky started it - his cousin wrote the first one and claimed P had $40Bn without
any evidence whatsoever. Did he fund the others too (there hasn't been one recently).
To our German friends on here I say...isn't it weird that no one is allowed to say the
word "reunification" for Crimea and Russia
I do not recall a referendum for the DDR citizens.
Germany and most other EU countries are merely assisting in their own decline. Any
country -- including mine -- that insists on continuing to play the role of vassal to
Washington will enjoy the same fate that Washington is stupidly preparing for itself. The
German government has to have a few screws loose to join Washington in driving Putin into
the arms of the Chinese -- and taking his natural gas resources with him. Don't be
surprised if Germans freeze in the dark this winter.
It goes on day and night in Russia, although that doesn't exclude an American
origin.
There is no defamation of Putin that is not screamed from the rafters by the Russian
liberati. The allegations of corruption, photoshopped pictures of Putin with women who
can be found by an image search in the same pose and clothing embracing somebody else,
the whole nine yards.
First off, I say this as a former bookseller, who spent major amounts of time shelving
the magazines and newspapers. Newsweek is all but dead. Put a fork in it, it's done!!! I
didn't know The Economist was a Rothschild publication until someone on here pointed it
out. I did know, however, that most people consider it one of the most manifestly boring
magazines on the planet. Finally, as regards the British tabloids shown and the American
ones that didn't get mentioned, they are for people who have a little mind and a little
time. My favorite one was The Weekly World News, now sadly gone. I know it transgressed
the bounds of good journalism, but now I'll never know what became of "Bat Boy," the
pregnant mummy (the museum janitor did it!!!) or the 12 US Senators who are actually
space aliens. (Now, I know they're lying. There's way more than 12 of them!!!)
That said, when I see headlines like the ones shown here, I ignore them. Newsweek
discredited itself long ago, and this presidential election cycle has done much in
America to do the same for Big Media and both political parties. That's what made my
family start listening to alternative media, and thank God for the Internet!!! The truth
about Mr. Putin is out there for anyone who cares to look. I've had to work hard to
convince a friend of Ukrainian descent that he's not the one screwing up their homeland,
but they are beginning to question. I've also shocked several people out of their socks
by telling them Mr. Putin is a devout Christian man. So far, I've found about 3 people
out of 30 or so I've told this who had any inkling. And one of them is a pastor who won't
tell his congregation!!!
The Russian people have a good leader. Would that America had one at least half as
capable. Until then, follow the old adage: "Don't believe anything you hear, and only
half of what you see!!!"
There is a black defence budget on the level on the official one = not American
money
(CAI agent told it. He had cancer and id not care about doing anything "unlegal" by
telling it)
Why bother asking this question now? Russians are fully aware, so is nearly everyone
else. Hence why even with this defemation campaign, Putin hold far more popularity than
nearly anyone else. The others who hold popularity are equally against the US and others
(Fair Russia Party, Communist, etc). Only ones that sing the grace of US BS, Yabloko and
other "liberal" parties/people, are 3%'ers. In other words, hated amongst majority of
their population.
The thing about all these media campaigns that the west tries and does, which the
Saker failed to state, is that they do not work. Essentially, all it will do is rally the
Russians against others. As the newspapers love to demonize Putin, it is all written in
English with few actually being translated. And when it does, it ends up as a laughing
stock of the country. As well, it is barely working here. Yes, there are a few useful
idiots around, we even see them on the comment sections here, but lets be frank - even
westerns do not believe it. But if their intention is to destabilize Russia, then they
are clearly not working. Putin's popularity back in 2011 was 65%. Now it is over 80%.
Clearly, the west is doing him more favors than not.
If he ever even loses popularity, and someone else wins, guarantee it will either be
the communists or the nationalists (fair russia). And that is when the west will be
dealing with people who are going to make sure they go out of their way to hurt the
US.
Clearly it's Putin who has bombed six countries in seven years...or is it seven
countries in six years. Whichever. He isn't bombing sovereign nations, and deciding that
recognized leaders in sovereign states are the latest incarnation of Hitler and thus need
to be sacrificed to the god Pele.
He's a colossal scumbag for not doing what Washington says. He actually thinks that
Russia should be sovereign country outside of the influence of the "exceptional" and
"indispensable" nation. What a loser!
Gorbachev is a traitor and dumbest person ever to walk this planet. The only thing
that is unbelievable is the fact that everyone are buying into "american dishonesty"
story when it is purely visible and understood that no one with a fraction of a brain
would ever allow something of this magnitude to happen.( allowing Germany the country
that wanted to obliterate Russia and USSR not even 50 years ago at that point ) to
reunite based on verbal agreement. He should have been shot in the head the moment he
landed back in the USSR for giving such approval without consultaing in detail Soviet
Army generals and KGB directors.
People stop drinking KoolAid and open your eyes. gorbachev sold the whole USSR for few
private "foundations".
Do you unquestionably believe everything you are told to believe or can you start
someday to think for yourself and look for logic, facts, evidence, multiple and
oppositional sources of information and well founded deduction to make your
decisions?
What war has he started?
What terrorists has he supplied weapons with?
What minorities is he oppressing. Oh, d'ye mean the gays? You obviously haven't spent
much time in the USA if you think everyone here is open-minded about homosexuality. Maybe
in the cities on the coast but in the small towns of the rest of middle America, they are
pretty conservative about that issue and openly so. I've met my fair share of homophobes
in my lifetime and none of them were from Russia. I would say 50 percent of Americans
disapprove of homosexuality, and attitudes have only changed somewhat in the past 10
years. All of those gay marriage bans were passed by voters, even in so-called
"progressive" states like California, as recently as 2008. You think you can't get your
butt beat for being gay in the United States? You think there aren't any anti-gay laws
here? You think the anti-gay propaganda law in Russia is actually enforced? Sure, they
could have a different attitude toward that sort of thing, but so could a lot of people.
If someone is gay and is that concerned about their safety, stay out of Russia the same
way you'd stay out of Utah. You're a person who thinks it's a human right to stage a gay
pride parade, but if some idiot "girls" walk into a church and make fun of someone's
religious beliefs, well they should be celebrated as heroes.
Who did he threaten to nuke? Got proof of that? I mean proof, not hearsay. Do you have a
voice recording of Putin threatening to nuke people?
Stop calling him Putler. His brother was killed by the Nazis. You are ignorant.
You must be confusing Putin with our current president, Obomba, and our last prezzident,
Bushwacker.
Another problem that needs to be fixed is their control over schools and
universities.
An aspiring journalist who went through a lot of effort translating a Putin speech and
commenting on it, then getting an F while watching the lazy guy sitting in the class next
to him getting an A+++ for writing "Putin's speech translates to 'We'll steal Ukraine
because we hate democracy. Heil Hitler! Death to America!' (and any other translation you
may see is Russian propaganda, Russia controls the media worldwide), therefore we need to
strengthen NATO and move troops directly to Russia's border to fight off that threat"
probably learned the lesson before even starting his job.
I'm British and the more the media attack Mr Putin the more I trust him! I think if
Britain was involved in an altercation with Russia the public would not back it. People
in the West feel very down trodden at the minute and if Britain doesn't leave Europe I
think democracy will be questioned! It's time to live and let live and help each other
instead of interfering, for me Mr Putin plays a good game and seems to be more realistic
than our politicians, who knows but people across the world want peace and it's about
time we demanded our governments stopped interfering. Every country has it's problems and
could sort them out if they weren't too busy interfering over seas! War is horrific and
must be avoided at all costs but greed will always motivate war. Someone invent a
non-greedy pill please😀
There is one little item the author is missing.
The USA regards Russia and China as "existential threats to the USA" because they are
existential threats to the USA. Without it's world hegemon and tight control on global trade, the US crumbles and
fades away.
Russia and China are slowly but surely, bit by bit, taking them away. Existential
threat.
All living things, even empires, fight for their survival.
"Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin?"
-------------------
On no. Every word the CIA says is true.
Simple - it's true because they said it!
American logic.
to attack the leader of a country is to attack the country?
No, I don't think so. In the case of o'bama, to attack him is to HELP the country get out
from under a LYING SCUMBAG FRAUD and to go back to following the Constitution!
There are many who believe the MSM and take what they say as Gospel, but there are
also many that have woken from the zombie, media induced diet of the MSM and they are
voicing their concerns and also given a different type of narative to counterbalance the
MSM and that is also working.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public
believes is false."? William Casey, Director of CIA
How much money is the CIA, US, EU and Soros investing in their media disinformation
programme? It is quite frightening when you look at the figures involved. Why do they
need to do so?
This article goes back to 2011, I wonder how far it stretches in 21016?
Ironically, the more the MSM goes into a media frenzy with a story, I now always
question the motives and reasons why and then completely dismiss the story.
"... ( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different programs. Wikipedia ) ..."
"... nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ..."
The latest hot topic in the Russian media. Russian politicians are talking about it. Historical precedent and behavior of Western
media suggests that they are. The Saker Fri, Apr 22, 2016 |
52,080
195 MORE: Politics A major topic in the Russian media is
mystification with how Putin is portrayed in the Western media.
Wildly popular at home, and seen as a decent, modest, an admirable person, and Russians don't understand how there can be such
a disconnect with Western impressions.
Recently, leading Russian commentators and politicians have been suggesting that this can only be explained by a deliberate campaign
to defame Putin, by governments or other groups.
The day before another member of Putin's inner circle, Vyasheslav Volodin,
made similar remarks , telling foreign journalists "an attack on Putin is an attack on Russia." The logic, they argue, is that
by defaming the leader of a country, you weaken his power domestically by undermining popular support for him, and internationally,
by rallying popular opinion to support policies against that country. The ultimate goal, they argue, is to weaken the country itself.
They also talk about regime change. They argue that if one looks at the facts, that there is evidence of ongoing character assassination
which cannot be explained by a vague popular zeitgeist in the West, but is more likely the result of a dedicated effort to introduce
this defamation into the news flow.
Newsweek has been one of the most virulent Putin-bashers for years
The issue of manipulation of news by intelligence services has been in the news recently with revelations that the CIA and German
Secret Service (GSS) have long-running programs to influence how media executives and top journalists convey and interpret the news,
including direct cash payments. Here are some examples they point to:
Portraying him as a scheming dictator trying to rebuild a repressive empire.
Claiming he personally ordered the murder of a number of journalists, and personally ordered a KGB defector to be murdered
with radiation poisoning.
Frequently citing unsubstantiated rumors he is having an affair with a famous gymnast.
Allegations that he has stashed away billions for his personal benefit, without providing evidence.
Recent article in Newsweek claiming he leads a luxurious and lazy lifestyle, sleeping late.
Recent article in NYT focusing on a supposed personal arrogance.
Hillary Clinton mentioning in speech after speech that he is a bad guy, a bully, that one must confront him forcefully.
Mis-quoting him on his regret about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Articles about a supposed super-luxury villa built for him in southern Russia.
The over-the top headlines in the western media (they were worst of all in Germany) portraying him personally responsible
for murdering the victims of MH17.
And soft stuff - magazine covers making him look sinister, monstrous, etc.
RI sat down with The Saker , a leading analyst
of Russia in international affairs, and asked him what he thinks:
-----------------------------------
So, is there any credence to this line of thinking, or is this conspiracy theorists running wild?
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the US is waging a major psyop war against Russia, although not a shooting war, for
now, and that what we are seeing is a targeted campaign to discredit Putin and achieve "regime change" in Russia or, should that
fail, at the very least "regime weakening" and "Russia weakening".
And the Economist has been the very worst of them all...
So this is a US government program?
Yes, Putin is absolutely hated by certain factions in the US government two main reasons:
1. He partially, but not fully, restored Russia's sovereignty which under Gorbachev and Yeltsin had been totally lost Russia then
was a US colony like Ukraine is today and,
2. He dared to openly defy the USA and its civilizational model.
a free and sovereign Russia is perceived by the US "deep state" as an existential threat which has to be crushed. this is a full-scale
political assault on Russia and Putin personally.
So what the Russians are saying, that the constant personal attacks against Putin in the global media are partly the result
of deliberate efforts by US intelligence services, basically, planted stories
Yes, absolutely
It seems like "Operation Mockingbird" all over again Are you aware of other instances aimed at Putin?
( Editors Note : Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually
exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975
which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different
programs. Wikipedia )
Yes, of course. Since this defamation has very little traction with the Russian public Putin's popularity is higher than ever
before .., there is an organized campaign to convince them that Putin is "selling out" Novorussia, that he is a puppet of oligarchs
who are making deals with Ukrainian oligarchs to back-stab the Novorussian resistance
So far, Putin's policies in the Ukraine have enjoyed very strong support from the Russian people who still oppose an overt military
intervention
but if Kiev attacks Novorussia again - which appears very likely - and if such an attack is successful - which is less likely
but always possible - then Putin will be blamed for having given the Ukrainians the time to regroup and reorganize.
Warm and fuzzy...
So you are saying that if the Ukrainian military strengthens its position enough to deliver a serious blow to the East Ukrainians,
the US can use this as a method to strike at Putin's support base
Yes, that's right ... t here are a lot of "fake patriots" in Russia and abroad who will reject any negotiated solution and who
will present any compromise as a "betrayal". They are the "useful idiots" used by western special services to smear and undermine
Putin.
Is it limited to government special ops, or are there other groups who might have an interest in doing this?
Yes, well here is something that most people in the west don't appreciate there is a major behind-the scenes struggle among Russian
elites between what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (basically, those who support Putin) and what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists"
(those whom Putin refers to as the "5th column).
The western media talks about this as the struggle between Russian liberals and conservatives, reformers and reactionaries,
right?
Well its sort of like that, but not exactly
The former see Russia's future in the Russian North and East and want to turn Russia towards Asia, Latin America and the rest
of the world, while the latter want Russia to become part of the "North Atlantic" power configuration.
The Atlantic Integrationists are now too weak to openly challenge Putin - whose real power base is his immense popular support
- but they are quietly sabotaging his efforts to reform Russia while supporting anti-Putin campaigns.
Regarding the revelations of CIA activities in Germany, do you think this is going on in other countries, in the US?
I am sure that this is happening in most countries worldwide. The very nature of the modern corporate media is such that it makes
journalists corrupt.
As the French philosopher Alain Soral says " nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute ". There are, of
course, a few exceptions, but by and large this is true.
This is not to say that most journalists are on the take. In the West this is mostly done in a more subtle way - by making it
clear which ideas do or do not pass the editorial control, by lavishly rewarding those journalists who 'get it' and by quietly turning
away those who don't.
If a journalist or reporter commits the crime of "crimethink" he or she will be sidelined and soon out of work.
There is no real pluralism in the West where the boundaries of what can be said or not are very strictly fixed.
Ok, but is it like what has been revealed in Germany, similar specific operational programs in France, the UK, Italy, Latin
America, etc.
Yes, one has to assume so – it is in their interests to have them and there is no reason for them not to.
As for the CIA, it de-facto controls enough of the corporate media to "set the tone". As somebody who in the past used to read
the Soviet press for a living, I can sincerely say that it was far more honest and more pluralistic than the press in the USA or
EU today.
Joseph Goebbels or Edward Bernays could not have imagined the degree of sophistication of modern propaganda machines.
If the US is doing it, can't one assume other governments are too? Are the Russians doing it against western leaders?
I think that all governments try to do that kind of stuff. However, what makes the US so unique it a combination of truly phenomenal
arrogance and multi-billion dollar budgets.
The US "deep state" owns the western corporate media which is by far the most powerful media on the planet. Most governments can
only do that inside their own country ... to smear a political opponent or discredit a public figure, but they simply do not have
the resources to mount an international strategic psyop campaign. This is something only the US can do.
So foreign governments are at a great disadvantage in this arena vis-a-vis the US?
Excellent. Another point to grasp is that the Banksters do not want a true capitalism, where inefficiency fails, & competition
trims profits.
They want what we now have in the West : a crony corporatist state, where ever fewer giant globalist multinationals dominate both
commerce & countries, pay no taxes, to the benefit of their CEOs , shareholders & their banksters.
In short, effectively, a Fascism.
Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr. See where those "Atlantic Integrationists" came from.
Russia today is the only power standing up to the world oligarchy. If Russia falls then we will all be living as slaves behind
a barb wired fence, with chips under our skin, etc. etc.
Yes, and Russia has actually been making efforts to keep the dollar afloat, because they know the US hegemons will get even
nastier of their precious dollar becomes worthless. Their goal isn't to integrate Ukraine into the EU. They want to create a failed
state on Russia's border, and also hopefully engage them militarily in Syria and in places like Chechnya.
I've heard tell...Russia's central banking institution does not belong to the state. Does this sound familiar? I do not believe
that the international banking system give two turds about the affairs of Russia, unless...Russia moves to control it's own central
bank, then there would be real war.
Bankers have no allegiance except to money
It is headed by Chicago-school wannabes who follow the dictates of a banking system aimed at preversving the US banks at the
expense of their onw country's economy.
Nabuliana (sp ?), the head of the Russian CB, knows she is on borrowed time but still keep favoring the US over Russia.
What is it they also say about dying Empires. The US did not retain Empire status for long, when you look at Russia and China,
they are just a toddler on the block?
Very interesting perspective.
I'm very curious to hear western comments on Russian conspiracy theories that Fed already owns Russia and current straggle is
a straggle for independence. It seems wild but for people who view Federal Reserve Bank as a direct enemy of humanity it doesn't
seem very far-fetched.
WHEN PUTIN WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT of Russia in 2000, Russia was bankrupt. The nation owed $16.6 billion to the Rothschild-run
International Monetary Fund while its foreign debt to the Rothschild-controlled Paris & London Club Of Creditors was over 36 billion
dollars.
But Putin took advantage of the current boom in world oil prices by redirecting a portion of the profits of Russia's largest
oil producer Gazprom so as to pay off the country's debt. The continual surge in oil prices greatly accelerated Russia's capacity
to restore financial sovereignty.
By 2006 Putin had paid off Russia's debt to the Rothschilds. Russia's financial dependence on the Mafia financiers was now
over. I doubt they've gotten another hold since then.
You need to understand that President Putin's divorce is a private matter. In the Anglo World they stick their nose into these
private matters but in Russia they do not. Who knows; there have been people who got divorced so the spouse would not cop it in
the event of big problems. They even got married again later on. The Anglo World is also dumb, always behaving as if the removal
of ONE man would cure something, e.g. Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad - nah. Or take Myanmar; if only the lady (whose name I cannot spell)
would rule the country, everything would be fine. Nah - she's extremely racist and will not utter the name of one tribe 'Rohingyas'.
There is definitely a campaign against Russia and President Putin. For Germany it's the
Atlantik-Brücke which steers the press, in Australia the Australia-American Leadership Dialogue, something else in the other
countries, just like the late Brian Crozier masqueraded as a journalist but was CIA funded. The campaign needs to be ignored although
it is really peculiar that Bush Sr. was fine as CIA chief, and Putin as KGB officer was not. I'ts just the usual American double
standards.
(I think) .... Putin's divorce is not yours to wonder about or criticise.
'Sides, he said, at his last Q&A, he gets on better with his ex now than he did when he was married. That should be good enough
for you.
I THINK the time has come for RUSSIA to play HARDBALL with teh us gov and cia, nsa. etc...
and that is to OPENLY , REPEATEDLY -- RIGHT AT THE LEVEL OF UN AND INTERNATIONAL FORUMS - RIGHT INTO any ''talks" between EU/WEST/
and relations with other nations
always INCLUDE , INSERT -- part of discussions -- teh CIA/US GOV /ENTITIES
attempts against russia.
MAKE IT very prominent that it can NOT be ignored no matter what the USA TRIES...
in order to puit FRONT AND CENTER in the world the attention on THE CIA.
don't let it remain ''incidental" topic to ''major issues"
rather -- make it A CENTRAL topic in every instance and keep throwing t at the USA so that all international meetings ALWAYS
bring up
\
USA/CIA - USA,/CIA -- sabotage -- oh yet again another CIA operation in macedonia, oh another one in cnetral asia...etc....
let us remember --
2 cia emplyed ''pschiatrist/psychologists" who took care of the ''methodology" of CIA TORTURE are right now being sued in a
US court that is forced to open hearings -- on the suit by former tortured detainees...
the PORTUGUESE AMERICAN woman - SOUSA -- is ordered to appear in an ITALIAN COURT to face her charges for conspiracy to kidnap,
rendition , torture the arab/italian citizen
more and more will come, that is inevitable and the CIA ought to be BROUGHT BEYOND just ''topic of discussion" --but as the
DEEP STATE that it is -- out into the open -- calling out, searchng out its operatives, officers, policy makers, amerifcan officials
-- that' sort of thing...and the only way to do that is make it a WORLD GLOBAL CAUSE TO BRING UP in all matters of international
governance and relations -- in press conferences...assemblies, treaties, etc...
I just want to point out that German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing to go to war with Russia. The
western media now has to combat the anti-war tendencies they propagated onto Germans ever since the end of WW2. If you read the
comments on all these anti-Putin propaganda articles, you can tell that Germans hate their own media for doing so.
Hey, I`m from Germany (Stuttgart), and i can definitely say, that we Germans hate our media and get the informations we need
from the Internet. Angela Merkel do what Obama says to her and we can do nothing. if we go to the street and make a Demonstration
they say we are nazi or the media say nothing. many People (the old People) in Germany hate Putin and belive the lies from the
media, but we, the young people dont belive the lies. We love Putin and wish Angela Merkel will be a little bit like Putin.
I'm also German (Lahr, Schwartzwald) and totally agree. NEVER watch German TV. It is like for imbeciles. Cooking, singing,
festivals everything to keep us from thinking for ourselves. I also get all my info from sites like this one and many others.
Love Putin and think Ouma Merkel sold out to the US.
Sounds like American tv. But without all the series about serial killers, violence and perversion. What they have done to us
and our collective psyche here is sick, and demonic.
but this is not just a problem IN america -- germane TV as some of our friends here have said - getng shallower -- IS A PART
of the ''influence" of american ''way\" ..
to bring up mostly and primarily shallow past-times...that takes up LIFE HOURS...when you really count it,,,
ONE shallow pastime after another...the WORST imo,,,apart from these silly ''reality shows\" (which ARE copied throughout the
world unfortunately in that desire to be ''more american" -- even in CHINA ) -
are these ''game shows" -- trivia shows..that used to be just CHILD'S play n the backyard and really is where they OUGHT to
stay so children can be children...
but NATIONAL CULTURE? trivia shows? give me a BREAK!
but that's exactly what americana brings to societies..the HIGHLIGHTING AND GLORIFICATION OF SILLINESS and SHALLOWNESS as a
NATIONAL ETHOS.
and a sure-fire way of turning out , reshaping and ''winning hearts and minds" by making them exposed - without choice really
-- to ''the only games in town"
SILLY LITTLE GAMES that 'TRAIN the mind to become STUPID".
this - THIS is the great TRIUMPH of the american society over the world. where everything -- even WAR -- is now ''entertainment"
- to be ''packaged" - promoted sold, and switched around like cotton candy by the powers that be...and deeper critical thought
-- or honest simplicity of thought and discourse is ''NOT ALLOWED".
"... The entire Liberal narratives around Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin are actually political reconstructions of the "Yellow Peril" stereotype of the evil Asian who schemes to conquer the west, a viscous racist caricature straight out of the old dime magazine pulps. ..."
"... Originally Putin was depicted by liberals as merely a fiendish Asian criminal mastermind. After he finally started responding to the endless provocations, he became the terrible Fu Manchu, leader of a secret society of assassins, always plotting to destroy the west. Next to him is Alexander Dugin, a diabolical eastern sorcerer and leader of a fanatical sect. ..."
"... These sterotypes are 100% racist, and of the kind of brutal American "Yellow Peril" racism that justified both the mass internments of the Japanese in concentration camps and the nuclear genocide of two civilian cities. ..."
The entire Liberal narratives around Vladimir Putin and Alexander Dugin are actually
political reconstructions of the "Yellow Peril" stereotype of the evil Asian who schemes to
conquer the west, a viscous racist caricature straight out of the old dime magazine
pulps.
Originally Putin was depicted by liberals as merely a fiendish Asian criminal
mastermind. After he finally started responding to the endless provocations, he became the
terrible Fu Manchu, leader of a secret society of assassins, always plotting to destroy the
west. Next to him is Alexander Dugin, a diabolical eastern sorcerer and leader of a fanatical
sect.
Now (straight out of a Fu Manchu plotline) Putin is supposedly plotting to install his
puppet as president of the United States.
These sterotypes are 100% racist, and of the kind of brutal American "Yellow Peril"
racism that justified both the mass internments of the Japanese in concentration camps and
the nuclear genocide of two civilian cities.
"... "We believe that at the very least we should wait for the results of the UN inspection commission in Syria. I've already said I find it absolutely ridiculous that [Syrian] government's armed forces, which today are actually on an offense mission and in some regions have already encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that the Syrian army has used prohibited chemical weapons." ..."
In the
New York Times last week, veteran reporter Neil MacFarquhar reminded us Vladimir Putin's "fight" with the
West is isolating Russia. The Middle East expert's latest Russia hate also interpolated that the woeful
isolation is failing to deter Putin. But what is it that Putin is fighting against? What is the so-called
"West" trying to deter him from? Better still, where is the evidence of his cunning plan to destroy all?
I do not know why, but to my knowledge, no one has ever asked these simple questions. Here we are in a
new and bitter Cold War, and nobody I can name has any reasonable explanation of what the fight is about.
There are allegations by the truckload. There's sanctions, proxy wars, terrorists scattered, CIA money
spent, dignitaries tossed out on their ears, and ten thousand news outlets screaming "Putin foul" – but over
what? You can't answer because it's all over nothing. Here's a brief history of the real crimes of Vladimir
Putin.
In the
early 2000s, Vladimir Putin was running a country almost destroyed by corruption, foreign interventions, and
pirates bent on privatizing anything of value for western investors. The advance of the globalist doctrine
had reached the borders of the country; wars were brewed in former Soviet republics where regime changes and
color revolutions were not working.
The notorious Russian mob, the Israeli mob, anybody inside the country that could be bought by western
pirates was taking a bite from the Russian legacy. Putin stepped in and sorted it out. Putin did not sell
Russia out. This was a capital crime.
Later in the decade, Vladimir Putin proposed an initiative known as the "Vladivostok to Lisbon" protocol.
The plan was for one gigantic Eurasian market worth tens of trillions of dollars. The plan was for a full
and fair integration of Russia within the global context. Only the plan made Russia an integral partner
rather than a network of small banana republics like Yugoslavia became.
The
Putin plan would have assured almost unbreakable cooperation, prosperity, and peace. But the suggestion of
such a thing to the existing world order was a heinous crime.
When 2009 rolls around and the world's fascination with then Prime Minister Putin grows. The New York
Times back then questioned the Russian leader's work ethic. Western media reported Putin singing "Blueberry
Hill" and playing the piano. And the Washington Post begins the rail about "Putin, the killer." Then in
2010, the heat was turned up.
US newspapers began the "huge protest" gambit, Putin the arch criminal became all the rage. The Vladimir
Putin legend began to grow during this time. Rumors and speculation became the flavor of the day. Then in
2011, the Russian leader went so far as to criticize the West for the Libya regime change. And we all know
how Libya turned out.
Starting
in 2012 the mainstream media in the West began predicting the downfall of Vladimir Putin. The Economist
titled its prediction. "The beginning of the end of Putin." So much for deep economic analysis and
forecasting. It is in this year that Masha Gessen gets the big headlines for labeling Vladimir a "crime
boss" and a homophobe.
Meanwhile, the real criminals like Mikhail Khodorkovsky gather steam for the lies and mudslinging to
come. NPR and other corporate owned media get readers by labeling Putin a "street thug" and etc. But Putin
won the election that year anyhow. And even though The Slate labeled him "Putin the pitiful," he somehow
managed the biggest country in the world skillfully. Pussy Riot defiles a Russian Orthodox Church snagging
some jail time, and down the rabbit hole we go.
Then in 2013 the world's biggest ever arch villain commits the ultimate sacrilege. At the moment then
President Barack Obama is gathering his forces to invade Syria, Russia's leader pecks out a plea to the
American people in the New York Times.
Then, on the eve of a fateful vote in the US Congress on Obama's decision to launch strikes against
Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Putin mediates by instigating a proposal for Syria to surrender all chemical
weapons.
This was too much for the gilded world order; the gloves had to come off. Meanwhile, Obama and his CIA
had already created the proxy war against Assad. But the American people were never told.
Funny isn't it, how overt Putin moves are eviler than covert killing by America? But Russia's leader
became the alchemist of truth, look at his words of warning on alleged gas attacks back then:
"We believe
that at the very least we should wait for the results of the UN inspection commission in Syria. I've already
said I find it absolutely ridiculous that [Syrian] government's armed forces, which today are actually on an
offense mission and in some regions have already encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off,
that the Syrian army has used prohibited chemical weapons."
Almost a year passed until I first learned of the "hell bent" onslaught on anything attached to Vladimir
Putin and Russia when the 2014 Sochi Olympics rolled around. The bristling gay globalists had no intention
of letting the Russia people welcome the world to their country. Putin had to pay for his past daring.
So, Russia bashing took on a whole new meaning. Bad sportsmanship was also redefined when a people
created a showpiece and an unparalleled spectacle, only to be insulted and criticized at every turn. Dog
packs, unworking toilets, gay skier hunts, unfinished hotels, an environmental catastrophe once again
wrought by our ghastly arch villain. The world order taught Putin a lesson in those days. "Mess with us, and
we'll piss on your parade."
This was the message. Then the Euromaidan and an illegal regime change in the midst of an Olympics forced
diabolical Putin's hand again. Instead of allowing Russia's most strategic position in the southwest to be
taken over by NATO, he instead chose to secure it without firing a shot. Crimea should have been seeded to
the global hegemony – but Putin dared to resist. For shame.
Since 2014 Vladimir Putin has been blamed for the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 and without a
smidgen of proof. He's had the gall to ask the world order "Do you even realize what you have done?" And
this, before the mighty United Nations and in front of God and everybody else. Our crystal ball at The
Economist proclaimed "Putin declares war on the West," and we believed them.
He revealed the United States was backing terrorism in the Middle East, and then he televised his forces
destroying ISIS. In 2016 NBC News proclaimed; "
US
Officials: Putin Personally Involved in US Election Hack
." Amazingly, no pictures of Putin using his
laptop to hack the DNC emerged.
And the people of the world failed to notice the lack of evidence. For nearly two years now the world has
investigated Putin over alleged tampering in the US election. Can you guess what body of evidence has been
shown officially or in the media?
Damn that Putin for being so flawless and diabolical a villain! His utter control of every evil deed on
planet Earth is being hidden from us. And oh, so skillfully that armies of brilliant private eyes,
investigative journalists, whistleblowers, think tanks, the CIA, the NSA, MI6, GCHQ, Mossad, the Pentagon,
Naval Intelligence, Senate committees, or even David Copperfield can turn over one leaf of evidence.
This, my friends, is Putin's greatest delinquency against humanity. He is guilty as sin of the real
delinquency, the sin of ancient logic. The reason there we cannot see proof of Putin's misdeeds is
stunningly simple.
There is no proof.
Phil
Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he's an
author of the recent bestseller "
Putin's
Praetorians
" and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine
"New
Eastern Outlook."
Contextualizing the deputy attorney general's memorandum on the former FBI director
In a surprising move on Tuesday, President Trump abruptly fired James Comey, the director of the FBI and the official leading
the investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with Russia to sway the U.S. presidential election. In
his letter dismissing Comey , Trump told him: "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that
I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively
lead the bureau."
The White House said that Trump
acted on the recommendations of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The longest letter
released was a memorandum to Sessions from Rosenstein laying out the case for Comey's dismissal. In the memo, Rosenstein criticizes
Comey for his handling of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, and offers examples
of bipartisan condemnation of Comey's actions.
For context, we've annotated Rosenstein's letter below.
May 9, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation's premier federal investigative agency. Over the past
year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department
of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.
The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department
of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director's
handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the
nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.
Almost everyone
agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives. Discussions
of James Comey's decisions leading up to the 2016 presidential election have been playing out since July. The Atlantic's
David A. Graham
and
Adam
Serwer both weighed in on that debate.
The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and
announce his
conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. A
New York Times
report from July summarized the announcement: "Mr. Comey's 15-minute announcement, delivered with no advance warning only
three days after his investigators interviewed Mrs. Clinton in the case, riveted official Washington and is likely to reverberate
for the rest of the campaign. In offices across the capital, all eyes turned to television screens to hear the outcome of a yearlong
investigation that could have thrown the 2016 presidential election into disarray and changed history."
It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed
its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he
believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors
and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict
requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's
most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.
Compounding
the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information
about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. The above
New York Times
story continues: "Mr. Comey's announcement was believed to be the first time that the F.B.I. had ever publicly disclosed
its recommendations to the Justice Department about whether to charge someone in any high-profile case, let alone a presidential
candidate. His decision to announce the results of the investigation was made before the uproar over Ms. [Loretta] Lynch's meeting
with Mr. Clinton, according to a law enforcement official. He decided to make his findings public, the official said, because
he wanted to make the F.B.I.'s position clear before referring the case to the Justice Department." Derogatory information sometimes
is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid
out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example
of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.
Comey trying to blackmail President using Steele dossier. Comey was also key figure in appointment of the Special Prosecutor.
Mueller investigation is an impeachment investigation with Comey and Rosenstein as key players.
Notable quotes:
"... We know that the authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself, the targets of the leak. ..."
"... We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ..."
MSNBC' Chuck Todd keeps insinuating that Russia hacked the DNC emails without evidence to
back up. He has no idea who leaked the emails to Wikileaks. There were also many in the DNC
who were pissed off that citizens were sending hard earned campaign donations for Bernie
Sanders, and knew that the Clinton financed DNC was rigging the primaries.
We know that the
authors of the fix were John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton herself,
the targets of the leak.
We know that the DNC and the Democrats were careless with usernames
and passwords. We know that any halfwit IT or DATABASE worker understands how to access the
Outlook folder, and copy the *.pst files to a flash drive. MSNBC sticks to their flat earth
conspiracy theories and Russian Collusion narrative like a flat-earth creationist. In the
words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Jan Wallace
Don't forget the Tarmac meeting...Lynch the AG, and Clinton mixing it up that is obviously not really about golf or
kids...She tells Comey to call it a "Matter" that is collusion.
George Stone
I just read that Dem's filed suit alleging that Russia, Trump & Wikileaks interfered with the 2016 campaign. I guess Dem's
haven't got the memo, There IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. Adam Schiff hasn't presented any evidence, James Comey
hasn't provided any supporting evidence, neither has the FBI or DOJ.
Why is anyone surprised Comey is a consummate phoney? You didn't think he gained his
position by being the best at what he does do you? Work at any large firm long enough and
you'll see his type. Working behind the scenes, lying, playing political games for advantage.
Eventually that person is promoted and proceeds to wreck the company that promoted him.
Comey's only talent IS being a weasel.
The Democrats are obstructing Democracy. There are also members of congress who have
leaked sensitive, if not classified information to the media to aid in this obstruction and
the DOJ needs to investigate these members to see if crimes have been committed. If the
Democrats believe that the President is not above the law then they too should be subject to
this same standards and scrutiny. A special council should be appointed to investigate them
and look into all their financial dealings both domestic and off shore.
I've been saying from the beginning Comey displays a very unhealthy level of infantile
behaviour. How someone like that ever managed to manoeuvre himself so far up, let alone in a
law enforcement agency, completely baffles the mind. He gives much credit to his wife. I'd
bet a lot she coached him through much of the process. He's not leadership material. On the
other side, more importantly even, if I were law enforcement in the USA I'd be taking a very
good look at this man's life when the lights go off.
It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have
actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.
It is amazing to hear Comey talk of himself and others rules of integrity. He should have
actually done some of those things he would have done a better job.
Comey career was damaged by his treatment of Hillary email scandal and derailing Sanders;
clearly the political role the FBI assumed. So this is a memoir of a politician who happened to
work in law enforcement, and should be treated as such.
An investigation of real Comey role in derailing Sanders and electing Trump still is a matter of the future.
"... Comey is more than willing on several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president. ..."
"... I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have an effect. ..."
"... Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. ..."
"... Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration. Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January 2002. ..."
"... Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. ..."
"... He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and CNN. ..."
"... Before the election Comey said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President" ..."
"... Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the "Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet Comey use it to get a FISA warrant. ..."
"... Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying, protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an investigation. ..."
"... Comey had his issues with the Justice Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. ..."
James Comey is articulate and makes his case in an interesting and effective manner. He
seems competent and well intentioned. Problem is he, like many, considers lying about a crime
a greater crime than the crime. It is not the case. If someone commits murder, is lying about
it worse than the murder?
He rightfully seems horrified that Trump demands loyalty, but Comey is more than willing on
several occasions to make misguided decisions because of his uncompromising loyalty to the
FBI. Loyalty to the FBI is ever bit as dangerous as loyalty to the president.
A justification of the Clinton email server investigation and a nonpartisan critique of
Trump's erosion of norms
A skillfully written and affecting memoir. Comey shares formative experiences: suffering a
random attack by a serial home invader as a teenager, being bullied and then bullying, losing
an infant son. There's a lot of detail about his decision to announce the reopening of the
investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server right before the election. Given
that situation as he described it, had I been in his shoes, I can't say for sure what I would
have done. He means to reveal the ethical complexity and he does it well.
He speaks positively of working for President George W. Bush and then for President Obama,
but he has no such appreciation for President Trump. Contradicting longstanding norms of U.S.
government, Trump demanded loyalty from Comey in his nonpartisan, ten-year term as the FBI
Director, and when Comey did not give it unconditionally and did not halt the investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Trump fired him. "We had that thing, you
know," Trump said to Comey, referring to the previous conversation in which he had asked for
loyalty. Comey's knowledge of La Cosa Nostra ("that thing of ours," the Mafia's name for
itself) adds a layer of meaning. Comey knows what Mafia guys are like, and he does not live
like them; he is not swayed by appeals to loyalty. That's how he became FBI Director and
that's also how he lost his job under Trump.
"I say this as someone who has worked in law enforcement for most of my life, and served
presidents of both parties. What is happening now," he warns from his new position as a
private citizen, "is not normal. It is not fake news. It is not okay." For those who support
Trump's policy agenda because they believe it will benefit them personally somehow, Comey
delivers a reminder that "the core of our nation is our commitment to a set of shared values
that began with George Washington -- to restraint and integrity and balance and transparency
and truth. If that slides away from us, only a fool would be consoled by a tax cut or a
different immigration policy."
I am not a fan of James Comey and to this day I have never seen an answer to why it would
be ok for the FBI director to hold a press conference for what seemed to be injecting his own
political thoughts and opinions far too close to an election to not have known it would have
an effect.
If you watch the news at all or read the 1 star reviews by people who appear not
to have read the book you will be led to believe this is a book about Trump, and bashing him,
or outing him as unfit in some way.
Especially if you know that the RNC has gone out of their
way to create a website just ahead of the book release for the sole purpose of Comey bashing.
So let me bust that myth. This is not a book about Trump. There are no big jaw dropping Trump
secrets here.
This is a book about James Comey, from his early childhood until the here and
now. Comey touches on childhood memories, being bullied, later on participating or at least
turning a blind eye to bullyng himself. He speaks on his experience being home alone with his
brother when the "Ramsey Rapist" broke into his house. He tells you how and why he decided to
pursue law as a career instead of becoming a doctor. There are humorous anecdotes about his
first job in the grocery store and yes some about his final days as FBI director. You do not
have to be a fan of Comey or any of his decisions to enjoy this book. You may or may not be
satisfied with his explanation of why he decided to make such public announcements on
Hilary's emails, but that is a small part of this book. Personally I was not satisfied and he
does admit that others may have handled it differently. If you are only looking for
bombshells this book is not for you. By the time it gets to the visit to alert Trump to the
salacious allegations the book is 70% over, because as I said this is not a book about
Trump.
Even if I do not agree with Comey's decisions to publicly give his opinion on one candidate
while withholding the fact that there is an investigation surrounding the other even with the
"classified info" that he says we still do not know about I was still able to enjoy this
book. I agree with his assessment in the last televised interview he gave, that if Comey is
an idiot he is at least an honest idiot.
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey
Just finished reading 100% of the book. James Comey starts with sharing an experience of a
time his house was broken in by a robber while his parents were away and he was alone with
Pete. James Comey recounts his investigations of the Mafia. James Comey talks about having
Malaria and thanks his wife Patrice for taking him on the back of her motorcycle to the
Hospital. He mentions his family life and his new born son Collin who passed away in the
hospital after Doctors failed to give Collin treatment while Collin was already showing
abnormal behavior.
Comey goes on to talk about his role as FBI director during the Obama Administration.
He talks about Micheal Brown and how fake news caused a big up roar and hatred on police
by their distortion on what happened in Ferguson and thus caused great divisions.
Comey tries to justify the outcome of not prosecuting what clinton did with her private
email server which had classified government data by saying that even if her actions were bad
though a statute was broken and had lied to FBI officials about having classified information
but she did so carelessly.
He says that the Clinton campaign was calling the criminal investigation surrounding
Hillary Clinton a "matter" and he says that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was strangely
telling him to do the same when confronting the media.
When Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton privately on a tarmac he saw it not
as a big deal, though it was after this private meeting that the decision of not prosecuting
Secretary Hillary Clinton was decided . So this shows that the Clinton campaign had influence
on the outcome of the investigation concerning Clinton.
Comey goes on to say that "in mid June the Russian Government began dumping emails stolen
from the institutions associated with the Democratic Party." Here he is implying that
Wikileaks is the Russian Government without any evidence to back it up. Though Wikileaks has
already said that it was not Russia but someone living in the United States who sent the
emails to Wikileaks.
Is Comey saying Russia in order to protect Clinton?, its possible. Comey
has said in his Book he has been investigating the Clintons since the Clinton administration.
Each of those investigations he has let the Clintons walk free and has stop the
investigations unexpectedly even when evidence appears to pile up, he does admit that Hillary
Clinton destroyed evidence even after receiving a subpoena .Comey investigated a suicide in
the clintons white house. Comey was behind an investigation of Bill clinton in January
2002.
Comey mentions the piss dossier as evidence "strongly suggesting that the Russian
government was trying to interfere in the election in 3 ways." He later admits the suppose
"evidence" as "unverifiable", this is the same "dossier" that was used to grant a FISA
warrant to spy on Clinton opponent Donald Trump which was paid by Hillary Clinton and her
campaign.
Comey tries to imply if you did not go along with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election
and not supported her or made no positive comments about her as "associating or working with
the Russians". I believe this mindset is very dangerous to suggest if you did not support
Hillary Clinton for president as if working with the Russians. Again this is all based on the
"unverifiable dossier" , even though the suggested "evidence" is unverifiable a tyrant
Government can use this to justify in going after ANYONE who speaks against the corruption
going within former director James Comey FBI.
He says that "Candidate Clinton herself was talking about the Russian effort to elect her
opponent.", well we do know that she was who paid for the slanderous "dossier" which is why
she knew about what was in the dossier before the "Dossier" was publish by Buzzfeed and
CNN.
He says that his family were Hillary supporters and that they attended the "Woman's March"
which was more of a rally in protest to President Trump presidency. Before the election Comey
said he did his job as if Hillary was already President and as if working for Her even though
the election was weeks to come. He says " I was making decisions in an environment where
Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next President"
Comey goes on to talk about Donald Trump inauguration and as FBI director fails to talk
about the riots and protestors blocking the entrance to the inauguration where they set a
limousine on fire, stores were broken in including a Starbucks. He compares Trump inauguration
to Obama but Obama had no rioters.
Comey expected Trump to curse Russia based on what the suppose "evidence" or the DNC
funded "dossier". We do know that the Clinton campaign was running the DNC before Hillary was
nominated based on Donna Brazile latest book where she implies that Hillary Clinton cheated
Bernie Sanders.
Yet Comey fails to mention that he signed a FISA warrant based on the
"Dossier" paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. He said the Dossier was "salacious and
unverified". The Dossier was politically crafted much of it has been proven to be false yet
Comey use it to get a FISA warrant.
Finishing, Comey goes on to slander president Trump of undermining public confidence in law
enforcement institutions when this enforcement institutions have been caught lying,
protecting politicians like Hillary Clinton having a double standard when it comes to
investigating certain politicians and letting them walk free before finishing an
investigation.
A better title would have been " An American's Highest Loyalty"
This memoir is an important piece in the analysis of turn of the century politics in the
United States. It is unfortunate that the media hype for this book has been about the more
recent turmoil in James Comey's service to his country. True, the Trump administration is
different and in many ways dysfunctional. But it is only in the part of the book, that he
deals with it's dysfunction.
If one reads carefully, President Trump is only a more obvious
and verbal and transparent figure in his disdain for the judiciary and the justice
department. Dick Cheney and others in the Bush 43 administration are portrayed as far more
sinister in their actions to sublimate justice after 9/11.
His admiration for President Obama
is evident and little discussed in the media.
Comey had his issues with the Justice
Department, especially Loretta Lynch although he never says that she had sinister intent. His
dealings with the Clinton email controversy is well outlined. His dilemma with his
communication regarding his investigation and its reopening was inadequately described in the
book and his naivety that its reopening would not influence the election is remarkable. He
supposes that the average American voter understands how the investigative system and justice
system works.
His demeaning comments about President Trump's physical flaws add nothing to the book. I
can understand why he wrote them in as these kinds of notations sell books. They added
nothing to the story he had to tell. He should have left them out.
I appreciate that he does not give loyalty to a person. What makes America great is that
we are loyal to an idea. Even if we disagree on the interpretation of the Constitution, we
can all be American. His loyalty seems to be to honesty and integrity which is admirable.
However the highest loyalty should be to one's reading of the Constitution. I just wished he
had said it.
"... Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit." ..."
"... This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag? Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever, and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian person it is all available and beneficial.' ..."
"... 'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.' ..."
"... this seems to me clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people, and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt. ..."
"... No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk. ..."
"... A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time. ..."
"... Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now. ..."
"... I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump. ..."
"... Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar. ..."
"... Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay". Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority? ..."
"... No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI. ..."
"... Comey was part of the cabal to bring Trump down....pure and simple.. ..."
"... Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally attract the dimwitted among us? ..."
"... Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes, smart enough. ..."
"... Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test. ..."
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy (to quote James Comey liberally). He was interviewed tonight (Thursday, 26 April 2018) by Bret Baier on the Fox
6pm news show and it was shocking. Why? Because Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he
may be both. I also think that he earned the title of "sanctimonious twit."
I want to direct you to look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier.
This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout.
Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer
don't cha know.
So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not
sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.
Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose panties
were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan)
that there was:
. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount
and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia and
the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one of
the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every
resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding
of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.
Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag?
Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI Headquarters?
Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy Comey would go
for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of Congress.
But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information contained
in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating on stealing
the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.
Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details
about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even
a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"
Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came from
a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that he took
that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.
There was a time when I respected James Comey. No longer. Trump called him a liar today. I think President Trump has it right.
Comey is a liar. What is shocking to me is that someone who is supposedly so smart can be so downright stupid. His interview above
seals that fact for me.
"He concedes that it came from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence
concerns, says that he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports."
As I have noted in earlier exchanges on these matters, in the press conference where he responded to the British request for
his extradition, the man Steele et al framed over the death of Alexander Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi, made the following claim
about what his supposed victim really thought of people like the man Comey appears so happy to believe:
'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' It
is important here that the 'we' clearly refers to the circle around Berezovsky. Of this, a very large part – Alex Goldfarb, Yuri
Shvets, Yuri Felshtinsky, for example – were based on your side of the Atlantic.
In the appearance on Russian primetime television where Litvinenko's father embraced Lugovoi, in addition to making the quite
implausible claim that Goldfarb had assassinated his son, he made the to my mind not implausible suggestion that the figure who
he was, in his turn, framing, was working for the CIA.
In the Q&A at the press conference, Lugovoi's supposed partner-in-crime, Dmitri Kovtun, made a claim parallel to Lugovoi's,
about British law enforcement, clearly referring to the supposed plot to assassinate Berezovsky with a 'poison pen', which back
in 2003 MI6 had used to frustrate Russian attempts to have the oligarch extradited.
(In this, I think it likely that the Russian Prosecutor-General's Office are quite correct to claim that Goldfarb and Litvinenko
played crucial roles.)
According to Kovtun:
'Litvinenko said interesting things about the British judiciary system. He was thrilled, he loved it, that in Britain
you could prove anything, really. He used to say: "You can't imagine, you can simply raise your hand, tell the judge whatever,
and they will believe you! They will believe you!" And in this respect, a Russia to totally different things, so for a Russian
person it is all available and beneficial.'
Also in the Q&A, Lugovoi returned to his earlier claim about Litvinenko's contempt for people like Steele:
'I want to stress this thought, the one I mentioned in my statement. I quote – Litvinenko used to say: You can't imagine
what idiots they are and they believe everything we are telling them. I stress that.'
(For the press conference, follow the link INQ001886 on the 'Evidence page' on the archived website of the inquiry presided
over by Sir Robert Owen, which is at
http://webarchive.nationala... .)
Whether or not Litvinenko made the remarks attributed to him – and I think it most likely that he did – this seems to me
clearly to reflect Lugovoi's considered judgment as to the intellectual quality of British intelligence and law enforcement people,
and it is also clear to me that Owen's conduct of his Inquiry is only one item among a mass of material vindicating his contempt.
As it happens, the type to which Steele, and also our embarrassment of a Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, patently belongs
– the worst kind of superannuated Oxbridge student politician – is one with which I have quite extensive knowledge, which even
if I had not followed the antics of Steele and Owen, would strongly incline me to think that Lugovoi's judgments were accurate.
No competent intelligence agency would employ a man like Steele, let alone appoint him as head of its Russia Desk.
If people take a 'retard' seriously, then the natural inference is that they are themselves 'retards.'
I have largely lost count of the number of the people in the United States who appear to have taken Steele seriously. But it
seems clear that your intelligence, foreign affairs and law enforcement bureaucracies are as infested by 'retards' as are ours.
The notion of Putin as the sinister puppet master, pulling the 'strings' which caused people to vote for 'Leave' in the Brexit
campaign, or to support Trump, has always been BS.
A more plausible scenario, it increasingly appears, is that crucial strings were pulled by Berezovsky when alive, and are
still being pulled by his ghost, after his death. As with Ahmed Chalabi, a somewhat similar figure, both in my country and ours
we are going to have to live with the consequences of our credulity in the face of conmen, for a very long time.
Another way of looking at it is that they're not really stupid, just completely uninterested in the truth. All they're interested
in is gathering the 'evidence' that fits the party line--that's how careers are advanced in the Decadent West now.
I tend to agree with RaisingMac below. Or perhaps as Publius says, it's a case of both stupidity and mendacity. I may have
mentioned before that most Presidents are perfectly happy to go on national TV and state complete and utter lies that they would
have to be more than retarded to actually believe. People used to talk about George Bush as if his speech impediments were related
to his intelligence. I always thought it was just a case of he just didn't give a damn what he said because he KNEW he would never
pay any consequence for anything he said. And that was true about Obama and it's true about Trump.
This is the nature of
people in power - they don't care what you think about what they said, so they say anything they want as long as it isn't something
so absurd as to make them look like fools directly - in the minds of the rest of the fools listening to them as if what they said
really mattered.
Parsing what these people say is a complete waste of time. What matters is what did they DO and what were the consequences
to the rest of us.
Yes. I cringed every time Obama repeated the reason we were fighting in Afghanistan. "We are denying them space in which to
plan their attacks." At least he used good grammar.
Yes! But i think you really should have said highly convenient credulity. That is why an intelligence agency employs a man like
Steele. That is the key competancy they saw when recruiting. That "flexibility" with the truth is such an asset in the civil service.
I dont believe all players were idiots. I believe they were "fooled" like John Scarlett was fooled about WMD.
The criminal laws in the United States are broad and far-reaching enough that an aggressive prosecutor will always have a pretext
to bring charges against anyone. This is entirely intentional. Those whom the establishment want punished are punished.
At the same time, because everybody and anybody can be made into a criminal whenever convenient, the converse is that violating
the law is considered blameless, praiseworthy even, when doing so aligns with consensus establishment goals.
This does not mean that a shadowy cabal have secret meeting and take a ballot on whom we will persecute today. Rather, it refers
to people of influence and authority, and prosecutors, being, depending on how you look at it, glorified or perhaps degraded politicians,
are exquisitely sensitive to such things.
I deal with attorneys on a weekly basis. The percentage of them which are simply unqualified to wake up in the morning and charge
people for advice is mind boggling.
I am giggling still after reading your comments about our little Jimmy C. I watched the interview yesterday and came away feeling
that somehow I must be losing my marbles, so to speak, because I just could not make myself believe that this person had reached
the level of authority in our government that he had reached before deservedly being fired at last.
When the whole Clinton email situation was at its peak in the news cycle, I finally decided that Jimmy was a prime example
of the Peter Principle. He had reached his level of incompetence. But after watching the interview yesterday, I decided that he
had reached that level of incompetence long before becoming the Director of the FBI. Perhaps all the really intelligent, competent
people just didn't want to go into some sort of bureaucratic swampy environment that taking a management position would mean.
Maybe they all just kept pushing him up the ladder to keep him from going out into the field to do the real work of the FBI. Who
knows? One person--I forget who it was--did call him a malignant narcissist. And that he is. So, I hope he ends up in a federal
prison with his fellow malignant narcissists, though they tend more to violence than he does. I pity his daughters. They have
no hope of growing up to live rational lives.
I then thought the round table discussion afterward was a bit surreal. It's not that I thought the people weren't stating good
points. It was just that I thought they would all be laughing so hard and holding their sides and rolling on the floor laughing
at him.
God save our country if there are many more like Jimmy in high positions. I will have to pray extra hard at church this Sunday.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee"? Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay".
Serve as the official leaker of FBI documents? What other documents has Richman seen and by whose authority?
Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus giving him "attorney client
privilege". That being the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
No collusion here, nothing to see here, just normal business amongst FBI leaders. Happens all the time, like Attorney General
tarmac meetings with spouses of people being investigated by the FBI.
Just what were Daniel Richman's duties as a "special government employee". Who worked, according to Richman, "for no pay"? Serve
as the official leaker of FBI documents? Does anyone else find it convenient that Comey is now paying him as his attorney, thus
giving him "attorney client privilege". That would be the thing Mueller's raid on Cohen's home and office voided for Trump.
It seems that there is more than meets the eye here. It is becoming more evident that the allegations of the Trump campaign colluding
with the Russian government was actually a cover for the far more insidious collusion of top officials in the Obama administration
including possibly Obama himself to use the resources and capabilities of the federal government to destroy a major party presidential
candidate from the opposing party.
Clapper once again being accused of lying to Congress and being a leaker of classified information. Brennan sure looks very
concerned. Let's see if the rule of law applies to high officials in government. I'm not holding my breath.
Those terms are not mutually exclusive. He looks like both a liar and fool to many of us.
Not surprisingly, there are many great political cartoons to be found on Comey over the past couple of years. It was hard to
limit myself to sharing 3 of them, but I didn't want to end up in the spam bin.
are any Americans in cahoots with the foreign intelligence of an adversary nation
Since when does the Director of the FBI get to decide American foreign policy and does he really understand the principles
of democracy? Donald Trump was clear throughout his campaign that he wanted better relations with Russia so the people who elected
him however flawed the process had an expectation that there would be better relations with Russia. People in the executive might
disagree with this as a policy but in a democracy they should not actively frustrate the will of the people; Trump should call
on anybody who has done so to resign as a matter of principle.
Just another so-called "smartest guy in the room." Does swimming in the swamp destroy brain cells or does the swamp just naturally
attract the dimwitted among us?
Plenty smart enough to cope with a TV interview, to the average observer with little grasp of the background. Observing from
that position myself I can report that Mr Comey's performance would have been more than adequately convincing for most. After
I'd watched the interview I had to re-read PT's article carefully to see where Mr Comey had been skating on thin ice. So yes,
smart enough.
It reminded me of similar awkward interviews here, from Mr Blair in the distant past to Boris Johnson's recent DW interview:
enough ingenuity to convince the most of us and too few of the unconvinced to matter. After all for such people, or I'd guess
in the environment Mr Comey has so far prospered in, there's no call for cast iron explanations. The plausible, as long as it
has some colour of reason, will carry the day.
Smart enough to cope with the considerably sharper and more persistent questioning of a hostile lawyer in a Court? Judging
by that uneasy manner of shifting in his jacket from time to time even under such undemanding questioning as this, I'd imagine
Mr Comey would do better to devote his ingenuity to avoiding such a test.
PT, I vaguely, very, very vaguely (not much) followed up on Fred's book alert on Comey and his book. I stumbled across a young
man's review (as old lady), whose name I had never heard before. Touched old chords somehow. Not sure if I may link here to--of
all possible places--Rolling Stone? And Garrett M. Graff, that is: James Comey's 'A Higher Loyalty' Is a Study in Contradictions,
Inside and Out. The former FBI director's memoir is about life, leadership and undoing all of the above
"... Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop's contents could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially relevant. ..."
"... Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case and notified Congress on Friday (28 October 2016), with explosive results. ..."
"... In February of this year (2016), Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state. ..."
"... The Mueller probe in many ways has become a parody. They have financially ruined and destroyed Gen. Flynn for having a legitimate discussion with the Russian ambassador. Of course he has pled guilty to lying. The leaking of this conversation seems to be a felony but that has yet to be prosecuted. ..."
"... Mueller has not uncovered any collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign but is targeting Manafort for financial irregularities that took place well before he joined the Trump campaign. Additionally, he referred Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to the FBI for possible criminal activity that had nothing to do with Russia or collusion, who then raided his home and office. ..."
My current piece will be focused almost exclusively on Andy McCabe. He was fired, there was grumbling that this was unfair political
payback. And then we got a look at the Department of Justice Inspector General's report. Liar, liar pants on fire. Although the OIG
report is very poorly written (as you read through the 39 pages you'll feel like a young Yeshiva student pouring over some tendentious
exegesis by an elderly Hasidic Rabbi), it contains damning evidence of malfeasance on the part of McCabe. So let me simplify it for
you.
McCabe was fired because he lied about his role in leaking information in late October 2016 to Wall Street Journal reporter, Devlin
Barrett, who authored the article,
FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe . Barrett's article is not much better than the IG report in terms of simplicity
and clarity. It lacks both. It is poorly written and requires a compass and advanced land navigation skills to map out the story.
This is the bottom line of the article--Andy McCabe is accused of ordering FBI Agents to not investigate the Clinton Foundation because
his wife got money from Virginia Governor and Clinton confidant, Terry McAuliffe. Here are the salient points from that article:
The surprise disclosure that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation are taking a new look at Hillary Clinton's email
use lays bare, just days before the election, tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the
Democratic presidential nominee.
The latest development began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command,
that
while investigating Mr. Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged
messages to a teenage minor , they had recovered a laptop.
Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop's contents
could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially
relevant.
Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case
and notified Congress on Friday (28
October 2016), with explosive results.
Senior Justice Department officials had warned the FBI that telling Congress would violate policies against overt actions
that could affect an election, and some within the FBI have been unhappy at Mr. Comey's repeated public statements on the probe,
going back to his
press conference on the subject in July.
The Wall
Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from
the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor
in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.
In February of this year (2016), Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When
he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server for government
work when she was secretary of state.
According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official (
Matthew Axelrod according to Zero Hedge) called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were
still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. . . .The Justice Department official was "very
pissed off," according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the
department considered dormant.
For Mr. McCabe's defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a
case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn't think much of the case, one person said.
When agents questioned why they weren't allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come
from the deputy director -- Mr. McCabe.
Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors
in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn't
"go prosecutor-shopping."
This article triggered the investigation by the FBI's Inspection Division aka INSD, which then led to the 31 August 2017 investigation
by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General aka OIG. These are the critical facts/findings by the OIG:
Prior to the 30 October 2016 Devlin Barrett article, the FBI had neither confirmed nor denied that there was an investigation
of the Clinton Foundation.
On 23 October 2016 the WSJ's Barrett reported that McCabe's wife had received $675,000 from Virginia Democrats linked to Clinton.
This article sparked a public debate over whether McCabe should have any role whatsoever with investigations that touched on Hillary
Clinton or the Clinton Foundation.
25 October 2016, McCabe learns that Barret (WSJ reporter) is working on a follow up to the 23 October piece. McCabe then authorized
the Special Counsel (some say it was Lisa Page, not confirmed) and the Assistant Director of the Office of Public Affairs aka
AD/OPA (Michael Kortan) to talk to Barrett.
27 October 2016, McCabe is excluded from a meeting/conference call regarding a search warrant for a set of Clinton-related
emails.
On the same day the Special Counsel and the AD/OPA met with Barrett who informed the two FBI officials that his sources claimed
McCabe wanted to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation for "improper reasons."
On the same day the Special Counsel, after receiving guidance from McCabe, spoke with Barrett of the WSJ and informed him
of McCabe's 12 August conversation with the DOJ Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, which was very acrimonious and left
McCabe "pissed off."
Barrett's article about the battle between the FBI and DOJ over the Clinton Foundation was published online on Sunday, 30
October 2016 at 3:34 pm.
On the same day, shortly after the WSJ article hit the internet, McCabe made an angry call to the senior FBI Executives at
the Washington and New York Field Divisions to voice his outrage at the leaks and ordered those Executives "to get their houses
in order." McCabe did not disclose to either person that he had authorized the FBI Special Counsel to disclose that information.
31 October 2016, FBI Director Comey voiced his concerns about the leak to senior FBI staffers, which included McCabe.
May 2017 FBI INSD (i.e., the Inspection Division) opens investigation into the 30 October 2016 leak.
9 May 2017 McCabe is interviewed under oath by INSD and shown the 30 October 2016 WSJ article and specifically directed to
the report of the acrimonious exchange between McCabe and a senior DOJ official. McCabe said the report was accurate but that
he had no idea where the leak about the 12 August 2016 phone call with the PADAG at Justice came from.
Three days later (i.e., 12 May 2017), INSD emailed McCabe the draft Signed Sworn Statement for his review and signature. McCabe,
according to the OIG report, did nothing with the statement until three months later (18 August 2017).
Two months later, on 28 July 2017, the OIG interviewed McCabe under oath regarding "various FBI and Department actions in
advance of the 2016 Election," and was asked specifically if the Special Counsel had been authorized to speak to the Wall Street
Journal reporter who wrote the 30 October 2016 article. McCabe said, "Not that I'm aware of."
Four days later, 1 August 2017, McCabe called the Assistant Inspector General and stated, "he may have authorized the Special
Counsel to work with the AD/OPA and speak to Devlin Barrett."
7 August 2017, the Special Counsel was interviewed by INSD (the FBI) about the 30 October 2016 Barrett article. She admitted,
under oath, that she gave the information to Barrett but was authorized to do so by Andy McCabe.
Eleven days later (18 August 2017), INSD reinterviewed Andy McCabe about the 30 October 2016 article. McCabe admitted that
his sworn testimony from May was wrong and conceded that he had authorized the disclosure.
Andy McCabe was reinterviewed by the OIG on 29 November 2017 and admitted to the following:
he authorized the leak to the WSJ for the 30 October article;
he did not recall discussing the disclosure with Comey in advance;
he told Comey after the 30 October article that he had authorized the leak;
that other FBI executive managers knew he had authorized the leak
claimed he had not purposefully made previous false statements to INSD and OIG investigators.
There is still a big case of he said/she said to come that will pit McCabe against Comey. McCabe, under oath, insists he told
Comey, at least after the fact, and that Comey was okay with the leak. Comey is on the record, also under oath, saying that is not
true. Someone is lying. It is an appalling situation to be in a position of having to choose between the former number two guy in
the FBI and the former number one. They were supposed to be better than this.
Puts the whole case against Flynn in a new light. He has had his entire life ruined for saying something to the FBI that may not
have been true, but was not a statement under oath. Most Americans understand double standards and cheaters. America's premiere law
enforcement agency is now appearing to be worse than a crooked casino. Only house favorites win.
There is a private online forum where retired FBI Special Agents gather to discuss FBI related matters. The topics used to
be FBI health insurance, retirements, death notices, local newspaper articles, and ....well you get the idea. It is only a subset
of the entire retired population and the great majority of members are lurkers who do not actively participate. Still, it is the
best, if not only measure, of sentiment in this group. Unfortunately the matters you write about now dominate the discussions.
You may be interested to know that from my reading of it over the past 18 months, the overwhelming majority, by avalanche proportions,
possibly close to unanimity [previously unheard of in this organization in my generation on any topic] share your point of view
about the recent top Bu leadership. There is shock, disbelief, shame, and a great deal of anger at the recent/current top leadership
who got us into this situation. [as a point of reference, to measure seriousness, when I entered on duty a really serious matter
was "Bu agent, in Bu car, with Bu Steno (female employee), drunk"] [the penalty for which was usually fire the steno for lack
of moral character, and transfer agent to the New York office,] The good news is that this recent rot exists/existed only at the
very upper levels [maybe 10-20 people] of the HQ staff [approx 800]. The other 30,000 or so FBI employees were not involved.
That is not to say they won't be impacted; the last 18 months of drip by drip criticism must make work by the operational personnel
much more difficult. This is not a good thing as after all is said the FBI is still out there every day trying to catch corrupt
politicians, brutal policemen, kidnappers, bank robbers, terrorists,cyber criminals, organized crime members, and about 1000 other
types of criminals. I encourage you to make a distinction in your writing between the villains at the top and the rank and file
of the FBI.
Ah, but Nightsticker this is not a new phenomena, didn't the LDS faction always play by their own rules. I saw the careers destroyed
of those who chose to stand up to the Salt Lake City crowd, and didn't that bring us Waco and some humiliating revelations about
the Laboratory Division?
I would completely agree that the Steno's, the Ident clerks, and the Brick Agents were the hardest working of all Government
employees but there was always an element that operated purely for their own designs. Remember the old pound on the desk and shout
"No FBI Agent has ever been turned", whenever someone questioned the Bureau? Did they still say that after Whitey Bolger?
While your point that a distinction should be made between the rank & file and the villains at the top is well taken, there
have been several high profile cases of misconduct in the field offices. The Bundy case in Nevada being a recent one, where a
judge threw out the DOJ/FBI prosecution with prejudice for prosecutorial misconduct.
Considering how much these types of misconduct and malfeasance gets hidden from the public under the rubric of "classified
information", it seems there are many more cases of such misconduct that has come out in the recent past. One has to feel sympathetic
towards the ordinary citizen when the full force of the DOJ/FBI are brought to bear against them, especially in a climate where
national security "concerns" trumps liberty and due process.
Do you think the character of the agents & prosecutors as well as the "command climate" have changed due to institutional pressures
over the last couple decades?
Do you believe this all took place without anyone lower in the hierarchy knowing about it or participating in it? Can secrets
be kept in such a large organization where most don't know what the bosses are up to?
In your point #3, the Special Counsel is Lisa Page, who was legal counsel to McCabe. With the criminal referral from the IG
we'll have to see if and when he's indicted.
The Mueller probe in many ways has become a parody. They have financially ruined and destroyed Gen. Flynn for having a
legitimate discussion with the Russian ambassador. Of course he has pled guilty to lying. The leaking of this conversation seems
to be a felony but that has yet to be prosecuted.
Mueller has not uncovered any collusion with the Russians by the Trump campaign but is targeting Manafort for financial
irregularities that took place well before he joined the Trump campaign. Additionally, he referred Trump's personal attorney Michael
Cohen to the FBI for possible criminal activity that had nothing to do with Russia or collusion, who then raided his home and
office.
In this context it will be interesting to see if the DOJ indicts McCabe. There's now increasing pieces of the puzzle being
uncovered that sheds more light on the incredible conspiracy among Brennan, Clapper, Loretta Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Sally Yates,
Susan Rice - essentially the top brass in the Obama administration who ran the intelligence, law enforcement and national security
apparatus who used their offices for political purposes to interfere and manipulate an election campaign and when that failed
to attempt a coup.
The foreign interference were these guys working with the British and Estonian intelligence to fabricate reports to launch
a fraudulent investigation on candidate Trump and his campaign.
The genie is out of the bottle. It will only be a matter of time when a GOP administration will use the intelligence and law
enforcement capabilities of an administration to play dirty tricks on the Democrats. The Democrats have made sure that the FBI,
CIA, ODNI, & DOJ have now become tools for vicious political fights.
Thanks for your ice clear update. Corporate media mostly ignores the "Pay to Play" governance that has enveloped Washington
DC with the decision in 2008 by the Obama Administration to foam the runways for Wall Street and not jail corporate crooks. The
FBI could not do a full investigation. The DOJ would never indict Hillary Clinton. Both James Comey and General Michael Flynn
should have kept their mouths shut. Yet, they rose near the top of the cess pool. I assume they simply couldn't acknowledge to
themselves the criminal sewer they were swimming in. An addition note on the sewer overflow; the President's Physician's nomination
to head the VA is in trouble due to drinking on the job and pushing pills.
Reports like these are our only hope of the restoration of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
It's not just the leadership at the FBI. It is the whole kit and kaboodle when Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Yates, and the ladies
Rice, Powers, Farkas all had a hand in this. I'm a Depression Era baby and I've seen many a scandal in government but I can't
recall another time when an existing administration of a major party used the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to actively
do opposition research on the other major party candidate. And then conspire to influence and manipulate a presidential election
and frame that candidate as an agent of a foreign power considered an enemy in many quarters. This is beyond the pale even if
one abhors the candidate. You read about stuff like this happening in banana republics. But in the USA. I can't believe our institutions
have sunk so low just in my lifetime.
Two friends get arrested for murder. One of them had to have done it. They both finger the other guy - and they both get off because
nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt who did it. How convenient.
At this point it is hard to discern which of our institutions haven't been corrupted by power-mad philosopher kings.
There is an entire corner of [conservative] Twitter following the Borg political shitshow (and particularly the upcoming DOJ
OIG report) pretty closely and have been for some time. A lot of it seemed pretty far out there when I first came across them
(and may still be, there's no way to know for sure until there's a lot more clarity on some of these issues) but they have increasingly
tracked with a lot of what you have written about here and have generally been on the mark, if not superficially clairvoyant.
They're decidedly very pro-Trump but if you're interested (and use Twitter) here's a few of these characters: @_VachelLindsay_
, @drawandstrike , and @TheLastRefuge2.
Thank you. For us in the general public, who have to try to get through the day following the news, it's becoming a stomach-turning
activity. I've recently found myself thinking that only a bad script writer could have come up with all that is being broadcast
on the supposed "news" channels--especially those that do report much of what you have just summarized. I have felt so sorry for
Flynn and others caught up in this total dysfunctional system.
With the top people in the FBI acting so politically, it makes me wonder at some of the other events we've had to read about
regarding the FBI, such as the handling of information regarding the killer in the Florida Pulse nightclub, the dropping of the
ball, so to speak, in regard to the Boston Marathon bombers, the lack of interest in following up on the call to the FBI regarding
the school killer in Florida. And now I question the decision to give the guns back to the father of the shooter in Tennessee
at the Waffle House. Are the everyday working procedures now totally tained by politics also?
My inclination is to think that the regular FBI agents have their hands tied by politically motivated rules set at the top
that do not allow agents to do what they know is right.
Every time I hear Comey speak, I go into a state of cognitive dissonance because it seems as if somehow a ninth-grade student
with absolutely no ability to think logically was somehow promoted to the top office of the FBI.
With the release of the House Intelligence Committee's
report finding no evidence of collusion
between the Trump campaign, Congressional
Republicans have seemingly dealt a death blow to the "Russian collusion" narrative which was
already hurtling toward irrelevance. Indeed, the special counsel himself has publicly stated
that he has "pivoted" toward investigating financial crimes and allegations of obstruction of
justice.
But with President Trump threatening to take a more "hands on" role at the Department of
Justice, Mueller has found himself in a bind. How can he continue to justify the probe if the
original premise has been found to be completely invalid?
Fortunately, Mueller received some badly needed assistance on Friday from a major Russian
opposition figure: former
oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky
. Somehow, an organization called Dossier, which was
established and financed by Khodorkovsky - a former oil tycoon and longtime nemesis of Russian
President Vladimir Putin who turned into one of Russia's most vocal dissidents - managed to get
its hands on emails stolen from the inbox of Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, the same
lawyer who arranged the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr. after
promising through an intermediary to supply the Trump campaign with "dirt" on Trump's erstwhile
rival, Hillary Clinton.
The emails reveal that Veselnitskaya worked closely with the Russian Ministry of Justice to
help thwart a US Department of Justice probe into allegedly ill-gotten money being invested by
corrupt Russian oligarchs in New York City real estate. And according to the
New York Times
, which was obtained the emails from Dossier, the communications undercut
Veselnitskaya's claims of impartiality.
That said, the communications revealed in the emails took place years before Veselnitskaya
set foot in Trump Tower. What's more alarming than the emails claims is the notion that Russian
opposition figures are stepping up to independently assist Mueller and the Democrats in keeping
the "Russia collusion" narrative alive is certainly...interesting.
Veselnitskaya acknowledged her work for the Russian government in an interview with NBC News
set to air Friday.
Shown copies of the emails by Richard Engel of NBC News, Ms. Veselnitskaya acknowledged
that "many things included here are from my documents, my personal documents." She told the
Russian news agency Interfax on Wednesday that her email accounts were hacked this year by
people determined to discredit her, and that she would report the hack to Russian
authorities.
[...]
The exchanges document Mr. Chaika's response to a Justice Department request in 2014 for
help with its civil fraud case against a real estate firm, Prevezon Holdings Ltd., and its
owner, Denis P. Katsyv, a well-connected Russian businessman.
Federal prosecutors say Ms. Veselnitskaya was the driving force on Mr. Katsyv's defense
team, a description she has echoed in court filings. In a declaration to the court, she
identified herself as a lawyer in private practice, representing Mr. Katsyv and his firm.
The Justice Department prosecutors charged Mr. Katsyv's firm in 2013 with using real
estate purchases in New York to launder a portion of the profits from a tax scheme in Russia.
They were seeking Russian bank, tax and court records, the type of documents that typically
form the crux of civil money-laundering cases. The Justice Department asked the Russian
government to keep the matter confidential, "except as is necessary to execute this request,"
according to court documents. Russia and the United States have a mutual legal assistance
treaty governing law-enforcement requests.
According to the
Times
, the leaked documents refute Veselnitskaya's claim that she was acting in a "private
capacity" when she initiated contact with the Trump campaign, even though the activities
detailed in the documents took place years earlier.
Ms. Veselnitskaya had long insisted that she met the president's son, son-in-law and
campaign chairman in a private capacity, not as a representative of the Russian
government.
"I operate independently of any governmental bodies," she wrote in a November statement to
the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I have no relationship with Mr. Chaika, his representatives
and his institutions other than those related to my professional functions as a lawyer."
But while the
Times
details the contents of the documents in detail, it failed to highlight an obvious
irony: that in exposing alleged machinations by the Russian government to interfere in the US
election, it used the same alleged strategy pursued by shadowy Russian hackers and Wikileaks,
the two biggest boogeymen in the ongoing Russian collusion saga.
This isn't the first time a Russian opposition figure has sought to aid Mueller. Earlier
this year, Aleksei Navalny released videos that he said included evidence that Oleg Deripaska -
who has since been targeted by US sanctions - attempted to meddle in the US political
process.
And despite President Trump's insistence that everybody should "get over" the collusion
narrative now that the Intel Committee report has been released, it appears his foreign enemies
have other plans.
The question now is: Will Trump respond to the leaked emails, or is Trump convinced that his
latest bombing raid on Syria plus the sanctions targeting "Putin ally" Oleg Deripaska will be
sufficient to demonstrate to Mueller that he is not in bed with the Kremlin. A parallel
question is whether this is the start of a coordinated campaign by Russian dissidents to weaken
President Vladimir Putin using anti-Trump US intermediaries, and what will Putin's reaction
be.
Foreigners money laundering ill-gotten gains in New York City real estate? Incredible and
unbelievable according to the US Department of Justice. As long as these foreigners buy from
approved sellers of real estate.
The meeting with Veselnitskaya looks like it was part of the
Brennan/Clapper/Clinton set up to try to create 'collusion' where there
was none.
But lest we forget, there was also no Russian 'hack.'
Shouldn't the real scandal be
1. efforts by obama, clinton, fbi, doj, and cia to overturn the
election via fraud and perjury and leaks to a select few establishment
agitprop rags, and
2. the US/UK/Saudi/Qatari/Turk/Israeli support for Al Qaeda and IS?
I think so, which is yet more reason why I think Mueller needs to be
made to narrow his focus, and be given some date by which to finish -
at least a month before November.
That's what our banker dominated government wants. Sure, real estate
becomes too expensive for for the non parasitic working poor, but it
keeps their dollar high for more pointless war spending.
"... This effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by The Federalist , after a series of leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was "intimately involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS." ..."
"... In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50 million war chest just revealed by the House Intel Committee report. ..."
"... In a bizarre twist Waldman, the lobbyist, notably represents Kremlin-linked Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, head of Russian aluminum giant Rusal and who was the target of Trump's recent sanctions, as well as Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. He met with Jones on March 16, 2017 according to the Daily Caller. ..."
"... Jones, meanwhile, runs the Penn Quarter Group - a "research and investigative advisory" firm whose website was registered in April of 2016, days before Steele delivered his first in a series of Trump-Russia memos to Fusion GPS. Jones also began tweeting out articles suggesting illicit ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as early as 2017. ..."
"... The recently released House Intel Report notes that in March 2017, Jones told the FBI that he was working with Steele and Fusion GPS, with funding to the tune of $50 million. ..."
"... "[Redacted] further stated that PQG had secured the services of Steele, his associate [redacted], and Fusion GPS to continue exposing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election," reads the report, which adds that Jones " planned to share the information he obtained with policymakers and with the press ." ..."
"... And now Jones has a $50 million war chest - from a group of mysterious "7 to 10" donors - to continue the grande Trump-Russia witch hunt with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS - coordinated in part by a guy (Waldman) who represents Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. Seems somewhat collusive, no? ..."
by Tyler Durden
Sat, 04/28/2018 - 13:50 193 SHARES
The House Intelligence Committee's just-released report on Russian interference in the 2016
presidential election reveals in a footnote that an ongoing,
private investigation into Trump-Russia claims is being funded with $50 million supplied by
George Soros and a group of 7-10 wealthy donors from California and New York.
This effort was originally revealed in February and reported on by
The Federalist , after a series of
leaked text messages between Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) and lobbyist Adam Waldman suggested
that Daniel J. Jones - an ex-FBI investigator and former Feinstein staffer, was "intimately
involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified
memos published by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion
GPS."
In short, Jones is working with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to continue their
investigation into Donald Trump, using a $50 million war chest just revealed by the House Intel
Committee report.
In a bizarre twist Waldman, the lobbyist, notably represents Kremlin-linked Russian oligarch
Oleg Deripaska, head of Russian aluminum giant Rusal and who was the target of Trump's recent
sanctions, as well as Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. He met with Jones on March 16,
2017 according to the Daily Caller.
Jones, meanwhile, runs the Penn Quarter Group - a "research and investigative advisory" firm
whose website was registered in April of 2016, days before Steele delivered his first in a
series of Trump-Russia memos to Fusion GPS. Jones also began tweeting out articles suggesting
illicit ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as early as 2017.
Steele's work during the 2016 election culminated in the salacious and unverified 35-page
"Steele dossier" used to obtain a FISA warrant against then-President Trump (which, as we
reported on Friday, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
leaked the details to CNN 's Jake Tapper prior to the seemingly coordinated publication by
BuzzFeed ).
The recently released House Intel Report notes that in March 2017, Jones told the FBI that
he was working with Steele and Fusion GPS, with funding to the tune of $50 million.
"In late March 2017, Jones met with FBI regarding PQG, which he described as 'exposing
foreign influence in Western election,'" reads the House Intel report. "[Redacted] told FBI
that PQG was being funded by 7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and
California, who provided approximately $50 million ."
"[Redacted] further stated that PQG had secured the services of Steele, his associate
[redacted], and Fusion GPS to continue exposing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S.
Presidential election," reads the report, which adds that Jones " planned to share the
information he obtained with policymakers and with the press ."
As the Daily Caller 's
Chuck Ross notes, Jones "also offered to provide PQG's entire holdings to the FBI" according to
the report, citing a "FD-302" transcript of the interview he gave to the FBI.
Of note, during Congressional testimony last year when Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) asked Glenn
Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS, if he was still being paid for work related to the dossier ,
Simpson refused
to answer . And while the dossier came under fire for "
salacious and unverified " claims, a January 8 New York
Times profile of Glenn Simpson confirmed that dossier-related work continues.
Sean Davis of The Federalist
reported in February that Jones' name was mentioned in a list of individuals from a
January 25 Congressional letter from Senators Grassley and Graham to various Democratic
party leaders who were likely involved in Fusion GPS's 2016 efforts. The letter sought all
communications between the Democrats and a list of 40 individuals or entities, of which Jones
is one.
Some of those communications - at least according to the encrypted text messages between
Warner and Waldman, (and leaked to Fox News) , discuss efforts by Warner to secure a testimony
from Steele.
"I spoke w Steele," Waldman wrote on April 25, 2017. "He repeated the same position which
is that he wants to be helpful but is fearful of the triumvirate of cost, time suck and
reputation."
"He asked me what your concern was about a letter first and I explained it but he would
still like as a first protective step from you and [Sen. Richard] Burr asking him and his
partner to assist w the investigation by answering questions," Waldman added . "He [Steele]
said he will also speak w Dan Jones whom he says is talking to you ."
"I pointed out there is no privilege in that discussion although Dan [Jones] is a good guy
and very trustworthy guy. I encouraged him again to engage with you for the sake of the truth
and of vindication of the dossier," he wrote. - Adam Waldman to Mark Warner
Meanwhile, Federal disclosures required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act show that
Waldman collected nearly $1.1 million from Deripaska in2016an d 2017
. Some questions:
Why would Waldman, a Russian oligarch's foreign agent, be the official cutout for both a U.S. senator
and Christopher Steele?
Why would he recommend Daniel Jones - a former top Feinstein aide who worked for the FBI
- as a point of contact and an information broker?
And now Jones has a $50 million war chest - from a group of mysterious "7 to 10" donors - to
continue the grande Trump-Russia witch hunt with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS -
coordinated in part by a guy (Waldman) who represents Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and
Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. Seems somewhat collusive, no?
"... Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales, murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast. ..."
"... Strzok and Page are sacrificial pigs who have apparently only convicted themselves of gross stupidity. There is no evidence of crimes being committed in emails. That is why both are still employed. No evidence either one was having an affair, either. Going to lunch is not a crime. ..."
Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge
what is and what is not classified! As
the head of the FBI, he clearly has the
role of 'Originating Authority' on
determining classification of ANY
document. What it says is, that if
there's ANY doubt, whether it is
classified or not, it shall be
SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of
classification. And the ultimate
authority, is the President of the
United States, if the Originator is
Comey. So Comey took it upon himself
to declassify, classified documents
without the permission of the President
of the United States, who happens to be
his boss.
(c)
If there is
reasonable doubt about the need to
classify information, it shall be
safeguarded as if it were classified
pending a determination by an original
classification authority, who shall
make this determination within thirty
(30) days. If there is
reasonable doubt about the appropriate
level of classification, it shall be
safeguarded at the higher level of
classification pending a determination
by an original classification authority
,
who shall make this determination
within thirty (30) days.
Executive Order
12356--National security information
Source:
The
provisions of Executive Order 12356
of Apr. 2, 1982, appear at 47 FR
14874 and 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp.,
p. 166, unless otherwise noted.
10) other categories of
information that are related to the
national security and that require
protection against unauthorized
disclosure as determined by the
President or by agency heads or
other officials who have been
delegated original classification
authority
by the President
.
Any
determination made under
this subsection shall be reported
promptly to the Director of the
Information Security Oversight
Office
.
(b) Information that is
determined to concern one or more
of the categories in Section
1.3(a
) shall be
classified when an original
classification authority also
determines that its unauthorized
disclosure, either by itself or
in the context of other
information, reasonably could be
expected to cause damage to the
national security.
(c) Unauthorized disclosure
of foreign government
information, the identity of a
confidential foreign source, or
intelligence sources or methods
is presumed to cause damage to
the national security.
(d)
Information classified
in accordance with Section 1.3
shall not be declassified
automatically as a result of any
unofficial publication or
inadvertent or unauthorized
disclosure in the United States
or abroad of identical or similar
information.
[!!!!!!]
Comey is no different than any of those low lifes
you used to see get busted on Cops. He's a
confidence man. A crack head, high on his own
power. He's worse in fact because he betrayed his
fellow Americans en masse.
What nails him is over
confidence. Obama has it, Clinton has it. They all
think that they they're winners at the table and
that it's gonna go on forever. They are the worse
type because they think they deserve it. There is
not a gram of humility in the lot. Prisons are full
of these guys.
Interestingly enough, all these these players
use the same excuses those addicts with smack in
the center console use as they were getting cuffed.
"What? We were just talkin"
"I had no idea that was there"
"I don't remember"
"Some guy told me it was okay"
"I don't know"
"The other guy started it"
"That's my personal stuff. You got no right"
"Those aren't mine"
"Wasn't me"
"I'm not me I'm my younger brother" (nod to Ike
Turner for that one)
It's the sheer weight of these tired old answers
that makes it so obvious that Comey is scum. He has
an answer for everything. Put them all together and
you get a figure eight. He's a punk in the first
order and a henchman of a crime family. I'm hoping
he ends up somebody's punk when this is over.
Hey Cornholius, When you say "these pigs are as dirty as
they get" are you talking about Jeff "Reefer Madness"
Sessions? Because, if you are, I will agree with you.
I'm talking about all the fucknuts who steal the
fruits of your labor and claim to be "serving the
public". Sessions is definitely one of those pigs.
Taxpayers enable and support his behaviour.
This is a constitutional republic. They like
"democracy" because they can claim their crimes
legitimate as "mandates". Their actions are
unconstitutional. That is the law. Be nice if the
next time the military conducts exercises in a
domestic population center the local militia takes
them all prisoner. Train for this.
Maybe ideologically it is a constitutional
republic, but since March 9, 1933 when FDR
signed the Emergency Banking Act the United
States has been a private institution managed by
foreign investors.
"Since March 9, 1933 The
United States has been in a state of Declared
National Emergency ... Under the powers
delegated by these statutes the President may:
seize property, organize and control the means
of production, seize commodities, order military
forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and
control all transportation and communication,
regulate the operation of private enterprise,
restrict travel, and in a plethora of ways
control the lives of American citizens. ... A
majority of the people in the United States have
lived all of their lives under emergency rule.
For forty years, freedoms and governmental
procedure guaranteed by the Constitution have in
varying degrees been abridged by laws brought
into force by national emergency." In Reg. US
Senate report No. 93-549 dated 11/19/73
Why Trump allows this, I can't figure out...either it's
part of a bigger plan, he's a dumb-ass, or he's being
forced to allow this shit-show to go into it's second
season.
Clapper and Brennan are perjurers, so it seems is Comey. Lynch tanked the
prosecution by not reminding FBI that its up to the DOJ, not FBI, to decide to
prosecute or not ((how has that gotten lost in all this))... its crooks all
the way down to the dark corners of the Shadow State, where drug sales,
murder, and terror are the red blood cells of the beast.
And of course Hillary... decades of lies, murders, theft, and the
deliberate arming of terrorists in Syria, per her emails, to 'help Israel.'
These people aren't merely criminals, but domestic terrorists and traitors.
Trump and Sessions' failure to indict these people merits your attention
regardless of what you think of Trump these days.
The lack of prosecutions means a DOJ afraid of what dark secrets may be
revealed in the harsh light of investigation and prosecution.
We would likely, even as cynics, absolutely marvel at the thoroughness of
Washington's corruption if we saw it.
Maybe we'd think about treating DC as a zio/globalist occupied territory
that presents a clear and present danger to the several States.
Strzok
and Page are sacrificial
pigs who have apparently
only convicted
themselves of gross
stupidity. There is no
evidence of crimes being
committed in emails.
That is why both are
still employed. No
evidence either one was
having an affair,
either. Going to lunch
is not a crime.
The real action is
who and what else is
being concealed from the
world.......
FBI are all a bunch
of depraved FUCKS.
If FBI secrets were
to come out for everyone
to see, every criminal
prosecution in which FBI
Fucks were involved
could be dismissed,
overturned, reversed, or
withdrawn from Fed
Court. Gov does not have
enough $$$$$$ to pay the
damages.
So we all get fucked
and FBI cunts stay
employed.
Sso corrupt it is
UNIMAGINABLE !!!!
Close down the FBI
!!!! End the fucking
contest. Do it NOW !!!
Did his crack legal team tell him to shut the fuck up? He's basically cross
examining himself in a public forum.
The Clinton email thing is still
amazing. It's de jure illegal to handle the information the way they did
regardless of intent. No interview was necessary. No immunity to an
unnecessary interview needed to happen either. This is a miscarriage at its
most benign.
Only a boob would believe this "aw schucks" nonesense.
It is amazing he ran the FBI. He is completely delusional. Has no sense of the
rule of law or how to apply it. Has no sense of how the law applies to him. He
cannot see the consequences of his actions on people or how they would
interpret it. Complete narcissist that lacks any empathy. Truly a psychopath.
The level of absurdity of the former head of the nation's purportedly premiere
law enforcement agency giving unlimited interviews to promote a tell-all book
on still active investigations in which he was involved is so high that it
would it wouldn't even be fodder for satire. Sanctimonious "Cardinal" Comey
has become a caricature of himself. He is either bringing shame and disgrace
to the FBI that he purportedly loves, or conclusively demonstrating that it is
more politically corrupt than under Hoover; but without the competency it
displayed under Hooveresque directors. People like Comey, McCabe, Strzok and
Page sent scores of people to prison, ruining untold lives. How many of these
people would have been found guilty if even a fraction of this information had
been available to defense attorneys as exculpatory evidence? Manafort's
lawyers are going to have a field day with all of this (at least in the DC
case where Judge Berman Jackson - a former defense lawyer and ostensibly fair
jurist - is presiding; I pity Manafort's lawyers in front of Judge Ellis in
Alexandria). Every time that Comey opens his mouth, he is making multiple
inconsistent statements of varying degrees. His narcissism and greed are so
monumental that he doesn't even see the damage that he did, is and will
continue to do to his credibility. I do, however, have to end by commending
him for appearing on Fox, though I think that it was more his inability to
turn down a forum for self-promotion than out of any particular
bravery.
Comey said, "it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ
would bring."
That doesn't mean the hundred-plus FBI agents who actually
worked the case didn't believe Clinton should be prosecuted. Comey betrayed
FBI agents by not supporting them. Instead, he sided with politicize
prosecutors, including Attorney General Lynch, who weren't going to indict
Clinton no matter what the evidence showed. Comey is a limpid coward and a
disgrace to law enforcement officers throughout the land.
Does Bezos have Comey's book "Riding My High Horse" at number one on
Amazon, like he did with Clinton's book "What The Fuck Happened?" even
though it had only sold 62 copies?
Classified is classified, unless you work for a Clinton.
SO if you put classified information in your book, it is no longer
classified??????
Shit, a whole lot of ex CIA guys need to write books. How about, "Well
we knew that the most murderous and despicable Nazi was in Argentina all
along and lived there for 30 years after WWII but we never went and got
him, because he really didn't do most of the things we claimed he did."
forget the dossier. forget that she destroyed evidence. forget that she
fleeced world leaders for her little foundation. forget the outrageous
speaking fees of her disgraced ex president husband. forget the meeting on
the tarmac with the AG. forget that her campaign was laundering
contributions.
SHE SET UP A FUCKING ILLEGAL EMAIL SERVER IN HER HOME AND
REDIRECTED GOVERNMENT TOP SECRET EMAIL TO THAT SERVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO HIDE
ALL HER CRIMES.
God these people are dirtier than a small time local politician. Jail
em all.
I have learned that there is a gaping deep and wide crevasse between a
'fact' and a 'truth'.
A 'truth' is, e.g., That tall oak out there is a
tree.
A 'fact' is, that depending on where you are standing, you can attest to
seeing less than a half of a tree, (unless you have developed the ability
to see around bends).
So when someone like the weasel Comey is says something is a fact, you
have every reason to doubt that he is telling you a truth.
I have a larcenous heart. I regret that I did not get into government,
seeing how much money can be made and how risk free the jobs are. Few----
compared to the many millions who have literally gotten away with murder,
gathered immense fortunes, and awesome behind the scenes power that is
invisible----have ever been arrested let alone accused, prosecuted and sent
to jail. You can count them on your fingers and toes.
So I have no objections to people buying his pack of lies and him making
some serious money on the advances, the book, and the eventual movie,
starring George Clooney as the hero, Comey.
The Department of "Justice", lost its way long ago. To persist in
calling it the DOJ when it is nothing of the sort, just another
disreputable, bureaucratic fuckup of a government agency, is a total lie.
Comey lies in the interview exposed plus the new Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page emails. Even what must be a very tiny percentage of their emails
during the covered time span have some very revealing contents which the
censors missed:
Interestingly, Comey said Republicans financed the Steele dossier before
Democrats. What if he's telling the truth? Trump is an Independent with an
"R" next to his name-Trump isn't their "Boy". Many Lifer Republicans in
fact are leaving office including House Speaker Ryan. If a Republican is
responsible for financing the dossier, my guess for one is Senator John
McCain.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-mccain-associate-subpoena
I could not watch more than 25% of the first video without projectile
vomiting. This fucker should be shot for treason, as all the rest of the
swamp leaders. The one sailor went to jail for accidentally releasing a
pic in an engine room, and Petras went to prison for so much less.
It's time to water the tree of Liberty with the blood of traitors to the
Republic...
"... As Orwell taught us in, Animal Farm , "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law. ..."
"... And as Bastiat writes in, The Law , today in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder. ..."
"... This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses. ..."
"... look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault. Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know. ..."
"... So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember. ..."
"... Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?" ..."
Fox News host Bret Baier and James Comey sat down for a one-on-one interview Thursday night, in perhaps the most serious and direct
conversations with the former FBI Director to date.
Baier held Comey's feet to the fire on a wide variety of controversial topics - including the FBI's decision to exonerate Hillary
Clinton before interviewing her, what Comey knew about the "Steele Dossier" used to obtain a surveillance warrant on a Trump campaign
aide, and the memos Comey leaked to his friend which he hoped would lead to a special counsel investigation.
Clinton Exoneration
After starting the interview off with a joke about how Comey must find it "a little tougher to get around town without a motorcade,"
Baier pulled no punches - launching straight into asking the former FBI Director if it was true that his team decided to exonerate
Hillary Clinton before interviewing her .
In response, Comey said that because of all the prior investigative work the FBI had done on the Clinton email case, investigators
said "it looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutors will bring it," and that it's "fairly typical" for white
collar investigations to save interviews for last.
Comey: I started to see that their view was, it was unlikely to end in a case that the prosecutors at DOJ would bring .
Baier: Before the interview?
Sure, yeah, because they had spent ten months digging around, reading all of the emails, putting everything together, interviewing
everybody who set up her system. They weren't certain of that result, but they said "Look boss, on the current course and speed,
looks like it's not going to get to a place where the prosecutor will bring it ."
On the topic of Peter Strzok - the anti-Trump counterintelligence agent deeply involved in both the Clinton and Trump investigations
along with his FBI attorney mistress, Lisa Page, Comey said he never witnessed evidence of bias working with the pair, but that he
was " deeply disappointed" when he saw some of the text messages exchanged between them.
"I can tell you this: When I saw the texts, I was deeply disappointed in them," Comey told Baier. " But I never saw any bias,
any reflection of any kind of animus towards anybody, including me . I'm sure I'm badmouthed in those texts, I'm just not going to
read them all. Never saw it."
Comey said that if he had been aware of the level of hatred Strzok and Page had for Trump, he "would have removed both of them
from any contact with significant investigations."
The "leaked" memos
When it comes to the leaked memos that kickstarted the Mueller probe, Comey maintains that the memos he created to document his
interactions with President Trump, seven in all and four of which have been deemed classified; two marked "confidential" and two
marked "secret."
Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos to two other people who he said were members of his "legal team," including David
Kelly and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
"I gave the memos to my legal team after I gave them to Dan Richman -- after I asked him to get it out to the media," said Comey,
who likened the memos to his "diaries."
" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it as
mine, like a diary"
Trump "just wrong"
Responding to a Fox & Friends interview in which President Trump said "Comey is a leaker and he's a liar. He's been leaking for
years," the former FBI Director responded " He's just wrong. Facts really do matter." Comey then claimed that because the FBI approved
the inclusion of the memos in his book, A Higher Loyalty , they are therefore not classified.
Byron York of the Washington Examiner provides an excellent breakdown of Comey's semantic absurdity
here .
The "Steele Dossier" and who paid for it
Baier asked Comey why the FBI used the Steele Dossier compiled by former UK spy Christopher Steele to obtain a FISA warrant on
a Trump campaign aide if it was "salacious," to which Comey replied that the dossier was part of a " broader mosaic of facts " used
to support the application.
And when it comes to who funded the dossier used in the FISA application, Comey claims he still has no idea whether Hillary Clinton
and the DNC funded it.
" When did you learn that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded Christopher Steele's work? " Baier asked.
" Yeah I still don't know that for a fact ," Comey responded.
"What do you mean?" Baier replied.
" I've only seen it in the media, I never knew exactly which Democrats had funded ," Comey explained, "I knew it was funded
first by Republicans."
Baier quickly corrected Comey, noting that while conservative website Free Beacon had Fusion GPS on "a kind of retainer," they
"did not fund the Christopher Steele memo or the dossier," adding " That was initiated by Democrats ."
"Is everybody believing what is going on. James Comey can't define what a leak is. He illegally leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
but doesn't understand what he did or how serious it is. He lied all over the place to cover it up. He's either very sick or very
dumb. Remember sailor!"
...two marked "confidential" and two marked "secret."
Comey also admitted that he leaked the memos...
As Orwell taught us in,
Animal Farm
, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So no charges against Comey, Hillary, McCabe etc. They
simply can't allow a jury to decide if they broke the law.
And as Bastiat writes in,
The Law , today
in the USA, the law has been perverted to the point where its only purpose is to legalize plunder.
This guy wants to be a politician SOOO bad. He just doesn't have the chops for it. This is EXACTLY the kind of guy the
Clintons would throw under the bus to (once again) save their own asses.
The recipe for a Nothing Burger, as created by the DoJ. Peddling bullshit like this on a daily basis must be soul destroying
for any of these weasel cunts that had a soul in the first place.
The really juicy ones are redacted to hell and gone, or text corrupted in all the right places.
" I didn't consider it part of an FBI file... It was my personal aide-memoire ," Comey said, adding "I always thought of it
as mine, like a diary"
IDIOT. Those memos are a work product created while he worked for the FBI. HE does NOT get to arbitrarily judge what is and
is not classified. What HE considers personal is irrelevant.
Arrogant self-righteous douchebag. He should get at LEAST a deserved stay at a Club Fed for this.
"Comey revealed that he is either a world class liar or a total moron. Actually, he may be both. I also think that he earned
the title of "sanctimonious twit."
...
look at the exchange that starts at 8:30 into the interview. It concerns the so-called Steele Dossier. This exchange should
leave you slack jawed by the audacity of Comey's lies. We are asked to believe that Jim Comey is a boy scout. Honest to a fault.
Just a humble man trying to do the right thing. Oh yeah, he also is supposed to be really smart. He is a lawyer don't cha know.
So here is the scenario. He claims he is briefed sometime in September or October on parts of the Steele documents. He
is not sure. This really smart guy just cannot remember.
Well, let's see if this helps jog the faltering brain cells of choir boy. There was a letter from Senator Harry Reid, whose
panties were in a bunch after being briefed by someone from the Intelligence Community (probably CIA Director John Brennan)
that there
was :
. . . evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to
mount and has led Michael Morrell, the former Acting Central Intelligence Director, to call Trump an "unwitting agent" of Russia
and the Kremlin. The prospect of a hostile government actively seeking to undermine our free and fair elections represents one
of the gravest threats to our democracy since the Cold War and it is critical for the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation to use every
resource available to investigate this matter thoroughly and in a timely fashion. The American people deserve to have a full understanding
of the facts from a completed investigation before they vote this November.
Put yourself in Jim Comey's large shoes. Would you get such a letter and then file it away at the bottom of your burn bag?
Or, would you demand immediate action from your senior staff, including a briefing from the CIA liaison officer posted to FBI
Headquarters? Call me crazy, but I am betting that someone as smart and honorable and conscientious (you get the drift) as Jimmy
Comey would go for the latter. He would want a briefing and want to know what was told to Senator Reid and other key members of
Congress.
But Comey now wants us to believe that he does not remember anything about the specifics of this Dossier and the information
contained in it. Are we to suppose that Comey was getting so many letters and reports about Trump and the Rooskies collaborating
on stealing the election that it was just something routine? I doubt that.
Comey also wants us to assume that he is a total idiot. Who else catches a briefing laying out sordid and salacious details
about Donald Trump and members of his crew romping around Moscow and other formerly commie nooks and crannies and does not have
even a wee bit of curiosity to ask, "Who is the source?" or "How did the source come to have this info?"
Nope. Not Jimmy Comey. Asking such basic, factual questions apparently eluded his razor sharp mind. He concedes that it came
from a foreign intelligence officer (Steele) and, rather than wonder about any possible counter intelligence concerns, says that
he took that fact as validation of the reliability of these fantastical reports.
Jim Comey DOES get to arbitrarily judge what is and what is not classified! As the head of the FBI, he clearly has the role
of 'Originating Authority' on determining classification of ANY document. What it says is, that if there's ANY doubt, whether
it is classified or not, it shall be SAFEGUARDED at the higher level of classification. And the ultimate authority, is the President
of the United States, if the Originator is Comey. So Comey took it upon himself to declassify, classified documents without the
permission of the President of the United States, who happens to be his boss.
(c) If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified pending
a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days. If there is
reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of classification
pending a determination by an original classification authority , who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days.
"... Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. ..."
"... She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his U.N. appointment at least. ..."
"... Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican. ..."
"... She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections. ..."
"... Ask Mike Pence. She's Pence's pick. Pence wants a fellow Ziocon stooge at the UN instead of pro Assad Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a higher caste. ..."
"... Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl." ..."
"... Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the exception. ..."
"... Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton. ..."
"... "Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. " ..."
"... Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on his team. He sees himself in her, y'know. ..."
"... The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran) and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets. ..."
I have noticed Haley's awfulness from the beginning, which I see is now 15 months. Awful
though Bolton is, one feels that he has some knowledge that might even make him pull back
from Armageddon (maybe, not sure).
But Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. Notice how, in the alleged chemical
attacks, she takes no thought or action at all to ascertain truth, but she outdoes herself
trumpeting the harm caused, and the children suffering.
As if the fact that children are suffering somehow proves guilt. I can't imagine anything
so ignorant.
She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see
this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State
and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his
U.N. appointment at least.
Never dismiss the fool, for he wards no fear, no blame and and no trust. He sees no worth
or value and can be swayed by the most trivial things. He seeks no reward but an emotional
gratification. While these sound of a foe easily defeated the truth is oft the opposite for
your threat and presence are fallen on the senseless. If you must fight a fool you must give
him room and let hubris and frailty fight your war, otherwise, you must be swift, with out
mercy and be able to ward the madness that will ensue.
I don't know who penned that but I think it's profound.
Nikki Haley's yappings are just the barking of a dog.
She has no agency. If she sounds 'scary', it's only because she is owned by Zionist
globalist supremacists. If they ordered her to shut up and be nice to Russia and Iran, she
will obey.
She has no mind of her own. Same with Bolton the Dolton.
And she's different from Samantha Power, how? Under Obomba
Or John Bolton under Bush the Lesser?
Seems to be a tradition in the making of putting the most arrogant, rude, least
diplomatic, and aggressive person possible in the position of ambassador to the UN.
Has anybody ELSE been steady, three administrations, non-stop PUKING? Makes it clear, if
nothing else, our "humanitarian" face has peeled off, revealing the brain-eating zombie
underneath.
When you confront staunch Israel supporters with the isolation of Israel in the world, as can
be seen at UN voting, the answer is that this is because of the anti Israel Muslim bloc in
the UN.
The weird thing about jews is that with all their cleverness they're unable to see
reality.
Israel is right, the rest of the world is wrong.
Now even if this were the case, any sensible person would take reality into
consideration.
Not so idiots as Netanyahu.
When the next jewish catastrophe has happened, jews again will see how how they are the
eternal innocent victims, if then jews still will exist, as a nuclear world war is likely to
kill any human being world wide.
Already around 1953 a USA diplomat said that Israel should behave as a small ME country, in
stead of the head of an international group.
They still do not understand.
Once (Bolton) was kind of an anomaly, because, after all, it WAS Bush the Lesser.
But Nobel Peace Prize-sporting Obomba, puts in Power.
Now we got Haley.
Maybe TWICE is a co-inkydink, but this is absurd! Fucking EVERYBODY blows us away
diplomatically! Who is worse? N. Korea does some wicked TWEETS, but their diplomats are
circumspect. Ours are visibly RABID.
One of these days, someone is gonna put us out of their misery, and suck though it will,
it will be highly deserved! Afterward, perhaps humans can progress once the USA is a giant
smoking crater. Or at least D.C. Has ANYONE ever begged for it THIS bad? Ever?
Nikki Haley is THE mouthpiece of the Zionist aggressive occupation regime. She serves its
interests and acts to the detriment of the American people that have to carry the can for the
partisanship with this rogue Zionist state. President Trump should sack her before she
challenges him in the next presidential race. Haley will have the backing of the
trigger-happy Ziocon establishment and the Zionist billionaires.
Together with John Bolton, they seem like the perfect "Doomsday Couple" to bring the U.S.
down. Perhaps they are the last true believers in Zionism, the Jewish racist ideology,
although both are not Jewish. It's not surprising that Jewish and American exceptionalism are
similar in their racist beliefs.
Haley's behavior is hyperbolic, arrogant, and extremely dangerous to the reputation of the
U. S. but it seems as if she acts according to the slogan: Freely you live, if you haven't a
reputation to lose. But under the borderline Trump administration even a "un-American"
behavior, it benefits the Zionist regime, seems acceptable.
So far, all so-called chemical weapons attacks by the al-Asad government were false flag
attacks carried out either by al-Nusra, ISIS or al-Qaida terrorist organizations or by the
"White Helmets" themselves that are a so-called a terrorist affiliate organization, disguised
as paramedics, to draw the U. S. directly into the Syrian conflict.
Under Obama, they failed, and Trump made some symbolic bombings to pacify the
trigger-happy Zionist lobby. How mentally deranged Haley seems, shows her arrogant statement:
"We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its people."
With which "civilized world" should Russia take sides? Does Haley mean the U. S. or the
Zionist occupation regime? The first one has slaughtered millions of people in endless wars,
the later has been subjugated another people for over 50 years and destroyed its existence.
This "civilized world" and its values are for the garbage dump.
Despite his twitter manticism, Trump was still a kind of common sense that can
differentiate between the good for America in contrast to the good for Israel for the sake of
the American people.
Noeconservatives arguably don't have enough appeal for them to get the presidency.
Unfortunately, they can still have clout as evidenced by Haley in her role and how the likes
of MSNBC and CNN uncritically praise her.
Well if she does make it to POTUS we have historical equivalence. The Dying days of the Roman
western Empire. in the mid 4th century BC. Roman Empire at this stage had two imperial
cities. one situated in ROME being hounded by the Goths and the other one in the East
Byzantium present day Istanbul. The point is in the western dying Imperial days they put as
emperor a child well Haley becomes POTUS one could only say History repeating itself. The
scary thing about all this is pax-americana is slowly dying. Recent economic figures coming
out of the west show this. All recent gains have nothing in common with industrial output.
Profits are all related to the stockmarket grandest ponzi scheme in the history of western
man.
Latest events from the Skripal imbroglio to Douma all show signs of desperation .
BY DECEPTION YOU MAY WAGE WAR.
Note the three countries that illegally bombed Syria on the sad nite of April 13th 2018 were
the exact ring leaders to the total destruction of the highest standard of living of the
African continent.
RINSE ,LATHER ,REPEAT.
Post Scriptum: It is sad and scary to see that from 1999 to this day not withstanding all the
lies that NATO and FUKUS have spewed to the world and have been exposed as such we the
sheeple can fall for the same trap.
THE WEST HAS ENTERED INTO THE WORLD OF ZOMBIES .
Critical thinking gets labelled as enemies of the state. Boy Goebbels must be so envious of
recent events.
How Orwellian our western society has become.
Another very good article by Philip Giraldi. If the US wasn't dominated by foreign agents and
roving gangs of ziocon lobbyists, Giraldi would be widely respected, considered 'mainstream',
and known to millions. But powerful forces are determined to prevent this.
What we get instead are empty suits reading scripts.
We live in an era where political extremism (aggressive war is a prime example of
extremism) has been declared 'centrist' and 'moderate'. Advocates of non-intervention are
labeled 'fringe'.
Political illusions happen. They happen by design.
Fortunately, Giraldi demonstrates a commendable ability to separate US interests from
contrived foreign agendas. This is not often done. And he does it well.
For revealing this, Giraldi and a few other daring intellectuals have been defamed as 'far
right'. Their sin? Telling the truth (to the best of their ability) about Zio-American
malfeasance in American life and on the world stage.
Their quiet exile from the corridors of political power shows how debased and unmoored our
culture has become. Giraldi's diminished status is the end-product of targeted censorship,
economic sabotage, and strategic defamation. This phenomena affects us all.
What do we get instead?–delusional sell-outs like John McCain, Lindsey Graham,
Hillary Clinton and Nikki Haley. Frauds all, including the journalists who adore them. The
corruption in America is wide and deep.
Washington's queer political values are hopelessly under the thrall of liberal
interventionists, ne0con militarists, televised war barkers, and deep state vampires. These
amoral extremists have become America's political 'establishment'.
Trump notwithstanding, the Swamp, the alphabet government agencies, the two Parties, the
major lobbies, donors, and NGOs (and of course, Big Media) are what rules America.
Average, non-organized voters have no political influence.
But it is our mainstream news and entertainment media that ultimately earns the most
responsibility for Zio-Washington's trigger-happy embrace of aggressive militarism in all
policies and instances that could affect Israel (which is virtually everything.)
This Zionist 'value' opens a very big door.
This commitment is a recipe for endless strife and intervention. Yet our media supports
it. Continuously and uniformly.
And the chief beneficiary is (you guessed it).
Incredibly, Washington spends far more time agonizing over borders and security in the
far-away shitholes (pardon the expression) than on our own southern border. Who dreamt up
this ridiculous scheme?
This level of corrupt insanity did not happen by accident.
Incredibly, if enough empty suits and talking heads repeat a myth or falsehood enough
times, it becomes 'true'. Voila! The magic of TV.
Political hallucinations and bizarre double standards become very real. Very 'true'.
The problem with being arrogant when you are on top of the world is that you are remembered
and reviled when you get knocked down a peg. The guys in the dock at Nuremburg learned that
at the end of a rope. She'll never face that sort of justice, though, because we can't lose,
right?
The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has diplomats
that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in
protecting the environment.
But I disagree, Mr. Giraldi! Their is coherence in State policy, that is to serve the
State of Israel.
Nutty Nikki is idiotic, vindictive, hateful and very bellicose and would not hesitate to
use our kids and tax dollars to support Apartheid Israel, and is loved by multi-billionaire
Sheldon Adelson, which means she will be the next POTUS.
Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a
number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In
other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican.
She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to
go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections.
When is Trump going to prosecute Soros for conspiracy to interfere with the U.S. and other
countries?
The lack of progress on immigration can, maybe, be explained as Trump faces fierce
resistance, but Bolton, Haley, and Pompeo are unforced/forced errors, that will make it
nearly immposible for him to keep his promise of ending these stupid wars.
Better than Hillary, but more than a little disappointing.
Haley has too many skeletons in her closet to run for president. While running for SC
governorship rumors of her affair with conservative blogger Will Folks surfaced. She tried to
deny it of course, claiming to be "completely faithful" to her husband of 13 years, then Will
Folks shared text messages and frequent, lengthy middle of the night phone calls between
them, some as long as 180 minutes, all after 10pm (hey she had to put the kids to bed first):
In his latest book, Michael Wolffe claimed that Nikki Haley had an affair with Trump,
which Haley dismissed as "disgusting", one wonders if Trump took that as a compliment.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Haley is sleeping with her current "advisor" at the UN
(paid for by taxpayers btw) Jon Lerner, who she has also kindly shared with Mike Pence, one
hopes only the advising part, not the bed, but who knows.
Something tells me she's sleeping with Netanyahu as well. She sure loves her Jewish
men.
"Ambassadors" are supposed to make peace, but Trump who claimed he wanted to end all foreign
wars end up with an ambassador to the World who only wants to make wars, with everybody! She
even wanted Trump to send troops to Venezuela! Anytime Trump is within 10 ft of this mad
woman, he's talking about bombing somebody.
Was there ever any evidence that Trump considered Tulsi for Amb. to UN? Wasn't that just
goofy talk from Tulsi's fans?
I doubt she would have wanted it, anyway. Not exactly a step up, being appointed to a
position from which you could be summarily dismissed .. as opposed to an elected official
with a definite term and, other than pressure from the DNC – which she has handily
bucked – freedom to express independent views.
She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew
to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a
higher caste.
I keep wondering why Trump has not fired that know-nothing. He's not been afraid to fire
people for far less offenses against his Admin. I suspect that the Israel Lobby will not let
him, and made him hire her in the first place. She used to be a "Never-Trumper," after all.
In an otherwise fine piece, I wish that Giraldi would have opined as to why she's still
there.
Haley is a stupid, opportunistic woman who simply goes where the money is, and that is by
doing the bidding of the Zionists in USA and Israel. The author even points out that her
mentor is Zionist asswipe from the National Review Johah Goldberg's wife! She comes across as
such a stupid woman that she perhaps doesn't realize she's being brainwashed and used as a UN
mouthpiece of advance the Zionist Israeli agenda.
Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs;
easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit
sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy.
Well, what I'm trying to say, very sadly, is that this insufferable douchebag wench will
most likely be your next president
Does a purportedly high IQ protect one from stupidity?
High IQ signals intelligence, but not wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience, and being able
to apply your high IQ to learn from those experiences. Many high IQ people in fact lack
practical wisdom a.k.a. common sense
No doubt, it's hard especially for an ally (like me) to get under Philip Giraldi's
thick-skin, but I am compelled to try now.
Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured
in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl."
Indeed, she could become President of ZUS as could Oprah Winfrey. All originate from
Jewish Central Casting, selection.
In closing, linked below is some homegrown CENSORSHIP originating from "The Land of Milk
& Honey."
Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the
match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are
way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the
exception.
to show disdain for the UN by sending yet another cartoon Exceptionalist;
factional carveups: to give the neoTrotsykites a position that they think is
meaningful;
to keep Haley out of domestic politics and too busy to properly prepare the ground
for a presidential candidacy.
There are probably others – note that none of them has anything to do with diplomacy
or international relations (except as a repudiation of the concepts).
Neither are effective at all: under both Bolton and now Haley (and "RicePower") the
US has had to increase the baksheesh it distributes around the world in order to buy
compliance and diplomatic support – they have, as a group been unable to slow the
decline of US prestige.
So the 'operational' side of things is a wash.
Bolton's preternaturally unpersuasive, because he's a grotesque parody of a human
being.
And there's where it gets interesting: there is upside risk to Haley if she were
able to Clintonise herself – by which I mean behave more like Bill , not more
like Hillary. If she was more 'aw-shucks', she would get more done (frankly I don't think
that's her aim, because like all politicians she's interested in doing things for herself,
not for her current boss).
Haley could be far more persuasive/effective because in her best moments she's quite
personable (plus she's still very pretty when she turns on the charm, which is always
a plus).
The downside is that her 'best' moments are very few and far between – she spends
most of her time with that particularly waspish hate-face so common among formerly-pretty
women who realise that their best years are behind them.
Frankly, the notion that she's a plausible presidential candidate is laughable: when the
US does eventually elect a female president, the successful candidate will be whiter than the
whitest Pilgrim.
It is beyond farcical to believe that the Republican voter base would elect a 'dusky'
woman for the highest national office: bear in mind that Haley would be repudiated ex
ante by Democrats because she's on the wrong side, and US presidential politics is almost
entirely decided by base-mobilisation.
Deep down Haley probably realises this, and that will also be a source of rancour.
How exactly are these neocon Israel apologists created, vetted, accepted?
It must be some weird ceremony that would make La Cosa Nostra look like
a Ladies Garden Club invitation.
By the way, 3,000 Palestinians weren't shot at the latest dustup.
Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and
naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton.
If she ever ascends to the throne in D.C. her "conservatism" will consist of militant
philo-semitism while being liberal on social policy and a warhawk on foreign policy. Hannity
will gush joyfully over her.
"Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs;
easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit
sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. "
Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on
his team. He sees himself in her, y'know.
To keep the bluff going, the US can't afford to push the button. End of story.
The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They
voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran)
and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets.
Power in the US is held by a rabid crowd of Zionist who control Congress and the media,
and THEY DECIDE what happens along the lines of "Israel First".
So your question should be, "To keep the bluff going, can Israel afford to push the (US)
button?"
The answer could well be Yes.
1) Syria and Iran would be destroyed giving Israel undisputed dominance of the Middle
East.
2) The US would be plunged into chaos and the COG (Continuity of Government) legislation
installed by Reagan would come into play. This is basically an Emergency Dictatorship run
from bunkers around the US, that the Zionists tried for on 9/11 (and failed to get) but would
certainly achieve under this new scenario.
With totalitarian control of the United States, the Zionist Neo-Bolsheviks could do what
they wanted with the remains of the US population, and who cares if 100 million Goys die in a
nuclear exchange with Russia/China (which would also conveniently be in ruins).
"... So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views if she were to become the neocon dream president. ..."
"... Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris, but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong ..."
She's clearly aiming for the Oval Office and would be the dream occupant for neocons
The musical chairs playing out among the senior officials that make up the President Donald
Trump White House team would be amusing to watch but for the genuine damage that it is doing to
the United States. The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has
diplomats that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in
protecting the environment. It also means that well-funded and disciplined lobbies and pressure
groups are having a field day, befuddling ignorant administrators with their "fact sheets" and
successfully promoting policies that benefit no one but themselves.
In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands
out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence
combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is
our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley , who surfaced in the news lately after
she unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House
suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't
get confused." This ignited a firestorm among the Trump haters, lauding Haley as a strong
and self-confident woman for standing up to the White House male bullies while also suggesting
that the hapless Administration had not bothered to inform one of its senior diplomats of a
policy change. It also produced a flurry of Haley for higher office tweets based on what was
described as her "brilliant riposte " to the president.
One over-the-top
bit of effusion from a former Haley aide even suggested that her "deft rebuttal" emphasizes
her qualities, enthusing that "What distinguishes her from the star-struck sycophants in the
White House is that she understands the intersection of strong leadership and public service,
where great things happen" and placing her on what is being promoted as the short list of
future presidential candidates.
For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley
for president, a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah
Palin. Indeed, the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very
cerebral or much given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are
reflexively aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both
are passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley
regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the
Murdoch media as well as in the
opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.
The greater
problem right now is that Nikki Haley is America's face to the international community, even
more than the Secretary of State. She has used her bully pulpit to do just that, i.e. bully,
and she is ugly America personified, having apparently decided that something called American
Exceptionalism gives her license to say and do whatever she wants at the United Nations. In her
mind, the United States can do what it wants globally because it has a God-given right to do
so, a viewpoint that doesn't go down well with many countries that believe that they have a
legal and moral right to be left alone and remain exempt from America's all too frequent
military interventions.
Nikki Haley sees things differently, however. During her 15 months at the United Nations she
has been instrumental in cutting funding for programs that she disapproves of and has
repeatedly threatened military action against countries that disagree with U.S. policies. Most
recently, in the wake of the U.S. cruise missile attack against Syria, she announced that the
action was potentially only the first step. She declared that Washington was "locked and
loaded," prepared to exercise more lethal military options if Syria and its Russian and Iranian
supporters did not cease and desist from the use of chemical weapons. Ironically, the cruise
missile attack was carried out even though the White House had no clue as to what had actually
happened and it now turns out that the entire story, spread by the terrorist groups in Syria
and their mouthpieces,
has begun to unravel . Will Nikki Haley apologize? I would suspect that if she doesn't do
confusion she doesn't do apologies either.
Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on
a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which
are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her
speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah
Goldberg. Unfortunately, being a neocon mouthpiece makes her particularly dangerous as she is
holding a position where she can do bad things. She has been shooting from the lip since she
assumed office with only minimal vetting by the Trump Administration, and, as in the recent
imbroglio over her "confusion," it is never quite clear whether she is speaking for herself or
for the White House.
Haley has her own foreign policy. She has
declared that Russia "is not, will not be our friend" and has lately described the Russians
as having their hands covered with the blood of Syrian children. From the start of her time at
the U.N., Haley has made it clear that she is neoconservatism personified and she has done
nothing since to change that impression. In December 2017 she warned the U.N. that she was
"taking names" and threatened retaliation against any country that was so "disrespectful" as to
dare to vote against Washington's disastrous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital,
which she also helped to bring about.
As governor of South Carolina, Haley first became identified as an unquestioning supporter of Israel through her
signing of a bill punishing supporters of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level. Immediately
upon taking office at the United Nations she complained that "nowhere has the U.N.'s failure
been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel" and
vowed that the "days of Israel bashing are over." On a recent visit to Israel, she was feted
and
honored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She was also greeted by rounds of
applause and cheering when she spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, saying "When I come to AIPAC I am with friends."
Nikki
Haley's embrace of Israeli points of view is unrelenting and serves no American interest. If
she were a recruited agent of influence for the Israeli Mossad she could not be more
cooperative than she apparently is voluntarily. In February 2017, she blocked the appointment
of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United
Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a
congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: "Is it this administration's
position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual
of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?" Haley
responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking every Palestinian.
Haley is particularly highly critical of both Syria and Iran, reflecting the Israeli bias.
She has repeatedly said that
regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority, even when the White House was
saying something different. She has elaborated on an Administration warning that it had "identified
potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime"
by tweeting " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who
support him killing his own people." At one point, Haley warned "We
need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its own people."
At various U.N. meetings, though Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of
institutional bias towards Israel, she has never addressed the issue that Israel's treatment of
the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled against it. Her
description of Israel as a "close ally" is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to actual
American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at
least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. Nor has she spoken up about
the more recent shooting of three thousand unarmed Gazan demonstrators by Israeli Army
sharpshooters, which is a war crime.
Haley's hardline on Syria reflects the Israeli bias, and her consistent hostility to Russia
is a neoconservative position. A White House warning that it had "identified
potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime led to a
Haley elaboration in a tweet that " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on
Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people." Earlier, on April 12, 2017 after
Russia blocked a draft U.N. resolution intended to condemn the alleged Khan Shaykhun chemical
attack, which subsequently turned out to be a false flag, Haley said , "We
need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its own people."
Haley is particularly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of the
unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli and neocon viewpoints. She claimed on
April 20, 2017 during her first session as president of the U.N. Security Council, that Iran
and Hezbollah had "conducted terrorist acts" for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the
more serious terrorism support engaged in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She
stated in June 2017 that
the Security Council's praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that has engaged in
"illicit missile launches," "support for terrorist groups," and "arms smuggling," while
"stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve." All are perspectives that
might easily be challenged.
So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the
neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch
supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the
rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views
if she were to become the neocon dream president.
Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for
the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris,
but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong , one
suspects that Haley's assertion that she does not do confusion is only the beginning if she
succeeds in her apparent quest for the highest office in the land. Worse than John Bolton?
Absolutely.
Several of the parties being sued by the DNC have expressed their excitement over the
discovery process , by which they may get their hands on even more evidence which might
incriminate or exonerate various actors. President Trump, Roger Stone, and Wikileaks (which is
countersuing the DNC) have all noted that they're looking forward to checking out the
controversial "DNC Servers" which were allegedly hacked by Russia .
In response to the DNC
lawsuit, Trump tweeted that it could be good news that " we will now counter for the DNC Server
that they refused to give to the FBI," along with the "Debbie Wasserman Schultz Servers and
Documents ."
Just heard the Campaign was sued by the Obstructionist Democrats. This can be good news in
that we will now counter for the DNC Server that they refused to give to the FBI, the Debbie
Wasserman Schultz Servers and Documents held by the Pakistani mystery man and Clinton
Emails.
The Trump campaign also says the lawsuit will provide an opportunity to " explore the DNC's
now-secret records ."
And as we reported on Monday, WikiLeaks is
counter-suing the DNC - setting up a donation fund and noting "We've never lost a
publishing case and discovery is going to be amazing fun."
The Democrats are suing @WikiLeaks and @JulianAssange for revealing
how the DNC rigged the Democratic primaries. Help us counter-sue. We've never lost a
publishing case and discovery is going to be amazing fun: https://t.co/E1QbYJL4bB
DNC chair Tom Perez defended the lawsuit as "necessary," telling Meet the Press that they
had to file before the statue of limitations ran out, and that "it's hard to put a price tag on
preserving democracy."
David Pepper, chair of the Ohio Democratic Party is totally cool with the DNC lawsuit. "I
don't think it hurts," said Pepper. "If you have credible claims, you have a responsibility to
pursue legal action. I think you have a day or two where [the suit] is the story, but that's
different from your overall message."
" I wouldn't have our candidates spending the fall talking about Russia or the suit or
anything like that ," Pepper said.
"They should be focused on health care, education, student debt. We shouldn't divert the
message from those topics to talk about Russia. "
And yet, that's exactly what's going to happen as the DNC lawsuit plays out in the six
months and change before midterms.
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies. ..."
"... the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule. ..."
"... But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils. ..."
In a three-part series published last week,
the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic
Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican
incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.
... ... ...
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus.
This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts"
for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks
on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs
like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the
military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the
intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen
candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation
with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its
operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that
score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board
of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip
up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers
to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic
Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining
the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence
operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience
invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given
preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration
has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened
its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of
American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose
interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class
is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry
out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx
of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that
the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the
corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
The gloves are off in the multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) against the Trump campaign, Wikileaks and several other parties including the
Russian government, alleging an illegal conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 election in a "brazen
attack on American Democracy."
Many have suggested the lawsuit is a tactical error by the DNC, as it may expose or confirm
claims against the organization - such as whether they rigged the primary against Bernie
Sanders , the level of coordination between the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, and the details
surrounding the funding of the "Steele dossier," paid for in part by both the Clinton campaign
and the DNC .
The defendants - from President Trump, to Wikileaks - and now Roger Stone - are excited at
the prospect of examining the DNC servers which cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike determined were
victims of Russian hacking in advance of the 2016 elections. Notably, the DNC would not allow
the FBI or anyone else to inspect said servers .
To that end, Stone's attorneys have slapped the DNC with a notification to preserve evidence
related to the case with a "standard pre-discovery notice." Discovery is a pre-trial process by
which one party can obtain evidence from the opposing party relevant to the case.
My lawyers and I will demand to examine the DNC's servers and expose them to real forensic
analysis, not merely accepting the claims of the DNC's paid contractor , to finally
extinguish this bogus Russian hacking claim, once and for all . My lawyers have served the
DNC with standard pre-discovery notice directing the DNC of their obligation under law to
preserve all possible evidence, including their servers, for ultimate inspection and exposure
to critical review . As Julian Assange wrote on Twitter, via the WikiLeaks feed, " Discovery
is going to be fun ." - Roger Stone
Stone notes that "Former CIA experts like Bill Binney and Ray McGovern examined the basic
data available about the copying of DNC data and concluded that there is more forensic evidence
that the material was downloaded to a portable drive , meaning it had to be someone with
physical access to DNC computers ."
"Having made their computer systems the subject matter of multi-million dollar demands for
judicial relief, the DNC has now exposed them to the discovery process ," writes Stone.
In February, New Zealand entrepreneur Kim Dotcom responded to a tweet by President Trump,
claiming that "the DNC hack wasn't even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick." Dotcom
says he knows "who did it and why," adding "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my
evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied."
"... By now, everybody knows that this idea that Trump was colluding with the Russians in order to get them to do things like steal the DNC emails and then release them through WikiLeaks, the public knows that's just total baloney," ..."
"... "I knew the one man who could prove that it was all baloney was Assange. So I went to see him in London, and he confirmed for me that the Russians did not give him the DNC emails. He had physical proof of that, and he was going to let me see that and have that, but only once, I found an agreement so he wouldn't get arrested when he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London." ..."
In a recent
interview with Breitbart Radio, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who reportedly visited the
Ecuadorian embassy in London in August 2017 and met with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, said that
Assange has physical evidence to prove that Russia did not provide WikiLeaks with Democratic
National Committee (DNC) emails during the 2016 US presidential campaign.
"
By now, everybody knows that this idea that Trump was colluding with the Russians
in order to get them to do things like steal the DNC emails and then release them through
WikiLeaks, the public knows that's just total baloney," Rohrabacher said. "I knew the
one man who could prove that it was all baloney was Assange. So I went to see him in London,
and he confirmed for me that the Russians did not give him the DNC emails. He had physical
proof of that, and he was going to let me see that and have that, but only once, I found an
agreement so he wouldn't get arrested when he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London."
Rohrabacher added:
"Unfortunately, this was in the middle of having a special prosecutor, [and] any
discussion with Trump and myself that mentions Russia will be used as an excuse by that
special prosecutor to just quadruple all the areas of investigation into me and into Trump.
So it is standing there. I've been waiting because I know that we're not going to give this
special prosecutor any more ammunition than he needs to try to destroy this president."
Rohrabacher claimed that Assange had evidence and was willing to provide it in exchange for
US/UK authorities agreeing not to arrest him upon leaving the Ecuadorian embassy in London,
where the WikiLeaks co-founder has been "arbitrarily detained" under threat of arrest since
2012.
Assange first sought political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy after the UK sought to
arrest him on a Swedish warrant that has since been lifted. British authorities, thought to
operating covertly at the behest of the US -- due to a purported secret federal grand jury
indictment in the US for Assange -- insist they will arrest him if he attempts to leave the
embassy for violating the terms of his bail. It is believed that once arrested for the bail
violation in the UK, Assange would likely be extradited to the US under the sealed
indictment.
Following his meeting with Assange, Rohrabacher was denied
access to President Trump by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly due to Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's investigation into Trump-Russia collusion during the 2016 US presidential
election. In February, Rohrabacher "said he was told by Kelly that meeting with Trump could put
the president in unnecessary legal jeopardy," according to a report from The Intercept.
Rohrabacher also claimed that Assange "did not want to release the evidence publicly" because
he wanted to avoid exposing "his sources and methods."
The DNC and Hillary Clinton have continually accused WikiLeaks as acting as a "Russian
cutout" during the 2016 election, after the transparency organization published private emails
from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta as well as internal DNC emails. Assange says WikiLeaks
never releases sources, but has emphatically denied that the organization was supplied the
emails by Russia.
Craig Murray -- former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan and "close associate" of WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange -- publicly stated in a December 2016
interview with The Daily Mail that the Democratic National Committee's emails were obtained
by WikiLeaks from a "disgusted" DNC operative who had legal access to them, not Russia.
"Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians," Murray said. "The source had legal access
to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks."
Murray said the leakers were motivated by "disgust at the corruption of the Clinton
Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders."
The Daily Mail reported that Murray said he "retrieved the package from a source during a
clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the
individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an
intermediary."
An investigation into the alleged hack performed last year by Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) claimed that the "data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with
physical access to DNC computers." VIPS findings were
presented to CIA Director Mike Pompeo last November, reportedly at the direction of
President Trump.
Assange has been unable to publicly comment on Rohrabacher's statements, as the Ecuadorian
government has barred him from receiving visitor and suspended his
internet access for the past month.
This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers.
Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views
expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial
policy.
As the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election,
a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called
former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe - who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down
the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general's (OIG) report.
The official was "very pissed off" at the FBI , the report says, and demanded to know why
the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the
case dormant. -
Washington Times
The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy
Director "made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under
oath - on multiple occasions."
McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not
put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming
under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry
McAuliffe.
" It is bizarre -- and that word can't be used enough -- to have the Justice Department call
the FBI's deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption
investigation ," said James Wedick - a former FBI official who conducted corruption
investigations at the bureau. " They can have some input, but they shouldn't be operationally
in control like it appears they were from this call ."
Wedick said he's never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases
during his 35 years there - which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama
administration .
As the
Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general's report did not
identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod ,
who was the principal associate deputy attorney general -- the title the IG report did use.
Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.
He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate
deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton
Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. -
Washington Times
"According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ' are you telling me that I need to shut down a
validly predicated investigation? '" the report reads. " McCabe told us that the conversation
was 'very dramatic' and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a
high-level department official in his entire FBI career ."
The Inspector General said in a footnote that the Justice official (identified separately as
Matthew Alexrod) agreed to the description of the call, but objected to seeing that "the Bureau
was trying to spin this conversation as some evidence of political interference, which was
totally unfair."
Axelrod quit the Justice Department on January 30, 2017, the same day his boss, Deputy AG
Sally Q. Yates was fired by President Trump for failing to defend his travel ban executive
order. He is now an attorney in the D.C. office of British law firm Linklaters LLP.
Axelrod told the New York Times he left the department earlier than planned.
" It was always anticipated that we would stay on for only a short period ," said Alexrod of
himself and Yates. "For the first week we managed, but the ban was a surprise. As soon as the
travel ban was announced there were people being detained and the department was asked to
defend the ban."
The Washington Times notes that those familiar with DOJ procedures say it is unlikely
Axelrod would have made the call to McCabe without Yates' direct approval.
"In my experience these calls are rarely made in a vacuum," said Bradley Schlozman, who
worked as counsel to the PADAG during the Bush administration. " The notion that the principle
deputy would have made such a decision and issued a directive without the knowledge and consent
of the deputy attorney general is highly unlikely ."
Given that Andrew McCabe may now be in a legal battle with the Trump DOJ, the Obama DOJ and
former FBI Director James Comey - who says McCabe never told him about the leaks which resulted
in the former Deputy Director's firing, it looks like he's really going to need that new legal
defense fund
The lawsuit filed by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), naming WikiLeaks and its
founder Julian Assange as co-conspirators with Russia and the Trump campaign in a criminal
effort to steal the 2016 US presidential election, is a frontal assault on democratic rights.
It tramples on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which establishes freedom of the
press and freedom of speech as fundamental rights.
Neither the Democratic Party lawsuit nor the media commentaries on it acknowledge that
WikiLeaks is engaged in journalism, not espionage; that its work consists of publishing
material supplied to it by whistleblowers seeking to expose the crimes of governments, giant
corporations and other powerful organizations; and that this courageous campaign of exposure
has made both the website and its founder and publisher the targets of state repression all
over the world.
Assange himself has been effectively imprisoned in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for
the past six years, since he fled there to escape efforts by the British, Swedish and
American governments to engineer his extradition to the United States, where a secret grand
jury has reportedly indicted him on espionage and treason charges that could bring the death
penalty. Since the end of March, the Ecuadorian government, responding to increasing pressure
from US and British imperialism, has cut off all outside communication with him.
The reason for the indictment and persecution of Assange is that WikiLeaks published
secret military documents, supplied by whistleblower Chelsea Manning, revealing US war crimes
in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic cables embarrassing to the US State Department
because they detailed US attempts to manipulate and subvert governments around the world.
The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a 66-page complaint that reeks of
McCarthyism, with overtones of the Wisconsin senator's demagogy about "a conspiracy so vast"
when he was spearheading the anticommunist witch hunts more than 70 years ago. After
detailing a long list of supposed conspirators, ranging from the Russian government and its
military intelligence agency GRU to the Trump campaign and Julian Assange, the complaint
declares: "The conspiracy constituted an act of previously unimaginable treachery: the
campaign of the presidential nominee of a major party in league with a hostile foreign power
to bolster its own chance to win the Presidency."
Such language has had no place in official American public life since the right-wing
political gangster McCarthy left the scene in the late 1950s. Ultra-right groups like the
John Birch Society kept alive such smear tactics in ensuing decades, but they were relegated
to the fringes of the political system. Now the Democratic Party has sought to revive these
methods as the central focus of its bid for power in the 2018 elections.
In the targeting of WikiLeaks, the antidemocratic content of this campaign finds its
foulest expression. The DNC suit asserts, without the slightest evidence, that "WikiLeaks and
Assange directed, induced, urged, and/or encouraged Russia and the GRU to engage in this
conduct and/or to provide WikiLeaks and Assange with DNC's trade secrets, with the
expectation that WikiLeaks and Assange would disseminate those secrets and increase the Trump
Campaign's chance of winning the election."
According to Assange and WikiLeaks, however, the material from the DNC and from Clinton
campaign Chairman John Podesta that it made public in 2016 was provided by an anonymous
whistleblower whose identity WikiLeaks does not know because it observed its normal security
practices to preserve secrecy and protect its sources. Not a shred of evidence has been
presented to prove otherwise.
The DNC legal complaint cites the negative consequences of the WikiLeaks revelations in
passages worth quoting:
135. The illegal conspiracy inflicted profound damage upon the DNC. The timing and
selective release of the stolen materials prevented the DNC from communicating with the
electorate on its own terms. These selective releases of stolen material reached a peak
immediately before the Democratic National Convention and continued through the general
election.
136. The timing and selective release of stolen materials was designed to and had the
effect of driving a wedge between the DNC and Democratic voters. The release of stolen
materials also impaired the DNC's ability to support Democratic candidates in the general
election.
But the DNC lawsuit does not explain why the WikiLeaks material was so damaging.
On the contrary, it says nothing about the actual content of what was leaked, other than
claiming that it included "trade secrets" and other proprietary information of the Democratic
Party leadership.
The material published by WikiLeaks about the Democrats fell into two main categories.
First were internal emails and documents of the DNC showing that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman
Schultz and her top aides were engaged in a systematic effort to block Clinton's challenger
Bernie Sanders and make sure Clinton received the Democratic nomination. In other words,
while complaining that Russia was engaged in rigging the 2016 campaign, the DNC was seeking
to rig the outcome of the Democratic primary contest.
The second batch of documents came from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta and
included the transcripts of speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton to financial industry
groups for fees as high as $300,000 per appearance. In these remarks, she reassured the
bankers that they need not be alarmed by any campaign rhetoric about punishing them for the
financial skullduggery that triggered the 2008 Wall Street crash and destroyed the jobs and
living standards of millions of working people. She made clear that a Clinton government
would continue the pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama administration.
The DNC suit is a deepening of the effort by the Democratic Party to become the premier
party of the CIA and the military-intelligence apparatus as a whole. In targeting WikiLeaks
and Assange, the Democrats are embracing the smear by CIA Director Mike Pompeo -- now Trump's
choice for secretary of state -- that WikiLeaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence
service," allegedly allied with Moscow.
If, moreover, Assange is a traitor because he exposes the lies and crimes of the US
government, then by implication all those publications, websites and individuals who defend
him and challenge the government propaganda disseminated by the corporate media are
themselves complicit in treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
As the World Socialist Web Site has previously explained, the anti-Russia
campaign mounted by the Democrats is a reactionary concoction, backed by no factual evidence,
aimed at pushing the Trump administration to sharply escalate the war in Syria and adopt a
more aggressive policy against Russia. At the same time, it has been used as the
justification for a massive and coordinated campaign to censor the Internet. The manipulation
of search and news feed algorithms by Google and Facebook will be followed by more direct
efforts at the suppression of left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications.
The campaign has also served to position the Democrats as the party that stands up for the
"intelligence community" in its conflict with the Trump White House. This is now being
supplemented, in advance of the November midterm elections, by an influx of candidates for
Democratic congressional nominations in competitive districts drawn heavily from the ranks of
the CIA, the military, the National Security Council and the State Department (see: "
The CIA
Democrats ").
The conduct of the DNC demonstrates the reactionary and bankrupt character of the claims
by liberal and pseudo-left groups -- all of whom have maintained a complete silence on the
isolation and persecution of Assange -- that the election of a Democratic-controlled Congress
is the way to fight back against Trump and the Republicans. The truth is that the working
class confronts in these parties two implacable political enemies committed to war, austerity
and repression.
"... "Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation clearly be obstruction of justice ..."
"... Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or not Clinton and her team obstructed justice. ..."
"... "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice." ..."
"... Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?" ..."
Comey Claims Nobody Asked About Clinton Obstruction Before Today on Sun, 04/22/2018 - 9:27pm
From the
' you can't make this shit up ' files. Hillary had been involved in government long enough to know and understand the rules
of what she needed to do with her emails after her tenure was over. As well as the rules for handling classified information with
an email account. But I guess she thought that rules only applied to everyone else but her. And why wouldn't she think that she could
do whatever she wanted to? Because she and Bill had been getting away with doing whatever they wanted their entire political careers
with no repercussions.
Using a private email server that would be a way around the freedom of information act would have also allowed her to put her
foundation's business on it so that Chelsea and others could have access to it even though it was tied into her state department
business and the people who did didn't have the proper security clearances to read the emails. (Sydney Bluementhal) Tut, tut ..
When WTOP's Joan Jones asked former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday if the "smashing of cellphones and destruction of
thousands of emails" during the investigation into Hillary Clinton was "obstruction of justice," Comey said that he had never
been asked that question before.
"You have raised the specter of obstruction of justice charges with the president of the United States," Jones said to Comey
concerning his new book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership." The book was released earlier this week.
"Some are asking, though, 'Why wouldn't smashing of cellphones and destruction of thousands of emails during an investigation
clearly be obstruction of justice ?'" Jones asked Comey.
Comey replied, "Now that's a great question. That's the first time I've been asked that."
Although mainstream media outlets, liberal pundits, and lawmakers have been obsessing over possible obstruction of justice
charges and anticipating impeachment for Trump as a result, these same individuals showed a marked lack of interest in whether or
not Clinton and her team obstructed justice.
There's that word intent again.
"And the answer is, it would depend upon what the intent of the people doing it was," Comey said. "It's the reason I can't
say when people ask me, 'Did Donald Trump committee obstruction of justice?' My answer is, 'I don't know. It could be. It would
depend upon, is there evidence to establish that he took actions with corrupt intent ?'"
"So if you smash a cellphone, lots of people smash their cellphones so they're not resold on the secondary market and your
personal stuff ends up in somebody else's hands," Comey continued. "But if you smash your cellphone knowing that investigators
want it and that they've got a subpoena for it, for example, that is a different thing and can be obstruction of justice."
What about deleting ones emails after being told to turn them over to congress after they found out that you didn't do it when
your job was done. Is this considered obstruction of justice, James? I think that answer is yes. How about backing up your emails
on someone else's computer when some of them were found to be classified?
Jones followed up, asking, "The law requires intent?"
"Yes. It requires not just intent , but the prosecutors demonstrate corrupt intent , which is a special kind of intent
that you were taking actions with the intention of defeating and obstructing an investigation you knew was going on," Comey replied.
Did he just change the rules there? Now it's not just intent, but corrupt intent. This is exactly what Hillary
did, James! She deliberately destroyed her emails after she was told to turn them over to congress, so if you didn't have the chance
to see them l, then how do you know that the ones that she destroyed weren't classified? I would say that qualifies as intent.
But we know that you had a job to protect her from being prosecuted. This is why when the wording was changed from " grossly negligent
" to "extremely careless". you went with the new ones!
BTW, James. Why wasn't Hillary under oath when she was questioned by the other FBI agents? Why didn't you question her
or look at her other computers and cell phones she had at her home? I'd think that they might have shown you something that she didn't
want you to see? One more question, James. Did you ask the NSA to find the deleted emails that she destroyed because she said that
they were just personal ones about Chelsea's wedding? Do you really think that it took 30,000 emails to plan a wedding? Okay, one
more. Did you even think that those emails might have had something to do with her foundation that might have had some incriminating
evidence of either classified information on them or even possible proof of her "pay to play" shenanigans that she was told not to
do during her tenure as SOS? This thought never crossed your mind?
Last question I promise. Did you really do due diligence on investigating her use of her private email server or were you still
covering for her like you have been since she started getting investigated?
This amazing comment came from a person on Common Dreams. It shows the history of
One source told the news outlet that electronic records reveal that Strzok changed the language from " grossly negligent
" to " extremely careless ," scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual
who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."
What would have happened if Comey had found Hillary guilty of mishandling classified information on her private email server?
She couldn't have become president of course because her security clearances would have been revoked. This makes it kinda hard to
be one if she couldn't have access to top secret information, now wouldn't it?
Have you seen this statement by people who don't think that what Hillary did when she used her private email server was wrong
and that's why some people didn't vote for her and Trump became president because of it?
"... The Democrats are incredulous, one might suppose. They cannot seem to get over the fact that President Trump is simply not like they are. After all, their party rigged their own primary in 2016 to make sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton was to be the nominee. The Party threw their very popular candidate, Bernie Sanders, completely under the bus. Of course, he also opted to join them, despite his own campaign rhetoric being in stark contradiction with much of what Hillary's campaign was about. ..."
"... The suit's flamboyant charges made headlines, but that only served to obscure the real meaning. Namely, that top Dems are giving up their fantasies that special counsel Robert Mueller will deliver them from political purgatory by getting the goods on Trump. ..."
"... The trashy suit is their way of trying to keep impeachment and Russia, Russia, Russia alive for the midterms in case Mueller's probe comes up empty. ..."
Recent move by Democrat Party to sue Trump, Russia and Wikileaks symptomatic as President
Trump's campaign shows up clean
The Democrats are incredulous, one might suppose. They cannot seem to get over the fact
that President Trump is simply not like they are. After all, their party rigged their own
primary in 2016 to make sure that Hillary Rodham Clinton was to be the nominee. The Party threw
their very popular candidate, Bernie Sanders, completely under the bus. Of course, he also
opted to join them, despite his own campaign rhetoric being in stark contradiction with much of
what Hillary's campaign was about.
The only thing they shared in common was a (D) by their name as candidate.
In Michael
Goodwin's piece in the New York Post ,, the reason for the Democrat despair is given:
Mueller is simply not finding anything wrong with President Trump's election campaign, no signs
of collusion with Russian agencies or anything else. Mueller's bizarre and unbridled
investigation is reeling along from person to person, looking for something but coming up empty
save for minor process crimes which are themselves largely driven into existence by Mueller's
questioning, a.k.a. interrogation techniques.
The suit's flamboyant charges made headlines, but that only served to obscure the real
meaning. Namely, that top Dems are giving up their fantasies that special counsel Robert
Mueller will deliver them from political purgatory by getting the goods on Trump.
The trashy suit is their way of trying to keep impeachment and Russia, Russia, Russia
alive for the midterms in case Mueller's probe comes up empty.
Truth be told, party leaders are right to be disheartened by setbacks in the War against
Trump. For the second time, the president was told he is not a target of Mueller, this time
by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy assistant attorney general who created Mueller.
While Trump could still become a target, the odds of that happening decline by the
day.
Devin Nunes said today that after reviewing the electronic communication that launched the
counter intelligence investigation of Trump there was no evidence that warranted this
investigation. It is also interesting that Comey memorialized his discussions with Trump but
did not do that with others. His memos note that he only informed Trump on the salacious part
of the FusionGPS dossier and not the other parts. It looks like the conspiracy around the
smearing of Trump by the Obama administration is slowly coming out.
"An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the
American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did
collude with foreign powers to tip the election -- Hillary's."
After waiting eight months for the DOJ to turn over the "electronic communication" (EC) -
the document which the FBI used to launch the original counterintelligence investigation
against the Trump campaign, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) told Fox
News that upon review - the EC reveals that no intelligence was used to launch the probe .
Nunes also touched on the fact that Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal pushed
anti-Trump memos to the
Obama State Department , written by Clinton "hatchet man" Cody Shearer and passed to
Jonathan Winer, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.
" We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this
investigation. We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the
State Department . So we're trying to piece all that together and that's why we continue to
look at the State Department ," Nunes told Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning
Futures."
Nunes noted that no intelligence was shared with the U.S. from any of the members
of the "Five Eyes" agreement - that being Canada, the UK, Australia , New Zealand and the USA.
" We are not supposed to spy on each other's citizens, and it's worked well ," he said. "And
it continues to work well. And we know it's working well because there was no intelligence that
passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government . And that's why we had to see that
original communication ."
This is relevant because the FBI says that the Trump investigation was kicked off after
Australian diplomat Alexander Downer told the FBI that Trump campaign associate George
Papadopoulos drunkenly admitted in a London pub that the Russians had "dirt" on Hillary
Clinton. The New York Times reported last
December that " Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their
American counterparts , according to four current and former American and foreign officials
with direct knowledge of the Australians' role."
This was clearly not true according to the EC, which states that no intelligence passed
through Five Eyes official channels.
Many have also raised questions over the fact that Alexander Downer, the source of the
intelligence which launched the Trump investigation (and not through official channels) is
absolutely a friend of the Clintons .
According to information provided by Australian policeman-turned investigative journalist,
Michael Smith - the Clinton Foundation received some $88
million from Australian taxpayers between 2006 and 2014, reaching its peak in 2012-2013 -
which was coincidentally (we're sure) Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's last year in
office. Smith names several key figures in his complaints of malfeasance, including Bill and
Hillary Clinton and Alexander Downer .
The materials Smith gave to the FBI concern the MOU between the Clinton Foundation's
HIV/AIDs Initiative (CHAI) and the Australian government.
Smith claims the foundation received a " $25M financial advantage dishonestly obtained by
deception " as a result of actions by Bill Clinton and Downer, who was then Australia's
minister of foreign affairs.
Also included in the Smith materials are evidence he believes shows " corrupt October 2006
backdating of false tender advertisements purporting to advertise the availability of a $15
million contract to provide HIV/AIDS services in Papua New Guinea on behalf of the Australian
government after an agreement was already in place to pay the Clinton Foundation and/or
associates."- Lifezette
And during the various Russia probes, Congressional investigators weren't told about
Downer's connection to the Clinton Foundation .
"Republicans say they are concerned the new information means nearly all of the early
evidence the FBI used to justify its election-year probe of Trump came from sources supportive
of the Clintons, including the controversial Steele dossier," reports
The Hill .
"The Clintons' tentacles go everywhere. So, that's why it's important," said Rep. Jim Jordan
(R-Ohio) chairman of a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee. " We continue to get
new information every week it seems that sort of underscores the fact that the FBI hasn't been
square with us. "
State Department in the Crosshairs
Nunes then told Fox' s Maria Bartiromo that the House Intel Committee is now honing in on
the State Department due to signs of "major irregularities " in how the alleged Papadopoulos
comments reached U.S. intelligence agencies.
"We know a little bit about that because of what some of the State Department officials
themselves have said about that," Nunes said, adding that "We have to make sure that our
agencies talk and they work out problems. We have to make sure that they don't spy on either
Americans citizens or that we're not spying on British citizens."
Still, Nunes doesn't know whether former secretary of state, and then-Democratic challenger
to Trump in the election, was pulling the strings of the investigation launched against her
political opponent. However, he said it is known that two long-time Clinton associates –
including Sidney Blumenthal – were "actively" giving information to the State Department,
which "was somehow making its way to the FBI." -
Fox Business
Meanwhile, as we reported in
February , a former official in President Obama's State Department has confirmed a claim by
the Senate Judiciary Committee, that former British spy Christopher Steele and Hillary Clinton
confidant Sidney Blumenthal gave him intelligence reports claiming that President Trump had
been compromised by the Russians.
Jonathan Winer, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, confirmed the Judiciary
Committee's claims in an op-ed for the
Washington Post titled "Devin Nunes is investigating me: Here's the Truth."
"While talking about that hacking, Blumenthal and I discussed Steele's reports. He showed me
notes gathered by a journalist I did not know, Cody Shearer, that alleged the Russians had
compromising information on Trump of a sexual and financial nature," writes Winer.
In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known
as the "dossier." Steele's sources suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the
hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign but also had
compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.
Winer's op-ed corroborates the series of events outlined in a criminal referral for Steele
issued by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC),
which asks the DOJ to investigate Steele for allegedly lying to the FBI about his contacts with
the media.
Winer then gave Steele various anti-Trump memos from Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal,
which originated with Clinton "hatchet man" Cody Shearer . Winer claims he didn't think Steele
would share the Clinton-sourced information with anyone else in the government.
" But I learned later that Steele did share them -- with the FBI, after the FBI asked him to
provide everything he had on allegations relating to Trump, his campaign and Russian
interference in U.S. elections ," Winer writes.
Comey Memos
Nunes then said that the release of the Comey memos was significant in that they would seem
to exonerate President Trump of collusion.
The mainstream media and the dems have been running around talking about collusion,
collusion, collusion. when they realized there was no collusion, they moved on to obstruction
of justice, obstruction of justice, obstruction of justice.
" Once you read all of the Comey memos, it becomes Exhibit A in the defense that there was
no obstruction of justice ."
The Chairman also noted that the Comey memos reveal Trump actually wanted his campaign
investigated, telling Bartiromo " when you have the President of the US saying "Look,
investigate all of my people. If anyone in my campaign was colluding with the Russians, I wanna
know and they need to be brought to justice, " Adding "Something of that nature is in the Comey
memos."
Nunes also pointed out that Comey and Andrew McCabe are probably both in quite a bit of
trouble:
Nunes: When you match up Mr. Comey's memos with what's in his book, with the interviews
that he's giving I think he's got a lot of problems coming in the future as it relates to
what the IG is looking at into his behavior during the Clinton email investigation.
Bartiromo: What kind of problems? We know that the IG has recommended criminal charges
against his former deputy Andrew McCabe.
Nunes: " His lawyer has said no, Mr. Comey is lying - is essentially what Mr. McCabe is
saying , that Comey did give him the right to go to the press... Clearly the IG believed Mr.
Comey that he did not give Mr. McCabe the ability to go to the press .
Nunes then went into Comey's conduct - positing that the former FBI Director "laundered"
classified memos to a friend, who leaked them to the New York Times - and that others may have
received them as well .
The memos that he wrote - the seven memos that he wrote on President Trump, noting that
Comey hadn't written memos on anyone else - four of them were classified. He decided to then
launder them to a friend, who leaked them to the New York Times . If those memos contained
classified information, he purposely did that, he purposely leaked them to get a Special
Counsel started after he was fired. He leaked pieces of these, so we need to figure out
exactly what is it he leaked. Who did he give these memos to? Was it just the friend that
leaked them to the New York Times, or were there others? I believe there were others , I
believe these Comey memos were actually given to several people - that contained classified
information. The irony is - the very thing that Mr. Comey cleared Mrs. Clinton of .
All of that said - whether or not the noose is actually tightening around anyone's neck is
up to the DOJ, as they can simply ignore the various criminal referrals made against McCabe and
others. What can't be denied, at this point, is that both the Mueller investigation and the
original counterintelligence investigation launched against Donald Trump and his campaign - and
the complicit narrative-shaping performed by the MSM - appear to have been a highly coordinated
effort to prevent Hillary Clinton from losing the White House.
Trump advisors Joe diGenova and Alan Dershowitz discussed just Hannity Saturday - with
Dershowitz somehow coming to the conclusion that the entirety of the ongoing against Trump are
nothing more than coincidence.
A wonderful example of how strong the programming is within us is the fact we must
constantly tell ourselves the matrix is an illusion.
The primary purpose of 'official' propaganda is to compel those who oppose it to
constantly assert that the propaganda is false.
The secondary purpose is to let everyone know if you want employment within the matrix
you're going to need to sing the same tune, regardless how ridiculous it might be.
This is the official tune. Now sing you motherfuckers....sing for your supper.
In no way MSM will drop "Russiagate" theme. They are way too invested in it. Douma attack changes nothing at all, contary to
the author claims.
Notable quotes:
"... the Russian Conspiracy Theory -- rammed down the throats of everyone around the globe since Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States -- has finally been laid to rest. ..."
"... Russia may or may not act, but it is rather unlikely that they will -- at least in the short term -- as the full combined might of the West is still an overwhelming force that no one nation can contend with. Russia knows this, and they are not stupid. But this is not to say that things cannot, nor will not, change in the future. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the chatter of Russian collusion, via the corrupt and dying MSM has petered out, as even those suffering from an extreme case of brainwashing find it hard to comprehend how a puppet can so easily slap its master across the face and get away with it. ..."
"... If President Trump was truly a puppet of Vladimir Putin -- or at least once was -- then parties in the know would have promptly released the evidence, destroying Trump in the process. The reason why it hasn't happened is simply because the evidence doesn't exist. ..."
"... Hilariously, it is the MSM who cry wolf about fake news and conspiracy theories, while at the same time, pushing their own half-truths, fake news and conspiracy theories. ..."
"... It is sad to see how far the "guardians of the truth" have fallen and how decadent the MSM has become. They are so greedy and corrupt that they have pushed us towards a path that places the West on the precipice of war with a global, nuclear power. ..."
"... The Demorats need impeachment to fire up their base and get their cash. They filed a lawsuit to generate propaganda points for the MSM to wallow in. ..."
"... The Main Stain Media are still pushing the Russia Narrative every chance they get, as a side show now, a little jab here a little jab there not really attached to anything. ..."
But the Russian Conspiracy Theory -- rammed down the throats of everyone around the globe
since Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States -- has finally been laid
to rest.
With a resounding boom as the missiles landed in Syria, the hopes and dreams of the MSM
proving that President Trump is simply a Russian puppet were shattered in one swift tactical
strike.These strikes came at a great risk, as they hit key Syrian assets -- assets that President
Putin and his Russian forces vowed to protect. Acting together
with its joint allies , Britain and France, the United States struck out against Syria for
what the Western Intelligence community claims were chemical attacks against the Syrian
civilian population, orchestrated by its own government.
Whether or not these claims are true is debatable (and highly suspect) but regardless, the
chips have fallen, and we are now in a precarious position as the West once again plunges
itself, ham-fisted, back into the cold war era.
Russian leaders have vowed that there will be consequences for these acts against an ally
they have sworn to protect. Yet to this date, no retaliation has seemed to occur.
Russia may or may not act, but it is rather unlikely that they will -- at least in the short
term -- as the full combined might of the West is still an overwhelming force that no one
nation can contend with. Russia knows this, and they are not stupid. But this is not to say
that things cannot, nor will not, change in the future.
Still, this has come at a cost. Russia has once again been forced into further isolation, as
its Western peers condemn their actions and threaten them with even more trade sanctions.
Pushed to the point of desperation, who knows what actions they will take in the coming
years?
Meanwhile, the chatter of Russian collusion, via the corrupt and dying MSM has petered out,
as even those suffering from an extreme case of brainwashing find it hard to comprehend how a
puppet can so easily slap its master across the face and get away with it.
If President Trump was truly a puppet of Vladimir Putin -- or at least once was -- then
parties in the know would have promptly released the evidence, destroying Trump in the process.
The reason why it hasn't happened is simply because the evidence doesn't exist.
Hilariously, it is the MSM who cry wolf about fake news and conspiracy theories, while at
the same time, pushing their own half-truths, fake news and conspiracy theories.
It is sad to see how far the "guardians of the truth" have fallen and how decadent the MSM
has become. They are so greedy and corrupt that they have pushed us towards a path that places
the West on the precipice of war with a global, nuclear power.
The final nail in the Russian collusion coffin has been put in place, but at what cost?
A dumb article: The Russians have not vowed anything. As Lavrov has stated publicly, "there will be consequences" is a
factual observation, not a vow to revenge anything. Revenge does not help. It is not the way Putin thinks -- Putin thinks in
terms of interests and the trade off between risks/costs and benefits.
"With 4 indictments, 2 guilty pleas, not sure how anyone thinks it's over. AS for the Syria attack. . . "
Four indictments that have NOTHING to do with Trump colluding with Russia and are SOLEY upon the people indicted. Two
guilty pleas for "lying" which your side is advocating that lying is no longer an issue we should care about.
AS FOR SYRIA: Interesting you put the Syria strike on Putin when it was obviously led by Britain and France or are we now
to believe they along with Trump are Putin puppets too? However, you do seem to be FINALLY admitting your "NGO"'s are nothing
but state sponsored shams intent on manipulating the world wide masses to believe their propaganda. After all it was YOUR
people who claimed there was a supposed chemical attack and demanded retaliation.
Keep spinning in circles, as the dog who chases his tail is in a world all of his own making.
Reaper • Sat, 04/21/2018 - 09:58 Permalink
BS. The neo-cons know the strike was deliberately ineffective. The Demorats need impeachment to fire up their base and
get their cash. They filed a lawsuit to generate propaganda points for the MSM to wallow in.
JailBanksters • Sat, 04/21/2018 - 09:59 Permalink
The Main Stain Media are still pushing the Russia Narrative every chance they get, as a side show now, a little jab
here a little jab there not really attached to anything.
We haven't seen anything like this since the Russians were accused of hacking the Federal Election, over to you Bob.
Well that's right Jim, and now for something completely different.
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials
is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former
FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel
"connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally
Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.
With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber.
Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By
most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks
the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to
the alleged perps.
This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of
this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal
referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally
"referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream
media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate
and much less welcome "FBI-gate."
As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with
total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other
big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal
referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many
alternative websites.
The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first
paragraph of the
letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high
authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the
potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude
is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus
exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.
Stonewalling
Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and
the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for
key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several
committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely
to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that
a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)
The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee
requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the
committees are unaware.
Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who
misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and
his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots
to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said
."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and
their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of
oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.
And Nothing Matters More Than the Media
The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of
Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted
headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an
article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded
fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served
.
Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a
lead
article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting
the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going
to torch him.'" [sic]
Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity
What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety
of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have
been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with
taking such major liberties with the law.
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities
directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind
that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which
point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not
prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to
win.
But she lost.
Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A
Higher Loyalty" -- which
amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a
Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his
recent article
, "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning
passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an
environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making
her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight
than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the
polls."
The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the
next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally
referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very
tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very
tall body that houses an outsized ego.
I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to
understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are
several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish
to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A weird country, the USA.
Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where,
in my opinion, the truth was unearthed.
At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed.
Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!
The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the
Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and
apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning
constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law,
but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have
had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.
Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with
alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17
with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that
actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news
service.
The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where
Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western
intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.
Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required
for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the
Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind
closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not
moving east.)
Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually
exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er,
nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to
uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a
workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high
level yoga or of squaring a circle.
On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best
– nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the
primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies
conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.
Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded.
Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President
! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the
whole way!
As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too
psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.
And that will come especially from the mainstream media
I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please
refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that
the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered
up, as usual.
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything
they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.
There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the
dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will
cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving
Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him
NOT TO DO!
We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a
Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out
Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the
fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind
supporters.
Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air
waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the
weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep
state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy
pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller
and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing
the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still
busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff
Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump
to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with
Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is
clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their
foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US
history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in
November.
But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff
Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like
Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused
himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.
" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are
he certainly knows the enemies by now."
He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John
Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says
enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.
Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees
shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as
though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting
everybody during his campaign.
So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.
" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".
Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a
lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to
accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned
monetary holdings.
Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all
of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which
then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed
masses.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
musician.
BTW Jeff Sessions is a fraternal brother of Pence (a member of the same club, same
[recently deceased] guru) and is no friend of Trump.
That would explain why Sessions reclused himself from the start, and refused to appoint a
special council to investigate the Clintons. He's in on this with Pence.
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce
extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now
the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country
down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released.
Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or
Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against
Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor.
Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's
true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could
be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was
revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.
John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is
also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his
deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.
What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably
American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very
determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop
Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose
cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought
up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it,
pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey
was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades
around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "
[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past
that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]
During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller
supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan
Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored
the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs
Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations
that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links
Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain.
Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US
intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American
freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to
have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am
flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress
upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
There has been some former high flyers going to jail recently. Sarkozy is facing a hard
time at the moment. If it can happen to a former president of France it can happen to
Hillary.
Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On
the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but
there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some
of my thoughts on the matter:
Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical
emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is
very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.
(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his
cups.
(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that
the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has
conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)
(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed
bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into
Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting
president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant
universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton,
successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the
CIA org chart.
Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational
fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just
that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these
dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and
that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.
And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at
the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique,
they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners
when left unchallenged.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz
artist.
"... How about some basic honesty about the role the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know, might just be incredibly effective ..."
"... Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure, but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years? ..."
"... For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an end ..."
"... Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical reasons. ..."
Here's an idea Jonathan for another solution. How about some basic honesty about the role
the US and it's allies have played in fostering and continue if this civil war. That, coupled
by a complete retreat of US imperial neoliberal ambitions across the entire region, you know,
might just be incredibly effective
But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people
Why not? We're watching Israelis shoot and kill unarmed Palestinians, we're
watching our favourite Saudis bomb and kill Yemeni civilians, we're watching our
Nobel-winning inspirational Myanmar leader oversee the persecution, massacre and forced
displacement of an entire people, we're watching the North Korean leader oppress and starve
his people while stepping closer to a nuclear war against a currently volatile superpower,
we're watching the Philipino head of state launching a literal war against low-level drug
dealers and junkies, we're watching several central Asian dictators imprison and torture
dissidents and oppress their people while robbing them of their national wealth, we're
watching the Chinese and Russian leaders do pretty much the same, we're watching the Turkish
leader kidnap dissidents from EU countries, imprison thousands of alleged dissidents and
invade a neighbouring country to fight against part of said countries' inhabitants, we're
watching corrupt politicians, media and judges completing the final touches of a coup in the
fifth largest country in the world, and then there's Africa, which is a whole other chapter.
What specifically is it about Syria that made you decide that yeah, all these things are
pretty bad, but that's the one thing we really have to do something about?
Perhaps that was why, five years ago, the House of Commons voted to leave the Assad
regime untouched. Back then the death toll in Syria stood at around 100,000. More than
400,000 have died since that day. The proof is there if we can bear to look at it. Inaction,
too, can be deadly.
Inaction? Really? Are we seriously going to pretend we and our allies haven't provided
financial, technological, diplomatic, political and military support to this extremely heterogenous group of rebels, without which the whole uprising (a legitimate uprising, sure,
but certainly not a viable one) would have been over in a few months, without any of the
atrocities, tragedies and destruction of the past 6 years?
For Europe and the US to have any credibility the double standards applied has to come to an
end. Israel has to comply with UN resolutions and the US has to stop using its veto to block
those resolutions that seek to make Israel comply to international standards of acceptable
behaviour.
If we can't do that we can forget getting Assad or Putin or anyone else to respect
anything we have to say. As it stands the so called West has no moral authority in the Middle
East.
But nor can we watch the brutal dictator slaughter his own people
Why is this supposed slaughter such an imperative when we seem to approve of and even
profit from selling weapons to slaughters elsewhere in the region
Sorry but the arguments in the article don't hold water. Reeks of the longstanding agenda
of the war profiteers and the Clinton gang to invade this country. On hypocritical
reasons.
"... Once underway, however, an Iranian-Israeli conflict could very easily draw in Russia and the US. ..."
"... Indeed, Putin reportedly warned Netanyahu last week that he can no longer expect to attack Syria with impunity. And once Israelis start getting killed by Russian hardware, it is hard to see how the US could not get involved. ..."
Just over a quarter-century before the outbreak of the First World War, global capitalism
was in the throes of a deep economic crisis. This original 'Great Depression', which lasted
from 1873 to 1896, saw tens of millions perish
from famine as the 'great powers' shifted the burden as far as possible onto their
colonies; whilst, at home, anti-systemic movements such as the 'New Unionism' burst onto the
scene in the capitalist heartlands, presenting a serious challenge to bourgeois rule. Africa
was torn apart by imperial powers desperate to secure monopoly access to its riches, and
rivalries between these powers constantly threatened to erupt into outright war. In the midst
of all this, one particularly astute political commentator gave a disturbingly prophetic
insight as to how the crisis would ultimately be resolved, predicting a: "world war of an
extent and violence hitherto unimagined. Eight to ten million soldiers will be at each other's
throats and in the process they will strip Europe barer than a swarm of locusts. The
depredations of the Thirty Years War compressed into three or four years and extended over the
entire continent; famine, disease, the universal lapse into barbarism, both of the armies and
people, in the wake of acute misery; irretrievable dislocation of our artificial system of
trade, industry and credit, ending in general bankruptcy; collapse of the old states and their
conventional political wisdom to the point where crowns will roll into the gutter by the dozen,
and no one will be around to pick them up; the absolute impossibility of seeing where it will
all end and who will emerge as victor from the battle; only one consequence is absolutely
certain: general exhaustion and the conditions for the ultimate victory of the working
class."
The commentator was Marx's lifelong collaborator Friedrich Engels. The accuracy of his
prediction – right down to the numbers killed and the length of the war, not to mention
the revolutions and collapse of empires that would result – is truly remarkable. Yet
Engels had no crystal ball. What he foresaw was nothing more than the logical outcome of the
workings of the global capitalist-imperialist system, which constantly and inexorably pushes
towards world war.
The logic is basically this. Capitalism, with its combination of rapid technological
progress plus derisory wage payments – both tendencies a 'natural' result of competition
– leads to a situation where markets cannot be found for its goods. This is because
capital's capacity to produce constantly outstrips the capacity of consumers to consume, as
these very consumers are, in the main, the very workers whose wages are driven down, or who are
made redundant altogether, by improved technology. Ultimately, this results in a crisis of
overproduction, with markets glutted, and workers thrown out of work in their millions. Already
in 1848, four decades before his prediction of world war, Engels (and Marx) had written that
such crises tended to be "resolved" through "the enforced destruction of a mass of productive
forces" – in other words, the wholesale closure of industry. Through closures of the most
inefficient industries, surplus production would eventually be reduced, and profitability
restored. But in so doing, capitalists were effectively increasing the concentration of capital
in the hands of the most 'efficient' industries, whose productive capacity in the future would
render the underlying contradiction yet more insoluble still, and were thereby "paving the way
for more extensive and more destructive crises, and diminishing the means whereby crises are
avoided". For Engels, the crisis underway by the 1880s was so extensive that the destruction of
capital required to overcome it would take more than mere closures – it would take
all-out war.
The destruction of capital, however, is not the only means by which to overcome
overproduction crises. The other option, said Marx and Engels, is "the conquest of new markets
or the more thorough exploitation of old ones". The period of the late-nineteenth century saw a
renewed 'Scramble for Africa' as each imperial power sought to grab territories which might one
day serve as both sources of raw materials and markets for surplus capital. In North America,
the USA was completing its own colonisation of the West and South in imperial wars against the
Native Americans and Mexico. By the close of the century, however, all the 'available'
territories had been conquered. From then on in, argued Lenin, the capture of new colonies
could only be at the expense of another colonial power – ushering in a new, imperial,
phase of capitalism with an inbuilt drive towards world war.
We have now witnessed two episodes of this cycle of capitalist crisis mutating into world
war, the second much more successful in terms of the destruction of capital than the first.
Indeed it was so successful that it paved the way for a 'Golden Era' of capitalist prosperity
lasting almost three decades. But then, once again, the inevitable crisis tendencies began to
set in.
The colonial, imperialist nature of postwar capitalism has, to some extent, been disguised
by the formal political independence of most of the formerly colonised world. With an
unambiguous and unrivalled lead in technological capacity, the Western nations have not
required direct colonisation in order to guarantee essentially 'captive' markets for their
goods and capital. The former colonies have largely been dependent on products, finance and
technology from the imperial world without the need for formal political control – and
this dependence has been backed up with economic blackmail through international financial
institutions such as the IMF and World Bank where possible, and direct military force against
resistant nations where necessary.
Such dependence, however, has been decisively eroded since the beginning of the new
millenium. The rise of China, in particular, has completely destroyed the West's monopoly on
finance and market access for the global South: African, Asian and Latin American countries no
longer have to rely on US markets for their goods or on World Bank loans for their
infrastructure development. China is now an alternative provider of all these, and generally on
far
superior terms of trade than those offered by the West. In times of continued economic
stagnation, however, this loss of their (neo)colonies is entirely unacceptable to the Western
capitalist nations, and threatens the entire
carefully crafted system of global extortion on which their own prosperity is based.
Increasingly unable to rely on economic coercion alone to keep countries within its 'sphere
of influence', then, the West have been turning more and more to military force. Indeed, the
US, UK and France have been permanently at war since the eve of the new millennium –
starting with Yugoslavia, through Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Syria and Yemen (to say
nothing of proxy wars such as that in the Congo, or the 'drone wars' waged in Pakistan, Somalia
and elsewhere). In each case, the aim has been the same – to thwart the possibility of
independent development. It is entirely indicative of this new era of decreasing economic power
that several of these wars were waged against states whose leaders were once in the pocket of
the US (Iraq and Afghanistan) or who they had hoped to buy off (Libya and Syria).
Thus, where it was once, at least in part, the product of productive superiority, the
continued supremacy of the West in international affairs is increasingly reliant on military
force alone. And even this military superiority is diminishing daily.
Predictions of the length of time left before the Chinese economy overtakes the US economy
continue to shrink. In 2016, China's share of the world economy had grown to 15%, compared to
the USA's 25%. But with a growth rate currently three times that of the USA, the difference is
expected to decline rapidly; at this rate, the Chinese economy is on course to overtake that of
the US by 2026 . In fact, once adjustments are made for purchasing power parity and
differential prices, the Chinese economy is
already larger . Furthermore, Chinese manufacturing output has been higher than that of the
US for over a decade, and exports are one third higher, whilst China produces
double the number of graduates annually than the US.
Such developments, however, are not of economic significance only: for it is only a matter
of time before economic superiority is converted into military superiority. And this gives the
US and its hangers-on an ever-diminishing window of opportunity in which to actually USE their
military superiority in order to preserve their deteriorating global power.
Clearly the strategy hitherto has been to avoid direct war with China and its key ally
Russia, and instead to focus on 'taking out' its real or potential allies amongst states less
able to defend themselves. But Russia's role as a spoiler in the regime change operation in
Syria has demonstrated to the US that this may no longer be possible. This has led to a split
within the US ruling class on the issue of how to deal with Russia, with one side seeking to
purchase Russian acquiescence to wars against Iran and China (advocated by the faction
supporting Trump) and the other aiming to simply 'regime change' Russia itself (advocated by
the Hillary faction). At the heart of both is the attempt to break the alliance between Russia
and China, in the case of Hillary by pulling China away from Russia, and for Trump, pulling
Russia away from China.
The point is, however, that neither strategy is likely to work, as clearly the breaking of
the China-Russia axis is aimed at weakening both of them. Furthermore, even if Putin
were prepared to ditch Iran, or even China, for the right price (such as lifting
sanctions, or
recognising Russian sovereignty over Crimea ), there is no way Congress would allow Trump
to pay such a price. Trump would dearly love to offer to lift sanctions – but this is not
within his gift; instead he can merely offer sops such as withdrawal from Syria, or pre-warning
of missile attacks on Russia's allies – hardly enough to lure Russia into the suicidal
severing of alliances with its most important allies.
This conundrum puts the unthinkable squarely on the agenda: direct war with Russia. The last
month has shown clearly how, and how rapidly, this is developing. Britain's carefully
calibrated efforts to create a worldwide diplomatic break with Russia can now clearly be seen
as a prelude to what was almost certainly planned to be – and may yet become – an
all-out war with Iran on the Syrian battlefield. This scenario appears to have been averted for
now by Russia's refusal to countenance it, and the West's fear of launching such an operation
in the face of direct Russian threats, but such incidents are only likely to increase. It is
only a matter of time before Russia will be put to the test.
It is easy to see how the Syrian war could lead to a major escalation: indeed, it is
difficult to see how it could not. In Washington, there is much talk of the need to 'confront'
Iran in Syria, and recent
Israeli attacks on Iranian positions in Syria indicate that they are itching to get this
confrontation under way, with or without prior US approval. Once underway, however, an
Iranian-Israeli conflict could very easily draw in Russia and the US. Russia could hardly be
expected to stand back whilst Israel reversed all its hard fought gains of the past two and a
half years – whilst demonstrating the feebleness of Russian 'protection' – and
would likely retaliate, or at the very least (and more likely)
provide its allies with the means to do so . Indeed, Putin reportedly
warned Netanyahu last week that he can no longer expect to attack Syria with impunity. And
once Israelis start getting killed by Russian hardware, it is hard to see how the US could not
get involved.
This is just one possible scenario for the kind of escalation that would lead to war with
Russia. Economic war with China is already underway, and US warships are already readying
themselves to cut off China's supply lines in the South China Sea. Each specific provocation
and escalation may or may not lead to a direct showdown with one or both of these powers. What
is clear, however, is that this is the direction in which Western imperialism is clearly
headed. It has built up its unparalleled armoury for one reason only – to protect its
dominant world position. The time is soon coming when it will have to use it – and use it
against a power that can actually fight back – whilst it still has a chance of
winning.
An edited version of this article was originally published by Middle East Eye.
In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix accused the US
and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in
order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein.
Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Blix said, "I have my detractors in
Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things
in the media."
[ It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored "a friendly alliance
between the camp and the counting-house" for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present
Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance "the
two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy
illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the
French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction
with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been,
by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that
method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences*
required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving
their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all
to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the
State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly" (ibid., pp.32 f.).
Knorr, K. E. 'Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850'. In British Colonial
Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944. ]
Your article appears to apportion blame solely to Assad and you don't even attempt to address
the opposition in Syria. Nobody seriously questions that the Syrian governments war has
killed many thousands and thousands of civilians. How can you not refer to the international
jihad and the make up of these fighters, as well as the sieges they laid on villages, town
and cities and the cruelty they inflicted upon the people?
The Syrian Arab Army is a composite of Sunni, Shia, Christians, and different ethnicity's,
what convinces you that they have in any way wantonly killed civilians? The soldiers have
family all over Syria, plus no mention of the 300,000+ civilians that have been liberated
from Eastern Aleppo and Eastern Ghouta in the last several months.
I find this article very bizarre indeed. The most simple explanation for the disaster in
Syria is that a sovereign state protected its national interest from an international
contingent of mercenaries. There are Moroccans and Chechnyans, Uighurs and Brits, Saudis as
well as Syrians in this armed army. What other options did a state such as Syria have when
fighting against ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Nusra and 'The Army of Islam', Jaysh Al-Islam? All have
which have direct connections to our major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I can not find any reference at all to the enemy in
this article. It's written as if the 8 year war has simply been an extermination war against
civilians and completely out of context with reality.
Unsurprising to see the likes of CNN and MSNBC siding with Haley. Trump should've dumped
her awhile back. Contrary to the CNN/MSNBC spin, she has been an embarrassment for the US at
the UN. Upon her UN appointment, it was thought that Haley couldn't be worse than Samantha
Power.
During his presidential bid, Trump spoke of bringing in competent non-establishment types.
The case for Jim Jatras as UN ambassador:
As noted, Tulsi Gabbard would've been a good selection as well.
The US didn't challenge Russia's more updated missile defense system in Syria shielding
Russian forces. It's not like Washington can control everything.
Through their anti-Syrian proxies, the US has a roughly 30% control of Syria. A few days
before the most recent alleged Syrian government chemical attack, Trump said he wanted out of
Syria. I believe he was either duped into bombing, or knows that the chemical weapon claim is
in the very suspect/outright BS ranges of probality.
The father of Imran Awan - a longtime IT aide from Pakistan who made "unauthorized access" to the
House computer network -
reportedly transferred a USB drive to the former head of a
Pakistani intelligence agency
, alleges the father's ex-business partner, Rashid Minhas.
Imran Awan and wife Hina Alvi
Minhas told the
Daily Caller News Foundation
(DCNF) - which traveled to Pakistan to
interview those involved - that Haji Ashraf Awan, Imran Awan's father, had been giving information
to Rehman Malik - former head of Pakistan's Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and current senator.
Malik was appointed to Interior Minister in early 2008, only to step down in 2013 after he lost a
Supreme Court hearing over holding dual UK citizenship.
Minhas told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Imran Awan's father, Haji Ashraf Awan, was
giving data to Pakistani official Rehman Malik, and that Imran bragged he had the power to "
change
the U.S. president.
"
Asked for how he knew this, he said that on one occasion in 2008 when a
"USB [was]
given to Rehman Malik by Imran's father, my brother Abdul Razzaq was with his father
."
-
DCNF
"After Imran's father deliver (sic) USB to Rehman Malik, four Pakistani [government
intelligence] agents were with his father 24-hour on duty to protect him," he said - however Minhas
did not say what was on the USB.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague (left), Rehman Malik
The House watchdog, Inspector General Michael Ptasienski, charged in September 30, 2016 that
data was being
siphoned off
of the House Network by the Awans as recently as two months before the US
presidential election.
The Awan family had virtually unlimited access to Democratic House members' computers, including
classified information.
Nearly Imran's entire immediate family was on the House payroll working as IT aides
to one-fifth of House Democrats
, and he began working for the House in 2004. The
inspector general, Michael Ptasienski, testified this month that "
system administrators
hold the 'keys to the kingdom' meaning they can create accounts, grant access, view, download,
update, or delete almost any electronic information within an office. Because of this high-level
access, a rogue system administrator could inflict considerable damage
." -
DCNF
According to Minhas - "Imran Awan said to me directly these words: '
See how I control
White House on my fingertip
' He say he can fire the prime minister or change the U.S.
president," Minhas said. "
Why the claiming big stuff, I [didn't] understand 'till now
."
"
I was Imran father's partner in Pakistan,
" Minhas said, in two land deals
in Pakistan so big that they are often referred to as "towns."
In 2009, both men were
accused of fraud
, and
Haji was arrested but then released after Imran flew to
Pakistan
, "allegedly exerting pressure on the local police through the ministry as
well as the department concerned," according to local news. Minhas and multiple alleged victims
in Pakistan also told TheDCNF
Imran exerted political influence in Pakistan to extricate
his father from the case
. -
DCNF
Minhas is currently sitting in US federal prison for fraud, and the
Daily Caller
says
they can not confirm whether Minhas' claims about the USB is true. That said,
Minhas says
that neither the DOJ nor the FBI ever interviewed him about the Awans
, which is odd
considering that he's available and connected to Imran Awan.
He is also one of many people with past relationships with the Awans who have said
they believe they are aggressive opportunists who will do
anything for money
.
And parts of Minhas's story correlate with observations
elsewhere. Haji's wife, Samina Gilani -- Imran's stepmother -- said in
court documents
that Imran used his IT skills to wiretap her as a means of exerting pressure
on her.
Haji would frequently boast that Imran's position gave him political leverage, numerous
Pakistani residents told TheDCNF. "
My son own White House in D.C.
," he would
say, according to Minhas. "
I am kingmaker
."
Senator Malik has denied any relationship with the parties reportedly involved, saying "I am
hearing their names for the first time. I am in public and people always do name-dropping."
Imran Awan's attorney Chris Gowen says Minhas's claims are
"completely and totally
false."
The Awans were banned from the congressional network on Feb 2, 2017 by House Seargant-At-Arms,
Paul Irving - after the IG report concluded that the Awans had been making "unauthorized access" to
House servers. The Awans
were logging in using Congressional members' personal usernames
,
as well as breaching servers for members they did not work for.
After several members fired
them, the Awans continued to access their data
, says the IG.
The behavior mirrored a "classic method for insiders to exfiltrate data from an
organization,"
and "steps are being taken [by the Awans] to conceal their activity," reads
the report.
Shortly before the 2016 election, the House Democratic Caucus server was breached by Awan - who
authorities believe secretly moved
all the data
of over 12 House members' offices onto the caucus server.
The server may have been "
used for nefarious purposes and elevated the risk that
individuals could be reading and/or removing information,
" an IG presentation said.
The Awans logged into it 27 times a day, far more than any other computer they
administered
.
Imran's most forceful advocate and longtime employer is Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, who led the DNC until she resigned following a hack that exposed committee
emails. Wikileaks published those emails, and they show that
DNC staff summoned Imran
when they needed her password
. -
DCNF
Shortly after the IG report came out,
the House Democratic Caucus server - which the
Awans were funneling data onto,
was physically stolen
according to three
government officials. During the same period of time, the Awans were shedding assets at a rapid
pace.
In January 2017 they took out a loan intended for home improvement, falsely claimed a medical
emergency in order to cash out their House retirement account, and
wired $300,000
overseas
, according to an FBI affidavit. -
DCNF
The FBI arrested Imran Awan at Dulles Airport in July 2017 while trying to flee to Pakistan with
a wiped cell phone and a resume that listed a Queens, NY address. Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi,
were indicted last August on charges of bank fraud - which prosecutors contend was hastened
after the Awans had likely learned that authorities were closing in on them for various other
activities
.
That said, neither Imran nor Hina have been charged over the unauthorized access
concluded
by the House's own Inspector General,
after reviewing server logs. Three other suspects,
Jamal and Abid Awan, and Rao Abbas, have faced no charges whatsoever.
Iran doesn't want to escalate the situation and give Trump any leverage on Iran deal. Iran
wants to deprive any moral political or legal supports from EU to USA on this. Trump pulls
out. Rest remains same. This will give Iran moral political and legal authorities to pursue
its nuclear program with China and Russia.
This will have domino effects on other areas of these 3 countries -- how to conduct
business internationally.
So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran. Trump is happy. His base angry.
His enemies can't go after him for few hours or days . Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley
has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a demented rat.
A massive battle is brewing between former FBI Director James Comey, and his deputy Andy
McCabe - as first noted a few weeks
ago by the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross - over exactly who is lying about Comey knowing that
McCabe had been leaking self-serving information to the Wall Street Journal .
Comey stopped
by ABC's The View to peddle his new book, A Higher Royalty Loyalty, where he called his
former Deputy Andrew McCabe a liar , and admitted that he "ordered the report" which found
McCabe guilty of leaking to the press and then lying under oath about it, several times.
Comey was asked by host Megan McCain how he thought the public was supposed to have
"confidence" in the FBI amid revelations that McCabe lied about the leak.
" It's not okay. The McCabe case illustrates what an organization committed to the truth
looks like ," Comey said. " I ordered that investigation. "
Comey then appeared to try and frame McCabe as a "good person" despite all the lying.
"Good people lie. I think I'm a good person, where I have lied," Comey said. " I still
believe Andrew McCabe is a good person but the inspector general found he lied, " noting that
there are "severe consequences" within the DOJ for doing so. As a reminder, the Justice
Department's internal watchdog, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, released a report last week
detailing his conclusions from the months-long probe of McCabe, which found that the former
acting FBI Director leaked a self-serving story to the press and then lied about it under oath
.
In response, McCabe's attorney, Michael R. Bromwich (flush with cash from the disgraced
Deputy Director's half-million dollar legal defense GoFundMe
campaign), fired back - claiming that Comey was well aware of the leaks .
" In his comments this week about the McCabe matter, former FBI Director James Comey has
relied on the Inspector Genera's (OIG) conclusions in their report on Mr. McCabe. In fact, the
report fails to adequately address the evidence (including sworn testimony) and documents that
prove that Mr. McCabe advised Director Comey repeatedly that he was working with the Wall
Street Journal on the stories in question..." reads the statement in part.
So to review , McCabe was fired when it was uncovered that he authorized an F.B.I.
spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal , just days before the 2016 election, that the
FBI had not put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation - at a time
in which McCabe was coming under fire for his wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from
Clinton proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the
strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to
condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people
familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the
foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence
peddling occurred related to the charity.
...
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the
charity , these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and
saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for
control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case
.
So McCabe leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had
indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton Foundation investigation, and then lied about it
four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
With spring, things come unstuck; an unspooling has begun. The turnaround at the FBI and
Department of Justice has been so swift that even The New York Times has shut up about
collusion with Russia -- at the same time omitting to report what appears to have been
a wholly politicized FBI upper echelon intruding on the 2016 election campaign, and then
laboring stealthily to un-do the election result.
The ominous silence enveloping the DOJ the week after Andrew McCabe's firing -- and before
the release of the FBI Inspector General's report -- suggests to me that a grand jury is about
to convene and indictments are in process, not necessarily from Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller's office. The evidence already publicly-aired about FBI machinations and interventions
on behalf of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump looks bad from any angle, and the wonder
was that it took so long for anyone at the agency to answer for it.
McCabe is gone from office and, apparently hung out to dry on the recommendation of his own
colleagues. Do not think for a moment that he will just ride off into the sunset. Meanwhile,
Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, have been sent to the FBI study hall pending some other
shoes dropping in a grand jury room. James Comey is out hustling a book he slapped together to
manage the optics of his own legal predicament (evidently, lying to a congressional committee).
And way out in orbit beyond the gravitation of the FBI, lurk those two other scoundrels, John
Brennan, former head of the CIA (now a CNN blabbermouth), and James Clapper, former Director of
National Intelligence, a new and redundant post in the Deep State's intel matrix (and ditto a
CNN blabbermouth). Brennan especially has been provoked to issue blunt Twitter threats against
Mr. Trump, suggesting he might be entering a legal squeeze himself.
None of these public servants have cut a plea bargain yet, as far as is publicly known, but
they are all, for sure, in a lot of trouble. Culpability may not stop with them. Tendrils of
evidence point to a coordinated campaign that included the Obama White House and the Democratic
National Committee starring Hillary Clinton. Robert Mueller even comes into the picture both at
the Uranium One end of the story and the other end concerning the activities of his old friend,
Mr. Comey. Most tellingly of all, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was not shoved out of office
but remains shrouded in silence and mystery as this melodrama plays out, tick, tick, tick.
None of this makes President Trump a more reassuring figure. His lack of decorum remains as
awesome as his apparent lack of common sense. But he has labored against the most intense
campaign of coordinated calumny ever seen against a chief executive and his fortitude, at
least, is impressive. What is unspooling for him, and the body politic, are the nation's
finances, and the dog of an economy that gets wagged by finance. Yesterday's 724-point dump in
the Dow Jones Industrial Average is liable to not be a fluke event, but the beginning of a
cascade into the pitiless maw of reality -- the reality that just about everything is grossly
mispriced.
"... What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered anything that they could. ..."
"... And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. ..."
"... And through that the – this network, this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip, Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. ..."
"... They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of assets that came into Yeltsin's control. ..."
"... Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton. ..."
"... So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. ..."
"... In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Given the depth of the fall, the rise (under Putin) has been remarkable. ..."
Lars Schall: Hello ladies and gentlemen. I am now connected with F. William Engdahl, who has
written a new book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. Hi William.
F. William Engdahl: Hello, Lars. Good to be with you again.
LS: Great to have you with us. And first off, let me read something to you and our audience
that was written by the economist Dean Baker earlier this month.
As a long-term columnist at the NYT, Thomas Friedman apparently never feels the need to
know anything about the topics on which he writes. This explains his sarcastic speculation that
Putin could be a CIA agent since he has done so much to hurt Russia.
For all his
authoritarian tendencies, it is likely that most Russians think primarily about Putin's impact
on the economy, just as is typically the case among voters in the United States. On that front,
Putin has a very good record.
According to data from the IMF Russia's economy had plunged in the 1990s under the
Yeltsin presidency. When Putin took over in 1998, per capita income in the country had shrunk
by more than 40 percent from its 1990 level. This is a far sharper downturn than the United
States saw in the Great Depression. Since Putin took power its per capita income has risen by
more than 115 percent, an average annual growth rate of more than 3.9 percent.
While this growth has been very unequal, that was also the case even as Russia's economy
was collapsing under Yeltsin. The typical Russian has done hugely better in the last two
decades under Putin than they did in the period when Yeltsin was in power.
For this reason, there are probably few Russians who would have sympathy for Friedman's
speculation about Putin's ties to the CIA. The same would not be the case for Boris
Yeltsin.
Now, I think this is a good starting point for our discussion William because in your book,
you have a chapter entitled The Rape of Russia, the CIA's Yeltsin Coup d'état. Why do
you talk about rape related to Russia?
FWE: What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together
with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the
looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health
system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered
anything that they could.
And what you just read from Mr. Friedman is of course horse rubbish but the real CIA asset
of this whole collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was in fact Boris Yeltsin and the
so called Yeltsin Family, the Yeltsin Mafia. And in my book, the Manifest Destiny book I
document and detail at great lengths the relation of a handful of KGB very, very senior persons
who worked with the Bush Senior old boys CIA networks in the West and their banks to create a
group of oligarchs around Yeltsin, you know the famous Russian oligarchs, well, The New York
Times and other Western Media portrayed them as Russian Mafia. They were kind of mafia but the
real point was that they were a CIA-run mafia. They were run by the West. They betrayed their
own country, their own people and literally stole billions and billions and billions of dollars
of assets. And that's the reason for the title in that chapter.
LS: And Boris Yeltsin was very essential for this.
FWE: He was the key figure. He had been selected as a regional governor and brought into
Moscow and a certain point Gorbachev saw him as a rising star and someone that could help with
a little bit more liberal image as [unclear] was – the Russian economy was running into
serious trouble in the '80s, the Star Wars of Reagan, the Nicaragua and above all the war in
Afghanistan which is a CIA project with the Mujahideen, that took 10 years long that was
bleeding the Soviet economy, the Soviet Union's Vietnam, as Brzezinski used to call it.
And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who
literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. You
remember, I'm sure many people remember the picture of Boris Yeltsin standing there
courageously on top of a Soviet tank in front of the Russian White House or Soviet House, the
Supreme Soviet building and reading a speech defying Gorbachev and so forth. Well, that was a
KGB CIA-engineered coup d'état in June 1991. And through that the – this network,
this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip,
Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB
Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. And he later joined the [#inaudible 00:06:40-0#]
oil and to this day he's still a member of the State Duma giving him prosecution immunity.
So, some of these people are still around after some 23, 25 years and incredibly enough but
others of them have died off, have been killed, or murdered or whatever. But the operation that
was done with Yeltsin, this corrupt KGB network working with the CIA financed Yeltsin's the
silent seat of the presidency of the Russian Federation. And once they had their man in
controlling the Russian Federation which is the largest of the former Soviet Union, the
Socialist Republic, they were able to engineer through the international monetary fund that was
mandated to oversee the transformation of the Soviet economy.
They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called
today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such
that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the
other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were
within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the
nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of
assets that came into Yeltsin's control.
LS: But those assets were sold to a price that was rather ridiculous.
FWE: Someone estimated that that gets into the whole coupon privatisation that was set up
under Yeltsin in the '90s. The coupon privatisation issued one coupon to every single Russian
man, woman and child 140 million in total. And the value of those coupons was such someone
estimated that the totality of Russian Soviet's Fed assets or Russian Federation assets now was
equal to the value of the stock at that point of General Electric Company on the New York Stock
Exchange. I mean that's just laughable. Russia had financial bankruptcy because the shock
therapy, the Jeffrey Sachs and others from Harvard and elsewhere brought in, George Soros and
his pals. That created bankrupt companies that couldn't stand on their own and suddenly they
had no, no resources. But the assets, the assets on the ground, the nickel, the aluminium, the
uranium that Hillary Clinton knows more than a little bit about them, all of these were
estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. And this is what the Bush operation aimed at. And
they used NGOs, they used the National Endowment for Democracy, they used, George Soros' Open
Society Foundation and so forth to bring this about.
LS: You've mentioned already the coup d'etat attempt of August 1991. Highly important for
things to come was something that took place in early 1991 and that was the theft of the Soviet
gold. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The, under the Soviet Union, this is a very crucial point about the transition that
Washington forced on the Russian Federation because Yeltsin was, I think as long as he was
well-supplied with vodka he didn't protest very much. But under the Soviet system and the
Russian Federation took this over, there was a state bank, not a private central bank like the
Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank today but a state bank that was an entity of the
Russian State apparatus and that was called the Gosbank. And a man named Viktor Gerashchenko
was the chairman of Gosbank at the time of Yeltsin's early start in 1991.
And Gerashchenko made a speech around that time in November of '91 to the Russian Duma or
the parliament such as it was and said, "I have to report to you ladies and gentlemen that of
perhaps 3,000 tons of Gosbank state-owned gold reserves, we have an estimated less than 400
tons that we can account for." And then he had to go to tell, shock members of parliament that
he had no idea what happened to the missing gold, which of course was a lie. And Gerashchenko
had created right after 1989 to prepare this coup d'etat coup, which was the CIA and Bush's old
boys, he had created something called [unclear] on the Channel Islands in the Island of Jersey
to handle the Russian foreign currency reserves.
And the Jersey was exempt from European supervision, so this was a perfect place to hide
money, dirty money or stolen money and they managed something like $37 billion between 1993 and
1998. The Gerashchenko and the Gosbank even went to the lengths of hiring a New York Financial
Detective firm called the Financial CIA back then called Jules Kroll Associate. And they were
told to track the Soviet gold, find out what happened to it and something like $14 billion of
communist party assets that were missing as well. And the Cruel which was tied with the CIA
linked AIG Insurance Group Hank Greenberg whom you remember from the 2008 to the bail out of
Henry Paulson.
LS: Yes.
FEW: The Kroll Associates after a few months announced that they had no results in the
attempt to find the missing Soviet Gosbank gold. Then to add insult to injury, the IMF came in
and rewrote the constitution of the Russian Federation under Yeltsin and took the power of
money creation just like the Federal Reserve took the power of money creation from the congress
in 1913. They took the power of money creation from the state and created the Russian
Federation Central Bank, the Russian Central Bank and gave it a mandate for two things. One, to
control inflation and the other to create currency stability.
Now, in Russia that day that meant stability of the ruble against the US dollar. So it
effectively hammer-locked the Russian money creation into the US dollar. And unfortunately that
constitution amendment holds until the present day. It's one of the difficulties that Vladimir
Putin has been having to try to persuade the Independent Central Bank to lower interest rates
more rapidly as inflation is simply managed as a problem in Russia in the last two years.
So, they looted the gold so that there would be no stability to the ruble. If you don't have
any gold-backing, then western investors are going to lack confidence which is sort of what
happened. And then they began working with very select western bankers to get their money out
of Russia.
LS: And instrumental to get money out of Russia were Valmet and Riggs. Can you tell us
please about some crucial personnel that was employed there at Valmet and Riggs?
FWE: Valmet Riggs was kind of a fusion of a Swiss bank and Riggs Bank of Washington D. C.
And Riggs Bank, this is really quite a fascinating and very little discussed aspect of the
reign of Russia back in the '90s.
So you have something called Riggs Bank in Washington and they were set up decades earlier
since the 1960s CIA Bay of Pigs operation, they were known as the CIA tied bank. They invested
the assets of people like Marcos of the Philippines until when he was close to the CIA. And
there was a former NATO Ambassador named Alton Keel and in 1989 when the Soviet KGB generals
and they had a group of protégés called the 'Kids' by George Bush Senior. The
protégés were in their 30s and a couple of them were in their 40s but rather
young. And they were the ones who were nominated to become the oligarchs, the frontal men for
taking these state assets the aluminium, the oil assets and other things and looting the
Russian Federation.
And Alton Keel just as the Russians were setting up men at a bank for the oligarchs to
funnel their stolen assets, de facto stolen assets, Keel went from NATO and the National
Security Council to become a head of international banking of Riggs Bank in Washington and its
deputy chairman.
Now, it gets even more interesting because the international banking group of Riggs included
a new entity that had been created called Riggs Valmet SA in Switzerland, and Riggs Valmet was
set up by a man named Jonathan J. Bush, a private banker, who just happened to be the brother
of George Herbert Walker Bush. So, Bush brother and Alton Keel set up Riggs Valmet, there was a
money laundering apparatus in Geneva and Riggs then through their help bought the major share
in Geneva Valmet to create Riggs Valmet.
So, you have the brother of the president of the United States up to his eyeballs in this
whole Yeltsin CIA money laundering operation. And then Jonathan Bush was created CEO of
something called Riggs Investment in Connecticut where he lived and at that point the looting
and taking of the dollar assets out of Russia was just unstoppable. It was in the billions and
tens of billions of dollars.
LS: William, there is one guy who was working closely with those people and he was working
on Wall Street but later on he was personally recruited by George Tenet then the Director of
CIA to become the number three at the CIA, and this is Alvin Bernard "Buzzy" Krongard.
FWE: Yes. We meet "Buzzy" Krongard at Bankers Trust, which bought up Alex Brown, and
Krongard became vice chairman of Bankers Trust along with another charming character named
Carter Beese. And at the time of the 1998 collapse of the ruble, Krongard was formally made, as
you've pointed out, number three, the executive director at the CIA under George Tenet. So,
it's a CIA network from beginning to end, from the banking side to you know the direct CIA
side. You have Carter Beast, you have "Buzzy" Krongard, Jonathan Bush and Alton Keel and they
were the ones working with Valmet as the Riggs Valmet Bank in Geneva to pull this money out
through shell companies.
And the oligarchs, this is an interesting part of this whole thing that you know right now
Theresa May and the foreign secretary Boris Johnson in the UK are accusing Putin of murdering
almost everybody since the birth of Jesus Christ. And one of them was the person who had been
the trusted bodyguard of one of the oligarchs living in London Boris Berezovsky.
And Berezovsky was one of the dirtiest of these oligarchs. He'd financed the Ukrainian
Colour Revolution back in 2003, 2004 as a revenge against Putin because he at first thought
Putin could be bought like Yeltsin and suddenly he realized that he was up against the faction
of nationalists within of what had been the KGB but wanted to stabilise and preserve Russia as
a functioning nation today. And so Mikhail Khodorkovskyi, Roman Abramovich, who is listed on
the sanctions list yesterday, and Berezovsky were some of the leading oligarchs that were created
by this Bush operation.
LS: And to jumpstart all of this, we have to talk about something that is well, that is
stranger than fiction and that is something called for example "Yamashita's Gold". If our
audience is interested in this, they could for example look for an article written by Chalmers
Johnson, the famous Asian expert, The Looting of Asia, which was published at the London Review
of Books on the 20 th of November of 2003 because then they can find something on
this topic of Yamashita's gold on an instant basis in the internet ( https://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/chalmers-johnson/the-looting-of-asia
). I think this is just fair
FWE: Yeah.
LS: because no one really is aware of this whole story. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The Yamashita Gold story is one of the, as you've said really incredible stories of
post-World War II. During the Second World War, the Japanese Imperial Family looted the gold of
occupied Arch of China, they looted the gold of all the parts of Asia that they had
conquered.
LS: Basically from 1895 to 1945.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And because they had no guarantee that Japan was going to win the war, the
emperor ordered the gold to be hidden away in, mostly in the Philippines as far as we know and
literally untold tons of gold were buried so deep underground in tunnels around the Philippines
and the people who dug the tunnels in many cases were later shot you know so that they couldn't
tell. But Marcos who was a CIA asset initially, the dictator of the Philippines through much of
the '70s and into the '80s, yeah through the '70, Ferdinand Marcos somehow came upon some of
this gold. So, the Japanese looted war body was buried in the early '40s before the end of the
war on orders of Emperor Hirohito should they lose the war.
And at some point in the 1970s, Marcos discovered some of the sites where Hirohito's
soldiers had buried the gold and the gold was stolen from China, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia
and other countries occupied by the Japanese forces. And Marcos, and I think this is the major
reason the CIA dumped him, got a little bit greedy and took that gold and started selling it
under the market through selective secret Swiss banks. But he used the CIA asset, the Saudi
billionaire named Adnan Khashoggi to help them get the gold under the market. And what he
didn't realise was that Khashoggi would double cross him. He got a better deal from Bush Senior
and the old boys.
LS: We have to say Khashoggi is a figure who is involved for example in B.C.C.I. and in
Iran-Contra.
FWE: Back in the '70s he was involved in everything dirty that Bush and the CIA were
involved in. B.C.C.I. Bank, the money laundering bank of the CIA, the arms deals, Khashoggi was
a huge arms dealer during the Iran and Iraq war the CIA was feeding. He was involved in almost
every dirty thing the CIA was doing.
LS: He was aware of this gold.
FWE: Supposedly he was helping Marcos to sell the gold out of the market. So he was not only
aware of it, he was right in the middle of it. But then once Marcos was tackled by the CIA Bush
got rid of Marcos in 1986. Then someone named Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage and Khashoggi
began to work with someone in Canada to create something called – Peter Munk was his
name, a rather dubious businessman there – to found something called Barrick Gold of
Canada and later it went on to become the world's largest gold mining company.
But Barrick Gold, all available evidence is that buried gold was used to melt down the
– I don't want to get too much into the details of this but basically to melt down the
Emperor Hirohito's gold that had been discovered by Marcos in the Philippines, to melt it down
and use that as collateral for derivatives that would be the collateral used to take over the
Russian Federation assets.
LS: The money was basically transformed into bank loans into Russia so that the would-become
oligarch people could buy up those assets
FWE: Yes, exactly. So, Yegor Gaidar, the economic privatisation adviser of Yeltsin and his
sidekick Anatoly Chubais privatisation had kind of guided this whole process together with
Jeffrey Sachs and a group from Harvard University. #00:28:37-8#
LS: Yeah. Let us talk about this. This is known as Harvard Shock Therapy.
FEW: Well, the Jeffrey Sachs Shock Therapy, but the Harvard shock therapy is – well,
what happened, the next phase of this incredible story and it's important to keep all this in
mind, this is one reason that I wrote the book because of what was clear after the CIA coup
d'etat of 2014 in Ukraine and all the sanctions against Putin's Russia and so forth, that if
you don't understand what really happened in the '90s, the deep-seated hatred there is on these
neoconservatives around Washington and their think tanks as well as, the US political
establishment for Putin's Russia and the nationalism behind group Russia. You can't make much
sense out of what's going on today with all these incredible lies and accusations against
Russia for every crime under the book.
So, what happened is the, as I mentioned the IMF, the International Monetary Fund which had
done a beautiful job for Washington in terms of, and George Soros and others in terms of
looting the assets of the dead economies of Latin America, Yugoslavia, Poland and others during
the oil crisis in the 1970s. The IMF was used and a group of economists around Jeffrey Sachs, a
young professor at Harvard University then to impose what Sachs called shock therapy.
And the idea was that Sachs convinced Yeltsin, let prices rise through western market prices
and this will increase the supply of goods, you know the stores had a paucity of goods back in
the Soviet Times and get rid of trade barriers so foreign commodities could flow in to fill the
shelves of Russian stores. The problem was that was a lie. The shops had been full. Okay, you
could say it wasn't Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Fried Perdue Chickens or whatever, but they were
full of Russian food products until November of '91 when Yeltsin announced that the exact date
on December 31 st of 1991, that price controls would be suddenly lifted. So, shop
owners immediately hid their goods and waited for December 31 st . So, suddenly the
shops were empty and rationing was imposed and so forth. It's just unbelievable.
So, into this, this was Jeffrey Sachs on shock therapy and a group of Harvard University
under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International Development, a group of, among
other things later documented CIA agents set up shop in Moscow and worked with Yeltsin's
economic team Gaidar and Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais and themselves got in on the thunder
the Russian East Harvard economist working. Now we have a transition in '93 through the Clinton
Administration and there former Harvard professor and former World Bank Chief Economist
Lawrence Summers became the deputy secretary of treasury responsible for the looting of Russia,
effective and responsible for the gold economic transition in the Russian Federation.
And all of the key actors were named by Summers and they were all involved in the
privatisation of Russia. They were all from this Harvard Mafia. For example of David Lipton, a
former consulting partner of the Jeffrey Sachs, became deputy assistant secretary of treasure
for former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and Sachs himself was named Director of Harvard HIID
that oversaw the looting of Russia through the voucher privatisation and so forth. And they got
grants from the USAID, AID works very closely with the CIA in different parts of the world,
this is documented. And so it was really a tight-knit cabal around Lawrence Summers that
oversaw this complete theft through these pieces of paper called privatisation coupons.
And what you had was the economic situation under Yeltsin had become so severe I mean people
literally they had no jobs because of the freeing up of prices, they could afford to buy little
or nothing. So, most people, millions of Russians sold their privatisation vouchers on the
street corners to the highest bidder. And of course the would-be oligarchs were the ones with
hard currency dollars that they could buy these things up as you pointed out earlier when we
talked about them. So, they had credits from their friends in the West, the Riggs Valmet and so
forth to buy up these vouchers and therefore they were able when the cost came up, were able to
simply steal the property titles, the ownership titles of some of the most valuable investor
assets and mineral assets in the world.
LS: And we can talk about this as a classical case of leveraged buyout – even though
it was a covered leveraged buyout, if it was?
FEW: Well, you could call it a leveraged buyout. I know Anne Williamson has used that term,
the earlier descriptions of it. I think it was simply legalised theft, leveraged buyout gives
it too much dignity. That was a term that was quite popular in the financial world back in the
'80s and the early '90s. But whatever name you want to give it, it was certainly not a
conventional leveraged buyout, it was bizarre in every sense of the word.
LS: An influential figure in this was mentioned by you already, George Soros. And in 1994,
as you point out in your book, he was described with the following words from The Guardian in
London, "Soros extraordinary role not only as the world's most successful investor but now
possibly fantastically as the senior most powerful foreign influence in the whole of the former
Soviet Empire, it tricks more suspicion than curiosity." What was he doing back then in
Russia?
FWE: Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a
shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton.
And in 1993 already the opposition inside what was left of Russia when the old communist party
was in the Duma and so forth and the population generally was such that the opposition
threatened to get out of hand and Yeltsin was forced to agree to hold a national referendum on
the entire privatisation. So, this was in April of '93 and the referendum that was given to the
population had four questions, yes or no. Do you support Yeltsin? Yes or no? Do you support
Yeltsin's economic policy? Yes or no? Do you want early election for president? Yes or no? And
do you want early elections for parliament? Yes or no?
So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy
arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf
of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some
accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. And so the media
campaign and by this time most of the national media had been bought up by the oligarchs around
Yeltsin so they were able to exercise undue influence. So they barely squeak through and got a
yes to the privatisation scheme that Harvard, Jeffrey Sachs and George Soros and others had
going on. And then of course Soros' company himself benefitted enormously from this
privatisation just a little bit later when the auctions took place.
LS: A figure that connects yesterday with today is Vladimir Putin who came to international
attention first in 1998, the same year when the ruble crisis took place.
FWE: This was 1999 and in August '98 you had the collapse of the ruble. This was part of the
Bush "Operation Hammer's" original design. You had a huge scam going on in the GKO Russian Bond
market where the interest rates were just unbelievably high. So, you had all sorts of hot money
coming in, making profits and pulling it up including Soros Fund, quantum fund and so
forth.
And finally, Yeltsin was getting near the end of his ability to hold this thing together. And he appointed in August '99, he
appointed a young former KGB officer who served
during the Cold War in East Germany named Vladimir Putin. And briefly Putin had been a deputy
mayor in St. Petersburg and briefly had been the head of the successor to the KGB called FSB
and the oligarchs around Putin, I've heard various Russian accounts have had this happen but
Berezovsky, Brzezinski and other, the Yeltsin oligarchs thought they could take this young guy
Putin and do business with him and you know that he was young and had no political base.
So, at that point Putin gave the ultimatum to Yeltsin, resign or face serious consequences
and it turned out that Putin which has later been confirmed was the spokesperson for a
nationalist faction within the intelligence community, a patriotic faction, call it what you
want but Russian nationalist. And so Yeltsin was told, "If you resign and just get out of
politics, we'll leave you alone." So he took the offer and ran. And before he did that he named
Vladimir Putin as acting president until elections in March the following year.
So, Putin then came into power and called a meeting as it were of the most powerful
oligarchs who had made staggering fortunes at the expense of Russia and he called them creators
of a corrupt state through insider dealings and began criminal prosecution against oligarchs
like Vladimir Gusinsky and Media-Most, a financial group led by Vladimir Potanin who is in the
newspaper today and soon left an oil company controlled by a Roman Abramovich and Boris
Berezovsky. So, at that point Putin began the uphill battle of trying to stabilise Russia as a
functioning economy. And the recent re-election of Putin indicates that the Russian people by
and large support that effort of Putin's.
LS: Meanwhile he also had to react to something new that was taking place then and that was
NATO was marching east.
FWE: The negotiations and this is, has been confirmed by former US Ambassador to Russia Jack
Matlock and that was the negotiations between the Bush administration in 1991 Germany and
Gorbachev included a solemn guarantee as Jack Matlock, Ambassador Matlock who was in Moscow in
'87 until '91 in this period. He said that we gave a categorical assurance to Gorbachev when
the Soviet Union still existed that if United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not
move eastward. So, of course that pledge like so many pledges of Washington under Bush
successor governance was honoured in the breach and the newly created National Endowment for
Democracy that I write about quite a bit in the Manifest Destiny.
You had, Vin Weber was the chairman of the NED at that time and he took US taxpayer money
through the NED to supposedly bring democracy into former communist states. Then Weber was also
a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocon think tank which really
shaped the personnel of George W. Bush in the year 2000 and 2001. And Vin Weber was also a
lobbyist for the largest military industrial conglomerate of the US Lockheed Martin.
So, he was instrumental together with another military industrial Lockheed Martin, former
Vice President for Strategy named Bruce Jackson, Bruce P. Jackson to promote back democracy in
former communist countries including Russia. And they started the process of expanding NATO to
the east in strict violation of the pledges that had been given back in the early '90s. So, by
2003, they had begun this whole expansion of NATO into Poland, into Hungary, all the former
communist countries.
LS: And the countries at the Baltic Sea.
FWE: So, at the Baltic Sea right on the doorstep of the Russian Federation, and Poland,
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and so forth. And you began to see a very
definite NATO encirclement of Russia. And then in 2003-2004, the National Endowment for
Democracy, George Soros' Foundation, the whole arm of the fake democracy NGOs of Washington,
began to create the so called Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and also the Rose Revolution in
Georgia next door. And if you look at a map, if you bring a pro NATO government into power in
Ukraine, this they did under Viktor Gerashchenko in 2004, then you're presenting a pretty
formidable military threat to the national security of Russia.
Now, at that time 2003, Russia was in no shape to do much more than feebly protest as loud
as they could but of course they were ignored. Then you had something quite dramatic in 2006,
the end of 2006. The George W. Bush administration Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence
back then announced that they were installing ballistic missile defence now I'll get to that in
a minute but it's anything but defensive. In Poland, in the Czech Republic and that those
anti-missile defence installations which included missiles would be aimed at a rogue nuclear
attack from Iran.
In early 2007, Vladimir Putin personally came as president of Russia Federation to the
Munich Security Conference, the International Security Conference held here in Munich Germany
and gave a speech which really defines the security position of Russia right up to the present
date. He said of course this is not aimed at Iran or North Korea as Washington says. That's a
lie. It's like taking your right arm to scratch your left ear we say in Russian. It's aimed at
Russia. And we consider this intolerable as a threat to our national security and we will be
forced to respond.
LS: And it is aimed at Russia as a first strike possibility.
FWE: Yeah. Well, the point about the missile defence is I – in connection with the
book, I interviewed, in an earlier book I wrote, I interviewed Colonel Robert Bowman who had
been briefly the head of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars or missile defence programme. And became a
very, very severe critic of the Bush administration's reckless policies withdrawing from the
antiballistic missile ABM Treaty and so forth, said that missile defence is the missing link to
Nuclear Primacy. First strike capability.
And that's something that Pentagon planners had been opting for since the 1950s. And he
said, "If you can block the counterattack from your opponent and you then have this possibility
to make a first strike and wipe them out because they can't simultaneously fire an effective
counterstrike." So, that in a nutshell destroys the whole cold war doctrine of mutual and sure
destruction that kept nuclear options off the table up until that time. And the Russians
understand military strategy rather well I would say. And said, "This is simply intolerable. We
have to respond and we will respond but in our own way and you will see."
LS: And the Russians have reacted.
B: The Russians have reacted, and if we can go for a minute up until the present
LS: Please
FEW: On March 1st Putin gave an address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow televised to the
nation. The beginning part of the speech, his annual speech there, was about the Russian
economy and plans for the future. This was shortly before the Russian elections that
overwhelmingly gave him a new term. But the crucial part of that speech to the Federal Assembly
was Russia's military technologies and this is as he put it. He referred to that 2007 speech in
Munich and he said, "We said at that time that Russia would have to reply and since the
expansion of NATO to the east which really to be honest that's – see there is no reason
after 1991 or certainly after 2000 for the existence of NATO other than the reason given when
NATO was created by the first secretary general of NATO to keep the Russians out the Germans
down and the Americans in."
But Putin's speech talked about nuclear primacy and the Russian response and he outlined the
military are the developments that they had quietly brought online since Washington tore up,
unilaterally tore up the ABM Treaty in 2002/2003. So he outlined an awesome array of missiles,
hypersonic low flying stealth missiles carrying nuclear warheads, unpredictable trajectories,
invisible against perspective missile defence and air defence systems, unmanned submersible
vehicles to great depth that could go many times higher than the speed of submarines cutting
edge torpedoes just and commentators in the West like CNN. They said, "Oh, this is just bluff
and so forth."
People who know Russian military technology and the intensity of the kind of research and
development that's focused on defending the nation confirm that this is no joke. Hypersonic
aircraft five times the speed of sound, that's hypersonic and they have something called the
[unclear] which goes 10 times mark 10 and as Putin described it, "This missile flying 10 times
faster than sound can manoeuvre in all phases of the flight trajectory, overcome all
prospective and aircraft county missile defences in a range of 2000 kilometres."
He outlined about six or seven of these I would call them not even cutting edge, bleeding
edge military technology and as The Saker commented in his blogpost after the speech, it's
indeed set marching game over for the empire. There's no more military option against
Russia.
This all is to make a point that the entire history up until now, these fake accusations of
Putin would have an interest or Russia would have an interest to meddle with the US elections
when you have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to accuse Putin and Russia of
international violations of law by allowing a referendum to take place in Crimea after the CIA
coup d'etat in Kiev and now it's come out from actual mercenary snipers that were brought in
from Georgia under [#inaudible 00:55:08-0#] umbrella that they were paid by the CIA or promised
to be paid by cut outs to the CIA to create the Maidan Square February 2014 chaos that led to
the collapse of the government and the coup d'etat.
So, you know, this is not Russia is the arch Evel Knievel looking for a fight every corner
of the world. It's not Russia doing bad things in Syria. It's Russia trying to stop a NATO and
Saudi and other embedded destruction of the Middle East and create some kind of peace and
stability. And anyone modest to take the slightest bit of care and follow this, they can read a
running commentary on my website williamengdahl.com but not only there, it's all over the
place. You realise that the fake media is the media that dominates and is guided by NATO public
relations strategy in the West and it's not the so called critical media that's being
sanctioned and censored right now.
LS: Let's talk further about the present, William, by closing one circle of our interview.
As we've discussed the Russian gold vaults were empty since the early 1990s. This has changed
since basically the financial crisis broke out in 2007, 2008, 2009. Since then the Russian
Central Bank is buying gold like basically no other nation in a very rapid tempo.
FWE: Since the financial crisis and especially since the opposition of sanctions after the
annexation of Crimea in 2014, it's been the policy of the Russian Central Bank and the Russian
Federation to buy as much gold for reserves of the ruble as they can get their hands on. And
they are now I think number five or number six in the world in terms of gold reserves and
correct me if I'm wrong but just slightly behind the people's republic of China which has also
been vigorously adding gold towards Central Bank reserves for the yuan.
So, what Russia is doing is creating a buffer gold, by the way in my view has never ceased
being an object of value to stand behind currencies. If you have currencies like the dollar
after all this 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off the bread and wood, gold exchange [unclear],
then if you have a military you might or manipulate the oil price petrodollar and so forth, you
can create money if you have the reserve currency you can create money without them. So what
the Russia is doing is creating a security in terms of its currency and now that security is
probably going to be tested by the economic warfare division of the US Treasury in these new
sanctions.
But Russia is merging together with China. Interestingly enough after 2014 when the CIA coup
d'etat Ukraine took place, Putin responded not by getting bogged down in the destructive war
inside the Eastern Ukraine but he responded by turning east, strengthening his relationships
with China, with the new president of China then Xi Jinping bringing the Asian economic Union
which Russia is the leading economy in, together with Belarus and Kazakhstan, Armenia and
others, bringing that in a coherence with Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative One Belt, One
Road to link the infrastructure, the energy pipelines, the high-speed rail networks, the deep
water ports and so forth to create a Eurasian, some people call it the land bridge but it's an
economic space in Eurasia that would have the majority of the world's population, would have
every raw material resource that the world needs including rare earth metals that China is
world's leading supplier of at the moment.
And Russia has vast oil and gas reserves and military technology, civilian technology, an
educated labour force that is probably one of the finest in the world and scientific country
and so forth. And independent of the bankrupt economies of Britain and the United States and
very rapidly of the European Union where this banking crisis has, since the crisis of 2008 has
just been swept under the rug but it's ready to explode on a moment's notice. So, you have a
depth loaded western NATO world. Let's call it a NATO world, a world of the NATO member
countries and you have Russia together, which by the way, Russia has unbelievably small
LS: Debt.
FWE: National debt.
LS: Yes.
FWE: Something like 13 to 17% of the gross domestic product.
LS: And now they have this huge stock of gold relative to very little sovereign debt. It's
almost ideal.
FWE: Yes, and that's by design. That is by Putin's intention to create this independence.
And one thing, I am very often in Russia, have a very, very dear special friends in Russia over
the years, the first time I was there was 1994. That was a vastly different, that was in the
middle of the Yeltsin and the insanity. The Russians are very not only proud people but they
are very determined and they protect their existence and have done that I would say for well
over 1000 years going back to the great schism between the Western church in Rome and the
Eastern Church in 1054. I think that was a pivotal date in modern history, the division
there.
But certainly the Russians have gone through two World Wars and the rape of Russia under
Yeltsin, unbelievable trials and tribulations and they are not shying away from defending their
existence. That's something I think the west or certainly Washington with these neocons really
doesn't have a sense of.
LS: One thing that I would like to ask you about as my final question is the following. You
are a renowned expert for the geopolitics and the history of oil. And since this month we have
a future's contract in Shanghai, denominated in yuan for oil and we also hear that the Chinese
are planning to price oil that they import in yuan which is safe for this buying of oil
internationally via yuan, Russia would be the candidate number one as the exporter?
FWE: Definitely. Most definitely and Russia and China are connecting their financial markets
ever closer. The Russian government is the in the process sometime this year of issuing Russian
bonds denominated new Chinese yuan. The announcing of the petrol yuan, the oil futures
contracts being sold in Shanghai, ultimately it won't happen overnight but it's certainly off
to a positive start in the marketing acceptance. That has the basis for taking oil sales.
Let's step back a moment to the 1970s and I document this at length in two of my books,
Myths, Lies and Oil Wars and A Century of War. In the early 1970s when Nixon took the dollar
off of gold, the dollar relative to the German mark and the Japanese yen dropped like a stone,
something like 40% over a period of five or six months. And in order to stop that because the
New York Banks were hurting quite a bit from that, there was a oil price shock that was
orchestrated. I won't go into the details it's documented quite extensively in those two books
of mine.
LS: And Sheikh Yamani had said something about this, too.
FWE: Yes. He invited me after reading my book to his annual energy retreat in London in
2000, September 2000. And then called me to a private dinner discussion at his home outside of
London to talk about what I wrote about in the book. And he later went on CNN on an interview
and mentioned my book by name. In the written transcript it's in there and in the television
version they spliced it out so that you couldn't realise that it'd been in there. But Sheikh
Yamani told me you are the first journalist or the first person outside of myself that writes
correctly what happened with that oil shock. And that was manipulated by among others Henry
Kissinger, the Secretary of State and by a group in the Atlantic establishment called the
Bilderberg meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden back in May of that period before the Yom
Kippur War.
In any case, the US circles around Rockefeller, who at that point was the chairman of the
board of USA Incorporated, I would say. They had engineered a 400% price rise in oil and to
make sure that Germany and Japan and other countries wouldn't make deals to buy oil in German
mark but keep the dollar demand high and the dollar value high. They send a delegation from the
US Treasury to sign an agreement with the Saudi Arabian monetary agency for a new relationship
taking surplus Saudi petrodollars or OPEC petrodollars and buying US government debt.
LS: Yeah, and outside of the normal auction to privileged conditions.
FWE: Yes. In return, Washington agreed to give the Saudis tens and billions of dollars of
defence equipment.
LS: Yeah, and Saudi Arabia would use its status as a swing producer in OPEC that it would
only accept dollars as a pricing for oil.
FEW: And the quid pro quo was after 1975, this was formalised that Saudis would as swing
producer in OPEC guarantee that OPEC sold its oil only in dollars and that held up until the
time of Saddam Hussein during the sanctions shortly before the US invasion and Saddam Hussein
began buying oil through a French bank denominated in Euros and not in dollars.
LS: And he made a plus, he made a net plus because he did sell his oil in Euro.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And so this, what that has done up until the present is prop up the US
dollars despite the fact that the internal industrial economy import activity of the United
States went down the tubes over the past 40 years since the taking the dollar off of gold and
the, putting of English dollars for the world economy. So, the idea than China and Russia would
trade in energy and that other economies would begin to sell oil to China, Iran for example is
a prime candidate in the petro yuan not in petrodollars, this began slowly like acid drops
begins to erode the reserve currency status of the US dollar. And if that goes, it's end game
for the US as a financial global power.
LS: We have to make clear to our audience. The fact that you have to buy oil in dollar makes
sure that you need dollar, that you acquire dollar in order to buy oil.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And so if this mechanism goes, well then the US has a problem because the dollars that
are floating around internationally would find their way back into the homeland of the US.
FWE: Well, the other thing is that in order to sell now you have under this wonderful
Trumponomics as I call it, you have projections that the US annual government deficit, shortage
of tax income from tax outgo, spending outgo will by 2020 exceed one trillion dollars a year
for every year as far as the eye can see. And by end of 2020, 2028 I think was figured by the
congressional budget office, the US public debt is estimated to be well over $33 trillion, it's
20 now, 38 maybe, it's just out of control. So, if the ability of the US dollar to command use
in the world economy is severely undermined, you're going to have to raise interest rates so
high to sell this debt and it just becomes dysfunctional.
LS: Yes, but you have already in the last few years interest rates payments on this already
existing that of per annum $400 billion.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And if interest rates go up
FWE: Yeah and that was under zero interest rates, but now, you know, if they have to put up
interest rates to five, six, seven, 8% like it was in the 1980s. the whole thing just blows up
sky high.
LS: And so coming back to gold, gold has the advantage relative to bonds or shares or the US
dollar or other Fiat currencies that there is no counterparty risk. If you have the gold in
physical form, there is no counterparty risk.
FWE: Right.
LS: So would you say that gold will be one of the ultimate winners of the ongoing financial
crisis when it goes into full gear?
FWE: Well, it's documented that J. P. Morgan, Chase and other select banks with this
collusion of the Federal Reserve have been artificially depressing the price of gold for years.
Every time there's a new financial crisis, they intervene and keep gold within a very tight
range. At a certain point that's not going to work anymore and then some people estimate to
follow the gold markets much more than I do but it could quickly go up to $10,000 an ounce or
even beyond that.
Be that as it may, gold as you point out has no counterparty risk and it's a historic store
of value. It's one of the beautiful commodities out there and it has a special – the
other just being special significance economically and historically, the other thing is that
China is the number one mining producer of gold in the world today, not South Africa. South
Africa has fallen far behind
LS: Yeah, and Russia is number three.
FWE: Russia is number three.
LS: And a lot of member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are producers or are
buying gold.
FWE: At the rail connections of the circle of the China Belt Road Initiative in part are
aiming to go in the areas where there are known gold reserves but no infrastructure during the
Soviet era to bring that gold down to market. So, we have an extremely fascinating prospect,
not just for China and Russia, for the world really to build up instead of tear down, destroy
and burn and bankrupt which is the only policy that Washington seems able to follow these
days.
LS: Yeah. To sum it up with a famous Chinese proverb. "May you live in interesting times"
– you and all the others.
FWE: We certainly do.
LS: Okay. great. Thank you very much, William, for this interview.
In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer
program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the
Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the
ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major
energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union.
Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and
corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative in the Bush regime, President
George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of "national security" and
concealed the records of past presidents, especially his father's spurious activities
during 1990 and 1991.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses
immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a
Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution
centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal.
The rise has been astounding and all because they have a leader that can't be bought ,
not corrupt and loves his country. That is why he literally was swept in in the last
election. The Western leaders will not admit it but I am sure they are terribly envious
.
It open eyes on how the West political elite are a criminal rotten cancer syndicate
and Georg Bush Sr. shows up to be even worse than the disgusting profile he already has
in media and Georg Soros bad reputation gets confirmed.
No police or court are available to take this out. We only have John Connor or The One
to count on.
Choice is the problem now. We will have to make a choice.
The Colonial ratfuckers recent unprovoked, lie-based attack on Syria got me wondering
about Russia's apparent impotence. I'm quite uncomfortable with that notion but can't dismiss
it completely because I can't get a 'handle' on what Russia's strategy is.
Steve Gowans' latest commentary on Syria sets out his summary of US/NATO's Permanent War
agenda in Syria.
Despite its pessimism (if one takes it as a 'realistic' assessment), it goes a long way
toward explaining the magnitude and complexity of the task Russia took on when it agreed to
intervene in Syria.
Being pessimistic, it doesn't broach the subject of potential Bright Sides to the
conflict, or the flaws in the US/NATO Strategy.
One rather obvious flaw which came to mind is the fact that Neoliberal Colonialism has
inflicted pain on almost every country on the planet and have recently underlined their
God-given right to continue doing so ad nauseum - without opposition or consequences.
While this isn't a great analogy consider the USA as a huge, immensely strong, obnoxious drunk
that is being belligerent and needs to be arrested. The police show up, a bunch of them, and
now need to corral the drunk. The drunk is so insensate that it can't feel any damage and the
police need to be careful of how they use force. Generally the best outcome for the cops is the
drunk trips and collapses whereby the police restrain him and hope he doesn't choke to death on
his own vomit.
The USA is a zombie(drunk) country; dead but doesn't know it yet. Yet it is enormously
significant in the world. If it suddenly collapses the rest of the world is going to be hugely
impacted. While it has an enormous military it is extremely brittle and has virtually no depth;
it can't sustain any meaningful military engagement for more than a couple of months.
Israel has created a really stupid situation for itself. It's dug this very small pit and
stuffed it full of Jewish folk. A single nuke dropped on it would end the question of Israel.
Yet the strut and bully like they are bullet proof.
In each case be too aggressive with them and they will panic. Conversely, and frustrating as
hell, both the US and Israel have lots of leeway to cause mischief.
Russia and China are doing their best to patiently sheppard the USA along the path of its
decline. They will grit their teeth and suffer humiliation but the alternative is a global
economic collapse and many millions dying.
France used to produce some pretty fine leaders, but lately, it's like a different place.
Hollande was the most ridiculous, gutless thing we ever saw. He was laughably pompous and ineffective and dishonest and even
cowardly, vis a vis the US.
Macron probably ranks second worst. He's making a mess of France, he's blubbering all kinds of nonsense about the EU, he's
busy putting troops in Syria against all international law, he is not liked by the people, and he is virtually a French doormat
for America.
Sarkozy showed the odd bit of promise, but he was largely talk with no worthy efforts. And he was immensely corrupt. Imagine
taking 20 million euros from Qaddafi and then participating in the scheme to kill him? Or the case of the senile woman who was
France's wealthiest woman, from whom he took many millions for his campaigns, doing so in private without other members of the
family or strict legal supervision.
Hard to see the same country we saw in de Gaulle's time and that of his immediate successors.
'I am an equal of Putin' - well, he's right in a way - they're both leaders of a country. Beyond that, there is NO comparison.
Maybe he admires Putin - which is good, if he tries to emulate him, even better because Putin, after all, is one of the few great
current leaders of the world. Macron has a very long way to go, but with many years experience, if he gets the chance, MAY become
a better leader than some, but never will be the match of Putin.
"... The topic of China is delicate here in Russia. If one considers the total and basically psychotic enmity from the West, offer of friendship from China is a godsend. ..."
"... If you read very carefully the articles written by high level advisors of Putin, you would see that they harbor no illusions. Russia itself contains a significant number of former apparatchiks whose "Russian soul" evolved through the 1990s to a point exactly resembling what you described about the Chinese. I am convinced that president Putin is a patriot, and when he meets this type of people, he recognized right away what they were, whether they were Russian or Chinese. ..."
Shame on Arabs and China! My personal experience with Chinese convinced me that the real God
for them is money. Beside collecting money by any means possible, these people have no other
issue to talk or discuss. They had shown zero interest in the geopolitics or the dire situation
of the planet, or suffering of humanity. They did not show any emotional or sentiment towards
what is happening in the World.
Majority of them express some kind of inferiority complex towards West. China Will soon or
later betray Russia, They do not think about any higher moral or human value, heroism,
solidarity, except for collecting money.
But the Number one betrayal came from Arabs, 22 Arab countries, and some 90% of them are
happy in their slave minded status. They are the biggest disgrace for humanity and Muslims.
Some of them are more aggressive then their masters in the West.
If not for the virus of Wahabism which infected the body of many Muslims, there could
emerge a true alliance of Orthodox Christians and True Muslims. Such an alliance would be
undefeatable, even without money worshiping China.
Antoni, you know obviously what you are talking about. Especially since I myself am Chinese,
and spent almost two decades coordinating the visit of Chinese officials and business folks
to US, on behalf of the US government. This was my previous career, before I abandoned it and
moved to Russia.
The topic of China is delicate here in Russia. If one considers the total and basically
psychotic enmity from the West, offer of friendship from China is a godsend. One would not
want to speak too undiplomatically about the Chinese mentality, and the current state of
Chinese National psyche.
If you read very carefully the articles written by high level
advisors of Putin, you would see that they harbor no illusions. Russia itself contains a
significant number of former apparatchiks whose "Russian soul" evolved through the 1990s to a
point exactly resembling what you described about the Chinese. I am convinced that president
Putin is a patriot, and when he meets this type of people, he recognized right away what they
were, whether they were Russian or Chinese.
The overseas Russian get very emotional at such trying times for their motherland. I more
than relate to that. But they show a natural tendency to idealize everything about Russia,
and gets instantly suspicious on hearing a different opinion. The same eagerness to believe
is now extended to the new great Asian ally of Russia. I wrote something a couple of days ago
to the same effect. The moderator even did not allow me to post. I hope now that this war
charade has temporarily abated, the moderator would regain a minimal level of calmness and
openness for dialogue.
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." – Mahatma Gandhi
Hizbullah, Persia, Russia vs China
The real power and fearlessness is not about numbers. It is about soul and its vibrant
energetic radiation.
How can a small movement of people like Hizbullah be more vibrant and fearless and outspoken
against oppression and international criminals then the so called giant nation of China?
How could Bolivia a small nation can be so to the point then China?
How can Iran (Persia) with its 70 millions people and totally surrounded by Kosher Nostra
mafia can be so brave and standing tall against the international oppressors of humanity in
compare to China, which doing practically nothing?
It is not about numbers, it is about power of soul, about life philosophy, about way of life,
about believe in true and one God. So that is way Persians historically influenced humanity
more then anything China can dream of.
There is reason why King Cyrus, is mentioned several times in Bible. There is a reason why
Saadi poetry about humanity is written in the entrance of UN:
Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you've no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain!
"Saadi Persian poet"
But perhaps, the most significant solid power and force which has not only the soul of
justice, solidarity and humanity, but even instrument of physical power and ability to fight
back a total war is Mother Russia. Despite its shortcomings, Russia is a gift from God,
Russia is the historic Rom of our time, mentioned in Sura 30 of Quran (30:1-5 "To Whom Power
Belongs" Declares the truth of the universe).
Russia may be is the second period of Zul-Qarnain mentioned in the Sura 18 of Quran.
Russia is an exceptional Caucasian (White race, i personally do not believe in race ) people,
(if we exclude Persians as Caucasians) which does not participate in the oppression of
non-Europeans and blocking the total subjugation of planet by Western and its minions.
When you talk with Russians and Westerners, you will immediately recognize the difference.
Russians are not arrogant and it is exactly what Quran describing a kind of Christians, who
are not arrogant, but a people with love and affection. I have no illusions, but i talking in
general terms, i talking about sum of all vectors and direction of this common vector.
Numbers are not important, historically majority always were wrong. Truth is still truth even
you are a minority.
So, the conclusion is that, if I am right and if Russia is righteous and just and hold on
rope of God, no force of this plant can defeat Russia. Russia does not need China, China is
not a nation of ideology, faith or religion, they only believe in money, which is also the
god of Western world and its minions. China is not a natural ally of Mother Russia, natural
ally of Russia is nations with believe in God, justice, solidarity, soul and judgment
day.
My personal encounter with Chinese convinced me that they have a completely different mindset
and I was completely disappointed.
With love and respect to Russia and its heroic people
Yow Darius my man, you speak the truth. It is fire and light in one's soul, and nothing else.
And if one might add, a preparedness to die, a simplicity and gentleness of character. Labels
mean nothing.
Degeneration afflicted many nations, comes in many forms, it can be a well-mannered and
finely dressed German so proud of himself, it can be an oily and greedy petty Chinese
businessman, it can be a Mercedes driving Arab in front of some big hotel in Dubai.
Globalism is a satanic cult of our times. They are huge in numbers, but their souls are
small, enslaved, and twisted. We have no fear of them. Keep well brother.
I agree with everything you said. I will take a more wait and see approach with China. I
hope for the sake of the world they jump onboard. Ultimately the issue is materialism. The
Anglo zios want to deal with a world in which everyone has a price on their head, so they can
be easy to buyout and compromised. Since the Zionists are the one with the most capital,
anyone who wants a piece of the world, will have to go through them. So that materialistic
outlook the Chinese have, can be a huge opening for the zios to exploit.
The state of the Arab leaders are even more pitiful. A bunch of animals who are enslaved
to their lusts, and desires. I would tell them to enjoy it, because their end will not be
good. Most of them have sold out to the highest bidder(Zionists) a ling time ago.
Now the Wahhabi movement, what's left to say about this devious, malicious cult. If you're
interested check this article out. It talks about the founder of the Wahhabi movement,
Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, and how he was in cahoots with British spy's who were looking for
a way to bring down the ottoman empire. I have to do more research on this article, however
as someone who has studied wahhabisim, I'm fairly certain it was a movement that had
malicious intent from the beginning, regardless of the article I linked below. It's just
somewhat hard to explain to non Muslim's because some of it deals with matters of theology.
Anyways I enjoyed reading you're post. Peace my friend.
Saker says "But what could the Russians have done?" is the right question.
Ans: Provide advanced defensive weapons well-ahead of time so that the Syrians themselves can
impose a cost.
In addition what the Russians have already done, why is Russia not selling advanced
anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons to countries in the cross-hairs of the West? Often, they
talk about selling S-300 to Syria. Now imagine, Syria has Bastion, anti-sub weapons, and
S-300. There will be costs to the West in this case. I think, this possibility is something
Russia can do. Why wait, as it is obvious that promises by the West are basically lies.
(Despite, dismantling the CW, the same argument is used to justify the attack. The Skripal
case uses this method against Russia itself.)
What has the Russians got by withholding the sale of such weapons? What is the Russian
calculus?
The attack was pretty clearly highly coreographed and followed strict rules that were not
violated. The US provided a turkey shoot for the Syrian AD restricting the missile flight
path to lanes with no typical deviations to confuse the AD. I'm sure this is what the
Russians required in order to guarantee no response from them.
So there are a number of important questions here.
There was insistence that an attack must occur, despite Russian objections. The US and
Russian militaries worked out a way for this to occur as safely as possible. Good that they
pulled it off safely as it implies a high level of competence and discipline on both
sides.
It seems likely from public behavior that the Pentagon thought this a bad idea and was
fully aware of the dangers.
Where is Trump on this and was he forced to acquiesce?
It also seems clear that the pressure on Russia has not diminished and that the 'allies'
intend to try and force an agreement on Syria through Geneva process that partitions the
country and likely deposes Assad.
The Russian side said that the president of Russia had been insulted/disrespected and that
there would be consequences for this action.
There has not been much effective push back in Europe to this policy of direct
confrontation.
China is wearing a mask in public but is not pleased and has offered some diplomatic
support in public.
I rate the situation as highly dangerous, unpredictable, with a great deal going on behind
the scenes.
As an addendum b over at moa has pointed out in his summary that while the US Defense Dept is
claiming only 3 targets Russian and Syrian sources claim many more, specifically airports. I
also read that B1s, I believe, used laser guided bombs in the attack and I have no idea what
the targets were as all discussion has focused only on the cruise missiles. Perhaps more
sites were targeted than was agreed upon.
Also, regarding the Skripal poisoning, Russia has obtained the evidence of BZ use from the
Swiss OPCW lab, perhaps through back channels. I see this as hopeful – Russia does have
friends in Europe, although the remain afraid or without the power to assist openly.
Postings in various places suggest that the US deviated from the agreed on plan and that the
Russian jets that scrambled near the end of the attack put a stop to further deviations.
Perhaps a broken promise like this led to the specific assertions of disrespect.
Thanks to the Saker especially and all the commenters for this forum and the robust
discussion.
However, I think Russian behaviour is consistent with the long game strategy. Syria lost
three buildings and its citizens were celebrating in the streets. The US had the bulk of its
missiles shot down. This is quite simply posturing by the Empire. I don't think the last 48
hours add to the perception the US can whatever it wants whenever it wants. If anything its
the opposite.
I think the US will try again. Its attempt will be no more powerful or successful than
what just occurred. They will continue to do so for many years yet. They will continue the
delusional narrative delivered ad nauseam to its own people for another decade at least.
My point is that as each month goes by, it matters less.
The American hrandstanding is becoming white noise.
I am encouraged by the last 48 hours. I admire Russian restraint. I have for years now and
I expect to continue to do so for some time yet.
As former analyses of you spoke of, the russians Lack the number of planes etc the
Wallstreet-fascists have. This time they will use to speed up the stuff they need. The stuff
Putin spoke off in his march speech. The provocation as much to to with it I guess.
And time Saker is not at the Side of the US, as the petro dollar Will be replaced and
their debts Will reach astronimical figures. Remember China is a creditor of this fascist
regime. Simply stop funding this moron shit. Why did China buy worthless state-papers from
the US??
The americans didnt dare to kill Any russian a hoge difference to the event Pompeo was
bluffing about. So ..?
China bought the worthless state-papers from the US because it give it's leader's the good
life and the illusion of great wealth. If they sell off the Treasuries than that illusion
with evaporate in hyperinflation. The Russians are only waist deep into the Global Economy,
they probably can crawl out with some effort -- the Chinese are up to their eyeballs in it,
they cannot.
China was being pragmatic and keeping its major market afloat. Little point in being the
factory of the world if the world stops buying what you produce through lack of
liquidity.
I have faith in the Chinese leadership–they are ordinary people like everyone else but
their culture and mindset gives them a clever edge that the west has lost, long ago.
It is indeed not over, because in history there is seldom a clear beginning and an end.
However, the Saker is being too pessimistic. The FUKUS coalition avoided the Russian
positions (ie showed a wariness and respect), and Syria did stand tall in defending
herself.
For Russia to have taken the bait and reacted reflexively would have been
counterproductive. As things stand, no escalation occurred, and Russia comes out looking
cool-headed and mature. In effect the good guys.
The US is in sharp decline. It's current behaviour demonstrates that it is in the final
stages of Empire. Time is on Russia and China's side. To engage the US unless absolutely
necessary would work to favour the US and against the rising powers of China and Russia.
Kevin Barrett re-posted a Gordon Duff censored article re the SAA capturing a Takfiri
chemical weapons facility in East Ghouta with western weapon components and reporting the
capture of AZ personnel:
Some excerpts:
"The Syrian Arab Army and with the help of Russian captured a shipment of chemical weapons
destined for the Eastern Ghouta. These were British weapons produced at Porton Down in
Salisbury.
"American, British and Israeli military personnel captured in Syria have confirmed they were
ordered to stage chemical attacks in East Ghouta by their governments.
"The Americans are still being held along with Israeli's while British prisoners are being
negotiated for. Sources in Damascus told us that representatives of Oman in Damascus
approached the Russian Office of Reconciliation on behalf of Britain for the return of
British chemical warfare personnel.
"The shells are identified as VX gas from British stockpiles.
"Russian officials in Syria informed Britain through Oman that they would have to directly
deal with Syria for the return of their personnel. We have received no further information
since, Damascus has remained silent on how or if negotiations were proceeding.
"Last week, VT Damascus received evidence that Americans, US Army Special Forces along with
Israeli chemical weapons officers had been captured in East Ghouta. We were told that not
only was a command facility captured with modern weapons but a stockpile of British made 81mm
poison gas mortar shells, numbering in the hundreds, was seized as well.
"Videos were viewed by former MOD weapons specialists who identified the green stripe on the
shells seized in East Ghouta as VX gas from British stockpiles."
Just pencil in that article.
My comment:
Regarding Russian response, my feeling is Russia recived plenty of assurance the US was
unwilling to hit Russian facilities, and got special corridors for attacks. The Russians
could sit this out and watch and the US failed in a major way again militarily against only
Syrian defenses. I think it is a wise principle for Russia to avoid the temptation to reveal
the real power of its weapons prematurely until there is a real need for them at which time
they may be a rather significant surprise.
-Martin
I view Russia's position as unassailable. After the bombing of Friday night is it even
conceivable that the US could ever gain air superiority over the Russian homeland? Yes the
attack was made with second-tier missiles at third-rate targets without the element of
surprise and poorly coordinated, but it was still easily repelled by a combination of
Soviet-era junk and modern EW equipment and radars. Even those in the West who are apathetic,
if they are listening at all before they change the channel, must at some unconscious level
realize that the US could not have a "perfect" air strike with over a hundred missiles and
destroy only three unoccupied buildings.
A conventional WWIII of any length of time will destroy the Global Economy. The Russians
will win easily simply because they are tougher and more prepared. They may not desire that
outcome, but of all people they probably have the best chance to survive. Except if the nukes
end up being released by accident or through escalation. So the Russians, being just about
the only moral actors around, have a moral responsibility not to fight back until there is no
other choice.
NOTE: Not that all western nations or the people within them are immoral actors, the
greater population and smaller countries are just bystanders.
I am not convinced the US used second-tier missiles. These were launched from active duty
warships and I can only assume it is the standard cruise missile weapon employed. There is
way too much not yet known about the details of this operation.
If, and it is a big "if", the missiles moved along agreed corridors, it is not surprising so
many were shot down.
As I say, so much is not yet known.
I always figure that the best stuff is under wraps, although available in no great quantity.
BTW, I think a technology that isn't discussed much is passive detection systems, which
may have taken the element of surprise away from standoff weapons.
Here comes this important question of purely tactical nature which many flag-waving
uber-patriots miss completely, while, I am sure, Pentagon and not only, is puzzled with what
went wrong. The question is not about excellent performance of Syrian AD–what and how
about this performance are being unveiled with each passing hour. Russian EW? Absolutely, no
doubt it. Massive shooting down of Tomahawks and Scalpel TLAMs? Absolutely. But, but what
about JASSMs. It is conceivable that these were they Trump was bragging about in his idiotic
twits when spoke about those "Smart" missiles that "are coming". There are still no firm
numbers about the number of intercepted JASSMs, what is clear, however, is the fact that many
of them were intercepted. If JASSM passes today for "Smart", it kind of puts good ol'
Tomahawks, logically, into the category of "Dumb". Obviously, as latest Syria's experience
shows, Tomahawks are not an overwhelming threat, as they were positioned as for decades, for
truly (not in Saddam Hussein's, or, rather US media, way) highly integrated and EW capable
air-defense system.
But JASSMs, "stealthy" and supposedly "Smart", even by preliminary data pouring in didn't
fare much better than Tomahawks and this was against Syrian AD assets which are pretty damn
old. So, what about "stealth"? Ah, but in the modern signal processing, including well
developed now sensor-fusion (or data-fusion) techniques it really doesn't matter for advanced
adversary. But that is purely technological aspect, however influential for operational and
strategic levels. Truly global, geopolitical issue is this, as Apps concludes:
Therein lies one of the greatest challenges of this situation. In 1990, after Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the George H. W. Bush administration was
relieved to find that Russia – then still in the hands of Mikhail Gorbachev – was
inclined to avoid turning the conflict into a Cold War-style standoff. In the years that
followed, successive U.S. presidents became used to acting without such worries. Putin has
now successfully signaled that those days are entirely over.
No it ain't over. It has just begun. Call it the great tribulation or Jacob's troubles or
whatever you like but understand we have another half dozen years to go. In any event Daniel
says Damascus will have terror fall upon it at night and become a smoking ruin byvmorning. So
Damascus will fall to align reality with prophecy. The ultimate vanity.
The recent events are complete theatre but the first act is about setting up the second
act.
In the second act, America's tough actions force Iran Russia and Syria to the negotiating
table where a grand accord is hammered out.
In the third act, the Empire cuts its losses and gets the fuck out of the ME because it no
longer has interests there. Israel BTFO. KSA BTFO. They are really the worst allies ever.
In the epilogue Russia becomes the main broker in the ME and balances out the competing
interests while keeping the peace. France and England BTFO. Nobody wants these douche bags
around anymore. America goes back to squabbling in South America and Asia where it arguably
does have strategic interests.
The world Zio-Massonic movement has just shown that it can not dispense with provocations and
plots that can unleash bloody world wars.
The United Nations are a farce and should be dismantled!
Just remembering, it is always England and Judea that press for war as they did in
1938-1939 or release the great and relentless butcher – the only true holocaust –
1914-1918 !
There is another possibility: These "empty strikes" were strictly intended for domestic
consumption. Consider: The US openly telegraphed the coming strikes. Syria and Russia cleared
some areas for the West to hit that would result in no injuries to personnel and limited
damage to infrastructure. The West dutifully hit those evacuated areas and proclaimed
"Mission Accomplished". Syrians danced in the streets for "surviving" the missile strikes
while Russia threatened consequences. What form those consequences take will tell us if these
countries are merely dancing a rather peculiar dance together or whether they are about to
starting fighting in earnest. So far Russia has been playing it cool as a cucumber, but these
strikes – empty as they might have been – demand some sort of response or Russia
will risk looking weak. The fly in the ointment is Israel and their attack on an Iranian base
within Syria that reportedly killed 20 Iranian officers. Will that loss of life influence
Russia's response after the West made every effort to avoid drawing blood?
Saker, many commenters here give me the impression that they will go to any lengths to
reassure themselves that we are not teetering on the brink of all out nuclear war. All of
their theories and reasonings seem to avoid facing that grim reality. Is that also your
impression, or have I misjudged your position?
I think this blog may have misread China. I think I can read the Chinese mind and the
'Western' more subtly since I am ethnic Chinese but educated in the 'West'. But I follow Sun
Tzu and therefore will not expound anymore on China's strategy as far as the Yanks are
concern lest they are wised up.
Suffice to say that a catastrophic decline of the empire ala the Ottoman Empire which led
to WW1 and WW2 due to fighting over the spoils, is on nobody's interests, not even
Russia's.
The best case scenario is to ease the Yanks into a break-up ala the late great USSR.
China's economic, diplomatic and political strength will be critically needed to do this
and to rebuild the new independent states of Western North America, Eastern North America and
the Southern Confederation.
Anonymous. No Chinese empire. The Chinese don't want to occupy other countries. Too
troublesome ruling them. Philippines president Duterte recently suggested half-jokingly that
the Chinese should just make the Philippines a Chinese province. China don't want that. Just
to make the Philippines more prosperous and stable in order to trade with it – which is
far better. If China wanted make the Philippines as its own province, She would have done so
600 years ago when Admiral Zheng He sailed his then unmatchable in the South China Sea and
onwards to India, Persian Gulf, Africa and possibly beyond.
Which means never, unless you're talking about the individual organism, is it "over".
So get over it never being over.
What would you (we) do if it were "over"? Contemplate our navels??
Oh, you mean stress inducing bluster , bluff and brinksmanship of a dying entity. What
else has it got, except blowing itself and everybody else up?
Patience, perserverance. Look at the reaction in the US. Don't forget this terrain, even
if Trump's Unreality Show self destructs.
Is there progress? I think there is. None but the most cretinous deplorables are so stupid
as to cheer the Donald in the last week. Most are dismayed.
And even Alex Jones is allowing open talk of Israel's Empire role in putting DT on this
war mongering course that those who buy his supplements refuse to buy .:
Although Dr P is the one to explicitly state that Israel is a total liability.
So I wouldn't quibble too much about AJ and his mistakes and prejudices. Weaker on Israel
than you would like but as good on Russia as you can expect.
Stupid on China. But Dr P isn't. And anyone watching can see that and see that AJ panders
to his base's fears and prejudices.
But if they are wising up on Israel (as they have!) they can wise up on China and the
whole picture, as well.
Who would want that process of improving consciousness to end, to be "over"??
To relax go back to what??
Actually, I like Snow Leopard's comment the most. And I am contemplating a surgical
procedure on my navel, soon. It's just that Action is part of Being, and I see certain
actions other than handwringing and brow wiping being more productive right now. Especially
in terms of encouraging the process in the US where increasing numbers of people are
realizing they have to think and act to grease the skids for the out of touch geriatrics like
McCain, Feintsein, Pelosi, etc .or DT will go out with them, if he keeps acting just as
ridiculously untruthful as they are.
'ridiculously untruthful' -- - that and deceit is the sea that the Donald has swum in his
entire life, do you really believe that he could recognise reality if it smashed him in the
face like a two ton truck?
Precious little chance of that happening in this lifetime, I'd say. It is by now part of his
cell make-up and ineradicable.
The US has backed Russia into a DEEP, DEEP corner . Sooner or later Russia will have to
respond to the AmeriKKKan madness or surrender and become a vassal State like Europe,
Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea .After Syria is Iran and China. If Russia goes so is
China. Now is the time to stand upp to AmeriKKKa (the empire of chaos)
Check out the work of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.org and Professor William Engdahl
All I can say at this stage is that Sun Tzu said not to fight out of anger, fear or enemy's
provocation to a fight. Russia should stay cool. Pick carefully the battlefield (not
necessarily a battlefield like Borodino), pick her own fight (not necessarily in the
battlefield with guns and missiles but just as decisive) and pick the issues to fight for.
This way retain the initiative and not let the enemy drive and maneuver Russia. Drive and
maneuver the enemy instead.
The full-frontal 'love-in' with the Germans in WW2 is a no no type of war to be avoided.
If unavoidable, must be very well prepared. But both the West and the semi-West seem addicted
to the prospect of such an 'orgasmic' love-in. They seems locked into the paradigm of such
logic. But beneath the rationalisation is simply a love for war.
Here is an extract from Richard Lovelace on the English Civil War. He reflects accurately
on what, me as an Oriental, views as what drives the West's and the semi-West's mindset to
war:
1) Tell me not (Sweet) I am unkind,
That from the Nunnery
Of thy chaste breast, and quiet mind,
To War and Arms I flee.
2) True, a new Mistress now I chase,
The first Foe in the Field;
And with a stronger Faith embrace
A Sword, a Horse, a Shield.
3) Yet this inconstancy is such
As you too shall adore;
I could not love thee, Dear, so much,
Loved I not War.
Some version replace the last line in stanza 3) with: "Loved I not Honour more". But you
get the drift. "war" and "Honour" (in or through war), are essentially the same.
Speaking of Borodino, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Russians not only repelled
Napoleon, but crushed him definitively in the end (thing somehow overlooked in 'histories' of
the 1812-14 war genre 'War and Peace') and reorganized Europe on their own terms. Of course,
it did not last too long (due to the usual British treachery), but the subsequent attempts to
destroy Russia ended in the same way. Now if Hitler has not learned anything from Napoleon,
how do you expect a Tramp like Donald, to learn anything from Hitler (and the Kaiser and
Napoleon, for that matter)?
I am in complete agreement with you Simon. All indications are that Mr Putin and team has a
firm grasp on reality also, whatever that may bring in the future. It may not be too pretty
for the western sphere but delusion and rank stupidity never has a pretty outcome.
Not over. Not even close. The reason this isn't over is that the causes and conditions
causing the root of the problem have not been dealt with. The cause of the problem can only
be dealt peacefully through diplomacy. In the Empire's current configuration diplomacy is
near impossible as there is no competent partner to negotiate with on this side. The Empire
will signal their openness to negotiation by removing Bolton aka Captain Crunch, Haley and
their ilk. This doesn't seem likely and I'm not sure who a competent replacement would be.
Russia needs to sell to Syria and to Iran ~30 nukes each plus delivery vehicles able to reach
New York (thus also Israel, Paris, London). Also S400 systems to protect nukes enough to
guarantee launch. Syria and Iran then declare next attack from any of the Gang of Four states
will mean a nuclear response to all.
You forgot to mention that without adults Mattis & Dunford, WW3 would have started the
last time they "bombed" Syria, now because of they talked the volatile, impulsive and
emotional Trump out of it, it landed on a compromise, on Moscow's terms.
The PRC is one of the only other 2countries that supported the Russian UN resolution, so it's
not clear to me what the Saker is referring to re "just standing by" ? Do you expect PRC to
send troops to Syria? has Syria or Russia made such a request or invitation? Do you know if
such a move by the PRC has wide support by the Chinese public? Please do not respond with
nonsense like public opinions don't matter in china. The Chinese government uses public
opinion polls frequently and widely. Fact is I believe majority of Chinese are also affected
by all the lies from the western msm, especially the well educated elites, most of whom
studied in the West. This explains why their Global Times pieces tend to be much more pro
Russia than their better educated elites
Diplomacy??? It degraded beyond recognition. We used to have the likes of Jeane Kirkpatrick.
Now we have geniuses like Samantha Powers and Nikki Haley. We also had a joke of an
ambassador to Saddam's Iraq that triggered 1-st Iraq war, although I tend to think (more and
more lately) that her blurb to Saddam was a deliberate in order to advance Bush's
understanding of his "new world order" idea.
Yes, but the previous UNSC meeting where Russia submitted a text requesting a full and
objective investigation of the chemical attack in Syria only Bolivia voted yes. China
abstained! So Russia looked isolated just prior to the attack
China abstained on the US-sponsored "poison pill" resolution which was set up to be vetoed,
and allowed the US to say they tried to resolve the chemical attack diplomatically but since
the resolution was vetoed the only avenue left is to retaliate by missile strikes. However,
China voted FOR the "clean" Russian-sponsored resolution to investigate but this seems to be
lost.
Yes you are right. So there we're a total 4 resolutions. 3 resolutions on chemical weapons
investigation and 1 on violation of international and UN charter.
For the chemical weapons: Russia submitted 2 resolutions and US 1. None of them passed.
China abstained on one, the US one, which Bolivia and Russia vetoed. Here are the links:
It is impossible to quickly overcome a ~30 years misguided attempt to impose physical
hegemony forever. No complex dynamical system deviates from stable trajectory for too long
and too far without breaking apart. And since nobody wants (or foolish enough not to be
afraid) of a WWIII (a.k.a. breaking the system apart), the US will be forced to change its
guiding principle of perpetuating its sole hegemony. Hopefully sooner than later and
peacefully.
Is Putin not putting himself at a huge disadvantage if he allows the carriers group now
crossing the Atlantic to get close to Syria and Russia. As this confrontation is obviously
not over should Russia not draw a red line at the straits of Gibraltar or somewhere?
I don't understand military issues but can see that the USA/UK/France cannot in the
slightest way, be trusted to do anything other than wait for what they perceive to be a
moment of advantage, then attack.
I understand he has a "Dagger" or six under his arm. Not only will that stop the Carrier
Group, it will place it where it belongs. At the bottom of the sea.
Another possible option would be to simply bring the Warsaw pact again new life.
The US in the past didnt dare to attack pact-members in the cold war. Now we have a
situation that the US considers other States as his toy for torture.
Syria, China Venezuela Belarus, and Donbass even North Korea should become members of
it.
Two days ago Vladimir Putin was handed the worst and most humilliating political (and
military) defeat of his entire life, something that in other, more normal times, would have
immediately forced a man in his stature to resign his post and go away (Chamberlain anyone ?)
yet his own adoring fans seem to be the only ones who haven`t noticed it, preferring instead
to keep living in that universe of denial they have been dwelling in for years already. What
shows best the extent of this attitude of denial is the fact that they were gloating about
the fact that Russia didnt even intervene–contrary to what the man himself had promised
he would do only a month ago if one of Russia`s allies was attacked. By now is evident that
his word is not worth the saliva that was wasted in saying it and that the US has absolutely
no respect for him or for Russia. There are just two things to notice to see the truth in
these words: a gloating, exulting Nimrata in the UNO, knowing well how cheap was for her and
her country, or rather her neocon masters, this victory was (Russia didnt do a thing, so no
WW3) and the headlines in the web "Russia furious". If there is still any doubt about this
conclusion, well, beware, the Gang Of Three now plans to present to the UNSC a proposition
celebrating the illegal attack on Syria of the 14th and they intend to invite ALL members of
it, including Russia, to accept it and take it as a fait accompli. But that will be only a
prelude for what is to come, which is of course the demand by the U.S. that the UNO accepts
her way of conducting business as the norm, as something they will be able to do in every
possible occasion they will wish to do it. Which means, more fake chemical attacks and more
bombing in Syria until Russia is thrown out of the country. So much for our master chess
player in the Kremlin. Only last year he was still insisting, against all caution and the
warning of people as knowledgeable as PCR, that his first priority in foreign policy was a
good relationship with Amerika, see how well he has done in this regard (Chamberlain anyone,
again ?) All in all, things wont become better but much worse after this devastating defeat
of the master chess player, they will only become worse until they get him and Russia
cornered and with only two possible options, which we all know well. This is not about Russia
being alone or being weaker than the US NATO gang, it is all about Putin`s deliberate policy
of putting above everything else his vain and useless attempts at being respected and even
liked by his worst enemies, the Western elites.
Regarding China. China it's a great and powerful nation with a vision and a strategy that
span far in the future. His policy has always been to go on with extreme caution and as low
as possibile exposure. First and foremost she takes care of his own interest, as any other,
however. His main opponent is, that for sure, the "western" empire. In this long term fight,
China finds herself in company of other nations who are fighting the same long term struggle.
Yes, China doesn't share the same cultural, historical, ethnical heritage with Russia, wich
in that regard is part of the Euro family, but shares a vital, long term surviving fight with
Russia (and Iran, Syria). This is a matter of fact that can not be underestimated. So, in
long term, and in spite of some annoying behavior, I'm quite sure that China will stand with
Russia. I read that Chinese warships were placed in front of Syria together with Russian
navy, maybe someone forgot that, this is a strong message to me.
I side with PCR. Only a public military humiliation can stop the Empire. Russia had a
golden opportunity to inflict such an humiliation yesterday and she missed that
opportunity.
Let's suppose that Russia downed as many attacking warplanes as possible, whatever their
location was, plus a few ships like the USS Donal Cook. What would happen next ? Would the
USA launch their strategic missiles on Russia ? I very much doubt it, since the US know as a
hard fact that they would be destroyed in retaliation. MAD has been restored. The would have
no military response at all and the whole world would see it. And this would have been the
end of the Empire, with many vassals leaving it.
Of course, such strikes will happen again. Let's hope that Russia will strike back
then.
The public is brainwashed because they are hooked to the mass media and they are the product
of our "educational" system. Americans are about sports and shopping. A good portrait is the
rabbits of Watership Down.
In 1958, I still believed that there was a significant intellectual difference between the
American bourgeosie and the cattle one sees peering between the slats of large trucks as they
contentedly munch hay on their way to the abattoir.–R. Oliver
Donald T' s inheritance was a loose canon. I'm sure he knew it when he ran, as a proved tower
– builder, against floating sands and the satanic Hillary-fan-club.
America is in psychiatric treatment since 2014 by the spirit of the north.
April 14 was a peace of the art of political wisdom, 'taking two to tango
above the triggers of the planet's doom
Saker, no it is not over by a long shot. Haley again today (it appears she is running US
foreign policy by herself) says empire gonna sanction Russia again via Treasury tomorrow. It
looks like empire trying to ride the false flag chem thing to build a coalition of the
"fools" against Russia or some kind of mass movement to give them cover for military action.
They are furiously trying to bring massive pressure on the Russian leadership so they will
back off and let them have Syria, admit US is almighty god and so they can then go after
Iran. It seems US and Brits so knocked off balance by Putin and his election victory and
weapons announcement that empire frantically trying to reassert that they and only they are
the "decider" of right and wrong and what is moral and immoral. This will go on all of April
and into May as Trump backs out of nuke deal with Iran. Then things will really get ugly and
fast. And that doesn't even factor in North Korea.
I notice that Russian MOD states that the "allies" were configured to launch 300 missiles
not the 110 that were sent. He indicates that they had poor planning and that no one was in
charge. But, it may be that they have decided to come back for another hit when the next
false flag chem attack is perpetrated probably soon. The chem thing is all they have that is
working for them and that isn't much. I finally got emails announcing anti-war protests by
ANSWER and I hope they will continue. I have been to some strong street actions with ANSWER
in the past although impacting these monsters is nearly impossible.
I agree with you that Russia should flood both Syria and Iran with anti missile systems
and they should do it now.
It looks like the Duma gonna finally sanction the US back with some pretty good things
including stuffing US "intellectual" property rights in the US ass by turning Russian
companies loose to use patents without paying license fees. They can also fuck up US space
program and rocket programs.
Actually, Saker, I think what US empire is really up to is to create enough mass hysteria
globally that they think they can build some kind of "coalition of the truly stupid" to
attack Russia and take it. I honestly think they are that stupid and desperate. Because if
that is not it then at some point they are going to have to back off, admit defeat and be
seen as the losers they really are. They just don't have the basic decency to do that.
Yes you are right about the U.S. intention to create mass hysteria , and a " coalition of the
truly stupid."
The lead item on RNZ news at 5 a.m. this morning referred to the silly little girl who is
currently P.M. of N.Z. condoning the U.K. /France / U.S. strike; presumably she will also
support the Israel strike against Iranian assets in Syria.
Every day , the lies and propaganda start in NZ, and are halfway around the world before the
truth gets out of bed.
Count on it. Thank you Rupert.
And Rupert's whores are at it in Australia as well, reporting on the grovelling snot bag
Turnbull's obsequious offering of more Australian lives to lubricate the Anglo Zionist
machine. I say lets put his kids in the first jet to attack Syrian positions and see if he
still thinks it is worth the cost.
In 2001 Australians have marched in their thousands to protest the imminent strike on
Irak.
Today they blabbered non stop about the the 'tampered ball' and protesting the punishment of
the cheaters and hounding the pedophile clergy.
I appreciate your comments but do not share you perceptions. Reportedly, the USA informed
Russia before they dropped the bombs. Does that make sense? Reportedly, they bombed a factory
which has not been in use since 2013. Reportedly, either no one was killed or 4 unfortunate
civilians were killed. Reportedly, no Russian personnel or equipment was affected.
Reportedly, the 3 attacking countries dropped 103 bombs and 71 or 73 or whatever were
intercepted, yet the USA said the complete opposite. "We are confident ..". Amazingly, the
USA has developed a bomb, or a method of bombing, which, if it hits a factory producing
chemical weapons and therefore is full of lethal substances, will not, repeat not, dissipate
these into the air, thereby insuring that no one will be affected!!! (emphasis mine) I agree
that some people might think that the attack actually did something, but who are they? Nobody
I know. My perception is that people working in the our government are isolated and out of
touch and they are the ones who had to be satisfied(?). I also think that Mr. Trump is so
surrounded by liars that he can trust no one. He stated he wanted the US to leave Syria,
then, shortly after, the USA performed this inane bombing attack. Maybe this is Mr. Trump's
response to the immense pressure I think he gets from those around him. It was very confusing
but certainly did not make me feel that our country is great again – I am just
embarrassed. I feel very badly for the citizens of Syria who unfortunately live in a country
located in the center of the world, surrounded by all that gas and oil.
I have seen reports that said they did, and I have seen reports that Moscow was furious
because they were not given notice on the deconfliction channel.
"The western general public is so terminally zombified that false flag attacks can now be
announced 4 weeks in advance"
Even though you live in the US, you seem sadly out of touch with what Americans know and
believe. "America" is NOT your blog audience, any more than "America" is Donald Trump and the
US State Department.
I found out last Thursday that my own mother took seriously the idea that Assad gassed
people in Douma. So, yesterday I asked 4 of my coworkers what they thought about the US led
missile attack. I was actually more interested in finding out whether they believed Assad had
any culpability in Douma.
It turns out that everybody approved, including a guy that I knew for a fact was a Trump
supporter (who, as a candidate, would not have approved of meddling in Syria, or at least
pretended to be such). This particular guy explained by asking a question: "If you saw your
neighbor beating his wife to a pulp, would you jump in to stop him, or just stand around and
let it happen?"
The sense I got from everybody is that intervention was a moral act. Most zombies that I
have seen in movies are, at best, amoral (assuming they have no agency).
Consequently, you are misusing the term "zombified"!
The appropriate term is "brainwashed". They believe in a pseudo-reality.
That is why the absence of a 4th category in your graph is potentially tragic. You are
missing the category of communication/education, which would encompass benign (truthful)
propaganda and benign (truthful) psyops, targeting the American public directly (American
elites more indirectly). While this was better done as prevention, the resultiing
de-legitimization of the American War Party could be thought of as retaliation.
To a person looking at things in a detached manner, prevention (going forward) is better
than retaliation (looking backwards), but such considerations are secondary to solving the
problem of the ignorance and brainwashing of American citizens. Doing so would provide at
least fertile soil for the emergence of corrective political pressure from the bottom,
up.
Do you SERIOUSLY think your own efforts, plus Russian government efforts in the form of
rt.com and sputniknews.com, are sufficient to deprogram and educate Americans? (There is no
disrespect for you efforts intended by asking this question.)
Then please do the following: learn how to use the video feature on your smart phone, or
tablet; then do a walking video poll of passersby on some crowded street near you. (You
probably won't be allowed to do so in a shopping mall, but it might be worth a try.) I
suggest you use the same technique I used when doing a video poll of TPP awareness amongst
the public (which proved, to my satisfaction, that polls showing popular acceptance were a
complete fraud; most American HAD NEVER HEARD OF THE TPP, Pew notwithstanding). I asked
people "May I ask you 1 yes/no question?" About half the people won't give you the time of
day, even for that. Of those that do, maybe 1/3 will be interested in talking about it;
typically, they they will ask the same question of you.
Afterwards, tabulate the results, upload the video to youtube, and write it up here.
Better yet, do this and ask you audience to do the same. Then, include the links to their
youtube channels in your write-up.
You should try to get your results (which are almost sure to be similar to mine) to the
Russian government, because they act AS IF they had the same viewpoint as you.
Putin could reach millions of Americans by tweeting to @realDonaldTrump, but doesn't
bother. I have to wonder, why? If he assumed that the American public are all "zombies",
instead of containing moral but brainwashed citizens in their 10's if not 100's of millions,
then his lack of action would make more sense.
He'd be wrong, but at least his actions would logically follow from his mistaken
notions.
It is over. It was over in 2000 and the hammer came down in 2006. With the defeat of the
anglo/zionists in Lebanon by Hezbollah it marked the beginning of the end for the occultists.
Hezbollah was not actually fighting the iof but rather the combined forces of western zionist
imperialism. And they won.
Iraq, Libya and now Syria are a direct result of the ouster of the baby killers from Lebanon.
The chaos in the ME – the Arab bullshit spring – the propping up of the gulf
monarchy muppets is panic mode by the zionist oligarchy. There is no policy only blind
reactionary behaviour – this is evidenced even in the propaganda of the MSM which not
only makes no sense but speaks continuous transparent lies.
The west has been forced to use moderate and not so moderate head chopper orc mercs to fight
its battles. Proxy war by orc is a sign of desperation and with the collapse of the hegemon
on the horizon.
The Russians and the axis of resistance is simply trying to mitigate the damage that the
oligarchy can still do and keep the US and the western vassals from imploding.
I think the UK is exhibiting signs of genuine fear because it has dawned on the UK elite
after the miserable performance of their Three Amigo's missile strike that Russia has a
special present for instigators of ww3.
The great harlot is going to fall. A smoking ruin no man will ever wish to tread. England
has whored itself to the gallows.
N, it is not over, that much , we agree on. But the Chinese, I believe are not short sighted
nor are they stupid. The will probably not do much for Syria, but I think they will raise
their voice immediately if Russia is seriously threatened. China knows if Russia falls, she
is next. Iran knows this too. So I cant see other than these three will have to stand
together. But other may join India, possibly, Pakistan, possibly. And possibly further some
smaller countries.
But I am 100 % certain that in all these countries, the people, the knowledgeable of the
people, we know that if we end up, in a unipolar world, we will be slaves and remain slaves,
forever.
And those countries I just summed up are more than 3 Billion.
Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Who knows. But
Better die standing, than live crawling.
I think you underestimate how hated and despised the US is around the world. In most of
the non western world, the United States story of oppression and murder is very well known
and it is not forgotten. But fear keeps people in bondage, and the US has shown it will spare
no excesses to reach its goal, so when the battle comes it will be long bloody and
brutal.
And yes it will come.
From today's Global Times editorial, semi-official organ of the Chinese politburo:
"However, the stronger a country is, the greater the responsibility it has to maintain
world peace and order. The military actions of the US and its allies have breached the
framework of the United Nations and violated the foundation of modern international
relations. If the will of Washington and the West represents the will of all mankind and they
can punish whoever they want, why do we need the UN, or international law?
Without UN authorization, the US, UK and France behaved like rogues. No matter how
touching the excuses they find for themselves, they cannot change the fact that they were
lynching Syria without due evidence "
"... Actually, there is nothing like "American policies" in the Trump era. The Washington Post carried two reports this week underlining the utter confusion within the Trump administration. Even the president is not necessarily the last word. ..."
"... One of these two astonishing reports titled Trump a reluctant hawk has battled his top aides on Russia and lost (here) narrates shocking details on how the former NSA in the White House HR McMaster simply hoodwinked a bumbling Trump into approving the proposal to expel 60 Russian diplomats from the US last month: ..."
"... The second WaPo report (here) narrates how even the famous Nikki Haley can no longer pretend to be Trump's authoritative voice. ..."
Actually, there is nothing like "American policies" in the Trump era. The Washington Post carried two reports this week underlining
the utter confusion within the Trump administration. Even the president is not necessarily the last word.
One of these two astonishing reports titled
Trump a reluctant hawk has battled his top aides on Russia and lost (here) narrates shocking details on how the former NSA in
the White House HR McMaster simply hoodwinked a bumbling Trump into approving the proposal to expel 60 Russian diplomats from the
US last month:
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials said. To his shock and dismay, France and
Germany were each expelling only four Russian officials The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would
largely equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the media as taking by far the toughest
stance on Russia
Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the expulsions. "There were curse words,"
the official said, "a lot of curse words."
The
second WaPo report (here) narrates how even the famous Nikki Haley can no longer pretend to be Trump's authoritative voice.
I'm reminded of Roman Emperor Caligula (AD 37-41). He had a favorite horse by name Incitatus whom he once planned to designate
as Roman consul. Caligula used to hold parties for friends in the steed's grand stables. In a fit of exuberant joy, he once named
Incitatus a Minister of State.
The Trump presidency has not quite reached that point yet, but bizarre things are happening in the Washington Beltway – like in
Caligula's decadent Rome in decline and fall. India will be well advised to keep distance.
"... "She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's all." ..."
Confused!!! How dare Larry Kudlow suggest Nikki got confused!!!
>White House press secretary Sarah Sanders insisted more sanctions were merely under
consideration. On Tuesday, top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Haley "got ahead
of the curve."
"She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There
might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at
Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had
sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's
all."
Haley, speaking for the first time since the White House dialed back her claims, rejected
the idea that she was confused.
"With all due respect, I don't get confused," Haley said in a statement read by Fox News'
Dana Perino and confirmed by CBS News Tuesday.
One interesting thing is that Trump is apparently hard at work pushing and pushing and
pushing China to take Russia's side more forcefully. China ususally don't support Russia in UNSC.
Most often Russia stands alone with Iran.
What we are observing is a slow collapse of The US-centered global neoliberal empire.
Neoliberalism like Bolshevism before it is a self-defeating ideology that eats the flesh of
society on which it parasites.
In a way Trump election is sign of this crisis, as well as attempt of some part of the US
elite for find a way out of the current crisis, which started in 2008 with the collapse of
neoliberal ideology.
You
and the Atomic Bomb ," which he wrote two months after the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, George Orwell coined the term "cold war" to describe the new epoch that he saw
emerging after the fall of Nazi Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union and the United States.
He predicted that the bomb would "put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging
indefinitely a 'peace that is no peace.'" It was this very scenario that he depicted in his
dystopian novel 1984 , which
drew on James Burnham's Managerial Revolution and features Eurasia, Oceania and
Eastasia in a permanent standoff several decades after an atomic war. Any actual conflicts or
skirmishes take place in borderlands that are located well away from the three main empires.
This cold peace was pretty much what obtained after 1945 in international affairs. The two
superpowers, the Soviet Union and United States, avoided direct conflict. Instead, they used
proxy powers and national liberation movements, mostly located in the Third World, to try and
shift the correlation of forces, as the Kremlin used to call it, in their favor, whenever and
wherever they could. The territory under their direct control was off limits -- the United
States did not intervene during uprisings in the eastern bloc in East Germany, Hungary or
Poland. The Kremlin confined itself to helping to fund communist parties in France and Italy,
and to supporting the peace movement clandestinely. The peril of an atomic exchange was so
immense that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States went to war over flashpoints such
as Cuba and Berlin. What Orwell did not anticipate was that one side, the Soviet Union, would
collapse completely, leaving the other as Mr. Big.
... ... ...
The war in Iraq was a fiasco. Afghanistan is a quagmire. In America, terms such as "regime
change" have fallen into disrepute. The West has lost its confidence. Populists are looking for
a way to escape the iron cage of modernity. The era of Reagan and Thatcher proclaiming the
verity of the free market and the expansion of freedom seems almost as remote as the scientific
laws of history that Marxists once propounded.
... ... ...
...President Donald Trump explained that he seeks to curb a new arms race that is "getting
out of control," but also boasted that "we will never allow anybody to have anything even close
to what we have." Already Trump has vastly expanded the American military budget, raising
outlays to $700 billion for the fiscal year 2019. Trump, in a decision first approved by
President Barack Obama, intends to devote $1 trillion to modernizing the American nuclear force
over the next three decades.
... ... ...
With his combination of bluff and bombast, Trump could stumble into a calamitous two-front
war in Asia and the Middle East.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.
"... Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been "forgotten" in his book. ..."
"... You left out the fact that he was instrumental in the formation of the Clinton Foundation. ..."
Current and former FBI agents are furious after former Director James Comey gave his first interview
since President Trump fired him last year to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday night, reports the
Daily Beast
- which was privy to a play-by-play flurry of text messages and other
communications detailing their reactions.
Seven current or former FBI agents and officials spoke throughout and immediately after the
broadcast.
There was a lot of anger, frustration, and even more emojis -- featuring the
thumbs-down, frowny face, middle finger, and a whole lot of green vomit faces
.
One former FBI official sent a bourbon emoji as it began; another sent the beers cheers-ing
emoji.
The responses became increasingly angry and despondent as the hourlong interview
played out.
-
Daily
Beast
"
Hoover is spinning in his grave
," said a former FBI official. "
Making
money from total failure
," in reference to Comey plugging his book,
A Higher Loyalty
.
Jana Winter of
The Beast
adds that when a promo aired between segments advertising Comey's
upcoming appearance with
The View
, the official "grew angrier." "
Good lord, what a self-serving self-centered jackass
," the official said. "
True
to form he thinks he's the smartest guy around
."
... ... ...
Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, after which he
leaked memos he claims
document conversations with Trump
to the
New York Times,
kicking off the special
counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller - whose team started out looking at Russian influence
in the 2016 election, and is now investigating the President's alleged decade-old extramarital affairs
with at least two women. Truly looking out for national security there Bob...
... ... ...
Prior to becoming the DNC's most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the
hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information - having begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration
before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been
"forgotten" in his book.
I would rather have RP if he had the
charisma/gusto and also tactical genius of
DT. However, I worry that Ron, as a guy that
delivered babies and educated people on
nonagression, as opposed to running a
something-billion dollar cutthroat RE empire,
might be more at risk of A) being unable to
overcome political roadblocks and
destabilization, and B) something bad
happening to him.
Comey was always the most enigmatic figure to me in this
sad, troubling series of events involving the FBI.
THE
GOOD NEWS: Everyone hates him now. The Rs hate him, the Ds
hate him. Who's Christmas party did he get invited to last
year? I'm guessing the invitations were few. His own ego
has turned him into plutonium. And he deserves even worse
than that.
Every agency has a Jim Comey in it... you know the guy.
Their CV just has an implied "team skills and natural
ability to get a deep brown nose" at the very top of it.
Comey was the FBI Director when warrants
were issued to spy on Trump and his associates. Warrants
gained in part or in whole by, false evidence (the Steele
dossier) presented to a FISA court judge(s), gathered by,
a foreign national former spy (Steele) who was in contact
with his old Kremlin pals, who (Steele) was then paid by
the DNC, Fusion GPS via Perkins Coie to give Hillary
Rodham Clinton (affectionately known here as The Bitch of
Benghazi) some distance from the fake "evidence".
Now besides Comey knowing the source of "the dossier"
one of his deputies (McCabe) was at the same time
"colluding" with a couple FBI agents (Strzok & Page) in a
"counter-intel operation" (on the taxpayers dime) to
gather dirt on candidate Trump. McCabe's wife (we might
recall) got a sizable "donation" from Terry McAuliffe
(another Klinton sleezebag) for her political run in
Virginia.
And we haven't even touched on Comey's theft of
government documents or his turning over those documents
to his friend so the friend could turn them over to the
Alinsky NYT's for the purposes of...getting his mentor
Grand Inquisitor Mueller a gig as "special prosecutor"
(as he admitted to under oath).
Mueller's investigation is tainted with fruit of the
poisonous tree and the entirety of seized evidence
will be unceremoniously thrown out by a 5-4 US Supreme
Court.
There is only one thing keeping Comey out of Prison:
Jeff Sessions.
If we someday get a real AG, who is willing to man
up and appoint a second special prosecutor, Comey is
finished. But for the moment, Mr. Magoo is saving his ass.
Don't hold your breath. The clock on the statute of
limitations is ticking away. I wish someone could
provide me with an honest rational as to why Trump
hasn't fired Jeff Sessions.
Problem is that a sizable portion of the US population
view Comey's actions in the 'if you could go back in
time and kill baby Hitler...' perspective. Yes it's
illegal, yes it's unconstitutional...but was trying to
save the 'World' so it's justified.
I think you
framed it similar...this is the same as injecting
bleach into our veins in the hope in clears up a
pimple on our nose.
How much more US hostility toward Russia will it tolerate before declaring unacceptable red
lines were crossed?
Washington and Moscow are on opposite sides of endless war in Syria – a US imperial
project from day one of hostilities.
According to neocon Russophobe Nikki Haley and US ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman, further
(illegal) Trump administration sanctions on Russia are coming, likely Monday.
They'll be imposed for Kremlin involvement in combating US-supported terrorists in Syria
– cutthroat killers falsely called "rebels."
According to Haley, Russian enterprises allegedly "dealing with equipment related to Assad
and any chemical weapons use" will be targeted.
No Syrian CWs exist, the nation's entire stockpile destroyed in 2014, confirmed by the OPCW.
Yet according to Haley (and other lunatic fringe Trump administration Russophobes), Damascus
has undisclosed CWs. Moscow is "covering this up."
The Big Lie persists. No evidence supports it. Facts on the ground never deter Washington
from pursuing it diabolical imperial agenda.
US administrations and bipartisan congressional members consistently blame sovereign
independent nations for US high crimes committed against them.
Haley falsely accused Moscow of aggressive behavior, turning truth on its head, claiming the
Kremlin facilitated the alleged Douma CW incident.
Medical personnel on the ground treated no one for toxic poisoning, no one killed, ill or
harmed, no CW residues found by Russian technical experts at the alleged site.
The false flag incident was staged to blame Syria and Russia for a nonevent – the Big
Lie used as a pretext for US-led terror-bombing of Syrian sites, followed by more illegal
sanctions on Moscow coming Monday.
On Sunday, OPCW inspectors arrived in Douma to inspect the site of the alleged CW attack,
according to Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Ayman Soussan.
AMN news said following US-led terror-bombing of Syrian sites, Russia is sending government
forces more weapons and heavy equipment.
According to Southfront, the Pentagon lied, claiming all missiles fired struck Syrian
targets – at the same time expressing concern about mission results.
An internal probe will be conducted to produce a more accurate after-action report,
including why Syrian air defense systems downed most incoming missiles – reportedly 71 of
103 fired.
Washington intends permanent occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. According to Assad
UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari, one-third of the country is illegally occupied by US forces,
adding:
Security Council debates omit discussing this key issue. Along with terrorists permanent SC
members America, Britain and France support, Damascus faces "three aggressors:" Washington,
London and Paris. "We are a state," Jaafari stressed, "the sovereignty of which has been
violated by a permanent member of the UNSC."
The international community ignores this core issue of the conflict, along with US-led
aggression, using terrorists as foot soldiers, pretending endless war is "civil."
After the latest US-led aggressive incident on a sovereign state, what's next? Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said the Kremlin has "obvious red lines,"
adding Moscow will do all it can to pull East/West relations out of a dangerous "political
nosedive." Addressing the issue diplomatically assures continued failure, along with weakness,
encouraging Washington to slam Russia and Syria harder.
Dealing with hegemonic America requires using the only language it understands –
challenging it forcefully. Pursuing failed policies assures making a bad situation worse ahead. Washington isn't likely
to step back from the brink unless pushed. Diplomacy is futile, accomplishing nothing, encouraging greater US hostility, including
endless aggression in Syria and tough anti-Russia actions.
Washington's rage for global dominance likely assures an eventual East/West showdown. Responding weakly to hostile US actions assures more to come, likely harsher than
already. When will Russia respond with toughness – better to risk it in Syria than be forced to
act in defending its heartland.
Russia can do nothing alone. NATO is way too strong.
Notable quotes:
"... my honor is called solidarity ..."
"... my honor is loyalty ..."
"... by not taking any action the Russians also failed to deter any future attacks. But what could the Russians have done? ..."
"... Sic transit gloria mundi ..."
"... Trump demonstrated that the U.S. can still bomb non nuclear countries without regard for the Constitution, international law or common decency. The Deplorables demonstrated that elections will not change anything. Only the death of the U.S. dollar will end Anglo/Zio Imperial aggression. ..."
"... Russia was outgunned, so they did not respond. It was probably a wise decision. They did damage control admirably, and now have an opportunity to improve the Syrian arsenal with obvious justification. ..."
"... Slowly but surely, Russia is tightening the noose in Syria. Air defenses are improving. ..."
"... My precious, too many players want to start a real war between the Mercans and Russians. Aside from the casual suspects (KSA and Israel), Chinese also objectively benefit from the confrontation, which explains their aloofness. Should this come to a nuclear war, Chinese will be the one and only winner. For this old smart monkey is still sitting on the tree, and nothing has changed since Chairman Mao times. ..."
"... For Iran, this war will certainly enhance the Iran-Russia axis and thus may postpone the US aggression. Turkey loves it too because it can play both sides. ..."
"... Ironically, only the USA and Russia will be the biggest losers regardless of the outcome. ..."
"... In UNSC, China has surprisingly took abstained neutral stand, allowing it to play the coordinator role & denying US UK Fr to get any legit for attack. This avoid relegating UNSC into two sides shouting. Nikki Harley was thus preempted her wish of striking with or without UNSC mandate since all ended agreed to let UN conduct independent inspection. Overall, this continue to lock US UK Fr inside UNSC framework. ..."
"... The general idea seems to be containment of Russia, hemming them in within their own borders and cutting them off from being able to extend their influence outward. ..."
"... As part of this any allies of theirs such as Syria come under attack; if the west can't own them then they're to be reduced to chaos and rendered into costly burdens for the Russians. ..."
"... It's all a very cynical and calculated plan that fits into the overall picture of encircling the Russians to stymie their development and influence. NATO expansion up to their borders, the Ukraine coup, encirclement, picking off vulnerable allies, economic warfare and political subversion without end, the pattern is clear. At some point an actual clash might come about, not necessarily now with Syria as the trigger but somewhere all along the entire line of points of friction. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that something bad is going to happen somewhere down the line as the irresistible force meets the immovable object. ..."
"... As a fervent anti-war activist since the sixties, I have been appalled at all the regime change the US has and continues to do around the world including both military covert operations and economic warfare. Well Putin had me at his 2007 Munich speech. ..."
About a month ago Nikki Haley announces to the
UNSC that the USA is ready to violate the rules of this very self-same UNSC should a chemical
attack happen in Syria Then the Russians announced that they have evidence that a chemical
false flag is being prepared in Syria Then a chemical attack (supposedly) takes place (in a
location surrounded and, basically, controlled by government forces!) The OPWC sends
investigators (in spite of western powers loudly proclaiming that no investigation was needed)
The AngloZionists then bomb Syria Next, the UNSC refuses to condemn the violation of its own
rules and decisions Finally, the US Americans speak of a 'perfect strike'
Now tell me -- do you get a sense that this is over?
If you tell me that 32/103 is hardly perfect, I will reply that you are missing the point.
In fact, if anything, 32/103 is further incentive to bomb again!
Let's look at the differently for a second and ask this: what has the AngloZionist attack
actually demonstrated?
The western general public is so terminally zombified that false flag
attacks can now be announced 4 weeks in advance The Europeans now live by the motto " my
honor is called solidarity " (a variation of the SS motto " my honor is loyalty
") Led by the USA, western countries have no objections to wars started in violation of their
own national laws The UN Security Council has no objections to wars started in violation of the
UN Charter and International Law The PRC leaders, in their infinite wisdom, act as if they have
nothing personal at stake and act like bystanders The Israelis, via the UN Neocons, are now in
total control of the Empire and use it to "clean house" next door
Oh, I hear the objections. They go something like this:
But the attack was a dismal
failure! So what? the Empire did not pay any price for executing it. But the US Americans did
blink! The attacked from Jordanian airspace and from the Red Sea! They avoided the Russians
completely! They are afraid of them! So what? They still bombed a Russian ally with total
impunity. But, surely you are not suggesting that the Russians should have started a war
against the USA over a strike which did not even kill a single person?
No, of course not, but by not taking any action the Russians also failed to deter any
future attacks. But what could the Russians have done?
Now *that* is the right question!
Let's look at it a little closer. Roughly speaking, the Russians have a choice of 3 types of
retaliatory measures: political, economic and military. However, each one of them has a
specific set of prerequisites which are currently problematic to say the least:
Measures
Political
Economic
Military
Prerequisites
Assumes a minimal amount of decency, integrity and respect for the rule of law by the
rest of the planet.
Assumes that other countries, especially China, would be willing and able to support
such measures.
Assumes that Russia has the military capability to defeat the AngloZionist
"coalition".
Current reality
Russia can moan, bitch, complain, protest, appeal to higher values, logic or facts --
nobody gives a damn.
The Chinese and the rest of them are not willing to do anything at this time to
support Russia.
Russia can militarily defeat the AngloZionists, but only by risking the future of our
planet.
This really can be summarized a simple sentence: the AngloZionist Hegemony is a threat for
the entire planet, but nobody besides Russia and Iran is willing to take it on. Ain't that an
irony!
The so-called "Christian West" has become a willing host for its Zionist parasite and the
only ones with the courage and moral integrity to take it on are Orthodox Christians and
Muslims! Sic transit gloria mundi indeed
But what is even more important is this: while it is true that the US Neocons did not
succeed in delivering the kind of massive attack they would have wanted to, and while it is
true that the US attack was just about as lame as can be, you need to completely forget about
these facts. Facts simply don't matter. And neither does logic. All that matters are
perceptions!
And the perception is that "we" (the AngloZionist rulers and their serfs) "kicked" Assad's
"ass" and that "we" will "do it again" if "we" feel like it. That is all that matters in the
Empire of
Illusions which the AngloZionist Hegemony has become.
As soon as you understand that, you also will have to agree that Trump was right: it was a
"perfect strike" (again, not in reality, but in the world of illusions created around it).
So now we come full circle.
The AngloZionist Hegemony demands that the entire planet bows down and worships
it . Except for Russia and Iran, everybody meekly goes down on their knees or, at most,
meekly looks away. In their own delusional reality, the 'Mericans feel empowered to smack down
Russia or Iran at anytime. There is nothing Iran can do to stop them, and while Russia can, she
can only do that at the risk of the future of our entire planet.
Now you tell me -- do you really think this is over?
That's clearly a civilian assertion. By no way, the US can defeat Iran, unless they are
ready to send 500 000 grunts there. And they are not. No US president will survive a 10 000
body bag return.
They can use air power for sure, but that will never be enough to force Iran to bow.And
I'm quite sure the Russian will provide them everything they have to help Iran.And China
probably too.
Without even mentioning destruction of Barbaric Saudi and closin Ormuz strait. It's
clearly not over but the US are not as powerful as you think.
Well, firstly, I don't think the future of our planet is at risk, if you mean by that
extinction of life on Earth. Current arsenals can't do that, even in the worst case scenario.
Nor even can they extinct human race either. Lots of deaths? Yes, sure. Extinction? Nope.
Secondly, there is no rule of law because there is no punishment. Once punishment is
delivered, things will change quickly. I agree with you that political or economical
punishment will not work. But military punishment will do. Sink some US carriers or destroy
some Israel bases, and you will see how they become well-behaved.
Trump demonstrated that the U.S. can still bomb non nuclear countries without regard for
the Constitution, international law or common decency. The Deplorables demonstrated that
elections will not change anything. Only the death of the U.S. dollar will end Anglo/Zio
Imperial aggression.
It is not only Russia and Iran that does not bow down. North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela,
Phillipines, China etc. Etc. These countries have done as much as the Russians have. Its not
like Russia sank a carrier or anything and it's not like Russia is defender of the world on a
crusade to defend the planet. They are only acting because they are in the crosshairs.
If America was targeting Cuba, Russia would not say or do anything against America.
While both vessels [USS Winston Churchill, USS Donald Cook] carry as many as 90 Tomahawk
missiles -- the main weapon used in the Friday evening strike on Syria -- neither ship in
the end fired a shot. Instead, according to a person familiar with White House war
planning, they were part of a plan to distract Russia and its Syrian ally from an assault
Assad's government could do little to defend itself against.
It worked. Pentagon officials on Saturday said they faced little resistance to their
targeted attack on what they said were three Syrian chemical weapons facilities. Most of
the Syrian countermeasures, including defensive ballistic missiles, were fired after U.S.
and allied weapons hit their targets, Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie said
Saturday.
"No Syrian weapon had any effect on anything we did," McKenzie said. He described the
joint U.S., French and U.K. strike as "precise, overwhelming and effective."
Where can I get correct assessments? For, umm . research yeah.
Russia was outgunned, so they did not respond. It was probably a wise decision. They did
damage control admirably, and now have an opportunity to improve the Syrian arsenal with
obvious justification.
Slowly but surely, Russia is tightening the noose in Syria. Air defenses are
improving. The next step is likely to be an arsenal of anti-ship missile's. If necessary
ICBMs might follow some sort of mutual defense treaty.
At some point, Syria itself will be able to deliver the bloody nose to the USA that is so
necessary for justice and world peace. That point will be reached when Syrian abilities to
inflict pain outweigh the costs of escalation
My precious, too many players want to start a real war between the Mercans and Russians.
Aside from the casual suspects (KSA and Israel), Chinese also objectively benefit from the
confrontation, which explains their aloofness. Should this come to a nuclear war, Chinese
will be the one and only winner. For this old smart monkey is still sitting on the tree, and
nothing has changed since Chairman Mao times.
For Iran, this war will certainly enhance the Iran-Russia axis and thus may postpone
the US aggression. Turkey loves it too because it can play both sides.
Ironically, only the USA and Russia will be the biggest losers regardless of the
outcome. It seems they both realize that and are treading carefully. But can they manage
to get out of the clinch? And for how long they can be avoiding the all-out conflict? So no,
-- it's definitely ain't over. We hates it, but the best is yet to come.
You forget ballsy little Bolivia defends Russia in UN with both votes and condemnation of
barking Nikki. It looks like they are offering all they have -- moral condemnation of Empire
and her vassals.
The reason I give it a lot of weight is that the night before the bombing, either Vanessa
Beasley or Eva Bartlett called in to Israeli News Live and gave 12 points explaining what
Syria was expecting to happen and it seems it pretty well went down as they had said. I'm
sorry I can't find the broadcast link. Apparently the Russians said if the strike went into a
second day they would strike back even if Russians were not hit. Looks like the "strike" was
pretty well pre-determined by both sides.
Gave each side a look at the others capabilities and allowed US a chance to waste missiles
and Northrup sell new ones. Same old, same old.
Every time my country says or does something insane (which is often) this Lee Greenwood
song goes thru my mind with modified lyrics. "Ashamed to be an American, where I'm duped to
think I'm free".
How can it be over ? It is a war in progress. One side of the warring party is creating
they own reality, and present it on the world stage with absolute conviction, and
determination. This fake reality is part of the war game , it should not be considered as
lies or staged events. It is war ! Fake reality is part of the repertoire , just like the
missiles. It is war , no rules just brutal conflict.
The other side not understanding any of it. They are running around , like chickens in the
rain. UNSC talk , talk and talk some more. Nobody give a them. They are counting how many
missiles they intercepted , they are analyzing , they are theorizing . Do something you are
about to be wiped off !
Act 2 . China sells tickets. Total now of two hundred missiles used; nothing much
destroyed. Top brass satisfied. Neocons, mollified. Audience, US, asleep in our seats as
usual.
Act 3 . The big love scene: Trump and Putin do Romeo & Juliet, audience
confused. Back to sleep. China offers no refunds.
The Chinese and the rest of them are not willing to do anything
at this time to support Russia. Russia can militarily defeat the AngloZionists, but
only by risking the future of our planet.
Saker correctly pointed out Russia is showing unnecessary weakness in only moaning &
bitching with empty threats that nobody bother, relegating itself to a weakling gas
station.
But to falsely accused China & the rest not willing to do anything at this time to
support Russia is too far fetch, a foolish remark like a whining self pitied child blaming
everyone for his own spilled milk.
Does Saker expect its few allies China, NK, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, SAA to launch attack on
US Nato when RuA refused/not permit?
Economically, China is known to have financially back the entire costly war, signed
numerous huge deals worth hundreds of Bil with Russia to booster its sanctioned economy,
deliver re-construction materials, medicine & food for tens of millions soldiers &
Syrians. A astromical cost.
Military, it has also supply lot of weapons & ammunition under so called old contract
with SAA, sent in its most senior advisors & Special forces to help fighting & get
train, esp to mop up Uyghur ISIS terrorists(CIA assets).
It even cut short a mammoth 40 vessels Liaoning a/c strike group drill in SCS to declare a
unprecedented proximate live firing drill in Taiwan Straits, literally forcing existing USN
three strike groups to tied down in SCS. This sent a very clear signal that if US start a hot
war in Syria with Russia, China might open another war front to take back Taiwan which USM
will be overstretched to defend.
Also China despatched its Defense Minister in a high profile visit to Russia, declaring
its military solidarity with Russia against US tyranny (a rare glaring mentioned of US
name directly) . This sent a very strong signal to USM, China may intervene directly or
asymmetrically.
China also took an unusual hard stand in a looming trade war, threatened to fight at all
cost without slight compromise, hence refusing Trumps any leeway to back down while he up
ante to save face.
China foreign ministry further declare the trade war will not limit in trade but shall
utilize all asymmetric tools, including non cooporation in strategic issues, sanction of US
hugely profiting investments in China. Also Trumps redneck farming vote bank was purposely
targeted to pressure him in coming Nov election. With China $4T war chess & US people
resistance, US can ill afford to fight China if Syria war breakout. Every major war will see
USD artificially hike >30% historically for expenditure mileage.
In UNSC, China has surprisingly took abstained neutral stand, allowing it to play the
coordinator role & denying US UK Fr to get any legit for attack. This avoid relegating
UNSC into two sides shouting. Nikki Harley was thus preempted her wish of striking with or
without UNSC mandate since all ended agreed to let UN conduct independent inspection.
Overall, this continue to lock US UK Fr inside UNSC framework.
China Prez Xi also in Baao seminar announced expedite opening of China huge financial
market. This stirred the world into frenzy to prepare for huge investment, skillfully denied
US ability to pull EU, Jp & others to joint US trade war. All US financier & trade
bodies will loathe any trade or hot war that will derail their golden opportunity.
What else happen behind door we won't know. But whatever we can see now, China has done
every heavy lifting it could, very comprehensive & well plan, short of attacking USM in
Syria which it can't with limited projection force.
Yet Saker is accusing China & others are doing NOTHING to help Russia, when Putin is
refusing to even take down a Israel airfield as a warning to USM. Killing a chicken to
frighten the monkey.
Is Saker demonstrating a typical Russian nature, unappreciative & endless blaming,
always ready to throw ally under bus? This might explain why Russia has few or no true
trusted ally, even ex-Soviet countries. Assad Syria & Iran interest are seen routinely
been sacrificed.
Will China one day decided Russia is not a trusted ally afterall to reconsider US G2
invitation?
I think the point of the article was precisely that the US is not as strong as it thinks.
Hence, the attack was all for "show" so the US can perpetuate the delusion it can handle
Russia/Iran. The danger is that this delusion may cause a major misstep, especially if (when)
the US starts believing it's own bullshit and really pokes the bear.
The general idea seems to be containment of Russia, hemming them in within their own
borders and cutting them off from being able to extend their influence outward.
As part of this any allies of theirs such as Syria come under attack; if the west
can't own them then they're to be reduced to chaos and rendered into costly burdens for the
Russians.
It's all a very cynical and calculated plan that fits into the overall picture of
encircling the Russians to stymie their development and influence. NATO expansion up to their
borders, the Ukraine coup, encirclement, picking off vulnerable allies, economic warfare and
political subversion without end, the pattern is clear. At some point an actual clash might
come about, not necessarily now with Syria as the trigger but somewhere all along the entire
line of points of friction. Unfortunately it seems inevitable that something bad is going to
happen somewhere down the line as the irresistible force meets the immovable object.
The problem here is that moving to a multi-polar world will require many countries to
contribute what and where they can as we fight a very entrenched international Cabal. But,
the largest responsibility lies with the people living within the Evil Empire and its vassal
states. Those whose counties are committing these atrocities need to step up and call foul on
their own governments. This is difficult to do since the Project Mockingbird press
continues to spew unbelievable lies on a non-stop basis. But those lies are getting more and
more difficult to believe. Unless your brain is totally disconnected, you have to realize
that what they are saying is inconsistent and illogical.
Besides calling and berating my representatives, signing petitions, etc. I have taken to
wearing a teeshirt with a picture of Putin and the Russian bear (Putin in a suit, not riding
the bear bare chested).
I wear it to all social events for the purpose of starting a discussion. Most Americans
are not engaged. They have little trust in their government and most feel like there is
nothing they can do about it. I live in the mountain west where people are more libertarian
and more willing to fight. I try to provide them with ammunition and point them to places to
go to get "real" news. I tell them not to "believe" any news, but get a variety of points of
view and use their own minds to determine what is true.
A few years ago, I was very disturbed when I kept hearing Dr. Stephen Cohen say that Putin
was the greatest statesman of our time. As I had studied Soviet history in school, I had sort
of kept abreast of what was happening in Russia. As an economist, I was aware of how the
West, especially the USA, came to help Russia with Democracy and "free markets". It was
obvious to me that we were just assisting in selling Russia by the pound to the moneyed
class. I had followed Dr. Cohen over the years as well. But sceptical of his assessment of
Putin, I have gone back and watched and read almost everything Putin has said and watched
what Russia has done and I believe Dr. Cohen is correct.
As a fervent anti-war activist since the sixties, I have been appalled at all the
regime change the US has and continues to do around the world including both military covert
operations and economic warfare. Well Putin had me at his 2007 Munich speech. The one
the West called a rant.
Finally someone was calling out this criminal behavior on an international stage! Putin
has continued with these messages and as far as I can see, Russia is operating accordingly.
No one country, not Russia, not China, no one can destroy this international Cabal on its
own. It will take a concerted effort of all peace seeking people from around the world to
force their governments on a different path. Starting in my case with the people of the
USA.
It would be legitimate to wonder if the U.S. MIC will stealthily add to the long list of sanctimonious sanctions the interdiction
for any western vassal state to buy the vastly superior Russian weapon systems in a not so distant future. One can feel it coming.
Needless to say this kind of short sighted vision will be the straw that will break the camel's back.
These sanctions are ultimately going to hurt more the USA than Russia because little by little countries are leaving the American
sphere of influence for the more balanced and reasonable Eurasian one. Nobody wants to stay with a maniac like Nikki or a fool
like trump...
The Americans will be begging to be integrated once they hit the bottom.
"... Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. ..."
"... Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely (albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south western Syria. ..."
The US media outlet Politico has published claims based on internal White House leaks, which report that the
controversial US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, is the author of Trump's anti-JCPOA and broader
anti-Iran policies, which were conveyed in his speech form the White House, yesterday evening.
Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the
anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. Her role as US Ambassador has been far more public than that of most of
her predecessors. Many, including myself, suspect that Haley who has no previous foreign policy experience, is
using her position at the UN to promote a future entry into elected politics at a Federal level.
According to Politico, in July of this year, Trump grudgingly certified the JCPOA under advice from
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis. However, at the time, Haley was
said to have volunteered to author an argument which could be employed in the future, which would attempt to
justify a US de-certification of the JCPOA.
"At a mid-day meeting in the Oval Office in late July, U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley came to President
Donald Trump with an offer.
Trump had grudgingly declared Tehran in compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal earlier in the month,
at the urging of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Trump hated the
deal. But the two men pushed him to certify it, arguing in part that he lacked a strong case for declaring
Iran in violation. A refusal to do so would have looked rash, they said, convincing Trump sign off for
another 90 days.
Haley, in that July meeting, which also included National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Vice
President Mike Pence, asked the president to let her make the case for decertification
'Let me lay a foundation for it', she said, according a source familiar with the proceedings. The
president agreed.
Haley would become the administration's most vocal public proponent of decertification -- and Trump's
favorite internal voice on Iran -- further boosting her standing with the president at a time when she is seen
as a potential successor to Tillerson, whose tense relationship with Trump has burst into the open in recent
days.
A month after her talk with Trump, Haley flew to Vienna to visit the headquarters of the International
Atomic Energy Association, where she pressed officials about Iranian compliance with the deal. Soon after,
she delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., airing her "doubts and
concerns" about the agreement.
Haley's role was described by a half-dozen administration officials who took part in the Iran policy
review. While many of the president's cabinet members, aides, and advisers work to restrain his impulses,
when it came to Iran deal Haley did the opposite -- channeling what many Democrats and even some Republicans
consider the president's destructive instincts into policy".
The story from Politico which also argues that arch neo-con John Bolton pushed for a full withdrawal from
the JCPOA from his position outside of the White House, follows may well known trends. This helps explain why
Mattis recently stated that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and why Rex Tilleron's State Department has
officially said the same.
Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a
number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have
been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria
for the foreseeable future.
She has also echoed Donald Trump's aggressive statements about North Korea, whereas Rex Tillerson has often
repeated his view that the US does not and should not seek regime change in Pyongyang and instead will continue
to pursue a diplomatic process.
Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely
(albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south
western Syria.
At one point, Rex Tillerson was said to have privately
reprimanded Haley
for inventing her own foreign policy without consulting her superiors at the State
Department. However, it seems that in respect of Iran, Trump has overruled Tillerson and allowed Haley to take
charge.
Haley later told journalists that she was offered the position of Secretary of State but turned it down,
before being offered the position of Ambassador to the UN. Haley further attested that she sent Trump a list of
demands that she never expected to be agreed upon, as a precondition for accepting her current position.
Haley who has long been seen as a rogue figure in the Trump administration and one who is widely exceeding
her authority, is apparently doing so with Donald Trump's approval.
With rumours swirling that Rex Tillerson planned on resigning, even before it emerged that he allegedly
called Trump a "fucking moron", there is now an increased possibility that a hyper-neo-con, might soon become
the chief foreign policy maker in a Trump administration that was elected on the basis of opposing the neo-con
ideology.
With many Trump administration officials coming and going in short order, there is a very worrying
possibility that Nikki Haley's role will only be enhanced in future months. This is dangerous not only for the
United States, but for the wider world. Haley's inexperience is only matched by her zeal for bellicose measures
against countries which have not done any harm to the American people. Such a person should not be anywhere
near power, but it seems as though she has Trump's ear, far more than the vastly more mature Tillerson and
Mattis.
"... People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government and its European vassals toward Russia. ..."
"... In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0 Published on Apr 13, 2018 ..."
A normal person would answer "yes" to the three questions. So what does this tell us about
Trump's government as these insane actions are the principle practice of Trump's
government?
Does anyone doubt that Nikki Haley is insane?
Does anyone doubt that John Bolton is insane?
Does anyone doubt that Mike Pompeo is insane?
Does this mean that Trump is insane for appointing to the top positions insane people who
foment war with a nuclear power?
Does this mean that Congress is insane for approving these appointments?
These are honest questions. Assuming we avoid the Trump-promised Syrian showdown, how long
before the insane Trump regime orchestrates another crisis?
The entire world should understand that because of the existence of the insane Trump regime,
the continued existence of life on earth is very much in question.
People such as Stephen Cohen and myself, who were actively involved throughout the entirety
of the Cold War, are astonished at the reckless and irresponsible behavior of the US government
and its European vassals toward Russia. Nothing as irresponsible as what we have witnessed
since the Clinton regime and which has worsened dramatically under the Obama and Trump regimes
would have been imaginable during the Cold War. In this brief video, Stephen Cohen describes to
Tucker Carlson the extreme danger of the present situation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvK1Eu01Lz0
Published on Apr 13, 2018
The failure of political leadership throughout the Western world is total. Such total
failure is likely to prove deadly to life on earth.
"... This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave Syria and does not bow to America. ..."
Russia knows that this diplomatic, economic, and military aggression will never stop. These military strikes and economic sanctions from the West represent the death throes of a dying empire. A dying empire is like a gravely wounded, cornered animal.
This is an extremely dangerous animal, because it is willing to arbitrarily kill anyone and anything before it dies.
I still believe that the USA and its European allies will be the
first to use nuclear weapons.
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping no
doubt recognize the grave circumstances, and they are using the
utmost restraint to avoid the provision of a military pretext that
the West/USA is seeking in their effort to greatly escalate
hostilities.
The US will only use nukes to secure their dominance. The
people in change aren't beholden to any country or continent
being filthy rich and/or dual citizens. So the plan is to deny
the US an excuse to use nukes while cutting the empire off at
the knees.
Otherwise, I agree it'll be a NATO country that
nukes first. That's part of the desire to make smaller nukes.
"Small" nukes are seen as a way to nuke but not start a global
exchange. Fucking insane people gambling with all higher life
forms.
Russia will tolerate it as long as possible. The delay only
weakens the US and allies. All have serious issues domestically
and even alliances are strained. Don't interrupt when your enemy
is making a mistake
True, but look around us. There is no need to nuke cities
and military targets in the US. Shut down the electrical
grid and the population would lose it in a matter of hours.
Within days it would be chaos on so many levels that it
would take a long time to recover. We really are our own
worst enemies because we are so fractured and polarized of
the stupidest shit.
If limited global depopulation is the ultimate goal, then
yes, the USA will suffer the most due to the prevalence
of firearms and the general hostility that is clearly
evident within its citizenry.
That's obviously
not
the main objective for the warmongers and neocons in DC.
The ultimate objective is global dominance, and the
complete and total subjugation of humanity.
Like I said, criminal insanity is the paradigm that
rules the West.
Cornered animal; that sounds like Trumps modus operandi. Notice that
anyone who criticizes him gets lambasted with personal attacks
instead of a reasoned response.
We need a President who
understands freedom and who is a reasonable person, neither of which
traits are possessed by Trump. He didn't win the election on his own
qualification but on Hillary's lack of qualification. This speaks to
the point, "The lesser of two evils is still evil".
This is very clear path toward a confrontation with Russia. America is not
going to stop . Russia continues to be punished because does not leave
Syria and does not bow to America.
This recent American
fiasco in
Syria is just the opening overture.
In May we have the moving of American embassy to Jerusalem and the
unilateral withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal.
I think we will not reach the end of the year without a big war :
America is losing power and needs it.
Actually the terrorists were sent by Israel and more specifically, the
Mossad, who trained them. Israel wants to expand its territory by
committing a GENOCIDE.
The chemical weapons organisation in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria
found NO chemical weapons at the site the USA UK And FR bombed for that.
The only chemical weapons are those found in the tunnels in East Ghouta
after Syria bussed the militant occupiers away. The 40 tons of chemicals
have manufactuer names, serial numbers and addresses eg Porton Down
Salisbury.
Cui Bono? Trump says he's going to pull out of Syria -- Things
never looked better for Assad -- and he gets the bright idea, to turn the world against him by gassing
gassing his own people? I'm not buying it. I-F-F (Israeli False Flag)
Trump's in deep over his head. It was an open question whether he posed any genuine obstacle to the pathocracy, but it seems
more clear now that, one way or another, he has been brought more tightly under their control. THAT, much more than any individual
false-flags or other deceptions or wrongs, should be cause for the rational world to fear. The psychopaths are still on the march,
and Trump is at least paying lip service to their chicanery. The further out on a limb he goes, the more reluctant and then helpless
he will be to backtrack as pathology becomes more extreme and events escalate under their own momentum. With markets looking more
precarious than ever, how long will it be before the psychopaths commit more and bigger false flags?
Forgot to say that theses sanctions are downright embarrassing.
So we illegally attack a different country, that country's ally doesn't respond to our act of aggression, and we're now slapping
sanctions on that country... for not responding to our attack? Not only sanctions but sanctions on products that both parties
actually know aren't there. Unless the US is sanctioning the supply chain of swimming pool and industrial/domestic cleaning agents
based on chlorine.
Brilliant just the way to get an agreement from them next time.
Trump had 1 BILLION $ in debt to the chosen banks ; maybe this can point toward whether or not he was part of the deep state
from the beginning ? But ,does it matter any longer ?
Sanctions... act of war. Dropping bombs on a sovereign country (without UN approval even)... act of war. Insulting foreign
leaders and creating false flags to justify your illegal actions... act of war. Don't be fooled into thinking that just b/c Russia
did not respond to the US actions, that "nothing happened". War has started, this is just the beginning.
Here we go again- the ever-plotting West trying to create reality on the fly -- attempting to make the alleged chemical weapons
attack into a fait accompli, painting the tape of reality with the shadow-puppets of the operation mockingbird-controlled, corporate
(MIC) media!
Any good reason we shouldn't just start calling the 5(+1)-eyez media environment the Oceania State News Network (OSNN) right
now?
With the country's attention focused on James Comey's book publicity gala interview
with ABC at 10pm ET, the former FBI Director has thrown former President Obama and his Attorney
General Loretta Lynch under the bus, claiming they "jeopardized" the Hillary Clinton email
investigation.
Comey called out Obama and Lynch in his new book, A Higher Loyalty , set to come out on
Tuesday. In it, he defends the FBI's top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged
with probing Clinton's use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information,
reports the
Washington Examiner , which received an advanced copy.
" I never heard anyone on our team -- not one -- take a position that seemed driven by their
personal political motivations . And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I
thought came from a political bias. Never ... Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected,
agonized, played devil's advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major
decisions .
Comey says that multiple public statements made by Obama about the investigation
"jeopardized" the credibility of the FBI investigation - seemingly absolving Clinton of any
crime before FBI investigators were able to complete their work .
" Contributing to this problem, regrettably, was President Obama . He had jeopardized the
Department of Justice's credibility in the investigation by saying in a 60 Minutes interview
on Oct. 11, 2015, that Clinton's email use was "a mistake" that had not endangered national
security," Comey writes. "Then on Fox News on April 10, 2016, he said that Clinton may have
been careless but did not do anything to intentionally harm national security, suggesting
that the case involved overclassification of material in the government."
" President Obama is a very smart man who understands the law very well . To this day, I
don't know why he spoke about the case publicly and seemed to absolve her before a final
determination was made. If the president had already decided the matter, an outside observer
could reasonably wonder, how on earth could his Department of Justice do anything other than
follow his lead." -
Washington Examiner
Of course, Comey had already begun
drafting Clinton's exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to
have been "forgotten" in his book.
" The truth was that the president -- as far as I knew, anyway -- he had only as much
information as anyone following it in the media . He had not been briefed on our work at all.
And if he was following the media, he knew nothing, because there had been no leaks at all up
until that point. But, his comments still set all of us up for corrosive attacks if the case
were completed with no charges brought."
"Matter" not "Investigation"
Comey also describes a September 2015 meeting with AG Lynch in which she asked him to
describe the Clinton email investigation as a "matter" instead of an investigation.
"It occurred to me in the moment that this issue of semantics was strikingly similar to the
fight the Clinton campaign had waged against The New York Times in July. Ever since then, the
Clinton team had been employing a variety of euphemisms to avoid using the word
'investigation,'" Comey writes.
" The attorney general seemed to be directing me to align with the Clinton campaign strategy
. Her "just do it" response to my question indicated that she had no legal or procedural
justification for her request, at least not one grounded in our practices or traditions.
Otherwise, I assume, she would have said so.
Comey said others present in the meeting with Lynch thought her request was odd and
political as well - including one of the DOJ's senior leaders.
" I know the FBI attendees at our meeting saw her request as overtly political when we
talked about it afterward . So did at least one of Lynch's senior leaders. George Toscas, then
the number-three person in the department's National Security Division and someone I liked,
smiled at the FBI team as we filed out, saying sarcastically, ' Well you are the Federal Bureau
of Matters ,'" Comey recalled.
That said, Comey "didn't see any instance when Attorney General Lynch interfered with the
conduct of the investigation," writing "Though I had been concerned about her direction to me
at that point, I saw no indication afterward that she had any contact with the investigators or
prosecutors on the case."
In response, Loretta Lynch promptly issued a statement in which she said that if James Comey
" had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample
opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did."
Yet here is the even more unexplainable part of this sorry episode that amounts to the Deep
State waging the Donald. The remaining rebels capitulated on Sunday and the government re-upped
the evacuation deal. That is, the remnants of Jaish al-Islam are now all dead or have boarded
busses--along with their families---and are already in Idlib province.
That's right. There is no opposition left in Douma and it has been liberated by the Syrian
army, including release of the 3,200 pro-government hostages who had been paraded around the
town in cages by the Saudi Arabia funded warriors of Islam who had terrorized it.
According to the Syrian government, no traces of chemicals or even bodies have been found.
They could be lying, of course, but with the OPCW investigators on the way to Douma who in
their right mind would not wait for an assessment of what actually happened last Saturday?
That is, if you are not caught up in the anti-Russian hysteria that has engulfed official
Washington and the mainstream media. Indeed, the Syrian government has now even welcomed the
international community to come to Douma, where the Russians claim there is absolutely nothing
to see:
Speaking with EuroNews, Russia's ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizov, said "Russian
military specialists have visited this region, walked on those streets, entered those houses,
talked to local doctors and visited the only functioning hospital in Douma, including its
basement where reportedly the mountains of corpses pile up. There was not a single corpse and
even not a single person who came in for treatment after the attack."
"But we've seen them on the video!" responds EuroNews correspondent Andrei Beketov.
"There was no chemical attack in Douma, pure and simple," responds Chizov. "We've seen
another staged event. There are personnel, specifically trained - and you can guess by whom -
amongst the so-called White Helmets, who were already caught in the act with staged
videos."
In short, if they are lying, it would not be hard to ascertain. Presumably, the Donald could
even send Jared Kushner--flack jacket and all---to investigate what actually happened at
Douma.
Alas, the Donald has apparently opted for war instead in a desperate maneuver to keep the
Deep State at bay.
Either way, we think he's about done, and in Part 2 we will explore why what's about to
happen next should be known to the history books, if there are any, as "Mueller's War".
"... Cohen acknowledged that he paid porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance. ..."
"... The obvious purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to Mr. Trump vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700. ..."
"... Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be dangerous. ..."
So what of these charges against Cohen and could they really hurt the president?
Federal election laws define a campaign contribution as "anything of value given to
influence a Federal election." It is common knowledge that Mr. Cohen acknowledged that he paid
porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her
staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is
something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance.
The obvious
purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about
Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to
Mr. Trump
vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700.
Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted (later acquitted) for soliciting and
spending nearly $1 million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle
Hunter, so this is not a crime normally brushed under the rug. The public record also
establishes probable cause to believe Cohen was behind the payment of $150,000 to Playboy Bunny
Karen McDougall to kill her story about a protracted extramarital relationship with Mr. Trump
that could have torpedoed his presidential ambitions. The question remains, of course, how much
this will implicate and hurt Trump, who has denied the affair with Daniels and any other
"wrongdoing." Cohen said he paid Daniels out of his own pocket and was not reimbursed by Trump
or the campaign.
John Edwards was acquited on one charge and a mistrial on five others w/o retrial. So there
was no conviction there, these actions are not business as usual, and the DOJ lesson from
that case should have been to cease such abusive prosecutorial misconduct, not to repeat it.
These examples show why campaign finance restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on
freedom of association. Trump is a rich man, so could afford to pay the hush money if he
believed it necessary without it being a crime. As it appears, Cohen believed it important to
pay w/o asking Trump, thinking he's helping a friend. Now what of Edwards? Maybe Edwards
couldn't afford to pay hush money, so he needed and solicited help from friends. By making it
a crime for friends to help him, the law favors rich candidates like Trump that can afford to
do things others can't without breaking the law.
There is zero chance of a jury conviction here, so DOJ shouldn't have pursued it given the
incendiary effect of conducting raids on someone's attorney. Furthermore, there's zero chance
of Muller getting jury convictions on the pile of horse manure prosecutions he's pursuing.
The only convictions Muller is getting is from people buckling under the fiduciary extortion
inherent in his tactics and copping a plea even though a jury would never convict them.
Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted for soliciting and spending nearly $1
million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter, so this
is not a crime normally brushed under the rug.
Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's
easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be
dangerous.
In a White House known for chaos, the process of developing the U.S. response to the Syrian government's alleged latest gas attack
was proceeding with uncharacteristic deliberation, including several national security briefings for President Trump.
But then Wednesday morning, Trump upended it all with a tweet -- warning Russia, the Syrian government's backer, to "get ready"
because American missiles "will be coming, nice and new and 'smart!' "
White House advisers were surprised by the missive and found it "alarming" and "distracting," in the words of one senior official.
They quickly regrouped and, together with Pentagon brass, continued readying Syria options for Trump as if nothing had happened.
But the Twitter disruption was emblematic of a president operating on a tornado of impulses -- and with no clear strategy -- as
he faces some of the most consequential decisions of his presidency, including Syria, trade policy and the Russian interference probe
that threatens to overwhelm his administration.
"It's just like everybody wakes up every morning and does whatever is right in front of them," said one West Wing aide, speaking
on the condition of anonymity to share a candid opinion. "Oh, my God, Trump Tower is on fire. Oh, my God, they raided Michael Cohen's
office. Oh, my God, we're going to bomb Syria. Whatever is there is what people respond to, and there is no proactive strategic thinking."
The president has been particularly livid in the wake of Monday's FBI raids on the home, office and hotel room of Cohen, his longtime
personal attorney. In the days after, he has seriously contemplated a shake-up at the Justice Department in the hopes of curbing
the expanding probe by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, whose referral led to the Cohen raids. Trump is considering firing
Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who is overseeing the probe, several people familiar with Trump's private comments said.
By Trump's admission Wednesday on Twitter, Mueller's investigation into Russian election interference and possible obstruction
of justice has consumed "tremendous time and focus." And in denying allegations of wrongdoing, the president seemed to equivocate
in a parenthetical aside: "No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back)," he wrote.
On trade, meanwhile, the president is grappling with the potential economic fallout of his threatened tariffs, especially within
the agriculture sector, which could harm some of the rural states that carried him to electoral victory -- all against the backdrop
of his ongoing effort to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement more favorably for the United States.
Trump also finds himself facing the surprise retirement of House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), signaling more turmoil for the
fractious Republican Party heading into the midterm elections.
These and other pivotal developments come as many of the guardrails that previously helped stabilize the president -- from West
Wing aides to clear policy processes -- have been cast aside, with little evident organization or long-term strategy emanating from
the White House.
This portrait of Trump in the current moment comes from interviews with 21 administration officials, outsider advisers, lawmakers
and confidants, many of them speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details and conversations.
Save for his Wednesday morning tweet, the president's Syria deliberations have largely been the exception to the chaos engulfing
the White House, underscoring the high stakes of a decision, White House officials said.
President Trump, second from right, speaks in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Monday. (Susan Walsh/AP)
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday afternoon that Trump continues to review options for a military
strike in Syria and that his tweet should not be read as an announcement of planned action.
"We're maintaining that we have a number of options, and all of those options are still on the table," Sanders said. "Final decisions
haven't been made on that front."
The National Security Council met Wednesday afternoon at the White House, chaired by Vice President Pence, to finalize options
that could be presented to the president, Sanders said. She said Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, national security adviser John Bolton
and other senior officials have been in regular contact with their counterparts from Israel, Saudi Arabia, France, the United Kingdom
and other partners around the world as the administration weighs its military options for Syria.
Yet Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Wednesday afternoon that he had yet to hear from Trump
or other administration officials about impending action in Syria.
"I have no idea. So far, it appears to me to be bluster," Corker said. "Then I saw a tweet come out about us working with Russia
right after we're getting ready to bomb them, so I mean, who knows? Unfortunately, there are a lot of things announced by the administration
that never come to pass or evolve."
The more general question of U.S. engagement in Syria has confounded and divided the administration. Officials at the White House
and Pentagon, for instance, were blindsided by Trump's pronouncement at a rally in Ohio in late March that U.S. troops would be leaving
Syria "very soon," and in the first hours after the speech, they scrambled to get a sense of what he meant.
Trump initially told aides that he wanted U.S. soldiers and Marines to leave in 48 hours -- an impossible timeline that alarmed
the Pentagon and sent officials racing to dissuade him, two U.S. officials said.
Eventually, Mattis and others persuaded Trump to give the military another six months to wipe out the remnants of the Islamic
State. The timeline was far from ideal but was viewed as a major victory compared with Trump's original timeline, officials said.
Senior U.S. officials describe a president who is operating largely on impulse, with little patience for the advice of his top
aides. "A decision or statement is made by the president, and then the principals -- Mattis or Pompeo or Kelly -- come in and tell
him we can't do it," said one senior administration official. "When that fails, we reverse-engineer a policy process to match whatever
the president said."
On a potential shake-up at the Justice Department, Trump has been receiving a range of advice and has sent mixed signals about
his intentions. Within the White House, advisers have largely counseled caution and urged him not to make changes. White House Chief
of Staff John F. Kelly and counsel Donald McGahn have tried to calm Trump several times, as has Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer handling
the Russia probe.
Yet others, including many in the president's orbit who don't work in the White House, have counseled a more aggressive approach,
saying the raid of Cohen's home and business crossed a line. This advice has left White House staff on edge, nervous about what the
president might do.
Trump, for instance, yelled about Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions for several hours Monday and has continued to
complain about them since. But some described his complaints as just "venting," with one outside adviser saying that while the president
is "steamed and unhappy," that doesn't necessarily mean he's prepared to take action.
"I heard or saw nothing that would suggest he was planning to make a change at the Department of Justice," said Alan Dershowitz,
a retired Harvard Law School professor who dined at the White House with Trump on Tuesday night. He said they mainly discussed the
Middle East and Russia.
Rosenstein, meanwhile, seems to have made peace with any eventuality, said one person who has had a conversation with him. He
understands he might be squarely in Trump's crosshairs, and "is ready for whatever comes and confident in his own behavior."
Trump has also devoted a portion of his days to trade policy. Over the past eight weeks, the president has initiated trade disputes
with several of the largest countries in the world, driving forward pronouncements without fully vetting most of them with key aides.
In some cases, he has backpedaled on his vow to impose steep tariffs on countries such as Germany, Canada and Mexico. But he has
also refused to waive tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Japan, a major U.S. security ally and trading partner.
Some Senate Republicans fear that Trump's loosely formed trade war with China could end up cratering the agriculture industry
at a time when many Midwestern farmers are preparing to plant crops. China has promised to impose tariffs on U.S. farm exports as
a way of retaliating against Trump's planned tariffs. The White House promised to backstop U.S. farm groups, but they have yet to
share what they would do or how they would do it.
"I don't know what kind of cockamamie scheme we could come up with that would be fair," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Tuesday.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) was similarly frustrated by Trump's trade agenda. "I think the president has some ideas
about trade that are not generally shared by the Republican conference," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his frustrated ranks during a closed-door lunch this week to call Trump and air their
trade-related worries, according to a person familiar with the Kentucky Republican's remarks. Roberts and others planned to meet
with Trump on Thursday to discuss the matter.
I am not under the illusion that the US is the cause of all the world's ills, but if our government had at least some half-sane
foreign policy which involved cooperation with Russia and China--among other nations--on issues of mutual concern, the world would
be a far better place. Instead it's nothing but our-way-or-the-highway confrontation.
Our exceptionalism blinds us to any consideration that there are other people, places, and nations with valid interests. Working
through those interests with the goal of mutual benefit to all parties would truly make America great again, not this nonsense.
The world is not always a zero sum game.
Wouldn't want to be in Putin's seat right now - he's got some very tough calls to make, and none of the choices are good.
If Russia were really the US's enemy, it might be argued that Trump had done good to put him in that position. But why on earth
should Russia be regarded as an enemy of the US, except when the US chooses to make it one with actions like this proposed war
against its ally?
Col Lang, thanks for all you've done in service to the U.S and continue to do by getting this message out to the rest of the nation
through your network.
pat, i am going to go out on a limb and say i don't believe any attack will
happen soon.. if anything happens i think april 24th is close to the
time it will happen... and if that date passes, i think it is unlikely
to happen in the way it is being anticipated at present.. and - wait for it..... that is based off the astrology!
What I see as a major factor is that Russia probably can't afford a small tit-for-tat exchange. If Russia and the US knock down
a couple of each other's planes and then try to cool things off militarily, Russia will almost certainly face massive economic
consequences, probably involving the cancellation of the Nord Stream II at a minimum. This means that Russia needs to either do
nothing or respond with such force that the west cannot simply change tactics and critically escalate the economic pressure.
Please do not misunderstand me, I respect your struggle, Colonel, even if it is futile.
Do you remember Iraq's desperate attempts to avoid war in 2003?
All those efforts, all the massive protests in the West were to no avail, because the Empire had made up its mind that it wanted
war, and was perfectly willing to lie to get that war.
"Mobile WMD factories"
"Yellow cake"
"Aluminum tubes" ZOMG. Aluminum. Tubes.
In spite of crimes on a hitlerian scale, nobody in the United States or UK leadership paid any price at all, not on a personal
level, not on a professional level. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair and the others walk the streets freely, treated as Elder Statesmen
and Wise Leaders, in spite of the fact that they are directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, trillions of dollars
wasted, and not only that, but every doomsayer's prediction with regard to Iraq came to pass.
If the west had one tenth the respect for "the rule of law" that it professes, every last one of these Elder Statesmen and
more would hang. At the same time, if Saddam Hussein truly had nuclear weapons, the west would have to think twice, just as it
cannot force its will on North Korea.
The moral of this sad story? There is no reasoning with sociopaths. They can be dealt with only from a position of strength,
if you have rewards to give them that they cannot otherwise take, or punishments to had out that they cannot avoid.
Reward and punishment is what sociopaths understand.
lol seems like a lifetime ago. A sad development is that Rumsfeld's 'you to go war...' had entered the national psyche as a
saying to be paraphrased. Guilty.
So who were the sociopaths in the room when Hitler allowed the British to depart Dunkirk; when Hitler offered numerous peace offers
to Britain; when the German government offered more-than-generous terms to Poland to settle the Danzig question?
You wrote earlier, Sid Finster,
"Sociopaths care nothing for logic or morality of they stabs in the way of something they want. Like the Reichstag fire.
I don't understand why people refuse to see that we are run by sociopaths, or, at a minimum, by people indistinguishable from
sociopaths."
In a recent comment the failure of comparison of Syria to the Reichstag fire was explained.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is equally intellectually suspect.
How did so many people get to be sociopaths? I suggest that one element is that almost the entire nation has been systematically
misinformed about its own history, and trained like puppy-dogs to load all culpability on 'that guy,' thereby escaping accountability
and also insight, characteristics of -- a sociopath.
Before we start diagnosing sociopathology and offering "reward and punishment" treatment, we might do well to do precisely
what major decision makers in the current situation have failed to do: examine the situation from all sides, rationally, based
on sound evidence (movies & TV don't count).
Rep. Carol Maloney and seven other congressmen are sponsoring the "Never Again Education Act" to "teach American Students about
the Holocaust."
https://www.algemeiner.com/... This is an extremely dangerous measure that must be struck down before it takes hold. The Holocaust
is already taught in US public schools, and taught in a way that permits no critical analysis but only acquiescence. When a school
district in California assigned students to study the issue and prepare a critical analysis of it, the school district was severely
chastised, made to rescind and counteract the assignment, monitored for several years to ensure "Holocaust compliance." This is
not an intellectually sound study of history, this is dogmatic tyranny. It produces --- sociopaths.
On several occasions, I have encountered individuals who are psychologically incapable of constructing boundaries for their personal
conduct. Instead of determining what they should not do for themselves, they rely on their boss (or anyone else who's above them)
to knock them back when they go to far. And then they get to the top...
Interesting develops in Russia reported by John Helmer - a potential major shift in power from oligarchs to defense interests
and indications that the government to be formed by Putin will essentially be a war cabinet (and without Medvedev). All of this
seems driven by the unrelating and largely imaginary criticism of Russia by the US, UK, etc. and the lack of any willingness to
have honest assessments of the negative claims like the Syria "chemical attacks":
http://johnhelmer.org/?p=17...
Last Russian Presidential elections were not about electing the President of Russian Federation, they were about electing a Supreme
Commander. Most Russians understand that, US national security apparatus and media do not. It is simply beyond their grasp and
experiences.
I am afraid this is a fait accompli. Thank you for trying. At least your honor is clean, which is much more than can be said for
too many in a position to influence. I weep for our nation.
As an aside, Trump won't be re-elected, but I don't think he cares at this point - he may not even complete his first term. PT
was wrong. The coup has not failed. It marches on. Trump's lack of character has revealed itself. He should make a stand now on
his principles. Engaging in war with Syria and Russia isn't going to save his presidency. They will overthrow him anyhow as an
example of what will happen to anyone else that The People elect as oppose to the deep state.
Eric:
I voted for Trump but he lost my support over a year ago.
Time to finally accept the fact that Trump has no principles.
Trump's statement last week about pulling troop's out of Syria was a half-assed attempt at cover for what came about a few days
later. Mulshine's try at running interference for Trump is a comical continuation of that cover. It's a dog and pony show. Don't
fall for it.
Now everyone will have a reason to get rid of Trump, then bankrupt his family to boot. Not to worry, Bombing Bolton will win
another war and we'll be greated as liberators from Damascus to Moscow. Evidence? Who cares if the evidence is even more fabricated
than the Fusion GPS crap. Would anyone in the intellegence community lie? On a bright note Little Rocket Man won't have to worry
about his future after Big Rocket Man proves his point.
Eric Newhill,
I fear you may be right. Trump is getting hammered from every side right now.
He may extricate himself, but the quicksand in the swamp is getting deeper.
The funny part is that russiagate conspiracy theorists will scream "Putin puppet!" even as the ICBMs are launched. The "Trump
is fighting the Deep State" conspiracy theorists will insist that this is eleven-dimensional chess or something equally stupid,
even as they go up in a mushroom cloud.
At least it would be funny, if it were not actually happening.
Then again, just when all appears lost a glimmer of hope is offered. Teresa May is hedging now. Maybe it wasn't gas. Maybe
Assad didn't do it - inspectors are needed on the ground at the site:
http://www.breitbart.com/lo...
This is my hometown guy. I was surprised by the number of people there (as well as other places) who are absolutely 100% convinced
about the fact that there was a chemical attack and Assad must be guilty because they saw the footage of the victims foaming from
their mouths on TV. Yikes.
Perhaps I should blame the networks. In all of the coverage that I saw, they simply streamed out the video as if it came from
one of their foreign correspondents. If the networks had any sense of professionalism they would have put up a caption,
'This footage is unverified, it was obtained by rebel activists'
thanks for stating all that pat.. i am happy to see your word is reaching some of the msm! can you get your press secretary to
run your ideas by the nyt, wapo and wsj too? that would be a switch for what they regularly offer!
your comment confirms the idea that alternative views are not being heard in the msm... the msm appears to be one big hall of
mirrors with generally the same message being sent out - one that conforms with the ziocons..
I may be dating myself here, but I can still remember 25 years ago, when Col. Lang was a regular guest on the old McNeill/Lehrer
News Hour on PBS. He always gave excellent, informed commentary. I was so glad a couple of years ago, when--quite by accident--I
found this blog on the internet. It's been a go-to source for me ever since. It's a pity that informed experts like Col. Lang
aren't often featured by our MSM anymore; but the again, that's why I now mostly avoid the MSM.
I think the real problem is not so much ideology but the fact that the current crop of journalists have little experience with
dust-ups in the "developing" world and therefore have to trust inside-the-Beltway "experts" who have no expertise.
House Speaker Paul Ryan to retire. "Paul Ryan is abandoning the ship before it
sinks - Chicago Tribune". No doubt to get his cut. But, I guess he never got the briefing
that if the USA goes to war with the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin has more
than enough nuclear weapons to spare one to target Janesville, WI. Will he have time to realize that it all was for nothing?
I believe this episode demonstrates the soundness of my observation a few months ago that the best course of action for the
United States is to cut and run from Syria as well as Afghanistan and a number of other such places.
US has demonstrated that she could be easily manipulated and her actions could lead to World War III.
The neocons seem to see WWIII as a feature and not a bug.
Witness the articles suggesting that we can "win" a nuclear war. I am reminded of the scene from Dr. Strangelove when General
Buck Turgidson suggested "not more than ten, twenty million dead, TOPS!"
"... At the moment if I had to guess, it will be a decapitation strike at Damascus along with wide ranging attacks on Syrian air force targets and possibly other regime targets as well. And my guess is that the Russians probably won't respond beyond shooting down some of the incoming missiles. So like Shayrat, but rather more murderous and widespread. ..."
"... It should be remembered though that even if there is no big Russian retaliation, that doesn't mean the White House nutters were "right", any more than a man who pulls the trigger once in a game of Russian Roulette and gets away with it was "right". ..."
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia,
because they will be coming, nice and new and "smart!" You shouldn't be partners with a Gas
Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
What does he mean "new" meaning new technology, and smarter? not like the ones he fired last
year? So Russians should think twice if they can intercept and fold their hand. What does he
think this is a poker game? what if they don't fold, does he think about that. Does anybody
in DC thinks what would be the consequence if Russian retaliate and fire at the missile
launchers, are we ready to fold or we will go to war with Russia? what the F*ing morons run
this country.
" What does he think this is a poker game? what if they don't fold, does he think about
that. Does anybody in DC thinks what would be the consequence if Russian retaliate and fire
at the missile launchers, are we ready to fold or we will go to war with Russia? "
Seems clear they think the Russians will fold, and if they don't they can be beaten in
theatre at an acceptable cost.
Presumably they see the risks of escalation to regional war, or all out war, or even
nuclear war as within acceptable bounds. Others might disagree with them (especially since
the pot contains nothing worth having to justify the risk for ordinary folk), but they are
the ones making the decisions.
Yes some like Netanyahu and Alan Darshwitz think it's a bluff worthy of risk to pay,
especially since Americans like me and you are the ones who will end up paying the price of
their hand. Do you think it's a worth while bluff? Colonel Lang with more experience than any
of decision makers, thinks not.
Still have my fingers crossed for a measured 'response' in the vein of the missiles that
missed the deserted target after the first false flag gas attack. He and Putin may be on the
same page.
Seems like a long shot to me, but your guess is as good as mine.
At the moment if I had to guess, it will be a decapitation strike at Damascus along with
wide ranging attacks on Syrian air force targets and possibly other regime targets as well.
And my guess is that the Russians probably won't respond beyond shooting down some of the
incoming missiles. So like Shayrat, but rather more murderous and widespread.
Where we are the following morning, who knows? If Assad is still alive and the strikes
aren't too extensive, nothing much is changed. Although of course if the anti-Syrian forces
can stage one false provocation and get US intervention, they can stage another. And another,
ad nauseam.
It should be remembered though that even if there is no big Russian retaliation, that
doesn't mean the White House nutters were "right", any more than a man who pulls the trigger
once in a game of Russian Roulette and gets away with it was "right".
There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with
straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over
how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead
to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.
Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the
pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having
written about the
1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda
campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities
in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.
Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who
deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to
resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.
Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites
and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their
slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction
of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied
on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.
Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is
a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed
" the weaponization
of human rights. "
We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion
to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was
rather mealy-mouthed in
her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.
For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American
intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war
continues to tear the country apart to this day.
Power in Power
Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised
as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist
groups.
Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military
mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually
hunted down, tortured and murdered.
The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state
with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians.
It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.
Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions
rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all
that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
predicted "the next genocide
in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued
to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.
Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor
Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective
control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.
Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic
Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.
A Propaganda Speech
Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided
propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."
Despite the key role of neo-Nazis
acknowledged even by the U.S.
House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad
operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.
Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February
2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in
the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence
of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's
destabilizing actions in your country."
Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and
the message you heard from President
Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest
then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.
"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian
aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.
"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its
will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as
one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]
Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number
of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were
pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.
"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in
order to topple a democratically-elected government."
Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was
sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest
prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to
"midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]
The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence.
Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias,
organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials
fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled
the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.
Inventing 'Facts'
But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:
"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours
after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.
"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip
him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several
days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.
"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed
to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled
by outsiders.
"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan
was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers.
Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "
Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving
a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the
Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside
its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.
"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the
inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.
"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women,
including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping
build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.
"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract
foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv
where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage
boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.
"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have
been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people
are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real
numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled
by the separatists."
One-Sided Account
Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians
resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly
in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the
violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence,
but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."
Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on
Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile
documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]
Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014,
burning alive scores of ethnic Russians
while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped
Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.
Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far
larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism
operation."
Use of Propaganda
In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's
" How Reagan Promoted Genocide
."]
Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the
"bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands
of civilians.
During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President
Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric
from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."
Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak
in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored
by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom
a chastened Obama invited to
a White House lunch last year).
But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the
Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the
Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.
The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in
disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.
That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive
neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom.
And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."
There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan
to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.
Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear
program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have
used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.
Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to
so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from
office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.
Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing
to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what
they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing
operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here .
incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm
It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be
forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands
of time' to save their victims from more misery.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Syria invasion by the USA with Arab monarchies and several Western "partners in crime" is nothing but an attempt to correct
disastrous results of Saddam removal which essentially gave the country for free to Iran. Not they try to convert Syria into Sunni
country hostile to Iraq/Iran and that requires removal of secular Assad government.
An interesting
perspective on why the crisis has escalated to this point is made by Adam Garrie along
the lines of Zhirinovsky's nationalist critique of Putin's policy/rhetoric to NATO/Outlaw US
Empire acts. Excerpt:
"In respect of Syria, Russia is guilty of presuming that in fighting a war against
terrorism that the entire world ought to have supported, that even its enemies in the US and
Europe would somehow allow Russia to go about its business in Syria, owing to the greater
good of eliminating terrorist groups like Daesh, al-Qaeda and their clones from the face of
the earth.
"This was a false premise from the beginning as Russia should have known all too well.
Russia should not have been so naive in presuming a nonchalant attitude from the western, as
when it comes to the western imperial quest for global dominance, they will do anything to
subdue Russia, no matter how many objectively gruesome allies the west will need to associate
itself with in the process. There is even a clear blueprint regarding this western attitude.
Its author was an English academic called Halford Mackinder whose so-called "heartland
theory" portrayed Russia as a necessary "pivot area" that western imperialists would need to
subdue in their wider ambition to conquer China and the wider Asian world."
There are some aspects of this position I agree with. But then neither Garrie, Zhriniovsky
or I are Russia's President having to weigh a great number of issues, which is why I find it
difficult to criticize Putin/Lavrov's overall efforts and thrust. China's Xi now appears to
be willing to emerge from behind the shadows to exert its pressure on events. As I alluded to
in my comment above, it's quite likely Russia will encourage/allow Syria to use its anti-ship
missiles in retaliation, which subtly shifts the dynamic.
Timothy Hagios | Apr 11, 2018 2:41:46 PM |
Russia's main impediment is that it cannot allow the conflict to become purely economic, as it is more vulnerable economically than
militarily.
Thus Russia needs to respond to an attack either by doing nothing or by striking with such force that the West is not given
the option of creating an economic blockade while maintaining its economic advantages.
One option would be to strike Saudi oil fields,
which would be devastating to the West without necessarily leading to a full-blown nuclear war.
History repeats itself. An investigation motivated by some alleged abuse deploys drift nets,
finds nothing so it changes the focus to the sexual history of the target. Hush money for
consensual sex is legal as far as I know -- I do not know the law, but it became known and
studiously ignored by the special prosecutor. So he tries to discover any possible past deal
that is somehow illegal, and recorded as illegal? A bit of a fat chance.
"... The details of Skripal case are very entertaining, but not necessary for our understanding. The case was used to install in minds the connection between chemical poisoning and Russia. It is unfair, for Russians destroyed all their chemical poisons under the eyes of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors, but life is often unfair. ..."
"... The attack had never occurred at all, but it was duly reported by the pro-Western media. Thus the game came to a close. Skripal Affair established the connection of Russia and chemical weapons, Eastern Ghouta allowed to use this connection in order to attack Russia. ..."
"... We should not overestimate importance of these media events. The leading Western powers and their media refused to consider different explanations, refused an open inquiry, they went for jugular. Russia has been demonised in 2018, like Germany was demonised in 1940. It was a long and cautious labour. Have a look at this site theday.co.uk -- it is a site for school children and their teachers. You'll be amazed to discover its fervent hatred of Russia and Putin being pumped into hearts and heads of young generation. Such a long planning can't be dependent on an event like poisoning of an ex-spy or even on the fall of a Syrian underground fortress. ..."
"... we prefer a more simple explanation: Jews are well integrated into Western elites, and they promote and support the goals of these elites. ..."
The diplomats' expulsion flabbergasted the Russians. For days they went around scratching
their heads and looking for an answer: what do they want from us? What is the bottom line? Too
many events that make little sense separately. Why did the US administration expel 60 Russian
diplomats? Do they want to cut off diplomatic relations, or is it a first step to an attempt to
remove Russia from the Security Council, or to cancel its veto rights? Does it mean the US has
given up on diplomacy? (The answer "it's war" didn't come to their minds at that time).
The astonished Russians responded all right. They also expelled 60 diplomats, and they made
it painful: all US diplomats engaged in the political department of the Moscow Embassy were on
the non-grata list. The Political department consisted of three sections, dealing with foreign
policy, internal Russian politics and military analysis; the most important centre of data
collection, of liaison with Russian politicians, of military consequences, of Syria and
Ukraine, of North Korea and China, experienced first-class intelligence officers and field
hands -- all gone, including their Political Officer Christopher Robinson (POL). The Russians
expelled Maria Olson, the Embassy's well-known spokesperson, and the Ambassador's interpreter.
They closed down St Petersburg Consulate, an important centre for connecting, influencing and
interacting with the opposition in this 'second capital' of Russia. The US has lost many of its
Moscow hands, people who knew Russia and had developed personal relations with important
Russians. It will take a lot of time and effort for the US State Department and intelligence
agencies to get back to the positions they had lost. The Brits who initiated the deportations
also lost about fifty of their Moscow Embassy staff.
Surprisingly, the mass deportation of so many Russian diplomats had little effect on the
Russian people, as this strike had been neutralised by another painful event, by the Kemerovo
Mall blaze killing 64 cinema-goers including over 40 children. The blaze, even if it weren't
arson (it has not been proven yet) had triggered a massive onslaught of fake news and internet
trolls on the people of Russia. A million underfed Ukrainians were deployed by the Western
psywar on the web to tell the Russians that hundreds of their children had been incinerated,
and that their authorities lie to them. This operation revealed the level of influence and
integration the Western spy agencies have in Russia.
Kemerovo was a good choice for the operation: it is the only ethnic-Russian region ruled by
an old-style local hero who had outlived his wits, the only region that reported indecently
(and unrealistically) high support for Putin in the recent elections, a depressive region of
mines and miners with a big potential for trouble.
Putin managed it rather well by coming personally and dealing with the situation hands on.
He learned the ropes since 2000, when, at the dawn of his first presidential term, the
Kursk submarine went down with all hands. Putin stayed away from the sailors'
families, and acted callous, people said. "It had sunk", Putin replied to the question "What
happened to Kursk ?" (It is said USS Memphis had fired a torpedo at the
submarine, causing the disaster, while the new president had been reluctant to aggravate
relations with Clinton Administration). Now, in 2018, he was very good, full of empathy and
consideration, conveying strength and decisiveness.
Whatever American agency carried out the psyop around Kemerovo, it was very successful, but
its success undermined another operation, that of the Russian diplomats' expulsion. The
Russians did not pay it sufficient attention.
The alleged reason for the expulsion, the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter, made
very little sense. Even if the old spy were bumped off by his erstwhile employers, such a
reaction would be excessive by all means. He was not a Napoleon (poisoned by the Brits 200
years ago), not a prince of blood, not a great inventor nor a successful spy. He was a retired
ex-spy, a wash-out. Anyway he didn't die, he was just sick for a while. Perhaps he ate
something in the pub that didn't agree with him. This is the opinion of his niece, Victoria,
who is the only person alive who had been in contact with the Skripals since their alleged
hospitalisation.
This affair is so obscure that it beats Rashomon anytime. Russian reporters went around
Salisbury and noticed many incongruences. It is not certain whether Skripals were poisoned at
all, and where they are. Their pets survived the deadly poison, and they had to be destroyed.
This piece of black Russian humour had been forwarded a lot around the net:
Skripal had been poisoned by a most powerful poison, 2 grams will kill half a country
instantly! The Russians
- poisoned him in the restaurant
- no, on the bench
- no, in the car
- No, the door handle was smeared
- No, the suitcase was poisoned
- No, everything in the house was poisoned.
- Oh, and buckwheat was poisoned,
- but they did not die instantly, but walked around somewhere for four hours,
- but the policeman that discovered them almost died on the spot,
- but the poison was instantly identified,
- an antidote was instantly introduced, and Skripals and the policeman were saved;
- The policeman had been discharged next day!
- But they were in coma, and they will never recover!
- but no, the daughter had recovered fast!
- Oh, and dad is revived a miracle!
- and they both are quickly recovering, your strongest poison is useless.
- the restaurant had been surrounded by police in spacesuits
- the park had been surrounded by police in spacesuits
- the house had surrounded by police in spacesuits
- they are in spacesuits, since the poison is deadly dangerous, but next to them are
policemen without protection
- The bench was cut down and removed: it's such a terrible poison that the bench retained
its toxic quality for two weeks;
- but the cat had survived in the poisoned house the policeman had touched Skripal and
nearly died, and the cat survived and the guinea pigs would survive, but they were all
forgotten, and died of hunger in the house;
- and their remains were immediately burned, as they are poisoned by the strongest
poison;
- For two weeks they were poisoned by the strongest poison and survived, and now they had to
be urgently cremated;
- Only guinea pigs died, the cat survived all this poison. It was stressful and hungry, so
they killed it and cremated to make it certain nobody will find the secret etc etc.
The true hero of Skripal saga is the British ex-Ambassador Craig Murray , who followed the
developments and unveiled many of its inconsistencies and outright lies. You may read his
articles and twits to learn the details.
Julia Skripal took a daring step: she called her cousin Viktoria in Moscow. Their
conversation is an amazing document. Julia says that she and her father are in good health;
she doubts Viktoria will be allowed to visit her. Indeed, the British government refused to
grant her visa. The feeling is that Julia is imprisoned.
I spoke with a retired Russian counter-intelligence officer who is familiar with the
subject. He told me Russia never had a Novichok toxic substance: this name was given by
counter-intelligence to A-232 in order to trace the leaks. It worked: a man called Vil
Mirzayanov, an administrator in the chemical labs, leaked the Novichok story, and thus he was
apprehended and arrested. A-232 had been produced in small amounts in 1990s, and some of it
could be stolen and sold in these horrible years, when a full colonel of Russian intelligence
had to moonlight as a taxi driver to supplement his measly $46 monthly salary. In those years,
the poison could be indeed made available, and in one case it was used by criminals.
Theoretically it is not impossible that some of this poison could have been saved and stored by
some criminals; alternatively, it was available to the Americans who dismantled the labs in
1992. Anyway we have no independent proof that Skripals were poisoned by anything at all. If
they survive, if the British and the American intelligence services don't kill them, perhaps we
shall know more. We can definitely exclude the possibility that Russian state agents would go
to Britain to poison an old spy who had been pardoned by Russian president years ago. Even if
he was active in producing Christopher Steele's Trump ("Golden Rain") file, the Russians would
have no compelling reason to kill him at all, and in such an odd way in particular. "If we
would kill him, he would stay killed", concluded my interlocutor.
The details of Skripal case are very entertaining, but not necessary for our
understanding. The case was used to install in minds the connection between chemical poisoning
and Russia. It is unfair, for Russians destroyed all their chemical poisons under the eyes of
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors, but life is often
unfair.
The connection between chemical poisoning and Russia had been prepared for the forthcoming
event. Eastern Ghouta was an important and well entrenched location of the Syrian rebels. Being
within easy reach from Central Damascus, it provided the rebels with a chance to seize power in
the Syrian capital. As the Syrian army with Iranian and Russian support advanced into Eastern
Ghouta, they learned of the rebel plans to stage a false flag chemical weapon attack, as they
already had done a few times in past. President Putin warned of such a possibility at his joint
(with President Erdogan and President Rouhani) press conference in Ankara last week, a few days
before the alleged attack.
The attack had never occurred at all, but it was duly reported by the pro-Western media.
Thus the game came to a close. Skripal Affair established the connection of Russia and chemical
weapons, Eastern Ghouta allowed to use this connection in order to attack Russia.
We should not overestimate importance of these media events. The leading Western powers
and their media refused to consider different explanations, refused an open inquiry, they went
for jugular. Russia has been demonised in 2018, like Germany was demonised in 1940. It was a
long and cautious labour. Have a look at this site theday.co.uk
-- it is a site for school children and their teachers. You'll be amazed to discover its
fervent hatred of Russia and Putin being pumped into hearts and heads of young generation. Such
a long planning can't be dependent on an event like poisoning of an ex-spy or even on the fall
of a Syrian underground fortress.
The planners of a war on Russia have utilised fear of anti-Semitism for their purposes. I
called this method Anti-semitism Weaponised . Jeremy
Corbyn, the Labour leader, has been blocked and contained by accusations of anti-Semitism. He
was the only leader able to stop Britain's descent into war with Russia. Other Labour MPs and
activists have been attacked over alleged anti-Semitism issue, and -- what a coincidence! --
practically all of them were against demonising Russia; while Friends of Israel -- whether
Conservative or Labour -- were viciously anti-Russian.
This is a correlation that will be discussed at another time, but it is far from obvious
one. Russia has no anti-Semitism; the Russian president is friendly to Israel and to the
powerful Jewish Chabad movement. Russia
has no white nationalism, and little of the alt-right. However, this correlation exists. Shall
we explain it by Jewish hatred of the Orthodox Church, as this Church (active in Russia,
Greece, Palestine and Syria) hasn't been Jewified. Or should we prefer a more simple
explanation: Jews are well integrated into Western elites, and they promote and support the
goals of these elites.
However, people who can withstand accusations of anti-Semitism are the strongest enemies of
the ruling power; they stand against the war with Russia and against attack on Syria, as the
Haaretz newspaper explained in an article called
White Supremacists Defend Assad, Warn Trump: Don't Let Israel Force You Into War With Syria
. The article continues: "Alt-right calls Saturday's chemical attack in Damascus suburb a false
flag operation, claiming it's an effort by Israel and 'globalists' to keep U.S. troops in
Middle East" It quotes David Duke and other untouchables as the only people who reject Israeli
narrative.
Not being a white supremacist (probably I do not qualify) I still applaud these brave men
when they say and do the right thing. Sensitivity to anti-Semitism accusation is a strong
vulnerability of character. Though people like Corbyn have their heart in the right place, they
are weak on this point, and the enemy uses this weakness to neutralize them. There are people
in the left that are not afraid of any accusation, but there aren't many who are resistant to
metum Judaeorum .
Let us hope and pray we shall survive the forthcoming cataclysm.
"... There is no longer any doubt that the criminally insane government in Washington is driving the world to the last war. ..."
"... False information is being planted about the alleged use of chlorine and other toxic agents by the Syrian government forces. The latest fake news about a chemical attack on Douma was reported yesterday. These reports are again referenced to the notorious White Helmets, which have been proved more than once to be working hand in glove with the terrorists, as well as to other pseudo-humanitarian organisations headquartered in the UK and the US. ..."
"... We have to say once again that military interference in Syria, where Russian forces have been deployed at the request of the legitimate government, under contrived and false pretexts is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences. ..."
"... Above are two of the three most intelligent and reliable Russian experts. The third is Professor Stephen Cohen, who worries, as I do, that an arrogant Washington drowning in hubris is provoking Russia to war. ..."
"... See here for example ..."
"... Nikki Haley's threats against Russia in the UN do not support Doctorow's hopes that reason will prevail in Washington. The crazed bitch said that the US will act against the "monster" Assad with or without the UN. ..."
False information is being planted about the alleged use of chlorine and other toxic
agents by the Syrian government forces. The latest fake news about a chemical attack on Douma
was reported yesterday. These reports are again referenced to the notorious White Helmets,
which have been proved more than once to be working hand in glove with the terrorists, as
well as to other pseudo-humanitarian organisations headquartered in the UK and the US.
We recently warned of the possibility of such dangerous provocations. The goal of these
absolutely unsubstantiated lies is to protect the terrorists and the irreconcilable radical
opposition that has rejected a political settlement, as well as to justify the possible use
of force by external actors.
We have to say once again that military interference in Syria, where Russian forces
have been deployed at the request of the legitimate government, under contrived and false
pretexts is absolutely unacceptable and can lead to very grave consequences.
"WHEN THE RULE OF LAW WAS DESTROYED IN SALISBURY, LONDON AND THE HAGUE, AND THE RULE OF
FRAUD DECLARED IN WASHINGTON , THAT LEAVES ONLY THE RULE OF FORCE IN THE WORLD. THE STAVKA
[the high command of the Russian armed forces] MET IN MOSCOW ON GOOD FRIDAY AND IS READY. THE
FOREIGN MINISTRY ANNOUNCED ON SUNDAY "THE GRAVEST CONSEQUENCES".
THIS MEANS ONE AMERICAN SHOT AT A RUSSIAN SOLDIER, THEN WE ARE AT WAR. NOT INFOWAR, NOT
CYBERWAR, NOT ECONOMIC WAR, NOT PROXY WAR. WORLD WAR."
I hope that the situation is not this severe.
On The Threshold
of War
"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an
infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified." -- The
Saker
"The US generals, unlike the US politicians and media and US administration, are
risk-averse if the outcome may be catastrophic." --
Gilbert Doctorow
Above are two of the three most intelligent and reliable Russian experts. The third is
Professor Stephen Cohen, who worries, as I do, that an arrogant Washington drowning in hubris
is provoking Russia to war.
The Saker has concluded that the Russians have concluded that it has been a mistake to put
up with Washington's lies, insults, and orchestrated events and have decided that if the
dumbshit Americans attack Syria, Russia is going to take out the US forces involved.
Doctorow has concluded that as dumbshit as Washington is, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have
more sense and will not go along with an attack on a Russian ally.
I hope that Doctorow is correct. However, with that crazed demented warmonger John Bolton
sitting in the White House next to Trump, who enjoys the role of tough guy, I am more scared by
The Saker's reading than I am reassured by Doctorow's.
There are reports, the validity of which I cannot confirm at this time, that the entirety of
the Russian military has been put on high alert, not merely the Russian forces in Syria.
See here for
example .
Nikki Haley's threats against Russia in the UN do not support Doctorow's hopes that
reason will prevail in Washington. The crazed bitch said that the US will act against the
"monster" Assad with or without the UN.
Tough man Trump, sitting next to the crazed warmonger Bolton, declared that the alleged
chemical attack in Syria "will be met and it will be met forcefully. We can't let atrocities
like we all witnessed we can't let that happen in our world, especially because of the power of
the US, we are able to stop it."
There was NO chemical attack by Syria. I know that for an absolute 100% fact. I would bet my
life on it. Yet here is the US president declaring a total non-fact to be something "we all
witnessed." Little wonder that the Russians have concluded that the West is ruled by a gang of
thugs supported by an infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the
West has been hopelessly zombified.
If Doctorow is not correct that a sane US Joint Chiefs of Staff will prevail over the crazed
President and his National Security Adviser, we are headed for war.
It is a war that the US will not win.
Notice, dear readers, that there is no mention of this pending crisis in the Western media.
Instead the media whether CNN or the
BBC has as the lead news story the FBI's
raid on Trump's lawyer.
Insouciant Americans is too mild, isn't it. Clueless is the correct word.
"... This funding was used, if not entirely, then in part to finance the White Helmets. The Syrian Civil Defense Force website lists Chemonics as its primary supporter alongside NGO Mayday Rescue, who operate out of offices in Turkey, Jordan and Dubai. ..."
The specialists "found no traces of the use of chemical agents" after searching the sites,
the statement said. The center's medical specialists also visited a local hospital but found
no patients that showed signs of chemical weapons poisoning. "All these facts show that no
chemical weapons were used in the town of Douma, as it was claimed by the White Helmets ," the
statement said, referring to the controversial "civil defense" group that was among the first
to report about the alleged attack.
" All the accusations brought by the White Helmets, as well as their photos allegedly
showing the victims of the chemical attack, are nothing more than a yet another piece of fake
news and an attempt to disrupt the ceasefire ," the Reconciliation Center said.
The Syrian Civil Defense Force (aka the White Helmets) is funded in part by United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) . Included here are two links showing contracts
awarded by USAID to Chemonics International Inc. (DBA Chemonics).
The first award was in the sum of $111.2 million and has a
Period of Performance (POP) from January 2013 to June 2017. It states that the purpose of the
award will be to use the funds for managing a "quick-response mechanism supporting activities
that pursue a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria."
The second was in the sum of $57.4 million and has a POP from
August 2015 to August 2020. This award was designated to be used in the "Syria Regional
Program II" which is a part of the Support Which Implements Fast Transitions IV (SWIFT IV)
program.
This funding was used, if not entirely, then in part to finance the White Helmets. The
Syrian Civil Defense Force website lists Chemonics as its primary supporter alongside NGO
Mayday Rescue, who operate out of offices in Turkey, Jordan and Dubai.
Of course, that didn't stop Netflix from producing an Academy Award winning
documentary about the White Helmets. We're sure recently added board member and former Obama
National Security Advisor Susan Rice is happy considering all of the taxpayer money the
previous administration spent funding the group.
As a result of the total surrender of the Jihadis previously in control of Douma on Sunday,
it is the Russian military who this time are in control of the alleged crime scene.
This has put the Russians in a position where for the first time they are able both to
invite the OPCW inspectors to attend the crime scene and to provide them with protection if
they are there, whilst at the same time monitoring and supervising their work.
If the chemical attack on Douma really is fictitious – as the Russians insist
it is – then for the first time their control of the crime scene puts the Russians in
a strong position to prove it.
The point was made forcefully by Russia's UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security
Council session today, and it also received indirect backing from the UN Secretariat, who
admitted that they could not confirm that a chemical weapons attack had happened, and who
called upon all sides to show restraint until a proper investigation of the incident had taken
place.
By now it should surprise no-one that the fact that the Russians are in control of the crime
scene and may on this occasion be able to prove conclusively that no chemical weapons attack
happened in Douma, instead of deterring a US attack, is actually making it more likely.
This is because the credibility of the various 'witnesses' to the Douma attack – who
are of course the same witnesses who were previously 'witnesses' to the 2013 East Ghouta and
the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun attacks – is now on the line, as is the credibility of those
Western governments – first and foremost the US government – who believed or who
pretended to believe them.
I would add that not only is the credibility of the US government and of other Western
governments on the line. So is the credibility of Western journalists who also believed or
pretended to believe the 'witnesses'. That more than anything else explains the hysteria of the
last 24 hours, with the extraordinary warlike statements from Donald Trump and Nikki Haley , and
from
certain Western journalists .
On any logic, since what actually happened in Douma is unconfirmed and disputed, and since
the conditions for an objective investigation this time are there, the correct and proper thing
to do is for no action to be taken until that investigation has taken place.
The reason that logic is not being followed, and why against all reason a military strike is
likely, is because those who want a military strike do not want an objective investigation to
take place, which might expose them as having acted previously on a false basis.
In other words, the military strike is not intended to punish the perpetrators of the
alleged chemical strike in Douma. It is intended to make an objective investigation
impossible.
There is something genuinely bizarre about the latest threatened military strike.
The Battle of East Ghouta is over. The Jihadis there – following their capitulation in
Douma – have lost. A military strike now really would be a case of closing the stable
door after the horse has bolted, and its military rationale appears to be non-existent.
Moreover Donald Trump – the man who is supposed to be the President of the United States
– was only a few days ago saying that US troops would be withdrawn from Syria "very
soon".
Yet the US looks likely to launch a military strike – one which the Russians are
warning risks dangerous escalation – not because it has any clear policy which requires
such a strike, but because it is alarmed by a possible loss of face.
When a nuclear powered superpower launches military strikes for such frivolous reasons the
situation in the world has become very bad and dangerous indeed
Looks like Rosenstein is after Trump. he authorized this action.
Notable quotes:
"... Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who personally approved the move to seek a search warrant for Cohen's records, which included raids Monday on his home and office, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation. ..."
Federal prosecutors investigating President Trump's personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, are seeking records
related to two women who received payments in 2016 after alleging affairs with Trump years ago -- adult-film star
Stormy Daniels and ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The interest in both Daniels and McDougal indicates that federal investigators are trying to determine whether
there was a broader pattern or strategy among Trump associates to buy the silence of women whose accounts could harm
the president's electoral chances and whether any crimes were committed in doing so, the person said.
... ... ...
The high stakes of the case were underscored by the involvement of Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who
personally approved the move to seek a search warrant for Cohen's records, which included raids Monday on his home
and office, according to two people with knowledge of the investigation.
Rosenstein's role has infuriated Trump, who was left "stunned" and "livid" by the aggressive move by prosecutors
Monday, according to an outside adviser in frequent touch with the White House.
Cohen, Trump's longtime attorney, is under federal investigation for possible bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign
finance violations, The Washington Post
reported
Monday.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged Paul Manafort, President Trump's former Campaign Manager, for
working with former Ukrainian Presidnet Viktor Yanukovych in 2013.
Mueller failed to mention that he also worked with Yanukovych in 2013 six months before John Brennan,
John McCain, Victoria Nuland, and their EU partners, lead a bloody neo-nazi coup to overthrow the Yanukovych
government.
Last week a
memo
was released
showing Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein directing the Mueller investigation to
look into allegations that Paul Manafort
"Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before
and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych."
According to the
The Gateway Pundit
, in the memo there is no indication that Rosenstein or Mueller offered that
Mueller interacted with the former Ukrainian President as well. But then again, Rosenstein and Mueller have
so
many conflicts
of interest in this case that it is accurately labeled a "witch hunt".
Jack Posobiec tweeted out over night the link between Mueller and Yanukovych
Robert Mueller is prosecuting Manfort for doing work in Ukraine for Viktor
Yanukovych back in 2013
Here is Robert Mueller hanging out in Ukraine with Viktor Yanukovych back in 2013
The Ukrainian Embassy in the United States
shared
on Facebook
a picture of Robert Mueller with the President Yanukovych in 2013. The post was dated June
6, 2013
"We are grateful to American side for support of our efforts aimed at settlement of frozen conflicts,
ensuring control over conventional arms in Europe and combating trafficking. We count on further support
and cooperation with USA within the OSCE in order to enhance stability and security in the area which is
under jurisdiction of the given organization," the President said at the meeting with FBI Director Robert
Mueller.
The Head of State reminded that since the beginning of 2013, Ukraine had been presiding in the OSCE.
"We determined priorities of our presidency in close cooperation with member-states of the OSCE. I am
pleased to note that we have a constructive cooperation with Washington in this sphere," the President
emphasized.
"Ukrainian-American cooperation efficiently develops in many spheres of mutual interest. Your visit is
very interesting for Ukraine and relations between our law enforcement bodies have established good
traditions of cooperation and communication in the course of 20 years. I am confident that there is a
potential for further broadening of cooperation," Viktor Yanukovych said.
He stressed that Ukraine paid particular attention to the issue of combating terrorism. We have
adopted a number of documents aimed at increasing the efficiency of such work.
"The level of cooperation between central executive governmental bodies involved in anti-terrorist
actions is pretty high. The Security Service elaborated respective documents, they were reviewed and
approved by respective Presidential Decree," the Head of State noted.
The President emphasized that
Ukraine is very close to signing the Association Agreement with
the EU
in November. "There are
some preparations left but I hope that we will fulfill
everything
and sign the Agreement," he said.
In his turn, FBI Director Robert Mueller expressed gratitude to the President of Ukraine for the
assistance provided after the explosions in Boston. "I would like to focus on the most important issue
for us – the issue of combating terrorism. I would like to say thank you for the assistance provided to
us after the Boston Marathon," he noted.
FBI Director also informed that in the course of his meetings in Ukraine,
he planned to
discuss a number of issues of mutual interest.
Who only knows what the issues of mutual interest were!
This is
not
the first interaction Mueller
had with the Russians. In 2009 Mueller hand delivered uranium to the
Russians on an airport tarmac per the request of Hillary Clinton. Mueller also was Head of the FBI when
the Obama Administration sold 20% of US uranium to the Russians in the Uranium One deal.
Chemical false flag attacks is the traditional way Syria islamists are calling for the US air support. From comments: "After all
they had lost in Douma - there were no point in Syrian gas attack - the fighting was done. Jaish al Islam must be having a great
laugh at our expensive for falling for their trick of gassing their own people. Let us not help the Islamists."
Anther interesting comment: "With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at
least one should have anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence."
And another " including their mouthpieces at the times manufacture
a chemical attack and claim Assad -- who has no reason whatsoever to do such things -- is some horrible monster that deserves to have
bombs rained down on him. How totally corrupt the MIC has become."
That act reported by White helmets looks like a classic MI6 provocation. Russian investigation has shown that no attack took place.
Moreover the rumors about this false flag were circulating long ago. Russians warned about this possiblity a month or so ago telling
the jihadists prepare such provocation. Looks like all that was needed for Trump is a plausible justification -- the desire to "decapitate"
Assad is too strong to resist.
Notable quotes:
"... Syria is a crappy place primarily because of insane overpopulation and limited water. Getting Assad out is not going to help with population or with water. Moving the entire Syrian population to Europe could be done and they are working on that. ..."
"... With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at least one should have anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence. ..."
President Trump on Monday denounced the suspected chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in
Syria over the weekend as a "barbaric act," and said
he will make a decision in the next 24 to 48 hours about whether to retaliate militarily as he did to a similar assault last year.
Congress has skirted their responsibility to authorize war in Syria and Trump is suggesting taking actions that could drag
us into a deep and costly war. The American people deserve to hear this debated in Congress.
Retaliate? They don't even know for sure who it was, could well have been an ally. The place is a mess of competing outside
forces.
Retaliate - and therein lies the problem. Too much to ask that for once they think, discuss, decide a long term policy with
other countries. Last time the 45th tried 'me-big-man-with-bomb' there was no follow up, nothing was done, what was the point?
Look at me I have the biggest, noisiest fire cracker! Pathetic. Careless. Irresponsible. Uniformed. Murderous. The list is endless.
I suppose the President can launch a missile attack, or any military action, based on whatever authority from Congress permitted
the US military to be fighting in Syria in the first place. The more fundamental issue is that Congress long ago ceded to the
President its constitutional responsibility to declare war . This must be corrected with checks restored on the President's power
to deploy the military at will. Otherwise, the US will continue to be in a perpetual state of war, which may be good for the extended
military supply industry but damaging to country as a whole.
What if.....what if this chemical attack was sanctioned not by Assad but by a state or a non-state force that wants the U.S.
to retaliate?
Just why did this chemical attack follow Trump's announced desire to get out of Syria?
Why, also, is Israel urging us to attack now? Could it be to distract from the human rights catastrophe in Gaza?
We all know what John Bolton would have us do.
Where's the proof that this was Assad's work? More WMD ?
Trump wined and dined MBS of Saudi Arabia who has been conducting airstrikes on Yemen with hundreds of casualties, as high
as 68 civilian deaths in one day. It would be hard to imagine a better example of hypocrisy.
Syria is a part of a complex series of issues that make up the problem of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Trump does not have the
capacity to manage any of this. Selling arms to the Saudis to continue their war in Yemen added to the Syrian problem. The cholera
epidemic in Yemen is a form of biological warfare that is killing more civilians than chemical warfare in Syria. Starving the
population of Yemen is also warfare. By supporting the Saudis we have lost the moral high ground in Syria.
Was it the rebels again? Or is it chlorine again? Chlorine is used for several commercial and health purposes--to clean bottles,
to clean water, and for refrigeration. So it is quite easy for a bomb or explosive to hit a container and then there is a serious
gas problem. If pool acid and chlorine are stored together it might be worse when mixed. I do not believe Assad needs to use chemicals
because he has Russians who will do air strikes on his enemies. I call fake news.
The solution to Syria was obvious years ago, if you just wanted to see the obvious. And that was Syria as it had been for years,
in peace, secular, under a government of Assad who, eventually, knew it had to evolve into a more democratic regime . Now that
has changed, and all to Israel´s advantage. It seems as if the whole world has forgotten that the whole Middle East problem was
born, and is still the Occupation of Palestinian Land. Israel is a thorn in Arab Middle East.The only one that has attacked ALL
its neighbours !
We should do nothing. We need to leave Syria to the Syrian. We can't and musn't involve our military in every tragedy in the
world. There is no doubt in my mind that if we mistakenly and stupidly attack the Syrian Army we are aiding the Jihadist who planned
thit attack. After all they had lost in Douma - there were no point in Syrian gas attack - the fighting was done. Jaish al Islam
must be having a great laugh at our expensive for falling for their trick of gassing their own people. Let us not help the Islamists.
The US government LIES about everything. We know this. This has been proved repeatedly.
Yet, here we are with the US government, and its stenographers in the mainstream media, i.e., the stuff that's not Fake News,
right, assuring us that Assad gassed his own people. Again.
Even if we could believe this, or even if we gave the government the benefit of the doubt for . . . what? . . . its integrity?,
we are after all exceptional, right, how is this America's business?
Yes, other countries shouldn't gas their own people. But countries shouldn't commit war crimes either, and that goes on every
day. America is as dirty as any other country. Despite our treaty obligations, even torture is legal here.
We're supposedly the richest country in the world, but we can barely keep our streets paved and lit. And not only that, but
it is a proven fact that one dollar invested in domestic economics brings back much more return than one dollar spent on bombs.
Trump is right. We need to stomp the madness in the Middle East. The oil companies can pay for their own security with all of
the money they don't pay in taxes.
Right now our cities are clogged with people living in tents and defecating on the sidewalks and in the streets. Look at old
pictures from the Depression. It looks the same today.
The left is seeing Russians responsible for every wrong in the world. The right sees itself as the rescuer of the wrongs of
the world. I pray that this does not move this country into a war with Russia.
This nation needs a "policy". Something with careful thought and backed by facts, expert analysis, and wisdom; Aim first and
carefully.
A "Shoot from the Hip" flourish that can be touted at the next Trump self congratulatory ego rally Will Not Do. Either this
nation has a leader or it doesn't - Trump's move!
One of the few things I liked about Trump was his anti-involvement stance in the middle east. We have SO MUCH to fix and worry
about at home. Nothing that Trump does on immigration, environment, or anything else will make me more angry than dragging us
into another war.
I don't see any ink being given to the very likely possibility that the gas attack was a ploy by rebels to get the US (and
their air cover) to stick around. If you ask the question, "Who benefits?" the Assad regime had nothing to gain by gassing a few
civilians -- they're about to win the war, so why would they? OTOH, the rebels need us badly, and know that we will reflexively
blame Assad.
Just a few days ago, Trump talked about withdrawing from Syria. Now, he says he will decide whether to attack Syria within
the next couple of days. One day we're out, the next day we're in. And just a few days ago, Trump said he didn't like to reveal
his military plans in advance. Now, he is announcing to the world that he is consideration retaliation against Syria. His contradictions
make the U.S. look as if it is led by a very confused commander in chief.
Yes, chemical weapons are barbaric, but who launched the attack? Which faction in this complicated civil war? How does trump
know the answer to this question when no one else does? Why would the U.S. "retaliate" based on speculation, especially after
trump recently said, "we need to get out of there and leave it to someone else"? What good would military action do at this point?
Are we anxious to put our "expensive new military" to the test? So many questions...and an administration unable / unwilling to
answer them. Too bad trump can't simply tweet his way out of this one...
The U.S. should respond militarily to Syria's gas attack only on two conditions:
1. The leaders of all key U.S. allies (European countries, Canada, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, etc.) sign a joint declaration
of support for the action.
2. Each of these countries pays a population-weighted share of the expense of the U.S. military operation.
We are either all in this together, or it's not worth doing.
Let's find out if our allies are willing to back up their pious declarations of condemnation.
I don't get it. Subjecting people, women, children and even men, to crushing, burning, lacerating and penetrating wounds is
par for the course. It's war after all. But poison! Oh the (in)humanity!
Also, anyone think it's weird that Assad does this just when the US is making motions to pull out?
It is impossible to know what is really going on as the world's powers continue to fight this proxy war. The only thing that
is certain is the continued suffering of the Syrian people - including the poor sods who will be conventionally incinerated by
American "retaliation" in a day or so.
The President should have no authority to declare war or commit troops, period. So far, there has been no urgent "national
emergency," as required by the War Powers Resolution, which would justify the President to effectively declare war unilaterally
and yet here we are, with presidents on both sides completely ignoring the Constitution, using the WPA as an enabler to bypass
the text which says that only Congress can declare war.
Saddam used gas on the Iranians and we were good with that. It is not clear about this gas in Syria. These "freedom fighters"
have no compunction about using civilians as human shields. How do we know the truth? They are various branches of Al Quaeda and
given their huge birth rate they don't seem to place much weight on human life in the here and now....maybe they focus on the
afterlife more. So why can't we just leave Assad alone and let him be the strong man there? Yes Syria is a crappy place primarily
because of insane overpopulation and limited water. Getting Assad out is not going to help with population or with water. Moving
the entire Syrian population to Europe could be done and they are working on that.
Trump says he was getting us out of Syria. Much to my relief to this endless war.
And I'm pretty sure the president of Syria, Assad, whose regime has been under attack by both the US supported Syrian rebels
and their ISIS allies did not want the US on their soil. So why would he do something like this? I don't believe he did. By the
way if the US was not meddling over in the M.E. there would be no refugees and fewer immigrants.
"Conventional" deaths by artillery and bullets are perfectly acceptable - when bodies are vaporized, ripped and torn apart
unrecognizably. But use a deadly gas and leave the corpses in "beautiful" condition - there you have crossed the line mister.
Lemme get this straight: The US policy doesn't care *how many* Syrians were killed; it only cares *how* they were killed? Nothing
good can come from such an ethically bankrupt policy.
As painful as it is, the possession of chlorine is not in violation of the standards we all signed in to to stop chemical and
biological weapons. Hence, the agreement under Obama, by almost all standards, worked well. Or at least unless we wanted a few
hundred thousands troop on the ground to search the entire country. This use of chlorine is. Maybe Trump will propose a huge tariff
on chlorine exports to Syria?
What is the logic for Assad to provoke the US right after Trump announces his intention to withdraw? Would it not be more strategic
for the regime to hold off until US troops were withdrawn and then go after the rebels? Does Assad assume that the US response
will be more moderate if we still have troops in country? Any chance this was a rogue action to delay or reverse US plans to withdraw?
If so, who benefits from US continuing to maintain troops in Syria?
With "experts" at president's disposal, seems to me moment Trump announced Syrian withdrawal, at least one should have
anticipated - based on past occurrences - a gas attack aimed to engage US and therefore maintain US presence.
You need to stop thinking Russia is a super power, it was once, but not anymore. Your
Navy rusts along side the dock while combat ships sink at anchor in your harbors. FYI,
your navy has a problem with fires on ships too... Who knows all the other "errors" your
weapons and planes will experience under hard sustained combat. You should also stop
worrying about European NATO because they are just a bunch of little girls and a low
threat. The USA however is "IN FACT" a super power stand alone, not some Russia-Chinese
wet dream army. If Russia, China, or Russia-China-Iran start a war with the US, there
will be no more rules that normally constrain the US military. You will see whole land
divisions and ocean fleets wiped out like so many Wagner Groups, and it will be a very
sad time for everyone...
Russia is still a superpower, just one with a different set of capabilities. The USA
is so clearly number one in it's Palpatine like ability to move massive amounts of force
into countries with limited size and means of defense. Russia is geared more toward
making people pay for a conflict with her and her forces are designed toward defense and
imposing costs. Russia's surface to air systems are second to none, plentiful and attack
with frightening velocity. Russia has large volumes of armour in reserve and most
ominous, Russia has been busy since 2006 deploying hundreds of new ICBM's which have
greater take off speeds and are capable of avoiding missile defenses. That's scary
because the greater firepower of which you so glibly brag about on the part of the USA
leads to the inevitable conclusion that Russia has to perform a massive first strike to
stave off state elimination. It's almost as if both sides in a conflict will be channeled
toward strategic first strike before the other does. So, crow on...
Do not under estimate 'little girls.' Also, It seems the US military has never
followed rules unless they suit their agenda. But you are correct in suggesting they
represent a global evil.
Yeah, go on... walk your trash talk and watch some supersonic Chinese anti-ship
missiles turn the U.S. navy into fish food, while your stone-age tomahawks and harpoon
missiles will be joke of the century.
"... Christopher Steele is the go-to man when it's needed some dirt on Russia: in fact he is the source for all accusations against Russia, including what may seem unrelated but in fact is a very important step against Russia, the FIFA/Blatter indictment that was intended for preventing the football championship in Russia in 2018. ..."
"... It really is a pain to read because it's so biased an hateful but if you get to do it, it turns out to be a very, very interesting read that gives away how it works and how deeply Steele and the British are committed to frame Russia and Trump! In fact, it approaches a true coup d'état against the president of USA. Dreadfull! ..."
Christopher Steele is the go-to man when it's needed some dirt on Russia: in fact he is the
source for all accusations against Russia, including what may seem unrelated but in fact is a
very important step against Russia, the FIFA/Blatter indictment that was intended for
preventing the football championship in Russia in 2018.
Christopher Steele, the Man Behind the Trump Dossier
It really is a pain to read because it's so biased an hateful but if you get to do it, it
turns out to be a very, very interesting read that gives away how it works and how deeply
Steele and the British are committed to frame Russia and Trump! In fact, it approaches a true
coup d'état against the president of USA. Dreadfull!
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government
elites. The Russian government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe,
including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the
Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians, attempting to subvert
Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities.
Russian oligarchs and elites who
profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their
government's destabilizing activities.
The US lost proper timing for the coup -- it was possible in 2011-2012 timeframe. Now hardly. And if one think that
Russian oligarchs will sitting quietly while the West expropriate their money, think again. China banks do exist, if I am not
mistaken. And some other nations also have pretty developed financial sector.
I do not think that Russia should or can cut ties with the USA. Dependence of the US technological sector is substantial and
cutting the ties might backfire. This is the calculation of the UIS lawmakers, who enjoyed the impunity of the unipolar
moment. But bumerang always retrun. sooner or later.
Notable quotes:
"... The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia ..."
"... Russian oligarchs and elites who profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing activities. ..."
The latest sanctions seem concerned as much with
protecting the US's economic positions as punishing Russia
The latest round of sanctions the US Treasury has imposed on Russia are a strange affair.
Earlier rounds of sanctions have been linked to specific acts of real or alleged Russian misbehaviour e.g. the death of
Sergey Magnitsky, the Crimean crisis, the war in the Donbass, the shooting down of MH17, and the alleged Russian meddling in
the 2016 US Presidential election.
This latest round of sanctions is different in that it is not directly linked to any Russian action – real or alleged – at
all. Nor are the people sanctioned – for example the Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska – directly accused of anything.
In place of any specific accusation against Russia or any of the individuals concerned, here is how a
statemen
t from US Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin justifies the latest sanctions
The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites. The Russian
government engages in a range of malign activity around the globe, including continuing to occupy Crimea and instigate
violence in eastern Ukraine, supplying the Assad regime with material and weaponry as they bomb their own civilians,
attempting to subvert Western democracies, and malicious cyber activities.
Russian oligarchs and elites who
profit from this corrupt system will no longer be insulated from the consequences of their government's destabilizing
activities.
(bold italics added)
In other words Russia is a bad corrupt country which does lots of bad things around the world of which the US disapproves.
Anyone in Russia who is rich ("an oligarch") and is therefore "profiting from this corrupt system" is in some way
responsible and risks being sanctioned
irrespective of anything they do
unless this changes.
The implication is that if they do not want to be sanctioned the "oligarchs" must overthrow Russia's government.
The latest sanctions are therefore an incitement to a coup.
All
other steps the US has taken having failed
, Russia's businessmen ("oligarchs") are now being told that unless they
engineer the overthrow of Russia's government they will be sanctioned.
The first thing to say about this policy is that it is decades out of date.
There was a time in the 1990s when a small group of stratospherically wealthy and corrupt individuals really did control
Russia's government.
By way of example, most of the people who met in the Kremlin during the 1998 financial crisis to decide whether or not to
devalue the ruble were not members of the government or even officials, and the meeting during which the decision was
finally taken to devalue the ruble was chaired not by a government minister but by the former Acting Prime Minister of
Russia Yegor Gaidar, who at the time was neither a member of the government nor an official, but who was merely an adviser of
Russia's President, Boris Yeltsin, who was at the time away reviewing the fleet.
The decision was in fact made by the same small group of wealthy and corrupt individuals who at that time really did
control Russia's government, meeting informally under Gaidar's chairmanship, and not through the official structures.
It is not a misconception to call these individuals "oligarchs". In the 1990s that is exactly what they were. The most
politically powerful amongst them – Boris Berezovsky – was not even properly speaking a businessman.
That is not the situation in Russia today. A person like Oleg Deripaska – the aluminium magnate whose name appears on the
latest sanctions list – may be a person of great influence and power. However he does not control Russia's government, and
has no means to do so.
I should say that I first came across the suggestion that the "oligarchs" could be mobilised to overthrow President Putin
or force him to reverse his policies by imposing sanctions upon them in early 2014 at the start of the Ukrainian crisis.
As I recall reports appeared in the media that the German intelligence agency the BND was advising Chancellor Merkel that
if the EU imposed sanctions on Russia the "oligarchs" would either force President Putin to change course or would overthrow
him in order to save their fortunes.
Many rounds of sanctions later one might suppose that that theory had been tested to destruction. However Steven
Mnuchin's statement suggests that faith in it dies hard.
The latest round of sanctions the US has imposed on Russian businessmen and their companies will not weaken President
Putin's position or that of the Russian government, and will not affect Russia's economy.
As China's semi-official English language newspaper
Global Times
has recently pointed out, Russia – unlike countries like Iran – has a big largely self-sufficient
continental sized economy possessing immense scientific, technological and natural resources, making it therefore largely
immune to sanctions.
As for the wealthy Russian individuals who the latest sanctions are targeting, the reason so many of them keep money
abroad is not because they control Russia's government, but because they do not control it, and do not wholly trust it.
The result is that they have been squirreling away much of their money abroad, beyond their government's reach.
Now what they are discovering is that their money is at far greater risk of being seized by the US government than by
their own – something the Russian government has been telling them for years – so that it is in fact safer kept at home than
it is squirreled away abroad.
Do not think Russia is in the mood to be Diplomatic or generous. Though, they will always be polite and show their manners and
respect for International Law, up on the world stage. Do believe the UK and US have seriously crossed the red line. Short term
pain for long term gain, so comes to mind.
With Theresa May and Donald Trump as leaders it is no wonder the world is in such a mess. Putin is the only adult left to lead
on the world stage. We will do better listening to Putin. The history of the warmongers (UK and USA ) should never be ignored...
Must, admit, I find it so reassuring the way that President Putin and President Xi-Jinping,
work together. Plus, President Duterte, he might be tactless, but, unlike Trump, he
comes across trustworthy and with a love of his nation and people. Not forgetting
President Assad, all Syria has been through, yet, he will not leave his people and
neither will his family. It is nice to see a different form of politician, that is
managing to come through and help another learn from their values.
Together, with
the fact that President Putin, would not be where he is, without a very confident and
strong team behind him.
"Russia won't "be spoken to in the language of sanctions"..."?
IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!
No country that has self-respect, no respectable person can possibly accept to be spoken
to and treated generally in that disgustingly arrogant, beyond contemptuous manner. The
terms and acts of abuse used by the Empire's representatives, including in the most
"prestigious" international institutions, have by now gone way too far repeatedly (a
euphemism!!!), with no limit in sight.
It is time for Russia and Russians to impose respect to those creatures come straight out
of the Empire's swamps and sewers! Being treated as they now accept to be treated by the
Empire is beyond unacceptable. To hear Russia's highest representatives refer to such
despicably disgusting bullies as "partners" is not amusing anymore. Only unbearably
painful...
Time to STOP playing the part of the poor victim of the Empire (US+EU+NATO+other
bits...). Time to adopt China's model, China now promising to hit the Empire hard and till
the very end of that war on tariffs. "Even if the Trump administration wants to take the
trade war to the direction that bilateral trade and investment is suppressed to zero, China
will meet all the challenges."
After the Skripal affair, is any more proof required that nothingin neoliberal MSM can be taken at face value? Looks like their
motto is "if at first you don't succeed, lie, lie again."
Notable quotes:
"... So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia." ..."
"... The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks. ..."
"... No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted and monitored. ..."
On Tuesday, Gary Aitkenhead, chief executive of the UK's chemical weapons facility, the Porton Down Defence Science and Technology
Laboratory, told Sky News that scientists had "not verified the precise source" of the material used in the attack in Salisbury on
March 4. Aitkenhead's statement came on the eve of the convening at Moscow's request of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) at The Hague, which would have exposed the UK government's case. But this resort to damage control only underscores
the monstrous hoax perpetrated by the British and American governments and their European allies.
May told parliament on March 12 that Porton Down was "absolutely categorical" that the "nerve agent" used on the Skripals had
come from Russia. "Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down," she said,
"the government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible" for an "attempted murder" on British soil.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle on March 20 that "the people from Porton Down"
were "absolutely categorical" that the source of the nerve agent used against the Skripals was Russia. "I asked the guy myself,"
he said, "and he said 'there's no doubt.'"
So politically devastating is the exposure of Britain's lies that yesterday the Foreign Office deleted a text it sent out
on March 22 declaring that the "analysis by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down
made clear that this was a military-grade novichok nerve agent produced in Russia."
... ... ...
The emergency session of the OPCW called at Russia's request received no answers to the serious questions Moscow insisted
Britain had to address. Instead, the UK's representative said Russia could not take part in a joint investigation with Britain into
the Skripal affair, as it was "a likely perpetrator." This was given unqualified backing by an EU spokesperson, who demanded that
Russia respond to the UK's "legitimate questions" about its alleged continued production of novichoks.
No less implicated in this criminal affair is the corporate media, especially the New York Times, which has spent the past
month disseminating the raw propaganda issued by London and Washington and baying for Moscow's punishment. At no point did the Times
raise a single question about the reliability of the claims of the May government. And now its response to the refutation of the
lies is to ignore and bury Aitkenhead's statement. The role of the corporate media in the Skripal provocation confirms the political
purpose of the hysterical campaign it has been leading against "fake news," and its insistence that social media be regulated, restricted
and monitored.
Over the last few months, Professor Joseph Mifsud has become a feather in the cap for those pushing the Trump-Russia narrative.
He is characterized as a "Russian" intelligence asset in mainstream press, despite his declarations to the contrary. However, evidence
has surfaced that suggests Mifsud was anything but a Russian spy, and may have actually worked for British intelligence. This new
evidence culminates in the ground-breaking conclusion that the UK and its intelligence apparatus may be responsible for the invention
of key pillars of the Trump-Russia scandal. If true, this would essentially turn the entire RussiaGate debacle on its head.
To give an idea of the scope of this report, a few central points showing the UK connections with the central pillars of the Trump-Russia
claims are included here, in the order of discussion in this article:
Mifsud allegedly discussed that Russia has
'dirt' on Clinton in the form of 'thousands of emails' with George Papadopoulos in London in April 2016.
The following month, Papadopoulos spoke with
Alexander Downer, Australia's ambassador to the UK, about the alleged Russian dirt on Clinton while they were drinking at
a swanky Kensington bar, according to The Times. In late July 2016, Downer shared his tip with Australian intelligence officials
who forwarded it to the FBI.
Robert Goldstone, a key figure in the 'Trump Tower' part of the RussiaGate narrative, sent Donald Trump Jr. an email claiming
Russia wanted to help the Trump campaign. He is a British music promoter.
Christopher Steele, ex-MI6, who worked as an MI6 agent in Moscow until 1993 and ran the Russia desk at MI6 HQ in London between
2006 and 2009. He produced the totally unsubstantiated 'Steele Dossier' of Trump-Russia allegations, with funding from the Clinton
campaign and the DNC.
Robert Hannigan, the head of British spy agency GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share 'director-to-director' level intelligence
with then-CIA Chief John Brennan.
Each of these strands of UK-tied elements of the Russiagate narrative can be substantially dismantled on close inspection. This
untangling process leads to the surprising conclusion that UK intelligence services fabricated evidence of collusion in order to
create the appearance of a Trump-Russia connection.
This trend begins with Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese scholar with an eclectic academic history who
Quartz described as an "enigma," while legacy press has enthusiastically characterized
him as a central personality in the Trump-Russia scandal.
The New York Times described Mifsud as an "enthusiastic
promoter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia", citing his regular involvement in the annual meetings of the
Valdai Discussion Club , a Russian-based think-tank,
as well as three short articles he wrote in support
of Russian policies.
Mifsud strongly denied claims that he was associated with Russian intelligence, telling
Italian newspaper Repubblica that he was a member
of the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Clinton Foundation, adding that his political outlook was "left-leaning." Last
month, Slate reported Mifsud had 'disappeared', as did some of the other figures
linking the UK to the Trump-Russia scandal. This aspect will be discussed in more detail below.
To contextualize Mifsud's eclectic academic career in terms of intelligence service, it is helpful to note that research undertaken
by this author and Suzie Dawson as part of the Decipher You project has repeatedly
shown the close ties – an outright merger in many cases – between the intelligence community and academia. This enmeshment also takes
place with think-tanks, NGOs, and in the corporate sphere. In this light, Mifsud's brand of 'scholarship' becomes far less mysterious.
Mifsud's alleged links to Russian intelligence are summarily debunked by his close working relationship with Claire Smith, a major
figure in the upper echelons of British intelligence. A number of Twitter users
recently observed that Joseph Mifsud had been photographed standing next to Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee
at Mifsud's LINK campus in Rome . Newsmax and
Buzzfeed later reported that the professor's name and biography had been removed
from the campus' website, writing that the mysterious removal took place after Mifsud had served the institution for "years."
WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange likewise noted the connection between Mifsud and Smith in a
Twitter thread, additionally pointing out
his connections with Saudi intelligence: "[Mifsud] and Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and eight-year member
of the UK Security Vetting panel both trained Italian security services at the Link University in Rome and appear to both be present
in this [photo]."
The photograph in question originated on Geodiplomatics.com
, where it specified that Joseph Mifsud is indeed standing next to Claire Smith, who was attending a: " Training program on International
Security which was organised by Link Campus University and London Academy of Diplomacy ." The event is listed as taking place in
October, 2012. This is highly significant for a number of reasons.
First, the training program Smith attended with high-ranking members of the Italian military was organized by the London Academy
of Diplomacy , where Joseph Mifsud served as Director, as noted by
The Washington Post. That Claire Smith was training
military and law enforcement officials alongside Mifsud in 2012 during her tenure as a member of the UK Cabinet Office Security Vetting
Appeals Panel , which oversees the vetting process for UK intelligence placement, strongly suggests that Mifsud has been incorrectly
characterized as a Russian intelligence asset. It is extremely unlikely that Claire Smith's role in vetting UK intelligence personnel
would lead to her accidentally working with a Russian agent.
The connection between Mifsud and Smith does not end at bumped elbows in a photograph. Mifsud's
LinkedIn profile lists the University of Stirling
as a place of occupation in connection with his service as Director of the London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD), where Claire Smith
served as a visiting professor from 2013-2014 according to her
LinkedIn profile . This adds yet another verifiable connection
between a man who is at the center of already-flimsy Trump-Russia allegations and a high-ranking British intelligence figure.
Claire Smith also hosted a seminar titled " Making Sense of Intelligence
" at the University of Stirling. The event registration form describes her career, including her service as Deputy Chief of Assessments
Staff in the Cabinet Office, as a member of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and her completion of an eight-year term as a member
of the UK Security Vetting and Appeals Panel.
A particularly compelling factor indicating that Mifsud's working relationship with Claire Smith suggests his direct connection
with UK intelligence is Smith's membership of the UK's
Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) , a supervisory body overseeing all UK intelligence agencies. The JIC is part of the Cabinet
Office and reports directly to the Prime Minister. The Committee also sets the collection and analysis priorities for all of the
agencies it supervises. Claire Smith also served as a member of the UK's Cabinet Office.
In summary, Mifsud's appearance with Claire Smith at the LINK campus, in addition to her discussion on intelligence at yet another
university where Mifsud was also employed, as well as her long-standing role in UK intelligence vetting and her position as a member
of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee, would suggest that the roving scholar
is not a Russian agent, but is actually a UK intelligence asset. The possibility that such a high-ranking member of this extremely
powerful intelligence supervisory group was photographed standing next to a "Russian" asset unknowingly is patently absurd. This
finding knocks the first pillar out from under the edifice of the Trump-Russia allegations. It provides an initial suggestion of
the UK's involvement in procuring the 'evidence' that fueled the debacle.
Claire Smith is not the only British official associated with Mifsud. He was a speaker at an event by the
Central European Initiative alongside
former British diplomat Charles Crawford, whose postings included Moscow, Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw. Crawford is listed as a
visiting Professor with the same London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD) where Mifsud served as Director, associated with Stirling University.
This adds more weight to the idea that Mifsud is a familiar figure among the upper echelons of the UK intelligence and foreign policy
establishment.
The final nail in the coffin of the theory that Mifsud is a Russian spy is this photograph of Mifsud standing next to Boris Johnson,
the UK Foreign Secretary, as reported by The Guardian. The photograph, taken
in October 2017 – nearly a full year after the US Presidential election and nine months after Mifsud's name appeared in newspaper
headlines worldwide as allegedly involved in Russian meddling in that election – is either highly embarrassing for the hapless Mr
Johnson, or it's not, because Joseph Mifsud is actually a valued and security-vetted asset to the United Kingdom.
Another aspect of the RussiaGate claims tied to the UK includes the reported conversation between
George Papadopoulos and Alexander Downer, Australia's
High Commissioner to the UK who was based in London. The pair reportedly spoke about the alleged Russian 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton
while they were drinking at a swanky bar in London. According to Lifezette
, Downer is closely tied with The Clinton Foundation via his role in securing $25 million in aid from his country to help the Clinton
Foundation fight AIDS.
He is also a member of the advisory board of London-based
Hakluyt & Co , an opposition research and intelligence firm set up in 1995 by three former UK intelligence officials and described
as " a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign
intelligence] officers , but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking". Whereas opposition
research group Fusion GPS has received all the media attention so far, Lifezette states that Hakluyt is "a second, even more powerful
and mysterious opposition research and intelligence firm with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign".
Yet another UK link to a central pillar of the Trump-Russia narrative is British music promoter Robert Goldstone, who was
reported to have organized a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian
nationals in June 2016. In the email chain setting up the Trump Tower meeting, both before and after the meeting, the only real 'evidence'
of collusion with Russia come from Goldstone's own emails; none-too-subtle heavy hints about 'Russian help' dropped by Goldstone
but later – after the emails became public – walked back by him as "
hyping the message and using hot-button language to
puff up the information I had been given."
Some have speculated that Goldstone was also involved with British or US
intelligence efforts to concoct the RussiaGate narrative. As soon as his name emerged in the press, Goldstone – like Christopher
Steele and Joseph Mifsud – went into 'hiding'. Multiple press reports claimed he had done so out of fear for his safety, a claim also made
about Christopher Steele when his name first became public. Indeed, the
UK government issued a DA Notice (a press
suppression advisory notice) to the British press to suppress the ex-spy Steele's name. It is notable that, of all the people swept
up into the ever-burgeoning RussiaGate investigation, it is only the UK-linked witnesses – Mifsud, Steele, Goldstone – who have felt
the need to go into hiding when their role has been exposed.
The New York Times summed up the contents of Christopher
Steele's dossier: "Mr. Steele produced a series of memos that alleged a broad conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian
government to influence the 2016 election on behalf of Mr. Trump. The memos also contained unsubstantiated accounts of encounters
between Mr. Trump and Russian prostitutes, and real estate deals that were intended as bribes."
Press reports also relate that Steele was ordered
by an English court to appear for a videotaped deposition in London as part of an ongoing civil litigation against Buzzfeed for publishing
the unverified dossier, for which Steele was paid $168,000 by Glenn Simpson's company Fusion GPS, who were in turn paid by Mark Elias
of law firm Perkins Coie, lawyers to both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.
In his thread on the role of UK intelligence interference in the 2016 US Presidential race,
Assange also noted how Christopher Steele
used another former UK ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, to funnel the dossier to Senator John McCain in a way that moved the
handover out of London, to Canada. It's often said that no one ever really leaves the UK security services when they retire – many
'former' MI6 or MI5 officers' private intelligence businesses are dependent on maintaining good contacts among their ex-colleagues
– so it is interesting to note that Sir Andrew Wood says he was
"instructed" -- by former British spy Christopher
Steele -- to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called "a good man," about the unverified document.
Lastly, Robert Hannigan, former head of British intelligence agency GCHQ, is another personality of note in the formation of the
RussiaGate narrative and its surprisingly deep links to the UK. The
Guardian noted that Hannigan announced he would
step down from his leadership position with the agency just three days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23 January 2017.
Jane Mayer in her profile of Christopher Steele published in the
New Yorker also noted that Hannigan had flown
to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged communications between the Trump campaign and
Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing "deemed
so sensitive it was handled at director-level" is why Hannigan was talking director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers
at the NSA, GCHQ's Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partner.
The central supporting pillars of the RussiaGate allegations hinge on figures with close ties to British intelligence and UK nationals.
Even establishment media like The Guardian reported that British spies from
GCHQ were the first to alert US authorities to so-called Russian interference. Did the entire narrative originate with UK intelligence
groups in an effort to create the appearance of Russian collusion with the Trump Presidential campaign, much as the Guccifer 2.0
persona was used in the US to discredit WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails?
If it was not Russia at the heart of a complex operation to topple the Clinton campaign in 2016, then was British Intelligence
responsible for creating false narratives and mirage-like 'evidence' on which the Trump-Russia scandal could hinge?
Put another way, if UK intelligence is responsible for manufacturing the Trump-Russia allegations, it suggests that the UK's efforts
formed an international arm running concurrently with domestic US 'Deep State' efforts to sabotage Trump's presidential campaign
and/or oust him once he had been elected.
Is British intelligence involvement in RussiaGate, as outlined above, the international version of CrowdStrike and former FBI
figures manufacturing the Guccifer 2.0 persona specifically to smear WikiLeaks via false allegations of a Russian hack of the DNC?
Have we been looking in the wrong place – at the wrong country – to unearth the so-called 'foreign meddling' in the 2016 US election
all along?
New thread from Craig Murray. Interesting conclusion re conversation.
Update: I have just listened to the released alleged phone conversation between Yulia Skripal in Salisbury Hospital and her
cousin Viktoria, which deepens the mystery further. I should say that in Russian the conversation sounds perfectly natural to
me. My concern is after the 30 seconds mark where Viktoria tells Yulia she is applying for a British visa to come and see Yulia.
Yulia replies "nobody will give you a visa". Viktoria then tells Yulia that if she is asked if she wants Viktoria to visit,
she should say yes. Yulia's reply to this is along the lines of "that will not happen in this situation", meaning she would not
be allowed by the British to see Viktoria. I apologise my Russian is very rusty for a Kremlinbot, and someone might give a better
translation, but this key response from Yulia is missing from all the transcripts I have seen.
What is there about Yulia's situation that makes her feel a meeting between her and her cousin will be prevented by the British
government? And why would Yulia believe the British government will not give her cousin a visa in the circumstance of these extreme
family illnesses?
The hypocrisy of foreign "election meddling" accusations should blow everyone away. Obama did it, the USA does it, the UK does
it, Russia does it, any entity with money and clout does it.
How about the very well documented and obvious Collusion Crime:
1. Rosenstein is named assistant AG after Sessions recussed himself from getting involved with any Trump campaign related investigations
- here comes Trump campaign related investigations.
2. Rosenstein recommends that Comey be fired.
3. Trump fires Comey.
4. Rosenstein recommends Wray, good buddy of Comey & Mueller, to be new FBI director.
4. Comey testifies that he leaked a memo of stuff he made up that he knew would trigger a special council to investigate the Trump
campaign for Russia collusion.
5. Rosenstein appoints Mueller (good friend of Rosenstein & Comey) as the special prosecutor with open authority to investigate
a suspected activity that was not a crime if it did exist.
6. Wray stonewalls congressional investigations into DOJ & FBI criminality.
7. Sessions refuses to appoint special council to investigate Hitlary and DOJ & FBI criminality.
Conclusion: Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, Wray and Mueller colluded to assist the "Soros-Clinton-Obama Resistance" to thwart
all efforts to indict Clintons or Obama and expose the corruption at the FBI, DOJ and State Dept.
Russian TV Releases Phone Call Of 'Poisoned' Yulia Skripal Saying Her And Her Father Are 'Fine'
"Everything's ok. He's resting now, having a sleep. Everyone's health is fine, there's nothing that can't be put right.
I'll be discharged soon. Everything is ok."
But... Trump has leverage on Mueller... Uranium 1 maybe? Mueller is a former Marine, who's duty is to protect the President.
Trump meets with Mueller for an interview for a job Mueller can even take, day before Rosensteins appoints him, and makes a deal.
Mueller then spends over a year collecting all the date needed to put Session, Rosenstein, Comey, Wray, Clinton, Obama and any
other corrupt PoS away for good? Don't me wake up... this is a good dream.
Mueller covered up the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings on nine eleven. Trump knows the buildings were blown up.
Those are the goods Trump has on Mueller.
. . . the UK's efforts formed an international arm running concurrently with domestic US 'Deep State' efforts to sabotage Trump's
presidential campaign and/or oust him once he had been elected.
Of course the UK efforts to derail Trump ran/are running concurrently with US' deep state efforts! That's because the "Deep
State" is really an international cabal and is not simply a group of shadow brokers running the US behind the scenes . . . the
entire thing is headed by the Rothschild and Rockefeller clans (and likely others we've never heard of). Their reach knows no
international boundaries, that's for sure.
I agree the hypocrisy shows anyone upset about the insignificant actions of a Russian firm paying trolls to publish their thoughts,
isn't following the Golden Rule. If they object to speech from Russians about our election, they should be upset first about Obama
and our government spending money in other country's elections. I'd bet most of these people chose to say nothing when Obama spent
$350,000 to OneVoice in Israel to help Netanyahu's opponent.
The choice of words "election meddling" conflates free speech with vote rigging. We, and everyone else in the world, should
be free to say who they want to win elections. After all, only the citizens involved can vote.
On the other hand, I object to the US government spending any money to influence ANY election, foreign or domestic. That's
tyranny, in forcing taxpayers to support politicians they often don't support.
Is anyone certain that the "Yulia" in this phone conversation really exists? Or are the Skripals a fantasy dreamed up for some
reason by "the government" - whoever that is. Why not allow a consular visit? Why not allow a family visit? Why are the "Skripals"
being detained like hardened criminals? Why is there no live footage of these people? If Julia is recovering and can speak, why
not a short live interview?
awww, a little girl blaming both trump, the trump hair lookalike, and tight brexites and big vestesses on russia. poor girl.
go get a tanning bed, maybe you can grow up to be a a big boob orange jew yourself. till then, shake your weewee rockstar.
the usa now has carte blache to meddle in every uk election from now on. we can start by investigating may on trumped up charges
backed by phony evidence. she's a real cunt anyway.
plan red was a war plan written up in '28 about a war between the US and britain.
a couple years later our stock market crashed and in the late '30s, with britain being bombed by gerry, and churchill's speech
before congress, we have a unique relationship.
my ass.
if it were up to me, hitler present day, would still be bombing london.
But it's ok, they just did a company health screening around here (thank you Obama, you fag) and one of my 20something 6'1"
co-workers with washboard abs was declared obese.
Yes, the world has gone insane but it's now normal ;-)
Dan Bongino has a nice timeline among others. Bruce Ohr the number three at Justice wife worked for FUSION GPS and has extensive
Russian and CIA background....this entire Fake Russia Collusion was run like a classic CIA operation as the Dossier was written
in distinct chapters as the players were introduced to various Trump campaign people...It is obvious that all of these people
are connected and none of it was a coincidence...Of course The ringleader was Brennan and his British counterparts....It's laughable
a counter-intel was started on a drunk campaign volunteer in a bar...but FBI agent Strzok who started it was involved from the
get go...
I could only imagine if some comic genius could produce a movie in some style like "Monty Python" or the "Marx Brothes" depicting
this pathetic deep state nonsense. Mel Brooks also comes to mind...the appropriate title would be a sequel to "High Anxiety",
El-Viral does DC :/
Wonder where Priestap has gone. Not one word about him for quite some time and he was in charge of counter intelligence for
the FBI. Still hasn't been either demoted or removed.
Russiagate was a British Operation from the very start, run in collusion with Obama DoJ Execs... the evidence is sitting there...
The Brit Oligarchy is engineering a cold coup in the US to nullify the 2016 Elections... When Drump says he wants out of Syria,
and bad trade deals that deindustrialize the US, or is defusing WW III with Russia, you understand why the British Led Liberal
Deep State is frantic.
Personally I pretty much (but not totally) detest Donald Trump and what he stands for... namely parasitic, rentier capital...
BUT, my loyalty is to the Constitution of the US and admiration for my fellow citizens, the voters (even though I haven't bothered
with that empty ritual for decades)...
I deeply oppose the Liberal Deep State Cold Coup launched in tandem with the odious remnants of the British Empire... just
as I opposed the coup against Bill Clinton... No honest, patriotic American can allow the President and the US government taken
down by the permanent Deep State... no matter how repugnant the President might be... So that's why I support the President in
opposing the Liberal, Deep State coup launched against him and the USA by evil forces.
"Boris Johnson continues to convince everyone the British side supposedly sent Russia a list
of questions to which it still hasn't received any answers. Everything in fact is completely
the opposite. As I said, we never received any list of questions and I turn to the British
side, if you have such a list of questions, please tell us, please list those questions," he
said.
Regarding the UK's insistence that Moscow coordinated the attack, he asked, "Couldn't you
come up with a better fake story?"
The UK is engaged in a propaganda war against Russia, Nebenzya asserted, aiming to discredit
the country globally. But even propaganda wars are dangerous.
If he fails to keep his mouth shut I wouldn't be surprised to learn in the tabloids in the near future of his (sadly fatal)
penchant for auto-erotic asphyxiation.
""Johnson also said that "none of us have forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.""
Translation: "none of us have forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago "which was done by
our Al Qaeda and ISIS proxies with the help of our special forces stationed in Syria."
that's all they learn in boarding schools - how to lie and lie and be good psychopaths: charming, fake, easy to bribe and natural
traitors, obsessed with money and status.
And above all how to develop that exhagarated catatonic accent so valued by Anglosheeple
I know many of these Public school boys - from Malborough, Harrow etc
Look no further than you local electric and gas suppliers who are likely publicly traded with a monopoly on the most traded
commodities in the world. Why does a human necessity have a monopoly - follow the money.
Lol....that's what I think, from my experience with dealing with retarded psychopaths. They just don't back down until you
directly address them and call them out on their bullshit, or just plain fucking slam them against the wall.
So err...is it going to be an "accidental" nuclear launch or dirty bomb, or I don't know.....a Russian ISIS attack? The possibilities
are endless with these slimey limey cunts. They're barely out of the European Union, yet are already faltering like a mule loaded
with lead.
Agreed, and some just go nuts when called out. It's worse than just the Brits. Trump is clearly somewhat on board, and Macron
seems to want a distraction, too.
Trump is in love with himself, Macron is in love with a granny, and Boris Johnson belongs to the fucking zoo with the gorillas.
What a world we live in, when the voices of reason are coming from Russia, China and Iran, and the irrational tantrum turd
throwing is coming from the West.
I might also politely remind you and others of Russia's ability to disable the US Aegis missile system, including the Raytheon
Tomahawk missile using a highly advanced electronic warfare suite known as Khibiny.
You do not need due process to hang him now neither :-) Ain't that cute when the process of law finally breaks down. Happens
when you support banksters operating a ponzi scheme to rob people...
Stupid cunt is a better description. He is supposed to be the number 1 diplomat but he is a classic attention seeking snowflake
who wants to be PM.
He blamed Russia immediately. Then tells everyone not to be Russiaphobic and then the stupid cunt compares attending the WC
the same as Hitler's 1936 Olympics.
Guy is out of his depth and making Britain look stupid.
Portland Down say they do not know where the nerve agent was manufactured (Portland down would have the records of OPCW to
check). Maybe Russia would have the data relating the nerve agent to a NATO stockpile. Note: If the nerve agent was so deadly
how come the person delivering it; is not ill?
Given this talk about "military-grade", it sounds more like something an American MIC manufacturer would make. Overpriced and
ineffective when used.
Three people affected. Hours after contact. Yet all three survived, in spite of the lack of antidote, as the BBC has reported.
Doesn't sound pretty "military-grade" to me. And if it is "military grade", should we even be shitting our pants at the constant
fearmongering over WMDs? If this is what military grade is capable of for terrorism, we're clearly spending way to much money
for this particular threat, now aren't we?
I don't buy the 'no antidote' business. Nerve agents work by blocking receptors in the nervous system. Atropine breaks this
block restoring normal nervous system action. The cop who was affected was talking within days yet the Skirpals were unconscious
for weeks, until Julia Skirpal made a 'miraculous' recovery. Did the cop get atropine?
Fifteen countries voted against Russia's bid, while six voted for it and 17 abstained.
"Unfortunately, we haven't been able to have two-thirds of the votes in support of that decision. A qualified majority was needed,"
Russian ambassador Alexander Shulgin told reporters, adding " Russia as well as other states that are members of the Executive Committee
have been pushed aside from this investigation ."
UK's Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson brushed aside Russia's request, calling it a "ludicrous proposal" designed to "undermine"
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigation.
"Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon -
to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ." Johnson also said that "none of us have
forgotten" about the "barbaric" chemical weapons attack in Syria a year ago.
"After the OPCW-UN investigation found that the Syrian regime was responsible, Russia blocked that body from doing any more work,"
he said.
Russia wants to discuss a letter sent by UK Prime Minister Theresa May to the UN Security Council which says it's "highly likely"
that Moscow was behind last month's nerve agent attack.
Meanwhile ,
as we reported yesterday , the chief scientist from the UK's Porton Down military laboratory facility, Gary Aitkenhead, told
Sky News that they had been unable to prove that the novichok nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal came from Russia.
"We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify that it was military-grade nerve agent," Aitkenhead said. " We have not
identified the precise source, but we have provided the scientific info to government who have then used a number of other sources
to piece together the conclusions you have come to. "
**PAGING COLIN POWELL. IS THERE A MR. POWELL IN THE BUILDING?**
The Porton Down chief scientist said that establishing the Novichok's origin required "other inputs," some of which are intelligence
based and which only the government has access to.
Aitkenhead added: " It is our job to provide the scientific evidence of what this particular nerve agent is, we identified that
it is from this particular family and that it is a military grade, but it is not our job to say where it was manufactured ."
So whose job is it to determine where the Novichok was manufactured?
That said, it was also noted that the nerve agent involved required "extremely sophisticated methods to create, something only
in the capabilities of a state actor," and that there is no known antidote to Novichok - nor was any administered to either of the
Skripals.
Aitkenhead would not say whether the Porton Down facility had manufactured or maintained stocks of Novichok - long rumored to
be the case.
" There is no way anything like that could have come from us or left the four walls of our facility ," said the chief.
Boris Johnson has come under fire since the Porton Down chief's statement, as Johnson lied, saying in an interview two weeks ago
that Porton Down officials told him there was "no doubt" that the nerge agent came from Russia .
The Foreign Office told Sky News that Johnson "misspoke," which is apparently UK officialspeak for "he totally lied, but nobody
will hold him accountable for it."
Perhaps Johnson "misspoke" in his rush to locate a hairbrush?
The evil people, Theresa May, Stoltenberg, Trump and the rest, are damming Russia with obvious lies.
The Novichok nerve agents probably don't even exist.
HERE IS THE PROOF:
The Novichok nerve agents are supposedly much more toxic than the nerve gases VX or Sarin.
Mirzayanov's book, published in 2008, contains the formulas he alleges can be used to create Novichoks. In 1995, he explained
that "the chemical components or precursors" of Novichok are "ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical
companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides."
Basically, Mirzayanov claims that it is relatively easy to make the Novichok nerve agents.
So, some enterprising Arabs could buy a few chemists to make a few tons of it and then spray it all over the little Satan.
Do you really think that the Jews who run the United States would allow the publication of information that could lead to thousands
of deaths in Israel?
Do you really think they would protect the publisher of such information by giving him residence in the United States?
Remember, Mirzayanov was given residence in the United States after he was kicked out of Russia.
There are also a number of "people who should know" that have stated that there is zero solid evidence for the existence of
the Novichok nerve agents. For example: Robin Black in Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents (2016):
"In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, 'Novichoks' (newcomer), was developed
in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the 'Foliant' programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive
countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian
military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published."
And, Alexander Shulgin, Russia's representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (2018):
"There has never been a 'Novichok' research project conducted in Russia,... But in the West, some countries carried out such
research, which they called 'Novichok,' for some reason."
CONCLUSION: The Novichok nerve agents don't even exist.
The use of the "projection" technique (essentially accusing your opponents of doing the very things you yourself are doing)
in official circles has become widespread. It's biggest proponent is, of course, Shitlery who, as an example, recently accused
Trump of using his position to enrich himself and his family (Um....?). Now BoJo has the chutzpah to accuse Russia of obfuscation
and lies. Same technique. Specifically:
" Russia has had one goal in mind since the attempted murders on UK soil through the use of a military-grade chemical weapon
- to obscure the truth and confuse the public," Johnson said. " The international community has yet again seen through these tactics
and robustly defeated Russia's attempts today to derail the proper international process ."
And, of course, psychopaths actually believe their projections which allows them to speak with a straight face. And the MSM,
naturally, just blindly "reports" what they say. The internet is the only source of real information and the true investigative
journalism of any integrity. Which is, of course, why they are trying so hard to censor and close the sources of truth.
you can see here their modus operandi - one of the first NSA leaks by Snowden/Greenwald. There is a slide there called the
Gambits For Deception - all the tricks are there - how to never admit when caught lying, how to cover the small move by the big
one - basically all the BS this fat ugly clown is using are there:
projection is everything. America banned the Huwawie Chinese cell phone because they thought it was a threat. What are all
those Apples in China? Not even to speak about domestic use.
"... You think in one dimensional. The warfare & alliance is moving very dynamic, Russia & China are working in all fronts together if you watch carefully. Military & energy are appetizer. Petrol Yuan & BRI are main course. Joint dev of C929 civil plane, space program, agri, .its Eurasia century. ..."
"... Skripal false flag & 2 dozen countries expelling diplomats is full display of bizarre brute force destroying entire international norms. You need to resist before more countries succumb to West pressure. ..."
"... If West can orchestrate diplomatic boycott of Russia, won't China be next? When you see smoke, there is fire. When neighbor house is burning, it will spread to yours. But here you are saying, not my problem let China save its own ass until fire spread to yours. ..."
Oh, we have a copypaste contest? Okay then, i'd copy here my reply at saker's blog
too.
No, i just wanna remind you again, Russia & China have to fight as a team, each with
their best strength, Russia-military, China-economic.
> China will be blackmailed into submission.
Wooop! Then it is not "existential threat" for China.
Clash for power, clash for sovereignty, clash of prosperity -- but not for survival.
If one energy supply is been fully controlled, you are doomed.
> Russia & China are working closely
Which does not mean China's role is making harsh dyplomatic statements in favor of
Russia. At least it was not so before today. So i think it is not today either.
It has very wide implication, West is able to pressure dozens of countries to bend on
false flag, it will spread further to Asia & elsewhere. China will be next. Nib the
bud.
Also remember that Chinese social mindset is build upon idea of "indebting with gifts
and aids" and then requesting payback when they need it.
Since when has the West & Russians, or anyone are more kind than Chinese, giving
without expectation of return of at least gratitude from a Russian like you?
Which means Russia should be very wary about accepting any help from China unless it
wishes to be seen by China as a deeply indebted beggar incapable of sustaining itself.
Yes Russia should, there is never free lunch. But would it be better for Russia to team up
with China to enjoy economic benefits at fair term with a safe South border, than getting
raped by the West again with another hostile South neighbor (China could join West to plunder
Russia, taking back outer Manchuria Siberia land).
And since diplomatic situation for Russia is not deadly critical I do not think Russia
needed that newspaper article. If Russia would request China's support of the kind -- it
would be in official diplomatic venues like UN.
No need to wait for UK US to close all Russia embassies with global sanction like what NK
get. See further my friend.
> Russia needs to save Syria for its own skin
> Iran needs to save its skin
But is it so for China? Is China in critical need of sovereign and friendly Syria? I
doubt it.
Sure Syria is not China concern, but for aftermath implications.
- Stop West eastward
aggression. - BRI node in ME - Uyghur terrorists - West control of all ME Energy supply
Was that article reaction to some new threat to Syria, to russia, or to China itself?
And i believe in the latter option. This article is not linked to any recent events around
Russia, it is caused by Sino-American relations shift.
You think in one dimensional. The warfare & alliance is moving very dynamic,
Russia & China are working in all fronts together if you watch carefully. Military &
energy are appetizer. Petrol Yuan & BRI are main course. Joint dev of C929 civil plane,
space program, agri, .its Eurasia century.
Skripal affair is much less than Olympics was. Even European states many did not jumped
Skripal wagon.
who care about Olympics beside some bruise Russkies pride, Skripal false flag & 2
dozen countries expelling diplomats is full display of bizarre brute force destroying entire
international norms. You need to resist before more countries succumb to West pressure.
Open your narrow vision.
-- but if Russia would soemhow gets politically isolated from the West, what bad is it
for China? Russia would become more dependent on China, like many of the trade with West
would had to go through Chinese "laundry". China gets more influence over Russia. Russia
gets much more limited in its options. Good (for China) develoment, why hurry to cancel it
before Russia even asked for ?
You have asked yourself a good qn, why not joint the West vultures to feast on Russia
bear? Sure, West aggression to Russia is godsend gift to China. But Chinese leaders think
further than greedy West capitalist. Better to have strong Russia as safe Northern backyard
than a Nato military threat encirclement (which Russia dream to join but too bad,
rejected)
> You are silly self center viewer
Frankly, it is exactly the opposite here.
It is you who claim Russia being behing that article in Global Time.
It is me who claims Russia has no any relation to the timing and wording of that
article.
I never claim Russia is solely behind that article. Its entire geopolitical dynamic
situation. If West can orchestrate diplomatic boycott of Russia, won't China be next?
When you see smoke, there is fire. When neighbor house is burning, it will spread to yours.
But here you are saying, not my problem let China save its own ass until fire spread to
yours.
> China special force is operating in Syria.
Maybe it is, but seems no one ever saw those operations.
Open secret. Like Russia, its to fight Chinese terrorists there instead of in China. Also
real war game training by Russia, too good deal to miss.
> Lot of weapons supply to SAA.
Maybe they are, but can you name those Chinese weapons and show me where SAA is
employing it?
It was reported in open news, Syria visited Beijing, then China announced it had old
weapon contracts to fulfil..who will pay? Likely those infantry weapons, ammunition,
artillery, TAW, uniform & gears, whatever construction materials while Russia take care
of high tech equip like S400.
> always throwing allies under bus whenever possible,
.because Putin is evil and just enjoys every opportunity to do bad thing. Always.
I wish i would hear somethign remotely creative from you.
> hence Russia deserve to be raped by West like 1990 is natural.
Oh, i see. Yet another russophobic preaching that "Russians should repent and repay,
repay, and repent", then frustrated when Russia shrugs this lecture off.
I'm Russophile & Putin's fan if you read my comments history. But fact is Russia did
that, which is foolish short sighted. If West has offered Russia G8 on equal term + Nato,
Russia won't hesitate to throw Syria, Iran, China immediately under bus. Then be ready for
another rape fantasy. The West just don't love Russians, no matter how much she plead &
give.
If all Russians think like you, now let China get all the blows since its their trade war,
so Russkies should rest & enjoy the firework, then another bigger 1990′s rape is
awaiting your country.
You have just shown Chinese what its like to be in alliance with Russia.
"... It doesn't matter that China has a larger economy. Their economy can be suffocated so long as they are denied a link to Europe through Eurasia. ..."
The point is not to block off China, the point is to block off China AND Russia from
Europe. Also trade from other Eurasian countries is going to be discouraged unless it goes
through the Straits that the West controlls, but obviously Russia and China are the big
players here.
Russia has a lot of gas and natural resources that the West and ME countries do not want
going to Europe.
And, as you said, the west has many ways of neutralizing China. So to the West, Russia is
the bigger threat since either country could act as a bridge to Europe but Russia has many
more paths of creating these links than China has.
Russia is being singled out, and is being targeted before China, because of Mackinder and
the need to control the "Heartland". Read up on Mackinder as he has a huge influence on the
west.
The empire sees Russia as the greater threat because only Russia and not China is a
threat to control the Heartland and thus the world. This is the real motivation behind
everything.
It doesn't matter that China has a larger economy. Their economy can be
suffocated so long as they are denied a link to Europe through Eurasia.
It is really strange the BBC sometimes can still publish decent article of such subject and
do not just repeat Foreign Office talking points.
Notable quotes:
"... There is a very different balance of forces between Russia and the West. Russia also has very limited "soft power", lacking an attractive internationalist ideology to "sell" around the world. ..."
"... If the Cold War was a battle for global dominance between two universalist ideologies - capitalism and communism - what then is today's competition between Russia and the West really about? ..."
"... But beyond that, policy towards Moscow needs to be thought through from the fundamentals, bearing in mind that the repercussions from the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union are still very much playing out some three decades later. ..."
Relations between Russia and the West are at a new low. But how should we describe the
current situation?
There's a lot of loose talk about a new "Cold War" - a comparison of present-day tensions to
the bitter ideological and military rivalry that existed between the Soviet Union and the West
from the 1950s to the end of the 1980s.
But such comparisons may be misleading.
"The Cold War," says Michael Kofman, a senior research scientist at the CNA Corporation and
a fellow at the Wilson Center's Kennan Institute, "was a competition resulting from a bipolar
system, where two superpowers, both with economic and military advantages, were competing to
shape international politics.
"Their universalist ideologies made this competition inevitable, as did the distribution of
power at the time."
In contrast, he says, today's competition is not the result of a balance of power, or
universalist ideology per se, but "conscious decisions made by leaders, the strategies they
pursued and a series of definable disagreements in international politics". And these were not
"destined or inevitable".
'Soft power'
So, while Mr Kofman believes the stakes could prove significant for the United States, the
scale and existential nature of the conflict is nothing like the Cold War, nor is Russia in any
position to fundamentally alter either the balance of power or the structure of the current
international systems. "In short," says Mr Kofman, "the causes and character of the conflict
are different."
During the real Cold War there was an armed peace in Europe, while the real battles were
fought out across the globe from Angola to Cuba and the Middle East. Today's battle lines are
generally much closer to Russia's own borders - Georgia and Ukraine.
There is a very different balance of forces between Russia and the West. Russia also has
very limited "soft power", lacking an attractive internationalist ideology to "sell" around the
world.
If the Cold War was a battle for global dominance between two universalist ideologies -
capitalism and communism - what then is today's competition between Russia and the West really
about?
Mr Kofman says that, for Russia, "it is about its survival as a power in the international
order, and also about holding on to the remnants of the Russian empire".
"Russian leaders," he says, "are desperate to avert the further fragmentation of Russian
influence and territory. They see no way to do this without maintaining buffer states and
imposing their will on neighbours to secure their borders."
For the United States, Mr Kofman says, this is a confusing conflict. "One aspect of it", he
says, "is a classic tale of hubris and over-extension; that is, too much liberal ideology and
not enough thinking about international politics.
"Without any powers to contest American influence for two decades, Washington rightfully
took advantage to build what it wanted, but all expansion of influence and power must
eventually come with increasing cost, and those costs are starting to multiply in
spades."
'Enemy deprivation syndrome'
It is increasingly clear that Russia, and China too for that matter, have not underwritten,
and do not subscribe to, the liberal underpinnings of the post-Cold War order. And there is no
way for the West to impose its will on these powers. So, in this sense, "great power politics"
are back.
But many commentators say the West too has some responsibility for the current situation and
playing up the new Cold War idea may only make matters worse.
Lyle Goldstein, a research professor at the US Naval War College, says: "Many in the West
seemed to have succumbed to 'enemy deprivation syndrome' after the Cold War. Many national
security specialists seem to yearn for a more simple threat that is easily characterised."
Situations in Georgia and Ukraine "seemed to offer the requisite storyline for new Cold
War", he says. "However, these situations are incredibly complicated. And those most familiar
with the region understand that both situations are a result of the rapid collapse of the
Soviet Union with related identity and border issues."
So, what kind of power is Russia today? Mr Kofman describes it as "a weak great power." He
says it is "consistently underrated because it historically lags behind the West in technology,
political and economic sophistication, but Moscow consistently punches above its economic
weight in the international system".
Russia is not, he says, "a declining regional power; quite the contrary".
"Indeed, after a period of internal balancing, military reforms and modernisation, Russia is
more than capable of holding ground in its historic backyard, projecting power to other
adjacent regions, and, as can be seen. reaching out to exact punishment on distant adversaries
via non-military means."
In Nato countries, there is much talk about spending more on defence and of gearing up again
to fight what's called a "peer competitor". For that, read Russia.
Some extra defence spending may well be needed - Western allies were far too quick to seek a
peace dividend in the wake of the Cold War. But just what kind of military threat does Russia
pose to Nato?
Prof Goldstein says Russia's forces are substantially weaker in the aggregate than those of
the US and Nato. However, he adds: "Russia has invested wisely in the last 15 years, so that it
has preserved certain niche capabilities that give it some advantages."
For example, Nato does not have a real counter to the Russian Iskander tactical nuclear system,
and this could pose dilemmas for Nato commanders regarding whether to capitulate or escalate.
Russia also has impressive capabilities in artillery and electronic warfare.
'Wars of
choice'
But its capacities in cyber- and information warfare are most apparent and pose some of the
most pressing challenges. Again, the media and think tanks alike are awash with discussions of
an apparently new phenomenon - so-called "hybrid warfare" - a melding and blurring of the
boundaries between peace and war at which Russia is perceived to be the new master.
As Mr Kofman notes, "no great power is a monochromatic threat". "In truth," he says, "Russia
is both a potent military power in its near-abroad, just as it has the proven ability to
conduct political warfare, cyber-warfare, and readily contest the information domain."
But Mr Kofman dismisses the fixation with hybrid warfare, saying this is "just an
unintelligible Western reaction, after decades of wars of choice against paltry adversaries, to
confrontation with another power that is capable across the full spectrum of conflict".
Prof Goldstein, too, says the obsession with hybrid warfare is problematic. "The real
danger," he says, "is miscalculation that could set off a hot war that escalates out of control
in either Syria or, most dangerously, in Ukraine."
'Calling Nato's bluff'
The so-called "hybrid" war in Ukraine has been actually shown to be "real war with mostly
conventional forces", Prof Goldstein says. Indeed, he argues persuasively that the reason the
US and Nato did not contest the Crimea annexation had nothing to do with "hybrid war" and
everything to do with the actual military balance and the fact that Crimea and eastern Ukraine
were perceived to be a part of Russian "core interests". The Kremlin, he says, "simply called
Nato's bluff".
Another problem is that the West may not be using the correct tools in its efforts to
influence Russia's behaviour. Indeed, it may not be entirely clear as to what it actually wants
from Russia.
"Most of the tools used thus far are about assurance of allies and solving problems in
alliance politics," Mr Kofman says, "but there is no discernible theory for how to influence
Russian behaviour."
"Diplomatic measures," he says, "are good at maintaining political unity, but nobody in
leadership even knows what they want from Moscow. Just trying to get Russia to 'stop' or to
retire from international politics, or to capitulate in Ukraine, is not serious thinking - to
put it mildly."
Diplomatic expulsions send signals about unity and resolve, but they are unlikely to change
minds in Moscow. Most of the experts I speak to say that it is only economic leverage that will
compel Russia to weigh up the true cost of its actions.
But beyond that, policy towards Moscow needs to be thought through from the
fundamentals, bearing in mind that the repercussions from the chaotic collapse of the Soviet
Union are still very much playing out some three decades later.
"... Frankly, Saker reads too much into this Chinese article. It is not about Russia. It is not because Skrypal hoax dialed ritual Russophobia over eleven. It just is a coincidence. Yet before loosing the elections Hillary was promising military war with Russia. Yet before winning the elections Trump was promising economic war with China. ..."
"... Russia`s biggest weakness is the incompetent, useless leaders they had from the 80`s to Yeltsin. The mess that the USSR left behind with unstable states on its borders with no treaty to prevent NATO expansion was a huge gift to the US that just keeps giving!! ..."
"... I`ll go as far as saying this gift to the US might lead to Russia`s end as a country in its present form. You can hardly blame the US I mean in 1990 Russia agreed to basically throw the towel in and live in a US dominated world in practice. Whatever they say about promises at the time that lasted for as long as their breath was warm ..."
"... the problem right now is the Imperial US (ruled from Israel). If it succeeds in destroying Russia, then the Chinese are irrelevant, and have nothing to say about anything. ..."
"... The US public are irretrievably useless and are going to have to go the whole way, with WW3 and/or an economic collapse, with the best bet being on WW3 (which they may well lose). ..."
"That tells you all you need to know about the difference between modern Britain and
the government of Vladimir Putin. They make Novichok, we make light sabers. One a hideous
weapon that is specifically intended for assassination. The other an implausible theatrical
prop with a mysterious buzz. But which of those two weapons is really more effective in the
world of today?".
(Boris Johnson)
Let's begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.
Question one: does anybody
sincerely believe that "Putin" (the collective name for the Russian Mordor) really attempted to
kill a man which "Putin" himself had released in the past, who presented no interest for Russia
whatsoever who,
like Berezovsky , wanted to
return back to Russia , and that to do the deed "Putin" used a binary nerve agent? Question
two: does anybody sincerely believe that the British have presented their "allies" (I will be
polite here and use that euphemism) with incontrovertible or, at least, very strong evidence
that "Putin" indeed did such a thing? Question three: does anybody sincerely believe that the
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats will somehow make Russia more compliant to western demands
(for our purposes, it does not matter what demands we are talking about)? Question four: does
anybody sincerely believe that after this latest episode, the tensions will somehow abate or
even diminish and that things will get better? Question five: does anybody sincerely believe
that the current sharp rise in tensions between the AngloZionist Empire (aka the "West") does
not place the Empire and Russia on collision course which could result in war,
probably/possibly nuclear war, maybe not deliberately, but as the result of an escalation of
incidents?
If in the zombified world of the ideological
drones who actually remain in the dull trance induced by the corporate media there are most
definitely those who answer "yes" to some or even all of the questions above, I submit that not
a single major western decision maker sincerely believes any of that nonsense. In reality,
everybody who matters knows that the Russians had nothing to do with the Skripal incident, that
the Brits have shown no evidence, that the expulsion of Russian diplomats will only harden the
Russian resolve, that all this anti-Russian hysteria will only get worse and that this all puts
at least Europe and the USA, if not the entire planet, in great danger.
And yet what just happened is absolutely amazing: instead of using fundamental principles of
western law (innocent until proven guilty by at least a preponderance of evidence or even
beyond reasonable doubt), basic rules of civilized behavior (do not attack somebody you know is
innocent), universally accepted ethical norms (the truth of the matter is more important than
political expediency) or even primordial self-preservation instincts (I don't want to die for
your cause), the vast majority of western leaders chose a new decision-making paradigm which
can be summarized in two words:
"highly likely" "solidarity"
This is truly absolutely crucial and marks a fundamental change in the way the AngloZionist
Empire will act from now on. Let's look at the assumptions and implications of these two
concepts.
First, "highly likely". While "highly likely" does sound like a simplified version of
"preponderance of evidence" what it really means is something very different and circular:
"Putin" is bad, poisoning is bad, therefore it is "highly likely" that "Putin" did it. How do
we know that the premise "Putin is bad" is true? Well -- he does poison people, does he
not?
You think I am joking?
Check out this wonderful chart presented to the public by "Her Majesty's government"
entitled "A long pattern of Russian malign activity":
In the 12 events listed as evidence of a "pattern of Russian malign activity" one is
demonstratively false (2008 invasion of Georgia), one conflates two different accusations
(occupation of Crimea and destabilization of the Ukraine), one is circular (assassination of
Skripal) and all others are completely unproven accusations. All that is missing here is the
mass rape of baby penguins by drunken Russian sailors in the south pole or the use of a secret
"weather weapon" to send hurricanes towards the USA. You don't need a law degree to see that,
all you need is an IQ above room temperature and a basic understanding of logic. For all my
contempt for western leaders, even I wouldn't make the claim that they all lack these. So here
is where "solidarity" kicks-in:
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur 's famous " my
country, right or wrong " applied to the entire Empire. The precedent of Meine Ehre
heißt Treue just slightly rephrased into Meine Ehre heißt
Solidarität also comes to mind.
Solidarity simply means that the comprador ruling elites of the West will say and do
whatever the hell the AngloZionists tell them to. If tomorrow the UK or US leaders proclaim
that Putin eats babies for breakfast or that the West needs to send a strong message to "Putin"
that a Russian invasion of Vanuatu shall not be tolerated, then so be it: the entire
AngloZionist nomenklatura will sing the song in full
unison and to hell with facts, logic or even decency!
Solemnly proclaiming lies is hardly something new in politics, there is nothing new here.
What is new are two far more recent developments: first, now everybody knows that these are
lies and, second, nobody challenges or debunks them. Welcome to the AngloZionist New World
Order indeed!
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a
murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of
it.
(John 8:44)
ORDER IT NOW
Over the past weeks I have observed something which I find quite interesting: both on
Russian TV channels and in the English speaking media there is a specific type of anti-Putin
individual who actually takes a great deal of pride in the fact that the Empire has embarked on
a truly unprecedented campaign of lies against Russia. These people view lies as just another
tool in a type of "political toolkit" which can be used like any other political technique. As
I have mentioned in the past, the western indifference to the truth is something very ancient
coming, as it does, from the Middle-Ages: roughly when the spiritual successors of the Franks
in Rome decided that their own, original brand of "Christianity" had no use for 1000 years of
Consensus Patrum .
Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular, power produced both moral
relativism and colonialism (with the Pope's imprimatur in the form of the Treaty of Tordesillas
). The Reformation (with its very pronounced Judaic influence) produced the bases of modern
capitalism which, as Lenin correctly diagnosed, has imperialism as its highest stage. Now that
the West is losing its grip on the planet (imagine that, some SOB nations dare resist!), all of
the ideological justifications have been tossed away and we are left with the true, honest,
bare-bones impulses of the leaders of the Empire: messianic hubris (essentially self-worship),
violence and, above all, a massive reliance on deception and lies on every single level of
society, from the commercial advertisements targeted at children to Colin Powell shaking some
laundry detergent at the UNSC to justify yet another war of aggression.
Self-worship and a total reliance on brute force and falsehoods -- these are the real
"Western values" today. Not the rule of law, not the scientific method, not critical thought,
not pluralism and most definitely not freedom. We are back, full circle, to the kind of
illiterate thuggery the Franks so perfectly embodied and which made them so infamous in the
(then) civilized world (the south and eastern Mediterranean). The agenda, by the way, is also
the same one as the Franks had 1000 years ago: either submit to us and accept our dominion, or
die, and the way to accept our dominion is to let us plunder all your riches. Again, not much
difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the Second Rome in 1204
and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the best predictor of
future behavior is past behavior.
Interestingly, the Chinese saw straight through this strategic psyop and they are now
sounding the alarm in their very official Global Times : (emphasis added)
The accusations that Western countries have hurled at Russia are based on ulterior
motives, similar to how the Chinese use the expression "perhaps it's true" to seize upon the
desired opportunity. From a third-person perspective, the principles and diplomatic logic
behind such drastic efforts are flawed, not to mention that expelling Russian diplomats
almost simultaneously is a crude form of behavior. Such actions make little impact other than
increasing hostility and hatred between Russia and their Western counterparts ( ) The fact
that major Western powers can gang up and "sentence" a foreign country without following the
same procedures other countries abide by and according to the basic tenets of international
law is chilling. During the Cold War, not one Western nation would have dared to make such a
provocation and yet today it is carried out with unrestrained ease. Such actions are nothing
more than a form of Western bullying that threatens global peace and justice. ( ) It is
beyond outrageous how the US and Europe have treated Russia. Their actions represent a
frivolity and recklessness that has grown to characterize Western hegemony that only knows
how to contaminate international relations. Right now is the perfect time for non-Western
nations to strengthen unity and collaborative efforts among one another. These nations need
to establish a level of independence outside the reach of Western influence while breaking
the chains of monopolization declarations, predetermined adjudications and come to value
their own judgment abilities. ( ) The West is only a small fraction of the world and is
nowhere near the global representative it once thought it was. The silenced minorities within
the international community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding
is of such a realization by proving it to the world through action.
As the French say " à bon entendeur, salut! ": the Chinese position is crystal
clear, as is the warning. I would summarize it as so: if the West is an AngloZionist doormat,
then the East is most definitely not.
[Sidebar: I know that there are some countries in Europe who have, so far, shown the courage
to resist the AngloZionist Diktat . Good for them. I will wait to see how long they can
resist the pressure before giving them a standing ovation]
The decision, therefore, lies here in the East; here must the Russian enemy, this
people numbering two hundred million Russians, be destroyed on the battlefield and person by
person, and made to bleed to death
(Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler)
Still, none of that explain why the leaders of the Empire have decided to engage in a
desperate game of "nuclear chicken" to try to, yet again, force Russia to comply with its
demands to "go away and shut up". This is counter-intuitive and I get several emails each week
telling me that there is absolutely no way the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire would want a
war with Russia, especially not a nuclear-armed one. The truth is that while western leaders
are most definitely psychopaths, they are neither stupid nor suicidal, and neither were
Napoleon or Hitler! And, yes, they probably don't really want a full-scale war with Russia. The
problem is that these rulers are also desperate, and for good cause.
Let's look at the situation just a few months ago. The US was defeated in Syria, ridiculed
in the DPRK, Trump was hated in Europe, the Russians and the Germans were working on North
Stream, the British leaders forced to at least pretend to work on Brexit, the entire
"Ukrainian" project had faceplanted, the sanctions against Russia had failed, Putin was more
popular than ever and the hysterical anti-Trump campaign was still in full swing inside the
USA. The next move by the AngloZionist elites was nothing short of brilliant: by organizing a
really crude false flag in the UK the Empire achieved the following results:
The Europeans
have been forced right back into the Anglosphere's fold ("solidarity", remember?) The Brexiting
Brits are now something like the (im-)moral leaders of Europe again. The Russians are now
demonized to such a degree that any accusation, no matter how stupid, will stick. In the
Middle-East, the US and Israel now have free reign to start any war they want because the
(purely theoretical) European capability to object to anything the Anglos want has now
evaporated, especially now that the Russians have become "known chemical-criminals" from Ghouta
to Salisbury At the very least, the World Cup in Russia will be sabotaged by a massive
anti-Russian campaign. If that campaign is really successful, there is still the hope that the
Germans will finally cave in and, if maybe not outright cancel, then at least very much delay
North Stream thereby forcing the Europeans to accept, what else, US gas.
This is an ambitious plan and, barring an unexpected development, it sure looks like it
might work. The problem with this strategy is that it falls short of getting Russia to truly
"go away and shut up". Neocons are particularly fond of humiliating their enemies (look at how
they are still gunning for Trump even though by now the poor man has become their most
subservient servant) and there is a lot of prestige at stake here. Russia, therefore, must be
humiliated, truly humiliated, not just by sabotaging her participation in Olympic games or by
expelling Russian diplomats, but by something far more tangible like, say, an attack on the
very small and vulnerable Russian task force in Syria. Herein lies the biggest risk.
The Russian task force in Syria is tiny, at least compared to the immense capabilities of
CENTCOM+NATO. The Russians have warned that if they are attacked, they will shoot down not only
the attacking missiles but also their launchers. Since the Americans are not dumb enough to
expose their aircraft to Russian air defenses, they will use air power only outside the range
of Russian air defenses and they will use only cruise missiles to strike targets inside the
"protection cone" of the Russians air defenses. The truth is that I doubt that the Russians
will have the opportunity to shoot down many US aircraft, at least not with their long-range
S-300/S-400 SAMs. Their ubiquitous and formidable combined short to medium range surface-to-air
missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system, the Pantsir, might have a better chance
simply because it's location is impossible to predict. But the real question is this: will the
Russians shoot back at the USN ships if they launch cruise missiles at Syria?
My strictly personal guess is that they won't unless Khmeimim, Tartus or another large
Russian objective (official Russian compounds in Damascus) are hit. Striking a USN ship would
be tantamount to an act of war and that is just not something the Russians will do if they can
avoid it. The problem with that is this restraint will, yet again, be interpreted as a sign of
weakness, not civilization, by the "modern Franks" (visualize a Neanderthal with a nuclear club
in his fist). Should the Russians decide to act à la American and use violence to
"send a message", the Empire will immediately perceive that as a loss of face and a reason to
immediately escalate further to reestablish the "appropriate" hierarchy between the
"indispensable nation" and the "gas station masquerading as a country". So here is the dynamic
at work
Russia limits herself to words of protests ==>> the Empire sees that as a sign of
weakness and escalates
Russia responds in kind with real actions==>> The Empire feels humiliated and
escalates
Now look at this from a Russian point of view for a second and ask yourself what you would
do in this situation?
The answer, I think, is obvious: you try to win as much time as possible and you prepare for
war. The Russians have been doing exactly that since at least early 2015.
For Russia this is really nothing new: been there, done that, and remember it very, very
well, by the way. The "western project" for Russia has always been the same since the
Middle-Ages, the only difference today is the consequences of war. With each passing century
the human cost of the various western crusades against Russia got worse and worse and now we
are not only looking at the very real possibility of another Borodino or Kursk, and not even at
another Hiroshima, but at something which we can't even really imagine: hundreds of millions of
people die in the course of just a few hours.
How do we stop that?
Is the West even capable of acting in a different way?
There is one actor which might, perhaps, stop the current skid towards Armageddon: China.
Right now, the Chinese have officially declared that they have what they call a "
comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation " later shortened to " strategic
partnership ". This is a very apt expression as it does not speak of an "alliance": two
countries of the size of Russia and China cannot have an alliance in the traditional sense --
they are too big and different for that. They are, however, in a symbiotic relationship, that
both sides understand perfectly (see this
White Paper for details). What this means in very simple terms is this: the Chinese cannot
let Russia be defeated by the Empire because once Russia is gone, they will be left one on one
with a united, triumphal and infinitely arrogant West (likewise I would argue that Russia
cannot afford to have Iran defeated by the Empire for exactly the same reasons, and neither can
Iran let the Israelis destroy Hezbollah). Of course, in terms of military power, China is a
dwarf compared to Russia, but in terms of economic power Russia is the dwarf when compared to
China in this "strategic community of interests". Thus, China cannot assist Russia militarily.
But remember that Russia does not need this if only because military assistance is what you
need to win a war. Russia does not want to win a war, Russia desperately needs to avoid a war!
And here is where China can make a huge difference: psychologically.
Yes, the Empire is currently taking on both Russia and China, but everybody, from its
leaders to its zombified population, seems to think that these are two, different and separate
foes. [We can use this opportunity to most sincerely thank Donald Trump for so "perfectly"
timing his trade war with China.] They are not: not only are Russia and China symbionts who
share the same vision of a prosperous and peaceful Eurasia united by a common future centered
around the OBOR and, crucially, free from the US dollar or, for that matter, from any type of
major US role, but Russia and China also stand for exactly the same notion of a post-hegemonic
world order: a multi-polar world of different and truly sovereign nations living together under
the rules of international law. If the AngloZionists have their way, this will never happen.
Instead, we will have the New World Order promised by Bush, dominated by the Anglosphere
countries (basically the ECHELON members, aka the "Five Eyes") and, on top of that pyramid, the
global Zionist overlord. This is something China cannot, and will not allow. Neither can China
allow a US-Russian war, especially not a nuclear one because China, like Russia, also needs
peace.
I don't see what Russia could do to convince the Empire to change its current course: the US
leaders are delusional and the Europeans are their silent, submissive servants. As shown above,
whatever Russia does it always invites further escalation from the Empire. Of course, Russia
can turn the West into a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes. This is hardly a solution since,
in the inevitable exchange, Russia herself will also be turned into a similar pile of
smoldering radioactive ashes by the Empire. In spite of that, the Russian people have most
clearly indicated by their recent vote that they have absolutely no intention of caving in to
the latest western crusade against them. As for the Empire, it will never accept the fact that
Russia refuses to submit. It therefore seems to me that the only thing which can stop
Armageddon would be for the Chinese to ceaselessly continue to repeat to the rulers of the
Empire and the people of the West what the wrote in the article quoted above: that " The
West is only a small fraction of the world and is nowhere near the global representative it
once thought it was" and "the silenced minorities within the international
community need to realize this and prove just how deep their understanding is of such a
realization by proving it to the world through action."
History teaches us that the West only strikes against those opponents it sees as defenseless
or, at least, weaker. The fact that the Popes, Napoleon or Hitler were wrong in their
evaluation of the strength of Russia does not change this truism. In fact, the Neocons today
are making exactly the same mistake. So telling them about the fact that Russia is much
stronger than what the western propaganda says and which, apparently, many western rulers
believe (you always end up believing your own propaganda), does not help. Russian "reminders of
reality" will do no good simply because the West is out of touch with reality and lacks the
ability to understand its own limitations and weaknesses. But if China stepped in and conveyed
that crucial message " The West is only a small fraction of the world " and that the
rest of the world will prove this " through action " then other countries will step in
and a war can be averted because even the current delusion-based "solidarity" will collapse in
the face of a united Eurasia.
Russia alone cannot continue to carry the burden of stopping the messianic psychopaths
ruling the Empire.
The rest of the world, led by China, now needs to step in to avert the war.
This plan for global dominance has been over 100 years in the making and has already cost
over 100 million lives so far. How likely is it for them to back off now? The Chinese are far
from stupid so it will be interesting to see how they view the situation and act.
I've stated previously that the people who really can put a halt to it are Americans
themselves but it won't be easy. The ideal situation would be a mass mutiny of US military
personnel and the line, The Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war should probably
read, The Israeli Empire: by way of deception thou shalt do war. It would be useful to repeat
this ad nauseam until it truly sinks in for US military personnel that the US is a supplicant
to Israel and to understand who they will be fighting and dying for. A mass mutiny would be
the best way to save their families and future.
Again, not much difference here between the sack of the First Rome in 410, the sack of the
Second Rome in 1204 and the sack of the Third Rome in 1991. As psychologists well know, the
best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
But all three Romes were empires too filled with lies.
But I think that if stupid westerners won't wake up, -- nobody will help. China is big and
possibly can think that in world where no Russia, no Europe nor US/Canada are exist, some
place will still be for China.
It's "higly posssible" a mistake, but if silly westerners will continue to munch their MSM
grass their shadows will be printed on the walls of history.
Actually they deserve to be.
"Solidarity" in this context is simply a "conceptual placeholder" for Stephen Decatur's
famous "my country, right or wrong" applied to the entire Empire.
Kind of disappointed in the Saker here. Just like liberals, he omits the rest of Decatur's
famous toast: "Our country -- in her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be
in the right , and always successful, right or wrong. [ Emphasis mine. ]" Decatur
was not trying to encourage amoral behavior, such as that which we now see with the
AngloZionists running Washington.
By the way, I've heard the Russians are now telling a joke about Boris Johnson: they're
saying he was poisoned with durachok (bonehead)!
China has deep ties to the western empire. Russians would be drinking too deeply from their
own propaganda to miss this fact. Indeed, the latest crippling of Trumpist reform was lead by
heavily Chinese invested men Ryan and McConnell. Israel has a strong grip on US foreign
policy for obvious reasons, but Israel has no reason to see Russia bullied into submission.
China does.
It should be plain to any objective observer of global politics that the west is
internally incoherent and will wane in power by the crush weight of demographic change alone.
China observes this and realizes the only long-term competitor to their ascendant position,
one generation hence, is an independent Russia. Far better for the Chinese that Russia is
mortally wounded or harried into Chinese vassal status before the west breaks down into a
third world non-entity.
The real reasons for the expulsions is the revelation of Russia's next generation war
weapons. It was taken up as an invitation to fight, not to make peace, and making it as hard
as possible for Russians to either influence opinion or gather information.
Somebody wanted Skripal dead, and while it may be a useful false flag provocation, with
his involvement with the Steele Dossier a possible trigger, it could be serving more than one
purpose. As usual, we are assigning to the Russkies both more omnipotence and stupidity than
is merited. I supoose it is our own elites who believe their omniscience in surveilling all
of us means they are also smarter than the rest of us. Maybe
Well said and accurate. There is no consensus among the hoipolloi with the neocon push for
war. This will never come about. The west is desperate, no doubt, and will continue to beat
its chest, much to its own detriment. If the west intended on war, it would have come about.
Time is not on their side. The neocons have backed themselves into a corner and, therefore,
must create chaos, camouflage, obfuscation, in order to bamboozle the world until they can
safely go back into their holes. Most likely, they are looking for concessions. Remember the
Wasserman-Schuiltz spy scandal? Remember the many deadly false flags being exposed to the
public for what they are?
Frankly, Saker reads too much into this Chinese article. It is not about Russia. It is
not because Skrypal hoax dialed ritual Russophobia over eleven. It just is a coincidence. Yet
before loosing the elections Hillary was promising military war with Russia. Yet before
winning the elections Trump was promising economic war with China.
USA ruling 1% was making a strategic choice year ago.
When Trump got elected he inherited the raging war. He could not stop it, obviously. Then
he turned it overboard. He started demanding so many wars at once that US Army got
overstretched and paralyzed. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Itan, Yemen, Korea, new European
garrisons . Trump send Army to prepare to war everywhere and now Pentagon can not scratch
together enough forces to attack anywhere specifically.
By his "clumsy and incompetent bravado" Trump neutralized the army, made and exposed it as
incapable pretend-force.
Now Trump can switch to his programme -- economic war with China.
And that is why Chinese diplomats and media run crazy. Now it is their war, not Russia's.
Now their tails are on the line. Now Russia mostly can move to backlines to lick wounds while
China would exchange blows and collect bruises.
This turned recent Chinese statements so bald and pushing. This, and not a concern for
Russia.
something the Russians might consider -- immediately cutting off all gas to Europe and
restoring such service for payment only in gold or the new "petrol yuan" . Europe depends
heavily on that Russian Gas, and such a move would re-align some European thinking. Replacing
it with US provided LPG would take far too long and be much more expensive having to be
shipped by sea
In fact, maybe if Russia, China, the other brics and aligned countries suddenly cut off
all ties to the west, it would hasten the coming economic collapse of the EU and US, and that
dreamed of multipolar world would arise from the ashes.
Better that than the ashes of a nuclear exchange I would think.
China is too smart to show its hand yet, they are building their economic & military
strength quietly, they don't want to scare the westerners yet with threats.
Russia`s biggest weakness is the incompetent, useless leaders they had from the 80`s
to Yeltsin. The mess that the USSR left behind with unstable states on its borders with no
treaty to prevent NATO expansion was a huge gift to the US that just keeps giving!!
I`ll go as far as saying this gift to the US might lead to Russia`s end as a country
in its present form. You can hardly blame the US I mean in 1990 Russia agreed to basically
throw the towel in and live in a US dominated world in practice. Whatever they say about
promises at the time that lasted for as long as their breath was warm .
A couple centuries ago the phrase "The White Man's Burden" was used to explain why
citizens of Western nations must devote resources to civilize the world. Gore Vidal used "The
Yellow Man's Burden" to explain why citizens of Asian nations were devoting so much wealth to
keep the USA and much of Europe wealthy. If our citizens suddenly lost 30% of their annual
income due to tax increases and spending cuts needed to truly balance our national budgets,
they would be outraged. They might learn that this was the result of "free trade", which
might result in revolution and wars. Those who have profited off "free trade" by selling out
their citizens know its best to let the working class learn this truth slowly.
_____________________
Trump's proclamation to pull out of Syria may be good news, but probably not. He hired
psychopath Bolton, so we can assume the US military is just consolidating forces in Iraq to
hold off attacks whilst they bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. The Iraqis aren't our allies, they just
act to get free stuff, and they will know we are not bombing Iran to save Iranians. It might
be wise to get our troops out of Iraq too!
____________________________
To answer:
Let's begin this discussion with a few, basic questions.
Question one (thru five): does anybody sincerely believe
Yes, this bimbo does, and she's the State Department spokesman. The State Department is
still infected with Clinton-hysteria and uses sexy women to spin lies so the foreign press
doesn't laugh and scorn absurd BS too loudly. The American press are just stenographers and
eagerly copy her lies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL9UxED4uuI
The problem is that Russia/USSR submitted once and the West think it can be achieved again.
Hence everything must be made clear. No partners word should be used and the West must be
clearly warned that violence of unimaginable level will be used if they dare and what will
follow if Russian force anywhere attacked and that any use of nukes against Russia means the
end of humanity.
Unfortunately acting adequately and carefully Russia never was able to avoid war. It is in
the books. Right now bets are life on earth hence being too careful and being perceived as
weak is a bad thing. Russia IMHO must act boldly. Respond to USA and UK harassment by cutting
diplomatic relations and giving straight terse warning.
I think what disturbs China about this whole situation regarding the ENTIRE Western world
(US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia) is not simply that it is an overreaction to Russia,
but the whole idea that one particular people -- the Russian people -- have once again been
SINGLED OUT for collective intimidation and eventually for possible dismemberment.
China has very long and very bitter experience of this itself. In the 19th century, the
imperial powers, for some reason, ganged up on China.
In other parts of the world, the experience of other backward peoples was with but ONE
particular Empire (ex. only the Americans vs the Amerinds, only the Spanish in South America,
only Great Britain in India and Australia, only Russians in Central Asia and Siberia, and
only Japanese in Korea. The British, French, Germans, Italians and Belgians each had separate
RIVAL spheres in Africa, and ditto for South-East Asia.
But when it came to China, ALL these competing powers set aside their differences. It's as
if they said to each other "Hey, China is so enormous and juicy, we should not fight among
ourselves, there's enough for everyone!" Unbelievably vicious.
And now, we see the same pattern. the whole Western world against Russia. I think in this
instance, the Han don't need anyone to tell them what to think -- it is 100% certain they do
not approve of what the collective West is doing.
But if China stepped in and conveyed that crucial message "The West is only a small
fraction of the world"
They can do better than this, and explicitly state that a nuclear war with Russia is a
nuclear war with China -- just to make it clear -- and let the US do some more realistic
calculations.
"war is a path of deceit. When you are strong -- pretend weak ."
Am familiar with Sun-tzu a well. But what are you saying here? That the UK is stronger
than Russia. I would definitely have to disagree with that proposition!
It should be plain to any objective observer of global politics that the west is
internally incoherent and will wane in power by the crush weight of demographic change
alone. China observes this and realizes the only long-term competitor to their ascendant
position, one generation hence, is an independent Russia.
Maybe, but the problem right now is the Imperial US (ruled from Israel). If it
succeeds in destroying Russia, then the Chinese are irrelevant, and have nothing to say about
anything.
The recent THREATENED tariffs have an INTERESTING TIMING to them. It is being used by
Washington to convince China to stay passive as the West takes down Russia. Conversely, if
China "bends the knee", then the West promises that the threats won't materialize. (The West
loves worthless promises). Washington calculates that the mere threat of tariffs will make
China stand by as a neighbor is destroyed. Any turmoil in your neighbor's house, spills over
into yours whether you want it to or not. A neighbor is a neighbor, period.
And THAT, IMHO, is why the protectionist threats are happening NOW. Don't get me wrong,
the tariffs were going to happen anyway, eventually. China, whatever it does, cannot escape
them.
But to threaten a trade war RIGHT NOW with the one power guaranteed to be Russia's
economic lifeline (we know that China couldn't care less what Russia does in its backyard, in
the Ukraine) while preparing to attack Russia itself? Well, the whole thing is WAY TOO
OBVIOUS.
And if someone like me can see, so can a lot of other people in Moscow and Beijing.
Washington thinks its being "smart", but they are so ridiculously easy to read.
No, not that UK is really stronger than Russia but appears weaker. It's that the West is
actually not capable of defeating Russia but loudly shouts that it CAN defeat them easily,
and tries to look powerful and intimidating to Russia. In this situation, the
weaker-positioned West pretends to Russia that we are stronger, and we want Russia to believe
us. That way, it won't come to actual war, and we think Russia will back down. It's an
extremely risky plan.
That could, perhaps, take minds of US citizens from shopping and social media to,
perhaps, more serious matters.
Won't hold my breath.
Taking everything into account, I think the you're right. The US public are
irretrievably useless and are going to have to go the whole way, with WW3 and/or an economic
collapse, with the best bet being on WW3 (which they may well lose).
In fact, it's very possible RUSSIA is NOT, at this time, the target of Western aggression.
Sure, the West shall SURELY try to destroy Russia, but the urgency is not there YET. Maybe
the real target right now is CHINA, shortly to have the world's largest economy in absolute
terms. They must be destroyed NOW! The West is trying to cut a deal with Russia: "Stab China
in the back, and bow down to us. You can live A LITTLE LONGER, before we come for you.
Otherwise we get pissed and kill you TODAY".
An entirely plausible master-plan from Washington, London and Paris. Also a pretty
transparent one, if it's the case. The problem with this "Divide and Conquer" plan, aside
from being easy to read, is that it counts on both Russia and China to be dumb enough to
believe they are not BOTH in the cross-hairs. How stupid does the West think China and Russia
are?
It would have a psychological effect, at most. Russia has 5,000 warheads, China only
admits to having around 500 or 600 strategic city-killers. They may have more, but if you
don't admit something it doesn't count for deterrence. Maybe a decade from now, as China
builds its arsenal, the statement could be much more effective.
No, the Chinese are surely disgusted with this bullying behavior of the West (even many
Europeans are, just read the comments to the news in the different media outlets) but China
cannot seriously confront the West. That would make them lose trillions of dollars in exports
and investments and put an abrupt end to their miraculous but still ongoing economic
development. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
The situation will continue to deteriorate until some sort of modus vivendi is reached
(like at the beginning of the first Cold War). Or perhaps it's just been too long since the
last World War and the time is ripe for the next one.
As for the Skripal murder attempt, it's hard to imagine Putin ordering it at this time and
in that manner but it's not that hard to imagine someone from the Kremlin sewers being behind
it.
In the somewhat less likely scenario of a false flag operation, I would consider an
Israeli asymmetrical response to the recent downing of their jet by the Syrians with obvious
help from the Russians. They have plenty of experience in extraterritorial assassinations and
more than enough knowledge to fabricate a Russian-like nerve agent.
I respect and value Saker as a commentator on Russian and military affairs. Those are his
areas of expertise and professional experience. I do not value him as a historian, because
there enters into his writing a clear bias. I respect the fact of his commitment to his
Orthodox faith, but I don't appreciate being almost hammerlocked into having to take a side
in his prejudices.
He has a way of lumping 1,000 years of exceedingly complex history into what amounts
practically to silly formulas that remind one of adolescent pique. West is characterized by
"thuggery," whereas the "East," is presumably the source -- and is possibly the monopoly --
of the virtues Saker has in mind, while Western-like manifestations of military violence and
conquest are unknown there.
And there is this pearl: "Scholasticism and an insatiable thrust for worldly, secular,
power produced both moral relativism and colonialism " This is downright embarrassing in its
silliness. Of course, after deep study of Aquinas or Bonaventure the light comes on: moral
relativism! Clearly, subtlety and essential distinctions are not the Saker's strong points,
to say the least, when it comes to registering his annoyance and bitterness in his 1000 year
view of "the West," whereas sweeping and frankly spectacularly inept generalizations are. One
is really tempted to accuse him of a lack of intellectual integrity when it comes to these
matters.
At root, Saker is a highly emotional and touchy "rooter" for Orthodoxy. Fine, that's his
right, but he is no scholar. One looks in vain either for impartiality, for breadth and depth
of understanding and sympathy, and hence for generosity of spirit. Thankfully, there are many
great scholars of history, East and West.
In the 19th century, the imperial powers, for some reason, ganged up on
China.
That's the opposite of reality. If they had ganged up on China, each would have taken
large piece for itself. In reality, they were overawed by China, and tried to preserve it
much as they tried to preserve Ottoman rule against both breakup and dismemberment by Russia.
The Ottomans were too far gone, so they failed in both respects. But they did manage to
prevent China's breakup while failing to keep Russia from annexing a large chunk of Chinese
territory.
Heck, they even helped China defeat the millenarian Taiping rebels who racked up a large
body count during their rebellion. Note that when the Jurchens detected internal rebellion
during the Ming dynasty, they waited until the imperial armies were occupied with rebel
suppression before delivering the coup de grace to the Ming dynasty. The Western powers were
too tied up competing with each other to really cooperate in anything more than avenging the
honor of their envoys and getting trading posts set up on Chinese territory.
By "ganging up" I refer to the way in which China was COLLECTIVELY FORCED to extend any
and all concessions granted any single Imperial Power to ALL Imperial powers. And all the
Imperial powers were on-board with this policy , again as a unified group.
For example, if Russia forced a railroad treaty on China, China by unequal, at-gun-point
"Treaty" with the Eight Powers (at the time Great Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Russia,
The United States, Austria-Hungary and Italy) would also have to grant EVERYONE railroad
concessions in their respective zones.
Or say if China was forced to open trade relations by America, China would automatically
be forced to open trade to EVERYONE ELSE , and even the instigators in that case, the United
States, would force China to do it. All in the name of the relevant Treaties, of course.
Also by mutual agreement among the imperial powers, they would not support China in any
efforts to get better terms in any negotiation with any other power . So Russia refused to,
say provide support for Chinese efforts to fend off the Japanese, though normally it might
have done so. This was because, both being part of the Imperial Powers grouping, Russia and
Japan had agreed to co-exist in mutual exploitation of China.
It was all designed so that China would have no ability to shift its favor diplomatically
from one power to another, but had to negotiate from a position of deliberately imposed
weakness. Diplomacy was the only tool available to China in that execrably weak state,
pathetic as that tool was. By collective agreement among the Empires, that tool was taken
away.
In effect, exploitation of China became a COOPERATIVE project between such disparate
rivals as Britain, France and Germany, or United States, Japan and Russia. Such a thing, of a
coordinated desire to apportion one country among many, was not seen anywhere else in the
Colonial Age .
That is my meaning when I referred to the Empires "ganging up" on China.
How absurd. The foremost producer of virtually all modern goods is irrelevant without
Russia? A weakened Russia is a boon to Chinese expansion into their desired role as Eurasian
leader state. The only irrelevant nations are in the West as their post-national suicide
becomes all the more certain.
Ridiculous, China needs Russia as Russia is a perfect complement to Chinas weaknesses. In
fact, neither China nor Russia could have picked a better strategic partner than each other
as neither country could confront the West on it's own but together the West cannot topple
either nation. No other combination between countries would provide near as much
synergies.
China is not looking to expand into Russia. Why would they when they have a shrinking
population. They are expanding into the SCS in order to keep their oil lines free.
The real strategic advantage Russia and China have with each other is the OBOR. This is
key to everything and is the reason why the West is targeting Russia so aggressively.
If Mackinder's Heartland theory is at play, and you want to cut China off from Europe,
taking down Russia would seem to be an enormous effort to accomplish that. There are much
easier ways. Why not just lobby your European "allies" not to trade at all with China?
Mission accomplished, and no war with Russia as a bonus. If the EU won't follow the Empire's
orders, you need to take out not only Russia, but probably Pakistan, and all the Central
Asian nations, plus Iran and Turkey. If not, and you only destroy one or a few of these,
China's One Belt One Road reaches Europe anyway.
Also don't forget the outright blockade of China's maritime trade to be conducted by the
U.S. Navy -- kind of an act of war in itself.
Seems far easier, if you want to slow China down, to just ORDER America's NATO allies to
stop all trade with China. The rest of the world all together won't be able to fill the gap,
not any time soon.
Voila, you lower China's GDP growth by some significant percentage, using just strong-arm
diplomacy in Europe.
Buys America another full decade as number one economy, maybe.
In the fevered dreams of Western strategists, they hope for Russia and China to turn on each
other, sparing the Atlantic powers the trouble. Then, they come in and pick up the pieces.
They hope to replicate the success of Britain in playing off France against Germany pre-World
War One. The problem is they have in fact encouraged the Sino-Russian strategic alignment,
not hindered it.
No matter, after all, there can never be such a thing, thought the British, of a long-term
common interest between France and Germany -- a "European Union" will never come about.
French and Germans naturally hate each other! Right?
And how did Britain make out with that thinking? How will America make out in coming
decades? In geopolitics, not that well. Not as long as we are short-sighted.
Those with the power, and the happily ruled, have always needed synonyms for "obedience."
Solidarity is a choice in line with our social-mediatic times and the related
communication standards.
I mean, like i said above, Johnson and other western politicians are not "boneheads"
(intellectually weak) as you said, no, they are smart (intellectually strong) and pretending,
faking their intellectual weakness (appearance of stupidity)
Answers:-
One and two. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there is no chance of a
mistake, and the standard necessary for thinking Putin responsible is less than what would be
needed for finding him guilty in a court of law. He cannot hide behind his country and
diplomatic immunity while claiming the protection of British Law for evidence necessary to
convict someone on trial for a capital offence.
Three. We want nothing from Russia , for indeed they have nothing to offer. To go away and
shut up is the most they can do, and that is why are sending the worst of the Russian goons
back were they came from, whether they want to go back or not (they would love to stay in
London*).
Four. Punishment is essential, otherwise they will see weakness.
Five. No chance of nuclear war or any other kind or war. Russia is destined to become the
lonely old man of Europe. It has nothing anyone wants at the price of being treated like an
imbecile, and our diplomats dislike living there*).
Oh, we have a copypaste contest? Okay then, i'd copy here my reply at saker's blog
too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[MORE]
> China will be blackmailed into submission.
Wooop! Then it is not "existential threat" for China.
Clash for power, clash for sovereignty, clash fo prosperity -- but not for survival.
> Russia & China are working closely
Which does not mean China's role is making harsh diplomatic statements in favor of Russia.
At least it was not so before today. So i think it is not today either. Also remember that
Chinese social mindset is build upon idea of "indebting with gifts and aids" and then
requesting payback when they need it. Which means Russia should be very wary about accepting
any help from China unless it wishes to be seen by China as a deeply indebted beggar
incapable of sustaining itself. And since diplomatic situation for Russia is not deadly
critical I do not think Russia needed that newspaper article. If Russia would request China's
support of the kind -- it would be in official diplomatic venues like UN.
> Russia needs to save Syria for its own skin
> Iran needs to save its skin
But is it so for China? Is China in critical need of sovereign and friendly Syria? I doubt
it.
> China has been backing up with big cheque book for last few years, signing hundreds
of billions deal with upfront payments to prop Russia economy for prolong war.
Which is very important, but is not diplomatic statements nor Chinese newspaper
articles.
That is exactly the Chinese role in this fight like i said many times before -- economic
and financial warfare is Chinese responsibility, while military and diplomatic warfare is
Russian's.
> Global times news mostly reflected the China think tank policy that they wish to
propagate to English speaking world.
And here we are getting back to the topic. Why such a harsh, explicitly worded article did
appeared today? Was it because of Russia or of China itself? Was that article reaction to
some new threat to Syria, to russia, or to China itself?
And i believe in the latter option. This article is not linked to any recent events around
Russia, it is caused by Sino-American relations shift.
> China has sensed West is tightened noose around Russia to cut it off from world,
seeing from Olympic & now the Skirpal circus
Skripal affair is much less than Olympics was. Even European states many did not jumped
Skripal wagon. Additionally, if Russia would be "cut off from Western world" -- what the West
did not dared to do even in 2014 on the height of Crimea and MH17 accusations and on the
hopes of "gas station" imminent and fast collapse, so would hardly dare now just because some
Skripal -- but if Russia would somehow gets politically isolated from the West, what bad is
it for China? Russia would become more dependent on China, like many of the trade with West
would had to go through Chinese "laundry". China gets more influence over Russia. Russia gets
much more limited in its options. Good (for China) development, why hurry to cancel it before
Russia even asked for ?
> Trade war will be too bloody for the world
Yes, but the said trade war is not having Russia as primary adversary -- Russian economy i
not that significant to the western world, and for USA in particular it has but zero
significance. The trade war we see igniting -- is the war against China. China can no more be
"wise monkey up the trees", when USA moved their chaingun aim from Russia onto China. Now
China is being shot at, and the article is Chinese response to China being attacked. Not to
anything around Russia.
> You are silly self center viewer
Frankly, it is exactly the opposite here. It is you who claim Russia being behind that
article in Global Time. It is me who claims Russia has no any relation to the timing and
wording of that article.
> China special force is operating in Syria.
Maybe it is, but seems no one ever saw those operations.
> Lot of weapons supply to SAA.
Maybe they are, but can you name those Chinese weapons and show me where SAA is employing
it?
> Lot of money pump in to sustain Syria war,
If they are, then China does it part of the fight, good. Like USA supplied money and
material to fighting European states during WW2. However that has no relation with the Global
Times article being discussed.
> always throwing allies under bus whenever possible,
.because Putin is evil and just enjoys every opportunity to do bad thing. Always. I wish i
would hear somethign remotely creative from you.
> hence Russia deserve to be raped by West like 1990 is natural.
Oh, i see. Yet another russophobic preaching that "Russians should repent and repay,
repay, and repent", then frustrated when Russia shrugs this lecture off.
And, as you said, the west has many ways of neutralizing China.
Don't forget that China has an enormous internal market too, which in time should be
larger than the U.S. and EU combined. European countries that stay out of this vast and
rapidly growing market will be cutting their own throats. Good luck convincing them to do
that.
"... I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda. ..."
"... I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation. ..."
"... To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region. ..."
"... Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse. ..."
"... The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics. ..."
"... According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4 ..."
"... Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available. ..."
"... This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity ..."
"... The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15 ..."
"... During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. ..."
"... Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 ..."
"... In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood. ..."
"... In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. ..."
"... The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle. ..."
"... Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114 ..."
It was during the spring of 2006 that I began this project. I wanted
to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes
by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed
a political agenda.
As I researched the subject, I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared
by different circles within the American political class and promoted through
programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies,
activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia,
but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining
the nation's political reputation.
... ... ....
Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely
legitimate, the issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the
world is growing, yet many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter
in the global arena. Preoccupied with international issues, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to nego- tiate
and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday
seemed so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals,
Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the
United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most
precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown
increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated
that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism
in the former Soviet region.
And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with
Western states. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia
tells us volumes about the United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first
century's central challenges that include political instability, weapons proliferation,
and energy insecurity. Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number
of American elites, this attitude is far from universally shared. Many Americans
understand that Russia has gone a long way from communism and that the overwhelming
support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately explained by high
oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public-despite the frequent
assertions of Russophobic observers.
Balanced analysts are also aware that many Russian problems are typical difficulties
that nations encounter with state-building, and should not be presented as indicative
of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As the United States and
Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly important
to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching
way.
Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an
anti-Russian nature. For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia --
a phenomenon that I have partly researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre
Dame, 2004) and in several articles. Anti-American attitudes are strongly
present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies
of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies
tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often
commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's
political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies
by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly
more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.
The Anti-Russian Lobby
When the facile optimism was disappointed, Western euphoria faded, and
Russophobia returned ... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the
governments, but in the statements of out-of-office politicians, the
publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of jour-
nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Braithwaite,
Across the Moscow River, 2002)1
....
Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Brovvns, but
a real phenomenon of political thought in the main political think tanks
in the West . .. [T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was
approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period in
ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to
serve Washington's interests and that it would remain such in the future.
(Sergei Mikoyati, International Affairs /October 2006j)2
This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's
influence on the U.S. Russia policy. 1 discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its
tactics to achieve them, the history of its formation and rise to prominence,
and the conditions that preserved its influence in the after- math of 9/11.1
argue that Russophobia has been important to American hegemonic elites in pressuring
Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold War era.
1. Goals and Means
Objectives
The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen
America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies.
The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves,
and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective.
Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one
capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were
worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power.
In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military
and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people
and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues
across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device
for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some
the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to
others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international
politics.
According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this
"New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually
to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy
reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American
Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to
the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought
to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great
threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a
threat from arising in the first place."4
Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving
its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S.
interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system
sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared
by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival
in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned,
no other choice was available.
This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within
the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For
example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the
Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy
ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski
envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's
"grand failure."6
In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable of reform. Communism's
decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the system's
"practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism
would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7
Other com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values.
In 1990 Francis Fukuyama first formulated his triumphalist "end of history"
thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the Western-style market democracy.®
... ... ...
Marc Plattner declared the emergence of a "world with one dominant principle
of legitimacy, democracy."9 When the Soviet system had indeed disintegrated,
the leading establishment journal Foreign Affairs pronounced that "the Soviet
system collapsed because of what it was, or more exactly, because of what it
was not. The West 'won' because of what the democracies were-because they were
free, prosperous and successful, because they did justice, or convincingly tried
to do so."10 Still others, such as Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to
proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which
only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the
world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity.11
In this context of U.S. triumphalism, at least some Russophobes expected
Russia to follow the American agenda. Still, they were worried that Russia may
still have surprises to offer and would recover as an enemy.12
Soon after the Soviet disintegration, Russia indeed surprised many, although
not quite in the sense of presenting a power challenge to the United States.
Rather, the surprise was the unexpectedly high degree of corruption, social
and economic decay, and the rapid disappointment of pro-Western reforms inside
Russia. By late 1992, the domestic economic situation was much worsened, as
the failure of Western-style shock ther- apy reform put most of the population
on the verge of poverty. Russia was preoccupied not with the projection of power
but with survival, as poverty, crime, and corruption degraded it from the status
of the indus- trialized country it once was. In the meantime, the economy was
largely controlled by and divided among former high-ranking party and state
officials and their associates. The so-called oligarchs, or a group of extremely
wealthy individuals, played the role of the new post-Soviet nomenklatura; they
influenced many key decisions of the state and suc- cessfully blocked the development
of small- and medium-sized business in the country.13 Under these conditions,
the Russophobes warned that the conditions in Russia may soon be ripe for the
rise of an anti-Western nationalist regime and that Russia was not fit for any
partnership with the United States.14
The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's
ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths
of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist,
autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new
conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's
unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15
... ... ...
The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced
by policy factors, such as the divide within the policy community and the lack
of presidential leadership. Not infrequently, politicians tend to defend their
personal and corporate interests, and lobbying makes a difference in the absence
of firm policy commitments.
Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that
the split, which goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for
the absence of a coherent policy toward the country. During the period of
2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan
group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with
the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not
tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide
US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91
Since November 2004, when the administration launched a review of its policy
on Russia,92 Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found
its advocate. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004,
Colin Powell opposed the vice president's approach, arguing for a softer and
more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.
President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable
to form a consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the
Middle East, Bush failed to provide the leadership committed to devising mutually
acceptable rules in relations with Russia that could have prevented the deterioration
in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he also became doubtful about
the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result, the promising
post-9/11 cooperation never materialized. The new cold war and the American
Sense of History
It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the
United States. (Bret Stephens, "Russia: The Enemy," The Wall Street Journal,
November 28, 2006)
If today's reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real
risk that Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate.
(John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International
Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)
On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin,
Ukraine-the list goes on-Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its
allies . . . here are worse models than the united Western stand that won the
Cold War the first time around.
("Putin Institutionalized," The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007) In
order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive
the image of Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups
have exploited important differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions,
presenting those differences as incompatible.
1. Contested History
Two versions of history
The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American
ideas of Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian
communism. Although scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding
to the Soviet threat, they rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about
history and freedom.' It therefore should not come as surprise that many in
the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory of the
Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure"-as
Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2-the American discourse assumed that from now on
there would be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis
Fukuyama offered his bold summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted
in a famous passage that "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the
Cold War... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant to convey the disappearance
of an alternative to the familiar idea of free- dom, or "the universalization
of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4
In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty
and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it
is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important
attributes of sovereign statehood.
In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces,
the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal
and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy.
Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries ago, as they successfully
withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of the Nazi
regime was important to the Soviets because it legitimized their claims to continue
with the tradition of freedom as independence.
The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing
myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold
War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods
but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle.
This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western
interpretation of the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S.
narrative is the tribute to Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist
ambitions of larger powers. The Cold War too is viewed by many Russians as a
necessarily defensive response to the West's policies, and it is important that
even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the occupation,
emphasizing instead the war vic- tory.6 The Russians officially admitted "moral
responsibility" and apolo- gized for the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7
They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe,
but only in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War. Russians
also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial contribution
of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid
dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle
to every Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian
wrote, "the only undisputable foundation of the national myth."9
If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two
historical narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the
difficulty of negotiating a common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea
of freedom may vary greatly across nations. The urge for freedom may be universal,
but its social content is a specific product of national his- tories and local
circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially downplayed
the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under
the influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated
a strong egalitarian and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the
Cold War- and not without its influence-that democracy has become associated
with elections and pluralistic institutions.10 Second, it is essential to acknowledge
the two nations' mutual respon- sibility for the misunderstanding that has resulted
in the Cold War. A historically sensitive account will recognize that both sides
were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect their visions
of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future
attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent
in accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust
of the two countries' leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more
difficult to prevent a full-fledged political confronta- tion. Western leaders
had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the perception
of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to
the appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II
world made by Britain, the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to
address these deep-seated suspicions.
In addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles
Treaty were neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in
its racist and expansionist policies. The European post-World War 1 security
system was not working properly, and it was only a matter of time before it
would have to be transformed.
Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to
accept that the end of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial a second
Cold War, "it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains
that it made in the decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another
expert asked, "What possible explanation is there for the fact that today-at
a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face the common enemy of Islamist terrorism-hard-liners
within the Bush administration, and especially in the office of Vice President
Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line against Moscow along the lines
of a scaled-down Cold War?"113
Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was
given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest
nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost
perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel
between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO
onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with
our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France
treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114
"... The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other "issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude. ..."
"... The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus, in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. ..."
"... The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature." It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or Muslims. ..."
"... Cheesepopes be gaslighting ..."
"... Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true. ..."
by Srdja Trifkovic via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
There is a paranoid, hysterical quality to the public discourse on Russia and all things Russian
in today's America. The corporate media machine and its Deep State handlers have abdicated reason
and common decency in favor of raw hate and fear-mongering. We have not seen anything like it before,
even in the darkest days of the Cold War.
The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental
relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and
even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and
European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and
morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien
multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other
"issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude.
The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter
hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus,
in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. The result is a surreal narrative
that mixes supposedly unprovoked "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, hostile intent in the Baltics,
serial war crimes in Syria, political destabilization in Western Europe, and gross interference in
America's "democratic process". The result is an altogether fictitious "existential threat," which
has made President Trump's intended détente with Moscow impossible. He may have been serious about
turning over a new leaf, but the Deep State counterpressure proved just too great. A solid rejection
front emerged, left and right, conservative and liberal, which extends even into his own team and
finally inhibited him from making moves that could have appeared too friendly to Putin.
The Russophobes' narrative is unrelated to Russia's actual policies. It reflects a deep odium
of the elite class toward Russia-as-such. That animosity has been developing in its current form
since roughly the time of the Crimean War, when in his Letters From Russia the Marquis de Custine
said that the country's "veneer of European civilization was too thin to be credible."
"No human beings, black, yellow or white, could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant-in
short, as untrustworthy in every way-as the Russians," President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1905.
John Maynard Keynes, after a trip to the Soviet Union in 1925, wondered whether the "mood of oppression"
might be "the fruit of some beastliness in the Russian nature." J. Robert Oppenheimer opined in 1951
that, in Russia, "We are coping with a barbarous, backward people." More recently, Sen. John McCain
declared that "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country." "Russia is an anti-Western power
with a different, darker vision of global politics," Slate wrote in early 2014, even before the Ukrainian
crisis reached its climax.
This narrative has two key pillars. In terms of geopolitics, we see the striving of maritime empires-Britain
before World War II, and the United States after - to "contain" and if possible control the Eurasian
heartland, the core of which is of course Russia. Equally important is the already noted cultural
antipathy, the desire not merely to influence Russian policies and behavior but to effect an irreversible
transformation of Russia's identity. Some of the most viscerally Russophobic stereotypes come from
Russia herself, from those members of Moscow's "intelligentsia" who feel more at home in New York
or London than anywhere in their own country. The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles
Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature."
It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or
Muslims.
The Russophobic frenzy comes at a cost. It further devalues the quality of public discourse on
world affairs in the United States, which is already dismally low. It has already undermined the
prospects for a mutually beneficial new chapter in U.S.-Russian relations, based on a realist assessment
that those two powers have no "existential" differences - and share many actual and potential commonalities.
It perpetrates the arrogant delusion that there is a superior, "Western" model of social and cultural
thought and action that can and should be imposed everywhere, but especially in Russia.
Saddest of all, Russophobic mania prolongs the European civil war that exploded in July 1914,
continued in 1939, and has never properly ended - not even with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would
be in the American interest, as well as Russia's and Europe's, for that conflict to end, so that
the existential challenge common to all- that of resurgent jihad and Europe's demographic crisis
- can be properly addressed.
Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between
the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true.
..it seems like our foreign policy is like an angry poor, innocent "motorist", whacked out
on amphetamines, speeding over 100 mph and destined to drown in his liberal negro lottery swimming
pool.
The United States is closely watching a recent increase in piracy off the coast of Somalia,
a senior U.S. military official said on Sunday as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited an important
military base in Djibouti.
If I ignore your bullshit "but at the maximum..." implication:
So what do you conclude from that. Is it a bad thing to have rivals? Should we strive to turn
every remaining rival into a vassal? Is there a limit on methods allowed toward a rival?
I'll give you a green arrow to make up for the narrow-mindedness of the simpletons who all
gave you red arrows.
We don't need a war with Russia, and the US won't instigate one, either. The juice wouldn't
be worth the squeeze.
With all of that being said, Russia is a rival to the US in other parts of the world. The US
isn't the only country with a desire for influence around the world.
As much as there is a "Russo-phobia" being perpetuated in the US, you can bet a buck that there
is an "Ameri-phobia" being perpetuated out there.
The big difference is that in Russia, they don't have message boards full of people sh*tting
on their own country.
Well, that is kind of how major powers compete for influence. It takes two to tango. We can't
exactly engage in war by proxy if the Russians aren't involved in it, too.
I hate to say it but the so called "elites", in charge of our beloved deep state controlling
everything, are quite stupid -- This continuous news hysteria, against whatever subject du jour
our intelligentsia decides to float publicly, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that said "elites"
suffer from a combination of low IQ, partial education (at best !), and high self-delusion...
We might get to witness nuclear war, just because our "elites" are too idiotic to realize what
a nuclear war really is...
They stick their hook nose into everything because they want to own the whole 4th rock from
the sun. These people are ill, very ill and as I read these comments it's obvious that some just
don't get it yet.
All of this B.S. Russophobia evolved from a convenient distraction from the CONTENT of the
leaked DNC emails, and has been amplified because of the symbiosis with Neoconservative/Globalist
strategies.
What amazes me is how well the propaganda seems to be working. There's a bunch of old farts
(not that I'm really young!) at the gym every morning talking about how awesome it is that we
bombed Syria and it'll show that bastard Putin we're tough and mean business. "America, Fuck yeh!"
I wanted to ask them if they were mentally defective or just fucking retards...
Pretty much. Society has opted to run on emotion rather than fact, emotional manipulation being
the key part of the most popular forms of entertainment. Sadly this bleeds into our dealings with
each other which are increasingly emotional or insulting. Most of human behaviour and attitudes
are due to fear, particularly the egoic fear of inadequacy. As a control mechanism, fear is a
formidable tool. But fear is also a choice.
The Strategic Culture Foundation who published this piece has an evil agenda, and they are
not even friends of Putin. They are very subtle warmongers. You will see when the time comes.
Putin was duped by Iran in Syria, Iran got Syria, not Putin. Trump and Saudi can give Russia
what it needs to survive, if Putin stops being duped by deceptive hegemonial Iran.
This reminds me of when the ZerroHedge owners mentioned that Bloomberg article several months
back that involved an interview of a former Zero Hedge writer blowing the lid off this place.
He mentioned how pro-Russia the ZH owners were. This article suggests that he may have been right
after all!
Yea, we shouldn't be afraid of a country with nukes, that invades it's neigbours, has an uber
crony economy the size of Italy's, dominated by oligarchs in mining and the obligation to keep
friendly with the Kremlin or risk being put in jail and have your assets taken away on trumped
up charges. The country that murders it's opponents and critics with nasty stuff like Polonium,
even abroad, that interferes in others elections with misinformation campaigns and troll factories,
that is on the side of the ayatolla's of Iran and the mass murderer in Syria, helping him by bombing
hospitals and refugees, only to be "recognized as a player again on the world stage" A coutry
of alcoholics with one of the lowest life expectancy in the developed world. Really, a model state.
As Paul Graig Roberts, the inhouse idiot here noted, Putin for the Nobel peace price!
Wikileaks has disclosed the tactic to blame Russia for the election results, Trump's collusion,
etc. back to spring of 2016 --- I remember when they started making those "Russia" comments. They
wanted to start the thoughts about him/his staff being in collusion with the Russians. That was
to hopefully make more decide not to vote for him and in case he won, use it to prove election
fraud, treason and somehow impeach him.
Those who know about the Globalists NWO agenda, Deep State, Neocons, etc. realize we've all
been lied to about Russia (among all the other lies) since the end of the Cold War. for "their"
agenda purposes - need for continuous wars for MIC, etc. also. Putin is not as portrayed at all.
Russia is not the "big bad Commie" beast that wants to take over the world as they want us to
believe to "justify" another war.
Putin is an Eastern Orthodox Chrsitian who protects Christians, hates and fights terrorists
and Globalism. He is not a Globalist. We have those goals in common and Pres. Trump and Putin
would be a fantastic duo that when united, terrorism and Globalism would finally be dealt death
blows,
Our enemies within know that and therefore they're trying to do everything they can to hurt
that relationship and not let it happen because it would mean finally - the end of their evil
world order plan.
Amount of pressure applied commensurate to strength of a country in question. For some of them
all it takes is a stern talk from the ambassador, Russia right now is safely beyond the US ability
to apply the required pressure, including the threat of Nuclear War. What is happening instead
is that world being interconnected the way it is, applying pressure at hardened point that is
Russia is also increasing pressure at other weaker points as well, pretty much all over the world.
EU and NATO are posturing against Russia in display of lunacy that is symptomatic for the West,
it seems that God is taking away humans ability to reason. Day 1, Russia announces indefinite
cuts of gas supplies to Europe, stocks crater, world economy craters, Russia and China who were
hoarding gold watch the West collapse like a house of cards while passing the popcorn. The End.
Afghanistan is about to go full retard again, as taliban cuts ussa out of heroin billions---
as our afghan troops turn their weapons on their masters[1]
The Jewish media has been obsessed with this business about Russia allegedly influencing the
recent 2016 U.S. election. This obsession has concealed the real problem with foreign influence
over the American electoral system. It isn't Russian influence that's the problem, it is Israeli
influence that's the problem.
Below is a list of stories showing how Israelis or Jews substantively connected to Israel have
been subverting the American electoral process.
You know we will have turned the corner when Donald Trump gives the American people a "Fireside
Chat" and tells the public the real reasons the media spearheads a constant barrage of hate filled
anti-Russian LYING PROPAGANDA filled rhetoric... BECAUSE
A) THEY ARE THE WORLDS LEADER IN OIL PRODUCTION B) HAVE NO DEBT C) HAVE THERE OWN BALANCE OF
PAYMENT CREDIT SYSTEM MIR THAT WILL REPLACE THE WESTERN CENTRAL BANK(S) SYSTEM "SWIFT"
And after he delivers that truthful message he will NEVER BE ALLOWED TO EVER AGAIN... He will
probably be shot like HOWARD BEALE in the movie NETWORK... Or WWWIII will be LAUNCHED!!!
"... North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests. ..."
"... I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy. ..."
"... In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them. ..."
I believe Trump could negotiate a deal. But I also believe he could blow up the whole talk
before it even happens. He has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with
increased interest in foreign war (Bolton hiring) and the ramping up of hostilities by
bouncing Russians from the U.S. over the phony poisoning story in the UK.
I don't disagree with your comment, but not comfortable with the term "bend to". Trump
gets enamored with different people at different times, but he always is looking
down at them. They may get enough rope to scare the rest of us, but they are still on a
rope.
Bolton is horrible, but a lot of other horrible people have come and gone in this really
quick year.
Bolton is horrible but probably won't last long. Nobody at Trump's ear has, including his
own children.
Trump just announced that we're withdrawing from Syria. That's more than Obama ever
did.
Part of being a nationalist demagogue is that you're not as interested in foreign wars
unless they enrich the country. Not a single one of our wars does that. There's nothing
interesting in mercantilism, for instance, that we can't do at home (drill baby drill).
I'm not saying I agree with that view, I'm just saying that if he's a nationalist
demagogue, it only follows that he's not interested in, uh, "non-for-profit warmaking".
I am NO Trump fan or voter, but it does appear that he's the first one to apply sanctions
to those specific Chinese banks handling the trade with North Korea.
(Somewhat) OT, but it strikes me that the best way to look at Trump is through the lense
of what he is – the US version of Sylvio Berlusconi. A sleazy billionaire Oligarch with
no core principles and a fondness for Bunga Bunga parties.
Rather than as LITERALLY HITLER as per the verbiage of hashtag the resistance.
Thus, rather than as a crazed madman bent on "evil" at all times one wonders whether Mr.
Bunga Bunga would do a deal with Lil' Kim. Sure he would, assuming that the ruling military
Junta allows him to. It might be in the interest of the latter to de-escalate this particular
hotspot (as NK crisis/hype fatigue may set in) and simply push Iran as the next flashpoint to
hype.
Indeed! They even sound quite similar -- I recall in a speech that Berlusconi gave when he
was still the Italian president and the Italian left was screaming for his resignation,
Sylvio claimed such demands were making him uneasy, since if he was to go home, and he had 20
homes, it would be difficult for him to decide which house or mansion to go to!
It seems the bottom line for negotiations with North Korea have little to do with this
article which covers Trump's thoughts on nuclear proliferation between major powers that have
massive stockpiles.
North Korea is mainly interested in protecting itself from regime change and from becoming
a US outpost (as in target) butt up against China. It is hard to believe that Kim Jong-Un
would get any advantage whatsoever out of dismantling his nuclear arsenal, however small. One
assumes he is aware of Gaddafi in particular and US's track record on keeping it's promises
– particularly over the span of different administrations – in general.
The above comment assumes full disarmament as the minimum condition of any "negotiation"
since Trump has gone so far out of his way to make that clear.
Oh, and now see the lead story at the Financial Times, China uses economic muscle to bring
N Korea to negotiating table:
China virtually halted exports of petroleum products, coal and other key materials to
North Korea in the months leading to this week's unprecedented summit between Kim Jong Un,
the North Korean leader, and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.
The export freeze -- revealed in official Chinese data and going much further than the
limits stipulated under UN sanctions -- shows the extent of Chinese pressure following the
ramping up of Pyongyang's nuclear testing programme. It also suggests that behind Mr Xi's
talk this week of a "profound revolutionary friendship" between the two nations, his
government has been playing hard ball with its neighbour.
I would normally agree but Kim Jong-Un was just summoned to China. Not even given a state
visit. The Chinese announced North Korea would denuclearlize:
North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un pledged his commitment to denuclearization and to meet
U.S. officials, China said on Wednesday after his meeting with President Xi Jinping, who
promised China would uphold friendship with its isolated neighbour.
China has heretofore pretended that it couldn't do anything about North Korea. It looks
like Trump's tariff threat extracted China jerking Kim Jong-Un's chain as a concession. I
don't see how Kim Jong-Un can defy China if China is serious about wanting North Korea to
denuclearlize. Maybe it will merely reduce its arsenal and stop threatening Hawaii (even
though its ability to deliver rockets that far is in doubt) and just stick to being able to
light up Seoul instead.
Agree. I wasn't aware of the details you mention above regarding the export freeze. (I
won't use Google and my normal 'trick' doesn't work to get around FT's paywall – and I
won't use the trial membership either). I'm hopeless.
Anyway, you make a very convincing case. I can only imagine that Kim Jong Un is one
miserable scared rat. My point about a "silk noose" below was perhaps on the mark.
Kim might agree on paper or through an insincere promise to denuclearize, but I don't see
a closed authoritarian regime like the North agreeing to an inspection regime that would
insure that such a pledge would be lived up to. Reduction, but build-up on the sly w/o
inspections.
China may be interested in a deal to the extent that it prevents a bloody war breaking out
that they'll probably expend manpower to help clean up and it insures the security of a North
Korean buffer that keeps American troops off their border; After all, they've got to keep the
powder dry for "reunification" with Taiwan.
I also don't believe that the US would agree to concessions, such as removing American
troops from the peninsula. the pentagon wouldn't like it, the hawks around Trumps wouldn't
like it, and I believe the SK leadership would not be too crazy about the potential
ramifications for their security with such an agreement.
But, can Trump (by extension, the US), make an agreement that can be relied on over its
term?
For any hope of NK trusting any deal with the US he would have to stand by the Iranian
deal. Then there's Bolton and the Neocon Will To War, for deeply pathological reasons which
by nature cannot be debated.
In this case, the mere possibility of a "deal" is possible, but only if there is a third
party to hold both of them to it.
That's the crazy thing about this. What possible inducement could Kim Jong-Un have gotten
to attend his own funeral? Why would anyone trust the US an inch?
I suppose if he can keep his own people in a suspended state of extreme propaganda, then
he might be vulnerable to his own medicine, but that seems at odds with his behavior so far
(such as the assassination of his uncle). If anything, he would be especially leery of
anything coming out of the US.
And then can he really be that psyched out by Bolton, Pompeo and Torture Lady so
that good cop Trump can hand him is own death certificate with a space for his signature?
Whatever happened during this China trip, the overarching theme must have been how to
manage the US. Here's one rough scenario:
NK 'disarms' to some definition, under the auspices of China, acquiring in return an
explicit Chinese security umbrella for the buffer it presents between them and SK. Nobody
really wants a unified Korea in any case. In return, the US vacates SK militarily, ever so
discretely and over time.
Done correctly, and with the finesse necessary for Trump, China is in a position to
extract all sorts of concessions from the US on other fronts as well. Nothing positive is
going to happen here without China, and they hold most of the cards. If nothing positive
happens, we have to consider the pressure that'd build on Trump to do something, anything,
and that probably being something rash. (Better a big disaster over there than a mammoth one
over here thinking).
"he can't go willy nilly and set nukes a-flying just because it struck him as a good idea
that day."
I mean sure. His "button" isn't literally connected to a missile somewhere, but he sure as
hell can ask that nukes be fired whenever and wherever he wants. You could argue that someone
in the chain of command would prevent that from happening, but that's more of a hope than a
guarantee. For a really good read on how this all works and the history of the nuclear
program I highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788
With Bolton on board and seemingly everyone with half a brain, a little logic and the
ability to hold their tongue for more than about 5 seconds out, I highly doubt anything will
come of these negotiations. In fact, I'm more worried that the US will get steamrolled by
China and NK.
That isn't true. See the link I provided, which you clearly did not bother to read.
Various people can refuse his order as illegal. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker, in a
Financial Times, before Trump was elected, said the same thing. Bolton is the National
Security Adviser. He may have a lot of informal power by having direct access to the
President, but he does not tie in to the formal chain of command, either at the DoD or
State.
Oh I read it and I've read many other articles and a lot of non-fiction on the issue.
Again, I would call your position and the position of this article hopeful at best. Trump has
the football, he has the codes in his jacket pocket and everyone responsible for carrying out
the order to launch has been raised up through a military system that ensures no one
questions an order from their superior. Relying on various people to refuse his order as
illegal in this system is not a fail-safe I feel comfortable with. I do find it interesting
that you just assume I didn't read the article as if this one article is the end all be all
on the subject.
The article seems a bit confused about what it's trying to say. Stopping nuclear
proliferation has been a major policy priority of the US and other western governments since
the 1960s, and if I recall correctly it was one of Bolton's priorities when he was in Bush
the Lesser's administration. It's something in which all of the declared nuclear powers have
an interest, because the smaller the number of nuclear powers in the world, the greater the
difference between them and the rest. This is much more important than wild fantasies about
rogue attacks: if N Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power like India, Israel and Pakistan,
then all sorts of other countries might be tempted to have a go, starting with S Korea (which
has the capacity and has been caught cheating before). Whilst this risk is objectively small,
an end to the NK programme would make it even smaller. I suspect the deal will be that NK
denuclearizes and China guarantees its security: a non-nuclear NK will be even more of a
client state than it is now.
Nuclear competition among the superpowers is quite different and involves a whole set of
different issues.
Less warfare = more wall
But remember the last time Trump said something in Syria's favor? A chemical attack happened
in small village for no logical reason and the hawks immediately took to framing Assad. Trump
then backed off and took harder line on Assad, launching missiles into Syria.
So I'm inclined to think he wants a deal. But look out for screaming hawks immediately
trying to scuttle anything.
Perhaps 30 years ago, Trump was an international defense luminary, but I see little
evidence of the boasted emotional control and cool Trump claimed. He is unarguably a
successful grifter. Is that what it takes to make peace? What happens when the other guy
realizes he has been lied to by a congenital liar? Back to square 1.
In my take, the recent meeting between the heads of China and N Korea just Trumped any
leverage the US might have had in peace talks. Trump will be there only if a scapegoat is
needed. Both S. Korea and Japan have expressed doubts about our reliability as a defense
shield against powerful China – Japan and the Koreans' neighbor. What Little Rocketman
has likely achieved is diplomatically checkmating the US. Now Trump's tariff threats serve
only to push US allies in the region closer to China. Should that turn out to be the case,
the economic repercussions are as dangerous and unpredictable as nukes in the air or as Trump
himself. I sure hope I got this all wrong.
"no enduring principles" is a feature of politicians everywhere today. Their concern is to
represent the rich and their qualification is to present those biased arguments in a way that
beguiles the electorate into supposing its a good idea for them as well. Step Two is the "who
would have thought it?" response after the country catches on.
In former times the candidate for public office would assert his principles on the
hustings and the voters would remember what they knew of him before voting. Sure, there were
ambitious unreliable people who were willing to exchange their reputations for office but
they were few. We should get back to those days.
We allowed our merchants and spooks to drive USSR to the precipice without any thoughts
about the nukes they had. It appeared then that warheads supposedly in Ukraine were missing.
We will likely discover what happened to them in due course. It is possible that surveillance
of communications is the main reason they are not a thread for the time being but that does
not mean they have dropped out of existence.
Thank you NC for introducing an issue that should concern economists as much as everyone
else.
North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have
repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in
return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather
vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October
(Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but
they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear
tests.
Don't forget the United States has itself promised to denuclearize, under the NPT.
It would certainly bring me great pleasure if Trump of all people were to bring about some
great positive change in regards to the Forever War with North Korea. Imagine all the whining
liberals if Trump, unlike Obama, actually did something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.
I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make
concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy.
PRC and NK leaders might think that all they have to do is get through a short patch of
bad weather until 2020. If so, they are badly kidding themselves.
In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't
matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they
may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until
somebody else stops them.
This is probably the most vicious attack on Trump trangressions that i encountered so far...
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign finance laws. ..."
"... The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare state institutions than he would otherwise have done. ..."
There is no doubt about it: Stormy Daniels is a formidable woman. Karen McDougal is no slouch either, though she is hard to admire
after that riff, in her Anderson Cooper interview, about how religious and Republican she is; she even said that she used to love
the Donald. Stormy Daniels is better than that.
How wonderfully appropriate it would be if she were to become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
Even in a world as topsy-turvy as ours has become, there has to be a final straw.
To be sure, evidence of Trump's vileness, incompetence, and mental instability is accumulating at breakneck speed, and there are
polls now that show support for him holding fast or even slightly rising. Trump's hardcore "base" seems more determined than ever
to stand by their man.
But even people as benighted as they are bound to realize eventually that they have been had. Many of them already do, but don't
care; they hate Clinton Democrats that much. This is understandable, but foolish; so foolish, in fact, that they can hardly keep
it up indefinitely.
To think otherwise is to despair for the human race.
What, if anything, can bring them to their senses in time for the 2018 election?
Stormy Daniels says she only wants to tell her story, not bring Trump down. But her political instincts seem decent, and she is
one shrewd lady. Therefore, I would not be the least surprised if that is not quite true. It hardly matters, though, what her intentions
are; I'd put my money on her.
A recession might also do the trick. A recession is long overdue, and Trump's tax cut for the rich and his tariffs are sure to
make its consequences worse when it happens.
To turn significant portions of Trump's base against him, a major military conflagration might also do -- not the kind Barack
Obama favored, fought far away and out of public view, but a real war, televised on CNN, and waged against an enemy state like North
Korea or Iran. It would have to go quickly and disastrously wrong, though, in ways that even willfully blind, terminally obtuse Trump
supporters could not fail to see.
Or the gods could smile upon us, causing Trump's exercise regimen (sitting in golf carts) and his fat-ridden, cholesterol rich
diet to catch up with him, as it would with most other sedentary septuagenarians. The only downside would be that a heart attack
or stroke might elicit sympathy for the poor bastard. No sane person could or should hope for a calamitous economic downturn or for
yet another devastating, pointless, and manifestly unjust war, especially one that could become a war to end all wars (along with
everything else), on the off-chance that some good might come of it. And if the best we can do is hope that cheeseburgers with fries
will save us, we are grasping at straws.
These are compelling reasons to hope that the accusations made by Daniels and McDougal and Summer Zervos – and other consensual
and non-consensual Trump victims and "playmates" – gain traction. If the several defamation lawsuits now in the works can get the
president deposed, this is not out of the question.
The problem for Trump is not that his accusers' revelations will cause his base to defect; no matter how salacious their stories
and no matter how believable they may be. Trump's moral turpitude is taken for granted in their circles; and they do not care about
the myriad ways his words and deeds offend the dignity of the office he holds or embarrass the country he purports to put "first."
If any of that mattered to them, they would have jumped ship long ago.
Except perhaps for unreconstructed racists and certifiable sociopaths, white evangelicals are Trump's strongest supporters. What
a despicable bunch of hypocrites they are! As long as Trump delivers on their agendas, his salacious escapades don't faze them at
all. Godly folk have evidently changed a good deal since the Cotton Mather days.
What has not changed is their seemingly limitless ability to believe nonsense.
And in case light somehow does manage to shine through, Trump has shown them how to restore the darkness they crave. When cognitive
dissonance threatens, all they need do is scream "fake news."
The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in
effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign
finance laws.
In this case as in so many others, it is the cover-up, not the underlying "crime," that could lead to his undoing – especially
if the stories Daniels and the others are telling shed light upon or otherwise connect with or meld into Robert Mueller's investigation
of (alleged) Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election.
Trump could and probably will survive their charges. His base is such a preternaturally obdurate lot that there may ultimately
be no last straw for them. We may have no choice, in the end, but to despair for a sizeable chunk of the human race.
Stormy Daniels would not be any less admirable on that account. She took Trump on and came out on top. For all the world (minus
the willfully blind) to see, she, the porn star, is a strong woman who has her life together, while he, the president, is a discombobulated
sleaze ball who is leading himself and his country to ruin.
***
It was different with Monica Lewinsky, another presidential paramour who, almost two decades ago, also held the world's attention.
There was nothing sleazy or venal about Lewinsky's involvement with Bill Clinton; and, for all I know, unless chastity counts,
she is as good and virtuous a person as can be. But personal qualities are not what made her affair with our forty-second president
as historically significant as it turned out to be.
It would be fair to say that of all the women who have ever had intimate knowledge of that old horn dog's private parts, there
is no one who did more good for her country. If only for that, if there were a heaven, there would be special place in it just for
her.
The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare
state institutions than he would otherwise have done.
Who knows how much progress he would have turned back had he and Monica never done the deed or at least not been found out. Building
on groundwork laid down by Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, he and his wife had already terminated Aid to Families With Dependent
Children, one of the main government programs aimed at relieving poverty. This was to be just the first step in "ending welfare as
we know it."
With their "donors" pushing for more austerity, those two neoliberal pioneers were itching to begin privatizing other, more widely
supported social programs, including even Social Security, the so-called "third rail" of American politics.
The "Lewinsky matter" put the kybosh on that idea, leaving the American people forever in Monica's debt.
Back in the Kennedy days, Mel Brook's two-thousand year old man got it right when he said: presidents "gotta do it," to which
he added – " because if they don't do it to their wives and girlfriends, they do it to the nation."
Stormy Daniels made much the same point ten years ago, while flirting with the idea of running against Louisiana Senator David
Vitter. Vitter's political career had been almost ruined when his name turned up in the phone records of the infamous "DC Madam,"
Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Daniels told voters that, unlike Vitter, she would "screw (them) honestly."
What then are we to make of the fact that Trump screws both the nation and his wife (maybe) and his girlfriends (or whatever they
are)?
Blame it on arrested development, on the fact that despite his more than seventy-one years, Trump still has the mind of a teenage
boy, one with money and power enough to live out his fantasies.
The contrast with Bill Clinton is stark. Clinton is a philanderer with eclectic tastes, a charming rascal with a broad and mischievous
mind. Honkytonk women from Arkansas appeal to him as much as zaftig MOTs from the 90210 area code.
Trump, on the other hand, goes for super-models, Playboy centerfolds, and aspiring beauty queens -- standard teenage
fantasy fare.
He seems to have had little trouble living his dreams – not thanks to his magnetic face, form and figure, and certainly not to
his refinement, wit or charm, but to his inherited and otherwise ill-gotten wealth.
It is money and the power that follows from it that draws women to his net.
Henry Kissinger understood; recall his musings on the aphrodisiacal properties of power. Even in his prime, that still unindicted
war criminal (and later-day Hillary Clinton advisor) was even more repellent than Trump. But that never kept him from having to fight
the ladies off.
This fact of life puts a heavy responsibility on the women with whom presidents hook up.
Consider Melania. She made a Faustian bargain when she agreed to become Trump's trophy bride; in return for riches and a soft
life in a gilded tower, she sold her soul. She might have thought better of it had she taken the burdens she would incur as First
Lady into account, but why would she? The prospect was too improbable.
She has, it seems, a very practical, old world view of marriage, and is therefore tolerant of her husband's womanizing. At the
same time, as a mother and daughter, she is, like most immigrants, a strong proponent of old world "family values."
Too much of a proponent perhaps; insofar as her idea was to "chain migrate" her parents out of Slovenia and onto Easy Street,
or to raise a kid who would never want for anything, there were less onerous ways of going about it. After all, there are plenty
of rich Americans lusting after supermodels out there, and it is a good bet that many of them are less repellent than Trump.
She was irresponsible as well. She ought to have realized that the man she married had already spawned two idiot sons, along with
other fruit from the poisonous tree, and that four bad apples in one generation are enough.
And so now she finds herself a single mother – not in theory, of course, but very definitely in practice. Unlike most women in
that position, she is not wanting for resources. But it must be a hard slog, even so. To her credit, Melania seems to be handling
the burden well. More power to her!
She also deserves credit for her body language when the Donald is around; the contempt she shows for him is wonderful to behold.
Best of all is her sense of the absurd. The way she plagiarized from Michelle Obama had obvious comic validity, and making childhood
bullying her First Lady cause – all First Ladies have causes -- was a stroke of genius.
On balance, therefore, it is hard not to feel sorry for her. Of all the women in Trump's ambit, she deserves humiliation the least.
The rumor mill has it that with all the publicity about Daniels and the others , she has finally had enough. This may
be the case; the old world ethos requires discretion and a concern with appearances. That is not the Donald's way, however, and now
she is paying the price.
What a magnificent humiliation it would be if she and Trump were to split up on that account. This could happen soon. I would
expect, though, that through a combination of carrots and sticks, Trump and his fixers will find a way to minimize the political
effects. More likely still, they will channel Joe Kennedy and Jackie O, and figure out a way to head the problem off.
Then there is poor forgotten Tiffany. Her Wikipedia entry lists her as both a law student and a "socialite." I hope her studious
side wins out and that, despite the genes from her father's side, she is at least somewhat decent and smart.
I'd be more confident of that if she would do what Ronald Reagan's daughter, Patti, did: use her mother's, not her father's, name.
Unless she is a sleaze ball too, a Trump in the Eric and Don Junior mold, that would be a fine way to make a political point.
It would also pay back over the years. With the Trump administration on its current trajectory, who, in a few years' time, would
take a Tiffany Trump seriously? A Tiffany Maples would stand a better chance.
Her half-sister, the peerless Ivanka, the Great Blonde Hope, is, of course, her father's sweetie. Let's not go there, however.
Her marriage to Jared Kushner is already enough to process.
What a pair those two make; and what a glorious day it will be when the law finally catches up with Jared, as it did with his
Trump-like father, Charles. Perhaps he will take Ivanka down a notch or two with him. Despite an almost complete lack of qualifications,
Trump made his son-in-law his minister of almost everything; a pretty good gig for a feckless, airhead rich kid. Among other things,
Trump enabled him to become Benjamin Netanyahu's ace in the hole. Netanyahu is a Kushner family friend. Netanyahu has more than his
share of legal troubles too. Let them all go down together!
Ivanka and Jared are well matched – they share a "business model." It has them exploiting their daddies' connections and money.
Jared peddles real estate; his efforts have gotten his family into serious debt, while putting him in solid with Russian and Eastern
European oligarchs, Gulf state emirs, and Mohammad bin Salman – people in comparison with whom his father-in-law seems almost virtuous.
Ivanka sells trinkets and schmatas to people who think the Trump name is cool. There actually are such people; at two
hundred grand a pop, Mar-a-Lago is full of them. Ivanka's demographic is made up mostly of their younger set.
Two other presidential women bare mention: Hope Hicks and Nikki Haley. Surely, they both have tales to tell, but it looks, for
now, as if their stories would be of little or no prurient interest. Neither of them appear to have been propositioned or groped.
Even though Hicks is said to be like a daughter to the Donald – we know what that could mean! – it is a safe bet that there was
nothing of a romantic nature going on between them. For one thing, Hicks seems too close to Ivanka; for another, she is known to
have dallied with two Trump subordinates, Corey Lewandowski and Rob Porter. The don is hardly the type to let his underlings have
at his women.
Haley had to quash a spate of rumors that flared up thanks to some suggestive remarks Michael Wolff made while hawking Fire
and Fury . The rumor caught on because people who hadn't yet fully realized what a piece of work Trump is, imagined that something
had to be awry inasmuch as her main qualification for representing the United States at the United Nations was an undergraduate degree
in accounting. Abject servility to the Israel lobby also helped.
But the Trump administration is full of ambitious miscreants whose views on Israel and Palestine are as abject and servile as
hers, and compared to many others in Trump's cabinet she is, if anything, over qualified. Think of neurosurgeon Ben Carson heading
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is qualified because, as a child, he lived in public housing.
With the exception of Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Summer Zervos and whoever else comes forward with a juicy and credible tale
to tell, the women currently in the president's ambit, though good for gossip and interesting in the ways that characters on reality
TV shows can be, are of little or no political consequence.
This could change if any of them decides to "go rogue," to use an expression from the Sarah Palin days. But, while neither Melania
nor Tiffany can yet be judged hopeless, it would be foolish to expect much of anything good to come from either of them.
Stormy, Karen, Summer, and whoever else steps forward are a better bet. They are the only ones with any chance of doing as much
for their country and the world as Monica Lewinsky did a generation ago.
Among the president's women, they are a breed apart. This is plainly the case with Stormy Daniels; it is already clear that she
deserves what all Trump's money can never buy – honor and esteem. To the extent that the others turn out to be similarly courageous,
they will too.
You're reading your own narrative rather than what's in front of you. Russia isn't going
to up and blow away no matter what. Their relationship with China is a matter of course as
well, though you vastly over-state the supposed synergy between the two.
My point is that a diminished Russia is obviously no threat to China and clearly in the
long term interests of China if they wish to be the chief architect and manager of the
Eurasian belt of which they have become enamored.
Taken in broader strokes, a world in which nuclear apocalypse isn't on the menu, due to
elites favoring their own survival, is one in which the West invariably declines into
obscurity due to their ruling class having no qualms about destroying their nations and
states in the name of near term personal benefits. In such a world the only question is who
will take the leading role of new geopolitical master.
China is already poised for this position, but having an assuredly weakened Russian gives
them the sort of leverage they need to siphon out more Eurasian trade profits for their own
geopolitical aims. Geopolitical top players don't simply seek a sufficient position from
which to bargain. They seek a position from which the results of said bargain are largely
foregone.
And this is entirely consistent with Chinese foreign policy toward the West and Russia.
The former is a dead man walking with no chance of rebelling against Beijing's economic
control. The latter is a future regional partner whom they would very much like to see as a
junior when the time comes for them to abandon the western financial system and asset their
peerless status.
Exactly. Very good points. China wants weaker Russia. However China can't allow Russia to
submit to the US that's why they will be propping Russia just enough so Russia does not fold
too soon. The US and China have one common objective: they do not want Russia to hook up with
EU and Germany. Russia+EU would be the only third power that could challenge both the US and
China. That's why China is happy with Zio-Amercian meddling in Central Europe by playing
Poland and Hungary against both Germany and Russia as the wedge between them.
China does not trust Russia because they know how avaricious, unpatriotic and devoid of
any deeper nationalist doctrine and thus how unreliable are Russian elites. They know it
because they know their own Chinese elites with respect to which they must use many tools to
discipline them, the tools that Russia lacks because there sis no supreme ideological
authority. There in Russia nobody really knows who suppose to discipline whom and why.
Saker as usual is naive and let his wishful thinking hijack his analytical abilities.
Russia & China are working closely to counter the West for existential threat, deeper
& broader than what your self centered mind can imagine. Russia needs to save Syria for
its own skin, and its last ME bastion of influence. When Syria down, Israel & Saudi gas
will pipe to EU & cut off Russia lucrative EU gas deal & influence. Iran will be next
to attack, hence complete ME oil & gas come under US UK Fr control, which can be utilized
to sabotage Russia oil export.
China will be then blackmailed into submission for oil supply. Iran will be surrounded by
US allied forces everywhere, fighting West moderate terrorists. Its existential war in Syria
against West hedgmon control for Russia, China & Iran, not just propping up Assad. Russia
has overwhelming sufficient military capability to fight US allies, backed by war hardened
powerful Iran, SAA army, Hezbollah & Iraq Shiah fighters unmatched ground force.
USM knows it can't win such war without nuke, so it has to find either face saving exit or
contented with current occupied oil rich land. It got nothing to do with Trumps stupidity to
overstretch its military as you imagine.
China has been backing up Russia with big cheque book for last few years, signing hundreds
of billions deals with upfront payments to prop Russia economy for prolong war.
Global times news mostly reflected the China think tank policy that they wish to propagate
to West English speaking world. China has sensed West is hysteria tightening noose around
Russia in EU foolish solitude movement with UK.
When Russia is down, China is next, vice versa. China special force has been operating in
Syria to fight terrorists. Lot of weapons ammunition supply to SAA. Lot of money pump in to
sustain Syria war & feed millions of Syrians. Who else do you think is paying these
bills, West controlled UN Red cross?
Now China is largest economy & market by PPP term, with 50% w/w mfg capacity, its
capable to inflict unacceptable damage to US economy in trade war. EU, Japan & Korea all
have huge parts export to China for assembly, so none wanted the disastrous trade war that
will suck down global trade.
So Trumpets is blowing hot air only to blackmail China, soon it will back down as WH
already delay any tariffs to after June, seeking dialogue eagerly with Beijing.
You are just silly self centered like those Russians always throwing allies under bus,
hence Russia will find it has no true ally and will forever licking its wounds alone until
slaughtered by West.
"... Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. ..."
"... Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. ..."
"... Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. ..."
"... one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary ..."
"... Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate ..."
"... Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. ..."
"... My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency ..."
"... Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ..."
"... The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America ..."
"... Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. ..."
"... Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache ..."
"... "In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added). ..."
"... "What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large." ..."
"... "In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million. ..."
"... Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. ..."
"... Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent " ..."
"... The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote ..."
"... Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." ..."
"... An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces: ..."
"... By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. ..."
"... Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ." ..."
"... no support from Big Business ..."
"... Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ." ..."
"... American Oligarchy ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 ..."
"... Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements." ..."
"... Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like ..."
"... Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. ..."
"... Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos." ..."
"... His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging. ..."
On the Friday after the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and prior to the Tuesday on which
the vicious racist and sexist Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Bernie
Sanders spoke to a surprisingly small crowd in Iowa City on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As I
learned months later, Sanders told one of his Iowa City friends that day that Mrs. Clinton was
in trouble. The reason, Sanders reported, was that Hillary wasn't discussing issues or
advancing real solutions. "She doesn't have any policy positions," Sanders said.
The first time I heard this, I found it hard to believe. How, I wondered, could anyone run
seriously for the presidency without putting issues and policy front and center? Wouldn't any
serious campaign want a strong set of issue and policy positions to attract voters and fall
back on in case and times of adversity?
Sanders wasn't lying. As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas
Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by
the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign "emphasized
candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in
any previous election for which measurements exist .it stressed candidate qualifications [and]
deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as
[Donald] Trump's obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate."
Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice
Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.
"Courting the Undecideds in Business, not in the Electorate"
What was that about? My first suspicion was that Hillary's policy silence was about the
money. It must have reflected her success in building a Wall Street-filled campaign funding
war-chest so daunting that she saw little reason to raise capitalist election investor concerns
by giving voice to the standard fake-progressive "hope" and "change" campaign and policy
rhetoric Democratic presidential contenders typically deploy against their One Percent
Republican opponents. Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election
prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of
Wall
Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading
Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the
"lying
neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes
to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. She would cruise into the White
House with no hurt plutocrat feelings simply by playing up the ill-prepared awfulness of her
Republican opponent.
If Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (hereafter "JFC") are right, I was on to something but not
the whole money and politics story. Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers
have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism
in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise
to win elections. Sophisticated funders get it that the Democratic candidates' need to
manipulate the electorate with phony pledges of democratic transformation. The big
money backers know it's "just politics" on the part of candidates who can be trusted to
serve elite interests (like Bill
Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack
Obama 2009-2017 ) after they gain office.
What stopped Hillary from playing the usual game – the "manipulation of populism by
elitism" that Christopher
Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics" – in 2016, a year when the
electorate was in a particularly angry and populist mood? FJC's study is titled "
Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the
2016 Presidential Election." It performs heroic empirical work with difficult campaign finance
data to show that Hillary's campaign funding success went beyond her party's usual corporate
and financial backers to include normally Republican-affiliated capitalist sectors less
disposed than their more liberal counterparts to abide the standard progressive-sounding policy
rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates. FJC hypothesize that (along with the determination
that Trump was too weak to be taken all that seriously) Hillary's desire get and keep on board
normally Republican election investors led her to keep quiet on issues and policy concerns that
mattered to everyday people. As FJC note:
"Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a
lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. For
Clinton's campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a variant of
the strategy [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another [Republican]
candidate [Barry Goldwater] who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand
coalition with most of big business . one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so
many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of
public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to
rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary . Misgivings of
major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for
ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within
business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate
" (emphasis added). Hillary
Happened
FJC may well be right that a wish not to antagonize off right-wing campaign funders is what
led Hillary to muzzle herself on important policy matters, but who really knows? An alternative
theory I would not rule out is that Mrs. Clinton's own deep inner conservatism was sufficient
to spark her to gladly dispense with the usual progressive-sounding campaign boilerplate. Since
FJC bring up the Johnson-Goldwater election, it is perhaps worth mentioning that 18-year old
Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" who worked for the arch-reactionary Republican presidential
candidate in 1964. Asked about that episode on National
Public Radio (NPR) in 1996 , then First Lady Hillary said "That's right. And I feel like my
political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don't recognize this
new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not
conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
It was a revealing reflection. The right-wing Democrat Hillary acknowledged that her
ideological world view was still rooted in the conservatism of her family of origin. Her
problem with the reactionary Republicanism afoot in the U.S. during the middle 1990s was that
it was "not conservative in many respects." Her problem with the far-right Republican
Congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay was that they were betraying true
conservatism – "the conservatism [Hillary] was raised with." This was worse even than the
language of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) – the right-wing Eisenhower
Republican (at leftmost) tendency that worked to push the Democratic Party further to the Big
Business-friendly right and away from its working-class and progressive base.
What happened? Horrid corporate Hillary happened. And she's still happening. The "lying
neoliberal warmonger" recently went to India to double down on her
"progressive neoliberal" contempt for the "basket of deplorables" (more on that phrase
below) that considers poor stupid and backwards middle America to be by
saying this : "If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the
middle where Trump won. I win the coasts. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the
places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product (GDP). So I won the places
that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward" (emphasis added).
That was Hillary Goldman Sachs-Council on Foreign Relations-Clinton saying "go to Hell" to
working- and middle-class people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri,
Indiana, and West Virginia. It was a raised middle and oligarchic finger from a super-wealthy
arch-global-corporatist to all the supposedly pessimistic, slow-witted, and retrograde losers
stuck between those glorious enclaves (led by Wall Street, Yale, and Harvard on the East coast
and Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the West coast) of human progress and variety (and GDP!) on
the imperial shorelines. Senate Minority Leader Dick
Durbin had to go on television to say that Hillary was "wrong" to write off most of the
nation as a festering cesspool of pathetic, ass-backwards, lottery-playing, and opioid-addicted
white-trash has-beens. It's hard for the Inauthentic Opposition Party (as the late Sheldon Wolin reasonably called
the Democrats ) to pose as an authentic opposition party when its' last big-money
presidential candidate goes off-fake-progressive script with an openly elitist rant like
that.
Historic Mistakes
Whatever the source of her strange policy silence in the 2016 campaign, that hush was "a
miscalculation of historic proportion" (FJC). It was a critical mistake given what Ferguson and
his colleagues call the "Hunger Games" misery and insecurity imposed on tens of millions of
ordinary working- and middle-class middle-Americans by decades of neoliberal capitalist
austerity , deeply exacerbated by the Wall Street-instigated Great Recession and the weak
Obama recovery. The electorate was in a populist, anti-establishment mood – hardly a
state of mind favorable to a wooden, richly globalist, Goldman-gilded candidate, a long-time
Washington-Wall Street establishment ("swamp") creature like Hillary Clinton.
In the end, FJC note, the billionaire Trump's ironic, fake-populist "outreach to blue collar
workers" would help him win "more than half of all voters with a high school education or less
(including 61% of white women with no college), almost two thirds of those who believed life
for the next generation of Americans would be worse than now, and seventy-seven percent of
voters who reported their personal financial situation had worsened since four years ago."
Trump's popularity with "heartland" rural and working-class whites even provoked Hillary
into a major campaign mistake: getting caught on video telling elite Manhattan election
investors that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket
of deplorables." There was a hauntingly strong parallel between Wall Street Hillary's
"deplorables" blooper and the super-rich Republican candidate Mitt Romney's
infamous 2012 gaffe : telling his own affluent backers saying that 47% of the population
were a bunch of lazy welfare cheats. This time, though, it was the Democrat – with a
campaign finance profile closer to Romney's than Obama's in 2012 – and not the Republican
making the ugly plutocratic and establishment faux pas .
"A Frontal Assault on the American Establishment"
Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate
Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic
nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of
Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,
rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten"
American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. As FJC
explain:
"In 2016 the Republicans nominated yet another super-rich candidate – indeed,
someone on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. Like legions of conservative
Republicans before him, he trash-talked Hispanics, immigrants, and women virtually non-stop,
though with a verve uniquely his own. He laced his campaign with barely coded racial appeals
and in the final days, ran an ad widely denounced as subtly anti-Semitic. But in striking
contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, Wall Street, and even Goldman Sachs. '
Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it
has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache . When
subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the
politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our
communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment.'"
"In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer
proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass
destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP
orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized
the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added).
Big Dark Money and Trump: His Own and Others'
This cost Trump much of the corporate and Wall Street financial support that Republican
presidential candidates usually get. The thing was, however, that much of Trump's "populist"
rhetoric was popular with a big part of the Republican electorate, thanks to the "Hunger Games"
insecurity of the transparently bipartisan New Gilded Age. And Trump's personal fortune
permitted him to tap that popular anger while leaping insultingly over the heads of his less
wealthy if corporate and Wall Street-backed competitors ("low energy" Jeb Bush and "little
Marco" Rubio most notably) in the crowded Republican primary race.
A Republican candidate
dependent on the usual elite bankrollers would never have been able to get away with Trump's
crowd-pleasing (and CNN and FOX News rating-boosting) antics. Thanks to his own wealth, the
faux-populist anti-establishment Trump was ironically inoculated against pre-emption in the
Republican primaries by the American campaign finance "wealth
primary," which renders electorally unviable candidates who lack vast financial resources
or access to them.
Things were different after Trump won the Republican nomination, however. He could no longer
go it alone after the primaries. During the Republican National Convention and "then again in
the late summer of 2016," FJC show, Trump's "solo campaign had to be rescued by major
industries plainly hoping for tariff relief, waves of other billionaires from the far, far
right of the already far right Republican Party, and the most disruption-exalting corners of
Wall Street." By FJC's account:
"What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave
of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016
or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian
Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business
interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races,
but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the
party at large."
"The run up to the Convention brought in substantial new money, including, for the first
time, significant contributions from big business. Mining, especially coal mining; Big Pharma
(which was certainly worried by tough talk from the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton,
about regulating drug prices); tobacco, chemical companies, and oil (including substantial
sums from executives at Chevron, Exxon, and many medium sized firms); and telecommunications
(notably AT&T, which had a major merge merger pending) all weighed in. Money from
executives at the big banks also began streaming in, including Bank of America, J. P. Morgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Parts of Silicon Valley also started coming in from
the cold."
"In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that
appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies
making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from
some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many
others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now
delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his
Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million.
Peter Theil contributed more than a million
dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost
two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at
Cisco Systems. A wave of new money swept in from large private equity firms, the part of Wall
Street which had long championed hostile takeovers as a way of disciplining what they mocked
as bloated and inefficient 'big business.' Virtual pariahs to main-line firms in the Business
Roundtable and the rest of Wall Street, some of these figures had actually gotten their start
working with Drexel Burnham Lambert and that firm's dominant partner, Michael Milkin.
Among
those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now
made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a
handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments
of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump
was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began
with the Convention but turned into a torrent "
The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its
direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist
"populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning,
Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated
working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and
professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency
and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the
Democratic "base" vote. Along with the racist voter suppression carried out by Republican
state governments (JFC rightly chide Russia-obsessed political reporters and commentators for
absurdly ignoring this important factor) and (JFC intriguingly suggest) major anti-union
offensives conducted by employers in some battleground states, this major late-season influx of
big right-wing political money tilted the election Trump's way.
The Myth of Potent Russian Cyber-Subversion
As FJC show, there is little empirical evidence to support the Clinton and corporate
Democrats' self-interested and diversionary efforts to explain Mrs. Clinton's epic fail and
Trump's jaw-dropping upset victory as the result of (i) Russian interference, (ii), then FBI
Director James Comey's October Surprise revelation that his agency was not done investigating
Hillary's emails, and/or (iii) some imagined big wave of white working-class racism, nativism,
and sexism brought to the surface by the noxious Orange Hulk. The impacts of both (i) and (ii)
were infinitesimal in comparison to the role that big campaign money played both in silencing
Hillary and funding Trump.
The blame-the-deplorable-racist-white-working-class narrative is
belied by basic underlying continuities in white working class voting patterns. As FJC note: "
Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different
from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the
pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." It was about the money – the big
establishment money that the Clinton campaign took (as FJC at least plausibly argue) to
recommend policy silence and the different, right-wing big money that approved Trump's
comparative right-populist policy boisterousness.
An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the
pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media
allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that
Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S.
corporate and right-wing cyber forces:
"The real masters of these black arts are American or Anglo-American firms. These compete
directly with Silicon Valley and leading advertising firms for programmers and personnel.
They rely almost entirely on data purchased from Google, Facebook, or other suppliers,
not Russia . American regulators do next to nothing to protect the privacy of voters
and citizens, and, as we have shown in several studies, leading telecom firms are major
political actors and giant political contributors. As a result, data on the habits and
preferences of individual internet users are commercially available in astounding detail and
quantities for relatively modest prices – even details of individual credit card
purchases. The American giants for sure harbor abundant data on the constellation of bots,
I.P. addresses, and messages that streamed to the electorate "
" stories hyping 'the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and
infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups
already wary of one another by the Russians miss the mark.' By 2016, the Republican right had
developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale
quite on its own. Large numbers of conservative websites, including many that that tolerated
or actively encouraged white supremacy and contempt for immigrants, African-Americans,
Hispanics, Jews, or the aspirations of women had been hard at work for years stoking up
'tensions between groups already wary of one another.' Breitbart and other organizations were
in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded
groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value
to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or
the Drudge Report ."
" the evidence revealed thus far does not support strong claims about the likely success
of Russian efforts, though of course the public outrage at outside meddling is easy to
understand. The speculative character of many accounts even in the mainstream media is
obvious. Several, such as widely circulated declaration by the Department of Homeland
Security that 21 state election systems had been hacked during the election, have collapsed
within days of being put forward when state electoral officials strongly disputed them,
though some mainstream press accounts continue to repeat them. Other tales about Macedonian
troll factories churning out stories at the instigation of the Kremlin, are clearly
exaggerated."
The Sanders Tease: "He Couldn't Have Done a Thing"
Perhaps the most remarkable finding in FJC's study is that Sanders came tantalizingly close
to winning the Democratic presidential nomination against the corporately super-funded Clinton
campaign with no support from Big Business . Running explicitly against the "Hunger
Games" economy and the corporate-financial plutocracy that created it, Sanders pushed Hillary
the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing
her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor
"socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as
"without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the
whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly
competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ."
Sanders pulled this off, FJC might have added, by running in (imagine) accord with
majority-progressive left-of-center U.S. public opinion. But for the Clintons' corrupt advance-
control of the Democratic National Committee and convention delegates, Ferguson et al might
further have noted, Sanders might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee, curiously
enough in the arch-state-capitalist and oligarchic United States
Could Sanders have defeated the billionaire and right-wing billionaire-backed Trump in the
general election? There's no way to know, of course. Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary
Clinton in one-on-one match -up polls vis a vis Donald Trump during the primary season, but
much of the big money (and, perhaps much of the corporate media) that backed Hillary would have
gone over to Trump had the supposedly
"radical" Sanders been the Democratic nominee.
Even if Sanders has been elected president, moreover, Noam Chomsky is certainly correct in
his recent judgement that Sanders would have been able to achieve very little in the White
House. As Chomsky told Lynn Parramore two weeks ago, in
an interview conducted for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the same think-tank
that published FJC's remarkable study:
"His campaign [was] a break with over a century of American political history. No
corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply
either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close -- he probably could have won the
nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he'd been elected? He couldn't have done a thing.
Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which
have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he
would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from
the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local
levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from
the bottom."
As Chomsky might have added, Sanders oligarchy-imposed "failures" would have been great
fodder for the disparagement and smearing of "socialism" and progressive, majority-backed
policy change. "See? We tried all that and it was a disaster!"
I would note further that the Sanders phenomenon's policy promise was plagued by its
standard bearer's persistent loyalty to the giant and absurdly expensive U.S.-imperial Pentagon
System, which each year eats up hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars required to implement
the progressive, majority-supported policy agenda that Bernie F-35 Sanders ran
on.
"A Very Destructive Ideology"
The Sanders challenge was equally afflicted by its candidate-centered electoralism. This
diverted energy away from the real and more urgent politics of building people's movements
– grassroots power to shake the society to its foundations and change policy from the
bottom up (Dr. Martin Luther King's preferred strategy at the end of his life just barely short
of 50 years ago, on April 4 th , 1968) – and into the narrow, rigidly
time-staggered grooves of a party and spectacle-elections crafted by and for the wealthy Few
and the American
Oligarchy 's "permanent political class" (historian Ron Formisano). As Chomsky explained on the eve of the 2004
elections:
"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the
political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge
propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial
extravaganzas and to think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's only a small part of
politics The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so
that centers of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass
roots and shaken the society to its core include the labor movement, the civil rights
movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady,
dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years sensible [electoral]
choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action."
"The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful change," Chomsky told Abby Martin on teleSur
English in the fall of 2015, "is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay
attention to the election cycle." Under the American religion of voting,
Chomsky told Dan Falcone and Saul Isaacson in the spring of 2016, "Citizenship means every
four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It's a
very destructive ideology basically, a way of making people passive, submissive objects [we]
ought to teach kids that elections take place but that's not politics."
For all his talk of standing atop a great "movement" for "revolution," Sanders was and
remains all about this stunted and crippling definition of citizenship and politics as making
some marks on ballots and then returning to our domiciles while rich people and their
agents (not just any "other guys") "run [ruin?-P.S.] the world [into the ground-P.S.]."
It will take much more in the way of Dr. King's politics of "who' sitting in the streets,"
not "who's sitting in the White House" (to use Howard Zinn's
excellent dichotomy ), to get us an elections and party system worthy of passionate citizen
engagement. We don't have such a system in the U.S. today, which is why the number of eligible
voters who passively boycotted the 2016 presidential election is larger than both the number
who voted for big money Hillary and the number who voted for big money Trump.
(If U.S. progressives really want to consider undertaking the epic lift involved in passing
a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, they might want to focus on this instead of calling for a
repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd recommend starting with a positive Democracy Amendment that
fundamentally overhauls the nation's political and elections set-up in accord with elementary
principles and practices of popular sovereignty. Clauses would include but not be limited to
full public financing of elections and the introduction of proportional representation for
legislative races – not to mention the abolition of the Electoral College, Senate
apportionment on the basis of total state population, and the outlawing of gerrymandering.)
Ecocide Trumped by Russia
Meanwhile, back in real history, we have the remarkable continuation of a bizarre
right-wing, pre-fascist presidency not in normal ruling-class hands, subject to the weird whims
and tweets of a malignant narcissist who doesn't read memorandums or intelligence briefings.
Wild policy zig-zags and record-setting White House personnel turnover are par for the course
under the dodgy reign of the orange-tinted beast's latest brain spasms. Orange Caligula spends
his mornings getting his information from FOX News and his evenings complaining to and seeking
advice from a small club of right-wing American oligarchs.
Trump poses grave environmental and nuclear risks to human survival. A consistent Trump
belief is that climate change is not a problem and that it's perfectly fine – "great" and
"amazing," in fact – for the White House to do everything it can to escalate the
Greenhouse Gassing-to-Death of Life on Earth. The nuclear threat is rising now that he has
appointed a frothing right-wing uber-warmonger – a longtime advocate of bombing Iran and
North Korea who led the charge for the arch-criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq – as his top
"National Security" adviser and as he been convinced to expel dozens of Russian diplomats.
Thanks, liberal and other Democratic Party RussiaGaters!
The Clinton-Obama neoliberal Democrats have spent more than a year running with the
preposterous narrative that Trump is a Kremlin puppet who owes his presence in the White House
to Russia's subversion of our democratic elections. The climate crisis holds little
for the Trump and Russia-obsessed corporate media. The fact that the world stands at the eve of
the ecological self-destruction, with the Trump White House in the lead, elicits barely a
whisper in the reigning commercial news media. Unlike Stormy Daniels, for example, that little
story – the biggest issue of our or any time – is not good for television ratings
and newspaper sales.
Sanders, by the way, is curiously invisible in the dominant commercial media, despite his
quiet survey status as the nation's "most popular politician." That is precisely what you would
expect in a corporate and financial oligarchy buttressed by a powerful corporate, so-called
"mainstream" media oligopoly.
Political Parties as "Bank Accounts"
One of the many problems with the obsessive Blame-Russia narrative that a fair portion of
the dominant U.S. media is running with is that we had no great electoral democracy to
subvert in 2016 . Saying that Russia has "undermined [U.S.-] American democracy" is like
me – middle-aged, five-foot nine, and unblessed with jumping ability – saying that
the Brooklyn Nets' Russian-born center Timofy Mozgof subverted my career as a starting player
in the National Basketball Association. In state-capitalist societies marked by the toxic and
interrelated combination of weak popular organization, expensive politics, and highly
concentrated wealth – all highly evident in the New Gilded Age United States –
electoral contests and outcomes boil down above all and in the end to big investor class cash.
As Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues explain:
"Where investment and organization by average citizens is weak, however, power passes by
default to major investor groups, which can far more easily bear the costs of contending for
control of the state. In most modern market-dominated societies (those celebrated recently as
enjoying the 'end of History'), levels of effective popular organization are generally low,
while the costs of political action, in terms of both information and transactional
obstacles, are high. The result is that conflicts within the business community normally
dominate contests within and between political parties – the exact opposite of what
many earlier social theorists expected, who imagined 'business' and 'labor' confronting each
other in separate parties Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented
to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one
must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of
the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial
analysis of their constituent elements."
Here Ferguson might have said "corporate-dominated" instead of "market-dominated" for the
modern managerial corporations emerged as the "visible hand" master of the "free market" more
than a century ago.
We get to vote? Big deal.
People get to vote in Rwanda, Russia, the Congo and countless
other autocratic states as well. Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S.
policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the
assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't
like, which includes any country that dares to "question the basic principle that the United
States effectively owns the world by right and is by definition a force for good" ( Chomsky,
2016 ).
Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. The
list of interrelated and mutually reinforcing culprits behind this oligarchic defeat of popular
sentiment in the U.S. is extensive. It includes but is not limited to: the campaign finance,
candidate-selection, lobbying, and policy agenda-setting power of wealthy individuals,
corporations, and interest groups; the special primary election influence of full-time party
activists; the disproportionately affluent, white, and older composition of the active (voting)
electorate; the manipulation of voter turnout; the widespread dissemination of false,
confusing, distracting, and misleading information; absurdly and explicitly unrepresentative
political institutions like the Electoral College, the unelected Supreme Court, the
over-representation of the predominantly white rural population in the U.S. Senate; one-party
rule in the House of "Representatives"; the fragmentation of authority in government; and
corporate ownership of the reigning media, which frames current events in accord with the
wishes and world view of the nation's real owners.
Yes, we get to vote. Super. Big deal. Mammon reigns nonetheless in the United States, where,
as the leading liberal
political scientists Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens find , "government policy reflects the
wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out
every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office."
Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an
empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. "
deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been
trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself
(though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos."
He is a
homegrown capitalist oligarch nonetheless, a real estate mogul of vast and parasitic wealth who
is no more likely to fulfill his populist-sounding campaign pledges than any previous POTUS of
the neoliberal era.
His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and
(last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial
oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and
homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy
would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion
that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to
oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is
recklessly encouraging.
The furor is all about the "illegitimate" victories of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Does the average user care if s/he is micro-targetted
by political advertisements based on what they already believe?
No, because they already believe they're right, so what's wrong with a little confirmation bias? Most of us spend significant
amounts of energy seeking out sources of information confirming what we already believe; micro-targetting just makes our lives
that little bit less effortful.
It took a long time before the 2001 US anthrax attacks were solved. (The initial attribution
was totally wrong.) The ultimate explanation was that an anthrax scientist (Bruce Ivins) was
worried that funding for his research would be cut back. A similar motive cannot be excluded
out of hand for Skripals, especially given proximity of Porton Downs. Already, there has been a
huge infusion of cash into Porton Downs, as there was into anthrax research after Ivins'
attack. A quote from
https://www.wcpo.com/news/our-community/from-the-vault/from-the-vault-local-scientists-hatred-for-uc-sorority-led-to-national-panic-terror-attack.
FBI Director at the time, Robert Mueller -- yes, that Robert Mueller -- said Ivins'
livelihood was in jeopardy when the Department of Defense wanted to end anthrax vaccinations
because of side effects later called "Gulf War Syndrome." And when the U.S. was attacked on
Sept. 11, Ivins capitalized on the paralyzing fear sweeping the nation.
"The anthrax vaccine program to which he had devoted his entire career was failing,"
according to the "Amerithrax" report from the Justice Department. "Short of some major
breakthrough or intervention, he feared that the vaccine research program was going to be
discontinued."
After the anthrax attacks in 2001, however, Ivins' program experienced a rebirth.
b comments that the case against Ivins (yes, made by Mueller, that Mueller) was all bullshit.
At the time I too looked into the case that they had against him. What was completely wrong
was that Ivins had prepared the Anthrax spores in his personal lab. I too read the FBI report
that described the equipment in that lab. Having experience in this field, I found it was
very close to impossible for him to have prepared the samples that were used in the anthrax
attacks. However, the facilities at Fort Dietrick do have that capacity. If Ivins used those
facilities it would not have been possible for him to use them without accomplices or at the
least without witnesses to his use of those facilities.
That is what the Mueller report covered up at the very least. It remains quite possible
that Ivins was not involved at all.
B. and others have already noted that the official conclusion that Bruce Ivins committed
suicide is, in a word, bogus.
But I can't resist adding the piquant detail that the authorities claimed that he killed
himself with an overdose of Tylenol with codeine. Despite the presence of some codeine,
Tylenol is a truly odd choice for suicide. It is potentially toxic, and overdoses
cause liver damage that can be eventually fatal-- but overdoses are reportedly painful to
endure, and are by no means sure to be fatal.
We're expected to believe that Ivins was so distraught and irrational that he "chose" this
means because he wanted to "sleep", and was either oblivious or indifferent to the
above-cited drawbacks.
Yet, Ivins was a microbiologist, vaccinologist, and senior biodefense researcher at the
United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. He presumably had, or
could easily acquire, an understanding of the effects of Tylenol-- and he had a laboratory
full of ultra-lethal toxins to boot. Yet when the moment of truth came, he reached for a
bottle of... Tylenol?
It's déjà vu all over again. How many "other ones" do Western authorities
think we have to pull?
b @20. Thanks for setting the record straight on the UNSOLVED Anthrax terrorist attack in the
US. FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that Saddam Hussein was responsible! That was
Mueller's role in selling the "intelligence" to invade Iraq. Once it became known that the
anthrax came from the US Army, he tried to pin it on an innocent man and then closed and
buried the case.
This is not very plausible hypothesis... But the fact that Steele indeed was "curator" of
Skripal in Moscow (and later at MI6 Russian desk) is true.
Notable quotes:
"... Important to note, too, this report says, is that absolutely no one in the West is even bothering to ask why Russia would break the first cardinal rule of "spy etiquette" in targeting a spy involved in a spy-swap -- which neither the Soviet Union or Russia has done even once in over 70 years ..."
"... Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the Center for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, points out by correctly stating that if the Russia did, indeed, poison Skripal, "no one will ever do a swap with them again" -- and who asks the logical question: "If Russia had really wanted to kill Skripal, why didn't they execute him when they had him in custody?" ..."
"... With Michel Chossudovsky, the award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, having just warned that "the entire Western world is insane, and that the Western politicians, and presstitutes who serve them, are driving the world to extinction", this report concludes, among the handful of experts left to explain where this current Russia hysteria in the West is leading to is the former President Ronald Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts -- and whose warning issued, just days ago, is both simple and dire: "World War III Is Approaching". ..."
Though the specifics of the offer made to the FSB by Sergei Skripal in order to secure his
returning home to Russia remain more highly classified than this general report allows, it does
confirm that Yulia Skripal was discussing this issue with her father, on 4 March, when they
were both attacked and left in critical condition -- with the Telegraph news service in London
then
documenting that all internet links between Sergei Skripaland Christopher Steele's Orbis
Business Intelligence were being taken down.
At the same time all the internet links between Sergei Skripal and the creators of the fake
"Trump Dossier" were being scrubbed from existence, this report continues, the British
government suddenly began blaming Russia for the nerve gas attack on him and his daughter --
but when Russia asked for evidence proving this, the British outright refused to produce it as the Chemical
Weapons Convention, that the UK has signed, along with Russia, demands they do -- and when
questioned in the British Parliament by Labor Leader Jeremy Corbyn as to why this was so, saw
Prime Minister Teresa May's forces jeer and shout him down -- followed by British Defence
Secretary Gavin Williamson saying "Russia should go away
and shut up".
With President Putin stating in the Security Council meeting that he was " extremely
concerned " by the destructive and provocative stance of the UK, this report continues, the
British government, nevertheless, has continued to ratchet up it hysteria by blocking a United Nations Security
Council draft sponsored by Russia calling for an "urgent and civilized investigation"
incident in line with international standards -- and that led Russian Senator Sergey
Kalashnikov to warn:
The West has launched a massive operation in order to kick Russia out of the UN Security
Council Russia is now a very inconvenient player for the Western nations and this explains all
the recent attacks on our country.
Important to note, too, this report says, is that absolutely no one in the West is even
bothering to ask why Russia would break the first cardinal rule of "spy etiquette" in targeting
a spy involved in a spy-swap -- which neither the Soviet Union or Russia has done even once in
over 70 years -- and as Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the Center for Security and
Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, points
out by correctly stating that if the Russia did, indeed, poison Skripal, "no one will ever
do a swap with them again" -- and who asks the logical question: "If Russia had really wanted
to kill Skripal, why didn't they execute him when they had him in custody?"
Other logical questions about this supposed nerve gas attack on Sergei Skripal and his
daughter Yulia being suppressed in the West, this report notes, are those such as:
Did Skripal help Steele to make up the "dossier" about Trump?
Were Skripal's old connections used to contact other people in Russia to ask about Trump
dirt?
Did Skripal threaten to talk about this?
Was the lonely old man Sergei Skripal preparing to go back to his homeland
Russia?
Did he offer some kind of "gift" as apology to the Russian government that his trusted
daughter would take to Moscow?
Did someone find out and stop the transfer?
With Michel Chossudovsky, the award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the
University of Ottawa, having just warned that "the entire
Western world is insane, and that the Western politicians, and presstitutes who serve them, are
driving the world to extinction", this report concludes, among the handful of experts left to
explain where this current Russia hysteria in the West is leading to is the former President
Ronald Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts -- and whose warning issued, just
days ago, is both simple and dire: "World War III Is Approaching".
This is a fight to save Us led global neoliberal empire. Nothing more nothing less. Cohen is
right about connections between Skripal case and Russiagate. Skripal case is a British attempt to
save Russiagate.
Notable quotes:
"... Diplomacy kept the nuclear peace during the preceding Cold War, but the mass expulsions -- even pending the Kremlin's response -- seriously undermines the diplomatic process. They even criminalize it, as illustrated by denunciations of Trump's phone conversation with Putin and by widespread political-media demands after he expelled a large number of Russia's diplomats that he do "more" -- such demands ranging from more sanctions on Russia to more military responses in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere -- to prove he is not under Putin's control. ..."
"... Identifying all expelled diplomats as "intelligence officers" is also misleading. Posting intelligence officers as diplomats has long been a mutual de facto arrangement tacitly, if not explicitly, agreed upon and known by both sides. Moreover, the designation might apply to embassy officials who study the other country's economic, social, cultural, or political life. They gather and report "information." ..."
"... Recently, US-backed proxies apparently killed a number of Russian citizens also operating there. The Kremlin, through its Ministry of Defense, issued an ominous warning: If this happens again, Moscow will strike militarily not only at the proxies but also at US forces in the region who provided the weapons and launched the missiles. The same razor's edge could easily occur where the United States and Russia are also eyeball-to-eyeball, as in Ukraine or the Baltic region. (Again, as Trump is being crippled to the extent that he probably could not negotiate a crisis the way President Kennedy did the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.) ..."
"... the extreme demonization of Putin and growing Russophobia in the United States are elevating today's small, less formidable Russia into a threat even graver than was the Soviet Union, against which US nuclear weapons were developed and intended. And this, again, in the context of diminished diplomacy and Trump's diminished capacity to negotiate. ..."
"Russiagate" and the Skirpal affair have escalated dangers inherent in the new Cold
War beyond those of the preceding one.
1. "Russiagate" and the attempted killing of Sergei and Yulia
Skripal in the UK have two aspects in common. Both blame Putin personally. And no actual facts
have yet been made public.
§ Having discussed the fallacies of "Russiagate" often and at length, Cohen focuses on
the Skripal affair. Putin had no conceivable motive, especially considering the upcoming World
Cup Games in Russia, which both the government and the people consider to be very prestigious
and thus important for the nation. No forensic or other evidence has yet been presented as to
the nature of the purported nerve agent used or whether Russia still possesses it; or, even if
so, whether Russia really is the only state whose agents did so; or when, where, and how it was
inflicted on Skripal and his daughter; or why they and many others said to have been affected
by this "lethal" agent are still alive. Nonetheless, even before the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has issued its obligatory tests, and while refusing to give the
Russian government a required sample to test, the British leaders declared that it was "highly
likely" Putin's Kremlin had ordered the attack.
§ Nonetheless, on this flimsy basis, Western governments, led by the UK and reluctantly
by the Trump administration, rushed to expel 100 or more Russian diplomats -- the greatest
number ever in this long history of such episodes.
§ It should be noted, however, that not all European governments did so, and a few
others in only a token way, thereby again revealing European divisions over Russia policy.
2. This episode increases the risk of nuclear war between the United States and
Russia.
§ Ever since the onset of the Atomic Age, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction
has kept the nuclear peace. This may have changed in 2002. when the Bush administration
unilaterally withdrew from, thereby abrogating, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Since
then, the United States and NATO have developed 30 or more anti-missile defense installments on
land and sea, several very close to Russia. For Moscow, this was an American attempt to obtain
a first-strike capability without mutual destruction. The Kremlin made this concern known to
Moscow many times since 2002, proposing instead a mutual US-Russian developed anti-missile
system, but was repeatedly rebuffed.
§ On March 1, Putin announced that Russia had developed nuclear weapons capable of
eluding any anti-missile system, described it as a restoration of strategic parity, and called
for new nuclear-weapons negotiations.
§ American mainstream political and media elites derided Putin's announcement.
Following the evaluation of several American nuclear experts, four Democratic senators appealed
to (now former) Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to (in effect) respond positively to Putin's
appeal. Nothing came of it. Shortly after the Russian presidential election on March 18,
President Trump himself, in a congratulatory call to Putin, proposed that they meet soon to
discuss the "new nuclear arms race." Trump was widely traduced as having revealed further
evidence that he was "colluding" with Putin, perhaps
§ The result has been, reflected in the mass expulsion of
Russian diplomats, even more fraught US-Russian relations and with them, of course, the
increased risk of nuclear war.
3. Many Americans, including political and media elites who shape public opinion, have
been deluded into thinking, especially since the pseudo–"American-Russian friendship" of
the Clinton 1990s, that nuclear war now really is "unthinkable." That the mass expulsion of
diplomats was merely "symbolic" and of no real lasting consequence. In reality, it has become
more thinkable.
§ Diplomacy kept the nuclear peace during the preceding Cold War, but the mass
expulsions -- even pending the Kremlin's response -- seriously undermines the diplomatic
process. They even criminalize it, as illustrated by denunciations of Trump's phone
conversation with Putin and by widespread political-media demands after he expelled a large
number of Russia's diplomats that he do "more" -- such demands ranging from more sanctions on
Russia to more military responses in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere -- to prove he is not under
Putin's control.
( Identifying all expelled diplomats as "intelligence officers" is also misleading.
Posting intelligence officers as diplomats has long been a mutual de facto arrangement tacitly,
if not explicitly, agreed upon and known by both sides. Moreover, the designation might apply
to embassy officials who study the other country's economic, social, cultural, or political
life. They gather and report "information." )
§ In this connection, historians remind us of how the great powers gradually "slipped"
into World War I. The lesson is the crucial role of diplomacy, now being undermined. Consider,
for example, Syria. Recently, US-backed proxies apparently killed a number of Russian
citizens also operating there. The Kremlin, through its Ministry of Defense, issued an ominous
warning: If this happens again, Moscow will strike militarily not only at the proxies but also
at US forces in the region who provided the weapons and launched the missiles. The same razor's
edge could easily occur where the United States and Russia are also eyeball-to-eyeball, as in
Ukraine or the Baltic region. (Again, as Trump is being crippled to the extent that he probably
could not negotiate a crisis the way President Kennedy did the 1962 Cuban missile
crisis.)
4. The causes of the new risks of nuclear war are not "symbolic" but real and primarily
political.
§ As diplomacy is diminished, the militarization of US-Russian relations increases.
§ Every weapon developed as extensively as have been nuclear weapons have eventually
been used. Washington dropped two atomic bombs, genetic predecessors of their nuclear
offspring, on Japan in 1945. (Before 1914, some people thought gas, the new weapon of mass
destruction, would never be widely used in warfare.)
§ On both sides today, but especially in Washington, there is talk of developing "more
precise nuclear warheads" that could be usable. Use of even a "small, precise" nuclear weapon
would cross the Rubicon of apocalypse.
§ Meanwhile, the extreme demonization of Putin and growing Russophobia in the
United States are elevating today's small, less formidable Russia into a threat even graver
than was the Soviet Union, against which US nuclear weapons were developed and intended. And
this, again, in the context of diminished diplomacy and Trump's diminished capacity to
negotiate.
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and
Princeton
"... This 6-paged PDF is a powerful evidence of another intellectual low of British propaganda machine. Open it and you can tell that substantially it makes only two assertions on the Skripal case, and both are false ..."
"... The fifth version is a rather more elaborate development of the previous point. There is circumstantial evidence, a version outlined by the Daily Telegraph , that Skripal may have had a hand in devising Christopher Steele's 'Trump Dossier'. ..."
"... The authors of this "report" mixed up a very strange cocktail of multitype allegations, none of which have ever been proven or recognized by any responsible entity ..."
The UK government's presentation on the Salisbury incident, which was repeatedly
cited
in recent days as an "ultimate proof" of Russia's involvement into Skripal's assassination attempt, was
made public earlier today.
This 6-paged PDF is a powerful evidence of another intellectual low of British propaganda machine. Open it and you can tell
that substantially it makes only two assertions on the Skripal case, and both are false:
First.
Novichok is a group of agents developed only by Russia and not declared under the CWC " – a false statement .
Novichok was originally developed in the USSR (Nukus Lab,
today in Uzbekistan, site completely decommissioned according to the US-Uzbekistan agreement by 2002). One of its key developers,
Vil Mirzayanov , defected to the United States in 1990s,
its chemical formula and technology were openly published in a number of chemical journals outside Russia. Former top-ranking British
foreign service officer Craig Murray specifically
noted
this point on March 17:
Craig Murray
I have now been sent the vital information that in late 2016, Iranian scientists set out to study whether novichoks really could
be produced from commercially available ingredients.
Iran succeeded
in synthesizing a number of novichoks. Iran did this in full cooperation with the OPCW and immediately reported
the results to the OPCW so they could be added to the chemical weapons database.
This makes complete nonsense of the Theresa May's "of a type developed by Russia" line, used to parliament and the UN Security
Council. This explains why Porton Down has refused to cave in to governmental pressure to say the nerve agent was Russian. If Iran
can make a novichok, so can a significant number of states .
Second.
" We are without doubt that Russia is responsible. No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent and motive. There
is no plausible alternative explanation " – an outstanding example of self-hypnosis. None of the previous items could even remotedly
lead to this conclusion. The prominent British academician from the University of Kent Prof. Richard Sakwa has
elaborated on this on March 23 the following
way:
Rather than just the two possibilities outlined by Theresa May, in fact there are at least six, possibly seven. The first is that
this was a state-sponsored, and possibly Putin-ordered, killing This version simply does not make sense, and until concrete evidence
emerges, it should be discounted
The second version is rather more plausible, that the authorities had lost control of its stocks of chemical weapons. In the early
1990s Russian facilities were notoriously lax, but since the 2000s strict control over stocks were re-imposed, until their final
destruction in 2017. It is quite possible that some person or persons unknown secreted material, and then conducted some sort of
vigilante operation
Third.
The third version is the exact opposite: some sort of anti-Putin action by those trying to force his policy choices
Forth
The fourth version is similar, but this time the anti-Putinists are not home-grown but outsiders. Here the list of people who
would allegedly benefit by discrediting Russia is a long one. If Novichok or its formula has proliferated, then it would not be that
hard to organise some sort of false flag operation. The list of countries mentioned in social media in this respect is a long one.
Obviously, Ukraine comes top of the list, not only because of motivation, but also because of possible access to the material, as
a post-Soviet state with historical links to the Russian chemical weapons programme. Israel has a large chemical weapon inventory
and is not a party to the OPCW; but it has no motivation for such an attack (unless some inadvertent leak occurred here). Another
version is that the UK itself provoked the incident, as a way of elevating its status as a country 'punching above its weight'. The
British chemical weapons establishment, Porton Down, is only 12 kilometres from Salisbury. While superficially plausible, there is
absolutely no evidence that this is a credible version, and should be discounted.
Fifth.
The fifth version is a rather more elaborate development of the previous point. There is circumstantial evidence,
a version outlined by the Daily Telegraph
, that Skripal may have had a hand in devising Christopher Steele's 'Trump Dossier'.
The British agent who originally recruited Skripal, Pablo Miller, lives in Salisbury, and also has connections with Orbis International,
Steele's agency in London. In this version, Skripal is still working in one way or another with MI6, and fed stories to Steele, who
then intervenes massively in US politics, effectively preventing the much-desired rapprochement between Trump and Putin. Deep anger
at the malevolent results of the Steele and British intervention in international politics and US domestic affairs prompts a revenge
killing, with the demonstration effect achieved by using such a bizarre assassination weapon.
Sixth.
The sixth version is the involvement of certain criminal elements, who for reasons best known to themselves were smuggling the
material, and released it by accident. In this version, the Skripals are the accidental and not intended victims. There are various
elaborations of this version, including the activities of anti-Putin mobsters. One may add a seventh version here, in which Islamic
State or some other Islamist group seeks to provoke turmoil in Europe.
Do you wish to know our refutations of any other substantial "hard evidence" against Russia in the UK paper? Sorry, but that
is all. The primitive information warriors in what used to be the heart of a brilliant empire, today are incapable of designing
an even slightly plausible (they love this word, right?) document on a super-politicized case.
What follows is even more depressing. Slide 3 is dedicated to some sort of anatomy lesson:
Slide 4 seemingly represents a real "honey trap". Just look at it:
The authors of this "report" mixed up a very strange cocktail of multitype allegations, none of which have ever been proven or
recognized by any responsible entity (like legal court or dedicated official international organization). Of course we are not committed
to argue on every cell, but taking e.g. " August 2008 Invasion of Georgia " we actually can't understand why the
EU-acknowledged Saakashvili's aggression
against South Ossetia is exposed here as an example of "Russian malign activity"
Have you totally lost your minds, ladies & gentlemen from the Downing Street?
"... In 2003, he became the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force, a joint operation with the New York City Police Department. ..."
"... In early 2010, Randall, then 28, was assigned to a specialized group of FBI agents in lower Manhattan. The Eurasian organized crime unit, led by a veteran mob investigator named Michael Gaeta, scrutinized criminal groups from Georgia, Russia and Ukraine that were running sophisticated scams in the U.S. As Randall and Gaeta linked street-level criminal operators to figures in Eastern Europe's business and political elite, they started piecing together a string of rumors that led them to an unsettling conclusion: Russia might be bribing its way to host the 2018 World Cup. ..."
McCabe says he was fired as FBI deputy director because he is a crucial witness in Russia
investigation While he was the FBI's deputy director, McCabe was deeply involved in
overseeing investigations related to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton's use of a
private email server, and whether Russia colluded with Trump's campaign. Trump has denied any
collusion occurred and Russia has denied meddling.
Mr. McCabe began his career as a special agent with the FBI in 1996. He first reported to the
New York Division, where he investigated a variety of organized crime matters. In 2003,
he became the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force, a joint
operation with the New York City Police Department.
In early 2010, Randall, then 28, was assigned to a specialized group of FBI agents in
lower Manhattan. The Eurasian organized crime unit, led by a veteran mob investigator named
Michael Gaeta, scrutinized criminal groups from Georgia, Russia and Ukraine that were
running sophisticated scams in the U.S. As Randall and Gaeta linked street-level criminal
operators to figures in Eastern Europe's business and political elite, they started piecing
together a string of rumors that led them to an unsettling conclusion: Russia might be
bribing its way to host the 2018 World Cup.
Andrew McCabe lied four times to the Department of Justice and the FBI - including two times while under oath with Inspector General
Michael Horowitz, according to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) appearing on Fox News .
This is the first time the public has heard more detail of the circumstances behind the decision to fire McCabe just over
one day
before
he qualified for his full pension.
JORDAN: " McCabe didn't lie just once, he lied four times . He lied to James Comey. He lied to the Office of Professional Responsibility
and he lied twice under oath to the Inspector General . Remember, this is Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director of the FBI. This is Andrew
McCabe, the text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page talking about Andy's office, the meeting where they talk about the
insurance policy in case Donald Trump is actually President of the United States Four times he lied about leaking information
to the Wall Street Journal ."
Specifically, McCabe authorized an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the
Wall St. Journal
, just days before the 2016 election, that the FBI had not
put the brakes on a separate investigation into the Clinton Foundation - at a time in which McCabe was coming under fire for his
wife taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton
proxy
pal, Terry McAuliffe.
New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a bureau
investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according
to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case . The probe of the foundation began more
than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.
...
Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity , these people said. Others
involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious
fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case .
So McCabe leaked information to the WSJ in order to combat rumors that Clinton had indirectly bribed him to back off the Clinton
Foundation investigation, and then lied about it four times to the DOJ and FBI, including twice under oath.
Meanwhile - let's not forget, the FBI had evidence from undercover informant William D. Campbell, who recently told Congressional
investigators that he collected smoking gun evidence of Russia
routing millions of dollars
towards a Clinton charity in advance of Clinton's State Department approving the Uranium One deal.
Which McCabe was supposed to be investigating... and which the Little Rock field office took over in
January of
this year
.
Also recall that McCabe's team, under Director Comey,
heavily altered
the language of the FBI's official opinion concerning Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information
- effectively "decriminalizing" her conduct . Comey's original draft - using the term "grossly negligent" would have legally required
that the FBI recommended charges against Clinton. Instead, McCabe's team changed it to "extremely careless," - a legally meaningless
term.
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy
Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa,
and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities
of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement
in at least three respects . -
Letter from
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
President Trump noted in a March 16 tweet that Comey "made McCabe look like a choirboy," despite the former FBI Director knowing
" all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels. "
At the time McCabe was fired, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement at the time that he had "made an unauthorized
disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions."
"Confused and Distracted"
After he was fired, McCabe said he was "confused and distracted" when he was talking to investigators - four separate times as
we've come to learn.
"I answered questions as completely and accurately as I could. And when I realized that some of my answers were not fully accurate
or may have been misunderstood, I took the initiative to correct them ," McCabe wrote in a
Washington Post op-ed
.
So it was all just a big misunderstanding, you see.
In the meantime, people feeling sorry for ol' Andy have set up an "official" Gofundme donation campaign for McCabe's "Legal Defense
Fund," which raised almost $400,000 in 10 hours for McCabe.
Hilariously, the description of the campaign starts off: " Andrew McCabe's FBI career was long, distinguished, and unblemished
."
...which ended when McCabe lied four times about leaking to the press in order to appear unbiased after his wife took nearly half-a-million
dollars from a Clinton crony .
OK, I'm willing to believe McCabe lied. Anybody who only figured out within the past 2 years that the FBI is a political
police force is beneath my contempt, actually.
I'm also pretty seasoned at reading these politicized reports, going back well over 40 years. It's clear this McDonald guy,
the undercover FBI "whistleblower," is at best full of shit, and at most a malicious political mole.
It's been clear for quite some time that the Clinton Foundation, like all the other "charitable foundation" tax dodges
used nearly universally by the wealthy and powerful, is a scam. Just like the Trump Foundation, which is supposedly being shut
down to avoid trouble from the obvious and pervasive fraud that entity engaged in.
So McCabe is a political hatchetman, dealing with and fighting against other political hatchetmen with different affinities,
loyalties and priorities. And the investigation into the Clinton Foundation was a complete charade, because the whole problem
with all these foundations isn't nearly so much what they do illegally but what they do that's perfectly lawful.
And when McCabe answered questions to some people, they approved of his responses, and when he answered questions to other
people, they classified his responses as lies and made an example of him to anyone else who might be insufficiently loyal one
way or the other.
The end result is a bunch of dirty operators are having their usual battle over pecking order.
The good thing is, the way the Executive Branch is tearing itself apart recently, nobody with any better options will have
anything to do with them. We're getting rid of the noxious, anti-American worship of authority figures which masquerades as "Respect
For The Office." Nobody with any sense is joining the military. Attorneys won't get involved in these partisan mud fights.
All this is very good news for those of us who recognize the decline of Empire when we see it. Of course we all hope, out
of compassion for our fellow man, that we would all recognize the historical trend and take considered action accordingly, but
it's clear by now that we won't do that, and we're all going to have to endure collapse. OK then, let's bring it on, have it out,
and get on with our lives going forward.
With that in mind, the destruction of our institutions is a good thing. This whole McCabe/FBI debacle is a good thing; now
that right-wingers have discovered what the Left has always known, right-wingers are going to destroy the Department of Justice
as lefties have never had the power to do. All the hookers suing the President is a good thing; worship of a King is something
we fought a war to end some 242 years ago. And America's Empire has brought the vast majority nothing but Oligarchy and misery.
Good riddance to bad rubbish, McCabe and all the rest.
I'm going to take a big risk and assume that you can actually read without moving your lips and sliding your finger along the
page. If you can't read, being a product of government schools, I'll give you some good news: There are a lot of BOOKS that you
can have read TO you, i.e. digital books. In any case, you might just want to read (or listen to) THE DICTATOR'S HANDBOOK by
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
and
Alastair
Smith
.
In this tome you will find the truth about the ultimate purposes of all of this infighting are. They have nothing to do with
Truth, Justice, and the American Way (whatever the hell THAT is!). My take is A POX ON ALL OF YOUR HOUSES! The REAL "problem"
with Donald Trump is that he either can't be or has yet to be BOUGHT by your masters.
They have NOTHING to offer him that he doesn't already HAVE! Just remember, though...if you idiots DO manage to bring him down,
the him low, run him off...or eliminate him (Don't pretend that you haven't considered that one!)...the societal societal dislocation...disintegration...and
just good old gunfire and club swinging...will sweep YOU away along with our civilization. You've managed to bring America to
the brink already....all we need for total disaster is a little more of your BS!
One common thread and indication an empire is in decline is a massive growth in crony capitalism and corruption. Sometimes
a system morphs or evolves towards its end and in other situations, a single event can act as the catalyst to bring a system to
its knees.
Looking back to the economic crisis that gripped the world in 2008 we find an excellent example of shifting and adjusting
just enough to delay the day of reckoning. Many people see growing inequality as a sign that America's financial and political
systems are broken. The article below delves into how and why great empires collapse.
http://How Great Empires Collapse.html
Geez, if I could up vote you and Giant Meteor a hundred times I would. The joke is that McCabe will never go to jail and Comey will make millions for his book deal. Then there is McCabe's "go fund me" joke. The guy is reportedly worth $11 million and needs stupid libtards to fund him?? Really??? I want to see jail time and executions - start with Brennan and work your way down to Comey.
Fuck jail time. Taxpayers, myself included don't want to have to support this piece of government shit along with all of his
co-conspirators for the next 20 years in some federal luxury resort. Fucking execute them all on the South White House lawn at
dawn by firing squad.
Right now we're a nation without laws except for the little people. My patience is seriously running out with Trump and that
little Hobbit motherfucker Sessions and his jail-blocking shenanigans. Sessions wants to increase civil asset forfeiture, let
him start with McCabe's, Comey's, Clapper, and Brennan's bank accounts and houses for a start. Then take the entire Clinton Crime
Foundations assets down to the last dime.
Try using that excuse yourself and see how far it goes, as they put the cuffs on your 'little people' wrists. As for that GoFundMe page -give me a break. How much of that cash is laundered Clintoon money? No way 'average' Americans are
donating to that criminal POS, and definitely not to the tune of $388K. Investigate that .
The trouble as I see it, these folks by the very nature of what they do, tacit within their very job description, requires
lying on a fairly regular basis. It is requisite to their their employment. Lying becomes a way of life, and is a perfect fit
for those with sociopathic, narcissistic personalities.
One must also understand incentives .. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' Upton Sinclair
And this is seen in every aspect of human affairs, from top to the bottom. Especially pervasive, and venal within the so called
"main stream media" but certainly not limited to ..
Add to this the outright bought and paid for politicization of these 3 letter alphabet soup agency sycophants, not to mention
their political enablers / handlers, the fact they they by and large consider themselves immune in their official capacities,
immune from normative consequences, rule of law, bad acts, and as is now well established, whom play by an entirely different set
of rules.
In short, they believe in their own bullshit, and that the end justifies the means. Of course all of this leads to the inescapable
conclusion, the republic no longer a nation of laws but rather, a nation of men.
In the words of the Clintons: Hey, that's OLD news...and we "...(can't) stop thinking' about tomorrow...." Lies were told,
hundreds of millions stolen, murders committed, and so on." But, having said that, let's just move on and in the words of that
GREAT AMERICAN, Rodney King "...just get along...."
I would suggest neoliberals and neoconservatives get along just fine. These two groups have different styles, but nonetheless, worship the same techno globalist agenda of war, money and power.
Which is why they've quite often been photgraphed together with broad smiles and warm embraces .. Two sides, same coin ...
War mongering, money grubbing, technocrat elites, bending the minds of citizen "consumers" toward the will and agenda of their
overlords, the corporate fascists.
These groups above all else pledge allegiance to king mammon. Others act as their enforcers. The primary vision of these liked
minded groups is to create an all knowing, all powerful centralized state of consequences for thee and none for me. They continue
faithfully to do the bidding of the money changers ..
Concur. They all lie. From top of the Federal Reserve and the repressive apparatus (C!A,FB!,Pentagram ,NSAyy and other assorted
3 letter scum agencies) to the bottom of the hired actors posing as politicians in Congress, Senate and the White House.
Do you remember any politician , president who kept his campaign promises lately? how about the Donald? Let's take only the
last example: the Skripal case ,where the Donald does not need evidence and expels 60 Russian diplomats and closes down a consulate
based on very ,very fake news. And risks a war with Russia ,based on a false flag done by US/UK.
Maria Zakharova said that Russia has no doubt that this was a coordinated attack done by US/UK. She should know something
There is no honor among the thieves and crooks and criminals in the US ,especially when the pie is shrinking and they have
to fight among them for it. Because this is what this low grade show is all about = thugs fighting among them for the disappearing
American pie.
This spectacle is disgusting . I don't care at all ,at this point in time if they impeach the Donald. He deserves it. Whoever
comes after him can not be worse. And I don't think this can continue for too long . The AAZ Empire is done.
I have no respect for the Donald and his continuous lies and fake news. And the tired "he's better than Hillary" does not satisfy
me anymore. I voted for him based on this ,as a vote against Hillary . I am sorry I did. Maybe Hillary would have been better,collapsing
sooner this failed experiment .
Hey,the Donald:
Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you. Confucius
There's also a practical reason not to do it...yet anyway. Put McCabe's nuts in a vice and start turning the screw
(figuratively). Claim the 5th all you want, Mr McCabe. Failure to cooperate only compounds your troubles.
The fired FBI apparatchiks are in a prisoner's dilemma. If they stay quiet, they might walk, but they dont know who else might
be singing or what tune they're singing. So it is to each person's advantage to sing, and the nice thing is, it only takes one
of them to do so (and I suspect, someone[s] already has).
BTW, $400K (taxable) is a far cry from his inflation-indexed pension that Im guessing would be between $8K and $12K per month,
plus a nice health insurance plan for the rest of his (and his wife's) life. Sucks to be him, but...
The DOJ's Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced Wednesday that he is expanding his internal investigation into alleged
FBI abuses surrounding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications - and will be examining their relationship with
former MI6 spy Christopher Steele. The announcement follows several requests from lawmakers and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"The OIG will initiate a review that will examine the Justice Department's and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's compliance
with legal requirements, and with applicable DOJ and FBI policies and procedures, in applications filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC) relating to a certain U.S. person," the statement reads.
It should be noted that the OIG's current investigation and upcoming report - which led to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's
firing, is focused on the agency's handling of the Clinton email investigation. This new probe will focus on FISA abuse and surveillance
of the Trump campaign.
On March 1, House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions
that the FBI may have violated criminal statutes, as well as its own strict internal procedures by using unverified information to
obtain a surveillance warrant on onetime Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
Nunes referred to the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), which states that the "accuracy of information contained
within FISA applications is of utmost importance... Only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications
to the court."
A "FISA memo" released
in February by the House Intel Committee (which has since closed its Russia investigation), points to FBI's use of the salacious
and unverified "Steele Dossier" funded by the Clinton Campaign and the DNC.
"Former and current DOJ and FBI leadership have confirmed to the committee that unverified information from the Steele
dossier comprised an essential part of the FISA applications related to Carter Page," Nunes wrote in his March 1 letter.
Meanwhile, a February 28 letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) requested
that IG Horowitz "conduct a comprehensive review of potential improper political influence, misconduct, or mismanagement" in relation
to the FBI's handling of counterintelligence and criminal investigations of the Trump campaign prior to the appointment of Robert
Mueller.
Steele in the crosshairs
The OIG letter also notes "As part of this examination, the OIG also will review information that was known to the DOJ and the
FBI at the time the applications were filed from or about an alleged FBI confidential source."
The source, in this case, is Christopher Steele.
The House Intel Committe's "FISA memo" alleges that the political origins of the dossier - paid for by Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) - were not disclosed to the clandestine court that signed off on the warrant request, as DOJ
officials knew Steele was being paid by democrats. Moreover, officials at the DOJ and FBI signed one warrant, and three renewals
against Carter Page.
Considering that much of the Steele dossier came from a collaboration with high level Kremlin officials (a collusion if you
will), Horowitz will be connecting dots that allegedly go from the Clinton campaign directly to the Kremlin.
Although the contents of the dossier were unable to be corroborated, the FBI told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) court that Steele's reputation was solid - and used a Yahoo News article written by Michael Isikoff to support the FISA
application. The Isikoff article, however, contained information provided by Steele. In other words, the FBI made it appear to
the FISA court that two separate sources supported their application, when in fact they both came from Steele.
(interestingly, Isikoff also wrote a hit piece to discredit an undercover FBI informant who testified to Congress last week about
millions of dollars in bribes routed to the Clinton Foundation by Russian nuclear officials. Small world!)
So despite the FBI refusing to pay Steele $50,000 when he couldn't verify the dossier's claims, they still used it - in
conjunction with a Steele sourced Yahoo! article to spy on a Trump campaign associate. And to make up for the fact that the
underlying FISA claims were unverified, they "vouched" for Steele's reputation instead.
As the porn star's allegations show, discourse in Washington is shifting to something more
tawdry and celebrity-oriented
... The idea of a porn star appearing on network television to share details of a sexual
encounter with the US commander in chief would have been intellectually confounding at any
other moment in time. Instead, the interview, which took place only few days after
a former Playboy playmate, Karen McDougal , talked about her affair with Trump, seemed a
part of the everyday political landscape in 2018.
... Trump may seem like an aberration but instead he may be an inflection point. It's
possible that after over two centuries of presidential campaigns with governors, senators and
the occasional general, American politics is shifting to something more tawdry and more
celebrity-oriented. The often spoken and rarely met ideal in the United States is that
political debates should be about issues. But, after a political campaign where candidates
debated penis size on a debate stage, it may be the legacy of Trump that politics has
permanently descended to locker-room talk.
"... Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele's British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed from the LinkedIn profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on the Trump dossier. ..."
"... Theresa May and her foreign minister Boris Johnson insist there is only one person who could be responsible for the poisoning, described as an act of war, and that is Vladimir Putin. No evidence has been offered to support this claim. In fact, there is a substantial doubt whether the putative nerve agent, Novichok, even exists. ..."
"... Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which require that evidence of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead delivered an ultimatum to Russia and whipped up war fever throughout the UK. ..."
"... Thus, just like Christopher Steele's dirty dossier against Donald Trump, the British claims against Putin are an evidence-free exercise of raw power. The Anglo- American establishment instructed us, with respect to Steele: "trust him, ignore the stinky factless content presented in this dossier, just note that he is backed by very important intelligence agencies who could cook your goose if you object." The same can be said for Teresa May's crazed assertions now. ..."
"... Steele was an MI6 agent in Moscow around the time Skripal was recruited. He also later ran the MI6 Russia desk and would have known everything there was to know about Skripal. Pablo Miller, who recruited Skripal, according to his LinkedIn profile, worked for Steele's firm and lived in the same town as Skripal. ..."
"... Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf. The campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation. A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker , as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same reason. There are some fascinating facts, however, in all this fawning prose: ..."
"... Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous "sexing up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, creating the rationale for the disastrous and genocidal Iraq War. ..."
"... Aside from Skripal's relationship to the central figure in the British led coup against Donald Trump, there are questions whether the nerve agent the British claim was used on the Skripals even exists, and even more troubling questions for Theresa May's "Russia did it" claim, if it does. ..."
"... Dr. Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at Porton Down as of 2016, and a colleague of the murdered British Iraq War dissident David Kelly, called the existence of Novichoks speculative, noting that "no independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published." ..."
"... The Skripal poisoning is being compared in the British press to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The former KGB and FSB officer was granted asylum in London and worked for the infamous anti-Putin British intelligence directed oligarch Boris Berezovsky in information warfare and other attacks on the Russian state, inclusive of McCarthyite accusations against any European politician seeking sane relations with Putin. ..."
"... Litvinenko's case officer was none other than Christopher Steele, and Christopher Steele conducted MI6's investigation of the case, which, of course, found Putin himself culpable. Berezovsky's use of the disgraced British PR firm Bell, Pottinger is also credited with a significant role in public acceptance of this result. Berezovsky was a prime suspect in organizing the murder of American journalist Paul Klebnikov. Many believe that Berezovsky arranged Litvinenko's demise. Berezovsky himself died in Britain in mysterious circumstances following the loss of a major court case to another Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich. ..."
"... In the parliamentary debate in which Theresa May issued her provocation, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn cautioned against a rush to judgment and pointed to the bloody playing field of Russian oligarchs and Russian organized crime as alternative areas for investigation. Had Corbyn added to that mix, "Western intelligence agencies," he would have been entirely on the right track. ..."
"... The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs who service each other, acting on behalf of British strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the entire world in peril, absolutely intersect one another. ..."
This statement explores the strategic significance of major events in the world starting in February of 2018. Our goal is to precisely
situate Theresa May's March 12–14 mad effort to manufacture a new "weapons of mass destruction" hoax using the same people (the MI6
intelligence grouping around Sir Richard Dearlove) and script (an intelligence fraud concerning weapons of mass destruction) which
were used to draw the United States into the disastrous Iraq War. The Skripal poisoning fraud also directly involves British agent
Christopher Steele, the central figure in the ongoing coup against Donald Trump. This time the British information warfare operation
is aimed at directly provoking Russia while maintaining their targeting of the U.S. population and President Trump.
As the fevered war-like media coverage and hysteria surrounding the case makes clear, a certain section of the British elite seems
prepared to risk everything on behalf of their dying imperial system. Despite the hype, economic warfare and sanctions appear to
be the British weapons of choice. Putin, as we shall see,
recently called the West's nuclear bluff. With their Russiagate coup against Donald Trump fizzling, exposing British agent Christopher
Steele and a slew of his American friends to criminal prosecution, a new tool was desperately needed to back the President of the
United States into the British geopolitical corner shared by most of the American establishment. The tool is an intelligence hoax,
a tried and true British product.
According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal who spied for Great Britain
in Russia from the early 1990s until 2004 was poisoned, along with his daughter, on March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve
agent "of a type developed by the former Soviet Union." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap between the United States
and Russia. He had served six years in a Russian prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain for the
last eight years. Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence,
Christopher Steele's British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was
removed from the LinkedIn profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked
directly on the Trump dossier.
Theresa May and her foreign minister Boris Johnson insist there is only one person who could be responsible for the poisoning,
described as an act of war, and that is Vladimir Putin. No evidence has been offered to support this claim. In fact, there is a substantial
doubt whether the putative nerve agent, Novichok, even exists. No plausible motive has been provided as to why Putin would order
such a provocative murder now, ahead of the World Cup, when the Russiagate coup against him in the United States has lost all momentum.
Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which require that evidence
of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead delivered an ultimatum to Russia and whipped
up war fever throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever more aggressive moves against Russia.
Thus, just like Christopher Steele's dirty dossier against Donald Trump, the British claims against Putin are an evidence-free
exercise of raw power. The Anglo- American establishment instructed us, with respect to Steele:
"trust him, ignore the stinky factless content presented in this dossier, just note that he is backed by very important intelligence
agencies who could cook your goose if you object."
The same can be said for Teresa May's crazed assertions now.
A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London
Sunday Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants:
"We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China Such an alliance would dramatically shift
the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts of
robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China Britain needs a new role in the world; building such a network
would be our perfect mission."
Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have
formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China.
As visitors to the LaRouchePAC website know, Russia and China have embarked on a massive infrastructure building project in Eurasia,
the center of all British geopolitical fantasies since the time of Halford MacKinder. Moreover, China's Belt and Road Initiative
now encompasses more than 140 nations in the largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project
is a true economic engine for the future, while neo-liberal economies continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by the
massive mound of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. This debt is now on a hair trigger for implosion. It is
estimated by banking insiders that the City of London is sitting on a derivatives powderkeg of $700 trillion with over-the-counter
derivatives accounting for another $570 trillion. The City of London will bear the major impact of the derivatives collapse.
In this strategic geometry, President Trump's support of peaceful collaboration with Russia during the campaign and his personal
friendship with President Xi, marked him for the relentless coup against him waged by the British and their U.S. friends.
On top of that, President Putin delivered a mammoth strategic shock on March 1, showing new Russian weapons systems based on new
physical principles which render present U.S. ABM systems and much of current U.S. war-fighting doctrine obsolete, together with
the vaunted first strike capacity with which NATO has surrounded Russia. Not only is the West sitting on a new financial collapse;
its vaunted military superiority has just been flanked.
It is very clear that a strategic choice now confronts the human race. In 1984, Lyndon LaRouche wrote a very profound document,
"Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R." In it, he developed the concrete basis for peace between the
two superpowers at the moment when the U.S. had adopted the LaRouche/Reagan doctrine of strategic defense. Both Reagan and LaRouche
had proposed that the Russians and the United States cooperate in building and developing strategic defense against offensive nuclear
weapons based on new physical principles, thereby eliminating the threat of nuclear annihilation.
According to the LaRouche Doctrine,
"The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) the unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation states, and b) cooperation
among sovereign states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits of technological progress,
to the mutual benefit of each and all."
Both China, in President Xi's October Address to the Party Congress, and Russia, in Putin's March 1 address, have set a course
to produce "technological progress capable of being shared in by all," outlining major infrastructure projects and dedicating massive
funding to exploring the frontiers of science, technology, and space exploration. Donald Trump, in both his campaign and his presidency,
has embraced similar views. The British and their American friends, however, are devotees of a completely different and failing economic
system, a system soundly rejected in Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and most recently in the Italian elections.
Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack
dab in the middle of the Skripal poisoning hoax.
The Coup Against Trump Begins to Be Reversed; British Are Exposed as Actual U.S. Election Meddlers
On February 2, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a memo demonstrating that the Obama Justice Department
and FBI committed an outright fraud on the FISA court in obtaining surveillance warrants on Carter Page, a volunteer to Donald Trump's
2016 presidential campaign. The bogus warrant applications relied heavily on the dirty British dossier authored by MI6's "former"
Russian intelligence chief, Christopher Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee,
to paint Donald Trump as a Manchurian candidate, a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
According to the House Intelligence memo and other aspects of its investigation, Steele confided to Bruce Ohr, a high official
in the DOJ, that he, Steele, hated Trump with a passion and would do "anything" to prevent Trump's election. Steele was using the
fact of an FBI investigation of his allegations as part of a "full spectrum" British information warfare campaign conducted against
candidate Trump with the full complicity of Obama's intelligence chiefs. 1
Peter Van Buren, "Christopher Steele: The Real Foreign Influence in the 2016 U.S. Election?" American Conservative, February
15, 2018. None of the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ applications about Carter Page were
revealed to the FISA Court in the filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, or
current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The House Intelligence Committee memo was quickly followed by a declassified letter on February 5, in which Senators Chuck Grassley
and Lindsay Graham referred Christopher Steele to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution based on false statements he
made to the FBI about his contacts with the news media. No doubt the criminal referral sent chills down the spines not only of Christopher
Steele and his British colleagues but also of those Obama officials conspiring against Trump.
In the same week, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes announced that he would be conducting investigations of the role of
the Obama State Department and intelligence chiefs in the circulation and use of Christopher Steele's dirty dossier. These investigations
have been widely reported to focus on John Brennan and James Clapper: Brennan for widely promoting the dirty British work product
and Clapper for leaks associated with BuzzFeed's publication and legitimization of the dirty British work product. Remind yourself
every time you hear media explosions against Trump by either Clapper (Congressional perjurer and proponent of the theory that the
Russians are genetically predisposed to screw the United States) or Brennan (gopher for George Tenet's perpetual war and torture
regime and Grand Inquisitor for Barack Obama's serial assassinations by baseball card). They are next in the barrel, so to speak.
The January 11, 2017 BuzzFeed publication of the Steele dossier was meant to permanently poison Trump's incoming administration
and is the subject of libel suits in both Florida and London. In the London case, the British are ready to invoke the Official Secrets
Act to protect Christopher Steele. In the Florida case, Steele has been ordered to sit for deposition despite numerous delays and
stalling tactics.
The Congressional investigation of the State Department is focused on John Kerry, Kerry's aide Jonathan Winer, Victoria Nuland,
and Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Nuland utilized Christopher Steele as a primary intelligence source while running the U.S. regime
change operations in Ukraine in alliance with neo-Nazis. She greenlighted Steele's initial meetings with the FBI about Donald Trump.
Winer deployed himself to vouch for Steele with various news publications collaborating with British agent Steele and his U.S. employer,
Fusion GPS, in Steele's media warfare operations against Trump.
On March 12, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it had completed its Russia investigation. It stated that it found
"no collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." Its draft final report was to have been
provided to the Democrats on the Committee on March 13 for comment and then submitted to declassification review.
On March 15, four U.S. Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and
Thom Tillis, called for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ and FBI with respect to the Russiagate investigation.
They particularly focused on the use of the Steele dossier, FISA abuse, the disclosure of classified information to the press, and
the criminal investigation and case of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Separately, House Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte have asked the Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel on similar grounds.
On March 16, James Comey's Deputy FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, was fired as the result of recommendations by the FBI's Office
of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The OPR recommendation resulted from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's
investigation of McCabe's actions with respect to the Clinton email investigation and the Clinton Foundation. McCabe claimed that
this was part of a plot against himself, Comey, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Michael Horowitz, however, is an actual Washington
straight shooter appointed to his post by Barack Obama. The OPR is the FBI's own disciplinary agency. Horowitz's report is expected
to be extremely critical of McCabe, citing a "lack of candor," (i.e., lying) with respect to the investigation. Whatever the corrupt
media might claim, the facts here have been thoroughly investigated by McCabe's former FBI subordinates. They think his lies and
other actions disgrace the FBI and don't entitle him to a pension.
Horowitz's report on the Clinton investigations, which already unearthed the texts between former Russiagate lead case agent Peter
Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, proclaiming their hatred of Donald Trump and the need for an "insurance policy" against
his election, is expected to be released very soon. According to the House Intelligence Committee, the Strzok/Page texts also reveal
that Strzok was a close friend of U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras. Contreras sits on the FISA court, took Michael Flynn's
guilty plea, and then promptly recused himself from Michael Flynn's case for reasons which remain undisclosed.
Despite its exoneration of the President, and thorough discrediting of the British Steele operation, the House Intelligence Committee
dangerously accepts the myth that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee, the DCCC, and the emails of Clinton Campaign
Chairman John Podesta, and then provided the hacked information to WikiLeaks for publication. It states, however, that Putin's intervention
was not in support of Donald Trump, as previously claimed by Obama's intelligence chiefs. The Senators seeking a new Special Counsel
also salute this dangerous fraud.
As we have previously reported, the myth that Putin hacked the Democrats and provided the hacked emails to WikiLeaks, has been
substantively refuted by the investigations of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. In summary, the evidence points
to a leak rather than a hack in the case of the DNC. Further, the NSA would have the evidence of any such hack or hacks, according
to former NSA technical director Bill Binney, and would have provided it, even if in a classified setting. It is clear that the NSA
has no such evidence. It is also clear that the U.S. and the British have cyber warfare capabilities fully capable of creating "false
flag" cyber war incidents.
North Korea Talks Planned; Russia and China Continue to Create the Conditions for a New Human Renaissance
In addition to the fizzling of the coup, the Western elites otherwise suffered through February and March. To the shock of the
entire smug Davos crowd, Donald Trump, working with Russia, China, and South Korea, appears to have gotten Kim Jong-un to the negotiating
table concerning denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Substantive talks have been scheduled for May. The breakthrough was announced
by President Trump and South Korea on March 8.
On March 1, President Putin gave his historic two-hour address to the Russian assembly and the Russian people. Like President
Xi's address to the Chinese Party Congress in October of 2017, Putin focused on the goal of deeply reducing poverty in Russian society.
Xi vowed in October to eliminate it from Chinese society altogether. In addition, Putin emphasized that Russia would undertake a
huge city-building project across its vast rural frontiers and dramatically expand its modern infrastructure, including Russia's
digital infrastructure. He put major emphasis on directing funds to basic scientific and technological progress. He emphasized that
harnessing and stimulating the creative powers of individual human beings was the true driver of all economic progress. Those knowledgeable
in the West could not help but recognize the suppressed formulas for continuing economic prosperity advocated by Alexander Hamilton
and advanced by Lyndon LaRouche.
China's Belt and Road Initiative also continued to advance. Great infrastructure projects are popping up throughout the world,
including most specifically in Africa, which had been consigned to be a permanent primitive looting ground for Western interests.
Among the recent breakthroughs is the great project to refurbish Lake Chad, a project known as "Transaqua," involving the Italian
engineering firm Bonifica, the Chinese engineering and construction firm PowerChina, and the Lake Chad Basin Commission, which represents
the African countries directly benefiting from the project.
But the biggest strategic news of the last six weeks was contained in the last part of President Putin's speech. He showed various
weapons, developed by Russian scientists in the wake of the U.S. abrogation of the ABM treaty and the Anglo-American campaign of
color revolutions and NATO base-building in the former Soviet bloc. The weapons, based on new physical principles, render U.S. ABM
defenses obsolete, together with many utopian U.S. war fighting doctrines developed under the reigns of Obama and Bush. Putin emphasized
that the economic and "defense" aspects of his speech were not separate. Rather, the scientific breakthroughs were based on an in-depth
economic mobilization of the physical economy. He stressed that Russia's survival was dependent upon marshaling continuous creative
breakthroughs in basic science and the high technology spinoffs which result, and their propagation through the entire population.
He stressed that such breakthroughs are the product of providing an actually human existence to the entire society.
Compare what Russia and China have set out to accomplish with the physical economy of the earth, and the second and third paragraphs
of Lyndon LaRouche's prescription for a durable peace in the LaRouche Doctrine:
"The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic,
and political relations between dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as 'developing nations.'
Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace
on this planet.
"Insofar as the United States and the Soviet Union acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the
planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a common
interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of a durable peace
between those two powers."
This is the perspective which has the British terrified and acting out, insanely. Were Trump, Putin, and Xi to enter into negotiations
based on the LaRouche Doctrine, a breakthrough will have occurred for all of mankind, a breakthrough to a permanent and durable peace.
No neo-liberal, post-industrial, unipolar order can match this, no matter how much Mr. Heath, Ms. May, or Boris Johnson rant and
rave about it.
Christopher Steele's British Playground
As is well known by now, Christopher Steele was a long time MI6 agent before "retiring" to form his own extremely lucrative private
intelligence firm. The firm is said to have earned $200 million since its formation. Steele was an MI6 agent in Moscow around the
time Skripal was recruited. He also later ran the MI6 Russia desk and would have known everything there was to know about Skripal.
Pablo Miller, who recruited Skripal, according to his LinkedIn profile, worked for Steele's firm and lived in the same town as Skripal.
Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf. The
campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding and
Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation. A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker , as implausible as it
is long, has been foisted on the public for the same reason. There are some fascinating facts, however, in all this fawning prose:
Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing research and reports to competing and feuding Russian oligarchs,
many of whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover for intelligence operations. It is also a very
violent theater of operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations and Russian organized crime. They engage
in deadly gang warfare.
Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous "sexing
up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, creating the rationale for the disastrous and
genocidal Iraq War.
Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time frame
in which this black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. According to Jane Mayer's account, Steele called this Project
Charlemagne, completing his report in April, 2016, just before he undertook his hit job against Donald Trump. In his report, Steele
claimed that Russia was interfering in the politics of France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Turkey. He claimed that Russia
was conducting social media warfare aimed at "inflaming fear and prejudice and had provided opaque financial support to favored politicians."
He specifically targeted Silvio Berlusconi and Marine La Pen. Steele also suggested that Russian aid was given to "lesser known right
wing nationalists" in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, implying that the Russians were behind Brexit, with an overall goal of destroying
the European Union.
Aside from Skripal's relationship to the central figure in the British led coup against Donald Trump, there are questions whether
the nerve agent the British claim was used on the Skripals even exists, and even more troubling questions for Theresa May's "Russia
did it" claim, if it does.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray reports that the British chemical weapons laboratory at Porton Down, just 8 miles from
where the Skripals were found, is unsure about what substance, if any, was actually involved in the Skripal poisoning. According
to Murray's sources at Porton Down, the scientists were pressured to say that it was a nerve agent of a "type developed by Russia."
This is supposed to refer to a whole family of chemical weapons, the Novichoks, which were supposedly produced in the 1980s in a
Soviet laboratory in Uzbekistan. This production facility was completely dismantled by the United States, according to multiple accounts.
Dr. Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at Porton Down as of 2016, and a colleague of the murdered British Iraq War dissident
David Kelly, called the existence of Novichoks speculative, noting that "no independent confirmation of the structures or the properties
of such compounds has been published."
The main account supporting the existence of the chemical weapons cited by Theresa May was written by a Soviet dissident chemist
named Vil Mirzayanov who now lives in the United States and published a book about his work at the Uzbekistan laboratory. In his
much-publicized book, Mirzayanov sets out the formulas for the claimed substances. According to the Wall Street Journal of March
16, that publicity led to Novichok's chemical structure being leaked, making it readily available for reproduction elsewhere. Ralf
Trapp, a France-based consultant and expert on the control of chemical and biological weapons, told the Journal,
"The chemical formula has been publicized and we know from publications from
then-Czechoslovakia that they had worked on similar agents for defense in the 1980s . I'm sure other countries with developed programs
would have as well."
But it does not seem that those "other countries" include Russia. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the
independent agency charged by treaty with investigating claims like those just made by the British government, certified in September
of 2017 that the Russian government had destroyed its entire chemical weapons program, inclusive of its nerve agent production capabilities.
In addition to Mirzayanov, Seamus Martin, writing in the Irish Times of March 14, posits, based on personal knowledge, that Novichoks
were widely expropriated by East Bloc oligarchs and criminal elements in the Russian economic chaos of the 1990s.
Thus, Novichoks are the product of the mind of a dissident Russian chemist living in the United States whose formulas have been
widely copied by other countries, according to the press accounts. Porton Downs, the very laboratory now asserting their existence,
stated as of 2016 that even this published "fact" was to be substantially doubted.
Further trouble for May's attempted hoax is found in the condition of the Skripals and a police officer who went to their home.
All were made critically ill, although they are still alive. Yet emergency personnel who treated the Skripals, allegedly the victims
of a deadly and absolutely lethal nerve poison, suffered no ill effects whatsoever.
The Skripal poisoning is being compared in the British press to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The former KGB
and FSB officer was granted asylum in London and worked for the infamous anti-Putin British intelligence directed oligarch Boris
Berezovsky in information warfare and other attacks on the Russian state, inclusive of McCarthyite accusations against any European
politician seeking sane relations with Putin.
Litvinenko's case officer was none other than Christopher Steele, and Christopher Steele conducted MI6's investigation of the
case, which, of course, found Putin himself culpable. Berezovsky's use of the disgraced British PR firm Bell, Pottinger is also credited
with a significant role in public acceptance of this result. Berezovsky was a prime suspect in organizing the murder of American
journalist Paul Klebnikov. Many believe that Berezovsky arranged Litvinenko's demise. Berezovsky himself died in Britain in mysterious
circumstances following the loss of a major court case to another Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich.
In the parliamentary debate in which Theresa May issued her provocation, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn cautioned against a rush
to judgment and pointed to the bloody playing field of Russian oligarchs and Russian organized crime as alternative areas for investigation.
Had Corbyn added to that mix, "Western intelligence agencies," he would have been entirely on the right track. Corbyn also pointed
out that these oligarchs had contributed millions to May's Conservative party. The reaction by the British media, May's conservatives,
and Tony Blair's faction of the Labor Party was to paint Corbyn as a Putin dupe, including photo-shopped images of the Labor leader
in a Russian winter hat in front of the Kremlin widely circulated in the news media.
The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want
to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the
British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs who service each other, acting on behalf of British strategic
objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the entire world
in peril, absolutely intersect one another.
"... "Now a new Cold War might be different in many respects than the old one. First of all, a very different balance of forces. Second, the absence of an attractive international ideology on the Russian side. Third, obviously, Russia is much more exposed to the West than during the original Cold War, but also, fewer rules and, I think, perhaps more emotions on both sides and increasingly hostile emotions on both sides." ..."
"... While many in Washington believe that Russia would fold if the United States stood up to the Kremlin, the recent Russian presidential elections on March 18 seem to show that Russian president Vladimir Putin has a much stronger mandate than many Western observers might have expected. As Beebe -- former head of the Central Intelligence Agency's Russia desk -- noted, Putin performed much better in the Russian elections than analysts expected. ..."
"... Part of the reason that Putin did so well was because of the alleged Russian attack on Skripal, since the Russian population generally does not believe that their government was involved. ..."
"... Indeed, Russian liberals faired exceedingly poorly in the elections at least in part because of the "rally around the flag" effect, Beebe said. ..."
"... The idea that Russia is under siege by hostile foreign powers greatly contributed to high voter turnout in the Russian elections and for far greater support for Putin himself. ..."
"I don't think many of us would question that we do face a new Cold War," Dimitri Simes,
Center for the National Interest president and chief executive officer, said during a lunchtime
panel on March 26.
"Now a new Cold War might be different in many respects than the old one. First of
all, a very different balance of forces. Second, the absence of an attractive international
ideology on the Russian side. Third, obviously, Russia is much more exposed to the West than
during the original Cold War, but also, fewer rules and, I think, perhaps more emotions on
both sides and increasingly hostile emotions on both sides."
The Possibility of a Conflict
Simes, who recently returned from a trip to Russia, said that while the Kremlin is held in
low regard by Washington, those feeling are mirrored in Moscow. Indeed, tensions between the
two nuclear-armed great powers are so high that analysts are openly wondering if there could be
some sort of military confrontation between Washington and Moscow.
... ... ...
Putin is in a Strong Position
While many in Washington believe that Russia would fold if the United States stood up to
the Kremlin, the recent Russian presidential elections on March 18 seem to show that Russian
president Vladimir Putin has a much stronger mandate than many Western observers might have
expected. As Beebe -- former head of the Central Intelligence Agency's Russia desk -- noted,
Putin performed much better in the Russian elections than analysts expected.
... ... ...
Simes noted that Putin performed better than expected with parts of the Russian electorate
where he traditionally has not fared well, such as in Moscow and with Russians living abroad.
Part of the reason that Putin did so well was because of the alleged Russian attack on
Skripal, since the Russian population generally does not believe that their government was
involved.
Indeed, Russian liberals faired exceedingly poorly in the elections at least in part
because of the "rally around the flag" effect, Beebe said. Beebe noted that part of the
issue is that neither the United States or Britain has presented concrete evidence that Russia
conducted the attack. The information that is publicly available is cause for a high degree of
suspicion that Russia was behind the attack, Beebe said, however, it is not evidence in and of
itself.
The idea that Russia is under siege by hostile foreign powers greatly contributed to
high voter turnout in the Russian elections and for far greater support for Putin himself.
"I was at a postelection party for journalists where a lot of opposition people, candidates,
their surrogates were present, and they were all saying, 'We lost a lot of voters during the
last days before the election because of this British incident,'" Simes said.
"... The mass expulsion of Russian diplomats by some countries of the European Union and North America on Monday is an unprecedented and intriguing development. ..."
"... Is it a massive diversionary tactic by the White House the day after porn star Stormy Daniels took Trump's pants off in her TV interview on '60 Minutes' ? Or, is this yet another attempt by Trump to flaunt that he isn't 'soft' on Russia? Or, is it the Deep State in action – as the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle might well suggest? There are no easy answers. ..."
"... THE SKRIPAL AFFAIR ..."
"... 30 Questions That Journalists Should Be Asking About the Skripal Case .) ..."
"... To my mind, this entire controversy snowballed into a litmus test of the Euro-Atlantic partnership – in particular, the US' trans-Atlantic leadership – at a defining moment when Britain is giving up EU membership. ..."
"... "The only question is whether the confrontation will dissipate, as it did over Agadir in 1911, or whether this is the Sarajevo slow-burning crisis that could explode into flame at some later point. ..."
"... Will it be another case of the sinking of the Maine in 1898, where the subsequent public hysteria provoked war against Spain only to be discovered later that the ship's ammunition stores had accidentally exploded; or a Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which was also a false flag operation but provoked the escalation of the Vietnam War. ..."
"... The West may be 'uniting' against Russia, as The Times ..."
The
mass expulsion of Russian diplomats by some countries of the European Union and North America on Monday is an unprecedented and
intriguing development. First, the US alone accounts for some two-thirds of the expulsion – 60 diplomats. Curiously, even Britain,
which is apparently the aggrieved party in the Skripal affair, expelled less than half that number – 23. Broadly, however, this is
an Anglo-American move with which a number of EU countries and Canada display solidarity.
Second, President Trump is apparently more loyal to Her Majesty in the Buckingham Palace than Prime Minister Theresa May. This
gives an intriguing twist to the tale. Why is there such an excessive interest on the part of Washington, especially at a time when
the fervor of the Anglo-American kinship has significantly dampened during the Trump era? (President Trump is yet to visit the UK.)
Is it a massive diversionary tactic by the White House the day after porn star Stormy Daniels took Trump's pants off in her
TV interview on '60 Minutes' ? Or, is this yet another attempt by Trump to flaunt that he isn't 'soft' on Russia? Or, is it the
Deep State in action – as the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle might well suggest? There are no easy answers.
Third, only less than half the 28 member countries of the EU have signaled support for the Anglo-American campaign over the spy
incident. There is much reluctance or skepticism within the EU about what is going on. Surprisingly, though, Germany, which had voiced
skepticism at an early stage, has now joined the pack. Which probably shows that there has been immense pressure from Washington
and London.
Nonetheless, curiously, the EU countries by and large made only 'token' expulsions. As many as 7 EU countries simply moved on by
expelling one Russian diplomat each. Having said that, the pressure campaign is continuing and the likelihood of more EU countries
joining the expulsion cannot be ruled out. Austria has point-blank refused to join. (So has Turkey, which virtually rules out a NATO
stance, which requires unanimous support from all member countries.)
What is truly extraordinary is that the circumstances surrounding the alleged poisoning an MI6 double agent of Russian extraction
are still shrouded in mystery. The British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn openly cautioned against rushed judgment in
a piece
in the Guardian newspaper, here . By the way, even PM May claims only that it is "highly likely" that there was Russian involvement
(not excluding rogue elements.) Yet, a cardinal principle in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is that no one is deemed guilty unless proven
guilty.
Indeed, a range of explanations is possible as to what really might have happened in Salisbury. Read an excellent analysis by the
respected British scholar on Russia Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent and Associate
Fellow of Chatham House, titled THE SKRIPAL
AFFAIR , here .
Even in America, there are voices of scepticism. An enterprising columnist drew up 30 questions that beg an answer. (See the column
by Bob Slane featured on the website of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, titled
30 Questions That Journalists Should Be Asking About the Skripal Case .)
To my mind, this entire controversy snowballed into a litmus test of the Euro-Atlantic partnership – in particular, the US' trans-Atlantic
leadership – at a defining moment when Britain is giving up EU membership. This is one thing. But, more importantly, does the
build-up portend something far more sinister than one would anticipate? One particular passage from Prof. Sakwa's essay becomes a
chilling reminder about what may be lying in the womb of time:
"The only question is whether the confrontation will dissipate, as it did over Agadir in 1911, or whether this is the Sarajevo
slow-burning crisis that could explode into flame at some later point.
Will it be another case of the sinking of the Maine in 1898,
where the subsequent public hysteria provoked war against Spain only to be discovered later that the ship's ammunition stores had
accidentally exploded; or a Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which was also a false flag operation but provoked the escalation of
the Vietnam War.
The West may be 'uniting' against Russia, as The Times put it on 16 March, but to what purpose."
Trump proved to be a new Obama. change we can believe in. Elections in the USA became
complete farce and neoliberal elite became both danger tot he USA and humality. Imitation of
Perfidious Albion behaviour is a tight rope from fall from which can destroy the country and the
civilization.
One rule that Russia has consistently embraced, however, is the principle of reciprocity,
and the Kremlin made clear on Monday that it would, after assessing the scale of the damage to
its diplomat corps overseas, respond with expulsions of Western diplomats from Russia.
The Russian Parliament also weighed in, with the deputy head of its foreign affairs
committee, Aleksei Chepa, telling the Interfax news agency that Russia would not bow to the
West's diplomatic "war." Russia, he said, "will not allow itself to be beaten up, the harder
they try to intimidate us, the tougher our response will be."
When Britain expelled 23 Russian diplomats this month in response to the nerve agent attack
in Salisbury, England, Moscow not only evicted an equal number of British diplomats, but
ordered the closing of the British Council, an organization that promotes British culture and
language.
... ... ...
Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, posted a message on Facebook
sneering at the European Union for showing solidarity with Britain at a time when London is
negotiating its exit from the bloc. Britain, she wrote, is "exploiting the solidarity factor to
impose on those that are remaining a deterioration in relations with Russia."
While President Trump has expressed a curious affinity with Mr. Putin and raised
expectations of improved relations, the Russian leader has always been more measured. The
underlying mistrust seemed to be reinforced on Monday by Russia's ambassador in Washington,
Anatoly Antonov, who told the Interfax news agency that "what the United States of America is
doing today is destroying whatever little is left in Russian-U.S. relations."
"... None of that proves Russia is innocent. None of this means the US and EU should appease every Russian move or irredentist motive. None of it implies the Russians shouldn't be monitored, balanced, and carefully watched in Europe and the Caucasus. However, before unilaterally escalating an already alarmingly tense situation between NATO and Russia, shouldn't we at least wait until all the evidence is in? ..."
Before all the far-from-indisputable-evidence is even in, the U.S. and European Union
seem intent on escalating tensions and risking conflict with nuclear-armed Russia –
that's politics not prudence!
Why a new
Cold War ? Why now? This morning, Americans awoke to news that the supposedly
Russia-supplicant Trump administration, along with 14 other EU nations, will expel scores
of Russian diplomats. The announcement , which Russia called a
"provocative gesture," and vowed to retaliate against, constitutes the largest collective expulsion of
Russian Intel officers in history.
This very serious action follows on the heels of Russian intelligence's alleged role in
the nerve-agent-attack – which Russia denies – on Sergei Skripal and his
daughter Yulia, on UK soil. Maybe Russia was behind the attack, maybe it wasn't; but, it
seems, we'd want to be sure and have indisputable evidence before embarking on what
the Russian foreign ministry correctly labeled "a confrontational
path."
More alarmingly, Russia's neighbors, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania,
withdrew their ambassadors from Moscow on Monday – a move all but tantamount to
breaking off diplomatic relations. With US and NATO troops now forward deployed
in these former Warsaw Pact states, Russian and US military personnel staring each other down
across the Euphrates River, and US airstrikes having recently
killed scores of Russian mercenaries in Syria, are we now on a path to Cold (or Hot!)
War?
Look, maybe Russia is behind these attacks, maybe all the MSNBC-Russia-Gate-Hysteria is
all justified. But isn't this hasty, serious action a bit premature? Don't we want
to be sure? As for the 2016 elections, Mueller's investigation in not yet complete and when
it comes to "collusion" there's plenty of smoke, maybe, but very little fire. As for the UK
poisoning attack, despite Britain's consistent, confident allegations of Russian guilt, the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) won't even have the substance
test results back for some 2-3
weeks .
It seems likely that rather than prudently, patiently (you know diplomatically!) waiting
for definitive, corroborating chemical and intelligence evidence before further escalating
tensions with the Russian bear, what we're seeing is President Trump's team making a
political move. Embattled and scandal-
ridden – who else saw 60 Minutes last night – this administration
likely feels compelled to take some drastic action to prove (again) that
they're not in cahoots with Putin. Is that any way to run foreign policy? Well, it is, in
this era of hyper-partisan, role-swapping (wait the Dems are Russia hawks now?!?), battle
stations politicization!
I watch the news (CNN and MSNBC are the worst culprits) enough to know that it is
currently all-Russia, all the time. The American public is led to believe, by those
outside, and in some cases – like the National Defense Strategy
(NDS) – inside, the administration, that Russia is a born again Soviet Union and
Putin the new Stalin incarnate. The Russkies are out for world domination again, a
"revisionist power" as the NDS labels them. Hold on though; take a breath. Is that actually
true?
As I've written in these
pages , the threat and supposedly malign intentions of Russia and China have
been highly inflated by hawks on both sides of the political aisle. In fact, Russia has
recently announced
plans to cut military spending over the next five years. As it stands, Russia is
in many ways punching above its weight to begin with. With an economy comparable in
size to
that of Spain or Italy, military spending just a fraction of the US, and facing a
demographic "perfect
storm" of high mortality and low fertility, Russia has neither the means nor motivation
to conquer Central Europe.
The United States, on the other hand, spends more on its military than
the next several nations – China, Russia, India, Germany, Saudi Arabia, the UK, Japan
and France – combined. Furthermore, a
majority of the recent $1.3 trillion US omnibus spending bill goes straight to the
warfare (welfare) state – the military and VA. Who exactly holds the aggressive cards
here?
None of that proves Russia is innocent. None of this means the US and EU should
appease every Russian move or irredentist motive. None of it implies the Russians shouldn't
be monitored, balanced, and carefully watched in Europe and the Caucasus. However, before
unilaterally escalating an already alarmingly tense situation between NATO and Russia,
shouldn't we at least wait until all the evidence is in?
Prudence not politics should be the name of the game.
Major Danny Sjursen, a regular AntiWar.com contributor, is a U.S. Army officer and
former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq
and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,Ghost Riders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and
four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at@SkepticalVetand check out his new podcast"Fortress
on a Hill,"co-hosted with fellow vet Chris 'Henri' Henrikson.
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in
an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
1
5 0 On Monday, a number of European countries, as well as the United States and Canada,
announced they were expelling Russian diplomats over the Skripal case. Radio Sputnik discussed
the significance of the diplomatic response by the Western powers with Srdja Trifkovic, a US
journalist and writer on international affairs. Sputnik: What is your overall assessment about
what has happened with this diplomatic response by so many countries? How significant is it?
Srdja Trifkovic: The overall impression is that
rational discourse has given way to collective hysteria and that it is indeed remarkable.
The extent to which the bandwagon has successfully started rolling while we don't even have
elementary answers to the questions concerning the case itself.
The second important and discouraging aspect is that continental European countries have
followed the Anglo-American lead in Russophobia and this represents a further trial of the
Atlanticist domination over Europe. It is indeed remarkable when both Germany and France, the
putative leaders of independent European foreign policy, have been reduced to the status of
automatic followers of the lead supported by Washington especially when we bear in mind that
the initial round of sanctions in 2014 against Russia was dictated by the United States which
had nothing to lose in the proceedings and to the detriments of Europeans' interests.
So overall I think that, one we have the hysterical phase of Russophobic
discourse in the West which is not amenable to any rational arguments and two, we have a
successful degradation of European diplomacy to the status of pliant satellites comparable to
East Germany and Bulgaria vis-à-vis Brezhnev.
Sputnik: Do you think there was some classified evidence that was presented that proves
beyond a shadow of doubt that Russia was involved or do you think that the fact that there are
11 countries who have not joined in the protest perhaps hints at the fact that this was not the
case?
Srdja Trifkovic: Well, first of all, I would say that President Putin, Foreign Minister
Lavrov and others would not have made such categorical denials of Russian involvement if there
was any possibility of a smoking gun which could effectively show to the world that they were
not telling the truth.
And secondly, it is always possible to present some equivocal
evidence in the form that even if that indicates the modus operandi of intelligence
agencies nevertheless does not disclose outright state secrets. In fact, we've seen that in the
past and I don't think that it would be possible for such confidential information to be
disclosed to the diplomats and foreign ministers of EU countries as divergent as the 27 are,
without risking these very sources.
So I really believe that if you look at the countries which have taken measures against
Russia, they almost read like who is who of those who are prepared to follow the US lead and if
you look at those reluctant to do so, including Austria, Hungary, Cyprus, Greece, we are
looking at those who actually have a more independent foreign policy. So I don't think it's a
reflection of the quality of possible intelligence, it is simply a reflection of the
determination of decision-makers of those countries to preserve a modicum of independence.
Sputnik: What would you say about the level to which the actions that were actually taken by
individual countries? What can you say about the numbers game that's being played? What do you
think determined the number of diplomats?
Srdja Trifkovic: Some of these countries are absolutely insignificant countries like the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which also expelled one Russian and it's just a pathetic
non country. On the other hand in the United States obviously it is a matter of regret that
President Trump's initially stated intention to have detente with Russia has been subverted by
the deep state, it is a long story but now we have really reached the end of the road with the
appointment of Pompeo to State Department and Bolton as the national security adviser.
So we can really look at Trump as the would-be drainer of the swamp who has been swallowed
by the swamp. And I think that we are in for a long haul. I was in Moscow two weeks ago and
coming again next week and sometimes I am surprised that some of my Russian interlocutors are
insufficiently aware of the animosity or end of the rule Russophobic sentiment that currently
prevails among the Western elites, both political and academic and media. It's almost pathetic
when some Russians still use the term "our Western partners," because for partnership you need
to have a modicum of mutual respect and trust and these people really seriously want to destroy
Russia.
They want to delegitimize the Russian political system and process as we have seen with the
public commentary on President Putin's re-election and they want nothing short of regime
change, which would then lead to a permanent and irreversible change of Russia's national
character and possibly the country's partition along the lines allocated by Zbigniew
Brzezinski. With these people partnership is impossible and Russia needs to be prepared for a
long and sustained
period of confrontation .
The views and opinions expressed by Srdja Trifkovic are those of the speaker and do not
necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
"... "[Sergei Skripal] was handed in to Britain as a result of an exchange. So, why should Russia hand in a man that is of any importance or that is of any value? It's unimaginable. If he's handed in – so Russia quits with him. He's of zero value or zero importance," ..."
"... "America stands ready to help Poland and other European nations diversify their energy supplies so that you can never be held hostage to a single supplier," ..."
"... "If we want to have the United States' LNG supplies in Central Europe, we also want to see the United States getting tough on Nord Stream 2, which means getting tough on Russia," ..."
"... "getting tough on Russia." ..."
"... "The draft law makes clear that they're pursuing economic interests and we think that's not acceptable," ..."
"... "Aggressively combining foreign policy issues with American economic interests and saying: 'We want to drive Russian gas out of the European market so we can sell American gas there is definitely not something we can accept.'" ..."
"... "We are determined to maintain open channels of dialogue with Russia," ..."
Once again, the West has tossed out the democratic baby with the bath water, scapegoating
Russia for a mysterious crime on UK territory without a shred of evidence. To understand why,
just follow the money. Any hope that Western capitals would come to their democratic senses and
demand that PM Theresa May provide some proof that Russia was behind an alleged assassination
attempt on Sergei Skripal, a former Russian intelligence officer turned British spy, were
dashed on Monday. Sixteen EU states fell in lockstep behind the US
and UK, taking the dramatic measure of banishing Russian diplomats.
Breaking: US to expel 48 Russian embassy workers in Washington, D.C. and 12 at the Russian
mission to the U.N. U.S. says they were intel officers using diplo status as cover.
pic.twitter.com/mRuwY8Tes6
Meanwhile, back in the land of the free, Trump enthusiastically joined the inquisition,
saying he would expel 60 Russian diplomats 'personae non grata,' and shut down the Seattle
consulate. Good to see that the American leader practices cool-headed moderation in times of
uncertainty.
Short of an actual military conflict with Russia, it would be hard to imagine the situation
getting any worse. Most worrisome is the peddling of pulp-fiction conspiracy theories against
Russia, which compels Western officials to compensate for their wild imaginations with
hysterical, inflammatory outbursts that border on sheer madness.
How else to explain the comment by UK Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson, who spoke like a
kid at the playground when he said Russia "should go away
and shut up;" or that of Boris Johnson, the British foreign minister, who had the audacity
and historical ignorance to compare Russia's hosting
of this year's World Cup to the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany.
So, what is motivating self-satisfied Western countries, like the US and Britain, to forward
such slanderous claims against Russia without a hint of legal due process? After all, it cannot
be denied that Russia would have stood to gain nothing from targeting Skripal.
"[Sergei Skripal] was handed in to Britain as a result of an exchange. So, why should
Russia hand in a man that is of any importance or that is of any value? It's unimaginable. If
he's handed in – so Russia quits with him. He's of zero value or zero importance,"
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in an exclusive
interview with RT.
When we ask the question, 'Cui bono' – who stands to benefit the most from an
assassination attempt on a man of absolutely no consequence to Moscow – the most credible
answer always comes back to 'Russia's accusers.'
Follow the money
Since Washington has taken by far the severest steps against Russia over the Skripal
fallout, it would be fair to ask if the US stands to gain anything from the wave of Russophobia
now sweeping the West, which got its start, incidentally, as a direct result of
'Russiagate.'
Against the backdrop of the Skripal scandal are extremely lucrative gas contracts with EU
countries that Russia has dutifully fulfilled since the Soviet heydays. Today, Russia supplies
about 40 percent of Europe's gas. The US, however, with its fracking-backed liquefied natural
gas (LNG) program, is anxious to get a piece of the pie.
In July, Donald Trump paid a visit to Poland, where he pledged to boost exports of LNG to
Central Europe, as well as challenge Russia's market on energy supplies.
"America stands ready to help Poland and other European nations diversify their energy
supplies so that you can never be held hostage to a single supplier," Trump told
reporters after talks with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
The comment was odd since, even at the height of the Cold War, Europe never froze due to its
gas being turned off in the middle of the night by Moscow.
Marek Matraszek, founder of the lobby firm CEC Government Relations, offered a very
disturbing comment about Washington's push to supply LNG to Europe.
"If we want to have the United States' LNG supplies in Central Europe, we also want to
see the United States getting tough on Nord Stream 2, which means getting tough on
Russia," Matraszek said
.
I am very curious to know exactly what Matraszek had in mind when he spoke about
"getting tough on Russia." Would he approve of the current bilateral breakdown between
the nuclear powers? I certainly hope not.
In light of the massive prospects for gross profit on the European continent, would Western
capitals not be tempted – tempted, at the very least – to deny Moscow the benefit
of the doubt whenever highly suspicious criminal cases arise, like the present one regarding
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia?
In an effort to slander Russia and push it out of lucrative markets, they may be tempted to
milk the situation for all its worth – which is exactly what is happening now. To doubt
that possibility would require a deep misunderstanding of the geopolitical realities as they
have played out over the course of the last decade, complete with a massive propaganda campaign
aimed at everything related to Russia – from the Olympic Games to anti-terrorist
operations in Syria to criminal cases in
foreign lands.
Meanwhile, as the showdown between the US and Russia over EU gas supplies festers,
especially in light of Nord Stream 2, the German-Russia venture that would double direct Russia
gas supplies, the ongoing US sanction regime against Russia is beginning to look suspect.
Commenting on Trump's passage in August of brand new sanctions against Russia, then German
Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel was brave enough to mention the elephant in the room.
"The draft law makes clear that they're pursuing economic interests and we think that's
not acceptable," he
said .
"Aggressively combining foreign policy issues with American economic interests and
saying: 'We want to drive Russian gas out of the European market so we can sell American gas
there is definitely not something we can accept.'"
Meanwhile, it is not only in the energy sector where the United States - and to a lesser
degree the UK - stands to gain from wrecked relations with Russia, but in the defense sector as
well.
The UK regularly
ranks as Europe's leading weapons exporter, behind the United States globally, which
remains the world's leading arms exporter. Much of the expenditure comes from NATO member
states, which were just put on notice by Trump to keep their military spending at 2 percent of
GDP, at the very same time Washington was going out of its way to portray
Russia as a belligerent nation, when it has been the West that has been hell-bent on fomenting
regime change around the world. Now that's certainly an interesting sales strategy.
Romanian Prime Minister @VioricaDancila said that the
government decisions to purchase #HIMARS missile
systems and multirole corvettes were important steps in improving the capability of the
Romanian armed forces as a @NATO and EU member #defencepic.twitter.com/EEYk4Sk5MR
Can this propaganda campaign against Russia work? I believe the answer is no, for many
reasons. First, it is not just the Russians who understand that they are being played by major
powers in a conspicuous attempt to gain geopolitical and economic advantage.
Thus far, nearly half of the EU's member states have refrained from
committing a gesture of "solidarity" with London, deciding not to expel Russian diplomats.
Those 'conscientious objectors' are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Luxembourg,
Malta, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.
"We are determined to maintain open channels of dialogue with Russia," Austrian
government spokesperson Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal told RIA Novosti.
In many ways, this represents a victory for Russia – albeit a bittersweet one –
that London failed to get so many countries on board its anti-Russia juggernaut.
This needs to be emphasized. The majority of the EU countries did not join in this mass
expulsion. As for those that did, expulsions were mostly pro forma, undertaken in order to
keep the British happy. Why then the wildly disproportionate response from Trump? https://t.co/4FldvIS80W
Second, Russia is actively diversifying its economy away from Western markets in preparation
for a worse-case scenario. For example, the "$55bn Power of Siberia pipeline will start
carrying gas 3,000km to China next year. The company is also spending $13bn on a pipeline to
Turkey," the Financial Times reported.
Finally, as Russia understands that they are up against some very dishonest players, the
country has made tremendous inroads to producing many of the things it once depended upon
imports to have, and we are not just talking about cheese. The Russian authorities have even
prepared a backup plan in the
event that Russia is terminated from the SWIFT international payment system. Although, of
course, Russia would prefer not to have to take such drastic steps, the unfortunate situation
in many Western capitals, where otherwise intelligent people are pointing fingers and hurling
unfounded accusations at Russia, without critical evidence or due process – once
hallmarks of the Western judicial system – make such steps absolutely vital.
All things considered, Russia will survive this storm, as it has done so many other times in
the past against far graver enemies, and stronger than ever.
You will gain a better understanding of Vladimir Putin if you study his career as a
sportsman, 3rd degree blackbelt Judoka than by sifting through his career as an ex-spy.
First of all, Judo is a sport. It's not a "martial art". It's not meant to maim or
injure–though of course, people do get injured because they get thrown. Every
particular technique that could inevitably result in injury has been culled from the sport.
You don't "practice" Judo, you "play" it–literally, that's what they say when talking
about participation.
Practice sessions are democratic. Everyone practices against everyone else. Of course,
this results in mismatches as rank beginners will at some point be paired up with advanced
players. But this mismatch doesn't result in humiliation because the advanced take special
pains to play cleanly, pull their throws i.e. execute them perfectly so the person thrown can
land without injury to themselves and it also is an opportunity for every good Judoka to
teach the novices.
There are some people who come to Judo who don't fit in. They standout because they can be
seen really playing rough with those who are lower in rank than them. But this doesn't go
unnoticed. As people cycle through opponents during the practice session, the bully will
eventually be paired up with someone who is better than they are. And they will be taught a
lesson. Either they learn and conform to the rules or they never show up again. Judo weeds
out opportunistic bullies.
Now I hope the above helps people better understand Putin. To sum up: he is competitive
but will try to win fairly, within the prescribed rules. He won't tolerate bullying by the
stronger over the weaker, will, in fact, come to the aid of the weaker. Has a strong sense of
tradition, of belonging to a school of thought and action that is greater than himself and
that is worth preserving for its own sake, believes and more importantly, knows through
experience, that belonging to such a school improves individual character. He is competent.
I've seen film of him in practice and his technique is quite good. His third degree black
belt was honestly earned, it wasn't an honorary award.
From the above it can be seen why he would have little respect for the current crop of
weak, cowardly, politicians who rule America, lacking as they are in discipline, integrity
and dedication to a larger, noble cause. He would, in fact, find it hard not to hold them in
contempt but, keeping his eyes on the long-term goals of what's good for his country, masters
his emotions when dealing with them face to face.
The "60 Minutes" broadcast on Sunday night, devoted to rehashing allegations of sexual
impropriety and bullying against Donald Trump, marked a new level of degradation for the US
political system. For nearly half an hour, an audience of 23 million people tuned in to a
discussion of a brief sexual encounter between Trump and adult film star Stormy Daniels
(Stephanie Clifford) in 2006.
Trump was then a near-bankrupt real estate and casino mogul, best known for reinventing
himself as a television personality. By her account, the proffer of a possible guest appearance
on Celebrity Apprentice was the only attraction the 60-year-old Trump had for Daniels,
then 27. Trump made promises, but as usual did not deliver.
Earlier in the week, the same interviewer, Anderson Cooper, appearing on CNN instead of CBS,
held an hour-long discussion with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy magazine
centerfold, who described a year-long relationship with Trump, also in 2006, the year after his
marriage to Melania Knauss.
White House officials flatly denied both accounts, but Trump himself has been conspicuously
and unusually silent, even on Twitter. His lawyers filed papers with a Los Angeles court, in
advance of the "60 Minutes" broadcast, claiming that Daniels was in violation of a
confidentiality agreement and could be liable for damages of up to $20 million.
Last Tuesday, a New York state judge turned down a motion by lawyers acting for Trump and
refused to dismiss the lawsuit for defamation brought against him by Summer Zervos, a former
contestant on another Trump "reality" show, The Apprentice . One of nearly a dozen
women who made public charges of sexual harassment against Trump during the final weeks of the
2016 campaign, Zervos alone has sued Trump over his repeated public claims that the women were
all liars.
There is little doubt that the accounts by Zervos, McDougal and Daniels are substantially
true. Trump has already demonstrated this by attempting to suppress their stories, either
through legal action or by purchasing their silence, directly or indirectly. A Trump ally,
David Pecker, owner of the National Enquirer tabloid, bought the rights to McDougal's
account of her relationship with Trump in 2016 for $150,000, in order not to publish it.
Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admitted last month that he had paid $130,000 to
Daniels in October 2016, only weeks before the election, to guarantee her silence.
The bullying tactics of Cohen and other Trump allies add credibility to the claim by
Daniels, during her "60 Minutes" interview, that a thug, presumably sent by Cohen, had
threatened her with violence in 2011, when she first sought to sell her story about Trump to
the media. Daniels offered no evidence to back her claim, but her attorney Michael Avenatti
dropped broad hints that Daniels would be able to corroborate much of her account.
Cohen may himself face some legal jeopardy due to his public declaration that he paid
Daniels out of his own funds. Given the proximity of the payment to the election, this could
well be construed as a cash contribution to the Trump campaign far beyond the $3,500 legal
limit for an individual.
The Zervos suit, however, may present the most immediate legal threat, since the next step,
after New York Supreme Court Justice Jennifer G. Schecter rejected Trump's claim that he has
presidential immunity, is to take discovery. In other words, Trump and his closest aides could
be required to give sworn depositions about his actions in relation to Zervos and many of the
other women.
Justice Schecter cited the precedent of the Paula Jones case against President Bill Clinton,
in which the US Supreme Court held that a US president had no immunity from lawsuits over his
private actions. While cloaked in democratic rhetoric at the time ("No one is above the law"),
that decision actually gave a green light to an anti-democratic conspiracy by ultra-right
forces who used the Jones lawsuit to trap Clinton into lying about his relationship with Monica
Lewinsky.
Unlike the 1998-1999 conflict over impeachment, there is no issue of democratic rights
involved in the sexual allegations against Trump. Some of the same legal tactics (using sworn
depositions to set a perjury trap), are being employed as weapons in an increasingly bitter
conflict within the US ruling elite, in which both factions are equally reactionary.
Trump is a representative of the underworld of real estate, casino gambling and reality
television, elevated to the presidency because he had the good fortune to run against a deeply
unpopular and reactionary shill for Wall Street and the military-intelligence agencies, Hillary
Clinton. Under conditions of mounting discontent among working people with the Democratic
Party, after eight years of the Obama administration, Trump was able to eke out a narrow
victory in the Electoral College.
The Democratic "opposition" to Trump is focused not on his vicious attacks on immigrants,
his promotion of racist and neo-fascist elements, his deregulation of business and passage of
the biggest tax cut for the wealthy in decades, or his increasingly violent and unhinged
foreign policy pronouncements. The Democrats have sought to attack Trump from the right,
particularly on the question of US-Russian relations, making use of the investigation into
alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections, headed by former FBI Director Robert
Mueller.
Trump has sought to mollify his critics within the US national security establishment with
measures such as a more aggressive US intervention in Syria, the elevation of Gina Haspel, the
CIA's chief torturer, to head the agency, and, most recently, the expulsion of dozens of
Russian diplomats as part a NATO-wide campaign aimed at whipping up a war fever against
Moscow.
As Trump has made concessions on foreign policy, his opponents have shifted their ground,
attacking his behavior towards women. They have sought to link these exposures with the broader
#MeToo campaign, which is aimed at creating a witch-hunt atmosphere in Hollywood, the US
political system, and more generally throughout American society, in which gender issues are
brought forward to conceal and suppress more fundamental class questions.
In both the Russia investigation and now the allegations of sexual misconduct, the Democrats
have sought to hide their real political agenda, which is just as reactionary and dangerous as
that of Trump and the Republicans. While Trump is pushing towards war with North Korea or Iran,
and behind them China, the Democrats and their allies in the national security apparatus seek
to maintain the focus on Russia that was developed during the second term of the Obama
administration, particularly in Syria, Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a whole, posing the danger
of a war between the world's two main nuclear powers.
Beyond the immediate foreign policy issues, the whipping up of sexual scandals is invariably
a hallmark of reactionary politics. Such methods appeal to social backwardness, Puritanical
prejudices or prurient interest. They contribute nothing to the political education of working
people and youth, who must come to understand the fundamental class forces underlying all
political phenomena. The political basis for a struggle against Trump is not in designating him
as a sexual predator, but in understanding his class role as a front man for the American
financial oligarchy, which treats the entire working class, including the female half, as
objects of exploitation.
What is interesting is a strong Brennan connections with UK and his possiblke role in Steel dossier creation and propogation. Which actually were typical for
many members of Trump administration. He also has connections with Saudi intelligence services
Notable quotes:
"... So Morell is by his own words clearly an idiot, which explains a lot about what is wrong with CIA and is probably why he is now a consultant with CBS News instead of serving as Agency Director under the beneficent gaze of President Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Back in 2013 John Brennan, then Obama's counter-terrorism advisor, had a difficult time with the Senate Intelligence Committee explaining some things that he did when he was still working at CIA. ..."
"... He claimed that he had only "raised serious questions" in his own mind on the interrogation issue after reading the 525 page summary of the 6,000 page report prepared by the Senate Intelligence Committee which detailed the failure of the Agency program. Brennan's reaction, however, suggested at a minimum that he had read only the rebuttal material produced by CIA that had deliberately inflated the value of the intelligence produced. ..."
"... Surprisingly the subject of rendition, which Brennan must surely have been involved with while at CIA, hardly surfaced though two other interesting snippets emerged from the questioning. ..."
"... Brennan was not questioned at all about the conflict of interest or ethical issues raised by the revolving door that he benefited from when he left CIA as Deputy Executive Director in 2005 and joined a British-owned company called The Analysis Corporation (TAC) where he was named CEO. ..."
"... At the Center of the Storm ..."
"... Brennan certainly knew how to feather his nest and reward his friends, but the area that is still murky relates to what exactly he was up to in 2016 when he was CIA Director and also quite possibly working hard to help Hillary get elected. He was still at it well after Trump got elected and assumed office. In May 2017, his testimony before Congress was headlined in a Washington Post ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... The testimony inevitably raises some questions about just what Brennan was actually up to. First of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. ..."
"... it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began. ..."
"... So, Mr. Brennan, for all his bluster and scarcely concealed anger, has a lot of baggage, to include his possible role in coordinating with other elements in the national security agencies as well as with overseas parties to get their candidate Hillary Clinton elected. ..."
Former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan, a Barack Obama friend and
protégé as well as a current paid contributor for NBC and MSNBC, has
blasted President Donald Trump for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over his victory
in recent Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is "afraid of the
president of Russia" and that the Kremlin "may have something on him personally. The fact that
he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin continues to say to me that he does have
something to fear and something very serious to fear."
It is an indication of how low we have sunk as a nation that a possible war criminal like
Brennan can feel free to use his former official status as a bully pulpit to claim that someone
is a foreign spy without any real pushback or objection from the talking heads and billionaire
manipulators that unfortunately run our country. If Trump is actually being blackmailed, as
Brennan implies, what evidence is there for that? One might reasonably conclude that Brennan
and his associates are actually angry because Trump has had the temerity to try to improve
relations with Russia.
It is ironic that when President Trump does something right he gets assailed by the same
crowd that piles on when he does something stupid, leading to the conclusion that unless The
Donald is attacking another country, when he is lauded as becoming truly presidential, he
cannot ever win with the inside the Beltway Establishment crowd. Brennan and a supporting cast
of dissimulating former intelligence chiefs opposed Trump from the git-go and were perfectly
willing to make things up to support Hillary and the status quo that she represented. It was,
of course, a status quo that greatly and personally benefited that ex-government crowd which by
now might well be described as the proverbial Deep State.
The claim that Trump is a Russian agent is not a new one since it is an easy mark to allege
something that you don't have to prove. During the campaign, one was frequently confronted on
the television by the humorless stare of the malignant Michael Morell, former acting CIA
Director, who wrote in a mind numbing August 2016
op-ed how he was proud to support Hillary Clinton because of her "commitment to our
nation's security: her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world
for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be
effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and
her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all: whether to put young American women
and men in harm's way." Per Morell, she was a "proponent of a more aggressive approach [in
Syria], one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold "
But Morell saved his finest vitriol for Donald Trump, observing how Vladimir Putin, a wily
ex-career intelligence officer "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to
exploit them" obtained the services of one fairly obscure American businessman named Trump
without even physically meeting him. Morell, given his broad experience as an analyst and desk
jockey, notes, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." An "unwitting agent" is a contradiction
in terms, but one wouldn't expect Morell to know that. Nor would John Brennan, who was also an
analyst and desk jockey before he was elevated by an equally witless President Barack
Obama.
So Morell is by his own words clearly an idiot, which explains a lot about what is wrong
with CIA and is probably why he is now a consultant with CBS News instead of serving as Agency
Director under the beneficent gaze of President Hillary Clinton.
Well, Trump's fractured foreign policy aside, I have some real problems with folks like
Michael Morell and John Brennan throwing stones. Both can be reasonably described as war
criminals due to what they did during the war on terror and also as major subverters of the
Constitution of the United States that has emerged as part of the saga of the 2016 election,
the outcome of which, ironically, is being blamed on the Russians.
Back in 2013 John Brennan, then Obama's counter-terrorism advisor, had a difficult time
with the Senate Intelligence Committee explaining some things that he did when he was still
working at CIA. He was predictably
attacked by some senators concerned over the expanding drone program, which he supervised;
over CIA torture; for the kill lists that he helped manage; and regarding the pervasive
government secrecy, which he surely condoned to cover up the questionable nature of the
assassination lists and the drones. Not at all surprisingly, he was forced to defend the
policies of the administration that he was then serving in, claiming that the United States is
"at war with al-Qaeda." But he did cite his basic disagreement with the former CIA
interrogation policies and expressed his surprise at learning that enhanced interrogation,
which he refused to label torture because he is "no lawyer," had not provided any unique or
actionable information. He claimed that he had only "raised serious questions" in his own
mind on the interrogation issue after reading the 525 page summary of the 6,000 page report
prepared by the Senate Intelligence Committee which detailed the failure of the Agency program.
Brennan's reaction, however, suggested at a minimum that he had read only the rebuttal material
produced by CIA that had deliberately inflated the value of the intelligence produced.
Surprisingly the subject of rendition, which Brennan must surely have been involved with
while at CIA, hardly surfaced though two other interesting
snippets emerged from the questioning. One was his confirmation that the government
has its own secret list of innocent civilians killed by drones while at the same time
contradicting himself by maintaining that the program does not actually exist and that if even
if it did exist such fatalities do not occur. And more directly relevant to Brennan himself,
Senator John D. Rockefeller provided an insight into the classified sections of the Senate
report on CIA torture, mentioning that the enhanced interrogation program was both "managed
incompetently" and "corrupted by personnel with pecuniary conflicts of interest." One would
certainly like to learn more about the presumed contractors who profited corruptly from
waterboarding and one would like to know if they were in any way punished, an interesting
sidebar as Brennan has a number of times spoken about the need for accountability.
Brennan was not questioned at all about the conflict of interest or ethical issues
raised by the revolving door
that he benefited from when he left CIA as Deputy Executive Director in 2005 and joined a
British-owned company called The Analysis Corporation (TAC) where he was named CEO. He
made almost certainly some millions of dollars when the Agency and other federal agencies
awarded TAC contracts to develop biometrics and set up systems to manage the government's
various watch lists before rejoining the government with a full bank account to help him along
his way. Brennan also reportedly knew how to return a favor, giving his former boss at CIA
George Tenet a compensated advisory position in his company and also hosting in 2007 a book
signing for Tenet's At the Center of the Storm . The by-invitation-only event included
six hundred current and former intelligence officers, some of whom waited for hours to have
Tenet sign copies of the book, which were provided by TAC.
Brennan certainly knew how to feather his nest and reward his friends, but the area that
is still murky relates to what exactly he was up to in 2016 when he was CIA Director and also
quite possibly working hard to help Hillary get elected. He was still at it well after Trump
got elected and assumed office. In May 2017, his testimony before Congress was headlined in a
Washington Post front page featured article as
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article stated that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
The testimony inevitably raises some questions about just what Brennan was actually up
to. First of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe,
because it was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know
from Politico and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services,
including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the
forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by
Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence,
it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a
possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get
nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate
began.
So, Mr. Brennan, for all his bluster and scarcely concealed anger, has a lot of baggage,
to include his possible role in coordinating with other elements in the national security
agencies as well as with overseas parties to get their candidate Hillary Clinton elected.
Brennan should be thoroughly investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, to include
subpoenaing all records at CIA relating to the Trump inquiries before requiring testimony under
oath of Brennan himself with possible legal consequences if he is caught lying
"The happy song of the US media accompanies another oddly totalitarian trend, the constant
blaming of discontent on foreign powers. In the aftermath of the school shooting in
Florida, Russia was blamed for allegedly fomenting what was already probably the biggest
political gap among the US public, the question of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. Russia
was accused of both opposing and promoting gun ownership, in order to sew confusion among the
public."
" the US [MSM] ... accuses those who disagree at home of being Russian bots"
Notable quotes:
"... the commercially-owned mainstream American press has always had another role: crafting public opinion. A huge amount of US government funds are devoted to handling and managing the media. The government and the political establishment is deeply worried about making sure that the US public thinks in ways that are conducive to their overall goals and strategies. The CIA's project mockingbird, and the cozy relationship between reporters, newspaper owners, and various Presidential administrations is the most blatant example. US Military intelligence agencies have sponsored over 1,800 hollywood films. School textbooks in California and Texas have their academic standards set in a highly politicized process. ..."
"... it also serves a political purpose as a public relations wing of the American elite, a recent trend in US mainstream mass media should be quite disturbing, when carefully analyzed. ..."
"... A dull "everything is OK, calm down" message is suddenly being put forth in an American media that has nothing to gain from it in terms of ratings or newspaper sales. A lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review by Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker criticized both the political left-wing and right-wing in the USA for their pessimism, and argued in terms of "the big picture" across centuries, that the western liberal democratic capitalist system has proved itself to be very successful. ..."
"... Not only is the US media singing a happy song, but it is now demanding, along with elected officials, that everyone else do the same thing. Russia isn't accused of putting out a particular position, but rather of simply "sewing discord." ..."
"... the US whistles a happy tune, and accuses those who disagree at home of being Russian bots ..."
"... In our high tech world, framing international economic policies as a zero sum game cannot be be expected to have fruitful results. ..."
"... Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook" . ..."
The understanding that the American press, both TV and print media, thrives on negativity is
deeply embedded in the culture, so much so that the theme music to the popular 1990s American
TV sit-com "Family Matters" began with the couplet:
Its a rare condition this day and age,
to read any good news on a newspaper page
The US media is a for-profit industry. TV outlets depend on advertising revenue, the value
of which depends on ratings. The drive of mainstream American TV news networks is to increase
ratings, and make profits. Bad news, scandal, and sensationalism is a way to do that.
However, the commercially-owned mainstream American press has always had another role:
crafting public opinion. A huge amount of US government funds are devoted to handling and
managing the media. The government and the political establishment is deeply worried about
making sure that the US public thinks in ways that are conducive to their overall goals and
strategies. The CIA's project mockingbird, and the cozy relationship between reporters,
newspaper owners, and various Presidential administrations is the most blatant example. US
Military intelligence agencies have sponsored over 1,800 hollywood films. School textbooks in
California and Texas have their academic standards set in a highly politicized
process.
So, with the understanding that negativity and sensationalism are US media's focus, while
it also serves a political purpose as a public relations wing of the American elite, a
recent trend in US mainstream mass media should be quite disturbing, when carefully
analyzed.
The US media, long known for its negativity intended to grab ratings, is suddenly printing
articles, publishing widely circulated books, and featuring commentators all echoing the
message: "Don't worry, everything is going to be OK."
This uncharacteristic behavior of American media almost perfectly fits the stereotypical
portrayal of government propaganda in supposedly "totalitarian states." Many dystopian science
fiction films feature some dark, high tech police state where the controlled press harps on
with the message: "Things are going very well, don't worry, just obey."
A dull "everything is OK, calm down" message is suddenly being put forth in an American
media that has nothing to gain from it in terms of ratings or newspaper sales. A lengthy
article in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Review by Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker
criticized both the political left-wing and right-wing in the USA for their pessimism, and
argued in terms of "the big picture" across centuries, that the western liberal democratic
capitalist system has proved itself to be very successful.
Meanwhile, on February 20th, Public Affairs Books has released a text by Gregg Easterbrook
entitled "Its Better Than It Looks." The book has been widely reviewed by the US press. The
text assures us that we need to be more positive in our assessment of world events. National
Public Radio described the book's message: "Between threats of nuclear war, devastating natural
disasters, violence and political division at home, it might feel like things are really bad
right now. But not necessarily so, says Gregg Easterbrook. He argues that by a lot of important
measures, the United States and the world are on an upward trajectory."
Similar messages have been dancing across American TV screens and radio waves in recent
weeks, in a pattern that any careful observer would find peculiar.
A Growing Economic Bubble
Meanwhile, economic news continues to be selectively reported. For example, retail stores
across the USA are closing. While US media was previously reporting on the decline of suburban
malls and the elimination of retail jobs, suddenly the press is reporting about a rise in
retail profits, and hope for the retail sector.
However, all the reports saying that the retail sector is doing well admit that the increase
in retail purchases is not taking place at stores, but rather in online sales. The glowing
reports about an increase in retail spending all point toward facts that have no bearing on
saving the jobs of retail workers, as stores continue to close down. Despite all the talk of a
retail boom (on the internet), stores continue to close across the USA, the latest being
H&M clothing which closed scores of outlets across the country. Thousands of retail workers
have lost their jobs.
Household debt is at record levels, and a lot of purchasing now taking place in the retail
market is being done with credit cards. Furthermore, student debt is rising, and with a number
of students unable to repay their debt. The student debt markets now face a specter of a
potential crash.
Positive numbers on the stock market are certainly a good economic indicator, however, as
the stock numbers rise, the population is not seeing an overall rise in its spending power. If
Wall Street and Main Street are not rising together, a rise on the stock market simply
indicates that the gap between the financialized, fictional Wall Street Casino, and the actual
economy is getting larger.
Real economic growth involves the financial sector getting stronger as the population gets
richer along with it. The USA hasn't experienced real, sustainable financial growth since the
1950s. "Jobless Recoveries" and other peculiar anomalies show the extent to which Wall Street
has insulated itself from the actual conditions of the American people. The result has been the
gap between the financial and the real economy expanding for much longer than in the natural
boom-bust cycle, making downturns far larger and dramatic.
Artificial growth only lasts so long, and these bubbles tend to burst. As Trump deregulates
Wall Street, and rolls back government oversight of the financial sector, all while lowering
taxes on corporations, another financial bubble is emerging.
The tone of the press, echoing the mantra of "everything is alright" is oddly reminiscent of
2007 and 2008 as the US economy was moving toward catastrophe. Desperate attempts by the press,
politicians, and others to assure us that the economy is fine, while urging us to keep spending
money we do not have, should have millions of Americans shouting "We've seen this movie
before!"
Blaming Russia for Dissent
The happy song of the US media accompanies another oddly totalitarian trend, the constant
blaming of discontent on foreign powers. In the aftermath of the school shooting in Florida,
Russia was blamed for allegedly fomenting what was already probably the biggest political gap
among the US public, the question of gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. Russia was accused of
both opposing and promoting gun ownership, in order to sew confusion among the public.
Not only is the US media singing a happy song, but it is now demanding, along with
elected officials, that everyone else do the same thing. Russia isn't accused of putting out a
particular position, but rather of simply "sewing discord." The message behind the endless
talk of "bots" and "trolls" is that it is disloyalty and treason to hold dissident or negative
assessments of the US political or economic situation. Doing so is allegedly aiding the
Russians efforts to harm loyalty and confidence. The insinuation is that all nay-saying and
complaint can be traced, somehow, back to Moscow. In order to be a good American, one is
expected to simply repeat the media's upbeat and positive message.
Meanwhile, the US media is giving voice to oddly pointed FBI announcements that Americans
shouldn't buy Chinese cellphones, and should be suspicious of Chinese University students as
potential spies. While China is establishing strong economic ties with France and other
countries, the United States is imposing steel tariffs and increasingly cutting itself off from
the second largest economy in the world.
At the UN Security Council, the USA and its allies are desperately attempting to prevent the
Syrian government from reclaiming the city of Eastern Ghouta. This enclave of Islamic
extremists is very near the capital city of Damascus, which is densely populated with
pro-government Syrians, many of whom have fled from other parts of the country.
Now that ISIS has been driven from Syria, there is a real fear that the government could win
the war, and the longstanding US regime change operation could end in defeat.
As the US whistles a happy tune, and accuses those who disagree at home of being Russian
bots , those they deem competitors on the global stage are getting stronger.
The Chinese state controlled machinery of production is marching ahead. Oil prices, a key
factor in securing state revenue in Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Angola and Ecuador, are
rising.
Political Fallout of a Potential Crash?
If a new financial crisis erupts, as is likely based on indicators, the political
implications most likely would mean the demise of the Trump administration. Trump would be
voted out of office in 2020, or perhaps even impeached, blamed for the mismanagement that
created the fallout.
However, the slim possibility remains that Trump could make such a catastrophic economic
situation work in his favor. If Trump were to respond to a financial crash by swiftly pushing
his base of supporters into action, pushing forward his proposals for infrastructure, and
giving a free hand to his allies in the policing agencies, as he often publicly advocates, the
results could be a very swift resolution of the crisis.
In the event of a financial crash, a combination of street authoritarianism and economic
arm-twisting, both of which Trump clearly does not oppose, could ultimately let him come out of
the rubble looking like a savior. Trump could utilize a crash to become a figure like France's
Louis Bonaparte and his "Party of Order" who seized power in 1851.
Regardless of hypotheticals, the "don't be afraid, everything is alright" tone in American
media is not a good sign. It indicates that we should all be concerned about what will happen
in the coming months.
Meanwhile, the absence of China's concept of "win-win" relations in global trade, and human
centered development is deeply disturbing. In our high tech world, framing international
economic policies as a zero sum game cannot be be expected to have fruitful results.
Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political
science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street
movement, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook" .
I agree with Stephen Lendman (below) that the Russian government's efforts to deal with the
West on the basis of evidence and law are futile. There is only one Western foreign policy and
it is Washington's. Washington's "diplomacy" consists only of lies and force. It was a
reasonable decision for Russia to attempt diplomatic engagement with the West on the basis of
facts, evidence, and law, but it has been to no avail. For Russia to continue on this failed
course is risky, not only to Russia but to the entire world.
Indeed, nothing is more dangerous to the world than Russia's self-delusion about "Western
partners." Russia only has Western enemies. These enemies intend to remove the constraint that
Russia (and China) place on Washington's unilateralism. The various incidents staged by the
West, such as the Skirpal poisoning, Syrian use of chemical weapons, Malaysian airliner, and
false charges, such as Russian invasion of Ukraine, are part of the West's determined intent to
isolate Russia, deny her any influence, and prepare the insouciant Western populations for
conflict with Russia.
To avoid war Russia should turn her back, but not her eyes, on the West, stop responding to
false charges, evict all Western embassies and every other kind of presence including Western
investment, and focus on relations with China and the East. Russia's attempt to pursue mutual
interests with the West only results in more orchestrated incidents. The Russian government's
failure to complete the liberation of Syria has given Washington Syrian territory from which to
renew the conflict.
The failure to accept Luhansk and Donetsk into Russia has provided Washington with the
opportunity to arm and train the Ukrainian army and renew the assault on the Russian
populations of Ukraine. Washington has gained many proxies for its wars against Russia and
intends to use them to wear down Russia. Israel has demanded that Washington renew the attacks
on Iran, and Trump is complying. Russia faces simultaneous attacks on Syria, Iran, and the
Donatsk and Luhansk Republics, along with troubles in former Central Asian republics of the
Soviet Union and intensified accusations from Washington and NATO.
The crazed neoconservatives, such as Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton, think
that Russia will buckle under the strains, sue for peace, and accept US hegemony. If this
assumption is incorrect, the outcome of Washington's hostile actions against Russia is likely
to be nuclear war. The side that Stephen Lendman and I are talking is neither the side of
Washington nor Russia, but the side of humanity and all life against nuclear war.
How the Russian government could ignore the clearly stated US hegemony in the 1992 Wolfowitz
Doctrine is a mystery.
The Wolfowitz doctrine states that the US's primary goal is "to prevent the re-emergence of
a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a
threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union." The doctrine stresses that
"this is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires
that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would,
under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power." In the Middle East and
Southwest Asia, Washington's "overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in
the region and preserve US and Western access to the region's oil." The doctrine also states
that the US will act to restrain India's alleged "hegemonic aspirations" in South Asia, and
warns of potential conflicts requiring military intervention with Cuba and China.
By "threat" Wolfowitz does not mean a military threat. By "threat" he means a multi-polar
world that constrains Washington's unilateralism. The doctrine states that the US will permit
no alternative to US unilateralism. The doctrine is a statement that Washington intends
hegemony over the entire world. There has been no repudiation of this doctrine. Indeed, we see
its implementation in the long list of false accusations and demonizations of Russia and her
leader and in the false charges against Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen,
Venezuela, China, Iran, and North Korea .
If Russia wants to be part of the West, Russia should realize that the price is the same
loss of sovereignty that characterizes Washington's European vassal states.
Pompeo at State and Bolton as Trump's national security advisor completed the neocon
takeover of Trump's geopolitical agenda. Wall Street is running domestic affairs.
The combination represents a major setback for world peace and stability. Greater aggression
is likely, along with the triumph of neoliberal harshness over social justice, presenting a
dismal and frightening state of affairs.
What to expect ahead? War in Syria is more likely to escalate than wind down, an unthinkable
US/Russia confrontation ominously possible.
The Iran nuclear deal is either doomed, or likely to be gutted by Washington, accomplishing
the same thing -- with only tepid, ineffective opposition from P5+1 countries Britain, France
and Germany.
The EU most often bends to Washington's will when enough pressure is applied.
A relatively quiet Ukraine period could explode in greater Kiev war on Donbass, US-supplied
heavy weapons and training aiding the aggression.
A Kim Jong-un/Trump summit is likely to fail to step back from the brink on the Korean
peninsula, falsely blaming the DPRK for hostile US actions.
It'll prove again Washington can never be trusted, its commitments are consistently breached
when conflicting with its imperial objectives.
A possible trade war with China would be hugely destabilizing, along with being economically
harmful to both countries and the global economy.
Further EU/US sanctions and other harsh measures are likely to be imposed on Russia over the
Skripal affair, an escalated attempt to isolate the country and inflict economic harm --
despite Western nations knowing Moscow had nothing to do with what happened.
Theresa May-led Tories are considering tough actions against Russia over the incident. So
are other EU countries and Washington.
On Friday, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the Trump administration is
considering a range of options against Moscow over the Skripal affair -- "both to demonstrate
our solidarity with our ally and to hold Russia accountable for its clear breach of
international norms and agreements."
No breach occurred. Neocons running US foreign policy don't let facts and rule of law
principles compromise their imperial objectives.
Theresa May provided Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron with cooked results of Britain's
investigation so far into the Skripal affair -- "convincing" them the false accusations are
"well-grounded," despite knowing UK claims are pure rubbish.
Macron issued a deplorable statement, saying "there is no plausible explanation" for what
happened to the Skripals other than Kremlin responsibility -- abdicating to US/UK-led
Russophobic hostility.
On the world stage, Trump is hostage to neocon dark forces controlling him. Relations with
Russia, China, and other sovereign independent nations are likely to worsen, not improve.
Unthinkable nuclear war remains an ominous possibility. Russia's only option is building on
its alliance with China and other allies, staying committed to respond firmly to US-led Western
harshness against its sovereignty.
Virtually no possibility for improved Russian relations with Washington and Britain exists.
It's fruitless pursuing it.
German and other European dependence on Russian energy, mainly gas, offers only slim hope
for improving things with these countries.
Looking ahead, prospects for world peace and stability are dismal. US-led Western hostility
toward Russia could erupt in open conflict by accident or design.
The unthinkable could become reality. Preparedness should be Moscow's top priority given the
real danger it faces.
"... made a fairly desultory expulsion of a diplomat or two or three, but the United States' act is a kind of declaration of war, all the more surprising given that according to the deep state, and the liberal confluence in the United States, President Trump is Russia's man ..."
"... "precursor to a very sharp deterioration of relations" ..."
"... deep state opponents" ..."
"... "If it were me who was making the decision, I certainly wouldn't proceed on the assumption that being soft will in any way satiate the ravenous beasts that are baying for Russia's blood at this point in time," ..."
"... "As far as I can see there is no investigation, ..."
"... "The verdict was declared before the investigation began and I think there's no investigation because the results of any serious scientific analytical investigation would show that the allegations against Russia are baseless." ..."
"... "I don't believe that Russia is responsible for this act. And the good news is that most of the British public tend to agree," ..."
British politician, broadcaster, and writer George Galloway has slammed Donald Trump's decision to expel 60 Russian diplomats
and close the Russian consulate in Seattle. Galloway regards it as tantamount to a "declaration of war." Galloway contrasted the
US' actions with those of EU member states. Those EU countries who rushed to follow the lead of Britain and the US in response to
the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal are simply acting as "vassal states," doing what they are told.
European states have " made a fairly desultory expulsion of a diplomat or two or three, but the United States' act is a kind
of declaration of war, all the more surprising given that according to the deep state, and the liberal confluence in the United States,
President Trump is Russia's man ," Galloway told RT.
The former British MP said the decision to leave just 40 Russian diplomats to do their jobs in the US was either a "precursor
to a very sharp deterioration of relations" -- or alternatively a "charade " designed to make Trump's " deep state
opponents" lay off him over not being tough enough on Russia.
Galloway said Russia should not assume that being soft in response to Trump's action will have any desirable effect.
"If it were me who was making the decision, I certainly wouldn't proceed on the assumption that being soft will in any way
satiate the ravenous beasts that are baying for Russia's blood at this point in time," he said.
According to Galloway, the UK has not conducted a serious and unbiased investigation into the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter.
"As far as I can see there is no investigation, " he said. "The verdict was declared before the investigation began
and I think there's no investigation because the results of any serious scientific analytical investigation would show that the allegations
against Russia are baseless."
Galloway said there are still many questions which have been left unanswered in the Skripal case.
"I don't believe that Russia is responsible for this act. And the good news is that most of the British public tend to agree,"
he said.
Sources close to the couple
told the New York Times
that Melania was "blindsided" by the reports of her husband's supposed
cover-up -- which included $130,000 in hush money, paid out to Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election.
She has been trying to stay out of the public eye ever since, the sources said.
Trump's alleged tryst with Daniels, if true, would have taken place just months after Melania gave
birth to their son, Barron, in March 2006.
It was first reported by the Wall Street Journal
on Jan. 18. In Touch magazine published a follow-up
piece a day later, featuring an interview with the porn vixen from 2011, in which she confessed to the
hookup.
Since then, Melania has canceled an overseas trip with the president, made an unplanned visit to the
Holocaust Memorial Museum and even enjoyed some R&R at Mar-a-Lago.
The first lady was reportedly in Florida on Friday while Trump was in Davos, Switzerland, for the
World Economic Forum. The impromptu stop in the Sunshine State wound up costing taxpayers about $64,000,
according to the Times.
Her spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham, blasted the affair allegations, saying, "The laundry list of
salacious & flat-out false reporting about Mrs. Trump by tabloid publications & TV shows has seeped into
'main stream media' reporting She is focused on her family & role as FLOTUS -- not the unrealistic
scenarios being peddled daily by the fake news."
The first lady is expected to reappear alongside her husband Tuesday during his State of the Union
address.
diGenova has been on of Trump's most ardent defenders - speaking in January of a "
Brazen
plot
" by the deep state to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.
The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us
. what this story is
about - a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to
the way she handled classified information with her classified server.
Absolutely a crime,
absolutely a felony.
It's about finding out why - as the Inspector General is doing at the
department of justice -
why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal
investigation of Hillary Clinton. Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the
book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no
subpoenas, no search warrant. That's not an investigation, that's a Potemkin village. It's a
farce.
-Joe diGenova via
Daily Caller
Does Mueller realize he is now doing more harm to the country than
any foe? His 10 month investigation of "got cha" is dividing us
and has uncovered little stuff the DOJ could have found without
the continuous spotlight of his "specialness counsel". It is time
he turns his findings over to DOJ and cease this unfortunate,
seemingly now, self-serving hunt. The nation is facing more
daunting task.
In the court of public opinion, treason is better.
Let Mueller argue the difference once Trump starts
using his name in the same tweet with treason. That
will be amusing.
Plus, with Mueller, it may well
be treason. Can you say Uranium One? That is the
deal he has to worry about. First, there is the I.G.
report due soon. Then, there is the real possibility
of another special investigation into the
investigators of the entire FBI/Clinton affair, and
Mueller will for sure be in the cross hairs. What a
great time to be a lawyer in DC.
This is a battle between 2 giants. One is going
down bigly, or maybe both.....or, Mueller has already
copped a plea, and is actually part of the I.G.'s investigation
of the FBI. Who knows? Right now, just about
anything is possible.
I believe it is actually sedition.
Treason would
involve another country.
Regardless Mueller is known for acting like a petulant
child.
I also note the budget just passed looks like a war
budget, so all this may not matter much into the future.
If you step back and try to look at the bigger picture you
have a better chance in seeing what is really going on. It
is clear that from the beginning, there was never any real
substance to the Russia collusion thing. Anyone with any
common sense could see that all of it was being orchestrated
by the deep state with the amplification and BS of the MSM
using the DNC and various hack politicians to keep things
going. The only relevant question was why?
To
impeach Trump? No. They knew from the get go there was no real substance
to the allegations.
To destabilize Trump's governance by keeping
him on the defensive with their constant MSM BS
collusion allegations?
Only a partial reason, because the groundless and totally
farfetched allegations were eventually bound to discredit
the perpetrators.
Mainly to bash Russia to prolong any attempts
by the new administration from a rapprochement with Moscow?
Again only a partial reason and clearly not enough to
justify the prolonged flogging of the dead horse
of Russian-collusion. Within the first few months we saw
Trump doing the bidding of the US-Zio deep state,
by appointing neocon pro-Israel, anti-Russian, anti-Iran,
anti-Syrian deep-state war hawks to his cabinet; ordering
a missile attack on a Syrian government installation;
threatening Iran; increasing economic sanctions
against Russia; deploying more US forces and military
equipment to Russian borders, etc. etc.
Mainly to discredit Russia
and
to divert American attention from the major hot spot in the
world - Syria?
Most likely. As long as the US deep state can keep
focusing its hostility towards Russia as separate as
possible from their own wrongdoings and aggression in Syria,
they can more easily continue with their escalation efforts
to fragment and partition that nation. Hence, the deep-state
efforts to distract the US and Western populations with fake
allegations of election interference, poisoning ex spies,
and whatever other false flags or vilifications against
Russia, or the Syrian government are to come. The last
thing the US deep state wants at the present time and
especially before the midterm elections is to make the US
support for their war against Syria a major political issue,
leading to an uncontrollable electorate directly opposing
their war effort. Russia is the backbone of the Syrian
defence. Constantly vilifying Russia with false allegations
and false flags deflects attention from the heinous
wrongdoings of Israel, the US, the UK, and NATO forces and
their terrorists and mercenary proxies in Syria.
Presently, US deep state operatives from the military and
the intelligence agencies are filling in slots in the
Democratic party to be candidates for the upcoming midterm
elections. This is clearly an indication that the US is
preparing for war, not only for an escalation in Syria but
more likely for some much greater conflict against Iran and
Russia. The sociopathic US deep state will no doubt not be
satisfied until they try out all their toys no matter how
much blood they shed and destruction they cause. That is
their history and they are a scourge against the entire
world.
Your first three observations are correct. Unfortunately,
the 4th premise being massaged merely by "The Deep
State." The US financial/military hegemony is faltering.
It stands up only because the central banks are in
collusion with each other. Those and Wall Street
manipulate and massage the financial markets in trying to
maintain their own hegemony.
But, many honest
economic/financial experts know it's only a matter of
time before the American empire cracks. Happens every
time throughout history. In this case it's China who is
moving away from the US$ and linking its trade/currency
with 50% of the world's population found in Asia/Eurasia,
and Latin American. A laborious exercise, for sure, but
watch carefully as the US continues its toxic downfall
via the military budget and the corrupt world of
finance/currency. It's only a matter of time.
Trump Unable To Hire diGenova, Toensing Over Conflicts, Mueller Strategy In
Limbo
My response
: This development is a disappointment.
I was looking for some honorable people to go into Washington DC and kick
some MUELLER BUTT and END the SPECIAL COUNSEL CHARADE that has been going
on for over a year.
Where the HELL is "OBOZO" these days? This circus in Washington DC needs
to be shutdown.
Amazing that they(diGenova & Toensing) admit to conflicts of interest but then
nearly the entire Mueller team is rife with people showing bias and COI and
they're still at it a year later. Hell, the bulk of the FBI top tier is
littered with biased assholes. If you went in and tried to clean house it'd be
like shooting fish in a barrel...with an RPG
.
but also why is this President & his team being help to a far
superior standard than the last. The conflicts in Muellers' team are too
innumerable to count, Sessions recusal, Rosenstein appointing special counsel,
Trump's clan being stymied with piss ant caught mis remembering lying to FBI
charges. diGenova is the shit as his wife too, since when have lawyers ever
given a rat's ass about conflict or even integrity, Gloria Aldridge comes to
mind. Is anyone tired of winning yet? Seems all by design. We are constantly
told it's 4D chess and yet Schumer gets 60 Billion for a tunnel and Donald
"the art of the deal" Trump get 1.6 B for paint & maintenance and specific
language prohibiting a wall. Tired of winning yet?
You do
realize that whoever
Trump names to
replace him REQUIRES
Senate
Confirmation....which
can be slow walked
for months.
Meanwhile the assy
AtG---Rosenstein with
be the ACTING ATTNY
GEN"
ANSWER: Not if
he puts someone from
a different cabinet
position who's
already been
confirmed in (aka
Scott Pruitt).
Pruitt can take
Sessions place, and
he wouldn't be
recused; which means
he takes over the
investigation from
that crooked Deep
Date scumbag
Rosenstein. Mueller
can then be fired
(and not a damn thing
Congress can do about
it other than b!tch
and whine to Libtard
news media).
Better still,
Pruitt can appoint a
second special
counsel to go after
the Deep State.
Mind you, there
are Mountains and
Mountains of evidence
of all the crimes
these Deep State
people committed.
All its going to take
is a second special
council, and its game
over.
"... (this last sentence in English in the original text – trans.) ..."
"... As to who will prevail, your guess is as good a mine. But the fact that today Trump replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John Bolton is a clear sign that the Neocons are in charge in the US and that the Axis of Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot "kinder". ..."
"... Both Saker and the commenter #1 put accent on the ideological struggle between Russia and the West, contrasting Russian (and) Chinese – we do not interfere with your system of beliefs or who rules you, let us cooperate and do business. This is contrasted against the Western – we are the Borg, you will be regime-changed to be assimilated, aka we are the Exceptional Owners of the World. This is truly the main ideological struggle of the 21. century, forget about left wing – right wing. ..."
"... I do not know how long the Russian initiative will last, but at the moment Russia is in a goldilocks situation: it probably has the best leadership in the world, ..."
"... 'Full Spectrum Dominance', as explicit in US military doctrine, and noted as such by Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel address, and embedded in the F. William Engdahl book 'Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order', was imo both pathological and impossible, but that didn't stop them from trying. ..."
"... Gen. Wesley Clark's rather famous post 9/11 surprise at hearing that 7 countries in five years were slated for – in effect – destruction, euphemistically called regime change is starting to seem like another era. 'Guess what I just heard down the hall. We're gonna go into 5 countries with our mercenaries, and military, and our amazing technology, and bomb them all to hell if we have to, and lie to the world about everything we're doing, and kill and wound and orphan millions of people, because ah, because ah, because ah, actually I'm not sure why, but that's what's on the program. It's sort of a tradition. We bombed the hell out of Korea, then we bombed the hell out of Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia, actually I lost count, so many, anyway fast forward to remnants of Yugoslavia, boy did we ever destroy that.!' ..."
"... Any similarity between MH17 and Skripal investigations, although both cooked up in the same kitchen, is completely coincidental, of course. ..."
So what is really going on here? Surely nobody seriously believes that the Brits really
think that the Russians had any motive to try to kill Skripal or, for that matter, if they had
a motive, that they would do it in such a stupid manner? And what's the deal with Syria anyway?
Is the US going to execute their false flag and bomb?
I think that at this point we should not get bogged down in the details of all this. There
is a forest behind these trees. What matters most now, is that the most powerful factions of
the AngloZionist Empire's ruling elites are making a concerted effort to create a unified
anti-Russian coalition. In this regard it is quite telling that the US, France, and Germany
issued a statement on March 15 th without even bothering to consult with their
so-called "allies" in NATO or the EU. You can immediately tell "who is boss" in those crisis
situations when the rest of the Euro-riffraff simply doesn't matter (poor East Europeans with
their delusions about being appreciated or even respected by the West!). Furthermore, it is
quite clear that in this case, the "Anglo" component of the AngloZionist Empire is far more
involved than the Zionist one, at least insofar as the front of the stage is concerned (
behind the scenes the Neocons are seething at Trump for calling Putin to congratulate him
and offer negotiations). I think that a number of crucial developments forced the US and the UK
into trying to strong-arm the rest of the western nations to "circle the wagons" around the
Empire:
The US humiliatingly failed in its attempts to frighten and force the DPRK into
submission The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria The UK and the rest of the NATO
are becoming militarily irrelevant The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack
on the Donbass is most likely The political forces in Europe who opposed anti-Russian policies
are on the ascent The Russians are winning many EU countries over by economic means including
North Stream whereas sanctions are hurting the EU much more than Russia The anti-Putin campaign
has miserably failed and Russia is fully united in her stance against the Empire
What this all means is very simple: the Empire needs to either fold or double down and
folding is just not something the imperial elites are willing to consider yet. They are
therefore using the tools which they perceive as most effective:
False flags : this is really a time-honored western tradition used by pretty much all
the western powers. Since the general public is brainwashed and mostly can't even begin to
imagine that "freedom loving liberal democracies" could use methods usually ascribed to evil,
bloodthirsty dictatorial regimes, false flags are an ideal way to get the public opinion in
the correct state of mind to approve of aggressive, hostile and even violent policies against
a perceived threat or obstacle to hegemony. Soft power : have you noticed how the Oscars or the Cannes festival always pick
exactly the kind of "artists" which the Empire happens to politically promote? Well, this is
true not only for the Oscars or the Cannes festival but for almost all of the cultural,
social and political life in the West. This is especially true of so-called "human rights"
and "peace" organizations which are simply political pit-bulls which can be sicked on any
country in need of subversion and/or intervention. Russia has never developed that kind of
political toolkit. Verbal escalation : this tactic is extremely crude yet very effective. You begin by
vociferously proclaiming some falsehood. The fact that you proclaimed it in such vociferous
and hyperbolic matter achieves two immediate results: it sends all your friends and allies a
clear message " you are either with us or against us ", that leaves no room for nuance
or analysis, and it gives otherwise rather spineless politicians no way to back down, thus
strengthening their "resolve". Herding : there is safety in numbers. So when dealing with a potentially dangerous
foe, like Russia, all the little guys flock together so as to appear bigger or, at least,
harder to single out. Also, when everybody is responsible, nobody is. Thus herding is also
politically expedient. Finally, it changed the inter-relational dynamic from one of friends
or allies to one typically found among accomplices in a crime. Direct threats : the Empire got away with making threats left and right for many
decades, and this is a habit which is hard to break. The likes of Nikki Haley or Hillary
Clinton probably sincerely believe that the US is quasi-omnipotent or, conversely, they might
be terrified by the creeping suspicion that it might not. Threats are also an easy, if
ineffective, substitute for diplomacy and negotiations, especially when your position is
objectively wrong and the other side is simply a lot smarter than you.
The big problem is that none of these methods work against Russia or, let me correct that,
don't work anymore (they sure appeared to work in the past). Russian public opinion is fully
aware of all these methods (courtesy of a Russian media NOT controlled by AngloZionists) and
Margarita Simonian beautifully summarized
the feelings that all this elicits in the Russian population:
"all your injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop
respecting you. You and your so-called "values." We don't want to live like you live,
anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any
longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those among us that you support, and for all
those people who support you ( ). For that, you only have yourself to blame ( ) Our people
are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would.
Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn the history of its allies, all of them are
former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance.
White man's burden, my ass!" (this last sentence in English in the original text –
trans.)
The stark truth is that far from wanting to invade, appease or otherwise please the West,
Russia has absolutely no need, or even interest, in it. None. For centuries Russian elites have
been western-focused to some degree or other and none of them could even begin to imagine a
West-less Russia. This is still true today, the Russian "elites" still want to live like (very
rich) Brits or Germans and they still hate the common Russian people and Vladimir Putin. But
those Russian elites have now been crushed by the magnitude of Putin's victory in the
presidential elections. Normally, this should result in an even bigger exile of Russian
"businessmen" to the UK, France or Israel, but the problem now is that the British are making
noises about punishing them for, well, being Russians (even Russophobic, pro-western,
"Russians"). As a result, these "poor" pro-western liberals can only whine on the social media
and in the few pro-western media outlets left in Russia (no, not due to repression, but due to
their political irrelevancy being backed, as they are, by something between 2% and 5% of the
population).
But setting aside the wealthy "elites" for a moment, Russia as a country and as a nation has
simply no use for the West and what it represents. Those who fantasize about Russia being
interested in "Europe", "White identity" or "Western Christianity" are only kidding themselves.
They hope that the current cultural and spiritual revival in Russia will somehow spill over to
them and allow them to extricate themselves from the gutter in which they are currently
prostrated. It won't. Just read again what Simonian said about the western "values" in the
quote above. For most Russians "Europe" reeks of Napoleon, "White identity" of Hitler and
"Western Christianity" of the creation of the Ukraine and the " Eastern Crusades ". No,
Russia has no interest in revenge against any of that, she just has no respect or interest for
what these concepts stand for. (Poland – is possibly the last country where all these
things are taken seriously and fondly remembered). Still, the Russians remain willing to
negotiate to establish a viable coexistence between the Western and Russian civilizational
realms. Putin clearly said so in his speech
There is no need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the
negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and
sustainable development for human civilization. We have been saying this all along. All these
proposals are still valid. Russia is ready for this.
But if the AngloZionists are dead set on world domination by means of war, then Russia is
ready for that too. Not a war of aggression, of course, not even against the tiny Baltic
statelets, Putin made that clear too when he said "w e are not threatening anyone, not going
to attack anyone or take away anything from anyone with the threat of weapons. We do not
need anything . Just the opposite " (emphasis added). But if attacked, Russia is now
ready to defend herself:
"And to those who in the past 15 years have tried to accelerate an arms race and seek
unilateral advantage against Russia, have introduced restrictions and sanctions that are
illegal from the standpoint of international law aiming to restrain our nation's development,
including in the military area, I will say this: everything you have tried to prevent through
such a policy has already happened. No one has managed to restrain Russia ( ) Any use of
nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all,
will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with
all the attendant consequences. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever."
Why is the nuclear issue so central? Because the Russians are fully aware of the fact that
the
AngloZionists cannot win a conventional war with Russia . Thus it is crucial for the
Russians to convince the AngloZionists that they are neither militarily superior nor
invulnerable (see here for a full
analysis of these two myths). But once some kind of modus vivendi is achieved with the
West, Russia will focus her efforts in different directions: much needed internal reforms and
development, the work with China on the establishment of a single Eurasian zone of economic
security, peace and prosperity, the restoration of peace in the Middle-East, the development of
the Russian Far East and North – you name it. Russia has plenty of work which needs to be
done, none of which involves the West in any capacity.
And that is, of course, what is so totally unacceptable to the West.
Hence this month's historical developments which have placed Russia and the West in a direct
collision course. As I said above, the Empire can now either fold or double down. If it decides
to fold, war will be averted and meaningful negotiations finally entered into. If it doubles
down, something the Neocons always do, then this means war with Russia. This is a stark and
very difficult choice (no, not for normal people, but for the psychopaths ruling the West). And
there isn't much Russia could, or should, do at this point. As is the case every time a serious
crisis takes place, the apparently united elites running the West will now break-up into
separate factions and each one of these factions will pursue and promote its own, narrow,
interests. There will be an intense, mostly behind the scenes, struggle between those who will
want to double down or even trigger a war against Russia and those who will be horrified by
that notion (not necessarily for profound moral reasons, just out of basic self-interest and a
healthy instinct for self-preservation).
As to who will prevail, your guess is as good a mine. But the fact that today Trump
replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John Bolton is a clear sign that the
Neocons are in charge in the US and that the Axis of Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot
"kinder".
Those who fantasize about Russia being interested in "Europe", "White identity" or
"Western Christianity" are only kidding themselves. They hope that the current cultural and
spiritual revival in Russia will somehow spill over to them and allow them to extricate
themselves from the gutter in which they are currently prostrated. It won't. Just read
again what Simonian said about the western "values" in the quote above. For most Russians
"Europe" reeks of Napoleon, "White identity" of Hitler and "Western Christianity" of the
creation of the Ukraine and the "Eastern Crusades". No, Russia has no interest in revenge
against any of that, she just has no respect or interest for what these concepts stand for.
(Poland – is possibly the last country where all these things are taken seriously and
fondly remembered).
I think that is very important. I find it rather odd when some people from the alt-right
project their ideals on Russia. Of course, many of these people reject the neoconservative
agenda for legitimate reasons, and therefore, it is normal that they also reject Russophobia,
and that should be welcomed by most people who do not support the neoconservative agenda.
However, they should not think the widespread rejection of Western influence in Russia has
much to do with their own ideology.
For most Russians, the difference between hypocritical Western liberals who want to
dominate the world with their "values" (and military and economic means for spreading them)
and white supremacists is hardly that big, both are a consequence of a similar kind of
arrogance towards the rest of the world. Certainly, some white supremacists may under some
circumstances be ready to accept Russians as fellow whites, but probably, the path back to
regarding them as Asian subhumans is never too long.
Russians are mostly white, but Russia is a multinational and multiracial Eurasian country
that is very far from being "racially pure", even as far as many ethnic Russians are
concerned, and racism in the narrow sense has hardly ever had much support in Russia.
Russia's main religion is Orthodox Christianity, but Islam and Buddhism are also domestic
religions in Russia, and there has been an adversarial relationship between Western
Christianity and Orthodox Christianity for centuries.
Ideologically, Western alt-right ideologues would be much more likely to find relatively
widespread support for their ideas in Poland, the Baltic states, and among nationalists in
Western Ukraine – mainly among the most Russophobic elements of European societies.
Much of the daily hatred against "the Russians" in the Anglophone media is full of unambiguos
bigotry, and even if some of the people believing in Western white identity are currently
less extreme with respect to Russia than the liberal racist bigots who think that they are
progressive because they hate Russians rather than Mexicans, this is rather a kind of
liberals acting as racist supremacists than a genuine split between these two Western
ideologies.
In Russia, the constant aggressive rhetoric from Western countries will hardly lead to
Russians rejecting the liberal West while embracing nationalist Westerners concentrating on
white identity, rather both versions of Western ideology are seen as similarly disgusting. It
is doubtful whether in Soviet times, many people really believed in the official
anti-imperialist Soviet ideology because the propaganda was too artificial. Now, no special
propaganda efforts are needed, the aggressive, arrogant statement of Western politicians and
journalists can simply be shown in the original.
I totally agree with Saker and mostly agree with commenter #1. The only big miss of the
commenter #1 is that he lumps many different factions in the West into only two groups. The
two factions that the commenter describes are as described – much less different than
they themselves realise. But there are also a few factions which could be genuinely
cooperative with Russia, they should not be discarded because they are also the natural
allies in Russian defences against the aggressive West.
Both Saker and the commenter #1 put accent on the ideological struggle between Russia
and the West, contrasting Russian (and) Chinese – we do not interfere with your system
of beliefs or who rules you, let us cooperate and do business. This is contrasted against the
Western – we are the Borg, you will be regime-changed to be assimilated, aka we are the
Exceptional Owners of the World. This is truly the main ideological struggle of the 21.
century, forget about left wing – right wing.
However, there is a very practical component in the Western rabid behavior, especially the
British. The plentiful Russian land was not worth much in the past because it was
predominantly permafrost and marshes. The British Empire of warm lower geographical latitudes
was worth much more than the huge Russian landmass in colder higher latitudes. Even some
Russians did not consider it of much value and this is how Alaska got sold for a pittance by
a gambling Russian Tzar. But the contemporary reality is that the human capability to control
the environment has advanced so much that the cold regions of the planet are not as much of a
challenge that they used to be. On top, they have not been exploited much yet. This is why
the Anglos now have an eye on the Russian land, especially Siberia.
It is commonly accepted that the center of human civilisation is moving from the Atlantic
to the Pacific, but the shift of the center of gravity to the North is not widely
appreciated. Of course, most people still prefer to live in warmer climate but there is more
and more money to be made in colder climate. At the same time that the center of gravity is
shifting Northwards, the human advancement in the warmer climate has broken the Britush
Empire because most of the British colonies have largely caught up in development with the
colonial power. This has left the Anglos with their obsolete principles of domination by the
force of armaments and their attempts to double down in their area of advantage. In other
words, the Anglo leaders do appear to position themselves for: either we maintain our rule or
there will be no World to rule.
IMHO, the main reason for the fervent orgasmic hate displayed by the British parliament,
successfully transferred onto most of the British population, is that the Anglos are in the
process of losing their empire for the second time – first the British, now US. At the
same time, the semi-Asiatic, dirty-Christian Russians (in their racist view) are undeservedly
ascending, even after first the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union dissolved, never
mind that the Russians are now not even creating an empire of the obsolete Anglo kind then
something totally new. The landless Anglo prols versus the landed Russian gentry. Those who
are down on the wheel of fortune could not hate those now on top any more than they do.
Somewhere in there are also ever-expanding Zionist Jews, the cancer of humanity, who just
want to own anything worth owning, but this is worth another long comment.
I do not know how long the Russian initiative will last, but at the moment Russia is
in a goldilocks situation: it probably has the best leadership in the world, with
fantastic ideas and unsurpassed advantages. Even the non-anthropological climate change
appears to work in Russia's favour, opening up a new shorter Northern maritime route and
slowly draining the marshes and exposing virgin fertile land. Both smart and lucky.
Sorry for the long post. What I have been trying to say is that the two biggest current
ills of the world are the Anglo envy and the Zionist greed, whilst Russia and China have been
dealt and have dealt to themselves a magnificent hand of cards.
Interesting read. Just one comment – if Clinton had "won," we would already be "at war"
with Russia. Let's remember, even with the appointments through the revolving door (must get
a bit dizzy for players) of the Trump administration, he is still the Commander in Chief. I
don't see him going to war with Russia. Bolton is just as much "fireable" as the others.
Last thought, this saber rattling by the mouth organs of the Western criminal syndicate
has the colour of desperation to it. Also – attempted misdirection. Good that they're
overplaying their hand today since they'll have little room to escalate the rhetoric should
indictments of the criminals of the Hussein administration be levied some time soon. Let's
hope, anyway.
An .. interesting article. It appears that the author is really getting, fast, detached from
reality. This in particular:
The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria
and this even more.
The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass is most
likely
especially the former. This all is really starting to feel as "online therapy". A little
echo chamber and groupthink simply helping the members to deal with the world around
them.
Question (representative of the US Embassy): It is important in this forum to
demonstrate that we in the United States also stand in complete solidarity with our partners
in the United Kingdom, in the European Union and in NATO. It's important, especially in this
forum, since you have mentioned former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the courage that
you suggest he demonstrated. It is very important that you, instead of demonstrating a
similar type of courage, you attack, attack, attack my British colleague. In this forum in
particular, instead of demonstrating the type of courage that we would hope to have seen in
the 21st century, the Russian Federation continues its tried and true tactics of denying
responsibility, distracting and disinforming. Again, we stand with our colleagues in the
United Kingdom, and we will, as our colleagues in the United Kingdom, hold Russia accountable
for its illegal actions.
Vladimir Yermakov: We are grateful to the respected representative of the US
Embassy for his remarks. It would be interesting to know what American lawyers would make of
them. You probably worked at the US State Department? Have we met before? I used to know
everyone at the US State Department, and everyone there used to know me. That's water under
the bridge In the past, nobody in the US State Department talked to me in this manner. You
are probably on a mission from Washington. Well, everyone has a mission to accomplish.
This has been an under-appreciated trend. North is richer, more liveable, healthier (no
chance of Ebola), and has water. The climate changes and the massive increase in population
are making southern areas slowly uninhabitable.
Western elites know this – they know that in 1-2 generations large parts of the
Third World will collapse, Sub-Saharan Africa, but also partially India, Middle East,
south-east Asia. The spill-over from these regions – that West has foolishly integrated
with – will fatally damage most of the West.
Parts of the West are already suffering from the climate issues and uncontrolled
migration. Inland Australia and Southwest US are becoming deserts. Large cities have been
overrun by Third Worlders, and it is inevitable that more will come.
Russia's large geographic space is unique: very rich in resources, benefiting from climate
changes, and thinly populated by a well educated, unique civilisation. This stands out like a
sore thumb for the West. They have to ' incorporate ' Russia's resources, it is an
economic imperative. West has been failing – mostly due to its own arrogance and
stupidity. But all they know how to do is more of the same, get angry, scream and shout, try
again and again with the same militant approach as before.
When that fails, they go into an outright hysteria: ' No Olympics for you!, and no fish
and chips either, how dare your quote to us our own principles, you impertinent Russian
savages!!! '. Eventually West might end up in a self-imposed cul-de-sac with the only
option to go for the jugular and start an outright war. Then we will be all f ed, but at
least the Western masters will not lose face.
The US humiliatingly failed in its attempts to frighten and force the DPRK into
submission.
The offer of North Koreans to negotiate is a submission, a direct result of the US
pressure.
The AngloZionists have lost the civil war in Syria.
The war is still going on. Assad barely controls half of Syria. As a matter of fact until
recently he did not even control the whole of Damascus. The Turks are in Afrin, Americans
east of the Euphrates River are building new bases.
The UK and the rest of the NATO are becoming militarily irrelevant.
Sure thing. They are so irrelevant that every time they make a move Putin has a major
fit.
The Ukraine has crashed and is burning and a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass is most
likely.
Agree about the possibility of an attack.
The political forces in Europe who opposed anti-Russian policies are on the ascent.
Any evidence?
The Russians are winning many EU countries over by economic means including North Stream
whereas sanctions are hurting the EU much more than Russia.
A pipe dream.
The anti-Putin campaign has miserably failed and Russia is fully united in her stance
against the Empire.
The anti Putin campaign continues, see your own paragraphs above. Most Russians seem to be
behind Putin.
If it doubles down, something the Neocons always do, then this means war with Russia.
This is a stark and very difficult choice (no, not for normal people, but for the
psychopaths ruling the West).
I am sure that deciding to go to war is extremely difficult choice for the psychopaths
whilst for the normal people it is a piece of cake. The entertainment value of this piece is
priceless.
Well, perhaps save that "priceless".
Just the usual Saker, only with one notch up. Increasingly delusional and ratcheting up his
wishful thinking.
Fanbase and grupies here don't mind that. On the contrary, they need it, and increasingly
so. Offsets, at least temporarily, the harsh realities around them.
Assad of course hasn't won. While ISIS might be no more, and there have been real gains
(Aleppo, Damascus suburbs), this is more than counterbalanced by Turkey establishing a real
presence in northern Syria. Not clear how the Syrians can dislodge them, or the US from
Rojava.
The Ukraine has crashed
and is burning for the past four years now too bad The Saker is the only one noticing it
(well, and Ishchenko, I suppose).
Whether the Ukraine will attack or not.
+: If Russia intervenes forcefully, half the participants announce a boycott. $14 billion
or however much all the stadiums + kickbacks cost down the drain.
-: But then the Ukraine will be in for another humiliating defeat, and possibly the gay
dwarves in the Kremlin finally find the balls to recognize the LDNR.
-: If Russia doesn't intervene, then the Ukraine has a basically good chance of conquering
the LDNR.
I'm afraid the Bolton appointment means more that an immoral, horrible war with Iran became
more probable, not so much Russia. Isn't that the main difference between McMaster and
Bolton? Despite the obvious hair differences.
Agree with the spirit of the title of this piece that the month of Mars, the war month, in
2018, feels like an historic watershed.
'Full Spectrum Dominance', as explicit in US military doctrine, and noted as such by
Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel address, and embedded in the F. William Engdahl book 'Full
Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order', was imo both pathological
and impossible, but that didn't stop them from trying.
Putin's announcement to the planet that the Russians had developed a variety of weapons
that were capable of demonstrating dominance over the US, does far more than end American
full spectrum dominance ambitions and pretensions.
The thousand or so American military bases, and its navy around the planet, that have
projected power, are henceforth providing many targets for precise strikes.
It also potentially gives many other countries the ability to purchase the means to be
able to make American or NATO attacks on them far more difficult.
Gen. Wesley Clark's rather famous post 9/11 surprise at hearing that 7 countries in
five years were slated for – in effect – destruction, euphemistically called
regime change is starting to seem like another era. 'Guess what I just heard down the hall.
We're gonna go into 5 countries with our mercenaries, and military, and our amazing
technology, and bomb them all to hell if we have to, and lie to the world about everything
we're doing, and kill and wound and orphan millions of people, because ah, because ah,
because ah, actually I'm not sure why, but that's what's on the program. It's sort of a
tradition. We bombed the hell out of Korea, then we bombed the hell out of Vietnam and Laos
and Cambodia, actually I lost count, so many, anyway fast forward to remnants of Yugoslavia,
boy did we ever destroy that.!'
Absolute power corrupting absolutely, Russia and China providing a counterbalance to the
US attempt at absolute power has saved the Americans perhaps from being corrupted
absolutely.
Karlin, you do understand that you already turned into the cheap pathetic troll, right?
With your zero "expertise" in any military issues (as well as most others related and not)
your opinions on any Russia related military and geopolitical questions are worth as much as
your, well, ignorance. I understand that you have complex of inferiority and are severely
butt-hurt, and having a psychology of a loser-teenager you need to pretend that you somehow
have something to say, but you don't. So, as I suggested in other threads–before you
completely self-destruct and humiliate yourself to the point of becoming a meme for ignorance
matched only by your unconstrained ambition (and you are getting there), try not to parade
yourself as clown since pretty much your any geopolitical "opinion" is a cringe worthy
experience for anyone who have good professional understanding of military issues. You don't
and you have zero background for that, so , as I stated, when I have time I will gladly call
them out. Note though, since you are an amateur in all that, even the way you state your
(butt-hurt) ignorant opinions is such that rational and professional responses are not
possible. It is akin to talking to hysterical girl who was un-liked on Facebook by some boy.
So, just to illustrate how full of shit you are:
The Ukraine has crashed and is burning for the past four years now too bad The Saker is
the only one noticing it (well, and Ishchenko, I suppose).
But then again, you have no faculties to even understand what is going on. Per Ishenko,
LOL. Karlin, read Krylov's famous fable about Elephant and Pug, albeit you are not even
qualified for a role of a pug.
the fact that today Trump replaced McMaster with a warmongering psychopath like John
Bolton is a clear sign that the Neocons are in charge in the US and that the Axis of
Kindness is about to get a heck of a lot "kinder".
I don't care for John Bolton more than most reasonable people do, I suppose, but it's not
clear he's any worse than McMaster. People are readily triggered by the name John
Bolton , but has anything substantively changed?
This speech by a US dummy is a preview of what will come from OPCW "investigation", that
is more of the same as what they concluded regarding Syrian use of chemical weapons. By some
upside down magic privy only to the Exceptional People the countries which have declared,
destroyed and have been verified to have destroyed them, keep using the chemical weapons and
being constantly accused by those who still hold and produce chemical weapons. Those who have
them do not use them, whilst those who do not have them use them. Iraq, Syria now Russia. The
Skripal case is Iraq WMD 3.0.
Therefore, OPCW did not find any problem in that Britain did not follow the procedure
clearly stated in the OPCW Statute, after Britain with Canada even declared that procedure
optional. In reality, it is neither explicitly written nor implied that the procedure of
sharing the samples with the accused is optional. But OPCW keeps silent.
Furthermore, the British are already using own courts to their advantage. Although Miss
Skripal is a Russian citizen they convened a court proceeding about which no Russian
representative was informed and straight out lied in court that the Russians never enquired
about their citizen, contrary to the public announcement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The British Government appointed a lawyer for Miss Skripal. This court proceeding
was a formality but it is a good sign of the things to come. More details here:
http://johnhelmer.net/the-skripal-case-goes-to-court-for-the-first-time-new-uncertainties-for-the-british-and-russian-governments/#more-18920
My best guess is that OPCW will produce a report full of weasel words, which will then be
blared from all Western MSM as proof of Russian and maybe even Putin's own doing (not sure
how they would make that big jump over in logic, probably through the meme of secret
intelligence that clown Johnson used already).
Any similarity between MH17 and Skripal investigations, although both cooked up in the
same kitchen, is completely coincidental, of course.
Why do you suppose an alt-rightist must view Russia as an extension of what they wish to
have in America? Do you have an example of someone who conflates Russian national interests
with particular American concerns? Why is it not sufficient to recognize a common enemy and
hope for mutual success? At any rate, Putin's multilateralist vision is inherently
conservative (properly understood), and his coherence in absolute terms is admirable (never
mind in comparison to revolting Western politicians).
"We in the United States" are well aware that the British false flag assassination claim
is sheer nonsense, that the UK refuses to allow an investigation precisely because it is a
pack of lies (probably ginned up in an attempt to improve May's approval rating), and that no
"nerve gas" was used, and very likely nobody was killed.
So that's the problem with this ham handed attempt to stir up a pretext for war. Everyone
with a brain knows that it's a lie .There will be no war with Russia, thank God .
In a game of one-up-man-ship, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been blowing the
proverbial bridges between Russia and the western world to pieces in the last several weeks
with comments that have really been beyond the pale. He suggested that Russian President Putin
was the person that gave the go ahead for the attempted assassination of a former Russian spy
in England. He then absolutely blew that out of the water by claiming yesterday that holding
the World Soccer Cup in Russia was akin to Hitler's 1936 Olympics. This last point I personally
took huge exception to, because the fact is the 25 million or so Soviets that died actually
fighting Hitler saved England fro German invasion - an invasion that England would have lost
hands down. In truth, Johnson might just as well of accused modern day Israel of being a Nazi
state. That's just how bizarre Johnson's attack on Russia was. And perhaps more importantly in
the scheme of things, how incendiary the attack was.
What is becoming clear is that the US, and its western allies, are laying the groundwork for
a massive war, perhaps a world war, with Eurasia and its allies in the Middle East. With the
appointment of Bolton on the same day as Trump signed the first trade action against China (and
he emphasized it was the first of many) the signs are very clear. The West is going to war with
the East. The likely initial targets are Syria, and Iran. Any attack on Iran is a declaration
of war on Russia. Iran after all is not just an important ally to Russia, but it sits right on
the border with Russia. In other words, Russia would be pulled into such a war out of
self-defence if for no other reason.
Bearing Russia's position in mind, think back to last week when Russia announced a number of
new generation weapons it stated were untouchable by Western anti-missile capabilities. It is
quite obvious that Russia is attempting to dissuade the West from its intended push against one
of Russia's most strategic interests - Iran. It's also quite evident from Trump's gestures
today that he is completely unmoved by Russia's message. That can only mean one thing - we are
going to war. When I say we, I mean the West. As someone who has served, and the son of a World
War II veteran I am disgusted by Western aggression toward Eurasia. Yes, I said Western
aggression. Have a look around at all the conflicts going on. They're all going on around
Russia's or China's backyard - not so much in the West...
Nobody knows for certain how this
will play its deadly hand out. One thing is for certain, scrapping of the Iran Nuclear
Agreement appears imminent. Also, a reigniting of the Saudi/Iran conflict is sure to follow.
The West will need an easily understandable excuse to attack Iran, and that can only be one of
three things really: an attack on Israel; coming to the aid of Saudi; or a North Korea style
action against Iran having a nuclear weapon once the aforementioned agreement is unilaterally
cancelled.
This won't be a picnic for the West though. Leave a direct conflict with Russia and China
out of the equation for the moment. Consider that a Saudi/Iran conflict, or an Israeli/Iran
conflict would have the affect of tripling oil prices over night. Then consider a massive sell
off on the stock market. Factor in the US Federal Reserves increases in its over night lending
rates. All these things, and quite a few economic problems not mentioned here, would plummet
the Western economies into a cataclysmic spiral. The markets are very jittery as it is, sensing
as they do that things have gone quite far off the tracks. Many people have said to me that
such an economic collapse would cause Eurasia to fall as well, but I always answer that
statement like this: "Remember in 2008 when the market collapsed? China sent 250 million people
home to their villages, without a job, and that was that. There was no revolt, or any social
turmoil. If that happened in the US or any Western economy, there would be civil insurrection
almost over night. Therein lies the difference. While China would be hurt, it can sustain the
blow. The Western world cannot. In other words, a war of economic attrition."
I don't know if there is anything the ordinary citizen can do to forestall this madness - as
one American recently said to me: "all I can do is vote". But, I suggest if you like the world
in one piece and you are concerned about the end of humanity, get out and say something. Be
accountable to yourself, to humanity, and the world. Don't be a sheeple.
I have the same worries. The mainstream media here in Germany, which is entirely and 100%
under CIA control, has been ramping up anti-Russia propaganda since weeks. I didn't think it
would be possible after the Ukraine conflict but it is even worse now. The comments of this
filthy lunatic Boris Johnson but also of his boss-bitch Theresa May have been way below any
line of decency. It's even below the kind of rhetoric Hitler has used when he talked about
other statesmen such as (this fat, ugly war-criminal and mass murderer) Winston
Churchill.
But it's not "the West" that is going to war, it is the Anglo-American establishment.
"West" is an artificial propaganda term that should not be used anyway, because all it
denotes is the countries dominated by Anglo-America. Germany and France, the only countries
powerful enough to stop Anglo-American madness, are usually dancing to the tune of
Warshington and London, but I am not so sure if they will really go all the way here,
especially with Iran. Also and despite all the propaganda, while German and French people may
not trust Russia and see Putin as a "dictator", they also see the US regime (especially with
the Trumpet in charge) as nothing but a dangerous, trigger-happy war machinery. There is no
way you could sell a war against Iran to them, also not the rest of Europe including Britain.
I even have doubts about whether the American public would swallow such a war.
Either way, it will be a disaster for the "West" - economically, politically, militarily.
In fact, it will be the end of the "West" and of the Anglo-American empire including the
Zionist colony. So in the end there might be a great result of yet another horror. What
Russia really needs to do now is to give both Syria and Iran the full power of Russian air
defence.
Evidence submitted by the British government in court today proves, beyond any doubt, that
Boris Johnson has been point blank lying about the degree of certainty Porton Down scientists
have about the Skripals being poisoned with a Russian "novichok" agent.
Yesterday in an interview with Deutsche Welle Boris Johnson claimed directly Porton Down
had told him they positively identified the nerve agent as Russian:
*You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to
find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
Let me be clear with you When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the
laboratory
So they have the samples
They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, "Are you
sure?" And he said there's no doubt.*
I knew and had published from my own whistle blowers that this is a lie. Until now I could
not prove it. But today I can absolutely prove it, due to the judgement at the High Court
case which gave permission for new blood samples to be taken from the Skripals for use by the
OPCW. Justice Williams included in his judgement a summary of the evidence which tells us,
directly for the first time, what Porton Down have actually said...
Having spent some time in Germany, I have to agree with these comments. If you think the
Propaganda is bad in the US and the UK, in Germany it is even worse. It is almost as if they
are in competition to be the most servile and obedient to their masters. It is if history
doesn't even exist. It is 1941 all over again. The difference being Germany has nothing to
fight with and if it comes to war they will be absolutely pulverized to nuclear ash.
This is how stupid the media is to hype this Anti-Russian propaganda 24/7, 7 days a week.
There is no real "alternative" news that I could find either. If there is a silver lining in
all this though, is that many Germans don't take the media seriously at all anymore. When you
overcook the pot, this is what can happen. Just like that fool Boris Johnson. He has now
compared Putin to Hitler and the 1936 olympics. How stupid can this buffoon be? You think you
can just carry on with business as usual once this stupid provocation with the poisoned spy
blows over after saying something like that? He hasn't just insulted Putin, he has insulted
all of Russia who sacrificed more than any other country to stop Hitler. I can't believe what
low IQ clowns the UK is producing as politicians these days. It is really scraping the bottom
of the barrel.
Manipulating democracy -- brainwashing the public for a large fee
Cambridge Analytica, the data harvesting firm that worked for the Trump campaign, is in the
midst of a scandal that should make everyone who cares about a clean political process demand
major investigations of anyone who has procured the services of the company, major prosecutions
of those who have violated laws across multiple nations and a wholesale revitalisation of
electoral laws to prevent politicians from ever again procuring the services of unethical
companies like Cambridge Analytica.
Days ago, whistleblower Christopher Wylie went public about his time
working for Cambridge Analytica and specifically about how the firm illegally obtained the
public and private data, including the private messages of 50 million Facebook users. He also
exposed how Cambridge Analytica used this data to run highly scientific social manipulation
campaigns in order to effectively brainwash the public in various countries to support a
certain political candidate or faction.
Cambridge Analytica's dubious methods were used to meddle in the US election after the Trump
campaign paid Cambridge Analytica substantial sums of money for their services. The firm also
meddled in the last two Kenyan Presidential elections, elections in Nigeria, elections in Czech
Republic, elections in Argentina, elections in India, the Brexit campaign, UK Premier Theresa
May's recently election and now stands accused of working with the disgraced former
Pakistani Premier Nawaz Sharif in an attempt to reverse his judicial ban on holding public
office, while helping his PML-N party win the forthcoming general election.
Beyond the scandalous use of personal data from Facebook users and the illegal access to
people's private messages, Cambridge Analytica has now been exposed as a company that, by the
hidden-camera admission of its CEO Alexander Nix, engages in nefarious, illegal and outrageous
activities across the globe.
The UK Broadcaster Channel 4 just released a video of Cambridge Analytica's CEO and Managing
DIrector Mark Turnbull in a conversation with an undercover reporter posing as a Sri Lankan
businessman interested in meddling in domestic elections. During the conversation Nix boasted
of Cambridge Analytica's history of using entrapment, bribery and intimidation against the
political opponents of its wealthy clients. Furthermore, Nix boasted about his firm's ability
to procure Ukrainian prostitutes as a means to entrap adversaries while also procuring the
services of "Israeli spies" as part of dirty smear operations.
The activities that Nix boasted of using in the past and then offered to a prospective
client are illegal in virtually every country in the world. But for Nix and his world of
ultra-rich clients, acting as though one is above the law is the rule rather than the
exception. Thus far, Cambridge Analaytica has been able to escape justice throughout the world
both for its election meddling, data harvesting, data theft and attempts to slander politicians
through calculated bribery and entrapment schemes.
One person who refused to be tempted by Cambridge Analytica was Julian Assange. Alexander
Nix personally wrote to Julian Assange asking for direct access to information possessed by
Wikileaks and Assange refused. This is a clear example of journalistic ethics and personal
integrity on the part of Assange. Justice must be done
Cambridge Analytica stands accused of doing everything and more that the Russian
state was accused of doing in respect of meddling in the 2016 US Presidential election. While
meetings and conversations that Trump campaign officials, including Steve Bannon had with
Cambridge Analyatica big wigs were not recorded, any information as to what was said during
these exchanges should be thoroughly investigated by law enforcement and eventually made public
for the sake of restoring transparency to politics.
Just as the Hillary Clinton campaign openly conspired to deprive Bernie Sanders of the
Democratic Party's nomination, so too did Donald Trump's campaign pay Cambridge Analytica to
conspire against the American voters using a calculated psychological manipulation campaign
that was made possible through the use of unethically obtained and stolen data.
While Facebook claims it was itself misled and consequently victimised by Cambridge
Analytica and has subsequently banned the firm from its platform, many, including Edward
Snowden have alleged that Facebook knew full well what Cambridge Analytica was doing with the
data retrieved from its Facebook apps. Already, the markets have reacted to the news and the
verdict is not favourble in terms of the public perception of Facebook as an ethical company.
Facebook's share prices are down over 7% on the S&P 500. This represents the biggest tumble
in the price of Facebook share prices since 2014. Moreover, the plunge has knocked Facebook out
of the coveted big five companies atop the S&P 500. Furthermore, Alex Stamos, Facebook's
security director has announced that he will soon leave the company.
The Trump myth and Russia myth exposed
Donald Trump has frequently boasted of his expert campaigning skills as being the reason he
won an election that few thought he could have ever won. While Trump was a far more charismatic
and exciting platform speaker than his rival Hillary Clinton, it seems that for the Trump
campaign, Trump ultimately needed to rely on the expensive and nefarious services of Cambridge
Analytica in order to manipulate the minds of American voters and ultimately trick them into
voting for him. It is impossible to say whether Trump would have still won his election without
Cambridge Analaytica's services, but the fact they were used, should immediately raise the
issue of Trump's suitability for office.
Ultimately, the Trump campaign did conspire to meddle in the election, only it was
not with Russia or Russians with whom the campaign conspired, it was with the British firm
Cambridge Analytica. Thus one sees that both the narrative about Trump the electoral "genius"
and the narrative about Trump the Kremlin puppet are both false. The entire time, the issue of
Trump campaign election meddling was one between a group of American millionaires and
billionaires and a sleaze infested British firm.
Worse than Watergate
In 1972, US President Richard Nixon conspired to cover-up a beak-in at the offices of his
political opponents at the Watergate Complex. The scandal ultimately led to Nixon's resignation
in 1974. What the Trump campaign did with Cambridge Analytica is far more scandalous than the
Watergate break-in and cover-up. Where Nixon's cronies broke into offices to steal information
from the Democratic party, Trump's paid cyber-thugs at Cambridge Analytica broke in to the
private data of 50 million people, the vast majority of whom were US citizens.
Richard Nixon, like Donald Trump, was ultimately driven by a love of power throughout his
life. Just as Trump considered running for President for decades, so too did Nixon try to run
in 1960 and lost to John Fitzgerald Kennedy, while he also failed to become governor of
California in 1962 election. By 1968 he finally got into the White House at the height of the
Vietnam War. When time came for his re-election, Nixon's team weren't going to take any chances
and hence the Watergate break-in was orchestrated to dig up dirt on Nixon's opponent. As it
turned out Nixon won the 1972 by a comfortable margin, meaning that the Watergate break-in was
probably largely in vain.
Likewise, Trump may well have won in 2016 even without Cambridge Analytica, but in his quest
for power, Trump has resorted to dealing with a company whose practices have done far more
damage to the American people than the Watergate break-in.
New laws are needed
While existing laws will likely be sufficient to bring the fiends at Cambridge Analytica to
justice, while also determining the role that Trump campaign officials, up to and including
Trump played in the scandal, new laws must be enshrined across the globe in order to put the
likes of Cambridge Analytica out of business for good.
The following proposals must be debated widely and ideally implemented at the soonest
possible date:
-- A total ban on all forms of data mining/harvesting for political purposes.
-- A total ban on the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence in any political
campaign or for any political purpose.
-- A mandatory seizing of the assets of any company involved in data mining/harvesting for
political purposes, after which point such a company would be forcibly shut down
permanently.
-- A mandatory seizing of the assets of any company involved in the use of artificial
intelligence or algorithms in the course of a public political campaign.
-- A total ban on the use of internet based platforms, including social media by political
candidates and their direct associates for anything that could reasonably be classified as a
misinformation and/or manipulation scheme.
-- A total ban on politicians using third party data firms or advertising firms during
elections. All such advertising and analysis must be devised by advisers employed directly by
or volunteering for an individual candidate or his or her party political organisation.
-- A total ban on any individual working for a political campaign, who derives at least half
of his or her income from employment, ownership and/or shares in a company whose primary
purpose is to deliver news and analysis.
-- A total ban on anyone paid by a political candidate to promote his or her election from
an ownership or major share holding role in any company whose primary purpose is to deliver
news and analysis until 2 years after the said election.
If all of these laws were implemented along with thorough campaign finance reform
initiatives, only then can anything remotely resembling fair elections take place.
The elites eat their own
While many of the media outlets who have helped to publish the revelations of whistleblower
Christopher Wylie continue to defame Russia without any evidence about Russian linkage to the
2016 US election (or any other western vote for that matter), these outlets are nevertheless
exposing the true meddling scandal surrounding the Trump campaign which has the effect of
destroying the Russia narrative.
In this sense, a divided elite are turning against themselves. While the billionaire
property tycoon Donald Trump can hardly be described as anything but a privileged figure who
moved in elite public circles for most of his life, his personal style, rhetoric and attitude
towards fellow elites has served to alienate Trump from many. Thus, there is a desire on the
part of the mainstream media to expose a scandal surrounding Trump in a manner that would be
unthinkable in respect of exposing a cause less popular among western elites, for example the
brutal treatment of Palestine by the Zionist regime.
In this sense, Trump's own unwillingness or lack of desire to endear himself to fellow
elites and instead present himself as a 'man of the people', might be his penultimate undoing.
His rich former friends are now his rich present day enemies and many ordinary voters will be
completely aghast at his involvement with Cambridge Analytica, just as many Republicans who
voted for Nixon, became converts to the anti-Nixon movement once the misdeeds and dishonesty of
Richard Nixon were made public. Many might well leave the 'Trump train' and get on board the
'political ethics express'.
Conclusion
This scandal ultimately has nothing to do with one's opinion on Trump or his policies, let
alone any of the other politicians who have hired Cambridge Analytica. The issue is that a
company engaged in the most nefarious, dangerous, sleazy and wicked behaviour in the world, is
profiting from their destruction of political institutions that ought to be based on open
policy debates rather than public manipulation, brainwashing and artificial intelligence.
The issue is also one of privacy. 50 million people have been exploited by an unethical
company and what's more is that the money from the Trump campaign helped to empower this
unethical company. This is therefore as unfair to non-voters as it is to voters. Cambridge
Analytica must be shut down and all companies like it must restrict the scope of their
operations or else face the same consequence.
I ran onto something about that when researching SCL/Cambridge Analytica
The Mercer/Cambridge Analytica US wing of SCL put a lot of funding into the leave campaign
which was undeclared. Like a political campaign, donations above a threshold have to be
declared.
Threshold for declaring donations I think was around 3 to 7000 and CA put in over 300
000.
I have been researching SCL the last few days now. It is starting to look as though,
rather than being political mercenary's working for whoever pays, they seem to back
nationalist leaning groups or individuals. They have a political or geo-political agenda but
not sure what at the moment. Always anti Russia. Involved in operations in most of the ex
soviet countries to create a hatred of ethnic Russians and I think will work with non
nationalist types who are very anti Russia.
Stormy Daniels was "truthful about having unprotected vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump in July 2006," according to a polygraph
test report from 2011.
The report states that the "probability of deception was measured to be less than 1%." It was given to CNN by Michael Avenatti,
Daniels' attorney, and contains three pertinent questions: "Around July 2006, did you have vaginal intercourse with Donald Trump?,"
"Around July 2006, did you have unprotected sex with Donald Trump?" and "Did Trump say you would get on 'The Apprentice'?"
Another
Trump attorney involved in Stormy Daniels case Daniels replied yes to all three questions. The first two were analyzed to be
truthful and the third question was "inconclusive," according to the polygraph examiner, Ronald Slay. Polygraphs are generally inadmissible
in court.
The polygraph was performed at the request of Bauer Publishing, which owns Life & Style and InTouch magazines, according to the reporter
who interviewed Daniels in 2011. Reporter Jordi Lippe-McGraw initially interviewed Daniels for Life & Style magazine. The interview
was not published at the time, but Bauer Publishing released it in InTouch magazine earlier this year.
Avenatti confirmed to CNN that he purchased the video and file of the polygraph test for $25,000. "We did so to ensure that it
would be maintained and kept safely during the litigation and not be altered or destroyed," Avenatti said in a statement. "We did
so after learning that various parties, including mainstream media organization, were attempting to acquire the video and the file
and either destroy it or use it for nefarious means."
RELATED: The shaky science
of lie detectors Daniels tweeted about the encounter Tuesday afternoon following the release of the polygraph, defending herself
and saying she's "not going anywhere."
"Technically I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping (hehe) and he was just a goofy reality TV star.
But I digress...People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc.
And PS...I am NOT going anywhere. xoxoxo," she wrote.
Technically I didn't sleep with the POTUS 12 years ago. There was no sleeping (hehe) and he was just a goofy reality TV star.
But I digress...People DO care that he lied about it, had me bullied, broke laws to cover it up, etc.
Lippe-McGraw told CNN on Tuesday that Daniels passed the test in a broader sense. "Based off of the interview, we had her take the
polygraph test to confirm the details of what she was telling us. There wasn't much in the way of physical evidence, per se," Lippe-McGraw
said, adding that the big-picture question they wanted to confirm was that the affair happened, and that Daniels passed.
Lippe-McGraw said that Daniels told her she had unprotected sex with Trump, because Daniels is allergic to latex and didn't have
condoms at the time. Earlier Tuesday, Avenatti tweeted out a photograph of Daniels being administered the test.
The Wall Street Journal
first released the details of the polygraph questions and answers. Also on Tuesday, Daniels' friend Alana Evans told CNN's Brooke
Baldwin that she and Daniels have received threats over the allegations from people who had previously been in the adult industry.
"I have not been made aware that Cohen had physically threatened her. I know in the last few weeks, and the last couple of months,
that Stormy and myself have received threats from people in the outside world completely trying to defend Trump and Cohen and calling
us liars and threatening us with physical harm, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's stemming from there as well," Evans said. Evans
said this included threatening emails, threats to their families and their safety, and threats to release private information.
NYT became a yellow publication. And their hate of Trump is really visceral (Not that Trump
is an ideal President). Which is strange because Trump folded and with hiring of Bolton now is
really Hillary in foreign policy (the only difference is sex, but that can be fixed with the sex
change operation)
They write about this prostitute with such a sympathy that I suspect that they are involved
in the industry too.
She is the actress in pornographic films who is suing a sitting
president , with whom she said she had a consensual affair, in order to be released from a
nondisclosure agreement she reached with his lawyer just before the 2016 election. Over the
past two months, she has guided the story of her alleged relationship with President Trump --
and the $130,000 she was paid to keep silent -- into a full-fledged scandal. If Ms. Clifford's
court case proceeds, Mr. Trump may have to testify in depositions, and her suit could provide
evidence of campaign spending violations. She is scheduled to appear on "60 Minutes" on
Sunday.
And if her name has seemed ubiquitous -- repeated on cable television and in the White House
briefing room, and plastered on signs outside nightclubs, where her appearance fees have
multiplied -- there is this to consider: Unlike most perceived presidential adversaries, about
whom Mr. Trump is rarely shy, Ms. Clifford has not been the subject of a single tweet.
To many in the capital, Ms. Clifford, 39, has become an unexpected force. It is she, some in
Washington now joke, and not the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who could topple Mr.
Trump.
... ... ...
The false-start campaign coincided with a turbulent moment in her personal life, exposing
her to scrutiny in the mainstream press. In July 2009, Ms. Clifford was arrested on a
misdemeanor charge of domestic violence after hitting her husband, a performer in the industry,
and throwing a potted plant during a fight about laundry and unpaid bills, according to police
records. The husband, Michael Mosny, was not injured, and the charge was later dropped. Ms.
Clifford had previously been married to another pornographic actor.
She has since married another colleague in the business, Brendon Miller, the father of her
now 7-year-old daughter. He is also a drummer and has composed music for her films.
... ... ...
Ms. Clifford has not shown up at competitions since news broke in January that she accepted
a
financial settlement in October 2016 -- weeks before the election -- agreeing to keep
quiet about her alleged intimate relationship with Mr. Trump. She has said the affair,
which representatives of Mr. Trump have denied, began in 2006 and extended into 2007, the year
she married Mr. Mosny.
Earlier this month, she escalated public attention by filing suit, calling the 2016 contract
meaningless given that Mr. Trump had never signed it and revealing that the president's
personal lawyer had taken further secret legal action to keep her silent this year.
The masses don't care about Stormy Daniels. Of course, Trump used his "art of the deal" to
score with likely a hundred of bimbos. Who cares? It preceded him being Prez.
Is like the Facebook article about privacy... most people know the truth and don't need
the media view. We know Trump cheated. We know FB is corrupt. By far, Trump is better than
the corrupt criminal Clinton's.
Melania
Trump has spent a number of nights at a posh D.C. hotel away from President Trump following
allegations of a fling with porn star Stormy Daniels, White House sources told
DailyMail.com.
Melania , 47, is
terrified that more women could emerge with tales of her husband's infidelity. "Melania is
unprepared for more women to come forward with allegations of affairs with Donald. Melania
wants to leave, but she is paralyzed with fear. She is bracing the worst and is unsure how to
move forward," a Washington D.C. insider tells HollywoodLife.com EXCLUSIVELY. Barron , now 11.
"Melania feels stuck with a sinking presidency and she wants to get out before Trump's house
of cards comes crashing down around her. She fears what embarrassing revelations Stormy might
reveal in her 60 Minutes interview and Melania's greater worries is what impact the
revelations may have on the presidency," our source reveals.
...
Trump himself crudely joked about Melania being the
next person to leave the White House during a speech at the Gridiron Club Dinner on March
3. Unfortunately, divorcing a sitting president would be unheard of and history making.
Melania's pretty much stuck with him as long as he's in the White House, and she still fears he
could be cheating on her to this day! "Melania has wanted to divorce Donald, over fidelity
issues, since before they landed in the White House. She has long suspected that he has used,
and continues to use, Mar-a-Lago as a rendezvous spot for his secret affairs. The Florida
location is completely under Donald's control, he is always there, and it is much easier for
him to enjoy private meetings at the resort rather than try to meet his mistresses at the White
House or around DC or NYC. Melania has pleaded with Donald to stay away
from his many trips to Mar-a-Lago , disguised as golfing holidays, but he refuses to give
in to her requests," our insider adds.
Thanks to Barron Trump his parents are not heading for divorce just yet.
When the news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump had an affair with adult star Stormy
Daniels, many people assumed that his wife, first lady Melania Trump was going to divorce him.
The FLOTUS has been noticed for allegedly refusing to hold her husband's hand in public. Others
also spotted her rolling her eyes while the POTUS was greeting a few cheerleaders during the
Super Bowl party on February 4. However, the Slovenia native is far from divorcing her husband
of 13 years while he is still in the presidential seat for a good reason.
An insider close to Melania Trump recently told Hollywood Life that she is not
thinking about making a move to divorce her husband while he is in office because of
their son Barron .
According to the source, the 47-year-old former model wants to focus only on the young boy
and his well-being. She doesn't want to get distracted with the alleged affair between the
POTUS and Stormy Daniels. She apparently wants her family intact for the sake of her
11-year-old son.
... ... ...
Because
of her recent actions that didn't go unnoticed, many people believe that Melania Trump is only
trying to save her marriage for her son and not just because of being the first lady of the
United States. The alleged extramarital affair of her husband and Daniels in 2006 may have
caused their marriage to hit a snag. The adult star, though, has been inconsistent with her
statements, which is one reason that some Republicans are not convinced that the president had
an affair with the 38-year-old Louisiana native.
An alleged statement from Daniels surfaced on January 30 with her signature, saying that she
denies the affair. Howbeit, during her interview during Jimmy Kimmel Live , the adult
film star said that she is not aware of the denial statement that
surfaced earlier that day.
Stormy Daniels, an adult entertainer who's considering running
for Senate from Louisiana, was arrested Saturday on a domestic violence charge in Tampa, Fla.
Daniels was charged with battery after she allegedly hit her husband, Michael Mosny, over
the head with her hands. According to the police report , she
was angry about a bill Mosny hadn't paid and about the way his father had done the laundry. She
broke a flower pot and a few glass candle holders, threw their wedding album on the floor and
allegedly hit her husband while struggling to get the car keys from him. She denied hitting him
intentionally.
Neither
Mosny nor Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, were injured. Daniels was held
overnight and released on $1,000 bond.
The porn star
formed an exploratory committee in May, the first step in a possible Senate run against
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), whose social conservative reputation was tarnished by the D.C. Madam
prostitution scandal.
On Thursday, the former Playboy Playmate sat down with Anderson Cooper at 6 Columbus Hotel
and poured her heart out in a detailed account of what she says was a 10-month fling with the
President.
His reps have denied the affair.
McDougal said in the interview that she and Trump had been in love -- and that she now
deeply regrets helping him cheat on his wife.
When cameras stopped rolling, she was asked how she felt about the confessional.
"Well, aside from the fact I have a headache and a cold -- I'm my own worst critic -- I
think I came across as credible," she said, according to a source. "But I'm not an
attorney."
When assured by her handlers that she'd done a great job, a source who was present said
McDougal argued she could have been more succinct in explaining why she decided to come forward
more than a decade later.
"A friend of mine leaked the story and now that it's out I want to tell my side," she
explained.
McDougal also wasn't expecting a marathon grilling.
"I thought this was going to be 20 minutes, I didn't know it would be over an hour," she
admitted.
McDougal and her team watched a playback of the interview, which featured an old photo of
her that was taken prior to her breast implant removal in January. The model told People
magazine in February that the implants were causing her illness.
"That's me on the end," she pointed. "That's when I had breasts."
McDougal cried when watching the part of the interview where Cooper asked what she'd say to
Melania, sources told The News. "I'm sorry," she told Cooper. "I wouldn't want it done to me."
Tears turned to laughter when a member of the production asked McDougal if she was aware that
Hillary Clinton taped an interview in the same hotel suite.
"I didn't know that, but I can tell you I didn't have the questions in advance," she
joked.
One member of the production crew asked McDougal if she'd met porn star Stormy Daniels, who
also claims she had an affair with the President and is hoping to be released from a
confidentiality agreement that could see her punished for speaking up. She said that she has
not, nor does she plan to.
I have been accused of "
lack
of candor
." That is not true. I did not knowingly mislead or lie to investigators. When asked about contacts with
a reporter that were fully within my power to authorize as deputy director, and amid the chaos that surrounded me, I
answered questions as completely and accurately as I could. And when I realized that some of my answers were not
fully accurate or may have been misunderstood, I took the initiative to correct them. At worst, I was not clear in my
responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted -- and for that I
take full responsibility. But that is not a lack of candor. And under no circumstances could it ever serve as the
basis for the very public and extended humiliation of my family and me that the administration, and the president
personally, have engaged in over the past year.
Not in my worst nightmares did I ever dream my FBI career would end this way.
The next day I woke to find the president of the United States celebrating my punishment:
"
Andrew McCabe FIRED
, a
great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI -- A great day for Democracy." I was sad, but not surprised,
to see that such unhinged public attacks on me would continue into my life after my service to the FBI. President
Trump's cruelty reminded me of the days immediately following the firing of James B. Comey, as the White House
desperately tried to push the falsehood that people in the FBI were celebrating the loss of our director. The
president's comments about me were equally hurtful and false, which shows that he has no idea how FBI people feel
about their leaders.
I was drawn to the FBI by nothing more complicated than a desire to do good. In 1994, I
submitted a special-agent application, dreaming about what life as a criminal investigator would be like. I devoured
every book I could find, and binged on news coverage of FBI investigations. When the day came for me to report to the
FBI training academy at Quantico, Va., I embarked on the greatest professional adventure I could ever imagine.
Each year, more than 2,000 men and women of all races, colors and creeds are drawn to the
FBI by the same professional and personal desire to do good. It is the DNA that we all share. As acting director, I
frequently talked to FBI people about that shared DNA as the glue that bound us together and enabled us to stay
mission-focused during the chaos that followed
Comey's firing
in May 2017. True to form, our agents, analysts and professional staff reacted as FBI people
always do. They continued to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution despite the political winds --
and the unprecedented attacks on us by the president and other partisans -- that buffeted us.
The nation continues to need them. And not just the current employees of the FBI, but all
smart, talented, dedicated people considering careers in the law enforcement and intelligence communities. These are
hard jobs that demand sacrifice, often involve danger, and take a toll on families and personal lives. But they also
offer the rare opportunity to enter into a sacred trust with the American people: to protect and defend them,
honestly, justly and fairly. There is no greater responsibility, but there is no greater reward. We cannot afford for
young people to be dissuaded from lives of public service by the divisive politics and partisan attacks that now so
characterize our national discourse and that, I believe, played a major role in the end of my FBI career.
To those men and women, I say: Fear not. Set the headlines aside and give in to what draws
you to this work. The country needs you.
There is nothing like having the opportunity to be a part of the greatest law-enforcement
organization in the world, working every day for goals that you respect and cherish. It is the best job you will ever
have. Even if a president decides to attack you and your family. Even if you get fired on a Friday night, one day
from your retirement.
A porn star, a playmate and a contestant who washed out on his reality TV show have become exemplars for doing battle with a president
for whom practically nothing is out of bounds. They are showing that the most effective way to deal with him is on his own terms.
The three --
Stormy Daniels
,
Karen McDougal
and
Summer Zervos
-- are suing for the right to tell their stories about him. The headaches and unforeseeable turns that these legal
fights present would be well understood by a man who,
according to a USA Today
tally, has filed at least 3,500 lawsuits of his own, for grievances real and imagined. When Trump goes
low, go low - The Washington Post
Adult entertainer Daniels has outmaneuvered the president and his inept lawyer Michael Cohen at nearly every turn. They apparently
believed they had bought her silence about the year-long extramarital affair she claims to have had with the future president a decade
ago.
But it turns out they had only rented it. When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post
When Daniels signed a nondisclosure agreement in the weeks before the 2016 election, hardly anyone thought Trump had much chance
of winning, especially after the furor over comments he had made about women on the now-famous
"Access Hollywood" tape
. So $130,000 to stay quiet must have looked too good for Daniels to pass up. (Cohen said the money came
from his personal home equity line of credit.)
With her alleged paramour in the Oval Office, however, there is surely much more to be gained from her account, so she is trying
to slip free from the agreement on the technicality that Trump never signed it.
Backing out of a deal if there's a better one to be had? Trump did it for decades. "I've made a fortune by using debt, and if
things don't work out I renegotiate the debt. I mean, that's a smart thing, not a stupid thing," he
boasted to CBS
during his presidential
campaign. As president, he has reversed himself so many times that his befuddled allies on Capitol Hill are never sure where or if
he will land on most issues.
Now, instead of Daniels, it is Trump who is remaining silent -- conspicuously so. No tweets, no vicious nicknames, no threats.
She, meanwhile, is going on "60 Minutes," where viewership is likely to be some of its highest ever. Count that as another blow to
a president who measures the import of every event by its television ratings.
Daniels seems to be having a great time. She has become a ninja master in Trump's own medium, smiting trolls on Twitter with
a verve that my colleague Monica Hesse
compared to "a very smart cat batting off a series of very dumb mice, who come at her
under the delusion that the relationship is reversed." When one man tweeted that she was a "scank," she responded by correcting his
spelling.
McDougal, who was Playboy's 1998 Playmate of the Year, claims to have had an affair with Trump around the same time as Daniels.
But in her case, the arrangement that she is trying to escape is the one she made with the National Enquirer's parent company, whose
chief executive, David Pecker, is close to Trump. In her lawsuit, McDougal claims American Media was working secretly with Cohen
to keep her quiet; the company says it contacted Trump's lawyer only to vet her story.
A takedown by a former playmate would be a sour endnote indeed, given how assiduously Trump styled himself as Playboy's ideal
of libidinous masculinity. In 1990, the magazine's cover featured the married real-estate developer posing with another playmate,
Brandi Brandt. She wore only his tuxedo jacket.
When Trump goes low, go low - The Washington Post
He hung a framed copy of that Playboy in his Trump Tower office. "I was one of the few men in the history of Playboy to be on
the cover," Trump once
boasted
to a Post reporter.
Zervos, a former contestant from "The Apprentice," presents a different kind of threat, and potentially the most serious one.
She is one of more than a dozen women who have accused the president of unwanted sexual advances, in her case that he kissed her
and groped her breasts when she met with him to discuss a job. During his presidential campaign, Trump called them all liars, and
threatened to sue.
But Trump never did, empty threats being another of his favorite tactics. It was Zervos who went to court, charging defamation.
On Tuesday, the same day McDougal filed her lawsuit, a New York judge
ruled
that Zervos's case can go forward. It was lost on no one that the precedent cited was the one in the sexual harassment
lawsuit that ultimately led to the
impeachment of Bill
Clinton
.
The Zervos lawsuit opens the possibility that Trump's other accusers, and maybe even more women, will return to tell their stories
under oath. And that the president himself will have to as well.
When Zervos was on the fifth season of "The Apprentice," Trump
fired her
because she interrupted him. It turns out she
may get in a last word after all.
xxx
Scratch #2 is the playmate lawsuit. Scratch #3 is Summer Zervos.
xxx
What's up with powerful men who can't keep it in their pants? Then they lie... What cowards!
xxx
The blame must be shared evenly... if the men cant keep it in their pants, why are women allowing it to happen? Are they being
forced against their will? If so, call the police!
xxx
Wow! What a savage piece! And very well written.
xxx
Yawwwwnn..
Why even bother with this. It just makes everyone look bad. Daniels is a low-life. The media lowers its standards by reporting
it. Nobody believes Trump didn't have sex with Daniels but nobody cares. It's actually expected of someone like Trump to have
an affair now and then.
You might find it unfortunate that a guy named Cohen was involved. I suggest its also unfortunate that a guy named Cohen got
stuck reporting this.
xxx
Trump is a dirtbag, but the last time I checked, having an affair was not criminal offense. I don't care who he slept with, but
I do care who he is screwing - which in this case is 99% of the American people. The other 1% are doing well thanks to him.
xxx
(Edited) What has stormy Daniels done for America????? Just some porn movies for money for herself and now she is blackmailing
the US president. And these readers actually enjoy it????? Trump must be protected. He is our President.
xxx
Now any hooker can come and sue any guy she has slept with for money.......is this what men want???? I dont think so.
xxx
People can't arbitrarily sue people for no reason. His lawyer paid her $130,000. She obviously has something on him. And most
sane men want her to win so Trump can be impeached and sent out to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement... in Antarctica.
xxx
Cant believe men are siding with adult porn actor......... a hooker.... Daniels.........who is out to make money by hook or crook.
Men in America are doomed.
xxx 4 days ago
If the U.S. is such that this horrifically warped man and his monstrously greedy and incompetent cabinet are taken down by
a stupid sex scandal rather than being judiciously removed by responsible people for being criminals, then the U.S. is in even
more serious trouble than even rational thinkers would want to believe.
"[Trump] deducted somebody else's losses," said John L. Buckley, who served as the chief of staff for Congress's Joint
Committee on Taxation in 1993 and 1994. Since the [stiffed] bondholders were likely declaring losses for tax purposes, Trump
shouldn't be able to as well. "He is double dipping big time," Buckley told the Times.
Surely, the IRS can't be too happy about multiple taxpayers taking the same ~$1 billion-loss deduction? I therefore look
forward to Mueller's audit of Trump's tax returns.
And now the Dumpster finds his yacht "Trumpy!" is caught in "Stormy Weather" off the Seychelles -- LOL
But, never fear Dumpsters, we all know that the usual rules don't and never have applied to the "bouffanted buffoon" -- or so he
thinks! -- LOL
Doubtless, the results of Mueller's investigations into Trump's various activities will make this crass, arrogant charlatan
(and his family/associates) sorely regret he ever threw his "bouffanted hairpiece" into the political ring. Hopefully, he will
ultimately be indicted and convicted for egregious financial/taxation crimes and the courts will penalize him to the extent
that all of his and his family's ill-gotten assets will be expropriated, and he'll get to wear one of those ill-fitting orange
jump suits too
Still, the thought of the Rev. Pence becoming POTUS fills me with equal dread.
A man who claimed without evidence that he had sex with former President Barack Obama says the
media is showing a "sickening" double standard with coverage of an alleged affair between
President Trump and porn star Stormy Daniels.
Larry Sinclair's allegations involving Obama, cocaine, and a limo -- set in 1999, when Obama
was a state senator -- failed to gain broad coverage for a variety of reasons, including lack
of corroboration and Sinclair's record of crimes involving deceit.
But Sinclair says the media is giving too much attention and too little skepticism to claims
of a 2006 affair between Daniels and Trump.
"Stormy Daniels is being pimped and pimping the media now and it's lining her pockets,"
Sinclair told the Washington Examine r. "I believe she had sex with him. Do I believe
she's trying to twist and add to it to benefit her interests? You're damn right I do."
An interview with Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is set to air Sunday on
the CBS program "60 Minutes." The performer staging a national strip club tour has given other
recent interviews, including to "Inside Edition" and "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"
Sinclair said he views Daniels' coyness about details -- as she sues to invalidate a
$130,000 nondisclosure agreement -- as well as her attempt to sidestep the deal, as reasons to
doubt her truthfulness. He said he watched with suspicion as she declined to say if a signature
was hers.
"I do believe that there are enough contradictions by Ms. Daniels to justify questioning her
motive and truthfulness," Sinclair said, citing "her statements or nonstatements in subsequent
interviews implying that her signature was not her signature [and] her back-and-forth on
whether Trump paid her."
"I find this whole double standard sickening, and no I am not a bigger supporter of Trump,
but I am a supporter of fair and unbiased media coverage," he said. "I find the whole NDA and
accepting money and then later coming back and using a completely legal incident for political
and personal gain questionable."
Michael Avenatti, an attorney for Daniels, declined to address Sinclair's suggestion that
the media be more skeptical of her claims.
"Is this a joke? Am I being punked?" Avenatti wrote in an email.
Sinclair -- who runs a neighborhood revitalization nonprofit in Cocoa, Fla., where he's
considering a run for mayor -- said he believes the media also gives too much credence to
affair claims by ex-Playboy bunny Karen McDougal and women alleging misconduct by Trump.
There are many distinctions between the allegations made by Sinclair and those made by
Clifford and McDougal. For example, Sinclair lacks a photo of himself with Obama, who was
married to future first lady Michelle Obama at the time of the alleged two-day
relationship.
Trump has denied cheating on first lady Melania Trump, but he did pose for photos with
Daniels and McDougal.
Daniels passed a polygraph in 2011, her team said this week. Sinclair allegedly failed a
polygraph in 2008, but he says the tests don't mean much.
Daniels told her story to some journalists, including from Slate and In Touch magazine,
before signing the October 2016 NDA, though neither published her account. She and McDougal do
have a degree of corroboration from friends who attest to contemporaneous
conversations or, in the case of McDougal, provided the media with a letter she allegedly wrote
documenting the claims.
Sinclair's allegations, by contrast, lack documentary evidence or corroboration from third
parties. And whereas Trump has a decadeslong history of romantic relationships with women,
Sinclair's gender does not match Obama's reported preference.
"It seems to me that there is a world of difference between the two stories and that there
is no double standard," said Joel Kaplan, associate dean for professional graduate studies at
the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University.
"Sinclair is making a singular allegation without any support," Kaplan said. "Ms. Daniels'
allegation is backed up by the fact that there was a settlement and a nondisclosure agreement,
which certainly lends credibility to her allegations. If Mr. Sinclair was just one of 14 men
making these allegations against President Obama that would be one thing and probably worthy of
a story. In President Trump's case, there are multiple women who came forward. So, no I see no
double standard."
The high point of Sinclair's press exposure came when he rented a room at the National Press
Club in June 2008, prompting an unsuccessful campaign to block the event by journalists fearful
that the venue would lend credibility to his claims.
A dueling press conference was planned by Whitehouse.com, then a pornographic website whose
owner Dan Parisi had paid Sinclair $20,000 to take the polygraph that Sinclair allegedly
failed. Parisi later sued Sinclair unsuccessfully for libel for saying the results were
doctored.
"It wasn't until after the fact I was told the Whitehouse.com press conference didn't take
place," Sinclair said, recalling that police arrested him at the press club and sent him to
Delaware to face theft charges. He also had an open warrant for his arrest in Colorado for
allegedly signing someone else's tax return check.
Sinclair said the Delaware and Colorado cases were misunderstandings, but admits he was
convicted in Arizona for forgery in 1981, then in Florida for using a friend's credit card
before getting a 16-year sentence in Colorado in the late '80s in a similar case. He was
released in 1999, the same year he allegedly met Obama through a limo driver in Chicago.
In one similarity between Sinclair's allegations and those made by Daniels and McDougal,
significant amounts of money changed hands, resulting in legal action and claims of wrongful
gagging of the accuser.
Sinclair negotiated a deal in which he ultimately was paid $20,000 by Parisi to consent to a
polygraph. A copy of the check is an exhibit in the libel case Parisi brought against Sinclair.
At one point, another $10,000 was supposed to be split between two charities.
Daniels is suing to get out of nondisclosure agreement prepared by Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, who like the president says Daniels is lying about an affair, and McDougal is suing to
get out of an NDA in which she was paid $150,000 for the rights to her story by the company
that publishes the Trump-friendly National Enquirer, which didn't print the claims.
Sinclair said his Whitehouse.com deal required that he give exclusive rights for
polygraphing to the company for a period of four weeks during the 2008 campaign, a claim that
appears to be consistent with an email cited in court documents, and he suggests Parisi may not
have acted independently in the libel lawsuit, which was dismissed by a federal judge in
2012.
Sinclair said he lost money on his 2009 book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine,
Sex, Lies & Murder? in which he associates a Chicago-area killing with his affair
claims.
"To journalists I would say take your time, compare statements and call out contradictions
in statements and previous interviews," Sinclair said. "When it comes to polygraphs be very
sure you vet the examiners conducting them and always ask for the computer scoring results as
well as the examiners findings."
Parisi did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Obama's office.
A
former Playboy model who says she had an affair with President Trump is suing the National
Enquirer's parent company, American Media, so that she can be released from a legal agreement
barring her from discussing the relationship.
Karen McDougal filed the suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to the New
York Times , after she claims the Enquirer paid her $150,000 for the story of her
nine-month-long affair between 2006 and 2007, but did not publish it when she gave the account
in August 2016, several months before the 2016 U.S. election.
McDougal says that Trump's personal attorney, Michael D. Cohen, was secretly involved in her
negotiations with A.M.I., and that both the media company and her lawyer at the time misled her
about the arrangement. After speaking with The New Yorker last month after it obtained notes
she kept on her alleged affair, McDougal said she was warned by A.M.I. that " any further
disclosures would breach Karen's contract," and "cause considerable monetary damages ."
Cohen reportedly
paid another Trump accuser, adult film actress Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels),
$130,000 in exchange for signing an NDA barring her from discussing her experiences with
Trump.
Trump joined a legal effort last week suing Clifford for $20 million over what they claim is
a breach of her NDA. Meanwhile, both women's claims against Trump are being construed by
federal watchdog group Common Cause as illegal campaign contributions - arguing that they could
constitute in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign.
Ms. Clifford and Ms. McDougal tell strikingly similar stories about their experiences with
Mr. Trump, which included alleged trysts at the same Lake Tahoe golf tournament in 2006,
dates at the same Beverly Hills hotel and promises of apartments as gifts.
Their stories first surfaced in the The Wall Street Journal four days before the election
, but got little traction in the swirl of news that followed Mr. Trump's victory. The women
even shared the same Los Angeles lawyer, Keith Davidson, who has long worked for clients who
sell their stories to the tabloids . - NYT
"The lawsuit filed today aims to restore her right to her own voice," McDougal's attorney,
Peter K Stris told the Times . "We intend to invalidate the so-called contract that American
Media Inc. imposed on Karen so she can move forward with the private life she deserves ."
As the Wall Street Journal reported in November, 2016;
The tabloid-newspaper publisher reached an agreement in early August with Karen McDougal,
the 1998 Playmate of the Year. American Media Inc., which owns the Enquirer, hasn't published
anything about what she has told friends was a consensual romantic relationship she had with
Mr. Trump in 2006. At the time, Mr. Trump was married to his current wife, Melania.
Quashing stories that way is known in the tabloid world as "catch and kill." - WSJ
In a written statement, American Media Inc. claims it wasn't buying McDougal's story for
$150,000 - rather, they were buying two years' worth of her fitness columns, magazine covers
and exclusive life rights to any relationship she has had with a then-married man. "AMI has not
paid people to kill damaging stories about Mr. Trump," reads the statement.
American Media Inc. CEO David J. Pecker is a long-standing friend of President Trump.
It was just a little thing, a scratch, that he failed to treat and gangrene set in and it
was killing him. They were on safari, in Africa, and their truck had broken down and the rescue plane was never going
to make it in time. This is the way Harry died in Ernest Hemingway's "
The
Snows of Kilimanjaro
." I reread it the other day because of President Trump. I think of him as Harry. Stormy
Daniels is the scratch.
The saga of the adult-film star and the juvenile president has become a rollicking affair. Each step of the way,
Daniels has out-Trumped Trump. She is as shameless as he, a publicity hound who adheres to the secular American
religion that, to be famous, even for nothing much, is to be rich. By and large, that's not true, but then there is
Kim Kardashian to prove otherwise.
Daniels alleges she and Trump
had an affair
beginning in 2006. The president's lawyer and his press secretary allege that the allegations are
not true. The lawyer, Michael Cohen, does admit to
paying Daniels $130,000
, apparently to keep her silent about an affair that, according to Cohen, did not happen.
To do this, Cohen set up a
private Delaware company
and concocted false names for everyone involved -- the allegation-maker and the
allegation-denier. Only the name Delaware is legit.
"... The US congress has carried out two probes into "Russiagate" without much to show for their laborious endeavors. A special counsel headed up by former FBI chief Robert Mueller has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a flimsy indictment list of 19 Russian individuals who are said to have run influence campaigns out of a nondescript "troll farm" in St Petersburg. ..."
Now, at last, a real "election influence" scandal -- and, laughably, it's got nothing to do
with Russia. The protagonists are none other than the "all-American" US social media giant
Facebook and a British data consultancy firm with the academic-sounding name Cambridge
Analytica.
Facebook's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is being called upon by British and European
parliamentarians to explain his company's role in a data-mining
scandal in which up to 50 million users of the social media platform appear to have had
their private information exploited for electioneering purposes.
Exploited, that is, without their consent or knowledge. Facebook is being investigated by US
federal authorities for alleged breach of privacy and, possibly, electoral laws. Meanwhile,
Cambridge Analytica looks less an academic outfit and more like a cheap marketing scam.
Zuckerberg has professed "shock" that his company may have unwittingly been involved in
betraying the privacy of its users. Some two billion people worldwide are estimated to use the
social media networking site to share personal data, photos, family news and so on, with
"friends".
Now it transpires that at least one firm, London-based Cambridge Analytica, ran a profitable
business by harvesting the publicly available data on Facebook for electioneering purposes for
which it was contracted to do. The harvested information was then used to help target election
campaigning.
Cambridge Analytica was reportedly contracted by the Trump campaign for the 2016
presidential election. It was also used during the Brexit referendum campaign in 2016 when
Britons voted to leave the European Union.
This week the British news outlet Channel 4 broadcast
a stunning investigation in which chief executives at Cambridge Analytica were filmed secretly
boasting about how their firm helped win the US presidential election for Donald Trump.
More criminally, the data company boss, Alexander Nix, also revealed that they were prepared
to gather information which could be used for blackmailing and bribing politicians, including
with the use of online sex traps.
The repercussions from the scandal have been torrid. Following the Channel 4 broadcast,
Cambridge Analytica has suspended its chief executive pending further investigation. British
authorities have sought a warrant to search the company's computer servers.
Moreover, Zuckerberg's Facebook has seen $50 billion wiped of its stock value in a matter of
days. What is at issue is the loss of confidence among its ordinary citizen-users about how
their personal data is vulnerable to third party exploitation without their consent.
Cambridge Analytica is just the tip of an iceberg. The issue has raised concerns that other
third parties, including criminal identity-theft gangs, are also mining Facebook as a mammoth
marketing resource. A resource that is free to exploit because of the way that ordinary users
willingly publish their personal profiles.
The open, seemingly innocent nature of Facebook connecting millions of people -- a "place
where friends meet" as its advertising jingle goes -- could turn out to be an ethical nightmare
over privacy abuse.
Other social media companies like Amazon, Google, WhatsApp and Twitter are reportedly
apprehensive about the consequences of widespread loss of confidence among consumers in privacy
security. One of the biggest economic growth areas over the past decade -- social media --
could turn out to be another digital bubble that bursts spectacularly due to the latest
Facebook scandal.
But one other, perhaps more, significant fallout from the scandal is the realistic
perspective it provides on the so-called "Russiagate" debacle.
For well over a year now, the US and European corporate news media have been peddling claims
about how Russian state agents allegedly "interfered" in several national elections.
The Russian authorities have consistently rejected the alleged "influence campaigns" as
nothing but a fabrication to slander Russia. Moscow has repeatedly asked for evidence to verify
the relentless claims -- and none has been presented.
The US congress has carried out two probes into "Russiagate" without much to show for
their laborious endeavors. A special counsel headed up by former FBI chief Robert Mueller has
spent millions of taxpayer dollars to produce a flimsy indictment list of 19 Russian
individuals who are said to have run influence campaigns out of a nondescript "troll farm" in
St Petersburg.
It still remains unclear and unconvincing how, or if, the supposed Russian hackers were
linked to the Russian state, and how they had any impact on the voting intentions of millions
of Americans.
Alternatively, there is plausible reason to believe that the so-called Russian troll farm in
St Petersburg, the Internet Research Agency, may have been nothing other than a dingy marketing
vehicle, trying to use the internet like thousands of other firms around the world hustling for
advertising business. Firms like Cambridge Analytica.
The whole Russiagate affair has been a storm in a teacup, and Mueller seems to be desperate
to produce some, indeed any, result for his inquisitorial extravaganza.
The amazing thing to behold is how the alleged Russian "influence campaign" narrative has
become an accepted truth, propagated and repeated by Western governments and media without
question.
Pentagon defense strategy papers, European Union policy documents, NATO military planning,
among others, have all cited alleged "Russian interference" in American and European elections
as "evidence" of Moscow's "malign" geopolitical agenda.
The purported Russiagate allegations have led to a grave deepening of Cold War tensions
between Western states and Russia to the point where an all-out war is at risk of breaking
out.
Last week, the Trump administration slapped more sanctions on Russian individuals and state
security services for "election meddling".
No proof or plausible explanation has ever been provided to substantiate the allegations of
a Russian state "influence campaign'. The concept largely revolves around innuendo and a
deplorable prejudice against Russia based on irrational Cold War-style Russophobia.
However, one possible beneficial outcome from the latest revelations of an actual worldwide
Facebook election-influence campaign, driven by an ever-so British data consultancy, is that
the scandal puts the claims against Russia into stark, corrective perspective.
A perspective which shows that the heap of official Western claims against Russia of
"influencing elections" is in actual fact negligible if not wholly ridiculous.
It's a mountain versus a hill of beans. A tornado versus a storm in a teacup. Time to get
real on how Western citizens are being really manipulated by their own consumer-capitalist
cultures.
As
reported by The Gateway Pundit 's Jim Hoft, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth
Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC on July 10, 2016, roughly one block from his
apartment. The suspects
took nothing from Rich, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone. The murder has gone
unsolved to this day.
Burkman
sued the Democratic National Committee for the release of the hacked DNC server he
claimed will reveal key information in solving the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.
Lobbyist Jack Burkman, who began a private investigation into the murder of Democratic
National Committee staffer Seth Rich last year, says he was nearly killed after a man who
joined the investigation attempted to murder him last week, according to a report.
"It's a horror story," Burkman told the Washington Post Monday.
Kevin Doherty, 46, shot Burkman multiple times and ran him over with an SUV, according
to the Post
Tension reportedly developed between the two as Doherty began to think the profiling
project was his and began speaking to reporters without Burkman's consent, Burkman told the
Post.
Burkman fired Doherty and sent him a cease-and-desist letter in July, according to the
news outlet. "I just figured the matter was closed," Burkman told the Post. "But what
happened is, I guess, he was simmering and simmering and simmering."
A source who identified as a senior FBI official contacted Burkman and claimed to have
internal documents relative to another case he was working on.
The anonymous source planted envelopes of information under a traffic cone in the
parking garage at the Key Bridge Marriott in Rosslyn, according to Burkman.
As the lobbyist arrived to retrieve the documents, with his pet Dachshund in hand, he
reached under the cone and was shot in the buttocks and thigh and run over by an SUV.
Burkman spent three days in the hospital, and his dog was not harmed.
Doherty was charged with use of a firearm in the commission of a felony and two counts
of malicious wounding. He is currently jailed in the Arlington County Detention
Facility.
We have reached out to Mr. Burkman and will post any updates as we receive
them
In other words, neither men nor women have gained anything from this otherwise-well-intended
campaign against sexual improprieties. However, this is not the first time the West has allowed
raw emotions to knock the train of progress right off the tracks. History books are replete
with examples of Western campaigns rising out of sheer mass hysteria. But at least in those
wild times there was still some semblance of justice, complete with trials and investigations.
Now compare that with our 'modern' times, when all it took for the United States to win
approval for an illicit attack on Iraq was for Colin Powell to shake a vial of faux anthrax in
front of the UN General Assembly.
With these historical hiccups in mind, it is possible to argue that the West has truly
forgotten the lessons of history because they are certainly repeating them today.
By way of example, consider where the great bulk of US troops are encamped today – in
and around the Middle East – and then ask yourself how they got there.
The answer is by hook and by crook, and not a little public manipulation and chicanery. That
is because, in our insatiable desire to defend victims – the good guys, we are told
– we are allowing ourselves to ignore crucial evidence while placing blind faith in what
we are being told is the truth. Clearly that has not been the case to date.
From the accusations that Iraq was harboring weapons of mass destruction to launch against
innocent people, to the current claims that the Syrian government of Bashar Assad is using
chemical weapons against his own people, the West is gambling that claims based on zero
evidence will always work to fulfill ulterior motives. So far, the ploy seems to be working
with the gullible public, but sooner or later truth will catch up, indeed, as truth usually
does.
Just this month, for example, an assassination attempt was made against Sergei Skripal
– a former double agent who had moved to Salisbury, England following a spy-swap in 2010.
Any guesses as to who the British authorities have ruled – without a
trial, evidence or motivating factor – is the main culprit? Yes, Russia. Yet, even the
usually loyal British press has started
expressing reservations over the dubious claims.
This should come as no surprise since the UK, a member of the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), has staunchly refused to provide samples of the alleged
nerve agent to Russia for analysis. Why would it do that? Would anyone be surprised if this
investigation goes the same way it did for all those Russian athletes who were, unjustly,
banned from the
Winter Olympic Games this year?
Or perhaps the same way it went following the 2016 US presidential elections, when Russia
was accused of meddling on behalf of Donald Trump – zero evidence to back up the
slanderous accusations , which are responsible for putting US-Russia relations into a free
fall.
In conclusion, the unsightly spectacle of Western capitals backtracking on legal precedent
– from domestic cases to international – makes it all the more clear why it is so
anxious to win back the media mountaintops – it has no evidence whatsoever to support the
reasons behind its increasingly illicit behavior. It is therefore incumbent upon them to own
the narrative, as well as the justice system. How long this democratic charade can last is
anybody's guess.
"... We finally have the most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors using dirty tricks in order to rig elections ..."
"... In a series of tweets Thursday night, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange suggested that there is evidence indicating that the British government and intelligence agencies were involved in a plot to bring down the Trump presidency. Assange laid out the possible role that he believes MI6 and the government played in the so called 'dirty dossier' scandal ..."
"... Misfud worked in Riyadh for a "think tank" run by the former head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Turki al Faisal. (BBC) ..."
"... Misfud and Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and eight year member of the UK Security Vetting panel both trained Italian security services at the Link university in Rome and appear to be both present in this phone https://t.co/HAbldyx73m pic.twitter.com/xtaGEiZxQG ..."
"... It was Alexander Downer in London, closely associated with Hakluyt (now Holdingham Group Ltd) a private MI6 outfit, that met with Papadopulos. The FBI used AD's statement about Misfud to open the FISA interception warrants against the Trump camp. https://t.co/O9wT5ufPQE ..."
In a series of tweets Thursday night, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange suggested that
there is evidence indicating that the British government and intelligence agencies were
involved in a plot to bring down the Trump presidency. Assange laid out the possible role that
he believes MI6 and the government played in the so called 'dirty dossier' scandal :
There is something very odd about the Joseph Mifsud story and the role of the UK in the
2016 US presidential election:
(thread)
Assange notes that back in November, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was pictured
meeting with Joseph Mifsud, a professor with strong Kremlin ties who also worked for a group
run by the former head of Saudi intelligence.
3/ Misfud and Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and eight year member of
the UK Security Vetting panel both trained Italian security services at the Link university
in Rome and appear to be both present in this phone https://t.co/HAbldyx73mpic.twitter.com/xtaGEiZxQG
Assange notes that The FBI used MI6 associate Alexander Downer's statement about Misfud to
open the FISA interception warrants against the Trump camp:
4/ It was Alexander Downer in London, closely associated with Hakluyt (now Holdingham
Group Ltd) a private MI6 outfit, that met with Papadopulos. The FBI used AD's statement about
Misfud to open the FISA interception warrants against the Trump camp. https://t.co/O9wT5ufPQE
8/ Steele used former UK ambassador Sir Andrew Wood to funnel the dossier to the Trump
hating Senator John McCain; seemingly deliberately moving the handover out of London, to
Canada. https://t.co/hzMAuTasFn
9/ UK government TV then "verified" the dossier. The reporter? Paul Wood, a reporter who
has been repeatedly operated within UK military and intelligence covert operation zones.
https://t.co/jyN0XLHgKjpic.twitter.com/vKpk7Cbzzg
Assange followed up with a tweet concerning election interference at the hands of the
British government.
"We finally have the most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors using dirty tricks in
order to rig elections. But these characters aren't operating from Moscow Instead, they are
British, Eton educated, and have close ties to Her Majesty " https://t.co/14nQXGa90H
Clearly the Wikileaks head is suggesting that rather than 'muh Russians' being the shady
actors trying to rig the election in favor of Trump, of which there has been no evidence, it
may in fact have been British government and intelligence operatives attempting to rig the
election to stop Trump getting into office.
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. "
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
Notable quotes:
"... For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. ..."
"... First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state. ..."
"... Secondly, Western elites pillaged the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. ..."
"... Thirdly, the US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent "election" of Yeltsin. ..."
"... With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US. ..."
"... As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war. ..."
"... Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to return to vassalage. ..."
"... The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the EU, North America or their vassals. ..."
"... Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other Western allies. ..."
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear
war.
The most recent western propaganda campaign and one of the most virulent is the charge
launched by the UK regime of Prime Minister Theresa May . The Brits have claimed that Russian
secret agents conspired to poison a former Russian double-agent and his daughter in England ,
threatening the sovereignty and safety of the British people. No evidence has ever been
presented. Instead the UK expelled Russian diplomats and demands harsher sanctions, to increase
tensions. The UK and its US and EU patrons are moving toward a break in relations and a
military build-up.
A number of fundamental questions arise regarding the origins and growing intensity of this
anti-Russian animus.
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
This paper is directed at providing key elements to address these questions.
The Historical Context for Western Aggression
Several fundamental historical factors dating back to the 1990's account for the current
surge in Western hostility to Russia.
First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal
state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state.Secondly, Western elites pillaged
the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. Wall Street
and City of London banks and overseas tax havens were the main beneficiaries Thirdly, the
US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent
"election" of Yeltsin. Fourthly, the West degraded Russia's military and scientific
institutions and advanced their armed forces to Russia's borders. Fifthly, the West insured
that Russia was unable to support its allies and independent governments throughout Europe,
Asia, Africa and Latin America. Russia was unable to aid its allies in the Ukraine, Cuba,
North Korea, Libya etc.
With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia
regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes
were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster
capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US.
Russia's historic recovery under President Putin and its gradual international influence
shattered US pretense to rule over unipolar world. Russia's recovery and control of its
economic resources lessened US dominance, especially of its oil and gas fields.
As Russia consolidated its sovereignty and advanced economically, socially, politically and
militarily, the West increased its hostility in an effort to roll-back Russia to the Dark Ages
of the 1990's. The US launched numerous coups and military intervention and fraudulent
elections to surround and isolate Russia . The Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Russian
allies in Central Asia were targeted. NATO military bases proliferated.
Russia's economy was targeted : sanctions were directed at its imports and exports.
President Putin was subject to a virulent Western media propaganda campaign. US NGO's funded
opposition parties and politicians.
As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a
systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal
for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and
defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war.
The UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the western
public for heightened military confrontations.
Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further
a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to
return to vassalage.
President Putin is immensely popular in Russia and hated by the US precisely because he is
the opposition of Yeltsin -- he has created a flourishing economy; he resists sanctions and
defends Russia's borders and allies.
Conclusion
In a summary response to the opening questions.
The Western regimes recognize that
Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the
EU, North America or their vassals.Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via
economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has
diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other
Western allies.
The Western propaganda campaign has failed to turn Russian voters against Putin. In the
March 19, 2018 Presidential election voter participation increased to 67% . .Vladimir Putin
secured a record 77% majority. President Putin is politically stronger than ever.
Russia's display of advanced nuclear and other advanced weaponry has had a major deterrent
effect especially among US military leaders, making it clear that Russia is not vulnerable to
attack.
The UK has attempted to unify and gain importance with the EU and the US via the launch of
its anti-Russia toxic conspiracy. Prime Minister May has failed. Brexit will force the UK to
break with the EU.
President Trump will not replace the EU as a substitute trading partner. While the EU and
Washington may back the UK crusade against Russia they will pursue their own trade agenda;
which do not include the UK.
In a word, the UK, the EU and the US are ganging-up on Russia, for diverse historic and
contemporary reasons. The UK exploitation of the anti-Russian conspiracy is a temporary ploy to
join the gang but will not change its inevitable global decline and the break-up of the UK.
Russia will remain a global power. It will continue under the leadership of President Putin.
The Western powers will divide and bugger their neighbors -- and decide it is their better
judgment to accept and work within a multi-polar world.
*
Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the CRG.
Media promotion of old Trump affairs in full swing. Part of the demonization campaign which
is essential for color revolution. What you can expect with Brennan hired as analyst for NBC
?
On Thursday, CNN's Anderson Cooper had an exclusive interview with former Playboy model
Karen McDougal, who claims that she had a 10-month relationship with Donald Trump a decade
before he became President.
CNN, which is always anxious to paint Trump in the worst possible light, most likely did not
get quite the response they were looking for from McDougal. While affairs cannot and should not
be ever cast in a positive light, it is worth noting that McDougal spoke highly about the way
Trump treated her and her friends noticed the same thing.
Speaking of Trump's "Access Hollywood" tape, McDougal said, "I had not seen that in him at
all... [that's] not the man that I knew." McDougal said that her friends would tell her how
they were impressed with how respectful he was toward her when they were out in public.
On the issue of whether or not she is coming out to hurt Trump, McDougal said, "I voted for
Donald. Why would I want to damage him? That's my party, Republican Party. That's my president.
I did not want to damage him or hurt him in any way, shape, or form but I also didn't want to
put out the story because I didn't want my reputation to be damaged."
McDougal suggested that the reason she came forward is, according to her
lawsuit , because she claims she was paid off to keep quiet and was given a "false promise
to jumpstart her career as a health and fitness model."
WATCH:
"I voted for Donald. Why would I want to damage him?" Former Playboy model Karen McDougal
says her intention in telling her story isn't to damage President Trump https://t.co/fpLyorn15Cpic.twitter.com/V6tLUOVDkw
The main problem for Melania is Trump. Not so much attacks by the media.
Notable quotes:
"... "What can you say except I'm sorry?" [McDougal] told CNN's Anderson Cooper , apologizing for the alleged affair to Melania Trump. "I'm sorry. I wouldn't want it done to me." ..."
"... McDougal admitted that she knew Donald Trump was married during the alleged affair, saying she was reluctant to bring it up because "she felt guilty." ..."
"... She also said that Donald Trump offered to pay her after they had been intimate for the first time in 2006 and that it made her cry. ..."
"... "After we had been intimate, he tried to pay me, and I actually didn't know how to take that," McDougal said. "I've never been offered money like that. I looked at him and said, 'I'm not that type of girl." ..."
"... "And he said, 'Oh,' and he said, 'You're really special,'" McDougal said, adding: "It hurt me that he saw me in that light." ..."
"... According to McDougal, the relationship lasted for about 10 months. She says she broke it off in April 2007 because she felt guilty. She recalled traveling to meet Trump at his properties in New York, New Jersey and California and said she had sex with him "many dozens of times." ..."
"... McDougal had feelings for Trump, but the affair was "just tearing me apart," she said. "There was a real relationship there. There were real feelings," she added. "He would call me baby or he would call me beautiful Karen." ..."
"... quite simply efforts to publicly humiliate and shame of Melania, not to mention attacking the very essence of her marriage to her husband itself. ..."
"... Oh, wait. Isn't that also media bullying? ..."
"... I am well aware that people are skeptical of me discussing this topic. I have been criticized for my commitment to tackling this issue, and I know that will continue. But it will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I am here with one goal: helping children and our next generation." ..."
Media sets double standards for itself as it tries to condemn the First Lady for
standing up against bullying, all the while bullying her and her husband through infidelity
allegations
... ... ...
In seemingly unrelated stories through the rest of the week attack pieces were printed by
various women who claimed to have had extramarital affairs with the President during the time
of his marriage to Melania. The headlines are anything from accusatory to salacious. Here are
some examples:
The attack is the basest sort of hit possible, as these pieces highlight the accusation and
"apology" offered by former Playmate model Karen McDougal. In the pieces this lady offers an
apology to Melania for the affair with her husband, with the core of the story essentially as
shown here (this is from the USA Today version):
"What can you say except I'm sorry?" [McDougal] told CNN's
Anderson Cooper , apologizing for the alleged affair to Melania Trump. "I'm sorry. I
wouldn't want it done to me."
McDougal admitted that she knew Donald Trump was married during the alleged affair,
saying she was reluctant to bring it up because "she felt guilty."
She also said that Donald Trump offered to pay her after they had been intimate for
the first time in 2006 and that it made her cry.
"After we had been intimate, he tried to pay me, and I actually didn't know how to
take that," McDougal said. "I've never been offered money like that. I looked at him and
said, 'I'm not that type of girl."
"And he said, 'Oh,' and he said, 'You're really special,'" McDougal said, adding: "It
hurt me that he saw me in that light."
According to McDougal, the relationship lasted for about 10 months. She says she broke
it off in April 2007 because she felt guilty. She recalled traveling to meet Trump at his
properties in New York, New Jersey and California and said she had sex with him "many dozens
of times."
McDougal had feelings for Trump, but the affair was "just tearing me apart," she said.
"There was a real relationship there. There were real feelings," she added. "He would call me
baby or he would call me beautiful Karen."
Okay, so here we have a great way to humiliate a devout Slovenian Roman Catholic, who is
actually quite a traditional woman, even while she was a red-hot model, by making "apologies"
that are not apologies at all, but quite simply efforts to publicly humiliate and shame of
Melania, not to mention attacking the very essence of her marriage to her husband
itself.
Oh, wait. Isn't that also media bullying?
It would seem so. And on Tuesday, Mrs. Trump wasn't having it. She fought back with her own
gifts, those being her characteristic elegance, but with her amazing personal strength.
But, praise aside, this is what the First Lady had to say:
I am well aware that people are skeptical of me discussing this topic. I have been
criticized for my commitment to tackling this issue, and I know that will continue. But it
will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I am here with one goal: helping children
and our next generation."
The idea the Russians " "had the strategic purpose of sowing political discord in the
United States" which in reality in the result of deep crisis on neoliberalism, which started
in 2008 is a typical scapegoating. The essence of neo-McCarthyism if you wish.
"... But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller's narrative is wrong. The objective
was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to "click on"
advertisements. Check it out: ..."
"... It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate
allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually happened.
He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have stated publicly
that they know who stole the Podesta emails. ..."
"... Mueller hasn't done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney,
Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the "hacking" allegations and
proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry
either. ..."
"... The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for
criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump
and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case
based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is laughable.
..."
"... We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is the Vice President of Facebook Ads,
tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump posted on Twitter: ..."
"... Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for
Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the
attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface? ..."
"... I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to
support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That's what he's
wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here's one of his recent tweets that
helps to support my theory: ..."
"... What's wrong with that? If Trump's enemies want to provide him with a
Get-Outta-Jail-Free card, then why shouldn't he snatch it up and put this whole goofy probe
behind him? That's what most people would do. ..."
"... The problem is that Trump's biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against
"The Swamp". They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind
the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the
National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That's what they want, a
modern-day Samson who shakes the temple's pillars and brings the whole crooked system crashing
down around him. ..."
"... These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal
referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved
in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack
Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they
actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special
Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the Trump
team? ..."
"... There is no crime called "collusion". So Trump cannot be "acquitted", let alone be
charged with something that is not a crime. Apparently the deep state and media's repetition of
"collusion" has duped not just the public, but this author with thinking it is some kind of
crime. ..."
"... Trump needs the swamp to produce politicized intel for his campaigns against Iran and
Venezuela (plus a dozen other countries which don't threaten the US). He needs the hated MSM (not
much more than the swamp's media branch) to sell the Iran war to his voters, who are supposed to
pay for it. He needs his shady relatives to stay OUT of prison, where several of them seem to
belong (of course, papa Kushner has already spent time inside). So appeasement it is. ..."
"... Sorry, but on the whole Trump voters are too dumb to pose much of an obstacle. They like
the campaigns against Iran because of religion, and against Venezuela because of "socialism".
They didn't raise a peep when it became clear that THEIR money would all go to the Armies of
Mordor. That this is "Saddam-WMD-9/11″ all over again just hasn't registered with them, and
never will. Just like Trump winning his primary running against outside money, and immediately
afterwards selling out for Adelson's shekels–it exceeds the deplorables' attention span, so
it never happened. Keep harping on immigrants and it's all good; razzle-dazzle them, as it was
called in the Chicago movie. ..."
"... So on the whole, yes, already since his inauguration it has been clear that The Donald
is mostly playing along, as long as he'll be allowed to stay president ..."
"... So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald
John Trump. That's where he draws the line. ..."
"... Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I think
it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself. Expect a war in
Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both. ..."
"... The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and
disinformation. The real target is the American people. ..."
"... That's pretty much what this banana republic's government is all about. One way or
another, everything they do is designed to ultimately squeeze something out of us dumb 'Merkin
proles and peasants ..."
"... I was expecting more of a profile in courage under the tutelage of someone smarter than
Trump; instead we are seeing another profile in venality and stupidity. ..."
"... US has too many laws that are ambiguous beyond belief, almost anything can be declared a
'crime'. Plus you have limited disclosure due to national security ('methods and sources
subterfuge always works). Volunteering for a political show trial doesn't work. ..."
"... Pentagon vs neoliberal CIA for upper hand at the White House with Bibi (via AIPAC)
solidly on the side of Pence, probably not if, but much more likely when, Trump is taken down.
..."
"... The RussiaGate affairs and collusion charge are the obvious "Banksters United" coup run
with a stunning degree of incompetence. Russia must be demonized because of her mineral
resources, which are still not available for free, and because of her "wrong" behavior in Syria.
Bansksters need this war. Arm producers and dealers need this war. Only the apparent danger of
suicide by nuclear answer stops the banksters and other war profiteers from an immediate attack
against Russian Federation. ..."
"... The FBI and the CIA are the hired gangster organizations for the banksters. If the FBI
and the CIA cared about national security, the US would not suffer the infamy of Awan affair,
CrowdStrike "conclusions," and the US support for Daesh/ISIS/Al Qaida in the Middle East, as well
as the US support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The US taxpayers have been financing both ISIS and
neo-Nazis because banksters decided so. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller's narrative is wrong. The objective was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to "click on" advertisements. Check it out: ..."
"... It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails. ..."
"... Mueller hasn't done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney, Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the "hacking" allegations and proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry either. ..."
"... The indictment states that the organization that employed the trolls "had the strategic purpose of sowing political discord in the United States." This seems to be a recurrent theme that has popped up frequently in the media as well. The implication is that the Russians are the source of the widening divisions in the US that are actually the result of growing public angst over the lopsided distribution of wealth that naturally emerges in late-stage capitalism. ..."
"... The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is laughable. ..."
"... We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is the Vice President of Facebook Ads, tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump posted on Twitter: ..."
"... Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface? ..."
"... I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That's what he's wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here's one of his recent tweets that helps to support my theory: ..."
"... Hmmm? So Trump now Trump is okay with blaming Russia as long as he's not included too? Is that what he's saying? ..."
"... Okay, so now Trump is turning the tables and saying, 'Yeah, maybe Russia has been 'sowing discord', but the Democrats are the ones you should be blaming not me.'So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That's where he draws the line. ..."
"... The problem is that Trump's biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against "The Swamp". They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That's what they want, a modern-day Samson who shakes the temple's pillars and brings the whole crooked system crashing down around him. ..."
"... These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the Trump team? ..."
"... Trump's backers hope that he is principled and pugnacious enough to go nose-to-nose with these Intel agency serpents and give them the bloody whooping they so richly deserve. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that that's what he has in mind ..."
"... Goldman, an executive at Zucc's Book, displayed evidence at a House Committee hearing of Russian bots trolling the US by portraying Sanders as 'sexy' and Trump as a hero. These memes were generally amusing but largely ineffectual. The idea of election meddling by Russia to elect Trump has largely been debunked, and both the Left and the Right now see it as a distraction to the real issue: Deep State malfeasance. ..."
"... Trump has to realize that he would be neutered by the continuance of the Mueller witchhunt, so I think that if it is a deal, it is tactical for the present. ..."
"... in my view, the Democrats overplayed their hand by calling this clickbait scam the "equivalent of Pearl Harbor" and make pushback more likely. ..."
"... Whitney can't bring himself to say Mueller has been, for decades, 'historically, criminally corrupt with longtime habit of maintaining a DoJ cover for CIA.' As well, why does Mike exclude mentioning Seymour Hersh and Kim Dotcom concerning the proposed fact Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails? He sticks with a weak 'we really don't know' line of bs. ..."
"... Grassley wants the DoJ personalities to fall on their swords while Feinstein is besides herself, going crazy, as the investigation into President Skunk implodes around the Steele Dossier. It's like an exclusive 'serial-killers only' swingers' club where everybody is tired of the limited opportunity at couplings, yet their sex addiction requires everyone screwing everyone out of habit and everyone hates everyone's guts. At some point, the entire crew will resort to some new mass murder, like allowing war in Korea, to get it all back on track ..."
"... There is no crime called "collusion". So Trump cannot be "acquitted", let alone be charged with something that is not a crime. Apparently the deep state and media's repetition of "collusion" has duped not just the public, but this author with thinking it is some kind of crime. ..."
"... Trump needs the swamp to produce politicized intel for his campaigns against Iran and Venezuela (plus a dozen other countries which don't threaten the US). He needs the hated MSM (not much more than the swamp's media branch) to sell the Iran war to his voters, who are supposed to pay for it. He needs his shady relatives to stay OUT of prison, where several of them seem to belong (of course, papa Kushner has already spent time inside). So appeasement it is. ..."
"... Sorry, but on the whole Trump voters are too dumb to pose much of an obstacle. They like the campaigns against Iran because of religion, and against Venezuela because of "socialism". They didn't raise a peep when it became clear that THEIR money would all go to the Armies of Mordor. That this is "Saddam-WMD-9/11″ all over again just hasn't registered with them, and never will. Just like Trump winning his primary running against outside money, and immediately afterwards selling out for Adelson's shekels–it exceeds the deplorables' attention span, so it never happened. Keep harping on immigrants and it's all good; razzle-dazzle them, as it was called in the Chicago movie. ..."
"... So on the whole, yes, already since his inauguration it has been clear that The Donald is mostly playing along, as long as he'll be allowed to stay president ..."
"... So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That's where he draws the line. ..."
"... Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I think it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself. Expect a war in Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both. ..."
"... The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and disinformation. The real target is the American people. ..."
"... That's pretty much what this banana republic's government is all about. One way or another, everything they do is designed to ultimately squeeze something out of us dumb 'Merkin proles and peasants ..."
"... I was expecting more of a profile in courage under the tutelage of someone smarter than Trump; instead we are seeing another profile in venality and stupidity. ..."
"... US has too many laws that are ambiguous beyond belief, almost anything can be declared a 'crime'. Plus you have limited disclosure due to national security ('methods and sources subterfuge always works). Volunteering for a political show trial doesn't work. ..."
"... Pentagon vs neoliberal CIA for upper hand at the White House with Bibi (via AIPAC) solidly on the side of Pence, probably not if, but much more likely when, Trump is taken down. ..."
"... The RussiaGate affairs and collusion charge are the obvious "Banksters United" coup run with a stunning degree of incompetence. Russia must be demonized because of her mineral resources, which are still not available for free, and because of her "wrong" behavior in Syria. Bansksters need this war. Arm producers and dealers need this war. Only the apparent danger of suicide by nuclear answer stops the banksters and other war profiteers from an immediate attack against Russian Federation. ..."
"... The FBI and the CIA are the hired gangster organizations for the banksters. If the FBI and the CIA cared about national security, the US would not suffer the infamy of Awan affair, CrowdStrike "conclusions," and the US support for Daesh/ISIS/Al Qaida in the Middle East, as well as the US support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The US taxpayers have been financing both ISIS and neo-Nazis because banksters decided so. ..."
Here's your legal koan for the day: When is an indictment not an indictment?
Answer– When there is no intention of initiating a criminal case against the accused.
In the case of the 13 Russian trolls who have just been indicted by Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, there is neither the intention nor the ability to prosecute a case against them. (They
are all foreign nationals who will not face extradition.)
But, if that's the case, than why would Mueller waste time and money compiling a 37-page
document alleging all-manner of nefarious conduct when he knew for certain that the alleged
perpetrators would never be prosecuted? Why?
Isn't is because the indictments are not really a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but a
vehicle for political grandstanding? Isn't that the real purpose of the indictments, to add
another layer of dirt to the mountain of unreliable, uncorroborated, unproven allegations of
Russian meddling. Mueller is not acting in his capacity as Special Counsel, he is acting in his
role of deep state hatchet-man whose job is to gather scalps by any means necessary.
Keep in mind, the subjects of the indictment will never be apprehended, never hire an
attorney, never be in a position to defend themselves or refute the charges, and never have
their case presented before and judge or a jury. They will be denied due process of law and the
presumption of innocence. Mueller's ominous-sounding claims, which were the centerpiece of his
obscene media extravaganza, made sure of that. In most people's minds, the trolls are guilty of
foreign espionage and that's all there is to it. Case closed.
But the indictments themselves suggest that Mueller's narrative is wrong. The objective
was not to influence the election, but make money by getting viewers to "click on"
advertisements. Check it out:
"Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real
U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the
ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically
charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per
post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being
Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist."
That sounds like a money-making scheme to me not an attempt to subvert US democracy. So why
is Mueller in such a lather? Isn't this all just an attempt to divert attention from the fact
that the Nunes' investigation has produced proof that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ
were "improperly obtaining" FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump Campaign? Isn't that
what's really going on?
If we can agree that the indictments were not intended to bring the "accused" to justice,
then don't we also have to agree that there must have been an ulterior motive for issuing them?
And what might that ulterior motive be? What are the real objectives of the investigation, to
cast a shadow on an election that did not produce the results that powerful members of the
entrenched bureaucracy wanted, to make it look like Donald Trump did not beat Hillary Clinton
fair and square, and to further demonize a geopolitical rival that has blocked Washington's
imperial ambitions in Syria and Ukraine? Which of these is the real driving force behind
Russiagate or is it 'all of the above?'
Nothing will come of the indictments because the indictments were not designed reveal the
truth or bring the accused to justice. They were written to shape public perceptions and to
persuade the American people that Trump cheated in the elections and that Russia poses a
serious threat to US national security. The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of
domestic propaganda and disinformation. The real target is the American people.
It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom of the Russia-gate
allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge what actually
happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both of whom have
stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails.
Mueller hasn't done that, nor has he contacted the VIPs (Ray McGovern, William Binney,
Skip Folden, etc) who did extensive forensic investigation of the "hacking" allegations and
proved that the emails were not hacked but leaked. Mueller has not pursued that line of inquiry
either. Nor has he interviewed California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who met with
Assange personally and who has suggested that Assange may reveal the name (of the DNC "leaker")
under the right conditions. Instead of questioning witnesses, Mueller has spent a great deal of
time probing the online activities Russian trolls who were engaged in a money-making scheme
that was in no way connected to the Russian government, in no way connected to the Trump
campaign, and in no way supportive of the claims of hacking or collusion. None of this reflects
well on Mueller who, by any stretch, appears to be either woefully incompetent or irredeemably
biased.
The indictment states that the organization that employed the trolls "had the strategic
purpose of sowing political discord in the United States." This seems to be a recurrent theme
that has popped up frequently in the media as well. The implication is that the Russians are
the source of the widening divisions in the US that are actually the result of growing public
angst over the lopsided distribution of wealth that naturally emerges in late-stage
capitalism. Moscow has become the convenient scapegoat for the accelerated parasitism that
has seen 95% of the nation's wealth go to a sliver of people at the top of the foodchain, the 1
percent. (But that's another story altogether.) Here's a brief clip from the
portentous-sounding indictment:
"The general conspiracy statute creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire
either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or
any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose .
The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant
possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the
government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the
defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or
deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the
government. It is sufficient for the government to prove that the defendant knew the
statements were false or fraudulent when made."
The above statement helps to prove my point that the indictments are not a vehicle for
criminal prosecution, but part of a politically-motivated information campaign to damage Trump
and vilify Russia. No one seriously believes that Mueller would ever try to prosecute this case
based on the spurious and looney claims of a criminal conspiracy. The whole idea is
laughable.
There are a couple interesting twists and turns regarding the indictments that could be
significant, but, then again, maybe not. We found it interesting that Rob Goldman, who is
the Vice President of Facebook Ads, tweeted this revealing disclaimer on Monday which Trump
posted on Twitter:
"I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the
election was *NOT* the main goal."
Then there are the puzzling comments by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who said on
Friday:
"There's no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge. And the
nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they
were ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on
a virtual private network here in the United States so, if anybody traced it back to that
first jump, they appeared to be Americans ."
Do you notice anything unusual about Rosenstein's remarks? There's no mention of Trump at
all, which is a striking omission since all of previous public announcements have been used to
strengthen the case against Trump. Now that's changed. Why? Naturally, Trump picked up on
Rosenstein's omission and blasted this triumphant message on Twitter:
"Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein stated at the News Conference: "There is no allegation in the
indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no
allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016
election." Donald Trump
So, what's going on here? Mueller and Rosenstein are smart guys. They must have known that
Trump would use the dates and the absence of anything remotely suggesting collusion as
vindication. Was that the purpose, to let Trump off the hook while the broader propaganda
campaign on Russia continues?
This is the great mystery surrounding the indictments, far from helping to establish
Trump's culpability, they appear to imply his innocence. Why would Mueller and his allies
want to do that? Are the Intel agencies and the FBI looking for a way to end this political
cage-match before a second Special Counsel is appointed and he starts digging up embarrassing
information about the involvement of other agencies (and perhaps, the White House) in the
Russiagate fiasco?
Just think about it for a minute: There is nothing in the indictments that suggests that
Trump or anyone in his campaign was involved with the Russian trolls. There is nothing in the
indictments that suggests Trump was acting as a Russian agent. And there's nothing in the
indictments that suggests the Russian government helped Trump win the election. Also, the
timeline of events seems to favor Trump as does Rosenstein's claim that the online activity
did not have "any effect on the outcome of the election."
Bottom line: The indictments were very good news for Donald Trump, but very bad news for
Robert Mueller who appears to have run into a brick wall. But has he? Has Mueller abandoned the
attacks on Trump or is there something else going on just below the surface?
I can only guess at the answer, but it looks to me like Trump may have made a deal to
support the attacks on Russia provided he is acquitted on charges of collusion. That's what
he's wanted from the beginning, so, maybe he won this round? Here's one of his recent tweets
that helps to support my theory:
"I never said Russia did not meddle in the election, I said "it may be Russia, or China or
another country or group, or it may be a 400 pound genius sitting in bed and playing with his
computer." The Russian "hoax" was that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia – it never
did!" Donald Trump
Hmmm? So Trump now Trump is okay with blaming Russia as long as he's not included too?
Is that what he's saying? Here's more in the same vein:
"If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S.
then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have
succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow. Get smart
America!" Donald Trump
Okay, so now Trump is turning the tables and saying, 'Yeah, maybe Russia has been
'sowing discord', but the Democrats are the ones you should be blaming not me.'So Trump is not
opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald John Trump. That's where
he draws the line.
What's wrong with that? If Trump's enemies want to provide him with a Get-Outta-Jail-Free
card, then why shouldn't he snatch it up and put this whole goofy probe behind him? That's what
most people would do.
The problem is that Trump's biggest supporters want him to continue struggle against
"The Swamp". They want him to fight for their interests and expose the crooked goings-on behind
the Russiagate scandal. They want him to lift up the rock that conceals the activities of the
National Security State so everyone can see the maggots squirming below. That's what they want,
a modern-day Samson who shakes the temple's pillars and brings the whole crooked system
crashing down around him.
These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal
referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish involved
in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very likely, Barack
Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump campaign? Were they
actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? Should a second Special
Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed in their targeting of the
Trump team?
All of these questions need to be answered in order to clear the air, hold the guilty
parties accountable and restore confidence in the government. Trump's backers hope that he
is principled and pugnacious enough to go nose-to-nose with these Intel agency serpents and
give them the bloody whooping they so richly deserve. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence
that that's what he has in mind . We'll see.
Goldman, an executive at Zucc's Book, displayed evidence at a House Committee hearing of
Russian bots trolling the US by portraying Sanders as 'sexy' and Trump as a hero. These memes
were generally amusing but largely ineffectual. The idea of election meddling by Russia to
elect Trump has largely been debunked, and both the Left and the Right now see it as a
distraction to the real issue: Deep State malfeasance.
Those Never Trumpers in the Dems and McCain camps are now left disgraced and humiliated
and their only allies are WaPo, NYT, CNN and a few other fake news outlets. The test for
Trump will be whether he can take a wrecking ball to the FBI and Department of State and to
truly cleanse the bureaucracy of ne'er-do-wells who have constantly been undermining him from
the beginning.
I think the author is correct in his assumptions. One area of hope, though, is that the
allegations are so ridiculous and others have pointed out, for instance, that the Australian
Labor party sent operatives to the US to help defeat Trump, and Trump has to realize that
he would be neutered by the continuance of the Mueller witchhunt, so I think that if it is a
deal, it is tactical for the present.
As the article indicates, Trump would lose a lot of his support if he follows through on
the deal. Also, pro-Trump websites are continuing on with the drumbeat against Mueller, and
in my view, the Democrats overplayed their hand by calling this clickbait scam the
"equivalent of Pearl Harbor" and make pushback more likely.
I think that one thing the indictment has accomplished is to reveal to anybody not paid to
think otherwise that the yankee imperium entered the post-legal era years ago, and that the
legitimacy of the yankee state has totally evaporated.
Isn't is because the indictments are not really a vehicle for criminal prosecution, but
a vehicle for political grandstanding? Isn't that the real purpose of the indictments, to
add another layer of dirt to the mountain of unreliable, uncorroborated, unproven
allegations of Russian meddling. Mueller is not acting in his capacity as Special Counsel,
he is acting in his role of deep state hatchet-man whose job is to gather scalps by any
means necessary [...] It's worth noting, that if Mueller really wanted to get to the bottom
of the Russia-gate allegations, he would interview the people who have first-hand knowledge
what actually happened. He would question Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) and Craig Murray, both
of whom have stated publicly that they know who stole the Podesta emails.[sic][...] None of
this reflects well on Mueller who, by any stretch, appears to be either woefully
incompetent or irredeemably biased
Misdirection here by Mike Whitney. Whitney can't bring himself to say Mueller has
been, for decades, 'historically, criminally corrupt with longtime habit of maintaining a DoJ
cover for CIA.' As well, why does Mike exclude mentioning Seymour Hersh and Kim Dotcom
concerning the proposed fact Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails? He sticks with a weak 'we
really don't know' line of bs.
These same people are hopeful that the Nunes memo and the Grassley-Graham "criminal
referral" are just the tip of the iceberg that will inevitably lead to the bigger fish
involved in this deep-state conspiracy, namely former CIA Director John Brennan, former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Former FBI Director James Comey, and very
likely, Barack Hussein Obama himself. What role did these men play in spying on the Trump
campaign? Were they actively trying to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge?
Should a second Special Counsel be appointed to investigate whether crimes were committed
in their targeting of the Trump team?
Yeah, well Mike, 'hope springs eternal' is the apropos folk wisdom. Why not look at this
instead:
"Of course, none of this will be brought out by the Congressional intelligence
committees, to collapse the credibility of 'three amigos' Special Counsel Mueller, fired
Director Comey & present FBI boss Wray to help kill the 'Russia collusion' farce;
because all parties are complicit and tainted in the cover-up.Grassley wants the
DoJ personalities to fall on their swords while Feinstein is besides herself, going crazy,
as the investigation into President Skunk implodes around the Steele Dossier. It's like an
exclusive 'serial-killers only' swingers' club where everybody is tired of the limited
opportunity at couplings, yet their sex addiction requires everyone screwing everyone out
of habit and everyone hates everyone's guts. At some point, the entire crew will resort to
some new mass murder, like allowing war in Korea, to get it all back on track"
(See second link, preceding.)
There is no crime called "collusion". So Trump cannot be "acquitted", let alone be
charged with something that is not a crime. Apparently the deep state and media's repetition
of "collusion" has duped not just the public, but this author with thinking it is some kind
of crime.
That's the purpose of endlessly repeating this vague term in pejorative rhetoric, without
ever referencing a criminal statute like the Foreign Agent Registration Act or whatever.
This gigantic diversionary twaddle has worked because the seditionists have still not been
stopped. I'm not real optimistic about it, but there are some positive developments. There is
a big disappointment in the offing with the Inspector General report coming out soon.
Horowitz is a deep state operative who has covered for the Clintons in the past. They have to
do something, so expect a limited hangout or partial whitewash. That way the drug and weapons
ratlines can continue to fund our unconscionable acts across the globe.
Trump needs the swamp to produce politicized intel for his campaigns against Iran and
Venezuela (plus a dozen other countries which don't threaten the US). He needs the hated MSM
(not much more than the swamp's media branch) to sell the Iran war to his voters, who are
supposed to pay for it. He needs his shady relatives to stay OUT of prison, where several of
them seem to belong (of course, papa Kushner has already spent time inside). So appeasement
it is.
Sorry, but on the whole Trump voters are too dumb to pose much of an obstacle. They
like the campaigns against Iran because of religion, and against Venezuela because of
"socialism". They didn't raise a peep when it became clear that THEIR money would all go to
the Armies of Mordor. That this is "Saddam-WMD-9/11″ all over again just hasn't
registered with them, and never will. Just like Trump winning his primary running against
outside money, and immediately afterwards selling out for Adelson's shekels–it exceeds
the deplorables' attention span, so it never happened. Keep harping on immigrants and it's
all good; razzle-dazzle them, as it was called in the Chicago movie.
So on the whole, yes, already since his inauguration it has been clear that The Donald
is mostly playing along, as long as he'll be allowed to stay president . The question
remains if (just like Putin in Syria) he isn't trying to appease something which won't be
appeased–maybe Trump thinks he has a deal, but his enemies, while technically backing
off from the collusion claim, will still squeeze his relatives so hard on their finances and
other shenanigans that something breaks. I say: would serve Trump right for sleeping with the
dogs.
Intriguing if these 13 Russians turned up at US District Court for a chat with a Federal
Prosecutor with the International press in tow. It would be lovely to have Vlad present his
people for investigation and trial. Mueller set these 13 up, again, 'knowing' he would never
have to prove a damned thing and so, there are many embellishments. Mueller 'knows' he'll
never try them, but he also 'knew', as they ALL did, that Hillary was getting in and so these
crimes would never come to light.
Love to have Putin blow up yet another thing these folks thought they 'knew'. I'd
contribute to the GoFundMe for the best lawyers there are..
So Trump is not opposed to demonizing Russia, he's just opposed to demonizing Donald
John Trump. That's where he draws the line.
Bingo. Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I
think it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself. Expect
a war in Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both.
It's all up to Nunes now. Let's hope he doesn't sell us out, too:
The indictments have no legal merit, they are a form of domestic propaganda and
disinformation. The real target is the American people.
That's pretty much what this banana republic's government is all about. One way or
another, everything they do is designed to ultimately squeeze something out of us dumb
'Merkin proles and peasants , especially us stupid goyim.
The rest is mere detail. Understanding that saves a lot of time and energy.
"The test for Trump will be whether he can take a wrecking ball to the FBI and
Department of State "
He could have done that a year ago. Trump has left more people loyal to Obama in their
jobs than would have thought possible. His advisors are all seemingly pushing their own
agendas and haven't clued him in on the fact that he has Obama's bureaucracy snapping at his
ankles and he needs to go on a firing rampage.
I doubt that he even knows who he can fire outright and who would have to be moved into
another department.
According to the author, this troll farm had 90 employees assigned to the American market
who designed clickbait ads using titles that would attract doofuses wanting to read articles
on their favorite subjects related to the election.
If you surf the net without a good adblocker, you'll see all these clickbait ads with
titles like "Defeat Trump with one weird trick", or "What Trump said to Hillary off stage
will astonish you" in an attempt to get the reader to go to their site and buy something.
That's what these trolls were doing, and it had nothing to do with influencing voters.
Bingo. Well guys, if there's anyone here who still abides by the '5-D chess' theory, I
think it's time to face facts: Trump has thrown us all under the bust to save himself.
Expect a war in Syria, or Ukraine, or maybe both.
It does really look like this is true. I was expecting more of a profile in courage
under the tutelage of someone smarter than Trump; instead we are seeing another profile in
venality and stupidity.
there have been thousands of such people in Balkans, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece,
who set up web pages and made money on advertising, who used the presidential election, as
honey pot. Mueller is such an idiot, that he does not know it. Sorry, he is so clever, to go
only after russian trace. you can start here:
send a couple of the indictees over to stand trial, and hire some lefty-lawyer like
Dershowitz to defend them
That was my initial reaction. But that assumes that a Washington court would not be a show
trial with emphasis on process minutia, e.g. 'identity theft' and some financial violations.
With media in overdrive proving their hyper-patriotism.
US has too many laws that are ambiguous beyond belief, almost anything can be declared
a 'crime'. Plus you have limited disclosure due to national security ('methods and sources
subterfuge always works). Volunteering for a political show trial doesn't work.
We just have to let it go, it is now a 'crime' for foreigners to criticise US politicians
without first registering with Washington. Quite a beacon of freedom for the world.
Indicting foreign election interference trolls sets a precedent for prosecuting domestic
election interference trolls. The domestic election interference trolls spent hundreds of
millions and left very prolific financial and digital footprints. Jim Messina shouldn't be
sleeping easy.
Trump's failure to fire people by the truckload during the first week of his presidency is
a topic worth exploring. Probably we won't know why he failed to do this until after his
presidency sometime, but it is a curious choice given how widespread and intense was the
hatred of him.
We can know why now. Trump was kneecapped from day one in the Oval Office and he's
surrounded by treasonous people who'll either keep him in line or step out of the way of
Trump's political enemies. Pence and his ideologically (theologically, actually) aligned
Christian Zionist generals have it under control:
Meanwhile Trump is the perfect idiot to take the heat and end up holding the bag. The
momentary big, inside fight, is fundamentalist Christian Pentagon vs neoliberal CIA for
upper hand at the White House with Bibi (via AIPAC) solidly on the side of Pence, probably
not if, but much more likely when, Trump is taken down.
That fool actually believed he would be allowed to become President. Well, he was wrong.
He got the title, he gets the heat, but he'll never be allowed to exercise the power.
Trump belongs to the Ruling Class. If he didn't, the rulers never would have selected him
as president. I thought the producers had brought in the Trump character to change the
direction of the play. But no, still the same old Empire first, the rich second, and
everything else later. How much did the Trump family save from the new tax law? That's
another story all together.
Back in the day, when knights were bold, prosecutors for real, laws were understood by
all , they laid their turds beside the road, and walked away contented!
Sheesh anyhow, This Comey, and his side kick Mueller are doing pretty good job of what
they are charged with, (to do that is charged with a task.) of charging Russians, those dirty
Boris's and Natashia's over there in the dark forrest somewhere.
A ticket a tasket, the case is in a basket, (basket case, of course) and Comey and Mueller
are excellent in their roles, playing to a tough crowd, masterful impressions of Lerch and
Herman Munster.
What is the real job? could it be to extend childhood and adelescence (strike that) wrong
thought . dupdada here it is: could it be that the real job is to extend the election process
FOOD FIGHT, indeterminately, thus displacing the expectations normally accruing to a change
of administrations. That is a serious sounding term for adults, not for the kids.
ADMINISTRATION suit wearing mthfrkrs all around, all dry fake talk masking every possible
meaning and to what end?
That boat left the pier now the population is only to be amused, more of the same Food
Fight please!
You have an evolution of pollution of the process of regress into the
abstraction/distraction. Mad Hatter's Tea Party, now the new norm, and it seems to work,
We've grown too cynical for the likes of Columbo, or Perry Mason, etc.
The investigation like the Sword of Damocles may indeed get Pres Trump to further compromise
his agenda as per the campaign. However, those who lost the election have no intention of of
giving an inch. if at all possible, they intend to get rid of Pres Trump because he waylaid
there plans. Unfortunately they are incorrect, it was Pres Trump, it was their agenda and and
a solid opposition to it that defeated them during the election.
Since the attempt to remove him includes the Russia investigation and it various tentacles
I intend to defend the current President as much possible.
Major Sjursen and Dr. Bacivich – ya ya ya I know . . . he's a this and a that . . .
) seem to have reached the same conclusion – once in it's "heck to fight" the
preordained agenda.
The RussiaGate affairs and collusion charge are the obvious "Banksters United" coup
run with a stunning degree of incompetence. Russia must be demonized because of her mineral
resources, which are still not available for free, and because of her "wrong" behavior in
Syria. Bansksters need this war. Arm producers and dealers need this war. Only the apparent
danger of suicide by nuclear answer stops the banksters and other war profiteers from an
immediate attack against Russian Federation.
The moneyed and powerful psychopaths-in-charge are enraged that the wealth of other
nations is still outside their reach becasue of Russian "stubborness." The US/UK banking
section is the main engine behind the supreme crimes of aggression in the Middle East and
Ukraine (the ongoing civil war there had been initiated on the CIA instructions in 2014; see
Brennan "secret" visit to Kiev on the eve of military actions against the civilian
populations of Eastern Ukraine:
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russian-media-report-cia-director-held-secret-consultations-in-kiev-33897
).
The FBI and the CIA are the hired gangster organizations for the banksters. If the FBI
and the CIA cared about national security, the US would not suffer the infamy of Awan affair,
CrowdStrike "conclusions," and the US support for Daesh/ISIS/Al Qaida in the Middle East, as
well as the US support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. The US taxpayers have been financing both
ISIS and neo-Nazis because banksters decided so.
Germany invested a lot in the US project for the Middle East (the strategy of the
destruction of societies and states, conceived by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, but noticeably
less in the British-US project for the " Arab Springs ". Since the Cold War, it has housed
and supported several headquarters for the Muslim Brotherhood, including that of the Syrians
in Aix-la-Chapelle. Germany took a part in the assassination of ex-Prime Minister of Lebanon,
Rafic Hariri. In 2012, it co-wrote the Feltman plan for the total and unconditional
capitulation of Syria. At present, Volker Perthes, director of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und
Politik, the state think-tank, is advisor to Jeffrey Feltman at the UNO. [Jeffrey David
Feltman is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs. Feltman was born
to Jewish parents in the US he speaks Hebrew, English, Arabic, French, and Hungarian.]
For several years, the internal documents of the European External Action Service (EEAS)
are copied and pasted from Volker Perthes' notes for the German government. Volker Perthes
was at Munich with Jeffrey Feltman and their friends, Lakdhar Brahimi, Ramzi Ramzi, Steffan
de Mistura, Generals David Petraeus (the KKR was also represented by Christian Ollig) and
John Allen (Brookings Institution), as well as Nasser al-Hariri, the President of the High
Authority for Negotiations (pro-Saudi Syrian opposition), Raed al-Saleh, director of the
White Helmets (Al-Qaïda)and their Qatari sponsors, including Emir
Thamim."
There were also "three bosses – German BND (Bruno Kahl), British MI6 (Alex Younger)
and the French DGSE (Bernard Emié), who explained in a private room, in front of an
audience chosen for their naïveté, how nervous they were about the Turkish
operation in Syria. The three men pretended to believe that the combatants of the YPG
constitute the safest barrier against Daesh. Yet they were supposed to create the Frontier
Security Force with certain ex-members of Daesh . It's clear that the job of these three
super-spies is to know to whom they owe the truth, and to whom they can lie. Sustaining their
momentum, they hinted that the Syrian Arab Army uses chemical weapons – profiting from
the absence in the room of the US Secretary for Defence, Jim Mattis, who had testified a few
days earlier that proof of this claim is inexistent."
-- Lies, obfuscations, and crimes. The "three bosses" [of national security services] are
in service to Banksters, corporations, and arm dealers and producers. On the public dime, of
course And is not it touching that Jeffrey Feltman [a veritable Israel-firster] designs the
US military support for ISIS/Daesh in Syria?
The Government exists for the rich to control the slaves. The rich choose one of their own
to be President. The patriotic slaves, aka zombie morons left and right, vote for the slave
masters every four years. And argue over their merits. Oh, the Trump has a much nicer touch
with the lash than Obama.
The DNC data was leaked by an insider -- some say by the murdered Seth Rich. The Podesta
emails were hacked. And what that hack revealed was a network of wealthy pedophiles that
included both Podesta brothers, John and Tony, and other D.C. notables like Maeve Luzzatto
and James Alefantis. It's true that the PizzaGate conspiracy theory has been promoted by
Twitter nutcases, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in it.
Obama CIA Director James Brennan's heavy involvement in the Russia/election conspiracy
theory might be a clue that the D.C. pedophile network might be a CIA blackmail operation,
much as Jeffrey Epstein's private Caribbean island was used as a Mossad honey trap.
"No greater friend of the Zionists than the fundamentalist Christians."
True. And thanks for using the term "Zionist" because not all Jews are Zionists and not
all Zionists are Jews. Most American Jews, while supportive of Israel, are not Zionists. Most
American Jews are a benefit to the communities they call home. Zionism is a globalist cult
that must be unmasked and destroyed.
"... According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal, who spied for Great Britain in Russia from the early 1990s until 2004, was poisoned, along with his daughter, on March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve agent "of a type developed by Russia." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap between the United States and Russia. He had served six years in a Russian prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain for the last eight years. Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele's British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the London Daily Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed from the profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on that dossier. ..."
"... Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which require that evidence of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead delivered an ultimatum to Russia, and whipped up war fever throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever more aggressive moves against Russia. ..."
"... A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London Daily Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants: "We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China. Such an alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China. Britain needs a new role in the world; building such a network would be our perfect mission." Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China. ..."
"... China's "Belt and Road Initiative" now encompasses more than 140 nations in the largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future. At the same time, the neo-liberal economies of the trans-Atlantic region continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by the massive piles of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. ..."
"... Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack dab in the middle of the Skripal poisoning hoax. ..."
"... None of the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ applications involving Carter Page were revealed to the FISA Court in the filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, or current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf. The campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation. ..."
"... A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker, as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same reason. ..."
"... Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing research and reports to competing and feuding Russian oligarchs, many of whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover for intelligence operations. It is also a very violent theater of operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations and Russian organized crime. They engage in deadly gang warfare. ..."
"... Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous "sexing up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, ..."
"... Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time-frame, when this black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. ..."
"... The background to Porton Down's reluctance, is of course former Prime Minister Blair's phony dossier on Iraqi WMD, which Lyndon LaRouche fought, alongside the late British arms expert David Kelly, who exposed the "dodgy dossier," at the time. ..."
"... Thus, after being disclosed by a dissident Russian chemist living in the United States, novichoks have been widely copied by other countries, according to the press accounts. ..."
"... The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs, each of which services the other, acting on behalf of British strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the entire world in peril, absolutely intersect one another. ..."
March 18 -- In this report, we will explore the strategic significance of major events in the world starting in February 2018.
Our goal is to precisely situate British Prime Minister Theresa May's March 12-14 mad effort to manufacture a new "weapons of mass
destruction" hoax based on the alleged Skripal poisoning, using the same people (the MI6 intelligence grouping around Sir Richard
Dearlove) and script (an intelligence fraud concerning weapons of mass destruction) which were used to draw the United States into
the disastrous Iraq War.
The Skripal poisoning fraud also directly involves British agent Christopher Steele, the central figure in the ongoing coup against
Donald Trump. This time the British information warfare operation is aimed at directly provoking Russia, while maintaining the targeting
of the U.S. population and President Trump.
As the fevered, war-like media coverage and hysteria surrounding the case make clear, a certain section of the British elite seems
prepared to risk everything on behalf of its dying imperial system. Despite the hype, economic warfare and sanctions appear to be
the British weapons of choice -- Vladimir Putin, as we shall see, recently called the West's nuclear bluff. With the British "Russiagate"
coup against Donald Trump fizzling, exposing British agent Christopher Steele and a slew of his American friends to criminal prosecution,
a new tool was desperately needed to back the President of the United States into the British geopolitical corner shared by most
of the American establishment. The tool they are using to do this is an intelligence hoax, a tried-and-true British product.
According to the British spy tale, a former Russian military intelligence colonel, Sergei Skripal, who spied for Great Britain
in Russia from the early 1990s until 2004, was poisoned, along with his daughter, on March 4 in Salisbury, England, using a nerve
agent "of a type developed by Russia." In 2010, Skripal had been exchanged in a spy swap between the United States and Russia. He
had served six years in a Russian prison for spying for Britain. He had been living in the open in Britain for the last eight years.
Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller, listed himself as a consultant to Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele's
British company, on his LinkedIn profile. When the London Daily Telegraph called attention to the Orbis reference, it was removed
from the profile. Steele, who worked on the Trump dossier through his company Orbis, has denied that Miller worked directly on that
dossier.
Theresa May and her foreign minister, Boris Johnson, insist there is only one person who could be responsible for the poisoning
-- described as an act of war -- and that person is Vladimir Putin. No evidence has been offered to support this claim. No plausible
motive has been provided as to why Putin would order such a provocative murder now, ahead of the World Cup, when the Russiagate coup
in the United States has lost all momentum.
Rather than following the protocols of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW), which require that evidence of the alleged agent be presented to Russia, the eccentric and unpopular May instead
delivered an ultimatum to Russia, and whipped up war fever throughout the UK. She now seeks to pull Donald Trump and NATO into ever
more aggressive moves against Russia.
Thus, as with Christopher Steele's dirty dossier against Donald Trump, the British claims against Putin are an evidence-free exercise
of raw power. The Anglo-American establishment instructs us: "trust this, ignore the stinky factless content presented in this dossier
-- just note that it is backed by very important intelligence agencies which could cook your goose if you object."
A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation can be found in a March 14 London
Daily Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who rants: "We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia
and China. Such an alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal democracies finally to fight
back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust institutions that are required to contain Russia and China. Britain needs
a new role in the world; building such a network would be our perfect mission." Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational
statement was made by 68 former Obama Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at
securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China.
Russia and China have embarked on a massive infrastructure building project in Eurasia, the center of all British geopolitical
fantasies since the time of Halford Mackinder. China's "Belt and Road Initiative" now encompasses more than 140 nations in the
largest infrastructure-building project ever undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future.
At the same time, the neo-liberal economies of the trans-Atlantic region continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by
the massive piles of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. This debt is now on a hair trigger for implosion.
It is estimated by banking insiders that the City of London is sitting on a derivatives powderkeg of $700 trillion, with over-the-counter
derivatives accounting for another $570 trillion. The City of London will bear the major impact of the coming derivatives collapse.
In this strategic geometry, President Trump's support for peaceful collaboration with Russia during the campaign, and his personal
friendship with China's President Xi Jinping, have marked him for the relentless coup-drive waged by the British and their U.S. friends.
On top of that, President Putin delivered a mammoth strategic shock on March 1, showing new Russian weapons systems based on new
physical principles, which render present U.S. ABM systems and much of current U.S. war-fighting doctrine obsolete, together with
the vaunted first strike capacity with which NATO has surrounded Russia. Not only is the West sitting on a new financial collapse,
its vaunted military superiority has just been flanked.
It is very clear that a strategic choice now confronts the human race. In 1984, Lyndon LaRouche wrote a very profound document,
"
Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. " In it, he developed the concrete basis for peace between the
two superpowers at the moment when the United States had adopted the LaRouche/Reagan doctrine of strategic defense. Both Reagan and
LaRouche had proposed that the Russians and the United States cooperate in building and developing strategic defense against offensive
nuclear weapons, based on new physical principles, thereby eliminating the threat of nuclear annihilation.
According to the LaRouche Doctrine, "The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) the unconditional sovereignty of each
and all nation states, and b) cooperation among sovereign states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate
in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all."
Both China, in President Xi's October Address to the Party Congress, and Russia, in Putin's March 1 address to the Federal Assembly,
have set a course to produce technological progress capable of being shared in by all. They both outline major infrastructure projects
and dedicating massive funding to exploring the frontiers of science, technology, and space exploration. Donald Trump, in both his
campaign and his presidency, has embraced similar views. The British and their American friends, however, are devotees of a completely
different and failing economic system, a system soundly rejected in Brexit, in the election of Donald Trump, and most recently in
the Italian elections.
Just look at the events of February and March from this standpoint. It is no accident that Christopher Steele turns up, smack
dab in the middle of the Skripal poisoning hoax.
Exposure of British as U.S. Election Meddlers Weakens Anti-Trump Coup
On Feb. 2, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released a memo demonstrating that the Obama Justice Department
and FBI committed an outright fraud on the FISA court in obtaining surveillance warrants on Carter Page, a volunteer for Donald Trump's
2016 presidential campaign. The bogus warrant applications relied heavily on the dirty British dossier authored by MI6's "former"
Russian intelligence chief, Christopher Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee
to paint Donald Trump as a Manchurian candidate -- as a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
According to the House Intelligence memo and other aspects of its investigation, Steele confided to Bruce Ohr, a high official
in the DOJ, that he, Steele, hated Trump with a passion and would do "anything" to prevent Trump's election. Steele was using the
fact of an FBI investigation of his allegations as part of a "full spectrum" British information warfare campaign conducted against
candidate Trump with the full complicity of Obama's intelligence chiefs. (See Peter Van Buren, "
Christopher Steele: The Real Foreign Influence in the 2016 U.S. Election? " The American Conservative, February 15, 2018.)
None of the true facts about the actual motive for, and sponsors of, the DOJ applications involving Carter Page were revealed
to the FISA Court in the filings made by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former FBI Director James Comey, or current
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The House Intelligence Committee memo was quickly followed by a declassified letter on Feb. 5, in which Senators Chuck Grassley
and Lindsay Graham referred Christopher Steele to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution, based on false statements
he made to the FBI about his contacts with the news media. No doubt the criminal referral sent chills down the spines not only of
Christopher Steele and his British colleagues, but also of those former Obama officials conspiring against Trump.
In the same week, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes announced that he would be conducting investigations into the role of
the Obama State Department and intelligence chiefs in the circulation and use of Christopher Steele's dirty dossier. These investigations
have been widely reported to focus on John Brennan and James Clapper -- Brennan for widely promoting the dirty British work product,
and Clapper for leaks associated with BuzzFeed's publication and legitimization of the dirty British work product. Remind yourself
every time you hear media explosions against Trump by either Clapper (congressional perjurer and proponent of the theory that the
Russians are genetically predisposed to screw the United States) or Brennan (gopher for George Tenet's perpetual war and torture
regime and Grand Inquisitor for Barack Obama's serial
assassinations by baseball card). They are next in the barrel, so to speak.
The January 11, 2017 BuzzFeed publication of the Steele dossier was meant to permanently poison Trump's incoming administration,
and is the subject of libel suits both in Florida and London. In the London case, the British are ready to invoke the Official Secrets
Act to protect Christopher Steele. In the Florida case, Steele has been ordered to sit for deposition despite numerous delays and
stalling tactics.
The Congressional investigation of the State Department is focused on John Kerry, Kerry's aide Jonathan Winer, Victoria Nuland,
and Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Nuland utilized Christopher Steele as a primary intelligence source while running the U.S. regime
change operations in Ukraine in alliance with neo-Nazis. She greenlighted Steele's initial meetings with the FBI about Donald Trump.
Winer deployed himself to vouch for Steele to various news publications collaborating with British agent Steele and his U.S. employer,
Fusion GPS, in Steele's media warfare operations against Trump.
On March 12, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it had completed its Russia investigation. It stated that it
found "no collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia." Its draft final report was to have been
provided to the Democrats on the Committee on March 13 for comment and then submitted to declassification review.
On March 15, four U.S. Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Thom
Tillis, called for the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate the DOJ and FBI with respect to the Russiagate investigation.
They particularly focused on the use of the Steele dossier, FISA abuse, the disclosure of classified information to the press,
and the criminal investigation and case of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Separately, House Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte have asked the Justice Department to appoint a Special Counsel on similar
grounds.
On March 16, James Comey's Deputy FBI Director, Andrew McCabe, was fired as the result of recommendations by the FBI's Office
of Professional Responsibility (OPR). The OPR recommendation resulted from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's
investigation of McCabe's actions with respect to the Clinton email investigation and the Clinton Foundation. McCabe claimed that
this was part of a plot against himself, Comey, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Michael Horowitz, however, is an actual Washington
straight shooter appointed to his post by Barack Obama. The OPR is the FBI's own disciplinary agency. Horowitz's report is expected
to be extremely critical of McCabe, citing a "lack of candor" (i.e., lying) with respect to the investigation. Whatever the corrupt
media might claim, the facts here have been thoroughly investigated by McCabe's former FBI subordinates. They think his lies and
other actions disgrace the FBI and don't entitle him to a pension.
Horowitz's report on the Clinton investigations -- which have already unearthed the texts between former Russiagate lead case
agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, proclaiming their hatred of Donald Trump and the need for an "insurance
policy" against his election -- is expected to be released very soon. According to the House Intelligence Committee, the Strzok/Page
texts also reveal that Strzok was a close friend of U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras. Contreras sits on the FISA court,
took Michael Flynn's guilty plea, and then promptly recused himself from Michael Flynn's case for reasons which remain undisclosed.
Despite its exoneration of the President and thorough discrediting of the British Steele operation, the House Intelligence Committee
dangerously accepts the myth that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
and the emails of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta, and then provided the hacked information to WikiLeaks for publication.
Its final report states, however, that Putin's intervention was not in support of Donald Trump, as previously claimed by Obama's
intelligence chiefs. The Senators seeking a new Special Counsel also salute this dangerous fraud.
As we have previously reported, the myth that Putin hacked the Democrats and provided the hacked emails to WikiLeaks, has been
substantively refuted by the investigations of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). In summary, the evidence
points to a leak rather than a hack in the case of the DNC. Further, the NSA would have the evidence of any such hack or hacks, according
to former NSA technical director Bill Binney, and would have provided it, even if in a classified setting. It is clear that the NSA
has no such evidence. It is also clear that the United States and the British have cyber warfare capabilities fully capable of creating
"false flag" cyber war incidents.
North Korea Talks Planned, While Russia and China Continue to Create the Conditions for a New Human Renaissance
In addition to the fizzling of the coup, the Western elites suffered through February and March for additional reasons. To the
shock of the entire, smug Davos crowd, Donald Trump, working with Russia, China, and South Korea, appears to have gotten Kim Jong-un
to the negotiating table concerning denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Substantive talks have been scheduled for May. The
breakthrough was announced by President Trump and South Korea on March 8.
On March 1, President Putin gave his historic two-hour address to the Russian Federal Assembly and the Russian people. Like President
Xi's address to the Chinese Party Congress in October 2017, Putin focused on the goal of deeply reducing poverty in Russian society.
Xi vowed in October to eliminate poverty from Chinese society altogether by 2020. In addition, Putin emphasized that Russia would
undertake a huge city-building project across its vast rural frontiers and dramatically expand its modern infrastructure, including
Russia's digital infrastructure. He put major emphasis on directing funds to basic scientific and technological progress. He emphasized
that harnessing and stimulating the creative powers of individual human beings is the true driver of all economic progress.
China's Belt and Road Initiative also continued to advance. Great infrastructure projects are popping up throughout the world,
including most specifically in Africa, which had been consigned to be a permanent, primitive looting-ground for Western interests.
Among the recent breakthroughs is the great project to refill Lake Chad, a project known as "Transaqua," involving the Italian engineering
firm Bonifica, the Chinese engineering and construction firm PowerChina, and the Lake Chad Basin Commission, which represents the
African countries directly benefiting from the project. But the biggest strategic news of the last six weeks was contained in the
last part of President Putin's speech. He showed various weapons, developed by Russian scientists in the wake of the U.S. abrogation
of the ABM treaty and the Anglo-American campaign of color revolutions and NATO base-building in the former Soviet bloc. These weapons,
based on new physical principles, render U.S. ABM defenses obsolete, together with many U.S. utopian war-fighting doctrines developed
under the reigns of Obama and Bush. Putin emphasized that the economic and "defense" aspects of his speech were not separate. Rather,
the scientific breakthroughs were based on an in-depth economic mobilization of the physical economy. He stressed that Russia's survival
was dependent upon marshalling continuous creative breakthroughs in basic science and the high-technology spinoffs which result,
and their propagation through the entire population. He stressed that such breakthroughs are the product of providing an actually
human existence to the entire society.
Compare what Russia and China have set out to accomplish with respect to the physical economy of the Earth, with the second and
third paragraphs of Lyndon LaRouche's prescription for a durable peace in the LaRouche Doctrine:
The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic,
and political relations between dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as "developing nations."
Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace
on this planet.
Insofar as the United States and the Soviet Union acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet
to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a common interest.
This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of a durable peace between those
two powers.
This is the perspective which has the British terrified and acting-out, insanely. Were Trump, Putin, and Xi to enter into negotiations
based on the LaRouche Doctrine, a breakthrough will have occurred for all of mankind, a breakthrough to a permanent and durable peace.
No neo-liberal, post-industrial, unipolar order can match this, no matter how much Allister Heath, Ms. May, or Boris Johnson rant
and rave about it.
Christopher Steele's British Playground
As is well known by now, Christopher Steele was a long-time MI6 agent before "retiring" to form his own extremely lucrative private
intelligence firm. The firm is said to have earned $200 million since its formation. Steele was an MI6 agent in Moscow around the
time Skripal was recruited. He also later ran the MI6 Russia desk and would have known everything there was to know about Skripal.
Pablo Miller, who recruited Skripal, worked for Steele's firm according to Miller's LinkedIn profile, and lived in the same town
as Skripal.
Since Steele has been discredited in the United States, a huge fawning publicity campaign has been undertaken on his behalf.
The campaign involves journalists who have collaborated directly with Steele in his smear job against Trump. Books by Luke Harding
and Michael Isikoff seek to rebuild Steele's reputation.
A fawning piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker, as implausible as it is long, has been foisted on the public for the same
reason.
There are some fascinating facts, however, in all this fawning prose:
Steele described his business to Luke Harding as primarily providing research and reports to competing and feuding Russian
oligarchs, many of whom use London as a base of operations. This is obviously a perfect cover for intelligence operations. It
is also a very violent theater of operations. The oligarchs intersect both Western intelligence operations and Russian organized
crime. They engage in deadly gang warfare.
Steele and his partners are mentored by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and a critical player in the infamous
"sexing up" and fabrication of the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, creating the rationale for
the disastrous and genocidal Iraq War.
Steele had been tasked to claim that Russia was interfering in Western elections during the entire post-Ukraine coup time-frame,
when this black propaganda line began to be circulated widely. According to Jane Mayer's account, Steele called this "Project
Charlemagne," and completed his report on it in April 2016, just before he undertook his hit job against Donald Trump. In his
report, Steele claimed that Russia was interfering in the politics of France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Turkey.
He claimed that Russia was conducting social media warfare aimed at "inflaming fear and prejudice and had provided opaque financial
support to favored politicians." He specifically targeted Silvio Berlusconi and Marine Le Pen. Steele also suggested that Russian
aid was given to "lesser known right wing nationalists" in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, implying that the Russians were behind
Brexit, with an overall goal of destroying the European Union.
Leaving aside Sergei Skripal's relationship with the central figure in the British-led coup against Donald Trump, it is clear
that the May government's claim that he and his daughter were poisoned by a "novichok" nerve-agent, even if it is true, by no means
makes a case that Putin's government was responsible. (It is of interest that as we were going to press on March 19, the foreign
ministers of the European Union, after a briefing by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson that indicted Putin as responsible,
issued a statement which condemned the poisoning of Skripal and his daughter, but pointedly failed to blame Putin or Russia.)
Craig Murray, a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan who maintains contacts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote March
16 that Britain's chemical-warfare scientists at Porton Down, "are not able to identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture,
and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation of a type
developed by Russia, after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly
researching, in the novichok program, a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors
such as insecticides and fertilizers. This substance is a novichok in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop
of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China."
The background to Porton Down's reluctance, is of course former Prime Minister Blair's phony dossier on Iraqi WMD, which Lyndon
LaRouche fought, alongside the late British arms expert David Kelly, who exposed the "dodgy dossier," at the time.
"To anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several days," Murray continues. "The government has never said
the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation of a type developed by Russia was
used by Theresa May in Parliament, used by the U.K. at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most
tellingly of all, 'of a type developed by Russia,' is the precise phrase used in the joint communique‚ issued by the U.K., U.S.A.,
France, and Germany yesterday."
The main account of the chemical weapons cited by Theresa May was written by a Soviet dissident chemist named Vil Mirzayanov who
now lives in the United States and published a book about his work at the Soviets' Uzbekistan chemical-warfare laboratory. In his
much-publicized book, Mirzayanov sets out the formulas for the claimed substances. According to the March 16 Wall Street Journal,
that publicity led to the novichoks' chemical structure being leaked, making them readily available for reproduction elsewhere. Ralf
Trapp, a France-based consultant and expert on the control of chemical and biological weapons, told the Journal, "The chemical formula
has been publicized and we know from publications from then-Czechoslovakia that they had worked on similar agents for defense in
the 1980s. I'm sure other countries with developed programs would have as well."
But it does not seem that those "other countries" include Russia. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
the independent agency charged by treaty with investigating claims like those just made by the British government, certified in September
2017 that the Russian government had destroyed its entire chemical weapons program, inclusive of its nerve agent production capabilities.
In addition to Trapp's account, Seamus Martin, writing in the March 14 Irish Times, posits, based on personal knowledge, that novichoks
were widely expropriated by East Bloc oligarchs and criminal elements in the Russian economic chaos of the 1990s.
Thus, after being disclosed by a dissident Russian chemist living in the United States, novichoks have been widely copied
by other countries, according to the press accounts.
Further trouble for May's attempted hoax is found in the condition of the Skripals and of a police officer who went to their home.
All were made critically ill, although they are still alive. Yet the emergency personnel who treated the Skripals, allegedly the
victims of a deadly and absolutely lethal nerve poison, suffered no ill effects whatsoever.
The Skripal poisoning is being compared in the British press to the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. The former KGB
and FSB officer was granted asylum in London and worked for the infamous anti-Putin British-intelligence-directed oligarch Boris
Berezovsky in information warfare and other attacks on the Russian state, inclusive of McCarthyite accusations against any European
politician seeking sane relations with Putin.
Litvinenko's case officer was none other than Christopher Steele, and Christopher Steele conducted MI6's investigation of the
case, which, of course, found Putin himself culpable. Berezovsky's use of the disgraced British PR firm Bell, Pottinger is also credited
with a significant role in public acceptance of this result. Berezovsky was a prime suspect in organizing the murder of American
journalist Paul Klebnikov. Many believe that Berezovsky arranged Litvinenko's demise. Berezovsky himself died in Britain in mysterious
circumstances following the loss of a major court case to another Russian oligarch, Roman Abramovich.
In the parliamentary debate in which Theresa May issued her provocation, opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn cautioned against a rush
to judgment and pointed to the bloody playing field of Russian oligarchs and Russian organized crime as alternative areas for investigation.
Had Corbyn added to that mix, "Western intelligence agencies," he would have been entirely on the right track. Corbyn also pointed
out that these oligarchs had contributed millions to May's Conservative Party. The reaction by the British media, May's Conservatives,
and Tony Blair's faction of the Labour Party was to paint Corbyn as a Putin dupe, including photoshopped images of the Labour leader
in a Russian winter hat in front of the Kremlin.
The insane McCarthyite reactions to Corbyn's simple statements of fact show that he hit the nail on the head. If you want
to find Skripal's poisoners, then, like Edgar Allen Poe, you must take in the whole picture first. The field of play involves the
British intelligence services and the anti-Putin Russian oligarchs, each of which services the other, acting on behalf of British
strategic objectives. It is no accident that the coup against Donald Trump and the latest British intelligence fraud, putting the
entire world in peril, absolutely intersect one another.
What is interesting that as there are 3.4K dislikes and only 1.2K likes. Looks like people start to decipher the NBC propaganda
machine and neoliberal propaganda machine in general (NBC is not an outlier in this respect; this is run of mill neoliberal outlet)
Looks like Putin really has steel nerves. Megyn Kelly was really disgusting pushing her talking points like there is
not tomorrow. Such a shill... . She also was organically able to listen. she has her prejudices can't shake them and actually does
not want to shake them (may be this is connected with her job security ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Confronting? The job of a real journalist is to ask questions, not to confront. Want to see the actual interview go watch Russian Insider is there in its totality. ..."
"... the moment i heard "American Democracy Under Attack" i stopped watching the video. ..."
"... Wtf NBC, this is ridiculously badly edited to fit an agenda. This is not journalism. ..."
"... It's not a debate if she keeps interrupting him, very disappointed in the way NBC took this golden opportunity to have a proper conversation with one of the super powers of the world and wasted it in "I tell you, you did this" and childish reaction from Megyn part. ..."
"... I am American and I am fully of aware how evil and deceptive this country is. I understand Putin is trying to do the right thing. But it seems as if almost 90-95% of people in this country still don't get it. ..."
"... How many governments in the world have been overthrown by the American CIA? How often does evil USA interfere in other states' elections? The USA government is pure evil. ..."
"... "American democracy, under attack".... by putting $46,000 worth of ads on Facebook, most of which were posted AFTER the election. Come on people, don't be foolish. ..."
"... "You believe that America meddled in your elections?" No Megyn Kelly, that's a historical fact, look up the "Harvard Boys" sponsored by USAID, look at the cover of the July 15, 1996 issue of Time Magazine entitled "Yanks to the Rescue", celebrating America's role in hijacking the Russian political system. ..."
Confronting? The job of a real journalist is to ask questions, not to confront. Want to see the actual interview go watch Russian
Insider is there in its totality.
Mr. Putin, did you intervene in the US elections? No But did you intervene? No And when you intervened, did you intervene?
No Have you intervened with the oligarchs? No Did you help them intervene? No And in the US say you intervened you did it? No
But you did not interfere, huh? Yes Interfered? No
Where is the full interview? I had to go to a Russian government TV channel so I can watch the full interview. And you label
the Russian media as state propaganda. Shame on you.
"Cut and paste" the interview with an agenda of bashing Russia, using "some people say" or "some American experts say" as the
sources without any solid proof and evidence is shameful.
Please, please, please, any US citizen who is watching this, go watch the full interview, just in order to get an idea of what your
media is worth. Listen to the words, also pay attention to how it is filmed and
presented.You really need to know how much you are bullshitted to.
When he talked about principles, why didn't she believe? Please, know that there are many people in the world with principles,
who are not necessarily running and dying for capitalist money, brands, silly talentless pointless half-naked pop-stars, yachts
or florida-like beaches, etc. There are many people who are fine to live without all these but with principles and other values
, which are not that bad even they don't run around money!
Her first and fatal mistake was underestimating his intelligence, thinking she could trip him up with her aggressive tone.
Putin has forgotten more about politics than Kelly has yet to learn. It's easy to see why NBC hacked the interview to pieces -
she was pathetic and out of her league, just another brainwashed, deluded American shill.
Wtf NBC, this is ridiculously badly edited to fit an agenda. This is not journalism. I wasn't a fan of Russia before this,
but you might be changing my mind by showing this edited crap. You're making things between the US and Russia worse not better
by showing this edited crap.
Wow, i am a Russian and i have to say you guys went too far with your propaganda. This is cut and edited beyond reason. Why
you do this? Stop making our president look like the ultimate villain. Honestly, it was such a pleasure to listen to Vladimir
Putin's reasonable approach. WTF NBC?
It's not a debate if she keeps interrupting him, very disappointed in the way NBC took this golden opportunity to have a proper
conversation with one of the super powers of the world and wasted it in "I tell you, you did this" and childish reaction from
Megyn part.
In America, Our political & Media Elite managed to collude Our foreign policy with Democracy promotion.We use Democracy promotion
to achieved our foreign policy agenda.. In Libya we Used democracy promotion to achieve our foreign policy goal of getting ride
of Gadhafi, following the fall of Gadhafi we abandon Libya on moved on to OUR NEXT TARGET, SYRIA.... IN SYRIA, we formed an alliance
with non Democratic ARAB REGIMES to Overthrow A Circular government of ASSAD. when RUSSIA & IRAN INTERVEIN @ THE REQUEST OF THE
SYRIAN GOVERNMENT, we have an issue with that.. OUR FOREIGN POLICY is INCONSISTENT AND UNDERMINES OUR NATIONAL INTEREST/Democracy.
& Corporate Media is a SCAM... HAD WE HAD alternative NEWS SOURCE LIKE(social media) WE DO TODAY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE INVADED IRAQ
ON FAKE EVIDENCE /INTELLIGENCE God Bless America
NBC is the reason why the US and Russia will never be allies. They seem to want war. Putin is probably laughing at the hysteria
of the US media. Make no mistake, the MEDIA is getting in the way of peace with Russia. Putin is no saint, but keep in mind they
have more nuclear weapons than us. Wouldn't hurt to mend the relationship...
This is American propaganda in its purest most undiluted form. The interpreter is putting words into Putin's mouth making him
sound arrogant and brash. Its is Megyn Kelly who is the arrogant one just like the rest of the American mainstream media. I admire
Putin for his patience, one must have the mental stability of a yogi to tolerate the half literate moronic deluge that radiates
from Megyn's mouth. She was going too far, by interrupting Putin at every turn while Putin still has the decency to politely respond.
If she is so democratic, I would advise her to pay a visit to her government's Saudi "allies.
Putin is too smart for Megyn. Do you really think he's gonna tell you what you think when an American journalist asks you such
questions? I don't like Putin either but he's got balls. I bet he knows English too but he knows that speaking a foreign language
will put him at an disadvantage. Smart move by hiring an interpreter. By the way the US government throughout has done things
far worse than rigging election.
This isnt an interview more less the ' pressing' of 'false allegations & speculation'. Every response Putin gives is reasonable.
Putin didnt have to agree with doing this. She sounds like a failed lawyer & wanna be politician. America is not Perfect, Russia
is not perfect, I wish she would sit down with people in her own country & do the same but she doesnt. She acts as if she is asking
these questions on behalf of Americans when really it is based on 'her' own views and for the sake of 'her' interview. This interview
is flawed.
Don't spread lies NBC news. People should not believe this fake news! Glad to see there's more dislikes than likes, people
are starting to know the truth.
How disingenuous can NBC get? Actual quote from the interview: "Maybe, although they were Russian, they work for some American
company. Maybe one of them worked with one of the candidates. I have no idea about this. These are not my problems" And in the
headlines: "Putin on alleged US election interference: I don't care".
American Democracy is run by plutocrats Itching for war against Russia and China and Iran.. USA is a warmonger doing the bidding
for Israel.. As if Russia had Trump elected.. What a joke.. American mainstream media is trying to manufacture consent from its people
to go to war.. Watch and see..
United state have been interfering in African election forcing us to there evil democracy, killing Gaddafi for no reason. Look
at what you guys did in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries that don't want to do your evil democracy. After lying to the shameless
United nations security council about Saddam's building of weapons of mass destruction, Who fight you about that?.
This is quite possibly the WORST interview ever conducted. This one is NOT a journalist. If you want to be a respectable broadcaster,
fire this moron immediately. Horrendously non-factual, terribly edited - this interview is America in a nutshell. The world has
awoken in this age and won't stand still.
Remember that United States interferes in the affairs of other nations ALL THE TIME. The U.S. attempted to influence the elections
of foreign countries as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000. Since 2000, the U.S. has attempted to sway elections in Ukraine,
Kenya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan.
I am American and I am fully of aware how evil and deceptive this country is. I understand Putin is trying to do the right
thing. But it seems as if almost 90-95% of people in this country still don't get it. They actually are repulsed and
angry by the idea that we could be the bad guys. It has turned my family and friends against me. I am all alone...
Megyn Kelly? Pressure Putin? Should I cry or laugh! It's like watching Ahmedinajad destroying King! Even your questions has
no concrete clue to any Russian government connection! None!!!!! Are you really a journalist? Guys seriously if you wanna do tv
then do it right! You can't pressure Putin by saying they are Russians if you don't have any any any any clues on government connection!
You should really consider your questions next time!
There's no "Russian Connection". This is a lie. This whole "Russian interference in US elections" is a political sham invented
by the corrupt American system infiltrated by Zionists and Anti-Christian lobbyists.
Poor work by the journalist. She is supposed to have a dialogue, she is supposed to listen to the interviewee. Instead, it
was just a bunch of questions and it looked quite awkward.
How many governments in the world have been overthrown by the American CIA? How often does evil USA interfere in other states'
elections? The USA government is pure evil.
"American democracy, under attack".... by putting $46,000 worth of ads on Facebook, most of which were posted AFTER the election.
Come on people, don't be foolish.
"You believe that America meddled in your elections?" No Megyn Kelly, that's a historical fact, look up the "Harvard Boys"
sponsored by USAID, look at the cover of the July 15, 1996 issue of Time Magazine entitled "Yanks to the Rescue", celebrating
America's role in hijacking the Russian political system.
"Doom porn" argument aside it was almost 10 years since the last financial crisis. And
neoliberalism tend to produce financial crisis with amazing regularity. This is the nature of the
beast. So timing might be wrong, but the danger is here.
With spring, things come unstuck; an unspooling has begun.
The turnaround at the FBI and Department of Justice has been so swift that even The New York
Times has shut up about collusion with Russia - at the same time omitting to report what
appears to have been a wholly politicized FBI upper echelon intruding on the 2016 election
campaign, and then laboring stealthily to un-do the election result.
The ominous silence enveloping the DOJ the week after Andrew McCabe's firing - and before
the release of the FBI Inspector General's report - suggests to me that a grand jury is about
to convene and indictments are in process, not necessarily from Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller's office. The evidence already publicly-aired about FBI machinations and interventions
on behalf of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump looks bad from any angle, and the wonder
was that it took so long for anyone at the agency to answer for it.
McCabe is gone from office and, apparently hung out to dry on the recommendation of his own
colleagues. Do not think for a moment that he will just ride off into the sunset. Meanwhile,
Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, have been sent to the FBI study hall pending some other
shoes dropping in a grand jury room. James Comey is out hustling a book he slapped together to
manage the optics of his own legal predicament (evidently, lying to a congressional committee).
And way out in orbit beyond the gravitation of the FBI, lurk those two other scoundrels, John
Brennan, former head of the CIA (now a CNN blabbermouth), and James Clapper, former Director of
National Intelligence, a new and redundant post in the Deep State's intel matrix (and ditto a
CNN blabbermouth). Brennan especially has been provoked to issue blunt Twitter threats against
Mr. Trump, suggesting he might be entering a legal squeeze himself.
None of these public servants have cut a plea bargain yet, as far as is publicly known, but
they are all, for sure, in a lot of trouble. Culpability may not stop with them. Tendrils of
evidence point to a coordinated campaign that included the Obama White House and the Democratic
National Committee starring Hillary Clinton. Robert Mueller even comes into the picture both at
the Uranium One end of the story and the other end concerning the activities of his old friend,
Mr. Comey. Most tellingly of all, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was not shoved out of office
but remains shrouded in silence and mystery as this melodrama plays out, tick, tick, tick.
"... After the disastrous Yeltsin rule (which came on the heels of disastrous rule by Gorbachev) Putin and his team rescued Russia economically, politically, and militarily. ..."
"... As far as Western "democracies" are concerned, the author hit the nail on the head. Yet there are lots of problems in Russia that the author does not mention. I think current Russian take on Soviet propaganda summarizes everything nicely: "what they told us about socialism was a pack of lies, but what they told us about capitalism turned out to be perfectly true". ..."
The author is painting Putin as larger-than-life figure, which he isn't. He is a normal
man, capable and intelligent, but he is not by any means that superhuman leader and savior.
He looks much greater than he is because you subconsciously compare him with pathetic
nonentities that the Western world sees as leaders now. In fact, the leadership of the US
Empire and all its vassal countries visibly degenerated in the last decades. Just compare De
Gaulle with sad excuses La Belle France had for presidents lately. Or compare Nixon (he might
have been a nasty person, but he was a great President of the country) with various clintons,
bushes, obamas, and trumps. Or compare Chancellor Kohl with that poor excuse for a chancellor
that Germany has today. You get the drift.
Just like the Soviet Union was not defeated by the US, but actually collapsed due to
internal problems, regime change rampage is over largely because the United States pushed
their luck and overextended themselves, and not just thanks to Putin. Throughout history, all
dominant empires lose their grip and eventually crumble (remember Roman or British), and now
it's the turn of the US Empire. Fortunately or unfortunately, the next will be the Chinese
Empire, not Russian.
After the disastrous Yeltsin rule (which came on the heels of disastrous rule by
Gorbachev) Putin and his team rescued Russia economically, politically, and
militarily.
However, the US played a huge role in increasing Putin's popularity inside Russia, more
than his propaganda machine ever could. Before the US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014,
Putin's approval hovered at about 45%. Nazi takeover in Ukraine and his decisive move to take
Crimea back (it was transferred to Ukraine from Russia by Khruschev in 1956, illegally even
by vague Soviet law; Crimea tried to get away from Ukraine ever since the breakup of the USSR
in 1991; polls by Gallup and German company GfK showed that 80%+ Crimean residents wanted to
join Russia, rather than remain in the madhouse that Ukraine became after the coup) resulted
in his approval soaring above 70%.
Ill-advised sanctions added even more. Now he did not need to rig elections, he got
genuine 70%+ vote, a level of support Western politicians can't even dream of (e.g., Trump
was elected by 26% of eligible voters; Merkel's party in Germany got even less).
As far as Western "democracies" are concerned, the author hit the nail on the head.
Yet there are lots of problems in Russia that the author does not mention. I think current
Russian take on Soviet propaganda summarizes everything nicely: "what they told us about
socialism was a pack of lies, but what they told us about capitalism turned out to be
perfectly true".
This is way too rosy account. Russia has several significant problems with growth of
Muslim population and the fact that this is last term for Putin, which might signify the end
of the period of political stability.
Also economic rape by local and Western neoliberals of Russia in 1991-2000 was so
successful that the country still can't fully recover. Hundreds of billions were stolen and
transferred to the West. The "problem of neoliberal oligarchs" as "fifth column" still
remains and is a threat to the future of the country. Too much depends of Putin personally.
In this sense China is in a better position.
Moreover, Putin was forced into new arm race (by the USA) and military spending now are
high and that creates another set of problems including growing influence of internal
military industrial complex. Add to this the cost of Syria war and related set of external
and internal problems, such as almost complete absence of allies (neither China not Iraq are
reliable allies; most post-Soviet republics, even Kazakhstan, are now hostile to Russia)
And Russia does not have too many degrees of freedom yet, as it still depends on the West
for many technologies and complex machinery. West dominates high technology area. Add to this
brain drain and export of capital from Russia.
Technological dependence means that really crippling sanction are always a possibility.
Availability of some of those technologies in China makes this problem less acute than in the
past, but still in no way Russia can pursue completely independent policy.
Add to this dependence on dollar and the fact that Russian national bank, which remain a
neoliberal institution, controlled by neoliberal Nabibulina ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvira_Nabiullina
, who is close to Gref ) who like any "good" neoliberal keeps natural sovereign fund invested
in US Treasuries. In this sense she is not that different from Kudrin.
And that means that those money can be confiscated anytime, like the USA did with Iran in
the past. Also oligarchs money are now in danger due to clear desire of London to improve its
financial standing at Russian oligarchs expense.
What is true is that neoliberalism as a political system entered deep crisis after 2008.
In the USA political system became dysfunctional and there is some kind of "virtual" civil
war between two factions of neoliberal oligarchy -- classic neoliberals and bastard
neoliberals (aka economic nationalists). Add to this "strange" relations with Israel, which
sometimes suggest that the tail wags the dog and I do not see why the USA can't experience
something similar to processes that took place in Britain after the WWII.
But there is still no alternative social system on the horizon and return to "New deal
capitalism" is impossible as the social alliance of management caste changed.
So Russia remains a neoliberal country which hates neoliberalism (in which by definition
the power belongs to the financial oligarchy) and which tries to fight Western neoliberal
imperialism in ofreign policy including attempts to make is a vassal and appropriate its
natural resources (and Russia was a vassal of the West under Yeltsin) while remaining a
neoliberal country and promoting neoliberalism externally. that's a recipe for a color
revolution in the future, more successfully then 2012 "White" color revolution run by Moscow
comprador class. Which in Moscow might well represent probably one third of the population
(programmers, doctors, accountants, employees of foreign companies, part of "integrated with
West" artistic cicles, writers, journalists, etc.). They were politically decimated by events
in Ukraine and then by Russiagate hysteria in the USA. So "neoliberal compradors" class was
not a player in the current elections. But that situation might eventually change and they
can restore part of their political power.
So, in a way, Putin is some kind of Don Quixote which fight neoliberalism (and neoliberal
globalization) externally, while allowing it to exist and even flourish internally (Medvedev,
BTW looks like classic neoliberal, a Trojan horse in Putin's administration).
And internally neoliberalism naturally produces high level of corruption, which is
amplified by "New Economic Policy" elements on the current Russia political regime (which
allowed free operation of small and medium business, but tried to cut/decimate political
power of large business -- a very difficult, if not impossible undertaking)
I think Professor Brovkin forgot the classic Lenin work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism". That's sad...
Moreover, former pro-Putin people who are now CEO of large government companies are not
longer Pro-Putin people. Because their position influences their political orientation. In a
sense, people like Gref and Sechin are dangerous strata of Putin-created "nova riches", who
can betray him any moment, especially if their money will be under the treat of confiscation
by the West.
It might well be that Putin was an anomaly and Russian will enter "Maidan" period or some
other form of political crisis after Putin relinquishes his power.
BTW Ukrainians were successfully deceived by the West twice, so I do not see why Russians
can't repeat this trick and step of the same rake again by electing some variation of Yeltsin
who will promise them immediate bright future and jump in the standard of living (which for
the last three year deteriorated due to low oil prices and a huge depreciation of ruble). For
Ukrainians around 20 year was enough to forget all lessons.
My impression is that Russia might experience yet another serious of political cataclysm
in the near future, when "Putinism" will disappear with Putin.
With spring, things come unstuck; an unspooling has begun.
The turnaround at the FBI and Department of Justice has been so swift that even The New York Times has shut up about collusion
with Russia - at the same time omitting to report what appears to have been a wholly politicized FBI upper echelon intruding on the
2016 election campaign, and then laboring stealthily to un-do the election result.
The ominous silence enveloping the DOJ the week after Andrew McCabe's firing - and before the release of the FBI Inspector General's
report - suggests to me that a grand jury is about to convene and indictments are in process, not necessarily from Special Prosecutor
Robert Mueller's office. The evidence already publicly-aired about FBI machinations and interventions on behalf of Hillary Clinton
and against Donald Trump looks bad from any angle, and the wonder was that it took so long for anyone at the agency to answer for
it.
McCabe is gone from office and, apparently hung out to dry on the recommendation of his own colleagues. Do not think for a moment
that he will just ride off into the sunset. Meanwhile, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, have been sent to the FBI study hall pending
some other shoes dropping in a grand jury room. James Comey is out hustling a book he slapped together to manage the optics of his
own legal predicament (evidently, lying to a congressional committee). And way out in orbit beyond the gravitation of the FBI, lurk
those two other scoundrels, John Brennan, former head of the CIA (now a CNN blabbermouth), and James Clapper, former Director of
National Intelligence, a new and redundant post in the Deep State's intel matrix (and ditto a CNN blabbermouth). Brennan especially
has been provoked to issue blunt Twitter threats against Mr. Trump, suggesting he might be entering a legal squeeze himself.
None of these public servants have cut a plea bargain yet, as far as is publicly known, but they are all, for sure, in a lot of
trouble. Culpability may not stop with them. Tendrils of evidence point to a coordinated campaign that included the Obama White House
and the Democratic National Committee starring Hillary Clinton. Robert Mueller even comes into the picture both at the Uranium One
end of the story and the other end concerning the activities of his old friend, Mr. Comey. Most tellingly of all, Attorney General
Jeff Sessions was not shoved out of office but remains shrouded in silence and mystery as this melodrama plays out, tick, tick, tick.
Hacking is an ideal space for false flag operation where shadow, intelligence connected
companies like Crowdstype can plan evidence with impunity and traced can be constructed according
to the needs of the day or particular operation. Only British-style poisonings can compete as
they provide the same mantle of secrecy in which real evidence can be buried and fake propagated
;-)
Somebody on UNZ forum said that it is stupid to believe anything that comes from national
intelligence services, especially when they are engaged in color revolution against the current
administration.
The Daily Beast reports that U.S. investigators identified the hacker as a Moscow-based
Russian intelligence operative after the hacker failed to activate a virtual private networking
(VPN) service meant to obscure the operative's location before logging on.
The result was the operative's Moscow IP address being caught in the logs of a U.S. social
media company, allowing U.S. investigators to track the individual. Special counsel Robert Mueller , who is leading
the investigation into Russian election meddling, has taken over the probe into Guccifer,
according to The Daily Beast, which reported that he added FBI agents to his team who
previously worked to track the hacker.
U.S. intelligence agencies previously stated in January 2017 that they had "high confidence"
that "Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used
the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data."
"... May, who referred to a "Russian mafia state," has blamed Moscow for the attack even though she made plain in her first speech that the investigation was still underway. ..."
"... She did not consider that Vladimir Putin's government would have no good reason to carry out an assassination that surely would be attributed to it, particularly as it was on the verge of national elections and also, more important, because it will be hosting the World Cup later this year and will be highly sensitive to threats of boycott. ..."
"... when Theresa May says that the alleged agent used against the Skripals as being "of a type" associated with a reported Russian-developed chemical weapon called Novichok that was produced in the 1970s and 1980s, she is actually conceding that her own chemical weapons laboratories at Porton Down are, to a certain, extent, guessing at the provenance and characteristics of the actual agent that might or might not have been used in Salisbury. ..."
I don't know what happened in Salisbury England on March 4th, but it appears that the
British government doesn't know either. Prime Minister Theresa May's
speech before Parliament last Monday was essentially political, reflecting demands that she
should "do something" in response to the mounting hysteria over the poisoning of former Russian
double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. After May's presentation there were demands
from Parliamentarians for harsh measures against Russia, reminiscent of the calls for action
emanating from the U.S. Congress over the allegations relating to what has been called
Russiagate.
This demand to take action led to a second Parliamentary address by May on Wednesday in
which she detailed the British response to the incident, which included cutting off all
high-level contacts between Moscow and London and the " persona non grata " (PNG)
expulsion of 23 "spies" and intelligence officers working out of the Russian Federation
Embassy. The expulsions will no doubt produce a tit-for-tat PNG from Moscow, ironically
crippling or even eliminating the MI-6 presence and considerably reducing Britain's own ability
to understand what it going on in the Kremlin.
May, who referred to a "Russian mafia state," has blamed Moscow for the attack even
though she made plain in her first speech that the investigation was still underway. In
both her presentations, she addressed the issue of motive by citing her belief that the
attempted assassination conforms with an established pattern of Russian behavior. She did
not consider that Vladimir Putin's government would have no good reason to carry out an
assassination that surely would be attributed to it, particularly as it was on the verge of
national elections and also, more important, because it will be hosting the World Cup later
this year and will be highly sensitive to threats of boycott. And it must be observed that
Skripal posed no active threat to the Russian government. He has been living quietly in Britain
for eight years, leading to wild tabloid press speculation that the Kremlin's motive must have
been to warn potential traitors that there are always consequences, even years later and in a
far-off land.
To provide additional buttressing of what is a questionable thesis, the case of the
assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 has been repeatedly cited by the media
on both sides of the Atlantic as evidence of Russian turpitude, but the backstory is not the
same. Litvinenko was an FSB officer who fled to the United Kingdom to avoid prosecution in
Russia. In Britain, he became a whistleblower and author, exposing numerous alleged Russian
government misdeeds. Would the Kremlin have been motivated to kill him? He was seen as a
traitor and a continuing threat through his books and speeches, so it is certainly possible.
The story of Skripal was, however, completely different. He was a double agent working for
Britain who was arrested and imprisoned in 2006. He was released and traveled to the UK after a
2010 spy swap was arranged by Washington and his daughter has been able to travel freely from
Moscow to visit him. If the Russian government had wanted to kill him, they could have easily
done so while he was in prison, or they could have punished him by taking steps against his
daughter.
There are a number of problems with the accepted narrative as presented by May and the
media. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a nerve agent as "usually odorless organophosphate
(such as sarin, tabun, or VX) that disrupts the transmission of nerve impulses by inhibiting
cholinesterase and especially acetylcholinesterase and is used as a chemical weapon in gaseous
or liquid form," while Wikipedia explains that it is "a class of organic chemicals that disrupt
the mechanisms by which nerves transfer messages to organs." A little more research online
reveals that most so-called nerve agents are chemically related. So when Theresa May says
that the alleged agent used against the Skripals as being "of a type" associated with a
reported Russian-developed chemical weapon called Novichok that was produced in the 1970s and
1980s, she is actually conceding that her own chemical weapons laboratories at Porton Down are,
to a certain, extent, guessing at the provenance and characteristics of the actual agent that
might or might not have been used in Salisbury.
Beyond that, a military strength nerve agent is, by definition, a highly concentrated and
easily dispersed form of a chemical weapon. It is intended to kill or incapacitate hundreds or
even thousands of soldiers. If it truly had been used in Salisbury, even in a small dose, it
would have killed Skripal and his daughter as well as others nearby. First responders who
showed up without protective clothing, clearly seen in the initial videos and photos taken near
the site, would also be dead. After her first speech, May summoned the Russian Ambassador and
demanded that he address the allegations, but Moscow reasonably enough demanded a sample of the
alleged nerve agent for testing by relevant international bodies like the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons before it could even respond to the British accusations. It was
a valid point even supported in Parliament questioning by opposition Labour leader Jeremy
Corbyn, but May and her government decided to act anyway.
May's language also conveys uncertainty. She used "it appears" and also said it was "highly
likely" that Moscow was behind the poisoning of Skripal but provided no actual evidence that
that was the case, presumably only assuming that it had to be Russia. And her government has
told the public that there is "little risk" remaining over the incident and that those who were
possibly exposed merely have to wash themselves and their clothes, hardly likely if it were a
military grade toxin, which gains it lethality from being persistent on and around a target.
She made clear her lack of corroboration for her claim by offering an "either-or" analysis:
either Russia's government did it or it had "lost control" of its nerve agent.
As noted above, May's argument is, to a certain extent, based on character assassination of
Russians – she even offered up the alleged "annexation" of Crimea as corroboration of her
view that Moscow is not inclined to play by the rules that others observe. It is a narrative
that is based on the presumption that "this is the sort of thing the Russian government headed
by Vladimir Putin does." The British media has responded enthusiastically, running stories
about numerous assassinations and poisonings that ought to be attributed to Russia, while
ignoring the fact that the world leaders in political assassinations are actually the United
States and Israel.
There are a number of other considerations that the May government has ignored in its rush
to expand the crisis. She mentioned that Russia might be somewhat exonerated if it has lost
control of its chemical weapons, but did not fully explain what that might mean. It could be
plausible to consider that states hostile to Russia like Ukraine and Georgia that were once
part of the Soviet Union could have had , and might
still retain, stocks of the Novichok nerve agent. That in turn suggests a false flag, with
someone having an interest in promoting a crisis between Russia and Britain. If that someone
were a country having a sophisticated arms industry possessing its own chemical weapons
capability, like the United States or Israel, it would be quite easy to copy the
characteristics of the Russian nerve agent, particularly as its formula has been known since it
was published in 1992. The agent could then be used to create an incident that would inevitably
be blamed on Moscow. Why would Israel and the United States want to do that? To put pressure on
Russia to embarrass it and put it on the defensive so I would be forced eventually to abandon
its support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Removing al-Assad is the often-expressed
agenda of the Israeli and American governments, both of which have pledged to take "independent
action" in Syria no matter what the United Nations or any other international body says. The
redoubtable Nikki Haley is already using the incident
to fearmonger over Moscow's intentions at the U.N., warning that a Russian chemical attack
on New York City could be coming.
And to throw out a really wild possibility, one might observe that no one in Britain had a
stronger motive to generate a major confrontation with a well-defined enemy than Theresa May,
who has been under fire by the media and pressured to resign by many in her own Conservative
Party. Once upon a time suggesting that a democratically elected government might assassinate
someone for political reasons would have been unthinkable, but the 2016 election in the United
States has demonstrated that nothing is impossible, particularly if one is considering the
possibility that a secret intelligence service might be collaborating with a government to help
it stay in power. An incident in which no one was actually killed that can be used to spark an
international crisis mandating "strong leadership" would be just the ticket.
"... Media outlets based in the US and Britain have long enjoyed dominance in the global news market and have abused their position to manipulate audiences ..."
"... "People are naked against these media wars. They are victims of these media wars," ..."
"... "They are being driven into a certain way of emotions without even understanding that." ..."
"... "Anglo-Saxon media" ..."
"... "They are the most powerful, the most influential, and they have the widest possible reach globally," ..."
"... And, of course, this feeling of monopoly brings a will to manipulate this monopoly. ..."
"... You can use this monopoly as a tool of delivering your point of view, whether it's right or wrong, it doesn't matter, you can adjust it in accordance with the situation -- to simply manipulate the [minds] of people throughout the world." ..."
Media outlets based in the US and Britain have long enjoyed dominance in the global news
market and have abused their position to manipulate audiences , a Kremlin spokesman told
RT in an exclusive interview. Russia is currently being targeted by an unprecedented campaign
in the West, aimed at undermining its resurgence, Dmitry Peskov told RT's Sophie Shevardnadze.
The media are playing a major part in it, as they are selling an anti-Russian narrative to the
people of Western nations. But what those outlets do is a disservice to their audiences, he
argued.
"People are naked against these media wars. They are victims of these media wars,"
he said. "They are being driven into a certain way of emotions without even understanding
that."
Peskov said that for decades "Anglo-Saxon media" enjoyed a virtual global monopoly
on delivering news about economy and politics.
"They are the most powerful, the most influential, and they have the widest possible
reach globally," he said. " And, of course, this feeling of monopoly brings a will
to manipulate this monopoly.
You can use this monopoly as a tool of delivering your point of view, whether it's
right or wrong, it doesn't matter, you can adjust it in accordance with the situation -- to
simply manipulate the [minds] of people throughout the world."
He added that outlets like RT challenge this "huge machine" with alternative
narratives and facts that don't fit into how the Western media wants the world to see things. A
good example of this is coverage of events in Syria and Iraq, Peskov said.
Western media were all too eager to highlight civilian casualties of the operation in
Aleppo, which they blame solely on Russian and Syrian forces, but failed to extend this kind of
reporting to similar operations in Mosul and Raqqa, where the US-led coalition was in
charge.
I find it rather interesting that none of the comments address the last part of Shamir's
article. If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of
their establishment.
Rick Merlotti , March 19, 2018 at 10:39 am
Perfidious Albion
A short statement of the reasons why the British are now staging the Skripal provocation
can be found in a March 14 London Sunday Telegraph call to arms by Allister Heath, who
rants:
"We need a new world order to take on totalitarian capitalists in Russia and China Such an
alliance would dramatically shift the global balance of power, and allow the liberal
democracies finally to fight back. It would endow the world with the sorts of robust
institutions that are required to contain Russia and China Britain needs a new role in the
world; building such a network would be our perfect mission."
Across the pond, as they say, a similar foundational statement was made by 68 former Obama
Administration officials who have formed a group called National Security Action, aimed at
securing Trump's impeachment and attacking Russia and China.
As visitors to the LaRouchePAC website know, Russia and China have embarked on a massive
infrastructure building project in Eurasia, the center of all British geopolitical fantasies
since the time of Halford MacKinder. Moreover, China's Belt and Road Initiative now
encompasses more than 140 nations in the largest infrastructure-building project ever
undertaken in human history. This project is a true economic engine for the future, while
neo-liberal economies continue to see their productive potentials sucked dry by the massive
mound of debt they have created since the 2008 financial collapse. This debt is now on a hair
trigger for implosion. It is estimated by banking insiders that the City of London is sitting
on a derivatives powderkeg of $700 trillion with over-the-counter derivatives accounting for
another $570 trillion. The City of London will bear the major impact of the derivatives
collapse.
In this strategic geometry, President Trump's support of peaceful collaboration with
Russia during the campaign and his personal friendship with President Xi, marked him for the
relentless coup against him waged by the British and their U.S. friends.
On top of that, President Putin delivered a mammoth strategic shock on March 1, showing
new Russian weapons systems based on new physical principles which render present U.S. ABM
systems and much of current U.S. war-fighting doctrine obsolete, together with the vaunted
first strike capacity with which NATO has surrounded Russia. Not only is the West sitting on
a new financial collapse; its vaunted military superiority has just been flanked.
Allister Heath pretends to be a pole-bearer for liberal democracies. And what exactly is
so precious about Heath and his "liberal democracy" in the UK?
Is it the sudden expertise in chemical weaponry by Boris Johnson, who "knew" immediately
that "Russians did it?" This Boris Johnson: "'I am a passionate Zionist,' declares Boris
Johnson: http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/boris-johnson-zionist/
Compare Boris pronouncements to the expert conclusion by a real expert in chemical
weaponry:
"This so-called "nerve agent" [novichok] has never been placed on the OPCW list of banned
chemical weapons because it has never existed. Its non-existence was confirmed by Dr. Robin
Black, until recently he was a head of the detection laboratory at the Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory (Porton Down). He wrote in his review: " emphasizes that there is no
independent confirmation of Mirzayanov's claims about the chemical properties of these
compounds: Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent
confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published.
(Black, 2016)"
"... However, Cambridge Analytica is a mere offshoot of Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) – an organisation with its roots deeply embedded within the British political, military and royal establishment. ..."
"... aide de camp ..."
"... Indeed, it seems evident that the organisation is a product of murky alliances formed between venture capitalists and former British military and intelligence officers. Unsurprisingly, they also happen to be closely tied to the higher echelons of the Conservative party. ..."
"... International deception and meddling is the name of the game for SCL. We finally have the most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors using dirty tricks in order to rig elections. But these characters aren't operating from Moscow intelligence bunkers. Instead, they are British, Eton educated, headquartered in the city of London and have close ties to Her Majesty's government. ..."
Liam O Hare on the deep connections between Cambridge
Analytica's parent company Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) and the
Conservative Party and military establishment, 'Board members include an array of Lords, Tory
donors, ex-British army officers and defense contractors. This is scandal that cuts to the
heart of the British establishment.'
The scandal around mass data harvesting by Cambridge Analytica took a new twist on Monday. A
Channel 4 news undercover investigation revealed that the company's Eton-educated CEO Alexander
Nix offered to use dirty tricks – including the use of bribery and sex workers – to
entrap politicians and subvert elections. Much of the media spotlight is now on Cambridge
Analytica and their shadowy antics in elections worldwide, including that of Donald Trump.
However, Cambridge Analytica is a mere offshoot of Strategic Communication Laboratories
(SCL Group) – an organisation with its roots deeply embedded within the British
political, military and royal establishment. Indeed, as the Observer article which broke
the scandal said "For all intents and purposes, SCL/Cambridge Analytica are one and the
same."
Like Cambridge Analytica, SCL group is behavioral research and strategic communication
company. In 2005, SCL went public with a glitzy exhibit at the DSEI conference, the UK's
largest showcase for military technology. It's
'hard sell' was a demonstration of how the UK government could use a sophisticated media
campaign of mass deception to fool the British people into the thinking an accident at a
chemical plant had occurred and threatened central London. Genuinely.
Board members include an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers and defense
contractors. This is scandal that cuts to the heart of the British establishment.
SCL Group says on its website that it provides "data, analytics and strategy to governments
and military organizations worldwide." The organisation boasts that it has conducted
"behavioral change programs" in over 60 countries and its clients have included the British
Ministry of Defence, the US State Department and NATO. A freedom of information request from
August 2016, shows that the MOD has twice bought services from Strategic Communication
Laboratories in recent years. In 2010/11, the MOD paid £40,000 to SCL for the "provision
of external training". Meanwhile, in 2014/2015, it paid SCL £150,000 for the "procurement
of target audience analysis".
In addition, SCL also carries a secret clearance as a 'list X' contractor for the MOD. A
List X site is a commercial site on British soil that is approved to hold UK government
information marked as 'confidential' and above. Essentially, SCL got the green light to hold
British government secrets on its premises. Meanwhile, the US State Department has a contract
for $500,000 with SLC. According to an official
, this was to provide "research and analytical support in connection with our mission to
counter terrorist propaganda and disinformation overseas." This was not the only work that SCL
has been contracted for with the US government, the source added.
In May 2015, SCL Defense, another subsidiary of the umbrella organisation, received $1
million (CAD) to support NATO operations in Eastern Europe targeting Russia.
The company delivered a three-month course in Riga which taught "advanced counter-propaganda
techniques designed to help member states assess and counter Russia's propaganda in Eastern
Europe".
The NATO website said the "revolutionary" training would "help Ukrainians better defend
themselves against the Russian threat". What is clear is that all of SCL's activities were
inextricably linked to its Cambridge Analytica arm. As recently as July 2017, the website
for Cambridge Analytica said its methods has been approved by the "UK Ministry of Defence, the
US State Department, Sandia and NATO" and carried their logos on its website.
Mark Turnbull, who joined Alexander Nix at the secretly filmed meetings, heads up SCL
Elections as well as Cambridge Analytica Political Global.
His profile at the University of
Exeter Strategy and Security Institute boasts of his record in achieving "campaign success via
measurable behavioural change" in "over 100 campaigns in Europe, North and South America, Asia,
Africa and the Caribbean". Turnbull previously spent 18 years at Bell Pottinger, heading up the
Pentagon funded PR drive in occupied Iraq which included the
production of fake al-Qaeda videos. Turnbull's involvement is just one sign of the sweeping
links the company has with powerful Anglo-American political and military interests.
The firm is headed up by Nigel Oakes, another old Etonian, who, according to the website
PowerBase has links
to the British royals and was once rumoured to be an Mi5 spy. In 1992, Oakes described his
work in a trade journal as using the "same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler. We appeal to
people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level."
The President of SCL is Sir Geoffrey Pattie, a former Conservative MP and the Defence
Minister in Margaret Thatcher's government. Pattie also co-founded Terrington Management which
lists BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin among its clients. One of the company's directors' is
wine millionaire and former British special forces officer in Borneo and Kenya, Roger Gabb, who
in 2006 donated £500,000 to the Conservative party.
Gabb was also
fined by the Electoral Commission for failing to include his name on an advert in a number
of local newspapers arguing for a Leave vote in the Brexit referendum. SCL's links to the
Conservative party continues through the company's chairman and venture capitalist Julian
Wheatland. He also happens to be chairman of Oxfordshire Conservatives Association.
The organisation has also been funded by Jonathan Marland who is the former Conservative
Party Treasurer, a trade envoy under David Cameron, and a close friend of Tory election
strategist Lynton Crosby.Property tycoon and Conservative party donor Vincent Tchenguiz was
also the single largest SCL shareholder for a decade.
Meanwhile, another director is Gavin McNicoll, founder of counter-terrorism Eden
Intelligence firm who ran a G8 Plus meeting on Financial Intelligence Cooperation at the behest
of the British government. Previous board members include Sir James Allen Mitchell, the former
Prime Minister of the previous British colony St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Mitchell has been
a privy counselor on the Queen's advisory board since 1985. The British military and royal
establishment links to SCL are further highlighted through another director Rear Admiral John
Tolhurst, a former assistant director of naval warfare in the Ministry of Defence and aide
de camp to the Queen. The Queen's third cousin, Lord Ivar Mountbatten, was also sitting on
SCL's advisory board but it's unclear if he still holds that role.
The above examples barely scrape the surface of just how deep the ties go between the UK
defence establishment and Strategic Communication Laboratories.
Indeed, it seems evident that the organisation is a product of murky alliances formed
between venture capitalists and former British military and intelligence officers.
Unsurprisingly, they also happen to be closely tied to the higher echelons of the Conservative
party.
International deception and meddling is the name of the game for SCL. We finally have the
most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors using dirty tricks in order to rig elections. But
these characters aren't operating from Moscow intelligence bunkers.
Instead, they are British, Eton educated, headquartered in the city of London and have close
ties to Her Majesty's government.
Russian meddling in our election? The evidence continues to point to the British...
" International deception and meddling is the name of the game for SCL. We finally
have the most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors using dirty tricks in order to rig
elections. But these characters aren't operating from Moscow intelligence bunkers. Instead,
they are British, Eton educated, headquartered in the city of London and have close ties to
Her Majesty's government. "
"... I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the 1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet. ..."
"... Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the Olympics. ..."
"... I just thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0 ..."
I think that in much of the world The World Cup is a bigger deal than the Olympics. I
knew some athletes here in Canada who had their athletic careers ended by our boycott of the
1980 Olympics (after years and years of hard work). I'm surprised western intelligence
agencies have not done more to undermine Russia's world cup. They may yet.
Outside of North America the World Cup is definitely a much bigger event than the
Olympics. I already have my tickets for England v Panama in Nizhny Novgorod, as well as
a second round match in Moscow.
I don't care much for the Olympics, although I do like the Winter Olympics. I just
thought we would see the same nonsense we saw to undermine the Sochi Olympics, this just
seems much more than just derogatory media coverage, or officials boycotting attending the
event. I was interested to see Professor Richard Sakwa, his book on the Ukraine crisis is
probably the best out there, interviewed on RT regarding this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcKQ-4Qqel0
Theresa May was definitly deciving british people about nerve gas attack
"either the British authorities are unable to protect from a terrorist attack on their territory or staged the attack themselves.
Notable quotes:
"... a Russian chem-tech said yesterday if the Russians had done it they would be dead. Even today they were poisoned in their homes is held to, after which they could drive to a pub and a meal (for which they waited 20 minutes) then out to a park bench . . . succumbing almost three hours later. ..."
"... I'm looking forward to an accurate timeline of what happened and when it happened. ..."
"... another gas pipeline inspired madness as NordStream 2 approaches implementation. This is supported by the voltairnet report (especially the sacking of Tillerson). The oil, coal, nuclear lobbies are desperate to profit from gas to EU and that is not going to happen from Russian gas pipelines. ..."
"... the UK is the homeland of Christopher Steele who assembled the Trump smut dossier. That was done with the connivance of MI6 and the UK conservative party in support of Hillary Clinton and against Trump. ie The UK not Russia set out to interfere in the USA elections and have been exposed. ..."
"... IMO, the Brits have made a massive mistake, a grave error, that they are now very much aware of -- their hoax has blown up in their faces, and there's no way out other than sweeping the entire affair down the memory hole or under the rug. And with the advent of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the entire government's shifted to damage control. ..."
"... But there will be some that it doesn't fit easily with and the example of David Kelly will help as a salutary warning to anyone considering reflecting on the morals and ethics of a situation. ..."
"... Just so Mrs May and PHE are clear; A Dissipated, Weaponised Nerve Agent in the air and on surfaces in the Streets of Salisbury (or anywhere else) Is FUCKING DANGEROUS - BIG TIMEY ..."
"... Porton Down employees might get away with lying, Blair did get away with lying but it will be interesting how Mrs May is going to explain this one. ..."
"... Why do you call Wolfowitz, Bremmer and Rumsfeld clueless? Has it occurred to you they knew exactly what they were doing -- the destruction of Iraq -- and got away with it? ..."
"... I cannot understand why so many commenters assume that a toxic agent had anything to do with this obvious false flag charade. I wonder if Skripal or his daughter were actually sick at all, or merely doing a crisis acting job. ..."
"... Actually, there is zero evidence that anything happened at all. ..."
"... It's interesting to see how the Salisbury thing ties in with Brexit negotiations. Clearly the Tories are in disarray and probably pinning their hopes on a strongly worded anti Russian statement from the OPCW. They may be out of luck. ..."
a Russian chem-tech said yesterday if the Russians had done it they would be dead. Even today they were poisoned in their homes is held to, after which they could drive to a pub and a meal (for which they waited
20 minutes) then out to a park bench . . . succumbing almost three hours later.
I'm looking forward to an accurate timeline of what happened and when it happened.
Thank you b and all contributors. This is one great community to share ideas with. I am firmly of the belief that this venomous
drivel by May and her UK parrots is:
1: another gas pipeline inspired madness as NordStream 2 approaches implementation. This is supported by the voltairnet
report (especially the sacking of Tillerson). The oil, coal, nuclear lobbies are desperate to profit from gas to EU and that is
not going to happen from Russian gas pipelines.
2: the UK is the homeland of Christopher Steele who assembled the Trump smut dossier. That was done with the connivance
of MI6 and the UK conservative party in support of Hillary Clinton and against Trump. ie The UK not Russia set out to interfere
in the USA elections and have been exposed.
More dust in the eyes is needed. So kill 2 birds with one stone as they say at Porton Down and voila, a poisoned traitor and
daughter are found dying.
As the Afghanistan people discovered more than a century ago, you can't trust any British envoy.
The amusing part of this tale is how the UK suckered Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the UN. The shame and embarassment that
Yankees must be feeling after they even had a war of independence from these lying, treacherous Tory fools. Trump needs to reassign
Haley to the new embassy in the arctic circle.
Shamir's Unz Review article cited
and linked by Don Bacon @13 which I relink here provides some explosive material at its conclusion that none of the Unz commentators
addressed, which I found rather odd given its importance.
IMO, the Brits have made a massive mistake, a grave error, that they are now very much aware of -- their hoax has blown up in
their faces, and there's no way out other than sweeping the entire affair down the memory hole or under the rug. And with the
advent of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the entire government's shifted to damage control.
Got to say it would be a bit of a mind fuck for an honest scientist at Porton Down to be instructed to lie.
Of course the Developed Vetting Process kinda gets the right people in those positions where they actually believe not telling
the truth is their duty when circumstances require it.
But there will be some that it doesn't fit easily with and the example of David Kelly will help as a salutary warning to anyone
considering reflecting on the morals and ethics of a situation. But their job, when all is said and done, involves extending the
science of humans' ability to kill other humans in more novel, ingenious and grotesque ways.
Once they come to terms with that they must accept what they are, and lying is a very minor blemish on what their souls have
become.
But Doc Davies unabashed and vibrant (could also read naive and stupid) did speak out.
No retraction, no correction from the Doc himself, the NHS trust, Public Health England (PHE) or any other government authority
says to me he told it as it was; nobody in Salisbury was poisoned by nerve agent (weaponised or otherwise)
Which ties in with Putin's observations - that stuff doesn't make you unwell, it kills you - and Mrs May' passing on of PHE
advice; "as Public Health England has made clear, the risk to public health is low." whilst reassuring us in the same statement that; "It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent"
Just so Mrs May and PHE are clear; A Dissipated, Weaponised Nerve Agent in the air and on surfaces in the Streets of Salisbury
(or anywhere else) Is FUCKING DANGEROUS - BIG TIMEY
Porton Down employees might get away with lying, Blair did get away with lying but it will be interesting how Mrs May is going
to explain this one.
Porton Down is okay financially. They earned it! news report: Britain will invest 48 million pounds in a new chemical warfare
defence centre at its Porton Down military research laboratory, Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said on Thursday.
Yes, very interesting article on background/history of novichok and the various reasons for keeping it secret. Perhaps most
important point to note is the following: "Probably all major laboratories that conduct research on poison gas, such as 'Porton Down' in England, Edgewood in the US
and the Dutch TNO, have already synthesized novichoks a long time ago."
Why do you call Wolfowitz, Bremmer and Rumsfeld clueless? Has it occurred to you they knew exactly what they were doing --
the destruction of Iraq -- and got away with it?
I cannot understand why so many commenters assume that a toxic agent had anything to do with this obvious false flag charade.
I wonder if Skripal or his daughter were actually sick at all, or merely doing a crisis acting job.
Curious that they have been
spirited away from anyone who might assess their condition. And the notoriously deadly nerve agent apparently did not do it's
job on them. Because there was no nerve agent involved. Now after a long lapse of time some concocted nerve agent may be produced
to back up the whole scam.
Meanwhile Scripal and daughter will be held away from prying eyes in "protective custody".
PeacefulProsperity , Mar 21, 2018 10:24:08 PM |
90
Yes, Meyssan as always has the best intel about the real stuff behind the scenes. B's reporting has recently been also stellar.
Thanks! UK has always been behind every US aggression, not the other way round. Besides read Myron Fagan...
The US and EU are wandering away from the UK script on Russia. Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Trump have both undermined Theresa
May's attempt at a united front against the Kremlin, as both men congratulated the president on his successful re-election. News report:
A message from European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker congratulating Vladimir Putin on his reelection as Russian
president was called "shameful" and "nauseating" by British Conservatives.
Ashley Fox, a Tory MEP, said on Tuesday that it was remiss of Juncker not to have mentioned the poisoning of a Russian former
spy and his daughter in Salisbury, southern England.
" To congratulate Vladimir Putin on his election victory without referring to the clear ballot-rigging that took place
is bad enough. But his failure to mention Russia's responsibility for a military nerve agent attack on innocent people in my
constituency is nauseating ,"
@97: It's interesting to see how the Salisbury thing ties in with Brexit negotiations. Clearly the Tories are in disarray and
probably pinning their hopes on a strongly worded anti Russian statement from the OPCW. They may be out of luck.
Hours after the
resignation of John Dowd , President Trump's lead attorney handling the special counsel
investigation, Trump said he "would like to" testify in Robert Mueller's ongoing probe - a move
panned by some, including Fox's Judge Napolitano, as a
bad move .
The President's 180 comes after the White House legal team had reportedly been considering
ways that President Trump might be able to testify - including giving written answers - with
Trump's attorneys reportedly having been split on the terms of such a deal, reported the
Wall Street Journal earlier this
month.
But that's not Trump's style... After bringing on former federal prosecutor Joe diGenova on
Monday - a former Special Counsel himself who went after both the Teamsters and former NY
Governor Elliot Spitzer, Trump is reportedly taking the gloves off according to Vanity
Fair 's Gabriel Sherman.
Earlier this month, Mueller crossed one of Trump's stated "red lines" when he subpoenaed
Trump Organization business records. According to four Republicans in regular contact with
the White House, the move spurred Trump to lose patience with his team of feuding lawyers.
"Trump hit the roof," one source said. Today, Trump's personal lawyer John Dowd resigned
under pressure from Trump.
diGenova - who
said in January that the Obama administration engaged in a " brazen plot to exonerate
Hillary Clinton " and " frame an incoming president with a false Russian conspiracy, " is
married to Victoria Toensing - who, as we've mentioned, is a former Reagan Justice Department
official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"She's a killer," one Republican who knows the couple told Sherman.
Toensing also happens to represent FBI whistleblower
William D. Campbell - who claims to have gathered evidence of a Russian "uranium dominance
strategy" which included millions of dollars routed to a Clinton charity. Campbell testified
before three Congressional committees in February.
The Campbell connection makes it all the more interesting since Trump is reportedly
considering adding Toensing to his legal team. In other words, Trump would be teaming up with
two veteran bulldog D.C. attorneys - one of whom ostensibly has evidence in the Uranium One
scandal. As Sherman points out in Vanity Fair , " The hiring of Toensing would be a sign that
Trump wants to flip the script and investigate his investigators . Appearing on Fox News,
Toensing has called for a second special prosecutor to investigate Mueller, the logic being
that he was F.B.I. director at the time that the Uranium One acquisition was approved. "
Following Mueller's subpoena of the Trump organization, Trump has been fuming. Last weekend,
Trump encouraged John Dowd to call for an end to the Russia probe, according to Sherman. "On
Sunday, Trump blasted Mueller as partisan, tweeting: " Why does the Mueller team have 13
hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans ?""
And with the hire of Joe diGenova - it's obvious that Trump is bringing out the big guns for
a direct confrontation with Mueller , after souring on his legal team's more diplomatic
strategy:
Trump's new offensive is a sign that he's unilaterally abandoning the go-along, get-along
strategy advocated by Dowd and Ty Cobb , the White House lawyer overseeing the response to
Mueller. Cobb's standing with Trump has been falling for months, after Cobb made the
now-infamous prediction that the Russia probe would be over by Thanksgiving 2017. Dowd
assured Trump that he had a "great relationship with Mueller" and could manage him ,
according to sources. That obviously hasn't happened. " Trump just wants something to change
and nothing was changing, " the outside adviser said. The genial and mustachioed Cobb has
always been somewhat of an odd fit for Trump, whose mental picture of a lawyer is Roy Cohn,
his early mentor. Sources said Trump reluctantly conceded to allow Cobb to play good cop .
"Trump is looking at this saying, I did it your way for months, now I'm fucking doing it my
way ," a former West Wing official said. (The White House did not respond to a request for
comment.) - Vanity Fair
diGenova was reportedly recommended to Trump by Dave Bossie and Jeanine Piro - both of whom
are outside advisors to Trump. That said, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Napolitano
thinks Dowd's resignation and the decision to put Trump in front of Mueller's team would be a
"disaster" for the President.
MUNICH -- Just hours after the Justice Department indicted 13 Russians in what it charged
was a broad conspiracy to alter the 2016 election, President Trump's national security adviser,
Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, accused Moscow of engaging in a campaign of "disinformation,
subversion and espionage" that he said Washington would continue to expose.
The evidence of a Russian effort to interfere in the election "is now incontrovertible,"
General McMaster said at the Munich Security Conference, an annual meeting of European and
American diplomats and security experts, including several senior Russian officials. On Friday,
just hours before the indictment, the top White House official for cyberissues accused Russia
of "the most destructive cyberattack in human history," against Ukraine last summer.
Taken together, the statements appeared to mark a major turn in the administration's
willingness to directly confront the government of President Vladimir V. Putin. Defense
Secretary Jim Mattis and C.I.A. Director Mike Pompeo also attended the Munich conference, and
while they did not speak publicly, in private meetings with others here they reiterated similar
statements.
The comments highlighted a sharp division inside the administration about how to talk about
the Russian covert efforts, with only Mr. Trump and a few of his close advisers holding back
from acknowledging the Russian role or talking about a larger strategy to deter future
attacks.
The indictment characterized the cyberattacks and social media fraud as part of a larger
effort by Russia to undermine the United States. A senior administration official called the
effort to confront Russia "a significant point of contention" within the administration.
After the indictment on Friday Mr. Trump declared in a Twitter post that "the results of the
election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong -- no collusion!" He made no
mention of Russia as a "revisionist power," the description used in his own National Security
Strategy, or of the elaborate $1.2 million-a-month effort that the indictment indicated
Russia's Internet Research Agency spent in an effort to discredit the election system and
ultimately to support his candidacy.
Vice President Mike Pence, speaking this past week in Washington, misstated American
intelligence conclusions about the election hacking, arguing "it is the universal conclusion of
our intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any effect on the outcome of the
2016 election." The intelligence chiefs have said they have not, and cannot, reach such a
conclusion.
Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, cited Mr. Pence's comments during the
session here Saturday to make the case that Russia did nothing wrong. "So until we see the
facts, everything else is just blabber," he said.
The man who served as the Russian ambassador to the United States during the period covered
by the indictments, Sergey I. Kislyak, picked up on a favorite theme of Mr. Trump's:
questioning the credibility of the F.B.I. and intelligence agency assessments.
"I have seen so many indictments and accusations against Russians," Mr. Kislyak said on
Saturday afternoon. "I am not sure I can trust American law enforcement to be the most truthful
source against Russians." He added, "The allegations being mounted against us are simply
fantasies."
Mr. Kislyak, who has been caught up in the investigation because of meetings with Trump
campaign officials during his time as ambassador, went on to cite a study, which he said he was
keeping in his briefcase, that proved the "main source of computer attacks in the world is not
Russia. It is the United States."
"As for the tragedy that you mentioned, I found out about it from the media. The first thing that entered my head was that if
it had been a military-grade nerve agent, the people would have died on the spot," said Putin.
"Secondly, Russia does not have such [nerve] agents. We destroyed all our chemical weapons under the supervision of international
organisations and we did it first, unlike some of our partners who promised to do it, but unfortunately did not keep their promises."
Despite the tensions, Putin said Moscow was ready to cooperate with London: "We are ready to cooperate, we said that straight
away. We are ready to take part in the necessary investigations, but for that there needs be a desire from the other side and we
don't see that yet. But we are not taking it off the agenda, joint efforts are possible."
"I think any sensible person would understand that it would be rubbish, drivel, nonsense, for Russia to embark on such an escapade
on the eve of a presidential election."
Surprisingly this Guardian presstitute has some sound thoughts ;-)
Theresa May was probably pushed by Big Uncle. It is inconceivable that she behaved so
arrogantly and foolishly on her own, even taking into account that any confrontation with Russia
might prolong the life of her cabinet.
All-in-all this false flag operation looks like the first step is some gambit designed by
British intelligence services against Russia. With Scripals as sacrificed pawns. It is amazing
how "false flag friendly" poisoning cases are. Uncomfortable evidence can always be hidden under
that smoke screen of "state secrecy".
There might be strong desire to confiscate Russian oligarch money as one of the motives for
the current May goverment hysteria. That's explains why members of parliament jumped so high on
orders, and why the reaction was so bipartisan. Because the attempt to spoil the World Cup looks
so petty, that it is smells with the USA, not British intelligence serves. After all British team
is a favorite. But such attempts were numerous in the past, so you never know. Sochi was the most
recent example.
Notable quotes:
"... Theresa May's language in the wake of events in Salisbury has been unhelpful, given our history of provoking Russia ..."
"... The prospect has certainly taken British minds off Brexit. It has exhilarated the press. It has given Theresa May an immense boost and helped the defence lobby in its campaign for more money. There is nothing democracy seems to enjoy so much as contemplating war, to unite it and raise its spirits. It is never unpopular -- beforehand. ..."
"... Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the west has revelled in the humiliation of Russia. Every act of the EU and Nato after 1989 was to the same destructive end. Russia's neighbours were welcomed into the EU. Nato extended its defensive border to the edge of the Russian Federation, despite then president Boris Yeltsin (and to an extent Germany) pleading with the west "not to play with fire". ..."
"... As Yeltsin plunged into his botched privatisations in the 1990s, London egged them on by opening its banks to handle Russia's stolen billions. Britain was complicit in creating the world's greatest kleptocracy, brazenly and for a quarter of a century. Even this week, the prime minister lacked the guts to face down the City of London and call a halt to Russian money laundering. ..."
Theresa May's language in the wake of events in Salisbury has been unhelpful, given our
history of provoking Russia
Do we really want war with Russia? Do we want to risk one, even a tiny one? The prospect
has certainly taken British minds off Brexit. It has exhilarated the press. It has given
Theresa May an immense boost and helped the defence lobby in its campaign for more money. There
is nothing democracy seems to enjoy so much as contemplating war, to unite it and raise its
spirits. It is never unpopular -- beforehand.
... ... ...
Parliament parroted the same nonsense. The Tories' Tom Tugendhat said the poisoning "if not
an act of war, was certainly a warlike act". Labour's Chris Leslie and John Woodcock worked
themselves into a lather over "our country under attack" and "the gravity of the threat Russia
poses to this nation". In these bidding wars of exaggeration, words lose all meaning.
... ... ...
Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the west has revelled in the
humiliation of Russia. Every act of the EU and Nato after 1989 was to the same destructive end.
Russia's neighbours were welcomed into the EU. Nato extended its defensive border to the edge
of the Russian Federation, despite then president Boris Yeltsin (and to an extent Germany)
pleading with the west "not to play with fire".
As Yeltsin plunged into his botched privatisations in the 1990s, London egged them on by
opening its banks to handle Russia's stolen billions. Britain was complicit in creating the
world's greatest kleptocracy, brazenly and for a quarter of a century. Even this week, the
prime minister lacked the guts to face down the City of London and call a halt to Russian money
laundering.
All this is a grim echo of how the allies treated Germany after Versailles in 1919. They
rubbed its nose in defeat, occupying its territory, destroying its dignity and stripping it of
its flimsy wealth. Germany eventually found refuge in dictatorship.
... ... ...
Camus wrote that "plagues and wars take people equally by surprise". The idea that Skripal
may be the Franz Ferdinand of the next European conflict may seem ludicrous. Yet the west's
responses to post-Soviet Russia, however reasonable in the short term, have been disastrous in
general. A war with Russia would be the west's fault.
The whole story of Hillary's using a personal server for all communications, including
classified material, is something I found incredibly stupid. I am a retired Radio Operator,
and worked for an MSC contracted ship for my last six years, and had "secret" clearance. Our
computer had a separate hard drive for all classified communications, that was removed after
each download/upload and stored in a safe. If I had mishandled any classified info, I have no
doubt I'd be in prison.
Hillary is even quoted as saying she thought the (c) in communications didn't refer to
"classified", but was an enumeration, although she never bothered to ask where the (a) and
(b) were.
The law requires "gross negligence" for prosecution, and Peter Strzok had it changed in
the report to "extreme carelessness". If that isn't an interference in the judicial process,
I don't know what is.
backwardsevolution , March 20, 2018 at 9:25 pm
Hi, Skip. I'm glad you followed orders and didn't end up in the brig. Hillary, on the
other hand, seems to like to ignore rules. When asked if she wiped her servers clean, she had
the gall to say, "Do you mean with a cloth?" Talk about feigning ignorance. Her life was the
government, and to think that she didn't know what "classified" meant is too much of a
stretch for anyone.
She knew exactly what she was doing. She just never dreamed that she'd get caught. She
didn't want to use the government servers because they have a back-up system, and when you're
trying to elicit money from foreign governments in exchange for favors, you don't want to be
on a system with a back-up. You want to be able to control that system yourself, as in
deleting everything. She was trying to get around future Freedom of Information requests by
having her own servers.
And that Peter Strzok, who the heck is this guy and who gave him permission to change the
wording? And he's the same guy who interviewed General Flynn. The whole thing stinks. There
is no way that Strzok would have done what he did without someone higher up telling him to.
Hillary's helpers were all given immunity before they even started talking, and apparently
they weren't interviewed separately, but all together in one room. What?
Skip, you have a nice day and don't let this stuff get you down.
"... It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be conducted." ..."
"... Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall [2016]." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb . ..."
"... But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) threw down the gauntlet, indicating that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. ..."
"... John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full pension in jail? ..."
"... Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. ..."
"... Brennan's words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two years. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Washington Post ..."
"... The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A quite different impression was conveyed by the large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's lead article. ..."
"... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let Schumer's theorem stand. ..."
With former CIA Director John Brennan accusing President Donald Trump of "moral turpitude"
for his "scapegoating" of Andy McCabe, it remains to be seen whether a constitutional crisis
will be averted, writes Ray McGovern.
What prompted former CIA Director John Brennan on Saturday to accuse President Donald Trump
of "moral turpitude" and to predict, with an alliterative flourish, that Trump will end up "as
a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history"? The answer shines through the next sentence
in Brennan's threatening tweet : "You
may scapegoat Andy McCabe [former FBI Deputy Director fired Friday night] but you will not
destroy America America will triumph over you."
It is easy to see why Brennan lost it. The Attorney General fired McCabe, denying him full
retirement benefits, because McCabe "had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and
lacked candor -- including under oath -- on multiple occasions." There but for the grace of God
go I, Brennan must have thought, whose stock in trade has been unauthorized disclosures.
In fact, Brennan can take but small, short-lived consolation in the fact that he succeeded
in leaving with a full government pension. His own unauthorized disclosures and leaks probably
dwarf in number, importance, and sensitivity those of McCabe. And many of those leaks appear to
have been based on sensitive intercepted conversations from which the names of American
citizens were unmasked for political purposes. Not to mention the leaks of faux intelligence
like that contained in the dubious "dossier" cobbled together for the Democrats by British
ex-spy Christopher Steele.
It is an open secret that the CIA has been leaking like the proverbial sieve over the
last two years or so to its favorite stenographers at the New York Times and
Washington Post. (At one point, the obvious whispering reached the point that the
Wall Street Journal saw fit to complain that it was being neglected.) The leaking can
be traced way back -- at least as far as the Clinton campaign's decision to blame the Russians
for the publication of very damning DNC emails by WikiLeaks just three days before the
Democratic National Convention.
This blame game turned out to be a hugely successful effort to divert attention from the
content of the emails, which showed in bas relief the dirty tricks the DNC
played on Bernie Sanders. The media readily fell in line, and all attention was deflected from
the substance of the DNC emails to the question as to why the Russians supposedly
"hacked into the DNC and gave the emails to WikiLeaks."
This media operation worked like a charm, but even Secretary Clinton's PR person, Jennifer
Palmieri, conceded later that at first it strained credulity that the Russians would be doing
what they were being accused of doing.
Magnificent Diversion
On April 6, 2017 I attended a panel discussion on "Russia's interference in our
democracy" at the Clinton/Podesta Center for American Progress Fund. In my subsequent write-up I noted that panelist
Palmieri had inadvertently dropped tidbits of evidence that I suggested "could get some former
officials in deep kimchi -- if a serious investigation of leaking, for example, were to be
conducted." (That time seems to be coming soon.)
Palmieri was asked to comment on "what was actually going on in late summer/early fall
[2016]." She answered: "It was a surreal experience so I did appreciate that for the press to
absorb the idea that behind the stage that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to
defeat Hillary Clinton was too fantastic for people to, um, for the press to process, to absorb
.
"But then we go back to Brooklyn [Clinton headquarters] and heard from the -- mostly our
sources were other intelligence, with the press who work in the intelligence sphere, and that's
where we heard things and that's where we learned about the dossier and the other story lines
that were swirling about; and how to process And along the way the administration started
confirming various pieces of what they were concerned about what Russia was doing. So I do
think that the answer for the Democrats now in both the House and the Senate is to talk about
it more and make it more real."
So the leaking had an early start, and went on steroids during the months following the
Democratic Convention up to the election -- and beyond.
As a Reminder
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, or other activities directed against the Trump
campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure
thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal
activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison.
But she lost. And a month ago, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA)
threw down the gauntlet, indicating
that there could be legal consequences, for example, for officials who misled the FISA court in
order to enable surveillance on Trump and associates. His words are likely to have sent
chills down the spine of yet other miscreants. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put
them on trial," he said. "The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we
created."
John Brennan is widely reported to be Nunes's next target. Does one collect a full
pension in jail?
Unmasking: Senior national security officials are permitted to ask the National Security
Agency to unmask the names of Americans in intercepted communications for national security
reasons -- not for domestic political purposes. Congressional committees have questioned
why Obama's UN ambassador Samantha Power (as well as his national security adviser Susan Rice)
made so many unmasking requests. Power is reported to have requested the unmasking of more than
260 Americans, most of them in the final days of the administration, including the names of
Trump associates.
Deep State Intimidation
Back to John Brennan's bizarre tweet Saturday telling the President, "You may scapegoat Andy
McCabe but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you." Unmasking the word
"America," so to speak, one can readily discern the name "Brennan" underneath. Brennan's
words and attitude are a not-so-subtle reminder of the heavy influence and confidence of the
deep state, including the media -- exercised to a fare-thee-well over the past two
years.
Later on Saturday, Samantha Power, with similar equities at stake, put an exclamation point
behind what Brennan had tweeted earlier in the day. Power also saw fit to remind Trump where
the power lies, so to speak. She warned him publicly that it is "not a good idea to piss off
John Brennan."
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is dutifully playing its part in the deep-state
game of intimidation. The following excerpt from Sunday's lead article conveys the intended
message: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting the FBI. 'This
is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going to torch him.'"
[sic]
The Post, incidentally, waited until paragraph 41 of 44 to inform readers that it was
the FBI's own Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General of the Department
of Justice that found McCabe guilty, and that the charge was against McCabe, not the FBI. A
quite different impression was conveyed by the
large headline "Trump escalates attacks on FBI" as well as the first 40 paragraphs of Sunday's
lead article.
Putting Down a Marker
It isn't as though Donald Trump wasn't warned, as are all incoming presidents, of the power
of the Deep State that he needs to play ball with -- or else. Recall that just three days
before President-elect Trump was visited by National Intelligence Director James Clapper, FBI
Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Michael Rogers, Trump was put
on notice by none other than the Minority Leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer. Schumer has been
around and knows the ropes; he is a veteran of 18 years in the House, and is in his 20th year
in the Senate.
On Jan. 3, 2017 Schumer said it all, when he told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, that
President-elect Trump is "being really dumb" by taking on the intelligence community and its
assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday
at getting back at you," Schumer told Maddow. "So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." Did Maddow ask Schumer if he was saying
President of the United States should be afraid of the intelligence community? No, she let
Schumer's theorem stand.
With gauntlets now thrown down by both sides, we may not have to wait very long to see if
Schumer is correct in his blithe prediction as to how the present constitutional crisis will be
resolved.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as a CIA analyst under seven Presidents and nine
CIA directors and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS).
"... An antidote to all my Dem liberal Clinton-supporting "friends" on FB who insanely slaver for Russiagate nonsense because they hate Trump. Nevermind that his impeachment would get us Pence. They pat themselves on the back for being good, liberal Trump-hating, Russia-gate believers. ..."
"... Nary a word from them while Obama cowardly ducked prosecuting torturers or banksters -- or started new illegal wars and drone-murdered so many innocent people. Much less the bogus ACA handout to Big Insurance. So much for American Values. ..."
"... They all believe in all this nonsense about Russia-Gate which is being fed nonstop on major networks; and also this latest incident in U.K. I was the only one who was questioning it and it can become unpleasant. ..."
"... It is sad to see all this happening. It is very dangerous. Newspapers, L.A. Times here, keep the public completely in the dark about the consequences that it may accidentally or knowingly lead to nuclear war with Russia. ..."
Thanks for that link, Joe. The article's authors, Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, are
long-time political activists, codirectors of PopularResistance.org. https://popularresistance.org/ That organization seems
to be taking a very determined approach to social change, supplying not only articles tightly
focused on issues but also organizing resources for activists.
I've been watching the group closely because I'm seeing signs that its anti-war work just
may become the tip of the spear of a revitalized anti-war movement. (It's been a very long
time since the anti-war movement in the U.S. had effective leadership.)
Kevin knows how to play the long game. He was for at least two decades director of NORML
and can now watch his earlier work come to fruition as state after state legalizes
marijuana.
Typingperson , March 20, 2018 at 12:36 am
Thanks, Paul, for flagging that Kevin Zeese is the former head of NORML. I remember him
well from this role -- and how effective he was.
I will check out PopularResistance.org.
An antidote to all my Dem liberal Clinton-supporting "friends" on FB who insanely
slaver for Russiagate nonsense because they hate Trump. Nevermind that his impeachment would
get us Pence. They pat themselves on the back for being good, liberal Trump-hating,
Russia-gate believers.
Nary a word from them while Obama cowardly ducked prosecuting torturers or banksters
-- or started new illegal wars and drone-murdered so many innocent people. Much less the
bogus ACA handout to Big Insurance. So much for American Values.
Dave P. , March 20, 2018 at 2:29 am
Joe, you are right. I do not have to go too far to see what it has done to the citizens of
this country, I just look in my own home. This soap opera as you called it, is going on
almost two years now; and it has completely messed up the people. We had a visitor, somebody
very close to me, a week before this weekend, and invited some other friends. They all
believe in all this nonsense about Russia-Gate which is being fed nonstop on major networks;
and also this latest incident in U.K. I was the only one who was questioning it and it can
become unpleasant.
It is sad to see all this happening. It is very dangerous. Newspapers, L.A. Times
here, keep the public completely in the dark about the consequences that it may accidentally
or knowingly lead to nuclear war with Russia.
" As far as we all know now are quite hard times to Russia and to the world as a whole.
"
Why do we have these hard times ?
Could it be globalisation, western greed, and western aggression ?
Well, probably it can be more clear for those who are attacking and humiliating Russia in
all directions? The West-ZUS-UK
But I think it's just an agony of Empire seeing the world order is about to change. And
yes it's "western greed" which have a "western aggression" as a consequence.
The "globalisation" actually IS that world order which the West trying to
establish. Russia in all times in all its internal structure was a subject of annexation and
submission. But we never agreed and never will do it, until alive. The West is too stupid to
get that simple thing to know and leave us to live as we are about to.
Aside from the obvious legalized bribery (Citizens United), the absolute control of the
corrupt 2-party system, the oligarchic and utterly undemocratic mass media, etc., we also had
the case in 2000 that a bunch of unelected dictators-for-life "decided" the US election,
clearly unlawfully. Bush vs. Gore.
Yes, US is in no position to be lecturing anybody about "democracy". But US is not short
on chutzpah in any political realm.
If elections resulted in real change, Yankees wouldn't have them. All theater for the
zombies, aka the voting class. Only zombies would argue over the merits of the candidates.
The US needs very little from its citizens. These includes obedience, widespread ignorance
and the unquestioned belief they live in a Democracy because voting happens.
The best slaves are the ones that lack the intelligence to recognize their own slavery.
The happiest slaves know that voting is a rigged sham but don't care because the right master
leads them.
Anon from TN
Now, that I believe. Due to dismal school system (purely parochial, no national standards,
local boards full of ignoramuses decide what kids are taught in school) too many Americans
sincerely believe that the world consists of three roughly equal parts: Main street,
out-of-town, and overseas. I guess the election results in the last few decades show this
clearly.
Alas, I stayed with USA friends, well educated middle class, where CNN was the only 'news'
source.
Three other USA acquaintances I visited in their homes, cannot remember having seen a
newspaper other than a local one about marriages and funerals.
The USA reminded me of the Peking court, that, when British warships were reported on the
coast, responded with 'there had been so many pirates already'.
In the Badlands, in a very small café, I identified myself as Dutch, from Holland,
Netherlands.
When all this did not ring bell I mentioned Europe, the first time in my life.
This was understood.
Anon from TN
Maybe I overestimate American citizens (I work at a top-rate University and communicate
mostly with faculty and grad students), but I'd like to come to their defense. CNN (as well
as FOX news, NYT, and other MSM) represent the views of the lower half of US citizens by IQ.
As far as I can tell, blatant lies of Western propaganda achieved among the people with
brains the same result as the Soviet propaganda: even if they state something truthful for a
change, people would doubt that.
You're truly delusional if you think CNN does NOT represent average American thinking, at
least a large paart of it. Last week I suffered through a luncheon of 5 mature adults
extolling Rachel Maddow. Sickening.
"... Well, the party lime is pretty different: "Treat Russia Like the Terrorist It Is. Whether the Skripal poisoning can be conclusively pinned on Moscow is beside the point." https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-09/u-k-spy-poisoning-treat-russia-like-the-terrorist-it-is ..."
"... The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person. ..."
"... In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be manufactured it any relatively developed country. ..."
"... It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the KGB successor of the successor of the VChK. ..."
"... Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union. ..."
I'm a socialist. I don't understand how a conservative is getting this so right! There is a mad
rush to judgment and anyone who wants to ask questions is getting accused of being unpatriotic.
Quite a sensible article. The fact that neither Putin personally nor Russia benefits from
the death of Skripal is obvious to any sane person.
In addition, statements that gas called "Novichok could be made only in Russia is a
known lie. This poison was created forty years ago in the USSR, so to have this gas can, at a
minimum, all countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The inventor of the gas
has fled to the US, and the chemical composition of the gas is known and now it can be
manufactured it any relatively developed country.
It would be possible not to poison Skripal by gas, but simply to strike on the head by
the bust of Dzerzhinsky. It would be the same level of evidence, of the guilt of the FSB, the
KGB successor of the successor of the VChK.
At the end of 1980s there was a project started by KGB supposed (1) to detect possible channels
of security leakage, and (2) to begin spreading misinformation to potential adversaries.
Different names were used to test different security leaks. The name "NOVICHOK" used to
identify misinformation given to one of suspects, Vil Mirzayanov who was not chemist but rather
a clerk. Very soon this security leakage was detected, and tons of other misinformation
supplied to Mirzayanov, who was immediately secretly discharged from access to any real
project. Mirzayanov was allowed to publish this fake info in NYT (around 1992-95?), and then to
escape from Russia in 1995.
Since that time NATO has spent about $10 billions to develop protection tools against this
fake "NOVICHOK"
P.S. The Russian word NOVICHOK stands for "a newbie"; from Russian grammar point of view,
there is no chance such word to be assigned to any chemical weapon. It was assigned to
Mirzayanov who was "a newbie" to this sort of projects at that time.
Cui bono: every murder of a Russian dissident/defector/oligarch/critical journalist, cannot
possibly have happened on Putin's orders or with his tacit approval, because it reflects badly
on Russia.
So, we have two possible explanations: some Western intelligence agency is murdering those
people, probably without the knowledge of their own government (you'd have think that someone
in elected office would have stopped such a programme by now); or the Russian Putin opposition
is killing its own people, both in Russia and abroad. If the goal of such an operation is the
destabilization of the Putin regime through Western sanctions, it is obviously not working.
You say cui bono, I say Occam's razor. Putin takes out those who might threaten him, raises
his popularity, the sanctions are used to cover up his own disastrous economical policies, and
in the end nothing changes.
We *knew* Iraq had no nukes, and we knew that the Bush administration lied, and we knew that
"WMD" is the kind of BS we make up when there are no nukes.
Buchanan is not arguing in good faith. What Maine, Tonkin and WMD are about is *lies*, lies
in service of criminal acts of aggression, lies to facilitate a premeditated violation of the
Constitution as well as international law.
That is frankly a more important issue than the – justified and necessary –
doubts regarding the attempted Skripal assassination and the motives behind it.
This is also true of an ongoing campaign employing drones – some controlled by CIA
illegal combatants – and kill teams to implement collective punishment and ideological
cleansing by means of sustained assassination – based on "signatures" provided by the
likes of Google or Booz Allen. The US has no standing to judge the assassination attempts of
others, just as our government can no longer meaningfully speak out on aggressive acts of war,
collective punishment, and torture. A house divided cannot stand for anything.
You say that the burden of proof is on the accused? That works in many parts of the world,
but I hope that we here in the US have had a better standard of Justice. The burden of proof
falls upon the accuser, in this case Britain. There is no ther standard that America should
accept if we are to remain true to American principals. Not that I expect that our current
oligarchy will care about principals.
Exactly. Putin's long term strategy is an integrated Pan-Eurasian economic architecture in
which Europe would be a major customer segment. That is why the EAEU was stood up by Russia and
the BRI stood up by China. With supporting investment platforms like the AIIB to enable the
initiatives.
Given that objective, why would Russia/Putin seek to totally wreck its relationship with
Europe? More importantly what would be the motive and objectives for Russia to attack Poland
and the Baltic Republics – the fear-monger threats du jour? When an overrun of Poland
would create 30+ million subversive malcontents that Russia would have to govern, and when
there are only minority ethnic Russian populations in the Baltics?
The driving force behind the illogical and incoherent demonization of Russia is the
Washington War Party that froths up the political environment with the militarized
fear-mongering. Because as Fran Macadam notes, there's Big Money in it. And the Neocon
war-monger mouthpieces need some Big Enemies to keep themselves relevant, busy and living very
large on the $200K – $600K salaries they collect at the bought off Think
Pimp Tanks.
A crazed U.S. foreign policy that has been completely militarized is a train wreck waiting
to happen. And us taxpayers will yet again be stuck with the bills to clean up the
wreckage.
Sovietologists? Now this, more than anything else, explains the reflexive anti-Russia
hysteria. Who cares what historians dealing with the twentieth century Soviet Union think about
current events? Historians provide useful insight, yes, but that does not mean they are
conversant with current events. What you are doing is throwing in a fear laden buzzword.
Basically, we have a political elite who needs an enemy to distract their own people from
what they are doing and oh, do they miss the Soviet Union.
Our leaders are enthusiastic about being aggressive with the Russians, but the America Empire
has a problem attracting enough volunteers to join the military.
For example, the Air Force has a shortage of 2,000 pilots and the Navy has a shortage of
mechanics that they need to work on their on their aircraft.
The U.S. and Britain showed more respect to Joseph Stalin, the Butcher, than it has shown to
Putin. The demonization of Putin in all the mainstream media outlets is the tip-off to me that
Putin must be a pretty good guy doing some good things for Russia.
"If the world hates you know that it has hated me first. If the world loves you it is
because you belong to the world." -- Jesus Christ
>>Given the poison used it means one to two things -- either it was Russian secret
services or the Russians have lost control over their poisons. Either one is a nasty thought.
Why? It was presumably created 40 years ago. Pretty much to time for information to spread
around.
E.g., Kim's brother was presumably (again) poisoned by VX. Does it mean that it was MI-6? It's
a British invention after all.
In any case, this story stinks, pardon for a word pun. A 'military grade agent' and no
casualties. How could it be?
>>Why do it? To prove they can. To prove that no matter where you go they can get
you -- that there is no safety.
Safety from what? This guy was non-entity, nobody knew him. More importantly, he has been
already punished and pardoned, so double no sense.
>>I am sure Gary Kasparov is feeling a bit worried right now and Bill Browder is
thinking of moving somewhere new.
Well, I'd suspect that Rodchenko and Khodorkovskiy are more evident sacrificial targets.
Pat asks important questions. Unless we ever see the "evidence" to which Boris Johnson refers,
or other direct evidence that this hit (and others) in Britain was directed by the Kremlin,
it's worth continuing to ask them.
"Who benefits?" Indeed, it could be rogue Russian agents or Western agents attempting to
further drive a wedge between the West and Russia.
But it could also be Putin signalling that the Russia which held onto traitorous spies
between 2006 and 2010 is over.
It could be him simply trying to show that he can reach people inside the West, a pure flexing
of muscle, a warning to future would-be traitors and Western governments. It could be to
make America's allies nervous about Putin's relationship with his American puppet, Trumpolini.
It could be just Putin sowing chaos and attempting to create discord among Western
governments.
Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still applies. If it
growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Who could be so phillistine as to suggest, on the eve of the World Cup, that Premier Andropov's
KGB protege', Major Putin, would one day stoop to whacking a traitorous defector from the Party
Line ?
>>Skepticism about the latest pronouncements is valid, but Occam's Razor still
applies. If it growls like a Russian bear and kills like a Russian bear
Occam's Razor, my backside. Some guys from MI-5 tried to kill him like they killed David
Kelly and Gareth Williams before. It's as credible as it gets, exactly the same amount of
evidence.
"The sides also touched upon the incident in Salisbury," the Kremlin stressed, underlining
that "The Russian side drew attention to the lack of evidence behind accusations against Russia
and reiterated its readiness to conduct joint investigation into the incident", TASS
reported.
"The two presidents discussed in detail issue of the Syrian settlement in the context of the
implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2401 and the crisis in Ukraine in
the light of the importance of the implementation of the Minsk agreements," the Kremlin
stated.
The telephone conversation was initiated by the French Leader who called to congratulate
Putin on his victory at Sunday's presidential polls in Russia, according to the Kremlin.
Macron spoke in favor of continuing joint work to promote comprehensive bilateral
cooperation, including between civil societies within the Trianon Dialogue.
"It was agreed to continue to exchange views on the matters raised during the conversation
at various levels," the press service added.
On March 4, Skripal and his daughter Yulia were exposed to a nerve agent in the city of
Salisbury. They were found unconscious on a bench near a shopping center in Salisbury. Both are
currently in the hospital in critical condition.
British Prime Minister Theresa May accused Russia of "an unlawful use of force" against her
country. Subsequently, she announced that London would expel 23 Russian diplomats and would
suspend high-level bilateral contacts.
Russia has vehemently denied its alleged involvement in the incident and said retaliatory
measures would follow soon.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Saturday that 23 British diplomats had been declared
personae non grata to be expelled from Russia in a week's period.
It also said the UK's consulate general in St. Petersburg would be closed and the British
Council would stop its activities.
Apart from that, according to the Ministry, the Russian side reserved the right to take
other measures "should further unfriendly steps are taken against Russia."
And what does a vote for Putin actually mean, in terms of choice? Who picked him to begin
with? Well, it turns out that Putin is a happy accident. Boris Yeltsin named him as his
successor, and you could quite reasonably joke that Yeltsin was drunk at the time and didn't
remember why he did that. But you could also surmise that Putin was picked for his renowned
savvy in money-laundering and offshoring the ill-gotten gains of Russian oligarchs (his
previous job back in St. Petersburg) and for his clever use of his KGB connections (from his
job before that) to "settle questions." Remember, this was a time when the endlessly clever
people who get paid to sit around and drink coffee over at the Pentagon imagined that "Russian
mafia" was an emerging global threat. The oligarchs must have liked Putin, and Yeltsin, in
keeping with his "leave no oligarch behind" program, did whatever they wanted him to do.
What they got instead was a pig in a poke. The oligarchs thought that they had recruited
another faithful servant who, just like Yeltsin, would keep the state weak and facilitate their
shameless plunder. Instead they got a steel-willed technocrat and a true Russian patriot who
quickly manifested an awesome power to conjure up creative new ideologies. Instead of
subservience, the oligarchs got his "doctrine of equidistance," according to which
money≠power. (An oil baron by the name of Mikhail Khodorkovsky ran afoul of it, thinking
that he could parlay his wealth into political power, and ended up cooling his heels in
prison.) Instead of somebody who would look the other way while they ran roughshod over Russian
society, they got his "dictatorship of the law," a significantly strengthened Russian state,
and the once fearsome Russian mafia melted away like hoarfrost after sunrise. And the Russian
oligarchy's plan to seamlessly meld into Western elite society using their expropriated wealth,
leaving Russia behind as a withered husk, ran headlong into Putin's plan to reestablish
"multipolarity" and to force other nations, even the United States, to treat Russia as an
equal. This resulted in Western sanctions, which sent many oligarchs scurrying back to Russia
and repatriating their funds under an amnesty program, lest they be frozen.
And so Putin, for Russia, is just a happy accident. Given that happy accidents are in
general far less frequent than unhappy ones, a question arises: How can Russia reliably produce
another Putin when the time comes? It is definitely a good thing that Russia has six years to
answer this question, because this last presidential election, as well as all the previous
ones, has conclusively demonstrated that Russian electoral politics are not the answer -- at
least not yet. Let's look at Putin's "competition" (in quotes because, judging from the
results, it was more of an exhibition).
The one who garnered the most votes was Pavel Grudinin, nominated by the Communists
(although he wasn't a member) instead of their perennial presidential candidate and leader
Gennady Zyuganov, who is getting rather long in the tooth. Grudinin failed to disclose his
foreign bank accounts, or the fact that his son resides abroad, disqualifying him from holding
the top secret clearance required of a Russian president. Nevertheless, he managed to get 15%
or so of the vote.
Next in line was the nationalist perennial presidential candidate Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who
is quite formidable, very entertaining, but also rather frightening because he is forever
threatening to rain fire and brimstone on Russia's enemies both foreign and domestic.
Nevertheless, he is definitely qualified to serve as president -- or to serve on your firing
squad, because he is also a good shot, and you can be sure that he won't accidentally miss all
of your vital organs and leave you writhing in pain while you bleed out slowly. You can regard
him as Russia's presidential insurance, giving Russia's enemies an excellent reason to wish for
Putin's good health, because Zhirinovsky is standing by, ready to make them say "ouch!" a
lot.
And then we have a sort of winner, but not of the presidential sort: Xenia Sobchak. She is
the daughter of Anatoly Sobchak, who was the first democratically elected mayor of St.
Petersburg, co-author of Russia's constitution, and Putin's friend and mentor. She is a fully
paid-up member of Russia's "golden youth" and pretty much does whatever she wants -- like run
for president. Don't laugh, she got over 1% of the vote! She has dabbled in reality television,
the fashion industry, this and that, is married to an actor, has a year-and-a-half-old son and
is rumored to be pregnant.
She made me laugh because she lost Crimea even before she got her name on the ballot by
declaring that she does not approve of Crimea being part of Russia. Recall that Crimea has been
part of Russia since 1783, was "gifted" to the Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954 in
violation of the Soviet constitution, and then voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 after the
Ukraine's government was overthrown in violation of the Ukrainian constitution: a rare instance
of two constitutional violations canceling each other out.
Her slogan was "against all": she saw herself as a one-person alternative to the entire
Russian political system. Neither she nor her supporters saw the obvious logical flaw with this
platform: if she were truly "against all" then, to be consistent, she would have to campaign
for people to vote against all -- including her. What she meant, of course, was "against all
except me." Now that would have been a wonderful slogan, had she managed to explain what it was
that made her so uniquely magic. Instead, she complained bitterly about everyone else. I
believe that her presidential campaign was actually a clever merchandising operation. Maybe it
had something to do with marketing eyeglass frames: she appeared to switch eyeglasses more
often than most women change panties. There were some other kinds of "product placement" going
on too.
Everybody else got less than 1%, but I will give them honorable mention anyway. There was
the perennial liberal candidate Yavlinsky, who gave his rationale for running again this time
(a hopeless cause given Russians' overwhelmingly unfavorable view of liberalism) as "I just
really wanted to talk to some voters." Then, in no particular order (because I don't care) came
the über-capitalist Titov, the über-Soviet Suraikin and the über-Russian
Baburin. Titov ran on a pathetically hilarious slogan of "So, what about Titov?"
All of the candidates save Putin (who intelligently stayed above the fray) participated in
several interminable rounds of "debates" whose format precluded all intelligent discussion. All
candidates were given a few minutes to spout their programmatic gibberish while others tried to
shout them down. At one point they ganged up on poor Xenia so hard that they made her cry. The
only time they got to talk to Putin was after the election, when they were all invited to a
sort of "thank you for playing" meeting at the Kremlin, and where they all appeared dignified,
conciliatory and grateful.
This was all good, clean fun (except for making Xenia cry; that was mean) but it doesn't
answer the essential question, which is: How can Russia find another Putin to elect president
in six years? One of the most important reasons why the Soviet Union failed was the inability
of its political elites to recruit and promote talent, causing it to degenerate into a dour,
ossified, senile gerontocracy. This fact is currently very well understood in Russia, and a
serious effort is underway to appoint young, promising governors and to put young people with
leadership potential into positions of ministerial responsibility. Whether these efforts
produce the intended result will become clear six years from now. A lot can happen in the
intervening years -- both good and bad -- but at the moment the project to "make Russia great
again" appears to be firing on all cylinders.
This article was originally published by "Club
Orlov" -
Orlov is a brilliant and patriotic Russian and is obviously pleased with the stability that
Putin's reelection brings to his country in this time of crisis. However he is also strangely
begrudging to President Putin here and in other articles I have read, casually throwing out a
rather nasty and unsubstantiated slur that Putin during his early career in St Petersburg
behaved as a low-life corrupt official, helping oligarchs off-shore their stolen riches. I
would challenge Mr Orlov to produce not just hearsay but 'real' evidence of this. It seems to
contradict the strongest features of Putin's character during his years as president, honesty
and consistency. No one suggests that Putin must have a perfect record in all things, but
such a serious accusation surely needs backup, or at least clarification as to what exactly
Orlov means.
As I only received this a couple of hours ago, I am pasting again my comments upon
yesterday's Peter Koenigh's article:
Regret to have to say that all you people are squabbling over minor incidents, compared to
the overall planned agenda. Craig Thomas is right, Paul Craig Roberts is right, Peter Koenigh
is right, everybody who writes for ICH is right and Tom Feeley is a giant.
However, you are all missing the end goal of the universal plan. Defence industry, big
pharma, oil industry, Monsanto, Bayer, Dupont, Nestlee, P&G, Goldman Sachs, Banks, the
BIS, the Cheneys, Rockfellers, Bushes, Morgans, Rothchilds, Kissingers, Soros and Rumsfelds
plus more, all belong to one single group that is known as the "establishment" that promotes
globalisation. They have an agenda. It is not financial gluttony that drives them, but power.
They already control the World's finances, and are aiming to soon also control the food chain
and water supply. The purpose is simple logic. (Wish George Orwell were still alive). Their
intent is to reduce the whole World's population to functioning "servants" with barely enough
to survive upon, so that they be so encased within the efforts on their own survival in each
one's little world, so that they be totally deprived of any stamina to check, object and
criticize anything that the rulers of the "establishment" do or enact. The media belongs to
them, and most of the reporters therein have already turned into the "servants" mentioned,
evidently for their own survival. Hence the necessary brainwashing of the masses is secured.
Any dissident that could endanger the agenda, has to be dealt with. One of those is Putin.
(according to me, despite some of his misgivings, is the only leader in the Western World
that deserves the position he holds). All the rest are plain buffoons. It is "we the people",
"the brainwashed people" who have put them in office. However, there still may be some hope.
Was Nostradamus right? What about China. A president for life? And what would be the
consequences for the rest of us. Personal experience has taught me that the Chinese, as many
too of the far Eastern peoples, know of little empathy within their culture. So what would be
the future of the rest of us if they were to prevail globally? Should we not all embrace the
Russians and Indians and hope for them to be our lifesaver buffer? Food for thought ladies
and gentlemen !!!
"... We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came to be. ..."
"... For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their empires. Only because of their arrogance. ..."
"... (in English in the original text -- trans. ..."
"... Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as their rightful commodities. ..."
"... Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held responsible for the factual truth. ..."
And that's your fault, my Western friends. It was you who pushed us into "Russians never
surrender" mode.
I've been telling you for a long time to find normal advisers on Russia. Sack all those
parasites. With their short-sighted sanctions, heartless humiliation of our athletes (including
athletes with disabilities ), with their "skripals" and ostentatious disregard of the most
basic liberal values, like a presumption of innocence, that they manage to hypocritically
combined with forcible imposition of ultra-liberal ideas in their own countries, their
epileptic mass hysteria, causing in a healthy person a sigh of relief that he lives in Russia,
and not in Hollywood, with their post-electoral mess in the United States, in Germany, and in
the Brexit-zone;
with their attacks on RT, which they cannot forgive for taking advantage of the freedom of
speech and showing to the world how to use it, and it turned out that the freedom of speech
never was intended to be used for good, but was invented as an object of beauty, like some sort
of crystal mop that shines from afar, but is not suitable to clean your stables, with all your
injustice and cruelty, inquisitorial hypocrisy and lies you forced us to stop respecting you.
You and your so called "values."
We don't want to live like you live, anymore. For fifty years, secretly and openly, we
wanted to live like you, but not any longer. We have no more respect for you, and for those
amongst us that you support, and for all those people who support you. That's how this 5% came
to be.
For that you only have yourself to blame. And also your Western politicians and
analysts, newsmakers and scouts. Our people are capable to forgive a lot. But we don't forgive
arrogance, and no normal nation would. Your only remaining Empire would be wise to learn
history of its allies, all of them are former empires. To learn the ways they lost their
empires. Only because of their arrogance.
(in English in the original text --
trans. )
But the only Empire, you have left, ignores history, it doesn't teach it and refuses to
learn it, meaning that it all will end the way it always does, in such cases.
In meantime, you've pushed us to rally around your enemy. Immediately, after you declared
him an enemy, we united around him.
Before, he was just our President, who could be reelected. Now, he has become our Leader. We
won't let you change this. And it was you, who created this situation.
It was you who imposed an opposition between patriotism and liberalism. Although, they
shouldn't be mutually exclusive notions. This false dilemma, created by you, made us to chose
patriotism.
Even though, many of us are really liberals, myself included.
Get cleaned up, now. You don't have much time left.
I agree with you, Margarita, and I am American! I remember as a child, being taught about
that horrid USSR - to be so feared, ready at any moment to bomb us into oblivion! I remember
the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. - not knowing the full details, but being told that Kennedy saved us
all from WWIII. As time went on, we'd watch humorous shows detailing the large percentage of
Russians in USSR wanting to AND defecting to America. We were shown Russians lined up around
city blocks to buy toilet paper, shoes (any size, any color would do). Russians naivety was
always made fun of, casting the majority of you as either clowns or criminals capable of all
heinous crimes. Then came the 90s. I watched Yeltsin tottering around drunk, watched in
horror as the USSR collapsed, wondering what had happened to you. Then came Putin - this
young man being handed the reins of your collapsed, ruined country. Suddenly it seemed, we
saw more and more of him. I remember watching his face when he had to explain to the tearful,
waiting parents and friends of the mariners from the Kursk. His remark that if he could go
down there himself and rescue them he would! I knew then, that this was a man to be watched,
because I admired him at that moment. Over the years, after one successful term after
another, I saw Russia rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of the USSR. I saw the pride
returning to the Russian faces, saw smiles returning to their faces, watched you regaining
your honor, your sovereignty as we started losing ours. Watching and listening, in horror and
fear as more and more of our rights were taken away after 9/11. Discovering that it was a
false flag (one of many, it seems), that took the lives of ordinary Americans and used their
deaths to start killing more people in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attack. More
time going by, more rights taken away here, yet for you, rising ever more to greater economy,
more business friendly environments in Russia, more world trade with an increasing number of
trading partners.
Then started the demonization again - not of USSR, but of Russia - same story, different
name. Putin - guilty of all crimes of mankind, blamed for everything under the sun, capable
and willing to kill people around the globe with impunity, using chemicals and all other
nefarious things! I watched the crimes committed in Ukraine, which deposed the legally
elected president, and that tried to kill him after a coup that put Nazis in his place. I
watched Crimea hold it's referendum, saw the fireworks display afterwards with all the happy
faces. Russia was demonized even more and sanctioned greatly for that. Now to 2017 - I prayed
that Putin would run again - (he waited a long time before stating he would run.) I knew that
Russia sorely needed him to remain at the reins, guiding Russia (and the world, it seems)
around the icebergs of hate, crimes against humanity, local wars, demise of any empathetic
feelings towards others as we are all dragged along to the next, last war. Putin has been the
one who has prevented it from happening in several situations, where it could have been
started. But the demonization continues - little wonder America has lost it's appeal to most
of you!
The deep state has us in thrall - (no Kennedy here now to protect us). I pray daily that
all of us will survive to realize our hopes - yours and ours, but feel on a deep level that
this time it won't happen. It seems that some people here truly want a war - feel they could
survive the strike and retaliate to ruin your country, but that ours would remain mainly
untouched. They think their bunkers will protect them - their expansive underground cities
built for the richest and 'best' of America, while the rest of us are collateral damage. I am
not rich - have no real savings, so am definitely not one of those to be saved - like so
others around me. I'm sure many of you are in the same position, have the same fears and
dreams as I do. I offer all of you my best wishes for a happy, healthy, free and safe world.
Maybe your Putin actually does have a rabbit in his hat, or that silver bullet - the magic
needed to save us all! I truly hope so.
As a Canadian, thank you for your excellent summary of what I have concluded for some
time. Sadly, the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic as established by the founders; it
is not even a representative democracy. What the US has become is an Evil American Empire
that is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity in the US and throughout the entire
world. The good news is that a growing number of people in the US and the Western World
realize this and are working very hard to return America to its founding ideals. The first
stage in this process is the exposure of powerful members of the Deep State who have
infiltrated and corrupted the essential institutions of government, freedom and justice.
I used to be liberal before liberalism became a symbol of stupidity, war mongering and
affiliated with the Deep State and it's rush to rule the world by destroying every society
whose people chose to live life as they saw fit. The translation mechanism for understanding
US leadership is projection. If the mouthpieces ramble on about their values, the meaning is
that they are stating the values of their opponent or target country. If they're accusing a
country of terrorism, they're talking about their own support for terrorism for geopolitical
gains. If they're accusing a country of using chemical weapons, they're really talking about
their own use of chemical weapons to launch another war and destroy yet another country's
society. So one can easily see the true meaning of these psychopaths rantings and rhetoric by
merely using the simple mechanism of projection to determine the truth.
Many times I am completely confused by the use that Americans make of traditional
political or economic terms. "Socialism", for example, applied to Democrats? Calling
"Liberals" those who like to defy society's traditional customs? "Marxism" is no longer a
theory about the conflict of classes, or a dialectical understanding of society! Many
political discussions are due to the different interpretations that people give to the same
words. The US political science vocabulary is in chaos- along with many other US things!
Seventy years ago, George Orwell wrote the prophetic essay, "Politics
and the English Language," in which he noted that politicians,
journalists and academics were increasingly using meaningless words and
euphemisms to make "lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and...
give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Source:
https://www.alternet.org/el...
Totally agree. Fundamental or Philosophical Liberalism has to be with the human being and
his liberties and rights.
Economic Liberalism has to be with the commodities trade and physical money, financial money,
and their privileges put over the human beings, of course this is a euphemism because whom
are really self conceded such privileges are the owners of those goods i.e. International
Usurers.
Economic Liberalism morphed into the worst; into Neo-(Economic)-Liberalism (They call it only
"liberalism" in order to confuse their enemies, all the people). Neo-Liberalism is the worst because under this pseudo science they consider all things
including the land, the air, the water, the human beings and the same life (all nature) as
their rightful commodities.
You're absolutely correct! We've had the worst of the worst running and influencing those
that run the country and this man was a psycho, but we have more, too many!
The arrogance of the man. I do hope he lives long enough to see the fruits of his labor
whilst the economy collapses around him. I guess when that happens he and his other hapless
miscreants will keep their heads down and rely on security to protect them from the karma
hurtling towards them.
Nothing this man has done has benefited the American people.
Unfortunately in this case Karl Rove is only making reference to what has been decided
in political circles in Washington at that time. This habit of "defining new realities" is
what all MSM and most Western politicians work after today. At any time at any case the MSM
and the West system can change one reality perception to another without being held
responsible for the factual truth.
Western journalists, with a very small exception (real outliers), are experts at presenting
one-sided arguments, whatever the facts and evidence. Look at Meagan Kelly interviews for the inspiration.
They know how to wear down any dissident who does not buy into government talking points
If you spend any time on Twitter, you'll probably be familiar with the latest pathetic attempt to defend and insulate the U.S.
status quo from criticism. It centers around the usage of an infantile and meaningless term, "whataboutism."
Let's begin with one particularly absurd accusation of "whataboutism" promoted by
NPR
last year:
When O'Reilly countered that "Putin is a killer," Trump responded, "There are a lot of killers. You got a lot of killers. What,
you think our country is so innocent?"
This particular brand of changing the subject is called "whataboutism" -- a simple rhetorical tactic heavily used by the Soviet
Union and, later, Russia. And its use in Russia helps illustrate how it could be such a useful tool now, in America. As Russian
political experts told NPR, it's an attractive tactic for populists in particular, allowing them to be vague but appear straight-talking
at the same time.
The idea behind whataboutism is simple: Party A accuses Party B of doing something bad. Party B responds by changing the subject
and pointing out one of Party A's faults -- "Yeah? Well what about that bad thing you did?" (Hence the name.)
It's not exactly a complicated tactic -- any grade-schooler can master the "yeah-well-you-suck-too-so-there" defense. But it
came to be associated with the USSR because of the Soviet Union's heavy reliance upon whataboutism throughout the Cold War and
afterward, as Russia.
This is a really embarrassing take by NPR .
First, the author tries to associate a tactic that's been around since humans first wandered into caves -- deflecting attention
away from yourself by pointing out the flaws in others -- into some uniquely nefarious Russian propaganda tool. Second, that's not
even what Trump did in this example.
In his response to O'Reilly, Trump wasn't using "whataboutism" to deflect away from his own sins. Rather, he offered a rare moment
of self-reflection about the true role played by the U.S. government around the world. This isn't "whataboutism," it's questioning
the hypocrisy and abuse of power of one's own government. It's an attempt to take responsibility for stuff he might actually be able
to change as President. It's the most ethical and honest response to that question in light of the amount of violence the U.S. government
engages in abroad. If our leaders did this more often, we might stop repeatedly jumping from one insane and destructive war to the
next.
Had O'Reilly's question been about the U.S. government's ongoing support of Saudi Arabia's war crimes in Yemen and Trump shifted
the conversation to Russian atrocities, he could then be fairly accused of changing the subject to avoid accountability. In that
case, you could condemn Trump for "whataboutism" because he intentionally deflected attention away from his own government's sins
to the sins of another. This sort of thing is indeed very dangerous, especially when done by someone in a position of power.
But here's the thing. You don't need some catchy, infantile term like "whataboutism" to point out that someone in power's deflecting
attention from their own transgressions. I agree wholeheartedly with Adam Johnson when he states:
He's absolutely right. One should never rely on the lazy use of a cutesy, catchy term like "whataboutism" as a retort to someone
who points out a glaring contradiction. If you do, you're either a propagandist with no counterargument or a fool who mindlessly
adopts the jingoistic cues of others. Responding to someone by saying "that's just whataboutism" isn't an argument, it's an assault
on one's logical faculties. It's attempt to provide people with a way to shut down debate and conversation by simply blurting out
a clever sounding fake-word. Here's an example of how I've seen it used on Twitter.
One U.S. citizen (likely a card carrying member of "the resistance") will regurgitate some standard intel agency line on Syria
or Russia. Another U.S. citizen will then draw attention to the fact that their own government plays an active role in egregious
war crimes in Yemen on behalf of the Saudis. This person will proceed to advocate for skepticism with regard to U.S. government and
intelligence agency war promotion considering how badly the public was deceived in the run up to the Iraq war. For this offense,
they'll be accused of "whataboutism."
The problem with this accusation is that this person isn't switching the subject to bring up another's transgression to deflect
from scrutiny of his or her behavior. In contrast, the person is putting the conversation in its rightful place, which is to question
the behavior of one's own country. When it comes to issues such as nation-state violence, the primary duty of a citizen is not to
obsess all day about the violence perpetrated by foreign governments, but to hold one's own government accountable. This is as true
for an American citizen in American as it is for a Russian citizen in Russia.
NPR explained how the Russian government used "whataboutism" to deflect away from it's own crimes, but Trump actually did the
opposite in his interview with O'Reilly. He wasn't deflecting away from his own country's crimes, he was pointing out that they exist.
That's precisely what you're supposed to do as a citizen.
The problem arises when governments deflect attention away from their own crimes for which they are actually responsible, by pointing
out the crimes of a foreign government. This is indeed propaganda and an evasion of responsibility. Calling out your own government's
hypocrisy in matters of state sanctioned murder abroad is the exact opposite sort of thing.
Noam Chomsky put it better than I ever could. Here's what he said
in
a 2003 interview
:
QUESTION: When you talk about the role of intellectuals, you say that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country.
Could you explain this assertion?
CHOMSKY: One of the most elementary moral truisms is that you are responsible for the anticipated consequences of your own
actions. It is fine to talk about the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there isn't much that you can do about them. If Soviet intellectuals
chose to devote their energies to crimes of the U.S., which they could do nothing about, that is their business. We honor those
who recognized that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country. And it is interesting that no one ever asks for an explanation,
because in the case of official enemies, truisms are indeed truisms. It is when truisms are applied to ourselves that they become
contentious, or even outrageous. But they remain truisms. In fact, the truisms hold far more for us than they did for Soviet dissidents,
for the simple reason that we are in free societies, do not face repression, and can have a substantial influence on government
policy. So if we adopt truisms, that is where we will focus most of our energy and commitment. The explanation is even more obvious
than in the case of official enemies.
Naturally, truisms are hated when applied to oneself. You can see it dramatically in the case of terrorism. In fact one of
the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention
that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many
intellectuals, including left-liberal intellectuals, because if we faced such truths we could do something about the terrorist
acts for which we are responsible, accepting elementary moral responsibilities instead of lauding ourselves for denouncing the
crimes official enemies, about which we can often do very little.
Elementary honesty is often uncomfortable, in personal life as well, and there are people who make great efforts to evade it.
For intellectuals, throughout history, it has often come close to being their vocation. Intellectuals are commonly integrated
into dominant institutions. Their privilege and prestige derives from adapting to the interests of power concentrations, often
taking a critical look but in very limited ways. For example, one may criticize the war in Vietnam as a "mistake" that began with
"benign intentions". But it goes too far to say that the war is not "a mistake" but was "fundamentally wrong and immoral". the
position of about 70 percent of the public by the late 1960s, persisting until today, but of only a margin of intellectuals. The
same is true of terrorism. In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts
that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM. That is probably close to a historical universal. And
there are innumerable other examples.
For saying the above, Noam Chomsky would surely be labeled the godfather of "whataboutism" by Twitter's resistance army, but he's
actually advocating the most ethical, logical and courageous path of citizenship. U.S. taxpayers aren't paying for Russia's military
operations, but they are paying for the U.S. government's. The idea that U.S. citizens emphasizing U.S. violence are committing the
thought-crime of "whataboutism" when it comes to foreign policy is absurd. Our primary responsibility as citizens is our own aggressive
and violent foreign policy, not that of other countries.
Naturally, this isn't how neocon/neoliberal and intelligence agency imperialists want you to think. Proponents of the American
empire need the public to ignore the atrocities of the U.S. government and its allies for obvious reasons, while constantly obsessing
over the atrocities of the empire's official enemies. This is the only way to continue to exert force abroad without domestic pushback,
and it's critical in order to keep the imperial gravy train going for those it benefits so significantly. How do you shut down vibrant
foreign policy debate on social media that exposes imperial hypocrisy? Accuse people of "whataboutism."
That's what I see going on. I see the weaponization of a cutesy, catchy term on social media in order to prevent people from
questioning their own government. It's completely logical and ethical for U.S. citizens to push back against those arguing for more
regime change wars by pointing out the evils of our own foreign policy.
In fact, the unethical position is the one espoused by those who claim the U.S. can do no wrong, but when an adversary country
does what we permit ourselves to do, they must be bombed into oblivion. These people know they have no argument, so they run around
condemning those trying to hold their own government accountable of "whataboutism." It's a nonsensical term with no real meaning
or purpose other than to defend imperial talking points.
Accusations of "whataboutism" amount to a cynical, sleazy attempt to stifle debate without actually engaging in argument.
It's also the sort of desperate and childish propaganda tactic you'd expect during late-stage imperial decline.
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly
Patron
, or visit our
Support Page
to show your appreciation for
independent content creators.
Barely a day after President Trump outraged his political opponents by calling out Special
Counsel Robert Mueller by name in a series of angry tweets,
the Washington Post is reporting that the president's legal team has provided written
descriptions of certain key moments to the Mueller probe as they push to limit the scope of a
presidential interview, should they agree to one.
According to the
report, Trump has reportedly told aides that he's "champing at the bit" to sit for an
interview. But his lawyers, who are carefully negotiating terms, have sought to restrain the
president, worried he might inadvertently perjure himself or - worse - accidentally walk into a
perjury trap.
Given the time-sensitive nature of the investigation (Trump and his allies would like it to
end as swiftly as possible) Trump on Monday
added storied Washington lawyer Joseph diGenova, the husband of former Reagan Justice
Department official and former Senate Intelligence Committee chief counsel Victoria Toensing,
to his legal team.
Various readers, fans, blog commenters, Facebook trolls, and
auditors twanged on me all last week about my continuing interest in the RussiaRussiaRussia hysteria,
though there is no particular consensus of complaint among them -- except for a general "shut up,
already" motif. For the record, I'm far more interested in the hysteria itself than the
Russia-meddled-in the-election case, which I consider to be hardly any case at all beyond 13 Russian
Facebook trolls.
The hysteria, on the other hand, ought to be a matter of grave concern,
because it
appears more and more to have been engineered by America's own intel community, its handmaidens in the
Dept of Justice, and the twilight's last gleamings of the Obama White House, and now it has shoved
this country in the direction of war at a time when civilian authority over the US military looks
sketchy at best.
This country faces manifold other problems that are certain to reduce the
national standard of living and disrupt the operations of an excessively complex and dishonest
economy,
and the last thing America needs is a national war-dance over trumped-up grievances
with Russia.
The RussiaRussiaRussia narrative has unspooled since Christmas and is blowing back badly
through the FBI,
now with the firing (for cause) of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe hours short
of his official retirement (and inches from the golden ring of his pension). He was axed on the
recommendation of his own colleagues in the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, and they may
have been influenced by the as-yet-unreleased report of the FBI Inspector General, Michael Horowitz,
due out shortly.
The record of misbehavior and "collusion" between the highest ranks of the FBI, the
Democratic Party,
the Clinton campaign, several top political law firms, and a shady cast of
international blackmail-peddlars is
a six-lane Beltway-scale evidence trail compared to the
muddy mule track of Trump "collusion" with Russia.
It will be amazing if a big wad of criminal cases are not dealt out of it, even as
The
New York Times
sticks its fingers in its ears and goes, "La-la-la-la-la ."
It now appears that Mr. McCabe's statements post-firing tend to
incriminate his former
boss, FBI Director James Comey
-- who is about to embark, embarrassingly perhaps, on a tour
for his self-exculpating book,
A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership
.
A great aura of sanctimony surrounds the FBI these days.
Even the news pundits
seem to have forgotten the long, twisted reign of J. Edgar Hoover (1924 – 1972), a dangerous rogue who
excelled at political blackmail. And why, these days, would any sane American take pronouncements from
the CIA and NSA at face value?
What seems to have gone on in the RussiaRussiaRussia matter
is that various parts of the executive branch in the last months under Mr. Obama gave each other tacit
permission, wink-wink, to do anything necessary to stuff HRC into the White House and, failing that,
to derail her opponent, the Golden Golem of Greatness.
The obvious lesson in all this huggermugger is that the ends don't justify the means.
I suspect
there are basically two routes through this mess
.
One is that
the misdeeds of FBI officers, Department of Justice lawyers, and Intel
agency executives get adjudicated by normal means,
namely, grand juries and courts. That
would have the salutary effect of cleansing government agencies and shoring up what's left of their
credibility at a time when faith in institutions hangs in the balance.
The second route would be for the authorities to ignore any formal response to an evermore
self-evident trail of crimes, and to
allow all that political energy to be funneled into
manufactured hysteria and eventually a phony provocation of war with Russia
.
Personally, I'd rather see the US government clean house than blow up the world over an engineered
hallucination.
Tags
Politics
Semiconductors - NEC
"... Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. ..."
"... The idea that Russia is behind this attack is implausible, but that did not prevent the UK government from launching into an aggressively impertinent confrontation of Russia, and then using the Russian government's understandably annoyed response as supposed further evidence of supposed Russian guilt. ..."
"... After an initial scepticism the usual US sphere suspects (the US, France, Germany) lined up behind the British government's spurious feigned outrage, presumably having been reassured that the UK government would not seek to invoke NATO's Article 5). ..."
"... Am I wrong in thinking that there are thousands of Russians living in Germany, USA, Italy, Cyprus and so on but they are only poisoned in the UK? If I am mistaken on this then I apologies. ..."
"... If this letter is genuine then there has never been any nerve agent in Salisbury. ..."
There is no doubt that Skripal was feeding secrets to MI6 at the time that Christopher
Steele was an MI6 officer in Moscow, and at the the time that Pablo Miller, another member of
Orbis Intelligence, was also an MI6 officer in Russia and directly recruiting agents. It is
widely reported on the web and in US media
that it was Miller who first recruited Skripal. My own ex-MI6 sources tell me that is not quite
true as Skripal was "walk-in", but that Miller certainly was involved in running Skripal for a
while. Sadly Pablo Miller's LinkedIn profile has recently been deleted, but it is again widely
alleged on the web that it showed him as a consultant for Orbis Intelligence and a consultant
to the FCO and – wait for it – with an address in Salisbury. If anyone can recover
that Linkedin entry do get in touch, though British Government agencies will have been active
in the internet scrubbing.
It was of course Christopher Steele and Orbis Intelligence who produced for the Clinton camp
the sensationalist dossier on Trump links with Russia – including the story of Trump
paying to be urinated on by Russian prostitutes – that is a key part of the "Russiagate"
affair gripping the US political classes. The extraordinary thing about this is that the Orbis
dossier is obvious nonsense which anybody with a professional background can completely
demolish, as
I did here . Steele's motive was, like Skripal's in selling his secrets, cash pure and
simple. Steele is a charlatan who knocked up a series of allegations that are either wildly
improbable, or would need a high level source access he could not possibly get in today's
Russia, or both. He told the Democrats what they wish to hear and his audience – who had
and still have no motivation to look at it critically – paid him highly for it.
I do not know for certain that Pablo Miller helped knock together the Steele dossier on
Trump, but it seems very probable given he also served for MI6 in Russia and was working for
Orbis. And it seems to me even more probable that Sergei Skripal contributed to the Orbis
Intelligence dossier on Trump. Steele and Miller cannot go into Russia and run sources any
more, and never would have had access as good as their dossier claims, even in their MI6 days.
The dossier was knocked up for huge wodges of cash from whatever they could cobble together.
Who better to lend a little corroborative verisimilitude in these circumstances than their old
source Skripal?
Skripal was at hand in the UK, and allegedly even close to Miller in Salisbury. He could add
in the proper acronym for a Russian committee here or the name of a Russian official there, to
make it seem like Steele was providing hard intelligence. Indeed, Skripal's outdated knowledge
might explain some of the dossier's more glaring errors.
But the problem with double agents like Skripal, who give intelligence for money, is that
they can easily become triple agents and you never know when a better offer is going to come
along. When Steele produced his dodgy dossier, he had no idea it would ever become so prominent
and subject to so much scrutiny. Steele is fortunate in that the US Establishment is strongly
motivated not to scrutinise his work closely as their one aim is to "get" Trump. But with the
stakes very high, having a very loose cannon as one of the dossier's authors might be most
inconvenient both for Orbis and for the Clinton camp.
If I was the police, I would look closely at Orbis Intelligence.
To return to Israel. Israel has the nerve agents. Israel has Mossad which is extremely
skilled at foreign assassinations. Theresa May claimed Russian propensity to assassinate abroad
as a specific reason to believe Russia did it. Well Mossad has an even greater propensity to
assassinate abroad. And while I am struggling to see a Russian motive for damaging its own
international reputation so grieviously, Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian
reputation so grieviously. Russian action in Syria has undermined the Israeli position in Syria
and Lebanon in a fundamental way, and Israel has every motive for damaging Russia's
international position by an attack aiming to leave the blame on Russia.
Both the Orbis and Israeli theories are speculations. But they are no more a speculation,
and no more a conspiracy theory, than the idea that Vladimir Putin secretly sent agents to
Salisbury to attack Skripal with a secret nerve agent. I can see absolutely no reason to
believe that is a more valid speculation than the others at this point.
I am alarmed by the security, spying and armaments industries' frenetic efforts to stoke
Russophobia and heat up the new cold war. I am especially alarmed at the stream of cold war
warrior "experts" dominating the news cycles. I write as someone who believes that agents of
the Russian state did assassinate Litvinenko, and that the Russian security services carried
out at least some of the apartment bombings that provided the pretext for the brutal assault on
Chechnya. I believe the Russian occupation of Crimea and parts of Georgia is illegal. On the
other hand, in Syria Russia has saved the Middle East from domination by a new wave of US and
Saudi sponsored extreme jihadists.
The naive view of the world as "goodies" and "baddies", with our own ruling class as the
good guys, is for the birds. I witnessed personally in Uzbekistan the willingness of the UK and
US security services to accept and validate intelligence they knew to be false in order to
pursue their policy objectives. We should be extremely sceptical of their current anti-Russian
narrative. There are many possible suspects in this attack.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British
Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of
Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
The scam must be so obvious and damaging that even a 'believer' in the other obvious scams
(Litvinenko) and the 'illegal' occupation of Crimea and 'parts of Georgia' must disassociate
from it. I think that he might know more than simple conjectures about the role of the third
party he alludes cautiously to, the party which has not only the motives to do it, but also
the means and opportunities to operate freely under the radar which never sees it.
Here is one thing i noted about this meme In the American film 'The sum of all fears' the
term novochok is used "novochok binary nerve agent" Now if you are going to lie, coat tailing
on a BS yank movie is going to have advantages is it not? How many millions saw that movie?
How many other movies are used to pre-imbed this type of predictive programming? More than a
few is my guess . The instant i heard the 'novochok' claim i immediately recalled that movie
and the terror it had gathered into it's celluloid.
In my opinion there is not a shred of evidence that Russia did it, and there is no
motive.
The motive is the other way round, it fits in the climate of demonising Russia.
Maybe the prelude to war, the last one, not a human being will survive.
Great to see this promoted at Unz. It's a vital story at the moment, which shines a very
unflattering light on the UK government and should make anyone foolish enough to think the
problems that were exposed over the manipulation of the country into the Iraq war in 2003
were particular to the government of Tony Blair or to that issue, think again. The truth is
that the misrepresentation of intelligence, the blustering suppression of dissent by
bombastic pseudo-patriotism, and the lockstep mainstream media support for it, are all
endemic to the UK (and US, mutatis mutandis).
Murray stands at the opposite end of the political spectrum from me, and we would agree
about very little outside of this kind of thing. But I salute his courage and persistence in
standing up to the inevitable bullying and pressures that are brought to bear on people
raising this kind of thing. Not as perniciously thuggish as the pressures placed upon race
realist and English nationalist dissidents, but perhaps more menacing in some ways.
It is interesting to note that Murray – a longstanding UK dissident who has been
making trouble for the authorities publicly since at least 2004, states (see Bothered by
Midgies, linked above) that: " In 13 years of running my blog I have never been exposed to
such a tirade of abuse as I have for refusing to accept without evidence that Russia is the
only possible culprit for the Salisbury attack ". That partly reflects the shame he has
brought upon the few members of our mainstream media (so called journalists working for the
BBC, Sky, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Independent (sic!), etc) still able to feel it, by
doing their job when they had notably failed. It also reflects the importance of the work he
is doing.
The idea that Russia is behind this attack is implausible, but that did not prevent the UK
government from launching into an aggressively impertinent confrontation of Russia, and then
using the Russian government's understandably annoyed response as supposed further evidence
of supposed Russian guilt.
After an initial scepticism the usual US sphere suspects (the US,
France, Germany) lined up behind the British government's spurious feigned outrage,
presumably having been reassured that the UK government would not seek to invoke NATO's
Article 5). The confrontation they have initiated will be far more costly to us all in the
long run than the crime itself (grim though that has surely been for the individuals
affected), and so it is vital for those few who can see through the blizzard of propaganda to
continue to rip holes in the UK government's increasingly threadbare case.
The substance they claim was used is of Russian origin.
There is a motive for Russia to have carried out the attack – killing a
traitor.
There is supposedly a "track record" of Russia committing such crimes.
There's no other hypothesis.
These points are all bunk, as set out below, and the information obtained by Murray has
helped hugely in establishing that fact. But none of the refutations is remotely complicated
or hard to spot, and any honest journalist should have been confronting the government with
them from day one.
1 The substance they claim was used is of Russian origin.
As Murray has highlighted, the most the British government can say is that the substance
they allege was used was "of a type developed by Russia", and in fact it could have been
produced in any other country over the past ten years and was in fact produced in Iran in
2016 under OPCW supervision. So the fact that it was originally developed in Russia decades
ago is evidence of nothing.
2 There is a motive for Russia to have carried out the attack – killing a
traitor.
In fact Skipal was a spy who was unmasked by the Russians, tried, convicted and
imprisoned. His offence was clearly not considered particularly serious, as treasons go,
because he was only given 13 years in prison, and he was clearly considered no longer a
threat because he was subsequently exchanged for some Russian spies.
3 There is supposedly a "track record" of Russia committing such crimes.
There is no track record of the Russians killing exchanged former spies. Indeed British
intelligence effectively admitted that because they were quite happy for Skripal to live
openly under his own name, with his address in the public domain and no protection given to
him, unlike for instance organised crime witnesses who do actually face enemies with a track
record of killing them.
4 There's no other hypothesis.
Of course there are plenty of other hypotheses with at least as much plausibility as the
dubious case against Russia. Any of the governments seeking to promote and foment
confrontation of Russia, over Ukraine or Syria, or just for internal political benefits, had
a motive for committing this crime, and doing it in the method (a "wmd" attack on British
soil) guaranteed to create the maximum hysteria and propaganda value. That brings the US,
Israel, the Ukraine and the UK into the frame, all of whom would certainly have had the
capability to manufacture the substance. Then there are issues around the shadowy criminal
and political elements with whom Skripal was potentially involved, from Russian mafia to the
US security state figures currently mixed up with British intelligence in the ongoing
anti-Russian/anti-Trump nonsense.
In reality there is no shortage of alternative hypotheses. It's just that the BBC like the
rest of the mainstream media failed to mention any of them. As usual, acting as stenographers
for the powerful, rather than agents of truth.
Considering the Brits dragged us into two World Wars and a bunch of lesser but nevertheless
costly messes, why the f *** do we listen to, much less believe, anything they say that
points even in the general direction of conflict with Russia?
Does anyone in American leadership even fathom that the UK have a big chip on their
shoulder for us knocking them off the top of the list of great empires and adding insult to
injury by essentially forcing them to dismantle their empire, and then pushing them into a
vassal state of the EU so we could better manage them as but one of many vassals?
Am I wrong in thinking that there are thousands of Russians living in Germany, USA, Italy,
Cyprus and so on but they are only poisoned in the UK?
If I am mistaken on this then I apologies.
There is one 'track record', Litvinov, killed by polonium.
What secret service would be so dumb as to use this, pointing immediately to state murder
?
Accidents, and suicides are quiet methods for keeping people silent for all times.
The Ukrainian pilot that, according to Russia, by accident shot down MH17, just committed
suicide.
I wonder if he was suicided.
Sensational murders, or attempted murders, have quite different purposes.
Blaming someone.
Who believes that Arafat was not murdered, does anyone believe that the Diana accident was
an accident, who believes the Hess and Kelly suicides ?
Why was Palme murdered, who indeed thinks that Anna Lyndh was killed accidentally, that
Barschel committed suicide, that Mölleman died accidentally ?
And so on, and so forth.
There is one 'track record', Litvinov, killed by polonium.
Even if one chooses to believe the pretty dubious story concocted to blame that event on
the Russian government, it doesn't represent any "track record" relevant to the Skripal case.
Litvinenko was a former KGB/FSB thug who had found himself on the wrong side of a Kremlin
power struggle and fled justice. He was not, like Skripal, a previously unmasked, tried,
convicted, jailed and exchanged former spy.
Who says that there is no proof that Putin did it? Boris Johnson personally found a ripped off shirt next to the bench of Scripals and "Vlad
WOS HIER" spray painted on the nearest wall.
Seriously, there was apparently an interesting letter from the Salisbury hospital to The
Times:
Sir, Further to your report ("Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment", March 14),
****** may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning
in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning .
****** Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have
been exposed. None has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood
tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by
the agent involved.
Stephen Davies,
Consultant in emergency medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust
If this letter is genuine then there has never been any nerve agent in Salisbury.
And all of a sudden there is a GB EU agreement over a trade transition period.
I wondered why May set up the poison gas murder show.
I now wonder if this show was the price she was asked to pay, making GB the enemy of Russia,
preventing GB trade with Russia.
It reminds me of a new mafia member, asked to commit a crime, to show that he's real
criminal.
"... Reviewing the original Russian tape of the interviews, it became clear that the tête-à-tête showed a Putin looking patiently but supremely presidential to Russian viewers who could see the whole interviews, not just the selective selected excerpts aired by NBC and "interpreted" by Russophobe-de-jour Richard Haas. (A close adviser to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Haas was among those who told him it was a swell idea to invade Iraq. When the anticipated "cakewalk" turned rather bloody, with no WMD to be found, Haas quit in July 2003 and became President of the Council on Foreign Relations where he is now well into his 15th year.) ..."
"... For some reason best known to Kelly and NBC, Kelly tried repeatedly to make the case that the U.S. decision to scrap the ABM treaty was a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when, she said, "the United States was reassessing its security posture." ..."
"... "Complete nonsense," was Putin's reply ("polniy chush" in Russian -- chush ringing with onomatopoeia and a polite rendering of "B.S."). Putin explained that "9/11 and the missile defense system are completely unrelated," adding that even "housewives" are able to understand that. He found occasion to use "polniy chush" (or simply "chush) several times during the interview. ..."
"... During the back-and-forth on chemical weapons, Putin not only called the accusations against Russia a lie, but saw fit to refer to Colin Powell's misbegotten speech at the UN just six weeks before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq: "It is a lie just as the vial with the white substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave to the Secretary of State." ..."
"... For good measure, Putin threw in "Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine?" ..."
As I watched NBC's special, "
Confronting Putin ," Friday evening, I asked myself -- naively -- what possessed President
Putin to subject himself again to what NBC calls a Megan Kelly "grilling," replete with
supercilious questions and less-than-polite interruptions, just nine months after his first
such "grilling." It then hit me that "grilling" is in the eye of the beholder.
Reviewing the original Russian tape of the interviews, it became clear that the
tête-à-tête showed a Putin looking patiently but supremely presidential to
Russian viewers who could see the whole interviews, not just the selective selected excerpts
aired by NBC and "interpreted" by Russophobe-de-jour Richard Haas. (A close adviser to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Haas was among those who told him it was a swell idea to
invade Iraq. When the anticipated "cakewalk" turned rather bloody, with no WMD to be found,
Haas quit in July 2003 and became President of the Council on Foreign Relations where he is now
well into his 15th year.)
Back to the Kelly-Putin pas de deux: At the March 1 interview the Russian President came out
swinging. When Kelly asked the first time whether there is "a new arms race right now" after
Putin's announcement of Russia's new strategic weapons, Putin reminded her that it was the U.S.
that withdrew in 2002 from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. He added that he had
repeatedly warned the Bush/Cheney administration that Russia would be forced to respond to the
dangerous upset of the strategic equilibrium.
For some reason best known to Kelly and NBC, Kelly tried repeatedly to make the case
that the U.S. decision to scrap the ABM treaty was a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11,
when, she said, "the United States was reassessing its security posture."
"Complete nonsense," was Putin's reply ("polniy chush" in Russian -- chush ringing with
onomatopoeia and a polite rendering of "B.S."). Putin explained that "9/11 and the missile
defense system are completely unrelated," adding that even "housewives" are able to understand
that. He found occasion to use "polniy chush" (or simply "chush) several times during the
interview.
Russian "Interference"
It was no surprise that Kelly was armed with an array of questions about Russian meddling in
the 2016 presidential election, and at the start of the March 2 interview asked "can we have
that discussion now?" Putin said, "I think we must discuss this issue if it keeps bothering
you." And they were off on a feckless exchange with Putin replying calming to Kelly's
hectoring.
After one interruption, Putin said, "You keep interrupting me; this is impolite." Kelly
apologized, but dutifully went on to cover what seemed to be the remainder of her accusatory
talking points. These included repeated insistence that Putin punish the click-bait farmers
indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for violating U.S. law.
No doubt fully briefed on the fact that Kelly sports a law degree, Putin asked, "Do you have
people with legal training? We cannot even launch an investigation without cause. Give us at
least an official inquiry with a statement of facts; send us an official paper."
Kelly:
"Isn't it enough that U.S. intelligence agencies and now a Special Prosecutor (sic) with a
criminal indictment -- is that not enough for you to look into it?" Putin: "Absolutely not. If
you do not have legal training, I can assure you that an inquiry is required for this." Kelly:
"I do." Putin: "Then you should understand that a corresponding official inquiry should be sent
to the Prosecutor-General's Office of the Russian Federation."
The interview got testier toward the end, as Kelly tried to fit in all her questions,
including the unsupported accusation that Syrian government forces are using chemical weapons
and that Russia bears some responsibility for this.
During the back-and-forth on chemical weapons, Putin not only called the accusations
against Russia a lie, but saw fit to refer to Colin Powell's misbegotten speech at the UN just
six weeks before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq: "It is a lie just as the vial with the white
substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave
to the Secretary of State."
For good measure, Putin threw in "Why did you encourage the government coup in
Ukraine?"
Once again for the record, President Putin finished on a familiar note: "Russia and the U.S.
should sit down and talk in order to get things straight. I have the impression that this is
what the current President wants, but he is prevented from it by some forces. We are ready to
discuss any matter, be it missile-related issues, cyberspace, or counterterrorism efforts. But
the U.S. must also be ready."
... ... ...
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Savior in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he was Chief of
the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and later conducted the morning briefings of The President's
Daily Brief to President Ronald Reagan's most senior national security advisers.
Seriously...I think these 'conspiracy theorists' have been watching too many Hollywood movies.
This is what I want to SCREAM every time I hear this shit...Why the HELL would Russia, or anyone else, bother to use such a
messy, traceable and complicated method to kill this guy? Especially when there are SO MANY WAYS it could have been done that
wouldn't have garnered all the attention, and that would have left no traces? They could have sent someone to shove him in front
of a train or something, or staged a 'botched robbery'.
Reminds me of the stupid assassination methods the CIA wanted to use on Castro...poisoning his beard? Really? Well, aside from
the fact that it is just too 'Wile E. Coyote' to be taken seriously, did anyone ask, if such an assassin could get close enough
to poison his beard, why he wouldn't go with a more dependable method?
I blame the wildly dumbed down and complicit media here in the US and in our "allies" abroad. They spit out whatever the government
feeds to them without a single ounce of effort to validate the stories they frantically preach to the ignorant public. Damn, I
can't believe how many times people will be duped into trillion dollar wars and they still are die hard believers in the ethics
and truthfulness of the US gov't. Morons---
It makes little sense that Russia would assassinate someone using a technique that would immediately implicate them. I'm surprised
they didn't happen to "find" the assassin's Russian passport lying on the ground next to the victims! <
I disagree. If a government is going to terminate a spy they don't botch the job by letting him get to a hospital. In Putin's
Russia they know how to terminate most efficiently. I may be wrong but this is a pretext for something more aggressive/dangerous.
"... Meet London-based Hakluyt & Co. , founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums. ..."
"... Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's Henry Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking " ..."
"... When the drunken junior Trump foreign policy adviser George Papodopoulous boasted in a London bar in May 2016 about Russian intelligence operatives peddling hacked emails that were damaging to Clinton, his most interested listener, according to The New York Times , was Alexander Downer, Australian high commissioner to the U.K. ..."
"... The News Corp. Australian Network quoted an unnamed British diplomatic source explaining that Hakluyt "operates in the shadows, it's not exactly open and transparent and so any serving, and that's the difference, serving diplomat with access to sensitive information and insight associating with the group raises a worry in Whitehall." Whitehall is the British government's equivalent to the White House. ..."
"... Downer's continued involvement with Hakluyt locates the shadowy operation in the world of the Clintons. As previously reported by LifeZette, it was Downer in 2006 who as Australian foreign minister signed a memorandum of understanding with Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... Downer is also connected to another firm of great importance in the international intelligence world. That would be China's telecommunications giant Huawei, on whose Australian board he served for several years, beginning in 2011. U.S. intelligence experts have long described Huawei as a tool of Chinese espionage in America. ..."
"... The link between Clinton and Hakluyt is ironic considering the former secretary of state's strong commitment to liberal Democratic environmental causes. Hakluyt's record includes being caught planting spies in Greenpeace and other environmental groups on behalf of energy giants British Petroleum (BP) and Shell. ..."
Fusion GPS has gotten all the headlines. But there was a second, even more powerful and mysterious opposition research and intelligence
firm lurking about with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign
for president against Donald Trump.
Meet London-based Hakluyt & Co. , founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums.
Whereas Fusion GPS was created by three former Wall Street Journal reporters
with links to the U.S. intelligence community, Hakluyt -- with offices in London, New York, Singapore, Tokyo and Sydney -- was founded
by an enterprising trio of former British intelligence operatives with deep connections throughout the world's official and corporate
corridors of power and influence.
Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's
Henry
Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6
[British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking "
The firm's "style appears to be much more in the mold of the Christopher Steele dossier. Clients pay for pages of well-sourced
prose from Hakluyt's contacts across the globe," Williams wrote.
Hakluyt isn't familiar to the American public. But what has become well-known in recent days is the role played by one of the
London firm's most visible figures in drawing the FBI into the world of Trump-Russia collusion allegations, a world largely created
by Steele in the infamous dossier bearing his name.
When the drunken junior Trump foreign policy adviser George Papodopoulous boasted in a London bar in May 2016 about Russian
intelligence operatives peddling hacked emails that were damaging to Clinton, his most interested listener, according to
The New York Times , was Alexander Downer, Australian high commissioner to the U.K.
It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving factors that led the FBI to open an
investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired,"
The Times reported.
Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory board since 2008. Officially, he had
to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network
reported in a January 2016 exclusive:
But it can be revealed Mr. Downer has still been attending client conferences and gatherings of the group, including a client
cocktail soirée at the Orangery at Kensington Palace a few months ago.
His attendance at that event is understood to have come days after he also attended a two-day country retreat at the invitation
of the group, which has been involved in a number of corporate spy scandals in recent times.
The News Corp. Australian Network quoted an unnamed British diplomatic source explaining that Hakluyt "operates in the shadows,
it's not exactly open and transparent and so any serving, and that's the difference, serving diplomat with access to sensitive information
and insight associating with the group raises a worry in Whitehall." Whitehall is the British government's equivalent to the White
House.
Downer's continued involvement with Hakluyt locates the shadowy operation in the world of the Clintons. As previously reported
by LifeZette, it was Downer in 2006 who as Australian foreign minister signed a memorandum of understanding with Bill Clinton and
the Clinton Foundation.
The memorandum committed $25 million from the Australian government to the foundation for HIV/AIDs programs in China, Papua New
Guinea, and Vietnam. A subsequent audit was unable to account for how those funds were spent.
Earlier this year, the FBI asked retired Australian police detective Michael Smith to provide information he uncovered concerning
the 2006 deal -- suggesting the bureau's investigation of the Clinton Foundation is focused on the controversial charity's domestic
and international activities.
Downer is also connected to another firm of great importance in the international intelligence world. That would be China's
telecommunications giant Huawei, on whose Australian board he served for several years, beginning in 2011. U.S. intelligence experts
have long described Huawei as a tool of Chinese espionage in America.
But Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution
records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives made
large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations.
Jonathan Selib of Brooklyn, New York, listed himself as a "consultant" and his employer as Hakluyt when he made four contributions
totaling $3,200 to Hillary for America and one contribution worth $2,350 to the Hillary Victory Fund during the Democratic presidential
primary. Selib also contributed to the congressional campaigns of Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) and John Lewis of Montana. Selib was
formerly chief of staff for Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Another Hakluyt executive, Holly Evans, contributed $500 to Hillary for America the day after Selib's June 27, 2016, donations
to the same Clinton campaign entity. Evans listed Rye, New York, as home and described herself as a Hakluyt "executive." Her résumé
includes stints advising Vice President Dick Cheney and working on the National Security Council during the second Bush administration.
The link between Clinton and Hakluyt is ironic considering the former secretary of state's strong commitment to liberal Democratic
environmental causes.
A third Hakluyt executive, Andrew Exum of Washington, D.C., made multiple contributions to several Democratic congressional candidates,
including Elisa Slotkin in Michigan and Daniel Helmer of Virginia. Exum served as a U.S. Army infantry officer and as former deputy
assistant secretary of defense under then-President Barack Obama. He has also been a contributing editor of Atlantic magazine.
The link between Clinton and Hakluyt is ironic considering the former secretary of state's strong commitment to liberal Democratic
environmental causes. Hakluyt's record includes being caught planting spies in Greenpeace and other environmental groups on behalf
of energy giants British Petroleum (BP) and Shell.
"... But low U.S. casualties do not mean that our current wars are less violent than previous wars. Our post-2001 wars have probably killed between 2 and 5 million people . The use of massive aerial and artillery bombardment has reduced cities like Fallujah, Ramadi, Sirte, Kobane, Mosul and Raqqa to rubble, and our wars have plunged entire societies into endless violence and chaos. ..."
"... But by bombing and firing from a distance with very powerful weapons, the U.S. has wreaked all this slaughter and destruction at an extraordinary low rate of U.S. casualties. The U.S.'s technological war-making has not reduced the violence and horror of war, but it has "externalized" it, at least temporarily. ..."
"... Even when the U.S. was losing 900-1,000 troops killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan each year from 2004 to 2007, there was much more public debate and vocal opposition to war than there is now, but those were still historically very low casualty rates. ..."
"... Israeli and Saudi leaders openly threaten war on Iran, but expect the U.S. to fight Iran on their behalf. American politicians play along with this dangerous game, which could get thousands of their constituents killed. This would flip the traditional U.S. doctrine of proxy war on its head, effectively turning the U.S. military into a proxy force fighting for the ill-defined interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia ..."
"... In an article about the prospect of a U.S. war on Iran , U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen dismissed American politicians' fears of Iran as "alarmism" and called his boss, Defense Secretary Mattis, "obsessed" with Iran. Sjursen believes that the "fiercely nationalistic" Iranians would mount a determined and effective resistance to foreign occupation, and concludes, "Make no mistake, U.S. military occupation of the Islamic Republic would make the occupation of Iraq, for once, actually look like the 'cakewalk' it was billed to be." ..."
"... Those who argue that war and preparation for it is not necessary to capitalism's existence or prosperity miss the point entirely: it simply has not functioned in any other way in the past and there is nothing in the present to warrant the assumption that the coming decades will be any different ..."
"... there are no easy solutions to the problems of irresponsible, deluded leaders and the classes they represent, or the hesitation of people to reverse the world's folly before they are themselves subjected to its grievous consequences. So much remains to be done – and it is late. ..."
"... America's deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy beyond bullying and brinksmanship. As they brainwash themselves and the public with the illusion of war without casualties, they will keep killing, destroying and risking our future until we stop them – or until they stop us and everything else. ..."
"... The whole notion that American soldiers "fight to protect freedom here at home and abroad" is the biggest propaganda accomplishment in global history. ..."
"... This line of self delusional reasoning finds favor in the United States because it obviously provides moral and ethical support to otherwise brutal and imperialist ventures ..."
"... The War Party of Lincoln has been invading other peoples for the last 150 years. Lincoln was the first president of the Republican Party which represents big banks and big business ..."
"... The political parties are business gangsters, just like Al Capone. I don't think Al Capone killed women, children, and babies. ..."
"... I do not know about other people who comment on this websites. But we have social friends, many of them, unlike us, are in very financially lucrative professions. All their information comes from CNN, MSNBC. They have never read anything about American History or history of their own country. Many of them do not even know who Thomas Jefferson was. All their time is spent in making money and finding tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. And many of them profess to be liberal democrats. This is your new America. ..."
"... Dave in all my years I have never heard, or experienced quite the confrontational attitudes that I see all around me being displayed so rudely and openly, as I see today. I blame a lot of this on our MSM's tabloid style of reporting. This is a media which leaves so much of the news to be disregarded, that it creates a very misinformed public. The 1st Amendment doesn't matter, as much as a particular persons opinions do. In someways I think certain Americans take pride in shutting down another American persons opinion from being known. Irritation only aggravates and brings on more irritation ..."
"... It's rather obvious that the US did away with the draft, and resorted to US bombings rather then boots on the ground to reduce US casualties in order to avoid blow back from the American people so they can fight their endless wars. ..."
"... We (and, plausibly, the world) have only one hope – the United States experiences financial destruction before we go much further. The United States has not experienced the horror of war on our own soil for 150 years – during the Civil War. I consider it quite unlikely that the American population will rise up to put a stop to the warmongers now. It will take one of two events to bring the American people to their senses. Either (a) we experience war here in CONUS or (b) our financial system collapses under the stress of massive government debt (currently $20+T and growing with the advent of our nice fat tax cuts) in much the same way that Sparta's did. ..."
In the past 16 years, the U.S. has invaded, occupied and dropped
200,000 bombs and missiles on seven countries,
but it has lost only 6,939 American troops killed and 50,000 wounded in these
wars. To put this in the context of U.S. military history, 58,000 U.S. troops were killed in Vietnam, 54,000 in Korea, 405,000 in
the Second World War and 116,000 in the First World War.
But low U.S. casualties do not mean that our current wars are less violent than previous wars. Our post-2001 wars have probably
killed between 2 and 5 million people
. The use of massive aerial and artillery bombardment has reduced cities like Fallujah, Ramadi, Sirte, Kobane, Mosul and Raqqa to
rubble, and our wars have plunged entire societies into endless violence and chaos.
But by bombing and firing from a distance with very powerful weapons, the U.S. has wreaked all this slaughter and destruction
at an extraordinary low rate of U.S. casualties. The U.S.'s technological war-making has not reduced the violence and horror of war,
but it has "externalized" it, at least temporarily.
But do these low casualty rates represent a kind of "new normal" that the U.S. can replicate whenever it attacks or invades other
countries? Can it keep waging war around the world and remain so uniquely immune from the horrors it unleashes on others?
Or are the low U.S. casualty rates in these wars against relatively weak military forces and lightly armed resistance fighters
giving Americans a false picture of war, one that is enthusiastically embellished by Hollywood and the corporate media?
Even when the U.S. was losing 900-1,000 troops killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan each year from 2004 to 2007, there
was much more public debate and vocal opposition to war than there is now, but those were still historically very low casualty rates.
U.S. military leaders are more realistic than their civilian counterparts. General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, has told Congress that the U.S. plan for war on North Korea is for a
ground invasion of Korea , effectively a Second Korean War. The Pentagon must have an estimate of the number of U.S. troops who
are likely to be killed and wounded under its plan, and Americans should insist that it makes that estimate public before U.S. leaders
decide to launch such a war.
The other country that the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia keep threatening to attack or invade is Iran. President Obama admitted
from the outset that
Iran was the ultimate strategic target of the CIA's proxy war in Syria.
Israeli and Saudi leaders openly threaten war on Iran, but expect the U.S. to fight Iran on their behalf. American politicians
play along with this dangerous game, which could get thousands of their constituents killed. This would flip the traditional U.S.
doctrine of proxy war on its head, effectively turning the U.S. military into a proxy force fighting for the ill-defined interests
of Israel and Saudi Arabia .
Iran is nearly 4 times the size of Iraq, with more than double its population. It has a 500,000 strong military and its decades
of independence and isolation from the West have forced it to develop its own weapons industry, supplemented by some advanced Russian
and Chinese weapons.
In an article about
the prospect of a U.S.
war on Iran , U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen dismissed American politicians' fears of Iran as "alarmism" and called his boss,
Defense Secretary Mattis, "obsessed" with Iran. Sjursen believes that the "fiercely nationalistic" Iranians would mount a determined
and effective resistance to foreign occupation, and concludes, "Make no mistake, U.S. military occupation of the Islamic Republic
would make the occupation of Iraq, for once, actually look like the 'cakewalk' it was billed to be." Is This America's "Phony
War"?
Invading North Korea or Iran could make the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look in hindsight like the German invasions of Czechoslovakia
and Poland must have looked to German troops on the Eastern front a few years later. Only 18,000 German troops were killed in the
invasion of Czechoslovakia and 16,000 in the invasion of Poland. But the larger war that they led to killed 7 million Germans and
wounded 7 million more.
After the deprivations of the First World War reduced Germany to a state of near starvation and drove the German Navy to mutiny,
Adolf Hitler was determined, like America's leaders today, to maintain an illusion of peace and prosperity on the home front. The
newly conquered people of the thousand-year Reich could suffer, but not Germans in the homeland.
Hitler succeeded in maintaining the standard
of living in Germany at about its pre-war level for the first two years of the war, and even began cutting military spending
in 1940 to boost the civilian economy. Germany only embraced a total war economy when its previously all-conquering forces hit a
brick wall of resistance in the Soviet Union. Could Americans be living through a similar "phony war", one miscalculation away from
a similar shock at the brutal reality of the wars we have unleashed on the world?
How would the American public react if far greater numbers of Americans were killed in Korea or Iran – or Venezuela? Or even in
Syria if the U.S. and its allies follow through on their
plan to illegally occupy Syria east of the Euphrates?
And where are our political leaders and jingoistic media leading us with their ever-escalating anti-Russian and anti-Chinese propaganda?
How far will they take their
nuclear brinksmanship ? Would American politicians even know before it was too late if they crossed a point of no return in their
dismantling of Cold War nuclear treaties and escalating tensions with Russia and China?
Obama's doctrine of covert and proxy war was a response to the public reaction to what were in fact historically low U.S. casualties
in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Obama waged war on the quiet,
not war on the cheap . Under cover of
his dovish image, he successfully minimized the public reaction to his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, his proxy wars in Libya,
Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, his global expansion of special operations and drone strikes and a massive bombing campaign in Iraq and
Syria.
How many Americans know that the bombing campaign Obama launched in Iraq and Syria in 2014 has been the heaviest U.S. bombing
campaign anywhere in the world since Vietnam?
Over 105,000 bombs and missiles , as well as indiscriminate
U.S., French and Iraqi rockets
and artillery , have blasted thousands of homes in Mosul, Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi and dozens of smaller towns and villages. As
well as killing thousands of Islamic State fighters, they have probably killed
at least 100,000 civilians
, a systematic war crime that has passed almost without comment in the Western media.
" And It Is Late"
How will the American public react if Trump launches new wars against North Korea or Iran, and the U.S. casualty rate returns
to a more historically "normal" level – maybe 10,000 Americans killed each year, as during the peak years of the American War in
Vietnam, or even 100,000 per year, as in U.S. combat in the Second World War? Or what if one of our many wars finally escalates into
a nuclear war, with a higher U.S. casualty rate than any previous war in our history?
In his classic 1994 book, Century of War ,
the late Gabriel Kolko presciently explained,
"Those who argue that war and preparation for it is not necessary to capitalism's existence or prosperity miss the point entirely:
it simply has not functioned in any other way in the past and there is nothing in the present to warrant the assumption that the
coming decades will be any different "
Kolko concluded,
"But there are no easy solutions to the problems of irresponsible, deluded leaders and the classes they represent, or the
hesitation of people to reverse the world's folly before they are themselves subjected to its grievous consequences. So much remains
to be done – and it is late."
America's deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy beyond bullying and brinksmanship. As they brainwash themselves and the
public with the illusion of war without casualties, they will keep killing, destroying and risking our future until we stop them
– or until they stop us and everything else.
The critical question today is whether the American public can muster the political will to pull our country back from the brink
of an even greater military disaster than the ones we have already unleashed on millions of our neighbors.
Drew Hunkins , March 9, 2018 at 2:30 pm
The whole notion that American soldiers "fight to protect freedom here at home and abroad" is the biggest propaganda accomplishment
in global history.
This line of self delusional reasoning finds favor in the United States because it obviously provides moral and ethical
support to otherwise brutal and imperialist ventures . These bromides about fighting to protect freedom and democracy assuage
the American psyche. If American soldiers never fought for a noble cause, then the human carnage, death, bloodshed, destruction,
genitals getting blown apart, people being disemboweled, children having limbs severed off, parents witnessing kids getting tortured,
etc. would have all been a horror beyond human comprehension. It's absolutely essential that it all be put in some sort of justifiable
apple-pie order, hence the self serving platitudes.
Since the end of WWII Washington militarists (and over the last 30 years their Zionist sidekicks) have committed crimes against
humanity after crimes against humanity after crimes against humanity
geeyp , March 10, 2018 at 3:13 am
"America's deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy", and they know nothing of real war.
stan , March 9, 2018 at 2:32 pm
War is an animal behavior to conquer territory, conquer resources, and conquer people. Anyone who thinks war is fought for
ideas like freedom, democracy, or my personal favorite, freeing someone else's slaves, has been brainwashed by the cultural propaganda
which begins in kindergarten. We were all brought up to believe war is fought for a noble purpose, for an idea. But war is to
conquer the necessities of life.
And there is a difference between war against armies and plain murder of innocent civilians, women, children, and babies. The
latter is just murder, not war. Our "wars" are just mass murder of civilians. The War Party of Lincoln has been invading other
peoples for the last 150 years. Lincoln was the first president of the Republican Party which represents big banks and big business
.
The political parties are business gangsters, just like Al Capone. I don't think Al Capone killed women, children, and
babies.
Joe Tedesky , March 9, 2018 at 2:42 pm
We Americans need to go to the top of the mountain and dig deep into our moral conscience. I will say this that U.S. Army Major
Danny Sjursen to me is a real American. His opinions are based on his reality of his serving in our military, and his questioning
of this all the time any time war ideology is proper and patriotic.
I know I've been harping on this, but with Putin's revealing the Russian weapons achievements, which were all accomplished
on a next to nothing budget got to be making American MIC heads spinning. This isn't good news for an industry who only knows
how to profit, or is it good for the many congressional parasites who are excited to feed of them.
Peace!
john wilson , March 9, 2018 at 3:25 pm
Joe; Americans (and we British) don't have any conscience moral or otherwise. As far as war without casualties goes, I suggest
the writer ask the people of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere if there is such a thing as war without casualties. As far
as Putin's revelations about his new arms equipment go, I suggest the war industry is delighted about this as now they can claim
they need more cash to catch up.
Joe Tedesky , March 9, 2018 at 4:33 pm
John on the subject of Americans with a conscience, we the ones with one are at this moment the citizens who are described
as our being the un-American ones, or at least that's what we are being labeled now a days. I agree more emphasis should be put
on the innocent lives where our two countries have inflicted this pain upon. In that you will find the incubator for terrorist,
and this too our corrupt Deep State (both in the U.S. & U.K) is to them but merely some great job security.
On the subject of American's MIC budget increases, because of Putin's announcement of Russia's new and improved weaponry you
make a strong point that Putin only helped to increase these out of sight MIC budgets, but on the other hand what a 'talking point'
Putin also gave us advocates for defensive spending cuts if you think about it.
In any case the U.S. loss the status of it being the mightiest military, all because of it's military outrageous spending,
and drastic social cuts be damned attitude so as America's quality of life has sunk to new all time low's. Now America is a country
with no there, there to it, when it comes to actually having any hard assets. We now can yell back, 'hey why you spending so much,
Putin doesn't need to' and see how the greedy elite like that. Joe
Dave P. , March 10, 2018 at 4:32 am
Joe,
You wrote: Americans with a conscience who are being described as un-American; yes that is how it is. If I even very softly
try to explain to our social friends that it is not entirely true, and that there is no evidence of what is being said on TV networks
about Russia/ Putin interfering in our 2016 election and destroying our democracy; they tell you in your face what you said, about
being un-American.
I do not know about other people who comment on this websites. But we have social friends, many of them, unlike us, are
in very financially lucrative professions. All their information comes from CNN, MSNBC. They have never read anything about American
History or history of their own country. Many of them do not even know who Thomas Jefferson was. All their time is spent in making
money and finding tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes. And many of them profess to be liberal democrats. This is your new America.
Most Americans, including immigrant citizens have been completely brain-washed. I have come to conclusion that there is no
point in talking to them about these issues. How can you deprogramme these people now?
I do have cousins in Toronto, who understand what we are talking about. I visited Toronto last spring, they have RT channel
there in Toronto, and they often watch it.
Joe Tedesky , March 10, 2018 at 10:38 am
Dave in all my years I have never heard, or experienced quite the confrontational attitudes that I see all around me being
displayed so rudely and openly, as I see today. I blame a lot of this on our MSM's tabloid style of reporting. This is a media
which leaves so much of the news to be disregarded, that it creates a very misinformed public. The 1st Amendment doesn't matter,
as much as a particular persons opinions do. In someways I think certain Americans take pride in shutting down another American
persons opinion from being known. Irritation only aggravates and brings on more irritation.
I never have a definite answer for you Dave, but like you we both need to struggle through this. I love my country, and I want
to help add diverse opinion to make it better, but one person can only do what one person may do. We all need to stay calm and
talk. Joe
Annie , March 9, 2018 at 3:25 pm
It's rather obvious that the US did away with the draft, and resorted to US bombings rather then boots on the ground to
reduce US casualties in order to avoid blow back from the American people so they can fight their endless wars.
I personally find that the American people care little about the lives lost in Muslim and African countries, and one cousin
in response to my mentioning these casualties said all countries engage in "sneaky and underhanded things." I've heard two people,
one coming from a Jewish perspective on Muslims said every single Muslim should be killed, and I asked was she talking about children
as well. Her answer was yes. Another who made the same statement was a former nun. Again I asked, children too? Her answer was
yes. I really don't believe that Americans justify our wars in their own minds because they think we are trying to bring democracy
and a better life to the countries we invade, even though it's the propaganda lie put forward, but they care little about the
death and destruction of the "other." The Me generation more engaged with -self-fulfillment" than social responsibility has a
very non-inclusive perspective on the world, as well as in their own country. Hollywood has certainly encouraged and pushed this
self indulgent attitude as well.
Silly Me , March 10, 2018 at 6:03 am
It doesn't seem to make much difference what people believe, except that if they share it in public (as I am doing it here),
they become easier to manipulate.
Those who have the power to make the decisions couldn't care less about Americans or, for that matter, anyone else.
Bob Van Noy , March 9, 2018 at 3:41 pm
"America's deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy beyond bullying and brinksmanship."
Nicolas J.S. Davies
Thank you Mr. Davies for your excellent essay. It was the simple sentence above that really resonated for me, because it not
only aptly describes the Neocon attitude but as you say, "America's" deluded leaders.
I originally thought this was a G.W. Bush phenomenon, but like a disease, it has spread to our entire government and Media.
I can only hope that it will be possible to change America's mind.
At least we still have Consortiumnews! Thank you
nonsense factory , March 9, 2018 at 4:43 pm
If the United States had wanted a free and independent Vietnam then the 1956 elections would have been allowed to go forward,
all French troops would have been ejected, and the U.S. would have been unconcerned about the election of a highly socialist government
headed by Ho Chi Minh (who, lest we forget, liked to quote the Declaration of Independence as a basis for freeing Vietnam from
French and Japanese colonialism).
Eisenhower, at least, honestly described U.S. aims in 'Indochina' in an Aug 4 1953 speech to the Governor's Conference:
"Let us take, though, for example, one simple problem in the foreign field. You have seen the war in Indochina described
variously as an outgrowth of French colonialism and its French refusal to treat indigenous populations decently. You find it
again described as a war between the communists and the other elements in southeast Asia. But you have a confused idea of where
it is located–Laos, or Cambodia, or Siam, or any of the other countries that are involved. You don't know, really, why we are
so concerned with the far-off southeast corner of Asia."
"If Indochina goes, several things happen right away. The Malayan peninsula, the last little bit of the end hanging on down
there, would be scarcely defensible–and tin and tungsten that we so greatly value from that area would cease coming. . . So,
when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the
cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United
States of America -- our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indonesian territory,
and from southeast Asia."
Honesty from a U.S. President! The U.S. was just going to run a colonial empire as the French and British had before, that
was the post WW-II Washington consensus vision. However, they soon realized that such honesty was bad public relations.
So along came JFK (who ran against Nixon on a non-existent 'missile gap' with the Soviet Union), who preached the virtue of
the humanitarian pro-democracy intervention in the name of freedom line that U.S. presidents have promoted ever since, be it Johnson
or Nixon, Ford or Carter, Reagan and Bush or Clinton and Obama, it's the same PR line. And no, JFK was not going to pull out of
Vietnam, he just thought the puppet regime he installed would be able to control the South Vietnamese and crush any resistance,
as the puppet regime in South Korea had managed to do. Johnson did exactly what JFK would have done as the puppet regime in Saigon
failed to maintain control.
So no, these wars have not been waged to free the suffering locals from oppressive governments, they have been waged to gain
economic advantages and to promote imperial agendas. Of course, the Soviet Union had a similar agenda; the Central Asian Soviet
states were little more than economic colonies that served Moscow's interests.
There were no good guys in the Cold War, just two different sets of greedy little bastards out to pillage the Third World by
any means available, picking up where France and Britain and Germany and Belgium left off after Europe burned itself to the ground.
Zachary Smith , March 9, 2018 at 8:09 pm
The critical question today is whether the American public can muster the political will to pull our country back from the
brink of an even greater military disaster than the ones we have already unleashed on millions of our neighbors.
In my opinion the author made this question relatively meaningless with another observation he wrote previously.
How many Americans know that the bombing campaign Obama launched in Iraq and Syria in 2014 has been the heaviest U.S. bombing
campaign anywhere in the world since Vietnam?
Make that Point #1. They don't know. . The Corporate Media tells us only what it feels we need to know, and only their
version is permitted. Why else would the PropOrNot scheme and others like it be pushed as much as they are?
Point #2 – In the event Americans ever learn, what are the chances they'll give a hoot? People can be "desensitized" – or manipulated
into the belief the victims of the bombings deserved every bit of it. Once again, they must make their decisions based on what
they believe to be the truth. "Russia Invaded Crimea." "Saddam will kill us all with his WMDs very soon." "Syria keeps using poison
gas on its own people." "Israel is both God's Favorite People and the ONLY democracy in the mideast." "The ABM systems surrounding
Russia are there to protect us from Iran and North Korea."
Only after looking at the first two Points can we address the third about American Political Will. But does that one mean a
thing? Consider my case here in Indiana. Fake Democrat Joe Donnelly has NOBODY running against him in the upcoming primary. I'm
going to have the "choice" between a character who votes Republican 95% of the time and a genuine Republican who wouldn't be much
more reliable than that. My vote will be "counted" with an unverifiable electronic device which can be easily manipulated to report
the results the highest bidder (or smartest technicians) want it to say. All of a sudden that Political Will business looks like
a bad joke.
Americans have a declining standard of living. Declining incomes. Yet few of them understand what is happening, for we're constantly
told everything is just great and we're Exceptional in every way imaginable. These days I'm seeing clerks at the check-out trying
to sneak looks at their handheld devices between customers. Those types of people don't have a clue about US wars, and I'd venture
to say a lot of body bags aren't going to trouble them much – if it's nobody they know.
Adolf Hitler was determined, like America's leaders today, to maintain an illusion of peace and prosperity on the home front.
And like Hitler, "America's leaders" are taking steps to keep the peasants happy. Happy with almost unlimited legal and illegal
psycho-drugs. Happy with mostly adequate if crappy food. The obesity epidemic in the US population and US military is due to extremely
high levels of cheap fat and sugar. Again, the peasants aren't informed about the real cost of this. (antibiotic resistance, everything
laced with homones, and the (usually) sterilized shit and other dirt we eat.
Hitler solved the labor problem in Germany by importing slaves by the millions. Guess what the US elites are proposing?
What If You Could Get Your Own Immigrant? was promptly renamed Sponsor An Immigrant Yourself .
Make slavery legal again simply by calling it "sponsored immigration"!
The Saker has another essay up today about the level of "denial" he predicts The Power Elites is going to display about the
end of the Gravy Train. He says they're going to deny it, and keep on trucking with the useless weapons and the extremely profitable
foreign murder rampages.
Newly revealed Russian weapons systems: political implications
Great article and comments -- these are the reason I long ago gave up reading MSM. The MSM doesn't even mention the stats that
are in the article, they just omit KEY concepts and facts, because the MSM readers virtually demand it. I have to most of all
agree with Annie's statement about lack of concern with.'the other' as being probably the major (though not ONLY) underlying cause
of this indifference to the utterly HORRIBLE things the U.S. is doing to certain other countries. But let even ONE person (assuming
it's a white, middle-class person of course) get killed in THIS country by a terrorist bomb, and the MSM and the general public
can barely keep from having apoplexy and we are deluged with outraged commentary about the inhumanity of it all!! (Classic example
was the bomb in Sterling Hall @ UW-Madison in 1970 that truly accidentally killed a person, and the attendent outrage, while at
the SAME TIME we were dropping THOUSANDS of bombs per week (conservatively) in SE Asia with the very definite intention of killing
LOTS of people.)
Skip Scott , March 10, 2018 at 9:50 am
The latte sippers have been lulled into sleep by our MSM, and will not wake until the mushroom clouds appear on the horizon.
Maybe as homage to them our drone pilots should wear pink pussy hats.
Indrid Cold , March 10, 2018 at 11:04 am
Germany didn't invade Czechoslovakia. They supported the declaration of a separatist government of Slovakia in March 1939,
whereupon the Czechoslovakian state imploded and the Germans walked in large unopposed aside from a minor company sized firefight.
Other bits were occupied by Poland (a very aggressive and authoritarian state in those days) and Hungary A bit like Victoria Nuland's
performance in Ukraine.
Jeff , March 10, 2018 at 12:06 pm
We (and, plausibly, the world) have only one hope – the United States experiences financial destruction before we go much
further. The United States has not experienced the horror of war on our own soil for 150 years – during the Civil War. I consider
it quite unlikely that the American population will rise up to put a stop to the warmongers now. It will take one of two events
to bring the American people to their senses. Either (a) we experience war here in CONUS or (b) our financial system collapses
under the stress of massive government debt (currently $20+T and growing with the advent of our nice fat tax cuts) in much the
same way that Sparta's did.
But we'd better hope that it isn't (a) because the argument (that I first heard in the 60's) that we were no longer protected
by the two oceans on either side is bullshit. No other country is going to be able to mount a conventional assault on the US.
They aren't going to be able to do it over the oceans and the only other way is through either Canada or Mexico which is equally
unlikely. The only other choice is nuclear. And that would suck to put it mildly. Aaaannnnd we'd better hope it isn't (b) either.
The current system dates back to the '70s when OPEC jacked the price of oil up and the US didn't have the money to pay for our
consumption (or just about anything else) since we blew all our money trying to bomb Vietnam back to the stone age. That cycle
got us the petrodollar and special drawing rights and it also allowed a succession of Republican presidents to prove that the
Republican party was the borrow and spend party, running up the national debt and getting the power to screw with the rest of
the world through financial sanctions that rely on everybody needing US dollars which are only available from the US. The new
Chinese oil futures exchange that is supposed to open this month will settle in gold backed Yuan. And China is the world's largest
buyer of oil. We'd better hope that the world continues to need the US dollar because if they don't, a lot of countries aren't
going to buy our debt, and if they don't buy our debt, the US dollar becomes less valuable and our standard of living starts to
drop even faster than it already is. And that would really suck too. There is a third option where everybody drops on one knee
and accepts American suzerainty. But I doubt that's likely.
Joe Tedesky , March 10, 2018 at 1:48 pm
I have been saying for a longtime of how the U.S. will sanction other nations into U.S. isolationism. Read this
"... Meet London-based Hakluyt & Co. , founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay huge sums. ..."
"... Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's Henry Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking " ..."
"... When the drunken junior Trump foreign policy adviser George Papodopoulous boasted in a London bar in May 2016 about Russian intelligence operatives peddling hacked emails that were damaging to Clinton, his most interested listener, according to The New York Times , was Alexander Downer, Australian high commissioner to the U.K. ..."
"... The News Corp. Australian Network quoted an unnamed British diplomatic source explaining that Hakluyt "operates in the shadows, it's not exactly open and transparent and so any serving, and that's the difference, serving diplomat with access to sensitive information and insight associating with the group raises a worry in Whitehall." Whitehall is the British government's equivalent to the White House. ..."
"... Downer's continued involvement with Hakluyt locates the shadowy operation in the world of the Clintons. As previously reported by LifeZette, it was Downer in 2006 who as Australian foreign minister signed a memorandum of understanding with Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... Downer is also connected to another firm of great importance in the international intelligence world. That would be China's telecommunications giant Huawei, on whose Australian board he served for several years, beginning in 2011. U.S. intelligence experts have long described Huawei as a tool of Chinese espionage in America. ..."
"... The link between Clinton and Hakluyt is ironic considering the former secretary of state's strong commitment to liberal Democratic environmental causes. Hakluyt's record includes being caught planting spies in Greenpeace and other environmental groups on behalf of energy giants British Petroleum (BP) and Shell. ..."
Fusion GPS has gotten all the headlines. But there was a second, even more powerful and mysterious opposition research and intelligence
firm lurking about with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign
for president against Donald Trump.
Meet London-based Hakluyt & Co. , founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums.
Whereas Fusion GPS was created by three former Wall Street Journal reporters
with links to the U.S. intelligence community, Hakluyt -- with offices in London, New York, Singapore, Tokyo and Sydney -- was founded
by an enterprising trio of former British intelligence operatives with deep connections throughout the world's official and corporate
corridors of power and influence.
Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's
Henry
Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6
[British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking "
The firm's "style appears to be much more in the mold of the Christopher Steele dossier. Clients pay for pages of well-sourced
prose from Hakluyt's contacts across the globe," Williams wrote.
Hakluyt isn't familiar to the American public. But what has become well-known in recent days is the role played by one of the
London firm's most visible figures in drawing the FBI into the world of Trump-Russia collusion allegations, a world largely created
by Steele in the infamous dossier bearing his name.
When the drunken junior Trump foreign policy adviser George Papodopoulous boasted in a London bar in May 2016 about Russian
intelligence operatives peddling hacked emails that were damaging to Clinton, his most interested listener, according to
The New York Times , was Alexander Downer, Australian high commissioner to the U.K.
It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving factors that led the FBI to open an
investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired,"
The Times reported.
Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory board since 2008. Officially, he had
to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network
reported in a January 2016 exclusive:
But it can be revealed Mr. Downer has still been attending client conferences and gatherings of the group, including a client
cocktail soirée at the Orangery at Kensington Palace a few months ago.
His attendance at that event is understood to have come days after he also attended a two-day country retreat at the invitation
of the group, which has been involved in a number of corporate spy scandals in recent times.
The News Corp. Australian Network quoted an unnamed British diplomatic source explaining that Hakluyt "operates in the shadows,
it's not exactly open and transparent and so any serving, and that's the difference, serving diplomat with access to sensitive information
and insight associating with the group raises a worry in Whitehall." Whitehall is the British government's equivalent to the White
House.
Downer's continued involvement with Hakluyt locates the shadowy operation in the world of the Clintons. As previously reported
by LifeZette, it was Downer in 2006 who as Australian foreign minister signed a memorandum of understanding with Bill Clinton and
the Clinton Foundation.
The memorandum committed $25 million from the Australian government to the foundation for HIV/AIDs programs in China, Papua New
Guinea, and Vietnam. A subsequent audit was unable to account for how those funds were spent.
Earlier this year, the FBI asked retired Australian police detective Michael Smith to provide information he uncovered concerning
the 2006 deal -- suggesting the bureau's investigation of the Clinton Foundation is focused on the controversial charity's domestic
and international activities.
Downer is also connected to another firm of great importance in the international intelligence world. That would be China's
telecommunications giant Huawei, on whose Australian board he served for several years, beginning in 2011. U.S. intelligence experts
have long described Huawei as a tool of Chinese espionage in America.
But Downer is not the only Clinton fan in Hakluyt. Federal contribution
records show several of the firm's U.S. representatives made
large contributions to two of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign organizations.
Jonathan Selib of Brooklyn, New York, listed himself as a "consultant" and his employer as Hakluyt when he made four contributions
totaling $3,200 to Hillary for America and one contribution worth $2,350 to the Hillary Victory Fund during the Democratic presidential
primary. Selib also contributed to the congressional campaigns of Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) and John Lewis of Montana. Selib was
formerly chief of staff for Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Another Hakluyt executive, Holly Evans, contributed $500 to Hillary for America the day after Selib's June 27, 2016, donations
to the same Clinton campaign entity. Evans listed Rye, New York, as home and described herself as a Hakluyt "executive." Her résumé
includes stints advising Vice President Dick Cheney and working on the National Security Council during the second Bush administration.
The link between Clinton and Hakluyt is ironic considering the former secretary of state's strong commitment to liberal Democratic
environmental causes.
A third Hakluyt executive, Andrew Exum of Washington, D.C., made multiple contributions to several Democratic congressional candidates,
including Elisa Slotkin in Michigan and Daniel Helmer of Virginia. Exum served as a U.S. Army infantry officer and as former deputy
assistant secretary of defense under then-President Barack Obama. He has also been a contributing editor of Atlantic magazine.
The link between Clinton and Hakluyt is ironic considering the former secretary of state's strong commitment to liberal Democratic
environmental causes. Hakluyt's record includes being caught planting spies in Greenpeace and other environmental groups on behalf
of energy giants British Petroleum (BP) and Shell.
"... Russian officials, already increasingly mad about the allegations, issued a statement following Johnson's declaration calling it "shocking." They further labeled it " an unforgivable breach of diplomatic etiquette ." ..."
Russian officials, already increasingly mad about the allegations, issued a statement following Johnson's declaration calling
it "shocking." They further labeled it "
an unforgivable breach
of diplomatic etiquette ."
British officials have invested heavily in portraying the poisoning as a Russian plot, and have stuck to that despite unwillingness
to present evidence backing up that claim. Russian officials say they were willing to help in the investigation, but Britain clearly
is uninterested in that.
"... The general idea has been to isolate Russia and to make it so hard for anyone to defend Russia. This extends to the media. Whereas lots of articles on Russia and Syria were open to comments in the Guardian and lots of people write and disagree with the constant propaganda it is now rare to have these open to comment. Any questions is always dominated by anti Russia and anti SAG rhetoric. ..."
"... It is a constant psyop that is gathering momentum. I am sure the use of nerve agent is a not so subtle way of linking Russia with what is supposedly happening in Syria. ..."
"... But as we know that the supposed use of chemical weapons is a series of false flags then the same may apply here. ..."
"... So thanks to to the toxic tory blatant propaganda it's now an accepted fact in US Democrats minds that it was the Russians wot done it as they push for tougher sanctions against Russia. ..."
"... just remember it was the usa/uk under bush/blair that had all the info needed to attack iraq in 2003 so much for any lesson learned in any of that, or this at present the political class remain in the gutter serving the military-financial-energy complex of course these special interest groups would have it no other way as war=money what's a few dead people to get in the way of making a killing off the next war, or preparation for war? i heard porton down was given a few $ in the past day or two as well lets keep those chemists busy ..."
I agree with you. But there is more, much more. There was an 8 part drama series on the. BBC called McMafia showing how criminality
including arms and narcotics and so on, is closely linked to the Russian state. Then there was a series of very superficial BBC
programmes, one on Putin as a new Tsar (sic) and the other on the elections with a spotlight on Navalny. Radio 4 is constantly
almost daily talking about Russian aggression and of course there is the vilification of Russian athletes and the drugs.
The general idea has been to isolate Russia and to make it so hard for anyone to defend Russia. This extends to the media.
Whereas lots of articles on Russia and Syria were open to comments in the Guardian and lots of people write and disagree with
the constant propaganda it is now rare to have these open to comment. Any questions is always dominated by anti Russia and anti
SAG rhetoric.
It is a constant psyop that is gathering momentum. I am sure the use of nerve agent is a not so subtle way of linking Russia
with what is supposedly happening in Syria.
But as we know that the supposed use of chemical weapons is a series of false flags then the same may apply here.
"The sanctions today are a grievous disappointment, and fall far short of what is needed to respond to that attack on our democracy,
let alone deter Russia's escalating aggression, which now includes a chemical weapons attack on the soil of our closest ally,"
Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee said in a statement.
So thanks to to the toxic tory blatant propaganda it's now an accepted fact in US Democrats minds that it was the Russians
wot done it as they push for tougher sanctions against Russia.
There might just be an answer to the cui bono question somewhere in there. Just maybe, but I'm not rushing to judgement!
just remember it was the usa/uk under bush/blair that had all the info needed to attack iraq in 2003 so much for any lesson
learned in any of that, or this at present the political class remain in the gutter serving the military-financial-energy complex
of course these special interest groups would have it no other way as war=money what's a few dead people to get in the way of
making a killing off the next war, or preparation for war? i heard porton down was given a few $ in the past day or two as well
lets keep those chemists busy
The first time I realized how low things would likely get was when Ruth Marcus, deputy editor of the Washington Post
, sent out the following tweet in
March of 2017, squealing with delight at the thought of a new Cold War with the world's other nuclear superpower: "So excited to
be watching The Americans, throwback to a simpler time when everyone considered Russia the enemy. Even the president."
Not only did Marcus's comment imply that it was great for the U.S. to have an enemy, but it specifically implied that there was
something particularly great about that enemy being Russia.
Since then, the public discourse has only gotten nastier. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – who notoriously
perjured himself before Congress about warrantless spying on Americans –
stated on Meet the Press last
May that Russians were uniquely and "genetically" predisposed toward manipulative political activities. If Clapper or anyone else
in the public eye had made such a statement about Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, Jews, Israelis, Chinese or just about any other group,
there would have been some push-back about the prejudice that it reflected and how it didn't correspond with enlightened liberal
values. But Clapper's comment passed with hardly a peep of protest.
More recently, John Sipher , a retired CIA station
chief who reportedly spent years in Russia – although at what point in time is unclear – was interviewed in Jane Mayer's recent New
Yorker
piece
trying to spin the Steele Dossier as somehow legitimate. On March 6, Sipher took to Twitter with the following
comment : "How can one not be a Russophobe?
Russia soft power is political warfare. Hard power is invading neighbors, hiding the death of civilians with chemical weapons and
threatening with doomsday nuclear weapons. And they kill the opposition at home. Name something positive."
In fairness to Sipher, he did backpedal somewhat after being challenged; however, the fact that his unfiltered blabbering reveals
such a deep antipathy toward Russians ("How can one not be a Russophobe?") and an initial assumption that he could get away with
saying it publicly is troubling.
Glenn Greenwald re-tweeted with a comment asking if Russians would soon acceptably be referred to as "rats and roaches." Another
person replied with: "Because they are
rats and roaches. What's the problem?"
This is just a small sampling of the anti-Russian comments and attitudes that pass, largely unremarked upon, in our media landscape.
There are, of course, the larger institutional influencers of culture doing their part to push anti-Russian bigotry in this already
contentious atmosphere. Red Sparrow , both the
book and the
movie , detail the escapades of a female
Russian spy. The story propagates the continued fetishization of Russian women based on the stereotype that they're all hot and frisky.
Furthermore, all those who work in Russian intelligence are evil and backwards rather than possibly being motivated by some kind
of patriotism, while all the American intel agents are paragons of virtue and seem like they just stepped out of an ad for Nick at
Nite's How to be Swell .
The recent Academy Awards continued their politically motivated trend of awarding Oscars for best documentary to films on topics
that just happen to coalesce nicely with Washington's latest adversarial policy. Last year it was the White Helmets film
to support the regime change meme in Syria. This year it's Icarus about the doping scandal in Russia.
Aaron Maté of The Real News joins Scott to discuss two of his latest pieces for The
Nation, " Hyping the Mueller
Indictment " and " What We've
Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate ." Maté explains why he thinks the Trump-Russia
collusion case is much ado about nothing and how Trump's pre-election attempts to de-escalate
tensions with Russia have been misconstrued as collusion. Scott and Maté then discuss
how the centrist left, with the help of Facebook and corporate media, is using the Russiagate
conspiracy to double down on the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic party.
Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said today that a highly anticipated report from
the DOJ's Inspector General Michael Horowitz will contain " some pure TNT. " Horowitz has been
investigating the conduct of the FBI's top brass surrounding the 2016 election for over a year.
He also uncovered over 50,000
text messages between two anti-Trump / pro-Clinton FBI employees directly involved in the
exoneration of Clinton and the counterintelligence operation launched against the Trump
campaign.
Swecker: " The behavior if it's manifested in the action with your thumb on the scale of a
particular investigation, one way or the other, that's borderline criminal behavior --
manipulating an investigation. I think this IG report is going to be particularly impactful,
more so than any of these useless congressional investigations. I think you're going to see
some pure TNT come out in this IG report."
The Inspector General's report is thought to include evidence of outgoing Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe ordering agents to alter "302" forms - the paperwork an agent files
after interviewing someone.
Horowitz is also reportedly homing in on McCabe's handling of the Anthony Weiner laptop
after reports emerged that he wanted to avoid taking action on the FBI's findings until after
the 2016 election.
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has been asking witnesses why FBI leadership
seemed unwilling to move forward on the examination of emails found on the laptop of former
congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)until late October -- about three weeks after first being
alerted to the issue , according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to
discuss the sensitive matter. A key question of the internal investigation is whether McCabe
or anyone else at the FBI wanted to avoid taking action on the laptop findings until after
the Nov. 8 election , these people said. It is unclear whether the inspector general has
reached any conclusions on that point. - WaPo
In January, Fox's Sean Hannity sat down with journalist Sara Carter - who shed light on the
McCabe situation, saying that FBI Director Christopher Wray was "
shocked to his core " after reading the GOP-authored "FISA" memo describing FBI malfeasance
surrounding the 2016 U.S. election:
Carter: What we know tonight is that FBI Director Christopher Wray went Sunday and
reviewed the four-page FISA memo. The very next day, Andrew McCabe was asked to resign.
Remember Sean, he was planning on resigning in March - that already came out in December.
This time they asked him to go right away. You're not coming into the office. I've heard
rep[orts he didn't even come in for the morning meeting - that he didn't show up.
Hannity: A source of mine told me tonight that when Wray read this, it shocked him to his
core.
Sara Carter: Shocked him to his core, and not only that, the Inspector General's report -
I have been told tonight by a number of sources, there's indicators right now that McCabe may
have asked FBI agents to actually change their 302's - those are their interviews with
witnesses. So basically every time an FBI agent interviews a witness, they have to go back
and file a report.
Hannity: Changes? So that would be obstruction of justice?
Carter: Exactly . This is something the Inspector General is investigating. If this is
true and not alleged, McCabe will be fired. I heard they are considering firing him within
the next few days if this turns out to be true .
Meanwhile, several Republican Senators are asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to order a
special counsel to probe the FBI's conduct during its investigation into Russian meddling in
the 2016 presidential election - including the use of the "Steele dossier" in seeking a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against former Trump Campaign advisor Carter Page.
The letter marks the second formal request by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The request comes amid controversy over Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe's pension - which
is in jeopardy after the Department of Justice's internal watchdog found enough evidence of
malfeasance to recommend firing McCabe immediately.
The letter also notes that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who
they have the "utmost confidence" in, " does not have the tools that a prosecutor would to
gather all the facts, such as the ability to obtain testimony from essential witnesses who are
not current DOJ employees ."
Senators Chuck Grassley Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and
John Cornyn (Texas), signed a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions as well as Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to name a special counsel who can "gather all the facts."
"We believe that a special counsel is needed to work with the Inspector General to
independently gather the facts and make prosecutorial decisions, if any are merited. The
Justice Department cannot credibly investigate itself without these enhanced measures of
independence," wrote the senators.
See the letter below, and click on the tweet for more background on the ongoing
investigation from Nick Short of the Security Studies Group.
As Chuck Ross of the
Daily Caller points out, the letter also "broke a bit of news":
It reveals that Bruce Ohr, the former deputy assistant attorney general, was interviewed
12 separate times by the FBI in 2016 and 2017.
Ohr was in contact with Steele prior to the 2016 election. And shortly after the election,
Ohr was in contact with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS , the opposition research
firm that hired Steele to investigate Trump.
Ohr's wife, a Russia expert named Nellie Ohr, also happened to be working as a contractor
for Fusion GPS for its Trump investigation.
Senate Judiciary Republicans want to know whether the FBI and DOJ were aware of that
relationship.
The committee letter lists all of Ohr's FBI interviews, which were summarized on what's
known as a FD-302 document. The first interview with Ohr was conducted on November, 22, 2016.
The most recent occurred on May 15, 2017. -
Daily Caller
The DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced in January that it was opening a
probe of the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation. Meanwhile, Attorney General
Jeff Sessions asked the OIG to explore whether FBI officials abused their authority when they
used an unverified and salacious dossier from Fusion GPS to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter
Page.
That said, Sessions has resisted repeated calls for a second Special Counsel.
Graham and Grassley also asked the OIG to look into the FBI's conduct while handling the
Russia probe, writing in a February letter:
"We respectfully request that you conduct a comprehensive review of potential improper
political influence, misconduct, or mismanagement in the conduct of the counterintelligence and
criminal investigations related to Russia and individuals associated with (1) the Trump
campaign, (2) the Presidential transition, or (3) the administration prior to the appointment
of Special Counsel Robert Mueller."
The Senators also noted in their Thursday letter that if the DOJ declines to appoint a
second special counsel, they want " a detailed reply explaining why not. "
"... Many trails point to the fact that Russia is responsible ..."
"... It certainly looks like the Russians were behind it. Something that should never ever happen and we're taking it very seriously as I think are many others. ..."
"... There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter." ..."
"... our quarrel is with Putin's Kremlin, and with his decision, and we think it overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the UK for the first time since the Second World War ..."
"... (That is assuming it was indeed Novichok, since Britain is being close-handed about sharing the data with Russian authorities.) ..."
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov plainly stated that to refuse this assistance is a
direct violation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention which states that the country suspected of being the place of origin of
a toxic agent is to be contacted first in the event of that agent's use.
One would wonder "why not?" At least one ought to.
But in the meantime, Russia is not taking this matter lying down. More, there is even a bit
of humor.
The temperature of relations drops to
-2 -3, but we are not afraid of cold weather. pic.twitter.com/mand9YyoaE
Firstly, Moscow has opened its own investigation into the attempted murders of the Skripals
on its own. In addition, they have also opened an investigation into the suspected murder of
Nikolay Glushkov, a Russian businessman, which also happened in London.
And of course,
when asked by a reporter from Reuters if Moscow would expel British diplomats, Foreign
Minister Lavrov smiled and said, "We will, of course."
Even US President Donald Trump is seen by some news agencies to be "joining the dogpile"
against Russia, though as it has been noted elsewhere here on The Duran , Mr. Trump's
response suggests very tacit agreement, but in such a way as to leave plenty of opening, as the
American president seems to have a cooler approach to this matter.
The primary allegation has this sort of structure:
" Many trails point to the fact that Russia is responsible ." – German
Chancellor Angela Merkel
" It certainly looks like the Russians were behind it. Something that should never
ever happen and we're taking it very seriously as I think are many others. " – US
President Donald Trump
" There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable
for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter." – UK Prime Minister
Theresa May
" our quarrel is with Putin's Kremlin, and with his decision, and we think it
overwhelmingly likely that it was his decision to direct the use of a nerve agent on the
streets of the UK for the first time since the Second World War " – UK Foreign
Minister Boris Johnson
But again these are allegations, and there is no conclusive evidence that verifies any of
this aside from the point that Novichok was used. (That is assuming it was indeed Novichok,
since Britain is being close-handed about sharing the data with Russian authorities.) At
best this is circumstantial evidence leading to a wild assumption, and at worst it is
conjecture much like that which has been the banner topic in the United States for 16 months
concerning Russia and Donald Trump's election.
All words, no facts. Makes a person feel a bit like this man
"... For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his own party. ..."
"... he British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. ..."
"... JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators? ..."
"... My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man. It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. ..."
"... So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say, no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to come next. ..."
"... Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore. ..."
"... Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right. ..."
"... And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics. ..."
"... The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo massacre ..."
"... With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity. ..."
For requesting evidence of Russian culpability in the poisoning of former
spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, UK Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been denounced by PM Theresa May and even members of his
own party. We discuss the case with Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at New York University and Princeton
AARON MATÉ: It's The Real News. I'm Aaron Maté. Ties between Russia and the West are at their lowest point since The Cold War,
and a new spat over a poisoning in Britain has sunk them even lower. The British government is blaming Russia for the poisoning of
former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the British town of Salisbury.
The two remain in critical condition after ingesting what the British government says is a military-grade nerve agent made by
Russia. The British government demanded that Russia offer an explanation, but then rejected a Russian request to share a sample of
the nerve agent that was used in the poisoning. Speaking today in parliament, British Prime Minister Theresa May said Russia's response
so far proves their culpability.
THERESA MAY: There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of
Mr. Skripal and his daughter. And for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant
Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. And as I set out on Monday,
it has taken place against the backdrop of a well established pattern of Russian state aggression across Europe and beyond. It
must therefore, be met with a full and robust response, beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr. Litvinenko
and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.
AARON MATÉ: As part of the measures against Russia, May announced the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats, the single biggest such
expulsion in three decades. That drew a response from Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, who pressed May to hand over evidence.
JEREMY CORBYN: Our response must be both decisive and proportionate, and based on clear evidence. If the government believes
that it is still a possibility that Russia negligently lost control of a military grade nerve agent, what action is being taken
through the OPCW with our allies? I welcome the fact the police are working with the OPCW, and has the prime minister taken the
necessary steps under the Chemical Weapons Convention to make a formal request for evidence from the Russian government under
Article 9.2? How has she responded to the Russian government's request for a sample of the agent used in the Salisbury attack
to run its own tests? Has high resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve agent? And has that revealed any evidence
as to the location of its production or the identity of its perpetrators?
AARON MATÉ: The dispute over the poisoning has gotten so serious, that there has been speculation of NATO invoking Article 5,
which bounds member states to defend others in the event of an attack. So far, Downing Street has tamped down talk of Article 5,
but Theresa May has been summoning support from key allies, including the US
Joining me is professor Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton. Welcome, Professor
Cohen.
You have been warning for a long time that we are in the midst of a new Cold War. What are your thoughts today as you see now
tensions escalating between Britain and Russia, with now Britain ordering the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats following the expulsions
that have happened in the US to Russian diplomats as a result of the Russiagate controversy?
STEPHEN COHEN: My first reaction having listened to the clip you played by Jeremy Corbyn is that's one very courageous man.
It's not clear even his own Labour Party supports what he said. In the essence of what he said is Theresa May has no evidence,
and yet she's prepared to ratchet up already a bad relationship with Russia based on this. They haven't produced any evidence. Let's
put it like that. This alarms me because, I've said this before on your broadcast, but it's almost never said in the mainstream and
it's hard to get an American discussion of it, is that whether we call our relationship with Russia a new cold war or not, it certainly
is. The point is it's so much more dangerous than the preceding Cold War. I could even argue that the situation today is in some
ways more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So, I kind of quarrel with your opening sentence that relations are as bad as they've been since the end of the Cold War. I say,
no they're worse than they were during the Cold War. I jotted down just a few reasons. Let me just rattle them off and then we'll
get to this, any other event you want to talk about. The reason this new Cold War is more dangerous is we already have three fronts
that are fraught with hot war. That's where the NATO buildup in the North Baltic and the Black Sea, Ukraine, and Syria. Remember
in Syria, it appears to be the case that American proxies have already killed Russian citizens. So, we don't know what's going to
come next.
Secondly, two of these fronts are directly on Russia's borders, not in Berlin as was the case during the preceding Cold War, right
on Russia's borders in the Baltic region and in Ukraine. Thirdly, there has been such demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin,
unlike anything that was the case during the old Cold War with Kremlin communist leaders, and along with it a kind of a Russophobic
attack on Russia itself the old Cold War was about communism. This one seems to be about Russia just in general. And then you get
this lightning speed of news as with this nerve agent, with people weighing in without any authority or any knowledge, very very
quickly, and it's spreading before anybody has a time has time to reflect, and think, an actual expert opinion come to the fore.
AARON MATÉ: One person who has been pillared in the media today is Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader who we heard from before.
And I wanna play more of his speech of his comments today, to the British parliament.
JEREMY CORBYN: And while suspending planned high level contact, does the prime minister agree that it is essential to maintain
a robust dialogue with Russia in the interest of our own and wider international security?
AARON MATÉ: That's Jeremy Corbyn speaking today, calling today for. "a robust dialogue with Russia." So, Professor Cohen, for
saying that, Corbyn was widely mocked, including by members of his own party. I'm wondering if you can comment on that, the import
of that, not just for this specific case, but overall, this attitude towards having dialogue, calling for dialogue with Russia being
somehow worthy of scorn and contempt.
... ... ...
STEPHEN COHEN: But I've heard some of these people saying privately that we need this, but I don't hear them saying it publicly.
Look, I did live in England and get educated there partly many, many years ago, and I followed British politics. So, I don't have
great authority, but two things come to mind. Theresa May is, perhaps, among the weakest prime ministers in modern history. She's
holding on for dear life. Jeremy Corbyn is an extraordinary figure. His party, his Labour Party, which is not very good on Russia
related issues either, didn't approve of what he said. But he said the right thing. He said, "There's no evidence. While we search
for evidence, we need to continue a robust dialogue with Russia." That's exactly right.
And whether he'll prevail or not, I don't know, but it is interesting, isn't it, that unlike in the United States, the leader
of the opposition, which is what Corbyn is, and potentially a prime minister, is setting himself against this reckless Cold War behavior
on the part of the British government. All I can say is I wish we had such a person in American high politics.
AARON MATÉ: Well, that's a good segue to the next part of our discussion where we're gonna talk more about the role right now
of Russiagate in US politics. Professor Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York
University, thank you.
And thank you for joining us on The Real News.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at New York University and Princeton University.
The latest in a continuing campaign of fear and violence, staged for a hapless public, designed to lend legitimacy to authoritarianism
and fascism foisted upon our domestic population; brought to you by the same Fear Inc. that capitalized on the Charlie Hebdo
massacre (See Youtube | StormCloudsGathering | 02m:43s " Charlie Hebdo Shootings - Censored Video " [
https://youtu.be/yJEvlKKm6og ])
With such careless rush to judgement, circumventing due process, as has been demonstrated time and again by a class
of corrupt and covetous warmongers posing as public officials and their equally corrupt mainstream propaganda machine, literally
everything uttered by the likes of Teresa May and her cohort of psychopathic political charlatans must be viewed with incredulity.
"... A former KGB officer told The Daily Beast that Western assumptions that these deadly concoctions must have been devised and authorized by the state showed a deep misunderstanding of Russia. ..."
"... Vassiliev, who became a KGB historian after retiring from the service, said the deaths of Skripal's wife, son and brother in recent years made this look more like a mafia revenge attack than a Kremlin-sanctioned mission. ..."
The Porton Down facility has been home to Britain's defense and technology research since reports emerged from First World War
battlefields that the Germans had killed 140 British soldiers with chlorine gas in January 1915. Coincidentally, the highly secretive
facility is located on the outskirts of Salisbury, just seven miles from where former Russian military intelligence colonel Sergei
Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found on Sunday.
Samples were being analyzed within hours of the discovery after local police began to feel a physical reaction and officers raced
to shut down the areas of contamination. Witnesses reported seeing the victims unconscious, with their eyes rolled back, and foaming
at the mouth.
Skripal and his daughter were isolated immediately. About 24 hours after the attack, it was determined that they were suffering
from some sort of nerve agent in their system. While Skripal has stabilized, his daughter remains in critical condition; both are
being treated in the intensive care unit, along with a police officer who was called to investigate this mysterious illness.
Based on their symptoms and the contamination patterns, scientists who spoke to The Daily Beast are convinced this was a nerve
agent attack and not radiation exposure, a cyanide attack, or a biological weapon.
"In these recent cases, the symptoms described like frothing at the mouth, vomiting, convulsions and coma -- that's more likely
a nerve agent," said Timothy Erickson , chief of
medical toxicology at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital and faculty at Harvard Medical School. Erickson published a
paper last year in the journal
Toxicology Communications about last the
fatal
February 2017 attack on Kim Jong Nam , the half-brother of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, which used VX -- short for "Venomous
agent X."
VX was invented by British biological warfare experts at Porton Down, the very same facility where tests are underway this week.
Sarin and VX -- dangerous neurochemicals that disrupt nerve-organ messaging and shut down basic bodily functions -- are the most
popular of the agents, but others with similar properties do exist.
A senior intelligence source told the BBC that it is believed sarin and VX were not the agents used, posing the question: What
was used instead and what can that tell us about the source?
Around World War II, Nazi scientists synthesized an entire "G-class" of nerve agents that not only included sarin, but also soman,
cyclosarin, and tabun, variants that also debilitate the nervous system.
They were discovered accidentally
while manufacturing pesticides , which can have similar effects on humans, but they remain extremely difficult to produce.
Mark Bishop , a chemical weapons specialist
in nonproliferation at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, said that producing them requires
a technical capacity and scientific know-how that isn't possible in many places. "It's tricky," Bishop said. "It requires a pretty
high level of expertise for producing chemicals."
Bishop said it was possible but highly unlikely that the Russians had developed a totally new nerve agent. "They're probably making
an attempt [to create other nerve agents], but it's tough. There's no real incentive to create a new nerve agent -- they already
work so well. The only motivation to create a new one would be if they wanted them to not be identified as chemicals or to fly under
the radar."
One option that is unlikely but potentially alarming is that Russia has finally succeeded in its Soviet era mission to create
a new class of nerve agents referred to as novichoks
whose molecules were not detectable through modern lab testing methods. "They tried to keep it a secret, and there's pretty skimpy
evidence that it was happening," Bishop cautioned. "But it's an interesting possibility that would point directly to the Russians."
No matter what substance was used, conclusively tracing the orders back to the Kremlin will prove difficult.
... ... ...
Judging by the rush to secure Skripal's home, the restaurant where he shared lunch with his daughter, the pub where they retired
afterwards, and the hospital where they were treated, it seems there were fears that contaminated footprints were indeed being left
along the way.
...The police officer, Nick Bailey, who was affected later at second-hand was so severely afflicted that he had to be treated
in intensive care, although he is now conscious and talking.
The weapons experts at Porton Down will be examining every molecule and the patterns of the substance's distribution around Salisbury
in the hope that they can find a specific chemical signature that will allow this agent to be traced back to its source.
... ... ...
A former KGB officer told The Daily Beast that Western assumptions that these deadly concoctions must have been devised and
authorized by the state showed a deep misunderstanding of Russia.
"People actually underestimate the level of corruption in Russia -- any Russian will tell you that the corruption is so high that
you can get anything, anything you want," said Alexander Vassiliev. "You want polonium? You get it -- just pay the money."
Vassiliev, who became a KGB historian after retiring from the service, said the deaths of Skripal's wife, son and brother
in recent years made this look more like a mafia revenge attack than a Kremlin-sanctioned mission.
"I was a cadet in the KGB spy school exactly at the time when Putin was -- we had the same training, we had the same instructors,
we had the same textbooks, so I always have an idea about how he is thinking," he said. "Intelligence services in civilized countries
don't do revenge -- emotions shouldn't have a place in espionage -- it's not like two guys got drunk in Moscow, decided to go to
Britain and kill a traitor, it doesn't work like that."
"Of course, he was a traitor -- he committed high treason. In the Soviet Union he would have been executed, definitely," said
Vassiliev. "But you only want to kill someone in espionage if you expect this guy to bring further damage to your country or your
intelligence agency."
Where Vassiliev, the scientific community and the British authorities all agree, is on the brazenness of this attack, which could
never have gone unnoticed.
Bishop, the weapons expert in California, said the failure to immediately kill the targets -- and incidental poisoning of 21 people
-- suggested that this was a sloppy job. "Nerve agents are pretty potent, and you don't need a high concentration to kill someone,"
he said. "It's really surprising that they're still alive. Either it was not a potent nerve agent or it was not administered efficiently
or it was impure and the proper concentration was not transferred."
Vassiliev agreed. "Generally it doesn't look like a special service operation because the whole thing was done in the daylight,
as far as I understand. On the other hand you can never be sure about it because many things can go wrong, there could have been
a mistake -- no secret agent is perfect."
"... Sessions noted that both the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz as well as the FBI's disciplinary office had found "that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions. " ..."
"... Horowitz found that McCabe had authorized two FBI officials to talk to then-Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett for a story about the case and another investigation into Clinton's family foundation. Barrett now works for The Washington Post. - WaPo ..."
"... Former FBI officials tell CNN that McCabe could also lose out on future health care coverage in his retirement , but the "most significant 'damage' to a separated FBI employee is: loss of lifetime medical benefits for self and family," tweeted CNN law enforcement analyst James A. Gagliano, a retired FBI supervisory special agent. ..."
"... McCabe responded to his ouster, saying that his firing, along with negative comments by President Trump were meant to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, reported the New York Times . ..."
"... The Inspector General's report is thought to include evidence of outgoing Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe ordering agents to alter "302" forms - the paperwork an agent files after interviewing someone. ..."
"... Plenty of very hard-working Americans working in private industry have put in years and years and been fired or "downsized" or "rightsized" or "reorganized out of a job" for no reason other than the organization wanted to decrease costs and show a quarterly profit. ..."
"... Bet Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are wondering about their jobs, not to mention prison... ..."
"... What McCabe did should be taken to court; however, Session was trying to save his neck and made a wrong decision. ..."
"... Firing a person 1 day before retirement is dead wrong. Why? Because Session's ass is a target. The whole Trump administration has no plan to win against Germany and China. Now, his team has lost support from the majority of the Government employees. ..."
After a long day of what seemed like the swamp protecting one of their dirtiest creatures,
Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, just over 24
hours before he was set to retire and claim his full pension benefits.
McCabe turns 50 on Sunday - the earliest he would have been eligible for his full retirement
benefits.
Sessions noted that both the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz as well
as the FBI's disciplinary office had found "that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure
to the news media and lacked candor - including under oath - on multiple occasions. "
So, McCabe was involved in leaks and he lied under oath.
Horowitz found that McCabe had authorized two FBI officials to talk to then-Wall Street
Journal reporter Devlin Barrett for a story about the case and another investigation into
Clinton's family foundation. Barrett now works for The Washington Post. -
WaPo
" I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately ," said Sessions,
who said he based his decision on the findings.
While the move will probably cost McCabe a significant portion of his retirement benefits ,
he could challenge it in court.
Former FBI officials tell
CNN that McCabe could also lose out on future health care coverage in his retirement , but
the "most significant 'damage' to a separated FBI employee is: loss of lifetime medical
benefits for self and family," tweeted CNN law enforcement analyst James A. Gagliano, a retired
FBI supervisory special agent.
The FBI's OPR then reviewed the report and underlying documents and issued a disciplinary
proposal recommending the dismissal of Mr. McCabe. Both the OIG and FBI OPR reports concluded
that Mr. McCabe had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor -
including under oath - on multiple occasions.
The FBI expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity,
and accountability. As the OPR proposal stated, "all FBI employees know that lacking candor
under oath results in dismissal and that our integrity is our brand."
Pursuant to Department Order 1202, and based on the report of the Inspector General, the
findings of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility, and the recommendation of the
Department's senior career official, I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe
effective immediately.
McCabe responded to his ouster, saying that his firing, along with negative comments by
President Trump were meant to undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation,
reported the New York
Times .
"The idea that I was dishonest is just wrong," said McCabe, adding, " This is part of an
effort to discredit me as a witness. "
Mr. McCabe was among the first at the F.B.I. to scrutinize possible Trump campaign ties to
Russia. And he is a potential witness to the question of whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct
justice. Mr. Trump has taunted Mr. McCabe both publicly and privately, and Republican allies
have cast him as the center of a "deep state" effort to undermine the Trump presidency. -
NYT
While McCabe's firing is directly related to the disclosure of sensitive information to the
media about the Clinton email investigation, the former Deputy Director took a leave of absence
in January amid a heated controversy over the FBI's conduct surrounding the 2016 election.
In December, The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has discovered
that edits made to former FBI Director James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary Clinton for
transmitting classified info over an unsecured, private email server
went far beyond what was previously known - as special agents operating under McCabe
changed various language which effectively decriminalized Clinton's behavior.
McCabe's team also conducted a counterintelligence operation to investigate the Trump
campaign, in which they used an unverified dossier and were not forthright with the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) over its political origins,
in violation of FBI policy.
As revelations of FBI misconduct spiraled out of control last year, President Trump noted
that McCabe was "racing the clock to retire with full benefits."
The Inspector General's report is thought to include evidence of outgoing Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe ordering agents to alter "302" forms - the paperwork an agent files
after interviewing someone.
18 U.S. Code § 1622 - Subornation of perjury
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Plenty of very hard-working Americans working in private industry have put in years and
years and been fired or "downsized" or "rightsized" or "reorganized out of a job" for no
reason other than the organization wanted to decrease costs and show a quarterly profit.
So....McCabe breaks the law and does all this slimey stuff and then wants a full pension ,
starting at age 50 .....hmmmm...... it's hard to find a lot of sympathy for this guy.
Jeff Sessions has long stated he believes in the "Law of the Land". We can't have
two-tiered justice in America yet we do see it. The below link lays out the timeline pretty well through discovery by JW suit.
What McCabe did should be taken to court; however, Session was trying to save his neck and
made a wrong decision.
Firing a person 1 day before retirement is dead wrong. Why? Because Session's ass is a
target. The whole Trump administration has no plan to win against Germany and China. Now, his
team has lost support from the majority of the Government employees.
Good luck getting people to do things. And he better hopes because those employees know
more that one covert way to stress out the process.
"... And now that Berezovsky is dead who is more dodgy than his comrade-in-arms Bill Browder whose spectral image keeps flickering in the background of this whole Russiagate hysteria. This is the same Bill Browder who has already succeeded in poisoning relations between Russia and the West with his successful lobbying for the Magnetsky Act. He succeeded despite strong objections from the Obama administration which, at that time, was attempting a reset in relations with Russia. In other words Browder had more of an impact in the shaping American foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia than Obama and his State Dept. ..."
"... Browder has been the driving force behind the implementation of the so-called Magnetsky Amendment into the Criminal Finances bill, which has been making its way through Parliament since December. It has been met with some resistance. ..."
"... In the American edition of Russiagate one also gets glimpses of Browder's machinations. In August in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Glenn Simpson, a Fusion co-founder (Fusion had hired Christopher Steele), testified that Browder "was willing to, you know, hand stuff off to the DOJ anonymously in the beginning and cause them to launch a court case against somebody ," but that he wasn't interested "in speaking under oath about, you know, why he did that, his own activities in Russia." ..."
"... Which begs the question of whether Browder was covertly involved in the production and dissemination of the infamous Steele dossier. ..."
"Perhaps it is time to realise that if your country becomes a haven for dodgy people like
Berezovsky then dodgy things are likely to happen."
And now that Berezovsky is dead who is more dodgy than his comrade-in-arms Bill Browder
whose spectral image keeps flickering in the background of this whole Russiagate hysteria. This
is the same Bill Browder who has already succeeded in poisoning relations between Russia and
the West with his successful lobbying for the Magnetsky Act. He succeeded despite strong
objections from the Obama administration which, at that time, was attempting a reset in
relations with Russia. In other words Browder had more of an impact in the shaping American
foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia than Obama and his State Dept.
In what turns out to be an onimous bit of foreshdowing, a November 2017 Vesti news report on
Bill Browder concluded with "...( Browder) will speak in the British Parliament to convince
lawmakers to increase sanctions against Russia". (h/t to integer from previous thread) And in
an uncanny coincidence the Skripals are poisoned shortly before Browder began giving testimony
to a UK Commons select committee where he stated it was a "Kremlin hit" and "I believe they
want to kill me. They haven't figured out a way yet where they can kill me and get away with
it." As The Times put it: "Since he said that, suspicions have deepened that the Russian state
was behind the poisoning..."
Browder has been the driving force behind the implementation of the so-called Magnetsky
Amendment into the Criminal Finances bill, which has been making its way through Parliament
since December. It has been met with some resistance.
"A "Magnitsky Amendment"...has been added to the Criminal Finances bill, which aims to clamp
down on money-laundering and terror financing.
and
...the initiative could strain Britain's relations with Moscow,...at a time when prime minister
Theresa May has said she is open to improving ties.
and
...successive British governments have resisted efforts by Mr Browder's campaign to persuade
them to introduce legislation.
Now, as a consequence of the Skripal poisoning, not only are new sanctions imposed on Russia
but according to The Telegraph:
"The attempted murder of a former Russian spy in Salisbury has given fresh impetus to plans
to introduce a UK version of the so-called "Magnitsky Act"....Senior Conservatives campaigning
for the move said ministers had agreed to implement "Magnitsky amendments" into the Sanctions
Bill currently in the Commons."
So game, set and match. Coincidence???
In the American edition of Russiagate one also gets glimpses of Browder's machinations. In
August in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Glenn Simpson, a Fusion co-founder
(Fusion had hired Christopher Steele), testified that Browder "was willing to, you know,
hand stuff off to the DOJ anonymously in the beginning and cause them to launch a court case
against somebody ," but that he wasn't interested "in speaking under oath about, you know,
why he did that, his own activities in Russia."
Which begs the question of whether Browder was covertly involved in the production and
dissemination of the infamous Steele dossier.
First Steele dossier. Now Skripals.. What's next ?
Notable quotes:
"... But even to an outsider, and even if we take it all at face value, that official account of the Wiltshire poisoning is nowhere near solid enough to justify the steps taken. "If you have a weak argument, shout louder" is sufficient therefore to explain the surprising volume of anti-Russian PR coming out of London just now. ..."
"... I think they're probably shouting loud enough to gain their point. A sufficient number of us in the UK public will accept that Wiltshire incident as further proof of Putin's malevolence. We will therefore accept further anti-Russian measures. ..."
"... For the Westminster bubble all our eggs are in the American neocon basket. One could say that the respective swamps are inextricably connected. What's in it for our politicians is nothing less than the maintenance of a comfortable and familiar status quo. There's therefore no choice but to be more Roman that Rome when it comes to pursuing neocon objectives. ..."
"... As ever therefore it all centres around Trump. Is he getting dragged along by his neocons? Or is he now one of them? ..."
"... Trump is not only up against his own establishment. He's up against the European establishment as well. Hence the hammering he's getting from our European press and politicians. Hence also the dossier scandal, which for my part I now see for certain as a joint attempt by the American/UK status quo supporters to weaken or unseat Trump. ..."
Kooshy - I should have checked down-thread before submitting my comment. Then I'd have seen that "London Bob" (87) had given
a brief account of what is happening in Westminster.
"London Bob" explains something that puzzles some in the UK (and bothered me a lot over Syria). Why isn't Corbyn, the opposition
leader in the House of Commons and now stronger than he was, coming out with all guns firing against the present anti-Russian
hysteria? He'd have plenty of ammunition, that's for sure.
As that brief account explains, he's in no position to do so. He's leading a divided party. He has some support from within
his party rank and file but not from many of his own colleagues in the House. We now see, incidentally, some of his colleagues
making public statements that are only a hair's breadth away from disavowing Corbyn or his spokesmen.
In addition Corbyn is already suspected of being anti-patriotic and doesn't want to give his opponents a bigger stick to beat
him with on that.
Therefore resistance to the current Russophobia from within the Westminster bubble is likely to be weak.
Also in this thread DH is casting a sceptical eye over the Wiltshire poisoning. It's an indication of how far down public discussion
in the UK has gone that specialists in the UK who know their stuff no longer get airtime while people like Luke Harding, who plainly
don't, are all over the media. This blanking out of the voice of reasoned criticism in the UK media is, I suspect, already proving
counterproductive for the status quo. It merely reinforces that general public feeling, evident to some extent in the Brexit vote,
that we do at least know we're being conned even if we don't always know how. I don't know how widespread that feeling is in this
case.
But even to an outsider, and even if we take it all at face value, that official account of the Wiltshire poisoning is
nowhere near solid enough to justify the steps taken. "If you have a weak argument, shout louder" is sufficient therefore to explain
the surprising volume of anti-Russian PR coming out of London just now.
I think they're probably shouting loud enough to gain their point. A sufficient number of us in the UK public will accept
that Wiltshire incident as further proof of Putin's malevolence. We will therefore accept further anti-Russian measures.
What's in it for us? As you perhaps indicate, bent money will be running like the devil away from London, which one would think
can't be good news for the City or for the London property market. Hence the repeated calls for European and American solidarity;
if the Russian expatriates can simply move their fortunes to other Western boltholes that's going to leave Westminster looking
ineffectual.
I don't accept the argument I sometimes see put forward that we, and the East Europeans for that matter, are at present dragging
the Americans along with us. However weak the American economy is or is said to be, there's no question but that ours is considerably
more fragile. For the Westminster bubble all our eggs are in the American neocon basket. One could say that the respective
swamps are inextricably connected. What's in it for our politicians is nothing less than the maintenance of a comfortable and
familiar status quo. There's therefore no choice but to be more Roman that Rome when it comes to pursuing neocon objectives.
So when it comes to the various neocon establishments, the little dogs can kick up more racket but it's still the big dog running
the show.
As ever therefore it all centres around Trump. Is he getting dragged along by his neocons? Or is he now one of them?
If the first, then it's accurate to see this as many of us here have seen it from the start. Trump is not only up against
his own establishment. He's up against the European establishment as well. Hence the hammering he's getting from our European
press and politicians. Hence also the dossier scandal, which for my part I now see for certain as a joint attempt by the American/UK
status quo supporters to weaken or unseat Trump.
If the second then all is still not lost. Better to have the cronies falling out amongst themselves - and it's evident at least
that that's happening - than have them as united as they were before Trump.
"... It's sad that people even watch things such as BBC,CBC,NBC,ABC, CNN, etc. when every one of them parrots the same talking points, and they have repeatedly been outed as disinfo and pure propaganda outlets. ..."
"... Most interesting to me is that people can now see where their MP's stand WRT war - because this sure smells like the run-up to Libya. We already knew where the US would stand, same position for nearly a century. ..."
"... Only bankers benefit from war, and with the current global debt bomb, they are all in for declaration of "force majeure"- rest assured on that. ..."
Lying in bed listening to Australian government media propaganda . Endless parroting about
the ' rules based order ' , ' the rising power of ( guess) and now Boris Johnson informing us
that the world is insensed at Russian aggression . It is funny and absurd , sad and deadly !
It's harder and harder to laugh at this nonsense. Just when you thought it could not get more
ridiculous, something like this happens. I keep hearing that our masters are preparing us for
war with Russia. All those people who keep saying 'war is coming', 'prepare for World War
III', etc., you do realize that your life will be over, along with everyone you know, and ...
human civilization?
When I read
this hysterical panegyric on Observer.com (or at least as much of it as I could stomach),
I couldn't help but think of the Hate Week speech delivered by an Inner
Party member in the movie version of George Orwell's 1984 !
It's sad that people even watch things such as BBC,CBC,NBC,ABC, CNN, etc. when every one
of them parrots the same talking points, and they have repeatedly been outed as disinfo and
pure propaganda outlets. The only "waking up" that I see anywhere is among those few
that are neither progressive or conservative, and they are waking up to a nightmare. I am
glad this is all talking - if fur truly starts flying, there isn't anywhere to hide from all
this.
It's straight out of Bernays - just keep doubling down and throwing it up all over the
media outlets. I get ashamed that critical thinking exists only in a few places like MOA. Yet
even here, people seem to divide themselves right along the lines that all this claptrap
designates at times.
All you need to sort this out is a simple exercise in "cui bono", same as ever - and
Russia had nothing to gain, even in the intel arena.
Most interesting to me is that people can now see where their MP's stand WRT war - because
this sure smells like the run-up to Libya. We already knew where the US would stand, same
position for nearly a century.
Only bankers benefit from war, and with the current global debt bomb, they are all in for
declaration of "force majeure"- rest assured on that.
Where is Christopher Steele? did he not have means and motive and oportunity ?
Why has the russians not highlighted these connections after all the daughter is a russian citizen she has to be somewhere
in hospital or kidnapped in a safe house.
Does not the russian embassy have a right to make sure this young lady is safe and happy to stay at her new porton down home.
And look what got announced today problem reaction solution new investments new buildings for the chemical weapons facilities
at porton down what a concy dink 50 million for what testing dodgy sim samples .
Here's a thought: maybe the Soviet Union looked into the manufacture of these "novichoks" but decided that, nah, they don't work
all that well in practice e.g. mixing the binary components in the field isn't an exact science, so the end result can range from
Instant Death to Oh, Shit, Nobody Has Died And A Lot Of Innocents Are In Hospital.
Utterly unacceptable for any respectable KGB agent.
But some of the dudes who were working on those "novichoks" (dudes now out of work, remember) defected to the West with some
diagrams and some tall tales of how stupendously clever they are and how astonishingly lethal their wares.
So places like Porton Down test the chemistry in the laboratory and, sure enough, under lab conditions the chemistry is astonishingly
lethal.
They don't test it in the field because, well, why would they?
Fast forward to this week, and Someone has the Bright Idea to use some "novichoks" in a false-flag operation.
Why not? Everyone tells them that they are astonishingly lethal, and the lab tests back that up. What could go wrong?
So they do, and they find out what the Soviets found out decades ago.
Which is that this stuff is utter shit under field conditions: your target's don't die an instant death and innocent people
who come to their aid get very, very sick.
Because that is the point that everyone in the MSM won't talk about: if this was supposed to be a hit then it was badly botched.
The nerve agent didn't kill, the assassins didn't *confirm* the kill, the radius of the effect wasn't contained, and other people
were contaminated.
Hardly the hallmarks of an agency that DEVELOPED this nerve agent, is it. But maybe the hallmark of no-hopers who didn't really
understand what they were using.
"... The Russians are sure to respond to the British expulsion of Russian diplomats from London by expelling a comparable number of British diplomats from Moscow. ..."
"... The reciprocal expulsions of diplomats will of course also make it more difficult for the British to maintain their intelligence operation in Moscow. ..."
"... Since this appears to be rather extensive, and seems to involve far more 'democracy promotion' activity (ie. meddling in Russian domestic politics) than anything the Russians do in Britain, the Russians will probably also be quietly pleased about it. ..."
After days of hysteria and of mounting speculation, and after having stoked up by her
statement on Monday expectations of stern action against Russia to stratospheric levels,
Theresa May produced a package of 'sanctions' today which do no more than expose the weakness
of Britain's hand.
The expulsion of 23 diplomats – who have one week to leave
Increased checks on private flights, customs and freight
The freezing of Russian state assets where there is evidence they may be used to threaten
the life or property of UK nationals or residents
Ministers and Royal Family to boycott the Fifa World Cup in Russia later this year
The suspension of all planned high level bi-lateral contacts between the UK and
Russia
Note that none of these sanctions include any of the supposedly draconian steps which have
been spoken about over the last few days.
Theresa May for example appeared to rule out a blanket visa ban and sweeping asset freezes
on wealthy Russians coming to London. It is clear that ideas for a boycott by the England team
of the World Cup in Russia and for the complete severing of diplomatic relations with Russia
have been abandoned if they were ever considered.
Reports in the media have also confirmed that the idea of launching a cyber attack against
Russia has been ruled out, since the British quietly acknowledge that Russia has immeasurably
greater cyber resources with which to retaliate than Britain does.
As to whether or not Ofcom will now strip RT of its broadcasting licence, Maria Zakharova's
threat to expel
all British media outlets from Russia is having a chilling effect, with the British media
apparently now quietly lobbying the British government against doing it.
By way of example, The Times of
London , the newspaper which has been leading the British media's offensive against RT, now
has this to say, tucked away at the bottom of a meandering editorial with the woolly and
meaningless headline 'An Unstable World'
The Kremlin has threatened to expel British journalists from Moscow should London shut
down the Russian propaganda channel RT. That would be ill advised. Britain stands for nothing
if not free speech. Mrs May should stick to the evidence in the Skripal case, identifying the
culprits and bringing maximum international force to bear to punish them personally.
It is interesting to see how the British media suddenly discovers free speech also applies
to Russian media when its own interests are threatened.
It is still possible that Ofcom may follow up on its threats against RT, but that is now
looking rather less likely.
As for the measures Theresa May announced today not only will they not affect Russia in the
slightest, but they are actually counterproductive.
The Russians are sure to respond to the British expulsion of Russian diplomats from
London by expelling a comparable number of British diplomats from Moscow.
Since Russia is by far the more powerful country, it is the British who need to maintain a
strong diplomatic presence in Moscow to retain relevance. By contrast Russia, as a Great Power,
has no need to maintain a strong diplomatic presence in Britain, which is nowadays a second or
even third rank power.
The reciprocal expulsions which are now going to happen will not therefore affect Russia's
position as a Great Power in the slightest. They will however further marginalise the British
in international diplomacy.
The same is true of the British decision to sever bilateral contacts with Russia.
Apart from Boris Johnson's recent ill-starred to Moscow, there have in fact been barely any
bilateral contacts between the Russian and British governments for years, even though it is
again Britain as the weaker country which needs these contacts in order to retain relevance,
not Russia.
As it happens I expect the Russians to greet the news that they are going to be spared
further meetings with Boris Johnson with a quiet sigh of relief.
As for Boris Johnson himself, how he hopes to cut an important figure in international
diplomacy when he is now prevented from visiting Moscow – the capital of one of the
world's Great Powers – by his own government, completely escapes me. The reality is that
no one takes him seriously anyway.
The reciprocal expulsions of diplomats will of course also make it more difficult for
the British to maintain their intelligence operation in Moscow.
Since this appears to be rather extensive, and seems to involve far more 'democracy
promotion' activity (ie. meddling in Russian domestic politics) than anything the Russians do
in Britain, the Russians will probably also be quietly pleased about it.
Earlier this week, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced in the House of Commons that Russia was "highly likely" to have
been involved in the attempted murder of a former Russian spy and his daughter. The incident left Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter
Yulia, 33, critically ill in hospital.
As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes
, The UK has now announced that it will expel 23 Russian diplomats after
Russia failed to explain how a military-grade nerve agent
was used in the attack in Salisbury.
Even though the Kremlin has vehemently denied any involvement, insiders have said that
all signs point to Moscow and if that's
true, it raises some troubling questions ahead of the country's presidential election on Sunday.
Some observers have suggested that rogue elements of the Russian government could be responsible for the attack while others are
pointing their fingers firmly towards Vladimir Putin.
Even though there is no evidence that Putin gave the order to carry out a high-profile killing in public, the decision to use
nerve agents that could be linked to Russia carries considerable risk. Some have claimed that Putin might have arranged the attack
to engineer a confrontation with the west in order to improve turnout at the polls.
If the UK goes a step beyond expelling diplomats and imposes sanctions, Russia could find itself more isolated and that has proven
deeply unpopular with the country's electorate .
Putin
is expected to win Sunday's election easily and even if Russian media portrays the events in Salisbury as some kind of western
conspiracy to rally voters, the president's image is still likely to worsen internationally .
The most recent polling into how Putin is viewed abroad was conducted in August 2017 by the Pew Research Center. Even before the
events in Salisbury, Putin was very unpopular across the world.
In Poland where the relationship with Russia has never been easy, 89 percent of Pew's respondents said they have no confidence
in Putin doing the right thing regarding world affairs.
In France, the share was also high at 80 percent.
In the United Kingdom and the United Stated, 76 and 74 percent of people have no faith in the Russian president doing the right
thing on the world stage.
At the other end of the scale, Nigeria and India are more confident than not confident in Putin doing the right thing.
It seems the global propaganda machine has not been able to reach there quite yet.
If you don't have some appreciation of Putin's intellect and skill as a leader you're not paying attention. Additionally he's
shown real composure and self control given the provocations he has been subject to.
If he has indeed tossed out the Rothschild bankers he is a hero of the ages. That is no light work.
This is complete horseshit straight from the same people who give us WaPo and the New York Times. How does he not have Putin's
popularity in Russia. Where is that?
Also, The author's view of the world is extremely skewed.
No country disapproves of America more than Russia, where 82% of survey respondents said they disapproved of U.S. leadership.
This was also the worst rating from Russia in the history of the survey. While many Russians do not like America, residents of
many other countries do not approve of Russia. The median disapproval rating of Russian leadership was greater than the median
approval rating, the only country to claim this distinction. And while a majority of residents in 15 countries disapprove of the
U.S., a majority of residents in 42 countries disapprove of Russia's leadership. Russia's disapproval rating of U.S. leadership
worsened considerably from 2013, increasing 12 percentage points. Recently implemented U.S.-led Western sanctions on Russia have
likely intensified Russians' disapproval. According to historical data from the Levada Center, Russia's independent public opinion
tracker, negative attitudes towards the United States spiked during the invasion of Iraq and worsened again in 2008 after the
Russia-Georgia conflict. More recently, the U.S. sided with Ukraine after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.
The West doesn't make Statesmen anymore. It produces whores and pedophiles who sell to the highest bidders and don't have the
capacity to think beyond their tenures.
Because Western governments are dominated by cucks and sellouts, they feel threatened by Putin's unwavering determination,
backbone and geopolitical mastery, hence the concerted propaganda campaign to discredit him, which by the way is pretty fucking
pathetic.
This excerpt has a mainstreaming for the Western mainstream media elites dynamic:
" My point here is not to exonerate Putin or Russia for the many bad things that he (and we) has perpetrated. Plenty of
people have died in Syria and Ukraine as the result of his decisions. Russia's history with its European neighbors to the West
has been checkered at best, and I can more than understand the fear and apprehension with which peoples in the Baltic States,
Poland and other countries view any sort of resurgence or posturing ."
****
Plenty more people might've died in Ukraine and Syria without Putin's action. Poland has had its own aggressive past with Russia
– granted that Russia has had the overall upper hand. Besides Poland, some other parts of central/eastern Europe have been strategically
used against Russia, over the course of history.
From elsewhere, here's another piece favoring Putin:
" Scott Shane's February 17 New York Times article 'Russia Isn't the Only One Meddling in Elections – We Do It, Too', distinguishes
the US and Russian activity in question by claiming that American actions are done for a good cause unlike Russia – a thought
shared by former CIA Director James Woolsey. Shane's piece notes the US role in influencing the 1996 Russian presidential election,
without noting an otherwise glaring particular. Many generally believe that the US government intervention in that vote (whether
you want to describe it as direct or indirect) tipped the balance in favor of Boris Yeltsin.
Yeltsin went on to appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor. If one accepts the US role as the deciding factor in the 1996 Russian
presidential election, I wholeheartedly welcome that move which enabled Putin to become Russian president – something that very
well might not have happened if Yeltsin didn't win in 1996."
"My point here is not to exonerate Putin or Russia for the many bad things that he (and we) has perpetrated. Plenty of people
have died in Syria and Ukraine as the result of his decisions. Russia's history with its European neighbors to the West has been
checkered at best, and I can more than understand the fear and apprehension with which peoples in the Baltic States, Poland and
other countries view any sort of resurgence or posturing."
I see where it is all coming from. So, the only position Russia is allowed is doggy style butt up?
History like normal history not much different in this respect form majority. USA seems to have checkered history with practically
the rest of the world and caused millions deaths by now and so what? So are other countries in Europe and Asia.
Russia is denied by the author legitimate right to defend her legitimate interests.
I basically sense same school of thought with minor variations as Anatoly Karlin's minus mammoths on Russian plain of course.
So, the best critical information that UNZ can provide is a Russian, who doesn't know and understand Russia today. This is not
really promoting UNZ as an interesting site. – I am a Danish sociologist, who have collected some information that better explains,
why most Russians think that Putin is the absolutely best choice today.
http://homosociologicus.com/russia --
critical-information
"... That Washington's principal focus currently is on attacking another country (Russia) which due to USA incompetence is punching far above its weight in world affairs. The latest anti-Russia attacks center on a sick Russian spook and some Facebook ads (new weak USA sanctions just announced) are two examples of USA weakness (together with its Europe puppets, also losers). ..."
"... It is the obvious finale of Pax Americana, the period of controlling USA global influence now coming slowly to an inglorious end due to USA incompetence. Coincidentally, the USA is faced with overwhelming problems domestically in many fields, including citizen disparity, health care, transportation, crime and unemployment. So let's celebrate the potential shift against a forced USA withdrawal on the world scene and a possible improvement in domestic policy. ..."
That Washington's principal focus currently is on attacking another country (Russia) which
due to USA incompetence is punching far above its weight in world affairs. The latest
anti-Russia attacks center on a sick Russian spook and some Facebook ads (new weak USA
sanctions just announced) are two examples of USA weakness (together with its Europe puppets,
also losers).
It is the obvious finale of Pax Americana, the period of controlling USA global influence
now coming slowly to an inglorious end due to USA incompetence. Coincidentally, the USA is
faced with overwhelming problems domestically in many fields, including citizen disparity,
health care, transportation, crime and unemployment. So let's celebrate the potential shift
against a forced USA withdrawal on the world scene and a possible improvement in domestic
policy.
It won't happen soon though, as the current incompetent president is advocating huge
increases in wasteful military spending including the expansion of an army which has no
productive purpose to exist at all.
What is US interest in the Middle East? I don't see any. We've got plenty of oil. And the
Canadians will happily sell us more.
The millenia old conflicts there are really no business of ours. The possibility that
we'll go to war with Russia and risk our own population to further Israeli perceptions shows
how far down the rabbit hole we've gone. The zionists "own" our political, media,
governmental establishments lock stock and barrel for this possibility to exist.
If Putin is so diabolical and his information operations so elegant and effective he
should execute one that breaks the chain of zionist influence on the US polity. That would
prevent Armageddon and the world would be thankful.
Honestly I have no idea what the firing of Tillerson and his replacement by Pompeo means.
Maybe it's because Tillerson called Trump a moron and Pompeo is an ass licker. Hillary,
Rubio, etc al wanted a no-fly-zone over Syria. That would have brought instant conflict with
Russia. If Nikki Haley's threats come to pass we'll get there.
Trump is attempting to change many past arrangements. One being trade where the US has
bled for decades running massive trade deficits. How the GOP does in the mid-terms will
influence his position on many issues.
Can Donald Trump be taken down? Life in Donald's America gets more farcical every day. We
cannot dump the Donald despite our collective desire to. At this point most Americans would
welcome any replacement. We are caught in a dangerous storm and we would trust near any
neighbor to take us in. Even one as creepy as Mike Pence. Who will give us shelter from the
storm? Lately it appears to be an aptly named porn star, Stormy Daniels. Porn is also the apt
comparison for the Donald saga. Absurd, painful and relentlessly climatic. Meanwhile on CNN and
more surreptitious browsers, porn rumbles on.
Leigh Raven and Riley Nixon released a YouTube video detailing some of the abuse they have
taken at the hands of the porn industry. Just weeks ago we learned of Donald Trump's affair
with porn star Stormy Daniels. Stormy has become the liberal media's latest sweetheart, perhaps
second only to FBI man Bob Mueller. The real storms and droughts that are ravaging the natural
world take a back seat to all scandalous details. Stopping the dismantling of environmental
protections by Donald Trump could in theory make all frivolous investigations worth it. That is
assuming that Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and co. are any better. I'd say don't count on it. With a
smoother operator in town Democrats would be even more hapless in fighting for the environment.
The Republican Party's libertarian commitment to dismantling the protections of the state would
continue. The only sort of protection the rich want are protections from the people. This is
done through militarizing the cops in poor communities. It is also done through taking away
impediments to profit. Who needs safety regulations or environmental protections when they
impede on the profits of the rich?
The mainstream media has paid little attention to Trump's war on the environment and has
instead focused on abstract values, most namely a "liberal democracy." Too often democracy,
especially a liberal democracy, is equated with capitalism. Freedom is defined by the
individual's right to make a profit and to form an identity from this profit. This freedom is
gained at expense of the earth and the people of the Global South. Global trade deals that
abuse workers of poor countries and strip protections from the environment are seen as an
expression of the never been freer global market. The right to find one's passion and voice is
seen as the greatest freedom here in America. The people of other countries and the earth we
stand upon get no voice. For every new invention and new expansion comes new exploitation and
new destruction of the earth.
At the same time the value of democracy is being questioned by the elites because the poor
supposedly brought us Donald Trump. The rich want to correct the mistakes of the poor through
unelected bureaucrats like Bob Mueller. The rich fail to understand that in our society money
means representation. The rich get the policies and politicians they want and the poor do not.
The concerns about campaign finance reform and inequality brought up by the Bernie Sanders
campaign and Occupy Wall St. are swept under the rug.
The dismissal of Sanders, Occupy and the like are part of a broader dismissal of young
people. Millennials are cast off as lazy when they don't come out to vote for hopeless
Democrats or heartless Republicans. On the contrary, I see the lack of young people voting as a
sign of hope. We understand that our liberal capitalist democracy is not working, regardless of
who runs the show. How we create a new world is a much more difficult question. I see denial of
the old one as a fine first step.
The mainstream media is so out of touch with young people it has become a joke to even
engage with the high brow liberal outlets, even the ones who are potentially quite thoughtful.
Take this recent New Yorker article with an intriguing title: "Donald Trump and the Stress Test
of Liberal Democracy". The author David Remnick quotes Yascha Mounk: "Mounk, who teaches
government at Harvard, points out that one reason for the increasing indifference to democratic
rule and the rising enthusiasm for authoritarian alternatives, particularly among young people,
is the widening historical distance from any direct experience of the horrors of German Fascism
or Soviet Communism." Huh? It has been the old people who are mislabeling Trump a fascist and
Obama a communist. The young people see that both men are capitalists. It is the old people who
are questioning the value of democracy. They are right to call Trump undemocratic in his
actions. But they get really confused when they try to explain his success. How did he do it
without the endorsement of established undemocratic American institutions they ask. They
naturally just blame the dumb people who elected Trump rather than the capitalists who took
away their education, jobs, and economic security.
To the author's point though I think that young people are seeing the limits of a an unequal
liberal democracy. We have elections and free speech, which is awesome. But we have no time or
money or long term security. The politicians answer overwhelmingly to corporate interests. How
are we supposed to become politically involved?
The broader question we are asking is: how valuable is a society that liberates the
individual at the expense of the society? This is the ideology of neoliberalism. Basically all
actions are done with the word "liberal" in mine. Liberate the markets through stripping
protections for workers and the planet. Liberate the Other in a distant land through military
intervention. Liberate each person so they can make a profit off of people if they work hard
enough or play dirty enough.
My only criticism of the millennial generation is that we have chosen to interact through
self-focused and inherently isolating social media, internet, and entertainment platforms. It
is very easy to construct a world of one's own online. Making a world that works for all of us
must be done away from our phones, laptops and headphones.
The porn industry is seen as one of the ways our society is more liberated than ever before.
Like other industries of consumption the conditions of the workers are ignored. If a product is
cheap for the consumer it is seen as liberating. They say we have never had so many options to
buy and consume things, which is true. But what about the people who make these things? What
about the people who cannot get jobs because of this newfound efficiency? What about the
resources we take from the earth as we consume? To each their own, the liberal democracy
answers.
There was some justified horror about the death threats that porn star Mia Khalifa received
from ISIS. ISIS is a child of the liberating American Empire but their actions are always
blamed on the Muslim community. We are told that the East hates women and that the West loves
women. We are told that "our" women are sexually free while "their" women are sexually
oppressed. We are told that porn is a way for women to empower themselves. Like all
relationships under the free market, the relationship between women and men are assumed to be
"free and equal."
What then to make of this latest story from Leigh Raven and Riley Nixon? They were forced to
eat apples to induce vomit from the blow jobs they were to give. The blow job induced choking
and despite signals from the actors, the man in the scene would not let up. Raven says: "I got
in trouble and was beat vigorously with the largest, strongest hands you can imagine," "I
proceeded to get slapped in the face, I proceeded to be slapped on my ass, my thighs, my inner
thighs, and at this point I begin to cry and now I'm not just crying because I'm deep-throating
a dick." ."He recognized the fact that my legs were shaking and he found it funny and he made
me sit up higher, which made it hurt a lot more," "I was being penetrated extremely, extremely
deep" "I was squeezing his leg, his left thigh, I think, as hard as I could while pushing away
and wincing in pain and tears coming down my face, and he would smack my hand away, say some
sort of 'dumb white bitch' comment." ."I'm pretty sure, like, the first thing that happens in
the intro video with Rico is he comes in and just slaps me across the face really hard, like
really hard." ."I couldn't breathe, it went black, I saw stars, I was stunned. Near
unconscious."
Why didn't they leave? Because they needed to pay rent. They feared repercussions, perhaps
sexual ones, from their superiors. This is not so uncommon now for millennials, as sex for rent
is something demanded by landlords too. As internet hero Jimmy McMillan tells us: the rent is
just too damn high.
What the rich do not realize is that to survive under capitalism one must do whatever it
takes to pay the bills. Incarcerating drug dealers who have no other way to make a living is
one prevalent example of the punishing of the poor in an unequal society. Ultimately these
stories are a result of the failure of the state to provide the basic needs for the individual.
Now is the time for a Universal Basic Income. No one should have to live like this to
survive.
Stormy Daniels is the latest beacon of hope for the liberals looking to take down Trump.
Let's hope she succeeds. But just as Bob Mueller was paraded through the headlines everyday
without a mention of the evils of the FBI, Stormy is brought up everyday without a mention of
the cruelty of the porn industry. There is no mention of the negative implications of watching
porn either. One would think there could be some links drawn between porn and the violence
against women exposed through the #MeToo movement. Although as I have noted before, domestic
violence remains an untouchable subject for the media. The toxic nature of porn has been
well-documented by many feminists, most notably, Andrea Dworkin. Porn tells us that it is a
freedom to be cruel to other people. Could anything better fit the mentality of Donald
Trump?
Don't look for the defenders of a free market democracy to help us either. As nice as it may
sound as a principle, the implications of such a self-centered society have been deadly. There
are few left in the mainstream who question the ultimate freedom that capitalism brings to us.
Stormy Daniels, Russia, or any other scandal may ultimately give us shelter from the storm of
Donald Trump. The rent for this shelter unfortunately still depends on the benevolence of those
with the freedom to exploit us under capitalism. Regardless of whether we survive Hurricane
Donald, liberal democracy has a leaky roof. It will be up to those of us interested in a
collective society to build something more durable.
Looks like Tillerson was yet another Big Lie junkie whose entire worldview is based on bullshit
Notable quotes:
"... Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective. ..."
"... Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes. ..."
"... This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia. ..."
"... The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...? ..."
"... I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians. ..."
Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson
for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!
According to the anti Russian propagandists
(vid) Tillerson got the job because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was in good standing with Putin. The same people
now claim that Tillerson was fired from his job
because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was not in good standing with Putin.
Neither is correct. The plan to oust Tillerson and elevate Pompeo to State has been rumored and written about
for several
month . The plan was "developed by John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff". It had nothing to do with Russia.
Tillerson never got traction as Secretary of State. Congress disliked him for cutting down some State Department programs. Trump
overruled him publicly several times.
There is some contradiction in the statements coming from the White House and the State Department. According
to the Washington Post:
Trump last Friday asked Tillerson to step aside, and the embattled top diplomat cut short his trip to Africa on Monday to return
to Washington.
Last Friday Tillerson suddenly
fell ill while traveling
in Africa and canceled several scheduled events.
... ... ...
Thus ends the 2018 insurrection at State.
With Tillerson leaving Secretary of Defense Mattis is losing
an ally in the cabinet:
[I]t starts with me having breakfast every week with Secretary of State Tillerson. And we talk two, three times a day, sometimes.
We settle all of our issues between he and I, and then we walk together into the White House meetings. That way, State and Defense
are together.
Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective.
CIA head Pompeo, the new Secretary of State, is a neoconservative with a
racist anti-Muslim
attitude and a
special hate
for Iran which he
compared
to ISIS . That he will now become Secretary of State is a bad sign for the nuclear agreement with Iran. The Europeans especially
should take note of that and should stop to look for a compromise with Trump on the issue. The deal is now dead. There is
no chance that a compromise will happen.
The new CIA director Gina Haspel is
well
known for actively directing and participating in the torture of prisoners at 'black sites':
Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both
at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated multiple
court orders as well as the demands of the 9/11 commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as "obstruction"
by commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane.
Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing
prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes.
Both, Pompeo and Haspel, will need to be confirmed by Congress. Both will receive a significant number of 'yes'-votes from the
Democratic side of the aisle.
I think last straw to fire him been TRex stance toward russians -give up Crimea and we cease sanction(WHAT A JOKE) same toward
eastern republics of Ukraine LNR,DPR..good move VSGPDJT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both
Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia.
The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...?
Poor Syria. At least one more fierce year of war. But more likely, endless 2,3,4 more years of war.
Israel and US are getting the rebels in Daraa (DEZ #4) primed to start up fighting again. I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians.
(My notes)
Tillerson says:
- got call today, afternoon from president, also spoke to Kelly (implies that this was the firing)
- hopes for smooth transition
- Deputy Sec State Sullivan will be acting Sec State
- Tillerson job officially terminates March 31
to DoD and State:
- bound by office oath, support constitution, ...
- always stay by oath, (sounds crying)
to people in uniform:
- great relationship State DOD - thanks Mattis and Dunford, all soldiers
work review:
- DPRK pressure campaign was success
- Afghanistan commitment also
- Syria, Iraq - work remains
- nothing goes without allies, partner
- work to be done on China and "troubling behavior" of Russia
- predicts more isolation if Russia doesn't knee
- nothing on Iran
Didn't say thank you to Trump. Emphasized oath to constitution, not to president. Nothing on Iran, Saudis or Palestine.
This was a f*** you to the White House and its priorities. The endorsement by name of Mattis and Dunlap makes them targets.
A Professor for political science from the United Arab Emirates just posted this:
"History will record that a GCC country had a role in the sacking of the foreign minister of a great power, and this is only the
beginning of more"
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
The speed with which British authorities blades Putin strongly suggests false flag operation: "I am alarmed by the security, spying and armaments industries' frenetic efforts to stoke
Russophobia and heat up the new cold war. I am especially alarmed at the stream of cold war
warrior "experts" dominating the news cycles."
Notable quotes:
"... From Putin's point of view, to assassinate Skripal now seems to have very little motivation. If the Russians have waited eight years to do this, they could have waited until after their World Cup. The Russians have never killed a swapped spy before. ..."
"... Just as diplomats, British and otherwise, are the most ardent upholders of the principle of diplomatic immunity, so security service personnel everywhere are the least likely to wish to destroy a system which can be a key aspect of their own personal security; quite literally spy swaps are their "Get Out of Jail Free" card. You don't undermine that system – probably terminally – without very good reason. ..."
"... It is worth noting that the "wicked" Russians gave Skripal a far lighter jail sentence than an American equivalent would have received. If a member of US Military Intelligence had sold, for cash to the Russians, the names of hundreds of US agents and officers operating abroad, the Americans would at the very least jail the person for life, and I strongly suspect would execute them. Skripal just received a jail sentence of 18 years, which is hard to square with the narrative of implacable vindictiveness against him. If the Russians had wanted to make an example, that was the time. ..."
"... Sadly Pablo Miller's LinkedIn profile has recently been deleted, but it is again widely alleged on the web that it showed him as a consultant for Orbis Intelligence and a consultant to the FCO and – wait for it – with an address in Salisbury. If anyone can recover than Linkedin entry do get in touch, though British Government agencies will have been active in the internet scrubbing. ..."
"... It was of course Christopher Steele and Orbis Intelligence who produced for the Clinton camp the sensationalist dossier on Trump links with Russia – including the story of Trump paying to be urinated on by Russian prostitutes – that is a key part of the "Russiagate" affair gripping the US political classes. The extraordinary thing about this is that the Orbis dossier is obvious nonsense which anybody with a professional background can completely demolish, as I did here . ..."
"... If I was the police, I would look closely at Orbis Intelligence. ..."
"... To return to Israel. Israel has the nerve agents. Israel has Mossad which is extremely skilled at foreign assassinations. Theresa May claimed Russian propensity to assassinate abroad as a specific reason to believe Russia did it. Well Mossad has an even greater propensity to assassinate abroad. And while I am struggling to see a Russian motive for damaging its own international reputation so grieviously, Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian reputation so grieviously. Russian action in Syria has undermined the Israeli position in Syria and Lebanon in a fundamental way, and Israel has every motive for damaging Russia's international position by an attack aiming to leave the blame on Russia. ..."
"... Both the Orbis and Israeli theories are speculations. But they are no more a speculation, and no more a conspiracy theory, than the idea that Vladimir Putin secretly sent agents to Salisbury to attack Skriapin with a secret nerve agent. I can see absolutely no reason to believe that is a more valid speculation than the others at this point. ..."
"... I am alarmed by the security, spying and armaments industries' frenetic efforts to stoke Russophobia and heat up the new cold war. I am especially alarmed at the stream of cold war warrior "experts" dominating the news cycles. ..."
The "novochok" group of nerve agents – a very loose term simply for a collection of
new nerve agents the Soviet Union were developing fifty years ago – will almost certainly
have been analysed and reproduced by Porton Down. That is entirely what Porton Down is there
for. It used to make chemical and biological weapons as weapons, and today it still does make
them in small quantities in order to research defences and antidotes. After the fall of the
Soviet Union Russian chemists made a lot of information available on these nerve agents.
And one country which has always manufactured very similar persistent nerve agents is Israel.
This Foreign Policy magazine (a very establishment US publication) article
on Israel 's chemical and biological weapon capability is very interesting indeed. I will
return to Israel later in this article.
Incidentally, novachok is not a specific substance but a class of new nerve agents. Sources
agree they were designed to be persistent, and of an order of magnitude stronger than sarin or
VX. That is rather hard to square with the fact that thankfully nobody has died and those
possibly in contact just have to wash their clothes.
From Putin's point of view, to assassinate Skripal now seems to have very little
motivation. If the Russians have waited eight years to do this, they could have waited until
after their World Cup. The Russians have never killed a swapped spy before.
Just as diplomats, British and otherwise, are the most ardent upholders of the principle
of diplomatic immunity, so security service personnel everywhere are the least likely to wish
to destroy a system which can be a key aspect of their own personal security; quite literally
spy swaps are their "Get Out of Jail Free" card. You don't undermine that system –
probably terminally – without very good reason.
It is worth noting that the "wicked" Russians gave Skripal a far lighter jail sentence
than an American equivalent would have received. If a member of US Military Intelligence had
sold, for cash to the Russians, the names of hundreds of US agents and officers operating
abroad, the Americans would at the very least jail the person for life, and I strongly suspect
would execute them. Skripal just received a jail sentence of 18 years, which is hard to square
with the narrative of implacable vindictiveness against him. If the Russians had wanted to make
an example, that was the time.
It is much more probable that the reason for this assassination attempt refers to something
recent or current, than to spying twenty years ago. Were I the British police, I would inquire
very closely into Orbis Intelligence.
There is no doubt that Skripal was feeding secrets to MI6 at the time that Christopher
Steele was an MI6 officer in Moscow, and at the the time that Pablo Miller, another member of
Orbis Intelligence, was also an MI6 officer in Russia and directly recruiting agents. It is
widely reported on the web and in US media
that it was Miller who first recruited Skripal. My own ex-MI6 sources tell me that is not quite
true as Skripal was "walk-in", but that Miller certainly was involved in running Skripal for a
while. Sadly Pablo Miller's LinkedIn profile has recently been deleted, but it is again widely
alleged on the web that it showed him as a consultant for Orbis Intelligence and a consultant
to the FCO and – wait for it – with an address in Salisbury. If anyone can recover
than Linkedin entry do get in touch, though British Government agencies will have been active
in the internet scrubbing.
It was of course Christopher Steele and Orbis Intelligence who produced for the Clinton camp
the sensationalist dossier on Trump links with Russia – including the story of Trump
paying to be urinated on by Russian prostitutes – that is a key part of the "Russiagate"
affair gripping the US political classes. The extraordinary thing about this is that the Orbis
dossier is obvious nonsense which anybody with a professional background can completely
demolish, as
I did here . Steele's motive was, like Skriapin's in selling his secrets, cash pure and
simple. Steele is a charlatan who knocked up a series of allegations that are either wildly
improbable, or would need a high level source access he could not possibly get in today's
Russia, or both. He told the Democrats what they wish to hear and his audience – who had
and still have no motivation to look at it critically – paid him highly for it.
I do not know for certain that Pablo Miller helped knock together the Steele dossier on
Trump, but it seems very probable given he also served for MI6 in Russia and was working for
Orbis. And it seems to me even more probable that Sergei Skripal contributed to the Orbis
Intelligence dossier on Trump. Steele and Miller cannot go into Russia and run sources any
more, and never would have had access as good as their dossier claims, even in their MI6 days.
The dossier was knocked up for huge wodges of cash from whatever they could cobble together.
Who better to lend a little corroborative verisimilitude in these circumstances than their old
source Skripal?
Skripal was at hand in the UK, and allegedly even close to Miller in Salisbury. He could add
in the proper acronym for a Russian committee here or the name of a Russian official there, to
make it seem like Steele was providing hard intelligence. Indeed, Skripal's outdated knowledge
might explain some of the dossier's more glaring errors.
But the problem with double agents like Skripal, who give intelligence for money, is that
they can easily become triple agents and you never know when a better offer is going to come
along. When Steele produced his dodgy dossier, he had no idea it would ever become so prominent
and subject to so much scrutiny. Steele is fortunate in that the US Establishment is strongly
motivated not to scrutinise his work closely as their one aim is to "get" Trump. But with the
stakes very high, having a very loose cannon as one of the dossier's authors might be most
inconvenient both for Orbis and for the Clinton camp.
If I was the police, I would look closely at Orbis Intelligence.
To return to Israel. Israel has the nerve agents. Israel has Mossad which is extremely
skilled at foreign assassinations. Theresa May claimed Russian propensity to assassinate abroad
as a specific reason to believe Russia did it. Well Mossad has an even greater propensity to
assassinate abroad. And while I am struggling to see a Russian motive for damaging its own
international reputation so grieviously, Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian
reputation so grieviously. Russian action in Syria has undermined the Israeli position in Syria
and Lebanon in a fundamental way, and Israel has every motive for damaging Russia's
international position by an attack aiming to leave the blame on Russia.
Both the Orbis and Israeli theories are speculations. But they are no more a speculation,
and no more a conspiracy theory, than the idea that Vladimir Putin secretly sent agents to
Salisbury to attack Skriapin with a secret nerve agent. I can see absolutely no reason to
believe that is a more valid speculation than the others at this point.
I am alarmed by the security, spying and armaments industries' frenetic efforts to stoke
Russophobia and heat up the new cold war. I am especially alarmed at the stream of cold war
warrior "experts" dominating the news cycles. I write as someone who believes that agents of
the Russian state did assassinate Litvinenko, and that the Russian security services carried
out at least some of the apartment bombings that provided the pretext for the brutal assault on
Chechnya. I believe the Russian occupation of Crimea and parts of Georgia is illegal. On the
other hand, in Syria Russia has saved the Middle East from domination by a new wave of US and
Saudi sponsored extreme jihadists.
The naive view of the world as "goodies" and "baddies", with our own ruling class as the
good guys, is for the birds. I witnessed personally in Uzbekistan the willingness of the UK and
US security services to accept and validate intelligence they knew to be false in order to
pursue their policy objectives. We should be extremely sceptical of their current anti-Russian
narrative. There are many possible suspects in this attack.
Why would Putin be interested in a has-been spy he could have killed long ago? On the other
hand, might certain people connected with the Trump dossier be keen to silence sources, now that
Sessions is investigating the FISA warrants and at the same time, implicate Russia?
Notable quotes:
"... as usual - the west under the leadership of the usa /uk - need no proof... assertions and innuendo is all that is needed! ..."
"... Interesting they allowed the possibility that the gas, if made in Russia, could have been stolen. Is that because they thought the sheeple might actually wonder about the anthrax released after 9/11, which came from a US facility, and which nobody ever accused the government of unleashing? ..."
"... In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee (on 3 November, 2017), it was stated that Daniel Jones (a member of Fusion GPS), had described Fusion as a "shadow media organization helping the government," and was funded by a "group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros." ..."
"... Steele has refused to comment about which projects he involved Miller but given Miller's Russian contacts, it is not credible that the Trump dossier was not one of them – in which case it is also not credible that Skripal was also not involved. ..."
"... Why would Putin be interested in a has-been spy he could have killed long ago? On the other hand, might certain people connected with the Trump dossier be keen to silence sources, now that Sessions is investigating the FISA warrants and at the same time, implicate Russia? ..."
"... Edit: The PM has said that the nerve agent was 'Novichok' which is 5 to 8 times more potent than VX... and the authorities waited 5 days to send the army in and over a week to tell people to wash their clothes and other items? ..."
as usual - the west under the leadership of the usa /uk - need no proof... assertions
and innuendo is all that is needed!
i swear they are gearing up for something with russia, whether it be war in syria, thanks
that freak haleys words from earlier today, or this, or something... it is non stop..
What is this "known" Russian never agent? Who else manufactures it? Does UK (or could it as a
"special project")? Particularly, in the lab right down the street?
Interesting they allowed the possibility that the gas, if made in Russia, could have been
stolen. Is that because they thought the sheeple might actually wonder about the anthrax
released after 9/11, which came from a US facility, and which nobody ever accused the
government of unleashing?
EDIT: Apparently May is alleging the chemical involved is a novichok, which was supposedly
produced by the USSR from the 1970s to the 1990s. Assuming all this is true, I found the
following interesting excerpt from Wikipedia in terms of who may have access to the chemical
(aside from the Russian state and/or ((Russian)) mafia):
One of the key manufacturing sites was the Soviet State Scientific Research Institute for
Organic Chemistry and Technology (GosNIIOKhT) in Nukus, Uzbekistan. ... Since its
independence in 1991, Uzbekistan has been working with the government of the United States to
dismantle and decontaminate the sites where the Novichok agents and other chemical weapons
were tested and developed.
Funny, didn't see anything in May's speech about that.
In reply to Fucking fascist UK with by Perimetr
Vote up!
In 1995, Sergey Skripal was recruited by an MI6 undercover agent, Pablo Miller, who at the
time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working at the British Embassy in Tallinn,
Estonia.
Pablo Miller was exposed in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians were arrested for
spying and fingered Miller as their recruiter. One of Miller's other recruits was Alexander
Litvinenko. [Note: Polonium was also used to murder Arafat – the source is said to have
been Israel's Dimona reactor.]
Miller and Skripal met frequently: Skripal (whose codename was "Forthwith") passed the
entire Russian military intelligence telephone handbook to Miller, containing details of more
than 300 of his colleagues in Russian intelligence. In 2006 Skripal was jailed.
After the spy swap in 2010, Skripal decided to resettle in Salisbury, where Pablo Miller
also lived. In 2015 Miller retired and received an OBE for services to Her Majesty's
Government. No doubt Miller was Skripal's minder and was probably the reason Skripal had gone
to Salisbury.
According to his LinkedIn entry (deleted a few days ago), Miller worked as a consultant
for Christopher Steele – Miller is the consultant whose name was withheld by the
Telegraph. Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence was hired by Fusion GPS in 2016 to research
Trump.
In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee (on 3 November, 2017), it was stated
that Daniel Jones (a member of Fusion GPS), had described Fusion as a "shadow media
organization helping the government," and was funded by a "group of Silicon Valley
billionaires and George Soros."
Between 26 November, 2017 and 10 January, 2018 George Soros (who is a prolific tweeter)
was silent. Not a single tweet. Why, where was he?
Steele has refused to comment about which projects he involved Miller but given Miller's
Russian contacts, it is not credible that the Trump dossier was not one of them – in
which case it is also not credible that Skripal was also not involved.
Join the dots.... cui bono? Why would Putin be interested in a has-been spy he could have
killed long ago? On the other hand, might certain people connected with the Trump dossier be
keen to silence sources, now that Sessions is investigating the FISA warrants and at the same
time, implicate Russia?
Edit: The PM has said that the nerve agent was 'Novichok' which is 5 to 8 times more
potent than VX... and the authorities waited 5 days to send the army in and over a week to
tell people to wash their clothes and other items?
In reply to May: Umm, our investigations by Shitonya Serfs
"... He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests. ..."
"... Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. ..."
Pompeo graduated from both the United States Military Academy at West Point and Harvard and served three terms as a representative
for Kansas's fourth district. As a member of the House select committee on intelligence, he was an aggressive critic of
US foreign policy under the Obama administration,
particularly regarding the nuclear deal with Iran.
... ... ...
He has
cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested
in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based
conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by
liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests.
Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
... ... ...
He has, however, diverged from Trump on Russia. In his confirmation hearing, he appeared to share with CIA staff an adversarial
view of Russia and Vladimir Putin.
The Senate approved his nomination 66-32.
The Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, who voted to confirm Pompeo, said in a statement on Tuesday: "If he's confirmed [as
secretary of state] we hope that Mr Pompeo will turn over a new leaf and will start toughening up our policies towards Russia and
Putin."
As if it needs saying, the current ruling junta in the US absolutely does not have the
interests of the American people or the nation at large in mind, they're answering to a
different set of masters at this point.
Until we can purge the fifth column that's infested the halls of power in this country and
obviously in the UK and much of Europe - at least the EU - we'll continue to fight wars for
Zionism and all that will be left of the US and Russia when this is over will be bombed-out
nuclear wastelands, which is exactly what the Zionists want to have happen.
They did it to Germany and Russia in WWII, and they're going to do it to the US, Russia, and
possibly China in WWIII, which is spooling up as we dissect the latest maniacal machinations of
the war cabal.
"... You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and Hezzbollah. ..."
"... For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew ..."
"... They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways ..."
"... But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime. ..."
"... The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US's general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region. ..."
"... After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. ..."
"... Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. ..."
"... In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a "Bush Doctrine" preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. ..."
"... The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that's not as reassuring as it ought to be. ..."
"... If Russia can stabilize the region on the helm of a coalition of Iran-Iraq-semiTurkey (bc. you never know what the turk will do) it would achieve a massive win in the trade war against the petrodollar (Meanwhile China is making moves in Africa to secure the pipelines) ..."
"... Rather than a direct attack on Russian forces, it is more probable that the US will resort to sneaky backstabbings, with deniability potential. Direct attacks on the Syrian army could escalate, on the other hand. ..."
"... As per neocons–these are exact people who set foreign policies in D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. ..."
"... For people who think that the history of Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagan's version) has any relevance to the age of GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons–these people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist. ..."
"... The neocons are a problem. I think they've largely been kept in check by calmer heads in the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims using the Company and its assets. ..."
"... The Zionist neocons who control the U.S. are used to invading and destroying small countries with no regard for international law and killing millions of civilians including men , women and children, this is what the Zionist neocons do or rather this is what they make the American military do. ..."
"... The Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both nations will be destroyed and fools like col. ralph peters are typical of the toy officer contingent that is harbored in the military, and who are puppets of Israel. ..."
"... My top of the envelope estimate is that Russia spends its military budget about five times more efficiently than US, and about three times more efficiently than the EU/NATO allies of US. China is very similar, possibly even slightly more efficient than Russia. BTW, this efficiency is only partly due to lower labor costs, but this is a discussion which I had with Andrei before. ..."
"... Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others live. ..."
"... In case you haven't noticed the author isn't talking about Russia dictating the defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand, which is not at all certain about Iran. ..."
"... The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent killers of their host. ..."
You miss the more immediate goal of the Anglozionist Empire, namely the prevention of the
Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained,
battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and
Hezzbollah.
For although as you mentioned the Zionist narcissistic great evil and its Yinon
Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once
again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew, and actions
like the Iraq War, a neocon feast of overconfidence and bluster, ended up strengthening the
true resistance, the true danger to their regional hegemonic plans.
They doubled down, as
psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger
and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways.
The resistance has
now become The Resistance, and with America's continuing belligerence pushing Russia and
China ever closer, we will soon be calling it THE RESISTANCE.
So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?
OK let's look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the
realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the
decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men
in an overtly military regime.
The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably
listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly
motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and
destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the US's general
escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to
the region.
After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria,
involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of
the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that
effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity.
They
would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be
launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases
unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would
have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less
effective.
What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to
escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks
on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to
a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia
(eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic
capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.
Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really
knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on
Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective
destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would
now seem rather a sideshow.
And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and
not to the advantage of the US's interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and
perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full
scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without
significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.
While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term
outcome? Imo that depends on the political context – is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut
bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a "Bush Doctrine"
preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly
saw as an existential threat from a rival.
The result was that although they did considerable
military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which
the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a
total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a
Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of "peacekeeping", and their enemies
struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in
theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and
occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US
military forces from Lebanon.
In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive
loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered,
substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be
rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a
long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open
war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US
have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of
succeeding?
Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime
itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian
response?
Much depends on propaganda – does the US regime and its various collaborating elites
still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the
necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is
how they try to would portray it – the Americans have demonstrated over the years a
shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of
retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also
would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took
place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations,
etc).
In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in
Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.
So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or
political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in
Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to
occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive
military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the
reality that even if the US's European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in
such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of
Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much
more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.
The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly
stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly that's not as reassuring
as it ought to be.
Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well .fine. I just don't see
it.
TBH i don't realistically see it either, but if you think about it, it's kind of a win win
situation for them anyways. My thinking goes like this (correct me pls if I am off)
If Russia can stabilize the region on the helm of a coalition of Iran-Iraq-semiTurkey (bc.
you never know what the turk will do) it would achieve a massive win in the trade war against
the petrodollar (Meanwhile China is making moves in Africa to secure the pipelines)
If Russia fails to stabilize the region, it would mean rising oil prices, which again, is
free money for them in the medium term.
Rather than a direct attack on Russian forces, it is more probable that the US will resort to
sneaky backstabbings, with deniability potential. Direct attacks on the Syrian army could
escalate, on the other hand.
but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes
anything he says seriously.
Here is the problem, Peters is not alone, in fact, a lot of his hysteria is echoed by such
people as former SACEUR Phil Breedlove, today it is Dunford etc.
Another matter, because
those are still uniformed (or were recently) it is really bad idea to behave as psychopaths
as Peters but all of them read from the same script, just the method of delivery differs,
slightly at that.
As per neocons–these are exact people who set foreign policies in
D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their
backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. So I would dispute this thesis of
yours. Militarily all neocons are dumb. For people who think that the history of
Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagan's version) has any relevance to the age of
GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons–these
people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist.
for the Rah-Rah crowd
So, we agree–it is 99% of American military, political and, so called, intellectual
elite, right?
At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to
me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering
any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.
Clearly it made no sense in a tactical military sense to use cruise missiles when
straightforward air attack was available, and the use of the Kalibrs in October 2015 was
certainly motivated as a demonstration of capability. To what degree it was a warning to
potential enemies (the US regime, Israel and the Gulf states, obviously, but also remember at
the time still Turkey, though that brief hostility seems to have been managed out of
existence, helped by the US turning to the Kurds as their proxies in Syria, since then), as
opposed to a marketing pitch (
the Russians have been selling export versions of these missiles for many years ) is open
to question – probably both.
The issue is not so much the possession of cruise missiles – the Soviets had
nuclear armed Tomahawk
equivalents back in the 1980s, and it's always been assumed that those (the air and sea
launched ones, anyway) were repurposed as conventionally armed missiles. It's having them,
along with deployable launchers, in numbers and proving that they work reliably that was the
issue. There's an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian
capabilities in terms of high tech weapons. And in order to use cruise missiles in the way
Martyanov describes here – basically as a base-denial weapon against a peer rival
– you need plenty of them. To hit a US base and render it unusable with conventionally
armed weapons, you have to hit it accurately and you have to hit it multiple times, evading
or overloading the defences and counter-measures. To take out a carrier, you have to locate
the target first, and then beat the counter-measures to hit it at least once and preferably
several times, though one hit could be a mission kill. And in the case of the land base, you
have to be able to do it again a few days later, and keep hitting it.
So the Russians, with their repeated uses of cruise missiles and the introduction of more
modern and potentially significantly more capable missiles that Martyanov refers to, have
been building a credible case that the US can no longer count on escalation superiority in
Syria to protect them.
Now I see how shooting from Iranian airspace increases salvo. missiles with shorter range can
be used which could not have been used from Russian airspace. Now the logic behind longer
range missiles is also clear to avoid being dependent on allies too. Those are not
reliable.
One can only say in retrospective that were it not for what happened in 90s soviet/ Russian
stand off capabilities would be absolutely crushing strong long time ago. Now, combined with
EW capabilities, air defences and fast moving hard hitting land forces all this United by
computerized control it must be something.
There are reasons why Breedlove was pushed out. I've been out of the "war" for a couple
decades, so my confidence that there are saner heads where it counts might be misplaced.
I wouldn't say 99%, but the number is non-trivial, and that is alarming. Peters is aimed
at the folks who buy the medicines and other crap hawked on Fox. It helps sell his fiction to
people who used to read Tom Clancy but now have to take a step down. If he were taken
seriously, he'd be doing more appearances on the Sunday shows.
Stoltenberg's militancy is distressing, but I again hope his masters have him on a short
leash, meaning he will bark but he won't bite.
The neocons are a problem. I think they've largely been kept in check by calmer heads in
the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons
want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims
using the Company and its assets.
DoD has undoubtedly seen and assessed the standoff capability of the Russians, which is
why their involvement has been somewhat muted, but yeah, there are some rabid types down the
chain who are itching to try their toys on the only real adversaries we have in the world,
and given the independence we often give field commanders, they can get us in trouble.
Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesn't sound
like rocket science.
Even if the Soviet Union didn't have advanced land-attack cruise missiles in the 80s, it
should still have been obvious to anyone that their anti-ship missiles could be developed
into land attack missiles.
We're really just talking about a different guidance package, and depending on the sensors
involved that can be as simple as a software change. GLONASS began to enter service in 1982,
and the first test of a satellite guided bomb was conducted in 1993. Any idiot should've been
able to put two and two together here, and at least some Western writers have been warning
about increasingly sophisticated Russian weapons for more than a decade.
Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch
is certainly yes (and the future obsolescence of surface warships was predicted already
before the war), but this is one of those things we won't truly know until we see it
done.
For that matter I'm not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfare
presumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and
overwhelm defenses. If none of the of the ships in the task force have low frequency radars,
stealth aircraft could drop laser guided bombs right down the blind stack directly on top of
warships. A 2,000 pound high explosive bomb would sink more or less any warship afloat today.
The Australian theorist Carlo Kopp proposed this for the F-22 as part of his pet cause to get
his country to acquire F-22s.
It has long struck me as idiotic that modern surface warships are largely unarmored, and I
also find it curious how few CIWS Western warships have compared to Russian ones.
The Zionist neocons who control the U.S. are used to invading and destroying small countries
with no regard for international law and killing millions of civilians including men , women
and children, this is what the Zionist neocons do or rather this is what they make the
American military do.
America is run by a Zionist crime cabal that operates much as Hitler and the Nazis did
with no regard for life or limb, ie a rogue nation that creates terror groups such as ISIS
and AL CIADA that it uses to wreck countries and pretends to fight this self created
terror.
The Zionist warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both
nations will be destroyed and fools like col. ralph peters are typical of the toy officer
contingent that is harbored in the military, and who are puppets of Israel.
The real GORILLA is the Zionists and Israel who have driven American foreign policy for
decades and who are going to destroy America as just as a parasite destroys its host so shall
Zionist Israel destroy America.
The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of
America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any
military expertise these days.
Two separate illusions are to blame for not understanding the foreign, or particularly
Russian military capability:
1) the US population in general has been brainwashed that US is the technologically the most
advanced country in the World; this may be true in many areas but it is far from being true
in all areas, and
2) the US population and its leaders believe that military superiority, especially the one
based on technology, is proportional to the budget, which is totally non-sensual; it may be
true within US, although the mergers of the MIC companies have reduced the competition to
only a few, but it definitely does not apply even to the comparison with the efficiency of
spending military funds even by Western allies of US, let alone to Russia and China.
My top of the envelope estimate is that Russia spends its military budget about five times
more efficiently than US, and about three times more efficiently than the EU/NATO allies of
US. China is very similar, possibly even slightly more efficient than Russia. BTW, this
efficiency is only partly due to lower labor costs, but this is a discussion which I had with
Andrei before.
And hopefully will not be done in the future–let's keep our fingers crossed.
An admirable sentiment, or outcome of rational, moral principle.
Maybe the wisest statement in this whole OP + comment thread. If grown-ups are in charge in Russia, China and then U.S., then it is the case for all
three that:
1. Their foreign and military policies are intended to advance, sometimes forcefully,
their national interests
2. Their military, forceful, national interest is defined as being sufficiently powerful to
deter one another from the use of force specifically with the intention of preventing an
outcome from ever happening where one or the other is in open conflict
3. Because, open conflict with one or another is an outcome that's wholly incompatible with
#1
Sooooooo many words people toss about finding n-more ways to peal the onion of
US/Russia/China power, but really just two things that matter:
1. The US is always paying too much for its military, regardless of what it gets for what
it paid
2. The most worrisome thing on the world stage is a US leader or person in the US
decision-making chain of command, losing his cool , and acting rashly, out of
irrational fear that US dominance is threatened or the infantile possession of a belief that
US dominance means dominance over near-peer partnersaries
In any case – if the US blanketed Russian military positions in Syria:
A. Definite outcome – somewhere on the planet Russia would face-savingly even the
score by sinking (or otherwise destroying) a carrier yes they are difficult to sink but a
Syria debacle would create a will for a partnersary with ways
B. Unclear outcome – whether it would stop there
Because of B, this must never happen. Let's hope to God our leaders understand that.
It all comes down to the nuclear deterrence which mask the actual level of imbalance in
conventional weapons between Russia and the US. Neither Russia nor the US may demonstrate
conventional weapons advantage in an actual exchange to prevent the opponent from being
forced to resorting to the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the Saving Face Exit Option (SFEO)
will be always left by the stronger one for the weaker one. This means that we will not find
out about the actual conventional strike and counter strike capabilities. It will be left to
speculations, phantasies, disinformation and propaganda.
{ but that's only because Russia has not been seriously opposed.}
Who would seriously oppose Russia?
How?
I think it was either [TheSaker] or [Karlin] who noted that both NATO and/or Israel can
bring to bear assets at least 10X what Russia has in Syria.
But obviously something gives NATO/US and/or Israel 2nd thoughts.
I have no idea what it is, but the reason there is no interference with Russia is not because
NATO/US/Israel are charitably disposed towards Russia.
Clearly they are concerned (or worried) about something.
The pending defeat of the Reptiles in Syria is a BIG deal.
It throws of giant monkey wrench in the PINAC plan to redraw the Middle East for Eretz
Yisrael. Short of directly attacking Russia – with unpredictable consequences – they tried
pretty much everything:.
- Chemical attack and mass murder of Syrian civilians by Turks and ISIS ( blamed on
Assad).
- Shootdown of RuAF Su-24 by Turkey/NATO.
- Several attacks on SAA by US either by 'mistake' or directly.
- Blatant violation of Syrian airspace by NATO pirates.
Despite all that, SAA+Russia+Iran+Hezbollah are relentlessly grinding down the
cannibalistic invaders. Israel-firsters and anti-American slime who have invested the State
dept, Pentagon, and CIA are apoplectic.
But clearly they don't know what to do.
Otherwise, they would have done it already.
They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the
resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly
of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance
Indeed. Relatively unknown (at the time) Hezbollah, who in 2006 put a royal shellacking on
Israel, has not only survived, but emerged many magnitudes stronger and more confident than
anyone could have ever imagined.
There were boots a plenty on the ground in Vietnam – and how did that one end? In
case you missed Vietnam, Iraq has had plenty of boots on the ground as well; this one hasn't
still officially ended but has not been going well, not well at all. And Afghanistan. And
Korea in the fifties.
As to Russia not having been seriously opposed in Syria: well, short of all-out war with
Russia what else could have been done? If we try to understand the real game being played, we
would be very concerned. From a Machiavellian perspective, the US strategy has been
succeeding brilliantly. Boots on the ground did not succeed in Vietnam, but the Machiavellian
plan certainly did. Allow me to elaborate a little below.
Let us stop this knee-jerk, rah-rah rooting for the home team and try to think coolly. The
first thing that comes to mind is that there isn't really any home team. This whole ball-game
is not about wining once and for all, it is about keeping these crises going – all the
time, everywhere. Russia is also learning how to play this game: after all, it, too, has to
put on a game for its citizens lest they start getting all sorts of wrong ideas. So the
powers that be collude, and keep these fires smouldering so that they can continue to collect
protection fees from their respective citizens and client states.
Who suffers? People who end up being boots on the ground. People who pay taxes. People who
want a strong, but noble and inspiring, America. People who want to live and let others
live.
During congressional hearings in the 1970s, Admiral Hyman Rickover considered aircraft
carriers as being obsolete targets. It's more than obvious to any reader of this forum why
they continue being produced.
the uproar in Iran regarding the decision to let Russian planes use an Iranian
airbase
There is always somebody in any country who'd create an uproar whether it is in the
interests of the country or not.
In case you haven't noticed the author isn't talking about Russia dictating the
defense of Iran but about Iran objectively being in the same boat as far as Western
aggression is concerned. The animosity towards Iran in the USA is just as great as towards
Russia – the difference is Russia is capable of defending itself, vodka bottle in hand,
which is not at all certain about Iran.
It is not in Iran's interest to have Russia use Iran as a forward base. Dream on, and
quit hitting that vodka bottle.
By using the Iranian airspace, Russia isn't using Iran as a forward base but, on the
contrary, signaling that Iran isn't alone – this is to your advantage, buddy, in case
you haven't figured that out yet.
If you guys want to dwell on the past insults, real or perceived, go right ahead, but
remember – this is a loosing proposition unless, of course, you possess a time
machine.
If you think Iran'd be better off allied with the US – who is stopping you?
Our military record is not so great.
Russia, on the other hand, has held its lands for a millennia.
The only war we (the USA) have truly won since the War of 1812 was the Pacific Theater of
WWII. Everything else was done by others (WWII European Theater was mostly Russian work), or a
miserable stand-off (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) or a totally unnecessary fiasco (War
Between The States, WWI, Iraq ) such that "winning" was no benefit to the "victor".
You might say the Mexican War gave us some good territory but the Mexicans are winning
their Reconquista invasions while we sleep and dilly dally.
The bloodthirsty neocons are dangerous fools. At least the Japanese Imperial Forces wore
uniforms and flew their flag when attacking, even if a sneak attack. Neocons are silent
killers of their host.
Neocons are like clogged arteries – you know they will be a problem but failing to
comprehend the danger, that heart attack can occur most unexpectedly, killing the host.
You know you need to clean the crud out of those clogged arteries but you just don't do
what is needed to clean out and become safe.
Even if Russia were militarily the weakest nation on earth, a US attack on the Russians would
still be a colossal mistake.
No American national interests or civilizational interests are advanced by attacking
Russia.
On the contrary, American lives and wealth would be wasted, and America's reputation
tarnished, in a war which would benefit America's real enemies, Sunni jihadists such
as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, while diminishing American export opportunities, providing a pretext
for the ongoing migrant invasion of Europe, and ethnically cleansing Middle Eastern
Christians.
The Justice Department's internal watchdog has been investigating former FBI
Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for apparently sitting on emails obtained from Anthony Weiner's
laptop, the
Washington Post 's Devlin Barrett and Karoun Demirjian reported Tuesday (of note, Barrett
was recently outed as a
potential source of FBI leaks , according to text messages between FBI employees accused of
political bias)
... ... ...
The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has been asking witnesses why FBI leadership seemed unwilling to move forward on
the examination of emails found on the laptop of former
congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) until late October about three weeks after first being alerted to the issue, according
to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
McCabe tried to stall probe of Weiner laptop emails til after the election
McCabe's colleagues got suspicious about the delay
Comey sent 11th-hour letter that reopened the probe in order to correct for McCabe's perceived
bias
Further pointing towards evidence of political bias is an October, 2016 Wall St. Journal article
which reported that McCabe's wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions
from close Clinton ally, then-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe for her failed run at VA state
legislature.
"... "Christopher Steele the man behind the Trump dossier: how the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trump's ties to Russia" ..."
"... Mayer tries to take the high road by asserting that the Republicans are "trying to take down the intelligence community." It is an odd assertion coming from her as she has written a book called "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals," ..."
"... A Steele friend describes the man as a virtual Second Coming of Jesus, for whom "fairness, integrity and truth trump any ideology." Former head of MI-6 and Steele boss Sir John Dearlove, who once reported how the intelligence on Iraq had been "sexed-up" and "fixed around the policy" to make the false case for war, describes Steele as "superb." ..."
"... Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who himself was involved in lying to support America's journey into Iraq, similarly sees Steele as honest and credible in his claims, while a former CIA Station Chief in Moscow is called upon to cast aspersions on the "Russian character" that impels them to engage in lies and deception. ..."
"... Another major blooper in the Mayer story relates to how one unnamed "senior Russian official" reported that the Kremlin had blocked the appointment of Mitt Romney, a noted critic of Russia, as secretary of state. How exactly that was implemented is not clear from the Steele reporting and there has been no other independent confirmation of the allegation, but Mayer finds it credible, asserting that "subsequent events could be said to support it." What events? one might ask, though the national media did not hesitate and instead reported Mayer's assertion as if it were itself a credible source in a forty-eight hour news cycle frenzy relating to Romney and Trump. ..."
"... Steele's work history also raises some questions. He served in Moscow as a first tour officer for MI-6 under diplomatic cover from 1990 to 1993. Russia was in tumult and Mayer describes how "Boris Yeltsin gained ultimate power, and a moment of democratic promise faded as the KGB -now called the FSB-reasserted its influence, oligarchs snapped up state assets, and nationalist political forces began to emerge." Not to go into too much detail, but Mayer's description of Russia at that time is dead wrong. Yeltsin was a drunkard and a tool of American and European intervention and manipulation. He was no agent of "democratic promise" and only grew more corrupt as his time in office continued into the completely manipulated election of 1996, when the IMF and U.S. conspired to get him reelected so the looting, a.k.a. "democratization," could go on. Mayer goes on to depict in negative terms a "shadowy" former "KGB operative" Vladimir Putin who emerged from the chaos. ..."
"... Sweeping judgements by Mayer also include "[Steele's] allegation that the Kremlin favored Trump in 2016 and was offering his campaign dirt on Hillary has been borne out. So has his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together " As noted above, the WikiLeaks/Kremlin allegations have not been demonstrated, nor have the claims about Kremlin provision of information to discredit Hillary, who was doing a find job at the time discrediting herself. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
The latest salvo in the Russiagate saga is a 15,000 word New Yorker article entitled "Christopher Steele the man behind the Trump
dossier: how the ex-spy tried to warn the world about Trump's ties to Russia" by veteran
journalist Jane Mayer. The premise of the piece is clear from the tediously long title, namely
that the Steele dossier, which implicated Donald Trump and his associates in a number of high
crimes and misdemeanors, is basically accurate in exposing an existential threat posed to our
nation by Russia. How does it come to that conclusion? By citing sources that it does not
identify whose credibility is alleged to be unimpeachable as well as by including testimony
from Steele friends and supporters.
In other words, the Mayer piece is an elaboration of the same "trust me" narrative that has
driven the hounding of Russia and Trump from day one. Inevitably, the Trump haters both from
the left and the right have jumped on the Mayer piece as confirmation of their own presumptions
regarding what has allegedly occurred, when, in reality, Trump might just be more right than
wrong when he claims that he has been the victim of a conspiracy by the Establishment to
discredit and remove him.
Mayer is a progressive and a long-time critic of Donald Trump. She has written a book
denouncing "the Koch brothers' deep influence on American politics" and co-authored another
book with Jill Abramson, formerly Executive Editor of the New York Times.
Abramson reportedly carries a small plastic replica of Barack Obama in her purse which she
can take out "to take comfort" whenever she is confronted by Donald Trump's America. Mayer's
New Yorker bio-blurb describes her as a journalist who covers national security,
together with politics and culture.
The problem with the type of neo-journalism as practiced by Mayer is that it first comes to
a conclusion and then selects the necessary "facts" to support that narrative. When the
government does that sort of thing to support, one might suggest, a war against Iraq or even
hypothetically speaking Iran, it is called cherry picking. After the facts have been cherry
picked they are "stovepiped" up to the policy maker, avoiding along the way any analysts who
might demur regarding the product's veracity. In journalistic terms, the equivalent would
perhaps be sending the garbage up directly to a friendly editor, avoiding any fact check.
Mayer tries to take the high road by asserting that the Republicans are "trying to take
down the intelligence community." It is an odd assertion coming from her as she has written a
book called "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on
American Ideals," a development which was pretty much implemented by the intelligence
community working hand-in-hand with Congress and the White House. But she is not the first
liberal who has now become a friend of CIA, the FBI and the NSA as a response to the greater
threat allegedly posed by Donald Trump.
A Steele friend describes the man as a virtual Second Coming of Jesus, for whom
"fairness, integrity and truth trump any ideology." Former head of MI-6 and Steele boss Sir
John Dearlove, who once reported how the intelligence on Iraq had been "sexed-up"
and "fixed
around the policy" to make the false case for war, describes Steele as "superb." Other
commentary from former American CIA officers is similar in nature. Former CIA Deputy
Director John McLaughlin, who himself was involved in lying to support America's journey into
Iraq, similarly sees Steele as honest and credible in his claims, while a former CIA Station
Chief in Moscow is called upon to cast aspersions on the "Russian character" that impels them
to engage in lies and deception.
My review of the Mayer rebuttal of criticism of Steele revealed a number of instances where
she comes to certain conclusions without presenting any real supporting evidence or accepts
"proof" that is essentially hearsay because it supports her overall narrative. She asserts that
Russia and WikiLeaks were working together on the release of the Democratic National
Committee/Hillary Clinton emails without providing any substantiation whatsoever. She surely
came to that judgment based on something she was told, but by whom and when?
Another major blooper in the Mayer story relates to how one unnamed "senior Russian
official" reported that the Kremlin had blocked the appointment of Mitt Romney, a noted critic
of Russia, as secretary of state. How exactly that was implemented is not clear from the Steele
reporting and there has been no other independent confirmation of the allegation, but Mayer
finds it credible, asserting that "subsequent events could be said to support it." What events?
one might ask, though the national media did not hesitate and instead reported Mayer's
assertion as if it were itself a credible source in a forty-eight hour news cycle frenzy
relating to Romney and Trump.
Steele's work history also raises some questions. He served in Moscow as a first tour
officer for MI-6 under diplomatic cover from 1990 to 1993. Russia was in tumult and Mayer
describes how "Boris Yeltsin gained ultimate power, and a moment of democratic promise faded as
the KGB -now called the FSB-reasserted its influence, oligarchs snapped up state assets, and
nationalist political forces began to emerge." Not to go into too much detail, but Mayer's
description of Russia at that time is dead wrong. Yeltsin was a drunkard and a tool of American
and European intervention and manipulation. He was no agent of "democratic promise" and only
grew more corrupt as his time in office continued into the completely manipulated election of
1996, when the IMF and U.S. conspired to get him reelected so the looting, a.k.a.
"democratization," could go on. Mayer goes on to depict in negative terms a "shadowy" former
"KGB operative" Vladimir Putin who emerged from the chaos.
Mayer also cites a Steele report of April 2016, a "secret investigation [that] involved a
survey of Russian interference in the politics of four members of the European Union," but she
neither produces the report itself or the sources used to put it together. The report allegedly
concluded that the "Kremlin's long-term aim was to boost extremist groups and politicians at
the expense of Europe's liberal democracies. The more immediate goal was to destroy the E.U "
The precis provided by Mayer is a bit of fantasy, it would seem, and is perhaps a reflection of
an unhealthy obsession on the part of Steele, if he actually came to that conclusion. As it
stands it is hearsay, possibly provided by Steele himself or a friend to Mayer to defend his
reputation.
Mayer also reports and calls potentially treasonous Steele's claims that "Kremlin and Trump
were politically colluding in the 2016 campaign 'to sow discord and disunity both with the
U.S.' and within the transatlantic alliance." And also, "[Trump] and his top associates had
repeatedly accepted intelligence from the Kremlin on Hillary Clinton and other political
rivals." As Robert Mueller apparently has not developed any information to support such wild
claims, it would be interesting to know why Jane Mayer considers them to be credible.
Sweeping judgements by Mayer also include "[Steele's] allegation that the Kremlin
favored Trump in 2016 and was offering his campaign dirt on Hillary has been borne out. So has
his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together " As noted above, the
WikiLeaks/Kremlin allegations have not been demonstrated, nor have the claims about Kremlin
provision of information to discredit Hillary, who was doing a find job at the time
discrediting herself.
The account of Donald Trump performing "perverted sexual acts" in a Moscow hotel is likewise
a good example of what is wrong with the article. Four sources are cited as providing details
of what took place, but it is conceded that none of them was actually a witness to it. It would
be necessary to learn who the sources were beyond vague descriptions, what their actual access
to the information was and what their motives were for coming forward might be. One was
allegedly a "top-level Russian intelligence officer," but the others were hotel employees and a
Trump associate who had arranged for the travel.
Finally, from an ex-intelligence officer point of view I have some questions about Steele's
sources in Russia. Who are they? If they were MI-6 sources he would not be able to touch them
once he left the service and would face severe sanctions under the Official Secrets Act should
he even try to do so. There are in addition claims in the Mayer story that Steele did not pay
his sources because it would encourage them to fabricate, an argument that could also be made
about Steele who was being paid to produce dirt on Trump. So what was the quid pro quo
? Intelligence agents work for money, particularly when dealing with a private security firm,
and Steele's claim, if he truly made it, that he has sources that gave him closely held, highly
sensitive information in exchange for an occasional lunch in Mayfair rings hollow.
Jane Mayer's account of the Steele dossier seems to accept quite a lot on faith. It would be
interesting to know the extent to which Steele himself or his proxies were the source of much
of what she has written. Until we know more about the actual Russian sources and also about
Mayer's own contacts interviewed for the article, her "man behind the Trump dossier" will
continue to be something of a mystery and the entire Russiagate saga assumption that Moscow
interfered in the 2016 U.S. election must be regarded as still to be demonstrated.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Good article, in the the sense that it seems largely correct, but very gentle ? It really
pulls its punches.
"The problem with the type of neo-journalism as practiced by Mayer is that it first comes to
a conclusion and then selects the necessary "facts" to support that narrative"
Neo-journalism ? More like pure propaganda. Shoddy doesn't even begin to cover the apparent
systematic lying by commission & omission.
Skripal springs to mind. He was recruited by MI6 whilst Steele was in Russia and he worked
for the Steele outfit Orbis, which was paid for the Trump dossier, after he was released.
Last night I watched "The Real Bravo Two Zero", a movie available through Amazon Prime. It
tells the story of 8 British special ops soldiers who were helecoptered down behind Iraqi
lines during the first Gulf War. Their mission was to locate and radio back the co-ordinates
of the mobile missile launchers Saddam was using to hurl Scuds at Israel.
Everything in the mission that could go wrong, did. However the basic fault lay not with
the soldier but rather with the planners back at headquarters. Ultimately a number of the
British soldiers were killed and captured but one of them escaped capture and made a heroic
trek of 200 kilometers to the relative safety of Syria.
Later, after the war, at least two of the survivors authored books that described the
mission. In those books, the authors claimed that the party of 8 had engaged in numerous fire
fights with well armed Iraqi combat teams which resulted in the death of approx. 250 of the
Iraqi soldiers. Other acts of heroism and bravery were delineated as well.
The movie follows the footsteps of an investigative journalist–himself a former
soldier–who is literally retracing the steps of the soldiers. With his fluent Arabic he
interviews those local Bedouin farmers for their take on what happened in their encounter
with the British team.. What he discovers–to his dismay–is that much of what
happens in the books is pure fabrication, fantasy ginned up to stoke patriotic feelings of
pride in the prowess of the British special forces while boosting popularity for the war back
home. Fairy tales.
Now the guy narrating the movie doesn't go so far as to accuse the establishment British
propaganda machine of fabricating this trash but he does explicitly note the discrepancy
between what really occurred and what is put forward as non-fiction account of these
events.
We are all familiar with the charges of lying and deception made against the British by
Charles Lindbergh, Ford and other populist patriots during the lead up to WW2. With this in
mind, why should we believe that anything that comes from England (such as these claims made
by Steele), which recognizes no right to free speech or an unfettered press, is anything but
pure propaganda?
If you have Amazon, please watch the movie. It is excellent.
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely
predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as
half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the
lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting
candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the
best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the
field for a favored "star" recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who
worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top
aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep
involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of
responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its
top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable
Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which
includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term
Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At
the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political
vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic
Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic
primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
The PM has said that the nerve agent was 'Novichok' which is 5 to 8 times more
potent than VX... and the authorities waited 5 days to send the army in and over a week to
tell people to wash their clothes and other items?
"Sergej Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military grade nerve agent of a
type developed by Russia.
MILITARY grade? Well then, Mrs. Prime Minister... that's pretty God damn serious
then. Because everyone knows the Russian CONSUMER -grade nerve agents are crap. I
think they sell them on Amazon (Free shipping with Amazon Prime).
Like I said in a previous thread Novichok was part of the plot of the recent "Strike Back:
Retribution" TV series on Sky TV, Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox owns a 39.14% controlling
stake in Sky PLC. So a TV series by a billionaire supporter of Teresa May just happens to
make a fictional TV series around a nerve agent and Bad Russians(TM) and is put on TV just
before Teresa May accuses Bad Russians(TM) of using said nerve agent. This is not a
coincidence.
"... Putin's goal is now neither to recreate the USSR, nor to become part of the West. Rather, the ambition is to build an economic and technological "West" inside Russia, ..."
Scary Putin, Bogeyman to the World, has been on full display in US newspapers this month, most conspicuously on
the front page of The
New York Times , in a
misleading photograph suitable for the cover of a new edition of Nineteen Eight-Four . "
Putin Says He Has 'Invincible'
Nuclear Missile ," was the headline. The hypersonic zig-zag cruise missiles and torpedoes of which he boasted might be a bluff
for now, the Times noted. Fully operational, however, such weapons would "travel low, stealthily, far and fast – too fast
for defenders to react."
... ... ...
What wasn't on display last week was an analytic account of what else Putin said in what was, after all, his
state of the nation address , three weeks before the election
in which he is seeking a fourth presidential term. For that I turned to Alexander Baunov of the Carnegie Moscow Center. I get my
Russia news from Johnson's Russia List -- 191 items
last week, of which I read perhaps twenty-five -- and from Jonathan
Haslam's blog, Through Russian Eyes . Haslam is Kennan professor
at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
Putin's goal is now neither to recreate the USSR, nor to become part of the West. Rather, the ambition is to build an economic
and technological "West" inside Russia, while continuing an aggressive posture towards the West on the outside .
... ... ...
The problems of the Russian economy, interesting though they may be, are for the most part orthogonal to those of the US, which
at the moment have to do with the prospect of trade wars with its allies.
"... Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump ..."
"... America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order ..."
"... Jewish Review of Books ..."
"... Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States ..."
"... The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World ..."
"... The Phoenix Program: America's Use of Terror in Vietnam ..."
"... They try to provoke him by shooting down aircraft, demonizing, sanctions and all forms of schoolboy antics. Regardless, he remains on course, an outstanding strategist. I don"t think he felt provoked in the interview, rather he just had difficulty suffering such a hollow woman. ..."
"... I don't know is she stupid or no, but she had the task – to provoke my President. This is why she acted like a questioning robot. Ignored the answers and simple logic, she wanted him to make a mistake and express what they wanted from him on emotions. Several times he was really angry about her persistent curiosity about Russian hand in US elections. She took the role of prosecutor. But this interview plan was transparent for Putin. ..."
"... Ms. Kellys' antics gave Mr. Putin some face time in the USA MSM. He looks and acts like a leader. I'm sure the benefits outweighed the nonsense. ..."
Similarly, the reason I reject the New World Order ideology is because it is
metaphysically incoherent. Its finest proponents have never bothered to address its
incoherence either. Double standards, contradictions, illogical leaps, inconsistency, are
obvious signs that a system is internally incoherent and failing. These issues are never
discussed in Michael Isikoff's recent book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's
War on America and the Election of Donald Trump . [1]
New World Order agent Megyn Kelly has recently interviewed Vladimir Putin again, but she
didn't flesh out anything new at all. She asked the same old questions about hacking as if the
United States should never be placed in the same position. Russia has to admit that it "hacked"
the election, the argument goes, but the United States should never be challenged on the same
issue. It is totally irrelevant.
I wish I could persuade Kelly and other New World Order agents to concentrate on the
fundamental issues and stop flip-flopping. Here is what Kelly needs to focus on: even if we
grant the ridiculous idea that Russia "hacked" the election, so what? The United States has
been doing this since the beginning of time! This is again coming from the New York
Times :
"Bags of cash delivered to a Rome hotel for favored Italian candidates. Scandalous stories
leaked to foreign newspapers to swing an election in Nicaragua. Millions of pamphlets, posters
and stickers printed to defeat an incumbent in Serbia.
"The long arm of Vladimir Putin? No, just a small sample of the United States' history of
intervention in foreign elections.
"Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on
our political system. But intelligence veterans, and scholars who have studied covert
operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view.
"'If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something
bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,' said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years
at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States 'absolutely' has
carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, 'and I hope we keep doing
it.'
"Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence scholars, who began his career in the
1970s investigating the C.I.A. as a staff member of the Senate's Church Committee, says
Russia's 2016 operation was simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for
decades, whenever American officials were worried about a foreign vote.
"'We've been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947,' said Mr.
Johnson, now at the University of Georgia. 'We've used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners --
you name it. We've planted false information in foreign newspapers. We've used what the British
call 'King George's cavalry': suitcases of cash.'" [2]
Russia should not hack the election, but who gave the United States the license to hack
virtually every election around the globe? Isn't that a blatant double standard? Shouldn't
Kelly have wrestled with this issue before she even presented it to Putin? If Putin and the
Russians have to go to jail for hacking the election, when will we start jailing virtually
every single US official for screwing up the Middle East and much of the world? This is the
New York Times again:
"The United States' departure from democratic ideals sometimes went much further. The C.I.A.
helped overthrow elected leaders in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s and backed violent coups in
several other countries in the 1960s. It plotted assassinations and supported brutal
anti-Communist governments in Latin America, Africa and Asia." [3]
As former military intelligence officer Robert David Steele has pointed out, "Americans
rigged, bribed, stole, killed, raped, and poisoned and you want to blame the Russians?" The
United States, Steele argues, has meddled in at least 26 countries since World War II. But the
ingenious Megyn Kelly hasn't even bothered to ask for a thorough investigation.
************************************
Furthermore, what did Russia release before the election that the average American shouldn't
have known? These questions have never been answered by New World Order agents like Kelly,
Michael Isikoff, and David Corn. Why?
Simple: these people do not want to use reason and common sense. They have deliberately
abandoned the moral and political order and have embraced an essentially Talmudic ideology.
They cannot see that New World Order agents in the United States are deliberately melting in
the heat of their own contradictions. Don't believe me? This is coming from Bloomberg
(thanks to my dear friend and colleague Mark Dankof for sending this article to me):
"Billionaire investor Peter Thiel got a fresh victory in Washington. His data-mining
startup, Palantir Technologies Inc., won a much-contested contract to provide software to the
U.S. Army.
"Palantir will work with Raytheon Co. to replace the troubled Distributed Common Ground
System now in effect. They beat out seven other proposals for a decade-long, $876 million
contract, according to the U.S. Defense Department. Terms of the partnership between Palantir
and Raytheon weren't disclosed, and the companies didn't immediately respond to requests for
comment.
"Thiel, the co-founder and chairman of Palantir, approved the company's move in 2016 to sue
the Army over what it called an unfair bidding process. A judge found in Palantir's favor and
ordered the Army to revamp the way it solicits bids for the Distributed Common Ground System.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office determined that the Army's current system was
over-budget and underperforming.
"Since the election of President Donald Trump, Thiel has gained significant influence in
Washington. He was the most prominent supporter of Trump from Silicon Valley and contributed
money to the campaign. Thiel helped fill positions in the Trump administration with former
staff, including Trae Stephens, a onetime Palantir employee. Although he recently told the New
York Times that Trump's presidency had 'fallen short' in some ways, Thiel said he has no
regrets about supporting him.
"In addition to the Army deal, Palantir has been making inroads elsewhere in the U.S.
government. After the company made a similar legal challenge to the U.S. Navy, officials agreed
to revamp its technology procurement process last year." [4]
Why doesn't Megyn Kelly sit down with Palantir and tell him that he has no right to get
involved in such a covert activity? Why doesn't Kelly -- who used to show her skin for
metrosexual magazines such as GQ --
discuss these issues with Palantir at a coffee shop somewhere? Who is that woman really fooling
this time?
Obviously she is not fooling Putin, who usually says of Kelly's assertions: "
This is complete nonsense. " Listen to this sophomoric question that Kelly asked Putin: "Do
you like the fact that you were in the KGB? Do you like people to know that?" Again, Kelly
finds it repulsive that Putin was in the KGB, but Kelly doesn't even find it repugnant that
Irving Kristol, the father of the Neoconservative movement, was a proud Trotskyite.
Kristol proudly admitted that the "honor I most prized was the fact that I was a member in
good standing of the [Trotskyist] Young People's Socialist League (Fourth International)."
[5]
Kristol was not just a former Trotskyist, but a former neo-Marxist and neo-socialist.
[6]
The interview between Putin and Kelly is telling:
Megyn Kelly : I will give you one piece of evidence. Andrei Krutskikh is an advisor to the
Kremlin when it comes to cyber issues. In his speech to an information security forum in
February 2016, he reportedly said, quote, "I am warning you. We are on the verge of having
something in the information arena which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals."
What do you think he meant? Because it certainly sounds like a threat right before an election
hack.
Vladimir Putin : Sometimes I think you are joking.
Megyn Kelly : No, I am deadly serious.
Vladimir Putin : A man says something about how he sees our contacts and our work with our
foreign partners, the US in this case, in a certain area. I have no idea what he said. Ask him
what he meant. Do you think I control everything?
Megyn Kelly : He is an advisor to the Kremlin on cyber.
Vladimir Putin : So what? There are 2,000 people working in the administration; do you think
I control everyone? Peskov is sitting in front of me, he is my press secretary and he sometimes
says things that I see on television and think, what is he talking about? Who told him to say
this?
Megyn Kelly : I think when it comes to our two countries you know exactly what is going on.
And this is Russia's problem now. It is. The heads of the US intelligence agencies just
testified to Congress that Russia, Russia poses the greatest threat in the world to the
American security, greater than ISIS. You cannot get the sanctions lifted. The relationship
between our two countries is nearly non-existent right now. Did not this interference, whether
you knew or you did not know about it, backfire against Russia?
Did you follow Kelly's logic in the last statement? The US intelligence agencies declared
that Russia poses the greatest threat in the world to the American security, and Kelly didn't
even challenge that premise. She swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The US intelligence
agencies are the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, and whatever they posit must
axiomatically be true.
We have numerous cases where US intelligence agencies deliberately lied to the American
people for perpetuating diabolical activities. [7]
But Megyn Kelly isn't interested in things like that because they would ruin her ideological
foundations. Now we're talking:
Megyn Kelly : Okay, so let me ask you: you have stated explicitly you believe that America
interfered in Russian elections, right?
Vladimir Putin : The US does this all the time.
Megyn Kelly : But Russia did not interfere in America's election?
Vladimir Putin : No, and there are no plans in Russia to do so. It is impossible. It is
impossible for us.
Megyn Kelly : Why not? Why wouldn't you?
Megyn Kelly was trained as a lawyer, and she just couldn't realize that her questions
violate the basic cannons of logic. I once had a discussion with a lawyer back in 2011 during
which he made an extraordinary statement. My simple question was: "Where is the evidence for
that?" His response? "Where is the evidence that it is not the case?"
I was astounded because I thought I was talking to a lawyer. The dude made a statement and
wanted me to present evidence for it! At that point, I realized that the conversation was
over.
Let us conclude by saying that it is just crazy for Kelly to take the US intelligence
agencies at face value when they declared that "Russia poses the greatest threat in the world
to the American security, greater than ISIS." It sounds like that the agencies got that idea
right out George Soros' mouth. Soros, as we recalled, wrote an article back in 2016 entitled,
"Putin is a bigger threat to Europe's existence than Isis." Soros incoherently declared
then:
"The leaders of the US and the EU are making a grievous error in thinking that president
Vladimir Putin's Russia is a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State. The evidence
contradicts them. Putin's aim is to foster the EU's disintegration, and the best way to do so
is to flood Europe with Syrian refugees." [8]
No one with an ounce of common sense should take this crazy assertion seriously. Soros, as I
have argued elsewhere, is a New World Order agent and has been in the business for years.
What we are seeing again and again is that the New World Order is actually collapsing
because it cannot produce a coherent system. We were told ad nauseam that Putin is
reestablishing the Soviet Union. (Keep in mind that the Soviet Union was essentially Jewish.)
Now we are being told that Putin is essentially anti-Semitic because he simply said that
"Maybe they [the so-called hackers] are not even Russians but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews,
but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked; maybe they have dual citizenship of
a green card; maybe the U.S. paid them for this. How can you know that? I do not know either."
[9]
Putin said that the hackers could be either Russians, Tartars, or even Jews. But the fact
that he mentioned Jews axiomatically makes him an anti-Semite. Mentioning Russians does not
necessarily make him anti-Russian, but mentioning Jews is an unpardonable sin for which there
is no redemption. Where did they dig these people?
[1] Michael Isikoff, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and
the Election of Donald Trump (New York: Twelve Books, 2018). President Assad asked
Isikoff why the United States is supporting terrorist states like Saudi Arabia, and Isikoff's
answer? " I'm not interviewing the kingdom of
Saudi Arabia right now. I'm interviewing you ." Complete nonsense!
[2] Scott Shane, "Russia Isn't the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too," NY
Times , February 17, 2018.
Lizette Chapman, "Peter Thiel's Palantir Wins $876 Million U.S. Army Contract,"
Bloomberg , March 10, 2018.
[5] Stephen Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the
Global Order (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 43.
[6] Meir Soloveichik, "Irving Kristol, Edmund Burke, and the Rabbis," Jewish Review
of Books , Number 6, Summer 2011.
[7] For scholarly studies on this, see Rebecca Gordon, Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical
Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014);
Douglas Valentine, The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and
the World (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2016); The Phoenix Program: America's Use of
Terror in Vietnam (Lincoln: iUniverse Inc., 1990 and 2000).
[8] George Soros, "Putin is a bigger threat to Europe's existence than Isis,"
Guardian , February 11, 2016.
[9] Tom Porter, "Putin Says That Jews 'With Russian Citizenship' May be Behind U.S.
Election Meddling," Newsweek , March 10, 2018.
joetv
March 11, 2018 at 2:19 pm Putin mentioned other suspects. As in any investigation the
most likely suspect can be found using logic to determine who benefited from the crime. An
honest, reasonable investigator would have ruled out Russia early, as there was nothing to be
gained. The motive offered; the end of sanctions, just a canard. It turns out the big winner
is Israel. Surprise! That is where the spot light should shine.
Log in to leave a comment
Chris Paul
March 11, 2018 at 1:55 pm Come on Jonas, stop guilding the lily. You quote some dude
who says that the USA has interfered in 26 countries since WW2. That is a Limite Hang Out.
I wish to posit the hypothesis that the USA has interfered with EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET
since WW2. Using the Scientific Method we need to gather evidence, both hard and
cicumstantial, from every corner of the Planet. I would suggest Crowd Funding multiple PhD
students from all over and then some to very carefully centrally co-ordinate that gathered
information. Gradually that Hypothesis could be transformed into a Theory that the USA
pursued a Unipower Policy of Full Spectrum Dominance over the whole Planet.Further, as that
one would only take a few years with all the Publicly Available read more ...
Log in to leave a comment
M.O.A.Bitches
March 11, 2018 at 6:53 pm I think you just described Argentina . . . since 1891.
Not only does the U.S. interfere with every country under the sun, so did the old money
farts from the daze of yore . . . It grew from there. GMO zio-seed money.
Argentina has been a hot mess of "revolutionary death and destruction chaos" with Marxist
brainwash hammer since, oh I reckon 1891 when Moritz (Zvi) von Hirsch dreamed a little
colonization dream for Argentina. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Colonization_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_de_Hirsch
The Jewish Colonization read more ...
M.O.A.Bitches
March 11, 2018 at 7:01 pm The Jewish Colonization Association (JCA or ICA, Yiddish
ייִק"אַ) was created on September 11, 1891, by Baron
Maurice de Hirsch. Its aim was to facilitate the mass emigration of Jews from Russia and
other Eastern European countries, by settling them in agricultural colonies on lands
purchased by the committee, particularly in North America (Canada and the United States),
and South America (Argentina and Brazil).
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Argentina and Brazil . . .
That is classic!
The Zionists are a bunch of delusional Masonic magick worshiping secret coders. Sept. 11
1891 . . . and 110 years later . . . NYC is hit.
Evil bastards is right.
Eduardo
March 11, 2018 at 7:13 pm These are facts that US has interfered with any Nation on
Earth since WW2. Though let us remember that the hammer and anvil of international jewry
has already goy crowd funded our days reality and at the same time woven a sticky net of
deceit and defense around the globe and themselves reinforced by corrupted politics,
religious henchmen and greedy fools. An evil organism in itself, separated from humane
humanity but controlling and steering it by their own will and desire. A change can only
occur if conscientiousness sets in that every Nation is affected and NO Nationality
spared. Only when Nations unite in sovereignty, independence and a CLEAR conscience a
change will happen. The "cleansing" must start at every home. A circle must be drawn, read more ...
Eduardo
March 11, 2018 at 7:30 pm Brasil is exactly the same MOAB. Corruption is not a South
American virtue as it is recognized all over the world. It was infected and seeded by
international Jewry a century ago. President Temer of Brasil is just one of many "heads
of state" that legalizes international jewry's rule officially. We all know by now who is
behind corruption though it wont be South Americans unless they are double citizens and
attend synagogues.
Colombia is another Jewish enclave run bu the same Jewry. A proper revolution will be
needed but this time without creating a safe heaven for Zionists. A proper detention
center run by independent goyim seems more appropriate.
Sandra Villarreal
March 11, 2018 at 1:08 pm As a well informed American citizen, it was so embarrassing
watching Megan Kelly, once again, bring her brainwashed propaganda back to the table with
Putin for all the world to see. I think she actually believes her own lies. But thank
goodness Putin's able to handle her like a champ.
Log in to leave a comment
Chris Paul
March 11, 2018 at 2:04 pm Putin cleverly plays her. Her stupidity is not as apparent
to Pavlovian Trained USA Citizens, but embarrases the USA in the eyes of the rest of the
world. The Parasite Cult is gutting the USA under Pump and Dump Drumpf and exposing the
level of understanding of the USA Public is part of that process. As they used to say in
the TV Industry and probably still do: "pitch it to the lowest common denominator, never
overestimate the taste of the viewing public".
Why President Putin even bothers to give Kelly the time of day is beyond me. She is
merely an NWO media sycophant who, if she found one minuscule notion (emphasis on the
minus) that somehow Putin was hedging or evasive this would be sufficient to assume guilt
on what? – a totally contrived media and face-saving facade by the Democrats
agreeable to the Republicans because for once they could unite and attack alleged and
delusional Russian interference in the 2016 election. Kelly has gone from being a clown in
the Russia-gate circus to doing a high-wire act at 26 feet. She might as well be at 26,000
ft. craving oxygen to give life to a non-existent story in rare air. This may well account
for her suffering the Third Man syndrome – read more ...
Log in to leave a comment
US-First
March 11, 2018 at 12:09 pm Part 2
Kelly did manage to evoke one comment that now has the Jewish-run media tripping over
themselves that Putin is an anti-Semite. He stated during the interview on alleged
Russian interference:
"Maybe they are not even Russians but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews but with Russian
citizenship, which should also be checked; maybe they have dual citizenship of a green
card; maybe the U.S. paid them for this " he said.
The Tatar – Khazar connection is a double whammy by those espousing the view
that Khazars formed the foundational core of modern Ashkenazim – (Koestler 1976
pp. 134-150). It is quite astounding the number of these same modern-day Ashkenazis are
close acquaintances of one Donald Trump and were crucial in getting him read more ...
Khalid Talaat
March 11, 2018 at 10:25 am The one thing you must admire about Putin is his laser like
focus on his goal. He is a master of himself. They try to provoke him by shooting down
aircraft, demonizing, sanctions and all forms of schoolboy antics. Regardless, he remains on
course, an outstanding strategist. I don"t think he felt provoked in the interview, rather he
just had difficulty suffering such a hollow woman.
Log in to leave a comment
Andrew_Bukanov(Russia)
March 11, 2018 at 5:00 am I have watched the interview yesterday. I don't know is
she stupid or no, but she had the task – to provoke my President. This is why she
acted like a questioning robot. Ignored the answers and simple logic, she wanted him to
make a mistake and express what they wanted from him on emotions. Several times he was
really angry about her persistent curiosity about Russian hand in US elections. She took
the role of prosecutor. But this interview plan was transparent for Putin.
Log in to leave a comment
Harry Haller
March 11, 2018 at 10:39 amMs. Kellys' antics gave Mr. Putin some face time in
the USA MSM. He looks and acts like a leader. I'm sure the benefits outweighed the
nonsense.
"... She has access to a world leader and acts as if Russians posting to Facebook is the single most important event in the world today; narcissism. Speaking of narcissism, did Kelly flick her hair or strut because she knows that she is undoubtedly the most beautiful woman to have ever lived? ..."
"... I hope, 20yrs from now, that Oliver Stone's interview will be remembered. It's possible to to learn about someone by actually listening to them rather than shutting them down. Scientists are still studying this phenomenon. ..."
"... @ 13 V. Arnold | Mar 12, 2018 2:35:25 AM @ 25 Jackrabbit | Mar 12, 2018 11:46:08 AM ..."
"... Reading Gilbert Doctorow's book Does the United States Have A Future? Collected (Nonconformist Essays on Russian-American Relations, 2015-17) , ISBN 13: 9781976038371 He mentions another interview V. Putin had with Meagan Kelly in his essay dated 8 June 2017. The essay states RT ran a full, unedited version that is compared to a youtube reference: ..."
"... put on air for American audiences (4 minutes into program).[sorry, transcribing by hand, trusting sufficient information for others to followup]. Apparently the interview was held on sidelines of the St. Petersburg 'International Economic Forum' of 2017. Note was made by Doctorow of the shambles presented to the American viewers. ..."
"the full interview with putin and megan kelly.. emptywheel has also written a piece on it
going over the minutiae.. i swear these folks can't see the forest for the trees.." - James
Can't stand Megyn Kelly anymore.
She has access to a world leader and acts as if Russians posting to Facebook is the
single most important event in the world today; narcissism. Speaking of narcissism, did Kelly
flick her hair or strut because she knows that she is undoubtedly the most beautiful woman to
have ever lived?
I hope, 20yrs from now, that Oliver Stone's interview will be remembered. It's possible
to to learn about someone by actually listening to them rather than shutting them down.
Scientists are still studying this phenomenon.
@ 13 V. Arnold | Mar 12, 2018 2:35:25 AM
@ 25 Jackrabbit | Mar 12, 2018 11:46:08 AM
Reading Gilbert Doctorow's book Does the United States Have A Future? Collected
(Nonconformist Essays on Russian-American Relations, 2015-17) , ISBN 13:
9781976038371 He mentions another interview V. Putin had with Meagan Kelly in his essay dated
8 June 2017. The essay states RT ran a full, unedited version that is compared to a youtube
reference:
put on air for American audiences (4 minutes into program).[sorry, transcribing by
hand, trusting sufficient information for others to followup]. Apparently the interview was
held on sidelines of the St. Petersburg 'International Economic Forum' of 2017. Note was made
by Doctorow of the shambles presented to the American viewers.
"... Pablo Miller was exposed in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians were arrested for spying and fingered Miller as their recruiter. One of Miller's other recruits was Alexander Litvinenko. [Note: Polonium was also used to murder Arafat -- the source is said to have been Israel's Dimona reactor.] ..."
"... According to his LinkedIn entry (deleted a few days ago), Miller worked as a consultant for Christopher Steele -- Miller is the consultant whose name was withheld by the Telegraph. Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence was hired by Fusion GPS in 2016 to research Trump. ..."
"... In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee (on 3 November, 2017), it was stated that Daniel Jones (a member of Fusion GPS), had described Fusion as a "shadow media organization helping the government," and was funded by a "group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros." ..."
"... Steele has refused to comment about which projects he involved Miller but given Miller's Russian contacts, it is not credible that the Trump dossier was not one of them -- in which case it is also not credible that Skripal was also not involved. ..."
"... Edit: The PM has said that the nerve agent was 'Novichok' which is 5 to 8 times more potent than VX... and the authorities waited 5 days to send the army in and over a week to tell people to wash their clothes and other items? ..."
Was he assailed because he threatened to talk about it?' or is the whole thing a
pantomime, a school play, the participants are all actors and the story is just that, a story
to side-track and obfuscate the Steele dossier...No facts, no evidence, just wash, spin,
recycle ad-infinitum.
In 1995, Sergey Skripal was recruited by an MI6 undercover agent, Pablo Miller, who at the
time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working at the British Embassy in Tallinn,
Estonia.
Pablo Miller was exposed in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians were arrested for
spying and fingered Miller as their recruiter. One of Miller's other recruits was Alexander
Litvinenko. [Note: Polonium was also used to murder Arafat -- the source is said to have been
Israel's Dimona reactor.]
Miller and Skripal met frequently: Skripal (whose codename was "Forthwith") passed the
entire Russian military intelligence telephone handbook to Miller, containing details of more
than 300 of his colleagues in Russian intelligence. In 2006 Skripal was jailed.
After the spy swap in 2010, Skripal decided to resettle in Salisbury, where Pablo Miller
also lived. In 2015 Miller retired and received an OBE for services to Her Majesty's
Government. No doubt Miller was Skripal's minder and was probably the reason Skripal had gone
to Salisbury.
According to his LinkedIn entry (deleted a few days ago), Miller worked as a
consultant for Christopher Steele -- Miller is the consultant whose name was withheld by the
Telegraph. Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence was hired by Fusion GPS in 2016 to research
Trump.
In testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee (on 3 November, 2017), it was stated
that Daniel Jones (a member of Fusion GPS), had described Fusion as a "shadow media
organization helping the government," and was funded by a "group of Silicon Valley
billionaires and George Soros."
Between 26 November, 2017 and 10 January, 2018 George Soros (who is a prolific tweeter)
was silent. Not a single tweet. Why, where was he?
Steele has refused to comment about which projects he involved Miller but given
Miller's Russian contacts, it is not credible that the Trump dossier was not one of them --
in which case it is also not credible that Skripal was also not involved.
Join the dots.... cui bono? Why would Putin be interested in a has-been spy he could have
killed long ago? On the other hand, might certain people connected with the Trump dossier be
keen to silence sources, now that Sessions is investigating the FISA warrants and at the same
time, implicate Russia?
Edit: The PM has said that the nerve agent was 'Novichok' which is 5 to 8 times more
potent than VX... and the authorities waited 5 days to send the army in and over a week to
tell people to wash their clothes and other items?
In reply to May: Umm, our investigations by Shitonya Serfs
The PM has said that the nerve agent was 'Novichok' which is 5 to 8 times more
potent than VX... and the authorities waited 5 days to send the army in and over a week to
tell people to wash their clothes and other items?
"Sergej Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military grade nerve agent of a
type developed by Russia.
MILITARY grade? Well then, Mrs. Prime Minister... that's pretty God damn serious
then. Because everyone knows the Russian CONSUMER -grade nerve agents are crap. I
think they sell them on Amazon (Free shipping with Amazon Prime).
Like I said in a previous thread Novichok was part of the plot of the recent "Strike Back:
Retribution" TV series on Sky TV, Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox owns a 39.14% controlling
stake in Sky PLC. So a TV series by a billionaire supporter of Teresa May just happens to
make a fictional TV series around a nerve agent and Bad Russians(TM) and is put on TV just
before Teresa May accuses Bad Russians(TM) of using said nerve agent. This is not a
coincidence.
The US State Department is spending millions of dollars spreading its own disinformation and
propping up NGOs to destroy any individual or organization that does not toe the official US
government line on the US global military empire. Through its "Global Engagement Center" the
State Department establishes in fact -- in the open -- what it accuses the Russian government
of doing without any evidence. Social media companies are colluding with the US government to
make organizations who oppose the US global military empire disappear.
RPI's Daniel McAdams joins the
Corbett Report to discuss the neocon/Washington war on dissent in America:
"... If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else . ..."
"... In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton. ..."
"... This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won). ..."
"... Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years. ..."
A president can be reelected despite corruption, foreign meddling, and sex
scandals Bill Clinton was reelected with help from China. / The Baffler Imagine for a
moment that special counsel Robert Mueller is unable to establish direct and intentional
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, suppose he proves collusion by a few
former campaign aides but finds nothing directly implicating the president himself. In either
event -- or in just about any other imaginable scenario -- it seems improbable that Congress
will have the votes to impeach Trump or otherwise hold him accountable prior to 2020.
In other words, Russiagate could well continue to distract and infuriate Trump without
breaking his hold on power.
Is it shocking to think evidence of Russian chicanery could be shrugged off? Don't be
shocked. After all, the last major case of foreign meddling and collusion in a U.S.
presidential race didn't exactly end up rocking the republic.
In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to
take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical
threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China
tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic
, intelligence
, and financial
networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat
Bill Clinton.
This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major
Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers,
including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts
and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most
notably James
T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and
Charlie Trie ). Several others fled
the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National
Committee was forced to return millions of dollars
in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won).
It was a scandal that persisted after the election in no small part because many of
Clinton's own policies in his second term seemed to lend credence to insinuations of
collusion.
Several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found
to be complicit in Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to campaign finance
violations.
Rather than attempting to punish the meddling country for undermining the bedrock of our
democracy, Bill Clinton worked to ease sanctions and
normalize relations with Beijing -- even as the U.S. ratcheted up sanctions against Cuba,
Iran, and Iraq. By the end of his term, he signed a series of sweeping trade deals that
radically expanded China's economic and geopolitical clout -- even though some in
his administration
forecast that this would come at the expense of key American industries and U.S.
manufacturing workers.
Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well --
despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the
contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese.
And indeed, the companies in question were eventually
found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid
unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George
W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years.
For a while, polls showed that the public found the president's posture on China to be so
disconcerting that most supported appointing an independent
counsel (a la Mueller) to investigate whether the Clinton Administration had essentially been "
bought ."
Law enforcement officials shared these concerns: FBI director Louis Freeh (whom Clinton
could not get rid of, having just
fired his predecessor ) publically called
for the appointment of an independent counsel. So did the chief prosecutor charged with
investigating Chinese meddling, Charles La
Bella . However, they were blocked at every turn by Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno
-- eventually leading La Bella to resign in protest of the AG's
apparent obstruction.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story, much like the 2016 Russian collusion story, dragged on for
nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until it was discovered that the
president had been having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at
every turn. That is, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal came along.
This was Bill Clinton's second known extra-marital
affair with a subordinate : in the lead-up to his 1992 election it was also discovered that
Clinton had been involved in a long-running affair with Gennifer Flowers -- an employee of the
State of Arkansas during Bill's governorship there,
appointed as a result of Clinton's intercession on her behalf.
The drama of the inquiry into Bill Clinton's myriad alleged sexual improprieties, the
President's invocation of executive
privilege to prevent his aides from having to testify against him, Clinton's perjury ,
subsequent
impeachment by the House,
acquittal in the Senate, and eventual
plea-bargain deal -- these sucked the oxygen away from virtually all other stories related
to the president.
Indeed, few today seem to remember that the Chinese meddling occurred at all. This despite
continuing China-related financial improprieties involving both
the Clintons and the DNC Chairman who presided over the 1996 debacle,
Terry McAuliffe -- and despite the fact that the intended target of the current
foreign meddling attempt just so happens to be married to the intended beneficiary of
the last.
And the irony in this, of course, is that not only do we find ourselves reliving an
apparently ill-fated collusion investigation, but the foreign meddling story is once again
competing with a presidential sex scandal -- this time involving actual porn stars. (Gennifer
Flowers and Paula Jones both
posed for Penthouseafter their involvement with Clinton surfaced.
Stormy Daniels and Karen
McDougal are well-established in the industry.)
Much like Bill Clinton, our current president has a long pattern of accusations of
infidelity, sexual harassment and even assault. However all of Trump's alleged sexual
misconduct incidents occurred before he'd assumed any public office. Therefore,
although some Democrats hope to provide Trump's accusers an opportunity to
testify before Congress if their party manages to retake the House in 2018, the
legal impact of these accounts is likely to be nil. The political significance of such
theater is likely being overestimated as well.
The danger for Democrats in all this is that they could get lulled into the notion that
Trump's liabilities -- the Mueller probe, the alleged affairs, and whatever new scandals and
outrages Trump generates in the next two years -- will be sufficient to energize and mobilize
their base in 2020. Democratic insiders and fatcats are likely to think they can put forward
the same sort of unpalatable candidate and platform they did last cycle -- only this time,
they'll win! A strong showing in 2018 could even reinforce this sense of complacency -- leading
to another debacle in the race for the White House in 2020.
Democrats consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by believing they've got some
kind of lock. Remember the " Emerging Democratic Majority
" thesis? Remember Hillary Clinton's alleged 2016 " Electoral Firewall ?"
What have the Democrats learned from 2016? The answer is, very little if they believe the
essential problem was just James Comey and the Russians.
Here's one lesson Democrats would do well to internalize:
The party has won by running charismatic people against Republican cornflake candidates (see
Clinton v. Bush I or Dole, or Obama v. McCain or Romney). Yet whenever Democrats find
themselves squaring off against a faux-populist who plays to voters' base instincts, the party
always make the same move: running a wonky technocrat with an impressive resume, detailed
policy proposals, and little else.
Does it succeed in drawing a sharp contrast? Pretty much always. Does it succeed at winning
the White House? Pretty much never: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton.
Democrats could be headed for trouble if they are counting on the Mueller investigation to
bring Trump down.
Democrats rely heavily on irregular voters to win elections; negative partisanship races
tend to depress turnout for these constituents. More broadly, if left with a choice between a
"lesser of two evils" the public
tends to stick with the "devil they know." In short: precisely what Democrats
don't need in 2020 is a negative partisanship race.
A referendum on Trump might not play out the way Democrats expect. Against all odds, it
looks like the president will even have
an actual record to run on . He should not be underestimated.
Clinton-style triangulation is also likely to backfire. Contemporary research suggests there
just aren't a lot of " floating voters " up for grabs
these days. Rather than winning over disaffected Republicans, this approach would likely just
alienate the Democratic base.
The party's best bet is to instead focus on
mobilizing the left by articulating a compelling positive message for why Americans should
vote for them (rather than just against Trump). They will need to respond to Trump
with
a populist of their own -- someone who can credibly appeal to people in former Obama
districts that
Hillary Clinton lost . And they need to activate those who
sat the last election out -- for instance by delivering for elements of their base that the
party has largely taken for granted in recent cycles.
If the Democratic National Committee wants to spend its time talking about Russia and sex
scandals instead of tending to these priorities, then we should all brace for another humiliating
"black swan" defeat for the party in 2020.
But, you say, isn't Trump the
least popular president ever after one year in office? Guess whose year-one
(un)popularity is closest to Trump's? Ronald Reagan. He was under 50 percent in approval
ratings at the end of his first year; but he went on to win reelection in an historic
landslide. Barack Obama was barely breaking
even after year one but won reelection comfortably. Bill Clinton was only slightly above 50
percent after his first year.
You know who else had the lowest approval rating in a quarter-century after Trump's first
year in office? The
Democratic Party.
Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at
Columbia University. Readers can connect to his research and social media via his website .
"... As for murray's theory, i think you're both right. while i doubt the primary reason was to gin up more russophobia (they usually just make stuff up out of thin air and it usually works) it is a pleasant side effect for the brit officials who have recently been groveling for more war profiteering under the pretense of "russia on our doorstep". ..."
"... They seem to have the same mentality rahm emanuel had when he said (regarding the 2008 collapse that decimated giant swathes of the US economy) "never let a good crisis go to waste". ..."
"... The whole affair gets curiouser and curiouser. Now there's a report that the Skripals were poisoned at HOME. And then succumbed later, elsewhere? And what about the other 21 people reportedly affected and treated? Huh?? ..."
"... I believe Craig Murray. Anyone who remembers the 9/11 Anthrax scare that threatened US decision makers? ..."
"... The BBC has reported that a "source familiar with the investigation" said the nerve agent was "likely to be rarer than sarin or VX". This suggests that the ground is being prepared for announcing a result that will implicate Russia. ..."
"... Kaszeta's comments are relevant because he works closely with Bellingcat and it appears from his output that since 2013 he has been used to channel information originating from western intelligence services about alleged chemical attacks, based on his status as an independent expert with his company Strongpoint Security. The accounts filed for this company show that its turnover was not enough to provide Kaszeta with a living, raising obvious questions about who or what was paying him. ..."
"... There we go Britain to raise Sergei Skripal poisoning case with Nato allies ..."
"... Similar case in California, Were they addicts? http://abc7.com/2-dead-in-possible-fentanyl-exposure-in-fontana-home/3197127/ ..."
as mentioned above, the UK is saturated with CCTV cameras. in all the MSM screeching i have yet to hear about any footage being
examined.
As for murray's theory, i think you're both right. while i doubt the primary reason was to gin up more russophobia (they
usually just make stuff up out of thin air and it usually works) it is a pleasant side effect for the brit officials who have
recently been groveling for more war profiteering under the pretense of "russia on our doorstep".
They seem to have the same mentality rahm emanuel had when he said (regarding the 2008 collapse that decimated giant swathes
of the US economy) "never let a good crisis go to waste". maybe an even better analogy would be churchill praying for a german
attack to justify his bloodlust as seen in dresden and other firebombing targets.
the fact that putin has elections and the media came out with the story that this move would ensure after the elections that other
spies won't have any doubts.....are prepared statements. if your spies were in syria from rus and from us. i think most people
know who would have the heavier conscience. and in fact it is reminding their own what they are worth to them .... genius. actually.
before cctv were widespread among civil infrastructure, the opponents against the idea realized that people can just erase
the time stamp and put on different ones and have actors act it out and placed onto television as proof. but we see they usually
go for the afp reported from cnn report from 50 agencies unnamed unsourced deparment heads, circular fun.
i am not so much interested in the videos from nearby stores and streets, as if one really were to investigate, looking through
weeks of tapes is not difficult. i am more interested in Britain next move.
i think it would be easier to britain to just mute this guy permanently if he were to wake up with ideas that it wasn't putin
its a big problem for all the milking they are doing on it.
a. he makes it out of the hospital and comes out and becomes anti putin fanatic and makes it believable.
b. he makes it out of the hospital and goes back to normal life.
c. he makes it out of the hospital and is immediately gunned/poisoned by "russians".
d. he doesn't make it out of the hospital and goes back to normal life anyways.
e. he doesn't make it out of the hospital......but his daughter does.
f. he doesn't make it out of the hospital and is in coma indefinitely.
g. he is dropped from the news altogether due to security censorship.
The whole affair gets curiouser and curiouser. Now there's a report that the Skripals were poisoned at HOME. And then succumbed
later, elsewhere? And what about the other 21 people reportedly affected and treated? Huh??
The police sgt. that became ill wasn't at the initial scene, he later searched the home of the two victims. So someone is making
the assumption that they may have been poisoned at their home since that is where the police officer who later became ill was
assigned.
There is a possible scenario that he was in possession of a nerve agent, and accidentally poisoned himself and his daughter
Porton Down is only 8 miles down the road
I believe Craig Murray.
...
Posted by: somebody | Mar 10, 2018 5:45:04 AM | 63
Craig Murray smelt a rat and made his suspicions clear, publicly. Whether Murray's speculation is better or worse than anyone
else's is unresolved and could remain that way, if History is any guide.
We seem no closer to discovering the ID of the instigators of the sordid and spectacularly public murder of Kim Jong-nam.
The BBC has reported that a "source familiar with the investigation" said the nerve agent was "likely to be rarer than sarin
or VX". This suggests that the ground is being prepared for announcing a result that will implicate Russia.
Kaszeta on bellingcat.com
brings up the story of "novichoks" a class of organophosphate compounds allegedly developed as military nerve agents in the USSR.
Russian chemists published papers in the open literature on these compounds from the 1960s to the 1980s. The story that they were
developed for military use and given the name "novichok" comes from a defector in the 1990s, Vil Mirzayanov. An
authoritative review
by Robin Black notes that there is no independent evidence supporting Mirzayanov's claims about the properties of these compounds.
Kaszeta's comments are relevant because he works closely with Bellingcat and it appears from his output that since 2013
he has been used to channel information originating from western intelligence services about alleged chemical attacks, based on
his status as an independent expert with his company Strongpoint Security. The accounts filed for this company show that its turnover
was not enough to provide Kaszeta with a living, raising obvious questions about who or what was paying him.
65, Hw... Murray has a lot more insider information than he lets on, often couching it as speculation, probably partly to protect
sources. He can be admirably or foolishly blunt at times ("z' is b'sh!")but with delicate issues, he often alludes at things insteda
of saying outright. He has retained deep connections with many (at least partially like-minded) people at the FCO, the diplomatic
corps and (indeed) MS5 and 6.
"Novichok" was just used in the plot of the latest Strike Back TV series, from the Wikipedia article-"She discovers that Zaryn
is in fact Karim Markov, a Russian scientist who allegedly killed his colleagues with Novichok, a nerve agent they invented"
65, Hw... Murray has a lot more insider information than he lets on.
...
Posted by: Petra | Mar 10, 2018 10:45:44 AM | 67
His Former British Ambassador status bolsters his street cred. OTOH one imagines that he is acutely aware of the line dividing
whistle-blowing from treason.
On the other, other hand, b is a quite diligent and competent sleuth too, and has more than a passing interest in military/defense
intrigue and intel.
I would be really interested in SST conducting a gedanken experiment with its
correspondents that would choose/ create answers to a variant of the Evangelical question,
"WWJD?", namely What Would Putin Do?
I'm interested in this, because I think the entire question, "Did Russia influence the
Presidential election?" completely misses the point and ultimately is irrelevant in itself.
The relevant question is "Why would Russia influence the election?"
Certainly, without the slightest question, Russia would have a motive to influence the
election if it owned Donald Trump. But it's pointless to engage in a round robin about
whether or not that is true. On the other hand, if Russia/Putin *did* own Donald Trump, what
would Donald Trump do? What would Putin have him do? Obviously, you have to make some
assumptions about what Putin wants for the U.S., but the recent historical record indicates
to me that what Putin wants for the U.S. is for it to degenerate into anarchy and obscurity.
We've attempted to screw him and his country with such malice and intensity that he must see
us as existential threat.
Now, to be of any use, there should be an entire list of Trump's actions... 20, 30... with
the question, "Is this what Putin would have ordered him to do and why?"
Personally, I have trouble finding a single thing Trump has done that could not have been
ordered from Moscow. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem, meeting Kim, erecting tariffs, etc. All
exactly what Putin/Russia would want him to do. Domestically, supporting the most divisive
candidates he can find (Alabama, Arizona...) etc. What is interesting is that if Putin does
*not* own him, if Trump spent his time in Moscow reading the great books, it is amazing that
he could be acting in a way that fully supports Putin.
So there can be no confusion, I am a Russophile. An excellent case can be made that Russia
won WWII. That by itself is enough to support the country. But it goes on and on. Up to and
including Russia's support for Syrian sovereignty against Saudi terrorists.
I have the audacity to hope that the dismantling of the American Empire will proceed as
copacetically as the dismantling of the Soviet Empire did. (This is not to say that it won't be
humiliating or impoverishing, or that it won't be accompanied by a huge increase in morbidity
and mortality.)
One of my greatest fears over the past decade was that Russia wouldn't take the US and NATO
seriously enough and just try to wait them out. After all, what is there to really to fear from
a nation that has over a 100 trillion dollars in unfunded entitlements, that's full of opioid
addicts, with 100 million working-age people permanently out of work, with decrepit
infrastructure and poisoned national politics?
And as far as NATO, there is, of course, Germany, which is busy rewriting "Deutschland,
Deutschland, über alles" to be gender-neutral. What are they supposed to do next? March on
Moscow under a rainbow banner and hope that the Russians die laughing? Oh, and there's also
NATO's largest Eurasian asset, Turkey, which is currently busy slaughtering America's Kurdish
assets in Northern Syria.
But simply waiting them out would have been a gamble, because in its death throes the
American Empire could have lashed out in unpredictable ways.
I am glad that Russia chose not to gamble with its national security. Now that the US has
been safely checkmated using the new Russian weapons systems, I feel that the world is in a
much better place. If you like peace, then it seems like your best option is to also like nukes
-- the best ones possible, ones against which no deterrent exists, and wielded by peaceful,
law-abiding nations that have no evil designs on the rest of the planet.
The crisis of neoliberalism is at the core of current anti-Russian campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory. But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." ..."
"... As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective. It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources . ..."
"... The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making, and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers. ..."
"... Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on. ..."
The United States has launched a three-pronged offensive on Russia. First, it's attacking Russia's economy via sanctions and oil-price
manipulation. Second, it's increasing the threats to Russia's national security by arming and training militant proxies in Syria
and Ukraine, and by encircling Russia with NATO forces and missile systems. And, third, it's conducting a massive disinformation
campaign aimed at convincing the public that Russia is a 'meddling aggressor' that wants to destroy the foundation of American democracy.
(Elections)
In response to Washington's hostility, Moscow has made every effort to extend the olive branch. Russia does not want to fight
the world's biggest superpower any more than it wants to get bogged down in a bloody and protracted conflict in Syria. What Russia
wants is normal, peaceful relations based on respect for each others interests and for international law. What Russia will not tolerate,
however, is another Iraq-type scenario where the sovereign rights of a strategically-located state are shunted off so the US can
arbitrarily topple the government, decimate the society and plunge the region deeper into chaos. Russia won't allow that, which is
why it has put its Airforce at risk in Syria, to defend the foundational principle of state sovereignty upon which the entire edifice
of global security rests.
The majority of Americans believe that Russia is the perpetrator of hostilities against the United States, mainly because the
media and the political class have faithfully disseminated the spurious claims that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. But the
allegations are ridiculous and without merit. Russia-gate is merely the propaganda component of Washington's Full Spectrum Dominance
theory, that is, disinformation is being used to make it appear as though the US is the victim when, in fact, it is the perpetrator
of hostilities against Russia. Simply put, the media has turned reality on its head. Washington wants to inflict as much pain as
possible on Russia because Russia has frustrated its plan to control critical resources and pipeline corridors in Central Asia and
the Middle East. The Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy is quite clear on this point. Russia's opposition to Washington's
destabilizing interventions has earned it the top spot on the Pentagon's "emerging rivals" list. Moscow is now Public Enemy#1.
Washington's war on Russia has a long history dating back at least 100 years to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Despite the
fact that the US was engaged in a war with Germany at the time (WW1), Washington and its allies sent 150,000 men from 15 nations
to intervene on behalf of the "Whites" hoping to staunch the spread of communism into Europe. In the words of British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill, the goal was "to strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib."
According to Vasilis Vourkoutiotis from the University of Ottawa:
" the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.. was a failed attempt to eradicate Bolshevism while it was still weak .As
early as February 1918 Britain supported intervention in the civil war on behalf of the Whites, and in March it landed troops
in Murmansk. They were soon joined by forces from France, Italy, Japan, the United States, and ten other nations. Eventually,
more than 150,000 Allied soldiers served in Russia
The scale of the war between the Russian Reds and Whites, however, was such that the Allies soon realized they would have little,
if any, direct impact on the course of the Civil War unless they were prepared to intervene on a far grander scale. By the end
of April 1919 the French had withdrawn their soldiers .British and American troops saw some action in November 1918 on the Northern
Front but this campaign was of limited significance in the outcome of the Civil War. The last British and American soldiers were
withdrawn in 1920. The main Allied contributions to the White cause thereafter were supplies and money, mostly from Britain .
The chief purpose of Allied intervention in Soviet Russia was to help the Whites defeat the Reds and destroy Bolshevism." (Allied
Intervention in the Russian Revolution", portalus.ru)
The reason we bring up this relatively unknown bit of history is because it helps to put current events into perspective. First,
it helps readers to see that Washington has been sticking its nose in Russia's business more than a century. Second, it shows that–
while Washington's war on Russia has ebbed and flowed depending on the political situation in Moscow– it has never completely ended.
The US has always treated Russia with suspicion, contempt and brutality. During the Cold War, when Russia's global activities put
a damper on Washington's depredations around the world, relations remained stretched to the breaking point. But after the Soviet
Union collapsed in December, 1991, relations gradually thawed, mainly because the buffoonish Boris Yeltsin opened the country up
to a democratization program that allowed the state's most valuable strategic assets to be transferred to voracious oligarchs for
pennies on the dollar. The plundering of Russia pleased Washington which is why it sent a number of prominent US economists to Moscow
to assist in the transition from communism to a free-market system. These neoliberal miscreants subjected the Russian economy to
"shock therapy" which required the auctioning off of state-owned resources and industries even while hyperinflation continued to
rage and the minuscule life savings of ordinary working people were wiped out almost over night. The upshot of this Washington-approved
looting-spree was a dramatic uptick in extreme poverty which intensified the immiseration of tens of millions of people. Economist
Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up like this:
"In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented
poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous
other social indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life ..
(Due to) the tight monetary policies that were pursued firms didn't have the money to even pay their employees . they didn't
have enough money to pay their pensioners, to pay their workers .Then, with the government not having enough revenue, other aspects
of life started to deteriorate. They didn't have enough money for hospitals, schools. Russia used to have one of the good school
systems in the world; the technical level of education was very high. (But they no longer had) enough money for that. So it just
began to affect people in every dimension of their lives .
The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with
more than one out of two children living in families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people
than the Communists had said it would be. It brought Gucci bags, Mercedes, the fruits of capitalism to a few .But you had a shrinking
(economy). The GDP in Russia fell by 40 percent. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the national income, fell
by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices,
and the majority of people wound up with less and less and less . (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding Heights)
So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory.
But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then
western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." At the same time, Washington continued
its maniacal push eastward using its military catspaw, NATO, to achieve its geopolitical ambitions to control vital resources and
industries in the most populous and prosperous region of the coming century, Eurasia. After promising Russian President Gorbachev
that NATO would never "expand one inch to the east", the US-led military alliance added 13 new countries to its membership, all of
them straddling Russia's western flank, all of them located, like Hitler, on Russia's doorstep, all of them posing an existential
threat to Russia's survival. NATO forces now routinely conduct provocative military drills just miles from the Russian border while
state-of-the-art missile systems surround Russia on all sides. (Imagine Russia conducting similar drills in the Gulf of Mexico or
on the Canadian border. How would Washington respond?)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an excellent summary of post Cold War history at a gathering of the Korber Foundation
in Berlin in 2017. Brainwashed Americans who foolishly blame Russia for meddling in the 2016 elections, should pay attention to what
he said.
LAVROV– "Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall we have shown our cards, trying to do our best to assert the values of equal
partnership in international affairs .Back in the early 1990s, we withdrew our troops from Eastern and Central Europe and the
Baltic states and dramatically downsized our military capacity near our western borders
When the cold war era came to an end, Russia was hoping that this would become our common victory – the victory of both the
former Communist bloc countries and the West. The dreams of ushering in shared peace and cooperation seemed near to fruition.
However, the United States and its allies decided to declare themselves the sole winners, refusing to work together to create
the architecture of equal and indivisible security. They made their choice in favor of shifting the dividing lines to our borders
– through expanding NATO and then through the implementation of the EU's Eastern Partnership program
As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats
were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main
reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture
and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective.
It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global
economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources .
The latest events are clear evidence that the persistent attempts to form a unipolar world order have failed .The new centers
of economic growth and concomitant political influence are assuming responsibility for the state of affairs in their regions.
Let me reiterate that the emergence of multipolar world order is a fact and a reality. Seeking to hold back this process and keep
the unfairly gained privileged positions is going to lead nowhere. We see increasing examples of nations raising their voice in
defense of their right to decide their own destiny ." (Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister)
The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's
enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in
the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging
reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and
seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making,
and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers.
Who doesn't want this? Who doesn't want to see an end of the bloody US-led invasions, the countless drone assassinations, the
vast destruction of ancient civilizations, and the senseless slaughter of innocent men, women and children? Who doesn't want to see
Washington's wings clipped so the bloodletting stops and the millions of refugees and internally displaced can return to their homes?
Lavrov offers a vision of the future that all peace-loving people should welcome with open arms.
Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on.
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
Mark Rice-Oxley,
Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation
with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a
weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at
the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media
are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury,
one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war.
Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever
heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet,
and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would
still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping
FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The
"public
inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which
contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too
busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs
have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and
embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like
Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to
his
"last 270 million" .
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe
literally billions in tax , and our government lets them
get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous
adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: Russiagate is a farce,
anyone with an open-mind can see that . The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen,
Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, a
nd allegedly
campaigned for many candidates , and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.
It bought a World Cup,
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence
of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial
malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia
many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to
ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The
"anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died.
The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom
espouse outright fascism
.
bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia
is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the
conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory,
al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether
or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free
and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists
and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move . America then moved their
AEGIS "defense
shield" into Eastern Europe . Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position
for any country.
Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush
and Cheney if he has a problem with it.
And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally
awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.
MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have
been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive
military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened
and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the
right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure
and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly
admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps .
Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia
alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped
foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical
appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double
standards.
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself.
Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything
but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in
Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused
to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for
years.
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear
casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the
vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist
almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia
so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual
comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by
over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security
and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just
a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone
thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical
trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own
agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires
explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why
Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic,
social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People
sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access
to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in
pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even
maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's
health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid
society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their
benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been
down, for decades.
Poverty is increasing all the time ,
food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people,
now live in poverty .
In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the
UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley
go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can
pitch us a "solution".
There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy
Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs
or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't
bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London
is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually
a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the
oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn
suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to
make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change
in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public
opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to
win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about
how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context
and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ –
their existence
was reported in the
Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight
face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine
their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing
our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He
is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent
speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:
And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who
lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans
out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain
kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."
I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian
and leave it en masse? It's as dishonest as The Sun.
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in
the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one
that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles
fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial
murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem
to be ok with it.
Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes
for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that
and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder
on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official
line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind
of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes
of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity
loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards
Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."
Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war."
All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Russophobes over at the Guardian (and the rest of the corporate media) would be well advised to review the trial of Julius
Streicher at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine
and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation
on its borders in Ukraine.
I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically
for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian',
or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands
in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the
US.
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless,
we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper
and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do
to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The
Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing
their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of
pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more
buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe
she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just
out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet
the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that
attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died?
Funny that?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter,
stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that
PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed
the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a
week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions
to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other
deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is
pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from
C4News (mute the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform
and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication
the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast.
I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate
question after the events in Salisbury?
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist
media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons
in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement,
marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around
in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America –
and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring
democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white
man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the
short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000
Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history,
it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in
businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain
as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter
to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in,
wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest
in.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash,
it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial
services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's
because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's
a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it
really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
"It's them, over there, they are evil. We must stop them. They are coming for us, they will take our children and steal our i
phones !!! Arrgh!!!" "I'll have another strong short black thanks"
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear
are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south,
are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles
of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the
only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment
has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing
left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water
is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black.
There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown
into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away
the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force
that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate
those not worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors
to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
up.
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal
for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who
inspected the premises.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard
drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn
Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation
AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional
US Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the
Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing
-- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also
the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia
and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or
American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by
coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup
in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t
expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary
/congressional industyrial complex.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown
how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive
to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!
There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen
other people at the same time.
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something
else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up
and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
Nerve agents including Sarin and VX are manufactured by the British Government in Porton
Down, just 8 miles from where Sergei Skripal was attacked. The official British
government story is that these nerve agents are only manufactured "To help develop
effective medical countermeasures and to test systems".
The UK media universally accepted that the production of polonium by Russia was conclusive
evidence that Vladimir Putin was personally responsible for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.
In the case of Skripal, po-faced articles like
this hilarious one in the Guardian speculate about where the nerve agent could possibly
have come from – while totally failing to mention the fact that incident took place
only eight miles from the largest stock of nerve agent in western Europe.
The investigation comprises multiple strands. Among them is whether there is any more of
the nerve agent in the UK, and where it came from.
Chemical weapons experts said it was almost impossible to make nerve agents without
training. "This needs expertise and a special place to make it or you will kill yourself.
It's only a small amount, but you don't make this in your kitchen," one said, speaking on
condition of anonymity.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer at the UK's chemical, biological and
nuclear regiment, said: "This is pretty significant. Nerve agents such as sarin and VX need
to be made in a laboratory. It is not an insufficient task. Not even the so-called Islamic
State could do it."
Falling over themselves in the rush to ramp up the Russophobia, the Guardian quotes
"One former senior Foreign Office adviser suggested the Kremlin was taking advantage of
the UK's lack of allies in the US and EU. He said the British government was in a "weaker
position" than in 2006 when two Kremlin assassins poisoned the former FSB officer Alexander
Litvinenko with a radioactive cup of tea.
The adviser said the use of nerve agent suggested a state operation "
It certainly does. But the elephant in the room is – which state?
Looks like neocons represent a trap in which the US society got and out of which there is not easy end. That trap
which can be fatal.
Notable quotes:
"... American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force. They simply have no reference points ..."
"... In the " Empire of Illusions ," facts simply don't matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. ..."
"... The zombified US general public won't be told what is going on, those who will understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have way too much at stake to throw in the towel ..."
"... In fact, since the US is now run by Neocons, we can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down. So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by "patriotic" "Congresspersons" (my attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized public that they are "taking a firm stance" against "the Russian dictator" and that the proud US of A shall not cave in to the "Russian nuclear blackmail". These colors don't run! United we stand! Etc. etc. etc. ..."
Bringing a sense of reality to a deeply delusional Empire
The leaders of the Empire, along with their brainwashed ideological
drones , live in a world completely detached from reality. This is why Martyanov writes
that the US " still continues to reside in her bubble which insulates her from any outside
voices of reason and peace " and that Putin's speech aimed at " coercing America's
elites into, if not peace, at least into some form of sanity, given that they are currently
completely detached from the geopolitical, military and economic realities of a newly emerging
world ". Martyanov explains that:
American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever
attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious
military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear
weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are
simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force.
They simply have no reference points. Yet, being a product of the American pop-military
culture, also known as military porn and propaganda, these people -- this collection of
lawyers, political "scientists", sociologists and journalists who dominate the American
strategic kitchen which cooks non-stop delusional geopolitical and military doctrines, can
understand one thing for sure, and that is when their poor dears get a bulls-eye on their
backs or foreheads.
The fact that in the real world these elites have had a bulls-eye on their backs for decades
doesn't change the fact that they also managed to convince themselves that they could remove
that bulls-eye by means of withdrawing from the ABM treaty and by surrounding Russia with
anti-missile launchers. The fact that some (many? most?) US politicians realized, at least in
the back of their minds, that their ABM systems would never truly protect the US from a Russian
counter-strike did not really matter because there were some uniquely American psychological
factors which made the notion of an ABM system irresistibly attractive:
1) An ABM system promised the US impunity : impunity is, along with military superiority,
one of the great American myths (as discussed here ). From Reagan
with this "weapons which kill weapons" to the current crisis in Korea, Americans have always
strived for impunity for their actions abroad: let all countries drown in an ocean of fire,
murder and mayhem as long as our "homeland" remains the untouchable sacrosanct citadel. Since
WWII Americans have killed many millions of people abroad, but when 9/11 came (nevermind that
it was obviously a false flag) the country went into something like clinical shock from the
loss of about 3'000 innocent civilians. Soviet, and then later, Russian nuclear weapons
promised to deliver many tens of millions of deaths if the USSR/Russia was attacked and that is
why spinning the fairy tale about an ABM "shield" was so appealing even if it was
technologically speaking either a pipe-dream (Reagan's "Star Wars") or an extremely limited
system capable of stopping maybe a few missiles at most (the current ABM system in Europe).
Again, facts don't matter at all, at least not in American politics or in the US collective
psyche.
2) An ABM system promised a huge financial bonanza for the fantastically corrupt US
Military-Industrial Complex for which millions of Americans work and which made many of them
fantastically rich. Frankly, I suspect that many (most?) folks involved in the ABM programs
fully realized that this was a waste of time, but as long as they were getting their bank
accounts filled with money, they simply did not care: hey, they pay me – I will take
it!
3) The US military culture never had much of an emphasis on personal courage or
self-sacrifice (for obvious reasons). The various variations of the ABM fairy tale make it
possible for Americans to believe that the next war would be mostly fought by pressing buttons
and relying on computers. And if real bombs start falling, let them fall somewhere else,
preferably on some remote brown people who, well, ain't quite as precious to God and humanity
as us, the White "indispensable nation".
Add to this a quasi-religious belief (a dogma, really) in the myth of American technological
superiority and you understand that the Russian leaders began to realize that their US
counterparts were gradually forgetting that they did have a bulls-eye painted on their backs.
So what Putin did is simply paint a few more, different ones, just to make sure that US leaders
come back to reality.
The goal of Putin's speech was also to prove both Obama ("the Russian economy is in
tatters") and McCain ("Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country") wrong. The Russian
message to the US ruling elites was simple: no, not only are we not lagging behind you
technologically, in many ways we are decades ahead of you, in spite of sanctions, your attempts
to isolate us, the dramatic drop in energy prices or your attempts at limiting our access to
world markets (the successful development of this new generation of weapons systems is a clear
indicator of the real state of fundamental research in Russia in such spheres are advanced
alloys, nanotechnology, super-computing, etc.).
To the warmongers at the Pentagon, the message was equally clear and tough: we spend less
than 10% of what you can spend on global aggression; we will match your quantitative advantage
with our qualitative superiority. Simply put, you fight with dollars, we will fight with
brains. US propagandists, who love to speak about how Russia always uses huge numbers of
unskilled soldiers and dumb but brutal weapons now have to deal with a paradigm which they are
completely unfamiliar with: a Russian soldier is much better trained, much better equipped,
much better commanded and their morale and willpower is almost infinitely higher than one of
the typical US serviceman. For a military culture used to mantrically repeat that everything
about it is "the best in the world" or even "the best in history" this kind of new reality will
come as a very painful shock and most will respond to it by going into deep denial. To those
who believed in the (historically completely false) narrative about the US and Reagan
bankrupting the USSR by means of a successful arms race, it must feel very strange to have sort
of "traded places" with the bad old USSR and being in the situation of having to face
military-spending induced bankruptcy.
Nothing will change in the Empire of Illusions (at least for the foreseeable
future)
Speaking of bankruptcy. The recent revelations have confirmed what the Russians have been
warning about for years: all the immense sums of money spent by the US in ABM defenses have
been completely wasted. Russia did find and deploy an asymmetrical response which makes the
entire US ABM program completely useless and obsolete. Furthermore, as Martyanov also points
out, the current force structure of the US surface fleet has also been made basically obsolete
and useless, at least against Russia (but you can be sure that China is following close
behind). Potentially, this state of affairs should have immense, tectonic repercussions:
immense amounts US taxpayer money has been completely wasted, the US nuclear and naval
strategies have been completely misguided, intelligence has failed (either on the acquisition
or the analytical level), US politicians have made disastrous decisions and this is all a total
"cluster-bleep" which should trigger God knows how many investigations, resignations, and
numerous sanctions, administrative or even criminal ones. But, of course, absolutely nothing of
this, nothing at all, will happen. Not a single head will roll
In the " Empire of
Illusions ," facts simply don't matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now
self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. And, in a way, that
is true.
The zombified US general public won't be told what is going on, those who will
understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites
who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have
way too much at stake to throw in the towel.
In fact, since the US is now run by Neocons, we
can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down.
So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and
outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by "patriotic" "Congresspersons" (my
attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized
public that they are "taking a firm stance" against "the Russian dictator" and that the proud
US of A shall not cave in to the "Russian nuclear blackmail". These colors don't run! United we
stand! Etc. etc. etc.
"... The drooling left-wing talking heads insist endlessly that Julian Assange, the publisher of WikiLeaks, is a Russian agent and WikiLeaks is a Russian front. Therefore, they reason that obtaining and passing such documents to Trump would be a treasonous crime. ..."
I
AM UNDER ATTACK In the 40 years that I have spent in American Politics, I have never seen a
more hysterical lynch mob than the one at MSNBC , and other "Trump Hating" fake news
sites. If you read the Washington Post, Salon or Vice , they would have you
believe that I am on the verge of being indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for
obtaining copies of the allegedly hacked DNC emails acquired and published by Julian Assange,
and passing them to Donald Trump and his campaign.
The drooling left-wing talking heads insist endlessly that Julian Assange, the publisher
of WikiLeaks, is a Russian agent and WikiLeaks is a Russian front. Therefore, they reason that
obtaining and passing such documents to Trump would be a treasonous crime.
There is only one little problem with this conspiracy theory. I never received anything from
Wikileaks, or the Russians, or anyone else. I never sent Donald Trump anything. In fact, I
never discussed the Wikileaks disclosures or allegedly hacked DNC emails with Donald Trump
before during or after the election.
I testified for four hours before the House Intelligence Committee months ago, debunking
this left-wing conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, although members of the Committee disparaged
me in public session, I was only allowed to respond behind closed doors. Suggestions by the
grumbling Democratic minority and amplified by Politico that my testimony was less than
honest are completely and categorically false.
Last week someone on the staff of the House of Intelligence Committee leaked a carefully
doctored and truncated screenshot of the direct message exchange I had with WikiLeaks. This
material was long ago supplied to the House Intelligence Committee and even in its heavily
edited form, proves yet again that I had no coordination or collaboration with WikiLeaks.
"... In the comedy movie " Wag the Dog ," a fictitious U.S. president is on the cusp of losing an election over a real scandal. So a political spin doctor and Hollywood producer hired by his campaign instead distract the public by manufacturing "the appearance of a war" with Albania. The spin doctor explains: "It's not a war, it's a pageant. We need a theme, a song -- some visuals." The producer ascribes Albania a false motive against the United States: "They want to destroy our way of life!" The story line keeps changing to explain away emerging, inconvenient realities. ..."
"... The ever-changing "Russia narrative" in American politics is today's "Wag the Dog" scenario. Technology and the disintegration of evidence-based journalism permit a surprisingly small number of individuals to destroy bilateral or multilateral relations. Their motivation in shifting from an inconvenient reality into their desired reality is power and military-industrial commercial interests. ..."
"... Ignore Donald Trump and increase your defense budget to 2 percent, because the generals who are 'operationalizing policy' remain in charge ..."
"... When you owe the world $18 trillion, the only way to get them to "pay 2 percent for defense" is to manufacture a boogeyman. Russian novelist and pacifist Leo Tolstoy observed: "There is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent of the interests of the people." ..."
"... they simply follow the "Wag the Dog" playbook: We don't need it to prove to be true. We need it to distract them. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt once cautioned ..."
"... The distractions no longer can mask these "unholy alliances." The wife of a central architect of the Department of Justice's "Russia narrative" secretly worked for the dossier-peddling Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson attempted -- according to his own congressional admissions -- to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election ..."
"... Yet on March 16, 2017, Daniel Jones -- himself a team member of Fusion GPS, self-described former FBI agent and, as we now know from the media, an ex-Feinstein staffer -- met with my lawyer, Adam Waldman, and described Fusion as a "shadow media organization helping the government," funded by a "group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros." My lawyer testified these facts to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Nov. 3. Mr. Soros is, not coincidentally, also the funder of two "ethics watchdog" NGOs (Democracy 21 and CREW) attacking Rep. Nunes' committee memo. ..."
"... A former Obama State Department official, Nuland, has been recently outed as another shadow player, reviewing and disseminating Fusion's dossier, and reportedly, hundreds of other dossiers over a period of years. "Deep State-proud loyalists" apparently was a Freudian slip, not a joke. ..."
In the comedy movie " Wag the Dog ," a
fictitious U.S. president is on the cusp of losing an election over a real scandal. So a
political spin doctor and Hollywood producer hired by his campaign instead distract the public
by manufacturing "the appearance of a war" with Albania. The spin doctor explains: "It's not a
war, it's a pageant. We need a theme, a song -- some visuals." The producer ascribes Albania a
false motive against the United States: "They want to destroy our way of life!" The story line
keeps changing to explain away emerging, inconvenient realities.
The ever-changing "Russia narrative" in American politics is today's "Wag the Dog"
scenario. Technology and the disintegration of evidence-based journalism permit a surprisingly
small number of individuals to destroy bilateral or multilateral relations. Their motivation in
shifting from an inconvenient reality into their desired reality is power and
military-industrial commercial interests.
When I attended the Munich Security Conference in
February, the extraordinary, coordinated message of a panel of U.S. senators was summarized by
moderator Victoria Nuland, former assistant secretary of state under President Barack Obama,
as: "Deep State-proud loyalists giv[ing] broad reassurance about continuity." One of the
panelists, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), said: "What the Breitbart crowd would call the
'Deep State' is what many of us would call 'knowledgeable professionals.'" The panel's uniform
message was essentially: Ignore Donald Trump and increase your defense budget to 2 percent,
because the generals who are 'operationalizing policy' remain in charge .
When you owe the world $18 trillion, the only way to get them to "pay 2 percent for
defense" is to manufacture a boogeyman. Russian novelist and pacifist Leo Tolstoy observed:
"There is no war which was not hatched by the governments, the governments alone, independent
of the interests of the people."
What has been inelegantly termed the "Deep State" is really this: shadow power exercised by
a small number of individuals from media, business, government and the intelligence community,
foisting provocative and cynically false manipulations on the public. Out of these
manipulations, an agenda of these architects' own design is born.
Unfortunately, I am personally familiar with this group. Before they moved to their current,
bigger ambitions of reversing the U.S. presidential election results, they scurrilously
attacked me and others from the shadows for two decades. The various story lines and roles they
have created for me don't survive close scrutiny and are internally inconsistent, yet they
simply follow the "Wag the Dog" playbook: We don't need it to prove to be true. We need it to
distract them.
President Theodore Roosevelt once cautioned : "Behind the ostensible government
sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility
to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between
corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task."
The distractions no longer can mask these "unholy alliances." The wife of a central
architect of the Department of Justice's "Russia narrative" secretly worked for the
dossier-peddling Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson attempted -- according to his own
congressional admissions -- to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and its
aftermath, to attack Russia and to "embarrass" me and cause trouble for the company I
founded.
This inconvenient disclosure necessitated a new story line. Former Democratic National
Committee chairwoman and CNN commentator Donna Brazile attacked
the memo prepared by House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on
television as "the weaponization of classified information." It is ironic that someone who once
ran the organization that allegedly rigged the primary nomination process and who was fired
from CNN for allegedly rigging a presidential debate is now producing "Russian-rigging"
stories.
World War II hero and former U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) once
observed , in a different context: "There exists a shadowy government with its own
fundraising mechanism." Wagging the dog costs money. So, who is the "funding mechanism" of this
"shadowy government?"
Fusion GPS's Simpson, in a New York Times op-ed describing his own Judiciary Committee
testimony, claimed a neoconservative website "and the Clinton campaign" were "the Republican
and Democratic funders of our Trump research." The Judiciary Committee's Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.) then unilaterally released, over the objection of committee chairman Sen. Chuck
Grassley (R-Iowa), Simpson's testimony to "set the record straight." Fusion GPS "commended
Senator Feinstein for her courage."
Yet on March 16, 2017, Daniel Jones -- himself a team member of Fusion GPS,
self-described former FBI agent and, as we now know from the media, an ex-Feinstein staffer --
met with my lawyer, Adam Waldman, and described Fusion as a "shadow media organization helping
the government," funded by a "group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros." My lawyer
testified these facts to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Nov. 3. Mr. Soros is, not
coincidentally, also the funder of two "ethics watchdog" NGOs (Democracy 21 and CREW) attacking
Rep. Nunes' committee memo.
A former Obama State Department official, Nuland, has been recently outed as another
shadow player, reviewing and disseminating Fusion's dossier, and reportedly, hundreds of other
dossiers over a period of years. "Deep State-proud loyalists" apparently was a Freudian slip,
not a joke.
Invented narratives -- not "of the people, by the people, for the people," but rather just
from a couple of people, cloaked in the very same hypocritical rhetoric of "freedom" and
"democracy" that those are actively undermining -- impede internationally shared efforts on the
world's most pressing, real issues, like global health, climate change and the future of
energy. My own "Mother Russia" has many problems and challenges, and my country is still in
transition from the Soviet regime -- a transition some clearly wish us to remain in
indefinitely.
But we need to stop this old movie.
Oleg Deripaska is the founder of UC Rusal, the world's leading producer of aluminum
using clean, renewable hydropower.
Russiagate is being used for a host of multipurpose items. Including the suppression of
any disagreement with the Mainstream Media, and any dissent with the official line.
Off topic, but perhaps well worth it
RI has published to complete transcript of the Putin interviews by Megyn Kelly. Worthy full
read. Putin covers so much ground, far more than you ever saw/heard from NBC which
drastically edited the interviews for USA consumption. Kelly repeatedly interrupts and
attempts "gotcha", and reveals herself as arrogant stupid american.
here's a taste - but you really have to read it all for yourself
re USA ditching the ABM treaty, Kelly says the reason was 911
quote
> Megyn Kelly: Again, it was in the wake of 9/11, just to make it clear. 9/11 happened on
September 11, 2001, and the United States was reassessing its security posture in the world
for good reason, wouldn't you admit?
>
> Vladimir Putin: No, not for good reason.This is complete nonsense. Because the missile
defence system protects from the kind of ballistic missiles that no terrorists have in their
arsenal. This is an explanation for the housewives watching your programme. But if these
housewives can hear what I am saying, if you show it to them and they hear me, they will
understand that 9/11 and the missile defence system are completely unrelated. To defend
themselves from terrorist attacks, the major powers must join their efforts against the
terrorists rather than create threats for each other.
re: interference in USA elections by Yevgeny Prigozhin
quote
> To claim otherwise makes no sense. Will anyone believe that Russia, a country located
thousands of kilometres away, could use two or three Russians, as you have said, and whom I
do not know, to meddle in the elections and influence their outcome? Don't you think that it
sounds ridiculous?
>
> Megyn Kelly: Now you are talking about causation. But I am still on whether you did it.
And it is not true that you do not know the individuals who were accused of conducting this.
One of your good friends is actually accused of helping conduct this. His name is Yevgeny
Prigozhin. Do you know him?
>
> Vladimir Putin: I know this man, but he is not a friend of mine. This is just twisting
the facts. There is such a businessman; he works in the restaurant business or something. But
he is not a state official; we have nothing to do with him.
>
> Megyn Kelly: After you heard about him being indicted, did you pick up the phone and
call him?
>
> Vladimir Putin: Certainly not.I have plenty of other things to worry about.
>
> Megyn Kelly: He is your friend. He has been indicted.
>
> Vladimir Putin: Did you hear what I just said? He is not my friend. I know him, but he
is not a friend of mine. Was I not clear? There are many people like that. There are 146
million people in Russia. That is less than in the US, but it is still a lot.
>
> Megyn Kelly: He is a prominent businessman.
>
> Vladimir Putin: A prominent businessman? So what? There are many prominent people in
Russia. He is not a state official, he does not work for the government; he is an individual,
a businessman.
>
> Megyn Kelly: Some people say his real job is to do your dirty work.
>
> Vladimir Putin: Who are those people? And what dirty work? I do not do any dirty work.
Everything I do is in plain view. This is your prerogative; some people in your country enjoy
doing dirty work. You think we do the same. That is not true.
>
> Megyn Kelly: It is a) the fact that you know him, you admit that. He is a prominent
Russian businessman. And he is specifically accused of running this operation; b) this is the
same man who has been accused of sending Russian mercenaries into Syria and they attacked a
compound held by American back militia. This guy gets around.
>
> Vladimir Putin: You know, this man could have a wide range of interests, including, for
example, an interest in the Syrian fuel and energy complex. But we do not support him in any
way. We do not get in his way but we do not support him either. It is his own personal
initiative.
>
> Megyn Kelly: That is my question to you. That is my question to you. Why, why would you
interfere in our election time and time again? And why would not you, for that matter? Let me
put it to you that way. You have spent a day, every time I have seen you, in St Petersburg,
in Moscow and now here in Kaliningrad, telling me that America has interfered in Russia's
electoral process and that Russia has a robust cyber warfare arsenal. And yet you want us to
believe that you did not deploy it. Do you understand how implausible that seems, sir?
>
> Vladimir Putin: That does not seem implausible to me at all, because we do not have such
a goal, to interfere. We do not see what we have to gain by interfering. There is no such
goal. Let us suppose this was our goal. Why, just for the sake of it? What is the goal?
>
> Megyn Kelly: Creating chaos. That is the goal.
>
> Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. Not long ago President Trump said something absolutely
correct. He said that if Russia's goal was to sow chaos, it has succeeded. But it is not the
result of Russian interference, but your political system, the internal struggle, the
disorder and division. Russia has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Get your own affairs in
order first. And the way the question is framed, as I mentioned – that you can
interfere anywhere because you bring democracy, but we cannot – is what causes
conflicts. You have to show your partners respect, and they will respect you.
re usa sanctions
quote
>
>
> Megyn Kelly: One of the questions that our audiences have is how do we walk this back?
How do we get to the place where these two great nations are less adversaries and something
closer to allies, which we clearly are not right now. Do you agree we are not?
>
> Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, we are not. But we were not the ones who made the US our
adversary. It was the US, the US Congress, who called Russia its adversary. Why did you do
that? Did Russia impose sanctions on the United States? No, it was the US that imposed
sanctions on us.
>
> Megyn Kelly: You know why.
>
> Vladimir Putin: No, I do not. Can I ask you a different question? Why did you encourage
the government coup in Ukraine? Why did you do that? The US directly acknowledged spending
billions of dollars to this end. This was openly acknowledged by US officials. Why do they
support government coups and armed fighting in other countries? Why has the US deployed
missile systems along our borders?
>
> Listen, Russia and the US should sit down and talk it over in order to get things
straight. I have the impression that this is what the current President wants, but he is
prevented from doing it by some forces. But we are ready to discuss any matter, be it
missile-related issues, cyberspace or counterterrorism efforts. We are ready to do it any
moment. But the US should also be ready. The time will come when the political elite in the
US will be pushed by public opinion to move in this direction. We will be ready the instant
our partners are ready.
"... A recent Gallup poll found that while 84% of Americans see media as "critical" or "very important" to democracy, only 28% see the corporatist mainstream news media (MSM) as actually supporting democracy. They're right on both counts of course. The quality of a democracy is only as good as the information people have to make informed judgments about public policy and politicians. ..."
"... Even as the mainstream news media continue to lose street cred, they persist in a rumor-saturated full court press against the "Trump-Putin presidency," which only further exposes their lack of professionalism and increasing vulgarity. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... But it's not a new game, because despite their "free press" claims, American major news media have long been instruments of state propaganda. In the 1970s, Carl Bernstein exposed the fact that the overseas branches of US MSM had long served as eyes and ears of the CIA's "Operation Mockingbird," and it's very likely than many amongst their ranks remain agency assets. ..."
"... During the GW Bush presidency, the Pentagon recruited over 75 military generals to spread propaganda in the mass media, fed in camera ..."
"... In February 2018, former CIA director John Brennan, the man who fed the Russian "hacking" story to the House Intelligence Committee, became a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC in what has become standard revolving door practice between government and the corporate world. ..."
"... And he certainly knows something about hacking, as he was forced to admit, after first lying about it, that his CIA hacked the computers of Senate staffers who were investigating the agency's role in torturing prisoners. A man the MSM apparently regard as having impeccable credentials for truth telling. ..."
"... Facebook's vice president for advertising Rob Goldman said that in fact most of the total Russian ad buys occurred after ..."
"... The Peacemaker, The Saint, Rambo III, Red Dawn, Red Heat, the James Bond flicks, and the 2018 Oscar for documentaries, Icarus. ..."
"... There are a few signs of life in mainstream journalism. New York Times ..."
"... pledge to be truthful ..."
"... Consortium News ..."
"... The intelligence agencies "have been playing games with us. There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here." It was likely no more than a USB transfer, he said. ..."
"... Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, spoke for the media establishment: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS . The money's rolling in . It's a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald." ..."
"... Gerald Sussman is professor of urban studies and international and global studies at Portland State University. He is the author and editor of several books, including The Propaganda Society: Promotional Culture and Politics in Global Context (2011). ..."
Despite all the smoke and mirrors, most Americans seem to see where the stenographers of
corporate capitalism are taking us. A recent Gallup poll found that while 84% of Americans
see media as "critical" or "very important" to democracy, only 28% see the corporatist
mainstream news media (MSM) as actually supporting democracy. They're right on both counts of
course. The quality of a democracy is only as good as the information people have to make
informed judgments about public policy and politicians.
Even as the mainstream news media continue to lose street cred, they persist in a
rumor-saturated full court press against the "Trump-Putin presidency," which only further
exposes their lack of professionalism and increasing vulgarity. MSM management and their
boardroom bosses have long understood that as long as they spice up their "nothing burger"
news, ratings and advertising rates will keep them in business and please their commercial and
government clients. Tabloid journalism, which can describe most American mainstream media these
days, even when wrapped up as "all the news that's fit to print," is in constant search of
sensation, scandal, gossip, and profit – and only occasionally in public-oriented
investigative integrity.
What else does the citizenry have to say? A mere 18% have "a lot" of trust in the MSM, while
74% see them as "biased" (Pew Research, July 2016). A study by the Harvard-Harris polling
organization in May 2017 confirmed this, finding that 65 percent of Americans consider the
so-called "free press" biased, obsessed with scandal, and full of "fake news" and therefore
cannot be trusted. Among the concurring are a majority of both Democrats (53%) and Independents
(60%) as well as 80% of Republicans. Amongst the "informed public," trust in American
institutions in general, that is, the government, business, NGOs, and the MSM, is
going through the worst crisis in recorded history, according to the marketing firm Edelman in
2018. The US is the lowest rated of the 28 countries surveyed by the firm on this measure. This
is not consistent with the image of a serious "democracy."
On the MSM coverage of national politics, Americans are equally skeptical. A June 2017
Rasmussen survey of likely American voters indicated that 50% think most reporters are
prejudiced against the president, and only 4% believe most reporters are biased in Trump's
favor. Although this is weighted by the 76% of Republicans who support this view, the study
also found that 51% of independent voters and even 24% of Democrats also agree. Aided by the
billions of dollars of free, almost all negative, publicity the MSM provided, with apparent
reverse effect during the presidential campaign, Trump's standing is also supported by the 47
million American shock troops that faithfully follow him on Twitter.
On January 27, 2018, the Washington Post editorial board issued this statement: "A
foreign power interfered in the 2016 presidential election. U.S. law enforcement is trying to
get to the bottom of that story. Congress should be doing everything possible to make sure the
investigation can take place." Obviously referring to Russia, the Post's declaration,
as the late investigative journalist Robert Parry and many other independent and respected
writers have pointed out, was and remains without a shred of evidence. It's WMD time all over
again, only this time the propaganda is being trumpeted mainly by the Democrats. It would
better serve the cause of democracy to investigate the Post for its covert coalition
and collusion with the deep state and the Clinton (right) wing of the Democratic Party. The
Post and the rest of their pack have constructed a wicked Russia foil in order to
undermine Moscow's presumed ally Trump and boost bigger Pentagon budgets. It's an extremely
dangerous game that is headed toward military confrontation and massive annihilation by the
yahoos in government and the liberal media.
But it's not a new game, because despite their "free press" claims, American major news
media have long been instruments of state propaganda. In the 1970s, Carl Bernstein exposed the
fact that the overseas branches of US MSM had long served as eyes and ears of the CIA's
"Operation Mockingbird," and it's very likely than many amongst their ranks remain agency
assets. Back then, Philip Graham, publisher of the Post , ran the agency's media
industry operations, a fact not mentioned in the currently showing eponymous film. During
the GW Bush presidency, the Pentagon recruited over 75 military generals to spread propaganda
in the mass media, fed in camera by leaders at the Defense Department, the State
Department, the Justice Department, and the White House. Their responsibilities included their
employment as "objective" foreign policy and war analysts for major network and cable news
channels, many of them concurrently receiving pay by military contracting firms. The Pentagon
referred to the on-air military propagandists as "surrogates" and "message force
multipliers."
The Russians are Coming
In February 2018, former CIA director John Brennan, the man who fed the Russian
"hacking" story to the House Intelligence Committee, became a senior national security and
intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC in what has become standard revolving door practice
between government and the corporate world. Brennan was a well-known advocate for the
CIA's rendition and torture program, spying on its critics, and its use of drone bombings and
assassinations in the Middle East. And he certainly knows something about hacking, as he
was forced to admit, after first lying about it, that his CIA hacked the computers of Senate
staffers who were investigating the agency's role in torturing prisoners. A man the MSM
apparently regard as having impeccable credentials for truth telling.
If the Russia "hacking" story has no legs, the more interesting piece of news is the
organized efforts of the Democrats and some Republicans to bring down Trump and turn over the
White House to theocrat Mike Pence. Mainstream pundits and reporters are churning out
unsubstantiated speculations about Russia and Trump by the hour. A number of Democrats,
military brass, and mercenary journalist (and former country club caddy) Thomas Friedman have
characterized alleged Russian intervention as a new "Pearl Harbor" or "9/11," thereby building
a case for war and for treason against the president. There's no downside to making even the
most absurd claims about Russia and Trump, no penalty for fabrications, misrepresentations, or
getting facts wrong. If they were honest, their ledes might read: "This fictional news report
is loosely based on a true story." Or: "Any resemblance in this story to real people and events
is merely coincidental."
There's room in the inferno for the Democrats' deep state allies. Starting in mid-2015,
Peter Strzok, the FBI's H. Clinton personal email scandal investigator before taking the lead
in the probe of Russian election interference, sent emails to his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page,
which clearly revealed that both of them were actively working for the Clinton campaign to
undermine Trump in any way possible. The pair also exchanged references to a "secret society"
that was operating within the Department of Justice and the FBI to block a Trump victory. Until
their exposure, Strzok had been Robert Mueller's right hand man on the Trump-Russia
investigation.
Meanwhile, two years later, the hunt for the smoking Kalashnikov continues. The best the MSM
have come up with is that a St. Petersburg outfit called Internet Research Agency (IRA) placed
$100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to the $81 million Facebook ad spending by the Trump and
Clinton campaigns), some of the Russian ads actually directed against Trump. As Jeffrey St.
Clair pointed out in the pages of CounterPunch, in the key states where Clinton lost the
election, the traditional Democrat strongholds of Michigan ($832 spent on token IRA buy ads),
Pennsylvania ($300), and Wisconsin ($1,979), all but $54 of this amount was spent
before the party primaries even started.
Facebook's vice president for advertising Rob Goldman said that in fact most of the
total Russian ad buys occurred after the presidential election. "We shared that fact,"
he tweeted, "but very few [news] outlets have covered it because it doesn't align with the main
media narrative" about Trump's election victory. Winning the election for Trump was simply
not the Russian objective, Goldman says. Alex Stamos, Facebook chief security officer,
concurred. The ads, he said, were more about sowing discord, with messages about guns,
immigrants, and racial strife, than on pushing a particular candidate. Think about all the
blockbuster American (and British) movies that portray Russians as sinister, violent, and
criminal. For starters, remember über-teutonic Ivan Drago, Sgt. Yushin, the many sadistic
"Russian" mafia nogoodniks, along with the Cold War-for-children cartoon characters, Boris
Badanov and Natasha Fatale? Among the many Russophobic films and TV shows over the decades:
The Americans , Air Force One , The Peacemaker, The Saint, Rambo III, Red
Dawn, Red Heat, the James Bond flicks, and the 2018 Oscar for documentaries, Icarus.
Soviet and Russia-era films, not well tutored in ethnic caricatures, have no comparable
stereotypical American counterparts.
There are a few signs of life in mainstream journalism. New York Times
correspondent Scott Shane was one of the few journalists who happened to notice that the US
intelligence agency (the CIA, NSA, and FBI) report of January 6, 2017 on Russian "hacking"
actually offered no evidence. "Instead," he said, "the message from the agencies essentially
amounts to 'trust us.'" It took the mainstream media 6 months before they acknowledged that the
Obama administration claim that 17 intelligence agencies backed the hacking claim was false,
the real number was only 3, and even the NSA had only "moderate confidence" in the finding.
Last January, the NSA made a significant alteration in its mission statement: it removed the
words "honesty" and the pledge to be truthful from its list of priorities.
Even if there were genuine evidence that Russian officials had hacked the Democratic
National Committee and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta emails, as originally claimed by
the intelligence agencies, one should put this in context of the long history of the CIA's
efforts to overthrow many democratically elected leaders who had the temerity to stand up to
the superpower. These would include Allende, Arbenz, Mossadeq, Lumumba, Chavez, Goulart,
Ortega, and others. The list of US interventions in foreign elections just since 1948 (Italy)
is voluminous. Do the mainstream media suffer amnesia about Victoria Nuland and John McCain's
presence in the Maidan, egging on the coup against Yanukovych or her infamous leaked phone call
to the US ambassador in Kiev in which she dictated the ousted president's successors? And is it
reasonable to expect Russia to be passive about a hostile NATO putting troops along its borders
and reacting to efforts to install an anti-Russian regime next door in the Ukraine? In this
recent historical context, US accusations of Russian political interference smack of complete
hypocrisy.
A study by Carnegie Mellon professor Dov Levin found that between 1946 and 2000 alone, the
US intervened in foreign elections 81 times, which does not include its invasions, blockades,
sanctions, assassination attempts, and other regime change initiatives. "The U.S. is no
stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries," he wrote. In 1996, the US
intervened in the Russian election to prevent the Communist Party from returning to power. Have
the MSM also forgotten the lies the government and the CIA told about Saddam Hussein's WMD and
connections to terrorist movements? Or that, thanks to Edward Snowden's exposés, we know
that Obama's NSA bugged the phones of 35 foreign political leaders?
If the MSM are still confused, perhaps they should listen to former CIA director James
Woolsey. Interviewed by Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Woolsey was asked directly whether the US
ever interfered with other countries' elections. He initially said, "probably, but it was for
the good of the system in order to avoid the communists from taking over." Ingraham followed up
with the question, "We don't do that now?" To this Woolsey responded, "nyum, nyum, nyum, nyum,
nyum, only for a very good cause," a rather frank admission that merely amused Ingraham, who
failed to follow up with this obvious statement of US double standards. After leaving the CIA,
Woolsey became chairman of Freedom House, a right-wing government-supported private NGO that
putatively supports human rights causes and has been active in regime change operations around
the world – far more actively than merely doing Facebook postings.
William Binney, formerly with NSA as a high-level intelligence operative, subsequently
becoming a whistleblower on the agency's illegal surveillance operations, called the alleged
Russian attacks on the DNC "a charade." Speaking to Daniel Bernstein at Consortium
News , Binney said that had any bulk transmissions come from across the Atlantic, the NSA
would have known about it, as they tap every communication from abroad. The data from "Guccifer
2.0," was a download "not a transfer across the Web," which "won't manage such high
speed." The intelligence agencies "have been playing games with us. There is no factual
evidence to back up any charge of hacking here." It was likely no more than a USB transfer, he
said.
Is there any hope for the mainstream media to change? It would take a revolution to get the
MSM to become more democratic. A Harvard Shorenstein Center report found that media coverage of
the 2016 US party conventions contained almost no discussion of policy issues and instead
concentrated on polling data, scandals, campaign tactics, and Trump and Russia bashing.
Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, spoke for the media establishment: "It may not be good for
America, but it's damn good for CBS . The money's rolling in . It's a terrible thing to say.
But bring it on, Donald."
"... We will have to wait for the evidence, but the accusation is very plausible. Soros' agenda is anti-Trump, anti-Putin, and on a more ideological level, anti-Russian, pro-globalist and in favor of uncontrolled migration. Funding Fusion GPS would fit into this perfectly well. ..."
"... "I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency." For me it seems he is living in a symbiosis with the CIA. While both push their own agenda, they help each other out regularly. ..."
"... For context, Soros has vowed to "take down"/"destroy", etc Trump on several occasions. Randomly selected example here: http://yournewswire.com/soros-take-down-trump/ ..."
"... Is the reason this man has not been introduced to a long term stay in a prison cell let alone to a plutonium based dietary supplement or a .45 inch Q-Tip because he is a de facto agent of the Western intelligence communities? ..."
"... Or possibly because his NGOs act against the concept of nation states, which suits international commerce just fine as it reduces their barriers to entry into target national economies. Note that his early-90's foreign currency win was carried out against the Pound, rather than against the Ruble. ..."
"... Soros could be perceived as a person who represents what pat refers to as 'the borg', as he tends to have his monetary tentacles in a number self serving areas, all under the guise of opening up the world for greater dumbocracy and with other such silly catch phrases like that... don't look under the hood!! just go for the 'bright shiny object'. ..."
We will have to wait for the evidence, but the accusation is very plausible. Soros'
agenda is anti-Trump, anti-Putin, and on a more ideological level, anti-Russian,
pro-globalist and in favor of uncontrolled migration. Funding Fusion GPS would fit into this
perfectly well.
For example, Soros has also been funding NGOs operating in the Mediterranean Sea that
"rescue" migrants that try to cross over from Libya to Italy in boats that are overloaded and
not suitable for traversing off-coast waters.
Interestingly, the government in Hungary is now attacking Soros directly. There are
posters on billboards that show Soros and the receivers of Soros' money, with quotes implying
that those people were responsible for Hungary being overrun with migrants in summer 2015
because the Soros-funded NGOs gave support, supplies and information to migrants moving from
Turkey into EU territory.
Of course, according to Western corporate or government-funded media, these are all
"conspiracy theories", which are very "antisemitic": http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40554844
@Peter AU "I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency." For
me it seems he is living in a symbiosis with the CIA. While both push their own agenda, they
help each other out regularly.
E.g. in my country the Soros founded Central European University received clear official
support from the US Department of State, when it was revealed that it clearly and
intentionally does not comply with local regulations.
The official message was something like anybody who messes with the CEU crosses path with
the US, by intentionally decreasing its influence. From this point of view this university is
much like the School of Americas in the 19th century, as disgusting as it is for Eastern
European countries with 1000+ vears of history.
Is the reason this man has not been introduced to a long term stay in a prison cell
let alone to a plutonium based dietary supplement or a .45 inch Q-Tip because he is a de
facto agent of the Western intelligence communities?
Or possibly because his NGOs act against the concept of nation states, which suits
international commerce just fine as it reduces their barriers to entry into target national
economies. Note that his early-90's foreign currency win was carried out against the Pound,
rather than against the Ruble.
@7 sylvia... we obviously see this in a similar way!
thanks for the posts here.. many interesting comments that i learn from..
Soros could be perceived as a person who represents what pat refers to as 'the borg',
as he tends to have his monetary tentacles in a number self serving areas, all under the
guise of opening up the world for greater dumbocracy and with other such silly catch phrases
like that... don't look under the hood!! just go for the 'bright shiny object'.
lol...
George Soros may be the face of various organizations, but he may not be the only provider of
money, as the article about Fusion GPS asserts. His original name was likely George Schwartz,
and his political activity is well-known, except for a more recent move to local elections.
He is now financing elections for District Attorney, the local office with the sole
authority to file and prosecute State crimes in a particular area. In the 6 March Democratic
primary for District Attorney in San Antonio, Texas, Soros injected around a million dollars
in support of an opponent of the incumbent DA. The current DA, Nicholas 'Nico' LaHood, was
defeated by Soros's candidate. LaHood is a very good and effective courtroom lawyer who has
personally successfully prosecuted several cases as DA. He is attentive and talks in a
conversational way (unlike the commonplace, stilted style of Senator Ted Cruz, for example).
A DA, U.S. Attorney, or Attorney General rarely personally goes into court to handle a case.
Nico's announcement for re-election was on 19 September 2017--
I immediately thought that there was going to be a candidate against him who was going to
get a lot of backing and promotion. Like all people, LaHood is not perfect, but he had the
audacity to support a potential lawsuit by the County against pharmaceutical companies for
contributing to the destructive opioid addiction problem, often the result of prescription
drugs. In addition, he publicly took the position that vaccines may contribute to autism (he
has an autistic child). Local doctors organized against him because of his questioning of
present immunization policies in the medical field, which policies are also promoted by drug
companies. On top of that, he opposed sanctuary cities while his wife is of Mexican heritage. After LaHood lost, the involvement of Soros even made the Daily Caller Internet website,
among others--
The front group Soros used in the San Antonio DA's race is called "Texas Justice &
Public Safety PAC", a political action committee. The following report covers the period from
26 January to 24 February 2018--
Page four of the filing to the Texas Ethics Commission lists the sole contributor as
"George Soros, New York, NY 10019-9710", for $950,000.00. Pages 5-15 list the expenditures,
most of which went to "Berlin Rosen Ltd.; 15 Maiden Lane, Suite 1600; New York, NY 10038".
That cutout -- pardon me, I mean, company -- then made the in-kind expenditures for LaHood's
opponent, which included some polling, which probably concerned the same election.
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time.
It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [Ł1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [Ł1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
Supposedly according to a statement by South Korean National Security Adviser Chung
Eui-yong, Kim Jong-un is 'ready' to negotiate away with the US his nuclear deterrance and has
asked to meet Trump. The allegations in the above report cannot be true, they would be
suicidal. Kim Jong-un is far too intelligent for that. I think more likely the report is
seriously distorted by Chung Eui-yong as a means of stupid and naive manipulation - if so that
would be a sinister development.
The US is not capable of entering into any legal agreement under which it can be trusted to
abide by the terms for more than 5 minutes - that has been proved multiple times over in the
recent years. Qadhafy also negotiated away his nuclear programme with legal agreements and
where did he end up? And that was before the more recent TOTAL renunciation of adherence to
international law by the US which is no longer even covered by a fig leaf!
Kim has claimed (reasonably) before that IF North Korea's security COULD be adequately
guaranteed he would be ready to give up his nuclear weapons. That does NOT mean it is POSSIBLE
to achieve any such guarantee - who could ever make any such guarantee and how could it be
enforced, and what would the interests of the enforcers be? It seems impossible to me.
Certainly any bilateral agreement between the US and Kim has no relevance whatsoever to with
Kim's offer - it would be like signing his own death warrant.
What makes the report especially implausible by many orders of magnitude is the pitiful
allegation in the statement:
"I told President Trump that in our meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said he is
committed to denuclearization. Kim pledged that North Korea will refrain from any further
nuclear or missile tests; he understands that the routine joint military exercises between the
Republic of Korea and the United States must continue. And he expressed his eagerness to meet
President Trump as soon as possible."
...
"Along with President Trump we are optimistic about continuing a diplomatic process to test
the possibility of a peaceful resolution. The Republic of Korea, The United States and our
partners stand together in insisting that we not repeat the mistakes of the past; and that the
pressure will continue until North Korea matches it's words with concrete actions. Thank
You."
In other words, according to (what I presume is a US puppet and beneficiary of the
warmongering) Chung Eui-yong, Kim Jong-un bows down to the supreme military superiority of the
US and humbly begs for promises that are not worth writing on toilet paper. Anybody who
believes that is a moron. Chung Eui-yong is obviously deliberately distorting Kim's position,
as an attempt to sabotage the peace negotiations, the treacherous monster. I can well
understand that Kim Jong-un would be horrified by Chung Eui-yong's statement which would
massively increase distrust and undermine the tremendous recent diplomatic advances between
North and South Korea, but hopefully Kim will navigate around it. Chung Eui-yong must be fired
immediately.
I cannot see how North Korea's security could possibly be guaranteed without its nuclear
weapons, unless the US gives up all its weapons, navy and worldwide bases. If any such
possibility exists it would certainly be dependent on guarantees from many parties including
(most crucially) Russia and China, but also the SCO, EU, NATO and the US. The Iran agreement
already had multiple guarantors but even that is threatening to unravel, and the US is
threatening to tear it up. How could Kim trust that he will not end up sodomised with a bayonet
like Qadhafy? The real problem is how can any agreement be enforced if the US tears it up?
Probably any solution if it exists must include arming North Korea with the latest Russian
non-nuclear defence equipment with guarantees to upgrade them, combined with defence
agreements, investments in the economy, and certainly with multi-year transition arrangements
before nuclear weapons are actually removed.
Forget about signing a piece of toilet paper with the US - it is meaningless unless North
Korea has POTENT means to enforce US compliance with any such agreement. Such enforcement
cannot rely on legal channels because the US is a rogue state with no respect for the law.
"he understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and
the United States must continue" - bad joke, bad taste.
Why We're Underestimating American Collapse The Strange New Pathologies of the World's First Rich Failed State
You might say, having read some of my recent essays, "Umair! Don't worry! Everything will be fine! It's not that bad!"
I would look at you politely, and then say gently, "To tell you the truth, I don't think we're taking collapse nearly seriously enough."
Why? When we take a hard look at US collapse, we see a number of social pathologies on the rise. Not just any kind. Not even troubling,
worrying, and dangerous ones. But strange and bizarre ones. Unique ones. Singular and gruesomely weird ones I've never really seen
before, and outside of a dystopia written by Dickens and Orwell, nor have you, and neither has history. They suggest that whatever
"numbers" we use to represent decline -- shrinking real incomes, inequality, and so on -- we are in fact grossly underestimating
what pundits call the "human toll", but which sensible human beings like you and I should simply think of as the overwhelming despair,
rage, and anxiety of living in a collapsing society.
Let me give you just five examples of what I'll call the social pathologies of collapse -- strange, weird, and gruesome new
diseases, not just ones we don't usually see in healthy societies, but ones that we have never really seen before in any modern society.
America has had 11 school shootings in the last 23 days. That's one every other day, more or less. That statistic is alarming
enough -- but it is just a number. Perspective asks us for comparison. So let me put that another way. America has had 11 school
shootings in the last 23 days, which is more than anywhere else in the world, even Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, the phenomenon of
regular school shootings appears to be a unique feature of American collapse -- it just doesn't happen in any other country --
and that is what I mean by "social pathologies of collapse": a new, bizarre, terrible disease striking society.
Why are American kids killing each other? Why doesn't their society care enough to intervene? Well, probably because those kids
have given up on life -- and their elders have given up on them. Or maybe you're right -- and it's not that simple. Still, what
do the kids who aren't killing each other do? Well, a lot of them are busy killing themselves.
So there is of course also an "opioid epidemic". We use that phrase too casually, but it much more troubling than it appears on
first glance. Here is what is really curious about it. In many countries in the world -- most of Asia and Africa -- one can buy
all the opioids one wants from any local pharmacy, without a prescription. You might suppose then that opioid abuse as a mass epidemic
would be a global phenomenon. Yet we don't see opioid epidemics anywhere but America -- especially not ones so vicious
and widespread they shrink life expectancy. So the "opioid epidemic" -- mass self-medication with the hardest of hard drugs --
is again a social pathology of collapse: unique to American life. It is not quite captured in the numbers, but only through comparison
-- and when we see it in global perspective, we get a sense of just how singularly troubled American life really is.
Why would people abuse opioids en masse unlike anywhere else in the world? They must be living genuinely traumatic and desperate
lives, in which there is little healthcare, so they have to self-medicate the terror away. But what is so desperate about them? Well,
consider another example: the "nomadic retirees". They live in their cars. They go from place to place, season after season, chasing
whatever low-wage work they can find -- spring, an Amazon warehouse, Christmas, Walmart.
Now, you might say -- "well, poor people have always chased seasonal work!" But that is not really the point: absolute powerlessness
and complete indignity is. In no other country I can see do retirees who should have been able to save up enough to live on now living
in their cars in order to find work just to go on eating before they die -- not even in desperately poor ones, where at least families
live together, share resources, and care for one another. This is another pathology of collapse that is unique to America -- utter
powerlessness to live with dignity. Numbers don't capture it -- but comparisons paint a bleak picture.
How did America's elderly end up cheated of dignity? After all, even desperately poor countries have "informal social support
systems" -- otherwise known as families and communities. But in America, there is the catastrophic collapse of social bonds. Extreme
capitalism has blown apart American society so totally that people cannot even care for one another as much as they do in places
like Pakistan and Nigeria. Social bonds, relationships themselves, have become unaffordable luxuries, more so than even in poor countries:
this is yet another social pathology unique to American collapse.
Yet those once poor countries are making great strides. Costa Ricans now have higher life expectancy than Americans -- because
they have public healthcare. American life expectancy is falling, unlike nearly anywhere else in the world, save the UK -- because
it doesn't.
And that is my last pathology: it is one of the soul, not one of the limbs, like the others above. American appear to be quite
happy simply watching one another die, in all the ways above. They just don't appear to be too disturbed, moved, or even affected
by the four pathologies above: their kids killing each other, their social bonds collapsing, being powerless to live with dignity,or
having to numb the pain of it all away.
If these pathologies happened in any other rich country -- even in most poor ones -- people would be aghast, shocked, and
stunned, and certainly moved to make them not happen. But in America, they are, well, not even resigned. They are indifferent, mostly.
So my last pathology is a predatory society. A predatory society doesn't just mean oligarchs ripping people off financially. In
a truer way, it means people nodding and smiling and going about their everyday business as their neighbours, friends, and colleagues
die early deaths in shallow graves. The predator in American society isn't just its super-rich -- but an invisible and insatiable
force: the normalization of what in the rest of the world would be seen as shameful, historic, generational moral failures, if not
crimes, becoming mere mundane everyday affairs not to be too worried by or troubled about.
Perhaps that sounds strong to you. Is it?
Now that I've given you a few examples -- there are many more -- of the social pathologies of collapse, let me share with
you the three points that they raise for me.
These social pathologies are something like strange and gruesome new strains of disease infecting the body social. America has
always been a pioneer -- only today, it is host not just to problems not just rarely seen in healthy societies -- it is pioneering
novel social pathologies have never been seen in the modern world outside present-day America, period. What does that tell us?
American collapse is much more severe than we suppose it is. We are underestimating its magnitude, not overestimating it. American
intellectuals, media, and thought doesn't put any of its problems in global or historical perspective -- but when they are seen
that way, America's problems are revealed to be not just the everyday nuisances of a declining nation, but something more like a
body suddenly attacked by unimagined diseases.
Seen accurately. American collapse is a catastrophe of human possibility without modern parallel . And because the mess that America
has made of itself, then, is so especially unique, so singular, so perversely special -- the treatment will have to be novel, too.
The uniqueness of these social pathologies tell us that American collapse is not like a reversion to any mean, or the downswing of
a trend. It is something outside the norm. Something beyond the data. Past the statistics. It is like the meteor that hit the dinosaurs:
an outlier beyond outliers, an event at the extreme of the extremes. That is why our narratives, frames, and theories cannot really
capture it -- much less explain it. We need a whole new language -- and a new way of seeing -- to even begin to make sense
of it.
But that is America's task, not the world's. The world's task is this. Should the world follow the American model -- extreme
capitalism, no public investment, cruelty as a way of life, the perversion of everyday virtue -- then these new social pathologies
will follow, too. They are new diseases of the body social that have emerged from the diet of junk food -- junk media, junk science,
junk culture, junk punditry, junk economics, people treating one another and their society like junk -- that America has fed upon
for too long.
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or Ike
still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
While McCain is a war veteran, his career was not in any way distinguished - rather he pretty
clearly was given "hall pass" after "hall pass" given his father and grandfather. It also
seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view of the
world.
"The Nightingale's Song" has an excellent treatment of his Naval Academy and service time,
along with and in contrast to Ollie North, Jim Webb, admiral Poindexter and Bud MacFarlane.
Not a pretty picture..
John McCain is a war veteran and a policy maker, who has seen war closer than Marshal or
Ike still he will shy away from any war even with nuclear Russia.
Seeing generations of your close and remote relatives killed and your property destroyed
as a result of war is usually a very sobering collective experience. McCain, apart from being
a rather exceptional warmonger, doesn't know what it is, despite experiencing some serious
trials while being a POW. Ike saw, for starters, concentration camps and, unlike, McCain was
mostly on the ground. This is a crucial distinction.
"It also seems pretty clear his time as a POW has probably significantly influenced his view
of the world."
I agree, and, that was the point I tried to make, not all veterans are necessary qualified
MINDS for deciding future of the coming generations. I have the same suspicion for General
Kelly, having lost a son in Afghanistan and having power to influence the war in Afghanistan,
I think is this situation, like judges, one has to recuse him/herself to be part of planers.
"... Obvious failure everywhere the supposed electorate look. Of course they want an alternative. ..."
"... You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. ..."
"... The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
I'm increasingly coming tip the conclusion that the Russia stuff is caused by the economic failures of the ruling classes in the
UK and US. No noticeable advance in living standards since 1985.
An American oligarch is now a trillionaire and doesn't pay tax.
Obvious failure everywhere the supposed electorate look. Of course they want an alternative. Its lucky the Russians
chose now to become aggressive cos otherwise the Dem party leaders would be fired for incompetence.
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression becomes so well oiled and
refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and
go full authoritarian.
Karl Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a return of chattel slavery. I recall
during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending
access to bankruptcy
likbez -< Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg...
Late Sheldon Wolin (who died Oct. 21, 2015) claimed that the current US political system should be called "inverted totalitarism".
He stressed that the democracy and the republican form of government are incompatible with
Powerful national intelligence agencies, which inevitably tend to escape civilian control and convert the state into national
security state
MIC which enforces the imperial foreign policy which is associated with such terms as "super power" and global neoliberal
Empire. This was noted much earlier by President Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation.
High level of concentration of media ownership. In the USA six corporations control the lion share of MSM.
Neoliberalism as a social system, with its inescapable tendency to replace representative democracy with "one dollar, one
vote" regime and institualized corruption of politicians (via "revolving door" mechanism, mechanism of financing the election
campaign, and the power of lobbyists on Capital Hill )
"Empire" and "superpower" accurately symbolize the projection of American power abroad, but for that reason they obscure
the internal consequences. Consider how odd it would sound if we were to refer to "the Constitution of the American Empire"
or "superpower democracy." The reason they ring false is that "constitution" signifies limitations on power, while "democracy"
commonly refers to the active involvement of citizens with their government and the responsiveness of government to its citizens.
For their part, "empire" and "superpower" stand for the surpassing of limits and the dwarfing of the citizenry. The increasing
power of the state and the declining power of institutions intended to control it has been in the making for some time. The
[two] party system is a notorious example.
...Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by
an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the
major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power,
are consistently deferential to the claims of national security.
Elections have become heavily subsidized non-events that typically attract at best merely half of an electorate whose information
about foreign and domestic politics is filtered through corporate-dominated media.
Citizens are manipulated into a nervous state by the media's reports of rampant crime and terrorist networks, by thinly
veiled threats... and by their own fears about unemployment.
What is crucially important here is not only the expansion of governmental power but the inevitable discrediting of constitutional
limitations and institutional processes that discourages the citizenry and leaves them politically apathetic.
...At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding
power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing
drive
.. a pervasive atmosphere of fear abetted by a corporate economy of ruthless downsizing, withdrawal or reduction of pension
and health benefits; a corporate political system that relentlessly threatens to privatize Social Security and the modest health
benefits available, especially to the poor.
With such instrumentalities for promoting uncertainty and dependence, it is almost overkill for inverted totalitarianism
to employ a system of criminal justice [to suppress dissent, like in classic totalitarism. ]
"... Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as "Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not. ..."
My understanding is Fusion GPS does research for both sides. Soros giving them money is
entirely plausible but assuming that money equals control is a bit of a leap.
It appears to be some Russians seeking to discredit the investigation with clever
BS/truthiness.
I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller. They may believe
he is primarily after them and they may be right. I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and
suspect he is using all this as a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian
mobsters, particularly in their money laundering. It would not surprise me if he hopes he
will not be forced to nail Trump himself to the wall, which would drag all kinds of political
noise into the trials, some of the people around Trump will be bad enough. Using some of
them, at least for the moment, is unavoidable, it's the politics is the source of his mission
and resources.
If only our press had the bandwidth necessary to distinguish those few Russians from ALL
Russians...
"I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller."
"I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and suspect he is using all this as a golden
opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters"
Thank you ! You have such a refreshing level of naivety that I really enjoyed your
posts.
How one in his sound mind can call Mueller "an old-school lawman" if one remember
Mueller's role in 9/11 and anthrax investigations.
And FYI those "absurdly wealthy Russians" represents the US fifth column in Russia (as
guarantors and protectors of neoliberalism in Russia; Google such a name as Chubais
https://www.rusjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yeltsin_Putin.pdf
) and to destroy them might not be in best USA interests. Moreover, such a move actually will
be do Putin a huge favor, strengthening his hand.
As for "a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters" the danger of such
a brilliant move is to reveal criminal connections with Russian oligarchs (and financial
oligarchs in general as you never know where the oligarch ends and the mafia boss starts) and
the Democratic Party.
Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and
Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might
learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and
intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of
the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as
"Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not.
FYI Bill Clinton took a huge bribe in the form of speech fee from people very close to
"Russian Mobsters" (organized crime figures should probably more correctly be called "the
informal neoliberals" ;-)
There was an interesting discussion in Quora in 2016 on this topic:
"... As Mr Steele contemplates his next move, MI6 will also be conducting a damage assessment of just how badly its reputation, and its relationship with the Trump presidency, has been dented. The fact that its boss, Mr Younger, is a former colleague and reportedly a friend of Mr Steele is unlikely to help. ..."
"... So it was to Orbis that Jeb Bush, one of Mr Trump's opponents in the Republican presidential primaries, reportedly turned when he wanted to find material that would damage the billionaire businessman. ..."
"... Associates of Mr Bush hired FusionGPS, a Washington DC-based political research firm, which in turn hired Orbis in December 2015. When Mr Trump became the presumptive nominee, the Republicans ended the deal with FusionGPS, but Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton stepped in and continued funding Mr Steele's research. ..."
"... The Daily Telegraph has been told that the FBI arranged a meeting with Mr Steele in Europe where they discussed his findings with him. Sources have told the Telegraph that the FBI's approach was approved by the British Government. ..."
Then, earlier this week, the existence of the dossier became public knowledge when the CNN
news network reported that Mr Trump and President Obama had been given a two-page summary of
its contents, suggesting the FBI regarded it as sufficiently credible to be put in front of
the two men. The news website Buzzfeed then decided to publish the dossier in full.
As all hell broke loose in America, Mr Trump used a news conference in New York to attack
the dossier as "phoney" and accuse US intelligence of deliberately leaking it to the
media.
Mr Steele packed his bags and fled his Surrey home, leaving others to debate the questions
that still remain over his reliability, and that of his report.
Meanwhile Mr Steele remains in hiding, possibly in an MI6 safe house with his wife and
four children. His immediate concern is not for his reputation, but for his safety.
His father-in-law, David Hunt, said from his home near Newbury: "Of course I know what he
does, some sort of consultancy, but only the broad outlines.
"Christopher never went into the details. It's all very unfortunate because the last thing
he'd want is for his name to be out there, associated with this kind of thing."
His mother-in-law Jane Reveley said: "I didn't know anything about this. The first I knew
was when I heard it on the Today programme this morning."
As Mr Steele contemplates his next move, MI6 will also be conducting a damage
assessment of just how badly its reputation, and its relationship with the Trump presidency,
has been dented. The fact that its boss, Mr Younger, is a former colleague and reportedly a
friend of Mr Steele is unlikely to help.
Murkiness is the hallmark of all spy stories, and Mr Steele's is no different in that
respect. His route to MI6 was straightforward enough; after growing up in solidly
middle-class Wokingham, Berkshire, he went to Cambridge where, in 1986, he served a term as
president of the Cambridge Union debating society.
Coincidentally, his opposite number at the Oxford Union in the same term was Boris
Johnson, now Foreign Secretary and the minister responsible for MI6.
Mr Steele, 52, was soon recruited by the Secret Intelligence Service, and by 1990 he was
in Moscow as a spy working out of the British Embassy. His contemporaries included another
young recruit, Alex Younger, who rose through the ranks to become the current head of
MI6.
While Mr Younger was marked for greatness, Mr Steele was described by one source as a
medium-ranked officer of middling ability, who spent most of his 20-year MI6 career on the
Russia desk.
At one point he ran MI6's Intelligence Officers New Entry Course at its training
establishment in Hampshire, and he was appointed as case officer to the FSB defector
Alexander Litvinenko. It was in 2006, shortly after Mr Steele's retirement, that Mr
Litvinenko was assassinated in London with a lethal dose of radioactive polonium-210 added to
his tea.
Nigel West, European Editor of the World Intelligence Review, suggests Litvinenko's death
inevitably coloured Mr Steele's view of Russia, and turned him into a "man with a
mission".
By 2009 he had founded Orbis with Christopher Burrows, another MI6 retiree, offering
clients access to a "high–level source network with a sophisticated investigative
capability".
So it was to Orbis that Jeb Bush, one of Mr Trump's opponents in the Republican
presidential primaries, reportedly turned when he wanted to find material that would damage
the billionaire businessman.
Associates of Mr Bush hired FusionGPS, a Washington DC-based political research firm,
which in turn hired Orbis in December 2015. When Mr Trump became the presumptive nominee, the
Republicans ended the deal with FusionGPS, but Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton
stepped in and continued funding Mr Steele's research.
By May last year journalists in Washington were already beginning to hear rumours about
the dossier, and by October its existence, and the role of a "former spy" were being written
about in US publications.
The 35-page dossier, however, did not see the light of day because of questions over its
veracity. Journalists from numerous media companies spent months trying to find evidence to
back up the claims made in the dossier, without success.
Meanwhile, Mr Steele, believing its contents to be too important to be restricted only to
Mr Trump's political enemies, is understood to have passed copies of his findings to both the
FBI, via its Rome office, and to his old colleagues at MI6.
The Daily Telegraph has been told that the FBI arranged a meeting with Mr Steele in Europe
where they discussed his findings with him. Sources have told the Telegraph that the FBI's
approach was approved by the British Government.
"... How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's sources in the "Intelligence Community"? ..."
"... Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand the question at first, then he stumbled. ..."
"... Simpson was implying that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up – and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly. ..."
"... Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was notorious at the Wall Street Journal for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the evidence was missing or unreliable. ..."
"... He told the Committee that disbelief on the part of his editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism career." ..."
I do not think it matters who funded creation of Fusion GPS. What is more important is
whether it is a private entity, or an FBI front company which was allowed to have some side
business (compare with Crowdstrike):
It might well be that Christopher Steele was just laundering information (mostly rumors)
colliding three streams of data:
2. From Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS might feed Steele some of the information it obtained
via their earlier use of contractor access to FISA-702(17) "about queries" and
processed/enhanced/beatified for this particular purpose by their subcontractor Nelly
Ohr
3. Some minor tidbits from one, or several intelligence agencies. But Steele dossier
simply does not look like a document based on real intelligence; and why MI6 or any other
agency would endanger their sources when dirty rumors can do the job? It is also a very
badly written document so it is evident that Steele did not put much efforts into it.
The blatant abuse of "about queries" was one of the reasons that ten days after the
election, on November 17th 2016, Admiral Rogers traveled to Trump Tower without telling ODNI
James Clapper. Rogers likely informed President-elect Trump of the prior surveillance
activity by the FBI and DOJ, including the likelihood that all of Trump Tower's email and
phone communication were and still are intercepted.
The key impression from the testimony is that Glenn Simpson is a puppet, a figurehead with
the only one real credential -- paranoid Russophobia:
...The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas
Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative from Florida with a career as an army
lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate
any information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been
verified. You know, I don't have access to the intelligence or law enforcement information
that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government
has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the
original memos came in saying that the Kremlin was mounting a specific operation to get
Donald Trump elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying.
The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our
political process, and that this is sort of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know,
trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically
designed to elect Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was
"saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's sources in the "Intelligence Community"?
Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding
the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the
details of that, Simpson repeated what he had already told the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence
officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand the question at first, then he
stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens,
Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting
company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that
Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone",
but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered his confidence to say "No". That was a
cover-up – and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson
was notorious at the Wall Street Journal for coming up with conspiracy theories for which
the evidence was missing or unreliable.
He told the Committee that disbelief on the part of his editors and management had been
one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the Wall
Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in
Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost
interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens,
Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying that noone from Fusion GPS, his consulting
company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that
Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone",
but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered his confidence to say "No". That was a
cover-up – and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intereseting that a former staffer from Senator Feinstein is implicated in the mess. How many
others are there who have been doing the same thing? I wonder if Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultt's IT staffer Mr. Arwan was accessing any relavent iformation while he was
on her payroll and for whom?
You wanna hear another hot tip? Debbie's brother, Steven Wasserman, is the Assistant United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia -- the very jurisdiction where Seth Rich was
murdered. Not much progress being made in that investigation ... can't imagine why!
"... For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one. ..."
"... Ultimately the US government's anti-Russian animus does not matter. US government propaganda intensifies in lockstep with Washington's impotence and discredit. These beltway tantrums are a good sign. ..."
"... But in fact, comprehensive and exhaustive evidence shows that the US is more repressive than Russia. ..."
"... Russia is no longer a communist totalitarian state. In the intervening 30 years since the collapse of the Soviet empire, the yankee imperium itself has completed its morph into a quasi-fascist empire begun over the cold war decades. It is, therefore, imperative that Mr. Buchanan's wise counsel be followed if we are to survive. ..."
"... Few Americans understand the extent of the anti-Russian propaganda and the massive profiteering by military contractors that results. Watch this recent Jimmy Dore clip to learn more. Most are shocked to learn the USA spends twelve times more. Our increase this year alone is much greater than Russian entire military budget! ..."
"... The antipathy to Russia comes from the US Deep State, not Trump or the American people. Anti-Russian hysteria is derived entirely from America's Jewish press and Deep State with their "Russian hacking" and "influencing elections" stories – as if the Israel lobby doesn't influence US elections?? ..."
"... Neocons, Izzy firsters, and globalist banksters, mostly. Then there are the stooges like the McCainiacs and the Hillaryhyenas Then we have stupid, gullible people who believe their rot, essentially the rot believed by preceding generations including the brain dead, unquestioning, "greatest" generation of pseudo tough guy servile suck ups. ..."
"And Russians today enjoy freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, travel, politics, and
the press that the generations before 1989 never knew."
And these are freedoms that Americans, since 2001, are enjoying less and less. To add
insult to injury, it's not only our gov't., but our neighbors who seek to curtail Freedom of
Speech. One is likely to be ostracized for not succumbing to the Russiagate hysteria.
This excellent interview discusses motives for this propaganda.
Will Russiagate Help the Israel Lobby Censor Al Jazeera?
Most Americans would have no 'Russophobia' if not for the crazy media. After all, most
Americans, Demmy or Repuby, are wholly oblivious to world affairs. They only care about pop
culture.
So, why did Russia become a big deal?
Not because of the people. It was because of the media and deep state. Who runs them?
Jewish globalists. Why do Jews hate Russia? It's historic.
So, the real problem is Jewish Supremacism. 'Russophobia' is just a symptom of it.
Jewish globalists HATE anything that stands in the way of their total domination.
Russia clearly isn't anti-Jewish. Jews are 0.2% of the population but make up 20% of the
richest people there. So, why do Jews hate Russia? They haven't been allowed to gain total
power as in the US. And Jews fear that the Russian example might inspire other white nations.
And only total mastery and domination will please Jewish globalists who are in supremacist
mode.
That's what this is about. All this hysteria about Russia hacking blah blah is just Jewish
globalists trying to discredit Russia in the eyes of goyim.
Now, given the Jewish globalist mindset, why would they abandon anti-Russian hysteria?
It's not about Russia. It's about them. They will do ANYTHING to serve their own
interests.
Unfortunately, we will not get over it for the following reasons:
1. The military industrial complex needs an enemy to keep Western Europe in line. The
Russians serve this role as Boogeyman.
2. The LA-NYC-DC media axis has a strong hatred of Russians because they are White and
opposed to gays; never mind the fact that the public at large could care less. The axis
controls the megaphone, so Russiophobia it is.
3. Russiophobia is the means by which these Deep State traitors and axis allies are
attempting to overthrow our elected president. Not a single day has gone by that I haven't
seen some BS Russia gate crap from these late night propaganda shows or the controlled media.
Russiophobia is literally the only thing they have going because their immigration and trade
policies are unpopular.
4. Money. Lots of cash to be made in weapon sales from a new Cold War. Since the Chinese
are Chinese, a Cold War with them would be 'racist' but since Russia is white
5. The Israel lobby has their sights set on Iran and Russia stands in the way. Thus, the
lobby fiercely opposes Putin.
For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for
the absence of one.
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military
impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid
treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by
Washington. Putin is a serious strategist -- on the premises of Russian history.
Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding
Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing.
But what Russian leader, save Yeltsin, has not been an autocrat?
How was Yeltsin not an autocrat? He illegally dissolved the parliament by military force
killing hundreds, illegally ousted his own vice president who was elected on the same ticket
as himself, had a new constitution accepted by a plebiscite with massive fraud, then had
himself re-elected with massive fraud, while some 100% of the media and 90+% of the press
were under his or his allies' control. He then handpicked a successor who was elected in 2000
with near total control of the media (and massive fraud, though probably it was only needed
to avoid a second round).
If that's not an autocrat, then what is? How could Yeltsin be any less of an autocrat than
Putin?
Where is the threat? What have they done? Yes they have good weapons and thank God they do or
the crazy Israeli led US Generals would surely have nuked someone by now.
The economy? About the same as Italy, big whoop.
Resource rich, peaceful, mind their own business sort of folks not being led around by Gays
goofs and assholes like the USA, why not do business with em? They are not the BOOGIE
MAN!
I'm sure trump would have been over there cutting deals a year ago if it weren't for the
Hillary crazies. What a bunch of looser's they are, they make me sick.
Very good collection of Buchanan's erros and omissions, but you missed one:
Neither Putin nor Franklin Roosevelt were autocrats. They were (or are about to be)
elected by their people 4 times. They were and are very popular leaders.
The Constitutional Amendment limiting a President to 2 terms should have never been passed
and should be repealed (or if not, then add all of Congress to that 2 term limit
nonsense).
The only reason for a 2-term limit was hatred of Roosevelt by idiots like Buchanan, and
the so-called "tradition" of Presidents only staying or lasting for 2 terms.
Both reasons are obvious poppycock. Buchanan and his ilk never complain about the 10 terms
of many Senators and House members. Yet a beloved and popular President is somehow an
autocrat?
What a moronic smear. Mirriam-Webster's definition of autocrat is: a person (such as a
monarch) ruling with unlimited authority; one who has undisputed influence or power.
FDR like Putin did not have unlimited power, neither did(do) either have undispouted power
or influence.
You are dead wrong about both Presidents, Pat. Shame on you, you know that you know
better.
Ultimately the US government's anti-Russian animus does not matter. US government propaganda
intensifies in lockstep with Washington's impotence and discredit. These beltway tantrums are
a good sign.
When this article says 'us,' I don't think it conflates the US police state and the
American people. Many Americans suffer from induced Russophobia. They feel they have to
qualify any opinion with a general complaint about Russian oppression.
But in fact, comprehensive and exhaustive evidence shows that the US is more repressive
than Russia.
The Russian government has put itself on a self-improvement treadmill of ongoing
independent review by all the nations that commit themselves to human rights. The US
government evades independent review and undermines your rights with bureaucratic red tape
and bad faith.
Russians get a better deal than you do. What happens when we all realize it? We'll do to
the USA what we did to the USSR. We'll knock it over, rip it apart, replace it with a country
based on rights and rule of law. That's the underlying panic of the bureaucrats at Langley.
Their real enemy is rights and rule of law.
I agree, and Mr. Buchanan comes off sounding naive in quite a few of his columns. He knows
what's going on in the world. He also knows American politics, but only in terms of who is on
this committee, who will vote yea on that bill there, whether there is a precedent for this,
etc. and lots of history on all this. What he does not seem to understand is that it is not
1965 or even 1990, as far as the way things get actually run in this country.
There are no civil agreements "across the aisle" that will be held to, no precedent from a
court decision from 1995 that will, of course, be upheld by rule-of-law judges, and that sort
of thing. It is anarcho-tyranny at this point, from top to bottom .
Neither Putin nor Franklin Roosevelt were autocrats. They were (or are about to be)
elected by their people 4 times. They were and are very popular leaders.
I don't know Russian politics that well, but I imagine Putin would be very popular. As far
as relations with American is concerned he's a great guy to have there, and things would be
lots better between our countries without the American Deep State .
Buchanan needs to address the Jewish Power directly. WE are not behind anti-Russianism. If Jews were call a halt to anti-Russianism, everyone else would follow suit since most of
the goys inside the Beltway are shabbos cucks.
Russia is no longer a communist totalitarian state. In the intervening 30 years since the
collapse of the Soviet empire, the yankee imperium itself has completed its morph into a
quasi-fascist empire begun over the cold war decades. It is, therefore, imperative that Mr.
Buchanan's wise counsel be followed if we are to survive.
There WAS a referendum in the Crimea -- I have a copy of it before me, as I write,
provided by my wife, a Ukrainian -- and it asks whether you (the voter), wish to retain the
Constitution of '56, by which the Crimea was ceded by Khruschev to Ukraine, as a gift, or
whether you (the voter) wish to return to Russian hegemony?
The vote for the latter was 97%.
All the talk of "annexation" was nonsense. There were no troops involved, no movement of
military, and the Russian Federation Base, which contractually was allowed to host 10,000
troops, was not involved.
It was a perfectly peaceful SECESSION from Ukraine
Few Americans understand the extent of the anti-Russian propaganda and the massive
profiteering by military contractors that results. Watch this recent Jimmy Dore clip to learn
more. Most are shocked to learn the USA spends twelve times more. Our increase this year
alone is much greater than Russian entire military budget!
"Pat, you need to get over the Putinist propaganda. There was no coup in Ukraine."
Literally the next sentence: "The people rose up because they refused to be betrayed into Russian hands by
Yanukovich." These State Department paid trolls really need to get some better training. State Dept Gets $40 Million to Fund Troll Farm:
Syria was never about "Assad putting down peaceful protests". It is about pipelines –
both existing Russian and potential new ones from Qatar that need a route (a la Trans
Afghanistan Pipeline), geopolitical dominance, regional destabilization (for Israel and the
MIC), and revenge for Putin derailing the imminent US invasion of Syria by brokering a deal
for Assad to eliminate chemical weapons.
It isn't us, Pat, at least not ordinary people like you and me who have no input into
policy decisions. It's the neocons, zionists, and the lunatics in government who are pushing
this Russophobia. They have a goal in mind and it looks as though they are afraid to reveal
what it is.
Whatever that goal is, it's not likely to be good for either the US or Russia.
Yet, what is also clear is that Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of
Trump, Russia might be able to restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United
States.
Clearly, Putin wanted that, as did Trump.
That's what it looked like, and Trump clearly said that he wanted better relations with
Russia.
The antipathy to Russia comes from the US Deep State, not Trump or the American people.
Anti-Russian hysteria is derived entirely from America's Jewish press and Deep State with
their "Russian hacking" and "influencing elections" stories – as if the Israel lobby
doesn't influence US elections??
USA as a country, has been hopelessly captured by Zionist Jews who have their own agenda
directed against Russia (and the US public).
Neocons, Izzy firsters, and globalist banksters, mostly. Then there are the stooges like
the McCainiacs and the Hillaryhyenas Then we have stupid, gullible people who believe their
rot, essentially the rot believed by preceding generations including the brain dead,
unquestioning, "greatest" generation of pseudo tough guy servile suck ups.
Boycott 'em, mock 'em, and play the victim card just like the imaginary heroes and
bureaucrat messiahs typically do.
That's because Bibi is playing good cop while he outsources the role of bad cop to the
Jewish diaspora in the West and specifically AIPAC. This is in keeping with the age old
Jewish strategy of betting on both horses so only a certain segment of Jewry gets blamed and
reaps the consequences.
Putin has to know this and the power American Jews and their goy auxiliaries have over
U.S. foreign policy.
Soros might well be a front company for an intelligence agency.
Notable quotes:
"... a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a Fusion GPS operative ..."
"... This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home. ..."
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs." ..."
"... I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency. ..."
"... i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it... ..."
"... It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards singling out russia for everything.. ..."
"... i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape or form.. ..."
"... My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian. ..."
"... When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven. ..."
"In a Daily Caller op-ed calling the Russian meddling narrative a "
false public manipulation ," Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska claims that Daniel Jones -
a former FBI investigator, Feinstein staffer and now a
Fusion GPS operative - told the Russian Oligarch's lawyer in March, 2017 that Fusion
GPS was funded by " a group of Silicon Valley billionaires and George Soros. "" Zerohedge
------------
Now, this is something different. I have no idea what the relative truthiness of this may
be, but... pl
This is quite plausible. Silicon Valley billionaires are definitely "investing" in their
PC propaganda agenda. The Seattle billionaire and now the world's wealthiest man owns the
neocon rag published from our nation's capital. He's also got lucrative contracts from our
IC. Alexa is quite happy to listen into all your private conversations at home.
I appreciate your use of the phrase ' relative truthiness', and I suggest this latest
truthiness is just part of the movie, and a great movie it is.
Still, it's about time Soros
showed up and he's in good company too, along with this week's poisoned Russian spy and a
paid prostitute with a Trump story to tell. Next ?
We're probably due for a
Clinton/Russia-related Julian Assange document dump, some Russian intel officer arrests in DC
and....a new Steele-equivalent originator offering a more respectable document since after
all any evidence is good evidence.
Anything to keep the show going and the audience enthralled !
As for Soros himself, I suggest that there are plenty of Soros's with plenty of attached
money trails, but George has the watch.
All he is missing is the white cat on his lap.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign
influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies,
Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of
state for public diplomacy and public affairs."
Soros? All NGO's that apear in MSM articles, I look up their funding. Most funding traces
back to State Dep NED and Soros, along with other older money 'philanthropist' type
foundations.
I have often wondered if Soros is not a front company for an intelligence agency.
i think it was the open Russia foundation that was funded by Soros, but i see former owner
of yukos - Mikhail Khodorkovsky has his name attached to it...
It seems the Magnitsky Act is a critical juncture in all the developments towards
singling out russia for everything..
i don't know soros or khodorkovskys connection to bill browder in all of this, but would
be curious to know. it seems they are all operating to bring down russia, in some way, shape
or form..
My understanding is that Mr. Soros has funded, participated and closely associated
himself with US' IC community, for various regime change and copes mostly Eastern Europe in
past decades. We know that US IC community has the agenda ( a hard on) for discrediting and
removing legally elected president of US from his office. We know US Democratic Party has
paid and hired members of foreign intelligence for connecting presidential campaign of DT to
Russians, for a possible killing of 2 birds with one shot. We know the cheassy silicon
billionaires, are no other than the same old Move on Organization which to the bone are
clintonian DLC, or the latter day Obamachies. We know Mr. Soros an Easter European migrant
like Zbig is totally and fiercely anti anti Russian.
When all facts put to gather, sounds like all these elements, entities, and
personalities share a common motif and goal, which centers on anti Trump and anti Puttin
Russia. When put together, makes a villain's marriage in haven.
Interesting that a former staffer from Senator Feinstein is implicated in the mess. How many
others are there who have been doing the same thing? I wonder if Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman-Schultt's IT staffer Mr. Arwan was accessing any relevant information while he was
on her payroll and for whom?
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [Ł1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation.
The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those?
The German link is different. How about the Iranian?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not
enough that the Borgists get their policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and
Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies
them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of
every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton
elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for
Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being
defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once
on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash
down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and
they view themselves as waging a counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post
more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were
convinced that she was gonna win. To curry favor with the Empress who would be certainly
crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness would become
a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they
believed they could kill two birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the
mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage and frame Trump as The
Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy
their sales pitch despite the overwhelming media barrage from all corners. Even news
publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the
Deep State. They were already all-in. Their only choice was to double down and get Trump
impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything possible
to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be
interesting to watch. Trump is clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his
base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling the Borg
pundits.
"... Russia is acting again as a great power. And she sees us as having slapped away her hand, extended in friendship in the 1990s, only to humiliate her by planting NATO on her front porch. ..."
"... Yet what is also clear is that Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of Trump, Russia might be able to restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United States. Clearly, Putin wanted that, as did Trump. Yet with the Beltway in hysteria over hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, and the Russophobia raging in Washington, we appear to be paralyzed when it comes to engaging with Russia. ..."
"... The U.S. political system, said Putin this week, "has been eating itself up." Is his depiction that wide of the mark? What is the matter with us? ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"... " If Russia wanted friendly relations with the US why meddle in our elections?" ..."
"... "However, Europeans are not irrational, but perfectly logical in being wary of Russia." ..."
That's pretty naive article. The Russophobia is used to cement fracturing neoliberal society
and create the commonenemy, more important the neoliberal elite which looted the country for
the last 40 years or so.
Russia is just a very convenient target which allow to reuse Cold War stereotypes and play
to the crowd instincts.
Another problem that Russa refuses to the be a Washington vassal (the status it enjoyed
under drunk Yeltsin) and neoliberal empire accept only vassal not eaul partners in thier
ranks.
Unless there is a late surge for Communist Party candidate Pavel Grudinin, who is running in
second place with 7 percent, Vladimir Putin will be re-elected president of Russia for
another six years on March 18.
Once he is, we must decide whether to continue on course into a second Cold War, or to
engage Russia, as every president sought to do in Cold War I.
For our present conflict, Vladimir Putin is not alone at fault. His actions have often
been reactions to America's unilateral moves.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, we brought all of the Warsaw Pact members and three
former republics of the USSR into our military alliance, NATO, to corral Russia. How friendly
was that?
Putin responded with his military buildup in the Baltic.
George W. Bush abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that Richard Nixon had
negotiated. Putin responded with a buildup of the offensive missiles he put on display last
week. The U.S. helped to instigate the Maidan Square coup that dumped over the elected
pro-Russian government in Ukraine. To prevent the loss of his Sevastopol naval base on the
Black Sea, Putin countered by annexing the Crimean Peninsula.
After peaceful protests in Syria were put down by Bashar al-Assad, we sent arms to Syrian
rebels to overthrow the Damascus regime. Seeing his last naval base in the Med, Tartus,
imperiled, Putin came to Assad's aid and helped him win the civil war.
The Boris Yeltsin years are over.
Russia is acting again as a great power. And she sees us as having slapped away her
hand, extended in friendship in the 1990s, only to humiliate her by planting NATO on her
front porch.
Yet what is also clear is that Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of
Trump, Russia might be able to restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United
States. Clearly, Putin wanted that, as did Trump. Yet with the Beltway in hysteria over
hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails, and the Russophobia raging in Washington, we
appear to be paralyzed when it comes to engaging with Russia.
The U.S. political system, said Putin this week, "has been eating itself up." Is his
depiction that wide of the mark? What is the matter with us?
... ... ...
Japan negotiates with Putin's Russia over the southern Kuril Islands lost at the end of
World War II. Bibi Netanyahu has met many times with Putin, though he is an ally of Assad,
whom Bibi would like to see ousted, and has a naval and air base not far from Israel's
border.
We Americans have far bigger fish to fry with Russia than Bibi. Strategic arms control.
De-escalation in the Baltic, Ukraine, and the Black Sea. Ending the war in Syria. North
Korea. Space. Afghanistan. The Arctic. The war on terror. Yet all we seem to hear from our
elites is endless whining that Putin has not been sanctioned enough for desecrating "our
democracy."
Get over it.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
Good article, Pat, although it will probably send commenter Michael Kenny into apoplexy.
Yes, we have all heard the official lines about why we should beware of Putin. Like so many
official spins (Saddam's WMDs, etc.) it is probably an intentional distraction from the
actual truth.
It's the same nonsense in other places of the world, North Korea agitates against America,
Israel against Iran, Iran against Israel, China against Japan, etc. What all of these have
in common is that it is easier to point out the distant foreigner as the cause of so many
problems instead of looking inward and asking what REALLY is causing problems.
And with absolute certainty all the liberal comments here will say that this is false
and that Russia is to blame for all the problems.
Russia is neither America's "best friend" nor our "implacable enemy". What it is is a very
powerful competitor, with its own agenda and its own interests. Sometimes those interests
will align with ours, sometimes they will clash. Certainly it is a good thing for our
relationship with them to be on as amicable terms as possible, in order to facilitate our
mutual benefit wherever possible.
But for you to insist that their direct meddling in our electoral process is a non-issue
that should be ignored, is to declare that the United States is not a sovereign state, that
we have no right to determine our own form of government. That we in fact exist as a puppet
of Russia. You may think that is an acceptable position to take. I do not.
So this article is a basically a softball way of pitching the reactionary motto
"America Is A Communist Country". Why did the elites favor engagement with the Soviet
premiers? Because they liked communism. Why are they enraged by Putin, who is in every
significant way less oppressive than his predecessors? Because he's not a communist.
While I agree with you that the expansion of NATO did a lot of damage to the relationship
with Russia I have to say that you seem remarkably sanguine about a foreign power
influencing the American election so much that the clear favorite ended up losing.
I wonder how easily you would have been able to 'get over it' if Russia had leaked
letters from the Republicans which lead to Carter beating Reagan in 1980 or Gore beating
Bush in 2000? I'm no fan of Clinton and am glad she lost but I am a fan of Democracy and a
foreign power undermining it is tantamount to an act of war. Are you really so partisan
that you would rather your side win than the country have a reliable democracy?
If Russia had no military designs on the new NATO members, why was their membership
considered an affront? If Russia had no economic designs on Ukraine, why was it's joining
the EU considered a treat? If Russia wanted friendly relations with the US why meddle in
our elections?
Is Russia the great bogey-man of yesteryear? Perhaps not. Do they have legitimate issues
and grievances? Possibly. Can we perhaps reach an accommodation with them? Maybe. Is Trump
doing anything to curtail their mucking about in our political process? Nope. There's the
rub.
Patrick Buchanan is an apologist for Kremlin kleptocrats who not only foment trouble
abroad, but oppress their own people to stay in power.
The U.S. did not instigate the Maidan protest, unless you think that upwards of a
million ordinary people in Kyiv and millions more across Ukraine protested for dignity and
the rule of law in the dead of winter for nearly four months, then perhaps Mr. Buchanan has
a point. He does not.
Again, I quote verbatim from comments I made last month to pieces by Robert Merry and
Mr. Buchanan: "The Ukrainian president wasn't toppled; he fled,doubting the loyalty of his
own security forces and despite an agreement with the opposition to stay in power pending a
new election within 10 months."
I lean liberal and it's not that much much about what Russia is up to but If Meuller
actually came out with solid evidence that Trump himself and his people, did collude with
Russia to influence the 2016 election will his followers even care at this point?
I really wonder how Americas next generation is going to behave now that Trump and his
cronies have done so much to damage to any ideas of truth, integrity, honesty, decency, the
common good I could go on.
And something like 70% of Republicans think Trump is a good role model for children
according to a January Quinnipiac poll.
If you want to stop Russiaphobia, then Putin and Trump need to come clean about the 2016
activity. Period. Trump will not be impeached. End the Russian trolling for alt-right
causes or otherwise Democrats will attack hard.
Otherwise, the Manafort trial starting in July is going to be the biggest trial since OJ
and every night cable news will analyze every detail of Manafort working with Russian
government and money laundering for the Russians. (And there will be plenty of details of
expensive area rugs!)
And if there are any connections of Manafort or witness Gates to the Russian trolls it
will not be pretty. (Or Roger Stone to the hacked DNC e-mails.)
The usual double-talk: "Vladimir Putin will be re-elected president of Russia", i.e. the
Russian Federation, a sovereign state which has existed only since 1991, but then, "we must
decide whether to continue on course into a second Cold War, or to engage Russia, as every
president sought to do in Cold War I, "Russia" here meaning the now defunct "Soviet Union".
Mr Buchanan is locked in his cold war mindset and is simply unable to get his mind around
the idea that the Russian Federation isn't the Soviet Union, nor is it even the sole
successor state to the Soviet Union. It is merely one of 15 former Soviet republics and if
Mr Buchanan believes the US should "engage" with the former Soviet Union, shouldn't it also
engage with, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic Republics etc.? Engaging only with the Russian
Federation implies taking sides with Putin against the other 14 former Soviet republics,
which, of course, contradicts Mr Buchanan's much proclaimed belief in "non-intervention"!
It's perfectly true to say that US wrongdoing created Putin, not least the US neocon
attempt to use him as a useful idiot to destroy the EU, but how does US wrongdoing give
Putin the right to violate Ukrainians' rights? This is in fact the standard pro-Putin
nonsense argument: A violates B's rights. C is to be allowed to punish A by also violating
B's rights! If the US is at fault, it must put right its wrongdoing by getting Putin out of
Ukraine. One way or the other. Any other course of action is just one more step towards the
collapse of the US.
All that I know to be the truth is that Russia seems to support the truth more than we
Americans! We have lost our soul. If we cannot recuperate our "soul", we need to die the
death of all failed empires!
During an event in October, 2017, the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir V.
Putin blamed the collapse of the U.S.S.R. on Soviet Union trusting the West "too much,"
describing the move as "our biggest mistake!"
"You interpreted our trust as weakness, and you exploited that," said the Russian
president, adding:
"Unfortunately, our Western partners, having divided the U.S.S.R.'s geopolitical legacy,
were certain of their own incontestable righteousness having declared themselves the
victors of the 'Cold War'."
"They started to openly interfere in the sovereign affairs of countries and to export
democracy in the same way as in their time the Soviet leadership tried to export the
Socialist revolution to the whole world."
Re: Thaomas, " If Russia wanted friendly relations with the US why meddle in our
elections?"
The jilted Left has mutated a huge bogus "Russian meddling" junk narrative into a
self-licking ice cream cone of political insanity.
The late, great journalist Robert Parry (RIP) had been tracking the Russia meddling
story assiduously before he died unexpectedly in January. Parry's Consortium News is one of
the few remaining sites of genuine journalistic integrity. It has no affection for Donald
Trump, only the Truth. It swings a 2X4 in every direction. Read the final assessment of the
Russia Meddling ruse by Parry published last December:
And then tell us how Parry had it wrong. Americans, including Thaomas are being played
for chumps by the corrupted MSM and crony Political Hacks. Reject the Big Lie and the Crony
Tools that sustain it.
P.S. Save consortiumnews to your browser favorites and visit it occasionally to wash off
the slime of MSM Fake News propaganda.
The truth is this. Russia is the irreplaceable adversary of the United States because they
are the one significant nation on this planet whose peoples do not fit neatly into our post
modern western concepts of race and ethnicity. Slavic people have and never will be
understood in the United States. They will always be the backwards, unelightened, barbaric,
undemocratic people. The one whom both Churchill and Hitler stated were inferior to both
the Anglo and Germanic peoples.
While your critique of America's unnecessary post-Cold War antagonism is correct, it is
hardly relevant to 2018.
"Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of Trump, Russia might be able to
restore respectful if not friendly relations with the United States." >? What?!
Putin has and continues to attempt to meddle in and create chaos in our elections. He
clearly "has something" on Trump personally. He's using Trump as an agent of disruption
within the United States to get vengeance on the US for its post-Cold War activities.
It may very well make sense to attempt to reach out to the Russians, but this is hardly
the president or the time to do that.
Pat Buchanan is far from my favourite American (ex)politician, but this article is a model
of pure reason. Indeed, it ranks up there with the best ones on the current topic of
Washington's childish and dangerous Russophobia.
It really is high time that the Democrats and their fellow travellers, the neocons, gave
up on their poorly designed anti-Russia, anti-Putin propaganda narrative. Ever more
Americans are not buying it, Washington's vassal states have never bought it (although, as
obedient vassals the leaders of those states don't dare say so), and the rest of the world
is simply enjoying the clownish performance of American victimization and injured
innocence.
Good article.
What snowflakes we are -- has our house of Democracy always been built on the sands of
hypocrisy and hubris? The recent demonization of Russia, it seems to me, is a gift to the
War Machine which always needs an enemy to justify $billions in weaponry. I am much more
concerned about John Bolton calling shots from the White House, than I am about Putin, or
even Kim Jungun.
"Putin hoped and believed that, with the election of Trump, Russia might be able to restore
respectful if not friendly relations with the United States. Clearly, Putin wanted that, as
did Trump. [..] What is the matter with us?"
Let us not pretend to be naive, and let us give credit where credit is due. Whereas the
Republican Party's principled stance against the political opponents focused on "stained
dress" and "birth certificate", the Clinton/Obama leadership of the *other* war mongering
party managed to strike a strategic alliance with the neocons and the "national insecurity"
apparat, and, together with the "Real GOP", has prevented Trump from changing US foreign
policy for the better as effectively as the business wings of the "Biparty" have co-opted
Trump into Reagonomics 2.0 – now as farce.
There is a reason why the GOP refused to focus on the Benghazi CIA pipeline channeling
Libyan arsenals to Syrian islamists.
The authors recap makes rather clear that the US elites, since before the end of WW2,
committed themselves to the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the subordination of its
parts. US policy towards Russia is not driven by negligence or incompetence, and we should
not ever forget that US talk of "winneable" nuclear war, decapitation strikes and "regime
change" goes far back – to Eisenhower, in fact, who denied that nuclear weapons were
different from other means of "mass destruction" in war. The continuity of US aggressive
posture – and posturing – is exemplified by the career of Keith Payne, with GWB
and now Trump, and his sponsors – like Rumsfeld – with Reagan, Bush and Bush
– posturing that culminated in Able Archer, which led Thatcher to concern herself
with containing and rolling back US nuclear blackmail.
The Biparty and other camp followers of the war profiteering classes and the global
oligarchy are not concerned with "defending" The People, much less our "allies", as South
Korea is learning at cost – the Endsieg over Russia and, eventually, China, is their
multi-generational project. If you wonder whether the 2016 election was rigged or fixed in
any way, you have to go back to the primaries that were supposed to only offer us a choice
between two warmongers intent to outdo each other.
In Clinton, the establishment succeeded in promoting another Judas goat in the mold of
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, for the Democratic Party. The Republican leadership failed
in this task, but it turns out that Trump is not merely a flawed champion of the
discontent, a hollow man, but the perfect Judas goat of our time – he even believed
himself.
Anybody voting for "pocket change" in 2018 will lead us to another goat rodeo in 2020.
Meanwhile, we are heading for a repeat of Able Archer and another change to "win" ourselves
a profitable nuclear war at "a level compatible with national survival and recovery."
A phobia is an irrational fear, not based on reason. The term "Russophobia" is used to
proactively belittle and discredit arguments critical of Russia.
However, Europeans are not irrational, but perfectly logical in being wary of Russia.
The Soviet Union occupied and violently oppressed Eastern Europe for 50 years, while
building the capability to wage massive nuclear war on Western Europe on short notice.
It is now perfectly sensible for former Warsaw Pact allies or Soviet republics to seek
maximum integration with any and all institutions of the West, such as NATO and the EU. It
is also their right to do so as sovereign nations. Russia has no legitimate "sphere of
interest" beyond her own borders.
And NATO in its current form is but a shadow of the Cold War alliance in Europe. US
troop levels there are at 1/5 of Cold War numbers. NATO does not have an offensive posture
in Europe, hardly even a good defensive one. It does not threaten Russia in any way, even
if you might think otherwise from the incessant complaining by Putin and some of his
American fellow travellers.
Re: DanJ, "However, Europeans are not irrational, but perfectly logical in being wary
of Russia."
Talk is cheap. The actual level of European fear of Russia is implied by the level of
military spending by the Europeans to defend themselves against that supposed threat. Those
military spending levels are almost universally below the relatively modest GDP targets,
especially compared to the out of control U.S. "defense" spending.
The perverse irony is that the low levels of military spending by Europe would indicate
masochistic irrationality if the Russian threat were genuine.
Agree NATO does not militarily threaten Russia. The Russian objection is to the Global
Cop Gorilla that consciously throws wrenches in the normalization of Russian/European
relationships by militarizing every element of foreign policy. Simply because the U.S.
Security State apparatus needs an existential enemy to justify its TRILLION dollar War
Machine.
The Europeans currently accept U.S. hegemony because it doesn't cost them anything.
The U.S. war-monger led foreign policy model is completely bankrupt. The Crony Elite
Hacks in Washington just haven't realized it yet. Because as parasites, they make too much
money from it. They will feed on the carcass until it collapses.
@ Aleks "They will always be the backwards, unelightened, barbaric, undemocratic people. The one
whom both Churchill and Hitler stated were inferior to both the Anglo and Germanic
peoples."
If what you wrote isn't racist, then I dunno what to say.
Something else to keep in mind is this: In the 1960s, Russia detonated an H-bomb that
was–I forget the exact ratio–about 10,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped
on Hiroshima. And now we're worried about a country–North Korea–that a half
century later detonated a bomb five times as powerful as the one that obliterated
Hiroshima.
How crazy is it to demonize Putin when, if push came to shove, they could annihilate the
U.S.? Yes, we could annihilate them, even if they launched a first strike with strategic
(as opposed to tactical) nuclear weapons. But it's no offense to the country that produced
the incomparable Tolstoy to say that against the ruin of Moscow and St. Petersburg would be
measured the ruin of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta, Philadelphia,
Washington, D.C., San Diego, and Denver. Russia can destroy far more human capital in
America than we can destroy in Russia. Advantage, Russia.
The moral of this story: It's unwise to poke the bear–much less to poke the bear
in the eye, as we have been doing since the presidency of Bill Clinton, who started NATO's
misguided project of encircling Russia.
Guys, if you trully believe that 13 superheroes with 100 K$ can overcome +1Bn$ plethora of
PACs|SuperPACS|and all other whatnots you should quit watching all these fine Marvel movies
about superheroes.
And, btw, leaving aside total lack of proofs, how did this DNC hack played out? Was it
some dirty invented lies about Whight Knigtess? Or was it blatant truth? ) I'm really
amused how lemmings started to sing 'DNC hacks!DNC hacks!' being completely oblivious to
the content of this leaked emails. You don't care that you're being, hmm, 'abused' by your
ruling class all the time, don't you?
Finally, do you care that US meddled (and this fact is 1000% proven) in internal politics
in quite a number of different countries, Russia included?
"If what you wrote isn't racist, then I dunno what to say."
I fail to see the racism in what I wrote since they were both well-known beliefs (and
quotes) held by both Churchill and Hitler. But I'm sure you knew that.
I will follow Buchanan's reasoning to its logical conclusion and say that, well, the guy,
and maybe his daughter to, were spies and deserved the classic kgb response. What putin
does, we deserve. It is getting hard to swallow so much putin and kgb love here at TAC.
Like, most americans are not suffering from russophobia nearly as much as so many are
enamored by authoritarianism and the murderous kgb agent putin. The don himself admires
putin for the head oligarch the don wishes he himself could be. Putin is head of an
organized crime syndicate masquerading as a great state. Social conservatives have even
crowned putin an advocate for western christian civilization. Russians gladly kiss his
hand. It may not pay them anything, but the consequences of not kissing his hand have been
demonstrated. You know, something right wingers admire. The don is doing the same thing
here. Like, if we could see his tax returns, we could readily anticipate his policy
actions. Hey, and get rich too.
I will be surprised though, if US steel does much more than become the middle man in
marking up steel they import and stamp USA on to. I do not know, but expect a large part of
the imported steel the US buys, is bought from middlemen companies that buy chinese steel
and stamp it canadian. Canada does produce allot of aluminum. Most of china sits on a 15k
foot plateau of minerals. The rest of the world will buy from their glut. We might really
not want to depend on chinese steel if we are planning to war. Europe is beholding to putin
to stay warm in the winter, so it will be interesting to see how they respond to the
collateral damage from assassinations carried out in their own countries. Like, I wonder if
their punditry will claim they probably deserve it. Churchill has been gone for quite a
while after all. Russophobia? Is that where people show illegitimate concern when putin
proclaims to have shiny new nukes that we have no defense against. Yepper, we deserve that
too. Once you put the victims mantle on, it is hard to be anything but a victim, and much
easier to excuse yourself anything while projecting your fear onto, well, defenseless
snowflakes are an easy target.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-ex-spy-sergei-skripal-his-daughter-poisoned-nerve-agent-n854516
The Democratics are obsessed with Putin and the Russians, blaming them for the most
ignominious shellacking in modern electoral history, and yet refuse to do the necessary
groundwork to win the presidency in 2020. They've placed all their cards on the collusion
narrative, hoping for the best. BTW, good article, Pat.
I think cdugga expresses best the mentality that defines the present moment: 'If Russia is
accused of something, it means that they are guilty.' Can't imagine how that assumption
could ever be abused, can you?
One of your better articles, Pat, was glad to see it. Let's hope a few more of our
leaders start thinking along these same lines and decide it might be just as well not to
nuke the planet out of pique over some bleeping facebook ads.
2 cdugga
>> I will follow Buchanan's reasoning to its logical conclusion and say that, well,
the guy, and maybe his daughter to, were spies and deserved the classic kgb response.
Could you please provide some proofs that they were poisoned by some Russian secret
service? Why on Earth would these aforementioned services like to kill the guy? He's 100%
non-entity.
On the other hand, it's a very convenient target if someone wants to frame FSB or GRU, so
I'll bet on British MI-###. Tough luck for this guy, you're fired in this way in this
business.
@ Aleks
I'm aware that Hitler and Churchill believed those. I apologize for taking your comment out
of context and calling out racism where none was intended. I feel kinda silly now.
"... It would also require the FBI to investigate all requests by U.S.-based Russian diplomats to travel 50 miles outside his or her official post to ensure those diplomats have properly notified the U.S. Government of their travel plans. No Russian diplomats could travel outside of that 50 mile perimeter unless all of their colleagues have followed travel rules in the three months prior. The FBI would also be required to notify Congress that the Russians have followed the rules before the travel is cleared by the State Department. The purpose is to ensure the Russians are following proper protocol in their travel. ..."
Dr. Strangelove already back, McCarthy coming! 02/07/2016 Senate Committee Looks
To Revive Cold-War Era Body To Catch Russian Spies
By Ali Watkins
A new intelligence bill also proposes tightening how Russian diplomats can travel.
Congress is pushing the White House to revive a Cold War-era committee to crack down on
Russian spies, underscoring just how uneasy Washington is about its adversaries in Moscow.
In its 2017 Intelligence Authorization Bill, the Senate Intelligence Committee is asking the
White House to reinstate a presidentially-appointed group to unmask Russian spies and uncover
Russian-sponsored assassinations. The group, which would include personnel from the State
Department, intelligence community and several other executive offices, would meet monthly.
Along with spies and covert killings, the committee would also investigate the funding of front
groups -- or cover organizations for Russian operations -- "covert broadcasting, media
manipulation" and secret funding.
A similar interagency body called the
"Active Measures Working Group" existed during the Cold War, but it hasn't been active in
decades. This new group would be modeled after its Cold War predecessor, one U.S. intelligence
official said on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive bill.
The intelligence bill
passed through the Senate committee in May, and now must be passed by the full Senate.
It would also require the FBI to investigate all requests by U.S.-based Russian
diplomats to travel 50 miles outside his or her official post to ensure those diplomats have
properly notified the U.S. Government of their travel plans. No Russian diplomats could travel
outside of that 50 mile perimeter unless all of their colleagues have followed travel rules in
the three months prior. The FBI would also be required to notify Congress that the Russians
have followed the rules before the travel is cleared by the State Department. The purpose is to
ensure the Russians are following proper protocol in their travel.
"... Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack. ..."
The former British ambassador Craig Murray suspects a different motive and culprit:
Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg - 10:21 AM - 8 Mar 2018 Russophobia is extremely profitable to the armaments, security and spying industries and Russophobia reinforces
intellectually challenged voters in their Tory loyalty. Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal
attack.
When we look at how the corporate media is spinning this story, it seems to me that Craig
Murray's theory about using the incident to ramp up Russophobia has its merits.
" FBI Special Agent David Raynor was suicided yesterday while he was investigating
why former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met this past June (2017) with Baltimore
Police Department Detective Sean Suiter -- who was a member of the wildly corrupt Baltimore
police unit called the Gun Trace Task Force linked to the "Operation Fast and Furious" gun
scandal covered up the Obama regime -- but with Detective Suiter being murdered with his
own gun on 15 November (2017) the day before he was due to testify before a US Federal Grand
Jury..."
"... Nobody of us can really know what happened in London with the Russian ex-double agent they tried to kill. But Russians would be foolish to let the agent leave from Russia to try to assassinate him many years afterwards, at the eve of their Presidential Election. DK ..."
"... By Robert Stevens ..."
"... Financial Times, ..."
"... Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia's border, Putin authorising the murder of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents. ..."
Nobody of
us can really know what happened in London with the Russian ex-double agent they tried to kill.
But Russians would be foolish to let the agent leave from Russia to try to assassinate him many
years afterwards, at the eve of their Presidential Election.
DKAnti-Russia campaign follows alleged poisoning of former UK/Russian double agent and
daughter
By Robert Stevens 8 March 2018
The British government and mass media have mounted a hysterical anti-Russian campaign
centred on the still unexplained circumstances surrounding the hospitalisation of former
British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, after they were found unconscious on a
bench in Salisbury on Sunday.
Initial reports Monday stated that Skripal, aged 66, may have ingested fentanyl, a synthetic
opioid many times stronger than heroin, which can be fatal in small doses.
On Tuesday, the other person hospitalised was identified as Skripal's 33-year-old daughter,
Yulia, who was also said to be in a critical condition.
Skripal is a former colonel in Russia's GRU, the military intelligence service. He spent
four years in jail in Russia after being found guilty in 2006 of passing secrets to MI6, the
UK's foreign intelligence service. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison.
Skripal served four years before being released in 2010, when he was pardoned by Russia as
part of a well-publicized 10-person spy swap between the US, the UK and Russia. He moved to the
UK where he has lived for the past seven years.
The pair were found unconscious and slumped on a bench near the Maltings shopping centre.
Police stated that two became ill at around 13.30 p.m. Police arrived on the scene at around
16.15 p.m., after being alerted by a concerned member of the public. It was announced Wednesday
that a police officer is also in critical condition after attending the incident. The Skripals
visited a nearby restaurant, Zizzi's, which was cordoned off, as well as a local pub, The
Bishop's Mill.
By Tuesday, despite nothing of substance being reported by the police, the government and
media had effectively declared the incident an act of terrorism, with the finger pointing at
Russia's Putin government. References to an opioid being involved were dropped, with media
reports saying the government's secret chemical lab at Porton Down was as yet unable to
identify the substance. Wiltshire police announced that London's Metropolitan Police
counter-terrorist unit would be taking over the investigation. In parliament, Foreign Secretary
Boris Johnson spoke about the "disturbing incident in Salisbury" and stated, "Although I am not
now pointing fingers, because we cannot point fingers, I say to governments around the world
that no attempt to take innocent life on UK soil will go either unsanctioned or unpunished," He
then referred to Russia as a "malign and destructive force" and warned that if Moscow were
found to be involved, the government would "take whatever measures we deem necessary to protect
the lives of the people in this country, our values and our freedoms."
In another pointed reference to Russia, he stated that the case had "echoes of the death of
Alexander Litvinenko in 2006" -- the former officer in Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB,
the successor to the KGB), who died on November 23, 2006 after having been granted asylum in
Britain in 2000. The UK, backed by the US have long claimed that the Putin regime ordered the
killing despite no evidence being presented in an official British inquiry in 2016 -- other
than the presence of the radioactive substance polonium.
Johnson threatened that England could consider boycotting the soccer World Cup in Russia
this summer.
Every newspaper, apart from the Financial Times, led with hysterical anti-Russian
headlines . The Sun blared, "Red Spy in UK Poison Terror," with an accompanying story
referring to "fear over a Kremlin backed hit " The Daily Mirror's headline was "
'Assassins' on British street".
In an article in the Spectator , columnist Ed West posed the question, "Will
Britain stand up to Russia?" By the evening, despite Newsnight anchor Kirsty Wark introducing
the story by saying, "so far we know nothing about what happened to them, if they were poisoned
and if they were, by whom," the BBC's flagship news programme was dedicated to a narrative that
Russia was responsible and that Skripal and his daughter were likely victims of an attack by
Russia intelligence operatives.
The media have reported the deaths of Skripal's wife, his son and his older brother as
mysterious events requiring investigation. His wife died of cancer in 2012 in Britain.
The following day the DailyTelegraph asserted that "Putin swore death on
poisoned Russian spy." The Times went with "MI5 believes Russians tried to kill former
spy."
On Wednesday morning, the government convened its COBRA committee, which meets during
periods of national emergencies. On Wednesday evening, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark
Rowley announced that Skripal and his daughter were subjected to an attack by a "nerve agent,"
with it being classified as a case of "attempted murder."
No information released by the authorities can be taken at face value. All reports attest
that Skripal was supposedly politically inactive. He evidently did nothing to hide his
identity, buying a house for £260,000 in his real name and applying to join a railway
social club. He regularly bought lottery scratch cards and purchased food from a local Polish
food store.
If the Putin regime were indeed set on killing Skripal and his daughter, some explanation
needs to be made as to motive. Skripal's daughter lived and worked in Russia and made regular
trips back and forth.
At least one other person released from jail in Russia would appear to have been a much more
likely target of the Putin regime than Skripal, if indeed its intention was to prevent
anti-Russian activities. Igor Sutyagin developed into a prominent anti-Putin figure in the UK,
becoming a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) defence and intelligence
think-tank.
RUSI is central to the formulation of British imperialism's anti-Russian policy. Even the
Guardian's main advocate against the Putin regime, columnist Luke Harding, was forced
to acknowledge that Sutyagin "gave lectures on Vladimir Putin's darkening state, and kept a
high public profile. Skripal, by contrast, eschewed London. He settled with Liudmilla [his
wife] in the comparative quiet of Wiltshire." Asking the question who would benefit from the
deaths of Skripal and his daughter, there would appear to be no obvious reason why the Putin
government would authorize such an act. Putin is currently campaigning in the last stretch of
the 2018 presidential election, which takes place on March 18. He is expected to be
re-elected.
Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any
pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia's border, Putin authorising the murder
of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents.
The response of the government and media to these events must be placed in the context of
the concerted drive by London to demonize Russia. Only last week the Times devoted its
front page, an op-ed piece and an editorial to bellicose calls by senior military figures,
including second in command of the armed forces, Sir Gordon Messenger, for an increase in
military spending, naming Russia as the power that must be confronted.
This followed a January speech given at RUSI by General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the
General Staff of the British Armed Forces, in which he declared that the UK had to actively
prepare for war with Russia and other geo-political rivals:
There is huge difference: Stalinist were convinced that communism is a bright future of
mankind and were determine (with the religious zeal_ to eliminate allthe resistance to tits
coming.
Neoliberalism is clearly experience both ideological (since 2008) and now social crisis in
the USA. So here the purges are designed to prolong the like of decaying regime which lost its
legitimacy in the eyes of population. As such is is not similar to the Stalin Doctors' plot - Wikipedia -- the purge of
Jewish doctors at the end of this reign.
Notable quotes:
"... Militarily, since World War II Washington has relied on its armed predominance to dictate to the world. But now the President of Russia has announced possession of what are from the US perspective super weapons that do not, as some claim, give Russia parity with the US, but give Russia immense military superiority over the US, indeed over the entire Western alliance. ..."
This year could turn out to be a defining year for the United States. It is clear that the
US military/security complex and the Democratic Party aided by their media vassals intend to
purge Donald Trump from the presidency. One of the open conspirators declared the other day
that we have to get rid of Trump now before he wins re-election in a landslide.
It is now a known fact that Russiagate is a conspiracy of the military/security complex,
Obama regime, Democratic National Committee, and presstitute media to destroy President Trump.
However, the presstitutes never present this fact to the American public. Nevertheless, a
majority of Americans do not believe the Democrats and the presstitutes that Trump conspired
with Putin to steal the election.
One question before us is: Will Mueller and the Democrats succeed in purging Donald Trump,
as Joseph Stalin succeed in purging Lenin's Bolsheviks, including Nikolai Bukharin, who Lenin
called "the golden boy of the revolution," or will the Democratic Party and the presstitutes
discredit themselves such that the country moves far to the right.
Stalin didn't need facts and could frame-up people at will as he had absolute power. In the
US the presstitute media, like Stalin, does not concern itself with facts, but the presstitutes
do not have absolute power. Indeed, few people trust the presstitutes, and even fewer trust
Mueller.
Many are puzzled that President Trump has not moved against his enemies as they have no
evidence for their charges. Indeed, Mueller's indictments have nothing whatsoever to do with
the Russiagate accusations. Why are not Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and all the rest indicted
for their clear and obvious crimes?
America's future turns on the answer to this question. Is it because the Trump regime is
letting the presstitutes and the Democrats destroy their credibility, or is it because Trump is
weak, confused, and doesn't know how to use the powers of his office to slay those who intend
to slay him?
If it is the former, then America will move far to the right. If it is the latter, America
will have had its own Stalinist purge, and the purge is likely to follow the Stalin model and to
extend down to those who voted for Trump.
The failure of the integrity of the liberal/progressive/left has left the US facing two
unpalatable outcomes. One is a right-wing government empowered by the left's self-defeat. The
other is the rise of the Identity Politics state in which oppression will be based on gender,
race, and beliefs.
This is not the only issue that could be resolved in 2018. There are others, and the other
two major ones are the economic situation and the military situation.
For a decade the central banks of the West and Japan have printed money far in excess of the
increase in real goods and services. This money printing has not caused massive inflation of
consumer prices. Instead it has caused inflation in financial instruments and real estate.
The high Dow Jones average is the product of this money printing. Can the central banks stop
printing money and allow interest rates to rise, thus collapsing equity prices and pension
funds? What would be the consequences?
Militarily, since World War II Washington has relied on its armed predominance to dictate to
the world. But now the President of Russia has announced possession of what are from the US
perspective super weapons that do not, as some claim, give Russia parity with the US, but give
Russia immense military superiority over the US, indeed over the entire Western alliance.
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC
because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine
the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images"
of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided
these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC .
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to
its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly
contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor
that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and
even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks
as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth
Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly
dismissed absent any of the other evidence Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished
to denigrate Clinton. Based on what I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials
took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very restrained. The
main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was
more an observation of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump
over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability given Clinton's "Hitler"
comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with
intelligence estimates and their reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons
inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to
balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top
honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political
players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits
into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence
Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting
souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works,
they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing.
More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and
State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.
You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have
produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence
and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies
in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off
the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
Air Force Intelligence,
Army Intelligence,
Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
Coast Guard Intelligence,
Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
Energy Department aka DOE,
Homeland Security Department,
State Department aka INR,
Treasury Department,
Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
Marine Corps Intelligence,
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
National Security Agency aka NSA,
Navy Intelligence
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged
and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign
intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them.
They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going
on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:
The CIA collects and disseminates intelligence from human sources, i.e., foreigners who have been recruited to spy for us.
The DIA collects and disseminates intelligence on the activities and composition of foreign militaries and rely primarily
on human sources but also collect documentary material.
The State Department messages between the Secretary of State and the our embassies constitutes the intelligence reviewed and
analyzed by other agencies.
NGIA collects collects, analyzes, and distributes geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) in support of national security. NGA was
known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) until 2003. In other words, maps and photographs.
NRO designs, builds, and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. federal government, and provides satellite intelligence
to several government agencies, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT) to the NSA, imagery intelligence (IMINT) to the NGA,
and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to the DIA.
NSA analyzes signal intelligence, including phone conversations and emails.
Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients.
The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the
NSA.
The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that
those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those
agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference
between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two
are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.
Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The
FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads
represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity.
When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential
evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence
agencies like the CIA and the NSA.
The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the
organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would
concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.
An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same
things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations
primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible
for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the
Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.
In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton,
along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had
unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who
released the following memo to the press on
7 October 2016 :
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails
from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on
sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow
-- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.
We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these
activities."
This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence
of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from
the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:
"The USIC is confident . . ."
"We believe . . ."
If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering
them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced
in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.
Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:
"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply
disturbing."
What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the
Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any
importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew
and believed? There was nothing.
It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must
reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination
that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment
on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats
and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence
would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.
Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there
are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified
information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five
agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform
the work of analysts.
Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that
would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the
Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced
to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network
that allegedly was attacked.
Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could
have contributed relevant intelligence.
Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.
Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned
theft.
Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because
the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly
attacked.
What Do Analysts Do?
Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document
that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood
of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through
more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA
intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to
the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.
The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility.
There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities.
That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.
Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, "
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent
US Elections " (please see
here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked
two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the
final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only
analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated
by those three agencies.
Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the
key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators
of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should
have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.
Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:
One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific
intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According
to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA.
The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts
mean or do not mean.
There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into
a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing.
We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies,
i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise
on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put
into final form.
That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views
of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts.
In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness,
level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.
Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability
and potential presidency.
We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future
influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments.
There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government
preferred Trump over Clinton.
How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited
in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence
was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts
of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."
It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid
of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But
such sourcing is absent in this document.
That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and
persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.
Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.
But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the
chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...
********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:
One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts
from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically
every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with
the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl
"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they
did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'"
Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.
Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple
A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but
they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing.
The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself
with garbage, would it?
Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the
Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off
the coup.
The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged,
rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.
I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away
with it?
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee
did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved
in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified
true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate
to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack
involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another
leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence
Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what
I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very
restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation
of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability
given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their
reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990
+- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence.
And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However
inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia
as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are
Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms
there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.
IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.
Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.
Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as
UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?
I ask because of the passage in your article -
"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed
in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under
oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "
Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information
because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process,
material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?
" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material
that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially
yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison
between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl
Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability
lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in
my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy,
a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their
activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks
and how much by hustlers. pl
hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in
re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of
them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the
email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to
trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.
Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.
You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange."
You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver
a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring
to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National
Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.
Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.
Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.
The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological
program, though I believe parts have their place.
And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences
are, if that was the point.
I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct
knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide
outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.
I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in
choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes
without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always
find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in
an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the
whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....
Now, tell me that this is not an
intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the
government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where
everything is crimbling....
Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R.
Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's
investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col.
Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped
on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians.
And his sentencing is on hold
now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge
to do that.
Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread
in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't
they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money
and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there
were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt
to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or
some charge like that.
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group
of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought
that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen
these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of
these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the
IC.
I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged
throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great
enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced
the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations
Center.
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29
...
Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled
the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem
to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.
APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to
29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...
Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.
******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic
traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?
Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse
of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.
I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)
But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other
words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined
observer of SST.
But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are
now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation,
even though he is a conservative republican.
They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."
I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.
You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.
"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign
and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations
left out.
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in
this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have
been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes?
Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?
If the latter you must know
that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections,
German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.
As for
McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can
be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl
PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and
methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me
since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example
that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser
to the federal court for four years.
In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational
files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI
level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection
in order to protect themselve. pl
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been
SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.
Not aware of this. Can you help me out?
No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged
evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify
matters for myself.
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of
Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.
This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise
patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge
and sets a date for discovery?
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put
it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.
THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE
ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING
TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.
GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the
very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event,
there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.
I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide
Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess
that is why they call these things assessments.
The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly
classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not
include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."
I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports
and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.
As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were
changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that,
there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of
someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media
postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment
that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.
I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted
in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing.
Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest
march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at
the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to
justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on
Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?
Personally I would suggest that there are people within the US establishment that know very
well that Putin was/is not bluffing.The theatrics from the likes of Mark Galeotti and coterie
are just that ,buffoons and clowns that speak to a crowd cheering on anyone that would
re-enforce the false narrative of the bad Russians in order to feel good about themselves and
keep thumping their chests . This will not last forever .Sanity will visit this planet again
.
I don't think that Putin was bluffing. But I came across a Consortium News article that had
me wondering about the impression Putin made and whether he was okay with misleading us just
a bit, not by doing it himself, but by omission and by allowing us to have ideas that don't
exactly conform to reality: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/03/03/why-putins-latest-weapons-claims-should-scare-us/
It is interesting that US tax payer dollars fund an agency that executes foreign policy, with no controls, which is the responsibility
of the federal government according to the US constitution.
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Pointing out that the legal basis for the entire Mueller dog and pony show was based on a fraud, well lets not do that ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in an official document, and overly optimistic tax position. ..."
"... If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators. ..."
The "17 intelligence agencies" statement was undoubtedly hype, but it's old news now. The reasonable position now is to
wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. All else is partisan spinning, by all sides.
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor
Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Pointing out that the legal basis for the entire Mueller dog and pony show was based on a fraud, well lets not do that;
We should by all means just sit back and let the narrative unfold as those who are trying to unseat the elected president continue
unopposed to craft public opinion, just in time for mid-term elections.
Using the same legal logic there is "probable cause" for the FBI to investigate every member of the House and Senate as well
because they have all have met some guy who is connected to somebody who is corrupt, a foreign agent, or some other kind of crook
or some drunk in a bar is saying they have. The only people above reproach are the senior agents committing adultery; failing
to inform their bosses of conflicts of interests due to their wives working for the very people who are witnesses in the investigation
they are conducting; or are omitting important facts from submissions to court for warrants. Even mentioning those is just
further evidence that something really did happen. I for one don't want the professional bureaucracy running the candidate
selection process in the Republic or keeping the elected representatives "in line" by making "some people sweat their future freedom
and wealth". But that statement alone would make me a suspect too.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is
assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can
always find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity
in an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
"The "17 intelligence agencies" statement was undoubtedly hype, but it's old news now."
that is true.. however, what is not new, is the fact that lies or exaggeration is going on non stop still! perhaps you got
a chance to read this article 'cult of authority' which i think is applicable here... https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/07/the-cult-of-authority/
This case looks more and more like Litvinenko II -- another false flag designed to implicate Russia a fuel anti-russian hysteria.
British MI6 are masters in such provocations.
Along with sabotaging Moscow soccer tournament this also can also be an attempt to distract from MI6 role is creation of Steele
dossier too.
Notable quotes:
"... Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in 1995
by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy in Tallinn.
Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians. ..."
"... The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying fingered
Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited him. He says it was
Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him to British intelligence agents.
Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities' suspicions that another former FSB officer,
Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium. ..."
"... Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..."
"... Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British intelligence,
transmitting information about Russian agents. ..."
"... Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What did
he do to earn the higher pay? ..."
"... Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly,
he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. ..."
"... If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it, he
must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will be thrown
under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of ruling elite as
high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free ..."
"... If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories in
fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional quest
of riches ..."
"... Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier
of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether Mr
Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties. ..."
"... It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes
back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way... ..."
"... Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what the 'counter-terror'
mob do. ..."
"... The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever happened,
but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they do trying to find
out what actually did occur. ..."
"... Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It
is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration. ..."
"... B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow via
his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke of genius.
Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide. ..."
"... On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will provide
all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such. ..."
"... Meanwhile The Guardian is spewing its usual bilge : Russian spy attack inquiry widens after medics treat 21 people ..."
"... The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see
how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it. ..."
On Sunday a former British-Russian double agent and his daughter were seriously injured in a mysterious incident in Salisbury,
England. The British government
says that both were hurt due to "exposure to a nerve agent". Speculative media reports talk of Sarin and VX, two deadly nerve-agents
used in military chemical weapons. Anonymous officials strongly hint that 'Russia did it'.
New reports though point to a deep connection between the case and the anti-Trump/anti-Russia propaganda drive run by the Obama
administration and the Hillary Clinton election campaign.
Sergei Skripal
once was
a colonel in a Russian military intelligence service. In the early 1990s he was
recruited by
the MI6 agent Pablo Miller. He continued to spy for the Brits after his 1999 retirement. The Russian FSB claims that the British
MI6 paid him $100,000 for his service. At that time a Russian officer would only make a few hundred bucks per month. Skripal was
finally uncovered in 2004 and two years later convicted for spying for Britain. He was sentenced to 18 years and in 2010 he and other
agents ware exchanged in a large spy swap between the United States and Russia. Skripal was granted refuge in Britain and has since
lived openly under his own name in Salisbury. His wife and his son died over the last years of natural causes. The only near relative
he has left is his daughter who continued to live in Russia.
Last week his daughter flew to Britain and met him in Salisbury. On Sunday they went to a pub and a restaurant. At some point
they were poisoned or poisoned themselves. They collapsed on a public bench. They are now in intensive care. A policeman one the
scene was also seriously effected.
Authorities have declined to name the substance to which the pair is suspected to have been exposed,
but :
Local media had on Monday reported the substance found at the scene to be similar to fentanyl: a lethally strong opioid available
even on Salisbury's soporific streets.
I think this event is a ramp to offing Knesia Sobchak prior to or just after the national poll. She is a pawn of the West.
She has been directed to consolidate the disparate liberal opposition campaigns by the use of primaries...which would just happen
to result in her primacy. The idea is to have her win enough vote it can be alleged that she has embarrassed Putin...and then
they six her using VX. Her father was close go Putin during Putin's early years in St Pete. The BBC has been running chaff out
the foot saying Putin killed his mentor Anatoly Sobchak. Knesia has been moved into position. She will be offed to harm Putin's
reputation but also to place e a complex wound in him. The West are monsters
Ms Rudd told MPs it was an "outrageous crime", adding that the government would "act without hesitation as the facts become
clearer".
Yeah, right.
Like the illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country based on the lies by the same 'government', with a million+ casualties
among the middle eastern population.
That kind of outrageous crime , correct?
One day the pendulum will swing back hard and merciless at these criminal warmongers and war profiteers. Disgusting how low
what goes for 'homo sapiens' can sink.
I was wondering if Grigory Rodchenkov was in danger of meeting the same fate by some of the more unsavory elements of U.S. Intelligence
Agencies. He would become a poster boy for Russian assassinations on U.S. soil.
One thing about Rodchenkov, if the doping was not state sponsored, what motive would have have for doing it on his own, is
there enough money in the Olympics that individual athletes would bribe him or would it make him look better if his athletes did
better? I don't buy that it was state sponsored, or at least there is no evidence to that affect.
Having worked for Russia's Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) since the Soviet era, Sergey Skripal was recruited in
1995 by the British agent Pablo Miller, who at the time was posing as Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo and working in Britain's embassy
in Tallinn. Russia's Federal Security Service says Miller was actually an undercover MI6 agent tasked with recruiting Russians.
The first reports about Miller's work in Russia emerged in the early 2000s, after multiple Russians arrested for spying
fingered Miller as their recruiter. For example, former tax police Major Vyacheslav Zharko says it was Miller who recruited
him. He says it was Boris Berezovsky and former Federal Security Service (FSB) agent Alexander Litvinenko who introduced him
to British intelligence agents. Zharko surrendered himself to Russian officials when he learned about the British authorities'
suspicions that another former FSB officer, Andrey Lugovoi, had poisoned Litvinenko with polonium.
Litvinenko also worked for MI6 ..
Skripal, however, never turned himself in. For nine years, according to the FSB, he collaborated actively with British
intelligence, transmitting information about Russian agents.
Nikolai Luzan, who calls himself a colonel and a veteran of Russia's security agencies, wrote a detailed book about how
the British recruited Sergey Skripal. Luzan says his book, "A Devil's Counterintelligence Dozen," is an "artistic-documentary
production."
If we assume that Luzan's account is generally accurate, then Skripal was recruited during a long-term assignment in Malta
and Spain, where he "got greedy."
...
Further on:
Skripal led a quiet life in Salisbury, where he reportedly bought an average house for 340,000 British pounds (about $472,000).
His neighbors describe him as an ordinary, reasonably friendly pensioner. When he moved to the area, he even invited the whole
street over for a housewarming party.
It's unclear why Skripal decided to resettle specifically in Salisbury, but LinkedIn indicates that Pablo Miller -- the
MI6 agent who recruited him -- lives in the same town. In 2015, the year he retired, Miller received the Order of the British
Empire for services to Her Majesty's Government.
Skripal's wife, Lyudmila, lived with him in Salisbury until her death a few years ago. His son died from liver failure in
2017 in St. Petersburg.
It must be Pablo Miller who worked with Steele ...
Who/what paid Skripal a $472,000 house and a pension? That is way more than the reported $100,000 he earlier got. What
did he do to earn the higher pay?
Seems Skripal was a British spy at the end. If he required killing, it would have happened long ago as b asserts. Clearly,
he knew something dangerously compromising to make himself a target. The UK's fairly well covered by CCTV; I'd be very interested
in what those in Salisbury observed. The incident has La Carre written all over it.
If someone like MI6 for FSB wanted him dead they would be instantly in a car accident of robbery attempt, they whoever they are,
wanted this to thing to prolong in time to feed the press Russia gate and wanted people like b to follow the trap since most of
the info here can be found just after few clicks, will be picked up by rational people.
If b is too moral to consider killing injuring unrelated, innocent people for propaganda as it was 9/11 whoever did it,
he must wake up. These days, days of phony YT,FB Twitter reality, the only value is propaganda value nothing else, anybody will
be thrown under the bus if this fits aims of ruling elite even some oligarchs who are rich only because their submit to rape of
ruling elite as high paid prostitute while the rest are raped for free .
If fact they will supress details of that crime just to obfuscate obvious perpetrators in a cloud of conspiracy theories
in fact mining people's brains busy them up like little ants like Bitcoin miners waste electricity and computer power for delusional
quest of riches .
In the society of control ruling elite controls everything it needs to control and hence is responsible for this. Case closed.
The Russian double agent poisoned in Salisbury may have become a target after using his contacts in the intelligence community
to work for private security firms, investigators believe.
Sergei Skripal could have come to the attention of certain people in Russia by attempting to "freelance" for companies run
by former MI5, MI6 and GCHQ spies, security sources say.
... Sources close to Orbis, the business intelligence firm run by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was behind a dossier
of compromising allegations against Donald Trump, said Mr Skripal did not contribute to the file. But they could not say whether
Mr Skripal was involved in different investigations into the US President for other interested parties.
It's interesting how quickly the denial from steele comes out... Is skripal dead yet, or still alive? i wonder if he comes
back, what he says? i guess we will never know either way...
For me it was particularly suss when the Leceister Police who are the coppers on the ground in Salisbury were heavied by Scotland
Yuk ( or 'the met' as englander papers call that gang of proven torturers & murderers) to
turn the Skripsky investigation over to the 'counter-terror squad'
- the mob of thugs whose skillful manipulation of england's media combined with
evidence falsification made their
indicted murder of Brazilian electrician
Jean Charles de Menezes seem like an heroic act by playing the old honest whitefella card - "all those brownfellas look the same,
who can tell the difference?" . No copper, not the killers or the idiot in charge suffered any disciplinary actiion, much less
a criminal one. IIRC the policeperson in charge who claimed to be 'in the bathroom' at the time of de Menzeses murder, one Cressida
Dick, is now chief commissioner, the boss of Scotland Yuk.
The local coppers know the area and will have a rapport with witnesses that a mob of arseholes in sharp suits backed by balaclava
wearing armed heavies is unlikely to enjoy, so why grab the gig especially since it is certain to remain unsolved?
Well partly that, to make sure it remains unsolved, but also because counter-terror plays the press release regurgitators who
are englander 'journos' like a fine old violin. Questions about fentanyl being a nerve agent get tricky? Spin the chooks a yarn
about evil a-rabs you have met.
Kalen is right. Such a flamboyant killing is not how modern intelligence agencies dispose of problems. Unless they want to draw
attention to their work.
Maybe there's a bunch of people around the Christopher Steele dossier thinking of talking. What better way to shut them up
than to knock off a Steele source.
It could always be a simple & rather human explanation - The daughter was struggling for cash at home, dad was old but refused
to die & had a stash of cash from his past, she knocked him off to get an earlier inheritance but being an amateur at this she
did herself in too, which would be poetic justice...?
It is highly unlikely that fentanyl was the toxin that poisoned Skribal and his daughter. That hypothesis should be excluded at
this point.
The main reason for this is that the patrol man who discovered them also came down with similar symptoms. Fentanyl is extremely
toxic when injected intravenously. But not to any one coming into contact with them, touching them or even performing mouth to
mouth resusication.
There are numerous acetyl choline inhibitors (e.g. sarin, vx, and many other similar compounds that have never been approved
for chemical warfare) that can cause symptoms if someone comes into contact with an intoxicated patient especially one has be
exposed externally.
Also the Portland Down lab has identified an ACE inhibitor (of course, that is part of the British military and they could
very easily be lying.)
In any case, this looks like a nerve toxin poison, fentanyl is not in that class.
Fentanyl patchs are used to control intense chronic pain...If he resigned from GRU because of health issues, as the "Meduzas"
affirm, it might be related to this chronic pain and so he could well be a patient using this drug for pain control.....
Thus,
fentanyl is not a nerve agent, but an anesthesic in any case....All could well be a performance...to blame the Russians and contribute
to scare the population about them previous to some machination to be mounted at......Do not forget that that factory of mannequin
challenges broadcasts, the White Helmets, is also a British "enterprise", creation of "former" MI6 LeMesurier....
Yesterday when questions about fentanyl were raised, the sick policeman was identified, up until that point all that had been
said was that the bill first on the scene were admitted to be checked out by medics. Today the close to death's door copper is
in fine fettle once again. I leave it up to others to decide whether he was crook (sick - an Oz term) or the imported police were
crooks (lying).
Media management and playing the old "backs to the wall boys & girls, its the blitz all over again" is what
the 'counter-terror' mob do. If they were really opposed to scaring the bejeezuz outta englanders which is what their name
implies they would A) be better at preventing actions which they hadn't cranked up themselves for entrapment and B) not imagine
it was on the up and up to terrify the burghers of Salisbury with yarns about possible 'nerve agent' on the loose that were placing
the town's population at risk.
The initial cops played the whole thing really low key, it seemed as though they wanted to get to the bottom of whatever
happened, but their replacements 'counter-terror' appear to devote more time and energy to seducing credulous journos than they
do trying to find out what actually did occur. The form of this gang of sleek deceitful killers means that just because they
claim this local woodentop was poisoned, it doesn't mean that is what actually befell him.
Over in the states there have been reports about carfentanil poisoning responders to overdoses because of trace amounts. It
is reported as 100 x as powerful as fentanyl. So maybe a chemical cousin is a possible consideration.
It seems that MI6 was keeping Sergei Skripal on a tight leash by having him live in Salisbury close to Pablo Miller who must be
the old fellow's minder as well as recruiter. One way of keeping Skripal on this leash must be to supply him with an addictive
painkiller, for whatever pain he is suffering (physical, perhaps psychological?), and fentanyl fits the bill.
Fentanyl also fits the bill for a poisoning agent that also affected the police officer who attended the Skripals. The fentanyl
epidemic is apparently forcing emergency and first-response personnel to re-evaluate procedures in handling patients so that they
themselves are not affected by sniffing fentanyl accidentally.
B's suggestion that Skripal might be longing to return to and die in Russia, and that he was offering a "gift" to Moscow
via his daughter (or maybe even a letter apologising for his treachery and begging for forgiveness, Berezovsky-style) is a stroke
of genius. Makes me think that Boris Berezovsky's death merits more attention and cannot be brushed off as a suicide.
Nobody died. Only 3 remain in hospital and are not endangered.
On a park bench, they were discovered. I'll bet my best fishing lure that location's covered by a CCTV whose footage will
provide all the answers--unless we aren't to be shown, due to national security or some such.
The question raised by the link offered by Oyyo at 6 (at least 21 affected by the "neurotoxin"), the comments offered by Debisdead
at 21, and the note from Craig Murry about the nearby chemical site: Was this an attack targeting Skripal at all, or some other
kind of "misadventure"? There are so many opportunities to use this kind of incident, by entities capable of spinning it this
way and that, that it doesn't give to us individuals reading the news much hope of ever learning the truth.
A police officer in East Liverpool, Ohio, collapsed and was rushed to the hospital after he brushed fentanyl residue off his
uniform, allowing the drug to enter his system through his hands. The officer had apparently encountered the opioid earlier
in the day while making a drug bust.
Fenatanyl acts on the nervous system so could be described as a "nerve agent", particularly by a British politician or civil servant.
In addition to the three inpatients**** who are currently receiving treatment in relation to the incident, in line with Public
Health England guidance, which asked anyone who was in the area and is concerned because they feel unwell to come forward,
the Trust has seen and assessed a number of people who did not need treatment.
**** - These are Sgt Nick Bailey & the two original victims.
The longer Skripal and his daughter stay alive, the more propaganda can be rung out of his death. Be worth watching to see
how many sanctions and laws the UK can push through before he finally snuffs it.
"... Still worse, Putin and "Putin's Russia" have been so demonized that it is hard to imagine any leading American political figures or editorial commentators responding positively to what is plainly his hope for a new beginning in US-Russian relations. If nothing else, strategic parity always also meant political parity -- recognizing that Soviet Russia, like the United States, had legitimate national interests abroad. The years of American vilifying Putin and Russia are essentially an assertion that neither has any such legitimacy. ..."
Does Putin really believe Washington will "listen now"? He may still have some
"illusions," but we should have none. In recent years, there has been ample evidence that
US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to
read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service
reports.
Still worse, Putin and "Putin's Russia" have been so demonized that it is hard to
imagine any leading American political figures or editorial commentators responding
positively to what is plainly his hope for a new beginning in US-Russian relations. If
nothing else, strategic parity always also meant political parity -- recognizing that
Soviet Russia, like the United States, had legitimate national interests abroad. The years
of American vilifying Putin and Russia are essentially an assertion that neither has any
such legitimacy.
And making matters worse, there are the still unproven allegations of "Russiagate"
collusion. Even if President Trump understands, or is made to understand, the new --
possibly historic -- overture represented by Putin's speech, would the "Kremlin puppet"
allegations made daily against him permit him to seize this opportunity? Indeed, do the
promoters of "Russiagate" care?
"... What has however become clear in recent days is that the 'Gerasimov Doctrine' was not invented by its supposed author, but by a British academic, Mark Galeotti, who has now confessed – although in a way clearly designed to maintain as much of the 'narrative' as possible. ..."
"... Three days ago, an article by Galleoti appeared in 'Foreign Policy' entitled 'I'm Sorry for Creating the "Gerasimov Doctrine": I was the first to write about Russia's infamous high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.' ..."
"... The translation of the original article by Gerasimov with annotations by Galeotti which provoked the whole hysteria turns out to be a classic example of what I am inclined to term 'bad Straussianism.' ..."
"... What Strauss would have called the 'exoteric' meaning of the article quite clearly has to do with defensive strategies aimed at combatting the kind of Western 'régime change' projects about which people like those who write for 'Lawfare' are so enthusiastic. But Galeotti tells us that this is, at least partially, a cover for an 'esoteric' meaning, which has to do with offensive actions in Ukraine and similar places. ..."
More material on the British end of the conspiracy.
Commenting on an earlier piece by PT, I suggested that a key piece of evidence pointing to
'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to
disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a
leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt
Tait.
To recapitulate: Back in June 2016, hard on the heels of the claim by Dmitri Alperovitch
of 'CrowdStrike' to have identified clinching evidence making the GRU prime suspects, Tait
announced that, although initially unconvinced, he had found a 'smoking gun' in the
'metadata' of the documents released by 'Guccifer 2.0.'
A key part of this was the use by someone modifying a document of 'Felix Edmundovich'
– the name and patronymic of Dzerzhinsky, the Lithuanian-Polish noble who created the
Soviet secret police.
As I noted, Tait was generally identified as a former GCHQ employee who now ran a
consultancy called 'Capital Alpha Security.' However, checking Companies House records
revealed that he had filed 'dormant accounts' for the company. So it looks as though the
company was simply a 'front', designed to fool 'useful idiots' into believing he was an
objective analyst.
As I also noted in those comments, Tait writes the 'Lawfare' blog, one of whose founders,
Benjamin Wittes, looks as though he may himself have been involved in the conspiracy up to
the hilt. Furthermore, a secure income now appears to have been provided to replace that from
the non-existent consultancy, in the shape of a position at the 'Robert S. Strauss Center for
International Security and Law', run by Robert Chesney, a co-founder with Wittes of
'Lawfare.'
A crucial part of the story, however, is that the notion of GRU responsibility for the
supposed 'hacks' appears to be part of a wider 'narrative' about the supposed 'Gerasimov
Doctrine.' From the 'View from Langley' provided to Bret Stephens by CIA Director Mike Pompeo
at the 'Aspen Security Forum' last July:
'I hearken back to something called the Gerasimov doctrine from the early 70s, he's now
the head of the – I'm a Cold War guy, forgive me if I mention Soviet Union. He's now
the head of the Russian army and his idea was that you can win wars without firing a single
shot or with firing very few shots in ways that are decidedly not militaristic, and that's
what's happened. What changes is the costs; to effectuate change through cyber and through RT
and Sputnik, their news outlets, and through other soft means; has just really been lowered,
right. It used to be it was expensive to run an ad on a television station now you simply go
online and propagate your message. And so they have they have found an effective tool, an
easy way to go reach into our systems, and into our culture to achieve the outcomes they are
looking for.'
What has however become clear in recent days is that the 'Gerasimov Doctrine' was not
invented by its supposed author, but by a British academic, Mark Galeotti, who has now
confessed – although in a way clearly designed to maintain as much of the 'narrative'
as possible.
Three days ago, an article by Galleoti appeared in 'Foreign Policy' entitled 'I'm
Sorry for Creating the "Gerasimov Doctrine": I was the first to write about Russia's infamous
high-tech military strategy. One small problem: it doesn't exist.'
'Gerasimov was actually talking about how the Kremlin understands what happened in the
"Arab Spring" uprisings, the "color revolutions" against pro-Moscow regimes in Russia's
neighborhood, and in due course Ukraine's "Maidan" revolt. The Russians honestly –
however wrongly – believe that these were not genuine protests against brutal and
corrupt governments, but regime changes orchestrated in Washington, or rather, Langley. This
wasn't a "doctrine" as the Russians understand it, for future adventures abroad: Gerasimov
was trying to work out how to fight, not promote, such uprisings at home.'
The translation of the original article by Gerasimov with annotations by Galeotti
which provoked the whole hysteria turns out to be a classic example of what I am inclined to
term 'bad Straussianism.'
What Strauss would have called the 'exoteric' meaning of the article quite clearly has
to do with defensive strategies aimed at combatting the kind of Western 'régime
change' projects about which people like those who write for 'Lawfare' are so enthusiastic.
But Galeotti tells us that this is, at least partially, a cover for an 'esoteric' meaning,
which has to do with offensive actions in Ukraine and similar places.
Having now read the text of the article, I can see a peculiar irony in it. In a section
entitled 'You Can't Generate Ideas On Command', Gerasimov suggests that 'The state of Russian
military science today cannot be compared with the flowering of military-theoretical thought
in our country on the eve of World War II.'
According to the 'exoteric' meaning of the article, it is not possible to blame anyone in
particular for this situation. But Gerasimov goes on on to remark that, while at the time of
that flowering there were 'no people with higher degrees' or 'academic schools or
departments', there were 'extraordinary personalities with brilliant ideas', who he terms
'fanatics in the best sense of the word.'
Again, Galeotti discounts the suggestion that nobody is to blame, assuming an 'esoteric
meaning', and remarking: 'Ouch. Who is he slapping here?'
Actually, Gerasimov refers by name to two, utterly different figures, who certainly were
'extraordinarily personalities with brilliant ideas.'
If Pompeo had even the highly amateurish grasp of the history of debates among Soviet
military theorists that I have managed to acquire he would be aware that one of the things
which was actually happening in the 'Seventies was the rediscovery of the ideas of Alexander
Svechin.
Confirming my sense that this has continued on, Gerasimov ends by using Svechin to point
up an intractable problem: it can be extraordinarily difficult to anticipate the conditions
of a war, and crucial not to impose a standardised template likely to be inappropriate, but
one has to make some kinds of prediction in order to plan.
Immediately after the passage which Galeotti interprets as a dig at some colleague,
Gerasimov elaborates his reference to 'extraordinary people with brilliant ideas' by
referring to an anticipation of a future war, which proved prescient, from a very different
figure to Svechin:
'People like, for instance, Georgy Isserson, who, despite the views he formed in the
prewar years, published the book "New Forms Of Combat." In it, this Soviet military
theoretician predicted: "War in general is not declared. It simply begins with already
developed military forces. Mobilization and concentration is not part of the period after the
onset of the state of war as was the case in 1914 but rather, unnoticed, proceeds long before
that." The fate of this "prophet of the Fatherland" unfolded tragically. Our country paid in
great quantities of blood for not listening to the conclusions of this professor of the
General Staff Academy.'
Unlike Svechin, whom I have read, I was unfamiliar with Isserson. A quick Google search,
however, unearthed a mass of material in American sources – including, by good fortune,
an online text of a 2010 study by Dr Richard Harrison entitled 'Architect of Soviet Victory
in World War II: The Life and Theories of G.S. Isserson', and a presentation summarising the
volume.
Ironically, Svechin and Isserson were on opposite sides of fundamental divides. So the
former, an ethnic Russian from Odessa, was one of the 'genstabisty', the former Tsarist
General Staff officers who sided with the Bolsheviks and played a critical role in teaching
the Red Army how to fight. Meanwhile Isserson was a very different product of the
'borderlands' – the son of a Jewish doctor, brought up in Kaunas, with a German Jewish
mother from what was then Königsberg, giving him an easy facility with German-language
sources.
The originator of the crucial concept of 'operational' art – the notion that in
modern industrial war, the ability to handle a level intermediate between strategy and
tactics was critical to success – was actually Svechin.
Developing the ambivalence of Clausewitz, however, he stressed that both the offensive and
the defensive had their places, and that the key to success was to know which was appropriate
when and also to be able rapidly to change from one to the other. His genuflections to
Marxist-Leninist dogma, moreover, were not such as to take in any of Dzerzhinsky's
people.
By contrast, Isserson was unambiguously committed to the offensive strand in the
Clausewitzian tradition, and a Bolshevik 'true believer' (although he married the daughter of
a dispossessed ethnically Russian merchant, who had their daughter baptised without his
knowledge.)
As Harrison brings out, Isserson's working through of the problems of offensive
'operational art' would be critical to the eventual success of the Red Army against Hitler.
However, the specific text to which he refers was, ironically, a warning of precisely one of
the problems implicit in the single-minded reliance on the offensive: the possibility that
one could be left with no good options confronting an antagonist similarly oriented –
as turned out to be the case.
As Gerasimov intimates, while unlike Svechin, executed in 1938, Isserson survived the
Stalin years, he was another of the victims of Dzerzhinsky's heirs. Arrested shortly before
his warnings were vindicated by the German attack on 22 June 1941, he would spend the war in
the Gulag and only return to normal life after Stalin's death.
So I think that the actual text of Gerasimov's article reinforces a point I have made
previously. The 'evidence' identified by Tait is indeed a 'smoking gun.' But it emphatically
does not point towards the GRU.
Meanwhile, another moral of the tale is that Americans really should stop being taken in
by charlatan Brits like Galeotti, Tait, and Steele.
The sad but reasonable conclusion from all those Russiagate events is that an influential part of the US elite wants to
balance on the edge of war with Russia to ensure profits and flow of taxpayer money. that part of the elite include top
honchos on the US intelligence community and Pentagon (surprise, surprise)
The other logical conclusion is that intelligence agencies now determine the US foreign policy and control all major political
players (there were widespread suspicions that Clinton, Bush II and Obama were actually closely connected to CIA). Which neatly fits
into hypotheses about the "deep state".
This "can of worms" that the US political scene now represents is very dangerous for the future on mankind indeed.
Notable quotes:
"... Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. ..."
"... "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." ..."
"... More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release ..."
"... If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist. ..."
"... "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing." ..."
"... The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. ..."
"... Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, " Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections " (please see here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved ..."
"... This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. ..."
"... That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions ..."
"... Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. ..."
"... We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. ..."
"... We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. ..."
"... We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes. ..."
"... It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged. ..."
"... "The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'" Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged. ..."
"... Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it? ..."
"... Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup. ..."
"... To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC ..."
"... Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence. ..."
"... In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich. ..."
"... My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected ..."
"... Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling." ..."
"... His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already. ..."
"... Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating. ..."
"... But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ ..."
"... Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. ..."
"... Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance. ..."
"... "We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found. ..."
"... The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians. ..."
"... Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or some charge like that. ..."
"... What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes? Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote? ..."
"... As for McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl ..."
"... IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order to protect themselve. ..."
"... So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see? Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire. ..."
Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence
Jim Clapper, state that Russia's Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting
souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works,
they detect a troubling omission in Clapper's presentation and, upon examining the so-called "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing.
More troubling -- and this is inside baseball -- is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community -- the DIA and
State INR -- were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment.
You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have
produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence
and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies
in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.
The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the "Intelligence Community" aka IC. Comedians are not far off
the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:
Air Force Intelligence,
Army Intelligence,
Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA,
Coast Guard Intelligence,
Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA,
Energy Department aka DOE,
Homeland Security Department,
State Department aka INR,
Treasury Department,
Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA,
Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI,
Marine Corps Intelligence,
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA,
National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO,
National Security Agency aka NSA,
Navy Intelligence
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
But not all of these are "national security" agencies -- i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged
and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign
intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them.
They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going
on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:
The CIA collects and disseminates intelligence from human sources, i.e., foreigners who have been recruited to spy for us.
The DIA collects and disseminates intelligence on the activities and composition of foreign militaries and rely primarily
on human sources but also collect documentary material.
The State Department messages between the Secretary of State and the our embassies constitutes the intelligence reviewed and
analyzed by other agencies.
NGIA collects collects, analyzes, and distributes geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) in support of national security. NGA was
known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) until 2003. In other words, maps and photographs.
NRO designs, builds, and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. federal government, and provides satellite intelligence
to several government agencies, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT) to the NSA, imagery intelligence (IMINT) to the NGA,
and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to the DIA.
NSA analyzes signal intelligence, including phone conversations and emails.
Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients.
The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the
NSA.
The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, "What about the FBI and DEA?" It is true that
those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence -- i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those
agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as "intelligence." But there is an important difference
between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two
are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do.
Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The
FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads
represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity.
When such "human" information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential
evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence
agencies like the CIA and the NSA.
The "17th" member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the
organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would
concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.
An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same
things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations
primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible
for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the
Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.
In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton,
along with several high level Obama national security officials, pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had
unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who
released the following memo to the press on
7 October 2016 :
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails
from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on
sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow
-- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.
We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these
activities."
This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and "evidence
of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from
the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:
"The USIC is confident . . ."
"We believe . . ."
If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering
them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced
in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.
Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:
"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks,
come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply
disturbing."
What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the
Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems. And no one of any
importance asked the obvious -- where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew
and believed? There was nothing.
It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must
reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination
that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment
on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats
and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence
would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum.
Who would that be? The answer is simple -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there
are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified
information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five
agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform
the work of analysts.
Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand the type of intelligence that
would be required to "prove" Russian meddling. There are four possible sources -- 1) a human source who had direct access to the
Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced
to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network
that allegedly was attacked.
Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could
have contributed relevant intelligence.
Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA.
Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned
theft.
Finally there is the forensic evidence . In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because
the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly
attacked.
What Do Analysts Do?
Whenever there is a "judgment" or "consensus" claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document
that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood
of classified information (normally referred to as "cables" or "messages"). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through
more than 1200 messages -- i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA
intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to
the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.
The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility.
There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities.
That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people.
Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, "
Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent
US Elections " (please see
here ). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked
two dozen analysts to draft the document . That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the
final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only
analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated
by those three agencies.
Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the
key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators
of the cyber attack. DIA's analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department's Bureau of INR who should
have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.
Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document:
One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific
intelligence, using phrases such as: "According to a reliable source of proven access," when citing a CIA document or "According
to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access," when referencing something collected by the NSA.
The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts
mean or do not mean.
There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into
a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing.
We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.
At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies,
i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise
on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.
Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put
into final form.
That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views
of the "Intelligence Community." It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts.
In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding
desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness,
level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.
Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability
and potential presidency.
We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future
influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.
Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments.
There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government
preferred Trump over Clinton.
How do I know this? If such evidence existed -- either documentary or human source or signal intercept -- it would have been cited
in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence
was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts
of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified."
It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid
of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But
such sourcing is absent in this document.
That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and
persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.
Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.
But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the
chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...
********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:
One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." The "bigs" often recruit analysts
from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically
every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with
the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl
"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they
did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'"
Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.
Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple
A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but
they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing.
The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself
with garbage, would it?
Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the
Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off
the coup.
The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged,
rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.
I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away
with it?
Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee
did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."
To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved
in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.
All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.
Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified
true images" are themselves tainted evidence.
In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate
to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack
involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another
leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.
The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence
Publius points out as necessary.
The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what
I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very
restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation
of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability
given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.
As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their
reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.
This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990
+- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence.
And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However
inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?
Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia
as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."
His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there
will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any
direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.
It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't
already.
Mueller is investigating some aspects. But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are
Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms
there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.
IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.
Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.
Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.
Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as
UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?
I ask because of the passage in your article -
"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed
in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the "Dossier" had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under
oath Comey described the "Dossier" as "salacious and unverified." "
Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information
because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK? In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process,
material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?
" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material
that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially
yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level within the context of the already tight liaison
between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl
Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability
lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in
my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy,
a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their
activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks
and how much by hustlers. pl
hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in
re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of
them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl
Re 'baby adoption' meeting between Trump, Jr. and Veselnitskaya, I recall a comment here linking to an article speculating the
email initiating the meeting originated in Europe, was set up by the playboy son of a European diplomat, and contained words to
trip data-gathering monitors which would have enabled a FISA request to have Trump, Jr. come under surveillance.
Also, the Seymour Hersh tape certainly seems authentic as far as Seth Rich being implicated in the DNC dump.
You insist (I guess you rely on MSNBC as your fact source) that Manafort, Page, etc. all "have connections to Russia or Assange."
You are using smear and guilt by association. Flynn's so-called connection to Russia was that he accepted an invite to deliver
a speech at an RT sponsored event and was paid. So what? Nothing wrong with that. Just ask Bill Clinton. Or perhaps you are referring
to the fact that Flynn also spoke to the Russian Ambassador to the US after the election in his capacity as designated National
Security Advisor. Zero justification for investigation.
Stone? He left the campaign before there had even been a primary and only had text exchanges with Assange.
Your blind hatred of Trump makes you incapable of thinking logically.
The most sarcastic irony was intended. This is what the real left looks like, its very different from Clintonite Liberals, not that I agree with their ideological
program, though I believe parts have their place.
And to your second comment, yes I agree about the complexity of institutions and how situationally constrained individual experiences
are, if that was the point.
I'll also concede my brief comments generalize very broadly, but it's hard to frame things more specific comments without direct
knowledge, such as the invaluable correspondents here. I try to avoid confirmation bias by reading broadly and try to provide
outside perspectives. My apologies if they're too far outside.
I suppose it would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of how many former IC self affiliated with which party in
choosing to run. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there's more CIA in the D column and more DIA among the Rs.
"We don't have the evidence yet because Mueller hasn't found it yet!" is a classic argument from ignorance, in that is assumes
without evidence (there's that pesky word again!) that there is something to be found.
That said, I have no doubt that Mueller will find *something*, simply because an aggressive and determined prosecutor can always
find *something*, especially if the target is engaged in higher level business or politics. A form unfiled, an irregularity in
an official document, and overly optimistic tax position.
If nothing else works, there's always the good old standby of asking question after question until the target makes a statement
that can be construed as perjury or lying to investigators.
My perspective, after reading that linked article by the WSWS, is that both, the IC and the DoD, are trying to take over the
whole US political spectrum, in fact, militarizing de facto the US political life....
Now, tell me that this is not an
intend by the MIC ( where all the former IC or DoD people finally end when they leave official positions )to take over the
government ( if more was needed after what has happened with Trump´s ) to guarantee their profit rate in a moment where
everything is crimbling....
Btw, have you read the recently released paper, "WorldWide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community" by Daniel R.
Coats ( DNI )? You smell fear from the four corners....do not you?
Those immortal words are attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Colonel and you are not the first to draw the comparison re Mueller's
investigation. For those who do not know Beria was head of the NKVD under Stalin.
The BBC reported this morning that a police officer who was amongst the earliest responders to the "nerve gas" poisoning of Col.
Skripal is also being treated for symptoms. How was it that many "White Helmets" who were filmed where the sarin gas was dropped
on Khan Sheikhoun last April suffered no symptoms?
That's a good way to present it political hacks vs hustlers. The fact is Flynn has pled guilty to perjury. Nothing else like collusion with the Russians.
And his sentencing is on hold
now as the judge has ordered Mueller to hand over any exculpatory evidence. Clearly something is going on his case for the judge
to do that.
Manafort has been indicted for money laundering, wire fraud, etc for activities well before the election campaign. Sure, it is good that these corrupt individuals should be investigated and prosecuted. However, this corruption is widespread
in DC. How come none of these cheering Mueller on to destroy Trump care about all the foreign money flowing to K Street? Why aren't
they calling for investigations of the Clinton Foundation or the Podesta brothers where probable cause exist of foreign money
and influence? What about Ben Cardin and all those recipients of foreign zionist money and influence? It would be nice if there
were wide ranging investigations on all those engaged in foreign influence peddling. But it seems many just want a witch hunt
to hobble Trump. It's going to be very difficult to get the Senate to convict him for obstruction of justice or tax evasion or
some charge like that.
The select group of several dozen analysts from CIA, NSA and FBI who produced the January 2017 ICA are very likely the same group
of analysts assembled by Brenner in August 2016 to form a task force examining "L'Affaire Russe" at the same time Brennan brought
that closely held report to Obama of Putin's specific instructions on an operation to damage Clinton and help Trump. I've seen
these interagency task forces set up several times to address particular info ops or cyberattack issues. Access to the work of
these task forces was usually heavily restricted. I don't know if this kind of thing has become more prevalent throughout the
IC.
I am also puzzled by the absence of DIA in the mix. When I was still working, there were a few DIA analysts who were acknowledged
throughout the IC as subject matter experts and analytical leaders in this field. On the operational side, there was never great
enthusiasm for things cyber or info ops. There were only a few lonely voices in the darkness. Meanwhile, CIA, FBI and NSA embraced
the field wholeheartedly. Perhaps those DIA analytical experts retired or moved on to CYBERCOM, NSA or CIA's Information Operations
Center.
I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29
...
Richard, over here the type of software is categorized under Advanced Persistent Threat, and beyond that specifically labeled
the "Sofacy Group". ... I seem to prefer the more neutral description 'Advanced Persistent Threat' by Kaspersky. Yes, they seem
to be suspicious lately in the US. But I am a rather constant consumer, never mind the occasional troubles over the years.
APT: Helps to not get confused by all the respective naming patterns in the economic field over national borders. APT 1 to
29 ...? Strictly, What's the precise history of the 'Bear' label and or the specific, I assume, group of APT? ...
Ever used a datebase checking a file online? Would have made you aware of the multitude of naming patterns.
******
More ad-hoc concerning one item in your argument above. To what extend does a standard back-up system leave relevant forensic
traces? Beyond the respective image in the present? Do you know?
Admittedly, I have no knowledge about matters beyond purely private struggles. But yes, they seemed enough to get a vague glimpse
of categories in the field of attribution. Regarding suspected state actors vs the larger cybercrime scene that is.
Even mentioning those is just further evidence that something really did happen.
I appreciate you are riding our partially shared hobby horse, Fred. ;)
But admittedly this reminds me of something that felt like a debate-shift, I may be no doubt misguided here. Nitwit! In other
words I may well have some type of ideological-knot in the relevant section dealing with memory in my brain as long-term undisciplined
observer of SST.
But back on topic: the argument seemed to be that "important facts" were omitted. In other words vs earlier times were are
now centrally dealing with omission as evidence. No?
General McMaster has seen the evidence and says the fact of Russian meddling can no longer be credibly denied.
That doesn't stop the right-wing extremists from spinning fairy tales.
The right wing (re: Hannity and Limbaugh) have been trying mightily to discredit this investigation by smearing Mueller's reputation,
even though he is a conservative republican.
They are doing this so that if Mueller's report is damning, they can call it a "witch hunt."
I would think that if Trump is innocent, he would cooperate with this investigation fully.
You are insinuating that McMaster is a liar even though he has access to information that you don't.
"omission as evidence. " Incorrect. Among the omissions was the fact that the dossier was paid for by a political campaign
and that the wife of a senior DOJ lawyer's wife was working for Fusion GPS. Then there's the rest of the political motivations
left out.
If you have seen the classified information that would be necessary to back up your conclusions, it should not be discussed in
this forum. As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have
been publically done. Having said that, I pretty much agree with your conclusion except for the indication that the analysts lied.
What does "hacking our elections" mean? Does it means breaking into voting systems and changing the outcome by altering votes?
Or does it mean information operations to change US voters' minds about for whom they would vote?
If the latter you must know
that we (the US) have done this many times in foreign elections, including Russian elections, Israeli elections, Italian elections,
German elections, etc., or perhaps you think that a different criterion should be applied to people who are not American.
As for
McMasters, I am unimpressed with him. He displays all the symptoms of Russophobia. He has special information? Information can
be interpreted many ways depending on one's purpose. pl
PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that "As you are well aware sources and
methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me
since I have seen sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that necessary. One example
that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling (merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser
to the federal court for four years.
In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's operational
files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all these files when they were classified at the SCI
level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection
in order to protect themselve. pl
Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been
SOP for any FBI Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind.
Not aware of this. Can you help me out?
No doubt vaguely familiar with public lore, in limited ways. As always.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and entrapment artists, all talking about alleged
evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own peoples ZOMG!" debacle? Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to coincide with the agenda of empire.
Ok, true. I forgot 'Steele'* was used as 'evidence'. Strictly, Pat may have helped me out considering my 'felt' "debate-shift". Indirectly. I do recall, I hesitated to try to clarify
matters for myself.
Depends on what crime the "hack" committed. Fudging on taxes or cutting corners? Big whoop. Laundering $500 mil for a buddy of
Vlad's? Now you got my attention and should have the voters' attention.
This is a political process in the end game. Clinton lied about sex in the oval Office and was tried for it. Why don't we exercise
patience in the process and see if this President should be tried?
I ain't a lawyer but don't prosecutors hold their cards (evidence) close to their chests until the court has a criminal charge
and sets a date for discovery?
Linda,
You betray your ignorance on this subject. You clearly have not understood nor comprehended what I have written. So i will put
it in CAPS for you. Please read slowly.
THIS TYPE OF DOCUMENT, IF IT HAD A SOURCE OR SOURCES BEHIND IT, WOULD REFERENCE THOSE SOURCES. AN ANALYST WOULD NOT WRITE "WE
ASSESS." IF YOU HAVE A RELIABLE HUMAN SOURCE OR A RELIABLE PIECE OF SIGINT THE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ASSESS. YOU SIMPLY STATE, ACCORDING
TO A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND RELIABLE SOURCE.
GOT IT. And don't come back with nonsense that the sources are so sensitive that they cannot be disclose. News flash genius--the
very fact that Clapper put out this piece of dreck would have exposed the sources if they existed (but they do not). In any event,
there would be reference to sources that provided the evidence that such activity took place at the direction of Putin.
I notice other Intelligence Community Assessments also use the term "we assess" liberally. For example, the 2018 Worldwide
Threat Assessment and the 2012 ICA on Global Water Security use the "we assess" phrase throughout the documents. I hazard to guess
that is why they call these things assessments.
The 2017 ICA on Russian Interference released to the public clearly states: "This report is a declassified version of a highly
classified assessment. This document's conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not
include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the
redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow."
I would hazard another guess that those minor edits for readability and flow are the reason that specific intelligence reports
and sources, which were left out of the unclassified ICA, are not cited in that ICA.
As far as I know, no one has reliably claimed that election systems, as in vote tallies, were ever breached. No votes were
changed after they were cast. The integrity of our election system and the 2016 election itself was maintained. Having said that,
there is plenty of evidence of Russian meddling as an influence op. I suggest you and others take a gander at the research of
someone going by the handle of @UsHadrons and several others. They are compiling a collection of FaceBook, twitter and other media
postings that emanated from the IRA and other Russian sources. The breadth of these postings is quite wide and supports the assessment
that enhancing the divides that already existed in US society was a primary Russian goal.
I pointed this stuff out to Eric Newhill a while back in one of our conversations. He jokingly noted that he may have assisted
in spreading a few of these memes. I bet a lot of people will recognize some of the stuff in this collection. That's nothing.
Recently we all learned that Michael Moore did a lot more than unwittingly repost a Russian meme. He took part in a NYC protest
march organized and pushed by Russians. This stuff is open source proof of Russian meddling.
TTG
Nice try, but that is bullshit just because recent assessments come out with sloppy language is no excuse. Go back and look at
the assessment was done for iraq to justify the war in 2003. Many sources cited because it was considered something Required to
justify going to war. As we have been told by many in the media that the Russians meddling was worse or as bad as the attack on
Pearl Harbor and 9-11. With something so serious do you want to argue that they would downplay the sourcing?
PT does not have access to the classified information underlying but your argument that
"As you are well aware sources and methods cannot be made public so I fail to see how you
believe this should have been publicly done." doesn't hold water for me since I have seen
sources and methods disclosed by the government of the US many times when it felt that
necessary. One example that I have mentioned before was that of the trial of Jeffrey Sterling
(merlin) for which I was an expert witness and adviser to the federal court for four years.
In that one the CIA and DoJ forced the court to allow them to de-classify the CIA DO's
operational files on the case and read them into the record in open court. I had read all
these files when they were classified at the SCI level. IMO the perpetrators in the Steel
Memo case are and were merely hiding behind claims of sources and methods protection in order
to protect themselve. pl
"... The latest claim (behind a paywall) is in the Daily Telegraph that Colonel Skripal was close to an unnamed member of the consultancy which Christopher Steele is a member of. ..."
Previous posts on the poisoning of Colonel Skripal, the ex-FSB double agent, have been on the
Alistair Crooke thread, but it seems worth continuing in this thread.
The latest claim (behind a paywall) is in the Daily Telegraph that Colonel Skripal was
close to an unnamed member of the consultancy which Christopher Steele is a member of.
Personally I think this whole story (which has dominated the British press and media for
the last three days) is a false flag, borrowing much of its narrative line from the
Litvinenko poisoning (in which Steele was also heavily involved). As the plot line gradually
unwinds, it seems to be tying in more and more with Russiagate across the ocean.
Colonel Skripal was recruited in Estonia by MI6.
(David Habbakuk's opinion on this farrago would be greatly appreciated)
"... So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy. Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes to forging correct relations with a nuclear power. ..."
It will be interesting to see why the interviewing FBI Agents to whom Flynn has admitted to
the Mueller Op telling a lie, or lies, did not avail Flynn the opportunity of the 'lie
circumstantial."
From what I think I know about the case, the answers to the questions put to Flynn were
already known to the Agents from wire overhears; and their substance did not constitute a
crime in any case.
Why would not the Agents interviewing Flynn have said "If you're telling me this, we have
reason to think that you're mistaken?"
If I'm correct in my understanding, in my opinion, the Agents conducted themselves in a
very chickenshit fashion and I would suspect an Agenda was in play.
Making a more general observation regarding the Mueller Op, it seems to me that not the least
reprehensible effect of its existence is that de facto it has usurped the authority of the
White House and the State Department to conduct Foreign Policy vis a vis Russia.
For example, I doubt very much whether Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating
to the Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI
Office or USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind. And even if Mueller did, what
would, what could the WH or State response have been given the mishapen political climate and
the track record of outrageous leaking that so far have gone on without consequence to the
leaker.
So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy.
Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes
to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.
"... We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers, no doubt). ..."
As
NBC News pointed out, Hicks' hacking claim raises questions about who hacked the account and why. But the committee wasn't able
to pursue those questions because Hicks, like many other members of the White House staff who have appeared before the House Intel
Committee, has refused to answer questions about her time at the White House or her experiences during the transition -- and also
because she was appearing voluntarily and not under a subpoena for her testimony.
It is standard practice for lawmakers to ask witnesses about phone numbers and email accounts. However, it is uncommon, according
to people familiar with the committee process, for a witness to tell lawmakers that he or she no longer has access to past accounts.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has famously been pursuing the emails of Trump associates and other records from the campaign period,
transition and the Trump administration.
Mueller recently sent a subpoena to former Trump aide Sam Nunberg ordering Nunberg to turn over documents relating in any way
to 10 current and former Trump associates, including Hicks.
As
NBC points out, Corey Lewandowski, Trump's first campaign manager (who reportedly dated Hicks during the campaign while he was
married to another woman), is slated to testify before the committee on Thursday.
We're keeping our eyes out for another report confirming that Hick's account had been hacked (by shadowy Russia-affiliated hackers,
no doubt).
What is always a mystery to me is why these email servers are attached and available to the public Internet. Any script kiddie
with a version of "crack" can eventually guess a password that is composed of regular words or favorite clichés. Not to mention
some inherently hackable OSs.
Are your email accounts all hosted on servers not attached to the internet?
Email servers, even ones attached to the internet, can be protected. Not perfectly, but well enough. Throw in proper use of
non-trivial passwords and you become even safer in a relatively private environment such as a corporation or campaign committee
might set up. When email services are offered freely to everyone you are always at risk, because the hosts will have full access
to whatever you send and receive.
One more thing: make certain you can trust those running your servers. Then you won't have to hire someone to kill them when
they steal stuff via direct access to the servers. Think Seth Rich.
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in
waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the
wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this
around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with this
post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war
based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched
reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly,
for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the
Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before
Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking to
save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against
Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that -- unlike
Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability threatens
the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary Clinton was a
sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am
not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
"... #Russiagate, from the start, was framed as an indictment not just of one potentially traitorous Trump, but all alternative politics in general. The story has evolved to seem less like a single focused investigation and more like the broad institutional response to a spate of shocking election results, targeting the beliefs of discontented Americans across the political spectrum. ..."
"... it might be more scary then insane actually given how many are being suckered into this stupidity.. ..."
"... The US is under a psychotic mind massage that requires daily doses of Russophobic "medicine". ..."
"... All they have is their own crippled view of reality. But it is very dangerous. Projecting their own fears and hatreds often self-triggers into violence when schizoidal patients act out. ..."
"... The silver lining here though is that it is not working. Take the case of Matteo Renzi in Sunday's general election in Italy. He had tried to copy his neoliberal colleagues in other countries and allege victimization at the hands of Russian hackers and bots, but he eventually threw in the towel because the absurdity of his claims were roundly dismissed by the public. His Democratic Party polled under 20% and he announced his resignation the other day. The neoliberals can keep peddling their Russophobia but it doesn't work at the polls. ..."
"... "This Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further abuse against dissent on everything else." To me it looks like a Sisyphos work. Where I look I am confronted with cheating Russians, faking Russians, murdering Russians, they are just evil, evil, evil. I honestly doubt you can do anything against this avalanche of genuine demonizing. It's disgusting but apparently the ruling circles want to go to war. And even you won't stop them. ..."
"... The morons who peddle this "Russia did it" nonsense fully realize it isn't true, but it distracts the masses, so the bought and paid for idiots who now own the U$A, can dismantle any Govt. interference to their plan for global market share capture. ..."
"... Taibbi is right and that makes 'progressive' embrace of the Russiagate hoaxes that much more sinister. It is fundamentally pro-war, pro-establishment and pro-censorship ..."
"... "...but I rather doubt "the ruling circles" want a hot war with Russia/China and their allies as that will destroy their Casino-economy faster than most anything else..." ..."
"... Let's hope you're right. Brit General Sir Gordon Messenger views the "next big fight," most likely against nuclear-armed Russia, as winnable. (Times 18.03.01) And he isn't the only confident warmonger. ..."
"... Really folks, what the hell do people expect the rest of the globe to do, as the U$A's corporate empire continues to surround and attempt to strangle other nations? If other nations of the globe didn't push back, I for one, wouldn't respect them. Other nations of the world have the legitimate right to push back, and should. ..."
It is unlikely that the headline was chosen by the author of the op-ed. The editors of the
Washington Post opinion page wrote it. I also doubt that she would have chosen a
picture of the FCC head to decorate her piece.
For the record: The headline is false.
The op-ed is about a request for comments the Federal Communications Commission issued last
year in preparation of its net-neutrality decision. Anyone, and anything, could comment
multiple times. Various lobbying firms, political action groups and hacks abused the public
comment system to send copy-paste comments via single-use email accounts or even without giving
any email address.
But this had and has nothing to with Russia or Russians.
Here are the top graphs of the the WaPo op-ed with the "Russia-did-it" headline:
What do Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), deceased actress Patty Duke, a 13-year-old from upstate
New York and a 96-year-old veteran from Southern California have in common?
They appear to have filed comments in the net neutrality record at the Federal
Communications Commission. That ought to mean they went online, submitted their names and
addresses, and typed out their thoughts about Internet regulatory policy. But appearances can
be deceiving. In fact, each of these individuals -- along with 2 million others -- had their
identities stolen and used to file fake comments.
These fake comments were not the only unnerving thing in the FCC net neutrality record. In
the course of its deliberations on the future of Internet openness, the agency logged about
half a million comments sent from Russian email addresses . It received nearly 8 million
comments from email domains associated with FakeMailGenerator.com with almost identical
wording.
I have emphasized the only words in the whole op-ed that are related to Russia. They are
wrong. The author of that op-ed does not understand the FCC public comment system. Public
comments are made by filling
out a form on the FCC website leaving ones comment, some address data and an email address.
Public comments are not "send" by email. Thus the FCC did not log any comments "sent from
Russian email". It logged comments made in a web form where the human (or program) making the
comment provided a Russian email address as a means of contact. (It is obviously not expertise
on communication issues that qualifies Mrs. Rosenworcel for her position as FCC
commissioner.)
At least 12-13 million of the 21.7 million comments to the FCC were fake. 8 million email
addresses entered in the form the FCC had set up were generated with www.fakemailgenerator.com , half a million were entered
with *.ru Internet domains.
FakeMailGenerator can use foreign domains for generating throw-away email addresses. In the
screenshot below it generated an Hungarian one for me.
If I would comment at the FCC and enter [email protected] into the FCC form I
would be counted as Hungarian. I would not have "sent" that comment from an Hungarian email
address. Nor did the entering of the comment make me Hungarian. Neither do *.ru email domains
mean that the people (ab-)using them have anything to do with Russia.
The Pew Research Center
analyzed the 21.7 million comments the FCC received:
Fully 57% of comments used temporary or duplicate email addresses, and seven popular comments
accounted for 38% of all submissions
The FCC and other agencies are required by law to accept public comments. But, as the op-ed
says, it is utterly useless to request such public comments on the Internet without having some
authentication system in place. The FCC did have some email address verification system in
place. But it did not use it. As the Pew Center writes:
[T]he Center's analysis shows that the FCC site does not appear to have utilized this email
verification process on a consistent basis. According to this analysis of the data from the
FCC, only 3% of the comments definitively went through this validation process . In the vast
majority of cases, it is unclear whether any attempt was made to validate the email address
provided.
As a result, in many cases commenters were able to use generic or bogus email addresses
and still have their comments accepted by the FCC and posted online.
It is obvious that the FCC had no interest at all in receiving legitimate public comments.
But the FCC at least did not blame Russia. The Washington Post editors do that when
they chose a headline that has no factual basis in the piece below it. They abuse the op-ed
which has the presumed authority of an FCC commissioner to reinforce their anti-Russian
campaign.
C. J. Hopkins notes that such a cult of authority is
systematically used to make the lunatic claims of Russiagate believable.
Matt Taibbi writes that the aim of the Russiagate campaign was and is to
target all dissent :
If you don't think that the endgame to all of this lunacy is a world where every
America-critical movement from Black Lives Matter to Our Revolution to the Green Party is
ultimately swept up in the collusion narrative along with Donald Trump and his alt-right
minions, you haven't been paying attention.
That's because #Russiagate, from the start, was framed as an indictment not just of one
potentially traitorous Trump, but all alternative politics in general. The story has evolved
to seem less like a single focused investigation and more like the broad institutional
response to a spate of shocking election results, targeting the beliefs of discontented
Americans across the political spectrum.
Some commenters here lament about my posts about the Steele and or Russiagate issues. "It's
enough already." But the issue is, as Taibbi points out, much bigger. This Russiagate nonsense
has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further abuse against dissent on
everything else.
Posted by b on March 7, 2018 at 04:17 PM | Permalink
thanks b.. this Russiagate thing is insane... i like the counter punch article you linked to
and appreciate your breaking these fcc thing apart... it might be more scary then insane
actually given how many are being suckered into this stupidity..
b: "This Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its
further abuse against dissent on everything else."
Concur 100% Truth must be used in the constant battle against Big Lie Nation and its
perverse billionaire Deep State. Bezos should be wary he now wears a bullseye on his back
none of his billions can remove. I see Taibbi has finally gotten part of his head out of his
ass and is finally beginning to recognize Russiagate to be the Big Lie that it is, although
he hasn't yet extracted his mouth so he can tell the world it's all a Big Lie--bet Deep State
affiliated Rolling Stone would fire him if he did so. That's why we're treated to his
poorly written article that's almost two years too late.
b, glad to have your expert mind cutting through the maze of crapola. The US is under a psychotic mind massage that requires daily doses of Russophobic
"medicine".
All they have is their own crippled view of reality. But it is very dangerous.
Projecting their own fears and hatreds often self-triggers into violence when schizoidal
patients act out. We see this in America with school and concert shootings. With Russia as its enemy, the Exceptional Nation is taunting a great power with more nukes
than the US has. Every stupid American statement, thus, must be challenged. We can't be silent or laugh.
It's too serious.
The silver lining here though is that it is not working. Take the case of Matteo Renzi in
Sunday's general election in Italy. He had tried to copy his neoliberal colleagues in other
countries and allege victimization at the hands of Russian hackers and bots, but he
eventually threw in the towel because the absurdity of his claims were roundly dismissed by
the public. His Democratic Party polled under 20% and he announced his resignation the other
day. The neoliberals can keep peddling their Russophobia but it doesn't work at the polls.
Sorry to go off topic but the Syrian Arab Army has just marched thru East Gouta town of
Al-Hammouriyah to the joy of locals who are demanding that the arseholes of Faylaq al-Rahman
and Jaysh al-Islam take the next stage outta Beit Sawa.
There is a vid from
Al Masdar Newshereand another
here if you want to use facebook links as the vids are mounted on FB. Both vids show
support for the SAA by the population of East Gouta.
"This Russiagate nonsense has do be debunked at each and every corner to prevent its further
abuse against dissent on everything else."
To me it looks like a Sisyphos work. Where I look I am confronted with cheating Russians,
faking Russians, murdering Russians, they are just evil, evil, evil. I honestly doubt you can
do anything against this avalanche of genuine demonizing. It's disgusting but apparently the
ruling circles want to go to war. And even you won't stop them.
"It is obvious that the FCC had no interest at all in receiving legitimate public comments.
..." hahaha. too true, B!! quite simply, democracy and capitalism can no longer co-habitate under the same roof
The morons who peddle this "Russia did it" nonsense fully realize it isn't true, but it
distracts the masses, so the bought and paid for idiots who now own the U$A, can dismantle
any Govt. interference to their plan for global market share capture.
Taibbi is right and that makes 'progressive' embrace of the Russiagate hoaxes that much more
sinister. It is fundamentally pro-war, pro-establishment and pro-censorship and thus not
progressive -- depending on how we define progress of course...
"...but I rather doubt "the ruling circles" want a hot war with Russia/China and their allies
as that will destroy their Casino-economy faster than most anything else..."
Let's hope you're right. Brit General Sir Gordon Messenger views the "next big fight," most
likely against nuclear-armed Russia, as winnable. (Times 18.03.01) And he isn't the only
confident warmonger.
Yes, we (patriotic) dissenters are "swept up in the collusion narrative" when we are labeled
"Russians." This has happened to me. When I comment a lot on military sites about the
ridiculous waste of money they are, I occasionally get the Russian treatment. "You're a
Russian." Once it was hilarious when the "Russian" label on me was deemed authentic by one
genius blogger. He said I must be Russian because I had used the word "kilometers." That
proved my Russian-ness to him. . . .Currently Trump is denigrated for being a Russia-lover,
but calling him a Russian is not likely (but possible).
Really folks, what the hell do people expect the rest of the globe to do, as the U$A's
corporate empire continues to surround and attempt to strangle other nations? If other
nations of the globe didn't push back, I for one, wouldn't respect them. Other nations of the
world have the legitimate right to push back, and should.
Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 US presidential
election , the Democratic Party establishment has held tightly to the belief that her shock
defeat was not the result of her and their shortcomings, but rather due to a nefarious Russian
plot to "hack" the election in "collusion" with the winner.
Instead of examining why Donald Trump was able to connect with voters in economically
distressed parts of the country in a way that Democrats failed to do, adherents of the
Russiagate narrative hoped that investigations would quickly find a smoking gun, leading to
Trump's impeachment and undoing an election result they consider aberrant and unjust.
On Friday, I spoke at a conference in Washington, DC, titled The Israel Lobby and American Policy , sponsored
by The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs and IRmep , a group that researches the lobby's influence.
As I note in my talk, a handful of journalists – especially Max Blumenthal and
Aaron Maté of The Real News – have consistently debunked the wild, exaggerated
and sometimes fabricated claims of Russian interference made by members of the self-styled but
woefully ineffectual "Resistance" to Trump.
Watch the video above.
True, over the course of the last year, special counsel Robert Mueller has made a number of
indictments, but none of those cases – including the recent
indictment of 13 Russians linked to a St. Petersburg troll farm – substantiates the
heavily hyped claim that Russia helped Trump win the White House.
Perhaps the most high-profile indictment of someone in Trump's inner circle, the president's
first national security adviser Michael Flynn , actually shows that
rather than colluding with Russia, senior members of Trump's team were really
working with Israel to
advanceits agenda.
And while no one has pinpointed evidence of Trump auctioning off his foreign policy to any
Russian oligarchs, he has definitely
tailored his policy toward Israel to the demands of casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson , his biggest campaign
donor .
Adelson's immediate priority was securing US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital
and moving the American embassy there – and Trump duly
obliged .
New censorship helps Israel
In my talk I consider how the Russiagate narrative is actually helping Israel and its lobby
in particular ways.
I point out that the Russiagate hysteria being adopted by many liberals is legitimizing
censorship that helps Israel clamp down on free speech and a free press.
Last year, the Russian-funded network RT was forced to register under the Foreign Agents
Registration Act (FARA).
As Maté has noted, free speech advocates and journalists were largely
silent about it , perhaps thinking this tool of government control over the media would
never be used against them.
But now, Israel's supporters in Congress –
including Senator Ted Cruz – are demanding
that Al Jazeera be investigated by the Department of Justice and forced to register as an agent
of Qatar. They are explicitly citing the US government crackdown on RT as their precedent.
Al Jazeera's transgression is that it produced an undercover documentary on the workings of
the Israel lobby in the US.
Qatar has come under intense pressure from that lobby to make sure the documentary is never
aired. Five months after the network's head of investigations Clayton Swisher
announced it would be released "very soon," the film has yet to be broadcast.
According to a source who has seen it, the film identifies a number of lobby groups as
working with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques.
It is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too
critical of Israel.
True, FARA is being used only against foreign networks, but the point is that these outlets
– whatever their flaws – are providing space for discussion and dissent that docile
US mainstream media keep closed.
It's simply impossible to imagine CNN, ABC – or for that matter the BBC –
showing true independence and taking on the power of the Israel lobby.
While organizers diligently informed media about the Washington conference, the only outlets
that invited me on to talk about the Israel lobby were the The Real News and RT. I know that
other speakers were shut out of mainstream media as well.
And besides, there are other forms of high-tech censorship that are being used to stifle or
stigmatize dissent in domestic media: Partly as an outgrowth of Russiagate, Silicon Valley
giants Google and
Facebook have succumbed to political
pressure to effectively
throttle the exposure
of independent outlets in the name of fighting extremism, "fake news" and alleged foreign
interference.
The perverse effect has been to reassert state and elite control over media and erode the
freedom that those of us shut out of mainstream outlets rely on. Nothing could suit Israel and
its lobby better.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell when he was
secretary of state in the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, issued a stark warning that the US ramping up its
military presence in Syria may be a prelude to launching a war on Iran on behalf of Israel.
Wilkerson said that Israel and its ally Saudi Arabia are encouraging the US to fight a
regime-change war against Tehran that they would be incapable of mounting on their own.
"We've already done Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan," Wilkerson said, "so we'd just be seen
as continuing the trend."
He warned that an Israeli confrontation and war with Lebanon – perhaps on the pretext
of disputed gas fields in the Mediterranean – could provide the pretext.
In an ominous parallel, he likened the current situation to 1914, the eve of World War I
– any spark could generate a broad regional or even global conflagration.
Wilkerson singled out the role of the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of
Democracies as leading the campaign for war on behalf of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and his defense minister Avigdor Lieberman.
Notably, the source who spoke to The Electronic Intifada about Al Jazeera's suppressed
Israel lobby film said that the documentary reveals that the same think tank may be acting as
an agent for Israel in its covert efforts to undermine support for Palestinian rights in the
US.
In spite of Wilkerson's worrying thesis, it must be said that, however powerful, the Israel
lobby cannot alone force the US to undertake foreign military conquests. For one thing, US
elites have never needed encouragement from anyone to wage devastating wars around the
world.
When the US establishment sees a critical interest at stake, it pursues it regardless of
what the lobby may want. That is why the US signed the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement despite
all of Israel's efforts to sabotage it. Of course whether that deal survives the Trump
administration
remains to be seen .
In his keynote
address , Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy stated that Israel's
military rule over Palestinians "is today one of the most brutal, cruel tyrannies on
Earth."
He asserted that the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights
is a "legitimate tool" and the "only game in town" to force Israel to end this injustice.
And he speaks it with an ease and decorum that only a confident but measured individual is
capable of - quite frankly, in many ways like President Trump. The problem here is, daring to
speak truth and calling a spade a spade has been made to look like one is speaking like a mad
man.
I would like to see The Donald or any other Western Leader having a Q& A televised
address, for > 4 hrs,answering without a teleprompter all types of questions,mostly from
unfriendly foreign journalists ,without babbling and wiping the floor with idiots like
Charlie Rose and comp.
If USSA gets too loopy with its ongoing financial collapse as the toilet paper Saudi
Mercan dollah gets flushed, don't worry Mr. Bear will rip the entire carcass apart and devour
it whole like it did NAZI Germany. Count on it. Russians don't boast and never run off at the
mouth like USSANS. Russians never threaten but when it's time to strike they ride hard and
hammer fast and furious. Ask the Germans the exceptionals the last time round!.
Yeah, those Russkies need to dismantle all those military bases that surround our happy,
peaceful little chunk of North America and stop knocking over all our neighbors to install
hostile puppet regimes on our doorstep.
The Western cabal will not use tactical nukes nukes, and for a land war in Eastern Europe
they are far from being ready, nor would they likely win it. But Russia has no such ambitions
unless there is a continuation of confrontation against Syria and Iran in the ME further
isolating, fragmenting, and economically harming Russia and its allies.
The big concern right now for Putin is not the use of nukes or even the constant
provocations in Syria attempting to escalate that war. Rather, it is the upcoming Russian
election which the West, led by the US deep state, is clearly interfering in and intends to
rig with the billions being spent. The US intends to justify its interference based on the
unrelenting, deep-state-generated fake news and political propaganda that the Russians
interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election, and with the soft-sell mantra being
currently spread through the alleged alternate media that "all major powers these days
interfere with foreign elections".
The Norks are the fake enemy to keep to keep MIC pumped. The western fiat faction needs to
eat Russia for its survival. The gold kings (Putin and Xi) know that the West is dying, and
like a starving man, it wants to prolong the inevitable by consuming Russia first, then it
will be China's turn. The gold kings know they are on the menu, they know the West is
bleeding out and that if they can block the West from doing something stupid (like a first
strike nuclear attack on Russia using the stealth drones from the bases in Ukraine and
Afghanistan that have already been established for this purpose) then time will take care of
the collapse of the West for them...
But understand, without Russia's resources, the West is dead sooner rather than later. So
will a starving man attack his innocent neighbor to steal his food and thus prolong his own
death? This is the only question that matters and I think we know what the psychos will do.
This is why I found Putin's speech the other day to be so revealing, true or not, he is
creating doubt as to the winnable nature of our first strike nuclear plans for
Russia...pouring sand into the West's vaseline, so to speak...
Will it be enough? Will the West die gracefully or do we take everyone else with us?
Absolutely agree Rico. Since Nixon took the world off the gold standard in 1971, the West
has had to transform from a real economy making things into a financial services economy.
Problem is that 90% have become slaves to the Private banking cartel supported by the Central
banks in each country. The politicians, media conglomerates, big business, intelligence
agencies, and the MIC are all in bed together. They know that they have collectively ruined
the world's eco system, ruined the worlds monetary system, and that after the world financial
crisis mapped out for the rest of this year, they will usher in a limited world war. Limited
to depopulating small parts of the west, large parts of the 3rd world (freeing up resources)
and large parts of China, India and the middle east. The system has been built on lies and
deceit, and those in power are desperate to keep their crimes and money laundering hidden.
They would rather destroy the world with nuclear weapons than lose control of the system. The
stupid neocons built up China hoping for it to transform into a market economy. Now China is
turning against them, and aligning with Russia, and setting up a gold based monetary system
(no gold of any decent quantity or quality in Fort Knox by the way). On another level the
nuclear rhetoric may just be fear based theater for the masses, and after the financial storm
hits the puppet masters will usher in a one world currency and one world totalitarian
government. After all, Trump did praise Xi Jinping on being appointed for life.
Sociopathic politicians and their Attorneys are not good for business or ethics. Looks
like we will revisit the same cyclical Zenith of Ill Repute we have throughout known history,
eventually reset and then start the game again...
this all has it roots in the Crimean thing.. and the following:
Turning his attention to a particularly sensitive topic, Putin said he was dismayed by
what he described as the U.S. role in the ouster of Ukraine's Russia-friendly president in
February 2014 amid massive protests.
Putin charged that the U.S. had asked Russia to help persuade then-President Viktor
Yanukovych not to use force against protesters and then "rudely and blatantly" cheated
Russia, sponsoring what he called a "coup." Russia responded by rushing through a referendum
in Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, whose result was an overwhelming majority voting to join
Russia.
"Few expected us to act so quickly and so resolutely, not to say daringly," Putin
said.
He described the Western sanctions over Crimea and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine as
part of "illegitimate and unfair" efforts to contain Russia, adding that "we will win in the
long run." He added that "those who serve us with poison will eventually swallow it and
poison themselves."
Responding to a question about Russia's growing global leverage, Putin responded: "If we
play strongly with weak cards, it means the others are just poor players, they aren't as
strong as it seemed, they must be lacking something."
What i wish Russia would say is: Yes we used what internet and information persuasion we
could when we invaded/intervened in Crimea.
And then say: There will be no tampering with elections though we of course have foreign
policy objectives.
And finally : That the arguments in your neighbor's house belong inside the house and
please don't drag them out onto the lawn.
The whole issue boils back to the debate and wtf to do in respect to arming Ukraine, and
that time Russia was in newsgroups and targeting information along with the Buk debacle. It
happened, it was for real, no bullshit. Even some of the NFL websites had the content and the
posting comes from supposedly far right or far left however the hallmark is always an
identity politics message , trolling for the lowest common denominator. Some of the work was
sooo damn bad it was almost comical but mostly it was drivel and off-topic, misdirecting any
meaningful discussion, that was most often used when crowdsourcing the Buk and proof of
deployed green men.. the posts were just disruptive in nature and designed to make the
posting environment as fucked up as possible. Trump said some things somewhat favorable to
the Russians in the debates and that was when McCains knickers went into flames and Lindsey
Graham got worked up.
There was this thing called the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, which
effectively said: heh Ukraine give up your nukes and we'll make sure that that doesn't come
back to bite your ass.. and at that time Obama was like.. we'll send blankets and rations..
and Germany and France were like.. well here is the photo
Now fast forward to the elections.. Some of the facebook ads were back material and if you
follow that timeline were in fact the basis of the Ukraine campaign, similar to Rendon
group.. etc.. now the difference is that the topics changed and there is no controlled
narrative like in the good old days when you'd find a baby in an incubator and that was the
story.. or a C130 broadcasting something flying in circles was the message.. so the stuff
that surrounded the activity morphed as the larger US based internet discussed the rather
"phenomenon" of the elections...
Now if or how, or perhaps there was collusion or more succinctly a quid-pro-quo between
Putin and Trump? I don't know.. however the broader incrimination is what is being made. My
hunch without all the facts is that the crowd that I call hollywood for ugly people suddenly
found the rules changed, couldn't deliver a pinch hit on Brexit, couldn't control the
narrative for Hillary, and that they are still floundering around on the issues. They feel
cheated as they didn't get their way.
Did Russia troll and perform information campaigns? yes they did.. have I seen a stolen
election? Nope.. Hillary really lost that on her own and though she sees the analytics on the
email as the issue it was actually when she was too fucking cute and said: "Like with a
cloth?"
you can watch and remember.. the analytics topics email, but it was her fucking dishonesty
and her mannerism that sunk her, no matter what she says or does, you can't rollback that
verdict
I think some people are taking this way too fucking far, and if Americans violated laws..
well fucking charge em
But if meddling in other peoples elections or having an opinion is illegal then we need to
completely redo our foreign policy with some middle east nations.. serious the fuck up..
>The whole issue boils back to the debate and wtf to do in respect to arming
Ukraine
Respectfully, I don't think that's the real debate here. IMHO that ship sailed long ago.
Figuratively, it sank to the bottom of the ocean. Everyone involved is now in the process of
sorting out their insurance claims.
It's similar to someone parking an expensive motorcycle in his backyard, with the gate
unlocked and the keys in the ignition. It's been more than a year since the bike was jacked.
But the property owner is still foaming at the mouth and ranting about setting up tripwire
perimeter machine guns and setting up minefields in his flower beds.
It's gone and it isn't coming back. Fighting this battle with the Donetsk rebels even down
to the last Western Ukrainian isn't going to do much except to produce a few million
childless Ukrainian women. The last census in Ukraine was such a shock that portions of it
that will likely never be released.
If our government wasn't bought off by defense contractors and bankers then fair
compromise would be possible. Put the people first and money second. That's how Putin stays
in power. Learn and change.
I can tell you this as someone who left USA 50 years ago;
The USA reputation right now for bullying and warmongering is so extreme that most people
in the world feel admiration and affection for anyone who tries to stand up for his country's
independence from US full spectrum domination. Putin benefits from that, plus many find him
charismatic and humorous.
I don't think he is delusional enough to believe that Russia can really survive a US
attack or carve out a rival empire, in fact I don't think he is delusional at all.
Putin has a practically impossible task, which is to provide rational deterrence to the
Anglo-American (Zionist) Finance Empire, which is dominated by increasingly psychotic
psychopaths.
The doctrine of MAD Mutual Assured Destruction was the only policy that could be proposed
and promoted in order to attempt to cope with weapons of mass destruction becoming trillions
of times more powerful than ever before in human history. However, that threat of force from
atomic weapons, etc., was the continuation of the historical trends of the combined
money/murder systems based upon the public powers of governments being used to enforce frauds
by private banks, and the big corporations that grew up around those big banks.
The MAD Mutual Assured Destruction threats continued to back up the MAD Money As Debt
systems. The international bankers, behind the globalized dominance of the Anglo-American
(Zionist) Finance Empire became the best organized gangsters, the banksters, who effectively
captured control over all NATO governments, and especially recaptured control over the
government of the USA for more than a Century.
The social successfulness based upon being able to enforce frauds has been enabled by
about exponentially advancing technologies to become about exponentially more fraudulent.
That is the context inside of which the combination of MAD Money As Debt, backed by MAD
Mutual Assured Destruction, is automatically becoming MADDER & MADDER. Indeed, that
overall MAD situation has already become too MAD to be completely comprehended anymore by
anyone!
The underlying issues were that Globalized Neolithic Civilization was based on
Civilization being effectively controlled by applying the methods of organized crime on
larger and larger scales, until those became globalized privatization of public powers, in
order that money based on measurement backed by murder could spin out of human control,
because the collective MADNESS became runaway criminal insanities.
All over the world, it is painfully obvious that various societies integrated into
Globalized Neolithic Civilization are manifesting various forms of runaway social psychoses,
due to Civilization becoming based on the excessively successful applications of the methods
of organized crime, which have reached the point of the MAD Mutual Assured Destruction
seeming to fail to rationally deter the dominate gangsters, the banksters, from attempting to
consolidate their globalized control over their MAD Money As Debt systems, which thereby
effectively consolidate control over the world's natural resources.
Putin has a practically impossible political problem, which is to provide rational
material deterrence against the globalized ruling classes, whose previous privatization of
the planet has allowed them to indulge in runaway psychotic attitudes towards themselves, as
well as everyone and everything else.
Any attempt to wage overt warfare against Russia would result in the destruction of
Globalized Neolithic Civilization. For all practical purposes, that kind of criminal insanity
would mean that Civilization had committed collective suicide.
The history of the previous social successfulness of the Anglo-American (Zionist) Finance
Empire has reinforced the ruling classes of their organizations to become too criminally
insane to recover from the degree to which that has become so, while, at the same time, most
of those who have been more and more ruled over by those increasingly psychotic psychopaths
have gradually adapted, for generation after generation, to living inside those systems by
becoming increasingly incompetent political idiots.
Putin keeps on warning both the rulers, as well as those ruled over, in NATO countries,
not to be so criminally insane. However, as Putin points out, those warnings are more and
more falling upon deaf ears. Putin is stuck inside the problematic predicament of attempting
to maintain the precarious balancing of MAD Mutual Assured Destruction, despite that doing so
allows the MAD Money As Debt problems to continue to get about exponentially worse.
Theoretically, since it was the series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound
paradigm shifts in mathematical physics that enabled the development of globalized electronic
monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with atomic weapons, it "should"
be imperative for series of intellectual scientific revolutions and profound paradigm shifts
to be applied to the public perception of the combined money/murder systems.
Theoretically, after weapons become trillions of times more powerful, then militarism
"should" be radically transformed. Since militarism is the ideology of the murder system,
while the murder system has been radically transformed by about exponentially advancing
technologies, based on profound paradigm shifts in physics, therefore, militarism "should" go
through series of profound paradigm shifts in the perception of the death control systems
that back up the debt control systems. However, the only things which are actually happening
are the ways in which the collective runaway MADNESS is getting MADDER & MADDER!
Well written, fascinating, but too verbose my friend.
Here it is in a nutshell for you:
The MAD Money Banksters are losing control of the MAD Bombs and vice versa so that the
understanding of which is "wagging the proverbial dog's tail", the dog or the tail, "The
Money or The Bombs" is blurring into a surreal landscape of money and power the end of which
is MAD in every sense.
Let's please do try to remember to be succinct, my friend.
Do not expect that once taking advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends
forever. Russian has always come for their money. And when they come - do not rely on an
agreement signed by you, you are supposed to justify. They are not worth the paper it is
written. Therefore, with the Russian is to play fair, or do not play.
More hot air from Putin without any actions.
Putin is getting bullied in Syria now. Even Russia says the US has 20 military bases IN
Syria. From RT just today:
"That's after it was revealed the Pentagon plans to spend around $300 million to train and
equip a 60,000-strong army in Syria. "
Yesterday RT had a story that ZH is avoiding. That a Russian transport crashed in Syria
killing over 30 troops. Which was especially interesting for this reason:
A russian transport plane just crashed in Syria killing all the troops on board.
Some group of people really like their numbers to send messages.
The model number of the Russian airliner that recently crashed was AN 148 = 13
The call number of the Iranian airliner that recently crashed is EP-ATS. MSN 391 = 13
This russian transport drops on landing due to "technical issues" on March 6 = 3/6 = 3 -
6's = 666
All 3 planes just dropped suddenly. This plane lost control on approach to where it could
not attempt to glide in. Someone's having fun with Russia and Iran. (Let's not forget how the
Russian military choir suddenly dropped out of the sky, on Christmas I believe.)
Yesterday we also found out Putin's claims about a hypersonic nuke was BS and he used
photo's of a slightly modified run of the mill missile. Add to that the BS story of a super
hypersonic nuke torpedo. And the totally BS story about the new super fighter jet.
What is consistent is increased noise from Putin without any action to confront NATO.
Yawn... The USA has hundreds of military bases all over the world and a military budget
larger than the next 12 countries combined yet it still keeps getting its sorry azzz whipped
in Third World shitholes all over the planet.
In fact, with the notable exception of Ronny Raygun's daring invasion of mighty Grenada in
1984, the USA hasn't won a war since WW2. The only thing that's happened is that its "Empire"
is now 20 trillion bucks in debt and rapidly collapsing after just a few decades of
existence.
In the grand sweep of human history, where many Empires have lasted a millennia or longer,
the USA's pretend Empire will be barely a blip on the radar screen.
You do not understand their goals.
How many times has Russia/Soviet Union fallen during the time of the US existence?
A decade is 10 yrs, the US has existed more than 2 or 3 decades.
The US is on the path to ruin in many ways. But Russia is no powerhouse and may well crumble
from within yet again. And if Russia fails yet again TPTB will dice it up and haul away the
resources this time. And then there will be no Russia, even it the US crumbles later.
Right now Putin is so desperate he tries to change history and make Stalin a hero for the
Russian people to rally around. Do they not know who Stalin was or maybe Putin honors him due
to the religious purges he enforced. Putin pushed into law new legislation making it a
serious crime to deny the holohoax. hmmm Are they going to do it Again?
He strikes me as very calm ,collected,intelligent .
He took Russia from a total disaster done by chosen gang during the Yeltsin years and
elevated it to a superpower in 16 years.
Russians have been through Hell and back. During the Color Revolution which was Bolshevism
and during the shock therapy applied to them by the Haaavard jooo gang working in synchrony
with the Russian chosen. They have seen the wanders of Bolshevism and of American so called
capitalism.
And they chose neither.
They chose Mr. Putin ,not because he is a Communist ,or a zionist , red or white ,they
chose him because he is RUSSIAN.
Russia has learned from past mistakes. The future is on Russia's side. Not so for US . US
has not learned anything . When it makes a mistake ,it doubles,triples down.
Remember ,even if you lose a battle ,wining the war is more important. And this is
precisely what Russia is doing.
I really don't understand,do you want a hot war ,that will annihilate the world? You do
not seem stupid . Which leaves only one other explanation
God Damn but I wish he were my President and "Russia" was the United States!...
The only thing that needs to be said with the gloves clearly off for good with Uncle
Shlomo is... When does Putin announce his formal dislocation and departure from the UN after
terrorism on his borders and in his Country courtesy of the "Union" since 1992?...
Calling home his diplomatic corps in the U.S. and sending Amerikansy packing from
Russia... Either he speaks the embarrassing truth that the West needs to hear with an
announcement to the UN that it's the worst farce that mankind has ever conceived... and that
he will work with the SCO/BRICS members to build a new "Home" for the rule of law that it
deserves?... Or he continues to acquiesce to unconvicted mass murderers through "diplomatic
channels" that no longer exist that only wear camo and that he knows he will inevitably never
win over anyway!
ENOUGH is "ENOUGH"!!!
P.S.
Vlad FYI... Make my suntan "extra crispy"... And scatter me over a very large part of
Washington D.C. where I reside!
Like all Americans THAT HAVE CHOSEN TO BE COLLECTIVE PSYCHOPATHS since this ( http://www.ae911truth.org/ )... We're fucking
cowards that will take the easiest and worst way out when we LOSE!!!
The US is so utterly obvious in it's WARMONGERING, particularly toward Putin and Russia.
People in other countries think we are the biggest dumbasses and we are.
The other day, RT had an article about the election in Italy and within the article was a
tweet from Samantha power blaming Russia for the election outcome. The blowback from Italians
reading that Tweet was outstanding. They know Russiagate is bullshit and the blowback on
Americans who buy into this highly propagandized subject we're mercilessly ridiculed.
We should be talking diplomacy, but the US doesn't make money or try to even hide the fact
that they want WAR. Our population has been so depleted of critical thinking skills and so
deeply complacent, they will sit and watch Maddow continue her assault upon Russia, with
American idiots parked in front or their computer or TV sets, as the nuke from Russia heads
this way while Maddow beelines it to a bunker.
Americans have descended so far into madness, a reset is required to bring them to a
reality that shows them who their ZIONIST masters really are. Maddow being one of the most
dangerous among the propagandist serving the see eye aye,EFF BEE EYE, EAT.AL.
Putin appears SANE compared to the insane psychopaths running the country. I mean has
anyone bothered to read up about Putin? The documentary of his interview? Anyone read up on
RUSSIAN culture or it's people?? I have been and it's really interesting.
What Democrats are doing is INCITEMENT to genocide which is a war crime under
international law. They dehumanize, demonizes millions of people and their leader. Think
about it, what if this were in reverse? If Putin and his parliament were accusing the US of
meddling in their elections and then spend two years threatening to murder our entire
population??
After Mr. Putin speech ,where he tipped the balance of power on Russia's side ,we are
witnessing ,in all its glory , the 5 stages of American grief.
-first stage was denial : Putin lied,Russians are drunk and incapable ,those were fake
missiles
-then the angry response : the weapons sent to Ukraine , extending of sanctions for
another year by the Donald ,continuing vilification of Russia/Putin ; hey ,the Donald 's
State Department Troll Farm received a 40 Mil injection recently.
-then will be the bargaining stage : US will try to offer something ,like let's say the
used and discarded Porkoshenko in return for transforming Sarmat into scrap metal
-then it's depression time after Russia says they can shove their offer up their
assesky
-will we reach a cold acceptance or a very hot nuclear acceptance ?
Career politicians and bureaucrats are the problem.
-Recall legislation for politicians to remove the worst of the worst.
-Term limits of 2 for politicians at any one level of government and contract limits of 8
years for bureaucrats at any one level of government. If the legislators know they will spend
the majority of their working careers in the private sector they won't be passing laws that
strictly benefit the public sector.
-Balanced budget laws that require referendums to repeal.
It is not hard to understand Russia's concern a mishap might occur. When it comes to our
nuclear arsenal, not only is America ready to launch but we are also about to spend a great
deal of money to increase that ability. What the world would look like following a nuclear
war has been the subject of much speculation.
A great number of variables feed into such scenarios but we should be troubled that today
it seems many people consider nuclear weapons as an acceptable tool or option for us to use
in our defense if we are attacked. More on the size of our arsenal and the plans to spend a
huge amount to upgrade the delivery system in the article below.
1. It appears to me that Putin has a better grasp of American politics than millions of
Americans of all colors and religions, who I think would even fail the basic civics test
given to legal immigrants who apply for US citizenship.
2. Victoria Nuland, who was Secretary of State Clinton's point person on Ukraine, helped
stir up the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution which ended up in the ouster of its Russia-friendly
President. Did anyone in a senior position in NATO really expect Russia to sit idly by while
Ukraine developed ever closer ties to NATO and possibly oust the Russians from their only
warm water military base at Sevastopol?
LFC
John Kerry agreed the terms of a ceasefire. President Obama gave it his imprimatur. The
Secretary of Defence said he didn't think the US should comply (publicly defied his
commander-in-chief!). The USAF then accidentally bombed Syrian troops. Oops.
(We can get into the bombing of the relief convoy if you wish, and the Western media's
practice of broadcasting as fact without verification jihadi propaganda. The reporting of
the siege of Aleppo has been one of the very lowest points in our media's lamentable
career. Compare and contrast Mosul. It appears to be a principle with us that our enemies
can always be trusted to act against their own interests at precisely the moment when it
will cause them maximum damage and justify us in doing whatever it is we wanted to do all
along. For example, Syria use chemical weapons thus crossing the US "red line" the jihadis
want it to cross, precisely when it has invited in the UN chemical weapons inspectors...
D'oh!)
Russia and Iran are acting within the law in coming to the aid of an ally at that ally's
request. The US and its allies are acting contrary to the law in funding, arming, training
etc. jihadists, mostly not even Syrians, to overthrow the Syrian government. What may very
well have started as a civil war, soon morphed into a proxy war by the Saudis, Turkey, the
US, UK and France to overthrow a government they do not like. Such interference is what
treaties they have all signed deem illegal. If we are to believe Messrs. Annan and Ibrahimi
of the UN, a negotiated settlement in 2012 was thwarted by the jihadis at the behest of the
US and the Saudis. The killing of civilians could have ceased long since but for that. We
have encouraged the prolongation of the killing of civilians. Given the record of both the
Saudis and the US, it is in any event not for us to be lecturing anyone, even the
Ba'athists in Syria. We are in the process of driving 19m Yemenis to starvation. We killed
what the UN estimated to be half a million Iraqi children in the 1990s (no-one bothered to
count the adults). The US Secretary of State called it a "price worth paying". We have
killed more than a million civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen since
2001. And we aren't finished.
"Not grown-up" is maybe not most apt to describe those who complain righteously that
their enemies kill thousands as a pretext to kill hundreds of thousands themselves.
And maybe you do not like the term applied to US policy on Syria. Fair enough - but that
policy is surely not coherent. The US has signed agreements with Russia it has failed to
honour. It has condemned Russia for doing legally in Syria what it is itself doing
illegally. It has proclaimed its determination to defeat Islamism - by allying itself with
the main source and sponsor of Islamism. It insists on identifying as its chief enemies the
only forces on the ground able to fight the jihadis effectively. It has allied itself with
those its allies are fighting. It has even been reduced to pretending that a change of name
has rendered al qaeda a "moderate rebel force" worthy of US tax dollars. I could go on!
You may think it unhelpful to characterise US behaviour as "not grown-up". Fair enough.
It still scares the bejeesus out of the rest of us to no good purpose. Or are you able to
tell me what purpose has been served by turning Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen,
Somalia into a chaos of death and destruction with no end in sight and at the expense of
several trillion dollars?
US foreign policy for at least a hundred years has been about making the world safe for
"free enterprise". Quite how does the current chaos further that policy?
Ewan said...
LFC
I have gone on too long.
A few points:
"If the U.S. is bent on overthrowing Assad, it has an odd way of demonstrating that."
This is startling. The US makes no bones about it.
I'm also surprised you don't see the difficulty in us deciding who is legitimate and who
illegitimate. If we were indeed the good guys, maybe... but, as it is, it is really not on
for us to label Assad worse than the Saudis, or Saddam a good guy when we support him but
the new Hitler when he disobeys us. The Russian insistence on the rule of law seems to me
the best of a bad job. I can't think of any other way to curb them all even slightly.
On al qaeda in Syria, there are specialists who try to detail the various jihadi groups
and affiliations. Al Nusra, ahrar al-Sham etc are all inter-related and all subsidiaries
and rebrandings and divisions and factions of the same jihadis. As indeed is ISIS/Daesh.
They are all the spawn of the US/Saudi cunning plan to use Islamists against secular Arab
states. Brzezinski was actually proud of it!
Mosul: I meant the whole shebang. You refer to one incident we happen to have heard of.
Aleppo was "genocide!!!!!"; Mosul - mainly silence.
I hold no brief for any thug or princeling or prime minister in the Middle East. I do
think the stream of drivel about Russia needs stopping. It is dangerous to us all.
The real significance of Putin's speech has been missed. As John Helmer suggests there are
signs that Putin has now moved decisively in favour of the forces which have produced the
weaponry of which he spoke and against those who side with the oligarchs and favour
accommodation, on almost any terms, with the USA.
Something that has mystified unthinking westerners is the possibility that, while spending
relatively small amounts an industrial sector which is notoriously run down has managed to
come up with an arsenal which matches and may very well exceed that of the US with its
massive defense budgets. In a society obsessed with the silly notion that privatisation and
free enterprise produce innovation and cut costs the performance of Russia's, largely state
owned, arms industry seems counter intuitive. When added to the conventional wisdom that the
Soviet Union failed because it was bureaucratised and inefficient Russia's advantage is
inexplicable .
In reality none of this should be surprising. The US Defense procurement system is
designed basically to funnel money from the taxpayers to the MIC. And the Military Industrial
Complex, as its name suggests, has many often conflicting aims in developing and producing
weapons. Of the various interest groups in the MIC only the tiny, though loud, ideological
wing of neo-conservatives has any interest in war with Russia. As to the rest, the
politicians, the corporations, the military war is the least of their desires: the
politicians want jobs for constituents and deep wells of graft in which those trillions can
be re-cycled into campaign funds, think tanks, pensions, bribes and favours. The corporations
want orders with guaranteed and fat profits. They also want monopolies and help in garnering
the super profits that come from foreign orders. Places like Israel and Saudi are the icing
on an already rich and fruity cake. The military want other things, of which wars against
their peers in Russia and China are not a part.
Add together the realities of the Defense procurement system and the inefficiencies of
monopoly capitalism and the wonder is not that the Russian state produces better results but
that the US forces have any 'materiel' at all. And often enough they do not: the F35 is but
one example of the many projects into which untold riches have been sunk without any
perceptible advantage. The US fleets are full of ships that serve no real purpose except to
consume fuel and bang into one another. The army is so bad that most of the work is actually
carried out by Special Forces (now 70,000 strong) while the logistical load is borne by
contractors and mercenary bands.
But the reality of Russia's position, as anyone who has followed modern history will know,
is that bureaucratic and sclerotic as the Soviet system was it was still vastly more
efficient than the chaotic and suicidal capitalist system. From Sputnik down, even despite
the co-ordinated wrecking of the Soviet economy, until today the Russian system of
developing, producing and employing arms has proved to be superior to the US system.
For this there are many reasons but the single most important is that, in the USA Defense
procurement is a scam whereas in Russia, as Putin made plain, it is a matter of national
survival. And so it has been since 1918- a century of making sure that a world full of
enemies could be fought off.
Those western commentators who sneered that Putin was boasting and exaggerating when he
warned potential aggressors to think twice, have gone through the lessons of that century
without learning a thing.
What has happened in Russia, since the 1990s, is that the sirens of westernisation,
which Russians have been listening to since Tsar Paul's time, have been discredited again.
The future in Russia lies not with the Fifth Column of westerners, with their Wall St/City of
London banking practices and their longing for acceptance by high finance but with those
looking east where the sun rises, east and south where three out of every four members of
humanity live.
Putin is an experienced strategist.He plans long ahead and is not at all a warmonger.On his
campaign trail Trump recognized this and wanted to ease tensions with Russia.But he failed.I
never understood the Russia bashing.The Russians love Putin for what he did for his
country.And that's what counts.
Actually, we don't have to wait too long to see if the Russians will fold. Putin, as I argued
before, is the representative of the faction who wants to integrate with the western elites
but on equal terms and there are compradors who considers taking percentages from the loot of
Russia by their western handlers and being welcome in the parties of the western institutions
is good enough and the least risky path.
I am with Peter that the likelihood of the second faction winning is higher. Only because
the first faction cannot eliminate the second without hurting its own interests. In fact,
Putin's speech was mostly about how he will be trying to balance those factions and divide
pork between them (hint. the state should withdraw from the economy, encourage private
enterprises, etc.): such a policy of balancing can be sustained only so far; real sovereignty
can only be asserted with elites who sees its future of its own making on its own soil.
Billionaires have a tendency to relocate if they smell danger.
Because of this and unfortunately for Russia, the first faction would easily fold if they
feel the second starts to gain the upper hand and their personal fortunes are at stake.
Therefore, if the person after Putin continues his policy of balancing oligarchs, the power
will eventually be handed again over to Yeltsin types.
In this respect, getting rid of all billionaires is the only way of asserting sovereignty
as the remaining people including small scale business class will have to and would see their
future in their own country.
I am with Peter that the likelihood of the second faction winning is higher.
that's not exactly what I've been saying and what concerns me. That's the easy, nice
option. There is only one, very little snag there. TRUST.
How can Putin and his team trust the "opposition" that, should they step down, they won't
be dragged at some court? How anyone with brains can trust that? I wouldn't. Not after
Milosevic, Saddam and especially Qaddafi.
Let's cut to the chase here. Have you people seen the Colonel's murder? Then, have you
seen the reaction of The Bitch on hearing that?
Now .there is more. The "best and brightest" of US, and Anglo-Saxon world were all for The
Bitch. Think about that for a second. So ..is it realistically to expect Putin and his team,
mostly Russian siloviki, to, effectively, surrender to the victor's justice of those
people?
I can't. I can very well envisage: "I am going down .well you are too." And,
realistically, we all do deserve that. Now, I am an relic from the Cold War. So, maybe I get
all this wrong. But, then, Putin is coming from the same world. Maybe he, with age, got
"civilized" enough not to do that. Mellowed a bit. Maybe he hasn't.
Now back to "my dick is bigger" high-tech weapon discussion.
"... According to Mayer, Trump defenders argue that Steele is "a dishonest Clinton apparatchik who had collaborated with American intelligence and law enforcement officials to fabricate false charges against Trump and his associates, in a dastardly (sic) attempt to nullify the 2016 election. According to this story line, it was not the President who needed to be investigated, but the investigators themselves." ..."
"... I could not help but think that Mayer wrote her piece some months ago and that she and her editors might have missed more recent documentary evidence that gives considerable support to that "dastardly" story line. But seriously, it should be possible to suspect Steele of misfeasance or malfeasance – or simply telling his contractors what he knows they want to hear – without being labeled a "Trump supporter." I, for example, am no Trump supporter. I am, however, a former intelligence officer and I have long since concluded that what Steele served up is garbage. ..."
"... Mayer reports that Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, described Steele as "superb." Personally, I would shun any "recommendation" from that charlatan. Are memories so short? Dearlove was the intelligence chief who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002 after a quick trip to Washington. The official minutes of that meeting were leaked to the London Times and published on May 1, 2005. ..."
"... Worse still, he displays a distinct inclination toward the remarkable view of former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who has said that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever." If Mayer wanted to find some ostensibly authoritative figure to endorse the kind of material in Steele's dossier, she surely picked a good one in Sipher. ..."
"... Mayer notes, "It's too early to make a final judgment about how much of Steele's dossier will be proved wrong, but a number of Steele's major claims have been backed up by subsequent disclosures. She includes, as flat fact, his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together to release the DNC's emails, but provides no evidence. ..."
"... It was, of course, WikiLeaks that published the very damaging Democratic information, for example, on the DNC's dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remained to be demonstrated was that it was "the Russians" who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community could not honestly say. ..."
'Progressive' Journalists Jump the Shark on Russiagate March 7, 2018
A lack of skepticism has characterized much of the reporting on Russiagate, with undue
credibility being given to questionable sources like the Steele dossier, and now progressives
like Jane Mayer and Cenk Uygur are joining the bandwagon, Ray McGovern observes.
By Ray McGovern
Russiagate reporting has increasingly taken on a tabloidish and sensationalist
character.
Jane Mayer of The New Yorker and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks are the latest
progressives to jump on the anti-Trump, pro-Russiagate bandwagon. They have made it crystal
clear that, in Mayer's words, they are not going to let Republicans, or anyone else, "take down
the whole intelligence community," by God.
Odd? Nothing is too odd when it comes to spinning and dyeing the yarn of Russiagate;
especially now that some strands are unraveling from the thin material of the "Steele
dossier."
Before the 2016 election, British ex-spy Christopher Steele was contracted (through a couple
of cutouts) by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee to dig up dirt on
candidate Donald Trump. They paid him $168,000. They should ask for their money back.
Mayer and Uygur have now joined with other Trump-despisers and new "progressive" fans of the
FBI and CIA – among them Amy Goodman and her go-to, lost-in-the-trees journalist, Marcy
Wheeler of Emptywheel.net. All of them (well, maybe not Cenk) are staying up nights with needle
and thread trying to sew a silk purse out of the sow's-ear dossier of Steele allegations and
then dye it red for danger.
Monday brought a new low, with a truly extraordinary one-two punch
by Mayer and Uygur .
A Damning Picture?
Mayer does her part in a New Yorker article, in which she – intentionally or
not – cannot seem to see the forest for the trees.
In her article, Mayer explains up front that the Steele dossier "painted a damning picture
of collusion between Trump and Russia," and then goes on to portray him as a paragon of virtue
with praise that is fulsome, in the full meaning of that word. For example, a friend of Steele
told Mayer that regarding Steele, "Fairness, integrity, and truth, for him, trump any
ideology."
Now, if one refuses to accept this portrait on faith, then you are what Mayer describes as a
"Trump defender." According to Mayer, Trump defenders argue that Steele is "a dishonest Clinton
apparatchik who had collaborated with American intelligence and law enforcement officials to
fabricate false charges against Trump and his associates, in a dastardly (sic) attempt to
nullify the 2016 election. According to this story line, it was not the President who needed to
be investigated, but the investigators themselves."
Can you imagine!
I could not help but think that Mayer wrote her piece some months ago and that she and her
editors might have missed more recent documentary evidence that gives considerable support to
that "dastardly" story line. But seriously, it should be possible to suspect Steele of
misfeasance or malfeasance – or simply telling his contractors what he knows they want to
hear – without being labeled a "Trump supporter." I, for example, am no Trump supporter.
I am, however, a former intelligence officer and I have long since concluded that what Steele
served up is garbage.
Character References
Mayer reports that Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, described Steele as
"superb." Personally, I would shun any "recommendation" from that charlatan. Are memories so
short? Dearlove was the intelligence chief who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23,
2002 after a quick trip to Washington. The official minutes of that meeting were leaked to the
London Times and published on May 1, 2005.
Dearlove explained to Blair that President George W. Bush had decided to attack Iraq for
regime change and that the war was to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons
of mass destruction." Dearlove added matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being
fixed around the policy."
Another character reference Mayer gives for Steele is former CIA Deputy Director John
McLaughlin (from 2000 to 2004) who, with his boss George Tenet, did the fixing of intelligence
to "justify" the war on Iraq. State Department intelligence director at the time, Carl Ford,
told the authors of "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq
War" that both McLaughlin and Tenet "should have been shot" for what they did.
And then there is CIA veteran spy John Sipher who, Mayer says, "ran the Agency's Russia
program before retiring, in 2014." Sipher tells her he thinks the Steele dossier is "generally
credible" in "saying what Russia might be up to." Sipher may be a good case officer but he has
shown himself to be
something of a cipher on substance.
Worse still, he displays a distinct inclination toward the remarkable view of former
National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who has said that Russians are "typically, almost
genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever." If Mayer wanted to find some
ostensibly authoritative figure to endorse the kind of material in Steele's dossier, she surely
picked a good one in Sipher.
Mayer notes, "It's too early to make a final judgment about how much of Steele's dossier
will be proved wrong, but a number of Steele's major claims have been backed up by subsequent
disclosures. She includes, as flat fact, his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working
together to release the DNC's emails, but provides no evidence.
Major Holes
Mayer, however, should know better. There have been lots of holes in the accusation that the
Russians hacked the DNC and gave the material to WikiLeaks to publish. Here's one major gap
we reported
on Jan. 20, 2017: President Barack Obama told his last press conference on Jan. 18, that the
U.S. intelligence community had no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks.
Using lawyerly language, Obama admitted that "the conclusions of the intelligence community
with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or
not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked."
It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical
constructs. He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he
said: "based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the
DNC. the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks."
Note the disconnect between the confidence about hacking and the stark declarative sentence
about the information ending up at WikiLeaks. Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so
would be a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he
simply presented the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it
to the listener to make the leap.
It was, of course, WikiLeaks that published the very damaging Democratic information, for
example, on the DNC's dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remained to be
demonstrated was that it was "the Russians" who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is
what the U.S. intelligence community could not honestly say.
Saying it now, without evidence, does not make it true.
Cenk Also in Sync
Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks at once picked up , big time, on
the part of Mayer's article that homes in on an "astonishing" report from Steele in late
November 2016 quoting one "senior Russian official." According to that official, "The Kremlin
had intervened to block Trump's initial choice for secretary of state, Mitt Romney." Steele's
late November memo alleged that the Kremlin had asked Trump to appoint someone who would be
prepared to lift Ukraine-related sanctions and cooperate on security issues like Syria.
Mayer commented, "As fantastical as the memo sounds, subsequent events could be said to
support it." Fantastical or not, Uygur decided to run with it. His amazing 12-minute video is
titled: "New Steele Dossier: Putin PICKED Trump's Secretary of State." Uygur asks: "Who does
Tillerson work for; and that also goes for the President."
Return to Sanity
As an antidote to all the above, let me offer this
cogent piece on the views of Joseph E. diGenova, who speaks out of his unique experience,
including as Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church
Committee). The article is entitled: "The Politicization of the FBI."
"Over the past year," diGenova wrote, "facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by
high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting
under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the
election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the
presidency."
He pointed out that nearly half of Americans, according to a CBS poll, believe that
Mueller's Trump-Russia collusion probe is "politically motivated." And, he noted, 63 percent of
polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information
from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.
This skepticism is entirely warranted, as diGenova explains, with the Russiagate probe being
characterized by overreach from the beginning.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served in Army and CIA intelligence analysis for 30 years
and, after retiring, co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
"... The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious. ..."
"... The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation. ..."
"... The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election. Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains. ..."
Well of course there are. We've been told repeatedly that the Obama administration was on the job and focused like a laser
on Russia collusion and meddling.
Unfortunately, the hard drive all that was stored on crashed and it was all lost.
If we really want the truth then we have to stop relying on what people say just because we like them, or we think they are
on our side, and instead we have to examine the interests of the various sources. Only then we can make better decisions. At this
stage of the game the deep state can no longer blame with any credibility Russian hacking as the source of the alleged leak. The
know it came directly from the DNC. However, the deep state has a priority (a very strong interest) to keep the heat on Russia.
The deep state (the oligarchs, MIC, and intelligence community, which controls the media and most politicians) whether
or not it actually helped Trump by harming Hillary is immaterial. The election is over and there was never any real resolve in
the deep state to impeach Trump or to jail Hillary and their never will be. The reason should be obvious.
The only thing consistent in the Russian collusion and election rigging nonsense is the groundless and unrelenting vilification
of Russia, blaming Putin for everything. Just as we see grandiose deep state theatrics for the US to obtain access to strategic
rare-earth resources in North Korea, we see the similar deep state orchestrated theatrics falsely alleging that Russians rigged
or interfered in the US Presidential election. Russia's Putin is the main obstacle to the Western bankster-corporate cabal obtaining
resource and geopolitical hegemony over the entire planet. That is the main fact. It is the main reason to subject that nation
to constant vilification, sanctions, and military aggression and provocation.
The disproportionate ongoing emphasis on the fake story that Russia meddled in the US election, not only serves to stir up
suspicions and fears regarding Russia in the generally brain-numbed population, but mainly at this stage, and by the sheer fact
that the deep state has carried this rouse so far down the field, the only rational conclusion one can make is that the deep state
is going to interfere in the Russian elections in a very major way to ensure that Putin and his cronies - those wicked oil and
gas nationalizers, those heinous enemies of the Rothschild banksters and their plans for an expanded US Fed to the auspices of
their proposed One World Bank; those upstart renegades who support nations which choose to trade oil without US petrodollars;
those evil monsters who oppose globalism and defend their own nation's sovereignty and other nations like Syria which call for
help.
The deep state cabal will likely spend tens, if not hundreds, of billions of US dollars interfering in the Russian election.
Presently they are most likely bribing, blackmailing, and intimidating thousands of people to swing and rig the election to ensure
Putin does not win. "You did it to us." Will be their justification when Putin complains.
"... For someone who is such an outsider, Trump has a knack for stroking the establishment. Droning and occupying Syria, sword dancing, moving US embassy to Jerusalem, more tax cuts, upping military spending, drill baby drill, etc. ..."
"... Also consider these made-for-tv moments: ..."
"... Bloomberg's hysterical reaction in Jan 2016 at the prospect of a Sanders or Trump win; ..."
"... Schumer's snide remark about the intel agencies: "they have a way of getting back at you"; ..."
We might well ask why DNC was funding "opposition research" that they could not use.
Hillary's own embarrassing connections to Russia via Uranium One made it difficult, if not
impossible, for her campaign to question Trump's connection to Russia (if any such connection
was found).
it is reasonable to conclude that the "opposition research" was actually an 'insurance
policy' to ensure that Trump did as he was told after he was elected President.
Problem with "opposition research" thing is that Russian influence was not made an issue
in the election.
Why?
Some might say that Hillary didn't need to raise the issue because she was in the lead.
Yeah, what politician pulls punches like that? The race had already turned ugly with both
Democrats bringing forth women that claimed to have been sexually abused by Trump and Trump
accusing Bill Clinton of sexual malfeasance.
Some might say that making such accusations would be irresponsible because they weren't
proven. Since when does a US politician shy away from innuendo?
Interestingly, Obama also faced questions about his loyalty to the country. In fact, Trump
was one of leaders of the "birthers" that questioned Obama's qualification to be President
and, by extension, his loyalty to America. Criticism of Obama as a "socialist Muslim" by
parts of the right nearly reached "meme" status.
As Trump pointed out during the campaign, it was Hillary that first questioned (obliquely)
if Obama was qualified to be President. And it was her loyal friend Trump that ran with that
ball on her behalf.
For someone who is such an outsider, Trump has a knack for stroking the establishment. Droning and occupying Syria, sword dancing, moving US embassy to Jerusalem, more tax cuts,
upping military spending, drill baby drill, etc.
Trump once boasted that he could kill some one in Times Square and get away with it. Why
would he say such a thing? It's the kind of think that a "made man" might say.
Also consider these made-for-tv moments:
>> Bloomberg's hysterical reaction in Jan 2016 at the prospect of a Sanders or Trump
win;
>> Schumer's snide remark about the intel agencies: "they have a way of getting
back at you";
>> Hillary wins 6 out of 6 coin tosses in Iowa primaries;
>> Bill Clinton's meeting on the tarmac just happen to be caught by a
journalist?
>> Hillary's being dragged into a van among rumors of ill health just happen to be
caught by an amateur photographer;
>> the father of a the guy that shot up a Florida night club shows up at one of
her campaign events - sitting in a highly visible spot behind the podium;
>> and who could forget: "Wiped? like with a cloth?"
Innocent mistakes? Or best government (entertainment) money can buy?
"... It wasn't a "Hack." It was a LEAK. And, his name was #SethRich. Control the Language, Control the Narratives. ..."
"... Seth Rich was a Russian agent? Does that mean we can investigate his murder now? Somebody call that British Boris to throw a hissyfit, and maybe JUST MAYBE we can take a second look... ..."
"... DID they find SETH's Russian Passport Yet ? ? ? ..."
"... Hmm.....Friend of Panda....Fancy Bear....it's all starting to MAKE SENSE .....not..... The Obama and Clinton (and McCain) dorks botched a coup attempt, have the world's sloppiest coverup underway, and they will pay. ..."
"... Mueller would indict a bowl of borscht soup. Nevermind that British MI6 spy, Christopher Steele, hacked the US Election. Nevermind that DNC email leaker Seth Rich was asassinated by British MI6 spies. Nevermind that Assange is held captive by British MI6 spies. ..."
"... And why is ANYONE listening to this lying SOB Steele? Man the media disgusts me in this country. I wish I could find a way to consume less of their product, but I already have no TV, turn off the radio news in a heartbeat when I hear it come on, and visit none of their websites. ..."
Shortly after WikiLeaks released emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on July 26, 2016, former UK spy Christopher
Steele filed a memo with his employer, Fusion GPS, claiming that the DNC "hack" during the 2016 election involved Russian agents
"within the Democratic Party structure itself ," The New Yorker reports.
On July 26, 2016, after WikiLeaks disseminated the D.N.C. e-mails, Steele filed yet another memo, this time claiming that the
Kremlin was "behind" the hacking, which was part of a Russian cyber war against Hillary Clinton's campaign. Many of the details
seemed far-fetched: Steele's sources claimed that the digital attack involved agents "within the Democratic Party structure itself,"
as well as Russian émigrés in the U.S. and "associated offensive cyber operators."
The unverified claim was contained within a multitude of memos compiled by Steele on behalf of Fusion GPS, which was conducting
opposition research on then-candidate Donald Trump for Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
Of note, the 35-page "Trump-Russia" dossier used in part by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant on one-time Trump campaign advisor
Carter Page was comprised of seventeen of Steele's memos - including one which alleged that Trump had paid "a number of prostitutes
to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show in front of him," which would defile a bed that Barack and Michelle Obama had slept
in during a state visit - an allegation attributed to four individuals' second-hand reporting.
The shocking claim comes amid recent reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is preparing criminal charges against Russian
hackers allegedly behind the breaches of both the DNC and John Podesta's email.
Much like the indictment
Mueller filed last month charging a different group of Russians in a social media trolling and illegal-ad-buying scheme, the
possible new charges are expected to rely heavily on secret intelligence gathered by the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency
(NSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), several of the officials say. [ ] Mueller's consideration of charges accusing
Russians in the hacking case has not been reported previously . Sources say he has long had sufficient evidence to make a case,
but strategic issues could dictate the timing. Potential charges include violations of statutes on conspiracy, election law as
well as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
The sources say the possible new indictment -- or more than one, if that's how Mueller's office decides to proceed -- would
delve into the details of, and the people behind, the Russian intelligence operation that used hackers to penetrate computer networks
and steal emails of both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Meanwhile, as we have been reporting, Mueller has yet to even reach out to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, or New Zealand entrepreneur
Kim Dotcom - who clearly knew of the upcoming email leaks before they were dropped. While Assange has heavily insinuated it was DNC
staffer Seth Rich, Dotcom has gone "all in" over the last few months - tweeting that he knows Seth Rich was Wikileaks' source, Rich
used a memory stick, and that Dotcom himself was involved.
As Josh Caplan of TGP notes, In Donna Brazile's book, "Hacks: The
Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House," the Democrat operative admits the DNC allowed
alleged Russian hackers to steal data from the party's servers. From the
Daily Caller :
Donna Brazile says in her new book the Democratic National Committee (DNC) went against professional advice and sat idly for
a month while Russians stole data because primaries were still underway in a number of states.
In May, when CrowdStrike recommended that we take down our system and rebuild it, the DNC told them to wait a month, because
the state primaries for the presidential election were still underway , and the party and the staff needed to be at their computers
to manage these efforts," Brazile wrote in her new
book , "
Hacks
."
"For a whole month, CrowdStrike watched Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear operating. Cozy Bear was the hacking force that had been in
the DNC system for nearly a year."
Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear are cybersecurity firms that have
reported ties with Russian hackers. Both groups are blamed for the hacks on the DNC in 2016. CrowdStrike is a private U.S.
cybersecurity firm that oversaw the protection of the DNC's servers.
Nothing to see here folks - just Trump's enemies using Steele's unverified memos with info from high level Kremlin officials when
it benefits them, while ignoring the ones which suggest "insiders" was involved in the DNC hack. Tags
Politics Entertainment Production - NEC Application Software
Seth Rich was a Russian agent? Does that mean we can investigate his murder now? Somebody call that British
Boris to throw a hissyfit, and maybe JUST MAYBE we can take a second look...
Hmm.....Friend of Panda....Fancy Bear....it's all starting to MAKE SENSE .....not..... The Obama and Clinton (and
McCain) dorks botched a coup attempt, have the world's sloppiest coverup underway, and they will pay.
Mueller would indict a bowl of borscht soup. Nevermind that British MI6 spy, Christopher Steele, hacked the US Election.
Nevermind that DNC email leaker Seth Rich was asassinated by British MI6 spies. Nevermind that Assange is held captive by British
MI6 spies.
I am sooooo tired of this Russian hacking, collusion, meddling bullshit. They are just not going to stop until we are
trading missiles with Russia. Then they will say that they were right all along, when in fact they started the damn thing.
And why is ANYONE listening to this lying SOB Steele? Man the media disgusts me in this country. I wish I could find a
way to consume less of their product, but I already have no TV, turn off the radio news in a heartbeat when I hear it come on,
and visit none of their websites.
"... " Incidental collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans' communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for incidental collection, no probable cause is needed, no warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up. ..."
"... While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't " wiretapping " Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information. How was it used? ..."
"... Incidental collection nailed Michael Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his "game-changing" testimony against others. ..."
A significant number of Trump's people were electronically monitored by
a Democratic administration -- many "by accident." We now know that a significant number of
people affiliated with Donald Trump were surveilled during and after the 2016 campaign, some
under warrants, some via "inadvertent" or accidental surveillance. That surveillance is now
being used against these individuals in perjury cases, particularly to press them to testify
against others, and will likely form the basis of Robert Mueller's eventual action against the
president himself.
How did the surveillance state become so fully entrenched in the American political process?
Better yet, how did we let it happen?
The role pervasive surveillance plays in politics today has been grossly underreported. Set
aside what you think about the Trump presidency for a moment and focus instead on the new
paradigm for how politics and justice work inside the surveillance state.
" Incidental
collection " is the claimed inadvertent or accidental monitoring of Americans'
communications under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Incidental collection exists
alongside court-approved warranted surveillance authorized on a specific individual. But for
incidental collection, no probable
cause is needed, no
warrant is needed, and no court or judge is involved. It just gets vacuumed up.
While exactly how many Americans have their communications monitored this way is
unknown , we know these Republican Trump supporters and staffers were caught up in
surveillance authorized by a Democratic administration (no evidence of incidental surveillance
of the Clinton campaign exists). Election-time claims that the Obama administration wasn't "
wiretapping
" Trump were disingenuous. They in fact gathered an unprecedented level of inside information.
How was it used?
Incidental collection nailed Michael
Flynn : the NSA was ostensibly not surveilling Flynn, just listening in on the Russian
ambassador as the two spoke. The embarrassing intercept formed the basis for Flynn's firing as
Trump's national security advisor, his guilty plea for perjury, and very possibly his
"game-changing" testimony against others.
Jeff Sessions was similarly incidentally surveilled, as was former White House chief
strategist Steve
Bannon , whose conversations were picked
up as part of a FISA warrant issued against Trump associate
Carter Page .
Paul Manafort and
Richard Gates were also the subjects of FISA-warranted surveillance: they were surveilled
in 2014, the case was dropped for lack of evidence, and then they were re-surveilled after they
joined the Trump team and became more interesting to the state.
Officials on the National Security Council revealed that
Trump himself may also have been swept up in the surveillance of foreign targets. Devin
Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, claims multiple communications by Trump
transition
staff were inadvertently picked up.
Trump officials were monitored by British
GCHQ with the information shared with their NSA partners. Some reports
claim that after a criminal warrant was denied to look into
whether or not Trump Tower servers
were communicating with a Russian bank, a FISA warrant was issued.
How much information the White House may have acquired on Trump's political strategy, as
well as the full story of what might have been done with that information, will never be known.
We do know that the director of national intelligence Dan Coats saw enough after he took office
to
specify that the "intelligence community may not engage in political activity, including
dissemination of U.S. person identities to the White House, for the purpose of affecting the
political process of the United States."
Coats likely had in mind the use of unmasking by the Obama administration. Identities of
U.S. persons picked up inadvertently by surveillance are supposed to be masked, hidden from
most users of the data. However, a select group of officials, including political appointees in
the White House, can unmask and include names if they believe it is important to understanding
the intelligence, or to show evidence of a crime.
Former Obama national security advisor Susan Rice
told House investigators in at least one instance she unmasked the identities of Michael
Flynn,
Jared Kushner , and Steve Bannon. Obama's ambassador to the United Nations,
Samantha Power , also made a number of unmasking requests
in her final year in office.
But no one knows who unmasked Flynn in his conversations with the Russian ambassador. That
and the subsequent leaking of what was said were used not only to snare Flynn in a perjury
trap, but also to force him out of government. Prior to the leak that took Flynn down, Obama
holdover and then-acting attorney general Sally Yates warned Trump that Flynn could be
blackmailed by Moscow for lying about his calls. When Trump didn't immediately fire Flynn, the
unmasked surveillance was leaked by a "senior government official" (likely
Yates ) to the
Washington Post . The disclosure pressured the administration to dump Flynn.
Similar leaks were used to try to pressure Attorney General
Jeff Sessions to resign, though they only resulted in him recusing himself from the
Russiagate investigation. Following James Comey's firing, that recusal ultimately opened the
door for the appointment of Special Counsel Mueller.
A highly classified leak was used to help marginalize Jared Kushner. The Washington
Post ,
based on leaked intercepts, claimed foreign officials' from four countries spoke of
exploiting Kushner's economic vulnerabilities to push him into acting against the United
States. If the story is true, the leakers passed on data revealing sources and methods; those
foreign officials now know that, however they communicated their thoughts about Kushner, the
NSA was listening. Access to that level of information and the power to expose it is not a
rank-and-file action. One analyst
described the matter as "the Deep State takes out the White House's Dark Clown Prince."
Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating
perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.
Trump associate George
Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about several meetings concerning Clinton's emails. The FBI
knew about the meetings, "
propelled in part by intelligence from other friendly governments, including the British
and Dutch." The feds asked him questions solely in the hope that Papadopoulos would commit
perjury, even though there was nothing shown to be criminal about the meetings themselves. Now
guilty of a crime, the FBI will use the promise of a light punishment to press Papadopoulos into
testifying against others.
There is a common thread here of using surveillance to create a process crime out of a
non-material lie (the FBI already knew) where no underlying crime of turpitude exists (the
meetings were legal). That this is then used to press someone to testify in an investigation
that will have a significant political impact seems undemocratic -- yet it appears to be a
primary tool Mueller is using.
This is a far cry from a traditional plea deal, giving someone a light sentence for actual
crimes so that they will testify against others. Mueller should know. He famously allowed Mafia
hitman Sammy the Bull to escape more serious punishment for 19 first-degree
murders in return for testimony against John Gotti. No need to manufacture a perjury trap;
the pile of bodies that never saw justice did the trick.
Don't be lured into thinking the ends justify the means, that whatever it takes to purge
Trump is acceptable. Say what you want about Flynn, Kushner, et al, what matters most is the
dark process being used. The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a
harbinger that should chill Americans to their cores.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.MORE FROM THIS
AUTHOR
Pervasive surveillance has shown its power perhaps most significantly in creating
perjury traps to manufacture indictments to pressure people to testify against others.
Key advice: Never talk to a cop. Never trust an agent of the Security State. They may still wreck your life, but at least you won't make it easy for them.
Are you really arguing that using surveillance on foreign agents and spies to catch and
compel traders to testify against each other is bad????? Isn't that the way it is usually
done?
It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies. And don't tell me the
government has no right to investigate what could be treason by the president and his staff.
I know how you love Trump and Russia.
I voted for Trump but now I'm completely disgusted with his failures and betrayals and won't
vote for him again.
Setting that aside, it's starting to look to me like the Hillary campaign and allies in
the Obama federal bureaucracy were spying on the Trump campaign.
They fully expected Hillary to win and therefore to be able to cover up what they were
doing.
But then they lost, and now they're ginning up the Russia/national security angle to blow
smoke over what's starting to look like the worst campaign skullduggery since Nixon and
Watergate.
It needs to be investigated, and if there's any fire there, vigorously prosecuted. I don't
give a damn about Trump anymore, but I give a damn about our democracy and system of
government, and if it turns out that some government filth was spying on Trump's campaign, I
want them arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in the darkest, dirtiest hole in our prison
system. We can't have that kind of s***.
If I see one more variation on "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" in a
comment my brain will explode. Anyone who writes that kind of thing ("Well maybe they
shouldn't lie") is missing the point: our political process was surveilled and no one can
control what happens to information gathered. Even if you think it good to "take down" Trump,
the process will exist past him to be aimed at a future candidate you support.
"It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies."
Even if true, do you think it is fair for Flynn to be hit with felony charges for his
"less than candid answers" with regard to politically and diplomatically sensitive phone
calls to the Russian ambassador after the elections were over?
Republicans created this mess in their desire to make "security" a partisan issue after 9/11.
If they now regret it and wish to undo the mess, more power to them!
Peter: "If I see one more variation on 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear'
in a comment my brain will explode."
The Left used to be vociferously in favor of privacy rights. I took note during the Obama
years that it really only mattered for abortion and library books, nothing beyond that.
But a thought experiment: How many progressives, for that matter how many Black and
Hispanic Americans would be comfortable with the following government requirements:
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have your name and current address on
file at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a key to your home at all times.
– Federal, state, and local law enforcement have a tracking device on your car or your
person at all times.
If you have nothing to hide, you should have no objections to any of those
requirements.
[[It is extremely easy to avoid a perjury trap: don't tell lies.]]
Even easier: Be a Democrat, preferably the Party's presidential candidate, and then it
doesn't matter whether you tell lies or commit felonies because the corrupt Deep
State-lib-Dem-media alliance will hold you safely above the law.
Even in the midst of all of this, the ongoing ability to continue to spy on our own citizens
was recently voted on and passed overwhelmingly, with large bipartisan support. Save your
crocodile tears now.
Russia is not an enemy of the United States despite all the hoopla about how eeeevil they
are, we are not at war. Treason is not on the table unless you, you know, amend the
constitution, or abandon it, or something.
@MM: apart from the key to your house (and even that might be questionable if you have
certain "smart" appliances), you are describing Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and/or
Microsoft. Adding Federal Government to that list isn't as much of a jump as you seem to
believe.
"The arrival of pervasive surveillance as a political weapon is a harbinger that should chill
Americans to their cores."
Thankfully J. Edgar Hoover practiced his job with restraint.
That being said, while there is certainly a need for improvement of the FISA program (sadly,
the 'principled' Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy, Matt Gaetz, et al., missed their opportunity in
January when they voted for reauthorization), those individuals caught in the web "by
accident" were regularly communicating with targets of legitimately obtained warrants. It was
their choice to subsequently lie.
With respect to their "unmasking", it doesn't seem unreasonable that policy makers in the
White House should have knowledge of their identity (even in the politicized environment of a
presidential campaign), especially when there's the taint of influence of an adversarial
government and/or organized crime on a potential POTUS.
It is amazing how many law and order Conservatives start screaming about abuses of power, and
targeting specific people when they are the ones at the receiving end.
As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they get
to shut up on the subject now.
(Maybe they SHOULD team up with Black Lives Matter..)
We have come a long way from the reactionary and authoritarian chants of "if you have done
nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" in the lead-up and then wake of the sarcastically
name PATRIOT Act.
Surveillance and monitoring are, like all other "national securities" spending, primarily
profit extraction driven public-private "partnerships", but the major point here always was
"if you build it, they will use it".
That, too, is the foundational criticism driving Global Zero and the insistence that
Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty be honored by all signatory nuclear powers.
The basic principle of any evolutionary stable open society based on checks and balances
is that no self-inflating institutions and power centers are permissible – whether that
is inbred, networked multi-generational wealth, incorporated power such as financial
institutions, or specific government institutions, such as the military, the "intelligence"
agencies etc.
Of course, the whole idea of having secret courts applying secret law in secret decisions
without adversary parties, and no mandatory disclosure after the fact, is also fundamentally
incompatible with the idea of transparency and accountability, without which free speech and
elections are little more than a travelling circus and a vehicle for advertising profit.
mark_be: Sorry, I meant to include fingerprints and DNA samples in that list of items for all
levels of law enforcement to retain on file on every American.
Any government whose interests clash with ours must be considered a potential enemy
– not enough to go to war, of course, but to be wary of what steps they may take to
protect their interests and thwart ours.
As for Russia, alas, she is known for playing very dirty. Before there was a KGB, there
was an Okhrana, among whose achievements was the writing and disemination of the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion. Anyone who thinks that because they are no longer communists they
Russians are nice guys lives in a fool's paradise
YKW: "As a rule, if they did defended the police when the subject was racial profiling, they
get to shut up on the subject now."
There is no such rule in a free society. People are within their rights to be as
hypocritical and inconsistent as they like.
But if there were such a rule, where are the civil libertarians in the Democratic Party?
Why aren't they castigating DOJ abuse of power in the previous administration?
Why are neoconservatives and Bush era creeps like Brennan, Clapper, and Hayden darlings of
the Left?
that's not exactly what I've been saying and what concerns me. That's the easy, nice
option. There is only one, very little snag there. TRUST.
That's an astute observation, but it cuts both ways. You also need to take into account
the level of Neo-McCarthyism in the USA and resulting growing distrust toward neoliberals and
compradors in Russia. Despite efforts of Putin personally and Putin administration (Lavrov,
Medvedev) to suppression growing anti-Americanism, soon Russian people might start throwing
eggs at neoliberals/comparadors rallies. Look at the travails of the elite prostitute who is
the most neoliberal and pro-Western candidate for Presidents in the current race:
Add to that a distinct desire by the "Collective West" to expropriate Russian oligarchs
holdings during the next six years of Putin rule (which they now probably understand, or at
least start to understand after the most recent "blacklist"). That creates some links with
the motherland even for the most cosmopolitan Russian bankers
$21 trillion of unauthorized spending by US govt discovered by economics
professor
Published time: 16 Dec, 2017
[MORE]
The US government may have misspent $21 trillion, a professor at Michigan State
University has found. Papers supporting the study briefly went missing just as an audit was
announced.
Two departments of the US federal government may have spent as much as $21 trillion on
things they can't account for between 1998 and 2015. At least that's what Mark Skidmore, a
Professor of Economics at MSU specializing in public finance, and his team have found.
They came up with the figure after digging the websites of departments of Defense (DoD)
and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as repots of the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) over summer.
The research was triggered by Skidmore hearing Catherine Austin Fitts, a former
Assistant Secretary in the HUD in the first Bush administration, saying the Inspector
General found $6.5 trillion worth of military spending that the DoD couldn't account for.
She was referring to a July 2016 report by the OIG, but Skidmore thought she must be
mistaking billion for trillion. Based on his previous experience with public finances, he
thought the figure was too big even for an organization as large as the US military.
"Sometimes you have an adjustment just because you don't have adequate transactions so
an auditor would just recede. Usually it's just a small portion of authorized spending,
maybe one percent at most. So for the Army one percent would be $1.2 billion of
transactions that you just can't account for," he explained in an interview with
USAWatchdog.com earlier this month.
After discovering that the figure was accurate, he and Fitts collaborated with a pair of
graduate students to comb through thousands of reports of the OIG dating back to 1998, when
new rules of public accountability for the federal government were set and all the way to
2015, the time of the latest reports available at the time. The research was only for the
DoD and the HUD.
"This is incomplete, but we have found $21 trillion in adjustments over that period. The
biggest chunk is for the Army. We were able to find 13 of the 17 years and we found about
$11.5 trillion just for the Army," Skidmore said.
I think Americans might be able to get along just fine without the USA?
If the USA wants to threaten or mute those who offer an opinion?
As stupid as Americans are said to be,
they do feel the pains of fake news, loss of freedom of speech,
spying, corporate dominance, and corrupt in purpose leadership?
Another possibility is that even the best technology can't compensate for human
factor.
From the crew being overworked, untrained to being on drugs. Or vodka. Pick the one more
likely.
Perhaps you've seen the article linked below.
Some excerpts from the summation follow:
"Russia appears to have won at least a partial victory in Syria, and done so with
impressive efficiency, flexibility, and coordination between military and political
action."
" Russia's "lean" strategy, adaptable tactics, and coordination of military and diplomatic
initiatives offer important lessons for the conduct of any military intervention in as
complex and volatile an environment as the Middle East."
" Washington should pay close attention to the Russian intervention and how Moscow
achieved its objectives in Syria."
Leaving the requisite downplaying of what happened in Syria ("partial victory"?, really?)
aside, the authors seem a little envious, frankly.
Your points are of course valid, but the Russians seem to have answered those calls and a
few others besides, at least in the Syrian theatre. One can expect a similar or better
performance in any conflict involving Russian soil, especially as only the creme de la creme
of missile crews would be assigned to game changing weaponry.
Putin's announcement represents a massive FAIL on the part of a $1T's worth of
intelligence agencies, military think tanks, political analysts and military planners who
collectively didn't see it coming . They're all now in either panic, the foundation of
America's geo-political goals utterly undermined, or in denial.
Denial is winning, so their next big FAIL is already underway. Heads aren't rolling. The
Pentagon thinks it can save the day by doubling down and demanding more of the useless crap
they've got now. We can expect the CIA et al will roll out even more failing propaganda and
politically destabilizing activity to continue trying their hand at regime change. Even the
Afghans are on to them, so good luck with that.
The US simply must internalize the strategic significance of these developments, and
change everything about their postures and behaviours in the world. There's little sign of
that happening, Mad Dogs can't learn new tricks, so we're sailing into very treacherous
waters indeed.
The Deep State, also known as the Swamp, holds Trump in contempt because he put Deep State
people into so many positions. The Secretary of the Air Force is a Lockheed agent – she
took in $600k from Lockheed while she was a politician. Mattis is in favour of trannies in
the military – 50% suicide rate and $100k a pop. Tillerson was in favour of the Paris
climate treaty, so was Mattis. There are signs that reality is sinking in though –
putting Trophy systems on M1 tanks for example. The increase in the bomb production rate is a
sign that it is not business as usual. A much larger warstock is necessary for the coming
conflict with China. Nobody in the system has the guts to end the F-35. Mattis, for all his
bravado, is just a political creature.
One thing that struck me about Putin's speech on the new missile systems is that he
understood the technical detail of how the things worked to the extent of having a genuine
personal interest in knowing such stuff. Corruption and the Russian mafia are still Russia's
biggest problem but I see that Russian wheat production is finally increasing near 20 years
after the fall of communism.
These was reported some time ago. Pentagon needs another 911 to remove all evidents that
they did after 5+Trillions unknown usage was discovered.
Tip of iceberg how many trillions US is printing from air for its lavish unproductive
lives & endless wars over last many decades unreported. The world having their foreign
reserves tied by IMF to 5 currencies, is picking up the tabs of US, EU, Japan & UK free
currency printing QE to artificially prop up their collapsing economy based on stupid theory
of growth by borrowing.
These countries run on deficit(except jp with high export & artificial low ex-ch
rate), high debts, high salary, high property price, overspending with budget deficit, and
financial banking scams to prop up high Nominal GDP.
When music stop, someone will miss the seat.
China & Russia know, they stored up time proven gold reserve, & Petrol Yuan
started. When China replaced Petrol $ with yuan, slash its 3T US treasury reserve, the music
stop.
I see that Russian wheat production is finally increasing near 20 years after the fall
of communism.
Food commodity price is controlled by big oligarchs. West has big subsidy to artificially
lowered their cost/ export price in name of food security, to the tune that all subsidies are
enough to feed all hungries on earth. But its aim to destroy developing countries agri
sector. Latin America was hit badly in past that agri no longer sustainable, when land bcom
barren, capitalist swoop in to buy land dirt cheap.
China & Russia aren't stupid to let West control their food chain, but they imported
these subsidized food without ruin own agri ability, esp for animal feeds. When sanction
started, Putin simply activated its standby agri program. When trade war start, China will do
the same, already its probing US sorghum subsidy.
Looks like in order to make such a statement Putin should have intelligence information
about a real threat of attack from the USA, or some large scale provocation in Syria or
Ukraine. Only in this case his statement makes some sense. As a open warning: do not do
it.
Look at the keyword, allies. Putin emphasized, if Russia or its allies are attacked .. so
its Syria potential hyper escalation, Ukraine brewing collision with new lethal weapons, to
some lesser extent, Iran & Venezuela with Russia high investment.
12. China has less than 300 nuclear weapons and still is regarded as a formidable
nuclear power, probably spending 20 times less money in this area.
China might have to do something similar to Putin later just to ensure US won't took the
wrong calculated risk to do something stupid. However China style is always keep secretive of
its killer weapon that worry US most. Its said in every Wargaming, whenever Red team losing
to Blue, they launch China Murderer Mace(Trump card), then everything end in Red favour.
In another topic, some said China has est 400 nukes, with only 20~40 that can reach US
which might tempted US to believe it could survive an exchange. So a large upgrade is
necessary. Anyone got better idea?
In last year during South China Seas confrontation, China actually sent out all its navy
to conduct live exercise till eve of fake Hague court judgement, with nuclear subs in high
profile despatched to US Guam & Indian ocean bases(where their nuclear bombers station).
Two strike groups that with its Adm Harry threaten war start tonight, were reportedly hiding
in East Philippine Seas to get out of H6k bomber missiles(aircraft carrier killer) range.
WH panick of real war escalation, Obama sent its top general to China, with NSA advisor
Rice also visited Xi to resolve. This shows US isn't ready for a military clash with nuke
China, with much lesser warheads than Russia.
The new $14 billion USS Ford aircraft carrier has a launch system that cannot be fixed
because it never worked. It remains an experimental system that after 20 years of
development is not ready for use, and may never be. Replacing it with a proven steam system
will cost over $5 billion.
EMALS works! Carrier Ford completes first flight operations
By: Mark D. Faram July 29, 2017
Construction of the third carrier is expected to start next year and will use
electromagnetic launch rather than steam-powered catapults. The carrier is expected to have
80,000 ton displacement which would put it in the super carrier class.
China was confident about its EMALS technology now that it was able to produce its own
insulated-gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) chips, a key component of the high-efficiency
electric energy conversion systems used in variable-speed drives, trains, electric and hybrid
electric vehicles, power grids and renewable energy plants.
All things described like "realism", "order" and references to Napoleon is all contrived
pseudo-academic bunk. In the end another "great" strategic minds such as neocons wrote
(Kagan's cabal) what is touted as the "best" history pf Peloponnese Wars. And look where this
"academic brilliance" based on those ideas brought the United States and the world to.
American elites of the 20th and 21st Century, with some minor exceptions, have no grasp of
the nature of the military force (power) and how it applies. None and this can not be fixed.
It is also a tragedy for many, including the US itself.
Mr. Martyanov -- Does the ECM/EMP capability that the USS Donald Cook allegedly ran into
in the Black Sea enter into these deliberations at all?
No. Russia does have the best EW capabilities in the world–the fact admitted even by
US military's top brass, but USS Donald Cook's alleged "shutting down" of her radar by SU-24
never happened. It is all, hm, as strange as it sounds, Russian amateurs' and fanboys'
propaganda. SU-24 is not capable to "shut down" anything on a ship with energy capacity of
Arleigh Burke-class DDG. Two different weight categories. Most likely SU-24 simply put out
what is known as pomehi (interference) which may have created multiple targets
picture–this is possible. It is still very unpleasant and unnerving situation but
nothing as dramatic as what became now a consistent and false meme.
and I'm just guessing, but for the same reasons successful anti-laser techniques could be
devised once that becomes a reality (even in clear day conditions)
Andrei, I don't know if you're still reading comments on this thread, but ZeroHedge posted
confirming what you wrote, yet somehow analysts are still dismissive. Still to quote you
"butt hurt."
Quote: "From a national security perspective, Putin's claims of hypersonic weapons should
not be underestimated but should be analyzed in an attempt to parse fact from fiction.
"The team of analysts at The Drive precisely did that, and made several conclusions: In
particular, one of the weapons Putin mentioned in his speech was an air-launched hypersonic
anti-ship missile launched from a Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound. Upon closer examination, the Drive
team found the hypersonic weapon closely resembles the Iskander short-range ballistic
missile."
End quotation.
I wonder if Putin will deploy the laser system to Syria, now that America is making
threats.
"A potential decision by Washington to take new military actions against Damascus would
mark the second US strike on Syria in less than a year."
The elder Kagan's Peloponnesian war history is actually instructive from a neocon point of
view. He identifies with the Athenian side, and with the most belligerent Athenian
politicians, so completely that he shows not the least understanding of why the other side,
or neutrals, or less aggressive Athenian politicians acted as they did. So although he uses a
respectable scholarly apparatus, he has no conception of how history should be written.
Thanks for the reply but my point primarily is that the A.Z. (to quote The Saker) Empire
is doubling down. Its attitude is still "what're you gonna do about it" and the recent news
indicates they're pushing in Syria.
A nuclear strike from Russia that kills 99% of the population doesn't bother them in the
slightest. Or they think Putin is bluffing.
My concern is about the plane crash in Syria: why were so many pilots (allegedly) on board
and thus so vulnerable. Not that it's necessarily true that the "Deep State" caused this.
The self-confessed military analysts "Q" with millions of followers states, incidentally,
that CIA caused the recent jetliner crash to kill Rosatom executives and scientists. I don't
trust him. He says Snowden now is in China; was CIA all along and was deliberately sent to
Russia for mischief making.
Finally, if you have any idea about my hypothesis discussed with F.B. above whether the
glider manipulates plasma using electric fields and a small on-board nuclear reactor or just
uses an undiscovered and unknown to America composite. But from what F.B. wrote we have no
how idea how it would work, hence the skepticism by the fake experts.
I hope you can comment since you're the expert and can separate truth from the
bullshit.
Putin's character makes me think he doesn't bluff. Western politicians are such liars they
don't believe Putin tells the truth.
Your points are of course valid, but the Russians seem to have answered those calls and
a few others besides, at least in the Syrian theatre. One can expect a similar or better
performance in any conflict involving Russian soil,
Agree.
Keywords "Syria" and "similar".
How about:
A new flareup in Novorossya->in, say, 3 months of "engagement" that part of Ukraine starts
looking as parts of Syria now.
An ethnic unrest in one of remote regions->reaction by the Kremlin->that part of RF
starts looking as parts of Syria now.
So, based on that, this
.the foundation of America's geo-political goals utterly undermined, or in denial.
and
They're all now in either panic, the foundation of America's geo-political goals utterly
undermined, or in denial
sounds .wrong?
Perhaps those advising Kremlin are in denial?
So, related to
We can expect the CIA et al will roll out even more failing propaganda and politically
destabilizing activity to continue trying their hand at regime change.
how about:
We can expect the Kremlin et al will roll out even more failing propaganda and internal
politically destabilizing activity to continue trying their hand against The Empire.
My concern is about the plane crash in Syria: why were so many pilots (allegedly) on
board and thus so vulnerable.
Systemic failure. Somewhere between acquiring spare parts, through maintenance and general
processes and procedures to, last, but not least .vodka.
More to come in coming months.
So although he uses a respectable scholarly apparatus, he has no conception of how
history should be written.
True, but to add insult to injury neocons generally do not know actual military
history–one is bound to fail to know it when they are in the business of erasing
causalities, rather than finding them. That is why they suck as strategists, have a very
vague understanding of operational and tactical issues and, of course, none of them
understands serious military-technological problems. Just to reiterate my point–they
have no idea what warfare is.
{ ., he has no conception of how history should be written.}
I think he does, so do his ilk.
They mind-bend history to fit their narrative, to confuse the multitudes into seeing the
world through their Neocon lens. Part and parcel of the full spectrum
disinformation/propaganda/brainwashing campaign. History (books & movies), "news",
analysis, commercials, nothing is off the table.
I am assuming the laser is state-of-the-art anti-missile defense: better chance of
shooting down Patriot missiles and making a point if another attack comes and prove the
system exists and he's not a liar. A real field test.
I am saddened, incidentally, by the death of so many brave Russian personnel in the plane
crash, which I notice you didn't remark upon. If it was an accident, I am sure the callous
Americans are saying, "See, they kill themselves, we don't have to bother trying" unless
there was duplicity involved and not just a gross failure due to negligence, etc.
I assume also that there is no evidence CIA (or Mossad) did target Rosatom executives in
the jet liner crash or Russia would not want that to get out, clear act of war.
Of course, sadly, American Deep State is at war with Russia. They just use duplicity and
proxies and it's too bad since we could have been friends and not enemies. So many voted for
Trump hoping for the best.
American Deep State won't change (neocons) until they get a bloody nose. Not sure when or
if that will ever happen.
The thing with "neocons" is that they're pathological liars and narcissists. And the first
victims of their dishonesty are themselves. In fact even describing them as "liars" who've
deceived themselves is being generous. To put it another way, they've created a false reality
for themselves. Actual facts and reasoned arguments, especially any kind of moral reasoning,
bounce off such creatures like bullets bounce off Superman.
My contention is that the factions are not so clear cut and most people that matters can
switch sides. That is why I think, the compradors will eventually win if a sweeping cleaning
is not done as such a setup is open to external manipulation for tipping the balance on one
side.
Currently, the wind is blowing from the side of patriots so many people that are
influential position themselves on this side. But as said before, a patriot billionaire is an
oxymoron and they would switch sides when they feel themselves or their wealth are
threatened. That is why the military-security bureaucracy that spearheads the Russian
nationalist faction will eventually have to make a choice if they want to sustain their
power: either clean them up or try to juggle a a difficult balancing act while also not
completely alienating western elites. In my view, this cannot be done. But, since the
difference among them is not day and night for many an reverse transition of power in a
similar manner like the smooth transition from Yeltsin to Putin is most likely.
"... How is Trump different from Hillary? Here's how: Trump is MUCH better at playing the crowd. He is a MUCH better faux populist and distractor. Please take note: The left hates Trump for being a playboy and colluding with Russia!! Real issues like inequality and militarism are back page material. ..."
"... It's all political games now. One side promises too much, the other side corrects that, then goes overboard themselves. This back and forth APPEARS to rock the boat but no one of any importance ever falls out. Only the occasional wildcard - like Assange and Putin - give the establishment pause. ..."
Russia this and Russia that. It's a circus. It's a spectacle. Nothing more. US has one
party: the war party. US has one establishment that wants MOAR.
Why did Al Gore choose not to fight for the Presidency? Why did "liberal lion" Ted Kennedy
throw his support to Obama, the sneaky warmongering neoliberal? Why did Sanders not walk away
from the Democratic Party when it became clear that they conspired with the Hillary
campaign?
How is Trump different from Hillary? Here's how: Trump is MUCH better at playing the
crowd. He is a MUCH better faux populist and distractor. Please take note: The left hates Trump
for being a playboy and colluding with Russia!! Real issues like inequality and militarism are
back page material.
It's all political games now. One side promises too much, the other side corrects that,
then goes overboard themselves. This back and forth APPEARS to rock the boat but no one of any
importance ever falls out. Only the occasional wildcard - like Assange and Putin - give the
establishment pause.
"... Frankly; I'm so bloody fed up with this whole narrative; I don't care if it's true or not! What difference does it make? Russia, Russia, Russia; bloody hell; get over it! It's a massive distraction from many other vile things being done; war against Yemen; illegal US occupation of Syria; ongoing war in Ukraine; massive violations of the US constitution within the borders of the continental US; militarized police violence against US citizens; the list goes on ad infinitum... ..."
"... I'm shocked! Mayer has a stellar reputation, but this piece is riddled with errors and misinformation. Are they all sellouts in the MSM???? ..."
"... The term "presstitute" which is used for attacking pro-establishment media shills comes to mind. Formerly respectable outlets such as the New Yorker and their writer, Jane Mayer, have gone over into war crimes by in effect fomenting a new cold war based on falsehoods, similar to what the postwar less corrupt yankee imperium considered war crimes in the four power Nuremberg trial which convicted the editor of Der Stuermer, a Nazi sheet, on that basis. ..."
"... The reason why this whole Russiagate seems to go beyond the usual partisan tit-for-tat when it comes to the executive branch (Kenneth Star v. Clinton, Birthers v. Hussein-Obama, liberal-educated dems v. A fundamentalist-protestant dumbass W. Bush), is the absolute certainty which the MSM, the dems, and neocons spew their Russophobic spittle onto anyone that happens to be listening; meanwhile dragging Trump through the mud. The usual partisan coverage of prior executive branches were more evenhanded by news outlets (it resembled news). The current atmosphere resembles pure propaganda and smacks of utter desperation and globalist panic. ..."
"... The New Yorker refused to allow Sy Hersh to publish "The Red Line and the Rat Line", about the covert US effort to transfer weapons from Libya to Syrian jihadist groups, so he had to go to the London Review of Books. At that point it became clear the New Yorker had gone over into partisan pro-government propaganda publishing. ..."
"... These days the corporate media will often start a story with a lie. They think it's funny or something ..."
"... Mayer is no Judith Miller, but if it's not "selling out", she may be suffering from a case of incipient Judith Miller Syndrome. ..."
"... This New Yorker disinfomation piece is most likely not exclusively Ms Mayer's doing alone. David Remnick (NYer Publisher & Ms. Mayers boss) is a full fledged participant in the MSM'S ongoing 'Russian Collusion' narrative. ..."
"... Remnick is a full fledged supporter of our oligarchical, neocon establishment that's hell bent on establishing a US/Israel centered global hegemony since the break-up of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... So, we have yet another fraud promoting the initial fraud as Big Lie Nation manufactures and exports its #1 commodity. Those of us knowing Russiagate's yet another Big Lie ought to be shocked by the further digging of this massive excavation that can no longer be called a deep hole but aren't because the desperation's become all too predictable. The exceptional witch is melting live in living color! ..."
"... The Slate is another publication that wants to go to war with Russia, 'Why are we letting the Russians get away with it' ... https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/why-is-america-letting-russia-get-away-with-meddling-in-our-democracy.html What does Fred Kaplan want to do? Oh nothing crazy, just cyber espionage on the order of Stuxnet, or at least outing Putin's secret foreign bank accounts (or pilfering them). ..."
Frankly; I'm so bloody fed up with this whole narrative; I don't care if it's true or
not! What difference does it make? Russia, Russia, Russia; bloody hell; get over it! It's a
massive distraction from many other vile things being done; war against Yemen; illegal US
occupation of Syria; ongoing war in Ukraine; massive violations of the US constitution within
the borders of the continental US; militarized police violence against US citizens; the list
goes on ad infinitum...
CNN had another lengthy special report on alleged Trump-Russia collusion over the weekend.
Remember CNN was the lead-dog on the dossier with its release of the dossier fake news on Jan
10, 2017, just ten days before the Trump inauguration. But also remember what a CNN producer
said last summer about Trump-Russia collusion: " Could be
bullshit. I mean, it's mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don't have any big giant
proof ."
And twice Ms Mayer repeats the lie about "all US intelligence agencies concluding that Russia
interfered in the US election". Her phrasing: "that major U.S. intelligence agencies had
unanimously endorsed this view'" then: "It [the report] contained the agencies' unanimous
conclusion that, during the Presidential campaign, Putin had directed a cyber campaign aimed
at getting Trump elected."
These are obvious references to the January 6th 2017 "report" that was full of unsupported
assertions and distraction. Ms Mayer doesn't appear to be familiar with reasons to avoid
citing that report.
The New York Times has had to retract the "17 agencies lie"--did so at the end of June
2017. Ms Mayer doesn't appear to have noticed, or worse thought she could get away with
changing the phrasing of the lie slightly to "major intelligence agencies".
I too seemed to remember that Yahoo news had published on the Steele report in advance of
others in the press. Obviously the New Yorker staff didn't.
All very embarrassing for the New Yorker and Ms Mayer, will now of course be used to
question the validity of other Jane Mayer reporting.
I'm shocked! Mayer has a stellar reputation, but this piece is riddled with errors and
misinformation. Are they all sellouts in the MSM????
exiled off mainstreet , Mar 6, 2018 11:04:37 AM |
18
The term "presstitute" which is used for attacking pro-establishment media shills comes
to mind. Formerly respectable outlets such as the New Yorker and their writer, Jane Mayer,
have gone over into war crimes by in effect fomenting a new cold war based on falsehoods,
similar to what the postwar less corrupt yankee imperium considered war crimes in the four
power Nuremberg trial which convicted the editor of Der Stuermer, a Nazi sheet, on that
basis.
Ah, so the elitist award-winning (((culprit))) of
global warming propaganda and niece of "dark money" oligarch henchmen such as Emanuel Lehman
and Allan Nevins has written a eulogy for the creatures of the Imperial Swamp?
As a former, longtime New Yorker reader I can attest that the New Yorker's supposed fact
checking is basically non-existent. They do check rigorously for spelling and grammar to fit
the writing style of the magazine, but incorrect facts have riddled articles for decades.
They do publish a few letters each issue and occasionally allow criticisms through but for
the most part as long as the narrative fits what "the right sort of people believe" there
seems to be no standard for actually, you know, basing statements on reality.
My guess is that the Democratic Party, so addled at the top, splits by 2020. All it has for
the voters, which it repetitiously blares from its many organs -- CNN, MSNBC, NYT, New Yorker
-- is Russophobia. For instance, I ran into a guy last night who regularly watches MSNBC and
he said the network has not once mentioned the statewide teachers strike underway in West
Virginia. How's that for "leaning forward"?
The reason why this whole Russiagate seems to go beyond the usual partisan tit-for-tat
when it comes to the executive branch (Kenneth Star v. Clinton, Birthers v. Hussein-Obama,
liberal-educated dems v. A fundamentalist-protestant dumbass W. Bush), is the absolute
certainty which the MSM, the dems, and neocons spew their Russophobic spittle onto anyone
that happens to be listening; meanwhile dragging Trump through the mud. The usual partisan
coverage of prior executive branches were more evenhanded by news outlets (it resembled
news). The current atmosphere resembles pure propaganda and smacks of utter desperation and
globalist panic.
It makes the whole situation seem like Trump really is anti-establishment. That is where
the hope came from which won him the election and it continues on in his fanbase.
@24 nemesiscalling.. ditto your comment as well.. thanks..
The New Yorker refused to allow Sy Hersh to publish "The Red Line and the Rat Line",
about the covert US effort to transfer weapons from Libya to Syrian jihadist groups, so he
had to go to the London Review of Books. At that point it became clear the New Yorker had
gone over into partisan pro-government propaganda publishing.
It's also curious how the article doesn't really touch on Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry in the United States; that sector also donates heavily to Democrats, which is likely
why. There could be some issues there related to sanctions-dodging by ExxonMobil but digging
into that doesn't serve the political agenda, so. . . . Still nothing credible on the
evidence side as far as iI can tell.
Mayer has a stellar reputation, but this piece is riddled with errors and
misinformation. Are they all sellouts in the MSM????
____________________________________
Some well-regarded Amerikan investigative journalists seem deeply ambivalent when
reporting on US government, military, and intelligence (spook agencies) affairs.
They can be appropriately skeptical and critical some of the time-- admirable "watchdogs"
or "gadflies" in the best muckraking tradition. Their critical stories are even a form of
"speaking truth to power", and their reputation and popularity is deserved.
OTOH, at other times they seem to display a core uncritical regard, respect, and even
admiration for these institutions and their personnel. I've seen interviews with Mayer
following some exposé in which she comes across as being either deliberately
naïve, or reluctant to follow her own findings to an unacceptably radical logical
conclusion.
As in this article, Mayer is far more trusting and credulous of official sources than her
experience of their habitual mendacity dictates.
Sorry that I can't provide precise examples off the top of my head, but I think this is an
occupational hazard of journalists who spend their careers working (too) closely with
government insiders. Seymour Hersh and Jeremy Scahill come to mind.
In a nutshell, I think they're trying to be disinterested, dispassionate
journalists who report without fear or favor though the heavens fall, etc. But my
pop-psychology guess is that they also develop an affinity with their sources that
occasionally trips them up, and/or renders them vulnerable to manipulation by their vaunted
insider connections.
Or maybe it's comparable to the undercover drug enforcement agent who ends up getting
addicted and engaging in criminal activity after becoming too immersed in the life they're
supposed to be policing.
Mayer is no Judith Miller, but if it's not "selling out", she may be suffering from a
case of incipient Judith Miller Syndrome.
An autotranslated article about a pending(?) cw false flag in Syria with the usual cast of
cute children, fake wounds and the White "False Flags 'R US" Helmets. If they do pull
something off it may be worth keeping an eye open for these actors.
Fakebook and LiveJournal have already pulled the original articles this item was based
on.
This New Yorker disinfomation piece is most likely not exclusively Ms Mayer's doing
alone. David Remnick (NYer Publisher & Ms. Mayers boss) is a full fledged participant in
the MSM'S ongoing 'Russian Collusion' narrative.
Remember, even the great Sy Hersh had to go to the independent European press to publish
his 'controversial' article that methodically debunked the deep states fairy tale narrative
of events on what exactly went down in the infamous OBL Abottabad compound raid in 2011.
Hersh, up until then, exclusively published most of his investigative "bombshell" articles
in the New Yorker. Remnick is a full fledged supporter of our oligarchical, neocon
establishment that's hell bent on establishing a US/Israel centered global hegemony since the
break-up of the Soviet Union.
So, we have yet another fraud promoting the initial fraud as Big Lie Nation manufactures
and exports its #1 commodity. Those of us knowing Russiagate's yet another Big Lie ought to
be shocked by the further digging of this massive excavation that can no longer be called a
deep hole but aren't because the desperation's become all too predictable. The exceptional
witch is melting live in living color!
V.ARNOLD #7 ..You forget very important stuff....since 11/9/16 Dems they still wage war
against legally elected president PDJT...those whores did try everything..and nothing is
working......
BTW I do not believe that Putin has billions socked away offshore. If he did then Obama
would have revealed it on his way out the door and even if Obama didn't the CIA / FBI /
Treasury would have leaked it. Instead what they did was claim he had billions without
providing any proof.
Some Faraday bags allow you to reveive calls if placed in the front pouch and block all
signals at back pouch, while still offering complete EMP protection front or back
If you are able to receive a call on your cellphone - in a Faraday bag, or not, you are still
completely vulnerable to hacking and/or tracking. No "back of the bag EMP protection" claim
is gonna be able to block invasive signals - unless the pouch, or bag, or whatever it's
stored in is COMPLETELY impenetrable - period!
You can make your own Faraday bag with rolls of aluminum or tin foil spun around a crayon
box.
Anyway, cell phones are unavoidable tracking devices and can not be immunized from
surveillance and hacking http://hpub.org/article-64217/ so anybody with secrets
would avoid using one unless your name is Her Haughtiness Hillary Clinton and you keep an
unencrypted email server in your personal bathroom or, your name is Podesta and your google
account password is "password."
End to end encryption is available but requires cooperation on both ends.
I seem to recall that Steele was involved in the Magnitsky and Litvinenko cases and that he
has long made a living out of defending oligarchs against the Russian government's attempts
to collect taxes from them.
It is sad that Steele is polluting the air of Farnham an ancient town with a long history
which includes being the birthplace of some of the greatest English writers.
The Australian diplomat whose 2016 tip resulted in the FBI's Trump-Russia
counterintelligence investigation had previously arranged one of the largest donations to
Clinton charities, documents reveal.
...
Downer tipped off Australian authorities after a conversation with Trump campaign advisor
George Papadopoulos at a London bar, in which Papadopoulos reportedly said the Russians had
"dirt" on Hillary Clinton. After Australian authorities alerted the FBI, a
counterintelligence probe was launched according to reports
Greta work
It only proves that western journalist have become stenographers and propagandist for
pax-americana/anglo-zionist.
15000 word readers digest entry on the so called fourth estate. It only shows how desperate
they are in trying to keep the perception of the Russians ate my lunch. Seeing that the
Russian Federation just recently revealed that their invincibility as a Military force is
questionable Nato must be rethinking their first strike capacity.
Post Scriptum: It is sad to see not one nation in the west speaking of peace and detente but
of aggression and conquest. It smells like 1913 all over again especially since the Trump
regime has now opened up the can of worms TRADE WARS. If any individual with a semblance of
grey matter can critically analyse these moves one could see WAR on the horizon .
Firts currency wars then trade wars and docius in fundem Firing wars. How sad the weste has
become.
Alexander Downer has never been a diplomat, he was always a particularly sleazy politician
- may even have been leader of the opposition as head of Oz's conservative & misnamed
Liberal Party. The guy is the worst of the worst, a small time suburban solicitor (lawyer who
doesn't go to court), whose play was posing as a mock englander gentleman but never quite
pulling it off.
Anything Downer gets his sticky fingers into has two common features 1) It benefits A.Downer
and 2) It is a lie.
Tobin Paz @ 48, Debsisdead @ 54: I thought Alexander Downer had been sent overseas to play at
being ambassador or diplomat so as to limit the amount the damage he could cause just by his
very existence. Instead he hoovers up money faster than a pig can sniff out truffles.
I'm sorta enjoying it all it's so over the top I doubt anyone apart from the usual dingbats
& drongos, takes it seriously.
Just as the Steele dossier with its outrageous fictions led the way, the englanders are
outdoing themselves sledging Russia and Russians.
Even the seemingly innocuous 'weatherman' has been getting in on the act, England has been
even colder than usual and before the freeze over actually began the incessant weather
reports which dominate englander 'news' was warning of a cold wind from Siberia that was in
evil Russian fashion about to "freeze the balls off Her Majesty's brass monkey".
The cooler air a direct result of western europe's (including england) two century long
penchant for burning shit up which had raised the temperature of the Arctic seas to the point
where even in the middle of winter the North Pole waters no longer freeze. Warm seas=warmer
air which rises and cooler air comes in to fill the gap blah, blah but that didn't stop the
weather reports, which by the time england was frozen the cause had been casually abbreviated
into "the beast from the east". Cold are you englanders? Don't forget to blame Russia and
Russians while you salute Stephenson's Rocket (the instigator) and you wait for a train which
will never come thanks to Thatcherism/neoliberalism/can't pick Johnnie Foreigner's pocket any
more, better pick Johnnie Neighbours.
But blaming the weather on Russia is so last week, this week it is all about some
treasonous former KGB colonel and his daughter who prolly offed themselves in the most public
way possible
since their lives turned to shit . Natch the englander media being what it is, the
traitor was executed at the behest of the man himself Vladimir Putin. Except of course the
timing is inexplicable as Prez Putin is about to have an election - sorry 'election'
(elections in Russia have to have single quotes around em because the winner is not supported
by any englander newspaper and must therefore be a put up job cos englander fishwraps never
get it wrong). The old cui bene is relevant since this death happened at a bad time for
Russia one is left asking if the traitor didn't top himself who else would want it right now,
certainly not Russia's leadership.
I can still remember 50 years later exactly how gobsmacked I was the first time I read a
serious englander newspaper and discovered that these otherwise seemingly intelligent journos
actually believed all this Cold War horseshit that we used to laugh at in the South. Yeah
amerika sure they believe anything they are told to, but the englanders subscribe to this
nonsense - how can that be? I was young and naive and didn't realise that the most truthful
parts of englander media are in the boxes around the edges of the articles. The real
commercials are the news stories. In england in the 1970's all the foreign correspondents had
two jobs, there was the newspaper gig which paid well but felt sleazy and the other gig with
the SIS aka MI6 which was a good way to rub shoulders with the elite plus it covered the
kids' public school fees.
Nothing about englander media can be believed, for a long time the audience was entirely
captive so the earn was guaranteed with more money if you could tell a really big lie. Big
enough to generate headlines and start a fleet street feeding frenzy. Those days are gone the
journos know no other way to work so the stories are getting more tawdry and less believable
by the day.
This is the poisonous atmosphere the Steele dossier came out of. There is certain to be a
few doubles in the generation of this yarn That is the double giggers englander journo by day
wannabe 'secret' agent by night. Steele wasn't allowed into Russia so who else is he gonna
call?
It's becoming more amusing. From Stars and Stripes--
WASHINGTON, Mar 6 -- Senators grilled the top intel chief Tuesday, pushing for details of a
U.S. plan to stave off attempts of Russian meddling and cyberattacks .
In a tense congressional hearing examining worldwide threats, the lawmakers expressed
frustration that the U.S., hampered by President Donald Trump, hasn't done enough to
address past and future Russian cyberattacks.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats testified before the Senate Armed Services
Committee that while counterintelligence work is underway, the details of those operations
are classified.
"The American people deserve to know whether or not the president directed his top
intelligence officials to effectively counter this continuing act of war on our
country ," Sen. Richard Blumethal, D-Conn., said in a sharp exchange with Coats.
The comments come a week after a hearing before the same committee when U.S. Cyber
Command Chief Adm. Mike Rogers said that Russia has paid little for its interference in
the 2016 elections , and that he hasn't been authorized by Trump to combat future
attempts.
There are growing concerns that Russia will target this year's elections and that the
U.S. hasn't done enough to counter that effort.
"We're taking steps, but we're probably not doing enough ," Rogers told the
committee last week. . .
here
President Putin must be enjoying this. I know I am.
"...looked much like the other businessmen heading home, except for the fact that he kept his
phones in a Faraday bag -- a pouch, of military-tested double-grade fabric, designed to block
signal detection..."
A practical man, Steele also kept a giant roll of telephone line attached to his belt.
Unrolling it as he proceeded down the high street, he glanced upwards.
A Pteranodon, perched upon the slate roof was watching him closely. A bead of sweat
appeared on his temple, just showing underneath the rim of his bowler hat, trickling down the
side of his face, the leaving a streak that resembled a long forgotten river delta.
A chimmney sweet was approaching him on his right, whistling a jaunty tune, his bag of
extendable brushes jingling and clanking, just like Steele's nerves. Obviously a Russian
operative, the sweep was whistling an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty, an ominous
warning...
This part of the New Yorker article could be sheer comedy gold:
'... Regardless of what others might think, it's clear that Steele believed that his
dossier was filled with important intelligence. Otherwise, he would never have subjected it,
his firm, and his reputation to the harsh scrutiny of the F.B.I. "I'm impressed that he was
willing to share it with the F.B.I.," [former CIA spook John Sipher] said. "That gives him
real credibility to me, the notion that he'd give it to the best intelligence professionals
in the world."...'
FBI, best intelligence professionals in the world? Didn't the FBI along with the CIA miss
most indications of a looming terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in the months
leading up to September 11, 2001?
A former CIA officer called John Sipher, calling a rival organisation 'the best
intelligence professionals in the world'?
"... Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have been the FBI, not the CIA. ..."
"... But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations, opines : ..."
"... An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by, say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by multiple newspaper stories..." ..."
"... Use big words to conceal nonsense and say nothing. ..."
"... Robert Hannigan, head of GCHQ, resigned for "personal reasons" on Jan. 23 2017, a week after Trump's inauguration. ..."
Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller (yes, I know it is not deemed reputable) looked into some
claims Mayer makes in her piece which, if true, contain new morsels on the issue. They support
the standpoint that the whole dossier is fake. These points are:
Steele likely knew who funded the dossier
Steele used dozens of paid confidential 'collectors', not unpaid ones
Steele may have earlier worked for a Kremlin-connected oligarch
The salacious claims in the dossier were based on secondhand information
Steele briefed Jane Mayer during the campaign
A John McCain associate wanted to use dossier to force Trump to resign
Another new point in the Mayer piece, not in the above list, is an alleged meeting
between the head of the British spy service GCHQ and the head of the CIA John Brennan in which
GCHQ briefs Brennan about alleged interceptions of communication between Trump campaign
associates and Russia. This is curious because the usual contact for such a case should have
been the FBI, not the CIA.
But some have suggested that the Brennan came up with the idea or at least directed the
campaign of smearing Trump over made-up connections with Russia. For legal reasons and
deniability the affair the creation of "evidence" was outsourced to the British partners. As
Pat Lang, who has led large intelligence spying and counter-intelligence operations,
opines :
IMO there was a criminal conspiracy among various parts of the government, the Clinton
Campaign and the MSM to rig the election against Trump, and it continues. pl
Posted by b on March 6, 2018 at 05:12 AM |
Permalink
Nicely written piece. It just leaves you shaking your head in disbelief sometimes, the brazen
repetition of utter nonsense and total lies in hopes that it will eventually start to stick.
And I had also noticed some time back the rampant circular citations bootstrapped into being
called evidence. An unnamed, unknown, unvetted "government official" source is reported by,
say, WP, which is then reported by the Times (? since when did competing newspapers use each
other as confirmation?), so that official government spokespeople now report "as confirmed by
multiple newspaper stories..."
No wonder the New Yorker and their ilk stick to print rather than video...with AV media,
you would be able to hear the heavy breathing and wiki-wiki-wiki sounds of turd polishing in
the background.
And of course this one assertion by Steele is used by the Hannity's of the world to assert
that Trump was the victim of a Russian misinformation campaign ...
"In the reports Steele had collected, the names of the sources were omitted, but they were
described as "a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the
Kremlin,""
The beauty of it is that this alleged source never has to be revealed because it would
endanger the source so we have to take this Boy Scouts word for it.
How about the report graun had today; The Russians had poisoned their ex-spy? Another made up
crap.
The NYer is another web of deceit, the web of zionism. All of msm is.
@22
The possible poisoned spy case is now being used by Boris Johnson for a possible boycott of
the Moscow World Cup. It is obvious bullshit and a rerun of the litvinenko affair some years
ago.
Also an Mi6 setup in my opinion. The Russians provided a shipload of LNG to alleviate gas
shortages in Britain. Boris Johnson is an ungrateful sack of S--t
Max Blumenthal has observed that much of what is in the "dossier" was available in the public
sphere. The dossier is touted as being deep revelation totally missed a figure like
Papadopoulos, who only appeared to the public after the dossier was published. Strange that.
What seems strange is that so many people in Russia were willing to divulge what would
have been closely held secrets like the golden showers tape. Putin is described in the
Western press as somebody who would disappear you if you even criticized his shoe laces.
"... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
"... Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. "I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes." ..."
"... Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal. ..."
"... Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative. ..."
"... Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men. ..."
"... That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates." ..."
First, Jim Comey and Bob Mueller have a long history as professional allies. For Mueller to be brought in to investigate the behavior
of the guy who sacked Comey seems a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is the wrong way to look at it, and Mueller's professionalism
will supersede any personal loyalty. OK, but here's a second reason: These two guys, working in tandem, have a track record of bureaucratic
infighting -- with another Republican White House as their shared adversary -- that belies their reputations for being above political
intrigue. This is not news. Some of the positive coverage in the last few days highlighted that episode. It's a long and convoluted
story, but the story line that took hold in Washington went like this:
In March 2004, Comey, then deputy attorney general, sped with sirens blazing to the hospital bedside of his boss, John Ashcroft,
who was recovering from gallbladder surgery. At the time, the Justice Department was being pressured by White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card to sign papers reauthorizing a secret anti-terrorism domestic surveillance program initiated
after 9/11. The clock was running out and the papers had to be signed or the program would lapse. But Comey, who had a dim view of
the program's constitutionality, wouldn't do it. When he heard Gonzales and Card were on their way to the hospital, Comey rushed
there, too, to stop them.
Comey had enlisted Bob Mueller, then FBI director, as an ally. Both men apparently told George W. Bush privately they'd quit rather
than extend the program. "Here I stand, I can do no other," Comey told Bush. That's Martin Luther's iconic line, and although in
2016 Hillary Clinton would come to see Comey as more akin to Judas than Luther, one thing is apparent: Jim Comey is a government
appointee who thinks of himself in a manner many people find grandiose. Bush backed down in the face of the Comey-Mueller insurrection,
but three years later Comey told his dramatic Ashcroft hospital bed story in a congressional hearing that eviscerated Gonzales, who
was attorney general by then.
The third and most important factor tempering my enthusiasm for the new special prosecutor is that Comey and Mueller badly bungled
the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks that took five lives and infected
17 other people, shut down the U.S. Capitol and Washington's mail system, solidified the Bush administration's antipathy for Iraq,
and eventually, when the facts finally came out, made the FBI look feckless, incompetent, and easily manipulated by outside political
pressure.
This, too, was an enormously complex case. But here are some facts: Despite the jihadist slogans accompanying the mailed anthrax,
it had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or any foreign element; the FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual
anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed
on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill; the bureau was bullied into focusing on the government scientist by Democratic Sen. Patrick
Leahy (whose office, along with that of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, was targeted by an anthrax-laced letter) and was duped
into focusing on Hatfill by two sources -- a conspiracy-minded college professor with a political agenda who'd never met Hatfill
and by Nicholas Kristof, who put her conspiracy theories in the paper while mocking the FBI for not arresting Hatfill.
In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium.
(Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit
of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters -- including the woman who provided the long-ignored tip to the FBI).
So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from
California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill,
who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that
he must be the killer.
You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least
checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted
-- and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative
book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's
dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."
Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft
and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell -- the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing.
Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.
Such certitude seems to be Comey's default position in his professional life. Mueller didn't exactly distinguish himself with
contrition, either. In 2008, after Ivins committed suicide as he was about to be apprehended for his crimes, and the Justice Department
had formally exonerated Hatfill -- and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement -- Mueller could not be bothered to walk across
the street to attend the press conference announcing the case's resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless.
"I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation," he said, adding that it would be erroneous "to say there were mistakes."
Does this mean Comey and Mueller are bad guys? I'm not saying that. Mueller, for one, answered his country's call and enlisted
in the U.S. Marine Corps when many others of his generation were avoiding combat service in Vietnam. Both men have forsaken millions
of dollars in salary at private law firms for public service. Neither has ever had a hint of personal scandal.
I know Steven Hatfill's attorney, Thomas Connolly, well, and David Willman, a former newsroom colleague, even better -- and I
spoke to them last week about these events. Connolly said he thought Comey was a "decent guy" who was legitimately fooled by
that business with the dogs. And while Willman and I were discussing whether Mueller's reputation for competence was deserved, the
reporter volunteered that he did not question the man's integrity. Fair enough. I would, however, pose this query to the keepers
of official Washington's agreed-upon narrative.
While running for president, Donald Trump promised to "drain the swamp." He won enough votes, in the right states, to make him
president. So here's the question: How does official Washington, which clearly does not want to be drained, think the 63 million
people who voted for Trump will feel about an investigation run by D.C. insiders with a history of grandstanding -- an investigation
that some Democrats and commentators are saying aloud they hope will end in impeachment? And what will those Trump voters think of
uncritical media coverage of this effort by a self-righteous press corps that has suddenly rediscovered its investigative-reporting
impulses, and which behaves as if little of this relevant context is even worth mentioning? .
Carl M. Cannon is executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.
Having lived inside the Beltway for years getting my first graduate degree, and having returned there repeatedly in the
course of a couple decades of federal service, I can tell you that there are no heroes there, and damn few honorable men.
I recall sitting in the senate gallery once, doing a little studying somewhere warm while waiting for my bus (security was
pretty lax in those days) watching Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms going at it like the sergeant at arms was going to have to physically
restrain them from killing one another. It was all Kabuki theater.
That night I saw them partying together in a Georgetown bar with their hands up the skirts of a couple Senate pages. Not
interns, PAGES who were only high school age. But nobody was going to refuse to over serve a couple of senators nor even their
too young to be in the bar (or legally consent to what was going on, even if they had been older) "dates."
And over the next four or five decades, the place has changed little, and that mainly for the worse. No, if you are expecting
to find people of honor, don't waste your time looking at those who have spent their careers inside the beltway.
The "Russian officials were accusing the United States," while there was supposedly
actual "Russian behavior, including interventions in Ukraine and Syria, military
posturing and harassment in Europe, and interference in
Western elections ," which pretexts the Establishment is now debating with itself whether
that will be sufficient to 'justify' an American and NATO invasion, as response. This
holier-than-thou and upside-down presumption, of Russian-government guilt and
American-government innocence, is reeking throughout that pompous article; but what's even
worse is that the reality is exactly the opposite of the story-line that's portrayed in it. The
actual reality is: Ever
since 24 February 1990, the U.S. and its NATO allies have been pursuing secretly a continuation
of the Cold War after the termination in 1991 of the Soviet Union, and of its communism,
and of its counter-NATO military alliance, the Warsaw Pact; and the U.S. plan has been to
swallow up, first the former Warsaw Pact nations, and then the former nations (such as Ukraine
itself) that were inside the Soviet Union itself, and then, any other foreign allies that
Russia might still have (such as Syria); and, then, finally, to invade and conquer Russia
itself. And, instead of helping those countries, the U.S. Government has been destroying
them.
This part of the New Yorker article could be sheer comedy gold:
'... Regardless of what others might think, it's clear that Steele believed that his
dossier was filled with important intelligence. Otherwise, he would never have subjected it,
his firm, and his reputation to the harsh scrutiny of the F.B.I. "I'm impressed that he was
willing to share it with the F.B.I.," [former CIA spook John Sipher] said. "That gives him
real credibility to me, the notion that he'd give it to the best intelligence professionals
in the world."...'
FBI, best intelligence professionals in the world? Didn't the FBI along with the CIA miss
most indications of a looming terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in the months
leading up to September 11, 2001?
A former CIA officer called John Sipher, calling a rival organisation 'the best
intelligence professionals in the world'?
"...looked much like the other businessmen heading home, except for the fact that he kept his
phones in a Faraday bag -- a pouch, of military-tested double-grade fabric, designed to block
signal detection..."
A practical man, Steele also kept a giant roll of telephone line attached to his belt.
Unrolling it as he proceeded down the high street, he glanced upwards.
A Pteranodon, perched upon the slate roof was watching him closely. A bead of sweat
appeared on his temple, just showing underneath the rim of his bowler hat, trickling down the
side of his face, the leaving a streak that resembled a long forgotten river delta.
A chimmney sweet was approaching him on his right, whistling a jaunty tune, his bag of
extendable brushes jingling and clanking, just like Steele's nerves. Obviously a Russian
operative, the sweep was whistling an excerpt from Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty, an ominous
warning...
"... The evidence is damning. And the silence underscores the arrogance. ..."
"... More than seven weeks after a devastating report from the media watch group FAIR, top executives and prime-time anchors at MSNBC still refuse to discuss how the network's obsession with Russia has thrown minimal journalistic standards out the window. ..."
The evidence is damning. And the silence underscores the arrogance.
More than seven weeks after a devastating report from the media watch group FAIR, top executives and prime-time anchors at
MSNBC still refuse to discuss how the network's obsession with Russia has thrown minimal journalistic standards out the window.
"An analysis by FAIR has found that the leading liberal cable network did not run a single segment devoted specifically to
Yemen in the second half of 2017. And in these latter roughly six months of the year, MSNBC ran nearly 5,000 percent more segments
that mentioned Russia than segments that mentioned Yemen."
"Moreover, in all of 2017, MSNBC only aired one broadcast on the U.S.-backed Saudi airstrikes that have killed thousands of
Yemeni civilians. And it never mentioned the impoverished nation's colossal cholera epidemic, which infected more than 1 million
Yemenis in the
largest outbreak in recorded history ."
"All of this is despite the fact that the U.S. government has played a leading role in the 33-month war that has devastated
Yemen, selling
many billions
of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia, refueling Saudi warplanes as they relentlessly bomb civilian areas and providing
intelligence
and military assistance to the Saudi air force."
Meanwhile, MSNBC's incessant "Russiagate" coverage has put the network at the media forefront of overheated hyperbole about the
Kremlin. And continually piling up the dry tinder of hostility toward Russia boosts the odds of a cataclysmic blowup between the
world's two nuclear superpowers.
In effect, the programming on MSNBC follows a thin blue party line, breathlessly conforming to Democratic leaders' refrains about
Russia as a mortal threat to American democracy and freedom across the globe. But hey -- MSNBC's ratings have climbed upward during
its monochrome reporting, so why worry about whether coverage is neglecting dozens of other crucial stories? Or why worry if the
anti-Russia drumbeat is worsening the risks of a global conflagration?
FAIR's report, written by journalist Ben Norton and published on Jan. 8, certainly merited a serious response from MSNBC and the
anchors most identified by the study, Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes . Yet no response has come from them or network executives. (Full
disclosure: I'm a longtime associate of FAIR.)
In the aftermath of the FAIR study, a petition gathered 22,784 signers and 4,474 individual comments -- asking MSNBC to remedy
its extreme imbalance of news coverage. But the network and its prime-time luminaries Maddow and Hayes refused to respond despite
repeated requests for a reply.
The petition was submitted in late January to Maddow and Hayes via their producers, as well as to MSNBC senior vice president
Errol Cockfield and to the network's senior manager in charge of media relations for "The Rachel Maddow Show" and "All In with Chris
Hayes."
Signers responded to outreach from three organizations -- Just Foreign Policy, RootsAction.org (which I coordinate), and World
Beyond War -- calling for concerned individuals to "urge Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, and MSNBC to correct their failure to report
on the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen and the direct U.S. military role in causing the catastrophe by signing our petition." (The
petition
is still gathering signers.)
As the cable news network most trusted by Democrats as a liberal beacon, MSNBC plays a special role in fueling rage among progressive-minded
viewers toward Russia's "attack on our democracy" that is somehow deemed more sinister and newsworthy than corporate dominance of
American politicians (including Democrats), racist voter suppression, gerrymandering and many other U.S. electoral defects all put
together.
At the same time, the anti-Russia mania also services the engines of the current militaristic machinery.
It's what happens when nationalism and partisan zeal overcome something that could be called journalism.
"The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda," the independent journalist Robert Parry
wrote at the end of 2017 , in
the last article published before his death. "Does any sentient human being read the New York Times' or the Washington Post's
coverage of Russia and think that he or she is getting a neutral or unbiased treatment of the facts?"
Parry added that
"to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a 'Putin apologist' or 'Kremlin stooge.' Western journalists
now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia.
Ironically, many 'liberals' who cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam
War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us, even if we're told to accept the assertions
on faith."
Across a U.S. media landscape where depicting Russia as a fully villainous enemy is now routine, MSNBC is a standout. The most
profound dangers from what Rachel Maddow and company are doing is what they least want to talk about -- how the cumulative effects
and momentum of their work are increasing the likelihood that tensions between Washington and Moscow will escalate into a horrendous
military conflict.
Even at the height of the Cold War during the 1960s, when Soviet Communists ruled Russians with zero freedom of speech or press,
most U.S. political and media elites recognized the vital need for détente. They applauded the "
Spirit of Glassboro
" when the top leadership of the United States and Russia met at length. Now, across most of the U.S. media spectrum, no such overtures
to the Kremlin are to be tolerated.
The U.S. government's recently released "
Nuclear Posture Review "
underscores just how unhinged the situation has become.
Consider the assessment from the head of a first-rate research organization in the nuclear weapons field, the Los Alamos Study
Group. Its executive director,
Greg Mello,
said :
"What is most 'missing in action' in this document is civilian leadership. Trump is not supplying that. In part the fault for
this comes from Democrats -- who, allied with the intelligence community and other military-industrial interests, insist that
the U.S. must have an adversarial relationship with Russia. There is no organized senior-level opposition to the new Cold War,
which is intensifying week by week. This document reflects, and is just one of many policies embodying, the new and very dangerous
Cold War."
But -- with everyone's survival at stake
-- none of that seems to matter much to those who call the shots at MSNBC.
*
Norman Solomon is the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org.
"... It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war. ..."
"... And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by tacitly backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing. ..."
"... In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned , "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day" -- a remark aimed directly at Russia. ..."
"... NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that "our generation has become used to wars of choice since the end of the Cold War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with Russia." He added , "The parallels with 1914 are stark." ..."
"... Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, U.S. Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as " imperial ," an ironic choice of words given Washington's more overtly imperial history in the region. ..."
"... While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons, Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia -- or, for that matter, the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The U.S. and its NATO allies currently spend more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments, and even that vastly underestimates Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as "military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5 trillion. ..."
"... The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. still outspends China almost three to one. Fact in Washington's major regional allies -- Japan, Australia, and South Korea -- and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1. ..."
"... Meanwhile, China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by building up its navy, and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep potential enemies at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships, and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area denial." It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the U.S.: 1.9 percent as opposed to 3.3 percent as of 2016. ..."
"... But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856, when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895 and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them. ..."
"... Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about "Communist subversion," but trade. ..."
"... For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time. "Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force. ..."
"... And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's loss to Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program. ..."
"... Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia " would be like declaring war ." ..."
The U.S. has never taken its eyes off its big competitors.
It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the
Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current
tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea
as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when
it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war.
It was President George W. Bush who designated China a "strategic competitor," and who tried
to lure India into an anti-Chinese alliance by allowing New Delhi to violate the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Letting India purchase uranium on the international market -- it was
barred from doing so by refusing to sign the NPT -- helped ignite the dangerous nuclear arms
race with Pakistan in South Asia.
And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by tacitly
backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between
Washington and Beijing.
So is jettisoning "terrorism" as the enemy in favor of "great powers" just old wine, new
bottle? Not quite. For one thing the new emphasis has a decidedly more dangerous edge to
it.
1914 vs. Today
In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary
James Mattis warned , "If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day" -- a
remark aimed directly at Russia.
NATO ally Britain went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick
Carter, told the Defense and Security Forum that "our generation has become used to wars of
choice since the end of the Cold War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with
Russia."
He added , "The parallels with 1914 are stark."
Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described
as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, U.S. Defense
Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as "
imperial ," an ironic choice of words given Washington's more overtly imperial history in the
region.
But there are differences between now and the run up to the First World War. In 1914, there
were several powerful and evenly matched empires at odds. That is not the case today.
While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons,
Russia today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia -- or, for that matter, the Soviet
Union.
The U.S. and its NATO allies currently spend
more than 12 times what Russia does on its armaments, and even that vastly underestimates
Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as
"military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5
trillion.
The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. still outspends China
almost three to one. Fact in Washington's major regional allies -- Japan, Australia, and South
Korea -- and that figure is almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly
greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1.
This isn't to say that the military forces of Russia and China are irrelevant. Russia's
intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the anti-Assad coalition put
together by the United States. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its "aggression" is
arguably a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's doorstep.
Meanwhile, China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by
building up its navy, and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep
potential enemies at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships,
and missiles capable of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area
denial." It has also modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing
in air and sea assets. However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the U.S.:
1.9 percent as
opposed to 3.3 percent as of 2016.
Beijing has been heavy-handed in establishing "area denial," alienating many of its
neighbors -- Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan -- by claiming most of the South
China Sea and building bases in the Paracel and Spratly islands.
But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856,
when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895
and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them.
China is, however, the United States' major competitor and the second largest economy in the
world. It has replaced the U.S. as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully
outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the U.S. asked its
key allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with
the exception of Japan , they ignored Washington.
However, commercial success is hardly "imperial."
Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet
Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems,
socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about
"Communist subversion," but trade.
Behind the Shift
There are other players behind this shift.
For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems,
Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time.
"Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers,
submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force.
This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms
company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have
spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a
stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those often high paying jobs.
Nor are the Republicans going to get much opposition on increased defense spending from the
Democrats, many of whom are as hawkish as their colleagues across the aisle. That's true even
though higher defense spending -- coupled with the recent tax cut bill -- will rule out funding
many of the programs the Democrats hold dear. Of course, for the Republicans that dilemma is a
major side benefit: cut taxes, increase defense spending, then dismantle social services,
Social Security, and Medicare in order to service the deficit.
And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the
Russians. The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's
loss to Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own
lackluster campaign and unimaginative political program.
There are other actors pushing this new emphasis as well, including the Bush
administration's neoconservatives who launched the Iraq War. Their new target is Iran, even
though inflating Iran to the level of a "great power" is laughable. Iran's military budget is
$12.3 billion. Saudi Arabia alone spends $63.7 billion on defense, slightly less than Russia,
which has five times the population and eight times the land area. In a clash between Iran and
the U.S. and its local allies, the disparity in military strength would be closer to 60 to 1 .
However, in terms of disasters, even Iraq would pale before a war with Iran.
The most dangerous place in the world right now is the Korean Peninsula, where the Trump
administration appears to be casting around for some kind of military demonstration that will
not ignite a nuclear war. But how would China react to an attack that might put hostile troops
on its southern border?
Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's
largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia "
would be like
declaring war ."
"... Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and slipping further into decline. ..."
"... This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in the West are causing. ..."
I don't understand the last three paragraphs of your comment so I may be missing
your central point. However, I believe this sentence taken in isolation could do with
qualifying:-
"No doubt there is a lot of noise, but the reality is that economically Russia is a basket
case and the US is rapidly joining them."
The picture one gets of Russia is of a country slowly digging itself out of the
disintegrative corruption of the 90's. Putin's recent remarks indicate how slowly.
President Carter's characterisation of the US as now being an oligarchy shows the US
slowly going the other way. Even including Germany that is the general picture in the
West.
Some recent remarks and examples from DH show the Russian people, or rather a substantial
number of them, soberly and consciously preparing to address the threat from the West. Unless
it's all Russian PR there is a sense of national unity there, at least for many, and that is
reflected by the Russian leadership.
I'm afraid our host is correct when he characterises the current anti-Russian sentiment in
the West as hysterical. That, however, is I believe largely top down. It is a product of PR
from the media and from the Western politicians. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or
national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided
within themselves.
The Russians seem also to have escaped the demoralising effects of the more far out social
trends in the US and other Western countries.
Therefore, if we must see this in terms of conflict, we see a dramatically less
powerful and dramatically poorer but essentially unified Russia facing up to a threat from a
West that is far superior militarily and economically but that is divided in itself and
slipping further into decline.
This does of course lead to the unstable world you say we are faced with. Dangerously
unstable. But I do not believe you are admitting to yourself that it is an instability we in
the West are causing.
Trump +247: Mueller, the 9/11 Cover-up and the DNC Crisis
Robert Mueller is
considered to be a man of integrity, of impeccable credentials and character. His appointment
to investigate Russian involvement in the 2016 election was lauded by the Establishment
political class, media and a great deal of the public. And yet the same media is utterly
failing to connect his name to the recent Saudi scandal that's been quietly making the news. It
seems the media would rather this story just went away. For years some of the families
associated with the victims of 9/11 have been dissatisfied with the official investigation.
With good reason they view it as insufficient, truncated and even corrupt.
Many angles of the 9/11 story were not investigated and many more received only a surface
level consideration. The Saudi angle as some would have it has not been sufficiently considered
and as the years have gone by numerous investigations and inquiries seem to point to Riyadh
playing no small role in the attacks. Many believed this to be the case even in the fall of
2001. Saudi politics have always been confusing and the relationship of the extensive royal
family with jihadist groups has always been a present danger but murky and difficult to grasp.
On the one hand there's a real antagonism between the House of Saud and groups like al Qaeda.
On the other hand the Saudis have provided extensive funding for the spread of Wahhabism and
they certainly played no small part in funding some of the Mujahideen groups in 1980's
Afghanistan. Some of these same figures (including but not limited to bin Laden) would be
instrumental in the founding of al Qaeda. This part of the story isn't all that controversial.
Where it becomes problematic for many is that the US and all too often Israel have been right
there, right alongside Riyadh in backing these various projects. US intelligence continues to
struggle in distancing itself from the founders and initial characters surrounding the founding
of al Qaeda and even some of the important figures that later affiliated with the Taliban. You
can be sure the media has done all it can to facilitate the re-crafting of the narrative. The
so-called 9/11 families were always suspicious of Riyadh. It's understandable considering the
fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Investigations have shown that Saudi
diplomats and intelligence were in contact with some of these men and even high ranking figures
like Ambassador Prince Bandar were involved in funding them. The thing is, the connections
point not only to the Saudis but to American intelligence... both the FBI and the CIA. These
terrorists were facilitated. The story of their entry and surveillance is more than a little
remarkable. There were agents that were on to them but they were silenced and set aside. The
scale of the 9/11 cover-up ranges far beyond some Saudi connections to the hijackers. Some
believe this is all about money, the connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud.
Michael Moore and others have intimated as much. But that can't be the whole story. That might
explain some of the cover-up, though such an explanation is hardly sufficient. It does not
explain the way in which these men were facilitated by the FBI in the days leading up to 9/11.
The CIA angle is also worth looking into and is potentially vast and certainly more than a
little suspicious.
Mueller as head of the FBI played a leading role in the suppression of the 9/11 investigation.
If there is a cover-up, as indeed I and many others believe there to be, then Mueller is one of
the chief perpetrators. Mueller at this point must be reckoned a top figure (or more likely an
actor/agent) within the Deep State. His task vis-à-vis the 9/11 investigation was to
obscure the hijacker's connections to US intelligence and to deflect any investigation of the
Saudi's. For those that have sought to peel back the layers of deception surrounding 9/11 and
its cover-up, Mueller is undoubtedly reckoned one of the great villains of the whole affair. To
reckon him a man of integrity is laughable... if such things can be laughed at. The fact that
he was selected to investigate supposed Russian manipulation of the US election is more than a
little interesting. The ironic part is this... those who question 9/11 are deemed conspiracy
theorists. And yet the whole Putin/Trump/Wikileaks narrative which Mueller will supposedly
uncover is... a conspiracy theory and yet one without merit. All too often conspiracy theories
are rooted in conjecture and inference based on circumstantial evidence. That they all too
often err does not discount the reality of a conspiracy. It's simply that there are too many
gaps in knowledge or often false assumptions driving the inference. The Ockham's Razor
reductionist method of focusing purely on so-called brute facts also proves insufficient to
postulate unifying theories and in fact is often hostile to the attempt. For a conspiracy
theory to be plausible the inference has to make sense in light of the larger context and what
can hopefully be described as overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It's akin to and often is
criminal in nature. There has to be motive and intent. There has to be some benefit in terms of
the outcome. These questions do not guarantee a correct answer or an accurate interpretation of
events but they are at the very least necessary to employ the inference that is at the heart of
all such inquiries and investigations. The Russian narrative with regard to the 2016 US
presidential election fails this most basic of tests. The motives and outcome of the supposed
conspiracists fails on all fronts.
I'm speaking politically at this point. Profits and dirty
business deals (of which there is some evidence) cannot be entirely divorced from politics, but
the motives, means and desired outcome are often quite different. There a host of narratives
being spun about Trump and the nature of his administration. Once again I would argue the
proper way to understand these events is in terms of an Establishment internecine battle. The
present political struggle is not about an embattled Establishment at war with an insurgent
rogue power. Rather I view it as a battle of intramural factions and yet undoubtedly some of
those factions view this struggle as existential... or it is in their tactical interest to cast
it thus. The DNC is in a state of crisis. It has turned to the media, to Hollywood and
entertainment figures and to conspiracy theories to explain the election. The results of the
2016 election have discredited their narrative about the United States, what it is and what
direction it is heading. Are they that different from Trump? The answer is a resounding 'no'
and while they grandstand for the cameras in decrying his thuggish buffoonery they have offered
little political resistance to his agenda.
Hillary Clinton is trying to salvage her legacy. Her
defeat in 2016 discredited her life-narrative and historical legacy. She was to go down in
history as the great pioneer in modern American politics. Obama stole some of her thunder. Her
subsequent defeat at the hands of Donald Trump has completely discredited her. Corrupt, plastic
and probably self-deceived she has turned in desperation to a grand conspiracy theory in order
to justify her loss. As she sees it, she is not a defeated politician but the victim of a
crime. It would seem that in her distorted mind she is only one tier below the assassinated
Kennedy brothers. Hers is a great administration stolen, a tragic 'what if' that will haunt
American political history. But it's all nonsense of course as are the often contrived Kennedy
narratives. The two slain brothers are intriguing figures to be sure, complicated and yet
hardly the virtuous paragons they are often made out to be. They represented possibility and
yet the change in their character came too late. Clinton has also changed and shifted in her
outlook but in quite the opposite direction.
She is not the 'liberal' woman many took her to be
in the 1990s. And yet she has only grown more deeply entrenched and tied to the US
Establishment. She ranks high on the list of corrupt politicians and she utterly lacks the
charm and personal connection that many colourful political figures have possessed. She can't
even compete with her husband.
Odious to be sure he is nevertheless a masterful politician. The
dirty secret of modern democracy is that it has little to do with objective consideration of
issues. Some people vote for tribal factions and some vote on the basis of personality. The
latter are the folks who are most easily manipulated by the Madison Avenue types and the
camera-work of television producers and directors. The Democrats who were once perceived to
have stood for the working class have been exposed. Generations of betrayal and the breaking of
the trade unions have destroyed that old base that helped put them into office for several
decades. They still command a great deal of the minority vote but their grip is not as solid as
it once was and social disintegration has led to a great deal of apathy. Figures like Hillary
Clinton are not capable of stirring the disengaged masses to participation. The truth is that
Hillary Clinton has long been hated by a huge section of the electorate.
The DNC has lost vast
portions of its base. The Democrats have embraced sexual perversion and identity politics and
yet have done so while moving to the Right in terms of economics and militarism. The Left is
beginning to peel off and the Right has moved even farther to the Right leaving no Centrists or
working class sector who would still vote democratic or possible consider swinging that
direction in a tight contest. We are left with two Right-wing parties...a Centre-Right and a
Far Right. The US Establishment has been concerned with the direction the Far Right has headed.
It has clearly taken the government into a position of being unable to govern. It is generating
too much chaos and dysfunctionality. In 2016 the bulk of the US Establishment was invested in
the DNC and Hillary Clinton. Please understand the bulk of the Establishment is really above
the political factions. Much of that is just theatre for the masses.
The pseudo-political war
between the Red and the Blue also spawns vast sums of money and creates occasions to generate
and launder even more. The Clinton defeat created a crisis because it signalled that many
assumptions that have dominated for more than a generation have collapsed. The Trump victory
signalled not just a crisis for the 2016-2020 political cycle, but a looming threat of social
unrest. The Establishment fears the masses and if the working class starts to unite they are in
trouble. Seeds of distrust and fear must be sown. Identity politics divides the populist
street. Discrediting Trump will not only hinder his agenda and ability to be effective but it
will keep the street divided. People will focus on events like Charlottesville and Trump's
foolish comments rather than the real issues that place this society, even this civilisation in
danger. The Establishment is banking on the fact that the generals can restrain him from
disastrous war.
Mueller's task will be to expose enough of the obvious corruption within his
family and organisation to leave him paralysed. Mueller is the Establishment's Sword of
Damocles, an ever present threat. Like Kenneth Starr, he will continue to dig and gather dirt,
whether related or not. With Trump the pile of refuse will be all but endless and he will
likely generate as many problems in trying to cover up his deeds as the actual acts and
problems themselves. Mueller's placement remains an ongoing threat to Trump... and yet it's one
that may not work as Trump seems all too often divorced from reality. Obstruction of justice is
as likely to bring him down as anything else. His own hubris and attempts to cover his tracks
will further destroy what little integrity he has left. Eventually someone like Mueller will be
able to issue a report and say almost whatever he wants. The political class will believe it,
because they want to. If they can restrain him... good. If he self-destructs... that's okay
too. If he wages war that's also a fine thing. No one in ruling circles has a problem with US
militarism. What they don't like it was it's done unilaterally and without utilising the proper
mechanisms that proved plausibility, cover and a right narrative. I am certain there are some
that are very concerned about what's happening with regard to North Korea and rightly so.
They
are not opposed to war but how it is being set up and prosecuted. In the meantime the
Establishment will continue to spin out the narrative that the country was undermined by dark
foreign influences. A new Cold War, a new age of McCarthyism is upon us. Censorship, often
voluntary has returned with a vengeance. The corrupt moguls who dominate the media and the
neo-media centers of Silicon Valley are part of this re-tooling of American society. Even the
Trump interlude is being used to re-shape the Internet and to bolster the surveillance state.
It's not that hard when millions are apparently more than willing to not only to reject any
notions of privacy but are eager to give up their biometric data to the realm of cyberspace and
its corrupt and incompetent guardians. Mueller is no man of integrity. He is a shill for the
powers that be. His evident lack of virtue and honesty has no power to render judgment as to
what Trump is or is not. These are all evil people. Some seem to be fooled into thinking that
there are some 'good' folks who make it into these positions of power. Mueller will investigate Manafort who is obviously a corrupt businessman if not something else. He actually looks more
like a CIA connected figure to me. His history and placement within the Trump campaign raises
some very interesting questions... as does the timing of his departure. Yet thus far the
evidence surrounding Manafort seems to actually exonerate Trump and his campaign, a point the
media seems unwilling to acknowledge.
Did Trump's people go after dirt on the Clinton's? Of
course they did and so did the Clinton's. Are they tied in with corrupt business people in
Ukraine and Russia? Yes. So are the Clinton's. Are these people tied in with the political
powers within Ukraine and Russia? Of course. But once again the notion that the Putin
collaborated with Trump and Assange and that it was these leaks and some ads taken out on
social media that somehow stole the election and led to Clinton's loss... is absurd. The
evidence is not there and thus far the policies of the Trump administration do not support
this. If this were the case then Putin must be seething. It's a betrayal on the order of the
Kennedy double-cross of Sam Giancana and the mafia. But I doubt anyone wants to revisit that
chapter of history. In a way Mueller's position is both interesting and ironic. All the events
of the present, the discussions about leaks, media, wars, politics, Russia etc.... all rest on
the foundation created by 9/11. And so now the investigator of corruption is one of the
guardians who continues to protect that fortress of lies upon which the new order has been
built. For if 9/11 were to come undone the Orwellian regime wed to the War on Terror narrative
would collapse. It is therefore appropriate that Mueller continues in his role as guardian and
the media will do all it can to make him out as a man of integrity.
When in reality he is
already known as one who is utterly lacking character, an obstructor and facilitator of mass
murder. He can claim no moral superiority vis-à-vis someone like Trump...and you can be
sure Trump knows it.
"... Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others maintain he is working on Trump's side. ..."
"... The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who housed two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions consistent with infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for "skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting airplanes . ..."
"... A former FBI official involved in the investigation sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins. ..."
"... Mueller made his position known, saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had made no mistakes. ..."
Mystery surrounds Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russia and President Trump. Some
think he is the ultimate professional, others that he is a Democrat lackey, still others
maintain he is working on Trump's side.
We can see how he works if we look at how Mueller ran his second-most important
investigation as FBI Director. In September of 2001, an entity began mailing anthrax through
the US Postal system, hitting such prominent targets as NBC and Senator Daschle's office. The
terrorist attacks killed five and left others hospitalized. The
world panicked .
Under Mueller's management, the FBI launched an investigation lasting ten years. They now
brag about
spending "hundreds of thousands of investigator hours on this case." Let's take a closer look
at Mueller's response to understand the context of the investigation -- who his people
investigated, targeted, and found guilty.
The anthrax letters began just a week after the 9/11 attack. While planning the airplane
hijackings, Al-Qaeda had been weaponizing
anthrax , setting up a lab in Afghanistan manned by Yazid Sufaat, the same man who
housed
two of the 9/11 hijackers . Two hijackers later sought medical help due to conditions
consistent with
infection via anthrax : Al Haznawi went to the emergency room for a skin lesion which he
claimed was from "bumping into a suitcase," and ringleader Mohamed Atta needed medicine for
"skin irritation." A team of bioterrorism experts from John Hopkins confirmed that anthrax was
the most likely cause of the lesion. Meanwhile, the 9/11 hijackers were also trying to obtain crop-dusting
airplanes .
So how did Mueller's investigative team handle the case?
Mueller issued a
statement in October of 2001, while anthrax victims were still dying: the FBI had found "no
direct link to organized terrorism." The John Hopkins team of experts was mistaken, the
FBI continued , Al Haznawi never had an anthrax infection. The crop-dusting airplanes they
needed was possibly for a separate and unrelated anthrax attack.
A few weeks later, the FBI released a
remarkable profile of the attacker. FBI experts eschewed analysis of the content of the
letters, where it was written in bold block letters, "Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah
is Great." Instead, they focused on a "linguistic analysis," stating that the letter's writer
was atypical in many respects and not "comfortable or practiced in writing in lower case
lettering." The FBI therefore concluded that it was likely a disgruntled
American with bad personal skills.
The investigators hypothesized that the attacker was a lonely American who had wanted to
kill people with anthrax for some undefined time period, but then became "mission oriented"
following 9/11 and immediately prepared and mailed the deadly spores while pretending to be a
Muslim.
Mueller's FBI honed in on Steven Hatfill as the culprit -- a "flag-waving"
American, who had served in the Army, then dedicated himself to protecting America from
bioterrorist threats by working in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of
Infectious Diseases.
There was no direct link
from Hatfill to the attacks, by the FBI's own admission, and the bureau never charged Hatfill.
The FBI did however spy on, follow, and harass him non-stop for years. The Department of
Justice also publicly outed Hatfill as the possible terrorist.
While Hatfill's dignity and life was being trampled on by America's secret police, Mueller
took a stand. But on a different topic. He made front page news for threatening President Bush he would
resign over NSA policy. All while his own team was trampling on the rights of an
American in the FBI's largest-ever investigation.
Hatfill successfully sued the government for its unlawful actions. He won almost $6 million
dollars.
After the Hatfill investigation blew up in the FBI's face, they moved on to Bruce Ivins,
another Army researcher who had actually volunteered to help the FBI investigate this case, and
had been doing so for years. It wasn't until five years after the attack that Mueller's men
decided
Ivins was a target .
The FBI case against Ivins, once again, was based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution stated Ivins purposefully gave a misleading sample of anthrax spore, but
Frontline documented
this was not true. Ivins was "familiar" with the area from which the anthrax letters were
mailed, the FBI said, but Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica lays out the accepted facts of the
case showing it was impossible
for Ivins to make the trip to mail the letters .
The spores used in the attacks were a similar type to the laboratory spores where Ivins
worked, but that ignored the fact that the anthrax letters had a unique additive -- so
sophisticated and dangerous a scientist commented
, "This is not your mother's anthrax" -- that was likely produced by a nation state or
Al-Qaeda.
Ivins was never indicted, just given the Hatfill treatment. His house was raided, and he was
threatened with a death sentence, or as his lawyer put it, put under "
relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo ." He committed suicide.
One week later, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
stated Ivins was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," and they were "confident that Dr.
Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks."
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, one of the intended victims of the anthrax terror attacks,
did not
believe that Ivins was the sole actor . Mueller ordered an independent audit of the FBI's
case by the National Academy of Science, then formally closed the case in 2010, sticking with
the conclusion that Ivins, and Ivins alone, committed the terror attack. One year later the NAS
released their results and confirmed what many scientists had been repeating for years: the
FBI's science and conclusions were not solid .
A former FBI official involved in the investigation
sued the FBI , alleging the FBI concealed evidence exculpatory to Ivins.
Mueller made his position known,
saying, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation," and stated that the FBI had
made no mistakes.
The investigation was an unmitigated disaster for America. Mueller didn't go after al-Qaida
for the anthrax letters because he couldn't find a direct link. But then he targeted American
citizens without showing a direct link. For his deeds, he had the second longest tenure as FBI
Director ever, and was roundly applauded by nearly everyone ( except Republican
Rep. Louie Gohmert ).
Now he's running the Trump-Russia investigation. Daniel Ashman is the author of two books,
"Dominate No-Limit Hold'em" and "Secrets of Short-Handed No Limit Hold'em," that have been
published worldwide and translated into four languages. Follow him at @dashman76 .
Obama was a CIA protégé. At least in his young years. How CIA protégé can ask for 911 investigation, or release of some
materials? That's unrealistic.
Mueller was Bush II appointee. That tells us a lot, because it was Cheney who vetted all candidates.
Notable quotes:
"... President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President Bush. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria. Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan. ..."
"... The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years -- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience, embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that ..."
"... The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks -- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families. ..."
"... Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole. ..."
First and foremost, here is what you need to know when you listen to any member of our
government state that the newly released 29 pages are no smoking gun -- THEY ARE LYING.
Our government's relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is no different than an
addict's relationship to heroin. Much like a heroin addict who will lie, cheat, and steal to
feed their vice, certain members of our government will lie, cheat, and steal to continue their
dysfunctional and deadly relationship with the KSA -- a relationship that is rotting this
nation and its leaders from the inside out.
When CIA Director John Brennan states that he believes the 29 pages prove that the
government of Saudi Arabia had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks, recognize that John Brennan
is not a man living in reality -- he is delusional by design, feeding and protecting his Saudi
vice.
When Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Anne W. Patterson, testifies --
under oath -- that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an ally that does everything they can to help
us fight against Islamic terrorism, recognize that her deep, steep Saudi pandering serves and
protects only her Saudi vice.
Do not let any person in our government deny the damning
reality of the 29 pages.
And as you read the 29 pages remember that they were written during 2002 and 2003.
President Bush did not want the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia investigated. President Bush has
deep ties to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its royal family and only wanted to protect the
Kingdom. President Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq -- not Saudi Arabia. So, 29 full pages that
said "Saudi" and "Bandar" instead of "Hussein" and "Iraq" was a huge problem for President
Bush.
It is well documented that the Joint Inquiry received enormous push-back against its
investigation into the Saudis. In fact, former FBI Director Mueller acknowledges that much of
the information implicating the Saudis that the Inquiry investigators ultimately uncovered was
unknown to him. Why does Mueller say this? Mostly because Mueller and other FBI officials had
purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out
of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and
the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's
investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.
Notwithstanding the lack of cooperation from the FBI and the pressure from the Bush
Administration to thwart any investigation of the Saudis, the Joint Inquiry was still able to
write 29 full pages regarding Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks. No other nation is given
such singular prominence in the Joint Inquiry's Final Report. Not Iraq. Not Iran. Not Syria.
Not Sudan. Not even Afghanistan or Pakistan.
The 29 pages have been kept secret and suppressed from the American public for fifteen years
-- not for matters of genuine national security -- but for matters of convenience,
embarrassment, and cover-up. Executive Order 13526 makes that a crime. Neither James Clapper
nor Barack Obama want to release a statement about that .
The only thing James Clapper and Barack Obama are willing to say about the delayed release
of the 29 pages is that they stand by the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. This punt by
President Barack Obama is repulsive. President Obama's deference to the 9/11 Commission -- who
themselves admit that they were unable to fully investigate the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks
-- depicts Obama's utter lack of interest, engagement, or support of the 9/11 families.
Frankly, it re-victimizes the 9/11 families by not acknowledging the truth, blocking our path
to justice, and the very vital assignment of accountability to those who should be held
responsible. Most alarmingly, Obama's silence keeps us unsafe because instead of calling for an
emergency session of Congress to immediately name the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a State
Sponsor of Terrorism, President Obama continues to downplay, belittle, and ignore the truth
leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks that are still to this very day being funded by our
"ally" the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
To be clear, the 9/11 Commission did NOT fully investigate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Staff Director Philip Zelikow blocked any investigation into the Saudis. Zelikow even went so
far as to fire an investigator who had been brought over from the Joint Inquiry to specifically
follow-up on the Saudi leads and information uncovered in the Joint Inquiry. I will repeat --
the investigator was fired. In addition, Zelikow re-wrote the 9/11 Commission's entire section
regarding the Saudi's and their connection to the 9/11 attacks. Former 9/11 Commissioners John
Lehman, Bob Kerrey, and Tim Roemer have all acknowledged that the Saudis were not adequately
investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Thus, for any government official to hang their hat on the
9/11 Commission's Final Report -- when Commissioners, themselves, have admitted that the Saudis
were not fully investigated, is absurd and disgraceful.
For example, one glaring piece of information was not mentioned in either the 9/11
Commission or the Joint Inquiry's 29 pages -- the information regarding Fahad Thumairy and
Khallad bin Attash found in both an FBI
report and a CIA
report -- that are now declassified. Both reports indicate that Fahad Thumairy -- a Saudi
Consulate official -- helped bring Khallad bin Attash into the United States in June of 2000 so
he could meet with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi. Thumairy
escorted bin Attash -- a known al Qaeda operative -- through INS and Customs at LAX evading
security and any possible alarm bells. Again, this information is found in both a CIA and FBI
report.
Four months after Khallad bin Attash met with the two 9/11 hijackers in Los Angeles, the USS
Cole was bombed and seventeen U.S. sailors were killed. Khallad bin Attash, Khalid al Mihdhar
and Nawaf al Hazmi were all named as co-conspirators in the bombing of the USS Cole.
Where is the information regarding bin Attash and Thumairy? Has it ever been investigated?
Had our intelligence agencies capitalized on the known connection between Thumairy and bin
Attash, they would have been able to thwart the bombing of the USS Cole. In addition, they
would have had access and the ability to weave together nearly all the pieces of the 9/11
attacks -- more than nine months before the 9/11 attacks happened.
But as history shows, Saudi Consulate official Fahad Thumairy was not investigated and 17
sailors in addition to 3,000 others were killed.
I'm sure that Barack Obama, John Brennan, Anne Patterson, and Philip Zelikow would all
consider Thumairy's operational and financial support of Attash, Mihdhar, and Hazmi as within
the threshold of being an "ally" of the United States. I, and the rest of America, would
not.
I know summer is a busy time. I know that next week is the Republican Convention. I know
that Congress is out of session for two months. And I know that ISIS attacks continue in Nice,
Orlando, San Bernardino, Belgium, Paris, and more. Just like I know that Donald Trump picked
Mike Pence as his running mate and that there was a coup in Turkey. For an Administration
looking to dump some insanely incriminating evidence and have nobody take notice -- doing it
yesterday when Congress was leaving for their two month summer recess was probably the best day
anyone could have imagined.
But, the world is an unstable, crazy place. And, while I used to think I was safe because my
government was looking out for me and making decisions that were in my best interests and that
of other citizens, I now know better. For fifteen long years, I have fought to get information
regarding the killing of my husband from the U.S. government. I have fought, pleaded, and
begged for the truth, transparency, justice, and accountability because my husband and 3,000
others were brutally slaughtered in broad daylight. And our government has done nothing but
block, thwart, impede, and obstruct that path to truth, transparency, accountability, and
justice. Even going so far as to gaslight us to this very day by denying the plain truth
written on the plain paper of the 29 pages.
Please read the 29 pages. Look at the facts and evidence. And then watch the venal way
various members of our government and media play spin-master on those facts -- telling you to
deny the very harsh, sobering reality found within those 29 pages. I hope their gaslighting
disgusts you as much as it disgusts me.
Note that these 29 pages merely detail the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks in San
Diego . They briefly touch on the Phoenix information, as well. Though more notably, the
29 pages do not include information found in the more than 80,000 documents that are currently
being reviewed by a federal judge in Florida -- 80,000 documents that neither the 9/11
Commission, the Joint Inquiry, the Clinton, Bush, or Obama White House, nor the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia wants us to know about.
More than anything, please know this: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided operational and
financial support to the 9/11 hijackers. That is a fact. And, the U.S. government has been
covering up that fact for fifteen years -- even to this very day. And that is a crime.
Corruption, greed, and vice, specifically as it pertains to protecting the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, is not a one-party problem. It spans both democratic and republican administrations.
Blame President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama -- as well as, all of their
officials and appointees. They are ALL to blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks,
helping to facilitate the 9/11 attacks through their own abject negligence, using the 9/11
attacks to further ill-begotten gains and goals, and covering-up the 9/11 attacks by not coming
clean with the American public for fifteen years.
(9/11 widows Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken, and Patty Casazza all sign
their names to this blog)
"... I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing. ..."
"... When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. ..."
"... For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey ..."
"... Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco, as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on) ..."
"... While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power, that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history. ..."
Rowley, a former FBI special agent and division counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of
the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. She just appeared on The Real
News report "
Special
Counsel Investigating Trump Campaign Has Deep Ties to the Deep State ," about Mueller being appointed to investigate the Trump
campaign's ties to Russia.
While Mueller has been widely described as being of impeccable character by much of official Washington, Rowley said today: "The
truth is that Robert Mueller (and James Comey as deputy attorney general -- see my
New York Times op-ed
on day of Comey's confirmation hearing ) presided over a cover-up "
In her interview, Rowley noted: "The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning
[about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a
chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get
us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.
"When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and
went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War.
For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers,
Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included
CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey."
Rowley also noted that Mueller presided over "the 'post 9-11 round-up' of innocent immigrants, the anthrax investigation fiasco,
as well as going along with a form of martial law (made possible via secret OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memos written by John Yoo
etc. predicated upon Yoo's theories of absolute 'imperial presidency' or 'war presidency' powers that the Bush administration was
making [Attorney General John] Ashcroft sign off on)."
"While not the worst of the bunch, neither Comey nor Mueller deserve their Jimmy Stewart 'G-man' reputations for absolute
integrity but have merely been, along the lines of George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet, capable and flexible politicized sycophants to power,
that enmeshed them in numerous wrongful abuses of power along with presiding over plain official incompetence. It's sad that political
partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history."
As part of what Donald Trump has dubbed an ongoing "witch hunt", Special Counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed longtime Donald
Trump associate and former aide Sam Nunberg. requesting he appear before a grand jury investigating Russian interference in the 2016
elections. Nunberg, however,
told Bloomberg he has no intention of cooperating with Mueller's subpoena.
"I'm not going to cooperate with Mueller. It's a fishing expedition ," Nunberg
told Bloomberg News . " They want me in there for a grand jury for testimony about Roger Stone. He didn't do anything. What is
he going to do? His investigation is BS. Trump did not collude with Putin. It's a joke."
Nunberg was on Trump's payroll from mid-2011 to August 2015 when he was fired from Trump's campaign shortly after it emerged that
he had posted racially charged Facebook posts. In July 2016, Trump sued him for violating a confidentiality agreement, however the
suit was dropped the following month.
. "What's he going to do? He's so tough - let's see what they do. I'm not going to spend 40 hours going over emails. I have a
life."
Nunberg told Bloomberg he expects one line of questioning before the grand jury to be related to Stone, who Nunberg worked with
closely over the years.
In a somewhat surreal interview, Nunberg also spoke with NBC's Katy Tur on Monday afternoon, reiterating that he was not going
to comply with the subpoena while stating his belief that his onetime boss may be guilty of collusion with the Russians.
After admitting to host Katy Tur that he'd been interviewed by Mueller's investigators, the host asked Nunberg if he believes
the special counsel "has anything" on Trump.
"I think they may," the ex-aide responded. "I think he may have done something during the election. But I don't know that for
sure."
This isn't the first time Nunberg's given a rambling MSNBC interview. Last week, he called presidential adviser and son-in-law
Jared Kushner a "weak link" who has done "nefarious things," and earlier this year, called Trump an "idiot" and a "complete pain
in the ass to work for." In the latter interview, which was conducted by host Joy Ann Reid, many noted that Nunberg appeared to be
intoxicated.
... ... ...
In the subpoena dated Feb. 27, Bloomberg reports that Nunberg was also asked to turn over emails, texts and other communications
with 10 campaign associates, including Trump, former campaign manager Corey Lewandoski and outgoing White House communications director
Hope Hicks starting in November 2015 and running through the present.
Another possible line of questioning could be related to Trump's activities in Moscow in 2013 during the Miss Universe pageant,
which the president once owned. The book by author Michael Wolff, "Fire and Fury," quotes Nunberg extensively describing the early
months of the Trump administration. Wolff said the former adviser was "generally regarded as the man who understood Trump's whims
and impulses best" and a Bannon associate. Mueller's team interviewed Bannon earlier this month.
Incidentally, when asked if Nunberg was correct that Trump "may have done something during the election", Press Sec. Sanders dnied,
saying that "He's incorrect...I certainly can't speak to him or the lack of knowledge that he clearly has."
Seriously, what about Trump's Hotels? Do they employ any Russians? I think that black jack dealer looked Russian.
I am not a big fan of OJ, but Jesus Christ this Mueller investigation acts like our QA department. Non-stop making you do retarded
shit just because someone, somewhere might not fully get exactly what you did because they are retarded.
Mueller better just close up shop before the people supporting him give him the hook. Russian Troll farm? Really? Shitposting
is now a national security issue. omg.
The longer this goes on, the more I think that our government just needs to go away. Total loss of all credibility. And when
he does find something HUGE, if it isn't related to Trump (Uranium One) he just passes it by.
We are now past the point of absurd. Trump will next be guilty of having a bottle of Stoli at his house.
Kudos to this guy for calling this for what it is. Just downright stupid.
I took Russian as my foreign language elective in college and sometimes even understand some of it. I also read RT from time
to time and donated to the Trump campaign.
So someone that worked for Trump says that he doesn't know for sure if Trump did something bad and it is headline news? Give
me a break! What click-bait garbage this article is.
I love the liberal delusion that the Trump-Russia evidence is going to show up any day now while they continue to ignore the
fact that Hillary paid for Kremlin help in the election.
How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier
Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure." Source B was
"a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin."
Maybe this is the guy who stops pretending? He already sounds like would call Mueller for what he is. I bet Mueller is sitting
there in his psychosis thinking that because this guy said what he did he is the one really holding all the dirt.
Someone should go and testify and just start dropping bombs.
I think all witnesses should do the same. Then when they are forced to testify under penalty of contempt, they should plead
the 5th amendment and force Mueller to grant them immunity. This is all total BS. Any witness who cooperates and appears before
a grand jury runs the risk of some bogus perjury or obstruction of justice charges. Mueller is a piece of human vermin.
Mueller has already committed a crime he lied to the Senate, if there was any law and order in this Country Mueller would have
been locked up a long time ago.
I don't know anything about this guy but glad to see someone is calling bullshit on this ongoing witch hunt. And there are
plenty of idiots thinking it is a real thing when basically nothing has been uncovered in a year and a half related to Trump/Putin.
Meanwhile gigantic conflicts on the Hillary side are going totally uninvestigated..
Mueller is not looking for anything Russia-related because he knows no such evidence exists. Instead, he is looking to file
completely unrelated charges against other people such as Paul Manafort, who can then be pressured into making false accusations
against Trump. "Special Counsel" Mule-er is nothing but the leader of a star chamber packed with (((Democrat))) loyalists who
have no interest in serving justice. This entire ruse is nothing but a seditious attempt to overthrow a Constitutionally elected
president because the Deep State and its cronies remain in a state of apoplexy over the 2016 election results. More than anything,
this reminds me of some kind of Stalinist NKVD secret police operation from the 1930s: false charges supported by fraudulent evidence
followed by show trials that delivered the expected results. Truth and justice be damned. Of course, we know (((who))) was calling
the shots in the Soviet Secret Police, don't we?
I don't think he's actually investigating anything. Once in awhile, he pops up with serious-sounding garbage, that really means
nothing.
He's intended to be a shark in the waters around this administration, nothing more. A "potential" threat he might "find" something.
He's had his time at the "Russian collusion" plate, and he needs to be outta pitches.
Meanwhile, the country's business isn't getting done, and Trump's time in office isn't open-ended.
Business like infrastructure, the BloCare repeal, the wall, sanctuary city crackdowns, trade deal overhauls (not simply tariffs,
but new deals or no deals at all), and much more.
His supporters really DO need to rise mightily and force these issues to the front and center.
The Bolshevik fascists are stymieing this president, as they bide their time toward the midterms.
Only in Americana, the deep State mother fuckers, can go over the president like never before, and undermine his authority,
take down his staff and stall his presidency... and basically place him in a corner for the kill.
Trump since his inauguration, wasn't able to get anything done because of these fuckers... they are enemies of the people!
Why are these freaks being allowed to make a mockery of Trump presidency using bs excuses? How stupid people can be to believe
on this shit! Where are the good politicians if any left in Washington? Is there any political decency left in the States? WTFIGO?
Most veterans and folks on the service that I know of are ashamed of these debacle!
The President needs to set a deadline for Mueller - end of summer would be good - either present evidence of collusion with
Russia to Congress - or you're fired. Otherwise this investigation will still be ongoing when Ivanka is sworn in as the 46th.
president January 20, 2025.
He is setting up a trap for Mueller. Get Mueller to go balls to the wall and make a misstep and blow his whole investigation
up by being retarded. Stone created an art of being a provocateur. This guy learned from Stone. Mueller will see that conversation
and think " WE got the President dig dig dig send subpoenas, do raids. " Thing is doing raids on innocent people catches up to
you very fast. You never know who knows who and who is connected to who. This will get Mueller to spend more money and he will
for sure go over the line and cut his own throat. Keystone cops tend to die by their own gun.
Muller was in charge of 9/11 investigation. So he is the perfect prosecutor for the "deep
state." Proven in action. Everything is possible with him being the Grand inquisitor for
Trump.
One insightful comment that re4flect my sentiments about Mueller investigation as well :
"Honestly don't care about Trump's personal fate, but I despise the [neo]libs and their clubby
parody of justice typified by Holder, Lynch, Comey, Mueller et al. It's probably too much to ask
for, yet what would really be fun is to see Mueller's probe shut down before he can bring
charges. Just as the Dems are about to splurge in celebration....conspiratus interruptus!"
Meanwhile, liberal legal scholar Alan Dershowitz disagrees:
" You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his
constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice
Department who to investigate, who not to investigate, " said Dershowitz last December.
"That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt did. We
have precedents that clearly establish that."
The controversy over whether or not Trump obstructed justice was one of the primary drivers
behind Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's appointment of Robert Mueller as Special
Counsel following Comey's dismissal. Notably, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself
from all things related to the Russia investigation - frustrating many who say he's simply been
sitting on his hands while Mueller and his fleet of trump-hating Democrat investigators gun for
the President.
"I don't want to get into loyalty, but I will tell you that, I will say this: Holder
protected President Obama. Totally protected him," Trump told the New York Times. " When you
look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect
for that, I'll be honest. "
Holder shot back fast and furiously on Real Time with Bill Maher - stating " The difference
between me and Jeff Sessions is that I had a president I didn't have to protect ." Perhaps he
forgot about the selective targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, lying about the cause
of Benghazi, Obama's knowledge of Hillary's private server, the Solyndra green energy and
similar crony capitalism scams, spying on journalists, the Secret Service hooker scandal, and
of course Fast and Furious.
Holder thinks Sessions should resign in the wake of President Trump openly criticizing him.
"At some point, though, you would hope that you would have the intestinal fortitude or the
pride to simply say, you know, 'I wanted this job all my life, but it's not worth it, and I'm
not going to take that kind of abuse, and I'm simply going to tell you, you know, go screw
yourself, and I'm out,'" Holder told Maher.
And this from the only AG in the history of the country to be held in contempt of
Congress... Come on Holder, you can do better than this weak effort, especially when they
drag your ass to jail for sedition...
This is William Binney discussing the magnitude of the corruption of the FBI, the secret
FISA courts, and how it affects us all.
One of the NSA's top code breakers Bill Binney explains how the FBI works.
Secret, unconstitutional courts...
"Law enforcement" agents who lie as a matter of course.
Evidence falsified daily.
That's just another day at the office at the FBI.
34:57 https://www.brasscheck.com/video/about-the-fbi/
Comey has already Been caught in several major lies, some of them indictable... no one
with a brain believes anything that sewer roach says...
Holder is an old pro when it comes to obstruction... and lying... and sedition... and,
probably... gobbling Barry's joint... and why hasn't that Contempt Citation this maggot got
ever been prosecuted... or perhaps accessory to MURDER, in Terry's death?
Holder let HSBC get away with crimes of laundering money for drug dealers and terrorists
and gave them (HSBC) subsequent immunities not even available to the President of the United
States.
Starts at 12:18 (Interview with John Titus who produced All the Plenary's Men, which
describes HSBC's exoneration)
Report: Holder Blocked HSBC Trial On Drug Cartel Money Laundering Scandal
" Former Attorney General Eric Holder overruled Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers who
said British banking giant HSBC should be prosecuted for missing hundreds of millions of
dollars in money laundering by drug cartels, a congressional
committee report said Monday"
" Attorney General Holder misled Congress concerning DOJ's reasons for not bringing a
criminal prosecution against HSBC," the committee report said."
Thanks, Eric Holder, because several months ago I thought that Trump firing Comey was
obstruction of justice. The other curious incident to me is why Trump thought that Barack
Obama "hacked" Trump in Trump Tower, NYC. It's going to be interesting to read about someday
exactly what made Trump think that. Of all the people in the world, if anyone wanted to
remain anonymous, it would be the POTUS. I can imagine someone trolling Trump and signing
Barack Obama's name to it, and Trump falling for it.
Appreciated also the Holder comment "because I never had to protect President Obama from
anything." LOL well said.
Honestly don't care about Trump's personal fate, but I despise the libs and their clubby
parody of justice typified by Holder, Lynch, Comey, Mueller et al.
It's probably too much to ask for, yet what would really be fun is to see Mueller's probe
shut down before he can bring charges. Just as the Dems are about to splooge in
celebration.... conspiratus interruptus!
McMaster is a danger tot he USA and the world as a whole. Trump disingaged from forign policy and now generals are
running it.
Notable quotes:
"... I stopped listening to McMaster at one point. Quite early really. I wish there was a transcript around. But on first sight there isn't. But yes, 'revisionist' surfaced. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham wants to attack North Korea. China promises to defend North Korea if attacked by the USA. If nuclear weapons are used by anyone; destroying Seoul, Pyongyang, Kyoto, Tokyo or Guam, the war will explode. China has 65 hardened ICBMs that can survive a first attack and destroy every major American city. Russia cannot sit out a world war blowing up directly South of Siberia. ..."
"... Simply put, Washington DC has become unhinged. The military is free to do whatever it wants. The western economic system is in slow-motion collapse. There is too much debt. Either the people will force the oligarchs to write down the debt and end the wars; or, fighting over the remains, the corrupt elite will kill off mankind. ..."
"... He has given the quartet too much leeway and they for some naïve reason are far too willing to listen to the Israelis always whispering in their ears. GC Marshall was right when he warned Truman against a future dominated by the existence of Israel. pl ..."
I have been reflecting about Reagan too in recent contributions here. Not least since Trump
seemed to try to emulate the GOP's greatest hero.
From the original Strategic Statement, casting Russia and China as 'rivals and
competitors', the subsequent Defense Posture Statement elevated the latter from mere rivals,
to 'revisionist powers'
I stopped listening to McMaster at one point. Quite early really. I wish there was a
transcript around. But on first sight there isn't. But yes, 'revisionist' surfaced. As
curiously enough this did: "rogue regimes (ME north East Asia) are developing the most
destructive weapons on earth."
Maybe I listen to him now. Relevant parts start at 1:45.
******
That said, what I still have huge troubles seemingly is to wrap my head around is the huge
applause Trump got on SST, while it left me more then a little irritated, when delivering his
foreign policy speech in April 2016. That was before Russia-Gate made news.
"These US generals have shown themselves to be shallow-minded believers in a doctrine of US
invincibility and universal dominance that is no longer applicable to the world we live in."
General Ali, if I remember correctly you reside in Canada, those who are brought up in and
under US system, majority think of their country in this way, it's part of the mentality that
the system educates and trains it's constituency, to think they are exceptional, invincible
and above all others. From what I have learned, this is not unique to just these four
generals, this is how even the regular police thinks regardless of state or community they
serve. This is how every child has been thought early on.
This week NBC News described the White House as "unglued". The owner of Comcast that owns
NBC, Brian L. Roberts (Barrack Obama's friend), and the five other media moguls want Donald
Trump gone. All that has stopped them so far are four Generals. This is highly unstable. The
USA has already killed Russians in Syria. Turkey is heading towards attacking American troops
in Manbij. U.S. trainers are in the trenches with Ukraine troops in the Donbass. Anyone who
is against this madness is labeled as a Russian collaborator.
Senator Lindsey Graham wants to attack North Korea. China promises to defend North
Korea if attacked by the USA. If nuclear weapons are used by anyone; destroying Seoul,
Pyongyang, Kyoto, Tokyo or Guam, the war will explode. China has 65 hardened ICBMs that can
survive a first attack and destroy every major American city. Russia cannot sit out a world
war blowing up directly South of Siberia.
Simply put, Washington DC has become unhinged. The military is free to do whatever it
wants. The western economic system is in slow-motion collapse. There is too much debt. Either
the people will force the oligarchs to write down the debt and end the wars; or, fighting
over the remains, the corrupt elite will kill off mankind.
If somehow, the use of nuclear weapons is avoided; at best, South Korea, the heart of the
Asian Economy, will be destroyed. The drumbeats for war with North Korea, Iran and/or Russia
is crazy.
I agree that the "Four of Hearts" among the generals now running US foreign policy are a
great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the
atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to
a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill."
Trump is as yet indifferent to such matters and is in pursuit of his mercantilist view of
economics. He has given the quartet too much leeway and they for some naïve reason
are far too willing to listen to the Israelis always whispering in their ears. GC Marshall
was right when he warned Truman against a future dominated by the existence of Israel.
pl
As Hofkin mourned the loss of 27-year-old Rich, he saw a powerful meaning in the illicit
cookouts: Even though Rich was not particularly observant, he wanted to make sure that his more
observant friends could enjoy the salami, steak and kebabs with him.
That respect for others' beliefs combined with the can-do spirit made Rich a natural leader
-- and a serious politics geek.
"He was a totally unassuming intellectual who knew very early on that he wanted go into
politics," said Jacob Cytryn, the director of Camp Ramah. "He wanted to get stuff done."
Rich's life was cut short early that Sunday morning, when an unknown assailant shot him four
times, including at least once in the back.
The idealistic young man from Omaha, Nebraska, was on his way home in the Bloomingdale
neighborhood of Washington, a small community near Howard University
that has seen a rise in crime this year . Police heard the gunshots and arrived on the
scene to find Rich conscious and breathing, but he died of his injuries after being taken to a
local hospital.
The motive for the shooting is still unclear. Rich's father, Joel Rich, thought that it
might have been a botched robbery attempt. The shooter remains at large, and the investigation
into the shooting is ongoing. The police are offering a $25,000 reward for information on the
case.
For friends and family it was a shocking end to a short life of extraordinary promise.
Rich grew up in a tight-knit and relatively modest Jewish community in Omaha. Rabbi Paul
Drazen, who knew Rich when he was a young boy still preparing for his bar mitzvah, said he
always knew Rich would go far.
"He was a young man who had dreams, and, frankly, he pursued them," Drazen said "He really,
really pushed hard to be all he could be."
Drazen credited Rich's parents with teaching him the importance of caring for others -- in
words and deeds. When they would visit their son at summer camp, Drazen said, they wouldn't
just bring treats for Rich's cabin -- they would bring food enough for his whole eidah
, or age group.
"That was the kind of lesson they taught through the way they lived," Drazen said. "And they
still live that way."
Rabbi Steven Abraham, the current spiritual leader of Rich's hometown synagogue, Beth El
Synagogue, said that Rich was always actively engaged in a wide range of Jewish
organizations.
"Seth was involved in USY [United Synagogue Youth], he was involved in Ramah, he went to the
community Jewish day school," he said. "The kid was a mensch."
Joel Rich is the immediate past president of their synagogue. His grandparents were founding
members.
"This is a family that is entrenched in our Jewish community," Abraham said.
Rich brought creativity and initiative to his experience at camp, especially during his
summer as the director of boating education in 2011, a year after graduating from Creighton
University in Omaha.
"He was exceptionally thoughtful, very engaged, in his own way, in his Jewish identity,"
Cytryn said. "And he loved roofball."
He had always been drawn to the world of politics: In high school he was a member of the
student democrats club, and at Creighton, where he majored in political science, he served two
terms as a representative on the student government.
After his summer as the director of boating at Camp Ramah, Rich moved to Washington, where
he held jobs in the office of the Nebraska senator Ben Nelson and at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner,
a major polling and consulting firm, before going to work for the Democratic National
Committee.
Seth Rich was only two years into his job as the voter expansion data director working for
the DNC, where he helped boost turnout by connecting voters with resources like polling place
locations.
But it was clear that he had even bigger goals.
"In this business, people cycle in and out, but not him,"
said James Green , a campaign director who gave Rich one of his first jobs in politics. "He
was going to be a rising star."
Since the news of Rich's killing broke, many of his friends and co-workers have taken to
social media to mourn his loss.
Seth Rich was a great guy. Warm, funny, happy, extremely talented and creative. May his
memory be a blessing. https://t.co/z8EdxOhZu6 -- Henry J. Bernstein (@gonzo3249)
July 11,
2016
"Add him to the roll of justice," wrote Democratic stalwart Donna Brazile.
Remember his name and add him to the rolls of justice. #SethConradRich . He lived to make
a difference. He believed in voting rights. -- Donna Brazile (@donnabrazile) July 11,
2016
At a speech on gun reform on Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H., Hillary Clinton, the presumptive
Democratic presidential nominee,
spoke of Rich's death . Tragedies like these, she said, "tear at our soul."
"Seth Rich was a dedicated, selfless public servant who worked tirelessly to protect the
most sacred right we share as Americans -- the right to vote," said Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
chair of the DNC, in a statement released after Rich's death.
"He was a joy to have as a member of our team, and his talents, intelligence and enthusiasm
will be deeply missed by many friends, colleagues and coworkers who worked by his side in
service to the highest ideals of our democracy."
Around the office Rich was known for combining a strong work ethic with ample
lightheartedness. He often pulled out his famous panda sweatshirt and wore it around the
office, just to make his coworkers smile, his mother, Mary Ann Rich, told
WOWT News .
"Will I forever miss him, yes. But I have to remember the happy times too to get through the
tears," she said.
"He worked hard and he wanted to make a difference and unfortunately now there is someone
who could have made a difference who isn't going to be there," his father, Joel, said.
Seth Rich's last Facebook post is a final symbol of his dedication to the ideals his parents
instilled in him.
As accounts of the shootings of Dallas police officers spread, Rich made an emotional plea
on Facebook for people to end the violence.
"I have family and friends on both sides of the law," he wrote. "Please, stop killing each
other."
twitter
Seth Rich's last Facebook post, in response to the series of shootings last week.
"... Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine. ..."
"... (Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London financial institutions.) ..."
"... It was also in June that CIA Director John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of "suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity. Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy" against him, if he won. ..."
"... Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100 memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming. ..."
"... When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 -- four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the Steele memos. ..."
"... Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate coup. ..."
"... The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates. Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea, Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family moving forward by exiting this process." ..."
"... On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking. ..."
"... One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks. ..."
"... Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of Directors of HSBC! ..."
"... From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud. ..."
"... With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance strategy. ..."
What is not generally known, however, due to the lying coverage in the Transatlantic "Fake
News" media, is that included in this unholy alliance of coup plotters were armed militia units
made up of neo-Nazis, who were responsible for the bloodshed on Maidan Square in Kiev, and
which threatened the ethnic Russians, which constitute the majority of the population in the
eastern Ukraine regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The lie that there was no neo-Nazi involvement has been maintained, despite ample evidence
to the contrary, including interviews with militants pronouncing admiration for Hitler's
collaborators in the Bandera movement in Ukraine during World War II, when Ukrainian units
murdered ethnic Poles, Russians, and other "non-Ukrainians", including Ukrainian Jews. The
armed "Banderistas" and related thugs have been incorporated into the security apparatus of the
Kiev regime, and continue to march in the halls of Parliament and on the streets, under banners
with pictures of Bandera, the Nazi collaborator, and symbols going back to their alliance with
the Nazi SS.
The coup provoked a chain of events which the U.S., London and NATO used as justification to
impose punitive sanctions against Russia, while demonizing Russia's President Putin, asserting
that the he was engaged in military operations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, to reverse the
coup. Efforts to stop the fighting between the regime's armed forces and ethnic Russian rebels
in eastern Ukraine led to the Minsk Accord in 2015, which included a cease fire and the
granting of autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk. The Minsk Accord was brokered by France, Germany
and Russia.
On January 18, 2018, the Ukrainian Parliament ripped up the Minsk Accord, referring to the
two republics as "temporarily occupied" by an "aggressor country," that is, Russia, and vowed
to reintegrate them, by military force if necessary. This bill, which received the full support
of Ukraine's President Poroshenko, has been described by the Russian Foreign Ministry as "a
preparation for a new war." It occurs simultaneously with an outburst of war-like propaganda
from western neocons, typified by a report from the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), released on February 20 with the title, "Coping with Surprise in Great Power
Conflicts." The report charges that both Russia and China are preparing for war against the
U.S., and that the Russians are deploying forces and artillery to overrun the Baltic states in
a lightning strike, to reincorporate them into a new Russian empire!
THE CASE OF PAUL MANAFORT
This background is necessary to understand the vicious hostility behind the targeting of
Paul Manafort, a long-time U.S. political operative, by the "amoral legal assassin", special
counsel Robert Mueller. Manafort, who served as Donald Trump's campaign manager at a key moment
in his fight to secure the Republican nomination, from May to August 2016, was indicted by
Mueller on October 27, 2017, charged with numerous counts of money laundering, tax fraud, not
registering as an agent of a foreign government, and of making false statements to the FBI.
Mueller filed a revised indictment on February 28, 2018, following his "turning" of Manafort's
partner Rick Gates, who filed a guilty plea to a single count on February 22. While awaiting
trial in September, Manafort is confined to house arrest.
None of the charges against Manafort are related to the initial mandate given to Mueller, by
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to investigate the allegations of Russian hacking and
sundry meddling in the 2016 election, and whether Donald Trump had "colluded" with the
Russians. However, they are directly related to the geopolitical manipulations against Russia,
which have been sharply criticized by Trump, both as a candidate and as President.
Manafort was first placed under surveillance following a FISA Court order in 2014. FISA, the
super-secret court set up as part of the post-9/11 apparat to spy on potential terrorists,
granted the surveillance order as part of an investigation into alleged illegal lobbying on
behalf of the Yanukovych government of Ukraine by Manafort and others. Note that the timing of
the court order coincided with the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Manafort had been working for several
years as an adviser to the Party of the Regions, which was the party of President Yanukovych,
who was overthrown by the regime change coup.
The original FISA warrant targeting Manafort
was subsequently not renewed, for lack of evidence. A second order, however, was approved by
the FISA Court for surveillance of Manafort sometime during 2016 -- the exact date of the order
has not been released -- likely around the time Manafort took over the reins of the Trump
campaign. Manafort played a key role in holding the Trump coalition together heading into the
Republican convention July 18-21, as Bush-directed "Never-Trumpers" were attempting to steal
the nomination away from him.
Prior to the convention, Manafort was involved in the successful fight to remove
language from the party's platform which called for providing lethal weapons to the Poroshenko
government, allegedly to fight against "Russian subversion." Manafort had the backing of Trump
for this, as Trump had campaigned for an end to U.S. support for regime change wars, such as
the Obama-neocon coup in Ukraine.
Democratic Senator Ben Cardin, a leading campaigner for tougher sanctions against Russia --
he was one of the authors of the initial anti-Russia sanctions, in the Magnitsky Act -- accused
Trump and Manafort of changing the platform to benefit Russia, which he accused of robbing
Ukraine of sovereignty! It is now reported that Manafort's role in changing the language in the
platform is "under investigation" by Mueller!
(Manafort was also instrumental in including a plank supporting restoration of Glass
Steagall banking separation, something vehemently opposed by Wall Street and the City of London
financial institutions.)
It was during this same time period, June and July, once it was evident that, barring some
unforeseen event, Trump would be the Republican nominee, that the anti-Trump activities of the
"Deep State" went into high gear. While the "Never Trumpers" were unsuccessfully plotting to
prevent his nomination at the convention, Christopher Steele began churning out memos, paid for
by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, which included wild claims about
Putin's secret service filming Trump in compromising sexual activity during the 2013 Miss
Universe contest in Moscow. His first memo was written on June 20, 2016, and he met for the
first time with an FBI official on July 5, 2016.
It was also in June that CIA Director
John Brennan was briefed by GCHQ Director Hannigan, on "evidence" compiled by his agency, of
"suspicious" activity they had picked up on Russian activity with Trump. GCHQ is Britain's
cyber security intelligence agency, which works directly with MI5 and MI6. Brennan then pulled
together an inter-agency task force to investigate the British charges of Russian activity.
Among those in the FBI unit which was part of this task force were the now-famous duo, Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, whose extensive text messaging shows that they were engaged in creating
the fake narrative of "Russian meddling and Trump collusion". One text spoke of developing the
Russiagate narrative to either defeat Trump in November, or provide an "insurance policy"
against him, if he won.
This incriminating text describes the meeting as taking place in "Andy's office", a
reference to the now-fired Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who told a Congressional
hearing that there would have been no surveillance warrant issued by the FISA court in October
2016 against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page, had it not been for the Steele dossier.
Nunes has sent a list of ten questions regarding how the Steele's dossier shaped the
anti-Trump mobilization of Obama's intelligence agencies. Among those receiving the list of ten
questions are James Comey, the former FBI director fired by Trump, Obama's Director of National
Intelligence Clapper, Brennan and Victoria Nuland. They are given until March 2 to answer, or
they will face subpoenas. What Nunes is looking for is answers as to when the Steele dossier
was brought to their attention, by whom, what actions were taken in response to it, its role in
the submission to the FISA Court, and whether President Obama was briefed on what the dossier
contained. They lay the basis for possible indictments against those receiving the questions,
and for Steele. Senators Grassley and Graham have already stated they believe charges should be
filed against Steele, who has thus far been protected by Her Majesty's government, which has
acted to prevent Steele from being brought before a court of law.
STEELE AND THE UKRAINIAN CONNECTION
But Steele's role in shaping U.S. policy predates the setting up of the Get Trump task
force. Both Nunes and Grassley are investigating Steele's connections with the U.S. State
Department, including with the notorious Nuland. They are looking into the role of Jonathan
Winer, a former assistant Secretary of State who served as a long-time aide to former Secretary
of State John Kerry. Winer befriended Steele in 2009, when they were collaborating on
investigations of Russian "corruption".
Beginning in 2013, Steele drafted more than 100
memos on Ukraine and Russia, and passed these on to Winer, who was then a special assistant to
Kerry on Libya, which had been destroyed in a Clinton-Obama regime change operation. Winer
admitted, in an oped in the Washington Post on February 8, 2018, that he passed these on to
Victoria Nuland, who asked that he continue to bring them to her. Note that these were written
at the time of, and the immediate aftermath of the coup in Ukraine. The Washington Post Deep
State conduit, James Rosen, wrote that Nuland found these reports "informative and sometimes
helpful", and asked Winer to keep them coming.
When asked about the Steele memos on Ukraine in an interview with CBS on February 4 --
four days before Winer's oped was published -- Nuland lied, denying that she had used the
Steele memos.
But the Steele-Winer connection continued. In September 2016, Winer met with Steele, who
presented to Winer his anti-Trump dossier. Winer drafted a two-page summary of the dossier,
which he gave to Nuland. She told him to present this to Kerry. Later in the month, Winer met
with Hillary Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who showed him another specious anti-Trump
dossier, compiled by Clinton operative Cody Shearer. Winer then shared this who Steele, who
then claimed it confirmed the charges he made in his dossier, though coming from different
"sources."
Nunes and Grassley are both investigating the Steele-Winer-Nuland connection to see what
this means as far as Obama administration direct involvement in running the Russiagate
coup. Among those calling for a full criminal investigation into Brennan, Clapper, Comey
and Hillary Clinton, which would reach Obama as well, is former Washington, D.C. U.S. Attorney
Joseph DiGenova, who said it's very likely they could all be indicted.
YET BRITISH HITMAN MUELLER PROCEEDS!
The new indictments against Manafort come from squeezing his former partner, Rick Gates.
Using a prosecutor's set of tools, Mueller went after Gates on his weak flank, the threat to
him and his family of bankruptcy, were he to fight the charges. In entering his guilty plea,
Gates told the court, "Despite my initial desire to vigorously defend myself, I have had a
change of heart. The reality of how long this legal process will likely take, the cost, and the
circus-like atmosphere of an anticipated trial are too much. I will better serve my family
moving forward by exiting this process."
On the new charges against Manafort on money laundering, a well-informed insider said he's
astonished at the lengths to which Mueller is going. He noted the irony that, when Mueller and
Comey were FBI Directors, they never made a criminal case against leading banks which engaged
in billions of dollars in money laundering, much of it proceeds from drug and arms-trafficking.
One of the banks given a repeated pass was the notorious HSBC, which while being fined
repeatedly for money laundering, never faced criminal prosecution. Among those arguing against
criminal charges was the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who said a
criminal proceeding against a "systemically important" bank, such as HSBC, would risk "global
financial disaster." Obama's Attorney General Holder shared this view, as he refused to file
any criminal charges against "Too Big to Fail" banks.
Until his appointment by Obama as Director of the FBI, James Comey served on the Board of
Directors of HSBC!
From this review of the significance of Ukraine in the whole Russiagate process, it becomes
clear that the perversion of justice it represents is surpassed only by the danger which flows
from the anti-Russia theme it serves. Unless there is an intervention to shut down this witch
hunt, as there was to end the hysterical red-baiting charges of the infamous Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the 1950s, the threshold for a possible nuclear confrontation with Russia is being
dramatically reduced. It was Trump's campaign pledge to cooperate with Russia, rather than
prepare for war, which is the reason for the Russiagate fraud.
With the Ukraine tensions heightened by recent developments, full exposure of Steele's dirty
role, and that of his collaborators, has become an essential component of a war-avoidance
strategy.
It's the way to achieve mass-indoctrination, which the Ministry of Truth specializes in.
Thus, among the reader-comments to that bold article, the top-listed one under "sort by best"
(in other words, the most popular) was the anti -Russian "Have you counted how many neo-Nazis
are in the Russian army as well?"
NBC's Megyn Kelly is once again sitting down with Russian President Vladimir Putin to
disseminate Deep State propaganda to her Today Show base, and maybe give it another go at
trying to outsmart Russia's President.
As expected, Kelly looks lie a complete fool when confronting Putin, as she peddles the
tiresome and stupid narrative of ''Russian bots" and ''Facebook Ads", only to be schooled by
Putin on how the real world of diplomacy and international law works.
Joe- I think the interview reposted by Zero Hedge in its 3/3/18 edition is the interview
broadcast by NBC on June, 4 2017. That broadcast was of an edited version of the full
interview, and, as such, egregiously misrepresented some of what Putin actually said. The
unedited version can be accessed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_WPk6Rxx00&t=7s
.
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova blasted the United States on Friday saying that
the Russian Foreign Ministry will allocate special seats for American journalists at press
briefings if the US continues to infringe on the rights of Russian reporters.
The aggressive response came as US State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert rudely and
condescendingly rejected questions from a Russian reporter at a press briefing on Thursday.
"You're from Russian TV too? OK! Enough said then, I'll move on," Nauert interrupted.
Nauert's outburst even received condemnation from some American journalists who also wanted
the spokesperson to clarify her remarks about Putin's speech.
"This behavior is unacceptable! If the State Department once again dares to label our
journalists who are present at press briefings 'journalists from Russia' and stop communicating
with them because of that, we will carry out what we promised," Zakharova said.
"We will arrange special seats for the so-called journalists from the US at the Foreign
Ministry's press center so that your journalists could feel this time what it is all about,"
she said.
"Earlier, literally several decades ago, people with different skin color were not allowed
to ride on the same bus in the United States. It is necessary to overcome that instead of
returning to the flawed practice of the early 19th century, dividing journalists into countries
and nationalities. You have no right to deny them access to information due to their
nationality," Zakharova stressed.
She then also went onto thank "those American reporters who defended their Russian
counterparts' right to access information and be treated equally."
"... Maher released a helpful summary of "rules for identifying fake news" - which everybody who posts on social media about the campaign-era predations of shadowy Russian trolls ..."
"... In his monologue "explainer" on how to spot fake news, Maher admits that Trump voters have good reasons to be suspicious of the mainstream media and its tendency toward hyperbole and exaggeration that often leads CNN, the Huffington Post, Slate and their peers to manufacture controversies out of thing air. ..."
"... "I used to think something was news if a journalist reported it. But really I live in a world where its news if Mariah Carey's tit flops out because Twitter will respond and then a journalist reports on the controversy. If a boob flops in the forest and nothing is heard about it doesn't make a sound. But if three jackasses tweet about it, it's news." ..."
"... This is not an outlier, this is a constant and prominent part of today's journalism. Creating some bullshit non-issue that a few trolls will go apeshit over, then reporting on those tweets like all of America's talking about nothing else ..."
"... No wonder fake news resonates so much with Trump fans - because so much of it is fake! Just nonsense made to keep you perpetually offended with an endless stream of controversy that aren't controversial. And outrages that aren't outrageous. ..."
"... Because places like the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed and Salon - they make their money based on how many clicks they get. Yes, the people who see themselves as morally superior are actually ignoring their sacred job of informing citizens of what's important and instead creating divisions to pursue their own selfish ends. Wait isn't that what Russia was doing to us? Yes it is . ..."
"... And no, it's not easy: in fact, as the media's current business model shows, clickbait works, which is why it is easier to just blame someone else for creating it and "sowing discord", when the real culprit is America's endless superficial, scandal-seeking obsession, always eager to to click on the next catchy, if idiotic news story, and then cover up its guilt by blaming, why who else, Russia. ..."
Every once in a while, Bill Maher reminds us that he's the only liberal pundit on TV who
will call "the tolerant" left on its BS. In his latest weekly show, Maher released a helpful
summary of "rules for identifying fake news" - which everybody who posts on social media about
the campaign-era predations of shadowy Russian trolls and the mechanics of "internalized
misogyny" would do well to watch: "Fake News" isn't some made-up phenomenon concocted by
pro-Trump bloggers. It's a very real and disturbing trend that goes much further in tearing at
the social fabric of American society than $100,000 of spending on Facebook ads ever could.
In his monologue "explainer" on how to spot fake news, Maher admits that Trump voters have
good reasons to be suspicious of the mainstream media and its tendency toward hyperbole and
exaggeration that often leads CNN, the Huffington Post, Slate and their peers to manufacture
controversies out of thing air. Or, as he puts it, just because a few people on Twitter with no
followers and no real-life influence are angry, doesn't mean the rest of America feels that
way...
"Since so much of what passes for today's journalism is anything but...how about some
rules for identifying actual news.
"If anybody is demanding an apology... unless they have hostages, that's not news.
"And when the offended group are identified as the internet, twitter or people - it's
nobody. I guarantee when you click on the story the internet is three losers with a combined
twitter following of their mom."
"I used to think something was news if a journalist reported it. But really I live in a
world where its news if Mariah Carey's tit flops out because Twitter will respond and then a
journalist reports on the controversy. If a boob flops in the forest and nothing is heard
about it doesn't make a sound. But if three jackasses tweet about it, it's news."
Maher gives several examples of what passes as news, including the "controversy surrounding
Jennifer Lawrence's performance in the movie "Red Sparrow". The mainstream press reported that
a shot of Lawrence with a group of men was unforgivably sexist...because Lawrence wasn't
wearing a coat (while the men in the shot were).
Maher threw up all over the "story" which just happened to be reported in dozens of
"serious" media outlets, despite having zero social import or even any grounding in
reality.
Here's the headline from Elle online and a hundred other sites: 'Jennifer Lawrence's
latest red sparrow protocol has twitter calling out gender inequality. See because the men
are wearing coats but she's not. And even though that was her choice, somebody with 11
followers didn't like it so the the story was reported in the New York Times, the Washington
Post, the New York Post, Fox News..."
" Now all these esteemed news organizations aren't saying they think it's a big deal
because they're serious journalists. They'd rather be writing about Syria or the oceans dying
but oh the humanity, Jennifer Lawrence didn't have a coat. Wrap her up, wrap her up!"
Such "clickbait" stories like this aren't rare, in fact as Maher admits they have become the
norm, to an extent that most consumers of news hardly recognize how ridiculous they sound.
"This is not an outlier, this is a constant and prominent part of today's journalism.
Creating some bullshit non-issue that a few trolls will go apeshit over, then reporting on
those tweets like all of America's talking about nothing else."
Justin Timberlake used a protection of Prince for his Superbowl halftime show and people
are furious...nope nobody cared.
People are really mad that Sean White dragged the American flag after he won the
gold...nope not even a little you fucking liars.""Weight Watchers is targeting teens and
twitter is outraged. No it isn't, it's the same three people. And it's not hard to find three
people who are mad at anything. I could say good morning and three people on twitter would
object: 'Good in your privileged world, Bill Maher'."
Yet considering the mainstream media's obsession with these types of stories, it is no
surprise that a sizable chunk of the US population has lost its faith in the validity and and
motivations of news organizations like CNN. What is surprising is that people like Maher are
finally admitting what is really going on...
"No wonder fake news resonates so much with Trump fans - because so much of it is fake!
Just nonsense made to keep you perpetually offended with an endless stream of controversy
that aren't controversial. And outrages that aren't outrageous.
And what is really going on is that as Maher admits, what the US media is doing is no
different than the alleged "discord-sowing" misinformation campaign that Mueller recently
accused 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies of perpetrating on the US population?
"Because places like the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed and Salon - they make their money
based on how many clicks they get. Yes, the people who see themselves as morally superior are
actually ignoring their sacred job of informing citizens of what's important and instead
creating divisions to pursue their own selfish ends. Wait isn't that what Russia was doing to
us? Yes it is .
And we need to stop both of them from using us as the cocks in their cock fights. And so I
saw to the people who were unable to go on after seeing Kendal Jenner tweet the wrong colored
emoji A bit of advice: If you didn't like what Kendal did with a brown fist...then don't
watch her sister's sex tape."
So, next time you're reading about the epidemic of teenagers eating Tide Pods, or rushing to
be the first to know all about the latest Kardashian clickbait du jour, don't: not only will it
stop rewarding hollow headlines designed for clicks, it will force the US media to once again
focus on news that truly matters. The real news.
And no, it's not easy: in fact, as the media's current business model shows, clickbait
works, which is why it is easier to just blame someone else for creating it and "sowing
discord", when the real culprit is America's endless superficial, scandal-seeking obsession,
always eager to to click on the next catchy, if idiotic news story, and then cover up its guilt
by blaming, why who else, Russia.
"... Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act ..."
"... "This has happened as the Russia-gate claims have fallen to pieces All across the media spectrum, from the big name corporate stenographers like The New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio, The Washington Post to The Atlantic and Nation magazines and other "leftist" publications such as Mother Jones and Who What Why, the Russia and Putin bashing has become hysterical in tone, joined as it is with an anti-Trump obsession "Russia Sees Midterm Elections as a Chance to Sow Fresh Discord ( NY Times , 2/13), "Russia Strongman [Putin] haspulled off one of the greatest acts of political sabotage in modern history" ( The Atlantic , Jan. /Feb. 2018), "Mueller's Latest Indictment Shows Trump Has Helped Putin Cover Up a Crime" ( Mother Jones , 2/16/18), "A Russian Sightseeing Tour For Realists" ( whowhatwhy.com , 2/7/18), etc." ..."
The compulsive hatred of President Putin
in élite western circles has surpassed anything witnessed during the Cold War. Western
states have been hyping political hostility in almost every sphere: In Syria, in Ukraine,
across the Middle East, in Eurasia, and now, this hatred has leached into the Security Council,
leaving it irretrievably polarised -- and paralysed. This hostility has percolated too, across
to all Russia's allies, contaminating them. It potends – almost inevitably –
further sanctions on Russia (and its friends) under the catch-all Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act . But the real question is: Does this collective
hysteria portend war ?
Ed Curtis reminds us of
the almost parabolic escalation of antagonism in recent weeks:
"This has happened as the Russia-gate claims have fallen to pieces All across the media
spectrum, from the big name corporate stenographers like The New York Times, CNN, National
Public Radio, The Washington Post to The Atlantic and Nation magazines and other "leftist"
publications such as Mother Jones and Who What Why, the Russia and Putin bashing has become
hysterical in tone, joined as it is with an anti-Trump obsession "Russia Sees Midterm Elections
as a Chance to Sow Fresh Discord (
NY Times , 2/13), "Russia Strongman [Putin] haspulled off one of the greatest acts of
political sabotage in modern history" ( The Atlantic ,
Jan. /Feb. 2018), "Mueller's Latest Indictment Shows Trump Has Helped Putin Cover Up a Crime" (
Mother Jones , 2/16/18), "A Russian Sightseeing Tour For Realists" ( whowhatwhy.com
, 2/7/18), etc."
By casting Russia's interference in the US presidential election as "an attack on American
democracy" and thus "an act of war", the 'Covert American State' is saying – implicitly -
that just as the act of war at Pearl Harbour brought a retaliatory war upon Japan, so, pari
passu , Russia's effort to subvert America require similar retribution.
Across the Middle East – but especially in Syria – there is ample dry tinder for
a conflagration, with incipient or existing conflicts between Turkey and the Kurds; between the
Turkish Army and the Syrian Army; between Turkish forces and American forces in Manbij; between
Syrian forces and American forces; between American forces and the USAF, and Russian servicemen
and Russia's aerospace forces; between American forces and Iranian forces, and last but not
least, between Israel and Syria.
This is one heck of a pile of combustible material. Plainly any incident amidst such
compressed volatility may escalate dangerously. But this is not the point. The point is: Does
all this Russia hysteria imply that the US is contemplating a war of choice
against Russia, or in support of a re-set of the Middle East landscape to
Israel's and Saudi Arabia's benefit ? Will the US deliberately provoke Russia – by
killing Russian servicemen, for example – in order to find pretext for a 'bloody nose'
military action launched against Russia itself – for responding to the American
provocation?
Inadvertent war is a distinct possibility, of course: Both Israel and Saudi Arabia are
experiencing domestic leadership crises. Israel may overreach, and America may overreach, too,
in its desire to support Israel. Indeed the constant portrayal of the US President as Putin's
puppet is pursued, of course, to taunt Trump into proving the opposite - by authorizing some or
other action against Russia – albeit against his better instincts.
At the Munich Security Conference, PM Netanyahu
said :
"For some time I've been warning about this development [Iran's alleged plan to complete a
Shi'i crescent] I've made clear in word and deed that Israel has red lines it will enforce.
Israel will continue to prevent Iran from establishing a permanent military presence in Syria
We will act without hesitation to defend ourselves. And we will act, if necessary, not just
against Iran's proxies that are attacking us, but against Iran itself."
And, at the same conference, US National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster warned
Saturday against increased Iranian efforts to support its proxies in the Middle East, saying
the "time is now" to act against Tehran.
But what did McMaster mean by "time is now to act" ? Is he encouraging Israel to
attack Hizbullah or Iranian-linked forces in Syria? This, almost certainly, would lead to a
three or four front war for Israel; yet there are good grounds for believing that the Israeli
security establishment does not want to risk a three front war. Possibly, McMaster was
thinking more of full-spectrum hybrid, or COIN war, but not conventional war, especially since
Israel cannot, any longer (after the shoot down of its F16), be sure of
its air dominance , without which, it cannot expect, or hope, to prevail.
As senior Israeli officials complain about
the gap between US rhetoric and action, General Josef Votel, the commander of
Centcom , stated explicitly, by way of confirmation of the differing view, at a
hearing in Congress on 28 February that, "countering Iran is not one of the coalition missions
in Syria".
So – back to the Russia hysteria. I do not believe that Syria is a practical locus for
a war of choice either for the United States or Russia. Both are circumscribed by the
realities of Syria. American forces there are not numerous: they are isolated, and dependent on
allies – the Kurds – who are a minority in that part of Syria, who are divided, and
who are disliked
by the Arab population. And Russian forces mostly consist of no more than 37 aircraft, and
small numbers of Russian advisers and Russian supply lines are extended and vulnerable (in the
Bosphorous).
No, the US aim in Syria is limited to denying any political success to either Presidents
Putin or Assad. It is pure schadenfreude. The American occupation of north-east Syria is
primarily about spitting in the face of Iran – i.e. the pursuit of a COIN war against an
American, generational enemy.
And at the same time, at the macro, geo-strategic level, America has precisely been trying
to 'disarm' Russia's nuclear defences, and seize the advantage, by withdrawing from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and by deliberately surrounding Russia on its borders with
anti-ballistic missiles (the ABM treaty provided for only one site on its territory -
for each party - that would be protected from missile attack). The US strategy effectively left
Russia naked, in the nuclear sense. And that clearly was the intent. "With the build-up of the
global US ABM missile system, the New START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is
devaluated, and the strategic balance [was] broken", Russian President Vladimir Putin
said in his State of the Nation
Address yesterday.
But then, as 'the quartet of generals' (effectively, General Petraeus is a part of the WH
trinity of generals), having usurped America's foreign policy out from the prerogative of the
President and into their control, so US defence policy has metamorphosed beyond 'Cold War', to
something far more aggressive - and dangerous: a precursor to 'hot war'.
From the original Strategic Statement, casting Russia and China as 'rivals and competitors',
the subsequent Defense Posture Statement elevated the latter from mere rivals, to 'revisionist
powers', which is to say, dubbed them as seditionists committed to overturning the global order
by military force (the definition of revisionist power). The Statement placed great power
competition above terrorism, as the primordial threat facing America, and implied that
this 'revisionist' threat to the American-led global order needed to be met. American generals
complained that their erstwhile, unchallenged global dominance of the skies, and of terrain,
was being
eroded by Russia acting as 'arsonist' [of stability] whilst presenting itself as the
"fire-fighter" [in Syria]. America's air dominance must be reasserted, General Votel
implied .
But in a startling upending of the strategic balance and missile encirclement, that America
has been seeking to impose on Russia, President Putin
announced yesterday that:
"Those who for the past 15 years have been fueling the arms race, seeking advantages over
Russia, imposing restrictions and sanctions, which are illegal from the standpoint of
international law, in order to hinder our country's development, particularly in the defence
field, must hear this: all that you have been trying to prevent by this policy has happened.
Attempts to restrain Russia have failed."
The Russian President announced a series of new weapons (including new nuclear-powered
missiles invulnerable to any missile defence, hypersonic weapons, and underwater drones,
inter alia ), that remarkably
return the situation to the status quo ante – one of mutually assured
destruction (MAD), were NATO to contemplate attacking Russia.
President Putin said that he had repeatedly warned Washington not to deploy ABM missiles
around Russia – "Nobody listened to us: [But] Listen now!", he said:
"Our nuclear doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons only in response
to a nuclear attack or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against her or her
allies, or a conventional attack against us that threatens the very existence of the
state."
"It is my duty to state this: Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its
allies , be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a
nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant - and with all the relevant
consequences" (emphasis added).
President Putin underlined that he was not threatening America, nor did Russia have
revanchist ambitions. It was rather Russia simply using the only language that Washington
understands.
Putin's speech, accompanied by visuals of the new Russian weaponry, explains at least
something of what has been going on in DC: America's recent seizure by a madness for spending.
The Pentagon must have got (some) wind of Russia's advances – hence the huge increase in
the budget for Defence planned for this year, and another 9% next year, and an
unbudgeted commitment to fund a new nuclear submarine fleet, a replacement for the Minuteman
missile system, and the development of new nuclear (tactical) weapons (costs unspecified).
The expense will be prodigious for the US government. But Russia already has stolen the
lead, and did this with government debt, as a percentage of nominal GDP, standing
at only 12.6%, whereas America debt's already is at 105% of GDP (before the weapons upgrade
has begun). President Reagan is credited with busting the USSR economically by forcing it into
an arms race, but now it is the US that is vulnerable to its mountain of debt – should
the US try to reverse Putin's Spring 'surprise', and (if it can), restore its global
conventional and nuclear primacy.
So, America has a choice: either to re-set the relationship with Russia (i.e. pursue
détente), or, risk running a US borrowing requirement that busts the credibility of the
dollar. The US, culturally, is accustomed to acting militarily 'where, when and how' it decides
so to do. It will probably be culturally unable to abstain from this well-practiced habit.
Therefore, a weak dollar and rising debt servicing costs seems inevitable: thus, the
rôles seem set for a reversal from the Reagan era. Then it was Russia that overreached,
trying to catch up with the US. Now, it may be the vice versa .
The hysteric anti-Russian rhetoric will continue – so deeply embedded is it as an
'article of faith' - but it seems likely that America will need to reconsider before further
provoking Russia in Syria. If America is now unwilling to 'bloody Russia's nose' over some
escalation in Syria, then its isolated and vulnerable military outposts in eastern Syria will
loose much of their point, or begin to take casualties, or both.
The question now must be how Russia's exercise in speaking 'truth to power' will play on
America's policy towards North Korea. The US 'generals' will not like President Putin's
message, but there is probably little that they can do about it. But North Korea is different.
Just as Britain, at its moment of weakness, in the wake of WW2, wanted the world to know that
it remained strong (though the signs of its weakened state were evident to all), it sought to
demonstrate its continued power through the disastrous Suez Campaign. Let us hope North Korea
does not become America's 'Suez moment'.
It seems Russia was able to develop all these weapons, right up to the testing phase, in
total secrecy. Testing, impossible to conceal, would have been undertaken over the last two
years or so, which fits the time frame for US looking at upgrading their weapons. US ABM
defense, a big part of US military future, what twenty years in the making for US? is now
null and void.
If I know my country our reaction will be, 'we beat them in space race, we beat them in the
80's arms race, and dog gone it, we will beat them again'.
We have no interest in examining how we got here or who triggered it. All we see is that a
gauntlet has been thrown down. We will go into even more massive deficit spending to whip
them again and won't think about it again until we are eating out of garbage cans.
I'm angry at the professional Cold Warriors but even more angry at the MSM. Just today, I
heard a Russian expert (aka hater) on FOX intone that Russia never had anything to worry
about with our ABM systems because it can't a massive first strike. I naively expected the
lady host to ask, 'but maybe they are worried that it would be able to stop a retaliatory
strike after we send them to hades'. Needless to say, I was disappointed. Instead, Eboni
Williams (mentioning her name to show that I'm not hallucinating, any of them would have
reacted the same way), her eyes opened wide, 'we must improve our defenses to stop them'.
There you go, the FOX host, not only didn't see through the guests straw man argument but
took it as a given that the U.S. should be able to nuke Russia out of existence with no
consequences for us. The entire premise of the START treaty was to preserve MAD with a
smaller nuke force to reduce accidents. Mr. Naive again, why should I expect the host to know
that or the expert to inform her that MAD is the expected norm.
''The point is, ladies and gentleman, that war, for lack of a better word, is good. War is
right, war works. War clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary
spirit. War, in all of its forms; war for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the
upward surge of mankind.''
So say the fellows who qualify to sit it out in well stocked gov bunkers and watch it on
TV.
When you qualify any anti-Russian sentiment as "hysteric", you lose a lot of credibility. No
doubt there is a lot of noise, but the reality is that economically Russia is a basket case
and the US is rapidly joining them.
For the next decade, we are faced with an unstable world and that will cause a lot of
damage. However, it is unlikely that it will result in the massive land wars of the past. The
biggest potential adversary to both the US and Russia is China. The battle field will be the
communications platforms. The good new is that they will remain fragmented and technology
will more than likely make it even more so, which will thankfully and eventually localize
information, as global solutions are increasingly rejected.
As with these pages, there are a lot of conspiracies published right now, but as they are
increasingly dispatched, a standard will be developed. Some will agree with it and others
will not and will thus migrate elsewhere. This will be repeated all over the Internet.
I was an early user of the Internet and it quickly became a rather awful place where
people were exchanging views. It soon became evident that was not sustainable and things
changed. Like in a pond, the scum will rise, until encountering sunlight, when it is
transformed and sinks to the bottom, never to be seen again, unless you dig very deep. But
the cream will assemble at the top.
The compulsive hatred of President Putin in élite western circles has surpassed
anything witnessed during the Cold War. Western states have been hyping political hostility
in almost every sphere: In Syria, in Ukraine, across the Middle East, in Eurasia, and now,
this hatred has leached into the Security Council, leaving it irretrievably polarised --
and paralysed. This hostility has percolated too, across to all Russia's allies,
contaminating them. It potends – almost inevitably – further sanctions on
Russia (and its friends) under the catch-all Countering America's Adversaries Through
Sanctions Act. But the real question is: Does this collective hysteria portend war?
Not necessary. With MAD temporary restored on a new level the benefits of the
first strike against Russia (if such plans existed) are null and void.
Moreover spending on the current generation of missile defense systems should be partially
written off, as their efficiency is now highly questionable (but they can be repurposed into
offensive weapons carrying cruise missiles and such)
But the new neo-McCarthyism campaign, which is now in full force in the USA, serves a
different purpose than the preparation to the WWIII, and reached such scale and intensity for
a quite different reason.
Neoliberalism, which was the social system that the USA adopted in 1970th and spread
around the globe entered a deep crisis. And Russia is a very convenient scapegoat, which
allows to avoid the most difficult question: what to do next as neoliberalism entered the phase of
decline (also Russia as a scapegoat allows just to reuse Cold War stereotypes firmly engraved
in minds of the considerable part of the US population.)
The collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008. and the collapse of support by the US
population of neoliberal elite in 2016, threatens the USA role in the world and thus the
existence of global neoliberal empire. And, in a more distant perspective (a decade, or two),
the status of dollar as a global reserve currency.
And nobody knows what to do with this situation, how to approach it.
First it looked to me that the election of Trump was a sign that a more forward looking part
of the US elite was trying to organize a soft landing: declare victory for neoliberalism and
slowly retreat from the large part of the expenses for maintaining the global neoliberal
empire. Partially off-loading those costs on EU, Japan, Australia, etc.
In this case enormous resources spent on MIC and empire per se can be redirected internally
to placate restive population, and the deepening of the internal crisis in governance and the
loss of confidence of population in the ruling elite, which demonstrated itself is such a
dramatic manner in Hillary loss in 2016, can be probably be averted.
I was wrong. Multinationals fully and tightly control the US neoliberal elite (and are an
important part of it) and they will never allow this. Also a large part of neoliberal elite is
hell bent on world domination, and, like French aristocracy, "forgot nothing, and learned
nothing" after 2016 elections.
With the alarming level of degeneration of the elite clearly visible in both Trump
Administration and Congress. But the process itself started long ago (people say that Nixon
was the last "real" president ;-). To say nothing about top intelligence agencies
honchos.
In any case, it is clear that the US neoliberal elite still is hell-bent on world
domination and is resistant to any change of the status quo . And I also noticed that,
like in Rome, there is now an influential caste of "imperial servants", also hell-bent on
maintaining the status quo.
Which includes not only Pentagon, and State Department which have a lot of staff living
abroad for years. But also major intelligence agencies, closely connected with their counterparts (note
role of UK-USA connections in Steele dossier) and as such fully "globalized/neoliberalized",
at least ideologically. As well as the majority of the US Senate and House
That blocks any possibility of change in the US foreign policy and budget priorities. It
looks like MIC needs to be fed at all costs. And the power of the "deep state" is such that
it took them just three months to emasculate Trump, and put him in line with previous
policies.
I would like to remind that Trumpism (or "economic nationalism" as it sometimes it is
called) initially was pretty attractive proposition which included the following elements
(most of which are anathema to classic neoliberalism):
Rejection of neoliberal globalization;
Rejection of unrestricted immigration;
Fight against suppression of wages by multinationals via cheap imported labor;
Fight against the elimination of meaningful, well-paying jobs via outsourcing and
offshoring of manufacturing;
Rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially
NATO role as global policemen and wars for Washington client Israel in the Middle
East;
Détente with Russia;
More pragmatic relations with Israel and suppression of Israeli agents of
influence;
Revision of offshoring of manufacturing and relations with China and India, as well as
addressing the problem of trade
deficit;
Rejection of total surveillance on all citizens;
The cut of military expenses to one third or less of the current level and
concentrating on revival on national infrastructure, education, and science.
Abandonment of maintenance of the "sole superpower" status and global neoliberal
empire for more practical and less costly "semi-isolationist" foreign policy;
Closing of
unnecessary foreign military bases and cutting aid to the current clients.
The truth is that the moment, when the USA could change direction to the regime of
"splendid isolation", or whatever such move can be called, was lost.
Moreover, despite Trump capitulation, the color revolution against him continued because
he is not accepted as a legitimate POTUS by neoliberal elite, and, especially, by neocons. Which
further weakens the state. That's another reason why neo-McCarthyism hysteria is still in
full swing: it helps to compensate for the damage caused by slash-and-burn political
infighting (which is a kind of soft civil war, if you wish)
The problem with witch hunt against Russia is that can speed up the alliance of China and
Russia, on most beneficial for China terms. If and when China-Russia alliance materialize,
the containment of China would be even more difficult and costly, the threat to dollar more
pronounced and all bets are off for the US led global neoliberal empire as "Silk road"
project will eat it in Europe and Asia chunk by chunk.
Neo-McCarthyism in this respect might be not such an absurd policy (and it does provide
internal benefits in the form of consolidation of society against the fake external enemy --
a classic trick described by Hermann Göring in his famous quote https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/33505-why-of-course-the-people-don-t-want-war-why-should
) as Putin is not eternal and this will be his last term in office. With clear signs of
possible political crisis in Russia due to the weakness of the mechanisms for smooth
transition of the power to a new leader, or even the selection of the new one.
The danger is that instead of desirable new pro-European president (or at least a person
who is inclined to cooperate with the West, but only on equal terms, like Putin) the next
Russian president can be a fierce nationalist.
NBC's Megyn Kelly has tried to establish herself as the US media's preeminent "Putin
whisperer" since confronting the Russian president last year over allegations he sanctioned
interference by hacking groups in the 2016 US presidential election. In a formal
interview with the Russian president, Kelly asked the Russian leader about the latest
development in the ongoing controversy, Mueller's indictment of
13 Russians and 3 Russian entities for election meddling.
Ignoring that the indictment stated that the alleged activities of the trolls at the
Internet Research Agency had no impact on the outcome of the election, Kelly insisted on
pressing the Russian president about why Russia hadn't acted to prosecute the men - including
Yevgeniy Prigozhin, a wealthy Russian businessman.
Putin pointed out that no formal requests had been made by the US government, and no effort
to share the incriminating information had been made.
"I have to see first what they've done. Give us a document, give us an official request"
Putin said in the NBC interview adding that "We can not respond to that if they do not violate
Russian laws."
Kelly responded by listing some of the allegations, before Putin insisted that they
shouldn't be presented to him personally - but to Russia's general prosecutor.
"This has to go through official channels, not through the press, or yelling and hollering
in the United States Congress," Putin said.
The broadcast aired a day after Putin grabbed headlines in Western media by revealing that
Russia had recently finished testing a range of nuclear weapons that were capable of evading US
anti-ballistic missile batteries, showing animated footage and digital representations of the
missiles' capabilities striking Florida which
prompted an uproar at the US State Department .
Meanwhile, even though Russia has repeatedly criticized the US and NATO for installing
anti-ballistic missile shields in Eastern Europe that Russia says more closely resemble
offensive missile batteries, Putin pushed back against questions about whether the US and
Russia were entering a new Cold War. The Russian leader said anybody spreading these
accusations are more concerned with propaganda than accurate representations of the
relationships between the two countries.
"My point of view is that the individuals that have said that a new Cold War has started
are not analysts. They do propaganda."
Repeating a claim that has been made by many Russian officials, Putin said the arms race
between the US and Russia began when George W Bush withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile
treaty in 2002.
"If you were to speak about an arms race, then an arms race began exactly at the time and
moment the U.S. opted out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty," he said.
When asked, Putin refused to answer direct questions about the missile tests, saying only
that "every single weapons system that I have discussed today easily surpasses and avoids a
missile defense system."
Whatever interview is shown of Putin on any lamestream outlet, you can bet your bottom
dollar that they will twist it to fit their narratives that Putin is bad, and the Swamp is
good. In fact, it don't matter that the US pulls out of treaties and acts
unilaterally.......laws and treaties are optional to the evil empire. Non-agreement capable
comes to mind.
"... So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen again. ..."
"... Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and eagerly being manipulated. ..."
"... Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story. ..."
Tucker
Carlson interviews Green Greenwald of The Intercept about journalists "willingly" being
taken advantage of by the intelligence community on stories about Russia to reap the benefits,
even when they know what they are publishing is "totally false."
From Tuesday's broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight on the FOX News Channel:
TUCKER CARLSON: So, Glenn, just to get to the facts of this story, it is conclusively shown
that the story about the 21 voting systems being hacked is untrue, correct?
GLENN GREENWALD, JOURNALIST: It's false in two ways, one is that several of the states
included in the list, such as Wisconsin, California, and Texas, said that the websites that
the Homeland Security Department cited had nothing to do with voting systems, they are
entirely unrelated.
And it's false in a second way, which is a lot of the stories, in fact, most of them said
that Russia tried to hack into the voting systems when in fact even Homeland Security, it can
only show that what they did was scan those computer systems, which is basically casing
something to say for vulnerabilities and made no attempts to actually hack into them. So, it
was false on various levels.
CARLSON: So, you and I don't agree on a lot of issues but I think we share the same
concern about this story, and that is that American journalists are being manipulated for
whatever reason by the intelligence community in the United States, and I'm wondering why
after years of having this happen to American journalists, they are allowing this to happen
again.
GREENWALD: Well, that's the thing I would refrain that a little bit. I don't actually
think so much that journalists are the victims in the sense of that formulation that they're
being manipulated. I think at best what you can say for them is they are willingly and
eagerly being manipulated.
(LAUGHTER)
Because what you see is over and over they publish really inflammatory stories that turn
out to be totally false and what happens in those cases? Nothing. They get enormous benefits
when they publish recklessly. They get applause on social media from their peers, they get
zillions of re-tweets, huge amounts of traffic, they end up on TV. They get applauded across the spectrum
because people are so giddy and eager to hear more about this Russia and Trump story.
And when their stories get completely debunked, it just kind of, everybody agrees to
ignore it and everyone moves on and they pay no price. At the same time, they are feeling and
pleasing their sources by publishing these sources that their sources want them to publish.
And so, there is huge amounts of career benefits and reputational benefits and very little
cost when they publish stories that end up being debunked because the narrative they are
serving is a popular one, at least within their peer circles.
CARLSON: Gosh! That is so dishonest. I mean, I think all of us and journalism have gotten
things wrong, I certainly have. If you feel bad about it, I mean, you really do and there's a
consequence. Do you really think there's that level of dishonesty in the American press?
GREENWALD: I think what it is more than dishonesty is a really warped incentive scheme
bolstered by this very severe groupthink that social media is fostering in ways that we don't
yet fully understand.
CARLSON: Yes.
GREENWALD: Most journalists these days are in Congressional Committees or at zoning board
meetings or using -- they're sitting on Twitter talking to one another and this produces this
extreme groupthink where these orthodoxies arise in deviating from them or questioning them
or challenging, believe me, results in all kinds of recrimination and scorn. And embracing
them produces this sort of in group mentality where you are rewarded, and I think a lot of it
is about that kind of behavior.
CARLSON: That is really deep. I mean, you live in a foreign country, I'm not on social
media, so maybe we have a little bit of distance from this, where do you think the story is
going? What's the next incarnation of it?
GREENWALD: Well, the odd part about it, and about the inpatients that journalists have in
trying to just jump to the finish line is that there are numerous investigations underway in
the city, including by credible investigators, including Senator Burr and Warner and the
Senate Intelligence Committee, which most people seem to trust and certainly Robert Mueller
who is armed with subpoena power, and everyone is really eager to lavish with praise.
So, we are going to find out presumably one way or the other soon enough. I guess that one
thing that is so odd to me Tucker, is that, this has been going on now for a year, this
accusation that the Trump administration or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to
hack the DNC and John Podesta's email and we know that there are huge numbers of people
inside the government who are willing to leak, even at the expense of committing crimes in
order to undermine Trump and yet, there has been no leaks so far showing any evidence of that
kind of collusion leading one to wonder why that is.
So, I hope that everybody is willing to wait until the actual investigation reveals
finally the real answers. But it doesn't seem that will be the case.
CARLSON: Bravery is when you disagree in public with your peers. And by that definition,
you are a very brave man. Glenn Greenwald, thanks for joining us tonight. I appreciate
it.
I had an experience witnessing Mueller at the Metropolitan Club about 25 years ago. My first and only impression was that he
exuded a high level political corruption.
He hasn't changed a bit. His looks come from central casting. Underneath is a dangerous man. He is only now revealing the depths
that he is willing to go to maintain the worst kinds of corruption. He has to be this corrupt to keep himself out of prison for
his role in the Uranium One scandal. As can plainly be seen he is a Javert type in his willingness to go to the end of the plank
- a really ruthless son of a bitch protected by so many ion Washington.
With few exceptions, all of them have dirt on each other. They are preselected based on whether they are blackmailable or not.
How can we know this? By their behavior. These are not stupid people. They know what we know when it comes to the guilt of people
like Hillary. But they refuse to act because the smell in their closet reeks of little boy's underwear.
I keep seeing all these stupid articles. The answer is simple. .... The rule of law is dead...Our ruling class does what they
want. Who is going after any of them?. ... Nobody...Well why not? Because too many people know where all the bodies are buried.
There is enough "dirt" on people to do 2000 long length movies (greater than 3 hours) about all the scandalous materials. No one
wants to stick their nose out because they will get what Seth got - a bullet in the back...
Ukrainian special forces can be "indispensable" for NATO in the event of a war with Russia.
This is stated by military expert First Rank Captain Konstantin Sivkov in the "Military
Industrial Courier "
"Special forces can be transferred to the Russian Federation both under the guise of
civilian passengers and by military aircraft, either by land or from the sea. They can be
introduced to consolidate success , which can establish reliable control over the strategic
nuclear arsenal of our country, "- writes Sivkov.
This, in the author's opinion, explains the build-up of NATO special operations and rapid
deployment units in the areas bordering Russia.
Sivkov notes the special role of the Ukrainian military, in the conflict. "Particularly
valuable in these conditions for NATO are the soldiers of the Ukrainian special forces who are
ethnically and culturally related to the Russian population, speaking the same language, they
will be indispensable in the conduct of special actions with preliminary secretive deployment,"
the expert said
From the book Shattered: Russian hacking was the excuse Pizzaboy Podesta and
Robby Mook came up with to paper over their rank incompetence in losing to a
blowhard like Trump
if anyone has any doubts about how deep and wide the swamp is, they only need to read
about seth's brother aaron.
a northrup grumman employee?
Wheeler also claimed in recently leaked audio that Seth Rich's brother, Aaron
– a Northrup Grumman employee, blocked him from looking at Seth's computer and
stonewalled his investigation.
Wheeler said that brother Aaron Rich tried to block Wheeler from looking at Seth's
computer, even though there could be evidence on it. "He said no, he said I have his
computer, meaning him," Wheeler said. "I said, well can I look at it? He said, what are you
looking for? I said anything that could indicate if Seth was having problems with someone.
He said no, I already checked it. Don't worry about it."
Aaron also blocked Wheeler from finding out about who was at a party Seth attended the
night of the murder.
"All I want you to do is work on the botched robbery theory and that's it," Aaron told
Wheeler -
Big League Politics
One of the Awan brothers was at the same party, stalked Seth on his walk home and botched
the hit. Seth was alive in Howard Univ. Hospital and was murdered in his bed after being
moved to the private hospital
Loretta Lynch - some of you know her as Elizabeth Carlisle - told WJC on the tarmac that
it was Seth Rich. A procedure known as Arkancide then ensued.
Wikileaks offered a reward for information leading to the killers of Seth Rich. Did the
DNC do anything? No.
Rich was killed by two members of MS-13, who were subsequently liquidated for their
efforts.
Remember when President Trump referred to MS-13 in the SOTU? And then some undereducated
water buffalo on CNN complained to the effect that "No one outside of Fox News knows about
this obscure gang?" Well, Trump wasn't making some random verbal gesture. That was a signal
that he knows, and serious investigators know, about Rich's murder and the DNC.
So this pro-Hillary bastion of Neoliberal innuentndo -- Guardian -- does not not like Hicks.
As onecommneter noted " The poisonous Guardian which is so toxic I would advise folks not to use
it even as an ass wipe, did not allow comments as is their custom now."
Source
What is despicable pressitute is this guy: "The Washington Post has
found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times
throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings"."
Hicks, 29, had the high-pressure job last summer of
crafting , with the president, an explanation for his son Donald Trump Jr's secret
meeting with Russians at Trump Tower in New York in 2016 – an explanation later
revealed as false. More recently, Hicks was said to have run the botched White House response
to domestic abuse allegations
against former aide Rob Porter, with whom she has been linked romantically.
... ... ...
Hicks aggressively defended the president-elect and his team against charges of
inappropriate ties to Russian figures.
"The campaign had no contact with Russian officials," she said. Two days after the
election, she said: "We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with
any foreign entities before yesterday, when Mr Trump spoke with many world leaders."
The Washington Post has
found that "members of the Trump campaign interacted with Russians at least 31 times
throughout the campaign" in "at least 19 known meetings".
Discrepancies such as those have perhaps accelerated Hicks' political education. On
Tuesday, the House intelligence committee questioned her for close to nine hours about the
campaign's Russia ties.
Hicks refused to answer some of the most sensitive questions, including about the
explanation for Trump Jr's meeting with Russians, according to House Democrat Adam
Schiff.
But Hicks was said to have made one concession, admitting to having told, on an
unspecified number of occasions, certain "white lies" on the president's behalf.
In the darkest days of World War II, Hollywood went to bat for Russia -- our ally then -- by
adapting Soviet propaganda films for the American audience and making some of its own on their
behalf. This amazing documentary, a paean to the heroism of the Russian people and the Red
Army, was shot before, during, and after Hitler's siege of Moscow. Filmed between October 1941
and January 1942 during a time of invasion, privation, agony and death in the depths of the
Russian winter, Moscow Strikes Back (Russian version
here ) may be a
little hard to take in spots, but is well worth an hour of your time. Should the following
video start in the middle, rewind by dragging the red button all the way to the left. Makes me
think: wouldn't it be nice to be able to rewind America away from the right?
... ... ...
Hollywood's famous tough guy (also fine art collector and philanthropist)
Edward G. Robinson narrates over a sound track featuring spirited scores by Russian composers.
Directed by Leonid Varlamov and Ilya Kopalin, it won the 1942 Academy Award for Best
Documentary. Then, as soon as the war ended, along with thousands of government and private
employees, Hollywood directors and screenwriters were purged for suspect loyalties. Robinson was among
those who paid a steep price's for their idealism and activism.
Now fascism is back in fashion. Who has the temerity advocate for Russian-American
solidarity, given that Russia is once again on our rulers' shit list and World War III wish
list? We aren't allowed to say good things about it or even that our countries once worked
together, however mistrustfully. Thanks to several generations of hawkish propagandists, few of
our countrymen remember or appreciate what the Russian people suffered in that war and how
thankful they were for the goods the US shipped to them that helped them struggle through it,
but it was their own fortitude that won the day. That and a regime that took civil defense
seriously and directed the public's efforts.
As Nazi forces encircled Moscow, Marshal Zhukov mobilized Moscow's women to fortify the
city. According to the WWII Multimedia Database , the women had to
slog and dig through freezing muck to excavate their redoubts. With little more than shovels
and wheelbarrows, they "emplaced or dug 201 miles (323.4 kilometers) of anti-tank obstacles and
ditches, 158 miles (254.2 kilometers) of anti-infantry obstacles, and laid minefields. 3,800
prepared bunkers and fire bases were built. 37,500 metal 'hedgehogs' were set up to stop
vehicles." I hope they at least got medals.
Could today's Americans match Russia's Greatest Generation or even our own? Take it on the
chin and go on to collectively mobilize ourselves to prevail? We have sufficient tools and
wealth, but have we enough will and leadership? Anesthetized by the H-Bomb, our government let
preparedness and civil defense institutions wither. Lacking action plans for what to do in an
extreme emergency, we're apparently expected to tough it out (use firearms responsibly and no
looting, please). Of course, the government stocks bunkers for top officials and members of
Congress, and our moneyed elites will repair to their hideaways and lock the gates at the first
sign of mortal danger. Those of us who aren't armed preppers will go first. As civil society
collapses, militias will battle over whatever resources are left. And then, depopulated,
America will be great again.
But I digress. Back to Eddy Robinson's
politics . In 1952, HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee) plunged into ignominy
Edward Goldenberg Robinson for being duped by fifth-columnists into assailing fascism and
advocating peace and cooperation among the great powers. The anti-fascist Jewish Romanian
immigrant film star had served in two world wars. Fluent in six languages, he narrated Allied
propaganda broadcasts for which the American Legion honored him. His anti-fascist bona fides,
left-wing Hollywood connections, and support and advocacy for several hundred civic, cultural,
philanthropic, and political organizations only served to target him as postwar red-baiting and
housecleaning proceeded apace.
On April 30, 1952, Robinson sat before HUAC for the third time. He hadn't been subpoenaed;
just harassed until he decided the time had come to clear his name. Through 20
pages of testimony (plaintext here ),
he states his opposition to communism over and over:
My conscience is clear. My loyalty to this Nation I know to be absolute. No one has ever
been willing to confront me under oath free from immunity and unequivocally charge me with
membership in the Communist Party or any other subversive organization. No one can honestly
do so. I now realize that some organizations which I permitted to use my name were, in fact,
Communist fronts. But their ostensible purposes were good, and it was for such purposes that
I allowed use of my name and even made numerous financial contributions. The hidden purposes
of the Communists, in such groups, was not known to me. Had I known the truth, I would not
have associated with such persons, although I would have and intend to continue to help to
the extent of my ability in worth-while causes, honestly calculated to help underprivileged
or oppressed people, including those oppressed by Communist tyranny.
Robinson closed his prepared testimony by saying:
Anyone who understands the history of the political activity in Hollywood will appreciate
the fact that innocent, sincere persons were used by the Communists to whom honesty and
sincerity are as foreign as the Soviet Union is to America. I was duped and used. I was lied
to. But, I repeat, I acted from good motives, and I have never knowingly aided Communists or
any Communist cause.
I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear and clarify my position. I
have been slow to realize that persons I thought sincere were Communists. I am glad, for the
sake of myself and the Nation, that they have been exposed by your committee.
While you have been, exposing Communists, I have been fighting them and their ideology in
my own way. I just finished appearing in close to 250 performances of "Darkness at Noon" all
over the country. It is, perhaps, the strongest indictment of communism ever presented. I am
sure it had a profound and lasting effect on all who saw it.
During questioning, he doubled down on his anti-communism:
To me, communism is abhorrent. Certainly I supported Russia during the war but, as an
ally, and no more than as an ally. What I did for Russia was relatively negligible, compared
to what I did for our other allies.
Upon being pressed, he named film industry colleagues he had come to believe were
communists: Albert Maltz; Dalton Trumbo; John Howard Lawson; Donald Ogden Stewart. This of
course was not news to anyone, but as he had "named names," the witch-hunters refrained from
branding him with the Red Star label. But when Robinson asked members of the committee why they
shouldn't certify him as a loyal American, the best he could get was Rep. Morgan Molder (R-MO)
telling him:
Mr. [Donald L.] Jackson [R-CA16] has made the statement that this committee is not in a
position to exonerate or to vindicate any person who has been wrongfully accused of being a
Communist or who has been smeared as a result of such false accusations. I will agree with
him to a certain extent. However, I believe that when, as a result of any proceedings or
functions of this committee, someone has been unjustly smeared or injured it is our duty to
aid that person and give that person an opportunity to appear before the committee to explain
and defend himself as you have done.
In other words, he was potentially guilty until proven innocent, which the committee refused
to do. Instead, they treated him like a student in a dunce cap scratching out "I will not be a
commie dupe" over and over. His penitence extended to publishing "How the Reds Made a Sucker
Out of Me," in American Legion Magazine (October 1952), paraphrased in 2011 by USC historian
Steven J. Ross:
Robinson told readers that while he had "never paid much attention to communism in the
past," he now knew how they went about duping loyal Americans. "They do not reveal themselves
as communists," but pose "as fine American citizens who are for 'peace,' or 'decent working
conditions,' or 'against intolerance.' " These were lies; their real aim was "world domination,
oppression, and slavery for the working people and the minorities they profess to love." The
contrite actor ended by swearing, "I am not a communist, I have never been, I never will be
– I am an American ."
It must have been soul-crushing for someone so allergic to fascism to prostrate himself
before that jingoist tribunal. Thank Mother of Mercy, that wasn't the end of Rico . Robinson
returned to the stage for several years and then went on to act in more than 40 films. Somehow
befittingly, his last role came in the cult classic b-movie Soylent Green ( 1973 ). He died soon after in Mount Sinai
Hospital and was buried in Brooklyn. He was 79.
In that article,
Little Caesar and the McCarthyist Mob , Ross observes, "The internationalist pronouncements
of Robinson and other Hollywood activists soon came to haunt them as HUAC began portraying
anti-fascists as the allies of Communists bent on destroying America." And so it is today as
anti-Russia hysteria paves the way to a fascist-style America-first militarism, cheered on by
compliant corporate media and political opportunists from both sides of the aisle. Whoever
objects to the gathering storm is apt to be fingered as soft on Putin and entered into watch
lists.
Meanwhile, the corporate takeover of the Federal Government and more than several states is
nearly a fait accompli . Our elections are rigged, not by Russian trolls but minions
of the GOP. The First Family mixes governing with business and pleasure and the Bozo-in-Chief
can't get his wealth-addled mind around anything for more than a New York minute. Generals and
billionaires have been placed in charge of arming and corrupting the republic, respectively.
Democrats won't take on the Electoral College or Republican stratagems to rig elections, even
though reforms would be win-win for them.
We're going down folks, and if Edward G. were around and still in the game he would
understand where we're heading. The old anti-fascist would be plunging right in to keep America
safe for democracy. Since he can't, I reckon we've got to.
Bonus Feature
Another pro-Soviet propaganda production from 1942, this one all-American, is Miss V from Moscow .
Directed by Albert Herman and starring Lola Lane and Noel Madison, it is regarded as one of the
cheesiest spy films ever to grace the silver screen. Lane plays Vera Marova, an untrained
Soviet spy apparently fluent in German, French, and English. She slips into occupied France
pretending to be a dead German spy whom she closely resembles. In an absurd sequence of
implausible events, she and Steve Worth, a downed American airman, hook up and collaborate with
Free French partisans in Paris. After she romances a Gestapo Captain and worms war plans from
him, they send secret radio messages to Moscow from the back room of a bistro that enable
American convoys bound for Russia to elude German submarines. As the film ends, instead of
having Vera and her plucky American comrade Steve romantically embrace (that would be a bit too
much bilateral solidarity) we get to cheer on American supply ships steaming through the Baltic
to deliver the goods.
Geoff Dutton is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes
about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel
chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a
collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at
progressivepilgrim.review.
"... Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute. ..."
Closely observing the grammar of the Official Russiagate Narrative is revealing and
instructive. It provides clues to the (language-)game being played.
Consider what I call the insidious article, the . In the public prints and official
pronouncements, it's not enough to say Russians tried to muck around in the American
election. It's almost always the Russians . This is a subtle way to convey the idea
that Vladimir Putin and his intel agencies were responsible. If a
second-tier Russian oligarch who wishes to help Putin hires, on his own initiative, "a
bunch of subliterate-in-English trolls," in
Masha Gessen's words, and pays them the minimum wage to (again Gessen) "post[] mostly
static and sort of absurd advertising," that is treated as the equivalent of Putin's executing
a plan to destroy the American political system.
There's a big difference between Russians and the Russians , even if the
grammar seems inconsequential.
Then there's the similar case of synecdoche , "a figure of speech in which a part
is made to represent the whole or vice versa." This is one of the few things I learned in
college that I actually remember. (Thank you Mark Isaacs, professor of journalism at Temple
University, who also introduced me to the work of H. L. Mencken.)
When you read in the newspaper or hear it said on CNN that Russia or
Moscow or the Kremlin did such and such, you should call out, "Who exactly?"
Countries, cities, and citadels cannot act. Only individuals do. Moreover, there's a big
difference between the GRU (Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije) and the IRA (Internet
Research Institute), between Vladimir Putin and Yevgeny Prigozhin. But their acts are equally
attributed to Russia . St. Petersburg (where the IRA is located) even becomes
subsumed by Moscow . The Kremlin could refer to someone directly ordered by
Putin or a rogue actor. But those distinctions are of little interest to those formulating or
promulgating the Official Narrative.
Finally, let's turn to the word alleged . I can't stress how important this word
figured in my journalism training in the 1960s and 70s, both in school and on the job. It was
drilled into me by teachers and editors that an allegation is just an allegation until it is
confirmed. And to drive this home, my teachers' favorite line was, "If your mother says she
loves you, check it out."
Alleged was the obligatory qualifier before murderer , thief,
rapist , kidnapper , etc. -- until the suspect was convicted or his guilty plea
was accepted by a judge. We'd never dream of not using it before that point. News
organization were of course protecting themselves from libel actions, but it was more than
that, namely, fairness and acknowledgment of the presumption of innocent/burden of proof. Even
an initial confession was not proof of guilt: people sometimes confess to offenses they did not
commit, and sometimes people think their actions are illegal when they are not.
At least one young newsman either learned the lesson about alleged too well or
thought it would be fun to mock the obsession with the word. Don Folsom, a rookie Buffalo, NY,
radio newscaster in the 1960s began
his Easter morning report thus: "Today millions of Christians around the world are
celebrating the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ." He was fired.
The word alleged seems almost completely lacking in the Russiagate conversation.
The New York Times and other major news outlets have many times referred merely to
"Russian interference in the 2016 election." No alleged ? Have those reporters
actually seen the evidence the general public has been denied? If so, they haven't said
informed us of that fact. Remember, the infamous January 2017 National Intelligence Assessment
contained no evidence, as the same Times explicitly acknowledged at the time. In his
Jan. 6, 2017, article, "Russian Intervention in American Election Was No One-Off,"
Times reporter Scott Shane wrote
:
What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated:
hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the
election attack. This is a significant omission .
Instead, the message from the agencies amounts to "trust us."
I thought reporters weren't supposed to trust even their own mothers! Why are they trusting
the lying James Clapper's "handpicked" intel personnel who made this assessment? Do they not
remember the Big Lie about Iraqi WMDs, not to mention the entire lying history of the U.S.
intel complex?
The Times and the other major news companies have forgotten what Shane reported
more than a year ago: that the government has not disclosed the evidence again Putin and
the Russians . If you think the indictment of 13 Russians patched up this hole, reread
this column. Note also that the IRA is not charged with hacking the DNC and Podesta email
accounts and giving the authentic contents to Wikileaks, which is how the big fuss got
started.
So there you go. I can only conclude that the mainstream media were so traumatized by
Trump's win (a traumatizing event, to be sure) and by Hillary Clinton's loss (not so much) that
they have dropped the grammar of detached reporting and embraced the grammar of those who seek
confrontation with Russia.
Leaked: Secret Documents From Russia's Election Trolls
An online auction gone awry reveals substantial new details on Kremlin-backed troll farm efforts to stir up real protests and
target specific Americans to push their propaganda.
The Kremlin-backed troll farm at the center of Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. election has quietly suffered a catastrophic
security breach, The Daily Beast has confirmed, in a leak that spilled new details of its operations onto obscure corners of the
internet.
The Russian "information exchange" Joker.Buzz, which auctions off often stolen or confidential information, advertised a leak
for a large cache of the
Internet Research Agency's (IRA) internal documents. It includes names of Americans, activists in particular, whom the organization
specifically targeted; American-based proxies used to
access Reddit
and the viral meme site 9Gag; and login information for troll farm accounts.
Even the advertisement for the document dump provides a trove of previously unknown information about the breadth of Russia's
disinformation effort in the United States, including rallies pushed by IRA social media accounts that turned violent.
While special counsel Robert Mueller's recent
conspiracy
indictment against the IRA showed a sophisticated organization aimed at targeting U.S. voters with disinformation, the seller
appears not to have understood the implications of the auction.
The listing was titled "
Savushkina 55
," the physical address in St. Petersburg from which the troll farm used to operate. The date on the auction is listed as
Feb. 10, 2017 -- seven months before Facebook and Twitter identified and pulled down Internet Research Agency accounts from Twitter.
It received no bids. The seller, "AlexDA," has not posted any other listings, and was unable to be reached. In Russian, the listing
promised "working data from the department focused on the United States."
"The leaks show that Russian imposter accounts targeted activists for specific causes the Kremlin-backed troll farm wanted
promoted. On the target list: the daughter of one of Martin Luther King's lieutenants."
While the date of the auction could not be independently confirmed, the authenticity of the leak can. The leaked documents
list screen names connected to a number of American citizens who were used as unwitting proxies by the Russians. The Daily Beast
was able to track down four of those citizens, whose names have not been previously revealed. The leak contains precise dates
in 2016 in which the IRA-created account Blacktivist reached out to those U.S. citizens, plus a short description of the conversations.
The Daily Beast spoke to those citizens, and confirmed they interacted with the Blacktivist account in the ways described by the
IRA in the document. In one case, the American even provided screenshots of his interactions with the Russian troll trying to
dupe him.
In short, the leaked document contains details of the Russian disinformation campaign that have not been previously made public
-- details which The Daily Beast was able to confirm. .....
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
"... he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit. ..."
"... I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all. ..."
"... My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially
in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of
the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns
this around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with
this post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed
war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their
torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy.
Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching
on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine
before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking
to save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united
against Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that --
unlike Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability
threatens the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary
Clinton was a sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as
I am not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
This past September, in one of his regular interviews with the newspaper Parlamentní Listy, retired Czech Major General
Hynek Blaško commented on the possibility of a conflict between Russia and NATO with a following anecdote:
"I have seen a popular joke on the Internet about Obama and his generals in the Pentagon debating on the best timing to
attack Russia. They couldn't come to any agreement, so they decided to ask their allies.
The French said: " We do not know, but certainly not in the winter. This will end badly. "
The Germans responded: "We do not know, either, but definitely not in a summer. We have already tried."
Someone in Obama's war room had a brilliant idea to ask China, on the basis that China is developing and always has new
ideas.
The Chinese answered: "The best time for this is right now. Russia is building the Power of Siberia pipeline, the North
Stream Pipeline, Vostochny Cosmodrome Spaceport, the MegaProject bridge to Crimea; also Russian is upgrading the Trans-Siberian
railroad with a new railway bridge across Lena River and the Amur-Yakutsk Mainline. Russia is also building new sports facilities
for the World Cup and athletics, and has in development over 150 production projects in the Arctic Well, now they really need
as many POWs as possible!"
But Trump himself was quickly neutered (in just three month) and now does not represents
"Trumpism" (rejection of neoliberal globalization, unrestricted immigration for suppression of
wages, rejection of elimination of jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing,
rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as
global policemen and wars for Washington client Israel in Middle east, detente with Russia etc)
in any meaningful way. He is just an aging Narcissist in power.
Looks like Trump became a variant of Hillary minus sex change operation.
Notable quotes:
"... He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same. ..."
"... He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology of leadership ..."
"... . He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement. ..."
"... He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile attack) ..."
"... His willingness to ignore -- Israel-US problematic relationship. ..."
"... I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA. ..."
it's easy to come away from CPAC energy and enthusiasm thinking your headline is an accurate
description of what is happening in the GOP. I am more conservative thankfully in my views
than most members at CPAC. And while I may not be the typical voter. I can say categorically,
that :trumoing" is not in my blood. Let's look what a consevative had to consider when
evaluating Pres Trump:
3. He supports same sex relations and marriage of the same.
... ... ...
5. He is by nature a situational leader -- not typically a conservatives methodology
of leadership
... ... ...
8 . He mistakes support and loyalty for agreement.
9. He seems too weak to stand his ground on key issues. Syria, (missile
attack)
10. His willingness to ignore -- Israel-US problematic relationship.
11. He thinks that Keynesian policy is a substitute for economic growth. monetary
policy.
12. I am leary of anyone who says tough things about immigration, but quietly
backpedals or openly does the same -- DACA.
"Note about Miss Mona Charin: the two agree on so many points on foreign policy, especially
Israel, it's hard to see her disdain. I think she rejects his troublesome demeanor and attitude.
Presidential decorum is a big deal to many."
Notable quotes:
"... The sixty plus millions of people who voted Trump are politically diverse. They have one thing in common. They were not persuaded by the loud, continuous and shameless lying of the corporate media. Rather they were motivated by it. ..."
Now his other supporters might say, considered against all the other candidates -- he's
better. Hmmmm, well, that's why I voted for him.
Thank you. My bullet points would differ from yours but in the end I also voted for Trump.
The sixty plus millions of people who voted Trump are politically diverse. They have one
thing in common. They were not persuaded by the loud, continuous and shameless lying of the
corporate media. Rather they were motivated by it.
The deplorables, having found one another, need to hang together until we find real
leadership. Trump, whatever he is, is not a leader.
"... Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and health care by AHIP with runaway costs. ..."
In fifty years, very little has been done by US Federal Government which benefits the common citizen. A great deal has been done
to facilitate the degradation of the common citizen by the global one percent. We have a new world order as called for by GHW
Bush.
Based on historical evidence, to believe that Trump (with his party - Republican control of House and Senate) will change
our course is naive. By contrast, Obama D had both houses also - we got WAR, cash for clunkers, foreclosures, bank bailouts and
health care by AHIP with runaway costs.
Trump is and has been carrying out his own policies to enrich those that already have everything and to repeal any regulations
that were put into place to protect the people. Have you not noticed that he lined his cabinet with Goldman Sachs (which he blasted
HRC for associating her self with.
Like I said he and his gang are doing what they want to help enrich themselves on the backs of the rest of us. Wake up and
quit upholding these lying pieces of excrement they are no different than the ones before them.
Trump is a dirty businessman the things that he is doing are to benefit him and his family and to screw the rest of us and
tell us how great it is for us. You my man have drank from the Trump cup and think that anything that speaks against him is "fake
news" when in reality Trump and the likes of Breitbart are the "fake news" a little truth but a bunch of spin
At the core of Trumpism is the rejection of neoliberalism
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands: " Consider
this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built
a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have
been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican
presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever." ..."
"I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this
great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia, but the world. We regard Marshal Stalin's life as most precious to the
hopes and hearts of all of us."
Returning home, Churchill assured a skeptical Parliament, "I know of no Government which stands to its obligations, even in its
own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government."
George W. Bush, with the U.S. establishment united behind him, invaded Iraq with the goal of creating a Vermont in the Middle
East that would be a beacon of democracy to the Arab and Islamic world.
Ex-Director of the NSA Gen. William Odom correctly called the U.S. invasion the greatest strategic blunder in American history.
But Bush, un-chastened, went on to preach a crusade for democracy with the goal of "ending tyranny in our world."
... ... ...
After our victory in the Cold War, we not only plunged into the Middle East to remake it in our image, we issued war guarantees
to every ex-member state of the Warsaw Pact, and threatened Russia with war if she ever intervened again in the Baltic Republics.
No Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing such an in-your-face challenge to a great nuclear power like Russia. If Putin's
Russia does not become the pacifist nation it has never been, these guarantees will one day be called. And America will either back
down -- or face a nuclear confrontation. Why would we risk something like this?
Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one
of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since
Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence
Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history.
But the greatest risk we are taking, based on utopianism, is the annual importation of well over a million legal and illegal immigrants,
many from the failed states of the Third World, in the belief we can create a united, peaceful and harmonious land of 400 million,
composed of every race, religion, ethnicity, tribe, creed, culture and language on earth.
Where is the historic evidence for the success of this experiment, the failure of which could mean the end of America as one nation
and one people?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and
Divided America Forever."
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands:
" Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants,
not one of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits
since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic
independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
The truth is that now Trump does not represent "Trumpism" -- the movement that he created which includes the following:
– rejection of neoliberal globalization;
– rejection of unrestricted immigration;
– fight against suppression of wages by multinationals via cheap imported labor;
– fight against the elimination of meaningful, well-paying jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing;
– rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen and wars for
Washington client Israel in the Middle East;
– détente with Russia;
– more pragmatic relations with Israel and suppression of Israeli agents of influence;
– revision of relations with China and addressing the problem of trade deficit.
– rejection of total surveillance on all citizens;
– the cut of military expenses to one third or less of the current level and concentrating on revival on national infrastructure,
education, and science.
– abandonment of maintenance of the "sole superpower" status and global neoliberal empire for more practical and less costly "semi-isolationist"
foreign policy; closing of unnecessary foreign military bases and cutting aid to the current clients.
Of course, the notion of "Trumpism" is fuzzy and different people might include some additional issues and disagree with some
listed here, but the core probably remains.
Of course, Trump is under relentless attack (coup d'état or, more precisely, a color revolution) of neoliberal fifth column,
which includes Clinton gang, fifth column elements within his administration (Rosenstein, etc) as well from remnants of Obama
administration (Brennan, Comey, Clapper) and associated elements within corresponding intelligence agencies. He probably was forced
into some compromises just to survive. He also has members of the neoliberal fifth column within his family (Ivanka and Kushner).
So the movement now is in deep need of a new leader.
That's a good summary of what the public voted for and didn't get.
And whether Trump has sold out, or was blackmailed or was a cynical manipulative liar for the beginning is really irrelevant.
The fact is that he is not doing it – so he is just blocking the way.
At some point the US public are going to have to forget about their "representatives" (Trump and Congress and the rest of
them) and get out onto the street to make themselves heard. The population of the US is 323 million people and if just 1/2
of 1% (1,6 million) of them decided to visit Congress directly the US administration might get the message.
pyrrhus, March 3, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT
@anon
Finally, Pat understands that the American [Neoliberal] Empire and habit of intervention all over the world is a disaster.
In this state the current war between factions of the US elite reminds Stalin fight against "globalists" like Trotsky, who were
hell-bent of the idea of world revolution.
Notable quotes:
"... I would define Trump_vs_deep_state as "bastard neoliberalism" which tries to combine domestic "100% pure" neoliberalism with the rejection of neoliberal globalization as well as partial rejection of expensive effort for expansion of US led neoliberal empire via color revolutions and military invasions, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... That makes screams of "soft neoliberals" from Democratic Party at "hard neoliberals" at Republican Party really funny indeed. Both are essentially "latter-day Trotskyites", yet they scream at each other, especially Obama/Clinton supporters ;-) ..."
"... But in reality Democratic sheeple are just a different type of wolfs -- wolfs in sheep clothing. And Hillary was an old, worn "classic neoliberal" shoe, which nobody really wants to wear. ..."
"... Trump does not intend to change the neoliberal consensus of what government should do domestically, and what should be the relationship between US government and business community. ..."
I would define Trump_vs_deep_state as "bastard neoliberalism" which tries
to combine domestic "100% pure" neoliberalism with the rejection of neoliberal globalization as well
as partial rejection of expensive effort for expansion of US led neoliberal empire via color revolutions
and military invasions, especially in the Middle East.
That's what seems to be the key difference of Trump_vs_deep_state from "classic neoliberalism" or as Sklar
called it "corporate liberalism".
From Reagan to Obama all US governments pray to the altar of classic neoliberalism. Now we have
a slight deviation.
That makes screams of "soft neoliberals" from Democratic Party at "hard neoliberals" at Republican
Party really funny indeed. Both are essentially "latter-day Trotskyites", yet they scream at each
other, especially Obama/Clinton supporters ;-)
In this sense Krugman recent writings are really pathetic and signify his complete detachment
from reality, or more correctly attempt to create an "artificial reality" in which bad wolf Trump
is going to eat Democratic sheeple. And in which media, FBI, and Putin are responsible entirely for
Hillary's loss.
But in reality Democratic sheeple are just a different type of wolfs -- wolfs in sheep clothing.
And Hillary was an old, worn "classic neoliberal" shoe, which nobody really wants to wear.
Trump does not intend to change the neoliberal consensus of what government should do domestically,
and what should be the relationship between US government and business community.
But the far right movement that he created and led has different ideas.
What he did not mention is more important namely not what Russia did do with no violation of
existing treaties but what they did anticipating expiration of treaties or in violation of
existing treaties especially regarding space nuke.
In Fact China, Russia and US all work on space nuclear as well as so called guided
hypersonic gravity systems what are man made meteorites , tungsten rods to hit the targets with
cosmic speeds.
All additionally with anti satellite systems as well as massive electronic warfare including
hacking of airplanes,drones, cruise missiles as well as ICBMs whose latest countermeasures made
them, like guided, non ballistic trajectories nuclear heads practically non defeatable .
In fact Putin's speech actually more campaign speech countering the political right on
subject of weakness and western appeasement, covered what was well know before, and was a
counter point to military strategy of all sides rejecting use of nukes as way to achieve any
tactical or strategic advantage.
Nukes are madness serve nobody but threatening human race with anihilation so they submit to
their respective rulers who will never used them against one another but only in desperation
face global revolution.
Facts are following:
Hitler and Napoleon learned that it is impossible to conquer Russia size of continent of
militarily impossible weather with now a network of underground fortifications, tunnels that
cannot be nuked.
There is no conquering Russia with measly million soldiers west could at best deploy for
their sure deaths. Hence no western strategist plan for that and so the idea of Russia
responding to conventional attack with nuke was a propaganda aim to end the conversation about
that absurd, no sides really considers, but is used to spread fear.
US may attack Russia with nukes but no strategic goal would be achieved by that while
retaliation would have been devastating.
Even conventional attack on Russia is absurd. Poland 50k 5k offensive capability, All Baltic
states 10k, Slovakia 5k, Hungary 9k facing what?
Russian allies: Donbas rebels 40k war hardened rebel soldiers would be hard to beat; Belarus
250k highly trained soldiers, fully integrated Air, Space, Ground and electronic warfare with
all newest Russian toys, while entire army of 2 millions. Russia 3-5 million military can call
at least 10 millions will maintain air and space superiority over their territory , digged in
while invaders are exposed.
There is will be no invasion of Russia only intimidation of the elites to submit to US
political and economic dictates. Also there is no conquering China as well. Not possible.
The only nuke war can occur when global elite will be losing grip on power and going down in
flames in socialist revolution and only to take entire humanity with them to hell.
You don't hear foreign leaders, e.g., Vladimir Putin, constantly referring to the other
countries in the world as "competitors", "rivals", "adversaries", "enemies", etc., depending
the degree of their subservience/loyalty. And as far as I know Chinese rulers don't do it
either. Apparently Vladimir Putin really does try to treat other countries as "partners" (and
that may explain his demonstrated reluctance to use any kind of "force").
Putin's all about cooperation; respect for international law; respect for each nation's
sovereignty; diplomacy; etc. whereas the
jewish-supremacist-controlled-demon-possessed-puppet-rulers-of-the-corrupt-neo-Bolshevik-"West"
are all about lawlessness, unaccountability, deceit, war, terrorism, complete disregard for
the rights/sovereignty of other countries, etc., etc., etc.
Can you imagine if a private person in society acted like the jew-supremacist-controlled
U.S. government? Seriously try. Imagine you live on a street where one neighbor, "Sam" is
always causing trouble. You have to be either "with him" (and complicit in his treachery
against the whole neighborhood) or you're his "enemy", and you'll be dealt with accordingly.
And you try to get along with your neighbors, but "Sam" gets up every morning with the
thought "how can I screw them over today?"
One day one of Sam's neighbor's kids set up a lemonade stand. The kids had fun and made a
little money. Sam was incensed; the neighbor's kids became "rivals" to his kids. Sam reasoned
that if he didn't take action, these industrious neighbor kids would one day take over the
whole neighborhood.(Sam's kids could've done the same thing but because of Sam's influence,
they felt it was "beneath" them). So one day Sam ran over the lemonade stand with his car,
trashing it, and he told the cops it
was an "accident."
Sam is always fighting with someone over something; he's burnt down peoples' houses; he's
robbed people; he's killed people; he's raped some of the women in the neighborhood; and he's
never held accountable. He's a pervert, a liar, a murderer, a crook, an arsonist, etc. And
Sam always seems to get away with his crimes because he owns the cops and the judge.
Society wouldn't put up with a scumbag like this for very long, would it? At some point,
somebody who's had enough is going to shoot Sam. And this is exactly the situation with the
U.S. "government" today.
What is China (or Russia or Panama or Bangladesh or wherever)? It's a country full of
people who have the same God-given natural right to exist that anyone else has, including
U.S. rulers. Until U.S. rulers accept this (which they apparently never will) there will
never be peace on this planet (unless somebody forcefully puts Sam in his place).
So what's my main point? I disagree with labeling other countries according to their
willingness to take orders from the "beast". I disagree with the notion that the U.S.
"government" can sit in judgment of the governments of other countries which have done
nothing to the U.S. China is not a "rival"; Russia is not a "rival"; Country X is not a
rival; and there is almost no problem on this earth that reasonable people cannot solve by
way of diplomacy, if everyone involved is acts in good faith and accepts the natural rights
of other people in far away places.
Putin a modest man? His net worth is an estimated 200 billion$-illegally vacuumed from
government assets. It is believed he is the richest man in the world. Quite impressive
considering he was a low level KGB drone stationed in Berlin.
Any journalist or bureaucratic agency that questions his staggering wealth disappears, is
the victim of a "street" crime or is subject to campaigns of threats and gaslighting (Objects
moved in their home while they are away, men following them on the street).
Has the author ever been to Russia? Perhaps that might be the first step in writing an
article that is based in reality. Even in Moscow, access to basic antibiotics are a roll of
the dice. If you pay enough, you may get them that day. If you not have enough money or the
proper connections you may have to meet wait two weeks to get a simple dose of anti
virals.
Any procedure that involves the slightest specialization must be scheduled months in
advance, unless you are a member of the elite.
The American intellect is so flabby that it must paint people as heroes or devils. There
can be no colorable issues. Putin is a man who is going to butter his own bread. He is a
skilled politician and a deft criminal, and presenting a strong patriotism to Russia benefits
him on all fronts.
Most large nations mettle in others elections. The western media is so deceptive,repulsive
and deranged in their hatred of Trump that this is the only issue they believe they can hang
their hat on to impeach Trump. If the evidence cannot be found they will invent.
But to paint Putin as a benevolent hero is so out of touch with the facts as to be either
childish or insane.
"Putin a modest man? His net worth is an estimated 200 billion$-illegally vacuumed from
government assets. It is believed he is the richest man in the world. Quite impressive
considering he was a low level KGB drone stationed in Berlin".
Comical unsubstantiated neocon fiction from US gov't outlets of CNN-MSNBC. Why would Putin
stay in office with that kind of bank account? You are a neo-liberal myrmidon.
His net worth is an estimated 200 billion$-illegally vacuumed from government
assets.
It's been "estimated" at $20 billion, $40 billion, and then $200 billion. The key word is
"estimated". Where do you think a man could hide that amount of money, even $20 billion, so
no one is able to find it? Why would Putin even need the money, ever, and would be able to
use it? Putin is a smart man and he knows full well that the time when the Count of
Monte-Cristo could emerge from a cave with an immense fortune nobody questions the origin of
are gone. Putin knows he'd never be able to live in the West and enjoy his money, even if he
wanted to. But as long as he stays in Russia he'll enjoy the status of the ex-President and
everything that comes with it. This is from the practical standpoint.
Also, Putin doesn't seem to be the type. We've been observing him for close to 20 years,
and during this time he has acquired the quality of a leader of truly historical proportions.
I don't think he is particularly interested in personal enrichment.
Don't believe everything you read in the West about Russia or Putin – most of it is
BS.
Even in Moscow, access to basic antibiotics are a roll of the dice.
Come on, man, are you for real? You can buy a truckload of antibiotics in any pharmacy in
any town in Russia. Recently, they started to introduce that stupid "prescription only" rule
but plenty is still available. Yes, some procedures do involve some waiting time but so is
the case in the United States or anywhere.
Russia is not heaven on earth. It has plenty of problems. It's climbing out of a very deep
hole economically and socially. But there is no need to invent stupidities.
WASHINGTON -- A Justice
Department review is expected to criticize the former F.B.I. deputy director, Andrew G. McCabe, for authorizing the
disclosure of information about a continuing investigation to journalists, according to four people familiar with the
inquiry.
Such a damning report would
give President Trump new ammunition to criticize Mr. McCabe, who is at the center of Mr. Trump's theory that "deep
state" actors inside the F.B.I. have been working to sabotage his presidency. But Mr. McCabe's disclosures to the
news media do not fit neatly into that assumption: They contributed to
a negative article
about Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration's Justice Department -- not Mr. Trump.
The department's inspector
general, Michael E. Horowitz
,
has zeroed in on disclosures to The Wall Street Journal as part of a
wide-ranging investigation into, among other things, how the F.B.I. approached the 2016 inquiry into Mrs. Clinton's
handling of classified information. Mr. Horowitz has said he expects to release a report this month or next.
Mr. McCabe, under pressure
from the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray,
stepped down as the deputy director
in late January amid concerns over the coming report.
The
findings have potentially serious ramifications for the F.B.I., which is in the middle of a special counsel
investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Though the report is not expected to focus on that, some of
the same agents -- including Mr. McCabe -- handled both the Russia case and the Clinton inquiry. A report that
questions the judgment of those agents would give fodder for Mr. Trump and his supporters to step up their attacks on
the F.B.I.
A
spokesman for Mr. Horowitz declined to comment. Mr. McCabe also declined to comment. He and his allies have
steadfastly maintained that he did nothing improper and cooperated fully with the inspector general.
In October 2016,
The Wall Street Journal revealed
a dispute between F.B.I. and Justice Department officials over how to proceed in
an investigation into the financial dealings of the Clinton family's foundation. The article revealed a closed-door
meeting during which senior Justice Department officials were dismissive of the evidence and declined to authorize
subpoenas or grand jury activity. Some F.B.I. agents, the article said, believed that Mr. McCabe had put the brakes
on the investigation.
Others rejected that notion.
The Journal, citing sources including "one person close to Mr. McCabe," revealed a tense conversation with a senior
Justice Department official in which Mr. McCabe insisted that the F.B.I. had the authority to press ahead with the
investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
The inspector general has
concluded that Mr. McCabe authorized F.B.I. officials to provide information for that article, according to the four
people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the report before it is
published. The public affairs office had arranged a phone call to discuss the case, the people said. Mr. McCabe, as
deputy director, had the authority to engage the news media.
... ... ...
But the president is
particularly bothered by the fact that Mr. McCabe's wife, Jill, ran as a Democrat in a failed campaign for a State
Senate seat in Virginia. Her campaign received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from a political
committee run by Terry McAuliffe, the Virginia governor at the time and a longtime ally of the Clintons.
Later,
after Mrs. McCabe lost the race, Mr. McCabe was promoted to deputy director and oversaw the Clinton investigation.
Though Mr. McCabe sought ethics and legal advice about whether to recuse himself, some in the F.B.I. considered his
involvement a conflict of interest. Ultimately, amid scrutiny from the news media, Mr. Comey pressured Mr. McCabe to
recuse himself. The inspector general is examining whether Mr. McCabe should have done so earlier.
Mr. Trump has seized on that
issue in repeatedly criticizing Mr. McCabe, a lifelong Republican who did not vote in the 2016 election. In
face-to-face meetings with Mr. McCabe, the president questioned
how he had voted
and needled him
about his wife. In one instance, he called Mrs. McCabe "a loser," according to people familiar with the conversation,
which was
first reported by NBC News
.
Mr. McCabe's allies at the
F.B.I. say that Mr. Trump is also eager to discredit Mr. McCabe because he can corroborate Mr. Comey's accounts of
meetings with Mr. Trump.
Mr. McCabe
rose quickly through
the F.B.I. ranks
and was seen as a new model for the second-in-command when he was promoted in 2016. The F.B.I.
had transformed from a law-and-order agency to an integral part of the nation's intelligence apparatus, and Mr.
McCabe, who graduated from Duke and Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, was picked not based on a
career of street work but based on his intellect and decision-making.
That won him equal parts
praise and disdain inside the F.B.I., with longtime agents accusing him of having ascended too quickly.
Mr. McCabe is on leave while
he awaits retirement. He was succeeded by David L. Bowdich, the acting F.B.I. deputy director.
Paul Craig Roberts' invective against the "riggers:"
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/03/01/washington-sufficiently-intelligent-trusted-independent-foreign-policy/
"The stupid Samantha Vinograd [who served as a staffer on Obama's National Security Council]
repeats the lie that Russiagate was Putin's plot "to destabilize the United States." So, how is
the US a superpower when Russia controls US elections? Doesn't this mean that Americans are of
no relevance whatsoever in the world? ... With intelligence levels this low on Obama's National
Security Council, no wonder the neoonservatives were able to run over the Obama regime and
resurrect the Cold War, thus returning the world to a high chance of nuclear Armageddon."
The "riggers" have exposed their incompetence again and again and again...
Muller was the guy who buried 911 investigation. That's probably why he was hired for Russiagate investigation too.
Notable quotes:
"... retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional
Investigators or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was
Wikileaks' source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election? ..."
"... Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New
Zealand entrepreneur who clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with
a memory stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation. ..."
"... In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery,"
forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company partially funded by Google
, was the only entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking: ..."
"... Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian
hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news. ..."
"... Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which
is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk. Who else is on the Atlantic Council?
Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had been spying
on the Trump campaign: ..."
"... "The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on
July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot
twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was not
a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons. ..."
"... Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's
car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks
later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder ..."
"... Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky and
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth Rich
sent emails to WikiLeaks ." ..."
"... Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a
finger at former CIA director (and now MSNBC/NBC contributor ) John Brennan as the architect. ..."
As rumors swirl that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is
preparing a case against Russians who are alleged to have hacked Democrats during the 2016 election -- a conclusion based solely
on the analysis of cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, a Friday op-ed in the
Washington Times by retired
U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks a simple, yet monumentally significant question: Why haven't Congressional Investigators
or Special Counsel Robert Mueller addressed the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich - who multiple people have claimed was Wikileaks'
source of emails leaked during the 2016 U.S. presidential election?
Mueller has been incredibly thorough in his ongoing investigations -- however he won't even respond to Kim Dotcom, the New
Zealand entrepreneur who
clearly knew about the hacked emails long before they were released, claims that Seth Rich obtained them with a
memory
stick , and has offered to provide proof to the Special Counsel investigation.
On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide
written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.
In addition to several odd facts surrounding Rich's still unsolved murder - which officials have deemed a "botched robbery,"
forensic technical evidence has emerged which contradicts the Crowdstrike report. The Irvine, CA company
partially
funded by Google , was the
only
entity allowed to analyze the DNC servers in relation to claims of election hacking:
Notably, Crowdstrike has been considered by many to be discredited over their revision and retraction of a report over Russian
hacking of Ukrainian military equipment - a report which the government of Ukraine said was fake news.
In connection with the emergence in some media reports which stated that the alleged "80% howitzer D-30 Armed Forces of Ukraine
removed through scrapping Russian Ukrainian hackers software gunners," Land Forces Command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine informs
that the said information is incorrect .
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine asks journalists to publish only verified information received from the competent official sources.
Spreading false information leads to increased social tension in society and undermines public confidence in the Armed Forces
of Ukraine. –mil.gov.ua (translated) (1.6.2017)
In fact, several respected journalists have cast serious doubt on CrowdStrike's report on the DNC servers:
Pay attention, because Mueller is likely to use the Crowdstrike report to support the rumored upcoming charges against Russian
hackers.
Also notable is that Crowdstrike founder and anti-Putin Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch sits on the Atlantic Council - which
is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk.
Who else is on the Atlantic Council?
Evelyn Farkas - who slipped up during an MSNBC interview with Mika Brzezinski and disclosed that the Obama administration had
been spying on the Trump campaign:
The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try
to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we would not longer have access to that intelligence. - Evelyn Farkas
Odd facts surrounding the murder of Seth Rich
"The facts that we know of in the murder of the DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was that he was gunned down blocks from his home on
July 10, 2016. Washington Metro police detectives claim that Mr. Rich was a robbery victim, which is strange since after being shot
twice in the back, he was still wearing a $2,000 gold necklace and watch. He still had his wallet, key and phone. Clearly, he was
not a victim of robbery, " writes Lyons.
Another unexplained fact muddying the Rich case is that of a stolen 40 caliber Glock 22 handguns stolen from an FBI agent's
car the same day Rich was murdered. D.C. Metro police said that the theft occurred between 5 and 7 a.m., while the FBI said two weeks
later that the theft had occurred between Midnight and 2 a.m. - fueling speculation that the FBI gun was used in Rich's murder.
Furthermore, two men working with the Rich family - private investigator and former D.C. Police detective Rod Wheeler and family
acquaintance Ed Butowsky, have previously stated that Rich had contacts with WikiLeaks before his death.
"According to Ed Butowsky, an acquaintance of the family, in his discussions with Joel and Mary Rich, they confirmed that their
son transmitted the DNC emails to Wikileaks ," writes Lyons.
While Wheeler initially told TV station Fox5 that proof of Rich's contact with WikiLeaks lies on the murdered IT staffer's laptop,
he later walked
the claim back - though he maintained that there was "some communication between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks."
Wheeler also claimed in recently leaked audio that Seth Rich's
brother, Aaron – a Northrup Grumman employee, blocked him from looking at Seth's computer and stonewalled his investigation.
Wheeler said that brother Aaron Rich tried to block Wheeler from looking at Seth's computer, even though there could be evidence
on it. "He said no, he said I have his computer, meaning him," Wheeler said. "I said, well can I look at it? He said, what are
you looking for? I said anything that could indicate if Seth was having problems with someone. He said no, I already checked it.
Don't worry about it."
Aaron also blocked Wheeler from finding out about who was at a party Seth attended the night of the murder.
"All I want you to do is work on the botched robbery theory and that's it," Aaron told Wheeler -
Big League Politics
Perhaps the most stunning audio evidence, however, comes from leaked audio of a recorded conversation between Ed Butowsky
and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who told him of a " purported FBI report establishing that Seth
Rich sent emails to WikiLeaks ."
As transcribed and exclusively reported on by journalist Cassandra Fairbanks last year:
What the report says is that some time in late Spring he makes contact with WikiLeaks, that's in his computer," he says. "
Anyway, they found what he had done is that he had submitted a series of documents -- of emails, of juicy emails, from the DNC."
Hersh explains that it was unclear how the negotiations went, but that WikiLeaks did obtain access to a password protected
DropBox where Rich had put the files.
" All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.' Later, WikiLeaks
did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the DropBox."
Hersh also states that Rich had concerns about something happening to him, and had
"The word was passed, according to the NSA report, he also shared this DropBox with a couple of friends, so that 'if anything
happens to me it's not going to solve your problems,'" he added. "WikiLeaks got access before he was killed."
Brennan and Russian disinformation
Hersh also told Butowsky that the DNC made up the Russian hacking story as a disinformation campaign – directly pointing a
finger at former CIA director (and now
MSNBC/NBC contributor
) John Brennan as the architect.
I have a narrative of how that whole f*cking thing began. It's a Brennan operation, it was an American disinformation , and
the fu*kin' President, at one point, they even started telling the press – they were backfeeding the Press, the head of the NSA
was going and telling the press, fu*king c*cksucker Rogers, was telling the press that we even know who in the Russian military
intelligence service leaked it.
(full transcription here and extended audio of the Hersh conversation
here )
Hersh denied that he told Butowsky anything before the leaked audio emerged , telling NPR " I hear gossip [Butowsky] took two
and two and made 45 out of it. "
Technical Evidence
As we mentioned last week, Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name
Forensicator , who determined that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed
typical of file transfers to a memory stick.
The big hint
Last but not least, let's not forget that Julian Assange heavily implied Seth Rich was a source:
Given that a) the Russian hacking narrative hinges on Crowdstrikes's questionable reporting , and b) a mountain of evidence pointing
to Seth Rich as the source of the leaked emails - it stands to reason that Congressional investigators and Special Counsel Robert
Mueller should at minimum explore these leads.
As retired U.S. Navy admiral James A. Lyons, Jr. asks: why aren't they?
Something all of us here already know, if Mueller gets away from the delusion of Trump-Russia collusion then it will be his
ass in the frying pan. So he won't go after the Clintons, Obama, Comey or anyone else. Hitlery could show up with a gun in her
hand and tell Mueller she shot Seth and he would ignore it.
And, sadly, there ain't nobody gonna do anything about it unless and until a Special Prosecutor from outside DC is hired. Right
now a snowball in hell has a better chance.
Why don't the Democrats scream about the exploitation of his murder against them like they do with every minor accusation? It's as if they want his death to disappear from the public view...wonder why?
I think it is mostly because they know so much of their world hangs in the secrecy. If they let the Seth Rich story get out,
the Uranium One story gets out. If the Uranium One story gets out, the Awans' stolen cars with diplomatic cover for guns to Syria
in return for heroin to America comes out. If that story comes out, then the ISI Pakistani doctors with fake medical degrees pushing
pharma opiods in America comes out. And finally, Pizzagate, Pedogate, call it what you want, it comes out too. And then all of
these dirty sons of bitches go to jail.
And that's why you aren't hearing any of it. Especially from Mueller. I think he got hoodwinked too. They sold him this job
as a slam dunk to get Trump out of the White House. It really is the shits when the best laid plans of mice go south.
One of Trumps big problems is that as an outsider he did not have people both qualified and loyal to appoint to critical offices
in the deep state. That is why he wound up with a cipher like Sessions, a guy naive and gullible enough to believe the justice
department was filled with honorable and trustworthy people or at least men who played by some set of rules. Having found out
the hard way that he screwed up Trump is groping for a way out, trying to use a knife in a gun fight. The other side is too ruthless
and i suspect they will take him down in the end.
"All I know is that he offered a sample, an extensive sample, I'm sure dozens of emails, and said 'I want money.'
Later, WikiLeaks did get the password, he had a DropBox, a protected DropBox," he said. They got access to the
DropBox."
Why has no one followed the money on this yet? This introduces an interesting angle - did Seth Rich get paid by WikiLeaks?
And if so, can we find evidence of the payoff? How did he afford his expensive watch and necklace?
Report a crime, yet don't allow law enforcement access to evidence to help them solve the case.
Sounds like a case in Illinois. A 1 1/2 year old went missing, yet the parent wouldn't let the authorities search the house.
I don't remember if there was a warrant or what finally happened that the police were allowed to search the home, but they did,
and found the baby, dead, under the sofa.
The other key is Rod Rosenstein's post-indictment presser. At the very end, he gave away the game by admitting there was no
collusion, no Americans were involved, and nothing allegedly done by the Russians affected the election's outcome. BOOM. Stick
a fork in Mueller's ham sandwich indictment.
The one bit of evidence that pushes me over from the possible to probably is the gun, what are the odds of this gun being stolen
from the FBI, not just some random joe, but the FBI themselves. If that was the same gun used in the murder than the odds of it
happening to turn up immediately in a robbery where nothing was stolen in an area where no one commits crimes is so small as to
be near zero. It is vague above, what do ballistics say?
If Trump really wants to drain his swamp then this would be the way in, however if they did murder Seth then they'll murder
Trump's family too so he is neutralized unless they can go in and get everyone involved in one go. Otherwise I'd expect the job
to be handed over to someone ready to die, thinking here a retired general/admiral with no family might be the one to do it.
"... The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media narratives on critical foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total domination. Thus we now have the " Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act " that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that challenges Official Washington's version of reality. ..."
"... The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." ..."
"... Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies for " strategic communications " and " public diplomacy " were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government approach leveraging all elements of national power." ..."
"... The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election. ..."
"... Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA agents Philip Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting "black propaganda" and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world, with much of the fake news blowing back into the American media. ..."
"... In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot. ..."
The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media
narratives on critical foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total
domination. Thus we now have the " Countering
Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act " that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23
as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that
challenges Official Washington's version of reality.
The new law mandates the U.S. Secretary of State to collaborate with the Secretary of
Defense, Director of National Intelligence and other federal agencies to create a Global
Engagement Center "to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to
recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and
disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The law
directs the Center to be formed in 180 days and to share expertise among agencies and to
"coordinate with allied nations."
The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President
Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian
hacking" around the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly
"fake news." Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for
the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step
up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives."
The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges
a new
McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with
a new
Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center
– to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation."
As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the
Center to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing
expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and
implementing best practices." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google,
Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as
purveyors of "Russian
propaganda" or "fake news." )
Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies
for " strategic
communications " and " public
diplomacy " were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government
approach leveraging all elements of national power."
The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among
the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call
evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails
to "influence" the U.S. election.
Despite these accusations -- leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the
mainstream U.S. news media -- there is little or no
public evidence to support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis
by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by Wikileaks
founder Julian Assange and an associate, former British Ambassador Craig
Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media
has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new
"Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed.
Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA
agents Philip Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting
"black propaganda" and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world,
with much of the fake news blowing back into the American media.
In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that
formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment
for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and
distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream
media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who
challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another
$160 million into the pot.
Propaganda and Disinformation on Syria
Syria is a good case study in the modern application of information warfare. In her memoir
Hard Choices , former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that the U.S. provided
"support for (Syrian) civilian opposition groups, including satellite-linked computers,
telephones, cameras, and training for more than a thousand activists, students and independent
journalists."
Indeed, a huge amount of money has gone to "activists" and "civil society" groups in Syria
and other countries that have been targeted for "regime change." A lot of the money also goes
to parent organizations that are based in the United States and Europe, so these efforts do not
only support on-the-ground efforts to undermine the targeted countries, but perhaps even more
importantly, the money influences and manipulates public opinion in the West.
In North America, representatives from the Syrian "Local Coordination
Committees" (LCC) were frequent guests on popular media programs such as "DemocracyNow."
The message was clear: there is a "revolution" in Syria against a "brutal regime" personified
in Bashar al-Assad. It was not mentioned that the "Local Coordination Committees" have been
primarily funded by the West, specifically the Office for Syrian Opposition Support, which was
founded by the U.S. State Department and the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
More recently, news and analysis about Syria has been conveyed through the filter of the
White Helmets, also known as Syrian Civil Defense. In the Western news media, the White Helmets
are described as neutral, non-partisan, civilian volunteers courageously carrying out rescue
work in the war zone. In fact, the group is none of the above.
It was initiated by the U.S. and U.K. using a British military contractor and Brooklyn-based
marketing company.
While they may have performed some genuine rescue operations, the White Helmets are
primarily a media organization with a political goal: to promote NATO intervention in Syria.
(The manipulation of public opinion using the White Helmets and promoted by the New York Times
and Avaaz petition for a "No Fly Zone" in Syria is documented here.
)
The White Helmets hoax continues to be widely believed and receives uncritical promotion
though it has increasingly been exposed at alternative media outlets as the creation of a
"shady PR firm ." During critical times in the conflict in Aleppo, White Helmet individuals
have been used as the source for important news stories despite a track record of deception.
Recent Propaganda: Blatant Lies?
As the armed groups in east Aleppo recently lost ground and then collapsed, Western
governments and allied media went into a frenzy of accusations against Syria and Russia based
on reports from sources connected with the armed opposition. CNN host Wolf Blitzer described
Aleppo as "falling" in a "slaughter of these women and children" while CNN host Jake Tapper
referred to "genocide by another name."
The Daily Beast published the claims of the Aleppo Siege Media Center under the title
"Doomsday is held in Aleppo" and amid accusations that the Syrian army was executing
civilians, burning them alive and "20 women committed suicide in order not to be raped." These
sensational claims were widely broadcast without verification. However, this "news" on CNN and
throughout Western media came from highly biased sources and many of the claims – lacking
anything approaching independent corroboration – could be accurately described as
propaganda and disinformation.
Ironically, some of the supposedly "Russian propaganda" sites, such as RT, have provided
first-hand on-the-ground reporting from the war zones with verifiable information that
contradicts the Western narrative and thus has received almost no attention in the U.S. news
media. For instance, some of these non-Western outlets have shown videos of popular
celebrations over the "liberation of Aleppo."
There has been further corroboration of these realities from peace activists, such as Jan
Oberg of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research who published a photo
essay of his eyewitness observations in Aleppo including the happiness of civilians from
east Aleppo reaching the government-controlled areas of west Aleppo, finally freed from areas
that had been controlled by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and its jihadist allies in Ahrar
al-Sham.
Dr. Nabil Antaki, a medical doctor from Aleppo, described the liberation of Aleppo in an
interview titled
"Aleppo is Celebrating, Free from Terrorists, the Western Media Misinformed." The first
Christmas celebrations in Aleppo in four years are shown here, replete with marching band members in
Santa Claus outfits. Journalist Vanessa Beeley has published testimonies of civilians from east Aleppo.
The happiness of civilians at their liberation is clear.
Whether or not you wish to accept these depictions of the reality in Aleppo, at a minimum,
they reflect another side of the story that you have been denied while being persistently
force-fed the version favored by the U.S. State Department. The goal of the new Global
Engagement Center to counter "foreign propaganda" is to ensure that you never get to hear this
alternative narrative to the Western propaganda line.
Even much earlier, contrary to the Western mythology of rebel "liberated zones," there was
strong evidence that the armed groups were never popular in Aleppo. American journalist James
Foley described the situation in 2012 like this
:
"Aleppo, a city of about 3 million people, was once the financial heart of Syria. As it
continues to deteriorate, many civilians here are losing patience with the increasingly violent
and unrecognizable opposition -- one that is hampered by infighting and a lack of structure,
and deeply infiltrated by both foreign fighters and terrorist groups. The rebels in Aleppo are
predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once
lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the
authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad."
On Nov. 22, 2012, Foley was kidnapped in northwestern Syria and held by Islamic State
terrorists before his beheading in August 2014.
The Overall Narrative on Syria
Analysis of the Syrian conflict boils down to two competing narratives. One narrative is
that the conflict is a fight for freedom and democracy against a brutal regime, a storyline
promoted in the West and the Gulf states, which have been fueling the
conflict from the start . This narrative is also favored by some self-styled
"anti-imperialists" who want a "Syrian revolution."
The other narrative is that the conflict is essentially a war of aggression against a
sovereign state, with the aggressors including NATO countries, Gulf monarchies, Israel and
Jordan. Domination of the Western media by these powerful interests is so thorough that one
almost never gets access to this second narrative, which is essentially banned from not only
the mainstream but also much of the liberal and progressive media.
For example, listeners and viewers of the generally progressive TV and radio program
"DemocracyNow" have rarely if ever heard the second narrative described in any detail. Instead,
the program frequently broadcasts the statements of Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations Samantha Power and others associated with the U.S. position. Rarely do you hear
the viewpoint of the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations, the Syrian Foreign Minister or
analysts inside Syria and around the world who have written about and follow events there
closely.
"DemocracyNow" also has done repeated interviews with proponents of the "Syrian revolution"
while ignoring analysts who call the conflict a war of aggression sponsored by the West and the
Gulf monarchies. This blackout of the second narrative continues despite the fact that many
prominent international figures see it as such. For example, the former Foreign Minister of
Nicaragua and former President of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D'Escoto, has said,
"What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which,
according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against
another State."
In many areas of politics, "DemocracyNow" is excellent and challenges mainstream media.
However in this area, coverage of the Syrian conflict, the broadcast is biased, one-sided and
echoes the news and analysis of mainstream Western corporate media, showing the extent of
control over foreign policy news that already exists in the United States and Europe.
Suppressing and Censoring Challenges
Despite the widespread censorship of alternative analyses on Syria and other foreign
hotspots that already exists in the West, the U.S. government's new "Global Engagement Center"
will seek to ensure that the censorship is even more complete with its goal to "counter foreign
state and non-state propaganda and disinformation." We can expect even more aggressive and
better-financed assaults on the few voices daring to challenge the West's "group thinks"
– smear campaigns that are already quite extensive.
In an article titled "Controlling the Narrative on
Syria" , Louis Allday describes the criticisms and attacks on journalists Rania Khalek and
Max Blumenthal for straying from the "approved" Western narrative on Syria. Some of the
bullying and abuse has come from precisely those people, such as Robin Yassin-Kassab, who have
been frequent guests in liberal Western media.
Reporters who have returned from Syria with accounts that challenge the propaganda themes
that have permeated the Western media also have come under attack. For instance, Canadian
journalist Eva Bartlett recently returned to North America after being in Syria and Aleppo,
conveying a very different image and critical of the West's biased media coverage. Bartlett
appeared at a United Nations press conference and then did numerous
interviews across the country during a speaking tour. During the course of her talks and
presentation, Bartlett criticized the White Helmets and questioned whether it was true that Al
Quds Hospital in opposition-held East Aleppo was attacked and destroyed as claimed.
Bartlett's recounting of this information made her a target of Snopes, which has been a
mostly useful website exposing urban legends and false rumors but has come under criticism
itself for some internal
challenges and has been inconsistent in its investigations. In one report entitled "
White
Helmet Hearsay," Snopes' writer Bethania Palmer says claims the White Helmets are "linked
to terrorists" is "unproven," but she overlooks numerous videos , photos, and other reports showing
White Helmet members celebrating a Nusra/Al Qaeda battle victory, picking up the bodies of
civilians executed by a Nusra executioner, and having a member who alternatively appears as a
rebel/terrorist fighter with a weapon and later wearing a White Helmet uniform. The "fact
check" barely scrapes the surface of public evidence.
The same writer did another shallow "investigation" titled
"victim blaming" regarding Bartlett's critique of White Helmet videos and what happened at
the Al Quds Hospital in Aleppo. Bartlett suggests that some White Helmet videos may be
fabricated and may feature the same child at different times, i.e., photographs that appear to
show the same girl being rescued by White Helmet workers at different places and times. While
it is uncertain whether this is the same girl, the similarity is clear.
The Snopes writer goes on to criticize Bartlett for her comments about the reported bombing
of Al Quds Hospital in east Aleppo in April 2016. A statement at the website of Doctors Without Borders says the
building was "destroyed and reduced to rubble," but this was clearly false since photos show
the building with unclear damage. Five months later, the September 2016 report by Doctors Without
Borders says the top two floors of the building were destroyed and the ground floor Emergency
Room damaged yet they re-opened in two weeks.
The many inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of Doctors Without Borders
resulted in an
open letter to them. In their last report, Doctors Without Borders (known by its French
initials, MSF) acknowledges that "MSF staff did not directly witness the attack and has not
visited Al Quds Hospital since 2014."
Bartlett referenced satellite images taken before and after the reported attack on the
hospital. The images do not show severe damage and it is unclear whether or not there is any
damage to the roof, the basis for Bartlett's statement. In the past week, independent
journalists have visited the scene of Al Quds Hospital and report that that the top floors of
the building are still there and damage is unclear.
The Snopes' investigation criticizing Bartlett was superficial and ignored the broader
issues of accuracy and integrity in the Western media's depiction of the Syrian conflict.
Instead the article appeared to be an effort to discredit the eyewitness observations and
analysis of a journalist who dared challenge the mainstream narrative.
U.S. propaganda and disinformation on Syria has been extremely effective in misleading much
of the American population. Thus, most Americans are unaware how many billions of taxpayer
dollars have been spent on yet another "regime change" project. The propaganda campaign –
having learned from the successful demonizations of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Muammar
Gaddafi and other targeted leaders – has been so masterful regarding Syria that many
liberal and progressive news outlets were pulled in. It has been left to RT and some Internet
outlets to challenge the U.S. government and the mainstream media.
But the U.S. government's near total control of the message doesn't appear to be enough.
Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a few voices too many.
The enactment of HR5181, "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation," suggests that
the ruling powers seek to escalate suppression of news and analyses that run counter to the
official narrative. Backed by a new infusion of $160 million, the plan is to further squelch
skeptical voices with operation for "countering" and "refuting" what the U.S. government deems
to be propaganda and disinformation.
As part of the $160 million package, funds can be used to hire or reward "civil society
groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and
development centers, private companies, or academic institutions."
Among the tasks that these private entities can be hired to perform is to identify and
investigate both print and online sources of news that are deemed to be distributing
"disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies
and partners."
In other words, we are about to see an escalation of the information war.
Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the San Francisco Bay
Area and can be reached at [email protected]
Joe Tedesky , February 28, 2018 at 4:08 pm
If Russia-Gate hadn't been about providing a distraction from Hillary's blasted emails, it
would have been something else to create this need to combat 'fake news', because for my
whole life of 68 years most of everything our government and media has told us is a lie, so
now truthful reporting will be censored. Now all alternative news is being attacked by the
very establishment of people who have been lying to us for so long, as their constant lies
have made necessary a market for honest news. Rather the corporate owned media tell the
truth, they instead rally behind a patriotically draped 'news ban', as this is the MSM's fix
for all that's fake, or to tell the truth their fake news hammer to squash all that's honest.
We are in the bottom of the ninth whereas our police state nation is about to lose it's free
press god help us, god help the world.
" their constant lies have made necessary a market for honest news." yes, Joe, perhaps
that's the only good thing that has come out of their monopoly of MSM.
Joe Tedesky , February 28, 2018 at 5:02 pm
Yes being able to find truthful journalism is a commodity these days, but how long before
we lose that, is the question?
Joe Tedesky , February 28, 2018 at 4:54 pm
Lt. Col. Daniel L Davis says it's time to quit going to war with the AUMF. After you read
this let's see how much media attention the good Lt. Col. gets.
Here's an interesting view[1] and a classic on patriotic peer pressure for war[2]. There
must have been ample profit for stakeholders in the Vickers maxim gun production during the
Boer Wars and WW1[3,4].
Thank you very much. I watched the first video and got the book, I also am going to enjoy
'the Four Feathers' movie since it is one of my favorites.
Here something where moonofalabama is suggesting of how the NYT is back to their old
tricks like before the Iraq WMD invasion, where now the NYT is claiming N Korea is selling
nuclear weapons parts to Syria.
Checked out all of your links. I have downloaded, and saved as favorites. I have some
reading to do. I'll watch the youtube links that you have provided first. Thanks
godenrich.
John W , March 1, 2018 at 11:19 am
Keep those links coming Joe Tedesky. People need actual reality, not reality derived by
the criminally insane.
Bruce , March 1, 2018 at 5:57 am
Excellent comment. To paraphrase Orwell .telling the truth has become a revolutionary
act.
Joe Tedesky , March 1, 2018 at 5:51 pm
Orwell was so right, that sometimes I swear we in this century should be looking to see if
he is amongst us .a true time traveler. Joe
John W , March 1, 2018 at 11:13 am
I concur Joe Tedesky. The shit is indeed hitting the fan. Destroying the very thing that
gives them live(Earth) is complete insanity. But, psychopaths want control, and I believe
that these humanoids in control do not want anything to grow, live, prosper, or be, unless
they say so. Unless they have ultimate control over it(trees, grass, flowers, birds, animals,
humans, bacteria, planets, suns, etc). This geoengineering and other agendas that they are
doing, is killing off everything. This I believe is where their GMO's comes in. Kill all off,
then replace it with that they have created to live in the environment they have created.
Nothing or no one has a child or offspring unless they deem it ok, give their acceptance for
it to be. Entirely psychopathic, or an extremely primitive beastial mind. But, no one says
that what we call psychopathic is anywhere near sane. A bit off the tracks, but it does
coincide with controlling narratives or 'truths' for their agendas.
Nancy , March 1, 2018 at 1:07 pm
In a crazy way, it makes sense!
Joe Tedesky , March 1, 2018 at 5:50 pm
John W if more people were to investigate the harmful effects of GMO food products, and
they were to take what they found seriously, why this alone would be a good reason to stand
up and say to our corporate masters, 'enough is enough'.
Glad you enjoyed the links, because I was fearful that I had over done it with all those
posted links get this I had even more, but thought I was going overboard with what I had
already posted. So thanks for the approval John W. Joe
"the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train
and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false
stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media." and yet they
hyperventilate about "Russian trolls". How many of these pseudo patriotic agencies have been
financed with our taxes?
mark , March 1, 2018 at 5:22 pm
They paid just one British PR company, Bell Pottinger, $540 million to produce fake
material about Iraq and Syria and get it on to the Internet. This firm is run by a British
Lord, Lord Bell. He and his firm have a very shady record. They were hired by corrupt South
African politicians to divert attention from corruption scandals by fomenting hatred towards
the white minority there.
mike k , February 28, 2018 at 4:17 pm
Mind control is an essential feature of the project to enslave the world. If you think
there is no such project, you may already be a victim of it. Realizing that this is happening
is essential for defending against it. Those who are waging this war against your freedom
will do everything in their power to make you unaware of being brainwashed.
For a person to awaken to being brainwashed requires humility, openness, honesty, courage,
and the right kind of help from those already awakening.
mike k , February 28, 2018 at 5:43 pm
And if you lack the qualities mentioned, welcome to zombiehood!
ranney , February 28, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Last Sunday 60 minutes had a segment on the White Helmets so full of lies I wanted to
barf. I hope everyone who reads this comments section will write 60 minutes and tell them
that lying to the public is a big no-no and that White Helmets is an ISIS organization that
gasses their own people and leaves "evidence" to prove Assad did it.
Lois Gagnon , February 28, 2018 at 6:46 pm
Once in a while I go on the networks' Facebook pages and link an article that contradicts
what they just reported. Sometimes the next night they will add what the critics of US policy
are saying. They go out of their way to minimize that content, but it's good to let them know
there are people paying attention to the reality on the ground. It also exposes those
commenting on the FB page to alternative information.
It may not make a big difference, but even putting a dent in the official propaganda is
better then nothing.
Realist , March 1, 2018 at 3:48 am
I make it a point not to watch 60 Minutes any more, because I have a low tolerance for
deceit. However, I am aware of the false narratives they have been propagating on this
country's foreign policy for a long time. Other media outlets that have taken on that role
with zest these days include the History Channel, with a scathing systematic slander of
"Public Enemy Number One," President Vladimir Putin, and the National Geographic Channel.
Like PBS and NPR, both try to pass themselves off as dispensers of a refined intellectual
approach to news. Frankly, there is more thoughtful analysis given to the purchases of
backyard junk made by Mike Wolfe and Frank Fritz on the History Channel's "American
Pickers."
john wilson , March 1, 2018 at 5:23 am
60 minutes is part of the MSM deep state mouth piece. You don't seriously think they will
take the slightest bit of notice of letters complaining about their shyty programme do you?
We need to support and donate to genuine alternative media, news and comment like the late Mr
Parry's great site. Further, good, informative articles and alternative news clips should be
printed out and left on public transport for others to read. If each of us only printed out
10 copies of informative alternative news and left them on public transport for others to
read, then we might get at least a bit of the alternative (no, not alternative but truth
news) out there.
Nancy , March 1, 2018 at 1:10 pm
That's a great idea.
Virginia , March 1, 2018 at 2:51 pm
I second that idea.
Dan Good , February 28, 2018 at 7:04 pm
It is quite amazing to see that America is creating a class of American dissidents.
Growing up in the 50's and 60's it was hard to understand how the USSR could treat its
writers as outcasts. But it is about to happen now in the US of A.
Sobering recap in reprint of this Rick Sterling article, to realize that things continue
as bad or worse since this was published. There is a very well written opinion piece on
Sputnik by Finian Cunningham, "American Collapse -- The Spectacle of Our Time". The US power
structure, rather than address US internal societal rot, he says, doubles down on its rogue
nation behavior and militarism. The US is now as bad as Nazi Germany was and ought to receive
a "Judgement at Nuremberg" condemnation, is my opinion, but read Finian's piece at Sputnik,
very good.
geeyp , March 1, 2018 at 12:24 am
Particularly good choice to reprint as many have awoken since then to the last president's
sedition and cutting of the last thin thread of what was left of US democracy. And, he didn't
even have to pay for it. He allotted for it, and you paid for it.
robjira , March 1, 2018 at 1:12 am
It was the one sided reporting on Syria that was the last straw for me regarding DN, of
which I had been a financial supporter. Cracks in the veneer appeared (for me, at any rate)
as far back as the release of the Collateral Murder video (I distinctly recall Amy Goodman
relentlessly badgering Julian Assange to confirm it was [Bradley] Chelsea Manning who
provided the material to Wikileaks, while Assange with obvious discomfort repeatedly told
Goodman Wikileaks did not reveal the identities of sources), and continued with her ignorant
and insulting treatment of a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War who acknowledged during
a segment on the CM video, that he had friends among the squad of ground troops who arrived
after the massacre (he didn't want to reveal their names, and Goodman tore into him
questioning his enthusiasm for transparency, displaying stunning ignorance of the bonds
formed by soldiers serving together in combat). My misgivings deepened with the enthusiastic
support for the vilification of Putin as a monolithic representation of all that is brutally
and nefariously, "Russian." This coincided with DN's somewhat murky reporting on the
Ukrainian crisis, but it was Syria and the coverage of the 2016 election that did it for me
as far as DN is concerned.
Thank the stars for Consortium News. RIP Robert Parry.
robjira – thanks for the observations on Democracy Now. It has really been quite
amazing to watch Amy and company continue to shill for amoral neocon war mongering while
continuing to promote themselves as some sort of challenge to power. I'm really not sure how
that crew sleeps at night given the amount of civilian blood on their hands from their
reporting both Libya and Syria. Glad to see Aaron Mate left and now is able to do important
ethical journalism over at RealNews. Meanwhile a senior reporter Shane Bauer at "Mother
Jones" openly calls for censorship by the web platform "Medium" of those posting views that
challenge the official government narrative on Syria. And "Counterpunch" seems to have
stopped publishing the work of Andre Vitchek, as its editorial selection of articles becomes
more and more milk-toast "McResistance" by the week. As the ranks of "alternative media"
willing to actually stand up and oppose U.S. imperialism continues to shrink, those (like
Consortiumnews) that have maintained their integrity become that much more important.
Nancy , March 1, 2018 at 1:21 pm
The times we are living in are separating the real truth-seekers from the phonies. This is
a good thing, as Democracy Now, Counterpunch, etc. are exposing themselves as part of the
problem, not the solution. The truth is hard to face but as the saying goes–will set us
free –someday.
The good news is that there are other independent sources that keep popping up. They may
have occasional links to MSM(when relevant) but the bias is toward uncovering corruption and
international hypocrisy. One such website I recently discovered was Defend Democracy Press
with an emphasis on European news.
Robjira, Gary, Nancy -- I observed the same thing with DN and Amy Goodman. I recall a
piece here at CN that show DN not to be the independent news source it used to be, some huge
contribution was mentioned. DN is compromised now.
Maybe you saw Amy interview Glenn Greenwald who early on debunked Russia hacking the DNC.
He made a good case but she, as did MSM's reporters, stopped using the word "alleged" hacking
almost right away.
Two good articles not to miss on RT today: one on White Helmets, the other on Putin's
speech.
mark , March 1, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Not really all that amazing.
DemocracyNow is funded by Soros.
Just follow the money.
It's the same story with a lot of these "radical", "alternative" sites.
Realist , March 1, 2018 at 3:37 am
Wonderful, this gives me another chance to say it: Thanks, Obama! NOT!!!
KiwiAntz , March 1, 2018 at 4:39 am
What a godsend Consortiumnews & other alternative news outlets like RT & Sputnik
are which provide real news rather than the Fakestream American & Western Media? I can't
even watch or read Western Media now, I just cringe in disgust at the endless, baseless &
24 hr propagandist lies & bull crap, it makes me sick to my stomach! Consortiumnews has
really opened my eyes to the real situation behind World events? As a thinking person, I
reached a sort of "Road to Damascus moment" & that's when one comes to the realisation
that everything our Leaders & Countries have told us are blatant lies & brainwashing
lies at that? Some Americans, especially those who read alternative news & refuse to be
brainwashed by their Govt, are slowly coming to this realisation, that their Country has
become a evil, murderous, Fascist, Oligarchy state & when that happens the scales really
come off the eyes (just like the Apostle Paul) & you really start to understand the
serious threat to every human being on Earth, that this evil, scumbag, American deepstate
elite class are, with their demented agenda, seeking to manipulate, deceive & enslave the
World with their murderous, money making schemes. Using Nazi style, fake media propaganda as
demonstrated in this article, that Joseph Goebels would have rejoiced in, they fail to
recognise that just as Hitler's fascist Empire fell, it is the fate of this current false US
Empire as well, to collapse under its own imperialistic weight? Americans need a "storming
the Bastille" revolution like the French Revolution, where they round up this elite class
& dispense justice by gullotine? It worked out fine for the French & it could work
for American citizens, fed up with this bunch of crooks? That's the only way to get rid of
these satanic nutcases? The Writings on the Wall, the rot has set in, & hopefully we will
be around to see the American empire collapse, it's going to happen & the sooner the
better before it's drags us into WW3?
john wilson , March 1, 2018 at 5:31 am
Hey there KiwAntz, there is another great site out there called 'information clearing
house info' and it has great articles by people like John Pilger and others. Just type in the
usual www, etc and you will find it.
Well of course the USG has to quiet the Alternative News army – how else can one
have successful False Flags or assisted ones , when you have someone – spilling the
beans. And there is a big one coming folks – you can bet on it – but they have to
silence the Truth News – first. The Deep State , MIC, Corporations, Bankers, Wall
Street, and many many USG employees along with State and Muni Govs. are going to throw all
their chips into the pot on this Global poker game – they're all in – Look out
World !
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 6:32 am
The Southern Poverty Law Center has been hired by Google to police the content of YouTube
for hate speech. IOW, one hate group gets to stifle their opposition.
anastasia , March 1, 2018 at 8:10 am
Is this why I have noticed that google and youtube are taking down comments, youtube
channels, etc of alternative media; why I also noticed that new bogus websites are going up
purporting to be "alternative" websites (but who clearly are not) that are putting up false
information and are very threatening, etc. Is google, Amazon, etc. doing this in accordance
with this new law? What is our President doing about it? What about Congress? Eventually will
they close down Trump's Twitter account and claim that they are only complying with the
National Defense Authorization Act for 2017? This is very disturbing.
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 8:45 am
anastasia – yes, it is disturbing. I think Congress is putting pressure on Google
(who owns YouTube), Facebook and Twitter to censor. Of course, some say that these outfits
are merely an arm of the U.S. government. Who knows what's really happening.
The upshot is that freedom of speech is being strangled right in front of our eyes. I hope
everyone will stop using Google, Facebook and Twitter. Boycott them.
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 8:47 am
As Paul Craig Roberts said:
"Who asked Google to transform itself from search engine to gatekeeper? Is there a
conspiracy here against the First Amendment? What are Google's qualifications for determining
what is fake news and extremist views? Is what are we witnessing here the elite's use of a
private company to control explanations in behalf of the One Percent?
How does a private company get to overrule the First Amendment of the US Constitution? [
]
Why do people use Google, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter when the companies are in a
conspiracy against freedom of the press? Is the answer that Americans would rather be
entertained than to be free?"
E. Leete , March 1, 2018 at 11:03 am
I remember Paul Craig Roberts saying that the neoliberal economic agenda is getting enough
pushback that it will have to use nuclear weapons to succeed, and make no mistake the
neoliberal economic agenda means. to. succeed.
I can't fathom why the 99% underpaid are not campaigning united for an end to allowing
overpay. When will humans snap awake and stop shoveling world wealth to a fraction few in
exchange for tyranny? Tyranny is where overfortunes are – money is power – power
to influence power to control power to make human history be what they say it will be –
!! – the government is bought by people with overfortunes who are writing the laws and
putting themselves above the laws they write – because they can – the gigarich
are behind all the disinformation, the waste of wealth, the chaos, violence, corruption, the
psychopathological militarism we cannot afford – divide and conquer –
distractions instead of focus on the root cause – people endlessly discuss myriad
CONsequences of allowing overpayoverpower but won't go near the one idea that would reverse
the colossal destruction of everyone's everything. Getting good government and an unbiased
press requires turning to justice and obeying her. Peace, safety, prosperity, a bright
future? Spread world wealth as evenly as world work is spread and outlaw once and for all
time any human being's being able to keep an overfortune. The madness is not going to stop
until we resolve ourselves to end the stealing – legal thefts are too numerous to count
right now and the gigarich obviously have the power to keep inventing new ones even if you
can manage to shut one legal theft down now and then – see the biggest picture,
humanity – or perish by your own lack of seeing. Endlessly attacking the consquences of
allowing overpayoverpower is getting you nowhere but deeper in the hole.
"Who asked Google to transform itself from search engine to gatekeeper?" exactly, it's the
loose end of a long rope that tends to choke dissent on the internet at best, it induces
paranoia one never knows whether that "glitche" is intended to censor or is merely a
technical aberration
jools , March 1, 2018 at 12:22 pm
Just wait until Net Neutrality "officially" kicks in, when the Stasi will go full throttle
in interrupting many of the progressive channels esp. on UTube. On a side note, I was
wondering, does Consortiumnews have a podcast? Again, thanks for enlightening us all w/your
hard hitting journalism for I fear that much darker days awaits this nation.
Liam , March 1, 2018 at 12:27 pm
Excellent article Rick Sterling and Consortium News. For those wanting to learn more about
the White Helmets (FSA terrorists) this link includes hundreds of pics from their own
Facebook accounts proving that they are indeed terrorists posing as rescuers of little
kids.
Huge Cache of White Helmets Exposed Links All In One Massive Volume For Sharing and Red
Pilling – Over 400 Images in 22 Files
Also worth noting: A huge purge of You Tube alternative information channels took place in
the wake of the Parkland shooting event. Looks like the school shooting has been used not
just as a gun grab, but also to assert control via purging of a large number of popular You
Tube channels that were critical of the children's acting skills. It would be great to see
Consortium News cover this attack on free speech, and also the Google/You Tube connections to
the Deep State and why they should be looked at as a government entity and not simply as a
corporate entity that has the right to ban and censor people. They have almost complete
control of information.
Massive list of channels removed from YouTube #The1984IsREAL
Liam – great post! People need to open their eyes. I too hope that more and more
articles are written on this very topic. I know Tucker Carlson at Fox tries to bring this to
people's attention on a weekly basis. You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. We had
better smarten up quickly.
me under the circumstances , March 1, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett are targeted by the "pure white never mistaken good guys"
ie the Fawning Corporate Media, as Ray McGovern calls them, as fake news providers,
indicating to fair observers that they are actually the reporters on the scene in many parts
of the globe who record what is really happening and how it affects the people involved.
Even when evidence is staring people in the face, many refuse to change their stereotyped
images of who is to blame.
Lucifer Christ , March 1, 2018 at 3:49 pm
The problem with this propaganda is that the US government is calling its own ticked off
citizens trolls.
The American people should not be paying for propaganda against their own interests.
This money is being spent by the Deep State to destroy the American people.
The American people are aware of the evil that lives in Washington, DC and how people in
Washington, DC within the Deep State care nothing about them or their families. No matter of
money will change that fact!
People's actions say much. Over time the American people have learned that the Deep State
and the majority of politicians in DC are all about their own agenda and padding their own
pockets – not serving Americans.
Washington DC is evil. Everybody knows!
mark , March 1, 2018 at 5:02 pm
DemocracyNow is just controlled opposition.
It is constantly shilling for regime change and "humanitarian bombing".
It gets its funding from Soros.
It is just another faux Left outfit like the Guardian.
backwardsevolution , March 1, 2018 at 10:22 pm
From Paul Craig Roberts again:
"The Trump presidency is the perfect timing for the oligarchs to take over control of all
information. The liberal/progressive/left hate Trump so much that they are willing to ignore
the proven fact that Russiagate was a FBI/Obama/Hillary conspiracy against Trump in order to
use the false accusation as a weapon against Trump.
Gun control advocates and Identity Politics are willing to turn a blind eye to the
unanswered questions about school shootings and terrorist bombings in order to get more gun
control and police power to suppress "white supremacists." Partisan in their approach, they
do not consider that the same power will be used against them.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of young Americans have no idea what is at stake.
Most will never realize that their reality consists of controlled explanations. They will
never know the truth about anything."
The Lefties are playing right into their trap. Like I said, useful idiots.
Drew Hunkins , March 2, 2018 at 12:55 am
There were two points in very recent history when the Putin vilification operations really
began to ramp up in the West:
1.) The anti Putin propaganda campaign escalated in 2006 when Kemp & Edwards published
their CFR paper in which they made the absurd charge that Putin was "rolling back democracy"
in Russia. What a sick joke. They made no such breathless accusations during the rape and
pillage of Russia during the 1990s when j. Sachs and his Harvard boyz provided the
intellectual muscle for the massive exploitation and plunder. No, it was only when Putin put
a halt to a lot of the looting and capital flight that the Western liberal intellectual class
became alarmed and proceeded to assail and decry the Putin "regime" ( it is almost always
deemed a regime, rarely is it referred to as the Putin "administration.")
2.) Then the anti Putin propaganda campaign began to escalate even more so in 2013 when
Putin pulled off one of the finest diplomatic moves of the last 30 years: he talked Obama
down from bombing Damascus to remove Assad. This made Putin enemy number one in the eyes of
the Zio-Saudi-Washington militarist Terror Network. They wanted ever so desperately to topple
Assad and turn Syria into a wasteland and miserable failed state. They were apoplectic.
From here on out the Rachelle Maddows & Masha Gessens were off and running, fomenting
Russophobia and putting the world on the brink of thermo nuclear Armageddon.
Gerry , March 2, 2018 at 2:45 am
I wrote a small comment thanking Rick (whom I know) and even that comment was not
published.
I cannot find a moderation policy, but perhaps non-US citizens are not allowed on this site?
I cannot find any way of contacting anybody either.Probably because I said a few more things
that were upsetting the status quo here.
Well, so much for the most censored site I have ever seen: nice website but operated by
controlling journalists, so better stick to non-US sites as this is really ridiculous. You
publish whatever somebody says (Abe) who exposes anybody who dares to disagree with his idea
about those of us who do not agree with Zionism, but no rebuttal allowed. Nobody will see
this comment probably, so censor that as well and you are right up there with all the other
Americans who pretend they have a broader view and yet censor anybody who says something
slightly critical. Goodbye and good luck with the effect of this site on the media while your
part of the same policies in the end if it does not suit you.
Loretta , March 2, 2018 at 5:11 am
What about Israel's foreign propaganda and meddling in elections?
Biggest blunder in our lifetimes was not inviting Russia to join NATO, but I guess after
years of anti-Russian propaganda the Neocons figured China would never be quite the bogeyman
that we had built the Sovs into, big enough to keep the defense-dollars gravy-train flowing
while we re-jiggered the mission to find another bogey man. Then, one day, we woke up and
realised the Chicoms held enough of our debt to destroy us, while the Russians don't, so we
keep kicking at the old bogeyman.
The first line of the Ukrainian national anthem is "Ukraine has not yet died," one
interviewee says in "Breaking Point," a fierce documentary about that country and its recent
clashes with Russia. For a land often perched on the edge of ruin, she says, mere survival is
something to celebrate.
Directed by Mark Jonathan Harris and Oles Sanin, the film starts with a rundown of a history
that has repeated itself for centuries -- invaders have long prized Ukraine for its resources
and geography, and modern times are no exception.
... ... ...
The filmmakers supply terrifying footage: At civilian rallies, we see nightstick beatings
and bloody riots. During military battles, bullets whiz by and explosions shake the cameras.
Nerve-racking scenes follow Ukraine's extraordinarily bold volunteer soldiers.
"... Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA. ..."
"... A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster. ..."
First, and this is crucial, Russia is at war. Let me repeat this: Russia is at war with the AngloZionist Empire. The fact
that this war is roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic does not make it less real or less dangerous, if only
because these ratios can very rapidly change.
So is China, except we're not as aware of it. Especially the information warfare part.
I think Putin should just kick democracy to the curb and make sure his opponents never have a chance to even deny him a majority.
The west already regards Russia as an "non-democratic authoritarian state" anyway, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of perception.
Yes and no. It is much more complex with China than with Russia. US-Chinese relations have a peculiar dynamics, although at
some pint of time things may get really dicey, no doubt about it.
Russia has no more bleak a likely future than the massively indebted, corrupt, racially violent, culturally and linguistically
balkanizing, opioid-suiciding, bridge-collapsing, high-tax, antifamily, morally perverse, and homosexualized USA.
I'm praying for both of our countries to turn it around, each according to its own culture, traditions, and core people's wishes
(I.e. I want a less centralized system than Russia has, and than WE have for that matter, and generally more individual liberty
than most Russians would want. America and Russia can develop on different paths and still be effective partners, increasing trade
and military cooperation to destroy Islamists, crush piracy on the sea, deter and contain China to Asia, etc.)
A piece of that restoration would be ending the belligerence, dishonesty, sanctions, and threatening troop movements that the
us gov is perpetrating against Russia. Oh, and stop killing Russian and Syrian personnel who are fighting Islamists. And stop
supporting ISIS and other Islamists, and intentionally letting them escape. Just for starters, WarMaster.
What Washington really haptes about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their
model of a "unipolar" world order.
Notable quotes:
"... The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. ..."
"... That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny. ..."
"... John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling back democracy" in Russia. ..."
"... What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their model of a "unipolar" world order. ..."
"... Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day. ..."
"... But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. ..."
"... The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression is really the victim. ..."
"... Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground. ..."
"... The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. ..."
"... The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble. ..."
"... After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders committed abroad. ..."
"... China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. ..."
"... American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free' trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike. ..."
"... not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs. ..."
"... Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows administered by US/NATO. A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example? ..."
"... Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example. It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for. ..."
"... Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence. Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has. ..."
"... When asked by a Germany-based academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests." ..."
"... America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria. Very sad. ..."
"... America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes. Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. ..."
"... In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons ..."
"... The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors. ..."
"... GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British empire now? ..."
"... US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them militarily. Good luck with that. ..."
"... The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various "dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British style. ..."
"It is essential to provide conditions for creative labor and economic growth at a pace that would put an end to the division
of the world into permanent winners and permanent losers. The rules of the game should give the developing economies at least
a chance to catch up with those we know as developed economies. We should work to level out the pace of economic development,
and brace up backward countries and regions so as to make the fruit of economic growth and technological progress accessible to
all. Particularly, this would help to put an end to poverty, one of the worst contemporary problems." Vladimir Putin, President
Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Putin wants to end poverty? Putin wants to stimulate economic growth in developing countries? Putin wants to change the system
that divides the world into "permanent winners and losers"? But, how can that be, after all, Putin is bad, Putin is a "KGB thug",
Putin is the "new Hitler"?
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support. For
example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer in
universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution. Naturally, the Russian system has its shortcomings, but
there has been significant progress under Putin who has dramatically increased the budget, improved treatment and widened accessibility.
Putin believes that healthcare should be a universal human right. Here's what he said at the annual meeting of the Valdai International
Discussion Club:
"Another priority is global healthcare . All people in the world, not only the elite, should have the right to healthy, long
and full lives. This is a noble goal. In short, we should build the foundation for the future world today by investing in all
priority areas of human development." (Vladimir Putin, President Russian Federation, Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion
Club)
How many "liberal" politicians in the US would support a recommendation like Putin's? Not very many. The Democrats are much more
partial to market-based reforms like Obamacare that guarantee an ever-increasing slice of the pie goes to the giant HMOs and the
voracious pharmaceutical companies. The Dems no longer make any attempt to promote universal healthcare as a basic human right. They've
simply thrown in the towel and moved on to other issues.
Many Americans would find Putin's views on climate change equally surprising. Here's another clip from the Valdai speech:
"Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. I suggest that
we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new,
groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us
to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.
It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity
to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities,
and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN
to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia
is willing to co-sponsor such a forum .." Valdai)
Most people would never suspect that Putin supports a global effort to address climate change. And, how would they know, after
all, bits of information like that– that help to soften Putin's image and make him seem like a rational human being– are scrubbed
from the media's coverage in order to cast him in the worst possible light. The media doesn't want people to know that Putin is a
reflective and modest man who has worked tirelessly to make Russia and the world a better place. No, they want them to believe that
he's is a scheming tyrannical despot who's obsessive hatred for America poses a very real threat to US national security. But it's
not true.
Putin is not the ghoulish caricature the media makes him out to be nor does he hate America, that's just more propaganda from
the corporate echo-chamber. The truth is Putin has been good for Russia, good for regional stability, and good for global security.
He pulled the Russian Federation back from the brink of annihilation in 2000, and has had the country moving in a positive direction
ever since. His impact on the Russian economy has been particularly impressive. According to Wikipedia:
"Between 2000 and 2012 Russia's energy exports fueled a rapid growth in living standards, with real disposable income rising
by 160%. In dollar-denominated terms this amounted to a more than sevenfold increase in disposable incomes since 2000. In the
same period, unemployment and poverty more than halved and Russians' self-assessed life satisfaction also rose significantly."
Inequality is a problem in Russia just like it is in the US, but the vast majority of working people have benefited greatly from
Putin's reforms and a system of distribution that –judging by steady uptick in disposable incomes – is significantly superior to that
in the United States where wages have flatlined for over 2 decades and where virtually all of the nation's wealth trickles upward
to the parasitic 1 percent.
Since Putin took office in 2000, workers have seen across-the-board increase in wages, benefits, healthcare and pensions. Poverty
and unemployment have been reduced by more than half while foreign investment has experienced steady growth. Onerous IMF loans have
been repaid in full, capital flight has all-but ceased, hundreds in billions in reserves have been accumulated, personal and corporate
taxes have been slashed, and technology has experienced an unprecedented renaissance. The notorious Russian oligarchs still have
a stranglehold on many privately-owned industries, but their grip has begun to loosen and the "kleptocracy has begun to fade."
Things are far from perfect, but the Russian economy has flourished under Putin and, generally speaking, the people are appreciative.
This helps to explain why Putin's public approval ratings are typically in the stratosphere. (70 to 80 percent) Simply put: Putin
the most popular Russian president of all time. And his popularity is not limited to Russia either, in fact, he typically ranks at
the top of most global leadership polls such as the recent Gallup International End of Year Survey (EoY) where Putin came in third
(43 percent positive rating) behind Germany's Angela Merkel (49 percent) and French President Emmanuel Macron. (45 percent) According
to Gallup: "Putin has gone from one in three (33 percent) viewing him favourably to 43 percent, a significant increase over two years."
The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the two locations
where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class. This should come as no surprise to Americans
who know that the chances of stumbling across an article that treats Putin with even minimal objectivity is about as likely as finding
a copper coin at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. The consensus view of the western media is that Putin is a maniacal autocrat who
kills journalists and political opponents (no proof), who meddles in US elections to "sow discord" and destroy our precious democracy
(no proof), and who is conducting a secret and sinister cyberwar against the United States. (no proof). It's a pathetic litany of
libels and fabrications, but its impact on the brainwashed American people has been quite impressive as Gallup's results indicate.
Bottom line: Propaganda works.
The attacks on Putin began sometime in 2006 during Putin's second term when it became apparent that Russia was going to resist
the looting and exploitation the US requires of its vassal states. This is when the powerful Council on Foreign Relations funded
a report titled "Russia's Wrong Direction" that suggested that Russia's increasingly independent foreign policy and insistence that
it control its own vast oil and natural gas resources meant that "the very idea of a 'strategic partnership' no longer seems realistic."
That's right, Russia was thrown under the bus because they wanted to control their own oil and their own destiny.
John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a CFR task force which concocted the absurd pretext that that Putin was "rolling
back democracy" in Russia. They claimed that the government had become increasingly authoritarian and that the society was growing
less "open and pluralistic". Kemp and Edwards provided the ideological foundation upon which the entire public relations campaign
against Putin has been built. Twelve years later, the same charges are still being leveled at Putin along with the additional allegations
that he meddled in the 2016 presidential elections.
Needless to say, none of the nation's newspapers, magazines or broadcast media ever publish anything that deviates even slightly
from the prevailing, propagandistic narrative about Putin. One can only assume that the MSM's views on Putin are either universally
accepted by all 325 million Americans or that the so-called "free press" is a wretched farce that conceals an authoritarian corporate
machine that censors all opinions that don't promote their own malign political agenda.
What Washington really despises about Putin is that he has refused to comply with their diktats and has openly rejected their
model of a "unipolar" world order. As he said at the annual Security Conference at Munich in 2007:
"The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign; one center of authority, one center of force,
one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for
the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."
Despite Russia's efforts to assist the US in its War On Terror, Washington has continued to regard Putin as an emerging rival
that would eventually have to be confronted. The conflict in Ukraine added more gas to the fire by pitting the two superpowers against
each other in a hot war that remains unresolved to this day.
But Syria was the straw that broke the camel's back. Russia's intervention in the Syrian War in September 2015 proved to be the
turning point in the 7 year-long conflagration. By rolling back the CIA-trained militants, Putin bloodied Washington's nose and forced
the Pentagon to adopt a backup plan that relied heavily on Kurdish proxies east of the Euphrates. At present, US Special Forces and
their allies are clinging to a strip of arid wasteland in the Syrian outback hoping that the Pentagon brass can settle on a forward-operating
strategy that reverses their fortunes or brings the war to a swift end.
The Syria humiliation precipitated the Russia-gate Information Operation (IO) which is the propaganda component of the current
war on Russia. The scandal has been an effective way to poison public perceptions and to make it look like the perpetrator of aggression
is really the victim. More important, failure in Syria has led to a reevaluation of how Washington conducts its wars abroad. The
War on Terror pretext has been jettisoned for a more direct approach laid out in the Trump administration's National Defense Strategy.
The focus going forward will be on "Great Power Competition", that is, the US is subordinating its covert proxy operations to more
flagrant displays of military force particularly in regards to the "growing threat from revisionist powers", Russia and China. In
short, the gloves are coming off and Washington is ramping up for a land war.
Putin has become an obstacle to Washington's imperial ambitions which is why he's has been elevated to Public Enemy Number 1.
It has nothing to do with the fictitious meddling in the 2016 elections or the nonsensical "rolling back democracy" in Russia. It's
all about power. In the United States the group with the tightest grip on power is the foreign policy establishment. These are the
towering mandarins who dictate the policy, tailor the politics to fit their strategic vision, and dispatch their lackeys in the media
to shape the narrative. These are the people who decided that Putin must be demonized to pave the way for more foreign interventions,
more regime change wars, more bloody aggression against sovereign states.
Putin has repeatedly warned Washington that Russia would not stand by while the US destroyed one country after the other in its
lust for global domination. He reiterated his claim that Washington's "uncontained hyper-use of force" was creating "new centers
of tension", exacerbating regional conflicts, undermining international relations, and "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent
conflicts." He has pointed out how the US routinely displayed its contempt for international law and "overstepped its national borders
in every way." As a result of Washington's aggressive behavior, public confidence in international law and global security has steadily
eroded and "No one feels safe. I want to emphasize this," Putin thundered in Munich. "No one feels safe."
On September 28, 2015 Putin finally threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly
in New York. After reiterating his commitment to international law, the UN, and state sovereignty, he provided a brief but disturbing
account of recent events in the Middle East, all of which have gotten significantly worse due to Washington's use of force. Here's
Putin:
"Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention
destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty,
social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life
The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy,
which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting
for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose
statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 ."
US interventions have decimated Iraq, Libya, Syria and beyond. Over a million people have been killed while tens of millions
have been forced to flee their homes and their countries. The refugee spillover has added to social tensions across the EU where
anti-immigrant sentiment has precipitated the explosive growth in right wing groups and political organizations. From Northern
Africa, across the Middle East, and into Central Asia, global security has steadily deteriorated under Washington's ruthless stewardship.
Here's more from Putin:
"The Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes.
Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions .It is irresponsible
to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of
them or somehow eliminate them ."
Putin clearly blames the United States for the rise of ISIS and the surge in global terrorism. He also condemns Washington's strategy
to use terrorist organizations to achieve its own narrow strategic objectives. (regime change) More important, he uses his platform
at the United Nations to explain why he has deployed the Russian Air-force to bases in Syria where it will it will be used to conduct
a war against Washington's jihadist proxies on the ground.
Putin: "We can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world."
Less than 48 hours after these words were uttered, Russian warplanes began pounding militant targets in Syria.
Putin again: "Dear colleagues, relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are
facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism .Russia is confident of the United Nations' enormous
potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations,
we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make
the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples."
So, here's the question: Is Putin "evil" for opposing Washington's regime change wars, for stopping the spread of terrorism, and
for rejecting the idea that one unipolar world power should rule the world? Is that why he's evil, because he won't click his heels
and do as he's told by the global hegemon?
The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march
to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position
of influence the US has dreamed of for a century.
The next war, if it comes, will be over something like Cobalt. The future lies in big and plentiful electric batteries and China
and Russia between them control almost 50% of the known supply of Cobalt, while the US has none. Stand by and wait, folks.
The only place where people have a negative view of Putin is in the United States (14 percent) and EU (28 percent), the
two locations where he is relentlessly savaged by the media and excoriated by the political class.
I would be staggered is only 14 percent of Americans had a negative view of Putin – almost everybody I have spoken to
has completely swallowed the media line. In Europe UK in particular has been brainwashed against him – southern Europe far less
so. The 28 percent is more realistic.
Is China trying to trash our constitution? Is China invading other countries, killing people with missiles and bombs all over
the world, staging "color revolutions" and subverting legitimate governments in the "West"? Is China patrolling the Gulf of Mexico
and putting missiles in Mexico and Canada? China hasn't done anything bad to me or to anyone I know, so please explain how China
is "our" "rival"?
This is a great article. The problem is that the propaganda power structure behind the yankee imperium is probably too powerful
for rationality to triumph, so we are in for serious trouble.
There's a simple reason why Putin is talking sense. He's doing nothing more than stating customary international law. Those
economic quotes have been set out in a series of UN resolutions including A/RES/41/128 on the right to development. This is the
acquis of the civilized world. No country in the world opposes it – except the USA. The US votes alone against it every time it
comes up, even though customary international law is US federal and state common law under the Supreme Court decision, The Paquete
Habana.
Mr. Whitney has accepted the official framing that it's all about Putin. That clever decision makes his article more provocative.
Calm appraisal of the current official foreign devil is inherently inflammatory. However, this has nothing to do with Putin. Rigid
legalist that he is, his hands are tied. Russia has ratified the ICESCR.
Russia has ratified the ICESCR. The USA has not. Here are some of the rights Russians have that you do not:
OHCHR has a convenient compilation showing how each government meets its legal obligations and commitments. The synoptic heatmap
below shows the US deep down in the shithole with Wahhabi headchoppers and neocolonial African presidents-for-life.
The exhaustively documented fact here is, the Russian state meets world standards. The US government does not. The Russian
government respects, protects, and fulfils human rights. The US government fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach,
and negates your incomplete half-assed constitutional rights with statist red tape. Russians get a better deal than you do. Merely
by reciting the law as he does, Putin would win a fair election here with Roosevelt-scale majorities, again and again. That's
why he drives the US government up the wall.
Where is it the propaganda campaign going? We have seen this before as preparation for a war or a regime change. In Russia both
are unlikely to succeed. That leaves an ever increasing propaganda bombast in the West, people brainwashed to the point where
outright racism against anything 'Russian' will become widespread. Then what? Move movies with white Russian villains, as if that
is what threatens West the most?
Russia can neither be isolated, nor 'collapsed' economically, nor ignored. It is too resource rich and powerful. Russia could
possibly be checked in a second tier conflict (Syria?), but that would be of minimal consequence. Ukraine could be escalated,
but there Russia has an enormous local logistics advantage, it would be a disaster for Kiev. And Russia is on friendly terms with
China, its only potential military threat on land.
Propaganda by itself does nothing, it is only means to an end. West is in no position to go beyond propaganda, so we might
experience a bizarre example of a mindless propaganda that goes on and on. As with all propaganda the main target is the domestic
population – in other words it is the common people in the West who are being propagandised and in effect made more stupid, less
capable of making rational decisions.
Even a slight u-turn is at this point unthinkable, almost all elites have too visibly engaged in the evil-Russia talk, how
could they let go of it? We are stuck, we might get saved by an unrelated 'big event' somewhere else. If not, this could just
be fatal, after all this belligerent talk we could perish because somebody dared to call Clinton a satan on Facebook. And they
didn't use their real name – the horror .
My own view is that Putin is probably as trustworthy and honest as any other ex-KGB man. On the other hand he does come across
as intelligent, cautious, and calm. Especially when compared to the crook Hillary or the oaf Trump.
The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection.
If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
This is starting to bother me. Stuff is disappearing from the web. Look at the link below to an Al Jazeera documentary which
has disappeared from YouTube and the web.
Si1ver1ock, interesting problems you're having. I had no problem with the links, but then the magic of Tor means I'm reaching
them from the Netherlands. State censorship is harder when you can access suppressed URLs from a couple dozen different countries.
Please do respond, and in good faith, to the reply of commenter Harold Smith. I share his apparent concern that you may be
conflating the interests of the American people with the imperial ambitions of their Uncle Sam.
I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply
in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing. I
tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade and business,
while China certainly is.
Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned. However, I am afraid our national focus in this
unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious competition is actually coming from and be able
to deal with it in a timely fashion.
"I feel we have a problem with the term 'rival' here. All the negatives you describe represent a rivalry that I in no way imply
in my statements. Rivalry can be strictly limited to trade and business and not in the war-making processes you are citing."
In your original comment you said:
"The dumbest thing about the US focus on Russia and Putin is that it leaves China, our actual rival, free to continue its march
to overwhelming mastery of the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Without firing a shot or wasting a bullet China has moved into a position
of influence the US has dreamed of for a century."
Since a big part of the U.S. "focus" on Russia is military encirclement, confrontation by proxy, the threat of direct conflict
even nuclear war, etc., this statement clearly suggests a "military solution" to "contain" an economically "rising" China, IMO.
(After all, when the only tool the U.S. "government" has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail).
But so what if China has some kind of "mastery" of the Eastern hemisphere? To the extent that's true, at least they didn't
do it by way of lawless imperial treachery.
The U.S. is losing influence all over the world because it's making itself hated; it's imposing itself everywhere and squandering
everything of value on the hopeless pursuit of world domination and control.
"I tried to point out that we as a nation miss the mark in constantly demonizing Russia, who is certainly no rival in trade
and business, while China certainly is."
The thing is "we" don't demonize Russia "as a nation"; rather, it's done by the Satanic ruling class that hates Russia – not
for any rational reason, but for the same reason that Cain hated Abel: because "evil" hates a "good" example.
"Our zealous attacking of rivals has a long history and is not easily abandoned."
Unless you're going change the definition of "rival" again, I should point out that the U.S. "government" doesn't generally
attack "rivals" but deems any country that asserts its sovereign independence and refuses to take orders an "enemy", subject to
economic, political and military attack.
"However, I am afraid our national focus in this unproductive way will cause us as a people to not be aware of where our serious
competition is actually coming from and be able to deal with it in a timely fashion."
You seem to be conflating "us as a people" with the U.S. "government" which has by now lost even the pretense of moral and
constitutional legitimacy, and thus has nothing remotely to do with what's in the best interests of "us as a people".
Here is the explanation. China is economic rival to US. That is not only inconvenient, rival, it is the most efficient and
most dangerous rival, because who is wining the economic competition is pushing out the opponent from world markets.
That people in the West believe the lies that TPTB concoct for their consumption, I can conceive, though only after a convoluted
intellectual effort, for given all the now exposed deceit, one is left in wonder as to why the masses still believe proven liars.
After having spent 36 years in the West and having seen Westerners vote for the likes of Blair, Sarkozy or Macron, I have a very
low opinion of Western intelligence, and Western moral relativism and indifference with regards to the crimes their elected leaders
committed abroad.
Still, I can't figure out if TPTB believe their own narrative. It takes a very peculiar mindset to be able to live in permanent
lies. Contrary to truth which can exist per se and is therefore essentially cost-free, lies demand permanent maintenance and have
high maintenance cost.
So, TPTB of the West are either delusional in thinking they can maintain their lies ad vitam aeternam, or they are mythomaniacs.
Either way, just think what happens when lies cannot be maintained any more and the liars don't want to relinquish power.
Bear in mind that lying being effectively irrational, they cannot be considered as rational actors. Prepare your shelters folks.
Very seldom, I've read such a realistic article on President Putin and his policy. I've been following not only his administration
but also that of the US Empire, and I'm always flabbergasted about the US elites demonization of this leader. He belongs to the
few leaders who got their act together compared to the political exorcists in Washington. The real thugs and psychopaths are the
members of the American political elite and their cheerleaders in the fawning US mainstream media. Following their analysis, I
often think they stem from lunatics who are coming from outer space.
Yes, China is a rival but an odd kind of rival. Let's not forget that the US, over the last 30 whatever years has enthusiastically
facilitated China's rise. China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour.
So -- Dr Frankenstein is now scared of his own monster. Oh the irony !
In the last two weeks a virtual book burning has begun on YouTube. Scores of independent truth seeking channels have been deleted.
Some were pretty amateur and sensationalist, many were good, top notch investigative fact checking in nature. Many had large numbers
of subscribers, a few had 100,000s subscribers.
Common denominator seemed to question official mainstream media narrative on mass shootings, 9/11, war on terror, human sex
trafficking, Clinton Foundation corruption, and even UFO coverups. One channel was a woman skilled at body language commenting
on videos of people like John Podesta being interviewed as to whether he was lying.
None of these channels advocated violence, quite the contrary. Most couched opinion alongside probable facts by asking deductive
and inductive questions. The YouTube virtual book burning appears to have gathered pace in last week.
So much for free speech in the fake but very slickly fake Western democracies. Where the geopolitical narrative is uniformly
uniform.
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support.
For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer
in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution.
American liberals support lifting living standards and ending poverty? You mean, the same American liberals who support 'free'
trade and importing unlimited amounts of scab labor? You must have us confused with some other country, Mike.
"I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue .What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve
introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony
with it "
I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable energy–whether
or not global warming is real.
not like he had a choice. dc was about to have it's hands on his throat and he finally reacted. That was ukraine. syria was him
trying to protect another one of his naval bases. the bear simply reacted to attempts at cutting off it's legs.
"China has become the world's factory because the US and other countries Co's want CHEAP labour. "
We all know the drill here. China makes stuff cheap so that WalMart can undercut competitors and grow rich. Therefore, alas,
what can be done?
Except that WalMart has over four hundred stores IN CHINA and plans to build forty more! So what's our excuse now for not being
able to compete?
Putin inherited a broken Russia in 2000. A Russia on the verge of collapse due to misrule of drunkard Yeltsin and body blows
administered by US/NATO.
A broken down military; economy in shambles; demographic collapse. During his presidency US/EU/NATO engineered a collapse of oil prices and assaults on ruble: what exactly was Putin supposed
to non-passively do to counter the collapse of world oil prices, for example?
Putin was wise enough and cautious enough not to go head-to-head with US/NATO until his military and economy were in good enough
shape to do and make a difference, as in Syria for example.
It would have been very bad for Russia to act prematurely and get bled dry, which warmongering US Neocons were hoping for.
Obviously Putin knows the strengths and weaknesses of Russia better than any of us here. He is butting heads with the combined
military industrial might of US+EU: that block has a lot of human resources, wealth, worldwide financial and political influence.
Also Putin has to – has to – improve the living standards of citizens of RF, so he cannot afford to get into an expensive arms
race with the West. Putin is doing very well with what he has, as far as human and military-industrial resources Russia has.
Alden, sounds like you stopped with the maps and didn't read any of the underlying documents because of the preconceptions you
wear on your sleeve: "idealistic pie in the sky by and by UN treaties impossible to effect." Those preconceptions happen to coincide
with the residual message of one persistent strand of US statist propaganda.
Have you ever read, in any US institution or medium, criticism as comprehensive and incisive as this?
IGs can't do this. Courts can't begin to do this. Congress wouldn't dare do this. Media would never do it if they could. The
recommendations are legally binding and the US government knows it. Each review is videoed. You haven't lived until you've seen
State and Justice bureaucrats crawling and sniveling and tying themselves in logical knots, making fools of themselves in the
most public forum in the world. You get to watch the US regime bleeding influence and standing and 'soft power.' It's public disgrace
in front of the 96% of the world outside the US iron curtain. You may not want to watch impartial legal experts make a laughingstock
of the USG, but everybody else in the world watches with amusement, so you might as well know.
Treaty body review has driven more reforms than Congress ever did. You know perfectly well how bad your government sucks, what
a useless parasite it is. The treaty bodies and charter bodies give you more say than either state-controlled political party.
Face it, human rights review is all you got. When your government sucks, you go over its head to the world.
"During a policy talk at the Valdai Discussion Club, the Russian leader spoke on a number of issues, especially criticizing
U.S. foreign policy moves across the globe and lauding Russia's increasingly relevant role as a world power. When asked by a Germany-based
academic where Russia had most seriously gone wrong in the past decade and a half, Putin said he had too readily laid his trust
in the West, which he then accused of having abused its relationship with Moscow to further its own interests."
Well maybe you can make Vladimir Putin feel better about this. You can tell him that blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in
the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all, since Russia couldn't have done a single thing
about it anyway, right?
This is a ridiculous statement. When Putin came aboard, there was no Russian economy to speak of. Now it's grown strong enough
to withstand the events in Ukraine, sanctions and what not and even derive benefits from these challenges. I am not saying everything's
coming up roses but it could hardly be expected considering the deep hole Russia dug itself into in the 1990s.
the entire region is upset with Putin's behavior as they have seen Putin's behavior in Crimea and the Donbas.
The entire region, it you mean our Eastern European neighbors, can like it or lump it. They, Poland in particular, participated
very willingly and actively in the coup in Ukraine. Crimea and Donbass are direct, and perfectly predictable, consequences of
that coup. If they forgot the law of physics that every action has a reaction, this is just as good a reminder as any.
the thing is, because of the recent study by J. Leroy Hulsey, Putin could still do it, but I predict that he unfortunately
will do nothing of the kind.
blindly trusting the corrupt "West" (in the face of shamelessly obvious provocations) was actually not a mistake at all,
since Russia couldn't have done a single thing about it anyway, right?
Actually, it could've done a lot. Right at the beginning, Russia could've refused to trust in the word of the West's leaders
about the NATO expansion and demand guarantees. A formal treaty plus a couple of remaining military bases, say, in Poland and
East Germany, would've sufficed. This likely would've saved Yugoslavia as well.
Russia could've refrained from stopping the development of many weapon system and from destroying others. It could've also
kept its own industry (civil aviation comes to mind) instead of relying on cooperation with the West. It could've refrained from
allowing the US troops to use the Russia territory to move supplies to Afghanistan. Even recently it did occur to someone exceedingly
smart to order aircraft carriers in France – speaking about trust! I do hope they learned their lesson, finally.
America is in a very ugly spot and getting worse everyday. Living here I can sense it. Americans are going crazy. Pathetic
how they are trying and build hate for Russia/Putin mainly because America got triple fucked across the ME and especially in Syria.
Very sad.
America's greatest historical truth: in foreign policy the USA just cannot learn from experience. We keep making the same mistakes.
Stupid, idiotic, nation building b/s. Come on dudes !
This is just a phase, we will turn it around and make America great again ( as opposed to israel which was never great anyway).
It is just a question of how long it will take.
It will start the day when we'll tell that terrorist, shit-hole country called israel to go the hell, fight your own wars,
pay for your own wars.
In my opinion, the USA, until now, could afford to conduct foreign policy for internal reasons.
Because of this the Sept 11 shock, while in reality it meant very little, as USA citizens working in the Netherlands soon afterwards
said 'we have 30.000 traffic deaths each year'.
Good comeback there that was one of the best ones in a while!
I'm sorry, but no we're not. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we here in the "West" are living under a Satanic judeo-communist
dictatorship, bent on world domination and control at any cost.
The difference between corporate state, and totalitarian state like old Soviet system is getting blurier all the time. Like
planned economies of command systems, now they just create money for the cronies, who might as well be commies, and they don't
give a care about what's true or honest, they lie and that's, like you mentioned, (Satanic), the truth isn't in 'em.
' I note that he says nothing about 'cap and trade,' or any other Western bankster-scam. I have nothing against renewable
energy–whether or not global warming is real '
Good comment however the environment is about more than just 'global warming' which may or may not be man-caused there is no
scientific certainty but certainly what looks like a concerted push by certain quarters
But there is also habitat loss the toxins introduced through pollution industrial farming and the problems it causes with erosion,
bad food etc
Putin's comments and Mike's citation of them reflect a thoughtful and realistic approach to at least start looking at these
problems
Anon from TN
The author is painting Putin as larger-than-life figure, which he isn't. Just like the Soviet Union was not defeated by the US,
but actually collapsed due to internal problems, regime change rampage is over largely because the United States pushed their
luck and overextended themselves, and not just thanks to Putin. Throughout history, all dominant empires lose their grip and eventually
crumble (remember Roman or British), and now it's the turn of the US Empire. Fortunately or unfortunately, the next will be the
Chinese Empire, not Russian. (PS. Muslims missed the train. Again)
It's not like he used the term 'enemy,' which too many unfortunately resort to in these discussions. During Cold War 1.0, a
lot of us referred to the Sovs as the 'Adversary' because it was a less loaded term than enemy, though many equate the two. Are
the Chinese rivals? Sure. Are they adversaries? You bet, especially when we keep stepping into their back yard. Are they enemies?
The will be if we keep stepping into their back yard and telling them how to behave with their next door neighbours. All of this
applies to Russia as well.
The reason why the US empire will follow the British empire into the graveyard is because they are based on the same model – trying
to prevent others from becoming equal to them instead of trying to get better than the competitors.
GB was preoccupied with preventing Germany from surpassing them – and guess what? They succeeded. And where is the British
empire now?
From an empire on which the sun never sets, pretty soon they'll be a country where the sun never rises – thanks to their stupid
immigration policies and preoccupations with Russia (still!), like they (the British) are still even a factor in the global power
games.
US is on a similar path of self-destruction. First they made China an economic superpower and now they want to contain them
militarily. Good luck with that.
The money that the US spent on military misadventures – they could have bribed with far lesser amount of money the various
"dictatorships" that they were so democratically inclined to topple – and would have achieved better results. Instead of using
those money to make US better – for their citizens, they are trying to prevent the world from catching up with them – British
style.
If anything the British military record was at least better than US's, at least they used to win wars – they pretty much went
down undefeated – but they did went down and US military doesn't have the same success rate and even if they did, they will not
accomplish holding the world back – same as Britain didn't.
American liberals would be surprised to know that Putin actually supports many of the same social issues that they support.
For example, the Russian President is not only committed to lifting living standards and ending poverty, he's also a big believer
in universal healthcare which is free under the current Russian Constitution
I do not see anything 'liberal' in Putin's ideas, certainly not as in the liberal agendas in the US.
I see him advocating Balance . creating a better order for the needs of populations and interactions between nations
. therefore preserving nations, people and earth. Balance is not rocket science .nature is the ultimate example of balance, when it is tampered with all species eventually suffer.
The neocons were/are Zionist in essence and mainly Jewish in thought leadership – this is inarguable.
Also inarguable, though I am not aware of very many well-written essays on the topic, is that under Yeltsin, brought to power
in no small part by US meddling, there was a fire sale of Russian assets – something arranged very largely by Jewish economists
and Jewish bureaucrats. And the new 'oligarchs?' Why 6 of 7 of the most enriches were Jews in a nation <3% Jewish.
Ukraine was largely a coup by Nuland, Pyatt, Feltman ato help Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine who suddenly found themselves in
the very top of the new govt. Jewish names pop up inordinately as to authors and editors of unhinged Russophobic articles. At what point do we say that the mideast wars are driven by Jews, so, disproportionately (maybe even mainly as to the media)
is the aggression and disinfo on Russia.
The Jewish Problem is to be taken seriously. We need to find a way to discuss it, rescued from Zionists and bona fide Judeophobes. Our lives may well depend on it.
Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for
materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.
In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum
tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich
uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum
tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the
intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.
The infamous aluminum tubes Iraq sought to buy from Italy were for short range rockets, not
for uranium enrichment centrifuges as the Bush administration claimed. That was a fact well
known to several U.S. agencies like the Energy and State Departments. But the claim, first
propagandized by the NY Times, was repeated by then President Bush in a speech to the UN and
became a
main basis for the war on Iraq. The Knight-Ridder (now McClatchy) Washington Bureau, but
not the NY Times, reported
about the many doubts experts had about such Weapon of Mass Destruction claims.
North Korea has been shipping supplies to the Syrian government that could be used in the
production of chemical weapons, United Nations experts contend.
...
The supplies from North Korea include acid-resistant tiles, valves and thermometers,
according to a report by United Nations investigators .
...
The possible chemical weapons components were part of at least 40 previously unreported
shipments by North Korea to Syria between 2012 and 2017 of prohibited ballistic missile parts
and materials that could be used for both military and civilian purposes , according to the
report, which has not been publicly released but which was reviewed by The New York Times.
The valves, thermometers and acid resistance tiles Syria may have sought to acquire could be
used for medical facilities, the production of candy or for dozens of other civilian purposes.
They could be used to produce something for the military with chemical weapons probably being
the most unlikely.
But like the discredited aluminum tube story, the current NYT piece, written by its UN
reporter Michael Schwirtz, obfuscates the doubts about WMD connections of the issue. It makes
false claims and is full of war-mongering assertions by hawkish figures. It is a scare story
constructed to vilify various opponents to U.S. hegemony on meager factual grounds.
The reporter does not understand the issue he writes about. The "possible chemical weapons
components" are not such. Chemical weapons obviously do not contain valves,
thermometers or acid resistance tiles. To increase the "be afraid" effect of his piece the
author mentions an alleged 2007 accident "in which several Syrian technicians, along with North
Korean and Iranian advisers, were killed in the explosion of a warhead filled with sarin gas
and the extremely toxic nerve agent VX." No weapon designer ever thought of "a warhead" that
was filled with both - Sarin and VX. That would be lunacy and reports thereof are obviously
bogus.
The "United Nations investigators" are a bunch of spooks selected by individual Security
Council members who collect claims of North Korean breaches of sanctions. The group was set up
in 2006 under the UN Security Council resolution 1718 as a "Committee of the Security Council
consisting of all the members of the Council". The Committee is not part of the UN bureaucracy
and they are not "UN experts" or "UN investigators". The reports of the committee list various
claims made by single UN member countries without judging their veracity.
[The report] said, a visit by a technical delegation from North Korea in August 2016
"involved the transfer to Syria of special resistance valves and thermometers known for use
in chemical weapons programmes".
That information came from another member state , which also reported that North Korean
technicians "continue to operate at chemical weapons and missile facilities at Barzeh, Adra
and Hama", the report said.
The valve and thermometer point in the Committee report are based on the claims of one
country alone. But the NY Times lists those claims as "the [UN] report says" giving them a
false aura of neutrality. That one country also claims that Syria still has chemical weapons
facility. In 2013 the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) verified (pdf)
that all Syrian production facilities for chemical weapons and under control of the government
were rendered unusable or destroyed. The OPCW can request to inspect additional facilities it
deems suspicious. It has not done so. The AP, but not the New York Times, notes that the Syrian
government officially denied that any North Korean technicians are working there.
The New York Times discredited itself over its support for the false Bush administration
claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It later issued a lame mea culpa and fired
one reporter while the responsible editors and managers stayed on.
The paper has obviously not changed. It is again creating false pretexts for wars by
publishing unobjective, one sided and intended-to-scare pieces about alleged weapons of mass
destruction.
Posted by b on February 28, 2018 at 08:36 AM |
Permalink
It's amazing that these diplomats could get copies of key documents.
NYTimes -- The report, which is more than 200 pages long, includes copies of contracts
between North Korean and Syrian companies as well as bills of lading indicating the types
of materials shipped. Much information was provided by unidentified United Nations member
states.
But hey, why release the details when the US propaganda public diplomacy
mill is working.
The UN declined to comment on the report, which was written by a panel of eight experts
tasked with checking North Korea's compliance with sanctions. It may never be publicly
released, but a spokesperson stressed that the "overarching message is that all member
states have a duty and responsibility to abide by the sanctions that are in place."
"The valves, thermometers and acid resistance tiles Syria may have sought to acquire could be
used for medical facilities, the production of candy or for dozens of other civilian
purposes. They could be used to produce something for the military with chemical weapons
probably being the most unlikely"
Funny how their is no mention of the simple fact that most 'western' homes have numerous
devices which could be identified as 'suspect' if TPTB needed an excuse. Where I'm from there
is a big push for households to obtain pressure cookers, as 'a roast from frozen in two
hours' fit's a hyper active stressful cancer causing lifestyle and eating out is becoming
prohibitively expensive even for those of us on the west side of town.
How many households
have old cell phones? Got a pool/hot tub? Bromine/chlorine anyone? Like to garden, oops might
be some NPK fertilizers around. Like to hunt? Gunpowder, I wont even go into the over the
counter kinetic explosives that are the target shooter rage ATM. Got kids' then you probably
have electronic kits and RC vehicles, likely in doubles.
Western society bows to authority regardless how illegitimate it shows itself to be. How
else can you explain a belief that fires at the top of three buildings caused them to free
fall into their own footprints against the laws of gravity taught in grade school and still
practiced and verified daily in universities and regular life.
You quoted: "Much information was provided by unidentified United Nations member
states" The NYT has given everyone on this planet permission to identify themselves as from a UN
member state. This post came to you courtesy of a UN Member state.
All these lies based and hidden under the auspices of a UN Panel of Experts which
consists of 8 members: P5 + Japan , South Korea and South Africa , sitting on their a---s @
Turtle Bay.
Did they visit Syria or North Korea or any port to check on those shipments ?
This "report" coincides with US charges on chemical use in Ghouta.
Diplomatic sources have said the chemical weapons watchdog, the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, opened an investigation into attacks in eastern Ghouta to
determine whether banned munitions were used. U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood said
on Wednesday that Russia has violated its duty to guarantee the destruction of Syria's
chemical weapons stockpile and prevent the Assad government from using poison gas. . .
here
"Russia has..." -- In a larger sense this is part of an updated US diplomatic offensive
against Russia. From recent testimony of General Votel, CENTCOM Commander:
>On the diplomatic front, Moscow is playing the role of arsonist and
firefighter–fueling the conflict in Syria between the Syrian Regime, YPG, and Turkey,
then claiming to serve as an arbiter to resolve the dispute. Moscow continues to advocate
for alternate diplomatic initiatives to Western-led political negotiations in Syria and
Afghan-led peace processes in Afghanistan, attempting to thwart the UN's role and limit the
advance of American influence.
> Russia is also trying to cultivate multi-dimensional ties to Iran. Though historic
rivals, Moscow and Tehran share interests across the region, including an overarching
desire to sideline, if not expel, the U.S. from the region.
> Russia also maintains significant influence in Central Asia,where the countries of the
former-Soviet Union rely on Russia to varying degrees for their economic and security
needs. This is problematic as Russia's efforts could limit U.S. engagement options and
provide Moscow additional levers of influence, particularly as NATO forces deployed in
Afghanistan are dependent on Central Asian partners for logistical support. . .
here
Meanwhile, the sanctions on North Korea shipping are a joke. More than 50 ships and shipping
companies were cited by the Treasury Department for evading existing U.S. and international
sanctions. While most of those named were based in North Korea, companies and ships from
China, Singapore, Taiwan, Panama, Tanzania, the Marshall Islands and the Comoros were also
included.
Bloomberg reports on the "name game":
The Jin Teng, sanctioned by the U.S. in March 2016, became the Shen Da 8 and then the Hang
Yu 1 last November, according to Kharon, a Los Angeles-based firm that identifies sanctions
risks for banks and companies. The Jin Tai 7, also sanctioned by the U.S. in March 2016,
changed its name to Sheng Da 6 two months later and then to Bothwin 7 last November, Kharon
said. That was before a new round of UN sanctions was agreed on in December. Both ships
remain on the U.S.'s sanctions list despite the name changes.The Bothwin 7 visited the port
of Lianyungang, China, in January, the same month that the Hang Yu 1 stopped at the Port of
Ningbo-Zhoushan, also in China. Both ships, once part of a fleet owned by Ocean Maritime
Management Co., based in Pyongyang and sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department and the
UN, changed their names to evade detection, according to Kharon, whose researchers drill
down into company releases as well as court and corporate filings to establish links
between front companies and sanctioned entities.
"Sanctions against North Korea are largely symbolic gestures of disapproval that do not
demonstrate any capability to change the political behavior of the Kims," said Robert
Huish, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, who has been
monitoring the country's shipping traffic. . .
here
And we have the recent striking news that the Pentagon doesn't believe Syria used Sarin
last year.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis made it very clear recently that "aid groups and
others" had provided the U.S. with evidence that was insufficient to conclude that
President Bashar Assad had recently used the chemical weapon Sarin against Syrian
civilians . In other words, the Pentagon does not believe what has been presented to
it as evidence, chiefly because of the dubious provenance of the providers. . .
here
Remember that almost a year ago a UN commission concluded that the Syrian government
was responsible for a widely discussed incident in Khan Sheikhoun. An alleged gas attack by
air happened in April in an al-Qaeda controlled area in Syria. It was used by the White
House to justify its bombing of a Syrian airbase.
The Guardian link has one of the most comical requests that the U.N. tends to make on the
accused in the vein of 'prove you are not a witch' ...
"The UN experts added that they had not yet received a reply with documents supporting
this claim and a list of all North Koreans who had travelled to Syria."
Syria, 'there were no Korean technicians, military, or official visits'.
U.N. - 'Prove it, give us a list of the Koreans'
The Syrians should give the U.N. an empty list.
They did this to Syria before when they were accused of a WMD bombing of civilians. The
Syrians said that they didn't have any military flights that day, 'give us a list of
flights, what, no list? GUILTY!'
thanks b... i think what you are doing here, if i could be so bold, is that you are tearing
apart of merits of this reporter michael schwirtz's talking points... this is very
important to do, as no one is doing it! in looking at what the dolt has written for the nyt
the past few months, it becomes very clear the agenda is to carry water for the neo con
crowd, facts be dammed... this is his job... he does need to be taken to the woodshed and
given a beating! and why is it these ambiguous types are always given clearance in such
papers as the nyt, wapo or wsj? it would be hard not to conclude the folks who own these
papers are very intent on doing the same - carrying water for the military and financial
industry in a move towards war, or a desire for war..
your story is not going to get the coverage the nyt story gets... how do we change
that?
@don bacon - reading the usa daily press propaganda briefings is always informative...
why it was just yesterday that the quote you gave from today, was served up yesterday
thanks heather nauert.. this from yesterday "MS NAUERT: Russia signed on to this. That's
first of all. Russia signed on to this as an entity that agreed to this UN Security Council
resolution. Let me remind you also that Russia had agreed to help, years ago, Syria with
getting rid of its chemical weapons. Russia has failed to do that. I want to point that out
as well." who needs facts, when you can lie, make shit up and etc. etc.?? https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2018/02/278913.htm
@1 librel.. i agree with you - change the word, again to still... the nyt is 'still'
shilling for the war machine...
Is it some surprise that US sanctioned countries trade with other US sanctioned countries
(for benign, commercial reasons)? It apparently is to some.
(Warning: sweeping statement alert...) This GLOBAL US sanctions regime only hastens the
formation of a non-US/alternative commercial trade collective, the end of the dollar as
"world trade currency," and the subsequent end of the US ability to fund global war (as US
T-Bill interest rates jack up - currently at ZERO - correspondingly, US sovereign debt
becomes unsupportable by the economy, and the end of economic life as we in the US know
it). Perpetual war, as a function of the end of empire, do have that effect.
The Syrian attempt to end militants in Ghouta has elicited an incredibly strong, and for
me, unexpected response. Why are the NATO/zionist/neocon crowd going crazy over a small
plot of land that was obviously going to be recaptured? Are they concerned that the
inability of the jihadists to shell Damascus will be too beneficial to Assad? Is this just
an attempt by Bibi to save his skin? Maybe the jihadist backers have finally come to
realize that this little game is coming to a close?
@17 alaric - "Reading media reports of the fighting in east Ghouta over the last few days
has triggered an eery sense of déjà vu.
It is like taking a time machine back to the autumn of 2016 and listening to all the
arguments over the fighting in Aleppo all over again." the article is here
Thanks b and also Yul | 6 for shedding light on that matter.
Those "UN experts" are being cited on German state media again and again, with some new
report on this or that, establishing Syria as guilty party. But whenever that happens and I
go on the UN's website to find s.th. on said report, like a press statement, just anything
official, there's nothing to be found. So clearly they're misusing the official 'UN' tag,
and no-one's stopping them.
As for the latest expert ruse, it's eye-opening to have a look at the people from the
document which Yul posted. On the face of it, it might look like a pretty diverse crew, ppl
from all regions of the world with names no-one has ever heard of, so why not trust
them?
It gets bad when you take a closer look. The French boy (born '84) is from law and has
dealt with nothing but law so far, yet poses as an expert on "missile issues and other
technologies". Would you believe it?
This just goes on, the Britisher ("air transport") has a background in political science
(or "science" rather).
Rounding things off, there's this American lady with her no doubt common English name
Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt. If you're confused as to her actual nationality you can at
least be sure that she's a deep-state outgrowth. Council on Foreign Relations, Council of
Europe, council here, council there. Political science by training too, probably's never
done a day's work in her life. But quite the expert on "finance and economics", I hear.
PS: Those tiles, I remember we had tables clad with those in the chemistry labs, back in
high school. So maybe they were justmeant for one of the schools they're rebuilding in
Aleppo, another thought.
These reports (allegations) are part of a psychological war waged by the US and its allies
on Syria et al. There may be a military attack in the works, maybe not, but one thibg's for
sure -- serious allegations like these serve to keep the Syrians and their allies on their
tippy toes, and intended to make them think twice before they make moves contrary to US
interests. So yes the reports are for domestic consumption but also part of a warning to
foreign foes.
@ 19 Scotch
Don't forget who has got the permanent post for the USG of Political Affairs at the UN . A
US citizen- currently Jeffrey Feltman who is leaving soon to be replaced by another ilk - a
woman this time around. Ban Ki-Moon couldn't sneeze w/o the approval of Jeffrey. Looks like
Antonio is in the same boat - guess that's how and why he got elected - another US puppet
as UNSG.
The NYT piece so obviously contradicts itself internally to boil down to a leaked document
without official imprimatur, containing unverified information from unnamed UN member
states, information which may or may not appear sinister, should it ever be confirmed,
depending on one's point of view. That's very thin gruel, and yet the story has been
amplified by other outlets and presented to the public as representing some sort of
established fact. Yes, that is exactly the Iraqi WMD propaganda playbook.
.... Abdulmonam Eassa AFP News February 28, 2018
Syrian civil defence volunteers pray over the body of a victim who died in a building
collapse following reported regime bombardment in Haza, in the besieged Eastern Ghouta
region on February 26, 2018 More In Syria's rebel-held Eastern Ghouta enclave, the bombs
have stopped falling from the sky but the dead are still being raised from the
rubble.
In the town of Hazeh, volunteers from the Syrian Civil Defence known as the "White
Helmets" pull one body from the basement of a collapsed home. And minutes later, a second
one.
"It's carnage down there," says Ali Bakr, a young man looking on with other
residents. "People hide underground to shelter from the strikes but even that doesn't
guarantee you're safe."
Syrian regime forces, backed by Russia's military, intensified their bombardment of
Eastern Ghouta on February 18, carrying out one of the bloodiest assaults of the country's
seven-year war.
More than 600 civilians have been killed in 10 days of air strikes, barrel bombs
dropped from helicopters and rocket fire on the area, which is controlled by Islamist and
jihadist groups....
The „churnalists" live up to their real name. They did the same stunt in 2017 –
even more brazenly rehashing what the press agency „said" (in turn relying on what
anonymous „officials" and reports „said"):
The „sources":
1 a „confidential" (read: secret) report by ANONYMOUS authors (called:
„independent experts" in manipulative press jargon):
„The report by a panel of independent U.N. experts, which was submitted to the
U.N. Security Council earlier this month and seen by Reuters on Monday, gave no details on
WHEN or WHERE the interdictions occurred or WHAT the shipments contained".
(Give me a break )
2 the allegations of 3 UNIDENTIFIED „(UN) member states": 2 „interdicted
shipments " and 1 „HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE" :
(REUTERS) " Two MEMBER STATES interdicted shipments destined for Syria. Another Member
state informed the panel that it HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE that the goods were part of a KOMID
contract with Syria," according to the report.
„KOMID is the Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation. It was blacklisted by the
Security Council in 2009 and DESCRIBED AS Pyongyang's key arms dealer and exporter of
equipment related to ballistic missiles and conventional weapons. In March 2016 the council
also blacklisted two KOMID representatives in Syria."
The consignees were Syrian entities DESIGNATED by the European Union and the United States
as front companies for Syria's Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC), a Syrian
entity identified by the Panel as cooperating with KOMID in previous prohibited item
transfers," the U.N. experts wrote. SSRC has overseen the country's chemical weapons
program since the 1970s."
The latest „reporting" is using the same methods: secret sources, innuendo,
conjecture, confirmation bias, framing, etc.
The report is UNPUBLISHED, the authors („experts on what?) are NOT KNOWN but the
insinuation is that it contains „new evidence" for criminal activities between the
DPRK and Syria (criminal only because of the unwarranted sanctions)
So the „multiplicators" write about what Reuters says is in the report (as if it
were true) although no journalist has tried to verify the claims but when the Syrian
government refutes the allegations they dutifully point out that
„The UN panel said Syrian officials had not responded to a request for documents
that would support this assertion "
BENOIT CAMGUILHEM (F) – missile issues
a French university lecturer in public / administrative law - an expert on missiles?
HUGH GRIFFITHS (UK) - air transport
leads the panel this guy is a dangerous fraud ... infiltrating SIPRI and earlier involved
in the black "human rights" propaganda about Serbia and Kosovo (director of field mission,
medecins du monde (1999-2001)- as "authentic" as the White Helmets...)
(„he worked for governments" (!) and the „Institute for War &
Peace":
„Institute for War & Peace Reporting (or IWPR for short) is an international
media development charity, established in 1991. It runs major programmes in Afghanistan,
the Caucasus, Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, the Philippines, Southeastern Europe, Syria, Uganda
and Southern Africa. (nice choice of countries !)
"IWPR builds democracy at the frontlines of conflict and change through the power of
professional journalism. IWPR programs provide intensive hands-on training, extensive
reporting and publishing, and ambitious initiatives to build the capacity of local media ."
(haven't we heard this crap before ?)
„Also we are managing a special reporting project on war crimes tribunals" .
„managing" indeed:
Edward Herman's great analysis about the Milosevic trial (Marlise Simons: A Study in
Total Propaganda Service) contains this reference:
Marlise Simons, "Prosecutors SAY Documents Link Milosevic to Genocide," New York Times,
June 20, 2003
„Simons swallowed the Office of the Prosecutor's bait, its revelation of a
document that "MAY PROVE TO BE crucial evidence in support of their case that the former
Yugoslav president is guilty of genocide." (First published on the webpage of the
highly-compromised Institute for War & Peace Reporting..)" Sound familiar?
The Simonses of this world have multiplied like cancer cells and as Herman
remarked:
„Framing and sourcing are closely linked, as the use of a particular source
allows that source to define the issues and to fix the frames of reference, presumably
those acceptable to or preferred by the journalist"
By the way, the IWPR (their "democracy-loving" directors) seem to be very unpopular
in Iraq .. I wonder why:
The newly-appointed Iraq Director for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting
(IWPR) has been found dead in suspicious circumstances at an Istanbul airport.
(„hanged herself with shoelaces") The ex-BBC journalist had been returning from a
memorial service in London for the former IWPR Iraq director, Ammar Al Shahbander, who was
killed in a car bomb attack in Baghdad in May.
I hate to admit it, but clearly the AZ Empire is not "finished" with Syria yet. The
division of this ancient society with the storied Euphrates River serving as one border (as
"Promised" in Genesis 15:18) is enforced by thousands of US troops, artillery pieces,
warplanes and at least a dozen US military bases. That gives about 1/3 of Syria's land and
1/2 of its oil to the proposed Kurdistan (with Kurdish people making up 6% of Syria's
population).
I sincerely hope that Syria's allies, Russia and Iran, are themselves sincere in their
commitment to preserve Syria's sovereignty and the integrity of its borders.
Another story came out of this devastated land and people.
Syria conflict: Women 'sexually exploited in return for aid'
It's been going on since "revolution" began. The first UN report on it was 3 years ago,
but nothing has been done. And of course, it is the Sharia Councils we pay for that set the
terms for trading food for women and girls (and no doubt boys).
Senator Lindsey Graham said Iran is testing President Donald Trump and warned Israel was
preparing to start a war in southern Lebanon over an Iranian-backed Hezbollah rocket
factory.
You write: "the folks who own these papers are very intent on doing the same - carrying
water for the military and financial industry in a move towards war, or a desire for war..
"
Have you considered that the owners of the media also own large parts of the military
industrial complex, as well as controlling interest in the financial institutions?
The media is not a separate fourth estate seeking objectivity, it is a useful tool to
create popular support for policies that go against the interest of the majority. They are
not separate.
Excellent points! I shun most "traditional" media of all types as most are corrupted in
some manner, with some more than others. I'm reminded of the closed door meeting FDR had
with the major media CEOs just prior to 7 Dec and the resulting lock-step they all
displayed afterwards--a lock-step continuing as we breathe.
This is a black propaganda two-fer, casting aspersions upon both Syria and North Korea. Let
us now forget it was the U.S. that enabled sales of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. It
was the U.S. that most likely used Sarin gas during the Vietnam War. And it was the U.S.
that amnestied the worst biological warfare criminals from Japan's Unit 731 complex and
then used their expertise to conduct a large-scale experimental campaign of germ warfare
against both China and North Korea during the Korean War. Regarding the latter, readers are
referred to
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-long-suppressed-korean-war-report-on-u-s-use-of-biological-weapons-released-at-last-20d83f5cee54
Castellio @ 28, James and Karlof1: In the case of Rupert Murdoch, who through News
Corporation owns newspapers, journals, magazines, TV and online news channels, at least one
major film studio (20th Century Fox), publishing company HarperCollins Publishers and other
media outlets, the link between the media and the military industrial complex is between
the two hemispheres of his brain. Murdoch is on the Board of Directors of Genie Energy
(along with ex-US President of Vice Dick Cheney) which owns a company that has a licence
(granted by an Israeli court) to explore and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's Golan
Heights.
How much more incestuous can the media be with the military industrial complex?
Wait while I hunt out the connection between The Guardian newspaper's management and
investment bank NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd ...
What is up here? Apart from the horror of the NYT story, why are so many commenters in this
thread too damn lazy to use the html tags provided. It is 2018 and I find it impossible to
accept that so many are still incapable of posting to a blog.
The only reason I can deduce is that far too many still sit at ancient desktops and don't
comprehend the disaster their laziness causes for those who use tablets & phones.
A new movie "Revolution Man" directed by Syrian director Najdat Aznour. Deals with rebel
propaganda ie. #WhiteHelmets fakery, child soldiers & the role of western media in
demonizing the government.
A new movie "Revolution Man" directed by Syrian director Najdat Aznour. Deals with rebel
propaganda ,#WhiteHelmets fakery, child soldiers & the role of western media in
demonizing the government
Such incestuousness was uncovered during the Merchants of Death Congressional hearings
during the 1930s and helped enact the Neutrality Acts. Prominent US Historians Charles and
Mary Beard were decrying the evils of media consolidation soon after WW1, a message that
only increased in volume as time moved forward. Imagine what we might have if anti-trust
legislation were enforced as rigorously as Taft(!) did 100+ years ago.
"... It has been a long year ever since January 20 th of last year. Not only because of the ever-ensuing embarrassments of the Commander in Chief with such frequency it can be difficult to follow, but also – and I would say especially – because of the incessant daily media focus on the so called "Russiagate" scandal, a conspiracy which seeks to prove a collusion between the Putin and the Trump administration in order to successfully steal the 2016 presidential election win away from Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton. ..."
It has been a long year ever since January 20 th of last year. Not only because of the ever-ensuing embarrassments
of the Commander in Chief with such frequency it can be difficult to follow, but also – and I would say especially – because of the
incessant daily media focus on the so called "Russiagate" scandal, a conspiracy which seeks to prove a collusion between the Putin
and the Trump administration in order to successfully steal the 2016 presidential election win away from Democrat nominee Hillary
Clinton.
The United States and the Russian Federation have a long history of mutual hostility – famously dividing the East and West into
a bipolar world during the Cold War – and the vision of Russia is among many Americans still that of the Soviet
bad guys . The Cold War was not a pleasant time for many
obvious reasons, but in the minds of the American left, the McCarthy era is one that still sticks, and
its apparent return is something
that seems to concern only a minority on the left – including myself. Now for the unacquainted, McCarthyism can be described as "
the vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph
McCarthy in the period 1950–4. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, though most did not in fact belong to the
Communist Party " ( source ). It was a
clever way used by the US government to frame and condemn all the big left leaning civil rights and social justice movements that
were happening during the Cold War era. Professors, academics, independent media platforms, politicians or activists with left leaning
messages were being labelled as Soviet agents by the US government, discrediting them completely of any legitimacy in the eyes of
the American people through the widespread Red Scare
. What has been happening in the last year can be seen as a mirror of the same mentality, except that " Soviet spy " has today
been replaced by labels such as " Kremlin agent " or " Russian bot ".
It isn't news that what is often referred to as the " American Left" of the Democratic party is in reality nothing more
than a neo-liberal party slightly more to the center/left than the GOP. So in this article, when I am referring to the terminology
"American Left" , and the one subject to the revamped McCarthyism, I am in fact talking about the often anti-establishment,
anti-imperialistic and even sometimes anti-capitalistic left – the one that threatens the current neo-liberal status quo. So as I
elaborate my case, I just want to make it clear that I am referring to the latter.
One of the greater, larger left-wing media presence on US ground is undoubtedly RT America (RT short for Russia Today). Hosting
many US critical segments such as Redacted Tonight
by Lee Camp, On Contact with Chis Hedges and Breaking The Set with Abby Martin, RT America comes
out as a prominent side-narrative to the mainstream medias such as MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR and so forth. Yet last year,
RT America has had to register itself as a "foreign agent" , on the basis of a
very weak report by the Director of National Intelligence
. Reasons for this decision as stated in the report claims to be that RT regularly covers surveillance, civil liberties, protest
movements, the environmental impacts of fracking and Wall Street greed. Other more establishment friendly foreign news media on US
soil such as BBC America have not had to register as a foreign agent. So far, only RT. Facebook (known for working closely with the
US government) has even gone as far as marking RT articles shared on its platform
as spam The Intercept
Where the delegitimization of leftist media really strikes is in the realm of "fake news"-stamping and propaganda-flagging.
The Washington Post backed the website project PropOrNot.com which frames in a sort of 'blacklist' news medias that they believe
are Russian Propaganda, with usually no evidence to back up their claims. Many independent news outlets are to be found on their
list, and none of the major media conglomerates (unless they're Russian, of course). In the same vein, Facebook has decided to team
up with established media outlets such as AP and ABC News to find out and
decide what is or is
not "Fake News" .
Apparently, Americans are believed to be too unwise to figure it out for themselves, and if alternate narratives and opinions
are being held, it must be because they have fallen victim of fake news. BBC has even gone as far as taking the
teaching role in spotting "fake news" . The concept
seems to be that social media platforms and mainstream media outlets are to tell the population what is real and what is a lie. The
same outlets that pushed the war in Iraq, Syria, Libya, as well as the current Russiagate narrative. Media outlets that are
ramping up on US intelligence spokesmen for their news
segments, despite the fact that they are
historically known to lie
and deceive the American people . These same people are to tell us what is the truth. It is my belief that one of the only way
such a development has become possible lies in the fact that the Democratic party and its voters have a
newfound love for the FBI, NSA and
CIA, thanks to the Russiagate conspiracy.
During the last year, James Comey and
Robert Mueller have incessantly been praised
by the media as American heroes and patriots saving the American people from the Kremlin puppets that Trump and his administration
are accused to be (with very little evidence so far). It would seem that in this day and age, the Democrats would rather side with
the deep state than with reason. Through programs such as COINTELPRO
and Operation
Mockingbird , the FBI and CIA have spent decades and millions of dollars deceiving and crushing any movement that dared to challenge
the two-party system. For " the resistance " movement to embrace US intelligence agencies and the lies they propagate is an
extremely reckless and dangerous move, and by doing so they are not only consciously trying their best to harm the current administration,
but unconsciously harming the many media outlets, journalists, activists and politicians who hold a different view on the world than
the Washington narrative, and who are now all being flagged as Kremlin agents pushing Russian propaganda.
During the last year we have been told not only that Trump's campaign colluded with the Kremlin, but also that
Bernie Sanders, Green Party leader Jill Stein and even that UK's
Jeremy Corbyn did. So have we been told about whistleblowers
Julian Assange ,
Edward Snowden
and
Chelsea Manning , and many of RT America's journalists who have their shows and articles published on RT America for the sole
reason that RT is one of the only outlets allowing their differing viewpoints on American politics. Many Russiagate sceptics on Twitter
have
r
eceived messages directly from Twitter informing them that they might have fallen victim to Russian propaganda because they had
retweeted or were following certain accounts they deemed to be associated with the Kremlin. From my own personal experience, I cannot
count how many times I have seen Russiagate sceptics being called-out by liberals for being Kremlin agents or Russian bot accounts
– all because of the many, many Russia-Kremlin-Trump stories that have been promulgated over the last year. It has paralyzed a large
portion of the centre-left to not even move an inch more towards the left, and has condemned those who have.
There is a paranoia happening in the US political establishment, remarkably similar to the one experienced during the Cold War
era. It doesn't matter whether the Russia-Collusion story is true or not (let's not forget the United States has itself
meddled in countless foreign elections ever since the end of WWII , even in
Russia in 1996 ), it matters more what this ongoing investigation and grotesque media-hype is doing to the American public –
and by extension to the rest of the world. The
US-Russia relation
is worse today than at the high point of the Cold War , all thanks to this constant Putin bashing and the fact that NATO is slowly
encircling the Russia in Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, the Arctic, the Middle-East and Asia. Despite the West
promising
not to expand NATO an inch Eastwards as part of the German reunification deal, such promises have not been kept. But of course,
most of the general population is fine this politically unwise expansion of NATO, " because you know, Russians are bad " (satire).
If there is a threat to national and global security today, and a threat to free speech and independent media, it is not coming
from Putin or the Kremlin – but rather from the United States. And until the American left gathers itself and stops listening to
the warmongering pundits and establishment journalists parroting the Washington narrative, we have nothing but a bleak future in
front of us with regards to the relation between thte two old nemesis nuclear superpowers.
*
Jonathan Sigrist is a student at the University of Tromsř in Northern Norway, currently studying the geopolitical, environmental,
cultural and economic relations between the Arctic nations (The US, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark/Greenland and
Iceland), as well as the future of the Arctic's role in global politics. He has lived in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and France, and
is a fervent observer and critic of US foreign policy.
If Kushner was/is involved with such risky staff, why he tried to join Trump administration. It does not requires any IQ
to understand that he will be the target and that knife are out to depose Trump. In view of color revolution against Trump the
best strategy would be to stay in NYC. You need to be squeaky clean to work for him.
Notable quotes:
"... A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely for political reasons. " ..."
"... Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most expensive building ever purchased", in New York City. ..."
"... After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner, the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado ..."
"... While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the New York Times . ..."
"... Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal. ..."
"... Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action. ..."
"... Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation ..."
"... Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down. ..."
"... They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. ..."
"... They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump ..."
"... If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present. ..."
"... Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance. ..."
"... Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation! ..."
"... You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on. ..."
"... NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE. ..."
"... I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not nice. ..."
"... It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it. ..."
"... Thank goodness the FBI and Justice have all the Democrat/Clinton crimes solved so they can dispense equal Justice to the Republicans ..."
After losing his
top secret security clearance and reportedly falling under intense scrutiny by Robert Mueller's probe, the New York Department
of Financial Services has asked Deutsche Bank two local lenders for information about their dealings with Jared Kushner, the Kushner
companies and his family , according to
Bloomberg .
Letters were sent by department superintendent Maria Vullo to Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank last week,
said a person who had seen the letter which seeks a response by March 5. Vullo was appointed by New York's Democratic governor, Andrew
Cuomo.
The requested information is broad, and include the banks' processes for approving loans.
Vullo requested copies of emails and other communications between the Kushners and the banks related to financing requests
that have been denied or are pending. She also asked whether the banks have conducted any internal reviews of the Kushners and
their companies and the results of any such inquiries revealed.
The most detailed information about the Kushners' finances can be found in their government disclosures. The couple had unsecured
lines of credit of $5 million to $25 million each from Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank according to
a late December filing.
Deutsche Bank's line of credit was extended to Kushner and his mother; lines from the other two banks were extended to Kushner
and his father. Signature Bank also extended a secured line of credit to the couple of $1 million to $5 million, according to
the disclosure. - Bloomberg
A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department
of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO
voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely
for political reasons. "
Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most
expensive building ever purchased", in New York City.
After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner,
the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange
for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado.
While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according
to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of
troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner
and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the
New York Times .
Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought
financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion
apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal.
Kushner in the crosshairs
Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials
from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking
advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current
and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action.
Meanwhile, the presidential son-in-law's security clearance was downgraded from "Top Secret/SCI-level" to "secret" this week,
walling him off from the most sensitive information.
Many had expected that Trump would grant Kushner a waiver, even though Trump himself said Friday that he would let
Chief of Staff
John Kelly decide if such an exception should be granted. In a statement issued last week, Kelly said that any changes to Kushner's
security clearance wouldn't impact his ability to do his job:
"As I told Jared days ago, I have full confidence in his ability to continue performing his duties in his foreign policy portfolio
including overseeing our Israeli-Palestinian peace effort and serving as an integral part of our relationship with Mexico," Kelly
said in the statement.
At the end of the day, unless Kushner or his company broke the law, it appears that this entire exercise is meant to embarrass
the president's son-in-law over his troubled 666 property.
Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation..... .yeah I know but how in your
face are they going to get... wait dont answer that
Trump, the first US President with two Jewish children
, beholden to the money power
of the US establishment (i.e.,
Jewish
money ) that supported his presidential bid (or
bought the presidency for
him), is making the Israeli dream of stealing Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine a reality; especially since
he owes
Jewish investment banks hundreds of millions of dollars, which can be easily written off the books if certain conditions are met.
"I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," Trump
said .
In one fell swoop, Donald Trump overturned decades of
international
consensus and laws. He also ignored recorded history: Jerusalem was
NEVER the capital of even ancient Israel.
Furthermore, he constantly and nonchalantly overlooks the fact that Israel today is an inhumane,
apartheid
country that uses its carte blanche from the US to do as it pleases in the Middle East. It
oppresses the Palestinians,
treats them like
caged animals , and spreads
chaos in the region regardless of how it affects the peace of the world.
The reason is because the Jews control
the
Federal Reserve , the real center of power in the United States or the
money power of the establishment
(i.e.,
Jewish
money ). In turn, the Fed
wags
every other financial institution in America, and consequently ends up being the
root cause of all
of America's economic ills.
Trump's Jewish Entourage
Not even Trump
, who supposedly wants to "make America great again," dares mention the need to dismantle the Fed. Worse, he drools every
time he talks about
Apartheid
Israel , not unlike every other American politician.
The anti-Christ spirit of
hate
thy neighbor , which revs up the engine of the state of Israel and that of its Prime Minister, seems to fire up Trump's motor
as well with his loathing of
immigrants , especially
of his Mexican neighbors. He and Netanyahu are two peas in a pod – both arrogant, haughty, and supercilious narcissists.
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18
Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down.
They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. All the righteous types just don't get it, they are being
played to heighten the drama and division.. they don't give a shit.
They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is
fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the
reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump.
If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI
is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present.
Remember WACO. Remember Ruby Ridge. Remember 911. Remember Lynch. Remember DACA. Remember Obama stealing from Freddie and Fannie.
Remember all the government assistance programs you are paying for, that you are not eligible for because of the color of your
skin, that you had no say in. Nice work, FBI.
Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind
the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance.
Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they
know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation!
How much of the loot from the US taxpayer did Deutche get from the "bailout"? The credibility of their organized bankster cartel
is lower than that of a belarus hooker in jail in Thailand, because they practice fraud professionally. The FBI is an active enemy
of the United States. The masks are coming off.
"The Knives Are Out For Kushner: Loans With Deutsche Under Scrutiny By Regulator"
Will this be the catalyst for Trump to fire Muler's sorry-ass or does he just become more defensive every day about taking
action and hope the issue will just sort itself out?
I too would continue unabated like a crazy man until stopped, if I were Muler.
Kushner wants a security clearance? They get to ream, steam and dry clean his ass. This is no game. Now, it just so happens
I ran one of the biggest commercial real estate shops on the Street. I have been in the market recently for a major developer.
5-10X the size of Kushner. You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be
that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on.
You see, on a secured credit line, the bank only has to reserve about 4-8% of the limit as a capital charge. That allows them
to operate at about 12X leverage. If they are charging LIBOR + 300 for the line, and they fund art LIBOR-50, and the line is fully
drawn (no bank wants a line that isn't utilized, that's why they charge non-utilization fees), their 350BP spread translates into
a nice ~35% ROE. That's good business. On an unsecured line, there is a 100 % capital charge. That's a 3.5% ROE. That sucks balls.
I have literally had a major bank walk away from an unsecured $50mm line when it would have given them the inside track for
a $800 million loan they could securitize and make a quick and easy $25 million on. The regulatory headache and capital charges
just made it a non-starter.
NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding
with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens
and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a
while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking
no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making
an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE.
If I were working for Mueller, I would be very curious about this stuff, too. If they called me, I would give them a list of
things to look for. Something sounds screwy. Either the reporter has the details wrong, or something IS wrong.
I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking
his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be
suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not
nice.
It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with
a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it.
h6> Feb 28, 2018
briefed
the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on Tuesday on the efforts against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and the wars in
Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. All of which fall under the purview of CENTCOM, "the only geographic combatant command executing
active combat operations," Votel pointed out.
The US has partitioned the globe into six combatant commands. Under this arrangement, CENTCOM's area of responsibility extends
from the Libyan border with Egypt to Pakistan's border with India, and from Kazakhstan's border with Russia to Sudan.
US geographical combatant commands / Wikipedia
From Votel's 45-page
prepared
testimony , it was apparent that the US regards Iran as the biggest challenge in the region, followed by Russian and Chinese
efforts to chip away at Washington's hegemony.
"An increase in Russian surface-to-air missile systems in the region threatens our access and ability to dominate the airspace,"
Votel complained at one point, discussing Syria.
Unlike the US forces present in that country, Russian forces are in Syria at the invitation of the government in Damascus. Votel
argued that the legal basis for the presence of US troops was the "collective self-defense of Iraq" from IS.
"The principle reason we are in Syria is to defeat ISIS, and that remains our sole and single task," Votel told the lawmakers,
echoing last week's remarks by President Donald
Trump.
Declaring the IS largely defeated, Votel cautioned that "Sunni populations remain vulnerable to identity-based recruitment"
into terrorist groups, adding that "impressionable youth in this tumultuous region, seeking community and justice, are highly
susceptible to extremists' teachings."
Looks like Mueller investigation was a part of color revolution to depose Trump, using
consequentialism slogan widely attributed to
Machiavelli's The Prince "the end justifies
the means".
Mueller witch hunt is a part of neoliberalism counterattack on forces that are against neoliberal globalization, dropping
standard of living of common people and offshoring of manufacturing. That means tiny greedy elite against the majority of the USA
population. We read about such situations in history books, did not we?
Notable quotes:
"... The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government (not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff memo reveals five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year. ..."
"... It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence, no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele dossier and its salacious accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings. ..."
"... What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won? ..."
"... It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn an election probably a full two years after it was decided. ..."
"... Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7 to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed. ..."
So here's what Mueller has: evidence of unrelated-to-Trump financial crimes by Paul Manafort and others, based mostly from FISA
surveillance on Manafort dating back to
2014
. The FBI's earlier investigation was dropped for lack of evidence, and it appears Mueller revived it now in part so the information
could be repurposed to press Manafort to testify. The role pervasive surveillance has played in setting perjury traps to manufacture
indictments to pressure people to testify against others has been grossly underreported. We'll see more of it, unfortunately, a new
tool of justice in a surveillance state.
Flynn and Papadopoulos are currently charged with relatively minor offenses whose connections to Russiagate are tenuous. Flynn's
contact with the Russian ambassador can be seen as a lot of uncomplimentary things, but it does not appear to have been a crime.
With Papadopoulos there may be a conspiracy charge in there with some shady lawyering, but little more. Further offstage, Carter
Page, a key actor in the
Steele dossier and the
subject of
FISA warrants, has not been charged with anything.
Here's what Mueller is missing. The full force of the U.S. intelligence community has been looking for evidence of Russian government
(not just "some Russians") interference in the election for 18 months (the recently released Schiff
memo reveals
five Trump campaign officials were under investigation as of September 2016, including Flynn), with the aim of finding proof of Trump's
collusion with Russia in the same caper for about a year.
It is reasonable to conclude they do not have definitive intelligence,
no tape of a Team Trump official cutting a deal with a Russian spy. The same goes for the Steele
dossier and its salacious
accusations . If a tape existed or if there was proof the dossier was true, we'd watching impeachment hearings.
What's left is the battle cry of Trump's opponents since Election Day: "Just you wait." They exhibit a scary, gleeful certainty
that Trump worked with the Russians, because how else could he have won?
But so far the booked charges against Flynn and Papadopoulos and the guilty pleas of others point towards relatively minor sentences
to bargain over -- assuming they have game-changing information to share in the first place. These are process crimes, not ones of
turpitude. Manafort says he'll go to court and defend himself, lips sealed.
It's not enough. Mueller is charged with nothing less than proving the president knowingly worked with a foreign government, receiving
help in the election in return for some quid pro quo, an act that can be demonstrated so clearly to the American people as to overturn
an election probably a full two years after it was decided.
Given the stakes -- a Kremlin-controlled man in the Oval Office -- you'd think every person in government would be on this 24/7
to save the nation, not a relatively small staff of prosecutors leisurely filing indictments that so far have little to do with their
core charge in the hope that someone will join their felony hunt and testify to crimes that may not have been committed.
A limping-to-the-finish line conclusion to Mueller's work just ahead of the midterms alleging Trump technically obstructed justice,
or a "conspiracy to commit something" charge without a finding of an underlying crime, will risk tearing the nation apart. Mueller
holds a lot in his hands, and he needs soon to produce the conclusive report to Congress he was charged to write. Until then, absent
evidence, skepticism remains a healthy stance.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He Tweets
@WeMeantWell.
"... Page went from being an undercover employee of the FBI to a Russian spy and thus provide the impetus to then get a Title 1 surveillance warrant issued on him to then legally use all of the raw data that the FBI / DOJ had amassed prior to the initial FISA order in October 2016? ..."
"... Why Gates and Manafort except that thanks to Tony Podesta, and Hillary Clinton, it was known that the shenanigans going on in the Ukraine involved Manafort, Podesta, and Gates (to a much smaller extent). ..."
"... Throw Papadopoulos in here as well. Another possible plant. ..."
What is the likelihood that Carter Page, Gates and Manafort were planted in the Trump
campaign to set the team up for another Russian angle.
Page went from being an undercover employee of the FBI to a Russian spy and thus provide
the impetus to then get a Title 1 surveillance warrant issued on him to then legally use all
of the raw data that the FBI / DOJ had amassed prior to the initial FISA order in October
2016?
Why Gates and Manafort except that thanks to Tony Podesta, and Hillary Clinton, it was
known that the shenanigans going on in the Ukraine involved Manafort, Podesta, and Gates (to
a much smaller extent).
Throw Papadopoulos in here as well. Another possible plant. And, where is Tony Podesta? If
you indict Manafort, then you have to indict Podesta. So, if not, then Mueller is a bad actor
indeed.
Espionage would possibly be Steele's indictment. But nobody was 'formally' spying for another country. He was simply fed leaked
info and he put it into a document and sent it back. Is that a crime?
Notable quotes:
"... The facts are there but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute. ..."
The Obama spying is politically terrible but when I consider what is laid out I am not seeing very many crimes that would put
people in prison.
Having contractors use FISA 702 search queries – not a crime?
The president disseminating his PDB – not a crime
Unmasking people – not a crime
Submitting fraudulent info to a FISA court – probably a crime (10 yrs?), but tough to prove because submitters can just
say they believed the dossier
Using someone else's name to unmask – probably a crime (but good luck finding out who did it
Leaking FISA 702s to a british spy – probably a crime
Leaking the unmasked intel from president's PDBs – a crime (but leak crimes are tough to catch and won't end up punished
that severely.)
Consipracy/Racketeering – a crime, but a tough case to prove and even put together. That is why tax fraud is the litigator's
preferred indictment, there are just so many moving parts with a conspiracy.
This is most likely why this is taking such a long time – and I worry that most if not all conspirators will skate. They will
probably be fired and collect their retirement pensions but that may be the end of it.
Though with the next democrat president, they will make sure that all those lose ends that got them caught this time will be
perfectly legal. We have only witnessed the beginning of our own homegrown Stazi
We have already seen some of their defense through the dem memo. I am outraged at the spying scheme, but you have to recognize
that all these people involved are lawyers. They will have made sure to have possible exits when the shtf. There are still plenty
of black hats in all our gov bureaus and there will be a constant tit for tat throughout the process. The facts are there
but I see this as an incredibly difficult case to prosecute.
Sundance has summarized the scheme quite nicely. Even so, blog posts are very different than an actual indictment. I suppose there
must be more substantial crimes if they have been able to get people to flip – crimes we have not been told (I hope).
You say there are many other cases but fail to name any other crimes that have come to light. You could have enlightened me
rather than just make accusations against me and told me to 'do my homework'.
I am simply saying they have created a scheme where it is nebulously legal. They could have just leaked the 702 queries but
they laundered it through the PDB. This is all done to make it technically legal.
So far I am only seeing leaking, FISA fraud, and conspiracy/racketeering (which is next to impossible to prove). If there are
only indictments along leaking, that would easily be seen as political prosecution (dems live under a different rule book than
Trump/GoP being hounded by corrupt prosecutors ala Mueller). The Dem memo is trying to politicize the FISA fraud because they
recognize that that is the next closest to an open and shut case.
"... This is why Washington has adopted a strategy of bashing Russia. The US wants to break our country and withdraw it from the game, deprive it of sovereignty and subjectivity in world politics, as was the case in the 1990s, so that at the hour of the decisive clash, Russia was not an independent player capable of making decisions based on its interests. ..."
"... Thus, the minimum and maximum goals of the US are pursued: the first is to neutralize Russia, and since today it reliably covers China's rear, create threats for China from the Russian direction. ..."
"... The second is to establish a power in Moscow that would act together with Washington against China in a decisive battle. In recent years, we have seen elements of the implementation of this strategy. These are sanctions in Ukraine, attempts at financial and economic strangulation, involvement in mediated wars and a new arms race in order to provoke a split in elite Russian circles, and between the masses and the leader -- in order to ruin Putin's power and establish a puppet regime in Russia. ..."
The US is no longer a superpower: Washington's nuclear strategy tells us this.
By now, the United States has already adopted a deterrence strategy with respect to
Beijing and methodically pursues a policy of encircling the PRC with the help of its partners
and allies. China has with almost all its neighbours conflicts and problems that the US
traditionally skilfully uses to create an anti-China coalition. Countries that can form its
core include Japan, India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Australia. Over time, other states
may join them.
... And now - the most important thing. Against the backdrop of a possible battle between
the two giants in the foreseeable future, Russia's role and significance are incredibly
increasing. Obviously, having huge nuclear-missile potential, vast spaces and immense
resources, Russia can, with its participation on the side of one of the giants in the battle,
decide the fate of the confrontation.
I personally get the impression that Washington strategists understand this perfectly.
However, they do not believe that by improving relations with Moscow, they can make it a
reliable ally in the case of a head-on confrontation with China. And because the future
destiny of the United States is at stake, facing an impending existential challenge, any
miscalculation can prove fatal.
This is why Washington has adopted a strategy of bashing Russia. The US wants to break our
country and withdraw it from the game, deprive it of sovereignty and subjectivity in world
politics, as was the case in the 1990s, so that at the hour of the decisive clash, Russia was
not an independent player capable of making decisions based on its interests.
Thus, the
minimum and maximum goals of the US are pursued: the first is to neutralize Russia, and since
today it reliably covers China's rear, create threats for China from the Russian direction.
The second is to establish a power in Moscow that would act together with Washington against
China in a decisive battle. In recent years, we have seen elements of the implementation of
this strategy. These are sanctions in Ukraine, attempts at financial and economic
strangulation, involvement in mediated wars and a new arms race in order to provoke a split
in elite Russian circles, and between the masses and the leader -- in order to ruin Putin's
power and establish a puppet regime in Russia.
Will the Americans succeed in implementing their strategy? This is highly doubtful,
despite the enormous resources that the collective West, led by the United States, can
mobilize. First, the Western world and the States are not experiencing the best of times.
America has overextended itself over almost the past two decades in a series of endless wars
and external adventures. Secondly, Russia cannot be broken by applying crude, direct pressure
on it. If it breaks down, as we know from our history, it is only because of internal
conflicts and confrontations. So, in the medium term, external pressure can only consolidate
Russian society and power.
Third. The history of the White House's pressure on North Korea suggests that this huge
country cannot cope even with this small state, which has taken a firm stand.
Fourth. The solidarity of Western countries with the United States also has its limits.
They are unlikely to become willing hostages to the confrontation of the US vs Russia, and
then the US vs China.
And lastly, I like to hope that in Beijing they understand (or very soon will realize)
that the main target of the States is not Russia. Thus, the Kremlin is now resisting the
White House both for itself and, as we used to say in the USSR, for the other guy.
And it seems to me that if in this confrontation China more vigorously defends Russia,
then it is likely that the US will understand the hopelessness of the strategy of bashing
Russia and change the paradigm of its policy. Otherwise, they themselves are at risk of being
broken because of the exorbitant imperial overstrain.
No wonder Patrick Buchanan, one of the most astute patriarchs of American politics and
analysts of US foreign and domestic policy, published a few years ago a book with the very
characteristic title "Suicide of a superpower: will the US survive until 2025?"
Interesting observation: "This is what happens when you have 'Five Eyes' but no brains!"
Notable quotes:
"... The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap. ..."
"... It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause. ..."
"... I've been writing to my favorite websites telling them that the Russians could not possibly compete with the U.S. when it came to manipulation of twitter/facebook etc. Where is the comparative analysis? How could the Russians possibly compete with US Internet-manipulation, US-election-funding? Look at the most basic numbers, US population compared to Russian population... ..."
"... The whole Russiagate thing has been proven to be nothing but a cover for the Democratic Party's real manipulation of the last election to cut out the only progressive in the race (Sanders) and get the worst possible opponent (Trump) for the elite's favorite candidate (Clinton). The stupid little people of middle America just didn't follow orders like their ever so sophisticated compatriots on the east and west coasts and now the 0.01% have to cover their tracks. Mueller's indictment of 13 interns in some sadsack little St Petersburg troll farm would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic (well actually it is pretty funny). ..."
"... It's McCarthyism on steroids, and as usual, the real targets are progressives and the "real left" fighting for workers. We are allowed to have all the social justice we want, but don't you dare discuss economic justice that threatens the bank accounts of the 0.01%, or watch any of that evil alternative news that provides a different perspective from our govt/corporate approved sources. ..."
It went much further than that . Google actually tweaked its algorithms to alter search
recommendations in favor of the Clinton campaign. A comparative analysis of search engines
Google, Bing and Yahoo showed that Google differed significantly from the other two in
producing search recommendations relevant to Clinton.
The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The
U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap.
How to stop it is the only question, to stop the impunity with which these criminals like
Bush and Trump and Obama and Mattis et.al. lie with their pants on fire and .....they all
suck .01% dick.
It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over
this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he
laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause.
Finally, I do not believe my eyes. I've been writing to my favorite websites telling them
that the Russians could not possibly compete with the U.S. when it came to manipulation of
twitter/facebook etc. Where is the comparative analysis? How could the Russians possibly compete with US Internet-manipulation,
US-election-funding? Look at the most basic numbers, US population compared to Russian
population...
"Russia is attracted to Canada because destabilizing it will 'undermine the cohesion' of
the broader NATO alliance. Moreover it could serve to undermine Canadian policy in
Europe..."
More money for CSIS, CSE, 'Five Eyes' etc. Maybe we'll build a Trudeau troll-farm too.
Gee gosh golly a NATO researcher thinks Russia is threatening Canada and the CBC acts as a
megaphone for this BS.
The whole Russiagate thing has been proven to be nothing but a cover for the
Democratic Party's real manipulation of the last election to cut out the only progressive in
the race (Sanders) and get the worst possible opponent (Trump) for the elite's favorite
candidate (Clinton). The stupid little people of middle America just didn't follow orders
like their ever so sophisticated compatriots on the east and west coasts and now the 0.01%
have to cover their tracks. Mueller's indictment of 13 interns in some sadsack little St
Petersburg troll farm would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic (well actually it is pretty
funny).
Who exactly is Putin going to support in a Canadian election? The liberals and
conservatives are both reliable lapdogs of Washington and even the NDP (No Difference Party)
is infected with Russophobia and Whitehelmetphilia. Between supporting an overtly fascist
regime in Kiev, contributing to every "bombing brown people to save them" campaign concocted
by Washington, and leading a NATO battle group in Latvia some 250 miles from Moscow, it's
pretty hard to make a case that Canada is a passive little angel looking for world peace
anymore.
Very sad what the neo-liberal imposter Trudeau is doing to Canada. The guy is Harper with
ridiculous socks and a bit of identity politics thrown in to fool whatever passes as
center-left in Canada these days. What a change and almost nobody makes a fuss or cares. Of
course the Canadian media attacks anyone suggesting better relations with Russia and Canada
might be worth trying. It's McCarthyism on steroids, and as usual, the real targets are
progressives and the "real left" fighting for workers. We are allowed to have all the social
justice we want, but don't you dare discuss economic justice that threatens the bank accounts
of the 0.01%, or watch any of that evil alternative news that provides a different
perspective from our govt/corporate approved sources.
"When people ask about what is most threatening to humanity and all of
life on Earth today, they usually mention nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons, but forget about one more
truly terrible weapons of mass destruction, aimed primarily at the human brain. This is information, propaganda
and agitation."
Valentin Falin, who recently died aged 92.
More on what he thought (some of it quite extreme) here:
1. Steele used Cohen's name because it would match an independent query of the FISA database,
because that's where it came from, thus lending false credibility to the FISA courts in order
to obtain surveillance warrants.
2. True, but Obama also curtailed the OIG with restrictive new policies that took away the
IG's ability to oversee, everything. Obama changed policy so the OIG had to request specific
documents. But you can't request what you don't know about. Those policies have been
reversed, but Horowitz may have a motive to expose Oboma's administration.
3. Good point on Sessions, however investigators may want to make indictments all at once,
doing it piecemeal will tip off all conspirators of the evidence against them. For that
reason Congress has to be careful with the specifics of the case it reveals. Congress does
not have the authority to indict, only to recommend indictment, the OIG does.
"... The FBI group was participating in a plan to exonerate Hillary Clinton. That same FBI group was simultaneously conducting opposition research on candidate Donald Trump and the larger construct of his campaign team. Those FBI officials were allied by entities outside official government structures. The 'outside group' were "contractors". It is likely one of the contractors was Fusion-GPS or entities in contact with Fusion-GPS. { Go Deep } ..."
"... No longer having access to the FBI intelligence database the group needed a workaround. That's where DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr come into play. ..."
"... The Cohen mistake created a trail from Chris Steele to the FISA database. ..."
"... That raw intelligence needed "unmasking", that's where the Department of State (DoS) comes in. The U.N. Ambassador is part of the DoS. Samantha Power stated she wasn't doing the daily "unmasking" identified by the House Intelligence Committee investigation { Go Deep }. Someone, or a group of people, within the State Department, were doing unmasking requests -- presumably using Ms. Power's authority. ..."
"... The collaborative process by officials within the State Department , as outlined and supported by Senator Chuck Grassley and his investigation , explains why those officials were also communicating with Christopher Steele. ..."
"... The assembled but highly compartmentalized reports from the DOJ-NSD, FBI-Counterintelligence, Department of State, Office of National Intelligence (Clapper) and CIA (Brennan), was then constructed to become part of President Obama's Daily Intelligence Briefing. That's where National Security Adviser Susan Rice comes in and her frequent unmasking of the assembled intelligence product. ..."
"... The Obama PDB was then redistributed internally to more than three dozen administration officials who POTUS Obama allowed to access his PDB. This includes the heads of DOJ, DOJ-NSD, FBI, FBI-counterintel, CIA, DoS, ODNI, NSA and Pentagon. ..."
There are so many threads of information surrounding the 2016 operation to conduct political
surveillance on the Trump campaign by various officials and offices within corrupt structures
of government it's easy to get lost. However, if we take all the various bits of information
and placing them together a more clear picture emerges.
The {
Go Deep Threads } look like this: The FISA-702(17) 'About Queries'; the political
opposition research of Fusion-GPS and Glenn Simpson; the DOJ officials and FBI officials; Bruce
and Nellie Ohr; the U.S. State Department and U.N Ambassador Samantha Power; the Clinton-Steele
Dossier and Christopher Steele; the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant; and the unmasking by
former Senior White House officials: Lisa Monaco and Susan Rice. Here's the basic overview of
how all those threads come together to paint a picture.
The FBI group was participating in a plan to exonerate Hillary Clinton. That same FBI
group was simultaneously conducting opposition research on candidate Donald Trump and the
larger construct of his campaign team. Those FBI officials were allied by entities outside
official government structures. The 'outside group' were "contractors". It is likely one of the
contractors was Fusion-GPS or entities in contact with Fusion-GPS. {
Go Deep }
The contractors were using FBI intelligence databases to conduct opposition research
"searches" on Trump campaign officials. This is where the use of FISA-702(16)(17) "To/From" and
"About" queries comes in. {
Go Deep } This FISA abuse was the allowed but unofficial process identified in early 2016
by NSA internal auditors.
This is where NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers steps in on April 18th, 2016, and stops the
FBI contractors from having any further access. {
Go Deep }
... ... ...
No longer having access to the FBI intelligence database the group needed
a workaround. That's where DOJ official Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr come into play.
{ Go
Deep }
The DOJ side of the operation was conducted within the National Security Division (John P
Carlin head). {
Go Deep } The DOJ-NSD could use the NSA/FBI database and pass information to, and receive
information from, Nellie Ohr. Nellie was hired by Fusion-GPS immediately after Admiral Rogers
shut down the FBI 'contractor' use of the system. Nellie would be the go-between.
The problem was that any information from within the FISA searches could not be directly
used by the FBI because they would likely have to explain how they gained it and all search
queries were illegal. This is where Fusion-GPS hires the retired British MI6 officer
Christopher Steele. The FBI needed to launder the intelligence product:
Chris Steele would be the laundry for the intelligence information pulled from the U.S.
system. Unauthorized FISA-702(16)(17) results were passed on to Christopher Steele, likely by
Nellie Ohr. Steele would then wash the intelligence product, repackage it into what became
known as his "Dossier", and pass it back to the FBI 'small group' as evidence for use in their
counterintelligence operation which began in July 2016 [ intentionally without congressional
oversight {
Go Deep }].
Evidence of this laundry process is found in a significant "search query" result that was
actually a mistake. The faulty intelligence mistake was the travel history of Michael Cohen, a
long-time Trump lawyer. The FISA search turned up a Michael Cohen traveling to Prague. It was
the
wrong Michael Cohen . However, that mistaken result was passed on to Chris Steele and it
made its way into the dossier. Absent of a FISA search, there's no other way Christopher Steele
could identify a random "Michael Cohen" traveling to Prague.
The Cohen mistake created a trail from Chris Steele to the FISA database. {
Go Deep }
All of the unauthorized FISA-702 search queries, "To From"(16) and/or "About"(17), of the
NSA/FBI database were returning results. Those results were "raw intelligence".
That raw intelligence needed "unmasking", that's where the Department of State (DoS)
comes in. The U.N. Ambassador is part of the DoS. Samantha Power stated she wasn't doing the
daily "unmasking" identified by the House Intelligence Committee investigation {
Go Deep }. Someone, or a group of people, within the State Department, were doing unmasking
requests -- presumably using Ms. Power's authority.
The assembled but highly compartmentalized reports from the DOJ-NSD,
FBI-Counterintelligence, Department of State, Office of National Intelligence (Clapper) and CIA
(Brennan), was then constructed to become part of President Obama's Daily Intelligence
Briefing. That's where National Security Adviser Susan Rice comes in and her frequent unmasking
of the assembled intelligence product. {
Go Deep }
The Obama PDB was then redistributed internally to more than
three dozen administration officials who POTUS Obama allowed to access his PDB. This
includes the heads of DOJ, DOJ-NSD, FBI, FBI-counterintel, CIA, DoS, ODNI, NSA and
Pentagon.
The distribution of the PDB was how each disparate member of the administration, the larger
intelligence apparatus, knew of the ongoing big picture without having to assemble together for
direct discussion therein. That's Lisa Monaco and "Operation Latitude":
... ... ...
Additionally, remember this from the FBI?
January 31st,
2018, [ ] "With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was
provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to
release it. As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material
omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."
FBI Asst. Director Michael Kortan (aka text message " Mike "), the head of the FBI
Public Affairs Office was the one who wrote it . Kortan was part of the scheme team. FBI
Director Christopher Wray fired him the following week. { Go
Deep }
So now you know. I'll stop there, but hopefully that part helped . a little, maybe.
I think Sessions will let them keep their pensions so long as they admit their misdeeds.
Which, according to my calculations, will be about two weeks before early voting starts this
fall. I don't expect the IG report out till about a month before that. This will be a very
sterile analysis by someone that is not trying to play politics. It could have just enough
momentum to swing the elections, if properly used by Republican candidates, who have a
history of not campaigning very smart. The media won't make a big deal about it. Victor
Hanson has a good read about why-basically, its not about the crime. It wasn't in Watergate
either-its about who's ox is being gored. The media wanted to gore Nixon. They don't want to
gore the Obama administration, plain and simple. So don't expect the second coming.
If Muellers witch hunt is still ongoing in June, the impact on the mid-year elections will be
sever. Mueller's plan is to keep this going as long as possible leaving the "Sword of
Damocles" hanging over President Trump and his administration. So far the Manafort
indictments for acts years before the election are all about "guilt by association" of the
Trump team. Muellers endless investigation is clearly theater of the absurd. Russian
collusion is only manifested in the Manafort indictments for things that had nothing to do
with Trump or the election. The anti-Trump forces will play this tune for as long as Trump
lets them.
Reply to John A. Maher – Good catch (and obvious / the best way to hide something is in
the open). The Democratic memo admits "they spied on Trump", (and they were right to spy on
his [the Trump] campaign). And now we see the reaction to all this build up – NO ONE
CARES. Now it is just a debate whether is was done properly (not illegally, but properly) and
that can be argued for years.
Valerie was not the puppeteer. Obummer wore the tiara and waved, had the wife, children and
dog assessoiries Val was the gett'er done person who took the phone calls from the real boss.
She organized and carried out the plans but I don't think she came up with them all on her
own. She took orders. The same someone or small group is still issuing orders and trying to
keep everyone in line.
They won't give up as they have more to lose by doing so than to gain.
It's really depressing watching Mueller continue to do what he wants too. Mueller is the deep
state. When all is said and done, Mueller will probably have a few more indictments
associated with Manafort and Gates and will come out and say the fbi and doj had every right
to do what they did because Trump did have Manafort in his campaign and Manafort is a really
bad guy. Mueller was appointed for the special council to cover up everything and to protect
the fbi. He will not get Trump, but he will save himself and all the black hats from
indictments.
"... "This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein. "It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the offensive. ..."
"... Israel is long known for such information operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but actively manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in commercial marketing campaigns. ..."
"... With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b states). ..."
"... If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use' in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million paycheck. ..."
"... The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your lying eyes." ..."
"... money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they will frame it - 180% of that... ..."
The U.S. State Department will increase its online trolling capabilities and up its support
for meddling in other countries. The Hill
reports :
The State Department is launching a $40 million initiative to crack down on foreign
propaganda and disinformation amid widespread concerns about future Russian efforts to
interfere in elections.
The department announced Monday that it signed a deal with the Pentagon to transfer $40
million from the Defense Department's coffers to bolster the Global Engagement Center, an
office set up at State during the Obama years to expose and counter foreign propaganda and
disinformation.
The professed reason for the new funding is the alleged but unproven "Russian meddling" in
the U.S. election campaign. U.S. Special Counsel Mueller indicted 13 Russians for what is
claimed to be interference but which
is likely mere commercial activity.
The announcement by the State Department
explains that this new money will not only be used for measures against foreign trolling but to
actively meddle in countries abroad:
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein said the
transfer of funds announced today reiterates the United States' commitment to the fight.
"This funding is critical to ensuring that we continue an aggressive response to
malign influence and disinformation and that we can leverage deeper partnerships with our
allies, Silicon Valley, and other partners in this fight," said Under Secretary Goldstein.
"It is not merely a defensive posture that we should take, we also need to be on the
offensive. "
The mentioning of Silicon Valley is of interest. The big Silicon Valley companies Google,
Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the U.S. election campaign. The companies
embedded
people within the campaigns to advise them how to reach a maximum trolling effect:
While the companies call it standard practice to work hand-in-hand with high-spending
advertisers like political campaigns, the new research details how the staffers assigned to
the 2016 candidates frequently acted more like political operatives, doing things like
suggesting methods to target difficult-to-reach voters online, helping to tee up responses to
likely lines of attack during debates, and scanning candidate calendars to recommend ad
pushes around upcoming speeches.
Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one
that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the
Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find
and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner.
In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of
trolling that already exists online.
Clinton is quite experienced in such issues. In 2009, during protests in Iran, then
Secretary of State Clinton pushed Twitter to defer
maintenance of its system to "help" the protesters. In 2010 USAid, under the State Department
set up a
Twitter-like service to meddle in Cuba.
The foreign policy advisor of Hillery Clinton's campaign, Laura Rosenberger,
initiated and runs the Hamilton68 project which
falsely explains any mentioning of issues disliked by its neo-conservative backers as the
result of nefarious "Russian meddling".
The State Department can build on that and other experience.
Since at least 2011
the U.S. military is manipulating social media via sock puppets and trolls:
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command
(Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop
what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman
or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
...
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing
background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be
able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by
sophisticated adversaries".
It was then wisely predicted that other countries would follow up:
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to
users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments,
private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
Israel is long known for such information
operations in which its paid trolls not only comment on issues on social media but
actively
manipulate Wikipedia entries. Such astroturfing has since become a common tool in
commercial marketing campaigns.
With the new money the State Department will expand its Global Engagement Center
(GEC) which is running "public diplomacy", aka propaganda, abroad:
The Fund will be a key part of the GEC's partnerships with local civil society organizations,
NGOs, media providers, and content creators to counter propaganda and disinformation. The
Fund will also drive the use of innovative messaging and data science techniques.
Separately, the GEC will initiate a series of pilot projects developed with the Department
of Defense that are designed to counter propaganda and disinformation. Those projects will be
supported by Department of Defense funding.
This money will be in addition to the large funds the CIA
traditionally spends on manipulating foreign media:
"We've been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947," said Mr. Johnson,
now at the University of Georgia. "We've used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you
name it. We've planted false information in foreign newspapers. We've used what the British
call 'King George's cavalry': suitcases of cash."
...
C.I.A. officials told Mr. Johnson in the late 1980s that "insertions" of information into
foreign news media, mostly accurate but sometimes false, were running at 70 to 80 a day.
Part of the new State Department money will be used to provide grants. If online trolling or
sock puppetry is your thing, you may want to apply now.
Posted by b on February 26, 2018 at 02:02 PM |
Permalink
"to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic
front-runner"
I call these social media watchers rather than trolls. Rather than simply trying to
disrupt any and all social media threads they don't like, social media watchers look for
comments or comment threads that are disparaging or damaging to their employer.
#2 @Peter AU 1 - I would say the language "to find and CONFRONT" sounds pretty much like
troll behavior.
With regard to the larger issue, it seems that the US is getting more and more like its
allies Ukraine (drives out any press concerned with printing the truth, relies on a bombastic
and entirely false narrative to try and convince its hapless citizens that all is great and
everything is Russia's fault) and Israel (an early leader in manipulating online info as b
states).
That $40 million will probably be pissed away on a couple sweetheart contracts to Tillerson
friends and nobody will see a difference. US State Department propaganda programs, labeled as
"public diplomacy" and other monikers, have been around for a long time but haven't been
executed very well.
From the State Dept. historian office, 2013: . .(excerpt):
Public Diplomacy Is Still in Its Adolescent Stage in the State Department , etc.
. . . The process of convergence has been evolutionary. Secretary Powell grasped the power
of the information revolution, reallocated positions and resources from traditional
diplomatic posting to new areas and recognized the power of satellite television to move
publics and constrain governments even in authoritarian regimes. Secretary Rice forwarded
this reconceptualization under the rubric of "Transformational Diplomacy," which sought to
help people transform their own lives and the relationship between state and society.
Secretary Clinton continued the theme under the concept of "Smart Power." "Person-to-person
diplomacy in today's work is as important as what we do in official meetings in national
capitals across the globe," Clinton said in 2010.The work done by PD officials in Arab
Spring countries beginning in 2011 was as much about capacity-building as advocating U.S.
policies or directly trying to explain American culture. . . here
Prior efforts were targeted more at traditional news outlets, this is just an expansion into
social media along the lines of previous work, example A being the Rendon Group in Iraq,
etc. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rendon_Group
If it sounds like a PR monkey banging away on a regurgitated theme, it probably is. For
example, the endless repetition in US media about "Syrian chemical weapons attacks" with no
on-the-ground supporting evidence is typical of a Rendon Group disinformation campaign; so
then they hire a hundred trolls to post outraged comments about 'Syrian chemical weapons use'
in comment sections and on twitter; then they hire some State Department intern to write a
book about the horrors of the Assad regime, and at the end they collect their $10 million
paycheck.
Media watchers target specific comments or comment threads, in the case stated by b, those
disparaging or damaging to Clinton.
What I term trolls target blogs or social media accounts that are considered targets, no
matter the content of a particular article or comment thread. Social media media watchers are
a little more specialized than trolls and look for specific content.
P.S. it's funny that you can find out what these clowns are up to by looking for job listings
and salary reports:
The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist Salary | Glassdoor
Average [monthly] salaries for The Rendon Group Social Media Specialist: $2,520. The Rendon
Group salary trends based on salaries posted anonymously by The Rendon Group employees.
Talk about a soul-destroying job. Right up there with Wikipedia page editor.
I see what you are alluding to, but the only problem with it is that, irrespective of the
differing definitions, at heart, these infiltrators are a disrupting force on the message
boards, whether paid to be or not. Their medium is disruption and obfuscation. I tried to
wade into the neoliberal viper's den at slate.com un the past to post "alt-right" stuff and
was quickly attacked by multiple avatars.
In essence, one troll disrupts because he has a need for recognition, and the latter
disrupts for money. Both are netgain for the troll and loss for the rest of us.
The hypocrisy of the U$A continues to be staggering.. If the collective IQ's of the general public approached double digits, the disinformation
and propaganda afoot, couldn't gain much traction. As comedian Richard Pryor once said, " Who you gonna' believe, the propagandists, or your
lying eyes."
thanks b... troll farms looks like a good name for it... farming for the empire.. they could
call it that too.. russia as trend setter, lol.. i don't think so!
speaking of troll farms, i see max Blumenthal came out with some 'about time' comments on
the sad kettle of fish called 'democracy now'... here is his tweet - "If @democracynow is
going to push the neocon project of regime change in Syria so relentlessly and without
debate, it should drop the high minded literary NPR aesthetic and just host Nikki Haley for a
friendly one-on-one #EstablishmentNow https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/967123918237655041
7:07 AM - Feb 25, 2018 "
money for propaganda... that was back in 1984 - we have progressed from Orwell's version of
reality to a new one where reality is what you make of it... meanwhile there will be more
dead people that the sponsors of these troll farms, could care less about... although they
will frame it - 180% of that...
The silver lining here is that the state dept. is in a sense admitting that there is nothing
"in the pipe" relating to outright censorship whether through nefarious agreements between
ISP providers and the IC via the repeal of net neutrality.
$40 mil is a lot for liberal college graduates however.
Nonsense Factory @ 8, Peter AU 1 @ 9: There are plenty of communities in rural Australia
who'd be glad to have troll farms paying that sort of money (even as Australian dollars - 1
Australian dollar being worth about US$0.76 at this time of posting) a month. Real farmers
could do trolling on the side during slow seasons of the year and make some money.
What we need are some Mole Trolls, or maybe that's Troll Moles--double agents if you will
that work for 6-12 months recording 100% of all they do then reveal it all in an expose.
Getting ready for mid-terms. It's going to be interesting to see if the Democrats get wiped
off the map. They should be able to hire quite a few people for $40 million. Don't be
surprised if they deploy AI in the first wave, then follow up with a real person.
ben @13:
Turn off your I phones, and think a little.
ROFL After wandering aimlessly in the mall with Her Majesty over the weekend, I'm not sure
if that's even possible now.
"The big Silicon Valley companies Google, Facebook and Twitter were heavily involved in the
U.S. election campaign. The companies embedded people within the campaigns to advise them how
to reach a maximum trolling effect:"
It went much further than that . Google actually tweaked its algorithms to alter search
recommendations in favor of the Clinton campaign. A comparative analysis of search engines
Google, Bing and Yahoo showed that Google differed significantly from the other two in
producing search recommendations relevant to Clinton.
The entire U.S. MSM is a F'ing troll farm, disinformation, Orwellian world on steroids. The
U.S. public is fed a constant never ending stream of complete Bull sh**, self serving crap.
How to stop it is the only question, to stop the impunity with which these criminals like
Bush and Trump and Obama and Mattis et.al. lie with their pants on fire and .....they all
suck .01% dick.
It's surprising to see the NYT admit the US does it, too. The alt media has been all over
this including Corbett's recent video with the Woolsey interview with Fox News where he
laughs it off and then says it was for a good cause.
Two days before 9/11, Condoleeza Rice received the draft of a formal National Security
Presidential Directive that Bush was expected to sign immediately. The directive contained
a comprehensive plan to launch a
global war on al-Qaeda , including an "imminent" invasion of Afghanistan to topple the
Taliban. The directive was approved by the highest levels of the White House and officials
of the National Security Council, including of course Rice and Rumsfeld. The same NSC
officials were simultaneously running the Dhabol Working Group to secure the Indian power
plant deal for Enron's Trans-Afghan pipeline project. The next day, one day before 9/11,
the Bush administration formally agreed on the
plan to attack the Taliban.
The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire
conceptualization of the 'war on terror.' Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice
president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from 1997
to 2001, described his experience of
one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:
"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term
that I first heard at the Forum. It seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict
in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts we are now in
have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our
very way of life and impose their own."
Yeah well since the writer of the 'quiz' exposes themself as bein a troll of the worst
sort there is nothing to be said. I'm currently attempting to ingest only those newstories
where the publisher provides space for feedback from readers since if a story is truthful it
should be able to withstand challenge. yeah riight cos that means there's bugger all out
there anymore. The biggest 'win' populism has had this far is in driving all feedback off all
sites with a readership of more than a few hundred. Many of those that do allow feedback only
permit humans with credentialed facebook or google accounts to indulge and the comments are
only visible to similarly logged in types. That tells us a lot about the lack of faith the
corporate media actually have in the nonsense they publish.
Of course 'trolls' are the ones held to be the guilty for causing this but if you actually
watch what happens in a feedback column such as the rare occasions when the graun still
permits CIF comments it isn't the deliberately offensive arseholes spouting the usual cliches
who get deleted, it is those who put forward a considered argument which details why the
original writer has reached a faulty conclusion.
We all know this yet it seems as though none of us are prepared to confront it properly as
the censorship it is.
IMO media outlets which continually lie or at least distort the truth to advance a particular
agenda need to be called to account.
Massed pickets outside newsrooms would be a good way cos as much as media hate us loudmouths
who won't swallow their bromides, they like their competition even less. A decently organised
picket of NYT, WaPo or the Graun would be news in every other spineless, propagandising &
slug-featured media entity.
Said troll was published in Richmond and God only knows who else picked it up. I refuted
it in the comments as best I could, also excerpting MOA. Regardless:
Among Rendon's activities was the creation of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC)
on behalf of the CIA, a group of Iraqi exiles tasked with disseminating propaganda,
including much of the false intelligence about WMD . That process
had begun concertedly under the administration of George H W. Bush, then rumbled along
under Clinton with little fanfare, before escalating after 9/11 under George W. Bush.
Rendon thus played a large role in the manufacture of inaccurate and false news stories
relating to Iraq under lucrative CIA and Pentagon contracts -- and he did so
in the period running up to the 2003 invasion as an advisor to Bush's National
Security Council: the same NSC, of course, that planned the invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq, achieved with input from Enron executives who were simultaneously engaging the
Pentagon Highlands Forum.
Mass surveillance and data-mining also now has a distinctive operational purpose in
assisting with the lethal execution of special operations, selecting targets for the CIA's
drone strike kill lists via dubious algorithms, for instance, along with providing
geospatial and other information for combatant commanders on land, air and sea, among many
other functions. A single social media post on Twitter or Facebook is enough to trigger
being placed on secret terrorism watch-lists solely due to a vaguely defined hunch or
suspicion; and can potentially even land a suspect on a kill list.
In 2011, the Forum hosted two DARPA-funded scientists, Antonio and Hanna Damasio, who are
principal investigators in the 'Neurobiology of Narrative Framing' project at the
University of Southern California. Evoking Zalman's emphasis on the need for Pentagon
psychological operations to deploy "empathetic influence," the new DARPA-backed project
aims to investigate how narratives often appeal "to strong, sacred values in order to evoke
an emotional response," but in different ways across different cultures
This goes a long way toward explaining what is occurring in Hollywood and Nashville.
"... Following Admiral Roger's closing the FSA mega-file to the FBI, it looks as though Christopher Steele's real role was laundering information stateside which had been obtained through continued Inquiries of the NSA mega-file by our Ambassador to the UN. *** Fusion GPS immediately hired FBI manager Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, and Christopher Steele. Bruce Ohr passed his illegally obtained information to Nellie, she to Steele, who then relayed the material back to Fusion / FBI as coming from his "Russian contacts." ..."
"... And here 44 may have made a mistake in authorizing the spread his Daily Briefing to 30+ agencies and individuals -- again as a work-around of the Roger's information ban. This places 44's fingerprints on the work-around. ..."
"... As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously. ..."
"... Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew, about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage. It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok? ..."
"... What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate, and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to classified information? This is not looking good. ..."
Following Admiral Roger's closing the FSA mega-file to the FBI, it looks as though
Christopher Steele's real role was laundering information stateside which had been obtained
through continued Inquiries of the NSA mega-file by our Ambassador to the UN. *** Fusion GPS
immediately hired FBI manager Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, and Christopher Steele. Bruce Ohr
passed his illegally obtained information to Nellie, she to Steele, who then relayed the
material back to Fusion / FBI as coming from his "Russian contacts."
And here 44 may have made a mistake in authorizing the spread his Daily Briefing to 30+ agencies and individuals --
again as a work-around of the Roger's information ban. This
places 44's fingerprints on the work-around.
You may recall the incident of the wrong Michael Cohen traveling to Prague to meet with
Russians -- when the future 45's personal lawyer was having a family celebration / baseball
game stateside? The error was generated by the NSA mega-file. Steele's "Russian contacts"
dutifully corroborated Cohen's visit with them in Prague -- how could they not, since they
exist only in Steele's mind. In short, the Steele "Russians contacts" are proved to be
fictions and if fictions then there was no Russian collusion between the Trump Campaign and
Russia.
*** Our UN Ambassador claims she was not generating hundreds of NSA Inquiries per week and
we can believe her. The NSA Inquiries were coming from the FBI via her State Department
"support" in DC.
It really does help if, when you make claims, you link to the source so that others can
evaluate them. In the case of the claims you are making, the source is clearly a post two days ago by
'sundance' on the 'Conservative Treehouse' site entitled 'Tying All The Loose Threads
Together – DOJ, FBI, DoS, White House: "Operation Latitude" '
As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very
substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product
of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously.
However, to repeat claims by 'sundance', while not taking the – rather minimal
– amount of trouble required to provide the link which allows others to evaluate them,
simply puts people's backs up and makes them less likely to take what you are suggesting
seriously.
Most unusual, I would say, for an Agent in an upper management position in FBI HQ to open a
counter intelligence case and then for all intents and purposes assign it to himself. Cases
are normally worked and directly supervised in field offices.
Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by
Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew,
about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage.
It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok?
What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate,
and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the
targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to
classified information?
This is not looking good.
Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it
permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole Memo discussion above concerns the FBI's data manipulations to cast Carter Page as a spy worthy of an Article 1 warrant by the FISC. As I explained above, once Admiral Rogers closed the FBI's access to the NSA mega-file, the Bureau developed several work-arounds to explain how the FBI had data from the mega-file that they were mining through our Ambassador to the UN. ..."
"... Fusion GPS immediately hired the wife of FBI manager Bruce Ohr, Nellie, and Christopher Steele. Bruce handed material to Nellie, Nellie to Christopher. He repackaged the material claiming it was provided by very personal "Russian contacts" and the FBI then handed that laundered Steele material to the FISC. ..."
"... This laundering operation was exposed with a mistake concerning Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen was actually attending a family celebration and a ball game here in the US when he supposedly met Steele's "Russian contacts" in Prague. Steele's contacts, who exist only in his mind, dutifully confirmed that the meeting took place in Prague. ..."
"... Bill Binney, on Jimmy Dore show, said that FISA warrant enabled "two hop" surveillance. If so, then Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... My "dog that didn't bark" question about Carter Page - if Carter Page was such a known danger, why didn't the FBI warn the Trump Campaign against letting him become involved in the campaign? ..."
"... The dog that didn't bark - if the Schiff Memo were so powerful, such a slam dunk, every MSM outlet in the western world would be trumpeting it to the skies and talking about nothing but. They seem to be barely able to acknowledge the existence of the Memo. ..."
"... As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously. ..."
"... Schiff's defence sounded so, pardon the pun, shifty and did nothing to really counter the main point Nunes made when he released his memo. ..."
"... Schiff's memo was basically a vendetta against persons. Page and Papadopolis (sp?) are obviously the unpopular kids in the minds of the "mean girl" Democrats because they had links to Trump, the real threat to the popular girl Democrats. ..."
"... Funnily enough the question raised in your excerpt is exactly what I've been thinking since reading a post by TTG about Carter Page being an important FBI informant and state witness to the prosecution of Russian espionage. ..."
"... If the FBI believed Page had become a Russian spy it would have been easy due to their prior relationship with him to interview him and if he lied, to prosecute him for the process crime of perjury. That is such a slam dunk that the fact they didn't do that makes it seem there's something fishy there. ..."
"... And they never verified Steele's allegation that Page met with Sechin and Divyekin which would have been easy to do and now it seems was pure fabrication. Instead the FBI and DOJ lied and misrepresented to FISC to get a surveillance warrant on Page. This seems rather fishy. I speculate they did that to gain incidental collection on members of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... I note that Page hasn't been charged by the DOJ for any crime. ..."
"... Instead of working hard to protect national security, the FBI/CIA/DOJ' senior-idiots (accustomed to comfort and hefty checks) have been politicking and meddling in the electoral process. Meanwhile, the foreign nationals were left free to surf congressional computers – for years! (See Awan affair) and the "natives" like Clinton et al have been making a lot of money by getting huge bribes from Russians and Saudis (see Uranium One, involving Mueller for all other people). ..."
"... Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew, about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage. It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok? ..."
"... What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate, and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to classified information? This is not looking good. ..."
"... Carter Page is indeed a puzzlement. I don't see any account of him being an FBI informant, but he was a witness in the investigation and trial of the three SVR officers who tried to recruit him in 2013. ..."
"... Obama claimed something to the effect that, it turns out I am pretty good at killing people. This was in reference to the drone program and assume I don't need to footnote. Perhaps he got the notion that his administration was pretty good at intelligence. ..."
Devin
Nunes and his team have saved me the effort of pointing out the problems with the Schiff
rebuttal. I am presenting that in full. Here is the bottomline--we now know that Christopher
Steele was not a "one-time Charlie." He had a longstanding covert relationship as an FBI
intelligence asset. The Democrat memo does nothing to dispute that fact.
It also is clear that DOJ and FBI personnel engaged in unprofessional (and possibly illegal)
conduct with respect to making representations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC). Three key points on this front--1: The so-called Steele dossier was proffered as
evidence to the FISC without fully disclosing that Steele was a covert asset being paid for his
work and that Democrat political operatives were also paying him; 2: Senior DOJ officials,
particularly Bruce Our, were totally comprised yet continued to be involved in the process; and
3: The Democrats insist that Carter Page is a bad guy and deserves to be investigated. Yet, no
charges have been filed against him and the allegations leveled in the Steele dossier were
dismissed by former FBI Director Comey as "salacious and unverified."
Anyway, here are the main points from the Democrat memo and the Republican response.
"George Papadopoulos revealed [redacted] that individuals linked to Russia, who took
interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, informed him in late
April 2016 that Russia [two lines redacted]. Papadopoulos's disclosure, moreover, occurred
against the backdrop of Russia's aggressive covert campaign to influence our elections, which
the FBI was already monitoring. We would later learn in Papadopoulos's plea that the
information the Russians could assist by anonymously releasing were thousands of Hillary
Clinton emails."
my problem with this is wikileaks released the e mails via a search-able archive on march
16th 2016...
i still don't see how anything papadopolous said is relevant time wise.. what am i missing
here, other then the obvious fact papadopolous looks like a lousy liar.. apparently he got
this from Joseph Mifsud who as it turns out was 'director of the London Academy of Diplomacy'
and etc - according to the nyt here -
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/world/europe/russia-us-election-joseph-mifsud.html
and from the nyt article "Mr. Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about
his conversations with the "professor." Mr. Mifsud is referred to in the papers only as "the
professor," based in London, but a Senate aide familiar with emails involving Mr. Mifsud --
lawmakers in both the Senate and the House are investigating Russia's role in the election --
confirmed that he was the person cited."
the whole thing of russia influencing the usa election seems built on via a number of
sketchy characters at best..
at any rate - this is what emptywheel thinks is relevant in an otherwise irrelevant memo
from schiff... i don't get how it is!
The whole Memo discussion above concerns the FBI's data manipulations to cast Carter Page
as a spy worthy of an Article 1 warrant by the FISC. As I explained above, once Admiral
Rogers closed the FBI's access to the NSA mega-file, the Bureau developed several
work-arounds to explain how the FBI had data from the mega-file that they were mining through
our Ambassador to the UN.
Fusion GPS immediately hired the wife of FBI manager Bruce Ohr, Nellie, and Christopher
Steele. Bruce handed material to Nellie, Nellie to Christopher. He repackaged the material
claiming it was provided by very personal "Russian contacts" and the FBI then handed that
laundered Steele material to the FISC.
This laundering operation was exposed with a mistake concerning Trump's lawyer Michael
Cohen. Michael Cohen was actually attending a family celebration and a ball game here in the
US when he supposedly met Steele's "Russian contacts" in Prague. Steele's contacts, who exist
only in his mind, dutifully confirmed that the meeting took place in Prague.
I wish I might be a sock-puppet, but too many of my condo neighbors know otherwise. My
favorite hobby in retirement is writing films for children, in which white hats succeed and
black hats don't.
Bill Binney, on Jimmy Dore show, said that FISA warrant enabled "two hop" surveillance. If
so, then Carter Page FISA warrant does much, much more than surveille Page himself -- it
permits surveillance of most of the Trump campaign.
In some ways, being a sock-puppet and napping, in a bureau drawer (?), between soliloquies
would be rather peaceful. Alas, too many of my condo neighbors know me to be otherwise !
Do check out sites such as The Conservative Treehouse and you will discover that Admiral
Rogers' closing the NSA mega-file to the FBI led to Nellie Ohr's & Christopher Steele's
information laundering operation. Other sites yet will introduce you to FISC Chief Judge
Rosemary Collyer's 99-page rebuke of the FBI for their defalcations.
At a minimum, you won't be surprised when a plethora of FBI / DOJ / State Department
employees are found guilty and sent to prison.
My "dog that didn't bark" question about Carter Page - if Carter Page was such a known
danger, why didn't the FBI warn the Trump Campaign against letting him become involved in the
campaign?
The memo does note that "the FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian
intelligence contacts." Apparently, these interviews stretch back to 2013. The memo also
lets slip that there was at least one more interview with Page in March 2016, before the
counterintelligence investigation began. We must assume that Page was a truthful
informant since his information was used in a prosecution against Russian spies and Page
himself has never been accused of lying to the FBI .
So . . . here's the question: When Steele brought the FBI his unverified allegations
that Page had met with Sechin and Divyekin, why didn't the FBI call Page in for an
interview rather than subject him to FISA surveillance? Lest you wonder, this is not an
instance of me second-guessing the Bureau with an investigative plan I think would have
been better. It is a requirement of FISA law.
When the FBI and DOJ apply for a FISA warrant, they must convince the court that
surveillance -- a highly intrusive tactic by which the government monitors all of an
American citizen's electronic communications -- is necessary because the
foreign-intelligence information the government seeks "cannot reasonably be obtained by
normal investigative techniques." (See FISA, Section 1804(a)(6)(C) of Title 50, U.S. Code.)
Normal investigative techniques include interviewing the subject. There are, of course,
situations in which such alternative investigative techniques will inevitably fail -- a
mafia don or a jihadist is not likely to sit down with FBI agents and tell them everything
he knows. But Carter Page was not only likely to do so, he had a documented
history of providing information to the FBI .
There's a reason why Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley are focused on the Clinton commissioned
Fusion GPS dossier, Christopher Steele and the FISA Title 1 warrant on Carter Page. It is the
simplest path to the conspiracy at the Obama administration.
My, street sense, and experience as a lawyer tells me that -- "tips, confessions.." from
informants is true Steve. But the bar for going after a drug dealer, or fence, or kiddie porn
type, is supposed -- one assumes -- to be a hell of a lot lower than going after the nominee for
President of a major political party.
Welcome to the criminal defense world. Everyday, hundreds of warrants based on the statements
of criminals, paid informers, bitter ex-girlfriends, lying cops, and even non-existent
"confidential informants" are issued. With all but the most blatant provably false
affidavits, questionable searches are upheld by judges.
At this point I'm just waiting for Mueller's final indictments and the report. The facts
will be there, or they won't.
If they are, try arguing a Motion to Suppress Evidence in the impeachment trial. That'll
get you far . . .
The dog that didn't bark - if the Schiff Memo were so powerful, such a slam dunk, every MSM
outlet in the western world would be trumpeting it to the skies and talking about nothing
but.
They seem to be barely able to acknowledge the existence of the Memo.
It really does help if, when you make claims, you link to the source so that others can
evaluate them. In the case of the claims you are making, the source is clearly a post two days ago by
'sundance' on the 'Conservative Treehouse' site entitled 'Tying All The Loose Threads
Together – DOJ, FBI, DoS, White House: "Operation Latitude" '
As it happens, I think the suggestion that Steele's role may have been, in very
substantial measure, to give the impression that material from other source was the product
of a high-quality 'humint' investigation merits being taken extremely seriously.
However, to repeat claims by 'sundance', while not taking the – rather minimal
– amount of trouble required to provide the link which allows others to evaluate them,
simply puts people's backs up and makes them less likely to take what you are suggesting
seriously.
In the words of Emily Dickinson, I'm nobody. So., I come here to test my reaction when I
read what the Democrats wrote -- though it was hard to get any continuity while reading because
of all the big black lines--I was completely underwhelmed. I hate it when someone claims that
what he/she is going to say will be something that will change my entire Weltanschauung and
it turns out to be a nothing burger, in today's parance.
So thank you for confirming my opinion of the memo and thanks to others who have commented
and who have way more experience and knowledge about how our Swam works (or doesn't
work?).
My first reaction before I even tried to read the memo was correct. My first instinct was
to judge on the basis of personality, which I know is not often logical. I felt that nothing
put out under Schiff's authority could change my mind about the point Nunes made when he put
out his mamo. Schiff's defence sounded so, pardon the pun, shifty and did nothing to really
counter the main point Nunes made when he released his memo.
Schiff's memo was basically a vendetta against persons. Page and Papadopolis (sp?) are
obviously the unpopular kids in the minds of the "mean girl" Democrats because they had links
to Trump, the real threat to the popular girl Democrats. All we have to do is hear their
names and we should automatically decide that if we want to be popular, we should malign them
also so as to malign Trump and gain our entrance into the popular group in the cafeteria.
Funnily enough the question raised in your excerpt is exactly what I've been thinking
since reading a post by TTG about Carter Page being an important FBI informant and state
witness to the prosecution of Russian espionage.
If the FBI believed Page had become a Russian spy it would have been easy due to their
prior relationship with him to interview him and if he lied, to prosecute him for the process
crime of perjury. That is such a slam dunk that the fact they didn't do that makes it seem
there's something fishy there.
And they never verified Steele's allegation that Page met with Sechin and Divyekin which
would have been easy to do and now it seems was pure fabrication. Instead the FBI and DOJ
lied and misrepresented to FISC to get a surveillance warrant on Page. This seems rather
fishy. I speculate they did that to gain incidental collection on members of the Trump
campaign.
I note that Page hasn't been charged by the DOJ for any crime. I agree with you that the
investigation of the "conspiracy" is moving along well despite the roadblocks by the DOJ. Goodlatte who has seen the FISA application has now requested all the DOJ testimony from
FISC. In a recent interview Rep. Ratcliffe who has also seen the FISA application made an
interesting point that since in a FISC proceeding the accused has no ability to challenge the
prosecution's claims, the prosecution has an affirmative obligation under FISA to present all
the evidence, which the DOJ did not do but instead knowingly mislead the court.
It looks like we're heading towards another special counsel to investigate law enforcement
and the IC regarding both the Trump and Clinton counter-intelligence investigations as well
as the IC and media propaganda efforts to build hysteria around the meme of collusion of the
Trump campaign with the Russian government. That investigation could lead all the way into
the Obama White House.
See post No 14: "...the FBI also interviewed Page multiple times about his Russian
intelligence contacts." Apparently, these interviews stretch back to 2013. The memo also lets
slip that there was at least one more interview with Page in March 2016, before the
counterintelligence investigation began. We must assume that Page was a truthful informant
since his information was used in a prosecution against Russian spies and Page himself has
never been accused of lying to the FBI."
The case is not closed – it is closing on the high-placed violators of the US
Constitution --as well as on their lack of professionalism, sheer incompetence and
promiscuous opportunism
Instead of working hard to protect national security, the FBI/CIA/DOJ' senior-idiots
(accustomed to comfort and hefty checks) have been politicking and meddling in the electoral
process. Meanwhile, the foreign nationals were left free to surf congressional computers
– for years! (See Awan affair) and the "natives" like Clinton et al have been making a
lot of money by getting huge bribes from Russians and Saudis (see Uranium One, involving
Mueller for all other people).
There is another big Q: To what extend both the FBI and the CIA have been infiltrated by
Israel-firsters that are loyal to Zion, and how extensive is the damage inflicted by the
"duals" on the US.
Most unusual, I would say, for an Agent in an upper management position in FBI HQ to open a
counter intelligence case and then for all intents and purposes assign it to himself. Cases
are normally worked and directly supervised in field offices.
Carter Page during his period of cooperation with the FBI, almost certainly was handled by
Agents assigned to a field office. I wonder what they had to say, assuming they even knew,
about HQ opening a CI case targeting their former cooperating witness for FISA coverage.
It will be very interesting to see who handled Steele. Strzok?
What was the compelling evidence and who furnished it to turn a US Naval Academy graduate,
and presumably a Naval Officer with a readily accessible track record in service, into the
targeted subject of an espionage investigation. Did he even have any current access to
classified information?
This is not looking good.
Carter Page is indeed a puzzlement. I don't see any account of him being an FBI informant,
but he was a witness in the investigation and trial of the three SVR officers who tried to
recruit him in 2013.
If he was an informant, the FBI would not have had to obtain a FISA
warrant to surveil him in 2014. That also raises doubts about how cooperative he was during
that investigation and the 2015 Russian spy trial.
Obviously he didn't obstruct the
investigation or prosecution or he would have been charged for that long ago. I get the
impression he is a lot more wily than most people give him credit for.
Obama claimed something to the effect that, it turns out I am pretty good at killing people.
This was in reference to the drone program and assume I don't need to footnote.
Perhaps he got the notion that his administration was pretty good at intelligence.
Looks like neoliberals decided to equate widespread anti-neoliberalism and anti-globalization sentiment with pro-Russian
propaganda. A very clever and very dirty trick.
What is funny is that Steele dossier and FBI Mayberry Machiavellians machinations actually deprived Sanders a chance to
represent Democratic Party. nt that he wanted this badly, he folded eve without major pressure (many be under behind the scenes
intimidation due to business dealing of his wife)
Notable quotes:
"... Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against the Russian government " as well as Trump. ..."
"... This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical "indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump. Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were flops). ..."
"... Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing – nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a full-fledged witch-hunt: ..."
"... Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material by the fraudulent fanatic Luke Harding all over the web site of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest about Russia. ..."
"... Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since he's not been charged with a crime after all this time. ..."
"... So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people? ..."
"... A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job – exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible donations. ..."
One by one, the plaster gods fall,
cracked and crumbled on the ground: the latest is Bernie Sanders, the Great Pinko Hope of the
(very few) remaining Democrats with a modicum of sense who reject the "Russia! Russia! Russia!"
paranoia of Rep. Adam Schiff and what I call the party's California Crazies. The official
Democratic leadership seems to have no real commitment to anything other than fealty to a few
well-known oligarchs, who provide the party with needed cash, a burning hatred of Russia
– an issue no ordinary voter outside of the Sunshine State loony bin and Washington, D.C.
cares about – and exotic issues of interest only to the upper class virtue-signalers who
are now their main constituency (e.g., where will trans people go to the bathroom?). Overlaying
this potpourri of nothingness, the glue holding it all together, is pure unadulterated hatred:
of President Trump, of Trump voters, of Middle America in general, and, of course, fear and
loathing of Russia and all things Russian.
And now the one supposedly bright spot in this pit of abysmal darkness has flickered out,
with Bernie Sanders, the Ron Paul of the Reds, jumping
on the Russia-did-it bandwagon and cowering in the wake of Robert Mueller's laughable
"indictment," in which the special prosecutor avers that $100,000 in Facebook ads were designed
to throw the election to Trump – and to help Bernie!
Oh no, says Bernie, from his place of exile in the wilds of Vermont, where the
Russians
did not take over the electrical grid: It wasn't me!
Instead of standing up to the crazies – by which I mean the Democratic party
Establishment – and saying that the whole Russia-phobic campaign is based on nothing but
hot air and fantasy, he's kowtowing to the very people who are trying to smear him as a Russian
agent. Here he is signing on to the Clintonite canon of faith that poor Hillary " had to run against
the Russian government " as well as Trump.
This is laughable: there's no evidence for this other than Mueller's comical
"indictment," which shows that something called the "Internet Research Agency," run by an
out-of-work chef, spent a grand total of $100,000 – mostly after the election – on
Facebook ads that were both anti-Clinton and anti-Trump.
Michael Moore attended one "Russian-sponsored" event – a rally of thousands targeting
Trump Tower, and, by the way, the only successful "Russian" event (the pro-Trump events were
flops).
Not only is Bernie buying into Russia-gate, now that the case for it is collapsing –
nearly two years later and there's still no evidence of "collusion" – but he's calling for a
full-fledged witch-hunt:
"The key issues now are: 1) How we prevent the unwitting manipulation of our electoral
and political system by foreign governments. 2) Exposing who was actively consorting with the
Russian government's attack on our democracy."
This is the real goal of anti-Trump groups like the "
Alliance for Securing Democracy " and their "Hamilton dashboard," which purports to track
"pro-Russian" sentiment online: it's the explicit intention of #TheResistance to censor the
media with the cooperation of the tech oligarchs like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. It's back
to the 1950s, folks, only this time the Thought Police are "liberals," and "socialists" like
Bernie and the Bernie Bros.
Sanders' followers have taken up the hate-on-Russia battle cry with alacrity, with material
by the fraudulent fanatic
Luke Harding all over the web site
of the Democratic Socialists of America. And being the left edge of the Democratic party, DSA
will be supporting the very Democratic officeholders and officials who are shouting the loudest
about Russia.
Coming soon: a congressional "investigation" into "pro-Russian" Americans using the
"Hamilton dashboard" and the Southern Poverty Law Center as templates. Remember the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee? Well, it's coming back. That's always been in the cards, and
now those cards are about to be dealt.
I'll tell you one thing: I would have colluded with the Klingon Empire to prevent Hillary
and her band of authoritarian statists and warmongering nutcases from taking the White House.
If only the Russians had intervened, they'd have been doing this country – and the
world – a great service. Alas, there's not one lick of solid evidence – forensic,
documentary, witness testimony – that shows this. Which is what the Mueller investigation
is all about: the Democrats are claiming there was interference, and Mueller is out to find
corroboration. Except it's been over a year and he's come up with nothing.
Oh, he's got money-laundering charges on Paul Manafort and associates, but that has nothing
to do with the Trump campaign: it all happened years before Trump ran. He's got Carter Page
pleading guilty to lying to the FBI – but it's not clear what this means, exactly, since
he's not been charged with a crime after all this time.
The Deep State's bid for power has hit several roadblocks recently, but it could yet
succeed. First, Mueller could indict the President for "obstruction of justice" – a
charge derived not from any real criminal activity, but from the investigation itself. I think
this is the most probable outcome of all this.
Barring that, however, there is one road they could and probably would go down, given the
intensity of their hatred for this President and their overweening power lust. Having gone this
far in an attempt to overthrow a sitting President, they can't just stop halfway to their goal.
They have to go all the way, or else suffer the consequences – public exposure, and
possible criminal charges. In short, if they fail to get Trump on some semi-legal basis, I
think they'd welcome his assassination.
The Deep State cannot allow the Trump administration to stand for a number of reasons, the
chief one being that the coup is already in progress and there's no stopping it now. The
President's enemies are legion, they are powerful, and they are abroad as well as here on
American shores. They cannot allow his brand of "America First" nationalism to succeed, or seem
to succeed: it conflicts too violently with their globalist vision of a borderless
America-centric empire ruled by a coalition of oligarchs, technocrats, and Deep State
operatives who've been shaping world events from the shadows for generations.
So no matter what you may think of Trump and his policies, the real question is: will the
Deep State and their allies in the media succeed in their bid for power? Will they oust a
sitting President and institute a new era in our politics, one in which the political class can
exercise its veto over the democratic will of the people?
That's the issue at hand and that's why I spend so much time writing about Trump and his
enemies' efforts to destroy him. Because if the Deep State succeeds, the America we knew and
loved will be no more. Something else will take its place – and believe me, it won't be
pretty.
A SPECIAL NOTE : Yes, our matching funds have arrived: a group of donors has gotten
together and pledged $30,000 – but there's a catch. We have to match that amount in
smaller donations. So now it's up to you. We need your support so we can get back to doing our job –
exposing the lies of the War Party. But we can't do it without your tax-deductible
donations.
If we all get together and make that final push we can make our goal. Every donation counts,
no matter the amount. This is how we'll finally win the battle for peace: by uniting, despite
superficial differences, to support the institutions that are in the front lines of the
struggle for a rational foreign policy. And leading the charge is Antiwar.com.
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
This is mainly about the defense of neoliberal empire which is challenge by Russia who does not wants to be Washington
vassal and China who is rising economic power that challenge the US world dominance and status quo of dollar as the main reserve
currency. There are also some oil related consideration as weakening and dismembering Russia while capturing its oil and gar
resources can postpone the day of becoming for the USA and Western Europe.
Notable quotes:
"... `We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great-power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security.' Henceforth Russia and China will be America's main enemies, with Iran and North Korea thrown in for good measure. ..."
"... At the same time, the US is fast running out of Muslim targets to bomb, now that the bogeyman ISIS has vanished into thin air and US air attacks in Syria are being minimized for fear of clashing with Russia. Iran still remains on the US potential hit list. ..."
"... Which brings us back to General 'Mad Dog' Mattis. He is quite right that so-called terrorists (that's anyone who actively opposes the Lex Americana) pose no real life or death threat to the US mainland. ..."
"... Of course, this supposes the US is ready for war. In truth, neither the US and NATO nor Russia are in any way prepared to fight a real war on land, sea and air. Military forces on both sides have been so run down and depleted by little wars and budget cuts that there are serious shortages of war stocks and aging equipment. ..."
"... Key NATO member Germany is in a shambles. Its feminized military, run by a nice but incompetent lady defense minister, could not fight its way out of a paper bag. France is not much better off. The US armed forces and Britain are critically short of spares, munitions, transport, and armor. Russia's once mighty Red Army is short of everything. Both east and west are simply unready for a real war. ..."
"... As if there is any reason for one. There is not. Those jackanapes in the US Congress and media trying to inflate online mischief by 20-something Russian hackers into a second Pearl Harbor are crying 'fire' in a crowded theater. ..."
"... A final respectful note to Gen. Mattis (my dad was a marine): A good general does not pick a fight with two, far–away major powers at once. The trick is to turn them against one another. Declaring a future war against China and Russia is a crazy idea. Only draft-dodgers and generals who lost the Vietnam War could come up with it. ..."
`We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great-power competition
– not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security.' Henceforth
Russia and China will be America's main enemies, with Iran and North Korea thrown in for good
measure.
So declared US Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, last week in a statement of profound
importance for the world.
For the past seventeen years, the US military has been laying waste to the Muslim world in
the faux `war on terrorism.' Afghanistan, Iraq, much of Syria, Somalia, Pakistan – all
have been heavily bombed. US B-52's and B-1 heavy bombers have tried to pound those resisting
American 'guidance' into submission.
In Afghanistan, America's longest war, President Donald Trump ordered a doubling of bombing
against Taliban forces battling US occupation. Now, the US is running very low on bombs, guided
munitions and even air-to-air missiles for some reason. Stores of munitions are being rushed
from the US Pacific command to the Mideast.
At the same time, the US is fast running out of Muslim targets to bomb, now that the
bogeyman ISIS has vanished into thin air and US air attacks in Syria are being minimized for
fear of clashing with Russia. Iran still remains on the US potential hit list.
Which brings us back to General 'Mad Dog' Mattis. He is quite right that so-called
terrorists (that's anyone who actively opposes the Lex Americana) pose no real life or death
threat to the US mainland.
But if so, how then to maintain the $1 trillion US military budget? Well, of course, trot
out those good old 'Reds Under Our Beds.' Actually, the Pentagon has been planning a new war
with China for the past three years, a mainly air and naval conflict to dominate China's coasts
and seas. The Pentagon is loading up on new aircraft, missiles, satellites and naval craft for
the next Pacific War, and trying to enlist India as an ally against China.
But what then about Russia? Not so easy. The likely theater for a US-Russia clash is on the
Baltic coast, Ukraine, the Black Sea or Syria. In this case, the US would be confronted by the
same problem that afflicted France in the fall of 1939.
Few people know that it was France that first attacked Germany, not the other way around.
Responding to the German invasion of Poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany. French
divisions began to invade Germany's Rhineland. But after a few skirmishes the French high
command, under the inept Gen. Maurice Gamelin, didn't know what to do next. Germany was large,
and the defensive-minded French did not anticipate occupying its entire country.
After a brief demonstration, the French Army withdrew behind the Maginot Line. Hitler did
not counter-attack in hope he could forge a peace treaty with London and Paris. Winston
Churchill and his fellow imperialists furiously sought to push Britain into war with Germany.
But months of inactivity went by, known as the 'Sitzkrieg' or ' drôle de guerre'
until Germany acted decisively.
This would also be America's problem in a war against Russia. How deep into Russia to attack
(assuming no use of nuclear weapons)? How to protect ever lengthening supply lines? Napoleon
and Hitler faced the same challenges and failed.
Of course, this supposes the US is ready for war. In truth, neither the US and NATO nor
Russia are in any way prepared to fight a real war on land, sea and air. Military forces on
both sides have been so run down and depleted by little wars and budget cuts that there are
serious shortages of war stocks and aging equipment.
Key NATO member Germany is in a shambles. Its feminized military, run by a nice but
incompetent lady defense minister, could not fight its way out of a paper bag. France is not
much better off. The US armed forces and Britain are critically short of spares, munitions,
transport, and armor. Russia's once mighty Red Army is short of everything. Both east and west
are simply unready for a real war.
As if there is any reason for one. There is not. Those jackanapes in the US Congress and
media trying to inflate online mischief by 20-something Russian hackers into a second Pearl
Harbor are crying 'fire' in a crowded theater.
A final respectful note to Gen. Mattis (my dad was a marine): A good general does not
pick a fight with two, far–away major powers at once. The trick is to turn them against
one another. Declaring a future war against China and Russia is a crazy idea. Only
draft-dodgers and generals who lost the Vietnam War could come up with it.
I doubt that Putin can be viewed as "pure" neoliberal. He might have some neoliberal leanings, but in his policies he deviates
enough to view him as a dangerous revisionist. Even more so than Trump during recent elections with his rejection of globalization,
offshoring of industries to countries with cheap labor, protection (and creation) of "good jobs" in the USA, etc (he was quickly
emasculated -- approximately three-four months after elections ;-)
Neoliberalism as a social system implies neoliberal globalization. For any country other then the USA that means the acceptance
of the dominant role of the USA in world economics and the global role of dollar as the dominant convertible currency. In other
words is you need to accept preeminent role of the USA in world economic and financial system and institutions much like members
of Communist International accepted preeminent role of the USSR.
That's why GB, Western Europe and Japan are often viewed as US vassals. They might have strong objections to the USA policies
and they have certain degrees of freedom, but on key, fundamental issues they need to behave.
I think Putin strays from neoliberal doctrine on both of those issues. He definitely does not want Russia to be vassal of the
USA. And he jailed Khodorkovski and exiled a couple of other oligarchs who wanted political power in Russia, which is a direct
affront to the neoliberal system. I think Putin tries to play MIC, energy complex and other similar forces vs pro-European "globalist"
faction of neoliberal oligarchs as two countervailing forces. This is a tough balancing act that requires immense political skills.
In this sense he is a statist, not so much a neoliberal. What is true is that Putin considers socialism to be not viable social
system and accepts capitalism as the necessary evil. But within the bound of capitalism he advocates strong role of state in controlling
greed of capitalists, exactly like in the New Deal. Under neoliberalism large corporations and financial oligarchy controls the
state. Some elements of Putin polices can probably be viewed as "cultural nationalism" (ethnic nationalism is not a viable political
platform in Russia, for obvious reasons). Or using Bannon term "economic nationalism".
Also neoliberalism hates welfare state and any New Deal style protections for workers. So neoliberals typically try to dismantle
such social protection net. Neoliberalism also tries to enforce the law of jungles for workers (aka "labor market" with atomized
powerless individuals instead of trade unions, using "free movement of labor" to suppress wages, etc).
On both issues Putin position is different. My impression is that on many such issues his position is closer to the New Deal
vision of capitalism than to neoliberalism. So I consider viewing Putin as a pure neoliberal wrong.
@The
AlarmistAre Putin et al going to go into hyperventilation-mode about American meddling in the Russian elections before or after the election?
Maybe they can indict some bigwigs at Google, FaceBag and Twitter for taking long lunches to conspire against Russia on behalf
of the Empire.
Anon from TN
I strongly suspect that the Russians prefer to leave the honor of making yourself look really stupid to the US. Therefore, Russia would
not do anything nearing the level of self-harm inflicted by the US elites.
Perry, a member of the Homeland Security subcommittee on cyber security, said Tuesday that the House Office of Inspector General
tracked the network usage of Awan and his associates on House servers and found that a "massive" amount of data was flowing from the
networks.
Notable quotes:
"... Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. ..."
"... This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory. ..."
"... It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process is protected under the first amendment. ..."
"... If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent." ..."
"... It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the candidates involved. ..."
"... If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign. ..."
"... Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct. ..."
"... Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary. ..."
"... Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law is why sociopaths flourish. ..."
"... They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs. ..."
The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants
in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers
of the case at a loss for words. The
document , provided by the
law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic
Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment.
Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust
at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck's outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation
process for political purposes: "For example, Plaintiffs' counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as "shi*bags" on Twitter
and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants." Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First
Amendment at this point in the document.
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: " Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit."
This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense
counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note
the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices
of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy
theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued that: " There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an
improper attempt to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political
party selected its candidate in a presidential campaign ."
The brief continued: " To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run
directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by
political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party's nominee for public office. "
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process
is protected under the first amendment.
If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty
"to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent."
It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent
finding by the UK Supreme Court, which stated
that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents
of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary
Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen. Disobedient Media will continue to report on this important
story as it unfolds.
Even on a practical level, beyond the "fraud is free speech" argument, they don't seem to have considered that this argument
is a lose/lose proposition. Even if they (DNC) win legally, they are going to lose as people turn away from the finger they're
giving them.
Notice this is a civil suit brought by a citizen. The Bern is silent and not suing anybody although he was the target
of the scam, or maybe a party to it. The DOJ is silent and not looking to put anybody in jail for what appears to be an
obvious violation of criminal law.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
- - Jeff Sessions
Not so for murder, and rigging the general election. Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering
soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct.
What is the difference? There is no any justice in America. It is all gone.
The US people are polarized and, thanks to Hollywood and mainstream media, with the culture of lawless, violence, and hatred
of everybody. America is a very sick country with a fake President and the utterly corrupt US Congress. It will not end good or
bloodless.
The US military reliance on super-technology is poorly thought of since these high-tech military systems require very highly-educated
and intelligent people to operate these systems while the US educational system being a total failure cannot produce.
Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious
plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary.
But, hey, if he can shave a few hundred dollars off of my monthly health insurance premiums he can call for a first-strike nuclear
attack on Russia!
Clearly we have laws for little people while the owners do whatever the fuck they want.
... the State Department completed its review and determined that 2,115 of the 30,490 emails contain information that is presently
classified Out of these 2,115 emails, the State Department determined that 2,028 emails contain information classified at the
Confidential level; 65 contain information classified at the Secret level; and 22 contain information classified at the Top Secret
level....
I think this is the exact reason election boards exists. They should be suing the DNC over this as well, but are full of party
officials. If there was any sane form of democracy, the DNC would be bared from campaigning in most states.
It's a sewer, the whole fucking system is just a cesspool filled with the most reprehensible, self-serving people in the country
outside of Wall Street. But everybody just keeps playing along.
Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There
are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law
is why sociopaths flourish.
They don't live in the same reality as us and never have.
They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible
actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up
a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs.
My take was Bernie was supposed to cat herd the millennials to the Hillary camp but that blew up in their face when the millennials
decided to put down their cell phones and proceeded to give Hillary the bird.
Wouldn't doubt a large majority still ended up voting for but they probably won't admit it.
Doesn't this make the whole candidate selection process, and all the rules and regulations governing a party's whole nomination
process meaningless? If what DEMS did within their own party to Bernie is moot, then what Trump may have done via his "Russian
collusion" is mooted also. Can't have it both ways.
They used the same argument before the appeal... and the corrupt judge agreed with "The Crooks" and closed the case. NOT ONE media outlet covered the fact they actually said in open court that the DNC had no legal obligation to be fair.
"... The Russian independent TV Rain, also known as Dozhd, found (Russian, machine translation ) that one management person of the IRA was missing in the Mueller indictment. That women, Agata Burdonova, has recently moved with her husband to the United States. She had run the "translator" department of the IRA that created English language social marketing campaigns. She has now applied for a U.S. Social Security number. ..."
"... On June 15, 2017, Dmitry Fyodorov says he received an employment offer from Facebook. On August 8, 2017 Fyodorov marries Burdonova. Employer (presumably, Facebook) sponsors both of their visas -- prob. H1B. ..."
"... On December 7 2017 both moved to Bellevue, Washington. Two month later Mueller indicts the alleged IRA owner and management, but not Burdonova. This smells of a deal made by some US agency to get insight into the IRA. In return, an opportunity to move to the US was offered. ..."
Automated Twitter accounts, or trolls, repeated a tweet about a MoA piece
on Muller's indictment of "Russian trolls" . Funny but not really important. There is
interesting news though related to the original Muller indictment. Mueller accused with little
evidence 13 persons involved in the private Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) of meddling
with the U.S. election campaign.
The Russian independent TV Rain, also known as Dozhd,
found (Russian,
machine translation ) that one management person of the IRA was missing in the Mueller
indictment. That women, Agata Burdonova, has recently moved with her husband to the United
States. She had run the "translator" department of the IRA that created English language social
marketing campaigns. She has now applied for a U.S. Social Security number.
On June 15, 2017, Dmitry Fyodorov says he received an employment offer from Facebook. On
August 8, 2017 Fyodorov marries Burdonova. Employer (presumably, Facebook) sponsors both of
their visas -- prob. H1B.
On December 7 2017 both moved to Bellevue, Washington. Two month later Mueller indicts the
alleged IRA owner and management, but not Burdonova. This smells of a deal made by some US
agency to get insight into the IRA. In return, an opportunity to move to the US was
offered.
" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as
unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability ."
I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies.
Rather than redefine the term, why not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or
'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.
This is almost two year old discussion. Still relevant...
Notable quotes:
"... Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ... ..."
"... I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ... ..."
"... And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders to their plutocratic donors - just as W did. ..."
"... The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro. ..."
"... Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired. ..."
"... Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened. ..."
"... Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[ ..."
"... "Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ..." ..."
"... I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems particularly poignant: ..."
"... Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics! ..."
"... Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts. ..."
"... Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him. ..."
"... The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old people, bringing in New Blood. ..."
"... This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP back in 1912. ..."
"... [I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.] ..."
Why Republican Elites are Threatened, by Mark Thoma : ... Donald Trump's tax plan will result in a fall in revenue of 9.5
trillion dollars over the next ten years, yet somehow he will fulfill his promise to protect Social Security and Medicare and
balance the budget? When push comes to shove (or worse – this is Trump after all), who do you think he will protect, social insurance
programs the working class relies upon for economic security or his own and his party's wealthy interests? Ted Cruz has proposed
an 8.6 trillion dollar tax cut. How, exactly, will that be financed without large cuts to social insurance programs or huge increases
in the budget deficit?
Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud
in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs.
...
I am very happy that the
Republican con is
starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican
Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe
that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned
benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ...
And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders
to their plutocratic donors - just as W did.
Hence my support for a *countercyclical* Balanced Budget Amendment.
Peter K. -> New Deal democrat...
My point was that Sanders or Clinton would be getting the surprise surpluses as W. did.
My hope is that Clinton would do the right thing, but I wouldn't bet money on it. I could see her do tax cuts for
corporations and finance. Summers recently had a piece arguing for tax cuts as incentives for private investment.
sanjait -> Peter K....
If we consider that there is probably some pent up business investment demand that could drive above average productivity
growth for a few years ... then it plausibly is possible for the country to achieve late 90s style growth.
likbez -> Peter K....
The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something
like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates
for the loss of EU to euro.
Even if we count just the cash absorbed by the region, it will be a major economic stimulus. All-it-all it was Bernanke size
if we add buying assets for pennies on the dollar.
Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt
to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired.
Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts
the US elite and feels threatened.
Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last
one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html
) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked
her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know,
is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[
pgl :
All well said! The notion that Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump lie a lot is as established as the fact that the earth is
not flat.
Jerry Brown -> pgl...
True that!
Paul Mathis :
"[T]here are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned
benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare."
As every legitimate economist knows, stimulus spending to increase the GDP growth rate would raise tax revenues without raising
tax rates. This phenomenon is well-known to Keynesians and has been demonstrated many times.
Thanks to the disinformation campaign run by Republicans, however, stimulus spending has been taken off the table of economic
choices except in China where minimum GDP growth is 6.5%. China is "killing us" economically because we are stupid.
Jerry Brown -> Paul Mathis...
Instead, the Trumps and Cruzes and Ryans believe in giant tax cuts for the very wealthy. This might provide a weak stimulus for
the economy, but it is a very poor way to go about it. More likely in my mind is that it would lead to increased pressure to cut
government spending on things that actually do help the economy.
Paul Mathis -> Jerry Brown...
Tax cuts for the wealthy do not increase demand. Trickle down is a false economic doctrine that exacerbates inequality and therefore
reduces demand. Keynes established this principle decades ago but his wisdom has been ignored.
pgl -> Paul Mathis...
You'll love this bit of honesty from right wing Joe Scarborough:
Job losses began the month Reagan signed the tax cuts. Job creation began the month Reagan hiked taxes to pay workers to fix the
roads and bridges. Reagan and his job killing tax cuts caused the recession, not the Fed and monetary policy. Monetary policy
was steady from 1980 to 1983.
Reagan's tax cuts struck fear into would be lenders. How much debt was the government going to need if it intentionally cuts
it's incomes? On the other hand, if the government stops spending, that's millions of workers who will be forced to stop spending.
For Nixon, the Fed monetized the smaller deficits from repealling the war tax surcharge that balanced the budget in 1969. Just
as the Fed monetized all government debt once FDR and his bankers took over, especially Eccles at the Fed.
But Volcker was not going to monetize the debt caused by Reagan's adoption of intentional deficit spending.
But even Reagan eventually understood what FDR did: gdp growth requires workers getting paid more, and government can take
the money from people who have it but won't spend it paying workers, but tax and spend, and create jobs.
If only economists today understood it, and called for tax and spend to create jobs to grow gdp.
anne :
Really nice essay.
Mr. Bill :
"Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud
in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs.
..."
I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery
that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems
particularly poignant:
"At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest,
wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness
of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968,
and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We
knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies
with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest
their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know
we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
I'm pretty sure that the Trumpists would be thrilled to raise taxes...on someone else. It's only the elites that are interested
in lowering taxes on the rich. Trump's followers don't care.
I'm also pretty sure that Trump will turn on the donor class rather than reduce anything for his own base - but I could be
wrong.
Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would
allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics!
All this liberal hand wringing about Trump's tax plan. Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!!
Not a single 'attaboy' from these supposedly liberal economists.
"With the most progressive tax policy of any candidate, Sanders would dramatically increase taxes for the very wealthy and
high-income earners (as well as moderate increases for the middle- and upper-middle classes) in order to pay for key planks of
his social agenda including tuition-free public college, a Medicare for All healthcare program, massive infrastructure spending,
and paid family leave for all workers."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/21/tax-plan-sanders-beats-both-clinton-and-trump-double-digits
"Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes,
and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family
leave, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and more. TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next
decade. All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with
the very highest income. His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent
historical experience in the US."
http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000639-an-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals.pdf
As I've said many times, most 'liberal' economists simply to not want increased taxes to be put on the table as a viable alternative
for funding stimulus. Else, why would they go silent when a major candidate makes such an economically significant proposal? Why
is it that they are eager to promote ever more debt but refuse to support more taxes?
pgl -> JohnH...
You are pushing this which is fine. But
"Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!"
I noticed this a long time ago. And I applauded Bernie's proposal. I guess I have to resign as a "liberal economist".
Question is, why are all those 'liberal' economists running from Bernie's progressive tax plan like the plague?
pgl -> JohnH...
I have supported tax increases on the rich many times. Pay attention. Also - read the latest column from Mark Thoma which is what
this thread is supposed to be about. I guess Mark must not be a liberal economists either. DUH!
Eric377 -> JohnH...
Because they can always run back to something like it if a Democrat is elected, but not so if Trump or Cruz are and they have
convinced themselves that supporting Sanders is a big risk of getting a Republican. And they are right about that.
JohnH -> Eric377...
LOL!!! Democrats will NOT endorse support anything like Bernie's tax pan EVER! Just like 'liberal" economists will never endorse
it either...in fact, they have every opportunity to endorse it now but refuse to even talk about it, apparently hoping it will
just go away.
But the real benefit of high tax rates on people with lots of money is they will work really hard to not pay taxes by investing
in new capital assets even if the bean counters think building more assets will only slash returns on capital.
The result is no increase in tax revenue, but lots of jobs created if the tax dodges are designed to create jobs.
The best example is a carbon tax. The correct carbon tax schedule of increases will raise virtually no tax revenue, but will
result in trillions of dollars in labor costs building productive capital, which will ironically make the rich far wealthier.
But if millions of people are employed for a lifetime and the burning of fossil fuels ends, only Bernie will be angry that
those responsible end up worth hundreds of billions, or maybe become trillionaires. Their businesses will not be profitable, just
like Amazon, Tesla, SpaceX are worth tens of billions but are unprofitable.
pgl :
GOP elite Peter Schiff babbling even worse lies than our excellent host has documented:
Every year Schiff predicts a recession. Once every 6-8 years, he's right. Schiff then claims he's predicted every recession for
the last three dozen years. Everyone is amazed. "How does he do it?" the crowd gasps.
Why does anyone even mention Schiff? He's a grifter with an angle to part rich people from their money. Nothing more.
pgl :
From the day job - filed under fun with Microsoft Excel. Math nerds will get this right away. I'm reading a report from some expert
witness that claims some loan guarantee is worth only 22 basis points when my client has charged 55 basis points. Think of x =
1.005 and take the natural log. Yes, the right answer is 50 basis points. This clown uses Excel and types in log(x).
OK - I hate Microsoft Excel as it took me a while. But the log function assumes base 10. The correct syntax is ln(x).
Somehow I think the right wing elite will start doing similar things in their Soc. Sec. analyzes.
William -> pgl...
Somehow, I think the right wing elite don't know the difference between a basis point and a percentage point, let alone between
a base 10 or a base e logarithm.
pgl -> William...
I know Stephen Moore certainly does not know the difference!
DrDick :
Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts.
pgl :
Politics down under (New Zealand). The Green Party is campaigning on transfer pricing enforcement in order to make the multinationals
pay their fair share of taxes:
Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their
authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him.
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
I was tired and fell asleep by 9PM missing Rachel's show. Thanks for filling me in. She's awesome!
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...
The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old
people, bringing in New Blood.
This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP
back in 1912.
eudaimonia :
[I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are
beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.]
I disagree here. I don't see Trump as exposing the Republican economic agenda to be a fraud. Instead, Trump is exposing that
the main driver in conservatism is not policy, but racism.
The Republican base is not "waking up" per say, but Trump rather erased away the policy veneer and has shown the heart of the
conservative base.
For decades, the RW economic and social agenda was based off of racism and bigotry - fictional Cadillac mothers, how blacks
just vote Democrat since they are lazy, increased voting restrictions for a non-problem, Willie Horton, opposing the CRA in the
name of "freedom" and states' rights, etc.
The argument now has simply shifted away from slashing taxes on white rich males since it creates an underclass of dependent
minorities, to blaming Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.
If you look at the heart of Trump supporters, they are high school dropouts who have also dropped out of the labor force since
they were dependent on the old economy, live in mobile houses and have not moved around much, with a history of voting for segregationists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-Trump_vs_deep_state.html?_r=0
As their economy breaks down around them, like it has in various parts of the country, we are seeing the same social ills emerge
- suicide, drug use, depression, rise of divorce, etc.
What Trump has shown them is that it is not their fault. It is not the fault of policy. It is not the fault of globalization.
It is not the fault of technological change. It is the fault of the Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.
The core of conservatism is still there: racism, and Trump has simply shown this. Conservatism is not about policy, but an
emotional reactionary ideology based on fear and ignorance that looks for minorities to be scapegoats.
pgl :
US Supreme Court splits 4-4 in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore:
Appeals Court had ruled in favor of the bank so the bank prevails. OK - we know Scalia would have voted in favor of the bank
but now the standard is how would have Garland ruled. The Senate needs to act on his nomination.
sanjait :
Maybe the simplest way to dissect it is to note that the GOP has been running multiple overlapping cons. They tell the base that
tax cuts will improve their lives, and then passes tax cuts that go mostly to the rich.
They tell the base that regulations are killing jobs, and then block or remove any government protection or program that makes
the country livable so some industrialist can avoid having to deal with externalities. They tell the base that "those people"
are taking their stuff, and then shred the safety net that helps almost everyone except the rich.
What Trump has done is expose how these cons don't really fit together logically, but he hasn't really gone strongly against
any of them. He's been on both sides of the first two, and tripled down on the third.
"... He would have needed approval to send the dossier quite apart from the Official Secrets Act. Given that MI6 is an Intelligence Agency it might be thought they knew the destination of the dossier and the use to which it might be put. ..."
"... it was former Ambassador Sir David Wood who was instrumental in handing off the Steele Dossier to McCain. ..."
"... Sir Richard Dearlove was also involved, if only for 'advice' given at the Garrett Club to Steele and Burrows. Alex Thomson discussed the article on the UK Column. He also named Nigel Inkster and a "top official from the Cabinet Office" as potentially being involved. Given the standard of proof required: that's more than enough to allege UK interference? ..."
Steele's urination dossier was based on what he had gleaned when Head of the Russian Desk at
MI6 not very long ago. He would have needed approval to send the dossier quite apart from the
Official Secrets Act. Given that MI6 is an Intelligence Agency it might be thought they knew
the destination of the dossier and the use to which it might be put. Isn't there a better
case that the UK's interference had more influence than Russia? Will Mueller Indict somebody
in MI6? Will Steele ever be examined by Congress?
Paul: have you read this article from
WaPo ? It gives an indication of the British involvement. Such as, it was former
Ambassador Sir David Wood who was instrumental in handing off the Steele Dossier to McCain.
Sir Richard Dearlove was also involved, if only for 'advice' given at the Garrett Club to
Steele and Burrows. Alex Thomson discussed the article on the UK Column. He also named Nigel
Inkster and a "top official from the Cabinet Office" as potentially being involved. Given the
standard of proof required: that's more than enough to allege UK interference?
[UK Column News – 9th February: from 11.05]
MASHA GESSEN: So, I am really fascinated with what it tells us about our imagination about
the Russian imagination. So, Russia imagines America and the American political system as like
this unassailable monolith that they are throwing stuff at just to try to make a dent, whereas
the United States is starting increasingly to imagine Russia as all-powerful, as incredibly
sophisticated, as capable of, you know, sending out some really absurd tweets, in sub-literate
English, and somehow changing the outcome of the election. And that projects such a belief in
the fragility of the system and the basic instability of it and in the gullibility of voters
who read something that's not even comprehensible English and suddenly change their vote. I
mean, the working theory of the investigation -- right? -- is that Russians influenced the
election by influencing American public opinion. And so, we're asked to believe that a
significant impact on American public opinion could be produced by, you know, the Bernie the
Superman coloring book tweet.
"... The sad thing is, by admitting that Trump had no connection to the 13 accused 'election hackers,' his accusers are offering him an easy out–with the expectation that he will pay them back by turning against Russia. ..."
"... Trump has already acquiesced in new arms shipments to Ukraine, and he doesn't seem to have any problem with the Pentagon randomly attacking (among others) Russian soldiers and contractors in Syria ..."
"... Well this was always the ultimate point. Not getting Trump, but making sure Trump falls in line with the insane plan to get Russia. ..."
The sad thing is, by admitting that Trump had no connection to the 13
accused 'election hackers,' his accusers are offering him an easy out–with the
expectation that he will pay them back by turning against Russia.
Trump has already acquiesced
in new arms shipments to Ukraine, and he doesn't seem to have any problem with the Pentagon
randomly attacking (among others) Russian soldiers and contractors in Syria. If there were ever
any doubt, it now seems obvious that "the swamp" has successfully drained Trump. Start digging
your bomb shelters, people
Well this was always the ultimate point. Not getting Trump, but making sure Trump falls in
line with the insane plan to get Russia.
It's hard to see how this ends. Like the Terminator they absolutely will not stop. Ever.
Until they are physically incapable of moving another step. But will the world survive long
enough for that to happen? Or will Russia cave rather than risk war? Without Putin at the
helm I think 'compromises' will start and then pretty soon Russia is back in the fold with a
token president and the IMF running the show. Like the rest of us.
The whole election-meddling distraction is remarkable in both comic and tragic ways. The
tragedy can be summed up in three words: New Cold War. At a time when the U.S. and Russian
governments ought to be working toward nuclear disarmament, relations are deteriorating
dangerously. As the estimable Australian writer Caitlin Johnstone,
notes , despite Donald Trump's campaign promise of détente with Russia,
We are
already at an extremely dangerous point in the ongoing trend of continuous escalations with
a country that is armed with thousands of nuclear warheads. [Johnstone's links.]
Would Trump have done these things without the pressure of Russiagate? I don't know, but
Russiagate hasn't helped. And what more would Hillary Clinton have done by this point?
Johnstone argues that Russiagate is all about putting Russia in its place and securing the
American ruling elite's geopolitical and economic interests -- not about getting Trump:
America's unelected power establishment doesn't care about impeaching Trump, it cares
about hobbling Russia in order to prevent the rise of a potential rival superpower in its ally
China. All this lunacy makes perfect sense when you realize this. The US deep state is using
the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support for increasing escalations with
Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under the delusion that pushing for
moves against Russia will hurt Trump.
Of course, removing Trump from office would be a cherry on top. If the drivers of Russiagate
can't have that, at least they can leave the impression that Hillary Clinton would be president
today were it not for the diabolically cunning Vladimir Putin and the inherently depraved
Russia in cahoots with their tool, Donald Trump. ( Putin's
opponents in Russia are irritated that Americans portray Putin as virtually omnipotent.)
Russiagate promoters in the Democratic Party deny they intend to right the wrong of 2016, but I
don't believe them. Surely they are trying to delegitimate the election on the grounds that
Trump and Putin stole it from its rightful owner. (For the record, I think all elections are
illegitimate but not because of foreign involvement.)
The anti-Russia campaign has certainly gone well beyond overboard. Former Director of
National Intelligence James (Yeah, I
lied . What you gonna do about?) Clapper, on "Meet the Press," said
the Russians "are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor,
whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." (Beg your pardon, I linked to RT. Here's an American
site for anyone concerned about having RT in their browser history.) Johnstone
points out that Clapper has said such things before, including: "But as far as our being
intimate allies, trusting buds with the Russians that is just not going to happen. It is in
their genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed to the United States and to Western
democracies." As I recall, former CIA Director John Brennan said something similar.
On the comic side, Russiagate is a new theater of the absurd, featuring Americans running
around with their hair on fire over alleged official Russian actions that amount to
nothing significant: it was an act of war -- another Pearl Harbor -- no wait, another 9/11!
Let's assume -- purely for the sake of discussion since no evidence has been made public --
that the Russians did it. Note, first, that the "it" looks like the product of the gang that
couldn't shoot straight. I'm not going to do what Johnstone, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron
Maté, and the late Robert Parry have done so well so many times, namely, catalog all the
inane acts the Putin-guided Russian intel agencies are said to have committed in order to bring
down America. (Start here .)
Suffice it to say that if that's the best Putin can come up with, we have little to
worry about. Of course, the very inanity of this so-called campaign to destroy America -- the
ridiculous discrepancy between means and alleged end, the sheer clownish ineptitude --
furnishes sufficient grounds for skepticism, at least, about the Russiagate narrative. (See
David Stockman's
explanation of the ineptitude. SPOILER ALERT: It wasn't a Russian Intel operation. The man
who we are to believe sought to subvert America's democracy is a freelance pro-Putin Russian
food-industry oligarch employing a bunch of minimum-wage keyboard jockeys who didn't pay
attention to the United States until the 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup in Ukraine, i.e., before
there was a Trump campaign.)
Americans generally do not know the nefarious things "their" government has done over many,
many years. This is partly due to what Bryan Caplan in The Myth of the Rational Voter calls "rational irrationalism." Americans embrace a
nationalism that is impervious to facts. Even vivid accounts of the systematic wholesale
slaughter of the Indians wouldn't shake it. People generally don't like to venture outside
their comfort zones to shake up their worldview, and even if they did so, what would change?
Each person has only one vote, and the chance that one vote will make a difference is close to
zero. So why not indulge one's nationalist biases? It's not as though there's an opportunity
cost to doing so.
On the other hand, politicians and pundits do have some idea of America's long record of
intervening in other countries. (Maybe I'm being too charitable.) What's their excuse for being
so offended by even the possibility of meddling in an U.S. election? One explanation is the
"exceptional nation" dogma of the American creed, or what I call the American chosen-people
complex. Even secular American nationalists believe America has been anointed -- by history if
not by a deity -- to lead the world. (This goes back to the founding generation, by the way.
It's no post-World War II phenomenon. See America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited .)
Thus, we have a moral inequivalence on our hands. It's okay if we do it to "them" (whoever),
but it's not okay if "they" do it to us. Moreover,
we can do it to ourselves , but if anyone else tries it, there'll be hell to pay.
Any way you look at it, Russiagate is ridiculous. Of course it serves some people's
interests. But it harms the rest of us, most of all by bringing us closer to conflict with
Russia, perhaps even to nuclear war.
The reality of Russiagate is that the corrupt neoliberal system and its institutions were laid bare in an
unprecedented way. The Democratic Party is toast. The Republican Party is a vile sham. And the MSM has exposed itself as attack
dogs of intelligence agencies like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt
and useless system in place. The reality of the system was exposed in magnifying Russiagate lens. That's probably the only
good thing about it
Notable quotes:
"... John Sipher (ha ha) starts out by re-asserting the lie that Russians "hacked" the DNC ..."
"... Why are the people who work for this guy trying to sell opinions being called trolls? This is just another way to give credence to the FBI narrative that trolls tried to sway the election. If anyone was a troll, ..."
"... And Rachel? Quit lying to yourself and others. My gawd! You have come a long way from your time at Air America that I don't even recognize you anymore. You are creating hysteria and you have become a raving lunatic. Enjoy your $30,000/day, $7 million a month salary for selling out to the people who you used to despise. I despise you! ..."
"... He retorts that 'there's enough hot spots -- Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, China' -- but fails to acknowledge that for example, the Iraq invasion and subsequent insurgency/civil war/rise-of-ISIS is all about what Aaron pointed to, the ginning up intelligence to create the Iraq invasion - which then spilled over into Syria. The role that the US is playing in all the other place he mentions, they have constantly resorted to lethal force and refused negotiation. ..."
"... The establishment media leaves out the essential context: The US is on a single superpower, Pax Americana global empire gambit; with everyone else playing for time while building their defences. ..."
"... And 'Russian Doctrine' is just recycled Soviet Doctrine - but the US always lead arms escalations during the old cold war - the so called soviet doctrine was in fact defence against US pressure and aggression. ..."
"... The Democratic Party is toast. The Republican Party is a vile sham. And the main stream media has exposed itself like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt and useless system in place. The reality of the system is being laid bare in an unprecedented way. As bad as things seem, this is a good thing, if we can keep those in power from destroying the earth before we can recover it. ..."
"... Unless something more comes of this, the Dems and their media cohorts will do a repeat of the Repubs and that same media when the WMD failed to materialize in Iraq. The wonderful thing about The Homeland, though, is that being wrong, all the time, in no way disqualifies you for remaining an important and serious person. ..."
"... Black Lives Matter ..."
"... Bernie Sanders ..."
"... Yeah, I think the point of this is not to change opinions, the point was to try to either suppress voters on one side, or to get people to hardened opinions, and get people to come out to vote, and we've even seen the same troll farm, looks like they're doing this now around the Parkland shooting in Florida. They were going around Black Lives Matter, they're trying to spin up divisions to get us working against each other, as much as electing Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders. ..."
AARON MATÉ: Now, Maddow makes at least one error here. The indictment does say that
the operation had a monthly budget of $1.25 million dollars, but that was for its entire global
operations, of which the U.S. was only a part. And more importantly, can we say conclusively
that this was the work of Russian intelligence? Well, joining me is John Sipher, national
security analyst with Cipher Brief, and a former member of the CIA's clandestine service.
John Sipher (@john_sipher) is a former Chief of Station for the C.I.A. He worked for
over 27 years in Russia, Europe and Asia and now writes for various publications and works as a
consultant with CrossLead and New Media Frontier.
Here's what Mr CIA guy 'Sipher' is selling: The indicted 13 Russian trollers
interfered w the 2016 POTUS election- NOT by hacking US voting machines & flipping
votes to Repug Trump, but by sowing discord among the US electorate which even 'Sipher'
admits already existed. Most of the Face-Book posts by these alleged Russian trollers
were either posted AFTER Nov 8, 2016 &/or were seen by virtually NO-One, thus
'Sipher' effectively admits he now ilk in the US intel biz can even assess how much
alleged impact these alleged Russian trollers had on the 2016 POTUS election -But- I can:
Virtually ZERO!!
Now compare that to the US' notorious track-record of nefariously 'meddling' in other
countries' political processes- Mainly by Mr CIA guy 'Sipher's' so-called 'ex'
employer:
- In 1996 the US actively & blatantly interfered in Russia's presidential election to
get Slick Willy's pal & chum(p) that drunk Boris Yeltsin guy elected, & even
openly bragged about it. And then orchestrated a fire-sale of Russia's resources, that
resulted in great hardship to the Russian people.
In 2014 while Putin's attention was on the Winter-Olympics in Sochi, Killary Clinton's
protege' Vikky Nuland actively stoked a Neo-NAZI coup vs Ukraine's democratically elected
president -- In an blatant attempt to push NATO right up into Russia's face / west-flank
& to try to grab Russia's naval base in Crimea [which up till the 1950s was actually
officially Russian territory].
In 1953 the CIA in tandem w MI6 actively worked to overthrow Iran's democratically
selected leader Mosadeq, in an out-right COUP, that brought that notorious dictator the
Shah of Iran to power!
In 1954 the CIA actively worked to overthrow Guatemala's democratically elected leader
Arbenz, in an out-right COUP!
In 1960-61 the CIA in tandem w the Belgiums [& even the UN] actively worked to
overthrow Congo's democratically elected leader Patrice Lumuba, in an out-right COUP the
resulted in Lumumba's DEATH [w the OK of Ike Eisenhower's & Alan Dulles' CIA]! A coup
that brought the notorious despot Mobutu to power.
In 1961 Dulles' & 'Tricky Dick' Nixon's CIA talked JFK into allowing the CIA to
try to over-throw Castro in Cuba, in the 'Bay of Pigs' fiasco.
In 1966 LBJ's CIA helped to overthrow Ghanaian leader Kwame' Nkruma in a military
coup.
In 1973 Nixon's & Kissinger's CIA helped to overthrow the democratically elected
leader of Chile' Allende' in an out-Right coup, the resulted in Allende's DEATH! And
brought the notoriously murderous military regime of Pinochet to power!!
In 1991 Mr CIA POTUS Bush Sr OKed an out-right Coup vs the democratically elected
leader of Haiti Aristide. And Bush Sr's son, Bush Jr would do a repeat vs Aristide yet
again in 2004- Which was Haiti's bicentennial anniversary of its independence from
Napoleon's France [in 1804] as France's notorious [ex] slave-colony. The US & France
have been causing misery in Haiti ever since!!
In 2002 the US [likely spear-headed by the CIA] tried to pull a coup vs Venezuela's
democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez, which failed. But the US has been actively
meddling in Venezuela ever since, & is apparently plotting a coup vs Chavez'
democratically elected successor Maduro.
In 2003 the Bush-Cheney-Bliar nexus used false intel from Mr 'Sipher's' CIA, launched
that disastrous Iraq Attack Pt2 based on LIES, which resulted in over 1 Million Iraqis'
death, in an nefarious Neo-CONian / Neo-Liberal regime-change scheme!! This CIA backed
disaster directly resulted in the rise of AL-CIAeda in Iraq & then ISIS!!
In 2009 under Dim Obama & Billary HRC as his Sec of State, the US OKed a coup vs
Honduras' democratically elected leader Zelaya. And Honduras remains in turmoil to this
day!
In 2011 Dim OBomber & Killary [I came,. I saw, He died, Ha, ha, ha- Yes!] Clinton
in combo w France's Sarkozy, the UK's Cameron & those 'bastions of democracy' the
Saudi-GCC oil monarchs- actively overthrew Libya's leader Col Khadaffi via FUK-US NATO's
relentless 9 month 'R2P' bombing assault in yet another notorious Neo-CONian / NeoLiberal
regime-change scheme [based on LIES yet again]- Resulting in Khadaffi's brutal murder
[that KIllary openly called for just a few days before & then hideously cackled over
afterwards] mass chaos in what was Africa's most prosperous country, & brought to
power a regime that's directly linked to AL-CIAeda & even ISIS, & who are now
openly selling Black Libyans & African immigrants on Libyan SLAVE-Markets!!
In 2012 the US under then Sec of State Billary HRC tried to interfere in Russia's
elections [yet again] to block Putin's regaining Russia's presidency.
In 2011 the US under Slick Willy Clinton [as the UN's Gov of Haiti] & wife Billary
HRC as Sec of State, actively interfered in Haiti's elections yet again to bring that
neo-Duvalier guy Martelli to power, while outlawing Aristide's political party which is
the most popular party in Haiti.
In 2015 the US covertly backed a 'parliamentary coup' vs Brazil's democratically
elected leader Delma Roussef!
And oh let's NOT forget the US' & it allies [UK, the Saudis, the Turks, the IAF,
etc] actively involvement in the on-going Syrian disaster- In yet another Neo-CONian /
Neo-Liberal nefarious regime-change scheme!! And how Mr CIA guy Sipher's CIA & other
intel' agencies have been trying to bait first Dim OBomber & now Repug Trump into an
all out attack on Syria to accomplish it, using dubious 'intel' ala 'WMD redux'!!
I mean seriously Mr CIA guy 'Sipher' & all you other Russia-Gaters [IE: Rachael
Mad-cow & even Bernie]?? All this BS hype over 13 Russians trolling click-bait on
Face-Book, vs all that I've outlined above [just a short-list] that the CIA & even
so-called 'liberal' Dims have actively supported, w DISASTROUS results- Literally
destroying MILLIONS of lives in the process!! PLEASE!!
John Sipher (ha ha) starts out by re-asserting the lie that Russians "hacked" the DNC.
Everything that follows is just blah, blah,blah....Why is TRN interviewing this
buffoon?
No, sorry. I have great respect for Aaron, but TRN is not doing us any favors by
helping spread this noxious propaganda. They legitimize it by acknowledging it.
Meanwhile, there is other news they could be giving us.Check this out:
http://bit.ly/2EMOl4S Sad we have to depend upon comedians to give us the
news....
BTW. Why are the people who work for this guy trying to sell opinions being called
trolls? This is just another way to give credence to the FBI narrative that trolls tried
to sway the election. If anyone was a troll,
I'd say it was the Correct the Record folks
who were the trolls. Hillary's campaign paid over a million dollars for people to go into
websites and if anyone was being critical of Hillary, they tried to get them to change
their minds. How is that not election interference? And was that even legal? It was
unethical if not against campaign finance laws.
It arose inside the country, though Hillary is, without a doubt, scum. Hillbots were
actual 'Murkins, a lot of them still suffering from Hillbotulism. Elections featuring two
absolutely unacceptable candidates are a real drag, and, unfortunately, probably the
OFFICIAL end of the United States (though in reality, the US died in March 2003).
Unbelievable. Aaron: I don't believe that the Mueller investigation has delivered
solid proof that Russia did anything against the country.
Sipher:
Well I think that he and the FBI are reputable sources and I'm going to
believe them and what they tell me. Even if they haven't proven anything, we know that
Putin is a bad man and he wants to sow divisions here and besides he's using chemical
weapons in Syria (even though that's so totally off topic) and when I go to bed at night
I see Putin in my dreams and yackity, yack, yack! So there. I'm a poopy head and you're
not.
Good grief, how can people believe anything by this time? And Rachel? Quit lying to
yourself and others. My gawd! You have come a long way from your time at Air America that
I don't even recognize you anymore. You are creating hysteria and you have become a
raving lunatic. Enjoy your $30,000/day, $7 million a month salary for selling out to the
people who you used to despise. I despise you!
This guys arguments are so weak he must be interacting the very ignorant audience most
of the time (I think the great majority of Americans don't pay attention to what their
own foreign policy is -- and MSM the vast majority of the time offers nothing but safe
softball foreign policy questions).
He retorts that 'there's enough hot spots -- Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, China' -- but
fails to acknowledge that for example, the Iraq invasion and subsequent insurgency/civil
war/rise-of-ISIS is all about what Aaron pointed to, the ginning up intelligence to
create the Iraq invasion - which then spilled over into Syria. The role that the US is
playing in all the other place he mentions, they have constantly resorted to lethal force
and refused negotiation.
The establishment media leaves out the essential context: The US is on a single
superpower, Pax Americana global empire gambit; with everyone else playing for time while
building their defences.
And 'Russian Doctrine' is just recycled Soviet Doctrine - but the US always lead arms
escalations during the old cold war - the so called soviet doctrine was in fact defence
against US pressure and aggression.
MoonofAlabama gives a good analysis of the marketing scheme aspect of these
"meddlings". Max Blumenthal mentions it in his discussion with Mate from earlier in the
week, but this is a very detailed look into the matter:
http://www.moonofalabama.or...
I suppose it is ok for Aaron to interview guys like this CIA agent but the agent
clearly doesn't understand the validity of an indictment. An indictment doesn't prove
anything; If it did, we wouldn't need trial courts.
The Department of Justice could
indict a ham sandwich if they wanted.
The DOJ knows that this case will never go to trial
and they will never have to prove anything. It is depressing that the Democrats and MSNBC
have lost all credibility. We are very lucky to have Aaron and Max looking at this sutff.
The Democratic Party is toast. The Republican Party is a vile sham. And the main
stream media has exposed itself like never before. People are waking up to the corrupt
and useless system in place. The reality of the system is being laid bare in an
unprecedented way. As bad as things seem, this is a good thing, if we can keep those in
power from destroying the earth before we can recover it.
I just got done reading the Mueller indictment. For the MSM and the Dems to continue
their pathetic witch hunt is a true indictment of the corruption at the heart of this
country's political and media elites. No doubt there was an attempt, weak as it was, to
influence Americans, but for anyone to think this is the smoking gun that proves it was
decisive in determining the 2016 election, or that the Russian government definitely
orchestrated it, or that Trump, whom I despise as much as anyone else, colluded with
them, reveals a startling lack of intellectual honesty.
The effort put forth by the Russians involved seemed to have two objectives; first to
take advantage of the tribalization of American society to advance the Trump campaign,
and secondly, to make money off it.
Worst of all, if nothing more comes out of this, then the Dems, as corrupt as they are
incompetent, will have added more fuel to the Trump charges of fake news and will have
served only to weaken any resistance they claim to represent as this clown leads this
country on an ever accelerating demise.
I take issue with advancing the Trump campaign as an objective. Some ads, etc., were
anti-Trump and some were about kittens. I haven't seen any predominant political message,
at all, in that "effort". Also, it was so paltry that they had to know that it would have
no effect, at all, and never could have any effect. Implying otherwise is part of what
makes the whole story look like a bumbling, comedic farce to most thinking people.
If you read the Mueller indictment, it's clearly stated that they did contact various
American groups working for Trump, locally, that is, and arranged events, paid for
various materials, even someone to dress up as HRC and be in a jail, and also travel to
the states to do some first hand research, but as you say, the effort was minor, at best,
and was no factor in Trump winning, especially compared to the billions of $ of free air
time he got when running in the Repub primary, he was a cash cow for the networks, after
all, and the DNC advancing his cause during those same primaries, thinking he was an
easier opponent than Cruz or Rubio.
Unless something more comes of this, the Dems and
their media cohorts will do a repeat of the Repubs and that same media when the WMD
failed to materialize in Iraq. The wonderful thing about The Homeland, though, is that
being wrong, all the time, in no way disqualifies you for remaining an important and
serious person.
I haven't seen ANY evidence of traveling to the US for "first hand research". WHERE
does this crap come from? It comes from people desperate to keep the war budget higher
than any war budget in the history of planet earth. I still see nothing in that
"indictment" that serves as any real evidence that Trump colluded with any Russians, much
less any Russians definitively working for the Government of Russia, or any evidence that
the campaign was affected or that Russians were trying to create "discord" in the US.
If they bothered to look at the same types of activities and even direct money given
to candidates by Israeli, Saudi, UK, and other nationals, I think it would dwarf anything
Russian citizens used to fund or further any campaign. They won't look elsewhere, though,
because nothing perpetrates the fraud on the American people that is the Defense budget
like the word "Russians" and most of the "defense" (i.e., war) budget is completely
unnecessary. They should be cut by a third right now, with further cuts pending.
The indictment gives the names and dates of two Russians who made it here for a few
days; a third was unable to secure a visa. There are dates and places named in the
indictment, but nothing that could of had any influence on the election. If the Dems are
so worked up over having lost two elections this century even though their candidate had
more popular votes, you'd think they'd be screaming for a change in determining the
presidential election. We all know the Repubs would.
We are in total agreement as to what really mattered and matters regarding this issue
and the reasons behind the Dems sudden embrace of McCarthyism and their overall need to
point to Russia or anyone else to maintain the unmaintainable American empire. If you
haven't read the indictment, it's not that long, 37 short pages, several of which can be
skipped because they simply list names or laws broken.
If the dems really cared, they would be calling for publicly funded elections, cuts of
a quarter or more of the war budget (i.e., "defense"), and public health care and
education, and jobs programs with benefits. They care about nothing but their own
butts.
Aaron Mate is an excellent, intelligent, sincere, and questioning journalist--in
short, what everything one would expect from a real journalist. So, what is it the
naysayers don't like about him? Is it because he does not support their narrative. Is it
his laid back style? What in particular?
Glen Ford penetrates all the BS and gets right down to the real agenda, Black or
otherwise. He called out Obama back in 2007, when nearly everyone else on the so called
left were coming in their pants over that fake.
CIA staff exhibit two qualities in abundance: 1) Suspicious incredulity regarding all
apparent statements, actions and motivations of subjects in the field, and 2) Studied,
refined, and highly purposeful public mendacity regarding their and their government's
apparent statements, actions and motivations.
Mr Sipher is lying and the tell is his amazing degree of credulity regarding numerous
US entities paired with across the board mistrust and outright defamation of numerous
non-US entities. Virtually every accusation Sipher made against Russia, Putin and the
indicted, is a menu item on standard CIA operational plans for disrupting the elections
of foreign nations and has been practiced continuously for several decades, technology
permitting.
As a companion to this interview it might be nice to solicit an interview with a CIA
antagonist who knows how to expose--point by point, in policy, practice and
tradition--one of the most destructive covert entities in world history.
Mr. Sipher is throwing everything at the wall to see what might stick, attempting to
conflate what he laughably refers to as the "Russian Black Arts" with the Parkland
shooting. He talks in circles; on one hand acknowledging pre-existing social
"hyperpartisan", "tribal", divisions", while on the other hand dismissing genuine
political movements Black Lives Matter , Democratic Socialism ( Bernie
Sanders ), and the Environmental Movement ( Jill Stein ) as products of
Russian propaganda that is at once both sophisticated and simple.
JOHN SIPHER: Yeah, I think the point of this is not to change opinions, the point
was to try to either suppress voters on one side, or to get people to hardened
opinions, and get people to come out to vote, and we've even seen the same troll farm,
looks like they're doing this now around the Parkland shooting in Florida. They were
going around Black Lives Matter, they're trying to spin up divisions to get us working
against each other, as much as electing Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders.
His assessment lacks any measure of self/social-awareness or self/social-consciousness
that should be a pre-requisite before laying out criticism of another. It seems to me Mr.
Sipher might be protecting his CIA pension.
Hey there Munk! True believers will lay down their lives for their preferred criminal
syndicate because they are of one body; pensions are just icing. Your observations among
others are exactly why I said Sipher is lying.
Bill Binney, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou are the first three that come to mind as
potential contrarians, although I am sure there are others as well. Perhaps the Clapper
lyings will come up in part two?
A few months ago, while waiting for wifey to come out of Target, I saw a preteen kid
wearing a T shirt that said, "I speak fluent sarcasm." I want one of those.
Muhammad Ali used rope a dope to defeat George Foreman; Mate let's these idiots expose
themselves with their own words; nothing is more effective than letting a fool speak.
This migration to truthful analysis of the situation to FOx is paradoxically true
phenomenon.
Greenwald definition of Rachel Maddow transformation is really brilliant: " "I used to be
really good friends with Rachel Maddow," Greenwald told
New York magazine. "And I've seen her devolution from this really interesting, really smart,
independent thinker into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack."
Notable quotes:
"... The Nation, Counterpunch, Consortium News ..."
Greenwald
has emerged as one of the prominent skeptics of the investigation into collaboration between
the Trump campaign and the Russians. Once a fixture in the progressive media for his dissection
of the national security state, he is now more frequently cited by the far right in its efforts
to discredit the investigation run by Robert Mueller. The journalist used to chat regularly
with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, but now he's more likely to appear with Tucker Carlson on Fox News.
"I used to be really good friends with Rachel Maddow," Greenwald told
New York magazine. "And I've seen her devolution from this really interesting, really smart,
independent thinker into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack."
Wow, that's harsh.
Greenwald is not alone. You can find skeptical articles about Russiagate at The Nation,
Counterpunch, Consortium News , and many other progressive outlets. And these articles can
be equally scathing about the journalists, mainstream or otherwise, that take the investigation
seriously.
Over at The Nation , Russia specialist Stephen Cohen regularly challenges the
emerging narrative, most recently suggesting that
the intelligence community essentially fabricated Russiagate, which has generated in turn a
different scandal -- he calls it "Intelgate" -- even larger than Watergate.
The size of funds that Democrats and Republicans operated were in billions. And , IRA
staffers purchased just $100,000 worth of Facebook ads, 56% of which ran after Election
Day. So only $44K was spent during election campaign.
There author is wrong about color revolution against Trump. It is progressing.
One interesting side effect will be ruthless suppression of the US influence in Russian
elections. Bismark famously remarked that "the Russians are slow to saddle up, but ride fast."
Here media dogs also are off leash and there will be innocent victims, blamed in treason and
other nefarious activities just to voicing dissent. Russiagate discredited neoliberal fifth
column in Russia, making them all "enemies of the people".
Notable quotes:
"... After nine months of labor, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller thus brought forth a mouse. Even if all the charges are true – something we'll probably never know since it's unlikely that any of the accused will be brought to trial -- the indictment tells us virtually nothing that's new. ..."
"... Yes, they persuaded someone in Florida to dress up as Hillary Clinton in a prison uniform and stand inside a cage mounted on a flatbed truck. And, yes, they also got another "real U.S. person," as the indictment terms it, to stand in front of the White House with a sign saying, "Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss," a tribute, apparently, to IRA founder Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the convicted robber turned caterer whose birthday was three days away. Instead of a super-sophisticated spying operation, the indictment depicts a bumbling freelance operation that is still giving Putin heartburn months after the fact. ..."
"... Not that this has stopped the media from whipping itself into a frenzy. "Russia is at war with our democracy," screamed a headline in the Washington Post. "Trump is ignoring the worst attack on America since 9/11," blared another. " Russia is engaged in a virtual war against the United States through 21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda," declared the New York Times, while Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter tweeted that the IRA's activities amounted to nothing less than a "tech Pearl Harbor." ..."
"... This makes the Dems seem crass, unscrupulous, and none too democratic. But then Mudde gave the knife a twist. The real trouble with the strategy, he said, is that it isn't working: ..."
"... No collusion means no impeachment and hence no anti-Trump "color revolution" of the sort that was so effective in Georgia or the Ukraine. Moreover, while 53 percent of Americans believe that investigating Russiagate should be a top or at least an important priority according to a recent poll , figures for a half-dozen other issues ranging from Medicare and Social Security reform to tax policy, healthcare, infrastructure, and immigration are actually a good deal higher – 67 percent, 72 percent, or even more. ..."
"... " the Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country." Out in flyover country, rather, Americans can't figure out why the political elite is more concerned with a nonexistent scandal than with things that really count, i.e. de-industrialization, infrastructure decay, the opioid epidemic, and school shootings. As society disintegrates, the only thing Democrats have accomplished with all their blathering about Russkis under the bed is to demonstrate just how cut off from the real world they are. ..."
"... But Russiagate is not just about regime change, but other things as well. One is repression. Where once Democrats would have laughed off Russian trolls and the like, they're now obsessed with making a mountain out of a molehill in order to enforce mainstream opinion and marginalize ideas and opinions suspected of being un-American and hence pro-Russian. If the RT (Russia Today) news network is now suspect -- the Times described it not long ago as "the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the West" – then why not the BBC or Agence France-Presse? How long until foreign books are banned or foreign musicians? ..."
"... "I'm actually surprised I haven't been indicted," tweets Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky. "I'm Russian, I was in the U.S. in 2016 and I published columns critical of both Clinton and Trump w/o registering as a foreign agent." When the Times complains that Facebook "still sees itself as the bank that got robbed, rather than the architect who designed a bank with no safes, and no alarms or locks on the doors, and then acted surprised when burglars struck," then it's clear that the goal is to force Facebook to rein in its activities or stand by and watch as others do so instead. ..."
"... But Russiagate is about something else as well: war. As National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster warns that the "time is now" to act against Iran, the New York Times slams Trump for not imposing sanctions on Moscow, and a spooky "Nuclear Posture Review" suggests that the US might someday respond to a cyber attack with atomic weapons, it's plain that Washington is itching for a showdown that will somehow undo the mistakes of the previous administration. The more Trump drags his feet, the more Democrats conclude that a war drive is the best way to bring him to his knees. ..."
"... Thus, low-grade political interference is elevated into a casus belli while Vladimir Putin is portrayed as a supernatural villain straight out of Harry Potter. But where does it stop? Libya has been set back decades, Syria, the subject of yet another US regime-change effort, has been all but destroyed, while Yemen – which America helps Saudi Arabia bomb virtually around the clock – is now a disaster area with some 9,000 people killed, 50,000 injured, a million-plus cholera cases, and more than half of all hospitals and clinics destroyed. ..."
"... The more Democrats pound the war drums, the more death and destruction will ensue. The process is well underway in Syria, the victim of Israeli bombings and a US-Turkish invasion, and it will undoubtedly spread as Dems turn up the heat. If the pathetic pseudo-scandal known as Russiagate really is collapsing under its own weight, then it's not a moment too soon. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... A minor quibble was how at the end the author kept referring to how the "U.S" or "Washington" were the forces for the regime changes or flat-out destruction of nations Israel wants destroyed. The crappy little pesthole has been the barely-concealed mastermind of all the "Wars For Israel" which have turned the US of A into a bankrupt laughingstock. ..."
"... As ludicrous as Russiagate became, it was no joke, and became a real amplifier of the threat of nuclear war, and the relentlessly increasing militarization of America. Without the enthusiastic help of the corporate media, the whole phony narrative would never have got off the ground. Of course the criminals we call the intelligence community did all they could to give it legs, as well. We can only pray that it fades away now, and is not replaced with something else like a shooting war. But that hope is fading now on several fronts ..."
"... That was NOT to remove Trump, which was always a long shot and would only produce Pence and angry motivated Trump voters in the next election. ..."
"... The Trump derangement syndrome had a calculated purpose to keep donors giving after they were outraged by the waste of their donations. They'd been acting like a donor-strike was in progress. This cured that. ..."
"... This fed off the Stages of Grief reactions of those who'd so confidently expected a Hillary win. That helped do it, but was not the real motive. Those who initiated and shaped it were more directed, and aimed at the money. That is why the more likely things to blame, like Comey, were set aside in favor of the easy target of a foreign enemy which was familiar from recent Cold War. ..."
"... Having only as reference my own personal take on our news media the infamous MSM, is that these journalistic bandits are only in the game of twisting the news for the ratings, and to promote their own opportunistic careers. The corporate owned media has replaced responsible reporting with salaisuus promotions of often tragic events in a way that tends to in my eyes be a mere exploitation of these tragedies, as we viewers become glued to our TV screens. ..."
Fads and scandals often follow a set trajectory. They grow big, bigger, and then, finally,
too big, at which point they topple over and collapse under the weight of their own internal
contradictions. This was the fate of the "Me too" campaign, which started out as an
exposé of serial abuser Harvey Weinstein but then went too far when Babe.net published a
story about one
woman's bad date with comedian Aziz Ansari. Suddenly, it became clear that different types of
behavior were being lumped together in a dangerous way, and a once-explosive movement began to
fizzle.
So, too, with Russiagate. After dominating the news for more than a year, the scandal may
have at last reached a tipping point with last week's indictment of thirteen Russian
individuals and three Russian corporations on charges of illegal interference in the 2016
presidential campaign. But the indictment landed with a decided thud for three reasons:
It
failed to connect the Internet Research Agency (IRA), the alleged St. Petersburg troll factory
accused of political meddling, with Vladimir Putin, the all-purpose evil-doer who the corporate
media say is out to destroy American democracy. It similarly failed to establish a connection
with the Trump campaign and indeed went out of its way to describe contacts with the Russians
as "unwitting." It described the meddling itself as even more inept and amateurish than many
had suspected.
After nine months of labor, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller thus brought forth a
mouse. Even if all the charges are true – something we'll probably never know since it's
unlikely that any of the accused will be brought to trial -- the indictment tells us virtually
nothing that's new.
Yes, IRA staffers purchased $100,000 worth of Facebook ads, 56 percent of which ran
after Election Day. Yes, they persuaded someone in Florida to dress up as Hillary
Clinton in a prison uniform and stand inside a cage mounted on a flatbed truck. And, yes, they
also got another "real U.S. person," as the indictment terms it, to stand in front of the White
House with a sign saying, "Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss," a tribute, apparently, to IRA
founder Yevgeniy Prigozhin, the convicted robber turned caterer whose birthday was three days
away. Instead of a super-sophisticated spying operation, the indictment depicts a bumbling
freelance operation that is still giving Putin heartburn months after the fact.
Not that this has stopped the media from whipping itself into a frenzy. "Russia is at
war with our democracy,"
screamed a headline in the Washington Post. "Trump is ignoring the worst attack on America
since 9/11,"
blared another. " Russia is engaged in a virtual war against the United States through
21st-century tools of disinformation and propaganda," declared the New York
Times, while Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter tweeted that the IRA's
activities amounted to nothing less than a "tech Pearl Harbor."
All of which merely demonstrates, in proper backhanded fashion, how grievously Mueller has
fallen short. Proof that the scandal had at last overstayed its welcome came five days later
when the Guardian, a website that had previously flogged Russiagate even more vigorously than
the Post, the Times, or CNN, published a
news analysis by Cas Mudde, an associate professor at the University of Georgia, admitting
that it was all a farce – and a particularly self-defeating one at that.
Mudde's article made short work of hollow pieties about a neutral and objective
investigation. Rather than an effort to get at the truth, Russiagate was a thinly-veiled effort
at regime change. "[I]n the end," he wrote, "the only question everyone really seems to care
about is whether Donald Trump was involved – and can therefore be impeached for
treason.
With last week's indictment, the article went on, "Democratic party leaders once again
reassured their followers that this was the next logical step in the inevitable downfall of
Trump." The more Democrats play the Russiagate card, in other words, the nearer they will come
to their goal of riding the Orange-Haired One out of town on a rail.
This makes the Dems seem crass, unscrupulous, and none too democratic. But then Mudde
gave the knife a twist. The real trouble with the strategy, he said, is that it isn't
working:
"While there is no doubt that the Trump camp was, and still is, filled with amoral and
fraudulent people, and was very happy to take the Russians help during the elections, even
encouraging it on the campaign, I do not think Mueller will be able to find conclusive evidence
that Donald Trump
himself colluded with Putin's Russia to win the elections. And that is the only thing that will
lead to his impeachment as the Republican party is not risking political suicide for anything
less."
Other Objectives of "Russiagate"
No collusion means no impeachment and hence no anti-Trump "color revolution" of the sort
that was so effective in Georgia or the Ukraine. Moreover, while 53 percent of Americans
believe that investigating Russiagate should be a top or at least an important priority
according to a recent poll ,
figures for a half-dozen other issues ranging from Medicare and Social Security reform to tax
policy, healthcare, infrastructure, and immigration are actually a good deal higher – 67
percent, 72 percent, or even more.
Summed up Mudde: " the Russia-Trump collusion story might be the talk of the town in
Washington, but this is not the case in much of the rest of the country." Out in flyover
country, rather, Americans can't figure out why the political elite is more concerned with a
nonexistent scandal than with things that really count, i.e. de-industrialization,
infrastructure decay, the opioid epidemic, and school shootings. As society disintegrates, the
only thing Democrats have accomplished with all their blathering about Russkis under the bed is
to demonstrate just how cut off from the real world they are.
But Russiagate is not just about regime change, but other things as well. One is
repression. Where once Democrats would have laughed off Russian trolls and the like, they're
now obsessed with making a mountain out of a molehill in order to enforce mainstream opinion
and marginalize ideas and opinions suspected of being un-American and hence pro-Russian. If the
RT (Russia Today) news network is now suspect -- the Times
described it not long ago as "the slickly produced heart of a broad, often covert
disinformation campaign designed to sow doubt about democratic institutions and destabilize the
West" – then why not the BBC or Agence France-Presse? How long until foreign books are
banned or foreign musicians?
"I'm actually surprised I haven't been indicted," tweets Bloomberg columnist
Leonid Bershidsky. "I'm Russian, I was in the U.S. in 2016 and I published columns critical of
both Clinton and Trump w/o registering as a foreign agent." When the Times complains
that Facebook "still sees itself as the bank that got robbed, rather than the architect who
designed a bank with no safes, and no alarms or locks on the doors, and then acted surprised
when burglars struck," then it's clear that the goal is to force Facebook to rein in its
activities or stand by and watch as others do so instead.
Add to this the classic moral panic promoted by #MeToo – to believe charges of sexual
harassment and assault without first demanding evidence "is to disbelieve, and deny due process
to, the accused,"
notes Judith Levine in the Boston Review – and it's clear that a powerful wave of
cultural conservatism is crashing down on the United States, much of it originating in a
classic neoliberal-Hillaryite milieu. Formerly the liberal alternative, the Democratic Party is
now passing the Republicans on the right.
But Russiagate is about something else as well: war. As National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster warns
that the "time is now" to act against Iran, the New York Times slams
Trump for not imposing sanctions on Moscow, and a spooky "Nuclear Posture Review"
suggests that the US might someday respond to a cyber attack with atomic weapons, it's
plain that Washington is itching for a showdown that will somehow undo the mistakes of the
previous administration. The more Trump drags his feet, the more Democrats conclude that a war
drive is the best way to bring him to his knees.
Thus, low-grade political interference is elevated into a casus belli while
Vladimir Putin is portrayed as a supernatural villain straight out of Harry Potter. But
where does it stop? Libya has been set back decades, Syria, the subject of yet another US
regime-change effort, has been all but destroyed, while Yemen – which America helps Saudi
Arabia bomb virtually around the clock – is now
a disaster area with some 9,000 people killed, 50,000 injured, a million-plus cholera
cases, and more than half of all hospitals and clinics destroyed.
The more Democrats pound the war drums, the more death and destruction will ensue. The
process is well underway in Syria, the victim of Israeli bombings and a US-Turkish invasion,
and it will undoubtedly spread as Dems turn up the heat. If the pathetic pseudo-scandal known
as Russiagate really is collapsing under its own weight, then it's not a moment too
soon.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Zachary Smith , February 24, 2018 at 1:25 pm
First thing I checked before reading this was to check for instances of misuse of the term
"liberal". When I found none at all, the piece suddenly looked very promising. And it
was a fine essay!
A minor quibble was how at the end the author kept referring to how the "U.S" or
"Washington" were the forces for the regime changes or flat-out destruction of nations Israel
wants destroyed. The crappy little pesthole has been the barely-concealed mastermind of all
the "Wars For Israel" which have turned the US of A into a bankrupt laughingstock.
With that small objection on record, I will declare this was great.
Zachary, I wouldn't get too hung up on words like "liberal" which have been used and
abused to become almost meaningless but yes, "the Democratic Party is now passing the
Republicans on the right." Somehow I think they believe they can pick up enough "moderate"
Republicans in the midterms to make up for the "angry white males"(& intellectuals) they
lost in the last election the same losing strategy.
mike k , February 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm
As ludicrous as Russiagate became, it was no joke, and became a real amplifier of the
threat of nuclear war, and the relentlessly increasing militarization of America. Without the
enthusiastic help of the corporate media, the whole phony narrative would never have got off
the ground. Of course the criminals we call the intelligence community did all they could to
give it legs, as well. We can only pray that it fades away now, and is not replaced with
something else like a shooting war. But that hope is fading now on several fronts
Mark Thomason , February 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm
From its first moment, this was a Team Hillary exercise, decided on by her in the days
right after the election and promoted through her media contracts that had been an extension
of her campaign.
Why? At first they seemed to imagine it possible to reverse the election outcome.
Then it shifted to Trump hate. Why?
That was NOT to remove Trump, which was always a long shot and would only produce Pence
and angry motivated Trump voters in the next election.
The Trump derangement syndrome had a calculated purpose to keep donors giving after they
were outraged by the waste of their donations. They'd been acting like a donor-strike was in
progress. This cured that.
This fed off the Stages of Grief reactions of those who'd so confidently expected a
Hillary win. That helped do it, but was not the real motive. Those who initiated and shaped
it were more directed, and aimed at the money. That is why the more likely things to blame,
like Comey, were set aside in favor of the easy target of a foreign enemy which was familiar
from recent Cold War.
It was completely cynical, guided by the same greed that had produced the candidacy of
Hillary and run it the whole time, doing fund raising in friendly places instead of
campaigning in swing states.
JDQ , February 24, 2018 at 2:00 pm
..please do read this. It gives Liberals more a bashing than Conservatives
Joe Tedesky , February 24, 2018 at 2:40 pm
Having only as reference my own personal take on our news media the infamous MSM, is that
these journalistic bandits are only in the game of twisting the news for the ratings, and to
promote their own opportunistic careers. The corporate owned media has replaced responsible
reporting with salaisuus promotions of often tragic events in a way that tends to in my eyes
be a mere exploitation of these tragedies, as we viewers become glued to our TV screens.
This
is the way the MSM sell too many needless pharmaceutical products, and their drugs are
products, to insurance ad's and somehow make commercial space for the MIC defense
contractors. This is how the MSM makes real money, as they forfeited our learning of anything
worthwhile, as to pave the way for more exploitation of our country's struggles with
everything and anything, but all forfeited simply to make the MSM more money.
It goes without saying that we the American public aren't necessarily as fooled, and
tricked, as our masters would like to believe we are. So to explain away the Empire's
failings certain forces from within our nation's Beltway are hard at work trying to blame all
of their misgivings on another, and that another is Vladimir Putin and his American
engineered misunderstood Russians. For this reason our MSM hardly ever put the real Putin on
our television screens. No never, these American media producers always when describing
Putin, use a prop, or a slimy squinty eyed shirtless Russian stereotype instead. For our MSM
ever to air a speech of Putin, or do as Oliver Stone did, is beyond question, so don't wait
up kids to see ever steady Vladimir on our American TV sets because it just isn't going to
happen.
So now our MSM is exploiting the Florida mass shooting, and it is with their slants and
predisposed opinions where I lose faith in anything our media does. Even as terrible as this
Florida school shooting was, our MSM must politicize and adhere left right slants to this
story as in their daff journalistic heads this is what they must do. Like I said this is my
opinion taken from my own experiences, so take my comment for what it is, and not from any
references I happened upon.
That's a good question: why now. Where was all those immense power of NSA, CIA and FBI during election. Why that calmly
observed that Russian are destroying American democracy :-). Something is really fishy here.
Another interesting tidbit is connection of Mr. Mueller to 911 cover-up.
Yet another interesting tidbit is the story of the USA interference in the Russian election s of 2011-2012. As Caitlin
Johnstone observes the US's long history in meddling in other countries' elections is not "whataboutism," but rather a highly
germane point to understanding the context for the allegations of Russian meddling
Notable quotes:
"... f the purpose of all the warrantless spying -- in direct contravention of the Constitution, no less -- is to keep the country safe from foreign assault, whether by bombs in a subway or by guns in an office building or by hacking into computers, why didn't our 60,000 domestic, and God only knows how many foreign, spies catch this Russian interference? ..."
"... "the Russians ran unchecked through our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas." You see, kids, the First Amendment is no longer prophylactic, something to prevent government from violating your natural rights to speak, hear, and think. Instead, things such as what I'm doing right now are like food stamps, political privileges redeemable only at Uncle Sam's Club. ..."
"... Muller indicted foreigners knowing they could not be extradicted to stand trial in the US. These indictments are "guerrilla theater" designed to justify Mueller's investigation. ..."
"... Why are so few people laughing at the microminiature level of this so-called meddling? These guys were run-of-the-mill internet trolls, engaging people in idiotic quarrels like trolls everywhere do. ..."
"... Meanwhile, how many American military bases sit on foreign soil where our people with guns and jets meddle for a living? How many countries get our ridiculously misnamed "foreign aid" where we tax America's middle class to bribe foreigners' rich people to do our bidding? ..."
"... All of MSM is owned by one foreign entity with one anti-American agenda. They interfere in every election, hell they hand pick the candidates, make em sign a pledge/oath to the foreign nation. Will Mueller be going after any of these traitors? Why isn't Mueller in prison for 9/11 cover up Mr. Sessions? ..."
Why didn't the CIA or the NSA or the FBI pick this up?
That is the $64,000 question that the indictment does not address, and we may never know the
answer to it. If the purpose of all the warrantless spying -- in direct contravention of the
Constitution, no less -- is to keep the country safe from foreign assault, whether by bombs in
a subway or by guns in an office building or by hacking into computers, why didn't our 60,000
domestic, and God only knows how many foreign, spies catch this Russian interference?
One answer is information overload. By spying on everyone all the time, the spies have too
much data through which to sift, and they miss the evidence of coming terror -- just as they
did with the killings in Orlando, in San Bernardino, at the Boston Marathon, on a New York bike
path and even recently at a school in Florida, all of which were preceded by internet chatter
that would have tipped off a trained listener to the plans of the killers.
Well, shucks. No Russophobic dirk to look for this week in the folds of his robe -- Mr.
Napolitano is finally full on, swinging the Establishment sword at "the Kremlin" and "its
indicted spies." And he's doing it to scare the American people.
"It is a felony for foreign nationals to participate in American federal elections, and it
is a felony for any Americans knowingly to assist them." No citation of the statute(s), or of
the particular acts among all "Judge" has mentioned within the scope of the subject
indictment. He is endorsing the notion that, under the Constitution he pretends to cherish, a
non-US citizen and any American "assistant" can be criminally convicted for "phony web posts"
or "aggressively revealing embarrassing data about Clinton," i.e., publishing anything deemed
relevant to a federal election on the internet. If you suggested after Sunday School there in
Nebraska that your friend check out those documents at Wikileaks, then will Mr. Mueller come
for you? Well, that depends:
"The other reason for the indictment is to smoke out any American collaborators. He has
identified American collaborators, but not by proper name, and the Department of Justice has
said -- not in the indictment, in which case it would be bound by what it says, but in a
press statement, which binds no one -- that the American collaborators were unwitting dupes
of the Russians. My guess is that Mueller's American targets are under electronic and visual
surveillance and that he is listening to their (premature) sighs of relief."
So don't worry, Big Brother most likely still loves you, or at least won't send you to
your room. As long as you were only an "unwitting dupe," and have stopped playing with the
bad kids.
Until Mr. Mueller could get here on his white horse, "the Russians ran unchecked through
our computer systems and the American marketplaces of ideas." You see, kids, the First
Amendment is no longer prophylactic, something to prevent government from violating your
natural rights to speak, hear, and think. Instead, things such as what I'm doing right now
are like food stamps, political privileges redeemable only at Uncle Sam's Club.
I hope there's no gentlemen's agreement that precludes some of the other writers published
on this website from confronting Mr. Napolitano on this vile column.
Muller indicted foreigners knowing they could not be extradicted to stand trial in the US.
These indictments are "guerrilla theater" designed to justify Mueller's investigation.
What would Mueller do if Putin gets tough and: sends one Russian to the US; with say $100
million for his legal defense?
Or if Putin offers to try the Russians in Moscow, in a Russian court, with Mueller
prosecuting them?
Though an indictment is a charge only, it presumably relies on hard evidence of a wide
and deep Russian project -- so wide and so deep that it could only have been approved and
paid for by the Kremlin.
Why are so few people laughing at the microminiature level of this so-called meddling? These
guys were run-of-the-mill internet trolls, engaging people in idiotic quarrels like trolls everywhere do.
Meanwhile, how many American military bases sit on foreign soil where our people with guns
and jets meddle for a living? How many countries get our ridiculously misnamed "foreign aid"
where we tax America's middle class to bribe foreigners' rich people to do our bidding?
To call this flapdoodle about Russian net trolling a joke is far too kind.
All of MSM is owned by one foreign entity with one anti-American agenda. They interfere in
every election, hell they hand pick the candidates, make em sign a pledge/oath to the foreign
nation.
Will Mueller be going after any of these traitors?
Why isn't Mueller in prison for 9/11 cover up Mr. Sessions?
We all know it wasn't Muslims caught celebrating the attack, or busted with explosives inside
of a van leaving New York. Why act like it isn't common knowledge, you're making the FBI look
pretty stoopid Mr. Mueller .look even Faux News messed up and reported it
"... Rachel Maddow feeds the left's appetite for bot conspiracy nonsense. But in 2013, MSNBC personalities, including Maddow, were being promoted by Chinese bots. Does that mean Maddow is a Chinese spy? Bots are ads that pretend to be people. Tracking how they're deployed can be interesting, but it's dangerous to read too much into that. ..."
"... The bot paranoia is being used to delegitimize real stories and candidates. If you can connect bots to a point of view you don't like, then no one really believes it. Link it to a candidate you don't like and he was never really elected. Hook it up to a serial predator in the Senate and you can ignore his victims. ..."
"... But if you believe that, then MSNBC must be a Chinese informational warfare operations. ..."
"... Mad Cow disease. ..."
"... Give me a fucking break, they think bots are going to swing big things. Bots are not very advanced, only annoying. They cannot craft intelligent or persuasive arguments. Yet the establishment is freaking out about them. It goes to show how far down the drain things stand if such lowly, unpersuasive, spamming shittery is deemed a threat to the narrative. ..."
"... That's what democracy is all about - steering the public discourse and manipulating the lowest common denominator, which isn't that hard to do if you own big media. The challenge is in deprogramming all the lies and deceptions, which takes effort initially, after which it just becomes a never ending tragicomic episode. ..."
"... Who the fuck needs bots in North America, U.K. and EU when you have bull dyke's like Rachel "Mad Cow" that still have viewers that actually listen to "him" ..."
The Internet Research Agency indictment accuses a troll bot farm of trying to influence the election in what the media claims
is the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. 9/11 need not apply.
Bots are everywhere.
"Bots Are Trying to Help Populists Win Italy's Election," claims Bloomberg. "Russian Bots Are Using 2016 Tactics to Hijack the
Gun Debate," shrieks Vanity Fair. ABC spins that bots are trying to make Black Panther look bad. "Rampaging Twitter 'bots' bred in
Suffolk farmhouse," the London Times asserts.
This media madness might make you think that bots are some sort of new and advanced technology. But you can see them in the comments
and they've been around forever. Automated programs that log into social media accounts are not a new technology. Internet users
of a bygone era remember seeing them in chat rooms and on bulletin boards without ever rampaging around Suffolk farmhouses.
Bots have become a convenient media scapegoat. The new formula is "Bots + Thing We Disagree With = Proof We're Right". That's
why there are stories claiming that Russian bots are tweeting against gun control or Islamic migration. And it explains the "Russian
Bots Rigged the Election for Trump" meme.
Bots are an informational technique. Media spin reverse engineers the technique to discredit the idea. Not only is that a fallacy,
but bots just piggyback on popular trends to gain influence. Russian bots don't tweet about gun control because they care about guns,
but because they get retweeted. The same was true of the bots promoting Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. There are a million brands
doing the same thing with bots and influencers. But that's okay because they push politically correct messages.
And that's the bot double standard. When Russian bots and trolls push Black Lives Matter, Bernie Sanders or Dakota Access Pipeline
protests, their programmed actions don't reflect on leftist causes, organizations and politicians. But the revelation that Russian
bots and trolls tweeted about the Bill of Rights, Islamic migration or Trump is spun by the media into a conspiracy that indicts
the ideas and discredits the previous election.
The latest example of the Big Bot Conspiracy is a bizarre Newsweek article by Nina Burleigh blaming Senator Franken's problems
on bots. Some might have thought that Franken had been forced to resign for groping women across America. But according to Burleigh,
it was the fault of the Japanese bots.
The feminist activist was already infamous for putting her allegiance to Democrats ahead of sisterhood.
"I would be happy to give him a b_____ just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," Nina Burleigh had said of Bill Clinton.
"I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude." Now Burleigh has brought
her kneepads to the raided offices of Newsweek.
Nina Burleigh's article blames Franken's problems on "fake news sites, an army of Twitter bots and other cyber tricks". The Democrat
Senator's original accuser is dismissed as a "Hooters pinup girl and lad-mag model". So there was either nothing wrong with groping
her or no reason to believe her.
That's what leftists denounce as 'slut-shaming', but, as with Bill Clinton, it's okay when Democrats do it.
Burleigh mentions the "release of a picture of a Tweeden and Franken" (editors are one of the casualties of Newsweek's troubles),
but neglects to mention that it's a picture of Franken groping Tweeden. None of the other many accusers rate a mention from this
feminist Franken activist.
There was the feminist choir member and book editor who accused Franken of groping her at the Women's Political Caucus. It's really
hard to write her off as a "right-wing plant" or a "lad-mag model".
Especially since she then voted for Senator Franken.
Another accuser was groped at the Loft Literary Center in Minneapolis and claimed that Franken wanted to join her in the bathroom.
Nina Burleigh would have probably told her to go along and bring her senatorial kneepads in gratitude for his support of Planned
Parenthood.
A Democrat congressional aide remembers Franken trying to give her an open mouth kiss while he was still a radio host with Air
America. "It's my right as an entertainer," she recalls Franken telling her.
An Army vet on a USO tour described being groped by Franken during the Iraq War. "When he put his arm around me, he groped my
right breast. He kept his hand all the way over on my breast."
Jezebel, a hard left feminist site, offered an account from a liberal "former elected official in New England" who remembers Franken
trying to plant a "wet, open-mouthed kiss" on her, on stage.
Instead of addressing the many accounts of Franken's liberal accusers who supported him and, many of whom indicated they didn't
want him to quit, Burleigh, like most Frankentruthers from Tom Arnold to Richard Silverstein, smears Leeann Tweeden while ignoring
Franken's numerous other accusers.
After silencing the women who came out against Franken, Nina Burleigh surreally claims that the Franken accusations had served
to "silence the testimonies of eight former female staffers who defended the Minnesota Democrat".
Presenting testimonies from the few women you didn't grope is not considered a compelling argument.
But instead of talking about any of this, Burleigh talks about bots. A "bot army" made the Franken accusations go viral. And then
there was "a developer named Atsufumi Otsuka" who "registered a web domain in Japan" that hosted "Japanese-registered fake-news sites".
But, "by November 17, the trending of 'Al Franken' was officially also a Russian intelligence operation."
The Japanese and the Russians had teamed up against the Minnesota groper. This wasn't just worse than Pearl Harbor. It was WW2
and the Cold War combined in one hashtag.
"Researchers have found that each bot account had 30 to 60 followers, all Japanese. The first follower for each account was either
Japanese or Russian," Burleigh breathlessly relates.
Now that the Russian and Japanese bots had teamed up, all hope for humanity was lost.
Burleigh's article has more international locations than a Tom Clancy novel. It also completely ignores the question of whether
Franken groped his victims to discuss the bots who tweeted about it.
That's not accidental. Burleigh doesn't want to talk about whether Franken is guilty; she wants to write a progressive thriller
in which international bots caused the problem by talking about it. And if it can be shown that bots amplified a scandal, then the
facts somehow no longer matter. In the same way that if it can be shown that bots amplified Trump's message, the 2016 election results
were illegitimate.
But shooting the messenger bot doesn't tell us anything the truth of the inconvenient message.
Since the election, these types of articles are everywhere. They rely on the work of "researchers" who are usually partisan activists,
often amateurs with no actual technical training, to spread conspiracy theories. These conspiracy theories confuse correlation and
causation. If a foreign bot retweets Trump, he works for the bot's masters. If a bot tweets any conservative story, it's a right-wing
global bot plot.
Anyone who knows anything about how the internet works knows that this is nonsense.
Bots imitate to amplify. In this comments section, a bot will show up sooner or later, it will copy a comment that someone else
made and post it in order to get likes so that it resembles a real account. For every stupid bot telling you how much it makes by
working online, there's a smarter bot leaving legitimate comments to blend in. And so bots tweet, comment and chat about everything
popular.
If there's a trending topic, the bots will quickly show up. And everyone uses them.
Rachel Maddow feeds the left's appetite for bot conspiracy nonsense. But in 2013, MSNBC personalities, including Maddow, were
being promoted by Chinese bots. Does that mean Maddow is a Chinese spy? Bots are ads that pretend to be people. Tracking how they're
deployed can be interesting, but it's dangerous to read too much into that.
Correlating bots with narratives isn't actually causation.
The bot paranoia is being used to delegitimize real stories and candidates. If you can connect bots to a point of view you
don't like, then no one really believes it. Link it to a candidate you don't like and he was never really elected. Hook it up to
a serial predator in the Senate and you can ignore his victims.
But if you believe that, then MSNBC must be a Chinese informational warfare operations.
Give me a fucking break, they think bots are going to swing big things. Bots are not very advanced, only annoying. They
cannot craft intelligent or persuasive arguments. Yet the establishment is freaking out about them. It goes to show how far down
the drain things stand if such lowly, unpersuasive, spamming shittery is deemed a threat to the narrative.
Yeah, I can't imagine reading CNN balls deep or other garbage groupthink mouthpieces that apparently alot of zombies take as
gospel. I go to CNN only to dip my feet in the water and see how fucking stupid its all becoming. Other than that, its a brain
killer.
That's what democracy is all about - steering the public discourse and manipulating the lowest common denominator, which isn't
that hard to do if you own big media. The challenge is in deprogramming all the lies and deceptions, which takes effort initially,
after which it just becomes a never ending tragicomic episode.
Who the fuck needs bots in North America, U.K. and EU when you have bull dyke's like Rachel "Mad Cow" that still have viewers
that actually listen to "him"?!!!
The "Russian troll" farm was a marketing/spam business.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange weighed in on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's "13 Russian troll" indictment noting that the
Russians bots from The Internet Research Agency, spent thousands of dollars on Facebook ads to grow their audiences something
that is very common and encouraged by Facebook.
Mueller "troll farm" indictment today
– explicitly states no collusion
– does not mention WikiLeaks
– states trolls intent to support Trump & Sanders, oppose Clinton, Cruz
– states trolls intent on anti-Trump AND pro-Trump rallies post electionhttps://t.co/uMxBAwOeOY
The Russian ads mentioned in Mueller's indictment were already released by the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017.
Facebook previously announced the Russian ads comprised .004% of their advertising during the election.
Assange tweeted all this out on Friday, but of course the mainstream media failed to note any of this while reporting its propaganda
to those who naively listen and believe in the nonsense (courtesy
The Gateway Pundit)
Buried in the Mueller astro-turfing indictment is something that we have long suspected. The Internet Research
Agency's "troll farm" is geared to develop audience in socially active communities (e.g through aligned memes), in order to spam
them on behalf of anyone willing to pay: pic.twitter.com/sms0YAKB3j
Julian Assange: Buried in the Mueller astro-turfing indictment is something that we have long suspected. The
Internet Research Agency's "troll farm" is geared to develop audience in socially active communities (e.g through aligned memes),
in order to spam them on behalf of anyone willing to pay.
Before advertising networks can advertise they must build audience. How much of IRA's activities were simply
trying to build audience by gaining followers using tweets and memes likely to be shared in those communities?
Julian Assange: Before advertising networks can advertise they must build audience. How much of IRA's activities
were simply trying to build audience by gaining followers using tweets and memes likely to be shared in those communities?
IRA allegedly also ran kitten appreciation groups. Are we also to believe that these kittens were also
a plot to divide America? To not distinguish between audience building and customer advertising payload is sketchy.
Julian Assange: IRA allegedly also ran kitten appreciation groups. Are we also to believe that these kittens
were also a plot to divide America? To not distinguish between audience building and customer advertising payload is sketchy.
The US has 320 million people with a trillion dollar media and cultural sector that employees over a million
people. I do not assess that it is possible whatsoever to divide America by trying to "heighten the differences" with a hundred
trolls.
Julian Assange: The US has 320 million people with a trillion dollar media and cultural sector that employees
over a million people. I do not assess that it is possible whatsoever to divide America by trying to "heighten the differences" with
a hundred trolls.
Re-enforcing audience bias is exactly what Facebook & Google have been doing at a vast scale by algorithmically
preying on people's existing biases to increase engagement. In a more traditional manner, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, WaPO etc,
are doing the same thing.
Julian Assange: Re-enforcing audience bias is exactly what Facebook & Google have been doing at a vast scale
by algorithmically preying on people's existing biases to increase engagement. In a more traditional manner, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes,
WaPO etc, are doing the same thing.
Regardless of whether IRA's activities were audience building through pandering to communities or whether
a hare-brained Russian government plan to "heighten the differences" existed, its activities are clearly strategically insignificant
compared to the other forces at play.
Julian Assange: Regardless of whether IRA's activities were audience building through pandering to communities
or whether a hare-brained Russian government plan to "heighten the differences" existed, its activities are clearly strategically
insignificant compared to the other forces at play.
Jimmy Dore did catch on to Assange's explanation as to what exactly was happening at IRA's HQ in St, Petersburg, which
can be summed up as just another social media spam business, which had the misfortune of operating in Russia at a time when
American swamp creatures are trying to find any scintilla of evidence to demonize Russia, and drag on a falling apart "Trump-Russia"
collusion investigation.
"... The bipartisan support Mueller's appointment received is even more telling given that he is the definition of a Washington insider. The power elites across the political spectrum seemed to trust him to, above all, protect their position at the head of the table. ..."
"... McAdams noted that the indictment was especially helpful to the " entire political class in Washington, " which may now " continue with its Cold War 2.0 project " without interference from anyone in favor of normalizing U.S.-Russian relations. In addition, McAdams warned that the recent indictment is likely to have a " chilling effect on the First Amendment, " also a boon to those elements of the political elite that seek to limit the acceptable range of debate on U.S. foreign policy. ..."
The bipartisan
support Mueller's appointment received is even more telling given that he is the definition of
a Washington insider. The power elites across the political spectrum seemed to trust him to,
above all, protect their position at the head of the table.
Part 1
Last Friday, depending on which side of the partisan divide one was watching from, President
Trump was either vindicated or his treachery was confirmed. The impetus for these seemingly
disparate reactions was Robert Mueller's indictment against 13 Russian nationals, the latest
and largest indictment to result from his investigation into alleged collusion between the
Trump campaign and the Russian government.
However, over the nine months that Mueller's investigation has been active, it has continuously
grown from its original purpose of investigating Russian collusion, expanding to include the
business dealings of Trump and his inner circle with countries ranging from Qatar to China,
meaning that the probe is no longer expressly about Russian collusion.
The drift of focus from its original purpose -- as well as its failure to produce any
connection between the Trump campaign, the Russian government, and the leaks of DNC and John
Podesta's emails -- has led critics who place themselves outside of the left-right paradigm to
treat this latest indictment with skepticism. Not only that, but concerns have been raised that
the real purpose of Mueller's probe is much more subtle and nefarious than publicly admitted
and that it may itself be a threat to American democracy.
One such critic is Daniel McAdams, political analyst and executive director of the Ron Paul
Institute for Peace and Prosperity. McAdams, in an interview with MintPress News, stated that
the Mueller indictment " has something for everybody, " explaining the strikingly
different reactions from the establishment left and right.
However, McAdams noted that the indictment was especially helpful to the " entire political
class in Washington, " which may now " continue with its Cold War 2.0 project "
without interference from anyone in favor of normalizing U.S.-Russian relations. In addition,
McAdams warned that the recent indictment is likely to have a " chilling effect on the First
Amendment, " also a boon to those elements of the political elite that seek to limit the
acceptable range of debate on U.S. foreign policy.
Like every single hotly publicized Russiagate "bombshell" that has broken since this
nonsense began, Mueller's indictment of 13 Russian social media trolls was paraded around as
proof of something hugely significant (
an "act of war" in this case), but on closer examination turns out to be empty. The always
excellent 'Moon of Alabama' recently
made a solid argument that has also been advanced by Russiagate skeptics like TYT's
Michael
Tracey and Max Blumenthal of The Real
News, pointing out that there is in fact no evidence that the troll farming operation was an
attempt to manipulate the US election, nor indeed that it had any ties to the Russian
government at all, nor indeed that it was anything other than a crafty Russian civilian's money
making scheme.
The notion that a few Russian trolls committed a "conspiracy to defraud the United States"
by "sowing discord" with a bunch of wildly contradictory posts endorsing all different
ideologies sounds completely ridiculous in a country whose mainstream media spends all its time
actively creating political division anyway, but when you look at it as a civilian operation to
attract social media followers to sock puppet accounts with the goal of selling promoted posts
for profit, it makes perfect sense. James Corbett of The Corbett Report has a great
video about how absolutely bizarre it is that public dialogue is ignoring the fact that
these trolls overwhelmingly used mainstream media like the Washington Post in their shares
instead of outlets like RT and Infowars. As a scheme to acquire followers, it makes perfect
sense. As a scheme to subvert America, it's nonsensical.
There is currently no evidence that the Russian government interfered in the US election.
But it is worth pointing out that if they did they had every right to.
"Whataboutism" is the word of the day . At some
point it was decreed by the internet forum gods that adding "-ism" to a description of
something that someone is doing makes for a devastating argument in and of itself, and people
have hastened to use this tactic as a bludgeon to silence anyone who points out the extremely
obvious and significant fact that America interferes in elections more than any other
government on earth.
"Okay, so America isn't perfect and we've meddled a few times," the argument goes. "So what?
You're saying just because we've done it that makes it okay for Russia to do it?"
Actually, yes. Of course it does. Clearly. That isn't a "whataboutism", it's an observation
that is completely devastating to the mainstream Russia narrative. If it's okay for the CIA to
continuously interfere in the elections of other countries up to and including modern times, it
is okay for other countries to interfere in theirs. Only in the most warped American
supremacist reality tunnel is that not abundantly obvious.
It amazes me that more people aren't willing to call this like it is. No, it would not be
wrong for Russia to interfere in America's elections. Yes, what America did to Russia
absolutely would make a proportionate retaliation okay. Of course it would.
Imagine this:
A guy in a cowboy hat runs into a bar and starts punching people. Most of them just rub
their sore jaws and hunch over their drinks hoping to avoid any trouble, but one guy in a fur
cap sets down his vodka and shoves the man in the cowboy hat.
The man in the cowboy hat begins shrieking like a little girl. All his friends rush to his
side to comfort him and begin angrily shaking their fists at the man in the fur cap.
"Hey, he punched me!" says the man in the fur cap.
"That's a whataboutism!" sobs the man in the cowboy hat.
Can you imagine anything more ridiculous?
Seriously, how do people think this is a thing? How does anyone think it's legitimate to
respond to
my article about a former CIA Director openly admitting that the US still to this day
interferes with elections around the world babbling about "whataboutisms" ?
What a doofy, indefensible monkey wrench to throw into the gears of political discourse.
Yes, obviously by asserting that it is acceptable for the CIA to meddle in other countries'
elections, the US has created an environment where that sort of thing is acceptable. If
Americans just want to embrace their American supremacist bigotry and say "Yeah we can do that
to you but you can't do it to us cuz we have big guns and we said so," that's at least a
logically consistent position. Crying like little bitches and behaving as though they've been
victimized by some egregious immorality is not.
Channel 4 News reported on the research of the Institute for Politics and Strategy at
Carnegie Mellon University's Don Levin back in November, writing the following:
Dov Levin, an academic from the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon
University, has calculated the vast scale of election interventions by both the US and
Russia.
According to his research
, there were 117 "partisan electoral interventions" between 1946 and 2000. That's around one
of every nine competitive elections held since Second World War.
The majority of these – almost 70 per cent – were cases of US interference.
And these are not all from the Cold War era; 21 such interventions took place between 1990
and 2000, of which 18 were by the US.
If Americans don't like election meddling, they need to demand that their government stops
doing it. As long as it remains the very worst offender in that department, the US is entitled
to nothing other than the entire world meddling in its elections.
I shouldn't even have to say this. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't
dish it out if you can't take it.
Interesting information Guccifer II. He falsified the evidence.
Follow the money. Along with a smoke screen for Hillary political fiasco, Russiagate is a swindle to get more money for intelligence
agencies and MIC. For about 15 companies who run the US foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... The CIA and NSA, and other intelligence agencies all work on behalf of these corporate entities. There main objective is to keep us all uninformed and dumber than a bag of hammers, so they can extort all the wealth from our great nation ..."
"... If this video won't stop the brainless McCarthyist regressives from knowing the truth about Russiagate, nothing will. And I mean absolutely nothing. Except maybe if they come here to Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, NYC. We got lots of Russian immigrants here and they are just normal people ..."
"... Russiagate is an excuse to spend more on the military. Wow- surprising, yet somehow not surprising. American Empire is the biggest destabilizing force in the world ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 is the United States government. Either the CIA, FBI, NSA or DHS. I'd say it was the CIA with the NSA being a close second ..."
Also, when did Russian hackers become so stupid? Since when has the GRU being unable to get even the basics like the up to
date email list for the Clinton campaign, started using two-year-old obsolete malware instead of 0-day exploits, completely forgetting
that VPN's exist and how to spoof an IP address, and on and on and on. These aren't the guys who cloned Nasdaq!
Thank you jimmy so much for doing this interview and thank you Bill Binney for so clearly explaining the technical and structural
reasons why Russiagate is both false and ceaselessly pushed. Amazing interview!
My experience working on the Mississippi democratic party executive committee, the Hinds county Executive committee, and working
for the state employees union here in Mississippi has educated me on the fact that democratic reps and republican reps work together
to pass legislation to benefit the corporate class i.e. business. All you who have replied to my comment make sense, but we must
remember that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republician parties, they all work for their corporate masters.
The CIA and NSA, and other intelligence agencies all work on behalf of these corporate entities. There main objective is
to keep us all uninformed and dumber than a bag of hammers, so they can extort all the wealth from our great nation. In other
words they our commiting treason upon the American people and our constitution and all should be through in prison for the rest
of their lives and all ill-gotten wealth given back to the people of these great nation by rebuilding the infrastructure of America,
investing in the education of our people to secure a prosperous future, and provide healthcare for all Americans. We can ensure
this happens in two ways, pass the 28th amendment and pass FDR's 2nd bill of rights(worker's bill of rights). This will ensure
that corporations will never take control of our country again.
Can we please now move onto whom the person was that stole the data from the DNC? Can I take a stab in the dark (or maybe two
shots to the back of the head?) and guess his name was Seth Rich?
I know I commented this already in the last segment, but this guy is absolutely awesome. Everything he says is substantial,
non-speculative and supported by facts. You're becoming a proper journalist Jimmy. More of people like this please. I got my credit
card again. I will donate shortly. Keep up.
As long as they keep lying about Russia they can continue the sanctions against Russia. Russia is holding it's own even with
the sanctions but originally under Putin Russia had paid off all it's debt to the IMF (World Bank). Now their debt is increasing,
partly because of the sanctions and partly because of helping Syria and preparing for the US to cause a great war. Russia is a
threat to the IMF (World Bank). Russia and China want trade outside of the Petrol Dollar. When Russia was debt free from the IMF
(World Bank) it was completely independent of them. Russia did not have to take orders from the international bankers. That is
why they lie about Russia.
If this video won't stop the brainless McCarthyist regressives from knowing the truth about Russiagate, nothing will. And
I mean absolutely nothing. Except maybe if they come here to Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, NYC. We got lots of Russian immigrants
here and they are just normal people.
Russiagate is an excuse to spend more on the military. Wow- surprising, yet somehow not surprising. American Empire is
the biggest destabilizing force in the world
As I tried to tell you the previous time you had referenced the "conclusions" of the CIA groups, this data nonsense he is handwaving
about is all quite feasible, by using a nearby national server, and much skepticism is deserved! Also he doesn't seem to know
what he is talking about, from all of the paraphrasing.
I am also quite reminded of the psychological incorporation into personal behaviors by habit of the standards and policies
of the industry or professional standards, which for the US Intelligence community includes an explicit policy of disinformation
and dishonesty.
How the hell would the NSA's "man in the middle" logging servers see that the transfer occurs to a local USB2 drive (he assumes
this is the case because 40 megabytes per second is approximately the rate of the USB2 protocol of 400 megabits per second...
Very few USB flash drives were manufactured with solid state storage chips fast enough to reach that full transfer rate before
the widespread adoption of USB3, or the modern USB3.1. Essentially, your chosen headline title is a false clickbait, because as
of today there is insufficient evidence to draw ANY conclusion
Just as they smeared Joe Wilson & his wife, and other great Courageous Americans that came out AGAINST the invasion of Iraq!
Until we start DEMANDING those LIARS leave their seats in Washington, put on the Military Gear, and GO to the Countries they want
to invade! I am past FED UP with them sacrificing our Troops, they return home to be MISTREATED, and kicked to the curb! Americans,
wake up and DEMAND that they GO!
in
Analysis
,
Latest
Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of
American Investigative Journalism
Some people's greed, apparently, knows
no limits -- not even when it could produce a world-ending nuclear war.
"... For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat ..."
"... Are you reading this commentary? ..."
"... To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that enmity with Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is a smashing success already. ..."
For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the
heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat colluded to
ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and, when that failed, to undermine the nascent
presidency of Donald Trump. Agencies tainted by this corruption include not only the FBI and
the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the Obama White House, the State Department, the NSA, and
the CIA,
plus their British sister organizations MI6 and GCHQ , possibly along with the British
Foreign Office (with the involvement of former
British ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood ) and even Number 10 Downing Street.
Those implicated form a regular rogue's gallery of the Deep State: Peter Strzok (formerly
Chief of the FBI's Counterespionage Section, then Deputy Assistant Director of the
Counterintelligence Division; busy bee Strzok is implicated not only in exonerating Hillary
from her email server crimes but initiating the Russiagate investigation in the first place,
securing a FISA warrant using the dodgy "Steele Dossier," and nailing erstwhile National
Security Adviser General Mike Flynn on a
bogus charge of "lying to the FBI "); Lisa Page (Strzok's paramour and a DOJ lawyer
formerly assigned to the all-star Democrat lineup on the Robert Mueller Russigate inquisition);
former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and – let's not forget – current Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein,
himself implicated by having signed at least one of the dubious FISA warrant requests .
Finally, there's reason to believe that former CIA Director John O.
Brennan may have been the mastermind behind the whole operation .
Not to be overlooked is the possible implication of a pack of former Democratic
administration officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
former National Security Adviser Susan Rice , and President Barack Obama himself, who
according to text communications between Strzok and Page "wants to know everything we're
doing." Also involved is the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton operatives Sidney
Blumenthal and Cody Shearer – rendering the ignorance of Hillary herself totally
implausible.
On the British side we have "former" (suuure . . . ) MI6 spook Christopher Steele, diplomat
Wood, former GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan (who resigned a
year ago under mysterious circumstances ), and whoever they answered to in the Prime
Minister's office.
The growing sense of panic was palpable. Oh my – this is a curtain that just cannot be
allowed to be pulled back!
What to do, what to do . . .
Ah, here's the ticket – come out swinging against the main enemy. That's not even
Donald Trump. It's Russia and Vladimir Putin. Russia! Russia! Russia!
Hence the unveiling of an indictment against 13 Russian citizens
and three companies for alleged meddling in U.S. elections and various ancillary crimes.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume all the allegations in the indictment are true,
however unlikely that is to be the case. (While that would be the American legal rule for a
complaint in a civil case, this is a criminal indictment, where there is supposedly a
presumption of innocence. Rosenstein even mentioned that in his press conference, pretending
not to notice that that presumption doesn't apply to Russian Untermenschen – certainly not to
Olympic athletes and really not to Russians at all, who are presumed guilty on "genetic"
grounds .)
Based on the public announcement of the indictment by Rosenstein – who is effectively
the Attorney General in place of the pro forma holder of that office, Jeff Sessions
(R-Recused) – and on an initial examination of the indictment, and we can already draw a
few conclusions:
Finally, "collusion" is dead! If Mueller and the anti-constitutional cabal had any hint
that anyone on the Trump team cooperated with those indicted, they would have included it.
They didn't. That means that after months and months of "investigation" – or really,
setting "perjury traps" and trying to nail people on unrelated accusations, like Paul Manafort's alleged circumvention of lobbying and financial reporting laws – and wasting
however many millions of dollars, Mueller and his merry band got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bupkes.
Nada.The fake charge that Trump colluded with the Russians is exposed as the fraud it always
was.
And yet, "collusion" still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much less
evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, "colluded" with the indicted
Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and disparage
Hillary. Thus, Trump is guilty of being favored by Russia even if there was no actual
cooperation. It's a kind of zombie walking dead collusion, collusion by intent (of someone
else) absent actual collusion. Its purpose in the indictment is to discredit Trump as a
Russian puppet, albeit an unwitting one. The indictment says the Russian desperados supported
Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein too – so they're also Putin's dupes.
Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points to any
connection of those indicted to the Russian government! This is on a par with the hysteria
over social media placements by "Russian interests" on account of which hysterical Senators demanded that tech
giants impose content controls , or dimwit
CIA agents getting bilked out of $100,000 by a Russian scam artist in Berlin in exchange
for – well, pretty much nothing. ( The CIA denies it , which
leads one to suspect it is true.) Paragraph 95 of the indictment points to what amounted to a
click-bait scam to fleece American merchants and social media sites from between $25 and $50
per post for promotional content. Paragraph 88 refers to "self-enrichment" as one motive of
the alleged operation. That makes a lot more sense than the bone-headed claim in the
indictment that the Russian goal was to "sow discord in the U.S. political system" by posting
content on "divisive U.S. political and social issues." What! Americans disagree about stuff?
The Russians are setting us against each other! In announcing the indictment,
Rosenstein said the Russians wanted to "promote discord in the United States and
undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." (He wagged his
finger with resolve at that point.) It evidently doesn't occur to Rosenstein that he and his
pals have undermined public confidence in our institutions by perverting them for political
ends.
Demonizing dissent. Those indicted allegedly sought to attract Americans' attention to
their diabolical machinations through appeal to hot-button issues (immigration, Black Lives
Matter, religion, etc.) and popular hashtags (#Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA,
#Hillary4Prison). Have you taken a stand on divisive issues, Dear Reader? Have you used any
of these hashtags? Are you reading this commentary? You too might be an unwitting
Russian stooge! Vladimir Putin is inside your head! Hopefully DOJ will set up a hotline where
patriotic citizens influenced without their knowledge can now report themselves, now that
they've been alerted. Are you a thought criminal, comrade ?
An amateurish, penny-ante scheme with no results – compared to what the U.S. does.
At worst, even if all the allegations in the indictment are true – a big "if" –
it would still amount to the kind of garden-variety kicking each other under the table that a
lot of countries routinely engage in. As described in the indictment this gargantuan Russian
scheme was (as reported
by Politico ) an "expensive [sic] effort that cost millions of dollars and
employed as many as hundreds of people." Millions of dollars! Hundreds of
people! How did the American republic manage to survive the onslaught? Rosenstein was keen to
point out for the umpteenth time that nothing the Russians are alleged to have done (never
mind what they actually might have done, which is far less) had any impact on the election.
That stands in sharp contrast to the lavishly funded, multifaceted, global political
influence and meddling operations the U.S. conducts in nations around the world under the
guise of "democracy promotion." The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with its
Democratic and Republican sub-organizations, can be considered the flagship of a community of
ostensibly private but government-funded or subsidized organizations that provides the soft
compliment to American hard military power. The various governmental, quasi-governmental, and
nongovernmental components of this network – sometimes called the " Demintern " in
analogy to the Comintern , an organization
comparable in global ambition if differing in ideology and methods – are also
coordinated
internationally at the official level through the less-well-known " Community of Democracies ." It is often
difficult to know where the "official" entities (CIA, NATO, the State Department,
Pentagon, USAID) divide from ostensibly nongovernmental but tax dollar-supported groups (NED,
Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) and privately funded organizations that
cooperate with them towards common goals (especially the Open Society organizations funded by
billionaire George Soros). Among the specialties of this network are often
successful "
color revolutions " targeting leaders and governments disfavored by Washington for regime
change – a far cry from the pathetic Russian operation alleged in the indictment.
"
Mitt Romney was right ." Already many of Trump's supporters are not only crowing with
satisfaction that the indictment proves there was no collusion but refocusing their gaze from
the domestic culprits within the FBI, DOJ, etc., to a bogus foreign threat. "This whole saga
just brings back the 2012 election, and the fact that Mitt Romney was right" for "suggesting
that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe," is
the new GOP meme . To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that
enmity with
Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is
a smashing success already.
The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract Americans'
attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting attention to
a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are themselves
complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work.
On the subject of the real motivations for Mueller and the Russophobic hysteria, I came
across a Twitter user the other day who clearly gets it; @BethLynch2020 's Twitter name is "Killing Russians
because Hill lost is bad actually". Outstanding.
Notable quotes:
"... Breakfast at Tiffany's ..."
"... OK if you are with her ..."
"... counter-intelligence ..."
"... influenced the election ..."
"... insurance policy ..."
"... Mueller announces another process charge, while the Flynn sentencing is on hold as a federal judge orders Mueller to provide Flynn all related documents. Then there is Nunes, Goodlatte, and Grassley with their investigation, which as this article notes is slowly reaching into Brennan, Clapper, Rice and Powers. ..."
"... Bloomberg (your link): "Manafort and Gates are accused of failing to register as agents in the U.S. for political consulting they did in Ukraine ." Question: Is Christoper Steele registered under FARA? Did anybody in the DNC/Clinton campaign/Fusion GPS know he was a "foreign person" (see the SVR 13 indictment) and thus had to register .. ..."
Steele to drive a dagger into the heart of American
democracy - our system of free and fair elections.
He doesn't look dangerous, does he? He looks like the very image of a noble ally,
not like some ignoble troll. What possible deed could he have done to draw the ire eye of the
American government? We know what Russian trolls did. Check the 13 Troll
indictment:
"U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial
disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of
any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first
registering with the Attorney General."
" strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. ..... derogatory information....."
Hmmmm. I'm sure this gentlemen, still under the obligations of the Official Secrets Act, is
a registered foreign agent in the US, right? I'm sure Her Britannic Majesty's government is
quite happy with what this "former" intelligence officer has done with his knowledge, skills,
abilities and of course, contacts, to affect the special relationship between our
nations.
I've forgotten, is it "Fake news never lies", or that "people never lie to fake news"?
"After Mr Trump won the election, an ally of John McCain, the Republican senator, visited
Britain to meet Mr Steele and read the dossier for himself. ..... He was reportedly told to
"look for a man wearing a blue raincoat and carrying a Financial Times under his arm" at
Heathrow Airport. A copy of the dossier was eventually passed to Mr McCain. "
That sounds like a scene from an episode of Rumpole of the Bailey. Only that episode
featured biscuits....... Somehow I think Victoria Nuland will eventually come into the picture
here too.
Undoubtedly what Mr. Steele found, compiled or created was presented to somebody somewhere -
besides "allies" of one of Mr. Trump's political opponents - Senator McCain:
What? I'm sure somebody wrote a memo. Nunes
memo. Or two.
Grassley-Graham memo . Wow. Something seems rather
Schiffty . Sigh. "classified" It seems politicians don't trust Americans with the truth.
Letting the Truth out wouldn't be good for re-election, would it?
Confused yet? Keeping track of this scandal is hard work; it could drive a man to drink.
... ... ...
Now why would anyone send a Breakfast at Tiffany's style weather
report to an employee of Fusion GPS? To get the word out to who was to do what to whom? I
wonder. Now what the heck does that have to do with Ohr and Steel? Ohr... right, an employee of
Fusion GPS. Which just happens to employ our noble ally Mr. Steele. Ohr, who's husband just
happens to be....
"Bruce Ohr, the Department of Justice official who brought opposition research on President
Donald Trump to the FBI, did not disclose that Fusion GPS, which performed that research at the
Democratic National Committee's behest, was paying his wife, and did not obtain a conflict of
interest waiver from his superiors at the Justice Department,....."
Why there can't be any conflict with that. Let's check the official DOJ code of conduct. I
know it's around here somewhere.
Crimethink - Nope, not happening here. Bellyfeel. Well a lot of that goin' on, but nope,
nothing to do with integrity . Thoughtcrime- Nope. All the correct bellyfeel was
happ'n. Integrity. That word is not in that dictionary, so that conduct must be OK if you
are with her . Congratulations, you get to keep a job and your pension Bruce almighty . For now.
What else is in that book? Doubletalk? Naw, that's in the fake news handbook. The DOJ would
never stoop that low.
Now if only somebody at the Counter Intelligence section of the FBI could get to the heart
of the
fbi lawyer he's banging on the side. matter about what criminal conduct was occuring. Did
that FBI agent responsible for counter-intelligence talk to DOJ attorney Bruce Ohr's
boss, the attorney who just happened to be.... the pièces de résistance
Sally "I don't have to obey the head of the Executive Branch of Government" Yates ? I
wonder what's in the record of the meetings those two had? They did keep records? Maybe
something simple like that email from
Susan Rice - to Susan Rice. For the record.
Well, at least after more than a year we finally have some indictments. So what kind of
conduct that influenced the election is criminal, according to the indictment handed
down by the Mueller team?
Count 1: ".... U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political
activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General. And
U.S. law requires certain foreign nationals seeking entry to the United States to obtain a visa
by providing truthful and accurate information to the government." If you have someone fly to
london and get that info is that OK or is that criminal?
Count 2: "... defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful
functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the
U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016." If you
delete all your emails -
384 pages does that count as "impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of
government"? Has the Mueller team interviewed Strzok and Page? How about not telling anyone
your wife works for Fusion GPS, creator of the dossier that was essential to obtaining the FISA
court indictment?
Count 3: "....... ORGANIZATION began operations to interfere with the U.S. political system,
including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendant ORGANIZATION received funding for its
operations from .... and companies he controlled .... Defendants .... spent significant funds
to further the ORGANIZATION's operations and to pay .... other uncharged ORGANIZATION
employees, salaries and bonuses for their work at the ORGANIZATION."
Who paid Fusion GPS at each stage of their work? Is that criminal?
Count 4:
"..... operated social media pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences....."
If a firm knowingly changes the ranking of social media pages others have created does that
affect the "attraction of US audiences" and thus count as interference in the electoral
process? How about just making sure users of social media never see the content?
ex1
ex2
What a tangled tale they weave. Worthy of Hollywood, pre-Harvey. If nothing else the fallout
has permanently affected some political families. What was it the Dowager Empress said in "55
days at Peking"? "The Dynasty has fallen". Just like the Hilary's. If only she had had an
insurance policy .
Now that is a fine piece of art. Some people look younger when all the life has been taken
out of their political careers. I wonder who did the final deed: Yates, Power, Rice? Perhaps
the artist just merged a successful triumverate of legal beauties. Who gave the go-ahead?
Somebody with a legal mind should dig into the weeds and figure that out.
If only we had a group of lawyers adept at trimming the verge. Sadly, I think we have too
many that drank the koolaid. "What we have now is a highly corrupted system of intelligence and
policymaking, one twisted to serve specific group goals, ends and beliefs held to the point of
religious faith."
Contrary to Mr. Muller' investigations, and what Borg and the MSM wants us to think it's
actually US' closest allies, the politicly corrupting three, aka UK, Israel, and KSA who have
and are meddling in US elections/internal affairs without anybody questioning their
involvement in our internal politics. All these three countries are more, and most, venerable
than any other allies to US' change in Trajectory of her foreign policy, with regard to their
own region. They continue to meddle and insert their interests Many times against and above
US' own interest under the cover of US' most dependable allies. These three country' security
depends on US foreign policy. Other countries may wish to meddle and empower their choices of
US statesmen, but they don't possess an unquestioned blank free security pass to freely
insert themselves in US internal affairs as these three countries posses with consent of the
US Borg.
"Robert Mueller's Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to
divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley
"criminal referral") which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged
in an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections..."
1. "the senior-level officials in the FBI and DOJ were engaged in an expansive conspiracy to
subvert the presidential elections."
-- This is the most damning conclusion that speaks about violation of the US Constitution,
i.e., about the treason within the national security apparatus
2. from Mueller' indictment: "U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain
expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections.
U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within
the United States without first registering with the Attorney General."
-- Right. Bring on Mr. Steele and the UK' brass from the British intelligence agency
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) plus the Lobby cabal.
Apparently much of Mueller's indictment was written up in a Radio Free Europe report from
2015. In any case this indictment opens up the question of which other foreign entities
violated federal statutes? Is Mueller gonna investigate any of them? Or is it just Russia
that he cares about?
It would seem Steele violated the same statutes. When is he going to be indicted by
Mueller?
Bartiromo then goes on to break down how Podesta joined the board of the board of a small
energy company in 2011 which later received $35 million from a Kremlin-funded entity. Other
members of the board of Joule Unlimited included senior Russian official Anatoly Chubais
and oligarch Reuben Vardanyan - a Putin appointee to the Russian economic modernization
council. Podesta jettisoned his shares before the 2016 election, transferring them to his
daughter via a shell corporation
Not everyone agrees with you: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/19/nunes-fbi-and-doj-perps-could-be-put-on-trial/
"House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) stated that there could be legal
consequences for officials who may have misled the FISA court. "If they need to be put on
trial, we will put them on trial. The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies
that we created."
-- Here is explanation to the deprivation of the US citizenry of factual information: "One
glaring sign of the media's unwillingness to displease corporate masters and Official
Washington is the harsh reality that Hersh's most recent explosive investigations, using his
large array of government sources to explore front-burner issues, have not been able to find
a home in any English-speaking newspaper or journal. In a sense, this provides what might be
called a "confidence-building" factor, giving some assurance to deep-state perps that they
will be able to ride this out, and that congressional committee chairs will once again learn
to know their (subservient) place."
-- This is why The Onion could be on a par with The NYT, WaPo, The New Yorker, and such. The
New Yorker used to be a great journal, but under the watchful eye of the Russophobic Remnick,
the journal's {sub}standards have become indistinguishable from the MSM's standards
It all seems like the natural outgrowth of the RHodes-Milner Round Tables and the Atlantic
Council/CFR agenda. Trump was't plucked from the pool of those groomed by the Oxford Scholar
system and his family background is not finance by the anglophile claque and he doesn't seem
to give a hoot about their ideology regarding perpetual domination through finance and
subversion. Elites in the US have affected a posh Cambridge accent for a good century now.
Isn't there an interesting comparison to be made with the Steele 'Dossier' and all that
has followed? How it seems possible that both Letter and dossier could have originated in the
Baltic? How both letter and dossier seem to have been designed to check any rapprochement
with Russia? And have succeeded? In spite of both having howlers of mistakes in each?
I had not thought of the comparison with the Zinoviev Letter, but it is certainly a very
interesting one, about which I need to think further.
Doing a quick Google search, I see that when the FCO historian Gill Bennett produced a
study of the incident in 1999, her best guess was that it was commissioned by White Russian
intelligence circles from forgers in Berlin or the Baltic states, most likely in Riga. And it
brings one up against a question of continuing relevance – where credulity ends and
active mendacity begins.
As to what is happening now, so much has been happening on so many fronts that I am
finding it difficult to keep up. With regard to Steele, there is ample material available
demonstrating that fabricating evidence and corrupting judicial procedures are part of his
'stock-in-trade'.
I can prove this, and I can also prove that ample evidence establishing a 'prima facie'
case that he had been involved in a 'conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice' in
relation to the death of Alexander Litvinenko was made available by me to Sir Robert Owen
years before his Inquiry into that event opened, and suppressed by him.
In relation to current events, however, it still seems to me very much an open question
how far Steele was actually involved in producing the memoranda attributed to him, and how
far he was simply brought in to make it seem as though a hodge-podge put together by others
was a proper intelligence product, adequate to justify FISA applications.
Another set of puzzles has to do with information from pro-Russian sources. With 'The
Duran' and 'The Vineyard of the Saker', it is rather more than possible that, at least some
of the time, these are channelling material from Russian intelligence. This, incidentally, is
not an argument against reading them. Both Alexander Mercouris and Andrei Raevsky are highly
intelligent people, whose views are commonly well worth pondering.
An ironic element, moreover, is that information channelled from Russian intelligence
sources can be both important and accurate because, much of the time, these have every
interest in telling the truth.
As it happens, in relation to the 'Internet Research Group', I think Russian repudiations
of the suggestion that this was used in a Russian government attempt to influence the
American elections are highly likely to be true.
Something so transparent, for so little gain, does not make much sense. And I agree with
'Smoothie X12': "We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity (not a
joke)" sounds like someone trying to frame Russian intelligence, not an operative caught
red-handed.
However, while I have not got to the bottom of this, I think the Scott Humor piece to
which people have linked may mix up the arrests of the two FSB cybersecurity people, and one
Kaspersky person, with those of the members of the 'Shaltai Boltai' group. And Mercouris
earlier appeared rather too happy to suggest that the former were simply involved in criminal
activity.
To my mind, the second memorandum in the dossier, and the final memorandum, read as though
they could have been the product of material supplied through the contacts between the FBI
and FSB cybersecurity people, with a view to laying a trap.
For one thing, if the first memorandum was a fabrication pure and simple, I would expect
it to have 'meshed' better with the improvised disinformation from Alperovitch, of the
'Atlantic Council', and the former GCHQ operative pretending to run a consultancy which did
not actually trade and writing for 'Lawfare' Matt Tait.
For another, I think the 'howlers' in both memoranda could have been deliberately
included, in the expectation that people like Nellie Ohr might believe them – indeed, I
think I may be able to detect a wicked sense of humour.
To have Steele compelled to defend himself in court against a libel suit brought by
Aleksej Gubarev, in relation to claims which would be very difficult to defend, and for which
he had to accept responsibility, although he was not actually responsible, might well have
struck some people as, how shall one put it, 'neat.'
So I think there are a very great many inadequately explored questions about the origins
of the dossier – and also that its eventual effects are very unpredictable.
Both MI6, and Steele personally, have in the past very successfully manipulated judicial
processes in the U.K. in their favour.
However, they have had at least one spectacular failure, which comes of particular
interest in relation to the indictment against German Khan's son-in-law, where he is
apparently entering a guilty plea. It may be material here that Khan, along with his Alfa
colleagues Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, was the subject of another memorandum which
provoked a lawsuit.
Interestingly, it was the firm for which Alex Van Der Swaan works, Skadden Arps, which
instructed Lord Sumption on behalf of Roman Abramovich in the case brought up against the
latter by the late Boris Berezovsky. Having been given a very easy ride by the British courts
up to that point, the latter found himself confronting one of the best legal minds in recent
British history. As a result, Mrs Justice Gloster did not simply throw his case out, but
delivered a damning and long overdue verdict on his credibility as a witness.
Whether Berezovsky's subsequent death was suicide or murder remains an open question. That
if it was murder, the Russian security services were about the least likely culprits does
not. (As with Stephen Curtis and 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili.)
In addition to the Gubarev suit against Steele, and his suit and that of Khan and his
colleagues against BuzzFeed, suits against that company have also been brought by Carter Page
and Michael Cohen.
Unfortunately, Lord Sumption is no longer practising. But the spectacle of Christopher
Steele being cross-examined by some really heavyweight counsel in one or other of these cases
might be a very interesting one. (I would enjoy it!)
Mueller announces another process charge, while the Flynn sentencing is on hold as a federal
judge orders Mueller to provide Flynn all related documents. Then there is Nunes, Goodlatte, and Grassley with their investigation, which as this
article notes is slowly reaching into Brennan, Clapper, Rice and Powers.
So what is the actual charge? Statements to the FBI not matching what was in the
"secretly" recorded meeting tapes from a later date? From the bloomberg article you linked
to: "Alex Van Der Zwaan was charged Feb. 16 with lying to the FBI and Mueller's office about
conversations related to his work on a report prepared by his law firm on the legitimacy of
the criminal prosecution of a former Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko."
"After the pro-Russian government was run out of town in 2014, the new authorities began
investigating."
That's some classic doublespeak there. Just who ran whom out of town? How'd that happen? A
free and fair election? Nobody got more than a tiny paper cut on the purple fingers? Let me
help the poor reporters for Bloomberg:
"Nuland: "I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience the governing
experience. .. We want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out
here and help to midwife this thing."
" he sits on the Chairman's Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute (NDI).
NDI is a project of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)."
Could real news reporters of Bloomberg remind us how much money the NED spent in
Ukraine and why?
Bloomberg (your link):
"Manafort and Gates are accused of failing to register as agents in the U.S. for political
consulting they did in Ukraine ." Question: Is Christoper Steele registered under FARA? Did anybody in the DNC/Clinton
campaign/Fusion GPS know he was a "foreign person" (see the SVR 13 indictment) and thus had
to register ..
Leaky:
Remind me again of the Ukrainian collusion to interfere with the US election so
Donald Trump would get elected President? Perhaps Axios - founded by completely nonpolitical
ex-Politico executives - could do an expose of Mr. Biden's son, the employee of Bursima and
just what the Ukrainian company does.
" . "Joe Biden has been the White House's go-to guy during the Ukraine crisis, touring
former Soviet republics and reassuring their concerned leaders," writes the National
Journal's Marina Koren. "And now, he's not the only Biden involved in the region."....."
"The younger Mr Biden isn't the only American with political ties to have recently joined
Burisma's board. Devon Archer, a former senior advisor to current Secretary of State John
Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign and a college roommate of Mr Kerry's stepson HJ Heinz,
signed on in April."
My, my, in less time than it took the USN to cashier the son of the Vice Present of the
United States for cocaine use a Cyprus based Ukrainian gas company managed to hire him -
after the Glorious kumbayah Maidan Square thingy ran Putin's puppets out of town. If only the
FBI leadership during the Obama administration had been as adept with internet trolls and a
17 yo kid in Broward County Florida. But we know what the leadership of the FBI was doing,
don't we?
Comedy is one way of dealing with this profound idiocy and mockery surely as good a way as
any to fight idiotic use of the law to undermine First Amendment rights.
I am reminded of the wags who years ago printed the RSA encryption algorithm on a T-shirt
so that wearers were able to export 'Auxiliary Military Equipment' (cryptography was
so-classified until 1992). Perhaps similar mockery & mass 'law-breaking' may work in this
case.
On the subject of the real motivations for Mueller and the Russophobic hysteria, I came
across a Twitter user the other day who clearly gets it; @BethLynch2020 's Twitter name is "Killing Russians
because Hill lost is bad actually". Outstanding.
This is a very weak argumentation which is based of very questionable sources (such as Fontanka rag).
Notable quotes:
"... For the evidence Mueller has revealed of incompetence in the Russian campaign, the waste of money expended, and the failure of the campaign's objectives, there are calls in Moscow for Peskov to be sacked. ..."
"... The Christopher Steele dossier accused Peskov of arranging negative media against Hillary Clinton during 2016; for an analysis of the veracity of that claim, read this . For a painstaking analysis of how the Mueller indictment discredits the Steele dossier, read Alexander Mercouris's account . ..."
Feb 18, 2018
The three types of power which decide the fate of regimes are force, fraud and subversion; that's to say, arms, money, media.
The Roman Empire was good at using small armies to take on much bigger ones; by adeptly concentrating their force they managed
to rule much larger large territories than the legions could cover.
The Byzantine Empire excelled at using bribery of locals to stay loyal; the pre-requisite for that was the intelligence to identify
who to pay, how much, and how often. The British Empire used subversion to divide and rule most of their colonial targets, but if
the British were matched for firepower and intelligence, they failed and were defeated – by the American colonists, the Maoris, the
Boers, the Germans, the Japanese.
The American Empire excels
at subversion on the home front. But abroad it usually combines fraud with subversion. When these two fail to preserve or topple
regimes, US-made wars have been a consistent failure. The Russians are better than Americans at force and fraud. Schemes of subversion
like the US plots to promote Boris Yeltsin, Anatoly Chubais, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Alexei Navalny to rule the Kremlin, are not
winners with Russians; they are judged successful only by foreigners who read the Washington Post and London Times.
The Kremlin official responsible for Russian media involvement in the US presidential election of 2016 was Dmitry Peskov (2nd
image, left); he doubles as spokesman for President Vladimir Putin. For Peskov's intention to employ social media he has not been
indicted nor identified as a co-conspirator by Special Prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III ( right). For the evidence Mueller has
revealed of incompetence in the Russian campaign, the waste of money expended, and the failure of the campaign's objectives, there
are calls in Moscow for Peskov to be sacked.
He has so far avoided responding. "We have not yet familiarized ourselves [with the Mueller indictment], " he told Reuters.
The 37-page indictment, dated February 16 and signed personally by Mueller, can be read in full
here .
Mueller's indictment reveals how much evidence was gathered from the internet server companies and social media platforms, Facebook,
YouTube-Google, Twitter and Instagram, together with their banks and the PayPal payment service. But this is circumstantial evidence;
the corpus delicti is absent.
Missing from the charge sheet is identification of the victims of the crime alleged, the numbers of victims, and the money spent
to subvert or defraud them, as Mueller charges. The indictment alleges that "significant numbers of Americans" were targeted, "significant
funds spent", and "thousands of US dollars [paid for advertising] every month"; but no evidence is presented of these numbers. No
witness has come forward to testify to having suffered; no alleged perpetrator or conspirator to substantiate criminal intention.
Also, these aren't the crimes formally charged against the accused Russians.
THE FIVE-CHARGE ALLEGATION, BUT ONLY TWO CRIMINAL COUNTS CHARGED
In short, the Russians are accused of violating the US law on registering as foreign agents, as well as the crimes of stealing
identity data from real Americans and fabricating false identities to open and operate US bank accounts, credit cards and the PayPal
system. Although "interfer[ence] in US political and electoral processes" is alleged, it's an orphan -- no such crime is charged
in the indictment.
Another orphan is the charge of obtaining visas "through false and fraudulent statements" and "false pretenses in order to collect
intelligence for their interference operations". Mueller alleges this offence was committed in 2014, when three of the thirteen Russians
named in the indictment visited the US briefly. However, the "intelligence" they are alleged to have gathered at the time wasn't
used, according to the indictment, until two years later. What this "intelligence" by "false pretenses" might have been isn't provided
in the evidence because Muller and his grand jury don't charge anyone with visa fraud.
Fourteen weeks before last Friday's indictment, executives of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google testified in open congressional
hearings on the same set of allegations as Mueller
presented
to his grand jury behind closed doors.
The media company witnesses started by identifying very small numbers of accounts, advertising messages, reader clicks, and bots
(automated relayed messages). Subsequently, these numbers have been multiplied in US media commentaries by estimates of audience
reach, although reach is not a measure of actual
exposure. Still, compared with the aggregate volumes of internet traffic associated with the presidential election but unconnected
to Russian sources, the numbers for Russian-source material amounted to minuscule fractions of one percent. The media companies weren't
asked for, and volunteered no report of how much money they had received from their Russian content
sources .
In his indictment Mueller provided less precision than the rules of evidence and the defendants' rights require under the US Constitution;
Mueller is not expecting to try the thirteen named defendants in a court of law. In one example of an "overt act" of the alleged
Russian crime (Par. 71), Facebook is reported as publishing an advertisement on August 4, 2016, for a "Florida Goes Trump" rally.
Facebook charged the Russians for audience reach of 53,000, according to Mueller. But only 8,300 clicked on the ad (14%). Although
the allegation is that this audience was then "routed to the ORGANIZATION's 'Being Patriotic' page", Mueller withholds his count
of how many – more likely, how few readers followed the route. The Russians were still paying to advertise the same rally on Instagram
two weeks later, on August 16, but no evidence is presented by Mueller that it happened at all. No route, no rally, no American victims,
no evidence of Russian intention to commit a crime of election interference.
Four bank accounts have been identified at six banks "in order to receive and send money into and out [sic] of the United States
to support the ORGANIZATION's operations in the United States and for self-enrichment". These banks, as well as the US dollar-clearing
banks in New York, have provided Mueller with details of the originating banks for the transactions. The indictment identifies fourteen
Russian company names as holding these bank accounts. The Russian company names are mentioned in evidence, but not the originating
banks. If they were Russian state banks under US and European Union sanctions since 2014 (Gazprombank, for example), Mueller's indictment
doesn't say so; noone has intimated that the Russian money was anything but lawfully earned and then legally transferred from source.
Details of fake or stolen names, driver's licences or social security numbers have been reported by Mueller to substantiate the
count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. But this was a fraud with a twist. No sum of money is identified in the
evidence as having been taken from an unwitting victim; all of it, however much or little, was sent to the US bank accounts from
the alleged Russian conspirators and their companies, and spent on social media placements. As for enrichment – again, no sum reported
in the indictment – this appears to have been earned by the US media companies and the US banks. Lawfully, according to Mueller.
The only losers were the Russians, but the accused haven't been complaining of not getting their money's worth.
The criminal counts set out in the indictment turn out to be crimes without victims – that's to say, no American victim, according
to the charge sheet.
Mueller's indictment is precise about the names of the Russian companies established by the principal defendant Yevgeny Prigozhin,
allegedly "for operations to interfere with elections and political processes". Mueller also claims that the only link he could find
to the Russian government was the official registration of the "ORGANIZATION [Internet Research Agency] as a Russian corporate entity"
"in or around July 2013." Although the allegation is that Prigozhin's organization had an "annual budget [of] the equivalent of millions
of US dollars", there is no evidence, nor even an allegation that this money came from a Russian government source. Instead, other
companies operated by Prigozhin are reported to have had "various Russian government contracts".
Prigozhin's parent company called Concord is alleged to have funded "the ORGANIZATION as part of a larger CONCORD-funded interference
operation it referred to as 'Project Lakhta'."
... ... ...
Mueller noted in passing that Project Lakhta wasn't targeted only in the US. The indictment alleges that by September 2016 it
was working on a budget exceeding Rb73 million ($1.25 million) per month, with bonus payments to its Russian employees of Rb1 million
(1.4%). The money was being spent, according to Mueller, on "multiple components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian
Federation, and others targeting foreign audiences in various countries, including the United States".
This is another clue to Prigozhin's real line of business, and the reason for the multiplicity of company names and functional
departments through which he operated; and for an employment roll Mueller counted as "more than eighty" in Project Lakta alone. Russian
sources believe Prigozhin's organization has contracted for domestic Russian operations paid for by Russian corporations and local
politicians. Some of the operations are believed to be conventional positive advertising of events, products, campaigns, and ideas.
Some reportedly involve the circulation of kompromat against business and election rivals; some to defend against botnet and denial
of service attacks on corporate websites and communication systems; some to attack the websites of business adversaries or investigative
journalists, Russia-based or Russia-related.
Investigations by Russian media and government regulators have been reporting for some time allegations that Prigozhin has been
diverting money from state procurement contracts for himself, and for clandestine purposes approved by state officials and state
company executives. For a sample of the details, start in 2014 with the St. Petersburg website Fontanka's investigation of Mikhail
Bystrov and Mikhail Burchik, the second and third defendants in the Mueller indictment.
Fontanka said it had uncovered evidence that paying clients
of the Prigozhin, Bystrov and Burchik organization included a youth group of the Russian Orthodox Church, the St. Petersburg municipal
authorities, and a Gazprom media promotion company. The payroll of the organization was reported in mid-2014 to be Rb180,000 per
month (about $5,500).
In December 2016 Prigozhin was listed on the US Treasury's sanctions list, the evidence for which appears to have been cribbed
from Fontanka and other Russian press
reports . Prigozhin was accused
of,
"having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in
support of, senior officials of the Russian Federation. Prigozhin has extensive business dealings with the Russian Federation
Ministry of Defense, and a company with significant ties to him holds a contract to build a military base near the Russian Federation
border with Ukraine. Russia has been building additional military bases near the Ukrainian border and has used these bases as
staging points for deploying soldiers into Ukraine."
Mueller's indictment fails to mention this Treasury charge or its Russian media sources. Mueller claims the reason for the multitude
of Russian corporate names used by Prigozhin in Project Lakhta was to "obscure its conduct" and conceal the Russian source of funds
from the US media and US regulators. For much longer, however, Russian investigators have been reporting that Prigozhin has created
corporate chains of this type to conceal personal enrichment schemes from Russian regulators and commercial competitors.
Prigozhin has replied publicly to the US prosecutor's charges, not to the Russian ones. "The Americans are very impressionable
people; they see what they want to see," he is quoted by a state news agency as saying last Friday. "I have a lot of respect for
them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them see him."
Russian sources believe Prigozhin's Project Lakhta was ordered by someone in a position to exercise a call on Prigozhin's cashflow.
They exclude Russian officials on the Kremlin Security Council -- Sergei Ivanov, Sergei Lavrov, Sergei Shoigu, Anton Vaino, Nikolai
Patrushev, Sergei Naryshkin – and dismiss the possibility that Project Lakhta had either President Putin's or Russian intelligence
service support.
The suspicion of Russian sources is that the American campaign element in Project Lakhta was "so hare-brained there is only one
official who could have considered Prigozhin's project worth the money and the attempt – Dmitry Peskov". Peskov is officially titled
Deputy Chief of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary. From the Kremlin he
supervises
the budgets for the state television broadcaster RT, the state news agency Sputnik, and special US-targeted propaganda programmes,
such as the Valdai Discussion Club for academics and the Oliver Stone films.
The Christopher Steele dossier accused Peskov of arranging negative media against Hillary Clinton during 2016; for an analysis
of the veracity of that claim, read
this . For a painstaking analysis of how the Mueller indictment discredits the Steele dossier, read Alexander Mercouris's
account .
Russian experts charge that the Russian targeting of Americans through social media, as described by Mueller, was a colossal mistake
because the US audience for social media was young and overwhelmingly committed to Clinton. Between their intention to vote and the
vote they cast, the social media made next to no difference.
... ... ...
Brookings , the Washington think-tank most supportive of Clinton, reached the conclusion that her defeat was caused by "blowback"
among older voters. In other words, Clinton's defeat, Trump's victory came from voting by older Americans. They were not the ones
targeted by the Russian social media campaign; they didn't see the advertisements and tweets the Mueller indictment is now reporting
as a criminal conspiracy to "defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the government."
Official Russian reaction to the indictment has been to ridicule the election interference allegation but avoid addressing the
foreign registration and false identity charges. "Thirteen people interfered in the US elections?!"
responded the Foreign Ministry
spokesman Maria Zakharova.
"13 against an intelligence services budget of billions? Against intelligence and counterintelligence, against the latest developments
and technologies? Absurd? Yes."
Her minister Sergei Lavrov
claimed
: "unless we see the facts, all the rest will be just twaddle, I am sorry for my not so diplomatic expression."
The unofficial Russian reaction towards Prigozhin's activities in the US is more quizzical, and under the American pressure, more
private. It acknowledges that Prigozhin is a commercial operator, and for every outlay he has a paying client. Who that client was
for Project Lakhta is the object of speculation so far unreported in the Russian press.
To Russian lawyers the facts presented in the Mueller indictment suggest the big crime in the affair may have been a Russian one.
If Mueller's small numbers are correct, then Prigozhin may have spent much less money, and to lesser effect and purpose than he had
led his client to believe and pay for. If there's a difference between what Prigozhin was paid and what the Mueller indictment suggests
he spent, Prigozhin may have a case for fraud to answer to Russian prosecutors – and his client, the charge of abuse of authority.
"If the US prosecutor makes it a crime for a Russian to pretend to be an American," commented a Moscow lawyer, "will the [Russian]
General Prosecutor investigate Prigozhin for the crime of spending such money with the pretence of having brains?"
A very interesting interview. It is almost one year old.
When intelligence agencies use the phase "with high confidence" means that they do not have evidence. This is one of
the biggest lie intelligence agencies resort to. They are all professional liars and should be treated as such.
If DNC email offloading was done over Internet (which means it was a hack not an internal leak) NSA should have the direct evidence.
They do not. So this is a progpaganda move by Brennan and Clapper to unleash MSM witch hunt, which is a key part of the color revolution
against Trump.
Another question is who downloaded this information to Wikileaks. Here NSA also should have evidence. And again they do not.
They have already to direct attention from the main issues. Oversight of intelligence agencies is joke. They can lie with impunity.
BTW NSA has all Hillary emails, including deleted.
He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software around the world, to preserve
their spying access.
It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards in the mid-east and every other third
world country gets the better of us.
The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes that were revealed during the election must
be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue
"... The low-calorie Jan. 6 ICA was clumsily cobbled together: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks." ..."
"... Binney and other highly experienced NSA alumni, as well as other members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), drawing on their intimate familiarity with how the technical systems and hacking work, have been saying for a year and a half that this CIA/FBI/NSA conclusion is a red herring , so to speak. Last summer, the results of forensic investigation enabled VIPs to apply the principles of physics and the known capacity of the internet to confirm that conclusion. ..."
"... Oddly, the FBI chose not to do forensics on the so-called "Russian hack" of the Democratic National Committee computers and, by all appearances, neither did the drafters of the ICA. ..."
"... What troubles me greatly is that the NYT and other mainstream print and TV media seem to be bloated with the thin gruel-cum-Kool Aid they have been slurping at our CIA trough for a year and a half; and then treating the meager fare consumed as some sort of holy sacrament. That goes in spades for media handling of the celebrated ICA of Jan. 6, 2017 cobbled together by those "handpicked" analysts from CIA, FBI, and NSA. It is, in all candor, an embarrassment to the profession of intelligence analysis and yet, for political reasons, it has attained the status of Holy Writ. ..."
"... And Democrats like Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, were kicking the ball hard down the streets of Washington. On Jan. 25, 2017, I had a chance to confront Schiff personally about the lack of evidence -- something that even Obama had acknowledged just before slipping out the door. I think our two-minute conversation speaks volumes. ..."
"... Now I absolutely look forward to dealing with Adam Schiff from my new position as CIA director. I will ask him to show me the evidence of "Russian hacking" that he said he could not show me on Jan. 25, 2017 – on the chance his evidence includes more than reports from the New York Times ..."
"... Intelligence analysts put great weight, of course, on sources. The authors of the lede, banner-headlined NYT article of Jan. 7, 2017 were Michael D. Shear and David E. Sanger; Sanger has had a particularly checkered career, while always landing on his feet. Despite his record of parroting CIA handouts (or perhaps partly because of it), Sanger is now the NYT's chief Washington correspondent. ..."
"... More instructive still, in May 2005, when firsthand documentary evidence from the now-famous "Downing Street Memorandum" showed that President George W. Bush had decided by early summer 2002 to attack Iraq, the NYT ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger rose to the occasion with a tortured report claiming just the opposite. The title given his article of June 13 2005 was "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made." ..."
"... Against this peculiar reporting record, I was not inclined to take at face value the Jan. 7, 2017 report he co-authored with Michael D. Shear – "Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds." ..."
"... Nor am I inclined to take seriously former National Intelligence Director James Clapper's stated views on the proclivity of Russians to be, well, just really bad people – like it's in their genes. I plan to avail myself of the opportunity to discover whether intelligence analysts who labored under his "aegis" were infected by his quaint view of the Russians. ..."
"... I shall ask any of the "handpicked" analysts who specialize in analysis of Russia (and, hopefully, there are at least a few): Do you share Clapper's view, as he explained it to NBC's Meet the Press on May 30, 2017, that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever"? I truly do not know what to expect by way of reply. ..."
"... In sum, my priority for Day One is to hear both sides of the story regarding "Russian hacking" with all cards on the table. All cards. That means no questions are out of order, including what, if any, role the "Steele dossier" may have played in the preparation of the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment. ..."
Now that I have been nominated again – this time
by author Paul Craig Roberts – to be CIA director, I am preparing to hit the ground
running.
Last time my name was offered in nomination for the position – by The Nation
publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel – I did not hold my breath waiting for a call from the
White House. Her nomination came in the afterglow of my fortuitous, four-minute debate with
then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when I confronted him on his lies about the attack on
Iraq , on May 4, 2006 on national TV. Since it was abundantly clear that Rumsfeld and I
would not get along, I felt confident I had royally disqualified myself.
This time around, on the off-chance I do get the nod, I have taken the time to prepare the
agenda for my first few days as CIA director. Here's how Day One looks so far:
Get former National Security Agency Technical Director William Binney back to CIA to join me
and the "handpicked" CIA analysts who, with other "handpicked" analysts (as described by former
National Intelligence Director James Clapper on May 8, 2017) from the FBI and NSA, prepared the
so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017. That evidence-impoverished
assessment argued the case that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his minions "to help
President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton."
When my predecessor, CIA Director Mike Pompeo invited Binney to his office on Oct. 24, 2017
to discuss cyber-attacks, he told Pompeo that he had been fed a pack of lies on "Russian
hacking" and that he could prove it. Why Pompeo left that hanging is puzzling, but I believe
this is the kind of low-hanging fruit we should pick pronto.
The low-calorie Jan. 6 ICA was clumsily cobbled together: "We assess with high
confidence that Russian military intelligence used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to
release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets
and relayed material to WikiLeaks."
Binney and other highly experienced NSA alumni, as well as other members of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), drawing on their intimate familiarity with how
the technical systems and hacking work, have been
saying for a year and a half that this CIA/FBI/NSA conclusion is a red
herring , so to speak. Last summer, the results of forensic investigation enabled VIPs to
apply the principles of physics and the known capacity of the internet to confirm that
conclusion.
Oddly, the FBI chose not to do forensics on the so-called "Russian hack" of the
Democratic National Committee computers and, by all appearances, neither did the drafters of
the ICA.
Again, Binney says that the main conclusions he and his VIPs colleagues reached are based
largely on principles of physics – simple ones like fluid dynamics. I want to hear what
that's all about, how that applies to the "Russian hack," and hear what my own CIA analysts
have to say about that.
I will have Binney's clearances updated to remove any unnecessary barriers to a
no-holds-barred discussion at a highly classified level. After which I shall have a transcript
prepared, sanitized to protect sources and methods, and promptly released to the media.
Like Sisyphus Up the Media Mountain
At that point things are bound to get very interesting. Far too few people realize that they
get a very warped view on such issues from the New York Times . And, no doubt, it
would take some time, for the Times and other outlets to get used to some candor from the CIA,
instead of the far more common tendentious leaks. In any event, we will try to speak truth to
the media – as well as to power.
I happen to share the view of the handful of my predecessor directors who believed we have
an important secondary obligation to do what we possibly can to inform/educate the public as
well as the rest of the government – especially on such volatile and contentious issues
like "Russian hacking."
What troubles me greatly is that the NYT and other mainstream print and TV media seem to
be bloated with the thin gruel-cum-Kool Aid they have been slurping at our CIA trough for a
year and a half; and then treating the meager fare consumed as some sort of holy sacrament.
That goes in spades for media handling of the celebrated ICA of Jan. 6, 2017 cobbled together
by those "handpicked" analysts from CIA, FBI, and NSA. It is, in all candor, an embarrassment
to the profession of intelligence analysis and yet, for political reasons, it has attained the
status of Holy Writ.
The Paper of (Dubious) Record
I recall the banner headline spanning the top of the entire front page of the NYT on Jan. 7,
2017: "Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says;" and the electronic version headed "Putin
Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds." I said to myself sarcastically,
"Well there you go! That's exactly what Mrs. Clinton – not to mention the NY Times, the
Washington Post and The Establishment –
have been saying for many months."
Buried in that same edition of the Times was
a short paragraph by Scott Shane: "What is missing from the public report is what many
Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the
Russian government engineered the election attack. That is a significant omission."
Omission? No hard evidence? No problem. The publication of the Jan. 6, 2017 assessment got
the ball rolling. And Democrats like Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) ranking member of the House
Intelligence Committee, were kicking the ball hard down the streets of Washington. On Jan. 25,
2017, I had a chance to confront Schiff personally about the lack of evidence -- something that
even Obama had acknowledged just before slipping out the door. I think our
two-minute conversation speaks volumes.
Now I absolutely look forward to dealing with Adam Schiff from my new position as CIA
director. I will ask him to show me the evidence of "Russian hacking" that he said he could not
show me on Jan. 25, 2017 – on the chance his evidence includes more than reports from the
New York Times .
Sources
Intelligence analysts put great weight, of course, on sources. The authors of the lede,
banner-headlined NYT article of Jan. 7, 2017 were Michael D. Shear and David E. Sanger; Sanger
has had a particularly checkered career, while always landing on his feet. Despite his record
of parroting CIA handouts (or perhaps partly because of it), Sanger is now the NYT's chief
Washington correspondent.
Those whose memories go back more than 15 years may recall his promoting weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq as flat fact. In a July 29, 2002 article co-written with Them Shanker, for
example, Iraq's (nonexistent) "weapons of mass destruction" appear no
fewer than seven times as flat fact.
More instructive still, in May 2005, when firsthand documentary evidence from the
now-famous "Downing Street Memorandum" showed that President George W. Bush had decided by
early summer 2002 to attack Iraq, the NYT ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger
rose to the occasion with a tortured report claiming just the opposite. The title
given his article of
June 13 2005 was "Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made."
Against this peculiar reporting record, I was not inclined to take at face value the
Jan. 7, 2017 report he co-authored with Michael D. Shear – "Putin Led a Complex
Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds."
Nor am I inclined to take seriously former National Intelligence Director James
Clapper's stated views on the proclivity of Russians to be, well, just really bad people
– like it's in their genes. I plan to avail myself of the opportunity to discover whether
intelligence analysts who labored under his "aegis" were infected by his quaint view of the
Russians.
I shall ask any of the "handpicked" analysts who specialize in analysis of Russia (and,
hopefully, there are at least a few): Do you share Clapper's view, as he explained it to NBC's
Meet the Press on May 30, 2017, that Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever"? I truly do not know what to expect by way of
reply.
End of Day One
In sum, my priority for Day One is to hear both sides of the story regarding "Russian
hacking" with all cards on the table. All cards. That means no questions are out of order,
including what, if any, role the "Steele dossier" may have played in the preparation of the
Jan. 6, 2017 assessment.
I may decide to seek some independent, disinterested technical input, as well. But it should
not take me very long to figure out which of the two interpretations of alleged "Russian
hacking" is more straight-up fact-based and unbiased. That done, in the following days I shall
brief both the Chair, Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and ranking member Schiff of the House
Intelligence Committee, as well as the Chair and ranking member of its counterpart in the
Senate. I will then personally brief the NYT's David Sanger and follow closely what he and his
masters decide to do with the facts I present.
On the chance that the Times and other media might decide to play it straight, and that the
"straight" diverges from the prevailing, Clapperesque narrative of Russian perfidy, the various
mainstream outlets will face a formidable problem of their own making. Mark Twain put it this
way: "It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled."
And that will probably be enough for Day One.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .
"... Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1. ..."
Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated
Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed
a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to
the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1.
The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft against
us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own defects.
Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We
admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this
because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill."...
At the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lang was the Defense Intelligence Officer (DIO) for
the Middle East, South Asia and counter-terrorism, and later, the first Director of the
Defense Humint Service. At the DIA, he was a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service.
He participated in the drafting of National Intelligence Estimates. From 1992 to 1994, all
the U.S. military attachés worldwide reported to him. During that period, he also
briefed President George H. W. Bush at the White House, as he had during Operation Desert
Storm.
He was also the head of intelligence analysis for the Middle East for seven or eight years
at that institution. He was the head of all the Middle East and South Asia analysis in DIA
for counter-terrorism for seven years. For his service in the DIA, Lang received the
Presidential Rank Award of Distinguished Executive. -- Wikipedia
"... I don't care about USA hypocrisy, I care about the stupidity of thinking that elections are somehow tainted for no other reason than that spurious points of view were expressed by somebody somewhere. ..."
"... Looking at the lefty dupes who actually fell for this trolling, I surmise that (1) the disinformation only confirmed the choices they already made, and (2) the stupidity of those sky-screaming dupes will never be good for success of a democracy, whether they are trolled or not. ..."
I don't care about USA hypocrisy, I care about the stupidity of thinking that
elections are somehow tainted for no other reason than that spurious points of view were
expressed by somebody somewhere.
Act of war? Dangerous balderdash! Most of the information available to voters is
always a mish-mash of lies, myth and spin. It's the voters' responsibility, as in
all areas of life, to assess incoming info with skepticism and individual research. You can
not hold an election if you insist on invalidating it afterwards whenever a lie is
discovered in the petabytes of hype that support it.
Looking at the lefty dupes who actually fell for this trolling, I surmise that (1)
the disinformation only confirmed the choices they already made, and (2) the stupidity of
those sky-screaming dupes will never be good for success of a democracy, whether they are
trolled or not.
Looks like securityboulevard.com
is peddling disinformation. But like in all such cases you never know... Colonel Lang is a very
respectable blogger and if he quoted this garbage there might something behind it.
My impression is that if Russians wanted to disrupt the US elections (the good question is
why, because the consensus in Russia is that it is just a political show that does not affect the
US foreign policy one bit; in other words Russians as believers in "deep stat" hypothesis) they
would use much more sophisticated approaches. Those internet trolls are far from the the level of
Russian professionals in the area of "active measures" ;-)
BTW commenters trashed his post mercilessly.
Notable quotes:
"... Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1. ..."
"... The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own defects. ..."
"... Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill." ..."
"... Our political parties far surpass any Russian effort "to create, publish and repeat divisive messages." Proof? Just look at all the attack ads aired in before any important election. Lots of the ads come from dark money sources, so who can tell who's behind them. Maybe Mueller should be investigating that, too...if the integrity of US elections is really the goal, not just opportunistic Russia-bashing. ..."
"... Was the Organization (Internet Research Agency) acting on behalf of the Russian government, or was it a commercial marketing operation with no operational ties to the Russian government? ..."
"... It seems the notion of "sowing discord" or creating chaos within the American body politic is arrived as a means of explaining the lack of internal consistency in the Organization's methods, but such analysis is predicated on the assumption this was a Russian government operation. ..."
"... Evidence for that assumption is obviously lacking, although that has not prevented such assumption from being presented as flat fact by many. ..."
"... It's a circus, a distraction against the Nunes Memo and investigation by Mueller, a compromised individual, if every there was one. ..."
"... Mueller is in it for the $$$millions in fees he gets for his office. Period. ..."
"... No one who actually tried to skew the election will ever be indicted. That includes, Clinton herself, and her husband, the DNC, and the media. ..."
"... Never mind the same Obama administration brought down the Brazilian President through leaking "Panama Papers". Unfortunately a clean politician was replaced by a corrupt politician in that country. Thanks ..."
"... When we compare these trolls to the New York Times, which admitted it intentionally kept news of Bush's illegal electronic spying from the American people during the Bush/Kerry election, specifically so it would not be an election issue, the trolls were doing exactly what our founding fathers wanted the press to do, while the NYT was not. ..."
"... I believe that these Russian trolls were merely parts of a private profit making Internet advertising firm that had zero to do with election interference and everything to do with generating the most eyeballs for its customers' advertisements, However, the claim that these trolls were a Russian government operation intended to create "divisiveness" is based on the assumption that opposing Hillary Clinton was somehow divisive. Since when did criticism of a US politician become devisive? ..."
"... We don't need the Russians to "sow discord" among our polity. We do it rather well ourselves. TDS, Birtherism, BLM, #MeToo, pro-choice/pro-life, safe spaces, and all the PCness and identity politics is just that, more grist for the discord mill. ..."
"... The hysteria over the Russian trolling shows how far into madness we've fallen. My personal hunch however is that Russiagate is a giant smokescreen to obfuscate a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration to interfere in the elections in a partisan manner and when the electorate chose otherwise to discredit a duly elected POTUS. Russia just happened to be roadkill in that plot. ..."
"... It shouldn't take long before Russian are blamed for 9-11 and Great Depression. A complete dehumanization of Russia and Russians is gaining a full steam. ..."
"... And while the outcome, regardless of who funded this operation, has contributed to US political disarray, it seems this outcome has primarily been driven by HRL's loss, plausible (but not yet proven) DOJ, FBI and White House illegal election and post-election interventions and the desperate efforts by Democratic party types and their tribal supporters to believe that HRC was robbed of her rightful Presidency. ..."
"... How do we know this wasn't some cockamamie propaganda exercise drawn up in some CIA office? the whole thing is small potatoes.. Mueller has nothing of relevance here, other catching some advertising agency trying to make a buck off social networks... and it was chump change in terms of $... if 100, grand a month could affect the direction of an election - i am sure many others would happily pay some troll farm based in st. petersburg for that kind of success.. ..."
"... This organisation has been well known and received coverage in the western press for years so I assume the relevant people have poked around their, likely poorly protected, systems. Two things to remember is Russia is a pretty anarchic place with different factions and people doing their own thing. ..."
"... Others would be a better judge of whether this smacks of an organised Russian intelligence operation, or just one of Russia's many incompetent private companies ..."
"We will use the key performance indicators (KPIs) we created in November to measure the
level of success enjoyed by the Russian intelligence active measures campaign. The plethora
of examples within the indictment serves to confirm much of our analysis, but also shows
their successes were more robust than previous analysis had concluded.
KPI 1 – Shape the U.S. election discourse and feed divisiveness into the
United States. The efforts in the creation of thousands of online accounts to create,
publish and repeat divisive messages, creating slightly nuanced content and otherwise pushing
themes that would be most inflammatory has now been documented in the indictment. The DoJ
shared an example: "The Russians organized one rally in support of the President-elect and
another rally to oppose him, both in New York, and on the same day."
KPI 2 – Framing the dialogue via ads and fictitious persons. This is
where the Russians invested heavily -- not only millions in funds which they funneled to
social media accounts including Twitter and Facebook, but also in online search ads with
Google and Bing. Additionally, their use of email and assuming the identities of real U.S.
citizens to infiltrate and provide direct support to various political entities is now
well-documented." securituboulevard.com
-------------
I have no idea what or who "Security Boulevard" may be but I needed a mission statement for
Project Lakhta. A number of people are saying that Lakhta just wasn't professional enough for
them to give it much credit. I disagree. the program may have been run by Putin's Caterer
billionaire friend with a few ex-SVR as cadre and the rest enthusiastic geeks, but IMO the
results speak for themselves. If the goal was to further aggravate divisiveness in the US, this
project certainly contributed to US political disarray.
The image of Michael Moore marching in a Project Lakhta anti-Trumo demonstration is just
too, too delicious.
The question arises of actual motive on the part of the Russians. Much of the usual drivel
is circulating about Russian hatred of democracy as a commodity.
IMO that is not the root of their behavior in this matter and in all the other IO operations
that they seem to be continuing against the US. No, I think the objective is simply to weaken
the US as a self-declared adversary that wishes to see Russia reduced to the status of a
mid-sized regional player subject to US oversight and control.
Since the end of the first Cold War and the collapse of the USSR the US has treated
Russia with overbearing contempt and hostility. The Russians appealed to the US to be allowed a
more open role in European affairs. The response was to drive the borders of NATO far to the
east, to the borders of what is but a rump of the Russian Empire before WW1.
The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft
against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own
defects.
Our response to this is to adopt a high handed attitude that speaks volumes about us. We
admit that we do the same things to others even as we claim an absolute right to do this
because we are the future of humanity, the dwellers in the "city on the hill."
Our political parties far surpass any Russian effort "to create, publish and repeat
divisive messages." Proof? Just look at all the attack ads aired in before any important
election. Lots of the ads come from dark money sources, so who can tell who's behind them.
Maybe Mueller should be investigating that, too...if the integrity of US elections is really
the goal, not just opportunistic Russia-bashing.
Was the Organization (Internet Research Agency) acting on behalf of the Russian
government, or was it a commercial marketing operation with no operational ties to the
Russian government?
It seems the notion of "sowing discord" or creating chaos within the
American body politic is arrived as a means of explaining the lack of internal consistency in
the Organization's methods, but such analysis is predicated on the assumption this was a
Russian government operation.
Evidence for that assumption is obviously lacking, although
that has not prevented such assumption from being presented as flat fact by many.
The Story was broken and published in 2015. It found the perps were using bots to get
advert revenues........ period. The indictments are of Russian Nationals for activities and
actions taken within Russia. Neither Mueller nor the US have jurisdiction.
It's a circus, a distraction against the Nunes Memo and investigation by Mueller, a
compromised individual, if every there was one.
Mueller is in it for the $$$millions in
fees he gets for his office. Period.
No one who actually tried to skew the election will ever be indicted. That includes,
Clinton herself, and her husband, the DNC, and the media.
Colonel I totally agree with your analysis, we seem to forget about our adventures in
promoting democracy else where. What I think is that the Russians exposed our own corrupt
politicians (I can still hear Obama's preaching about wikileaks and Clinton emails "Never
mind the content of those emails, it is a fact they stole our documents, and attacked our
democracy). Never mind the same Obama administration brought down the Brazilian President
through leaking "Panama Papers". Unfortunately a clean politician was replaced by a corrupt
politician in that country. Thanks
The entire purpose of the First Amendment is to allow for a vigorous public debate. The flaw
in the above reasoning is that if the alleged goal of the supposed Russian "interference" was
to "aggravate divisiveness" then that Russian troll farm was doing exactly what our founding
fathers wanted the press to do, provoke a public debate about issues during an election.
When we compare these trolls to the New York Times, which admitted it intentionally
kept news of Bush's illegal electronic spying from the American people during the Bush/Kerry
election, specifically so it would not be an election issue, the trolls were doing exactly
what our founding fathers wanted the press to do, while the NYT was not.
I believe that these Russian trolls were merely parts of a private profit making
Internet advertising firm that had zero to do with election interference and everything to do
with generating the most eyeballs for its customers' advertisements, However, the claim that
these trolls were a Russian government operation intended to create "divisiveness" is based
on the assumption that opposing Hillary Clinton was somehow divisive. Since when did
criticism of a US politician become devisive?
This is the part I don't understand. The devisiveness stick can be swung against anyone
and anything. My comments here can be seen by some as devisive. Same with the post I'm
commenting on, this entire blog and every other person or group exercising their First
Amendment rights by debating an issue. So while I believe the whole Russian thing is complete
bullshit, the thing I worry about most is that it is being used to demand conformity and
squelch our First Amendment rights. Vigorous debate, no matter who or what is sponsoring that
debate, doesn't weaken our country. It only makes it stronger. What is really weakening our
country is the current demonizing of free speech via evidence free claims that such speech is
hurting the US and helping a supposed enemy country.
"If the goal was to further aggravate divisiveness in the US, this project certainly
contributed to US political disarray."
So you're saying that because a commercial fake ad campaign was seized upon by a US
government Russian witch-hunt that therefore the fake ad campaign contributed to US political
disarray? As opposed to the witch-hunt itself?
I believe that's putting the cart before the horse.
We have Facebook's head of ads explicitly saying that he's seen all the ads and they
definitely had nothing to do with swaying the election - before he's forced to recant that
statement by Facebook management on the excuse that it insults Mueller.
In other words, everyone views this as a commercial marketing operation which used the US
elections as a vehicle to make money by supporting and denouncing both Trump and Clinton, but
you're convinced it was a real Russian government disinformation operation.
Based on what? The fact that it had zero impact on the election? Or the fact that by
definition it couldn't possibly have had any significant impact on US divisiveness by
comparison with the US media and social media themselves - other than by having been put up
by Mueller's witch hunt as significant? The fact that this operation has zero connections to
the Russian government except for this "chef" having some vague connections with Putin?
Not buying it. This operation in my view had zilch to do with weakening the US in any way,
shape or form - except to extract some money from it.
Scott Adams
does a white board presentation where he compares the theory of Russians helping Trump with
the theory of Russians as someone else who wanted anybody but Hillary.
Scott has been right about quite a few things before and has written the book "How to win
biggly in a world where facts don't matter" explaining trumps style and persuasion
methods.
We don't need the Russians to "sow discord" among our polity. We do it rather well
ourselves. TDS, Birtherism, BLM, #MeToo, pro-choice/pro-life, safe spaces, and all the PCness
and identity politics is just that, more grist for the discord mill.
The hysteria over the Russian trolling shows how far into madness we've fallen. My
personal hunch however is that Russiagate is a giant smokescreen to obfuscate a conspiracy at
the highest levels of the Obama administration to interfere in the elections in a partisan
manner and when the electorate chose otherwise to discredit a duly elected POTUS. Russia just
happened to be roadkill in that plot.
A lot of you armchair sleuths are creating your own reality on an unwarranted basis
proceeding from a desire to think that because Mueller is embarked on a voyage to Gulliver's
various lands, all his results are false. This is a fallacy. The first amendment? The framers
never intended that it should protect people acting either directly or indirectly on behalf
of a foreign power. Their reaction to the Citizen Genet case shows that clearly. The British
did things like this on a sustained basis for the purpose of luring the US into WW2. Why do
you think they made that effort a covert campaign?
A covert political action on behalf of a
foreign power would never have been thought by the framers to deserve first amendment
protection.
A commercial venture? Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. If
you had ever written a business plan for a new venture you would know that a competent
entrepreneur would have looked at the "pro forma" financial projections in the plan and
decided that the trivial possible revenues would never recover the capital invested in the
scheme and would have decided against proceeding. Have you never watched "Shark Tank?"
Some
of the operatives involved did travel to the US to work some of the street demonstration
capers. The indictment says that in September of last year, they concluded that the FBI was
closing in on them and left the country rather than be apprehended. pl
With Col Lang's forbearance on posting an except in this case, the following excerpt from
John Helmer's current blog post (johnhelmer.net) provides some insight into that has been
driving the "Organizations" activities:
"Russian sources believe Prigozhin's organization has contracted for domestic Russian
operations paid for by Russian corporations and local politicians. Some of the operations are
believed to be conventional positive advertising of events, products, campaigns, and ideas.
Some reportedly involve the circulation of kompromat against business and election rivals;
some to defend against botnet and denial of service attacks on corporate websites and
communication systems; some to attack the websites of business adversaries or investigative
journalists, Russia-based or Russia-related.
Investigations by Russian media and government regulators have been reporting for some
time allegations that Prigozhin has been diverting money from state procurement contracts for
himself, and for clandestine purposes approved by state officials and state company
executives. For a sample of the details, start in 2014 with the St. Petersburg website
Fontanka's investigation of Mikhail Bystrov and Mikhail Burchik, the second and third
defendants in the Mueller indictment. Fontanka said it had uncovered evidence that paying
clients of the Prigozhin, Bystrov and Burchik organization included a youth group of the
Russian Orthodox Church, the St. Petersburg municipal authorities, and a Gazprom media
promotion company. The payroll of the organization was reported in mid-2014 to be Rb180,000
per month (about $5,500).
Russian sources believe Prigozhin's Project Lakhta was ordered by someone in a position to
exercise a call on Prigozhin's cashflow. They exclude Russian officials on the Kremlin
Security Council -- Sergei Ivanov, Sergei Lavrov, Sergei Shoigu, Anton Vaino, Nikolai
Patrushev, Sergei Naryshkin – and dismiss the possibility that Project Lakhta had
either President Putin's or Russian intelligence service support.
The suspicion of Russian sources is that the American campaign element in Project Lakhta
was "so hare-brained there is only one official who could have considered Prigozhin's project
worth the money and the attempt – Dmitry Peskov". Peskov is officially titled Deputy
Chief of the Presidential Executive Office and Presidential Press Secretary. From the Kremlin
he supervises the budgets for the state television broadcaster RT, the state news agency
Sputnik, and special US-targeted propaganda programmes, such as the Valdai Discussion Club
for academics and the Oliver Stone films"
So this appears to me to be primarily a "commercial for hire to make something happen
through the web" model for arrange of potential corporation and political clients. I find it
interesting that the one possible "sufficiently hare-brained" suspect is Peskov who oversees
the budgets of Russia's state owned "open" US-targeted information programs..
The piece in NYT certainly broke through the bottom. But then again, I learned today from
Adam Schiff that Russians love 2nd Amendment because they love nothing more than Americans
killing each-other. It shouldn't take long before Russian are blamed for 9-11 and Great
Depression. A complete dehumanization of Russia and Russians is gaining a full steam.
"The Russian response is to use what they see as a legitimate instrument of statecraft
against us. This instrument seeks the weakening of enemies through exploitation of their own
defects. "
I have always thought that this makes sense. It would have been incredibly passive and an
abdication of responsibility for the Russians to not respond. You can argue about the
particulars on exactly what they did or did not do, but it never made sense to think that
they were not acting in their own best self-interests in response to provocation.
I think the following excerpt from Helmer's piece is more relevant here:
The unofficial Russian reaction towards Prigozhin's activities in the US is more quizzical,
and under the American pressure, more private. It acknowledges that Prigozhin is a
commercial operator, and for every outlay he has a paying client. Who that client was for
Project Lakhta is the object of speculation so far unreported in the Russian press.
So finding the client would seem to be critical to both the 'Russian government
involvement' and 'Trump team colluded' allegations.
It is noted that Prigozhin had previously tried to take another Russian Company - Yandex
(Equivalent of Google for Russia) to Court to have his Name removed from Search Results that
connected his Name with [this] Search Query, before eventually backing down....
This points out an obvious Dilemma to many Critiques of Russia, the all Powerful Russian
Government whom between apparently personally controlling all Business, nor does it allow a
free Press neither forced Yandexs Hand in having those results Removed, nor did it prevent
RBC/RBK from publishing their Report on the 'Troll Farm' which if to be believed was a vital
Part of their Political Interference...
Which way does it go? Do they suddenly have to admit that Press is maybe the more Free than
imagined? Or does the Government simply not extend any interest in hiding its 'Operation and
Assets'... Or is it that simply - It has no Hand in this and thus no interest?
All of this goes back to the Points others have clearly made very well above - That of
this being about Commercial Interests and Motivations not a super Secret Plot that clearly is
not being hidden..
To add one more Aspect to what I mean by 'Commercial Interests' - This does not have to mean
Directly... Favorable Patronage if the right People are pleased with you can leverage Profits
through further Contracts and Opportunities..
I am not pushing Peskov and basically agreeing with jjc's post that evidence that this was
a Russian government is lacking (at least so far).
And while the outcome, regardless of who funded this operation, has contributed to US
political disarray, it seems this outcome has primarily been driven by HRL's loss, plausible
(but not yet proven) DOJ, FBI and White House illegal election and post-election
interventions and the desperate efforts by Democratic party types and their tribal supporters
to believe that HRC was robbed of her rightful Presidency. Absent this context - which was
clearly not created by the IRA operation - it is hard to see that this operation would be
getting any attention.
Sir:
An Alternate to your thesis is that the object of Lakhta is to make Russia Great Again.
It appears with every US inspired sanction Russia recovers after a brief pause, and advances
her economy far beyond what was foreseen but a few years ago:
1., agriculture -greatest wheat exporter in 2017, rather than importer.
2., replacing slowly all the software from the west with either homegrown
product or Chinese goods
3., the famous Kremlin List might force lot of offshore Russian wealth to go home, lest it be
expropriated by the US Treasury.
4., you, Sir, can add other observations based on facts of Russia's recovery since the
sanctions started.
How do we know this wasn't some cockamamie propaganda exercise drawn up in some CIA office?
the whole thing is small potatoes.. Mueller has nothing of relevance here, other catching
some advertising agency trying to make a buck off social networks... and it was chump change
in terms of $... if 100, grand a month could affect the direction of an election - i am sure
many others would happily pay some troll farm based in st. petersburg for that kind of
success..
sorry - cold war 2 / mccarthyism 2 - all on tap and who benefits from that? that is the
question i would like to hear an answer to.. thanks..
Re the KPI's to "measure the level of success enjoyed by the Russian intelligence active
measures campaign":
I was taught that performance measures are meaningless unless they can quantify a
commodity which equates to 'success'. The examples given here seem to fall well within that
category IMHO. Discord and divisiveness may be a valid goal, but how much was sown? There was
plenty around, but it is surely next to impossible to assess the impact of Lakhta in a
meaningful way. So Moore went to a Lakhta rally, rather than what, perhaps a different anti
Trump rally? Is the net effect better or worse and by how much?
The second KPI is not even a KPI - how is dialog framing a valid goal? The text describes
the significant investment made (the other side of the equation) and the methods used - this
is meaningless re any assessment of supposed 'success'.
Average salary in St Pete would be around USD1000 a month so the costs are not much, maybe
more if they had English language skills. Wouldn't be many fixed/startup costs at all. Also
not just click bait advertising but the opportunity to take a contract to run a PR campaign.
I am still undecided. This organisation has been well known and received coverage in the
western press for years so I assume the relevant people have poked around their, likely
poorly protected, systems. Two things to remember is Russia is a pretty anarchic place with
different factions and people doing their own thing.
Generally Russians can still be pretty
incompetent at things, these guys seem to be a good example of that. Others would be a better
judge of whether this smacks of an organised Russian intelligence operation, or just one of
Russia's many incompetent private companies. Creating a little mischief can be fun as well. I
can't be bothered to look fully in to everything but actual real examples of attempts to
cause mischief are too few, and the evidence sufficient to convict has not been
presented.
As for British activities before WWII, I have always been of the opinion the success of
that was due to important power centres, the people Lindbergh listed in his Des Moines
speech, although I would include white Southerners, in the US consciously turning a blind
eye. The inference would be that this was so insignificant and ineffectual that it wasn't
picked up, or dismissed if it was.
Security Boulevard is an aggregation of cyber-security bloggers. Christopher Burgess, the
author of this article, retired from the CIA in 2005 with 30+ years. He worked as a security
advisor for Cisco and in several other security related companies. I don't remember ever
hearing about him. I looked at some of his writing about the Russia thing going back to
before the election. Our views largely coincide and I recognize the terminology he uses. I
chalk that up to his background. He certainly was aware of some of the same experiences in
foreign cyber-espionage and IO that I dealt with. These key performance indicators are from
an article he did back in November 2017.
It is not in the interests, to say the least, of Russia to weaken the US. And Putin, above
most, knows this. Maybe tweak us a bit...but weaken us? Why? He is going to need us against
China. We have no natural geopolitical antipathy (hostility) with Russia. We may thrust
ourselves into that position, at times, in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. However it is
not organic to our relationship. On the other hand, such antipathy (hostility) does exist
between China and Russia. And it is not just , organic, geopolitical, but racial was well.
Although we're not supposed to talk like that anymore. Putin might not talk it...but he is
thinking it.
YOU may not have any antipathy toward Russia but Washington and New York and the media
drip with it and our actions since the fall of the USSR would not look like friendship to any
neutral observer. pl
The thing about British activities in the US before WW2 is laughable and rather
self-serving. So, you think that 1.25 million US a month was trivial, eh? Have you ever
funded a business? pl
"I was taught that performance measures are meaningless unless they can quantify a
commodity which equates to 'success'. " You were taught poorly. Nothing in international
policy operations can be meaningfully quantified. Only social science idiots thank that this
is possible. pl
You have CIA on the brain, something like water on the knew and have seen too many movies.
you have no idea how difficult it would be to construct an operation like this in a police
state like Russia if you were foreign. pl
And then there were a few British capers like the Zimmerman telegram and the BS about
German atrocities in Belgium in WW1. Oh, yes and the lies told about the Boers in the S.
Africa War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Security_Co-ordination
pl
He seems not to be using KPI in the traditional way, but it could be a terminology
difference between intelligence and business uses. Substitute the word "goal" and you're
fine.
pat - b did a post to break down this us .25 million a month b.s..
here is the quote for you - "(Some U.S. media today made the false claim that $1.25
million per month were spend by the company for its U.S. campaign. But Point 11 of the
indictment says that the company ran a number of such projects directed at a Russian audience
while only the one described in 10d above is aimed at an U.S. audience. All these projects
together had a monthly budget of $1.25 million.)
as memory serves they had at least 10 different projects going... - 100 grand a month is a
better guesstimate... chump change...
Do you really think that Russia sees its relations with the US as other than a zero sum
game? How could they see it any other way given the way the US has acted toward them? pl
I didn't say the Russian project created the aura of animosity. The US is falling apart
politically. The Russian project originators perceived this and sought to exacerbate it, and
succeeded. pl
So, you think this project was put up on "spec" like building something in the hope that
someone will buy it and redeem your costs. Have you ever done that? pl
I concur on Burgess. The graphic in the article you cite is pretty good, though it doesn't
mention the "seeding and feeding" use of bots and commenters in blog and media platform
threads to influence the discussion. But I think that's inferred by the use of the term
"computational propaganda." I've never seen that before, but I like it. In psychology, it is
called the "availability heuristic." The idea is that if you make the same claim or idea
appear again and again, people will eventually become convinced it's true. So if you can
swarm the Internet with many instances of the same falsehood or argument, people will come to
believe it's true.
In case anyone's curious, this is the same tactic employed by GEICO in the US.
With respect Colonel, my point was that the use of KPI's in this context is indeed
meaningless. Thus the authors are discredited in my view by using & abusing the term.
This report reads no different to many others to me - allegations that the mission was to
sow discord. So is this a new Pearl Harbor or a laughably tiny contribution to the immense
discord extant already. My own gut feel is that it is likely well towards the latter end of
the scale.
"NATO expansion was a provocative policy destined to elicit a strong Russian response "
You spellcheck failed you – it should read "policy designed to elicit".
It is not clear from the article whether the "blunder" was "influence ops" involving
Russians – with or w/o the Russian government, or whether the blunder is the "fake"
hysteria peddled by the establishment apparat and the Clinton Democrats?
If you have no proof of an "act of war", to quote the latest mouth-breathing from one of
our selected representatives, and you have no
effective means to retaliate, and if you have good reason to believe that the act in question
might well have been blowback from your own earlier transgressions, it would be advisable to
shut it up and suck it up.
The "Russia!" politicking in this nation is not just a crime or a blunder, it is idiotic,
incompetent and reckless bipartisan malpractice.
Worse, the people who willingly beat this drum as their version of a "stained" vote or a
substitute or augmentation for another unaccountable and self-destructive "special"
investigation are actively – and possibly knowingly – undermining not just Trump,
or the legitimacy of the current administration, or the trust in the election process, they
are eroding the confidence in the robustness of democratic institutions and the concept of
democracy itself.
Worse yet, these people are the same that have been pushing for "money can't buy me votes"
Supreme Court decisions, highly optimized gerrymandering, voter purges, violations of the
voting rights act, voter discrimination, systematic disenfranchisement, "rigged" primaries
and campaigns, and a uniquely revealing and detestable 2001 decision by the Rehnquist
court.
This is the picture of US democracy in action as painted by these people: elections will
be decided because of drivel paid for by Russian or American oligarchs and their
unprincipled, mercenary retainers, deployed by trolling farms, e-mail spam "down the lists",
unsolicited phone calls, and corporate media by means of editorial and outright bought
advertising. Voters are incapable of applying common sense, keeping a skeptical attitude and
insisting on verification, and they will ignore the evidence in their own lives and vote in
accordance to the "nudge" that is backed by the most money and the best voter tracking
operation with the most data and the most expensive analysts providing "analytics".
It gives a new meaning to "follow the money."
Now that caricature of The People might or might not contain more truth than we are
comfortable with, but the conclusion assuredly is that to the extent this claim is "true", we
have bigger problems than a few dozen Russians spending a few dozen million dollars. If this
is true, then our problem is that there are entire industries in the US making profit from
delivering services to actively undermine and erode the US Constitution and the institutions
and processes of our democracy, that many of those people have already been elected as
– in their belief – the result of the services this industry delivers, and that
as a nation, we have completely failed in inoculating ourselves against this process of
"treason for profit".
You do democracy with the voters you have, not the voters you wish for. If our
institutions, if We The People ourselves, are not resilient against concentrations of wealth
and power, inside or outside the country, foreign or domestic, then we need to fortify
ourselves and our institutions, and we need to reduce and dissolve any such concentration of
wealth and power within our borders before we can even begin to worry about any such
"influences" from abroad. If our democracy is being wrecked, it ain't by Putin.
The absolute worst about this is that our national elections, just with like the
congressional-military-industrial "complex", or the government-bailed financial industry, or
the student loan financed education industry, or government-mandated health insurance, most
of the perpetrators involved do not even care about the election outcome or the process
– it is just another American Con to extract millions of fees and profits in exchange
for channeling billions of dollars of campaign financing into "information ops" and other
services provided by what is, essentially, little more than an entertainment industry
delivering advertising. For the congressional-election industrial machine, democracy is just
another "must have" feature of modern society ripe for profitable public-private
"partnership" to convert ever more tax revenue and money seeking influence into the
profitable businesses of selling voting machines, securing voting machines, auditing voting
machines
The best democracy money can buy to make money – putting the profit into the Cargo
Cult. If we ever try public funding for political candidates, it will be as if Obama and
Sunstein designed another funnel for profit extraction.
We "are sick and tired of hearing about your damn" Russians!
"... "to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe." That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who actually genuinely, and in proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late 1940s - Italy being one of the clearest cases. ..."
"... For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity. ..."
"... The cleverest trick used in propaganda against a specific country is to accuse it of what the accuser itself is doing. ..."
"... Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair. ..."
"... Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There may be several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological climate in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are not just economic and political but cultural and historical. ..."
"... In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to "correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World War II cabinet. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk ..."
"... The idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope that their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the West....things like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms. ..."
"... Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers like a good ole war! Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street. Once over the cliff, there is no turning back. ..."
"... In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong the proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public. ..."
"... Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty much government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was. 59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. ..."
"... The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are trained in critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their own emotions or other people's emotions. Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's emotions and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public Opinion" (1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories of the mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion. https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda ..."
"Russian bots" - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News
The U.S. mainstream media are going nuts. They now make up and report stories based on the
uncritical acceptance of the outcome of an algorithm they do not understand and which is know
to produce fake results.
SAN FRANCISCO -- One hour after news broke about the school shooting in Florida last week,
Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up the
gun control debate.
The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the
hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting. Earlier on
Wednesday, before the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Fla., many of those accounts had been focused on the investigation by the special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
In other words - the "Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia" were following
the current news just as cable news networks do. When a new sensational event happened they
immediately jumped onto it. But the NYT authors go to length to claim that there is some
nefarious Russian scheme behind this that uses automated accounts to spread divisive
issues.
Those claims are based on this propaganda project:
Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund,
a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of
Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian
influence campaign.
The "Alliance for Securing Democracy" is run by military lobbyists, CIA
minions and neocons. Its claimed task is:
... to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in
the United States and Europe.
There is no evidence that Vladimir Putin made or makes such efforts.
The ASD "Hamilton 68" website shows graphics with rankings of "top items"
and "trending items" allegedly used by Russian bots or influence agents. There is nothing
complicate behind it. It simply tracks the tweets of 600 Twitter users and aggregates the
hashtags they use. It does not say which Twitter accounts its algorithms follows. It claims
that the 600 were selected by one of three criteria: 1. People who often tweet news that also
appears on RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News , two general news sites
sponsored by the Russian government; 2. People who "openly profess to be pro-Russian"; 3.
accounts that "appear to use automation" to boost the same themes that people in group 1 and 2
tweet about.
Nowhere does the group say how many of the 600 accounts it claims to track belong to which
group. Are their 10 assumed bots or 590 in the surveyed 600 accounts? And how please does one
"openly profess" to be pro-Russian? We don't know and the ASD won't say.
On December 25 2017 the "Russian influence" agents or bots who, according to NYT, want to
sow divisiveness, wished everyone a
Merry Christmas.
The real method the Hamilton 68 group used to select the 600 accounts it tracks is unknown.
The group does not say or show how it made it up. Despite that the NYT reporters, Sheera
Frenkel and Daisuke Wakabayashi, continue with the false assumptions that most or all the
accounts are automated, have something to do with Russia and are presumably nefarious:
Russian-linked bots have rallied around other divisive issues, often ones that President
Trump has tweeted about. They promoted Twitter hashtags like #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem
and #takeaknee after some National Football League players started kneeling during the
national anthem to protest racial injustice.
The automated Twitter accounts helped popularize the #releasethememo hashtag , ...
The Daily Beast reported earlier that the emphasized claim is definitely
false :
Twitter's internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not
Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary
indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is
either predominantly Russian.
The same is presumably true for the other hashtags.
The Dutch IT specialist and blogger Marcel van den Berg was wondering how Dutch keywords
and hashtags showed up in on the Hamilton 68 "Russian bots" dashboard. He found (
Dutch ,
English auto translation) that the dashboard is a total fraud:
In recent weeks, I have been keeping a close eye on Hamilton 68. Every time a Dutch hashtag
was shown on the website, I made a screenshot. Then I noted what was playing at that moment
and I watched the Tweets with this hashtag. Again I could not find any Tweet that seemed to
be from a Russian troll.
In all cases, the hash tags that Hamilton 68 reported were trending topics in the
Netherlands. In all cases there was much to do around the subject of the hashtag in the
Netherlands. Many people were angry or shared their opinion on the subject on Twitter. And
even if there were a few tweets with Russian connections between them, the effect is zero.
Because they do not stand out among the many other, authentic Tweets.
Van den Berg lists a dozen examples he analyzed in depth.
The anti-Russian Bellingcat group around couch blogger Eliot Higgins is sponsored
by the NATO propaganda shop Atlantic Council . It sniffs through open source stuff to
blame Russia or Syria wherever possible. Bellingcat were recently a victim of the
"Russian bots" - or rather of the ASD website. On February 10 the hashtag #bellingcat trended
to rank
2 of the dashboard.
Bellingcat was thus, according to the Hamilton 68 claims, under assault of hordes
of nefarious Russian government sponsored bots.
The Bellingcat folks looked into the issue and found
that only six people on Twitter, none of
them an automated account, had used the #bellingcat hashtag in the last 48 hours. Some of the
six may have opinions that may be "pro Russian", but as Higgins himself says :
[I]n my opinion, it's extremely unlikely the people listed are Russian agents
The pro-NATO propaganda shop Bellingcat thus debunked the pro NATO propaganda shop
Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The fraudsters who created the Hamilton 68 crap seem to have filled their database with
rather normal people who's opinions they personally dislike. Those then are the "Russian bots"
who spread "Russian influence" and divisiveness.
Moreover - what is the value of its information when six normal people out of millions of
active Twitter users can push a hashtag with a handful of tweets to the top of the
dashboard?
But the U.S. media writes long gushing stories about the dashboard and how it somehow shows
automated Russian propaganda. They go to length to explain that this shows "Russian influence"
and a "Russian" attempt to sow "divisiveness" into people's minds.
This is nuts.
Last August, when the Hamilton 68 project was first released, the Nation was the
only site critical of it. It
predicted :
The import of GMF's project is clear: Reporting on anything that might put the US in a bad
light is now tantamount to spreading Russian propaganda.
It is now even worse than that. The top ranking of the #merrychristmas hashtag shows that
the algorithm does not even care about good or bad news. The tracked twitter accounts are
normal people.
The whole project is just a means to push fake stories about alleged "Russian influence"
into U.S. medias. Whenever some issue creeps up on its dashboard that somehow fits its false
"Russian bots" and "divisiveness" narrative the Alliance for Securing Democracy
contacts the media to spread its poison. The U.S. media, - CNN, Wired, the New York Times - are
by now obviously devoid of thinking journalists and fact checkers. They simple re-package the
venom and spread it to the public.
How long will it take until people die from it?
Posted by b on February 20, 2018 at 03:15 PM |
Permalink
Rufus T. Firefly: I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't
do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only
too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right
hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which
it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he
refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country,
snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a
sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses
to accept. Why, the cheap four-flushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll
never get away with it.
[Trentino enters]
Rufus T. Firefly: So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?
[slaps Trentino with his glove]
Ambassador Trentino: Mrs. Teasdale, this is the last straw. There's no turning back now!
This means war!
Rufus T. Firefly: Then it's war! Then it's war! Gather the forces. Harness the horses.
Then it's war!
"to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in
the United States and Europe." That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who
actually genuinely, and in proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late
1940s - Italy being one of the clearest cases.
For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't
believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even
during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity.
Gee, what could go wrong formulating policy founded upon a series of Big Lies? Kim Dotcom says he has
important info the FBI refuses to hear. At the Munich
Security Conference , neocon Nicholas Burns, former US Ambassador to NATO, details my
assertion's factual basis that current policy is being formed on a series of Big Lies: "Will
NATO strengthen itself to contain Russian power in Eastern Europe giving what Russian
[sic] has done illegally in Crimea, in the Donbass, and in Georgia ?" [Bolded text are
the Big Lies.]
Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done
contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security
breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the
general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I
hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair.
Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There
may be several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological
climate in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are
not just economic and political but cultural and historical.
In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological
descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to
"correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World
War II cabinet.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk
That's why pinning down the reason for wanting a war against Russia is so difficult.
Since the FBI never inspected the DNC's computers first-hand, the only evidence comes from
an Irvine, California, cyber-security firm known as CrowdStrike whose chief technical
officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, a well-known Putin-phobe, is a fellow at the Atlantic Council,
a Washington think tank that is also vehemently anti-Russian as well as a close Hillary
Clinton ally.
Thus, Putin-basher Clinton hired Putin-basher Alperovitch to investigate an alleged
electronic heist, and to absolutely no one's surprise, his company concluded that guilty
party was Vladimir Putin. Amazing! Since then, a small army of internet critics has chipped
away at CrowdStrike for praising the hackers as among the best in the business yet
declaring in the same breath that they gave themselves away by uploading a document in the
name of "Felix Edmundovich," i.e. Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret
police.
As noted cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr observed with regard to Russia's two main
intelligence agencies: "Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add
Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world
while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor."
muddy waters.. paid for propaganda.... look at all the russian bots, lol... cold war 2 /
mccarthyism 2 is in effect... the historic parallels are marked. thank you neo cons! it's
working... the ordinary person in the usa can't be this stupid can they? when does ww3 kick
in? is that really what these idiots want? or is it just to prolong the huge defense
budget?
This is about conditioning voters in Europe and the United States for a long war with Russia
and China. In other words, a return to the 1950s. It is not working and becoming increasingly
hysterical because societies are not nearly as cohesive as they once were, and the mainstream
political parties, while better funded and more top-down organized, are basically hollow. The
collapse is coming. Four years or ten, take your pick.
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Most Americans probably don't. Just the chosen few with the deepest fall-out shelters.
The idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope
that their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the
West....things like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms.
let's imagine that we have the pyramid of evilness, by which we measure bestiality of one
regime and its constituency. my firm belief is that us would be on the top of that pyramid.
Only dilemma would be between Zionist entity and the US.
"How could the masses be made to desire their own repression?" was the question Wilhelm
Reich famously asked in the wake of the Reichstagsbrandverordnung (Reichstag Fire Decree,
February 28, 1933), which suspended the civil rights protections afforded by the Weimar
Republic's democratic constitution.Hitler had been appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933
and Reich was trying to grapple with the fact that the German people had apparently chosen
the authoritarian politics promoted by National Socialism against their own political
interests. Ever since, the question of fascism, or rather the question of why might people
vote for their own oppression, has never ceased to haunt political philosophy.2 With Trump
openly campaigning for less democracy in America -- and with the continued electoral
success of far-right antiliberal movements across Europe -- this question has again become
a pressing one.
An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime.
Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers like a good
ole war! Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street.
Once over the cliff, there is no turning back.
How do you tell people that, at the flick of your magic switch, Putin is in fact a swell
guy and wonderful human being? Once love is gone who goes back to the filthy, abhorrent and
estranged spouse?
Surely the US establishment is playing with fire thinking they will successfully ride out
any conflict and come out on top secure in their newly reestablished hegemony on the
smoldering ruins of Humanity.
Make no mistake, we are all on the road to hell. Better enjoy todays peace as tomorrow
word will be filled with the sweet music of cemeteries.
@15 "An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime."
I'm not so sure. I think there are many Americans who deeply distrust their government.
But of course they don't want to appear unpatriotic. There are also many who are apathetic
and many simply don't know how to change things.
It's horrible I know to quote a Nazi, but Goring had this right:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm
want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his
farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in
England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or
a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same way in any country.
American media has graduated from simply repeating the lies of "unnamed government sources"
to repeating the lies of any organization unofficially blessed by the powers that be. The
skills required to repeat the text verbatim serve them well in both cases. Skepticism is only
reserved to anyone who tries to introduce logic or facts into the equation--such as when Jill
Stein was interviewed on MSNBC recently. How dare Ms. Stein try to bring FACTS into the
discussion!
In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong
the proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no
circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public.
Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty
much government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was.
59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After
that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical
reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a
major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. Almost every politician, and major
news organizations are pushing for a war/conflict with Russia. This is insanity as no one
will win a war like this and I am sure they know that,,, but they keep the war drums beating
anyhow. It simply doesn't make sense. But Thanks again.
Same for dh, #14. Things are soooo stupid, your joking may be closer to the truth than you
know. :-)
Thank you for the post. I will save it and use it liberally, with proper attributions.
When one challenges the tribe on places like Twitter, it is hard to tell who is a real idiot
and who is a bot. How do you know? Maybe that the bots go away fairly quickly and the idiots
hang around to argue ad infinitum.
The thing that bothers me, is the fact that the MICGlobalists dont care what we think or how
poor their deceptions are. The public perception that "russia did it!!" continues to rise. I
wonder what the public acceptance level needs to be for them to execute a MAJOR false flag
event. They seem to think they are still on target, and its just a short matter or time...
They are going to do this when the perception management is complete...
We really do not need another one of their disasters
The bully pushes and pushes until stopped by the first serious push back. The dynamic of the
west and the neocon/Zionists at the core is essentially that of the bully. Nations like
Venezuela and the Philippines have started to push back, and I hope and feel fairly confident
that they will both survive the rage of the US. In some part, they have begun to show the
actual powerlessness of the bully.
But the really killer nations - Russia and China - are holding their water as they
strengthen their force. I believe that one very serious push back from either of them in the
right circumstances will stop the bully. And yet, as they bide their time, we see a curious
phenomenon wherein the US is destroying itself from the inside.
It's as if all of the forces that exist to control the country - the lockstep media, the
fully rigged markets, the hysterical military, the bought legislature and the crooked courts
- are all acting far more strongly than should be necessary. The entire system is
over-reacting, over-reaching, over-boiling. And in the course of this, the US is actually
shedding power, and at an amazing rate. But not from the action of Russia but from its
non-action, the empty space that that allows the bully's dynamic to over-reach, all the way
to complete failure.
Is it possible that deep in the security states of Russia and China there's even a study
and a model for this? Is the collapse of the US actually being gamed by Russia and China -
and through the totally counter-intuitive action of non-action?
Hey b,
Just wanted to let you know that Joe Lauria mentioned your blog and the article you wrote on
the indictment of the 13 Russians. He was on Loud and Clear (Sputnik Radio, Washington DC)
today and brought you up at the start of the program.
Glad to see you get some recognition for all the great work you've been doing :)
Ken @ 24: The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are
trained in critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their
own emotions or other people's emotions. Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's
emotions and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public
Opinion" (1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's
theories of the mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion. https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda
Bernays' books influenced Nazi and Soviet propaganda and Bernays himself was hired by the
US government to justify in the public mind the 1954 US invasion of Guatemala.
You may be aware that Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation which owns the Wall Street
Journal, FOX News and 20th Century Fox studios, is also on the Board of Directors of Genie
Energy which owns a subsidiary firm that was granted a licence by an Israeli court to explore
and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's (and Israeli-occupied) Golan Heights.
Many of my thoughts as well.The U.S.'s greatest fault is its tacit misunderstanding of
just what russia is in fact. They utterly fail to understand the Russian character; forged
over 800 years culminating with the defeat of Nazi Germany, absorbing horrific losses; the
U.S. fails to understand the effect upon the then Soviets, become todays Russians. Even the
god's have abandoned the west...
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point
the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing
capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become
bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture,
herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
I watched bbc news this am in the hope that I would get to see the most awful creature at the
2018 olympics cry her croc tears (long story - a speed skater who cuts off the opposition but
has been found out so now when she swoops in front of the others they either skate over her
leading to tearful whines from perp about having been 'pushed', or gets disqualified for
barging. Last night she got disqualified so as part of my study on whether types like this
believe their own bullshit I thought I'd tune in but didn't get that far into the beebs
lies)
The bulk of the bulletin was devoted to a 'lets hate Russia' session which featured a
quisling who works for the russian arm of BBC (prolly just like cold war days staffed
exclusively by MI6/SIS types). This chap, using almost unintelligible english, claimed he had
proof at least 50 Russian Mercenaries (question - why are amerikan guns for hire called
contractors [remember the Fallujah massacre of 100,000 civilians because amerikan contractors
were stupid] yet Russian contractors are called mercenaries by the media?) had been killed in
Syria last week. The bloke had evidence of one contractor's death not 50 - the proof was a
letter from the Russian government to the guy's mother telling her he didn't qualify for any
honours because he wasn't in the Russian military.
The quisling (likely a Ukranian I would say) went on to rabbit about the bloke having also
fought in Donbass under contract - to which the 'interviewer (don't ya love it when media
'interview' their own journos - a sure sign that a snippet of toxic nonsense is being
delivered) led about how the deceitful Russians had claimed the only Russians fighting in
Donbass were contractors - yeah well this bloke was a contractor surely that proves the
Russians were telling the truth.
It's not what these propagandists say; they adopt a tone and the audience is meant to hate
based on that even when the facts as stated conflict with the media outlet's point of view.
Remember the childhood trick of saying "bad dog" ter yer mutt in loving tones - the dog comes
to ya tail wagging & licks yer hand. This is that.
The next item was more Syria lies - white helmets footage (altho the beeb is now mostly
giving them an alternative name to dodge the facts about white helmets) of bandaged children
with flour tipped on their heads.
The evil Syrians and Russians are bombarding Gouta - nary a word about the continuous
artillery barrage Gouta has subjected the citizens of Damascus to for the past 4 years, or
that the Syrians have repeatedly offered truces and safe passage for civilians. Any injured
children need to ask their parents why they weren't allowed to take advantage of the frequent
offers of transport out. Maybe the parents are worried 'the resistance' will do its usual and
blow up the busloads of children after luring them over with candy.
Anyway I switched off after that so never did learn if little miss cheat had a cry.
Following Special Counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three entities
behind a Russian "troll farm" said to have meddled in the 2016 U.S. election (admittedly, with
zero impact
), two people familiar with both the
ads
purchased
by Russians on Facebook, and the "troll farm" in question have refuted Mueller's
narrative over the course of four days. Indeed, things don't seem to be going well for the Russia
investigation, which started out with serious claims of Collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin, and has been reduced to CNN
diving through the garbage
of a Russian troll farm.
About that troll farm...
Adrian Chen, staff writer for
The New Yorker -
who first profiled
the indicted Russian troll farm in 2015,
sat down with MSNBC's Chris Hayes, where he
proceeded to deflate Mueller's big scary indictment to nothing.
"Tried to tamp down the troll farm panic on @chrislhayes show last night,"
Adrian Chen tweeted
. "
It's
90 people with a shaky grasp of English and a rudimentary understanding of U.S. politics shitposting
on Facebook.
"
Chen then responded to a tweet saying the IRA has 300-400 individuals. "That was the entire
Internet Research Agency," Chen wrote."
The American department had ~90 people
,
according to the Russian journalists who did the most in-depth investigation."
Chen links to a Washington Post article which profiles Russian journalists who
also
investigated
said troll farm.
The former director of the FBI has assembled a "dream team" of investigators for his Special
Counsel probe and concluded that 13 Russians and 3 entities tried to meddle in the election after
an entire year of investigation.
Those efforts had zero impact on the election
Facebook's VP of ads is on record saying "I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very
definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal
The same FB Exec noted that most of the ads were purchased after the election.
Suggesting that the real, underlying narrative is one of
US media
propaganda, he was
then made to walk back his comments and apologize for his "
uncleared
thoughts
"
CNN is rooting around in the trash outside the troll farm.
And for all of this, Obama and Congress slapped sanctions on Russia, evicted two diplomatic
compounds, and launched several Congressional investigations over.
But at least the US Military Industrial Complex is happy, while the stock of Boeing has never been
higher.
The United
States, through a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) called The
National Endowment for Democracy has spent over $27,000,000 since 2013
in Russia to "promote democracy".
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a U.S. non-profit soft
power organization that was founded in 1983 with the stated goal of
promoting democracy abroad. It is funded primarily through an annual
allocation from the U.S. Congress in the form of a grant awarded through
the United States Information Agency (USIA).
NED was banned in Russia as an undesirable international NGO in for
"using Russian commercial and noncommercial organizations under its
control... to declare the results of election campaigns illegitimate,
organize political actions intended to influence decisions made by the
authorities, and discredit service in Russia's armed forces.
Former Congressman Ron Paul also argued against NED funding
stating that NED has "very little to do with democracy. It is an
organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by
showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It
underwrites color-coded 'people's revolutions' overseas that look more
like pages out of Lenin's writings on stealing power than genuine
indigenous democratic movements."
Investigative reporter and editor of Consortiumnews Robert Parry has
characterized NED as a "neocon slush fund," whose founding was the
brainchild of Reagan Administration CIA Director William Casey and its
leading propagandist Walter Raymond Jr., then on the staff of the
National Security Council. The idea was to set up an organization funded
by the U.S. Congress to take over CIA programs that attempted to
influence foreign elections by promoting the selection of candidates who
supported U.S. policy and would "do what the U.S. government tells them
to do.
NED's Statement of Principles and Objectives, adopted in 1984,
asserts that "No Endowment funds may be used to finance the campaigns of
candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of
such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American
elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money".
As described in the "Elections" and "Interventions" chapters, NED
successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in
1996; helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria
in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992; and worked to defeat the candidate
for prime minister of Slovakia in 2002 who was out of favor in
Washington. And from 1999 to 2004, NED heavily funded members of the
opposition to President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to subvert his rule and
to support a referendum to unseat him.
Additionally, in the 1990s and afterward, NED supported a coalition
of groups in Haiti known as the Democratic Convergence, who were united
in their opposition to Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive
ideology, while he was in and out of the office of the president.
The Endowment has made its weight felt in the
electoral-political process in numerous other countries.
The United States has continued democracy programs despite
local prohibitions.
Nevertheless, USAID and the NED have continued to fund organizations,
even where that's against the local country's laws. In Venezuela, for
example, the United States has
openly
continued
funding civil society organizations, even listing that in
its annual budgets, albeit without naming recipients.
USAID and the NED are undoubtedly keeping their plans in the country
secret. However, the NED and its leaders
continue
to
openly counter Russian ideological efforts throughout Eurasia.
For instance, when NED President Carl Gershman
testified
before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2016, he said
that one of the NED's five main focuses includes pushing back against
"an information offensive by Russia and other authoritarian regimes."
MSM has a story to run for 3 nights on "Russian meddling" - the sheeple bleat - go
to work, pay bills, pay taxes, invest in their "retirement", and send their kids off
to die in pointless wars.
The other funny thing about the indictments is that the speech of these Russian
nationals if they ran ads as alleged, is protected by the First Amendment, which
does not limit itself to US citizens. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech ...". The indictments claim that one must register as a foreign
lobbyist if they want to engage in political speech in the United States. For very
important reasons, the Constitution does not limit its protections to citizens,
including and especially where speech and religion are concerned.
Let's use a little math here. Even FB admits that only 1 in 23,000 images on
their site during this time period were paid for by the trolls. The vast
majority of FB users would never even have seen this content. If they were in
the .0004 of users who stumbled upon "troll speech," the message would no
doubt be drained out by all the other hundreds or thousands of messages they
did notice (mostly pictures of friends' babies). And, believe it or not, a
whole lot of voters don't even use Facebook. So only a minute fraction of FB
users could have conceivably seen one random, lonely impression, which would
have been drowned out by thousands of other non-troll impressions, posts made
by people who actually speak English and made by people the FB users actually
know.
Finally, if you were in the subgroup that found one of the five golden
tickets (stumbled upon a real Russian troll post), who is to say the dang post
wasn't 100 percent accurate.
I know I'm supposed to panic over all of this, but I'm not gonna do it.
Not. Gonna. Do. It.
The FBof
Matters apparently have exposed their MSM
strategy...they stole it from the Chocolate Factory...(((super secret FIB
methods)))...
Oomph Loompa doompadee doo, I've got another puzzle for
you. Ooompa Loompa doompadah dee, If you are wise you'll listen to me." I
suppose Mueller and associates have their heads so far up their asses they
actually believe they're in Wonka's Chocolate Factory...Oh look!!! Another
pristine Passport!!!
Let's use a little math here. Even FB admits that only 1 in 23,000 images on
their site during this time period were paid for by the trolls. The vast
majority of FB users would never even have seen this content. If they were in
the .0004 of users who stumbled upon "troll speech," the message would no
doubt be drained out by all the other hundreds or thousands of messages they
did notice (mostly pictures of friends' babies). And, believe it or not, a
whole lot of voters don't even use Facebook. So only a minute fraction of FB
users could have conceivably seen one random, lonely impression, which would
have been drowned out by thousands of other non-troll impressions, posts made
by people who actually speak English and made by people the FB users actually
know.
Finally, if you were in the subgroup that found one of the five golden
tickets (stumbled upon a real Russian troll post), who is to say the dang post
wasn't 100 percent accurate.
I know I'm supposed to panic over all of this, but I'm not gonna do it.
Not. Gonna. Do. It.
The FBof
Matters apparently have exposed their MSM
strategy...they stole it from the Chocolate Factory...(((super secret FIB
methods)))...
Oomph Loompa doompadee doo, I've got another puzzle for
you. Ooompa Loompa doompadah dee, If you are wise you'll listen to me." I
suppose Mueller and associates have their heads so far up their asses they
actually believe they're in Wonka's Chocolate Factory...Oh look!!! Another
pristine Passport!!!
The trolls were allegedly trying to "sow discord." The MSM - working closely with
the FBI and the Establishment in Washington - are trying to "spread panic."
For
once, the fear-mongering isn't playing in Peoria.
If Obama hadn't slapped sanctions on Russia, what were the Oval Office conspirators
going to leak to media about Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador?
What was Sally Yates going to assert could be a violation of the Logan Act, and also
a possible way for Russia to blackmail Flynn? What was the FBI going to question
Flynn about? So McCabe could change their 302s. So there
had
to be
sanctions. And there
had
to be trolls.
The Saker gives a few findings to those who understand what might be happening:
The best way to get information is to make it up.
Everything what we know now about the so-called "Kremlin trolls from the Internet
Research Agency paid by Putin's favorite chef," came from one source, a group of CIA
spies that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty, for their collective
online persona.
Just think about this working scheme: Shaltay-Boltay with a group of
anti-government "activists" created the "Internet Research Agency," they and some
"activists" created 470 FaceBook accounts used to post comments that looked
unmistakably "trollish."
After that other, CIA affiliated entities, like the entire Western Media, claimed
the "Russian interference in the US election." Finally, the ODNI published a report
lacking any evidence in it."
"... "Mr. Mueller, due to his direct involvement as former FBI Director and his role in covering up and protecting Gulen Networks' criminal operations within the United States, by shutting down pertinent FBI investigative operations and by transferring certain terrorism related Gulen files to the counterintelligence division, has a major conflict of interest as Special Counsel targeting Flynn's case as it pertains to exposing the Gulen network and his relationship with Turkish entities sharing the same interest in exposing and extraditing Fethullah Gulen. Thus, Mr. Mueller must step down from his position as Special Counsel in this case- a case targeting and probing Lt. General Michael Flynn." ..."
"Mr. Mueller, due to his direct involvement as former FBI Director and his role in
covering up and protecting Gulen Networks' criminal operations within the United States, by
shutting down pertinent FBI investigative operations and by transferring certain terrorism
related Gulen files to the counterintelligence division, has a major conflict of interest as
Special Counsel targeting Flynn's case as it pertains to exposing the Gulen network and his
relationship with Turkish entities sharing the same interest in exposing and extraditing
Fethullah Gulen. Thus, Mr. Mueller must step down from his position as Special Counsel in
this case- a case targeting and probing Lt. General Michael Flynn."
"... gesture to the Kremlin that would enable the nascent Trump administration to see its desire for friendly relations with Russia would be reciprocated ..."
"... fit a pattern within the Trump administration of sidling up to Russia. Taken in sum, the pattern raises questions about whether Trump and his team are willing to pay Russia back for the Kremlin's role in the [presidential] election ..."
The baleful effect of this anti-Russian paranoia was illustrated in an
article published last week by the Daily Beast. It was reported that a member of Trump's
National Security Council proposed early in the new presidency last year that the US should
scale back its military forces in the Baltic countries.
Russia has long complained that the buildup of US-led NATO forces on its European borders is
a provocative threat to its national security.
The idea of repositioning US troops from the Baltic was pitched as a " gesture to the
Kremlin that would enable the nascent Trump administration to see its desire for friendly
relations with Russia would be reciprocated ."
Apparently, the proposal was quickly rebuffed out of concern about how it would fuel US
media claims of Trump being a Russian puppet.
Another idea that was similarly rejected was the lifting of US sanctions on Russia's
economy.
The Daily Beast goes on to make the pejorative editorial comment that the floated proposals
" fit a pattern within the Trump administration of sidling up to Russia. Taken in sum, the
pattern raises questions about whether Trump and his team are willing to pay Russia back for
the Kremlin's role in the [presidential] election ."
Note how the article asserts as fact the dubious speculation about Russia interfering in US
politics.
Reportedly the proposals for trying to restore relations with Russia have since dried up
within Trump's National Security Council.
Indeed, the NSC official named as the originator of the ideas – Kevin Harrington
– is understood to have led the team that produced the hawkish National Security Strategy
published at the end of last year.
Thus, from reasonable proposals to engage with Russia floated at the start of Trump's first
year in office, within 12 months the administration has absorbed and adopted the Russophobia
narrative.
Anti-Russian group think espoused by US elites has become institutionalized, against the
stated views of the president and the American electorate. Where's the democracy in that?
This attempt to offer West the "olive branch" is useless. The US neoliberal elite is trying
to save itself from people anger and extent the coming to the end period of global dominance and
Russia is a convenient scapegoat.
Notable quotes:
"... Commenting on the Moscow-Brussels ties, Lavrov said that the European Union has failed to find a golden mean in relations with Russia in the last decades, treating the country in 1990s as an "aprentice" that should be taught in accordance with western standards and values. Now, the other irrational myth about the so-called "Russian threat" is being exploited, Lavrov went on to note, with the western states accusing Moscow of meddling in every controversial event, including Brexit and the Catalan referendum on independence. ..."
"... Russia is open to an equal, mutually respectful partnership that will be based on the balance of interests with the EU in order to find effective solutions to the challenges of a present day. We are ready to build relations with the US and other countries basing on the same principles ..."
"... We believe that his idea of cooperation between the European Union, Russia, the United States and China to support the creation of the security architecture in the Middle East is very appreciated, and the same is true for the Gulf ..."
Commenting on the Moscow-Brussels ties, Lavrov said that the European Union has failed
to find a golden mean in relations with Russia in the last decades, treating the country in
1990s as an "aprentice" that should be taught in accordance with western standards and
values. Now, the other irrational myth about the so-called "Russian threat" is being
exploited, Lavrov went on to note, with the western states accusing Moscow of meddling in
every controversial event, including Brexit and the Catalan referendum on
independence.
Mr. Lavrov went further, though, to state that:
Russia is open to an equal, mutually respectful partnership that will be based on the
balance of interests with the EU in order to find effective solutions to the challenges of a
present day. We are ready to build relations with the US and other countries basing on the
same principles
He also expressed hope that the EU remains unified and continues to serve the basic
interests of each of its member states. He noted especially that he hoped that the EU countries
would be autonomous in international affairs. He made a point that he believed that the EU
member states should define for themselves how to develop their own economies and to satisfy
their resource requirements, most particularly that of energy, a veiled reference to the
pressure exerted on some EU nations by the Americans to buy American energy rather than the
more easily available and cheaper Russian energy resources.
He went on to the discussion of Middle Eastern policy:
We believe that his idea of cooperation between the European Union, Russia, the United
States and China to support the creation of the security architecture in the Middle East is
very appreciated, and the same is true for the Gulf
Russia has been honest, but always rather tactful, pointing out that the Middle Eastern
troubles especially dating from 2011 were caused or exacerbated by the foreign policy whims of
the United States. Russia's collegial approach to solving these matters stands in contrast to
the single-minded determination of the USA to exert its will in Middle Eastern affairs, as in
much of the rest of the world.
"... I turned in a blank ballot in November 2016. A choice between the Devil's Sister and the Devil's Jester wasn't a choice that sober grownups would make. I didn't need 13 Russians's help to arrive at that conclusion. ..."
"... My God, what a confession it is to believe that 13 non-billionaires could influence an American election: "Horosho! Now that election goes to Trump, next we get Moose and Squirrel!" Seriously?! ..."
"... "Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election?" The Deep State folks want us to think so. Is there any way to turn the tables on them? ..."
"... If career lawyers at DOJ told Jeff Sessions that he should probably recuse himself because of X, Y, and Z, then they are presumptively guilty of bad faith, and Sessions need not necessarily feel bound to stay recused. ..."
"... Sessions was under no legal compulsion to recuse himself, as Andrew C. McCarthy has demonstrated. Arguably, the A.G. can point to any such bad faith as a reason for taking back his recusal. "The rule of law!" the Deep State will scream. But bad faith of the kind in question is ipso facto a negation of the rule of law. ..."
"... The rule of law only demands that a reversal of a recusal bear an extremely heavy burden of proof for its justification. No problem if Sessions relied on bad-faith actors at DOJ–reversing his recusal would be justified. ..."
Cue the resident amoral neocon scumbags to tell us that darn it, it's DIFFERENT when we do it. Sure our "allies" might be neonazis,
slave traders, people who bomb churches, behead priests, kidnap nuns, and enslave Christians .but you know .Putin.
The insanity that is engulfing the USA is no longer just a joke, that these lunatics have nuclear weapons is now a very serious
threat to the rest of the world – that is hopefully not as insane. Bombing foreign nations is not considered an act of war (kinetic
action in Syria, Libya, Niger, Somalia, etc), however making online comments is an act of war?!?
I have made online comments against America, I suggest I also get added on that list as an act of war.
I don't think if I were a "resident amoral neocon scumbag" I would dare to reply after VikingLS' opening comment.
The title sounds silly: "acts of war" in the real world are defined by people who want to go to war.
And BTW, Pat's language is slippery when talking about the Chilean coup. Maybe the White House had "deniability" but State
and the CIA left fingerprints everywhere. If you want to see an obviously lying Kissinger, read the section on the coup in "White
House Years."
I turned in a blank ballot in November 2016. A choice between the Devil's Sister and the Devil's Jester wasn't a choice that
sober grownups would make. I didn't need 13 Russians's help to arrive at that conclusion.
My God, what a confession it is to believe that 13 non-billionaires could influence an American election: "Horosho! Now
that election goes to Trump, next we get Moose and Squirrel!" Seriously?!
I tell my kids all the time that half the people in this country are, by definition, below average in intelligence.
"Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election?" The Deep State folks want us to think
so. Is there any way to turn the tables on them?
If career lawyers at DOJ told Jeff Sessions that he should probably recuse himself because of X, Y, and Z, then they are
presumptively guilty of bad faith, and Sessions need not necessarily feel bound to stay recused.
Sessions was under no legal compulsion to recuse himself, as Andrew C. McCarthy has demonstrated. Arguably, the A.G. can
point to any such bad faith as a reason for taking back his recusal. "The rule of law!" the Deep State will scream. But bad faith
of the kind in question is ipso facto a negation of the rule of law.
The rule of law only demands that a reversal of a recusal bear an extremely heavy burden of proof for its justification.
No problem if Sessions relied on bad-faith actors at DOJ–reversing his recusal would be justified.
Career lawyers at DOJ, especially in the Office of Legal Counsel, would clearly have known that Sessions was under no legal
compulsion or professional obligation to recuse himself. If they left him with a different impression and advised that it would
be best for him to recuse himself, their actions couldn't realistically be attributed to incompetence. Only bad faith could explain
such advice.
This is true even if they deliberately neglected to inform the A.G. of the legal non-necessity for recusal and played up the
alleged political necessity for recusal. It would still be bad faith.
If that's correct, it doesn't mean Sessions should immediately take back his recusal. Weeks or months of preparation might
be needed for educating the public and injecting a spine-stiffening drug in a number of Republican senators–call your office,
Lindsey Graham. But it does allow for a stronger attack right now on Robert Mueller, who needs to get out from under his own shadow
of bad faith before he ends up earning the nickname "Bad Faith Bob."
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point
the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing
capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become
bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture,
herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
"Russian bots" - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News
The U.S. mainstream media are going nuts. They now make up and report stories based on the
uncritical acceptance of the outcome of an algorithm they do not understand and which is know
to produce fake results.
SAN FRANCISCO -- One hour after news broke about the school shooting in Florida last week,
Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up the
gun control debate.
The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the
hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting. Earlier on
Wednesday, before the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Fla., many of those accounts had been focused on the investigation by the special counsel
Robert S. Mueller III into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
In other words - the "Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia" were following
the current news just as cable news networks do. When a new sensational event happened they
immediately jumped onto it. But the NYT authors go to length to claim that there is some
nefarious Russian scheme behind this that uses automated accounts to spread divisive
issues.
Those claims are based on this propaganda project:
Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund,
a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of
Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian
influence campaign.
The "Alliance for Securing Democracy" is run by military lobbyists, CIA
minions and neocons. Its claimed task is:
... to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in
the United States and Europe.
There is no evidence that Vladimir Putin made or makes such efforts.
The ASD "Hamilton 68" website shows graphics with rankings of "top items"
and "trending items" allegedly used by Russian bots or influence agents. There is nothing
complicate behind it. It simply tracks the tweets of 600 Twitter users and aggregates the
hashtags they use. It does not say which Twitter accounts its algorithms follows. It claims
that the 600 were selected by one of three criteria: 1. People who often tweet news that also
appears on RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik News , two general news sites
sponsored by the Russian government; 2. People who "openly profess to be pro-Russian"; 3.
accounts that "appear to use automation" to boost the same themes that people in group 1 and 2
tweet about.
Nowhere does the group say how many of the 600 accounts it claims to track belong to which
group. Are their 10 assumed bots or 590 in the surveyed 600 accounts? And how please does one
"openly profess" to be pro-Russian? We don't know and the ASD won't say.
On December 25 2017 the "Russian influence" agents or bots who, according to NYT, want to
sow divisiveness, wished everyone a
Merry Christmas.
The real method the Hamilton 68 group used to select the 600 accounts it tracks is unknown.
The group does not say or show how it made it up. Despite that the NYT reporters, Sheera
Frenkel and Daisuke Wakabayashi, continue with the false assumptions that most or all the
accounts are automated, have something to do with Russia and are presumably nefarious:
Russian-linked bots have rallied around other divisive issues, often ones that President
Trump has tweeted about. They promoted Twitter hashtags like #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem
and #takeaknee after some National Football League players started kneeling during the
national anthem to protest racial injustice.
The automated Twitter accounts helped popularize the #releasethememo hashtag , ...
The Daily Beast reported earlier that the emphasized claim is definitely
false :
Twitter's internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not
Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary
indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is
either predominantly Russian.
The same is presumably true for the other hashtags.
The Dutch IT specialist and blogger Marcel van den Berg was wondering how Dutch keywords
and hashtags showed up in on the Hamilton 68 "Russian bots" dashboard. He found (
Dutch ,
English auto translation) that the dashboard is a total fraud:
In recent weeks, I have been keeping a close eye on Hamilton 68. Every time a Dutch hashtag
was shown on the website, I made a screenshot. Then I noted what was playing at that moment
and I watched the Tweets with this hashtag. Again I could not find any Tweet that seemed to
be from a Russian troll.
In all cases, the hash tags that Hamilton 68 reported were trending topics in the
Netherlands. In all cases there was much to do around the subject of the hashtag in the
Netherlands. Many people were angry or shared their opinion on the subject on Twitter. And
even if there were a few tweets with Russian connections between them, the effect is zero.
Because they do not stand out among the many other, authentic Tweets.
Van den Berg lists a dozen examples he analyzed in depth.
The anti-Russian Bellingcat group around couch blogger Eliot Higgins is sponsored
by the NATO propaganda shop Atlantic Council . It sniffs through open source stuff to
blame Russia or Syria wherever possible. Bellingcat were recently a victim of the
"Russian bots" - or rather of the ASD website. On February 10 the hashtag #bellingcat trended
to rank
2 of the dashboard.
Bellingcat was thus, according to the Hamilton 68 claims, under assault of hordes
of nefarious Russian government sponsored bots.
The Bellingcat folks looked into the issue and found
that only six people on Twitter, none of
them an automated account, had used the #bellingcat hashtag in the last 48 hours. Some of the
six may have opinions that may be "pro Russian", but as Higgins himself says :
[I]n my opinion, it's extremely unlikely the people listed are Russian agents
The pro-NATO propaganda shop Bellingcat thus debunked the pro NATO propaganda shop
Alliance for Securing Democracy.
The fraudsters who created the Hamilton 68 crap seem to have filled their database with
rather normal people who's opinions they personally dislike. Those then are the "Russian bots"
who spread "Russian influence" and divisiveness.
Moreover - what is the value of its information when six normal people out of millions of
active Twitter users can push a hashtag with a handful of tweets to the top of the
dashboard?
But the U.S. media writes long gushing stories about the dashboard and how it somehow shows
automated Russian propaganda. They go to length to explain that this shows "Russian influence"
and a "Russian" attempt to sow "divisiveness" into people's minds.
This is nuts.
Last August, when the Hamilton 68 project was first released, the Nation was the
only site critical of it. It
predicted :
The import of GMF's project is clear: Reporting on anything that might put the US in a bad
light is now tantamount to spreading Russian propaganda.
It is now even worse than that. The top ranking of the #merrychristmas hashtag shows that
the algorithm does not even care about good or bad news. The tracked twitter accounts are
normal people.
The whole project is just a means to push fake stories about alleged "Russian influence"
into U.S. medias. Whenever some issue creeps up on its dashboard that somehow fits its false
"Russian bots" and "divisiveness" narrative the Alliance for Securing Democracy
contacts the media to spread its poison. The U.S. media, - CNN, Wired, the New York Times - are
by now obviously devoid of thinking journalists and fact checkers. They simple re-package the
venom and spread it to the public.
How long will it take until people die from it?
Posted by b on February 20, 2018 at 03:15 PM |
Permalink
Rufus T. Firefly: I'd be unworthy of the high trust that's been placed in me if I didn't
do everything in my power to keep our beloved Freedonia in peace with the world. I'd be only
too happy to meet with Ambassador Trentino, and offer him on behalf of my country the right
hand of good fellowship. And I feel sure he will accept this gesture in the spirit of which
it is offered. But suppose he doesn't. A fine thing that'll be. I hold out my hand and he
refuses to accept. That'll add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me, the head of a country,
snubbed by a foreign ambassador. Who does he think he is, that he can come here, and make a
sap of me in front of all my people? Think of it - I hold out my hand and that hyena refuses
to accept. Why, the cheap four-flushing swine, he'll never get away with it I tell you, he'll
never get away with it.
[Trentino enters]
Rufus T. Firefly: So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh?
[slaps Trentino with his glove]
Ambassador Trentino: Mrs. Teasdale, this is the last straw. There's no turning back now!
This means war!
Rufus T. Firefly: Then it's war! Then it's war! Gather the forces. Harness the horses.
Then it's war!
"to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin's ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the
United States and Europe."
That's pretty rich, coming from a country and from people who actually genuinely, and in
proven ways, have subverted democracy in Europe since the late 1940s - Italy being one of the
clearest cases.
For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia. I can't
believe it has to do with the economy. There's got to be a far better nefarious reason. Even
during the real cold war we tried to avoid conflict. Absolute insanity.
How much time might the "Alliance for Securing Democracy" spend on uncovering voter
suppression and purges, dis-enfrancisement of felons, the closing of polling places,
restrictions of early voting, the influence of billionaires, gerrymandering and so on?
Gee, what could go wrong formulating policy founded upon a series of Big Lies? Kim Dotcom says he has
important info the FBI refuses to hear. At the Munich
Security Conference , neocon Nicholas Burns, former US Ambassador to NATO, details my
assertion's factual basis that current policy is being formed on a series of Big Lies: "Will
NATO strengthen itself to contain Russian power in Eastern Europe giving what Russian
[sic] has done illegally in Crimea, in the Donbass, and in Georgia ?" [Bolded text are
the Big Lies.]
Clearly, this entire psyop was premeditated and its design was hastily done
contemporaneously with Russia's Syria intervention. NSA/CIA/FBI knew of HRC's security
breeches and rightly assumed their contents would find their way into the election, so the
general plan was ready to go prior to WikiLeaks publications. b has uncovered much, and I
hope he's planning to publish a book about the entire affair.
Ken @ 4: There doesn't necessarily need to be One Major Reason for going to war. There may be
several reasons all feeding and reinforcing one another and creating a psychological climate
in which Going To War is seen as the only solution and is inevitable. The reasons are not
just economic and political but cultural and historical.
In some countries allied with the US, the politicians in power are the ideological
descendants of those who collaborated with Nazi Germany - so in a sense they are committed to
"correcting" what they see as wrong. In the case of current Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe, he is the grandson of a former prime minister who once served in General Tojo's World
War II cabinet.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/26/national/formed-in-childhood-roots-of-abes-conservatism-go-deep/#.WoyZCG9uaUk
That's why pinning down the reason for wanting a war against Russia is so difficult.
Since the FBI never inspected the DNC's computers first-hand, the only evidence comes from
an Irvine, California, cyber-security firm known as CrowdStrike whose chief technical
officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, a well-known Putin-phobe, is a fellow at the Atlantic Council,
a Washington think tank that is also vehemently anti-Russian as well as a close Hillary
Clinton ally.
Thus, Putin-basher Clinton hired Putin-basher Alperovitch to investigate an alleged
electronic heist, and to absolutely no one's surprise, his company concluded that guilty
party was Vladimir Putin. Amazing! Since then, a small army of internet critics has chipped
away at CrowdStrike for praising the hackers as among the best in the business yet
declaring in the same breath that they gave themselves away by uploading a document in the
name of "Felix Edmundovich," i.e. Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Soviet secret
police.
As noted cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr observed with regard to Russia's two main
intelligence agencies: "Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add
Iron Felix's name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world
while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor."
This is about conditioning voters in Europe and the United States for a long war with Russia
and China. In other words, a return to the 1950s. It is not working and becoming increasingly
hysterical because societies are not nearly as cohesive as they once were, and the mainstream
political parties, while better funded and more top-down organized, are basically hollow. The
collapse is coming. Four years or ten, take your pick.
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Most Americans probably don't. Just the chosen few with the deepest fall-out shelters. The
idea is to keep piling the pressure on to countries like Iran and Russia in the hope that
their populations will rise up and demand the freedoms that we enjoy in the West....things
like uncensored wardrobe malfunctions and transgender washrooms.
let's imagine that we have the pyramid of evilness, by which we measure bestiality of one
regime and its constituency. my firm belief is that us would be on the top of that pyramid.
Only dilemma would be between Zionist entity and the US.
"How could the masses be made to desire their own repression?" was the question Wilhelm
Reich famously asked in the wake of the Reichstagsbrandverordnung (Reichstag Fire Decree,
February 28, 1933), which suspended the civil rights protections afforded by the Weimar
Republic's democratic constitution.Hitler had been appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933
and Reich was trying to grapple with the fact that the German people had apparently chosen
the authoritarian politics promoted by National Socialism against their own political
interests. Ever since, the question of fascism, or rather the question of why might people
vote for their own oppression, has never ceased to haunt political philosophy.2 With Trump
openly campaigning for less democracy in America -- and with the continued electoral
success of far-right antiliberal movements across Europe -- this question has again become
a pressing one.
An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime.
Media have long agitated for War in US History. Nothing sells newspapers
like a good ole war!
Demonizing is a way to achieve it. What is sure is that this is a one way street.
Once over the cliff, there is no turning back.
How do you tell people that, at the flick of your magic switch, Putin is in fact
a swell guy and wonderful human being? Once love is gone who goes back
to the filthy, abhorrent and estranged spouse?
Surely the US establishment is playing with fire thinking they will successfully
ride out any conflict and come out on top secure in their newly reestablished
hegemony on the smoldering ruins of Humanity.
Make no mistake, we are all on the road to hell. Better enjoy todays peace as
tomorrow word will be filled with the sweet music of cemeteries.
@15 "An American people is in perfect harmony with its regime."
I'm not so sure. I think there are many Americans who deeply distrust their government.
But of course they don't want to appear unpatriotic. There are also many who are apathetic
and many simply don't know how to change things.
It's horrible I know to quote a Nazi, but Goring had this right:
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm
want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his
farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in
England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or
a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare
wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same way in any country.
American media has graduated from simply repeating the lies of "unnamed government sources"
to repeating the lies of any organization unofficially blessed by the powers that be. The
skills required to repeat the text verbatim serve them well in both cases. Skepticism is only
reserved to anyone who tries to introduce logic or facts into the equation--such as when Jill
Stein was interviewed on MSNBC recently. How dare Ms. Stein try to bring FACTS into the
discussion!
In that The Narrative is tightly controlled in the corporate media, not matter how strong the
proofs or arguments about the falsity of these propaganda campaigns are, little or no
circulation of those proofs or arguments wlll reach the general public.
Thanks Jen. It still makes no sense. As a veteran of the Vietnam fiasco, I was pretty much
government oriented until McNamara outed the whole thing whining about haw sorry he was.
59,000 dead and he's sorry. They were able to hide the Gulf of Tonkin BS until then. After
that I researched the reasons for each war/conflict the USA started and could find no logical
reasons except hunger for power. But the little sandbox wars won't destroy the world like a
major war/conflict with Russia and it goes nuclear. Almost every politician, and major news
organizations are pushing for a war/conflict with Russia. This is insanity as no one will win
a war like this and I am sure they know that,,, but they keep the war drums beating anyhow.
It simply doesn't make sense. But Thanks again.
Same for dh, #14. Things are soooo stupid, your joking may be closer to the truth than you
know. :-)
Thank you for the post. I will save it and use it liberally, with proper attributions.
When one challenges the tribe on places like Twitter, it is hard to tell who is a real idiot
and who is a bot. How do you know? Maybe that the bots go away fairly quickly and the idiots
hang around to argue ad infinitum.
The thing that bothers me, is the fact that the MICGlobalists dont care what we think or how
poor their deceptions are. The public perception that "russia did it!!" continues to rise. I
wonder what the public acceptance level needs to be for them to execute a MAJOR false flag
event. They seem to think they are still on target, and its just a short matter or time...
They are going to do this when the perception management is complete...
We really do not need another one of their disasters
The bully pushes and pushes until stopped by the first serious push back. The dynamic of the
west and the neocon/Zionists at the core is essentially that of the bully. Nations like
Venezuela and the Philippines have started to push back, and I hope and feel fairly confident
that they will both survive the rage of the US. In some part, they have begun to show the
actual powerlessness of the bully.
But the really killer nations - Russia and China - are holding their water as they
strengthen their force. I believe that one very serious push back from either of them in the
right circumstances will stop the bully. And yet, as they bide their time, we see a curious
phenomenon wherein the US is destroying itself from the inside.
It's as if all of the forces that exist to control the country - the lockstep media, the
fully rigged markets, the hysterical military, the bought legislature and the crooked courts
- are all acting far more strongly than should be necessary. The entire system is
over-reacting, over-reaching, over-boiling. And in the course of this, the US is actually
shedding power, and at an amazing rate. But not from the action of Russia but from its
non-action, the empty space that that allows the bully's dynamic to over-reach, all the way
to complete failure.
Is it possible that deep in the security states of Russia and China there's even a study
and a model for this? Is the collapse of the US actually being gamed by Russia and China -
and through the totally counter-intuitive action of non-action?
Hey b,
Just wanted to let you know that Joe Lauria mentioned your blog and the article you wrote on
the indictment of the 13 Russians. He was on Loud and Clear (Sputnik Radio, Washington DC)
today and brought you up at the start of the program.
Glad to see you get some recognition for all the great work you've been doing :)
Ken @ 24: The warmongering is not intended to make any sense - not many people are trained in
critical thinking and logic, and even when they are, they can be swamped by their own
emotions or other people's emotions. Propaganda is intended to appeal to people's emotions
and fears. You can try reading works by Edward Bernays - "Crystallizing Public Opinion"
(1923) and "Propaganda" (1928) - to see how he uses his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories of the
mind to create strategies for manipulating public opinion. https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda
Bernays' books influenced Nazi and Soviet propaganda and Bernays himself was hired by the
US government to justify in the public mind the 1954 US invasion of Guatemala.
You may be aware that Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corporation which owns the Wall Street
Journal, FOX News and 20th Century Fox studios, is also on the Board of Directors of Genie
Energy which owns a subsidiary firm that was granted a licence by an Israeli court to explore
and drill for oil and natural gas in Syria's (and Israeli-occupied) Golan Heights.
Many of my thoughts as well.
The U.S.'s greatest fault is its tacit misunderstanding of just what russia is in fact.
They utterly fail to understand the Russian character; forged over 800 years culminating with
the defeat of Nazi Germany, absorbing horrific losses; the U.S. fails to understand the
effect upon the then Soviets, become todays Russians.
Even the god's have abandoned the west...
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point
the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing
capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become
bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture,
herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
I watched bbc news this am in the hope that I would get to see the most awful creature at the
2018 olympics cry her croc tears (long story - a speed skater who cuts off the opposition but
has been found out so now when she swoops in front of the others they either skate over her
leading to tearful whines from perp about having been 'pushed', or gets disqualified for
barging. Last night she got disqualified so as part of my study on whether types like this
believe their own bullshit I thought I'd tune in but didn't get that far into the beebs
lies)
The bulk of the bulletin was devoted to a 'lets hate Russia' session which featured a
quisling who works for the russian arm of BBC (prolly just like cold war days staffed
exclusively by MI6/SIS types). This chap, using almost unintelligible english, claimed he had
proof at least 50 Russian Mercenaries (question - why are amerikan guns for hire called
contractors [remember the Fallujah massacre of 100,000 civilians because amerikan contractors
were stupid] yet Russian contractors are called mercenaries by the media?) had been killed in
Syria last week. The bloke had evidence of one contractor's death not 50 - the proof was a
letter from the Russian government to the guy's mother telling her he didn't qualify for any
honours because he wasn't in the Russian military.
The quisling (likely a Ukranian I would say) went on to rabbit about the bloke having also
fought in Donbass under contract - to which the 'interviewer (don't ya love it when media
'interview' their own journos - a sure sign that a snippet of toxic nonsense is being
delivered) led about how the deceitful Russians had claimed the only Russians fighting in
Donbass were contractors - yeah well this bloke was a contractor surely that proves the
Russians were telling the truth.
It's not what these propagandists say; they adopt a tone and the audience is meant to hate
based on that even when the facts as stated conflict with the media outlet's point of view.
Remember the childhood trick of saying "bad dog" ter yer mutt in loving tones - the dog comes
to ya tail wagging & licks yer hand. This is that.
The next item was more Syria lies - white helmets footage (altho the beeb is now mostly
giving them an alternative name to dodge the facts about white helmets) of bandaged children
with flour tipped on their heads.
The evil Syrians and Russians are bombarding Gouta - nary a word about the continuous
artillery barrage Gouta has subjected the citizens of Damascus to for the past 4 years, or
that the Syrians have repeatedly offered truces and safe passage for civilians. Any injured
children need to ask their parents why they weren't allowed to take advantage of the frequent
offers of transport out. Maybe the parents are worried 'the resistance' will do its usual and
blow up the busloads of children after luring them over with candy.
Anyway I switched off after that so never did learn if little miss cheat had a cry.
"... The whole of American politics is nothing but 'sowing discord'. The only thing that holds the two parties together is the hatred shared for the 'other party'. ..."
"... Again, if election laws were broken, arrest, try, convict and imprison the perpetrators. Lots of money gets spent sowing discord during the elections. I'm not concerned one bit about the drop in the bucket spent by the Russians ..."
"... She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she was for universal health care. ..."
"... So, if I have a heart attack, based on my obesity, poor diet and alcoholism, I should immediately blame the background radiation in my basement? ..."
"... A classic case of misdirection, served up and serving the converging interests of a variety of players: neo-cons and defense contractors wet for a new Cold War with Russia, the Clinton/Obama wing of the Democratic Party desperate to use this to distract from their catastrophic political negligence, and factions in the National Security State looking to be rehabilitated in the eyes of media and liberal elites. ..."
"... What Russian government? It was a commercial operation posting click bait, of all sorts, to sell ads. And yes, that's the explanation that fits the facts best. If Putin was really bankrolling it, no evidence so far, he was wasting his money. From our point of view, a good thing. ..."
"... A foreign government employed copy editors to sow dissent in American politics by way of Twitter, Facebook, online advertising and a network of blogs. ..."
"... Google files patent for robot that writes your Facebook posts, emails and tweets ..."
"... All Russian bot claims appear to originate from the same group of warmongers and their highly flawed Hamilton 68 Dashboard project: McCarthyism Inc.: Terror Cranks Sold America the Russia Panic Truthdig ..."
"... [The Alliance for Securing Democracy's] researchers and advisors have become go-to pundits for mainstream reporters seeking expert opinions on Russian online meddling. They have been endorsed by John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and chief of staff for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. Julia Ioffe, the Atlantic's Russia correspondent, has also weighed in to promote the ASD's efforts. Both highlighted the ASD's Hamilton 68 Dashboard as a scientific barometer of Kremlin influence over the American social media landscape ..."
"... Bill Kristol, among others, is on the so-called Alliance for Securing Democracy's board of advisors. ..."
"... And "b" at Moon of Alabama thinks that they've deliberately indicted a bunch of people they don't expect to prosecute (they're all in Russia) in order to have the above "message" on the books for as long as it takes for someone to stage a legal test of it. ..."
"... Until then it is simple intimidation. ..."
"... If the Russian government actually funded this sort of thing, they must be pretty simple-minded. ..."
"... Anyway, do we even know that it was Russian "government" money financing these things? It was some oligarch who had "ties" to Putin. By the standards used so far in Russiagate reporting, that basically means that he and Putin are both Russian. ..."
"... The Russian Federation is very much against neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements due to what it suffered from Nazi Germany during WWII. Now Russia sees this on it's boarders in Ukraine. But Russia is branded with this because white folk live there. What about all the Muslims in Russia, many of which have come from Central Asia? What about all the Asians in Eastern Russia? The quoted statement is born of either ignorance, misinformation or disinformation. ..."
"... Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government realised the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative measures which in hindsight, and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very wise move. ..."
"... Crowdstrike is the only source of evidence of Russian hacking of DNC. And Crowdstrike had to walk it back when they used the exact same evidence to claim that Russia had hacked Ukraine's artillery. That is likely why DNC refused to let FBI run forensics on their servers. ..."
"... negotiable convictions ..."
"... This is the mental equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy. At this point the media, the Dems and legions of David Brock led trolls have invested so much time and energy into "Muh Russia" that they can't write off their investment. ..."
"... Keep going. You're doing fine. It's down there somewhere. You can endure another season of Persist, the payoff is right around the corner. There is nothing more important right now than ignoring inconvenient facts. ..."
"... Domain Keys Identified Mail, or DKIM, is a highly regarded email security system that can be used to independently authenticate the contents and sender of an email that uses it. ..."
"... argumentum ad ignorantium ..."
"... argumentum ad ignorantiam ..."
"... Feffer says that progressives don't take Russiagate as seriously as they should. I think critical thinkers are taking it very seriously, because of potential censorship of dissenting voices that favor peace over war, and that favor productive social spending over wasteful military spending. ..."
"... Even absent such concerns, the Russiagate hysteria is obviously a partisan power struggle that sucks the air out of the room for productive political discourse to address real social, economic, and environmental problems. ..."
"... So, the 13 incitements, in addition to keeps the Russian narrative alive for another few weeks, is providing political cover for the establishment to clean house as it were, and clear out the Progressive infestation threatening to cripple the money train the establishment has become accustomed too. ..."
"... democracy in the USA is broken. ..."
"... when 10s of thousands of soldiers would be sent somewhere for an extended period ..."
"... Historically speaking, America peaked at the moon landing. ..."
I find this question, in light of Real News (quite missing from the American landscape)
and Real History (likewise), rather tedious and specious.
Did America (via John Negroponte and Frank Wisner, Jr., and their Franco-American
Foundation's creation of false political scandals against his competitor) do conceivably
worse in France to get Sarkozy elected the first time?
Did America do worse to support the overthrow of democratically elected Honduran
president, Manuel Zelaya?
Did America do worse to support the overthrow of democratically elected president of the
Ukraine (cost to American taxpayers: $5 billion)?
Did America do worse to support the overthrow of democratically elected and farsighted
Chilean president, Salvador Allende, with the subsequent torture/murders of over 30,000
Chileans as well as American citizens?
Time doesn't allow me to go on for more pages, plus this site has a word limit.
The whole of American politics is nothing but 'sowing discord'. The only thing that holds
the two parties together is the hatred shared for the 'other party'.
Again, if election laws were broken, arrest, try, convict and imprison the
perpetrators. Lots of money gets spent sowing discord during the elections. I'm not concerned one bit
about the drop in the bucket spent by the Russians
So this is more about Americans and their political intelligence than Russia and its
intelligence. Trolls bringing down the Merican political system is theatre of the absurd. How
many people died, again?
What I find truly amazing is that Hillary Clinton had over a billion dollars to provide me
with reasons to vote for her. I was searching for anything.
She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she was for universal health care.
She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she would expand social security.
She had over a billion dollars to tell me that she would make college free or at least
dramatically less expensive.
She had a billion dollars to tell me that she and her crazed neo-con advisors wouldn't start
WWIII. Threatening to shoot down Russian planes doesn't inspire confidence.
Over a billion dollars to explain to us in detail on numerous platforms how she was going to
make our lives better.
It was obvious to every one that she was a hard-core neo-liberal and hard-core
neo-conservative. All she offered was "America is already great!!!" A billion dollars and all
she could provide was insults and paranoia.
And people still don't know that as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, she attended those
rightwing prayer breakfasts at the Bush White House; belonged to rightwing,
imperialistic/military organizations, and had an uncle, Wade Rodham, who was a member of the
US Secret Service's presidential protection unit during the Kennedy Administration.
Not to mention those fundraisers thrown by Lady Rothschild at Martha's Vineyard for
HRC.
This is not about Clinton. It's about Russia and the Trump campaign. Hillary lost and
thank God. We should ban any spouses, children or grandchildren from holding elected office
of any kind.
But turning this into a Democrat or Hillary thing is wrong. If there is something there, then
the investigation might find it. If not, we have already grabbed up some arch-criminals in
the persons of Gates and Manafort. So that is a already justification enough. Frankly, all
the talk of costs is also a lie. Manafort's milllions will be seized. Russiagate will turn
out to be profitable!
So, if I have a heart attack, based on my obesity, poor diet and alcoholism, I should
immediately blame the background radiation in my basement?
Most of the "attacks" Lobel referred to were traditional white propaganda by the likes of
RT, which are invariably conflated with, first, Trump/Putin collusion, and since that puppy
died, Russian "attacks" on our exceptional democracy.
Assume every hyper-ventilating charge by Mueller to be true, and magnify it fifty-fold;
it's still bupkis in the toxic and corrupt stew that is US politics.
A classic case of misdirection, served up and serving the converging interests of a
variety of players: neo-cons and defense contractors wet for a new Cold War with Russia, the
Clinton/Obama wing of the Democratic Party desperate to use this to distract from their
catastrophic political negligence, and factions in the National Security State looking to be
rehabilitated in the eyes of media and liberal elites.
This entire tempest (in a teapot) only gained legs because Hillary Clinton is congenitally
unable to accept responsibility for her own mistakes.
What started out as merely a convenient way to distract the public from the embarrassing
and politically crippling *leak* of her own internal emails (the actual content of which no
one in Clintonland or the media ever protested) has, over the last 18 months, devolved into a
swampland of denial and fantasy which has engulfed the Democrats.
So you must be the one who has the actual evidence that any of this was financed by the
Russian government. Please do post it and enlighten us all. Then please forward it to the DNC – if they know the type of bang for their buck
they can get for just $1000 maybe they'll stop sending the rest of us so many emails begging
for money.
Kevin-it seems to me you presume your conclusion when you say 'This is not the case. A
foreign..'
What's your source? What long history, the internet came around in early 90's, I'm old but
that's not that long ago. And seriously, millions of impressions when Trump rallies were
chanting "lock her up" you don't think word had gotten around or you don't think any
Americans would think of that without foreign assistance.
The World Wide Web went live in 1991. The "internet" has become a catchall term for the
WWW, but there were previous proto-internets including the Internet. "Kevin" isn't on the ball clearly. "Sow dissent" is pretty much code for how upset he was
that "Dear Mother" didn't have a coronation.
"A foreign government employed copy editors to sow dissent in American politics by way of
Twitter, Facebook, online advertising and a network of blogs." Er, citation? I read the indictment. It doesn't say that.
Can you possibly explain this? If the political system can suffer from a few internet
memes, the problem is the state of American politics.
Is the country really this childish? The whole country is founded on dissent. Have you
ever seen those bumper stickers about "Well behaved women not making history"? Do you not see
the problem with your issue.
We aren't discussing arming paramilitary groups or rousing violence. We are discussing a
social media click bait farm in an indictment presented by Bob Mueller, who's greatest hits
include torture, lying about WMDs in Iraq, rounding up Muslims, entrapment, and the Anthrax
farce. I would probably start with a prosecutor with a shred of credibility outside of the
circles where Joe Scarborough is respected.
The worst part is the "OMG Russia" frauds are going to shout so much that nothing will be
done about gun control or any other calamity, but I bet the Pentagon will get more money for
another failed weapon system.
What Russian government? It was a commercial operation posting click bait, of all sorts,
to sell ads. And yes, that's the explanation that fits the facts best. If Putin was really bankrolling
it, no evidence so far, he was wasting his money. From our point of view, a good thing.
A foreign government employed copy editors to sow dissent in American politics by way
of Twitter, Facebook, online advertising and a network of blogs.
There is no proof that this troll farm was acting on behalf of any government.
In one example, for a mere $1000 or so, Russians were able to get American citizens to
build a fake jail cell on a trailer complete with actors to play Hillary, Bill and
Trump.
Right, no republican ever made an offensive parade float before the Russians came
along.
I fear Lambert is right and that the DNC will hyjack the Florida High School students
anti-gun movement and make it serve their purposes. Not Russians bots to fear.
Actually saw someone (somebot? sometroll?) get called out on twitter today for doing the
Russia! thing and not the US people who actually believe whatever the issue was. I think it's
the first time I've seen that. Maybe the last too, but still for a moment there
[The Alliance for Securing Democracy's] researchers and advisors have become go-to
pundits for mainstream reporters seeking expert opinions on Russian online meddling. They
have been endorsed by John Podesta, the founder of the Center for American Progress and
chief of staff for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign. Julia Ioffe, the
Atlantic's Russia correspondent, has also weighed in to promote the ASD's efforts. Both
highlighted the ASD's Hamilton 68 Dashboard as a scientific barometer of Kremlin influence
over the American social media landscape
However, an investigation by AlterNet's Grayzone Project has yielded a series of
disturbing findings at odds with the established depiction. The researchers behind the
ASD's "dashboard" are no Russia experts, but rather a collection of cranks, counterterror
retreads, online harassers and paranoiacs operating with support from some of the most
prominent figures operating within the American national security apparatus.
Bill Kristol, among others, is on the so-called Alliance for Securing Democracy's board of
advisors.
Our current Powers That Be have never been happy with the legacy of "free speech." It's
now, demonstrably, an indictable offense for non-US citizens to engage in it in the US.
And "b" at
Moon of Alabama thinks that they've deliberately indicted a bunch of people they don't
expect to prosecute (they're all in Russia) in order to have the above "message" on the books
for as long as it takes for someone to stage a legal test of it.
If the Russian government actually funded this sort of thing, they must be pretty
simple-minded.
For not the first time in recent days, I am reminded of a Dave Barry joke from many years
ago, perhaps even before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don't remember what the column
was about; it might have been about comic strips in general, which were his favorites and
which ones he didn't care for, etc. He mentioned the strip Nancy and said something
like it "was the product of a 70-year Soviet government experimental project to produce a
joke."
Anyway, do we even know that it was Russian "government" money financing these things? It
was some oligarch who had "ties" to Putin. By the standards used so far in Russiagate
reporting, that basically means that he and Putin are both Russian.
It's easy to be skeptical of Russigate. For over a year now the MSM have breathlessly
published a steady stream of "evidence" only to have it fall apart. When "progressive
skeptics" point this out they're accused of going too far? I think we can all assume the
Russian government hasn't been sleeping through the relentless pressure put on it by the
West, but hasnt it been obvious that Russiagate is a politically motivated project?
Toward the end of the book Shattered , there's a passage describing how the
Russia! Russia! Russia! narrative was planned. This happened in a room full of Shake Shack
containers and it involved people from the Clinton campaign.
"It's not a surprise that neo-Nazi groups and white supremacy groups have identified
Russia as one of their key allies, in part because Russia is home to so many white people,
and that the Putin government has identified these movements of key allies as well."
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The Russian Federation is very much against
neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements due to what it suffered from Nazi Germany during WWII.
Now Russia sees this on it's boarders in Ukraine. But Russia is branded with this because
white folk live there. What about all the Muslims in Russia, many of which have come from
Central Asia? What about all the Asians in Eastern Russia? The quoted statement is born of
either ignorance, misinformation or disinformation.
The 'net says there are maybe 40,000 "blacks" living in Russia. Also reports a wide
variety of experiences and opinions on what it's like to be a black (actually, of course,
various shades of skin tones from dark olive to golden russety shades of brown, to near
obsidian with hints of blue, but lumped together as "black," like I am a "white" even though
my skin tones range from pinky yellow [soles and palms] to a light tannish cream [most of the
rest]), living and traveling in Russia. One bit of the discourse:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/15/black-in-the-ussr-whats-life-like-for-a-russian-of-colour
I'm reminded of Dick Gregory's observation on America, that as to whites and blacks, "Down
South, they don't care how close you (African-Americans) get, as long as you don't get too
big. Up North, they don't care how big you get, as long as you don't get too close."
Russia is a big place, with some 143 million people living within the geographic
boundaries. Nativism and related notions seem present in any population anywhere, whether
deeply held convictions or convenient ladder rungs to political and economic power. It's so
hard to develop any completeness and accuracy in understanding what's really shakin' and
doin' in the world when people revert to simplisticated personifications as actual important
functional categories. "Russia" is getting the full treatment. Too bad us USians don't use
the same lenses and mirrors to examine our own linty navels
Absolutely right. Russia's dead in WW2 – 20 million (*) is the accepted estimate. I don't think any
other nation suffered as badly (+). If anyone on earth knows the evil consequences of
fascism, neo-Nazism, racial purism the Russians do. That one single line in Feffer's argument comes squeaky close to invalidating the whole
thing.
(*) Strictly the USSR.
(+) Query: Maybe the brutality of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria ?
It is estimated that the total deaths in the Soviet Union under Stalin range from 9 to 50
million (book-keeping was their forte), including famines but not including death by the
Germans.
Mao's policies are believed to have resulted in 40 to 70 million deaths in China.
Not really. The German sympathizers and later defectors who just wanted out couldn't all
claim to be rocket scientists. A factory worker who just wanted to drive a big car and live
in McClean has to come up with a story worth paying for.
There was a cottage industry of tall tales for Stalin's personal use/entertainment. I
don't think the later defectors are an issue, but powerful people helped facilitate the
arrival of too many people with missing records and German accents who weren't in a rush to
go to Israel to not be a political problem.
The former Canadian foreign minister's grandfather was a collaborator. How did he get to
the West? He probably told a tall enough tale. Someone could make their career with that kind
of information coup. What happens if its discovered it was a run of the mill Nazi that was
helped by a now powerful person?
The U.S. actually sent out people to look for Hitler in South America, not escaped war
criminals but Adolph, himself. The U.S. is a paranoid society. Someone was giving tips, and
reason would pretty much dictate the Soviets weren't stopping until they finished the
job.
Its similar to how many people Caesar killed in Gaul, not that he didn't kill a great deal
of people, but after a while, it comes back to there not being that many people.
Here is a Rigorous Intuition post about the CIA's importation of Nazis into post WWII
America . . . . more about the reasons for it than a lot of details about the whole scope of
all the operations . . . all the ratlines, all the paperclips, all the etc.
And here is another, this one about Allen Dulles's persistent sympathy for German Fascism
with perhaps a little of the smelliest Nazism pressure-washed off of it. It talks about his
negotations through various go-betweens with German interlocutors during the early WWII
period.
A combination of ignorance and arrogance is annoying and more dangerous than Russian troll
farms. I can't believe his stupidity about Russians being Nazis. And of Putin being an
Imperialist. If you read Putin's speeches, he is very much a nationalist or patriot. The Bear
is in defense mode and trying to protect its huge borders. Putin' s Speech to the UN in 2015
was about "sovereign democracy" i.e. self -determination of a nation. He said they learned
from the USSR that you can't and shouldn't spread ideology. Feffer could have a permanent gig
on Morning Joe for all the "bafflegab" he spouts.
It's not a particularly well-supported or well-worded statement but it's not ridiculous
nor is it without merit. Muslims are a minority group in Russia and not a very popular one.
Some particularly barbarous acts of terrorism by various aggrieved groups has done nothing to
improve their standing in Russian society. Vladimir Putin's government has actively
cultivated various domestic ethno-nationalist astro-turf movements with fascist predilections
for some time. It is believed that Putin sees these groups as a bulwark against liberal,
western ideology that can be weaponized as CIA sponsored color revolutions or MeToo# type
identity politic movements. Knowing what I know about the United States and post-Cold War US
political meddling, I can't say I blame Putin for wanting a bulwark.
I remember years ago watching a documentary about a state-funded ultra-nationalist Putin
youth group called "Nashi". They staged pro-Putin rallies, hosted summer camps and would
organize free skin-head metal concerts with complimentary vodka and private tents for
appropriately "Russian" ( not muslim and definitely not brown) couples to patriotically
procreate in the service of the fatherland. You can call these state-sponsored groups of
young Russian ethno-nationalists whatever you want, but neo-nazi doesn't seem too unfair if
you're familiar with the ideological history and psychological undercurrents of National
Socialism.
I don't believe Russia hacked any DNC servers, hijacked our elections or flipped any
votes, but I don't doubt for a minute that Russia is actively sowing discord and
disinformation among the American body politic. I believe the ultimate goal is the political
disintegration, or at least paralysis of the United States as payback for the disintegration
of the USSR and Warsaw Pact. I've heard Putin make sly statements over the years where if you
read between the lines this goal is discernible through his thinly veiled remarks and his
smoldering anger at the US for it's continued aggression against Russian influence and
territory post-1989. Years before the 2016 election I remember reading reporting of how the
modern Texas secessionist movement was nothing more than Moscow funded astro-turf. I have no
doubts the "Cal-Exit" campaign that sprung up right after the election (and ironically
supported by the exact same people most worried about Russian influence) was chiefly
organized and funded by professional Russian propagandists as well.
I don't believe the hysterical, McCarthyist media narrative concerning the election and
Russia, but I am also skeptical of absolutist, overarching narratives to the contrary. Putin
is no dummy, he's not a pacifist, and he definitely views the US as a threat/adversary. None
of that means Russian needs to be treated as an enemy or that diplomacy could not result in a
mutually beneficial accommodation for both countries. The world is complicated and becoming
emotionally invested in overly simplistic narratives, even contrarian ones, is unwise.
my major concern is its support for far right-wing nationalist and frankly,
racist movements around the world, including here in the United States.
What does he think Ms. Nuland and her friends were up to in Ukraine? Other than a few bits like that, Feffer does seem to be at least somewhat grounded in
reality (contrast his comments with the quote from Dan Coats). He thinks Russiagate had
little to do with Trump, for example, and was just targeted at spreading confusion in
general. That alone would get him branded as a heretic by the true believers.
I quit reading shortly after that. TV/Video is just awful at policy discussions. The
stupid factoid barrages. I feel dumber just for reading this conversation, I suppose that's
the point.
Great examples of how to fill up newspaper columns without doing any real reporting and
without rocking any important boats.
Also, from 2013:
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth
broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came
silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an
unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for
domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic
propaganda efforts.
I just started a website to organize all these scattered articles I read on the various
sites I visit I need to find where I put the link to an article that outlines the planting of
CIA paid journalist in major newspapers
Given the "resistance" and other self-described "progressive" voices who have lost their
minds over the election of Donald Trump, one should not be surprised by Feffer's credulity.
He may do a better job at hiding it, with his oh-so-civil language, but the desperation
coming from partisan believers, who rightly see Trump as dangerous but refuse to go after him
for real reasons (first-strike policy in retaliation for cyber attacks, for instance –
has a single Democrat gone on record saying how utterly wrong that is? Oh wait, didn't
Hillary herself campaign on refusing to rule out the first strike option?) is palpable.
And who can blame them for being desperate?
But I find the notion that Russian "meddling" successfully increased the amount of discord
among USians to be.ridiculous. We don't need any help from Russia to be dissatisfied with our
polity and the false choices it constantly gives us.
Mate was far too kind. Some people and some ideas don't deserve the benefit of rational
debate.
The "#TheResistance" don't care about Trump's genuine dangers. They care about how he
prevented their Jonestown Priestess Clinton from getting coronated Empress as they were all
expecting.
There are millions and millions of Jonestown Clintonites. They are a deadly threat and a
menace to political improvement in this country. You can get a sample of what they smell like
by reading Riverdaughter's blog "The Confluence" and its threads. Put your nose close to the
screen and you can smell the Jonestown Punch.
Not since German security services sent VI Lenin back on a sealed train to Petrograd, has
one nation fractured the politics of another with cynical support for the deranged.
Nice. If the Russian Empire wasn't on the verge of falling apart, it wouldn't have taken
the one Lenin domino to topple it all. If the US is on the verge of falling apart people will
be blamed, but not the American people, the people who are actually responsible for this
sociopathy.
Caitlin Johnstone made a three-part Debunking Russiagate series back in June 2017. Here
are all three. I think they hold up pretty well. (They were noted at NC.)
.From the outside, Americans screaming about this look like a bully screaming, "How dare
you do to me what I do to everyone else. I'm going to bury you!" This does not induce sympathy.
Still, we can make a strong case that countries shouldn't interfere in other countries'
internal political affairs, including–especially including–elections.
I think that the Russians might be willing to agree to that.
So the sane method of dealing with this issue, to which which virtually everyone will
agree, would be to begin negotiations towards that end.
Americans and Russians get together and have frank talks, which amount to a peace
treaty: We won't do it to you, if you don't do it to us.
They might even extend that to not doing it to other countries.
This is the actual road out, though it seems laughable because it's really impossible to
imagine. Both the US and Russia have been interfering in many countries for a long time,
though America is the champion of the last 30 years or so, and by a wide margin.
Russia has been arguing for just that -- a cyberwar peace treaty -- for almost a decade
now. Here's a 2009 write-up , which is really
quite interesting in a hindsight-y way.
"We really believe it's defense, defense, defense," said the State Department official,
who asked not to be identified because authorization had not been given to speak on the
record. "They [the Russians] want to constrain offense. We needed to be able to
criminalize these horrible 50,000 attacks we were getting a day."
I find the narrative that's been put forward to be honestly more convincing than the
counter narrative
We're supposed to be convinced because he's convinced. It's a gut feeling. Appeals to
actual evidence bounce right off. Guess I don't get out much but had to look up who John
Feffer even is.
The latest M of A–linked here the other day–is a great takedown of Mueller's
troll farm allegation. Some of us prefer a little evidence prior to being "convinced."
Russia is Soros' white whale a creature he has been trying to capture and kill-off for
nearly a decade.
Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government
realised the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative
measures which in hindsight, and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very
wise move.
Crowdstrike is the only source of evidence of Russian hacking of DNC. And Crowdstrike
had to walk it back when they used the exact same evidence to claim that Russia had hacked
Ukraine's artillery. That is likely why DNC refused to let FBI run forensics on their
servers.
Feffer claims to oppose Cold War II, but is actively promoting it. Russiagate is being
used to silence progressives. Note that both Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are named in
Mueller's indictment as beneficiaries of the alleged "Russian meddling" in our election.
BTW: Feffer is a Fellow at Open Society, a NGO financed by George Soros who also funds the
Atlantic Council, whose board includes the owner of Crowdstrike. So Feffer and Crowdstrike
are both funded by the same oligarch.
The Soviets and now the Russians have been messing about with the US for 70 years. Nothing
new about it. Read "The Sword and the Shield" which is sourced from the KGB archives when
they were briefly opened to the west after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Things are just easier now than then. "The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle
for the the Third World" is also sourced from the KGB archives has details about what they
did then.
The US messed with the Soviet Union and Russia when they could. See the stories about
Yeltsin's reelection. Or the Ukraine in 2014.
this was reportedly a commercial venture. still awaiting evidence that the election was in
any way affected by some online scam that may have originated in russia. the us has
interfered, as you point out, much more effectively in russia. other countries do it to us,
but there is no evidence that russia effected clinton's loss to trump, or colluded in
effecting it.
A commercial venture, as opposed to David Brock's pro-Clinton paid trolls which was
definitely not a commercial venture and designed solely to influence the election. Also
illegal by the way but he's a Murican so who cares?
This is the mental equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy. At this point the media, the Dems
and legions of David Brock led trolls have invested so much time and energy into "Muh Russia"
that they can't write off their investment.
Keep going. You're doing fine. It's down there somewhere. You can endure another season of
Persist, the payoff is right around the corner. There is nothing more important right now
than ignoring inconvenient facts.
I might suggest that things would go faster if you give up just a little more of your
critical thinking skills. To be honest they just get in the way at times like these when the
narrative gets tenuous.
No one outside of the Dem party faithful really cares about the Russiagate nonsense. The
rest of the world has watched the US meddle in and outright rig elections in more countries
than I have the time to list for decades, a list with very ironically includes Russia in
1996. If a troll factory is the best they have, it's a straight up joke. They better have
more to go along with it, because as it stands now buying a few ads and paying people to post
online, standard PR practice, is incredibly weak. At this stage in the game, it feels kind of
pathetic, an attempt by a party elite still unable to admit they lost, grasping at straws and
still in this late hour desperately trying to make it seem like Hillary was the rightful
winner.
It also, not coincidentally, works to taint the criticism of anyone, right or left, who
disagrees. Not only that, it further casts doubt on all news sources which aren't the
Democrat party approved corporate sources, another bonus. One could make a good case this was
the goal all along: absolve themselves for bungling the 2016 election and discredit any
information sources they don't control lock, stock, and barrel.
'The rest of the world has watched the US meddle in and outright rig elections in more
countries than I have the time to list.'
Not only has the US been hollering "regime change" since the infamous neocon Project for a
New American Century began in 1997, it actually invaded and plundered several countries --
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan -- for the express purpose of replacing their governments
with US-backed ones.
Check out ex-CIA douchebag James Woolsey making weird barnyard noises when MSM anchorette
Laura Ingraham asks him whether "we" still meddle in other countries' elections, before
admitting on the record that it's "only for a very good cause" [yuk, yuk]
With waving arms and hair on fire, Rep. Jerrold Nadler claimed on MSNBC that the Russian
troll farm is "the equivalent of Pearl Harbor." If special snowflake America's democracy is
so fragile that a bunch of amateurish Boris & Natasha trolls can bring it down, then
let it bleed [and share the Stoli, comrades].
" If special snowflake America's democracy is so fragile that a bunch of amateurish Boris
& Natasha trolls can bring it down, then let it bleed [and share the Stoli,
comrades]."
Your second paragraph is I think all that matters at this point. The Russian trolls (who
are probably still active online, albeit with less vigor) are pikers compared to the native
manipulators who swarm the 'liberal' ring of our 2-ring media circus. The latter are devoted
to squelching dissent, and unconcerned about sounding like idiots while they do it. Of course
the only people they are aiming to shame are waverers on their 'own side'. Republican flyover
types are unpeople in their eyes; their target audience is pretty select -- mainly those who
don't want to be out of place among the youthful hipster elite. I.e. former Sanderistas who
might pay attention to establishment Democrat perfidy if the noise machine stops howling for
a second.
I'd love to know where these frantic fellows were when the New York Times comments
sections were overtaken by Correct the Record trolls 2 years ago. That Brockian anti-Sanders
effort was more effective and Orwellian than anything they've since tagged as
Russia-generated. So much of the furor now seems to be coming from men who fear they may be
getting bested at their own game!
"Tainting the criticism" of anyone who disagrees is the primary mid-range goal of the
Russiagate Information Operation. The long range goal is to pass Patriot Act type laws to
suppress and control all expression on all media; digital, analog or other.
feffer keeps saying "who hacked the dnc" but there is no evidence anybody did. it's like
the repeated assertions made about saddam's "wmd's" in the runup to iraq 2.
Timestamps on the DNC data show the files were copied locally, not over a network. That
means they were leaked. Not hacked. Leaked by someone with physical access to the data. This
came out
back in July . Maybe Mate isn't "convinced" but I haven't seen anything, ever, that
convincingly refutes the analysis.
So if someone wants me to believe in Russiagate they need to show me some damn evidence.
I'm not going to believe something simply because every flexian apparatchik in the press
parrots it 24/7 (90% of whom were in the tank for Hillary and personally devastated when she
lost and more than happy to blame evil foreigners for how they called the election wrong).
What we're seeing is a serious mental breakdown on the part of Democrats. What happened to
these people? Back when GWB was in office they were supposedly the party of reality, the
rational people who didn't make things up to justify a convenient war. It appears that only
lasted as long as elections went in their favor. Now we see them for the dishonest hysterical
fantasists they really are. Just like Republicans.
So where does that leave us? At the dawn of a Second Cold War with a psychopathic party on
either side. Well, that's just awesome.
How do we know that the time stamps where created on the DNC's computer and not some other
computer later on? It's easy to change the date backwards and make those time stamps be
anything.
I had occasion to view a Podesta email recently:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11409 Big banner across the top: This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key. Like a blockchain transaction, this DKIM algo was designed to prove cryptographically that
you are viewing what existed when the user clicked send.
Click on the DKIM link in that banner for a full explanation.
Domain Keys Identified Mail, or DKIM, is a highly regarded email security system that can
be used to independently authenticate the contents and sender of an email that uses
it.
Some folks just can't keep themselves from pushing the Narrative. I wonder how many of
those people have been involved in "interfering with elections," as part of the Great
American Enterprise
Yves Smith: You yourself have written that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. What we are getting is flimsy hearsay and calls for war. It is all Remember the
Maine (and don't remember that the Democrats, in particular, brought this on themselves).
Feffer's typical in not being able to keep control of the simplest of facts:
"It's not a surprise that neo-Nazi groups and white supremacy groups have identified Russia
as one of their key allies, in part because Russia is home to so many white people, and that
the Putin government has identified these movements of key allies as well."
So now Russia is the international source of white people? What can this possibly mean?
And don't tell the Volga Tatars or the Mari or the Yakuts or any of the many peoples who
aren't "white" by U.S. standards. (Many of the Mari are among the last pagan Europeans.) The
comment is worthy of Sarah Palin, well-known foreign-policy expert and Chunky Monkey shoes
fancier.
I am reminded of the Watergate crisis. By all means, let's have indictments for real
crimes (besides lying to the FBI) of people who are living within American jurisdictions or
can be extradited. Then have a trial(s) with a judge of the quality of John Sirica.
But that isn't what the powerful want, particularly because establishment figures soon
will be dragged in. They want confrontation, more looting, and more war. And if we are all
suddenly worried about Putin being morally stinky, what should we do with Erdogan, Netanyahu,
Viktor Orban of Hungary, Brazilian President Temer, and Aung San Suu Kyi, all of whom are
considered "friends" of the U S of A?
And as to sowing discord: Someone should have noticed that 50 years ago with Nixon and the
Southern Strategy.
Seems to me that Maté did just fine. I'm not sure of what else you can do with
someone like Feffer. When presented with good reasons for doubting his purported evidence,
Feffer pretty much concedes the point every time. But then he insists that he finds the
evidence convincing. In other words, he insists that he's going to go on treating it as good
evidence, drawing the relevant conclusions, and asserting as much. That means he's a gullible
person, and rather dogmatic to boot. Arguing with such people won't get you very far.
I did find Feffer's repeated demand for a counter-narrative interesting. This seems to be
a way of simultaneously lowering the bar for knowledge and raising the bar for doubt. He's
trying to say that doubt is only reasonable if the skeptic can produce a better theory than
the believer. Absent such a theory, doubt isn't reasonable and everyone should believe. In
other words, having conceded that the evidence isn't very good by ordinary epistemic
standards, he's decided to switch to extra-ordinary standards. Roughly, I think the ordinary
standard for doubt goes something like this: I can correctly say I doubt something when I can
explain why the supposed evidence doesn't provide sufficient support for the claim in
question. I'm not required, as a skeptic, to produce a superior argument for a different,
incompatible claim about the same issue.
And now, having written that, it looks to me like Feffer is just engaging in a bit of
argumentum ad ignorantium , a fallacy so old they named it in Latin.
The counter-narrative, IMO, is this: The avaricious and foolhardy Trump wanted to build
more onanistic monuments to himself in Moscow, to slurp oysters there and cavort with Russian
women. He threatened to upset decades of planning by both Dems and Republicans alike to
encircle Russia, expand NATO, and SELL BILLIONS AND BILLIONS WORTH OF ARMS, often to
dictators, with kickbacks on the side (legal and illegal) to ours truly. The powers that be
in the CIA and FBI decided that intervention was needed, even if the cost was democracy
itself. Trump has enough irons in the fire with Russia, enough outstanding loans and dirty
dealings, that such a clear-eyed narrative may never get its head above water, but that is as
close as we may come to nutshelling it.
"That means he's a gullible person, and rather dogmatic to boot. Arguing with such people
won't get you very far."
Which also means, surely, that his demand that others who refuse to endorse his gullible
dogmatism must meet "extra-ordinary epistemic demands" is – at best – mere
sounding off. For who could be a worse pick for assessing both the required standards and
their being met?
I think the kindest thing to say here, epistemically, is that the man is in a terrible
mess. It is a sad thing to see. But then there are a lot of sad things to see in the
"progressive reality-based community" today.
Makes me wonder what's to be done about it. When I hit upon the idea that he's just
arguing from ignorance, I started thinking about informal logic courses, the ones called
Critical Thinking hereabouts. Perhaps more of those would help.
By the way, I was talking with a colleague who does Ancient yesterday, specifically the
philosophy of Socrates, and I mentioned the question you raised about the Noble Lie. He told
me that it's quite similar to a myth recounted by Hesiod. That was news to me. He also said
that Greek colonists, prior to departure, would settle on a constitution for the new city
together with a founding myth. As for the bit about the whole of one's childhood having been
a dream, he guessed that this was a story that was intended to be told repeatedly, to
successive generations. Now, the first generation was unlikely to believe, granted. But later
generations would believe it of the first , the founding generation. He noted that this would
be quite similar to what a number of native American peoples believed about the first of
their kind. Oh, and one more thing occurred to me: earth mother goddess myths were common to
the region back then, dating back at least to the Minoan civilization. Altogether, to me this
makes the Myth of Metals seem a good deal more plausible relative to the people for whom it
was intended.
This also makes me think that education in the humanities could be part of the solution to
widespread credulity and dogmatism. Studying Plato can, for instance, inoculate against myth,
something which is still with us. Knowing myth when you see it, it's possible to appreciate
it without being taken in. There's much to be gained, too, from thinking like Thucydides from
time to time. It's good to recall that both Sparta and Athens claimed to be fighting for
freedom. And every time I hear about how we're going to use better, more powerful tools to
finally vanquish the things we find most threatening, whether those things are "enemy" states
or tactics (terrorism) or catastrophic ecological processes that we have ourselves set in
motion, I can't help but recall Lucretius' account of what happened when bulls and boars and
lions were trained up for war and loosed upon the enemy. "Don't believe what I've just told
you about all this," he says, "for no one would be so foolish as to think they could ever
really control such beasts." I don't often use the word, but there's wisdom here, or so it
seems to me. We'd profit from knowing it. But, by and large, we don't.
If I take my young kids and have an easter egg hunt with those plastic eggs and tell them
that there's candy inside, and they keep finding them, opening them and there's just candy
wrappers with no candy, then my kids are going to quickly grow tired of looking for the eggs
since they're not delivering the promised candy.
This is what Russiagate feels like. We keep finding eggs, getting excited, then, no candy.
But we're told to keep at it .eventually SOME of those eggs will have some candy. Other
people who are really good at finding eggs have said they found some eggs with candy in them,
even though we know they're habitual liars.
Feffer and the others who believe in this story are going to need some SERIOUS F-ING CANDY
at this point to justify this unshakable belief they have that THERE IS CANDY SOMEWHERE IN
THESE STUPID, PLASTIC EASTER EGGS!?!?!?!
It reminds me of that iceberg that broke off Antarctica last year. The enormity and extent
of the hypocrisy and global delusion it represents.
If anyone wants to understand the level of breakdown, consider the amount of debt being
issued today. That is the real source of cognitive dissonance.
I certainly agree. When politics gets this chaotic and confusing there is some far more
important hidden agenda being guarded by a "bodyguard of lies." The turn of this century will
go down in history as the beginning of the energy wars. When the stakes are this high
everybody pretends to be innocent. My knowledge is scant – I assume Russia's lifeblood
is natural gas and LNG and they want to sell it to Europe. We claim Europe as our URally and
do not want this to happen. Unless we can strong arm our way into some of the action. To that
end we have been pushing US natural gas/LNG exports regardless of the expense and short
returns of fracking. The dead silence on global warming and the energy crisis should be the
first give-away.
A hugely important point which is seldom ever if ever covered in the media here (umm
scratching his head, I wonder if it could be for any particular reason) -- Europe is highly
dependent on natural gas from Russia. We're forecast to have a
big, late cold sna p and suddenly everyone starts getting a little twitchy about energy
security.
Of course, us gas consumers here (well, our governments, anyway) resent their dependence
and the self-loathing which it engenders. But that dependence in fact increases geopolitical
security because neither "side" wants to do anything which upsets the energy apple cart.
Shale gas and LNG exports from the US threatens this equilibrium. But there's no economic
(cost of production) advantage for US shale gas over pipeable Russian gas. Wouldn't it be
nice for the US shale gas industry if, oh, I don't know, there were some shenanigans which
gave a voice to anti-Russia sentiment and a clamour for, maybe eventually, economic
sanctions?
And during the last cold snap in the US, several tankers full of Russian LNG made port
here to make up a shortage. So, having prohibited Europe from buying Russian gas in favor of
importing the US version, we ended up not having enough for our own people and got it from
Russia.
>We have the report from the intelligence community here in the United States that
provides at least a trail. It's been challenged, but I find the narrative that's been put
forward to be honestly more convincing than the counter narrative.
I agree that the 'Russia hacked the DNC' theory is more likely to be true than
any other individual theory, although there still isn't any hard proof available to the
public. But that's hardly a good defense of 'Russiagate'. Not having a better suspect isn't
really a justification for sanctioning Russia (or more, if the Russiagaters get their
way).
I disagree that the report provides a trail. It lists a number of APTs that conducted the
hacking, and states that they are tied to Russia. However, it provides zero underlying
evidence that the hacking was conducted by those APTs, and that they were related to Russia
in any way.
Another possibility is that, yes, Russia did hack the DNC for intelligence-gathering
purposes, but didn't provide the emails to WikiLeaks. It's entirely possible that more than
one entity hacked into them (if anyone did at all). As flimsy as the narrative is with Russia
doing the hack, it's even thinner when it comes to transmitting the emails to Russia.
thanks for this summary. just more assertions sans evidence from the people that brought
you the iraq war (republicans and democrats, working together like the harlem
globetrotters and the washington (hmm) generals.
That's like saying the most popular theory is correct, on the basis that it's the most
popular. Truth doesn't work that way. Supply some evidence. Otherwise you're operating on the
basis of what feels true. "Truthiness", not truth.
Why did the FBI never examine the server?
Why do the timestamps show the data was copied locally by someone with physical access to the
machine?
Why did the NSA decline to back the whitepaper when we know they have every single network
intercept and can literally prove what happened?
All we have is a bunch of handwaving and people who don't know much about computers
repeating things they heard from people with a track record of lying.
I think it's worth looking at the Russia-gate believers, on this. If they all agreed on
one narrative, that'd be something, but they don't even agree among themselves, which I'd
argue is actually really problematic.
Marcy Wheeler says collusion is there, Steele doc is garbage, and the social media stuff
is just fluff. I think she says crowdstrike is garbage, too, but might have had some good
bits.
Some in corp media says Steele doc is unquestionably awesome and should be believed.
Cenk Uygur says it's not about the hacking of the DNC, it's about money-laundering and not
collusion to rig election.
Feffer says crowdstrike is legit report, even though they're Dem Party hack consultants.
Feffer also says Russia wants to sow discord and the social media stuff matters. He says
they're hacking European elections, too, even though those reports have been knocked down. He
also says Trump was an imperfect vehicle for Russia's agenda.
Luke Harding and Steele say Trump and Russia have been besties for years and planned this
all along.
I may be off on one or more of the details above, but all of these "serious" believers in
Russia-gate don't even agree with one another.
I'm growing increasingly tired of watching Aaron Mate disembowel these people one-by-one
but I'd agree it needs to be done because this story just .won't .go .away .
Climate change is real, but not caused by humans .not real ..real, but caused by solar
activity .real, but planet is getting colder and risking new ice age .maybe real, but don't
have enough evidence .
almost like it's an organized campaign to spread DIS-information?!?!?!?
If anyone has a fun link to someone trying to tackle where the secret volcanoes spewing
CO2 are, I'd appreciate it. Because it's become a meme-earworm to me: "Which
volcanoes?!?"
The people you've mentioned are not perfectly mainstream. At least they were not until
quite recently. They are members of the (formerly) 'left' wing blogosphere. A group that
contains many natural contrarians, who each have cultivated slightly different views of
things over the years.
Although they sure seem pretty lockstep now, on this matter, don't they? I suspect most of
them cannot not allow themselves to accept why it is that a skank like Trump was elected. The
'left' blogosphere was completely neutered over the past decade, and it's leading lights now
have little value to add to anyone's thinking on current affairs.
Feffer says that progressives don't take Russiagate as seriously as they should. I think
critical thinkers are taking it very seriously, because of potential censorship of dissenting
voices that favor peace over war, and that favor productive social spending over wasteful
military spending.
Even absent such concerns, the Russiagate hysteria is obviously a partisan power struggle
that sucks the air out of the room for productive political discourse to address real social,
economic, and environmental problems.
How seriously to take Russiagate is a separate question from skepticism over evidence we
have yet to be shown. The bigger question that Feffer doesn't address is "So what?" Even if
the facts stated in the 3-agency report and the DOJ indictment are true, do they really
justify all this hysteria?
If the Russian state is actually interfering in our elections, then quietly take measures
to stop it. Instead, over the past 15 years, the federal government has promoted hackable
computers and voting systems.
Moreover, even if the Russian state did interfere for geopolitical goals, treat it as the
actions of an adversary and quietly take countermeasures. This should not be a political
issue.
The Russiagate narrative has gone far beyond authentic reaction to Russia's actions, which
many experts such as Cohen and Mearsheimer consider to be reactions to NATO actions.
Feffer's concern is that Putin and Trump are colluding to promote white supremacy. That's
his big picture, and would be concerning if true. However, even if true that doesn't address
the concerns I raise above.
Would recommend a recently published book by investigative journalist, Michele McPhee: Maximum Harm: The Tsarnaev Brothers, the FBI, and the Road to the Marathon Bombing. Highly recommended
All good points, Dwight. We need to separate the discussion/investigation of Russian
influence from the ridiculous and dangerous hyperbolic reaction to it. We need to take steps
to make the election process fair and transparent and un-hackable as far as possible (paper
ballots, hand-counted) as much or more for domestic reasons. I care far more about
voter suppression (legal and illegal) and about domestic players monkeying around with
electronic voting systems than I care about a tiny amount of crude ads and trolling on social
media.
Democrats have just strangled the "Blue wave" in the cradle. Political tides are turning, and the Democratic Establishment is starting to feel the
pressure from Progressive primary challengers. And evidence is mounting that Progressives win
elections, even in "red districts" while corporate Democrats still manage to lose even in
blue ones. And on the horizon, is a Sanders run in 2020.
So, the 13 incitements, in addition to keeps the Russian narrative alive for another few
weeks, is providing political cover for the establishment to clean house as it were, and
clear out the Progressive infestation threatening to cripple the money train the
establishment has become accustomed too.
The "Do Russia-gate skeptics go too far" is a part of that narrative. Interesting to note
that "Russia-gate skeptics" don't actually get much air-time to challenge the narrative. So,
the notion that they have gone "too far" is a bit laudable. No, the point here is to justify
further squelching independent media and to silence the few individuals out there who still
dare to speak out over watercoolers.
Already, more assertive smears have been made against Jill Stine and Birney Sanders as
receiving "Russian aid" in their campaigns. The end game is to knock them out of the running
in 2020, justifying even more extreme steps.
Democratic Establishment being challenged in primaries will start to invoke a kind of
"don't change horses" privileges for their primaries in response to this new "9-11". They
might even go so far as to accuse the primary challengers as receiving "aid from Russia."
This will cripple their primary efforts. And failing that, justifies simply locking them out
of the primary all together in the name of "election integrity."
Their thinking is that if they lock out the progressives, then the establishment can rise
the wave for another cycle. But in so doing, they squelch the issues progressives are trying
to represent, and makes Russia-gate more prominent in the 2018 strategy.
It plays right into the hands of the Republicans. Giving them the intellectual high ground
when it comes to rallying around the president. While at the same time de-mobilizing the
progressive vote, ending the blue wave before it gets started.
The Dem-establishment are finished, they just don't know it yet. It's just a mater of time
before they fade away completely. What remains undecided is whether a progressive moment will
take their place, either by taking over the Democratic Party or forming a new third party to
take its place. Or weather America becomes a single party state under Republican Rule.
yes, i think it's a twofer, clean house in the democratic party to preserve their control
and maintain their grift, and support the neocons who haven't had enough wars lately.
The answer is to defeat every single mainstream Democrat in every single race, every
single time. Loss by loss, the Mainstream Democrats can be exterminated from political
existence.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research
that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's
connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin,
people familiar with the matter said.
How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with
Simpson: Source A -- to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier -- was " a senior
Russian Foreign Ministry figure. " Source B was " a former top level intelligence
officer still active in the Kremlin. " And both of these insiders, after "speaking to a
trusted compatriot," would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into
Donald Trump.
The Washington-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said in a Wednesday complaint to the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary for America and the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) broke campaign finance law by trying to hide payments related to the
dossier, which included graphic, unproven claims about the current president's sexual
habits.
The FBI last year used a dossier of allegations of Russian ties to Donald Trump's
campaign as part of the justification to win approval to secretly monitor a Trump
associate, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.
Thanks to the Podesta Emails available on Wikileaks, we can have a clear view of what
research and polling was done to try to come up with a good strategy for the Clinton
campaign.
Secretary Clinton's top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as
Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over
20% of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over $140
million to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to
support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her
after that statement.
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow
control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence
that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and
money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin's atomic energy business inside the United
States, according to government documents and interviews.
The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009
when Robert Mueller , now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still
FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James
Comey , whom Trump fired earlier this year.
I found the intelligence agency report on the DNC hacking to be rather flimsy. I think the
tell for me was that roughly half of it consisted of some very generic, boilerplate
cybersecurity tips – the kind that you'll find in your agency's annual security
refresher training. The only thing that would've made it more obvious, I think, is if they
had changed around the font size and margins, in order to drive up the page count. What does
that say about their confidence in the rest of the report, that they felt the need to add
fluff to it?
You have no chain of evidence to convict anyone in a court of law for the hack. The FBI
was called in months later, and the already deemed guilty party just so happened to collude
with her election opponent.
I often get called a supporter of "fake news" for ignoring any and all reports on Russian
election interference and Russian twitter bots as profoundly not interesting or important. No
evidence has ever surfaced that votes were changed, fabricated or deleted. The electoral
process itself was untouched. The candidates were not bribed (for a given value of 'bribed'
-- i.e. 'quid pro quo'). Thus, there was no interference.
I was especially ridiculed for claiming that the recent four-alarm fire at Wired
about Russian Twitter posts following the Parkland school shooting was crisis exploitation at
its most disgusting. I do not dispute that posts by Russian government employees exist. I
just fail to see them as a threat or even a meaningful fact to report about.
Why would Putin prefer Trump to Clinton? SABOTAGE.
The term sabotage derives from the practice of throwing "sabots" (clogs) into machines to
break them. It's Luddites 101. Tossing Trump into the machinery of Democracy has clearly
achieved precisely the same thing. Since Trump, many headlines continue to assert that
democracy in the USA is broken.
To Putin, the beauty of it is that he did it so easily and for so little money.
clinton sabotaging the primaries broke our democracy, and so did the supreme ct in
citizens united. are the justices and clinton controlled by putin, too? i understand clinton
has a higher price tag than the average russian troll.
Yeah, sorry, but if we lost our 'democracy', we lost it some good number of years before
Trump. Perhaps when George W Bush beat Gore, if not before that. Trump is just the latest
right wing sh*tlord president we have had in succession, including supposed leftists Obama
and Clinton. The only reason Democrats hate Trump more than they hated Bush (whose image by
the way has since been rehabilitated by the Democratic establishment!) is that he is rude and
goes against social norms.
Also, do you really think a few hundred thousand dollars worth of shitty advertisements
comparing Hillary to the Devil is really enough to actually affect the election in any
significant way?
yeah love it when shrub is now getting brought back into the fold, assuming their disdain
for him ever was real. and ronnie was often complimented by obama.
The extent of the hysteria is mind boggling-do people believe this? another pearl harbor,
worst atk sincie 9-11?
The head of these 13 people, yes just 13, was a former hot dog vendor in St Pete. The $1.2
mil also covered ads to internal Russian markets. Moon over alabama says it was a commercial
exercise-VP of Facbook says most ot the russian sourced ads were place after the
election.
i agree with kuntzler that the us has collectively lost its mind-it really is beyond
hysteria, it goes to "can you top this." I think "worst atk since 9-11" gets us close to the
top but I have never credited scarborough with any ability to think-just keep repeated the
mantra. I do not know where this will wind up but clearly the neo cons have won big time and
america has embarassed itself beyond what anyone could conceiveably imagine. I hold my head
and try not to completely dispair.
It's the blatant in your face lies and it's the ludicrousness of the lies. I recently saw
Dr.Strangelove at the theater, and what do you do when confronted with people who are crazed
or possessed by something? To say things in all seriousness that would make you spit your
drink out in laughter. There's got to be something going on for this many people in "serious"
media outlets to be saying the most lunatic and bizarre things in unison.
i'm afraid it's a push for another war, syria, iran, russia, you name it. it's just about
as bad as the extended propaganda campaign before we attacked iraq for nonexistent (and very
obviously nonexistent, as hans blix and mohammed elbarridei shot down each and every report
of wmd's) weapons. i just hope and pray to the gods of randomness that this one doesn't work
as well.
A few thoughts: Cord cutting. Who watches cable news? In the end people who are older and
towards the more comfortable end of the spectrum, the last eight or sixteen years, weren't
terrible. Trump might be more upsetting to them that the Iraq War, hence the new found
admiration for Shrub.
We should remember the rightward shift of the media in the 90's to chase after the
audience being lost to cable news and talk radio. Rush harped endlessly on the liberal media.
It was grossly inaccurate, but newspapers shifted right in response as conservatives stopped
buying newspapers.
Who is the most likely to be a cable news viewer of the next few years? A kid who went to
an Occupy rally? No, I don't think so. The networks have been furiously fear mongering to
keep the election viewership watching because in the long term they won't pick up new people.
After all, what does Maddow do in an hour (imagine she never went full Glenn Beck) that you
couldn't read in under five minutes? They are pulling out all of FoxNews tricks to win old
people over. Look at the graphics on MSNBC and CNN. In years past, the three cable networks
had different acts, but they look almost interchangeable. Everything, even opinion pieces,
get the "breaking news" chyron. Turn on MSNBC. I guarantee you, you will see "breaking news"
in a frightening form over something entirely trivial.
Senior citizens viewership. Anathema to advertisers. Seniors even the ones with money
already have loyalty to brands. Ads are a waste on them.
Then of course, there is the basic problem with "access journalism." The msm "press"
revolves around the need for "interviews" and access to subjects. For example, Trump and the
NYT have the strangest relationship. The snipe at each other non-stop, and then hold weird
public love fests when Trump does an interview. Instead of "following the money," the media
looks for Deep Throat to provide answers. The Bush and Clinton courtiers dominate Washington
(Obama just kept whoever was around in power), but going forward, what good is a useless
Clinton lackey to a corporate board? A Bush family endorsement? They are still in Washington,
but they desperately need for the paymasters to believe the Clinton/Bush apparatus are still
marketable. They provide the press with a story, and their story of "OMG Russia" excuses
their own losses. Lets not forget $125 million Jeb lit on fire and promises of how Trump
couldn't down to Bush Country and defeat Jeb after the Southern Dandy's endorsement in
SC.
At the end of the day, it still goes back to "What Happened?" The political elites in this
country are so effed up that they allowed Jeb vs. Hillary to be a real possibility. The
future of the GOP is a clownshow, and the Democrats have Bernie Sanders and a drooling
Kennedy or whoever their desperate attempt to block a candidate having to make promises is.
Who is at fault? It can't be "Mother." It can't be people with fancy titles. No, its
foreigners.
To cap things off, CNN, yes that CNN, dispatched one of their reporters to St Pete to go
through the garbage of the troll farm; he tried to enter the building and was asked to
leave.
I think the most recent Mueller indictments are more dangerous than many people realize.
Claims that Bernie was supported by 'Russian bots' in the primaries are already being used
against him. Assuming most Democratic primary voters still believe in Russiagate in 2020, it
would be very easy for Trump to use the Russia conspiracy against Bernie or another
progressive that had a good chance of beating him. His intel heads are all Russia hawks who
have vowed to help prevent 'Russian interference in our elections'. There's guaranteed to be
at least a few Russian internet trolls supporting the campaign, or some minor official with
some vague connection to Russia, so all they have to do is open an investigation, and leak
that investigation to the press.
I was just at a talk and Q&A session given by NH senior Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. There
will be an article in the local paper tomorrow that I'll post, but in the meantime I will do
my best to write up the highlights here today, so please bear with me. I was scribbling
furiously. Unfortunately it was not videotaped.
She gave a 15-20 minute talk at a podium and then the rest was Q&A with the crowd and
a professor moderated it. There were 168 chairs set out but from a quick head count only a
little over 100 people attended- most were retirees, and then students made up the rest. It
was at 11am, so not a very good time of day for normal people.
Okay so for her talk: she said she looks at the cybersecurity threat through a lens of
global security, and that the Kremlin has used these tactics versus Ukraine and in the lead
up to Brexit. She said this isn't a new Cold War because technology has rendered countries
borderless, and only recently has the US become aware that it's been targeted by
cyberattacks, especially spread through social media. She said our efforts in Syria were
damaged by these cyberattacks. She kept mentioning Kaspersky over and over again, how he's a
major buddy of Putin and does his bidding, said Kaspersky Labs is Kremlin-linked, and that
under Russian law it is required to have all servers located in Moscow available/all info
shared with the FSB. She used the term "Russia's hybrid warfare" at least a few times, and
said that our government has to "protect Americans from threats". She wants to establish a
clear command structure for cybersecurity at the federal government level. And that it's
crucial for younger generations to be taught how to identify fake news and
disinformation.
She thinks Putin is doing this to manipulate our open media in order to turn Americans
against each other, and reiterated that all 17 intel agencies have incontrovertible evidence
of Russian interference. She brought up that Dan Coates repeated Pompeo's statement that the
US is under attack. Sanctions against Russia were brought up and she repeated how the bill
was bipartisan, and it sends a strong message to the Kremlin and that Trump won't okay these
sanctions. She said there have been partisan attacks on Mueller, the DoJ, and FBI in order to
undermine the investigations, and that this would help achieve the Kremlin's goal of turning
Americans against each other. She said elections here in the US and "all across Europe" have
been threatened.
The "misleading" Nunez memo was mentioned and she said trolls and bots using facebord and
twitter led to its release, that the Russians are pushing the deep state narrative along with
anti-Obama messages in order to enflame social divisions in the US, and that the Russians are
pushing messaging about Ukraine and Syria. She said "a hostile foreign power interfered in
our election", that the Russians are trying to undermine American democracy, that we have to
fight back because "It's about Patriotism"(yeah, she actually said this-it was all I could do
to not throw up at that point), and how important the independence of the FBI is and that the
Mueller MUST be allowed to complete his investigation. She said the US is being eroded from
within and trotted out a JFK quote about defending freedom "against Putin's methods". Unity
unity unity! Felt like I was in the Twilight Zone.
She accused the Russians of building up their military might and extending it to Ukraine
and Syria, that they caused the Brexit vote result, fomented and stirred up Catalonia's
secessionist movement the other month, and caused a certain Czech leader to be elected(I'm
not up on Czech politics).
She brought up the idea of using paper ballots again and admitted there had been no hacks
to voting machines. She said the Russians were trying to undermine people's(not just
Americans) faith in democracy, getting folks to think elections are rigged, and that their
vote doesn't count (yeah yeah I know, right?!).
During the Q&A session, she said how they were talking to Treasury and others to find
out ways to force the sanctions through, brought up the Magnitsky Act(and his murder in
jail). Someone asked about the Korea troubles and she said how she completely believes
McMaster and other military leaders that the bloody nose strategy isn't on the table even
though "Trump has pleaded for it". She stated that she thinks an AUMF from Congress is
only necessary when 10s of thousands of soldiers would be sent somewhere for an
extended period , and she mentioned how the Syria situation deteriorated because Obama
drew a red line and then didn't back it up.
She thinks the Russians are trying to undermine The West in order to create a new Russian
Empire. She actually said this out loud. A student called out the US's efforts influencing
the elections of other countries(he brought up a recent Carnegie Mellon paper about how the
US meddled in 80 countries), coups, propping up dictators, etc and you could hear a pin drop.
I think she looked like a deer in headlights and then she spurted out she thinks we shouldn't
be doing that. It was awesome and I thanked the kid on the way out.
Anyway, sorry for the super long post, but that's how it went down. She seemed not very
intelligent, like she was just mindlessly repeating what someone above had told her to say,
kept repeating certain terms and statements like Russian hybrid warfare, etc. She sounded
like a crackpot, to be honest with you-I couldn't believe some of the stuff she was saying.
It was very concerning-this is a US senator and there must be a lot more like her, and they
are leading the Dems. She seemed very uncomfortable and not very knowledgeable talking about
this stuff, even though that's why she was here and it's supposed to be her thing. It's like
for example when you didn't actually do the work but you're talking about it-you memorize the
answers or what you're supposed to say and that's it-no depth, just repeat certain terms over
and over. I got the feeling she doesn't know much geography or history, too. It was scary.
These are the people in control and driving this agenda. Cheers.
Thanks for the report.
The public gutlessness and corresponding stupidity of most senior US elected officials
regarding relations with major competitive powers is like a bizarre form of patriotic
observance in which the speaker proudly announces the sacrifice of their critical faculties
in the service of the nation. It's as though there are no constituents who will reward
analytic honesty and the corresponding lives and resources saved. One wonders if her
interactions with staff on these matters amount to anything more than a selection of
camouflage statements that allow her position to become indistinguishable from the modal
patriotic dimwit her fellow elected officials aspire to be. It's like watching high schoolers
try out team cheers.
After today, I'm not confident she knows what the Twitter actually is. And bots this, bots
that, bots bots bots. It was a lot to digest, and makes me appreciate Lambert and his yellow
waders even more. I tried to write down as much as I could word for word what she said,
especially the Russian Empire thing. It seemed like she really thinks the Russians are trying
to take over the whole world to create a new Russian Empire with Tsar Putin at the helm, and
that this supposed meddling is truly an act of war. It's scary. Walking out of there, I felt
like a (family blog) genius. What she said about congressional authorisation needed only when
10,000s of troops are being sent for an extended period, my head exploded. Like I said
before, caught in a Twilight Zone episode.
The D party is pushing this Russia! thing whole hog-this is what they're going with for
the long haul instead of focusing on real issues. They are 100% sure Mueller's going to find
something that takes down Trump. That's their whole plan.
So I must have missed a page in my notebook earlier, sorry-just remembered how she made a
point to crow about forcing the Kremlin-backed and very well-funded RT to register as a
foreign agent, and talked about how if RT's on in a hotel in the US and you watch a few
minutes of it, it's very subtly biased(those sneaky Russians!) and the delivery is a little
different than on CNN and other mainstream US news stations and this is in order trick
American viewers and to subtly sow discord amongst the American public. It was epic stuff
today, so much to try to keep track of and remember.
John Feffer, "the reason we take it seriously is twofold." (What do you mean we , kemo
sabe?)
"One, because we're worried about our U.S. democracy and whether it can function in a fair
way." (We live in a Republic which by design favors the moneyed classes primarily through the
Senate and Electoral College. Fairness has been in retreat since Buckley v. Valeo and
Citizens United v. FEC.)
"And the threats to U.S. democracy, by the way, are not, you know, specific to Russia."
(I'm afraid and you should be, too.)
It sure doesn't help cybersecurity when top US officials (e.g. a former 2016 POTUS
candidate) do not even bother to follow basic government cybersecurity protocols.
i just did something fun. Google 'Evidence of Russian meddling', or 'Why can't Google find
evidence of Russian meddling?'. One gets links to GWB and McMaster's claims of 'clear
evidence' and 'incontrovertible', but no actual evidence.
The American electoral system has always been open to the corrupt current flavor of the
day. George Washington passed out free whiskey,poll taxes, Jim Crow, voter suppression,
gerrymandering, Citizens United, secret money, hackable computerization and so on. We leave
the barn door open and are surprised when stuff happens.
I would be shocked if the Russians did not try to stick a toe in the door and create a little
chaos if for nothing else than our hypocritic and insufferable claims to exceptionalism,
freedom fries and all things bright and beautiful. Especially using a tool as perfect as the
web and social media the Americans own creation.
We have lost all sense of racketeering though sort of on the books, it is not really a crime
any more in this country. I think Russia and the USA are organized as competing racketeering
oligarchies. The cold war was about the commies and the commissars. This is just about your
basic Sicilian mob activity.
Very muddled and gray.
Average Americans do not understand cultures where the lie is the first response in most
discourse. We are working on it, but we are not really there in comparison to the older
cultures.
So while I am certain that elements within Russia have been sowing chaos wherever possible
and that there is some truth in Russia Gate I also recognize that it mirrors the chaos that
the US has sowed throughout the world. Mostly motivated by an ideology of greed and naked
power on both sides.
Donald Trump was for sure laundering money in New York real estate and saved by mob money in
everyone of his bankruptcies. We know Sheldon Adelson was in collusion with the Chinese mob
and got a "cost of doing business" penalty from the government. Grrr. Rant.
corrupt.corrupt.corrupt
Did the finagling around the election have any effect on the outcome? As far as I can see,
no it did not. Worse than Pearl Harbor? Worse than 9/11? Of course not. The hysterical
posturing became tedious long ago. Wake me if you find anything.
Why is Trump trumpeting? I would follow the money.
A minor point but perhaps someone could point out to Feffer that Nazis (both the
ur-example and those currently U.S. favored Ukranian ones) consider Russians to be
sub-human?
I get labeled a Trump supporter by decrying Russiagate.
Frankly I couldn't care less what Mueller does to Trump. This bothers me on several
different fronts.
1. This is demonstrably a McCarthyite witch hunt with goals at clear divergence from what
Mueller was originally appointed for, which was to investigate "collusion" (whatever that
means) between Putin and Trump. We know because of one Adam Schiff (D-McCarthy) and similar
Democrats and their Russian demagoguing anyone who dares to disagree with them.
2. These indictments are clearly exaggerated in their impact on the American system. Why?
I can think of one major effect of the witch hunt: The attempt by the establishment to roll
up dissent of any kind. We now have this media fueled hysteria going on by proven liars in
the establishment to suppress what they call "fake news". We saw efforts such as the infamous
"PropOrNot" anonymous troll cavalcade to try to censor sites. Now Google and Facebook are
doing the censoring for them by ranking non-establishment sources as somehow untrustworthy --
as if the establishment press was ever trustworthy.
3. The hypocrisy. No one in the corporate media establishment ever seems to note that this
cyber behavior and other types of regime undermining is completely typical of the U.S., which
mere hypocrisy might not be so bad, except it leads directly to #4:
4. The warmongering. People have openly talked about Russia engaged in acts of war (as if
the U.S. is pure as a crystal snowflake in this regard). This exaggeration and hypocrisy are
a direct threat to world peace and my own personal survival as a human being.
These are the things I fear: Being silenced by authoritarians who call themselves
"liberal" and getting nuked. That's it. People who accuse everyone of being "Russian dupes"
or "supporting Trump" are IMHO engaged in sheer demagoguery. The influence of the Russians on
the American system, whatever you call it, can be described as ephemeral at best, but the
censorship and warmongering are very real and dangerous.
That our politicians and media are being grossly irresponsible in a supposed effort to get
Trump (the real effort is much more than that) is an understatement.
That the US is hypocritical is not news. But that we should call this a witch hunt because
we are guilty of tampering and worse is not fair to either our constitution or the American
people.
The costs of this investigation are small in the grand scheme and tiny compared to the
principles it purports to protect. Mueller is far from done. Writing this off now smacks of
partisanship. If there is something there, then it will out. If not, then a few will hang
anyway. I, for one, am quite happy that the likes of Manafort and Gates got caught. I think
hillary should swing as well, so don't tar me with a red or blue brush. But the Republicans
had their chance to investigate her and never did, so that tells me something.
Remember that this is a 100% Republican administration carrying out this investigation.
Everyone involved is Republican from Potus to Congress to Mueller.
Frankly, if this keeps Trump from doing too many stupid things, it's time and money well
spent.
I may be wrong, but I seem to recall they investigated her AND Bill many, many times over
the years, starting when he was governor of Arkansas, and never found any evidence they could
take to a prosecutor. Do you happen to recall how many discrete investigations of Benghazi
there were?
"Robert Mueller has indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations for
allegedly using social media to sow discord in the U.S. and support the candidacy of Donald
Trump"
The 13 Russian national stooges social media talking points show is all smoke and mirrors
to distract from the DNC and Clinton campaign tactics that did intentionally interfere with a
presidential election. Considering the enormous amount of actual evidence in the complicity
of the DNC, a foreign ex-spook national- Christopher Steele is fed 'info-mation' by Clinton
buddies Trey Gowdy and Sidney Blumenthal, Fusion GPS, Hillary Clinton campaign, FBI
surveillance and FISA memo to spy on the opposing presidential candidate (Trump) is the real
show. All based upon a dubious paid for foreign dossier filled with hearsay of anonymous
sources used to undermine and destroy an american presidential candidate during an election
year is the real crime of complicity Mueller is trying to avoid.
Throwing a ruskie sheet over the 800lb elephant sitting in the middle of the room doesn't
hide the facts and more than likely brings into question the Clinton campaign influences and
connections with the NSA.
Onto more relevant news: Lucky Charms has added marshmallow unicorns to its cereal.
This actually makes me a little sad. I am only skimming the transcript so far and I don't
think I could stand to watch the video, even though I really like Aaron Maté. I didn't
care when he took apart that Luke Harding fool, but John Feffer always seemed like a pretty
smart guy and a good writer. I was dismayed a few days ago when he went off in this direction
in one of his posts. If Aaron is holding back, maybe he feels a little sorry about him,
too.
John Feffer, one more decent person lost to the McCarthyite pod people, for whom I can no
longer have a shred of respect. Is that going too far?
I could have gotten the same exact "depth" of analysis from watching CNN. Or MSNBC. Or
what have you.
Even the interviewer was off the ball – by the time he identified KASPERSKY as a
"Russian hacker" I was essentially howling with laughter. And by the time the interviewee
started insinuating that Russia is supporting far-right neo-nazi type groups in the West
yeah. No. Incidentally, the West [i]is[/i] doing just that in specific places, but that is a
different conversation.
Finally the stamement: "So I don't think anybody, much less Vladimir Putin, could have
predicted the turn U.S.-Russian relations would take " pretty much discredits the interviewee
as any kind of analyst or expert on the subject. Because on every single US-Russia flashpoint
2017 was a direct continuation of 2016 (and 2015, and 2014 ) – and that was pretty much
the "base case" to begin with, since it is silly to imagine that either nation will just
"surrender" and stop pursuing its policies whether in Europe, Asia or the Middle East. The
"Trump == unpredictable-loose-cannon-maverick" talking point, much as it has been bandied
about, applies mainly to Trump's twitter account and decidedly not the ACTUAL foreign policy
steps taken by the US.
And so I reiterate the point – why is this blog suddenly carrying MSNBC-level
content? Because that's why we come here in the first place?
Sometimes when this whole things goes several shades of crazy you have to pull back and
try to look at it from a historical level. I try to imagine what people will be saying some
20 years from now when there is a new generation in place. What will their text books say
about what is happening now. And I realize that we are going to be mocked but hard by them.
Can you imagine what comedians routines on us will say? It will be embarrassing. So, getting
back to the present, I pull up the news this morning and I find a CNN reporter checking out
trash dumpsters next to the 'troll farm' in Russia – which is no longer even there. Uh,
OK.
Maybe some people in government and the media should go back on their meds again and have
a nice warm cup of shut-the-xxxx-up. Just because Trump won the election does not mean that
the 'establishment' gets to have an epic triggering – and take the rest of the country
with it. Are there criminal charges to be laid against certain people? Absolutely. Thing is,
they don't have Russian addresses but more likely American ones and I think that a lot of
people are starting to realize this which may partially explain the increasing support for
the GOP. You can only keep up evidence free accusations so long until somebody shout
"Call!".
If you want to know about election meddling, ask the Russians ( https://www.rt.com/op-ed/419371-election-meddling-us-russia/
) as they have much experience here. And that story doesn't cover even half of what went on.
Getting back to seeing things from a historical level, my own idea is that what we are seeing
is a power that has dominated the world for decades now finding itself with peer competitors
arising and the people in charge are unable to deal with this. There are far too many careers
at stake. Too many lucrative contracts at risk. Too many rice bowls to be broken. It's too
many powerful people not being able to get their way – and being unable to handle it.
This is what I think that we are seeing.
Foreign interference in the U.S. is nothing new. Its why we are so divided.
"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before
the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the
United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and
financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The
voice of the Rothschilds prevailed Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to
exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the
Union."
Otto von Bismarck, German chancellor, 1865
This is a great example of why I think I've gone crazy. This guy Feffer seems more
reasonable than most of the Russiagaters I see on other blogs, but when Mate points out the
lack of evidence he acknowledges that and then goes right on as if he had refuted it. He
acknowledges that the Dutch "revelation" is unsupported, and regrets that, and then goes
right ahead as if that is irrelevant. His whole method of argument seems to be, "Well, we
have a pattern of other Russian involvement, " and then cites speeches by Putin that probably
are not relevant to the case. I mean, supporting white nationalism? This is something you
want to blame Russia for? Spreading divisiveness? Undermining confidence? Kill me now.
Jerrold Lewis Nadler is an American attorney and politician who serves as the US
Representative from New York's 10th congressional district. So it is reasonable to assume that this guy is a stooge of financial
oligarchy and as such died in the wool globalist
When Congressman Jerrold Nadler equated Internet Trolls with Pearl Harbor that does not mean
that his a paranoiac. That means that he is a sleazy opportunist, for whom Party line is more
important then truth. That's why he repeated DemoRats Party like in the color revolution against
Trump. In which NeoMcCartyism is a fundamental component, creating the necessary prerequisites
for the witch hunt on Trump conducted by Mueller. He just can' deviate from the story.
"Have you no decency left, sir? At long last, have you no decency left?" applies
This "slash and burn" style of internal politician debates is another sign of the deep crisis
of neoliberalism in the USA. The crisis that led to election of Trump.
Tactically all this noise is a preemptive move to save Strzokgate participants scalps by putting a smoke screen on Nunes memo as well as
the forthcoming report of Inspector General.
Notable quotes:
"... When MSNBC's Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians "are destroying our democratic process." While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence, said Nadler, in its "seriousness, it is very much on a par" with Japan's surprise attack. Trump's reaction to the hysteria that broke out after the Russian indictments: "They are laughing their (expletives) off in Moscow." ..."
"... While Mueller's indictments confirm that Russians meddled in the U.S. election, what explains the shock and the fear for "our democracy"? Is the Great Republic about to fall because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election? Is this generation ignorant of its own history? Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels of American culture and government. ..."
"... As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike? ..."
"... Sen. John McCain and Victoria Nuland of State egged on the Maidan Square crowds in Kiev that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. ..."
"... "Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?" Laura Ingraham asked former CIA Director James Woolsey this weekend. With a grin, Woolsey replied, "Oh, probably." "We don't do that anymore though?" Ingraham interrupted. "We don't mess around in other people's elections, Jim?" "Well," Woolsey said with a smile. "Only for a very good cause." Indeed, what is the National Endowment for Democracy all about, if not aiding the pro-American side in foreign nations and their elections? ..."
"... "One cannot observe democracy objectively without being impressed by its curious distrust of itself -- it's apparent ineradicable tendency to abandon its philosophy at the first sign of strain. I need not point to what invariably happens in democratic states when the national safety is menaced. All the great tribunes of democracy, on such occasions, convert themselves into instant despots of an almost fabulous ferocity." H.L. Mencken ..."
According to the indictment by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Russian trolls, operating out
of St. Petersburg, took American identities on social media and became players in our 2016
election. On divisive racial and religious issues, the trolls took both sides. In the
presidential election, the trolls favored Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and Donald Trump, and
almost never Hillary Clinton.
One imaginative Russian troll urged Trumpsters to dress up a female volunteer in an orange
prison jump suit, put her in a cage on a flatbed truck, then append the slogan, "Lock Her
Up!"
How grave a matter is this?
This Russian troll farm is "the equivalent (of) Pearl Harbor," says Cong. Jerrold Nadler,
who would head up the House Judiciary Committee, handling any impeachment, if Democrats retake
the House.
When MSNBC's Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians "are destroying our
democratic process." While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence,
said Nadler, in its "seriousness, it is very much on a par" with Japan's surprise attack.
Trump's reaction to the hysteria that broke out after the Russian indictments: "They are
laughing their (expletives) off in Moscow."
According to Sunday's Washington Post, the troll story is old news in Russia, where
reporters uncovered it last year and it was no big deal.
While Mueller's indictments confirm that Russians meddled in the U.S. election, what
explains the shock and the fear for "our democracy"? Is the Great Republic about to fall
because a bunch of trolls tweeted in our election? Is this generation ignorant of its own
history? Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest
levels of American culture and government.
The Hollywood Ten, who went to prison for contempt of Congress, were secret members of a
Communist Party that, directed from Moscow, controlled the Progressive Party in Philadelphia in
1948 that nominated former Vice President Henry Wallace to run against Harry Truman.
Soviet spies infiltrated the U.S. atom bomb project and shortened the time Stalin needed to
explode a Soviet bomb in 1949.
As for Russian trolling in our election, do we really have clean hands when it comes to
meddling in elections and the internal politics of regimes we dislike?
Sen. John McCain and Victoria Nuland of State egged on the Maidan Square crowds in Kiev
that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine. When the democratically elected regime
of Mohammed Morsi was overthrown, the U.S. readily accepted the coup as a victory for our side
and continued aid to Egypt as tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members were
imprisoned.
Are the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy under orders not to try to influence the
outcome of elections in nations in whose ruling regimes we believe we have a stake?
"Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?" Laura Ingraham asked
former CIA Director James Woolsey this weekend. With a grin, Woolsey replied, "Oh, probably."
"We don't do that anymore though?" Ingraham interrupted. "We don't mess around in other
people's elections, Jim?" "Well," Woolsey said with a smile. "Only for a very good cause."
Indeed, what is the National Endowment for Democracy all about, if not aiding the pro-American
side in foreign nations and their elections?
Did America have no active role in the "color-coded revolutions" that have changed regimes
from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia?
When Republicans discuss Iran on Capitol Hill, the phrase "regime change" is frequently
heard. When the "Green Revolution" took to the streets of Tehran to protest massively the
re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, Republicans denounced President Obama for
not intervening more energetically to alter the outcome.
When China, Russia and Egypt expel NGOs, are their suspicions that some have been seeded
with U.S. agents merely marks of paranoia?
The U.S. role in the overthrow of Premier Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, and of Jacobo Arbenz in
Guatemala in 1954, and of President Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon in 1963 are established facts.
This "hysteria" as Buchanan accurately describes it is very characteristically American, in
its sheer hypocritical dishonesty.
The US has made a regular practice for a century or more of pushing and attacking others,
via political interference, subversion, diplomacy or outright military aggression, until they
respond, and then screaming hysterically about "unprovoked aggression" against America.
Of several factual mistakes in your piece, Pat, why do you slip in crap like this
"Yet we do have evidence that a senior British spy and Trump hater, Christopher Steele,
paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, colluded with Kremlin
agents to produce a dossier of scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges, to destroy the
candidacy of Donald Trump"
bs claiming 'Kremlin agents' when it would appear the entire hit job on Trump originated
with s ** t made up on the USA end, and Steele was little more than a cut-out to give the
USA's DoJ (and more likely CIA) cover? Isn't that more than just a bit like playing the
insider game? If you"re going to take a shot at Hillary, why not bring up the actual Russia
collusion concerning uranium?
And pushing the 'hack' line
"What do these indictments of Russians tell us? After 18 months, the James Comey-Robert
Mueller FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails has yet to
produce evidence of collusion"
giving cover to the 'Russians did it' hack bs when it is clear the DNC 'hack' was actually
an insider leak? You're no better than yellow rag Marcy Wheeler's 'empty wheel' blog:
Destroying the democratic process? A president was shot dead in full view of the nation and
it was never properly investigated, the same goes for 9/11. Endless and unconstitutional wars
that have bankrupted the nation. I'd say that it was destroyed a long time ago and all that
remains is nostalgia. Buckle up my colonial cousins!
Addendum, lifted from comment (#3) of Ronald Thomas West:
"What do these indictments of Russians tell us? After 18 months, the James Comey-Robert
Mueller FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails has yet to
produce evidence of collusion." Are you still unaware of the forensic evidence and credible
analysis of people like Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails
were leaked, not hacked?
Columnists like Pat Buchanan and Andrew Napolitano may help people find this website, but
week in and week out they show themselves as sloppy, at best. There may be something to be
said for putting them up here, where they can be compared to Dinh, Giraldi, Hopkins, Sailer,
Whitney, et al.
I read their columns closely when it comes to Russia, and comment when I see them serving
the Establishment line. It has become apparent that "Judge" is purposeful in his Eastasia
bulls ** t. I am reaching the same conclusion about Mr. Buchanan.
And it's still going on under the guise of NGOs. So if Russians tweeting stuff is an act
of war, then the US is already at war with a bunch of countries.
Before and after World War II, we had Stalinists and Soviet spies at the highest levels
of American culture and government.
During WW2, too.
They were running some of the biggest banks and corporations, too. It was fashionable for
the trust fund kiddies and some of the money bags "upper crust" to play commie as well. Still
is, apparently.
Famous names, Vanderbilt, Lamont, Whitney, Morgan, mingled with those of communist
leaders. The Russian Institute was so respectable that it was allowed to give in-service
courses to New York City schoolteachers for credit.
When MSNBC's Chris Hayes pressed, Nadler doubled down: The Russians "are destroying our
democratic process." While the Russian trolling may not equal Pearl Harbor in its violence,
said Nadler, in its "seriousness, it is very much on a par" with Japan's surprise
attack.
"One cannot observe democracy objectively without being impressed by its curious
distrust of itself -- it's apparent ineradicable tendency to abandon its philosophy at the
first sign of strain. I need not point to what invariably happens in democratic states when
the national safety is menaced. All the great tribunes of democracy, on such occasions,
convert themselves into instant despots of an almost fabulous ferocity." H.L.
Mencken
This is an excellent article summarizing the major issues presented. Though I have views
which vary somewhat about the postwar witchhunt in the US which sort of sets the beginning
precedent for this one the fact situation described is correct. As for whether it is an act
of war, I say that it is, but not by the Russians. It is an act of war by out of control
extra-legal yankee authorities against any individual, foreign or domestic, who would choose
to resist them in any fashion, including those just trying to make money like the Russians in
this case from farming US internet subscribers.
Russiagate is a starched and stuffed empty suit. Buchanan is right to demean its
significance. And yes, there is the shameful fact of rank US hypocrisy in all this. No doubt.
But the relatively modest impact of Russian 'meddling' in the last US election, coupled with
the moral emptiness within the entire Russiagate investigation, is what's most revealing.
Indeed, not only does the US routinely interfere (and even overthrow) other sovereign
states, but Russian machinations in America pales besides other extranational interference,
particularly Israel's.
When it comes to pushing around Washington and shaping US public opinion, Israel is in a
class by itself. You haven't noticed?
Not only do crypto-Israelis own or supervise most American mass media (including hard
news) but hundreds of young, paid Jewish/Israeli trolls regularly clog US social media sites,
American internet news comments sections, and Wikipedia entries.
Israelis (and their US-based cousins) are the masters of political chicanery. No one else
comes close.
Then there's the overbearing influence of AIPAC, the ADL, and dozens of other
crypto-Israeli pressure groups. These highfalutin lobbies have managed to buy their way into
the halls of Congress, the White House, and onto national TV. It's a continuous phenomena.
But we're not supposed to notice or be concerned. After all, they're our best friends!
By comparison, Russian access and interference in American life is infantesimal.
Does this shock you? It shouldn't. It's been this way in America for decades.
Incredibly, it's publicly examining, discussing, and criticizing this odd situation that
becomes 'shocking' (and career-ending). That's the scary part.
Crypto-Israelis have dominated, and continue to dominate, a vast swath of American
culture; especially news and entertainment.
Henry Ford, Charles Lindburgh, and Marlon Brando all complained about this unique and
dangerous situation. And conditions have not improved since they did. If anything, Zionist
power in America has only hardened.
This makes far-away Russia even more of a bit player in our corrupt political circus. And
this is why Russiagate is such a farce.
In Hollywood, on Wall Street, as well as in Washington, the top dog (and most sacred
cause) involves Israel. Every US politician recognizes this unpublicized fact. Just read
their speeches. See how they vote. And those public servants who don't recognize Israel's
unique status in Washington tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This is Jewish power.
Zio-Americans helped steer Washington into its preemptive and criminal annihilation of
Libya and Iraq and, if they have their way again, there will be additional American wars
fought on behalf of the Jewish state.
Due in large part to Zionist dictates, Assad's Syria is being targeted by Washington right
now. Iran is next. All foes of Israel end up in Washington's crosshairs.
America has been quietly captured and domesticated by Zionists.
Sadly, even referring to the overriding impact of Zionist power in America is taboo.
Buchanan and others have learned this lesson the hard way. But this explosive fact ultimately
renders the entire Russiagate 'scandal' little more than a contrived distraction.
Call it Jewish political theater if you like. But it's mostly a charade.
Mr. Buchanan is correct, of course, that we interfere in other countries. But defending
foreign hostility to America by pointing to America's own misdeeds is a traditional leftist
line.
It's not a "leftist line" (at least in this case), it's one that's basic to human nature
– don't dish it out if you can't take it in turn, and don't whine like a hypocritical
two year old when you do get some back. Nothing "left wing" about that.
There's nothing wrong with us taking our own country's side.
No, not if you don't mind being a hypocrite.
But hypocrisy is a very American thing – throughout your history you've been
manipulated into wars by the very weakness you adhere to here. "We can do it but if anyone
does it back to us that's unacceptable, because we're special" has been pretty much the way
the US has been kept interfering around the world for decades.
The answer is to stop doing it yourself, then complain about other people doing it.
But that isn't going to happen, is it? Your lords and masters are going to keep poking their
noses into other countries' affairs all over the world, and people like you are going to
complain like bitches if you get any back, and those complaints will justify further
aggression in response to supposedly unacceptable foreign "unprovoked"
aggression/interference against your country.
And I write that while being pretty much the very opposite of anything that could be
described as "left wing", just as a foreigner weighing US behaviour.
'Yet we do have evidence that a senior British spy and Trump hater, Christopher Steele, paid
by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, colluded with Kremlin agents
to produce a dossier of scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges, to destroy the candidacy of
Donald Trump. And the FBI used this disinformation to get FISA Court warrants to surveil and
wiretap the Trump campaign.'
Correct except for 'Kremlin agents' Steele hadn't been to Russia in more than 20 years.
The 'dossier' is full of ridiculous mistakes about Russia. It's just as likely he made the
whole thing up, or was fed stuff by the CIA, not the Kremlin.
When Napoleon Bonaparte executed the Duc d'Enghien in 1804 for what seemed like trumped-up
treason charges, the implications extended far beyond questions of French justice and even
beyond the borders of France. European leaders were shocked, and the episode helped crystallize
anti-Bonaparte sentiment throughout the Continent and in Britain. The famous French diplomat
Charles de Talleyrand captured the moment when he said: "It was worse than a crime; it was a
blunder."
That might well be said now about the Russian effort to manipulate the 2016 presidential
election by using social media to undermine Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, promote the
candidacy of Donald Trump, and generally sow discord throughout the American body politic.
Three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens were indicted by U.S. authorities Friday on
charges of engaging in a three-year, multimillion-dollar effort to interfere in the election.
Americans naturally are shocked at this brazen effort to unravel the political fabric of their
country.
But it isn't really all that shocking. To understand why it was more of a blunder than a
crime -- and a blunder with likely tragic consequences -- it is important to absorb five
fundamental realities surrounding this important development in U.S.-Russian relations.
First, countries have been doing this sort of thing for centuries. It is a fundamental part
of tradecraft -- the use of covert actions to undermine the internal workings of rival nations.
No country likes being on the receiving end, but few refrain from such activity when they think
it will thwart national security threats.
Second, no nation has been more aggressive than the United States in pursuing efforts,
covert and even overt, to destabilize other regimes. In part that's because, as the leading
global power since World War II, the Unites States has had more at stake in events of
significance throughout the world. In part also, it's because America has had the greatest
capacity for bringing the latest technology and the greatest covert capabilities to meet the
challenge.
In any event, the U.S. record in this area is beyond dispute. A New York Times
piece by Scott Shane over the weekend quoted a University of Georgia professor named Loch
Johnson as saying, "We've been doing this kind of thing since the CIA was created in '47. We've
used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners -- you name it." Among other things, he adds, the
United States has planted false information in foreign newspapers and distributed "suitcases of
cash" to influence foreign elections. Steven L. Hall, a 30-year CIA veteran (now retired) with
extensive experience leading the Russia desk, told Shane that the United States "absolutely"
engaged in such activities, "and I hope we keep doing it."
Shane cites a study by Dov H. Levin of Carnegie Mellon that sought to quantify "election
influence operations" by the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia between 1946 and 2000.
He counts 81 by the United States and 36 by the Soviet Union or Russia (though he figures there
were more ops initiated from Russian soil than we know about).
Beyond that, there is what has become known as the "democracy industry" -- legions of U.S.
NGOs, many funded with federal money, that fan out through the world to remake regimes they
consider insufficiently imbued with Western values. Writer and thinker David Rieff, writing in
The National Interest a few years ago, attacked these democracy promotion adherents as
people who "will not or cannot acknowledge either the ideological or the revolutionary
character of their enterprise." He likened the democracy promoters in propaganda terms to
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 boast to America that "we will bury you."
Third, the greatest interference in the internal affairs of foreign nations, aside from
invasion, is regime change, and here the United States is by far the leader in the post-World
War II era. We know of major efforts -- covert or overt, successful or not -- by America to
upend regimes in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Serbia, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Leaving aside the case-by-case merits, this is a powerful record, and it has implications
far beyond U.S. domestic politics. Like Bonaparte's execution of the Duc d'Enghien, it
generates concerns and fears among foreign leaders. In the case of America's regime change
zest, it sends chills down the spines of leaders fearful that they may be next on the list of
U.S. regime change targets. Certainly the resolve of North Korea's Kim Jong-un to develop
nuclear weapons with a delivery capacity to the United States is partly a product of such
fears.
Fourth, America and its allies bear by far the greater share of the blame for the current
tensions between the West and Russia. It was all predictable back in 1998 when NATO fashioned
its policy of aggressive eastward expansion toward the Russian border. George F. Kennan, the
highly respected U.S. diplomat and Russia expert, predicted the outcome in particularly stark
terms. He called it "the beginning of a new cold war a tragic mistake." He foresaw that of
course the Russians would react badly, as any nation would, and then the NATO expansionists
would say, see, we always said the Russians were aggressive and couldn't be trusted. "This is
just wrong," Kennan warned.
But if NATO expansion was a provocative policy destined to elicit a strong Russian response,
the provocation was heightened hugely when America helped perpetrate a regime change initiative
in Ukraine, which is not only next door to Russia but has been a crucial part of Russia's
sphere of influence going back to the mid-17th century. Further, Russia lies vulnerable to
invasion. The unremitting grassy steppes of the nation, extending from Europe all the way to
the Far East, with hardly a mountain range or seashore or major forest to hinder encroachment
by army or horde, has fostered a national obsession over the need to control territory as a
hedge against incursion. Such incursions from the West occurred three times in the 19th and
20th centuries.
Ukraine is crucial in this Russian sense of territorial imperative. It's a tragically split
country, with part tilting toward the West and part facing eastward toward Russia. That makes
for a delicate political and geopolitical situation, but for centuries that delicate political
and geopolitical situation has been overseen by Russia. Now the West wants to end that.
Upending a duly elected (though corrupt) Ukrainian president was part of the plan. Getting
Ukraine into NATO is the endgame.
Note that the Ukrainian revolution occurred in 2014, which just happened to be the year,
according to the U.S. indictments, that Russia initiated its grand program to influence
America's 2016 elections. Kennan was right: Russia inevitably would react badly to the NATO
encirclement policy, and then America's anti-Russian cadres would cite that as evidence that
the encirclement was necessary all along. That's precisely what's happening now.
Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder. Given all
that's happened in U.S.-Russian relations this century, there probably wasn't much prospect
that those relations could ever be normalized, much less made cordial. But that is now utterly
impossible.
Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of seeking better relations with Russia. After getting
elected he repeatedly asserted in his first news conference that it would be "positive,"
"good," or "great" if "we could get along with Russia." Unlike most of America's elites, he
vowed to seek Moscow's cooperation on global issues, accepted some U.S. share of blame for the
two countries' sour relations, and acknowledged "the right of all nations to put their
interests first."
This suggested a possible dramatic turn in U.S.-Russian relations -- an end to the
encirclement push, curtailment of the hostile rhetoric, a pullback on economic sanctions, and
serious efforts to work with Russia on such nettlesome matters as Syria and Ukraine. That was
largely put on hold with the narrative of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and vague
allegations of campaign "collusion" with Russia on behalf of Trump's presidential
ambitions.
It doesn't appear likely that investigators will turn up any evidence of collusion that
rises to any kind of criminality. But it doesn't matter now, in terms of U.S.-Russian
relations, because these indictments will cement the anti-Russian sentiment of Americans for
the foreseeable future. No overtures of the kind envisioned by Trump will be possible for any
president for a long time. It won't matter that every nation does it or that America in
particular has done it or that the West's aggressive encirclement contributed to the Russian
actions. The U.S.-Russian hostility is set. Where it leads is impossible to predict, but it
won't be good. It could be tragic.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is
editor of The American Conservative . His latest book,President McKinley: Architect of the American Century, was
released in September.
I'm disgusted that people are taking this garbage indictment seriously A bunch of Russian
private citizens working for a privately-funded NGO (allegedly funded by an owner of a
restaurant chain) using faked social media accounts to carry out political activism, and no
evidence of Russian government involvement, and this clown Mueller thinks this is some
evidence for "Russian meddling" in elections? It wouldn't be so laughable except that the US
spook agencies do this sort of thing as a routine .
This is just Mueller doing as he was told to do by his Establishment leash-holders, and
come up with any old steaming pile of garbage to be packaged as "evidence" to support this
Cold War 2 paranoia mindset and promote the unfounded allegation of Trumps "collusion" with
Russians in order to undermine his Presidency.
The US continues to disappoint me This country seems to be utterly incapable of getting
things into perspective or acting rationally. A nation run by amoral psychopaths who are
completely obsessed with power and wealth and control, and who will stoop to anything in
order to achieve their unspoken power agendas.
The sad fact is the Mr. Merry is probably right. The die is cast. Enmity is almost certainly
now permanent, with the increasingly likely result indeed tragic.
With this latest indictment, the bogus "Russian collusion" charge has finally achieved its
primary goal -- which was not to remove Trump (that's 3; goal 2 was to elect Hillary), but to
ensure unchangeable hostility towards Russia. The fact that Trump even now controverts what
H.R. McMaster calls "incontrovertible" is nice but irrelevant. It hardly matters what the
president thinks at all. (Besides, for whom does McMaster work, Trump or Mueller?)
Everybody now agrees that "Romney was right." There's nothing Trump can do about it.
Ruthenia delenda est. The madness may now become terminal – for everybody.
Notice too how everyone, including Trump's cheering section at Fox News, has immediately
lost sight of the REAL collusion within the US government (with a little help from "hands
across the water"): Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Comey, Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Rod
Rosenstein (remember, he signed one of the FISA requests to spy on the Trump team), John O.
Brennan, Christopher Steele, Andrew Wood (former British ambassador to Russia who peddled the
Steele dossier), Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and of course Barack Obama.
They'll all skate. No surprise there.
All that said, it would have been nice to explain who "the Russians" are we're talking
about. This looks less like a government op than a clickbait scam of the sort hundreds of
firms in dozens of countries engage in:
Donald Trump campaigned on having better relations with Russia(?). Ok, why? A) Is he a deep
well read strategic thinker on Russian US relations and envisioned better relations as a
positive step towards world peace or B) he admires Putin for being a white right nationalist
that he is coupled with his deep business ties to Russian oligarchs which have the potential
of being un earthed by that Witcher hunter himself Robert Mueller?
This is a good article, but I feel that it would have been stronger if Mr. Merry had
elaborated on the reasons why elevated hostility between Russia and the West represents a
tragedy for both parties.
The geopolitical argument for a modus vivendi between America and Russia can be summarised
with a single phrase: 'the rise of China'. As an immense body of commentators have argued for
years, the #1 geostrategic imperative for the U.S. in the foreseeable future is thwarting
Chinese ambitions to become the military, political, and economic hegemon of Asia. China also
threatens to displace Russia's influence in Central Asia, and menaces the security of its
hold on the thinly populated territories of Siberia. So it would seem that there is a common
interest to build on.
Unfortunately, Russia will always value the security of its western lands above all other
priorities, and so Eastern Europe remains an enduring sticking point in its relations with
the U.S.A. Regardless of whether or not the expansion of NATO back in the 1990s was wise or
not, America cannot let go of its commitments there without incurring an unacceptable loss in
prestige and credibility. An adversarial relationship appears to be locked in on both
sides.
Even if Russia hadn't attempted to influence the 2016 election, I suspect that attempts to
forge a new detente would have proven unavailing – just like the infamous 'reset'
attempted by Obama. What neither Obama or Trump seem to have understood is the first rule of
successful diplomatic resets: 'Only Nixon can go to China'. It takes a leader with genuine
credibility on the issue to make such a thing stick. Otherwise the whole thing collapses as
soon as the political cycle rotates.
"Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder."
_________________________________
I'm not all sure what we are talking about here in the grand effort: the troll army,
thefacebook/twitter "massive" campaign, the DNC "hacking" which by all accounts did not
happen?
I fear that we are falling into the trap of actually believing the press and the
hysterical democrats.
My sense is that it was a minor effort in terms of financial expenditures and people
involved-I am very skeptical that any votes were influenced to any degree.
So where is the there in all of this smoke and hoopala?
There is a worst outcome of these events, never mind the massive hypocrisy of the US
establishment. It will not be possible to have another Bernie Sanders, or even Trump movement
in the US, because such movements will be blamed on Russia.
Pro-social ideas and more political diversity in the US are dead and the country will be
even more overtly move towards a corporatism, militarist regime.
The time will come that even TAC and likes of Daniel Larson will be accused of being
Russian puppets.
My Grandfather (God rest his soul) was born in 1910 and was a brutally honest (and frank) man
who never shied away from giving you his opinion on anything. When I was a teenager in the
mid 1990's we'd watch the CBS evening news together. Him on his recliner and me on the couch
we'd watch the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather and he'd turn to me and say, "You know why
every other country hates America?". Of course I'd say I didn't know and he'd say to me,
"it's because we've got our nose up everybody's ass. We should mind our own Goddamn
business!". That was my Grandfather's take on foreign policy. Most might try to dismiss it
out of simplicity but his opinion on the matter was not without wisdom. My Grandfather lived
through two World Wars (and served in the US Navy during WWII and the Korean War) and worked
for the VA hospital during the Vietnam War. Had Washington followed my Grandfather's advice
(which has been echoed here at TAC by Patrick J. Buchanan and the rest of the gang for almost
two decades now) then there wouldn't be a New Cold War with Russia or China.
Trump's constant assertions of "nothing to see here" are certainly the acts of someone
guilty. Hard to believe there is nothing there. Too many around him have been shown to have
ties to Russia, Trump wasn't even in office yet when he promised to remove sanctions on
Russia, and his loyalty to Russia over the US in the election meddling is telling. If large
numbers of Republicans want to be useful idiots, that's their business, but ducks that quack
and walk, and all that
Was the Russian election meddling a blunder? It was certainly successful. It has fractured
our society. I believe we will come back stronger from this, but it showed the rot in
society, in our religious institutions, and our political institutions. You have to identify
the rot to get in there and clean it out, so the Russians gave us that advantage, but it has
brought us to the brink.
Again, a blunder? Were we really going to get closer to Russia? I don't think so. Trump
tried his best and it didn't work. Not being politically minded, he had to have personal gain
as a motivation to promote closer ties with Russia. So if the odds politically of having
better ties with Russia were next to nothing at this time, again, Russia won with their troll
campaign. While the duped continue to refuse to admit they were duped, Russian influence
remains strong, and the duped can be duped again.
This article trots out the usual inaccuracies about NATO expansion and Eastern European
history. There is no conceivable scenario in which the Eastern European countries admitted to
NATO threaten Russia. Estonia has no invasion plans. NATO does not war game invading Russia
and has no capacity to do so. Russia is not by any reasonable measure encircled by anyone.
She is the largest country in the world and has managed to survive with Turkey as a NATO
member at its doorstep for years.
It's also absurd to make the case that having been invaded three times in the past two
centuries makes Russia especially sensitive to invasion. Many European countries have had
that experience and aren't annexing bits and bobs of their neighbors if things don't go their
way. The Baltic States were invaded three times in FIVE years in World War II, twice by
Russia. Now, they have cause for paranoia.
For that matter, Russia hasn't been invaded three times in the 19th and 20th century. In WWI,
Russia invaded East Prussia. Most of the war took place in what is now Poland and Belarus,
not Russia.
Please stop trying to buttress your commitment to a non-aligned US with dubious statements
about Eastern Europe.
Why can't we trade and exchange with Russia and just get along? Why so much hostility to a
country that did the heavy lifting in WW2? Why not call out Isreal (mainly) and Saudi Arabia
for trying to manipulate us as their attack dog on a very short and disciplined leash? Recall
when Netanyahu addressed the full U.S.Congress (screaming and yelling like rabid fans at a
Beatles concert) and a sitting president was forced to watch on TV? Recall how Johnson let
Israel attack the USS Liberty for hours and would not let our planes splash the aggressors?
What has happened to our values of democracy, dignity, international human rights and above
all national independence, especially from relatively client states? P.T. Barnum's "You can
fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all of the time will take
hold." Enough dying and resource wasting on designer wars, not in our interest.
Post WW 2 we have a history of cozing up to Dictators or questionable regimes, then turning
on them. Our adversaries especially China and Russia understand this very well.
Excellent analysis of America's foolish and perhaps fateful policy of encirclement,
encroachment and permanent alienation of Russia. Buy why expect Russia to remain passive?
Surely they could be forgiven for picking out Trump as a possible source of a more rational
and peaceable policy, and saying: let's help this guy get elected. And doing it with their
usual clumsiness. Why would they stand by and let the warmongering Hillary push the policy to
its ultimate conclusion: war?
Mr. Merry does a brilliant job–the best I have read–of contextualizing the Russia
election interference story. But his analysis is also telling, and typical, in what it omits:
any consideration of what in fact the Russians did, and how and to what extent it mattered.
And this for a reason that says everything that does matter in our time: the truth of the
allegations is irrelevant. Everything is the "narrative".
So, he is correct. Relations will be poisoned for decades. We may even go to war. And the
underlying cause will be something that may or may not have happened and, if it did,
was–relative to the actual presidential election–inconsequential.
I would only add that in a world more than ever shaped and driven by contesting
narratives, the question should be: who benefits most from the Russia indictments,
evidence-based or not?
The answer is the dominance of American hawkishness and interventionism, which can now
accelerate and expand, unopposed, out to infinity.
@Terrence Maloney. Expansion of NATO to the Baltics puts OUR troops on Russia's border.
The Washington Post put out an article yesterday interviews a Russian journalist who
published a detailed report on the Russian troll factory back in October.
"Zakharov (the journalist) explained how it was a strange feeling seeing something he had
so closely investigated become a major issue in the United States, when it had not been a
"bombshell" when he published his report at home."
You would think the major news organizations like NYT and WaPo would have the resources to
constantly research foreign publications. Evidently not, because if the MSM thinks that an
indictment of 13 Russian trolls is a bombshell, surely they would think 90 Russian Trolls, as
described in the Russian news report and $2M would be an even bigger bombshell. And yet it
was never picked up on in this country. It goes to show our big media are navel gazers.
But in any event its NOT a bombshell at all. 90 trolls with $2M in a multi-billion
election? I believe what really upsets our self-proclaimed adults, is that the vast unwashed
masses' opinions can be changed by comments on facebook or any other outlets where they
cannot control the message.
This whole "Russia ate our homework" thing is to divert attention from the corrupt use of
the Justice Department and intelligence agencies to spy on political opponents.
@Terrence Moloney, it's not an issue of Latvia invading Russia it's an issue of those
countries being used as missile platforms and choke points against their navy.
The game goes like this, the U.S. keeps encircling Russia with NATO expansion. If Russia
doesn't resist, great, it continues. If Russia resists then that is evidence of 'aggression'
that justifies a military buildup on existing NATO countries.
Russia lost an area the size of the United States when the Soviet Union collapsed 1991.
After an earthquake there are after shocks.
Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine. In 1992 they created their own constitution
only to have it nullified by Ukraine. Ossetia declared independence from Georgia in 1992. Is
1992 early enough for you? You act like Moses created these boundaries.
Putin has stated that Russia will not invade the Baltics or Kiev. That it is wrong to try
to rule over an unwilling population, that Russia has more than enough land for their people.
The premise behind the Crimean annexation was that it was the population's will.
So Democrats are suppose to simply turn a blind eye towards the Trump campaign then? After
years of Benghazi! and Birtherism during Obama. And do you think Russians would have been as
effective with Marco Rubio running? Or how the Russian activity started against Democrats
Congress in the late election?
Or how the Republican fought against Obama on announcing this activity to the country?
2016 was a God-awful election and conservative have been incredibly smug on their slight
victory. And President Trump is DOING NOTHING on this activity so I assume he is hoping for
their assistance in 2018. (And notice how much they were active they were on the David Nune
memo.)
13 Russians illegally volunteered for Trump's campaign?
So what!
The establishment is straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans illegally voted for Hillary Clinton.
Worse, billionaires whose first loyalty is to Israel, such as Haim Shaban and Paul Singer,
exercise immense influence over American foreign policy.
Immense resources are being devoted to investigating minuscule Russian activity. Why?
1. Because the establishment wants to overturn the results of the 2016 Presidential
election.
2. They also hope to find some connection between the Russian government and the American
hard right (via Dugin) which can be used to jail the leading figures of the American hard
right, thus doing what the ADL, SPLC and Antifa have failed to do – nullify the First
Amendment.
This is arguably the most serious assault ever on the Constitution of the United
States.
Putin requires hostility with the west in order to remain in power. He doesn't want a war, he
just needs Russian citizens to feel aggrieved against outsiders so that they don't react to
the kleptocrats running the country. It's classic 'strong man' strategy.
"Which brings us to the fifth and final fundamental reality surrounding the revelation of
Russia's grand effort to influence the U.S. election. It was an incredible blunder."
What a second. You call that a "grand effort?" A few Facebook accounts and some organized
trolling? That is anything but a "grand effort" and I question why anyone would characterize
it as such. Especially in the context of what we Americans have done and do (which you touch
on).
At some point the US needs to turn away from it's "Do as we say, not as we do" mentality.
Only thing it's gotten us is a world that doesn't trust us anymore. Unfortunately that day
won't come until the day the American Empire collapses and America returns to it's roots as a
Republic.
The Ukrainian president wasn't toppled; he fled,doubting the loyalty of his own security
forces and despite an agreement with the opposition to stay in power pending a new election
within 10 months.
@celery "Was the Russian election meddling a blunder? It was certainly successful. It has
fractured our society. I believe we will come back stronger from this, but it showed the rot
in society, in our religious institutions, and our political institutions. You have to
identify the rot to get in there and clean it out, so the Russians gave us that advantage,
but it has brought us to the brink. "
An apt comment. And in this connection it's crucially important that henceforth we hold
other countries to the standards we're holding Russia.
I'm thinking of Israel in particular, which has meddled in and distorted American politics
to a degree that the Russians can only dream of. One need say only "Sheldon Adelson" to
suggest its corrupting, distorting influence. What if a Russian oligarch came here and did
for Russia what Adelson and so many others do for Israel? Would we have American politicians
grovelling for the millions that a Russian oligarch could lavish on those who promise to do
Putin's bidding – as they already do for Adelson and Netanyahu?
If the end result of this "Russian meddling" case is criminalization of this behavior (or
even just reinvigorated enforcement of existing laws, like FARA and the Espionage Act), and
if that serves to end Israeli meddling in our political process, then all to the good.
Meddling by foreign countries in our political process is indeed "rot", as you put it –
and as George Washington urgently warned in his Farewell Address. It must be stopped at all
costs, for reasons so obvious that we shouldn't even have to discuss them.
Sorry, there is still no 'Russian Meddling' of any kind. The indictments were against a
commercial marketing scheme, using clickbait to build reputations that could be used to sell
ads. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are for Trump, some against, some for
Hillary, some against, and of course there is the post that is definitely for, puppies.
Again, there is nothing here, about 'Russia'. Even Mueller's team of liars did not claim
any involvement by the Russian government.
What these indictments mean is that being a foreigner, and posting opinions during an
election, without registering as a foreign agent, means you can be indicted for 'defrauding'
the US.
Since Washington is rolling in a slush fund of billions in foreign lobbying money from
countries overwhelmingly not Russia, why is this influence peddling not the real issue? One
guy with a million bucks has more influence with Washington than a million guys with one
buck, and there are thousands of former elected and unelected government officials flush with
their cash doing the bidding of well moneyed foreign states other than Russia, not that of
the hundreds of millions of ordinary Americans.
Now we have the chimera of an indictment against 13 ham sandwiches with Russian dressing
which can never be eaten – there will be no actual trials as the people accused are
people in a foreign country. So, as has become the new standard for public belief in this and
other politicized matters, such findings of fact are unnecessary – accusations become
the same as proof, the very definition of witch hunt hysterias, from McCarthy to McMartin
preschool.
Far from benign foreign influences with far more effective and vast resources were bent on
running interference to make sure that Hillary Clinton was elected, since they believed her
ascendancy was in their best interests. Because millions of Americans knew that her policy
predilections were not in their own best interests, does that make them unwitting tools of a
Russian conspiracy? It's a witch hunt by powerful domestic forces not acting in Americans'
best interests, but those of elites who feel threatened by their own country's heartland and
its increasingly dispossessed.
This, I assume, is the latest pro-Putin propaganda line. With Putin openly interfering in the
Italian election in favour of the Lega Nord, it is now impossible to deny his interference in
the US election. So now the interference is admitted but of course it couldn't possibly be
nice Mr Putin's fault. It was just a blunder and, as we've come to expect, it was all
provoked anyway by the ever dastardly US! The rest is just a re-has of the "let Putin win in
Ukraine" pretexts that we've all heard a thousand times.
I'll say it again. One of the oldest tricks any regime uses when it begins to feel insecure
is to create an enemy for its people to focus on. Our oligarchy has chosen Russia, probably
because China makes them too much money.
Who, specifically, was indicted? Let's hear some names! From whom did they get their marching
orders? How did they "meddle" in the election? Examples please. And, most importantly, where
are they? If ( as rumor has it) they are in Russia then those indictments aren't worth the
paper they're written on.
Yes, please stop the Russian meddling! And please stop all the other foreign meddling while
you're at it. We're sick of doing the spending, fighting, and dying for foreign countries.
An American here. How can I think the Russians for interfering in American elections? I trust
Putin more than our own so-called "leaders." I say, interfere away (and let Hungary and
Poland join in)! Maybe then Americans will have the chance to break free of the chains of the
two-party sham, neocon foreign policy, and corporate globalism.
Interesting how the Trumpeteers have gone so swiftly from "Fake News" to "So What!". (I guess
Oceania has Always been at war with Eurasia.)
What people are missing, including the NeverTrumpers and the ForeverTrumpers is this even
betting there was no collusion (because not even ham-fisted Ruskies would cozy up too close
with such a band of inept jerks as the Trump Campaign) it shows Trump is a Chump.
Donnie the Strong Man is a clueless loser who was USED by the Russian troll factory
because he would be pliable (ie easily manipulated) to give them what they wanted.
Trump has SUCKER written all over his face. He should go play a round of golf and tweet
out pathetic insults to everyone. What else has he left.
For those who have projected their own agenda onto Trump's blatherings (just like the
Lefties did with Obama's vague platitudes), when will it occur to you that if you have to
keep making excuses and attacking those who point out the obvious, you have backed the wrong
horse's ***.
I know he can put on his Admiral-General uniform and review the troops, just like the
Ruskie leadership. Tanks, rocket launchers, ICBMs and goose-stepping soldiery (just like the
Russians). That will Prove he has *large hands*. "I'll Show You!"
Putin got elected because Russians were tired of Western rapacious capitalists trying to use
the broken Soviet Union to make money.. Putin then used his KGB thugs to turn the Russian
government into a mafioso.. The chosen, Putin enablers, looted the country.. The looters want
to free their stolen money to buy things in the west, cause who wants old soviet crap..
Western capitalists who dont care are more than willing to take their cut.. This is Trump,
who could not get a loan in this country.. This article is repugnant, it reduces the USA to
the level of these thieves in Russia.. God help us all.
"All that said, it would have been nice to explain who 'the Russians' are we're talking
about."
Bingo! I'd like to see names, who their bosses were (if they had any), places from which
they did their deeds. I'd like more specifics on exactly "what" they did and how. Most
importantly, and to paraphrase the Fermi (UFO) Paradox, "where are they?" Rumor has it
they're in Rooshia. If so, fuggedaboudit! We ain't EVER gonna seem them.
Indictment! As the saying goes "you can indict a ham sandwich."
"All that said, it would have been nice to explain who "the Russians" are we're talking
about. This looks less like a government op than a clickbait scam of the sort hundreds of
firms in dozens of countries engage in:"
Russia has very tight control of net communications within its borders. This could not
have happened without their support, or at least their tacit approval.
This is falling right into the trap of the neocon and neoliberal warmongerers.
1) No I don't believe Russia wants to reconstitute either the Russian Empire or the Soviet
Empire. Its about territorial integrity and relevancy on the world stage.
2) The US and EU backed Russia into the corner with the tug of war in Ukrainian elections
between pro-Russian candidates and pro-EU candidates then threatening Ukraine to take Crimea
away from the Russian navy. A clear threat to Russian territorial integrity and Russia would
be irrelevant without its warm water port in the Black Sea.
3) US and EU and Israel spy and influence elections around the world. Its concerning yes, but
does the US and EU expect Russia not to reciprocate?
4) I don't care what anyone says, everyone in the US owes Russia a debt of gratitude. I will
thank any nation that tried to tell the US citizenry what an evil, shrill, bipolar,
incompetent, traitorous woman Hillary Clinton was and still is! Hillary and Obama and their
administration should be in jail for murder, corruption and collusion.
This blunder will force a further deterioration between the US and Russia when both the US
and EU need friendly relations with Russia now more than ever. There are threats in this
world far greater than Russia like terrorism and nuclear proliferation and radical islam etc.
This means the US will have to tackle these issues without the help of Russia because it will
be punishing Russia. Mr. Trump, we need a master negotiator now more than ever to get Russia
out past this scandal and build a better relationship with them.
What is distressing is not that it happened. We are an open society (and I use that term in a
general sense, not teh Karl Popper sense). So it is easy to do so.
What is distressing to me is that it may have worked.
One of the strangest things about this whole matter is that it was just a few years ago that
Obama and Clinton were talking about trying to have a "reset" in our relations with Russia,
and the Right was apoplectic that they would even consider trying to talk to the implacable
enemy that was just waiting for the chance to destroy us. Now, with clear evidence that
Russia has in fact caused us harm, those exact same people are the ones saying "No problem,
nothing to see here. We trust Putin implicitly, he would never do anything to hurt us."
A very timely article indeed- one only needs the most basic outline of Russian history of the
last millennium to understand that their foreign policy has always been primarily
defensive.
One thing, though, needs to be corrected: The next president will indeed have an opportunity
to demonstrate a broad understanding of the situation and stretch out a cautiously friendly
hand.
This can't happen with Trump for two reasons- he hasn't demonstrated any understanding of the
context of the issue, and he has thoroughly poisoned the well by only seeing recent events in
terms of his own personal repuatation, not of the nation that he was hired to represent.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. ..."
inter alia allegedly later ran a clandestine operation seeking to influence opinion
in the United States regarding the candidates in the 2016 election in which it favored Donald
Trump and denigrated Hillary Clinton. The Russians identified by name are all back in Russia
and cannot be extradited to the U.S., so the indictment is, to a certain extent, political
theater as the accused's defense will never be heard.
In presenting the document, Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, stressed that there was
no evidence to
suggest that the alleged Russian activity actually changed the result of the 2016
presidential election or that any actual votes were altered or tampered with. Nor was there any
direct link to either the Russian government or its officials or to the Donald Trump campaign
developed as a result of the nine-month long investigation. There was also lacking any mention
in the indictment of the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton and Panetta e-mails, so
it is to be presumed that the activity described in the document was unrelated to the WikiLeaks
disclosures.
Those of the "okay, there's smoke but where's the fire" school of thought immediately noted
the significant elephant in the room, namely that the document did not include any suggestion
that there had been collusion between Team Trump and Moscow. As that narrative has become the
very raison d'etre driving the Mueller investigation, its omission is noteworthy.
Meanwhile, those who see more substance in what was revealed by the evidence provided in the
indictment and who, for political reasons, would like to see Trump damaged, will surely be
encouraged by their belief that the noose is tightening around the president.
Assuming the indictment is accurate, I would agree that the activity of the Internet
Research Agency does indeed have some of the hallmarks of a covert action intelligence
operation in terms how it used some spying tradecraft to support its organization, targeting
and activity. But its employees also displayed considerable amateur behavior, suggesting that
they were not professional spies, supporting the argument that it was not a government
intelligence operation or an initiative under Kremlin control. And beyond that, so what? Even
on a worst-case basis, stirring things up is what intelligence agencies do, and
no one is more active in interfering in foreign governments and elections than the United
States of America, most notably in Russia for the election of Boris Yeltsin in 1996, which was
arranged by Washington, and more recently in Ukraine in 2014. From my own experience I can cite
Italy's 1976 national election in which the CIA went all out to keep the communists out of
government. Couriers were discreetly dispatched to the headquarters of all the Italian right
wing parties dropping off bags of money for "expenses" while the Italian newspapers were full
of articles written by Agency-paid hacks warning of the dangers of communism. And this all went
on clandestinely even though Italy was a democracy, an ally and NATO member.
Does that mean that Washington should do nothing in response? No, not at all. Russia, if the
indictment is accurate, may have run an influencing operation and gotten caught with its hand
in the cookie jar. Or maybe not. And Washington might also actually have information suggesting
that Russia is preparing to engage in further interference in the 2018 and 2020 elections,
as claimed by the heads of the intelligence agencies, though, as usual, evidence for the
claim is lacking. There has to be bilateral, confidential discussion of such activity between
Washington and Moscow and a warning given that such behavior will not be tolerated in the
future, but only based on irrefutable, solid evidence. The leadership in both countries should
be made to understand very clearly that there are more compelling reasons to maintain good
bilateral working relations than not.
With that in mind, it is important not to overreact and to base any U.S. response on the
actual damage that was inflicted. The indictment suggests that Russia is out to destroy
American democracy by promoting "distrust" of government as well as sowing "discord" in the
U.S. political system while also encouraging "divisiveness" among the American people. I would
suggest in Russia's defense that the U.S. political system is already doing a good job at
self-destructing and the difficult-to-prove accusations being hurled at Moscow are the type one
flings when there is not really anything important to say.
I would suggest that Moscow might well want to destroy American democracy but there is no
evidence in the indictment to support that hypothesis. I particularly note that the document
makes a number of assumptions which appear to be purely speculative for which it provides no
evidence. It describes the Russian company Internet Research Agency as "engaged in operations
to interfere with elections and political processes." Its employees were involved in
"interference operations targeting the United States. From in or around 2014 to the
present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons
known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing,
and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose
of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential
election of 2016."
The theme of Russian subversion is repeated throughout the indictment without any compelling
evidence to explain how Mueller knows what he asserts to be true, suggesting either that the
document would have benefited from a good editor or that whoever drafted it was making things
up. Internet Research Agency allegedly "conduct[ed] what it called 'information warfare against
the United States of America' through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and
other Internet-based media." The indictment goes on to assert that
"By in or around May 2014, the ORGANIZATION's strategy included interfering with the 2016
U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of 'spread[ing] distrust towards the
candidates and the political system in general'"
with a
"strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S.
presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates,
and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential
campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary
Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying
political advertisements on social media in the name of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants
also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots
entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION
affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates.
Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association,
communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other
political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
Two company associates
"traveled in and around the United States, including stops in Nevada, California, New
Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and New York to gather intelligence.
After the trip, [they] exchanged an intelligence report regarding the trip. The conspiracy
had as its object the opening of accounts under false names at U.S. financial institutions
and a digital payments company in order to receive and send money into and out of the United
States to support the ORGANIZATION's operations in the United States and for
self-enrichment . Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to
receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on
the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators
typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S.
dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts,
including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist. All in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1349."
Note particularly the money laundering and for-profit aspects of the Internet Research
scheme, something that would be eschewed if it were an actual intelligence operation. There is
some speculation that it all might have been what is referred to as a click-bait commercial
marketing scheme set up to make money from advertising fees. Also note how small the entire
operation was. It focused on limited social media activity while spending an estimated $1
million on the entire venture, with Facebook admitting to a total of $100,000 in total ad buys,
only half of which were before the election. It doesn't smell like a major foreign government
intelligence/influence initiative intended to "overthrow democracy." And who attended the phony
political rallies? How many votes did the whole thing cause to change? Impossible to know, but
given a campaign in which billions were spent and both fake and real news were flying in all
directions, one would have to assume that the Russian effort was largely a waste of time if it
indeed was even as described or serious in the first place.
And apart from the money laundering aspect of the alleged campaign was it even illegal apart
from the allegations of possible visa fraud and money laundering? If the Russians involved were
getting their financial support from the Moscow government then it would be necessary to
register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, but if not, they would be
protected by the Constitution and have the same First Amendment right to express their opinions
of Hillary Clinton on blogs and websites while also associating with others politically as do
all other residents of the United States. Many of the commenters on this Unz site are foreign
and are not required either by law or custom to state where they come from.
And, of course, there is one other thing. There always is. One major media outlet
is already suggesting that there could be consequences for American citizens who wittingly
or unwittingly helped the Russians, identified in the indictment as "persons known and
unknown." A former federal prosecutor put it another way, saying "While they went to great
pains to say they are not indicting any Americans today, if I was an American and I did
cooperate with Russians I would be extremely frightened " Politico
speculates that "Now, a legal framework exists for criminal charges against Americans " and
cites a former U.S. district attorney's observation that "Think of a conspiracy indicting
parties ' known and unknown' as a Matroyshka doll. There are many more layers to be
successively revealed over time."
Under normal circumstances, an American citizen colluding with a foreign country would have
to be convicted of engaging in an illegal conspiracy, which would require being aware that the
foreigners were involved in criminal behavior and knowingly aiding them. But today's overheated
atmosphere in Washington is anything but normal. Russia's two major media outlets that operate
in the U.S., Sputnik and RT America, have been forced to register under FARA. Does that mean
that the hundreds of American citizens who appeared on their programs prior to the 2016
election to talk about national politics will be next in line for punishment? Stay tuned.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
"... Among Global Research's most popular articles in 2016. ..."
"... Hillary is Dangerous. She Means What She says? Or Does She? (M. C. GR. Editor) ..."
"... On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event. She lied calling Iran an "existential threat to Israel I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear weapons program." ..."
Among Global Research's most popular articles in 2016.
Hillary is Dangerous. She Means What She says? Or Does She? (M. C. GR. Editor)
* * *
On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event.
She lied calling Iran an "existential threat to Israel I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear
weapons program."
Even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran. They are the world's chief sponsor of terrorism.
They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and create insurgencies to destabilize governments. They are taking more and
more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel.
We have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to reign in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness.
Fact: US and Israeli intelligence both say Iran's nuclear program has no military component. No evidence whatever suggests Tehran
wants one. Plenty indicates otherwise.
As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she addressed AIPAC's annual convention saying:
The United States stands with Israel now and forever. We have shared interests .shared ideals .common values. I have a bedrock
commitment to Israel's security.
(O)ur two nations are fighting a shared threat" against Islamic extremism. I strongly support Israel's right to self-defense
(and) believe America should aid in that defense.
I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats. I am deeply concerned about
the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas' campaign of terror.
No such campaign exists. The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.
Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas' charter "calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel."
"I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both
tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late."
She backs "massive retaliation" if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:
" I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly
consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that "keep the
peace." She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike
weapons entirely for offense.
*
Stephen Lendmanlives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
Thank you Paul E. Merrell, J.D. I have been convinced from the beginning of all of this
that this was the line to Wikileaks. Now if we could only get a real investigation into
Seth's murder.
Stop Bush and Clinton , February 19, 2018 at 7:34 pm
"We found that they broke a vast number of laws, did surveillance of a competitor with a
warrant based on fake evidence, all adding up to treason worse than Watergate. But we think
that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges .." -- The FBI
This is an old method to unite the nation against external enemy. Carnage (with so much oil and gas) needs to be
destroyed. And it's working only partially with the major divisions between Trump and Hillary supporters remaining
open and unaffected by Russiagate witch hunt.
Notable quotes:
"... It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances. ..."
"... The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media. ..."
"... A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together." ..."
"... He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning." ..."
"... The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law. ..."
"... The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies? ..."
"... The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference". ..."
"... Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV. ..."
Russophobia - "blame it all on Russia" - is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious
and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union.
But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal problems. Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news", he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed off in
December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by
"weaponizing disinformation" and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based
news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia
destabilized the US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir
Julian King, casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated
disinformation" to destabilize the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned
that Russia is stepping up its efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later
this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary"
, he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save
it, Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as
well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact"
.
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When
the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must
stop contributing to a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real scandal that
the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt the democratic
process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several
languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and
Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation
and Press TV.
Europe and Russia – No further jeopardising of commonalities. The event with Gabriele
Krone-Schmalz and Matthias Platzeck in Eastern Brandenburg (Germany) met with great interest,
by Eva-Maria Föllmer-Müller
US, NATO and EU – a joint war coalition, by Willy
Wimmer
NATO continues to prepare deployment area in Eastern Europe. Peacebuilding measures
are becoming ever more urgent
EU-drums-of-war – is this a motivation to campaign for a
better world?, by Karl Müller
Take over of OSCE Chairmanship to Italy. Hardly any
progress for Eastern Ukraine
"In the Spiderweb of Secret Services – Why were Olof
Palme, Uwe Barschel and William Colby murdered?", by Barbara Hug
Peruvian Department of
Education withdraws "gender ideology" school curriculum
Family as school of life, by Sonja
van Biezen
Teacher would be, no, it is a fulfilling profession, by David Holzmann
Curriculum 21 – Did the dice fall? New learning techniques or paradigm shift?
continued
on page 13 Reading as a cultural achievement – how people are connected to books, by
Tankred Schaer
Painted reverence for the creation. 100 years Mili-Weber-House – an
oasis of arts in the forest above St Moritz, by Heini Hofmann.
Nunes chances to bring perpetrators to justice are close to zero. The Deep State controls the Washington, DC and can
withstand sporadic attacks.
It is an extremly courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview.
Notable quotes:
"... Throwing down the gauntlet on alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the Department of Justice and the FBI, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) stated that there could be legal consequences for officials who may have misled the FISA court. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said. "The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... Nunes took this highly unusual, no-holds-barred stance during an interview with Emmy-award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson , which aired on Sunday. ..."
"... He unapologetically averred that, yes, a criminal trial might well be the outcome. "DOJ and FBI are not above the law," he stated emphatically. "If they are committing abuse before a secret court getting warrants on American citizens, you're darn right that we're going to put them on trial." ..."
"... The stakes are very high. Current and former senior officials -- and not only from DOJ and FBI, but from other agencies like the CIA and NSA, whom documents and testimony show were involved in providing faulty information to justify a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump campaign official Carter Page -- may suddenly find themselves in considerable legal jeopardy. Like, felony territory. ..."
"... On the other hand, the presumptive perps have not run into a chairman like Nunes in four decades, since Congressmen Lucien Nedzi (D-Mich.), Otis Pike (D-NY), and Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) ran tough, explosive hearings on the abuses of a previous generation deep state, including massive domestic spying revealed by quintessential investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in December 1974. (Actually, this is largely why the congressional intelligence oversight committees were later established, and why the FISA law was passed in 1978.) ..."
"... At this point, one is tempted to say plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ..."
"... One glaring sign of the media's unwillingness to displease corporate masters and Official Washington is the harsh reality that Hersh's most recent explosive investigations, using his large array of government sources to explore front-burner issues, have not been able to find a home in any English-speaking newspaper or journal. ..."
"... On this point, Nunes said, "In the last administration they were unmasking hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of Americans' names. They were unmasking for what I would say, for lack of a better definition, were for political purposes." ..."
"... It is real courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview. It is not only the accountability to law that is at stake in U.S., but the Whole World is imperiled with what happens in Washington. But as many have written before in comments about this complete moral collapse of the Entire West, I am afraid, it is all going to be swept under the rug. We have to just keep the fingers crossed. ..."
"... I have never seen such media bias against a sitting president in my lifetime, not even against Richard Nixon when they at least practiced decorum and feigned objectivity even if they were secretly cheering on his demise. I will reiterate here that I do not champion the man but rather due process under our constitution, which has been made a travesty from the moment of Clinton's loss at the polls. ..."
"... I completely agree with you Realist. I am not Trump's fan or supporter of his agenda, in fact, in many things quite the opposite of it. However, he raised some very valid points about the the domestic economy and other issues, and about the need to stop interventions in foreign countries, and getting along Russia, and the need to rebuild country's manufacturing system again. He was duly elected by the people, and he should have been given the support to pursue what he promised. But it did not happen. ..."
"... Although it's being done for the wrong reasons, I am nevertheless looking forward to seeing our out-of-control intelligence agencies being put in their place. If I were president and my party controlled both houses of Congress, you'd better believe I'd be looking to dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military budget to a "mere" $250 billion annually. ..."
"... The post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes were sold to the American public as only to be inflicted on foreigners, i.e. "we fight them over there so we don't fight them here." But the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls, workplaces, concerts and churches into war zones and little by little, the disinformation ops, "regime change" know-how and other accoutrements of perpetual war (the fool's errand of gaining full spectrum dominance over the rest of the world) have been turned inward on the American people, including powerful American officials themselves. So it would seem to be a good thing that some politicians like Nunes have finally seen the light exactly as Frank Church did -- only when they themselves began to reap the negative consequences of what they thought would only negatively impact other, lesser people. ..."
"... But there is more to it, as some have pointed out in comments above, there are some intra-party quarrels going on in Washington to take the upper hand. Regarding foreign policy, National Security State and surveillance, and other such issues, both parties are joined at the hip. ..."
"... It is instructive to read the comments on any NYT article on this subject. The comments are clearly written by intelligent, well-educated individuals – who parrot the Deep State's anti-Russian propaganda as if they were the dumbest of the "Better dead than Red!" 50s McCarthyites. ..."
"... The new McCarthyites are actually stupider and more authoritarian than their sad fore-bearers, because they could pierce the Deep States lies with 30 minutes of online research, but they prefer tribalism and ignorance, instead. ..."
"... Trump started going head to head with the intel folks, but has backed down a lot now. Let's hope Nunes et al hang in there and keep the pressure on these despicable criminals who hide behind governmental powers. ..."
"... Somehow I don't think Nunes or his committee is capable of reigning in Frankenstein. His "constitutuents"" are not likely to allow it and although the monster was pieced together from many body parts its instincts for self-preservation are formidable. Nevertheless, I would applaud anyone who makes the effort. ..."
"... Note that after saying the Russians are indicted for interfering in the election, and spending 5 minutes on this, at the 5 minute 20 second mark Rosenstein says there is no evidence that the Russians had any affect [sic] on the election! So what we have is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States announcing an indictment for which he says there is no evidence! ..."
"... In the world of cypher espionage I have no knowledge, but if Russia does hang out in it well then I'm sure the U.S. is already there to do what it must to defend it's cypher security. So that's a wash, but this insane Russia-Gate distraction was originally a way to deflect attention from Hillary & Debbie's putting the screws to Socialist Sanders . then Russia-Gate became a MSM driven coup to oust Trump from his Electoral won presidential office. ..."
"... Impossible to get the whole Gorgon's head, anyway, in such a corrupt system as we have ..."
"... Ray, do you think Trump has made a deal: he'll allow escalations against Russia, and in return the Deep State will leave him alone? If so, does that portend that this will fizzle out? ..."
"... While the shiny ball, smoke and mirrors psychological operation known as "Russiagate" has begun running on fumes before the gas tank finally runs dry, the major revelation of the Clinton WikiLeaks emails describing Saudi/Qatari financing of ISIS drops further down the memory hole. There's nothing like success ..."
House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes has stated that "DOJ and FBI are not above
the law," and could face legal consequences for alleged abuses of the FISA court, reports Ray
McGovern.
Throwing down the gauntlet on alleged abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) by the Department of Justice and the FBI, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-Calif.) stated that there could be legal consequences for officials who may have misled the
FISA court. "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said. "The reason
Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Attkisson said she had invited both Nunes and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) but that only Nunes agreed. She asked him about Schiff's charge that
Nunes' goal was "to put the FBI and DOJ on trial." What followed was very atypical bluntness --
candor normally considered quite unacceptable in polite circles of the Washington
Establishment.
Rather than play the diplomat and disavow what Schiff contended was Nunes' goal, Nunes said,
in effect, let the chips fall where they may. He unapologetically averred that, yes, a
criminal trial might well be the outcome. "DOJ and FBI are not above the law," he stated
emphatically. "If they are committing abuse before a secret court getting warrants on American
citizens, you're darn right that we're going to put them on trial."
Die Is Cast
The stakes are very high. Current and former senior officials -- and not only from DOJ
and FBI, but from other agencies like the CIA and NSA, whom documents and testimony show were
involved in providing faulty information to justify a FISA warrant to monitor former Trump
campaign official Carter Page -- may suddenly find themselves in considerable legal jeopardy.
Like, felony territory.
This was not supposed to happen. Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? Back when the FISA
surveillance warrant of Page was obtained, just weeks before the November 2016 election, there
seemed to be no need to hide tracks, because, even if these extracurricular activities were
discovered, the perps would have looked forward to award certificates rather than legal
problems under a Trump presidency.
Thus, the knives will be coming out. Mostly because the mainstream media will make a major
effort -- together with Schiff-mates in the Democratic Party -- to marginalize Nunes, those who
find themselves in jeopardy can be expected to push back strongly.
If past is precedent, they will be confident that, with their powerful allies within the
FBI/DOJ/CIA "Deep State" they will be able to counter Nunes and show him and the other
congressional investigation committee chairs, where the power lies. The conventional wisdom is
that Nunes and the others have bit off far more than they can chew. And the odds do not favor
folks, including oversight committee chairs, who buck the system.
Staying Power
On the other hand, the presumptive perps have not run into a chairman like Nunes in four
decades, since Congressmen Lucien Nedzi (D-Mich.), Otis Pike (D-NY), and Sen. Frank Church
(D-Idaho) ran tough, explosive hearings on the abuses of a previous generation deep state,
including massive domestic spying revealed by quintessential investigative reporter Seymour
Hersh in December 1974. (Actually, this is largely why the congressional intelligence oversight
committees were later established, and why the FISA law was passed in 1978.)
At this point, one is tempted to say plus ça change, plus c'est la même
chose -- or the more things change, the more they stay the same -- but that would be only
half correct in this context. Yes, scoundrels will always take liberties with the law to spy on
others. But the huge difference today is that mainstream media have no room for those who
uncover government crimes and abuse. And this will be a major impediment to efforts by Nunes
and other committee chairs to inform the public.
One glaring sign of the media's unwillingness to displease corporate masters and
Official Washington is the harsh reality that Hersh's most recent explosive investigations,
using his large array of government sources to explore front-burner issues, have not been able
to find a home in any English-speaking newspaper or journal. In a sense, this provides
what might be called a "confidence-building" factor, giving some assurance to deep-state perps
that they will be able to ride this out, and that congressional committee chairs will once
again learn to know their (subservient) place.
Much will depend on whether top DOJ and FBI officials can bring themselves to reverse course
and give priority to the oath they took to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies foreign and domestic. This should not be too much to hope for, but
it will require uncommon courage in facing up honestly to the major misdeeds appear to have
occurred -- and letting the chips fall where they may. Besides, it would be the right thing to
do.
Nunes is projecting calm confidence that once he and Trey Gowdey (R-Tenn.), chair of the
House Oversight Committee, release documentary evidence showing what their investigations have
turned up, it will be hard for DOJ and FBI officials to dissimulate.
In Other News
In the interview with Attkisson, Nunes covered a number of other significant issues:
The
committee is closing down its investigation into possible collusion between Moscow and the
Trump campaign; no evidence of collusion was found. The apparently widespread practice of
"unmasking" the identities of Americans under surveillance. On this point, Nunes said, "In
the last administration they were unmasking hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of Americans'
names. They were unmasking for what I would say, for lack of a better definition, were for
political purposes." Asked about Schiff's criticism that Nunes behaved improperly on what
he called the "midnight run to the White House," Nunes responded that the stories were untrue.
"Well, most of the time I ignore political nonsense in this town," he said. "What I will say is
that all of those stories were totally fake from the beginning."
Not since Watergate has there been so high a degree of political tension here in Washington
but the stakes for our Republic are even higher this time. Assuming abuse of FISA court
procedures is documented and those responsible for playing fast and loose with the required
justification for legal warrants are not held to account, the division of powers enshrined in
the Constitution will be in peril.
A denouement of some kind can be expected in the coming months. Stay tuned.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Savior in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Skip Scott , February 19, 2018 at 9:38 am
Thanks Ray for another great article. One can only hope that Nunes is successful. However,
like you say, the MSM is now complicit with the "Deep State", so the fight for justice
becomes much harder. One also has to remember Schumer's "six ways from Sunday" applies
equally to the congress as it does to the president. I hardly ever watch TV news, but
recently I've been subjected to it, and I've seen a deluge of fluff pieces on our so-called
Intelligence Agencies. I would love to see Trump give a speech (instead of a tweet) directly
to the American people letting them know what rascals like Brennan, Clapper, et al have been
up to.
Bob Van Noy , February 19, 2018 at 12:51 pm
This may be the best broadcast tv journalism in many years, read Sharyl Attkisson's story,
"Stonewalled" (I will link the commentary page to that book for thorough readers). And thank
you Nat, Ray McGovern & CN
An excellent and very timely article by Ray McGovern. Lawlessness, greed, complete
subservience to Wall Street Finance and other Powers, insanity, and utter inhumanity prevails
in present day Ruling Establishment in Washington. Obama, "the hope and change" Con Artist
for whose election, being democrats we worked so hard in 2008 turned to be the biggest
perpetrator of this lawlessness and responsible for fanning the flames still further in
starting a new Cold War.
It is real courageous of Devin Nunes to give this interview. It is not only the
accountability to law that is at stake in U.S., but the Whole World is imperiled with what
happens in Washington. But as many have written before in comments about this complete moral
collapse of the Entire West, I am afraid, it is all going to be swept under the rug. We have
to just keep the fingers crossed.
Howard Dean just said yesterday that Nunes and people like him belong in jail. Now can you
believe it, how low these so called liberal democrats have come to? Looking at the pictures
of Adam Schiff, Howard Dean, and others in their company, I literally feel sick in the
stomach. And one asks the essential question: "did not their parents teach them any honesty
or moral principles in young age?".
Abbybwood , February 19, 2018 at 3:54 pm
But what he said is very confusing. First he says that Congress has no way to prosecute the DOJ/FBI for wrong doing then at
the end he says Congress will need to prosecute the DOJ/FBI if necessary. Either Congress has the ability to prosecute the DOJ/FBI and issue indictments and set up
Grand Juries or they don't.
Somebody needs to find out, Constitutionally, what the solution is when the DOJ/FBI at the
highest levels become the criminals. WHO has the power to indict/convict these individuals??
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:36 pm
A special prosecutor (Mueller's position) is appointed by the Pres or AG.
Annie , February 19, 2018 at 3:20 pm
From what I've heard expressed by a few FBI people, you don't come before a court, but a
judge, one person, and they are known to rubber stamp almost everything. So they should be
investigated too.
Realist , February 19, 2018 at 5:02 pm
I have never seen such media bias against a sitting president in my lifetime, not even
against Richard Nixon when they at least practiced decorum and feigned objectivity even if
they were secretly cheering on his demise. I will reiterate here that I do not champion the
man but rather due process under our constitution, which has been made a travesty from the
moment of Clinton's loss at the polls.
Dave P. , February 19, 2018 at 7:56 pm
I completely agree with you Realist. I am not Trump's fan or supporter of his agenda, in
fact, in many things quite the opposite of it. However, he raised some very valid points
about the the domestic economy and other issues, and about the need to stop interventions in
foreign countries, and getting along Russia, and the need to rebuild country's manufacturing
system again. He was duly elected by the people, and he should have been given the support to
pursue what he promised. But it did not happen. We would not know now what he actually wanted
to accomplish.
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:41 pm
Yes, neither party nor the mass media shows concern for the Constitution or for the
people. As the propaganda agency, the mass media are primarily responsible. The
zionist/WallSt/MIC oligarchy have consolidated control over mass media, secret agencies, and
elections, but not without factions.
Although it's being done for the wrong reasons, I am nevertheless looking forward to
seeing our out-of-control intelligence agencies being put in their place. If I were president
and my party controlled both houses of Congress, you'd better believe I'd be looking to
dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military budget to a "mere" $250
billion annually.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 11:09 am
Michael I hear ya. Yes, there is a civil war of sorts going on in DC, and yes it would be
a wonderful thing to rid our bureaucracy of all the slim that is in it, but taking Jiminy
Cricket's good advice to heart would be so much more fruitful to if you and I would only
sing;
'When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you"
Now that song will be stuck in my head all day .got any Journey? Joe
Coleen Rowley , February 19, 2018 at 3:27 pm
It's true that people generally do not care when bad practices, policies or violence is
inflicted on others and not on themselves. Of course that's stupid because it's just a matter
of time before "blowback" occurs (as the CIA euphemistically labeled how doing unto others
eventually boomerangs back on perpetrators). Going back to the Church Committee and how that
bit of accountability finally happened, it only got off the ground when Frank Church and
other Senators found THEMSELVES in the crosshairs of FBI Cointelpro; CIA's "CHAOS" and NSA's
"Minaret" surveillance.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/25/secret-cold-war-documents-reveal-nsa-spied-on-senators/
(To this day, only 7 of the 1000 or so Americans targeted by the NSA during the Vietnam War
have been discovered but their identities are telling.)
The post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes were
sold to the American public as only to be inflicted on foreigners, i.e. "we fight them over
there so we don't fight them here." But the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls,
workplaces, concerts and churches into war zones and little by little, the disinformation
ops, "regime change" know-how and other accoutrements of perpetual war (the fool's errand of
gaining full spectrum dominance over the rest of the world) have been turned inward on the
American people, including powerful American officials themselves. So it would seem to be a
good thing that some politicians like Nunes have finally seen the light exactly as Frank
Church did -- only when they themselves began to reap the negative consequences of what they
thought would only negatively impact other, lesser people.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 4:50 pm
" the blowback has now turned America's schools, malls, workplaces, concerts and churches
into war zones"
"blowback" is doing a lot of work in that sentence, if you're referring specifically to
"post 9-11 wars of aggression, massive surveillance, torture and other war crimes". Whenever
the incidents have had a political agenda attached, it's more often than not been of the
domestic right-wing variety. And of course, all of them have been facilitated by easy
civilian access to hardware that was originally developed by the military (ours and the
Soviets) to efficiently kill/incapacitate large numbers of enemy fighters.
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 7:30 pm
BobS fails to understand that blowback encapsulates more than "revenge". "Forever war" and
all Colleen mentions that goes with it has had societal impact because violence is glorified
as a "solution" and feelings of suspicion and antagonism become part of the dark
undertow.
Sam F , February 19, 2018 at 10:54 pm
Well said, Colleen. Let us hope that Nunes is not merely acting the part. I wonder whether
the greatest secrets of domestic spying are now so compartmentalized and controlled that only
those most dependent upon their agency could blow the whistle.
Annie , February 19, 2018 at 4:23 pm
This is not to be compared to spying on citizens, which is unacceptable, but they tried to
undermine a presidency, whether you like Trump or not, and at the same time it allowed them
to push their cold war agenda. I remember Clinton's campaign manager coming out right after
the e-mail dump that said the Russians did it. And didn't Obama send a lot of those Russian
ambassadors packing? They should be investigated, as should the FISA court itself. Perhaps if
Trump didn't have this charge of colluding with Russia he might have been able to be more
diplomatic on that score. Now, they made sure he would never be getting along with Russia.
What they have now is a bunch of Russians acting on their own that allegedly interfered in
our elections and created political discord, which is absurd, since the democrats are mainly
responsible for this nonsense, as is the FBI and DOJ. I was a democrat, but no more.
Dave P. , February 19, 2018 at 4:52 pm
Annie, you are right on that. However, Coleen Rowely has also made some very good
observations in her comments. But there is more to it, as some have pointed out in comments
above, there are some intra-party quarrels going on in Washington to take the upper hand.
Regarding foreign policy, National Security State and surveillance, and other such issues,
both parties are joined at the hip.
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 7:42 pm
I wouldn't completely discount the idea that Nunes' sense of responsibility has been
activated by being a close witness to what is blatant wrongdoing. But then my cynicism is
still tempered by the belief that sometimes people are compelled to do what's right just
because it's what's right. Silly me.
Virginia , February 19, 2018 at 10:34 am
Me, too, Michael, to " dismantle the national surveillance state and reduce the military
budget to a 'mere' $250 billion annually."
Thanks to Ray McGovern for another good article with link to interview. Good to hear they
will finally be closing the Mueller investigation (Nunes was straightforward about that, no
there there) and will likely be investigating the FBI and DOJ.
Applause goes to David Nunes. Keep up the good work.
Abbybwood , February 19, 2018 at 4:03 pm
But I see where Trump asked for nearly one TRILLION dollars for the military and got
it.
Pandas4peace , February 19, 2018 at 10:24 am
Where can we get access to Seymour Hersh's "recent explosive investigations" even if they
are written in German?
"On June 25th 2017 the German newspaper, Welt, published the latest piece by Seymour
Hersh, countering the "mainstream" narrative around the April 4th 2017 Khan Sheikhoun
chemical attack in Syria."
Consortiumnews.com publishes and comments on everything Pulitzer Prize winning Sy Hersh
does. The problem is that he is BANNED from English-language pubs -- simply banned and even
kept off erstwhile "liberal" TV and radio programs. Amy Goodman, for example, has ALWAYS had
Sy on when he had a new story until this one. She would not touch it; these days prefers to
go with the "White Helmets" of this world. O Tempora, O Mores. Sad.
So, in sum, the problem is a very basic one. Sy does not publish until he has nailed down
every significant detail and, since he is so well plugged in with many longtime, trusted
sources to sift through, that takes a while for a bit story -- as all of them are. And when
he is ready to publish, he hears folks whisper "Leper" as he gets close to an editorial
office. It really IS that bad. We owe the op-ed editor at die Welt our thanks.
Btw: The Consortiumnews.com main page has a SEARCH button that I find very handy. Try to
search on Seymour Hersh. Same goes for easily searchable raymcgovern.com, my website.
Ray
David Otness , February 19, 2018 at 5:37 pm
The London Review of Books has been publishing Hersh's work. That's one source.
The ostracizing of Sy Hersh is a major -- if highly depressing -- story in and of itself.
But he is irrepressible. I do not think he is going to silently steal away any time soon.
Ray McGovern
Kim Dixon , February 19, 2018 at 10:32 am
Can anyone imagine the Neocon WashPo, or the NYT (or CBS, or CNN, or ) committing actual
journalism, as this story progresses?
That, and the DNC's commitment to the DNC to the Russia Did It!™ canard, will ensure
that real revelations go nowhere.
It is instructive to read the comments on any NYT article on this subject. The comments
are clearly written by intelligent, well-educated individuals – who parrot the Deep
State's anti-Russian propaganda as if they were the dumbest of the "Better dead than Red!"
50s McCarthyites.
The new McCarthyites are actually stupider and more authoritarian than their sad
fore-bearers, because they could pierce the Deep States lies with 30 minutes of online
research, but they prefer tribalism and ignorance, instead.
Lois Gagnon , February 19, 2018 at 1:01 pm
You got that right! I live in the 5 college area in Massachusetts. Plenty of those types
around here playing activists. They fit your description. I can't stand to be in the same
room with any of them. They may as well be from Mars.
Nancy , February 19, 2018 at 2:47 pm
I agree. The average working person has more common sense than the so-called intelligent,
educated class. I suspect their views reflect the fact that they are very comfortable,
financially, with the status quo, and don't want any real change.
mike k , February 19, 2018 at 10:35 am
Trump started going head to head with the intel folks, but has backed down a lot now.
Let's hope Nunes et al hang in there and keep the pressure on these despicable criminals who
hide behind governmental powers. When you allow people to do whatever they want in secret
with no oversight, you can expect them to abuse their power. The basic question all this
leads to is "who is running this country and making crucial decisions about war and peace, or
fascism and democracy"?
Somehow I don't think Nunes or his committee is capable of reigning in Frankenstein. His
"constitutuents"" are not likely to allow it and although the monster was pieced together
from many body parts its instincts for self-preservation are formidable. Nevertheless, I
would applaud anyone who makes the effort.
Thanks BobH, that's an excellent rant, thanks for passing it along.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 10:58 am
The only way any trail that Nunes could even begin to make magically appear to happen
before our weary eyes will happen only, and I say only, will appear because it will be good
for tv ratings. Enforcing Constitutional law, I mean who does that anymore? Why today in our
nation's capital we have congressional people asking the opposite of what Ben Franklin warned
us good citizens about as the swamp critters are saying, 'Constitution how can we lose it'.
You know this Ray that these crooks and crookettes in DC think that the U.S. Constitution is
so passé and so anciently colonial that they hear Jefferson saying, 'ignore this
stupid document, I was drunk with Adams and Franklin when I wrote it. It was all a big
mistake.' Or something like that, but Constitutional law we don't need no stink'n
Constitutional law, now get back to your part time work. (Whip cracking sound)
Hey Ray this whole fiasco does what is most important in this new American century, this
fiasco is entertaining and the ratings are going through the roof so with that what more
could a red blooded good American ask for now pass the tv remote.
Note that after saying the Russians are indicted for interfering in the
election, and spending 5 minutes on this, at the 5 minute 20 second mark Rosenstein says
there is no evidence that the Russians had any affect [sic] on the election! So what
we have is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States announcing an indictment for
which he says there is no evidence!
If we take Roberts' statement at face value, he may have inadvertenly mischaracterized
Rosenstein's statement. According to Roberts, Rosenstein said there is no evidence of an
effect on the election, but it does not follow from that that Rosenstein is saying that there
is no evidence of interference. There may have been "interference" that had no impact. And,
of course, there is the question, just what is meant by "interference" in this context?
I share the frustration many commenters have about the entire "Russiagate" narrative, but
I think it is important to be careful in how we evaluate these statements. It may all be a
"nothinburger," but it is important to describe things carefully and correctly. Otherwise,
one ends up inadvertently setting up a straw man for someone else to knock down.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 10:25 pm
I share the stress you do blimblax that you and all who stay on this Russia-Gate pay-ops
suffer, but the way this crooked nail investigation has been going, mostly distorted by the
press coverage, your argument about the interpretation of Rosenstein's words to the general
public will be like splitting hairs with bald people . they just won't get it, and why,
because I'm not sure the vast amount of Americans get it now. They got turned off along time
ago back when the FBI didn't produce Trump performing his much heard about Steele Dossier
acclaimed Water Sports in his Moscow Obama's Presidential Suite sick, yes, but it's the
truth. No pictures, no believe you.
Personally I have never doubted any Russian influence in the way of statements, or essays,
but this contribution of opinion is to be expected from any well thinking country, or nation
if you'd rather of the world. Plus the Russians spending wasn't even close to any real
fraction of what both U.S. Presidential candidate spend on their campaigns, get real.
In the world of cypher espionage I have no knowledge, but if Russia does hang out in it
well then I'm sure the U.S. is already there to do what it must to defend it's cypher
security. So that's a wash, but this insane Russia-Gate distraction was originally a way to
deflect attention from Hillary & Debbie's putting the screws to Socialist Sanders . then
Russia-Gate became a MSM driven coup to oust Trump from his Electoral won presidential
office.
We could argue to how Trump,should be questioned, or even brought up on impeachment
charges, but not for this particular Russia interference into our so well guarded American
democracy. In fact we Americans don't need any Russian help at bringing our American
democracy down, because we Americans already did that with the Patriot Act as among a few
many other things. Joe
Somehow many Democrats are convinced that the FBI/DOJ did nothing wrong with regards to
the FISA warrants. And they're still convinced that Trump colluded with Putin. Nothing will
change their minds, it's hopeless.
Lois Gagnon , February 19, 2018 at 4:17 pm
It is indeed surreal to watch people who classify themselves as the left undermining the
left by supporting the very agencies whose sole purpose from their inception is to destroy
the left.
As David William Pear put it at OpEd News, "I don't think even Orwell has a scene like
this: anti-authoritarian dissidents endorse more authoritarian means to weed out
authoritarians resulting in authoritarians having more control to weed out dissidents."
The Deep State is very, very deep, and we're "Knee Deep in the Big Muddy" (Pete Seeger).
Anybody knows the US Deep State was thoroughly entrenched by Reagan's time. It's overdue not
to let this deep state corruption harden to concrete. I support neither party until there is
a course correction, and Nunes makes valid points in support of a correction. Thanks,
Ray.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 11:58 am
Thin skinned too, eh Ray?
You're right, of course- Russia analysts at the CIA did stellar work in the 1980s.
Joe Tedesky , February 19, 2018 at 12:01 pm
No BobS it's you with your thickhead that doesn't get it. Keep it up BobS, because
eventually you are going to say something funny. Take care. Joe
Will Nunes or any conservative go after the thousands of illegal acts perpetrated by
conservatives??? NO! Nunes, along with every conservative traitor in America (republican or
democrat) needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The conservative agenda is
not moral or constitutional.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Considering their disregard for law as well as their worship of authoritarianism
(exercised against the proper targets, of course), I'd say it's more than "self-enrichment"
that drives conservatives, both ancient and modern.
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 1:58 pm
Perhaps that is an issue, but I am unclear precisely what is wrong in Nunes position that
he is relying on Gowdy, an undeniably sharp, precise, prosecutor, to review the examined
material. Watching both Nunes and Gowdy in sessions, I would have probably, and gladly, made
the same decision. It also make sense politically that they cover for each other, one person
is expendable and takes the heat – Nunes, while the other – Gowdy, an upward star
of the party, who probably ran the whole investigation anyway, keeps his hands clean.
BobS , February 19, 2018 at 2:09 pm
The always partisan "upward star" Trey 'BENGHAZI!!!' Gowdy announced his retirement from
congress last month due to his being "sick of hyper-partisanship".
And let me show you this bridge I'm selling
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 2:32 pm
In fact, I would greatly enjoy a discussion on weapons transfers from Libya to Erdogan to
Al – Qaeda via Clinton. This is actually one of my favorite topics. So have it.
Deniz , February 19, 2018 at 5:34 pm
So what is your argument, that we should be loyal to our crime family and not theirs?
Or do you think Hillary, "We came, we saw, he died" or Mueller, of nothing to see here on
9/11 notoriety are the sort of people we should be defending.
Impossible to get the whole Gorgon's head, anyway, in such a corrupt system as we have.
Why else are we in such a mess? Both GOP and Democrats have not served the people, so we
should therefore give up trying to address any abuse?
Antiwar7 , February 19, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Ray, do you think Trump has made a deal: he'll allow escalations against Russia, and in
return the Deep State will leave him alone? If so, does that portend that this will fizzle
out?
Gregory Herr , February 19, 2018 at 8:14 pm
So you are privy to the briefings in question. Just because Reagan bloated the military
budget doesn't mean he was being fed false intelligence by McGovern.
On the other hand, it is well publicized that Cheney twisted arms at Langley and Tenet
obliged and Rummy worked the Iraq angle as well. We also had the Downing Street Memo and the
Powell fiasco and Valerie Plame. Ray was right to be indignant.
While the shiny ball, smoke and mirrors psychological operation known as "Russiagate" has
begun running on fumes before the gas tank finally runs dry, the major revelation of the
Clinton WikiLeaks emails describing Saudi/Qatari financing of ISIS drops further down the
memory hole. There's nothing like success
Drew Hunkins , February 19, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Good point Mr. Alatalo. The Saudi-Zio Terror Network gets away with murder, literally and
figuratively and of course the Saudi-Zio Terror Network NEVER, EVER interferes in ANY
elections in the United States, no never.
Thank you Paul E. Merrell, J.D. I have been convinced from the beginning of all of this
that this was the line to Wikileaks. Now if we could only get a real investigation into
Seth's murder.
Stop Bush and Clinton , February 19, 2018 at 7:34 pm
"We found that they broke a vast number of laws, did surveillance of a competitor with a
warrant based on fake evidence, all adding up to treason worse than Watergate. But we think
that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges .."
-- The FBI
Mueller was the person responsible for investigation of 911. That fact alone tells you all as for what we can
expect.
Notable quotes:
"... NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that Russia hacked the DNC ..."
"... There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin ..."
"... Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective ..."
"... Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept) ..."
"... There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm ..."
"... Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber security ..."
"... Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy (and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War and maintaining U.S. global hegemony. ..."
"... Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss. ..."
"... How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup, kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the media never mentions. ..."
"... Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the party. ..."
"... That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the earth's environment. ..."
"... It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House. Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful idiots". ..."
"... This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary. ..."
"... I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe. ..."
"... tweet by Peter Van Buren, former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC, Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians, and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally. ..."
"... BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats. ..."
"... Seems that the end justifies the means. No matter what is the truth. In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered their computers for FBI forensics. ..."
"... The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for corporate media. ..."
"... It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT. ..."
"... So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining. ..."
"... Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose sole purpose was "regime change"? ..."
"... Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI can convincingly prove that the Russian government armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House. ..."
"... You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia, don't you? ..."
"... Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat. ..."
"... Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely since Gorbachev. Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure in their bad state. ..."
NO actual physical proof has been presented to the public to substantiate claims that
Russia hacked the DNC
There is NO proof (only allegations) of collusion between Trump's campaign and the
Kremlin
Social media efforts by Russian trolls to influence the election were minimal in the
extreme, laughably amateurish and completely ineffective
Glenn Greenwald has spent the past year documenting in detail the large volume of fake
anti-Russian "news" generated by the MSM (see GG at The Intercept)
There is NO connection between the Russian government and the 13 private citizens recently
indicted for their pathetic and ineffectual activity as part of a troll farm
Thanks to the paranoid, xenophobic, Russia-bashing nationalistic propaganda that is being
promoted by our military-industrial-intelligence-media complex, the U.S. now believes it is
acceptable to launch a first strike nuclear attack in retaliation for breeches of cyber
security
Read number six again and think about it. The U.S. is ready and willing to launch a
preemptive nuclear attack against any nation it accuses of undermining our cyber security -
no proof necessary. The Democratic establishment, which has spent the past year engaging in
baseless Kremlin-baiting (and very little else), is directly responsible for this
insanity.
Trump won't be impeached over Russiagate for the simple reason that Russiagate is nothing
but a psyops perpetrated against the American people by the national-security bureaucracy
(and their corporate media propagandists) for the purposes of reigniting a second Cold War
and maintaining U.S. global hegemony.
Thanks to the hysterical McCarthyism now rampant among
Democrats - and that is being used to great effect by Washington's bipartisan neocon
warmongers - we may just end up in a nuclear war. The good news: it will be a short war and
the Democrats will never have to accept responsibility for Clinton's loss.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm
Who gives a shit really?
How about that Clinton got the CIA to partner with neo-Nazis in Ukraine to stage a coup,
kick out Putin's friend, and install a billionaire capitalist as President? - something the
media never mentions.
Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:12 am
As I open the online edition of The Nation this morning, there are two lead stories. One
of them tells how Trump is planning to evict 5 million poor people from public housing. A
very important story.
The second story by Bob Dreyfuss is probably the 10,000th one I've seen about the Russia
probe. The public housing story is obviously much more important and substantial, yet the
Democrats have been focusing almost exclusively on the flimsy Russia probe. Not even the
pressing need to regulate assault rifles has really grabbed their full attention, even in the
wake of the latest dreadful Florida high school massacre. In perusing the news stories this
Sunday morning, the Russia probe continues to hold first place in coverage by a big
margin.
Ultimately, I see the Russia story as getting its legs from the efforts of the dominant
Hillary wing of the Democratic party, backed by big media, to continue to assert that Hillary
really won the presidency in 2016, and that their wing should continue to have control of the
party.
That an immensely dangerous war fever is being whipped up in the process is of no
importance to them. And, by no means incidentally, they are ignoring all of the real
atrocities being committed by the Trump administration against the American people and the
earth's environment.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 9:52 am
Amen, Caleb It has been thus since the creep moved into the White House.
Dreyfuss, perky Rachel Maddow, Colbert, Maher, and many others have been the true "useful
idiots".
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:33 pm
This same media never gave Sanders any media exposure during the primary.
Caleb Melamed says: February 18, 2018 at 9:42 am
I would add that the election manipulations which the Clinton forces engaged in to defeat
Sanders during the Democratic primaries dwarfs, by orders of magnitude, anything alleged
against the Russians by even the most hawkish backers of the Russia probe.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 8:24 am
FYI tweet by Peter Van Buren,
former US foreign intelligence officer "Just did a quick read of the '13 Russian' indictment. Missing are a) any connections
between the 13 and the Russian government and/or Trump campaign; b) any discussion of the
impact (if any) their social media efforts had. It describes them buying Facebook ads, but
nothing about if it affected votes; c) no connection shown between any of this and DNC,
Wikileaks, hacking of emails; d) no discussion of motive; e) assumption that anything
anti-Clinton was defacto pro-Bernie and/or pro-Trump. And all indicted persons are Russians,
and outside the U.S., so highly unlikely this is going anywhere further legally.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:37 pm
There is nothing illegal or unethical about any individual of government supporting one
candidate over another. BTW, today the media put up that scumbag Podesta as a spokesperson for the Democrats.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 19, 2018 at 9:02 am
Seems that the end justifies the means.
No matter what is the truth.
In the mean-time, they're actually harming the opposition to Trump. I suppose nobody asked Podesta why the DNC never offered
their computers for FBI forensics.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 12:31 pm
The MSM never asks the hard questions anymore. It seems all pre-scripted and sanitized for
corporate media.
Richard Phelps says: February 18, 2018 at 2:52 am
There is one issue that no media is talking about regarding the "memos". Trump is clearly
a "person of interest", if not a suspect in some parts of the investigation. Given Trump's
entanglement how is it not an absolute conflict of interest for Trump being the person who
decides what memos get to be public and what redactions must be made.
Imagine a judge being a suspect in a crime or a major stockholder in a corporate civil
suit. S/he would never be allowed to make any rulings on what evidence the jury gets to see
or anything about the case. Some non-interested 3rd party needs to make those decisions.
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:38 pm
Quit feeding this beast.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:15 pm
The other interesting and fun fact not mentioned anywhere. Three Names won by 3 million
votes. Crafty Ruskis.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:33 pm
This investigation by Mueller is just beginning. In other words, and to use the
vernacular, "We "ain't seen nothing," yet."
Fred Caruso says: February 18, 2018 at 9:40 pm
You are right. This is nothing but bullshit and it may be just the beginning. The
Democrats have an endless supply of donkey-shit.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm
It's interesting that the Russians set this all up to boost Trump and disparage Three
Names before Trump even announced he was running. The basic set up for this was going on in
2014 whereas Trump announced in 2015.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm
No, not really. Trump was making gestures of interest in the presidency in 2012
Clark M Shanahan says: February 18, 2018 at 10:28 am
Since when have you been so trusting of our FBI & CIA, Carla?
From what we've experienced together from the Gulf of Tonkin onward, I'm a wee-tad taken
aback.
Please read the ex-foreign intelligence officer's twitter posting that I posted above.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:30 pm
Pfui. He also made noises about running in the 2012 election. People don't set up
organizations to do stuff just on the off chance that some politician or wannabe is going to
run. These guys ain't got nothin'. It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he
got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political operatives. Their crime was
not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine. Now we're down to social media
posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be
true. If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign
parties, they need to start by telling said social media that they can't solicit advertising
from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:35 pm
So we are going to limit global free speech by spending $Trillions more on building a
nuclear arsenal - total madness - driven by [un] Democratic whining.
Francis Louis Szot says: February 16, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted
various "fake news" stories. Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it. How does THAT begin to stack–up against the
murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented
in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier by bankrolling
dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose
sole purpose was "regime change"?
Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI
can convincingly prove that the Russian government
armed and funded a Neo–nazi para–military group
that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House.
Fred Caruso says: February 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm
You mean like Clinton and the CIA did in Ukraine, for economic domination over Russia,
don't you?
Clark M Shanahan says: February 16, 2018 at 3:44 pm
I'm hoping the hush-money passed on to two of Trump's romantic caprices, during the election, gets traction.
Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard
tell, we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever
Ruskies. Whatever floats your boat.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 10:13 am
Yes David, I'm still a skeptic.
In fact, I think this move to indict 13 suspects, that have a snowball in Hell's chance of
ever being tried, is simply a dog and pony show to placate the public.
Debrief yourself, read Binney's report and listen to Stephen F Cohen's latest, here on the
Nation.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 17, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Stephen Cohen's take on Russiagate makes a lot of sense, to me. I've followed Russia/soviet/US relations very closely
since Gorbachev.
Open your eyes, Mattis has labeled Russia our mortal enemy, we just upped defense spending to
an obscene level that shall keep our schools, hospitals, social services, and infrastructure
in their bad state.
As if Hill, who stole the primaries actually ran a competent campaign.
The original piece is about an internet marketing scheme that is supposed to have influenced
U.S. elections. It is thus amusing that the retweeting bots are part of an internet marketing
scheme that is supposed to influence U.S. elections.
But why do they use the line "Omg. Fish is priceless"?
1. The first retweet shown above, which introduced the 'fish' line, is from a real person.
Debbie Lusigman, the @saneprogessive , who has her own video channel
with lots of legit content. The other tweets though are copies (not regular retweets) of the
first retweet.
(h/t
oldandyoung and
integer )
2. The other personalities are likely bots that may well be run by one Scott Dworkin , a grifter who runs the
fundraising campaign Democratic Coalition and channels most of
the funds to a company he owns. Geoff Miamifound the connection and
reported on it at Progressive Army .
(h/t
Demeter )
Posted by b on February 19, 2018 at 07:36 AM | Permalink
@saneprogressive is a real account; the rest appear to be bots. The bots RT some posts and
appropriate others as their own. For instance, another one of @saneprogressives posts was
also posted by @SenWarren2020 as its own yesterday. These are simple bots that attach
themselves to certain accounts that have been deemed to be in the right ideological sphere,
one suspects.
I know those bots. @GeoffMiami has called them
out as accounts controlled by Scott Dowrkin (@funder) and his "resistance organization" The
Dem Coalition (@TheDemCoalition). "They hope to grift off Bernie supporters by using
Bernie-themed bot accounts to push their propaganda."
Dworkin's Super PAC promotes fear through a repeating cycle of Russian-based propaganda,
which garners donations, which pay consultants that generate those stories over and over
again, garnering yet more donations. As to what purpose his Super PAC actually serves, it
appears to be little more than a Möbius strip of self-serving opportunism.
@Bobby Mueller @6
"because they are not re-tweeting your post from MOA - they are re-tweeting
@saneprogressive's re-tweet of your MOA post."
No - the 2nd to 8th account are not "retweeting" the 1st. They copied and reposted its
content.
If those were legit one click "retweets" a la normal Twitter it would says so (XYZ retweeted
ABC) and lock different. The form they used as shown above would require several clicks to 1.
go to my original tweet, 2. retweet that with comment, 3. type (or copy) the fish line, 4.
send.
I am not sure that I have taken enough of the right drugs but here goes
1. The retweets are secret messages from "saneprogressive" that bots are trained to
retweet so others know to read your posting as it is priceless
2. The retweets are NSA manipulation to deprecate and make light of your posting by making
it unserious
3. Twitter/NSA has developed bots behind the scene to manipulate public focus and it is
just coming out of Beta testing
4. Some blogs have weekly cat pictures but this is clear evidence that MoA needs to have
at least weekly sock puppet pictures.
5. All this focus on sock puppets and fish on America's president's day is unpatriotic and
taking focus away from the current president's tweets which cannot be tolerated.
6. If this fish is so priceless, why is it stealing focus from humanity's more pressing
problems like determining if this persons G in OMG is the same as that persons G in their
OMG
It is just at freezing in Portland OR with a light dusting of snow from last night on all
but the roads and the sun is shining.....Happy day/life to all!
I updated the piece above with the information provided by oldandyoung, integer, and
Demeter.
Thanks folks!
Sebastian Dangerfield , Feb 19, 2018 1:57:44 PM |
30
This is an absolutely hilarious illustration of your argument. While I don't think the
argument that the Internet Research Agency was a marketing endeavor is conclusive, it
certainly is a compelling explanation, especially given the ridiculous nature of the content
that it produced. It's like everyone simply ignored the fact that there are gazillions of
these click-harvesting schemes and that the 2016 election, being a perpetual internet outrage
machine, was especially fertile ground for them. They all (probably deliberately) ignored the
reporting about, say, the Macedonian bullshit farm, which was generating mostly pro-Trump
posts in order to harvest clicks.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.ynwo9nn2#.rvBVyoo3
The sock puppet does look a bit like a fish and maybe Debbie Lusignan saw a pun in there that
is lost on the bots retweeting her Tweet.
"Fish" is good for "fishing" and "phishing" = collecting clicks (and possibly personal
information attached to metadata generated by clicks) to forward on to third parties willing
to pay for that information.
I have been tweeting your article, not the fish picture, frequently, as I am tired of even
supporters of Trump spouting a false narrative. #IamnotaRussianbot or bot of any sort, just a
human who wants to pass on the excellent info you wrote. I hope it gets new followers to your
blog!
I've been following Debbie Lusignan since early in the 2015/2016 Primaries. She was a Bernie
supporter who documented the election fraud better than any other source. She has since come
to see Bernie as a sell-out at least, if not a sheep dog from the start. And her focus since
has been on discarding the "right/left paradigm" and joining in common causes against the
global, plutocratic, warmongering powers.
I've posted links to MoA articles on her sites several times, so maybe her following b is
my fault. ;-)
The fact that Mueller politicized the action of Russian Internet scammers (who are at best petty criminals) suggest that
he has nothing more significant to offer hungry US Russophobes.
At this point Mueller turned his investigation into pure political propaganda
Notable quotes:
"... My impression has been that the "fake news" of dubious sources that circulates on social media is much better at generating money through clicks and shares in appealing to existing bias than it is at changing opinions. ..."
"... information that is true & irrefutable can hardly be considered harmful to the function of democracy, no matter the self-interested motive of the source: the electorate will consider it with their own self-interest in mind. And if any meaningful number of the American electorate – reaching up, say, to triple or even quadruple digits – was duped into texting their vote instead of going to their precinct then we need to resolve to get wise to this trick and not get fooled again. ..."
"... Poor Russia cant get a break, neither can Americans get a break from this USA 'get Russia' monkey circus. The monkeys now reach back a year ago to get Russia on a cyber attack. ..."
"... This a great article: it summarizes the poverty of the entire "Russians done it" meme. Let's not forget: this is another BIG LIE, on par, if not worse than the Iraq fiasco LIES ..."
"... "U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General." When are we going to indict Israeli nationals for the above-mentioned crimes? When are we going to single out Bibi as a foreign national who engages with childlike enthusiasm in political activities within the United States? ..."
"... It's even more depressing than that. The indictments are against what is probably just (one of a million) commercial marketing scams. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are for Trump, some against, some are for Hillary and some against, and of course there is the post that is for puppies. These are clickbait to establish the trolls as leaders so they can get advertisers to purchase ads. ..."
"... The word Lügenpresse has has entered German dictionaries, 'lying press', I hope a similar expression will enter USA dictionaries soon. In Germany this expression also is used with regard to TV. ..."
"... How creepy these pyschopaths are is hard for most people to understand, but gradually they are. Also, Trump has powerful opponents, one of which is the inability of most people to politically wake up quickly. He is the front man for a Military, Political, and Scientific Alliance making war against entrenched elitist, sociopathic, self-centered, control freak cabals that almost seized complete power in our country. Give him some slack okay. He's / they are doing pretty good considering the incredibly dangerous situation they took over. Keep writing Mike Whitney! ..."
"... It appears that Mueller is intent on prolonging his little fishing trip. My own cynicism suggests to me that his motive is, at least partially, financial. Sure, the media has said that he's being paid what will amount to only $200k or so per year for his "service" and that he has given up a position that pays him closer to $3 million for the same amount of time in order to act as Special Counsel. ..."
"... This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do something so obviously stupid? ..."
"... Many countries have bad laws – in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with 'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of people are daily breaking the 'law' – e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump. During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton. ..."
"... Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin? ..."
Robert Mueller's Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to
divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley
"criminal referral") which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged in
an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections by spying on members of the Trump
campaign. The evidence that the FBI and DOJ "improperly obtained" FISA warrants to spy on Trump
campaign affiliate, Carter Page, has now been overshadowed by the tragic massacre in Parkland,
Florida and the obfuscating indictments of 13 Internet "trolls" who have not been linked to the
Russian government and who are being used to conceal the fact that the 18 month-long witch hunt
has not yet produced even one scintilla of hard evidence related to the original claims of
"hacking or collusion".
Think about what's Mueller is really up to: He's not just moving the goalposts, he's loading
them onto a spaceship and putting them on another planet. Where's the evidence that Russia
hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where's the proof that members of the Trump
campaign colluded with Russia? That's what we want to know, not whether some goofy Russian
troll was spreading false information on Facebook. That has nothing to do with the original
charges. It's just politically-motivated gibberish that proves Mueller has nothing to support
his case. After a full year, the investigation has failed to produce anything but a big goose
egg.
According to the indictment, the alleged Russian trolls "posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates" and its "operations included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Clinton."
Big whoop. If people are so malleable that they can be brainwashed by some suggestive
posting on Facebook, then maybe we should abandon democracy altogether. But that's not what
this is really about, is it? Because if it was, Mueller would have posted the contents of those
nefarious Russian comments in the indictment WHICH HE DIDN'T because he knows it's all
obfuscating bullsh** designed to make the sheeple think evil Putin is dabbling in our precious
elections.
Oh, and here's a little tidbit the MSM managed to overlook in their typically-hysterical
coverage. This is from journalist Alexander Mercouris at the pro-Russia website, The Duran: (If
you think your delicate mind might be brainwashed by Russian propaganda, please, shield your
eyes!)
"The third thing to say about the indictment – and a point which has been almost
universally overlooked in all the feverish commentary about it – is that it makes no
claim that the Russian government was in any way involved in any of the activities of the
persons indicted.
Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian
government or any agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the
indictment is it suggested that any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian
government or were acting under its instructions or on its behalf ." (The Duran, Alexander
Mercouris)
No Ruskis involved? But how can that be? We were assured that diabolical Russia is behind
everything bad that happens in America. Has evil Putin been sleeping on the job??
Yes, it's true that the Internet Research Agency, LLC, is in fact located in St. Petersburg
but–as yet–there is no known connection between the company and the government.
And, if there was, you can bet that Mueller would have exploited it for all it's worth.
By the way, Mueller's presumption that the hackers were trying to influence the election, is
just that, a presumption. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. It is mere speculation like the
rest of the claptrap he's come up with. The more reasonable explanation is that the hackers
were trying to make a little dough on "pageviews or clicks" rather than trying to persuade
voters to vote for one candidate or the other. Here's more from the indictment:
" Defendants and their co-conspirators began to track and study groups on U.S. social
media sites dedicated to U.S. politics and social issues. In order to gauge the performance
of various groups on social media sites, the organization tracked certain metrics like the
group's size, the frequency of content placed by the group, and the level of audience
engagement with that content, such as the average number of comments or responses to a
post."
WTF! Isn't this what everyone is doing, including the Intel agencies, advertisers, media and
corporations? So now it's a crime? Give me a break!
Here's a blurb from the comments-line at Sic Semper Tyrannis:
"The "conspiracy" started in 2014, and cost a whopping $1.2 MILLION, which includes
salaries, tech support, and bonuses. The indictment includes info that the Russians ran ads
supporting Black Lives Matter, Muslims, Jill Stein, Ted Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. They also
organized rallies in support of, and in opposition to Trump and Hillary Clinton. They
continued their activities up into 2017, still organizing pro-Clinton and pro-Trump rallies.
At one point, the indictment says that the Russians ran an ad that reached 59,000 people,
which is laughable, people with a camera in their kitchen get more views than that.
Essentially, after about 1.5 years of investigating "Russian collusion" this is all they've
come up with." –London Bob, Sic Semper Tyrannis
And here's more from the indictment:
"U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial
disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of
any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without
first registering with the Attorney General."
This is mind-numbingly stupid. Does Mueller really think he can cobble together a case
against 13 foreign-born defendants based on the thin gruel of Russian support for "Black Lives
Matter, Jill Stein and Donald Trump?" Good luck with that, Bob.
Political analyst Paul Craig Roberts summarizes how absurd the indictments are in a Friday
article tiled "The Result of Mueller's Investigation: Nothing":
"How did the 13 Russians go about sowing discord? Are you ready for this? They held
political rallies posing as Americans and they paid one person (unidentified) to build a cage
aboard a flatbed pickup truck and another person to wear a costume portraying Hillary in
prison clothes ."
The whole thing is ridiculous and anyone with half a brain knows it's ridiculous. The only
reason this fiasco continues to drag on, is because the mandarins in the US National Security
State run everything in America and they've decided that they can invent whatever reality suits
their foreign policy agenda and the rest of us will simply accept it in silence or be denounced
as "Putin apologists" or "Kremlin stooges". Fortunately, facts and reason appear to be getting
the upper hand which why the deep state powerbrokers are getting so desperate. They're now
genuinely concerned about what might "come out" and who might be exposed.
Do the names John Brennan or Barack Obama ring a bell?
Indeed. I'm sure both names would factor quite large in any seriously impartial and thorough
investigation of the Russiagate conspiracy.
One last thing for all you supporters of Donald Trump. I suggest you carefully examine his
latest tweet on the topic. Here it is:
"Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run
for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing
wrong – no collusion!" Donald Trump, Twitter
As I expected, Trump is going to save his own skin, but allow the "Bigger Lie" to persist.
It looks to me that Trump may have cut a deal with his deep state antagonists to support their
spurious claims of Russian meddling as long as they exonerate him on the charges of collusion.
That means, he will NOT use his power as President to try to uncover the roots of Russia-gate
fabrication. (that would probably expose the former Directors of the CIA and NSA and, perhaps,
even the former president of the United States, who likely gave Brennan the greenlight to set
the wheels in motion.) All of these suspects will go uninvestigated, unindicted, and unpunished
just like the perpetrators of the Iraq War, just like the perpetrators of the Financial
Meltdown, and just like the perpetrators of all the major crimes against the American people.
As always, it is complete and total immunity for Parasite Class while the rest of us have to
play by the rules. But you probably already knew that.
Trump will get off the hook while the rest of us languish in permanent ignorance of how the
shadow government really works. You heard it first here.
After all of the concern expressed in the abstract I'd like to see some concrete examples of
the material used to change opinions of American voters. My impression has been that the
"fake news" of dubious sources that circulates on social media is much better at generating
money through clicks and shares in appealing to existing bias than it is at changing
opinions.
In any event, in this new environment – absent some form of censorship as
with authoritarian states – any interested party such as a foreign government may
introduce anonymously, by way of levels of remove, political content intended to change
opinion. Of course, information that is true & irrefutable can hardly be considered
harmful to the function of democracy, no matter the self-interested motive of the source: the
electorate will consider it with their own self-interest in mind. And if any meaningful
number of the American electorate – reaching up, say, to triple or even quadruple
digits – was duped into texting their vote instead of going to their precinct then we
need to resolve to get wise to this trick and not get fooled again.
Now, if this Mueller investigation would set out anew with a determination to find some
Russian government involvement in fomenting the red hot molten lava of Identity Politics
bubbling out of our universities – the obscene notion that a "patriarchy" of white
males, acting as some kind of an informal fraternity in favoring themselves in the economy to
the detriment of the outsiders, needs to get taken down in status in order to make America
great – then they'd be cooking with gas toward the concern of harming the bonds of our
civil union.
Poor Russia cant get a break, neither can Americans get a break from this USA 'get Russia'
monkey circus. The monkeys now reach back a year ago to get Russia on a cyber attack.
White House blames Russia for 'reckless' NotPetya cyber attack
3 days ago – WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) – The White House on Thursday blamed
Russia for the devastating 'NotPetya' cyber attack last year , joining the British
government in condemning Moscow for unleashing a virus that crippled parts of Ukraine's
infrastructure and damaged computers in countries across the
Best advice for Americans believe nothing, trust nothing that issues from a
government.
The experts:
John McAfee, founder of an anti-virus firm, said:
"When the FBI or when any other agency says the Russians did it or the Chinese did something
or the Iranians did something – that's a fallacy," said McAfee.
"Any hacker capable of breaking into something is extraordinarily capable of hiding their
tracks. If I were the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it I would
use Russian language within the code. "I would use Russian techniques of breaking into
organisations so there is simply no way to assign a source for any attack – this is a
fallacy."
I can promise you – if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you
it was not the Russians."
Wikileaks has released a number of CIA cyber tools it had obtained. These included
software specifically designed to create false attributions.
Per the preceding, my own observation would be, when your lead investigator/special
prosecutor's known history is framing people for crimes they didn't commit, sandbagging &
sinking criminal investigations into international narcotics & arms trafficking,
protecting related money laundering & hired killers, and providing cover for the
perpetrators (intelligence agencies), we know why any reasonably honest & intelligent
person wouldn't give two cents credibility to, and possess a rat's ass level of sympathy for,
'special' counsel Robert Mueller. The real question is, why the Boyd Cathy and Mike Whitney
types don't go after these guys at the level the deserve; pointing to their established
international criminal mafioso (read intelligence agency) crimes sprees and history of
impunity:
From a different Anonymous ..Mr. Whitney I can see the point of Donald Trump doing the kind
of deal you suggest if there was enough for him to fear as you suggest but do not
demonstrate. Why shouldn't we believe that it's all over, the indictments show there's
nothing to be concrrned about?
Before your suggestion of the deal I had already concluded that you had not made a case
against the indictments. Are you in fact willing to say that they should not have been
instituted? If so, why?
Are they so completely hopeless in law, or as a matter of practicality in terms of their
ever being got to court that it is an abuse if Mueller's position to support them? And if, as
seems likely, nothing will come of them (certainly Russia won't help with extradition), is
there not a case for using these indictments to clear the air on the law and, possibly, by
the courts throwing the cases out on weakness of the matters of fact alleged? Could there
even be a Machiavellian desire to have arguments put which would embarrass the Israel
Lobby?
This should not be allowed either. CNN . 'Israel has 200,000 eligible American voters, according to the non-partisan organization
IVoteIsrael, which registers American Israelis to vote.
Mike Whitney. Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though
US law appears to make what was done illegal? If so, why?
Could Mueller be justified by thinking it could help to sort out a bad law, especially if
lawyers appear for the named defendants and move for the dismissal of the case on the facts
alleged. Or, as has also been suggested, ia this a move which might allow the defendant's
case to embarrass the Lobby? Would Mueller or the FBI be upset by that.
"Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media
"Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American
propaganda
"Jeff Jarvis: Washington shows the morals of a clumsy spammer"
This a great article: it summarizes the poverty of the entire "Russians done it" meme.
Let's not forget: this is another BIG LIE, on par, if not worse than the Iraq fiasco
LIES.
Nor is it, per se, about Trump. This is about State &political actors using State
agencies & the MSM to prevent/ bring down an elected president. Its a plain unadorned
assault on what's left of US democracy. (The fact that the vast majority of DNC voters can't
-- WONT see this demonstrates how successful Elites have been in morally &
psychologically corrupting the US public.
How many BIG LIE narratives can a State take ? Or do we just whistle & say " oh, but we
live in a post truth age" as if that's not somehow morally equivalent to being a Moloch
worshipper out for sunny day icecream.
"U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements
for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign
entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first
registering with the Attorney General."
When are we going to indict Israeli nationals for the above-mentioned crimes? When are we
going to single out Bibi as a foreign national who engages with childlike enthusiasm in
political activities within the United States?
Law enforcement of course doesn't bring every case which meets the definition of a crime.
If it did, nearly everyone would be involved in the criminal justice system.
Discretion is used. And here, the evidence points directly to Mueller's discretion being
used to protect the asses of the FBI and security state.
This indictment will not see the light of day. It's a bit like declaring faux victory in
Iraq and leaving (what should have been done in that case). No lawyer will have the
opportunity to refute th bull shit.
This is also why Meuller just indicted Gates, to strengthen the Manafort case. The only
thing of note that will come out of this debacle of an investigation. He's giving up on
Russia and going after Manafort, the low hanging fruit.
This is all nonsense, The very idea that Trump, or Clinton is being attacked by the FBI or
CIA, or "Deep State", while doing exactly what he was hired to do, is ludicrous.
Trump is a PRODUCT, just like Obama, and Clinton, all paid whores of the Zionist money
machine.
The CIA and FBI are merely players in this game of distraction. The whole Russia gate BS
was a cleaver rouse to further Zionists goals: Distract Americans from the real foreign
interference by Zionist Jews, and to further demonize Christian Russia to the left, opening
up the support for war with Russia.
Washington, Trump, Congress all lie, the media all lies, yet time and time again I see
their lies playing as truth. Are you just stupid or part of the problem? Nothing comes form
any of this, just distraction and divide and conquer. Trump continues to ACT like an Israeli
firster while he TALKS about Ameirca first, and idiots keep focusing on his words and NOT HIS
ACTIONS!
Trump ran on anti-immigration, building a wall, and getting out of conflicts. Yet, Trump is pushing for AMNESTY FOR DREAMERS, is building no wall, and is pushing
conflict in the Middle East. Seems to me, this should be the ONLY topics of conversation. Trump is a wolf in sheep's
clothing, a Zionist traitor, and these FBI/Russia/Clinton back and forth accusations are just
the Zionist Jews giving Trump cover.
This is all theater, the Zionists rule DC, 9/11 was the culmination of their control over
DC, and now they play is like a Hollywood movie, full of intrigue and misdirection. None of
this amounts to anything, yet, time and again it is front page news, while TRUMP's TREASON,
HIS AMNESTY GO IGNORED???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems there is very little Zionist money cannot buy
Does the writer want us to believe that a bunch of private Russians, with no connection to
the government, decided for their own amusement to spend millions of dollars to play games
with American voters' heads?
It's even more depressing than that. The indictments are against what is probably just (one
of a million) commercial marketing scams. That is why the posts have no coherence. Some are
for Trump, some against, some are for Hillary and some against, and of course there is the
post that is for puppies. These are clickbait to establish the trolls as leaders so they can
get advertisers to purchase ads.
I think and hope that USA citizens have not lost their minds, but are using it, maybe just
for the second time.
The first time then was when the USA refused to ratify Versailles, after USA citizens had
discovered that their sons had die overseas for JP Morgan and British imperialism.
The word Lügenpresse has has entered German dictionaries, 'lying press', I hope a
similar expression will enter USA dictionaries soon.
In Germany this expression also is used with regard to TV.
Here in the Netherlands our Minister of Foreign Affairs Halbe Zijlstra had to resign after
the newspaper Volkskrant, in very unusual opening a can of worms, publicised that Zijlstra
never had been in Putin's dacha where Putin had explained what 'greater Russia' was:
including White Russia, Ukraine, Baltic states and Khazakstan.
USA press, this time hitting the mark, called him 'the lying Dutchman'.
Zijlstra's friend, prime minister Rutte, already for years has the nickname Pinochio, his
lies are well known.
Rutte must have known that Zijlstra lied at his party's congress, VVD, in 2016.
A poll now seems to show that more than half the Dutch have had enough with Rutte.
This seems to be the era in which nothing is trusted any more, politicians, media,
experts, and so on.
For me one of the greatest nations on this earth is small insignificant Denmark.
It does not wage wars far from home, it does not allow foreigners to buy houses or land, it
has an excellent pension system and social security system, and an excellent health care
system.
It does not welcome large numbers of migrants, has a very low crime rate.
There may be very rich Danes, but they do not display their wealth.
The only thing I blame Denmark for is the oversized and luxurious post offices.
The country side is not impressive, nor what farmers produce, sugar beets.
And so the Danes are the happiest people on earth, surveys conclude.
"According to the indictment, the alleged Russian trolls "posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates" and its "operations included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Clinton."
This is straight out of the Stalin and/or Mao playbook: those people thought bad thoughts
and said some things that did not support us, which proves they are EVIL and must be
destroyed for the good of all.
Jewish money 'bought' Oliver Cromwell, the chief epitome of WASP culture, not because it
was an impossible offer to resist, but because Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judiaizing
heresy, and Cromwell naturally saw Jews as the best allies for WASPs.
You cannot solve the Jewish problem without also solving the WASP problem.
Good article and thank you for keeping your presentation a reasonable length. Unreasonable
length is a problem for many authors and preachers!
The Florida school massacre, can be orchestrated by simply ignoring significant warnings. For
instance, a rogue FBI leadership intentionally ignores warnings from many different locations
on the likely danger, and just waits for it to happen. When it does happen the rogue FBI cell
can claim plausible deniability, claiming incompetence or stupidity, instead of intention.
Then tens of millions of Americans are distracted from recently released information exposing
the rogue FBI cell.
How creepy these pyschopaths are is hard for most people to understand,
but gradually they are. Also, Trump has powerful opponents, one of which is the inability of
most people to politically wake up quickly. He is the front man for a Military, Political,
and Scientific Alliance making war against entrenched elitist, sociopathic, self-centered,
control freak cabals that almost seized complete power in our country. Give him some slack
okay. He's / they are doing pretty good considering the incredibly dangerous situation they
took over. Keep writing Mike Whitney!
It's wide open, your packets are shooting all over the place, nice n' secure. Hail
Fatherland Security! When you read propaganda, they know all about you and what you're
reading in advance. Us, them, Russians – to the farm junior!
It appears that Mueller is intent on prolonging his little fishing trip. My own cynicism
suggests to me that his motive is, at least partially, financial. Sure, the media has said
that he's being paid what will amount to only $200k or so per year for his "service" and that
he has given up a position that pays him closer to $3 million for the same amount of time in
order to act as Special Counsel.
Still, the total cost of his exploration has been over $6.5 million so far. This, I would
have to guess, is all in legal costs, fees paid to attorneys he has selected to do the
investigative work. That amount of money is in excess of what he is supposedly giving up in
order to conduct this investigation.
Looking at his motivation from this angle, it would make sense that a lawyer, especially a
greedy, power hungry lawyer, would set up a system of kickbacks for attorneys he appoints to
do the work. Mueller may be suspected of ensuring himself an equal income to what he is
supposed to have given up.
Any time his fishing trip comes under fire for failing to catch any fish big enough for a
meal, he issues indictments. This time he has indicted some foreign nationals who will
probably never even be arrested, let alone prosecuted. Still, he's allowed to keep
fishing.
All true. Good comment. Also, Denmark appears to have a genetic advantage when it comes to
happiness, its lousy weather notwithstanding! See "National Happiness and Genetic Distance: A
Cautious Exploration," by
Eugenio Proto and Andrew J. Oswald, University of Warwick.
Abstract
This paper studies a famous unsolved puzzle in quantitative social science. Why do
some nations report such high levels of mental well-being? Denmark, for instance,
regularly tops the league table of rich countries' happiness; Britain and the US enter
further down; some nations do unexpectedly poorly. The explanation for the long observed
ranking -- one that holds after adjustment for GDP and other socioeconomic
variables -- is currently unknown. Using data on 131 countries, the paper cautiously
explores a new approach. It documents three forms of evidence consistent with the
hypothesis that some nations may have a genetic advantage in well-being.
Anon from TN
People who generated lies have vested interest in perpetuating them. They will gladly use new
lies to "confirm" the old ones. Even Trump figured that the red herring of Russian
interference in the elections made the US a laughing stock in Russia. That's an
understatement, though: this red herring made the US a laughing stock of 90% of the world
population (the remaining 10% have no sense of humor).
Where are the indictments of the foreign nationals in California, who openly attacked Trump
supporters in San Jose? They attempted to affect the election through criminal assaults and
batteries, much more than a simple Facebook post. This is the newly unveiled America, the
citizens are not running anything, we are bought and paid for by interests that Gen.
Washington would have deemed treasonous.
How do US Courts have jurisdiction to prosecute speech originating in another country?
If is was said here out in public, fine, but saying something on the internet in another
country does not seem to be prosecutable. Some countries have speech laws, and I would hate
to find myself in their court system for something I say here that violates their deal.
Do you think Mueller should have avoided bringing the indictments even though US law
appears to make what was done illegal?
This indictment has publicised for the whole world that US has a 'law' that prohibits free
speech by foreigners in foreign countries if they dare to speak disparagingly of US
politicians. That is a PR disaster. People will be laughing about this for decades. Why do
something so obviously stupid?
Many countries have bad laws – in Thailand people can go to jail for offending the
king. But to apply it to free speech by foreign people living abroad is self-destructive. To
my best knowledge no country has ever attempted to charge people living abroad with
'disparaging comments' about their politicians. By that standard, literally millions of
people are daily breaking the 'law' – e.g. all the bad stuff people say about Trump.
During 2016 election there were literally millions of people in foreign countries who
expressed 'disparaging' views about Trump. And some about Clinton.
Doing nothing would had been better than becoming a laughing stock. How is Washington
going to preach freedom of speech and internet after this self-inflicted fiasco? What if
Russia starts 'indicting' millions of people who expressed negative comments about Putin?
More seriously. The Russkies, e.g. Zakharova and Lavrov have said that the USA has gone
mad, is in the grip of a crazed delusional hysteria (or words to that effect.) Why the
hype?
Are we to see all this nonsense as merely an internal US matter, with the Dems planning
an attack on Trump before he was elected, and subsequently promoting Russia as a blanket
external enemy - as they can't accuse the Republicans, Banks or Big Corps, need an outside
bogey, though they have post hoc also blamed the electorate, not smart.
Neatly fitting with that Trump did propose 'good' ( ) relations with Russia, in an attempt
to actually conserve some, or even a major part, of US hegemony in the new 'multipolar'
world. (Trump wanted to control and 'annex' the weaker partner, not a bad calculation.)
>> Russia is merely a mythical figure, breathing fire and red-clawed, in the wings,
invisible, serving as a prop for the major contestants.
Naturally, ordinary US citizens are of no account beyond their role as potentially duped
followers, adherents, minions, serfs, ciphers on a page, etc. Influencing opinion(s) the most
efficiently is part of the competition, actualised through media, TV, internet, etc. etc.
The USA is *for real* gearing up for a meltdown war, against Russia in first place, and
all the Media hype is aimed at getting US, NATO citizens to support it, or at least sleep in
front of the TV and not object, and/or be controlled by various entities. The US PTB will
never accept its loss of power/status and will destroy the world in a nukulear storm before
it gives up.
"... The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative. ..."
"... They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly, or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration. ..."
"... This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice. ..."
Kim Dotcom has once again chimed in on the DNC hack, following a Sunday morning tweet from President Trump clarifying his previous
comments on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
In response, Dotcom tweeted " Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn't even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know
this because I know who did it and why," adding "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him
twice. He never replied. 360 pounds! " alluding of course to Trump's "400 pound genius" comment.
Dotcom's assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator , who determined
that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network - yet a speed
typical of file transfers to a memory stick.
The local transfer theory of course blows the Russian hacking narrative out of the water, lending credibility to the theory that
the DNC "hack" was in fact an inside job, potentially implicating late DNC IT staffer, Seth Rich.
John Podesta's email was allegely successfully "hacked" (he fell victim to a
phishing scam
) in March 2016, while the DNC reported suspicious activity (the suspected Seth Rich file transfer) in late April, 2016 according
to the
Washington Post.
On May 18, 2017, Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide
written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.
On May 19 2017 Dotcom tweeted "I knew Seth Rich. I was involved"
Three days later, Dotcom again released a guarded statement saying "I KNOW THAT SETH RICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE DNC LEAK," adding:
"I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared
to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.
If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made.
I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the
United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements.
In the meantime, I will make no further comment."
Dotcom knew.
While one could simply write off Dotcom's claims as an attention seeking stunt, he made several comments and a series of tweets
hinting at the upcoming email releases prior to both the WikiLeaks dumps as well as the publication of the hacked DNC emails to a
website known as "DCLeaks."
In a May 14, 2015
Bloomberg article entitled "Kim Dotcom: Julian Assange Will Be Hillary Clinton's Worst Nightmare In 2016 ": "I have to say it's
probably more Julian," who threatens Hillary, Dotcom said. " But I'm aware of some of the things that are going to be roadblocks
for her ."
Two days later, Dotcom tweeted this:
Around two months later, Kim asks a provocative question
Two weeks after that, Dotcom then tweeted "Mishandling classified info is a crime. When Hillary's emails eventually pop up on
the internet who's going to jail?"
It should thus be fairly obvious to anyone that Dotcom was somehow involved, and therefore any evidence he claims to have, should
be taken seriously as part of Mueller's investigation. Instead, as Dotcom tweeted, "Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in
my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. "
The Deep State (Oligarchs and the MIC) is totally fucking loving this: they have Trump and the GOP giving them everything
they ever wanted and they have the optics and distraction of an "embattled" president that claims to be against or a victim of
the "deep state" and a base that rally's, circles the wagons around him, and falls for the narrative.
Meanwhile they keep enacting the most Pro Deep State/MIC/Police State/Zionist/Wall Street agenda possible. And they call it
#winning
"Had to be a Russian mole with a computer stick. MSM, DNC and Muller say so."
They know exactly who it was with the memory stick, there is always video of one form or another either in the data center
or near the premises that can indicate who it was. They either have a video of Seth Rich putting the stick into the server directly,
or they at least have a video of his car entering and leaving the vicinity of the ex-filtration.
This would have been an open and shut case if shillary was not involved. Since it was involved, you can all chalk it up
to the Clinton body count. I pray that it gets justice. It and the country, the world - needs justice.
Kim is great, Assange is great. Kim is playing a double game. He wants immunity from the US GUmmint overreach that destroyed
his company and made him a prisoner in NZ.
Good on ya Kim.
His name was Seth Rich...and he will reach out from the grave and bury Killary who murdered him.
There are so many nuances to this and all are getting mentioned but the one that also stands out is that in an age of demands
for gun control by the Dems, Seth Rich is never, ever mentioned. He should be the poster child for gun control. Young man, draped
in a American flag, helping democracy, gunned down...it writes itself.
They either are afraid of the possible racial issues should it turn out to be a black man killing a white man (but why should
that matter in a gun control debate?) or they just don't want people looking at this case. I go for #2.
Funny that George Webb can figure it out, but Trump, Leader of the Free World, is sitting there with his dick in his hand waiting
for someone to save him.
Whatever he might turn out to be, this much is clear: Trump is a spineless weakling. He might be able to fuck starlets, but
he hasn't got the balls to defend either himself or the Republic.
Webb's research is also...managed. But a lot of it was/is really good (don't follow it anymore) and I agree re: SR piece of
it.
I think SR is such an interesting case. It's not really an anomaly because SO many Bush-CFR-related hits end the same way and
his had typical signatures. But his also squeels of a job done w/out much prior planning because I think SR surprised everyone.
If, in fact, that was when he was killed. Everything regarding the family's demeanor suggests no.
MANY patterns in shootings: failure in law enforcement/intelligence who were notified of problem individuals ahead of time,
ARs, mental health and SSRIs, and ongoing resistance to gun control in DC ----these are NOT coincidences. Nor are distractions
in MSM's version of events w/ controlled propaganda.
Children will stop being killed when America wakes the
fuck up and starts asking the right questions, making the right demands. It's time.
I don't think you know how these hackers have nearly ALL been intercepted by CIA--for decades now. DS has had backdoor access
to just about all of them. I agree that Kim is great, brilliant and was sabotaged but he's also cooperating. Otherwise he'd be
dead.
Bes is either "disinfo plant" or energy draining pessimist. Result is the same - to deflate your power to create a new future.
Trump saw the goal of the Fed Reserve banksters decades ago and spoke often about it. Like Prez Kennedy he wants to return
USA economy to silver or gold backed dollar then transition to new system away from the Black Magic fed reserve/ tax natl debt
machine.
The Globalist Cabal has been working to destroy the US economy ever since they income tax April 15th Lincoln at the Ford theater.
125 years. But Bes claims because Trump cannot reverse 125 years of history in one year that it is kabuki.
"... Rosbalt said that when Anikeyev's business reached national levels, he started using new techniques. For example, Anikeyev would go to restaurants and cafes popular among officials, and with the help of sophisticated equipment he created fake Wi-Fi and mobile phone connections. ..."
"... Unsuspecting officials would connect to the network through the channel created by the hacker and he would have access to the information on their devices. ..."
"... Through the Looking Glass, ..."
"... The Anonymous International website was opened in 2013 and content stolen from the phones and emails of Russian politicians immediately started appearing on it. According to Life News , only the correspondence of the public officials and businessmen who refused to pay was published. At the same time members of Shaltai-Boltai positioned themselves as people with an active civil stance. ..."
"... Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According to Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai business from the start. ..."
"... Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason. Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav Surkov. ..."
"... Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted list. ..."
The alleged leader of the Anonymous International hacker group, also known as
Shaltai-Boltai, has been arrested along with important officials in the security services who
collaborated with the group. For several years Shaltai-Boltai terrorized state officials,
businessmen and media figures by hacking their emails and telephones, and threatening to post
their private information online unless blackmail payments were made. "The price tag for our
work starts at several tens of thousands of dollars, and I am not going to talk about the upper
limit," said a man who calls himself Lewis during an interview with the news website,
Meduza ,
in January 2015.
Lewis, whose name pays hommage to the author Lewis Carroll, is the leader of Anonymous
International, the hacker group specializing in hacking the accounts of officials and
businessmen. Another name for Anonymous International is
Shaltai-Boltai, Russian for "Humpty-Dumpty."
Several years ago Lewis and his colleagues prospered thanks to extortion. They offered their
victims the chance to pay a handsome price to buy back their personal information that had been
stolen. Otherwise their information would be sold to third persons and even posted online. In
the end, Russian law-enforcement tracked down Lewis, and in November he was arrested and
now awaits trial . His real
name is Vladimir Anikeyev.
Shaltai-Boltai's founding father
"One's own success is good but other people's failure is not bad either," said the profile
quote on Vladimir Anikeyev's page on VKontakte , Russia's most popular social network.
Vladimir Anikeyev / Photo: anikeevv/vk.com
Rosbalt news website said that in the 1990s Lewis worked as a journalist in St. Petersburg
and specialized in collecting information through various methods, including dubious ones. "He
could go for a drink with someone or have an affair with someone's secretary or bribe people,"
Rosbalt's
source said.
In the 2000s Anikeyev switched to collecting kompromat (compromising material).
Using his connections, he would find the personal email addresses of officials and
entrepreneurs and break into them using hackers in St. Petersburg, and then blackmail the
victims. They had to pay to prevent their personal information from ending up on the
Internet.
Fake Wi-Fi
Rosbalt said that when Anikeyev's business reached national levels, he started using new
techniques. For example, Anikeyev would go to restaurants and cafes popular among officials,
and with the help of sophisticated equipment he created fake Wi-Fi and mobile phone
connections.
Unsuspecting officials would connect to the network through the channel created by the
hacker and he would have access to the information on their devices.
In the beginning Anikeyev was personally involved in the theft of information but later he
created a network of agents.
The business grew quickly; enormous amounts of information were at Anikeyev's disposal that
had to be sorted and selected for suitability as material for blackmail. In the end, according
to Rosbalt, Anonymous International arose as a handy tool for downloading the obtained
information.
Trying to change the world
The second name of the group refers to the works of Lewis Carroll, according to Shaltai-Boltai members. The crazy world of
Through the Looking Glass, with its inverted logic, is the most apt metaphor for
Russian political life. Apart from Lewis Anikeyev, the team has several other members: Alice;
Shaltai, Boltai (these two acted as press secretaries, and as a result of a mix-up, the media
started calling the whole project, Shaltai-Boltai); and several others, including
"technicians," or specialist hackers.
The Anonymous International website was opened in 2013 and content stolen from the
phones and emails of Russian politicians immediately started appearing on it. According to
Life News , only the correspondence of the public officials and businessmen who refused to
pay was published. At the same time members of Shaltai-Boltai positioned themselves as people
with an active civil stance.
"We can be called campaigners. We are trying to change the world. To change it for the
better," Shaltai told the Apparat website. In interviews members of the group
repeatedly complained about Russian officials who restricted Internet freedom, the country's
foreign policy and barriers to participation in elections.
Hacker exploits
Shaltai-Boltai's most notorious hack was of an explicitly political nature and not about
making money. It hacked Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's Twitter account. On Aug. 14,
2014 tweets were
posted on the account saying that Medvedev was resigning because he was ashamed of the
government's actions. The `prime minister' also had time to write that Putin was wrong, that
the government had problems with common sense, and that the authorities were taking the
country back to the past.
On the same day Anonymous International posted part of the prime minister's
stolen archive, admitting that, "there is nothing particularly interesting in it."
"The posted material was provided by a certain highly-placed reptilian of our acquaintance,"
the hackers joked
.
Medvedev is far from being Shaltai-Boltai's only victim. The hackers published the private
correspondence of officials in the presidential administration: Yevgeny Prigozhin, a
businessman close to Vladimir Putin; Aram Gabrelyanov, head of the pro-Kremlin News Media
holding company; and of Igor Strelkov, one of the leaders of the uprising in east Ukraine.
Lewis, however, insisted that only material that had failed to sell ended up on the
Internet.
Law-enforcement links
Anikeyev was detained in November, and the following month Sergei Mikhailov, head of the 2nd
operations directorate of the FSB Information Security Center, was also arrested. According to
Kommersant , Mikhailov was a
major figure in the security services who, "was essentially overseeing the country's entire
internet business."
Mikhailov's aide, FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchayev, and a former hacker known as Forb, was also
arrested. Shortly after, Ruslan Stoyanov, head of the department for investigating cybercrime
at the antivirus software company Kaspersky Lab, was also detained. Stoyanov also worked
closely with the secret services.
According to Rosbalt , Anikeyev revealed
information about the FSB officers and the Kaspersky Lab computer expert and their close
involvement with Shaltai-Boltai.
Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to
take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According
to
Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai
business from the start.
Shaltai-Boltai had a big fall
Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason.
Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to
computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges
against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in
leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav
Surkov.
Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account
since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the
Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted
list.
Anyway, Shaltai-Boltai anticipated this outcome. "What awaits us if we are uncovered?
Criminal charges and most likely a prison sentence. Each member of the team is aware of the
risks," they said dispassionately in the interview with Apparat in 2015.
"... Anikeev immediately began to cooperate with the investigation and provide detailed evidence, which repeatedly mentioned Mikhailov as being associated with the Shaltai-Boltai's team," said the source of Rosbalt. And in December 2016, Mikhailov and his "right hand," another official of the Information Security Center, Dmitry Dokuchaev, were arrested. The Court took a decision on their arrest. Another ISC official was also detained, but after questioning, no preventive measures involving deprivation of liberty were applied to him. ..."
"... After the summer, Shaltai-Boltai began to work exclusively with the content given to it by the curator. ..."
"... later it switched to civil servants' email that contained information that could bring serious trouble. When it became known that Surkov's correspondence "leaked" to Ukraine, it broke the camel's back. "Mikhailov's a magnificent expert. Best in his business. One can say that the ISC is Mikhailov.. But he crossed all possible borders," told a source of Rosbalt. ..."
The story around the arrest of a high-ranking ISC official, Sergey Mikhailov, is
becoming an actual thriller.
The creator of Shaltai-Boltai (Humpty Dumpty) website, which containted the correspondence
of officials, journalist Vladimir Anikeev, better known in some circles as Lewis, was arrested
on arrival from Ukraine, where he is supposed to have been involved in the publishing on a
local site of presidential aide Vladislav Surkov's correspondence. In his testimony, Lewis said
about the employee of the Information Security Center, Mikhailov.
As a source familiar with the situation told Rosbalt, Vladimir Anikeev was detained by the
FSB officers at the end of October 2016, when he arrived in St. Petersburg from Ukraine. "The
operation was the result of a long work. There was a complicated operative combination with the
aim to lure Lewis from Ukraine, which he didn't indend to leave," said the source to the news
agency. Anikeev was taken to Moscow, where the Investigation department of the FSB charged him
under Article 272 of the Criminal Code (Illegal access to computer information).
First and foremost the counterintelligence was interested in the situation with the
"leakage" of Vladislav Surkov's correspondence: by the time it was known that it was in the
hands of the Shaltai-Boltai's team. Since it was e-mail with from the .gov domain, the
situation caused great concern in theFSO. As a result of this, the correspondence was published
on the website of a Ukrainian association of hackers called Cyber-Junta. In reality, it is
suspected that Anikeev was involved in that affair. He'd been constantly visiting this country,
his girlfriend lived there, and, according to available data, he was not going to return to
Russia. Lewis was also asked about other officials' correspondence, which already appeared on
the Shaltai-Boltai website.
" Anikeev immediately began to cooperate with the investigation and provide detailed
evidence, which repeatedly mentioned Mikhailov as being associated with the Shaltai-Boltai's
team," said the source of Rosbalt. And in December 2016, Mikhailov and his "right hand,"
another official of the Information Security Center, Dmitry Dokuchaev, were arrested. The Court
took a decision on their arrest. Another ISC official was also detained, but after questioning,
no preventive measures involving deprivation of liberty were applied to him.
According to the version of the agency's source, the situation developed as follows. At the
beginning of 2016, the department headed by Mikhailov received an order to "work" with
Shaltai-Boltai's website, which published the correspondence of civil servants. The immediate
executor was Dokuchaev. Officers of the ISC were able to find out the team of Shaltai-Boltai,
which participants nicknamed themselves after Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland": Alice, the
March Hare, etc. The website creator and organizer, Anikeev, was nicknamed Lewis. In the summer
there were searching raids in St. Petersburg, although formally for other reasons.
According to the Rosbalt's source, just after the summer attack the team of Shaltai-Boltai
appeared to have the owner, or, to be exact, the curator. According to the source, it could be
Sergey Mikhailov. As the result, the working methods of the Lewis's team also changed, just as
the objects whose correspondence was being published for public access. Previously, Lewis's
people figured out objects in places where mobile phone was used. They were given access to the
phone contents by means of a false cell (when it came to mobile internet) or using a
false-Wi-FI (if the person was connected to Wi-FI). Then the downloaded content was sent to
member of the Lewis's team, residing in Estonia. He analyzed to to select what's to be put in
the open access and what's to be sold for Bitcoins. The whole financial part of the
Shaltai-Boltai involved a few people living in Thailand. These Bitcoins were cashed in Ukraine.
Occasionally the Lewis published emails previously stolen by other hackers.
After the summer, Shaltai-Boltai began to work exclusively with the content given to it
by the curator. Earlier, it published correspondence of rather an "entertaining"
character, as well as officials whose "secrets" would do no special harm; but later it
switched to civil servants' email that contained information that could bring serious trouble.
When it became known that Surkov's correspondence "leaked" to Ukraine, it broke the camel's
back. "Mikhailov's a magnificent expert. Best in his business. One can say that the ISC is
Mikhailov.. But he crossed all possible borders," told a source of Rosbalt.
At the time of their arrests in December, Sergei Mikhailov and Dmitry Dokuchayev were
officers with the FSB's Center for Information Security, a leading unit within the FSB involved
in cyberactivities.
Pavlov confirmed to RFE/RL the arrest of Mikhailov and Dokuchayev, along with Ruslan
Stoyanov, a former employee of the Interior Ministry who had worked for Kaspersky Labs, a
well-known private cyber-research company, which announced Stoyanov's arrest last month.
The newspaper Kommersant reported that Mikhailov was arrested at a meeting of FSB officers
and was taken from the meeting after a sack was put on his head.
The independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, meanwhile, said that a total of six suspects --
including Mikhailov, Dokuchayev, and Stoyanov -- had been arrested. The state news agency TASS
reported on February 1 that two men associated with a well-known hacking group had also been
arrested in November, but it wasn't immediately clear if those arrests were related to the FSB
case.
There has been no public detail as to the nature of the treason charges against Mikhailov,
Dokuchayev, and Stoyanov. The Interfax news agency on January 31 quoted "sources familiar with
the situation" as saying that Mikhailov and Dokuchayev were suspected of relaying confidential
information to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Pavlov told RFE/RL the individuals were suspected of passing on classified information to
U.S. intelligence, but not necessarily the CIA.
Trump has a point: "If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the
Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams..."
Trump is still better than Hillary but the margin is shrinking fast...
excoriating the FBI for failing to act on multiple tips
about "professional school shooter"
Nikolas Cruz's murderous intentions, and criticizing National Security Adviser HR McMaster over his
Russia collusion comments, President Donald Trump shifted his focus toward one of his favorite
targets, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, whom he "congratulated" for finally
acknowledging that the Obama administration is responsible for any attempted interference by Russia
during the 2016 election.
In one of his more memorable turns of phrase, Trump lauded "
Liddle
Adam Schiff
", whom he branded the "
leakin monster of no control
", for
finally "
blaming the Obama Administration for Russian meddling in the 2016 Election. He is finally
right about something. Obama was President, knew of the threat, and did nothing. Thank you Adam!"
Trump also expressed his amazement that nobody in federal law enforcement or Congress tried to stop
the Obama administration from handing over nearly $2 billion in cash to Iran. The cash transfers were
first reported by
the Wall Street Journal
in September 2016. The administration defended its actions by saying it
was merely returning the money, which belonged to Iranian entities, but had been frozen because of
sanctions.
... ... ...
Putting it all together, given the hysteria surrounding Russian interference during the 2016 election, the multiple
investigations and countless public resources wasted, if it was Russia's intention to create chaos in the US, then they've
"succeeded beyond their wildest dreams", Trump claimed."They're probably "
laughing their asses off in Moscow,"
he added.
1. Pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as a sign he
WELCOMES whistle blowers and putting the PEOPLE'S business
in the LIGHT
2. Begin to revoke the fed's charter by putting Ron Paul
in charge of a special investigation of fed malfeasance and
destruction of the currency
3. Immediately suspend weapon sales to ANY country or
organization involved in a current conflict
4. Revoke israel's special exemption from foreign
lobbying registration and fully audit AIPAC with an
intention to uncover bribery and espionage
5. Immediately indict Bill and Hillary Clinton and others
from the Clinton Foundation on charges of corruption,
espionage, and theft
6. Rescind all future payments/allotments to the saudi
arabia and israel until they are in compliance with
international law and human rights standards
7. Cease saber rattling against Iran and Russia and work
toward peaceful, complementary accommodations
8. Draw down the 600 plus U.S. military bases around the
world and bring the Americans HOME
9. Initially shift 30% of the current military budget to
domestic infrastructure needs with a mandate of further
reductions of 10% per yea
If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord,
disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of
the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred,
they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are
laughing their asses off in Moscow.
Trump is
right about the Russians laughing their asses off. But he
still foolishly drinks the koolaid handed to him by his
fellow swampsters that this was all a Russian plot.
Hubris does that. The swamp is full of it. And Trump
is well over 50% in the swamp.
It is true that Russians, the intelligence agencies of
every other nation and fat guys in their basement all
hack and troll the Internet. That simple fact was
blown up into a fake Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
Trump's latest tweets straighten that all out pretty
well.
1. Sessions has two investigations going on into Hillary. The heavy
hitters in Military Int. are taking the lead so Sessions has no reason to
dig deeper. the big boys are taking her down. So he did not flip. Clean
up on aisle 6 is happening, albeit slowly.
2. Same thing, you'll see the Military Tribunals start in a few months.
again, he did not flip... have you missed the fact that because of the
ongoing investigations that about 30 congresspersons / Senators are not
going up for re election? Most of the senior Staff in State dept is gone.
Coney, out, Lynch, holder, Rice and a slew of others currently under
investigation.
3. Is Trump supposed to be Assanges nanny or something?
4.That's more Tillersons mess and State dept. Most senior officials
quit en mass months ago from State dept. Trump stopped all CIA funding
going into Syria...
5. Easier said than done... I'm sure he didn't flip....but his priority
now is the counter coup.
6. He took a round about approach in his Dec 21st EO. Blocked Soros
dozens of bullshit non profit orgs...antifa funding...etc...
7. Flipped? Or did not get to it? Did he specifically SAY he was FOR
term limits? Got a link?
Looney I love you but you need to sit back and actually analyze the
situation.
1. He extended an olive branch because of how crazy the divide
was. She balked and he ramped up his rhetoric on investigating her.
2. WTF are you talking about?? He is pushing congress to investigate and
push out publications on the corruption. He can't do shit on his own and
expect people in the middle or left to believe it.
3. That is due to Britain putting out an arrest warrant. Has nothing to
do with Trump.
4. The same Intel agencies you criticized in the past are giving him
info. If they say Syria used chem weapons, he doesn't have any different
information. With the info he had, he did the best option...gut the Airbase
in question and not fully invade.
5. He got all the countries in question to up their spending, which was
the biggest thing he gripped about.
6. I don't know anything about this point so I won't refute it.
7. That requires congress and a possible Constitutional Amendment. Give
it time and we will see.
8. That requires congress and he has had a shit time with both Dems and
RINOs. Give it time and we will see.
People like you seem to think Trump can just wave a magic wand and POOF,
fait accompli. Should he just declare himself Dictator, have a coup d'etat
with the White Hat Military and we can go on from there? Do you have ANY
idea the depth and breadth of the pollution and toxic information that if
it was released at one time the created Zombie American public would
literally implode and strike out at any and all, innocent or not? Trump
has had to get himself into a powerful enough position to have a reason
that the Zombies will accept even if they don't like it to rid himself of
planted people NOT White Hats. Do you think he can just tell Goldman Sucks
to F*** Off? What's wrong with you people? Look at what he's accomplished
in one year AND HE HASN'T BEEN ASSASSINATED which in and of itself tells
you how astute he is.
Mostly, I am disappointed in the war agenda and the continued kissing of
Netanyaoo ass (although that was apparently going to happen throughout
the campaign and election process.) With that said I do believe that
getting his campaign promises all taken care of will be quite a chore
and aren't going to happen in the short term. After 8 years of Obama, 8
years of Bush, I'm going to give Trump some more time before I try to
fool some people that I've got a crystal ball. MAGA!
You are a greedy son of a bitch. He did the single thing that forever
saved us from another Clinton fiasco.
You either are a liar and did
not vote for him, or you are an ignoramus about Presidential campaign
promises, or you could be a DNC operative, attempting to infiltrate a
friendly Trump website and sow seeds of discontent.
No matter what I still wake up every morning knowing that 61,000,000
of us destroyed 63,000,000 assholes' aspirations for corrupt criminal,
turned Hollyweird ultra liberal predators in bowls of quivering jelly,
and made Chris, Oliver, Colbert, Kimmel, most jews, nearly all of both
coasts talking heads into blithering idiotic fools.
1Gave you the biggest tax cut in history
2 Put an end to the TPP
3 Pulled us out of the NWO Paris climate accord
4 Rolled back regulations
5 Eliminated the obamacare mandate forcing you to buy communist
insurance
6 Exposed more corruption in the intelligence, FBI, and DOJ than any
other human being living or dead
7 Got rid of net neutrality
etc, etc, etc
The guy has made enormous progress toward his agenda within one year
of taking office. What the hell do you want? You're no Trump voter, you
lying SOS.
You'd have to be VERY naive to think that Trump could just walk in and
change everything. What do you think he has some magic button or
something? He's in a very precarious situation and perhaps during his
campaign he thought he would be able to easily make the changes that
America so badly needs but the Deep State had another plans...and
unfortunately, they have a lot of power. He has to play both-sides in
order to ease his way into what needs to be done for the country and
he's doing it. Think about it! North Korea and South Korea are starting
to talk, he prevented WW3, he stopped the money that was flowing to the
rebels in Syria, he hasn't changed his mind about NATO or the gun-free
zones but what can he do now? You know Trump is actually not in charge
of the military don't you? The military is a money machine and they
don't want it to stop. Creating an enemy like Russia fits right into
their hands. This goes for everything else you mentioned...as Trump is
not entirely on the side of the Deep State they make it hard for him to
do anything. You can't be so naive that you can't see the whole
picture!
Geez, the guy is 1 year in office and you've got sparks going off in
your brain already?
Your impatience and lack of thinking depth is
showing very strongly. One cannot come in and start slashing things
with his sword, JFK tried that, they took him out. Now Trump wrote a
little famous book called "The ART of the Deal", perhaps you may want to
read it to understand how he works before you pass judgment. It takes
great skill and TIME to be able to drain a swamp artfully.
Why don't you mention any of his great accomplishments he's made
within first year as president you impatient fool?
The hammer comes down with the IG report, wait for it. Sessions may
be a bumbling old fool or he may be playing the long game here. Since
Sessions is Trumps political appointee, the optics of him going after
all of these assholes from the Obama administration before the
general public is aware of the corruption would doom the clean up.
We'd have months/years of the MSM screaming about political payback,
etc. So these guys are just taking baby steps to out the corruption.
If the IG report is as damning as it is being touted as, even the MSM
will be forced to cover it and Horowitz is not a Trump appointee, he
will be considered above the fray. He has to be the guy on point.
Then Sessions can act without it being seen as political. They (MSM,
Deep state) can play that card, but it won't carry much weight and
just further discredit the MSM.
The IG needs to lay it out so that the MSM can't spin it to look
like a Trump operation to deflect attention from the Russia collusion
story which just took a massive torpedo from the Mueller/Rosenstein
indictment, which exonerated Trump.
The narrative is being laid out right now and Trump is helping it
along with these tweets. When the truth finally comes out about this
massive effort to overturn the election using the intelligence
community, FBI, DOJ and State Dept, even the most libtarded Dem will
be clamoring for heads to roll and this sedition/treason leads all
the way through Clinton and into the White House. It's going to be
epic!
"... Bottom line if Hillary was not such an abysmal candidate the Russians couldn't have affected anything. Any traction any narrative gained was a reflection of the dismal status of maybe the most corrupt candidate in American political history. ..."
"... This Russian gambit is to forestall prosecutions of Treason. Hillary was engaged in a Conspiracy to defraud a Federal election. Her campaign gave money to foreign nationals against the law. Conspiracy not collusion. From Brennan and Clapper and Comey in down you have obvious perjury. ..."
"... The Schiffs and the Warners have committed Treason by promulgating this patently false fairy tale to the detriment of the American people. ..."
So "Russian interference" in our elections are some Facebook trolls? Are you freakin'
kiddin' me? After 18 months of investigation not one shred of evidence has been presented.
Has even one voting machine been hacked?
I seem to remember Nuland and McBraintumor on the barricades in the Ukraine.
These Russian
trolls are exercising what used to be called Political speech. Good or bad I don't think you
will be able to stop it.
Bottom line if Hillary was not such an abysmal candidate the
Russians couldn't have affected anything. Any traction any narrative gained was a reflection
of the dismal status of maybe the most corrupt candidate in American political history.
This Russian gambit is to forestall prosecutions of Treason. Hillary was engaged in a
Conspiracy to defraud a Federal election. Her campaign gave money to foreign nationals
against the law. Conspiracy not collusion. From Brennan and Clapper and Comey in down you
have obvious perjury.
The Schiffs and the Warners have committed Treason by promulgating this patently false
fairy tale to the detriment of the American people.
If one needed proof that Mueller's investigation was an utter farce, they were
in for a treat this morning when the Deputy Attorney General announced the indictment of indicted 13
"Russian trolls," for allegedly interfering in the 2016 Presidential election by posting on social
media accounts.
Laying Mueller's disregard of the First Amendment aside, the indictment is blatantly hypocritical
in light of active social media intervention by pro-Clinton David Brock and his multi-million dollar
efforts to 'Correct The Record.'
Julian Assange
tweeted on the matter:
The
indictment
alleges that: "Beginning
in or around June 2014, the ORGANIZATION obscured its conduct by operating through a number of Russian
entities, including Internet Research LLC, MediaSintez LLC, GlavSet LLC, MixInfo LLC, Azimut LLC, and
NovInfo LLC."
The indictment further
alleges
that:
"The ORGANIZATION sought, in part, to conduct what it called information warfare against the United
States of America through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and other Internet-based
media."
According to the indictment, the co-conspirators "engaged in operations primarily intended to
communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted
Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump."
The indictment represents the latest mutation of Russian interference allegations that have dragged
on for over a year. As
this
author previously noted
, the definition of Russian interference has shifted from unsubstantiated
claims of Russian hacking, to Russian collusion, and finally to Russian social media trolling.
Wikileaks
tweeted on the
subject:
The
Washington Post
reported in 2015 that David Brock's Correct The Record would work directly with
the Clinton Campaign, "testing the legal limits" of campaign finance in the process. How did Correct
The Record skirt campaign finance law?
The
Washington Post
tells us: "by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that
declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off-limits from regulation." And post
online, Brock's PAC did: "disseminating information about Clinton on its Web site and through its
Facebook and Twitter accounts, officials said."
Time
reported the opinion of a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center who characterized Correct The
Record as: "creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation." Meanwhile,
The
New York Times
detailed the "outrage machine" that Brock and fellow Clinton supporter Peter Daou
had created:
"Peter Daou sat with his team at a long wooden table last week, pushing the buttons that
activate Mrs. Clinton's outrage machine. Mr. Daou's operation, called
Shareblue
,
had published the article on Mr. Trump's comment on its website and created the accompanying
hashtag. "They will put that pressure right on the media outlets in a very intense way," Mr. Daou,
the chief executive of Shareblue, said of the Twitter army he had galvanized. "By the thousands."
Going further, the
New
York Times
details fervently the $2 million budget of Daou's Shareblue and admits that the intent
of the entire operation is interference in the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election in favor of
Hillary Clinton: "Beyond creating a boisterous echo chamber, the real metric of success for Shareblue,
which Mr. Brock said has a budget of $2 million supplied by his political donors, is getting Mrs.
Clinton elected. Mr. Daou's role is deploying a band of committed, outraged followers to harangue Mrs.
Clinton's opponents."
The
New York Daily News
put
the matter most bluntly: "Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who
disparages her online."
The
LA Times
described the active election interference: "It is meant to appear to be coming
organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it
is highly paid and highly tactical."
Despite the millions of dollars poured into a pro-Clinton 'outrage machine' bent on her support,
Clinton inexplicably lost the election to Donald Trump, a fact which still seems not to have sunk in
for the former First Lady and Secretary of State.
But why bring up this apparently old news, in the face of Mueller's latest mockery of the
American judicial process and the First Amendment? Because it reveals in the words of the legacy press
that by definition Mueller's circus has zero interest in campaign or election integrity and is solely
interested in getting scalps for Clinton and for the unelected powers she represented.
Despite obvious hypocrisy given the actions of Shareblue and David Brock's Correct The Record,
corporate media ignored all double standards and attempted to report on "Russian twitter trolling"
with a straight face.
Business
Insider
wrote: "Russian Twitter Trolls Tried To Bury Or Spin Negative Trump News Just Before
Election," as if that wasn't what Correct The Record spent millions on doing for the benefit of
Clinton.
The double standards applied to Clinton for her benefit goes beyond hypocrisy. Many have claimed
that constantly metamorphosing allegations of Russian interference represents an insidious effort to
silence dissent and anti-establishment political discourse: for example, by turning third-party,
anti-establishment or conservative voices into "Russians" by proxy of their opposition to Clinton.
By converting legitimate American free speech into insidious "Russian bots," a pretext is created
to silence dissent across the board. Without the Russian interference circus, the efforts to breach
the First Amendment would be overtly authoritarian and would be inexcusable even by the most corrupt
establishment media standards.
The results of such a clamp-down on free and effective speech have manifested in censorship
crackdowns across large social media platforms including
Twitter
,
Youtube,
and
Facebook
,
with Twitter admitting to actively censoring roughly 48% of tweets that included the "#DNCEmails"
hashtag. It seems anyone with an opinion the establishment doesn't like is liable to be memory-holed.
"The ORGANIZATION sought, in part, to conduct what it
called information warfare against the United States of
America through fictitious U.S. personas on social media
platforms and other Internet-based media."
What in the statement hasn't been going on since the
internet came into existence? The social internet was
founded on bullshit personas. When you can open a Faecesbook
account, and become an internet sensation as a fucking dog,
what about the above doesn't look patently ridiculous?
These twats are living in La La Land, and its getting
beyond disturbing.
And another thing, from what I understand Grand
Inquisitor Mueller indicted these 13 Russian
internet trolls for being "foreign agents" trying
to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.
So
when is he going to indict
Christopher
Steele
for being
an actual
bonafide foreign agent
trying to affect
the outcome of the 2016 election? ;-)
None of them will be hopping on a
plane to come here and I doubt very seriously
that Vlad will play along with this kind of
stupidity...although it would be a fun trial
to have...lol.
Defense counsel opening statement: "My
clients have voluntarily come here to America
to assert their universal free speech rights
in much the same way that Hillary crony David
Brocks "Correct the Record" paid internet
troll army from India did and we look forward
to exposing all of Hillary's and Obama's
astroturfing paid bots in this venue.
Grand Inquisitor Mueller: "Ahem. Your
honor, may we approach the bench?"
And the rest as they say, would be
jurisprudence history.
It was nothing but a contrived media ploy
by Mueller to say he
had found...RUSSIANS!...(insert audible gasp
here) "somewhere" and surprisingly enough, he
found them, in of all places, Russia...lol.
Its stupid to the tenth power...he's
losing. Badly ;-)
Well, I don't run my life trying to keep up
with the comings & goings of Jews and what
they may want or don't want but...
Weinstein raised money for Hillary.
This crooked as a dogs hind leg Weissmann is
Muellers lead attack dog and Rosenstein
appointed Mueller.
On the other hand, Trumps son-in-law is
Jewish so really to me this is more about
left vs right...statists vs individuals.
Now I'm sure someone more consumed with
"Just what the hell are (((they))) up
to today?!"
(lol) can pick
my statement apart and call me a rabbi or
hasbra troll or any other damned thing they
want but I just don't live in that Catholic
vs Protestant vs Black vs White vs Aryan vs
Slav etc Balkanized world.
Not to the degree they do anyways.
It's clear to me a gross miscarriage of
justice is happening
(and has been
happening)
and those are just the
facts, regardless of any skulking Israeli
or Russian supermen others may see hiding
behind every blade of grass who seem to
"control everything" because clearly they do
not or we wouldn't be having this
conversation ;-)
More like attempt to unite the nation which crumbles die to crisis of
neoliberalism and decimation of neoliberal ideology. And resore even on
false pretext trust for neoliberal ruling elite that is sitting in Congress
and major government institutions.
As well as swipe Hillary political fiasco under the rug and prevent loss of
power by Clinton wing of Democratic Party.
With the almost non stop Russian bashing in the US one has to wonder if something
else is at play here. Like priming the US psych to cheer on an inevitable war
with Russia. If one digs into the revelations it's obvious they are bunk, unless
your reading Wapo, New York Times, Time, and other neocon mouthpieces which are
full of fiction not facts, but America is a soundbite nation. We stop reading
after the headline and the way stories are structured that do have some truth in
them never get read.
No matter what the US has done to crash the Russian
economy Putin has strengthened it and is working hard to make it impervious to
outside forces.
Unlike the US where the government and the CEO's can't destroy it
fast enough while filling their wallets. The more successful Putin is, especially
on foreign policy, the more desperate and dangerous the neocons will become.
Remember they have nice luxurious bunkers to wait out the inevitable while you
die a slow death.
"... The author is a prominent American social critic, blogger, and podcaster , and we carry his articles regularly on RI . His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining. ..."
"... He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. ..."
"... You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject, here . To get a sense of how entertaining he is, watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED. ..."
"... If you like his work, please consider supporting him on Patreon . ..."
"... Why Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia? , ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Sport's Illustrated ..."
"... Actually the Times's editorial seems to have CIA / NSA fingerprints all over it, or at least Deep State paw prints. By stating that the Russians are already "meddling" in 2018 elections that haven't happened yet, aren't our own security agencies setting up the public to lose faith in the electoral process and fight over election results? Oh, by the way, the Times ..."
"... The longer this fantasy about Russia continues from the Left side of the political transect, the deeper the nation sinks into a dangerous collective psychosis. After all this time, the only known instances of American political figures "colluding" with Russians involve the shenanigans between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and US intel services including the FBI and CIA, in paying for the "Steele Dossier" and the activities of the Fusion GPS company that claimed Russia hacked Hillary's and John Podesta's email. ..."
"... There is now a ton of evidence about all this monkey business, and no sign (yet) that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller may be taking a good hard look at it, not to mention the professional misconduct of a half dozen senior FBI, NSA, and CIA officials, especially former CIA chief John Brennan, who has now morphed into a CNN "analyst," taking an active role in what amounts to a psy-ops campaign to shove the public toward war. ..."
"... We are already choking this polity to death by endlessly litigating the past, insuring that the country doesn't have the time or the fortitude to deal with much more important quandaries of the present -- especially a financial system that is speeding into the most colossal train wreck in history. That will de-rail Mr. Trump soon enough, and then all the rest of us will have enough to do to keep our lives together or to refashion them in some that will work in a very different economy. ..."
He is one of the better-known thinkers
The New Yorker
has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in
an
excellent 2009 profile
, along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another
regular
contributor to RI (archive)
. These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful
crack-up.
If you like his work, please consider supporting him on
Patreon
.
Forget about sharks. In their Valentine's Day editorial:
Why
Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia?
,
The New York Times
jumped several
blue whales (all the ones left on earth), a cruise ship, a subtropical archipelago, a giant vortex of plastic
bottles, and the
Sport's Illustrated
swimsuit shoot. The lede said:
The phalanx of intelligence chiefs who testified on Capitol Hill delivered a chilling message: Not only did
Russia interfere in the 2016 election, it is already meddling in the 2018 election by using a digital strategy to
exacerbate the country's political and social divisions.
Hmmm . After almost two years of relentless public paranoia about Russia and US elections, don't you suppose these
Ruskie gremlins would find some other way to make mischief in our world -- maybe meddle in the NHL playoffs, or hack
WalMart's bookkeeping department, or covertly switch out the real Dwayne Johnson with a robot? I kind of completely
and absolutely doubt that they'll bother with our elections.
Actually the Times's editorial seems to have CIA / NSA fingerprints all over it, or at least Deep State paw
prints. By stating that the Russians are already "meddling" in 2018 elections that haven't happened yet, aren't our
own security agencies setting up the public to lose faith in the electoral process and fight over election results?
Oh, by the way, the
Times
presented no evidence whatsoever that this alleged "meddling" is taking place.
They just assert it, as if it were already adjudicated.
But then they take it another step, making the case that because Mr. Trump does not go along with the Russian
Meddling story, he is obstructing efforts to prevent Russian interference in the elections that haven't happened yet,
and is therefore by implication guilty of treason. A fine piece of casuistry.
The longer this fantasy about Russia continues from the Left side of the political transect, the deeper the nation
sinks into a dangerous collective psychosis. After all this time, the only known instances of American political
figures "colluding" with Russians involve the shenanigans between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and US intel
services including the FBI and CIA, in paying for the "Steele Dossier" and the activities of the Fusion GPS company
that claimed Russia hacked Hillary's and John Podesta's email.
There is now a ton of evidence about all this monkey business, and no sign (yet) that Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller may be taking a good hard look at it, not to mention the professional misconduct of a half dozen senior FBI,
NSA, and CIA officials, especially former CIA chief John Brennan, who has now morphed into a CNN "analyst," taking an
active role in what amounts to a psy-ops campaign to shove the public toward war.
The "resistance" may think it is getting some mileage out of this interminable narrative, but its arrant
inconsistencies only undermine faith in all our political institutions, and that is really playing with fire.
We are already choking this polity to death by endlessly litigating the past, insuring that the country doesn't
have the time or the fortitude to deal with much more important quandaries of the present -- especially a financial
system that is speeding into the most colossal train wreck in history. That will de-rail Mr. Trump soon enough, and
then all the rest of us will have enough to do to keep our lives together or to refashion them in some that will work
in a very different economy.
"Very sad that the FBI missed all of
the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are
spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign - there is no
collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!" Trump tweeted.
His comment comes
after the FBI said Friday that it had failed to follow "protocols" when it received a tip
earlier this year about 19-year old Nikolas Cruz, the alleged shooter who went on a rampage at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla on Wednesday.
Russia is a perfect scapegoat which ensure lucrative levels of funding for both intelligence
agencies and MIC. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"
Notable quotes:
"... "Turns out, there've been 13 people, in the opinion of the US Justice Department. 13 people interfered in the US elections? 13 against billions budgets of special agencies? Against intelligence and counterespionage, against the newest technologies? Absurd? – Yes." ..."
"... The indictment, however, is the "modern American political reality," Zakharova added, jokingly suggesting that the number 13 was picked due to its negative associations. ..."
"... "The Americans are very emotional people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. I am not at all upset that I am on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them," ..."
"... "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump...and disparaging Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... "no allegations" ..."
"... On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that supporting Donald Trump has never been an official Russian policy, even if some Russians did express their backing of the new US leader. ..."
"... "It's a pity that under Donald Trump, for more than a year of his presidency, our relations have not improved compared to the period of the Democratic administration. Even worsened to a certain extent," ..."
"Turns out, there've been 13 people, in the opinion of the US Justice Department. 13
people interfered in the US elections? 13 against billions budgets of special agencies? Against
intelligence and counterespionage, against the newest technologies? Absurd? – Yes."
Zakharova said in a Facebook post
.
The indictment, however, is the "modern American political reality," Zakharova added,
jokingly suggesting that the number 13 was picked due to its negative associations.
One of the indicted, Russian businessman Evgeny Prigozhin, said he was not really upset by
the accusations.
"The Americans are very emotional people, they see what they want to see. I have great
respect for them. I am not at all upset that I am on this list. If they want to see the devil,
let them," Prigozhin told RIA Novosti.
The entities and individuals were indicted by a US federal grand jury on Friday of
"supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump...and disparaging
Hillary Clinton."
However, there are "no allegations" that the suspected activities of the Russian
nationals somehow affected the polls, according to the US Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein.
On Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that supporting Donald Trump has
never been an official Russian policy, even if some Russians did express their backing of the
new US leader.
The Minister has expressed his discontent with the apparently continuing nosedive in the
US-Russia relations. "It's a pity that under Donald Trump, for more than a year of his
presidency, our relations have not improved compared to the period of the Democratic
administration. Even worsened to a certain extent," Lavrov told Euronews.
The indictment of 13 Russians is the latest twist in the "meddling saga," which has
persisted in the US politics and media for over a year. The illicit activities attributed to
Russia include, but are not limited to, "hacking" into Democratic National Committee
(DNC) computers during the 2016 elections campaign, maliciously leaking emails filled with
unsavory revelations, meddling through media coverage and fake social media accounts. However,
no solid evidence to back the numerous allegations has been presented yet.
"... Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According to Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai business from the start. ..."
"... Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason. Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav Surkov. ..."
"... Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted list. ..."
The alleged leader of the Anonymous International hacker group, also known as
Shaltai-Boltai, has been arrested along with important officials in the security services who
collaborated with the group. For several years Shaltai-Boltai terrorized state officials,
businessmen and media figures by hacking their emails and telephones, and threatening to post
their private information online unless blackmail payments were made. "The price tag for our
work starts at several tens of thousands of dollars, and I am not going to talk about the upper
limit," said a man who calls himself Lewis during an interview with the news website,
Meduza ,
in January 2015.
Lewis, whose name pays hommage to the author Lewis Carroll, is the leader of Anonymous
International, the hacker group specializing in hacking the accounts of officials and
businessmen. Another name for Anonymous International is
Shaltai-Boltai, Russian for "Humpty-Dumpty."
Several years ago Lewis and his colleagues prospered thanks to extortion. They offered their
victims the chance to pay a handsome price to buy back their personal information that had been
stolen. Otherwise their information would be sold to third persons and even posted online. In
the end, Russian law-enforcement tracked down Lewis, and in November he was arrested and
now awaits trial . His real
name is Vladimir Anikeyev.
Shaltai-Boltai's founding father
"One's own success is good but other people's failure is not bad either," said the profile
quote on Vladimir Anikeyev's page on VKontakte , Russia's most popular social network.
Vladimir Anikeyev /
Photo: anikeevv/vk.com
Rosbalt news website said that in the 1990s Lewis worked as a journalist in St. Petersburg
and specialized in collecting information through various methods, including dubious ones. "He
could go for a drink with someone or have an affair with someone's secretary or bribe people,"
Rosbalt's
source said.
In the 2000s Anikeyev switched to collecting kompromat (compromising material).
Using his connections, he would find the personal email addresses of officials and
entrepreneurs and break into them using hackers in St. Petersburg, and then blackmail the
victims. They had to pay to prevent their personal information from ending up on the
Internet.
Fake Wi-Fi
Rosbalt said that when Anikeyev's business reached national levels, he started using new
techniques. For example, Anikeyev would go to restaurants and cafes popular among officials,
and with the help of sophisticated equipment he created fake Wi-Fi and mobile phone
connections.
Unsuspecting officials would connect to the network through the channel created by the
hacker and he would have access to the information on their devices.
In the beginning Anikeyev was personally involved in the theft of information but later he
created a network of agents.
The business grew quickly; enormous amounts of information were at Anikeyev's disposal that
had to be sorted and selected for suitability as material for blackmail. In the end, according
to Rosbalt, Anonymous International arose as a handy tool for downloading the obtained
information.
Trying to change the world
The second name of the group refers to the works of Lewis Carroll, according to Shaltai-Boltai members. The crazy world of
Through the Looking Glass, with its inverted logic, is the most apt metaphor for
Russian political life. Apart from Lewis Anikeyev, the team has several other members: Alice;
Shaltai, Boltai (these two acted as press secretaries, and as a result of a mix-up, the media
started calling the whole project, Shaltai-Boltai); and several others, including
"technicians," or specialist hackers.
The Anonymous International website was opened in 2013 and content stolen from the phones
and emails of Russian politicians immediately started appearing on it. According to
Life News , only the correspondence of the public officials and businessmen who refused to
pay was published. At the same time members of Shaltai-Boltai positioned themselves as people
with an active civil stance.
"We can be called campaigners. We are trying to change the world. To change it for the
better," Shaltai told the Apparat website. In interviews members of the group
repeatedly complained about Russian officials who restricted Internet freedom, the country's
foreign policy and barriers to participation in elections.
Hacker exploits
Shaltai-Boltai's most notorious hack was of an explicitly political nature and not about
making money. It hacked Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's Twitter account. On Aug. 14,
2014 tweets were
posted on the account saying that Medvedev was resigning because he was ashamed of the
government's actions. The `prime minister' also had time to write that Putin was wrong, that
the government had problems with common sense, and that the authorities were taking the
country back to the past.
On the same day Anonymous International posted part of the prime minister's
stolen archive, admitting that, "there is nothing particularly interesting in it."
"The posted material was provided by a certain highly-placed reptilian of our acquaintance,"
the hackers joked
.
Medvedev is far from being Shaltai-Boltai's only victim. The hackers published the private
correspondence of officials in the presidential administration: Yevgeny Prigozhin, a
businessman close to Vladimir Putin; Aram Gabrelyanov, head of the pro-Kremlin News Media
holding company; and of Igor Strelkov, one of the leaders of the uprising in east Ukraine.
Lewis, however, insisted that only material that had failed to sell ended up on the
Internet.
Law-enforcement links
Anikeyev was detained in November, and the following month Sergei Mikhailov, head of the 2nd
operations directorate of the FSB Information Security Center, was also arrested. According to
Kommersant , Mikhailov was a
major figure in the security services who, "was essentially overseeing the country's entire
internet business."
Mikhailov's aide, FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchayev, and a former hacker known as Forb, was also
arrested. Shortly after, Ruslan Stoyanov, head of the department for investigating cybercrime
at the antivirus software company Kaspersky Lab, was also detained. Stoyanov also worked
closely with the secret services.
According to Rosbalt , Anikeyev revealed
information about the FSB officers and the Kaspersky Lab computer expert and their close
involvement with Shaltai-Boltai.
Mikhailov tracked down Anonymous International at the beginning of 2016 and decided to
take it under his control, as well as make some money from blackmail along the way. According
to
Life News , there is another theory - that Mikhailov had been managing the Shaltai-Boltai
business from the start.
Shaltai-Boltai had a big fall
Whatever the truth, Mikhailov and Dokuchayev have now been charged with treason.
Anikeyev and Stoyanov will be prosecuted under a different charge - "unauthorized access to
computer information." According to Rosbalt , the treason charges
against Mikhailov and Dokuchayev are to do with Anonymous International's involvement in
leaking to Ukraine the private correspondence of presidential aide Vladislav
Surkov.
Shaltai-Boltai's website has not been updated since Nov. 26 and its Twitter account
since Dec. 12. The group's remaining members, who are believed to live in Thailand and the
Baltic States, have been put on an FSB wanted
list.
Anyway, Shaltai-Boltai anticipated this outcome. "What awaits us if we are uncovered?
Criminal charges and most likely a prison sentence. Each member of the team is aware of the
risks," they said dispassionately in the interview with Apparat in 2015.
"... A Moscow court has sentenced two Russian hackers to three years in prison each for breaking into the e-mail accounts of top Russian officials and leaking them. ..."
"... The 2016 arrests of the Shaltai-Boltai hackers became known only after Russian media reported that two officials of the Federal Security Service's cybercrime unit had been arrested on treason charges. ..."
A Moscow court has sentenced two Russian hackers to three years in prison each for breaking
into the e-mail accounts of top Russian officials and leaking them.
Konstantin Teplyakov and Aleksandr Filinov were members of the Shaltai-Boltai (Humpty Dumpty
in Russian) collective believed to be behind the hacking of high-profile accounts, including
the Twitter account of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
The two were found guilty of illegally accessing computer data in collusion with a criminal
group.
Earlier in July, Shaltai-Boltai leader Vladimir Anikeyev was handed a two-year sentence
after striking a plea bargain and agreeing to cooperate with the authorities.
The 2016 arrests of the Shaltai-Boltai hackers became known only after Russian media
reported that two officials of the Federal Security Service's cybercrime unit had been arrested
on treason charges.
Russian media reports suggested the officials had connections to the hacker group or had
tried to control it.
A notorious Russian hacker whose exploits and later arrest gave glimpses into the
intersection of computer crime and Russian law enforcement has been sentenced to two years in
prison.
The Moscow City Court issued its ruling July 6 against Vladimir Anikeyev in a decision made
behind closed doors, one indication of the sensitivity of his case.
"... The stories implicating Mikhailov gained credence when Russian businessman Pavel Vrublevsky made similar accusations. He asserted that Mikhailov leaked details of Russian hacking capabilities to U.S. intelligence agencies. ..."
In January, the Kremlin-linked media outlet Kommersant suggested that the heads of Russia's
Information Security Center (TsIB) were under investigation and would soon leave their posts.
The TsIB is a shadowy unit that manages computer security investigations for the Interior
Ministry and the FSB. It is thought to be Russia's largest inspectorate when it comes to
domestic and foreign cyber capabilities, including hacking. It oversees security matters
related to credit theft, financial information, personal data, social networks and reportedly
election data -- or as some have claimed in the Russian media, "election rigging." Beyond its
investigative role, it is presumed that the TsIB is fully capable of planning and directing
cyber operations. A week after the initial Kommersant report surfaced, Andrei Gerasimov, the
longtime TsIB director, resigned.
Not long after Gerasimov's resignation at the end of January, reports emerged from numerous
Kremlin-linked media outlets in what appeared to be a coordinated flood of information and
disinformation about the arrests of senior TsIB officers. One of the cyber unit's operational
directors, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested toward the end of last year along with his deputy,
Dmitri Dokuchaev, and charged with treason. Also arrested around the same time was Ruslan
Stoyanov, the chief investigator for Kaspersky Lab, which is the primary cybersecurity
contractor for the TsIB. There is much conjecture, but Mikhailov was apparently forcibly
removed from a meeting with fellow FSB officers -- escorted out with a bag over his head, so
the story goes -- and arrested. This is thought to have taken place some time around Dec. 5.
His deputy, a well-respected computer hacker recruited by the FSB, was reportedly last seen in
November. Kaspersky Lab's Stoyanov was a career cybersecurity professional, previously working
for the Indrik computer crime investigation firm and the Interior Ministry's computer crime
unit. Novaya Gazeta, a Kremlin-linked media outlet, reported that two other unnamed FSB
computer security officers were also detained. Theories, Accusations and Rumors
Since the initial reports surfaced, Russian media have been flooded with conflicting
theories about the arrests; about Mikhailov, Dokuchaev and Stoyanov; and about the accusations
levied against them. Because the charges are treason, the case is considered "classified" by
the state, meaning no official explanation or evidence will be released. An ultranationalist
news network called Tsargrad TV reported that Mikhailov had tipped U.S. intelligence to the
King Servers firm, which the FBI has accused of being the nexus of FSB hacking and intelligence
operations in the United States. (It should be noted that Tsargrad TV tends toward
sensationalism and has been used as a conduit for propaganda in the past.) The media outlet
also claimed that the Russian officer's cooperation is what enabled the United States to
publicly
accuse Moscow of sponsoring election-related hacking with "high confidence."
The stories implicating Mikhailov gained credence when Russian businessman Pavel
Vrublevsky made similar accusations. He asserted that Mikhailov leaked details of Russian
hacking capabilities to U.S. intelligence agencies. Vrublevsky, however, had previously
been the target of hacking accusations leveled by Mikhailov and his team, so it is possible
that he has a personal ax to grind. To further complicate matters, a business partner of
Vrublevsky, Vladimir Fomenko, runs King Servers, which the United States shut down in the wake
of the hacking scandal.
This article is almost a year old but contains interesting information about possible involvement of Shaltai Boltai in
framing Russia in interference in the USA elections.
Notable quotes:
"... Also called Anonymous International, Shaltai-Boltai was responsible for leaking early copies of Putin's New Year speech and for selling off "lots" of emails stolen from Russian officials such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ..."
"... Later media reports said that the group's leader, Vladimir Anikeyev, had recently been arrested by the FSB and had informed on Mikhailov, Dokuchaev and Stoyanov. ..."
The FBI just indicted a Russian official for hacking. But why did Russia charge him with treason? - The Washington Post
But what is less clear is why one of the men has been arrested and
charged with treason in Russia. Dmitry Dokuchaev, an agent for the cyberinvestigative arm of the FSB, was arrested in
Moscow in December. He's accused by the FBI of "handling" the hackers, paying "bounties" for breaking into email
accounts held by Russian officials, opposition politicians and journalists, as well as foreign officials and business
executives. The Russian targets included an Interior Ministry officer and physical trainer in a regional Ministry of
Sports. (The full text of the indictment, which has a full list of the targets and some curious typos, is
here
.)
Reading this hackers indictment. I'm pretty sure there is no such position as the "deputy
chairman of the Russian Federation"
pic.twitter.com/DOWXYNoWjZ
Dokuchaev's case is part of a larger and mysterious spate of arrests of Russian cyber officials and experts. His
superior, Sergei Mikhailov, deputy chief of the FSB's Center for Information Security, was also arrested in December and
charged with treason. According to Russian reports, the arrest came during a plenum of FSB officers, where Mikhailov had
a bag placed over his head and was taken in handcuffs from the room. Ruslan Stoyanov, a manager at the Russian
cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab, was also arrested that month. Stoyanov helped coordinate investigations between the
company and law enforcement, a person who used to work at the company said.
Below are some of the theories behind the Russian arrests. Lawyers for some of the accused have told The Washington
Post that they can't reveal details of the case and, because of the secrecy afforded to treason cases, they don't have
access to all the documents.
None of the theories below has been confirmed, nor are they mutually exclusive.
1. Links to U.S. election hacking
: With attention focused on the hacking attacks against the U.S.
Democratic National Committee allegedly ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, some Russian and U.S. media
suggested that Dokuchaev and Mikhailov leaked information implicating Russia in the hack to the United States. The
Russian Interfax news agency, which regularly cites government officials as sources, reported that "Sergei Mikhailov and
his deputy, Dmitry Dokuchaev, are accused of betraying their oath and working with the CIA." Novaya Gazeta, a liberal,
respected Russian publication, citing sources, wrote that Mikhailov had tipped off U.S. intelligence about King Servers,
the hosting service used to support hacking attacks on targeted voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona in
June. That had followed reports in the New York Times, citing one current and one former government official, that
"human sources in Russia did play a crucial role in proving who was responsible for the hacking."
Nakashima wrote yesterday that "the [FBI] charges are unrelated to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee
and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. But the move reflects the U.S.
government's increasing desire to hold foreign governments accountable for malicious acts in cyberspace."
2. A shadowy hacking collective called Shaltai-Boltai (Humpty-Dumpty)
:
Also called
Anonymous International, Shaltai-Boltai was responsible for leaking early copies of Putin's New Year speech and for
selling off "lots" of emails stolen from Russian officials such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. In a theory first
reported by the pro-Kremlin, conservative Orthodox media company Tsargrad, Mikhailov had taken control
of Shaltai-Boltai, "curating and supervising" the group in selecting hacking targets. Later media reports said that the
group's leader, Vladimir Anikeyev, had recently been arrested by the FSB and had informed on Mikhailov, Dokuchaev and
Stoyanov. A member of the group who fled to Estonia told the Russian media agency Fontanka that they had recently
acquired an FSB "coordinator," although he could not say whether it was Mikhailov. None of the hacks mentioned in the
FBI indictment could immediately be confirmed as those carried out by Shaltai-Boltai.
Lawyers contacted by The Post said that in documents they had seen, there was no link to Shaltai-Boltai in the case.
3.
A grudge with a cybercriminal
: A Russian businessman who had specialized in spam and malware had
claimed for years that Mikhailov was trading information on cybercriminals with the West. Mikhailov had reportedly
testified in the case of Pavel Vrublevsky, the former head of the payment services company Chronopay, who was imprisoned
in 2013 for ordering a denial of service attack on the website of Aeroflot, the Russian national airline. Vrublevsky
claimed then that Mikhailov began exchanging information about Russian cybercriminals with Western intelligence
agencies, including documents about Chronopay. Brian Krebs, an American journalist who investigates cybercrime and
received access to Vrublevsky's emails,
wrote in January
: "Based on
how long Vrublevsky has been
trying
to sell this narrative
, it seems he may have
finally found a buyer
."
4.
Infighting at the FSB:
The Russian government is not monolithic, and infighting between and
within the powerful law enforcement agencies is common. The Russian business publication RBC had written that Mikhailov
and Dokuchaev's Center for Information Security had been in conflict with another department with similar
responsibilities, the FSB's Center for Information Protection and Special Communications. The conflict may have led to
the initiation of a criminal case, the paper's sources said.
As Leonid Bershidsky, founding editor of the Russian business daily publication Vedomosti,
wrote in January, the dramatic arrests of two high-level FSB officers -- Sergei Mikhailov , the deputy head of the FSB's
Information Security Center, and Major Dmitry
Dokuchaev , a highly skilled hacker who had been recruited by the FSB -- on treason charges
in December offers a glimpse into "how security agencies generally operate in Putin's
Russia."
At the time of their arrest, Dokuchaev (who was one of the Russian officials indicted for
the Yahoo breach) and Mikhailov had been trying to cultivate a Russian hacking group known as
"Shaltai Boltai" -- or "Humpty Dumpty" -- that had been publishing stolen emails from Russian
officials' inboxes, according to Russian media reports.
"The FSB team reportedly uncovered the identities of the group's members -- but, instead of
arresting and indicting them, Mikhailov's team tried to run the group, apparently for profit or
political gain," Bershidsky wrote. Shaltai Boltai complied, Bershidsky wrote, because it wanted
to stay afloat, and didn't mind taking orders from "government structures."
"We get orders from government structures and from private individuals," Shaltai Boltai's
alleged leader said in a 2015
interview. "But we say we are an independent team. It's just that often it's impossible to
tell who the client is. Sometimes we get information for intermediaries, without knowing who
the end client is."
It appears that Dokuchaev and Mikhailov got caught running this side project with Shaltai
Boltai -- which was still targeting high-level Russian officials -- when the FSB began
surveilling Mikhailov. Officials targeted Mikhailov after receiving a tip that he might have
been leaking information about Russian cyber activities to the FBI, according to the
Novaya Gazeta.
Short of working against Russian interests, hackers "can pursue whatever projects they want,
as long as their targets are outside of Russia and they follow orders from the top when
needed," said Bremmer, of Eurasia Group. The same goes for FSB officers, who are tactically
allowed to "run private security operations involving blackmail and protection," according to
Bershidsky.
US intelligence agencies have concluded that the hack on the Democratic National Committee
during the 2016 election was likely one such "order from the top" -- a directive issued by
Russian President Vladimir Putin and carried out by hackers hired by the GRU and the FSB.
It is still unclear if the Yahoo breach was directed by FSB officials at the instruction of
the Kremlin, like the DNC hack, or if it was one of those "private security operations"
Bershidsky alluded to that some Russian intelligence officers do on the side.
Bremmer said that it's possible the Yahoo breach was not done for state ends, especially
given the involvement of Dokuchaev, who was already caught up in Shaltai Baltai's operations to
steal and sell information for personal financial gain.
"... As the days since Mueller's latest indictment have passed, the failure of his investigation to make any claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has begun to sink in, even amongst some of Donald Trump's most bitter enemies. ..."
"... Even the Guardian – arguably the most fervid of Donald Trump's British media critics, and the most vocal supporter of the Russiagate conspiracy theory – has grudgingly admitted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has "once again failed to nail Donald Trump" ..."
"... In fact the latest indictment when considered properly is a further huge nail in the coffin of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and in the already disintegrating credibility of the Trump Dossier, which is the foundation document for that theory ..."
"... Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the Russiagate conspiracy theory is laid out in its most classic form in the Trump Dossier, and it is the Trump Dossier which remains the primary and indeed so far the only 'evidence' for it ..."
"... This theory holds that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russians in 2013 when he was filmed by Russian intelligence performing an orgy in a hotel room in Moscow, and he and his associates Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Cohen subsequently engaged in a massive criminal conspiracy with Russian intelligence to steal the election from Hillary Clinton by having John Podesta's and the DNC's emails stolen by Russian intelligence and passed on by them for publication by Wikileaks. ..."
"... The Trump Dossier never mentions Jared Kushner's four conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak, including the famous meeting between Kislyak and Kushner in Trump Tower on 1st December 2016 (which Michael Flynn also attended) over the course of which the setting up of a backchannel to discuss the crisis in Syria is supposed to have been discussed (Kushner denies that it was). ..."
"... The last entry of the Trump Dossier is dated 13th December 2016 ie. twelve days after this meeting took place, and given its high level a genuinely well-informed Russian source familiar with the private ongoing discussions in the Kremlin might have been expected to know about it. ..."
"... Nor does the Trump Dossier mention the now famous meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Donald Trump Junior – which Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended – which took place on 9th June 2016. ..."
"... Now Special Counsel Mueller has provided further details in his latest indictment of actual albeit unknowing contacts between members of the Trump campaign and various Russian employees of Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency, LLC, apparently both in person and online. ..."
"... The Trump Dossier has however nothing to say about these contacts either, just as it has nothing to say about the Internet Research Agency, LLC, Yevgeny Prigozhin, or the entire social media campaign set out in such painstaking detail by Special Counsel Mueller in his indictment. ..."
"... I only remembered Helmer's 18th January 2017 article about the Trump Dossier after I wrote my article about Senator Grassley's and Senator Lindsey Graham's memorandum to the Justice Department on 6th February 2018. ..."
"... This is most unfortunate, not only because Grassley's and Lindsey Graham's memorandum resoundingly vindicates Helmer's reporting, but because it shows that a genuine expert about Russia like Helmer was able to spot immediately the holes in the Trump Dossier, which only now – a whole year and months of exhaustive investigations later – are starting to be officially admitted. ..."
"... Heroic efforts to elevate Papadopoulos's case and the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya into 'evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia which exists supposedly independently of the Trump Dossier fail because as I have discussed extensively elsewhere (see here and here ) they in fact do no such thing. ..."
"... With the Trump Dossier – the lynchpin of the whole collusion case – not just unverified and discredited but proved repeatedly to have been completely uninformed about events which were actually going on, why do some people persist in pretending that there is still a collusion case to investigate? ..."
As the days since Mueller's latest indictment
have passed, the failure of his investigation to make any claim of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has begun to sink
in, even amongst some of Donald Trump's most bitter enemies.
Even the Guardian – arguably the most fervid of Donald Trump's British media critics, and the most vocal supporter of the
Russiagate conspiracy theory – has grudgingly
admitted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has "once again failed to nail Donald Trump"
There will be understandable disappointment in many quarters that the latest indictments delivered by Robert Mueller, the special
counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, once again failed to nail Donald Trump. Although
the charges levelled against 13 Russians and three Russian entities are extraordinarily serious, they do not directly support
the central claim that Trump and senior campaign aides colluded with Moscow to rig the vote.
The Times of London meanwhile has
admitted
that the latest indictment contains "no smoking gun"
The Department of Justice, however, offered no confirmation to those still smarting from the election in November 2016, who
believe that, in the absence of Russian interference, Hillary Clinton would be in the White House today. Friday's allegations
offered no evidence that the outcome had been affected. Sir John Sawers, former head of MI6, said yesterday that Donald Trump's
victories in the key swing states were his own.
There was further comfort for Mr Trump, which he was quick to celebrate with a tweet. The investigation uncovered no evidence
"that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity". That includes, so far, anybody involved in the
Trump campaign. If there is a smoking gun it has yet to emerge, though Robert Mueller's investigation will grind on. President
Vladimir Putin is a malign and dangerous mischief maker. It has not been proved that he is an evil genius with the ability to
swing a US election.
In fact the latest indictment when considered properly is a further huge nail in the coffin of the Russiagate conspiracy theory
and in the already disintegrating credibility of the Trump Dossier, which is the foundation document for that theory.
Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the Russiagate conspiracy theory is laid out in its most classic form in the Trump
Dossier, and it is the Trump Dossier which remains the primary and indeed so far the only 'evidence' for it
This theory holds that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russians in 2013 when he was filmed by Russian intelligence performing
an orgy in a hotel room in Moscow, and he and his associates Paul Manafort, Carter Page and Michael Cohen subsequently engaged in
a massive criminal conspiracy with Russian intelligence to steal the election from Hillary Clinton by having John Podesta's and the
DNC's emails stolen by Russian intelligence and passed on by them for publication by Wikileaks.
Belief in this conspiracy dies hard, and an interesting
article in the Financial Times by Edward
Luce provides a fascinating example of the dogged determination of some people to believe in it. Writing about Mueller's latest indictment
Luce has this to say
Mr Mueller's report hints at more dramatic possibilities by corroborating contents of the "Steele dossier", which was compiled
in mid-2016 by the former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele -- long before the US intelligence agencies warned
of Russian interference. Mr Steele, who is in hiding, alleged that the Russians were using "active measures" to support the campaigns
of Mr Trump, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic runner-up to Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein, the Green party nominee. Mr Mueller's
indictment confirms that account.
Likewise, Mr Mueller's indictment confirms the Steele dossier's claim that Russia wished to "sow discord" in the US election
by backing leftwing as well as rightwing groups. Among the entities run by the IRA were groups with names such as "Secured Borders",
"Blacktivists", "United Muslims of America" and "Army of Jesus".
What is fascinating about these words is that none of them are true.
Christopher Steele is not in hiding.
The actua l
Trump Dossier does
not allege "that the Russians were using "active measures" to support the campaigns of Mr Trump, Bernie Sanders, the Democratic
runner-up to Hillary Clinton, and Jill Stein, the Green party nominee".
Bernie Sanders is mentioned by the Trump Dossier only in passing. By the time the Trump Dossier's first entries were written Bernie
Sanders's campaign was all but over and it was already clear that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Party's candidate for the
Presidency.
Jill Stein is mentioned – again in passing – only once, in a brief mention which refers to her now infamous visit to Russia where
she attended the same dinner with President Putin as Michael Flynn.
Nor does the Trump Dossier anywhere claim that "Russia wished to "sow discord" in the US election by backing leftwing as well
as rightwing groups".
On the contrary the Trump Dossier is focused – exclusively and obsessively – on documenting at fantastic length the alleged conspiracy
between the Russian government and the campaign of the supposedly compromised Donald Trump to get him elected US President.
Supporters of the Russiagate conspiracy theory need to start facing up to the hard truth about the Trump Dossier.
At the time the Trump Dossier was published in January 2017 little was known publicly about the contacts which actually took place
between members of Donald Trump's campaign and tranisiton teams and the Russians during and after the election.
Today – a full year later and after months of exhaustive investigation – we know far more about those contacts.
What Is striking about those contacts is how ignorant the supposedly high level Russian sources of the Trump Dossier were about
them.
Thus the Trump Dossier never mentions Jeff Sessions's two meetings with Russian ambassador Kislyak, or the various conversations
Michael Flynn is known to have had with Russian ambassador Kislyak, some of which apparently took place before Donald Trump won the
election.
The Trump Dossier never mentions Jared Kushner's four conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak, including the famous
meeting between Kislyak and Kushner in Trump Tower on 1st December 2016 (which Michael Flynn also attended) over the course of which
the setting up of a backchannel to discuss the crisis in Syria is supposed to have been discussed (Kushner denies that it was).
The last entry of the Trump Dossier is dated 13th December 2016 ie. twelve days after this meeting took place, and given its
high level a genuinely well-informed Russian source familiar with the private ongoing discussions in the Kremlin might have been
expected to know about it.
Nor does the Trump Dossier mention the now famous meeting in Trump Tower between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
and Donald Trump Junior – which Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended – which took place on 9th June 2016.
This despite the fact that the Trump Dossier's first entry is dated 20th June 2016 i.e. eleven days later, so that if this meeting
really was intended to set the stage for collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – as believers in the Russiagate conspiracy
theory insist – a well informed Russian source with access to information from the Kremlin would be expected to know about it.
Nor does the Trump Dossier have anything to say about George Papadopoulos, the Trump campaign aide who had the most extensive
contacts with the Russians, and whose drunken bragging in a London bar is now claimed by the FBI to have been its reason for starting
the Russiagate inquiry.
In fact George Papadopoulos is not mentioned in the Trump Dossier at all.
This despite the fact that members of Russia's high powered Valdai Discussion Club were Papadopoulos's main interlocutors in his
discussions with the Russians, and Igor Ivanov – Russia's former foreign minister, and a senior albeit retired official genuinely
known to Putin – was informed about the discussions also, making it at least possible that high level people in the Russian Foreign
Ministry and conceivably in the Russian government and in the Kremlin were kept informed about the discussions with Papadopoulos,
so that a genuinely well-informed Russian source might be expected to know about them.
By contrast none of the secret meetings between Carter Page and Michael Cohen and the Russians discussed at such extraordinary
length in the Trump Dossier have ever been proved to have taken place.
Now Special Counsel Mueller has provided further details in his latest indictment of actual albeit unknowing contacts between
members of the Trump campaign and various Russian employees of Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency, LLC, apparently both
in person and online.
The Trump Dossier has however nothing to say about these contacts either, just as it has nothing to say about the Internet
Research Agency, LLC, Yevgeny Prigozhin, or the entire social media campaign set out in such painstaking detail by Special Counsel
Mueller in his indictment.
The only conclusion possible is that if the Trump Dossier's Russian sources actually exist (about which I am starting to
have doubts) then they were extraordinarily ignorant of what was actually going on.
That of course is consistent with the fact – recently revealed in the heavily redacted memorandum sent to the Justice Department
by Senators Grassley and Lindsey Graham – that many of the sources of the Trump Dossier were not actually Russian but were American.
John Helmer – the most experienced journalist covering Russia, and a person who has a genuine and profound knowledge of the country
– made that very point – that many of the Trump Dossier's sources were American rather than Russian – in an
article he published on 18th January 2017, ie. just days after the Trump Dossier was published.
In that same
article Helmer also made this very valid point about the Trump Dossier's compiler Christopher Steele
Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the
Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed
messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was
on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British
prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012.Read more on Steele's fake rock operation
here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming
Putin for fabricating the story.
Given that Steele was outed by Russian intelligence in 2006, with his intelligence operation in Russia dismantled by the FSB that
year, it beggars belief that ten years later in 2016 he still had access to high level secrets in the Kremlin.
What we now know in fact proves that he did not.
I only remembered Helmer's 18th January 2017 article about the Trump Dossier after I wrote my
article
about Senator Grassley's and Senator Lindsey Graham's memorandum to the Justice Department on 6th February 2018.
This is most unfortunate, not only because Grassley's and Lindsey Graham's memorandum resoundingly vindicates Helmer's reporting,
but because it shows that a genuine expert about Russia like Helmer was able to spot immediately the holes in the Trump Dossier,
which only now – a whole year and months of exhaustive investigations later – are starting to be officially admitted.
For my part I owe Helmer an apology for not referencing his 18th January 2017 article in my article of 6th February 2018. I should
have done so and I am very sorry that I didn't.
I have spent some time discussing the Trump Dossier because despite denials it remains the lynchpin of the whole Russiagate scandal
and of the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Heroic efforts to elevate Papadopoulos's case and the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
into 'evidence' of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia which exists supposedly independently of the Trump Dossier fail
because as I have discussed extensively elsewhere (see
here and
here ) they in fact do no
such thing.
Despite Edward Luce's desperate efforts to argue otherwise, Mueller's latest indictment far from corroborating the Trump Dossier,
has done the opposite.
With the Trump Dossier – the lynchpin of the whole collusion case – not just unverified and discredited but proved repeatedly
to have been completely uninformed about events which were actually going on, why do some people persist in pretending that there
is still a collusion case to investigate?
Hillary's butt is fair game after Mueller finishes up his bull-crap "probe" with nothing
to show for it except "process" indictment/pleas by people uninvolved in the Dem's collusion
with Russia, or with this sham series of indictments. Mueller will be gone by that point, and
a real prosecutor (Trey Gowdy or someone equally talented) will pursue the truth, get to the
bottom of the Dem sponsored perversion of the 2016 election, convict the guilty and have
their butts thrown in jail.
BTW, the Flynn guilty plea will go away when the prosecution is thrown out of court by the
newly appointed Judge Sullvan who will vacate the guilty plea due to prosecutorial misconduct
and failure on the part of the DOJ to furnish the defense with exculpatory evidence (e.g. the
FISA warrant allowing eavesdropping on the basis of a phony Russian dossier paid for by
Hillary's campaign, engineered by a British former spy (Christopher Steele) and facilitated
by the Seattle law firm representing Hillary's campaign (Perkins Coie), which was a conduit
for the cash spent to obtain phoney Russian oppo material accusing Trump of various alleged
perversions. This will happen soon, and will be a further embarrassment for the stunningly
benighted Mueller.
Trump has a point: "If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the
Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams..."
excoriating the FBI for failing to act on multiple tips
about "professional school shooter"
Nikolas Cruz's murderous intentions, and criticizing National Security Adviser HR McMaster over his
Russia collusion comments, President Donald Trump shifted his focus toward one of his favorite
targets, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff, whom he "congratulated" for finally
acknowledging that the Obama administration is responsible for any attempted interference by Russia
during the 2016 election.
In one of his more memorable turns of phrase, Trump lauded "
Liddle
Adam Schiff
", whom he branded the "
leakin monster of no control
", for
finally "
blaming the Obama Administration for Russian meddling in the 2016 Election. He is finally
right about something. Obama was President, knew of the threat, and did nothing. Thank you Adam!"
Trump also expressed his amazement that nobody in federal law enforcement or Congress tried to stop
the Obama administration from handing over nearly $2 billion in cash to Iran. The cash transfers were
first reported by
the Wall Street Journal
in September 2016. The administration defended its actions by saying it
was merely returning the money, which belonged to Iranian entities, but had been frozen because of
sanctions.
... ... ...
Putting it all together, given the hysteria surrounding Russian interference during the 2016 election, the multiple
investigations and countless public resources wasted, if it was Russia's intention to create chaos in the US, then they've
"succeeded beyond their wildest dreams", Trump claimed."They're probably "
laughing their asses off in Moscow,"
he added.
1. Pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange as a sign he
WELCOMES whistle blowers and putting the PEOPLE'S business
in the LIGHT
2. Begin to revoke the fed's charter by putting Ron Paul
in charge of a special investigation of fed malfeasance and
destruction of the currency
3. Immediately suspend weapon sales to ANY country or
organization involved in a current conflict
4. Revoke israel's special exemption from foreign
lobbying registration and fully audit AIPAC with an
intention to uncover bribery and espionage
5. Immediately indict Bill and Hillary Clinton and others
from the Clinton Foundation on charges of corruption,
espionage, and theft
6. Rescind all future payments/allotments to the saudi
arabia and israel until they are in compliance with
international law and human rights standards
7. Cease saber rattling against Iran and Russia and work
toward peaceful, complementary accommodations
8. Draw down the 600 plus U.S. military bases around the
world and bring the Americans HOME
9. Initially shift 30% of the current military budget to
domestic infrastructure needs with a mandate of further
reductions of 10% per yea
If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord,
disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of
the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred,
they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are
laughing their asses off in Moscow.
Trump is
right about the Russians laughing their asses off. But he
still foolishly drinks the koolaid handed to him by his
fellow swampsters that this was all a Russian plot.
Hubris does that. The swamp is full of it. And Trump
is well over 50% in the swamp.
It is true that Russians, the intelligence agencies of
every other nation and fat guys in their basement all
hack and troll the Internet. That simple fact was
blown up into a fake Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
Trump's latest tweets straighten that all out pretty
well.
Internet Research Agency: Russian journalist who uncovered election interference left confounded by Mueller - The
Washington Post
A
37-page
indictment
issued by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team on Friday brings fresh American attention to one
of the strangest elements of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election: The Internet Research Agency (IRA), a
state-sponsored "troll factory" in St. Petersburg.
But much of the information Mueller published on Friday about the
agency's efforts to influence the election had already been published last October -- in an article by a Russian business
magazine, RBC.
In a 4,500-word report titled "
How the 'troll
factory' worked the U.S. elections,
" journalists Polina Rusyaeva and Andrey Zakharov offered the fullest picture yet
of how the "American department" of the IRA used Facebook, Twitter and other tactics to inflame tensions ahead of the
2016 vote. The article also looked at the staffing structure of the organization and revealed details about its budget
and salaries.
Zakharov agreed to answer some questions for WorldViews about his reaction to the details about the IRA in Mueller's
indictments (Rusyaeva left journalism after the story came out, although she stresses she did not do so because of a
reaction to the story). Zakharov explained how it was a strange feeling seeing something he had so closely investigated
become a major issue in the United States, when it had not been a "bombshell" when he published his report at home.
"... Situation goes up and down based on money paid. Look at Saudi, things starts to go wrong the moment they try challenge US. Same goes for Israel too. But once the account is filled back up, every problem disappear. ..."
"... Russia stopped payment to Deep State and even dared to try expose Clinton their candidate. Of course Russians got to pay.... ..."
"... All you need to see to know the MSM is fake and biased is to look at the front page the last two weeks. Congressional memo detailing FBI malfeasance in obtaining secret warrants for surveillance of US citizens, two paragraphs on page 13. Mueller indicts random Russian internet trolls that will never be arrested or extradited, front page headline, all caps. ..."
"... We live at a time when every honest and decent person who can and wants to think on his own, automatically receives a label of a supporter of Russia and Putin personally. ..."
"... If 13 Internet trolls are really able to influence the choice of the president in a certain country, then this is a third world country. Or the fourth world. Thus, Mueller publicly recognized America, a third world country. Or the country of the fourth world. ..."
There is no double standards, It is always the same for everyone. Saudi paid good money to meddle in US elections, immigration policies among others. Israel arranges payback thru their countless organizations operating and manipulating US. Hey even the lightweight Ukraine paid good money.
Situation goes up and down based on money paid. Look at Saudi, things starts to go wrong the moment they try challenge US.
Same goes for Israel too. But once the account is filled back up, every problem disappear.
Russia stopped payment to Deep State and even dared to try expose Clinton their candidate. Of course Russians got to pay....
All you need to see to know the MSM is fake and biased is to look at the front page the last two weeks. Congressional memo
detailing FBI malfeasance in obtaining secret warrants for surveillance of US citizens, two paragraphs on page 13. Mueller indicts
random Russian internet trolls that will never be arrested or extradited, front page headline, all caps. Flynn gets charged with
lying to the FBI about something that had nothing to do with the investigation, and has resulted in no indictments, front page
headline, all caps. Manafort indicted for errors in financial paperwork that happened before he even joined the campaign, and
had nothing to do with Russia, front page, all caps.
We live at a time when every honest and decent person who can and wants
to think on his own, automatically receives a label of a supporter of
Russia and Putin personally.
That is, if a person has reason,
conscience and his own opinion different from the opinion of the Faux
news and CNN, such a person will always receive accusations as a "secret
agent of the Kremlin,"
regardless of his citizenship and
nationality.
If 13 Internet trolls are really able to influence the choice of the
president in a certain country, then this is a third world country. Or
the fourth world.
Thus, Mueller publicly recognized America, a third world
country.
Or the country of the fourth world.
But every honest and decent person is realizing since 2008 the whole
economy is a ponzi and in fact with ZIRP on pension growth the future
looks like poverty on a massive scale.
World will go to rat shit
now, as they try to raise rates on their centrally planned NIRP
economy destroying the economy more when the economy is really
calling out for NIRP across the board to make money cheap once again.
Mueller needs to keep spinning his tune for a long time as
when the music stops the war starts.
Or he could be waiting for the economic implosion to kick it off.
It's possible. If the economy crashes to depression levels while
Trump is in office, which wouldn't shock most of us, what better
time to try and impeach him than when he's got his own party
gunning for him? That's the reason they went after him so
quickly. They were trying to grab what they thought was
low-hanging fruit, only to find nothing there, and now Trump's
numbers are up, and Republicans have fallen in line, making
impeachment impossible without a major smoking gun. Their only
hope now is that the economy tanks. Hence all the wooden faces
during the SotU speech, when Trump told them about how well the
Democrat voting demographics were doing financially
Facebook VP of advertising, Rob Goldman, tossed a hand grenade in the Russian meddling
narrative in a string of tweets responding to Mueller's indictment of
13 Russian nationals running a "bot farm" which, according to Mueller (via Deputy AG Rod
Rosenstein), was unsuccessful at influencing the 2016 election.
... ... ...
Notably, Goldman points out that the majority of advertising purchased by Russians on
Facebook occurred after the election - and was designed to "sow discord and divide Americans",
something which Americans have been quite adept at doing on their own ever since the Fed
decided to unleash a record class, wealth, income divide by keeping capital markets
artificially afloat at any cost.
This is a very good overview that presents convincing hypothesis why Mueller made himself a
joke. Along with desire to preserve his franchise they needed a smoke screen to distract people
from the evidence of a color revolution against Trump, a palace coup d'état which involved
two dozens or so highly placed officials in Obama administration, including CIA (Brennan), FBI
(Comey, McCabe, Strzok, James A. Baker, etc) and Justice Department (Loretta Lynch, Bruce Ohr to
name a few . In other words this is nothing more then " a well-timed effort to distract
Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting
attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are
themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work."
Notable quotes:
"... And yet, "collusion" still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much less evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, "colluded" with the indicted Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and disparage Hillary. ..."
"... Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points to any connection of those indicted to the Russian government! ..."
"... Are you reading this commentary? ..."
"... The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work. ..."
For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the
heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat colluded to
ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and, when that failed, to undermine the nascent
presidency of Donald Trump. Agencies tainted by this corruption include not only the FBI and
the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the Obama White House, the State Department, the NSA, and
the CIA,
plus their British sister organizations MI6 and GCHQ , possibly along with the British
Foreign Office (with the involvement of former
British ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood ) and even Number 10 Downing Street.
Those implicated form a regular rogue's gallery of the Deep State: Peter Strzok (formerly
Chief of the FBI's Counterespionage Section, then Deputy Assistant Director of the
Counterintelligence Division; busy bee Strzok is implicated not only in exonerating Hillary
from her email server crimes but initiating the Russiagate investigation in the first place,
securing a FISA warrant using the dodgy "Steele Dossier," and nailing erstwhile National
Security Adviser General Mike Flynn on a
bogus charge of "lying to the FBI "); Lisa Page (Strzok's paramour and a DOJ lawyer
formerly assigned to the all-star Democrat lineup on the Robert Mueller Russigate inquisition);
former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and – let's not forget – current Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein,
himself implicated by having signed at least one of the dubious FISA warrant requests .
Finally, there's reason to believe that former CIA Director John O.
Brennan may have been the mastermind behind the whole operation .
Not to be overlooked is the possible implication of a pack of former Democratic
administration officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
former National Security Adviser Susan Rice , and President Barack Obama himself, who
according to text communications between Strzok and Page "wants to know everything we're
doing." Also involved is the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton operatives Sidney
Blumenthal and Cody Shearer – rendering the ignorance of Hillary herself totally
implausible.
On the British side we have "former" (suuure . . . ) MI6 spook Christopher Steele, diplomat
Wood, former GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan (who resigned a
year ago under mysterious circumstances ), and whoever they answered to in the Prime
Minister's office.
The growing sense of panic was palpable. Oh my – this is a curtain that just cannot be
allowed to be pulled back!
What to do, what to do . . .
Ah, here's the ticket – come out swinging against the main enemy. That's not even
Donald Trump. It's Russia and Vladimir Putin. Russia! Russia! Russia!
Hence the unveiling of an indictment against 13 Russian citizens
and three companies for alleged meddling in U.S. elections and various ancillary crimes.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume all the allegations in the indictment are true,
however unlikely that is to be the case. (While that would be the American legal rule for a
complaint in a civil case, this is a criminal indictment, where there is supposedly a
presumption of innocence. Rosenstein even mentioned that in his press conference, pretending
not to notice that that presumption doesn't apply to Russian Untermenschen – certainly not to
Olympic athletes and really not to Russians at all, who are presumed guilty on "genetic"
grounds .)
Based on the public announcement of the indictment by Rosenstein – who is effectively
the Attorney General in place of the pro forma holder of that office, Jeff Sessions
(R-Recused) – and on an initial examination of the indictment, and we can already draw a
few conclusions:
Finally, "collusion" is dead! If Mueller and the anti-constitutional cabal had any
hint that anyone on the Trump team cooperated with those indicted, they would have included
it. They didn't. That means that after months and months of "investigation" – or
really, setting "perjury traps" and trying to nail people on unrelated accusations, like Paul
Manafort's alleged circumvention of lobbying and financial reporting laws – and wasting
however many millions of dollars, Mueller and his merry band got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bupkes.
Nada.The fake charge that Trump colluded with the Russians is exposed as the fraud it always
was.
And yet, "collusion" still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much
less evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, "colluded" with the
indicted Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and
disparage Hillary. Thus, Trump is guilty of being favored by Russia even if there
was no actual cooperation. It's a kind of zombie walking dead collusion, collusion by intent
(of someone else) absent actual collusion. Its purpose in the indictment is to discredit
Trump as a Russian puppet, albeit an unwitting one. The indictment says the Russian
desperados supported
Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein too – so they're also Putin's dupes.
Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points
to any connection of those indicted to the Russian government! This is on a par with
the hysteria over social media placements by "Russian interests" on account of which
hysterical Senators
demanded that tech giants impose content controls , or dimwit
CIA agents getting bilked out of $100,000 by a Russian scam artist in Berlin in exchange
for – well, pretty much nothing. ( The CIA denies it , which
leads one to suspect it is true.) Paragraph 95 of the indictment points to what amounted to a
click-bait scam to fleece American merchants and social media sites from between $25 and $50
per post for promotional content. Paragraph 88 refers to "self-enrichment" as one motive of
the alleged operation. That makes a lot more sense than the bone-headed claim in the
indictment that the Russian goal was to "sow discord in the U.S. political system" by posting
content on "divisive U.S. political and social issues." What! Americans disagree about stuff?
The Russians are setting us against each other! In announcing the indictment,
Rosenstein said the Russians wanted to "promote discord in the United States and
undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." (He wagged his
finger with resolve at that point.) It evidently doesn't occur to Rosenstein that he and his
pals have undermined public confidence in our institutions by perverting them for political
ends.
Demonizing dissent. Those indicted allegedly sought to attract Americans'
attention to their diabolical machinations through appeal to hot-button issues (immigration,
Black Lives Matter, religion, etc.) and popular hashtags (#Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA,
#Hillary4Prison). Have you taken a stand on divisive issues, Dear Reader? Have you used any
of these hashtags? Are you reading this commentary? You too might be an unwitting
Russian stooge! Vladimir Putin is inside your head! Hopefully DOJ will set up a hotline where
patriotic citizens influenced without their knowledge can now report themselves, now that
they've been alerted. Are you a thought criminal, comrade ?
An amateurish, penny-ante scheme with no results – compared to what the U.S.
does. At worst, even if all the allegations in the indictment are true – a big
"if" – it would still amount to the kind of garden-variety kicking each other under the
table that a lot of countries routinely engage in. As described in the indictment this
gargantuan Russian scheme was (as reported
by Politico ) an "expensive [sic] effort that cost millions of dollars and
employed as many as hundreds of people." Millions of dollars! Hundreds of
people! How did the American republic manage to survive the onslaught? Rosenstein was keen to
point out for the umpteenth time that nothing the Russians are alleged to have done (never
mind what they actually might have done, which is far less) had any impact on the election.
That stands in sharp contrast to the lavishly funded, multifaceted, global political
influence and meddling operations the U.S. conducts in nations around the world under the
guise of "democracy promotion." The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with its
Democratic and Republican sub-organizations, can be considered the flagship of a community of
ostensibly private but government-funded or subsidized organizations that provides the soft
compliment to American hard military power. The various governmental, quasi-governmental, and
nongovernmental components of this network – sometimes called the " Demintern " in
analogy to the Comintern , an organization
comparable in global ambition if differing in ideology and methods – are also
coordinated
internationally at the official level through the less-well-known " Community of Democracies ." It is often
difficult to know where the "official" entities (CIA, NATO, the State Department,
Pentagon, USAID) divide from ostensibly nongovernmental but tax dollar-supported groups (NED,
Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) and privately funded organizations that
cooperate with them towards common goals (especially the Open Society organizations funded by
billionaire George Soros). Among the specialties of this network are often
successful "
color revolutions " targeting leaders and governments disfavored by Washington for regime
change – a far cry from the pathetic Russian operation alleged in the indictment.
"
Mitt Romney was right." Already many of Trump's supporters are not only
crowing with satisfaction that the indictment proves there was no collusion but refocusing
their gaze from the domestic culprits within the FBI, DOJ, etc., to a bogus foreign
threat. "This whole saga just brings back the 2012 election, and the fact that Mitt
Romney was right" for "suggesting that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe," is
the new GOP meme . To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that
enmity with
Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen , this latest Mueller indictment is
a smashing success already.
The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract
Americans' attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting
attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are
themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work.
So "Russian interference" in our elections are some Facebook trolls? Are you freakin'
kiddin' me? After 18 months of investigation not one shred of evidence has been presented.
Has even one voting machine been hacked?
I seem to remember Nuland and McBraintumor on the barricades in the Ukraine. These Russian
trolls are exercising what used to be called Political speech. Good or bad I don't think you
will be able to stop it. Bottom line if Hillary was not such an abysmal candidate the
Russians couldn't have affected anything. Any traction any narrative gained was a reflection
of the dismal status of maybe the most corrupt candidate in American political history.
This Russian gambit is to forestall prosecutions of Treason. Hillary was engaged in a
Conspiracy to defraud a Federal election. Her campaign gave money to foreign nationals
against the law. Conspiracy not collusion. From Brennan and Clapper and Comey in down you
have obvious perjury.
The Schiffs and the Warners have committed Treason by promulgating this patently false
fairy tale to the detriment of the American people.
"... The author is a prominent American social critic, blogger, and podcaster , and we carry his articles regularly on RI . His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining. ..."
"... He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another regular contributor to RI (archive) . These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up. ..."
"... You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject, here . To get a sense of how entertaining he is, watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED. ..."
"... If you like his work, please consider supporting him on Patreon . ..."
"... Why Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia? , ..."
He is one of the better-known thinkers
The New Yorker
has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in
an
excellent 2009 profile
, along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another
regular
contributor to RI (archive)
. These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful
crack-up.
If you like his work, please consider supporting him on
Patreon
.
Forget about sharks. In their Valentine's Day editorial:
Why
Does Trump Ignore Top Officials' Warnings on Russia?
,
The New York Times
jumped several
blue whales (all the ones left on earth), a cruise ship, a subtropical archipelago, a giant vortex of plastic
bottles, and the
Sport's Illustrated
swimsuit shoot. The lede said:
The phalanx of intelligence chiefs who testified on Capitol Hill delivered a chilling message: Not only did
Russia interfere in the 2016 election, it is already meddling in the 2018 election by using a digital strategy to
exacerbate the country's political and social divisions.
Hmmm . After almost two years of relentless public paranoia about Russia and US elections, don't you suppose these
Ruskie gremlins would find some other way to make mischief in our world -- maybe meddle in the NHL playoffs, or hack
WalMart's bookkeeping department, or covertly switch out the real Dwayne Johnson with a robot? I kind of completely
and absolutely doubt that they'll bother with our elections.
Actually the Times's editorial seems to have CIA / NSA fingerprints all over it, or at least Deep State paw
prints. By stating that the Russians are already "meddling" in 2018 elections that haven't happened yet, aren't our
own security agencies setting up the public to lose faith in the electoral process and fight over election results?
Oh, by the way, the
Times
presented no evidence whatsoever that this alleged "meddling" is taking place.
They just assert it, as if it were already adjudicated.
But then they take it another step, making the case that because Mr. Trump does not go along with the Russian
Meddling story, he is obstructing efforts to prevent Russian interference in the elections that haven't happened yet,
and is therefore by implication guilty of treason. A fine piece of casuistry.
The longer this fantasy about Russia continues from the Left side of the political transect, the deeper the nation
sinks into a dangerous collective psychosis. After all this time, the only known instances of American political
figures "colluding" with Russians involve the shenanigans between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and US intel
services including the FBI and CIA, in paying for the "Steele Dossier" and the activities of the Fusion GPS company
that claimed Russia hacked Hillary's and John Podesta's email.
There is now a ton of evidence about all this monkey business, and no sign (yet) that Special Prosecutor Robert
Mueller may be taking a good hard look at it, not to mention the professional misconduct of a half dozen senior FBI,
NSA, and CIA officials, especially former CIA chief John Brennan, who has now morphed into a CNN "analyst," taking an
active role in what amounts to a psy-ops campaign to shove the public toward war.
The "resistance" may think it is getting some mileage out of this interminable narrative, but its arrant
inconsistencies only undermine faith in all our political institutions, and that is really playing with fire.
We are already choking this polity to death by endlessly litigating the past, insuring that the country doesn't
have the time or the fortitude to deal with much more important quandaries of the present -- especially a financial
system that is speeding into the most colossal train wreck in history. That will de-rail Mr. Trump soon enough, and
then all the rest of us will have enough to do to keep our lives together or to refashion them in some that will work
in a very different economy.
PS:
Readers may wonder why I did not devote this space to the school shooting in Parkland,
Florida. It is exactly what you get in a society that wants to erase behavioral boundaries. It is especially
dangerous where adolescent boys are concerned. The country has a gigantic boundary problem.
We have also created perfect conditions -- between the anomie of suburbia and the dreariness of our school systems
-- to induce explosions of violent despair. That's why these things happen.
Until we change these conditions, expect ever more of it.
The irony of this indictment is so thick that it is overwhelming.
The US has as far back as I can recall, as an political aware person, say 1973, been implicated in regime change or meddling.
In Europe less violent than the rest of the world, but never the less they were there, as was the USSR. Spending money, influencing,
subverting, coercing and in some cases resorting to violence, in order to get their government of choice. Italy and Greece
were places that were sought out because of the strong left. And things did get violent from both sides. Those not old enough
, look it up, there is plenty of evidence, declassified documents available. Northern Ireland was another place they meddled
quite openly.
In the rest of the world, especially in South America, it was far, far more violent and less covert, almost all South American
countries suffered.
It is blatantly hysterical, mind boggling hysterical, that Israel's influence and is silently accepted, but Israeli influence
is so huge that opposition can be suppressed.
To counter foreign "meddling" the US is quietly regulating the Internet, introducing the Great US Firewall. What a pathetic
nation, what a joke....
For hundred times it is all provocation against Russia, psyop that intensified since Putin
returned to power and started rebuilding Russian military after another western provocation
in Georgia and later in Moldova, it became exponential after Ukrainian putsch in 2014.
Ultimately removal and Putin and now Xi who will follow Putin to be elected four times
breaking the western imposed rotation of CIA agents in the Chinese and Russian leadership is
the ultimate goal of the Western globalists to be replaced by oth Chinese and Russian
oligarchs with more consmopolitan autlooke devoid of notions of nation states but rather
global imperial provinces of US western emporium.
These are neocons sick dreams but as we see they will not be stopped without real bottom
up anti oligarchic revolution and instead escalate into preprogrammed chaos and global
conflict among people while harmony among oligarchy.
@liburl @20 - "Could you comment on this. All things being equal the marketing scheme would
have spread
their positive and derogatory posts equally to any given candidate, yet Mueller says
Hillary was under attack."
Aside from the "Russian influence" there were commercial fake-news site created and run
from Macedonia. These were widely reported about. for example by Wired: Inside the Macedonian
Fake-News Complex .
The people running these sites did not care who would win the election. But they found
that stories about Trump generated MORE TRAFFIC than pro Clinton stories. (BTW: U.S. main
stream media found the same and was therefore full of Trump stories.) More traffic/followers
is their sole point.
What Veles produced, though, was something more extreme still: an enterprise of cool, pure
amorality, free not only of ideology but of any concern or feeling about the substance of
the election. These Macedonians on Facebook didn't care if Trump won or lost the White
House.
...
Trump groups seemed to have hundreds of thousands more members than Clinton groups,
which made it simpler to propel an article into virality. (For a week in July, he
experimented with fake news extolling Bernie Sanders. "Bernie Sanders supporters are among
the smartest people I've seen," he says. "They don't believe anything. The post must have
proof for them to believe it.") He posted under his own name but also under the guise of
one of 200 or so bogus Facebook profiles that he'd purchased for this purpose. (A fake
profile with a Russian name cost about 10 cents; for an American name, the price went up to
50 cents.)
"... The sole point of creating a diverse army of sock-puppets with large following crowds
was to sell the 'eyeballs' of the followers to the paying customers of the marketing company
[Concord Catering] ..."
In other words, what Prigozhin's company is doing is hardly much different from what
Facebook originally was set up to do: sell its followers, their details and their behaviours
to paying customers, be they marketing organisations or the US government.
No Russian influence-just more fake news, more lies, more manipulation, more of the same
pantomime politics starring puppet politicians and directed by the dangerous psychopaths who
rule us and who are rushing us down a one way street to extinction... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078L8K9H3
"... Any country that would allow a traitor (or even a suspected traitor) to compete for the highest office in the land is not a country that is serious about "sovereignty" or "democracy" and should quite rightly be considered a failed state. ..."
"... As for the red-baiting and blatantly obvious attempts by the FVEYs to get Russia to throw a first punch -- so we can then jump in with all we've got and pin down the victory we thought we had back in 1998 (the big one that got away) -- I think we should all re-read that open letter signed by Dmitry Orlov, the Saker, and others which was posted in May of 2016 (yeah: right around the time this whole Russia narrative was being cooked up): https://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2016/05/a-russian-warning.html ..."
"... Let's all just hope the warmongers end up exposing themselves as being the belligerent, immature a**holes that they are so everyone else can laugh and point and get back to building the peaceful, prosperous world that we want to live in. ..."
no evidence is added to cohesively tie the establishment Russia narrative together
Right.
It's all been gossip and innuendo.
If there HAD been any evidence of "collusion", "treason", or an "attack" by foreign state
actors, the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies would not have been playing games
leaking to the press, but pressing forward with serious measures to harden the country's
security system and neutralize the threat(s). Had there been any genuine evidence of
malfeasance by the Trump campaign (outside of widely practiced and generally accepted
instances of corruption), Donald Trump would have been pulled from the roster of presidential
candidates by October 2016 at the latest.
Any country that would allow a traitor (or even a suspected traitor) to compete for
the highest office in the land is not a country that is serious about "sovereignty" or
"democracy" and should quite rightly be considered a failed state.
As for the red-baiting and blatantly obvious attempts by the FVEYs to get Russia to
throw a first punch -- so we can then jump in with all we've got and pin down the victory we
thought we had back in 1998 (the big one that got away) -- I think we should all re-read that
open letter signed by Dmitry Orlov, the Saker, and others which was posted in May of 2016
(yeah: right around the time this whole Russia narrative was being cooked up): https://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2016/05/a-russian-warning.html
Let's all just hope the warmongers end up exposing themselves as being the
belligerent, immature a**holes that they are so everyone else can laugh and point and get
back to building the peaceful, prosperous world that we want to live in.
Wow. Good one, Joe. Beautifully written. Thanks for the link. The comments were
interesting, too.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 1:55 pm
Your welcome, and you are right about the comments. Let's read the very first one, as I'm
also leaving off the commenters name which may be seen on the original comment board.
"As an American who has spent a lifetime studying his nation, I can tell you for a fact
that America was never cool. At the end of WWI, American soldiers came home to lynch
African-Americans in record numbers because they had gotten "uppity" in the soldiers'
absence. After WWII, America protected Nazi war criminals and immediately attacked the real
saviour of mankind (the Soviet Union), actually attacking Soviet citizens and starving the
Soviet state of reconstruction monies. In the 1950s, America took over the British and French
empires and became a National Security State with the growth of the CIA. Sixty-five years
later, it is estimated by scholarly demographic studies that The United States is directly
responsible for 40 million deaths. Even Nazi Germany, had it been victorious in WWII, could
have not outstripped that record of carnage. Think about that! The world was saved from the
Nazi conquest only to suffer the US conquest. And the latter was worse -- simply because the
US was larger and richer and therefore more powerful and violent. You and your friends should
never have been entranced. The Soviet Union provided its citizens with employment, housing,
education, health-care, recreation, great art, science. The United States provided its
citizens with job insecurity, homelessness, brainwashing, obesity, stress leading to mass
killings, crap art, and laughable pseudo-science. I rather wonder what it might have been
like for myself if I had been born on the USSR rather than the USA. I'd feel less rage and
guilt, forty million fewer iota of rage and guilt; that is for certain. That would have been
cooler."
What a great comment, and made with such historical accuracy. Joe
Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's indictment of 13 alleged members of a Russian troll farm
is leading to calls for escalation with Russia, exacerbating tensions that are already at
historic – and dangerous – lows, observes Caitlin Johnstone.
By Caitlin Johnstone
U.S. empire loyalists are so close to telling the truth when they babble about "Russian
propaganda." They are openly admitting that it is wrong to use media to manipulate the ways
that Americans think and vote. Now all we need is for them to admit that they themselves
do this constantly , and we'll be on the right track.
St. Petersburg's Internet Research Agency building, the alleged Russian troll factory that
has sown discord in U.S. politics, according to Robert Mueller's indictment.
The word "Russians" is America's top
trend on Twitter at the time of this writing because of a Mueller indictment of 13 alleged
members of a Russian troll farm, those nefarious supervillains who posted pictures of puppies and
promoted Bernie Sanders to "sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016
U.S. election."
Predictably, no evidence is added to cohesively tie the establishment Russia narrative
together with allegations of Russia hacking the Democratic Party and giving their emails to
WikiLeaks, meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. at Trump Tower, any shenanigans with well-hydrated
Russian prostitutes, or indeed anything tying the troll farm to Trump or the Russian government
at all.
The focus instead is on people disguising their identities to troll Americans on social
media, which we
have now learned constitutes a "conspiracy to defraud the United States." As Disobedient
Media's Elizabeth Lea Vos
rightly points out , it is also behavior that the Hillary Clinton campaign is known to have
funded and engaged in extensively.
We are
already at an extremely dangerous point in the ongoing trend of continuous escalations with
a country that is armed with thousands of nuclear warheads. And these deranged lunatics want
more.
"Special Counsel Mueller's indictments are further proof that Vladimir Putin directed a
campaign to interfere with our elections, with the goal of tipping the outcome," tweeted Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. "Given these indictments, @realDonaldTrump should implement the
sanctions that Congress passed immediately."
Steven Schmidt, MSNBC analyst and former strategist for George W. Bush and John McCain,
said that the word
"meddling" is not a sufficiently inflammatory word, because "What Russia did is ATTACK the
United States. Trump and the Corrupted GOP majority refuse to defend the sovereignty of the
country from this outside THREAT from a hostile state actor."
Congressmen Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff , Senator
Bernie
Sanders , popular commentators Preet Bharara and Joe Walsh have
all joined in the pile-on, along with many, many others, all demanding that the president do
more to escalate tensions with Russia even further than he already has.
This is exactly what renowned U.S.-Russian relations expert Stephen Cohen
has been warning of : an extremely dangerous mixture of continually escalating Cold War
tensions coexisting with hot proxy wars between two nuclear superpowers, with a president
facing immense political pressures to keep advancing and never, ever back down. A narcissist in
the White House being baited by his political enemies into a game of nuclear "chicken," without
the ability to swerve when necessary.
Meanwhile what are Republicans talking about? Why, they're all crowing about the fact that
these Russia revelations began on Obama's watch and don't show collusion, of course.
Do you see what is happening here? There is never, ever going to be any proof of
Trump-Russia collusion, because that has never been what this is about. We've
talked about this before : America's unelected power establishment doesn't care about
impeaching Trump, it cares about hobbling Russia in order to prevent the rise of a potential
rival superpower in its ally China. All this lunacy makes perfect sense when you realize this.
The U.S. deep state is using the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support for
increasing escalations with Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under the
delusion that pushing for moves against Russia will hurt Trump.
Well they will not hurt Trump, because there has never been any Trump-Russia collusion. If
there had been it would have been picked up by America's sprawling surveillance networks and
leaked to the Washington Post before the end of 2016, and if Trump were a Putin puppet he
wouldn't be continually escalating toward direct conflict with Russia in ways his predecessor
Obama never would have dreamed of doing. They aren't hurting Trump with these loud cries for
increased sanctions and hawkishness, they're imperiling us all.
Democrats, it is time to stop letting them bait you into calling for even more escalations
with a nuclear superpower and start calling for detente instead. Republicans, it is time for
you to stop putting partisan politics ahead of the survival of our species and start pushing
against these dangerous escalations that your president has been playing right along with.
These escalations are extremely dangerous and getting ever more so, and in the name of all that
is holy I implore you to stop before the unthinkable happens.
On my knees I beg you all to stop this madness, for the sake of my children and yours. You
lunatics on both sides of the political divide are going to get us all killed. In God's name,
stop. Please.
"... Besides that Rosenstein did his duty, as to redirect our attention from those nasty FISA court accusations, made by the Nunes Memo how conveniently timed. Although, Mueller's fantastic work (not my words but Rachel's) did not implicate any Russian involvement, and to the disappointment of many Democrates Mueller didn't imply that Vladimir Putin gave his permission to flip Hillary's win, but all the same .the Russians are up to no good, period. ..."
"... Mueller's Russia investigation is the le creme de le crumb of FBI investigations ..."
"... Fox news was thrilled, and patted themselves on the back for knowing it was a lie all along, at least the part where Russia helped Trump get elected. However they continued with their anti-Russia rhetoric and repeatedly brought up Hillary's sale of Uranium to Russia. Now Trump is out there acknowledging, yes Russia interfered in our elections. Our interventionism on a world wide scale makes this all quite nauseating. ..."
"... Those Russians created discord, well, they really didn't have to bother since Americans were so good at it, they didn't need any outside help. I haven't had the stomach to see how CNN, and MSNBC are going to handle this since they were such proponents of Russia-gate. ..."
"... Annie I'm glad you bring up the predictable timing of Rosenstein's release of the Mueller Russia-gate investigation, for these new allegations of Russian interference could replace the news of that awful shooting down in Florida ..."
"... I am now convinced that the indictment is a fraud upon the court deserving of sanctions being imposed on Mueller by the Court. ..."
"... The Mueller indictment is a highly unusual document. It's extraordinarily verbose for an indictment. Coupled with the fact that Mueller knew there was no way he would ever be required to prove what was charged (the U.S. has no extradition treaty with Russia), the indictment is not in reality addressed to a judge or jury; it's fodder for propaganda purposes and as discussed below, is intended to protect the indictment's entire subject matter from Freedom of Information Act requests. ..."
"... The document is overflowing with information that would be filed under seal if it was not fictional. A host of classified intelligence sources and methods would be on full display if the information in the indictment was factual. E.g., we get internal Russian company documents and private emails. Those records would have to be authenticated at trial with admissible proof of how DoJ and the FBI acquired them (sources and methods) if the indictment was intended for a judge and jury. But we get a 37-page detailed document without a single redaction for classified information. Are we to seriously believe that the Deep State is willing to burn the identities of private actor spies in Russia so they can testify that they stole company documents and emails in a foreign country? Or are we to believe that the FISA Court issued search warrants for FBI or NSA to penetrate the company's networks for a criminal rather than foreign intelligence purpose? ..."
"... Since we are purportedly dealing with Russians, one would also expect at least most of the quotes to be in Russian, requiring translation to English, yes? But we have here perfect English language smoking gun quotes and lots of them, without any indication that they have been translated from Russian as would be required if they had been. And they all speak for themselves, without need for interpretation. Even one such quote would be rare in criminal cases. But to have a bunch of them, all in English? It beggars belief. ..."
This Mueller revelation of 13 Russians flipping a combined campaign amount of 6.9 billion
dollars spent by both American presidential candidates, is awl inspiring, and convinces me to
if I were to run for public office I would do myself well to get these 13 Russians to work
for my campaign utterly amazing, these Russian trolls could flip such an overly expensive
long term election with so little.
Besides that Rosenstein did his duty, as to redirect our attention from those nasty FISA
court accusations, made by the Nunes Memo how conveniently timed. Although, Mueller's
fantastic work (not my words but Rachel's) did not implicate any Russian involvement, and to
the disappointment of many Democrates Mueller didn't imply that Vladimir Putin gave his
permission to flip Hillary's win, but all the same .the Russians are up to no good,
period.
This story barely tops the exclusion of Russian athletes from the Olympics for drug
doping, but Mueller's Russia investigation is the le creme de le crumb of FBI investigations
. Florida 19 year old shooter, not so much.
In the end, this will just be another day in an America life, while Mueller and company
wind this thing down, and with the hopes the open sore FISA court insinuation goes away.
Joe, you do have to ask yourself why Mueller came out with their non-findings on Friday
when everyone's attention was drawn to the school shootings in Florida where the FBI was
given warnings, but neglected to pay attention, and the governor of Florida is calling for
Wray's resignation, and heads to roll.
Fox news was thrilled, and patted themselves on the back for knowing it was a lie all
along, at least the part where Russia helped Trump get elected. However they continued with
their anti-Russia rhetoric and repeatedly brought up Hillary's sale of Uranium to Russia. Now
Trump is out there acknowledging, yes Russia interfered in our elections. Our interventionism
on a world wide scale makes this all quite nauseating.
Those Russians created discord, well, they really didn't have to bother since Americans
were so good at it, they didn't need any outside help. I haven't had the stomach to see how
CNN, and MSNBC are going to handle this since they were such proponents of Russia-gate.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 3:10 pm
Annie I'm glad you bring up the predictable timing of Rosenstein's release of the Mueller
Russia-gate investigation, for these new allegations of Russian interference could replace
the news of that awful shooting down in Florida.
I actually picture Mueller & Rosenstein as planning this long before the shooting, and
I can just see them figuring out that during the next mass shooting on a Friday before a
weekend news cycle, that bringing up the Russia thing would not only distract our attention
away from how the FBI dropped the ball on catching a 19 year old shooter who had tons of red
flags surrounding him, while adding some new life to all that is bad about Russians, was the
go to point.
I'm not surprised, although disappointed, that FOX is on the anti-Russian band wagon. This
keeping Russia in the dog house has been discussed, and written about on this comment board,
so keeping Russia & especially Putin in the spot light of all that is evil, to me comes
as no surprise.
It would appear that the U.S. is eventually going to go to war with Russia, or do we dare?
Neocon's are good at dropping bombs on far away places, but will they be any good at ducking
them when the bombs drop here?
And yes we Americans don't need any help from any Russians in order to screw up our
democracy, we are perfectly great at doing that ourselves. Joe
I am now convinced that the indictment is a fraud upon the court deserving of sanctions
being imposed on Mueller by the Court. I'll add some reasons for believing that in my
follow-up comment.
Joe Tedesky , February 18, 2018 at 1:33 am
Paul that was the best so far of anything I read, or learned, about this
Mueller/Rosenstein travesty. Joe
john wilson , February 18, 2018 at 6:04 am
Also Paul, did you know that the vice chairman of Face book has just announced that most
of the Russian advertising spend happened AFTER the election. Read it for yourself on the
zero hedge site.
Yes, Joe. I'd really like to see VIPS dive into what b presented.
The Mueller indictment is a highly unusual document. It's extraordinarily verbose for an indictment. Coupled with the fact that Mueller knew
there was no way he would ever be required to prove what was charged (the U.S. has no
extradition treaty with Russia), the indictment is not in reality addressed to a judge or
jury; it's fodder for propaganda purposes and as discussed below, is intended to protect the
indictment's entire subject matter from Freedom of Information Act requests.
As further indications that the document is a work of fiction not intended for a judge or
jury:
1. The document is overflowing with information that would be filed under seal if it was
not fictional. A host of classified intelligence sources and methods would be on full display
if the information in the indictment was factual. E.g., we get internal Russian company
documents and private emails. Those records would have to be authenticated at trial with
admissible proof of how DoJ and the FBI acquired them (sources and methods) if the indictment
was intended for a judge and jury. But we get a 37-page detailed document without a single
redaction for classified information. Are we to seriously believe that the Deep State is
willing to burn the identities of private actor spies in Russia so they can testify that they
stole company documents and emails in a foreign country? Or are we to believe that the FISA
Court issued search warrants for FBI or NSA to penetrate the company's networks for a
criminal rather than foreign intelligence purpose?
2. There are way too many perfect smoking gun English language quotes. It's rare to get
smoking gun quotes from defendants and they almost always require context to interpret them.
Since we are purportedly dealing with Russians, one would also expect at least most of the
quotes to be in Russian, requiring translation to English, yes? But we have here perfect
English language smoking gun quotes and lots of them, without any indication that they have
been translated from Russian as would be required if they had been. And they all speak for
themselves, without need for interpretation. Even one such quote would be rare in criminal
cases. But to have a bunch of them, all in English? It beggars belief.
3. In a normal criminal case, an indictment's allegations would be tested at a public
trial and the public would then learn what the evidence actually is. But with a case where
the defendants will never be extradited to stand trial, the entire case file is exempt from
public disclosure under the law enforcement records Freedom of Information Act exemption so
long as the investigation is ongoing. By vastly increasing the level of detail beyond what is
required for an indictment, Mueller sweeps far more evidence into what is clearly exempt from
public disclosure.
4. Grand jury procedure permits what bernard describes, although it is highly unethical
and violates a lawyer's duty of candor to the grand jury and the court. In a grand jury, the
prosecution is not required to show any evidence tending to establish the defendants'
innocence. Just enough evidence for the grand jury to find that the prosecution can present a
prima facie case of guilt. That means Mueller did not have to show the grand jury any of the
Internet communications that favored Hillary Clinton rather than Trump. But we know from
bernard's October article and from MSM reports when the Facebook ads were disclosed to
Congress that the pro-Clinton communications exist too. In other words, Mueller apparently
cherry picked the evidence to support his charge that the communications all favored Trump
instead of Clinton.
5.The indictment presents a wacky theory that the defendants conspired to defraud the
United States that is riddled with First Amendment issues. Conspiracy to commit wire and mail
fraud, that's not obviously a bad argument. But that fraud conspiracy claim smells like a
very long distance stretch to me (caveat, I have not yet researched it thoroughly). But
what's fraudulent about reports you never filed with the FEC and DoJ? Why not just charge
them with not filing the reports? Is it just so you can trumpet "conspiracy to commit fraud
on the United States?"
There's more but those are the major points I've got so far.
Congressmen Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff, Senator Bernie Sanders , popular
commentators Preet Bharara and Joe Walsh have all joined in the pile-on .
It pains me to once again be confronted with the fact that Sanders is a neocon hack.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 1:30 pm
Your right Zachary in as much as Sanders has been inspiring, he along time ago should have
dispelled this Russia-gate Bull, and went forward promoting his progressive goals. Joe
LaNinya , February 17, 2018 at 2:44 pm
I wrote off Bernie Sanders as a serious contender when, upon losing the Democratic
nomination, instead of falling back on his life-long status as an Independent and socialist
to throw his support to the Stein/Baraka ticket, he full-throatedly exhorted his supporters
to vote for Hillary (Dick Cheney with lipstick) Clinton. Which, to me, indicated that he
lacks faith in his own convictions.
It's interesting, though, that running as a "socialist" he attracted such great crowds and
enthusiastic support. Remember how almost shocking that was? That anyone would be so bold as
to run for president as a "socialist"?
And yet it hasn't been that long ago that the Communist Party itself would routinely field
presidential candidates to run in the elections. Indeed, turns out John Brennan himself had
voted for the communist candidate (Gus Hall) back in 1976.
When and how did the United States allow it's political discourse to get so cramped and
narrow? Does anyone remember?
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 3:19 pm
I think the U.S. was captured into the net as far back as maybe starting with the midnight
vote to establish the Federal Reserve in 1913. Another place would be the right wing Dem's
putting Harry Truman on the VP ticket in 1944. And how could we analyze this downfall without
including the assassination era, starting with JFK in 1963? Yes LaNinya it's been a long slow
process, and it ain't over until the fascist take total control.
The public's yearning to hear Socialist Sanders, is interesting, but does anyone for one
minute take the time to realize that Bernie at best is a tat to the right of an FDR new
Dealer? Although you go with the best you got, it is a shame that there aren't more truly
Leftist candidates, because I think Americans want them. Joe
Add to that the end of the draft in 1973, which we thought was a victory, only to see a
corporate military rise as the only means of access to "education" and "employment". A
military corporation dedicated to war, death and destruction for profit, as well as
censorship of its ultimate goals, and an industrial output of propaganda to encourage and
prop up its agenda.
Rave on Sasha Alexandre. Rave on Jara. I am not your enemy. 173 Oudezijds Achterburgwal,
Amsterdam Centrum.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 4:04 pm
You raise a memorial point, milkmild. I just got off active duty around the time the draft
was ended. As happy as I was, I also recall giving some thought to what would our military
do, without all of us Constitutional pesky civilians around to nag the warmongering brass, as
we did? Well now I know. Joe
mike k , February 17, 2018 at 3:07 pm
Sanders is a turncoat traitor to those he misled.
nonsense factory , February 17, 2018 at 3:51 pm
Sanders is interesting, in that he was basically running against Clinton just so she could
say that she had an opponent. The Sanders platform is basically FDR-limited, in that if you
look back to 1933 you can see FDR running on a very similar (but much more anti-Wall Street)
platform.
My one piece of advice on Sanders is, don't trust politicians in this system to fix
problems – we live in a seriously plutocratic system with remarkable similarities to
Brezhnev's Soviet Union. Our politics is largely theater – Sanders was to be the foil
to Clinton, and Trump's rise in the Republican Party was largely engineered by corporate
allies of Hillary Clinton who thought he'd be easier to defeat than GW Bush. The Republican
wing of the plutocracy wanted either Bush or Rubio, for similar reasons.
Trump was never supposed to win the general election, and Sanders was never supposed to
get anywhere near Clinton in the primary. Somehow the whole program went off the rails, and
the neolib/neocon crowd in Washington and Wall Street didn't see it coming. Now they're
trying to pick up the pieces. . .
But I don't think all the king's horses and all the king's men, will be able to put the
American Empire back together again. So I'm betting that the Soviet Union collapse scenario
is going to play out in the United States; Gorbachev,Yeltsin, Putin. If we can find someone
like Putin who will throw our politically-minded oligarchs in jail or exile them, as Putin
did with Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky and Gusinsky, then we'll be much better off and the pain
will not last as long.
As far as Russia vs. the USA, no, China holds all the cards, on renewable energy, on
technology, on diplomacy. We should all learn to speak Chinese and Russian, anyway . . . Just
so we can communicate with our equals on a level field. Bye bye Empire, bye bye. . .
"The U.S. deep state is using the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support
for increasing escalations with Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under
the delusion that pushing for moves against Russia will hurt Trump."
On the mark, but the strategy goes beyond the deep state which I take to mean actors
within our government. Cui bono, and that includes suspects that make no pretense of what
they are after. The problems with their plans is that it assumes they have their hand on the
switch that can turn this putsch on and off and somewhere in between.
Absolutely, politics is mostly theater, as nonsense factory stated. Tom Welsh and mike k,
what a great exchange on humans as stupid as sand fleas! The western nations are floundering
because of their slavish dependence on money and military might, and the US is set for
economic collapse soon with $20tn debt and unbelievable deficit and continuing to rise to aid
oligarchs; meanwhile with desperate masses, many of whom can't even put a roof over their
heads without help. The Goldman has Sacked US. Notice how Goldman Sachs has been in charge of
the gold since Bill Clinton? These fiends are using displacement because they have made the
bloodiest mess of American society so they blame Russia for what they do, they're
psychopathic. We've got to call them on it. Do read that article at The Saker, "A Brief
History of the Kremlin Trolls". The imprint of CIA is all over this.
jaycee , February 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm
The Mueller indictment describes a common clickbait operation through a most hysterical
and paranoid lens. Absurd madness. It's "commies are poisoning our vital bodily fluids" level
stuff. Imposing controls on the internet is one endgame here.
Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 8:42 pm
I put myself through the excruciation of watching a bit of Chris Hayes tonight talking
with Nadler (D-NY) and some guy from the Clinton campaign who were both calling the so-called
"interference" an "attack" tantamount to Pearl Harbor. Hayes played the straight man and
poohed the comparison a bit, but they were insistent and Hayes suggested the logical
conclusion of what they were demanding in response was war. Nadler stopped short of that but
said the Russians must pay a heavy price (more sanctions) and the other guy said the new war
would be of the cyber variety. I think you are right that "imposing controls on the internet
is one endgame here".
David G , February 17, 2018 at 9:30 pm
The rhetorical slippery slope started with "hacking the DNC" (not that I'm conceding the
reality of that), and slid rapidly through:
"hacking the election" to
"hacking our democracy" to
"attacking our democracy" to
"attacking our country",
and now what you saw on MSNBC, Gregory Herr, is the norm.
I've seen: What is the difference between what the Russians did here and if they'd
occupied the Aleutian Islands?
How to rationally engage with argle-bargle paranoia like that?
David G , February 17, 2018 at 9:19 pm
jaycee, I think that is actually a key point that should be foregrounded in commentary on
this nonsense: the psychological drivers are concerns about *purity* and *contamination*.
I've read about studies that show such preoccupations correlate with right-wing, or
"conservative", political orientation, which absolutely describes the Russia-gate construct,
despite its demographic base on the Dem-partisan, allegedly liberal, side of the
aisle/populace.
KiwiAntz , February 17, 2018 at 6:26 pm
I'm from NZ so I'm going to use a Lord of the Rings analogy? America & it's Deepstate
is the evil "Sauron" of the World"? Sauron (like the US) is a cowardly bully who wants to
dominate all life on earth using his Ork minions (MIC) & one ring (nuclear weapons) to
rule them all? What did it take to stop Sauron (& what will it take to stop the US?) A
last alliance of men, elves & all the other people's of middle earth (planet earth)
uniting & standing together as one to confront this grave threat to life on earth?? JRR
Toiken understood the situation only to well I think? Simplistic solution,but a time is
coming when all Nations of the Earth are going to have to stand up too & destroy the
greatest existential threat too life on Earth, that has ever been, which is the American
Empire & USA? A greater threat than Nazi Germany ever was? The survival of the human race
is at stake as your lunatic leaders are leading us to permanent destruction! You'd be
surprised at the amount of rich Americans, think Peter Thiel for one example, buying end
times, survival prepper, bolt holes in my Country of NZ as they can see what your insane,
hysterical Nation is leading us too? When the rich start abandoning the Country, like rats
leaving a sinking ship, ITS TIME TO TAKE NOTICE? Just as one small hobbit, the most
unlikeliest of hero's changed the outcome & the fate of middle earth, it set a precedent
that ordinary people or small people of the World could stand up to & unite against EVIL
& become the most unlikeliest of heroes in order to SAVE our Earth? God help us all?
mike k , February 17, 2018 at 6:53 pm
Well said!
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 7:12 pm
My dying last warning to you KiwiAntz while I'm stuck here on the USA mainland is when
those rich creeps of ours do come to your beloved New Zealand .immediately arrest them, and
put then in jail. Since I'm not big on capital punishment that's the best advice I can give
you, but if you would rather I could hand this over to my cousins in Jersey, because their
good at making things disappear. Be careful, watch yourself KiwiAntz. Joe
Good one, KiwiAntz! I agree with you and I also think that Mother Earth is sending
messages to humans, too. Too many people allowing (mis)leaders to lead us over a cliff.
mike k , February 17, 2018 at 7:00 pm
"Worse than Hitler" hits Uncle Sam right on the head. Our leaders learned a lot from
Hitler and his gang, but they have gone far beyond what Hitler accomplished. Racism, power
lust, torture, fiendish weapons, mass murder – we have the whole package now in
spades.
Marko , February 18, 2018 at 8:26 am
Worse , indeed , but what bothers me most is that we ( the American people ) have allowed
the situation to get this bad.
I used to wonder : " How could the German people have allowed Hitler to obtain and
maintain his power ? Were they blind , or were they just as evil as he was ? " Now I don't
have to wonder any more – I'm experiencing the phenomenon first-hand , in real time. If
the Guiness Book of World Records ever comes up with a category called " Nation With the Most
Irresponsible Populace " , Germany no longer has to fear being named the record-holder ,
thanks to us.
To say that what the Russians did had any effect on the election is like claiming it was
the fly fart in the tornado that blew the roof off.
Zachary Smith , February 17, 2018 at 7:45 pm
Lately I've seen some quips which are really memorable. "Fly fart in a tornado" is great,
and the one by mike k the other day also made my day:
Voting in a crooked system is like pissing in the ocean – it's OK if you have
nothing better to do .
jose , February 17, 2018 at 8:32 pm
You are correct when you assert that : "It's all been gossip and innuendo" Somebody ought
to tell Mr. Mueller " clay, clay, clay for without it, I cannot make bricks" I have not seen
anything remotely resembling hard evidence. This entire Russia debacle reminds me of the 2007
movie of Batman in which at the end the joker states the following: "Madness as you know is
like gravity, all it takes is a little push" The worse part in all this is that millions of
Americans believe this Russia meddeling as a given without demanding any solid prove. The
grip of the American doctrinal system is very powerful, indeed.
Everything written here by Caitlin Johnstone makes sense except that you can't beg a
psychopath to stop what they're doing. Like asking a serial killer not to kill you.
MLS , February 17, 2018 at 11:25 pm
The more I see the same commenters congratulating themselves on their respective
confident, cognitive bias-laden assertions, the more painfully obvious it becomes that while
posters here may know what they have read and heard, none have any clue what is going on.
Where exactly is the factual basis, for example, for this stunning paragraph:
"Well they will not hurt Trump, because there has never been any Trump-Russia collusion.
If there had been it would have been picked up by America's sprawling surveillance networks
and leaked to the Washington Post before the end of 2016, and if Trump were a Putin puppet he
wouldn't be continually escalating toward direct conflict with Russia in ways his predecessor
Obama never would have dreamed of doing. They aren't hurting Trump with these loud cries for
increased sanctions and hawkishness, they're imperiling us all."
?
Because Caitlin said so? If/then theoreticals? Please.
The great Robert Parry did research. Journalistic legwork.
The cynicism olympics of small-time blogsylvania is no substitute.
BobS , February 18, 2018 at 12:11 am
Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.
backwardsevolution , February 18, 2018 at 4:35 am
MLS – well, where's the evidence? Please enlighten us.
My question is, is the American public wittingly or nonwittingly going along for the ride
on this Russia-gate bus to no where?
nonsense factory , February 17, 2018 at 4:00 pm
Based on what looks, at first glance, as widespread censorship of comment sections on this
story in the corporate media across the English-speaking world, I'm guessing that the general
public is not really buying it, outside the hardcore center of wealthy Clinton-Blair
supporters and MIC insiders. That's just my impression, though.
When empires begin to collapse, the centers of wealth and power draw inwards and set up
walls in a desperate bid to retain control; but the harder they try to grasp it the more
slips through their fingers. They also tend to blame external forces for their own
incompetence and Byzantine corruption, which is why all the finger-pointing at Russia. That's
what I'm seeing, anyway.
Prophecy is never to be trusted; who knows how this will turn out? But it sure doesn't
look good for the status quo of the Clinton-Bush-Obama era; those days are likely gone
forever. Trump is ramping up wealth inequality with his massive tax cuts and huge
military-industrial budget – again, much like the end days of the Soviet Union, when
the apparatchiks had their Black Sea villas while the rest of the country lived in
poverty.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 4:06 pm
I'm growing to like hearing from you nonsense factory, thanks for your input. Joe
nonsense factory , February 17, 2018 at 8:24 pm
Thans Joe, I have used a wide variety of outlets to post my samizdat commentary but
Consortium is one of the few places where both the publishers and the commentariat seem to be
honest people, not playing some manipulative game.
Joe Tedesky , February 18, 2018 at 1:36 am
That's great, and you fit right in. Stay with us, we all might learn something. Joe
Earlier in February, according to various Fox and Neoconservative pundits, Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein was close to being labeled "the devil incarnate," the man responsible
for naming Robert Mueller as Special Counsel (and who had basically given him carte
blanche to engage in a slow-burn campaign, an ideological investigative war, based on a
spurious made-up dossier, against President Trump). Calls went out that Rosenstein should be
replaced, even fired.
Now, a few days later -- and thirteen indictments from one of Mueller's grand juries,
announced by the very same Rosenstein, specifically against more "Russian players" who
reportedly "meddled" in the 2016 American elections, but without any connivance by the
Trump campaign -- and Rosenstein is feted as a veritable savior of the republic by those
same commenters. Those Neocons who now selectively support the president and those
bitterly anti-Russian Fox pundits (with the possible exception of Tucker Carlson) are
absolutely giddy with delight! For too long, in their defense of President Trump against the
charge of collusion, they had found themselves in the extremely uncomfortable situation (for
them) of having to mount an attempt to exculpate the Russians, or at least lessen their
culpability.
But now, Rosenstein has presented them with one of those exquisite "Aha!" moments: at last,
the onerous burden of disputing Russian connections with the Trump campaign has been lifted,
but they can still, with more reason, keep those evil Russkies in the cross hairs as the
supreme enemy of America!
And this fits to a tee their ideological predispositions. For the Neocons (and most of the
Fox punditry) -- who are the dominant voice of the so-called contemporary "conservative
movement" and the intellectual brain trust for much of the GOP -- are inveterate Russophobes.
It makes no difference to them that Russia in 2018 is definitely not Russia of the old Soviet
days; it makes little difference to them that since 1991 Russia has emerged as the leading
global power in opposition to the secularist New World Order, and that its political and
cultural trajectory is, if anything, more conservative and traditionalist. They ignore the fact
that Gorbachev voluntarily agreed with George H. W. Bush to dissolve the Warsaw Pact (which he
did), ending the Communist control of Eastern Europe, on condition that the United
States not advance NATO further east (which is exactly what the United States then proceeded to
do). They have repeatedly ignored and rejected Russian overtures for partnership, collaboration
and cooperation (not the subinfeudation and subjection that Paul Wolfowitz and Charles
Krauthammer demanded). They rip out of context Putin's statement that the dissolution of the
old Soviet Union was "a monumental catastrophe" for Russia, failing to understand that his
comments dealt specifically with the radical and disastrous ethnic and political
consequences of the break up, with millions of ethnic Russians now in regions that were always
part of Russia, now separated from the Mother Country, economically adrift and incapable of
true independence.
Back on February 6 , in an effort to briefly explain some of the background for this
zealous Russophobia, I wrote the following in a column:
"The Neocons, of course, owe their intellectual origin decades ago to that other major
stream of Marxist thought, identified with Leon Trotsky and his zealous internationalism.
Early on for those intellectual descendants of Trotsky their opposition to Soviet Communism
was just as much a hatred for Russia, which they saw as anti-Semitic (e.g., the infamous
"doctors' plot") and "reactionary," as it was for what they perceived as Stalin's (and
Brezhnev's) perversion of the original "humanist" and "democratic core" of Marxist theory.
Thus, even with the daily revelations, the reports and all the accounts of skulduggery by
agents of the Deep State that seem to seep out, the narrative of "the Russians Did It!" must
be maintained, by both Progressivists AND the Neocons. Either the Russians and that "new
Hitler" (to use Neocon Max Boot's ill-chosen comparison) Putin were somehow directing Donald
Trump like a puppet master controls a stick puppet, or the Russians and that "new Hitler"
were working with Hillary and the DNC to blacken Donald Trump's good name and unseat him.
Either way "the Russians Did It!"
So, now we hear the news from Rosenstein that thirteen individual Russians and Russian
organizations, beginning back in 2014, two years prior to the 2016 elections (and before
Donald Trump was even mentioned as a real candidate), are charged with "attempted meddling" in
our national elections using mainly the Internet and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
But no American citizens were compromised, and there was no collusion with the Trump
campaign.
Duh. So? This is news? That a major world power spent a paltry million dollars (in a
campaign in which a total of billions of dollars were spent) in some rather uniformly
unsuccessful attempts to "meddle" here?
You would think that the Japs had bombed Pearl Harbor or that Putin's Cossacks had landed
and seized Miami Beach! This story has nearly displaced the tragedy of the school shooting in
Broward County, at least on Fox. With obvious satisfaction, Laura Ingraham (whom I do like on
occasion), intoned on her Fox program: "I've been warning about the Russians for years!" But
when she asked her guest former CIA director Admiral R. James Woolsey if we ever
"meddled" in other countries' elections and governments, he simply laughed a bit nervously and
attempted to avoid answering. (The answer is of course we do and have done so for
decades : Guatemala, Iran, the Kennedy-approved assassination of President Diem, the recent
Ukrainian coup against a popularly-elected but pro-Russian president, our funding of candidates
subservient to our interests -- the list is endless.)
Another Fox pundit, Tucker Carlson on his program, briefly mentioned the "meddling" of
Chinese operatives and organizations in the United States (where literally billions of dollars
have been spent to shape American opinion and a major percentage of American commerce is now
controlled by Beijing). Where is the Special Counsel investigating Chinese "meddling" and
influence on American elections? Where are the congressional committees examining the
extraordinary control by the Chinese of American business?
And what about Mexico which, using its various consulates scattered across the United
States, helped engineer the registration of Mexican voters who would vote in the 2016
American elections? How many of those were -- are -- illegals? Except for such groups as
ALIPAC, NumbersUSA, NC Listen, FAIR, VDare.com, and a few others, not a word and certainly, no
congressional hearings.
Then, there is Saudi Arabia and the billions of oil-based petrodollars that have found their
way into the coffers of American political leaders. When was the last time that you heard a
serious critique of the Saudis (or their virtual, if remote responsibility for much of the
Islamic extremism in the Middle East)?
And, lastly, and most significantly -- and this is the white elephant in the room -- what
about the incredible influence of Israel in American politics? Okay, I recognize that you're
not supposed to notice this, at least not mention it, lest you be labeled an "anti-semite" --
an accusation, a stain, like the charge of racism that is difficult, if not impossible, to
expunge. Yet, can anyone rationally deny the immense influence of Israel -- and its "meddling"
-- in our elections and politics?
I will make no judgments here whether the issues advanced by Israel and its supporters, the
positions pushed, are good or bad, whether they are in our national interest or not. Israel has
been an ally since its foundation in 1948, and the cultural and political bonds between our two
nations have been and are very strong. But that doesn't change the facts: Israel is a major
player in our politics, and such extremely powerful lobbying/public interest groups like AIPAC
(American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) generally serve
the interests of the State of Israel and attempt to identify them with American interests.
"Meddling" is an understatement when it comes to Israel. Remember the Jonathan Pollard
espionage case? Pollard was a major American Israeli spy, whose spying and pilfering of top
American secrets on behalf of Israel got him life imprisonment. And, politically, we only need
to cast a brief glance to the past -- to the defeat of Senators J. William Fulbright (Arkansas)
and Chuck Percy (Illinois), and Congressman Paul Findley (Illinois), and the attempted defeat
of Representative Walter Jones Jr. more recently in North Carolina (e.g, Bill Kristol's
million-dollar campaigns to defeat Jones in GOP primaries) -- all of whom refused to go along
with unquestioning support of a pro-Israeli American agenda, or who raised some embarrassing
questions, even in the most respectful and mildest manner.
Years ago, when working with the founder of the older conservative movement, Dr. Russell
Kirk in Michigan, I met Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, a thoughtful Jewish opponent of Zionism and of
the kind of international entanglements that he sincerely believed gave the Jewish state and
Jews universally a negative reputation. Later on he presented me with copies of his major
documented study on the topic, The Zionist Connection (original edition, 1978, and
revised, 1982), which were revelatory for me.
More recently, Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski's impressively documented, The Transparent Cabal:
The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel
(2008), and Drs. John Mearsheimer's and Stephen Walt's The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign
Policy (2007) have deepened aspects of Dr. Lilienthal analysis. And additional research and
discussion by such writers as Philip Giraldi ( "Are America's Jews
Driving America's Wars," 2017), and such distinguished authors of Jewish descent as
Professors Walter Block ( "Is It Permissible to
Criticize Jews?" January 2018) and Paul Gottfried ( his review of Neil Jumonville's
The New York Intellectuals , 2008, on the relationship between Russian Jewish emigres
centered in New York and their powerful influence in American culture and politics), have
raised questions that should be examined calmly and rationally, but probably won't.
The shadowy Russians purportedly spent a million dollars to "meddle" and "sow confusion" in
American politics, beginning two years before the 2016 elections. And the Neocon narrative, the
template that indicts Russia, is preserved, and that is all you need to know. An anti-Trump
"demonstration" in New York with forty-five sullen attendees, some fake ads on Facebook (which
is literally filled with millions of other fake ads), some cyber interference, some phony URLs
-- and the Russophobes go literally wild.
And all the while the major players in meddling and espionage and influence here in the US
-- they skate, are ignored with a wink-and-a-smile, dollar signs in the eyes of the supposed
guardians of the Republic!
Never mind, Mueller can now further boost his pension prospects by taking a leaf out of
Kenneth Starr's book and start investigating Trumpian payoffs to bimbos, and consider
indictments for adultery. That should give him another couple of years of pensionable Deep
State service.
"I swear that Russiagate is nothing more than trying to cover up the blatant corruption of
the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the FBI, CIA and The Department of Justice. Keep everybody busy with
Russiagate and don't allow the corruption (with the help of the press) to see the light of day.
Otherwise, people in high places would be going to jail.
Notable quotes:
"... As many commentators have pointed out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . . they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with. ..."
"... They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to call "free" in this country. ..."
"... The Thought Police use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who challenge the party's authority and ideology. ..."
"... Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state. ..."
"... What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying to spark a war with Russia? ..."
"... The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. ..."
"... "Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military adventure of all. War with Russia." ..."
"... The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. ..."
"... Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC). ..."
Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens
for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via
public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the
press about it did not deny doing so. Mueller made no links to the Russian government, Putin,
the FSB or even their alleged puppet Donald Trump. Just private individuals being persecuted
for expressing an opinion on American politics in public because they are foreigners. Doesn't
matter whether the opinions were true, false, complementary or disparaging because they were
subjective just like anyone else's opinions (you know, opinions are like a-holes, everybody's
got one).
So, if that move by Mueller is allowed to stand and serve as a precedent in American
jurisprudence, doesn't that mean that journalists from foreign lands, like Caitlin herself,
are at risk of being indicated at any moment by the US Justice Department if they express
opinions that the insiders in the Deep State do not like? And, what about all the foreign
nationals who post here in this forum on this blog? I daresay most offer opinions not
complementary of the US government and its political menagerie. And, to be honest, many do so
in order to either change minds or solidify shared beliefs with others, including great
swirling drifts of snowflake Americans.
This free exchange of thoughts is now to be verboten because someone other than Uncle Sam
may have an influence or even change the mind of a precious American citizen? This is
madness. That the most educated and articulate amongst us do not see this, but rather
participate in the feeding frenzy upon the carcass of what is left of our liberal democracy
is absolutely stupifying. As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must
be imposing a form of mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most
here) seem to be immune to its effects. Maybe something we consume acts as an antidote.
Perhaps your Italian grandma's muffalettas or calzones, Joe? Or my mother's German
rouladen?
Dave P. , February 17, 2018 at 5:01 pm
Realist –
"As I have been saying for some time now, someone or some force must be imposing a form of
mass hypnosis upon the population and only a few of us (including most here) seem to be
immune to its effects."
You are dead right on that. My wife was yelling and screaming last night that why I was
not watching this "Russia trolls" show with her on CNN, MSNBC, and PBS; to learn how the
Russians have destroyed our beautiful democracy. She had seen the World too, mostly for fun
and experiences; she taught English in Malaysia – British colony until 1957 – as
a peace Corps volunteer during 1960's. There you have it. As many commentators have pointed
out, we are a country of completely brain washed people now. Schiff, Schumer, Sanders . . .
they are all cut from the same cloth. There is not one politician left in the country who
will challenge the The Ruling Power Structure's narrative. Even in Russia, there are lot of
opposition leadership voices who are making noises against the System they disagree with.
Gregory Herr , February 17, 2018 at 6:21 pm
They can't make "hacking" stick 'cause it's false. They can't make "Trump is a Putin
puppet" stick 'cause it's false. So now the whole damn dumb show–regurgitated by either
shameless war profiteers or straight-faced useful idiots–comes down to so-called
Russian social media trolls exercising the same "speech" that we are supposedly so proud to
call "free" in this country. They not only take us for moronic fools, but they can't even see
that that they are insulting us further by insinuating that our voting decisions are
completely unsophisticated and easily swayed to the point that 13 Russians could have an
impact amidst a sea of election season campaign "propaganda" from both major parties and an
array of special interest influence peddling. Like the Clinton campaign didn't hire Facebook
trolls!
Bye Bye First Amendment no one in the halls of power takes it seriously enough to defend it
unless you're spouting groupthink right Bernie?
Zachary Smith , February 17, 2018 at 8:00 pm
Essentially, all Mueller did yesterday was to indict a bunch of private Russian citizens
for expressing their opinions about the candidates in the last presidential election via
public media (mainly Facedbook and Twitter), and the individual Russians contacted by the
press about it did not deny doing so.
I'll echo Drew Hunkins in calling this a brilliant condensation of the issue. What worries
me is what the morons-in-charge might have in mind as a follow-up to this lunacy.
CitizenOne , February 18, 2018 at 2:31 am
Perhaps we are entering into the Orwellian dawn of Thought Crimes which are any feelings
or thinking a Citizen has which are counter to the State Propaganda put out by the Ministry
of Truth. The Thought Police (thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the novel
Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is their job to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police
use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who
challenge the party's authority and ideology.
Anyone who has questioned the intelligence agencies narrative that Russians and Trump
colluded to win the election are viewed with suspicion as potential enemies of the state.
It would appear to be allegations of thought crime because 15 foreign nationals posted
things on social media. We have been under the perception that social media is a free forum
for discourse but now, like China, we are seeing the formation of a witch hunt for foreign
devils who have infiltrated the social mediascape and are on trial for the results of a
national election.
We are literally burning some innocent teenager for the calamity we are convinced was not
of our own making. We need to find a witch to brew some witchcraft to explain how our current
situation has arisen.
Not sure if anyone alive today believes the Salem Witch Trials served justice and created
a restoration of civil harmony. I'm fairly sure that everyone looks at those dark days as a
travesty of justice.
Yes we are living in a time of universal deceit and the act of telling the truth has
become a revolutionary act just as Orwell portrayed in his novel.
Thought crimes are fairly scary and they imply that our government is willing to indict
the thoughts of whoever it deems to be an enemy of the state and bring the thinkers of
thought crime as defined by the state as anyone who questions the official fake narrative of
Russia Gate to "justice".
What is the end goal? The end goal is to prop up a long in the tooth multi-decade cold war
with Russia to justify massive military spending. Do you want to know the answer to your
question of whether or not the US defense industry and our intelligence agencies are trying
to spark a war with Russia?
The answer is yes they are. As crazy as that sounds, the hungry defense industry with its
insatiable appetite for more weapons has decided to go for the ultimate win the lottery
strategy and foment war with Russia. It had been happening under Obama and now it is
happening under Trump. They are trying to box him into a corner where he will feel enough
pressure to go against Russia. Perhaps they can goad him into attacking Russia which is what
I believe they want to do. Our national media plays along and is in bed with the intelligence
agencies as much as ever just like they spouted the lies of Chalabi in Iraq War II falsely
believing his claims that Saddam Hussein had nuclear and chemical and biological weapons.
Even the analysis on North Korea which opines that NK will use all weapons first as a
first strike in a scenario the USA has called the "Use it or Lose it" fell short and was
proved a false scenario or that there were really no actual WMDs in Iraq as the UN
claimed.
Either way, the likely outcomes of a WMD armed Iraqi leader facing imminent demise which
would cause him to use all available weapons at his disposal did not happen. There are only
two conclusions to the outcome. Saddam did not have these weapons or the likely scenario of
"Use it or Lose it" is all wrong.
Either way the premise of the war was shown to be false.
Unfortunately in the aftermath of that war there was no US counterpart to the British
Chilcot Report and the US went on to engage in regime change in other nations like Ukraine,
Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
There is no sense to it other than to destabilize nations, foment violence and create
international tensions which have the effect of causing our elected leaders to pony up more
money for defense to combat the new enemies we just created.
Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to
do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military
adventure of all. War with Russia.
I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet
but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media
all the times before.
I agree with you Joe that a form of mass hypnosis has gripped our democrat officials and a
large segment of our population. We have been handed a leader they don't like and they are
ready and able to make hay with the election outcome to persuade us by force to support more
military adventures.
Dave P. , February 18, 2018 at 3:53 am
Citizen One –
"Yet still they want more as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. What they want now to do is to
do the same thing they have been doing under Obama and enlist Trump on the grandest military
adventure of all. War with Russia."
I agree with her assessment that this is crazy. This is the most irresponsible thing yet
but it has been enabled by a fake news press just as it was enabled by the fake news media
all the times before."
Yes. This scenario is getting more and more likely. All steps point to that direction.
Skeptigal , February 17, 2018 at 11:10 pm
Unfortunately I'm not as confident. Here is the complete indictment at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945
. There are three counts (with almost 70 allegations): 1. Conspiracy to Defraud the United
States 2. Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud And Bank Fraud and 3. Aggravated Identity Theft. It
ends with a forfeiture allegation seeking property, real or personal from the defendants.
The Russiagate affair has been going on for almost a year and I would think Mueller is
under a lot of pressure to find something to stick. This indictment may be it. Mueller will
be the hero; Trump may be saved as the interference started in 2014, before his campaign
began; the Hillary emails and Nunes memo will be cast aside; and the USA can say to the world
"see I told you so."
Once again, Russia's reputation will be taken down a few notches and made to suffer
another humiliation. And the US will move on to the next allegation, "UK and US blame Russia
for the malicious NotPetya cyberattack" (headline on BBC).
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 18, 2018 at 1:15 am
If the allegations are true, they need to be put in perspective:
– what might be the rational behind? Eg tit-for-tat for Western meddling, arms
race,
– do other nations engage in similar projects? What are the scale of those?
Starting in 2014 could it have been triggered by the Kiev coup and Nuland's was it five
billion?
This dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia is extremely lucrative for the war
profiteers, the retired generals & intelligence members who prostitute themselves as
media pundits, the members of Congress who get $$$ from the war profiteers, and the corporate
media which thrives on links to the war profiteers as well as on war reporting.
That's why we must all be kept fearful, so we don't demand that annual trillion dollar
military "defense" budgets be slashed and that money instead be spent on social safety net
programs and infrastructure.
That's also why tensions with not only Russia, but Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China
must be maintained, and our endless wars and global empire of military bases continued.
As long as war and militarism are such profitable rackets, it doesn't matter that all life
on earth is threatened. That is the essence of capitalism in a nutshell: profits are more
important than life itself.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 12:55 pm
You got that right, and the sooner the American public wise up to all these lies the
better. If you want this maddening insanity to stop, well then my fellow Americans quit
buying into their lies. Just go ahead and board the damn plane, oh BTW one of the reasons NFL
attendance is down is well think of the new security rules put in place plus who knows the
rules of football anymore (our football is even tainted with screwiness). Sorry for the rant,
but we Americans got to start calling our officials out on this stuff. It's that plain and
simple. Nice post REDPILLED. Joe
Virginia , February 17, 2018 at 1:06 pm
REDPILLED,
I'm just imagining how it must feel, if you're Putin, to be able to rein in your emotions,
to not react no matter how much baited, and to stay above the fray while warmongers, like
dogs, are barking at your feet. That degree of self-composure, resting on a strong necessity
to try to prevent WWIII and nuclear annihilation, well, I'm afraid not many of us will ever
know or feel that exactly, but we can imagine! To do this with grace and dignity, insult
after insult! There are lessons to be learned here.
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 1:10 pm
Virginia we Americans better hope patient Putin stays in power. Joe
irina , February 17, 2018 at 3:19 pm
Exactly. I can't imagine who the Creatures of the Deep think would be a
good successor to Putin, but I do think they should be very careful of
what they wish for. Case in point, the Ukraine. What exactly happened
to "Our Man Yats" anyway ? He seems to have (been ?) disappeared. . .
Joe Tedesky , February 17, 2018 at 3:30 pm
There is a bit of a warring nature still left in this old fighter cat, and during these
imaginary moments of destruction I struggle with I see Russian T72 tanks driving down Maiden
Square looking for old Yats and his friends. Not to worry though, I seriously don't want
anyone, anywhere, to have to suffer even one minute of war, but on a bad day, well need I say
more? Joe
ranney , February 17, 2018 at 5:45 pm
I agree Virginia. I am so depressed by Mueller's actions my head swims. I had hoped that
Mueller was actually an honest investigator who believed in the rule of law as everyone said.
Now I can't imagine what game he is playing. Now it seems like all hope has vanished that
anything even vaguely resembling the truth will come out.. Mueller"s indictments of these
poor people seals the deal: Russia is the evil bugbear that must be destroyed and all right
thinking patriots will agree to that when we launch nuclear war.
I keep feeling like we're all in a Kafka exercise or a Harold Pinter play where motives and
truths are hidden behind an impenatrable wall. Even the new Consortium article by McGovern
and Binney seems to hint at much more than they are telling, leaving me to wish they'd just
come out and say what they are worried about given their knowledge and expertise. Instead I'm
left with the sense that there is a coded message in there that I have missed.
So yes, I too worry about how patient Putin can be when we have already in so many ways
performed a dozen or more acts of war on Russia in the past year and he has not reacted
violently.
p.s. Once again Caitlin has provided great links. Click on one of the first about the
government telling us lies. It'll get you a great 4 minute cartoon based on Chomskys book
Manufacturing Consent. It's about propaganda. You'll like it.
Virginia , February 17, 2018 at 8:50 pm
Ranney -- One thing that has lifted my spirit somewhat, I heard a real thinker say that
the Deep State (DS) is losing ground now because its anointed candidate HRC was defeated in
2016. So 2016 marks a positive time of turning and healing. Putin and Xi seem to both be
working for the good of the world. Wonderful if Donald Trump could drain the swamp and get on
board. Either way, those two Leaders together can lead us out of this morass.
There's a state of thought that remains composed no matter what the valley of the shadow
of death. The more I learn -- and sometimes what I learn is vastly darker than I could ever
conceive -- the deeper grows my joy. It's been a puzzle to me that I could read something
truly devastating here on CN and walk away with more joy than I had before reading it (and
believe me, it's not because of the evil news). It's partly because I'm grateful that my eyes
have been opened. There is absolutely nothing I can do without being well informed about it.
I feel I'm learning all this for a reason; a very real big good reason. Don't you? There's a
state of thought that refuses to be fearful no matter what. Adopt that one, Ranney.
Just look at those Olympiads doing the impossible! They start with, "I can."
Dave P. , February 18, 2018 at 4:07 am
Virginia,
Yes. Regarding the barking dogs, I read some where this Putin's answer to a question a few
days ago on that list of 200 sanctioned Russians put out by U.S. Treasury Department. Putin
said: Let the barking dogs bark, but the caravan goes on.
"... That "faction" is the trump regime (cough) justice department. They are who indicted the 13. Do the math. The trump regime is the "deep state". ..."
"... The 13 indictments were brought by Special Prosecutor Mueller. Due to Jeff Sessions recusal, he is answerable only to Deep State Globalist, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein. 0% Trump involvement. ..."
"... The indictments are so sketchy they are almost certain to collapse. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/16/asst-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-announces-robert-muellers-russian-election-interference-indictments/ ..."
On a related note . it is now apparently illegal to have opposed the Deep State's candidacy
of Hillary for President. 13 people indicted by the US prosecutors for "supporting the
presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton."
The faction in the USA that seems to desperately want a nuclear war is now prosecuting
people who opposed their candidate who virtually promised that nuclear war as a part of her
campaign platform. Trying to save humanity is no defence apparently against charges that one
interfered with the Deep State's plans for nuclear war.
Note, that this is not an isolated ruling. The people like priests and nuns who've
protested against America's nuclear arsenal have had judges rule in court that arguments
about the illegality of such programs (in violation of nuclear non-proliferation treaty) nor
the immorality of planning to kill every living human and wipe out the human race are not
permissible defenses to make against the charges filed against them.
Apparently one is now free to either die in a nuclear holocaust or to spend probably years
in a US prison. The land of the free!
"The faction in the USA that seems to desperately want a nuclear war is now prosecuting
people who opposed their candidate who virtually promised that nuclear war as a part of her
campaign platform."
That "faction" is the trump regime (cough) justice department. They are who indicted
the 13. Do the math. The trump regime is the "deep state".
The 13 indictments were brought by Special Prosecutor Mueller. Due to Jeff Sessions
recusal, he is answerable only to Deep State Globalist, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein. 0% Trump
involvement.
Russia became a standard punch ball in the US political games. As in "Russia dog eat my homework."
Notable quotes:
"... This article is very important and outlines the destructive effort being done to Russia by the USA. It should be noted and clearly displayed by the psychopathic nature of USA meddling in Russian affairs. ..."
"... "With the current uproar about Russia interfering in the USA elections. It has to be noted that the Kremlin is very silent on this subject." ..."
"... It is extremely difficult and time consuming for an ordinary person to find the truth in the millions of pages on the Internet, the ordinary mushroom knowing that the MSM only serves you sh't and keeps you in the dark. ..."
"... Yea, just a common internet malpractice called spoofing, that any IT professional, especially one working in IT security, knows about. I suspected all along that most or all of this "Russian Hacking" and "Russians did it" was exactly that. ..."
With the current uproar about Russia interfering in the USA elections. It has to be noted that the Kremlin is very silent on this
subject. It is more important now than ever to bring forth information from Russia in exposing how serious the problem is from
the USA interfering in not only Russian affairs but how the intelligence community continues unabated in interfering in most countries.
This article is very important and outlines the destructive effort being done to Russia by the USA. It should be noted and
clearly displayed by the psychopathic nature of USA meddling in Russian affairs.
One has to wonder why people cannot see how the current government of the USA is totally out of control around the world.
Everything has its cycle of life and the USA is no exception to this theory. When humanity is controlled in such a fashion,
by that I mean that the USA is supported by the four pillars consisting of GREED, CORRUPTION, POWER and CONTROL. They are sitting
on the top of these structures and are desperately trying to maintain their grip over the world.
Perhaps the purpose is to "open Russia" to debunk those silly "Kremlin hacking" claims and give Empire more important information
inside Russia. E.g how to go deep through military security defense line.
Empire actually don't know what Russia don't know or do know. Is this chess where you have to sacrifice pawn or two or even
knight to secure queen and king? Or why to shoot fly with cannon?
"One has to wonder why people cannot see how the current government of the USA is totally out of control around the world." end
quote.
It is extremely difficult and time consuming for an ordinary person to find the truth in the millions of pages on the Internet,
the ordinary mushroom knowing that the MSM only serves you sh't and keeps you in the dark. The most reliable method (not
100 % though) is the "Follow the money" method, who has to gain by this or that development, but even that can lead to false conclusions.
Always count on that everyone has a hidden agenda, but watch out you are not gripped by paranoia.
Yea, just a common internet malpractice called spoofing, that any IT professional, especially one working in IT security,
knows about. I suspected all along that most or all of this "Russian Hacking" and "Russians did it" was exactly that.
What a pathetic waste of time. American society and government are really getting very low.
And, of course, reality is actually defined as "what you cannot change by speaking about it". You can change reality, a very
little bit at a time, by doing honest physical work.
"... Much later, in mid-2013, the idea of Shaltay-Boltay appeared. ..."
"... Anikeev had sources of information, the information itself, important and interesting one. Anikeev decided to leave the information and analytical structure for which he had been working, and start his own project. ..."
"... His role has been greatly exaggerated. He's just our mutual old friend. When we were getting significant numbers of files that had to be processed, we would ask Teplyakov to help, for a fee. We knew him and trusted him. ..."
"... Just then, I was beginning to get annoyed with the country, I decided to go to Thailand. When I started discussing this project with Anikeev, it seemed okay: you could engage in an interesting and promising business from home. What did I expect in financial terms? Definitely not the sale of arrays of information. I was rather thinking about advertising or administration fee. Lite-version. ..."
"... All the information came from Anikeev. I published the received information, perhaps, by illegal means, but I have nothing to do with how it was obtained. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the former President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves. I think by our actions, especially in 2014, when we were working on the idea, I deserved asylum in Estonia. So far no response was received. ..."
"... The Anonymous International published a lot of information from the correspondence of officials and businessmen between 2014 and 2016. Among the disclosed information was Dmitry Medvedev's hacked Twitter, and e-mail, Facebook, iPhone and iPad of owner of NewsMedia Holding Aram Gabrellyanov; e-mail and WhatsApp of TV host Dmitry Kiselev, official correspondence between the employees of "Prosecutor's Office" and the "Ministry of State Security" of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, and a lot of other, equally interesting information. ..."
"... Before Anikeev's detention, Shaltay-Boltay also obtained the correspondence of the presidential assistant Vladislav Surkov. ..."
St. Petersburg programmer Alexander Glazastikov, who was hiding under the mask of Shaltay-Boltay (Humpty Dumpty), hoping for a
political asylum reached out to the former President of Estonia. He is the only member of Anonymous International who remains at
large.
Fontanka has been chasing the last Shaltay-Boltay member for a week. One member of the mysterious hacker group, which has been
leaking e-mails of businessmen and officials for three years was found in Estonia, but shied away from a direct talk.
After the news came that Anonymous International members Vladimir Anikeev, Konstantin Teplyakov, and Filinov were arrested, it
was not difficult to single out their colleague Alexander Glazastikov. The 'scary hackers' themselves, as it turned out, were quite
unrestrained on social networks and left striking marks on the Internet.
Five days ago, Alexander Glazastikov gave an evasive answer to the straight question sent by Fontanka via e-mail. Three days ago,
he admitted to being one of the Anonymous International on condition of anonymity. Then, he agreed to an interview saying "Come to
Estonia".
When, on the arranged day, a Fontanka reporter arrived to Tartu, Alexander dropped a bombshell: "I'm on my way to Tallinn: already
twenty kilometers away from Tartu." He suggested: "I can wait at the gas station Valmaotsa. Drive up, let's go together." It was
the offer, from which one cannot refuse. A taxi was found quickly.
When the meeting took place, the Shaltay-Boltay member, who was easily recognizable due to the photos from the web, surprised
the journalist once again: he silently passed him the ignition keys from the SUV. After a question, he explained: "You will have
to drive, I was drinking beer while waiting." There wasn't much of a choice, and the correspondent of Fontanka drove the hackers
group member to Tallinn to meet with the crew of Dozhd TV-channel and Ksenia Sobchak. 180 kilometers and two hours of time was enough
to have a decent conversation.
- Alexander, you are probably the only member of the Anonymous International who managed to remain at large. You're in Estonia,
the Russian justice is far away, can I call you by your name and surname?
- Perhaps, you can. Anyway, tomorrow or the day after, I will officially reach out to the authorities for a political asylum.
The FSB already knows my name.
- They know the surname. And who are you in the Anonymous International: Shaltay or Boltay?
- Shaltay, Boltay ... what a mess. Initially, when starting this project, Shaltay-Boltay was supposed to be a spokesman for the
Anonymous International. Mainly, I was doing this job. Then, Anikeev started introducing himself to the reporters as Lewis and got
everyone confused.
- How many people initiated the Anonymous International?
- Me, Anikeev. Teplyakov helped with some things, but purely technical aspects.
- Who is Filinov, whose arrest was reported in connection with Shaltay-Boltay?
- I don't know the man. He was not involved in the creation of the Anonymous International. I think this is Anikeev's acquaintance,
who accidentally got under the press. I've heard his name for the first time, when the media wrote about his arrest.
- Have you known Anikeev and Teplyakov for a long time?
- For a long time... There was a resource called Damochka.ru. When basically no social networks existed, and VKontakte only began
to emerge, everyone was on this website, it was one of the most fun projects. In the real world, meetings of the website users were
held, some users just organized those parties – Dima Gryzlov, Nikolai Bondarik, and Anikeev. That's how we met. Much later, in
mid-2013, the idea of Shaltay-Boltay appeared.
- How? Did you just decide that you would steal e-mails of bad people?
- Anikeev had sources of information, the information itself, important and interesting one. Anikeev decided to leave the
information and analytical structure for which he had been working, and start his own project.
- Could this project be called a business?
- It depends It was assumed that the project will bring substantial financial result, but initially it was made partly out of
ideological considerations.
- But Anikeev is not a hacker at all, judging by the stories of his former colleagues.
- True. If he needed to install any software on the computer, he would usually ask me to do it.
- But Teplyakov is a programmer.
- His role has been greatly exaggerated. He's just our mutual old friend. When we were getting significant numbers of files
that had to be processed, we would ask Teplyakov to help, for a fee. We knew him and trusted him.
- And why did you join this project?
- Just then, I was beginning to get annoyed with the country, I decided to go to Thailand. When I started discussing this
project with Anikeev, it seemed okay: you could engage in an interesting and promising business from home. What did I expect in financial
terms? Definitely not the sale of arrays of information. I was rather thinking about advertising or administration fee. Lite-version.
- With a reference to the investigation, there was information that Shaltay-Boltay has a whole network of agents with special
equipment, who, at places popular among local officials, steal information by creating fake Wi-Fi connections. Do you have a network?
- Complete nonsense. There were discussions about getting to know technical possibilities like this. As far as I know, and I know
a lot, in fact, we didn't have it.
- Where did you get the information from, then?
- From specialized hacking sites, one can order hacking someone else's e-mail box for a few thousand rubles.
- It worked successfully. If you remember 2014 was the most fruitful year. Serious stories, serious figures, and no commerce.
Strelkov, Prigozhin...
- Out of the three years that the project existed, 2014 was the most significant. I am proud of that year.
- But, from 2015, the Anonymous International has become almost a purely commercial project. How much money did you manage
to earn?
- Only one or two million dollars.
- So, you are now a rich man?
- No. Most of the money was spent on operating expenses, so to speak. There were about fifty boxes in the work. Plus, there were
variants in which a transaction was made not via bitcoins, but with the help of Anikeev's friends; these intermediaries could ask
for two thirds of the whole amount.
- Was there anyone above you and Anikeev? For several years, people have been wondering who Shaltay-Boltay works for?
- Funny. Everyone is looking for conspiracy, but, in fact, it was a 'quick and dirty' project made by me and Anikeev. However,
at some point, in the summer or in the spring of 2016, Anikeev said that some person from the FSB found us, he knew our names. Allegedly,
military counterintelligence was looking for us, but the FSB found our meadow attractive and decided to take control of our petty
pranks. They, supposedly, were uninterested in the commercial part of the project: the scale was much bigger, but they wanted to
supervise the project and to have the veto right. Mikhailov's name was not voiced, in fact, no one's was. Nothing, actually, happened:
no one used the veto right and no one leaked any information. If these mysterious people existed at all. And who turned whom in:
they – Anikeev or Anikeev – them, or even third force got them all, I do not know.
- How quickly did you find out about Anikeev's arrest?
- The next morning. He sent me a selfie from Pulkovo Airport, wrote that he checked in and flies to Minsk. The next morning, it
was reported that he was arrested and transported to Moscow. Given the subsequent events, it could be the game of the FSB. Then,
he contacted me, convinced that he solved all the issues and now works under the control of the FSB, called in me to Russia, but
I didn't believe him for some reason.
- Did Teplyakov believe?
- Teplyakov, in the summer of 2016, moved from Thailand to Kiev. He had no permanent earnings, he depended on Anikeev. When the
game was on, and it was claimed that the project would continue, but he needs to come to Russia and work there under supervision,
for safety reasons, as well, Teplyakov didn't have much of a choice. He went to Russia.
- Is there somewhere a chest with Shaltay-Boltay's information?
- Good question. I need to think how to respond. Well no, not really. What was sold and purchased by the clients was deleted.
What was sold was fairly deleted and this information doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps, some of our customers are now concerned about
this question, but what was declared, was implemented. Some operative material that we had been working on, I also deleted. Maybe
a couple of screenshots were left in the trash bin, but nothing more.
- Alexander, you're going to submit a request for a political asylum. Aren't you afraid that Estonians will simply put you
in a cell? In this country, they are very sensitive to computer security, and the specificity of computer crimes lies in the fact
that, for committing them, one can be prosecuted in almost any country?
- My position is that I was not personally involved in the cracking of passwords and sending malicious links. To me all that information
was already delivered in an open form. Yes, it was, probably, stolen...
- So were you ordering its thefts or not?
- No.
- Who did, then?
- All the information came from Anikeev. I published the received information, perhaps, by illegal means, but I have nothing
to do with how it was obtained. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the former President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves. I think by our
actions, especially in 2014, when we were working on the idea, I deserved asylum in Estonia. So far no response was received.
We drove to Tallinn. More and more texts came to Alexander's telephonefrom Dozhd TV journalists, who were preparing
to shoot with Ksenia Sobchak. After leaving the car in the parking lot, we said goodbye. Alexander Glazastikov promised to inform
when he receives a reply from the Estonian government.
It is to be recalled that Glazastikov's colleagues from the Anonymous International are awaiting trial in a predetention center.
The law enforcement agencies arrested Vladimir Anikeev and his two probable accomplices: Konstantin Teplyakov and Alexander Filinov.
The latter two were arrested as early as November 2016, and, on February 1, the judge of the Lefortovo District Court of Moscow extended
their detention until April. The alleged leader of the Anonymous International, who was acting under the nickname Lewis, was arrested
on January 28 after a short time spent in the company of police officers; he confessed.
All three are charged with the crimes stipulated under part 3 of Art. 272 of the Russian Criminal Code (Illegal access to legally-protected
computer information, which caused a major damage or has been committed because of vested interest or committed by a group of persons
by previous concert through his/her official position).
Initially, the media associated their criminal case with the investigation on the FSB staff and the manager of the Kaspersky Lab,
who were accused of treason, but later, the lawyer of one of the defendants denied this information.
The Anonymous International published a lot of information from the correspondence of officials and businessmen between 2014
and 2016. Among the disclosed information was Dmitry Medvedev's hacked Twitter, and e-mail, Facebook, iPhone and iPad of owner of
NewsMedia Holding Aram Gabrellyanov; e-mail and WhatsApp of TV host Dmitry Kiselev, official correspondence between the employees
of "Prosecutor's Office" and the "Ministry of State Security" of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, and a lot of other,
equally interesting information.
Before Anikeev's detention, Shaltay-Boltay also obtained the correspondence of the presidential assistant Vladislav Surkov.
Taking oil price to 30th or 40th is a strategic goal of the USA in relation to Russia. Listen at 3:30.
Notable quotes:
"... Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years. ..."
"... You are exactly right. U$ politicians are uninformed, stupid, detached from reality, selfish and they think like schoolyard kids do. ..."
"... They are the product of the US society as a whole. ..."
"... Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them". ..."
"... In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of power? ..."
"... I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors. ..."
"... The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin). ..."
"... Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election, 2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States. ..."
"... What an admission! trump doesn't want more drilling for oil to Americans to use. It is for export and for foreign interference ..."
"... and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too ..."
Another tiresome, butthurt yank/wank? Between the new One Belt, One Road Chinese initiative, the Russians taking control of
ME oil production and the fact that america has NO answers to help it's declining empire, it would seem to the non-partisan observer
that america is well and truly f***ed. You must be talking about their debt expansionism, $20 TRILLION and rising by the second.
Thank you Mario......let's not forget Ukraine, Kosovo, Bosnia, the entirety of eastern Europe, the entirety of northern Africa,
Rwanda, the Congo, Venezuela, Chili, Guatemala, Panama, Jeeeeeeeze etc......
Russia condemned and defined as the enemy of America with laughably little evidence (effing Facebook posts being about the
extent of it) .... not a word about JEWISH MONEY controlling the entire political system in the USA. When Netanyahu gets 29 standing
ovations from Congress should that not have triggered an FBI "Investigation"? Nah ... nothing happening there. It is breathtaking
that THIS is the Alice-In-Wonderland world we inhabit.
Appeasing interview with a shockingly cheap incompetent former CIA head Woolsey. If this man seriously represents the intellectual
level of the CIA, then the USA will implode even faster than in ten years.
Craig Murray nailed this issue stone dead for all time a few years ago, when he wrote:"[neo]liberal interventionism, the theory that bombing brown people is good for them".
Yeah, that's hilarious. Join the murdering creep in a giggle, Laura, that's cute. Here's a global criminal who should have
been hung years ago for crimes against humanity. No one in their right mind would treat this creep with anything but contempt
and horror, let alone find him funny.
In the former The Ukraine, the Jewish Quisling oligarch dictator, Poroshenko, has been appointing foreigners to positions of
power (SackOfShvilli is but one). He supported this by stating: "Ukrainians are too corrupt to rule themselves." When will we
in America hear such a statement from our leaders to justify the appointment of Jews and paid Judaeophiles to all positions of
power?
My profound and sincere condolences. You are getting the 'Democracy Treatment' by the West. I hope some of you survive to tell
the tale and take revenge.
Are those ears or bat-wings? WOW! Yet another Jewe, pretending not be be. I guess he would say that the USA murdered all the
Indians and enslaved Africans 'for their own good' as well.
Talmudo-Satanism is the pernicious underlying ideology of the people who have taken over, not just the USA, but, lets face it,
the entire West.
Lets not forget that the U.$.A. meddled in Australia's election of the Whitlam Government. (And several governments there after
as soon as they realised they could get away with it an nothing would happen to them). The United States are a bunch of sick puppies;
really sick puppies the way they have treated Australia.
So much for being allies. With allies like the United States you don't need enemies (Unless the U.$. doctors them up for you
to force you to pay them more money for weapons and protection).
And it makes me sick that so many 'naive' people around the world keep falling for the SH*T that comes out of their mouths.
When dealing with the United States there are a few rules to follow. (Apologies to the innocent Americans out there but 'they'
allow their government to do some unspeakable horrors to the world.)
Rule One: If an American politician is speaking, then they are lying to you.
Rule Two: If an American Politician is quiet, they they want you to believe a lie.
Rule Three: If you have relations with the United States, you will be lied to.
And that goes for the entire planet no matter who the United States is speaking to.
Worst part is the our Gov can't think ahead, if they keep antagonising China on behalf of the Seppo's China will eventually
pull their mineral imports and our economy will crash overnight.
Yes, nobody doubts that the US interferes with elections in other countries - we're the good guys, so this is ok :)
I'm just waiting for Yevgeny Prigozhin to hold a press conference in Russia to claim that Hillary Clinton paid him to run the
Internet Research Agency to besmirch her opponent- watch the fireworks :) It's all a hall of mirrors.
The Internet Research Agency couldn't have possibly been more ineffective, which points to it's main purpose being to besmirch
Trump (more more likely it was just an unimportant hobby of Prigozhin).
Sure the United States has, they have been doing it since 1953 with the overthrow of Iran, to as recently as 2012 Russian Election,
2014 Ukraine Election, the UK referendum on 23 June 2016 on Brexit and currently trying to overthrow it this year. These are just
a few and there is a very long list of other countries also. The United States in now in Russia and Hungry today meddling it their
elections. Got to get the right people in office so they will cow-tow to the United States.
Frederick the Great concluded that to allow governments to be dominated by the majority would be
disastrous: "A democracy, to survive, must be, like other governments a minority persuading a majority to let itself be led by
a minority."
and if the price of oil would go down to 30/40$ that would make a unhappy input and so would be the saudis and you fracking
industry would go down the toilet and thy will drag the banks with them. What a moron. And US oil companies would like that alot too
...and the US bombed half of the world's countries for their own good too. US made Libya a slave market for humanity's good
as well. Oboomer even got the Nobel Peace Prize for it.
"... . As usual, the most appropriate response amounts to contemptuous, refined amusement ..."
"... It's not as though we have a lack of ludicrous, ridiculous material. As the inventor of this site once described, how did the people in the late-era Soviet Union fight their declining regime? Jokes. ..."
Frankly, I don't really see too big a problem with people swallowing the hogwash about "Kremlin disinformation trolls" working
to undermine the West's irrepressible belief in itself. As usual, the most appropriate response amounts to contemptuous,
refined amusement:
"They seem to know indeed what they are talking about -- well worth their salary for doing
honest work."
If you cannot change the Weltanschau of Ziomedia addicts, then at least you're fully
entitled to have some fun at the slobs' expense.
Absolutely, humor is one of the best weapons around. The more pompous a person is, the more
they hate being dropped down to size. Pop goes the balloon of hot air.
Humor has probably
woken more people up than any other method.
It's not as though we have a lack of ludicrous,
ridiculous material. As the inventor of this site once described, how did the people in the
late-era Soviet Union fight their declining regime? Jokes.
"... What this guy did (who is not "Putin's Chef", a term that uses the ever-favorite smear of putting something next to Putin to make people think there is guilt among both parties) is what every sleazy purveyor of fake profiles and fake likes does. If you have done any work in marketing or social platforms, you will have seen dozens of the same outfits. ..."
"... They're also happy to sell you ads that will target these fake people, pocketing the cash without achieving any results for the business owner buying the ads. Meanwhile, the US Cointelpro operation continues, masquerading as an actual investigatio ..."
"... Of course the New York Times and Washington Post have reacted to this like US Cavalry coming to the rescue in the last reel of a 1950's B-movie by demanding that Trump apologizes and accepts that their stories about Russian interference in the elections, were true and had nothing to do with 'fake news.' How convenient for them! After all this time, this is what Mueller can come up with, give me a break! ..."
"... Maybe they should sue Mueller for libel, go on the offensive? So Mueller's accusations are 'free', cause he knows the Russians can't really reply. It's a kind of smear. ..."
"... And what about conflating 'Russians' with 'Russia' all the time? A hacker or troll living in Russia doesn't represent 'Russia.' There's this ghastly wave of hysteria sweeping the United States and it's dangerous. ..."
"... With this indictment: Rod Rosenstein has come clean and delivered on solemn oath that the entire Russiagate farrago is baseless and evidence free. The only thing he has truly indicted is the obvious and continually developing disassociation of the American ruling class psyche from reality. ..."
"... "'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." ..."
"... An empire of unreality that can no longer be connected to the experiential, discernible and true. Such men are the architects of the demise of the dominant culture of lies? ..."
"... "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." – Sol Wachtler ..."
"... Well, they (Cocaine Importing Authority) do have history ..."
"... I personally know almost all pro-Russian English-speakers that have an influence on English language alternative and social media. None of them are Russians. If they ever were, they emigrated decades ago. There is no one that can translate Russian talking points from Russian society and media into the English speaking world. ..."
"... When will we discover who in Britain gave Steele authority to send his Dossier to the Clinton campaign? He needed that approval because the information was gleaned when in post as the Head of the Russian Desk of MI6 in quite recent times, apart from the normal requirements of the Official Secrets Act. Given that MI6 are an Intelligence Agency it's fair to assume they knew the Dossier's destination and the purpose to which it was to be put. Wasn't that interfering in the US election? ..."
"... The absurdity is that America spends billions on doing exactly these sort of things. $5 billion on Ukraine before pulling off the coup, according to Nuland. But that's just a crumb of the total mis-information cake. It's what the CIA spends most of its time doing! ..."
"... Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries. ..."
"... About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million). ..."
"... The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used for some clandestine purpose. ..."
"... But let's be clear, by "democracy building programs" they mean sending in NGOs to promote the "values" of austerity and debt, and they mean funding candidates for elections approved by the IMF because they have agreed to promote austerity and debt. They aren't promoting democracy, they are promoting the western political belief system. They are also acting to disenfranchise and discredit people who don't support this system. Just as Yeltsin in Russia, so Yarushenko, Yatseniuk & Poroshenko in Ukraine – men prepare to tank the standard of living for ordinary people and asset-strip the country. ..."
"... An indictment is simply an accusation. Since all 13 (what a magical number) of these people are in Russia, and there's no extradition agreement with Russia, they will never be able to get a trial to exonerate themselves. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Clinton was running a fraudulent charity and accepted 145 million dollars in "donations" from Russian Banks. ..."
What this guy did (who is not "Putin's Chef", a
term that uses the ever-favorite smear of putting something next to Putin to make people
think there is guilt among both parties) is what every sleazy purveyor of fake profiles and
fake likes does. If you have done any work in marketing or social platforms, you will have
seen dozens of the same outfits.
I've even seen them in operation, delivering tons of fake
followers and such. The goal is straight up sleazy commerce, and it should be noted that ALL
the social platforms, especially Facebook, not only tolerate this but turn a blind eye as it
makes their platform appear to have more users than it actually does.
They're also happy to
sell you ads that will target these fake people, pocketing the cash without achieving any
results for the business owner buying the ads. Meanwhile, the US Cointelpro operation
continues, masquerading as an actual investigation.
It's a really awful sign of the times we live in, when the Guardian, supposedly a
beacon of truth and true liberal, left-of-centre values, is so eager to swallow stuff like
this latest report from Mueller on face value alone without any examination of the wider
internal US context; the people and forces Mueller represent.
Of course the New York Times and Washington Post have reacted to this like US Cavalry
coming to the rescue in the last reel of a 1950's B-movie by demanding that Trump apologizes
and accepts that their stories about Russian interference in the elections, were true and had
nothing to do with 'fake news.' How convenient for them! After all this time, this is what
Mueller can come up with, give me a break!
It's all so pathetic. There's no way these Russians will receive a fair trial in the
US, even if they decided to turn up for a hearing. Maybe they should sue Mueller for libel,
go on the offensive? So Mueller's accusations are 'free', cause he knows the Russians can't
really reply. It's a kind of smear.
And what about conflating 'Russians' with 'Russia' all the time? A hacker or troll
living in Russia doesn't represent 'Russia.' There's this ghastly wave of hysteria sweeping
the United States and it's dangerous. What's appalling is how the left/liberal press,
typified by the ghastly Guardian, goes along with it all, without a murmur of protest,
criticism or real searching analysis.
The title and description of the linked article is right from the Time Magazine web
site:
(( Yanks to the Rescue: the Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win
))
article description from Time's site –
"THE SECRET STORY OF HOW FOUR U.S. ADVISERS USED POLLS, FOCUS GROUPS, NEGATIVE ADS AND
ALL THE OTHER TECHNIQUES OF AMERICAN CAMPAIGNING TO HELP BORIS YELTSIN WIN"
What we do 'in secret' we must expect to be secretly arraigned against us, and the
knowledge that we do such thinks enforces the conviction the 'Other' is a deceiver, whatever
they say or do. Because such is our own false witness.
With this indictment: Rod Rosenstein has come clean and delivered on solemn oath that the
entire Russiagate farrago is baseless and evidence free. The only thing he has truly indicted
is the obvious and continually developing disassociation of the American ruling class psyche
from reality.
"'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."
An empire of unreality that can no longer be connected to the experiential, discernible
and true. Such men are the architects of the demise of the dominant culture of lies?
Well the fact you find it per se impossible the CIA would run a fake "Russian troll"
outfit says more about your utter naivety than anything else. I'm not completely convinced
that is what is going on in Savushkina Street. I think MoA is closer in pointing out it's
just a slightly dodgy internet marketing outfit who are paid to say nice or nasty things
about a whole range of things, mostly non-political.
Well we had Goldman Sachs CEO splashed all over the BBC website demanding UK remain in EU.
After the Referendum. We had The Black Dude threatening to send us to the back of the queue
if we were not subservient little vassals voting Remain. That was Headline News too. None of
us asked the Black Dude to interfere in Our Referendum, but he did it anyway, because America
does what it wants and everyone else gets indicted if they do the same thing back.
Just ask yourselves this: if you had a mad dog fascist HillaryBilly campaigning for US
President saying: ' NUKE (insert your nation's name HERE)!', you would just sit by and say,
'Oh, none of my business'.
Basic lesson to subnormal, cretinous Yanks: as soon as your election campaigns on
foreign wars, foreign blockades, foreign threats to nation state sovereignty, it is no longer
just your business. Any politician eho says otherwise, in fact any Yank who says otherwise,
has lost all right to human rights. Why? Because you have said that the right to safety
within a doctrine of self-determination for the rest of the world does not exist without
kissing America's ass .
Stop treating Americans as anything other than violent, psychopathic cretins who should
be incarcerated for the safety of the world.
It is pointless treating them as human beings when they never behave like human beings
..
I treat others as I would in truth be treated, not as a result of any set of rules of
'deservability' made in my mind or acquired from any other, but because such is a core sanity
of being that does not give worthship to hate and thereby become the think it hates.
Oh I can feel hateful feelings – but these are MINE. and as mine they are in my power
to release, rather than be defined and driven by.
So I appreciate your points, but not your personal result.
The elites operate on this sort of thinking:
"It is pointless treating them as human beings when they never behave like human beings
."
WHO defines what is a human being and how they 'should' behave?
A set of rules?
I agree that cause and consequence belong together – for only in recognising and
accepting consequence can we reconnect with true cause – and so cause a different life
than an attempt to deny and displace consequence to 'others' deemed unlike our self.
Power class operates (manipulates) its population while people use others (manipulate)
to evade their own responsibilities ie they give power away in exchange for what they get, or
believe they have got rid of. For example, they have got rid of guilt by assigning blame to
others who failed to act as their 'rules' required. Except the results of guilt are still
active in their own minds and bodies and not in those who 'fail us'.
Manipulation in a pure sense would be for example holding a tool correctly so as to
attain the desired result, but in the sense of manipulative deceit, it holds the
consciousness in distortion so as to achieve a wished for result.
Manipulative thinking – not Americans – runs the global agenda – and
whatever agencies serve purpose, including the USA. It does so while conferring some sense of
power and protection, in self specialness.
If you are too angry to read and consider, that's ok. But to assign it to a blanket
blaming of Americans as unworthy of their humanity is playing the 'god' of vengeance. Perhaps
this 'god' is the nature of the Beast.
Playing 'god' is the attempt to make reality be as your own Word defines. The lack of
support, encountered rejection and sense of betrayal that follows is the 'wound' of a terror
that generates the 'god' of rage as power and protection.
With regard to 'headline news', what ISN'T a psyop?
Whilst I fully appreciate the wisdom in removing the log from your own eye before you
touch the splinter in someone else's eye, there comes a time when you have to take the f***er
out.
Mueller's indictment rests on the false claim that the suspended 'Russia-connected'
Twitter and Facebook accounts were controlled by a non-existent company and 13
Russian individuals in Saint Petersburg. The only thing that connects the anonymous U.S.
accounts to Russia or the hoax " Internet Research
Agency " is that they may have used some Russian VPN service to hide their identities
from NSA and FBI spies.
Twitter and Facebook self suspended the accounts based on some connection to Russia,
including use of Russian IP addresses or Cyrillic letters in administrator names. They had no
way of knowing if all accounts were controlled from a single "troll factory" or if that troll
factory was operated by a company named "Internet Research Agency". (If they had such
information, they would have said so.)
The whole thing is hoax. It is impossible for Russians to impersonate American internet
personalities, when they are unable to speak up in English under their own names. Russia does
not have the people and skills needed to maintain English language accounts that would
influence and resonate among the American audience and electorate – yet alone do this
at a minimum wage in a "troll factory" sweatshop.
I personally know almost all pro-Russian English-speakers that have an influence on
English language alternative and social media. None of them are Russians. If they ever were,
they emigrated decades ago. There is no one that can translate Russian talking points from
Russian society and media into the English speaking world.
The amerikans will be relying on the Russians never getting their day in an open court.
Can't have a repetition of the George Galloway business see here now can we?
The 'grand' jury process is even more corrupt deceitful and one sided than so called senate
inquiries. At least with shit hurled from the hill, a bloke does eventually get the
opportunity to speak against the allegations – albeit in a controlled environment where
the accuser chairs the meeting, but a Grand Jury, which is similarly controlled by the
prosecutor, provides no room for a defense argument.
The carefully hand selected 'jurors' unlike amerika's senators, most of whom are graduates of
amerika's prestigious law schools, lack any legal training.
The law they are charged with investigating breaches of, is complex, riven with contradictory
precedents and completely outside any retired contractor's area of expertise. So they rely on
the prosecutor to tell em what's what.
amerikans are forthright in their condemnation of everyone else's legal system but the
amerikan one has to be the most corrupt power serving travesty known to man.
Ask J. Assange who lives under the shadow of a so-called 'sealed indictment' which he's not
even meant to know exists, much less what is contained in it and what deceits have been told
by alleged 'co-conspirators' aka jailhouse snitches.
Assange will find out should he ever be kidnapped and abducted to amerika and held in
solitary isolation under the 1917 espionage act – otherwise like many others including
hundreds who have never even set foot in that arsehole of the universe, the us, also stitched
up by grand jury, he must live in ignorance of the accusations and with no right of
reply.
Thank you for the link to George Galloway's interrogation. He sure told them in no
uncertain terms. The US justice system seems to be corrupt beyond redemption. So glad I don't
live there and feel sorry for the ones that do to be honest.
When will we discover who in Britain gave Steele authority to send his Dossier to the
Clinton campaign? He needed that approval because the information was gleaned when in post as
the Head of the Russian Desk of MI6 in quite recent times, apart from the normal requirements
of the Official Secrets Act. Given that MI6 are an Intelligence Agency it's fair to assume
they knew the Dossier's destination and the purpose to which it was to be put. Wasn't that
interfering in the US election?
Former intel analyst and regular UK Column guest, Alex Thomson, named Sir Richard Dearlove
(he of dodgy dossier No1, seems to have had a hand in dodgy dossier N02?) However, I can't
find the exact day or time for reference.
The absurdity is that America spends billions on doing exactly these sort of things. $5
billion on Ukraine before pulling off the coup, according to Nuland. But that's just a crumb
of the total mis-information cake. It's what the CIA spends most of its time doing!
Politifact directly asked the State Department and looked at public information
released by the U.S. government since 2009 to sample what the money was spent on:
Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building
programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State
via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy,
Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries.
About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include
military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics
abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with
the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people"
($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300
million).
The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used
for some clandestine purpose.
But even if it that were so, the money in question was spent over more than 20 years.
Yanukovych was elected in 2010. So any connection between the protests and the $5 billion is
inaccurate.
The State Department created ForeignAssistance.gov to help taxpayers, journalists and
others find out where the money is going, but the data is limited in the number of years
available and not reported by all agencies.
From that website, we calculated the United States spent $456.4 million in Ukraine
since 2009. Again, that's an incomplete picture based on incomplete data reporting.
Some examples? The United States spent about $20 million on Peace Corps programs in
Ukraine over the past four years. It spent about $40 million through U.S. AID on health
programs in the countries since 2010 -- fighting HIV/AIDs, malaria and providing for maternal
and child health. The United States spent an additional $80 million or so working on projects
related to weapons of mass destruction , according to ForeignAssistance.gov.
Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building
programs in Ukraine .
But let's be clear, by "democracy building programs" they mean sending in NGOs to
promote the "values" of austerity and debt, and they mean funding candidates for elections
approved by the IMF because they have agreed to promote austerity and debt. They aren't
promoting democracy, they are promoting the western political belief system. They are also
acting to disenfranchise and discredit people who don't support this system. Just as Yeltsin
in Russia, so Yarushenko, Yatseniuk & Poroshenko in Ukraine – men prepare to tank
the standard of living for ordinary people and asset-strip the country.
Whether that $5 billion was spent over ten years or twenty the result has been the
same.
The United States spent about $20 million on Peace Corps programs in Ukraine over the
past four years. It spent about $40 million through U.S. AID on health programs in the
countries since 2010 -- fighting HIV/AIDs, malaria and providing for maternal and child
health. The United States spent an additional $80 million or so working on projects related
to weapons of mass destruction, according to ForeignAssistance.gov.
Have you noticed how whatever money is allegedly spent on this worthy projects the
countries receiving never seem to improve? They all become debt-slaves, they all end up
exporting cheap goods to western countries and letting the IMF tell them how to run
things.
An indictment is simply an accusation. Since all 13 (what a magical number) of these
people are in Russia, and there's no extradition agreement with Russia, they will never be
able to get a trial to exonerate themselves.
Meanwhile, Clinton was running a fraudulent charity and accepted 145 million dollars in
"donations" from Russian Banks..
"... There is no possibility that any of the Russians named in the indictment will ever be extradited to the US to stand trial there. Special Counsel Mueller cannot therefore obtain convictions against these people, which begs the question of why an indictment was issued at all. ..."
"... The short answer is that the indictment is intended to give credence to the claim of 'Russian meddling' in the US election, which has been made both privately and publicly ever since campaigning in the US began in 2015. ..."
"... Presumably, by giving that claim credence, more reasons can now be offered for keeping Special Counsel Mueller in his job. ..."
"... Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian government or any agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the indictment is it suggested that any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian government or were acting under its instructions or on its behalf. ..."
"... I would add that the indictment shows that US intelligence has successfully hacked the Internet Research Agency, LCC, a fact which by the way suggests that its internal security systems are very weak. The result is that US intelligence is very well informed about its structure, funding, personnel and activities. ..."
Indictment describes botched and
amateur attempt to use social media, but no one in the Trump Campaign was involved
A recurring pattern of the Russiagate investigation is that whenever pressure increases on the FBI and on
Special Counsel Mueller an indictment appears.
This happened in October when following the FBI's admission that the Trump Dossier – the keystone in the
"evidence" of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – could not be verified and the Wall Street
Journal called for Special Counsel Mueller to resign, indictments against Paul Manafort, Rick Gates and
George Papadopoulos appeared.
It happened again in December when growing demands from Congress – from Senator Lindsey Graham in
particular – for another Special Counsel to be appointed were followed by the indictment of Michael Flynn.
It has now happened again.
Hot on the heels of the publication of the GOP memorandum, which catalogued a succession of breaches of
due process by the Justice Department and the FBI in seeking surveillance warrants against Carter Page, we
have a new indictment, this time against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities.
In every case the indictment is received with rapture by the Russiagate conspiracy theorists.
In every case the indictment appears to be intended to give the impression that progress in the
Russiagate investigation is being made, presumably so as to justify keeping Special Counsel Mueller in his
job.
In every case it turns out that the indictment is a damp squib, taking the whole Russiagate conspiracy
theory no further forward.
The latest
indictment
against 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities is a case in point.
The first thing to say about this indictment is that it is entirely declamatory.
There is no possibility that any of the Russians named in the indictment will ever be extradited to the
US to stand trial there. Special Counsel Mueller cannot therefore obtain convictions against these people,
which begs the question of why an indictment was issued at all.
The short answer is that the indictment is intended to give credence to the claim of 'Russian meddling'
in the US election, which has been made both privately and publicly ever since campaigning in the US began
in 2015.
Presumably, by giving that claim credence, more reasons can now be offered for keeping Special Counsel
Mueller in his job.
The second thing to say about the indictment is that as even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has
admitted
, it makes no claim that any US citizen or any member of the Trump campaign in any way colluded
with Russia or with any of the persons named in the indictment either before or after the election.
Rosenstein was very clear about this in the
press conference
he held directly following the publication of the indictment
Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this
illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome
of the 2016 election ..
QUESTION: On page 4 of the indictment, paragraph 6, it specifically talks about the Trump campaign,
saying that defendants communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
My question is, later in the indictment, campaign officials are referenced, not by their name; by
"campaign official 1" or "2" or "3." Were campaign officials cooperative, or were they duped? What is
their relationship with this?
ROSENSTEIN: Again, there's no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge. And
the nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they were
ordinary American political activists, even going so far as to base their activities on a virtual private
network here in the United States so, if anybody traced it back to that first jump, they appeared to be
Americans.
President Trump is treating this admission as further confirmation that there was no collusion between
his campaign and Russia, and he is right.
Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I
would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing
wrong – no collusion!
The third thing to say about the indictment – and a point which has been almost universally overlooked in
all the feverish commentary about it – is that it makes
no
claim that the Russian
government was in any way involved in any of the activities of the persons indicted.
Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian government or any
agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the indictment is it suggested that
any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian government or were acting under its instructions or
on its behalf.
Again Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's
press conference
is most revealing about this, with him speaking of the persons named in the indictment
as if they were private persons
The indictment charges 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for committing federal crimes
while seeking to interfere in the United States political system, including the 2016 presidential
election.
The defendants allegedly conducted what they called information warfare against the United States,
with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.
According to the allegations in the indictment, 12 of the individual defendants worked, at various
times, for a company called Internet Research Agency, LLC, a Russian company based in St. Petersburg.
The other individual defendant, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, funded the conspiracy through companies
known as Concord Management and Consulting, LLC; Concord Catering; and many affiliates and subsidiaries.
The conspiracy was part of a larger operation called Project Lakhta. Project Lakhta included multiple
components, some involving domestic audiences within the Russian Federation, and others targeting foreign
audiences in multiple countries.
Internet Research Agency allegedly operated through Russian shell companies. It employed hundreds of
people in its online operations, ranging from creators of fictitious personas, to technical and
administrative support personnel, with an annual budget of millions of dollars.
Internet Research Agency was a structured organization headed by a management group and arranged into
departments, including graphics, search engine optimization, information technology and finance
departments.
In 2014, the company established a translator project focused on the United States. In July of 2016,
more than 80 employees were assigned to the translator project. Two of the defendants allegedly traveled
to the United States in 2014 to collect intelligence for their American influence operations.
Note that there is nothing here that ties any of the individuals or entities named by Rosenstein to the
Russian government.
The arch conspirator is said to be a Russian businessman called Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is alleged to have
masterminded and funded the whole project.
Prigozhin has in fact long been identified in Russia as the owner of the notorious Internet Research
Agency, LLC, the supposed Russian "troll farm" operating out of a nondescript building in St. Petersburg
(shown in caption photograph).
It has moreover often been suggested in Russia that Internet Research Agency, LLC, is Prigozhin's own
personal project.
Certainly no public information linking the Internet Research Agency, LLC, to the Russian government or
to any Russian state institution has ever come to light.
Perhaps Rosenstein and Mueller have information that Prigozhin was indeed acting at the behest and on
behalf of the Russian government. Perhaps they may have some reason for not disclosing the fact in their
indictment.
However, for what it's worth, the indictment lends support to the theory that the Internet Research
Agency, LLC, is indeed Prigozhin's own personal project, and that the Russian government is not involved in
it.
I would add that the indictment shows that US intelligence has successfully hacked the Internet Research
Agency, LCC, a fact which by the way suggests that its internal security systems are very weak. The result
is that US intelligence is very well informed about its structure, funding, personnel and activities.
That suggests that if there really was some connection between the Internet Research Agency, LLC, and the
Russian government the US authorities would be well informed about it.
The fact that neither the indictment nor Rosenstein in his press conference had anything to say about
such a connection rather suggests that no evidence for a connection has been discovered, probably because it
does not exist.
I would add – though this will be fiercely denied by some people – that it would be a grave mistake to
think that it is impossible for an agency like the Internet Research Agency, LLC, to be set up in Russia on
someone's private initiative. On the contrary, those genuinely familiar with the country know that such
things go on there all the time.
The fourth thing to say about the indictment is that it centres exclusively on the social media
activities about which so much has been said in the last few months as the evidence of collusion between the
Trump campaign and Russia has failed to appear.
I have said very little about this aspect of the Russiagate affair up to now because I have felt that
this aspect of the affair was not in any way important.
This is because the social media activities of which the Internet Research Agency, LLC, and its employees
have been accused of have looked both astonishingly incoherent (witness that the indictment says that they
were promoting both pro- and anti-Trump rallies on the same day) and quantitatively insignificant, making
their impact on the election inconsequential.
The indictment gives no reason to change that view.
The highest number of followers of any of the bogus social media accounts that were set up is alleged by
the indictment to have been in the hundreds of thousands, whereas social media activity on any given day
runs into the tens of millions.
The social media advertisements mentioned in the indictment appear to have been par for the course during
the election, and to have attracted no special interest.
The indictment fails to give numbers for any of the rallies which the persons who have been indicted
allegedly tried to organise via social media; that suggests that the number of persons who attended these
rallies was insignificant.
That even some of those involved were not taking the project wholly seriously is shown by this frivolous
episode solemnly recorded in paragraphs 12 (a) and (b) of the indictment
a.PRIGOZHIN approved and supported the ORGANIZATION's operations, and Defendants and their
co-conspirators were aware of PRIGOZHIN's role.
b.For example, on or about May 29, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through an
ORGANIZATION-controlled social media account, arranged for a real U.S. person to stand in front of the
White House in the District of Columbia under false pretenses and hold a sign that read "Happy 55th
Birthday Dear Boss." Defendants and their co-conspirators informed the real U.S. person that the sign was
for someone who "is a leader here and our boss our funder." PRIGOZHIN's Russian passport identifies his
date of birth as June 1, 1961.
This silly stunt provides more reason for thinking Prigozhin was the author of the whole project.
I do not wish to trivialise what happened.
Assuming that the claims made in the indictment are true – as I believe they are – then multiple serious
crimes were committed.
These included cruel deceptions of innocent people, as well as cases of identity theft. The latter
especially is a very serious crime, the impact or seriousness of which should not be minimised.
However I cannot believe that any of this activity – which looks like a botched and amateur attempt by
Prigozhin to copy some of the highly professional 'colour revolution' activities carried out around the
world by various US and Western NGOs – had any conceivable bearing on the outcome of the US election.
No less a person than Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has moreover said as much
There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016
election
QUESTION: Jack, is there concern that this -- the (ph) indictment undermines the outcome of the
election?
ROSENSTEIN: Well, haven't I (ph) identified for you the allegations in the indictment? There's no
allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election.
In summary, the latest indictment to have come from Special Counsel Mueller's team, far from causing
problems for President Trump, actually helps him.
In the one part of the Russiagate conspiracy theory in which some evidence of Russian activity exists –
the part relating to social media – it turns out that President Trump's campaign was not involved, and those
members of his campaign who got drawn into the activities of Prigozhin and his people were completely
innocent dupes.
As for the activity itself, the indictment shows that it was carried out on far too small a scale and in
far too amateur and disorganised a way for it to have had any impact on the election, and the US authorities
do not claim that it did.
It is also my personal view that what we are looking at is a private project cooked up by Yevgeny
Prigozhin, who appears to fancy himself a sort of Russian anti-Soros.
If I am right about that then it is clear that Prigozhin has neither the high level backing nor the skill
to play that role successfully, and his clumsy attempts to do so have instead simply caused Russia
embarrassment and trouble.
I accept that the latter view will be disputed by many – though the evidence in my opinion supports it –
but even if I am wrong about that, it does not detract from the fundamental fact that no evidence of
collusion between anyone in the Trump campaign and Russia appears in the latest indictment, and that the
activities catalogued in the indictment can have had no effect on the outcome of the election, and the US
authorities do not say that they did.
How is this "news"? The US has been meddling in foreign elections for hundreds of years. When we can't change the results,
we change the leader. We have assassinated foreign leaders. We have organized revolutions. We have carried out false flag "terrorist"
attacks to destabilize countries.
Russia has paid for a few Facebook trolls. Boo hoo. Better that than the typical US method of kidnapping and torturing opposition
leaders we don't like. Fuck America and it's brutish hypocrisy.
Woolsey is one of many profiles in the "machine" that turns out the worst socio/psychopaths called Langley!... Much like the
Department of Defense they train them to believe they are the most highly intelligent and capable in espionage even when they
"lose" and lose "badly"!
They look at themselves as superior beings in every way that deserve and expect no restraint. And are repeatedly rewarded with
pay and responsibility even when failure on missions includes the worst "blowback"!
If there ever was a government agency alongside the DOD that deserves the honorary title of total betrayal to their motto "
And You Shall Know The Truth And It Shall Set You Free "... that has economically and politically SINGLE HANDEDLY done the opposite
of EVERYTHING DEMOCRACY STANDS FOR in it's TOTAL DESTRUCTION -- this agency is the personification without equal and "without
question"!
"... Is this all he has to show for millions of dollars and how many damned months of investigation? How about all the NGOs that get foreign donations? When the hell are they going to get investigated for "defrauding" the United States? Better not ask, that would violate the narrative . God help us. ..."
"... And then there was a pink-pussy D.C. riot and the DisruptJ20 protest group riot against Trump. Have Mueller and Rosenstein had a sudden onset of dementia and forgotten the mass protests? ..."
In the Mueller indictment it also notes (page 23) that "Trump is Not my President" NYC,
November 12 2016, was a Russian idea. So by Mueller logic the Resistance is a Russian idea.
How many members of congress should get expelled over being Putin's puppets?
Is this all he has to show for millions of dollars and how many damned months of
investigation? How about all the NGOs that get foreign donations? When the hell are they
going to get investigated for "defrauding" the United States? Better not ask, that would
violate the narrative . God help us.
"Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system,
including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about
a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting
the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and
disparaging Hillary Clinton."
-- Really? Somehow the righteous Mueller and Rosenstein have missed very important
Intel:
Comment section: "Sixteen thousand Facebook users said that they planned to attend a Trump
protest on Nov. 12, 2016, organized by the Facebook page for BlackMattersUS, a Russian-linked
group [?!!] that sought to capitalize on racial tensions between black and white Americans.
The event was shared with 61,000 users. As many as 5,000 to 10,000 protesters actually
convened at Manhattan's Union Square. They then marched to Trump Tower, according to media
reports at the time. ... The group's protest was the fourth [4th!] consecutive anti-Trump
rally in New York following election night, and one of many across the country."
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/358025-thousands-attended-protest-organized-by-russians-on-facebook
It sounds like the indictment makes 13 Russian trolls into felons. How many trolls do we
have? Where do they work, will other governments decide they are felons as well? This isn't a
"nothingburger", it's a "veginothingburger". Hasn't President Trump now been exonerated as
well, "unwittings" versus "colluders"?
Back during the Cold War we were told that the USSR would try to block or jam VoA/RFE
broadcasts from reaching their citizens.
So, my very sincere question is: Just how did U.S. efforts to influence the population of
the USSR via the broadcasts of VoA/RFE differ from the alleged efforts of Russia to support
what the media calls far-right parties and policies in the U.S. and Europe?
So these 13 Russians are accused of trolling and planting rumors?
Since the same thing is being done by Americans and, yes, Israelis, it seems ludicrous to
suggest this is really "meddling" in the election. More like "feeding red meat to grey dogs"
in the sense of stoking the fires of internecine culture wars already ongoing in this
country.
If we actually end up arresting any of these individuals there will be tit for tat since
there are still American financed NGOs operating in Russia whose personnel can be easily
arrested on similar charges of promoting chaos and discord. Maybe the Germans can rent us
that famous Berlin Bridge where "spies" were exchanged in various cold war movies.
See my comment in TTG's thread about who these "Internet Research Agency" people actually
are. Scott Humor over at The Saker dug deep into these people and determined that they are
actually anti-Russian Russians who were allegedly proven in court to be CIA spies!
I link to Scott's piece in the TTG thread. Hell, might as well link it here, too:
This is a clever move on Mueller's part -- indict a bunch of Russians who (some) already
have been arrested by the Russians and therefore are in no position to defend themselves
against a US indictment.
I suppose Brennan doesn't care that a bunch of Russians recruited as CIA assets get dumped
on their own resources. Good luck recruiting any more Russians to help you!
It's a measure of Mueller's desperation, nothing more.
PT, if I understand you correctly you think the 2017 IC "assessment" that Russia meddled does
not really reflect an IC consensus. If that is your view, how do you reconcile it with these
statements:
To summarize: in 2014, 13 Russians launched a campaign to interfere with the US political
system by "disparaging" candidates. This continued until ultimately Trump was elected,
meanwhile, "there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing
participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the
[Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
----------------
How nice and simple and tidy. '13 Russians'... has nice ring to it... will make a great
propaganda movie.
Seriously though, will this face saving result in any way encourage the Dems to pick a new
strategy for "success" the Republicans? Or will they simply triple down on dumb?
Aren't the economic sanctions imposed upon Russia due to Russian meddling in our elections?
Might it not be prudent for Putin to round the 13 yokels up and put them on the next flight
to NY (with lots of publicity)?
During the campaign any voter using social media could come across literally hundreds of
posts effectively proclaiming "Hillary is trash" and "Trump is trash".
Or for that matter the voters could see much the same by reading the campaign literature
in their mailboxes, or listening to speeches on television.
Yet, somehow, a few Russian trolls posting online claims that were indistinguishable from
most of the "normal" election rhetoric is a threat to our democracy.
Imho, a far bigger threat to our elections is the massive amounts of money involved, and
the funding of candidates by oligarchs. But the msm seems confortable with that.
And it goes without saying that one of the most immediate threats to our democracy
generated by Russiagate are the ongoing attempts to silence alternative dissent to the
status-quo and label it as coming from Russianbots.
"anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13
Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election"
Sounds even more desperate than simply dumb to me. Comey and his kins seem so pressed by
(the lack of) facts and the overall incoherence of their ludicrous tale that they finally see
no other choice than resorting to the ultimate weapon in store : direct scolding and shaming
of ordinary citizen bold enough to object HRC's wrongdoings, past, present and future.
I this vein, I also read in earlier comment threads speculations regarding a new, very
cunning objective of the putative Russian attackers : getting willfully spotted in order to
spread chaos within the US politics and doubt within the heart of citizen. Frankly this
sounds a wee bit far-fetched, like machiavelous 2.3 with Putin and the Kremlin gang upgrading
to 4-D chess politics. Wouldn't it have been bold enough for them to bet on the universally
predicted loser Trump? What sense does it make to interfere ostenteously when precisely their
vowed nemesis is bound to win? How would that have tarnished her victory if she had won
despite their meddling? Doesn't hold any water to me, but desperation stimulates imagination,
and truly, confusion. Contenders of this view seem well engaged in a perillous intellectual
twister game.
Besides, such an account shows very little appreciation for the intelligence and critical
thinking of American voters. I bet that if many came to distrust their institutions, it is
out of their own experience and reflexion rather than out of foreign engineering.
Delusion, desperation, confusion, stupidity, whatever. But for sure the seams are
creaking.
The funny thing is that it looks like the Russian government jailed several people from IRA
last year. It would be prudent to look into it and try to figure out what is going on for
real.
You say: "Harry Reid was briefed by John Brennan on 25 August 2016, according to a 6 April
2017 NY Times piece by Eric Lichtblau.
Well, now that's pretty convenient timing, don't you think? After all, Trump didn't become
the GOP candidate for prez until the GOP convention on July 16, 2016. That gave the scheming
Brennan a month to make up this dumb story and start passing it around Capitol Hill.
Regarding your claim that Mueller concluded "unwittingly collaborated":
According to the text of the indictment that our host, Pat Lang, posted Mueller made no
such conclusion. I note you did not put it within quotation marks.
Is there a separate indictment floating around out there with those conclusions?
Well it is an organisation that has received a lot of publicity in the West for awhile so it
is an odd choice, I would have thought they would want a less public organisation for any IO.
Comey was telling the truth: he was still in the delusional belief he could weasel out of
it and continue on as FBI chief.
PT, in the latest, US indictment against a number of Russians, as its only example, cites a
US placard holder on the birthday of JFK as evidence of "Russian interference". Jeez, JFK was
a Russian? What a friggin shambles the empire has become.
Yes indeed. As I said before in another thread. If the election is "disrupted" by voters
altering their votes due to Russians posting on Facebook, then the problem is not that
Russians are posting on Facebook, the problem is that voters are altering their votes based
on posts they read on Facebook. There is little point in correcting the former problem
without correcting the latter and vastly more serious problem.
The indictment accuses Russia of attempting to "diminish the public's faith in
democracy," or some such thing. I really don't think our own voting public needs Russia's
help in doing that.
Nope, our crooked Politicians AND Intelligence/Law Enforcement entities are doing a good job
of diminishing the public's faith. I don't know how many of my fellow Americans I have talked
to have said to round them all the crooked politicians/intelligence/law enforcement and
eradicate them from the earth permanently. That is why we see more and more the crooked
politicians/intelligence/law enforcement understanding well their simmering public anger, and
because of their fear of the angry public that they have created the surveillance grids (has
nothing to do with misnomer terrorism), their legislation/laws that further restrict the
public's ability to fight back against their crooked ways.
Diminished public faith, that's putting it mildly.
The Democrats remember how well the Republicans ( with help from Truman and others)
made Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for them. So the Democrats have decided
to try making their own 2.0 version of Loyalty Oathism and HUACism and McCarthyism work for
them. They will spend the next several-to-many years running their Reverse McCarthyism 2.0
operation.
They will accuse any Bitter Berners rejectful of yet-one-more-Clintonite of witless
dupe-ness. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of Russian subversive
Fellow-Traveller-ism. If that doesn't win us over, they will accuse us of being Russian
agents.
Of course they will try doing this to Republicans as well. If the Republicans complain,
the Democrats will say such complaints are proof of Republican secret-Russian-agent
subversionism; while quietly thinking to themselves " payback time for
McCarthy and HUAC").
I have no connection to intelligence agencies. I'm a mere citizen. I've been spending the
last few days making cold calls to registered party members here in CO, trying to get them
interested in the caucuses that are coming up. Remember how the caucuses became an issue when
Trump was running?
Almost no one responded that they were going to attend. Several said they were so sick of
politics they would definitely not attend. I'm beginning to believe that I and our precinct
captain and her husband will be the only ones there.
What a sad state our country is in. Your last line is true, to a great extent, but I have
to add to it. Yes, we need God to help American. And, yes, many Americans seem to have lost
their mind. But what makes me sadder is that most of us who have not lost our minds are
losing our belief that we could ever make a difference, to make things better.
"... I did read the indictment of the Russians and to my non-lawyer eyes, it read more like a political document rather than a criminal indictment. ..."
"... The charges seem very silly to me. And if ever there is a trial with these defendants challenging the prosecution I can see how they can win. But of course no one would pay any attention to the trial as the indictment is the desired endpoint that the media and the Democrats want. In comparison to the foreign money and influence operations of the zionists, the Saudis and of course many British politicians and their media during the last election, the operation by these Russians charged was more nonsensical. It would be absurd on the face of it that a bunch of Russian trolls could influence the election in any meaningful way. ..."
"... With respect to the potential conspiracy at the FBI, DOJ, and the IC, can Mueller really investigate his own colleagues and personal friends? I think he is a card carrying member of the Borg elite ..."
I agree with you that the questions you posed should be answered.
An interesting point in all this high stakes drama is that a federal judge has ordered
Mueller to hand over all related documents to Flynn. If there is exculpatory evidence then
Flynn could withdraw his plea and Mueller censured.
I did read the indictment of the Russians and to my non-lawyer eyes, it read more like a
political document rather than a criminal indictment. Mueller provided both sides
reinforcement of their talking points. Hillary and the Democrats can confirm she lost the
election due to a bunch of Russian trolls who spent a few million dollars and upended her
billion dollar campaign war chest. Trump gets to confirm that there was no collusion.
The
charges seem very silly to me. And if ever there is a trial with these defendants challenging
the prosecution I can see how they can win. But of course no one would pay any attention to
the trial as the indictment is the desired endpoint that the media and the Democrats want. In
comparison to the foreign money and influence operations of the zionists, the Saudis and of
course many British politicians and their media during the last election, the operation by
these Russians charged was more nonsensical. It would be absurd on the face of it that a
bunch of Russian trolls could influence the election in any meaningful way.
With respect to the potential conspiracy at the FBI, DOJ, and the IC, can Mueller really
investigate his own colleagues and personal friends? I think he is a card carrying member of
the Borg elite.
"... How about Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa? Fuck Allen Dulles, Mike Pompeo, and everybody in-between! ..."
"... BTW, Victoria Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work. ..."
"... Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and along others like Hannity have blood on their hands. ..."
"... You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment. ..."
Former CIA chief James Woolsey appeared on Fox News to push the narrative of how dastardly 'dem Russkies' are in their meddling
with the sacred soul of America's democracy.
Woolsey did his patriotic deep-state-duty and proclaimed the evils of "expansionist Russia" and dropped 'facts' like "Russia has
a larger cyber-army than its standing army," before he moved on to China and its existential threats.
But then, beginning at around 4:30 , the real debacle of the conversation begins as Ingraham asks Woolsey,
"Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?"
Hes responds, surprisingly frankly...
"Oh probably... but it was for the good of the system..."
To which Ingraham follows up...
"We don't do that now though? We don't mess around in other people's elections?"
Prompting this extraordinary sentence from a former CIA chief...
"Well...hhhmmm, numm numm numm numm... only for a very good cause...in the interests of democracy"
So just to clarify - yes, the CIA chief admitted that Democracy-spreading 'Murica meddled in the Democratic elections of other
nations "in the interests of democracy."
In case you wondered which ones he was referring to, here's a brief selection since 1948...
2016: UK (verbal intervention against Brexit)
2014: Afghanistan (effectively re-writing Afghan constitution)
2014: UK (verbal intervention against Scottish independence)
2011: Libya (providing support to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi)
2009: Honduras (ousting President Zelaya)
2006: Palestine (providing support to oust Prime Minister Haniyeh)
2005: Syria (providing support against President al-Assad)
2003: Iran (providing support against President Khatami)-
2003: Iraq (ousting of President Hussein)
2002: Venezuela (providing support to attempt an overthrow of President Chavez)
1999: Yugoslavia (removing Yugoslav forces from Kosovo)
1994: Iraq (attempted overthrow of President Hussein)
1991: Haiti (ousting President Aristide)
1991: Kuwait (removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
1989: Panama (ousting General Noriega)
1983: Grenada (ousting General Austin's Marxist forces)
1982: Nicaragua (providing support
1971: Chile (ousting President Allende)
1967: Indonesia (ousting President Sukarno)
1964: Brazil (ousting President Goulart)
1964: Chile (providing support against Salvador Allende)
1961: Congo (assassination of leader Lumumba)
1958: Lebanon (providing support to Christian political parties)
1954: Guatemala (ousting President Arbenz)
1953: Iran (ousting Prime Minister Mossadegh)
1953: Philippines (providing support to the President Magsaysay campaign)
1948: Italy (providing support to the Christian Democrats campaign)
This Russia bullshit has gotta stop. For the love of God, it's been like two and a a half years now. If Vladimir Putin was
as twice as evil as we're told, he still wouldn't be half as evil as the Clintons are on any given Thursday.
Democracy? Annnnnnnd it's gone! No wonder the rest of the world thinks we've collectively lost our minds. BTW, Victoria
Noodles will be very disappointed Ukraine didn't make the list after all of her hard work.
Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland and the CIA were all over the Ukrainian "coup", but of course no mention of that on "Fair
and Balanced". Laura Ingram is a typical Fox News Zio-Nazi bitch, hiding behind a cross, who apparently believes her own BS, and
along others like Hannity have blood on their hands.
The whole purpose of the Mueller indictment was to give the mainstream outlets something to report so idiot Americans will
believe the crap put out about Russia since the Winter Olympics in Sochi and set the tone to justify a military conflict with
Russia that won't end well for anyone, IMO
mary, just a touch catty tonight, don't cha' think?
Zio-Nazi? How dat work?
Whole purpose of the Mueller indictments is to give the folks a show to prove that their money hasn't been wasted on a Trump
collusion charge for collusion that started in 2014 when Trump was prolly out schlongin' some playmate or other..
I kinda wondered why they missed that one, too. I've seen that list on here before. I guess messing with Israel's elections
doesn't fit the ZH narrative?
No way he believes it. One thing about people who lack human empathy is that they would NEVER fall for the same tricks that
the empathy having population does. They will always see the angle. It's what their brain is devoted to. All the capacity that
we use to be reflective, emotional or caring all goes to angling for advantage with them. He knows exactly why people are tortured
and couldn't give a shit less. You are either shark or mutilated gold fish as far as he is concerned.
Woolsey is an evil man, for a certainty. But, au contraire, I bet he does believe it is for their own good. Whoever "they"
are that he's doin' shit to. Like the Jesuits in Andalusia, purging the non-believers.
You can always spot a psychopathic liar by their predisposition to smile or laugh at questions that are not humorous. Laura
Ingraham is a neocon mouth-peice for the establishment.
It really would be a new dawn for this country if the entire Deep State were outed, and publicly executed. I know that sounds
like tinfoil hat talk, but hey, I'm sure the NSA is all over me right about now. Too bad they can't seem to find serial killers
that say they're going to shoot up a school online. Too busy trying to shut up those that don't like the Deep State.
They have always done this and every single other accusation that they have levied against other "tyrants". The crazy train
continues to pick up speed.
Ummm, Fidel Castro, Cuba, 1962 ? Leading up to Dallas? Which led to LBJ and ramp up of Indochina. If you look closely you will
see that there was a huge little war going on in Laos, lots of bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail from fighter bombers based in
Thailand.
Also, Australia. The 1972 Whitlam dismissal was a bloodless coup d'état. Whitlam recognized North Vietnam which pissed off
a bunch of people in Langley. The pilots were on strike and they couldn't fly parts and crew into Alice Springs (Pine Gap Satellite
facility). The Aussies have long memories and it will be a cold day in hell before they trust the Yanks like before. This is a
country with a strong sense of injustice. The Aussies still talk about the "bodyline" cricket scandal with the Brits, and that
happened in the 1930's....
"... We need a separate, really non-partisan investigation for the rest of the list. I think it would be possible to find competent investigators outside of the more politicized agencies who could be vetted for any political bias before being assigned. Investigation is investigation - you just need a place to start and a list of people to talk to. Facts then shake out. ..."
"... If Mueller does not look sufficiently into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this, let us hope that the Congress and the Administration together can force into existence a Special Counsel with all of the powers and staff and funding that Mueller currently has/ will have. . . . to look into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this. ..."
"... If such a counsel would look into the "letting Clinton off the e-mail hook" aspects of all this and esPECially into the "who shot Seth Rich" and "e-mails . . . hacked or leaked?" aspects of all this, so much the better. ..."
I agree that the list should be investigated - especially the DNC "hack" hoax as that
involves screwing with the investigation of a Federal crime and has counterintelligence
implications and could lead to lots of indictments.
However, as someone else pointed out in the last thread, Mueller's only remit was to find
evidence of Russian government "meddling" in the election and/or "collusion" with Trump and
the Trump campaign - which he has not found yet and is highly unlikely to find. The 13
indictments are a joke in that regard.
We need a separate, really non-partisan investigation for the rest of the list. I think it
would be possible to find competent investigators outside of the more politicized agencies
who could be vetted for any political bias before being assigned. Investigation is
investigation - you just need a place to start and a list of people to talk to. Facts then
shake out.
If Mueller does not look sufficiently into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this,
let us hope that the Congress and the Administration together can force into existence a
Special Counsel with all of the powers and staff and funding that Mueller currently has/ will
have. . . . to look into the "rolling Soft-Coup" aspects of all this.
If such a counsel would look into the "letting Clinton off the e-mail hook" aspects of
all this and esPECially into the "who shot Seth Rich" and "e-mails . . . hacked or leaked?"
aspects of all this, so much the better.
All very good questions and one more either related to, or subsumed within #s 3 and 6 is
whether Steele/MI6 are "targetable" for having meddled in the 2016 election.
Rosenstein unaccountably failed to mention yesterday Mueller's having landed a really,
really big fish on February 2, the unwitting colluder and witless Ricard Pinedo (age 28), a
small town scammer who operates a fake ID business out of Santa Paula, CA, a 80% Hispanic
farm worker town in boondocks California. Pinedo plead guilty to one count of identify fraud
and had, apparently, profited to the extent of some $10,000 or so from the sale of identify
and banking information on-line with only a minimal amount sourced from any of the 13
defendants in the indictments.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-richard-pinedo-mueller-investigation-20180216-story.html.
The MSM, apparently, like Mr. Mueller has decided not to make a big deal out of the Pinedo
indictment for reasons which remain the subject of speculation.
Building a cage on a flatbed track with Hillary in prison uniform played by an actor inside is directly from Gene Sharp
playbook and could be
Otpor!
activity ;-) No that bad idea for a
anti-Hillary rally actually :-)
"... Mueller alleged that Russian operatives "communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign", but the indictment did not address the question of whether anyone else in Trump's team had knowingly colluded. ..."
"... Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, said at a press conference in Washington: "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge." Rosenstein added that the charges did not mean the Russian activity had an effect on the outcome of the election. ..."
"... In a statement on Friday, Trump suggested that what he called "outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false allegations, and far-fetched theories" relating to possible collusion were serving to further the Russian agenda. ..."
"... "This indictment serves as a reminder that people are not always who they appear to be on the internet," said Rosenstein. He alleged that the Russians had "worked to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy," adding: "We must not allow them to succeed." ..."
"... Prigozhin, who has also been linked to the Wagner Group, a shadowy Kremlin-linked private military contractor believed to be operating in Syria, -> was included on a US sanctions list in July . ..."
"... Speaking to the RIA Novosti state news agency on Friday, Prigozhin said: "The Americans are really impressionable people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. If they want to see the devil -- let them see him." ..."
"... Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the allegations "absurd". "Thirteen people carried out interference in the US elections? Thirteen people against special services with a budgets of billions?" she wrote in a Facebook post. ..."
A 37-page indictment alleged that the Russians' operations "included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J Trump ... and disparaging Hillary Clinton," his Democratic opponent.
Mueller alleged that Russian operatives "communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump
campaign", but the indictment did not address the question of whether anyone else in Trump's team had knowingly
colluded.
Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, said at a press conference in Washington: "There is no allegation
in this indictment that any American had any knowledge." Rosenstein added that the charges did not mean the
Russian activity had an effect on the outcome of the election.
Trump
and the White House seized on Rosenstein's remarks to falsely claim that the indictment proved there had
been no collusion and that the election result had definitely not been impacted.
In a statement on Friday, Trump suggested that what he called "outlandish partisan attacks, wild and false
allegations, and far-fetched theories" relating to possible collusion were serving to further the Russian agenda.
The Russians allegedly posed as Americans to operate bogus social media accounts, buy advertisements and stage
political rallies. They stole the identities of real people in the US to post online and built computer systems in
the US to hide the Russian origin of their activity, according prosecutors.
"This indictment serves as a reminder that people are not always who they appear to be on the internet," said
Rosenstein. He alleged that the Russians had "worked to promote discord in the United States and undermine public
confidence in democracy," adding: "We must not allow them to succeed."
The charges state that from as far back as 2014, the defendants conspired together to defraud the US by
"impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of government" through interference with the American
political and electoral processes.
One defendant, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, is accused of using companies he controlled – including Concord Management
and Consulting, and Concord Catering – to finance the operations against the US. The operation at one stage had a
monthly budget of $1.25m,
according to Mueller, which paid for
operatives' salaries and bonuses.
Events were organised by Russians posing as Trump supporters and
as groups opposed to Trump such as Black Lives Matter
, according to prosecutors. One advertisement shortly
before the election promoted the Green party candidate Jill Stein, who is blamed by some Clinton backers for
splitting the anti-Trump vote.
In August 2016, Russian operatives communicated with Trump campaign staff in Florida through their "@donaldtrump.com"
email addresses to coordinate a series of pro-Trump rallies in the state, according to Mueller, and then bought
advertisements on social media to promote the events.
At one rally in West Palm Beach, a Russian operative is even alleged to have paid Americans to build a cage on
a flatbed truck and to have an actor posing as Clinton in a prison uniform stand inside.
->
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, said to be the headquarters of Russia's 'troll army'. Photograph:
Shaun Walker for the Guardian
One defendant, Irina Kaverzina, is accused of admitting her involvement in the operation and a subsequent
coverup in an email to a relative in September last year, after Mueller's inquiry had begun. "We had a slight
crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity," Kaverzina allegedly wrote, "so I got preoccupied with covering
tracks together with the colleagues."
The Russians are also accused of working to suppress turnout among ethnic minority voters. They allegedly
created an Instagram account posing as "Woke Blacks" and railed against the notion that African Americans should
choose Clinton as "the lesser of two devils" against Trump.
In early November 2016, according to the indictment, the Russian operatives used bogus "United Muslims of
America" social media accounts to claim that "American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today."
Following Trump's victory, the Russian operation promoted allegations of voter fraud by the Democratic party,
according to Mueller's team. Around that time, Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence that he would have won
the popular vote if not for large-scale voter fraud.
The individuals charged are Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik, Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova,
Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda,
Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevitch Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna
Kaverzina, Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin
and Vladimir Venkov.
All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were charged with conspiracy to
commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.
Separately, Mueller's office announced that Richard Pinedo, of Santa Paula, California, had
pleaded guilty to identity
fraud
. Pinedo, 28, admitted to running a website that offered stolen identities to help customers get around
the security measures of major online payment sites. It was not made clear whether his service had been used by
the Russian operatives.
Rosenstein said no contact had been made with Russian authorities regarding the charges so far, but that US
officials intended to seek extradition of the defendants.
US intelligence agencies previously
concluded that Russians mounted
an attack on the US election system aimed at electing
->
Donald
Trump
to the presidency.
Mueller is conducting a criminal inquiry into interference by Russians and possible collusion by Trump's
campaign. Two Trump campaign advisers have pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Two others have been charged with
federal crimes.
US investigators have long signalled their belief that Prigozhin, a 56-year-old billionaire businessman, is
behind Russia's internet troll factories.
Nicknamed the "Kremlin's chef", Prigozhin once ran Putin's favourite restaurant in St Petersburg, after which
he was awarded multi-billion pound state catering contracts. He provided catering for Dmitry Medvedev's presidential inauguration in 2008, and also has lucrative contracts
to feed Russia's army and Moscow's schoolchildren.
Prigozhin, who has also been linked to the Wagner Group, a shadowy Kremlin-linked private military contractor
believed to be operating in Syria,
->
was included on a US sanctions list in July
.
Speaking to the RIA Novosti state news agency on Friday, Prigozhin said: "The Americans are really
impressionable people, they see what they want to see. I have great respect for them. If they want to see the
devil -- let them see him."
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the allegations "absurd". "Thirteen people carried out interference in the US elections? Thirteen people against special services with a
budgets of billions?" she wrote in a Facebook post.
Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Russian media he had not yet had a chance to study the
indictments.
"... The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. ..."
"... 2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit. ..."
"... Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of Soros' org would be guilty of the same thing wouldn't they? Isn't 'sowing discord' like the main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries? ..."
"... B-but the Russians conspired ... to commit free speech. They obstructed ... by speaking . (The story doesn't mention if what was said was true.) Mr. Mueller, please stop wasting our time and money. ..."
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the defendants began working in 2014
- so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced - to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington.
They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals"
associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit.
Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of Soros' org would be
guilty of the
same thing wouldn't they? Isn't 'sowing discord' like the main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries?
Not a lawyer, but seems this cannot hold up in court.
Sounds to me like they're being indicted for exercising free speech. Does that only apply to citizens?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
It restricts Congress .
I believe political speech is the most protected form of speech. I think there's a Supreme Court ruling on that topic.
B-but the Russians conspired ... to commit free speech. They obstructed ... by speaking . (The story doesn't mention if what
was said was true.) Mr. Mueller, please stop wasting our time and money.
I'm re-posting this from an earlier post someone else made. The Internet Research Agency is a CIA hacking group!
The best way to get information is to make it up.
Everything what we know now about the so-called "Kremlin trolls from the Internet Research Agency paid by Putin's favorite
chef," came from one source, a group of CIA spies that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty, for their collective
online persona.
The DOJ Inspector General report will be out in March. After one look at a draft of the
report, Randall Wray fired McCabe. And remember, the DOJIG has all of the Strzok e-mails,
including the ones the FBI "inadvertently destroyed." Hopes -- and fears -- are high that
this report will expose all of the Russiagate corruption in complete detail. If so, even
mainstream media stars won't have a place to hide. They went all in too long ago and pushed
the story way too hard.
So to answer Yves's questions: yes, there is deep fear that a receding tide is about to
reveal a lot of naked swimmers and that yes, it will be a tsunami.
This is the same online site which published Steele dossier
As for daily workloads those nasty Russians looks like real neoliberal slave owners not that
dissimilar to Amazon packers, or WalMart cashiers ;-) "The documents show instructions provided
to the commenters that detail the workload expected of them. On an average working day, the
Russians are to post on news articles 50 times. Each blogger is to maintain six Facebook accounts
publishing at least three posts a day and discussing the news in groups at least twice a day. By
the end of the first month, they are expected to have won 500 subscribers and get at least five
posts on each item a day. On Twitter, the bloggers are expected to manage 10 accounts with up to
2,000 followers and tweet 50 times a day. "
"... Osadchy told BuzzFeed he had never worked for the Internet Research Agency and that the extensive documents -- including apparent budgeting for his $35,000 salary -- were an "unsuccessful provocation." He declined to comment on the content of the leaks. The Kremlin declined to comment. The Internet Research Agency has not commented on the leak. ..."
"... "What, you think crazy Russians all learned English en masse and went off to comment on articles?" said Leonid Bershidsky, a media executive and Bloomberg View columnist. ..."
Plans attached to emails leaked by a mysterious Russian hacker collective show IT managers
reporting on a new ideological front against the West in the comments sections of Fox News,
Huffington Post , The Blaze, Politico , and WorldNetDaily .
The bizarre hive of social media activity appears to be part of a two-pronged Kremlin
campaign to claim control over the internet, launching a million-dollar army of trolls to mold
American public opinion as it cracks down on internet freedom at home.
"Foreign media are currently actively forming a negative image of the Russian Federation in
the eyes of the global community," one of the project's team members, Svetlana Boiko, wrote in
a strategy document. "Additionally, the discussions formed by comments to those articles are
also negative in tone.
"Like any brand formed by popular opinion, Russia has its supporters ('brand advocates') and
its opponents. The main problem is that in the foreign internet community, the ratio of
supporters and opponents of Russia is about 20/80 respectively."
The documents show instructions provided to the commenters that detail the workload expected
of them. On an average working day, the Russians are to post on news articles 50 times. Each
blogger is to maintain six Facebook accounts publishing at least three posts a day and
discussing the news in groups at least twice a day. By the end of the first month, they are
expected to have won 500 subscribers and get at least five posts on each item a day. On
Twitter, the bloggers are expected to manage 10 accounts with up to 2,000 followers and tweet
50 times a day.
They are to post messages along themes called "American Dream" and "I Love Russia." The
archetypes for the accounts are called Handkerchief, Gay Turtle, The Ghost of Marius the
Giraffe, Left Breast, Black Breast, and Ass, for reasons that are not immediately clear.
According to the documents, which are attached to several hundred emails sent to the
project's leader, Igor Osadchy, the effort was launched in April and is led by a firm called
the Internet Research Agency. It's based in a Saint Petersburg suburb, and the documents say it
employs hundreds of people across Russia who promote Putin in comments on Russian blogs.
Osadchy told BuzzFeed he had never worked for the Internet Research Agency and that the
extensive documents -- including apparent budgeting for his $35,000 salary -- were an
"unsuccessful provocation." He declined to comment on the content of the leaks. The Kremlin
declined to comment. The Internet Research Agency has not commented on the leak.
Definitively proving the authenticity of the documents and their authors' ties to the
Kremlin is, by the nature of the subject, not easy. The project's cost, scale, and awkward
implementation have led many observers in Russia to doubt, however, that it could have come
about in any other way.
"What, you think crazy Russians all learned English en masse and went off to comment on
articles?" said Leonid Bershidsky, a media executive and Bloomberg View columnist.
"If it looks like Kremlin shit, smells like Kremlin shit, and tastes like Kremlin shit too --
then it's Kremlin shit."
Despite efforts to hire English teachers for the trolls, most of the comments are written in
barely coherent English. "I think the whole world is realizing what will be with Ukraine, and
only U.S. keep on fuck around because of their great plans are doomed to failure," reads one
post from an unnamed forum, used as an example in the leaked documents.
"... The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free speech. ..."
The concern of the American ruling class is not Russian or Chinese "subversion," but the
growth of social opposition within the United States. The narrative of "Russian meddling" has
been used to justify a systematic campaign to censor the Internet and suppress free
speech.
Senator Mark Warner
The performance of Senator Mark Warner , the ranking Democrat on the committee, was
particularly obscene. Warner, whose net worth is estimated at $257 million, appeared to be
doing his best impersonation of Senator Joe McCarthy . He declared that foreign subversion
works together with, and is largely indistinguishable from, "threats to our institutions from
right here at home."
Alluding to the publication of the so-called Nunes memo, which documented the fraudulent
character of the Democratic-led investigation of White House "collusion" with Russia, Warner
noted,
"There have been some, aided and abetted by Russian Internet bots and trolls, who have
attacked the basic integrity of the FBI and the Justice Department."
Responding to questioning from Warner, FBI Director Christopher Wray praised the US
intelligence agencies' greater "engagement" and "partnership" with the private sector,
concluding,
"We can't fully police social media, so we have to work with them so that they can police
themselves."
Wray was referring to the sweeping measures taken by social media companies, working
directly with the US intelligence agencies, to implement a regime of censorship, including
through the hiring of tens of thousands of "content reviewers," many with intelligence
backgrounds, to flag, report and delete content.
The assault on democratic rights is increasingly connected to preparations for a major war,
which will further exacerbate social tensions within the United States. Coats prefaced his
remarks by declaring that "the risk of inter-state conflict, including among great powers, is
higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War."
As the hearing was taking place, multiple news outlets were reporting that potentially
hundreds of Russian military contractors had been killed in a recent US air strike in Syria.
This came just weeks after the publication of the Pentagon's National Defense Strategy, which
declared,
"Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in US
national security."
However, the implications of this great-power conflict are not simply external to the US
"homeland." The document argues that "the homeland is no longer a sanctuary," and that "America
is a target," for "political and information subversion" on the part of "revisionist powers"
such as Russia and China.
Since "America's military has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield," the only
way the US can prevail in this conflict is through the "seamless integration of multiple
elements of national power," including "information, economics, finance, intelligence, law
enforcement and military."
In other words, America's supremacy in the new world of great-power conflict requires the
subordination of every aspect of life to the requirements of war. In this totalitarian
nightmare, already far advanced, the police, the military and the intelligence agencies unite
with media and technology companies to form a single seamless unit, whose combined power is
marshaled to manipulate public opinion and suppress political dissent.
The dictatorial character of the measures being prepared was underscored by an exchange
between Wray and Republican Senator Marco Rubio , who asked whether Chinese students were
serving as spies for Beijing.
"What is the counterintelligence risk posed to US national security from Chinese students,
particularly those in advanced programs in the sciences and mathematics?" asked Rubio.
Wray responded that
"the use of nontraditional collectors, especially in the academic setting, whether it's
professors, scientists, students, we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around
the country, not just in major cities, small ones as well, basically every discipline."
This campaign, with racist overtones, recalls the official rationale -- defense of "national
security" -- used to justify the internment of some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry during
the Second World War.
In its open letter calling for a
coalition of socialist, antiwar and progressive websites against Internet censorship, the
World Socialist Web Site noted that
"the ruling class has identified the Internet as a mortal threat to its monopolization of
information and its ability to promote propaganda to wage war and legitimize the obscene
concentration of wealth and extreme social inequality."
It is this mortal threat -- and fear of the growth of class conflict -- that motivate the
lies and hypocrisy on display at the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.
"... or like viewing old photos of the Robber Barons. The msm has stopped trying to convince middle class readers it's 'on their side', imo. A few have gone full plutocrat friendly. Anything that rocks the plutocrats boats must be caused by 'russians, russians, russians', or outside agitators, or foreigners of one kind or another – not 'real' Americans. ..."
"... Exactly the kind of things the robber barons and their press said 100+ years ago about working class workers striking for better wages and working conditions. ..."
"... I agree in the regard to the seeming reduction in analytical quantity and quality. I think you're right with it being caused by reductions in newsroom staff, but I think the type of journalists we have has also changed drastically. ..."
"... In this real world context, this guy wants to promote an unnecessary new cold war to get Democrats elected. Truly disgusting and insane. ..."
"... Not only disgusting and insane, but politically stupid. Any Democrat politician who thinks that promoting Unhinged Russia Hysteria is a winning political strategy is guilty of political malpractice. ..."
"... seems to be what she and they are pushing(unhinged Russia hysteria ) as a winning political strategy. ..."
"... That's what people are going to remember when they go to the voting booth in 2018 (if they even bother) – while the Democrats where whining about Putin and Russia and doing nothing productive whatsoever to improve people's lives, Trump gave everybody more $$$. ..."
"... The "official" narratives from much of the MSM are increasingly removed from any reality experienced by the majority. For example, the latest is a report from Hamilton that much of the social media activity concerning the Florida school shooting is now infested and promoted by Russian bots "to sow division". How more absurd could it be? ..."
"... I have it on good authority that the whole rebranding of the KKK first as the CCC than as the NRA was a long-term Soviet Russian plot to cause an epidemic of mass shootings that would undermine not only US 'Democracy', but the entire capitalist juggernaut! ..."
"... Following up on something Lambert wrote once, it seems that pundits who are incapable of using the term "working class" without somehow attaching the word "white" to it are -- besides not really being on the left -- also more likely than others to push the "Russia ate my Election" nonsense. ..."
"... I think what the horrid warmongering article in Useless News misses is that the flyover states, which supply the troops for the wars, are getting war weary (and why not). Trump capitalized on this in the election, and there was a positive correlation at IIRC the county level between war casualities and troop support. ..."
"... An anti-war candidate who could make the case in the flyover states might really make an impact. ..."
"... I wholeheartedly agree about how a significant factor is that the mainstream media insists on viewing everything through ridiculously contrived "lenses" (Trump, "Russia-gate", Brexit, harassment) and, intentionally I would claim, deliberately obscuring the real problems (wealth distribution, neoliberalism, collapse of the social contract). ..."
"... whatever other news there is seems weirdly predictable and is based around personalities, rather than communities and systems. ..."
"... Animals become agitated in advance of earthquakes. It may be that the reason for angst does not lie in the past, but in the future. In general, so many of the stories are predictable self-parodies, from the Democrats relentless pursuit of the mythical 'moderate insurgents' in republican suburbs, and their comical screeching about Putin, to the drumbeat stories attacking Trump for Obama policies, to the contortions of the neocon policy apparatus trying to justify occupation and regime change in Syria, without mentioning those goals ..."
"... For me, this is key. When I cast my eye upon the news I'm greeted with unrelenting bleakness. Trump's cruel and terrible health plan was big news for months, then his terrible tax cut plan, now his terrible budget. Foreign affairs are equally bleak: the Democrats are busy stirring up a second Cold War. There's no end in sight to the trillions of dollars our nation spends every year on waste and destructive mayhem. Sociopathic corporations and octogenarian billionaires own this country. It's difficult to see anything positive on the horizon. ..."
"... There are two Americas. The news is mostly for and from the one that protects the rentier or elite class. They send their children to private schools. The second one has children who go to public schools who get shot and killed by gunmen that the school and law authorities have been warned about and then decide it's not worth their attention. ..."
"... I think we have reached America's breaking point. Shitty jobs, shitty pay, shitty hours, no hope of affordable housing anywhere, no advancement, massive amounts debt, no easy access to medical care, uneven safety nets, denigration, lack of mutual respect, a lifetime of working with little hope of a safe retirement it's just not pretty out here. ..."
"... I think we are still in a Wile E. Coyote moment where he has gone off the cliff but gravity has not taken hold yet (cartoons don't understand parabolic arcs, similar to central banks and politicians). One of the purposes of financial crises like 2008 is to reset the playing field. The inequality and inefficiency of the Roaring 20s got reset in the 1930s where many people who had paper wealth, but large debt, collapsed and regulation followed that survived for 60 years in preventing similar scenarios. The 2009-2016 period missed that window of opportunity as the focus became preserving the people who had destabilized the system. That meant the damage was one-sided to the bottom 90%. The top 10% are largely disconnected, deliberately, from what is going on with the bottom 90% and as a result are baffled about the swelling unrest in the country. That unrest is still largely unfocused and just burps out random things right now like the Tea Party, Trump, Sanders etc. ..."
"... The only good news to come out of the Florida shooting is that the young people are beginning to realize that they are cannon fodder (literally) in the cynical political battles waged by their elders. ..."
"... I've done my stint in living through the chaotic end to the 1970's and endured the major social upheavals in Thatcher's show-no-mercy early 1980's. Those were bad times. But this is worse in a lot of ways, if only for the crushing atmosphere of a powerless proletariat. ..."
"... The Dem commitment to Russiagate has become their WMD story, it has to be stuck with lest its proponents admit their lying ..."
"... The Russo-Resistance strategy has had the effect of exacerbating divisions in the potential opposition to neoliberalism. Not a bug. ..."
"... Compare and contrast with Putin and Xi, who are personally untouched by corruption taint, and whom their population actually believes has their nations' long-term interests at heart ..."
"... The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are. ..."
"... I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whether it's skyrocketing measures of income inequality, health insurance premiums rising faster than wages, college tuition rates and student loan balances rising faster than wages, mindlessly skyrocketing stock markets and asset bubbles fueled by stupid central bank policies, or whatever other unsustainable woe you choose to pick, these things cannot go on forever ..."
"... And we're incredibly divided. Most of the MSM has been sucked into personality conflicts and the us-vs-them mindset. They actively feed it now. You're expected to pick a team and learn to hate the other guys. ..."
"... I too suspect that "tweaking round the edges" will prove totally inadequate, but I have no desire for revolution. I've seen too many of them start off well but then go off the rails in horrible, terrifying directions. Revolutions can be terribly sloppy affairs, with real people getting hurt in the process. And they usually don't end where we really want them to. ..."
"... Just yesterday I was asked, "Aren't you a liberal Democrat?" I answered, "No, I hate both parties equally." That set them back on their laurels. They expected me to say "Yes." ..."
"... The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are ..."
"... Waiting for Godot ..."
"... A seemingly endless loop of outrage that yields nothing, except the feeling of powerlessness -- that all that is important in life is out of our hands, and in the hands of those who look at us and see nothing but another source of revenue. ..."
"... I rather think that our "feeling of powerlessness" is the goal aimed for by the msm. And identity politics serves a divide and conquer function. (But you can buy T-shirts! so it's all good. /s) ..."
"... I hope to draw some response to the second part of my complaint, which is that in the dog-eat-dog world of a society ordered solely by markets, we are reduced: First, from being to citizens to consumers, then from being consumers to being marks, rubes, suckers. The "news" (such as it is) isn't reported to us, it's sold to us. ..."
"... Corporate media has been pumping out Trump Derangement Syndrome stories for 18+ months. [if you're cynical] not only because the media genuinely dislike trump, but to drive clickbait and subscription sign-ups ..."
"... From my reading of history, when countries have been in the grip of anxiety it is often a relief when a feared thing happens – such as when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour it was widely reported that the response of the public, including anti-war activists, was great relief. ..."
"... I've read that much the same feeling descended over much of Europe at the start of WWI. While the same situation doesn't quite apply in the US, I do fear that there is a craving for some sort of decision, a decisive act. ..."
"... I think Trump understands more than he reveals. I think we are looking at the tempered effects of MSM froth by all the good, sensible internet bloggers and commenters which serve to neutralize the nonsense. What I see is angst failure – nobody bought this farcical onslaught of propaganda. Everyone questioned it. Something happens to the "news" when opposite views and facts collide – it gets emulsified like vinegar and oil into much less drastic possibilities. ..."
"... Interesting reminds me of how some torturers have learned that the fear of the pain can be worse than the pain itself in terms of emotional distress and breaking down ego-barriers to cooperation/submission. When the fear is worse than the feared experience, the feared experience itself is a relief. ..."
"... ur–Angst? ..."
"... Our Jerri-Lynn, who mainly lives overseas, was briefly in the US last month and dropped by our NYC meetup. She commented to me that she was very eager to leave because she could sense how high the general tension level was. ..."
"... Few people I know feel secure; a lot of it is about the basic stuff, health care and jobs. ..."
"... True, but can they address those concerns? The Occupy movement was such an effort, but the police seem to have stifled it. Then Sen. Sanders appeared on the scene with his Presidential campaign and that too was suppressed. If people are in fact not engaged it probably indicates an absence of what is important and meaningful for them in the larger society ..."
"... The LAT had truly turned into a piece of garbage the past years, they'd get scooped on stories in their own backyard, the writing was what you'd expect from a newspaper emanating from a city of 48,424, and it would be a given that new reporter hires should go at least a page into google when investigating. ..."
"... We've been watching a German TV series called Babylon Berlin, which is set in Wiemar Germany, 1929, just before the crash. It's fascinating to compare those times to our own, there are many parallels. The show is extremely well done. https://newrepublic.com/article/147053/babylon-berlin-sees-weimar-republic ..."
"... ah, yes. this has been on my mind lately. More the best lacking all conviction and the worst full of passionate intensity than the rough beast part He's already ensconced in Washington and doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything [brain glancing off the specter of all those judges]. ..."
"... post the nation state ..."
"... When war comes it will not be fought by "post-nation states." ..."
"... These are middle aged and middle class professionals about to be thrown on the scrap heap. ..."
"... Colonel Smithers, I observed something similar during the Sanders campaign's peak here in Tucson. That would be during late 2015 and early 2016. Let's just say that people weren't flocking to Bernie because their lives were going well. ..."
"... If the subtext to the MSM's Trump coverage is, "He's a racist authoritarian so he must be stopped at all costs," then you'd think they'd cover police brutality every day. If they're so concerned about racism and authoritarianism. Instead, we're seeing the FBI, CIA, etc., cast in the role of 'oppressed minorities standing up to The System, Maaan!' ..."
"... Plus, as a fan of paranoia, I can say. . . I've never seen a more unsatisfying, overly-abstract conspiracy in my life. It's not that they are rehabilitating CIA goons, but they're doing so specifically in order to obsess over memos, and reports about memos, and memos about reports about leaks about other memos. ..."
"... It's like an episode of The Office if everyone in the office had nukes. ..."
"... that attitude is nearly universal, across all layers of society ..."
"... I am in my late 50s, and for most of my life there was an air of seriousness and competence about national leaders. Even when they were doing something you didn't like, you could generally assume they were adequate to the situation, or at least had access to people who were. E.g., the moronic Reagan at least supposedly had a coterie of serious people in his administration who could keep the train on the tracks. ..."
"... Now we seem to be at a point where the people in charge are unapologetic about their greed, their lack of ability or even interest in their jobs and consitiuents, their lack of intellect and integrity, and the absence of any pretense of doing anything useful for the population or the society ..."
"... I guess what I'm saying is, as one surveys the landscape, there is a marked loss of hope coupled with a tearing urgency that something needs to be done. It's a terrible, very volatile and dangerous condition. ..."
' orthodox MSM outlets like the New York Times and the WaPo seem to be presenting us
with stale fare right now '
Such as this [paywalled] bombshell from the WaPo: 'With McCain's retreat, some turn to
Romney to carry his torch.'
Riveting. Like reviewing old photos of the Soviet Politburo to see who got airbrushed out. To paraphrase the WaPo's slogan, 'Democracy dies in decadence. '
or like viewing old photos of the Robber Barons. The msm has stopped trying to convince
middle class readers it's 'on their side', imo. A few have gone full plutocrat friendly.
Anything that rocks the plutocrats boats must be caused by 'russians, russians, russians', or
outside agitators, or foreigners of one kind or another – not 'real' Americans.
Exactly
the kind of things the robber barons and their press said 100+ years ago about working class
workers striking for better wages and working conditions.
I agree in the regard to the seeming reduction in analytical quantity and quality. I think
you're right with it being caused by reductions in newsroom staff, but I think the type of
journalists we have has also changed drastically.
Most of the younger generation that is
being brought in has gone directly to journalism school, but has no other experience in the
real world. I think many of the older guard had other careers, expertise or experience before
they started writing.
So much of what passes for "analysis" nowadays reveals very shallow
knowledge of the subject being covered by the writer. This is often most apparent in tech or
science articles. I would say some overlap to "management" culture – managers are
interchangeable, no matter the industry, since they are experts on managing. Same thing with
journalism – if you can write something, you can write about anything .
For one thing, the, MSM has become heavily dependent on election coverage in the last
decade or so, both (I assume) in revenue from political advertising, and in fountains of
easy-to-write daily horse race articles about the state of the election.
I think 2017, a post-election year, kind of got a free pass because of the election of
Trump, who was either going to make everything great (again!) or blow everything up, and the
media was able to sustain an electoral-style energy and reader involvement well beyond the
2016 elections.
Now that (a) Trump has turned out to be an incompetent and ineffectual idiot who does
nothing but watch TV, (b) we are seeing the tired old GOP program of screwing the population
instead of anything new, and ( c) the Dems have done absolutely nothing for 13 months beyond
foam at the mouth about Trump, perhaps the energy of the 2016 election is finally wearing
off.
This strategy was already starting to become implicit, as the Mueller-related
"wolf"-crying drags on (and counter-investigations of Clintons are brandished as a M.A.D.
deterrent), and as we read that Trump's tax cuts are playing well among likely swing voters
both in Congress and in the low-middle income electorate, while it gets ever-closer to "too
late" (to be credible before the 2018 midterms) for the Democratic establishment to show any
new seriousness about the issues raised and pursued by Bernie Sanders, and by the many local
candidates being sabotaged (of necessity more openly than in the past) by the donor-addicted
Democratic establishment.
In the real world, we have growing social needs with an aging population that will require
Social Security and Medicare. This guy is basically saying to ignore that, which will likely
result in a mass die-off of the middle-aged and elderly like that which occurred in 1990s
Russia when social programs were gutted under neoliberal shock-therapy "advisors" to the
puppet Yeltsin.
Meanwhile, climate change advances requiring massive investment in adaptation, and
mitigation if Democrat concerns about climate change are to be taken at face value. (I
believe we are 30 years too late, but should do what we can. Democrats claim to be concerned
about climate change with their posturing around the Paris Agreement – how does this
new cold war lower emissions?)
Nuclear waste from nuclear power and weapons needs to be secured before climate change
kicks in, but instead we are spending trillions on new weapons that will create new
radioactive waste. The new arms race with Russia and China will be incredibly expensive and
dangerous, taking money from real societal and economic needs. Arms spending by the US will
result in arms spending in Russia and China, multiplying the problem on a global scale.
Unsecured nuclear waste in Russia and China, like unsecured nuclear waste in the US, affects
the entire globe.
In this real world context, this guy wants to promote an unnecessary new cold war to get
Democrats elected. Truly disgusting and insane.
In this real world context, this guy wants to promote an unnecessary new cold war to
get Democrats elected. Truly disgusting and insane.
Not only disgusting and insane, but politically stupid. Any Democrat politician who thinks
that promoting Unhinged Russia Hysteria is a winning political strategy is guilty of
political malpractice.
On that note, I'll try harder to go to that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen talk on Tuesday, as that
seems to be what she and they are pushing(unhinged Russia hysteria ) as a winning political
strategy.
I got paid today and since the Republican tax cut, my take home pay is larger. Not a
dollar or two larger, but enough that it's very easy to notice.
That's what people are going to remember when they go to the voting booth in 2018 (if they
even bother) – while the Democrats where whining about Putin and Russia and doing
nothing productive whatsoever to improve people's lives, Trump gave everybody more $$$.
Not everything is about money and its not going to affect the majority of people who will
be going to the polls, we are already set in our objections of the POTUS and unless he
becomes Presidential quickly none of us are changing our minds. This brought to you by a
swing voting independent. I will not vote for a republican in 2018 sans what I said.
. . . articulating and advocating a strategy of the Democratic establishment making
anti-Russia hysteria (and resulting surveillance and military spending and probably
adventures), as a core campaigning plank, the new normal, completely independent of any
impeachment or even re-election defeat of Trump.
The "official" narratives from much of the MSM are increasingly removed from any reality
experienced by the majority. For example, the latest is a report from Hamilton that much of
the social media activity concerning the Florida school shooting is now infested and promoted
by Russian bots "to sow division". How more absurd could it be?
I think that sort of disconnect produces both a numbness and an anxiety and a belief that
we are governed and led by institutions completely clueless and out of control. Therefore,
people just hunker down in disbelief.
this. this seems important. coupled with the fact that enough of the news consumers today
are wholly cynical regarding any ability of the hoi poloi to make change.
I have it on good authority that the whole rebranding of the KKK first as the CCC than as
the NRA was a long-term Soviet Russian plot to cause an epidemic of mass shootings
that would undermine not only US 'Democracy', but the entire capitalist juggernaut!
I've definitely been noticing a fairly obvious breakdown in people's ability to be on top
of even basic things. We're all fried. I've got really reliable clients suddenly bouncing
payments, unable to track projects I've also had first hand encounters with both the
law/court system and the medical industry/health care system and the IT processes are
byzantine and hugely ineffective.
I think Lambert used the phrase "boom exhaustion ". I think it's apt. We're spinning so
hard and nothings getting better or easier.
That story is a classic example of a dominant minority resorting to archaism to address
the present crisis they face. It won't work either. The US government had an extraordinarily
high amount of social trust and support heading into the external crisis that was the Cold
War. They eventually frittered it away into the present and the expectation that events will
turn out the same is why the creative minority of our past is now a dominant minority in the
present. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, for the sake of clarity. We live in a
target rich environment for people who've studied Toynbee.
Following up on something Lambert wrote once, it seems that pundits who are incapable of
using the term "working class" without somehow attaching the word "white" to it are -- besides not really being on the left -- also more likely than others to push the
"Russia ate my Election" nonsense.
I think what the horrid warmongering article in Useless News misses is that the flyover
states, which supply the troops for the wars, are getting war weary (and why not). Trump
capitalized on this in the election, and there was a positive correlation at IIRC the county
level between war casualities and troop support.
An anti-war candidate who could make the case in the flyover states might really make an
impact. And the only candidate I can see doing that is Sanders, and I'm not sure Sanders has
the inclination, or even the stones, to do it. That F-35 base in Vermont rankles. Is
that really the kind of bacon to bring home?
1) Do you think this might be an age-related experience? The elders among us may have a
feeling of deja-vu, been here, seen that there's not much new in the world, just the same
scenes endlessly repeated with new actors, or an incremental worsening of situations that
have already been in decline for years. How long can endless war be news? Or endless
corruption? Or endless neo-liberalism etc?
2) Here in the UK, I personally am sick to death with everything being seen through the
prism of Brexit. Yes it is an existential crisis for our politics and our way of life but
no-one is addressing the ways in which it will improve/demolish our daily lives – food
being an obvious one. Yes it is referred to but not in such terms as ordinary people can
identify with. It's all about abstracts – treaties/reciprocal arrangements/customs and
tariffs/values and volumes of exports/imports etc. And in the meantime, we get stories about
how Europeans leaving us will damage our NHS and crop picking without addressing the
underlying causes of WHY we need imported labour and why the NHS is still deteriorating
despite having those immigrants.
3) Following on from 2, whatever other news there is seems weirdly predictable and is
based around personalities, rather than communities and systems. Whatever source one chooses
to read, this predictability leads one to end up agreeing with Mandy Rice-Davies "Well, he
would say that, wouldn't he?", no matter who the subject is.
4) Now we are leaping on the Russiabus but it is largely met with a huge yawn, unless you
like to foam at the mouth at ConservativeHome.
I wholeheartedly agree about how a significant factor is that the mainstream media insists
on viewing everything through ridiculously contrived "lenses" (Trump, "Russia-gate", Brexit,
harassment) and, intentionally I would claim, deliberately obscuring the real problems
(wealth distribution, neoliberalism, collapse of the social contract).
Here in the UK, I personally am sick to death with everything being seen through the
prism of Brexit.
I read the following article from today's Links fully expecting it to be about Brexit and
the political fallout from a possible hard border. Instead, the pivotal issue in the split
between Sinn Fein and the DUP apparently revolves around efforts to secure offical status for
the Irish language in the North. While that issue too may well be a distraction, it had
nothing to do with Brexit, and I was surprised.
Animals become agitated in advance of earthquakes. It may be that the reason for angst
does not lie in the past, but in the future.
In general, so many of the stories are predictable self-parodies, from the Democrats
relentless pursuit of the mythical 'moderate insurgents' in republican suburbs, and their
comical screeching about Putin, to the drumbeat stories attacking Trump for Obama policies,
to the contortions of the neocon policy apparatus trying to justify occupation and regime
change in Syria, without mentioning those goals
" The centre does not hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ".
Yes! I've never seen anything like this by any measure. It's the scope and magnitude and
number and inter-relatedness and intractability of all the issues at once. Population,
climate change, economic disaster systems as in Capitalism going nuts, exploding Military
Industrial Complex and perpetual wars , 2 Bat -- - Crazy and utterly corrupt political
parties playing nuclear Russian Roulette, Baghdad Bob like main stream media, transformation
from a democracy into a police state, open and protected killing of blacks for being black
(the fact that isn't exaggerated is mind-numbing), technological tsunamis being co-opted and
twisted into iron fisted dystopias by all of the above.
The mind simply can't keep up with it – particularly the reality of it (as in the
Democrats going stark raving mad with Russia-Gate – never mind just being corrupt and
hypocritical to the core) and the body or something inside sends out a sort of anesthetic to
help the mind deal with the increasing perception of the trauma.
I do "get" the analogy of calm before the storm and perhaps that is indeed what we are
going through right now but to me it feels like we are simultaneously in the middle of the
disaster and constantly waking up to just how horrific it really is.
"Slowed down by a sense of hopelessness in all his decisions and movements, he suffered
from bitter sadness, and his incapacity solidified into a pain that often sat like a
nosebleed behind his forehead the moment he tried to make up his mind to do something."
-- Robert Musil, The Man Without Qualities
For me, this is key. When I cast my eye upon the news I'm greeted with unrelenting
bleakness. Trump's cruel and terrible health plan was big news for months, then his terrible
tax cut plan, now his terrible budget. Foreign affairs are equally bleak: the Democrats are
busy stirring up a second Cold War. There's no end in sight to the trillions of dollars our
nation spends every year on waste and destructive mayhem. Sociopathic corporations and
octogenarian billionaires own this country. It's difficult to see anything positive on the
horizon.
It could also come down to low Vitamin D and an unusually cold (thanks to climate change)
winter.
There are two Americas. The news is mostly for and from the one that protects the rentier
or elite class. They send their children to private schools. The second one has children who go to public schools who get shot and killed by gunmen
that the school and law authorities have been warned about and then decide it's not worth
their attention.
I think we have reached America's breaking point. Shitty jobs, shitty pay, shitty hours,
no hope of affordable housing anywhere, no advancement, massive amounts debt, no easy access
to medical care, uneven safety nets, denigration, lack of mutual respect, a lifetime of
working with little hope of a safe retirement it's just not pretty out here.
Where I live, they post the real estate sales in the newspaper and there are many weeks
where not a single house sold for over $500k. But in SF, it is news that something sold for
$500k because nothing is ever that cheap.
So you have many areas of the country (not accidental they voted for Trump) where $500k is
a fabulously high price for a house because the economies are in a rut but the places where
all the people carrying huge student debt loads are supposed to go to work to be part of the
future are completely unaffordable for all but a few.
I think we are still in a Wile E. Coyote moment where he has gone off the cliff but
gravity has not taken hold yet (cartoons don't understand parabolic arcs, similar to central
banks and politicians). One of the purposes of financial crises like 2008 is to reset the
playing field. The inequality and inefficiency of the Roaring 20s got reset in the 1930s
where many people who had paper wealth, but large debt, collapsed and regulation followed
that survived for 60 years in preventing similar scenarios. The 2009-2016 period missed that
window of opportunity as the focus became preserving the people who had destabilized the
system. That meant the damage was one-sided to the bottom 90%. The top 10% are largely
disconnected, deliberately, from what is going on with the bottom 90% and as a result are
baffled about the swelling unrest in the country. That unrest is still largely unfocused and
just burps out random things right now like the Tea Party, Trump, Sanders etc.
The only good news to come out of the Florida shooting is that the young people are
beginning to realize that they are cannon fodder (literally) in the cynical political battles
waged by their elders. We may start to see more passion for change occurring.
https://www.thecut.com/2018/02/florida-school-shooting-survivors-share-powerful-messages.html
Hopefully the 70 years old politicians will move out of the way and allow a new generation
with new ideas to start to emerge. However, it will take a lot to displace the current
political inertia from funding allowed for the wealthy 70 year olds by Citizens United.
Strangely enough, I've been thinking the exact same things, obviously from a U.K. framed
perspective. I've not commented on this on posts nor have I discussed this with either
Jerri-Lynn, Lambert, Yves, Richard Smith or any of the regular crowd here. I just passed it
off to myself as my usual neurotic preoccupations.
I can't really put it into words properly. Which can be one of the reasons why I've not
put my thoughts down in writing. Musing on this earlier this week, the best way I could come
up with capturing the vibe was to quote from E M Forster who (describing an English country
house, the people in it and as a metaphor for the country as a whole at the time) as "being
not yet actually in decline, but in the torpor which precedes it". That fit both the mood
that I sense and the cause of the pervasive anxiety.
It also, he says, opening a can of worms which he'll probably regret, but here goes,
covers and explains several conversations I've had with fellow Brexit voters. The U.K.
government is screwing things up royally with regards to the implementation of Brexit. The
national division is just as bad as ever. And we're alienating the neighbors who we really
need to keep in with for the sake of the long term. We may yet end up as being something akin
to Mordor-on-Sea. But, among the friends and relatives I've had these discussions with, none
of us could, if we were being honest, really say we cared that much. The nihilism was
slightly shocking. What was the reason for that?
The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are. Something --
anything -- is better than years and years, decades and decades of more of the same.
A shake up is long overdue and we're way past the point that tweaking round the edges is
going to be good enough.
I'm still slightly stunned to have stumbled across this unsettling zeitgeist.
I've done my stint in living through the chaotic end to the 1970's and endured the major
social upheavals in Thatcher's show-no-mercy early 1980's. Those were bad times. But this is
worse in a lot of ways, if only for the crushing atmosphere of a powerless proletariat.
I do think there are some safety valves. And at least in the past decade we've come to
recognise in our shared culture the harms done by things like inequality and how corrupt our
governments and corporations really are. And we've channels of common communication (like
Naked Capitalism, amongst a few others) which didn't exist a decade or so ago. I'm just not
sure they're enough.
Completely agree with "none of us could, if we were being honest, really say we cared that
much". My friends and I are in the same boat. I'm not sure it's nihilism sometimes I think
this is the point of our news coverage – to grind us down with boring mediocrity until
we accept whatever settlement suddenly becomes acceptable to TPTB. But then maybe THAT is
nihilistic too.
Important question! Let me serve up a goulash of inertial fear and loathing:
1. Attacks on Trump have failed to wing him legally. Passage of the corporatophilic tax
bill is going to produce a short term stimulus that many of us suspect will undermine the
reversal of fortune the policy-thin Dems hoped to pull off. So in part we're stuck with
watching a dreary theme in political economy play out in as margin estimates drift
downward.
2. The Dem commitment to Russiagate has become their WMD story, it has to be stuck with
lest its proponents admit their lying. Down on the ground, I was flummoxed to get a forwarded MoveOn email from a friend encouraging me to participate in flash demonstration at the
capitol if Mueller is fired. I was moved to explain that this worried me since it likely
hinged on Russophobia. A coolness ensued. This is happening broadly. The Russo-Resistance
strategy has had the effect of exacerbating divisions in the potential opposition to
neoliberalism. Not a bug.
3. The Syrian conflict has entered yet another crucial phase. I expect the Israelis to
kick over the table, and the Trump administration doesn't have the necessary resolution to
stop them with guaranteed threats. Militaristic cretins might be given a chance to run with
the ball. And then there's North Korea. Breath holding here.
4. Personally, I have very little gut-level understanding of the cadences of crisis
politics. Given the seriousness of the issues and the obviousness of the targets, I'd expect
Sanders or someone else to be sounding the trumpets. Instead, it seems to be more a matter of
setting out rebuttals, worrying about exhausting or boring the audience. I realize that we're
not in an "in the streets" phase, but are supposed to be building organizations, finding
candidates, etc. But the methodical, deliberate pace of that effort starts to seem inadequate
to the moment.
5. And then there's climate warming, which so easily gives rise to that deck chairs
feeling. Hard to suppress it at times.
I hate to concede much to the importance of national leadership, but in the absence, as
yet, of a broad, thoroughly anti-neoliberal social democratic organization that provides a
"culture of solidarity," (as Rick Fantasia described it in his fine book) we need it. And so
we're left with moods and presentiments, while trying to deflate fake leader trial balloons
-- another Kennedy? Cory Booker?
I would argue that there's a basic need for most human beings to feel like part of
something greater, that they're working towards something more meaningful than ever more
crass consumerism, ala Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you .."
So when push comes to shove, a credible national leader who is able to cajole everyone to
start pulling together in the same direction can make a serious go at solving or at least
addressing / amerliorating some of our pressing issues. I don't think there's anyone in the
US political circles right now that fits the bill ..
Compare and contrast with Putin and Xi, who are personally untouched by corruption taint,
and whom their population actually believes has their nations' long-term interests at
heart
I'd say national leadership will make all the difference when push comes to shove. Been
telling that to US friends for a couple of years, fwiw.
" The general consensus was that we simply cannot go on as we are. "
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Whether it's skyrocketing measures of income
inequality, health insurance premiums rising faster than wages, college tuition rates and
student loan balances rising faster than wages, mindlessly skyrocketing stock markets and
asset bubbles fueled by stupid central bank policies, or whatever other unsustainable woe you
choose to pick, these things cannot go on forever . Indeed, you can almost feel the
"major social upheaval" lurking around the corner.
And we're incredibly divided. Most of the MSM has been sucked into personality conflicts
and the us-vs-them mindset. They actively feed it now. You're expected to pick a team and
learn to hate the other guys.
I too suspect that "tweaking round the edges" will prove totally inadequate, but I have no
desire for revolution. I've seen too many of them start off well but then go off the rails in
horrible, terrifying directions. Revolutions can be terribly sloppy affairs, with real people
getting hurt in the process. And they usually don't end where we really want them to.
So where does this leave us? Unsettled and full of angst, to say the least, with no good
solutions in sight.
Just yesterday I was asked, "Aren't you a liberal Democrat?" I answered, "No, I hate both
parties equally." That set them back on their laurels. They expected me to say "Yes."
A seemingly endless loop of outrage that yields nothing, except the feeling of
powerlessness -- that all that is important in life is out of our hands, and in the hands
of those who look at us and see nothing but another source of revenue.
Yes, I agree with the "endless loop of outrage" weariness that has set in, the best
example being the (ho-hum) shooting of a dozen high school students that in a normal society
would prompt mobilization for change and quick marginalization of any leader who said, Let's
do nothing! When murder becomes routine, an overall numbness is unavoidable. I had a visitor
from Mexico with me recently who asked why I was watching a documentary about serial killer
John Wayne Gacey (as someone who hitchhiked nearby around that time, I take a personal
interest) and remarked, "In Mexico serial killers are not news."
"A seemingly endless loop of outrage that yields nothing, except the feeling of
powerlessness–"
I rather think that our "feeling of powerlessness" is the goal aimed for by the msm. And
identity politics serves a divide and conquer function. (But you can buy T-shirts! so it's
all good. /s)
I hope to draw some response to the second part of my complaint, which is that in the
dog-eat-dog world of a society ordered solely by markets, we are reduced: First, from being
to citizens to consumers, then from being consumers to being marks, rubes, suckers. The
"news" (such as it is) isn't reported to us, it's sold to us.
Corporate media has been pumping out Trump Derangement Syndrome stories for 18+ months.
[if you're cynical] not only because the media genuinely dislike trump, but to drive
clickbait and subscription sign-ups
but just as 'likes' juice the happy-chemical parts of your brain, Trump-related outrage
stories juice the angry-chemical parts of your brain.
After 18 months of being triggered by the news media [sometimes by Trump, sometimes by DNC
pundits, sometimes by real life], your brain basically says -- 'so what? i'm not angry any
more.'
I was idly wondering yesterday where the current hysteria surrounding Trump will lead
everyone. There have been hysterical political situations before, but they have tended to be
'single issue' ones – I can't recall any time when so many people on the main political
parties have been so singlemindedly determined to whip up anger. When its a 'single issue' or
generated by one side it can run out of steam or diffuse but when its multiple issues I think
its liable to either result in an explosion, or, conversely, lead to a sort of nervous
exhaustion. Looking at it from the outside, I would really fear what could happen in the US
if there was a major economic reversal. A sense of a rising tide can ease over a lot of
worries, but if things go into reverse, it can curdle into real anger. In historical
situations it can help if the anger has a particular focus, but a huge problem in the US
seems to me to be that there is no focus – its all so diffuse – anger at Trump,
at inequality, at feminists, at equality, at Russia, at Iran, at pretty much everyone.
From my reading of history, when countries have been in the grip of anxiety it is often a
relief when a feared thing happens – such as when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour it was
widely reported that the response of the public, including anti-war activists, was great
relief. A feeling that at least a course had been set, a key decision made, even if it was a
potentially disastrous one.
I've read that much the same feeling descended over much of
Europe at the start of WWI. While the same situation doesn't quite apply in the US, I do fear
that there is a craving for some sort of decision, a decisive act. While I think Trump is by
nature someone who prefers to stir the pot rather than take decisive action, he is also very
sensitive to the darker drives of the public feeling. I do fear that he might feel inclined
to do something really stupid, and there is nobody sensible around him to stop it
happening.
I think Trump understands more than he reveals. I think we are looking at the tempered
effects of MSM froth by all the good, sensible internet bloggers and commenters which serve
to neutralize the nonsense. What I see is angst failure – nobody bought this farcical
onslaught of propaganda. Everyone questioned it. Something happens to the "news" when
opposite views and facts collide – it gets emulsified like vinegar and oil into much
less drastic possibilities.
On the one hand – on the other hand. The internet was able
to neutralize the MSM because the MSM does only superficial "reporting". There seems to be a
state of angst withdrawal, lots of confusion, and no direction. As if "time goes on like
nothing is important." And lately a very interesting thing has happened – there is
almost no hysteria about "the debt. I have the vague feeling that there are some few people
who are actually in control of their senses and the sea change is approaching critical mass.
Things will change for the better not only because everyone is fed up but probably more
because our dear leaders, including the banksters, are clueless and they don't know how to
make capitalism work using the old rules. It's gonna be interesting. Thank you NC.
Interesting reminds me of how some torturers have learned that the fear of the pain can be
worse than the pain itself in terms of emotional distress and breaking down ego-barriers to
cooperation/submission. When the fear is worse than the feared experience, the feared
experience itself is a relief.
Our Jerri-Lynn, who mainly lives overseas, was briefly in the US last month and
dropped by our NYC meetup. She commented to me that she was very eager to leave because she
could sense how high the general tension level was.
I can assure you, what she feels is very, very real.
My wife and I travel at least once a year back to Canada , where my wife is from – the
difference in tension is palpable. I feel so loose and calm when I am there.
"Do you sense, as Lambert and I do, that the news tide has receded?"
My primary news source is the print edition of the Wall Street Journal and I've noted to
myself a similar observation recently. The first time I saw the gymnist doctor sex abuse
story featured prominetly on the first page I thought it odd. When the story was featured
promintely on the front page multiple times after that it felt bizzare. My reaction was
wondering how can this possibly be that important compared to everything else happening in
the world.
"If so, to resort to Warren Buffett's image, who do you think it has exposed as swimming
naked?"
My interpetation has been the news media has been exposed as swimming naked. They are
unable or unwilling to spend the money required to deliver professional reporting. Since
election season they have depended on reporting on Trump's controversies to fill their pages.
That is cheap and easy to do. Without that they have to spend time, money and talent to
report on other complex matters.
The quaility and quantity of the print edition of the WSJ has been a noticeable decline
the last few years. Little things like a front page lead in to what was supposed to be on
page B1 was instead on B4. I've been reading the WSJ for probably twenty years now and never
seen that happen before.
Twice during the presidential election they had what looked like at
first a normal section of the newspaper but was actually a "paid advertisement" from China
and Japan. It was blatant propaganda from their governments. It was shocking that the WSJ
would take money to print foreign government's propaganda on election matters. There have
been many other observations like that which have lead me to the conclusion news reporting
capabilities have been gutted more than most people realize.
True, but can they address those concerns? The Occupy movement was such an effort, but the
police seem to have stifled it. Then Sen. Sanders appeared on the scene with his Presidential
campaign and that too was suppressed. If people are in fact not engaged it probably indicates
an absence of what is important and meaningful for them in the larger society.
I have had the same or at a least similar feeling of late, but for the most part
considered it as me reflecting my own circumstances on the world, as well as worrying items
of news particularly from Syria. A bit like an increasing tightness of breath, within the
increasingly stale & pressurized air of an expanding balloon.
It has been a rather dull time for news, and i'm not really feeling any angst, other than
when I went to a neighbor's dinner party surrounded by reign of error supporters that seemed
to be doubling down on their choice in an assertive manner, with absolutely no prompting from
me.
I found that disturbing, the group-sink mentality, a blackjack equivalent of doubling down
on a 16, with the dealer showing a face card, why?
The LA Times got sold this week, which came with the SD Union Tribune as 2 for 1 deal for
$500 million.
The LAT had truly turned into a piece of garbage the past years, they'd get scooped on
stories in their own backyard, the writing was what you'd expect from a newspaper emanating
from a city of 48,424, and it would be a given that new reporter hires should go at least a
page into google when investigating.
Why would somebody pay half a billion for something that's broken down and even if you
fixed it, where is the upside?
My take is we are in the period just before WW1 and the last garden parties. Everything
seems warm, slightly off. The skirts are hobbling, the hats large and the military medals
shiny on gold braid. The politicians are making noise, but we all know that for all the strum
and bother, they will come to a resolution.
Did you hear the Austrian heir and his wife were shot? Try the sandwiches .
Ummm, those sandwiches are simply MARVELOUS I *must* get your recipe.
My neighbors sons both joined the Uhlan Regiment, and we are organizing a party for them
before they go to the academy. They look sooooo precious in their uniforms, I want to be sure
we have the best in food and drink for their send off party!
And yes, those dang Serbians. Such troublemakers. Rest assured they will be dealt with
swiftly and severely.
We've been watching a German TV series called Babylon Berlin, which is set in Wiemar
Germany, 1929, just before the crash. It's fascinating to compare those times to our own,
there are many parallels. The show is extremely well done. https://newrepublic.com/article/147053/babylon-berlin-sees-weimar-republic
There's an Ingmar Bergman film from the 1960s called Winter Light where one of the
characters finds out the Red Chinese have acquired the bomb and kills himself. Surely it's
the news media who are creating the current wave of high anxiety and even tragedies like
school shootings seem to be egged on by the media since most shooters are copycats.
Which is why some of us have taken to getting our news from sites like this one. A sanity
filter is needed. A sense of perspective may also be useful as in world historical terms
there have been much worse periods than this. Time does heal wounds, perhaps even elites who
have lost their marbles.
ah, yes. this has been on my mind lately. More the best lacking all conviction and the
worst full of passionate intensity than the rough beast part He's already ensconced in
Washington and doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything [brain glancing off the specter
of all those judges].
This is an astute post by NC and lots of great comments -- little to add but I'll see your
Yeats and raise you one Gramsci:
"The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be
born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."
Well as long as we're talking poetry, I think Auden's September 1, 1939 might be even
more relevant today than it was back when it was written. So much so that I can't decide
which part of it to excerpt (and it's a bit too long to just quote the whole thing!).
Actually, no, I do know -- here is the last stanza of the poem, which just happens to
describe exactly the kind of thing that NC -- at its best -- can provide in opposition to the
"waves of anger and fear [ ] obsessing our private lives."
Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.
The DOJ Inspector General report will be out in March. After one look at a draft of the
report, Randall Wray fired McCabe. And remember, the DOJIG has all of the Strzok e-mails,
including the ones the FBI "inadvertently destroyed." Hopes–and fears–are high
that this report will expose all of the Russiagate corruption in complete detail. If so, even
mainstream media stars won't have a place to hide. They went all in too long ago and pushed
the story way too hard.
So to answer Yves's questions: yes, there is deep fear that a receding tide is about to
reveal a lot of naked swimmers and that yes, it will be a tsunami.
Professor Kendall Thomas, director of the Center for the Study of Law and Culture at
Columbia Law School, spoke at Goethe House New York recently. He designated Trump a
'post-president,' saying that the mythological status of the US presidency has been exploded
(my word). An audience member asked if we were also post the nation state; Kendall replied
that the questioner had answered his own question.
Perhaps here we have the source, or one major source, of the generalized angst?
(No video, or no video yet, however, see https://www.goethe.de/ins/us/en/sta/ney/ver.cfm
? fuseaction=events.detail&event_id=21154521)
I suppose it might have been private eye, a very changed publication from my first
introduction, suggested that the offspring of the firm were far more interested in
discotheques and tax free beaches than than the fealty of the field mice in their
property.
A little disinterested resignation might go a long way.
NCO smithers, sorry to hijack your thread; But if I'm going to do it within the headline post: Iraq war protests: The one in edinburgh was glorious, people flowing in from the mound, the west est end and
leith street, blocking the roads, g galloway and t sheridan doing what they do best.
I retired and watched the news on the bbc and that is why I have hardly looked at since
then.
What your have gifted me is contributions is that nothing is rational as family business,
and extra-family is hopeless romance.
I'll jog along (to use the contemporary parlance),
1) gaslighting with news that doesn't matter
2) feeeling of an echo chamber and the same ol same ol
3) unclear ways of taking action and identifying those persons who can fix the mess that
those persons impmementing neoliberalism and warmongering have created
I don't have much contact with the 1% now, having changed jobs in mid-2016, but agree with
you and get that sense from friends / former colleagues who do.
I work in the City of London. To use the euphemism en vogue at my employer, many people
will be "rolling off the platform", ours, over the spring. It's the same at my former
employer and another firm I know well. These are middle aged and middle class professionals
about to be thrown on the scrap heap.
Colonel Smithers, I observed something similar during the Sanders campaign's peak here in
Tucson. That would be during late 2015 and early 2016. Let's just say that people weren't
flocking to Bernie because their lives were going well.
Just to clarify, these are Bernie folks I'm talking about, with no love of corporate
Dems/Hillary, but I fear they don't realize how very real the threat is that the energy of
the base will be coopted by the leadership.
The news tide has receded because by blurring the line between news/information and
entertainment, for most people, it looses all relevance in conducting daily life. People are
tuned out and apathetic. Those watching the MSM closely are either entirely satisfied with
society as is, brainwashed, social voyeurs titilated by the access to human suffering in ever
expanding forms, or for professional interest. The weird atmosphere is that people realize
how precarious their social positions have become, but are offered no outlet to relieve the
growing anxiety. There is no leadership attempting to address these grievances, and when
movements do surface, the same set of characters jump to the forefront and successfully
diffuse the energy building for something different.
There is no accountability.
The MSM is ubiquitous in its constant drone of irrelevance. Just as the constant flashing
of advertising becomes harder and harder to see, it just stops carrying any useful
information regardless of what is being said or shown.
My sense for years has been the thought, "what will it take to break the malaise". Society
has gone from the Deep Water Horizon disaster, Fukushima meltdown, endless small wars, and
growing ecological disasters. Not to mention growing economic inequality with no end in
sight. The response is indifference and obfuscation.
Democracy requires civic action, but without proper leadership, Democracy is impossible.
Democracy requires institutions that citizens can participate in, and the current crop of
leaders undermines that participation at every turn.
So what is left is that everyone conducts their lives on autopilot- until forced to act
otherwise. It is a weird atmosphere where the general consensus is one of quiet despair, but
easier to pretend that all is well.
I will note that years after I stopped biting my nails I have started again. And this time
it is worse. I never endangered the quick, but am now so anxious And I have eliminated most
traditional sources of news from my life.
I am powerless. A seismic event that should have caused at least a small path change has
not. Instead the road is even more closed to alteration, the real news is the same or worse.
And the bread and circuses is not considered necessary because nothing really changed. The
shootings, the growing early deaths of the populace, and so on are normal. I do not know if
the slow boil of the frogs/populace will only end with their total collapse and that we have
merely turned up the heat to speed things up. Or if another seismic event that is more
violent and revolutionary is going to happen as the restricted road is overrun by those
supposed to die quickly and quietly. A Russian and French Revolution level up rising where
our current system is bludgeoned to death.
I try to ignore that sense, that prediction. But as my admission makes clear I cannot. We
are cursed to live in interesting times.
The firehose of information (shit?) being sprayed at me during my waking hours by the industrial-information complex was
chipping away at my soul one clickbait headline at a time, one junk email at a time, one advertisement at a time. So I made a
choice and l 'opted out' as best I could. I have only 3 news bookmarks (NC on of them). I dropped all social media in the
summer of '16. I've been cable free for nearly two years.
My overall mood has improved greatly over this time. I am not feeling the angst but I see the effect the 24×7 bombardment
is having on people close to me.
I am beginning to wonder if this constant bombardment is someone's grand design to wear us down, divide us, and keep us in
a permanent state of fear and paralysis.
Brilliant! I felt a similar Lightness of Being after giving up Facebook a few months ago. But this has been undermined by
recently taking up Twitter. Twitter is like having a stranger run up to you every few minutes shouting the same piece of
nonsense in your face. Then someone else shouts the exact opposite. And so on and so on.
I share your sense of "bombardment," and for me it's an on-going fight with my husband who
wants to watch MSNBC, CNN, etc. We have a very small house, so it's almost impossible for me
to get away from the audio, and it's winter, so going outside to escape is more
challenging.
I find the yelling of Rachel Maddow et al. actually like a physical assault on my senses.
I say to my husband, "you know things in the world are crap. Do you need to have that fact
repeated to you again and again? And don't you feel that this assault wears you down and
makes you less able to take positive action? That's its effect on me."
Gosh, Kokuanani, I am in much the same situation. My recently-retired husband turns the TV
on first thing in the morning and almost never shuts it down until bedtime. We have downsized
to a small condo, which fortunately has a small second bedroom/sitting room, so I can escape
for a time.
He watches CNN and the local news stations a lot and, as I stroll through the living room
or work in the adjacent kitchen, I am assaulted with the tension-laden voices of the news
anchors, pushing the latest disaster. I was almost grateful for the school shooting, since it
did make a change from the incessant prattling about l'affaire Porter.
What I find most horrifying are the daytime TV shows that feature white male authority
figures telling hapless people who have supposedly screwed up their lives and relationships,
exactly where they have gone wrong and what they need to do to straighten themselves out. The
audience, or should it be the 'mob,' acts as a chorus, egging on the participants.
I now realize how insulated from the 'real world' I have been for decades.
It is interesting that you feel the verbal yelling as as an almost physical assault. I
feel the same about constant background noise; it hurts. My spouse, on the other hand, seems
to need the stimulation of the verbal stream. (Might have something to do with his
dyslexia).
I frequently like to have the television on – often as background while I do other
things. I do have cable (as part of an integrated telephone/internet/television package) and
when I have broadcast television playing, as opposed to DVD's etc., I find I gravitate to old
comedy reruns. I've rewatched the entirety of the Mary Tyler Moore show multiple times this
winter along with many other 50's through early 80's television. The only breakthrough from
the hurricane of angst whirling through the U.S. media has been the commercials. The ads are
often made up of 50% promotion of a new pharmaceutical or medical product and 50% an
invitation to join a class action suit against the makers of a slightly older pharmaceutical
or medical product. It's an odd juxtaposition.
The wheels keep turning in place with no movement forward, backward, or in a circle. Case
in point: Yet one more mass shooting in a school. Yet one more disturbed, angry, and/or
obsessed personal with a semi-automatic weapon. Shock, horror, thoughts, prayers; we need
'sensible' gun controls; it's not the time to talk about guns, etc., etc. Same script every
time and it fades away until the next time. Does no one notice?
What can I add to what has already been said? I am sick to death of slippery empty words
and sly tactics and thievery. I want to say to hell with it all, but I cannot not care.
The reason most news is dull is that most of it is fake. I was watching an old interview
that Kerry Cassidy did with Jim Marrs the other day and he was riveting. A lot of people
classify Marrs as a conspiracy nut but he described himself as a journalist. One of the most
memorable things he said (this is not an exact quote) is that he still tried to do
journalism, but we really don't have journals any more. They are more like advertising
circulars and the stories are almost all government or corporate public relations pieces.
There are plenty of stories to write. The pieces you guys run on Uber and Calpers are rare
and not dull. It is obvious when a competent journalist has taken the time to do research and
investigate and double-check things and think about what they are doing.
The manipulated dope the government releases on the latest shooting is not news. It is
propaganda. It isn't worth reading.
my 2 cents: the FOX NEWS-ification of the MSM is now complete, and that's why it's
weird.
If the subtext to the MSM's Trump coverage is, "He's a racist authoritarian so he must be
stopped at all costs," then you'd think they'd cover police brutality every day. If they're
so concerned about racism and authoritarianism. Instead, we're seeing the FBI, CIA, etc.,
cast in the role of 'oppressed minorities standing up to The System, Maaan!'
Plus, as a fan of paranoia, I can say. . . I've never seen a more unsatisfying,
overly-abstract conspiracy in my life. It's not that they are rehabilitating CIA goons, but
they're doing so specifically in order to obsess over memos, and reports about memos, and
memos about reports about leaks about other memos.
It's like an episode of The Office if everyone in the office had nukes. Sheesh, give me P2
and the Vatican Bank any day.
TLDR: It's weird because of the sudden growth of the disconnect between [the very real
anxieties we news consumers feel in our daily lives] . . . . and the news reports which
attempt to leverage those anxieties into outrage at [whatever media elites are mad at that
day].
A question I'm pondering lately that may be related: suppose a general pulled a Julius
Caesar, crossed the Rubicon/Potomac and seized control of the US government. What would the
response be?
Sixty years ago, there would have been staunch support for the civilian government,
politicians of both parties would have rallied their supporters to defend our democratic
heritage, and I believe ordinary citizens would have actively opposed the military government
in a number of ways up to and including taking up arms.
Today? I just can't see it. I don't know if anyone would really give a [family_blog]
beyond some outrage on Facebook or Twitter. The nihilism and ennui are palpable.
Mark Blyth tells the story of speaking to a room full of fund managers and other monied
types, and he asked them if they would have trusted the politicians they supported twenty or
thirty years prior to manage one of their accounts, to general assent. But when he asked if
they would trust any of the politicians they currently support to do the same, they all
laughed out loud. In the US, that attitude is nearly universal, across all layers of
society .
Could you see yourself risking your life to go fight for our democracy under the banner of
Chuck Schumer? The DNC? Any of the ghouls in the GOP? I can't. And I think that's
meaningful.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say the MSM is getting revenge on us. They got the 2016 election wrong, were exposed as out-of-touch, and rightly ridiculed.
Lacking credibility and unwilling to do stories that would upset their owners (i.e. stories
ABOUT average American problems), the only tool left in their 'keep people reading us'
toolkit is. . .'aaaaah read this or the country dies!!!!'
And what do you know, the 'anxiety' tool just also happens to inflict a lot of psychic
punishment on the same news consumers that ridiculed them. So that's a two-fer!
I'm having trouble articulating the pile of words in my head to describe my thinking on
current news media. I'll just say that I've suspected an "establishment agenda" in most news
for years and Trump has mostly confirmed that suspicion. I'm sure it has, to some extent,
always been that way with the press (we can't escape our culture), but the stakes of
milquetoast (or outright nefarious) new media seem bigger now than ever (US empire collapse,
climate change, ballooning global inequality). I'm only 31 so let me know if I'm off base
thinking the sky is falling.
I think the hosts are right that the news seems to be drying up as of late, but I think
that is more a feature than a bug. There is plenty to discuss and dissect. They are just not
the kinds of things that capitalist media wants to even acknowledge much less cover.
I don't know if there are any Aussies in this thread, but I'll include a link to a
comedian from Australia who has excellent and usually funny commentary on Australian
politics. He posts a great deal on Youtube and has a pretty excellent take down of Vice News.
BTW the ever edgy Vice has a 5% stake owned by Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox and his boy
James is/was a board member, figure that one out. The comedian says more pointedly what I was
trying to say above to a particular example of the problem, and I think the critique of Vice
News is within the topic of the thread. As a heads up, you may need to see his initial video to get any context. I recommend
both.
I think one thing that is new recently is that the people supposedly driving the bus are
*obviously* incompetent and in over their heads.
I am in my late 50s, and for most of my life there was an air of seriousness and
competence about national leaders. Even when they were doing something you didn't like, you
could generally assume they were adequate to the situation, or at least had access to people
who were. E.g., the moronic Reagan at least supposedly had a coterie of serious people in his
administration who could keep the train on the tracks. Various government departments were
staffed by people who had a lifetime of experience in their affairs, and there was thus a
deep bench of skill and experience the national leaders could rely on when needed. Government
seemed serious and purposeful for the most part, and the nation seemed in reasonably good
hands.
It's impossible to say how much of this sensibility was real and how much carefully
maintained illusion; my guess is a lot of what was going on was the latter, but at least
leaders and the media realized seriousness was an important front to maintain.
Now we seem to be at a point where the people in charge are unapologetic about their
greed, their lack of ability or even interest in their jobs and consitiuents, their lack of
intellect and integrity, and the absence of any pretense of doing anything useful for the
population or the society. Important national institutions (e.g. the State Department! The
CDC!) are being left to languish or being actively dismantled. Who will fill the void? No one
cares. The media, meanwhile, not only fails to lament these things but actually seems to have
some glee about the situation and delights in spotlighting incompetence and even criminality
in the leadership
(I write from the US, obviously; however, the same seems to be true, perhaps even more so,
in the UK, from what I read.)
As a result, a deadly sense of futility sets in. At best, we can head off the bigger
disasters. Nothing is likely to actually improve. The will and leadership to face our many
impending disasters (climate change, nuclear war, inequality, racism, financial collapse,
infrastructure collapse) seems utterly absent.
I guess what I'm saying is, as one surveys the landscape, there is a marked loss of hope
coupled with a tearing urgency that something needs to be done. It's a terrible, very
volatile and dangerous condition.
"Before I go on with this short history, let me make a general observation -- the test
of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same
time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that
things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise."
"... It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war. ..."
"... And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between Washington and Beijing. ..."
"... Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, US Defense Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as "imperial. ..."
"... Russia's intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the anti-Assad coalition put together by the US. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its "aggression" is largely a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's doorstep. ..."
"... China is, however, the US's major competitor and the second largest economy in the world. It has replaced the US as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the US asked its key allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with the exception of Japan, they ignored Washington ..."
"... Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems, socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about "Communist subversion," but trade. ..."
"... For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time. "Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers, submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force. ..."
"... This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those high paying jobs. ..."
"... Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times ..."
"... Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com ..."
The Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy is being touted as a sea change in
U.S. foreign policy, a shift from the "war on terrorism" to "great power competition," a line
that would not be out of place in the years leading up to World War I. But is the shift really
a major course change, or a re-statement of policies followed by the last four
administrations?
The U.S. has never taken its eyes off its big competitors.
It was President Bill Clinton who moved NATO eastwards, abrogating a 1991 agreement with
the Russians not to recruit former members of the Warsaw Pact that is at the root of current
tensions with Moscow. And, while the U.S. and NATO point to Russia's annexation of the Crimea
as a sign of a "revanchist" Moscow, it was NATO that set the precedent of altering borders when
it dismembered Serbia to create Kosovo after the 1999 Yugoslav war.
It was President George W. Bush who designated China a "strategic competitor," and who tried
to lure India into an anti-Chinese alliance by allowing New Delhi to violate the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Letting India purchase uranium on the international market -- it was
barred from doing so by refusing to sign the NPT -- helped ignite the dangerous nuclear arms
race with Pakistan in South Asia.
And it was President Barack Obama who further chilled relations with the Russians by
backing the 2014 coup in the Ukraine, and whose "Asia pivot" has led to tensions between
Washington and Beijing.
So is jettisoning "terrorism" as the enemy in favor of "great powers" just old wine, new
bottle? Not quite. For one thing the new emphasis has a decidedly more dangerous edge to
it.
In speaking at Johns Hopkins, Defense Secretary James Mattis warned, "If you challenge us,
it will be your longest and worst day," a remark aimed directly at Russia. NATO ally Britain
went even further. Chief of the United Kingdom General Staff, Nick Carter, told the Defense and
Security Forum that "our generation has become use to wars of choice since the end of the Cold
War," but "we may not have a choice about conflict with Russia," adding "The parallels with
1914 are stark."
Certainly the verbiage about Russia and China is alarming. Russia is routinely described
as "aggressive," "revisionist," and "expansionist." In a recent attack on China, US Defense
Secretary Rex Tillerson described China's trade with Latin America as "imperial. "
But in 1914 there were several powerful and evenly matched empires at odds. That is not the
case today.
While Moscow is certainly capable of destroying the world with its nuclear weapons, Russia
today bears little resemblance to 1914 Russia, or, for that matter, the Soviet Union.
The U.S. and its allies currently spend more than 12 times what Russia does on its
armaments–$840 billion to $69 billion -- and that figure vastly underestimates
Washington's actual military outlay. A great deal of U.S. spending is not counted as
"military," including nuclear weapons, currently being modernized to the tune of $1.5
trillion.
The balance between China and the U.S. is more even, but the U.S. outspends China almost
three to one. Include Washington's allies, Japan, Australia and South Korea, and that figure is
almost four to one. In nuclear weapons, the ratio is vastly greater: 26 to 1 in favor of the
U.S. Add NATO and the ratios are 28 to 1.
This is not to say that the military forces of Russia and China are irrelevant.
Russia's intervention in the Syrian civil war helped turn the tide against the
anti-Assad coalition put together by the US. But its economy is smaller than Italy's, and its
"aggression" is largely a response to NATO establishing a presence on Moscow's
doorstep.
China has two military goals: to secure its sea-borne energy supplies by building up its
navy and to establish a buffer zone in the East and South China seas to keep potential enemies
at arm's length. To that end it has constructed smaller, more agile ships, and missiles capable
of keeping U.S. aircraft carriers out of range, a strategy called "area denial." It has also
modernized its military, cutting back on land-based forces and investing in air and sea assets.
However, it spends less of its GDP on its military than does the US: 1.9 percent as opposed to
3.8 percent.
Beijing has been rather heavy-handed in establishing "area denial," aliening many of its
neighbors -- Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Taiwan -- by claiming most of the South
China Sea and building bases in the Paracel and Spratly islands.
But China has been invaded several times, starting with the Opium Wars of 1839 and 1856,
when Britain forced the Chinese to lift their ban on importing the drug. Japan invaded in 1895
and 1937. If the Chinese are touchy about their coastline, one can hardly blame them.
China is, however, the US's major competitor and the second largest economy in the
world. It has replaced the US as Latin America's largest trading partner and successfully
outflanked Washington's attempts to throttle its economic influence. When the US asked its key
allies to boycott China's new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, with the exception of
Japan, they ignored Washington .
However, commercial success is hardly "imperial."
Is this a new Cold War, when the U.S. attempted to surround and isolate the Soviet
Union? There are parallels, but the Cold War was an ideological battle between two systems,
socialism and capitalism. The fight today is over market access and economic domination. When
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned Latin America about China and Russia, it wasn't about
"Communist subversion," but trade.
There are other players behind this shift.
For one, the big arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martian, Boeing, Raytheon, BAE Systems,
Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics -- have lots of cash to hand out come election time.
"Great power competition" will be expensive, with lots of big-ticket items: aircraft carriers,
submarines, surface ships, and an expanded air force.
This is not to say that the U.S. has altered its foreign policy focus because of arms
company lobbies, but they do have a seat at the table. And given that those companies have
spread their operations to all 50 states, local political representatives and governors have a
stake in keeping -- and expanding -- those high paying jobs.
Nor are the Republicans going to get much opposition on increased defense spending from the
Democrats, many of whom are as hawkish as their colleagues across the aisle. Higher defense
spending -- coupled with the recent tax cut bill -- will rule out funding many of the programs
the Democrats hold dear. Of course, for the Republicans that dilemma is a major side benefit:
cut taxes, increase defense spending, then dismantle social services, Social Security and
Medicare in order to service the deficit.
And many of the Democrats are ahead of the curve when it comes to demonizing the Russians.
The Russian bug-a-boo has allowed the Party to shift the blame for Hillary Clinton's loss to
Moscow's manipulation of the election, thus avoiding having to examine its own lackluster
campaign and unimaginative political program.
There are other actors pushing this new emphasis as well, including the Bush
administration's neo-conservatives who launched the Iraq War. Their new target is Iran, even
though inflating Iran to the level of a "great power" is laughable. Iran's military budget is
$12.3 billion. Saudi Arabia alone spends $63.7 billion on defense, slightly less than Russia,
which has five times the population and eight times the land area. In a clash between Iran and
the US and its local allies, the disparity in military strength would be a little more than 66
to 1.
However, in terms of disasters, even Iraq would pale before a war with Iran.
The most dangerous place in the world right now is the Korean Peninsula, where the Trump
administration appears to be casting around for some kind of military demonstration that will
not ignite a nuclear war. But how would China react to an attack that might put hostile troops
on its southern border?
Piling onto Moscow may have consequences as well. Andrei Kostin, head of one of Russia's
largest banks, VTB, told the Financial Times that adding more sanctions against Russia
"would be like declaring war."
The problem with designating "great powers" as your adversaries is that they might just take
your word for it and respond accordingly. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Conn Hallinan
Two senior FSB officers and a high-level manager of Russia's leading cybersecurity firm
Kaspersky Lab are facing official charges of treason in the interests of the US, a lawyer
representing one of the defendants has confirmed to Interfax. Ruslan Stoyanov, head of
Kaspersky Lab's computer incidents investigations unit, Sergey Mikhailov, a senior Russian FSB
officer, and his deputy Dmitry Dokuchayev are accused of "treason in favor of the US,"
lawyer Ivan Pavlov said on Wednesday, as cited by Interfax. Read more 70mn cyberattacks,
mostly foreign, targeted Russia's critical infrastructure in 2016 – FSB
Pavlov chose not to disclose which of the defendants he represents, adding, however, that
his client denies all charges.
The charges against the defendants do not imply they were cooperating with the CIA, Pavlov
added. "There is no mention of the CIA at all. [The entity] in question is the US, not the
CIA," he stressed, according to TASS.
The lawyer maintained the court files included no mention of Vladimir Anikeev, an alleged
leader of 'Shaltai Boltai', a hacking group that previously leaked emails from top Russian
officials, including Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
The hacking group's name was in the news earlier in January, when Russian media reports
linked Mikhailov and Dokuchayev to 'Shaltai Boltai' . In an unsourced article last
Wednesday, Rosbalt newspaper claimed Mikhailov's unit was ordered in 2016 to work with the
group.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RIA Novosti on Wednesday the treason charges do not
relate to the US suspicions of Russia being behind the alleged cyberattacks on the 2016
presidential elections. He added that President Vladimir Putin is receiving regular updates on
the current investigation.
Russian media reports said Mikhailov was arrested during a conference of top FSB leadership.
He was reportedly escorted out of the room with a bag placed over his head. His deputy,
Dokuchayev, is said to be a well-known hacker who allegedly began cooperating with the FSB
several years ago. Kaspersky Lab manager Stoyanov was also placed under arrest several weeks
ago.
Stoyanov is still employed by Kaspersky Lab, the company told RIA Novosti later on
Wednesday, adding there were "no personnel changes" at this point.
Treason charges mean that the defendants could be handed a sentence of up to 20 years in
prison. The treason charges also mean any trial will not be public due to its sensitive
nature.
"... So, did Mueller address the crime committed by the then FBI head who refused to allow a FBI informant to address Congress on the Uranium One scam before it was authorized? Uh, that would be Mueller, his very self, so the answer is no. ..."
"... What is the definition of a "fake social media account"? What is the crime for operate a fake social medial account? Is this the standard by which we will all be judged? ..."
"... "In other words, anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists" who cost Hillary the election." No, not "in other words." That's not what he said at all. Idiot propagandist. ..."
"... And Hillary has done nothing criminal in the last 40 years. All of the evidence has been a fabrication. The Russians perfected time travel technology in the 70's, and have been conspiring against her and planting evidence since then. ..."
"... The goal of the MSM was the opposite. To unfairly disparage Trump and assist the election of Hillary Clinton. So why no indictments of members of the American MSM? ..."
"... What a bunch of horseshit. Mueller did nothing to locate just as much foreign or Russian support for Hillary. Grand Jury is just another one-sided court that passes judgment without any input from the other side. Now where have we seen that before? FISA. ..."
"... What is wrong with anyone doing what they want to support a candidate? If that is somehow illegal interference, why is Soros running loose in the world? ..."
"... I have a friend that was a US Federal Prosecutor. He once told me that the most un-American concepts that exist are grand juries and conspiracy laws. I'm sure he would have included FISA if it existed then. ..."
When does Mueller get charged? He is part of the fabric of the Clinton Gang along with Comey and others. How many people have
posted derogatory comments about Clinton on ZH alone. This sounds like when they ludicrously charged and entire unit of the Chinese
PLA.
Agreed, it's against the law to steal identities and operate bank accounts and all that. But really, compared to the fraud
committed by just one bank - Wells Fargo- this is smal small potatoes.
And did I miss it or did the indictment not even mention the value of the ads bought on Facebook - $100,000. (nope, not missing
any zeros).
And it all started in 2014 while Donald was playing golf and sticking his dick in some whore.
And a few ruskies got into the good ol USofA with false statements on their visas.
While the courts fought Trump on the fact that immigration from a few countries need to be stopped because there was not way
of checking data. I get it - somebody driving too fast gets a speeding ticket, and Muellers investigation gets to issue an indictment.
I'm sure we all feel better now.
So, did Mueller address the crime committed by the then FBI head who refused to allow a FBI informant to address Congress
on the Uranium One scam before it was authorized? Uh, that would be Mueller, his very self, so the answer is no.
What is the definition of a "fake social media account"? What is the crime for operate a fake social medial account? Is
this the standard by which we will all be judged?
Or is it that Mueller has NOTHING and is too big of a corrupt idiot to admit it.
Putin should define what a NGO is. He should tell the world how the US uses NGO's to destabilize elections. He wont do it because
he's digging tunnels for the big day.
"In other words, anyone who was disparaging Clinton, may have "unwittingly" been a collaborator of the 13 Russian "specialists"
who cost Hillary the election." No, not "in other words." That's not what he said at all. Idiot propagandist.
And Hillary has done nothing criminal in the last 40 years. All of the evidence has been a fabrication. The Russians perfected
time travel technology in the 70's, and have been conspiring against her and planting evidence since then.
What planet am I living on again? We have now stepped into the twilight zone. Facepalm.....
"Ultimately, and this is the punchline, the goal was to disparage Hillary Clinton and to assist the election of Donald Trump."
The goal of the MSM was the opposite. To unfairly disparage Trump and assist the election of Hillary Clinton. So why no
indictments of members of the American MSM?
What a bunch of horseshit. Mueller did nothing to locate just as much foreign or Russian support for Hillary. Grand Jury
is just another one-sided court that passes judgment without any input from the other side. Now where have we seen that before?
FISA.
What is wrong with anyone doing what they want to support a candidate? If that is somehow illegal interference, why is
Soros running loose in the world?
I have a friend that was a US Federal Prosecutor. He once told me that the most un-American concepts that exist are grand
juries and conspiracy laws. I'm sure he would have included FISA if it existed then.
The indictment adds that the Russians " were instructed to post content that focused on 'politics in the USA' and to 'use
any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump -- we support them)' ."
Criticizing Hillary Clinton constitutes election interference? This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Over half the United States said she was corrupt and morally bankrupt. Does that mean all those Americans interfered in the
election?
"Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals
associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities."
I thought this was our "shtick" for subverting and overthrowing government(s) since 194_?... Fast forward to 2012 and subverting
sovereign foreign government(s) using other means then election(s) ( https://jasirx.wordpress.com/
)
Just ask this person ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
) who handed out cookies before starting an "overthrow of a sovereign government" right before a Winter Olympics?... And while
we're on the subject of subversion of sovereign Nation(s) "OCONUS" ask this fat shit how it's going in the Middle East with it's
"partners" (
https://southfront.org/meeting-between-us-state-secretary-and-lebanese-
) Nor should we forget 22 within the Russian diplomatic community in the last 6 years "eliminated" for early retirement courtesy
of the U.S. government...
And if all this is true why isn't Muelller indicting government officials within the FBI Department of immigration and Homeland
Security that would allow "some defendants" to impersonate Americans after 9/11 and the security infrastructure we built around
U.S. to prevent "future attacks" that were obviously (here illegally)???...
What a complete load of horseshit. Waste of time and money while the crimes of the clintons and collaborators remain unpunished,
including Mueller himself.
"Mueller describes a sweeping, years-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy by hundreds of Russians aimed at criticizing Hillary
Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump"
Only in the idiot world of Liberalism and Conservatism is this not a laughable statement.
In a recent interview, James Clapper, who served as President Obama's director of national intelligence, said explicitly that
the Intelligence Community Assessment itself had nothing whatsoever to do with the dossier. "We briefed, John [Brennan, then CIA
director] and I, briefed the president-elect [Trump] at the time, on January 6. He viewed what we presented to him, which had very
high confidence levels in what we presented him, which by the way, a point I'll make, had nothing to do with the dossier. We did
not draw on the dossier. The dossier, the infamous dossier, was not a part of our Intelligence Community Assessment," said Clapper.
"His first reaction to it was that this caused a question about the legitimacy of his election."
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 6:08 pm
It's interesting that the Russians set this all up to boost Trump and disparage Three Names before Trump even announced he
was running. The basic set up for this was going on in 2014 whereas Trump announced in 2015.
Carla Skidmore says: February 16, 2018 at 7:29 pm
No, not really. Trump was making gestures of interest in the presidency in 2012
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 16, 2018 at 8:30 pm
Pfui. He also made noises about running in the 2012 election. People don't set up organizations to do stuff just on the off
chance that some politician or wannabe is going to run. These guys ain't got nothin'.
It's been a year since Mueller went to work and what's he got? A couple of Republican political operatives being political
operatives. Their crime was not reporting to the USG that they were working for Ukraine.
Now we're down to social media posts. You're probably one of those people who say, I saw it on the internet so it must be true.
If the government is going to be upset about crap they see on social media from foreign parties, they need to start by telling
said social media that they can't solicit advertising from foreign entities with political overtones as facebook did of RT.
Francis Louis Szot says: February 16, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Apparently, it comes down to trolls who planted various "fake news" stories.
Stipulate to all of that; the worst of it.
How does THAT begin to stack–up against the murderous coup that the USA OPENLY fomented in the Ukraine a couple of years earlier
by bankrolling dozens of Non-governmental organizations whose sole purpose was "regime change"?
Maybe come back to me about all of this when the FBI can convincingly prove that the Russian government armed and funded a
Neo–nazi para–military group that assaulted and burned–down the North Carolina State House.
Clark M Shanahan says: February 16, 2018 at 3:44 pm
I'm hoping the hush-money passed on to two of Trump's romantic caprices, during the election, gets traction.
Tell me, as soon as you can, when having skepticism on the Russia/Election Meddling story is finally permitted. I heard tell,
we've lately dropped the "Treason" narration. Now the spin du jour is that Trump & Co were all duped by them clever Ruskies.
U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller unveiled the details of a widespread and coordinated
campaign by Russians to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Donald Trump,
delivering on his initial mandate by the Justice Department.
In an indictment disclosed in Washington on Friday, Mueller describes a sweeping,
years-long, multimillion-dollar conspiracy by hundreds of Russians aimed at criticizing
Hillary Clinton and supporting Senator Bernie Sanders and Trump. He charged 13 Russian
nationals and three Russian entities and accused them of defrauding the U.S. government by
interfering with the political process.
The Internet Research Agency, a Russian organization, and the defendants began working
in 2014 to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment. They used false
personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with
"unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
The documents point to a broader conspiracy beyond the pages of the indictment, saying
the grand jury has heard about other people with whom the Russians allegedly conspired in
their efforts.
Bloomberg News cited a "person with knowledge" of Mueller's investigation in a report on
Friday afternoon to note that this indictment is just the beginning of actions to be expected
and avenues to be explored by Mueller in the coming months ahead. Bloomberg's Chris Strohm
wrote .:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors haven't concluded their investigation
into whether President Donald Trump or any of his associates helped Russia interfere in the
2016 election, according to a person with knowledge of the probe. Friday's indictment of a
St. Petersburg-based "troll farm" and 13 Russian nationals should be seen as a limited slice
of a comprehensive investigation, the person said. Mueller's work is expected to continue for
months and also includes examining potential obstruction of justice by Trump, said the
person, who requested anonymity to discuss an investigation that is largely confidential.
The indictment targets 13 Russians as well as Internet Research Agency, LLC, which is a
Saint Petersburg-based organization that pushes influence operations on behalf of the Russian
government. The indictment alleges that those 13 Russians and Internet Research Agency, as well
as fellow Russian firms Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering,
knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown
to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the
lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering
with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of
2016.
The scheme, the indictment alleges, began as far back as 2014 and continued until after the
2016 presidential election. U.S. intelligence authorities and officials say the Russians intend
to engage in similar actions in 2018's midterm elections here in the United States, and future
elections thereafter.
While the indictment does not say how much money these Russian entities spent on this, it
does say that Concord and Russian oligarch and Vladimir Putin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin "spent
significant funds to further" the operations of Internet Research Agency and "to pay the
remaining defendants" along with others not charged in this indictment but employed by Internet
Research Agency.
In a Friday report filed from Saint Petersburg, the New York Times' Neil
MacFarqhuar noted that Prigozhin is a Russian oligarch with deep connections to Putin.
"Despite his humble, troubled youth, Mr. Prigozhin became one of Russia's richest men,
joining a charmed circle whose members often share one particular attribute: their proximity to
President Vladimir V. Putin," MacFarqhuar wrote
. "The small club of loyalists who gain Mr. Putin's trust often feast, as Mr. Prigozhin has, on
enormous state contracts. In return, they are expected to provide other, darker services to the
Kremlin as needed."
Prigozhin himself, per the Times quoting him via Russian state media outlet Ria
Novosti, responded to the indictment in dark terms.
"The Americans are very impressionable people, they see what they want to see," Prigozhin
said. "I have a lot of respect for them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If
they want to see the devil, let them see him."
The Mueller indictment alleges that these Russian actors engaged in paid and other social
media efforts as well as staging political rallies and sowing discord in the United States
using identity politics by propping up causes like Black Lives Matter, pro-Islamic causes,
religious entities, and more. And they did it by posing as U.S. persons with falsified or
stolen identities. The indictment reads:
Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and creating false U.S. personas, operated social media
pages and groups designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and pages, which addressed
divisive U.S. political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists
when, in fact they were controlled by Defendants. Defendants also used the stolen identities
of real U.S. to post on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts. Over time, these
social media accounts became Defendants' means to reach significant numbers of Americans for
purposes of interfering with the U.S. political system, including the presidential election
of 2016." Some of these Russia-based Defendants, the indictment alleges, "traveled to the
United States under false pretenses for the purpose of collecting intelligence" and obtained
and "procured and used computer infrastructure" that was partially American-based "to hide
the Russian origin of their activities and to avoid detection by U.S. regulators and law
enforcement.
The indictment also details contacts that these Russians, posing as Americans with assumed
or stolen identities, had multiple contacts with "unwitting" campaign officials with President
Trump's campaign.
Internet Research Agency, the indictment says, had a "strategic goal to sow discord in the
U.S. political system" and that the Defendants "posted derogatory information about a number of
candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the
presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump ('Trump Campaign') and disparaging
Hillary Clinton." The indictment reads:
Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying
political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities.
Defendants also stages political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S.
grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and
ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage
candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian
association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and
with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing Mueller's investigation after the
recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, said in a press appearance announcing these
indictments that no real U.S. persons who communicated with these fake U.S. persons who were
really Russians actually knew that they were talking with Russians about these activities.
Presumably, Rosenstein's comments would include the various Trump campaign officials and
associates who were in contact with them. Rosenstein said at the press conference:
There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge, and the
nature of the scheme was the Defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear as though
they were ordinary American political activists even going so far as to base their activities
on a virtual private network based here in the United States. If anybody traced it back to
that first jump, they would appear to be Americans.
Rosenstein also said there is nothing in this indictment that suggests that the outcome of
the election was impacted. "There is no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the
outcome of the election," Rosenstein said.
But the allegation does detail a sophisticated scheme by which Russians tried to influence
the American political discourse at such a volatile time in U.S. politics -- and that they did
it through "fraud and deceit" by "making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S.
presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure" and "failing to register as foreign
agents carrying out political activities within the United States" as well as "obtaining visas
through false and fraudulent statements."
The indicted Russian organization Internet Research Agency allegedly created a team of
"specialists" who were "tasked to create social media accounts that appeared to be operated by
U.S. persons" then "divided into day-shift and night-shift hours and instructed to make posts
in accordance with the appropriate U.S. time zone." Internet Research Agency also allegedly
"circulated lists of U.S. holidays so that specialists could develop and post appropriate
account activity" and that said specialists were "instructed to write about topics germane to
the United States such as U.S. foreign policy and U.S. economic issues."
They created social media groups designed to enflame the fringes of American society,
including pushing Black Lives Matter, immigration control, religious groups, and certain
geographic areas inside the United States. Examples cited in the indictment include accounts
called things like Blacktivist, United Muslims of America, Army of Jesus, Secured Borders,
South United, and Heart of Texas.
"By 2016, the size of many ORGANIZATION-controlled groups had grown to hundreds of thousands
of online followers," the indictment says.
The Defendants also allegedly bought social media ads starting in or around 2015 designed to
promote their controlled entities, "spending thousands of U.S. dollars every month." They
falsely made a Twitter account called @TEN_GOP to make it appear as though they were the
Republican Party of Tennessee, a major political party in a U.S. State.
As Rosenstein detailed in the press conference, the indictment also explains how the
Russians allegedly hid their Russian identities by buying "space on computer servers located
inside the United States in order to set up virtual private networks ('VPNs')."
"Defendants and their co-conspirators connected from Russia to the U.S.-based infrastructure
by way of these VPNs and conducted activity inside the United States -- including accessing
online social media accounts, opening new accounts, and communicating with real U.S. persons --
while masking the Russian origin and control of the activity," the indictment says.
They also stole U.S. persons' identities -- or used stolen identities -- to engage in this
scheme so they could create PayPal accounts. The indictment says:
In or around 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators also used, possessed, and
transferred, without lawful authority, the social security numbers and dates of birth of real
U.S. persons without those persons' knowledge or consent. Using these means of
identification, Defendants and their co-conspirators opened account at PayPal, a digital
payment service provider; created false means of identification, including fake driver's
licenses; and posted on ORGANIZATION-controlled social media accounts using the identities of
these U.S. victims. Defendants and their co-conspirators also obtained, and attempted to
obtain, false identification documents to use as proof of identity in connection with
maintaining accounts and purchasing advertisements on social media sites.
Regarding the 2016 election, the Defendants' efforts began per the indictment as far back as
2014 -- and over time became clearer as to their intentions. "They engaged in operations
primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate
other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and
then-candidate Donald Trump," the indictment says.
In line-item number 45 on page 17 of the indictment, it says that the Russians "also used
false U.S. personas to communicate with unwitting members, volunteers, and supporters of the
Trump Campaign involved in local community outreach, as well as grassroots groups that
supported then-candidate Trump."
"These individuals [the American Trump backers referenced] and entities at times distributed
the ORGANIZATION's materials through their own accounts via retweets, reposts, and similar
means," the indictment says. "Defendants and their co-conspirators then monitored the
propagation of content through such participants."
In addition, via an Instagram account controlled by the Russian Internet Research Agency
called "Woke Blacks," in the weeks before the general election the account encouraged American
minorities not to vote at all. Another Russian-controlled Instagram account called
"Blacktivist" urged black people to vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, something that
would hurt Hillary Clinton's chances. And in early November 2016, the indictment says a Russian
controlled "United Muslims of America" account encouraged Muslims not to vote for Clinton.
The indictment also says that the Russians from April 2016 through November 2016, while
using false identities, "began to produce, purchase, and post advertisements on U.S. social
media and other online sites expressly advocating for the election of then-candidate Trump or
expressly opposing Clinton."
"Defendants and their co-conspirators did not report their expenditures to the Federal
Election Commission, or register as foreign agents with the U.S. Department of Justice," the
indictment says about the ads.
In addition, to pay for the ads, the Russians "established various Russian bank accounts and
credit cards, often registered in the names of fictitious U.S. personas created and used by the
ORGANIZATION on social media." They also allegedly used PayPal accounts.
The ads, several examples of which are detailed on line-item number 50 in the indictment on
page number 20, are expressly political pleas to vote for Trump or oppose Clinton.
Perhaps even more significantly, the indictment alleges that these Russian operatives
engaged in the staging of political rallies in the United States to further their objectives,
starting approximately in June 2016.
"To conceal the fact that they were based in Russia, Defendants and their co-conspirators
promoted these rallies while pretending to be U.S. grassroots activists who were located in the
United States but were unable to meet or participate in person," the indictment says, adding
that the Russians used their social media presence and contacts at they had spent years
building to promote the rallies.
One particularly interesting tidbit comes on line-item 53 on page 21, where it says the
Russian-controlled group "United Muslims of America" promoted a rally titled: "Support Hillary.
Save American Muslims," a July 9, 2016 rally in Washington, D.C.
"Defendants and their co-conspirators recruited a real U.S. person to hold a sign depicting
Clinton and a quote attributed to her stating 'I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new
direction of freedom,'" the indictment says. "Within three weeks, on or about July 26, 2016,
Defendants and their co-conspirators posted on the same Facebook page that Muslim voters were
'between Hillary Clinton and a hard place.'"
In June, July, and August 2016, the indictment says, other pro-Trump Russian-controlled
social media accounts organized and promoted a variety of pro-Trump or anti-Clinton rallies in
New York and "offered money to certain U.S. persons to cover rally expenses."
They also pushed to create pro-Trump rallies in Florida around this time, and in
Pennsylvania. Then, after the election, the Russians organized rallies for and against
then-President-elect Donald Trump.
In the case of the Florida efforts, the indictment details how the Russians created a false
U.S. persona named "Matt Skiber" in August 2016 to communicate with real people connected with
the Trump campaign. The indictment says:
On or about August 15, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators received an email at one
of their false U.S. persona accounts from a real U.S. person, a Florida-based political
activist identified as the 'Chair of the Trump Campaign' in a particular Florida county. The
activist identified two additional sites in Florida for possible rallies. Defendants and
their co-conspirators subsequently used their false U.S. persona accounts to communicate with
the activist about logistics and an additional rally in Florida.
The Russians then allegedly used an Instagram account they controlled to buy ads to push the
rally. The indictment continues:
On or about August 18, 2016, the real 'Florida for Trump' Facebook account responded to
the false U.S. persona 'Matt Skiber' account with instructions to contact a member of the
Trump Campaign ('Campaign Official 1') involved in the campaign's Florida operations and
provided Campaign Official 1's email address at the campaign domain donaldtrump.com. On
approximately the same day, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the email address of a
false U.S. persona, [email protected], to send an email to Campaign Official 1 at that
donaldtrump.com email account
In the email, which is partially quoted, the Russian posing an American writes to the
unidentified unassuming Trump campaign official that they are organizing a rally on Aug. 20,
2016, to support Trump. The Russian wrote:
Let us introduce ourselves first. 'Being Patriotic' is a grassroots conservative online
movement trying to unite people offline [W]e gained a huge lot of followers and decided to
somehow help Mr. Trump get elected. You know, simple yelling on the Internet is not enough.
There should be real action. We organized rallies in New York before. Now we're focusing on
purple states such as Florida.
The email, per the indictment, identifies "thirteen 'confirmed locations' in Florida for the
rallies and requested the campaign provide 'assistance in each location.'"
They also sent money via wire transfer to a separate U.S. person "to build a cage large
enough to hold an actress depicting Clinton in a prison uniform" then communicated again with a
second Trump campaign official via official email -- and then the Russians used the fake "Matt
Skiber" Facebook account to communicate with a real third Trump campaign official in Florida.
The indictment then details several other rallies in Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania that
the fake Russians helped organize, including payment via interstate wire transfer for
costs.
That all is part of count one in the indictment, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
Count two, Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud, as well as counts three through
eight -- all Aggravated Identity Theft charges -- all build upon many of the revelations in the
first part of the indictment.
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency - and the
defendants began working in 2014 - so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced
- to interfere in U.S. elections, according to the indictment in Washington. They used false
personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with
"unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit.
Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of
Soros' org would be guilty of the same thing wouldn't they? Isn't 'sowing discord' like the
main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries?
Not a lawyer, but seems this cannot hold up in court.
The United States, which has interfered in the domestic affairs of nearly every country on
the planet, including not only elections but armed attacks, government overthrows and
assassinations, was terribly hurt by some Facebook ads placed by people who conspired to
defraud this helpless government. The horrors!
from the indictment
From in or around 2014 to the present, in the Dustrict of Columbia and elsewhere,
Defendants, together with others known and unknown to the grand Jury, knowingly and
intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and
defeating the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Department of
Justice, and the U.S. Department of State in administering federal requirements for
disclosure of foreign involvement in certain domestic activities. . . here
"... Putin is evil, Putin kills, Putin steals, bla bla bla!!! Putin is only guilty for not being America's vassal. The Russia bashing in MSM will cease by miracle if it becomes America's client state. Putin and Russia are presumed guilty of everything bad that happens in the world. ..."
"... No evidence is needed, high confidence is enough!! It is almost funny that a country like USA which has a long records of meedling and intervention in others countries internal affairs worlwide, now is losing reason about alleged russia meedling. ..."
For a very simple reason. The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves. They wanted Hillary to win, badly, but
were not willing to risk too much for her. James Comey in particular cares about James Comey. Remember, this is a guy who views
himself as a historical Religious Figure. He wanted to be able to serve out a full 10 year term. He wanted to please his Democratic
masters enough to avoid being fired by either Obama or Clinton, but not too much to gain excessive ire from Congress. He was afraid
that a Republican Congress under a future Clinton Administration would go after him tooth and nail if he "concealed" new evidence
against Clinton prior to the election - especially since he promised the Congress that he would inform them of new developments.
And Comey probably feared the worst as to what was in Wiener's email archive. When they finally went through that archive, and
failed to find much that was new, he must have breathed a sigh of relief - only to see the wrong person win the election.
The political system in the US is a near complete failure. On one hand the massive levels of corruption legalized in Citizen's
United give influence over political decisions to wealthy elites previously unseen outside of the deeply corrupted and criminal
Russian oligarchy. On the other hand and synergistic with the previous point, the least informed and most easily influenced of
people have votes equal in weight to highly informed, well-educated, expert and professional practitioners.
Rights guaranteed by a difficult-to-alter constitution combined with easily managed and easily created social media content
based on opaque sources of emotionally charged, unverified and unverifiable information have gained control over public opinion
(making alteration of our constitution even more difficult.)
And look at the fourth (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump) wave of Republican explosion of national debt under the banner of "fiscal
responsibility."
It is astounding how "A" can be so successfully marketed as "B."
I am afraid that once control of public opinion has been so successfully attained in our form of democracy/legalized-corruption
that there is no way to recover.
It is a sad state of affairs. I'd love to hear solutions.
Great piece by Merry. Not new, but worthy of repetition when presented clearly like this.
It does not matter what you call it, Deep State or something else. What Merry says about the threat it poses to what remnants
of democracy we have is true.
I prefer to call it the Imperial State since its highest priority is the US Empire, with domestic well-being simply an afterthought
or of no cosequence at all.
There is only ONE country that consistently "messes" in the politics of nearly every other country on the planet and that is
not Russia.
It is the USA Deep State. I challenge you to research the evidence, "hidden in plain sight", of these examples:
1) US
money that flowed into France and Italy elections after WW2;
2) overthrow of Greece elected pres in 1974 by US-friendly generals;
3) overthrow of Salvadore Allende in Chile 1973;
4) overthrow of Iran Mossadegh in 1953;
5) overthrow of neutral govt in Indonesia
in early '60s;
6) the massive money that flowed into Russia in 1996 to get Yeltsin re-elected;
7) the money and attention US put
into overthrowing legally elected govt in Ukraine in 2014.
That is just a VERY short list.
NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH HAS MAINTAINED THIS FRANTIC PACE OF MASSIVE INTERVENTIONS/MEDDLING/BRIBING/OVERTHROWING/BOMBING/INVADING/DEATH-SQUADing
FOREIGN POLITICAL SYSTEMS FOR 70 YEARS LIKE YOUR "GOOD OLE USA", powered by it's un-elected Deep State.
Putin is evil, Putin kills, Putin steals, bla bla bla!!! Putin is only guilty for not being America's vassal. The
Russia bashing in MSM will cease by miracle if it becomes America's client state. Putin and Russia are presumed guilty of everything
bad that happens in the world.
No evidence is needed, high confidence is enough!! It is almost funny that a country like USA which has a long records
of meedling and intervention in others countries internal affairs worlwide, now is losing reason about alleged russia meedling.
You're right, Kelly, about some of your points. Evil: check. Kill: check. Steal: check. Co-opting the largest per capita criminal
network in the world: check.
One year later we can say with confidence, yes he morphed into a neocon in foreign policy.
What is especially bad is that Trump executed "bait and switch" maneuver as smoothly as Obama. Devastating.
Notable quotes:
"... So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? ..."
"... Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S. aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view. ..."
"... I believe the American people are beginning to realize the CIA has the obsession for multiple, unending wars all for the benefit of Wall Street. ..."
"... It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers. On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start... ..."
"... While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a big step down from the alternative. ..."
"... Stop those wars. They don't serve us. ..."
"... Trump's a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam. ..."
"... Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help us. We are in a pickle! ..."
Candidate Donald Trump offered a sharp break from his predecessors. He was particularly critical of neoconservatives, who
seemed to back war at every turn.
Indeed, he promised not to include in his administration "those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except
responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war." And he's generally kept that commitment, for
instance rejecting as deputy secretary of state Elliot Abrams, who said Trump was unfit to be president.
Substantively candidate Trump appeared to offer not so much a philosophy as an inclination. Practical if not exactly realist, he
cared more for consequences than his three immediate predecessors, who had treated wars as moral crusades in Somalia, the
Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. In contrast, Trump promised: "unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and
aggression will not be my first instinct."
Yet so far the Trump administration is shaping up as a disappointment for those who hoped for a break from the liberal
interventionist/neoconservative synthesis.
The first problem is staffing. In Washington people are policy. The president can speak and tweet, but he needs others to turn
ideas into reality and implement his directives. It doesn't appear that he has any foreign policy realists around him, or anyone
with a restrained view of America's international responsibilities.
Rex Tillerson, James Mattis and H. R. McMaster are all serious and talented, and none are neocons. But all seem inclined toward
traditional foreign policy approaches and committed to moderating their boss's unconventional thoughts. Most of the names
mentioned for deputy secretary of state have been reliably hawkish, or some combination of hawk and centrist-Abrams, John Bolton,
the rewired Jon Huntsman.
Trump appears to be most concerned with issues that have direct domestic impacts, and especially with economic nostrums about
which he is most obviously wrong. He's long been a protectionist (his anti-immigration opinions are of more recent vintage). Yet
his views have not changed even as circumstances have. The Chinese once artificially limited the value of the renminbi, but
recently have taken the opposite approach. The United States is not alone in losing manufacturing jobs, which are disappearing
around the world and won't be coming back. Multilateral trade agreements are rarely perfect, but they are not zero sum games.
They usually offer political as well as economic benefits. Trump does not seem prepared to acknowledge this, at least
rhetorically. Indeed he has brought on board virulent opponents of free trade such as Peter Navarro.
The administration's repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was particularly damaging. Trump's decision embarrassed
Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who had offered important economic concessions to join. More important, Trump has abandoned
the economic field to the People's Republic of China, which is pushing two different accords. Australia, among other U.S. allies,
has indicated that it now will deal with Beijing, which gets to set the Pacific trade agenda. In this instance, what's good for
China is bad for the United States.
In contrast, on more abstract foreign policy issues President Trump seems ready to treat minor concessions as major victories and
move on. For years he criticized America's Asian and European allies for taking advantage of U.S. defense generosity. In his
March foreign policy speech, he complained that "our allies are not paying their fair share." During the campaign he suggested
refusing to honor NATO's Article 5 commitment and leave countries failing to make sufficient financial contributions to their
fate.
Yet Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson have insisted that Washington remains committed to the very same alliances incorporating
dependence on America. Worse, in his speech to Congress the president took credit for the small uptick in military outlays by
European NATO members which actually began in 2015: "based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning" to "meet
their financial obligations." Although he declared with predictable exaggeration that "the money is pouring in," no one believes
that Germany, which will go from 1.19 to 1.22 percent of GDP this year, will nearly double its outlays to hit even the NATO
standard of two percent.
Trump's signature policy initiative, rapprochement with Russia, appears dead in the water. Unfortunately, the president's strange
personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power which has no fundamental, irresolvable
conflicts with the America. Contrary to neocon history, Russia and America have often cooperated in the past. Moreover, President
Trump's attempt to improve relations faces strong ideological opposition from neoconservatives determined to have a new enemy and
partisan resistance from liberal Democrats committed to undermining the new administration.
President Trump also appears to have no appointees who share his commitment on this issue. At least Trump's first National
Security Adviser, Mike Flynn, wanted better relations with Russia, amid other, more dubious beliefs, but now the president seems
alone. In fact, Secretary Tillerson sounded like he was representing the Obama administration when he demanded Moscow's
withdrawal from Crimea, a policy nonstarter. Ambassador-designate Huntsman's views are unclear, but he will be constrained by the
State Department bureaucracy, which is at best unimaginative and at worst actively obstructionist.
"Unfortunately, the president's strange personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his desire to accommodate a great power
which has no fundamental, irresolvable conflicts with the America."
I did my due diligence on the writer after this absolutely baffling argument that has no basis on certain fundamental laws
of geopolitics. Referring to this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/n...
So now it gets me thinking like this: Who are Mr. Bandow's clients today? Figures...
Some say that the reason for Trump's total reversal of his campaign-position on Russia is the American Deep State (the U.S.
aristocracy and its agents). I agree with that view.
And other say you're a sap for believing a bunch of half-baked one-liners that Trump often contradicted in the same sentence...
He never had a coherent policy on anything, no less foreign policy... so don't complain now that he's showing his true colors
The USA should FORCE other nations to use DIPLOMACY as a means to preventing wars. If they don't, they lose all support, financial
and otherwise, from the USA. This would include Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The only thing Trump should take a look at in all this
is the INHUMANE policies that previous administrations have used to placate the military/industrial clique's appetite for money
and blood! If it's going to be "America First" for Trump's administration, it better start diverting this blood money to shore
up America's people and infrastructures!
Most of these issues come down to the fact that President Trump doesn't have anything resembling a "grand strategy", or even
a coherent foreign policy. His views are often at odds with each other (his desire to counter China economically and his opposition
to the TPP, for example), and I suspect that most were motivated by a desire to get votes more than any kind of deep understanding
of global affairs.
Most of his supporters, at least from what I can tell, are actually quite resolutely against entering a new war, and are strongly
condemnatory of the neo-conservatism that involved the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In fact, according to the polls taken at the time, more Democrats favored military intervention in Syria than Republicans did.
It appears "military-industrial complex" or "deep state" refuses to take step back and insists on sucking more money from taxpayers.
On first glance all is great for them, bombing of Middle East will continue, and so will military expansion at cost of civilian
programs. However, ramifications to rest of the world should not be dismissed. EU countries are divided on following Washington
hard line against Russia or diverge with USA. Currently, EU is cracking and might fall apart. Some in USA would cheer it but in
long run it will mean loss of strongest US supporter against China. Regarding Middle East, Trump punished victims of AlQaeda and
did nothing against financiers of AlQaeda, which will only increase local tensions. So indeed, not a great start...
While I basically agree that Trump is not following through on his campaign, we must keep in mind that the campaign of his
opponent was for MUCH more of the same, new wars, vastly increased fighting in current wars. So more of the same is in fact a
big step down from the alternative.
That does not excuse doing more of the same, but just asserts that we did get some of what we voted for/against.
We should get the rest of it. Stop those wars. They don't serve us.
There are similarities between Trump and Putin . The GOP and its rich corporate members have decided to use Trump as the oligarchs
in Russia used Yeltsin. The oligarchs used a drunken Yeltsin to pry the natural resources out of the public commons for the grabbing
by the oligarchs. Likewise, our rich are going to use an unwitting Trump to lower their taxes to nothing while delivering austerity
to the 99%.
To the oligarchs' surprise and dismay, Yeltsin's incompetence led to Putin and his scourge of the oligarchs. So will Trump's incompetence
lead to the end of our system of crony capitalism and the rebirth of socialism such as the New Deal, and higher taxes.
The crooked bastards can never be satisfied even with 3/4 ths of the whole pie, so no-one should pity them for being hoisted on
their own petard.
I'm sorry --- Trump had a foreign policy? As near as I can tell, he just said whatever the crowd in front of him wanted to
hear. Or do you have evidence to the contrary? Remember that this is a man who can be shown, in his own words, to have been on
all sides of almost every issue, depending on the day of the week, and the phase of the moon.
He, they, the US, that is, must obey Israel. Israel wants Assad gone in the end for their territorial expansion. It also helps
the oil companies and isolates Russia further into a geostrategic corner.
This headline is way over the top. The first and foremost foreign policy statement which brought numerous voters to Trump was
the US-Mexico wall and at least some of that wall will be constructed. Hence it is the only promise which has not (yet) changed
except for who will pay for it.
Why must we give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume that his campaign presentations were made in good faith? That is
a very generous assumption.
There's a simple and more logical explanation for what's going on with "foreign policy" in the "Trump" administration:
Trump's
a liar, and his whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. We're the victims of a "bait-and-switch" scam.
Because he lied. Just like he lied about draining the swamp and just restocked it with new varmints from Goldman Sachs and
even an ex-Soros employee. Nothing new for me. Been watching elections for about 60 years and this is same ole. America can't
take much more of this before it collapses and splits apart. The world isn't going to take much more from dc either. God help
us. We are in a pickle!
The fundamental problem of exonerating Trump and blaming this non-reversal on the non-existing "deep state" is believing that
anything a candidate said on the campaign trail can be executed when that candidate becomes president. Such reversal has happened
so frequently in our history that it is truly amazing that " he does not do what he promised" still has adherents.
There is no reversal. I see reality clashing with words. I do not blame Trump for reversals. I see some shift from unrealistic
to more realistic. It is called learning on the job.
Every political position on the planet is stuck in the 80s. There is no one with a will to change what is happening, mostly
because no one wants to get tarred and feathered once the:
a) economy implodes upon itself in the most glorious Depression to
ever happen, and;
b) world war 3 erupts but engaging such a variety of opponents, from Islam to China and Russia and even minor
trivial players such as North Korea, and;
c) civil disobedience in the western world rivals that of even third world revolutions
as people revolt against a failure to protect them from Islamic violence, to preserve their standard of living and their perceived
futures. Lots of change coming, but nothing that any politician is promising.
Politicians are dinosaurs. We are entering a world
where large numbers of people will make things happen. It's called Democracy.
Trump will remain close to Putin ideologically and he might continue to admire the man as a strong leader BUT there is one
thing that neither Putin nor Trump can change and it is that Russia and America are natural rivals. Geopolitics. Land vs Sea.
Eurasia vs Atlantic. Heartland vs Outer Rim.
Trump is hawk, don't be mislead. You cannot have a great country if you're not willing
to kill and die for it. Russia knows that. Which is why Putin made Russia great again after the horror of the Yeltsin years. Now
America knows that too.
The Russian organization named in the indictment - the Internet Research Agency -
and the defendants began working
in 2014
-
so one year before the Trump candidacy was even announced
- to interfere in U.S.
elections, according to the indictment in Washington.
They used false personas and social media while also staging
political rallies and communicating with "unwitting individuals" associated with the Trump campaign, it said.
2014.......um, yeah, what a crock of bullshit.
Seriously though, what is illegal about what they did? Sowing discord? Hell CNN and all of Soros' org would be gulty of
the same thing wouldn't they?
Isn't 'sowing discord' like the main mission of the CIA, both here and in other countries?
Not a lawyer, but seems this cannot hold up in court.
Sounds to me like they're being indicted for exercising free
speech.
Does that only apply to citizens?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
It restricts
Congress
.
I believe political speech is the most protected form
of speech. I think there's a Supreme Court ruling on that
topic.
B-but the Russians
conspired
... to commit free
speech. They
obstructed
... by
speaking
.
(The story doesn't mention if what was said was true.)
Mr. Mueller, please stop wasting our time and money.
I'm re-posting this from an earlier post someone else made.
The Internet Research Agency is a CIA hacking group!
The best way to get information is to make it up.
Everything what we know now about the so-called "Kremlin
trolls from the Internet Research Agency paid by Putin's
favorite chef," came from one source, a group of CIA spies
that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty,
for their collective online persona.
So 13 Russians managed materially influence the USA elections. Nice... As ne ZeroHedge
commenter noted "13 Russians can change the course of US history by going on-line and posting
stuff. Okay, sure I buy that BS"
For starters, MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV is the former head of the Police in Moscow...While
Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin is a businessman(Friend of Putin) with high-end Russian
restaurants all across the country(In Russia).
So now Russia will go after the NSA trolls and charge them with interfering with their
election, which we did do...
Part of the PsyOps going on as the US public (and really much of the world) becomes MORE
and MORE familiar with the Deep State operation undertaken by three letter agencies, FBI and
DOJ, and the White House in 2016 and expanded after Nov 2016. The Special Council now needs
to provide material to the rabid "Resist" crowd, and even though this entire set of
indictments cannot possibly demonstrate a material alteration of election results, in so
large a country as the USA, this would serve to feed the crowd who will believe this all to
be "definitive". These are primarily political battles, since no one is going to bring
Russian nationals over to the USA to serve time. This helps also to show "results" of the
expensive and mostly useless Special Counsel project.
Around page 12 the indictments says a total of two (2) Russian nationals entered the US
and toured for a short while. How they were able to get rally permits, hand out fliers
organize speakers etc isn't stated. So those claims remain entirely bogus.
The rest of the nefarious plot includes re-posting articles from the MSM or BLM sites...
zero impact... Pathetic nonsense.
Meanwhile Israeli agents and dual-passport types pour hundreds of millions into the
election. Crickets.
Plan: using students who go on delegations abroad on behalf of the Union (approximately
250 students a year) for hasbara purposes. Before each delegation the students will undergo
a hasbara workshop on behalf of the Ministry of Hasbara, which will give them the tools and
information to contend with the questions and the critical salvos and the ability to
present in their stead "a different Israel."
After selecting the students for a delegation, the students will undergo a hasbara
workshop given on behalf of the Ministry of Hasbara, where the logistics are coordinated by
the Department head. This training will be a condition for the student's going on any
delegation this year.
"With Israel coming under ever-increasing criticism for its human rights abuses and war
crimes against Palestinians and other Arabs, changing the subject is a common tactic for
Israel's PR flacks and official propaganda or hasbara efforts .
Attempting to shift the conversation over to Israeli technology in this way is sometimes
dubbed " techwashing ." Similar tactics include " greenwashing " – the effort to
market Israel as supposedly environmentally friendly (something Israel21c is involved in too ) – and "
pinkwashing "
– the effort to market Israel as LGBT-friendly and progressive as well as a welcoming
destination for
gay-male sex tourism .
The main point about such cynical strategies is that, even were these stories all true,
it would not in any way mitigate Israeli atrocities , such as its most recent round of
slaughter in the Gaza
Strip "
"But in fact, these are campaigns of organized lying, orchestrated with
government-approved talking points and crowdsourced volunteers and stipend recipients,"
Shunra added..."
"...Working in 30 languages, the students working this comment far target online forums
including so called "anti-Israel" pages on Facebook and comments sections of online
media."
Require valid ID to vote. How many mexicans vote multiple times? How many *activists* get
bused around from county to county, voting multiple times?
The blue team loves this so no go. It's racist to require ID because blacks are too stupid
to get one That's the democrats talking out of both sides of their mouths.
RT.com had to register as a foreign agent - and you know what, fair enough...
But AIPAC has been allowed to violate the law requiring them to do so by a DOJ that, admin
to admin, never enforces the law as to Israel.
Meanwhile the Jewish/Israel Lobby, with the eager support of US politicians, are
continuing their assault on the 1st Amendment. They want to criminalize boycotts and
criticism of the state/govt of Israel.
And the media is, predictably, silent - and for the record a number of Jewish lawyers and
libertarian writers have been vociferous in their opposition to the assault on free speech -
but the ADL/AIPAC/neocon matrix is all in to criminalize speech that is both fair and
factual.
Which brings me to this indictment, gents.
I'm no lawyer, and would be very happy to get comment/criticism/correction - but how in
the fuck is posting anti-Hillary (or anti-anyone) comments on facebook not protected 1st
Amendment speech?
So far as I know it is not a crime to pretend to be someone else on the internet absent
actual fraud/theft. Israelis quite literally are paid to do so all the time, and while
irritating - that's part of free speech and the free exchange of ideas.
This indictment, apart from more Deep State poking the bear, and distraction from the
FBI's obstruction of justice and felony misrepresentation to a federal judge... is a direct
assault on the 1st Amendment.
How is it 'interfering' with an election to present people with ideas? If presenting
slanted, even false information to voters is now a crime - why arent the executives of CNN
and the Times under indictment?
The Left's hatred of Trump (and I'm not a fan given his moves in Syria and deficit
spending etc) has made them absolutely boond to the dangers to civil liberties, nevermind
world war.
Apart from the idea of some internet trolls having any influence relative to the cia/dni
controlled media being absurd on its face, how can an 'indictment' to 'conspire' to talk
about some political issue even be brought given the 1st Amendment?
If they can indict some Russians for pretending to be Joe Six-pack to help a candidate -
who else can they try to jail for saying the Establishment candidate is a lying cheating
warmonger who belongs in prison?
Cruz was a Canadian until 2014. The People had enough with Obama.
The People had enough of Bush-Clinton from 1989 through 2008.
The odds are that Trump is controlled opposition.
The election process has been corrupted internally since the beginning.
Lincoln was installed by Northeast Industrialists and the Media. His opponent that was
promoted by the large newspapers was the Democrat least likely to threaten Lincoln in an
election.
Dr. Ron Paul received zero Media attention in 2012. Trump was in the news 24 by 7 in
2016.
Those people are only guilty of trolling and that is not a crime . I found ridiculous in
the extreme that Mueller thinks he can seize the property of the agency in question is Russia
! ah,ah,ah, Nobody has told that ass hole that the USA has no Jurisdiction in other countries
? ah,ah,ah !
And then how many times that USA has in the past and in the present tried to interfere
with Russian elections and those of other countries ? What about the coup d'etat in Kiev and
the colored revolution ? Has that buffoon got no memory ?
That buffoon is out of his mind , Who believes his bullshit ? There are a lot
personalities in the USA that buy favorable comments to their Facebook accounts . Thera ere
firms specialist in opening FAKE accounts and writing fake favorable comments for customers .
I am talking about tens of thousands and much more of favorable comments on Facebook and
others social BLS networks . In conclusion this is a fake trumped up operation to continue
with the farce
Exactly. They tried to change hearts and minds. Are we going to criminilaize politics
then? PACs and millions of peoplel try to argue often using anonymous or false identities.
What a load of horseshit this whole thing is.
Btw, the number 13 is a great number. That was my hockey jersey. Also my class rank after
my bitch choir and glee club teacher got the grade for my last 2 years and gave me cs and ds
despite the fact i was the president of the group. Dropped me from like 5th to 13th. Still
pisses me off. And the Templars were burned at the stake on Friday the 13th werent they? Good
enough for me
If we are chasing down foreign nationals attempting to influence the elections, I'm
waiting on the indictment against Vincente Fox.
"Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is urging US voters to look before they leap. The
global consequences would be dramatic if Donald Trump won the presidency, he told DW's James
Blears in Mexico City."
I'm with Schiff, there's ample evidence of election hacking if you are willing to see
it.
So true, the hypocrisy and I'll say glee at watching the unintended consequences of their
ill planned "findings", comments/ general stupidity (iq's just high enough to be a danger to
society, but not high enough to keep society working well)
There is against the violation of a persons civil rights, perjury, using government
resources for personal gain, knowingly introducing falsified evidence to a federal court,
unmasking individuals found by use of said falsified evidence, theft and destruction of
government documents.
Broadly called, a conspiracy and obstruction of justice ;-)
I'm going to start a go-fund-me page to buy mirrors for Rosenstein and Mueller, and the
love-birds (who I surmise have had their wings clipped) and others.
As a point of interest, Rosenstein is the only one left of those who signed off on the now
known to be specious FISA warrant or it's reauthorizations after this known false evidence
had been submitted to a federal court.
The reauthorizations are key, they knew what the "Steele intel dossier" was by then.
And Rosenstein appointed Mueller on the basis of Comey stealing government documents and
giving them to an unauthorized friend.
Basically, Mueller is illegitimate in everyone's eyes except the federal
bureaucracies...hell, even one of the FISA judges recused himself after it came to light that
the Hillary campaign paid Steele for what is, in essence, tabloid muck raking.
Maybe we'll be able to afford two mirrors for Rosie, so he can be doubly sure who the
bastards are.
Meanwhile, Mueller handing down these "indictments" is further making a joke of his
investigation. He's surrounded himself with all of the Hillary partisans, keeping them
closer. It will be worth all of the money and all of the spilled (digital) ink for the
investigation to be a self-discrediting evolution.
I'll disagree with your "everyone" statement--it is only creeping to 50%. It needs to get
up to landslide numbers (>60% or so) for a true black hole implosion.
This honestly looks like a surrender moment. He's saying there were bad people trying to
portray Hillary in a negative light (as if anyone really needed to do that) but Trump's team
were unwitting participants if they participated.
He had to show something for his work but clearly there's no trail of deliberate scheming
and collusion leading to the Trump team. He even throws in the caveat that they were also
working for Sanders.
Stick a fork in it..this is over and MSM once again are full of shit for all to see no
matter how they spin it.
13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1
BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success.
"13 Russians can influence US elections meanwhile US CIA and State Department spend $1
BIllion every year on opposition groups inside Russia without success."
... and a billion is but a drop in the bucket compared to what Israel has spent
influencing US elections over the last 4 decades.
Israel has built a money machine. They spend money to bribe politicians in the form of
campaign contributions and PACS. They tell those politicians to vote on large aid packages to
Israel. They take a small portion of the money from those aid packages and spend it to bribe
politicians in the form of campaign contributions and PACS ... rinse and repeat forever. A
wonderful machine that they have built for themselves to endlessly siphon blood and treasure
from the USA for their benefit.
Yes. THIS is the real scandal. Israhell using U.S. aid (U.S. taxpayer dollars) to buy off
U.S. politicians who then undermine the U.S. taxpayers by increasing Israhelli control over
U.S. politics.
But according to Mueller the Zionist can buy members of Congress and the Senate , but
Russian trolls are not allowed ........ ah,ah,ah,ah,
So there is the "good interference" , when it is done by the Rogue state in the Middle
East and then there us the " bad " interference created by foreign trolls .
Concord Catering was serving Smirnoff for sure. That's very influential and definitely
swayed voters. The rest on the list are back ups in case.
What a farce this witch hunt is. USSA is on cruise control and everyone is in the back of
the Winnebago swinging at each other. This is neglect of the electorate and the country as it
spirals into bankruptcy. (again)
Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to
mid-2016, Defendants' operations included supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") and disparaging Hillary Clinton .
(now what could these people possibly tell me about that ridiculous cunt Hillary that I
didn't already know?)
No, they were Americans who did that (or, at least, "dual citizens"). "Subverting"
democracy in the US is only illegal if carried out by foreign agents.
... with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar...
Special Counsel Robert Mueller Indicts 13 Russians For Hacking During US Election
My response: ROFL!!!! Since they (MARXIST PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS) could NOT get TRUMP, they
have now decided that they are going after the RUSSIANS directly.
This action is probably really going to piss off PUTIN rightly or wrongly.
WAR DRUMS ARE BEATING AGAIN.
I now believe that a market CRASH is a real distinct possibility.
Mueller is cherry picking a small effect in the market place when there was huge
subversion by Hillary et al - In NYC 125,000 registrations went missing and "the party in
charge fired" at the Board of Elections who had direct line via family to Hillary -
overwhelming number denied access to primary vote were young new residents - white people to
Brooklyn - primarily Bernie voters
things elsewhere the same - Ohio / Iowa but not as much in your face
This is beginning of hit job by Mueller - is it sustainable?
I'd like to see from Muellers analysis how many votes that swayed. Curious if it's as many
as the illegal votes allowed in California. I'm sure the Russians had a huge impact in West
Virginia (being sarcastic)
Let's allow them to hack the next one and see who they pick...maybe we should start
thinking outside the box here...
God, this whole thing must just be an unending source of confusion for Putin. Guy's got to
be watching this, thinking, "What the fuck is wrong with these people?". In fact, anyone
expecting the US to be a source of leadership in the future has to feel like Shelley Duvall
after she found out that Jack Nickolsen's months of work consisted only of typewritten sheets
with "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." over and over and over again...Her face as
she flips through all those pages is EXACTLY how I imagine Putin's expression as he watches
this unfold...
"Oh my god, it's so much worse than I ever suspected, and winter's only half over..."
How about where was Mueller when the Tsarnov (sp) brothers (Boston Marathon) when Vladimir
warned him about them.
I see that on January 5th, somebody phoned the FBI about the soon-to-be Florida shooter.
This is not to be confused with the September contact which the FBI couldn't track down.
So where was the FBI? Certainly not manning up and resigning in protest about all of the
corruption anybody could see/smell on the 7th floor. Probably watching porn and whacking off
on the job like so many SEC employees.
Robert Peters: SEC pornography scandal shows harms of obscene material
New York City, N.Y., Apr 24, 2010 / 07:02 am ( CNA/EWTN News ).-
The exposure of workplace pornography use at the Securities and Exchange Commission while
the 2008 financial crisis was unfolding shows ........
SO, according to this indictment, if I'm reading it correctly, we also need to indict
every single foreigner that spoke highly, in a positive way, or tried to influence an
American citizen, about Killary? Looks like a lot of indictments to be handed out to pretty
much every Globalist on the planet.
Per the indictment, "Individuals had a strategic goal of sowing discord in the U.S.
political system"
That's a crock, we really didn't need Russian help to make our political system any more
broken and divided than it already is.
Come on, do you really believe the Russians were responsible for the absolute dismal
choice of the two candidates we were stuck with in the last election? And that their effort
made any difference in the outcome.
Read the documents. Read what Muller is actually accusing them of:
- Buying a few thousand bucks worth of ads
- Holding a sparsely attended fake rally
- Trying to contact members of the Trump campaign without identifying themselves (this
right here is the full limit of their vaunted "collusion", if it's even true)
Are any of those things even illegal? Does anyone, anywhere, actually think any of those
things influenced the election in the slightest?
Meanwhile the DNC was paying Russian spies for fake intel so they could use
illegally-obtained surveillance warrants to spy on US citizens and try to stage a coup on a
duly-elected President.
These indictments are basically just Mueller running out of ideas to prolong his meddling.
He had to do something, or else Congress was gonna start saying, "OK, so what do you have?
This has gone on long enough."
Look at the phrasing, "hacking the elections" which is a general term. Doesn't specify
they hacked any specific voting machines. Per CNBC
The defendants allegedly conducted "information warfare" against the United States
election process to help Donald Trump win.
The defendants used fake American personas, social media platforms, and other Internet
media to advance their scheme, according to an indictment.
So basically trolling online. 13 Russian internet trolls swayed the ENTIRE election,
therefore the entire anti-Russian rhetoric, sanctions and a new cold war is justified!.
20 security and espionage agencies! Hundreds of billions in counterintelligence operations
around the world. A fire-armed uprising around RUSSIA! And with just 13 people a few accounts
in faceboock and a few thousand dollars, what does not billions spent on political campaigns
achieve ???? Damn Russians!!??
Rosenstein explained it differently. He claims that these ads or whatever were done for
the benefit of both candidates because Russia wanted to sow dissension and rip the US
apart.
Soros did a much more effective job than that and certainly spent more than the
Russians.
But Mueller doesn't chose to see things as they were and are.
"... First defendant: The Internet Research Agency. On a very ..."
"... "Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" [ New York Times ]. "Much more remains to be learned about the effects of these types of online activities, but people should not assume they had huge effects. Previous studies have found, for instance, that the effects of even television advertising (arguably a higher-impact medium) are very small. According to one credible estimate, the net effect of exposure to an additional ad shifts the partisan vote of approximately two people out of 10,000. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of numerous different forms of campaign persuasion, including in-person canvassing and mail, finds that their average effect in general elections is zero." ..."
"The office of special counsel Robert Mueller on Friday announced indictments against 13
Russian nationals and a trio of Russian entities on charges related to the Kremlin's efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election" [
Politico ]. "Charges in the indictment include conspiracy to defraud the United States,
conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and aggravated identity theft "Some
defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association,
communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other
political activists to seek to coordinate political activities," the indictment said."
Here's the indictment . Finally we get to look at some evidence? First defendant: The
Internet Research Agency. On a very quick read: The theory of the case is that the
defendants used social media to "sow discord"; a search on "vot" yields zero hits.
Realignment and Legitimacy
UPDATE "Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" [
New York Times ]. "Much more remains to be learned about the effects of these types of
online activities, but people should not assume they had huge effects. Previous studies have
found, for instance, that the effects of even television advertising (arguably a
higher-impact medium) are very small. According to one credible estimate, the net effect of
exposure to an additional ad shifts the partisan vote of approximately two people out of
10,000. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of numerous different forms of campaign persuasion,
including in-person canvassing and mail, finds that their average effect in general elections
is zero."
"From Where I Sit, The Trump Era Began In 2014" [ FiveThirtyEight
]. "Numbers can't prove that 2014 was a pivotal year for the Trumpian political era to come,
but they can show it was a year when Americans' institutional trust bottomed out, something
that would come into play in 2016. A few days after the election, I wrote about the erosion
of trust in American institutions over the past decade. There was a link, I wrote then,
between our loss of trust and electing a man who promised to start a new American order. And
in 2014, overall trust in American institutions, which started falling in the mid-2000s, hit
31 percent -- its lowest point since Gallup starting tracking the metric in 1993 . Trump's
ultimately brilliant political intuition was to burrow deep into this recess of the American
mind and to reflect back the sense of creeping disarray. He capitalized on racial and
economic fears, but his campaign kickoff proclamation that "the
American dream is dead" didn't just resonate with the people who might have voted for
populist and nativist campaigns of the past. Trump's appeal was broad, resonating with
the
relatively well-off and
the well-educated ."
UPDATE "A significant minority of Americans say they could support a military takeover of
the U.S. government" [
WaPo ]. "Our research finds that, in fact, substantial numbers of U.S. adults say they
would embrace ruptures in the constitutional order [and I thought I was the only
one who used this term routinely], which is in keeping with Bright Line Watch findings that
experts believe that measures of U.S. democracy have declined under President Trump . In
2017, about 25 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans said they favored a
military intervention if the country faced rampant crime or corruption. The figure below
shows the average support for a military coup when there is widespread corruption." More
Third World stuff! Indeed: "U.S. public opinion on these questions resembles that of
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, countries with a history of military coups and dictatorships."
Let us not, however, focus only on the military! We have an intelligence community, too!
Don't see anything about the DNC or Podesta hacks in the indictment. Isn't that what this
whole thing was about? Changing the 'Russian hacking' meme to mean social media posts was an
amazing feat of goalpost-moving.
And changing "Russian puppet" to "Russian hacking" is also impressive.
That said, there may be more shoes to drop. People who are smarter about investigations than
I am can determine whether this is indicting the small fry to catch the big fish, or not. As a
layperson, it's not clear to me how you do that by indicting Russians, if, as my very
quick reading of the Politico story (and not the indictment), witting cooperation by the Trump
campaign is ruled out. No doubt there will be a good deal of commentary to come!
Rob P and Lambert Strether: The "vindicated" regular Democrats on my FacetoBook thread are
passing around Greg Sargent's WaPo column. Sargent's summary of the indictments:
"Falsely posing as Americans to operate social media to influence voters; employing active
efforts to suppress the turnout of minority groups; creating additional fictional U.S. personas
to sway public opinion; purchasing large numbers of ads on social media; and much more."
Russkies? Uber? Israelis? Saudis? Tell me more. And are those fictional personas swaying our
opinions, ohh, say, Apple and other tax avoiders?
Next up? The Democratic Party praying for a coup, on the assumption that their children
won't be dragged off to jail to be tortured. (Ask South Americans how that worked out.)
I think these indictments are to show credibility of a Russian issue.
I think the Popadopolous and now potentially Gates roll-ups are the missing links to connect
the dots between the campaign and the ongoing operation by the Russians. This really is how
organized crime investigations generally work.
I don't think the claim was ever that the campaign started the Russians doing things; simply
that they were willing to work with them towards a mutual goal. This would be similar to the
GOP claims about the Steele dossier; they leave out that it was begun by a conservative GOP
group and Clinton only got involved when the conservatives dropped out of the race.
Worse, now it is apparently unlawful for a non-US citizen to express in public a preference
with regard to a US election.
This in spite of the fact that UK and other non-US papers do so all the time, and even put
their preferences out there ON THE INTERNET where innocent trusting Americans may stumble upon
them. Not only that, the the Guardian even organized phone banks for Brits to call Ohio voters
in key districts and urge them to vote for Team D.
Surely indictments are forthcoming, right? But let's consider the implications – does
Yves need to check the citizenship status of every poster in a political thread? If not, is she
aiding and abetting "fraud against the United States"? Is Yves now an unindicted
co-conspirator?
Seriously, the implications of this move are terrifying. If that weren't enough, the
indictment was careful to mention Bernie Sanders' name at every opportunity. The insinuation
being that if you support any candidate outside the mainstream of Team D or Team R, then you
are supporting ..
"They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about
Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Lyin' Ted Cruz and
Little Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald
Trump."
-- page 17 of Mueller's indictment
So now we know -- Bernie's candidacy was foisted on us by Russians sending thousands of
tainted $27 donations. /snark
' The mountains labored, and brought forth a ridiculous mouse. ' -- Latin proverb
Why couldn't the Russians have just sent better-looking cheerleaders from Moscow to this
country? Why did they keep their armies of beauties in their Motherland?
Hell, UK papers express their preferred outcomes for US elections all the time. And ZOMG! on
the INTERNET! where innocent Americans might stumble across them and be "influenced"! ZOMG!
The Guardian even organized phonebanking campaigns to urge Ohio voters in key districts to
vote Team D.
The "sowing discord" argument makes me crazy, because it's exactly like "outside agitators"
in the segregated South. If only it weren't for Russian bots, "those damned n*****s
voters wouldn't have gotten uppity."
I mean, does anybody really believe there was no discord in American politics before the
2016 elections and social media?
(This is not a theory of the case; something can be wrong and/or illegal even if there are
no ill effects; but to my cynical mind, this is all about creating a casus belli , and
that does require ill effects, I would think.)
Speaking as a Southerner I'd say you are exactly right. The assumption seems to be that
simple minded voters are the puppets of rabble rousers rather than intelligent beings able to
think for themselves.
A couple of things, Watched a lot of russians in the Olympics over the years and these names look incredibly
fake. Usually when you drop news on a Friday afternoon of a three day weekend you want it to get
buried.
MIKHAIL IVANOVICH BYSTROV, MIKHAIL LEONIDOVICH BURCHIK, ALEKSANDRA YURYEVNA KRYLOVA, ANNA VLADISLAVOVNA BOGACHEVA, SERGEY PAVLOVICH POLOZOV, MARIA ANATOLYEVNA BOVDA, ROBERT SERGEYEVICH BOVDA, DZHEYKHUN NASIMI OGLY ASLANOV, VADIM VLADIMIROVICH PODKOPAEV, GLEB IGOREVICH VASILCHENKO, IRINA VIKTOROVNA KAVERZINA, VLADIMIR VENKOV YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN
America was pure as snow. In fact, Russians are responsible for Jim Crow. Bear with me. The
Czar, an autocrat if there ever was one, sailed the White Fleet in support of Abraham Lincoln.
Perhaps, the British and French would have intervened on behalf of the CSA, thus allowing the
Southern states to secede. Logic dictates this would have meant no Jim Crow. Yes, slavery would
have continued, but it would be in a different country.
As noted by Rob P above, there is no mention of email hacking. Maybe that's coming later,
but I doubt it. Instead, they indicted alleged Russian operators of troll farms. The
implication, I guess, is that these people somehow swayed the election in favor of Trump. Some
questions I have:
– What was the volume of their social media posts? How does that compare to the total
volume of election-related social media posts? – When were these posts actually made? Did they all occur prior to the election? – Did these troll farms make any posts in favor of Clinton? Were there other Russians
posting items in favor of Clinton? – Is there any indication that these posts had any demonstrable impact on the outcome of
the election?
It would be interesting to see these people go on trial. I imagine that a competent defense
attorney would have fun with discovery. But, there's a part of me that suspects that these
Russians were indicted, with the expectation that they won't go on trial. After all, it's a lot
easier to control the narrative, when there's nobody pushing back against it.
So, what we're left with is the impression that the Russians were responsible for all the
bullshirt flying around during the election. Bullshirt being, of course, anything that was
anti-Hillary, or promoted an opponent of hers. All the pro-Hillary stuff doesn't count, of
course. I guess I'm a Russophile for asking the question, but is this really all that they've
got?
Also, I haven't read the indictment, but is there any allegation that these troll farms were
acting in any capacity on behalf of the Russian government?
The indictment indicates that there was some pro-Hillary posts/activity, but the bulk of it
was anti-Hillary/Pro-Trump. Posts were both prior to and after the election. It doesn't look
like the indictment is outright arguing that their activities swayed votes, but just that the
activities violated bank/wire fraud laws (including fraud via cryptocurrencies!) and
electioneering laws (which does not mean that votes were swayed; handing out flyers too close
to a polling site is a violation of electioneering laws).
Looks less like the ultimate smoking gun, and more like another move, such as with Manafort,
to get the small fry to tell on someone higher up.
That's the expectation for how a criminal investigation should take place. But, this is not
a normal criminal investigation. The small fry in this case are Russians, and I'm not sure if
indicting them has the same impact that it would for, say, a similar group of Americans. How
does Mueller flip these Russians? Doesn't he have to get them into custody first?
Indeed. The article on this much ado about not much done by the BBC:
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said there was no allegation that any American was
"a knowing participant in this illegal activity" nor was it alleged that the meddling altered
the election outcome.
Which, of course, doesn't prevent the brainwashed from dancing with glee and attacking as a
Trump supporter anyone who so much as points out the above. The least offensive response I've
had today was that these things are incremental so this is likely just the starting point. It
no longer matters whether the alleged interference had any effect on the election -- all sense
of logic on this subject has evaporated even among people I know are intelligent enough they
should know better.
Why I added the information on how hard it is to actually change opinion. IIRC, most of the
contemporary hash tag tracking is coming from the highly dubious Hamilton68 dashboard, which is
being treated as an authority even though, last I checked, they hadn't exposed their data or
methods.
Adding, which is pretty funny, when you think about it; depending on whether the IRA was a
contractor for the Russian government, and what its actual mission was*, the Russian government
probably has a stronger case for fraud against them then Mueller does.
Putin's government overpaid for a intelligence tech contractor that promised way more than
it was capable of delivering? Perhaps the Russians aren't so different from us after all.
o "Fake News and Bots May Be Worrisome, but Their Political Power Is Overblown" [New York
Times] -- Oh, I dunno, methinks the Grey lady is being far too pessimistic here. After all, the
NYT's own fake-news project re. Saddam's WMDs 15 years back led to an actual large-scale hot
war, $trillions in juicy defense contracts for US and foreign mercenary/logistics firms and
upwards of a million dead Iraqis whose 'sacrifice', as former SoS and heroic liberal R2P
goddess Madeleine Albright reminded us, was "worth it". So maybe the high-profile-ness and
political connections of the fake news source might play a crucial role in its impact?
Madeleine Albright made that comment in response to a publishing of a study which found that
the US economic sanctions against Iraq resulted in the deaths of more than 500,000
children.
Otherwise your point is valid. As Yves herself has mentioned regarding Judith Miller, the
NYT did indeed publish a lot of "fake news" (also known as "propaganda") in the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq.
"... Thirteen Russian nationals were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were also charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. Five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft. Here's a rundown: ..."
The defendants are accused of working in conjunction with the St. Petersburg-based Internet
Research Agency, which is also under indictment for allegedly conducting information operations
to influence the 2016 election in the United States.
The Internet Research Agency operated what's become known as "troll farm" in Russian
President Vladimir Putin's hometown that employed hundreds of English speakers to pose as
Americans and gin up controversy and discord on Twitter, Facebook and other social media
websites during the months leading up to the election.
The company, referred to as the "ORGANIZATION" in the indictment, "had a strategic goal to
sow discord in the U.S. political system, including... supporting the presidential campaign of
then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton," according to the
indictment.
Thirteen Russian nationals were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Three defendants were also charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. Five
defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft. Here's a rundown:
Yevgeniy
Viktorovich Prigozhin
Prigozhin, 56, is a businessman from St. Petersburg who's been called "Putin's chef" by
Russian media because his restaurants and catering businesses have hosted dinners between Putin
and foreign dignitaries.
Prigozhin is on the list of those sanctioned by the U.S., according to the Associated
Press.
Prigozhin is accused of funding the Internet Research Agency, through companies he
controlled -- Concord Management and Consulting, and Concord Catering -- and using them to
launch operations against America. He paid the "ORGANIZATION," all the rest of the defendants
and other unnamed employees, the indictment said.
Prigozhin's co-defendants arranged through social media for a U.S. person to stand in front
of the White House on May 29, 2016, three days before Prigozhin's birthday, with a sign saying
"Happy 55th Birthday Dear Boss."
"The Americans are very impressionable people, they see what they want to see," Prigozhin
reportedly told the Russian state news agency Ria Novosti on Friday. "I have a lot of
respect for them. I am not upset at all that I ended up on this list. If they want to see the
devil, let them see him."
Mikhail Ivanovich Bystrov
Bystrov allegedly was named the general director of the Internet Research Agency, and served
as the head of various other entities it used to mask its activities, including Glavset LLC,
where he was also listed as general director.
He is accused of holding regular meetings with Prigozhin around 2015 and 2016. Bystrov is a
retired police colonel, according to Voice of America.
Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik
According to the indictment, Burchik was named executive director of the "ORGANIZATION" as
of March 2014, holding the second-highest ranking position. During operations to interfere in
the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election, Burchik was a manager
involved in operational planning, infrastructure and personnel.
Burchik is described in a 2015 New York Times report as a young tech entrepreneur
connected to the "Masss Post" tool used to create bulk social media postings.
Aleksandra
Yuryevna Krylova
Krylova worked for the IRA from around 2013 to at least November 2014, according to the
indictment, and was its third-highest ranking employee. She allegedly entered the U.S. on false
pretenses in June 2014 and traveled through Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois,
Michigan, Louisiana, Texas and New York to "gather intelligence."
Sergey Pavlovich
Polozov
Polozov "served as the manager of the IT department and oversaw the procurement of US.
servers and other computer infrastructure that masked the Russian location when conducting
operations within the United States," according to the indictment.
An unnamed co-conspirator who worked for the company traveled to Atlanta in November 2016,
and shared information gathered with Polozov, according to the indictment.
He traveled to the U.S. to create virtual private networks to hide his organization's ties
to Russia, while communicating with U.S. citizens, the indictment said.
Anna
Vladislavovna Bogacheva
According to the indictment, Bogacheva oversaw the IRA's data analysis group, and allegedly
traveled through the U.S. in 2014 to gather intelligence along with Krylova.
Together with Krylova, Bogacheva planned travel itineraries, purchased equipment such as
cameras, SIM cards and disposable phones and discussed security measures, including "evacuation
scenarios" for defendants who traveled to the U.S., the indictment said.
Maria
Anatolyevna Bovda
Bovda worked at the company from November 2013 to October 2014 as head of the translator
project.
The project "focused on the U.S. population and conducted operations on social media
platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter," according to the
indictment.
Robert Sergeyevich Bovda
Robert Bovda served as deputy head of the translator project and tried to travel to the U.S.
under false pretenses to collect intelligence but could not obtain a visa, according to the
indictment.
Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina
The defendant is accused of admitting her involvement in the operation and a subsequent
coverup in an email to a relative in September last year, after Mueller's probe had
started.
"We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity," Kaverzina allegedly
wrote, "so I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues."
She also wrote: "I created all these pictures and posts and the Americans believed that it
was written by their people."
Dzheykhun "Jay" Aslanov
Aslanov was described by a manager at the ORGANIZATION's "troll farm" in St. Petersburg,"
according to an October interview on Moscow's Dozhd TV with former employee Alan Baskayev.
Baskayev was the third former troll to identify Aslanov as a supervisor at the facility,
according to the Moscow Times , which described the interview.
"Jay was a really bad manager: not the most competent in this field, well, frankly speaking,
generally incompetent, but he had assistants," Baskayev told Dozhd TV.
Vadim
Vladimirovich Podkopaev
Podkopaev allegedly was responsible for conducting U.S.-focused research and drafting social
media content for the IRA, according to the indictment.
Gleb Igorevich Vasilchenko
Vasilchenko was allegedly "responsible for posting, monitoring, and updating the social
media content" for many IRA-controlled accounts "while posing as U.S. persons or U.S.
grassroots organizations."
Vladimir Venkov
Venkov allegedly "operated multiple U.S. personas, which he used to post, monitor, and
update social media content," the indictment stated.
BREAKING: Mueller concludes Russians posted
mean things on social media about Hillary Clinton
Mueller indicts 13 Russians and 3
companies for hacking the US election.
The indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three entities over allegations by the DOJ that
Russians interfered in US elections – but "did not alter the outcome of the 2016
election" nor that any American was a knowing participant in this activity – are absurd,
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday.
"13 people interfered in the US elections?! 13 against an intelligence services budget of
billions? Against intelligence and counterintelligence, against the latest developments and
technologies? Absurd? Yes," Zakharova
wrote in a post on Facebook .
Then again, what else could she say.
Furthermore, as noted in the DOJ complaint, the funding for the Russian operation came from
catering and management companies controlled by defendant Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, a
Russian businessman often referred to as "Putin's chef" in the media because his organizations
had hosted dinners for Russian President Vladimir Putin and foreign leaders, the AP
reported.
Prigozhin was quoted in Russian state media responding to the indictments, saying,
"Americans are really impressionable people. They see what they want to see. I greatly respect
them. I'm not upset at all that I am on this list. If they want to see the devil, let them see
him."
This probably means that Russia will not exactly rush to extradite the 13 named officials to
the US.
"Have you had any assurances by the Russians that they will provide these individuals for
prosecution?"
Rosenstein: "We have no communications with the Russians about this. We will follow the
ordinary process of seeking cooperation and extradition." https://t.co/oShWvKYDRWpic.twitter.com/vOT0iH6Cu0
re:So Mueller indict russians for... talking about the american election in russia? What
farce have this become? Posted by: Anon | Feb 16, 2018 3:15:09 PM | 35
Farce is certainly the operative word; two of the 13 Russians are the former head of Moscow
Police and the other is a restaurateur friend of Putin.
And if there were " millions" spent then their is a financial paper trail certainly. Can't
wait to see it...
My favorite parts of this indictment: 1. Trump and his campaign are no longer involved, 2.
the Russians did NOT influence the election, 3. they were supposedly advocating for Bernie as
well as Trump.
Lastly,so much "news" in the last few days; we have a possible Florida false flag, Russia
hacking the world and now this. What are we not meant to see?? My first thought is they are
moving forward with the Syrian chemical attack psy op; next week perhaps?
Yeah, apparentlty these Russians sought to expand the political commentary and voice
support for candidates, how is this even illegal? Ridiculous but this will give the
anti-russia actors 100% more fuel for decades to come. That Trump will even talk with Putin
is out of the question by now unfortunately. WW3 just came closer sigh.
One of the best bits about the indictement is the mention ;"arranging for a Real US person
to stand in front of the White House in the district of Colombia with a sign that read;
"Happy 55th birthday dear boss" (May 29, in 2016)" America must have trembled. (or maybe they
were shaking with laughter?).
People read these accusational headlines, probably just the headlines, and it acts as a virus
and penetrates the membrane of the collective subconscious, without even a moments thought to
question the assertion.
In time, the virus breaks down the will of the rational consumer to
weigh evidence fairly, though it is also aided by further bombardment of fake news, which
increases the rate of infection. The virus then blossoms into a fairly beautiful and uniform
flower with clean, geometric edges and universal appeal which catches the gaze of others and
so is able to double the rate of infection from this secondary source.
This flower, the Ruskiesdidittous, is the result of haphazard propogation, though its ability to survive and
thrive is notable due to a carrier population already enfeebled by a diet of Dr. Pepper and a
lack of discernible vegetables.
The indictment includes charges not yet proven in a court of law, yet prominent Americans
are treating the indictment as fact. from CNN:
>House Speaker Paul Ryan called the Russians' alleged actions "a conspiracy to subvert
the process, and take aim at democracy itself." "We have known that Russians meddled in the
election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge," Ryan said in a
statement.
>Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that given the indictments,
Trump should "immediately" implement the Russia sanctions that Congress passed last summer
to punish Moscow for its election meddling. "The administration needs to be far more
vigilant in protecting the 2018 elections, and alert the American public any time the
Russians attempt to interfere," Schumer said.
>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that the indictments "make
absolutely clear" that Russians tried to influence the presidential election to support
Trump's campaign and continue to try to interfere with our elections. "We are on the eve of
the 2018 midterm elections," the statement added. "There is no time to waste to defend the
integrity of our elections and our democracy."
>Robby Mook, Clinton's former campaign manager, tweeted: "The intelligence community
has repeatedly told us Russia meddled. Now criminal indictments from DOJ. We were attacked
by a foreign adversary. Will our Congress and President stand strong and take action? Or
let it happen again?"
New evidence shows DNC server files were downloaded directly to USB drive, not hacked by
Russians
Now that the liberal left mainstream media is fixated on their latest Trump-Russia collusion
smoking gun, with the revelation that Donald Trump Jr., **GASP**, spoke with a lawyer from
Russia about adoption stuff, it is important to take a step back and realize that this entire
Hillary Clinton concocted Russia collusion narrative started with a DNC server hack that the
FBI never investigated, and now (according to an independent researcher known as The
Forensicator) was not even a hack, but a document download onto a USB drive.
New meta-analysis has emerged from a document published today by an independent
researcher known as The Forensicator, which suggests that files eventually published by the
Guccifer 2.0 persona were likely initially downloaded by a person with physical access to a
computer possibly connected to the internal DNC network. The individual most likely used a
USB drive to copy the information. The groundbreaking new analysis irrevocably destroys the
Russian hacking narrative, and calls the actions of Crowdstrike and the DNC into
question.
The document supplied
to Disobedient Media via Adam Carter was authored by an individual known as The Forensicator.
The full document referenced here has been published on their blog . Their analysis indicates the data was
almost certainly not accessed initially by a remote hacker, much less one in Russia. If true,
this analysis obliterates the Russian hacking narrative completely.
The Forensicator specifically discusses the data that was eventually published by Guccifer
2.0 under the title "NGP-VAN." This should not be confused with the separate publication of
the DNC emails by Wikileaks. This article focuses solely on evidence stemming from the files
published by Guccifer 2.0, which were previously discussed in depth by Adam Carter .
Disobedient Media previously reported that Crowdstrike is the only group that has
directly analyzed the DNC servers. Other groups including Threat Connect have used the information provided by
Crowdstrike to claim that Russians hacked the DNC. However, their evaluation was based solely
on information ultimately provided by Crowdstrike; this places the company in the unique
position of being the only direct source of evidence that a hack occurred.
The group's President Shawn Henry
is a retired executive assistant director of the FBI while their co-founder and CTO, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at
the Atlantic Council, which as we have
reported , is linked to George Soros. Carter has stated on his website that "At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry &
Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC
leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." Carter's
website was described by Wikileaks as a useful source of primary information
specifically regarding Guccifer 2.0.
Carter recently spoke to Disobedient Media, explaining that he had been contacted by
The Forensicator, who
had published a document which contained a detailed analysis of the data published by
Guccifer 2.0 as "NGP-VAN."
The document states
that the files that eventually published as "NGP-VAN" by Guccifer 2.0 were first copied to a
system located in the Eastern Time Zone, with this conclusion supported by the observation
that "the .7z file times, after adjustment to East Coast time fall into the range of the file
times in the .rar files." This constitutes the first of a number of points of analysis which
suggests that the information eventually published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona was not
obtained by a Russian hacker.
Disobedient
Media , The
Forensicator stated in their analysis that a USB drive was most likely used to boot Linux
OS onto a computer that either contained the alleged DNC files or had direct access to them.
They also explained to
Disobedient Media that in this situation one would simply plug a USB drive with the LinuxOS
into a computer and reboot it; after restarting, the computer would boot from the USB drive and
load Linux instead of its normal OS. A large amount of data would then be copied to this same
USB drive.
In this case, additional files would have been copied en masse, to be "pruned" heavily at
a later time when the 7zip archive now known as NGP-VAN was built. The Forensicator wrote
that if 1.98 GB of data had been copied at a rate of 22.6 MB/s and time gaps t were noticed
at the top level of the NGP-VAN 7zip file were attributed to additional file copying, then
approximately 19.3 GB in total would have been copied. In this scenario, the 7zip archive
(NGP-VAN) would represent only about 10% of the total amount of data that was collected.
The very small proportion of files eventually selected for use in the creation of the
"NGP-VAN" files were later published by the creators of the Guccifer 2.0 persona. This point
is especially significant, as it suggests the possibility that up to 90% of the information
initially copied was never published.
The use of a USB drive would suggest that the person first accessing the data could not
have been a Russian hacker. In this case, the person who copied the files must have
physically interacted with a computer that had access to what Guccifer 2.0 called the DNC
files. A less likely explanation for this data pattern where large time gaps were observed
between top level files and directories in the 7zip file, can be explained by the use of
'think time' to select and copy 1.9 GB of individual files, copied in small batches with
think time interspersed. In either scenario, Linux would have been booted from a USB drive,
which fundamentally necessitates physical access to a computer with the alleged DNC
files.
The Forensicator believed that using the possible 'think-time' explanation to explain the
time-gaps was a less likely explanation for the data pattern available, with a large amount
of data most likely copied instantaneously, later "pruned" in the production of the Guccifer
2.0's publication of the NGP-VAN files.
Both the most likely explanation and the less likely scenario provided by The
Forensicator's analysis virtually exclude the possibility of a Russian or remote hacker
gaining external access to the files later published as "NGP-VAN." In both cases, the
physical presence of a person accessing a containing DNC information would be
required.
Importantly, The Forensicator concluded that the chance that the files had been
accessed and downloaded remotely over the internet were too small to give this idea any
serious consideration. He explained that the calculated transfer speeds for the initial copy
were much faster than can be supported by an internet connection. This is extremely
significant and completely discredits allegations of Russian hacking made by both Guccifer
2.0 and Crowdstrike.
This conclusion is further supported by analysis of the overall transfer rate of 23 MB/s.
The Forensicator
described this as "possible when copying over a LAN, but too fast to support the hypothetical
scenario that the alleged DNC data was initially copied over the Internet (esp. to Romania)."
Guccifer 2.0 had claimed to originate in Romania. So in other words, this rate indicates that
the data was downloaded locally, possibly using the local DNC network. The importance of this
finding in regards to destroying the Russian hacking narrative cannot be overstated.
If the data is correct, then the files could not have been copied over a remote connection
and so therefore cannot have been "hacked by Russia."
The use of a USB drive would also strongly suggest that the person copying the files had
physical access to a computer most likely connected to the local DNC network. Indications
that the individual used a USB drive to access the information over an internal connection,
with time stamps placing the creation of the copies in the East Coast Time Zone, suggest that
the individual responsible for initially copying what was eventually published by the
Guccifer 2.0 persona under the title "NGP-VAN" was located in the Eastern United States, not
Russia.
The implications of The
Forensicator 's analysis in combination with Adam Carter 's work, suggest that at the very least, the Russian
hacking narrative is patently false. Adam Carter has a strong grasp on the NGP-VAN files and
Guccifer 2.0, with his website on the subject called a "good source" by Wikileaks via
twitter. Carter told Disobedient Media that in his opinion the analysis provided by The
Forensicator was accurate, but added that if changes are made to the work in future, any new
conclusions would require further vetting.
On the heels of recent retractions by legacy media outlets like CNN and The New York
Times, this could have serious consequences, if months of investigation into the matter by
authorities are proven to have been based on gross misinformation based solely on the false
word of Crowdstrike.
Assange recently lamented widespread ignorance about the DNC Leak via Twitter, specifically naming Hillary Clinton, the DNC, the
Whitehouse and mainstream media as having "reason" to suppress the truth of the matter. As
one of the only individuals who would have been aware of the source of the DNC Leaks,
Assange's statement corroborates a scenario where the DNC and parties described in Adam
Carter's work likely to have included Crowdstrike, may have participated in "suppressing
knowledge" of the true origins and evidence surrounding the leak of the DNC emails by
confusing them with the publication of the Guccifer 2.0 persona.
Despite Guccifer 2.0's conflicting reports of having both been a Russian hacker and having
contact with Seth Rich, the work of The Forensicator indicates that neither of these
scenarios is likely true. What is suggested is that the files now known as "NGP-VAN" were
copied by someone with access to a system connected to the DNC internal network, and that
this action had no bearing on the files submitted to Wikileaks and were most likely
unassociated with Seth Rich, and definitively not remotely "hacked" from Russia.
This whole thing hangs on the murder of Seth Rich. The
Dossier and the Intelligence Assessment are fundamentally
rooted to Trump and Russians hacking the DNC and using
WikiLeaks to ruin Hillary Clinton. Without the DNC "hack"
there is nothing to Russia's interference in the election or
any Trump collusion. Seth Rich is the Redline.
Hannity and
CTH can go on and on about all of this but, not Seth Rich.
Mention Seth Rich and get your chain yanked. Everything now
reflects a Limited Hangout. They've been caught, and they're
cutting their losses. What will "they" do to keep Seth
Rich's real killers hidden forever from public view?
You folks are missing the point. Mueller has been at this
for 9 months. He has come up with basically nothing, nada,
zip, zilch. To make himself and Rosie look better they
indict the evil Rooskies and say "aha I told you there was
something there". It is a punt and a fairly transparent one.
The cases against Manafort and Flynn will be dropped for
prosecutorial malfeasance, withholding of evidence, flawed
FISA warrants etc.
It tells me there is no case against not
only Trump but also no case against any higher ups in either
the campaign or the administration. It is a way of saving
face for Mueller and Rosenstein but they may have their own
worries soon enough or perhaps a deal has already been made.
"... People read these accusational headlines, probably just the headlines, and it acts as a virus and penetrates the membrane of the collective subconscious, without even a moments thought to question the assertion. In time, the virus breaks down the will of the rational consumer to weigh evidence fairly, though it is also aided by further bombardment of fake news, which increases the rate of infection. ..."
One of the best bits about the indictment is the mention ;"arranging for a Real US person
to stand in front of the White House in the district of Colombia with a sign that read;
"Happy 55th birthday dear boss" (May 29, in 2016)" America must have trembled. (or maybe they
were shaking with laughter?).
People read these accusational headlines, probably just the headlines, and it acts as a virus
and penetrates the membrane of the collective subconscious, without even a moments thought to
question the assertion. In time, the virus breaks down the will of the rational consumer to
weigh evidence fairly, though it is also aided by further bombardment of fake news, which
increases the rate of infection.
The virus then blossoms into a fairly beautiful and uniform
flower with clean, geometric edges and universal appeal which catches the gaze of others and
so is able to double the rate of infection from this secondary source.
This flower, the Ruskiesdidittous, is the result of haphazard propogation, though its ability to survive and
thrive is notable due to a carrier population already enfeebled by a diet of Dr. Pepper and a
lack of discernible vegetables.
The indictment includes charges not yet proven in a court of law, yet prominent Americans
are treating the indictment as fact. from CNN:
>House Speaker Paul Ryan called the Russians' alleged actions "a conspiracy to subvert
the process, and take aim at democracy itself." "We have known that Russians meddled in the
election, but these indictments detail the extent of the subterfuge," Ryan said in a
statement.
>Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that given the indictments,
Trump should "immediately" implement the Russia sanctions that Congress passed last summer
to punish Moscow for its election meddling. "The administration needs to be far more
vigilant in protecting the 2018 elections, and alert the American public any time the
Russians attempt to interfere," Schumer said.
>House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that the indictments "make
absolutely clear" that Russians tried to influence the presidential election to support
Trump's campaign and continue to try to interfere with our elections. "We are on the eve of
the 2018 midterm elections," the statement added. "There is no time to waste to defend the
integrity of our elections and our democracy."
>Robby Mook, Clinton's former campaign manager, tweeted: "The intelligence community
has repeatedly told us Russia meddled. Now criminal indictments from DOJ. We were attacked
by a foreign adversary. Will our Congress and President stand strong and take action? Or
let it happen again?"
There has never been any "integrity" in US elections, nor is there such a thing as "democracy" within the USA.
IMO, Congresscritters have never before looked and acted so damn stupid -- clearly they are merely mutts being led by a
leash and told to bray at a moon called Russia.
The Outlaw US Empire totally lacks integrity and clearly isn't a democracy; it is merely another of history's failed
empires destroyed by its own hubris; it really needs to gouge its eyes out and wander in the forest until it dies.
Steel role in propagating information should not be overestimated. The key here was probably
Brennan, not Steele.
Scott Ritter: Steele's entire business model is built on the framework of an MI-6 anti-Russian information operation.
Notable quotes:
"... Steele, who is British, did far more than simply provide opposition research to the Democratic National Committee. He was able to make sure it reached the most influential people possible in politics, media and government to shape and influence the growing narrative of the 2016 presidential election. In other words, as a skilled professional intelligence officer, Steele ran a full-spectrum information operation against the United States. One could even call it information warfare. ..."
"... This is what separates his work creating the dossier (which a decent journalist with friends in Russia could have done) from his work insinuating the dossier into the highest reaches of American government and political society. For that, you need a real pro, an intelligence officer with decades of experience running just that kind of operation. Looking for foreign interference in the 2016 election? Let's take a closer look at Christopher Steele. ..."
"... Steele admits he briefed journalists off-the-record starting in summer and autumn 2016. His most significant hit came when in September 2016, journalist Michael Isikoff broke the story of Trump associate Carter Page's alleged connections to Russia. Isikoff did not cite the dossier or Steele as sources, and in fact denied they were when questioned. ..."
"... At the same time, Steele's info reached influential people like Sen. John McCain, who could then pick up a newspaper and believe he was seeing the "secret" info from Steele confirmed independently by an experienced journalist. And how did McCain first learn about Steele's work? At a conference in Canada, via Andrew Wood , former British Ambassador in Moscow. Where was Wood working at the time? Orbis , Christopher Steele's research firm. ..."
"... A copy of the dossier even found its way to the State Department , an organization which normally should have been far removed from U.S. election politics. A contact within State passed information from Clinton associates Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer (both men also played active roles behind in the scenes feeding Clinton dubious information on Libya) to and from Steele. The Grassley memo suggests there is was a second Steele document, in addition to the dossier, already shared with State and the FBI, but not made public. ..."
"... While seeding his dossier in the media and around Washington, Steele was also meeting in secret with the FBI (he claims he did not inform Fusion GPS, his employer), via an FBI counterintelligence handler in Rome. Steele began feeding the FBI in July 2016 with updates into the fall, apparently in the odd guise of simply a deeply concerned, loyal British subject. "This is something of huge significance, way above party politics," Steele commented as to his motives. ..."
"... Steele reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him $50,000 to continue his "research," though the deal is believed to have fallen through after the dossier became public (an intelligence community source tells The American Conservative Steele did in fact operate as a fully paid FBI asset.) Along the way, the FBI also informed Steele of their separate investigation into Trump staffer George Papadopoulos, a violation of security and a possible tainting of Steele's research going forward. ..."
"... The Nunes memo also showed then-associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr back-channeled additional material from Steele into the DOJ while working with Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and her replacement, Rod Rosenstein. Ohr's wife Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the dossier, on Steele's project. Ohr's wife would be especially valuable in that she would be able to clandestinely supply info to collaborate what Steele told the FBI and, via her husband, know to tailor what she passed to the questions DOJ had. The FBI did not disclose the role of Ohr's wife, who speaks Russian and has previously done contract work for the CIA, to the FISA court. ..."
"... In that time, he maneuvered himself from paid opposition researcher to clandestine source for the FBI. Steele then may have planted the spouse of a senior DOJ employee as a second clandestine source to move more information into DOJ. In the intelligence world, that is as good as it gets; via two seemingly independent channels you are controlling the opponent's information cycle. ..."
"... Meanwhile, there is informed speculation Steele was more than a source for the FBI, and actually may have been tasked and paid to search for specific information, essentially working as a double agent for the FBI and the DNC. Others have raised questions about Steele's status as "retired" from British intelligence, as the lines among working for MI6, working at MI6, and working with MI6 are often times largely a matter of semantics (for the record, Steele's old boss at MI6 calls the dossier credible; an intelligence community source tells The American Conservative Steele shared all of his information with MI6.) ..."
"... So, putting talk of Russian meddling aside for a moment, is it not fair to ask if what Christopher Steele was doing could be construed as foreign influence in an American election? ..."
"... Information operations is the bread and butter of MI-6. My experience with "Mass Appeal" in 1997-1998 underscores the degree to which planting stories in the media for the purpose of manipulating public opinion toward a specific objective served as a major component of MI-6 operational planning from top to bottom. ..."
"... Steele was part of a Russia team in the mid-2000's which was knee deep in conducting information operations against Putin's Russia; the entire Litvenenko episode was part and parcel of that effort. Steele was the MI-6 Case Officer who helped shape public opinion after Litvenenko's death. Keep in mind that Litvenenko was arrested in March 1999 his information was dated, and any new sources were from the Russian expat community, driven by anti-Putin oligarchs and guided by MI-6. Steele and Orbis assumes control of these sources in 2009; Steele's entire business model is built on the framework of an MI-6 anti-Russian information operation. Peter is spot on when he describes the Steele dossier as an information operation in the MI-6 model, whether MI-6 was directly involved or not. ..."
"... I think we should 'start' by accepting that this is a ludicrous pile of fabrications. You don't have to be an 'expert' at anything to smell this out. Being intelligent and not born yesterday are all the qualifications needed. ..."
"... And then there's the shadowy and still unexplored role of Britain's intelligence agencies–see the chapter titled "What Were the Brits Up To?" in Rogue Spooks: The Intelligence War on Donald Trump. ..."
His dossier was more than opposition research, it was part of a full-spectrum
information operation.
Leaving aside the validity of what has become known as the
"Steele dossier," it's important to look at how Christopher Steele was able to guarantee that
the information in it would play a significant and ongoing role in American politics.
Steele, who is British, did far more than simply provide opposition research to the
Democratic National Committee. He was able to make sure it reached the most influential people
possible in politics, media and government to shape and influence the growing narrative of the
2016 presidential election. In other words, as a skilled professional intelligence officer,
Steele ran a full-spectrum information operation against the United States. One could even call
it information warfare.
This is what separates his work creating the
dossier (which a decent journalist with friends in Russia could have done) from his work
insinuating the dossier into the highest reaches of American government and political society.
For that, you need a real pro, an intelligence officer with decades of experience running just
that kind of operation. Looking for foreign interference in the 2016 election? Let's take a
closer look at Christopher Steele.
Steele's skill is revealed by the now familiar Nunes and
Grassley memos, which show he used the same set of information in the dossier to create a
collaboration loop, every intelligence officer's dream, which is his own planted information
used to surreptitiously confirm itself, right up to the point where the target country's own
intelligence service re-purposed it as evidence in the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act) court.
Steele
admits he
briefed journalists off-the-record starting in summer and autumn 2016. His most significant
hit came when in September 2016, journalist Michael Isikoff broke
the story of Trump associate Carter Page's alleged connections to Russia. Isikoff did not
cite the dossier or Steele as sources, and in fact denied they were when questioned.
Isikoff's story didn't just push negative information about Trump into the public
consciousness. It claimed U.S. intel officials were probing ties between a Trump adviser and
the Kremlin, adding credibility, suggesting the feds themselves felt the info was worthwhile.
Better yet for Steele, Isikoff claimed the information came from a "well-placed Western
intelligence source," suggesting it originated from a third-party and was picked up by Western
spies instead of being written by one. Steele, either as a source himself or via colleagues
passing around his information, saw to it the dossier information reached journalists at
Mother Jones , the BBC, Guardian and others. An article by Harold Blum in
Vanity Fair laid it out in April of last year:
It wasn't long before, as The New York Times would write, the memos by the former
spy "became one of Washington's worst-kept secrets, as reporters . . . scrambled to confirm
or disprove them."
At the same time, Steele's info reached influential people like Sen. John McCain, who
could then pick up a newspaper and believe he was seeing the "secret" info from Steele
confirmed independently by an experienced journalist. And how did McCain first learn about
Steele's work? At a
conference in Canada, via Andrew Wood , former British
Ambassador in Moscow. Where was Wood working at the time?
Orbis , Christopher Steele's research firm.
A copy of the dossier even found its way to the
State Department , an organization which normally should have been far removed from U.S.
election politics. A contact within State
passed information from Clinton associates Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer (both men
also played active roles behind in the scenes feeding Clinton dubious information on Libya) to
and from Steele. The
Grassley memo suggests there is was a
second Steele document, in addition to the dossier, already shared with State and the FBI,
but not made public.
While seeding his dossier in the media and around Washington, Steele was also meeting in
secret with the FBI (he claims he
did not inform Fusion GPS, his employer), via an FBI counterintelligence handler in Rome.
Steele began feeding the FBI in July 2016 with updates into the fall, apparently in the odd
guise of simply a deeply concerned, loyal British subject. "This is something of huge
significance, way above party politics," Steele commented as to his motives.
The FBI, in the process of working Steele, would have likely characterized him as a "
source
," technically an " extra-territorial
confidential human source ." That meant the dossier's claims appeared to come from the
ex-MI6 officer with the good reputation, not second-hand from who-knows-who in Russia (the FBI
emphasized Steele's reputation when presenting the dossier to the FISA court). Think of it
as a kind of money laundering which, like that process, helped muddy the real source of the
goods.
The FBI used the Steele dossier to
apply for a FISA court surveillance warrant against Carter Page. The FBI also submitted
Isikoff's story as collaborating evidence, without explaining the article and the dossier were
effectively one in the same. In intelligence work, this is known as cross-contamination , an amateur
error. The FBI however, according to the Nunes memo,
did not tell the FISA court the Steele dossier was funded by the Democratic National
Committee as commissioned opposition research, nor did they tell the court the Isikoff article
presented as collaborating evidence was in fact based on the same dossier.
Steele reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau
to pay him
$50,000 to continue his "research," though the deal is believed to have fallen through
after the dossier became public (an intelligence community source tells The American
Conservative Steele did in fact operate as a fully paid FBI asset.) Along the way, the FBI
also informed Steele of their separate
investigation into Trump staffer George Papadopoulos, a violation of security and a possible
tainting of Steele's research going forward.
The Nunes memo also showed then-associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr
back-channeled additional material from Steele into the DOJ while working with Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates and her replacement, Rod Rosenstein. Ohr's wife Nellie Ohr worked for
Fusion GPS, the firm that commissioned the dossier, on Steele's project. Ohr's wife would be
especially valuable in that she would be able to clandestinely supply info to collaborate what
Steele told the FBI and, via her husband, know to tailor what she passed to the questions DOJ
had. The FBI did not disclose the role of Ohr's wife, who speaks Russian and has
previously done contract work for the CIA, to the FISA court.
Ohr's wife only began work for Fusion GPS in
September/October 2016 , as the FBI
sought the warrant against Page based on the Steele dossier. Ohr's wife taking a new job
with Fusion GPS at that critical juncture screams of the efforts of an experienced intelligence
officer looking to create yet another inside pipeline inside, essentially his own asset.
For the operation's audacity, it was impressive: Steele took a dossier paid for by one
party, and drove it deep into the Washington political machinery. His work formed in part the
justification for a FISA warrant to spy on a Trump associate, the end game of which has not yet
been written.
In that time, he maneuvered himself from paid opposition researcher to clandestine
source for the FBI. Steele then may have planted the spouse of a senior DOJ employee as a
second clandestine source to move more information into DOJ. In the intelligence world, that is
as good as it gets; via two seemingly independent channels you are controlling the opponent's
information cycle.
Steele further manipulated the American media to have his information amplified and given
credibility. By working simultaneously as both an anonymous and a cited source, he got his same
info out as if it was coming from multiple places.
The Washington Post
characterized Steele as "struggling to navigate dual obligations -- to his private clients,
who were paying him to help Clinton win, and to a sense of public duty born of his previous
life." But The Washington Post has no idea how intelligence officers work. Their job is
to befriend and engage the target to carry out the goals of their employer. When they do it
right, the public summation is a line like the Post offered: you never even knew you were being
used.
Meanwhile, there is informed speculation Steele was
more than a source for the FBI, and
actually may have been tasked and paid to search for specific information, essentially working
as a double agent for the FBI and the DNC. Others have raised questions
about Steele's status as "retired" from British intelligence, as the lines among working
for MI6, working at MI6, and working with MI6 are often times largely a
matter of semantics (for the record, Steele's old boss at MI6
calls the dossier credible; an intelligence community source tells The American
Conservative Steele shared all of his information with MI6.)
As for the performance of the DOJ/FBI, we do not have enough information to judge whether
they were incompetent, or simply willing partners to what Steele was up to, using him as a
handy pretext to open legal surveillance on someone inside the Trump circle.
So, putting talk of Russian meddling aside for a moment, is it not fair to ask if what
Christopher Steele was doing could be construed as foreign influence in an American
election?
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the
Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He Tweets
@WeMeantWell
"The FBI used the Steele dossier to apply for a FISA court surveillance warrant against
Carter Page. The FBI also submitted Isikoff's story as collaborating evidence, without
explaining the article and the dossier were effectively one in the same."
Have you (or anyone else here) seen the application? I am not aware that is has been
declassified.
The letter, dated Aug. 25, 2013, was sent by Page to an academic press during a dispute
over edits to an unpublished manuscript he had submitted for publication, according to an
editor who worked with Page.
"Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the
staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where
energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda," the letter reads.
Doesn't the FISA court grant 99.5% of requests? A rubber stamp might have a higher failure
rate. I doubt the info in the brief had much to do with anything. Still they re-upped the
warrant 3x right? So that was based on what? I think something they saw/heard
Commenters seem to have missed the point; Steele did everything he was paid for and then
some. The fact that the universe of factors still elected Trump is immaterial to this
relative success. In addition, the final chapter has not yet been written. There are people
actively using Steele's work trying to bring Trump down. Stay tuned.
This article is a waste of time, not because it is inaccurate -- the federal government was
weaponized and wielded by President Obama and Hillary Clinton a long time ago. No, it is a
waste of time because those who hate Trump will continue to hate him and will believe any bad
thing anyone says about him, regardless of facts. It's not about facts for them, it's about
their feelings.
As I've said here before, if Trump cured cancer tomorrow, the headline at NYT and WaPo
would read TRUMP PUTS DOCTORS OUT OF WORK!
The Steel dossier which was not released during the campaign was an information operation but
the coordinated leaks by Assange was not?
Comey ranting and raving about Clinton's emails before the elections but staying mum about
the investigation into the Trump campaign was an effort by the deep state to get Hillary
elected?
The Trump campaign had more contacts with Russians than the diplomatic staff at the US
embassy in Moscow, but Hillary Clinton is the on who colluded with the Russians?
How much money is Putin paying you ?
Have you no shame or decency left in your bones? You and others who carry water for this
abomination that is defiling the WH and degrading our democratic norms?
You make quite a claim, considering that ALL of the history of the United States is modern
history and we are only barely into the second year of the Trump administration. So, does
this make you a sycophant for the people who claim to be resisting fascism while not having a
clue what fascism is? Come on, use real arguments. Steele is the issue in this article so
citing a couple of guilty pleas that don't really touch on the issue is not dealing with the
article, it is a red herring. Personally, considering the blatant ways we interfere in other
countries, I can't help but hear this as hypocritical whining. If Putin did order
interference in our elections (and I would, if I were him) then the real problem seems to be
that the Russian government is much better at playing this game than the sad bunch of
incompetents that pass themselves off as our elite governing class.
Information operations is the bread and butter of MI-6. My experience with "Mass Appeal" in
1997-1998 underscores the degree to which planting stories in the media for the purpose of
manipulating public opinion toward a specific objective served as a major component of MI-6
operational planning from top to bottom.
Steele was part of a Russia team in the mid-2000's which was knee deep in conducting
information operations against Putin's Russia; the entire Litvenenko episode was part and
parcel of that effort. Steele was the MI-6 Case Officer who helped shape public opinion after
Litvenenko's death. Keep in mind that Litvenenko was arrested in March 1999 his information
was dated, and any new sources were from the Russian expat community, driven by anti-Putin
oligarchs and guided by MI-6. Steele and Orbis assumes control of these sources in 2009;
Steele's entire business model is built on the framework of an MI-6 anti-Russian information
operation. Peter is spot on when he describes the Steele dossier as an information operation
in the MI-6 model, whether MI-6 was directly involved or not.
At some point, the Democrats are going to have to admit they were duped by the Russian
sources. The dossier fit exactly what they believed of Trump like a tee, and so it had to be
true, except it wasn't. They were ecstatic and ran with it, even before they tried to verify
it. When someone wants something very badly, they are easy to scam. The Russian agents who
fed them that load of BS are now watching US TV, drinking vodka, and laughing their a__es
off. They were wildly successful in creating political discord in our country, which was
their objective. As usual, the democrats were their useful idiots, just like during Soviet
times.
The democrats may think it was patriotic for the Obama admin to use the intelligence agencies
against their political opponents, but they are beyond stupid. Do they really think Trump or
some future president won't do the same against them? Time to reel in our surveillance state.
As usual, our greatest danger is our own government.
'Leaving aside the validity of what has become known as the "Steele dossier".'
Why do we have to start here? I don't think there is any point to 'leaving it aside'. The
document is obvious rubbish to anyone with two gray cells to rub together.
I think we should 'start' by accepting that this is a ludicrous pile of fabrications. You
don't have to be an 'expert' at anything to smell this out. Being intelligent and not born
yesterday are all the qualifications needed.
"Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos have pleaded guilty and are working with a team of
prosecutors to ensure that what is publicly known to meet the legal threshold for criminal
activity to be ensured."
And then there's the shadowy and still unexplored role of Britain's intelligence
agencies–see the chapter titled "What Were the Brits Up To?" in Rogue Spooks: The
Intelligence War on Donald Trump.
"Leaving aside the validity of what has become known as the "Steele dossier "
Space precludes going through the dossier line-by-line, and there is little to nothing in
it that can be fully confirmed or disproven anyway based on publicly available information.
Indeed, it was written just that way.
But the truth of the contents didn't matter; what mattered is what Steele could make
people believe, whether those were journalists or the FBI.
This is excellent work. Normally American conservatives suffer from a habitual Anglophilia,
and they lionize vicious creatures like Winston Churchill. Perhaps this attempted coup
against Trump is causing them to take a second look at the "special relationship", which has
involved the US in one illegal war after another and given the neocons, who got their start
in the Democratic Party, a foothold in the GOP.
"... What kind of a moron would believe the Steele dossier on Trump and Russia? Lots of Democrat and hollywood elite morons and lots of morons at MSNBC and CNN. It's so transparently partisan, outrageous and full of fictitious claims, the dossier reads like a parody of a badly written spy novel. ..."
"... It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb... rinse and repeat. No objection from either side. ..."
"... Watch Jerome Corsi and James Kalstrom great video's about all the felony crimes Barry's DNC/DOJ/FBI were involved in including the dossier. ..."
"... to deflect the Seth Rich /WikiLeaks affair...and the Keystone Kops have been tripping all over as well as tripping up themselves ever since trying to "make it happen"...and if it was not for almost the "entire" mainstream media 'covering' for them many more people would actually realize that they are the biggest 'comedy' in town... ..."
What kind of a moron would believe the Steele dossier on Trump and Russia? Lots of Democrat
and hollywood elite morons and lots of morons at MSNBC and CNN. It's so transparently partisan, outrageous and full of fictitious claims, the dossier reads
like a parody of a badly written spy novel.
Amazingly, the dossier is what the FBI used to justify spying on American citizens.
Tucker Carlson easily debunks the many claims that Democrats in Congress repeatedly cited as
reason to stop the normal functioning of government, so that millions of tax payer dollars can
be spent trying to figure out if Trump has been a Russian spy for the last 10 years.
It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues
but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb...
rinse and repeat. No objection from either side.
No need to convince me Tucker...have been calling them morons with regards to "Putin did
it" since the ex "moron in chief"...who by the way is now a certified fifth columnist with
the blessing of the treasonous mainstream media...insinuated as much after the "loser"
lost....to deflect the Seth Rich /WikiLeaks affair...and the Keystone Kops have been tripping
all over as well as tripping up themselves ever since trying to "make it happen"...and if it
was not for almost the "entire" mainstream media 'covering' for them many more people would
actually realize that they are the biggest 'comedy' in town...
"... It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb... rinse and repeat. No objection from either side. ..."
It is funny to watch how they are divided (republicans and democrats) on domestic issues
but they are as one on aggressive and militaristic foreign policies. Bomb, invade, bomb...
rinse and repeat. No objection from either side.
"... And the dossier, a pastiche of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee ..."
"... The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is forearmed. ..."
...Donald Trump went to war against the entire political class: all factions of both parties, the bureaucracy, the national
media, the lobbyists, Hollywood and Wall Street. He said the whole system was rotten and had failed the nation: hopeless wars
that accomplished nothing except the wastage of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, the extension of Iranian influence
and an immense humanitarian crisis, a flatlined economy, a shrinking workforce, increasing poverty and crime, oceans of debt,
large trade deficits from trade agreements that exported unemployment to the United States and the unmonitored influx of
millions of illiterate peasants from Latin America.
... ... ...
For the first nine months of the new administration, there was the constant confected threat
of impeachment. The phantasmagorical imbecility that Trump had somehow colluded and connived
with the Russian government to rig the election was the excuse of the hapless Clinton and her
Trump-hating echo chamber in the national media for the election result.
The deep state was almost the whole state, and it pitched in to sabotage the administration.
For nearly that long, the Republican leaders sat on their hands waiting to see if he would be
impeached or not. His nominees were a long time in being confirmed. There were leaks of White
House conversations, including with foreign leaders -- outright acts of insubordination
causing Trump, a decisive executive, to fire some fairly high officials, including the malign
director of the FBI, who then informed Congress that he had leaked a self-addressed memo
(probably illegally, as it was technically government property), in order to have a special
prosecutor named to torment the president over the fatuous Russian allegations, although
Comey testified that Trump himself was not a target or suspect and the Russians had not
influenced the outcome of the election. (This was a sober position compared to the wholesale
fabrications of the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark
Warner, that a
thousand Russian agents had swarmed the key battleground states and had delivered
Wisconsin to Trump.)
The president has strengthened the White House staff. The FBI and Justice Department have
been ripped apart in their partisanship and misuse of the dossier on which the collusion
argument and the surveillance of the Trump campaign were based. And the dossier, a pastiche
of falsehoods from gossips in the Kremlin, has been exposed as a smear job paid for by the
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, and the whole impeachment movement has
collapsed. The hunters are the prey and Trump will prosecute, sack, or intimidate the deep
state. But it is there, can arise quickly and can be very dangerous. Forewarned is
forearmed.
Conrad Black is a writer and former newspaper publisher whose most recent book is
Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full
(PublicAffairs, 2007).
that would be nice if the state capable to put the USA in place exists. But such state does
not exist and we need to be content with this fact. The period of wnjoying "sole superpower"
status which started in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR will not end probably until we run
out of cheap oil. Russia currently is way too weak to confront the USA and NATO allies in Syria.
So she needs to suffer, while trying to preserve gains of Assad government.
I think Russia realizes that Washington is not a rational government with which diplomacy can
be practiced, peace pursued, and agreements reached.
As the author stated earlier
: " With the public in its pocket, the military/security complex will increase its reckless
provocations of Russia until we are all dead."
Notable quotes:
"... Eric Zuesse notes that only Syria and Russia complain about Washington's illegal occupation of Syrian territory, an occupation that has no UN authorization and is a complete and total violation of international law, and Israel's continual attacks on Syria. ..."
"... Zuesse also notes that Washington and its UK puppet block all UN action against Washington's illegality. http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/u-s-not-globally-condemned-military-occupation-syria/ ..."
"... But the question is, when will Russia learn, if ever, that facts and law make no difference whatsoever to Washington? Washington's interest is in its hegemony over the world and in Israel's hegemony in the Middle East. ..."
"... Lendman makes the point that "As long as Russia maintains the myth of partnership with Washington instead of giving Washington a taste of its own medicine . . . conflict will likely continue escalating." https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-blasts-us-attack-on-syrian-and-allied-forces/5628740 ..."
"... Either Russia is unsure of its power or Putin is prevented from using Russia's power by the treasonous Atlanticist Integrationists who constitute Washington's Fifth Column inside the Russian government and economy. It is a mystery why Putin tolerates a small handful of traitors who have minimal public support while the West and Israel become daily more aggressive against Russian national interests. ..."
"... Putin sensibly avoids escalating a situation, but one gets the impression that there are constraints on Putin's ability to stand up to Washington. The Saker identifies the problem as the pro-Washington "Atlanticist Integrationists" who for personal career reasons, personal business reasons, and because they are supported by Washington-financed NGOs and media inside Russia, have sold out Russian sovereignty to globalism. ..."
"... This entire conflict, primed to grow in intensity, could have been stopped by Putin acknowledging the same overwhelming majority vote as occured in Crimea and reincorporating the provinces in Russia. The nazi government of Ukraine even with Washington and EU's support is not so completely insane that it would attack Russia and expect to continue to exist. ..."
Defending the latest round of US/Israeli aggression against Syria, US State Department
spokesperson Heather Nauert struck a Hitlerian note when she blamed Syria and Iran for an act
of overt Israeli aggression, saying "The United States . . . strongly supports Israel's
sovereign right to defend itself," and when she lied that "Iran's malign activities" and
"calculated escalation of threat and its ambition to project its power and dominance places all
people in the region at risk."
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201802111061547754-state-department-syria-israel-escalation/
Adolf Hitler covered his "projection of power and dominance" and his invasion of Poland with
the same blatant lies that Washington and Israel use to cover their aggressions. Hitler claimed
that Polish forces had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. That is the excuse used by
Israel and its puppets in the White House and Pentagon that blames Iran for Israel's attack on
Syria. When Washington and Israel are shameless in their lies, why does Russia think they are
"partners" with whom agreements can be reached?
Eric Zuesse notes that only Syria and Russia complain about Washington's illegal
occupation of Syrian territory, an occupation that has no UN authorization and is a complete
and total violation of international law, and Israel's continual attacks on Syria.
Washington's continuing support for war against the legitimate government of Syria and support
for Israeli and terrorist attacks on Syrian and Russian forces are undermining Russia's efforts
to bring peace to the region. Zuesse also notes that Washington and its UK puppet block all
UN action against Washington's illegality. http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/u-s-not-globally-condemned-military-occupation-syria/
Why? It appears to be the case that the Russian government is so anxious for Western
approval that it ends its successful military campaigns before the job is finished. It was
Putin himself who declared "victory" in Syria and withdrew some of the Russian military before
clearing all of Syria of foreign and jihadist occupation, thus leaving in place US beachheads
for renewing the conflict.
It couldn't have taken more than two more weeks for Russia and Syria to liberate all of
Syria from the US backed jihadists, but apparently Russia was afraid to annoy Washington that
much and to risk contact with US personnel, even though Russia is in Syria legally under
international law and the US is present illegally.
Again trusting to international law, the UN, and "our Western partners," Russia quit
prematurely. As Lendman says, the complaints by Zakharova, Lavrov, Russian Defense Ministry
spokesmen, and Putin himself are based in absolute fact. But the question is, when will
Russia learn, if ever, that facts and law make no difference whatsoever to Washington?
Washington's interest is in its hegemony over the world and in Israel's hegemony in the Middle
East.
Lendman might be correct judging by the reported heavy Israeli attacks on Syria on February
10 after Syrian air defences damaged Israel's image of invincibility by shooting down one of
Israel's US-supplied war planes that was attacking Syria and reports that the conflict might be
escalating and involving Iran. RT reports that the Kremlin is worried that the de-escalation
zones are threatened and that Putin got on the telephone with Netanyahu urging restraint.
All of my life US presidents have been urging restraint on Israel to no effect whatsoever.
Putin's urges will have no more effect, unless Putin takes the card from Lendman's playbook and
tells the war criminal Netanyahu who heads the illegal Israeli state, which is based on land
stolen at bayonet point from Palestinians, that any more of this and Russia will take Israel
out. Lendman thinks that no other way of talking to the crazed zionist state, or to Washington,
will have any effect, and history seems to be on Lendman's side. http://stephenlendman.org/2018/02/syrian-air-defense-downs-israeli-f-16/
and http://stephenlendman.org/2018/02/israel-escalates-aggression-syria/
Either Russia is unsure of its power or Putin is prevented from using Russia's power by
the treasonous Atlanticist Integrationists who constitute Washington's Fifth Column inside the
Russian government and economy. It is a mystery why Putin tolerates a small handful of traitors
who have minimal public support while the West and Israel become daily more aggressive against
Russian national interests.
Putin sensibly avoids escalating a situation, but one gets the impression that there are
constraints on Putin's ability to stand up to Washington. The Saker identifies the problem as
the pro-Washington "Atlanticist Integrationists" who for personal career reasons, personal
business reasons, and because they are supported by Washington-financed NGOs and media inside
Russia, have sold out Russian sovereignty to globalism. Putin, apparently, is unwilling or
unable to move aside those who serve as Washington's check on Russian nationalism, which
prevents any real Russian victory. If the "Atlanticist Integrationists" inside Putin's
government are able to block more decisive responses, the question arises: how powerful,
really, is Putin? Did Putin win Syria only to lose it to Washington and the Israelis? How can
we imagine Putin, the head of a powerful state, on the telephone pleading with an Israeli war
criminal who heads a tiny state? We know that Israel owns Washington, but does Israel own
Russia also?
How many times did Putin announce victory in Syria, pull out, and then have to go back after
Washington's forces had recuperated? Why does Putin refuse the reincorporation of the breakaway
Russian provinces in Ukraine? He allowed Crimea back in because of the Russian naval base, but
he has refused the Russian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Consequently, the Russian people
in these provinces continue to be subject to attack, and Washington has now armed its Ukrainian
nazi state with weapons to reconquer the breakaway republics.
This entire conflict, primed to grow in intensity, could have been stopped by Putin
acknowledging the same overwhelming majority vote as occured in Crimea and reincorporating the
provinces in Russia. The nazi government of Ukraine even with Washington and EU's support is
not so completely insane that it would attack Russia and expect to continue to exist.
Putin can entirely end the Ukrainian conflict by accepting the former Russian provinces back
into Russia. We can understand that Putin might be thinking long term, as were the Soviet
leaders who put Russian populations into Ukraine, to balance the Ukrainian state with Russian
populations so that the West cannot completely turn Ukraine, a historic part of Russia herself,
into a completely hostile state against which more military forces must be directed. Clearly
Putin is a long term strategic thinker, but Russia's fate and that of the rest of us will be
decided in the short run.
We can also understand that Putin, by continuing to stress international law, is trying to
bring Europe to the realization that Washington operates outside of and above law. Putin is
wasting his time. For decades European leaders have been on Washington's payroll. They don't
give a hoot about anything other than their bank balances.
The neoconservatives who rule in Washington believe that Putin's removal will restore
Washington's hegemony over the world. They regard China as a country that will accept American
leadership in exchange for riches. This is most likely a mistaken view of the Chinese
government, but it serves to concentrate the attack on Russia, within whose government
Washington has allies.
Can the Russian government successfully withstand Washington without Putin dispensing with
the Atlanticist Integrationists?
I understand that the views expressed here might be wrong. Zuesse perhaps is wrong. Lendman
is perhaps wrong. The Saker is perhaps wrong. And perhaps I am mistaken in my reading of them.
No one should underestimate Putin. Nevertheless, Russia should be aware that she is perceived
by neoconservative policymakers as a weak state lacking in courage that Washington, and even
tiny Israel, can push around, as Washington has done since the collapse of the Soviet Union and
as Israel is doing now in Syria. There is never any cost to Washington of blackening Russia's
eyes and Russia's reputation. Russia's passivity is inviting nuclear war or Russian
surrender.
Whether or not Russia wants to acknowledge it, Russia is in a fight for her life. There is
evidence that top Russian leaders are unaware of this. Sergei Chemezov says that Russia is
willing to sell Russia's S-400 anti-aircraft system to Washington so Washington can learn how
to defeat it and catch up with Russian military technology. Unless Chemezov is making a joke,
there is a problem in his perception of reality. http://www.fort-russ.com/2018/02/head-of-rostech-us-may-buy-russias-s.html
Putin damaged himself with people who have a moral conscience when he met with the
criminal-in-chief of the Israeli state and treated Netanyahu as if he were not a war criminal
who belonged on the scaffold but a world leader worthy of Russia's recognition. This act of
folly deflated Putin's reputation as a leader who stood for moral outcomes and not merely for
self-interested, negotiated outcomes.
The world needs a leader. The hopes were on Putin.
The America-worshipping Russian Atlanticist Ingegrationists must have many screws loose to
want to be part of degenerate Western civilization:
Note: this article is part of a symposium included in the
March/April 2018 issue of the National Interest .
OF COURSE
there's a Deep State. Why wouldn't there be? Even a cursory understanding of human nature tells
us that power corrupts, as Lord Acton put it; that, when power is concentrated and entrenched,
it will be abused; that, when it is concentrated and entrenched in secrecy, it will be abused
in secret. That's the Deep State.
James Burnham saw it coming. The American philosopher and political theorist
(1905–87), first a Trotskyist, then a leading conservative intellectual, wrote in 1941
that the great political development of the age was not the battle between communism and
capitalism. Rather, it was the rise of a new "managerial" class gaining dominance in business,
finance, organized labor and government. This gathering managerial revolution, as he called it,
would be resisted, but it would be impervious to adversarial counteractions. As the managerial
elites gained more and more power, exercised often in subtle and stealthy ways, they would
exercise that power to embed themselves further into the folds of American society and to
protect themselves from those who might want to bust them up.
Nowhere is this managerial elite more entrenched, more powerful and more shrouded in secrecy
than in what Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, augmented by
intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. That's where America's relentless drive for global
hegemony meshes with defense manufacturers only too willing to provide the tools of
dominance.
Now we have not only a standing army, with hundreds of thousands of troops at the ready, as
in Cold War days. We have also permanent wars, nine of them in progress at the moment and not
one with what could even remotely be called proper congressional approval. That's how power
gets entrenched, how the managerial revolution gains ever greater force and how the Deep State
endures.
Few in the general public know what really happened with regard to the allegations of Trump
campaign "collusion" with Russia, or how the investigation into those troubling allegations
emerged. But we know enough to know we have seen the Deep State in action.
We know that U.S. agencies released an "Intelligence Community Assessment" saying that
Russia and President Putin were behind the release of embarrassing Democratic emails in a plot
to help Trump win the presidency. But we also know that it wasn't really a National
Intelligence Assessment (a term of art denoting a particular process of expansive intelligence
analysis) but rather the work of a controlled task force. As Scott Ritter, the former Marine
intelligence officer and arms-control official,
put it , "This deliberate misrepresentation of the organizational bona fides of the Russia
NIA casts a shadow over the viability of the analysis used to underpin the assessments and
judgments contained within." Besides, the document was long on assertion and short on evidence.
Even the New York Times initially
derided the report as lacking any "hard evidence" and amounting "essentially . . . to
'trust us.'"
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union. But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal
problems.
Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news" , he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed
off in December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by "weaponizing disinformation"
and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia destabilized the
US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir Julian King,
casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated disinformation" to destabilize
the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned that Russia is stepping up its
efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he
claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it,
Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions. It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact" .
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the
press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must stop contributing to
a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real
scandal that the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt
the democratic process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published
in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a
career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he
worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish
Times and Independent.
Anyone who believes MSM is totally indoctrinated since it has been proven over and over that
they won't tell the truth of the matter. The only REAL thing this country supplies or
produces is war. Most other industries have been outsourced and given subsidies to so, thus
taking American jobs from our lives. And now they want to take Social Security and Medicare
to PAY for our military buildup????
It is without a doubt true that the political class and their oligharchic owners are falling
and falling fast. They need a war to sustain their enrichment and attempted control of the
world. They have run out of potential victims , while on the home front the naive Amrikan is
starting to reject their nonsense. They can't really afford to take on China as they could
easily dump their US treasuries and sink the financing arrangements for a war. They would
like to stop the OBOR ; but how? Ah Russia. Smaller population but lethal in central Europe
and perhaps beyond. Good geographic position for cutting OBOR. After all why would anyone be
allowed to put in such a mega project and not let the US oligharchic class control it?
A big part of the problem with Washington DC is that they are ruled by the Rothschild
oligarchs and function first and foremost for Rothschild interests such as Israel and other
Rothschild programs. Washington is not focused on the states it was designed to serve.
Rothschild's and other oligarchs, fascists and the like control Washington crippling them.
Countries like China, Russia are making their own destinies while Washington languishes and
dissolves under a Rothschild fascist flag.
"Intel chief: Federal debt poses 'dire threat' to national security"
The above was the title to an article in The Hill, yesterday. The comment was attributed
to Dan Coates, DNI in testimony to Congress. To me, since elected officials CREATE the
federal debt, what the DNI is REALLY saying is that the elected officials are a dire threat
to national security. Their spending and fake borrowing from the Federal Reserve is the
threat-not Syria, Yemen, or other countries that have not attacked the US. The elected
officials, both Democrat and Republicans are on the way to destroying the US. Not Russia,
China, ISIS, or international terrorism.
I recently read a horrifying commentary by John Whitehead on the burgeoning sex trade in this
country where young girls are abducted and sold for sexual favors to deviants in every major
city in the US. Many of these girls are as young a three and four years old, and the average
age of these victims is 13! Thousands of missing children end up as sex slaves and are forced
to be with as many as 40 men a night.
This great evil has become extremely lucrative, and numerous monsters, both men, and women
are reaping billions of dollars from the unspeakable crime of destroying children's lives,
not only physically, but mentally and spiritually as well.
The West has reached a new level of rottenness. Moral decay is actively gnawing at the
very fabric of our society. The Cabal and its rampant criminality in Washington is a
reflection of this terrible decline we are witnessing around us.
The hypocritical cry and hue from our government officials about the terrible human rights
abuses in other countries as they seek to deflect the attention away from their own
criminality and murderous abuses at home and abroad is indeed sickening.
UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold was killed in a suspicious plane crash in 1961. He
dared speak Truth to the Power. His quote from over 60 years ago is so relevant to what is
going on Today. It has spread like never before to affect the judgments of the Politicians,
the news media, and the Public.
-The Assembly has witnessed over the last weeks how historical truth is established; once
an allegation has been repeated a few times, it is no longer an allegation, it is an
established fact, even if no evidence has been brought out in order to support it.
American propaganda is scapegoating Russia to absolve Americans of responsibility for
creating their own political divisions.
Observing from CanaDa, this anti-Russia/Putin Propaganda is confirming this Vision of the
Future published 41 years ago.
On September 13, 1976, the major daily THE KANSAS CITY TIMES published this Vision of the
FUTURE: "He came to town for the Republican National Convention and will stay until the
election in November TO DO GOD'S BIDDING: To tell the world, from Kansas City, this country
has been found wanting and its days are numbered [...] He gestured toward a gleaming church
dome. "The gold dome is the symbol of Babylon," he said." [...] He wanted to bring to the
Public's attention an "idea being put out subtly and deceptively" by the government that we
have to get prepared for a war with Russia.
It's taken over 40 years, but that 1976 FUTURE is NOW with the Revelation of the details
GENERALLY unfolding in the spirit of the letter. The World is finally waking up to see Trump
just may hasten "its days are numbered" part of the 1976 Public record.
The KANSAS CITY TIMES did a follow up report on ALL SOULS DAY, November 2, 1976. When the TV
movie 'THE DAY AFTER' Kansas City was incinerated in a Nuclear Holocaust appeared in 1983,
most likely, I was the only Human on Earth, including the newspaper reporters, to note at the
END, the movie pauses at the very same picture frame THE KANSAS CITY TIMES chose for the ALL
SOULS DAY record 7 years earlier.
Any way you look at it, that HISTORICAL FACT is a confirming SIGN for our Generations, the
World has arrived at this point of Decision, of an "idea being put out subtly and
deceptively" by the government that we have to get prepared for a war with Russia."
Multitudes! Multitudes in the Valley of Decision. The Day of the LORD IS NEAR in the Valley
of Decision.
Not many will recognize, "this country has been found wanting and its days are numbered"
as the 1st two parts, of the 3 part 'Writing on the Wall" from Daniel 5 and the Captivity of
Babylon some 2600 years ago. The whole world saw The Writing on the Wall for the 1st TIME at
the same TIME, with the Global Financial Meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour in September of
2008, even if the world does not recognize it as such.
The 3rd part of the Writing on the Wall tells of the decline of Babylon, the 1st Biblical
model of the Nation that reaches Imperial Military-Economic Superpower Status, and the rise
of Persia
Ancient Babylon is now Iraq, and ancient Persia is now Iran.
The US is the latest, greatest of all the Nations reaching Imperial Military-Economic
Superpower Status in the 2600 year old Biblical Babylonian superstructure.
The TAIL struck the HEAD, causing the unravelling of the Earthly Babylonian superstructure
and infrastructure, ushering in the Law of the Jungle to the Middle East and this World.
The Iranian Revolution happened in 1979, 2-1/2 years after the record in the 1976 KANSAS
CITY TIMES Timeline.
All the chaos in the Middle East since then, including the carnage in Syria, is the
consequence of the vain attempt to reverse that God ordained, repeat of History, as a SIGN
for our Generations. http://ray032.com/2013/09/01/signs-of-the-times/
Bulldoze them Georgia Guidestones.
Erase that Denver Airport Artwork.
Send Lady Liberty back to France.
Neandertals, behaving badly.
Stars and Stripes gilded cheap pennant should be changed to Skull n Bones.
What the U.S. political and Deep State accused of Russia today is exactly what they
themselves have done to much of the world. Entire Wikipedia is not big enough to write about
the dirty tricks of the CIA and NSA.
Russia of course has no need to do what was accused. But they are surely laughing at being
accused. Indeed, keep the accusation coming. The more the accusations, the longer they last,
the more sure Russia know the corrupt terror empires of the west are going down.
Without firing a single shot. Now isn't that funny? Just ask the Chinese!
February 14, 2018 " Information Clearing House " - Every
empire needs a scary external threat, led by a singular menacing villain, to justify its massive military expenditures, consolidation
of authoritarian powers, and endless wars. For the five decades after the end of World War II, Moscow played this role perfectly.
But the fall of Soviet Union meant, at least for a while, that the Kremlin could no longer sustain sufficient fear levels. After
some brief, largely unsuccessful auditions for possible replacements -- Asian actors
like China and
a splurging Japan were considered
-- the post-9/11 era elevated a cast of Muslim understudies to the starring role: Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, ISIS and Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, and "jihadism" generally kept fear alive.
The lack of any 9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S. (or any Western) soil for the past 17 years, along with the killing of a
pitifully aged, ailing bin Laden and the erosion of ISIS, has severely compromised their ongoing viability as major bad guys. So
now -- just as a film studio revitalizes a once-successful super-villain franchise for a new generation of moviegoers -- we're back
to the Russians occupying center stage.
That Barack Obama spent eight years (including up through his final year-end news conference) mocking the notion that Russia posed
a serious threat to the U.S. given their size and capabilities, and that he
even tried
repeatedly to accommodate and partner with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is of no concern: In the internet age, "2016" is
regarded as ancient history, drowned out by an endless array of new threats pinned by a united media on the Russkie Plague. Moreover,
human nature craves a belief in an existential foreign threat because it confers a sense of purpose and cause, strengthens tribal
unity and identity, permits scapegoating, shifts blame for maladies from internal to external causes, and (like religion) offers
a simplifying theory for understanding a complex world.
One of the prime accusations sustaining this script is that the Kremlin is drowning the West in "fake news" and other forms of
propaganda. One can debate its impact and magnitude, but disinformation campaigns are something the U.S., Russia, and countless other
nations have done to one another for centuries, and there is
convincing evidence that Russia does this
sort of thing now. But evidence of one threat does not mean that all claimed threats are real, nor does it mean that that tactic
is exclusively wielded by one side.
Over the past year, there have been numerous claims made by Western intelligence agencies, mindlessly accepted as true in the
Western press, that have turned out to be baseless, if not deliberate scams. Just today, it
was revealed
that Dutch Foreign Minister Halbe Zijlstra lied when he claimed he was at a meeting with Putin, in which the Russian president "said
he considered Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic states as part of a 'Greater Russia.'"
"Fake news" is certainly something to worry about when it emanates from foreign adversaries, but it is at least as concerning
and threatening, if not more so, when emanating from one's own governments and media. And there are countless, highly significant
examples beyond today's of such propaganda that emanates from within.
... ... ...
If there's any lesson that should unite everyone in the West, it's that the greatest skepticism is required when it comes to government
and media claims about the nature of foreign threats. If we're going to rejuvenate a Cold War, or submit to greater military spending
and government powers in the name of stopping alleged Russian aggression, we should at least ensure that the information on which
those campaigns succeed are grounded in fact. Even a casual review of the propaganda spewing forth from Western power centers over
the last year leaves little doubt that the exact opposite is happening.
This article was originally published by "
The Intercept "
Russia accusations are a false flag!!-No evidence-Zero NADA!!
Rather than Russia how about Mossad false flags??!
More likely .............and the silence is deafening.......... at theZionist owned MSMs in the USA!!!!
Dollars to Doughnuts-Israel is the perpetrator
I suppose I am too naive to understand the
hysteria and indignation that claims of Russia
Interference in the 2016 american electoral process garners.
The US openly calls for regime change in Syria. Hung Saddam
Hussein after a show trial. Arranged Muammar Gaddafi's sodomization
and assassination.
Do americans not realize that in levelling the accusation that Putin-Russia
successfully subverted the US electoral process that you are conceding that Russia has the power to subjugate (bring under domination
or control, especially by conquest.) the US electoral process, its government, institutions and public perception.
If americans are going to continue to make this outlandish claim for which no evidence has yet to be produced then Putin's Russia
must be recognized as the world hegemon and the indispensable- Exceptional nation. What does that do to the narrative of the "shining
city set upon a hill".
The US is blinded by its own conceit.
Frankly, what I have seen in the past 20 years, the people in San Francisco might be better off under Russian federation management
than it has been under the selected, elected, salaried, privileged 527 USA neo clowns who manage Americans in America. At least
the Russians might not give USA money to foreigners, prevent Americans from drilling their own gas and oil, tax Americans so the
USA can give the tax revenues to the corporations, and send American jobs and educational knowledge to far away places; as the
NEO CLOWN management has done.
My personal experience with Russia people with whom I have worked is they are just exactly like Americans, quite a bit better
educated, may be a little more honest.. so the question becomes under which managing government would 340,000,000 Americans be
better off: the Russian Federation or the 527 neocon-selected, media-elected, salaried, privileged USA neo clowns? Actually, i
think both governments are in need of being better arranged to respond to the needs and intentions of their people instead of
using those they govern to satisfy the Oligarchs.
"9/11-type catastrophic attack on U.S." a self-inflicted "catastrophic attack". Perhaps the USI should quit murdering people at
home and abroad... maybe that way some semblence of symathy could be mustered up.
Oh and the "shooter" in Florida.. notuce it's not a "terrorist"? So this kid was a "shooter". Pfft. Call it what it is. He was
and is a terrorist. Treat him as one would treat the invented funded and propped up "terrorists" abroad. Send the kid to 'Gitmo'
(how i loathe that americanized word)
I hope the Russians are aware of the utter ruthlessness of certain western countries, the US
in particular. They are so determined to have regime change in Syria that they will lie and
cheat to achieve that end, probably culminating in direct military attacks on Syrian forces
west of the Euphrates on some phoney pretext or another.
Because Putin is aware of US aims it is beyond foolish to withdraw Russian forces as they
have done in the past, in the vain hope that the US will reciprocate, the US do not behave
like that, they see any withdrawal as a sign of weakness and exploit it. Make no mistake the
US are in this for keeps, anyone who thinks otherwise will be killed just like those Russian
contractors last week and the hundreds of Syrian troops killed because they posed a "so
called threat" to deconfliction zones.
If the West can supply hundred's of billions worth of arms to the most repressive nations
on earth [Saudi Arabia and Co, then surely the Russians should supply s400 anti aircraft
missiles to the Syrians who are under threat of a military assault from the West in the event
of a successful false flag chemical weapons attack by the Wests proxies[which they are
working on now] If not, why not?
Remember the murderous Anthrax terrorism that happened as Congress was passing the USA
PATRIOT Act? Remember how our
current VP, Pence testified to Congress about it being Saddam's fault?
And that anthrax strain actually was traced to US's Ames Biological Weapons lab?
And FBI Director at that time, Robert
Mueller buried the investigation? What ever happened to that FBI Director who closed a
murderous terrorist attack without having "solved" it?
"... As part of their defense, BuzzFeed issued a subpoena to the DNC for information which might help them defend against Gubarev's lawsuit by verifying claims in the dossier - including "digital remnants left by the Russian state operatives," as well as a full version of the hacking report prepared by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Since the DNC wouldn't let the FBI look at the server and instead relied on the report prepared by CrowdStrike (founded by Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch - who sits on the very Anti-Russian Atlantic Council along with Evelyn " oops! " Farkas. The AC is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukranian Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who apparently owns the Ukrainian gas company Joe Biden's son is on the board of). ..."
"... If the DNC is compelled to turn over the full CrowdStrike report and "digital remnants," perhaps Gubarev would then present a counter-analysis by researcher Forensicator which CrowdStrike apparently "missed" - revealing that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s - all but confirming that the files had to have been copied locally by an inside source. Many have speculated that DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, whose murder is still unsolved, was the source of the emails provided to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Word of BuzzFeed's suit against the DNC comes on the heels of a Monday revelation that the news outlet hired a former top FBI and White House cybersecurity official to fly around the globe on a secret mission to corroborate various claims in the dossier. ..."
"... The probe is being conducted by Anthony Ferrante - formerly the FBI's top official in charge of "cyber incident response" at the U.S. National Security Council under the Obama administration. Ferrante is leading the investigation from his new employer, D.C.-based business advisory firm, Forensic Technologies International (FTI) consulting reports Foreign Policy ..."
"... Wouldn't it be funny if BuzzFeed proves the DNC wasn't hacked? ..."
BuzzFeed is suing the
cash-strapped Democratic National Committee (DNC) to force them to hand over information
related to the "Steele Dossier" that might help the news outlet defend itself against a lawsuit
lodged by a Russian businessman who was named in the document. Three separate lawsuits have
been launched against BuzzFeed in connection to the January 11, 2017 publication of the
dossier, which states that Russian tech executive Aleksej Gubarev used his web hosting
companies to hack into the DNC's computer systems.
The dossier, without substantiation, said Gubarev's U.S.-based global web-hosting
companies, XBT and Webzilla, planted digital bugs, transmitted viruses and conducted altering
operations against the Democratic Party leadership.
While one key name in the dossier was blackened out by BuzzFeed, Gubarev's was not. He
alleges that he was never contacted for comment, suffering reputational harm in the process.
-
Foreign Policy
As part of their defense, BuzzFeed issued a subpoena to the DNC for information which might
help them defend against Gubarev's lawsuit by verifying claims in the dossier - including
"digital remnants left by the Russian state operatives," as well as a full version of the
hacking report prepared by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.
Since the DNC wouldn't let the FBI look at the server and instead relied on the report
prepared by CrowdStrike (founded by Russian expat Dimitri Alperovitch - who sits on the very
Anti-Russian Atlantic Council along with Evelyn "
oops! " Farkas. The AC is funded by the US State Department, NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Ukranian
Oligarch Victor Pinchuk, who apparently owns the Ukrainian gas
company Joe Biden's son is on the board of).
"As part of the discovery process, BuzzFeed is attempting to verify claims in the dossier
that relate to the hacking of the DNC," said BuzzFeed spokesman Matt Mittenhal in a statement.
"We're asking a federal court to force the DNC to follow the law and allow BuzzFeed to fully
defend its First Amendment rights."
Last month, the DNC claimed that providing the requested information would expose the DNC's
internal operations and harm the party politically (it's always someone else's fault, no?).
"If these documents were disclosed, the DNC's internal operations, as well as its ability to
effectively achieve its political goals, would be harmed ," said DNC lawyers.
If the DNC is compelled to turn over the full CrowdStrike report and "digital remnants,"
perhaps Gubarev would then present a counter-analysis by researcher Forensicator which
CrowdStrike apparently "missed" - revealing that the DNC files were copied at
22.6 MB/s - all but confirming that the files had to have been copied locally by an inside
source. Many have speculated that DNC IT staffer Seth Rich, whose murder is still unsolved, was
the source of the emails provided to WikiLeaks.
Word of BuzzFeed's suit against the DNC comes on the heels of a Monday revelation that the
news outlet hired a former top FBI and White House cybersecurity official to fly around the
globe on a secret mission to corroborate various claims in the dossier.
The probe is being conducted by Anthony Ferrante - formerly the FBI's top official in charge
of "cyber incident response" at the U.S. National Security Council under the Obama
administration. Ferrante is leading the investigation from his new employer, D.C.-based
business advisory firm, Forensic Technologies International (FTI) consulting reports
Foreign Policy.
At FTI, Ferrante launched what's now been a months-long stealth effort chasing down
documents and conducting interviews on the ground in various countries around the world. His
team directed BuzzFeed lawyers to subpoena specific data and testimony from dozens of
agencies or companies across the country and assembled a cyber ops war room to analyze that
dat a, according to sources familiar with the work.
Considering that much of the Steele dossier came from a collaboration with high level
Kremlin officials (a collusion if you will), one has to wonder exactly what channels
Ferrante and FTI have tapped in order to access such information.
Wouldn't it be funny if BuzzFeed proves the DNC wasn't hacked?
"It's worth noting that intentionally deceiving a federal judge is a felony."
It's also worth noting that sometimes the judge is in on it.
For the Trump Admin surveillance warrants the FISA judge was probably Contreras. So goes
the rumor. He was probably in on it or halfway in on it. All the major players in DC know
each other and trade favors.
And Gen Mike Flynn is in the process of getting his case dismissed. The only thing left to
determine is how much the Federales will have to reimburse him for his lawyers fees, which
are a million plus.
Rudolph Contreras was the FISA Judge who issued a warrant to spy on Carter Page because
of a Yahoo News article and a Phony Probably have already. He needs to go
Recused Judge in Flynn Prosecution Served on FISA Court
Did Judge Contreras OK electronic surveillance of Recused Judge in Flynn
Prosecution Served on FISA Court Did Judge Contreras OK electronic surveillance of
Federal FISA Judge Recuses Himself From Michael Flynn Case
Blows the whole FISA Court to hell in a hand basket and Judge Contreras is getting the
hell out of dodge. This a helluva mess for the FISA Court and it's victims. Rule 5.
Authority of the Judges. (b) Referring Matters to Other Judges.
"... Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis. ..."
"... Its foundation was laid in 2016 by accusations of Russian interference in the election. The coup began in earnest as soon as the election in November 2016 made Trump the winner. ..."
"... On Jan. 14, 2017, a news report states that the CIA set up a task force in 2016 to investigate possible Russian funding of Trump's campaign. The task force included the FBI, the Treasury, and Justice Departments, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency (NSA). ..."
"... On February 24, 2016, ex-CIA chief Hayden said he'd be "frightened" of a Trump presidency. He said, "I would be incredibly concerned if President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign." A news report told us "Former CIA director Michael Hayden believes there is a legitimate possibility that the U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump if the Republican front-runner becomes president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges." ..."
"... There is ample evidence in the form of sharp public bickering between Trump and these two CIA chiefs, present and the past, that the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump's campaign as a weapon against Trump and his possible election. The motive behind the investigation was not to ensure a clean campaign free of Russian influence but to work against Trump's election chances. The CIA was dismayed by what appeared to them to be a possible president who was aiming to work with Putin and not against him. ..."
"... The excuse was an allegation that three of Trump's associates had received campaign money from the Kremlin. This allegation came from a Baltic state and it was processed by the CIA and made into something worthy of following up. We read that the task force " was set up after the director of the CIA, John Brennan, received a recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into Trump's campaign coffers, the BBC's Paul Wood reported. The recording was apparently passed to the CIA by the intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States." ..."
"... According to this, John Brennan is the key player in the anti-Trump movement. He wants to see Trump's presidency brought to a quick end or otherwise neutered and made compliant to rule by the CIA. By their control over information and its interpretation, the leaders of the CIA have gained considerable power within the government. They've enhanced this by developing operational forces in the field. ..."
"... As occurred during the propaganda campaign that preceded Bush 2's attack on Iraq and as in the Ukraine case noted above, we again observe murky foreign sources that are given credence and validity by the CIA. The public and media have no viable way of checking on the story of Kremlin money except perhaps through off the record sources. Such stories can't be traced through public hearings without subpoena power and a will to wash a lot of dirty linen in public. They are perfect for propaganda and cover-ups. ..."
"... On January 3, 2016, Charles Schumer said that Trump was "being really dumb" for arguing against the assessments of the intelligence community on Russian hacking. He adds ominously: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you." ..."
"... On January 15, 2017, we read "CIA Director John Brennan on Sunday had a stern parting message for Republican Donald Trump days before he assumes the U.S. presidency, cautioning him against loosening sanctions on Russia and warning him to watch what he says. Brennan rebuked the president-elect for comparing U.S. intelligence practices to Nazi Germany in comments that laid bare the friction between Trump and the intelligence community he has criticized and is on the verge of commanding." ..."
"... In 2016 Trump and the CIA became foes of one another because of vast policy differences. Past and present CIA directors went public against Trump. They instigated a series of reports and leaks to discredit Trump and to link his campaign to Russian meddling in the election. They went after several of his aides, causing Paul Manafort to resign. After the election, they produced new anti-Trump material and managed to get his National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, to resign. This adds up to an attempted coup that has had some success. ..."
A. Mainly, unnamed intelligence officials and operatives who are in the CIA or recently
retired from such. A number of media outfits are exceptionally active in propagating negative
headlines and stories about Trump and his administration. Elements of other intelligence
agencies and departments of government are possibly involved. We do not know the names of those
operating against Trump, and this is a weakness of the coup hypothesis.
Q. When did the coup attempt begin?
A. Its foundation was laid in 2016 by accusations of Russian interference in the
election. The coup began in earnest as soon as the election in November 2016 made Trump the
winner.
Q. What evidence points to the CIA's role in the coup attempt?
A. A news report from September 5, 2016, reports that "U.S. intelligence and law enforcement
agencies are investigating what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United
States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political
institutions, intelligence, and congressional officials said."
On Jan. 14, 2017, a news report states that the CIA set up a task force in 2016 to
investigate possible Russian funding of Trump's campaign. The task force included the FBI, the
Treasury, and Justice Departments, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, and the National Security Agency (NSA).
Q. Why did the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump's campaign?
A. Why did the CIA not set up a task force to investigate Hillary Clinton's activities
during and after being Secretary of State in response to receipt of mammoth amounts of foreign
money that were laundered through the Clinton Foundation? The reason is that she was the
candidate favored by the CIA leadership and Trump was not.
Early in 2016, Trump was raising very strong doubts in the intelligence community that he'd
govern as they saw fit.
On February 24, 2016, ex-CIA chief Hayden said he'd be "frightened" of a Trump presidency.
He said, "I would be incredibly concerned if President Trump governed in a way that was
consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign." A news report
told us "Former CIA director Michael Hayden believes there is a legitimate possibility that the
U.S. military would refuse to follow orders given by Donald Trump if the Republican
front-runner becomes president and decides to make good on certain campaign pledges."
A month later, Hayden opined that Trump was a larger threat to national stability on
security matters than Hillary Clinton.
On April 11, 2016, we learn that CIA Director "Brennan said on NBC News Sunday that he would
not allow enhanced interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, even if a future president
ordered it." Trump wasted no time responding: "Donald Trump is taking on CIA Director John
Brennan on torture, saying Brennan's pledge not to allow waterboarding is 'ridiculous.'"
On July 13, 2016, Brennan testified that he'd consider quitting rather than obey a
president's order to reinstate waterboarding, something that Trump had suggested. Another
article says that even before that date, "[Brennan] has already expressed his distaste for
Trump."
There is ample evidence in the form of sharp public bickering between Trump and these two
CIA chiefs, present and the past, that the CIA set up a task force to investigate Trump's
campaign as a weapon against Trump and his possible election. The motive behind the
investigation was not to ensure a clean campaign free of Russian influence but to work against
Trump's election chances. The CIA was dismayed by what appeared to them to be a possible
president who was aiming to work with Putin and not against him.
Q. But wasn't the CIA doing the right thing to investigate possible Russian funding of
the Trump campaign?
A. The idea of Russian funding of Trump's campaign was absurd. This investigation had no
reason to be started other than a goal of smearing Trump and preventing a Trump presidency. It
was absurd because foreign money given to American political campaigns is illegal and everyone
knows it. Trump would not jeopardize his campaign for some trivial amount of money nor would
his campaign officials; and a large amount would easily be spotted through the banking system.
It was also absurd because the Kremlin would not operate and does not operate in this way. It
would not risk being found out blatantly violating American law in this way, as that would
greatly diminish its credibility. "Doing the right thing" for the American system was strictly
a plausible and disingenuous device.
Q. If the investigation was absurd, what leads or allegations did the CIA have to set it
up?
A. The excuse was an allegation that three of Trump's associates had received campaign money
from the Kremlin. This allegation came from a Baltic state and it was processed by the CIA and
made into something worthy of following up. We read that the task force " was set up after the
director of the CIA, John Brennan, received a recording of a conversation about money from the
Kremlin going into Trump's campaign coffers, the BBC's Paul Wood reported. The recording was
apparently passed to the CIA by the intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States."
According to this, John Brennan is the key player in the anti-Trump movement. He wants to
see Trump's presidency brought to a quick end or otherwise neutered and made compliant to rule
by the CIA. By their control over information and its interpretation, the leaders of the CIA
have gained considerable power within the government. They've enhanced this by developing
operational forces in the field.
As occurred during the propaganda campaign that preceded Bush 2's attack on Iraq and as in
the Ukraine case noted above, we again observe murky foreign sources that are given credence
and validity by the CIA. The public and media have no viable way of checking on the story of
Kremlin money except perhaps through off the record sources. Such stories can't be traced
through public hearings without subpoena power and a will to wash a lot of dirty linen in
public. They are perfect for propaganda and cover-ups.
John Brennan has the CIA initiate an investigation on a flimsy basis and gets away with it.
We know from his public statements at that time and later that he's thoroughly anti-Trump and
anti-Russia. This is why such an investigation went forward. Brennan had nothing to lose. If he
found some dirt on Trump or his associates, he'd discredit Trump and lose him votes. If he
didn't find anything, the investigation itself would still raise suspicions about Trump and
provide Hillary Clinton and her aides with anti-Trump ammunition. In fact, her campaign did use
the alleged Russian connection against Trump.
Q. What else do we know of Brennan's differences with Trump?
A. On Sept. 11, 2016, Brennan disagreed with Trump publicly: "CIA Director John Brennan
pushed back against Donald Trump's claim that he could read disapproval of President Barack
Obama's policies in the body language of the intelligence officers who gave him a confidential
national security briefing."
On November 30, 2016, we read that Brennan expressed another difference with Trump: "The
director of the CIA has issued a stark warning to President-elect Donald J. Trump. Tearing up
the Iran nuclear deal would be 'the height of folly' and 'disastrous.'"
On January 3, 2016, Charles Schumer said that Trump was "being really dumb" for arguing
against the assessments of the intelligence community on Russian hacking. He adds ominously:
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at
getting back at you."
On January 15, 2017, we read "CIA Director John Brennan on Sunday had a stern parting
message for Republican Donald Trump days before he assumes the U.S. presidency, cautioning him
against loosening sanctions on Russia and warning him to watch what he says. Brennan rebuked
the president-elect for comparing U.S. intelligence practices to Nazi Germany in comments that
laid bare the friction between Trump and the intelligence community he has criticized and is on
the verge of commanding."
Q. What became of the allegations against the three associates of Trump?
A. The three accused men each strongly denied allegations of being paid by the Kremlin. On
October 15, the FISA court granted a warrant to intercept communications from two Russian
banks. The investigators were looking for evidence that money passed from Russia to the three
Trump associates. No such evidence was found.
On January 19, 2017, the continuing investigation by "American law enforcement and
intelligence agencies" was confirmed, and Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, was
mentioned:
"The counterintelligence investigation centers at least in part on the business dealings
that some of the president-elect's past and present advisers have had with
Russia . Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there
were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia's Federal
Security Service, one of the officials said."
Mr. Manafort has done nothing illegal, we learn. He has merely done some business in Ukraine
and Russia. He merely came into contact with people with suspected links to a Russian
intelligence outfit. They weren't even known spies. Mr. Manafort has fallen victim to
suspicion by association two or three times removed even from guilt by association.
The other two being investigated are Carter Page and Roger Stone, and we learn that they too
are innocent of wrongdoing.
"The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the
C.I.A. and the Treasury Department's financial crimes unit. The investigators have
accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing,
the officials said."
So, we know that a concerted effort has been made to investigate three of Trump's close
aides. We know that the CIA was the instigator and that it used its typical murky and
unverifiable tips to gain credibility. Finally, we know that this inquiry has produced no
evidence of any illegal activities of Trump or his aides.
Q. What other evidence is there of an attempted coup against Trump?
A. On Oct. 7, 2016, there was released the "Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland
Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security". This brief
statement on behalf of U.S. intelligence agencies linked the Russian government to hacking:
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the
recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political
organizations." It stated its belief "that only Russia's senior-most officials could have
authorized these activities."
On Nov. 30, 2016, an outfit named PropOrNot with links to the U.S. intelligence community
published a report that named 200 websites as propagators of Russian propaganda: "Russia Is
Manipulating US Public Opinion through Online Propaganda".
On Dec. 9, 2016, it was reported that "The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that
Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency "
Dec. 29, 2016, arrived the FBI-DHS report: "Grizzly Steppe – Russian Malicious Cyber
Activity". This was widely denounced as lacking even persuasive circumstantial evidence, never
mind direct evidence of Russian involvement.
On Jan. 10, 2017, the Golden Showers report was leaked, accusing Trump of having been
compromised by Russian agents and therefore subject to blackmail. This report had been
circulating for weeks in intelligence and media circles. It had supposedly been written between
July and December by former British MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele.
Once again we observe that a spurious anti-Trump report is purported or arranged to have a
foreign origination; but that it is carried to the public by means of the CIA and leaks within
the U.S.
On February 13, 2017, the coup perps drew fresh blood when Michael Flynn resigned, despite
no evidence of wrongdoing. Their success is attributable to their use of wiretapped phone calls
and to leaking these to the media. Since intelligence agents have access to these calls that
the NSA collects, we once again observe that intelligence circles are active in seeking to
undermine Trump. This is consistent with the conclusion that a coup attempt is ongoing.
Q. Could you summarize, please?
A. In 2016 Trump and the CIA became foes of one another because of vast policy differences.
Past and present CIA directors went public against Trump. They instigated a series of reports
and leaks to discredit Trump and to link his campaign to Russian meddling in the election. They
went after several of his aides, causing Paul Manafort to resign. After the election, they
produced new anti-Trump material and managed to get his National Security Advisor, Michael
Flynn, to resign. This adds up to an attempted coup that has had some success.
Q. What happens next?
A. The future is guesswork. We will be surprised at what happens, but here are some guesses.
The coup attempt will not cease. There is nothing presently opposing it unless Trump is
counterattacking behind the scenes, of which there is no evidence. Trump will eventually sense
the coup's efficacy and devise ways to stop it. The anti-Trump media will keep the pot boiling.
They will need new stories to exploit. Anti-Trump elements in the CIA can be expected to come
up with new, dubious and devious revelations aimed at discrediting Trump's handling of foreign
affairs. We can expect former intelligence officials to speak out against Trump at critical
times and to recruit allies who will add what appears to be an even more independent criticism
of Trump. The coup may transform into an effort to control Trump's policies from outside his
administration.
"... The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus
were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's behalf
and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have produced
no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor of Trump. This
is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead, they focus
their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between the US and Russia,
especially in confronting jihadi terrorists. ..."
"... The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against
Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit
of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined with
or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians! ..."
"... The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term,
large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist
crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors,
screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of their
sweeping purge of civil society. ..."
"... President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation
of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation
of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear
first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war to
overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile and
nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China ..."
"... Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version;
to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and
intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture
suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal
of creating pro-war public opinion. ..."
"... Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent
on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to the
spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction,
there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction,
there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order ..."
Few government organizations have been engaged in violation of the US citizens' constitutional rights for as long a time and against
as many individuals as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Seldom has there been greater collusion in the perpetration of
crimes against civil liberties, electoral freedom and free and lawful expression as what has taken place between the FBI and the
US Justice Department.
In the past, the FBI and Justice Department secured the enthusiastic support and public acclaim from the conservative members
of the US Congress, members of the judiciary at all levels and the mass media. The leading liberal voices, public figures, educators,
intellectuals and progressive dissenters opposing the FBI and their witch-hunting tactics were all from the left. Today, the right
and the left have changed places: The most powerful voices endorsing the FBI and the Justice Department's fabrications, and abuse
of constitutional rights are on the left, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and famous liberal media corporations and public
opinion makers.
The recently published Congressional memo, authored by Congressman Devin Nunes, provides ample proof that the FBI spied on Trump
campaign workers with the intent to undermine the Republican candidate and sabotage his bid for the presidency. Private sector investigators,
hired by Trump's rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, worked with pro-Clinton operatives within the FBI and
Justice Department to violate the national electoral process while flouting rules governing wiretaps on US citizens. This was done
with the approval of the sitting Democratic President Barack Obama.
The liberals and Democrats and their allies in the FBI, political police and other elements of the security state apparatus
were deeply involved in an attempt to implicate Russian government officials in a plot to manipulate US public opinion on Trump's
behalf and corrupt the outcome of the election. However, the FBI, the Justice Department and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller have
produced no evidence of collusion linking the Russian government to a campaign to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy in favor
of Trump. This is despite thousands of interviews and threats of long prison sentences against former Trump campaign advisers. Instead,
they focus their attack on Trump's early campaign promise to find common ground in improving economic and diplomatic ties between
the US and Russia, especially in confronting jihadi terrorists.
The liberal-progressive FBI cohort turned into rabid Russia-bashers demanding that Trump take a highly aggressive stance against
Moscow, while systematically eliminating his military and security advisors who expressed anti-confrontation sentiments. In the spirit
of a Joe McCarthy, the liberal-left launched hysterical attacks on any and every Trump campaign adviser who had spoken to, dined
with or exchanged eyebrows with any and all Russians!
The conversion of liberalism to the pursuit of political purges is unprecedented. Their collective amnesia about the long-term,
large-scale involvement by the FBI in the worst criminal violations of democratic values is reprehensible. The FBI's anti-communist
crusade led to the purge of thousands of trade unionists from the mid-1940's onward, decimating the AFL-CIO. They blacklisted actors,
screen writers, artists, teachers, university academics, researchers, scientists, journalists and civil rights leaders as part of
their sweeping purge of civil society.
The FBI investigated the private lives of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, even threatening their family members. They illegally
spied on and infiltrated civil liberties organizations, and used provocateurs and spies in anti-war groups. Individuals lives were
destroyed, some were driven to suicide; important popular American organizations were undermined to the detriment of millions. This
has been its focus since its beginning and continues with the current fabrication of anti-Russian propaganda and investigations.
President Trump: Victim and Executor
President Trump has pursued an agenda mirroring the police state operations of the FBI – only on a global scale. Trump's violation
of international law includes collaboration and support for Saudi Arabia's tyrannical invasion and destruction of the sovereign nation
of Yemen; intensified aid and support for Israel's ethnic war against the Palestinian people; severe sanctions and threatened nuclear
first-strike against North Korea (DPRK); increased deployment of US special forces in collaboration with the jihadi terrorist war
to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria; coup-mongering, sabotage, sanctions and economic blockade of Venezuela; NATO missile
and nuclear encirclement of Russia; and the growing naval threats against China .
Domestically, Trump's response to the FBI's blackmail has been to replace the original political leadership with his own version;
to expand and increase the police state powers against immigrants; to increase the powers of the major tech companies to police and
intensify work-place exploitation and the invasion of citizens' privacy; to expand the unleash the power of state agents to torture
suspects and to saturate all public events, celebrations and activities with open displays of jingoism and militarism with the goal
of creating pro-war public opinion.
In a word: From the right to the left there are no political options to choose from among the two ruling political parties. Popular
political movements and mass demonstrations have risen up against Trump with clear justification, but have since dissolved and been
absorbed. They came together from diverse sectors: Women against sexual abuse and workplace humiliation; African-Americans against
police impunity and violence; and immigrants against mass expulsion and harassment. They staged mass demonstrations and then declined
as their 'anti-Trump' animus was frustrated by the liberal-democrats hell-bent on pursuing the Russian connection.
In the face of the national-political debacle local and regional movements became the vehicle to support the struggles. Women
organized at some workplaces and gained better protection of their rights; African-Americans vividly documented and published video
evidence of the systematic brutal violation of their rights by the police state and effectively acted to restrain local police violence
in a few localities; immigrant workers and especially their children gained broad public sympathy and allies within religious and
political organizations; and anti-Trump movements combined with critics of the liberal/democrat apparatus to build broader movements
and especially oppose growing war-fever.
Abroad, bi-partisan wars have failed to defeat independent state and mass popular resistance struggles for national sovereignty
everywhere – from North Korea, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela and beyond.
Even the fight within the two-headed reactionary party of the US oligarchy has had a positive effect. Each side is hell-bent
on exposing the state-sponsored crimes of the other. In an unprecedented and historic sense, the US and world public is witness to
the spies, lies and crimes of the leadership and elite on prime time and on the wide screen. We head in two directions. In one direction,
there are the threats of nuclear war, economic collapse, environmental disasters and a full blown police state. In the other direction,
there is the demise of empire, a revived and renewed civil society rooted in a participatory economy and a renewed moral order
.
"... Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have been used in the ICA. ..."
"... Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) ..."
"... These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia actually exist or not. ..."
"... Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of the dossier. ..."
"... What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose, like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause. ..."
"... Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia. ..."
"... Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails. The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him. ..."
"... It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians. ..."
"... It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation must have been irresistible. ..."
"... But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked" analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge? ..."
"... Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here" principle. ..."
"... Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance ..."
The report ("The Dossier") that claims that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, was paid for
by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. The company that claims that Russia hacked DNC computer servers, was paid by the DNC and
Hillary Clinton campaign. The FBI's counterintelligence probe into Trump's alleged connections to Russia was launched
on the basis of information gathered from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary
Clinton campaign.
The surveillance of a Trump campaign member (Carter Page) was approved by a FISA court on
the basis of information from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton
campaign.
The Intelligence Community Analysis or ICA was (largely or partially) based on information
from a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. (more on this
below)
The information that was leaked to the media alleging Russia hacking or collusion can be
traced back to claims that were made in a report that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary
Clinton campaign.
The entire Russia-gate investigation rests on the "unverified and salacious" information
from a dossier that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaign. Here's how Stephen
Cohen sums it up in a recent article at The Nation:
"Steele's dossier was the foundational document of the Russiagate narrative from the time
its installments began to be leaked to the American media in the summer of 2016, to the US
"Intelligence Community Assessment" of January 2017 .the dossier and subsequent ICA report
remain the underlying sources for proponents of the Russiagate narrative of "Trump-Putin
collision." ("Russia gate or Intel-gate?", The Nation)
There's just one problem with Cohen's statement, we don't really know the extent to which
the dossier was used in the creation of the Intelligence Community Assessment. (The ICA was the
IC's flagship analysis that was supposed to provide ironclad proof of Russian meddling in the
2016 elections.) According to some reports, the contribution was significant. Check out this
excerpt from an article at Business Insider:
"Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence
report they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want
to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly
interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it
aligned with reality", Business Insider)
Bottom line: Despite the denials of former-CIA Director John Brennan, the dossier may have
been used in the ICA.
In the last two weeks, documents have been released that have exposed the weak underpinnings
of the Russia investigation while at the same time revealing serious abuses by senior-level
officials at the DOJ and FBI. The so called Nunes memo was the first to point out these abuses,
but it was the 8-page "criminal referral" authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham that gave credence to the claims. Here's a blurb from the
document:
"It appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information, funded by and obtained
for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate
of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele's personal credibility
and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the information. But there is
substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of
his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility."
There it is. The FBI made a "concerted effort to conceal information from the court" in
order to get a warrant to spy on a member of a rival political campaign. So –at the very
least– there was an effort, on the part of the FBI and high-ranking officials at the
Department of Justice, to improperly spy on members of the Trump team. And there's more. The
FBI failed to mention that the dossier was paid for by the Hillary campaign and the DNC, or
that the dossier's author Christopher Steele had seeded articles in the media that were being
used to support the dossier's credibility (before the FISA court), or that, according to the
FBI's own analysts, the dossier was "only minimally corroborated", or that Steele was a
ferocious partisan who harbored a strong animus towards Trump. All of these were omitted in the
FISA application which is why the FBI was able to deceive the judge. It's worth noting that
intentionally deceiving a federal judge is a felony.
Most disturbing is the fact that Steele reportedly received information from friends of
Hillary Clinton. (supposedly, Sidney Blumenthal and others) Here's one suggestive tidbit that
appeared in the Graham-Grassley" referral:
" Mr. Steele's memorandum states that his company "received this report from REDACTED US
State Department," that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was
information that came from a foreign sub-source who "is in touch with REDACTED, a contact of
REDACTED, a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to REDACTED."
It is troubling enough that the Clinton campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these
Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional
concerns about his credibility." (Lifted from The Federalist)
What are we to make of this? Was Steele shaping the dossier's narrative to the
specifications of his employers? Was he being coached by members of the Hillary team? How did
that impact the contents of the dossier and the subsequent Russia investigation?
These are just a few of the questions Steele will undoubtedly be asked if he ever faces
prosecution for lying to the FBI. But, so far, we know very little about man except that he was
a former M16 agent who was paid $160,000 for composing the dubious set of reports that make up
the dossier. We don't even know if Steele's alleged contacts or intermediaries in Russia
actually exist or not.
Some analysts think the whole thing is a fabrication based on the fact
that he hasn't worked the Russia-scene since the FSB (The Russian state-security organization
that replaced the KGB) was completely overhauled. Besides, it would be extremely dangerous for
a Russian to provide an M16 agent with sensitive intelligence. And what would the contact get
in return? According to most accounts, Steele's sources weren't even paid, so there was little
incentive for them to put themselves at risk? All of this casts more doubt on the contents of
the dossier.
What is known about Steele is that he has a very active imagination and knows how to command
a six-figure payoff for his unique services. We also know that the FBI continued to use him
long after they knew he couldn't be trusted which suggests that he served some other purpose,
like providing the agency with plausible deniability, a 'get out of jail free' card if they
ever got caught surveilling US citizens without probable cause.
But that brings us to the strange case of Carter Page, a bit-player whose role in the Trump
campaign was trivial at best. Page was what most people would call a "small fish", an
insignificant foreign policy advisor who had minimal impact on the campaign. Congressional
investigators, like Nunes, must be wondering why the FBI and DOJ devoted so much attention to
someone like Page instead of going after the "big fish" like Bannon, Flynn, Kushner, Ivanka and
Trump Jr., all of whom might have been able to provide damaging information on the real target,
Donald Trump. Wasn't that the idea? So why waste time on Page? It doesn't make any sense,
unless, of course, the others were already being surveilled by other agencies? Is that it, did
the NSA and the CIA have a hand in the surveillance too?
It's a moot point, isn't it? Because now that there's evidence that senior-level officials
at the DOJ and the FBI were involved in improperly obtaining warrants to spy on members of the
opposite party, the investigation is going to go wherever it goes. Whatever restrictions
existed before, will now be lifted. For example, this popped up in Saturday's The Hill:
"House Intelligence Committee lawmakers are in the dark about an investigation into
wrongdoing at the State Department announced by Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) on Friday.
Nunes told Fox News on Friday that, "we are in the middle of what I call phase two of our
investigation. That investigation is ongoing and we continue work toward finding answers and
asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department
was up to in terms of this Russia investigation."
Since then, GOP lawmakers have been quietly buzzing about allegations that an Obama-era
State Department official passed along information from allies of former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton that may have been used by the FBI to launch an investigation into whether
the Trump campaign had improper contacts with Russia.
"I'm pretty troubled by what I read in the documents with respect to the role the State
Department played in the fall of 2016, including information that was used in a court
proceeding. I am troubled by it," Gowdy told Fox News on Tuesday." ("Lawmakers in dark about
'phase two' of Nunes investigation", The Hill)
So the State Department is next in line followed by the NSA and, finally, the Russia-gate
point of origin, John Brennan's CIA. Here's more background on that from Stephen Cohen's
illuminating article at The Nation:
" .when, and by whom, was this Intel operation against Trump started?
In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in May 2017, John Brennan, formerly
Obama's head of the CIA, strongly suggested that he and his agency were the first, as The
Washington Post put it at the time, "in triggering an FBI probe." Certainly both the Post and
The New York Times interpreted his remarks in this way. Equally certain, Brennan played a
central role in promoting the Russiagate narrative thereafter, briefing members of Congress
privately and giving President Obama himself a top-secret envelope in early August 2016 that
almost certainly contained Steele's dossier. Early on, Brennan presumably would have shared
his "suspicions" and initiatives with James Clapper, director of national intelligence. FBI
Director Comey may have joined them actively somewhat later .
When did Brennan begin his "investigation" of Trump? His House testimony leaves this
somewhat unclear, but, according to a subsequent Guardian article, by late 2015 or early 2016
he was receiving, or soliciting, reports from foreign intelligence agencies regarding
"suspicious 'interactions' between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian
agents."
In short, if these reports and Brennan's own testimony are to be believed, he, not the
FBI, was the instigator and godfather of Russiagate." ("Russiagate or Intelgate?", Stephen
Cohen, The Nation)
Regular readers of this column know that we have always believed that the Russiagate psyops
originated with Brennan. Just as the CIA launched its disinformation campaigns against Saddam
Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi, so too, Russia has emerged as Washington's foremost rival
requiring a massive propaganda campaign to persuade the public that America faces a serious
external threat. In any event, the demonizing of Russia had already begun by the time Hillary
and Co. decided to hop on the bandwagon by blaming Moscow for hacking John Podesta's emails.
The allegations were never persuasive, but they did provide Brennan with some cover for the
massive Information Operation (IO) that began with him.
According to the Washington Times:
"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided
the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence
investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that
the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with
Russians."
It all started with Brennan. After Putin blocked Brennan's operations in both Ukraine and
Syria, Brennan had every reason to retaliate and to use the tools at his disposal to demonize
Putin and try to isolate Russia. The "election meddling" charges (promoted by the Hillary
people) fit perfectly with Brennan's overall strategy to manipulate perceptions and prepare the
country for an eventual confrontation. It provided him the opportunity to kill two birds with
one stone, to deliver a withering blow to Putin and Trump at the very same time. The temptation
must have been irresistible.
But now the plan has backfired and the investigations are gaining pace. Trump's allies in
the House smell the blood in the water and they want answers. Did the CIA surveil members of
the Trump campaign on the basis of information they gathered in the dossier? Who saw the
information? Was the information passed along to members of the press and other government
agencies? Was the White House involved? What role did Obama play? What about the Intelligence
Community Assessment? Was it based on the contents of the Steele report? Will the "hand-picked"
analysts who worked on the report vouch for its conclusions in or were they coached about what
to write? How did Brennan persuade the reluctant Comey into opening a counterintelligence
investigation on members in the Trump campaign when he knew it would be perceived as a partisan
attempt to sabotage the elections by giving Hillary an edge?
Soon the investigative crosshairs will settle on Brennan. He'd better have the right
answers.
That the whole media can be in service of a such a fraud and beam their relentless lies
across millions of TV screens even in a democracy like America goes to tell you that the
Power ultimately decides what is 'fiction' and 'non-fiction'.
Why else would most of Big Media be spreading all these lies about Russia Hacking or
'Russiagate' when the only real 'gate' is Deepstategate and Jewishhategate. The anti-Trump
hysteria is nothing but an act of arson set by Jewish globalists who hate him.
Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Blumenthal, Abedin, Mills, Podesta, Strzok, McCabe whoever might
have been mastermind or mere footsoldier in the drama, one cannot escape the fact that the
Capo di tutti capi is Barak Hussein Obama, even if only on the "Buck stops here"
principle.
Planting stories in the kept lugenpresse then citing the resulting articles as evidence is a
common technique of the national security state. Anyone remember DickiePoo Cheney (the man
with no heart) planting bogus weapons-of-mass-destruction stories with "reporter" Judith (the
jooie) Miller whose stuff was dutifully published in the rapidly anti arab Jew York Times.
DickiePoo then cited the stories as evidence that Iraq needed to be invaded and destroyed.
This kind of propaganda is quite effective and very long lasting to this day something like
60% of the american public still believe Saddam had a hand in the 911 false flag operation
and probably future history books will agree.
Last September Brennan began a two-year stint as a distinguished fellow for global security
at Fordham Law School. Brennan is a 1977 college graduate of this Jesuit institution which
undoubtedly laid the groundwork for a career of duplicity and malfeasance .
His appointment is in the grand tradition of Jesuitical sucking up to the
powers-that-be.
An especially egregious example of this would be the current Jesuit "Bishop of Rome" (his
preferred parlance) playing footsie with communist China. And in the process throwing
faithful Chinese under the proverbial bus – just being chalked up as collateral
damage!
"... How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee. ..."
"... Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as "Russian" were not. For details of the sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates their lack of direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin, or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source. ..."
"... Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia and Qatar. Click to read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up, or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to the media? ..."
"... US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations. Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The provision of the US code making lying a federal crime requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy. ..."
"... With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so, this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency. ..."
"... If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome. ..."
"... And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative, stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties." ..."
"... The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job; failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties. ..."
"... A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious." ..."
"... A bigger bombshell, which of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source. Where have we heard that before? ..."
"... I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office? ..."
"... Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win. ..."
"... I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory." ..."
"... Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. ..."
"... In fact I am fairly certain that it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved. ..."
According to Simpson, "foreign intelligence services hacking American political operations is not that unusual, actually, and
there's a lot of foreign intelligence services that play in American elections." He mentioned the Chinese and the Indians, not the
Israelis. The Mossad, Simpson did tell the Committee, was his source for his belief that Russian intelligence has been operating
through the Jewish Orthodox Chabad movement, and the Russian Orthodox Church. "The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian
State now the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and
that it was intelligence operations."
There are just two references in the Committee transcript to the CIA. One was a passing remark to imply the Russians cannot "break[ing]
into the CIA, [so instead] you are breaking into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open."
The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative
from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any
information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been verified. You know, I don't have access to the
intelligence or law enforcement information that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government
has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the original memos came in saying that the Kremlin
was mounting a specific operation to get Donald Trump elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying.
The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our political process, and that this is sort
of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know, trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically
designed to elect Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's
sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding
the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what
he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand
the question at first, then he stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens, Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying
that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that
Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered
his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up -- and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was notorious at the Wall Street Journal
for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the evidence was missing or unreliable. He told the Committee that disbelief on
the part of his editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the
Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats
and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
When Simpson was asked "do you -- did you find anything to -- that you verified as false in the dossier, since or during?" Simpson
replied: "I have not seen anything -- ". Note the hypthen, the stenographer's signal that Simpson was pausing.
"[Question]. So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, is true or could be true?"
"MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the time it came in. We were able to corroborate various things
that supported its credibility."
Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been
clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as
"Russian" were not. For details of the
sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates
their lack of
direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin,
or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source.
So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British agent,
Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the Wall Street
Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire.
One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis Business
Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for, before
the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job?
The House Committee has subpoenaed business records from Fusion, but Simpson's lawyers say they will refuse to hand them over.
The financial records of Steele's firm are openly accessible through the UK government company registry, Companies House. Click to
read here .
Because the Trump dossier work ran from the second half of 2015 to November 2016, the financial reports of Orbis for the financial
years ending March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, are the primary sources. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, open this
link to read.
The papers reveal that Orbis was a small firm with no more than 7 employees. Steele's business partner and co-shareholder, Christopher
Burrows, is another former MI6 spy. They had been hoping for MI6 support of their private business, but it failed to materialize,
says an London intelligence source. "Chris Burrows is another from the same background. They all hope to be Hakluyt [a leading commercial
intelligence operation in London] but didn't get the nod on departure."
They do not report the Orbis income. Instead, for 2016 the company filings indicate Ł155,171 in cash at the bank, and income of Ł245,017
owed by clients and contractors. Offsetting that figure, Orbis owed Ł317,848 -- to whom and for what purposes is not reported. The
unaudited accounts show Orbis's profit jumped from Ł121,046 in 2015 to Ł199,223 in 2016, and Ł441,089 in 2017.
The financial data are complicated by the operation by Steele and Burrows of a second company, Orbis Business Intelligence International,
a subsidiary they created in 2010, a year after the parent company was formed. Follow its affairs
here .
According to British press
reports , Orbis and Steele
were paid Ł200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about Ł114,000).
Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British
sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the
Orbis balance-sheet.
British sources also report that a US Government agency paid for Orbis to work on evidence and allegations of corruption at the
world soccer federation, Fédération Internationale de Football (FIFA). Indictments in this case were issued by the US Department
of Justice in
May 2015 , and the following
December . What role the two-partner British consultancy played in the complex investigations by teams from the Justice Department,
the FBI and also the Internal Revenue Service is unclear. That Steele, Burrows and Orbis depended on US government sources for their
financial well-being appears to be certain.
Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association
to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's
objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia
and Qatar. Click to
read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up,
or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to
the media?
US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations.
Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
announced that they
have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The
provision of the US code making lying a federal crime
requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy.
Now then, Part I and this
sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the meaning be?
In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for president, then the Democratic National
Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in favour of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are
still trying.
In the long run, the case is a measurement of the life, or the half-life, of truth. Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote once that nowhere
has truth so short a life as in Sicily. On his clock, that was five minutes. He didn't know the United States, or shall we say the
stretch from Washington through New York to the North End of Boston. There, truth has an even shorter life. Scarcely a second.
"The primary reason I generally don't believe in conspiracies is that they can usually be better explained as the result of
sheer incompetence and hubris."
I divide conspiracy notions into two categories: grand mal and petit mal . The former are generally implausible
due to the large number of participants involved and while occassionally attempted, they are typically exposed pretty quickly.
They may still have significant effects – for example, there was a large conspiracy to sell the Iraqi WMD story to the public,
involving top levels of the British and American governments and a good section of the corporate media. That's the grand mal
version.
Petit mal is your typical small criminal conspiracy. The FBI, for example, almost always includes 'conspiracy to commit
mail fraud' on the list of federal charges.
With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald
Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate
media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton
campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so,
this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt
concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency.
If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats
take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome.
I pay pretty close attention to this topic and I must say I sometimes wonder if the Russians haven't sold the rope to the American
political elite. I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed
his "OMG Russia corruption" biases.
And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion
that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative,
stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties."
London due diligence firms say the record of Simpson's firm Fusion GPS and Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence operations
in the US has discredited them in the due diligence market. The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript
shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job;
failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties.
A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting
to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means
the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client
wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the
press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's
likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed his "OMG Russia
corruption" biases.
Same here, but not just about what he was fed by Steele. Simpson claimed to have done some of his own research and said it
was consistent with what he got from Steele.
I'm about three-quarters of the way through the transcript of Simpson's interrogation by the House Intelligence Committee,
and I've read all 312 pages of the Senate Judiciary Committee transcript, which bears little resemblance to what was reported
in the major media – shocking, I know.
Among the "bombshells" the mainstream reported was "proof" that it wasn't the dossier that launched the FBI's investigation
of Trump, and therefore the dossier couldn't have been used as justification for a FISA warrant. A bigger bombshell, which
of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters
on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't
verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source.
Where have we heard that before?
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had
a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there
be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office?
Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence
agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win.
I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm
not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory."
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
FWIW this NC commenter has never had any problem believing that this may be the case. In fact I am fairly certain that
it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved.
Adding: Heh. I posted this before looking at Rev Kev's link to the Raimondo article, which comes to the same conclusions. Interesting
times!
I believe that Seth Abramson or someone put photographs to the Steele dossier showing people in the places & at the times delineated
in the Steele dossier. From the very first Steele said he would not & could not reveal his sources. It was from the first indicated
that it would be to the FBI & CIA to discover. He said he believed that his sources were credible.
When I was studying Intelligence services the CIA was said to be the private army of the CIA. These days I don't know exactly
who the CIA works for, or answers to. I certainly don't think well of the CIA believing they are wrapped up working for their
Front businesses more than focusing on the mission of spying in the interests of the American people. Of private intelligence
companies I get what I can from IHS Jane's. That the CIA lost 20 assets, human beings, in China for incompetent secret communications
methods would lead professionals to withhold as much of identities as possible.
For awhile there I believe Steele was worried about his own health.
David Corn at Mother Jones was reticent to break the story. So now what I see to look for is what Steele said needed to be
done, & that being what Mueller is doing at the behest of the DOJ.
The US has been at war, albeit Hybrid war since the imposition of sanctions for their violations of international law as regarded
the annexation of Crimea & the attack on the Ukraine. Sanctions are Economic Warfare.
That the US feels the right to engage in warfare of any kind Economic or Hot over violations of International Law leads me
to believe that the UN will fail to prevent the apocalyptic riot. But that as regards Trump becomes neither here nor there, correct?
William Binney, former NSA technical official and whistleblower, comments on the FISA memo, that has apparently just been released.
Obviously, a major development in 'Russia-gate'.
"... The world had a great opportunity in March of 1953 to reverse course rather than this insane military spending that was beginning. On March 5th, 1953, Stalin died. The Soviet leaders reached out to the United States. They offered the Americans an olive branch. They talked about changing the direction of our relations. They talked about, basically, ending the Cold War. We could've ended the Cold War as early as March 5, 1953, taken a different route. Eisenhower and the others in his administration debate what to do, how to respond. Churchill, who was now re-elected and back in office in England, begged the United States to hold a summit with the Soviet leaders and move toward peace, rather than belligerence and hostility. Eisenhower doesn't say anything publicly in response for six weeks. Then he makes a speech. It's a visionary speech. It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there ..."
"... PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ..."
"... two days later, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, makes a speech reversing the whole thing. Instead of an olive branch, he gives the Soviets a middle finger and he accuses the Soviet Union of trying to overthrow every Democratic government in the world. The exact wrong message. ..."
"... Did Eisenhower speak for it or did Dulles speak for it? Was Eisenhower the militarist or was Dulles the militarist? In many ways, the '50s was a very, very dangerous time. And there were so many harebrained schemes that were going on. ..."
"... The great independent journalist I.F. Stone mentioned that the word for lunar, for moon, in Latin is Luna. And he said, we should have a new department in the cabinet and call it the Department of Lunacy because of the crazy ideas that were being promulgated at the time. ..."
"... Well, the Cuban Missile Crisis is very important because now we're going through the Korean Missile Crisis, and if Trump has his way, we'll also go through the Iranian Missile Crisis. And the last time we were this close to nuclear war was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What happens there is that Khrushchev, in order to try to accomplish two things, or three things, really. ..."
"... And so, we were planning, we had the plans in place to overthrow the Cuban government, number one. Number two, Khrushchev wanted a credible deterrent. The Americans learned, Kennedy says, "Let's find out what the reality of the Missile Gap is." And he has McNamara do the study. We find out that there is a Missile Gap. By October of '61, we find out that there is a Missile Gap, and it's in our favor. The United States is ahead between 10 to 1 and 100 to 1 over the Soviet Union in every important category. ..."
"... He said, "We would've definitely destroyed Cuba and probably wiped out the Soviet Union as well." So, that's how close we came at this time. Which is again, as Robert Gates, another hawk, warns, "The United States should not invade Syria," he said. "Or should not bomb Syria because haven't we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, that whenever these things happen, you never know what the consequences are going to be. It's always the unintended consequences that are going to get you." ..."
"... It takes two to tango. The idea that the US is solely to blame for the continuation of the Cold War, or that the US is solely to blame for a revival is Soviet/Russian propaganda. Great powers are aggressive, and rarely circumspect. ..."
"... And given Churchill's anathema toward Communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, and given that he was the architect of the Cold War from the West I find the idea of him being a peacenik to be bizarre. ..."
"... They do not appreciate that there are different manifestations of both economic models. (Neoliberalism is eating us alive.) They do not appreciate that communism was probably the salvation of both post-war Russia and China. They conflate socialism with communism, view high taxes as communistic, and ignore that the countries with the highest standard of living are quite socialist. ..."
"... Ike was so right about the Military-Industrial complex, and yet we have only enabled it to grow to the point that it dominates every political decision – every law – every regulation in ways that ensure weapons are expended so more can take their place; and more weapons need to be developed because the boogeyman out there (pick a regime) probably, maybe, could be building an even nastier weapon. Make no mistake, Sputnik was viewed as evidence that the Russians already had better weapons and that they would take over "outer space" and we would thus be at their mercy. Back in the 60s the US did worry that communism was working better than capitalism, and that fear enabled a lot of foreign policy (gunboat diplomacy). ..."
"... Capitalism has fatal flaws, but we should all thank Communism died the way it did. ..."
"... not like capitalism didn't murder a few proletarians if murder is the standard, both are condemned ..."
"... the vast bulk of provocations and exacerbations in that now-reprised Cold War were a pas de deluxe, not mostly driven by our own insane US leaders, like the ones discussed in small detail in the post. Conveniently ignoring the whole escalation process of the Exceptional Empire doing the "policies" of the Dulleses and their clan, the craziness of stuff like the John Birchers and the McCarthy thing, and the madness of MAD (which I believe was a notion coined by that nest of vipers called RAND, that "we have to be understood to be insane enough to commit suicide, to kill the whole planet, for the 'deterrent effect' of Massive Retaliation (forget that the US policy and military structure very seriously intended a first strike on the Evil Soviets for quite a long time, and are now building "small nukes" for 'battlespace use' as if there are no knock-on consequences.) ..."
"... Russia suffered 20 million dead in WW II, pretty much won that war against fascism, and the leaders there get dang little decrepit for being (so far) so much more the "grownups in the room" in the Great Game Of RISK! ™ that our idiot rulers are playing. Go look up how many times, however, beyond that vast set of slapstick plays that led to the "Cuban Missile Crisis", the human part of the world skated up, by combinations of accident and error, to getting its death wish. And the main impetus for the nuclear "standoff" has been the US and the "policies" forwarded by "our" insane rulers and militarists. ..."
"... Guys, I generally treasure the NC comments section, and I am not singling anyone out, but some of the rhetoric here is starting to remind me of ZeroHedge doomp&rn. Let's please recover some perspective. ..."
"... Every year of human history since the expulsion from Eden will let us cherry pick overwhelming evidence that the lunatics were running the asylum. Or that every generation of our forebears gleefully built our civilization atop heaps of skulls of [insert oppressed groups here]. ..."
"... Such faith we have in ourselves, and such little evidence other than maybe a couple of world wars and long histories of the loonies playing stupid with whole populations, that we don't need to worry about the concentrated efforts of the sociopathic lunatics to rise to positions of great power and do stupid stuff. ..."
"... "It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at his best, and he says there" Was he subsequently co-opted, or BSing? ..."
"... But that doesn't help the millions who would die on the peninsula. Further, whats known as a Nuclear Famine could still occur, which would be pretty damn devastating for civilization, even if mankind itself manages to survive. ..."
"... Science is about doubt and skepticism. That's what the scientific process is. Doubt a nuclear winter: Ok, I'll bite. We have examples – Large Volcanic eruptions, and we have the year without a summer sometime in the 1830s I believe – that is in recorded History. The we searched to archeological record for more evidence, and found large die-offs following a layer of volcanic dust. Again and again, I believe. Quoting scientists who "doubt nuclear winter" requires more examination: ..."
"... Humanity might survive as a species but not as an idea. Am about halfway through the Ellsberg book and, yes, it does make Dr. Strangelove look like a documentary. Current thinking does not seem much changed. ..."
"... Something missing from the sequence of events here is that the main reason that the Kremlin put nuclear missiles in Cuba was the fact that more than 100 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 by the US, thus cutting down any reaction time by Moscow to minutes in case of a US attack. ..."
"... The main – unacknowledged – part of the climb down from the Cuba missile crisis was that as Russia pulled its nuclear missiles out of Cuba, the US would do the same in Europe. It cooled things down again until Reagan was electe ..."
"... I had forgotten that the 50s had just as many crazies as present times – the Dulles brothers, Curtis LeMay, Edward Teller, J. Edgar Hoover – really scary people and probably founding members of the deep state. ..."
"... The Jupiter missile agreement was a secret at the time. Kennedy wanted to minimize the appearance of a quid-pro-quo. The subsequent presence of Pershings and Tomahawks in Europe (but not Turkey) was a reaction to the mobile IRBMs deployed by the Soviet Union. Which they still have. France and Britain have their own independent deterrents. Which is just as well, since the Pershings and Tomahawks were traded away as part of START/SALT. ..."
"... The more recent escalation of NATO into E Europe, the Baltics and the Ukraine are a definite violation of the spirit of the Cuban Missile Crisis agreement, and are pure aggression against a Russia that was seen as too weak to do anything about it until they did do something about it in 2014. ..."
"... An aggressive NATO is something I view with horror. One does not poke the bear. But Kissinger (the German) and Berzhinski (the Pole) are fanatically anti-Russian. They made up for the passing of Churchill. ..."
"... LeMay had suggested that we should perhaps wipe out the Soviet Union before they had the chance to catch up to us in nukes. It was an era ruled by fear of nuclear war–a fear that was unleashed by the use of the bomb in Japan. Truman and Byrnes (the latter in a meeting in his hometown–my hometown) rejected calls by some of the Los Alamos scientists to share the nuclear secrets with the Russians and forestall this arms race or so they hoped. ..."
"... This isn't accurate. Stalin tried repeatedly and even towards the end, desperately, to sign a treaty with the Britain and France. They rebuffed him because [he was a] Commie. He signed up with Hitler only after those efforts had clearly failed. It was a self-preservation move. It probably did buy him less time than he thought. But let's not kid ourselves: Hitler's first move otherwise would have been to the East. What were later the Allies would have been delighted to see him take over the USSR. This was why British aristos were so keen on Hitler, that he was seen as an answer to Communism and therefore "our kind of man". ..."
"... General LeMay was responsible for the death of a fifth (some say a third) of the North Korean population by saturation bombing with napalm, was he not? A third? Isn't that one in three? ..."
"... Additional books that shed light on both leaving the new deal behind and the Cuban missile crisis are (1) "The Devil's Chessboard" by Talbot and (2) "JFK and The Unspeakable" by Douglass. The first is mostly about Allen Dulles but has interesting chapters on McCarthy, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. It is reasonably well foot-noted. The second is about the assassination and has loads of detail about the missile crisis and its power players. It is meticulously foot-noted. ..."
Jerri-Lynn here: Lest anyone be deluded into thinking that the current lunacy of Trump foreign policy is unprededented and ahistoric,
part eight of
an excellent
Real News Network series on Undoing the New Deal reminds us this simply isn't so.
That series more generally discuses who helped unravel the New Deal and why. That was no accident, either. In this installment,
historian Peter Kuznick says Eisenhower called for decreased militarization, then Dulles reversed the policy; the Soviets tried to
end the cold war after the death of Stalin; crazy schemes involving nuclear weapons and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba put the
world of the eve of destruction.
Three things I've seen recently made me think readers might appreciate this interview. First, I recently finished reading
Stephen Kinzer's The Brothers
, about the baleful consequences of the control over US foreign policy by Dulles brothers– John Foster and Alan. These continue to
reverberate to today. Well worth your time.
Over the hols, I watched Dr. Strangelove again. And I wondered, and this not for the first time: why has the world managed to
survive to this day? Seems to me just matter of time before something spirals out of control– and then, that's a wrap.
Queued up on my beside table is Daniel Ellsberg's
The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of
a Nuclear War Planner . Haven't cracked the spine of that yet, so I'll eschew further commentary, except to say that I understand
Ellsberg's provides vivid detail about just how close we've already come to annihilation.
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network, I'm Paul Jay. We're continuing our series of discussions on the Undoing of the New
deal, and we're joined again by Professor Peter Kuznick, who joins us from Washington. Peter is a Professor of History, and Director
of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University. Thanks for joining us again Peter.
PETER KUZNICK: My pleasure, Paul.
PAUL JAY: So, before we move on to Kennedy, and then we're going to get to Johnson, you wanted to make a comment about Eisenhower,
who made a couple of great sounding speeches about reducing military expenditure but I'm not sure how much that actually ever got
implemented. But talk about this speech in, I guess, it's 1953, is it?
PETER KUZNICK: Yes. The world had a great opportunity in March of 1953 to reverse course rather than this insane military
spending that was beginning. On March 5th, 1953, Stalin died. The Soviet leaders reached out to the United States. They offered the
Americans an olive branch. They talked about changing the direction of our relations. They talked about, basically, ending the Cold
War. We could've ended the Cold War as early as March 5, 1953, taken a different route. Eisenhower and the others in his administration
debate what to do, how to respond. Churchill, who was now re-elected and back in office in England, begged the United States to hold
a summit with the Soviet leaders and move toward peace, rather than belligerence and hostility. Eisenhower doesn't say anything publicly
in response for six weeks. Then he makes a speech. It's a visionary speech. It's the kind of vision that Eisenhower represented at
his best, and he says there
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a
theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber
is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half
million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I
repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.
Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
PETER KUZNICK: This is not a way of life at all. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.�
What a great speech and the Soviets were thrilled. They republished this. They reprinted it. They broadcast it over and over, and
then two days later, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, makes a speech reversing the whole thing. Instead of an olive branch,
he gives the Soviets a middle finger and he accuses the Soviet Union of trying to overthrow every Democratic government in the world.
The exact wrong message.
And so, it's sort of like Trump, where Tillerson says something sane and then Trump will undermine it two days later when it comes
to North Korea. The same thing happened in 1953 with Eisenhower and Dulles. We're really much more on the same page, but if you look
at the third world response, you've got the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1955, and the third world leaders are all saying,
"We have to be independent. We have to be neutral." They say, "It is insane to spend all these dollars and all these rubles on the
military when we need money for development."
PAUL JAY: So, what went on with Eisenhower, making that kind of speech? He's not known for any big increase in social spending
domestically. He helps build, as you said, the military industrial complex, especially the nuclear side of it. So, what was that
speech about, and then how does he allow Dulles to contradict him two days later?
PETER KUZNICK: That's one of the mysteries. That's why writing books on the debate, what was going on in that administration.
Did Eisenhower speak for it or did Dulles speak for it? Was Eisenhower the militarist or was Dulles the militarist? In many ways,
the '50s was a very, very dangerous time. And there were so many harebrained schemes that were going on.
We talked a little bit about Sputnik but one of the proposals after that was to blast a hydrogen bomb on the surface of the moon
to show the world that we really are the strongest. And they talked about putting missile bases on the moon, and then the idea was
to have the Soviets respond by putting their own missile bases on the moon. We could put ours on distant planets, so that we could
then hit the Soviet bases on the moon. The great independent journalist I.F. Stone mentioned that the word for lunar, for moon,
in Latin is Luna. And he said, we should have a new department in the cabinet and call it the Department of Lunacy because of the
crazy ideas that were being promulgated at the time.
This comes across, really, with the nuclear policies. So, when McGeorge Bundy asks Dan Ellsberg in 1961 to find out from the Joint
Chiefs what would be, how many people would die as a result of America's nuclear launch in the event of a war with the Soviet Union,
the Pentagon comes back with the idea that between 600 and 650 million people would die from America's weapons alone in our first
PSYOP. And that doesn't even account for nuclear winter, which would have killed us all, or the numbers who would be killed by the
Soviet weapons. That includes at least 100 million of our own allies in Western Europe.
We are talking about a period the lunacy and insanity was captured best by Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove in 1964. That policy
was so close to what was actually occurring at the time. Did Eisenhower speak for this? When Eisenhower wanted to, one of his visions
was for planetary excavation using hydrogen bombs. People should study the lunacy of Project Plowshare.
PAUL JAY: They used to have tourism to go look at nuclear tests outside of Las Vegas and people would sit just a few miles away
with sunglasses on.
PETER KUZNICK: And we sent American soldiers into the blast area, knowing that they were going to be irradiated. Yeah, the irrationality
in these times. People are going to look back at the Trump administration and if we're here later, maybe they'll laugh at us. If
we survive this period, they'll laugh. They'll look back and say, "Look at the craziness of this period." Well, if you look at the
history of the '50s and early '60s, you see a lot of that same kind of craziness in terms of the policies that were actually implemented
at the time, and the ones, for example, one of the ideas was to melt the polar ice caps using hydrogen bombs. We wanted to increase
polar melting. We wanted to increase the temperature on the planet by exploding nuclear bombs.
PAUL JAY: And this was to do, to what end?
PETER KUZNICK: For what end? I'm not sure. I mean, one-
PAUL JAY: Well, they may get their way, the way things are heading right now. They may get that.
PETER KUZNICK: And one of the things from Trump's National Security speech was to not talk about, or to say that global warming
is not a National Security concern as Obama and others had believed it was. But they wanted to actually redirect hurricanes by setting
off hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere in the path of the hurricane, so they could redirect hurricanes. They wanted to build new harbors
by setting off hydrogen bombs. They wanted to have a new canal across the, instead of the Panama canal, with hydrogen bombs and reroute
rivers in the United States.
I mean, crazy, crazy ideas that was considered American policy. And actually, it was the Soviets who saved us because Eisenhower
wanted to begin to do these programs, but the Soviets would not allow, would not give the United States the right to do that because
there was a temporary test ban in the late 1950s. And Eisenhower would have had to abrogate that in order to begin these projects.
PAUL JAY: Okay. Let's catch up. So, we had just, the last part dealt with some of Kennedy. We get into the 1960s. Kennedy is as
preoccupied with the Cold War, the beginning of the Vietnam War, Cuba, the Missile Crisis. And we had left off right at the moment
of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Give us a really quick recap because I think on this issue of militarization and former policy, we kind
of have to do a whole nother series that focuses more on that. We're trying to get more into this issue of the New Deal and what
happened to domestic social reforms in the context of this massive military expenditure. But talk a bit about that moment of the
Cuban Missile Crisis.
PETER KUZNICK: Well, the Cuban Missile Crisis is very important because now we're going through the Korean Missile Crisis,
and if Trump has his way, we'll also go through the Iranian Missile Crisis. And the last time we were this close to nuclear war was
during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What happens there is that Khrushchev, in order to try to accomplish two things, or three things,
really.
One is to, he knows the United States is planning an invasion of Cuba. The United States had been carrying out war games, massive
war games, 40,000 people participating in these war games. Like now, we're carrying out war games off the Korean coast. And the war
game that was planned for October of '62 was called Operation Ortsac. Anybody who doesn't get it? Certainly the Soviets did. Ortsac
is Castro spelled backwards.
And so, we were planning, we had the plans in place to overthrow the Cuban government, number one. Number two, Khrushchev
wanted a credible deterrent. The Americans learned, Kennedy says, "Let's find out what the reality of the Missile Gap is." And he
has McNamara do the study. We find out that there is a Missile Gap. By October of '61, we find out that there is a Missile Gap, and
it's in our favor. The United States is ahead between 10 to 1 and 100 to 1 over the Soviet Union in every important category.
Still, the pressure was to increase America's missiles and so, the Strategic Air Command in the Air Force wanted to increase
our missiles by 3,000. McNamara figures that the least number he can get away with is to increase our intercontinental ballistic
missiles by 1,000 even though we're ahead 10 to 1 already at that point. The Kremlin interpreted that, and said, "Why is the US increasing
its missiles when it's so far ahead of us?" They said, "Obviously, the United States is preparing for a first strike against the
Soviet Union." That was the Kremlin interpretation. It needed a credible deterrent.
They knew that, initially they thought, "Well, the fact that we can take out Berlin will be a credible enough deterrent. The Americans
will never attack." Then they realized that that wouldn't be a sufficient deterrent to some of the hawks in the American military,
the Curtis LeMays, who had a lot of influence at the time. Or before that, the Lemnitzers. And so, they decide, "Well, we've got
to put missiles in Cuba, which is a more credible deterrent."
And the third is that Khrushchev wanted to appease his hawks. Khrushchev's strategy was to build up Soviet consumer economy. He
said, "The Soviet people want washing machines. They want cars. They want houses. That's what we need." And so, he wanted to decrease
defense spending and one of the cheap ways to do that was to put the missiles in Cuba. So, they do that foolishly. It's a crazy policy
because they don't announce it. It's very much like the movie Strangelove, where Khrushchev was planning to announce that the missiles
were in Cuba on the anniversary of the Soviet Revolution. That was coming up in a couple-
PAUL JAY: You mean Dr. Strangelove, meaning what's the point of a doomsday machine if you don't tell people you've got it?
PETER KUZNICK: As Strangelove says, "Well what's the point of the doomsday machine if you don't announce that you have it?" And
then, the Americans didn't, the Soviets didn't announce that they had the, if they had announced that the missiles were there, then
the United States could not have invaded Cuba the way the military wanted. They could not have bombed Cuba. It would've been an effective
deterrent, especially if they announced that also, that the missiles were there, that the warheads were there and that they also
had put 100 battlefield nuclear weapons inside Cuba.
That would have meant that there was no possibility of the United States invading and that the deterrent would've actually worked.
But they didn't announce it. And so, the United States plans for an invasion and we got very close to doing so. But again, the intelligence
was abysmal. We knew where 33 of the 42 missiles were. We didn't find the other missiles. We didn't know that the battlefield nuclear
weapons were there. We didn't know that the missiles were ready to be armed.
And so, the United States was operating blind. We thought that there were 10,000 armed Soviets in Cuba. Turns out, there were
42,000 armed Soviets. We thought that there were 100,000 armed Cubans. Turns out, there were 270,000 armed Cubans. Based on the initial
intelligence, McNamara said, "If we had invaded, we figured we'd suffer 18,000 casualties, 4,500 dead." When he later finds out how
many troops there actually were there, he says, "Well, that would've been 25,000 Americans dead." When he finds out that there were
100 battlefield nuclear weapons as well, he doesn't find that out until 30 years later, and then he turns white, and he says, "Well
that would've meant we would've lost 100,000 American Troops." Twice as many, almost, as we lost in Vietnam.
He said, "We would've definitely destroyed Cuba and probably wiped out the Soviet Union as well." So, that's how close we
came at this time. Which is again, as Robert Gates, another hawk, warns, "The United States should not invade Syria," he said. "Or
should not bomb Syria because haven't we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya, that whenever these things happen,
you never know what the consequences are going to be. It's always the unintended consequences that are going to get you."
Which we learned in Cuba. We learned in Iraq and Afghanistan or we should've learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, Trump
hasn't learned it and we had better learn before we do something crazy now in Korea.
PAUL JAY: All right, thanks, Peter. And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
It takes two to tango. The idea that the US is solely to blame for the continuation of the Cold War, or that the US is
solely to blame for a revival is Soviet/Russian propaganda. Great powers are aggressive, and rarely circumspect. The existence
of nuclear weapons, was what prevented either the US or the Soviet Union/Russia from attacking each other. Otherwise the sport
of kings would have continued as usual.
And given Churchill's anathema toward Communism in general, and the Soviet Union in particular, and given that he was the
architect of the Cold War from the West I find the idea of him being a peacenik to be bizarre.
It's always that word, "communism", isn't it? As long as that word is used, everything is justifiable. If you look at it closely,
it would seem that the Russians have discovered that communism is every bit as susceptible to corruption as capitalism. Communism
has been, in fact, MORE discredited than capitalism (for now.) With Russia on the other side of the planet, what would be the
harm in letting whatever failed ideologies they have fail like Kansas failed? As Jesus might say, "Ah Ye of little faith."
The vast majority of Americans today have no idea what communism is. Most cannot even thing about communism in terms of it
being just another economic system different from capitalism. (No, it is slavery!) They do not appreciate that there are different
manifestations of both economic models. (Neoliberalism is eating us alive.) They do not appreciate that communism was probably
the salvation of both post-war Russia and China. They conflate socialism with communism, view high taxes as communistic, and ignore
that the countries with the highest standard of living are quite socialist.
In many cases, Americans vote against their own interests just because some pol labels a new social program as communist so
he can give his new bill and edge.
Ike was so right about the Military-Industrial complex, and yet we have only enabled it to grow to the point that it dominates
every political decision – every law – every regulation in ways that ensure weapons are expended so more can take their place;
and more weapons need to be developed because the boogeyman out there (pick a regime) probably, maybe, could be building an even
nastier weapon. Make no mistake, Sputnik was viewed as evidence that the Russians already had better weapons and that they would
take over "outer space" and we would thus be at their mercy. Back in the 60s the US did worry that communism was working better
than capitalism, and that fear enabled a lot of foreign policy (gunboat diplomacy).
Trump is anything if he is not politically and strategically a dim wit. Thus he probably buys into the communist boogeyman
scenario common in our culture. He is likely attracted to the economic stimulus that more guns and less butter offer in the short
run. Our problems seems to hinge on leaders who limit their action to the short run, and the long run (ensuring survival of the
human species?), well, they never get around to that.
I would not be so loving over the "communistic ideals". My great grandparents were murdered for the fact that one was a postal
office manager, another was a sock factory owner. Believe what you want, but communism is far from just an economic theory.
Communism, once you force the politics into the economic theory, is this: equality of all men, regardless of abilities, and
damn if you started off well because everything will be taken from you. Your life is not your own, your family is not your own,
your work is not your own: it belongs to the state.
Capitalism has fatal flaws, but we should all thank Communism died the way it did.
Yaas, it's just Putin friendly propaganda, that's all. Let us persuade ourselves that the vast bulk of provocations and
exacerbations in that now-reprised Cold War were a pas de deluxe, not mostly driven by our own insane US leaders, like the ones
discussed in small detail in the post. Conveniently ignoring the whole escalation process of the Exceptional Empire doing the
"policies" of the Dulleses and their clan, the craziness of stuff like the John Birchers and the McCarthy thing, and the madness
of MAD (which I believe was a notion coined by that nest of vipers called RAND, that "we have to be understood to be insane enough
to commit suicide, to kill the whole planet, for the 'deterrent effect' of Massive Retaliation (forget that the US policy and
military structure very seriously intended a first strike on the Evil Soviets for quite a long time, and are now building "small
nukes" for 'battlespace use' as if there are no knock-on consequences.)
How does one break the cycle of ever-increasing vulnerability and eventual destruction, that includes the extraction and combustion
and all the other decimations of a livable planet? how to do that when the Imperial Rulers are insane, by any sensible definition
of insanity? And the Russians sure seem to be wiser and more restrained (barring some provocation that trips one of their own
Doomsday Devices that they have instituted to try to counter the ridiculous insane provocations and adventures of the Empire?
Maybe revert to "Duck and cover?" Or that Civil Defense posture by one of the Reaganauts, one T.K. Jones, who wanted Congress
to appropriate $252 million (1980 dollars) for Civil Defense, mostly for SHOVELS: in the firmly held belief that "we can fight
and win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union:"
Three times Mr. Jones – or someone speaking in his name – agreed to testify. Three times he failed to appear. The Pentagon
finally sent a pinch-hitter, Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle. But the Senate wants Mr. Jones. It wants an authoritative
explanation of his plan to spend $252 million on civil defense. Evidently, most of that money will go for shovels.
For this is how the alleged Mr. Jones describes the alleged civil defense strategy: "Dig a hole, cover it with a couple
of doors and then throw three feet of dirt on top. It's the dirt that does it."
Mr. Jones seems to believe that the United States could recover fully, in two to four years, from an all-out nuclear
attack. As he was quoted in The Los Angeles Times: "Everybody's going to make it if there are enough shovels to go around."
Dig on, Senator Pressler. We're all curious.
Russia suffered 20 million dead in WW II, pretty much won that war against fascism, and the leaders there get dang little
decrepit for being (so far) so much more the "grownups in the room" in the Great Game Of RISK! ™ that our idiot rulers are playing.
Go look up how many times, however, beyond that vast set of slapstick plays that led to the "Cuban Missile Crisis", the human
part of the world skated up, by combinations of accident and error, to getting its death wish. And the main impetus for the nuclear
"standoff" has been the US and the "policies" forwarded by "our" insane rulers and militarists.
"Tu Quoque" is an especially weak and inapposite and insupportable argument in this context.
SPOT ON! IF Robby Mook and the gang can stir up a Russian frenzy from hell based on nothing more than sour grapes, and IF what
we know about the deep state is only the tip of the iceberg, and IF the media is largely under the control of the 'Gov, THEN a
logical human must at least be open to the possibility that there is also such a thing as American propaganda, must (s)he not?
Yes. Nobody invaded Argentina when Juan Peron et al took over. Hitler and Mussolini could have died as dictators decades later
if they had simply kept their armies home.
Guys, I generally treasure the NC comments section, and I am not singling anyone out, but some of the rhetoric here is
starting to remind me of ZeroHedge doomp&rn. Let's please recover some perspective.
Every year of human history since the expulsion from Eden will let us cherry pick overwhelming evidence that the lunatics
were running the asylum. Or that every generation of our forebears gleefully built our civilization atop heaps of skulls of [insert
oppressed groups here].
Yet during the Cold War, there were plenty of prominent people calling out the McCarthys and Lemays of the world as loons (and
behind the Curtain, even Stalin was removed from key posts before his death). Guess what, sane generally wins out over the mad
king. The arc of history indeed bends toward justice, though never without sacrifice and diligent truthseeking. The ones to worry
about are the snake oil merchants, who pee on our shoes and tell us it's raining.
g.
Such faith we have in ourselves, and such little evidence other than maybe a couple of world wars and long histories of
the loonies playing stupid with whole populations, that we don't need to worry about the concentrated efforts of the sociopathic
lunatics to rise to positions of great power and do stupid stuff.
Yes, this is what the world gets when technological advancement is combined with a socio-economic system that rewards sociopathic
tendencies. A system advanced by propaganda (disguised as entertainment and education) backed up with the barrell of a gun and
cameras everywhere.
This article is not scary enough. Find out that in 1983 there was almost a nuclear war. Both sides have a first strike strategy
and a Russian general thought that actions of Reagan were getting ready for the first strike and he was going to strike first.
And during the Cuban missile crisis, Russian subs had nuclear weapons on them and we dropped low level depth charges on them and
we didn't know that they were armed.
This is a very long interview of Daniel Ellsberg in Seattle on Jan 9, 2018.
Now that everyone, except many in the USA, knows that when the USA changes a government that the country is ruined, this may
have forced North and South Korea to get together.
Ellsberg says that any nukes used in the Korean Peninsula would result in at least 1 million dead and while 60 million in WWII
were killed during the course of the war, with nukes that many cold be killed in a week. And then, nuclear winter would finish
off the rest of us.
To be fair, there are now doubts among scientists that Nuclear Winter as classically described would even be a thing.
But that doesn't help the millions who would die on the peninsula. Further, whats known as a Nuclear Famine could still
occur, which would be pretty damn devastating for civilization, even if mankind itself manages to survive.
Science is about doubt and skepticism. That's what the scientific process is. Doubt a nuclear winter: Ok, I'll bite. We
have examples – Large Volcanic eruptions, and we have the year without a summer sometime in the 1830s I believe – that is in recorded
History. The we searched to archeological record for more evidence, and found large die-offs following a layer of volcanic dust.
Again and again, I believe. Quoting scientists who "doubt nuclear winter" requires more examination:
List them, together with their credentials and "donor$."
You can google nuclear winter early enough. And yes, there are scientists who are skeptical for various reasons. The only group
that has written a paper on it in recent years is composed of some of the same scientists who originally proposed it and they
think it is real.
Reasons for skepticism include doubt about the amount of smoke that would be produced. And the volcano and asteroid comparisons
are imperfect because the details are different. People used to talk about volcanic dust, and now it is mostly sulfuric acid droplets.
With asteroids the initial thought was the KT boundary layer represented trillions of tons of submicron size dust and then Melosh
proposed ejects blasted around the world heated the upper atmosphere and ignited global fires and created soot and then his grad
student Tamara Goldin wrote her dissertation saying the heat might not be quite enough to do that and then people suggested it
was ( I won't go into why) and others suggested the bolide hit sulfur layers .
The point is that there is not a consensus about the detailed atmospheric effects of either large asteroid impacts or of super
volcanoes like Toba and yet we do have some evidence because these things happened. We don't have an example to study in tge geologic
record where hundreds of cities were hit simultaneously with nuclear weapons.
I could go on, but I don't want to give the impression I have a strong opinion either way, because I don't. But I think the
case for global warming is overwhelming because vastly more people are working on it and it is happening in front of us. It is
not just computer models.
Forget possible nuclear winter, the economic effects alone would be worth 10 Lehman brothers (2008 meltdowns). And then the
knock on effects would cause other knock on effects like other wars. Even without a nuclear winter, civilization would probably
collapse within 18 months anyway.
All this, while true, only change the details not the results. The Chicxulub impact almost certainly exterminated the
majority of then living species, and the Toba Supervolcano probably almost caused our extinction. That suggest throwing massive
amounts of anything into the atmosphere is not good.
As a student I would like to know the details, but in practice, it's like arguing whether a snow storm or a blizzard killed
someone. Humanity as a species would probably survive a nuclear war okay, but many(most?) individuals as well as our planetary
civilization would be just as dead. The numbers dying would be slightly different is all.
Humanity might survive as a species but not as an idea. Am about halfway through the Ellsberg book and, yes, it does make
Dr. Strangelove look like a documentary. Current
thinking does not seem much changed.
Something missing from the sequence of events here is that the main reason that the Kremlin put nuclear missiles in Cuba
was the fact that more than 100 Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961
by the US, thus cutting down any reaction time by Moscow to minutes in case of a US attack.
The main – unacknowledged – part of the climb down from the Cuba missile crisis was that as Russia pulled its nuclear missiles
out of Cuba, the US would do the same in Europe. It cooled things down again until Reagan was elected.
I had forgotten that the 50s had just as many crazies as present times – the Dulles brothers, Curtis LeMay, Edward Teller,
J. Edgar Hoover – really scary people and probably founding members of the deep state.
The Jupiter missile agreement was a secret at the time. Kennedy wanted to minimize the appearance of a quid-pro-quo. The
subsequent presence of Pershings and Tomahawks in Europe (but not Turkey) was a reaction to the mobile IRBMs deployed by the Soviet
Union. Which they still have. France and Britain have their own independent deterrents. Which is just as well, since the Pershings
and Tomahawks were traded away as part of START/SALT.
The more recent escalation of NATO into E Europe, the Baltics and the Ukraine are a definite violation of the spirit of
the Cuban Missile Crisis agreement, and are pure aggression against a Russia that was seen as too weak to do anything about it
until they did do something about it in 2014.
An aggressive NATO is something I view with horror. One does not poke the bear. But Kissinger (the German) and Berzhinski
(the Pole) are fanatically anti-Russian. They made up for the passing of Churchill.
Just recently Russia deployed more nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania.
Maybe something to do with all those special forces NATO keeps stationing on the Russian border?
And all the a -- -oles who Command and Rule, and most of the commentariat and punditry, all treat these affairs as if they
are playing some Brobdingnagian Game of Risk ™, where as with Monopoly (which was originally intended to teach a very different
lesson) the object of the game is all about TAKING OVER THE WHOLE WORLD, WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA an idiotic froth on top of an ever more
dangerous brew of exponentially increasing,and largely ignored, mutual if often asymmetric, deadly vulnerability.
Stupid effing humans and their vast stupid monkey tricks
LeMay had suggested that we should perhaps wipe out the Soviet Union before they had the chance to catch up to us in nukes.
It was an era ruled by fear of nuclear war–a fear that was unleashed by the use of the bomb in Japan. Truman and Byrnes (the latter
in a meeting in his hometown–my hometown) rejected calls by some of the Los Alamos scientists to share the nuclear secrets with
the Russians and forestall this arms race or so they hoped.
So no the crazy didn't start with Trump and Trump had even advocated we make nice with the Russians until the Dems, their remnants
at State and Defense and the press forced him to change course (on threat of impeachment). The elites who have gained more or
less permanent power over the direction of this country are a threat to us all.
Anyhow, thanks for the above post. Those who forget history ..
Different world. The first generation of nuclear weapons had yields (around 20-30Kt) that were comprehensible in terms of conventional
bombing, which of course would have required many more aircraft but was also much more efficient per tonne of explosives. For
the formative years after 1945, therefore, people thought of nuclear weapons as weapons in the classic sense and, at that time,
nobody really knew that much about the effects of radiation and fallout. This all changed with the advent of the hydrogen bomb,
but even then it took a long time for the likely catastrophic effects of the use of such weapons in large numbers to sink in.
Nuclear technology, and both delivery and guidance systems, evolved far more quickly than rationales for their use could be found.
Indeed, you can say that the Cold War was a period when nuclear powers found themselves acquiring weapons with technologies that
couldn't actually be used, but couldn't be un-invented either. Enormous intellectual effort went into trying to provide post-hoc
rationales for having these weapons, some of it very ingenious, most of it wasted.
Don't forget the role of paranoia either. NSC-68, the report that formalized US strategy during the Cold War, reads today like
the ravings of a group of lunatics, seeing, almost literally, Reds under the beds. And if Stalin was dead, the Soviet leadership
had just gone through a war which had cost them almost 30 million dead, and any, literally any, sacrifice was worth it to make
sure that they prevented another war, or at least won it quickly.
US military casualties in WW2: 407,300
US civilian casualties in WW2: 12,100
USSR military casualties in WW2: estimated by various sources [see the footnotes] between 8,668,000 to 11,400,000.
USSR civilian casualties in WW2: 10,000,000 [plus another 6-7 million deaths from famine, a line in the table that is completely
blank for the US]
Simply put, for every American that died, somewhere between a thousand to two thousand of their Russian counterparts were killed.
And somehow people in the US were convinced and worried that Russia wanted to start yet another war when they still hadn't finished
burying the dead from the last one.
1. Stalin made his pact with the devil that gave Hitler free rein to invade Poland and France. Hitler then invaded Russia from
Poland as the jumping off point. Stalin miscalculated big-time.
2. Invaded countries always have many more civilian countries than un-invaded ones.
3. Germany started WW II only 20 years after the end of WW I that also slaughtered 2 million German soldiers. Past losses generally
does not appear to impact the decision-making of dictators regarding new wars. So it would have been irrational for the West to
think that the USSR had no intent to expand its borders. That was the blunder that France and Britain made in 1938-39. However,
the paranoia did get extreme in the Cold War.
This isn't accurate. Stalin tried repeatedly and even towards the end, desperately, to sign a treaty with the Britain and
France. They rebuffed him because [he was a] Commie. He signed up with Hitler only after those efforts had clearly failed. It
was a self-preservation move. It probably did buy him less time than he thought. But let's not kid ourselves: Hitler's first move
otherwise would have been to the East. What were later the Allies would have been delighted to see him take over the USSR. This
was why British aristos were so keen on Hitler, that he was seen as an answer to Communism and therefore "our kind of man".
The Poles have been the Germans and Russians chewtoy ever since it was completely partitioned. All the countries immediately
around Russia have been horribly abused by Russia. Putin is doing his country no favors by reminding everyone of that. He can
cow them into submission, but like the American government is finding, just because they are doesn't mean they cannot cause trouble.
Heck, the current Great Game could be said to have started with the Soviet-Afghanistan War.
Going into the war every country was unprepared and unwilling to fight and had difficulty choices. The German military
itself was not prepared. It was Hitler's choice to start when and where and by 1938 everyone knew it. Hitler was surprised that
France and Great Britain honored their guarantee to Poland.
As evil as Stalin's regime was, and his invasion of Poland was just as bad as Hitler's at first, I don't think most people
really understood just how evil the Nazis were and what they were planning on doing for Germany's living space. It was worse than
anything that Stalin did and between the Ukrainian famine, the Great Purges, the takeover of the Baltic States, the invasion of
Finland, etc he did serious evil.
General LeMay was responsible for the death of a fifth (some say a third) of the North Korean population by saturation
bombing with napalm, was he not? A third? Isn't that one in three?
Additional books that shed light on both leaving the new deal behind and the Cuban missile crisis are (1) "The Devil's
Chessboard" by Talbot and (2) "JFK and The Unspeakable" by Douglass. The first is mostly about Allen Dulles but has interesting
chapters on McCarthy, Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. It is reasonably well foot-noted. The second is about the assassination and has
loads of detail about the missile crisis and its power players. It is meticulously foot-noted.
I was going to post the text of the short review, but all I got at the moment is this blankety iPhone and its limits with cut
and paste.
Not many read books anyway these days, and what sufficient moiety of them will form the groundswell that tips over the Juggernaut
we are all pushing and pulling and riding toward the cliff?
I read this stuff mostly to sense which hand holds the knife and not to go down asking "What happened? What did it all mean?"
Trump has been bellicose re NK and Iran, but I see him as resisting the Syrian adventure, while cia plus military hawks pushing
forward.
Dems today are real hawks, itching to confront Russia in both Syria and Ukraine the latter another place trump may be resisting
hawks, the area has been quiet since the election, I.e. since dems were in charge.
It's an odd thought that in some theaters trump may be the sane one
Yaas, nothing is happening in Ukraine, all is quiet on the Eastern Front of NATO:
http://ukraine.csis.org/ Nuland has gone on to other conquests, and all
that. The CIA and War Department have lost interest in that Conflict Zone. Nothing is happening. You are getting sleepy. Sleepy.
Yeah, the title of this post would lead one to believe that their is something uniquely horrible about Trump's foreign policy.
From anything I can detect, her bellicose statement about a no-fly zone in Syria and her abject destruction of Libya, HRC's FP
would have been even worse.
If she had been elected, we might already be in a ground war with the Russians in Syria. The only hopeful sign is that while
Trump spends his day watching TeeVee, State, DOD, and CIA are all working at cross purposes and getting in each other's way.
Foreign policy? We have a foreign policy? If anybody finds it, will they please explain it to me?
I almost never comment, although I rely on NC for most of my news and blood pressure control. You are a treasure.
May I recommend another book – "All Honorable Men" – by James Stewart Martin. Published in 1950 and shortly thereafter all
bookstore copies were hoovered-up and burned by the CIA. It might have been referenced in one of the RNN segments, but I haven't
slogged through all of them yet.
You can get a hardback at Amazon for a mere $298. An i-book is cheaper.
After reading "The Brothers," and "The Devil's Chessboard," I considered starting a non-profit using GPS technology – Piss-on-their-Graves.org.
The Forbidden Bookshelf series by Open Media
is fantastic. Sadly for dinosaurs like me, it is mostly ebooks, but they do the occasional hard copy reprints, and since much
in the series would be out of print without Open Media, even the ebooks are great to have.
And it is interesting to see how many bothersome books just go away even without any "censorship" even with the First Amendment
being the one right courts have consistently, and strongly, enforced.
This article reminded me of an interesting/disturbing thing I saw on tv last night – a local news show had a bit on what to
do in case of nuclear attack!
Boomers & older probably remember the drill: go to the basement or innermost room of the house, have 72 hours of food & water
stashed & don't go outside for at least 3 days, etc. (yeah, that's the ticket).
Thought I was having a flashback to the 60's
Of course the best advice I ever heard on the subject was "Squat down, put your head between your knees & kiss your sweet [rear
end] goodbye."
Well, as I recall they were trying to give us the illusion of control so that we would not go all nihilistic or into a drunken
fatalistic stupor. I don't know if telling people, like little JBird, that the bombs might start dropping anytime in which case
you're just f@@@@d would have done any good.
One interpretation of the Cold War, that I found revealing, was that the two "opposing" militaries colluded to magnify the
threat so as to pump up their respective budgets. So both were essentially conning their own governments – and putting the whole
world at risk in the process.
Of course, another big factor, equally obvious at the time, was (and is) that world "leaders," elected or not, can't resist
the temptation to play chess with live pieces. They don't seem to care that people wind up dead, or that occasionally they put
the whole world in danger.
It's SIOP, not PSYOP. SIOP stands for Single Integrated Operating Plan, which was what the first nuclear war plan was called.
PSYOPS are Psychological Operations.
Having served in the first Cold War, it simply is beyond my comprehension that the Democrats restarted it all over again. Even
weirder are the neo-con proponents of a First Strike. If the USA wins, at least one or two major cities (if not all) will be destroyed.
New Zealand becomes the sequel to "On the Beach". We are in the same position as Germany in the 1930s except we know that the
world war will destroy us. Tell me, how in the hell, did a few thousand U.S. soldiers and contractors ended up in the middle of
Eastern Syria surrounded by Russians, the Syrian Arab Army and Shiite militias at risk of attack by Turkey?
Tell me, how in the hell, did a few thousand U.S. soldiers and contractors ended up in the middle of Eastern Syria surrounded
by Russians, the Syrian Arab Army and Shiite militias at risk of attack by Turkey?
Why they are needed to fight the evil-doers of course! Anything to protect our Freedom and the American Way. Now, ifyou keep
asking these inconvenient questions, then "they" might start asking if you support the terrorists.
It's like when my half blind aged mother, and her possibly weaponized cane, is scrutinized as a possible al-Qaeda terrorist
with a super hidden weapon, and I ask why it's 9/11 and the very bad people might hurt us.
Nuclear winter. How quaint. Soot and dust. Rapid cooling. Crop failures. Starvation. Billions -perhaps- dead.
But life, certainly, will find a way!
Not in my world. All-out thermonuclear war means 250 nuclear reactors melt down simultaneously and several hundred thousand
tons of loosely stored nuclear waste becomes aerosoled.
The resulting radiation blast burns the atmosphere off and the earth becomes a dead planet.
We can never look the thing straight in the eye. Take North Korea. We have been told, repeatedly, endlessly, that they have
20,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul!
Again, how quaint. How SCARY! What we should be reading about, are the priority targets, the game changers:
"People should study the lunacy of Project Plowshare."
__
Yeah. In 1992 my wife was serving as the QA Mgr for the Nevada Test Site (NTS) nuke remediation project contractor. In 1993
a successful FOIA filing unearthed the Alaskan "Project Chariot." One of the brilliant Project Plowshare ideas was the potential
utility of nuke detonations to carve out deep water harbors (they now deny it), so they took a bunch of irradiated soil from NTS
and and spread it around on the tundra 130 miles N of the Arctic circle on the coast of the Chukchi Sea to "study potential environmental
impacts."
The nuke "dredging" idea went nowhere, so they just plowed the irradiated crap under the surface, where it remained secret
until the FOIA revelation decades later. DOE told my wife's company "go clean this shit up" (Eskimo tribes were freaking after
finding out), so off goes my wife and her crew to spend the summer and fall living in tents guarded by armed polar bear guards
(they had to first plow out a dirt & gravel runway, and flew everyone and all supplies in on STOL aircraft). They dug the test
bed area all up (near Cape Thompson), assayed samples in an onsite radlab, put some 30 tons of "contaminated" Arctic soil in large
sealed containers, barged it all down to Seattle, loaded it on trucks and drove it all back down to be buried at NTS.
Your tax dollars.
She looked so cute with her clipboard, and her orange vest, steel toed boots and hardhat.
As a teenager I read in a newspaper a proposal to use nuclear blasts to form a canal that would bring the sea to the middle
of Australia and form an inland sea from which water could be drawn. We already had nuclear weapon being tested here (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_tests_in_Australia
) so there was no appetite for ideas like this.
Sportsmen became modern day graduators, who rid their health for entetaiment of crowd of rich spectactators.
I am no longer fond of Olympic games. There are too many sport disciplines, too much cheating, too much money and too many politics
involved in the Olympics. The Norwegian team was rumored to have brought some 6,000 doses of asthma medicine for its athletes. That
rumor is likely false, but it makes a good point. Such drugs are
exempted by the anti-doping
agency if some doctor simply certifies that an athlete needs them.
That such drugs are performance enhancing is then just a 'side effect'.
At
least 15 U.S. athletes in the Rio Olympics took such 'medicine'. Russian athletes though, who never used these exemptions, were
banned or restricted for alleged doping on
quite murky grounds.
It has been depressing to watch the Americans corrupt the Olympic Movement by taking control of WADA, the doping testing body,
based on the allegations of Rodchenko, the CIA stooge 'under American protection in California' and thereby influence key members
of the IOC who engineered the banning of the entire Russian athletic teams in Rio and N. Korea, even though hundreds of those
athletes had competed for years and provided clean drug tests on all occasions.
When a number of Russian athletes successfully appealed their bans to the CAS appeal body and were reinstated, Thomas Bach,
the IOC president, vociferously "regretted" the CAS decision and threatened the continued existence of the CAS -- in the next
days, the CAS declined the appeals of a further 47 clean Russian athletes without any coherent reasons for their judgment.
With the Americans striving to disrupt Russian participation in major international sporting events (remember as well the very
successful Sochi Olympics and the Kiev coup), watch for some American-sponsored disruption of the Russian hosting of the football
World Cup.
IOC President Thomas Bach has tacitly admitted the IOC or WADA have neither the integrity, competence nor will to oversee and
administer a fair, equitable drug surveillance in the current Olympics. Like all 'Wars on Drugs', the IOC and WADA are fraudulent
affronts to their victims. When Thomas Bach speaks of urgent need for reorganisation of institution, he should start with IOC
and WADA. He and his ilk needs return all compensation he receives since the Sochi Games and be band from all sport events and
organisations for life. There IS no Olympic Game without the Russian Flag and a Russian Team. Don't buy into what is on offer
now - it is not Olympic when some are excluded. Exclusion was not the original Olympics, it disqualifies this as being Olympics.
Gave to the book from above encomium. Thanks, factual information for all of MENA is difficult to find - we will see.
It includes 1,800 doses of Symbicort, 1,200 doses of Atrovent, 1,200 doses of Alvesco, 360 doses of Ventolin and 1,200 doses
of Airomir – which amounts to 10 times more asthma drugs than Finland has brought to South Korea.
I came to that conclusion about the Olympics long ago. It is unseemly and obscene that the U.S. parades around its $$ pampered
and ego addled athletes pompously dominating the medals and all that with their superior $$ and etc. It long ago ceased to be
any sort of fair sport or cultural exchange aimed at improving international relations, it has become just an extension of all
the political propaganda. And the U.S. BrainDead that it is, embarrassing itself and humiliating its citizens with the brazenly
crude and undiplomatic behavior of its government. Sochi in 2010 was a prime example of that.
The Olympics have been a fairly politicized event for many decades now; I think exhibit A is Carter and Brezezinski's secret op
to destabilize Afghanistan in 1979, followed by the US boycott of the Summer 1980 Olympics:
Brzezinki: ". . .it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of
the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion
this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."
The same thing is going on now with all the doping allegations, Pence's political posturing in Seoul (really, to the people
calling for Trump to be impeached - Pence is much worse!) which is really about blocking peaceful resolution of the Korean problem
- because then, how would the economic-centric 'pivot to Asia' be accomplished? Let alone NBC, subdivision of Comcast, is controlling
the video feed, and charging admission - can't we just get some volunteers with cameras to upload the action to Youtube, it'd
probably be just as good quality.
That's why I like mountaineering - people can use oxygen or not, they can take drugs or not, it really doesn't matter, the
mountains have the final say. People have more respect for oxygen-free ascents of big Himalayan mountains, but there's no authoritarian
control (well, you have to pay for passes to the local governments, but that's fair enough).
The american coverage of the opening ceremonies fixated on the seating arrangement of Kim's sister behind Pence. She had an ironic
smirk on for a lot of it. Pence was his thin-lipped Rethuglican self, half-smiling with no teeth throughout. No charm, all business.
Agree with T-Bear @12. These are not games of peace. I think we would be enjoying athletes a lot more without the politics
and hybrid wars hanging over the whole spectacle. I will say congratulations to Korea for honoring the spirit of the games by
coming together, at least for a few moments. Don't let Uncle Sambo and Co. play spoiler to your fun. Breathe easy and see how
it feels.
160 billion plus 160 billion are pretty serious money. money that were stolen from ordinary Americans.
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a
theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money
alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern
heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000
population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter
plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000
people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at
all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. (cited from
The Age of Lunacy The Doomsday Machine naked
capitalism )
Notable quotes:
"... The military talks about needing all these scores of billions to "rebuild." And, sure, there are ships that need to be refitted, planes in need of repairs, equipment that needs to be restocked, and veterans who need to be cared for. But a massive increase in military and war spending, perhaps as high as $320 billion over two years, is a recipe for excessive waste and even more disastrous military adventurism. ..."
"... Perhaps you've heard of the expression, "Spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave." Our military has been drunk with money since 9/11. Is it really wise to give those "sailors" an enormous boost in the loose change they're carrying, trusting them to spend it wisely? ..."
The new Congressional budget boosts military spending in a
big way . Last night's PBS
News report documented how military spending is projected to increase by $160 billion over
two years, but that doesn't include "overseas contingency funding" for wars, which is another
$160 billion over two years. Meanwhile, spending for the opioid crisis, which is killing
roughly 60,000 Americans a year (more Americans than were killed in the Vietnam War), is set at
a paltry $6 billion ($25 billion was requested).
One thing is certain: Ike was right about the undue
influence of the military-industrial-Congressional complex.
The military talks about needing all these scores of billions to "rebuild." And, sure, there
are ships that need to be refitted, planes in need of repairs, equipment that needs to be
restocked, and veterans who need to be cared for. But a massive increase in military and war
spending, perhaps as high as $320 billion over two years, is a recipe for excessive waste and
even more disastrous military adventurism.
Even if you're a supporter of big military budgets, this massive boost in military spending
is bad news. Why? It doesn't force the military to think . To set priorities. To define limits.
To be creative.
Perhaps you've heard of the expression, "Spending money like drunken sailors on shore
leave." Our military has been drunk with money since 9/11. Is it really wise to give those
"sailors" an enormous boost in the loose change they're carrying, trusting them to spend it
wisely?
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen
years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
"... In today's podcast, we hear how Vault 8 has succeeded Vault 7 among WikiLeaks dumps (but it's still all CIA all the time from Mr. Assange and company). GCHQ expresses concerns about Kaspersky anti-virus products. ..."
"... The US Intelligence Community reiterates its conclusion that dog bites man, or rather, that Russia wants to work mischief with the United States ..."
In today's podcast, we hear how Vault 8 has succeeded Vault 7 among WikiLeaks dumps (but it's still all CIA all the time from
Mr. Assange and company). GCHQ expresses concerns about Kaspersky anti-virus products.
Media reports suggest that NSA is in the middle of a big mole hunt. Equifax begins to tally up the costs of its breach.
The US Intelligence Community reiterates its conclusion that dog bites man, or rather, that Russia wants to work mischief
with the United States...
"... Hardware and software vendors that are complicit -- most of which are American, British or Israeli -- give the CIA the opportunity to achieve informational full-spectrum dominance, relegating privacy to extinction. Such a convergence of power, money and technology entails major conflicts of interest, as can be seen in the case of Amazon AWS (Amazon's Cloud Service), cloud provider for the CIA , whose owner, Jeff Bezos, is also the owner of The Washington Post ..."
"... In general, when the 16 US spy agencies blamed Russia for the hacking of the elections, they were never specific in terms of forensic evidence. Simply put, the media, spies and politicians created false accusations based on the fact that Moscow, together with RT ..."
"... Now what is revealed through Wikileaks' publications in Vault 7 is the ability of a subsection of the CIA, known as Umbrage , to use malware, viruses, trojans and other cyber tools for their own geopolitical purposes. The CIA's Umbrage collects, analyzes and then employs software created variously from foreign security agencies, cyber mafia, private companies, and hackers in general. ..."
"... These revelations are yet more reason why countries targeted by Washington, like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, should get rid of European and American products and invest in reducing technological dependence on American products in particular. ..."
"... This article first appeared on Strategic-Culture.org and was authored by Federico Pieraccini. ..."
New revelations from Wikileaks' 'Vault 7' leak shed a disturbing light on the safeguarding of privacy. Something already known
and largely suspected has now become documented by Wikileaks. It seems evident that the CIA is now a state within a state, an entity
out of control that has even arrived at the point of creating its own hacking network in order to avoid the scrutiny of the NSA and
other agencies.
Reading the revelations contained in the documents
released by WikiLeaks and adding them to those already presented in recent years by Snowden, it now seems evident that the
technological aspect regarding espionage is a specialty in which the CIA, as far as we know, excels. Hardware and software vendors
that are complicit -- most of which are American, British or Israeli -- give the CIA the opportunity to achieve informational full-spectrum
dominance, relegating privacy to extinction. Such a convergence of power, money and technology entails major conflicts of interest,
as can be seen in the case of Amazon AWS (Amazon's Cloud Service),
cloud provider for the
CIA , whose owner, Jeff Bezos, is also the owner of The Washington Post . It is a clear overlap of private interests
that conflicts with the theoretical need to declare uncomfortable truths without the need to consider orders numbering in the millions
of dollars from clients like the CIA.
While it is just one example, there are thousands more out there. The perverse interplay between media, spy agencies and politicians
has compromised the very meaning of the much vaunted democracy of the land of the Stars and Stripes. The constant scandals that are
beamed onto our screens now serve the sole purpose of advancing the deep interest of the Washington establishment. In geopolitical
terms, it is now more than obvious that the deep state has committed all available means toward sabotaging any dialogue and détente
between the United States and Russia. In terms of news, the Wikileaks revelations shed light on the methods used by US intelligence
agencies like the CIA to place blame on the Kremlin, or networks associated with it, for the hacking that occurred during the American
elections.
Perhaps this is too generous a depiction of matters, given that the general public has yet to see
any evidence of the hacking of the DNC servers. In addition to this, we know that the origin of Podesta's email revelations stem
from the
loss of a smartphone and the low
data-security measures
employed by the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. In general, when the 16 US spy agencies blamed Russia for
the hacking of the elections, they were never specific in terms of forensic evidence. Simply put, the media, spies and politicians
created false accusations based on the fact that Moscow, together with
RT and other media (not directly
linked to the Kremlin), finally enjoy a major presence in the mainstream media. The biggest problem for the Washington establishment
lies in the revelation of news that is counterproductive to the interests of the deep state. RT, Sputnik, this site and many others
have diligently covered and reported to the general public every development concerning the Podesta revelations or the hacking of
the DNC.
Now what is revealed through Wikileaks' publications in Vault 7 is the ability of a subsection of the CIA, known as
Umbrage , to use malware, viruses, trojans and
other cyber tools for their own geopolitical purposes. The CIA's Umbrage collects, analyzes and then employs software created variously
from foreign security agencies, cyber mafia, private companies, and hackers in general. These revelations become particularly
relevant when we consider the consequences of these actions. The main example can be seen in the hacking of the DNC. For now, what
we know is that the hacking – if it ever occurred – is of Russian origin. This does not mean at all that the Kremlin directed it.
It could actually be very much the opposite, its responsibility falling into the category of a cyber false-flag. One thing is for
sure: all 16 US intelligence agencies are of the view that "the Russians did it". That said, the methods used to hack vulnerabilities
cannot be revealed, so as to limit the spread of easily reusable exploits on systems, such as the one that hosted the DNC server.
It is a great excuse for avoiding the revelation of any evidence at all.
So, with little information available, independent citizens are left with very little information on which to reliably form an
opinion on what happened. There is no evidence, and no evidence will be provided to the media. For politicians and so-called mainstream
journalists, this is an acceptable state of affairs. What we are left with instead is blind faith in the 16 spy agencies. The problem
for them is that what WikiLeaks revealed with Vault 7 exposes a scenario that looks more likely than not: a cyber false-flag carried
out by the Central Intelligence Agency using engineered malware and viruses made in Russia and hypothetically linking them back to
hacking networks in Russia. In all likelihood, it looks like the Democrats' server was hacked by the CIA with the clear objective
of leaving Russian fingerprints and obvious traces to be picked up by other US agencies.
In this way, it becomes easier to explain the unique views of all 16 spy agencies. Thus, it is far more likely that the CIA intentionally
left fake Russian fingerprints all over the DNC server, thereby misleading other intelligence agencies in promoting the narrative
that Russia hacked the DNC server. Of course the objective was to create a false narrative that could immediately be picked up by
the media, creating even more hysteria surrounding any rapprochement with Russia.
Diversification of computer systems.
The revelations contained in the Wikileaks vault 7 (
less than 1 % of the total data in Wikileaks'
possession has been released to date) have caused a stir, especially by exposing the astonishing complicity between hardware and
software manufacturers, often intentionally creating backdoors in their products to allow access by the CIA and NSA. In today's digital
environment, all essential services rely on computer technology and connectivity. These revelations are yet more reason why countries
targeted by Washington, like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, should get rid of European and American products and invest in
reducing technological dependence on American products in particular.
The People's Republic has
already started down this track, with the replacement of many network devices with local vendors like Huawei in order to avoid
the type of interference revealed by Snowden.
Russia has been doing the same in terms of software, even laying the groundwork to launch of
its own operating system, abandoning American
and European systems. In North Korea, this idea was already put
into practice years ago and is an excellent tool for deterrence for external interference. In more than one computer security
conference, US experts have praised the capabilities of the DPRK to
isolate its Internet network from the rest of the world, allowing them to have strong safety mechanisms. Often, the only access
route to the DPRK systems are through the People's Republic of China, not the easiest way for the CIA or NSA to infiltrate a protected
computer network.
An important aspect of the world in which we live today involves information security, something all nations have to deal with.
At the moment, we still live in a world in which the realization of the danger and effect of hacking attacks are not apparent to
many. On the other hand, militarily speaking, the diversification and rationalization of critical equipment in terms of networks
and operability (smartphones, laptops, etc) has already produced
strong growth in non-American and European manufacturers, with the aim of making their systems more secure.
This strengthening of technology also produces deleterious consequences, such as the need for intelligence agencies to be able
to
prevent the spread of data encryption so as to always enjoy access to any desired information. The birth of the Tor protocol,
the deployment of Bitcoin, and apps that are more and more encrypted (although the WikiLeaks documents have shown that the collection
of information takes place on the device b
efore the information is encrypted ) are all responses to an exponential increase in the invasion of privacy by federal or American
government entities.
We live in a world that has an enormous dependence on the Internet and computer technology. The CIA over the years has focused
on the ability to make sure vulnerable systems are exploited as well as seeking out major security flaws in consumer products without
disclosing this to vendors, thereby taking advantage of these security gaps and leaving all consumers with a potential lack of security.
Slowly, thanks to the work and courage of people like Snowden and Assange, the world is beginning to understand how important it
is to keep personal data under control and prevent access to it by third parties, especially if they are state actors. In the case
of national security, the issue is expanded exponentially by the need to protect key and vital infrastructure, considering how many
critical services operate via the Internet and rely on computing devices.
The wars of the future will have a strong technological basis, and it is no coincidence that many armed forces, primarily the
Russian and Chinese, have opted in recent years to training troops, and conducting operations, not completely relying on connectivity.
No one can deny that in the event of a large-scale conflict, connectivity is far from guaranteed. One of the major goals of competing
nations is to penetrate the military security systems of rival nations and be able to
disarm the internal networks that operates major systems
of defense and attack.
The Wikileaks revelations are yet another confirmation of how important it is to break the technological unipolar moment, if it
may be dubbed this way, especially for nations targeted by the United States. Currently Washington dictates the technological capacities
of the private and government sectors of Europe and America, steering their development, timing and methods to suit its own interests.
It represents a clear disadvantage that the PRC and its allies will inevitably have to redress in the near future in order to achieve
full security for its vital infrastructure.
This article first appeared on Strategic-Culture.org and was authored
by Federico Pieraccini.
E.W. "Bill" Priestap is the head of the FBI Counterintelligence operation.
He was
FBI Agent Peter Strozk's direct boss. If anyone in congress really wanted to know if the FBI paid for
the Christopher Steele Dossier, Bill Priestap is the guy who would know everything about everything.
FBI Asst. Director in charge of Counterintelligence
Bill Priestap
was the immediate
supervisor of FBI Counterintelligence Deputy Peter Strzok.
Bill Priestap is #1. Before getting demoted Peter Strzok was #2.
The investigation into candidate Donald Trump was a counterintelligence operation. That operation
began in July 2016. Bill Priestap would have been in charge of that, along with all other, FBI
counterintelligence operations.
FBI Deputy Peter Strzok was specifically in charge of the Trump counterintel op. However, Strzok
would be reporting to Bill Priestap on every detail and couldn't (according to structure anyway) make
a move without Priestap approval.
On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not
inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating
presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do
so. *Very important detail.*
I cannot emphasize this enough.
*VERY* important detail
. Again, notice how Comey
doesn't use Priestap's actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch [Prompted]
FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of
that questioning. He simply didn't anticipate it.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence "Gang of Eight"
of any counterintelligence operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of
classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began, oversight was the responsibility of this
group, the Gang of Eight:
Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can
all see why the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence
operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text
messages, it was an "insurance policy".
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office that there's no way
he gets elected – but I'm afraid we can't take that risk.
It's like an insurance policy
in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
So there we have FBI Director James Comey telling congress on March 20th, 2017, that the
reason he didn't inform the statutory oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of
Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it.
Apparently, according to Comey, Bill Priestap carries a great deal of influence if he could get
his boss to NOT perform a statutory obligation simply by recommending he doesn't do it.
Then again, Comey's blame-casting there is really called creating a "fall guy".
FBI Director James Comey was ducking responsibility in March 2017 by blaming FBI Director of
Counterintelligence Bill Priestap for not informing congress of the operation that began in July 2016.
(9 months prior).
At that moment, that very specific moment during that March 20th hearing, anyone who watches
these hearings closely could see FBI Director James Comey was attempting to create his own exit from
being ensnared in the consequences from the wiretapping and surveillance operation of candidate Trump,
President-elect Trump, and eventually President Donald Trump.
In essence, Bill Priestap was James Comey's fall guy. We knew it at the time that Bill
Priestap would likely see this the same way. The guy would have too much to lose by allowing James
Comey to set him up.
Immediately there was motive for Bill Priestap to flip and become the primary source to reveal the
hidden machinations. Why should he take the fall for the operation when there were multiple people
around the upper-levels of leadership who carried out the operation.
Our suspicions were continually confirmed because there was NO MENTION of Bill Priestap in
any future revelations of the scheme team, despite his centrality to all of it.
Bill Priestap would have needed to authorize Peter Strzok to engage with Christopher Steele over
the "Russian Dosssier"; Bill Priestap would have needed to approve of the underlying investigative
process used for both FISA applications (June 2016, and Oct 21st 2016). Bill Priestap would be the
person to approve of arranging, paying, or reimbursing, Christopher Steele for the Russian Dossier
used in their counterintelligence operation and subsequent FISA application.
Without Bill Priestap involved, approvals, etc. the entire Russian/Trump Counterintelligence
operation just doesn't happen. Heck, James Comey's own March 20th testimony in that regard is concrete
evidence of Priestap's importance.
Everyone around Bill Priestap, above and below, were caught inside the investigative net.
Above him: James Comey, Andrew McCabe and James Baker.
Below him: Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Jim Rybicki, Trisha Beth Anderson and Mike Kortan.
Parallel to Priestap in main justice his peer John P Carlin resigned, Sally Yates fired, Mary
McCord quit, Bruce Ohr was busted twice, and most recently Dave Laufman resigned. All of them
caught in the investigative net . Only Bill Priestap remained, quietly invisible – still in
position.
The reason was obvious.
Likely Bill Priestap made the decision after James Comey's testimony on March 20th, 2017, when he
realized what was coming. Priestap is well-off financially; he has too much to lose. He and his
wife, Sabina Menschel, live a comfortable life in a $3.8 million DC home; she comes from a family of
money.
While ideologically Bill and Sabina are aligned with Clinton support, and their circle of family
and friends likely lean toward more liberal friends; no-one in his position would willingly allow
themselves to be the scape-goat for the unlawful action that was happening around them.
Bill Priestap had too much to lose and for what?
With all of that in mind, there is essentially no-way the participating members inside the small
group can escape their accountability with Mr. Bill Priestap cooperating with the investigative
authorities.
Now it all makes sense. Devin Nunes interviewed Bill Priestap and Jim Rybicki prior to putting the
memo process into place. Rybicki quit, Priestap went back to work.
Bill Priestap remains the Asst. FBI Director in charge of counterintelligence operations.
It's over.
I don't want to see this guy, or his family, compromised. This is probably the last I am ever
going to write about him unless it's in the media bloodstream. I can't fathom the gauntlet of hatred
and threats he is likely to face from the media and his former political social network if they
recognize what's going on.
BP is Deep-Throat x infinity nuf said.
The rest of this entire enterprise is just joyfully dragging out the timing of the investigative
releases in order to inflict maximum political pain upon the party of those who will attempt to excuse
the inexcusable.
Then comes the OIG Horowitz report.
Then the grand jury empaneled (if not already);
and while Democrats attempt to win
seats in the 2018 election, arrests and indictments will hit daily headlines.
Just for some clarification. Since Russia didn't "hack" the election, is it ok to
trust Russia from here on? I'm I suppose to put my guard down and consider Russia my
good buddy? What's the message here?
Russia is unimportant in all of this.
The fact is that the
globalist neolibcon scum attempted a coup. It wouldn't have
been any different if Russia had never existed. They made up lies and turned the police state on a US
candidate.
There is no greater crime in our Republic.
Russia, Elbonia, Alpha Centauri....so fucking what? It's simply cover for high treason.
Fine. Let them be charged with sedition. In my mind there
is little difference but to see these people indicted and
do perp walks and be either executed or sent to federal
prison along with having all their assets seized? Bring
it. If I had done 1/100th of what these people have done
I would have spent 30 years-to-life in Leavenworth.
I would love to see that witch hung with piano wire after being
charged with treason and sedition. Along with Obama, Lynch,
Holder, Comey, Brennan, and that one other weasel I forget his
name.
How would one know if what we have here is 2 crime families battling
out? I mean, Hillary and Trump were good friends at one time. I'm
just a bit interested in knowing why they parted ways. If I were a
cat my curiosity would have killed me by now. But I'm still here and
old habits are hard to break.
A little bird was late flying south for the winter. It got caught in an
early winter storm and fell out of the sky half frozen into a barnyard.
A cow just happened to be passing by and dumped a steaming cow pie on
the little bird. The warmth from the cow pie revived the little bird and
it began happily singing. Whereupon a cat dug it out of the cow shit
and ate it.
The moral of the story?
The person that shit on you isn't necessarily your enemy. The person
who dug you out from under the shit isn't necessarily your friend.
President Donald J. Trump is working his own agenda. So far his
agenda is far superior to Hitlery "the Rotten Rodent" Clinton's agenda.
Just don't forget about the lesson that the little bird learned too
late.
I come from a family that told stories and added your tale to my
list. First time hearing it! Memorable tale in so many ways. Those
are the best kind!
Life is complicated and it is hard to tell friend from foe but it
isn't hard to discern that Trump has wrested away power from the true
beasts. We are still in peril. I don't see a happy ending, simply a
respite.
No. I might begin to wonder who in our political offices are actually Russian
operatives working the long game. Honestly, does anyone really think the
Russians support either/any of our political parties except the ones they can
influence?
I will rejoice the day the US empire implodes, the Federal Reserve is
banished, the CIA and FBI are shut down. It cannot happen soon enough. I
grew up poor so being poor doesn't scare me. Being ruled by power hungry
and insane bureaucrats, does.
Very little in life would make as happy as seeing the Kenyan and or the
Chappaqua hag in cuffs. Probably won't happen so I'll settle for Trump gloating and
tweeting his ass off as the underlings are carted off and Schiff for brains and the
MSM are standing by slack jawed and speechless
this article is framed as we can stop digging because we have hit bottom. and it
would not be the first time this guy at CTH has done this. in fact, he does it all
the time. and nothing comes of it. nada.
imo, his perception of this priestrapon
is about 180 degrees out of whack. his wife, mentioned in the article, is CEO of
nardello & co. the largest detective agency in deecee.
i have stated this previously here at ZH, but my guess is, if you walk up and
down the halls of their deecee offices, you will walk past seth rich's murderers.
you won't know it of course. of course. i also bet that between this nardello
office and fbi HQ, there is quite a bit of human resource sharing and transference
of information. IYKWIMAITYD
you make a good point, but perhaps i didn't make my point clear enough.
seth rich was murdered in the hospital the day of the shooting. i.e., he
was shot in the early morning hours on his way home. he was murdered
several hours later, midday, as he lay in a hospital. and while possibly
some novices, did the shooting, and botched it, a clean up team was sent in
to "finish the job".
EXACTLY. All these articles that
stop with the FBI
are either deliberately or incompetently missing the point.
There was a White House coordinated, Nixon style Committee to Repulsively
Enforce the Election of Her Fury (CREEFH). They perpetrated an
attempted coup
against the
duly elected
President of the United States.
There are records, there were meetings, none of it was done by chance
or for fun.
For the Republic to survive,
the top level has to be brought
down
.
Obama, Biden, Kerry.
Lynch and the rest just cheap whores in the end. Even, ironically, Her
Fury herself. Just a pantsuit.
But a pantsuit that's brought down a former President and the entire
remaining hope of the romantic Left, not to mention the neolibcon globalist
traitors as a group.
Do not be distracted, or placated.
The FBI are just goons.
At the time Nunes was in daily contact with Flynn, who as everybody should know, had
to take a deal and plead guilty. Of course the head of counterintelligence held back
information that could have tipped of the target of the investigation. This is a
nothingburger.
At the time Nunes was in daily contact with Flynn, who as everybody should
know, had to take a deal and plead guilty. Of course the head of
counterintelligence held back information
What makes you think that Nunes and Flynn were in daily contact in July
2016? You're the one serving up nothingburgers.
James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform
congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in
July 2016.
FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was
investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of
Counterintelligence suggested he not do so.
"... How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee. ..."
"... Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as "Russian" were not. For details of the sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates their lack of direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin, or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source. ..."
"... Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia and Qatar. Click to read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up, or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to the media? ..."
"... US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations. Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The provision of the US code making lying a federal crime requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy. ..."
"... With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so, this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency. ..."
"... If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome. ..."
"... And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative, stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties." ..."
"... The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job; failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties. ..."
"... A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious." ..."
"... A bigger bombshell, which of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source. Where have we heard that before? ..."
"... I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office? ..."
"... Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win. ..."
"... I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory." ..."
"... Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. ..."
"... In fact I am fairly certain that it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved. ..."
According to Simpson, "foreign intelligence services hacking American political operations is not that unusual, actually, and
there's a lot of foreign intelligence services that play in American elections." He mentioned the Chinese and the Indians, not the
Israelis. The Mossad, Simpson did tell the Committee, was his source for his belief that Russian intelligence has been operating
through the Jewish Orthodox Chabad movement, and the Russian Orthodox Church. "The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian
State now the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and
that it was intelligence operations."
There are just two references in the Committee transcript to the CIA. One was a passing remark to imply the Russians cannot "break[ing]
into the CIA, [so instead] you are breaking into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open."
The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative
from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any
information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been verified. You know, I don't have access to the
intelligence or law enforcement information that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government
has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the original memos came in saying that the Kremlin
was mounting a specific operation to get Donald Trump elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying.
The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our political process, and that this is sort
of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know, trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically
designed to elect Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's
sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding
the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what
he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand
the question at first, then he stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens, Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying
that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that
Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered
his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up -- and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was notorious at the Wall Street Journal
for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the evidence was missing or unreliable. He told the Committee that disbelief on
the part of his editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the
Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats
and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
When Simpson was asked "do you -- did you find anything to -- that you verified as false in the dossier, since or during?" Simpson
replied: "I have not seen anything -- ". Note the hypthen, the stenographer's signal that Simpson was pausing.
"[Question]. So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, is true or could be true?"
"MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the time it came in. We were able to corroborate various things
that supported its credibility."
Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from -- CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been
clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as
"Russian" were not. For details of the
sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates
their lack of
direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin,
or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source.
So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British agent,
Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the Wall Street
Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire.
One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis Business
Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for, before
the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job?
The House Committee has subpoenaed business records from Fusion, but Simpson's lawyers say they will refuse to hand them over.
The financial records of Steele's firm are openly accessible through the UK government company registry, Companies House. Click to
read here .
Because the Trump dossier work ran from the second half of 2015 to November 2016, the financial reports of Orbis for the financial
years ending March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, are the primary sources. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, open this
link to read.
The papers reveal that Orbis was a small firm with no more than 7 employees. Steele's business partner and co-shareholder, Christopher
Burrows, is another former MI6 spy. They had been hoping for MI6 support of their private business, but it failed to materialize,
says an London intelligence source. "Chris Burrows is another from the same background. They all hope to be Hakluyt [a leading commercial
intelligence operation in London] but didn't get the nod on departure."
They do not report the Orbis income. Instead, for 2016 the company filings indicate Ł155,171 in cash at the bank, and income of Ł245,017
owed by clients and contractors. Offsetting that figure, Orbis owed Ł317,848 -- to whom and for what purposes is not reported. The
unaudited accounts show Orbis's profit jumped from Ł121,046 in 2015 to Ł199,223 in 2016, and Ł441,089 in 2017.
The financial data are complicated by the operation by Steele and Burrows of a second company, Orbis Business Intelligence International,
a subsidiary they created in 2010, a year after the parent company was formed. Follow its affairs
here .
According to British press
reports , Orbis and Steele
were paid Ł200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about Ł114,000).
Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British
sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the
Orbis balance-sheet.
British sources also report that a US Government agency paid for Orbis to work on evidence and allegations of corruption at the
world soccer federation, Fédération Internationale de Football (FIFA). Indictments in this case were issued by the US Department
of Justice in
May 2015 , and the following
December . What role the two-partner British consultancy played in the complex investigations by teams from the Justice Department,
the FBI and also the Internal Revenue Service is unclear. That Steele, Burrows and Orbis depended on US government sources for their
financial well-being appears to be certain.
Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association
to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's
objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia
and Qatar. Click to
read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up,
or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to
the media?
US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations.
Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
announced that they
have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The
provision of the US code making lying a federal crime
requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy.
Now then, Part I and this
sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the meaning be?
In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for president, then the Democratic National
Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in favour of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are
still trying.
In the long run, the case is a measurement of the life, or the half-life, of truth. Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote once that nowhere
has truth so short a life as in Sicily. On his clock, that was five minutes. He didn't know the United States, or shall we say the
stretch from Washington through New York to the North End of Boston. There, truth has an even shorter life. Scarcely a second.
"The primary reason I generally don't believe in conspiracies is that they can usually be better explained as the result of
sheer incompetence and hubris."
I divide conspiracy notions into two categories: grand mal and petit mal . The former are generally implausible
due to the large number of participants involved and while occassionally attempted, they are typically exposed pretty quickly.
They may still have significant effects – for example, there was a large conspiracy to sell the Iraqi WMD story to the public,
involving top levels of the British and American governments and a good section of the corporate media. That's the grand mal
version.
Petit mal is your typical small criminal conspiracy. The FBI, for example, almost always includes 'conspiracy to commit
mail fraud' on the list of federal charges.
With Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there is some evidence that Clinton and Co. actually wanted to run against Donald
Trump, and tried to get their allies to manipulate the Republican primary in favor of a Trump victory (hence all the free corporate
media coverage of the Donald). The dossier, fabricated or not, seems to have been one of many 'ace in the holes' that the Clinton
campaign thought they could use to discredit Trump (including the Access Hollywood tape, etc.) in the general election. If so,
this strategy really blew up in their face – they thought they could manipulate the process, so they could ignore the Rust Belt
concerns, and that's what handed Trump the presidency.
If the Clintonites were to admit this, however, they'd have to step down from party leadership and let the Sanders Democrats
take over, and that's what this is really all about now, their effort to prevent that outcome.
I pay pretty close attention to this topic and I must say I sometimes wonder if the Russians haven't sold the rope to the American
political elite. I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed
his "OMG Russia corruption" biases.
And I say "fed to him" when I'm in a generous mood, giving him the benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion
that he's either a really crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job political operative,
stitching together a few almost-believable "facts" and out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like "collusion" and "ties."
London due diligence firms say the record of Simpson's firm Fusion GPS and Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence operations
in the US has discredited them in the due diligence market. The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript
shows Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their research, Trump; did a poor job;
failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties.
A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis says "standard due diligence means getting
to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means
the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client
wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the
press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's
likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."
I read all 311 pages of Simpson's testimony. I was struck that much of what he was "fed" by Steele confirmed his "OMG Russia
corruption" biases.
Same here, but not just about what he was fed by Steele. Simpson claimed to have done some of his own research and said it
was consistent with what he got from Steele.
I'm about three-quarters of the way through the transcript of Simpson's interrogation by the House Intelligence Committee,
and I've read all 312 pages of the Senate Judiciary Committee transcript, which bears little resemblance to what was reported
in the major media – shocking, I know.
Among the "bombshells" the mainstream reported was "proof" that it wasn't the dossier that launched the FBI's investigation
of Trump, and therefore the dossier couldn't have been used as justification for a FISA warrant. A bigger bombshell, which
of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client's consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters
on information from Steele's memos, and they used it to write stories based on "unnamed sources." He even admitted that he didn't
verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he didn't feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source.
Where have we heard that before?
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
It's well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency under Secretary Clinton had
a strong anti-Russia faction that's on the record as meddling in Ukraine's presidential election. And how much doubt could there
be that both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office?
Then there was the whole "Grizzly Steppe" report just before Trump's inauguration, presented as a consensus among "17 intelligence
agencies" that the Russians "hacked the election" to help Trump win.
I'm not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but it's enough of a possibility that I'm
not writing it off as some nutty "conspiracy theory."
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded
the dossier, so I'm wondering why it's that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing.
FWIW this NC commenter has never had any problem believing that this may be the case. In fact I am fairly certain that
it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6 were also involved.
Adding: Heh. I posted this before looking at Rev Kev's link to the Raimondo article, which comes to the same conclusions. Interesting
times!
I believe that Seth Abramson or someone put photographs to the Steele dossier showing people in the places & at the times delineated
in the Steele dossier. From the very first Steele said he would not & could not reveal his sources. It was from the first indicated
that it would be to the FBI & CIA to discover. He said he believed that his sources were credible.
When I was studying Intelligence services the CIA was said to be the private army of the CIA. These days I don't know exactly
who the CIA works for, or answers to. I certainly don't think well of the CIA believing they are wrapped up working for their
Front businesses more than focusing on the mission of spying in the interests of the American people. Of private intelligence
companies I get what I can from IHS Jane's. That the CIA lost 20 assets, human beings, in China for incompetent secret communications
methods would lead professionals to withhold as much of identities as possible.
For awhile there I believe Steele was worried about his own health.
David Corn at Mother Jones was reticent to break the story. So now what I see to look for is what Steele said needed to be
done, & that being what Mueller is doing at the behest of the DOJ.
The US has been at war, albeit Hybrid war since the imposition of sanctions for their violations of international law as regarded
the annexation of Crimea & the attack on the Ukraine. Sanctions are Economic Warfare.
That the US feels the right to engage in warfare of any kind Economic or Hot over violations of International Law leads me
to believe that the UN will fail to prevent the apocalyptic riot. But that as regards Trump becomes neither here nor there, correct?
William Binney, former NSA technical official and whistleblower, comments on the FISA memo, that has apparently just been released.
Obviously, a major development in 'Russia-gate'.
"... The FBI asked Steele if he was the source for the Isikoff report, something Steele denied. This was a lie. ..."
"... In documents submitted to a British court, Steele acknowledged that he was the source for the Isikoff article, something Simpson confirmed in his congressional testimony. ..."
"... Steele, the much-admired former British intelligence officer, had committed the ultimate sin an FBI confidential human source can commit---he lied to his handlers. ..."
"... James Baker ..."
"... The House intelligence committee majority memo specifically notes that Steele had lied to the FBI about his contact with Isikoff. ..."
"... Chuck Grassley, together with Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the subcommittee on crime and terrorism, which referred Steele to the DOJ on suspicion of lying to the FBI about the dissemination of information by Steele to the media. The referral contained a top-secret memorandum prepared by the judiciary majority staff that would, from its classification, appear to be derived from information relating to statements made by Steele to the FBI about the Isikoff article. ..."
The problem with the Isikoff report is the similarity between it and a July 20, 2016, report
Steele prepared and provided to the FBI during their meeting in Rome. The FBI asked Steele
if he was the source for the Isikoff report, something Steele denied. This was a lie.
In documents submitted to a British court, Steele acknowledged that he was the source
for the Isikoff article, something Simpson confirmed in his congressional testimony. The
Steele lie played an important role in shaping the information the FBI and DOJ provided in
support of their Oct. 21, 2016, FISA warrant application targeting Page. The Isikoff article
was submitted to the FISA court as corroborating evidence, along with a statement attributed to
Steele denying that he was the source of the information used by Isikoff.
Steele's lies caught up with him when, on Oct. 31, 2016, David Corn
wrote an article in Mother Jones titled "A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information
Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump," with a subtitle asking, "Has the
bureau investigated this material?" Steele, the much-admired former British intelligence
officer, had committed the ultimate sin an FBI confidential human source can commit---he lied
to his handlers. Describing Steele (whom the article did not name) as a "credible source
with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive and important information to the US
government," David Corn wrote that "the former spy told me that he was reluctant to be talking
with a reporter. He pointed out this was not his common practice. 'Someone like me stays in the
shadows,' he said. But he indicated that he believed this material was important, and he was
unsure how the FBI was handling it. Certainly, there had been no public signs that the FBI was
investigating these allegations."
The problem for the FBI was that it had used Steele's information to support its
investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, mainly in the form
of sworn affidavits submitted in support of a FISA warrant derived from the FBI's interactions
with Steele. Corn's article exposed as a lie the information at the heart of the FBI and DOJ's
FISA warrant application, simultaneously invalidating any information attributed to Steele, as
well as all information that relied upon Steele's now-tainted information for corroboration.
This included both Isikoff's appended article and the Papadopoulos information. As of October
2016, the FBI had yet to interview Papadopoulos. Without corroboration of the information
Steele provided in his June 20, 2016, report, turned over to Gaeta on July 5, 2016, the
counterintelligence investigation Strzok headed would have not been able to act on the
information the Australian government provided concerning alleged barroom conversations between
Papadopoulos and Downer. The "emails" allegedly alluded to by Papadopoulos that Mifsud claimed
Russia possessed would have had no "hook" to corroborate them. The emails WikiLeaks released in
July 2016 that triggered Strzok's investigation had either not been written at the time
Papadopoulos spoke with Mifsud in April 2016 or had not yet been compiled by the malware
alleged by the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to have been behind the theft of the DNC
emails.
Void of the Steele dossier as corroboration, the Papadopoulos-Mifsud conversation, as
reported by Downer, simply had no legal legs to stand on, and as such would have been unusable
in support of a FISA warrant application. Underscoring the seriousness the FBI attached to this
issue, James
Baker , the FBI's general counsel, met with Corn prior to the 2016 election. Corn
specifically denies that Baker was a source for his article on Steele. The only other
explanation for a Baker-Corn meeting would be for the FBI's general counsel to confirm Steele
as Corn's source in support of the FBI's subsequent decision to sever relations with Steele,
including the forfeiture of the $50,000 payment Steele was to have received for his work.
The FBI's decision to suspend and then sever its confidential human source relationship with
Steele is reflected in the House intelligence committee majority memo, as is the FBI's decision
to not give Steele the payment that had been authorized for his work on behalf of the FBI,
reflected in the three October memorandums previously cited.
The House intelligence committee majority memo specifically notes that Steele had lied
to the FBI about his contact with Isikoff. This helps explain the
Jan. 18, 2018 , letter from the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck
Grassley, together with Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the subcommittee on crime and
terrorism, which referred Steele to the DOJ on suspicion of lying to the FBI about the
dissemination of information by Steele to the media. The referral contained a top-secret
memorandum prepared by the judiciary majority staff that would, from its classification, appear
to be derived from information relating to statements made by Steele to the FBI about the
Isikoff article.
The role the FBI general counsel played in investigating the link between Steele and the
media brings to light another important facet of the complex web woven by Steele in marketing
his Fusion GPS-funded opposition research as "intelligence." Corn, in his Mother Jones article,
cites communications between Sen. Harry Reid and FBI Director James Comey, in which Reid refers
to "explosive information" in the possession of the FBI pertaining to Page's alleged meetings
in Moscow in July 2016 with "sanctioned" Russian officials. The specificity of the information
cited by Reid strongly mirrors the information contained in Steele's July 26, 2016, report
detailing his sub-sources' allegations about Carter's purported meeting with Russian officials.
Reid's communication with Comey closely tracks with a top-secret briefing provided to Reid by
former CIA Director John Brennan, in which the information about Page was shared.
"... The bottom line is that the memo exposed the ugly truth that, at least in the case of Page, the FBI and DOJ, on multiple occasions, deliberately lied to or otherwise misled the FISA court in an effort to violate Page's Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure, or that the FISA court is, in fact, little more than a rubber-stamp entity incapable of adequate oversight of the enormous responsibilities it has been entrusted with---or both. ..."
"... WSJ confirms Carter Page was cooperating with FBI before he entered campaign ..."
"... 'What's notable here that seems to have evaded previous notice is that instead of being a Russian agent of influence, Page at the time he spang briefly into a prominent role within the Trump campaign in early 2016, was already an FBI informant, something the Russians would obviously know. This becomes even more crucial later that summer after Page returned from a business trip to Moscow when he was repeatedly named in the James Steele "dirty dossier" as a close confident of Russian energy officials and bankers. Page actually appears to have all the hallmarks of an FBI informant, or an agent provocateur, who was planted into the Trump campaign as part of an intelligence operation. Only, it seems apparent, the intelligence service he was actually serving was American rather than Russian. ..."
This presupposes that the FISA renewal left unchanged the information linked to Steele that underpinned its initial application.
By January 2018, however, the FBI had terminated its relationship with Steele based on the deceit of the former British intelligence
officer. As such, all Steele's reporting should have been recalled as unreliable, as well as any corroborating information that could
be linked to Steele in any way (such as the Isikoff article, the Papadopoulos investigation and the CIA's information as briefed
to Sen. Reid). Any sworn affidavit and application used in support of a FISA renewal that sustained the Steele reporting would have
been misleading at best, and most probably false, making anyone whose signature appears in any certifying capacity open to charges
of making a false statement---including both Comey and Yates.
The next application for renewal occurred in April 2017. This one would have been signed off by Comey and then-acting Attorney
General Dana Boente, who took over from Yates after she was fired by Trump in January 2017---shortly after she signed off on Page's
FISA warrant renewal application.
What is interesting about the April 2017 application is that the level of public scrutiny of the Steele dossier engendered by
BuzzFeed's publication of it in January 2017 would seem to have at least raised the issue of Steele's credibility as a source, something
that should have been reflected in the FISA renewal application.
Moreover, by the time of the renewal application,
Page had met with the FBI over the course of 10 hours in March 2017, when he was questioned in depth about his interactions with
Russia. Following past practice, the FBI agents conducting the interview would have relied upon FISA material to try and catch Page
in a "perjury trap," where it could be proved that he made a false statement to a federal agent. No such charges have been filed,
strongly suggesting that Page was honest and forthright with the FBI. To what extent, if any, the Steele dossier factored in the
April 2017 application for renewal, and whether the FBI informed the FISA court about the 10 hours of questioning it conducted with
Page, is not known. Nor is the context, if any, the FBI provided to any intercepted communications that would raise them to the level
needed to sustain a renewal of a FISA warrant.
The final FISA renewal application was submitted and approved in July 2017. This one was signed off by McCabe and acting Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein. By this time, the media had run with numerous stories about Page being the subject of a FISA warrant, and
Page himself had appealed to both Rosenstein and Mueller to make public the application used to grant his FISA warrant. Page was
unemployed, his professional life ruined by the public revelations about allegations that he had colluded with the Russians and was
under active FBI investigation, the totality of which could be linked back to the information Steele provided the FBI.
And yet somehow, in the face of overwhelming evidence of Page's innocence, the FISA court saw fit to grant yet another renewal
of its warrant.
... ... ...
The bottom line is that the memo exposed the ugly truth that, at least in the case of Page, the FBI and DOJ, on multiple occasions,
deliberately lied to or otherwise misled the FISA court in an effort to violate Page's Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search
and seizure, or that the FISA court is, in fact, little more than a rubber-stamp entity incapable of adequate oversight of the enormous
responsibilities it has been entrusted with---or both.
Scott Ritter spent more than a dozen years in the intelligence field, beginning in 1985 as a ground intelligence officer
with the US Marine Corps, where he served with the Marine Corps component of the Rapid Deployment Force at the Brigade and Battalion
level. In 1987 Ritter was hand-picked to serve with the On Site Inspection Agency, where he was responsible for carrying out the
provisions of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by American President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Chairman Mikhail
Gorbachev. Ritter served as a Deputy Site Commander of a specialized inspection team stationed outside a Soviet missile factory.
For his work, Ritter received two classified commendations from the CIA. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, Ritter was
assigned to a special planning cell that reported directly to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, where he helped plan the employment
of Marine Corps combat forces in response to Iraq's actions. He was later deployed to Saudi Arabia, where he served on the intelligence
staff of General Norman Schwartzkopf .
It gets better.......Carter Page was an FBI informant.
WSJ confirms Carter Page was cooperating with FBI before he entered campaign
'What's notable here that seems to have evaded previous notice is that instead of being a Russian agent of influence, Page
at the time he spang briefly into a prominent role within the Trump campaign in early 2016, was already an FBI informant, something
the Russians would obviously know. This becomes even more crucial later that summer after Page returned from a business trip to
Moscow when he was repeatedly named in the James Steele "dirty dossier" as a close confident of Russian energy officials and bankers.
Page actually appears to have all the hallmarks of an FBI informant, or an agent provocateur, who was planted into the Trump campaign
as part of an intelligence operation. Only, it seems apparent, the intelligence service he was actually serving was American rather
than Russian.
That is significant for another very important reason – according to the Washington Post, the FBI obtained a FISA warrant last
summer to spy on the Trump campaign under the pretext that Page was alleged to be a Russian agent.
First!! the agony of those democrats (union rights, civil liberties, protection of the poor etc.) is understood in the light
that there is no democratic party. where have you been?? the clintons and all their charm have wrecked it. bernie sanders is nothing
but 'clinton lite'. look at the record and enlighten yourself. if hellary were elected in 2016 we would be in trouble more so
than trump. fascism is crawling beneath the feet of both these miscreants but hellary had the mechanism of the deep state. they
failed to elect her. forget about the rules and know that, now, trump is the deep state's favorite boy (look his people). trump
has failed to gain the media's favoritism but that will change. given what the FBI has done (if there is no punitive action) we
will have slipped another gear into grinding fascism. we are reaching an overt state. Scott Ritter did well writing about the
bungling of the FBI but that is not new. Some people are welcomed to lie to agents some are not.
But most of all do not forget what Scott Ritter did in the investigation of WMD prior to Bush (deep state) and the Iraq war. Nobody
listened because they did not know how.
If Ritter has the correct analysis then we are all royally screwed. The Dems will be burned for a generation, Trump will be
vindicated and we will all have to drag our sorry butts to Trumps military parade and lick his shoes. I am so depressed after
reading this. I hope Ritter is wrong and overlooking that he may not have all the facts himself. I find it hard to believe the
FISA courts would renew three times when public skepticism was in the air. That would be a major scandal. The problem is that
the GOP won't get religion and start distrusting the police state they helped create. They will ignore the fact that they just
passed legislation bolstering the FISA courts and go back to locking up the plebes and shielding their big money benefactors.
What's funny about this is that this piece is way more solid then the "memo". That alone makes you wonder. I'm not sure what
it means. I await the counter memo with much interest.
The Nunes memo is just a precis of good deal of information, and even that is but a part of the evidence of the Demonazi, and
elements of the FBI and Justice Department, conspiracy to stop Trump. If Trump is capo di tutti capi in Thanatopolis DC, it is
Clinton and her incompetent fellow conspirators' fault.
Democrats are now the Neo-con party and far more dangerous.
Neo -cons wanted Hillary and its why they are going after Trump.Trump was never supposed to win.Trump was a anti-gop candidate.So
republicans are the anti -war party now.
Ironinc no?
How Donald Trump blasted George W. Bush in S.C. -- and won ...
These people--and all these folks in law enforcement and corporate hierarchies and the list goes on and on--they LIE. They
manipulate. Newsflash, that is human nature, despite all of the bogus, idealistic posturing made in these comments and in the
world at large.
But my point is that these same people play by a set of rules that they defined for themselves, and now the conservative faction
wants special treatment for their buffoon Trump. They need to suck it up and take their medicine. Trump is a vile, unintelligent
cretin and a criminal, and I really don't care if the means by which they remove him doesn't rise to the level of your or others
supposed BS-idealism.
The U.S. government is an unethical $hit show driven by the most heinous form of capitalism ever imagined, so what the hell
do you expect? Do try to get in touch with reality and put down your tome of rightwing talking points.
Im a left Sanders voter.Trump is literally doing what you say you want and your too bias to notice.
Newsflash........Trump is bringing to the forefront just how corrupted our system is.The $shitshow has just started........even
MSNBC cant ignore the treason of the FBI and DOJ any more.
And did you miss Trump tweet about the wallstreet crash?
Didnt he call out the fact wallstreet bets against the US economy?
Trump tweeted Wednesday:
"In the 'old days,' when good news was reported, the Stock Market
would go up. Today, when good news is reported, the Stock Market goes down. Big mistake, and we have so much good (great) news
about the economy!"
Didnt Trump just make an important criticism of capitalism?.....I think he did.Sorry you missed it.
The Two Faces of a Police State: Sheltering Tax Evaders, Financial Swindlers and Money Launderers while Policing the Citizens
http://petras.lahaine.org/?...
"... Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Cold War is long over. However, despite our best efforts to sustain a positive relationship, Russia now perceives the United States and NATO as its principal opponent and impediment to realizing its destabilizing geopolitical goals in Eurasia. (Emphasis mine) ..."
"... becoming great ..."
"... Russia has significantly increased the capabilities of its non-nuclear forces to project power into regions adjacent to Russia and, as previously discussed, has violated multiple treaty obligations and other important commitments. Most concerning are Russia's national security policies, strategy, and doctrine that include an emphasis on the threat of limited nuclear escalation, and its continuing development and fielding of increasingly diverse and expanding nuclear capabilities. Moscow threatens and exercises limited nuclear first use, suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited first use could paralyze the United States and NATO and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to Russia. Some in the United States refer to this as Russia's "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine. "De-escalation" in this sense follows from Moscow's mistaken assumption of Western capitulation on terms favorable to Moscow. ..."
"... Effective U.S. deterrence of Russian nuclear attack and non-nuclear strategic attack now requires ensuring that the Russian leadership does not miscalculate regarding the consequences of limited nuclear first use, either regionally or against the United States itself. Russia must instead understand that nuclear first-use, however limited, will fail to achieve its objectives, fundamentally alter the nature of a conflict, and trigger incalculable and intolerable costs for Moscow. Our strategy will ensure Russia understands that any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is unacceptable. ..."
"... The U.S. deterrent tailored to Russia, therefore, will be capable of holding at risk, under all conditions, what Russia's leadership most values. It will pose insurmountable difficulties to any Russian strategy of aggression against the United States, its allies, or partners and ensure the credible prospect of unacceptably dire costs to the Russian leadership if it were to choose aggression. ..."
Russian television broadcast a dire sounding piece on February 5th that probably was rather disquieting to most Russians, and
also a source of significant dismay to their hopes for a rapprochement in relations following the election of Donald Trump to the
Presidency of the United States. The news agency "Vesti" explained that the US is preparing itself for nuclear war with Russia.
The US Department of Defense published its
2018 Nuclear Posture Review.
This consists of at least two documents that are public domain that detail the assessment the
DoD made about nuclear threats from around the world. The language about Russia is curious, for like Russia, the US repeatedly
maintains that there is no desire for anything but good relations.
However, this is unfortunately either a blind claim or a willfully blind claim for the sake of propaganda. Based on the
insanity of the US government's reaction or posture about Russia overall, with the military fears, the sanctions and the most
recent incidents of
the
release of the "Kremlin list"
of government heads and successful businessmen and women, and
the close flyby of a Russian fighter jet to an American surveillance aircraft
,
the ever-present
"RussiaGate" investigations
; and the lack of visible insanity on the Russians' side, it seems likely that the American
version of what is causing the 'need' to resolidify 'defenses' is lacking in factual evidence and cannot be taken as conclusive
or trustworthy.
Not that there is any precedent for this outrageous statement and if you believe that
The problem begins with a false premise:
Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Cold War is long over. However, despite our best efforts to sustain a positive
relationship, Russia now perceives the United States and NATO as its principal opponent and impediment to realizing its
destabilizing geopolitical goals in Eurasia.
(Emphasis mine)
This is an extremely bold assertion, though for some of the people who influence the stance of US foreign and military policy,
this is how they see it. However, it is also rather skillful sophistry that is achieved by a combination of American desire for
hegemony and also, unfortunately, by a certain level of vagueness on both sides.
The Russian component of this vagueness largely seems to rest on the matter of Ukraine. Ukraine itself is rightly understood
as the motherland of all the Rus' ("all the Russias") from history that runs back over a thousand years. It was Kiev that was
the great capital of the early Russian governorate, which slowly expanded to become the Russian Empire.
However, there is also a complicated and deeply tragic history regarding the Ukraine, notably during the Soviet era, when
millions of Ukrainians perished in what some in that country now regard as
an intentional genocide
, perpetrated
deliberately against them by the Soviets in Moscow, hence, "Russia."
This issue itself is complex and warrants, even begs, further exposition, but it is beyond the scope of this article. Some
understanding
may
be gained by reading this piece
, which gives an interesting survey of the history of Ukraine. (Be aware though that it still
comes from a publication with Western perspective.)
The main point is that Ukraine's own nationalistic wish is spawned from factors including a national memory that points at
Moscow as the source of their problems. The fact that the Russian Federation is not Communist does not deter this point of view,
because although the Russian nation is no longer a dictatorship, it still does not always conduct its foreign and national
affairs transparently, and the desire for a real sense of self-determination is magnified by the allure of the glittering,
wealthy West. The Western powers, most notably the USA, know this and have been teasing the Ukrainians with it.
Some of them, in Kiev and the western areas of the country (not all of which were Soviet territories at one point) have long
had ties more to Europe than to Russia, and the inclusion of their territories in the Soviet Union was a source of further
bitterness. For many people in Ukraine, their history is of living in a battlefield of foreign powers.
They are understandably almost instinctively upset about any power's designs on their territory, but it is also easy to
manipulate this characteristic, and the United States has led the current struggle for Ukraine yet again. The allure of Western
European life seems to be what drew so many to the Euromaidan struggle in 2014, but the present day economy under the pro-Western
government also appears to be in a shambles.
At any rate, the historical memory of extremely authoritarian and cruel Soviet rule in the region, plus the present day
"vagueness" that seems to exist with regards to Russian foreign affairs, helps the West to cast Russia as an authoritarian
nation, led by a "secret Communist", Vladimir Putin, "who used to be a KGB agent."
When one gives this information to many Americans, the conclusion they draw is clear.
Share
The Pentagon, the central hub of US military operations.
Now to be sure, Vladimir Putin has been extremely open and candid about his nation and his own assertions of a strong Russian
nation are absolutely proper for Russia, as they are for any nation. Nationalism is held extremely strongly in the United States,
and again, history plays a part. The recent history of what amounts to world dominance, militarily, scientifically,
academically, and culturally, gives a sense to Americans that it is
their
country which is the guardian of all that is
good.
But what are they guarding? That greatness has shown many signs of slipping into decadence, such as happened in the waning
days of the Roman Empire, where people lost their vision of
becoming great
, and have been self-indulgent in their
perceived independence, not only of other nations and cultures, but of any power, including the Highest Power. We have seen it
become legal to call homosexual unions "marriage" and depravity, drug use, and tremendous unproductive navel-gazing have become
more and more prevalent in a nation that, a mere 45 years ago, really stood as a defender of Christian freedom.
It is not possible that a nation living in delusion about itself can have a clear view of those nations outside itself. And
Russia has moved in the opposite direction as has the West. The struggle exists, for Russia under Communism suffered great
damage to the institutions of family, marriage and Church, but the move of the Federation now is to rebuild these core values.
All this while for a time, America seemed to be engaged in self-destruction by attacking these same core values.
Now, America's military is in an extremely dangerous place. The amount of sheer power the military has is greater than any in
the world. Although Russia and China also have incredibly capable military forces, the Chinese are untested in battle thus far,
and the Russians are just beginning to show their own incredible capabilities. But the United States has been at war almost
continuously since at least as early as 2001, and this projection of power does create experience.
This Nuclear Posture Review
shows us the face of a country who is deluded, hysterical, as the Russian media calls it, and
they are right. Despite the issues with Russia and Ukraine or Syria, Russia's political will does not remotely resemble the
notion that Russia is in an expansionist stage and that it wants to take over the former Soviet republics and then expand into
the West. Russia
does
want to chart her own course, and as a great power, and one with a long history and long memory
of suffering, she wants to try to protect her own people from more suffering.
Russia has significantly increased the capabilities of its non-nuclear forces to project power into regions adjacent to
Russia and, as previously discussed, has violated multiple treaty obligations and other important commitments. Most concerning
are Russia's national security policies, strategy, and doctrine that include an emphasis on the threat of limited nuclear
escalation, and its continuing development and fielding of increasingly diverse and expanding nuclear capabilities. Moscow
threatens and exercises limited nuclear first use, suggesting a mistaken expectation that coercive nuclear threats or limited
first use could paralyze the United States and NATO and thereby end a conflict on terms favorable to Russia. Some in the
United States refer to this as Russia's "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine. "De-escalation" in this sense follows from
Moscow's mistaken assumption of Western capitulation on terms favorable to Moscow.
Effective U.S. deterrence of Russian nuclear attack and non-nuclear strategic attack now requires ensuring that the
Russian leadership does not miscalculate regarding the consequences of limited nuclear first use, either regionally or against
the United States itself. Russia must instead understand that nuclear first-use, however limited, will fail to achieve its
objectives, fundamentally alter the nature of a conflict, and trigger incalculable and intolerable costs for Moscow. Our
strategy will ensure Russia understands that any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is unacceptable.
The U.S. deterrent tailored to Russia, therefore, will be capable of holding at risk, under all conditions, what
Russia's leadership most values. It will pose insurmountable difficulties to any Russian strategy of aggression against the
United States, its allies, or partners and ensure the credible prospect of unacceptably dire costs to the Russian leadership
if it were to choose aggression.
This is an amazing construction and assertion, and it is extremely dangerous for a nation with simultaneously massive power
and a deluded worldview to hold. It is also very difficult to get people who have such a suspicious point of view to back away
from that suspicion. There is a great deal of bondage such belief and fear exerts on those who hold it.
That being said, this situation helps explain what many in the alternative media do – to counter media and political bias and
to report on events in a light that is hopefully objective and true. The Vesti newspiece was in its own way as alarmist as the
American document it reported is. The real way through this is obviously through increased understanding of the truth in all
matters – historical, ideological, and in our case here, geopolitical.
The American side has taken several nasty jabs at the Russians recently, in this document and last week's "Kremlin list", but
there is also hope that the disintegrating "Russiagate" investigation will come to the true conclusions about this matter, and so
free the hands of those in America who understand that Russia is anything but an enemy or adversary.
Cohen is a Communist and reflexive hater of the United States in the Noam Chomsky mold. He is
either naive or a fool if he believes half of what he is saying.
Russia never had a decent shot at democracy. The collapse of the Soviet Union was arranged
by the Nomenklatura for their own benefit as a massive asset grab. The fight between Yeltsin
and the Russian Parliament was basically a fight between two factions, and the Yeltsin/KGB
faction beat the CPSU/Red Manager faction. Putin is very much a product of and continuation
of the Yeltsin/KGB team (notice, for example, the role that Chubais continues to play in
government policy), but the current team realizes how hated Yeltsin is and are smart enough
to create plausible distance for public consumption.
For the most part the Putin years have been a failure, and these last two decades will be
seen as squandered. Very little economic growth, continuing deterioration of the education
and health systems, increasing dependence on China and massive transfers of wealth abroad.
Those are Putin's primary achievements.
On the plus side, Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia over the last three
years – keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and
light manufacturing industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western
competition.
"... The pro-Hillary warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding' with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really can explain what that 'interference' means. ..."
"... They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would push against that degradation ..."
"... Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator, " Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? " ..."
"... And by the way, if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has become a commonplace. We are degraded. ..."
"... We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory. That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. ..."
"... Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days, the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the conclusion that war is coming. ..."
"... The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia. ..."
How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war with Russiaglobinfo freexchange
Corporate Democrats can't stop pushing for war through the Russiagate fiasco.
The party has been completely taken over by the neocon/neoliberal establishment and has nothing to do with the Left. The pro-Hillary
warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of
this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding'
with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really
can explain what that 'interference' means.
But things are probably much worse, because this completely absurd persistence on Russiagate fiasco that feeds an evident anti-Russian
hysteria, destroys all the influence of the Kremlin moderates who struggle to keep open channels between Russia and the United States.
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at NY University and Princeton University, explained
to Aaron Maté and the RealNews
the terrible consequences:
They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However
much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American
political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would
push against that degradation.
Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture
and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator,
" Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? "
I think all of us need to focus on what's happened in this country when in the very mainstream, at the highest, most influential
levels of the political establishment, this kind of discourse is no longer considered an exception. It is the norm. We hear it daily
from MSNBC and CNN, from the New York Times and the Washington Post, that people who doubt the narrative of what's loosely called
Russiagate are somehow acting on behalf of or under the spell of the Kremlin, that we aren't Americans any longer. And by the way,
if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy
was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence
of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study
it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has
become a commonplace. We are degraded.
The new Cold War is unfolding not far away from Russia, like the last in Berlin, but on Russia's borders in the Baltic and in
Ukraine. We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory.
That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. Meanwhile, not only do we not have a discussion of
these real dangers in the United States but anyone who wants to incite a discussion, including the President of the United States,
is called treasonous. Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism
in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days,
the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and
its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called
Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative.
Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains
who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the
conclusion that war is coming. They can't think of a single thing to tell the Kremlin to offset hawkish views in the Kremlin. Every
day, there's something new. And these were the people in Moscow who are daytime peacekeeping interlockers. They have been
destroyed by Russiagate. Their influence as Russia is zilch. And the McCarthyites in Russia, they have various terms, now
called the pro-American lobby in Russia 'fifth columnists'. This is the damage that's been done. There's never been anything like
this in my lifetime.
The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party
has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions
in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia.
And, unfortunately,
even the most progressives of the Democrats are adopting the Russiagate bogus, like Bernie Sanders, because they know that if they
don't obey to the narratives, the DNC establishment will crush them politically in no time.
"... former British MI-6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele was a no-show on Monday at a London courthouse. ..."
"... "There is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility ," reads the unredacted document that refers Steele for criminal prosecution in the US. ..."
"... "it appears that either Mr. Steele lied to the FBI or the British court, or that the classified documents reviewed by the Committee contain materially false statements." pic.twitter.com/KQ2OmVjOMI ..."
"... Fray-Witzer said, "Certainly with respect to Mr. Gubarev, Webzilla and XBT there has never been a single scrap of evidence about them in the dossier." ..."
"... Fray-Witzer stressed in that hearing that the British government "has not asserted" Steele's claims. The attorney has said Steele "is asserting he can't speak about things. We have pointed out that he's spoken to anyone who is willing to listen, every journalist, and the FBI." ..."
"... This second dossier went from Clinton "hatchet man" Cody Shearer, who gave it to an unnamed official in the Obama State Department, before it was routed to Christopher Steele ..."
"... Published accounts in the Guardian and the Washington Post have indicated that Clinton associate Cody Shearer was in contact with Steele about anti-Trump research, and Obama State Department official Jonathan Winer was a connection between Steele and the State Department during the 2016 campaign. – Washington Examiner ..."
Fox News reports that former British MI-6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele was a no-show on Monday at a London courthouse.
Steele was expected for a long-requested deposition in a multi-million dollar civil case brought against Buzzfeed, which published
a salacious and unverified "Trump-Russia" dossier.
Steele may have skipped out over concerns that he would be asked questions about his contacts with various media outlets in
connection with at least
two dossiers he had a hand in assembling and disseminating -- for which he stands accused by Senators Chuck Grassley
(R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) of misleading the FBI about his contacts with journalists at various news outlets during the
2016 election.
"There is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts,
one which bears on his credibility ," reads the unredacted document that refers Steele for criminal prosecution in the US.
12) The Issue at Hand
"it appears that either Mr. Steele lied to the FBI or the British court, or that the classified documents reviewed by the
Committee contain materially false statements." pic.twitter.com/KQ2OmVjOMI
It therefore stands to reason that Steele wanted to avoid any uncomfortable questions which might apply to ongoing investigations
in US House and Senate. Separately, records obtained and reviewed by Fox News from related civil litigation in Florida reveal that
Steele maintains that even showing up for a deposition would "implicate state secrets in London."
According to Fox News , Evan Fray-Witzer, a Boston-based attorney representing Russian tech tycoon Aleksej Gubarev in multi-million
dollar civil litigation, described Monday's U.K. court actions to Fox News. "My understanding is that Mr. Steele's lawyers spent
a good deal of time arguing why they thought he (Steele) should not be required to sit for a deposition and that ultimately the court
took the entire matter under advisement."
Gubarev is suing the British-based Steele's company Orbis Business Intelligence because the dossier claimed Gubarev's companies,
including XBT Holdings and Webzilla, used "botnets and port traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs and steal data."
Fray-Witzer said, "Certainly with respect to Mr. Gubarev, Webzilla and XBT there has never been a single scrap of evidence
about them in the dossier."
Congressional testimony and ongoing Fox News reporting revealed that Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence were paid $168,000
by Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson to write and promote the dossier among select journalists when it was opposition research funded
in part by the Democratic National Committee. As Fox News has reported based upon review of British court records, Steele promoted
and met with five media outlets repeatedly between the spring and fall of 2016. At the same time, Steele also was meeting with
the FBI in Rome, according to reports.
Meanwhile, records obtained and reviewed by Fox News from related civil ligitation in Florida reveal that Steele maintains
that even showing up for a deposition would "implicate state secrets in London."
Fray-Witzer stressed in that hearing that the British government "has not asserted" Steele's claims. The attorney has said
Steele "is asserting he can't speak about things. We have pointed out that he's spoken to anyone who is willing to listen, every
journalist, and the FBI."
Zerohedge further reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee's January 4 criminal referral of Steele also reveals that the former
British spy was involved in a
second anti-Trump opposition research dossier. This second dossier went from Clinton "hatchet man" Cody Shearer, who gave
it to an unnamed official in the Obama State Department, before it was routed to Christopher Steele. It is unknown what happened
to the document after that.
According to the referral, Steele wrote the additional memo based on anti-Trump information that originated with a foreign
source. In a convoluted scheme outlined in the referral, the foreign source gave the information to an unnamed associate of Hillary
and Bill Clinton, who then gave the information to an unnamed official in the Obama State Department, who then gave the information
to Steele. Steele wrote a report based on the information, but the redacted version of the referral does not say what Steele did
with the report after that.
Published accounts in
the Guardian
and
the Washington Post have indicated that Clinton associate Cody Shearer was in contact with Steele about anti-Trump research,
and Obama State Department official Jonathan Winer was a connection between Steele and the State Department during the 2016 campaign.
–
Washington Examiner
Shearer's brother served as an ambassador during the Clinton administration, and his late sister was married to Strobe Talbott,
the chief authority on Russia in President Bill Clinton's State Department, according to ProPublica.
Recalling that the dossier was published by Buzzfeed after the election, we're sure that much like the rest of the swamp; Clinton,
Obama, Comey, McCabe, Mueller, Rosenstein, Strzok, Page, and the rest of the gang – Christopher Steele thought Hillary would win,
and none of this would have ever come to light –
Zerohedge
6.14 miles this morn from Home 2 Dome for my bday. 1 hr 23 mins. Left at 4:15AM
pic.twitter.com/TukSOe6sIE
"... Rachel Maddow, the top-rated cable-news host who covers Russiagate more than all other issues combined , has speculated that Putin was responsible for the hiring of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; is inducing Trump to "weaken" the State Department and " bleed out " the FBI; and, via the infamous "pee tape" alleged by Steele, may blackmail Trump into withdrawing US forces near Russia's border . ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Far beyond Israelgate, Russiagate allows them to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative. Democrats can claim to be Trump's opposition without having to confront many of the failings that handed them one of the most stunning defeats in US political history. ..."
"... The DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals. ..."
"... Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. ..."
"... The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize the charade and are demanding real progressive change? ..."
"... This whole "we lost the election because of Russian interference" argument appears to be roughly on the same level as "the dog ate my homework" dodge. ..."
"... The bottom line of any Trump association is financial - whether or not an association will protect and increase his wealth. Trump most likely believed that Russians were hacking the DNC (and the RNC) and favored him over Clinton, but that is a far cry from proof that he was colluding with a foreign government that committed crimes. The Democrats knee-jerk obsession with Russia serves to inoculate Trump from any real crimes that the Mueller investigation uncovers. Mostly those crimes will be financial, money laundering being the foremost. Democrats, in a 'the sky is falling' tone, breathlessly proclaim the latest revelation that Trump wanted a reset of Russia relations, or that some Trump official actually talked to a Russian official, as proof positive that Trump is a traitor. That Russia is the enemy is a fait accompli. ..."
"... To go on any liberal forum and point out that we really do need a better foreign policy with Russia than demonizing Putin is to bring forth a cascade of vituperation. Russia is the enemy and Trump colluded with the enemy, end of story they say. It's really way more complicated than that. It goes to the heart of the financialization of governments, including ours, to the point where finance can no longer be separated from government, and everything in government becomes a business transaction. Trump views the presidency as just another tool for self-enrichment, on a continuum from his global wheeling-dealing working on the boundaries of the law. The Russian state works in much the same way, a government that is run by a confederation of oligarchs and mob figures. ..."
"... In indulging themselves in Russiagate, Democrats have solidified the current provocative foreign policy that benefits the arms industry while putting civilization in danger. They are closing out all the sane options, and engaging in the same asinine fearmongering that Republicans do. On foreign policy, both parties deserve contempt. ..."
Both scenarios also call into question another foundation of Russiagate, the series of Clinton-campaign-funded intelligence reports
written by former British spy Christopher Steele. The premise of the Steele dossier is of a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation"
in which Russia has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years," beginning back when Trump was hosting
The Apprentice . Russia gives Trump "and his inner circle a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on
his Democratic and other political rivals." As an insurance policy, Steele contends, at least two years after their conspiracy began,
the Russians collected a videotape of Trump hiring and watching prostitutes "perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show," in a Moscow
Ritz-Carlton hotel room.
This questionable narrative is perhaps why, according to the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner,
after one year and multiple investigations, the dossier's allegations remain neither "proven nor, conversely, disproven" -- in other
words, not proven. According to Fox News, "when pressed [in recent congressional testimony] to identify what in the salacious document
the bureau had actually corroborated [then–FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe cited only the fact that Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page had traveled to Moscow." It would not have been difficult for the FBI -- or Steele -- to figure that out, given that it was
reported
in The Washington Post and Russian media in early
July. (Steele reports it only on July 19.)
"Missing Hard Evidence"
The shaky evidentiary basis for collusion extends to Russiagate's other central pillars. It has been over a year since the release,
shortly before Trump's inauguration, of a US intelligence report alleging a Russian-government campaign to elect Trump through e-mail
hacking and covert propaganda. Amid the ensuing uproar, some quietly noted at the time that the public version of the report "does
not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions" (
The Atlantic
); contained "essentially no new information" (
Susan Hennessy , Lawfare );
and was "missing what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims" (
The New York
Times ).
If "hard evidence" is what "many Americans most eagerly anticipated" in January 2017, they have continued to wait in vain. The
Russian government may well have hacked Democratic Party e-mails, but evidence of it beyond unsubstantiated claims has yet to arrive.
In its place is a bipartisan fearmongering campaign that recalls the height of the Cold War. The nation is said to face "an ongoing
attack by the Russian government through Kremlin-linked social media actors directly acting to intervene and influence our democratic
process" (
Democrats Representative Adam Schiff and Senator Dianne Feinstein ); in which "Russia continues to disseminate propaganda designed
to weaken our nation" (
former acting CIA director Michael Morell and former Republican Representative Mike Rogers ); which means that we cannot "simply
sit back and hope that we do not face another attack by a hostile foreign power" (Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic Senator
Chris Van Hollen).
A credulous national media has helped disseminate the panic. When news of Russian-linked Facebook ads (in reality,
Russian troll farms ) broke open,
The
Daily Beast calculated that the "Russian-funded covert propaganda posts were likely seen by a minimum of 23 million people
and might have reached as many as 70 million," meaning that "up to 28 percent of American adults were swept in by the campaign."
National audiences were soberly informed of covert Russian attempts to dupe them via
Pokemon Go . CNN
reported
-- and multiple
outlets repeated -- that
"highly sophisticated" Russian Facebook ads targeted "the states that turned out to be pivotal," including "Michigan and Wisconsin,
two states crucial to Donald Trump's victory last November." The New York Times consulted with "analysts"
to ponder over the mysterious significance of a Russian-linked "Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies":
The goal of the dog lovers' page was more obscure. But some analysts suggested a possible motive: to build a large following
before gradually introducing political content. Without viewing the entire feed from the page, now closed by Facebook, it is impossible
to say whether the Russian operators tried such tactics.
We may never know if vulnerable American dog-lovers were compromised by the Russian puppy-gandists. But "analysis" and "exclusives"
like these have drowned out the actual evidence. In brief, more than half of the relatively paltry $100,000 in Facebook ads bought
by "Russian-linked" accounts ran after the election. They were mostly related not to the election but to social issues and were often
juvenile and written in broken English. Those that were "geographically located" came mostly during the primaries. The ads that ran
in battleground states were, as
one study noted , "microscopic": Fewer than a dozen ran in Michigan and Wisconsin combined, and the majority were seen fewer
than 1,000 times. Purported Russian ad spending amounted to $1,979 in Wisconsin -- all but $54 of that during the primary -- $823
in Michigan, and $300 in Pennsylvania.
Summarizing available data, The Washington Post 's Philip Bump
concludes : "what we actually know about the Russian activity on Facebook and Twitter: It was often modest, heavily dissociated
from the campaign itself and minute in the context of election social media efforts."
"Theories With Virtually No Fact"
The impact of Russiagate panic has been magnified by a preponderance of influential exponents wading into imaginative territory.
And their audience happens to be millions of people aggrieved by Trump's presidency and seeking hope that it can be reversed.
The Russian influence theory is so ingrained that Democrats see no irony in invoking it to dismiss the conspiracy theories of
Republicans. Denouncing the current right-wing uproar over alleged anti-Trump bias at the FBI, Senator Chuck Schumer
cautioned that in pushing
"conspiracy theories with virtually no fact," the Republicans "wittingly or unwittingly are acting as allies of Russia's disinformation
campaigns," ultimately "playing right into Putin's hands."
Such is our Trump-era political spectrum: a Republican Party that has graduated from birtherism to now pushing fears of an anti-Trump
FBI "secret society," versus a Democratic Party whose counterattack is to accuse its foes of doing Putin's bidding.
... ... ...
As it ramps up its armed presence near Russia, the Pentagon's new National Defense Strategy declares that the US military advantage
over Russia and China is "eroding," and that reversing it is now more of a priority than stopping ISIS or Al Qaeda. "Great power
competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security,"
Defense Secretary James Mattis declared. Russia is the top threat invoked in Trump's Nuclear Posture Review. The plan's centerpiece
is the development of smaller, so-called "low-yield" nuclear weapons, small enough to ensure that Russia fears their actual use.
The review attributes this to the "deterioration of the strategic environment" -- "a nod toward existing tensions with Russia in
particular,"
The Washington Post observes .
Tensions between the world's two major nuclear powers have helped lead the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move
its Doomsday Clock to its highest point since 1953. "Nuclear risks have been compounded by US-Russia relations that now feature more
conflict than cooperation," the Bulletin warns . "Coordination on nuclear risk reduction
is all but dead. For the first time in many years, in fact, no US-Russian nuclear arms control negotiations are under way."
The nuclear risks may also be compounded by a US opposition party that has made "more conflict than cooperation" a defining trait.
"Never before has a U.S. president so clearly ignored such a grave threat, and a growing threat, to U.S. national security," declares
Senator Ben Cardin . In not imposing new sanctions, Trump has "let Russia off the hook yet again," says
Representative Eliot Engel . In releasing the House Republican memo, Trump has "Vladimir Putin there smiling like he gave Donald
Trump the script" (
Representative Jackie
Speier ) and has "just sent his friend Putin a bouquet" (
Representative Nancy
Pelosi ). It is difficult to imagine Democrats leading the charge to reduce nuclear tensions with Russia when they expend more
energy urging Trump to be confrontational.
With Trump's actual Russia policies receiving less attention than Russiagate, it also makes sense that his administration has
begun to take advantage of the opportunities that the distraction provides. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has
warned that there
are "initial signs" of Russian "subversion and disinformation and propaganda" in
Mexico's upcoming presidential election . McMaster did not cite any evidence, but perhaps he had in mind the multiple polls that
show leftist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador as the front-runner
so far .
Top Priorities
The focus on still-absent evidence of Trump-Russia collusion while ignoring increasing US-Russia tensions coincides with the indifference
that has greeted the most concrete case of Trump collusion with a foreign government so far: the Trump transition's effort to undermine
President Obama's abstention on a United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements in December 2016. Undertaken
at the request of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, "derailing the vote was Mr. Trump's top priority at that time,"
The Wall Street Journal reports
.
But for Democrats and thought leaders to oppose the Trump transition's "top priority" would mean challenging one that they uphold.
"While [the UN effort] might have otherwise given the Democrats a welcome political opportunity to underscore the perfidy of the
Trump team," Stephen Zunes
observes , "they are hindered by the fact that the majority of Congressional Democrats opposed Obama and supported Trump's position
on the vote."
It is here that Russiagate performs a critical function for Trump's political foes. Far beyond Israelgate, Russiagate allows them
to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative. Democrats can claim
to be Trump's opposition without having to confront many of the failings that handed them one of the most stunning defeats in US
political history.
In focusing on a foreign villain, there is also little need for Democrats to challenge the powerful sectors of US society that
many Trump voters were duped into thinking that they were voting against -- and whose interests many Democrats have deftly served.
In fact, the outside enemy offers Democrats new opportunities to cater to powerful donors: increased militarism towards a nuclear
power is a boon for the military-security establishment, and lawmakers who promote it have been
duly rewarded .
After more than one year of its engulfing our politics, perhaps that could be Russiagate's most helpful contribution: guiding
us to the challenges that it helps us avoid.
Victor Sciamarelli says: February 10, 2018 at 2:35 pm
An interesting article especially the conclusion under "Top Priorities" where it states, "It is here that Russiagate performs
a critical function for Trump's political foes. Far beyond Israelgate, Russiagate allows them [democrats] to oppose Trump while
obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative."
This is important and I largely agree, but the observation could have gone further. The DP is a neoliberal party which has been
able to distinguish itself from Republicans by campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals.
Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade deals, and corporations relocating their factories
outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business
bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. Jill Stein was attacked and brought before the Senate Intelligence Committee because the dossier claimed, falsely, that she accepted
payment from Russia to attend a RT event in Moscow. And we all know what happened to the Sanders' campaign.
None of this would matter because Clinton was expected to win. Trump is a hypocrite and a fake populist but the populist message
resonated with voters. Bernie Sanders, the real deal populist, remains the most popular politician in America and he is the most
popular democratic politician among Republican voters.
The recent FISA reauthorization bill passed with 65 House Democrats who joined Trump and the Republicans. In 2002 the DP controlled
the Senate, but 29 Dems joined Republicans to pass the Iraq War Resolution along with 82 House Dems. And was the Republican regime
change in Iraq better than the Democratic regime change in Libya? And recall that Hugo Chavez, who was democratically elected,
governed constitutionally, and complied with international law, and if he ever crossed a line it was trivial compared to the lines
Bush crossed, was labeled a dictator and attacked much like Putin is today.
The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate with the RP, while pretending to support
progressive causes when more and more people realize the charade and are demanding real progressive change?
Maintaining a neoliberal course on behalf of elite interests is more important than winning elections. Thus, while Trump is investigated,
the DP and supportive media are preparing to demonize progressives and any alternative voices as nothing more than Russian puppets.
Jeffrey Harrison says: February 10, 2018 at 12:12 pm
Articles like this one on The Nation surprise me. The Nation seems to be in the pockets of the DNC and their Hillary-bots.
While this is a great article, I'm left with a sense of dissatisfaction based on what was missing from it. Nobody seems to see
the forest for the trees.
The first thing missing is the reality that Three Names won the election by about 3 million votes. Mr Maté does a good job
of pointing out the weaknesses of the whole facebook/twitter meme but leaves out that Three Names' problem was not a lack of votes
but a lack of breadth of votes. She won the major population centers but not the countryside and thus lost the state. Folks in
the countryside are much less likely to be on facebook and twitter than their city cousins and thus will be relatively immune
from the influence of ads on those platforms. If you want to see real meddling, take a look at what AIPAC is doing.
The other thing that's missing is the danger behind sanctions. There's another name for sanctions - economic warfare. These
are actually forbidden by the UN charter unless authorized by the UN but the US has never let its promises keep the US from doing
exactly what it wanted to. In the past, sanctions have, in fact, led to shooting wars. What we are doing is perpetrating economic
warfare on the only country capable of destroying the United States.
In what way could this be considered wise?
Matthew Walsh says: February 10, 2018 at 11:30 am
I appreciate this article--and I agree with many of its arguments--but it contains some layered irony that is important to
address. The author is correct in asserting that there is irony in the Democrats' claim that Republicans' opposition to the investigation
is not based in fact.
But I find it ironic that the author is accusing the Democrats of using Russiagate to empower the military-security complex.
It's a highly plausible prospect, but it's certainly no more plausible than Russian collusion accusations.
Dan Swanson says: February 10, 2018 at 8:36 am
Superb article. My only quibble is that Trump probably did collude with Russians -- not over the election, but over his business
interests, and that exposing this will damage his overall popularity, even among some of his supporters. But the article's major
point still stands -- putting all the opposition eggs into the Russiagate basket is a big risk, especially now that the Republicans
will take aim at Social Security and Medicare. Among major politicians, only Bernie Sanders has recognized that Russiagate distracts
from Trump's true evils.
Robert Borneman says: February 10, 2018 at 2:29 am
Kudos to Mr. Maté for keeping a clear eye out on the facts and evidence of the case against Russia having thrown the election
to Hillary (which is paltry at best, and falsely exculpatory of HRC's own disaster on the simple surface). Kudos to The Nation
for not swallowing the same establishment DNC pill which seeks to provide cover for the neo-liberal wing of the Democratic Party
by blaming Russia instead of their own (DNC's own) anti-democratic machinations and poor decisions.
Philip Gerard says: February 9, 2018 at 5:16 pm
This whole "we lost the election because of Russian interference" argument appears to be roughly on the same level as "the
dog ate my homework" dodge. The democrats just can't admit that they blew the 2016 election . If they did they would have to look
for answers and this is something they really do not want to do. Why? I suspect that they all ready know what they need to do
to win but that would mean cutting ties with their corporate "constituents" and that is something they simply can not bring themselves
to do.
Michael Robertson says: February 9, 2018 at 3:39 pm
The bottom line of any Trump association is financial - whether or not an association will protect and increase his wealth.
Trump most likely believed that Russians were hacking the DNC (and the RNC) and favored him over Clinton, but that is a far cry
from proof that he was colluding with a foreign government that committed crimes. The Democrats knee-jerk obsession with Russia
serves to inoculate Trump from any real crimes that the Mueller investigation uncovers. Mostly those crimes will be financial,
money laundering being the foremost. Democrats, in a 'the sky is falling' tone, breathlessly proclaim the latest revelation that
Trump wanted a reset of Russia relations, or that some Trump official actually talked to a Russian official, as proof positive
that Trump is a traitor. That Russia is the enemy is a fait accompli.
To go on any liberal forum and point out that we really do need a better foreign policy with Russia than demonizing Putin is
to bring forth a cascade of vituperation. Russia is the enemy and Trump colluded with the enemy, end of story they say. It's really
way more complicated than that. It goes to the heart of the financialization of governments, including ours, to the point where
finance can no longer be separated from government, and everything in government becomes a business transaction. Trump views the
presidency as just another tool for self-enrichment, on a continuum from his global wheeling-dealing working on the boundaries
of the law. The Russian state works in much the same way, a government that is run by a confederation of oligarchs and mob figures.
To say that the Russians hacked the election is to say nothing. There is nothing that they have putatively done that we haven't
done to them. The Facebook posts that are evidence of high-level psychological manipulation are indistinguishable from Republican
spin. In indulging themselves in Russiagate, Democrats have solidified the current provocative foreign policy that benefits the
arms industry while putting civilization in danger. They are closing out all the sane options, and engaging in the same asinine
fearmongering that Republicans do. On foreign policy, both parties deserve contempt.
Brian Cairns says: February 9, 2018 at 1:43 pm
Excellent job, Aaron! And thanks to The Nation for not getting swept up in the Russiagate hysteria like so many other progressive
outlets have.
If Sidney Blumenthal was the source that it was probably CIA which injected information that
got to Steele via MI6.
Republican congressional investigators appear to be zeroing in on Blumenthal, and the role he
may have played in feeding information that Trump dossier author Christopher Steele later
presented to the FBI in its investigation of the Trump campaign.
The prospect of Blumenthal -- a long-time Clinton operative -- feeding information for an FBI
investigation on the Trump campaign has caused alarm among Republican lawmakers in charge of
oversight of the FBI and the Justice Department. According to the WaPo, the report was written by
Cody Shearer, a former journalist with close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, who gave it to
Blumenthal, who gave it to State Department official Jonathan Winer, who gave it to Steele, who
then gave it to the FBI. Shearer's report claimed a source inside the Russian Federal Security
Service (FSB) spy agency alleged that Trump had financial ties to influential Russians and that
the FSB had evidence of him engaging in compromising personal behavior.
Notable quotes:
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
With text messages between US Justice Department (DOJ)
conspirators Peter Strzok and his adulterous main squeeze Lisa Page now revealing that
then-President Barack Obama "wants to know everything we're doing," it now appears that the
2016 plot to subvert the rule of law and corrupt
the US organs of state security for political purposes reached the very pinnacle of power.
To call the United States today a "banana republic" increasingly may be seen as a gratuitous
insult to the
friendly spider-infested nations to our south .
Still, don't expect to see Barry Hussein Saetoro doing the perp walk
anytime soon or even being deported back to Kenya. Don't expect to see
orange prison suits on Strzok, Page, former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate
Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and others
implicated in putting a political thumb on the scales to, first, get
Hillary Clinton elected, and then, when that failed, to neuter Donald Trump's presidency
with a phony Russiagate probe.
Officials' getting "former-ed" is one thing, their getting prosecuted quite another. (Just
imagine if a GOP administration had similarly skewed the supposedly non-political law
enforcement and intelligence services for partisan reasons. We'd have Watergate on steroids.
The New York Times, Washington Post and CNN would be calling for hanging, drawing, and
quartering .)
Indeed, it's not even clear the Russiagate investigation itself will be impacted. After all,
the narrative may have flipped on one variable -- from Trump campaign collusion to Democratic
and FBI collusion -- but
the constant remains the same: Russia . Trump's defenders are as insistent as his
detractors that the real culprit is Russia! Russia! Russia!
But what do we really know about Steele's claimed sources? Not much.
Sure, maybe Vladimir Putin personally whispered every word of the dossier into Steele's ear.
Or maybe Steele invented his supposed sources from whole cloth: your clients are paying for
sleaze, you give them sleaze. Or anything in between: maybe Steele consulted some imaginative
Russian cranks with only a marginal, and most likely adversarial, relationship to the Russian
authorities, whose "inside knowledge" Steele padded to justify his fee. (Steele claims he
didn't pay his "sources" -- assuming they exist at all -- but that's no more worthy of credit
than anything else he says.)
Where, then, did Steele get his information? According to Steele and his many stenographers
-- which include his American employers, Democratic Party Russiagaters, the mainstream media,
and even progressive publications -- it came from his 'deep connections in Russia,'
specifically from retired and current Russian intelligence officials in or near the
Kremlin . From the moment the dossier began to be leaked to the American media, this
seemed highly implausible (as reporters who took his bait should have known) for several
reasons:
- Steele has not returned to Russia after leaving his post there in the early 1990s. Since
then, the main Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, has undergone many personnel and other
changes, especially after 2000, and especially in or near Putin's Kremlin. Did Steele
really have such "connections" so many years later? [JGJ: Is it credible that the head of
MI6's Russian branch is on a first-name basis with top Kremlin insiders? Turn the
identities around and ask whether the chiefs of the US section of Russian or Chinese
intelligence are on intimate speaking terms with the US president's top advisers or with
the leadership of the CIA or FBI. Hardly.]
- Even if he did, would these purported Russian insiders really have collaborated with
this "former" British intelligence agent under what is so widely said to be the
ever-vigilant eye of the ruthless "former KGB agent" Vladimir Putin, thereby risking their
positions, income, perhaps freedom, as well as the well-being of their families?
- Originally it was said that his Russian sources were highly paid by Steele. Arguably,
this might have warranted the risk. But subsequently Steele's employer and head of Fusion
GPS, Glenn Simpson, wrote
in The New York Times that "Steele's sources in Russia were not paid." If the Putin
Kremlin's purpose was to put Trump in the White House, why then would these
"Kremlin-connected" sources have contributed to Steele's anti-Trump project without
financial or political gain -- only with considerable risk?
- There is the also the telling matter of factual mistakes in the dossier that Kremlin
"insiders" were unlikely to have made, but this is the subject for a separate analysis.
And indeed we now know that Steele had at least three other 'sources' for the
dossier, ones not previously mentioned by him or his employer. There was the information from
foreign intelligence agencies provided by Brennan to Steele or to the FBI, which we also now
know was collaborating with Steele. There was a '
second Trump-Russia dossier ' prepared by people personally close to Hillary Clinton and
who shared their 'findings' with Steele. And most intriguingly, there was the 'research'
provided by Nellie Ohr, wife of a top Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, who,
according to the Republican memo, 'was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of
opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition
research.' Most likely, it found its way into Steele's dossier. (Mrs. Ohr was a trained
Russian Studies scholar with a PhD from Stanford and a onetime assistant professor at Vassar,
and thus, it must have seemed, an ideal collaborator for Steele.)
The reference to "people personally close to Hillary Clinton and who shared their
'findings' with Steele" dovetails with another intriguing suggestion from former Clinton
insider Dick Morris, who knows the modus operandi of the Clinton lie generator better than
anyone else. On the Fox News "Ingraham Angle" show, Morris suggested to host Laura Ingraham
that the bulk of the
dossier was invented by veteran political dirty tricksters and Clinton-machine hatchet men Sid
Blumenthal and Cody Shearer , who then engaged "former" spook Steele, because of the Brit's
known relationship with the FBI, as their conduit to give their garbage credibility. (Never
underestimate the residual "colonial" mentality of Yanks to find any sort of gibberish
convincing if delivered with a British accent, as confirmed by the
ubiquity of posh Brit voices in American advertising .)
Andrew Wood is not Russian
But Steele isn't the only limey link to #Dossiergate . In late 2016, after Trump's
election victory, Andrew Wood, a
former British ambassador to Russia , told US Senator John McCain about the existence of
compromising material on Donald Trump, according to
Wood's account to BBC4. Wood then set up a meeting between Steele and David Kramer, an
associate of McCain's. It's unclear whether McCain already knew about the dossier at that point
or whether Wood alerted the Senator to its existence.
For what it is worth -- not much -- Wood
states that
McCain had obtained the documents from the Senator's own sources . "I told him I was aware
of what was in the report but I had not read it myself, that it might be true, it might be
untrue. I had no means of judging really," and that he served only to inform McCain about the
dossier contents: "My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the
Senator and assistants that such a dossier existed," Wood
told Fox News.
Wood elsewhere relates that McCain was "visibly shocked " at his description and expressed
interest in reading the full report. That doesn't sound as though McCain had already obtained
the dossier from his "own sources" but, rather, that Wood was the instigator.
So which is it? Did McCain already know about the dossier, and if so how did it "happen" to
get raised with a British diplomat? Conversely, was the initiative from Woods to induce the
Senator -- known to be a strong Trump critic as well as for his hostility to Russia -- to pass
the dossier on in Washington? Keep in mind that the dossier had already been used to secure a
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor Carter Page, a peripheral
asteroid in the Trump orbit, and that Trump had already been elected. By this time the
conspiracy's purpose had shifted from preventing Trump's victory to tying down his incoming
administration, especially with respect to blocking any opening to Moscow as Trump said he
intended to do. What better way to set the cat among the pigeons than for a supposedly totally
non-political British diplomat (certainly no intelligence officer, he!) to quietly peddle the
material from Steele (whom Wood called a "very competent professional operator
I do not think he would make things up .") to the right man in Washington?
GCHQ is not Russian
Finally, while it's clear the dossier served to get a FISA warrant for American services to
spy on the Trump campaign and later the transition team, US agencies' might not have been the
only eyes and ears monitoring them. Amid all the hubbub over Michael Wolff's slash-and-burn
Fire and Fury, little mention (other than a heated denial on the floor of the
House of Commons , from the notoriously
truth-challengedformer
prime minister Tony Blair , and from
the relevant British agency itself !) has been made of the suggestion that the UK's
Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) -- Britain's version of the NSA -- was spying on Trump
and providing their sister agencies in the US with additional data. Keep in mind the
carefully worded deflection last year from James Clapper , former Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), that "there was no wiretap against Trump Tower during the campaign
conducted by any part of the national intelligence community... including the FBI," thus
begging the question of whether Trump was spied on not by a US "national" agency but by one of
the
Anglosphere "Five Eyes" agencies -- most likely GCHQ -- which then passed the information
back to their American colleagues. With Steele's and Wood's involvement, and given the virtual
control of America's manifestly corrupted agencies of their counterparts in satellite countries
like the United Kingdom, involvement by GCHQ and perhaps other "friendly" foreign agencies
cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Madame Prime Minister is not Russian
To be sure, in 2016 the majority opinion in Russia was that Donald Trump's election would be
preferable to Hillary Clinton's for the simple reason that the former openly advocated better
relations with Moscow while the latter was a notorious warmonger. But there was also a
strong
minority view , especially among more pro-Western elements of the Russian establishment,
that Hillary -- "
the devil you know " -- was preferable to rolling the dice on an unpredictable and unknown
quantity. Plus,
Hillary was delightfully corrupt , with the Clinton Foundation an open
invitation for many foreign powers to buy influence .
So State Department took part is creating Steele dossier
Notable quotes:
"... Winer has published an Op-Ed at WaPo in which he confirms his involvement with Blumenthal, though he downplays its significance, Devin Nunes is investigating me. Here's the truth. ..."
"... I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the State Department. I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this material. ..."
"... In late September, I spoke with an old friend, Sidney Blumenthal, whom I met 30 years ago when I was investigating the Iran-contra affair for then-Sen. Kerry and Blumenthal was a reporter at The Post. At the time, Russian hacking was at the front and center in the 2016 presidential campaign. ..."
"... While talking about that hacking, Blumenthal and I discussed Steele's reports. He showed me notes gathered by a journalist I did not know, Cody Shearer, that alleged the Russians had compromising information on Trump of a sexual and financial nature. ..."
"... What struck me was how some of the material echoed Steele's but appeared to involve different sources. ..."
"... On my own, I shared a copy of these notes with Steele, to ask for his professional reaction. He told me it was potentially "collateral" information. I asked him what that meant. He said that it was similar but separate from the information he had gathered from his sources. I agreed to let him keep a copy of the Shearer notes. ..."
The Clintons created a media and law enforcement echo chamber of Russia collusion.
Earlier this week we wrote about the possible involvement of Clinton operative Sidney
Blumenthal in feeding information to Christoper Steele, author of the infamous Clinton/DNC
funded dossier. That dossier formed a key part of the FBI's presentation to the FISA court to
obtain a warrant to surveil Carter Page.
Devin Nunes has a new target: Jonathan Winer, the Obama State Department's special envoy
to Libya, and longtime Senate aide to John Kerry. Winer received a memorandum written by
political activist Cody Shearer and passed it along to Christopher Steele, the former British
intelligence official who had compiled his own dossier on Donald Trump.
The release of last week's House Intelligence Committee memo accusing the FBI of
surveillance abuses marked the end of the first phase of Nunes's investigation into the probe
of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now, the committee chair
told Fox News on Friday, the probe is moving into "phase two," which involves the State
Department. His focus is on the dossier compiled by Shearer, and passed along by Winer,
according to two sources familiar with the matter.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., strongly implied to Fox News Tuesday night that Clinton family
confidant Sidney Blumenthal was a key link in a chain of information that helped create the
controversial Trump-Russia dossier.
Gowdy told Fox News' "The Story" that "when you hear who one of the sources of that
information is, you're going to think, 'Oh my gosh, I've heard that name somewhere
before.'"
When host Martha MacCallum asked if he was referring to Blumenthal, Gowdy answered,
"That'd be really warm. You're warm, yeah."
In the summer of 2016, Steele told me that he had learned of disturbing information
regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials. He
did not provide details but made clear the information involved "active measures," a Soviet
intelligence term for propaganda and related activities to influence events in other
countries.
In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known
as the "dossier." Steele's sources suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the
hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign but also had
compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.
I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert
the State Department. I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated
that, like me, she felt that the secretary of state needed to be made aware of this
material.
In late September, I spoke with an old friend, Sidney Blumenthal, whom I met 30 years ago
when I was investigating the Iran-contra affair for then-Sen. Kerry and Blumenthal was a reporter at The Post. At the time,
Russian hacking was at the front and center in the 2016 presidential campaign. The emails of Blumenthal, who had a long
association with Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been hacked in 2013 through a Russian server.
While talking about that hacking, Blumenthal and I discussed Steele's reports. He showed
me notes gathered by a journalist I did not know, Cody Shearer, that alleged the Russians had
compromising information on Trump of a sexual and financial nature.
What struck me was how some of the material echoed Steele's but appeared to involve
different sources.
On my own, I shared a copy of these notes with Steele, to ask for his professional
reaction. He told me it was potentially "collateral" information. I asked him what that
meant. He said that it was similar but separate from the information he had gathered from his
sources. I agreed to let him keep a copy of the Shearer notes.
Given that I had not worked with Shearer and knew that he was not a professional
intelligence officer, I did not mention or share his notes with anyone at the State
Department. I did not expect them to be shared with anyone in the U.S. government.
But I learned later that Steele did share them -- with the FBI, after the FBI asked him to
provide everything he had on allegations relating to Trump, his campaign and Russian
interference in U.S. elections.
The Clintons created a media and law enforcement echo chamber of Russia collusion.
Hillary's campaign and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier. Other Clinton operatives, such
as Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer, were spreading similar accusations and sharing
information with Steele. Steele was also feeding accusations to the media. Employees of the FBI
and possibly other agencies who hated Trump used that information both before and after the
election.
In assessing the threats that Hillary and Trump posed to our liberty, respectively, in
October 2016 I wrote that
Hillary represented the greater threat because Hillary was "a systemic threat."
"... However, based on screen grabs made by "Guccifer," the hacker specifically zeroed in on Blumenthal's extensive correspondence with Hillary Clinton, sorting Blumenthal's account so as to single out all e-mail sent to Clinton. Additionally, "Guccifer" further sorted the mail to list (and presumably download) all Word files attached to e-mails sent to Clinton. ..."
"... It is unknown what plans "Guccifer" has for these documents, which include foreign policy and intelligence memos that Blumenthal sent to Clinton while she served as Secretary of State. ..."
The 64-year-old Blumenthal -- who was unaware that he had been hacked by "Guccifer"--worked as
an assistant and senior adviser to Clinton for about 3-1/2 years, ending in January 2001. He
worked as a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign and has remained one
of her closest confidants.
By breaching Blumenthal's account, "Guccifer" was able to access his correspondence (dating
back to at least 2005) with an array of Washington insiders, including political operatives,
journalists, and government officials. As with the hacker's other victims, it is unclear how
Blumenthal's account was illegally accessed or why he was targeted.
However, based on screen grabs made by "Guccifer," the hacker specifically zeroed in on
Blumenthal's extensive correspondence with Hillary Clinton, sorting Blumenthal's account so as
to single out all e-mail sent to Clinton. Additionally, "Guccifer" further sorted the mail to
list (and presumably download) all Word files attached to e-mails sent to Clinton.
It is unknown what plans "Guccifer" has for these documents, which include foreign policy
and intelligence memos that Blumenthal
sent to Clinton while she served as Secretary of State.
Blumenthal told TSG that when he attempted to access his e-mail yesterday morning, he could
not successfully log in. He then contacted an AOL representative and was told that his account
had been compromised. Blumenthal said that he subsequently reset the password and regained
control of his account.
In e-mail screeds, "Guccifer" seems to subscribe to dark conspiracies involving the Federal
Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, and attendees of Bohemian Grove retreats. "the evil
is leading this fucked up world!!!!!! i tell you this the world of tomorrow will be a world
free of illuminati or will be no more," the hacker declared.
Over the past few months, the list of "Guccifer" hacking victims has included several
Bush
family members and friends ; Powell; U.S.
Senator Lisa Murkowski ; a senior United Nations official; Rockefeller family members;
former FBI agents; security contractors in Iraq; a former Secret Service agent; and John
Negroponte, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. A majority of these breaches have
involved AOL e-mail accounts.
There are plenty of reasons why, after years of spreading the conspiracy theory, Donald
Trump should not be given a pass after his sudden public disavowal of previous claims that
President Obama was born in Kenya. However, the media are zeroing in on Trump's assertion
Hillary Clinton is responsible for starting birtherism. In fact, the Washington Post
declared it categorically false
in the lede of their story on Trump's press conference this morning:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday acknowledged for the first time
that President Obama was born in the United States, ending his long history of stoking
unfounded doubts about the nation's first African American president but also seeking to
falsely blame Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for starting the rumors.
Not so fast. Just yesterday, James Asher, the former Washington bureau chief for the news
agency McClatchy , tweeted that longtime Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal was spreading
the conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Kenya while he was a senior Clinton campaign
advisor in 2008, long before Trump ever parroted the claim:
Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that
attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured
associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes
extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from
some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is
Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an
influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration
officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt
to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party
funders and activists.
Among the "fringe right-wing" attacks Blumenthal was sending out were actually from
respectable conservative publications such as City Journal , National Review
, and, yes, The Weekly Standard. This is more than a little ironic because Blumenthal
is often credited with coining the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy," arguably the most
famous phrase Hillary Clinton ever uttered.
But Blumenthal also dabbled spreading much less reliable reports, such as conjecture about
Obama's "communist mentor" Frank Marshall Davis. Further, Blumenthal's reputation for
dishonesty and underhanded tactics is well-established. It is generally accepted that he lied
to the media and publicly smeared Monica Lewinsky and other Bill Clinton accusers when he
worked in the White House. Christopher Hitchens, no card carrying member of the vast right-wing
conspiracy, testified before Congress toBlumenthal's lies and wrote a book about
it .
When you combine the report Blumenthal was saying Obama was born in Kenya with the fact that
Clinton campaign did circulate
a memo outlining plans to attack Obama's "lack of American roots," it doesn't seem far
fetched that the Clinton campaign played a much bigger role in midwifing birtherism than they
or the media would like to admit.
Clinton later tried to bring Blumenthal with her to the State Department (a plan the Obama
administration nixed, probably at least in part because they were familiar with Blumenthal's
lengthy record of trashing Obama). She then put him on the payroll at the Clinton Foundation,
and he was found in Clinton's emails
engaging with her as Secretary of State in an ultimately unsuccessful scheme to profiteer
off of war-torn Libya as a result of his involvement with a private military company. Clinton
and Blumenthal's relationship is obviously close and has existed for decades. IIf the report
Blumenthal was spreading birtherism in 2008 is accurate, it would be very hard for Clinton to
evade some responsibility for the birther rumors getting out of control.
"... According to the Guardian , Steele provided 'a copy [of the Shearer report] because it corresponded with what he had separately heard from his own independent sources.' If the reporting here is accurate, that's quite a coincidence -- that Cody Shearer and Christopher Steele were hearing the same things from different sources at pretty much the same time. A closer look at timelines and sources might be revealing. If Sid and Cody are behind the original Russian dossier sources, that would be big news indeed. ..."
"... "It's an astonishing, convoluted and somewhat circular chain of custody in which a Clinton source, that is Shearer and Blumenthal, gives it to the former, to the State Department where she used to be Secretary of State, who gives it to Christopher Steele, who's being paid by the Clinton campaign, who then gives it to the FBI," the Washington Examiner 's Chief Political Correspondent Byron York said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show Wednesday. ..."
"... Blumenthal has a known history of smearing opponents of the Clintons. ..."
"... During Bill Clinton's impeachment crisis, as one of Clinton's special advisers, he spread rumors that one of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's prosecutors abused young boys at a Christian summer camp and that Monica Lewinsky was stalking the president, according to the Observer . He also spread rumors that Colin Powell's wife suffered from clinical depression and was unfit to be a first lady, according to publication. ..."
"... Shearer went from a journalist decades ago to foreign policy freelancer – once trying to broker some sort of peace deal in Bosnia, although he was not a U.S. official, – and working with Blumenthal to supply intelligence on Libya to Clinton when she was secretary of state. According to investigative journalist Sara Carter, Shearer worked in the 1990s for President Bill Clinton. ..."
"... Nonprofit investigative journalism outlet ProPublica described Shearer as "a longtime Clinton family operative -- his brother was an ambassador under Bill Clinton and his now-deceased sister was married to Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott -- who was in close contact with Blumenthal." ..."
"... According to Judicial Watch's Morin, Shearer "has a long history of dirty tricks." ..."
"... "He's been linked to Whitewater-era efforts to dirty up Bill Clinton critics; to shakedown politics involving the Cheyenne-Arapaho Indian tribe; and to fronting for Bosnian Serb butcher Radovan Karadzic," he wrote. ..."
"... Even less known about Jonathan Winer. Winer served as the State Department's Special Envoy for Libya and Senior Advisor for MEK resettlement, according to the State Department website. ..."
"... According to CNN , Winer worked with Steele from 2014 through 2016. Steele reportedly provided Winer with reports related to the conflict in Ukraine and Russia as a courtesy. ..."
The Washington Post on Tuesday
reported that Steele gave the FBI a report in October 2016 that he received from a State
Department employee about Trump and Russia.
According to the Post , the report was written by Cody Shearer, a former journalist
with close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, who gave it to Blumenthal, who gave it to State
Department official Jonathan Winer, who gave it to Steele, who then gave it to the FBI.
Shearer's report claimed a source inside the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) spy
agency alleged that Trump had financial ties to influential Russians and that the FSB had
evidence of him engaging in compromising personal behavior.
A lawyer for Winer, Lee Wolosky, told the Post his client told the Post his
client's actions were "grounded" in concerns that a candidate for the presidency may have been
compromised by a hostile foreign power. Wolosky did not say why Winer gave the report to Steele
instead of the FBI.
The Guardian , which has ties to ex-British spy Steele, also reported
recently that Shearer wrote a report that was given to Steele. Shearer had also shared his
report with "select media organizations before the election," according to the British
paper.
Blumenthal and Shearer's names were first tied to the FBI's investigation of the Trump
campaign in a letter sent last month by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley
(R-IA) and Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to the Democratic
National Committee.
Grassley and Graham wanted the DNC to disclose any communications with Blumenthal and
Shearer from March 2016 to January 2017. Earlier this week, the two GOP senators released a
redacted memo that described the transmission of a report from a Clinton friend to Steele:
"One memorandum by Mr. Steele that was not published by Buzzfeed is dated October 19,
2016. The report alleges [redacted], as well as [redacted]. Mr. Steele's memorandum states
that his company "received this report from [redacted] U.S. State Department," that the
report was the second in a series, and that the report was information that came from a
foreign sub-source who 'is in touch with [redacted], a contact of [redacted], a friend of the
Clintons, who passed it to [redacted]."
They added, "It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but
that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises
additional concerns about his credibility."
Since the names are redacted by the FBI, they cannot be disclosed publicly by those who have
seen them. Lawmakers who have seen the unredacted versions have danced around who they are.
When asked on FOX News's The Story, House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy
(R-SC) told anchor Martha MacCallum that she was "really warm" if she believed that Blumenthal
was part of the chain of information to Steele described by Grassley and Graham.
"I'm trying to think how Secretary Clinton defined him. I think she said he was an old
friend who emailed her from time to time," he said on Tuesday.
MacCallum then asked, "Sidney Blumenthal?" Gowdy
responded , "That'd be really warm. You're warm. Yeah."
House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) also mentioned
Blumenthal and Shearer's role on Fox & Friends on Tuesday.
"What it looks like is, they paid Steele to put together the dossier and told him what to
put in," he said.
Micah Morin, chief investigative reporter at Judicial Watch, questioned whether Shearer and
Blumenthal were also behind the dossier's sources. He
wrote :
According to the Guardian , Steele provided 'a copy [of the Shearer report]
because it corresponded with what he had separately heard from his own independent sources.'
If the reporting here is accurate, that's quite a coincidence -- that Cody Shearer and
Christopher Steele were hearing the same things from different sources at pretty much the
same time. A closer look at timelines and sources might be revealing. If Sid and Cody are
behind the original Russian dossier sources, that would be big news indeed.
"It's an astonishing, convoluted and somewhat circular chain of custody in which a Clinton
source, that is Shearer and Blumenthal, gives it to the former, to the State Department where
she used to be Secretary of State, who gives it to Christopher Steele, who's being paid by the
Clinton campaign, who then gives it to the FBI," the Washington Examiner 's Chief
Political Correspondent Byron York said on
the Hugh Hewitt radio show Wednesday.
Blumenthal has a known history of smearing opponents of the Clintons.
During Bill Clinton's impeachment crisis, as one of Clinton's special advisers, he spread
rumors that one of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's prosecutors abused young boys at a
Christian summer camp and that Monica Lewinsky was stalking the president, according to the
Observer
. He also spread rumors that Colin Powell's wife suffered from clinical depression and was
unfit to be a first lady, according to publication.
As a former journalist, Blumenthal also used his media contacts to give the Clintons a heads
up about forthcoming stories, and advised the Clinton campaign in 2008 to target then-candidate
Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan.
After Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel refused to allow Blumenthal to join the
Clinton State Department, he became a Clinton Foundation consultant, earning at least $120,000
a year. He continued to advise her in a number of areas, according to emails released by the
State Department.
Less is known about Shearer. According to a recent article in the Washington Times , he was dubbed "Mr. Fixer" for Bill and Hillary Clinton and was
a "workmate" of Blumenthal.
Shearer went from a journalist decades ago to foreign policy freelancer – once trying
to broker some sort of peace deal in Bosnia, although he was not a U.S. official, – and
working with Blumenthal to supply intelligence on Libya to Clinton when she was secretary of
state. According to investigative journalist Sara Carter, Shearer worked in the 1990s for
President Bill Clinton.
Nonprofit investigative journalism outlet ProPublica described Shearer as "a longtime
Clinton family operative -- his brother was an ambassador under Bill Clinton and his
now-deceased sister was married to Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott -- who was
in close contact with Blumenthal."
According to Judicial Watch's Morin, Shearer "has a long history of dirty tricks."
"He's been linked to Whitewater-era efforts to dirty up Bill Clinton critics; to shakedown
politics involving the Cheyenne-Arapaho Indian tribe; and to fronting for Bosnian Serb butcher
Radovan Karadzic," he wrote.
As the Times has noted, for whom Shearer produced his anti-Trump report is
unclear.
Even less known about Jonathan Winer. Winer served as the State Department's Special Envoy
for Libya and Senior Advisor for MEK resettlement, according to the State Department website.
According to
CNN , Winer worked with Steele from 2014 through 2016. Steele reportedly provided Winer
with reports related to the conflict in Ukraine and Russia as a courtesy.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), who led efforts to show that
senior FBI and DOJ officials relied on the dossier to get a surveillance warrant on a former
Trump campaign adviser, has said there will be a forthcoming memo on the State Department's
role in the FBI's investigation of Trump, but has not said when that might be released.
"... Steele also gave the dossier to Winer, who flagged to his superiors at the State Department, according to the source. Kerry was eventually briefed on its existence, and that it wasn't known how much was true. ..."
Shearer, an independent journalist, decided to investigate potential Trump-Russia connections after seeing stories about the hacking
of the Democratic National Committee, the source said.
Shearer's so-called dossier is actually a set of notes based on conversations with reporters and other sources, according to the
person who spoke to CNN, and he circulated those notes to assorted journalists, as well as to Blumenthal.
Blumenthal then passed the notes to Jonathan Winer, who was a State Department special envoy for Libya under former Secretary
of State John Kerry, the source said. Winer had a previous relationship with Steele, and he passed it along to Steele in order to
get his assessment.
Carter Page struggles to explain how he could advise both Kremlin and Trump team
Related Article: Carter Page struggles to explain how he could advise both Kremlin and Trump team
Blumenthal, according to the source, did not know that Winer would consult Steele on the Shearer document, and said Winer made
that decision on his own.
After Winer gave Steele the notes from Shearer, Steele wrote that he found it interesting and it tended to corroborate some of
what he found, but he also noted that it was uncorroborated, the source said.
Shearer's notes, a copy of which were obtained by CNN, make uncorroborated allegations involving Trump and Russia, and they cite
unnamed Russian intelligence and Turkish sources.
Steele provided Shearer's notes to the FBI in October 2016.
What are the GOP allegations? Steele was being paid for his research by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which was
hired by a law firm on behalf of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. A key allegation
in last week's Nunes memo was that Steele's political connections to Democrats were not told to the FISA court, and Republicans are
charging that Shearer's involvement could show Steele was receiving information from Clinton associates that went into the dossier
he gave to the FBI. The criminal referral from Grassley and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham --
which was unclassified with some redactions this week -- states that Shearer's notes went to Steele through an official at the
State Department and another person who was a "friend of the Clinton's." "It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded
Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele's allegations raises additional concerns
about his credibility," the senators wrote in the criminal referral, which does not accuse Steele of wrongdoing but urges the Justice
Department to investigate the matter. Winer worked with Steele from 2014 through 2016, according to another source familiar with
their interactions. Steele provided Winer with reports related to the conflict in Ukraine and Russia as a courtesy, which was not
unusual and considered one source among many used for assessing the situation on the ground in Ukraine, the source said.
Former
CIA Director Brennan says Nunes 'abused his office'Steele also gave the dossier to Winer, who flagged to his superiors at
the State Department, according to the source. Kerry was eventually briefed on its existence, and that it wasn't known how much was
true.
Senior State Department officials showed the dossier to Kerry once it was clear the document was in wide circulation around Washington,
according to the source. Kerry was not briefed on the Shearer document, the source said. Lee Wolosky, an attorney for Winer, said
in a statement that Winer was "concerned in 2016 about information that a candidate for the presidency may have been compromised
by a hostile foreign power." "Any actions he took were grounded in those concerns," Wolosky said.
"Today's attacks are nothing more than a further attempt to undermine the independence and credibility of special (counsel Robert)
Mueller's ongoing investigation into those and related issues." What are Republicans saying? Republicans haven't come out
and accused Blumenthal of any wrongdoing, but they've hinted in public appearances that raw intelligence may have been distributed
for partisan purposes. Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs the House Oversight Committee and is a senior Republican on the House Intelligence
Committee, discussed Nunes' State Department investigation a Fox News interview Tuesday, saying he was "troubled" by the role the
State Department played. Gowdy read the classified FISA documents that the Justice Department gave congressional committees access
to on the condition that only one member of the majority and minority would view them. "When you hear who the source, or one of the
sources of that information is, you're going to think, 'Oh, my gosh, I've heard that name somewhere before. Where could he possibly
have been?'" the South Carolina Republican said.
Gowdy:
Memo has no impact on Russia probe "A domestic source. I'm trying to think of Secretary Clinton defined him. I think she said
he was an old friend who emailed her from time to time," Gowdy continued. "Sidney Blumenthal?" Fox News' Martha MacCallum asked.
"That would be really warm," Gowdy concluded. Nunes made headlines over the weekend when he predicted more memos would be coming
from his committee, but he says that the investigation into the State Department has already been in the works. "We have an active
investigation into the State Department. That has been ongoing for a while now," Nunes told Fox News' Sean Hannity.
Nunes has repeatedly declined to discuss his investigations with CNN, saying he doesn't discuss committee business "in the halls."
Graham declined to discuss Blumenthal's role in the committee's investigation into Steele, but said the State Department is one element
of it. "There's some connections outside the Department of Justice and the dossier that we're looking at. One of them goes to the
State Department," Graham told CNN. "It's clear to me he was using the dossier for political purposes and that should have been more
alarming than it was."
Who are the players?
Blumenthal is no stranger to congressional investigations, playing a role in the House Benghazi Select Committee investigation
that was led by Gowdy.
Blumenthal testified behind closed doors as part of the Benghazi investigation, and
he
provided the committee with emails he exchanged with Clinton , who was secretary of state when the 2012 Benghazi attack occurred.
Blumenthal sent Clinton dozens of emails while she was secretary of state on various foreign policy topics, some of which were unsolicited
and others that were requested by Clinton.
A former journalist, Blumenthal has known the Clintons for more than 30 years, and he worked in the Clinton White House as senior
adviser from 1997 to 2001. He's been by the family's side during difficult moments, including President Bill Clinton's impeachment
trial.
"... First, the memo demonstrates that there is a "deep state" that does not want things like elections to threaten its existence. Candidate Trump's repeated promises to get along with Russia and to re-assess NATO so many years after the end of the Cold War were threatening to a Washington that depends on creating enemies to sustain the fear needed to justify a trillion dollar yearly military budget. ..."
"... Imagine if candidate Trump had kept his campaign promises when he became President. Without the "Russia threat" and without the "China threat" and without the need to dump billions into NATO, we might actually have reaped a "peace dividend" more than a quarter century after the end of the Cold War. That would have starved the war-promoting military-industrial complex and its network of pro-war "think tanks" that populate the Washington Beltway area. ..."
"... Second, the memo shows us that neither Republicans nor Democrats really care that much about surveillance abuse when average Americans are the victims. It is clear that the FISA abuse detailed in the memo was well known to Republicans like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes before the memo was actually released. It was likely also well known by Democrats in the House. But both parties suppressed this evidence of FBI abuse of the FISA process until after the FISA Amendments Act could be re-authorized. They didn't want Americans to know how corrupt the surveillance system really is and how the US has become far too much like East Germany. That might cause more Americans to call up their Representatives and demand that the FISA mass surveillance amendment be allowed to sunset. ..."
"... Finally, hawks on both sides of the aisle in Congress used "Russia-gate" as an excuse to build animosity toward Russia among average Americans. They knew from the classified information that there was no basis for their claims that the Trump Administration was put into office with Moscow's assistance, but they played along because it served their real goal of keeping the US on war footing and keeping the gravy train rolling. ..."
The release of the House Intelligence Committee's memo on the FBI's abuse of the FISA
process set off a partisan firestorm. The Democrats warned us beforehand that declassifying the
memo would be the end the world as we know it. It was reckless to allow Americans to see this
classified material, they said. Agents in the field could be harmed, sources and methods would
be compromised, they claimed.
Republicans who had seen the memo claimed that it was far worse than Watergate. They said
that mass firings would begin immediately after it became public. They said that the
criminality of US government agencies exposed by the memo would shock Americans.
Then it was released and the world did not end. FBI agents have thus far not been fired.
Seeing "classified" material did not terrify us, but rather it demonstrated clearly that
information is kept from us by claiming it is "classified."
In the end, both sides got it wrong. Here's what the memo really shows us:
First, the memo demonstrates that there is a "deep state" that does not want things like
elections to threaten its existence. Candidate Trump's repeated promises to get along with
Russia and to re-assess NATO so many years after the end of the Cold War were threatening to a
Washington that depends on creating enemies to sustain the fear needed to justify a trillion
dollar yearly military budget.
Imagine if candidate Trump had kept his campaign promises when he became President. Without
the "Russia threat" and without the "China threat" and without the need to dump billions into
NATO, we might actually have reaped a "peace dividend" more than a quarter century after the
end of the Cold War. That would have starved the war-promoting military-industrial complex and
its network of pro-war "think tanks" that populate the Washington Beltway area.
Second, the memo shows us that neither Republicans nor Democrats really care that much about
surveillance abuse when average Americans are the victims. It is clear that the FISA abuse
detailed in the memo was well known to Republicans like House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Devin Nunes before the memo was actually released. It was likely also well known by Democrats
in the House. But both parties suppressed this evidence of FBI abuse of the FISA process until
after the FISA Amendments Act could be re-authorized. They didn't want Americans to know how
corrupt the surveillance system really is and how the US has become far too much like East
Germany. That might cause more Americans to call up their Representatives and demand that the
FISA mass surveillance amendment be allowed to sunset.
Ironically, Chairman Nunes was the biggest cheerleader for the extension of the FISA
Amendments even as he knew how terribly the FISA process had been abused!
Finally, hawks on both sides of the aisle in Congress used "Russia-gate" as an excuse to
build animosity toward Russia among average Americans. They knew from the classified
information that there was no basis for their claims that the Trump Administration was put into
office with Moscow's assistance, but they played along because it served their real goal of
keeping the US on war footing and keeping the gravy train rolling.
But don't worry: the neocons in both parties will soon find another excuse to keep us
terrified and ready to flush away a trillion dollars a year on military spending and continue
our arguments and new "Cold War" with Russia.
In the meantime, be skeptical of both parties. With few exceptions they are not protecting
liberty but promoting its opposite.
"... Trump: Democrats 'Un-American,' 'Treasonous,' During State of the Union ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Is Trump Serious about 'Treasonous' Democrats? ..."
"... But Trump's "joke" really should be taken seriously. The likes of Nancy Pelosi are traitors in the most literal sense -- in that they openly and explicitly oppose the interests of American citizens ..."
"... Pelosi is entranced by 3 million 'Dreamer' illegals, insults Americans' children ..."
"... This year kicks off the new 3.8 billion yearly to Israel up from 3.1 billion and another 775 million for Israel missile defense and undoubtly more incremental aid bills as the year goes on. ..."
President Trump, allegedly humorously, later described the [neoliberal] Democrats' behavior
during his State of the Union speech as "treasonous" and "un-American," prompting the usual
hysteria [ Trump: Democrats 'Un-American,' 'Treasonous,' During State of the Union,
by Jessica Taylor, NPR, February 5, 2018].
The chutzpah is breathtaking
considering how journalists and their pet elected officials in the Democrat party have waged a
nonstop insurgency against the President of the United States
since his inauguration , accusing him of being a puppet of Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
But Trump's "joke" really should be taken seriously. The likes of Nancy Pelosi are traitors
in the most literal sense -- in that they openly and explicitly oppose the interests of
American citizens and advocate their replacement with foreigners. Pelosi's ludicrous claim that
the Founding Fathers (who created the Naturalization Act of 1790
) would support the mass influx of "Dreamers" and that illegals are "more American than
Americans" is as definitive a statement of hatred for American citizens as can be imagined [
Pelosi is entranced by 3 million 'Dreamer' illegals, insults Americans' children, by Neil Munro, Breitbart, February 7, 2018].
That's 376 bills, more than one a day and I haven't even gotten into the trade and
appropriation categories where they bury other bills for Israel that would take several days
of reading. This year kicks off the new 3.8 billion yearly to Israel up from 3.1 billion and another
775 million for Israel missile defense and undoubtly more incremental aid bills as the year
goes on.
Throughout Donald Trump's campaign and relentlessly chaotic presidency, the single constant presence at his side, outside of his
family, has been the 29-year-old former Ralph Lauren model and White House communications director Hope Hicks.
While aides and advisers fall in and out of favor, Hicks has remained Trump's Oval Office gatekeeper, companion and sounding board,
offering consistent loyalty.
But now Hicks has herself been cast into two plotlines currently playing out in the presidential daytime reality-soap.
In one, Hicks features as a likely target in the special counsel Robert Mueller's effort to acquire cooperating witnesses in the
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Hicks has
reportedly
been interviewed by Mueller's investigators.
Publicly, Trump has offered his support for Hicks, saying: "Hope is absolutely fantastic. She was with the campaign from the beginning,
and I could not ask for anything more. Hope is smart, very talented and respected by all."
But in private, the president is believed to have issued rare criticism of a woman who by some estimates is the most influential
figure in the administration after Trump himself.
At issue is whether Hicks, who also served as communications director during the campaign, relaxed her judgment owing to her relationship
with Porter.
White House officials have said Hicks knew that an ex-girlfriend of Porter's had informed aides that both of Porter's ex-wives
had said he was violent. Hicks continued to see him and did not tell the president. Porter denies the allegations against him.
If the unfolding episode calls into question the maturity of Hicks' judgement, she clearly is invaluable as a personal assistant.
In his campaign memoir, Let Trump Be Trump, Corey Lewandowski, the early campaign strategist – with whom, coincidentally, Hicks also
had an affair – described her steaming Trump's suit while he is wearing it.
"She's really quite talented and able," Christopher Ruddy, a close friend of the president and chief executive of the conservative
website Newsmax,
told the Washington Post .
But her professional experience, especially where is comes to matters that carry potentially legal consequences, is limited. Hicks
came to the Trumps through a PR firm that represented the Trump Organization. The family later hired her away to work exclusively
for them, furnishing her with responsibilities that included working on Ivanka Trump's fashion line.
A GQ magazine profile in June
2016 described her: "She is a hugger and a people pleaser, with long brown hair and green eyes, a young woman of distinctly all-American
flavor – the sort that inspires Tom Petty songs, not riots."
But her looks and fashion background can cause people to underestimate her. She has a background in PR and is a graduate of Dallas'
Southern Methodist University.
Outgoing Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) strongly implied to Fox News host Martha
MacCallum Tuesday evening that Clinton confidant, Sidney Blumenthal, was a source for
Christopher Steele's anti-Trump dossier.
MACCALLUM: So weeks before the election, somebody in the Obama State Department was
feeding information from a foreign source to Christopher Steele?
GOWDY: When you hear who the source, or one of the sources of that information is,
you're going to think, "Oh, my gosh. I've heard that name somewhere before. Where could he
possibly have been?"
MACCALLUM: A foreign source?
GOWDY: A domestic source. I'm trying to think of how Secretary Clinton defined him. I
think she said he was an old friend who emailed her from time to time.
MACCALLUM: Sydney Blumenthal?
GOWDY: That would be really warm.
DJJudd @juddzeez
Trey Gowdy just heavily implied that Sydney Blumenthal was a source for Christopher
Steele's oppo dossier on Fox News:
7:28 PM-Feb 6, 2018
Partial transcript via POLITICO:
During an interview on Fox News, Gowdy was asked by Fox News' Martha MacCallum about
whether "weeks before the election, somebody in the Obama State Department was feeding
information from a foreign source to Christopher Steele."
"When you hear who the source, one of the sources of that information is, you're going to
think, oh, my gosh, I've heard that name somewhere before. Where could it possibly have
been," Gowdy replied.
When asked whether it was a foreign source, the South Carolina Republican said it was
domestic.
"I'm trying to think of how Secretary Clinton defined him. I think she said he was an old
friend who emailed her from time to time," Gowdy said.
When asked whether it was Blumenthal, Gowdy said: "That would be really warm. You're
warm."
In a letter released Monday, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
suggested Clinton contacts fed information to former British spy and dossier author Christopher
Steele. "Another connection to the second dossier, according to several sources who spoke to
this reporter, is close friend and advisor to Hillary Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal," reported
Sara Carter.
Carter previously reported Blumenthal was grilled by the FBI in 2016 in connection to the
Steele dossier.
Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm behind the discredited Steele dossier, is still
investigating alleged ties between President Trump and Russia, Carter
reported last month.
Look at what he had to deal with in the Benghazi hearings, exactly the same as Trump
has had to put up with.
There was an astonishingly corrupt and deceitful Dem party with a fully compliant
media totally in the Dem's corner, covering their tracks and supporting their shrieks,
double standards and outright lies.
I believe that Gowdy is correct. Pres. Trump can't shut down the Mueller
investigation. Think of what a sh*t storm that would be in the media and how they would
spin it. Mueller hasn't found diddly squat in a year and he never will. Let it play out
and be proven that there is nothing there and then come down hard on the previous
administration and it's players. When Mueller fails the democrats will be broken.
He's the President, for Pete's sake. Why would he subject himself to Mueller who's
accountable to no one, has an unlimited budget & time frame & is ripping through
taxpayer money like its water & after all this time has revealed squat.
Mueller is a tick on the ear of our republic.
Steele dossier sage becomes more twisted with each passing day. CarterPage now looks like FBI informant. Fusion GPS as FBI front.
And Sidney
Blumenthal as source of most information contained in Steele dossier (essentially they need Steele only to rubber stamp the info
to hide the actual source).
Sydney Blumenthal first appeared on the radar screen during Clinton emailgate scandal, when
emailed that he has written to Hillary were revealed. In them he supplied Hillary with some information about Libya that could only
be obtained via intelligence sources.
This is the crucial info: Last month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa,
and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made a criminal referral regarding Steele to the FBI. The referral, parts of which were declassified
Monday, included a reference to "a foreign source [who] gave information to an unnamed associate of Hillary and Bill Clinton, who
then gave information to an unnamed official in the Obama State Department, who then gave the information to Steele."
As NavyBean aptly remarked in his comment "We need more Trey Gowdy's and less Schiff's and Schumers."
Notable quotes:
"... Gowdy told Fox News' "The Story" that "when you hear who ... one of the sources of that information is, you're going to think, 'Oh my gosh, I've heard that name somewhere before.'" ..."
"... When host Martha MacCallum asked if he was referring to Blumenthal, Gowdy answered, "That'd be really warm. You're warm, yeah." ..."
"... Last month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made a criminal referral regarding Steele to the FBI. The referral, parts of which were declassified Monday, included a reference to "a foreign source [who] gave information to an unnamed associate of Hillary and Bill Clinton, who then gave information to an unnamed official in the Obama State Department, who then gave the information to Steele." ..."
"... "I'm pretty troubled by what I read in the documents with respect to the role the State Department played in the fall of 2016 with including information that was used in a [FISA] court proceeding," Gowdy said. "I am troubled by that." ..."
"... "The dossier has nothing to do with the fact that someone tried to hack into the [Democratic National Committee] server," he said. "The dossier has nothing do with the meeting George Papadopoulos had in Great Britain. The dossier has nothing to do with [Donald Trump Jr.] meeting at Trump Tower [with a Russian lawyer]. The dossier has nothing to do with allegations of obstruction of justice." ..."
"... The whole phrase would be: "a foreign sub-source who is in touch with Cody Shearer, a contact of Sidney Blumenthal, a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to Steele." But I'm kinda skeptical of the Shearer piece. Blumenthal's name is definitely in there, though. ..."
"... Gowdy is saying in a nation based upon the Rule of Law, the government cannot operate under the "ends justifies means" philosophy, especially when it is used by the in-power party to target the opposition party. And, yes, we throw out cases all the time when law enforcement agencies violate the constitutional rights of defendants. I have argued those rights as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney. I share Trey's concern about political operatives using law enforcement agencies a a political tool. ..."
EXCLUSIVE – Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., strongly implied to Fox News Tuesday night that Clinton family confidant Sidney Blumenthal
was a key link in a chain of information that helped create the controversial Trump-Russia dossier.
Gowdy told Fox News' "The Story" that "when you hear
who ... one of the sources of that information is, you're going to think, 'Oh my gosh, I've heard that name somewhere before.'"
When host Martha MacCallum asked if he was referring to Blumenthal, Gowdy answered, "That'd be really warm. You're warm, yeah."
Gowdy, who is among a host of Republican lawmakers not running for re-election is November, played a key role in the drafting
of a recently declassified memo detailing alleged surveillance abuses by the federal government. The memo took specific issue with
the FBI's use of information from the dossier, which was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and claimed to reveal
deep ties between President Trump and Russian officials.
Last month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa,
and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made a criminal referral regarding Steele to the FBI. The referral, parts of which were declassified
Monday, included a reference to "a foreign source [who] gave information to an unnamed associate of Hillary and Bill Clinton, who
then gave information to an unnamed official in the Obama State Department, who then gave the information to Steele."
In another section, the referral stated that Steele received information from "a foreign sub-source who is in touch with (redacted),
a contact of (redacted), a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to (redacted).'"
Gowdy told MacCallum that "there is a State Department component" to the dossier that "needs to be investigated."
"I'm pretty troubled by what I read in the documents with respect to the role the State Department played in the fall of 2016
with including information that was used in a [FISA] court proceeding," Gowdy said. "I am troubled by that."
However, Gowdy admitted that special counsel Robert Mueller would have been called in to investigate Russian actions during the
2016 election "regardless of whether or not there's a dossier."
"The dossier has nothing to do with the fact that someone tried to hack into the [Democratic National Committee] server," he said.
"The dossier has nothing do with the meeting George Papadopoulos had in Great Britain. The dossier has nothing to do with [Donald
Trump Jr.] meeting at Trump Tower [with a Russian lawyer]. The dossier has nothing to do with allegations of obstruction of justice."
Gowdy also addressed his decision to leave Congress, saying it was "just the right time." "I won't ever run for office again," he promised. "When you leave politics, to me, it's important that you leave. And I'm at peace
with that."
john9hoffman
Trey Gowdy is a real American Patriot!
aa1238
I dunno about you, but I downloaded the pdf file from the Senate Judiciary website. Then I went to a pdf editor with text, and
typed in the names "Cody Shearer", "Sidney Blumenthal" and "Steele" in the redacted spaces. They were a PERFECT FIT ON THE PAPER.
The whole phrase would be: "a foreign sub-source who is in touch with Cody Shearer, a contact of Sidney Blumenthal, a friend of
the Clintons, who passed it to Steele." But I'm kinda skeptical of the Shearer piece. Blumenthal's name is definitely in there,
though.
dwginsc -> belfastbob1
Gowdy is saying that the American federal government's law
enforcement agencies are lying to the American judiciary to use foreign intelligence resources to investigate political opponents
based upon false or significantly biased information. I will let you guess have many constitutional rights and federal laws are
violated by those actions.
Gowdy is saying in a nation based upon the Rule of Law, the government cannot operate under the "ends justifies means"
philosophy, especially when it is used by the in-power party to target the opposition party. And, yes, we throw out cases all
the time when law enforcement agencies violate the constitutional rights of defendants. I have argued those rights as a prosecutor
and as a defense attorney. I share Trey's concern about political operatives using law enforcement agencies a a political tool.
Staubach12 -> belfastbob1
blefastbob,
I think you need to read up on what has transpired. Carter Page has never been found guilty of a crime, nor ever charged with
a crime, nor has he been accused of anything. The FBI investigated Page because he had been identified as a potential target for
an attempt by Russia to recruit him. But the FBI concluded in 2015 that the Russian agencies that had targeted Page had not progressed
far enough in their attempt before they were caught and shut down. In other words, Page was never accused of wrongdoing and was
cleared by the FBI in 2015. Despite the fact the FBI closed the book on Page, the Hillary campaign, using the fake dossier and
using Page as a scapegoat, obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Page in order to spy on the Trump campaign. This is why this is such
a serious offense and probably the biggest political scandal ever.
TyJuanOwen
Would this by chance be the same Clinton family friend Sidney Blumenthal who traveled to war-torn Libya to assist the
Clinton's in profiting from Libyan oil reserves, Gadhafi's gold and silver reserves, and illegal arms sales while allowing US
Ambassador Stevens to be murdered in order to silence him? THAT Sidney Blumenthal???
TyJuanOwen -> Warlock Woods
I suppose Sidney Blumenthal traveled to Libya to sip on cocktails and lounge upon the beach? And I'm sure that you can
offer us a valid source of the formerly "dead broke" Clinton's current $200 million bank account?
OldestSeaDog
Ignore all those that are either George Soros employees or those that are here to rile up those that actually care about
this country.
Ignoring them is the only way to stop their garbage of attempting to pull attention away from the crimes the previous
administration and Hillary Clinton were part of. These people attended the same meeting to discredit and disavow any and all
things about the memo. The much repeated words "cherry picked" should have been a clue to everyone there is a major effort to
install propaganda into anything that is not flattering to the previous administration and Hillary Clinton. Not sure even
George Soros has the money to pay for this, likely a collection of many billionaires or PACs or FOUNDATIONS are funding this
disinformation.
Ignoring them is the only way to shut them down. My understanding of how they are paid is they get bonus if they get a
response from you. Ignore no matter how vile they become.
the MSM deification of Mueller reminds me much of their similar glorification
of J Edgar Hoover at that time.
Notable quotes:
"... Given the state of the law and the Russia-gate cheerleading media -- both mainstream AND progressive -- Mueller's demonstrable malfeasance of the past has not yet put a dent in the "universally respected" honorific the New York Times has bestowed on him. Not yet. ..."
well, in the Bronx, we would call Mueller a crook; in Manhattan, a white-collar
criminal.
Given the state of the law and the Russia-gate cheerleading media -- both mainstream
AND progressive -- Mueller's demonstrable malfeasance of the past has not yet put a dent in
the "universally respected" honorific the New York Times has bestowed on him. Not
yet.
What may do him in, rather, is the same tragic flaw that did in the main actors of the
Greek tragedies of two and a half millennia ago. The Greeks called it hubris.
That Mueller picked Dumb-Strzok and his mistress, senior FBI attorney Lisa Page -- not to
mention so many other widely known supporters/defenders of Mrs. Clinton -- to run his
investigation is a perfect example of the overweening, unbridled arrogance that led to the
downfall of many a Greek hero.
Appearance of bias be damned.
And did no one notice how Mueller' best friend forever Comey immediately admitted that the
reason he had one of his sidekicks leak sensitive information to the NY Times was that he
wanted a special counsel picked toot sweet. And who would that, toot sweet, turn out to be?
his old joined-at-the-hip partner in crime, Bob Mueller (thank you, Jesus!)
The supreme irony is that the "universally respected" Robert Mueller is now hoisted by his
own petard of hubris. The newness about Nunes -- and rowdy Gowdy -- is their willingness to
take on Mueller's closest friends, despite media charges that Republicans are trying to
sabotage his investigation. In reality, Mueller has done a pretty good job of that himself,
thank you very much.
I'm not a politician; cannot gauge whether it a good or bad idea that Mueller, Rosenstein,
et al. be fired for cause (with respect to Rosenstein, signing deceptive FISA applications is
a felony). I would guess it would be best politically to leave Mueller there to stew in his
own juice.
In my view, if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign -- if only because of
the incredibly partisan way in which he staffed his investigation. Is he perhaps waiting for
his old FBI buddies to dig up some dirt on Nunes and Gowdy? I would not put that past him,
given his checkered career (see, again, Coleen's excellent article of last June).
Be prepared for things to get still uglier.
Once again, hats of to Coleen Rowley -- and Nat Parry. Like father, like son.
Ray McGovern
Bob Van Noy , February 9, 2018 at 1:41 pm
Mr. McGovern I was just reading some of Fletcher Prouty's on-line posts from the past. I
have long admired him. Your background and ethics remind me of his. Many thanks
"... think tanks are essentially lobby groups for their donors. The policy analyses and reform schemes that they produce are tailored to support the material interests of donors. None of the studies are reliable as objective evidence. They are special pleading. ..."
"... Think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, and the Atlantic Council, speak for those who fund them. Increasingly, they speak for the military/security complex, American hegemony, corporate interests, and Israel ..."
"... Bryan MacDonald lists those who support the anti-Russian think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis, German Marshall Fund of the US, and Institute for Study of War. The "experts" are mouthpieces funded by the US military security complex. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48755.htm US government agencies use taxpayer dollars to deceive taxpayers. ..."
A couple of decades or more ago when I was still in Washington, otherwise known as the snake
pit, I was contacted by a well-financed group that offered me, a Business Week and Scripps
Howard News Service columnist with access as a former editor also to the Wall Street Journal,
substantial payments to promote agendas that the lobbyists paying the bills wanted
promoted.
To the detriment of my net worth, but to the preservation of my reputation, I declined.
Shortly thereafter a conservative columnist, a black man if memory serves, was outed for
writing newspaper columns for pay for a lobby group.
I often wondered if he was set up in order to get rid of him and whether the enticement I
received was intended to shut me down, or whether journalists had become "have pen will
travel"? (Have Gun -- Will Travel was a highly successful TV Series 1957-1963).
Having read Bryan MacDonald's article on Information Clearing House, "Anti-Russia Think
Tanks in US: Who Funds them?," I see that think tanks are essentially lobby groups for their
donors. The policy analyses and reform schemes that they produce are tailored to support the
material interests of donors. None of the studies are reliable as objective evidence. They are
special pleading.
Think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, and the
Atlantic Council, speak for those who fund them. Increasingly, they speak for the
military/security complex, American hegemony, corporate interests, and Israel.
Bryan MacDonald lists those who support the anti-Russian think tanks such as the Atlantic
Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis, German Marshall Fund of the US, and Institute
for Study of War. The "experts" are mouthpieces funded by the US military security complex.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48755.htm
US government agencies use taxpayer dollars to deceive taxpayers.
In other words insouciant Americans pay taxes in order to be brainwashed. And they tolerate
this.
My guess is that he is a very highly paid lackey for the Rothschilds, much as was J. P.
Morgan. The world would be better off without him, obviously, but the "darkside" globalist
remain, and ultimately they are the real eminence gris control freaks working for
instability, corruption, financial manipulation, fiat money, violence, strife, illegal
immigration, drug epidemics, human trafficking and bad economics, such as mercantilistic,
false capitalism cronyism, among other anti-middle class and anti-liberty movements/phenomena
occurring around the world. G. Edward Griffin might be right! Wikipedia has one of the most
negative bios of him that I've ever read, to his credit, I suppose!
Being a genuine psychopath (they are not quite human due to brain differences) Soros
certainly enjoys his sense of power. They cannot experience conscience nor empathy and that
emotional vacuum can only be filled by a sense of P O W E R over others. Psychopathy used for
political purposes for evil is called Political Ponerology. We watch the movies and think
psychos are out killing prostitutes - we never consider Snakes In Suits! Despite all this
Soros is working for the Zionist World Domination plan (check out the Protocols of the
Learned Elders of Zion).
No, Soros is not just a threat to the 'American way of life'. He organizes color
revolutions around the world including Asia so he is a threat to all nations' sovereignty but
then national sovereignty is to be 'removed' for the Neoliberal World totalitarian goal.
Soros is a front man for the Rothschilds. Plain and simple. That's where he gets the
billions he needs to engage in global activities that destroy religion, morals, values,
gender, nationalism and society. This is the agenda of the Rothschilds, the private central
bankers, and the New World Order.
Do you really think Soros is some kind of investing genius who's made billions on his own,
who is then willing to give it all away for so called "philanthropic" reasons? Bullshit. He's
a hired gun. A front man. A cover for the Rothschilds who have spent two hundred years hiding
in the shadows while others go about doing their dirty work to reshape society for their own
selfish ends – a private, worldwide financial system they own and control.
Just like he pimped for the Nazis, Soros is now pimping for the Rothschilds. He has no
moral center or compass, and has admitted as much in a televised interview. (He said if he
hadn't turned in Jews to the Nazis for money, someone else would have done it.) Wake up
people. Soros is the Sammy the Bull Gravano for the Rothschilds. The Luca Brasi to the
Godfather. He needs to be brought to justice. And so do the Rothschilds.
"... What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest prize of all and said "Why not.'. ..."
"... Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly, Americans cannot wake up fast enough ..."
"... I am familiar with the tactics of Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more committed to getting him elected. ..."
"... This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy prey for being led to their own political slaughter. ..."
"... Does anybody ever talk about the failures of capitalism anymore or just about people and politics? ..."
"... Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors. That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon. ..."
"... The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the Mueller "investigation." ..."
"... yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream media. ..."
"... This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court represents. ..."
"... Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk. In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never. ..."
"... Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our free [sic] press and establishment media. ..."
"... Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them compliant and confused. ..."
"... As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally, then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what they seem to have done. ..."
"... Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war. How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as millions of dead and traumatized survivors. ..."
"... I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of supporting war against Russia. ..."
"... Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential administrative discipline. ..."
"... That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it. Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out. If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media in the service of both. ..."
"... Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs. poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade, splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer. ..."
"... I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay. Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left. ..."
"... Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as possible. ..."
"... The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate. ..."
"... One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population. ..."
"... Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions "political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering, just as were our British forefathers. ..."
"... Is it a diversion? From what? It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll. Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to doomsday. Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP. Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima. when nerves fray hey! ..."
"... I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate. ..."
"... For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern. We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us. Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their hatred of Trump is only part of this issue. ..."
"... With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. ..."
"... Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these Russian hackers who weren't there. ..."
"... The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves. ..."
"... I maintain that having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate. People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled." ..."
"... Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the Pentagon budget! ..."
Exclusive: Hundreds of thousands have pledged to take to the streets if Special
Counsel Robert Mueller is removed, reflecting misplaced priorities and some fundamental
misunderstandings, report Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry.
... ... ...
Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively
to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe
the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the intelligence community as
"perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to keep the American people
compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported
. We saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of
Americans came to falsely believe that Saddam
Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite – Saddam was actually an enemy of
the Al Qaeda perpetrators.
Such emotional manipulation is the likely explanation for the fact that so many people are
now gearing up to defend someone like Mueller, while largely ignoring other important topics of
far greater consequence. With no demonstrations being organized to stop a possible war with
North Korea – or an escalation in Syria – hundreds of thousands of Americans are
apparently all too eager to go to the mat in defense of an investigation into the president's
possible "collusion" with Russia in its alleged meddling in election 2016.
Setting aside for the moment the merits of the Russiagate narrative, who really is this
Robert Mueller that amnesiac liberals clamor to hold up as the champion of the people and
defender of democracy? Co-author Coleen Rowley, who as an FBI whistleblower exposed numerous
internal problems at the FBI in the early 2000s, didn't have to be privy to his inner circle to
recall just a few of his actions after 9/11 that so shocked the public conscience as to
repeatedly generate moral disapproval even on the part of mainstream media. Rowley was only
able to scratch the surface in listing some of the more widely reported wrongdoing that should
still shock liberal consciences.
Although Mueller and his "joined at the hip" cohort James Comey are now hailed for
their impeccable character by much of Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement
officials of the George W. Bush administration (Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy
Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the
Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited
stunning levels of incompetence.
Ironically, recent declassifications of House Intelligence Committee's and Senate Judiciary
Committee Leaders letters ( here and
here ) reveal strong parallels between the way the public so quickly forgot Mueller's
spotty track record with the way the FBI and (the Obama administration's) Department of Justice
rushed, during the summer of 2016, to put a former fellow spy, Christopher Steele up on a
pedestal. Steele was declared to be a "reliable source" without apparently vetting or
corroborating any of the "opposition research" allegations that he had been hired (and paid
$160,000) to quickly produce for the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign.
There are typically at least two major prongs of establishing the "reliability" of any given
source in an affidavit, the first – and the one mostly pointed to – being the
source's track record for having furnished accurate and reliable information in the past. Even
if it is conceded that Steele would have initially satisfied this part of the test for
determining probable cause, based on his having reportedly furnished some important information
to FBI agents investigating the FIFA soccer fraud years before, his track record for
truthfulness would go right up in smoke only a month or so later, when it was discovered that
he had lied to the FBI about his having previously leaked the investigation to the media.
(Moreover, this lie had led the FBI to mislead the FISA court in its first application to
surveil Carter Page.)
The second main factor in establishing the reliability of any source's information would be
even more key in this case. It's the basis of the particular informant's knowledge,
i.e. was the informant an eye witness or merely reporting double-triple hearsay or
just regurgitating the "word on the street?"
If the actual basis of the information is uncertain, the next step for law enforcement would
normally be to seek facts that either corroborate or refute the source's information. It's been
reported that FBI agents did inquire into the basis for Steele's allegations, but it is not
known what Steele told the FBI – other than indications that his info came from secondary
sources making it, at best, second- or third-hand. What if anything did the FBI do to establish
the reliability of the indirect sources that Steele claimed to be getting his info from? Before
vouching for his credibility, did the FBI even consider polygraphing Steele after he (falsely)
denied having leaked his info since the FBI was aware of significant similarities of a news
article to the info he had supplied them?
Obviously, more questions than answers exist at the present time. But even if the FBI was
duped by Steele – whether as the result of their naivete in trusting a fellow former spy,
their own sloppiness or recklessness, or political bias – it should be hoped by everyone
that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get to the bottom of how the FISA court
was ultimately misled.
As they prepare for the "largest mobilization in history" in defense of Mueller and his
probe into Russiagate, liberals have tried to sweep all this under the rug as a "nothing
burger." Yet, how can liberals, who in the past have pointed to so many abusive past practices
by the FBI, ignore the reality that these sorts of abuses of the FISA process more than likely
take place on a daily basis – with the FISA court earning a
well-deserved reputation as little more than a rubberstamp?
Other, more run-of-the-mill FISA applications – if they were to be scrutinized as
thoroughly as the Carter Page one – would reveal similar sloppiness and lack of factual
verification of source information used to secure surveillance orders, especially after FISA
surveillances skyrocketed after 9/11 in the "war on terror." Rather than dismissing the Nunes
Memo as a nothing burger, liberals might be better served by taking a closer look at this FISA
process which could easily be turned against them instead of Trump.
It must be recognized that FBI agents who go before the secret FISA court and who are
virtually assured that whatever they present will be kept secret in perpetuity, have very
little reason to be careful in verifying what they present as factual. FISA court judges are
responsible for knowing the law but have no way of ascertaining the "facts" presented to
them.
Unlike a criminal surveillance authorized by a federal district court, no FBI affidavit
justifying the surveillance will ever end up under the microscope of defense attorneys and
defendants to be pored over to ensure every asserted detail was correct and if not, to
challenge any incorrect factual assertions in pre-trial motions to suppress evidence.
It is therefore shocking to watch how this political manipulation seems to make people who
claim to care about the rule of law now want to bury this case of surveillance targeting Carter
Page based on the ostensibly specious Steele dossier. This is the one case unique in coming to
light among tens of thousands of FISA surveillances cloaked forever in secrecy, given that the
FISA system lacks the checks on abusive authority that inherently exist in the criminal justice
process, and so the Page case is instructive to learn how the sausage really gets made.
Neither the liberal adulation of Mueller nor the unquestioned credibility accorded Steele by
the FBI seem warranted by the facts. It is fair for Americans to ask whether Mueller's
investigation would have ever happened if not for his FBI successor James Comey having signed
off on the investigation triggered by the Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton
campaign to dig up dirt on her opponent.
In any event, please spare us the solicitations of these political NGOs' "national
mobilization" to protect Mueller. There are at least a million attorneys in this country who do
not suffer from the significant conflicts of interest that Robert Mueller has with key
witnesses like his close, long-term colleague James Comey and other public officials involved
in the investigation.
And, at the end of the day, there are far more important issues to be concerned about than
the "integrity" of the Mueller investigation – one being the need to fix FISA court
abuses and restoring constitutional rights.
Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002
memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named
one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002.
What has happened in America is eerily similar to the color revolutions in targeted
countries which leads me to believe the organizers of such revolutions looked at the biggest
prize of all and said "Why not.'.
Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:04 am
Herman.I think you are right. These things are being cooked up–orchestrated to serve
the current power block. The mainstream propaganda media plays a big part in that. And sadly,
Americans cannot wake up fast enough
Annie , February 9, 2018 at 10:40 am
I'm not all that familiar with the group Avaaz, but I am familiar with the tactics of
Move-On, and although they would deny it, represent the democratic party. They actually
called me up asking for money to create mayhem at Trump's rallies during his run for the
presidency. I told them I wouldn't give them a nickel since not only did I see it as
undemocratic and contentious, but psychologically idiotic. Idiotic in the sense that the
people who supported Trump perceived themselves as victims of a corrupt system who cared
little about their needs, and turning Trump's rallies into mayhem would portray him as a
victim as well, which would cause his supporters to more fully identify with him, and more
committed to getting him elected.
I discontinued my support for Move-on as a result of these kind of antics. Those I know
who were viciously anti-Trump lost total perspective during his presidential run, and all
supported Clinton whose policies they knew little about. They were hooked into mainstream
media, and none investigated alternative news sources even though they are computer literate
and could have done so. All were hooked into Russia-gate from the beginning, and have never
waivered in their position. I think we have to begin to look at these people not as liberals,
or progressives, but for the most part they are democrats who see their party as representing
liberal causes. None I know who would support this march participated in any anti-war
movement, and were basically silent on Obama's militarism, which informs me these so called
liberals when it comes to war their position is more dependent on who's doing the
killing.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Annie I found this statement of yours a very interesting perspective 'and turning Trump's
rallies into mayhem would portray him as a victim as well'. All this noise coming from the
left is never analyzed from the perspective of what would the average Trump supporter think.
Yet, you did this. Pretty good analytical take on these attacks against Trump.
I thought when Trump honored the 'Natve-American code breakers' that by his doing this
function while standing underneath a picture of Andrew 'Trail of Tears' Jackson was very
telling. Although seen properly by many who may have a good sense of history, I thought that
this was purposely done, and done to insight the Trump supporters who's racist attitude were
served quite well with Trump's staging of this honorable affair.
The Left (which isn't really Left) is wandering around trying to bring down Trump, while
at the same time the American Left ignores what a Trump supporter may think. Both groups of
American citizenry would do well to quit with all of this name calling, and derisive contempt
for each other, and they should begin with a dialog which could eventually bring them
together, in order to create a more perfect union.
Then that's where you come in Annie, as to reassure they keep their eye on the ball, and
to what is most important to remember, and that is because we are all together in this big
crazy thing called America. We Americans should bridge our difference into making the U.S. a
better nation for all to live in, and relieve the world from fears of American bombs falling
on their heads.
This is Jimmy Dore's take on the left falling for Russia-gate and aligning itself with the
FBI. As he says, they are reacting to Trump with their lizard brain which makes them easy
prey for being led to their own political slaughter. He does become more foul mouthed towards
the end. I understand his increasing frustration with this insanity.
Your point is NEVER off-subject. Soros may fund one branch of the Capitalist Party and
Singer the other; but they both and all the rest of their ilk, belong to the same
Brotherhood.
alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 4:28 pm
"I'm not a politician; cannot gauge whether it a good or bad idea that Mueller,
Rosenstein, et al. be fired for cause "
Ray, thanks for not being like most politicians (and journalists) who carefully test which
way the political winds are blowing to decide whether something is a good or bad idea. You do
what you think is right, based on considerations more important than your career (gasp!).
"In my view, if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign "
Yes, but clearly he doesn't, and therefore he won't. He will drag out his neocon-sponsored
witch-hunt as long as possible in order to do the maximum damage possible to all those who
don't toe the neocon line. The very existence of Mueller's unholy inquisition constantly
forces the president ever-further to the right in an effort to appease his neocon tormentors.
That is, further away from détente with Russia and closer to nuclear Armageddon.
The neocons' goal is to kill two birds, U.S. democracy and Russia, with one stone -- the
Mueller "investigation."
Mueller and his co-conspirators, with all their lies and smears, have been subverting our
democracy long enough. Fire him already and oppose Trump democratically instead.
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:56 pm
Nice summary. I can't really think of anything to say to improve on that title remark of
"This is Nuts.
Virginia , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Ray, Mueller should resign (" if Mueller had an ounce of integrity, he would resign -- if
only because of the incredibly partisan way in which he staffed his investigation") because there is no there there. Just close the investigation and let
Americans get on with our lives.
GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:12 pm
yes i agree that Mueller will be exposed (before congress ?) but not in the mainstream
media. as long as that dog has a bone he will run with it. where's a dog catcher when you
need one??
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Thanks Ray,
Way to little truth out there and a whole bunch of characters involved in some modern day
Shakespearean tragedy.
So Tex , February 9, 2018 at 10:48 am
These organizers are arms of or provocateurs for the failing and flailing Democratic
Party.. They have staked their very lives on the Russia-gate nonsense and removing or just
crippling Trump.. It's all very sad since they could be embracing the current political
climate and reforming the once great Democratic Party. The unfortunate reality is that many
people, including good hearted people, are falling for it.
Tower of Babel , February 9, 2018 at 11:00 am
"It is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue."
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts."
Ain't that the truth. Most Americans want to believe anything that authority tells them to
believe. They are not worthy of the great democracy they inherited. Thank you Colleen. You
are the opposite. We need to see you more often.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 11:25 am
This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest
courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up, while instead
reissuing every 90 days for permission to monitor Carter Page gets talked about to no end. So
far hardly has there been, to when at least I've viewed the anchors and pundits, do they ever
discuss the unconstitutionally, or break down of our democratic values, that this FISA court
represents.
Meanwhile so far what has Robert Mueller come up with? Well, we know that Manafort may be
guilty of money laundering with his dealings with foreign officials, which is an easy
obstacle splinter to uncover due part and parcel to his trade. We do know that the young up
and coming politico operative George Papadopoulos would do well to learn a lesson from his
past barroom experience of possibility talking to much to strangers, and skip the bar talk.
In many ways it's hard to see to what exactly Lt General Michael Flynn is guilty of. Maybe
Flynn as the newly appointed National Security Advisor is guilty of discussing the sanctions
imposed onto Russia, or was he guilty of representing Bibi Netanyahu? Probably the former is
prosecutable, but of course never the latter for protecting dear sweet Israel in America no
matter what is the right thing to do. Protecting Israel may in some people's eyes even seem
quite patriotic, as far as that goes, but talking to Russian diplomats, nay, never.
What this Russia-gate investigation has rot among so many other things, is that it has
taken the weakening Left and showed it for what it is. It was one thing when the Clinton's
moved the Democrates over into the Wall Street column, but now with this organized Left push
to support the Mueller Investigation the Left has been moved into the police state category
whether these poorly misguided liberals even realize this fact. This would be akin to Albert
Einstein marching behind a Nazi flag, or his standing next to Joseph Goebbels to help usher
in the sheep to slaughter under the guise of democracy, and everything that's right.
Wake up America.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 am
"This article does point to no doubt one of our nation's most evasive, and spookiest
courts, which is FISA. Yet, on tv hardly is this subject ever brought up"
Great point Mr. Tedesky. This creepy police-state court is rarely criticized at all in our
free [sic] press and establishment media.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:34 pm
Thank you Mr Hunkins, I've read many a comment post of yours, and hardly do I ever
disagree with you. To bad there are not more of us voices for sanity, but with that there go
I. Joe
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:46 am
I just saw this on the Duran. Duran reporter Jim Jatras details some very interesting
angles of the likes you don't very often hear in regard to Russia-Gate. Be notified Mr Jatras
has a typo where he says Mac Blumenthal he really means the father of Max who is Sidney.
Jatras also points to the same circumstance where many Russians assumed Hillary would be
our next president, so the attraction to sabotage Hillary's campaign seemed to a fruitless
proposition. I remember our own beloved Robert Parry making the same observation.
exiled off mainstreet , February 10, 2018 at 3:35 am
The last sentence sums it up. Any former member of the left who supports this (they became
former once they supported this obviously flawed fascistic phony investigation the
implications of which threaten the rule of law and the stability and sustainability of life
itself) has gone zombie and can be compared to Einstein backing Goebbels.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:01 pm
I'm still having a hard time accepting this pseudo Left swing to the National Security
State/Deep State. Nothing in life should surprise me by now, but seeing what calls itself the
Left in the U.S. go the way of the CIA/FBI/NSA is hard to swallow.
The Democrates are soon going to regret spending all of this valuable time wasted on this
Russia-Gate craziness, and then what will they blame? Of course they will blame Trump, and
still invoke Putin's name, because that's what sells tv ratings. In the end the Democrates
may wake up to the realization that they blamed Trump,for all the wrong things that should
have mattered. This distraction for their bend obsession with all things Russian, is what
will have sunk their boat in 2018, and unless the Dem's wise up this unneeded shadow will
hover over them even into 2020. Joe
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 11:42 am
The most disconcerting and heartbreaking thing I've witnessed in my 30 plus years of
studying the politico-economic scene is the manner in which otherwise decent liberals have
fallen for (or of course have been more than willing propagandists for) the hoax Russia-gate
narrative. Sure, with the Schiffs (D-Israel), Schumers (D-Israel) and others in the corporate
DNC, it's all to be expected, and no semi-intelligent CN fan would consider them to be
otherwise decent liberals. But to see good domestic populist liberals sell this dangerous
snake-oil has been illuminating and dismaying. For crying out loud -- on this particular
issue Sean Hannity is better than Rachel Maddow!
It demonstrates more than any other issue the lock that Official Washington and its
military driven empire builders along with the blood soaked mass media have on virtually our
entire political spectrum and social discourse.
The recent Nuclear Posture Review just comes out -- putting the world closer to complete
annihilation and total Armageddon -- and there isn't much of a hue and cry from the smart and
most important people in our media-industrial complex. Frightening.
D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:49 am
An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal
anti-Israel campaign. We really don't all agree that a "fair partitioning" in the Mideast
would be: 100% for the Arabs, 0% for the Jews. For those who don't know, Israel is a tiny
country (roughly the size of New Jersey). It's the sole Jewish nation, surrounded by vast,
oil-rich Arab countries. Jews are, indeed, indigenous to that bit of land. Those called
"Palestinians" are Arabs who are recruited to work toward the destruction of Israel,
establishing a 100% "pure" Moslem Mideast.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:07 pm
"An additional layer of disappointment is the fascist ideology seen in the liberal
anti-Israel campaign."
Set up a strawman much?
What you describe is a very, very marginal phenomenon in the Palestinian justice movement,
marginal enough to be totally insignificant. It's interesting that you bring this
disinformation into CN. The Zionist power configuration in America can be relentless, no
doubt. Hasbara is ubiquitous.
Israel's a criminal state and international pariah bent on wiping out any independent pro
Palestinian nation-state in the Middle East and subverting and destabilizing any independent
pro Palestinian head of state. Bloodthirsty Tel Aviv militarists mow the grass in Gaza by
killing and maiming roughly 2,000 women and children every 6 or 7 years. And no, it's not a
"fascist ideology" to point any of this out.
Read Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Mearsheimer and Walt and a few others
I'm forgetting at the moment for the real dope.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm
I think D.H. just ran a Zionist commercial on 'the Consortium'. Should we run a
pro-Palestinian commercial, just to be 'fair and balanced'?
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 6:53 pm
I've noticed the dishonest Zionist was trying to act like a "normal" person a few times
recently. Probably the thought was that this would gain "credibility" for BS like this
"Zionist Commercial" you speak of.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Zachary it's interesting to listen to a Zionist using the same talking points that would
describe the horrible plight of the downtrodden Palestinian, and do it so easily without any
conscious effort to hide the truth, of what's really going on. Joe
Lois Gagnon , February 9, 2018 at 11:22 pm
I've seen this troll on other progressive sites using the same exact wording.
Anon , February 9, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Troll alert: please do not reply to DHF comments. This is an attempt to derail the
discussion and debase the participants, a extreme zionist attack, on a site known for more
cautious and fair commenters.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Maybe we should aim our conversation to this maddening frustration over all things
Russian, to better describe America's relationship to the Zionist Bibi Netanyahu. Do you hear
me, Robert Mueller? Can you Mr Mueller lean heavily onto Flynn's Israeli heavy lifting, and
why Flynn was serving the needs of the Israeli's?
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Yes, this comment is so out of touch that it must be a troll looking to discredit this
site.
A previous comment making the same statement was it seems removed. Israel must be a very
sensitive issue in the US.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 8:20 pm
It is beyond belief how sensitive it is. You have no idea. However, now it actually isn't
as subversive and contentious as it was just 15 to 20 years ago. So there has been a small
amount of progress, long way to go though.
Hey Fabian I have some refugees here so I'm taking your land for them. Pack your trash and
move on.
nonsense factory , February 10, 2018 at 10:54 am
The solution is simple: Allow all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to vote in
Israeli national parliamentary elections. Only then could Israel call itself a 'true
democracy'. This I believe results in about a 50-50 split in the electorate on religious /
ethnic lines so you could even get a Muslim leader of Israel, or at least a balanced
parliament.
This of course raises the issue of the military and executive and judicial structure of
Israel; land ownership and immigration policy would have to be changed so that any citizen
could own land, and non-Jews would be allowed to emigrate back to the region (i.e. the
Palestinian diaspora would have the same rights as the Jewish diaspora).
An even more tricky issue would be the Israeli nuclear weapons program; the first step
there is for the state of Israel to publicly admit its existence and allow for IAEA
inspections of the program.
Bob Van Noy , February 9, 2018 at 12:17 pm
Many thanks Coleen Rowley and Nat Parry. Drew Hunkins, I think your comment about
"otherwise decent liberals" is prescient but I'll bet that we could have a long, extended
discussion on The illiberalness of this generation of democrats (please note the small
d).
I would argue that with the inception of the Clinton/Blair "Third Way" that the Democratic
Party separated itself from its historic roots. In fact I think the very label of liberal
opposition here used is disingenuous.
These people The Clintons and their Neoliberal constituents have never represented the
Democratic Party in act or deed. The Neocons switching sides prior to the last election cycle
underscored their illiberal attitude. In fact classic party alignment has little to do with
this issue of criminal behavior, it is just the vehicle of divisiveness being utilized in
this instance
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Points well taken Mr. Van Noy.
Most of the Dem Party has been a complete dumpster fire since corporate Clinton, "New
Democrats!" and DLC completely took over the entire infrastructure.
Nancy , February 9, 2018 at 1:51 pm
Sadly, those decent liberals you speak of also fell for the Clinton/Obama hoax. They are a
big part of the problem -- phonies.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 1:45 am
A big part of the problem for sure. Support for the Democrats on the basis of "liberal
causes" is blind, phony. or both. We have suffered soaring housing and health care costs.
Investment in Social Security has been marginalized at the same time war costs are put "off
the books" and deemed a "necessity" of National Security. Public schools are now
"standardized", but standards are lacking and the quality of "higher"education has taken a
hit too while leaving graduates in piles of debt. The safety of our drinking water is suspect
and other environmental concerns take a back seat as well while "fracking" and "drill baby
drill" get passes. Civil liberties are under assault and the war drums beat on. So where are
the liberal Democrats? Taking "contributions", hiding under rocks, or snickering through
3-martini lunches with their Republican cohorts but they certainly haven't been "liberals"
for a long time now. Bill Clinton and Obama were nothing of the sort.
Next time a Democrat calls him/her self a "liberal", they ought to have to express a true
idea of just what that's suppose to mean. And then explain what happened the last
quarter-century and what in the hell their current "resistance" is really about. Don't worry
there won't be any straight answers forthcoming, and likely nary a hint of embarrassment
either. They are shameless traitors or fools
Bob Van Noy , February 10, 2018 at 10:07 am
Nicely done Gregory Herr. The democratic party talks a good game but manages to Never
Deliver the goods. The party hierarchy (DNC) doesn't deserve support
Simply vote for a candidate that delivers. And, never donate to the party
D.H. Fabian , February 9, 2018 at 11:44 am
We saw how powerfully the Clinton "New Democrat Party" gained "influence" over the media
marketed to middle class liberals, from MSNBC to online publications, pulling them well to
the right. The Democrats' anti-Russian crusade does, indeed, mimic Bush's lies about "Iraq's
stockpiles of WMD." What is truly "nuts" is that so much of the liberal media promote the
right wing agenda while wearing their "bold progressive" lapel buttons.
Loretta , February 9, 2018 at 12:05 pm
Thank you for this piece!!
j. D. D. , February 9, 2018 at 12:16 pm
The spectacle of the Democratic Part and even the Black Caucus rallying to support the FBI
is truly a wonder to behold. Have they forgotten the FBI's past in blackmailing presidents
and political leaders including JFK, Robert Kennedy and Matin Luther King? Have they
forgotten its Operation Frugmenschen, which means "ape man" in German to target Balck
politicians and activists, or the threatening dirty tricks letter sent to MLK urging him to
commit suicide? Are they prepared to see through an illegal coup against an elected president
who dared suggest a positive relaitonship with Russia and China, ensuring that no future
president will dare "step out of line" lest the secret files be pulled to create a cripling
scandal?. Apparently not, as the Demcratic Party we knew appears quite dead, perhaps lethally
shot on Nov 22, 1963 and finally buried in 2016 with the nomination of a craven Wall Street
puppet and warmonger.
Thank you, Nat and Coleen, for this article -- as well as continuing and furthering
Consortium News' reputation as one of the few remaining independent outlets that can be
considered trustworthy. In this age, where even Common Dreams has lost its credibility (and
posts by Caitlin Johnstone have to be taken/guarded with grains of salt) it is still a
refreshing rarity.
In overall relation, the following Review is shared as representative:
Robert Shetterly's "Americans Who Tell The Truth.org" continually express, show, and Speak
Truth to Power. During our times of First Draft Coalition[s], where we are subjected to 98%
(?) Controlled Narratives, a predominance critically desires to hear/see those sides which
are purposely and collusively repressed, banned and/or censored. In these
exponentially-escalating periods of secret laws based on secret memos, secret courts acting
with secret evidence (which will not be revealed to the accused), absolute torture to the
point of insanity (and death) as a means of interrogation until one gives predetermined
answers (truthful or not), worldwide surveillance on every inhabitant (without probable
cause) that can be (and is) used as a means to instill fear, to threaten, tarnish, oppress,
and silence even peaceful dissenters of basic causes while (resultantly) turning back history
500 years, we need those with (the ability of) absolute courage to Stand Up Now (more than
ever).
Evolution: from Total Information Awareness (which started long before 9/11) to Total
Information (and Population) Control (as a goal in the present).
Steve , February 9, 2018 at 12:19 pm
FAKE NEWS has been used to snooker the Aemnrician people and as it is gobbled up and
digested and spit back with investigation or corroboration it turns decent folks into FAKE
PEOPLE. Mueller is no choir boy and the mess in Washington is not going away sometime soon.
As for damaging democracy, the 2 party system has taken care of that very nicely but
channeling anger into something positive just wont' be allowed to happen as the media are
controlled by huge moneyed interests.
Janet Zampieri , February 9, 2018 at 12:29 pm
The liberals are reacting this way because of the constant lies they are fed by the
mainstream media. The corporate and CIA control of the media must be exposed and put to an
end.
Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 12:36 pm
Being a mere paycheque away from disaster, most Americans cannot afford to take to any
streets. The Powers That Be know and exploit this, having orchestrated their captives' dire
straits, all along.
So, whence shall cometh these threatening troops from Camps AVAAZ and MoveOn? By process
of elimination, from the minority well-enough-heeled and the Soros-paid.
Slavery is Freedom! War is Peace! 1984 was a cookbook; we've been reading Orwell all
wrong.
johnnieandroidseed , February 9, 2018 at 9:03 pm
My chuckle for the day was "1984 was a cookbook." Reminded me of the Twilight Zone episode
"To Serve Man" which should be the motto of capitalists everywhere.
"We serve the workers" [to our Distinguished Diners.]
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 12:17 am
As the episodes star character Michael Chambers is taken away by the Kanamits for meal
time on their far away planet, Chambers looks at the audience and says, "How about you? You
still on Earth, or on the ship with me? Really doesn't make very much difference, because
sooner or later, all of us will be on the menu all of us."
Yikes how true. Great comment johnnieandroidseed. Joe
Though my instincts tell me there are many more people who are willing to sign a petition
than to actually get out on the street, I might be proved wrong in this particular
instance.
After signing a couple of petitions for this or that, in the forlorn hope they might bring
about change, I began to realize they were mainly designed to make me feel good about myself;
that I was doing something very important to make the world a better place.
Even worse, I saw I was being treated as nothing more than another fish in the net. My
signature had hardly enough time to reach its destination before my inbox was deluged with
requests to sign more petitions, each of which invited me to donate towards the great effort
it takes to think up a petition and put it on the internet. For some unexplained reason, the
process seemed to require highly-remunerated executives, and an awful lot more money than all
the real work needed to run something as work-intensive as Consortium News.
After signing two, I'd already given up the idea of signing more petitions by the time I
was urged to sign one for a no-fly zone over Syria to save hundreds of thousand of lives.
With anti-Russian propaganda being heavily pushed by the corporate media at the time, it was
obvious people who had no idea what a no-fly zone entailed were being manipulated.
We live at a time where, for most people, touchy-feely means engaging with the world
through a screen. No man is an island being far from the state of affairs, all men have
become islands. Far from bringing us together, the internet is being increasingly used to
keep most of us farther and farther away from each other, and the information we need to form
opinions based on facts.
Which leads me to ponder how on earth we arrived at a point where of hundreds of thousands
of people are preparing to come out on the streets to demonstrate their support of an
organization, which just happens to be one of several intelligence agencies, trying to remove
their right to come out on the streets to demonstrate? I hope I'm not the only one who finds
it perversely ironic and extremely disturbing.
Bruce Dickson , February 9, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Do those intending to demonstrate on the FBI's behalf even realize that one of that
agency's most resource-intensive and mission-critical tasks is to record, identify and
profile demonstrators?
"I am marching for my right to be surveilled. Democracy means Dossiers for All! FISA =
Freedom. I'm guided by the beauty of my shackles. Liberty is Liability. Truth is
Treason."
And Insanity is Virtue. Well played, overlords: you have set the stage well – but
for the hubris you can't shake off. Lofty as you are, you don't float above the law of
unintended consequences. Or that of gravity, either.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:16 am
Love your comments, The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 2:21 pm
My experience with AVAAZ is similar. They petition for many good causes and seem to
achieve quite a lot, but then there appear a slice of the petitions that are political and
naive, like the no fly zone. Inherent problems in their brand of activism. They should
probably reconsider their scope of issues.
Yes, thank you for the link. I had forgot about that. It's very important that we
understand NGO's roles & who they are working for.
Lethal Weapon: NGO Soft Power
"Along with military invasions and missionaries, NGOs help crack countries open like ripe
nuts, paving the way for intensifying waves of exploitation and extraction" " ~ Stephanie
McMillan
""The NGO 'soft power complex' is now one of the most destructive global forces. It is
employed as an interface between civilians of a target nation, with government, economic or
military structures of the colonialist force intent on harnessing any given nation's
resources or undermining its geopolitical influence. The Democratization process, or the path
to regime change is facilitated by these undercover government or corporate proxy employees
who, once embedded into a society, set about producing the propaganda that will justify
intervention, either economically, politically or militarily. NGO propaganda will often
employ slick social media marketing which is underpinned by advance applied behavioural
psychology and advanced NLP-based 'social enterprise' sales pitches.
A recent piece by researcher Eva Bartlett entitled, "Human Rights Front Groups
[Humanitarian Interventionalists] Warring on Syria", provides a detailed insight into how
this new breed of weaponized politics is being deployed right now in the Middle East.
The perception of a 'non profit' complex who purport to be "working for the betterment and
improvement of humanity" can be a difficult nut to crack, but it must be done. In the west.
charities, not-for-profits and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are seen as "do gooders"
and so they rarely fall under public scrutiny. Western governments know the general public
has an inherent faith in their perceived integrity and this provides an ideal cover for
western government and intelligence agencies to operate through their NGO and aid
organisations."
I think it's great that they are calling for massive rallies against the rape of our
democracy by the one percent. It's great to see them rallying hundreds of thousands of us to
protest the state of endless war. It's nice to see them putting all that muscle into the
streets to oppose US foot-dragging on climate change.
Oh wait, I must have misread the article.
On a serious note, we need to see these FISA abuses only as the tools of tyranny. Far more
important is who is wielding them and why.
Thank you Ms. Rowley and Mr. Parry for reporting honestly. If certain factions can set-up
a POTUS, what can they do to "we the people"? Mr. Parry, your father would be proud of
you!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 1:48 pm
"Liberals?" Just another name for war mongering liars these days. "Conservatives?" Just
another brand of liars and thieves. People who put stock in, and vote on the basis of these
baseless tags are the real suckers that enable our whole doomed evil empire. If you vote for
anyone who uses either of those labels, you are a fool, and a dangerous one at that. Come to
think of it, if you vote at all you are an idiot endorsing a corrupt process.
Drew Hunkins , February 9, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Off topic.
What looks to be an outstanding brand new film is coming out soon. It's entitled, "The
Young Karl Marx." This movie looks like a must-see.
Unfortunately for those very many invested in the Russiagate nonsense, the cold reality is
that doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity. We're watching the
Western power structure fracture before our eyes as their propaganda operations have become
not simply unbelievable, but now have entered into the world of the totally outlandish and
absurd. The notion that "reality" requires some kind of rational connection to observable
events in the physical world seems to have totally lost any meaning in this current climate
of reality meltdown. Quite amazing to witness actually.
Eddie , February 10, 2018 at 12:49 pm
"doubling down on crazy doesn't somehow magically produce sanity."–Great
phrasing!
alley cat , February 9, 2018 at 2:23 pm
The undead hands of those two zombie neocons, HRC and John Brennan, reach out from the
boneyard of U.S. politics to drag democracy down with them.
The neocons' ultimate target is Russia, together with anyone who dares to utter the truth
about Russia. They are drunk with power and will stop at nothing, not even nuclear war, to
eliminate any rival for global domination. They are so reckless and arrogant that they think
a nuclear war is winnable.
Megalomania much?
Goebbels boasted that he could play the German public like a keyboard. The neofascist
neocons are using the same tactics with the so-called U.S. left, which, measured by
international political metrics, corresponds to the traditional imperialist right. American
so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public was played by
the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not from the
left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference.
Fascist tactics bring fascist results. There are multitudinous grounds to oppose Trump
democratically. Impeaching him based on ginned-up, right-wing, smears would tear this country
apart at the seams.
lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:46 pm
"American so-called liberals are allowing themselves to be played, like the German public
was played by the Nazis before WWII. They are attacking Trump from the reactionary right, not
from the left. In their feckless hysteria, they can't even tell the difference."
I'm afraid you are right.
Democrats are not "the left." Have they ever really been? That's why you said "so-called
left" I realize. It makes me laugh when mainstream media calls it such.
Richard Hicks , February 9, 2018 at 2:36 pm
The story says: "Considering all of the threats to democracy posed by unconstitutional
overreach, unfair elections, corruption, and voter suppression – not to mention
environmental challenges, economic inequality, an out-of-control U.S. foreign policy,
numerous foreign conflicts that the U.S. is engaged in, and the ever-present threat of
nuclear war – it is telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this
particular issue."
Yes, it is "telling that the liberal establishment is mobilizing on this particular issue".
Except it's not just this issue. Remember that Al Capone was convicted of crimes other than
the crime he was arrested for. It seems that on an almost daily basis evidence is discovered
that the President is/was involved in crimes other than Conspiracy and/or Obstruction of
Justice. As new evidence is uncovered, it may lead the Mueller investigation in another
direction, and apparently, it has. If that is the case, Mueller is doing his job. The job
that The People hired him to do. If Trump were to fire Mueller, it could very well be because
of newly discovered criminal activity that Trump is, or was involved in, and Trump is nervous
about. Our Nation is a Nation of laws, and no one, even the President is above the law. This
President has a long-standing proven reputation, of difficulty with the Truth. Based on that
alone, if Mueller is fired by Trump, people would be justified taking to the streets, in
protest.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm
A riot to back up the putch against Trump? Not likely, but a disaster if performed. Is
this how some dream of a new US government? It will take something much deeper and wiser to
accomplish that. Again not likely, but if one has to dream, why not something truly
positive?
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:06 pm
"Putin's life work is spying"? You seem to have a rather shallow estimate of someone who
stands against those in the US determined to turn our planet into an ashy corpse.
Best not to lose sight of this fact: there is no liberal cause, especially the incipient
climate disaster, that is not negatively affected by Trump and the legal coup-d etat achieved
by the Republicans. Anyone working to stymie that,whether sinless or simon pure deserves
support. Also, re Russia, Garry Kasparov the Chess Master says it would be naive to think
that Putin whose life work is spying would not use his current sophisticated apparatus to
work his will on any issue or election of interest.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:00 pm
"legal coup d'etat?" That's a new one on me, on the other hand the whole loony scene in
Washington is illegal – so what the hey! Still, removing a sitting President on the
basis of phony charges against him for colluding with Russia would really kick over the chess
board and empower the crazies to do their worst. Or is there anybody still out there who
believes the Russiagate nonsense has a shred of truth in it? I hope not, but I am afraid I am
in danger of overestimating my fellow citizens .
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:02 pm
As for Gary Kasparov, he should rest on his fading laurels as a chess master, and stay out
of politics. If he had his way Russians would raise Yeltsin from the grave, and turn their
country back over to the international capitalists.
Mark Thomason , February 9, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Russia-gate has nothing to do with the real Russia.
It is entirely a Team Hillary attack on Trump. It is an attempt to deny the election. It
is rage at losing, looking for excuses to express itself. If not Russia it would be Comey, or
many other things. It has been most convenient to use Putin at the pinata, but that is a
matter of internal US politics, not Putin at all.
irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:17 pm
And luckily for us, Putin not only groks that dynamic but has been brave enough
to say so in public.
What's with all the new-name trolls here today ?
Mr Boompi , February 9, 2018 at 3:02 pm
I hate the term derangement syndrome but some people surely do have Trump derangement
syndrome. It's beaten into them every day on TV and certain internet sites. I believe they
want Trump removed using any means possible, including illegal means. Their derangement
syndrome includes the mistaken belief attempting to enforce the law regarding Clinton emails
and the frauds perpetrated on the FISA court are nothing more than an attempt to obstruct
justice for Trump. Even though there is no evidence Trump has done anything wrong. It's a
shame actually.
Alan , February 9, 2018 at 3:06 pm
Let's take a step or two back and try to see the current state of chaos in a broader
perspective. People are angry. The Trump administration is without question aberrant. Where
is true leadership today? Certainly not with Trump or his administration. The real issue
isn't specifically "Russiagate", but what lies beneath.
We have been mislead, lied to, manipulated by virtually every administration to greater
and lesser degrees. Of relevance here is that both Nixon and Reagan manipulated the American
people through their backchannel negotiations with foreign powers prior to inauguration.
While this Consortiumnews article can shine some light on potential abuses which takes
place through the FISA court we must recognize that we form an imperfect union. This
particular article seems to be like arguing for changes to the fire codes while Rome
burns!
Any mobilization of the "liberal establishment" is far more about the egregious threats to
our democracy than whatever "Russiagate" means. An imperfect Mueller seems to represent our
best way forward to finding the hidden truths behind all of Trump's malfeasance. Let the
people be heard!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:10 pm
The people have been heard! They voted for Trump
WheresOurTeddy , February 9, 2018 at 3:16 pm
Damn the people in this country are easy to manipulate. Pathetic.
If the activists of the last generation could see the sellout pieces of garbage that call
themselves democrats today, they'd roll over in their unmarked graves they were dumped into
by the same alphabet agencies of oppression the stooges are standing up for.
Late stage empire in decline.
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Amen.
Maxim , February 9, 2018 at 3:29 pm
They don't want Trump, they want Russia. That's why Trump was "elected". So they could use
Trump to get to Russia. In 2020 Clinton will finally get elected and everyone will be begging
for WWW3 against the Russian Threat. Another false Pearl Harbor is coming. Syria, N.Korea,
Iran or Ukraine are all potential flash points. We're sheep being led to slaughter.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:58 pm
In one ponit you are wrong. The orange clown is uninhibited in starting a war. Read just
the new disclosure that pentagon had been resisting requests from the White House to provide
military options for Iran. In his first speach in the UN Trump has threatened to destroy
North Korea totally. This crazy man doesn't deserve to be the president of the US!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:14 pm
Mostly correct, but the Deep State emphatically did NOT want Trump elected. Too
unpredictable. The DS thought Hillary had a lock on the election. Just goes to show that the
DS is not as smart as they like to think they are.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:47 am
For sure, Mike, the DS pulled out all the stops to help Hillary both before and after the
election to no avail. They are still doing it. The most influential insiders in America
couldn't alter the results of the election, yet they would have you believe that Putin merely
snaps his fingers, "meddles in our democracy" and has his way. Yet most people cannot see the
absurdity of that claim because the corporate media, which is part of the real conspiracy
orchestrated by the DS, spews nothing but propaganda full bore 24/7 changing apparent reality
right in front of your own lying eyes.
Now the History Channel is coming out with an extra special demonisation of Putin
extravaganza!!! Be sure to watch if you wanna stay free! These people could rehabilitate
Hitler if it suited their purposes. The American people are putty in their hands. There is no
opposition but those few of us who fail to be hypnotized by the svengalis that represent the
interests of the string puller elites on the boob tube and internets, who and which they
totally own and control. There are so few of us who can still see the truth, I suspect they
could house us all in a single detention camp if it comes to that.
Gregory Herr , February 10, 2018 at 6:49 am
I couldn't suppress a derisive laugh reading an above comment about Putin's ability "to
work his will on any issue or election of interest." Yep, those snapping fingers are rife
with ability not to mention speculation about Putin's desires. What a mad genius he must
be!
Snookered and bamboozled, the show must go on.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm
I would support any measure that tends to an impeachment of a crazy, impulsive and
retarded president. This president is a misfortune for the US and for the world. One can
criticise the actions to support the current investigations in the Russiagate. But if it
helps to get rid of a mentally ill clown then why not!
mike k , February 9, 2018 at 4:18 pm
Good reasoning, but it fails to consider what's next? Believe it or not, there will
probably be a lot worse in store for us than President Donald Trump. Things just tend to get
worse and worse in a collapsing empire ..
Far , February 9, 2018 at 4:39 pm
What's next is a good question. I hope that Clinton leave finally the political world. She
was one of the main reasons that many of voters elected the bad option instead of the worst
option. Collapsing of the system can not be an option. But Trump is well under way to shake
the political system and polarize the civil society more than ever before
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 4:59 am
That's what Susan Sarandon foresaw as the "good" outcome of a Trump victory–the
collapse of the system would be advanced. However, how do we benefit from that opportunity
for change when the only announced candidates for Trump's job are the same ilk (Clinton,
Biden, Kerry) or their even shallower accolytes (Booker, Harris ) that caused all the damage
in the first place? All those idiots are still about fooling and fleecing the American public
and warring upon the rest of the world–friends and foes alike. They offer no peace, no
prosperity, and no future whatsoever, only a bleak struggle for existence in a nuclear winter
by the few survivors of their promised handiwork. You nailed it, Mike, things will only get
worse because our leaders (from both of these two abominable parties) insist upon it.
irina , February 9, 2018 at 4:22 pm
"Why not ?" Because such 'measures' only serve to destroy what little remains of our
democracy. Here's a thought experiment for you : would you support similar 'measures'
if they 'tended to an impeachment' of crazy, impulsive, mentally ill Hillary had she been
elected ? (As co-president with Bill, who she promised to 'put in charge' of the
economy).
Because "We came, we saw, he Died" Hillary is arguably even farther off the rails than
The Donald. And probably more dangerous for many reasons, not the least of which is
that so many people look at her and see someone 'sane'.
Far , February 9, 2018 at 5:06 pm
Crooked Hillary was never be an option. And Trump is definitive not fit for the oval
office. Trump will bury the democracy finally. Damages to the reputation of the US in the
world community is immense. With Trump there is no chance to make a real change. Quit in
contrary the US will face serious social, economic and security challenges without a glimmer
of hope to change the things. My father said that a great ship could be sunk. And if it sinks
it will be just slower than a little one. Trump is not an option anymore to steer the
ship.
Have a look at the less than vigorous investigations run by Mueller into BCCI (Bush crime
family "intelligence" op) pre 911. Mueller can run coverups or smear campaigns. Wonder what
his corporate offshore bank accounts look like
lindaj , February 9, 2018 at 11:50 pm
bank accounts. good question.
weilunion , February 9, 2018 at 5:35 pm
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the
intelligence community as "perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to
keep the American people compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported. We
saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of Americans
came to falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite
– Saddam was actually an enemy of the Al Qaeda perpetrators."
Cognitive dissonance, lack of critical thinking, reliance on authority, in this case a
former head of a criminal organization called the FBI.
People have no class consciousness. They have no idea who their enemies ar or how to
organize.
This is the sad case of liberalism melting like warm butter while the fascists
congeal.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Nicely put.
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 2:51 am
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. . ."
Yes. On any bar counter, just start some conversation with the person sitting to you. With
all this bizarre drama – Russia-Gate, Iran, memos, dossier . . . going on TV, and in
Washington being enacted knowingly by the the Powers who rule – both, so called
Liberals and Conservatives – one can see how this emotional manipulation has worked to
snooker just about most of the population. I just had the experience today during lunch at a
bar counter. In our conversation, the person sitting next to me was ready to nuke Iran, N.
Korea, and go after Russia; and go after Hillary too.
Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling
Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up – making them
compliant and confused.
Does any body have idea how they are going to bring an end to this completely concocted
bizarre drama?
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:21 pm
Dave the same stupid asses you speak of will still be the same stupid asses long after
these foreign affairs take any turn for the better. The dumb butts are easy to control. It's
like you point and say bad, and these morons growl, as their faces contort in macho anger.
Although, if one day the U.S. should make friends with Iran, N Korea, or Russia, these silly
little stupid puppies will just go back to work. If you tell them it will be exciting to play
the Russians at hockey, well this might get them going a little bit again, but not to worry
because it's just hockey. Oh, easy on the beer, and make sure the refreshment stands have
plenty of nachos and tip. The jackasses like to eat and drink a lot, what can I say? Joe
Both MoveOn and Avaaz get major funding from George Soros.
Martin - Swedish citizen , February 9, 2018 at 6:30 pm
As a foreigner, looking from the outside, it seems Mueller will not find anything on
Russia. He already found something on Israel, but he doesn't pursue that. If Americans rally,
then it seems you should rally to make an objective and fair inquiry, to nail Israel for what
they seem to have done.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:28 pm
Now your talking. Good idea.
ToivoS , February 9, 2018 at 7:11 pm
"This is nuts" is a great headline for our current problem.
Many years ago in my early 20s I read 'Guns of August' that described support for the
coming WWI. What was so striking about that period was how the public in every relevant
European was hell bent on war. Among the major players -- Germany, France, UK, Russia and
Austro-hungary -- their populations were demonstrating in the streets and assemblies for war.
How was it possible for all of those people to eagerly lust for war that within a few years
led to the destruction of the German, Russian and Austrian empires, the deaths of millions of
their citizens and multidecade impoverishment for the survivors. The costs of the war
resulted in the effective bankruptcy of the UK and French colonial empires as well as
millions of dead and traumatized survivors.
I never was able to see how so many people then could be so incredibly foolish. In the
last two years I have gained some insight. Many of my respected, but now previous, political
associates have just gone totally nuts over Russiagate. There was some kind of psychic break
in their minds when Hillary lost and they are now little more than raging primates trapped in
a cognitive dissonance loop. Not just that, but these are people who are on the verge of
supporting war against Russia.
Reading other comments here it seems my experience has been shared by others.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:49 pm
Yes ToivoS, many of us here have been watching our family, friends, and fellow citizens
lose their minds in mass over the election of Donald J Trump. It's with his Electoral College
win that I noticed the psychic break in many a citizens mind. So now here we are, where this
psychic break has moved good thinking people to the side of the field where the Deep State,
or National Security State if you will, has replaced critical thinking people by turning them
into 'useful idiots', if that is enough of a suitable label to pin on these stray pseudo
liberals.
These misguided liberal thinkers ought to move out of the way, drop this Russia-Gate
travesty, and allow the real Left to emerge so as justice maybe served upon the Trump
Administration. And if these limousine liberal hacks don't wish to travel a different avenue,
as to confront what the Trump team does, then for the love of mike please dear almost
liberals quit getting so cozy with the National Security State. This kind of stuff gives
reason to believe that 'Nightmare on Elm Street' was a documentary, as Freddy Krueger is a
nice guy in real life. Now I'm afraid to go to sleep .take care ToivoS. Joe
Zachary Smith , February 9, 2018 at 11:35 pm
Regarding Guns of August , it's a book I won't be reading. Anything by Barbara
Tuchman connected with WW1 is automatically suspect with me. I've kept many of her other
history books, but will maintain a distinct level of skepticism while reading them. That's
necessary because she was a fanatical Zionist, and lying about Israel-related issues is just
something that type does.
Lois Gagnon , February 10, 2018 at 12:32 am
The term psychic break I think is dead accurate. It made me think of Naomi Klein's "Shock
Doctrine" in that people who are traumatized by natural or man made disasters are taken
advantage of by powerful interests intent on imposing policies that are against the public
interest.
People who are in a state of shock are not equipped to make rational decisions. Trump's
surprise (at least to Clinton voters) win left Democratic Party voters in shock leaving them
vulnerable to the Establishment's agenda of increasing tensions with Russia. Enter
Russia-gate which serves many purposes at once. As we have seen, it worked like a charm.
Those falling for the psy-op have left all reason behind. They are singularly focused. It is
virtually impossible to introduce evidence that contradicts the narrative. It's as
frustrating as talking to a religious fanatic.
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:48 am
In an ironic twist, Naomi Klein today has completely lost her mind due to Trump
Derangement Syndyome.
Larco Marco , February 10, 2018 at 3:34 am
The Ottoman Empire was also destroyed, with the UK subsequently claiming Palestine as a
piece of their own empire.
Sam , February 9, 2018 at 8:26 pm
"[I]t should be hoped by everyone that the Department of Justice Inspector General can get
to the bottom of how the FISA court was ultimately misled."
Is the IG even looking at this? The current investigation by the IG, the one due to report
soon, is looking at the investigation into Clinton's email server. I'm not aware of an IG
investigation on this matter. It would certainly be a good idea – assuming that the IG
is not compromised, which is a big assumption.
Coleen Rowley , February 9, 2018 at 11:20 pm
Maybe wishful thinking on my part. The Grassley-Graham referral regarding Steele's
potential violation of Title 18 Section 1001, lying to the FBI, may or may not be
prosecutable depending upon where the "lies" took place and the likely lack of
extra-territorial jurisdiction if they occurred in Rome. But even if no criminal violation
could be prosecuted, I would think the IG should still investigate the matter for potential
administrative discipline.
GEOFF TEAGUE , February 9, 2018 at 9:05 pm
the so called liberals need god on their side so they can tear down the constitution (at
least what is left of it) and then put trump's head on a pike. the most fearful thing in this
country is watching ignorance in action.
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:45 am
Yes! Stop and think about the consequences of a COUP of a legitimately ELECTED U.S.
President by the Deep State and his political opponents. It's a dangerous game and a slippery
slope. It's frightening to imagine where this could go.
ThomasGilroy , February 9, 2018 at 9:13 pm
To a liberal, the worst possible scenario was the election of Trump – especially
because they are "liberals". That cannot be difficult to see. They rightly see that Russian
inference in the election could have made a significant difference in the swing states.
Whether that is true or not, is irrelevant. There cannot be closure without the
investigation going forward. That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without
question. Whether Trump colluded or not still needs to be answered.
Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to
influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect
Trump. Trump had a lot to gain by colluding. We need to find out the truth.
Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:00 am
"swing states" – do you suppose that Hillary taking several of them for granted had
anything to do with "influencing" the election?
That Russia meddled in the US election is certainly without question.
Without Question! This sounds very much like a religious belief to me. Something like this
1950 declaration by the pope at the time:
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and
by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her
earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Change a few words in that, and we'd have the Tragedy of Saint Hillary.
Finally, future election need to be safeguarded against foreign powers attempting to
influence our system of democracy. Russia had a lot to gain potentially helping to elect
Trump.
And how do you suggest this "safeguarding" happen? Shut down the internet? Imprison anyone
who says a favorable word about Russia?
ThomasGilroy , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Zachary
HRC was the second worse candidate in US history – just behind Trump. She is
definitely the one most responsible for her loss in the election. None the less, very few
votes separated a significant amount of electoral votes so the Russian influence could have
made a difference. If you view all of the evidence beginning when US intelligence first
identified Russian-related hackers in 2015, followed by Crowdstrike in 2016 (and at least
five other cybersecurity firms which confirmed Crowdstrike's conclusions) , social media and
the obvious reasons that Putin favored Trump over the anti-Russia candidacy of HRC (motive),
then it becomes much more logical that Russia meddled. Assange served the Russian government
as well (mostly with the aid of the Russian government-funded RT). He clearly looked to
undermine the HRC candidacy despite his denials (lies).
The Daily Beast does a nice job with the time line in the current Mueller investigation
(Trump-Russia Isn't About the Cover-Up. It's About the Crime. http://thebea.st/2slKBBE?source=twitter&via=desktop
via @thedailybeast) and Marcie Wheeler (at Empty Wheel) also does a good job presenting
evidence of Russian perfidy. Mueller probably knows a lot more than he is sharing so it's
just a matter of time before the evidence becomes much more difficult to ignore.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:23 am
That Russia "meddled in the US election" is totally without foundation and you know it.
Any such attempt by them would be pointless, ineffective and detrimental if ever found out.
If we had really found out any such thing, we'd all know about it rather than being fed
bullshit based upon absolutely no real evidence. America would not be subjected to a year and
a half of shenanigans by a thoroughly-biased politically-motivated special prosecutor given a
hunting license by a frustrated deep state, a bitter political opposition and a raucous media
in the service of both.
What's the point in dragging out the process if the object is justice and the removal of a
putative pretender to the presidency? The aforementioned insurrectionists cannot pull off
their desired miracle because the evidence doesn't exist and it doesn't exist because the
purported crime was never committed.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans undoubtedly each cheated to win the election in
their own ways, but not in any way involving the Russians who have just served as unwitting
targets by our own domestic villains. Russia has gained NOTHING by seeing Trump in office.
During the election Putin would not even play favorites, stating the obvious: that he could
not predict the future and that he would have to deal with whomever was elected. Your
scenarios are all delusions, Gilroy.
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Realist – Excellent summation of this whole false, delusionary, bizarre concocted
drama being enacted on the American people, and on people beyond in the World.
Paul Easton , February 9, 2018 at 9:29 pm
The article mentions "perception management" and I think it is well to generalize. Ever
since 9/11 the permanent government has kept the population in line by playing on their
fears, in Trump's case fear of fascism. (And quite possibly the events of 9/11 were planned
and executed for this very purpose.) As it turned out the perception management was all too
effective and by now most of the population is freaking out, in one way or another, and our
society is disintegrating. Personally I am cheering it on. Goodbye USA Thank God!
Liberals getting behind the most
racist government agency in a pathetic display of supporting the
"enemy of my enemy" Donald Trump
gives further proof they are as
unprincipled as any of history's
other "national socialists".
Zachary Smith , February 10, 2018 at 1:02 am
What the hell is this endless repetition of the word "Liberals"? Try "Corporate Democrats"
and you'd be a LOT closer to reality.
Realist , February 10, 2018 at 5:31 am
To be sure. The other biggest mischaracterisation is to call the ring leaders of this
witch hunt "the left" or "leftists." The genuine left (what little still exists of it) are
the few who rail against this nonsense, largely on this or similar sites (e.g., ICH).
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 3:40 pm
I completely agree, Zachary. The true democratic party adherents – which includes
lot of us – should have split from the Corporate Democrats long ago during Clinton
presidency.
Bandrui , February 9, 2018 at 10:27 pm
We live in a hall of mirrors. This is yet another example of how easily most Americans are
manipulated, dumbest populace on the planet apparently. I see no hope for us at all.
D.H. Fabian , February 10, 2018 at 12:36 am
Give the Clinton right wing credit for achieving what the Republicans had long hoped, but
failed, to do. First, they split apart the Dem voting base in the 1990s, middle class vs.
poor, and the Obama years served to confirm that this split is permanent. Then they
apparently plagiarized old Joe McCarthy's playbook, launching their anti-Russian crusade,
splitting apart those who are not on the right wing. Divide, subdivide, conquer.
RandyLee , February 10, 2018 at 9:55 am
so the democrats are going for mob rule now? and they have willing accomplices in liberals
who have no idea why they hate Trump, they just know they are supposed to hate Trump. well I
say take to the streets then! give it your best shot! cry and scream and threaten your little
butts off. when you have no real idea why you are doing something, it won't take long before
you realize how stupid you are and will stop listening to those who encourage you from the
sidelines to attack american principles but aren't actually on the streets with you. its ok
for you to take that bullet but they sure as hell won't be taking one for the cause.
Martin S , February 10, 2018 at 10:19 am
The nefarious results of the Left propaganda: CRUSH THE TRUTH AND THE SHEEP WILL
SWALLOW
I believe the public is getting played on Mueller. Little hints keep dropping about Trump
firing him. Then the media and the left goes into a frenzy, demanding Saint Mueller stay.
Mueller has literally become the symbol of hope for the left.
Imagine Mueller now coming out and clearing Trump completely while exposing what his real
investigative objective was: revealing the deep state. Remember NBC and CNN mentioning
Mueller began investigating the Podestas? Then they dropped that story as fast as
possible.
I think we're witnessing the absolute genius of the deep state getting taken down. My
hunch is that Mueller is part of the team and the media is getting outsmarted.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 1:11 pm
One can only wonder to where all of this may go. Read this .
The thing about liberals is, they'll only accept one result in the Mueller probe. If Trump
removes him, he's hiding something. And if Mueller exposes Dem corruption instead of Rep
corruption, they'll say its fixed. They want the process to play out, but they'll only accept
one result, that of Trump/Russia collusion. They are blinded by their own hate.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:27 pm
Remember when the Dem's hated Comey? Boy, those were the days, weren't they?
Pandas4peace , February 10, 2018 at 11:35 am
Robert Mueller is leading an open-ended investigation that can cover any potential crime
uncovered during the course of the investigation. He has unlimited resources, no deadlines,
and no oversight. He can't be fired, except by the President. He reports to noone. His
targets have no idea what their crimes may be. His team is stacked with partisan hacks. He
uses heavy-handed tactics intended to break his adversaries, even if they haven't been
charged with a crime. He refuses to consider contrary evidence or to examine the DNC
computers. He won't interview witnesses. The Constitutional and human rights abuses are
alarming.
Douglas Mailly , February 10, 2018 at 11:43 am
Great article, but too bad about the polygraph reference, it just perpetuates the myth
that they are useful
One of the supreme ironies of our age is how the McCarthyesque focus on Russian
interference in our electoral process has completely obscured the domestic politicization of
our own institutions of government, that is the damage our now rabid placement of political
party party above the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American population.
Corporations have taken over our legislatures under the guise of "free speech", and the
country's foreign policy is controlled by a military-industrial-security complex that sees
perpetual war as the answer to domestic economic well being and American world hegemony.
While Russians have no doubt used the internet to sow dissent here via "perception
management", as we no doubt have done there and elsewhere around the globe, what we Americans
as masters of Madison Avenue techniques have done to ourselves pales in comparison. Can we
come to grips with this and then get on to building a more cooperative world? It's a cause
worth fighting for.
Mild -ly - Facetious , February 10, 2018 at 5:17 pm
Well said, Howard Mettee.
Our slow descent into the present National Chaos might well've been birthed under McCarthy
antics as cloak&cover for Operation Paperclip. One could rightly label his actions
"political theater" or straight subversion. -- Whatever, US actual history is a Disappearing
Act with imperious propensity. We, as a nation, have always been imperious and domineering,
just as were our British forefathers.
The present personification of our historical arrogance is this trenchantly self-approving
/ self-adoring Trump; (Mala Mens Malus Animus), whose wanton path of destruction is largely
more perverse than any of his predecessors. His path of DECONSTRUCTION is the portent of a
free-radical DISORGANIZATION of the world structure as we've known it. ( Poe aptly depicted
this in his short story, "The Descent Into The Maelstrom")
The foreboding actions from Mr. Trump foreshadow Perilous Times predicted first in First
Timothy 6: 9-10, Trump as forerunner and Second Timothy 3: 1-5 -- either and both apt
descriptions of Donald Trump.
– – – – – – "mala mens malus animus"
R Davis , February 10, 2018 at 2:21 pm
Is it a diversion?
From what?
It is obvious that Israel & Trump are on a roll.
Bombing Syria on the skirtings of Iran – "oh joy of joys, one step closer," – to
doomsday.
Elsewhere i have recommended the Palestinian people exit Palestine ASAP.
Foolhardy Israel is only the size of a postage stamp, 4 time the size of Hiroshima.
when nerves fray hey!
Brad Smith , February 10, 2018 at 2:22 pm
I was actually hoping that with Trump taking over the reigns of the war machine that the
left would once again mobilize and oppose our wars and the spying state that walks all over
our civil liberties. Trump certainly gives them enough legitimate areas of concern that they
have plenty to go on. Sadly this really does show the power of the press to manipulate public
opinion and the left-wing media loves Russia Gate.
For myself personally, I see the threat of a confrontation with Russia as the #1 concern.
We have now entered into a new cold war with all the massive spending, proxy wars and yet
again the very real chance of it leading to a hot war that could be the end of all of us.
Sadly the "left" in this country has once again fallen for the endless propaganda, their
hatred of Trump is only part of this issue.
With or without the Mueller investigation the Russia hatred will go on. Mueller could
exonerate Trump tomorrow and the anti-Russian propaganda will continue. It was already
ramping up well before our elections and much of it was targeted at the left then as well.
Remember Pussy Riot? Remember the stories about how homophobic Russians are? The left has
been primed to hate Putin for a long time by this propaganda and they fell for it well before
Trump ran for office. Think about it this way, before we had the American "Deplorables" we
had "Russians". They were shown as nothing but drunken, wife beating, homophobic, Religious,
white, gun nuts, etc. etc. etc. This Extreme form of stereotyping was meant to invoke hatred
by the left and it worked.
Joe Tedesky , February 10, 2018 at 8:33 pm
Brad you got it right. Yes, the Dem's are wasting valuable time chasing after these
Russian hackers who weren't there. Brad you also got it right, that these so called liberals
are blinded by their hatred of Trump, and in my estimation these kool-aid liberals are
passing up any golden opportunity they may have to go after Trump for what they should be
going after him for. Talk about misdirected, the Dem's aren't even close. Joe
Erelis , February 10, 2018 at 3:24 pm
Well, there was middle last year a nationally organized "March for Truth" which called for
investigation of Trump and any Russian ties. The march by newspaper reports got "hundreds" in
Chicago and NYC. I saw a live stream of the Portland march. Maybe just maybe cracked a
hundred. Basically the march attendees looked like older party partisans. I would expect the
same for any pro-Mueller rallies in that they will be pretty much be democratic party
rallies. As the leadership of groups like Planned Parenthood, unions, and other organizations
are aligned with establishment democrats, I am not sure they can convince their bases to
march.
On the electoral side. Sure some people will show up, and show up in democratic dominated
cities, but in the rest of America, more of a yawn. Establishment democrats think that
Russiagate will win them elections. I think not.
dee , February 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
The so called liberals tried to redefined the left away from working class to LBGT, Black
Lives Matter, abortion rights, etc and , in the process, dug their own graves.
So far these "liberals" have not dug their own graves, because media supports their
position now despite having primed Trump for winning during campaigning. I maintain that
having only two political parties is the crux of the problem, and clearly both are corporate.
People don't get how they are being played. A quote attributed to Mark Twain I just read: "It
is easier to fool people than to convince them that they are being fooled."
Dave Sullivan , February 10, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Yet another "analysis " of russia-gate without mentioning organized crime. The trump
cronies are mobbed up from top to bottom, and the right is shocked they would be looked at by
the FBI. Talk about snookered. Then the author, denigrates FISA, blames liberals, but doesn't
mention the lockstep GOP vote to continue it, or, the majority of dems who opposed .check
your own cognitive dissonance at the door before you sit to "write" again.
No reason for foul language, doesn't enlighten just plays into the already coarse society
we have. Colleen Rowley in the past has written on Mueller's harmful coverups of FBI behavior
including 9/11 collusion with Bush to ignore Saudi complicity, if I remember correctly.
Yoshi Shimizu , February 10, 2018 at 7:34 pm
Nuts' indeed. Before raising the temperature over the Russiagate, first. Shave off the
Pentagon budget!
"... The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime". ..."
"... It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual. ..."
"... We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure. ..."
"... Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ..."
The reason we are in the pickle barrel is exactly the reasons stated in the article and by Annie. We are exposed to exactly
what they want to show us and are blinded by other narratives which do not support the group think. It is as if the politicians,
the intelligence community and the media are all involved in a conspiracy. Remember that word means a plan by two or more people.
No tin foil hat required. But anyone suggesting conspiracy is instantly branded a nut hence the universal use of the term conspiracy
nut as a derogatory term to label anyone with a different message that somehow captures the attention of a wider audience. It
is not so much that all Holly Wood stars are liberal socialists. They are a diverse group. However they all have one thing in
common which is they have the public's ear. They are also not on point with the approved messaging and so must be continuously
branded as conspiracy nuts and socialist subversives. We all have seen the 24/7 bashing of these folks. Control is the reason.
The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the
novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as
a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality,
and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".
It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from
any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual.
I am appalled by how the media at first put Trump in the game in the first place for economic gain (see Les Moonvies article)
and then created another fictional fantasy which serves the goal of permawar and control of the citizenry through fear, confusion
and ignorance. We are all exposed to the Daily Two Minutes of Hate another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: The Two Minutes
Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must
watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them for
exactly two minutes. The difference is we can find it 24/7 on our technological wonder machines.
Another Orwellian concept is The Ministry of Truth: The Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda.
As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite:
it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. From Wikipedia: As well as administering truth, the ministry
spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like
2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show
a government-approved version of events.
We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately
obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits
in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example
is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example
of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever
a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and
hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today
the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the
target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure.
Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield
the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State
to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
If these things seem eerily similar to what is going on today then we probably have a power structure which is a grave threat
for peace. Okay, we do have a power structure that is a grave threat to peace but oddly not democracy. Noam Chomsky wrote about
propaganda stating, "it's the essence of democracy" This notion is contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent
with democracy. The point is that in a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because you can control what
they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be
heard, you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to
be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.
The folks who contribute here on this website are few indeed and what lies beyond the haven of the oasis is a vast barren dessert
filled with scorpions, snakes and a whole bunch of lies.
Well said for Annie and the authors.
Democracy may be the ultimate tool of control of the masses.
More wisdom from Goebbels:
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will
A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
We are striving not for truth, but effect.
The worst enemy of any propaganda, it is intellectualism.
For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying.
A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise.
I like that last one a lot but unfortunately it will not come to pass until things get bad.
Citizen One – You have beautifully & precicely nailed the means ( "how" ) the
USA has gotten in such a mess : Newspeak, Daily Two Minutes of Hate, The Ministry of Truth,
DoubleSpeak and the way and why of how Propaganda actually works. George Orwell was a
seer.
AND now it would be helpful to understand "why" the USA has gotten in such a mess. The
polarity of American politics tells a very long story but in short, polarity means there are
only two ways and when the going gets tough, each way is in the extreme – the right way
or the wrong way, it flips depending on each individual's political persuasion. When the
going gets tough the extremes become the tail that wags the dog.
So my question is : WHY after the seemingly happy years under Obama did the going get so
tough so fast?
My pet theory is that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp" which was understood –
seemingly now quite rightly – that he was going to expose some very significant wrong
doing in very high places. I believe that he was on "NYC/DC" friendly terms with the Clintons
and both parties knew each other for the true devil they were. Thus the big red flag he waved
in her face brought about what is turning in to a multi billion dollar ongoing attempt to
discredit him in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of the World and in the eyes of the
highest courts " America be damned".
And politically this is quite necessary because she is not only an icon of all that is
American,"apple pie and motherhood"; she is to the under 45 age group the great white mother
of democracy via Democrat rule. And the bad part of that iconography is that if she goes down
so does the party. It was also critical for her to win because of all the swamp people who
had chosen to compromise their life's work, thus had to continue in that compromise in the
hope that they would come out clean since they believed that both Trump and the ordinary
American were so naive, thus would be easily played for fools.
So all this crap to destroy Trump is about saving her hide to save the party. Things are
so desperate now because there is nothing yet in place to replace her in the mind's eye of
the Democratic half the voting public. All who might have been in 2nd place were kept
diminished to raise her higher. It now is quite obvious that she has been told to shut up and
lie low, to come out only when she is in safe company – as at the Golden Globes. So the
big picture today as is being painted and hyped to intensify mass hysteria is that Mueller
needs to be protected from Trump where really what is needed are the names and numbers to be
called on for more $$$, more social media propaganda pages and to vote in November 2018.
Why only that? Because Trump is not going to fire Mueller; remember Mueller was a Bush man
and so was Comey. They have a long history of going both ways. Survival is tricky business
– especially in DC. The scapegoats are already cornered; possibly the new "lie" is
already in draft form. Remember – "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as
the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of
the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
It is going to be an interesting next few months!! But we can hope that, from this one of
many previous American political exercises in democracy, the ordinary defenders of those
democratic values (the voters) will learn some significant truths about governance,
transparency and the rule of law. The guys at the top are not gods and are not above the law;
they must not only do right but be seen to do right.
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 7:57 pm
The only thing I can tell you is that the conspirators who concocted Russia Gate have
figured out all the pieces to the puzzle of how to control events via the means I mentioned
and many other means. We are as manipulated as a light switch. One way we are all fired up
about some BS and flip the switch and we are all calm and mellow. Hopefully if you follow the
threads here you will find out a lot of alternative information much of it thoroughly
researched by highly respected and qualified individuals who are in a position to know the
truth.
Mariam , February 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. They call themselves "liberals" in fact they are "new
liberals."
Alas, these false ("new) liberals" are very well represented by the Obamas, the Clintons, the
Trudeaus, the Macrons and so on.
If you truly believe in the "left" and call yourself "progressive" you couldn't stand for
useless and pointless wars, period.
"... As a young and inexperienced leader placed at the helm of a collapsing state: He rebuilt, stabilized and modernized Russia in a way to prevent future collapses He had to restore the "vertical" of power: "managed democracy" (i.e. restored order) He needed a consensual history patching up Czarist, Soviet and post-Soviet eras without imposing one, single, version of history He needed Western support to modernize the Russian economy He wanted Russia to be a great power, but not a super-power He never favored iron-curtain isolationism; he is an internationalist (more European than 90% of Russians, at least in the beginning). ..."
"... The key thesis is this: Putin began as a pro-Western, European leader and with time he realigned himself with a much more traditional, Russian worldview. He is more in line with Russian voters today. ..."
"... "by any reckoning, be it flourishing inside Russia or relations with Israel, by general consent of all, nobody denies this, Jews under Putin in Russia are better off than they had ever been in Russian history. Ever. They have more freedom, less official anti-Semitism, more protection, more official admiration for Israel, more interaction, more freedom to go back and forth". ..."
"... The Soviet KGB was first and foremost a huge bureaucracy with completely different, and separate, directorates, departments, and sections. Yes, one such Directorate did deal with dissidents and anti-Soviet activists (mainly the 9 th Department of the 5 th Directorate) but even within this (infamous) 5 th Directorate there were some Departments which, in coordination with other KGB Directorates and Departments, dealt with more legitimate tasks such as, for example, the early detection of terrorist organizations (7 th Department). Other Directorates of the KGB dealt with economic security (6 th Directorate), internal security and counter-intelligence (2 nd Directorate) or even protection of officials (9 th Directorate). ..."
"... My most important objection to Saker is that Putin does not know what to do about Ukraine and does not have a policy on Ukraine. ..."
"... The collapse of the Soviet Union was arranged by the Nomenklatura for their own benefit as a massive asset grab. ..."
"... On the plus side, Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia over the last three years – keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and light manufacturing industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western competition. ..."
"... I've heard a few of Grudinin's speeches, and they were very disappointing, to put it mildly. It is nice to say that you want to confiscate oligarch's money (after all, they just stole it), stop capital flight, nationalize natural resources, etc. It might sound good for the electorate, but without specifying means of achieving these goals, this is pure demagoguery. ..."
I have recently had the pleasure of watching a short presentation by Professor Stephen F. Cohen entitled "Rethinking Putin" which
he delivered on the annual Nation cruise on December 2, 2017 (see here for the original
Nation Article
and original YouTube video). In his short presentation, Professor
Cohen does a superb job explaining what Putin is *not* and that includes: (but, please do watch the original video before proceeding).
Professor Cohen ended his talk by suggesting a few things which might form a part of a future honest biography:
As a young and inexperienced leader placed at the helm of a collapsing state: He rebuilt, stabilized and modernized Russia in
a way to prevent future collapses He had to restore the "vertical" of power: "managed democracy" (i.e. restored order) He needed
a consensual history patching up Czarist, Soviet and post-Soviet eras without imposing one, single, version of history He needed
Western support to modernize the Russian economy He wanted Russia to be a great power, but not a super-power He never favored iron-curtain
isolationism; he is an internationalist (more European than 90% of Russians, at least in the beginning).
The key thesis is this: Putin began as a pro-Western, European leader and with time he realigned himself with a much more
traditional, Russian worldview. He is more in line with Russian voters today.
Professor Cohen concluded by addressing two topics which, I presume, his audience cared deeply about: he said that, contrary to
Western propaganda, the so-called 'anti-gay' laws in Russia are no different from the laws of 13 US states. Secondly, that "by
any reckoning, be it flourishing inside Russia or relations with Israel, by general consent of all, nobody denies this, Jews under
Putin in Russia are better off than they had ever been in Russian history. Ever. They have more freedom, less official anti-Semitism,
more protection, more official admiration for Israel, more interaction, more freedom to go back and forth".
This is all very interesting important stuff, especially when delivered to a Left-Liberal-Progressive US audience (with, probably,
a high percentage of Jews). Frankly, Professor Cohen's presentation makes me think about what Galileo might have felt when he made
his own "presentations" before the tribunal of Inquisition (Cohen's articles and books are now also on the modern equivalent of the
Index Librorum Prohibitorum) . In truth, Professor Cohen is simply true to himself: he opposed the crazies during the
old Cold War and now he is opposing the same crazies during the new Cold War. His entire life Professor Cohen was a man of truth,
courage, and integrity – a peacemaker in the sense of the Beatitudes (Matt 5:9). So while I am not surprised by his courage, I am
still immensely impressed by it. Some might think that delivering a short presentation on a cruise-ship is hardly a sign of great
courage, but I would vehemently disagree. Yes, nobody would shoot Cohen in the back of the neck like, say, the Soviet ChK-GPU-NKVD
would have done, but I submit that these methods of "enforcing" a single official consensus were far less effective than their modern
equivalents: the conformity imposition techniques (see:
Asch Conformity Experiment ) so prevalent
in the modern Western society. Just look at the results: there was far more reading and thinking (of any kind) going on in the Soviet
society than there is today in the modern AngloZionist Empire (anybody who remembers the bad old USSR will confirm that to you).
As one joke puts it: in a dictatorship, you are told to "shut up", while in a democracy you are encouraged to "keep talking". QED.
Turning to Professor Cohen's talking points, numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are basic facts. Nothing to be debated here – Cohen is plainly
setting the factual record straight. Number 5 is much more interesting and controversial. For one thing, we are talking views/intentions,
which are hard to judge. Was Putin ever pro-Western? Who knows? Maybe his closest friends know? My own belief is that this question
must be looked at in combination of issue #8: Putin's service in the KGB.
There is still a huge amount of misinformation about the old Soviet KGB in the West. To the average American a "KGB agent" is
a guy called Vladimir, with steel gray-blue eyes, who beats up dissidents, steals Western technological secrets, and spies on the
wives of politicians (and even beds them). He is a hardcore Communist who dreams about nuking or invading the US and he speaks with
a thick Russian accent. Alternatively, there is Anna Kushchenko (a.k.a.
Anna Chapman ) – a devious sex doll who seduces Western
men into treason. These prototypes are as accurate as James Bond is an accurate representation of MI6. The reality could not be more
different.
The Soviet KGB was first and foremost a huge bureaucracy with completely different, and separate, directorates, departments, and
sections. Yes, one such Directorate did deal with dissidents and anti-Soviet activists (mainly the 9 th Department of
the 5 th Directorate) but even within this (infamous) 5 th Directorate there were some Departments which, in
coordination with other KGB Directorates and Departments, dealt with more legitimate tasks such as, for example, the early detection
of terrorist organizations (7 th Department). Other Directorates of the KGB dealt with economic security (6 th
Directorate), internal security and counter-intelligence (2 nd Directorate) or even protection of officials (9
th Directorate).
Putin was an officer (not an "agent" – agents are recruited from outside the KGB!) of the First Main Directorate (PGU) of the
KGB: foreign intelligence. Putin himself has
recently revealed that
he was working inside the most sensitive Department of the PGU, the "Department S" which are "illegals". This is very important.
The PGU was so separate from all the other Directorates of the KGB that it had its own headquarters in the south of Moscow. But even
inside the PGU, the Department S was the most secret and separated from all the other PGU Departments (no less than 10). As somebody
who has spent many years as an anti-Soviet activist and who has had personal, face to face, dealings with KGB officers (of various
Directorates) I can confirm that not only did the KGB as a whole get some of the best and brightest in Russia, but the PGU got the
best ones of those and only the very best ones from that select group ever made it to the legendary Department S. Now let's look
at what kind of skill-set was required from PGU officers in general (besides the obvious two: being very bright and very trustworthy).
First and foremost, a PGU officer has to be a top-notch specialist of his area of expertise (in Putin's case: Germany,
of course, but also the rest of Europe and, since Western Europe was – and still is – a US colony, the US). While Soviet people were
told that the West was the enemy, the PGU officers had to understand why and how the West was that enemy.
In practical terms, this implies not only knowing and understanding the official cultural, political, social and economic realities
of the enemy's polity, but also the real power relations inside that polity. Such an understanding is not only useful to approach
and evaluate the potential usefulness of each person you interact with, but also to be able to understand in what environment this
person has to operate. The notion of PGU officers being bigoted commies is laughable as these men, and women, were very well read
(they had unlimited access to all the Western information sources, including anti-Soviet ones, classified reports, and all the anti-Soviet
literature imaginable) and they were ultimate realists/pragmatists. Of course, like in any organization, the top leaders were often
political appointees and the bureaucrats and counter -intelligence officers were much less sophisticated. But for officers like Putin
to really understand the reality of the Western society was a vital skill.
Second, a good PGU officer had to be likable; very, very likable. Being liked by others is also a crucial skill for a good intelligence
officer. In practical terms, this means that he/she has to not only understand what makes the other guy tick but how to influence
him/her in the right direction. When dealing with 'illegals' that also meant being their best friend, confessor, moral support, guide
and protector. You can't do that if people don't like you. So these intelligence officers are masters of being good friends and companions;
they are good listeners and they know a lot about how to make you like them. They also understand exactly what you like to hear,
what you want to see and what words and actions place you in a relaxed and trusting mode.
Now combine these two: you have a man who is top notch specialist of the West and who is superbly trained to be liked by Western
people. How likely is it that this man had many illusions about the West, to begin with? And what if a man like that did have misgivings
– would he have shown them?
My own gut feeling is that this is not very likely at all.
What is far more likely is this: Putin played the "West best's friend" role for as long as possible and he dumped it when it was
clearly not productive any longer. And yes, in doing that he did realign himself to the mainstream Russian public opinion. But that
was just a useful side-effect, not the cause or the goal of that realignment.
Look at the Professor Cohen's points 9-13 above (I would summarize them as "fix Russia"). They all make sense to me, even that
" he was a young and inexperienced leader ". There is a huge difference between being a skilled PGU officer and being the
man who rules over Russia. And even if Putin did lose some of his illusions, it would have been primarily because the West itself
changed a great deal between the 1980s and the 2010s. But Putin must have indeed always known that to implement Cohen's points 10-13
he needed the West's help, or, if that was not possible, at least the West's minimal interference/resistance. But to believe that
a man who had full access to the real information about the two Chechen wars would have any kind of illusions left about the West's
real feelings about Russia is profoundly misguided. In fact, anybody living in Russia in the 1990s would have eventually come to
the realization that the West wanted all Russians to be slaves, or, more accurately, and in the words of Senator McCain – "
gas station
" attendants. Putin himself said so when
he declared , speaking about
the US, " they don't want to humiliate us, they want to subjugate us. They want to solve their problems at our expense,
they want to subordinate us to their influence ". Putin then added, " nobody in history has ever succeeded in doing this and
nobody will ever succeed ". First, I submit that Putin is absolutely correct in his understanding of the West's goals. Second,
I also submit that he did not suddenly "discover" this in 2014. I think that he knew it all along, but began openly saying so after
the US-backed coup in the Ukraine. Furthermore, by 2014, Putin had already accomplished points 9-13 and he did not need the West
as much anymore.
Now let's look at points 6 (Putin's view of the Soviet period), 12 (consensual history) and 14 (Russia as a great power but not
a super-power). And again, let's consider the fact that officers of the PGU had total access to any history books, secret archives,
memoirs, etc. and that they were very free to speak in pragmatic analytical terms on all historical subjects with their teachers
and colleagues. Here I submit that Putin had no more illusions about the Soviet past then he had about the West. The fact that he
referred to the breakup of the Soviet Union (which, let's remember, happened in a totally undemocratic way!) as a "
catastrophe
" which was " completely unnecessary " does in no way imply
that he was not acutely aware of all the horrors, tragedies, waste, corruption, degradation and general evil of the Soviet regime.
All this shows is that he is also aware of the immense victories, achievements, and successes which also are part of the historical
record of the Soviet era. Finally, and most importantly, it shows that he realizes what absolute disaster, a cataclysm of truly cosmic
proportions the break-up of the Soviet Union represented for all the people of the former USSR and what an absolute nightmare it
was for Russia to live a full decade as a subservient colony of Uncle Sam. I am certain that Putin studied enough Hegel to understand
that the horrors of the 1990s were the result of the internal contradictions of the Soviet era just as the Soviet era was the result
of the internal contradictions of Czarist Russia. In plain English, this means that he fully understood the inherent dangers of empire
and that he decided, along with the vast majority of Russians, that Russia ought to never become an empire again. A strong, respected
and sovereign country? Yes. But an empire? Never again. No way!
This fundamental conclusion is also the key to Putin's foreign policy: it is "reactive" by nature simply because it only acts
in response to when (and what) something affects Russia. You could say that all "normal" nations are "reactive" because they have
no business doing otherwise. Getting involved everywhere, in every fight or conflict, is what empires based on messianic ideologies
do, not normal countries regardless of how big or powerful they are. For all the sick and paranoid hallucinations of Western Russophobes
about a "resurgent Russia" the reality is that Russian diplomats have often mentioned what the goals of Russian foreign policies
truly are: to turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into partners, partners into friends and friends into allies. And this is why
Professor Cohen is absolutely correct, Putin is no isolationist at all – he wants a new, multi-polar, international order of sovereign
countries; not because he is a naďve wide-eyed idealist, but because this is what is pragmatically good for Russia and her people.
You could say that Putin is a patriotic internationalist.
And now to the homosexuals and Jews. First, both assertions made by Professor Cohen are correct: homosexuals and Jews are doing
great in modern Russia. I would even agree that they are doing better than ever before. Of course, both Professor Cohen and I are
being factual and very superficial when we say that. And since I discussed both of these topics in some detail in the past (see
here and
here ) I won't discuss
them here. Rather, I would simply state that in both cases we are talking about a rather small minority of whose treatment is, for
some reason or other, considered as THE measure of humanity, kindness, civilization, and modernity in the West. Well, okay, to each
his own. If in the West, the treatment of these two minorities is The One And Only Most Important Topic In The Universe – fine. I
personally don't care much (especially since I don't feel that I owe any special consideration to either one of them). This being
said, I would also claim that Putin's number one concern is also not for any specific minority. However, and that is where this is
indeed very interesting, his concern for the majority does not at all imply any kind of disregard or disrespect for the fundamental
freedoms and rights of the minorities but includes his concern for all minorities (and, in this case, not just two minorities which
are treated as "more equal than others").
This is where various right-wingers and assorted Alt-Righters completely "lose" Putin. The very same Putin who told an assembly
of Orthodox Jews in Moscow that 80-85% of Bolshevik leaders were Jews (see subtitled video
here ), the same Putin who crushed the (overwhelmingly Jewish) oligarchs
of the Eltsin era as soon as he came to power, and the same Putin who completely ignored all the hysterics of Bibi Netanyahu about
the Russian role in Syria is also the same Putin who went out of his way to protect Russian Jews inside Russia and who considers
that Jews and Russians are forever joined in their common memory of the horrors of WWII.
[Sidebar: I personally wish that Russia would denounce Israel for what it is, an illegitimate racist rogue state hell-bent on
genocide and expansion, but I don't have relatives there. Neither am I the President of a country with very strong ties to the Russian-speaking
Jewish communities worldwide. In my opinion, I am accountable to nobody else but my conscience and God, whereas Putin is accountable
to those who elected him and still support him].
Guilt by association, the punishment of all for the actions of some, scapegoating, the vicious persecution of minorities in the
name of some ideal – this has all been tried in the past, both in Russia and in the West. The Nazis did that and so did the Soviets.
And both the Nazis and the Soviets inflicted untold horrors upon the many peoples of the Soviet Union and beyond. Putin is acutely
aware of the dangers of nationalism, just as much as he is aware of the dangers of imperialism, and he said so many times: Russia
cannot afford any more nationalistic conflicts as they almost completely destroyed Russia in the 1990s. Just look at modern Ukraine
and you will see what a Russia torn apart by nationalist ideologies could have looked like had Putin not cracked down, hard, on various
nationalists (including and mostly Russian ones).
Far from catering to (an admittedly powerful) Jewish lobby in Russia, Putin is, in fact, trying to assemble as many different
peoples and minorities as possible to his project of a New Russia; and that project includes Russian Jews, not only for the sake
of these Jews, but mainly for the sake of Russia . The same goes for another crucial minority in Russia – Muslims. They also very
much form a key part of the project Putin has for Russia. Of course, racists, nationalists and other less than bright folks in Russia
will still dream about expelling all Jews (or Muslims) from Russia. Simply put – that ain't happening (for one thing this would be
physically impossible) and Putin and those who support him will fight such projects with every legal tool at their disposal. Here
again, you could say that Putin is a patriotic internationalist.
In the meanwhile, the West is still stuck in its old, ideological ways: imperialism, nationalism and messianic exclusivism on
one hand, and a complete surrender to post-modernism, cultural self-hatred, petty minority politics and moral relativism on the other.
It is, therefore, no surprise whatsoever that both mainstream camps in the West completely misread Putin and can't figure out what
he is up to.
Professor Cohen is right: the real Putin has absolutely nothing, nothing at all, in common with the pseudo-Putin the Western media
presents to its infinitely gullible and zombified audience. Alas, nobody will listen to Cohen, at least not until the regime in Washington
DC and the power structure which supports it, and whose interests it represents, come crashing down. But I do believe that Professor
Cohen will eventually go down in history as the most intellectually honest and courageous Russia expert in the US.
I respect this commentator and respect Mr. Cohen and detest the power structure they are resisting. This seems to be a realistic
appraisal of Putin's role.
Guilt by association, the punishment of all for the actions of some, scapegoating, the vicious persecution of minorities
in the name of some ideal – this has all been tried in the past, both in Russia and in the West. The Nazis did that and so
did the Soviets.
Saker, I know you want to sound egalitarian and fair, but comparing Nazi's and Soviet treatment of minorities – come on man.
Nazi's mistreated minorities because of the fact that they were of different ethnicity, and that treatment was reserved for them
only, and not for the Germans.
In the Soviet Union, the mistreatment of minorities had more equal opportunity flavor – they didn't want to make the minorities
feel left out of the mistreatment that the ethnic Russians were receiving themselves.
In other words, the USSR didn't want to discriminate against the minorities by treating them differently than the ethnic Russians.
Imagine how it would have felt from the minorities perspective if the USSR authorities refrained from sending them to the Gulag.
They would have felt unloved and unworthy of receiving the same treatment as the Russians. Like they are not good enough to be
sent to the Gulag.
Both of you – The Saker and prof. Cohen probably are right in yours conclusions about Putin and its role in world and Russia's
history. But: - he was appointed by Yeltsin, as I.Shamir (
http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-rich-also-cry/ ) said
to guard Old Money; - he did alot for our country and really saved it from final crushing, but he could have done much more
and he had not.
I mean corruption questions when he behaves very selectively (keeping some corruptioners while fight with others, this looks
like undercover fight), economy (thanks US imbeciles with sanctions which forced him to support internal productions and agriculture),
he did almost nothing to get those oligarchs's money work for country, he does invest to different unneeded projects (like football
champ etc) not trying to help poorest part of our society, he still does nothing (even supports) 5th column (Chubais, Kudrin,
Shuvalov, Gref ), building stupid Eltsin center .
So I, as well as many Russian, have a very contradictory feelings to him. After Crimea joined Russia we all gave him a big
credit. Most than 90% of Russians happy of this, when root and lovely part of Russia returned home not to say about strategic
meaning of that. But now credit is over and if we could see someone good enough to be compared with Putin – quite a significant
part of a society is ready to vote for for such person. Unfortunately not now. Grudinin doesn't seem to be real alternative,
others are just clowns appointed to be faked alternatives.
And the future of Russia is very vague.
Alas, nobody will listen to Cohen, at least not until the regime in Washington DC and the power structure which supports
it, and whose interests it represents, come crashing down.
But, thanks to US neocons, it's probably no future at all going to happen, just getting back to stone age. Hope it's
a joke. Alas.
Professor Cohen is right: the real Putin has absolutely nothing, nothing at all, in common with the pseudo-Putin the Western
media presents to its infinitely gullible and zombified audience. Alas, nobody will listen to Cohen, at least not until the
regime in Washington DC and the power structure which supports it, and whose interests it represents, come crashing down. But
I do believe that Professor Cohen will eventually go down in history as the most intellectually honest and courageous Russia
expert in the US.
It's very encouraging for me to get the impression that a genuine expert, such as Cohen is on Russia and on Putin, has reached
the same broad conclusions about Putin as I have as a mere amateur (albeit long-time) observer of world events.
It's vaguely discouraging that on the particular issues of homosexuals and jewish influence Cohen is able to "reassure" the
worst parts of his leftist and presumably political correctness-hobbled audience on Putin, but it's not really a big concern for
me. It would be better imo if Putin had wise views on those topics – "gays" are not a "minority" but rather just people who choose
to engage in sexual perversion which ought, at the least, to not be officially encouraged, and Jewish people are a recognizable
ethnic/national/religious group, with broadly clear identity interests and external loyalties not necessarily congruent with those
of the nations they live in, but it's mostly not really any of my business or concern, except insofar as it plays into politics
and international policy over here, since he's the Russian president and I'm not Russian.
Anyone who would bother to examine the issue would arrive at the same conclusions as Mr Cohen. Most Americans won't but just rely
on what the mass media transmits to them. The propaganda campaign against Putin depends on repeating the same themes over and
over again hence the constant use of the term "thug" to influence the minds of the audience. The campaign against Putin is so
vehement and shrill because of his effectiveness in building up the Russian state. Contrast it to the treatment Yeltsin received
in the western media as a brave fighter for democracy with pics of him standing on top of a tank. Name calling can't harm Putin
or Russia even if it creates an unpleasant environment. After all, they have their army and can't be aggressed against no matter
any wishful thinking. The toxic haze is to get the western mind used to the idea that conflict with the Russians, or Putin, in
inevitable and desirable to free the world of a dictator. Clinton appeared to want a no-fly zone over Syria and thus military
confrontation was on the horizon over that and over other places. We were being prepared for that. That seems to have dissipated
for the moment but the internal dynamic of US expansionism remains. What we don't want to do is start believing our own baloney
and blunder into any conflict that could cause a catastrophe.
As they say you can't make everyone happy, for they could have always in their limited view and knowledge of what's going on
behind the scenes could always have done more, but the fact remains that Putin was the right person at the right time for Russia
Anon from TN
You wrote: "Putin is the leader of the free World. A sensible man with a real set of nuts, he stands almost alone".
In my view, you grossly overestimate Putin. He is a normal man, capable and intelligent, but he is not by any means that larger-than-life
leader and savior of the free World. He looks much greater than he is because you subconsciously compare him with pathetic nonentities
that the Western world sees as leaders now. In fact, the leadership of the US Empire and all its vassal countries visibly degenerated
in the last decades. Just compare De Gaulle with sad excuses La Belle France had for presidents lately. Or compare Nixon (he might
have been a nasty person, but he was a great President of the country) with various Clintons, bushes, obamas, and trumps. Or compare
Chancellor Kohl with that poor excuse for a chancellor that Germany has today. You get the drift.
Putin's Russia punches much more than its economic power warrants for the simple reason that he plays chess, seeing many moves
ahead, whereas Western leaders he deals with don't even have enough brains to play checkers. He is often winning the game with
weak hand not so much because he is great, but because his opponents are clueless. I'd say he, Chinese Xi, and Israel's Bibi look
so smart not because they are geniuses, but because they are dealing with morons.
Anon from TN.
Sorry to disappoint you, but when the Russians saw the example of Ukraine after 2014 they understood the destructive power of
primeval tribal nationalism. That's why after the Ukrainian coup popular support for Russian nationalists nosedived. Let me remind
you that neither Kadyrov, nor Shoigu, nor Lavrov are ethnic Russians, yet they are perceived by many in the country as super-Russians.
Many in today's Russia hold the view that Russian is not a nationality, but a state of mind. Let me remind you the words of former
commander of Gorlovka (Donetsk Republic) Bezler: "My mother is Ukrainian, my father German, so who am I? A Russian!"
For the last four years I have listened to Prof Steve Cohen being interviewed on the John Batchelor radio show. In those discussions
I have always been struck by Cohen's equanimity, scholarship and sense of fair play. (As an aside, I have also been struck by
his seemingly fond regard for being reared and educated in Kentucky which at that time was still semi-segregated.)
Cohen oftentimes contrasts the Old Cold War where various viewpoints were on the table versus the one-sidedness of the New
Cold War. And he especially castigates his fellow left wingers for failing to consider alternative viewpoints. Note that Cohen
is associated with The Nation magazine, a leftist publication edited and subsidized by his wife.
As of now Cohen is a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. I concur with your judgement and it is my hope that history will
honor him for his efforts.
Amongst people who tend to really distrust, dislike people, where we are called Russian agents, or Russians. I have studied
lots about Russia, especially since 1990 plus.
I also came to similar over years as Cohen. There is no plan for USSR rebirth, or tanks rolling to Poland and Berlin, or even
returning to super power status (at least unlikely).
In 1990 the Russians were in very poor state, and now they have returned to world power status. I think its important to have
bipolar world. (even multipolar would be better).
Now I dont love Russians, Im still mixed on Putin, but I think Russians and Putin have made some positive changes. I can respect
that. Average Russian, morals are similar to mine (and the same can be said of most Slavics).
Anon from TN. Well, current Ukrainian regime is a lot more "Sovok" than those who resist it. At least if by "Sovok" you mean
rampant corruption, widespread unprofessionalism, and obsession with a totally loony ideology.
"Cohen is a lone voice crying out in the wilderness." Feels that way, but he's not totally alone. For example, I believe
most members of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) feel about the same. And he's a board member of the American
Committee for East-West Accord.
I neither like nor dislike Putin. He is what he is, he's in charge of Russia, he needs to be dealt with.
>He is not the man who de-democratized Russia (Elstin and the White House did)
When was Russia ever democratic to begin with? Tsarism, civil war, Communism, oligarchy, Putin. That's pretty much been it.
And that's OK. Russia is a massively different culture. But the US isn't to blame.
>He is not the leader who created corruption and kleptocracy in Russia (Elstin and the White House did)
No. Corruption began to really take off in the 1970s under Brezhnev, and that's when the Russian mafia began to strongly collaborate
with the government, breaking the old vor code. The KGB remained above it all, but Putin was the product of a corrupt society
from the get-go.
Following the collapse of the USSR, yes, everything got a lot more explicit and out-there. But the rot didn't just appear overnight.
>He is not a criminal leader who ordered the murder of opponents or journalists (no evidence)
I don't find it hard to believe, but I don't care enough to find out one way or the other. What Putin does in his own country
is, or should be, his own business. Properly conducted foreign policy cares about the external actions of foreign nations, not
their internal ones, but that's anathema to American political culture-on both sides of the political spectrum.
Besides, I can't really label a single group in society I could care less about than journalists.
>He did not order the hacking of the DNC servers (no evidence)
Again: I don't find it hard to believe he did, but I don't think it is as relevant as the Democrats would like it to be. Intelligence
services can exacerbate political conditions. They cannot create them. Putin did not force Hillary to run arguably the most inept
campaign in American political history, losing in spite of the near uniform backing of everything "official" in the US. Unless
you believe Moscow magically spawned millions of pissed off downscale white voters in the Rust Belt, try again.
Moreover, Putin definitely wanted Trump to create political chaos in the US. Whether he wanted him in the White House is an
open matter. Though he's friendlier than Hillary on a lot of foreign policy issues, he's surrounded by standard issue GOP hawks
who influence everything, and he must be disappointed. Furthermore, like all authoritarian rulers, Putin wants stability. (That's
why, prior to Bush II, most authoritarian governments in the world-especially Russia and China-openly preferred Republicans in
charge.) Trump is anything but.
>He was not anti-US or anti-West from the get-go (Putin changed over time)
Correct. He's changed over the years.
>He is not a neo-Soviet leader (he is very critical of Lenin and Stalin)
Very critical of Lenin, which should surprise no one given that Lenin himself was far more fond of Western culture-specifically
German -- than Russia, who he thought of as a backward, "Asiatic" place. As I've said, the KGB following Stalin's purges was arguably
the least ideologically Communist place in the USSR, at least compared to their major two rivals-the military and party -- in
the ever ongoing three-war political struggle that characterized post-Stalin Russia.
More ambiguous with Stalin. He's been making noises about replacing Volgograd's name around the anniversary of the battle back
to the old Stalingrad. I think he holds the standard views that Russians his age hold of Stalin. I think they'll readily agree
that he's probably in hell if it exists right now, and showed there was such a thing as being too fond of law and order, but he
was *their* SOB and got them through the war.
>He is not an aggressive foreign policy leader (he has been a reactive leader)
He is primarily defensive, yes. Partially by necessity-his Russia just can't project power like the USSR could-but also because,
unlike the USSR, his Russia is not governed by an ideology that necessarily implies eventual expansionism.
>He is not somehow defined by his years at the KGB.
He's partially defined by them, but not in the way people think. The KGB was, by the time Putin was in the organization, far
and away the least ideologically Communist place in the USSR and saw their main function as protecting what was essentially an
old-style Muscovite imperium with Marxist trappings from the spoiled, corrupt party princelings-who they did not allow into the
organization. The KGB was the only place someone like Putin could have accelerated, given that 1970s USSR had one of the lowest
social mobility rates in the world, contrary to the propaganda. Chekist thinking is very evident in his public pronouncements,
his actions, and his beliefs about how life works. It's pretty obvious. Putin's regime is the first in history to be dominated
by former security and intelligence professionals to this extent. Most of his inner circle-former intelligence officers.
However, equally important is old-style Tsarist Orthodox-laden Slavophilism, and just plain greed and venality. The third one
is overlooked. I think Putin's real first goal, all things balanced, is staying in charge, on top, and wealthy. That means keeping
the various turf lords in check and satisfied. It works for now. What happens to the sand-castle when he dies is a different matter.
As they say you can't make everyone happy, for they could have always in their limited view and knowledge of what's going
on behind the scenes could always have done more
Exactly, but I think you know not more that me here in Russia "what's going on behind the scenes".
And yes, probably there are hidden reasons for his behaviour, but I've written what many (I beleive the majority) of Russians
think. Of cource not all, there are some absolute fans of him and absolute enemies, BTW mainly latter are jews for unknown reasons.
but the fact remains that Putin was the right person at the right time for Russia
bold assertion – "the fact". It's not the fact, – it's your opinion, not more. Yes, It could have been much worse person,
but could have been much better. Or you think he's an ideal? Nobody denies his achievements, but I mentioned also his (actually
ours) losses or mistakes.
Saker did a great job of explaining Cohen's position on Putin that had been misunderstood in mainstream Western media. Cohen has
basically been trying to show that Putin is a normal leader, ready to cooperate with the US and defend his country's national
interests. His posture has been defensive. Cohen is trying to reason with the liberals and New York Jews. He is trying to convince
them that the mainstream media is lying. Fine.
But that does not explain what Putin's agenda is. Saker goes further. He does explain most of Putin's past and present. But
still there is room for disagreement. Saker argues that Putin knew all along the wicked intentions of the US and openly revealed
that knowledge after the Ukraine take over by the US. Here I disagree. When Bush came to Russia Putin greeted him with genuine
enthusiasm. Putin then did hope that Russia and US could turn the page and begin a new relationship. That did not happen. Expansion
of NATO happened instead. And that is when Putin began to reconsider. My difference with Saker is that I believe that Putin still
does not know what his policy to the US should be. He still hopes that Trump will live up to his pre-election promise. Putin is
still beholden to the moment of 2003 when Russia Germany France and Italy were together in opposition to US Iraq war. He still
craves for the days when the German Chancellor and Italian leader were his personal friends. He hoped then and still hopes today
to draw Europe to Russia and undermine NATO from within.
However, the Ukraine conflict has completely messed up that dream project. My most important objection to Saker is that
Putin does not know what to do about Ukraine and does not have a policy on Ukraine. He puts up with what no Russian leader
would put up with. Americans are arming Ukrainian neo-Nazies for a war with Russia. And Putin does nothing. Americans openly arm
terrorists on Syria who shoot a Russian airplane and Russia does nothing. Basically Putin's policy of turning enemies into partners
and partners into friends and friends into allies has partially succeeded in Syria but failed in Ukraine. Is he going to wait
until US missiles are established in Ukraine? Is he going to accept de facto NATO membership of Ukraine. Where is the red line
beyond which he would not go?
Cohen is a Communist and reflexive hater of the United States in the Noam Chomsky mold. He is either naive or a fool if he believes
half of what he is saying.
Russia never had a decent shot at democracy. The collapse of the Soviet Union was arranged by the Nomenklatura for their
own benefit as a massive asset grab. The fight between Yeltsin and the Russian Parliament was basically a fight between two
factions, and the Yeltsin/KGB faction beat the CPSU/Red Manager faction. Putin is very much a product of and continuation of the
Yeltsin/KGB team (notice, for example, the role that Chubais continues to play in government policy), but the current team realizes
how hated Yeltsin is and are smart enough to create plausible distance for public consumption.
For the most part the Putin years have been a failure, and these last two decades will be seen as squandered. Very little economic
growth, continuing deterioration of the education and health systems, increasing dependence on China and massive transfers of
wealth abroad. Those are Putin's primary achievements. On the plus side, Western sanctions have been a net benefit to Russia
over the last three years – keeping capital in the country and giving the agricultural, food processing and light manufacturing
industries some room to breathe and develop free from Western competition.
Good question. Probably it was a sarcasm and you think you proved I'm wrong?
After all the answer depends on what you trying to get. For US probably Sobchak will be just fine, for people of Russia who want
peace and prosperity the answer will be certainly other.
I put it quite clear
But now credit is over and if we could see someone good enough to be compared with Putin – quite a significant part of a
society is ready to vote for for such person. Unfortunately not now.
Unfortunately I see no specific person
Grudinin doesn't seem to be real alternative, others are just clowns appointed to be faked alternatives.
But as for me personally I ( probably , I'm still watching for his electoral company) will vote for Grudinin cause he's
representing patriotic block, not himself only.
Anon from TN
You are free to vote any way you want. However, I'd like to remind you that Russia already had one Director of Sovkhoz as president
(Gorbachev), and nothing good came out of it.
Cohen could go further. One of the curious fixations of US public discourse is reducing the country to a leader, when the most
comprehensive standard of governance assigns duties to the state as a whole. Anyone can compare Russia and the USA point by point.
Comparing US and Russian human rights protections, it's evident that Putin's Russia undertakes to meet world human rights standards
in good faith, and the USA does not. Russians get a better deal than we do.
If my opinion really matters i'll write more later, now from phone its abit difficult.
I can only say that we need clever, honest patriotic person which is not easy task u know. Especially if u are from US, every
elections believe that most stupid people we already seen and its cant be worst, but I'm mistaken. Compare for ex Samanta Power
and N. Haley or Obama and Trump
Yes we need to isolate those cause they will do their dirty job with childs and u have no enough police to watch. They aggressively
set theirs habits remember lgbt parades etc
Yes I would be interested in your opinion, and yes I do live in the U.S. and yes your right that just when you think the worse
has arrived then on the scene one always worse arrives to makes you out as a lair
Anon from TN
You are right, this is not a scientific conclusion. Politics are not science.
I agree that Putin is not a perfect leader. His foreign policy is smart and successful (hence the US hysterics). But his internal
policies are far from admirable: he allows oligarchs to plunder the country and even transfer their loot abroad. A big chunk of
state budget is stolen by those close to the trough, but you have to keep in mind that even greater chunk of state budget is stolen
by "contractors" in the US and other countries (F35 program and Zumwalt are the best known examples, but there are many more).
Thing is, the politics are the game of the possible. I am not sure Putin can maintain his international stance and his position
in Russia and antagonize the whole ruling class at the same time. I disapprove of his "vertical" – Russia is not Lichtenstein,
it's a huge country that cannot be directly ruled by one person. I also believe that Russia cannot afford to have a total nonentity
as a Prime Minister, with only one redeeming (from Putin's standpoint) quality: loyalty.
However, I've heard a few of Grudinin's speeches, and they were very disappointing, to put it mildly. It is nice to say
that you want to confiscate oligarch's money (after all, they just stole it), stop capital flight, nationalize natural resources,
etc. It might sound good for the electorate, but without specifying means of achieving these goals, this is pure demagoguery.
There is only one way to do all of it, and this way is called "socialism", like in the USSR. Problem is, this comes in a package:
you must make rouble not freely convertible into other currencies, you must strictly control the movement of people across the
border, you must introduce planned or at least semi-planned economy, etc.
You cannot pick and choose, no more than you can be a little bit pregnant: it is a yes or no thing. If Grudinin does not understand
that, he is not smart enough to be president. If he understands it, but does not acknowledge, he is simply dishonest. Many of
the other candidates are just clowns supported by the Kremlin to play this role (think Zhirinovsky). Besides, Russia should have
as the president someone who cares about the country more than about him/herself (this excludes Sobchak: she is smart, but she
cares only about her precious self), and certainly not a traitor running to the US Embassy for money and marching orders (you
should know who I mean). Thus, in my humble opinion, Putin, warts and all, is still the best president Russia can have at the
moment.
From phone..
Well, its funny, I just dont understand who are the God sake US people here on UNZ, from different sources I see Americans happy
with one more Russian killed in Syria. You know we call Americans "pindosy" ( пиндосы ) I actually not sure what its mean, but
its clear that its a most degree of disgust. And further its going the more our disgust. And its between two most powerful
countries in the world. Are u Americans have any feelings of selfdefence? Actually all red lines crossed and everything
ready for apocalypse
Pbone.
I'll answer,later. But just understand that for us its a live question, well probably for the whole world also, but this stupid
world doesn't know it yet
People of Lenin and Stalin caliber do not happen often. I think Putin is sort of transitional figure. However the main issue
since Stalin times seems to be lack of systematic approach in bringing up and then putting in power capable leaders and in reality
lots of fools getting up there. I believe fools essentially destroyed Ussr as saying goes fool is more dangerous than enemy. Long
topic but it is really a murky question as to where Russia is going with 70% of everything in few hands and stolen funds siphoned
offshore.
Oh I don't think most Americans are glad to see another Russian killed, at least not the sane ones that is, or anyone else
for that matter but our so called leadership is quite a different matter, and the farther down the rabbit hole we go the worse
it becomes as the best government money can buy goes into overdrive, for I suspect it will get a whole lot worse before it even
starts to get and better
"... But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify what the president had decided to do. ..."
"... How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in the firing of James Comey? ..."
The most plausible hypothesis is that Steele was simply telling Fusion and the DNC what they wanted to hear to collect the money.
When you go on a witch hunt you're going to find witches.
From the Nunes memo, there was, at the highest level of the FBI, a cabal determined to derail Trump and elect Clinton. Heading
the cabal was Comey, who made the call to exonerate Hillary of criminal charges for imperiling national security secrets, even before
his own FBI investigation was concluded.
Assisting Comey was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, running for a Virginia state senate seat, received a windfall of
$467,000 in contributions from Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.
Last week, McCabe was discharged from the FBI. Seems that in late September 2016, he learned from his New York field office that
it was sitting on a trove of emails between Anthony Weiner and his wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, which potentially contained security
secrets.
Not until late October did Comey inform Congress of what deputy McCabe had known a month earlier.
Other FBI plotters were Peter Strzok, chief investigator in both the Clinton email server scandal and Russiagate, and his FBI
girlfriend, Lisa Page. Both were ousted from the Mueller investigation when their anti-Trump bias and behavior were exposed last
summer.
Filling out the starting five was Bruce Ohr, associate deputy attorney general under Loretta Lynch. In 2016, Ohr's wife was working
for Fusion GPS, the oppo research arm of the Clinton campaign, and Bruce was in direct contact with Steele.
Now virtually all of this went down before Robert Mueller was named special counsel. But the poisoned roots of the Russiagate
investigation and the bristling hostility of the investigators to Trump must cast a cloud of suspicion over whatever charges Mueller
will bring.
Now another head may be about to fall, that of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
If Mueller has given up trying to prove Trump collusion with the Kremlin and moved on to obstruction of justice charges, Rosenstein
moves into the crosshairs.
For the heart of any obstruction scenario is Trump's firing of James Comey and his boasting about why he did it.
But not only did Rosenstein discuss with Trump the firing of Comey, he went back to Justice to produce the document to justify
what the president had decided to do.
How can Rosenstein oversee Mueller's investigation into the firing of James Comey when he was a witness to and a participant in
the firing of James Comey?
The Roman poet Juvenal's question comes to mind. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?
Consider where we are. Mueller is investigating alleged Trump collusion with Russia, and the White House is all lawyered up.
The House intel committee is investigating Clinton-FBI collusion to defeat Trump and break his presidency. FBI Inspector General
Michael Horowitz is looking into whether the fix was in to give Hillary a pass in the probe of her email server.
Comey has been fired, his deputy McCabe removed, his chief investigator Strzok ousted by Mueller for bigoted anti-Trump behavior,
alongside his FBI paramour, Page. Bruce Ohr has been demoted for colluding with Steele, who was caught lying to the FBI and fired,
and for his wife's role in Fusion GPS, which was being paid to dig up dirt on Trump for Clinton's campaign
If Americans are losing confidence in the FBI, whose fault is that? Is there not evidence that a hubristic cadre at the apex of
the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they
would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?
To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.
a hubristic cadre at the apex of the FBI -- Comey, McCabe, Strzok foremost among them -- decided the Republic must be saved
from Trump and, should Hillary fail, they would step in and move to abort the Trump presidency at birth?
Beautifully written article Mr. Buchanan
To the deep state, the higher interests of the American people almost always coincide with their own.
What it always looks like to me, is that the interests of the deep state never coincide with the actual interests of
the American people, and that indeed, they are mutually incompatible.
It seems to me that one of, if not the main motivation of the deep state is to dismantle the American people's Constitutional
rights, disarm then, and set about creating an Orwellian dystopia for the purpose of exerting total power over them.
Who doubts that Hillary's very grotesque existence is one big collective desire of a certain bent of people to wield total
power over others? Why else would she publically cackle at the torture/murder of a man she disliked unless she figured her audience
agreed that his murder was a good thing, and that once she came to power, that she's really get to the business of putting it
to those deplorables but good! Not for anything they ever did, but for what they were – irredeemable.
In fact, I see the deep state today as an exact incarnation of Orwell's Ingsoc, with it's total surveillance police state,
and all the other tyrannical state power abuses over every aspect of our lives. (Even with the ubiquitous televisions with the
microphones and cameras monitored by the Ministry of Love)
we have the Newspeak speech codes on our universities. The places where our young and brightest are supposed to be taught to
think, and they're doing the opposite- by creating mindless drones who parrot doubleplus good PC bromides.
we have the Eternal Wars
we have the ((inner party))
we have the two minute hate for the Hitler du jour, (Osama, Saddam, Gadhafi, Assad, now Putin )
we have the Ministry of Truth = msm fake news 24/7 lies and more lies
we have the Ministry of Love = Gitmo
we have the all pervasive fear that governs our conversations and alters our behavior. How many dare to discuss the
inner party at dinner parties or at work? How many dare to flout the speech codes?
1984 was the most prescient book ever written, with a nod to The Protocols, as runner up. And the deep state today is nothing
more than what Orwell was writing about. Men and women who seek power for its own sake. And have a deep-seated imperative to wield
that power over others.
That's what the memo is about. Power-crazed assholes hell bent on putting their boot on our collective faces. And mashing it
in.
who doubts, for one second, that John Brenan
(or Hillary or John McCain ) would relish the opportunity to put the metaphorical 'deplorable' in this chair?
for some reason, when I look at that photo, (a peek into the id of the deep state personality) I see Ron Paul in that chair,
with Rudy Giuliani standing there, but it could just as easily be Edward Snowden in the chair, with Dick Cheney presiding..
But the reason I'm belaboring this Orwellian theme is because it is quintessentially salient to this subject of the deep state.
George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest
"George really laid it all out for us, with the motivations and methods and thoughtcrimes and doublethink and all the rest
"
True enough, but it was Huxley who nailed the underlying theme that made it all possible; the people will trade all of their
other rights for complete sexual freedom.
Orwell's 1984 was an exposition of Totalitarianism, with the Inner Party using these mechanisms because they work. Like you
say, the whole package is now present in the US, although the Inner Party doesn't yet have sufficient power to use full state
violence against the public.
But at some point they'll have to , since the system is based on the implicit threat of violence against dissidents, and it
has to become explicit (social exclusion is not enough). So, realistically, the cabal needs a National Emergency with an official
suspension of Democracy, probably using the framework for emergency rule already in place under Reagan era COG (Continuity of
Government) legislation.
The 9/11 Coup was a failed attempt to activate a COG dictatorship under Cheney (halted by the events in Florida that morning),
but the same planners will inevitably try again. Their private security depends on public insecurity, allowing them to turn the
mechanisms of state power against the public, while paradoxically, they live by the integrity of this same hijacked state structure.
If the state should melt away in generalized anarchy, then the levers of power would no longer work, and they would face the
fate of Ceausescu or Gaddafi – hence the deceptive Doublespeak of the "Patriot Act" and "Homeland Security".
I'm not following this story much because it's boring but I will always be a fan of Nunes by the enemies he keeps. Ana Navarro,
the 'Latina' battle-axe who is a 'Never Trump' 'Republitard' was on TV and made sure to let everybody know that Nunes was not
an Hispanic. He's of Portugese decent, racial politics. LOL Devin Nunes is ok in my book. Hopefully he's not an Israeli firster.
Your information is wrong as always, Corvinky. The leftist "Russian collusion" narrative is collapsing and (((Seth))) and other
lefties are desperate to keep it alive with spin and fake facts. That's why it's quietly changed from claims of collusion to obstruction
of justice since there's no evidence of the former.
If there was other corroborating evidence then why absolutely no mention of it until now? If the (((lamestream media))) knew
and sat on it then they are colluding with the Democrat party on how and what to report which we already know they do. And it
proves that the (((media)) is hyper partisan and not independent but anyone with half a brain already knows that also.
If there was really any evidence of Trump collusion the NSA would have it, but they don't. In fact, it was the NSA that threatened
to spill the beans on the origins of the Steele dossier if the FBI and DOJ failed did not come clean to the FISA court.
San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore. "Science is our best witness in this case. It is not biased and it doesn't lie."
According to police, Zahau bound her own hands and feet with a thick red rope and hanged herself naked off the second-floor
balcony of a guest bedroom. She appeared to have secured one section of the rope to the footboard of the bed before she bound
her feet, wrapped the rope around her neck, tied her hands behind her back, walked to the balcony, and propelled herself over
the railing.
indeed, I suspect that it is because they so often get away with such things that this mega-wealthy Hollywood insider figured
he'd also get away with it.
"Well, then," he said to the police, "I guess you'll have to find out who did it."
Doesn't work that way in a criminal investigation. Man, you really have little clue how our legal system works.
Obviously, you don't either. As someone who was against the Clinton witch hunt that created a perjury trap when they couldn't
get him on real charges related to Whitewater, I can see perfectly well that this is similar – drag this on and on until they
can create some process crime.
There's now a mountain of evidence that shows that they are lying, and the only way for US society to stabilize, is to pull
every thread of the 9/11 shroud until the whole rotten enterprise is revealed, and the US public can see the plotters in daylight.
[Robert] Mueller took over the FBI one week before the 9/11 attacks
His protestations helped the Bush administration railroad the Patriot Act through Congress, vastly expanding the FBI's prerogatives
to vacuum up Americans' personal information
whoever pulls down the "Democratic" facade will be doing the US a favour.
not just the US. They'll be doing the whole planet a favor. 9/11 has been the pretext for serial wars of aggression against
nations that have done us no harm. It has been used as the pretext for the total police / surveillance state that has eviscerated
our constitution, and rendered it a worthless piece of toilet paper, all to the bovine cud-chewing apathy of the dumbed down Americanus
Bovinus. Who can't wait for the next Hollywood movie based on cartoon characters to come out on the big screen.
I was poised to leave this country if Hillary became potus, and still wonder if there's any hope at all.
These psychopaths are as bad as they get. These Straussian neocons and tribalist Jewish supremacists are bad news, man. Very,
very bad news. They're ideologically driven by a Satanic imperative to dominate, and they will never, ever stop. Until
they are stopped. And that would require a resolve that the Americanus Bovinus is endemically incapable of, because it necessitates
a spiritual mettle that's been systematically bred out of them.
They'd rather embrace their smart device chains, than suffer the egregious enormity of breaking a societal taboo or politically
correct norm. And this has all been very systematically constructed with schools that dumb them down, and universities that create
slavish fealty to virtue signaling uber alles.
It's all so very tragic, because for one thing, these people had it made! They're the most wealthy and powerful demographic
in the country. They enjoy assess and perks wildly out of proportion to their fellow Americans. But that is not enough! Then want
that boot on everyone's neck and they want it now, God damn it!
So the world is driven to the brink to sate an insatiable appetite for grandiose megalomaniacal power. And once they have the
power, what fun is that unless you use it?
George Soros doesn't want his son to see the fall of Europa and Western civilization, HE wants to see it! He wants to cackle
like Hillary was able to over the murder of Gadhafi, only he want the stake though the heart of Hungary in particular.
It's this psychotic need of these people to see everyone else suffer, while they laugh at the misery, knowing that they caused
it all. Whether it's in Palestine or Libya or Ferguson. Hate all day long, and with a bottomless pit of rancor and bile tossed
in for good measure.
Hell, when I contemplate them and their obsession to hate, all day, every day, I almost feel pity. Almost.
hatred of Trump is such that a huge slice of the country would support his removal by extralegal, unconstitutional means.
This is bigger than Watergate, a conspiracy at the highest levels, and before it's over, will decide the fate of the nation.
I just hope Trump is up to the task.
I very much agree.
I know of liberals who're despondent, and nearly catatonic over Trump. I've heard it said they're psychologically in the fetal
position, unable to cope with the ascendancy of Les Deplorables. Or, more precisely, the altering trajectory that doesn't have
a demographic dagger being plunged into the necks of 'the irredeemables' and their children as we speak.
They've been so rapturous over the looming evisceration of heritage America for so long, that having to wait a few more extra
years until that glorious day when the 'patriarchy' is dead and in its grave- is existential for them. Of course! they'd subvert
our 'democracy' and Constitution and all notions of decency in their butt-hurt quest, since they've never had a shred of integrity
to begin with. They don't even know what the word means, except as something to mock.
I wonder why when I replace Mueller with Starr in your post I seem to get the same conclusion?
However, I will give you this, Mueller is a POS protecting the Deep State against somebody he deems not worthy of a seat at
the table. Starr was a sanctimonious POS thinking he was leading a crusade to keep an uncouth lowbrow sleazeball out of an exalted
position.
However, I would suggest that some in the cabal have understood, all along, that in order for their dreams and plans to materialize,
there would have to be a Long March through the institutions and while they were conquering the institutions, the masses would
have to be given their breads and circuses.
A fellow traveler of our cause once said to me, words to the effect that, "they'll let you go on your football trips, and they'll
let the drunks enjoy their Budweiser, and of course they'll let people go to the movies and out to dinner."
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' ..."
"... Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. ..."
"... (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.) ..."
"... When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .) ..."
"... Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.' ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now
including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.
It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather
than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an
intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'
2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial
source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine
Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky
in May 2005.
This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson,
starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.
We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele
that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing
with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started
moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already
partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'
Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' -- a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar.
So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials
resources.
3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele
and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.
In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution
Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them
about Russia.'
It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom'
operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.
Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of élite Westerners, which, in honor of
Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own,
often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt
for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus
being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.
Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.
Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence
testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members
of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet.
(One good example is provided by
the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another
is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)
Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much
of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.
4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being
defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question
is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.
When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage
issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem
not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked.
(See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/
.)
5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September
defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander
Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece,
Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium
poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends
said.'
6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its -- supposed -- author was President
of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.
In one a contemporary is quoted:
"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said.
"Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."
The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries
recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.
From my own -- undistinguished and mildly irreverent -- Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind
of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way
up some greasy pole or other in later life.
It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism,
I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the
early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'
7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why
on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already
have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.
But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing
rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.
8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly
love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.
If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are
played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics
of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was
the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.
There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved
close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence -- including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both
sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control,
creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle
East.
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military,
culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people
populating this bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry
scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate
to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times
for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources"
such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies"
in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about
the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even
for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of
Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they
are not new) which are very worrisome.
"... The Grassley/Graham memo is devastating for Jim Comey. We can entertain only two possibilities--Jim Comey is a monumental dunce or he is a liar. One need only read the Michael Isikoff piece from 23 September 2016 to realize that Christopher Steele was a primary source for Isikoff. We are asked to believe that Comey is a naive, trusting soul bereft of curiosity, who refused to entertain the possibility that Steele was double dealing intel. ..."
"... First, Steele is resisting efforts to face a deposition in a lawsuit over his infamous dossier. Steele's lawyers argued in a court in London this week that a deposition would endanger the former spy's dossier sources as well as harm U.K. national security interests. If the Judge buys this claim then we will not have to speculate anymore about whether or not Steele was acting on his own or had a "wink-and-a-nod" from his MI-6 bosses. ..."
"... So much for our special relationship. As the evidence of British intelligence meddling in the U.S. election piles up it will create some strains in our bi-lateral ties. It has the potential to harm cooperation on military, law enforcement and intelligence fronts. I suspect there is some scrambling going on behind the scenes to come up with a strategy to contain the damage while rooting out the sedition. Stay tuned. ..."
"... Russia was unlikely to have been the only nation to break the unwritten rule that only Israel is allowed to interfere in US politics - Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Ukraine etc were almost certainly doing it too. ..."
"... Steele became the "go-to person on Russia in the commercial sector" following his retirement from the Secret Intelligence Service. He described the reputations of Steele and his business partner, fellow intelligence veteran Christopher Burrows, as "superb." ..."
"... London-Russian "oligarchy" there, with a very specific outlook on Russia-UK's track record in anti-Russian activities---> hence Steele's sources. Anything Russia-related in Anglo-American IC can not be treated as "superb" or even moderately "good" at all. ..."
"... I am waiting for Nunes memo on State Department. I am in no position to pass judgements on any legal, let alone operational "superbity" of, say MI-6 but and if it had intentions of influencing US elections (which is scandalous in itself) it is one thing, but in circles it all comes back to this Dossier which stunk to heaven from the get go. In circles less sophisticated than MI-6 it is known as disinformation, which, of course, the first indication of operation of influence. The decision to "believe" in this cocktail of rumors, lies and hearsay was made in Washington, not London. ..."
"... Trump had planned to visit UK this month but cancelled it a few weeks ago. Any possibility that might not just be due to expected protests and lack of British enthusiasm, but also as retaliation after he learned the MI6 and/or GCHQ involvement in this affair? ..."
"... can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure Trump's failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long time? ..."
"... I am simply not seeing the connection between spying on Page and spying on Trump. There has been no evidence released that even suggests it happened. I watched Tucker Carlson and Hannity this week and both are saying that the FBI spied on a POTUS candidate and on a sitting president (Trump in both instances, of course). I had to stop myself, clear my head and think for minute. I don't see it. They spied on Page and most likely anyone he talked to/met with, but that's not Trump nor anyone in Trump's inner circle. ..."
"... However, at this point, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides. The GOP is using the Page warrant to damage the FBI (well deserved, apparently) and Mueller's investigation. The dems are using the existence of the warrant on Page to insinuate that Trump campaign needs to be investigated b/c they had a Ruskie mole amongst them and a bunch of other stuff about collusion that Clinton and Steele pulled out of their asses. ..."
"... I think it was more reactive, they had all been complicit in a number of illegal activities and they were worried they would all go down if Trump won. They obviously got more and more desperate, digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole. ..."
"... Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated. Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage America. Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians. ..."
"... Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to election was insufficient. ..."
"... Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or determinative to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment than anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were anti-Trump before his nomination and wedded to him after. ..."
"... The Steele dossier is central to the public meme that Trump was colluding with the Russians. All of the major news stories on the subject were based on what Steele told them. ..."
"... "Did British Intelligence Try to Destroy the Trump Presidency?" Yes. That is why Steele is trying so hard to keep the Russian lawyers from deposing him in a London court. The Russians are on the scent, and Steele and his MI6 handlers know it. ..."
"... Are British Intelligence 'Still' Trying to Destroy the Trump Presidency? Yes. ..."
"... Trey Gowdy says Sidney Blumenthal is the 'domestic' source of the information in the Steele Dossier. Gowdy doesn't say the Steele Dossier is illegal, but it appears it was obtained by illegal conspiracy of DJT's political enemies. ..."
"... Thank you for this important post, PT. You've really captured some arresting details. The Grassley/Graham document is impressive, isn't it? I have been highly critical of both men in the past but credit where credit is due: good work, specific, particular, devastating. And at a tough time when taking sides makes enemies and draws fire. ..."
"... So Steele named some names and Simpson "did that work" of what appears to have been -- simply looking 'em up on the internet. There he saw some "scholars" and "learned" experts saying some of the same things Steele had said -- and so he believed it was all true. I guess world class journalist Simpson, who once worked for the Moonie Insight Magazine, had never heard of the disinformation tactic of mixing a dash of true with a pound of false. It would be sad -- if I believed he was actually such a babe in the woods. ..."
"... But hoo boy, wish I could get paid $50k a month to look things up on the internet! ..."
"... "The trouble with the Trump Dossier is that it's a recognizable product of a specific milieu: If you spend an evening or two in the bars where Moscow's chattering classes hang out, you'll hear an equal complement of political tall tales about Putin and his presidential administration. The kind of gossip that fills the Trump Dossier is common currency in Moscow, even if very little of it has any authority behind it aside from the speaker's own imagination. Any experienced observer learns to filter gossip for the stray useful clues that are sometimes hidden within curlicues of fantasy. The author of the Trump Dossier, though, appears enthusiastically to have transcribed every bit of tittle-tattle that fit the overarching narrative of a grand Kremlin scheme to elevate Donald Trump to the presidency." ..."
"... Here is some more The Russians are coming garbage coming out of DHS https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-07/dhs-russia-penetrated-voter-rolls-21-states-no-evidence-alterations And there is a lot of big money behind the Anti -Russia campaign. http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/february/07/your-guide-to-top-anti-russia-think-tanks-in-us-who-funds-them/ ..."
"... Basically Hillary bought herself a FISA warrant... ..."
"... The sudden resignation of the head of GCHQ, Hannigan, coupled with UK PM May's precipitate trip to Washington to meet Trump, leads me to speculate that GCHQ was an enabler of surveillance of the Trump team. ..."
"... My guess, based on my belief in the languid behaviour of British Intelligence professionals (which I acknowledge may be utterly unfounded) is that neither GCHQ or MI6 gave much thought to either Steeles machinations (which they may have known about in passing) or an American request for surveillance on a Trump team member, if in fact they even knew he was part of the team. They knew what was going on, but it was club chit chat until Trump won the election, then the enormity of their actions was made plain. ..."
"... Hilary bought a FISA warrant and then trolled for dirt on Trump. ..."
"... Graham and Grassley: "Thus, the FISA applications are either materially false in claiming that Mr. Steele said he did not provide dossier information to the press prior to Oct. 2016 or Mr. Steele made materially false statement to the FBI when he claimed he only provided the dossier info to his business partner and the FBI." ..."
"... If it turned out that the UK authorities had been in lockstep with the US authorities throughout before the election result, and had fed them every bit of nonsense they had relating to the US election, then what would that prove? Nothing. I'd hope they are in lockstep when it comes to passing on information from one country that might be of interest to the other. It would look very odd had it turned out later that the UK had been sitting on material that should have been passed across. I've no doubt that half the material the two sides pass across to each other is arrant nonsense - but they're more likely to find out what is nonsense and what is serious if they share it. ..."
"... Then it all blows up in their faces. Suddenly they find that the UK is associated with a very public down-market smear campaign against a US president. ..."
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence – including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control, creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle East. ..."
"... I don't understand what the big deal is here. British intelligence (or anybody else for that matter - remember Al Gore's soliciting Chinese money?) is welcome to meddle in US elections, as long as it is on behalf of the establishment/Deep State candidate. ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
"... What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation of a 'narrative' – in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to 'double think' and 'crimestop.' ..."
Last night's release of the memo by Senator's Grassley and Graham asking the Department of
Justice to open a criminal investigation of Christopher Steele for possible violations of 18
U.S.C. § 1001 provides critical confirmation of charges presented in the HPSCI memo
prepared under the leadership of Devin Nunes, but it also confirms that Christopher Steele was
not just some random guy offering good gossip to the FBI. He was an official intelligence
asset. He was, in John LeCarre's parlance, our "Joe." At least we thought so. But, there is
growing circumstantial evidence that Steele was acting on behalf of Britain's version of the
CIA--aka MI-6. If true, we are now faced with actual evidence of a foreign country trying to
meddle in a direct and significant way in our national election. Only it was not the Russians.
It was our British cousins.
The FBI has since provided the Committee access to classified documents relevant to the
FBI's relationship with Mr. Steele and whether the FBI relied on his dossier work. . . .it
appears that either Mr. Steele lied to the FBI or the British court, or that the classified
documents reviewed by the Committee contain materially false statements.
October 21, 2016, the FBI filed its first warrant application under FISA for Carter Page.
. .The bulk of the application consists of allegations against Page that were disclosed to
the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier. The application appears to
contain no additional information corroborating the dossier allegations against Mr. Page,
although it does cite to a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele's dossier as
well.
March 17, 2017 --the Chairman and Ranking Member were provided copies of the two relevant
FISA applications, which requested authority to conduct surveillance of Carter Page. Both
relied heavily on Mr. Steele's dossier claims, and both applications were granted by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
December of 2017 , the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Subcommittee Chairman Graham were
allowed to review a total of four FISA applications relying on the dossier to seek
surveillance of Mr. Carter Page, as well as numerous other FBI documents relating to Mr.
Steele.
When asked at the March 2017 briefing why the FBI relied on the dossier in the FISA
applications absent meaningful corroboration--and in light of the highly political motives
surrounding its creation--then Director Corney stated that the FBI included the dossier
allegations about Carter Page in the FISA applications because Mr. Steele himself was
considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau.
In short, it appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorroborated information , funded by
and obtained for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign, in order to conduct surveillance
of an associate of the opposing presidential candidate. It did so based on Mr. Steele's
personal credibility and presumably having faith in his process of obtaining the
information.
. . . the FBI continued to cite to Mr. Steele's past work as evidence of his reliability,
and stated that ''the incident that led to the FBI suspending its relationship with [Mr.
Steele] occurred after [Mr. Steele] provided" the FBI with the dossier infonnation described
in the application. The FBI further asserted in footnote 19 that it did not ,believe that
Steele directly gave information to Yahoo News that "published the September 23 News
Article."
The Grassley/Graham memo is devastating for Jim Comey. We can entertain only two
possibilities--Jim Comey is a monumental dunce or he is a liar. One need only read the Michael
Isikoff piece from 23 September 2016 to realize that Christopher Steele was a primary source
for Isikoff. We are asked to believe that Comey is a naive, trusting soul bereft of curiosity,
who refused to entertain the possibility that Steele was double dealing intel.
One of the most surprising revelations from the Grassley/Graham memo is in footnote 7. I'm
surprised this was not redacted because it is drawn from a redacted/blacked out paragraph. Here
is a critical bit of intel:
The FBI has failed to provide the Committee the 1023s documenting all of Mr. Steele's
statements to the FBI, so the Committee is relying on the accuracy of the FBI's
representation to the FISC regarding those statements.
This means Steele was a signed up intelligence asset for the FBI. He was our spy. A FD-1023
is an FBI form used to document meetings between FBI and sources. It is also called a CHS
Report--CHS aka Confidential Human Source. Here is an example posted by a Trump supporter on Twitter
:
With this confirmation the next move is in the hands of the Brits. If Steele became an FBI
asset without the knowledge of his former colleagues and chain of command, he faces legal risk.
But two development in the last two days suggest that British intelligence officials, at least
some key officials, were witting of Steele's activities in gathering information for the
FBI.
First, Steele is resisting efforts to face a deposition in a lawsuit over his infamous
dossier. Steele's lawyers argued in a court in London this week that a deposition would
endanger the former spy's dossier sources as well as harm U.K. national security interests. If
the Judge buys this claim then we will not have to speculate anymore about whether or not
Steele was acting on his own or had a "wink-and-a-nod" from his MI-6 bosses.
Second, in my mind more telling, were the comments made this week by former
MI-6 Chief, Richard Dearlove, on behalf of his former protege:
Among those who have continued to seek his expertise is Steele's former boss Richard
Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999 to 2004. In an interview, Dearlove said Steele became the
"go-to person on Russia in the commercial sector" following his retirement from the Secret
Intelligence Service. He described the reputations of Steele and his business partner, fellow
intelligence veteran Christopher Burrows, as "superb."
But we do not have to rely solely on Dearlove's glowing remarks about Steele. There is other
information indicating that the Brits played a substantial, if not leading, role in spying on
Trump and building the Russian meddling meme. The Guardian reported in April 2017 that:
Britain's spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to
contacts between members of Donald Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives,
the Guardian has been told.
GCHQ first became aware in
late 2015 of suspicious "interactions" between figures connected to Trump and known or
suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed
to the US as part of a routine exchange of information, they added.
Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further
information on contacts between Trump's inner circle and Russians, sources said.
So much for our special relationship. As the evidence of British intelligence meddling
in the U.S. election piles up it will create some strains in our bi-lateral ties. It has the
potential to harm cooperation on military, law enforcement and intelligence fronts. I suspect
there is some scrambling going on behind the scenes to come up with a strategy to contain the
damage while rooting out the sedition. Stay tuned.Reply
07 February 2018 at 04:20 PM
If it happened, the motivation would have been to curry favour with HRC, whom everybody
assumed would be elected.
Of course, we are only getting a partial view of what happened. Clinton family retainers
also had contacts with Russia; it's just not been reported much. And Russia was unlikely
to have been the only nation to break the unwritten rule that only Israel is allowed to
interfere in US politics - Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Ukraine etc were almost certainly
doing it too.
Steele became the "go-to person on Russia in the commercial sector" following his
retirement from the Secret Intelligence Service. He described the reputations of Steele and
his business partner, fellow intelligence veteran Christopher Burrows, as
"superb."
London-Russian "oligarchy" there, with a very specific outlook on Russia-UK's track
record in anti-Russian activities---> hence Steele's sources. Anything Russia-related in
Anglo-American IC can not be treated as "superb" or even moderately "good" at all.
I am waiting for Nunes memo on State Department. I am in no position to pass
judgements on any legal, let alone operational "superbity" of, say MI-6 but and if it had
intentions of influencing US elections (which is scandalous in itself) it is one thing, but
in circles it all comes back to this Dossier which stunk to heaven from the get go. In
circles less sophisticated than MI-6 it is known as disinformation, which, of course, the
first indication of operation of influence. The decision to "believe" in this cocktail of
rumors, lies and hearsay was made in Washington, not London.
Trump had planned to visit UK this month but cancelled it a few weeks ago. Any
possibility that might not just be due to expected protests and lack of British enthusiasm,
but also as retaliation after he learned the MI6 and/or GCHQ involvement in this affair?
(apparently he's considering a visit late this year, in which case he might have got some
assurances that British agencies will stop messing up, or UK authorities will now collaborate
with his team)
Reportedly, the Democrat House Intelligence Committee memo contains a great deal of
information on Page's background. It will be interesting to see if it survives the
declassification process.
From the Grassley letter, it doesn't sound like a lot of this information was included in
the FISA warrant. If that is the case, one has to wonder why it wasn't.
Quite an intrigue, isn't it? It reminds one rather of the Tukhachevsky affair.
In procedural terms, yes. On substance, no--most of it is as clear as a day. Per
Tukhacevsky--his affair is not even in the same league as what is transpiring now in the US.
The stakes here are immense since American statehood is under attack. As per Tuchachevsky--he
wasn't that good of a general to start with (certainly technologically not astute). Plus,
there is a whole other dimension to his, and others, story which should not be discussed in
this thread.
Excellent summary. Obvious reasons for British meddling in U.S. elections: Trump's
pre-election statements on NATO, desire to improve relations with Russia, related Russian
sanctions, etc.
I don't think a Title 1 FISA warrant gives the FBI any additional surveillance capability
beyond what could be gained by surveilling a controlled source. In either case the FBI would
be listening to all those who came in contact with Page. That's why I have serious doubts
about Page being a controlled FBI source/informant. A FISA warrant is just not necessary if
the target is already a controlled source/informant. I believe I read somewhere Comey had the
FBI surveil himself in order to listen in on conversations he had with White House officials.
It didn't take a FISA warrant for that. (Actually, I'm surprised we haven't heard more
outrage about this.) In either case I don't think the FBI gets access to retroactive
surveillance except for the specific target of the surveillance.
As I mentioned in our earlier conversation, I'm surprised the SVR would try to recruit
Page after their earlier experience with him. He's the reason they lost three SVR officers.
He was a witness for the Federal prosecution rather than a controlled informant. Years later
he looked like a dangle with his trips to Moscow. He's either a clueless idiot or an operator
worthy of the title, ace of spies. The questions about his true status are legitimate and
worth pursuing.
Was that compliance review you refer to the same one that was released by Coats earlier
this year? That long (99 pages or so) report was an annual review conducted by the FISC of
all NSA, CIA and FBI FISA activities. It wasn't anything specific initiated by Rogers.
Why was Page let go by the Trump campaign? Perhaps the FBI did tip the campaign off to his
Russian connections. Obama warned Trump not to get involved with Flynn.
He may have been an accomplice for someone other than the FBI.
It might be a mistake to think that state actors would have been the only folks interested
in obtaining intelligence about Trump.
It has been reported that he worked on the Clinton transition team in 1992. He was also
some kind of liaison to Congress under Les Aspin. His specialty involved nuclear weapons.
You make a good point about Page not having access to Trump or the Trump campaign or
transition team when he was under the FISA warrant and three renewals. I think this was
because the target of the Page surveillance was the Russian connection, not Trump himself. An
investigation should proceed from established facts rather than some presumed and
unsubstantiated conclusion. And I'm pretty sure there are other warrants. Whether they're
based on the Steele material I don't know.
We can entertain only two possibilities--Jim Comey is a monumental dunce or he is a liar.
All these guys were certain Hillary would win the election. They were convinced their
lawlessness would be rewarded and their subterfuge would be conveniently buried.
Unfortunately for them the voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin decided
otherwise. So they tried to create the casus belli for impeachment. That has now failed.
Where this leads to is anyone's guess.
So, the Brits passing GCHQ intel that they are seeing suspicious indicators re. TRUMP -
Russian contacts to us via long-established channels is now seen as "interfering with our
elections"? Not realistic.
Preliminary intel is always 99% uncorroborated. Sad, but true.
Should the Brits have waited for full corroboration before informing us? Hell, no. As I
understand it we get everything automatically. Nothing is withheld, that is the nature of the
special relationship.
So to answer the title, if Brit intel fabricated the indicators then yes, they did try to
destroy the Trump Campaign. Otherwise no.
Is Steele an FBI spy or is he a source? Unclear.
If Steele is a still active Brit spy then he should have been declared as such under existing
MOA. Could he be NOC for the Brits? Unlikely given his direct involvement with IC on intel
matters.
Did Steele leak the story to Yahoo News? Steele says he briefed several newspapers, only
Yahoo published.
The Yahoo article, written by Isikoff September 24, states "The activities of Trump adviser
Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior
members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence
the presidential election, the sources said. "
So the number of people read into the STEELE reports is significant.
So the questions should be
Did Brit intel fabricate the initial indicators?
Did Steele fabricate his findings?
Was Steele played by material released by third parties?
How many other FISA warrants are there?
Has Gowdy stated that the PAGE warrant was issued illegally?
And equally obvious that getting caught meddling in US elections would have catastrophic
consequences for all involved, as we may shortly witness. If the British IC did have anything
to do with this, it begs the question; what was worth the colossal risk?
Addendum: can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure Trump's
failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long time?
The only STEELE memo that had any chance of doing any material damage was the pee-pee tapes.
Trump supporters thought it was "cute".
As Trump himself said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I
wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally. He was not joking and who knows his
supporters better than Trump.
Thx for the reply. As you know I like Trump a lot and I don't like all I have seen going
on to subvert his presidency (e.g. the MSM 24/7 fake news bashing on him, Soros organized
riots). That said, I try to be as objective as possible.
I am simply not seeing the connection between spying on Page and spying on Trump. There
has been no evidence released that even suggests it happened. I watched Tucker Carlson and
Hannity this week and both are saying that the FBI spied on a POTUS candidate and on a
sitting president (Trump in both instances, of course). I had to stop myself, clear my head
and think for minute. I don't see it. They spied on Page and most likely anyone he talked
to/met with, but that's not Trump nor anyone in Trump's inner circle.
Maybe it will come out that Trump and his inner circle were spied on. Maybe the FISA
warrant was construed to permit that. Maybe they just did it regardless of legality. Maybe
that's what all these GOP releases are leading up to.
However, at this point, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides. The GOP is using
the Page warrant to damage the FBI (well deserved, apparently) and Mueller's investigation.
The dems are using the existence of the warrant on Page to insinuate that Trump campaign
needs to be investigated b/c they had a Ruskie mole amongst them and a bunch of other stuff
about collusion that Clinton and Steele pulled out of their asses.
In the midst of this is Carter Page, an obviously self-absorbed/self-promoting goofy
homosexual that is always trying to get close to power and failing, who never met Trump and
who never has yet been shown to have contributed anything to the Trump campaign - and who has
an annoying habit of pretending to connections and knowledge that he doesn't really have; and
getting himself in hot water in the course of doing so.
Until more is revealed - or someone explains how it could be otherwise - I am beginning to
think that the entire focus on Page means nothing more than the exposure of a corrupt FBI
playing fast and loose w/ FISA. All of the recently revealed FBI invective toward Trump and
talk of "insurance policies" is highly suggestive, but that's it [at this point].
My spider sense says it will be revealed that Trump himself was sureveilled - that and a
buck 50 gets me a ride on the cross town bus.
Joe I think such things would have been discussed when PM May rushed to see Trump after his
election. I have always assumed that was the reason for the rushed visit. Due to his mother
Trump is desperate to see the Queen and will do so when the time is right.
Plausible but I still think any activities would have been done with the approval of, or
more likely at the behest of, Brennan, Clapper et al. After all it is the former British
Foreign Secretary who heads up the International Rescue Committee, rather than say John Kerry
being the overpaid head of an NGO in London with MI6 links.
going after russia is considered being worth the risk... that is what it looks like to me..
just imagine a multi polar world when you are so used to viewing it as a unipolar one.... i
see the ''''us-led''' coalition is now bombing the syrian army again, this time under the
guise they, or the sdf - were under attack... whether the usa imposes words like democatic on
the name tag, or does much more - is not in question.. does the usa have a right to be in
syria? not really.. they are said to be going after isis, but that looks as phony as a 2$
bill to me personally.. https://www.rt.com/news/418164-coalition-airstrikes-syrian-forces/
I have noticed that you keep posing the same question about Gowdy, as have some prominent
twitterers. Since a Gowdy is an attorney and was a federal prosecutor, I wonder whether there are
professional restrictions on him in terms of declaring a person's guilt. Do congressional investigations ever pronounce that someone is guilty of a crime? Or is it
customary for such investigations to make a referral to the Justice Department?
All these guys were certain Hillary would win the election. They were convinced their
lawlessness would be rewarded and their subterfuge would be conveniently buried.
Unfortunately for them the voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin decided
otherwise.
Exactly, one of those cases when what we broadly define as democracy actually worked and
very effectively at that. You see, it is one thing to give it a lip service, totally another
live with the consequences of democracy actually working. Many people in Washington still
cannot resign themselves to the fact that people can actually have their own voice--what a
novel concept for them.
I think it was more reactive, they had all been complicit in a number of illegal activities
and they were worried they would all go down if Trump won. They obviously got more and more
desperate, digging themselves a deeper and deeper hole.
Addendum: can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure Trump's
failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long time?
Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated.
Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage
America.
Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians.
Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an
indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to
election was insufficient.
Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or determinative
to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment than
anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were anti-Trump
before his nomination and wedded to him after.
A court may err due to failings of its judges in interpretation or application of the law,
but it doesn't act illegally. The article at The Duran by Alexander Mercouris previously
referred to by richardstevenhack exploring how the officers of court (lawyers) in the DOJ/FBI
were somewhat economical in making their pitches for the Page warrants may have disadvantaged
the judge or judges who, with fuller information, may have reached a different determination,
might provide answers to your other questions.
Due process should apply to all, not at whim.
The Steele dossier is central to the public meme that Trump was colluding with the Russians.
All of the major news stories on the subject were based on what Steele told them.
I keep posting it because if stated it is an extremely powerful indicator.
I believe that Gowdy can make a statement as to legality with no constraint other than not
exposing national secrets.
If he was constrained I would expect him to make reference to said constraint.
Before we waste time with rabbit holes of choice we need to agree on what is known.
"Did British Intelligence Try to Destroy the Trump Presidency?" Yes. That is why Steele is trying so hard to keep the Russian lawyers from deposing him in a
London court. The Russians are on the scent, and Steele and his MI6 handlers know it.
Are British Intelligence 'Still' Trying to Destroy the Trump Presidency? Yes.
It has been suggested that Trey Gowdy be appointed as a special prosecutor to look into how
the DOJ/FBI handled the Steele dossier. Would not an accusation of guilt by Gowdy disqualify
him from that job?
Also, I don't think we understand yet what records the HPSCI has been given access to. Fox
News is reporting that Nunes may go the FISC court and ask them to release all records and
transcripts related to the Page FISA warrants. If that is the case, then it is too early for
any one on the HPSCI to make conclusions about illegality.
I think you are also ignoring what is happening with respect to both Grassley's and
Goodlatte's investigations.
It appears that the committees may be working in tandem to destroy the Democrats' narrative.
The idea is not to put all your cards on the table at once.
Trey Gowdy says Sidney Blumenthal is the 'domestic' source of the information in the Steele
Dossier. Gowdy doesn't say the Steele Dossier is illegal, but it appears it was obtained by
illegal conspiracy of DJT's political enemies.
Thank you for this important post, PT. You've really captured some arresting details. The
Grassley/Graham document is impressive, isn't it? I have been highly critical of both men in
the past but credit where credit is due: good work, specific, particular, devastating. And at
a tough time when taking sides makes enemies and draws fire.
This is all rather depressing, seeing how rotten things are. And worse to come, I think.
So I wanted to share with the Committee something that made me laugh, albeit in a rather
black comedy sort of way.
To that end, here follows some "glowing remarks" about Steele's dossier and sources, from
Mark Galeotti, the man that Simpson, in his testimony has called "very learned" and a
"distinguished scholar":
When asked what efforts he had made to "corroborate or verify" the dossier's assertions,
Simpson seems to have Googled the name Ivanov:
"As I dug into some of the more obscure academic work -- how the Kremlin operates by some of
the more distinguished scholars of the subject, I found that Ivanov is, in fact, or was at
the time, in fact, the head of a sort of internal kind of White House plumber's operation for
the Kremlin and that he seemed to have the kind of duties that were being described in this
memo. "
In his August testimony, providing an example as to what effort had been made to
"corroborate or verify" the dossier's assertions, Glenn Simpson references Galeotti in re
Sechin:
"In particular I remember reading a paper by a superb academic expert whose name is Mark
Galeotti, G-A-L-E-O-T-T-I, who's done a lot of work on the Kremlin's black operations and
written quite widely on the subject and is very learned. So that would have given me comfort
that whoever Chris is talking to they know what they're talking about."
I wouldn't call publications of the European Council on Foreign Relations "obscure." It
was on page 2 of my Google search results. Just sayin'. And call me unrepentant foil-hatter,
but Galeotti strikes me as about as much scholar as Simpson is journalist.
So Steele named some names and Simpson "did that work" of what appears to have been --
simply looking 'em up on the internet. There he saw some "scholars" and "learned" experts
saying some of the same things Steele had said -- and so he believed it was all true. I guess
world class journalist Simpson, who once worked for the Moonie Insight Magazine, had never
heard of the disinformation tactic of mixing a dash of true with a pound of false. It would
be sad -- if I believed he was actually such a babe in the woods.
But hoo boy, wish I could get paid $50k a month to look things up on the internet!
OK. Now for the amusing part. The 'very learned scholar' Mr. Mark Galeotti has since
offered his opinion of the Steele dossier and it's rather more a radioactive kind of glowing
remarks.
"The trouble with the Trump Dossier is that it's a recognizable product of a specific
milieu: If you spend an evening or two in the bars where Moscow's chattering classes hang
out, you'll hear an equal complement of political tall tales about Putin and his presidential
administration. The kind of gossip that fills the Trump Dossier is common currency in Moscow,
even if very little of it has any authority behind it aside from the speaker's own
imagination.
Any experienced observer learns to filter gossip for the stray useful clues that are
sometimes hidden within curlicues of fantasy. The author of the Trump Dossier, though,
appears enthusiastically to have transcribed every bit of tittle-tattle that fit the
overarching narrative of a grand Kremlin scheme to elevate Donald Trump to the
presidency."
From comment 31: "Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was
nominated... Official; ... Public; Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians."
Wrong. The second didn't work and after over a year there's zero evidence of the other.
The obvious way for Trump to lose the election was for the voters of the Democratic Party -
that's the party whose executives rigged the DNC Primary for Hilary - to nominate someone who
could have beaten him.
"can we all agree .... was the most inept operation in a long time?"
No. You repeat this meme twice, comment 24 and 31. It only has the appearance of
ineptness because they got caught. The obvious question is how many other times did political
appointees/operatives within FBI/CIA/intellegence agencies succeed in doing the same thing?
Then follow up and ask whether this was only done in Presidential elections or did they also
do this in House and Senate races? My take is that this was done before and Trump is going to
appoint Trey Gowdy as a speical prosecutor and we'll all have fun watching as he goes all
Ethan Edwards on finding the bad guys.
The sudden resignation of the head of GCHQ, Hannigan, coupled with UK PM May's precipitate
trip to Washington to meet Trump, leads me to speculate that GCHQ was an enabler of
surveillance of the Trump team.
My guess, based on my belief in the languid behaviour of British Intelligence
professionals (which I acknowledge may be utterly unfounded) is that neither GCHQ or MI6 gave
much thought to either Steeles machinations (which they may have known about in passing) or
an American request for surveillance on a Trump team member, if in fact they even knew he was
part of the team. They knew what was going on, but it was club chit chat until Trump won the
election, then the enormity of their actions was made plain.
To put that another way, I would prefer to believe in a stuff up rather than a concerted
plan by the fiendish British to influence the U.S.
Rep. Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has written FISC presiding
judge Rosemary Collyer to provide him all the documentation around the Page FISA application
and warrant. Let's see what she does. FISC has been taken for a ride by the DOJ and FBI.
Ball's in their court.
IMO, we need another Church Committee to have a broad mandate to investigate mass
surveillance, secret courts and the entire national security apparatus and if our
Constitution has been shredded by the Patriot Act and FISA and the GWOT. Is there anyone like
Sen. Frank Church around?
Fred, Fred, my post discussed the possible avenues for the destruction of the Trump candidacy
as related to the Steele memos.
As I wrote, both possible attacks, official and public, failed for fairly obvious reasons.
Graham and Grassley:
"Thus, the FISA applications are either materially false in claiming that Mr. Steele said he
did not provide dossier information to the press prior to Oct. 2016 or Mr. Steele made
materially false statement to the FBI when he claimed he only provided the dossier info to
his business partner and the FBI."
As Isikoff writes in Yahoo, September 24 2016:
"The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia,
have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected
efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. "
It should be clear that several if not many people in Washington were privy to the Page
meeting Russians. I note also that, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the Isikoff
article that is unambiguously attributable to the Steele memos. Maybe the experts can find a
clear indicator.
Page himself is headlined in a Reuters article July 8 2016 (referenced by Isikoff) after
he gave a pro-Russian lecture to students at the New Economic School in Moscow.
The article titled "Trump adviser, on Moscow visit, dodges questions about U.S. policy on
Russia"
says
"Page declined to say whether he was planning to meet anyone from the Kremlin, the Russian
government or Foreign Ministry during his visit."
Eric Newhill - Though from a far less well-informed point of view than yours I'd concur
heartily with your "All of the recently revealed FBI invective toward Trump and talk of
"insurance policies" is highly suggestive, but that's it [at this point]."
It's all of it highly suggestive at this point but what it suggests seems to depend
entirely on the convictions of the observer.
I'm not sure that's going to change. When one looks at the contacts between UK and US
Intelligence BEFORE the Presidential election results material is starting to come out that
also could be suggestive either way but could also prove nothing at all. From what I've seen
it proves nothing at all.
If it turned out that the UK authorities had been in lockstep with the US authorities
throughout before the election result, and had fed them every bit of nonsense they had
relating to the US election, then what would that prove? Nothing. I'd hope they are in
lockstep when it comes to passing on information from one country that might be of interest
to the other. It would look very odd had it turned out later that the UK had been sitting on
material that should have been passed across. I've no doubt that half the material the two
sides pass across to each other is arrant nonsense - but they're more likely to find out what
is nonsense and what is serious if they share it.
No smoking gun there then. All that's happened so far is that a spotlight has been shone
in the US on areas where it doesn't usually get shone. That spotlight might find only hordes
of intelligence officers running around trying to do the right thing when they find that
they've got caught up in something intensely political. It could well show that and no more.
The spotlight will inevitably show errors in procedure sometimes. Normal, unless all involved
are prodigies. It does show a few people in the two Intelligence Communities who are pretty
close to freaks. Disturbing - maybe they could tighten up on selection procedures - but
irrelevant in this context. You work with what you've got. What I don't think it does or will
show is a top down conspiracy on both sides to get Trump.
And as the comment above from John Minnerath says, it's an "endlessly convoluted can of
worms impossible for anyone not completely up to speed on subjects like this to get a grip
on", so whatever any investigation shows most of us won't even grasp what that "whatever"
is.
I don't think either that Trump will ever escape suspicion from those who want to suspect
him. He's come to the Presidency from a suspect world, the world of the New York property and
construction business. Hot money looking for a bolthole, international contacts with people
who are no better than crooks, lawyers everywhere smoothing out bent deals, politicians and
officials on the take - spend a few decades in that world and there are always going to be
episodes that can be made to look sufficiently suggestive of criminal activity to keep the
never-Trumpers happy for ever.
So what. Sending a man in to drain the swamp who comes from the swamp looks like a good
move. Who better to sort out the poachers than one who's turned gamekeeper. And to me he
looks straight and the only question is whether he can keep straight in the Washington snake
pit. A long shot, maybe, but the only one going and therefore rational. Those who think as I
do on that will continue to hope he gets somewhere. Those who don't will continue to find in
everything they come across proof that he's a crook. That won't alter.
Not so much a nothingburger then as a make whatever you like of it burger. Can we leave it
at that? Almost. I'm sorry to keep harping on about this but there's just one thing. That
dossier, and in particular the post-result response to it in the UK.
"CEO" keeps our feet on the ground about that dossier - "The only STEELE memo that had any
chance of doing any material damage was the pee-pee tapes. Trump supporters thought it was
'cute'.
"As Trump himself said "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I
wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally. He was not joking and who knows his
supporters better than Trump."
Shoddy rather than cute, this long-distance observer thought, but that observation from
"CEO" must be accurate. Those of us in the UK too who don't believe the nonsense that gets
put out by the media didn't believe this nonsense. I think it harmed Trump in the eyes of
those who do believe the nonsense though, is all I'd add.
Please look at this from the perspective of a UK politician or official. The UK IC has
been following the rules, passing material over to the US and leaving the US authorities to
make what they want of it. They've been allowing the US authorities to make what use they
wish of an ex-operative, again happy to leave the US to decide on what that use is.
Then it all blows up in their faces. Suddenly they find that the UK is associated with a
very public down-market smear campaign against a US president. Associated by accident, that's
accepted, but associated. What do they do? They rush to mend fences. They disavow Steele and they make it clear that it's nothing to
do with the UK. Had that happened then there would, from the UK perspective, be no more to be said. It
didn't happen. Instead they backed Steele to the hilt, publicly and continuously. It's that,
from the UK side, that needs an explanation.
My understanding is different. Page had left the campaign but remained in contact.
I also understand that Page had been on the FBI radar much earlier after SVR attempted to
recruit him. I am surprised that no one saw fit to warn the Trump campaign that asdociating with Page
would put the entire campaign under surveillance. I guess they couldn't, but its very
convenient. From what i gather it was an open secret and treated as part of the Trump
campaigns general cluelessness.
1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the
'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research
apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.
It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence
intervening in the American election, rather than the American section of the 'Borg' and
their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an
intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'
2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era
Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and
Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then
with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the
conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005.
This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep
associates by Michel and Samuelson, starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial
involvement with Berezovsky.
We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had
already built up a wealthy clientele that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large
ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still
relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started moving into all kinds of
industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had
already partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for
Menatep, the real prize was oil.'
Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters
such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint
Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw
materials resources.
3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement
was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko,
Andrei Lugovoi.
In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition
submitted by the Crown Prosecution Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They
are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.'
It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed
represent the view of many of the 'StratCom' operators around Berezovsky of people like
Steele.
Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of
élite Westerners, which, in honour of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I
call 'fool the stupid Sahib.'
Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying
mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for
the gullibility of people who are thought of – commonly with justice – as not
knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them
what they want to hear.
Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were
presented by me in a previous post.
Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a
mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and
journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom'
groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. (One good example
is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of
the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures
continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)
Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as
plausible, I try to work out how much of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of
about 50%.
4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications
absent meaningful corroboration is being defended by Comey and others on the basis that
Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question is how
many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.
When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service',
who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI
counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not
only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' – but to point towards how the
Anglo-American collaboration actually worked.
5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story
straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in
London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.'
Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed – that when Steele emerged
from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained:
'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium
poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko
and was not his case officer, friends said.'
6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its
– supposed – author was President of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of
Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.
In one a contemporary is quoted:
"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of
people spreading rumours," he said. "Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless
and frankly not a very nice guy."
The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military,
before going on to say that contemporaries recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND
credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.
From my own – undistinguished and mildly irreverent – Cambridge career, I can
testify that there was indeed a certain kind of student politician, whom, if I may mix
metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way up
some greasy pole or other in later life.
It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a
protracted apprenticeship in print journalism, I accidentally found employment with what was
then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the early
'Eighties I overlapped with Peter – now Lord – Mandelson, who became one of the
principal architects of 'New Labour.'
7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND,
there is a small puzzle as to why on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited
by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already have intelligence
contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.
But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded
that someone with 'form' in smearing rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of
organisation they wanted to run.
8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things
about this type. One is that they commonly love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at
it, within the worlds they know and understand.
If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the
people and where such intrigues are played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find
themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics of the
post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local
politics in London.)
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in
his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have
absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to
political misjudgements.
9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them
that the Putin 'sistema' really was the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed
everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.
There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which
he has been involved have involved close collusion between them and elements in American
intelligence – including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both sides of the
Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which
ran right out of control, creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies
in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle East.
No, you are just making some deflecting comments to try and drive people to the desired
narrative of what's in the memo rather than discussing the criminal conduct of Obama holdover
appointees and corrupt career federal employees.
I don't understand what the big deal is here.
British intelligence (or anybody else for that matter - remember Al Gore's soliciting
Chinese money?) is welcome to meddle in US elections, as long as it is on behalf of the
establishment/Deep State candidate.
The intelligence agencies believed the dossier, or at least were willing to suspend
disbelief, go along with the deception, because it told them what they wanted to hear. Remember "Curveball", AKA the "defecting Iraqi WMD scientist who told us
every lurid thing he knew"? Anyone with the depth of understanding that God gave a housecat
could tell that Curveball was not a super-scientist, he was a C student at best, and that he
was embellishing his stories. In other words, he was lying shamelessly about things he knew
nothing about.
The investigators lapped it up. Even the German intelligence, less emotionally invested in finding some justification, any
justification for a war on Iraq, warned the Americans that Curveball was a fabricator. No matter. Curveball told the CIA and FBI what they wanted to hear, so they took his
stories at face value, then passed their "intelligence" up the food chain and out to their
loyal stenographers working in the press, none of whom questioned not a word of it at the
time.
Another question - possibly for TTG: why (as reported) did Nellie Ohr recently get an amateur
radio license? This does not sound to me like a plausible later-life hobby to take up -which
leads me to wonder if amateur radio traffic is well outside of NSA's "we collect everything"
net?
Of course, factually, russiagate is nonsense, everyone knows that. Russiagate is merely an
excuse.
It reminds me of Malcolm Muggeridge's observation of the fate of businessmen and diplomats
from the Baltic states travelling in the 1930's Soviet Union. They would be arrested,
imprisoned on laughably false pretexts, the NKVD wouldn't even bother to follow their own
procedures in doing so.
The embassies of their unfortunates' home countries would file protest after protest,
legal objection after objection, all of which were duly ignored. Why? Because the Baltic statelets had no other leverage, no friends to call upon who would make the USSR recognize
their rights and those of their citizens.
One might also look at the United States' presence in Syria. We are not invited there, we
are not wanted there, we have no mandate to be there. Yes, our presence there is illegal, by
any standard of international law.
Yet we refuse to leave. Why? Because noone is able to force us to leave.
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in
his how the world outside the bubbles they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have
absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American. This can lead to
political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it
her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous
empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this
bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal
degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation
bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian
"sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with,
thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. I
n case of Iraq, as an example, it is a
tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times for
years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people
who are briefed by "sources" such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and
fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies" in Anglophone world is
appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial
information about the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States
completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even for a disastrous military
confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better
aware of Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But
even there, there are some trends (and they are not new) which are very worrisome.
The East StratCom Team is a part of the administration of the European union, focused on
proactive communication of EU policies and activities in the Eastern neighbourhood (Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine)[1] and beyond[2] (Russia itself).[1] The
Team was created as a conclusion of the European Council meeting on 19 and 20 March 2015,
stressing the need to challenge Russia's ongoing disinformation campaigns."[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_StratCom_Team
My older son has been a HAM radio operator for years. He and his fellow HAM operators are
getting a good laugh out of this Nellie Ohr conspiracy theory. Radio operators are not only
subject to NSA interception, but also FCC interception. The American Radio Relay League
(ARRL) is also vigilant in policing its members' activities. If Ohr intended to use radio
communications clandestinely, the last thing she would do is become a licensed operator.
Amateur radio is very much a later in life hobby. My son is an outlier in that respect.
They support all manner of community activities from weather emergencies to the Marine Corps
Marathon. They were involved in a major volunteer effort to support communications in Puerto
Rico last year. They're an impressive bunch of nerds.
I had CI folks talk to me because of my son's radio license. Both he and I speak Russian.
He has a degree in Russian literature. I had HF antennas under the eaves of my house. We both
spent a lot of time researching hacking, especially Russian hacking. His online activities in
college led my coworkers into jokingly calling him Erik the Red. Some jackass in CI didn't
find this at all funny and called me in with their suspicions. I didn't make any friends
among these CI folks with my reaction.
My apologies – it was sloppy of me to use the term.
I was using it interchangeably with 'propaganda.' One reason for this is that I have been
looking at the website of the 'Department of War Studies' at King's College London. This has
a 'Centre for Strategic Communications', which 'aims to be the leading global centre of
expertise on strategic communications.'
An 'Associate Fellow' is my sometime BBC Radio colleague Mark Laity, who, according to his
bio on the site, 'is the Chief Strategic Communications at SHAPE, the first post holder, and
as such he has been a leading figure in developing StratCom within NATO.' In this capacity,
he produces presentations with titles like ' "Bocca della veritas" or "Perception becomes
Reality."
The same ethos penetrates other parts of the War Studies Department – Eliot Higgins
is involved, as also Thomas Rid, who backed up the claims made by Dmitri Alperovitch of
'CrowdStrike', along with the former GCHQ person Matt Tait. (It appears that Rid, who has now
moved to SAIS at Johns Hopkins, is a German who has earlier worked at IFRI in Paris, RAND,
and in Israel.)
What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation of
a 'narrative' – in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a
simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far
the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to
'double think' and 'crimestop.'
It has become amply apparent that with MI6, and other intelligence and indeed law
enforcement agencies, the activity of attempting to understand the world has become
inextricably involved with that of trying to shape it by covert action and 'perception
management', or 'StratCom.'
The structures involved, moreover, are inextricably linked with ostensibly
non-governmental institutions, like King's College and the Atlantic Council, and related
organisations in a range of countries, as Rid's career strongly suggests.
It has also however become amply apparent that these structures create ample opportunities
for 'information operations' groups such as those which were associated with the late Boris
Berezovsky and the Menatep oligarchs.
So in describing what these people got up to I sloppily used 'StratCom', when I should
have said propaganda.
As I suspected, there are rules of professional conduct that prohibit attorneys from making
public statements that are likely to have a material prejudicial impact on an adjudicative
hearing in which they have been involved.
Great commentary as always Sir Hababkkuk. Also worth noting that the largest block of
students at the university of Missouri school of journalism is strategic communications. But
they don't consider it propaganda (though it is).
It's worth pointing out that no one in the administration publicized any of this information
during the election. Unlike the Clinton emails case, which they made very public in the days
immediately before the election, against policy.
Even if you believe there was nothing to the idea of Russian interference, there was
enough to make damning insinuations about. If the FBI or the intel community was corrupt and
wanted to interfere against Trump, why didn't they?
Re your point 7. I am surprised at the level of robustness you expect of MI6's recruitment
due diligence process - especially in respect of a Cambridge alumnus with a leftist
background.
From my own – undistinguished and mildly irreverent – Cambridge career, I can
testify that there was indeed a certain kind of student politician, whom, if I may mix
metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way up
some greasy pole or other in later life.
I am very familiar with the lessor spotted cantab hack. Particular in its Trinity
form.
Are you really that obtuse? Government officials were leaking this info from August on and it
was in the news. Most of the media ignored it because they did not think Trump had a chance
The LaRouche people have always said it was London.
I agree considering the center of the Trans-Atlantic financial empire is London and the
currency of said empire is the petro-dollar which Russia, along with others, is slowing
undermining.
In other words, they have motive.
TTG - Thanks! I got my general HAM license back about 1959 (while living in Quantico and
spending alot of time at the base "HAM shack") but let it lapse once I hit college.
Interesting to know that NSA monitors ham radio.
Nice to have your calming insight on the conspiracy theories.
"... Trump when in Moscow did rent the same room where Obama and Michel did sleep before. Than he did hire a three Russian prostitutes who performed striptease for him while he played with himself. the scene culminated by three prostitutes peeing on the bed on which Obama and Michel slept. In my opinion this total idiotic BS made up story. ..."
"... The second angle against Trump is that Russians told through some intermediary that they have some dirt on Hillary and they want a meeting with Trumps son. ..."
"... This is quite a double idiocy of the idiocy before, Because it denigrate the Russian diplomacy to some wild tribe in Amazon. Even if they wanted to meet with Trump's son, they would never acknowledge the intermediary of the purpose of the meeting. ..."
"... In my opinion the people who submitted on basis of this request for FISA should be hanged for stupidity, and judge who signed it of, should be locked in mental institution for life. Imagine how shameful and deranged the US politicians are at highest level of government. ..."
"... These liars later hurried to the court to admit that they lied once Admiral Mike Rogers told them that he had "the goods" on them and was going to the court to expose them. This pdf tells the tale despite the redactions: ..."
"... A footnote also reveals that the FBI has not been able to produce the 1023s on many of its meetings with Steele. These are like CIA contact reports that are written up to include the details of what is discussed in a meeting with a source. This is beginning to smell like a good old CIA style Covert Operation to disrupt an election only it is playing out right here in the U.S.A. And no one has yet even looked into the actual Agency angle with good old John Brennan! ..."
Two years on, we're all still waiting with bated breath to see this oh-so-titillating golden showers tape that Steele feels
80% confident about.
So far I did not hear about the any tape. There cannot be 80 percent. Either There is tape or there isn't.
But the story goes like this.
Trump when in Moscow did rent the same room where Obama and Michel did sleep before. Than he did hire a three Russian prostitutes
who performed striptease for him while he played with himself. the scene culminated by three prostitutes peeing on the bed on
which Obama and Michel slept. In my opinion this total idiotic BS made up story.
The second angle against Trump is that Russians told through some intermediary that they have some dirt on Hillary and
they want a meeting with Trumps son.
This is quite a double idiocy of the idiocy before, Because it denigrate the Russian diplomacy to some wild tribe in Amazon.
Even if they wanted to meet with Trump's son, they would never acknowledge the intermediary of the purpose of the meeting.
In my opinion the people who submitted on basis of this request for FISA should be hanged for stupidity, and judge who
signed it of, should be locked in mental institution for life. Imagine how shameful and deranged the US politicians are at highest
level of government.
Democrats draw conclusion that Trump should resign or be impeached because he is vulnerable to blackmail by Russians. In the
second case they are trying to prove that there was collusion with Russia. Both cases are only pile of manure. So here is the
state of American politics -- -- manure.
Excellent article. Nearly as important as the allegation that the Obama administration and Deep State were spying on the opposition
is Giraldi's point that 99% of FISA warrants are approved, through a non-adversarial and secret legal process.
This statistic seems like ipso facto abuse of the FISA system. Of course we are told that, no problem, the DOJ doesn't
go to the FISC unless it has an air-tight cause, and that we must trust the unassailable patriots in the FBI and DOJ who have
no inclination to violate Americans' civil liberties except for the gravest of reasons.
Such deference goes against everything we know about the types of people who work for the Federal government and the rampant
abuse of prosecutorial power and government power in general.
On the more serious note. All it is only harassment. I do occasionally visit Breitbart.
My conclusion is that if Trump would be impeached the countryside would pick up arms.
Police and army would join. So it would not be really bloody.
"three renewals would happen (possibly granted by three justices, they rotate) without the goods"
The renewals happen when the affiants say under oath that they have "the goods", as you put it. Since the evidence obviously
isn't there and no charges were ever brought against Carter Page, the affiants were most likely lying under oath to get the renewals.
"The goods" are the sworn statements given before the court.
These liars later hurried to the court to admit that they lied once Admiral Mike Rogers told them that he had "the goods" on
them and was going to the court to expose them. This pdf tells the tale despite the redactions:
You're right Ilyana. Those following the Nunes memo story here on Unz should also read the Grassley letter, link below. It
is somewhat heavy going but it really confirms that the Steele Dossier was the principal source for the FISC warrant request sought
by the Bureau and that Steele was a controlled source working for the FBI.
But even so, the information he was providing was both unvetted and largely uncorroborated. He also was receiving information
from a Clinton associate and leaking his story to the press to validate what he was presenting to the Bureau. Really wild stuff!
A footnote also reveals that the FBI has not been able to produce the 1023s on many of its meetings with Steele. These
are like CIA contact reports that are written up to include the details of what is discussed in a meeting with a source. This
is beginning to smell like a good old CIA style Covert Operation to disrupt an election only it is playing out right here in the
U.S.A. And no one has yet even looked into the actual Agency angle with good old John Brennan!
"... I am simply not seeing the connection between spying on Page and spying on Trump. There has been no evidence released that even suggests it happened. I watched Tucker Carlson and Hannity this week and both are saying that the FBI spied on a POTUS candidate and on a sitting president (Trump in both instances, of course). I had to stop myself, clear my head and think for minute. I don't see it. They spied on Page and most likely anyone he talked to/met with, but that's not Trump nor anyone in Trump's inner circle. ..."
"... However, at this point, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides. The GOP is using the Page warrant to damage the FBI (well deserved, apparently) and Mueller's investigation. The dems are using the existence of the warrant on Page to insinuate that Trump campaign needs to be investigated b/c they had a Ruskie mole amongst them and a bunch of other stuff about collusion that Clinton and Steele pulled out of their asses. ..."
"... In the midst of this is Carter Page, an obviously self-absorbed/self-promoting goofy homosexual that is always trying to get close to power and failing, who never met Trump and who never has yet been shown to have contributed anything to the Trump campaign - and who has an annoying habit of pretending to connections and knowledge that he doesn't really have; and getting himself in hot water in the course of doing so. ..."
"... My spider sense says it will be revealed that Trump himself was sureveilled ..."
"... It definitely was a title 1 warrant and that presumably opened up anyone he was communicating with to surveillance. Kid of convenient for Trump campaign access... ..."
"... Could the warrant permit spying on Trump himself by extension? legally? Or perhaps they illegally spied on Trump directly and then figured that would get lost in all the wildness and then transition once trump was impeached? ..."
"... Or, beyond the illegality of the application for the warrant and beyond the fact that it used the same dossier that was aimed at Trump - there is no real connection to Trump himself and both sides are playing up Page's unfortunate situation to promote or attack trump. ..."
"... I have been speculating in my exchanges with TTG, that Carter Page was an FBI "accomplice", to provide retroactive cover for the surveillance of Trump and his campaign without any warrants. This is probably why there were FISA violations which were discovered by Admiral Rogers. ..."
"... The timelines become very interesting. The FISA violations were discovered by NSA sometime around March/April 2016. Admiral Rogers orders a compliance review. He goes to FISC in October 2016 to report the outcome of his compliance review. The Title 1 FISA warrant on Carter Page was in October 2016. ..."
Thx for the reply. As you know I like Trump a lot and I don't like all I have seen going
on to subvert his presidency (e.g. the MSM 24/7 fake news bashing on him, Soros organized
riots). That said, I try to be as objective as possible.
I am simply not seeing the connection between spying on Page and spying on Trump.
There has been no evidence released that even suggests it happened. I watched Tucker Carlson
and Hannity this week and both are saying that the FBI spied on a POTUS candidate and on a
sitting president (Trump in both instances, of course). I had to stop myself, clear my head
and think for minute. I don't see it. They spied on Page and most likely anyone he talked
to/met with, but that's not Trump nor anyone in Trump's inner circle.
Maybe it will come out that Trump and his inner circle were spied on. Maybe the FISA
warrant was construed to permit that. Maybe they just did it regardless of legality. Maybe
that's what all these GOP releases are leading up to.
However, at this point, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors on both sides. The GOP is
using the Page warrant to damage the FBI (well deserved, apparently) and Mueller's
investigation. The dems are using the existence of the warrant on Page to insinuate that
Trump campaign needs to be investigated b/c they had a Ruskie mole amongst them and a bunch
of other stuff about collusion that Clinton and Steele pulled out of their asses.
In the midst of this is Carter Page, an obviously self-absorbed/self-promoting goofy
homosexual that is always trying to get close to power and failing, who never met Trump and
who never has yet been shown to have contributed anything to the Trump campaign - and who has
an annoying habit of pretending to connections and knowledge that he doesn't really have; and
getting himself in hot water in the course of doing so.
Until more is revealed - or someone explains how it could be otherwise - I am beginning to
think that the entire focus on Page means nothing more than the exposure of a corrupt FBI
playing fast and loose w/ FISA. All of the recently revealed FBI invective toward Trump and
talk of "insurance policies" is highly suggestive, but that's it [at this point].
My spider sense says it will be revealed that Trump himself was sureveilled -
that and a buck 50 gets me a ride on the cross town bus.
" (Page) looked like a dangle with his trips to Moscow. He's either a clueless idiot or an
operator worthy of the title, ace of spies. The questions about his true status are
legitimate and worth pursuing." I've been thinking about what the PL calls "Carter Page's
status" -- and I now wonder if maybe Russia was not the target of 'the dangle' after all.
What if the target was the FBI? Based on the chain of events that culminated in Clapper and
Ash Carter calling for Adm Rogers to be fired, we might deduce that the NSA and/or military
side of the intel/cyber house had discovered a multi-pronged operation of 'domestic spying
for political gain using the organs of the national security state' collusion between FBI-DOJ
/ other non-mil IC / British assets / ObamaAdmin+Brennan+Clinton. Page is ex Navy Intel. It
it possible he is still Navy intel? Undercover for the FBI, deeper undercover for the
DIA, or similar?
It should be noted that The Daily Caller has an article in which Page "denies" being an
undercover employee for the FBI:
"I'm not very familiar with the whole UCE concept," he initially told The Daily Caller
News Foundation when asked if he had heard the rumors that he was an undercover FBI agent. "
would assume that I'd have been briefed if I were somehow in it." Told that the undercover
agent planted recording devices in order to surveil, Page said, "well that settles
that."..."Never did anything of that variety."
Bit of a slippery "denial" imho, assuming The Daily Caller's quotes and context are
accurate. I didn't see any other sources for the denial.
Last night I read Page's testimony (which, along with his attached letter, is amusingly
florid -- I urge you all to read it.) In those documents he says he has called repeatedly for
the release of the FISA warrants on him. I saw this morning that the NYT has filed FOIA
requests for the release of those same warrants.
all What was Carter Page's status in all this? He is reported to have been cooperating with
the FBI against the SVR, and yet the FBI obtained a FISA warrant against him? If it was a
title 1 warrant, they could use that as justification for surveilling anyone in contact with
him? pl
It definitely was a title 1 warrant and that presumably opened up anyone he was
communicating with to surveillance. Kid of convenient for Trump campaign access...
And as noted earlier, he appeared to still be supporting the SVR case through March of
2016 and then in October 2016 a title 1 FISA warrant is approved - so from "spy catcher" to
foreign spy in six months??
Sir,
I don't know how all this works in terms of who they could be surveilling under the warrant.
My only observation is that C. Page was not in direct contact w/ Trump at any time. Trump
says that and Page says that. I have to believe it's true or they would have nabbed Page for
lying by now.
Could the warrant permit spying on Trump himself by extension? legally? Or perhaps
they illegally spied on Trump directly and then figured that would get lost in all the
wildness and then transition once trump was impeached?
That page was never in contact w/ Trump and that the warrant was issued and continued
after Page left his very periphery position in the Trump campaign is a mystery to me, unless
FISA does allow extremely broad application of the spying to even periphery contacts (or the
other thing I mentioned).
Or, beyond the illegality of the application for the warrant and beyond the fact that
it used the same dossier that was aimed at Trump - there is no real connection to Trump
himself and both sides are playing up Page's unfortunate situation to promote or attack
trump.
Or there are other warrants, yet disclosed, based on the Steele material.
He is reported to have been cooperating with the FBI against the SVR, and yet the FBI
obtained a FISA warrant against him ? If it was a title 1 warrant, they could use
that as justification for surveilling anyone in contact with him
Precisely!
The FISA application was for a Title 1 warrant which was granted by FISC, as noted in the
Nunes memo. This is why the role of Carter Page is important to know.
I have been speculating in my exchanges with TTG, that Carter Page was an FBI
"accomplice", to provide retroactive cover for the surveillance of Trump and his
campaign without any warrants. This is probably why there were FISA violations which were
discovered by Admiral Rogers.
The timelines become very interesting. The FISA violations were discovered by NSA
sometime around March/April 2016. Admiral Rogers orders a compliance review. He goes to FISC
in October 2016 to report the outcome of his compliance review. The Title 1 FISA warrant on
Carter Page was in October 2016.
Page was a volunteer at the Trump campaign. If he was a known Russian spy, as a FISA Title
1 warrant would imply, why didn't the FBI inform the Trump campaign?
So who signed the warrent, the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI; and who approved it:
AG Lynch, Deputy AG Sally (hero of the resistance) Yates, or the guy who stepped down on
October 15th, 2016, as Assistnat AG for National Security John Carlin
If it was hiim what day did he sign that and how long does it take to get the application to
the court, since it looks a lot like he signed the thing then resigned to cover his ass.
Where o where is Mr. Carlin now, since he doesnt (or no longer) has any page in Wikipedia?
The internet wants to know. I bet the House and Senate want to know too. https://americandigitalnews.com/2018/01/29/where-john-p-carlin-why-important/#.Wnty6WaZNBw https://charlierose.com/videos/29298
Carter Page was an FBI Under-Cover Employee in 2013, and remained the primary FBI witness through May of 2016.
If Carter Page was working as an UCE (FBI undercover employee), responsible for the bust of a high level Russian agent in 2013
-and remained a UCE- throughout the court caseUP TO May of 2016, how is it possible that on October 21st 2016 Carter Page is put
under a FISA Title 1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent?
Conclusion: He wasn't. The DOJ National Security Division and the FBI Counterintelligence Division flat-out LIED.
"... Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated. Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage America. Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians. ..."
"... Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to election was insufficient. ..."
"... Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or determinative to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment than anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were anti-Trump before his nomination and wedded to him after. ..."
Addendum: can we all agree that if the STEELE intel was a genuine attempt to ensure
Trump's failure in the election then the effort was the most inept operation in a long
time?
Only two ways in which Trump candidacy could be destroyed once he was nominated.
Official: Trump is charged with conspiring with a foreign government to materially damage
America. Public: Trump is maligned as being an tool of the Russians.
Official is unlikely as no evidence to date has any chance of being used for an
indictment. Not saying that the charges are false just that what was released prior to
election was insufficient.
Public: most likely avenue. But the details released were not impressive or
determinative to the majority of Trump supporters who I see as being more anti-establishment
than anti-Russian. True, you could expect the GOP elite to be disturbed but they were
anti-Trump before his nomination and wedded to him after.
But the "assessment" served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official
imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump's election and even raised the long-shot hope
that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise
candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the
Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled
by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the
Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies
had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that falsehood
was belatedly acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to
say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt
initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved
narrative of Russia-gate.
Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing
was a "soft coup" were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from
veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of
the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a
constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from
the White House.
It didn't even seem to matter when new Russia-gate
disclosures conflicted with the original
narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal
journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the
conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted
the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a "Trump enabler" or a
"Moscow stooge."
The Text Evidence
But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evivdence that key FBI officials
involved in the Russia-gate investigation were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump,
adding hard proof to Trump's longstanding lament that he was the subject of a "witch hunt."
"... What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation of a 'narrative' -- in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to 'double think' and 'crimestop.' ..."
"... It has become amply apparent that with MI6, and other intelligence and indeed law enforcement agencies, the activity of attempting to understand the world has become inextricably involved with that of trying to shape it by covert action and 'perception management', or 'StratCom.' ..."
"... The structures involved, moreover, are inextricably linked with ostensibly non-governmental institutions, like King's College and the Atlantic Council, and related organisations in a range of countries, as Rid's career strongly suggests. ..."
"... It has also however become amply apparent that these structures create ample opportunities for 'information operations' groups such as those which were associated with the late Boris Berezovsky and the Menatep oligarchs. ..."
My apologies -- it was sloppy of me to use the term.
I was using it interchangeably with 'propaganda.' One reason for this is that I have been
looking at the website of the 'Department of War Studies' at King's College London. This has
a 'Centre for Strategic Communications', which 'aims to be the leading global centre of
expertise on strategic communications.'
An 'Associate Fellow' is my sometime BBC Radio colleague Mark Laity, who, according to his
bio on the site, 'is the Chief Strategic Communications at SHAPE, the first post holder, and
as such he has been a leading figure in developing StratCom within NATO.' In this capacity,
he produces presentations with titles like ' "Bocca della veritas" or "Perception becomes
Reality."
The same ethos penetrates other parts of the War Studies Department -- Eliot Higgins is
involved, as also Thomas Rid, who backed up the claims made by Dmitri Alperovitch of
'CrowdStrike', along with the former GCHQ person Matt Tait. (It appears that Rid, who has now
moved to SAIS at Johns Hopkins, is a German who has earlier worked at IFRI in Paris, RAND,
and in Israel.)
What 'StratCom' means in practical terms is propaganda, usually involving the creation
of a 'narrative' -- in which the complexities of the world are elided in favour of a
simplistic picture of 'good guys' versus 'bad guys.' Commonly it is difficult to know how far
the people doing this are deliberately dishonest, how far they have simply succumbed to
'double think' and 'crimestop.'
It has become amply apparent that with MI6, and other intelligence and indeed law
enforcement agencies, the activity of attempting to understand the world has become
inextricably involved with that of trying to shape it by covert action and 'perception
management', or 'StratCom.'
The structures involved, moreover, are inextricably linked with ostensibly
non-governmental institutions, like King's College and the Atlantic Council, and related
organisations in a range of countries, as Rid's career strongly suggests.
It has also however become amply apparent that these structures create ample opportunities
for 'information operations' groups such as those which were associated with the late Boris
Berezovsky and the Menatep oligarchs.
So in describing what these people got up to I sloppily used 'StratCom', when I should
have said propaganda.
"... "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public." ..."
"... With Steele's dossier now discredited in the eyes of the FBI, they should have stopped their spying, but they didn't. Russiagate has been based on this Steele dossier, and yet there was "no there there", and the DOJ and the FBI knew it. ..."
"... Furthermore, a section on a second memo by Steele says he received information from the State Department, which in turn got it from a foreign source who was in touch with 'a friend of the Clintons.' ..."
"... So Steele was receiving information from the State Department and a friend of the Clinton's? How impartial is that? ..."
Sean Hannity on Fox is doing a stellar job of exposing the Department of Justice, FBI, and
all of the other characters re the Steele dossier and Russiagate. Every night more
information is revealed; it's like a spy novel. None of the other outlets are even talking
about this stuff. Crickets. If you want the latest on criminality, go there. Meanwhile, Zero
Hedge says:
"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a
criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is
being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information
about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public."
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC had paid Steele for his dossier. But the FBI also
hired Steele, and just before they paid out $50,000.00 to Steele for his work, they
discovered he lied, didn't pay him, but still continued to spy on Trump and his team.
With Steele's dossier now discredited in the eyes of the FBI, they should have stopped
their spying, but they didn't. Russiagate has been based on this Steele dossier, and yet
there was "no there there", and the DOJ and the FBI knew it.
Zero Hedge goes on:
" Furthermore, a section on a second memo by Steele says he received information from
the State Department, which in turn got it from a foreign source who was in touch with 'a
friend of the Clintons.'
'It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these
Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional
concerns about his credibility,' Grassley and Graham wrote in their criminal referral."
So Steele was receiving information from the State Department and a friend of the
Clinton's? How impartial is that?
I make no briefs for Trump, but I feel I must ask this question: If Don Jr. meeting with a Russian national to get opposition
research on the Clinton campaign is a crime, how is that substantively different than what the Clinton campaign and the DNC did
in paying Christopher Steele for this dossier on Trump?
Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in a very close race after RNC servers are hacked and damaging information concerning her
opponent is released, by actors believed to be working for the PRC, and it is later revealed that her campaign was secretly surveilled
by the DOJ under a GOP administration, using a dubious dossier detailing Bill Clinton's close connections and dealings with Chinese
government officials before and during the campaign. In order to obtain a FISA warrant, the dossier was the primary source submitted
to the court, and it is discovered after extensive litigation to have been compiled by a former Hong Kong based Australian spy
who was secretly paid by the RNC for his opposition research, who also leaked information to the press to generate interest, who
was quite strongly opposed to the reality of a President Clinton, and who also lied to the FBI and was eventually cut loose as
a source of information.
Can you imagine how the editorial press, elected Democrats, Clinton supporters, etc. would be reacting today to such a serious
of events?
"... Here's the real deal: FISA, the notion of what is essentially a Federal secret police force, most of our post-9-11 infrastructure and our pathetic lack of regulation of information technology has been a problem built by both parties for decades. ..."
We know that FISA knew the dossier was politically motivated and unconfirmed. Even Nunes
acknowledges this . now.
And this is the issue, and the irony of this article. 'Wasn't it nice before journalists
stopped reporting and pushing narratives?' Yes, it was narrative pusher.
Here's the real deal: FISA, the notion of what is essentially a Federal secret police
force, most of our post-9-11 infrastructure and our pathetic lack of regulation of
information technology has been a problem built by both parties for decades. I find it
literally impossible that the most scandal free 'weak kneed' administration was doing
anything other than business as usual in this increasingly dystopian context .
. but now here comes the GOP to try to turn this in to a partisan weapon, and journalists
like you to help them do it increasing division over an issue that should be the people
versus the elites into democrats versus republicans.
And, frankly that was so blatantly the intent given the manner this whole thing has been
handled that only a true hack wouldn't note it in the context of an article like this.
But here's the thing I think deep down you are just too blind to acknowledge that all this
security apparatus, tough on terror,
'freedom-isn't-free-but-I'll-sell-it-for-a-security-from-attacks-less-likely-than-lightning-strikes'
cowardice is the problem.
OF COURSE FISA'S BEING ABUSED (along with the whole intelligence apparatus) it was custom
designed by decades of elites to be so!
What fits the facts more? That the FBI simultaneously conspired to help, and then hurt the
Clinton campaign, all the while saying that they are all just doing their jobs .
Or
That they were just doing their jobs, and this kind of stuff happens all the time.
"... The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the mishandling of highly classified national security information. ..."
"... As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping procedures. This was not disclosed to the public. ..."
"... It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and record-keeping rules. ..."
"... I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign. ..."
"... It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all know she did. ..."
"It was the Clinton investigation that was made public to the electorate right before the election, right?"
Wrong on this point. The FBI was investigating Secretary Clinton personally for specific statutory crimes regarding the
mishandling of highly classified national security information.
As early as 2009, the National Archives contacted the State Department regarding Clinton's violation of record-keeping
procedures. This was not disclosed to the public.
At the end of her tenure in 2012, a FOIA request was filed seeking access to Clinton's government email correspondence. In
2013, it was reported that no records pertaining to the request could be found.
In 2014, State Department lawyers first noticed emails from Clinton's private account, while reviewing documents for the Benghazi
investigation. By the end of the year, Clinton's lawyers had negotiated handing over about half of her total email correspondence
stored on her private server.
It was discovered in early 2015 that Clinton had used this private server exclusively for State Department business. Further
revelations reported in the press indicated it was an insecure server prone to hacks, and the State Department IG concluded that
Clinton would never have been approved for such a setup had she requested it, and failed to follow all established security and
record-keeping rules.
This was all in the news well before the election, and Clinton's team slow-walked and stone-walled the entire time. To say
they were asking for a criminal investigation is an understatement.
She really only had herself to blame for all this, you know?
I appreciate your comment. I agree that the FBI was "investigating" Hillary Clinton in connection with her email (in continuation
of an investigation that existed before she threw her hat into the ring). I haven't heard any evidence that they were wiretapping
her campaign operatives or conducting surveillance on her campaign.
It just doesn't work, even if we assume there was no actual evidence that she did naughty things with email, which we all
know she did.
The point is, if you're commitment to partisan baloney allows you to squint at the Democratic Party's Putinization of the FBI,
enjoy your police state. I'm sure you'll make the enemies list sooner or later.
[I recognize people really hate Trump, and there are many legitimate reasons why he is really hateful. But are you going to
embrace police state tactics just to bring down Trump?
I think people who do are damn fools.]
New figures published this week on obscene inequality show how the capitalist economic
system has become more than ever deeply dysfunctional. Surely, the depraved workings of the
system pose the greatest threat to societies and international security. Yet, Western leaders
are preoccupied instead with other non-existent threats – like Russia.
Take British prime minister Theresa May who this week was
speaking at a posh banquet in London. She told the assembled hobnobs, as they were sipping
expensive wines, that "Russia is threatening the international order upon which we depend".
Without providing one scrap of evidence, the British leader went to assert that Russia was
interfering in Western democracies to "sow discord".
May's grandstanding is a classic case study of what behavioral scientists call "displacement
activity" – that is, when animals find themselves in a state of danger they often react
by displaying unusual behavior or making strange noises.
For indeed May and other Western political leaders are facing danger to their world order,
even if they don't openly admit it as such. That danger is from the exploding levels of social
inequality and poverty within Western societies, leading to anger, resentment, discontent and
disillusionment among increasing masses of citizens. In the face of the inherent, imminent
collapse of their systems of governance, Western leaders like May seek some relief by prattling
on about Russia as a threat.
This week European bank Credit Suisse published figures showing that the wealth gap between
rich and poor has reached even more grotesque and absurdist levels. According to the bank, the
world's richest 1% now own as much wealth as half the population of the entire planet. The
United States and Britain are among the top countries for residing multi-millionaires, while
these two nations have also emerged as among the most unequal in the world.
The data calling out how dysfunctional the capitalist system has become keeps on coming. It
is impossible to ignore the reality of a system in deep disrepair, yet British and American
politicians in particular – apart from notable exceptions like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie
Sanders – have the audacity to block out this reality and to chase after risible
phantoms. (The exercise makes perfect sense in a way.)
Last week, a
report from the US-based Institute of Policy Studies found that just three of America's
wealthiest men – Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett – own the same level of
wealth as the poorest half of the entire US population. That is, the combined monetary worth of
these three individuals – reckoned to be $250 billion – is equivalent to that
possessed by 160 million citizens.
What's more, the study also estimates that if the Trump administration pushes through its
proposed tax plans, the gap between rich elite and the vast majority will widen even further.
This and other studies have found that over 80% of the tax benefits from Trump's budget will go
to enrich the top 1% in society.
All Western governments, not just May's or Trump's, have over the past decades overseen an
historic trend of siphoning wealth from the majority of society to a tiny elite few. The tax
burden has relentlessly shifted from the wealthy to the ordinary workers, who in addition have
had to contend with decreasing wages, as well as deteriorating public serves and social
welfare.
To refer to the United States or Britain as "democracies" is a preposterous misnomer. They
are for all practical purposes plutocracies; societies run by and for a top strata of obscenely
wealthy.
Intelligent economists, like the authors at the IPS cited above, realize that the state of
affairs is unsustainable. Morally, and even from an empirical economics point of view, the
distortion of wealth within Western societies and internationally is leading to social and
political disaster.
On this observation, we must acknowledge the pioneering work of Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels who more than 150 years ago identified the chief failing of capitalism as being the
polarization of wealth between a tiny few and the vast majority. The lack of consumption power
among the masses owing to chronic poverty induced by capitalism would result in the system's
eventual collapse. Surely, we have reached that point in history now, when a handful of
individuals own as much wealth as half the planet.
Inequality, poverty and the denial of decent existence to the majority of people stands out
as the clarion condemnation of capitalism and its organization of society under private profit.
The human suffering, hardships, austerity and crippled potential that flow from this condition
represent the crisis of our time. Yet instead of an earnest public debate and struggle to
overcome this crisis, we are forced by our elites to focus on false, even surreal problems.
American politics has become paralyzed by an endless elite squabble over whether Russia
meddled in the presidential elections and claims that Russian news media continue to interfere
in American democracy. Of course, the US corporate-controlled news media, who are an integral
part of the plutocracy, lend credibility to this circus. Ditto European corporate-controlled
media.
Then we have President Donald Trump on a world tour berating and bullying other nations to
spend more money on buying American goods and to stop cheating supposed American generosity
over trade. Trump also is prepared to start a nuclear war with North Korea because the latter
is accused of being a threat to global peace – on the basis that the country is building
military defenses. The same for Iran. Trump castigates Iran as a threat to Middle East peace
and warns of a confrontation.
This is the same quality of ludicrous distraction as Britain's premier Theresa May this week
lambasting Russia for "threatening the world order upon which we all depend". By "we" she is
really referring to the elites, not the mass of suffering workers and their families.
May and Trump are indulging in "perception management" taken to absurdity. Or more crudely,
brainwashing.
How can North Korea or Iran be credibly presented as global threats when the American and
British are supporting a genocidal blockade and aerial slaughter in Yemen? The complete
disconnect in reality is testimony to the pernicious system of thought-control that the vast
majority of citizens are enforced to live under.
The biggest disconnect is the obscene inequality of wealth and resources that capitalism has
engendered in the 21 st century. That monstrous dysfunction is also causally related
to why the US and its Western allies like Britain are pushing belligerence and wars around the
planet. It is all part of their elitist denial of reality. The reality that capitalism is the
biggest threat to humanity's future.
Do we let these mentally deficient, deceptive political elites and their media dictate the
nonsense? Or will the mass of people do the right thing and sweep them aside?
Wow, the fact that they are talking about talking points to Comey to brief Obama is the big cookie. Obama's legacy is destroyed
completely.
That implements Comey and Obama as traitors. Why does Comey keep tweeting shit? Dude should be lawyering up and perhaps thinking
about getting out of the country.
Hey, Dems? Do we have a Constitutional Crisis yet? LOL at these fuckers.
The best defense is a strong offense. For Comey this worked for a while but I think those days are over. If he was smart he
would lawyer up and shut the fuck up.
Clinton emails found on September 28 and Comey didn't know until October 28, who believes that load of crap.
As soon as I heard in 2007 that the NY Times couldn't find anyone at Columbia who knew Obama,I knew something was up.Columbia
seems to be the default college for frauds with Van Doren,"Dr."Bob Harris,and Meadow Soprano.
. . .yeah and I recall the professor of Political Science who said: never saw him and I knew EVERY student who studied Poli-sci.
It is impossible that I would not have known him. -- or words to that effect.
Once again, I point to David Corn's article in Mother Jones, conspicuously hitting the MSM
News cycle 8 DAYS before the election, in which he is clearly sitting with Christopher Steele
in a one-on-one interview, being fed the ingredients that was making up the recipe for the
"insurance policy" being cooked up by HRC, the DNC, FBI, DOJ et al.
"Reid's missive set off a burst of speculation on Twitter and elsewhere. What was he
referring to regarding the Republican presidential nominee? At the end of August, Reid
had written to Comey and demanded an investigation of the "connections between the
Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign," and in that letter he
indirectly referred to Carter
Page , an American businessman cited by Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers, who
had financial ties to Russia and had recently visited Moscow. Last month, Yahoo News
reported that US intelligence officials were probing the
links between Page and senior Russian officials. (Page has called accusations against him
"garbage." ) On Monday, NBC News
reported that the FBI has mounted a preliminary inquiry into the foreign business ties of
Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chief. But Reid's recent note hinted at more than the
Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who
specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he
provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources,
contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that
the FBI requested more information from him."
Can SOMEONE please explain to me why both David Corn AND Harry Reid's decrepit ass aren't
being hauled before these Congressional committees investigating this cesspool??
Lisa Page wrote her lover Peter Strzok about the Clinton probe: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Obama had said he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere and there would be 'no political influence' in the FBI investigation
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair
Page was an FBI lawyer, and Strzok was a leading investigator on both the Clinton probe and the more recent Trump-Russia investigation
Strzok, though expected to be nonpartisan, also called Trump 'a f***ing idiot' and texted Page about a cryptic 'insurance
policy' against a Trump presidency
'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!' President Trump tweeted on Wednesday
An FBI lawyer wrote in a text to her lover in late 2016 that then-president
Barack Obama wanted updates on the
Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Two months before the presidential election, Lisa Page wrote to fellow FBI official Peter Strzok that she was working on a memo
for then-FBI director James Comey because Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing.'
Obama had said five months earlier during a Fox News Channel interview that he could 'guarantee' he wouldn't interfere with that
investigation.
'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations.
We have a strict line,' he said on April 10, 2016.
'I guarantee it. I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or
the FBI, not just in this case but in any case. Full stop. Period,' he said.' --> --> -->
The September 2, 2016 text message was among more 50,000 texts the pair sent during a two-year extramarital affair.
Fox News was first to report on the latest batch, which is to be released by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
The committee members will soon publish a report titled 'The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it.'
President Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday: 'NEW FBI TEXTS ARE BOMBSHELLS!'
Comey testified to Congress in June 2017: 'As FBI director I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years,
and didn't document it.'
He didn't address possible memos or other written reports he may have sent to the Obama White House.
But Comey did document his 2017 meetings with President Donald Trump, he said, because he feared Trump would interfere with the
Russia probe.
Strzok was the lead investigator on the probe examining Clinton's illicit use of a private email server to handle her official
State Department messages while she was America's top diplomat.
He was later a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team investigating alleged links betwen Donald Trump's presidential
campaign and Russia.
Comey was to give Obama an update on the Clinton email investigation before the 2016 election, according to Page; he testified
before Congress in 2017 that he only spoke to Obama twice as FBI director – but didn't mention whether he had sent him written reports
Comey announced in July 2016 that he had cleared Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in the email probe, saying that 'we did not find
clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.'
On October 28, 2016, Comey said in a letter to Congress that the FBI was reviewing new emails related to Clinton's tenure as secretary
of State.
That revelation threw the presidential election into chaos.
On November 6, 2016, Comey told lawmakers that a review of those newly discovered emails had not altered the agency's view that
Clinton should not face criminal charges.
The text messages between Page and Strzok that emerged earlier showed their hatred for Donald Trump.
In August 2016 Strzok wrote to her that he wanted to believe 'that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take
that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.' --> --> -->
It's unclear what that 'insurance policy' was, but the Justice Department was at the time debating an approach to a federal court
for a surveillance warrant against Trump adviser Carter Page.
Strzok was elevated to overseeing the Trump Russia probe a month earlier.
In a text sent on October 20, 2016, Strzok called the Republican presidential nominee a 'f***ing idiot.'
On Election Day, Page wrote to him: 'OMG THIS IS F***ING TERRIFYING.'
Strzok replied, 'Omg, I am so depressed.'
Five days later, Page texted him again: 'I bought all the president's men. Figure I need to brush up on watergate.'
Whatever the Master Plan is, it is difficult to understand how jury trials could go ahead
without arguments being made that a fair trial is impossible because of the extensive
publicity.
So it looks like Military Tribunals, or nothing.
If it's nothing, it may come down in the end to the French method of dealing with a
corrupt aristocracy.
The bigger issue is
FISA's evisceration of the Fourth Amendment.
Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA [Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act] submissions (including renewals) before the FISC [Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court] are classified.
As such, the public's confidence in the integrity of
the FISA process depends on the court's ability to hold the government to the highest
standard -- particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens.
However, the
FISC's rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of
surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government's production to the court of all
material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of
the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government
had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of
the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant
information was omitted.
House Intelligence Committee FISA Memorandum, 1/18/18, Declassified 2/2/18
It's hard to read the above without laughing.
The only people who think that the
government in a non-adversarial, secret, non-reviewable judicial proceeding will produce "all material
and relevant facts," including "information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA
application," are those pathetically deluded souls who believe that when rules, regulations, and laws
are promulgated everyone complies, including the government that promulgated them.
They're
always shocked when reality proves otherwise.
The rest of us might want to consider what it took for this exposure of potential government
wrongdoing before the FISC. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) pressed for months and was forced
to threaten subpoenas before the Department of Justice and the FBI turned over the evidence upon which
its memorandum is based.
If this wasn't such a high-profile partisan battle, impinging on the presidency, that effort never
would have been made.
Had Hillary Clinton been elected or Democrats controlled Congress,
none of this would have seen the light of day. The intelligence agencies and the FBI can rest assured,
it will be business as usual before the FISC
: non-adversarial, secret, non-reviewable
proceedings in which they can allege, unchallenged, pretty much anything they want, their surveillance
requests rubber-stamped by the court (historically it's approved over 99 percent of all requests).
It is a measure of President Trump's contempt for civil liberties that he just signed a
reauthorization of the FISA law that was used to infringe
his
civil liberties.
The
reauthorization expands the government's surveillance and bulk data capture of Americans' personal
information pursuant to general warrants that do not "require probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized." (Fourth Amendment, US Bill of Rights).
Incidentally, the HIC released its memo to Congress after FISA was reauthorized. HIC Republicans
favored that reauthorization, despite what they have alleged about nefarious activities before the
FISC. Their memo might have changed some votes. Anybody think the timing was a coincidence?
The FISC enables the government to end run Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.
The HIC memo is a tree, FISA's destruction of civil liberties the forest. Investigations, possibly
indictments, trials, and convictions, will grind on for years and provide plenty of grist for plenty
of commentators' mills. The investigations will eventually wind down, but FISA may be forever. Comey
and the Clintons might be in jail, but we all could be, based on evidence obtained without probable
cause via general warrants, the government's data gathering rubber-stamped by its kangaroo court.
As for the HIC's memo, it's a fine piece of legal craftsmanship, although it's not a legal document
per se. It confines itself to one matter: the DOJ and FBI's request for a probable cause order -- and
three subsequent renewals -- authorizing electronic surveillance of Trump campaign volunteer advisor
Carter Page.
In the understated, cautious style that is the hallmark of competent legal investigatory
work, the memo makes a prima facie case that certain individuals broke various laws.
While
the evidence underlying conclusions about various DOJ and FBI officials' misrepresentations and
omissions to the FISC, their biases, and ties to Fusion GPS has not been made public,
there is almost certainly an ample evidentiary basis for those conclusions.
That evidence, the Democrats' "counter-memo" and their evidence, and
the FISA application and renewals
should all be released to the public.
The classified
information isn't protecting vital state secrets; it's protecting officials from embarrassment and
possible criminal charges.
The American people are smarter and more honorable than those
arguing for continuing secrecy;
they can handle the truth.
It's been claimed that the HIC memo plays into Russia's or Putin's hands,
or that
US intelligence capabilities have been or could be irreparably damaged if information was released,
without explaining how those consequences could flow. An unfortunate aspect of the American
establishment is that it seals itself off from hostile questions in adversarial settings. Never
underestimate the power of a question.
It would only take one or two to demonstrate that
intelligence flunkies, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, and a host of media commentators are
either lying through their teeth or have no idea what they're talking about.
Speaking of big issues, the biggest issue of them all, unsustainable global debt, made an unbidden
appearance last week as bond yields broke long-term trend lines to the upside and stocks gave way to
the downside.
Possible subversion of a duly elected president and even FISA's evisceration
of the Fourth Amendment may amount to playing on the beach as the tsunami rolls in.
You
can't do much about what's going on in Washington. For the tsunami, on the other hand, you can move to
higher ground if you have not already done so.
Vote up!
2
Vote down!
1
"The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) pressed for months and was forced to
threaten subpoenas before the Department of Justice and the FBI turned over the
evidence upon which its memorandum is based."
Keep digging. Let's see who ends up
in the hole.
I said before, Russia, Russia, Russia is a Red Herring, and the longer Democrats
focus on it better for Republicans. On the other hand, there is some serious dirt on
"shadow government" being uncovered.
So how about the FISA Judge who agreed to the Justice Departments request to
surveille a staffer or volunteer at one of the major political campaigns? Did it
never enter his mind that he was helping one political party harm the other? Where
is the judge now? Contempt of court anyone? A referral for perjury?... but to whom?
Seriously this guy was not only born at night seems it was last night also. Main
problem is too many secrets. At this point it is clear to me that any benefit to our
country by protecting" sources and methods" is greatly outweighed by the corrosive
effect of a lying government trying to cover it's ass. Start declassifing now and do
not stop!
People want to achieve high office for the political teflon that permits rape and
pillage at a formerly unprecedented scale. Our modern 'system' resembles more the
golden court of a Kublai Khan than the hallowed halls of a philosopher King.
Haha the Bill of Rights hasn't existed except in writing ever since for sure the War
Between the States and even before. How about the Whiskey Rebellion, nope, the Bill
of Rights didn't exist then either. They only exist in your imagination. It's not
that Americans can't handle the truth as much as they just live in imaginary land.
It is a measure of President Trump's contempt for civil liberties that
he just signed a reauthorization of the FISA law that was used to infringe
his
civil
liberties.
The reauthorization expands the government's surveillance and
bulk data capture of Americans' personal information pursuant to general warrants
that do not "require probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized." (Fourth Amendment, US Bill of Rights).
Yes it do.
You see the real constitutional crisis is that you cannot have a
bill of rights if one cannot get along with ones neighbors. Tensions abroad bring on
the need of secrecy...
"... A footnote also reveals that the FBI has not been able to produce the 1023s on many of its meetings with Steele. These are like CIA contact reports that are written up to include the details of what is discussed in a meeting with a source. This is beginning to smell like a good old CIA style Covert Operation to disrupt an election only it is playing out right here in the U.S.A. And no one has yet even looked into the actual Agency angle with good old John Brennan! ..."
You're right Ilyana. Those following the Nunes memo story here on Unz should also read the Grassley letter, link below. It
is somewhat heavy going but it really confirms that the Steele Dossier was the principal source for the FISC warrant request sought
by the Bureau and that Steele was a controlled source working for the FBI.
But even so, the information he was providing was both unvetted and largely uncorroborated. He also was receiving information
from a Clinton associate and leaking his story to the press to validate what he was presenting to the Bureau. Really wild stuff!
A footnote also reveals that the FBI has not been able to produce the 1023s on many of its meetings with Steele. These
are like CIA contact reports that are written up to include the details of what is discussed in a meeting with a source. This
is beginning to smell like a good old CIA style Covert Operation to disrupt an election only it is playing out right here in the
U.S.A. And no one has yet even looked into the actual Agency angle with good old John Brennan!
Why do you dummies believe this junk? ...because Hannity said so?
The "memo" is an altogether ridiculous idea, it's just a piece of
paper of what all these liars thought about something,....it has no
weight on anything anymore than if someone came on tv and gave their
opinion..........and in this case it's just the opinion, like all the
rest, of an incompetent group of people that have no business being
in their positions.
This isn't the usual Dems' vs Repuplican stuff
where they fight about issues ........ this is our government taken
over by reality tv personalities, rich housewives and greedy leeches
of the worst kind.
They're the dummy at the McDonalds counter that
can't understand your order and should all be working some harmless
minimum wage job where they aren't responsible for anything important
or that requires any sort of intellect.
Why do you, dummy, not believe this junk? ...because Don Lemon
and Rachel Maddow said so?
The "memo" is an altogether review
of the evidence at hand that uses what has been derived from
evidence found much through the Inspector General's report and
the testimony from witnesses (that means documented in
writing), both in the House and Senate, plus what has been
released by the DOJ and FBI through both lawsuits and
Congressional requests... Again, it's all documented and
irrefutable.
The dem memo is just a piece of paper of what all
these dem liars thought about something,....it has no weight on
anything anymore than if someone came on tv and gave their
opinion..........and in this case it's just the opinion, like
all the rest, of an incompetent group of people that have no
business being in their positions in the dem party and the left
leaning dem carrier pigeons in the MSM.
This isn't the usual
Dems' vs Repuplican stuff where they fight about issues
........ this is the democrat party desparately trying to block
EVERYTHING because they fully realize what the outcome will be
if all id disclosed.
It will be the end of their party for
decades (similar to republicans during Watergate - I was in DC
then and I know). The dem sycophants like you are the dummy at
the McDonalds counter that can't understand your order and
should all be working some harmless minimum wage job where they
aren't responsible for anything important or that requires any
sort of intellect.
"... Trump doesn't wear the pretty face mask that most recent Presidents had. In that, he is showing that the Emperor has no clothes (and the Empire no morals). This could be a good thing as people realize the one truth he campaigned on – "the system is rigged" is still true. But this Administration's faux "war" with the Establishment is serving to blind many from the reality that it is continuing and even expanding the horrible NeoCon foreign policies and Neoliberal economic policies that the Establishment desires. ..."
"... This Reality TV Show Presidency is sweeping up most USAmericans. Like all Reality TV Shows, we in the audience cheer our favorites and jeer their opponents as if it was real, and not a fully-scripted performance. ..."
"... I feel your pain cmp thank you for your post. For you and others interested in this combination of Student Anti-War activism and Government Surveillance, I'd like to recommend a truly insightful book entitled, "Subversives": The FBI's War On Student Radicals, and Reagan's Rise To Power by Seth Rosenfeld. Matt Taibbi remarked in a review of this book which now seems understated, that "Domestic intelligence forces will tend to use all the powers they're given (and even some that they're not) to spy on people who are politically defenseless, irreverent from a security standpoint and targeted for all the wrong reasons". ..."
"... "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public." ..."
'Deep State' Veterans find New Homes in Mainstream Media February 5, 2018
NBC News' hiring of former CIA Director John Brennan is the latest in a wave of intelligence
community stalwarts being given jobs in the media, raising concerns over conflicts of
interests, reports Caitlin Johnstone.
"Former CIA director John Brennan has become the latest member of the NBC News and MSNBC
family, officially signing with the network as a contributor," chirps a recent
article by The Wrap, as though that's a perfectly normal thing to have to write and not a
ghastly symptom of an Orwellian dystopia. NBC reports that the former head of
the depraved ,
lying, torturing ,
propagandizing , drug
trafficking , coup-staging , warmongering Central
Intelligence Agency "is now a senior national security and intelligence analyst."
Brennan, who
played a key role in the construction of the establishment's Russia narrative that has been
used to manufacture public consent for
world-threatening new cold war escalations , is just the latest addition in an ongoing trend
of trusted mainstream media outlets being packed to the gills with stalwarts from the U.S.
intelligence community. Brennan joins CIA and DoD Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash on the NBC/MSNBC lineup, who is
serving there as a national security analyst, as well as NBC intelligence/national security
reporter and known
CIA collaborator Ken Dilanian.
Former CIA analyst and now paid CNN analyst Phil Mudd, who
last year caused Cuomo's show to have to issue a retraction and apology for a
completely baseless claim he made on national television asserting that
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange is "a pedophile", is once again
making headlines for suggesting that the FBI is entering into a showdown with the current
administration over Trump's decision to declassify the controversial Nunes memo.
More and more of the outlets from which Americans get their information are being filled not
just with garden variety establishment loyalists, but with longstanding members of the U.S.
intelligence community. These men got to their positions of power within these deeply
sociopathic institutions based on their willingness to facilitate any depravity in order to
advance the secret agendas of the U.S. power establishment, and now they're being paraded in
front of mainstream Americans on cable news on a daily basis. The words of these "experts" are
consistently
taken and
reported on by smaller news outlets in print and online media in a way that seeds their
authoritative assertions throughout public consciousness.
The term "deep state" does not refer to a conspiracy theory but to a simple concept in
political analysis which points to the undeniable reality that (A) plutocrats, (B) intelligence
agencies, (C) defense agencies, and (D) the mainstream media hold large amounts of power in
America despite their not being part of its elected government. You don't need to look far to
see how these separate groups overlap and collaborate to advance their own agendas in various
ways. Amazon's Jeff Bezos, for example, is deeply involved in
all of the aforementioned groups : (A) as arguably the wealthiest
person ever he is clearly a plutocrat, with a company that is
trying to control the underlying infrastructure of the economy ; (B) he is a CIA contractor ; (C) he is part of a
Pentagon advisory board ; and (D) his
purchase of the Washington Post in 2013 gave him total control over a major mainstream
media outlet.
Bezos did not purchase the Washington Post because his avaricious brain predicted
that newspapers were about to make a profitable resurgence; he purchased it for the same reason
he has inserted himself so very deeply into America's unelected power infrastructure – he
wants to ensure a solid foundation for the empire he is building. He needs a potent propaganda
outlet to manufacture support for the power establishment that he is weaving his plutocratic
tentacles through. This is precisely the same reason other mass media-controlling
plutocrats are stocking their propaganda machines with intelligence community insiders.
Time and again you see connections between the plutocratic class which effectively
owns America's elected
government , the intelligence and defense agencies which operate behind thick veils of
secrecy in the name of "national security" to advance agendas which have nothing to do with the
wishes of the electorate, and the mass media machine which is used to manufacture the consent of the people to be
governed by this exploitative power structure.
America is ruled by an elite class which has slowly created a system where money
increasingly
translates directly into political power , and which is therefore motivated to maintain
economic injustice in order to rule over the masses more completely. The greater the economic
inequality, the greater their power. Nobody would willingly consent to such an oppressive
system where wealth inequality keeps growing as expensive bombs from expensive drones are
showered upon strangers on the other side of the planet, so a robust propaganda machine is
needed.
And that's where John Brennan's new job comes in. Expect a consistent fountain of lies to
pour from his mouth on NBC, and expect them to all prop up this exploitative power
establishment and advance its
geopolitical agendas . And expect clear-eyed rebels everywhere to keep calling it all what
it is.
Yeah, I noticed this too and it disgusts me. It doesn't surprise me, though. Ever since
Oliver North got his own show and has been a regular contributor at Fox News, this has been
the trend. CNN also gives plenty of Air Time to the disgraced John Dean of Watergate
Infamy.
It underscores how vital it is We The People take back The Media from the Corporate
Thieves who now own it. We need to reverse consolidation in the Media Industry and in fact,
reverse the trend of Media as an Industry.
Ol' Hippy , February 5, 2018 at 1:58 pm
There appears to be two types of media these days. The first type plays by the "rules" of
the corporate/banking/military state and gets prestigious jobs with all the perks, i.e. Nice
house, good salary, steady work, etc. The second type works independent from the power
structures. They have integrity; Robert Parry being a prime example. They also become media
pariahs. They work hard for less pay, get denigrated, marginalized, called liars, etc.
Without them we would all be as clueless as those that only read and watch MSM. Thank
goodness for these brave people.
They work hard for less pay, get denigrated, marginalized, called liars, etc. Without
them we would all be as clueless as those that only read and watch MSM. Thank goodness for
these brave people.
Yes, I agree. Thank goodness for the few of us who still remain and persist against all
odds with no support.
Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 10:48 am
The culture in DC being described recently as 'critters in the swamp', does not nearly
come close to describing the choking filth that has taken our government over. To be clear,
this coup toke place a very longtime ago, but don't announce that to any good red blooded
American Patriot, that is unless you want to be titled 'un-American'.
My hesitation to get excited over the 'Nunes Memo', is my frustration over what all is
missing from this Congressional members flaming Memo. Like where is Brennan, Clapper, or any
DNC Operatives, as if we should have expected the MSM to be mentioned? Why, just go after a
couple of cheating lovers?
Seeing Brennan join the NBC staff, is like watching him walk across the hall at Langley
only to start his mischief in another CIA department. I'd love to wish the old spook good
luck on his first day at his new job, but then that would be like condoning that pain be
inflicted upon more unsuspecting poor souls, so I won't.
Inserting guys like that into the center of the storm within the corporate media whose job
it *should* be to expose the truth to the public is clearly a conflict of interest (because
they themselves are prime suspects in the purported criminal activities) and obvious
obstruction of justice because we know they are actually snow-jobbing the public and hiding
the truth to protect themselves and their puppetmasters.
In all fairness, when does General Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page or Jared Kushner get
to have a regular segment on the Rachel Maddow show? Why doesn't the media interview Barack
Obama himself to find out what he knows and when he first knew it, or to force him into
self-incriminating or at least highly-suspicious obfuscations? It was his justice department
that targeted the Trump campaign on highly problematic grounds. Or, put a microphone in front
of Hillary's face and ask her how the administration (of which she was an organic outgrowth)
interfaced with the FISA court, allegedly on her behalf to spy on the competition.
This caper is not only worse than Watergate (Watergate was conducted in the shadows), this
crime and subsequent cover-up are being carried out in broad daylight with the full
complicity of the media. They don't care who knows because those people, regardless of their
substantiated facts, will never get a hearing in the media which now creates our
moment-to-moment reality, as far as 99% of Americans know or care about.
Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Our MSM is lacking the honor and truthfulness of Robert Parry.
Realist, I always like reading your comments, and with this comment of yours you don't
disappoint. I too would like to know when the truth will be broadcast over our airways, and
printed in our national news outlets. Although, I could watch the grass grow, or the snow
melt, and have better results to jump up and down about, before the MSM will shoot straight
with us viewers. I have come to the conclusion that what hurts our nation most, is we have to
much corporate control, like our infamous corporate owned MSM. These pundits, and news
anchors only do what they do best, and that is they promote themselves. I mean, the omissions
of facts, and the over the top characterizations of world leaders and national political
opponents goes to the degree of slander, and yet life goes on. I know it would be an
impossible task, but wouldn't it be great to if we news junkies could sue the MSM for
fraud?
Realist , February 5, 2018 at 8:44 pm
I could have been more strident than I was, Joe. I might have called the FISA court
outright illegal and unconstitutional like Jimmy Dore did yesterday. I mean, what the hell is
its role in America today? It serves as a SECRET COURT which gives permissions to
intelligence agencies to SPY without limits on any American citizen they choose to target,
including, apparently, their supposed boss, the president of the United States. As if the
carte blanch, full spectrum eavesdropping done by DARPA on every American weren't enough of a
violation of our constitutional rights, they have to dress up some of their spying with
special judicial privilege. Useful tools like Brennan, Clapper, Mueller and Comey have been
justifying or fallaciously LYING about this imposition on our citizens for years now.
Remember when the KGB was disbanded and folks were publicly rooting through the files in a
carnival atmosphere after the Soviet Union collapsed? This country needs a dose of the same
thing. We need more of our freedoms back and less of the so-called "order" imposed by the
Deep State and its string pullers. I don't believe for a moment that the Russians, the
Chinese, ISIS, Al Queda, Kim Yung-Un, the Ayatollahs or a squadron of Klingon battle cruisers
are waiting just outside our borders preparing to attack the United States and we all must be
defended by the "Intelligence Community" by living like Winston Smith.
Joe Tedesky , February 5, 2018 at 9:57 pm
The U.S. is so shallow at even their attempting to address its citizens with the
appropriate truth, that after 50 years to prepare for the public more information on the JFK
Assassination that when the time come the government wasn't even ready for the release. What
an insult to the nation.
The purge you spoke of Realist is a dream in this purist eye. I really do welcome a much
broader investigation of panoramic proportions of our nation's massive bureaucracy, and the
discovery of the elements who only conspire to enact their agendas could then be exposed.
You are right about our freedoms. We Americans are in the end going to need to put our
foot down to our governments police state rules, and all of us will need to brave it out when
going into public places. (Oh boy what false flag bate) At some point it will be necessary to
say, enough is enough, and hopefully catch them while at their game. Joe
Ps that last part I doubt will ever happen.
Gregory Herr , February 6, 2018 at 12:52 am
I think you touched upon something really important referring to the "moment-to-moment
reality" that media "creates". A big problem with television "news" and the funny papers is
the failure to.contextualize what's going on today with related events or issues–even
from the relatively recent past. It's almost always about a myopic and usually distorted
focus on just one particularly vexing item that generates competing opinions that must be
paired and parsed to death–until there's something else to "talk" about. Yeah, yeah!
Pick a team–partisanship is entertaining don't ya know! Rachel's got ratings and
Hannity's one of us!
Just one for instance:
Obama relaxed constraints on sharing of NSA raw data as a parting blow to privacy that also
makes it easier to "leak" and cover up the leaking. He signed a Countering Disinformation and
Propaganda Act which essentially is a way for government to make it harder to "counter" their
disinformation and propaganda. Google and Facebook are are all in on the filter and censor
project. Yet with all this and much more there isn't a peep of a national discussion about
the First Amendment and the value of protecting free and diverse expression. Oh, I know why.
The Court says money is speech so all the "important" people can buy their freedom of
expression. Guess that will leave me out.
Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 11:16 am
Thank you Caitlin Johnstone!
I'm going to refer readers to an off-guardian article running now and specifically to the
comment pages where one can see Noam Chomsky's (as a young researcher) explain cointelpro.
This is an exceptional explination
Thanks, Caitlin. People need to learn more about Deep State and and also the One World
Order. There are lots of videos on the Internet, including some featuring former CIA
(whistleblower-type) agents who feel impelled to divulge the hidden government. Thanks for
your links, Bob. I'll take a look.
Erin , February 5, 2018 at 11:51 am
Don't watch, don't watch, don't watch!
Skip Scott , February 5, 2018 at 12:42 pm
Erin-
I agree. I think people need to turn off their TV sets. They are mind numbing. People like
Brennan belong in jail, not on television.
Nancy , February 5, 2018 at 2:24 pm
I don't think the majority of people are watching this crap anymore. It's mainly a bunch
of circle jerks mouthing off in an echo chamber. Problem is, the rest of the population is
either preoccupied with making a living or playing with their gadgets to find out what's
really going on. People seem to have given up on the idea of democracy, justice and fairness
and in a way I don't blame them.
It's kind of a curse to still have this notion that a better world is possible.
Good points. I agree. It's as though "The News" is intended for the Oligarchs and the
Political Class. The ads are a dead giveaway that's the target market. The products they are
selling are not for the Average Joe who can't afford such luxuries.
Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 12:00 pm
Now finally for the most adventurous of you I'll introduce you to a man I discovered in an
agonizingly slow way over the course of years. His name is Carl Oglesby and as a young worker
at a defense industry job he started doing research on the Vietnam War. He ultimately wrote a
book called "The Yankee and Cowboy Wars" that surprisingly accurately describes our current
condition. It is one of those books long out of print worth thousands of dollars in
resale.
I will post a link to Spartacus
Educational below but you can find it on your own..
I promise to now shut-up and listen
I saw that recent Mudd comment regarding President Trump = 13 months vs. Hoover Org. =
since 1908. The President needs to eliminate this agency. Then we can watch this asshole
cough up his spleen LIVE on t.v.! I guess these creatures have license to claim anything they
want and get away with it. His Assange accusation falls out of his mouth and gets repeated
endlessly. Then when the weak retraction occurs, it never gets the same press/traction and
the damage is already done.
Babyl-on , February 5, 2018 at 12:25 pm
Nothing particularly new here, this has been established practice for decades. What is new
about this issue and so many others now is that it is done openly, without any pretense that
there is a constitution. The Imperial institutions housed in the US now act openly for the
interests of an overarching transnational oligarchy.
Trump has destroyed the dominate narrative this is by far the deepest wound I have seen
the Empire receive. No one really believes Clapper any more – whether it is a plurality
or a majority is not the point, enough people don't believe them that the Empire has lost
control of the message. That is the source of their panic. Trotting out their apparatchiks
once worked and worked for decades but – "It's all over now baby blue."
Trump has exposed much of the ways things have been done behind the seines for many years
and unwittingly forced them into the open – this has been his biggest contribution to
the weakening of the Imperial structures. Leaving them naked in their policies of slaughter.
The Empire has nothing now but a huge military which it can't use without destroying
civilization so it goes around the world destroying countries and cities in its helpless
thrashing around slaughtering innocent people as it looses on every front. The last gasp of
Empire – kill them all if they will not submit. In its death throws the Empire will do
untold damage and create vast human suffering, it might very well destroy civilization with
its nuclear weapons rather that accept a place as one part of the human community not the
ruler of humanity.
Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Trump doesn't wear the pretty face mask that most recent Presidents had. In that, he is
showing that the Emperor has no clothes (and the Empire no morals). This could be a good
thing as people realize the one truth he campaigned on – "the system is rigged" is
still true. But this Administration's faux "war" with the Establishment is serving to blind many from
the reality that it is continuing and even expanding the horrible NeoCon foreign policies and
Neoliberal economic policies that the Establishment desires.
This Reality TV Show Presidency is sweeping up most USAmericans. Like all Reality TV
Shows, we in the audience cheer our favorites and jeer their opponents as if it was real, and
not a fully-scripted performance.
exiled off mainstreet , February 5, 2018 at 12:29 pm
Yankee media has degenerated into an echo chamber for the deep state structure. This is
just further proof of that salient fact.
No More Neos , February 5, 2018 at 1:35 pm
Maybe we should view this as a good sign that they need to "call in the National Guard"
for corporate media back-up reinforcements. The propaganda machine is sputtering and
sparking, overheated from working OT to push flimsy narrative, which only accentuates the
cartoonish spectacle of it all.
Neoliberalism rests on a fragile foundation of financial myths that are beginning to come
crashing down, aside from shooting itself in the foot in the 2008 crash. They had to admit
that:
Global banks are global in health and national in death. ~ Mervyn King
A growing number of economics students are demanding to be taught economic history and not
just neoclassical economics. Hayek, Friedman, Greenspan and the Apostles of Doublespeak in
the academic and corporate media realm have lost all credibility. Heterodox economists like
Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, Bill Mitchell and Stephanie Kelton are gaining popularity in
their blinders-off clarity of how the economy actually works, sans the political spin.
Even Russia and China have decided to not allow Monsanto to control the world's food
supply, have no desire to continue working with the IMF and World Bank and are wise enough to
see the futility in acquiescing to a unipolar world view. Ultimately, the US will be the
bigger loser by going it alone and not accepting the vast multipolar opportunities that
await, based on faulty principle. But that won't deter them from continuing provocations in
Ukraine, Venezuela (and other Latin American countries), etc., even though Western agenda's
neoliberal offerings are now considered to be an appalling joke internationally.
But this has been known for some time. It was just a matter of time before the "market
society" experiment crashed and burned:
"To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings and
their natural environment would result in the demolition of society." ~ Karl Polanyi,
1944
"In 1945 or 1950 if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today's
standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage or sent off to the
insane asylum." ~ Susan George
Do not confuse the economic -- oikos nomia -- the norms of running home and community with
chrematistics -- krema atos -- the accumulation of money. ~ Aristotle
Bob Van Noy , February 6, 2018 at 8:50 am
Many thanks No More Neos. I was unaware of most of what you wrote. I have noted the names
that you mentioned and I will pay more attention to them. I do know of Michael Hudson and
admire his work.
It has occurred to me that there will be Rich academic histories written about the
organized management of subject matter by TPTB. See my Response To cmp below.
Re, The Deep State and the "media."Do: "Birds of a feather produce propaganda
together?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
December 25, 2015
Are the Corporate Media and Others Covering Up The Treachery of The War Criminals?
There is plenty of evidence that people in positions of power planned and plotted a number
of "illegal" wars [1] in "defiance of international law." Unfortunately, this information is
suppressed and censored in most of the corporate monopoly media. Instead we are fed
propaganda that attempts to disguise the truth, and covers up the massive human suffering
caused by the warmongering criminals of these 21st century war crimes. This has resulted in
the creation of millions of refugees, [1a] many soldiers dead and maimed, countries
destroyed, millions dead, children dead and contaminated, and the war criminals are FREE.
[2]
[read more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2015/12/are-corporate-media-and-others-covering.html
Bob Van Noy , February 5, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Thank you Stephan J. Here is a link that you provided from a Robert Parry piece.
If one goes through the commentary, you will see that comments have always been decent,
informative and educational on this truly wonderful site.
Man oh man I miss Robert Parry and F. G. Sanford where are you?
(Caitlin Johnstone you're our new leader, and apparently another fine journalist. Thank
You)
This article by Caitlin just helps me to be glad that I never bought cable TV. I didn't
realize how many former government criminals/ex-officials populated their polluted networks.
Former head spook Mike Morell on CBS doesn't seem like an anomaly any more. The hens are
fattening the foxes guarding the air and cable waves. No wonder those with little time, due
to work and family matters, know so little about what's actually going on.
j. D. D. , February 5, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Looks like the Obama/British connected warmongering intel agents have decided to eliminate
the "middle-men" (and women) and go directly on record. Rachel, Chris, Jim and Wolfe, your
jobs are in jeopardy, Not to be left out, I expect that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and perhaps
Mueller, are filling out their own applications right now.
, , February 5, 2018 at 2:45 pm
Johnstone tells it like it is. It's a pure pleasure to read her ripping out the guts of
the oligarchic monster creating our present deepening dystopia. Wouldn't it be nice if every
American could read her little piece, and think about what it says? Maybe I can get a few of
my friends to read it. You have to start somewhere to wake people up. If enough of us gently
encourage our friends to take a brief dip into reality, who knows what might come from
it?
Realist , February 5, 2018 at 2:48 pm
Mainstream liberal pundits used to talk like this, blasting the privileged insiders
"feeding at the trough" and such. Now they have become just a bunch of crybaby spoilers and
haters because their push for power via the Hildebeast movement came crashing down. If they
can't have it, they'd rather break it. They couldn't beat the warmongering neocons or the
rapacious neoliberals, so they joined 'em. They became what they always professed to
hate.
Their followers, being just mindless tribalists rather than the perspicacious philosophers
they are told they are, leap in lockstep over the precipice. They can never give you a
coherent or logical reason why, just vapid slogans usually diametrically at odds with any
real truth. All that matters to them is receiving daily affirmation from their fellow ranks
of sloganeering nincompoops. In their newfound McCarthyism they've morphed into the lost boys
from "Lord of the Flies" who went so far as to kill Piggy, Piggy's counterpart being Al
Franken and his career as a champion of liberal causes in the U.S. senate.
But, in a world where one can purportedly choose any identity one pleases with no basis in
reality, these self-immolations merely win accolades from the right-thinking media clerics as
society in general goes into a death spiral. Living the "theatre of the absurd" has become
the new "American way of life." Now, if we could just quickly get out of the way of the rest
of the world, things might turn out all right for the rest of humanity. Unfortunately,
they've designed an "app" to prevent that, it's called the MIC, and it's not user
friendly.
We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It
has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by
emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input.
Through critical thinking, we can overcome these emotional impulses, but only with effort,
and a pre-existing skepticism of all information sources. And even still, I have no doubt
that all of us who are aware of the propaganda still accept some falsehoods as true.
It could be that having former Intelligence Agency Directors as "news" presenters, and
Goldman Sachs alum and Military/Industrial complex CEOs running important government agencies
makes clear to some the reality that we live in an oligarchy with near-tyrannical powers. But
most people seem too busy surviving and/or being diverted by the circus to notice the depths
of the propaganda.
Chris , February 5, 2018 at 3:43 pm
"America is ruled by an elite class which has slowly created a system where money
increasingly translates directly into political power, and which is therefore motivated to
maintain economic injustice in order to rule over the masses more completely. The greater the
economic inequality, the greater their power. " This is backwards. The elite does not create
economic injustice to maintain and solidify their power for then there would have been no
French, Russian, Cuban, Chinese revolutions. The capitalist system leads to economic
injustice because it steals unpaid labour power from the working class and puts into the
hands of the capitalists. The reason they keep wages lower is to increase the rate of profit
not to keep power thought they try to hold on to the power to maintain that system. And the
more that inequality is produced the weaker they become because the working class then
realises it has nothing to lose and revolts. This is basic marxism which the writer seems to
be unaware of. The greater the economic inequality, the greater the distress of the working
class is and greater the motivation to change their condition.
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:01 pm
Chris – you are right, conditions must be favorable for any action to take place. It
is when the crowd gets a taste of fear that they move.
Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 7:02 pm
Cold, you may know that the original use of the term "American Exceptionalism" was
Stalin's description of how the USAmerican working classes seem incapable of revolting
against capitalist exploitation, no matter how egregious it becomes. We are "the exception"
to Marx's theories about the tipping points for revolutions.
cmp , February 5, 2018 at 4:20 pm
Just what does democracy look like to these cowards who sell prejudice, discrimination,
hate and violence?
Here is an example of how much they think of their (our) own kids, if they even dare to
speak to the teachers & preachers:
On May 2nd 1970, Governor James A. Rhodes (R-OH), says of student protesters at Kent State
University:
"They're worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and
the vigilantes. They're the worst kind of people we harbor in America. I think that we're up
against the strongest, well-trained, militant revolutionary group that has ever assembled in
America. We're going to eradicate the problem, we're not going to treat the symptoms." Two
days later, on May 4th, National Guardsmen kill four unarmed students on the Kent State
campus and wounded nine others.
~ Jim Hunt; 'They Said What?'; 9/1/ 2009
On May 5th 1970, Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA) says of the efforts to stop student
protests on university campuses:
"If it takes a bloodbath, then let's get it over with.."
~ Jim Hunt; 'They Said What?'; 9/1/ 2009
.. And, 10 years later, in 1980, America elected who??
Who will the sellers offer up in 2024? Are we closing in on the end of the era of the
puppet?
Perhaps it will be a pro. (with media experience on the resume, to boot) .. A John
Brennan-ite?
If there is a hell, then certainly there must be a special spot reserved for those who are
the worst of the guru's in greed. But, in the meantime, for America's own good, maybe someday
soon, the International Community will close Guantanamo.. .. And, do all of the citizens of
the planet a great justice by reopening it in the middle of the Mohave Desert. These cowards
that corporatize & commercialize prejudice, discrimination, hate and violence, they can
be the honorary members. And since it is they who have long killed their conscience, then
maybe that desert heat will serve as a small reminder for what a little heat really feels
like.
Bob Van Noy , February 6, 2018 at 8:31 am
I feel your pain cmp thank you for your post. For you and others interested in this
combination of Student Anti-War activism and Government Surveillance, I'd like to recommend a
truly insightful book entitled, "Subversives": The FBI's War On Student Radicals, and
Reagan's Rise To Power by Seth Rosenfeld. Matt Taibbi remarked in a review of this book which
now seems understated, that "Domestic intelligence forces will tend to use all the powers
they're given (and even some that they're not) to spy on people who are politically
defenseless, irreverent from a security standpoint and targeted for all the wrong
reasons".
cmp , February 6, 2018 at 4:43 pm
Bob, "Thank You!" I have made a note to look for Lansdale, Carl Oglesby, and now Seth
Rosenfeld. All of this I know, will be such great reading for me!
I also sent you some follow up on the 28th. Did you receive those two? Would you like for
me to send them again?
I look forward to all of your posts – Keep up all of your great work Bob!
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:31 pm
Sean Hannity on Fox is doing a stellar job of exposing the Department of Justice, FBI, and
all of the other characters re the Steele dossier and Russiagate. Every night more
information is revealed; it's like a spy novel. None of the other outlets are even talking
about this stuff. Crickets. If you want the latest on criminality, go there. Meanwhile, Zero
Hedge says:
"Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley's push to force the DOJ to open a
criminal investigation into ex-British spy and 'Trump dossier' author Christopher Steele is
being met with resistance from the bureau, the latest sign that it doesn't want information
about its relationship with Steele to be shared with the public."
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC had paid Steele for his dossier. But the FBI also
hired Steele, and just before they paid out $50,000.00 to Steele for his work, they
discovered he lied, didn't pay him, but still continued to spy on Trump and his team. With
Steele's dossier now discredited in the eyes of the FBI, they should have stopped their
spying, but they didn't. Russiagate has been based on this Steele dossier, and yet there was
"no there there", and the DOJ and the FBI knew it.
Zero Hedge goes on:
"Furthermore, a section on a second memo by Steele says he received information from the
State Department, which in turn got it from a foreign source who was in touch with 'a friend
of the Clintons.'
'It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these
Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional
concerns about his credibility,' Grassley and Graham wrote in their criminal referral."
So Steele was receiving information from the State Department and a friend of the
Clinton's? How impartial is that?
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
~ The Bard
The Reality TV Show Presidency has great ratings.
Do you think Nikki Haley got the red rose? Apparently Michael Wolf, the author of "Fire
and Fury," is backing down on that bit of salacious gossip "news."
backwardsevolution , February 6, 2018 at 4:39 pm
Daniel – and a line I like to quote from Shakespeare applies so well to the
Clinton's:
"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here."
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 4:36 pm
John Brennan – "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." That
guy is evil, and nothing good will come of this.
Mark Thompson , February 5, 2018 at 8:13 pm
Really happy to see Caitlin writing on this forum. Keep up the good work Caitlin. You'll
never be short on material to write about. If what we're witnessing in this point in time is
any barometer, we're in for a world of hurt. Orwell is in his grave wishing he had two more
hands. He has to choose whether to cover his eyes or ears. What a sad state of affairs
Lois Gagnon , February 5, 2018 at 11:18 pm
It becomes more evident by the day that we live in a military dictatorship. One of the
incidents that brought this realization home to me was when John Kerry had negotiated a deal
with the Russians regarding military operations in Syria. The military took it upon
themselves to nullify that deal when it purposely attacked and killed 60 Syrian soldiers.
That was a clear case of insubordination that should have led to firings of the military
brass who ordered that strike. Instead, Obama just carried on as if nothing happened except
that the negotiated deal was null and void.
And of course the press said nothing about the blatant criminality of the military
action.
What president is willing to stand up to the military and the Department of Skullduggery
AKA the CIA anymore? Who is really calling the shots?
Thank you Caitlin! Good job! I especially like: "Nobody would willingly consent to such an
oppressive system where wealth inequality keeps growing as expensive bombs from expensive
drones are showered upon strangers on the other side of the planet, so a robust propaganda
machine is needed." I agree! NO ONE is "willfully ignorant". NO ONE chooses to be under the
influence of government mass mind control/propaganda. Mind control is something that is "done
to" people -- – whether the perpetrator is a psychopathic spouse or cult leader;
religious indoctrinator, military boot camp sargeant, and/or the voice of government control
of the media. Blaming victims of mind control for being mind controlled and therefore being
"willfully ignorant" is just another form of mind control used to discount the reality of
mind control.
"... You even had Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page on The McLaughlin Group emphatically stating that the Steele Dossier was 90% factual which is just repeating what Steele said just after the release of the dossier. The veracity has since tumbled as questions arose about the allegations and their sources. But, there is a Cabal that still hang their hopes on the "90%". ..."
"... Seriously, explain to me the difference between the two things. Trump may have sought out dirt on Hillary from Russia and Hillary may have sought out dirt on Trump from an former British spy. ..."
"... We will see what the other memo says but simply as speculation I think the chances are that Democrats probably would be better off cutting ties with Steele, GPS Fusion, Comey, Page, Ohr, Strzok, Lynch even and maybe more, than to parse out why this FISA warrant was not a bad idea. It really is never, ever too late to turn back, but the animus against Donald Trump is clouding a lot of otherwise clear thinking Democrats. "Yeah, that whole mess sure was a screw-up and now let's talk about how terrible Trump's immigration policies would be for the country." ..."
"... the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath." ..."
"... When is somebody going to read United states vs Leon that stands for the rule of law that if a cop (fbi) knowingly or recklessly includes facts in an application for a warrant that the cop knows are false or recklessly includes, then the warrant is quashed and and all evidence is suppressed ..."
"... This whole thing stinks to high heaven. The left is deliberately trying to steer discussion away from the elephant in the room -- the FBI under Obama was no longer neutral but was being used as a political tool to undermine the opposition. This is a serious threat to our democratic process and cannot be taken lightly. Jeff Sessions needs to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Nunes Memo allegations. Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and Christopher Wray all need to be suspended while the investigation is ongoing. ..."
"... The NYT and the [neo]liberal media in general have lost all their journalistic integrity in the way they've been covering up for all of Democrats' corruption and abuse of power the last two decades. The way they fawned over Obama was downright sickening. Watergate was billed as the greatest scandal ever because it was done by a Republican president. What Obama did not just with the 2016 election meddling but with covering for Clinton's Uranium One pay to play scheme was far, far worse. ..."
"... The people aren't as stupid as the liberal elites think we are. That's why the fake news media is losing their stranglehold on news as people turn to alternative news sources thanks to the internet. The Times can print whatever they want, they are only further discrediting themselves as a legitimate news source with each passing day. The delirious, foam at the mouth reader comments that they deemed fit to print just show how hysterical and out of touch the left have become. ..."
You even had Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page on The McLaughlin Group emphatically stating
that the Steele Dossier was 90% factual which is just repeating what Steele said just after
the release of the dossier. The veracity has since tumbled as questions arose about the
allegations and their sources. But, there is a Cabal that still hang their hopes on the
"90%".
ArtR: "You even had Eleanor Clift and Clarence Page on The McLaughlin Group emphatically
stating that the Steele Dossier was 90% factual which is just repeating what Steele said."
Yeah, I caught that doozy over the weekend. Clift, a so-called journalist, also claimed
that Steele and the dossier had been funded by the GOP, which is a false statement that's
still widely circulated, for no good reason.
Katy Tur, another so-called journalist, was calling Nunes "treasonous" on par with Snowden
before the memo release, and is now laughing about it after the fact. When the press acts
like that, not in the public interest but in defense of government secrecy, you can bet
something rotten is going on in the bureaucracy.
Add to that Senators Blumenthal and Booker claiming the release of this memo, and by
extension the public's right to know, would constitute "obstruction of justice" and
"treason", essentially repackaging claims by the intelligence agencies that the release would
jeopardize national security. And again, this was all before the memo release.
Why so much fear-mongering and lying? It suggests there's something to hide. But that
could describe Trump's behavior, too.
"That you CAN'T combine the two speaks of a deeper rot. The opposition researcher was working
with agents of the exact same country and they knew it."
This makes sense to me. I am and continue to be somewhat agnostic and bemused by this
whole russiagate thing. Without defending Trump, who I just assume is corrupt and surrounded
by corrupt people, it is more than a little hard to believe that Steele and the Clinton side
was entirely innocent. On the one hand we are supposed to be scared to death of the mighty
Russian propaganda machine and yet on the other hand people on the left don't stop and ask
whether someone sent to Russia to gather dirt on Trump might have had contact, witting or
not, with Russian intelligence. If they wanted to sow confusion, wouldn't they try to do it
on both sides? Wouldn't they know what Steele was up to? It wasn't like anyone thought Trump
had a good shot of winning, so why wouldn't they play both sides if they wanted to sow
confusion?
Personally, I don't give a crap about any of this. Much of the outrage, I think, is being
fueled by people who want a new Cold War with Russia. Russiagate, true or false, helps keep
the all important fear and loathing of Russia on the front page.
One side collaborating with an adversary nation (Russia) that harms our national interests
is a threat to national security.
The other side is hiring an opposition researcher.
The fact that you can combine the two and compare them speaks of deep the rot is."
Well, I'm not a conservative, so there's that. Second, Russia wasn't an adversary nation
up until about two seconds ago when Democrats suddenly needed a scapegoat for Hillary's
flame-out. Russia wasn't an adversary nation for nearly the entirety of 20th century while
they were being run by a series of despots, but now they're an adversary nation. I think it
was Obama who said, "The 80's called and they want their foreign policy back."
Seriously, explain to me the difference between the two things. Trump may have sought out
dirt on Hillary from Russia and Hillary may have sought out dirt on Trump from an former
British spy.
We will see what the other memo says but simply as speculation I think the chances are that
Democrats probably would be better off cutting ties with Steele, GPS Fusion, Comey, Page,
Ohr, Strzok, Lynch even and maybe more, than to parse out why this FISA warrant was not a
bad idea. It really is never, ever too late to turn back, but the animus against Donald Trump
is clouding a lot of otherwise clear thinking Democrats. "Yeah, that whole mess sure was a
screw-up and now let's talk about how terrible Trump's immigration policies would be for the
country."
1. All reporters, FBI agents, intel agents and
congressional investigators -- Dem and GOP are so incompetent that they can't find
"collusion" after nearly 20 months.
2. Trump is a master genius who has engineered the most
successful cover-up in US history -- keeping all direct evidence of collusion hidden. or
3.
Hillary hated Trump so much she paid for phony Russian dirt and then spread it to law
enforcement and media to ensure that there would not a repeat of Obama snatching the
Presidency away from her.
Since no evidence of collusion has shown up, #3 is most obvious. Of
course, Democrats think "evidence" is "Joe lied about the perfectly legal act of drinking
milk, so that means he must have stolen some milk." Actually, they don't care; any old lie
will do.
what the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing facts about how the FBI and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and
its aftermath."
When is somebody going to read United states vs Leon that stands for the rule of law that if
a cop (fbi) knowingly or recklessly includes facts in an application for a warrant that the
cop knows are false or recklessly includes, then the warrant is quashed and and all evidence
is suppressed
The FBI should not be conducting political surveillance on opposition candidates in
national elections. If you want to talk about the real Putinization of America, that would be
it.
Further, the fact that the FBI was conducting political surveillance based on unvetted
opposition research which was so badly concocted even the media wouldn't run it for libel
fears, combined with a drunk quip, that is really pathetic.
On the other hand, Machiavelli noted something to the effect that the ends sometimes
justify the means, and its not clear that democracy dies in darkness, it dies in the kind of
anti-constitutional partisanship we are witnessing today, with the media in the Amen
corner.
"If the FBI obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor
Trump aide Carter Page based on information from the Christopher Steele dossier, that in
itself is a monumental scandal." If the FBI knew that the allegations of Steele's now-famous
dossier remained unverified and used them anyway, that would constitute an abuse of power and
an effort to manipulate the FISA court [..] what the Wall Street Journal calls "disturbing
facts about how the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court appear to have been
used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath."
Dodgy "intel" stovepiped through "dodgy intelligence?
FBI discredited for unconstitutional searches?
FISA secret court revealed as abuse of government power?
This whole affair must be a cunning liberal plot to turn Republicans against
themselves
I will never understand what satisfaction any citizen could draw from the joys of being a
"partisan" of either collection of half-wits that make for our schizoid duopoly of political
"parties". Those "parties", thrown – always – at our expense, are a lot more
educational and even entertaining if you have no dog in this fight, given the inbreeding on
the two lousy, rapid dogs involved.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. The left is deliberately trying to steer discussion
away from the elephant in the room -- the FBI under Obama was no longer neutral but was being
used as a political tool to undermine the opposition. This is a serious threat to our
democratic process and cannot be taken lightly. Jeff Sessions needs to appoint a special
counsel to investigate the Nunes Memo allegations. Rod Rosenstein, Robert Mueller and
Christopher Wray all need to be suspended while the investigation is ongoing.
The NYT and the [neo]liberal media in general have lost all their journalistic integrity in the
way they've been covering up for all of Democrats' corruption and abuse of power the last two
decades. The way they fawned over Obama was downright sickening. Watergate was billed as the
greatest scandal ever because it was done by a Republican president. What Obama did not just
with the 2016 election meddling but with covering for Clinton's Uranium One pay to play
scheme was far, far worse.
The people aren't as stupid as the liberal elites think we are. That's why the fake news
media is losing their stranglehold on news as people turn to alternative news sources thanks
to the internet. The Times can print whatever they want, they are only further discrediting
themselves as a legitimate news source with each passing day. The delirious, foam at the
mouth reader comments that they deemed fit to print just show how hysterical and out of touch
the left have become.
This is all for the entertainment of the masses..... If you believe otherwise you are
foolish. Just because we are just seeing these texts, doesnt mean that Grandpa sessions hasnt
had them for months... And...... CRICKETS....
The absence of prosecutions will prove they were correct in their assessment that they
were/are above the law. No one is more above the law than Barack Obama and it does not matter
how complicit he was in all of this. Half the country worships him. With HRC, maybe 20% of
the population worships her but that's enough to give her immunity from prosecution too, not
to mention her assassins who will eliminate anyone who might pose a threat to her freedom. We
are not a country of laws, we are a country of fame and fortune. The more fame and fortune
you acquire, the more above the law you become.
New text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have now been made public, and,
as The
Duran's Alex Christoforou notes , the big reveal is that then-POTUS Barack Obama appears to be in the loop, on the whole 'destroy
Trump' insurance plan hatched by upper management at the FBI.
Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016 about prepping Comey because "potus wants to know everything we're doing." Senate investigators
told Fox News this text raises questions about Obama's personal involvement in the Clinton email investigation.
...Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., along with majority staff from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee,
is releasing the texts, along with a report titled, "The Clinton Email Scandal and the FBI's Investigation of it."
The newly uncovered texts reveal a bit more about the timing of the discovery of "hundreds of thousands" of emails on former
congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, ultimately leading to Comey's infamous letter to Congress just days before the 2016 presidential
election.
On Sept. 28, 2016 Strzok wrote to Page, "Got called up to Andy's [McCabe] earlier.. hundreds of thousands of emails turned
over by Weiner's atty to sdny [Southern District of New York], includes a ton of material from spouse [Huma Abedin]. Sending team
up tomorrow to review this will never end." Senate investigators told Fox News this text message raises questions about when FBI
officials learned of emails relevant to the Hillary Clinton email investigation on the laptop belonging to Weiner, the husband
to Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
It was a full month later, on Oct. 28, 2016 when Comey informed Congress that, "Due to recent developments," the FBI was reopening
its Clinton email investigation.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.
I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday " Comey said at the time.
The question becomes why Comey was only informed by his investigative team on Oct. 27, if the Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop
were discovered by Sept. 28, at the latest.
The point of this is IF phone numbers and addresses got leaked, can other contents, like some of the compromising emails not
find their way to the surface as well, or any other sensitive material stored there...? Was this leak a warning or a prelude to
something bigger coming...?
Hey stupid fuck...this is no longer about who did or did not win the election.
This is about the FBI knowingly using false evidence to try and take down a legally elected president...and now we are learning
that it was endorsed not just by the Hillary campaign but now Obama apparently wanted to be kept in the know.
If this does not literally make you shake with anger or fear that our democracy has been 100% compromised simply because its
the 'red team' being targeted, then please just hop a fucking boat now to some shithole country that the liberals love so much
and get that much needed dose of reality about what this means.
Actually shivura has a point. I have always wondered why did Comey make reopening HRC's investigation public even as they made
sure the investigations did not go anywhere. It is not as if they were driven to uphold propriety in all of their other actions.
Why break so many rules in trying to save her and get her elected, and then inform everyone just before the elections that Weiner's
laptop had HRC emails. It adds sleaze to the mix, and to HRC by association. You can argue that HRC needs no help in that department,
but I am sure some people had a visceral reaction of revulsion on hearing HRC emails were on the laptop with other stuff.
Clinton spent about 1.1 BILLION dollars, had FISA Title 1 surveillance on Trump, full deep sate, globalist, swamp, backing,
was given debate questions in advance, full support of entire main stream media, election rigging in her favor and she STILL LOST?
The first time I knew Obama was directly involved was when it was discovered, thanks to wikileaks, Obama was sending emails
through Clinton's home server USING AN ALIAS. They all knew she was breaking the law, yet they protected her from prosecution
and then colluded to get her elected, using scores of illegal activities to do it. This is so bad they might not be able to do
anything about it, as it encompasses so many deep state agencies and actors. There may not be enough loyal Americans in DC to
uphold the law.
They apparently don't. Hearing from William Binney about how the technical means works means it is a system nearly impossible
to prevent abuses. Mr. Trump: Tear down the Utah data center.
I had suspected that the tarmac meeting was Lynch unmasking Seth Rich to the Clinton's. This revelation about a SC nomination
doesn't preclude that she fingered Rich. Somebody did, and he was 'made an example of'.
Looks like the trap has snapped shut and many conspirators are caught including Obama. Is there now any doubt that the elimination
of 4th amendment protections after 9/11 has been a disaster?
"It was set up by the FBI and when they realized how totally illegal it was they just handed it over to Clapper and Brennan.
.. Barry Oked The scam transfer, I suspect so that he could use it too.
It was/is used for one thing. .. To build blackmail 'Control Files' on thousands if not millions of Americans. ... An Extortion
Tool. .. NOTHING legal about it."
You've just explained in two sentences the entire Criminal, Treasonous, Seditious Intelligence Operation of our lifetime. Same
spying tactics used decades by MI6 / British Intelligence. Only difference being, it's the first of its kind "Information Highway"
Spy Ring utilizing an expanded Surveillance Infrastructure.
This entire Criminal Deep State Intelligence Operation was data mining formuling the first of its kind Parallel Construction
Case consisting of a Criminal Deep State CIA, FBI, DOJ Scripted False Narrative / PsyOp With the objective ousting a sitting President
via a soft coup.
Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath at Large George Bush Jr. instituted the Criminal Surveillance infrastructure.
Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath at Large Barack Obama expanded it exponentially.
However, Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths Obama, Clinton, their minions Brennan & Clapper along with
GCHQ used the intelligence apparatus to go after their political enemies.
Well, we're getting some transparency with the release of the new batch of texts. We weren't supposed to, but we have. "Transparency"
advocates will take our small victories when/where we get them.
Key point to me: Some people at least are circling around the bigger bombshell story - the effort to protect Hillary from the
"email server story." The story (for me) is NOT that the Russian government somehow "colluded" with the Trump campaign to get
Trump elected. It is instead that members of the "Deep State" colluded with one another to make sure Hillary got elected.
I think the MSM has been pushing the "Russiagate" angle to keep attention off the real story. That is, the press "colluded"
with those who worked so hard to get Hillary elected.
Now, we'll the press belatedly do its job and give the "Watergate treatment" to this real story? Eight ball says, "No way,
Jose."
Are we going to get a smoking memo on the FBI's investigation of Hillary's email?
Remember,
none of this would be happening without her private server and mishandled classified info.
Her candidacy should have been ended early on. The FBI's investigation seemed nonstandard to
say the least.
Much of what followed may be doubling down on and covering up earlier crimes.
The key question was DNC investigation by Crowdstrike a false flag operation or not
Notable quotes:
"... According to the New York Times , after being introduced to a number of Russian contacts by a Professor Joseph Mifsud – supposedly a "Maltese academic" who has since completely disappeared – the mysterious pedagogue told Papadopoulos that the Russians had "thousands" of incriminating emails that would damage Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Although there's no evidence Papadopoulos communicated this information to the Trump campaign, the young would-be mover-and-shaker got drunk one night in a London pub and supposedly told an Australian diplomat about the emails: it's not known whether the Australian had a role in getting him in a talkative mood, but we are told the two met due to the efforts of an Israeli diplomat in London. ..."
"... The Russia-gate conspiracy theorists believe that the Trump campaign somehow had a hand in either procuring or publishing the Clinton/Podesta emails – even though no one has ever produced any evidence of this. Aside from this important lack, there are some big problems with the conspiracist thesis. To begin with, if the Trump people knew about the DNC/Podesta emails in advance, why didn't they utilize this vital information before WikiLeaks published them? And what purpose would it serve the Russians to let the Trump camp in on the operation, and risk exposure in the process? If they wanted to help Trump, all they had to do was make sure the emails were published. The collusion theory makes no sense – but, then again, Russia-gate has never made much sense. ..."
the
memo " and its meaning. A simple reading reveals that allegations of skullduggery peeking
by the Obama administration during the presidential campaign were entirely accurate: the memo
just filled us in on the details. And while the debate has largely been over whether the proper
legal procedures were followed by the FBI and administration officials in spying on Carter Page
– someone only marginally connected to the Trump campaign – the real question is:
why were they sneaking around Page at all?
Oh, he claimed to be an "informal advisor" to the Russian government: he had business
interests in Russia and met with Russian officials. Furthermore, and most importantly, he
opposed the anti-Russian hysteria that permeates official Washington, and he often said –
in public speeches as well as privately – that US sanctions against Russia are a
mistake.
But so what? Since when is it illegal to hold these views?
Page was never a "Russian agent," and the FBI never proved that he was or is. Instead, they
submitted that phony BuzzFeed "dossier" to the FISA court as "evidence" justifying their hot
pursuit of him on more than one occasion. They did so without telling the judge who paid for
the dossier (it was the Clinton campaign, as Trump claimed when this
first came out) and they withheld other important details about its provenance –
including that it was written by Christopher Steele, a "former" British intelligence agent who
openly expressed a passionate desire to see Trump defeated. Nor had they verified the
information in the dossier related to Page, because they " didn't have time ," as former DNI
chief James Clapper has said on numerous occasions.
Page was targeted and the information gleaned from listening in on his phone conversations,
reading his email, and god knows what other sneaky intrusions, was leaked to the media in a
concerted campaign to influence the outcome of the election. So, yes, there was "collusion"
– except it wasn't a pact between Putin and Trump but rather an alliance between
Hillary's campaign and the national security bureaucracy to get her elected. In effect, the top
leadership of the FBI became an adjunct of the Clinton campaign – and, after Trump won,
they executed a plan to frame him for "collusion" and oust him.
When Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes announced he was going public with it, the
Democrats and their Republican Never-Trump allies said it meant the national security of the
United States would be put in mortal danger. They trotted out the old "sources and methods"
argument, which, it turned out, did not apply to the memo – because it just laid out the
bare facts, and revealed neither sources nor methods. (Unless one is talking about the
political methodology of the FBI scam, which involved sneaking, peaking, and then leaking).
The Deep State-Democrat fallback position is that Carter Page is really beside the point,
because the real genesis of the Russia-gate probe was the investigation into 28-year-old
George Papadopoulos, an "energy consultant" even more marginal to the Trump campaign than
Page.
According to the New York Times , after being introduced to a number of Russian
contacts by a Professor Joseph Mifsud – supposedly a "Maltese academic" who has since
completely disappeared – the mysterious pedagogue told Papadopoulos that the Russians had
"thousands" of incriminating emails that would damage Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Although there's
no evidence Papadopoulos communicated this information to the Trump campaign, the young
would-be mover-and-shaker got drunk one night in a London pub and supposedly told an Australian
diplomat about the emails: it's not known whether the Australian had a role in getting him in a
talkative mood, but we are told the two met due to the efforts of an Israeli diplomat in
London.
If this sounds like a setup to you, then you win the door prize: your very own copy of
What Happened , now going for fifty cents at the remainder table.
The Russia-gate conspiracy theorists believe that the Trump campaign somehow had a hand
in either procuring or publishing the Clinton/Podesta emails – even though no one has
ever produced any evidence of this. Aside from this important lack, there are some big problems
with the conspiracist thesis. To begin with, if the Trump people knew about the DNC/Podesta
emails in advance, why didn't they utilize this vital information before WikiLeaks published
them? And what purpose would it serve the Russians to let the Trump camp in on the operation,
and risk exposure in the process? If they wanted to help Trump, all they had to do was make
sure the emails were published. The collusion theory makes no sense – but, then again,
Russia-gate has never made much sense.
While the most fanatical anti-Trump types simply denied everything in the memo, the Beltway
"libertarians" who hate Trump's guts -- and the honest liberals like Glenn Greenwald who also
hate Trump's guts but who have a conscience and won't go along with the Russia-gate hoax
– were reduced to finger-wagging in response to the memo's release. Why, they asked, did
these very same people, like Rep. Nunes, vote to expand the Deep State's power to spy on
Americans right before the memo came out?
The question answers itself. As Rep. Thomas Massie put it : "Who made the decision
to withhold evidence of FISA abuse until after Congress voted to renew FISA program?" More than
a few votes would no doubt have been cast differently, and perhaps
the outcome would've been different. Certainly the debate would've been more extensive, and
much more interesting.
What's exciting, to me at least, is the promise by Nunes that this is just the start of the
revelations. Next up: the key role played by
the State Department in the plot to destroy our republic and hand power over to unelected
Deep State bureaucrats. And this means the important – perhaps decisive – part
played by foreign actors in all this will be exposed to the light of day. If you thought there
was howling about the first Nunes memo, wait until you hear the screams of pain coming from the
foreign lobbyists and their "American" sock puppets over Part Two of the Nunes narrative. The
real story of who is subverting our republic – and colluding with foreigners to
accomplish that goal – is about to come out.
I can hardly wait!
This isn't about Trump. You may hate him. You may love him. That's irrelevant. What matters
is that a powerful group of Washington insiders is trying to exercise its assumed veto power
over who gets to inhabit the White House – and that is impermissible as long as the
republic endures.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes
deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the
Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative ,
and writes a monthly column for Chronicles . He is the author of Reclaiming the
American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian
Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The
Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000]. View all posts by Justin Raimondo
"... The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia). ..."
"... They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect. But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos. Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West. ..."
"... When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is very stupid. ..."
"... "Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve. And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems." ..."
"... I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago, perhaps at the point Flynn was let go. ..."
"... A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions, finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist compliance with the mandate from Congress. ..."
"... If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. ..."
"... Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system" Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign . ..."
"... "I have come to the conclusion that the Empire is run by stupid, ignorant ideologues who live in a world totally detached from reality." ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. ..."
"... This idea is based on ideas from the British Jewish Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Which west goals ? I do not want USA world supremacy. At present Putin is the only man preventing this. ..."
"... As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up – the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading them far and wide. ..."
"... http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events, etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss ..."
"... "I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters. ..."
"... To the best of my knowledge, so far only one country used nukes against humans. And it wasn't North Korea. ..."
"... That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely) Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions? ..."
"... The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people ..."
"... It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it will further place the EU and the US on a collision course. ..."
"... I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German – Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse. ..."
"... The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US, rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions. ..."
"... Group three. Ignore what he says. Consequences are secondary to neocons; rhetoric is primary. Instead, watch what he does (consequences). Qui bono ? http://www.oom2.com/f81-q-anon-archive-analytical-discussion ..."
The sanctions list means that holding Western assets has become more risky for Russian oligarchs. And because of precedent
for Chinese, Arab, etc . They have three choices: (1) Remove Putin and co. and thus remove the risk; (2) Protect their wealth
by shifting out of Western assets. (3) Defect to the West to protect assets in the West (and lose assets in Russia).
They have some thinking to do. Very few will leave for the West, it is not clear how much of their wealth that would protect.
But some will and they will get inordinate publicity. Option 1. seems very hard and unpredictable, and it would increase chaos.
Chaos is not something the oligarchs want. The likely outcome is option 2. That strengthens Russia, and marginally hurts the West.
When you are a global repository for safe assets and wealth – as US and West have been for 2-3 generations – the last thing
you need is to put that safety haven status in doubt. Once people start doubting, things change. Saker is right, this policy is
very stupid.
Every aspect of human existence evolves around one basic (mis?)calculation: Am I better than someone else? Every second of every
day individuals, organizations, political parties, companies, countries, religions (God knows why) are trying to prove the above
– that they are better than the next in their respective category.
There are only 4 possible outcomes here:
You are better than someone and you can prove it. – ideal outcome
You are better than someone, but you can't prove it. – It sucks
You are no better than someone, but you have the means to manipulate the outcome into appearing like you are better. –
Probably the most unfair outcome.
You are no better than someone and if you try to prove that you are, you prove the opposite.
The current state of affairs between US and Russia is that US are aware that number 1 doesn't apply, they believe that they
can pull off a number 3, but I think that the most realistic assessment is number 4.
The underlying assumption of your comment is that applying pressure to Russia works in achieving the West's goals. But everything
we have seen from Russia in at least the last decade shows that pressuring Russia doesn't work. Ergo your conclusions are wrong.
Maybe it's time you start learning something from history.
"Now, at the same time, I want to be able -- because I think it's very important -- to get along with Russia, to get along
with China, to get along with Vietnam, to get along with lots of countries, because we have a lot of things we have to solve.
And, frankly, Russia and China in particular can help us with the North Korea problem, which is one of our truly great problems."
[....]
"And, you know, people don't realize Russia has been very, very heavily sanctioned. They were sanctioned at a very high level,
and that took place very recently. It's now time to get back to healing a world that is shattered and broken. Those are very important
things. And I feel that having Russia in a friendly posture, as opposed to always fighting with them, is an asset to the world
and an asset to our country, not a liability."
[....]
"President Obama wanted to get along with Russia, but the chemistry wasn't there. Getting along with other nations is a good
thing, not a bad thing -- believe me. It's a good thing, not a bad thing."
I point this out, because some may imagine that expressions of such an intention on the part of Trump ceased long ago,
perhaps at the point Flynn was let go.
A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of
the law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list. So the Administration, through Treasury, produced
such a list in answer to that requirement (crudely, as Saker points out) – but chose to not actually adopt any new sanctions,
finding that they are not needed. And it appears that Trump is under new attack in the mainstream precisely for his minimalist
compliance with the mandate from Congress.
If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to
question the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. Putin is standing in the way of greater Israel and a Jewish
world empire that is furthered by American military might. Despite his faults he is a strong nationalist leader who's preventing
Jewish globalists from turning Russia into a global plantation like America and their economy into a revenue stream for Jewish
robber barons like they have the American economy.
I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America is
now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917 until Jews began losing control in the 50′s and 60′s.
Now the red diaper babies and their progeny loom large over America.
Jaish al-Nasr, a faction in the Free Syrian Army shot it down, .. Su-25 was shot down by a man-portable air-defense system"
Is US trying to do an Afghanistan on Russia after successfully kicking the Vietnam Syndrome off it's "not talk list" but leaving
it on the " do repeat lists " in ME theater ? Not a good sign .
Interesting ..but I can see no reason for always claiming that the money laundering is done by the 'Russia State' instead of
private individual actors .the only motivation I can see for the State doing it is to turn rubles into western dollars and English
pounds .but since the dollar dominates in trade, for now anyway. the English pound isn't such a lure for Russia's holdings of
foreign currencies.
UK promises to crack down on assets of corrupt oligarchs – The Times
LONDON (Reuters) – Britain will use new powers to seize the assets of foreign criminals and corrupt politicians, The Times
newspaper reported on Saturday quoting the security minister. Investors from Russia, China and the Middle East have poured billions
into London, buying everything from luxury properties to entire companies, but the provenance of some of those funds has been
questioned by transparency campaigners. It is unclear how much money is laundered through Britain, but the National Crime Agency
has said calculations of between 36 billion pounds ($50.83 billion) and 90 billion pounds ($127.08 billion) are "a significant
underestimate".
Security minister Ben Wallace told The Times that the government would use powers regarding unexplained wealth to freeze and
recover property if individuals cannot explain how they acquired assets over 50,000 pounds ($70,000).
What we know from the Laundromat exposé is that certainly there have been links to the [Russian] state," he was quoted as saying.
"The government's view is that we know what they are up to and we are not going to let it happen any more."
I'm baffled that a people who have had so much experience with Jews and their machinations can't recognize that America
is now what they used to be when they were under Jewish management from 1917
I am fairly sure that those in Russia who need to know already know plenty about Jew/Isr led USA Russian policy ..they've been
after Russia for a long time.
1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated
to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets.
Zionist Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the
right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA
official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de
facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]
November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini.
This idea is based on ideas from the British Jewish Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of
the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.
I've always appreciated your candid exposure of American hypocrisy and stupidity, Saker, especially as unfairly and dangerously
directed at Russia. But explain to me why most Russian opinion columnists, such as yourself, have to make their pieces as long
as a novel by Tolstoy or Dostoevsky? Something to do with the R1a haplotype perhaps? Many long introns amidst the essential exons
perhaps? Or, just an inability to stop when having a good time?
The US congress is such a freaking circus of idiots, clowns, whores for Israel, crooks, perverts and incompetents I don't think
I can stomach keeping up with their malfeasance much longer.
But I will leave this snippet -- -the 'list' and idea to sanction Russian individuals was the work of former Russian hating
State Dept Amb to Poland, uber Jew Daniel Fried working in conjunction with uber Jew Sen Ben Cardin of the Foreign Relations Committee.
That tells you all you need to know. ((They)) were delighted to seize on Hillary's Russian excuse for losing the election and
may have even instigated it to Hillary.
It will be interesting to see if the oligarchs faced with the choice of Russia or Europe or US as a home for their billions
ever meet with little boy Kushner who might guarantee them safe bank accounts in Israel for a fee of course lol.
Crocodile tears. ~15 million Soviet citizens were killed or murdered by Nazi invaders. Plus ~3 million Red Army POWs deliberately
starved to death, or died to due deliberate neglect, withholding medical aid, etc by Nazi invaders. A total of ~10 million Red
Army troops lost their lives to prevent the extermination of Slavic peoples by Nazi invaders.
The whole hate the Russians deal is a Zionist ploy as the Russians are defeating ISIS aka AL CIADA in Syria and since ISIS and
all of its branches are a creation of the U.S. and ISRAEL and BRITAIN via the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 , the Zionists cannot
accept defeat and are turning the U.S. against Russia .
If anyone doubts that Israel and the zionist neocons control the U.S. gov, just remember that ISRAEL and the deepstate did
911 and got away with it, that is control in spades.
The last week or so the left has been bombastically upset at Trump because he did not enact more sanctions against Russia, and
were pleased at the action against the Russian Oligarchs though. – These people are always convinced that the government has the
power to do things by fiat- take away guns, punish global warming skeptics, sanction politically incorrect speech – lets pass
a law-. The right is not immune from this instinct either with drug wars .etc. This belief
that the direct application of force 180 degrees against the foe, never a thought to strategy or cause and effect or blowback
or complex analysis, – brute force and ignorance- into the valley of death rode the 600. Those drunk with power grasp the reins
and charge madly. The drunk are not great thinkers. Putin raises a glass to their return.
As always, simplistic pro-Putin propaganda buried in a mass of details so as to bog people down. The centrepiece is at the end:
sanctions. The basic argument is always "lift the sanctions" then some pretext or other is trotted out to justify that pre-ordained
conclusion. In today's serving, the sanctions are useless and the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin. What is interesting
though is that the author claims to see opposition to Putin within the elite but (needlwss to say!) "the people" are solidly behind
Putin. Reading between the lines, that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite.
" ..weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions." Same strategy is operating in US now. Some allege Soros is
promoting this, but he's not the only one. [#Resist was/is underwritten by MeetUp! CEO.] Can you give citations for your quotes
about Nationalities Working Group? Thanks.
It is getting rather tiresome, the "The Russians did it" meme. Whatever happens that contradicts US perceptions of reality , "The
Russians did it". Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this. It has has been dis
proven that Russia meddled in the French and German elections, and while the Brexit vote is inconclusive , we still have not been
exposed to the smoking gun.
There is no doubt that the US MSM is trying to steam roll all objections to this stance, but proof,
where is it? The bought ads on Fakebook is laughable at best, and the new Dutch source is another "Flat earther theory". Has general
American IQ deteriorated so much in the span of a decade ? I doubt it.
Anon from TN
The author did not need so many words to state the obvious: the US shot itself in the foot again, and now it's going to start
complaining that it hurts. Anyone familiar with human history knows that dying empires invariably make maladaptive moves that
speed up their demise. This was the scenario with Roman, Spanish, Ottoman, British, and French Empires. Look on the bright side,
though: the US Empire follows in the footsteps of the greatest.
' that suggests that sanctions are starting to bite '
What disneyland character are you portraying ? I'm guessing Dopey from the Seven Dwarfs. US has zero ability
to influence the trajectory of Russia which is straight up like the Russian rocket launches that take Nasa astronauts into space
for the last seven years. US sanctions have only been a blessing to Russia
For one thing they have driven a wedge between EU and the US especially Germany which is a natural Russian ally. For another
they are helping Putin to clean up the remaining rotten apples in the Russian billionaire class by forcing them to bring their
offshore money home or get the hell out of Russia and have whatever they leave behind confiscated by the Russian people. I have
noticed you here as a monkey with a serious Russia chip on his shoulder
I'll be checking back to see what you are spouting as soon the US Ponzi scheme economy starts collapsing. The only thing holding
up this house of cards is the petrodollar which is already in the frying pan. Russia and China along with other emerging powers
like Iran and the Brics are working round the clock to dismantle the present US-based world financial order. The Brics already
exceed the G7 in total GDP. Enjoy your coming poverty
Anon from TN: The Europeans will never appreciate to what extent the thinking and behavior of Americans is determined by the
view that "this is not my problem". They would also never understand or believe how parochial and uninformed the people in the
US are. Then again, the Europeans have nothing to be proud of: while the US elites are at least open about their ulterior motives,
the Europeans fell into a trap of anti-Russian sanctions (which hurt them a lot more than the US, BTW) by virtue of pure hypocrisy.
Sorry I don't have the tea leaves to read between the lines, but I was reading that a number of business leaders from the EU
was just in the Crimea, and I rather doubt they were there for a vacation, sanctions are a double edged sword and it would seem
the EU are feeling them as much if not more than Russia .
Maybe the American public is gullible, but us Europeans are rather more reserved on this.
Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized,
unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse.
As far as the "Russian interference" in the everyone's elections and everything under the sun is concerned, the German
or British press, if anything, is worse than the US one. The Spanish press promptly accused Russia of engineering the Catalan
independence movement. My sister told me that when she read a translation from Spanish about this in the Russian press she thought
the Russians made it up, for it sounded so silly. But I read the original in El Pais and knew the Russian didn't make it up –
the European media these days is such you truly can't make it up, try as you might. In fact, there's never been anything resembling
proof in any of the stories, and all of them are completely nonsensical, which did not prevent the European media from spreading
them far and wide.
So, it I were you, I'd first question the collective European IQ, before laughing at the Americans. The European policy towards
Russia for the past 25 years has been unnecessarily confrontational and generally extremely stupid. After all, the US is far away,
but Europe is right next door to Russia. If push comes to shove, you'd be the first to get a kick in your tender behind. It happened
before, remember? Not only your IQ seems to have deteriorated, even assuming it was ever high, but your memory as well.
http://www.historycommons.org good resource it is collection of news reports, documents, books, time lines of events,
etc just plug Iran or Israel or whatever subject into search that particular report is from Devil's Game: How the United States
Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (American Empire Project) by Robert Dreyfuss
"I call this (informal) opposition the "Atlantic Integrationists" because what these pro-western globalists want is for
the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal partner and to have Russia fully integrate itself into the US-controlled
international financial and security structures:" Absolutely. What the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire is what I call
the self-righteous imperialism of WASP culture. And it is relentless. It is like Mordor and Sauron. It intends to secure and then
use the One Ring to Rule Them All, and no body count matters.
"Oh really? You Europeans just like to hide behind the US's back and pretend you are so-o-o European, so advanced and civilized,
unlike the American barbarians, while behaving exactly the same – or worse."
Context of '1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
[MORE]
Albert Wohlstetter, a professor at the University of Chicago, gathers a cadre of fiery young intellectuals around him, many of
whom are working and associating with the magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965). Wohlstetter's group includes Richard Perle,
Zalmay Khalilzad, and Paul Wolfowitz. Wohlstetter, himself a protege of the Machiavellian academic Leo Strauss, is often considered
the "intellectual godfather" of modern neoconservatism. Formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, Wohlstetter wielded a powerful
influence on the US's foreign policy during the heyday of the Cold War.
The recently formed neoconservatives, bound together by magazine publisher Irving Kristol (see 1965), react with horror to
the ascendancy of the "McGovern liberals" in the Democratic Party, and turn to conservative senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA)
for leadership. Jackson calls himself a "muscular Democrat"; others call him "the Senator from Boeing" for his strong support
of the US defense industry.Jackson assembles a staff of bright, young, ideologically homogeneous staffers who will later become
some of the most influential and powerful neoconservatives of their generation, including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott
Abrams, Abram Shulsky, and Paul Wolfowitz. Jackson's office -- Jackson's neoconservative disciples came of age either fighting
two foreign dictators -- Stalin and/or Hitler -- or growing up with family members who fought against them. [Unger, 2007, pp.
35-41] Wolfowitz's father's family perished in the Holocaust; he will later say that what happened to European Jews during World
War II "shaped a lot of my views." [New York Times, 4/22/2002] Feith will tell the New Yorker in 2005, "[My] family got wiped
out by Hitler, and all this stuff about working things out -- well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn't make any sense."
Most neoconservatives like Feith and Wolfowitz tend to look to military solutions as a first, not a last, resort. To them, compromise
means appeasement, just as Britain's Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. Stefan Halper, a White House and State Department
official in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, will say of the neoconservatives, "It is use force first and diplomacy
down the line."
Former Trotskyites – On the other hand, many neoconservatives come to the movement from the hardline, socialist left, often from
organizations that supported Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky (see Late 1930s – 1950s). Trotskyites accused Stalin of betraying
the purity of the Communist vision as declaimed by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. "I can see psychologically why it would not be
difficult for them to become [conservative] hard-liners," says Harvard Sovietologist Richard Pipes, himself a hardliner whose
son, Daniel Pipes, will become an influential neoconservative. "It was in reaction to the betrayal." Many neoconservatives like
Stephen Schwartz, a writer for the Weekly Standard, still consider themselves to be loyal disciples of Trotsky. Richard Perle
is a Trotskyite socialist when he joins Jackson's staff, and will always practice what author Craig Unger calls "an insistent,
uncompromising, hard-line Bolshevik style" of policy and politics. Like Trotsky, Unger writes, the neoconservatives pride themselves
on being skilled bureaucratic infighters, and on trusting no one except a small cadre of like-minded believers. Disagreement is
betrayal, and political struggles are always a matter of life and death. [Unger, 2007, pp. 35-41]
After George H. W. Bush becomes the head of the CIA (see November 4, 1975 and After), he decides to break with previous decisions
and allow a coterie of neoconservative outsiders to pursue the allegations of Albert Wohlstetter that the CIA is seriously underestimating
the threat the USSR poses to the US (see 1965),
The neocon team of "analysts" becomes known as "Team B," with "Team A" being the CIA's own analytical team. It is unprecedented
to allow outsiders to have so much access to highly classified CIA intelligence as Bush is granting the Team B neocons, so the
entire project is conducted in secret.
Former CIA deputy director Ray Cline says Team B had subverted the National Intelligence Estimate on the USSR by employing "a
kangaroo court of outside critics all picked from one point of view." Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says that B's only purpose
is to subvert detente and sabotage a new arms limitation treaty between the US and the Soviet Union. [Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
4/1993; Common Dreams (.org), 12/7/2004; BBC, 1/14/2005; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ; Unger, 2007, pp. 53-57]
Although the entire "Team B" intelligence analysis experiment (see Early 1976, November 1976, and November 1976) is supposed to
be classified and secret, the team's neoconservatives launch what author Craig Unger will call "a massive campaign to inflame
fears of the red menace in both the general population and throughout the [foreign] policy community -- thanks to strategically
placed leaks to the Boston Globe and later to the New York Times." Times reporter David Binder later says that Team B leader Richard
Pipes is "jubilant" over "pok[ing] holes at the [CIA]'s analysis" of the Soviet threat. Team B member John Vogt calls the exercise
"an opportunity to even up some scores with the CIA." [Unger, 2007, pp. 57]
In 1993, after reviewing the original Team B documents, Cahn will reflect on the effect of the B exercise: "For more than a
third of a century, assertions of Soviet superiority created calls for the United States to 'rearm.' In the 1980s, the call was
heeded so thoroughly that the United States embarked on a trillion-dollar defense buildup. As a result, the country neglected
its schools, cities, roads and bridges, and health care system. From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became
the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing." [Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists, 4/1993
Sanctions are almost always counterproductive. We should have learned this from Cuba, but we didn't. When US breaks connections
with a country, we force the country to develop its own skills and products, or to do business with our enemies. Result: the sanctioned
country gets stronger, our enemies get richer, and US loses business. Total loss for US, total gain for everyone else.
There already is the "Jewish Autonomous Oblast", known as Birobidzhan, in Eastern Siberia. It is much larger than the land
mass of any configuration of the State of Israel, tons of fresh water, natural resources. And get this: they wouldn't have to
behave like Nazis to benefit from a land ready for them.
There is a monument on Mamayev Kurgan, called The motherland calls. Luckily, when the motherland called millions of Russians
answered. The Russians not only like to answer the call of duty, but also the call of booty – as the Germans found out around
1945.
It's not like the Europeans haven't gone on a genocidal rampages before – Spanish and Anglo-Saxon massacres of native Americans
comes to mind. The real genius of those monkeys – the Germans – is that they attempted to treat the Russians like they were American
Indians. If anything, the Russians were too kind to those beasts.
Can Israel be trusted with nukes? They, like the U$A have exemptions from IAEA inspections. They have equal exclusiveness in
their military doctrine. I recall an anon poster a couple weeks ago stating that Israel has positioned nukes in strategic locations,
including continental U$A and Europe, influencing Israel-favourable decisions, explaining why Western countries make decisions
that are NOT in their best interests.
Well, Russia must not be baffled. After having so much baffling experience with partners being baffled is not a good thing especially
after 2 consequitive Soviet and then Russia leaders basically gave to USA everything they wanted on a plate with blue stripe so
to speak only to get baffled yet again by partners not giving an inch. This is zero sum game and relaxed attitude is not part
of it. Every single opportunity must be used to undermine remaining pillars of USA might namely her currency status and international
financial system which is built by as Sacker said uncle Shmuel for uncle Shmuel benefits. USA military is just an outgrowth which
will collapse like sand cattle without massive cash infusions allowed only because those two pillars mentioned above still standing.
Hoping that there will be some reasonable people in Washington with whom some detente is possible is dangerous illusion. There
not going to be lasting detente between USA and Russia until USA is reduced to her natural state of regional northern American
power with zero influence everywhere beyond Mexican and Canadian borders. Now I always wonder where indeed Putin is taking Russia.
I am watching Russia tv and see sort of very ugly place which sole existence is to dumb down Russian people and destroy people
morals and ethics. I wonder what kind of population and new generation of russians can grow watching this? I know there are still
many people born and brought up in ussr to be immune to this garbage but what about young people? Where indeed Putin is taking
Russia and does he need dumbed down American way population for this. Not to be forgotten is that people's strength is country
strength. What is going on is quite simple. America is plainly hot bed of capitalism and capitalism is quite obviously in death
throws. Exponential growth of debt around the world and continuous reduction of life standards and overall moral decay around
the world is a proof of this and obviously Russia and other former socialist states did a very bad bet on capitalism. Results
of the past 25 years are extremely disappointing and downright catastrophic for long term survival of the very people who adopted
this dead end system which passed its prime long time ago and dying. Communism is not popular at the moment but I have no doubt
it will come back because nothing in the past 25 years convinced me that capitalism is better.
Anon from TN
Let me add a little vignette. In Stalingrad (now Volgograd), there are preserved ruins of one of only two buildings that remained
semi-standing: Pavlov's house. Not only it was defended for 60 days against Wehrmacht (longer than France), Germans lost more
solders there than they lost conquering France. That should explain to Europeans why Russians don't take Europe too seriously:
they say that every 100 years or so the whole of Europe unites, makes war on Russia, gets beaten to pulp, and then licks its wounds
for another century. There was Napoleon in the nineteenth century, there was Hitler in the twentieth century, there is NATO in
the twenty first
Was there no bravery on the German side ?After the Normandy invasion western generals expected the war to be over at Christmas,
or even in September, when they tried to take the Dutch bridges, and failed miserably. It in my opinion is amazing how one country
withstood GB, USSR and USA so long.
Alas NATO seems to be planning a nuclear war. If this war comes, it will be the 'war that ends all wars', as Wilson said about
WWI, because no human being will survive, as all bigger animals. Rats seem to have a chance.
A simple explanation for the list of Russian persons who might potentially be sanctioned, is that Congress, as part of the
law it passed six months ago, _required_ the production of such a list.
Have heard that they went to a Forbes list to get the sanction names. This looks very very bad – it makes us look ridicules.
Congress doing foreign policy is wrong. Of course, this is Jew business – AIPAC doings. America for America – NOT – America for
Israel. Think Peace -- Art
Anon from TN. Yes, rodents, insects, and simpler life forms will inherit the Earth. The elites, if they start that war, won't
survive, either. Poor consolation for the rest of us, though.
Definite answer is Yes! Israeli government are not nuts like Kim. Wherever Israel did put their nukes, the only reason is that
the responsibility and cost of maintenance they did put on some other suckers.
Israel has nothing to fear. If there would be some concentrated and dangerous attack on Israel US air force would be there in
the matter of hours. Maybe even Russians would help with their air force.
To attack Israel is out of question. Maybe some terrorist attack is an option, but that is difficult to prevent
Actually, it is your ziocon propaganda that is simplistic: -- " the US should just surrender and "work with" Putin." -- An
honest cooperation between the US and Russian Federation would be the best solution for humanity at large. But this cooperation
would be the worst outcome for the bloody "chosen" dreaming of Eretz Israel and world dominance, while they can't stop whining
about "eternal victimhood."
Since 1999, four million human beings, including a multitude of children, died in the Middle East because of your bloody mythological
"promised land" of Israel.
Probably they won't have any choice. The more that it would be in the heart of the new Eurasian economic configuration. But
they still want Ukraine and Crimea. That's why you hear so much talk about the Khazars.
"From the world's greatest creditor nation, the United States became the world's greatest debtor -- in order to pay for arms
to counter the threat of a nation that was collapsing."
And look at the corruption within the highest echelons of the US government and security apparatus -- the opportunists and ignoramuses
have taken the upper hand. This is very convenient for Israel-firsters but deadly for the US. The hatred of ziocons towards Russia
is boundless and irrational.
"If Putin and the Russians are still baffled by American hostility, or rather (((American))) hostility, then it's time to question
the collective IQ and wisdom of the Russian people. "
Ken, I think that The Saker is just baffled on their behalf.
Ever heard of existential threat, sport? WW1 and the Crimean war were not existential threats to Russia. The minute they turned
into such, the outcome would have been different.
Here is what sanctions do. I recently saw a story about a German farmer/dairy expert who
went to Russia and jump started a large network of dairy farms in Russia. Before sanctions, Russia thought the could buy their
dairy from Europe, but after the sanctions, Russian knew they needed domestic suppliers, and lo an behold, this German (Joint
Russian German citizen actually and friend of Putin) was phonemically successful and now there is a robust local Dairy Industry
in Russia. Now the people who are howling are the European Farmers who used to have a healthy export market for their products.
well, if shamir is right and the looted accounts of the old money is equal to 1 trillion usd. that is alot of money for the
people in charge to not see green and only green. doubt long term consequences/effects would ever factor into the decision.
That the oligarchs made their money through connections, behind the scene deals, outright duplicity and so on, should have
been obvious to anyone who studied the phenomenon for a short period of time. Does anyone really believe that all those (largely)
Jewish oligarchs indulging in the Premier League and other forms of conspicuous consumption made their money like Henry Ford or
Andrew Carnegie, by building industries and providing jobs for millions?
The Russian billionaires all made their money by gaming the Russian system. There isn't a single new service or product
that we can associate with these people. The question then arises: Why the belated outrage now? The answer is simple: The thieves
in the US, have turned on some fellow thieves from overseas, having run out of ways to fleece the American people
Then look a step further and forget about the US for a second: Russia is trying hard to work with the Europeans on many
join projects. What do you think the creation of such a list will have on joint ventures between EU and Russian businessmen?
I predict two things:
1. It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business with the Russians and, therefore, it
will further place the EU and the US on a collision course.
2. I would emphasize this aspect. German industrialists (but not only) are already upset with US interference in German
– Russia trade, and actions like this will only make it worse.
The paradoxical result from the US point of view, is that proposed sanctions serve more to build EU opposition to the US,
rather than weaken Russia. Russia is a major market for the EU and the EU doesn't want US imposed sanctions.
There is no subject that he doesn't derail by going on about Wasps his intent is to "divide and conquer" the building momentum
against neocon foreign policy.
Selecting wealthy individuals at random regardless of political beliefs indeed makes no sense at all. Perhaps if you had read
the rest of the article you would understand why. Then again, swine don't typically understand the value of pearls.
"... I believe that the part in bold is what the FBI wanted out of the memo because it exposes the uncomfortable fact that Christopher Steele was (and had been for some time) a paid asset of the FBI. That is huge news. In other words, Steele was not a mere consultant or sub-contractor for the FBI. He was being paid to provide information/intelligence to the FBI. There are two classes of FBI "informants." One is serving as a "criminal informant" and the other is as an "intelligence asset." Information from "criminal informants" can be used in a U.S. judicial proceeding and the informant called as a witness. Getting money under that circumstance can be problematic because the source's credibility can be impeached by defense counsel, who can argue that the testimony is purloined. ..."
"... The United States and Great Britain have had a long standing "understanding" or informal agreement to not recruit each others intelligence and law enforcement personnel as intelligence assets. ..."
"... The real irony here is that the Schiff memo is likely to compound the problem for Steele because it is likely to highlight Steele's prior activities on behalf of the Bureau that predate the 2016 election cycle (remember, Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016). This is the issue that had FBI Director Wray's panties in a knot. When you sign up a foreign source you vow to protect them. When you expose such a source you make it more difficult to recruit new sources. ..."
"... There may be another twist to this. Was Steele actually operating as an FBI intel asset with the secret knowledge of the Brits? ..."
"... "Then again, maybe the entire swamp just gets drained in the course of a righteous crusade." ..."
"... Nice thought, but both parties have too much skin in the game to want to bring the whole house down. These scrimmages are just theater to be settled by the corporate or elitist profiteers in whatever way leaves the swamp intact. ..."
"... Contempt of court is defined as follows: "It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court. ... A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court." Wikipedia ..."
"... You can read the GOP memo and Mercouris's analysis of the GOP memo, which may relieve your wait for Gowdy to step down the legal jargon from his brief advocating for the conclusion the FISA warrant perpetrated a 'fraud on the court'. ..."
"... How would a nobody like Page help get sanctions lifted? ..."
"... "The FISA Court Memorandum and Order was released prior to the House Intelligence Committee report and has been completely ignored by the utterly corrupt press prostitutes. The FISA Court Memorandum and Order, relying on the confessions of the FBI and DOJ, verifies the House Intelligence Committee report that the FBI and DOJ illegally obtained spy warrants for partisan politial purposes." ..."
"... To keep the fires burning hot, Stormy Daniels and other salacious material is trotted out on a regular schedule. The salacious material, if you notice, self-reinforces. Steele is true b/c Daniels is true and vice versa etc., etc. ad nauseum. Clapper and Brennan make regular appearances denouncing Trump as do other Unquestionables. ..."
"... Honestly, I don't think it matters. Steele and Strzok could give sworn public testimony that they invented Russiagate out of whole cloth and fabricated all of the so-called "evidence" and those who want to believe in Russiagate will, stagger, spin frantically, and go right back to believing. ..."
"... I talk about "cognitive dissonance" a lot and believe me, I wish I knew what it takes to make people wake the [FAMILY BLOG] up, but there are entire religions based on cognitive dissonance. ..."
"... I can think of no valid reason why the FBI and the DoJ would not want to charge Steele with lying to the FBI if it can be demonstrated that he lied to them, particularly in so important a matter. With regard to investigating the provenance of his alleged sources to sustain the charge, there will surely be some severe practical difficulties. Steele is likely relying on those. Possibly they might consider Steele to be a material witness in a wider prosecutorial framework. It is all very much a mess. ..."
"... Who would think that Adam Schiff is a progeny of the main financier of the Bolshevik revolution, Jakob Schiff: ..."
"... IMO, It matters that Adam Schiff's sister is married to George Soros' son and that Soros was a major donor to Schiff's campaign. ..."
"... The big players begin to look like pawns ..."
"... The very notion that surveillance was initiated based on the outright fabrication is the real scandal. That is why Dens were going apoplectic. It is damn difficult now to sink the issue in procedural and legalistic BS once the Memo is nailed to the doors of a "cathedral". ..."
"... I would go on a limb here and even state that Steele's "contacts" or "network", rezidentura or whatever in Russia where he was stationed in 1990-92 are almost predictable and they are worthless by now. So, whenever the term "sources" in Russian "government" are used I kinda have a feeling that those are the same "sources" who constitute main foreign contributors to American (and British) "Russian Studies" field -- rather a wasteland of propaganda cliches and memes. There is also a really interesting Ukrainian angle in all that. ..."
"... All of this seems out of place for someone who did very well at the Naval Academy, and was s member of the CFR. In an interview last week, Nunes said that Page should never have been the subject of a FISA warrant, and had not held a job for several years. How exactly has Page supported himself, including his extensive obtaining multiple advanced degrees? ..."
"... No wonder the author Trey Gowdy is not seeking re-election. If there had been any factual basis to Russiagate, it would have been released by now, a year later. This supports the contention that there is an intelligence community/media counter coup underway against Donald Trump. The Memo joins the list of proofs that the rule of law is dead in America. ..."
"... One point. STEELE is a known MI5 officer. He has a track record. He is reporting what his contacts told him. If he is lying, if the "information/disinformation" in even just one of the memos was provided by a third party and STEELE does not know the sources claimed in the memo, then all of the dossier must be dropped. ..."
"... Your shocked that Schiff is a member of the intelligence community, I'm shocked that Trump is the president. ..."
Will Christopher Steele Be Charged in the UK as a Spy? by Publius Tacitus [UPDATE]
Do you want to know why the FBI continued to insist that the Nunes' memo not be declassified
and released to the public? The answer is right there on page 2, (see 1b) in the discussion
about what was excluded from the application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court:
The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of-and paid by-the
DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the
same information.
I believe that the part in bold is what the FBI wanted out of the memo because it exposes
the uncomfortable fact that Christopher Steele was (and had been for some time) a paid asset of
the FBI. That is huge news. In other words, Steele was not a mere consultant or sub-contractor
for the FBI. He was being paid to provide information/intelligence to the FBI. There are two
classes of FBI "informants." One is serving as a "criminal informant" and the other is as an
"intelligence asset." Information from "criminal informants" can be used in a U.S. judicial
proceeding and the informant called as a witness. Getting money under that circumstance can be
problematic because the source's credibility can be impeached by defense counsel, who can argue
that the testimony is purloined.
You do not have to worry about that with an "intelligence asset." In that case the priority
is protecting the identity of the source. The fact that Steele had been on the FBI payroll for
a while sheds new light on Glen Simpson's testimony (which was leaked by Senator Feinstein) to
the U.S. Senate. Simpson testified that Steele told him in late September 2016 that the FBI
wanted to meet him in Rome to discuss the dossier. That struck me initially as quite odd. If
Steele was just acting as an average "foreign" citizen who was trying to help the FBI then he
could easily have met with the Bureau in London. That city hosts the largest number of FBI
agents in the world outside of the U.S. But Steele was asked to go meet in Rome. That's what
you do when you are meeting an intelligence asset that the Brits do not know about.
That is the problem.
The United States and Great Britain have had a long standing "understanding" or informal
agreement to not recruit each others intelligence and law enforcement personnel as intelligence
assets. I chatted yesterday with an old intelligence hand (a U.S. person) who was approached by
British MI 6 during a TDY to London. My friend rejected the come on and reported the approach
to the CIA Chief of Station (aka COS). The COS was angry with the Brits. They were not supposed
to do that, nor are we. But sometimes a target is so attractive that very high level
permissions to break the agreements are given.
The real irony here is that the Schiff memo is likely to compound the problem for Steele
because it is likely to highlight Steele's prior activities on behalf of the Bureau that
predate the 2016 election cycle (remember, Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016). This
is the issue that had FBI Director Wray's panties in a knot. When you sign up a foreign source
you vow to protect them. When you expose such a source you make it more difficult to recruit
new sources.
There may be another twist to this. Was Steele actually operating as an FBI intel asset with
the secret knowledge of the Brits? In other words, was he a double agent or an agent of
influence? One way to tell will be watching the reaction of the U.K. authorities now that they
know that Steele was a paid FBI informant. Imagine the outrage here if one of the former CIA or
FBI talking heads that are appearing on punditry circuit was exposed as someone getting paid by
the Russian version of the FBI or CIA. It would be ugly.
The media (and the trolls on this blog) are working feverishly to ignored the uncomfortable
truths exposed by the so-called Nunes memo. But facts are stubborn things and more facts will
be exposed.
UPDATE --Based on some confused comments by our friend The Twisted Genius aka TTG, I need to
provide more of the Nunes memo to establish that Steele in fact was a source. According to that
memo:
. . .Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as
the most serious of violations-an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with
the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn.
If this was a simple matter of Steele, having no official relationship with the FBI, simply
reaching out to an old friend to pass on information, then TTG would be right to assert that
Steele was not a source. But that is clearly not the case. The FBI can only suspend and
terminate a source relationship if that person is a source. Very simple.
Let's take a quick look at the article by Corn that got Steele terminated. The Corn piece
was part of an orchestrated media campaign (we know that from Simpson's testimony that was
leaked by Diane Feinstein) in order to put pressure on the FBI and James Comey, who had just
announced that new Clinton emails had been found on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Corn wrote:
On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery
letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater
controversy: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security
community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and
coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government The public
has a right to know this information.". . .
But Reid's recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former
senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian
counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau
with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more
information from him . . . .
[A] senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former
spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of
providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.
In June, the former Western intelligence officer -- who spent almost two decades on
Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on
Russia for corporate clients -- was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in
Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. .
. .
"It started off as a fairly general inquiry," says the former spook, who asks not to be
identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information
indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he
says, "there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin of mutual benefit." . . .
This was, the former spy remarks, "an extraordinary situation." He regularly consults
with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own
initiative -- without the permission of the US company that hired him -- he sent a report he
had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence
officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. . . .
The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror."
The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material,
according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they
say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the
material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the
bureau several memos -- some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that
point, he continued to share information with the FBI.
There you have it. The story was right in front of us. What is reported in the Nunes memo is
consistent with David Corn's article and with what Glen Simpson testified under oath to the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
It wouldn't be too far fetched if he was sent to be a volunteer in the Trump campaign to
gain retroactive authorization on the surveillance of the campaign. Maybe that's why they had
to resort to the Fusion GPS dossier in their FISA Title I warrant application.
The DOJ/FBI seem to be rather desperate to hide something. That's the only explanation I
can see for their stalling and obstruction tactics here. This notion of creating a precedent
for disclosure seems like a red herring to me.
Steve,
The allegation is actually worse than just payments from Clinton to Steele. It is also that
the Clinton campaign was feeding Steele information on Trump and members of his team.
Presumably, if Clinton had made the allegations against Trump, it wouldn't have been taken
seriously. However, having the allegations routed through Steele and then appearing as
intelligence gathered by his impeccable personage would cause the allegations to be taken
seriously and to be used for warrants and so on and so forth.
Clinton paying Steele is very bad. Clinton feeding Steele information to be included in
his "dossier" is much worse. The FBI failing to disclose either during the warrant
application is catastrophic for democracy.
Is it true? I bet it is. This doesn't feel like empty grandstanding by the Rs and Trump.
It doesn't feel like a desperately flailing counter attack either. It does feel like the Ds
and the borg are on their heals at this point.
We will know soon enough when underlying detail is released. OTOH, maybe we never will.
Depends on the Rs' strategy. They may seek to up the pressure to the point where their
enemies see the rope awaiting their necks; at which point they deal. Some Ds and borgs step
down/retire, some are sacrificed to satisfy the public's need for justice to be done, others
may stay around, but must concede things of value to the Rs (content of and passing of bills
amongst those things?). Then again, maybe the entire swamp just gets drained in the course of
a righteous crusade.
I find the resistance to the concept of a coup attempt to be interesting. It's like they
think demons that drove Cassius and Brutus got locked in hell, permanently, 2,000 years
ago.
BTW, Sipher describes himself as
"a career intelligence officer who worked on Russian espionage issues overseas,
and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically".
Of course, that does not mean that he does not have political biases.
This is from an interview in Politico with Victoria Nuland. It seems Mr. Steele was
accustomed to dropping by the State Department--and did so in the Summer of 2016 with news of
"Russian interference" Since he was already a paid asset of the FBI wouldn't hey have also
known of his "work" by then. This may be relevant to the issue of what caused the FBI to open
a counter intelligence investigation in July 2016--Mr. Steele/Fusion GPS or a drunken
Papadopolus?
"In the interview, Nuland said she was familiar with Steele's work through regular reports he
had passed on to her office over the previous several years dealing with political
maneuverings in Russia and Ukraine. When presented by an intermediary with the startling
information about "linkages" between Trump and Russia that summer, "what I did was say that
this is about U.S. politics," Nuland recounted, "and not the business of the State
Department, and certainly not the business of a career employee who is subject to the Hatch
Act, which requires that you stay out of politics. So, my advice to those who were
interfacing with him was that he should get this information to the FBI, and that they could
evaluate whether they thought it was credible.""
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/05/global-politico-victoria-nuland-obama-216937
IF Steele has been spying on the Brits on behalf of the FBI then he's gone. If he was working
his old contacts for non-Brit intel after retiring is that a crime? Hopefully Steele would
not approach active assets. Not sure how the spook world sees it.
To make the dossier watertight Steele would have to select believable contacts that could
have supplied the information supposedly fed to him by Clinton. Or to put it the other way
round, Clinton would have to know what contacts Steele had to generate the "dirt" to match
the contacts. Feasible? Likely?
Still waiting for Gowdy to state that the warrant was issued illegally.
You need to re-read the source documents. Steele told Simpson in late June that he was going
to report to the FBI. Simpson subsequently claimed that Steele met with the FBI in JULY not
AUGUST. But, again, you are ignoring what the cleared memo, which the FBI read,
states--STEELE WAS A SOURCE WHO WAS SUSPENDED AND THEN TERMINATED.
blue peacock - this question on page as fbi accomplice has been asked before... i think
ttg made some comments on it as well.. as i see it, it seems like he would be worthless, but
maybe the fbi would see it differently...
and as wisedupearly mentions.. i don't know if it is a crime for an ex m16 guy to work for
the fbi.. was steele retired or not?
The Democrats on the committee knew the content of the Nunes memo before it was released.
Nancy Pelosi said it must be withheld as a matter of national security. Now she says it is a
constitutional crisis. Reading the piece you linked to just raises the question of just whom
at the FBI Mr. "Cipher" was helping with "counterintelligence investigations"?
Sylvia 1,
I have to wonder just what Mrs. Robert Kagan, aka Victoria Nuland, is so afraid that she
had Susan Glasser - the former Editor of Foreign Affairs and "longtime foreign correspondent
and editor for the Washington Post... ..... spent four years as co-chief of the Post's Moscow
bureau" - do this CYA puff piece now.
Now while it isn't illegal for an American Citizen who has no security clearance and isn't
authorized access to government secrets, and isn't employed by the government, to talk to
Russians, I distinctly recall reading in the NYT that talking to Russians ,
especially in Moscow, is the worst possible thing and apparently all the FBI needs to get a
FISA warrant. Because maybe the SVR RF (the successor of the First Chief Directorate of the
KGB) might "approach" you. Now wouldn't recruiting someone with access to top State
Department officials like Victoria Nuland and with close connections (i.e. married to)
someone with direct access to the White House be an irresistible recruitment target to the
SVR? Curious minds might ask "did the SVR ever approach Mrs. Glasser or her husband, "New
York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker."?"
I wonder if FBI Director Comey or the FBI head of counter intelligence, Peter Strzok, ever
bothered to get a FISA warrant to surveil those two. It's not like anyone in Russia would
ever want to plant information in the NYT or Foreign Affairs magazine; or pass suggestions on
to State Department officials through that channel. Maybe the FBI just targets people running
for political office. Which would create, as Nancy Pelosi so correctly points out, a
Constitutional Crisis.
If all these Clintonites and Borgists inside and outside of government are indeed the bad
actors this interpretation of events considers them to be, then it would be better for us if
they were all found and punished and all their structures and so forth torn out and
burned.
If they are allowed to save themselves in return for "deals" of fleeting material or
legislative benefit, that would be just another "Ford pardons Nixon" event, leaving those
kind of people unpunished and unrepentant and ready to train new cadres of young proteges to
try it all over again in the fullness of time.
Incidentally, the Schiff memo should really be an "interesting" study in madness. Here is
Schiff taking the TTG theory about Russians sowing chaos to an extreme -- apparently the
Russians are behind the second amendment. They want us all to shoot each other. My god. This
man is a member of the intelligence committee? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM3whD7y83c
"John Sipher's article of today goes deeper into that."
You should read the comments section of the Sipher's article to "appreciate" admirers of the
article and their religious belief in Obama-Clinton righteousness and Trump's perfidy. The
admirers are not interested in facts of the investigation because the facts, particulalry in
Steele's case, have a pro-Putin bias.
The screw up and move up syndrome is alive and well.
Brennan the DCI screw up is set to make more bucks as a screw up. Brennan has been hired by NBC as an analyst.
Could the experts provide some clarity.
There are some people who believe that the dossier must be accepted or rejected in toto.
The poisoned tree concept. If one item in the dossier is salacious and unverified then all
items must be rejected.
Would the FBI subject the dossier as an entity or a FISA court would agree with that
argument?
Comey testified in June 2017 that the Dossier was "salacious and unverified." If they
actually had corroborated some of the dossier then Comey never would have testified this way
under oath. It is fruit of the poisonous tree.
You're right about the meeting in July rather than August. I was doing that from
memory.
You quoted the memo as saying "The application does not mention... or that the FBI had
separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information." What is the reason the
application did not mention that? And why does it not say he was actually paid? Perhaps
because both statements are not facts. Given that the FBI did talk to him and take his
dossier, I agree that Steele was some kind of source/informant from July to October. I don't
know the FBI terminology. I also don't doubt the FBI cut their ties with him after he blabbed
to the press.
The Nunes memo is a document with a political purpose, not a source document. If it was
oversight, the HPSCI would be raking the FBI over the coals in hearings right now. I don't
see the FBI review of the memo as a vouching for its accuracy, just a vouching that it
doesn't contain anything that would cause grievous damage to their ongoing cases, sources and
methods. It was more of a standard FBI Glomar response. I also don't think the Schiff
response memo will be much different. None of this is a Constitutional crisis. Trey Gowdy's
recent comments were refreshingly knowledgeable, reasonable and calming. I hope he continues.
He may be the best chance to right the HPSCI ship.
"Then again, maybe the entire swamp just gets drained in the course of a righteous crusade."
Nice thought, but both parties have too much skin in the game to want to bring the whole
house down. These scrimmages are just theater to be settled by the corporate or elitist
profiteers in whatever way leaves the swamp intact.
"Still waiting for Gowdy to state that the warrant was issued illegally."
Contempt of court is defined as follows: "It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of
law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of
a law court. ... A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty
of contempt of court." Wikipedia
The GOP memo is largely written by Tray Gowdy, according to Alexander Mercouris in a piece
at The Duran. You can read the GOP memo and Mercouris's analysis of the GOP memo, which may
relieve your wait for Gowdy to step down the legal jargon from his brief advocating for the
conclusion the FISA warrant perpetrated a 'fraud on the court'.
The Conservative Treehouse had a revelation today about another FBI undercover agent.
Turns out the Carter Page, who the FBI certified as a Russian Spy to the FISA court in
October 2016, was an undercover FBI agent used to trap and act as state witness in a trial
against a real spy between 2013 and May 2016.
You better believe the FISA court was not told that Carter Page was a trusted FBI
undercover operative -- until he became a VEHICLE to spy on the whole Trump Campaign, in
October 2016 and three subsequent times at 90-day intervals.
I'm really stuck.
Here's the deal: Comey and Co used the dossier to gat the FISA judge to approve a warrant for
spying on Page.
Check.
But why Page?
Page was just a small fish who had already left the campaign.
Besides, even if they got dirt on Page, it probably wouldn't be sufficient to nail Trump
(which is what they really wanted).
My guess is that Page just provides the first clue in a much bigger criminal investigation
that will uncover massive surveillance on people closer to Trump.
That, at least, would make sense.
If they were just spying on Page, it doesn't make any sense.
Were Samantha Power and Susan Rice using their connections with the NSA (and "unmasking")
to get secret electronic info on other Trump campaign members without even getting a FISA
warrant? How big is this thing and how widespread? Clapper MUST have a hand in this, and maybe Brennan too.
Steele memo # 2016/94 titled "RUSSIA: SECRET KREMLIN MEETINGS ATTENDED BY TRUMP ADVISOR,
CARTER PAGE IN MOSCOW (JULY 2016)
Summary has 3 points.
PAGE has secret meetings in Moscow
SECHIN raises lifting of Western Sanctions
DIVEYKIN discusses release of kompromat of Hillary Clinton.
Not sure why this memo is deemed salacious. How much supporting evidence would the FBI
need for the FSIA court to issue the warrant on just this memo?
Gowdy has said in a tweet about the warrant that he was "deeply disturbed" that is it.
Mercouris should talk to Nunes. Nunes has said that Gowdy "summarized" source material and
that he, Nunes, had the memo written by his aides.
NYT claims that the key aide is Kashyap Patel, been an aid for less than 1 year. No prior
intel experience. Contempt of court applies only to to participants in proceedings before a sitting judge?
Not sure of your mention here. So await your reply.
The FBI obtained a warrant omitting the fact the Steele Dossier had a paid political origin.
This omission was pertinent in assessing the creditably of the source of information used to
establish 'probable cause' to issue the search warrant(FISA warrant). Is this omission
'contempt of court'?
Please read the GOP memo and Mercouris's analysis of the memo for other omissions and
misrepresentations before the FISA court. I do not know if Mercouris's assertion that Trey
Gowdy is the primary author is correct, but he make's the case the GOP memo is a legal
document and not a political document. Trey Gowdy is a trial lawyer who likely authored the
legal document attacking the FISA warrant.
Hopefully we will soon see the FISA warrant application!
Maybe b/c it was known that the meeting never happened b/c they were watching him (and via
others methods and sources)? Maybe something as simple as Sechin was somewhere else at the
time. Also, the part about Sechin offering Page something like $19 billion to help close the
deal was kind of over the top wasn't it? Would you believe that? And there's the problem that
Page wasn't really a Trump advisor. He never met Trump and never communicated with him by
other means. He was a very fringe volunteer on the campaign in a group that met a couple of
times hoping to get an in and build a resume.
How would a nobody like Page help get sanctions lifted?
Steele's work is pretty poor, IMO. You'd think he would have assembled better, more
believable, stories. The golden showers thing is another example. The story is silly on its face.
The only salacious stuff in the Steele dossier (actually a series of raw reports, as you
know), is the pee pee tape report. I happened to be watching Twitter the night the report
came out and that was the only thing talked about for 24 hours. Everything else was lost in
the snickering. Given the Stormy Daniels story and the ensuing payoff and cover up, even the
pee pee tape doesn't sound as crazy as it first did.
A number of the individual reports by Steele were corroborated in full or part over time
like the report you pointed out. If you accept the DNI ICA on Russian interference in the
election a lot Steele's stuff has panned out. Of course if you deny the concept of Russian
interference, those reports of Steele are just part of the vast left wing conspiracy.
An interesting item that was recently revealed concerned Natalia Veselnitskaya, the
"adoption lawyer" who met Trump jr, Manafort and others at Trump Tower in June 2016. She was
identified in Swiss court as an SVR officer who recruited a high level Swiss law enforcement
officer. I'd love to hear the tapes of that Trump Tower meeting in light of this.
"The FISA Court Memorandum and Order was released prior to the House Intelligence
Committee report and has been completely ignored by the utterly corrupt press prostitutes.
The FISA Court Memorandum and Order, relying on the confessions of the FBI and DOJ, verifies
the House Intelligence Committee report that the FBI and DOJ illegally obtained spy warrants
for partisan politial purposes."
I understand what you're saying and would agree that would normally be how its done.
Wearing a wire. But...I am speculating that Carter Page was used to get a FISA warrant
specifically to gain retroactive authorization of earlier surveillance on some members of the
Trump team. My speculation is that surveillance on Team Trump began earlier without any
warrants leading to FISA violations that Admiral Rogers discovered in April 2016. Carter Page
was the perfect accomplice to cover their surveillance tracks by getting the FISA Title I
warrant in October 2016 on him and consequently every one he was in contact with.
My contention that "setting a precedent" is a red herring is because the IC routinely
disclose sources and methods when it serves their interest. For example I believe recalling
Col. Lang writing that the IC disclosed we had decrypted secure communications of the Russian
ambassador, apparently to nail Gen. Flynn. So, hiding behind precedence is precisely to
prevent disclosure of malfeasance. It is like Clapper denying under oath that there is no
mass surveillance. IMO, disclosing the FISA application may implicate Comey, Yates,
Rosenstein, et al. and that's the only reason why they are stalling. Just like the hysteria
from Comey and Brennan prior to the release of the Nunes memo. And why they redact so much
from the Grassley memo. There are no sources and methods in any of these memos.
IMO, they better insure IG Horowitz's report be like the Owens investigation in the UK
that David Habakkuk has written about. Or else, if it turns out to be a doozy, the pressure
from the Republicans in Congress will become very intense for the appointment of a second
special counsel.
The Nunes memo is a document with a political purpose, not a source document. If it was
oversight, the HPSCI would be raking the FBI over the coals in hearings right now.
The Nunes memo was never a source document and if you listen to the many interviews of
Reps. Jordan, Gaetz & Meadows they never claim that it was a source doc. They have
characterized it as a summary of the evidence around the specific topic of FISA abuse. This
was their way around the classification and obstruction by the DOJ/FBI. Yes, it is political
because it is going to be political pressure that takes it to the next step of either
disclosure of the source documents or the appointment of another special counsel. Wray,
Rosenstein, McCabe have already testified several times. Peter Strzok, Bill Priestap, Bruce
Ohr, et al are all on deck. It has taken Nunes, Grassley and Goodlatte over a year in the
face of all the obstruction to get this far. The Nunes memo was designed to play a very
specific role. Bring forth allegations into the public square of malfeasance and a potential
conspiracy. Schiff's memo will counter that by stating the Republicans are attacking our law
enforcement & IC. This type of response, IMO, is exactly what the Republicans want. This
then leads to the next step. This is just the beginning of discovery.
None of this is a Constitutional crisis.
It can become one, if in the process of discovery they find sufficient evidence of a
conspiracy, or if the IG report notes that there was a concerted effort to undermine Trump.
The DOJ & FBI are doing their darndest to prevent discovery.
@TTG and Publius Tacitus Thanks to both of you. You are doing a great service to the public.
I tend to go with Tacitus though. The reason being that nobody who has any knowledge of
Russia could but come to the conclusion that the Steele dossier is utter nonsense. Therefore
any use of the dossier could only have been taken in bad faith. Or else the Borg is really
totally stupid.
"There are two classes of FBI "informants." One is serving as a "criminal informant" and
the other is as an "intelligence asset."
Looks like now we have a third category where a guy perfectly known to be a
partisan hack gets paid a token payment by the FBI to give the appearance of being a real
"intelligence asset" thus decorating the pantomime set in preparation for the FISA court
where they can befuddle the good Judge.
In other words, the FBI guys were well aware that Steele was no real "asset", just wanted
it to look that way.
And you go make a law in good faith, believing that people will do the right thing and
obey said law... but instead they go to extraordinary lengths to find a way to get around it,
then you need a new law to fix that problem. Tsk tsk.
Because the trick of intelligence gathering is to accidentally-on-purpose scoop
up quite a bit more than you intended and then send it to AG Lynch so the key people can be
"unmasked" before some completely unknown and unknowable "leak" parcels it up with unmasked
names and speaks to the press, on condition of anonymity because they solemnly promised never
to speak to the press.
You are thinking in terms of a legitimate investigation, which this was never intended to
be.
wisedup,
I posted a comment a little past my "good until" hour last night. I erroneously stated how
much Page was allegedly offered, Sechin, to end sanctions. Still, it was an eye raising
amount of $. I think it strained credibility.
Why Page? I think it's all about perception management; putting a fig leaf on the coup for
the public's sake. Goes like this. Trump was getting bashed for allegedly knowing nothing
about foreign policy and not having a team. This was especially damaging compared to Clinton,
who had been Sec State. Trump has his people quickly look everywhere for people and organize
as many "advisors" as possible (more perception management). Then he fires back at critiques
that he has all kinds of advisors. Page had a PhD, Naval Academy grad. That looked good. Page
Makes the team Trump list. The FBI has been circling, waiting for something to seize upon to
damage Trump on Clinton's behalf. Bingo! Calls are made and Steele is directed to include
inflammatory "intel" on Page and Page +Trump in his reports. He does. It is possible that FBI
did not fully realize at the time that Page and Trump never talk. Poor Page. Everyone uses
him and no one takes him seriously.
I am getting really confused here. According to then NYT (via a "former intelligence
officer") Carter Page was the FBI Undercover Employee (UCE-1) in the Buryakov case (2013) and
that (apparently according to court records) he continued to support the case through March
2016.
So how does this (if accurate and ten description of UCE-1 certainly fits Page) relate to
an October 2016 FISA warrant on him??
TTG,
In bringing up Stormy Daniels I think you did us all a favor by reminding that it is
incorrect to think about this as a legitimate investigation where facts and procedures
matter. It isn't. It is, IMO, much more of a perception operation engaged in by Obama/Clinton
loyal bureaucrats and partners in the mainstream media.
Examining each tree causes us to forget about the forest. The forest - the legend - is
that we have elected a crooked buffoon conman that colluded w/ Russians to win an election
for the purpose of making himself wealthier and to sell out America to our most deadly
adversary. The proof of this is the Steele dossier and that the impeccable FBI has him under
investigation!!!
Maybe the FBI gets to scoop something up w/ their spying, but it's not as important as we
think it would be (as in a real investigation).
To keep the fires burning hot, Stormy Daniels and other salacious material is trotted out
on a regular schedule. The salacious material, if you notice, self-reinforces. Steele is true
b/c Daniels is true and vice versa etc., etc. ad nauseum. Clapper and Brennan make regular
appearances denouncing Trump as do other Unquestionables.
That's all this is, IMO. Keeping the heat on Trump until he quits or until public opinion
is sufficiently aroused that he can be impeached on something...anything.
It is well known that Catherine The Great wrote the second amendment, Thomas Jefferson was an
agent of Czarist Russia as the second amendment clearly shows.
One explanation might be that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing.
Another might be that the FBI wanted the warrant and that CP was a convenient vehicle. pl
Why would massive surveillance need to be uncovered?
The Trump administration has its appointees at the top of, and, running the DOJ & IC.
What do you suppose happens when the boss asks his employee a straightforward question about
prior activities?
thank you TTG for helping with the difference between validated fact and everything else
short of that standard.
...bonus appreciation for pithiness, "if you deny the concept of Russian interference,
those reports of Steele are just part of the vast left wing conspiracy"
Honestly, I don't think it matters. Steele and Strzok could give sworn public testimony that
they invented Russiagate out of whole cloth and fabricated all of the so-called "evidence"
and those who want to believe in Russiagate will, stagger, spin frantically, and go right
back to believing.
I talk about "cognitive dissonance" a lot and believe me, I wish I knew what it takes to
make people wake the [FAMILY BLOG] up, but there are entire religions based on cognitive
dissonance.
Power attracts sociopaths the way catnip attracts cats, or cocaine attracts addicts.
To put it another way: if power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, absolute
power also attracts the kind of people who have no business having power. People will try to get around any law, even a law made in the best and most
nobly-intentioned faith. This includes those responsible for enforcing the law.
Steele's credibility and reliability are peripheral to appraising the quality of the PC in
the affidavit. The critical question has to do with whether Steele's alleged Russian sources
were credible and reliable. It would be mind boggling if the Agents handling Steele did not
demand to know the identities of his sources so that the information could be characterized
for the purposes of the affidavit. Regardless of who was paying Steele, and how many times he
was being paid for the same info, and how and to whom he was distributing the info, the
quality of his information can not be properly assessed until it is known from whom it came,
how it came to be known, and the circumstances under which it was acquired. Unless that was
known, it never should have been considered to be actionable.
This raises the interesting question of whether our Gov't has any obligation of
confidentiality with respect to Steele's alleged sources - off the top of my head, I would
think not.
With respect to the Carter Page info, deficient probable cause can be multiplied endlessly by
events and by sources and it still doesn't come to pass the threshold of probable cause. In
fact, I would look on throwing in the kitchen sink as a sign of something disingenuous going
on.
I can think of no valid reason why the FBI and the DoJ would not want to charge Steele with
lying to the FBI if it can be demonstrated that he lied to them, particularly in so important
a matter. With regard to investigating the provenance of his alleged sources to sustain the
charge, there will surely be some severe practical difficulties. Steele is likely relying on
those. Possibly they might consider Steele to be a material witness in a wider prosecutorial
framework.
It is all very much a mess.
She was identified in Swiss court as an SVR officer who recruited a high level Swiss law
enforcement officer.
Identified by who? From what is known about her -- a typical murky raider lawyer with pretty
well-off hubby. Do you use "recruitment" instead of bribing or corrupting? While not mutually
exclusive, one has to really question motivations.
Re: "If Page was an FBI accomplice, there would have been no need for a FISA warrant. Page
would have just worn a wire or the digital equivalent of a wire. I covered that in a comment
in my last post."
In which case, why all these, why all these Title I vs Title VII vs whatever?!
"One of the greatest myths of contemporary history is that the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia
was a popular uprising of the downtrodden masses against the hated ruling class of the Tsars.
As we shall see, however, the planning, the leadership and especially the financing came
entirely from outside Russia, mostly from financiers in Germany, Britain and the United
States. ... This amazing story begins with the war between Russia and Japan in 1904. Jacob
Schiff, who was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had raised the
capital for large war loans to Japan. It was due to this funding that the Japanese were able
to launch a stunning attack against the Russians at Port Arthur and the following year to
virtually decimate the Russian fleet. In 1905 the Mikado awarded Jacob Schiff a medal, the
Second Order of the Treasure of Japan, in recognition of his important role in that
campaign... On March 23, 1917 a mass meeting was held at Carnegie Hall to celebrate the
abdication of Nicolas II, which meant the overthrow of Tsarist rule in Russia. Thousands of
socialists, Marxists, nihilists nand anarchists attended to cheer the event. The following
day there was published on page two of the New York Times a telegram from Jacob Schiff, which
had been read to this audience. He expressed regrets, that he could not attend and then
described the successful Russian revolution as "...what we had hoped and striven for these
long years". In the February 3, 1949 issue of the New York Journal, American Schiff's
grandson, John, was quoted by columnist Cholly Knickerbocker as saying that his grandfather
had given about $20 million for the triumph of Communism in Russia."-- What a family!
There's an old lawyer joke that comes to mind as I listen to the D's responses to the Nunes
memo. "When the facts are against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the
facts. If both are against you, pound the table."
Regardless of who was paying Steele, and how many times he was being paid for the same
info, and how and to whom he was distributing the info, the quality of his information can
not be properly assessed until it is known from whom it came, how it came to be known, and
the circumstances under which it was acquired. Unless that was known, it never should have
been considered to be actionable.
Situational and tactical awareness 101. You got that right. Information is not a
knowledge -- two are totally different things. I do, however, have one objection--NO, it is NOT
regardless who were paying Steele, in fact--it is a crucial matter and that is what Nunes
Memo was about and did--it anchored the issue where it should be anchored and around which
this whole affair will continue to revolve, as it should -- preprogrammed fallacy, in fact
politics-driven bogus of an "intelligence". The very notion that surveillance was initiated
based on the outright fabrication is the real scandal. That is why Dens were going
apoplectic. It is damn difficult now to sink the issue in procedural and legalistic BS once
the Memo is nailed to the doors of a "cathedral". As for Steele, I hope he is now
well-guarded from possible slip on a banana skin and accidentally falling, seven times in a
row, on a knife he was carrying, accidentally, of course. But then again, 10-15 shots from
9-mm to own head is also a very popular homicide method.
"I have no doubt that Obama's State Department might have been concerned about damaging
information held by Putin on its activities."
Yep, when you are in charge of the state administration there is all sorts of information
available to you, such as radar and communication records for a country along your border or
all the info gained thanks to a lazy federal official's lack of concern for security over
convenience.
In your comment #34 you note the DNI claim of Russian interference in the election. That
is not the issue here. The issue here is the narrative sold by Clapper, Brennan, Hillary
Clinton and the media that Trump colluded with the Russian government to steal the
presidential election . And the related issue of surveillance of the Trump campaign.
That and the firing of Comey is the core basis for the appointment of Mueller. Comey
claimed he was fired for investigating the Trump collusion, which lead to ginned up
hysteria.
Why is everyone conflating Russian interference in the election with the allegations of
Trump's collusion with the Russian government? They are two different matters. The question
that needs to be answered is if the latter allegations and the subsequent FBI investigation
of Trump and his campaign were based on legitimate evidence or for partisan political
purposes?
It seems to me that you too are conflating these two matters. What exactly is your
position on the collusion allegations and the law enforcement and IC narrative on that
matter? Why are the DOJ and FBI obstructing the Congressional investigation into the
activities of the FBI, DOJ and the IC relating to their investigation of Trump and his
campaign? The Nunes memo and the evidence it is based on is about the FBI and DOJ
investigation of the Trump campaign. It has nothing to do with if Russia interfered in our
election. In fact other than the DNI report there has been no evidence presented by the IC
validating the claim of Russian interference.
If we have to have a more sane discussion and not talk past each other, IMO, we must
separate the two issues of Russian interference from Trump's collusion allegation and the
resultant IC/law enforcement investigation.
Well, the House Intel Committee memo, Republican version, says on page 2, lines 7-8:
"Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton
campaign [etc.]..."
That is pretty clear: "Steele was a longtime FBI source ...." How long, one might
wonder?
Joe100,
Carter Page does appear to be a little odd. He enthusiastically shows up for multiple
television interviews grinning quite a bit and seemingly without a care in the world.
The memo has obviously been edited down. The first neon sign I saw was on page 1: "The FBI
and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from
the FISC". A FISA order must be renewed every 90 days. Four times 90 is 360 days. Day one was
21 October 2016, the memo tells us. Donald Trump was elected president on 8 November 2016. He
was sworn in on 20 January 2017. Carter Page was under surveillance until October 2017, a
little over three months ago. On what grounds? Who was he talking to or communicating with,
other than the hosts of television shows?
The memo creates the impression that the Steele paper was used in each of the four FISA
applications, but that is not completely clear.
Furthermore, the memo clearly says that James Comey signed three FISA applications in
question and Andrew McCabe signed one. But when it comes to the Justice Department lawyers,
the language gets vague: Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein "each signed one or
more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ". Why not say the exact number each one signed? Is
the memo talking only about the four Carter Page applications or other additional
applications with respect to the DOJ lawyers?
Second the recommendation to read Mercouris' piece which I referred to in an earlier thread.
It's a masterpiece which is very precise in analyzing the exact legal words of the GOP memo.
Today Alexander has posted a more speculative analysis of the Lindsay/Grassley referral
letter which asks the DoJ if Steele should be hit with possible criminal charges.
The referral letter - which is heavily redacted and thus set out in full in Alexander's
piece - suggests that not only did Steele use unverifiable information allegedly from Russia,
but ALSO very likely received additional unverified information along the course of the
production of his reports which may - may not - have originated from associates of the
Clintons. Alexander points to the Cory Shearer "second dossier" as a likely example.
Steele may also have received and included in his reports unsolicitied information from
media sources.
Mercouris points out that all this - if proven - would render the Steele dossier even less
credible than it is. And it would tar both the media and the Clinton campaign as having
contributed to the "constitutional crisis" it seems to be shaping up to.
"If you accept the DNI ICA on Russian interference in the election a lot Steele's stuff has
panned out."
Of course, if one accepts the DNI ICA after Scott Ritter ripped it a new one, one is
obviously willing to believe anything Clapper, Brennan and the rest of these serial liars
tell one.
Denying the concept of a "vast Russian conspiracy to use Pokemon to influence the
election" is just common sense.
You make an important distinction that is being lost in these discussions.
It is well known that Russia runs intelligence operations in the US, just like the US does
in Russia. I assume Col. Lang, TTG and Publius Tacitus ran spooks & intelligence
operations in the Soviet bloc. And probably Putin did the same in the NATO bloc. This has
been going on for decades and is nothing new.
What is new is the hysteria surrounding the loss of the election by Hillary Clinton and
the attempt to explain the loss to Trump's collusion with the Russian government. This
narrative as you point out was sold hard by Clapper, Brennan, et al and the complicit media
who were convinced of Hilary's win.
This controversy is about very specific questions around the investigation of Trump and
his campaign for their alleged collusion with the Russian government. And additionally, there
are specific questions about the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of
classified information. That is the crux. How were these two separate investigations by the
same people at the FBI & DOJ run?
The Congressional Republicans want to learn more about these two investigations. The DOJ,
FBI, the IC, the Democrats and the media want to sweep the truth of these two investigations
under the rug. What many Americans want to know is, was there a conspiracy against a national
presidential candidate and a legitimately elected POTUS by a previous administration from a
rival party? What role if any did partisan bias play in these two investigations?
I agree with you that we ought to have two separate discussions. One, did the Russians
interfere in our election and if so, how did they do it and what impact did it have? Two, was
there a conspiracy against presidential candidate Trump and a President-elect Trump by the
Obama administration? If so, who participated in it and how did they do it?
Mercouris points out that all this - if proven - would render the Steele dossier even less
credible than it is.
I would go on a limb here and even state that Steele's "contacts" or "network",
rezidentura or whatever in Russia where he was stationed in 1990-92 are almost predictable
and they are worthless by now. So, whenever the term "sources" in Russian "government" are
used I kinda have a feeling that those are the same "sources" who constitute main foreign
contributors to American (and British) "Russian Studies" field -- rather a wasteland of
propaganda cliches and memes. There is also a really interesting Ukrainian angle in all that. But you see, even Lindsey
Graham could be sometimes of some utility, not that it is his integrity speaking.;-)
There is definitely something off about Carter Page's demeanor.
His life story, as has been reported, also seems bereft of a lot of details. We know that he has a master's degree from Georgetown, an MBA from NYU, and a PhD from
University of London. He reportedly worked for Merrill Lynch in Moscow, and then started his own consulting
firm. The press hasn't been able to find one person that either remembers him, or has anything
positive to say about him. And there are no reports of a family of any type.
All of this seems out of place for someone who did very well at the Naval Academy, and was
s member of the CFR. In an interview last week, Nunes said that Page should never have been the subject of a
FISA warrant, and had not held a job for several years. How exactly has Page supported himself, including his extensive obtaining multiple
advanced degrees?
He almost sounds like a caricature of the gray man.
This cannot be said enough. The 'Russian interference' narrative was a non story right
from the beginning. The 'Trump collusion' narrative on the other hand is the mother of all
stories; both for those who take it at face value and in a different sense, for those of us
who question its origin and motivations. Conflation of the two must not be tolerated.
I second the thanks for the public service that PT & TTG are providing by sharing
their expertise. I admit I am confused. I've decided that is the intention. The GOP memo
documents that the FISA court is a highly unjust Star Chamber. The same congressmen who
declassified this memo passed the FISA extension just weeks before knowing this. No wonder
the author Trey Gowdy is not seeking re-election. If there had been any factual basis to
Russiagate, it would have been released by now, a year later. This supports the contention
that there is an intelligence community/media counter coup underway against Donald Trump. The
Memo joins the list of proofs that the rule of law is dead in America.
Hmmmm.....with this group of Democrats, especially their last candidate for POTUS, I think
you might be thinking "shades of Vince Foster." I know, I know....he killed himself.
Further, although some will no doubt think this should not be mentioned,
I think it is worth noting that Ms. Glasser is Jewish.
Not that there is anything wrong with that,
but it is worth noting how many of the Russophobes in America seem to be of that
ethnicity.
More than one would expect by random chance.
So many rabbit holes and apparently all that guides which hole is taken is personal bias.
Has GOWDY stated that the warrant was issued illegally?
Would the one memo 2016/94 be sufficient to issue a warrant? I am assuming that at least some
part of that memo could be verified.
Remember that the submission is not to find PAGE guilty of some crime and jail him.
One point. STEELE is a known MI5 officer. He has a track record. He is reporting what his
contacts told him. If he is lying, if the "information/disinformation" in even just one of
the memos was provided by a third party and STEELE does not know the sources claimed in the
memo, then all of the dossier must be dropped. If one of STEELE's sources lied to him, does
that render the remaining items suspect? I think not.
This is not like the CURVEBALL scandal where all key "proof" for WMD was derived from the
testimony of one source, STEELE claims that there were many sources.
Would not want to be the FBI's contact with STEELE, or indeed anyone in the intel
community. Its damned if you do act and damned if you don't act.
"... On January 10, 2017, CNN was first to report the leaked information that the controversial contents of the dossier were presented during classified briefings on classified documents presented one week earlier to Obama and Trump ..."
"... All that changed when the dossier contents were presented to Obama and Trump during the classified briefings. In other words, Comey's briefings themselves and the subsequent leak to CNN about those briefings by "multiple US officials with direct knowledge," seem to have given the news media the opening to report on the dossier's existence as well as allude to some of the document's unproven claims. ..."
In August 22
testimony released last month, Fusion GPS Co-Founder Glenn R. Simpson stated that Steele's
outreach to the FBI was "something that Chris took on on his own." Simpson stated that as far
as he knew Fusion GPS did not fund Steele's July 2016 trip to Rome to meet with the FBI. He
said he believes that the trip expenses may have been reimbursed by the FBI.
... ... ...
As Breitbart News
documented , Comey's dossier briefing to Trump was subsequently leaked to the news media,
setting in motion a flurry of news media attention on the dossier, including the release of the
document to the public. The briefing also may have provided the veneer of respectability to a
document circulated within the news media but widely considered too unverified to publicize.
On January 10, 2017, CNN was first to
report the leaked information that the controversial contents of the dossier were presented
during classified briefings on classified documents presented one week earlier to Obama and
Trump All that changed when the dossier contents were presented to Obama and Trump
during the classified briefings. In other words, Comey's briefings themselves and the
subsequent leak to CNN about those briefings by "multiple US officials with direct knowledge,"
seem to have given the news media the opening to report on the dossier's existence as well as
allude to some of the document's unproven claims.
Just after CNN's January 10 report on Comey's classified briefings about the dossier,
BuzzFeed famously published the dossier's full
unverified contents. When it published the dossier text, BuzzFeed reported that the contents
had circulated "for months" and were known to journalists.
"... The fixation on FBI and DoJ is comical. Whose side were they on? On Hillary's side. ..."
"... the screams of pain coming from the foreign lobbyists and their "American" sock puppets over Part Two of the Nunes narrative. The real story of who is subverting our republic – and colluding with foreigners to accomplish that goal – is about to come out. ..."
"... Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton called the deep state's actions against President Trump the first Coup D'état in US History' ..."
"... The real story is the Ukraine style coup that is being attempted here against an elected president ..."
"I could identify nothing in the memo that was even plausibly damaging to national
security ."
Well, it did expose Steele as a source of intel and going to former agents of foreign
intelligence services as a method, but if our national security is hanging on sources and
methods like these, then we're as good as self-referentially screwed we just don't know it,
because it is a deep-state secret.
Here's one for you: An agent of a foreign intelligence service attempted to influence the
US election in Hillary Clinton's favour, and her campaign colluded with him to that end by
making payments for his services via a cutout to hide the fact that campaign funds were used
to that end. The collusion might not be a crime, as would also be the case with Trump and
Russia, but the laundering of money is.
The raison d'etre for the Congressional and Special Counsel Robert Mueller
investigations appears to be lacking. Perhaps it is all sound and fury signifying nothing,
but Russia might in reality have done little beyond the usual probing and nosing around
that intelligence agencies routinely do.
It is using the Cold War 1.0 Playbook to start CW 2.0. The problem: CW 1.0 Playbook is
full of gaping omissions and horrendous mistakes -- so, it is basically incorporating old
illusions into the new ones with results which are already visible. The picture is not pretty
and worst is yet to come.
The FBI has been working for the owner ruler class ever since its inception. Recently they've
achieved great success in creating ISIS patsies out of wayward slaves.
"We stopped terror!"
Nothing tops their relationship with the violent property class that Giraldi took an oath to
protect- co-habitation with mortgage bankers to indemnify their crimes and make sure the
proles don't rip off the mafia. It's fun to see the elite fight over their cops, laughter all
the way to the insidious CIA. More keystrokes morons!
It is inverideed intriguing to consider what is missing from the document.
The fixation on FBI and DoJ is comical. Whose side were they on? On Hillary's side.
Hillary Clinton, that is, wife of CIA secret agent Bill, recruited by no lesser luminary than
Cord Meyer. Hillary, who cut her teeth hiding crucial documents for the Watergate
investigation, which Russ Baker showed was a CIA purge of Nixon (see whowhatwhy.com). FBI
recruited Steele in Rome as an intelligence asset, permitting CIA to conceal his involvement
with 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i) and eyes-only foreign liaison arrangements.
Hillary was CIA's anointed figurehead, like Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush before her. CIA
got caught trying to stuff her down the electorate's throat, and now they are furiously
kicking up 'partisan' dust.
"What's exciting, to me at least, is the promise by Nunes that this is just the start of the
revelations. Next up: the key role played by the State Department in the plot to destroy our
republic and hand power over to unelected Deep State bureaucrats. And this means the
important – perhaps decisive – part played by foreign actors in all this will be
exposed to the light of day. If you thought there was howling about the first Nunes memo,
wait until you hear the screams of pain coming from the foreign lobbyists and their
"American" sock puppets over Part Two of the Nunes narrative. The real story of who is
subverting our republic – and colluding with foreigners to accomplish that goal –
is about to come out.
I can hardly wait!
"This isn't about Trump. You may hate him. You may love him. That's irrelevant. What
matters is that a powerful group of Washington insiders is trying to exercise its assumed
veto power over who gets to inhabit the White House – and that is impermissible as long
as the republic endures."
' The entire Mueller investigation is a scam created by the deep state to
overthrow the US government and is the deep state's ultimate plot to re-take the
country. Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton called the deep state's actions
against President Trump the first Coup D'état in US History'
Why and how on earth would or could Trump somehow 'collude' with Russia while running for
president ?
That question answers itself because it is preposterous on its face
The real story is the Ukraine style coup that is being attempted here against an elected
president
We've seen enough lately of bits of truth coming out that are impossible to cover up
forever that tells us everything we need to know about this fake Russiagate scam and the
criminals behind it
America has terrible unemployment, some of the worst income inequality in the world, the
biggest prison system in the world (the state of Georgia has 15% felons living there), and
conducts wars on a perpetual basis against helpless poor countries. Only evil people support
this sort of society. We call them the voting class and the intelligentsia.
The working poor never would rise up in the USA because they know the cops would gun them down in the streets. You won't
find a more beaten down group of people than the poor in America...
Look like republicans want to send "Russiagate ball" on the DemoRats side of the political
tennis court ;-). They decided to asset the meme about bad Russians undemining US election and
just want to prove that it is DemoRats who collided with Russians.
Notable quotes:
"... Partial transcript as follows: ..."
"... Hillary Clinton paid for a warrant. That's the easiest way we can put it. ..."
"... So, the senior level of the FBI tried to interfere with this election as well. This is why it's such a big deal. Now, I know Republicans are bending over backwards saying this has nothing to do with Mueller. This has everything to do with Mueller. ..."
"... But I want to get back to Barack Obama. It's his FBI, his Department of Justice, his State Department, his candidate. I cannot believe for a minute that the National Security Council didn't know about this. ..."
Levin argued those were the questions that should be asked and summed up the circumstances
as 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton having "paid for a warrant."
Partial transcript as follows:
This is bad. Let me tell you a couple of things here. Now we know why [Adam] Schiff and
the rest of them are fighting so hard. Now we know why the left-wing praetorian guard
Democrat media are fighting so hard, trashing [Devin] Nunes, me, you, and others. Let's walk
through this quickly. Who are they trying to protect? Hillary Clinton. Sean, who else are
they trying to protect? Barack Obama. His name never comes up.
So, let me help everybody with this. Loretta Lynch knew about these FISA warrants. [Sally]
Yates, the deputy attorney general, the extensions Rod Rosenstein, now the deputy attorney
general. He knew. FBI Director [James] Comey, Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe, [Peter]
Strzok, the head of counterintelligence, [Lisa] Page -- his girlfriend.
Who else would know these FISA applications and warrants? Let me tell you a little secret.
These are counterintelligence efforts. You have to assume the National Security Council and
the White House knew. Why would the FBI, Justice Department, keep that from the National
Security Director in the White House? Why would they keep it from the deputy director in the
White House?
So why would be left out of the president's daily intelligence briefing? Which I mentioned
in March Congress also needs to get a hold of. I am telling you, we're looking at the FBI,
we're looking at the Department of Justice, we are not looking at all at the White House.
Hillary Clinton paid for a warrant. That's the easiest way we can put it. Hillary
Clinton colluded with the Russians. But it appears the FBI at the seniormost levels colluded
with the Russians, too. Whether it was witting or unwitting, it doesn't matter. That's a
fact.
So, the senior level of the FBI tried to interfere with this election as well. This is
why it's such a big deal. Now, I know Republicans are bending over backwards saying this has
nothing to do with Mueller. This has everything to do with Mueller.
It has everything to do with Mueller because it transitions from the counterintelligence
investigation into a criminal investigation after Comey, of all things, confesses of all
things to being a leaker. And Mueller -- Mueller is the former FBI director. Those are his
people. That is his environment. He's not out there as some independent force.
But I want to get back to Barack Obama. It's his FBI, his Department of Justice, his
State Department, his candidate. I cannot believe for a minute that the National Security
Council didn't know about this.
And to show you how elaborate this is, now that more information is coming out, we haven't
even gotten to the incidental collection of intelligence on people, including, by the way,
[Jeff] Sessions when he met with and spoke with the Russian ambassador, Michael Flynn when he
spoke to the Russian ambassador, the unmasking and leaking of his name, the record number of
unmasking of American citizens in the Trump world and so forth and so on.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (HPSCI), fell for a spoof by Russian pranksters who promised in a call with the
top House Democrat to furnish him with"kompromat"–compromising dirt–on President
Donald Trump.
Schiff found the early 2017 call with the Russian pranksters, who posed as Ukrainian
leaders, "productive," one of his staffers wrote in an email to the
Russians-posing-as-Ukrainians with whom he was communicating. Now, after getting caught in the
media by reports in the Atlantic magazine and the U.K. Daily Mail newspaper -- as well as audio
of the call appearing on YouTube -- a Schiff spokesperson claims the powerful Democrat
congressman thought the call was "bogus" from the beginning. But that's not what the record
shows.
LISTEN TO THE AUDIO OF ADAM SCHIFF WITH RUSSIAN PRANKSTERS:
"Transparency is a great thing, but let's be factual and objective about it, and this
clearly is a pretty blatant political act," Clapper said on CNN's "New Day." The former
intelligence leader said the FBI did the right thing by "trying to defend themselves" against
the allegations in the memo. The FBI released a
public statement Wednesday warning the agency has "grave concerns about material omissions
of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."
"... In one of her more "colorful" moments with her staff, it is reported that she was unhappy with her staff's preparation of her for one of her debates and she said something to the effect that if they lose this election it'll put a noose around all of their necks. When she says something like that in private to her own staff, I can't help but wonder how deep she was in this coup attempt herself. ..."
"... Americans have come very close to living in a KGB and Stasi ruled country ..."
"... Lets be joyful. This investigation of Trump will last longer than I love Luci, and Carrol Burnet show, put together. Not so entertaining but still show is a show. ..."
If events continue to unfold in the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary
Committee as I think they will in exposing a palace coup attempt on the President then the
Trump supporters' perceptions of the Democrats, the Deep State and Hillary Clinton, in
particular, will be vindicated.
Luckily, there's more time between now and the mid-terms to get this all out in the open,
unlike the minimal amount of time that existed in the Fall of 2016 and before the election
and despite the many emerging indications at that time that the intelligence community and
the Department of State were in the bag for Clinton.
It is my belief that Trump's support will be shored up, rather than diminished, by the
exposure of this attempted coup. And, I think it will have far-reaching consequences for all
the entities who engaged in its formulation and execution.
Indeed, some of those consequences are already being felt. Take a look at this Washington
Post editorial where the omission of the DNC and Hillary paying for the Steele Dossier is
predicted to have a chilling effect on the relationship between the FISA court and the FBI
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin…
; IS PUBLISHED ON THE WASHINGTON POST FRONT PAGE, AMAZINGLY ENOUGH.
In one of her more "colorful" moments with her staff, it is reported that she was
unhappy with her staff's preparation of her for one of her debates and she said something to
the effect that if they lose this election it'll put a noose around all of their necks. When
she says something like that in private to her own staff, I can't help but wonder how deep
she was in this coup attempt herself.
I do know for certain that my ambivalent, dislike-of-Clinton motivated support of Trump
has now been solidified and will continue to be strengthened as these developments and
disclosures continue. Americans have come very close to living in a KGB and Stasi ruled
country and taking that into consideration tolerating an oaf like Trump who's willing to
fight the government is absolutely more than enough for me.
Hell, I might take a break from my business and actively campaign for the GOP in the
upcoming midterms, something I'd never had considered before the FISA -FBI disclosures. I
don't want the Democrats to gain power as they've been exposed as a threat to our freedoms to
elect the leaders we want.
Lets be joyful. This investigation of Trump will last longer than I love Luci, and Carrol
Burnet show, put together. Not so entertaining but still show is a show.
As is now becoming the way as the Russiagate scandal unravels, confirmation of the collapse of one of its
central pillars – the claim of proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign which some have
claimed to see in the meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
and Donald Trump Junior – has slipped out in the most covert way possible.
Nonetheless the confirmation is there and originates in what all the indications suggest is a deliberate
leak either from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team or from the White House's legal team.
The confirmation is provided in an NBC News
article
which reads as follows
Two sources familiar with the questions Mueller's team have been asking about the meeting say the
investigators are most interested in why the president crafted a misleading statement about the meeting
much later, in July 2017, after a New York Times report about it. The sources say Mueller's office is
trying to confirm every detail it can about the meeting.
Mueller's team is less interested in the meeting as a direct example of collusion, the sources said,
although Trump Jr. accepted the meeting after being told he would receive incriminating information about
Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government effort to help his father.
No evidence has emerged publicly to contradict Veselnitskaya's account that she wanted to press a case
about U.S. Magnitsky Act sanctions, and that she did not possess significant derogatory information about
Clinton, despite the email from a music promoter to Trump Jr. promising incriminating details about the
Democrat.
Moreover, no evidence has emerged publicly that connects the Russians in the meeting with the Russian
intelligence effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
The issue of Donald Trump's supposedly misleading statement about the meeting is a red herring since it
can have no possible connection to the collusion allegations which Mueller's inquiry is supposed to be
investigating.
Even assuming that Trump's statement was misleading – which some might question – it would hardly be the
first case of a US President making a misleading statement, and it is impossible to see how it can possibly
give rise to a law enforcement issue for Mueller to investigate.
Of much more importance is the confirmation that Mueller's team now acknowledge that there is no evidence
to connect Veselnitskaya to Russian intelligence and that her and Donald Trump Junior's accounts of their
meeting must be accepted as true since there is no evidence to contradict them.
In truth this was obvious from the start as I pointed out in an
article
I wrote on 12th July 2017, written immediately after details of the meeting came to light
The meeting with Veselnitskaya duly took place on 9th June 2016. It turned out that she had no
information about Hillary Clinton to offer and was not a "Russian government attorney". Instead she
wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, upon which a baffled Donald Trump Junior politely showed her the
door.
That is the unanimous account of all the participants of the meeting including Donald Trump Junior and
Veselnitskaya herself. All agree that the meeting lasted no more than 20 minutes.
There is no evidence that contradicts their account and the absence of any follow-up to the meeting
essentially corroborates their account.
It seems that Donald Trump Junior and Veselnitskaya have never met since and have had no further
contact with each other.
There is
no
evidence here of any crime or wrongdoing being committed or –
contrary to what many are saying – of any intention to commit one.
Russiagate would not however be Russiagate if this important news that Mueller and his team have come to
the same conclusion was not smuggled out in an NBC News article whose title gives the impression that it is
about the totally meaningless fact that Veselnitskaya after leaving the meeting with Donald Trump Junior had
a brief encounter in the lift of Trump Tower with a blonde woman who might – or might not – have been Donald
Trump's daughter Ivanka.
To such ridiculous lengths to conceal embarrassing truths about Russiagate is the media in the US
increasingly reduced to.
Though the Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior meeting is now being finally acknowledged to be the red herring it
always was, there is one further point about it to make.
In my 12th July 2017 article I speculated that the meeting might have been a sting intended to
corroborate the collusion allegations between the Trump campaign and Russia which were to achieve written
form in the first 20th June 2016 entry of the Trump Dossier, written a few weeks after the
Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior took place.
What led others subsequently to speculate along the same lines was that there appeared to be a connection
between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the political consultancy firm which commissioned the Trump Dossier on
behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It turns out that Veselnitskaya was not working for Fusion GPS but rather Fusion GPS was working for her,
in connection with her work on the Magnitsky case.
That in itself makes it inherently unlikely that she was acting as a catspaw for Fusion GPS when she met
Donald Trump Junior.
More to the point, Glenn Simpson's comments about Veselnitskaya are anything but complimentary. He
basically describes her – rather convincingly – as a self-important busybody and a minor league player, and
expresses incredulity at the suggestion that she was a Russian intelligence agent who was working for the
Kremlin.
Simpson's characterisation of Veselnitskaya in testimony in which he strongly promotes the Russiagate
collusion allegations and vouches for the truth of the Trump Dossier makes it all but inconceivable
Veselnitskaya was involved in a sting to set Trump Junior up.
Despite taking place at a time when the Trump-Russia collusion allegations were about to take off,
Veselnitskaya's meeting with Trump Junior must instead be seen as one of those annoying coincidences which
lawyers, journalists, policemen and the public automatically distrust, but which happen in real life.
Allegedly the US attorney who represented the Justice Department when the application for
this FISA warrant was presented to the FISA court, and who did not provide the FISA court with
the information that it came from the Trump Dossier which the Democrats had paid for, was none
other than Rod Rosenstein, who is now the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and who
was the Justice Department official who appointed Robert Mueller Special Counsel to investigate
the Russiagate collusion allegations which are based on the Trump Dossier.
If this is true then I must say that Rosenstein's position looks to me untenable, and I
think he will have to resign.
Though I do not know whether legally speaking Rosenstein is caught in a conflict of interest
– my guess is that he is – I cannot imagine that the Republicans in Congress will
tolerate his remaining in overall charge of the Russiagate inquiry after such a revelation, and
I cannot see Rosenstein remaining Deputy Attorney General if he is stripped of his power to
supervise Mueller's inquiry.
"... Briefly, what the GOP memorandum says is that in the case of Carter Page due process was not followed, and that gross violations of his civil and constitutional rights happened in consequence. ..."
"... represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses ..."
Contrary to
what some are saying , the GOP memorandum most definitely is a legal analysis or document
and it is one which is written by a lawyer. That means that it must be read as a legal analysis
or document, and it is to misunderstand it if it is read in any other way.
The lawyer in question who wrote it is Representative Trey Gowdy, a former Federal
Prosecutor, who as Representative Devin Nunes has explained, was the member of the House
Intelligence Committee who along with some of the Committee's staff actually examined and
researched the Justice Department's files and who wrote the greater part of the GOP
memorandum.
Any trial lawyer would instantly recognise the GOP memorandum's phrasing and language as
those of a trial lawyer, and the observations it makes on the gross violations of legal
procedure which took place are very much those which a trial lawyer would be expected to
make.
In fact the GOP memorandum reads to me very much like a written submission that a trial
lawyer might be expected to make to an appeal Court in a case where a conviction had been
wrongly obtained following gross breaches of due process (see below).
Calling the GOP memorandum the 'Nunes memorandum' is therefore wrong. If it is to be called
by any other name than 'the GOP memorandum' (which is what I shall call it) then it should be
called the 'Gowdy memorandum'.
Representative Nunes did make some additions to the GOP memorandum just before it was
published. Again it is obvious to a lawyer what they are, and I shall come to them shortly.
Purpose of GOP memorandum: exposing gross breaches of due process
Secondly, the GOP memorandum is concerned with one issue only, which is the gross violations
of due process which it says took place in the application for the surveillance warrant against
Carter Page.
It is not concerned with the truth or falsity of the Russiagate collusion allegations or the
propriety or otherwise of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation.
Due process is the means whereby a Defendant is given a fair hearing by the Court with the
rules of procedure and evidence properly observed, so that the Court can decide the case
justly.
Briefly, what the GOP memorandum says is that in the case of Carter Page due process was
not followed, and that gross violations of his civil and constitutional rights happened in
consequence.
The GOP memorandum makes this purpose completely clear in its preamble:
Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality
of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC),
and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the
American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
(bold italics added)
The GOP memorandum is not concerned with the truth or falsehood of the Russiagate
collusion allegations or the propriety or otherwise of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation,
though its findings obviously touch on those issues.
Lawyers' duty to act in good faith and not to mislead the Court
Before proceeding further it is necessary to say that the overriding duty of lawyers is to
the Court, and that they must never intentionally mislead the Court.
It is not only a grave abuse for them to do so, but it is actually the criminal offence of
contempt of Court.
The duty of lawyers – who are officers of the Court – to act at all times in
good faith when addressing the Court is an essential part of due process.
Needless to say the lawyers' duty not to mislead the Court becomes greater still if the
proceedings are conducted in secret with the Defendant not informed of the proceedings and not
represented or present at the hearing during which the proceedings are decided.
At that point the lawyer's duty is not only to provide the Court with all the information
which supports the application the lawyer is making, but also to provide the Court with all the
information which might cause the Court to decide that the Order sought against the Defendant
should not be made.
DoJ/FBI breached duty to act in good faith and not to mislead Court when applying for FISA
surveillance warrant against Carter Page
What the GOP memorandum says is that this duty the Justice Department's and the FBI's
lawyers owe to the FISA Court was not only not observed in the case of Carter Page but was on
the contrary flagrantly and utterly breached. The wording of the GOP memorandum on this point
is unambiguous
"... When in doubt follow the money. Congressman Schiff's well documented Putin obsession may have something to do with his billionaire, military complex, oligarch patron from Ukraine. ..."
What drives Adam Schiff's never ending Russia hysteria?
When in doubt follow the money.
Congressman Schiff's
well documented
Putin obsession may have something to do with his billionaire, military complex,
oligarch patron from Ukraine.
In a Zerohedge post
yesterday, chronicling the latest Adam Schiff idiocy, where the Democrat Congressman
spoke to a crowd at the University of Pennsylvania,
declaring Russian ads promoted the Second Amendment
during the 2016 election "so we will kill each
other" commenter
AlaricBalth linked
some interesting information on Schiff's underlying motivation behind his Russia
hysteria
Adam Schiff is an owned hatchet man of Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Schiff's anti-Russian
narrative is carefully orchestrated by his Ukrainian handlers
Pasternak, who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a
passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been active in both Los Angeles and
Washington, D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two countries and has been especially
active building awareness of Ukraine's strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. Since
political protests broke out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak has worked to personally inform and
educate Members of Congress about the geostrategic importance of Ukraine to European and US security.
Jack Posobiec tweeted in March 2017 on Schiff's connection to Pasternak and George Soros
Hi @RepAdamSchiff! Why did Soros-tied Ukraninan Arms Dealer Igor Pasternak hold a fundraiser for you?
#ComeyHearing
James Comey gets destroyed on social media for replying to FISA memo with "that's it?"
That s it? Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed
trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably
exposed classified investigation of an American citizen. For what? DOJ & FBI must keep
doing their jobs.
-- James Comey (@Comey) February 2, 2018
FBI Director James Comey was crushed by Fox News Maria Bartiromo for infamously replying
with a "that's it?" tweet after the FISA memo was released.
Here is Bartiromo discussing the FISA memo release with a panel that included J ames
Kallstrom (a former FBI Assistant Director) who at the 13.10 minute mark calls James Comey "The
King of Weasels"...
Remember this is Guadian: a stalwart NeverTrumpers outlet with the history of huge
pro-Hillary bias. And also pro-MI6 and Stele dossier bias. So Guardian conserns should be
interepreted as strong point s of the Nunes memo. And probably the deputy attorney general, Rod
Rosenstein should be fired for creation Muller witch hunt.
All this raises the question of why Nunes, the Republican majority on the House intelligence
committee, Paul Ryan and Trump were so willing to go to war with the FBI over a cap-gun memo.
We even have hyper-ventilating Republican congressmen shouting "treason".
The glib answer is that this a pretext for Trump to fire Mueller and the deputy attorney
general, Rod Rosenstein. But Mueller is never mentioned in the Nunes memo and Rosenstein makes
only a cameo appearance. More attention is devoted to articles by journalists David Corn
(Mother Jones) and Mike Isikoff (Yahoo News).
Perhaps a more convincing answer is that we have reached that alarming moment when
right-wing Republicans actually believe the conspiracy theories peddled by the likes of Sean
Hannity on Fox News, who claims the memo reveals an "attempted coup" against Donald Trump
plotted by the "Deep State". At least, the original fabricator of the Piltdown man knew that it
was all a hoax.
"... You have to give Nunes (and Trump) a great deal of credit here for political manipulation. They knew the media was entirely Killaried, not to mention completely suborned by the IC, so they strung out a simple summary of the facts long enough to turn it into political intrigue (using the bizarre American government method of classifying everything, and hiding uncomfortable truths behind the ruse of protecting 'national security'), and thus preventing the media from completely dismissing it as partisan bullshit (which the 'journalists' would have done had the memo been released when it was produced). The Democrats and the media are only left with the claim that this is old news – we already knew that! – which of course means that they accept that it is fundamentally true. ..."
"... I think we should wait on proclaiming Trump the worst president we ever had, since he has not completed his full term in office. Let's see how many wars, how much death and destruction he imposes on the world, as did Bush/Cheney , which made it possible for Obama to go forward with his own wars. And by all means let us not forget the party he represents, and whose agenda he must follow. ..."
"... That Tax Bill he passed was a decades-long dream of Speaker Paul Ryan. That being said, I hate his policies, but then again the Republican party has never been my cup of tea, and at this point neither are the Democrats. ..."
I do not think all the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee -- even those who
may be motivated by a overriding desire to protect the worst president the U.S. has ever
seen -- would have voted to approve that part of the Nunez memo ABSENT DOCUMENTARY PROOF
THAT THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT TOOK PLACE.
On this point I disagree. I'll grant that you know vastly more about 'intelligence' stuff
than myself, but the ability of Congressmen to act like a herd of sheep cannot be
overestimated. Personally, I'm waiting for more details. More "leaks". Quite possibly this is
round 1 in a series of revelations. I like what the xymphora blogger wrote about this:
You have to give Nunes (and Trump) a great deal of credit here for political
manipulation. They knew the media was entirely Killaried, not to mention completely
suborned by the IC, so they strung out a simple summary of the facts long enough to turn it
into political intrigue (using the bizarre American government method of classifying
everything, and hiding uncomfortable truths behind the ruse of protecting 'national
security'), and thus preventing the media from completely dismissing it as partisan
bullshit (which the 'journalists' would have done had the memo been released when it was
produced). The Democrats and the media are only left with the claim that this is old news
– we already knew that! – which of course means that they accept that it is
fundamentally true.
For all I know this entire affair is a 'faction fight' between elements of the Powers That
Be, and we're getting only such information they figure is needed to alter our opinions.
Zachary I think we should wait on proclaiming Trump the worst president we ever had,
since he has not completed his full term in office. Let's see how many wars, how much death
and destruction he imposes on the world, as did Bush/Cheney , which made it possible for
Obama to go forward with his own wars. And by all means let us not forget the party he
represents, and whose agenda he must follow.
That Tax Bill he passed was a decades-long dream of Speaker Paul Ryan. That being
said, I hate his policies, but then again the Republican party has never been my cup of tea,
and at this point neither are the Democrats.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to
keep and bear arms... and, as The
Duran's Alex Christoforou writes, according to California Congressman Adam Schiff, those pesky Russians are
using bots to promote the second amendment with an ultimate goal of having Americans"'kill each other."
Once again, another brilliant plan hatched by Putin... good thing Schiff caught on to it and can now begin
seizing American's guns so as to thwart Russia's evil plan.
On Thursday Democrat Schiff spoke to a crowd at the University of
Pennsylvania, where the TDS – "Russia hysteria virus" infected Schiff told the crowd Russian ads promoted the
Second Amendment during the 2016 election "so we will kill each other."
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Thursday that Russia promoted content that supported the Second Amendment on
social media during the 2016 election because they wanted Americans to kill one another.
"... An investigation of the State Dept should bring the focus around to issues of substance. ..."
"... DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT "Security" company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative of DNC hack and malware to influence US election ..."
"... DNC consultant Andrea Chalupa, unregistered foreign agent whose entire family is tied to Ukrainian Intelligence ..."
"... Further research revealed that Andrea Chalupa and her two siblings are actively involved with other sources of digital terrorism, disinformation and spamming, like TrolleyBust com, stopfake org, and informnapalm. ..."
"... Ms. Chalupa kept cooperating with the Khodorovky owned magazine "The Interpreter." Now, it's a part of RFE/RL run by the government funded Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) whose director, Dr. Leon Aron also a director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute ..."
Sessions is not recused from a Ukraine investigation. An investigation of the State Dept should bring the focus around
to issues of substance.
Obama repeal of Smith-Mundt to allow State Dept propaganda in the domestic US
Obama coup of Ukraine
Obama / McCain support of Nazis in Ukraine
Adam Schiff relationship with Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak
DNC collusion with Ukrainian IT "Security" company Crowdstrike tied to the Atlantic Council to push false narrative
of DNC hack and malware to influence US election
DNC consultant Andrea Chalupa, unregistered foreign agent whose entire family is tied to Ukrainian Intelligence
Further research revealed that Andrea Chalupa and her two siblings are actively involved with other sources of digital
terrorism, disinformation and spamming, like TrolleyBust com, stopfake org, and informnapalm.
Ms. Chalupa kept cooperating with the Khodorovky owned magazine "The Interpreter." Now, it's a part of RFE/RL run by
the government funded Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) whose director, Dr. Leon Aron also a director of Russian Studies
at the American Enterprise Institute.
Steele's work for the England Football Association gets mentioned in The
Sunday Times evidence to the British Parliament's 2022 World Cup Bidding
Process inquiry - document WCB0006. It should be public, but looks to have
almost vanished. The last copy on the internet is here:
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/15880.pdf
Steele is the
ex-MI6 source, but they also used another agency Hakluyt after Steele, perhaps
as a backstop. "A lot of it was just outlandish stuff you hear on the circuit"
"although the information was 'fascinating' it was just intelligence" "the
information was 'incendiary' but that there was nothing in it that the bid
thought would be 'legally credible'" The same Sechin link came out for the EFA
as for Page/Trump. Anyone want to ask the EFA what Steele gave to them?
For more than a generation, the term "mutually assured destruction" was used to suggest
that neither the US nor the Soviet Union would use a nuclear weapon against the other because
it would result in their own annihilation.
Less understood, was that the term also applied to the collusion by both parties needed to
obscure the Deep State from public view.
It's delightful to see the truth oozing through the cracks.
Annie , February 3, 2018 at 1:02 pm
Instead of referring to it as the Deep State, why not call it for what it is, the National
Security State, and it's meddled in the democratic process all the way back to the McCarthy
era and has helped to de-democratize this country. The highly flawed Steele dossier was not
only used by " one presidential campaign to get permission to spy on another " which is
indeed significant, but it has also been used to escalate a new cold war.
welshTerrier2 , February 3, 2018 at 1:22 pm
I'm fine with either label. I prefer Deep State because much of what is done has nothing
to do with "national" security. Many of their activities focus on providing "security" to
selected corporate interests and their largest shareholders.
Deep State, at least to me, connotes a degree of secrecy not to protect the national
interest but rather to hide their deeds and objectives from the American people. Worse, they
use assassinations, false flag projects and leaking lies to their media friends to
"manufacture consent".
Allowing them to hide behind a "national security" title seems to only further their
objectives.
Annie , February 3, 2018 at 3:52 pm
Yeah, but it's the National Security State that has overturned governments, slaughtered
millions, and mostly to protect corporate interests and push our hegemonic agenda. I have no
personal objection to the term, since I know what you're talking about, but when people
reference the Deep State to others who know little politically, and that's most, they think
you're a conspiracy theorist.
Joe Tedesky , February 3, 2018 at 10:57 pm
Annie I had to post this link here, because if you watch the Real News interview of Coleen
Rowley and Max Blumenthal, you will here Max refer to the Deep State as he would prefer to
call it the National Security State as well. Listen to what Rowley and Blumenthal have to
say.
I think the "National Security State" is really a servant of the so-called "Deep State".
They are the enforcers of the economic model upon which the Deep State oligarchs thrive. They
include the bankers and the western backed multi-national corporations. The MSM
propaganda/entertainment network is another branch of the service of the Deep State.
The FBI thrust its low-key director squarely into the public eye and potentially into the crosshairs of the president Wednesday
when it issued a statement declaring the bureau had "grave concerns" with a not-yet-public GOP memo that questions the basis to surveil
a former Trump campaign adviser.
FBI Director Christopher A. Wray had privately warned the White House against releasing the memo, but as it became clearer Wednesday
that his entreaties were likely to be rejected, his agency issued a terse two-paragraph message laying bare its worries about the
document.
"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo
the day before the committee voted to release it," the statement said. "As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns
about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."
... ... ...
Nunes said in a statement: "Having stonewalled Congress' demands for information for nearly a year, it's no surprise to see the
FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these
agencies. The FBI is intimately familiar with 'material omissions' with respect to their presentations to both Congress and the courts,
and they are welcome to make public, to the greatest extent possible, all the information they have on these abuses."
I tully 2 days ago
This is what happens when the FBI does the legwork for the Hillary Clinton campaign.
zardos3 2 days ago
Senator Chuck Schumer warned Trump not to mess with America's intelligence services because they would ruin him if he did.
Wait a minute. Is that part of our intelligence services' job descriptions?
That's right, it isn't. Instead that would be an assault on our Constitution & democratic processes.
But isn't that what Nunes is saying happened?
Thanks for the warning, Chuck. It looks like it's time for a major overhaul of our intelligence services.
Bobby Cullari 2 days ago
Christopher Wray could quit? OMG! Let's hide the truth from the American people to make Christopher Wray happy! The fake news
media is suddenly against the truth exposed.
Once again you show your true colors. As for Christopher Wray, quit! NOBODY CARES!
zardos3 2 days ago (Edited)
In his book, "All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump," author Ed Klein said that a highly reliable source informed him that
his source was at a meeting where Obama authorized the FBI & Justice Department to abuse our FISA system.
zardos3 2 days ago (Edited)
Chris Wray appears to be a combination of Inspector Clouseau & Bozo the Clown. He either agrees with what the rogues in the
FBI did or else he's way in over his head.
Wray should have looked into this long ago (assuming he had the capability of investigating & comprehending what happened); he
should have gotten rid of any bad actors; he should have prosecuted any persons in the Bureau that violated the law; & he
should have restored the FBI to the honorable & faithful public servant it was intended to be.
Instead, he appears to be either manipulated by, or faithful to, the rogues in government that ran amok & likely committed
criminal acts in the process.
Meanwhile, President Trump tweeted on Saturday morning that the FISA memo had "totally
vindicated" him - despite the "Russian Witch Hunt" continuing.
• Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
This memo totally vindicates "Trump" in probe. But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and
on. Their was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after
one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead). This is an American
disgrace!
9:40 AM-Feb 3, 2018
Trump then quotes a Wall Street Journal article which says "the FBI became a tool of
anti-Trump political actors.
• Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
"The four page memo released Friday reports the disturbing fact about how the FBI and
FISA appear to have been used to influence the 2016 election and its aftermath....The FBI
failed to inform the FISA court that the Clinton campaign had funded the dossier....the FBI
became....
7:40 PM-Feb 3, 2018
• Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
...a tool of anti-Trump political actors. This is unacceptable in a democracy and ought
to alarm anyone who wants the FBI to be a nonpartisan enforcer of the law....The FBI wasn't
straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators." Wall Street
Journal
7:53 PM-Feb 3, 2018
Some have suggested that Trump is now contemplating firing Rosenstein while give Mueller 30
days to present all evidence gathered thus far before shutting down his probe, although that
move is sure to be met with renewed claims by Democrats that Trump will launch a constitutional
crisis should he interfere in the probe in any way.
"Robust regime of oversight" is a joke. Powerful intelligence agencies which are immanent feature of the national security state
tend to acquire control off MSM and never relinquish it.
Notable quotes:
"... There are heroes out there, Dobson of F&F, Binney, Drake, Snowden and others. But the majority of the ppl are kept in the dark via the enemedia. Those who make waves are sent to job Siberia ..."
"... So guilty or not, Carter Page is in the clear. And if the FBI's knowledge of Mike Flynns payment for "lobbying" for Turkey were discovered while the FBI was monitoring Page and his known associates, then the charges against Flynn will be dropped and he will be free and clear as well. ..."
It wasn't the bombshell everyone hoped for. But the release of the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) memo did corroborate
what we already knew: the government is corrupt.
The FISA Memo Overview: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton Campaign paid Christopher Steele
$160,000 to dig up information on Trump team members including Carter Page. Steele also provided this information to the FBI.
The FBI and DOJ asked the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) for permission to surveil Page, using the Steele Dossier
as evidence. They did not disclose that Steele was paid by political opponents of their target to compile the information presented
to the court. Based on probable cause from the information amassed by a democrat operative, the court granted their surveillance
request.
So the Republicans are upset a government agency targeted a GOP ally based on information provided by political opponents. That
seems like a valid complaint.
We should note that the FISA memo specifically states that "DOJ and FBI sought and received a probable cause order (not under
title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from FISC."
That just means that are other parts of FISA that also use secretive proceedings to ignore due process.
So the GOP likes some mass surveillance that violates rights, just not when it targets one of their own.
They seem to think if we just had the right people in power then the government could work for good!
Basic logic says you could not have this level of corruption if they have this much access to everyones data. Unless it was
all being used by the corrupt only.
Its a fair point. It took years to find out "most of the truth" about Fast & Furious and the weaponizing the IRS (again)
against political opponents, surely if there were any "boy scouts believing in truth, justice and the American way", they would
have came forward. But they didn't.
There are heroes out there, Dobson of F&F, Binney, Drake, Snowden and others. But the majority of the ppl are kept in the
dark via the enemedia. Those who make waves are sent to job Siberia or have their homes raided as an example to future whistle
blowers. Just like the populace, too many followers willing to accept their 30 pieces of silver for quiet instead of standing
for principle.
Agreed. But are there enough is the question. People being what they are, they come with all sorts of personalities and belief
systems. There are those who blindly follow orders without any moral or ethical compass, just doing what they are paid for. Then,
there are those with that compass who follow orders anyways knowing its wrong in the hope someone else will straighten it out.
Then you have the Snowdens, Binneys etc of the world who are willing to face ostracization, the character assassination (or
real assassination), loss of family, liberty and possessions for what is a right for all of us.
I would hazard a guess that its less than 10% but on the optimistic side...I think that number is growing ;-)
Id like to see where they stand if there is no chance of a payday for them. A put up or shut up moment is needed. The boy scouts
to feral ratio looks pretty bad.
Ummm...wait...didn't we have Manning, Snowden and Drake? They came forward and told us the truth. All of them were branded
traitors and 2 out of the 3 were prosecuted for telling us.
Excellent article. One of the take aways is: if you think that this is going to manifest itself in any improvement in these
practices, you are sorely mistaken. Did Trump undo Obama's 11th hour executive order distributing the NSA US-surveillance information
to all other intelligence agencies? Not.
Secret police, secret courts, secret investigations, using secret police against political opponents, news media performing
as instruments of propaganda, widespread surveillance of all public communications, and conspiring with foreign agents to overthrow
a government. The U.S. has arrived at the Finland Station. To any clear thinking person in the U.S. government, these secret police
agencies, their endless abuses of the ability to "classify" information, their secret courts, and their secret investigations
must come to an end and be constrained by the rule of law and subject to some form of public of scrutiny. Therefore, why have
Trump and his junta and the Republicans in congress not begun legislation to end the totalitarian regime that Washington has become?
There can be only one reason. They have not ended these totalitarian measures because they seek to use them. Against who? Against
all the "enemies of the state." Who is an "enemies of the state?" Whoever the military decides is an enemy of the state. That
could be you. Get out of that country, right now.
Get out of the U.S.........and go where??? The U.S. is the last, best, hope of mankind in this fallen world. When we fall,
darkness will descend upon all of mankind.
Our constitution was designed to govern a moral and religious people. The U. S. was founded by geniuses. We are now being governed
and led by self-serving idiots.
......And we are no longer a moral and religious people.
Too many crooks in high positions. FISA is not Constitutional. Many years ago, pro wrestling champ Verne Gagne started out
a match with Mad Dog Vashon by viciously attacking him. He broke the rules. But Mad Dog Vashon readily broke the rules repeatedly
in all his matches. Sometimes the good guys break the rules to get rid of the bad guys who pay no attention to them. Same here.
It is NEVER right to do wrong...to do right! The ends NEVER justify the means. Once you go down that slippery slope as a man,
society, government, etc., you are DONE. It is only a matter of time, Mr. Lincoln.
trying to blame the GOP for the indiscriminate abuses of the Democrats is reprehensible. Appointing a chief of police does
NOT authorize the rampant lawlessness he may produce......... when the inofrmants lie to the cops, bad results occur....
+1, but having been involved with Repugnican politics, the memo shouldn't be used to reinforce the illusion that Repugnicans
are in true opposition to the DemonRats. In reality, we have a Uniparty system. The memo does expose .gov's total lack of credibility
because its own law enforcement agencies are corrupt.
In its deeper context, what the FISA Memo CONFIRMED is that.. the America you thought existed, if it ever did, is now just
a fantasy, a fond 'Norman Rockwell' memory... superceded by ZOG USSA, a Rogue Entity - beholden to a 5th Column Cabal of Mega
Criminals controlling over 5000 nuclear weapons - masquerading as a "Legitimate Government". JFK had his brains blown out
for even suggesting such an eventuality - that has now transpired - in his last public speech.
Fewer then 40% of Americans now trust the fbi. Unless Wray or Congress does something, their cred will drop further and crime
will increase since 90% of obeying the law is psychological respect for the law enforcement agencies. If they don't get that back,
people will just spit in their faces when they come to the door.
What planet are you on? "Spit in their faces"? Lol, that's funny right there. All over the western world, governments
are breaking laws, stomping on rights, invading their own countries with 3rd world, radical foreigners, taking out debt so they
can live off the backs of several generations that haven't even been born yet.......and what are the people doing about it? Not
one damn meaningful thing. All they know to do is trust in another goobermint agency to fix another goobermint agency.
What do you think happens when you find out your cook and butler have slowly been poisoning you for weeks? You think they say,
"Oh, gee, we're sorry and won't ever do it again."? No, the jig is up, and they pull out a revolver and shoot you in the head,
or wrestle you down and smother your weak ass. Either way, "finding out the truth" only hastens your demise, unless you or a brother
who just happened to show up can kill them before they kill you.
All we have done here is acquire the truth we are being killed by those who are supposed to serve us. You wait until they come
to your door, and you are dead already. "Spitting" or any action on that level is a joke.
It's not the Agencies that are corrupt, it's is the people in these Agencies that are Corrupt.
And it's these People the Public can not vote for or get rid of them. Even the President can't Fire anybody in these Agencies.
Just removing one or two bad Apples is not going to save the Bunch, and that's the real problem. Does the USA really need
all these, NOT so secret Spy Agencies ? But in true US Fashion, they will probably add another Spy Agency to Spy on the
other US Agencies.
"They are just fighting for the upper hand over their political opponents. This is not freedom versus tyranny.
It is a war of factions ."
Exactly right. It was hypocritical to withhold the FISA memo until after the vote on extending and expanding 702.
It's not just the FBI and DOJ who are corrupt. That said, Nunes provided a weapon to begin ferreting out these weasels.
It needs to be used with maximum effectiveness. Long live the Republic!
However, they need to keep it the way it is until they rout out the components of the government that are controlled by the
elite international power-brokers.
Just like J. Edgar Hoover had everyone in Congress blackmailed, the elite have evidence of everyone in the government they
need to control in compromised status. The elite lost control of the USA Corporation in 2016, when Puerto Rico filed bankruptcy.
Now there is a fight by the heads of that corporation to try to wrestle back control of our nation. Let them use whatever tools
they need to use until the wicked witch is dead!
A tid-bit that should not be lost on us when we consider the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier is that Steele admitted
to PAYING his russian "informants" for the information that he included in his report. So not only is the information he used
"salacious and unverified", it is also inadmissible as evidence in US court...ANY US court. So even IF, the FBI did not know that
the DNC paid for the dossier, and even IF, the FBI believed the allegations to be true, the FISA warrant they obtained is invalid
and any evidence gathered as a result is inadmissible.
So guilty or not, Carter Page is in the clear. And if the FBI's knowledge of Mike Flynns payment for "lobbying" for Turkey
were discovered while the FBI was monitoring Page and his known associates, then the charges against Flynn will be dropped and
he will be free and clear as well.
I still haven't figured out why Trump hasn't blanket pardoned everyone in his administration. He can pardon a cocksucking illegal
immigrant slavelord, but can't pardon Manafort and Flynn for procedural crimes? WTF...
I don't think people are desensitized to the corruption. We just know that when the smoke clears, none of the big players are
going to jail, and it'll be business as usual. Trump needs an epic win against the swamp, with someone bigger than a deputy assistant
whatever going to prison.
'What the FISA Memo Reveals about the FBI, DNC, GOP–and the sketchy timeline' That the rule of law is effectively, Dead.
Here, try this on for a headline, TDB: 'What the failure to prosecute Hillary Rodham Clinton reveals about the rule of law in
America'
"... I can tell you a congressional source tells me that Rod Rosenstein in a meeting three weeks ago threatened Chairman Nunes and members of Congress he was going to subpoena their texts and messages because he was tired of dealing with the intel committee. That's threats and intimidation and retaliation. - Greg Jarrett ..."
"... Rosenstein was named in the four-page FISA memo as both signing off on one or more FISA applications on behalf of the DOJ, and working closely with then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr - who was demoted for failing to reveal his ties to the author of the infamous 35-page "Trump-Russia" dossier. ..."
"... The only reason there isn't a Special Prosecutor appointed is because Rod Rosenstein is one of the Felons. He will block all attempts for Justice to be done, since he's Guilty as Hell. ..."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to subpoena the "texts and messages" of House Intel Committee Chairman Devin
Nunes and other members of Congress, according to legal analyst Greg Jarrett.
I can tell you a congressional source tells me that Rod Rosenstein in a meeting three weeks ago threatened Chairman Nunes and
members of Congress he was going to subpoena their texts and messages because he was tired of dealing with the intel committee.
That's threats and intimidation and retaliation. - Greg Jarrett
Rosenstein was named in the
four-page FISA memo
as both signing off on one or more FISA applications on behalf of the DOJ, and working closely with then-Associate Deputy Attorney
General Bruce Ohr - who was demoted for failing to reveal his ties to the author of the infamous 35-page "Trump-Russia" dossier.
Moments after the announcement that the memo was declassified, Trump spoke to reporters and was asked if the memo makes it more
likely that he will fire Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, to which Trump responded:
The only reason there isn't a Special Prosecutor appointed is because Rod Rosenstein is one of the Felons. He will block all
attempts for Justice to be done, since he's Guilty as Hell.
The people named in this memo committed Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, and in some cases perhaps Treason.
But nothing will happen, since these people are Above the Law.
Consider what would motivate Hillary/Obama and their minions in the government to try to
take out Trump after losing the election. They are potentially committing treason via their
efforts to setup Trump for an obstruction of justice charge for a supposed crime (colluding
with Russia) that isn't on the books, isn't illegal, and for which no evidence (other than
the made up dossier that was illegally used to obtain a FISA warrant, and that doesn't
include the surveillance of foreign communications with Trump people that was spread around
among Obama supporters) exists, and which didn't happen.
I'd bet that Putin's hackers (great hackers according to Obama/Hillary) did get Hillary's
emails, including the 20 with Obama suspiciously using an alias, and used them to blackmail
Obama and Hillary into appeasement and flexibility.
Obama did promise Russian President
Medvedev that he'd "have more flexibility after the [2012] election" on a hot microphone,
begging the question of what flexibility did he give before and why? The circumstantial
evidence of Obama's appeasement for Russia's allies (help Syria fighting ISIS, a great deal
for Iran leaving US prisoners in its jails, doing nothing significant regarding the Crimea
invasion) and the sale of US uranium while keeping the Russian bribery and extortion in the
US to obtain it hidden from the CIFUS committee, strongly suggests they were blackmailed.
Why
did the Russian ambassador visit Obama's White House 22 times? Search the internet for
"Hillary Putin photos" and you'll see him whispering in her ear, she freaking out, and him
laughing just like he told her he had her emails with some of the details so she knew.
There's probably other actions Obama took for Russia's interests.
Thus, to keep this treason covered up, they had to cover up her email server crimes,
ensure she won the election, and to get rid of Trump via a fake obstruction of justice
charge, to keep it covered up.
I'm wondering where Seth
Rich fits into the whole
scenario.
Did he
discover the Hillary/DNC
plot? Was he going to
leak that information?
I'm not sure if the
timeline surrounding his
death fits, but I'm
curious about it.
Can someone here add
some clarification on
this hypothesis?
long winded, but you could start here for some lite bg reading on the
events of the summer of 2016:
July 10, 2016
: DNC
staffer Seth Rich, whose title is reported as "voter expansion data
director," is murdered in the street near his home in Washington, DC.
The police will attribute his murder to robbery, although nothing was
stolen from Rich. His murder remains unsolved.
Here, thanks to William Craddick of
Disobedient Media
, is the crime report, which tells us that three of
the officers at the scene were wearing body cams.
"
I
mran Awan, the former DNC staffer who was arrested
this week while trying to flee the United States, was with Seth Rich the
night of his murder, according to new photographic evidence.
Police who originally investigated the murder suggested that Seth
Rich might have been killed by someone he knew, due to the lack of
struggle. The killer also took nothing from the victim, leaving behind
his wallet containing $2000, watch and phone.
The photo, which directly links Imran Awan to Seth Rich, also links
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Awan's former employer, to the former Seth
Rich's death.
there's bunches more available via your favorite search engine, but
that might pique your curiosity.
So now we can also talk about "collision" between of MI6 and neocons in State Department.
Notable quotes:
"... While it is unclear what role the State Department may have in surveillance abuses, the Washington Examiner 's Byron York noted last month that former MI6 spy, Christopher Steele, was "well-connected with the Obama State Department," according to the book Collusion: Secret meetings, dirty money, and how Russia helped Donald Trump win" written by The Guardian correspondent Luke Harding and published last November. ..."
"... Congressional investigators have been looking into whether Steele compiled other reports about Trump - and in particular, whether those other reports made their way to the State Department, according to The Examiner . ..."
"... Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland , who was in charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis... ..."
"... Excellent - except that Nuland wasn't responding to the Ukraine crisis. She started the whole thing. Thousands killed. Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up ..."
"... "Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland..." And how much of THIS "material" was ever successfully corroborated? ..."
"... Was Steele just a successful fiction writer with a very specialized audience for his "works"? ..."
While it is unclear what role the State Department may have in surveillance abuses, the
Washington Examiner's Byron York noted last month that former MI6 spy, Christopher Steele, was "well-connected
with the Obama State Department," according to the book Collusion: Secret meetings, dirty money, and how Russia helped
Donald Trump win" written by The Guardian correspondent Luke Harding and published last November.
Harding notes that
Steele's work during the World Cup soccer corruption investigation earned the trust of both the FBI and the State Department:
The [soccer] episode burnished Steele's reputation inside the U.S. intelligence community and the FBI. Here was a pro, a well-connected
Brit, who understood Russian espionage and its subterranean tricks. Steele was regarded as credible. Between 2014 and 2016, Steele
authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the
State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland , who was in
charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis.
Many of Steele's secret sources were the same sources who would supply information
on Trump. One former State Department envoy during the Obama administration said he read dozens of Steele's reports on Russia.
The envoy said that on Russia, Steele was "as good as the CIA or anyone." Steele's professional reputation inside U.S. agencies
would prove important the next time he discovered alarming material, and lit the fuse again.
Aside from the infamous 35-page "Trump-Russia" dossier Steele assembled for opposition research firm Fusion GPS (a report which
was funded in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC), Congressional investigators have been looking into whether Steele compiled
other reports about Trump - and in particular, whether those other reports made their way to the State Department, according to The
Examiner .
... they are looking into whether those reports made their way to the State Department . They're also seeking to learn what
individual State Department officials did in relation to Steele, and whether there were any contacts between the State Department
and the FBI or Justice Department concerning the anti-Trump material .
It will be interesting to see how the State Department - and in particular Secretary of State Rex Tillerson - responds to "phase
two."
" Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a
private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland , who was in charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis... "
Excellent - except that Nuland wasn't responding to the Ukraine crisis. She started the whole thing. Thousands killed.
Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up!
"Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client
but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland..." And how much of THIS "material" was ever successfully corroborated?
Was Steele just a successful fiction writer with a very specialized audience for his "works"?
In the period preceding the World War I how many Europeans suspected that their lives would
soon be forever changed – and, for millions of them, ended?
Who in the years, say, 1910 to 1913, could have imagined that the decades of peace,
progress, and civilization in which they had grown up, and which seemingly would continue
indefinitely, instead would soon descend into a horror of industrial-scale slaughter,
revolution, and brutal ideologies?
The answer is, probably very few, just as few people today care much about the details of
international and security affairs. Normal folk have better things to do with their lives.
To be sure, in that bygone era of smug jingosim , there was always the entertainment
aspect that "our" side had forced "theirs" to back down in some exotic locale, as in the
Fashoda incident
(1898) or the Moroccan
crises (1906, 1911). Even the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 seemed less a harbinger of the
cataclysm to come than local dustups on the edge of the continent where the general peace had
not been disturbed even by the much more disruptive Crimean or Franco-Prussian wars.
Besides, no doubt level-headed statesmen were in charge in the various capitals, ensuring
that things wouldn't get out of hand.
Until they did.
A notable exception to the prevailing mood of business-as-usual, nothing-to-see-here-folks
was Pyotr Durnovo, whose remarkable February 1914
memorandum to Tsar Nicholas II laid out not only what the great powers would do in the
approaching general war but the behavior of the minor countries as well. Moreover, he
anticipated that in the event of defeat, Russia, destabilized by unchecked socialist
"agitation" amid wartime hardships, would "be flung into hopeless anarchy, the issue of which
cannot be foreseen." Germany, likewise, was "destined to suffer, in case of defeat, no lesser
social upheavals" and "take a purely revolutionary path" of a nationalist hue.
When the great powers blundered into war in August 1914, each confident of its ability
speedily to dispatch its rivals, the price (adding in the toll from the 1939-1945 rematch) was
upwards of 70 million lives. But the cost of a comparable mistake today might be literally
incalculable – if there's anyone left to do the tally.
During the first Cold War between the US and the USSR, there was a general sense that a
World War III was, in a word, unthinkable. As summed up by Ronald Reagan: " A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be
fought ." Then, it was understood that all-out war, however it started, meant massed ICBMs
over the North Pole and the "
end of civilization as we know it ."
'The 2018 NPR has a vision of nuclear conflict that goes far beyond the traditional
imagery of mass missile launches. While ICBMs and manned bombers will be maintained on a
day-to-day alert, the tip of the nuclear spear is now what the NPR calls "supplemental"
nuclear forces – dual-use aircraft such as the F-35 fighter armed with B-61 gravity
bombs capable of delivering a low-yield nuclear payload, a new generation of nuclear-tipped
submarine-launched cruise missiles, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles tipped with a
new generation of low-yield nuclear warheads. The danger inherent with the integration of
these kinds of tactical nuclear weapons into an overall strategy of deterrence is that it
fundamentally lowers the threshold for their use. [ ]
'Noting that the United States has never adopted a "no first use" policy, the 2018 NPR
states that "it remains the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding
the precise circumstances that might lead to a US nuclear response." In this regard, the NPR
states that America could employ nuclear weapons under "extreme circumstances that could
include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks." The issue of "non-nuclear strategic
attack technologies" as a potential precursor for nuclear war is a new factor that previously
did not exist in American policy. The United States has long held that chemical and
biological weapons represent a strategic threat for which America's nuclear deterrence
capability serves as a viable counter. But the threat from cyber attacks is different. If for
no other reason than the potential for miscalculation and error in terms of attribution and
intent, the nexus of cyber and nuclear weapons should be disconcerting for everyone. [ ]
'Even more disturbing is the notion that a cyber intrusion such as the one perpetrated
against the Democratic National Committee and attributed to Russia could serve as a trigger
for nuclear war. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. The DNC event has been
characterized by influential American politicians, such as the Armed Services Committee
Chairman John McCain, as "
an act of war ." Moreover, former vice president Joe Biden hinted that, in the aftermath
of the DNC breach, the United States was launching a retaliatory
cyberattack of its own, targeting Russia. The possibility of a tit-for-tat exchange of
cyberattacks that escalates into a nuclear conflict would previously have been dismissed out
of hand; today, thanks to the 2018 NPR, it has entered the realm of the possible.'
The idea that a first-strike Schlieffen Plan could knock out the
Russians (and no doubt similar contingencies are in place for China) at the outset of
hostilities reflects a dangerous illusion of predictability. Truth may be the first casualty of
war, but "the plan" is inevitably the second. That's because war planners generally don't
consult the enemy, who – annoyingly for the planners – also gets a vote.
Recently
US Secretary of State James Mattis declared that "great power competition – not
terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security," specifying Russia and
China as nations seeking to "create a world consistent with their authoritarian models,
pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions." At
least we can drop the pretense that US policy has been to fight jihad terrorism, not to use it
as a policy tool in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria, and elsewhere. And of course
Washington never, ever meddles in "other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions"
. . .
At this point Trump is fastened to the neocons' and generals' axle, and all he can do is
spin. Echoing Mattis, in his State of the Union speech Trump lumped "rivals like
China and Russia" together with "rogue regimes" and "terrorist groups" as "horrible dangers" to
the United States. (Note: The word "horrible" does not appear in the
posted text . That evidently was Trump's adlib.) The recently issued "name and shame" list
of prominent Russians is a veritable Who's Who of government and business, ensuring that
there's no
American engagement with anyone within screaming distance of the Kremlin .
To be fair, the Russians and Chinese are making their own war preparations. Russia's
"Kanyon," a doomsday nuclear torpedo carrying a massive warhead, is
designed to obliterate the U.S east and west coasts , rendering them inhabitable for
generations. (Wait a minute. Is it any coincidence, Comrade, that the coastal cities are just
where the Democrats' electoral strength is? Talk about "collusion!" Somebody call Bob Mueller!)
For its part, China is developing means to eliminate our white elephant carrier groups –
handy for pummeling Third World backwaters but useless in a war with a major power – with
drone swarms and
hypersonic missiles .
Just as in 1914, when Durnovo referred to "presence of abundant combustible material in
Europe," there is any
number of global flashpoints that could turn Mattis's "great power competition" into a
major conflagration that probably was not desired by anyone. However, if the worst happens, and
the lamps go
out again – maybe this time forever – Americans will not again be immune from
the consequences as we were in the wars of the 20th century. The remainder of our lives,
however brief, might turn out very differently from what we had anticipated
You need to listed the interview to understand comments.
Notable quotes:
"... Two Wings Of The Same Dragon: President Bush Plans To Vote For Hillary Clinton ..."
"... Oh sure, it's a hard first minute or two, what with your whole worldview likely to be rocked to its core as you come to realize that you've been embarrassingly duped, played like a cheap violin ..."
"... The corruption part is easy to understand. The part I do not understand, is exactly how in the fuck Strzok, Ohr and McCabe, etc. are still getting a government paycheck. ..."
"... "State Department" = Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ..."
"... "We are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation, which involves other departments, specifically the State Department and some of the involvement that they had in this," said Nunes. ..."
"... The question is how fucking wide was this warrant is they were spying on the Trump campaign and the Trump Administration AFTER the subject of the warrant was already GONE from the campaign when the initial warrant was issued. ..."
"... Page may have been an easier target due to a trip to Russia. But once they hook into him they effectively hook into his networks ..."
"... We bought dirt from some folks. We used it to lie to some folks. To spy on some folks. Who were trying to win an election against some folks. Who were our folks ..."
"... "Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland , who was in charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis..." ..."
"... Excellent - except that Nuland wasn't responding to the Ukraine crisis. She started the whole thing. Thousands killed. Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up! ..."
Two Wings Of The Same Dragon: President Bush Plans To Vote For Hillary Clinton |
You need to put down whatever GOP supplied crack pipe you may have been regularly smoking and/or put down the Republican/Democrat,
Left/Right paradigm tinted glasses you've been viewing the world through and just take a sec to look at the real world as it actually
is .
Oh sure, it's a hard first minute or two, what with your whole worldview likely to be rocked to its core as you come to realize
that you've been embarrassingly duped, played like a cheap violin, and spun like a top for years (likely decades for many of you)
by your favorite talk show hosts, politicians, entertainers, and even many of your favorite pastors, but that's how detox works.
Well, the Clinton Crime family IS one of the most experienced money launderers on the planet so the evidence showing their
involvement will be difficult, if not impossible to obtain.
BUT
Based on motive they were the ones who would gain and taking a page from the Dems own playbook hammering them with accusations
should be enough to convince the world it was them.
The corruption part is easy to understand. The part I do not understand, is exactly how in the fuck Strzok, Ohr and McCabe,
etc. are still getting a government paycheck. If this isn't enough reason to fire them, then how exactly are they ever going to
be fired? Will they simply just be 'demoted' to Guantonamo? The fucking absurdity is beyond belief. Does Clinton still have access
to government servers?
Due to the speed of Jeff Sessions and the DOJ, it could take until we all die of old age. Perhaps we need to start the pressure
ourselves. Call your congressman, call your Senator, petition the WH, start a Twitter feed like #WeWantJustice or #HangEmHigh
or #DOJFBItreason. It worked with #ReleaseTheMemo.
Let's help Trump get started draining the swamp. Start a little fire under Jeff's butt.
"State Department" = Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
"We are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation, which involves other departments, specifically
the State Department and some of the involvement that they had in this," said Nunes.
I have a question about this warrant and how it relates to the POTUS. The warrant is on Carter Page, Carter Page left the Trump
campaign in September of 2016.
The first FISA warrant on Page was issued in October 2016 and three subsequent renewals would have it active as late as November
2017.
The question is how fucking wide was this warrant is they were spying on the Trump campaign and the Trump Administration AFTER
the subject of the warrant was already GONE from the campaign when the initial warrant was issued.
IOW, just WTF is going on here? The answer seems obvious, it was a coup attempt using Carter Page as an excuse.
So was the FISA warrant issued on Page or Candidate Trump?
We bought dirt from some folks. We used it to lie to some folks. To spy on some folks. Who were trying to win an election against
some folks. Who were our folks
My rough guess is at least 80% of the State dept needs to be replaced. All Obama appointees should be fired effective
immediately. All pro-terrorist employees should also be fired. Pakistanis and others whose "roots" are from terrorist
ancestries should get a very close examination since they may not exactly be loyal to America.
"Between 2014 and 2016, Steele authored more than a hundred reports on Russia and Ukraine. These were written for a private
client but shared widely within the State Department and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and to Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland , who was in charge of the U.S. response to the Ukraine crisis..."
Excellent - except that Nuland wasn't responding to the Ukraine crisis. She started the whole thing. Thousands killed.
Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up!
"... The question is how fucking wide was this warrant is they were spying on the Trump campaign and the Trump Administration AFTER the subject of the warrant was already GONE from the campaign when the initial warrant was issued. ..."
I have a question about this warrant and how it relates to the POTUS. The warrant is on
Carter Page, Carter Page left the Trump campaign in September of 2016.
The first FISA warrant on Page was issued in October 2016 and three subsequent renewals
would have it active as late as November 2017.
The question is how fucking wide was this warrant is they were spying on the Trump
campaign and the Trump Administration AFTER the subject of the warrant was already GONE from
the campaign when the initial warrant was issued.
IOW, just WTF is going on here? The answer seems obvious, it was a coup attempt using
Carter Page as an excuse.
So was the FISA warrant issued on Page or Candidate Trump?
"... Then Bruce Ohr, the spouse of Nellie Ohr, who has a background in anti-narcotics and the anti-drug agenda at the Dept. of Justice, he all of a sudden starts meeting with Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele, and he valets this fake dossier, paid for by the DNC, into the Dept. of Justice. ..."
"... The Dept. of Justice and the FBI then use the fake dossier as a basis for a FISA warrant to spy on American citizens. And the reason you know that is because of Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, the same Andrew McCabe whose wife got $700,000 from the closest allies of the Clinton family. Andrew McCabe testifies that there never would have been a FISA warrant, but for the dossier. ..."
"... Then the FISA warrant is in process, it is being sought. To validate the fake dossier, the Dept. of Justice and FBI use an article written by Mr. Isikoff of Yahoo News to be the validating information for the dossier. What's the problem with that? Christopher Steele is the very person who planted the article at Yahoo News. So you've got a fake dossier, paid for by the Democratic Party, served into the process by the spouse of someone hired, functionally, by the Democratic Party, and then validated by a news article planted by the very author of the dossier. It is outrageous, but it gets worse from there. ..."
"... No matter what happens, the FBI needs to be revamped. It cannot be a political organization that has zombies planted in it's organization ready to destroy the next POTUS because of party politics. Since J. Edgar Hoover and COINTELPRO, the FBI has been a law unto itself. ..."
"Round
up the usual suspects," will be as far as the Democrats will be willing to go in the wake of
the FISA memo's release. There is nothing in that memo that anyone following the Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation doesn't already know.
All the memo does is corroborate the bread crumbs left behind by a drip feed of leaks,
counter-leaks and good ol' fashioned investigative journalism. Since the memo is based on
actual evidence that the FBI admits is real but will not allow us to see, the memo itself can
be taken as fact.
The FBI has the evidence. They've showed it to the House Intelligence Committee. Both agree
on the facts. So, by extension, the memo is all the evidence we need.
Put that in your DNC-scripted talking point pipe and blow it out your ass.
Conclusions
Matter
Now that the timeline and paper trail have been determined the real implications of the memo
and its facts can be discussed. I'm no longer interested in the game of cut and thrust to stop
the truth from coming out.
I'm only interested now in the conclusions we can draw from the memo itself.
And those conclusions are chilling.
The out-going Obama administration, at the highest levels in coordination with the media,
conspired to create news stories that supported a FISA warrant based on politically-motivated
opposition research to undermine the newly-elected President of the United States.
Moreover, it knowingly omitted material facts to the court not once, but four times, to keep
that surveillance warrant open in service of this operation. A warrant the FBI deputy director,
Andrew McCabe, testified under oath to Congress that was key to its issuance.
They knew the dossier on Trump, compiled by Michael Steele, was unverifiable. They hid its
origin and motivation from the court. The information from this warrant and the details of the
dossier were used to move public opinion and Congress into supporting Robert Mueller's
investigation.
But, to what end? To disgrace and force from office the President of the United States.
Thus, these people, and the leadership of the Democratic Party, President Obama himself and
Hillary Clinton's staff all conspired to criminally disenfranchise more than 60 million
Americans who voted for Donald Trump.
To say that this is bigger than Watergate is like calling World War II a minor
kerfuffle.
What About the Voters!?
Think about this for one second and you know what I'm saying.
All of these people are guilty, at a minimum of corruption, conspiracy and fraud. I'm no
legal scholar, so I'm sure the list of offenses is longer than one of Hillary Clinton's tirades
after someone criticized her latest pantsuit atrocity.
This ultimately opens all of these organizations up to the biggest civil rights class action
lawsuit in the history of this country. The Obama administration and the Democratic Party used
opposition research to paint a false narrative of corruption in the Oval Office to discredit
the election.
How many riots and street demonstrations did we see in 2017 as outraged and triggered
liberals ran around smashing in windows and beating people up because of their delusion based
on a lie?
How many hours of lost productivity did the country suffer because of FBI complicity in an
operation to overturn a legal election?
How many millions in property damage? Destroyed careers?
What about the direct victims of this disgusting display of government corruption taken to
its logical conclusion?
Why is Michael Flynn nearly bankrupt after being hounded by Mueller for months only to get a
nothing guilty plea on the thinnest of procedural offenses? When the corruption is this venal
isn't it our right under the Constitution to petition our government for a redress of
grievances? Who do we sue?
Because there's material harm here and someone should be held responsible. This began under
Obama's watch. He set this whole process in motion. High ranking members of his cabinet are
directly implicated by the facts in the memo.
And the memo is just the beginning of the discovery phase of this very public
trial.
Government on Trial
But, I want more than that. I want it all out in the open. And I want those responsible,
those for whom the titles, salaries, benefits and power we bestow on them to do our work, to
stand up and be accountable. And if they are too venal, feckless and narcissistic to admit
these things, then we'll drag them through the most embarrassing of show trials.
And that means stripping them of their wealth, power and privilege. It means turning off
their house organs in the media; outing the enablers, leakers, trolls and spooks. It means
releasing everything, unredacted, in the name of national security. It means reminding them of
just how much all of that depends on our consent, not theirs. Because if we don't demand these
things, then next time there won't even be the pretense of an election.
We don't need to 'sway' a single D. We need to jail a good many of them.
This memo is not the only one. Sen Grassley has one coming next week... will add more
butthurt. After Grassley memo comes one from Goodlatte... then comes the report from the IG
Horowitz (remember the 1.4 m pgs release recently? remember he has been working for over a
year with some 400 employees? Hired by Hussein, but like all IGs in his admin hamstringed to
do ANYTHING. A tsunami of indictments are coming. Hang on, enjoy the ride.
Any 'bloodshed' will come from the crazed Dem/Clintonites/Soro paid Antifa idiots - who
have already proved they are violent and against free speech unless it is what they
believe.
POTUS is taking care - going for the roots - any red-blooded American would be doing the
same. Justice is coming. to the Fake News also...
The details of the FISA warrants should be interesting to say the least. Can you imagine
if Meuller has realtime access to bulk data collection on Trump to this day? Did the warrant
allow bugs in the WH, Mar Lago, Camp David, AF1, etc?
One of my main beefs with Trump is his support for illegal surveillance and a bigger
police state. Hopefully the experience of Trump's family being in the crosshairs of the
illegal spying will get his mind right.
Viewing the FISA warrant shenanigans with the context that all the bad actors counted on
"Madame President" making it all go away after she was sworn in is key. I don't imagine most
of them have had a good night's sleep since Nov.5 2016. That they have run through their
playbook to the point they trot out Bobby Kennedy's grandson to give the bolshevik response
to Trump's SOTU in a bald face threat to POTUS is shocking and one would have to assume the
only round left in the cylinder is assassination. If Schumer looked at me the way he was
looking at POTUS during the SOTU I would be glad I usually have a sidearm.
Mrs. Lisa Barsoomian is an attorney; but most importantly is that she is the wife of Rod
Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice. Prior to
that, he served as the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. Surely you don't
want to read about that, therefore check out the 5 facts we found about Mrs. Barsoomian
Rosenstein
50-year-old Mrs. Barsoomian was born on January 15, 1968. She is the daughter of Armenian
immigrants. Together they have two beautiful daughters; Julie, 18, and Allison, 15.
She graduated from Georgetown Law. Moreover, according to reports, she represented Hillary
Clinton, between 1991 to 2017; she also represented Bill Clinton, James Comey, Barack Obama,
Kathleen Sebellius and Robert Muller. Furthermore, Lisa Barsoomian Rosenstein works for R.
Craig Lawrence.
R. Craig Lawrence helped seal Obama's college records to prevent inquiry into his
application for full scholarship as a foreign exchange student.
This is a situation the FBI, DOJ, Democrats and media literally don't want more info in the
public eye. The charade was tailored made to bash and trash the President for two years now.
Putin's Puppet was used in the first debate and all being scripted by Steele and idiots like
FBI Strzok and his horse toothed slut... Carter Page is the one to watch ... he has been
destroyed reputation wise and yet not one interview with Mueller or FBI ...
REP. MATT GAETZ: Here's what we know now as a consequence of this memo: The Democratic
National Committee gave money to the Perkins Law Firm, the Perkins Law Firm then paid the
company Fusion GPS. Fusion GPS then hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of Bruce Ohr, who is a senior
official at the Justice Dept, and they hired Christopher Steele, who went and wrote this fake
dossier. Then Bruce Ohr, the spouse of Nellie Ohr, who has a background in anti-narcotics and
the anti-drug agenda at the Dept. of Justice, he all of a sudden starts meeting with Glenn
Simpson and Christopher Steele, and he valets this fake dossier, paid for by the DNC, into
the Dept. of Justice.
The Dept. of Justice and the FBI then use the fake dossier as a basis for a FISA warrant
to spy on American citizens. And the reason you know that is because of Andrew McCabe, the
former deputy director of the FBI, the same Andrew McCabe whose wife got $700,000 from the
closest allies of the Clinton family. Andrew McCabe testifies that there never would have
been a FISA warrant, but for the dossier.
The dossier is the cause of the FISA warrant, that is from Andrew McCabe, no friend of
Donald Trump.
Then the FISA warrant is in process, it is being sought. To validate the fake dossier, the
Dept. of Justice and FBI use an article written by Mr. Isikoff of Yahoo News to be the
validating information for the dossier. What's the problem with that? Christopher Steele is
the very person who planted the article at Yahoo News. So you've got a fake dossier, paid for
by the Democratic Party, served into the process by the spouse of someone hired,
functionally, by the Democratic Party, and then validated by a news article planted by the
very author of the dossier. It is outrageous, but it gets worse from there.
The FBI the learns that Mr. Steele has been leaking information to the media. so despite
the fact that the FBI has authorized payments to Mr. Steele, they then don't render payment
to Christopher Steele. now, do they go on and alert the court that that has happened?
Absolutely not. The FISA warrant has to be reauthorized every 90 days, and it is reauthorized
multiple times with the signatures on it of the senior officials of the Dept. of Justice all
based on a lie. All based on completely false information that has to be validated by the
authors of the originally false information.
That's what is so outrageous about this. Not only the original lies and the original
application for the FISA warrant, but the reauthorizations and the proof that this entire
narrative is built on a rotten foundation.
So in the coming days and weeks, we're going to be seeking to excersize our oversight
authority, and Democrats will continue to do what they've always done, attack Chairman Devin
Nunes, attack me, attack those of us who are trying to get information in front of the
American people about the basis of these claims.
We're going to keep telling the truth, because this is rotten, and this can never happen
again in the U.S.A.
You'll be hearing from me soon, thanks for tuning in.
So ERGO and in conclusion it takes a ridiculous cunt or a cocksucker to still believe that
this isn't an abuse of power by the top officials at the FBI!
There is no longer an excuse for being a cocksucker or a ridiculous stupid cunt!
No matter what happens, the FBI needs to be revamped. It cannot be a political
organization that has zombies planted in it's organization ready to destroy the next POTUS
because of party politics. Since J. Edgar Hoover and COINTELPRO, the FBI has been a law unto
itself.
In 1989, the U. S. Navy battleship USS Iowa experienced a gun turret explosion that
killed the gun crew operating the 16 inch gun. The Naval Investigative Service (NIS) was
deployed to determine what happened. Instead of conducting a proper investigation of problem
solving for a root cause of the explosion, the NIS agency came up with a zany story of a
crewmember setting off the explosion over an alleged spurned male love affair, et al.
The
investigation had to be taken over and handled by a different team while NIS was dismantled
by the Navy under Congressional directive.
The NIS had become sloppy and an unprofessional
organization, rotten to the core. The new NCIS was launched to replace NIS. The gun turret
explosion root cause was determined by a team at Pax river whereby it was learned that a
misalignment of canisters created the explosion. In summary, the FBI needs to become the
Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Congress must be a Watch Dog and make this happen
immediately.
"... Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio 4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets, backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives. ..."
"... The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available – evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned. ..."
"... As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone. ..."
"... All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder. For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich. ..."
"... So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster ..."
"... In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames. ..."
"... There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.) ..."
"... It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here, a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story. ..."
"... In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... JohnB , 03 February 2018 at 05:17 PM ..."
"... Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat. ..."
"... turcopolier , 03 February 2018 at 06:02 PM ..."
"... It is the closest of all international intelligence relationships. It started in WW2. Before that the Brits were though of as a potential enemy. pl ..."
"... wish you could write more on why the Borg is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them. ..."
"... "There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. " ..."
"... I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them. ..."
"... It is the VERY FACT of Trump EVEN GETTING ELECTED at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it
seems worth sketching out some background, which may also make it easier to see some possible
reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him
not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI
have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in
particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a
very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was
before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in
this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result
of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or some combination of both. Also central have been
hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both in areas now
independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably
Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for
'régime change' projects which it was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the
– inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around
the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from
the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which
produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key
players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri
Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence
agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in
this network was missing at the Inquiry – the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who
disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New
York Times' journalist Barry Meier, which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic.
From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein in 'Newsweek', it seems
likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top
supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a
plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio 4 programme on
16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted
to an account by Shvets, backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed
to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies
was not considered. The – publicly available – evidence of the involvement of
Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the
tapes of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly
recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange
Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet
Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind of identification of incoming aircraft which
radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction of the
facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had
discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest a sale had been completed.
(See
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence
.)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which
London audio editors can produce, very happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and
'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent spooks, as
Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the
notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group
centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder. For
most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on
Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by
Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of
the strategy I have described was to prevent it being totally derailed by the patently
catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in
turn exacerbated the potential 'existential threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing
range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions north of
the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a
radical threat to the whole notion that somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews,
against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later to, as it were,
revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at
all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal'
in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the part of key players to 'double down.' Above
all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian side
that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in
one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think
one could use jihadists without risking 'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming
common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and
military, which was to produce the drastic downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian
nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William Fallon
as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the
cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that material that did in fact establish that both the SBU
and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem that Putin had a
close personal relationship with the mobster .
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen
Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning
to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence
.)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for
which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to
demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's personal
'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to
Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where
he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence
.)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by
a lady called Anne Jablonski who then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious
at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence which would have
established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped
would implicate Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were
doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether Levinson was involved in such attempts, or
genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears that he
fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised
with the collaboration of Russian intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed,
particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation,
related to propaganda wars in which claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium
'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests
that this may have been at Berezovsky's offices on the night before he was supposedly
assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the
'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here, a figure who has played a key role in such wars
in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007
NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for
twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a
writing career with articles in 'CBRNe World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which
the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the Syrian government was
responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was
disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law
into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's death, in August 2012 the British authorities
appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain, but
obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and
corruption of people like Steele, as Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta
looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked
bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many
nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in
some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents state that every
nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet
search for nuclear limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom'
instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility, in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in
any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of ones which
lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved,
scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a
nuclear device which they could easily smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow,
but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide to them. By the
same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and
Litvinenko are conspiring to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in
Russia, so the substance is naturally suited for 'StratCom' directed against that country,
which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make
'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite
wrong – but, even if it were true, would you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these
kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point
about polonium into an article which was concerned with scientific plausibility, one is left
with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to ensure
that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind
of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets
and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties, and the latter's use
of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter
for another day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely
confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according to which Steele was suspended and then
dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation
– is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the
extraordinary decision to have the full dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the
Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation suits, and who may be
trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when
it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without
hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement
is interesting. He is someone I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and
Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these
that benefit the Number One. The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not
US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to
Jablonski? It was reported earlier by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching
Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved he sent her a
lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud
Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to
Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have
kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson? The FBI allowed
Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but
obviously nothing came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US
CIA.
DH,
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you
could write more on why the Borg is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner,
Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anlo-zionist moves in the ME
are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security
problems of a Jewish settler state in the area." It is an open secret that the izzies are the
reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the
Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are,
supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and
doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI
have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in
particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a
very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is
about the above point you are making. Is it your understanding or believe that these IC
individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf of the Borg)
foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that
incoming administration cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US
foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway.
It is not enough that the Borgists get their policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner,
Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the VERY FACT of Trump EVEN GETTING ELECTED at ALL which outrages and terrifies them
so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every
major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected.
The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is
an act of defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable.
And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping
Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg
on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and
they view themselves as waging a counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
"... From what Michael Isikoff reported in September 2016 it appears that the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence (as well as the FBI) are implicated in spreading the disinformation about Trump and Russia. ..."
"... U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue. ..."
"... But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian's leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News ..."
"... Who were the "intelligence officials" briefing the select members of the House and Senate? That will be one of the next shoes to drop. We are likely to learn in the coming days that John Brennan and Jim Clapper were also trying to help the FBI build a fallacious case against Trump, adds Tacitus. ..."
We already noted the opposing
perspectives of those in the media with regard the Nunes' memo as being on the one hand "a
nothing-burger" and on the other "we have never ever in history seen anything like this."
But now we get to hear from the rank-and-file of America's intelligence agencies and, once
again, the perspectives could not be further apart...
First,
as The Hill reports, a former FBI agent says in a new op-ed that he has left the nation's
top law enforcement agency due to the "relentless" attacks on the bureau from critics such as
President Trump and
congressional Republicans.
In an op-ed for The New York Times ,
former supervisory special agent Josh Campbell wrote that "political attacks on the bureau must
stop."
" After more than a decade of service, which included investigating terrorism, working to
rescue kidnapping victims overseas and being special assistant to the director, I am
reluctantly turning in my badge and leaving an organization I love. " Campbell wrote.
"Why? So I can join the growing chorus of people who believe that the relentless attacks
on the bureau undermine not just America's premier law enforcement agency but also the
nation's security," he continued.
"My resignation is painful, but the alternative of remaining quiet while the bureau is
tarnished for political gain is impossible."
Campbell also defended the agency's involvement in the events described in the memo, which
alleges the FBI and Department of Justice abused their surveillance powers.
"[E]very statement of fact included in an affidavit for foreign intelligence collection
must withstand the scrutiny of at least 10 people in the Department of Justice hierarchy
before it is reviewed by an independent court," he wrote.
Campbell goes on to argue it would be "disingenuous" for Republicans to argue that the FBI
is "plotting from within" against Trump or in favor of his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton,
despite text messages between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page seeming to confirm
Strzok's political bias against Trump.
"These political attacks on the bureau must stop. If those critics of the agency persuade
the public that the FBI cannot be trusted, they will also have succeeded in making our nation
less safe," he said.
Campbell's op-ed comes after the publication Friday of Nunes' memo allegedly detailing
abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the FBI.
However, another former intelligence agency operative saw things very differently.
The long-awaited House Intelligence Committee report
made public today identifies current and former top officials of the FBI and the Department of
Justice as guilty of the felony of misrepresenting evidence required to obtain a court warrant
before surveilling American citizens. The target was candidate Donald Trump's adviser Carter
Page.
The main points of what is widely known as the "Nunes Memo," after the House Intelligence
Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have been nicely summarized by blogger
Publius Tacitus , who noted that the following very senior officials are now liable for
contempt-of-court charges; namely, the current and former members of the FBI and the Department
of Justice who signed off on fraudulent applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court: James Comey, Andy McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rob Rosenstein. The following is
Publius Tacitus's summary of the main points:
The dubious but celebrated Steele Dossier played a critical role in obtaining approval
from the FISA court to carry out surveillance of Carter Page according to former FBI Deputy
Director Andy McCabe.
Christopher Steele was getting paid by the DNC and the FBI for the same information.
No one at the FBI or the DOJ disclosed to the court that the Steele dossier was paid for
by an opposition political campaign.
The first FISA warrant was obtained on October 21, 2016 based on a story written by
Michael Isikoff for Yahoo News based on information he received directly from Christopher
Steele -- the FBI did not disclose in the FISA application that Steele was the original
source of the information.
Christopher Steele was a long-standing FBI "source" but was terminated as a source after
telling Mother Jones reporter David Corn that he had a relationship with the FBI.
The FBI signers of the FISA applications/renewals were James Comey (three times) and
Andrew McCabe.
The DOJ signers of the FISA applications/renewals were Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rod
Rosenstein.
Even after Steele was terminated by the FBI, he remained in contact with Deputy Attorney
General Bruce Our, whose wife worked for FUSION GPS, a contractor that was deeply involved
with the Steele dossier.
From what Michael Isikoff reported in September 2016 it appears that the CIA and the
Director of National Intelligence (as well as the FBI) are implicated in spreading the
disinformation about Trump and Russia. Isikoff wrote:
"U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman
identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private
communications with senior Russian officials -- including talks about the possible lifting of
economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources
who have been briefed on the issue. [ ]
"But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same
three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian
deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian's leading oil
company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News."
Who were the "intelligence officials" briefing the select members of the House and Senate?
That will be one of the next shoes to drop. We are likely to learn in the coming days that John
Brennan and Jim Clapper were also trying to help the FBI build a fallacious case against Trump,
adds Tacitus.
Indeed, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has
already indicated that his disclosures in the Nunes Memo represent just "one piece of a
probably much larger mosaic of what went on."
The Media Will Determine What Comes Next
As for Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Intelligence
Committee, it is now abundantly clear why he went to ridiculous lengths, as did the entire
Democratic congressional leadership, to block or impugn the House Intelligence Committee
report.
Until the mid-December revelations of the text messages
between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page turned Russia-gate into FBI/DOJ-gate, Schiff
had been riding high, often hiding behind what
he said "he could not tell" the rest of us.
With the media, including what used to be the progressive media, fully supporting the likes
of Adam Schiff, and the FBI/CIA/NSA deep state likely to pull out all the stops, the die is now
cast. We are in for a highly interesting time over the next months.
* * *
So - which is it? Crime of the century, or political grandstanding, or both?
If you are complicit in the FBI's wrongdoing and don't want to the FBI to be held
accountable or criticised then you should quit or be fired. Right now the FBI should be
interviewing leadership to see where they stand on reform and letting those go that are
status quo thinkers.
FBI "special agent" Josh Campbell is yet another reason why I no longer trust the FBI.
Clearly, he has no problem with specific superiors of his undermining the Constitution of the
United States in order to provide political favors to Hillary Clinton while usurping the
Republic's election process, which I thought, for some reason, they each swore an oath to
protect and defend from enemies foreign AND domestic.
The agents should be loyal to their oath, the Constitution and the Republic - the people
whose rights they ostensibly protect; not loyal to the agency itself, the agency's
"reputation", or the agency's politically appointed superiors while these superiors commit
TREASON.
This is not about the FBI or DOJ, you moron. This is about law and order - and the
individuals who are supposed to respect and protect our republic and its Constitution, but
who turned out to be traitors that conspired against it for political favors.
I lost confidence with the fbi after jfk, mlk, waco, ruby ridge, and 9/11. I mean, fool me
once shame on you, fool me 20 times and why would I trust you.
" These political attacks on the bureau must stop. If those critics of the agency persuade
the public that the FBI cannot be trusted, they will also have succeeded in making our nation
less safe," he said.
When the INTERNAL politicking of the holier-than-thou Bureau is stopped, THEN the
investigations into the Bureau and appropriate actions to stop such political bias and
political weaponization can stop.
Problem: how can we EVER be sure the Deep-Dark State has been successfully checked?
Convincing the country that the FBI cannot be trusted will ultimately make the country
more safe.
But thanks for this glance into the insular world of the smart people who get to make
decisions for everyone else. Secretly. Behind the scenes. Without the Public's knowledge.
Because you know we are the smart people. And you f****** deplorables don't get to know what
we do. That's how it is and that's how we like it so piss off.
And by the way when I evacuate my office I'm taking my picture of Lavrenti Beria with
me.
So, FBI & DOJ leadership are doing bad things, but we're not supposed to criticise
them because their wrongdoing is for best interests of the country. Got it. Why didn't they
just tell us up front that the Constitution and Rule of Law are superseded.
So once again it is a national security issue. The FBI and all intelligence agencies
cannot be reformed nor scrutinized. The deep state like Schiff, Graham, and buddy McCain are
pushing back hard. This quitter agent should quit. He certainly is too weak.
"Former-CIA: "Nunes' memo reveals felony wrongdoing by top members of the FBI and DOJ
..."
The Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA under Brennan was
ground Zero for the Criminal Intelligence Psychological Operation.
Correct it is about law & order. Also, Campbell claims a FISA application has to go
through about 10 levels of hierarchy before being brought forth. Maybe, maybe not. When the
top guns at both FBI & DoJ are involved it only needs a few signatures. The final few.
This could easily have been run by the people named.
"If those critics of the agency persuade the public that the FBI cannot be trusted"
NewsFlash: The FBI CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
Their Leaders committed Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and Treason.
The only reason there isn't a Special Prosecutor appointed is because Rod Rosenstein is
one of the Felons. He will block all attempts for Justice to be done, since he's Guilty as
Hell.
The idea that we all look up to and revere the FBI leadership is ridiculous. For most of
its history, the FBI has been led by corrupt, paranoid, politically motivated hacks who think
they are above the law.
The following directors of the FBI have been forced to resign or fired for breaking
laws/regulations:
1) Bielaski (detained citizens without warrants),
2)Burns (Teapot Dome scandal--spied on and spread lies about Senator Wheeler),
3) Hoover (spied on civil rights activists, tried to blackmail almost every President with
secret surveillance, obstructed/fixed conclusion of Warren Commission investigation, known
cross-dresser)
4) Gray (Destroyed Watergate files),
5) William Sessions (Used FBI resources for home remodel),
6) Comey (knowingly signed misleading FISA warrant request to spy on Trump campaign
officials, used NSA wiretapping to unmask General Flynn and trap him in a purjury charge,
covered-up gross negligence crimes of Hillary Clinton).
Ray McGovern - VIPS - former CIA, has been arrested a lot of times. Speaking up and out
against the Deep State got him arrested. Bravo Ray for speaking out again.
Watch: Bernie Sanders' Response to Trump State of the Union
"Here's the story that Trump failed to mention "
Following President Donald Trump's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered a response.
"I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to Trump's State of the Union speech," Sanders announced. "But I also want
to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, Trump chose not to discuss."
And, he added, "I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty,
and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year."
Watch:
... ... ...
The complete text of Sanders' prepared remarks follow:
Good evening. Thanks for joining us.
Tonight , I want to take a few minutes of your time to respond to President Trump's State of the Union speech. But I want
to do more than just that. I want to talk to you about the major crises facing our country that, regrettably, President Trump chose
not to discuss. I want to talk to you about the lies that he told during his campaign and the promises he made to working people
which he did not keep.
Finally, I want to offer a vision of where we should go as a nation which is far different than the divisiveness, dishonesty,
and racism coming from the Trump Administration over the past year.
President Trump talked tonight about the strength of our economy. Well, he's right. Official unemployment today is 4.1 percent
which is the lowest it has been in years and the stock market in recent months has soared. That's the good news.
But what President Trump failed to mention is that his first year in office marked the lowest level of job creation since
2010. In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 254,000 fewer jobs were created in Trump's first 11 months in office
than were created in the 11 months before he entered office.
Further, when we talk about the economy, what's most important is to understand what is happening to the average worker. And
here's the story that Trump failed to mention tonight .
Over the last year, after adjusting for inflation, the average worker in America saw a wage increase of, are you ready for
this, 4 cents an hour, or 0.17%. Or, to put it in a different way, that worker received a raise of a little more than $1.60 a week.
And, as is often the case, that tiny wage increase disappeared as a result of soaring health care costs.
Meanwhile, at a time of massive wealth and income inequality, the rich continue to get much richer while millions of American
workers are working two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water. Since March of last year, the three richest people in
America saw their wealth increase by more than $68 billion. Three people. A $68 billion increase in wealth. Meanwhile, the average
worker saw an increase of 4 cents an hour.
Tonight , Donald Trump touted the bonuses he claims workers received because of his so-called "tax reform" bill. What he forgot
to mention is that only 2% of Americans report receiving a raise or a bonus because of this tax bill.
What he also failed to mention is that some of the corporations that have given out bonuses, such as Walmart, AT&T, General
Electric, and Pfizer, are also laying off tens of thousands of their employees. Kimberly-Clark, the maker of Kleenex and Huggies,
recently said they were using money from the tax cut to restructure -- laying off more than 5,000 workers and closing 10 plants.
What Trump also forgot to tell you is that while the Walton family of Walmart, the wealthiest family in America, and Jeff
Bezos of Amazon, the wealthiest person in this country, have never had it so good, many thousands of their employees are forced onto
Medicaid, food stamps, and public housing because of the obscenely low wages they are paid. In my view, that's wrong. The taxpayers
of this country should not be providing corporate welfare to the wealthiest families in this country.
Trump's Broken Promises
Now, let me say a few words about some of the issues that Donald Trump failed to mention tonight , and that is the difference
between what he promised the American people as a candidate and what he has delivered as president.
Many of you will recall, that during his campaign, Donald Trump told the American people how he was going to provide "health
insurance for everybody," with "much lower deductibles."
That is what he promised working families all across this country during his campaign. But as president he did exactly the
opposite. Last year, he supported legislation that would have thrown up to 32 million people off of the health care they had while,
at the same time, substantially raising premiums for older Americans.
The reality is that although we were able to beat back Trump's effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, 3 million fewer Americans
have health insurance today than before Trump took office and that number will be going even higher in the coming months.
During his campaign, Trump promised not to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
As president, however, he supported a Republican Budget Resolution that proposed slashing Medicaid by $1 trillion and cutting
Medicare by $500 billion. Further, President Trump's own budget called for cutting Social Security Disability Insurance by $64 billion.
During Trump's campaign for president, he talked about how he was going to lower prescription drug prices and take on the
greed of the pharmaceutical industry which he said was "getting away with murder." Tonight he said "one of my greatest priorities
is to reduce the price of prescription drugs."
But as president, Trump nominated Alex Azar, a former executive of the Eli Lilly Company -- one of the largest drug companies
in this country -- to head up the Department of Health and Human Services.
Trump spoke about how in other countries "drugs cost far less," yet he has done nothing to allow Americans to purchase less
expensive prescription drugs from abroad or to require Medicare to negotiate drug prices – which he promised he would do when he
ran for president.
During the campaign, Donald Trump told us that: "The rich will not be gaining at all" under his tax reform plan.
Well, that was quite a whopper. As president, the tax reform legislation Trump signed into law a few weeks ago provides 83
percent of the benefits to the top one percent, drives up the deficit by $1.7 trillion, and raises taxes on 92 million middle class
families by the end of the decade.
During his campaign for president, Trump talked about how he was going to take on the greed of Wall Street which he said "has
caused tremendous problems for us.
As president, not only has Trump not taken on Wall Street, he has appointed more Wall Street billionaires to his administration
than any president in history. And now, on behalf of Wall Street, he is trying to repeal the modest provisions of the Dodd-Frank
legislation which provide consumer protections against Wall Street thievery.
What Trump Didn't Say
But what is also important to note is not just Trump's dishonesty. It is that tonight he avoided some of the most important
issues facing our country and the world.
How can a president of the United States give a State of the Union speech and not mention climate change? No, Mr. Trump, climate
change is not a "hoax." It is a reality which is causing devastating harm all over our country and all over the world and you are
dead wrong when you appoint administrators at the EPA and other agencies who are trying to decimate environmental protection rules,
and slow down the transition to sustainable energy.
How can a president of the United States not discuss the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision which allows billionaires
like the Koch brothers to undermine American democracy by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to elect candidates who will represent
the rich and the powerful?
How can he not talk about Republican governors efforts all across this country to undermine democracy, suppress the vote and
make it harder for poor people or people of color to vote?
How can he not talk about the fact that in a highly competitive global economy, hundreds of thousands of bright young people
are unable to afford to go to college, while millions of others have come out of school deeply in debt?
How can he not talk about the inadequate funding and staffing at the Social Security Administration which has resulted in
thousands of people with disabilities dying because they did not get their claims processed in time?
How can he not talk about the retirement crisis facing the working people of this country and the fact that over half of older
workers have no retirement savings? We need to strengthen pensions in this country, not take them away from millions of workers.
How can he not talk about the reality that Russia, through cyberwarfare, interfered in our election in 2016, is interfering
in democratic elections all over the world, and according to his own CIA director will likely interfere in the 2018 midterm elections
that we will be holding. How do you not talk about that unless you have a very special relationship with Mr. Putin?
What Trump Did Talk About
Now, let me say a few words about what Trump did talk about.
Trump talked about DACA and immigration, but what he did not tell the American people is that he precipitated this crisis
in September by repealing President Obama's executive order protecting Dreamers.
We need to seriously address the issue of immigration but that does not mean dividing families and reducing legal immigration
by 25-50 percent. It sure doesn't mean forcing taxpayers to spend $25 billion on a wall that candidate Trump promised Mexico would
pay for. And it definitely doesn't mean a racist immigration policy that excludes people of color from around the world.
To my mind, this is one of the great moral issues facing our country. It would be unspeakable and a moral stain on our nation
if we turned our backs on these 800,000 young people who were born and raised in this country and who know no other home but the
United States.
And that's not just Bernie Sanders talking. Poll after poll shows that over 80 percent of the American people believe that
we should protect the legal status of these young people and provide them with a path toward citizenship.
We need to pass the bi-partisan DREAM Act, and we need to pass it now.
President Trump also talked about the need to rebuild our country's infrastructure. And he is absolutely right. But the proposal
he is bringing forth is dead wrong.
Instead of spending $1.5 trillion over ten years rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, Trump would encourage states to
sell our nation's highways, bridges, and other vital infrastructure to Wall Street, wealthy campaign contributors, even foreign governments.
And how would Wall Street and these corporations recoup their investments? By imposing massive new tolls and fees paid for
by American commuters and homeowners.
The reality is that Trump's plan to privatize our nation's infrastructure is an old idea that has never worked and never will
work.
Tonight , Donald Trump correctly talked about the need to address the opioid crisis. Well, I say to Donald Trump, you don't
help people suffering from opioid addiction by cutting Medicaid by $1 trillion. If you are serious about dealing with this crisis,
we need to expand, not cut Medicaid.
Conclusion/A Progressive Agenda
My fellow Americans. The simple truth is that, according to virtually every poll, Donald Trump is the least popular president
after one year in office of any president in modern American history. And the reason for that is pretty clear. The American people
do not want a president who is compulsively dishonest, who is a bully, who actively represents the interests of the billionaire class,
who is anti-science, and who is trying to divide us up based on the color of our skin, our nation of origin, our religion, our gender,
or our sexual orientation.
That is not what the American people want. And that reality is the bad news that we have to deal with.
But the truth is that there is a lot of good news out there as well. It's not just that so many of our people disagree with
Trump's policies, temperament, and behavior. It is that the vast majority of our people have a very different vision for the future
of our country than what Trump and the Republican leadership are giving us.
In an unprecedented way, we are witnessing a revitalization of American democracy with more and more people standing up and
fighting back. A little more than a year ago we saw millions of people take to the streets for the women's marches and a few weeks
ago, in hundreds of cities and towns around the world, people once again took to the streets in the fight for social, economic, racial
and environmental justice.
Further, we are seeing the growth of grassroots organizations and people from every conceivable background starting to run
for office – for school board, city council, state legislature, the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.
In fact, we are starting to see the beginning of a political revolution, something long overdue.
And these candidates, from coast to coast, are standing tall for a progressive agenda, an agenda that works for the working
families of our country and not just the billionaire class. These candidates understand that the United States has got to join the
rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all as a right, not a privilege, through a Medicare for All, single-payer
program.
They understand that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when the top one-tenth of one percent now owns almost
as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, we should not be giving tax breaks for billionaires but demanding that they start paying
their fair share of taxes.
They know that we need trade policies that benefit working people, not large multi-national corporations.
They know that we have got to take on the fossil fuel industry, transform our energy system and move to sustainable energies
like wind, solar and geothermal.
They know that we need a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, free tuition at public colleges and universities, and universal
childcare.
They understand that it is a woman who has the right to control her own body, not state and federal governments, and that
woman has the right to receive equal pay for equal work and work in a safe environment free from harassment.
They also know that if we are going to move forward successfully as a democracy we need real criminal justice reform and we
need to finally address comprehensive immigration reform.
Yes. I understand that the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars
in the 2018 mid-term elections supporting the Trump agenda and right-wing Republicans. They have the money, an unlimited amount of
money. But we have the people, and when ordinary people stand up and fight for justice there is nothing that we cannot accomplish.
That has been the history of America, and that is our future.
"... This Putin paranoia is insane and ridiculous. Our homegrown problems regarding every aspect of government far exceed, by orders of magnitudes, Putin tinkering. All of you making hysterical claims about Putin and impugning Americans as Russian stooges are diverting attention from our real homegrown problems. ..."
"... The root of the situation is FISA, as amended after September 11. ..."
"... History tells us that if a government gets a law enforcement tool, somebody in the government will try to abuse it in ways the legislators who provided the tool did not think of. History also teaches us to keep a sharp eye on the law enforcement organizations – trust but verify! ..."
"... Law enforcement is made of normal people, who bring with them all the qualities and defects of human nature. Abusing power is one of the defects, and since September 11, we gave law enforcement much power ..."
"... We need to find out if any of the candidates broke the law. We need to find out if the FBI and the DOJ abused their power. This is not about political preferences, this is about keeping the country a democracy. For those who might have forgotten it, I will remind what Martin Niemöller said: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ ..."
"... The land of the surreal; I see the usual in denial left-wing commenters hanging around Buchanan columns are now defending a corrupt, politicized FBI. ..."
"... After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton's campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr. Trump, his businesses and associates -- including possible connections with Russia. It was at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather information. ..."
"... Is is surprising that all the hoopla for both Republicans, Democrats, the media is about "Trump did it", "Clinton did it, "Putin did it". Only one reader – #Max Charles – made the very intelligent observation that the real beneficiaries of the situation are the Chinese. ..."
"... Democrats and liberals had nothing but disdain for the FBI and other spook organizations until they were 'militarized' by King 'Bama and became the Democrat secret police. Now they love the FBI. This scandal must be dragged into the light of day and cleaned up, folks fired and/or charged and put in prison. OR it will be settled in the streets. When half of the country is 'down with a one party state and secret police,' we're on the same glide path that Venezuela was on. ..."
This Putin paranoia is insane and ridiculous. Our homegrown problems regarding every aspect
of government far exceed, by orders of magnitudes, Putin tinkering. All of you making
hysterical claims about Putin and impugning Americans as Russian stooges are diverting
attention from our real homegrown problems. Look in the mirror everyone. It is in the
reflection that you will find what really ails us.
The root of the situation is FISA, as amended after September 11.
History tells us that if a government gets a law enforcement tool, somebody in the
government will try to abuse it in ways the legislators who provided the tool did not think
of. History also teaches us to keep a sharp eye on the law enforcement organizations –
trust but verify!
Law enforcement is made of normal people, who bring with them all the qualities and
defects of human nature. Abusing power is one of the defects, and since September 11, we gave
law enforcement much power
We need to find out if any of the candidates broke the law. We need to find out if the FBI
and the DOJ abused their power. This is not about political preferences, this is about
keeping the country a democracy. For those who might have forgotten it, I will remind what
Martin Niemöller said: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for
me." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_
After Mr. Trump secured the nomination, Fusion GPS was hired on behalf of Mrs. Clinton's
campaign and the D.N.C. by their law firm, Perkins Coie, to compile research about Mr.
Trump, his businesses and associates -- including possible connections with Russia. It was
at that point that Fusion GPS hired Mr. Steele, who has deep sourcing in Russia, to gather
information.
Is is surprising that all the hoopla for both Republicans, Democrats, the media is about
"Trump did it", "Clinton did it, "Putin did it".
Only one reader – #Max Charles – made the very intelligent observation that the
real beneficiaries of the situation are the Chinese.
Since the departure of the Great Helmsman, Chairman Mao, China has followed a highly focused
and highly effective path towards becoming #1 in the world.
There is a combination of economic policy, internal policy and foreign policy which brought
this country to move quietly into such a position.
Could they be behind the circus?
It is very possible, since the Chinese are now using what Fukuyama presented as "the good
emperor" model.
An intelligent, non-democratic system can be so efficient!
Democrats and liberals had nothing but disdain for the FBI and other spook organizations
until they were 'militarized' by King 'Bama and became the Democrat secret police. Now they
love the FBI. This scandal must be dragged into the light of day and cleaned up, folks fired
and/or charged and put in prison. OR it will be settled in the streets. When half of the
country is 'down with a one party state and secret police,' we're on the same glide path that
Venezuela was on.
The so called facts should not be released unless all of the facts are released –
not simply an interpretation of the facts, least of all Nunes' (or maybe the
Whitehouse's?)
You are being disingenuous in simply stating that all memos should be released when you know
that the Schiff memo will never be placed in the public sphere.
There is also an impact on the public which is being overlooked. No person in their right
mind will ever come forward with information for the FBI ever again. Everyone now knows that
if some political opportunist wants to "out you" and embarrass you, you do not stand a
chance. This release made no pretense that it was a political hit, not some kind of sunlight
on a nefarious practice.
That is not to say that a political hit piece is not legitimate or has its proper place
– because it does. Its just that this memo masquerades as something that it is not, and
as a man of intellectual integrity, you should say so.
Can you remind us of what the lib's said about Nixon's operation engaging in political
surveillance of his opponent?
Also, what was the date that Putin and the Trump campaign met and agreed to hack the DNC
servers? They were hacked from the outside, right? We have proof?
Does this mean it is now fair game if the Trump campaign hires some hack to meet with
foreign operatives who make up nasty stories about his Democratic opponent, Trump's DOJ can
go to the FISA court and get permission to spy on his opponents during the campaign, and then
get a Special Prosecutor to "investigate" fabricated allegations and try to snare the new
leadership in process crimes? Or is this a special right that only Democrats get to exercise
because they wear white hats?
"... In mid-2016, James Comey and an FBI cabal, including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, lead investigator Peter Strzok and his FBI paramour Lisa Page, decided Clinton must not be indicted in the server scandal, as that would make Trump president. ..."
"All the News That's Fit to Print" proclaims the masthead of The New York Times. "Democracy
Dies in Darkness," echoes The Washington Post.
"The people have a right to know," the professors at Columbia University Graduate School of
Journalism hammered into us in 1962. "Trust the people," we were admonished.
Explain then this hysteria, this panic in the press over the release of a four-page memo
detailing one congressional committee's rendering of how Trump-hate spawned an FBI
investigation of Republican candidate and President Donald Trump.
What is the press corps afraid of? For it has not ceased keening and caterwauling that this
memo must not see the light of day.
Do the media not trust the people? Can Americans not handle the truth?
Is this the same press corps that celebrates "The Post," lionizing Kay Graham for publishing
the Pentagon Papers, top-secret documents charging the "Best and the Brightest" of the JFK-LBJ
era with lying us into Vietnam?
Why are the media demanding a "safe space" for us all, so we will not be harmed by reading
or hearing what the memo says?
Security secrets will be compromised, we are warned.
Really? Would the House Intelligence Committee majority vote to expose secrets that merit
protection? Would Speaker Paul Ryan and White House chief of staff Gen. John Kelly, who have
read and approved the release of the memo, go along with that?
Is Gen. Kelly not a proven patriot, many times over?
The committee's ranking Democrat, Adam Schiff, who earlier warned of a threat to national
security, now seems ready to settle for equal time. If the majority memo is released, says
Schiff, the minority version of events should be released.
Schiff is right. It should be, along with the backup behind both.
This week, however, FBI Director Chris Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
slipped into the White House to plead with Kelly to keep the Republican memo secret. Wednesday,
both went public to warn the White House against doing what Trump said he was going to do.
This is defiant insubordination. And it is not unfair to ask if Rosenstein and Wray are more
alarmed about some threat to the national security than they are about the exposure of
misconduct in their own agencies.
The memo is to be released Friday. Leaks suggest what it contends:
That the Russiagate investigation of Trump was propelled by a "dossier" of lies and unproven
allegations of squalid conduct in Moscow and Trumpian collusion with Russia.
Who prepared the dossier?
The leading dirt-diver hired by the Clinton campaign, former British spy Christopher Steele.
In accumulating his Russian dirt, Steele was spoon-fed by old comrades in the Kremlin's
security apparatus.
Not only did the FBI use this dirt to launch a full investigation of Trump, the bureau
apparently used it to convince a FISA court judge to give the FBI a warrant to surveil and
wiretap the Trump campaign.
If true, the highest levels of the FBI colluded with a British spy digging dirt for Hillary
to ruin the opposition candidate, and, having failed, to bring down an elected president.
Is this not something we have a right to know? Should it be covered up to protect those at
the FBI who may have engaged in something like this?
"Now they are investigating the investigators!" comes the wail of the media. Well, yes, they
are, and, from the evidence, about time.
In this divided capital, there are warring narratives.
The first is that Trump was compromised by the Russians and colluded with them to hack the
DNC and Clinton campaign to destroy her candidacy. After 18 months, the FBI and Robert Mueller
probes have failed to demonstrate this.
The second narrative is now ascendant. It is this:
In mid-2016, James Comey and an FBI cabal, including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, lead
investigator Peter Strzok and his FBI paramour Lisa Page, decided Clinton must not be indicted
in the server scandal, as that would make Trump president.
So they colluded and put the fix in.
This alleged conspiracy is being investigated by the FBI inspector general. His findings may
explain last week's sudden resignation of McCabe and last summer's ouster of Strzok from the
Mueller probe.
If true, this conspiracy to give Hillary a pass on her "gross negligence" in handling
secrets, and take down Trump based on dirt dug up by hirelings of the Clinton campaign would
make the Watergate break-in appear by comparison to be a prank.
Here we may have hit the reason for the panic in the media.
Trump-haters in the press may be terrified that the memo may credibly demonstrate that the
"Deplorables" were right, that the elite media have been had, that they were exploited and used
by the "deep state," that they let their detestation of Trump so blind them to reality that
they made fools of themselves, and that they credited with high nobility a major conspiracy to
overthrow an elected president of the United States.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Mr. Buchanan gives the media too much credit for sincerity and good will. The elite media was
not had, were not exploited, or used, and are not blind to reality. They are loyal soldiers
of the deep state. The Russia narrative is a willful deception on their part in an effort to
reverse an election, or at least obstruct the Trump agenda. They know what is real, what is
not, and what they want in the end.
"What is the press corps afraid of? For it has not ceased keening and caterwauling that
this memo must not see the light of day .
FBI Director Chris Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein slipped into the
White House to plead with Kelly to keep the Republican memo secret. Wednesday, both went
public to warn the White House against doing what Trump said he was going to do."
The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses
on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked
by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information
to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News -- and several other outlets -- in September
2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele's initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting
in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.
The memo continues revealing more information about Steele and his clear political bias:
Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations -- an
unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn.
Steele's numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling -- maintaining confidentiality --
and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.
3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source , he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General
Bruce Ohr , a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the
election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted
to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was
passionate about him not being president." This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently
in official FBI files -- but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
During this same time period, Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on
Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion
GPS. The Ohrs' relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.
* * *
After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting
as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele
dossier, even though it was - according to his June 2017 testimony - "salacious and unverified." While the FISA application relied
on Steele's past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and
ideological motivations . Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance
warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information .
The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there
is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening
of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel's
Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter
Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The
Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include
a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an "insurance" policy against President Trump's election.
The bottom line: as noted earlier, if found that there was clear undisclosed bias in the launch of surveillance of Trump's team,
then Mueller's probe - whose findings would be the result of a flawed FISA warrant - would be null and void, leave space for Trump
to fire the special prosecutor or Rod Rosenstein.
Incidentally, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump suggested the document shows political bias at the FBI that tainted
the probe into whether his campaign cooperated with Russia's election meddling.
"I think it's a disgrace," Trump said of the alleged bias. "A lot of people should be ashamed of themselves."
The decision cleared the way for the House Intelligence Committee to release the memo, which it did shortly after noon. "It was
declassified and let's see what happens," Trump said. White House made no redactions to the document. overturned in court.
The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the intial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.
Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele dossier information.
The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials, but excluded from the FISA applications.
DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to DOJ information about Steele's bias.
Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming
president .
As a reminder, the FBI and Justice Department mounted a months-long effort to keep the information outlined in the memo out of
the House Intelligence Committee's hands. Only the threat of contempt charges and other forms of pressure forced the FBI and Justice
to give up the material.
Once Intelligence Committee leaders and staff compiled some of that information into the memo, the FBI and Justice Department,
supported by Capitol Hill Democrats, mounted a ferocious campaign of opposition, saying release of the memo would endanger national
security and the rule of law.
But Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes never wavered in his determination to make the information available to the
public. President Trump agreed, and, as required by House rules, gave his approval for release.
Finally, the memo released today does not represent the sum total of what House investigators have learned in their review of
the FBI and Justice Department Trump-Russia investigation. That means the fight over the memo could be replayed in the future when
the Intelligence Committee decides to release more information.
Hon, it's criminal conspiracy. They knowingly used a fake "dossier" as evidence to get a judge to issue surveillance warrants
against innocent Americans based on political ideology.
The memo is based on facts. What we don't know is how many were "revised" out to protect methods or investigators.
U.S.C. Title 18, Chapter
19 prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States, conspiracies to impede or injure an officer, and conspiracies to commit
violent crimes. However, conspiracy is prohibited in several other federal statutes. It is important to note that an actual crime
is not necessary to prosecute a conspiracy case – only the stated intent to break the law.
I just finished reading the document. It's not inflammatory in the least; strictly dry and factual.
The FBI is required to avoid any appearance of political partisanship. The memo shows intent to deceive the fisa court by the
highest levels of the fbi and doj. This is a big deal because that court is supposed to protect the American people against government
abuse - you and me. I don't know what legal recourse is necessary or appropriate against the transgressors but I know a conspiracy
when I see one. At the least, Rosenstein will have to go. Mueller's investigation is terminated and charges against Flynn are
dropped; "fruit of the poisoned tree". McCain was neck deep in it.
The civil service professionals under the political appointees are supposed to keep the system honest. Hard for the president
or congress to terminate them. In this case they failed to do their duty and conspired.
Remember, this is just the dossier report. They also conspired to let Hillary walk free on her emails and her taking bribes
from the Russians - $150 million into her pocket while Sect of State. That's big. They acted criminally.
My opinion: Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein ... they disgraced the fbi and doj and should be punished. Likely many others.
True but irrelevant. Nothing above Congress/FBI/DOJ is real or tangible, from a sovereign perspective. They are the front for
TPTB. This ENTIRE theater serves one purpose - to stir up public opinion and to pose threats from one faction against another
and jostle for position. There will be several fall guys and that might be it.
Now, in context with what else Trump has on his plate, this could carry some weight. We'll see. Here's a pretty good list:
It was not only that Steele memo enabled eavesdropping. More troubling fact that FBI considered both Trump and Sanders as
insurgents and was adamant to squash them and ensure Hillary victory. In other word it tried to play the role of kingmaker.
Notable quotes:
"... The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious and so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously. ..."
"... Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory. ..."
"... One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It probably broke several laws. ..."
Over the last month political enemies of U.S. President Trump and the FBI and Justice
Department have desperately tried to prevent the publishing of a memo written by the Republican
controlled House Intelligence Committee.
The memo (pdf) describes parts of the process that let to court sanctioned spying on the
Trump campaign. The
key points of the memo that was just published:
* The Steele dossier formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA
applications against Carter Page.
* Andrew McCabe confirmed that no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court
without the Steele dossier information.
* The political origins of the Steele dossier were known to senior DOJ and FBI officials,
but excluded from the FISA applications.
* DOJ official Bruce Ohr met with Steele beginning in the summer of 2016 and relayed to
DOJ information about Steele's bias. Steele told Ohr that he, Steele, was desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected president and was passionate about him not becoming
president.
If the above memo proves to be correct one can conclude that a Democratic front organization
created "evidence" that was then used by the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to get FISA
warrants to spy on someone with intimate contacts into the Trump campaign.
The Democrats as well as the FBI have done their utmost to keep this secret.
Carter Page was a relative low ranking volunteer advisor of the Trump campaign with some
business contacts to Russia. He had officially left the campaign shortly before the above FISA
warrant was requested.
Andrew McCabe was an FBI assistant director. A few month earlier his wife ran for a Virginia
State Senate seat with the help of $700,000 she had received from Clinton allies.
The wife of DOJ official Bruce Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, the outlet hired by the Democrats
to find Trump dirt. Fusion GPS hired the former British agent Steele.
The former British spy Steele had been hired by the Democratic Party via Fusion GPS to dig
up dirt about Donald Trump. He came back with a package of "reports" which alleged that Trump
was "colluding" with Russia or even a puppet of Putin. The content of the reports is hilarious
and
so obviously made up that one wonders how anyone could have treated it seriously.
Getting a FISA warrant on Carter Page meant that all his communication with the Trump
campaign was effectively under surveillance of the Obama administration. While Page was no
longer an official member of the campaign at the time of the warrant it is likely that he had
kept contact. All internal communication that Page had access to was thereby also accessible
for at least some people who tried to prevent a Trump election victory.
One must wonder if the FISA warrant and eavesdropping on Page was the only one related to
the Trump campaign.
One may (like me) dislike Trump and the Republican party and all they stand for. But this
looks like an extremely dirty play by the Democrats and by the Obama administration far outside
of any decency and fairness. The Steele dossier is obviously made up partisan nonsense. To the
use it for such a FISA warrant was against the most basic rules of a democratic system. It
probably broke several laws.
There are still many questions: What was, exactly, the result of the surveillance of Carter
Page and the Trump campaign? Who was getting these results - officially and unofficially? How
were they used?
I am pretty sure now that more heads of those involved will role. Some of the people who
arranged the scheme, and some of those who tried to cover it up, may go to jail.
If Trump and the Republicans play this right they have practically won the next
elections.
"... President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him. ..."
"... The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs, and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American president in history. ..."
"... The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia. The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and Russia. ..."
"... Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of Russia. ..."
"... Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's "shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. ..."
The Russian government, media, and public don't know what to make of the US Treasury's
"Kremlim list." The Treasury list contains the names of the top echelon of Russian government
and business leadership. The Russians understand that the list is unfriendly and furthers
Washington's policy of worsening the relationship between the two major nuclear powers, but
beyond that the list seems to be a mystery to them.
President Putin has joked that he is disappointed to have been left off the list. Putin
was left off for a reason. The list is directed at him.
1) The list is an implicit threat against the business interests of Russian oligarchs,
and they understand that. Reports are that many lobbied Washington to get off the list. By
suggesting that Washington could curtail the oligarchs' travel to the West, seize their
Western-based assets, and prevent Americans and Europeans from doing business with their
companies, Washington is telling them to remove their support from President Putin. Washington
intends to use the Western-funded NGOs and media in Russia to interfere in the upcoming Russian
elections. Washington does not want Putin to have the smashing victory that is expected. It is
difficult to make a monster out of a person who has higher public support than any American
president in history.
2) The list is an intended insult to Russia and to President Putin. As a result of
Putin's low-key response to past provocations, Washington anticipated, correctly, no response
from Putin to Washington's insult to the entire political and economic leadership of Russia.
The unanswered insult thus becomes Washington's way of displaying its hegemony over Putin and
Russia.
The lack of a meaningful Russian response will encourage more insults and actual sanctions
against Putin's supporters, which will cause some of them to separate from Putin in order to
protect their own economic and career interests. In the past Washington has used sanctions in
efforts to deprive leaders of public support. With the Kremlin list, Washington has changed its
tactics and is targeting the reputations and economic interests of the leadership class. The
list is Washington's attempt to deprive Putin of the support of the top echelon of government
and business leaders. The list is a bullet aimed at Putin's heart.
Consider the audacity of US Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a person regarded by many as a
devious financial gangster who did great harm to many Americans, issuing a list that suggests
the US government is going to take some kind of punitive action against the Prime Minister of
Russia, against the Foreign Minister of Russia, against the Defense Minister of
Russia.
Such a list is a way of telling Russia that Washington regards Russia as one of Trump's
"shithole countries." The list tells Russia that Washington is never going to take any
consideration of any Russian interest and that Russia will continue to be punished until it
submits to Washington's hegemony, like the UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Canada,
Australia, Italy, Spain, and the rest of the servile Western puppet states. As George W. Bush
declared, "You are with us or against us." Being with us means you do as you are told. Russia
can either do as she is told or fight. Russia has no other choice. (Republished from
PaulCraigRoberts.org
by permission of author or representative) ← The Second Dossier
So, the long-awaited " Kremlin List "
happened to be a purely formal action. What was made public is just a meaningless compilation
of names partly taken from a phonebook with some of them cribbed from the Forbes' Billionaires list – a kind
of Who Is Who reference publication. The administration had to release the document as required
by law, so it adopted the "get what you want and leave me alone" approach. At least, that's
what the unclassified part of the report looks like. Technically correct, the list is just a
mockery in its essence. Nothing in the report indicates that the US is in possession of
information about the individuals' involvement in any wrongdoings. The paper says it is not a
sanctions list though Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
said it would result in restrictive measures. He did not specify the date.
It's not the "Kremlin List" that really matters. On Jan.29, one day before the document was
made public, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee
voted to release a classified memorandum, revealing the misconduct by the FBI and the
Justice Department in the Russia investigation. The paper expresses grave concern over the way
the investigation, launched by the Obama administration, was conducted. The lawmakers took the
decision ignoring the position of
the Justice Department, which had warned not take this "extraordinary reckless" step. It's
highly probable that if an investigation into the abuses is launched, the trail will lead to
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
It's not Donald Trump but rather his opponents who will be at center of the scandal with
media raising ballyhoo (and they will do it as practice shows). Everything will turn around to
put the Democratic backers of Hillary Clinton on the defensive with the president's hands
untied giving him much more freedom to implement his Russia policy. He won't keep one eye on
Congress when it comes to dealing with Russia. Trump will become the defender of democracy
threatened by Clinton's camp. The "Kremlin's List" will be on the backburner.
Russia knows well all the ins and outs of US politics. It is reserved and patient but it
cannot forever abstain from striking back. Both governments realize this fact and act
accordingly. They don't sever the contacts, so that wouldn't have to start from scratch when
the times change.
On the contrary, they do what is possible under the circumstances. It's enough to look at
the news that doesn't hit headlines but tells about the events of great significance. For
instance, Sergey Naryshkin, the head of Russian foreign intelligence service, has recently visited the United States to
discuss terrorism. The Russian foreign intelligence chief is under sanctions but the visit was
important enough to make the US executive turn a blind eye on this fact. Naryshkin was granted
entry to the country. It's hard to imagine such a high-ranking official coming alone.
So, the information exchange with Russia is too important to be affected by ups and downs in
the relationship. It's enough to remember how the interaction
between the intelligence services of both countries prevented a terrorist act in Saint
Petersburg last December. In his recent
interview with Russian Echo Moskvy ( Echo of Moscow ) radio
station, US Ambassador to Moscow Jon Huntsman
said the time is propitious for a Russia-US bilateral summit. He also emphasized the
importance of military-to-military communications. Until now, the leaders have met only on the
sidelines of top-level international events. A summit could change a lot of things, addressing
many problems beyond the scope of bilateral relationship.
2018 is an election year in the United States. The Democrats' chances will diminish greatly
when the secret memo is released. With economy going strong, the chances for Republicans to
strengthen their position in both houses look good enough. So do the opportunities for the
president to keep his pre-election promise to improve the relationship with Russia.
Now that the memo is out, what does it mean? RPI's Daniel McAdams is on RT to point out that
while the memo shows how the FISA system has been abused by the FBI and the rest of the
government, the real issue is that the FISA process is always abused. And the same Members
pointing to the abuse in this particular case were aware of the abuse even as they voted to
re-authorize Section 702 of the FISA Amendments act. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around
on this. And with the release of this memo, will the "Russiagate" fantasy finally be consigned
to the dustbin of history where it belongs? Don't count on it...
#ReleaseTheMemo
The public deserves to know about the massive crimes of our Government. President Trump dropped
intel to the people via QAnon about the FISA memo that details the corruption. This is an
overview of the contents found in that memo.
This video is based specifically on Research gathered from
First
Last1 week ago
Don't forget after the memo scapegoat drama, the majority of the crooks will still be in the
same positions doing the same stuff. Don't be fooled to think everything has been cleaned
up
Reaction of "voices of the swamp" WaPo and NYT show considerable correlation and similar talking points. Both annoted
Nunes memo and both tries to conflate it with Schiff memo to limit the damage, despite the fact that Schiff memo is unpublished (
The Nunes Memo vs. the
Schiff Memo - Video - NYTimes.com )
Looks like Comey tried to use Steele dossier as a wedge to intimidate Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein ..."
"... material and relevant information was omitted ..."
"... a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials. ..."
"... This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. ..."
"... Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News -- and several other outlets -- in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele's initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed. ..."
"... Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations -- an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. ..."
"... Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts. ..."
"... Steele's numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling -- maintaining confidentiality -- and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI. ..."
"... Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. ..."
"... This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files -- but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications. ..."
"... During this same time period, Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs' relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC. ..."
"... After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony -- "salacious and unverified." ..."
"... While the FISA application relied on Steele's past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information. ..."
"... The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos . ..."
"... The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel's Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe ..."
The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA
renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. §1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an
American citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate
finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question
on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates,
then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA
applications on behalf of DOJ.
... However, the FISC's rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by
90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government's production
to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially
favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of
Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to
accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as
described below, material and relevant information was omitted .
1) The "dossier"
compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA
application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton
campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory
information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia.
a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or
reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's
efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ
and FBI officials.
b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does
not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie)
representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were
involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately
working on behalf of -- and paid by -- the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had
separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.
2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo
News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow.
This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from
information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application
incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News
.
Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News
-- and several other outlets -- in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie
was aware of Steele's initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in
Washington D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.
The
court
filing referenced here took place on May 18, 2017, long after the initial application and
at least the first renewal application.
a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI
defines as the most serious of violations -- an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his
relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David
Corn.
Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and
other outlets in September -- before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October
-- but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those
contacts.
b) Steele's numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling
-- maintaining confidentiality -- and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable
source for the FBI.
3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via
then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with
Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began
interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016,
Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he "was
desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president."
This clear evidence of Steele's bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in
official FBI files -- but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.
a) During this same time period, Ohr's wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the
cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife's
opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs'
relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.
4) According to the head of the FBI's counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill
Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its "infancy" at the time of the initial
Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an
independent unit within FBI assessed Steele's reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in
early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele
dossier, even though it was -- according to his June 2017 testimony -- "salacious and
unverified."
While the FISA application relied on Steele's past record of credible reporting on
other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological
motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December
2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele
dossier information.
5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign
advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy
between Page and Papadopoulos .
The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI
agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel's Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with
his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump
and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about
the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe
If the Trump investigation was started for political purposes the validity of Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's continuing probe is really under huge question.
A newly released memo – crafted by House Republicans and released with the blessing of
US President Donald Trump – accuses the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) of misleading
a judge so it could spy on a Trump campaign adviser for its Russia probe.
Democrats say the memo could be used as a pretext to fire people involved in Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's investigation, which would precipitate a "constitutional crisis".
Here's what the memo says, why it matters, and what's known about whether it's accurate
The claim: Republicans assert that officials relied primarily on an unverified dossier
prepared by former British spy Christopher Steele to obtain a surveillance warrant on Carter
Page, a foreign policy adviser on Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.
"Deputy Director McCabe testified before the committee in December 2017 that no surveillance
warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information," the memo
said, referring to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who stepped down from that job earlier
this week.
Democrats fear the memo
is a pretext to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (pictured on Monday), who appointed
Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate the alleged Trump-Russia collusion, and replace
him wiht someone who can stall the probe. Photo: Getty Images via AFP
Why it would matter: Republicans on the House Intelligence panel say the investigation into
possible collusion between Trump associates and Russia is tainted because it was instigated
amid anti-Trump bias in the Justice Department and the FBI during the Obama administration.
A key question is what evidence was used to secure warrants from the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court (FISC) resulting in wiretaps on Trump associates, including Page.
The dossier is filled with unverified allegations about Trump's connections to Russia, some
of them salacious.
Is it true? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant concerning Page remains
classified, but warrant applications are lengthy documents that often run to 60-80 pages where
officials need to show "probable cause" that the target is a foreign power or an agent of
one.
Obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on a US citizen requires multiple levels of review that on
average involves 10 government officials, according to a former US national security
official.
Democrats on the House Intelligence panel issued a statement Friday saying "the
investigation would persist on the basis of wholly independent evidence had Christopher Steele
never entered the picture."
Page – who denies wrongdoing and said he welcomes release of the memo – was on
the FBI's radar long before the dossier: In 2013, Russian spies tried to recruit him, according
to an FBI criminal complaint filed in 2015.
President Donald Trump
(pictured on Friday) says Congress will do what it wants with the claims in the memo; there are
fears it will be used to fire people in the Russia probe. Photo: AP Opposition research
The claim: The FBI and Justice Department didn't provide all the facts to the FISA court
when applying for the warrant on Page, including who paid for the dossier referenced in the
application.
Trump's political opponents, including Hillary Clinton, paid more than $160,000 to the
opposition-research firm Fusion GPS, which produced the dossier, the memo
notes.
"Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose the role
of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though
the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials,"
the memo said.
Why it would matter: House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes has argued that the FBI
improperly used political opposition research as the basis to obtain surveillance on a
presidential candidate's team.
Some Republicans have suggested that if the Trump investigation was started for political
purposes, it calls into question the validity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's continuing
probe.
Representative Devin
Nunes, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the overseer of the
memo, is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday. Photo: Getty Images North America via
AFP
Is it true? Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson told Congress that Steele showed it to the
FBI because he thought potential crimes were being committed.
If the FBI intentionally omitted that information from a warrant, it could anger the FISA
court judges, but it's not clear it would affect the underlying investigation.
Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee said the Republican Party description of the
warrant application is "not accurate" and contains "serious mischaracterisations" that are laid
out in a still-classified Democratic memo.
For one thing, the Page warrant was renewed three times, steps that the former US official
said would have required the Justice Department to show the FISA court that useful intelligence
has been obtained and an extension is needed.
Political bias
The claim: The memo contends FBI and Justice Department officials were biased against Trump
early on in the Russia investigation, well before Mueller's appointment in May 2017.
Republican lawmakers and Trump have questioned the role played by McCabe because his wife
received Democratic funding in an unsuccessful campaign for the Virginia state Senate in
2015.
The memo also notes that the wife of another senior Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr,
"was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump."
Andrew McCabe (seen in
May 2017), who stepped down as FBI deputy director earlier this week, has been accused of being
biased in his investigation. Photo: Washington Post photo by Jahi Chikwendiu
Why it would matter: Questions of bias inside the FBI are already being investigated by the
Justice Department's inspector general, who is examining its handling of the probe into
Clinton's email practices and the actions of some agents on the Trump probe. His findings may
be damaging to the agency.
The takeaway: The FBI is traditionally a Republican-friendly institution, and former
director James Comey's handling of the Clinton probe is widely believed to have helped Trump
win the White House.
When it comes to Mueller, Republican leaders on both sides of Capitol Hill have said
repeatedly they have confidence in the special counsel and want the investigation to
continue.
Carter Page
The claim: The Republican memo focuses almost entirely on the FISA warrants for Page,
describing him as a "volunteer adviser" in the Trump campaign and suggesting his civil
liberties were violated.
Why it would matter: The dossier compiled by Steele, the former British spy, portrayed Page
as an intermediary in the Trump campaign's "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between
them and the Russian leadership."
White House officials and former Trump campaign aides have dismissed him as someone who
walked in the door at Trump Tower and volunteered to help when the insurgent campaign lacked
foreign policy advisers.
Page made a trip to Russia during the 2016 campaign, but Trump campaign advisers have said
they shrugged off his offers to brief the candidate.
Carter Page makes a
presentation titled 'Departing from Hypocrisy: Potential Strategies in the Era of Global
Economic Stagnation, Security Threats and Fake News' during his visit to Moscow, Russia, on
December 12, 2016. The Republican memo says the FBI and DOJ misled a judge when applying for a
warrant to spy on him. Photo: TASS/Abaca Press/TNS
Is it true? Aside from the debate over Page's role in the FBI's surveillance efforts, he may
prove a footnote in the history of the Russian meddling investigation, although Democrats on
the House Intelligence panel said the FBI had "good reason" to be concerned about his
activities.
Already, Mueller has secured indictments against former Trump campaign officials Paul
Manafort and Rick Gates for alleged money-laundering.
He's also won agreements to cooperate from Michael Flynn, Trump's initial national security
adviser, and George Papadopoulos, another of the little-known foreign policy advisers who
volunteered for Trump's campaign.
Rosenstein's Role
The claim: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein approved at least one of the FBI's
applications to extend surveillance of Page even though the original request was based on
tainted information.
Why it would matter: Rosenstein, a veteran federal prosecutor, has overseen the Russia
investigation since Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in March 2017 over Trump's
objections. Rosenstein named Mueller as special counsel that May.
Is it true? The memo doesn't allege any wrongdoing by Rosenstein, who is mentioned only
twice. Democrats say they doubt Trump would dare to fire Mueller but have speculated the
president might seize on the Republican memo to oust Rosenstein in the hope that his successor
would rein in the probe.
"The White House knows it would face a firestorm if it fired Bob Mueller," Representative
Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence panel, told reporters.
"If Rod Rosenstein is fired and someone else takes his place, that is a yes man for the
president. Then, they can limit Bob Mueller's investigation in ways we will never see." This
Week in Asia Get updates direct to your inbox
By registering you agree to our T&Cs & Privacy Policy
You are signed up. We think you'd also like Thank youYou are on the list. Most Popular
William Browder is notoriously the man behind the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which exploited
Congressional willingness to demonize Russia and has done so much to poison relations between
Washington and Moscow.
"... FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which was written to enable the federal government to spy on foreign agents here and abroad. Using absurd and paranoid logic, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which only hears the government's lawyers, has morphed "foreign intelligence surveillance" into undifferentiated bulk surveillance of all Americans. ..."
"... The use of raw intelligence data by the NSA or the FBI for political purposes or to manipulate those in government is as serious a threat to popular government – to personal liberty in a free society – as has ever occurred in America since Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which punished speech critical of the government. ..."
"... The government works for us; we should not tolerate its treating us as children. When raw intelligence data is capable of differing interpretations and is relevant to a public dispute – about, for example, whether the NSA and the FBI are trustworthy, whether FISA should even exist, whether spying on everyone all the time keeps us safe and whether the Constitution even permits this – the raw data should be released to the American public. ..."
I
have argued for a few weeks now that House Intelligence Committee members have committed
misconduct in office by concealing evidence of spying abuses by the National Security Agency
and the FBI. They did this by sitting on a four-page memo that summarizes the abuse of raw
intelligence data while Congress was debating a massive expansion of FISA.
FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which was written to enable
the federal government to spy on foreign agents here and abroad. Using absurd and paranoid
logic, the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which only hears the government's
lawyers, has morphed "foreign intelligence surveillance" into undifferentiated bulk
surveillance of all Americans.
Undifferentiated bulk surveillance is the governmental acquisition of fiber-optic data
stored and transmitted by nearly everyone in America. This includes all telephone
conversations, text messages and emails, as well as all medical, legal and financial
records.
Ignorant of the hot potato on which the House Intelligence Committee had been sitting,
Congress recently passed and President Donald Trump signed a vast expansion of spying
authorities – an expansion that authorizes legislatively the domestic spying that judges
were authorizing on everyone in the U.S. without individual suspicion of wrongdoing or probable
cause of crime; an expansion that passed in the Senate with no votes to spare; an expansion
that evades and avoids the Fourth Amendment; an expansion that the president signed into law
the day before we all learned of the House Intelligence Committee memo.
The FISA expansion would never have passed the Senate had the House Intelligence Committee
memo and the data on which it is based come to light seven days sooner than it did. Why should
22 members of a House committee keep their 500-plus congressional colleagues in the dark about
domestic spying abuses while those colleagues were debating the very subject matter of domestic
spying and voting to expand the power of those who have abused it?
The answer to this lies in the nature of the intelligence community today and the influence
it has on elected officials in the government. By the judicious, personalized and secret
revelation of data, both good and bad – here is what we know about your enemies, and here
is what we know about you – the NSA shows its might to the legislators who supposedly
regulate it. In reality, the NSA regulates them.
This is but one facet of the deep state – the unseen parts of the government that are
not authorized by the Constitution and that never change, no matter which party controls the
legislative or executive branch. This time, they almost blew it. If just one conscientious
senator had changed her or his vote on the FISA expansion – had that senator known of the
NSA and FBI abuses of FISA concealed by the House Intelligence Committee – the expansion
would have failed.
Nevertheless, the evidence on which the committee members sat is essentially a
Republican-written summary of raw intelligence data. Earlier this week, the Democrats on the
committee authored their version – based, they say, on the same raw intelligence data as
was used in writing the Republican version. But the House Intelligence Committee, made up of 13
Republicans and nine Democrats, voted to release only the Republican-written memo.
Late last week, when it became apparent that the Republican memo would soon be released, the
Department of Justice publicly contradicted President Trump by advising the leadership of the
House Intelligence Committee in very strong terms that the memo should not be released to the
public.
It soon became apparent that, notwithstanding the DOJ admonition, no one in the DOJ had
actually seen the memo. So FBI Director Chris Wray made a secret, hurried trip to the House
Intelligence Committee's vault last Sunday afternoon to view the memo. When asked by the folks
who showed it to him whether it contains secret or top-secret material, he couldn't or wouldn't
say. But he apparently saw in the memo the name of the No. 2 person at the FBI, Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe, as one of the abusers of spying authority. That triggered McCabe's summary
departure from the FBI the next day, after a career of 30 years.
The abuse summarized in the Republican memo apparently spans the last year of the Obama
administration and the first year of the Trump administration. If it comes through as
advertised, it will show the deep state using the government's powers for petty or political or
ideological reasons.
The use of raw intelligence data by the NSA or the FBI for political purposes or to
manipulate those in government is as serious a threat to popular government – to personal
liberty in a free society – as has ever occurred in America since Congress passed the
Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which punished speech critical of the government.
What's going on here?
The government works for us; we should not tolerate its treating us as children. When
raw intelligence data is capable of differing interpretations and is relevant to a public
dispute – about, for example, whether the NSA and the FBI are trustworthy, whether FISA
should even exist, whether spying on everyone all the time keeps us safe and whether the
Constitution even permits this – the raw data should be released to the American
public.
Where is the personal courage on the House Intelligence Committee? Where is the patriotism?
Where is the fidelity to the Constitution? The government exists by our consent. It derives its
powers from us. We have a right to know what it has done in our names, who broke our trust, who
knew about it, who looked the other way and why and by whom all this was intentionally hidden
until after Congress voted to expand FISA.
Everyone in government takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. How
many take it meaningfully and seriously?
"... Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the "Nunes Memo" could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. ..."
"... "Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale," said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. ..."
"... If we take away the people's faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that's left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons. ..."
With the moment of truth - over-hyped dud or Democratic-establishment-crushing dream - looming in less than 24 hours, the headlines,
finger-pointing, pettiness, and back-stabbing has reached 11 on the Spinal Tap amplifier of debacle... to the point where some humor
in this FISA farce may help everyone get through the weekend.
The following is the latest to cross the wires...
Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the "Nunes
Memo" could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States.
"Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal
or judicial system on an international scale," said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American
people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or
subvert religious and political groups.
"If we take away the people's faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that's left is an extensive
network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally
personal, reasons."
At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating
constitutional rights.
"... Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the "Nunes Memo" could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States. ..."
"... "Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal or judicial system on an international scale," said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or subvert religious and political groups. ..."
"... If we take away the people's faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that's left is an extensive network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally personal, reasons. ..."
With the moment of truth - over-hyped dud or Democratic-establishment-crushing dream - looming in less than 24 hours, the headlines,
finger-pointing, pettiness, and back-stabbing has reached 11 on the Spinal Tap amplifier of debacle... to the point where some humor
in this FISA farce may help everyone get through the weekend.
The following is the latest to cross the wires...
Stressing that such an action would be highly reckless, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Thursday that releasing the "Nunes
Memo" could potentially undermine faith in the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies of the United States.
"Making this memo public will almost certainly impede our ability to conduct clandestine activities operating outside any legal
or judicial system on an international scale," said Wray, noting that it was essential that mutual trust exist between the American
people and the vast, mysterious cabal given free rein to use any tactics necessary to conduct surveillance on U.S. citizens or
subvert religious and political groups.
"If we take away the people's faith in this shadowy monolith exempt from any consequences, all that's left is an extensive
network of rogue, unelected intelligence officers carrying out extrajudicial missions for a variety of subjective, and occasionally
personal, reasons."
At press time, Wray confirmed the massive, unaccountable government secret agencies were unaware of any wrongdoing for violating
constitutional rights.
How so? Do you mean if HRC was DQ'd due to treason the DNC would have given the nomination to Bernie?! Bwahahahhaa! Fuck no
they wouldn't.
They would have given it to Kaine or Biden or hell, maybe Schumer. Not a chance in the world they give the nomination to 2016
pre-blackmail, death threats and bribery Bernie. They did get him by the balls after his whitehouse visit with death threats and
bribery real estate. I guess that happened just prior to this, but he didn't seem fully compromised until 2017.
Bernie 2020 with Booker or Kennedy attached and a JFK "heart attack" for the young puppet to take over, that I could see.
Those were emails about the Weiner laptop and it was just before the election!!!
McCabe and the rest of the 7th floor cabal of traitors hid evidence to swing the election of the POTUS, and that my friend
is high treason... sanctioned by Obama/Clinton and the dark money behind them.
Trump, a man with faults and not a lot of polish, may be freaking genius...
Trump at end of SOTU, "Oh yeah, don't worry, 100%" FISA memo will be released
Trey Gowdy
said this
week on Fox News that the memo is "embarrassing" to Democrats
Notable quotes:
"... The coming weeks will show whether the U.S. intelligence establishment (the FBI/CIA/NSA, AKA the "Deep State") will be able to prevent its leaders from being held to account. Past precedent suggests that the cabal that conjured up Russia-gate will not have to pick up a "go-to-jail" card. This, despite the widespread guilt suggested by the abrupt way that several senior-echelon DOJ and FBI rats have already jumped ship. Not to mention the manner in which FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, was unceremoniously pushed overboard yesterday, after Director Christopher Wray was given a look at the extralegal capers described in the House Intelligence Committee memorandum. ..."
"... "When GW Bush said of the Constitution, 'It's just a goddam piece of paper,' I thought it was just another toss-off bit of hyperbole as he so often would utter. Not so. He, and many in his administration (and out) sincerely believe it and set out to make it so. They may actually have succeeded." ..."
"... I almost feel sorry for what is called "mainstream media" and – even more so – for the majority of Americans deceived by the prevailing narrative on Russia-gate. Even though that narrative now lies in shreds, there is no sign so far that the pundits will fess up and admit to spreading a far-fetched, evidence-impoverished story that was full of holes from the get-go. ..."
"... Adam B. Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, giving hypocrisy a bad name. Schiff said yesterday that it had been a "sad day" for the committee and that Republicans had voted "to politicize the intelligence process." ..."
"... I do think Russia-gate is an over-hyped political campaign. The threat from Russia to our electoral process is like a cult, in which belief is paramount to rational thinking. Evidence. Let's see the evidence for all these things. ..."
"... The weight of evidence is on the side of the debunkers of Russiagate. This "debate" is far from a wash, or a draw. The propaganda and spin are from the Russia blamers, not their refuters. ..."
"... What we have brewing here is a battle between otherwise execrable creatures of the ruling class: the Sean Hannity-Pat Buchanan, et. al. wing of the GOP (which on this PARTICULAR issue happens to be on the righteous side) versus the Zionist-militarist neoliberal imperialist wing of the ruling class which is currently composed of the Schiffs, Warners, DNC, national security state and most of the mass media across the spectrum. (Yes, my quick outline of the two opposing sides is a bit slapdash and doesn't take into account all the players and factions, but you get the picture.) ..."
"... What's absolutely fascinating is that even though Trump's ceded Jerusalem to the Zionist psychopaths and has saber rattled since day one towards Tehran, thus far these positions STILL have not been enough to call off the Schiff-Warner dogs. The DNC and elements of the national security-mass media-state may have dug themselves such a deep whole by propagating this whole Russia-gate canard over the last 14 months that they're now in a difficult spot with little chance of saving face and must faithfully proceed into their own eventual humiliation. ..."
"... Meanwhile the American domestic population is stalked by the specter of massive inequality, un and under employment, repugnant wages doled out essentially by the malicious local Chamber of Commerce, drug addiction, a dental healtcare crises, hopelessness, and political impotence. ..."
"... Ray, you left out Senator Grassley and his committee's work in this 'caper'. Grassley, Nunes and Goodlatte are the one's to watch. It is their three committee's – Senate Judiciary, House Intel, House Judiciary – driving this school bus and it appears they are readying to put that puppy in third gear. ..."
"... If the memo is just evidence free conspiracy theories. The dems would want it released. So that they could rip it to shreds with real evidence. And make the Repubs look like fools. But they don't have any evidence. Just like the evidence they didn't have for their Russia hacking claims. ..."
"... Given Israel's enormous influence in Official Washington and over US. foreign policy, and given Hollywood's influence over American popular culture and what passes for a public discussion, it would seem that any serious discussion of "the Deep State" would of necessity include this question: What is "the Deep State" and what is Israel's role in it? Clearly Israel has a role in "the Deep State" if the US Army and the FBI find it necessary to beg Hollywood producers to stop popularizing torture as an interrogation technique among US troops in wartime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_reaction_to_24#Torture ..."
"... Congress is a junior partner of the Deep State. Don't expect them to go against their Bosses. ..."
"... The Deep State has been scared for quite a while. It's ALL predicated on the Petro-Dollar. The ME wars are ALL about trying to maintain this US lifeblood. This "arrangement" is faltering. The cracks really started to appear with Osama Bin Laden, with his condemnation of the US (who had been helping fund him) occupation of Saudi Arabia. One could make the argument that 9/11 was the event used by the US to slap him down: another US operative gone rogue. Had Bin Laden gained momentum he'd have likely taken down the Royal Family. Even if THIS was all but a big play it still supports the track of holding the Petro-Dollar in place. Keep in mind that the thing that all the over-thrown leaders had in common was they they were flirting with introducing currencies (gold-backed) that would challenge the Petro-Dollar's standing. ..."
"... I am under no illusion that Trump has any real "solution." Reason being is that there IS no solution to an economic system that is based on growth and gets to the point where growth is no longer possible: again, this growth-model has been globalized -- there is no more there to exploit for growth. ..."
"... My money's on the CIA (or the other higher-powered alphabet organization, NSA?) having started the Big Subversion with the push to "oust" Sanders from the running. Only a fool would believe that the CIA (or NSA) wouldn't have known about the crap that was happening with the DNC. That Clapper sand-bagged it tends to show that they were almost certainly complicit in the whole thing: if they weren't then there would have been actual facts/data put out to show Russian interference. ..."
"... Sanders gets whacked by the DNC (CIA and or other high level agencies manipulate the media sphere to blank out Sanders). DNC insiders. dissenters (was it Rich?) counter and whack Clinton, but TPTB (likely with FBI and or CIA assistance) attempt to re-float Clinton's waning support by introducing the DNC insider hit as coming from Russia. ..."
With the House Intelligence Committee vote yesterday to release its four-page memorandum
reportedly based on documentary evidence of possible crimes by top Justice Department and FBI
leaders, the die is cast. Russia-gate and FBI-gate are now joined at the hip.
The coming weeks will show whether the U.S. intelligence establishment (the FBI/CIA/NSA, AKA
the "Deep State") will be able to prevent its leaders from being held to account. Past
precedent suggests that the cabal that conjured up Russia-gate will not have to pick up a
"go-to-jail" card. This, despite the widespread guilt suggested by the abrupt way that several
senior-echelon DOJ and FBI rats have already jumped ship. Not to mention the manner in which
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, was unceremoniously pushed overboard yesterday, after
Director Christopher Wray was given a look at the extralegal capers described in the House
Intelligence Committee memorandum.
Granted, at first glance Deep State's efforts to undercut candidate Donald Trump at first
seem so risky and audacious as to be unbelievable. By now, though, Americans should be able to
wrap their heads around, one, the dire threat that outsider Trump was seen to be posing to the
Deep State and to the ease with which it held sway under President Barack Obama; and, two,
expected immunity from prosecution if Deep State crimes were eventually discovered after the
election, since "everybody knew" Hillary Clinton was going to win. Oops.
Accountability This Time?
There seems to be an outside chance, this time, that the culprits who did actually interfere
in the 2016 presidential election in an effort to make sure Trump could not win, and then did
all in their power to sabotage him after he his electoral victory, will be held to account by
unusually feisty members of the House. It is abundantly clear that members of the House
Intelligence and House Judiciary Committees are now in possession of the kind of unambiguous,
firsthand documentary evidence needed to get a grand jury convened and, eventually, indictments
obtained.
It is no exaggeration to suggest that the Republic and the Constitution are at stake. A
friend put it the way:
"When GW Bush said of the Constitution, 'It's just a goddam piece of paper,' I thought it
was just another toss-off bit of hyperbole as he so often would utter. Not so. He, and many in
his administration (and out) sincerely believe it and set out to make it so. They may actually
have succeeded."
The Media's Role
I almost feel sorry for what is called "mainstream media" and – even more so –
for the majority of Americans deceived by the prevailing narrative on Russia-gate. Even though
that narrative now lies in shreds, there is no sign so far that the pundits will fess up and
admit to spreading a far-fetched, evidence-impoverished story that was full of holes from the
get-go.
Even vestigially honest journalists of the old school, who may themselves have been taken
in, will have a Herculean challenge if they attempt to write to right the ship of journalism.
As for brainwashed Americans, pity them. It is far easier to deceive folks than to convince
them they have been deceived, as Mark Twain once wrote.
From today's online version of the New York Times , for example, the lede headline
read, "Taunted by Trump and Pressured From Above, McCabe Steps Down as F.B.I. Deputy."
The Times quotes Representative Adam B. Schiff, the top Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee, giving hypocrisy a bad name. Schiff said yesterday that it had been a
"sad day" for the committee and that Republicans had voted "to politicize the intelligence
process."
And this just in:
an op-ed from NYT pundit David Leonhardt, titled – you guessed it –
"The Nunes Conspiracy."
"Instead of evidence, the memo engages in the same dark and misleading conspiracy theories
that have characterized other efforts by President Trump's allies to discredit the Russia
investigation," Leonhardt wrote. "But the substance of the claims isn't really the point.
Distraction is the point, and the distraction campaign is having an impact."
And so it goes.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst
for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .
exiled off mainstreet , January 30, 2018 at 11:46 am
This is a big issue no matter what you think of Trump, since it appears that the fix was
in to prevent him winning. I agree that, unless the leading figures of the cabal are held
responsible that a precedent has been set, but I see things as probably too far gone even if
congress holds the culprits accountable, and it looks to me like the police/surveillance
state will go forward no matter what unless economic or some sort of collapse renders the
system unable to continue.
Seer , January 31, 2018 at 6:29 am
[I'm somewhat back: more voices for facts and truth need to step up now that there's the
massive deficit left by the loss of Robert Parry, rest his soul.]]
I'd stated previously that I believed that the CIA was in on assisting the Dems to derail
Sanders' campaign. I might have been wrong, that it was the FBI, but I still stand by my
"belief" that TPTB (Deep State) didn't want Sanders to come out on top; if they were seeing,
as I figure so, the big rise of Trump then it would only go to follow that having someone on
the "other side" of the voter ballot similarly with a firm and forceful backing from the
"masses" would have been WAY too big of a threat. Clinton, there should be little doubt on
this, WAS THE candidate by/for/of TPTB. Clinton was amply marketed such that people would
never believe that she could actually lose to Sanders: actual voter meddling occurred within
the Democratic Party; this would never be believed by the Anyone-But-Trump crowd, nor the
Clinton crowd, so the storyline of it just being a messy primary, sprinkled with the
cooked-up distraction of election manipulation by "Russia" Clinton and TPTB (Deep State)
would sneak out the "back door of the theatre" unscathed by the scandal.
The Dems and TPTB (Deep State) are scared crap-less because if this thing really unwinds
then it unwinds to unveil the subversion of the Sanders campaign. THE REAL CRIME. And what's
really scary here is that this could actually leave the Party of Rape coming out high on top:
we would have the Dems/Clinton/Deep State to thank for this.
My last thought on this is to realize that the CIA is pretty good about framing up the
FBI. No love loss here. The real heavyweight is, and always has been, the CIA. Recall that
9/11 had the FBI in essence living with some of the future 9/11 perps; those perps were, of
course, facilitated into the country by the CIA, AND, it was the CIA that locked out the
likes of Colleen Rowley; she suggest, in her letter to Mueller (
https://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_summary_articles/020521coleenrowleymemofbidirectormueller
) that it was higher echelon FBI folks that were blocking, and yes, but consider that those
blockers could very well be reporting to the CIA (counter intelligence). Don't mean to cloudy
the subject at hand, but I feel that this gives weight to the idea/belief that the CIA could
very well be the one executing the Big Plans, the FBI is cast into the role of performing, as
puppets, the actions and that when the spotlight hits them they scramble to use all internal
obfuscations at their disposal (some likely being provide by the CIA, perhaps with the FBI's
knowledge, perhaps not).
It's the CIA that murders and does not care one iota about "democracy" or the rule of law.
I doubt that they are clean in all of this; and if they are not clean then that would mean
they were active, and if active then they'd have to have been to prime movers.
Might be that the CIA did the Big Damage by nixing Sanders and then left the FBI to
undermine Trump. If there's an institution that can hide from reproach any better than the
CIA I do no know what it is.
I like the optimism of Ray McGovern's article but tend to believe the Deep State holds a
dossier on too many members of congress to make a full investigation plausible.
john wilson , January 31, 2018 at 5:53 am
Yes BobH, I was thinking something similar. Implicit in the question "will congress face
down the deep state" assumes that congress is somehow above or not implicated in the deep
state. Its obvious that the deep state is EVERYWHERE and I bet congress is riddled with deep
state operatives. That great saying from George Orwell's 1984 "where I sold you and you sold
me under the spreading chestnut tree", comes to mind.
Skip Scott , January 30, 2018 at 3:15 pm
I think I'll wait until I actually get to read the memo to judge. The Dems are also
pulling out the "National Security" card, saying everything they would need to refute Nunes'
memo is "highly classified". What surprises me is that these handful of rebels exist in the
House. I'm waiting for Schumer's "six ways from Sunday". Our only hope for any improvement in
a post-Trump world is for the "Deep State" to be exposed and neutralized. BTW, I vote Green
as well.
Skip, that said, a set of leaks and counterleaks would make this more fun! (We already had
a bit of that from Dems on Senate Intell, over Fusion.) Oh, and for everybody on this list, while Hillz and the DNC may have cut the final checks
for Steele, let's not forget that the candidate who allegedly first asked for this was
Jeb! And, in reality, Trump doesn't want the so-called "deep state" neutralized any more than
anybody else. He just wants any bias it had against him exposed and neutralized. And,
on the House side, especially, Congressional GOP will march in lockstep.
This of course ultimately goes back to Ike, who ramped up the spying-snooping complex to
replace the military-industrial complex, something few people mention when touting his
comment.
Anon , January 30, 2018 at 12:01 pm
This is the biggest political story of the past 50 years. The level of corruption is
beyond comprehension and once the entire story is unraveled and put on display, not much will
be left standing.
Bob Van Noy , January 30, 2018 at 12:08 pm
I agree, this is the point where this event either gets thoroughly exposed or hidden. It
truly is the biggest political story of a generation. We'll see
JWalters , January 31, 2018 at 12:15 am
I also agree. The threads run deep on this one. And I'm very interested to hear Ray's
informed take on these developments, both the hopes and the challenges.
"Even vestigially honest journalists of the old school, who may themselves have been
taken in, will have a Herculean challenge if they attempt to write to right the ship of
journalism."
No look of America's journalism would be complete without a nod to the blanket omission of
all negative news regarding Israel's actions and goals. The odds of such a total omission
over many decades rival the odds of all roulette wheels in the universe coming up the same at
the same time. Its astronomically improbable. So it was obviously rigged.
An excellent look at Israel suppressing American news is in this documentary about
Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, and its cover-up. Many participants testify. "The Day Israel Attacked America" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RE4hMlB9ZU
And for readers who may not have seen it, a succinct history of how Israel took control of
the US press and government is in "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
j. D. D. , January 30, 2018 at 1:05 pm
Once again Mr. McGovern is right on target, the importance his analysis, cannot be
overstated. At stake is not just the future of the nation as a constitutional republic, but
the future of peace as well.The two-year-long push by the combined British and U.S.
intelligence agencies to destroy Trump's candidacy and presidency has drawn in most of the
Democratic Party, abandoning all principles in favor of near-sighted political expediency.
Likewise the neocons of the Republican Party, who detest Trump's friendliness toward Russia
and China, have shown their displeasure at the persistence of Mr.Nunes by siding against
release of the memo. As in the original "Russian hacking" fraud, cite "national security"
concerns. What is most important is that this criminal coup operation be defeated, lest it
leave the United States a New Cold War police state in which all presidents are controlled by
intelligence officials with secret scandals. This Nunes memo and related investigations offer
hope and opportunity for its defeat, but if not crushed, these new McCarthyites will settle
for nothing less than a fiercely anti-Russia, anti-China President Pence. And we know to
where that will lead.
JWalters , January 31, 2018 at 12:36 am
Good points. "Follow the money" implies "Who can afford to buy the British and American intelligence agencies?" And let's
not forget how effectively the Israelis buried the news about their attack on the USS Liberty, shutting down an official US
Navy investigation and keeping it out of the news all these years. And not forget Hillary's campaign being primarily financed
by war-mongering Israelis. Nor the war-mongering Neocons being in essence Israeli agents. Let's not leave those out.
Virginia , January 30, 2018 at 12:14 pm
Talking about the spin the New York Times is putting on the memo contents (The Nunes Conspiracy), please take a look at
last night's PBS News Hour. Instead of what Judy Woodruff
and Lisa Desjardins should have reported, they spun Andrew McCabe's "stepping aside" as yet
another loss of an important high ranking FBI official causing still more vacancies in the
many still unfilled offices due to Trump's failure to appoint people, etc. It was
unbelievable!
Then Judy interviewed Mark Warner, and his spin was even more astounding --
that most Democrats hadn't read it, implying it was unavailable; also implying that this
"memo creation" hadn't gone through proper channels. Nothing on the up and up with Warner!
But, I don't think they are going to be able to get by with it. Will the American people
agree to be duped by propaganda when the facts are on the table? I'm not seeing that friends
of mine are coming around, but do they really believe in Santa Claus? Is there integrity in
the land, or will truth continue to be trampled in the streets and sold in the shambles? The
house of cards is about to crumble, or will it?
JWalters , January 31, 2018 at 12:54 am
It's painful to say, but the PBS Newshour is a pathetically blatant propaganda outlet. I
suspect Judy Woodruff, Mark Shields, etc have nights of troubled sleep.
Regarding Congressman Nunes,
"The current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-
California, is one of the few politicians who knows and cares about the attack on the
Liberty."
A tenet of the mendacious style of political discourse today is to never, ever admit you
were wrong about anything. If you are caught in a pack of lies you have committed, deny
everything, and change the subject as soon as possible. Trump is a master of this technique,
he is a natural born liar.
Like petulant four year olds, congress critters really feel that
they are never wrong, and their opponents always are. This is why their is no real dialog in
these venues, nobody listens, everyone just relentlessly pushes their own agenda, no matter
what.
Taking responsibility for one's actions is for suckers and losers. Respect for the
truth is totally absent in DC. There should be a sign outside Washington, "Entering Truth
Free Zone."
It is probably a very good idea to take a hard look at the Nunes memo, and then an even
harder look at the evidence that supports it.
Right now there is so much hype on both sides of this that we tend to get caught up at
treating speculation and charges as facts.
I do think Russia-gate is an over-hyped political campaign. The threat from Russia to our
electoral process is like a cult, in which belief is paramount to rational thinking.
Evidence. Let's see the evidence for all these things.
I do not trust the narratives coming out of both camps. They stink of propaganda and
spin.
mike k , January 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm
No. The weight of evidence is on the side of the debunkers of Russiagate. This "debate" is
far from a wash, or a draw. The propaganda and spin are from the Russia blamers, not their
refuters.
rosemerry , January 31, 2018 at 4:05 pm
Even the shining light of the Dems, Bernie Sanders is constantly pro-war and anti-Russia,
even now in his comments after the SOTU.
Drew Hunkins , January 30, 2018 at 12:57 pm
This is one of the more extraordinary imbroglios I've witnessed in my 30 years of
following the politico-economic scene.
What we have brewing here is a battle between otherwise execrable creatures of the ruling
class: the Sean Hannity-Pat Buchanan, et. al. wing of the GOP (which on this PARTICULAR issue
happens to be on the righteous side) versus the Zionist-militarist neoliberal imperialist
wing of the ruling class which is currently composed of the Schiffs, Warners, DNC, national
security state and most of the mass media across the spectrum. (Yes, my quick outline of the
two opposing sides is a bit slapdash and doesn't take into account all the players and
factions, but you get the picture.)
The latter crew want to torpedo Trump because they view him as not enough of a hawk
towards the Kremlin, this threatens their careers and budgets. They were genuinely terrified
and dismayed when Trump voiced some non-interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail. They
also need to delegitimize the Trump presidency because it's an embarrassment and refutation
to the DNC which ran a horrific Wall Street boot-licking, warmongering candidate. These are
dangerous cretins because they're smart, smooth and articulate and are better propagandists
than the above referenced former wing. They show no compunction over putting the world on the
brink of nuclear war in order to carry out their anti-Trump vendetta. They attack him for the
one thing he gets right (easing tensions with Moscow) rather than denouncing him for the
truly awful Trump policies, namely his dangerous rhetoric towards Iran, his genuflecting to
Israel, and his regressive tax policies, to name a few.
What's absolutely fascinating is that even though Trump's ceded Jerusalem to the Zionist
psychopaths and has saber rattled since day one towards Tehran, thus far these positions
STILL have not been enough to call off the Schiff-Warner dogs. The DNC and elements of the
national security-mass media-state may have dug themselves such a deep whole by propagating
this whole Russia-gate canard over the last 14 months that they're now in a difficult spot
with little chance of saving face and must faithfully proceed into their own eventual
humiliation.
Meanwhile the American domestic population is stalked by the specter of massive
inequality, un and under employment, repugnant wages doled out essentially by the malicious
local Chamber of Commerce, drug addiction, a dental healtcare crises, hopelessness, and
political impotence. And meanwhile, the struggling white male is being vilified as a serial
oppressor by many upper middle class professional women who can't see past identity politics
and spent more money ni one year on tuition at a private university than many of these
exploited white males make in two-year's salary.
BobS , January 30, 2018 at 1:19 pm
" the Sean Hannity-Pat Buchanan, et. al. wing of the GOP (which on this PARTICULAR issue
happens to be on the righteous side) versus the Zionist-militarist neoliberal imperialist
wing of the ruling class "
Trump, Pence, Kushner, Miller, Adelson, Kelly, Haley, Bolton, Coats, Pompeo, Mnuchin, Chao,
Mattis, Pai nope none of the "Zionist-miltarist neoliberal imperialist wing of the ruling
class" in this bunch.
Drew Hunkins , January 30, 2018 at 1:30 pm
I do acknowledge that there is overlap. But the crucial point is that Putin bashing and
anti-Kremlin hysteria rule the day in the latter camp. The former camp, for all their faults,
tend to support a candidate for the wrong reasons but have seen through the Russiagate
baloney.
Virginia, I don't know what's happened to Warner. Once upon a time, he was a relatively
stand up kinda politician, but not any more. Since he entered the Senate, he's morphed into
someone who appears to be owned rather than the independent minded Governor I knew and came
to respect. It's a shame, really, this country could really use some statesman from both
sides of the aisle, but all I see are those handful of leaders in the House and one or two in
the Senate willing to, you know, represent us rather than the Party and their donors.
Ray, you left out Senator Grassley and his committee's work in this 'caper'. Grassley,
Nunes and Goodlatte are the one's to watch. It is their three committee's – Senate
Judiciary, House Intel, House Judiciary – driving this school bus and it appears they
are readying to put that puppy in third gear.
To Nat and the Consortium News Team, my deepest condolences to all. Nat, your dad was a
solid 'just the facts ma'am' journalist. I found this site back in 2000ish when I first
delved into the 9/11 tragedy. I've never left and rarely post. I do link to your work here
several times a week over at my alt news aggregation site and have been for awhile now.
Your's and your dad's work have served as models for so many up and coming alt news
journalists. You have so much to be proud of. Trust, we regulars will continue to support
your work well into the future. Prayers and Blessings to all of the Parry family.
Virginia , January 30, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Thanks, Helen. Yes indeedy, our Congress and Senate members become deep state the moment
they are in, except for a very few. The strong and true are to their country and their
profession as Robert Parry was to his. So thankful for their heroic examples, and for the
brave souls here at CN.
alley cat , January 30, 2018 at 1:56 pm
I love McGovern's posts. He never gives up on the truth (or by extension, on us). Some
would say he's foolishly tilting at deep state windmills, but I think the better view is that
he is helping to keep very real dragons from devouring us all.
He asks us to pity brainwashed Americans when it would be so tempting to despise them
along with their deceivers: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
His last line, "And so it goes", oozes anguish and despair at human folly. Ray, an ex-CIA
analyst, is no Don Quijote, but rather a hard-headed realist who knows that the odds of
saving our republic from the onslaught of neocon imperialism are long and getting longer by
the minute. He also knows how high the price of losing will be in terms of human lives and
suffering.
Geoffrey de Galles , January 30, 2018 at 3:36 pm
Just a footnote: – It sure seems to me that Snowden is about to be vindicated in the
most profound manner -- i.e., as a savant, as a luminary, and as a visionary, even -- now
that the surveillance state is about to explode up the arseholes of all the many arseholes
who engendered and facilitated just such a state of affairs, whether or not utilizing FISA
warrants, during the past decade.
And all credit to Bill Binney, Tom Drake, Ray McGovern, and
a few others too, all of them good Americans. -- P.S. While I'm at it, let's not forget
Assange, who oughta be awarded honorary US citizenship (though I can quite understand and
appreciate why he'd want to decline any such offer).
Yes, I would take Nunes "seriously" regardless of the public sources of his education. Do
not forget the limited briefings given to Congress by the intelligence community concerning
their operations.
Since Chairman Nunes was one of the 8 members of both Houses of Congress
knowledgeable of operations such as the selection of "rebel leaders" in Syria as well as the
selection of the heir to the throne in Saudi Arabia, which John Brennan and his friends of
the Brookings Institute were unable to control.
Just perhaps, Nunes has some insight into why
Brennan and friends hate Pres. Trump for his support for the rival to the former Crown Prince
they so loved and trained for so many years!
Billy , January 30, 2018 at 4:18 pm
If the memo is just evidence free conspiracy theories. The dems would want it released. So
that they could rip it to shreds with real evidence. And make the Repubs look like fools. But
they don't have any evidence. Just like the evidence they didn't have for their Russia
hacking claims. If the Repubs release this to the public that'll make coverup nearly
impossible. I bet heads are gonna roll, the Repubs are gonna drive it home. Hillary losing
kind of messed things up. And the "Russia ate my homework and if you don't believe it you're
a Putin lover" crap didn't fix it.
jaycee , January 30, 2018 at 4:25 pm
The broad strokes of this story – that government insiders used unverified
"opposition research" to obtain permission to spy on members of the Trump team using the
formidable reach of the USA's surveillance networks – has been circulating since
December. The legacy mainstream media – NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, etc
– have alternately ignored the story, mis-reported issues associated with the story, or
actively assisted in creating a defence for this activity (i.e.Papadopoulos' alleged drunken
admissions to an Australian diplomat or the recent claim that Dutch intelligence had
infiltrated Russian hackers). These media outlets have been extremely partisan in exploiting
the rather thin-gruelled Russiagate allegations, but I'm not sure they will be able to spin
their culpability away in this case. The purveyors of Russiagate – deep state players,
key Democrats, mainstream media – apparently never paused to consider the consequences
to their reputations if and when the full story bubbled to the surface.
the passengers and crew of the titanic are in shallow debate about the status of the
captain and whether he and his backers lied about how many gay latino jews were staffing the
rec room..that's about what this amounts to in the larger picture of what is really happening
to a state in deep deep do-do with a population not only sinking under personal debt of more
than a trillion and public debt many times greater but threatening the race and the planet
with any continuity of a political economic system we were warned about at its inception and
which spends hundreds of billions on war and pets while many of its people live in the street
..the ceo and his opponents are a national problem but what the corporation does, no matter
who the ceo or its opponents are, is an infinitely greater problem for the race. thanks to
ray mcgovern who approaches genius compared to the schmuck who swallows and digests even more
corporate consciousness control slop than anyone should, be we need radical change of the
system, not just its staff, of private capitalist control of something called market forces
which guarantee private profits only be inflicting ever more dreadful loss on the public.
Andrew Nichols , January 30, 2018 at 5:56 pm
No they wont. Today conveniently a "new" dossier has been conjured up to replace the
discredited Steele document. Full steam ahead for the Deep State, and its twin enablers in
the US legislature and global media
I believe eventually there will be a day of reckoning. That old saying holds true: "When
thieves fall out," and that day is surely coming. The memo, if published could start an
internal war. Then justice might prevail for the american people and the suffering Millions
around the world.
Millions
Millions are dead, others are still alive
Millions of people are just trying to survive
Millions are refugees wandering the earth
Most have nothing left, of any real worth
Once they had homes and some had businesses too
Then there arrived, the warring hellish crews
They bombed and blitzed a number of countries
Will they ever pay for their evil obscenities?
So called "leaders" of the "democratic" west
"The dogs of war," that think they know best
War criminals that planned hell and destruction
Blood soaked villains oozing satisfaction
Proud of their crimes of "bringing democracy"
A hellish sight is their unctuous hypocrisy
Their partners in war crimes are the monetary villains
Who financed and paid for the missiles from the "heavens"
The assassins in the sky are just obeying orders
Is the madness of militarism definitely a disorder?
Conditioned to obey their be-medaled "superiors"
No matter that the motives are bloody ulterior
Countries destroyed and reduced to smoking rubble
The plotters and planners caused all this hellish trouble
The peoples of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and other countries too
Are the suffering and dead victims of this evil hellish crew
So say a prayer for the once "human race"
Where so-called leaders are a monstrous bloody disgrace
Where hell on earth is plotted and planned
And death and destruction covers the desert sand
The treachery of the "leaders" of "democratic" nations
Are funding and helping both sides in the conflagrations
Treason is permitted and practiced in broad daylight
Taxpayers and head choppers finance the dirty fight
This is "justice" and the so-called "rule of law"?
When well dressed war criminals are "men of straw"
Their crimes have cost society in monetary; trillions
But, worst of all, they are responsible for the deaths of untold million
[More info at link below]
My money's on this all being under the control of the CIA. I firmly believe that they
started it all by teaming up to derail Sanders' campaign: no, I was not a supporter of
Sanders (nor any of the candidates): no money, votes or agitation applied by myself
toward/against ANY of them. See my posting at the top of this comment section.
Joe Tedesky , January 31, 2018 at 2:06 am
You make a strong arguement, but if we use past White House appointees and their
noncompliance then how about a Treasury Secretary owning $25k in taxes, or a NSA adviser
found with Secret Documents stuffed down inside his underwear? Granted Manafort, Flynn, and
Kushner, should have been called out on their infractions, but then who exactly were these
Trumper's colluding with? Well when Israel comes a calling, well then collusion's okay, just
don't talk about it.
This new twist of FBI collusion sounds most interesting if we start with Admiral Mike
Rogers who had audited these reports early on in the summer of 2016. I learned this from a
Joe Degenova in a interview where he went step by step to the findings that the House
Committee had found. How DeGenova got this I'm not sure, but I'm willing to let
investigations take their course, but at least let's get the facts on the table, and see if
any laws were broke. I also don't have a bone to pick with Joe DeGenova, but when I saw him I
started seeing the attack dogs come out from both sides suddenly, and thought 'oh no'.
This whole fiasco of FISA manipulation, Russian interferences, is in the end going to get
settled quietly then it will disappear. No doubt Russia will still be bad, but Trump will be
allowed to get off the hook over Russia Manchurian blackmail charges, and hardly anyone at
the FBI will suffer much, and the rest of us Americans will be that much dumbfounded and
pissed and then we will all forget about it.
I also thought Ray McGovern was saying the same thing, and that was MSM Politics is now
taking it over completely. Joe
JanJ , January 31, 2018 at 3:34 pm
We can all agree that Trump had contacts with some Russians. Trump also had contacts with
Israelis and most likely with people who are citizens of other countries. Does this mean that
Israel and those other countries also interfered with the 2016 election?
With all your examples of contacts, you have not specified exactly what anyone Russian did,
let alone the Russian government, to influence the election in Trump's favor. Nor has anyone
else.
Given Israel's enormous influence in Official Washington and over US. foreign policy, and
given Hollywood's influence over American popular culture and what passes for a public
discussion, it would seem that any serious discussion of "the Deep State" would of necessity
include this question: What is "the Deep State" and what is Israel's role in it? Clearly Israel has a role in "the Deep State" if the US Army and the FBI find it necessary
to beg Hollywood producers to stop popularizing torture as an interrogation technique among
US troops in wartime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_reaction_to_24#Torture
mike k , January 30, 2018 at 9:56 pm
Congress is a junior partner of the Deep State. Don't expect them to go against their
Bosses. That's not how our Mafia works. The US Mafia Oligarchy is not designed to reform
itself, it's designed not to do that, and to deal harshly with anyone who tries to correct
it. But there is more than one Mafia within the whole Deep State configuration. And there is
serious competition between these groupings and the leading figures within them to be the
Boss of all Bosses. Deep State just refers to the leading power figures and groupings within
the Global Oligarchy, which functions beyond all limits of nationality, or language, or
ethnic identities. It's membership constitutes a developing Super State whose only language
and identity is power.
backwardsevolution , January 30, 2018 at 10:32 pm
Oh, there was Russian collusion, all right. Not between Trump and Russia, but between the
Clinton's and Russia on Uranium One (coming soon to a theatre near you). Karma is a bitch,
isn't it?
Drew Hunkins – "What's absolutely fascinating is that even though Trump's ceded
Jerusalem to the Zionist psychopaths and has saber rattled since day one towards Tehran, thus
far these positions STILL have not been enough to call off the Schiff-Warner dogs."
Drew, I see this as a war between the globalists and the non-globalists. One side wants to
control the world; the other side wants to get the U.S. house in order. Totally different
goals.
And, you're right, even with all the pandering done by Trump (maybe it's the only thing
saving his butt right now?), they're still going after him. I figure somebody has got
something on that little weasel, Schiff. Nobody could be that stupid. And Lindsay Graham
too.
Trump is desperately trying to get the multinational corporations to bring their money
back to the U.S. and get "some" manufacturing going again. So much debt was issued under the
last few presidents (especially under Obama) just to try and paper over the losses, and Trump
knows this. He knows the economy is hanging by a thread, and he knows they are going to try
and bring it down around his ankles, blame it all on him.
The Deep State is running scared and twisting in the wind right now. There is much more to
come. These guys are going down for obstruction of justice and treason against a duly-elected
President.
A problem with the "bring back jobs" path/push is that everything is constructed on a
global platform. "Bring back jobs" means bringing back robots and making imported good more
expensive. There may be a touch of "win" here, but there's a much bigger "loss." And,
actually, there really isn't any "win" going forward in any direction/path because global
growth is collapsing. The global platform has been an expansion of US imperialism, the US
economic system.
Remove the factories from abroad and those countries' consumer base will even less money
to purchase US goods. Folks in the US are going to be buying their own products, when
everyone is severely in debt? If you look at the CIA World Factbook the data is pretty clear:
everyone who is a net energy importer has or is on the path to having a trade deficit. The US
escapes this via the Petro-Dollar (pushing USD power over other currencies).
The Deep State has been scared for quite a while. It's ALL predicated on the Petro-Dollar.
The ME wars are ALL about trying to maintain this US lifeblood. This "arrangement" is
faltering. The cracks really started to appear with Osama Bin Laden, with his condemnation of
the US (who had been helping fund him) occupation of Saudi Arabia. One could make the
argument that 9/11 was the event used by the US to slap him down: another US operative gone
rogue. Had Bin Laden gained momentum he'd have likely taken down the Royal Family. Even if
THIS was all but a big play it still supports the track of holding the Petro-Dollar in place.
Keep in mind that the thing that all the over-thrown leaders had in common was they they were
flirting with introducing currencies (gold-backed) that would challenge the Petro-Dollar's
standing.
Trump probably knows and understands little. Doesn't matter. His mistake might be that he
believes, in simplistic thinking, that something can be done and that something will upset
the existing apple-cart. Well, sure, the apple-cart is all messed up anyway. But I am under
no illusion that Trump has any real "solution." Reason being is that there IS no solution to
an economic system that is based on growth and gets to the point where growth is no longer
possible: again, this growth-model has been globalized -- there is no more there to exploit for
growth.
What has happened so far is that the wealthy continue to become wealthier, the MIC
continues to grow, and any "MAGA" actions have done nothing for the middle and low classes in
the US (and nothing but added terror for the same in many of the rest of the world). His
"wall" is no more than another "construction project," which is the only real thing he
understands, and I'm afraid he's doing it as he has done for all his construction projects-
for his ego (look at what "I" built!).
backwardsevolution , January 30, 2018 at 11:15 pm
Actually a few things are happening all at once, and they have been done purposely to
divide and conquer the masses:
Identity politics. As Paul Craig Roberts said, the country used to be split along class
lines. It was the rich fighting to keep as much money as possible versus the poor trying to
get a fair shake. Identity politics was brought in to divide people: women were pitted
against men, blacks and Hispanics were pitted against the "white" man, left fascists against
right fascists, etc., all done to keep everyone so occupied fighting each other so they don't
turn around and denounce the real enemy – the massive inequality that has built up over
the past eight years.
Russiagate. Done to prevent Trump from winning the election, and to tie his presidency in
knots when he did. Aim is impeachment.
Outcome of it all: loss of free speech, threat of nuclear war, a divided country, massive
inequality, shredded Constitution, and an attempt to overthrow a President.
Bob Van Noy , January 31, 2018 at 11:18 am
backwardsevolution yes, the great accomplishment of the Nixon administration was, with the
help of social manager Rodger Ailes, the refinement of the "wedge issue." They successfully
wedged the student anti-war movement from Labor (otherwise allies) learned from that
"success" and then went on to apply the wedge many times over. Mr. Rove is an advanced expert
at this technique
A good example of the fear of the Establishment of a uniting of the youth with workers was
the Summer of 1968 in Paris, when and where the Peace Talks were still arguing over the shape
of the table. The "Bernie Campaign" was a reminder of the Summer of 1968 and that challenge
was handled by some of the same Democratic leaders who swore to never again have a losing
candidate (and platform) of 1972. The Populist Movement that supported Candidate Trump has
more historical roots in our Nation as the electoral map of 2016 shows. The genius of Pres.
Trump is that he learned the lessons of history, especially the success of his Hero President
Andrew Jackson, but has adjusted the lessons of the Age of Jackson to the present era.
Seer , January 31, 2018 at 9:10 am
And which was/is Clapper closets to, the FBI or the CIA? The FBI is being set up to take the hit, not that they don't deserve to be smacked, but
it's almost a certainty that they're not the prime movers. So, again
My money's on the CIA (or the other higher-powered alphabet organization, NSA?) having
started the Big Subversion with the push to "oust" Sanders from the running. Only a fool
would believe that the CIA (or NSA) wouldn't have known about the crap that was happening
with the DNC. That Clapper sand-bagged it tends to show that they were almost certainly
complicit in the whole thing: if they weren't then there would have been actual facts/data
put out to show Russian interference.
Sanders gets whacked by the DNC (CIA and or other high level agencies manipulate the media
sphere to blank out Sanders). DNC insiders. dissenters (was it Rich?) counter and whack Clinton, but TPTB (likely with FBI and or CIA assistance) attempt to re-float Clinton's waning support
by introducing the DNC insider hit as coming from Russia.
Trump gets whacked by the same folks pushing the Russia story. But, Trump is so slimy,
slithery and isn't a creature that TPTB have had to do battle with on the public political
scene (at this level) that he squeaks by (with the support of a hardened supporters). It's
likely that the CIA started to back off on this, sever any collaboration it may have had with
the FBI; scapegoats in the FBI will be sought to close the failing story, likely still
allowing "doubt" to linger as it will help handcuff Trump.
geeyp , January 31, 2018 at 7:55 am
Hello Aaron, and a worthy point you make. Methinks the Hoover Org. just took their
shenanigans too far this time and got caught with their pants down. Right on to you Seer,
also. I am not sure if Joe Tedesky was referencing my post to "Howard" or not; if so, I do
not recall the current story of an NSA advisor with papers in his pants. Are you referring to
Michael Flynn? I do recall, in the mists of time, an advisor to President Clinton, name of
Sandy _erger, pilfering documents on his presidency from the National Archives. Lastly, of
course Ray McGovern has added much needed thoughts to the discussion of potential outcome of
this current situation. Take care, all of you. Thanks.
Joe Tedesky , January 31, 2018 at 3:11 pm
Yes I was referring to Sandy Berger. I also commented to Howard's post. Good stuff geeyp.
Joe
Patricia Victour , January 31, 2018 at 10:07 am
Maybe this memo and the fallout will really "drain the swamp?" Wishful thinking, I
know.
Seamus Padraig , January 31, 2018 at 3:39 pm
"Adam B. Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, giving hypocrisy a
bad name. Schiff said yesterday that it had been a 'sad day' for the committee and that
Republicans had voted 'to politicize the intelligence process.'"
Russiagate will be partially discredited, and that's good. A couple of heads too closely
connected to Steele Dossier might roll. McCabe is the first and hopefully not the last. But to
expect more then that is probably way too optimistic. even Trump might remain under fire as
forces which played "appointment of the Special Prosecutor gambit" are probably more numerous and
powerful to be discard by firing Rosenstein and Mueller. It is doubtful that the "Deep State"
will allow Nunes to inflict much damage. The effect probably will be superficial and more on the
propaganda site.
Notable quotes:
"... Mike, you meant the way the DNC changed the dialogue away from the content -- the substance -- of the Hillary-Posesta emails to "Russia hacking the DNC and giving their emails to wikileaks." ..."
Ooops, Mike, you meant the way the DNC changed the dialogue away from the content --
the substance -- of the Hillary-Posesta emails to "Russia hacking the DNC and giving their
emails to wikileaks." Yea, you meant that, right? Of course, neither the Dems nor Reps
(nor Trump) have a monopoly on lying, but there are degrees, and degrees of damages.
Realist , January 31, 2018 at 12:20 am
Yes, Joe, it is disgusting how they insist on demonizing a good man only days after his
death. I am depressed. Oliver Stones' defense of this exemplary human being in the RT piece
is greatly appreciated. I'm sure he will become a bigger target himself now.
Why are most of the highest profile combatants on both sides of the issues in this clash
of cultures throwbacks to the 1960's? Mostly guys in their 70's and late 60's. When will the
younger generations, who represent the deep future, stand up and be counted? Right now the
most likely president as of January 20th, 2021, will be from among Trump, Clinton, Biden,
Kerry or Bernie Sanders, if you believe the media, everyone of whom will be in their
mid-to-late 70's.
Younger readers here, I'm not talking about you. But, if you can, get involved in the
political process to replace these dinosaurs. I'll be hanging with the pterodactyls myself by
then, since I'm in the same cohort.
"... In imperial Rome when a plot against the emperor failed the plotters were expected to fall on their swords. It will be interesting to see whether the same holds true in Washington. ..."
To which all I can is that all this comes ill from an agency and a newspaper which ever
since the start of the Russiagate scandal have been leaking and publishing a deluge of
classified material in order to discredit the President and his officials.
The New York Times article incidentally confirms that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
is named in the GOP memorandum, and was one of the Justice Department officials who submitted
applications for surveillance warrants to the FISA court which were based on material drawn
from the Trump Dossier, but who apparently did not disclose to the FISA court that the material
was drawn from the Trump Dossier, which was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and
the Hillary Clinton campaign.
The New York Times article also confirms that these FISA warrants were obtained in order to
mount surveillance of Carter Page. Apparently Rosenstein was involved in an application to
renew one of these warrants as recently as the spring of 2017 ie. after he was appointed Deputy
Attorney General of the United States.
The New York Times article speaks of a last ditch attempt by Rosenstein and FBI Director
Christopher Wray to stop publication of the GOP memorandum on Monday
Mr. Wray made a last-ditch effort on Monday, going to the White House with the deputy
attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to try to persuade the White House to stop the release
of the memo. They spoke to John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, but were
unsuccessful.
In the meantime hysteria amongst the Democrats and the media has been rising to panic
levels, with preposterous claims that no less a person than Devin Nunes, the chair of the House
Intelligence Committee, has also been compromised by the Russians and is working on their
behalf.
This
bizarre exchange between MSNBC panelist John Heilemann and Democrat Senator Chris Murphy
has to be seen to be believed
Heilemann : Is it possible that the Republican chairman of the House Intel Committee has
been compromised by the Russians? Is it possible that we actually have a Russian agent
running the House Intel Committee on the Republican side?
Murphy : I-I-I-I hope that's not the case. I certainly have no information to suggest that
it is .
Heilemann : Doesn't his behavior speak of that, though? I mean, I'm not the first person
who's raised this. He's behaving like someone who's been compromised, and there are people in
the intelligence community and others with great expertise in this area who look at him and
say, 'That guy's been compromised.
We got a classic example of that yesterday with a story in the Guardian of yet another
'second Trump Dossier' which supposedly corroborates the actual Trump Dossier.
The Guardian article
announcing the existence of this 'second Trump Dossier' – which incidentally is the first
article by the Guardian to acknowledge the existence of the GOP memorandum – is clearly
sourced from the FBI, and makes the following claims about it
... ... ...
Already – even before it is published – the GOP memorandum has inflicted its
first casualty in the person of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose resignation was
confirmed on Monday. Apparently his name also appears in the GOP memorandum, and FBI Director
Christopher Wray, after reading it on Sunday, demanded and got his resignation immediately.
The panic and hysteria in Washington as publication of the GOP memorandum looms suggests
more casualties may follow.
In imperial Rome when a plot against the emperor failed the plotters were expected to
fall on their swords. It will be interesting to see whether the same holds true in
Washington.
"... "Public demand for Mueller and Rosenstein to be fired" The dems won't have to worry to much about that issue because 80% of the public isn't following this story at all and truly does not give a shit about any of it. ..."
"... I've said before no matter what is revealed it is not going to cause the kind of public outrage that many may expect it would or even should. Elements within the FBI being exposed as duplicitous, politically motivated, lying, anti democratic and working against the current president as elected by the people will be met with little more than passing apathy by the public at large. ..."
"... Adam Schiff: FISA Memo Could Lead To Firings Of Mueller, Rosenstein. My response: GOOD!!! Let justice be served!!!!! By the way, Q-ANON notes predict this outcome!!!! ..."
Stocks are red. Trey Gowdy is abruptly retiring from Congress. Everybody is laughing at what looks
like drool dribbling from the edge of Joe Kennedy's mouth during his rebuttal to last night's State of
the Union.
And along comes Reuters, dropping a bombshell headline that, if accurate, could shift the
narrative of the multiple investigations involving Russia and obstruction of justice.
Reuters quoted Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intel Committee, who believes the
contents of the four-page memo about allegedly egregious FBI abuses of FISA set for public release in
the next several days, could lead to the firing of Special Counsel Bob Mueller, or more likely Deputy
AG Rod Rosenstein.
TOP DEMOCRAT ON U.S. HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE SAYS REPUBLICAN MEMO SETS STAGE FOR
POSSIBLE FIRING OF SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER OR MORE LIKELY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROSENSTEIN
And:
U.S. HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN NUNES SAYS "NO SURPRISE" TO SEE THE FBI AND
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ISSUE "SPURIOUS OBJECTIONS" TO REPUBLICAN MEMO -STATEMENT
Now the question of course is whether this is a statement of fact - in other words the FISA memo
contains cause for termination - or a smoke screen to claim that Mueller's firing is only made
possible by the "political act" that is the imminent release of the FISA memo.
* * *
In an amusing coincidence, Gowdy's remarks from a Tuesday morning
appearance on Fox & Friends now seem eerily prophetic...
REP. TREY GOWDY (R-SC): My Democratic colleagues didn't want us to
find this information. They did everything they could to keep us from
finding this information. I think it
will be embarrassing to
Adam Schiff once people realize the extent to which he went to keep them
from learning any of this.
That would be the embarrassment...
I mean, going to court to help Fusion GPS so we can't find out they
paid for the dossier, and that they were working for the DNC. That's a
pretty big step to go to court to try to keep the American people from
learning something. So, if it were up to Adam Schiff, you wouldn't know
about Hillary Clinton's email. You wouldn't know about the server. You
wouldn't know about the dossier. I do find it ironic that he has his own
memo right now because if it were up to him, we wouldn't know any of it.
* * *
In response to the FBI's "rare public statement" claiming the contents
of the memo distort the truth, House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes, Schiff's
Republican counterpart and primary antagonist on the committee, has
responded with his own statement dismissing the FBI's "spurious
objections."
Trump should just tweet today: Any low-/mid-level agent who comes
forward in the next 24 hours, gets immunity; after that whoever
gets caught in the churn goes to Leavenworth or firing squad.
"Public demand for Mueller and Rosenstein to be
fired" The dems won't have to worry to much about
that issue because 80% of the public isn't
following this story at all and truly does not give
a shit about any of it.
I've said before no matter what is revealed it
is not going to cause the kind of public outrage
that many may expect it would or even should.
Elements within the FBI being exposed as
duplicitous, politically motivated, lying, anti
democratic and working against the current
president as elected by the people will be met with
little more than passing apathy by the public at
large.
You can see that happening already, at least I
can, everyone I talk to, even those who voted for
him and have been vocaly supportive since have no
idea about any of this. Ask them about it and all
you get are blank stares in return.
The majority of the the US populace has not been
paying attention and they are not about to start
now. The other group absolutely hates him so it's
not going to matter to them if senior FBI agents
were working against him or not, if the anti trump
crowd gives any time to this drama it will be to
nominate these agents for some kind of medal.
Of course the MSM will continue to do its job by
downplaying, deflecting and distorting the issues
this raises about the FBI as a whole, as will the
FBI itself blaming a few rouge elements while
accepting no responsibility and we will be right
back to business as usual in no time.
So in short between large scale public apathy
and disengagement in regards to this issue and
trump along with a media machine that will take
advantage of that I don't see the dems being all
hurt by this bas they will just quietly disengage
themselves and let the public memory hole the
entire affair.
"I've said before no matter what is revealed it
is not going to cause the kind of public outrage
that many may expect it would or even should."
Agreed. It is called multi generational
conditioning .. direct correlation with the
great dumbing down, bread, circuses and the
like, or running in circles on the hamster wheel
will do. 24/7 opinion op ed "news" , lightening
fast "reporting" or mis-reporting in real time,
and also the weekend newsie dump. That is why
the same folks, usual suspects are able to pull
the same tricks, over, and over, and over again
..
By the time the horse dejour is rode to
death, kicked repeatedly when down .. and all
the various players jockey for fame and their 2
minutes of talking points, the thing is so
entirely convoluted, the larger balance of the
entirely desensitized citzenry fails to even
notice, or care. Look honey, they're kickin that dead horse
again.
Adam Schiff:
FISA Memo Could Lead To
Firings Of Mueller, Rosenstein.
My response:
GOOD!!! Let justice be
served!!!!!
By the way, Q-ANON notes predict this outcome!!!!
President Donald Trump has told aides he wants a memo alleging the FBI abused its surveillance tools released as quickly as possible
Notable quotes:
"... Following the intelligence committee's vote, Trump has five days to approve the memo's release. Sources told CNN that the president hoped to see the document made public shortly after his State of the Union speech Tuesday evening. ..."
King, who is a member of the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee, filed a motion Monday to release the memo. The memo was compiled
by the committee's chairman, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, and his staff. It reportedly details misconduct by the FBI and the Department
of Justice in the investigation into alleged collusion between the Russian government and Trump's campaign during the 2016 election.
The committee approved King's motion over the objections of Democratic members...
Following the intelligence committee's vote, Trump has five days to approve the memo's release. Sources
told CNN that the
president hoped to see the document made public shortly after his State of the Union speech Tuesday evening. The Republican-led committee
blocked the release of a competing memo compiled by its Democratic members.
Beyond The Pale, 16 hr ago
It doesn't matter which side it concerns or affects if it details "serious improper behavior at high levels" then it should
be released and put out in the open. Let the truth be known and if criminal acts were committed they will receive appropriate
judgment!
" I do think Russia-gate is an over-hyped political campaign. The threat from Russia to
our electoral process is like a cult, in which belief is paramount to rational thinking.
Evidence. Let's see the evidence for all these things."
" The weight of evidence is on the side of the debunkers of Russiagate. This
"debate" is far from a wash, or a draw. The propaganda and spin are from the Russia blamers, not
their refuters."
Notable quotes:
"... Talking about the spin the New York Times is putting on the memo contents (The Nunes Conspiracy), please take a look at last night's PBS News Hour. Instead of what Judy Woodruff and Lisa Desjardins should have reported, they spun Andrew McCabe's "stepping aside" as yet another loss of an important high ranking FBI official causing still more vacancies in the many still unfilled offices due to Trump's failure to appoint people, etc. It was unbelievable! ..."
"... It's painful to say, but the PBS Newshour is a pathetically blatant propaganda outlet. I suspect Judy Woodruff, Mark Shields, etc have nights of troubled sleep. ..."
Talking about the spin the New York Times is putting on the memo contents (The Nunes
Conspiracy), please take a look at last night's PBS News Hour. Instead of what Judy Woodruff
and Lisa Desjardins should have reported, they spun Andrew McCabe's "stepping aside" as yet
another loss of an important high ranking FBI official causing still more vacancies in the
many still unfilled offices due to Trump's failure to appoint people, etc. It was
unbelievable!
Then Judy interviewed Mark Warner, and his spin was even more astounding -- that most
Democrats hadn't read it, implying it was unavailable; also implying that this "memo
creation" hadn't gone through proper channels. Nothing on the up and up with Warner! But, I
don't think they are going to be able to get by with it. Will the American people agree to be
duped by propaganda when the facts are on the table? I'm not seeing that friends of mine are
coming around, but do they really believe in Santa Claus? Is there integrity in the land, or
will truth continue to be trampled in the streets and sold in the shambles? The house of
cards is about to crumble, or will it?
JWalters , January 31, 2018 at 12:54 am
It's painful to say, but the PBS Newshour is a pathetically blatant propaganda outlet. I
suspect Judy Woodruff, Mark Shields, etc have nights of troubled sleep.
Regarding Congressman Nunes,
"The current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-
California, is one of the few politicians who knows and cares about the attack on the
Liberty."
In further thinking about those two op/eds, the authors wasted their time trying to sway
Trump as he's disowned being the policy leader on Syria, with Defense, State and CIA vying
for leadership despite every policy move they've made ending as gross failures seriously
degrading the Empire's brand which was already eroding under Obama/Kerry. With the
FBI/DNC/HRC related Scandals all reaching their acme in a manner that will exonerate Trump, I
don't see him needing to provoke an overseas distraction as he greatly desires to take down
those that tried to do him in. Indeed, exposing the massive rot and corruption at the core of
the federal government would actually give him a campaign promise victory, one I would
applaud. Of the three agencies, the CIA followed by Defense would be most injured by the
scandal fallout; and of the two, the CIA would be more willing and able to create an overseas
provocation in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Wishful thinking--perhaps. Ironically, RussiaGate Truth is on Trump's side. Both RNC and
DNC are vapid and corrupt to the max and the grave awaits them both. Will a domestic
political victory for Trump over RussiaGate provide him with the courage to retake control
over foreign policy? Or will CIA do something more reprehensible than 911 in order to deflect
the fallout? Or ?
"... There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia, because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage. ..."
"... Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses? ..."
"... Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism. ..."
In an act of insane escalation of provocations against Russia, Washington has produced a
list of 210 top Russian government officials and important business executives who are
"gangsters," "members of Putin's gang," "threats," "people deserving to be sanctioned," or
however the Western presstitutes care to explain the list. The absurd list includes the Prime
Minister of Russia, the Foreign Minister, the Defense Minister, and executives of Gazprom,
Rosneft, and Bank Rossiya. In other words, the suggestion is that the entirety of Russian
political and business leadership is corrupt.
The Russians do not seem to understand the purpose of the list. Presidential spokesman
Dmitry Peskov said that the government sees the list as an attempt to interfere in the Russian
presidential election. There is no doubt that Washington would like to reduce Putin's public
support so that Washington can use the Western-funded NGOs operating in Russia to present
American stooges as Russia's true voices. However, it is unlikely that the Russian people are
stupid enough to fall for such a trick.
Washington's list has three purposes:
To undercut Russian diplomacy by presenting the top echelons of Russia as gangsters.
To present Russia as a military threat as per the ridiculous announcement by British defense
minister Gavin Williamson on January 26 that Russia intends to rip British "infrastructure
apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths," and create "total chaos
within the country."
To shift American and European attention away from the coming release of the House
Intelligence Committee's report that proves Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the
Obama Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee against President Trump.
Washington's Russian list will give the presstitutes something else to talk about instead of
the act of treason committed against the President of the United States. Expect to hear nothing
from the presstitutes except that the House Intelligence Committee report is only a political
effort to shield Trump from accountability.
There is likely a fourth reason for the list. Israel wants Washington's pressure on Russia,
because Russia has so far prevented Israel's use of the US military to create the same chaos in
Syria and Iran as has been created in Iraq and Libya. Israel wants Syria and Iran destabilized
because they support Hezbollah, which prevents Israel from occupying the water resources of
southern Lebanon. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which requires
the list, passed the House and Senate by a vote of 517-5. Normally, such unanimous foreign
policy votes are associated with demands from the Israel Lobby.
The Russian government and the Russian people need to understand that Washington considers
Russia to be a threat because Russia is not under Washington's thumb. The Zionist
neoconservatives control US foreign policy. Their ideology is world hegemony. They do not use
diplomacy. They rely on disinformation, threats, and violence. Therefore, there is no American
diplomacy with which Putin and Lavrov can engage.
Putin, being a responsible political leader of a great power, does not respond to
provocation with provocation. He ignores the insults and continues to wait for the West to come
to its senses. But what if the West does not come to its senses?
For the West to come to its senses requires the complete overthrow of the Zionist
neoconservatives and/or the breakup of NATO. The overthrow of the neoconservatives would
require a rival foreign policy voice, and that voice is very weak as it is shut off from the
media, the think tanks, and the universities. The breakup of NATO would require European
political figures to give up their Washington subsidies and the career advancement that
Washington provides.
As I write the Atlantic Council is holding a members and press call in for a discussion with
Atlantic Council members Amb. Daniel Fried and Anders Aslund. The Atlantic Council is a
neoconservative propaganda agency. The purpose of the "discussion" is to further undermine
US-Russian relations.
The Russian government faces a difficult situation. The foreign policy of the US, and
thereby of the Western world, is controlled by neoconservatives who are determined to present
Russia in the most threatening light. Russian diplomacy can do nothing to change this. The
non-provocative and responsible Russian response has the effect of encouraging more
provocations from Washington. At some point Russian passivity might convince the
neoconservatives that they can successfully attack Russia. Alternatively, the continual
provocations might convince Russia that the country is targeted for attack, thereby causing a
Russian pre-emptive action.
Everyone in the world should realize the threat of nuclear war that is inherent in
Washington's policy toward Russia, and everyone in the world should understand that the only
threat that Russia poses is to Washington's unilateralism.
"... It has got to the point where I cannot read/listen/view to ANY news stories in the mainstream media without doubting their accuracy. And that, I began to think, was a tragedy. But no, it's actually liberating: be a skeptic. Ask why. Ask who benefits from the story. And what their sources are – If unnamed, simply disregard. And remember that the MSM is beholden to very powerful media groups with their own agendas along with deep and opaque ties to various governments/agencies. ..."
"... In the USSR, before the collapse of communism, party members used to lament that Russians didn't believe any of their media output but were also amazed and full of awe that people in the West tended to believe their own media ..."
"... Another nail in the coffin of the legacy news media. The more the years go bye the more the alternative media becomes mainstream. ..."
I have just returned from Syria. The narrative on the Ghouta alleged "chemical attacks" is
coming from the Al Qaeda affiliated, UK FCO/US multi-million-financed White Helmets and has
not basis in fact.
Meanwhile the terrorist groups supported by the White Helmets and the UK/US coalition of
terror, have launched a series of murderous mortar attacks on the civilian areas of Damascus,
Old City (Christian areas). I was leaving Damascus on Monday this week, when they targeted
hundreds of school children pouring out of the schools for the school buses parked in the
streets of the Old City and just outside its walls. 9 people were killed including one 3 year
old child, Elias Khoury. Christine Hourani is a beautiful Syrian teenager, her leg has been
amputated below the knee as a result of this indiscriminate and deliberate attack on children
by the same "moderate" extremists who are feeding the corporate media with the Fake News that
the Guardian relies upon to maintain its anti Syria and New Cold War narrative.
The Guardian is one of the chief fire-stokers for the UK FCO and acts as its main attack
dog when the UK FCO is under threat of exposure for its funding of terrorism in Syria with
taxpayer funds – hence the ridiculous Solon article trying to discredit myself and Eva
Bartlett, among others – while never addressing the facts and hard evidence against the
UK FCO and the various entities it is financing, such as the White Helmets, the Local
Councils in Syria & the Free Syrian Police (to name only a few). The latest CW attack
story is to distract from the crimes against humanity being comitted by the terrorist
factions in the eastern suburbs of Damascus and to further foment the escalation of military
conflict between Russian and the US on Syrian soil. The role of the Guardian is a criminal
one – and it must not be underestimated, they will take us to war, if allowed to
continue.
What the Guardian and others don't mention is. 1. the terrorist attacks on civilians and
the massacre of children & civilians on a daily basis. 2. Russia delivered a humanitarian
aid convoy to eastern Ghouta on 19th January, why are these aid deliveries not mentioned and
who benefits from them (see East Aleppo and Madaya to know exactly who does receive and
stockpile these supplies). 3. How are the terrorist receiving weapon supplies to facilitate
the murder of Syrian civilians in the residential areas of the city? The Guardian is at the
vanguard of the UK FCO dirty intelligence operation in Syria, you only have to create a
timescale of their reports on the alleged Khan Sheikhoun attacks to see who led that
narrative for the British public based upon spurious claims and unverified testimony from
known terrorist operators. Of course the Guardian does not allow comment, it knows perfectly
well that it has been rumbled.
Not expecting anything from the Graun really but this SIS memo is a new low . The mystery for
me is why do they bother even . Who are their target readership ?
This chemical attack has been "in preparation" for a while – several comments on blogs
with sources more credible than either the White Helmets or SOHR. In particular, on Moon of
Alabama – here's a quote:
"Asaad Hanna @AsaadHannaa 4:26pm · 22 Jan 2018
Assad army dropped chlorine bombed barrels on Abo Aldhoor military base #Idlib countryside in
a big attempt to take control of it.
The above is from an anti-Syrian "Media Adviser, researcher and freelance journalist"
previously published or quoted by Al Jazeerah, The Guardian, Business Insider and several
other outlets. His twitter account has a "Verified" mark.
"There is only a tiny problem with the tweet about the Abu Duhur air base. Since Saturday
the base is in government hands. Yesterday the Syrian Ministry of Defense officially
announced the full capture of the air base."
"Whoever conducted the attacks, Russia ultimately bears responsibility for the victims
in East Ghouta and countless other Syrians targeted with chemical weapons, since Russia
became involved in Syria," Tillerson told reporters.
Tillerson told reporters, and reporters just wrote it down! I was following the Twitter
exchange just now between OffG and the BBC reporter – Dan something – about the
recent new round of Russia fear porn , and it's just the same ; "I just write what the
general said": this alleged journalist.
Glad OffG reminded him what journalism actually is. You are supposed to check your
facts!
"There is simply no denying that Russia, by shielding its Syrian ally, has breached its
commitments to the US as a framework guarantor. At a bare minimum, Russia must stop
vetoing, or at the very least abstain, from future security council votes on this issue,"
he added.
But what if the "rebels" did the attack? or – even more likely – what if the
"attack" never happened like the one featured in "Saving Syria's Children"?
A good reporter could have had this fellow on the ropes, having to explain the nonsense
he's talking – but no, they just obediently type it all up and publish it.
When I first read the Solon article in the Guardian my hackles rose alarmingly. At the
time of publication, there was already widespread information as to the true nature of the
White Helmets, including about origin and funding.
As well as subsequently reading many articles in independent media about the Solon piece,
I have belatedly read your linked article above. The emails you received from Solon inviting
comment were, as you rightly imply, damning 'evidence' as to the nature of her proposed
story. It simply beggars belief.
It has got to the point where I cannot read/listen/view to ANY news stories in the
mainstream media without doubting their accuracy. And that, I began to think, was a tragedy.
But no, it's actually liberating: be a skeptic. Ask why. Ask who benefits from the story. And
what their sources are – If unnamed, simply disregard. And remember that the MSM is
beholden to very powerful media groups with their own agendas along with deep and opaque ties
to various governments/agencies.
In the USSR, before the collapse of communism, party members used to lament that Russians
didn't believe any of their media output but were also amazed and full of awe that people in
the West tended to believe their own media. Not any more. We've finally come full circle
Thanks – comments are a great initiative on some of these Guardian propaganda stories.
Amazing the way US officials can in one breath condemn a nation (Syria Govt in this case) and
at the same time announce they are establishing an illegal and permanent garrison in the
country (Syria in this case). These US officials must have skin made of rawhide – or
snake leather. Surprised our Foreign Minister Bishop hasn't been applauding this new
development.
Another nail in the coffin of the legacy news media. The more the years go bye the more the
alternative media becomes mainstream. Once the reset happens good bye to the lame street
media and hello to good old fashion news where journos question more.
The Guardian like all legacy news sights are on life support.
Russia ate my homework to western economic recovery to Takfiri rebranding as freedom fighters
have all be revealed as simple good old fashion propaganda how Orwellian and fascistic the
times we r living
It is censorship. When the Guardian promoted the White Helmet bid for the Nobel Peace Prize
in 2016, it shamelessly lobbied for their success. The hundreds, if not thousands of comments
reflected public outrage at their blatant PR for an organisation that has clear affiliations
to Al Qaeda in Syria and which is financed by the UK FCO with taxpayer funds. To dismiss this
outrage as "trolling" merely echoes the lexicon employed by the Guardian to dismiss those who
are exposing the UK regime's nefarious role in Syria and its project to destabilize a
sovereign nation and to bring about regime change yet again, in favour of a puppet regime
more in tune with UK imperialist designs in the region.
When Solon wrote her appalling
lynch-mob-hack piece attacking myself, Eva Bartlett, Tim Anderson etc she used the same
terminology – and the Guardian exercised the same censorship – even, illegally,
denying myself and others named in the article, the right to reply.
Rather than attack the
"standard of debate", I would be asking, why has the rage against the criminal misdirecting,
omission & misrepresenting of facts in Syria, reached such a fever pitch? You may
consider those "trolling" remarks to be beneath you but I say, that is an insult to the
public that the Guardian is asking to fund their efforts .that makes the Guardian answerable
to its audience, however they may express their disgust.
The 60th annual Grammy Awards went full anti-President Donald Trump on Sunday as the
awards show host James Corden enlisted singers Cher and John Legend, rappers Snoop Dogg and
Cardi B, music producer DJ Khaled, and failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
to read excepts from Michael Wolff's White House tell-all Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White
House.
"Trump won't read anything. He gets up halfway through meetings with World leaders because
he is bored," Legend read during the surprise comedy bit meant to introduce the Grammy Award
for Best Spoken Word Album.
"His comb-over: A product called 'Just for Men,'" Cher said.
"Trump did not enjoy his own inauguration, he started to get angry and hurt that stars were
there to hurt him and embarrass him," Snoop Dogg said.
"... [neo]Liberalism is so busy pushing their phony Trump colluding with Russia story (that has now collapsed) they didn't even notice that we now know for sure reprobate hillary paid fusion GPS for a phony dossier which the FBI may have also paid for (they offered money to collaborate it) AND which the US hating obama admin and FBI agents used to get FISA warrants and work to undermine Trump and his administration even before he won the election. FBI agents demoted by Mueller all colluding against Trump to overturn the will of the people! ..."
"... You are 100% correct. Until you are the target of a FBI investigation yourself, one in which you know that you haven't done anything illegal, you have no idea what impact it has on you and your family. Cost is only one factor, what about the damage to your reputation both personal and professional? ..."
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said Congress wants to investigate whether anyone's personal
freedoms were violated in the FISA warrant process, Fox News reported Tuesday.
"The question that we feel we have to look into is were people's civil liberties violated in
the FISA process. That's a very important question," said Mr. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican,
referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act .
[neo]Liberalism is so busy pushing their phony Trump colluding with
Russia story (that has now collapsed) they didn't even notice that we now know
for sure reprobate hillary paid fusion GPS for a phony dossier which the FBI
may have also paid for (they offered money to collaborate it) AND which the US
hating obama admin and FBI agents used to get FISA warrants and work to
undermine Trump and his administration even before he won the election. FBI
agents demoted by Mueller all colluding against Trump to overturn the will of
the people!
You are 100% correct. Until you are the target of a FBI investigation yourself, one in
which you know that you haven't done anything illegal, you have no idea what impact it
has on you and your family. Cost is only one factor, what about the damage to your
reputation both personal and professional? Yes, they sometimes try to keep a low profile
and not disclose the fact that they are conducting an investigation or that you're the
target, but that becomes hard to accomplish as they question others and send out
subpoenas, etc.
RELEASE THE MEMO! Expose how FISA has been abused by the Obama Regime politicized FBI
which has become the Gestapo enforcement arm of the Democrat Party
"... Free speech is one thing but this stuff shouldn't be allowed. Making up false allegations against someone should Not be protected speech! This guy should be fired immediately! ..."
"... The legal issue is libel and slander, but the laws are very specific and need to be read and understood carefully before launching into a lawsuit against Progressive demagogues. ..."
"... Mr Heileman is behaving in a very McCarthyism manner( I mean the cartoonish liberal version of McCarthyism not the real McCarthy) ..."
Free speech is one thing but this stuff shouldn't be allowed.
Making up false allegations against someone should Not be protected speech!
This guy should be fired immediately!
The legal issue is libel and slander, but the laws are very specific and need to be
read and understood carefully before launching into a lawsuit against Progressive
demagogues.
Yes, many top Democrats have publicly said there is no evidence of Trump/Russia
collusion...
even the melting-face woman Maxine Waters said so. But the fact the search continues IS evidence of Democrat desperation and
childishness.
It is about the spin - deflection - intimidation, or perhaps a hope that the democrats
can get a rise out of Trump or his Family via a tweet. The Administration really needs to
slap this stuff down - hard, and bury these false accusers. Incarcerate, confiscate
assets, freeze the accounts, and when the MSM starts spreading what is false crap, throw
them in too...it might improve the Journalistic standards while where at it. In essence,
make these people accountable for their accusations.
Maybe mr. Heilemann is having nancy Pelosi write up his talking points? Mr. Nunes
looks like a paragon of reason compared to any of the msnbc socialist parrots, and the
comparison is even more extreme when compared to adam shiff. Unfortunately, when your
main goal is to obfuscate and throw incredibly rude comments at your opposition, you
lose.
The Legacy media is always between 24 and 72hr behind what is really going on because
they have to clear their talking points through the DNC and Valarie Jarrett before going
on air.
The memo won't be released until after Trump has had a chance to bask in the glow of
his SOTU. And there's a lot to boast about: the economy is soaring, ISIS is destroyed,
record number of fed judges appointed, tax reform, companies repatriating billions of off
shore dollars. This is one SOTU the Democrats could only DREAM they could have.
Unfortunately, their policies won't allow them.
Well, dunno about any wires, but I did see Harry "the littlest mouse turd" Reid admit
that he got up in front of the senate and told the world the Romney was a tax evader to
the tune of many $millions. You understand that anything can be said on that floor
without legal consequence. Harry LMT told the interviewer it was ok to lie and malign a
person if that's what it took to win the election.
Thankfully, that scum bag is gone. Unfortunately, the Democrats have a limitless
supply of people to replace him. Whatever happened to honest debate and statesmanship?
There was a time when both sides could express opposition, without name calling and
outrageous accusations.
How about the 2005 photo just surfacing this week with Osucko smiling and shaking
hands with the biggest black racist on the planet, Farrakhan? A photo that has been
hidden for the last 13 years because the Congressional Black Caucus didn't want it
released so as not to damage his chances of being elected. If that had surfaced, he
wouldn't have won. Didn't hear about that? Oh, that's right, you only listen to the
ClintonNewsNetwork. Keep shoveling that s*#t down your gullet.
Veteran MSNBC political analyst John Heilemann should put up or shut up. Probably
wrote this to cover some breaking news that excoriates the Dems and Party
The Liberal media's uncontrollable disdain for Donald J. Trump has reached manic
proportions ...and it's going to devour them over the remaining 3-7 years of the Trump
presidency, as it already has THE LOS ANGELES TIMES and THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS.
"... Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fighting for scores of nations, with troops on every continent and forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware. "I didn't know there were 1,000 troops in Niger," said Senator Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. "We don't know exactly where we're at in the world, militarily, and what we're doing." ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Forward Operating Base Torkham, in Nangahar Province, Afghanistan (army.mil) If Turkey is not bluffing, U.S. troops in Manbij, Syria,
could be under fire by week's end, and NATO engulfed in the worst crisis in its history.
Turkish President Erdogan said Friday his forces will cleanse Manbij of Kurdish fighters, alongside whom U.S. troops are embedded.
Erdogan's foreign minister demanded concrete steps by the United States to end its support of the Kurds, who control the Syrian
border with Turkey east of the Euphrates all the way to Iraq.
If the Turks attack Manbij, America will face a choice: stand by our Kurdish allies and resist the Turks, or abandon the Kurds.
Should the U.S. let the Turks drive the Kurds out of Manbij and the entire Syrian border area, as Erdogan threatens, American
credibility would suffer a blow from which it would not soon recover.
But to stand with the Kurds and oppose Erdogan's forces could mean a crackup of NATO and a loss of U.S. bases inside Turkey, including
the air base at Incirlik.
Turkey also sits astride the Dardanelles entrance to the Black Sea. NATO's loss would thus be a triumph for Vladimir Putin, who
gave Ankara the green light to cleanse the Kurds from Afrin.
Yet Syria is but one of many challenges facing U.S. foreign policy.
The Winter Olympics in South Korea may have taken the menace of a North Korean ICBM out of the news, but no one believes that
threat is behind us.
Last week, China charged that the USS Hopper, a guided missile destroyer, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Scarborough Shoal,
a reef in the South China Sea claimed by Beijing, though it is far closer to Luzon in the Philippines. The destroyer, says China,
was chased off by one of her frigates. If we continue to contest China's territorial claims with our warships, a clash is inevitable.
In a similar incident Monday, a Russian military jet came within five feet of a U.S. Navy EP-3 Orion surveillance jet in international
airspace over the Black Sea, forcing the Navy plane to end its mission.
U.S. relations with Cold War ally Pakistan are at rock bottom. In his first tweet of 2018, President Trump charged Pakistan with
being a false friend.
"The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given
us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools," Trump declared. "They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt
in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!"
As for America's longest war in Afghanistan, now in its 17th year, the end is nowhere on the horizon. A week ago, the International
Hotel in Kabul was attacked and held for 13 hours by Taliban gunmen who killed 40. Midweek, a Save the Children facility in Jalalabad
was attacked by ISIS, creating panic among aid workers across the country.
Saturday, an ambulance exploded in Kabul, killing 103 people and wounding 235. Monday, Islamic State militants attacked Afghan
soldiers guarding a military academy in Kabul. With the fighting season two months off, U.S. troops will not soon be departing. If
Pakistan is indeed providing sanctuary for the terrorists of the Haqqani network, how does this war end successfully for the United
States? Last week, in a friendly fire incident, the U.S.-led coalition killed 10 Iraqi soldiers. The Iraq war began 15 years ago.
Yet another war, where the humanitarian crisis rivals Syria, continues on the Arabian Peninsula. There, a Saudi air, sea, and
land blockade that threatens the Yemeni people with starvation has failed to dislodge Houthi rebels who seized the capital Sanaa
three years ago. This weekend brought news that secessionist rebels, backed by the United Arab Emirates, seized power in Yemen's
southern port of Aden from the Saudi-backed Hadi regime fighting the Houthis. These rebels seek to split the country, as it was before
1990.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE appear to be backing different horses in this tribal-civil-sectarian war into which America has
been drawn. There are other wars -- Somalia, Libya, Ukraine -- where the U.S. is taking sides, sending arms, training troops, flying
missions.
Like the Romans, we have become an empire, committed to fighting for scores of nations, with troops on every continent and
forces in combat operations of which the American people are only vaguely aware. "I didn't know there were 1,000 troops in Niger,"
said Senator Lindsey Graham when four Green Berets were killed there. "We don't know exactly where we're at in the world, militarily,
and what we're doing."
No, we don't, Senator. As in all empires, power is passing to the generals. And what causes the greatest angst today in the imperial
city? Fear that a four-page memo worked up in the House Judiciary Committee may discredit Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia-gate.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President
and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists,
visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
"... In December 2016, President Obama closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election," expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations. ..."
"... Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S. Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt. ..."
"... In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium deal deemed corrupt. ..."
"... As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any Russians deemed corrupt by the United States. ..."
The US Ambassador to Russia urged the Kremlin to react "calmly" to the U.S. Treasury
Department's list of "corrupt oligarchs" due Monday. The list is designed to "name and shame"
elite Russians into thinking twice before engaging in business with Putin's government. It will
be up to Congress to decide whether the list should be published.
"I urge to take this report, based on its real and not a contrived essence and without
emotions, because relations between our countries are far from being exhausted by this one
legal act, and I was reminded about it in Washington, where I was two weeks ago," - US
Ambassador John Huntsman via - newsru (translated)
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters two weeks ago that Russia will
react to any punitive measures against its businessmen, stating "The principle of reciprocity
remains," suggesting that Putin would employ a commensurate response to a U.S. crackdown on
oligarchs.
As we
previously reported , the list was created pursuant to an August, 2017 law requiring the
Treasury and State Departments identify officials and oligarchs as determined by "their
closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth" in order to penalize the Kremlin for its
alleged meddling in the 2016 election.
The report is intended to "name and shame" Russia's elite who prop up Putin , and to send
a message "that Putin's aggression in terms of Russian interference in our elections will be
very costly to them," said Daniel Fried, a former assistant secretary of State who led the
State Department Russia sanctions office.
It is likely to signal to Russia's political and business classes that they'd be better
off maintaining a distance from the Putin government, and it could lead to further sanctions
against individuals who participate in corruption, Fried said.
" The Russian elite reacted with something between anxiety and panic about the prospect of
this list ," Fried said. "They focused on this immediately, and they're very worried about
it. " - USA Today
The list will include "indices of corruption with respect to those individuals," along with
any foreign assets they hold. According to Bloomberg, this sent Russian fat cats into a
liquidation frenzy - with many scrambling to contact D.C. lobbyists in order to buy their way
off the list.
Some people who think they're likely to land on the list have stress-tested the potential
impact on their investments , two people with knowledge of the matter said. Others are
liquidating holdings , according to their U.S. advisers.
Russian businessmen have approached former Treasury and State Department officials with
experience in sanctions for help staying off the list, said Dan Fried, who previously worked
at the State Department and said he turned down such offers. Some Russians sent proxies to
Washington in an attempt to avoid lobbying disclosures, according to one person that was
contacted . -
Bloomberg
Corruption Index
The Treasury's report must include "indices of corruption , " which will list any foreign
assets next to an oligarch considered corrupt. " Because of the nervousness that the Russian
business community is facing, a number of oligarchs are already beginning to wind back
businesses , treating them as if they are already designated, to stay ahead of it," said Daniel
Tannebaum, head of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 's global financial
sanctions unit.
Russia's well-connected billionaires have hired law firms to try to keep them off the
list, said Ariel Cohen, a Russia analyst at the Atlantic Council think tank. Russians believe
the list is a first step toward increasing the current 29 Russians under U.S. sanctions by
adding 40 to 400 names, Cohen added. - USA Today
Vladimir Putin has warned wealthy nationals over worsening U.S. sanctions, and provided them
with a capital amnesty program designed to allow oligarchs to repatriate some of their overseas
assets. Meanwhile, Putin has issued
special bonds which will allow the wealthy to hold assets outside of the reach of the U.S.
Treasury.
Separate sanctions handed down
As we reported earlier in the month, Treasury officials are concerned that people will
confuse Monday's list of corrupt oligarchs with separate sanctions handed down to Russians over
the Ukraine crisis.
On Friday, the Treausry Department added 11 individuals to a "blacklist" which now contains
21 Russian or
Ukraainian nationals and nine companies - most of which are power or energy firms. The
Treasury's announcement reads in part:
WASHINGTON –The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) today designated 21 individuals and 9 entities under four Executive Orders (E.O.s)
related to Russia and Ukraine, including three individuals and two entities related to
Russia's transfer of four turbines made by a Russian-German joint venture to Crimea. Today's
action is part of Treasury's continued commitment to maintain sanctions pressure on Russia
until it fully implements its commitments under the Minsk agreements. This action underscores
the U.S. government's opposition to Russia's occupation of Crimea and firm refusal to
recognize its attempted annexation of the peninsula. These sanctions follow the European
Union's recent extension of sanctions and reinforce our continued unity in supporting
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As a result of today's action, any property or interests in property of the designated
persons in the possession or control of U.S. persons or within the United States must be
blocked. Additionally, transactions by U.S. persons involving these persons are generally
prohibited.
"The U.S. government is committed to maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of Ukraine and to targeting those who attempt to undermine the Minsk agreements," said
Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. "Those who provide goods, services, or material support
to individuals and entities sanctioned by the United States for their activities in Ukraine
are engaging in behavior that could expose them to U.S. sanctions."
Today, OFAC also identified 12 subsidiaries that are owned 50 percent or more by
previously sanctioned Russian companies to provide additional information to assist the
private sector with sanctions compliance.
Relations between Washington and Moscow have deteriorated since 2014, when Russia annexed
Crimea, sparking the conflict in Ukraine. Diplomatic ties have worstened between the two
nuclear superpowers, with Washington accusing Moscow of interfering in the 2016 US presidential
election.
In December 2016, President Obama
closed two diplomatic compounds used by Russia in retaliation for "hacking the election,"
expelling 35 diplomats amid fresh sanctions. Then in July 2017, the Senate voted to increase
sanctions on Russia by a 98-2 margin, which Trump reluctantly
signed off on August 2 - stoking fears over a trade war after comments by Russian prime
minister Dmitry Medvedev that the law had ended hope for improving US-Russia relations.
Several weeks later in August 2017, the Trump administration "thanked" Russia again - giving
them 72 hours to vacate three more diplomatic facilities in San Francisco, Washington DC, and
New York City.
Towards the end of 2017, Washington took a series of steps to further vilify Russia,
branding the country a "rival power" and "revisionist power," while imposing new sanctions on
several individuals linked to the Kremlin.
Trump's Executive Order
Perhaps one of the main drivers behind Russian oligarchs shedding assets before the U.S.
Treasury's "indices of corruption" are released is an
Executive Order signed quietly in Late December which freezes the U.S. housed assets of
foreign government officials or executives of foreign corporations deemed to be corrupt.
In fact, anyone in the world who has "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial,
material or technological support for, or goods or services" to foreigners targeted by the
Executive Order is subject to frozen assets. This would apply to D.C. lobbyists working for
corrupt Russian oligarchs, or U.S. government officials who have, say, effectuated a uranium
deal deemed corrupt.
As such, tomorrow's release of "corrupt oligarchs" by the US Treasury Department may have
serious consequences for the finances of Americans who have done any type of business with any
Russians deemed corrupt by the United States.
"... The FBI of course has no place in the US Constitution. It could be argued that its very existence violates that document. Freedom of speech and assembly, etc, combined with the Stasi? ..."
Oh, I am very sorry, but I think you have that quite wrong.
I don't want to defend Trump. He's a nasty piece of work, but even a nasty piece of work can be correct sometimes.
The FBI of course has no place in the US Constitution. It could be argued that its very existence violates that document.
Freedom of speech and assembly, etc, combined with the Stasi?
But if its very existence doesn't violate the Constitution, its hideous lifetime record of behavior does.
And, again, ignoring what we think of Trump, we do have strong suggestions of highly inappropriate behavior by the FBI around
the election of Trump.
Does anyone really think secret police should be able to work against a proper election?
Keeping secret files on Congressmen. Helping Presidents do political spying. Hounding innocent citizens. setting up agent provocateur
operations.
If you want a clear brief history of this abysmal organization, see:
The evidence against the FBI is mounting, to list a few:
Texts between FBI lovers (one involved then fired from the Russian probe) regarding Trump " we cant take the risk" and " an insurance
policy" .
High level FBI employee involved with the Russian probe whos wife works for Fusion GPS.
Texts from the lovers mentioned above regarding Clintons FBI interview " don't go loaded for bear, she could be our president".
Comey writing his exoneration of Clinton months before all people involved were interviewed.
More texts from the lovers go missing, as claimed by the FBI, but are found and are now being released by the Inspector General.
These are all know facts that have been used by both the Oversight and Intelligence committees, you can watch the actual meetings
on YouTube.
The FBI has a trash history of locking up and framing leftists , black activists, native americans or anyone else who has threatened
the establishment. trump is filth but there is a lot lot lower.
If you want to shock yourself with the similarities between Nixon and Trump, try some Hunter S Thompson.
It is Nixon himself who represents that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character that almost every
country in the world has learned to fear and despise. Our Barbie-doll president, with his Barbie-doll wife and his boxful of
Barbie-doll children is also America's answer to the monstrous Mr. Hyde. He speaks for the Werewolf in us; the bully, the predatory
shyster who turns into something unspeakable, full of claws and bleeding string-warts on nights when the moon comes too close
Too much rhetoric and too little sourced information. Right off the bat, you need to dispense with appeals to the Pavlovian training
of your readers to accept the narrative of the villainous Russians and Chinese and North Koreans and Vietnamese and all things
related to Communism or even socialism - and start accepting that the political actors of all social entities - especially nations
which are the entities that decide what can be owned and who can be privileged to own it - meddle as much as they can in the selection
processes of all other social entities as much as they can. Certainly , even aside from Western Military interventions, the US,
UK, and the other partners in the Western Hegemony have been using all means possible to influence the political outcomes of other
nations - including the launching of viral autonomous and guided propaganda bots into the media and internet networks of foreign
nations. What would be surprising, and worth investigating, is any significant evidence that a foreign country was not meddling
in the internal affairs of other countries. Please - stop promoting fantasies yourself - and gain credibility by moving your platform
into the real world. I remember when all the Germans in comic books had green faces. It brought back memories when I saw pictures
of contemporary villains depicted on news sites with green faces. This vilification stuff is old. Very old. How about some new
tricks for a change.
This is ridiculous. There is ample evidence, before and after Trump, of FBI incompetence and disarray. Look at the inept handling
of the Boston bombing, the failure to vet the Tsarnov family despite a head's up from Russia that they had been in contact with
extremists. Then there was the failure regarding the Orlando nightclub killings, even though, again, there were ample warnings
ignored. The FBI and Comey are, in addition, extremely suspect for their bizarre handling of the Clinton 'investigation,' so-called:
a hand-picked group of investigators, side-stepping protocols for setting up a team; the fact that an exoneration was written
before the investigators interviewed key witnesses or Clinton herself; granting immunity to the witnesses; failure to impanel
a grand jury; failure to get a subpoena to examine the DNC computers that were breached; changing the wording of the exoneration
to 'extremely careless,' instead of 'reckless,' and of course, the fact that biased, pro-Clinton agent Strozak was the team leader.
If this is not sufficient for Jill, or anyone, to be alarmed about FBI impartiality, I despair. The fact she has made her bias
against Trump known, saying he is unsuitable for the presidency, merely adds to the known biases that permeate this piece and
its defense of the corrupted FBI.
The fogies these days think it is more appropriate to have the actual government intelligence agencies (all seventeen of them)
listen in on the rival party's Presidential campaign conversations, especially when the fogies' personal politics exactly match
those of the administration in power.
Why hire Watergate burglars when you have an alphabet soup of spooks with a trillion dollars in hardware at your disposal?
You'd have to be a complete fool, or a "democrat can do no wrong ever" to not think that Trump has some reason to be suspicious
of the FBI and DOJ. BTW, who the hell keeps on leaking, it's like hour by hour leaks? If I were Trump I'd get rid of Sessions
cuz he sure isn't doing his job. Soooo, why did Rod Rosenstein go to Speaker Ryan and plead with him not to release the "memo"
if there's nothing to hide?
***Even
This is a strange century where liberals and moderates are defending J. Edgar's old haunts. But must agree with the author that
the POTUS is a clear and present danger.
Preview of some upcoming Graun drivels: "Attack on NSA is attack on privacy", "Attack on CIA is attack on international law".
I am sure somebody will correct me, but none of these three letter agencies have anything in common with either the letter or
the spirit of US constitution.
As the Republicans continue their campaign to discredit the FBI, it's important to remember a piece of history. Without
Deep Throat, the Washington Post's secret source, the Watergate scandal might never have been exposed. Deep Throat, we learned
in 2012, was Mark Felt, the No2 official at the FBI.
Another Watergate reference. We hear a great many of them emanating from the US. It does seem as though the American media
is top heavy with old fogies who see every independent council investigation as an opportunity to LARP the glory days of the Watergate
Era.
Yes, CNN staffers have lost their minds. One year of Donald Trump's America and he's
defeated them as thoroughly the New England Patriots beat, well, just about anybody.
We're a year into the most-biased U.S. media in history – tracking at
90 percent biased against President Trump . But there appears to be lasting damage to
journalists, their professionalism and even their ability to pretend they are rational.
In just one week, CNN staffers blamed President Trump for a man who tried to harm people at
their headquarters, ran a piece celebrating
cuckolding (not kidding!) and questioned whether the president deserved "credit" for all of
the good corporate news of raises and bonuses – resulting from his tax cut.
Celebrity clown and CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta had
repeated run-ins with whoever the Trump administration put at the podium. In each case,
they smacked him down and showed the lack of depth of his reporting.
... ... ...
2. What FBI Memo? What Missing Messages? Journalists love to highlight the 18-minute
gap in one of President Richard Nixon's tapes. Give them 30,000 missing emails or 50,000
missing texts and they are less thrilled. Perhaps because both of those involved are
liberal.
It was all hands on deck in a desperate quest to control the narrative about the memo and
texts. MSNBC's "Morning Joe" host
Joe Scarborough claimed criticism of the FBI amounted to "conspiracy theories" that were
"making America less safe." CNN talked repeatedly about the effort to
"discredit" the Mueller investigation.
CBS and NBC tried to spin the story away from
the missing texts . But when ABC finally decided to chime in, it went full bore against the
GOP.
Anchor David Muir echoed Democratic talking points about the FBI text messages: "This is a
political battle, and ultimately, the American people will decide whether those personal text
messages were appropriate or not."
... ... ...
4. You Actually Thought Journalists Were Neutral? Part II: The New York Times
actually devoted some opinion space to Trump supporters. Naturally, it caused a
firestorm with its lefty readers and journalists who think those readers aren't left-wing
enough.
Journalistic operations like the Columbia Journalism Review and the Poynter Institute were
joined by HuffPost and others blasting the decision. How dare the Times run content from actual
Trump supporters and turn the page into a "welcome wagon" for his supporters, wrote
Poynter ?
CJR's attack: "The Times's pro-Trump
editorial page is patronizing and circular" at least admitted that the paper has no
pro-Trump voices. "In fact, the Times employs many conservative commentators. It just seems to
be a requirement that those commentators are never-Trumpers."
Is she a MI6 asset? Strong intelligence agencies (and FBI for all practical purposes is a
branch of CIA, when if comes to politics) are grave threat to republican form of government (then
make elections meaningless, as the winner need their support) and remnants of democracy. In
view of FISA memo bomb I like her statement "Comey's independence and ethics cost him his job
when Trump fired him" Such an ethical Comey, using falsified dossier to spy on one of contenders
in the Presidential race ;-)
As one commenter aptly noted:
"Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate?"
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedein, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton [remember his surreptitious visit to Lynch's plane during the final days of the investigation?] conspired to compromise the independence of The Justice Department itself. ..."
The only person who can fire Mueller is Rod Rosenstein. From last June:
Amid reports that President Trump is considering firing the special counsel overseeing
the Russia investigations, a senior Justice Department official said Tuesday that he - and
not the president - is the only official empowered to dismiss the prosecutor and that he
sees no reason to do so.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-to-know-about-the-paul-manafort-indictment
/
"This is Mueller's first indictment resulting from his investigation into Russian meddling in
the 2016 U.S. election and any collusion between Trump campaign associates and Russia. But
this indictment does not get to the heart of that matter."
This comment...if it was written by a journalist, would be the perfect example of what we are
discussing. The bias is obvious and it claims to offer facts under the veil of industry
standard sub part evidence (sources within the white house)....sadly, our journalists,
including the Guardian CNN FOX...all of them...now allow their journalists to cross these
ethical lines. The damage is that their audiences swallow it up rather than questioning the
bias and questioning the evidence....in a nut shell, society's critical thinking skills have
deminished and polarization (conquer and divide) has increased.....because dumb or lazy
people don't read and dumb/lazy people don't demand sources or evidence. If everyone took the
10 seconds to simply request that journalist follow their OWN STANDARD OF ETHICS across the
board, the political chaos and polarization we see in the world would be reduced.
Ha ha! Show me a fact, please! I'd love to see what a fact in the National Review looks
like.
Try CBS and other media:
"The FBI recently released records last month that detailed an interview with Clinton
adviser Huma Abedin, in which she was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Mr. Obama.
At first, she didn't recognize that it was the president because he was using a
pseudonym.
"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president,
Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report said. "Abedin then expressed
her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the
email." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-hillary-clintons-email-servers-jeopardize-obama
/
America exists to serve the powerful and wealthy interests that have always called the
shots.. read the written record expressed by its founders, if you seek proof.
The difference at this current time, is that with trump being the "distractor in chief", there
is little effort to cover up the reality of who exists to serve whom. for those who don't like
it, be patient. Trump will be out on his ear once his usefulness has played out.
This isn't Watergate. I remember it well. Actual crimes were committed. A group of operatives
broke into Democratic headquarters at the Watergate hotel in the middle of the night going
through files. Then you had an unsolved crime seeking the criminals. This is the opposite.
You've decided Trump is a criminal, and now you're desperately seeking a crime to pin on him.
It won't work. Any obstruction charge will either fail at the Supreme Court or during
impeachment proceedings in the Senate. Democrats will claim a moral victory, in that they
actually got Trump charged, if not convicted. This is a farce. Just like the BS charges
against Bill Clinton. Back then we were treated to the ridiculous spectacle of grown men
raising a semen encrusted dress skyward in victory. It's just sad that this is what
government has been reduced to. It's pathetic.
Under Freedom of Speech President Trump has a democratic right to criticize the FBI,
judges, or any other subject he chooses. Just like the Guardian, and numerous other media
publications have a right to criticize the President. No one disputes that judges have the
legal right to render a decision, but you do have every right to criticize that decision.
Same goes for the FBI. They have the legal obligation to investigate and bring charges, but
you can criticize those charges and the impartiality of investigators. Unquestioned obedience
to authority is still fortunately not part of our democratic tradition. If that's what you're
looking for, move to China.
"As the Republicans continue their campaign to discredit the FBI, it's important to remember
a piece of history. Without Deep Throat, the Washington Post's secret source, the Watergate
scandal might never have been exposed. Deep Throat, we learned in 2012, was Mark Felt, the
No2 official at the FBI."
It also important to remember that Nixon was President at the time of the Watergate
break-in, seeking re-election.
It is Obama, Clinton and the serving FBI officers who are under scrutiny for abuse of power
before an election, not Trump.
The Author's selectivity is fascinating as well as ironic. While Trump's harangues are
potentially criminal the notion that they could do much more damage than already done by her
cadre is laughable.
President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedein, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill
Clinton [remember his surreptitious visit to Lynch's plane during the final days of the
investigation?] conspired to compromise the independence of The Justice Department
itself.
In fact against regulations not to speak of good investigative practice, an FBI agent
disclosed the name of Barack Obama as a knowing recipient of State Department Emails from her
home grown server, to Huma Abedein, herself a potential material witness and in all
likelihood a target of the investigation.
Who authorized that disclosure isn't documented, but it had to be a higher up.
"How is this not classified?" So exclaimed Hillary Clinton's close aide and confidante,
Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton's private
account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not
recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed
their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of
the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a
non-secure e-mail system -- something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such
as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.
She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did,
after "express[ing] her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym," was to "ask if she
could have a copy of the email." Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If
Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else
who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The FBI is corrupt as is the Department of Justice. Why was Comey signing off investigations
into Hillary's wrongdoings before he's see the evidence?
The whole lot of them are totally anti-Trump and collude together to withhold information
from Congressional Hearings with Trey Gowdy exposing lie after lie..
Be assured, the Clinton's eil influence will be exposed for what it is.
Excellent. Now they've been recovered, which virtually anyone should have been able to do
with forensic software, maybe their contents will become publicly available through their use
in the courts/legal proceedings.
It was Page and Strzok who were the ones using the term 'secret society', from your
link:
Some GOP lawmakers in recent days have homed in on an exchange in recently recovered
texts in which Strzok and Page make reference to a "secret society." Johnson, one of the
senators who has voiced concerns about this exchange, acknowledged Thursday morning the
possibility that the "secret society" reference was made in jest. [note, this is his
speculation]
"Are you even going to give out your calendars?" Page asked Strzok in one of the
messages. "Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the
secret society."
That's about how long it would take an effective Intel analyst to access, sort, select,
prioritize, arrange, print, cover, staple, and deliver everything in the electronic inventory
of NSA intercepts. That they haven't done so is an indication that the concept of an ongoing
investigation is more important than the outcome.
The true attack on the US Constitution was Hillary Clinton's email management practices. Thank God we dodged that bullet, thanks to the wholly proportionate coverage from media
like Jill's former employer.
"... The Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's main evidence thus far in his "Russiagate" probe is not actually about possible Russian collusion with Trump to win the Presidency, but instead about definite Israeli collusion with Trump after Trump had already won the Presidency but before he became inaugurated. As a lawyer explained on the day when Trump's former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was indicted in a plea-deal: "Mr. Flynn has just become the prosecution's star witness." What Flynn had pled to was his trying to obtain Russia's support for Israel's Government, against the Palestinians. Russia said no; Putin said no to Flynn's request, which had been made on behalf of Israel. ..."
"... * Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . ..."
If what Mr. Zuesse is writing, in the following, seemingly very well substantiated article,
is true, then extremely serious questions arise as to which forces have helped Mr. Trump become
the President in a country where anybody who challenged the establishment got assasinated (for
ex. the Kennedies) and which forces are controlling him.
Another extraordinary aspect of all that is also the way such forces have succeeded, up to
now, to be hidden behind Russia!
If things like those already revealed are true, then the same forces controlling Mr. Trump
can use the situation they helped engineer, to push him to implement their war agenda against
both Iran and North Korea, in exchange for help to the President to get out of all this mess.
If Mr. Trump will not agree to the war scenarios, then more disturbing revelations may
follow.
We hope that all these are simple suppositions and hypotheses, theories of conspiracies and
not description of real conspiracies.
But, unfortunately, nightmares tend now to happen more often when we wake up, than when we
slip. Maybe this is a reason we slip too much.
K.D.
"Russiagate" Is Actually "Israelgate": Trump as "Agent of Israel", Not of
Russia?
The Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's main evidence thus far in his "Russiagate" probe
is not actually about possible Russian collusion with Trump to win the Presidency, but instead
about definite Israeli collusion with Trump after Trump had already won the Presidency but
before he became inaugurated. As a lawyer explained on the day when Trump's former National
Security Advisor Michael Flynn was indicted in a plea-deal: "Mr. Flynn has just become the prosecution's star witness." What
Flynn had pled to was his trying to obtain Russia's support for Israel's Government, against
the Palestinians. Russia said no; Putin said no to Flynn's request, which had been made on
behalf of Israel.
The way that Mueller's investigation, to find reasons for Trump's impeachment, achieved on
December 1st the indictment and plea-deal with Flynn, was to get Flynn to admit (after his
first having lied to deny) that he had been asked by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , who had
been asked by Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu , to communicate to Russia's
head-of-state Vladimir Putin through Russia's U.S. Ambassador, a request on behalf of the
incoming U.S. Administration of Donald Trump , for Russia to get Israel out of a jam at the
U.N. Security Council. Netanyahu didn't want to be alone in trying to pressure Putin to turn
against the Palestinians; he wanted the incoming Trump Administration also to be pressuring
Putin to do that -- for Russia to veto, this time, a resolution ( #2334 in 2016 ), which, every year in
the past, had been supported by Russia; or, failing to achieve that, to get Russia's support
for Israel's effort to delay the Security Council's vote, until after Trump would become
installed as the U.S. President on January 20th. That's what Putin was saying no to.
The initiative in this matter -- the matter that has oddly become the centerpiece of
Mueller's case for impeaching Trump -- came from Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
not at all from Russia's head-of-state, Vladimir Putin, such as is almost universally reported
to have been the Trump Administration's foreign master (if any). Trump's agent, Kushner, was
the supplicant, on behalf of Israel, for Putin's assistance to Israel. Kushner had been asked
by Netanyahu to do this, and Kushner assigned Flynn to do it, on behalf of Trump. According to
ABC News ,
"Trump phoned Flynn shortly after the election to explicitly ask him to 'serve as point
person on Russia,' and to reach out personally to Russian officials to develop strategies to
jointly combat ISIS."
But, apparently, Flynn accepted Kushner's instructions also (not only Trump's), and he
assumed that what Kushner wanted here (which was not against ISIS, but instead against the
Palestinians) was also what Trump wanted on this matter. In fact,
Eli Lake reported about Flynn, on the day of Flynn's indictment, December 1st,
"that during the last days of the Obama administration, the retired general was instructed
to contact foreign ambassadors and foreign ministers of countries on the U.N. Security Council,
ahead of a vote condemning Israeli settlements. Flynn was told to try to get them to delay that
vote until after Barack Obama had left office, or oppose the resolution altogether."
In other words: Russia refused to comply with the incoming U.S. President's son-in-law's
request that had been passed to Putin through Russia's U.S. Ambassador Sergey Kislyak , through
Flynn, through Kushner, who had received the request directly from Netanyahu (and the
indictment makes no allegation that President-Elect Trump even so much as knew about any
of this; there is no impeachable allegation made there against Trump). Possibly, but not yet
certainly, Kushner had received, from his father-in-law, instructions to comply with Israel's
'requests', so that Kushner didn't need to communicate with Mr. Trump specifically for
permission to pass along to Putin through Russia's U.S. Ambassador, Netanyahu's desire, as
being also America's desire. Not only was Trump not Putin's agent in this matter, but his
son-in-law was instead serving there as Netanyahu's agent, under some as-yet-undetermined
authorization from Trump, but the indictment doesn't even allege there to have been any such
authorization, by Trump, at all .
We can be certain that Kushner did have Trump's authorization, however, in
some form, because even now, Trump hasn't yet fired Kushner. Kushner's incompetence
might bring down Trump, but Trump still stands with Kushner, against Mueller, even though that
seems politically suicidal for Trump to be doing. No doubt, if Trump were to break from
Kushner, then Kushner might testify against Trump -- and so that path (Trump's turning against
Kushner) would also be politically suicidal for Trump. Perhaps Kushner will go to prison
if he becomes prosecuted and doesn't reach any plea-deal. Maybe that's the reason why Trump
doesn't fire Kushner.
The plea-deal with
Flynn has him admitting that his contacts with Kislyak were authorized only by Kushner
(referred to in Flynn's
indictment not by name but only by the vague phrase "a very senior member of the
Presidential Transition Team"). However, Flynn had earlier lied to the FBI and said that he "never
asked Russia's ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak, to delay the vote for the U.N.
Security Council resolution." So: if, subsequently, it somehow does turn out to be Flynn's word
against Trump's word, then the ultimate decision will be made by Senate Republicans when they
either do or don't vote for Mike Pence to take over the remainder of Trump's term. In order for
that switch to be made, two-thirds of the entire U.S. Senate -- that's 67 of the 100 -- would
need to vote for Pence to take over. Whereas Democrats seem eager for Pence to complete Trump's
term, that's only 46 Senators, or 48
if both Independents vote with the Democrats , and at least 9 or 11 of the Senate's 52
Republicans would then also need to vote for Pence. The Vice President would not be the
presiding officer; instead, the Constitution makes the Chief Justice of the U.S. that, and only
the Senators are allowed to be counted in a Senate trial that would follow after the House's
majority-vote for a Senate trial to be held. The V.P. couldn't serve as any 'tie-breaker' in
this trial. And removal-from-office would be the only direct harm to Trump; the U.S. provides
no way to try the President on any charge via the courts -- the only way a U.S. President can
be punished for any crime is by being tried, and then convicted and removed from office, by a
two-thirds vote in the Senate. Other than that, a U.S. President is above the law.
The Flynn
indictment does make one other allegation which specifically concerns Russia:
"FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia's Ambassador to the United States to
refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had
imposed against Russia."
Flynn admitted now that that was a lie -- that he had made this request of
Kislyak.
"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal
anti-Trump 'Resistance' minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow ,
who hasdevotedmore content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to
entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel."
Apparently, exposing Israeli control over the U.S. Government is, in effect, prohibited;
only Russian 'control' over us may be 'exposed'. The very possibility, that when
America's taxpayers pay (via U.S. taxes) annual donations of $3.8 billion per
year to the Government of Israel, which is a 'friend', instead of a master -- an enemy --
of the American people, seems to be prohibited to disprove, or even to question publicly. But
there it is, and Russia gets the blame, which Israel ( and the Sauds ) do not.
Such misdirection of the blame could cause WW III, especially if U.S. media continue calling
this 'evidence' 'against Trump', by such terms as 'Russiagate.' It's not that, at all; and
portraying it as if it were, could do the whole world a whole lot of harm. (I don't say this in
support of Trump, a President I loathe as much as I do his far slicker predecessor, but instead
to expose the current lynch-mob as being what they actually are: psychopathic inciters of the
most horrific -- and unwarranted -- war ever.)
"... It has long been known that the constitutional powers of the president are not as well defined as the powers of the other branches of government. And for many years now, Republicans and Democrats have been content to see the powers of the office increased, so long as it was to the benefit of their particular agenda. ..."
"... The Trump administration is the wake-up call both parties need. But whether they are willing to learn and change remains to be seen. ..."
"... "Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate? " ..."
"... Read The American War Machine by Peter Dale Scott for some idea of the FBI's role in undermining the US Constitution for decades. https://heavywatergate.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/american-war-machine-peter-dale-scott.pdf ..."
"... Are you going on record here saying that Hillary Clinton did not destroy 30,000 emails from her private server? There is a strange one-sided nature to all this - I support Clinton, therefore I will rewrite history to preserve her reputation. I hate Trump and I will write anything regardless of reality in order to attack him. ..."
"... Where was the author for in the last 50 years that she can write the FBI is the torch bearer of freedom and democracy. ..."
"... Attacking the FBI, CIA, Stazi, MI5, SIS and all other secret services and making them accountable to the people should definitely be something we all do. But for a President to attack the FBI, for a personal advantage is insupportable. ..."
"... Under McCarthyism which, let's face it, attacking the FBI should have happened and was about to happen under JFK, until his untimely death, it was deeply suspected that the FBI had a hand in silencing a President ..."
"... I remember acting CIA Director Mike Morell telling Charlie Rose "we need to start killing Iranians and Russians in Syria". Maybe they decided to use another tactic and started killing Russian's ambassadors: https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html ..."
"... Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate? Which foreign influence on US campaigns is acceptable? Is there a list? Or are we supposed to just buy into the concept that only Hillary's favorite bogeymen, the Russians, are worthy of interest? ..."
"... Let's not forget the J Edgar Hoover was a facist tool of presidents who ruined or tried to ruin many a career in Hollywood and academia during decades of secret unlawful espionage against MLK. ..."
"... For better or worse Trump was ELECTED and has a mandate. Separation of powers and checks and balances in America apply to the three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The FBI is strictly under control of the president. ..."
"... We have seen in Switzerland and in Italy in recent decades plots exposed where various people in security positions organized actual cabals and plots to subvert the elected governments. We now know that military officers and government employees in the time of JFK deliberately refused to follow presidential directives ..."
"... It is this kind of thing which is treason. And that is what the FBI was clearly doing, against Trump and illegally to further Hillary ..."
"... Bye, Bye, FBI? The Case for Disbanding the Federal Frankenstein's Monster https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/25/bye-bye-fbi-the-case-for-disbanding-the-federal-frankensteins-monster/ ..."
"Where is my Congress? This is the urgent question posed by these outrageous attempts by the president to subvert the constitution.
The legislative branch of government must hold an out-of-control president with authoritarian tendencies accountable."
Provided that Republicans and Democrats can think and act maturely (a very big 'if'), this may well be the principal benefit
of a Trump administration.
It has long been known that the constitutional powers of the president are not as well defined as the powers of the other branches
of government. And for many years now, Republicans and Democrats have been content to see the powers of the office increased,
so long as it was to the benefit of their particular agenda.
The Trump administration is the wake-up call both parties need. But whether they are willing to learn and change remains to
be seen.
Robert Mueller is NOT the FBI. He is a Special Prosecutor for the Justice Department, which is a far bigger entity than the
FBI. His position is similar, if not identical to any other US Prosecutor.
Mueller is using the FBI as his investigation team because . . . that is what Federal Attorneys do. The FBI is one investigative
branch of the Justice Department. I would be very surprised if Mueller is not using other investigating officers from other Departments,
such as the SEC, IRS for his investigation.
For those reasons attacking the FBI in an attempt to discredit Mueller is just plain stupid.
But then just look at the track record of Republican Congressmen and Senators who are attempting to discredit Mueller. Stupid may very well be their middle names.
So far Trump has said a lot about 'draining the swamp' but has done nothing to re-structure US institutions, or reform Congress
which he probably cannot do anyway. The genuine problem the US has is that in addition to the FBI and Military Intelligence and
the CIA, George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, so there are these overlapping agencies that cost a lot of
money but at times are doing the same thing without communicating with each other.
Yes, the FBI has often had a dubious view that
Martin Luther King and John Lennon were security threats, but it has also played an important role in taking on organized crime
and murder cases that cross state lines. It remains to be seen if Trump is a real radical or just a loud-mouth, but maybe the
US needs to re-think is security apparatus, if only to save money; but as long as an independent body exists to investigate everything
inside the State.
Frankly, it's disturbing to see the rush of "liberals" to defend the FBI, simply because of Trump's opposition to the institution.
Let's not forget this is the same FBI that attempted to drive MLKJr. to suicide through harassing letters. The same FBI that has
initiated mass domestic surveillance on the Citizens of this country (USA), the same FBI that has generated tons of sting operations
goading people into committing "acts of terror", infiltrated environmental organizations in an attempt to turn them violent, and
been used by big corporate interests to spy on anti-fracking activists in Pennsylvania. And now they are Democratic heroes? That
tells you plenty about the heart of the Democratic Party!
Let's not forget that you're describing the FBI at least 50 years ago. MLK was assassinated in 1968. Hoover (1895-1972) tracked
MLK's friendships and love affairs in 1963-65. At this time, the British, West German, Canadian, and French domestic security
services did exactly the same thing, with more discretion than the FBI. That includes Canadian in the discretion dept. Parallel
East German, Czech, Hungarian, and Soviet domestic agencies were a different order of magnitude. They did far more than blackmailing
actresses or trailing human rights activists.
You don't think the FBI losing 5 months of texts between Strzok and Page due to 'software upgrades' is a little bit too coincidental?
just as Clinton's so-called missing emails were in 2016.
Pardon? So-called? Are you going on record here saying that Hillary Clinton did not destroy 30,000 emails from her private
server? There is a strange one-sided nature to all this - I support Clinton, therefore I will rewrite history to preserve her
reputation. I hate Trump and I will write anything regardless of reality in order to attack him.
I think what the author is missing here is the fact that the FBI have no constitutional role in politics yet throughout US
history of the last 60-70 years they have been heavily involved. This is the constitutional crisis - nobody elects the FBI to
tamper with elections, candidates, etc, and they aren't mandated to even play a role. How the author fails to see this is beyond
me.
Did the Guardian order the author to write this story or did you choose it yourself? Where was the author for in the last 50 years
that she can write the FBI is the torch bearer of freedom and democracy. It turns my stomach having lived through the '60s in
college to read anything about the FBI that whitewashes it's history.
Attacking the FBI, CIA, Stazi, MI5, SIS and all other secret services and making them accountable to the people should definitely
be something we all do. But for a President to attack the FBI, for a personal advantage is insupportable.
Under McCarthyism which, let's face it, attacking the FBI should have happened and was about to happen under JFK, until his
untimely death, it was deeply suspected that the FBI had a hand in silencing a President
But Trump is merely trying to muzzle the FBI to ensure his political survival despite some very murky dealings in his camp.
I always become indignant when people, Abramson (who should know better) or anyone else tries to put the FBI up on a pedestal.
No one familiar with the history of this political police agency could do such a thing. Look at the agency's disgraceful efforts
to discredit Dr. King and its role in the assassination of Fred Hampton. In the current context the agency's essentially political
orientation is evident in the anti-Trump text messages by the two FBI officials in formerly key positions.
Anybody with half a brain would figure out that insulting millions of voters might go badly. You are still bad mouthing the voters
a year after the election. Slow learner?
I remember acting CIA Director Mike Morell telling Charlie Rose "we need to start killing Iranians and Russians in Syria". Maybe
they decided to use another tactic and started killing Russian's ambassadors:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/24/europe/dead-russians/index.html
Wasn't MI-6 (British spies) working on behalf of the Democrats and their candidate?
Which foreign influence on US campaigns is acceptable? Is there a list? Or are we supposed to just buy into the concept that only
Hillary's favorite bogeymen, the Russians, are worthy of interest?
Let's not forget the J Edgar Hoover was a facist tool of presidents who ruined or tried to ruin many a career in Hollywood and
academia during decades of secret unlawful espionage against MLK. He blackmailed the Kennedys. They weren't thinking about the
constitution then. Now they're the whites in shining armor because it's a requirement to write anything against Trump. Please.
This is a worrying example of how hate for Trump results in damage to logical thought and utter misrepresentation of American
institutions. NB I am NOT a Trump voter.
For better or worse Trump was ELECTED and has a mandate. Separation of powers and checks and balances in America apply to the
three branches: executive, legislative and judicial. The FBI is strictly under control of the president.
We have seen in Switzerland and in Italy in recent decades plots exposed where various people in security positions organized
actual cabals and plots to subvert the elected governments. We now know that military officers and government employees in the
time of JFK deliberately refused to follow presidential directives.
It is this kind of thing which is treason. And that is what the FBI was clearly doing, against Trump and illegally to further
Hillary.
Yes, of course Jill, we know how pristine and "constitutional" the FBI has always been...that is if we ignore the historical record
of shameful disgrace left behind by J. Edgar Hoover.
The press writes as if history started last week, and makes unfounded underlying assumptions.
"... Update: According to Fox News , McCabe was "removed." A source told the news outlet that this was the earliest date possible for the FBI to remove him and still leave him fully eligible for his pension. ..."
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is stepping down, according to
NBC News .
He will remain on "leave" until spring, when he can officially retire from the FBI.
Update: According to Fox News , McCabe was
"removed." A source told the news outlet that this was the earliest date possible for the FBI
to remove him and still leave him fully eligible for his pension.
McCabe's departure has been expected for months. ABC News
reported last year that McCabe planned to retire in March 2018, when he becomes fully
eligible for pension benefits.
News of McCabe's retirement comes the day the House intelligence committee is
expected to vote on releasing a classified memo that details alleged FBI abuse of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in investigating the 2016 campaign of
then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.
The memo is expected to say that FBI officials obtained a FISA warrant to spy on Trump
campaign foreign policy adviser
Carter Page . Democrats and the FBI have been fighting the release of the memo, saying it
would be "reckless" to do so.
McCabe has come under scrutiny from congressional Republicans, who have questioned why he
only recused himself from the Clinton email investigation a week before the election when his
wife had received
hundreds of thousands in campaign donations from a close Hillary Clinton ally.
McCabe was appointed FBI Deputy Director in 2016 by former President Obama, and became
acting director in May 2016, after President Trump fired James Comey.
If is always continent to view Guardian if you want to know what alliance of neocons and neoliberals in the USA think ;-)
The main danger for the alliance of neocons and neolibs trying to depose Trump is that if Nunes FISA memo bomb explodes,
it can bury Mueller investigation. The fact that McCabe step down might be connected with Nunes memo was not even
mentioned in Guardian, and that crates certain hopes that the issue is really serious and will not be swiped under the
carpet.
Mueller is believed to be examining Trump's attacks on law enforcement figures involved in the Russia investigation as part of a
potential obstruction of justice case against the president.
... ... ...
Three separate congressional committees are investigating Russian tampering in the 2016
presidential election and possible
collusion
between
Russia and the Trump campaign: the Senate judiciary and intelligence committees, and the House intelligence
committee.
The committees have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. The list of witnesses to have
been interviewed so far is long, and includes
Donald
Trump Jr
and
Jared
Kushner
, as well as lesser figures such as former adviser
Carter
Page
; Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, which commissioned
the
Steele dossier
; and Ben Rhodes, the former Obama adviser.
Senate intelligence committee
The most aggressive of the three committees so far, with a reasonable appearance of bipartisanship.
Republican chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina said in October that the question of potential collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives remained open. But Burr has also said the committee was not
focused on "criminal acts" but a larger picture. The committee notably heard testimony from James Comey after
the former FBI director was fired.
Senate judiciary committee
Hampered early on by partisan disagreement about the scope of its investigation, the committee has
interviewed top witnesses including Donald Trump Jr and has taken a particular focus on the firing of James
Comey. But the committee has deferred to Mueller in the investigation of
Paul
Manafort
and has interviewed fewer witnesses than others.
House intelligence committee
Riven by partisan conflict, the committee appears to be on track to produce two reports – one from each
party. Chairman Devin Nunes recused himself from the inquiry in March after Trump tweeted that Barack Obama had
"tapp[ed] my phones" and Nunes, in an apparent attempt to defend the president, revealed that some
communications involving Trump aides had been intercepted by US surveillance programs.
"... Occasionally, it is actually delusional, as when it refers to consolidating "gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere." ..."
"... At times Mattis' supplementary "remarks" were more bombastic than reassuring, as when he warned " those who would threaten America's experiment in democracy: if you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day." He did not exactly go into what the military response to hacking a politician's emails might be and one can only speculate, which is precisely the problem. ..."
"... Some of the remarks by Mattis relate to China and Russia. He said that "We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models - pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions." There is, however, no evidence that either country is exporting "authoritarian models," nor are they vetoing anything that they do not perceive as direct and immediate threats frequently orchestrated by Washington, which is intervening in local quarrels thousands of miles away from the U.S. borders. And when it comes to exporting models, who does it more persistently than Washington? ..."
"... The report goes on to state that Russia and China and rogue regimes like Iran have " increased efforts short of armed conflict by expanding coercion to new fronts, violating principle of sovereignty, exploiting ambiguity, and deliberately blurring the lines between civil and military goals." As confusing civil and military is what the United States itself has been doing in Libya, Iraq and, currently, Syria, the allegation might be considered ironic. ..."
"... What might that mean in practice? Back in 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney had requested "a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States... [including] a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons ... not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States." ..."
"... Pentagon planners clearly anticipate another year of playing at defense by keeping the offense on the field. An impetuous and poorly informed president is a danger to all of us, particularly as he is surrounded by general-advisers who see a military solution to every problem. Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail. ..."
"... how should China, Russia and Iran be responding to the strategic plans of Mattis, the US War Hawks and neocons who surround Trump? Who is it that is threatening the United States, that is not responding to threats first against them? ..."
"... This appears to me to be the same dangerous, belligerent talk justifying preemptive strike thinking that separates out the United States from its' perceived enemies. And probably the rest of the world! And brought us, according to the Concerned Scientists, again to "two minutes to midnight." It seems, to me, quite rational for Russia and China to respond accordingly, like good boy scouts, and also be prepared. ..."
"... The U.S. since it very first day of founding is offense. The Revolutionary War is offense against the British Empire. It built its first navy ships, not for defense but to fight a war in the Med Sea across the ocean. No one attacked the U.S ..."
"... The U.S. is 100% offense since day one to today. There is no department of defense. But its department of aggression and war was founded in 1776. ..."
"... The physics of nuclear war allow no winners because we all share this earth. ..."
"... Of course here in America we have no public shelters so threats by our plutocracy puppets must be absorbed by our fellow American Sheep. After the bombs come down are you one of those politicians holding a ticket to those vast hidden U.S. government shelters where sheep are not allowed? Doubtful ..."
"... Wake up folks aka sheep / slaves before it's too late! No one is going to protect you! You and me are being played! ..."
"... Putin, a Russian patriot if there ever was one, recognized that western capital could not be resisted by the Soviet system. In defense of Russia he liberated the economy, gradually but inexorably eliminating the evils of the Yeltsin years, and releasing the social forces needed for national strength and productivity. He reversed the isolation of Soviet times, establishing international relations based on mutual advantage and trust, not coercion. Despite western propaganda, he has established himself as a good neighbor, and as a reliable partner and ally. His stewardship has made Russia stronger and more impervious to US hegemonic ambitions. ..."
"... Putin is no lackey of US imperialism. He together with China and Iran form the chief bulwarks against it. ..."
"... It seems that Mattis is a fool; he's reading something in which he has no comprehension for its ramifications in the long run. ..."
"... Maybe the Lockheed Martin CEO written the document so that idiot would read it to the sheeple....Who knows. ..."
Reading the summary is illuminating, to say the least, and somewhat disturbing, as it
focuses very little on actual defense of the realm and relates much more to offensive military
action that might be employed to further certain debatable national interests. Occasionally, it
is actually delusional, as when it refers to consolidating "gains we have made in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria and elsewhere."
At times Mattis' supplementary "remarks" were more bombastic than reassuring, as when he
warned " those who would threaten America's experiment in democracy: if you challenge us, it
will be your longest and worst day." He did not exactly go into what the military response to
hacking a politician's emails might be and one can only speculate, which is precisely the
problem.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the report is its breathtaking assumption that
"competitors" should be subjected to a potential military response if it is determined that
they are in conflict with the strategic goals of the U.S. government. It is far removed from
the old-fashioned Constitutional concept that one has armed forces to defend the country
against an actual threat involving an attack by hostile forces and instead embraces preventive
war, which is clearly an excuse for serial interventions overseas.
Some of the remarks by Mattis relate to China and Russia. He said that "We face growing
threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a
world consistent with their authoritarian models - pursuing veto authority over other nations'
economic, diplomatic and security decisions." There is, however, no evidence that either
country is exporting "authoritarian models," nor are they vetoing anything that they do not
perceive as direct and immediate threats frequently orchestrated by Washington, which is
intervening in local quarrels thousands of miles away from the U.S. borders. And when it comes
to exporting models, who does it more persistently than Washington?
The report goes on to state that Russia and China and rogue regimes like Iran have "
increased efforts short of armed conflict by expanding coercion to new fronts, violating
principle of sovereignty, exploiting ambiguity, and deliberately blurring the lines between
civil and military goals." As confusing civil and military is what the United States itself has
been doing in Libya, Iraq and, currently, Syria, the allegation might be considered ironic.
The scariest assertion in the summary is the following: "Nuclear forces - Modernization of
the nuclear force includes developing options to counter competitors' coercive strategies,
predicated on the threatened use of nuclear or strategic non-nuclear attacks." That means that
the White House and Pentagon are reserving the option to use nuclear weapons even when there is
no imminent or existential threat as long as there is a "strategic" reason for doing so.
Strategic would be defined by the president and Mattis, while the War Powers Act allows Donald
Trump to legally initiate a nuclear attack.
What might that mean in practice? Back in 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney had
requested "a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack
on the United States... [including] a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both
conventional and tactical nuclear weapons ... not conditional on Iran actually being involved
in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."
Possible employment of "weapons of mass destruction" responded to intelligence suggesting
that conventional weapons would be unable to penetrate the underground hardened sites where
Iran's presumed nuclear weapons facilities were reportedly located. But as it turned out, Iran
had no nuclear weapons program and attacking it would have been totally gratuitous. Some other
neocon inspired plans to attack Iran also included a nuclear option if Iran actually had the
temerity to resist American force majeure.
Pentagon planners clearly anticipate another year of playing at defense by keeping the
offense on the field. An impetuous and poorly informed president is a danger to all of us,
particularly as he is surrounded by general-advisers who see a military solution to every
problem. Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail.
Possible employment of "weapons of mass destruction" responded to intelligence suggesting
that conventional weapons would be unable to penetrate the underground hardened sites where
Iran's presumed nuclear weapons facilities were reportedly located. But as it turned out, Iran
had no nuclear weapons program and attacking it would have been totally gratuitous. Some other
neocon inspired plans to attack Iran also included a nuclear option if Iran actually had the
temerity to resist American force majeure.
Pentagon planners clearly anticipate another year of playing at defense by keeping the
offense on the field. An impetuous and poorly informed president is a danger to all of us,
particularly as he is surrounded by general-advisers who see a military solution to every
problem. Hopefully wiser counsel will prevail.
By Philip M. Giraldi Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest. This article was originally published by
Strategic Culture Foundation
well.
as a combat vet it's ALWAYS better to be PREPARED THAN SORRY.
and you DON'T sit on your Butt waiting for your enemies to attack FIRST when you can PREVENT
IT.
In that case James; how should China, Russia and Iran be responding to the strategic plans
of Mattis, the US War Hawks and neocons who surround Trump?
Who is it that is threatening the United States, that is not responding to threats first
against them?
This appears to me to be the same dangerous, belligerent talk justifying preemptive strike
thinking that separates out the United States from its' perceived enemies. And probably the
rest of the world! And brought us, according to the Concerned Scientists, again to "two
minutes to midnight."
It seems, to me, quite rational for Russia and China to respond accordingly, like good boy
scouts, and also be prepared.
However; It is very dangerous, for if they detect there is an incoming missile or potentially
nuclear armed plane what are they expected to do? They won't be sitting on their hands,
that's for sure!
Just look at how the ordinary people of Hawaii responded to a "false alarm" recently. I put
"false alarm" in brackets because who knows what the United States neocons get up to
nowadays.
This is all very wearying and repeated so often there is a danger of people giving up.
Isn't it interesting how we are surrounded by folktales and the warnings of the old
Prophets and new which we ignore at our peril? Like crying wolf.
God help us all if some deluded idiot with authority, including that self-styled "genius" and
Supreme Commander, General Trump, miscalculate.
I imagine what remains of the sidelined, but still rational thinking Generals and Admirals
and military realists in the lower ranks are really sweating it out worrying what the morons
in charge might do.
The U.S. since it very first day of founding is offense. The Revolutionary War is offense
against the British Empire. It built its first navy ships, not for defense but to fight a war
in the Med Sea across the ocean. No one attacked the U.S.
The U.S. is 100% offense since day one to today. There is no department of defense. But
its department of aggression and war was founded in 1776.
There is not one human being on the planet that would have the inclination to want to invade
USA Inc. We watch and read and only need a minuscule amount of imagination to know that USA
Inc is the "sh*th*le " of the world populated by "ar*eh*les".
The only solution is for NK to invite China and Russia to send in missile batteries to
defend NK and if they are attacked, all US military bases in Asia will be obliterated with
Hawaii and Mainland in quick succession if USA Inc escalates.
Cities of Seoul and Tokyo need be left with no doubt that they will be tripled glazed,
Russia and China need to lift sanctions on NK immediately .
The rest of the world needs boycott USA Inc to the Olympics, just as the fascist West did to
Russia when it went to the rescue of Afghanistan.
Persons inciting war need to be prosecuted, those who incite use of WMD must be put in a
special category and immediately stopped from traveling outside their country and from
speaking at the UN.
A resolution must be passed at the United General Assembly to put above suggestion into
practice, and see if we can not get a resounding "vote" for it, as was the case for support
of Palestine recently.
America's National Defense Is really to terrorize the sheep / slaves into submission. The
physics of nuclear war allow no winners because we all share this earth.
Of course here in America we have no public shelters so threats by our plutocracy puppets
must be absorbed by our fellow American Sheep. After the bombs come down are you one of those
politicians holding a ticket to those vast hidden U.S. government shelters where sheep are
not allowed? Doubtful! You can just turn around and try to kiss your hind quarter Ba Ba a a
aaa.
Wake up folks aka sheep / slaves before it's too late! No one is going to protect you! You
and me are being played!
Time to replace all politicians with AI Robots. Who needs rulers anyway? Let politicians be
the first to be replaced with robots
Dave above has one cockeyed view of Putin, and of those sources of opinion that support him.
Soviet Russia imploded because it could not deliver the goods.An endless arms race, a
population regimented, harnessed, and stifled in service to a centrally planned economy, run
by a vast self-serving bureaucracy, It it was an experiment in state capitalism that, in
hindsight, could not but fail. The west tried to strangle it in its crib but in the event it
died of old age.
Putin, a Russian patriot if there ever was one, recognized that western capital could not
be resisted by the Soviet system. In defense of Russia he liberated the economy, gradually
but inexorably eliminating the evils of the Yeltsin years, and releasing the social forces
needed for national strength and productivity. He reversed the isolation of Soviet times,
establishing international relations based on mutual advantage and trust, not coercion.
Despite western propaganda, he has established himself as a good neighbor, and as a reliable
partner and ally. His stewardship has made Russia stronger and more impervious to US
hegemonic ambitions.
Putin is no lackey of US imperialism. He together with China and Iran form the chief
bulwarks against it. Dave's view is perverse.
"... A conspiracy of US government agencies, tax-exempt think tanks funded by the ruling interests, and media acting in behalf of a war and police state agenda work to shape perceived reality as it is described in George Orwell's book, 1984 ..."
"... Nothing stated in the Western presstitute media and no statement by any Western government or subservient vassal state can be trusted to comply with the facts. Truth is the enemy of the state, and the state is eliminating the truth. ..."
A conspiracy of US government agencies, tax-exempt think tanks funded by the ruling
interests, and media acting in behalf of a war and police state agenda work to shape perceived
reality as it is described in George Orwell's book, 1984 , and in the film, The
Matrix . Controlled perception-based reality is only a Facebook "like" away from killing
one person or one million or elevating a liar or the warmonger responsible for the killing to
hero status or to the conrol of the CIA or FBI or the US presidency.
... ... ...
...Nothing stated in the Western presstitute media and no statement by any Western
government or subservient vassal state can be trusted to comply with the facts. Truth is the enemy of the state, and the state is eliminating the truth.
Peoples in the United States, Europe, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the
various vassal states, such as Japan, all live day in, day out, an orchestrated lie that serves
interests directly opposed to the interests of the peoples.
Governments that do not rest on truth rest on tyranny.
"... This propaganda campaign is part and parcel of the roll-out of a new "official narrative." If it wasn't so completely depressing, I would say it is awe-inspiring to watch. This full-spectrum type of mass indoctrination, or "reality adjustment," doesn't happen that often. It used to only happen on the national level, typically during times of war, when the ruling classes of nation states needed to temporarily unite their populaces and demonize their enemy. It is happening now on a global level, for the second time in the 21st Century. ..."
"... The global capitalist ruling classes (which now reigned unopposed over the entire planet) needed a new official narrative to unite, not just a nation, or region, but everyone within the new global market. This narrative needed a convincing enemy that would function on a global level. "Terrorism" is that enemy. ..."
"... The key to understanding both the original War on Terror official narrative and the expanded variation we are being sold currently is the fact that terrorism is an insurgent tactic employed by weaker militant forces against a ruling government or occupation force. This makes it the perfect bogeyman (in essence, the only bogeyman) for our brave new global capitalist world, where global capitalism takes the place of that "ruling government or occupation force." ..."
"... we we no longer live in a world where nation-against-nation conflict is driving the course of political events. We live in a world where global capitalism is driving the course of political events. The economies of virtually every nation on the planet are hopelessly interdependent. Capitalist ideology pervades all cultures, despite their superficial differences. It is a globally hegemonic system, so it has no external enemies. None. The only threats it faces are internal. Its "enemies" are, by definition, insurgent in other words, "extremist" or "terrorist." ..."
"... This even holds true for the Russia paranoia the ruling classes are pumping out currently it's all just part of the "reality adjustment," and the launch of a new official narrative, not a prelude to war with Russia. The USA is not going to war with Russia. The notion is beyond ridiculous. Have you noticed, despite all their warlike verbiage, that no one has put forth a single scenario in which war between Russia and the West makes sense? That's because it doesn't make sense. Not for Russia, the USA, or anyone else. This is why "the Russian threat" is being marketed as an "attack on democratic values" and "an attempt to sow division," and so on. Because the war the corporatocracy is waging is not a war against Russia, the nation. The war they are fighting is a counter-insurgency, an ideological counter-insurgency. "Russia" has just been added to the list of "terrorists" and "extremists" who "hate us for our freedom." ..."
"... The message is, "you're either with us or against us." The message is, "we will tolerate no dissent, except for officially sanctioned dissent." The message is, "try to fuck with us, and we will marginalize you, and demonize you, and demonetize you, and disappear you." ..."
"... The message is, "we control reality, so reality is whatever the fuck we say it is, regardless of whether it is based in fact or just some totally made-up story we got The Washington Post to publish and then had the corporate media repeat, over and over, for fourteen months. " If that doesn't qualify as full-blown Orwellian, I'm not sure what, exactly, would. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Just when you thought the corporatocracy couldn't possibly get more creepily Orwellian, the
Twitter Corporation starts sending
out emails advising that they "have reason to believe" we have "followed, retweeted," or
"liked the content of" an account "connected to a propaganda effort by a Russia
government-linked organization known as the Internet Research Agency." While it's not as
dramatic as the Thought Police watching you on your telescreen, or posters reminding you "Big
Brother Is Watching," the effect is more or less the same.
And if that's not creepily Orwellian enough for you, Facebook has established a Ministry of Counterspeech , manned by "a
dedicated counterterrorism team" of "former intelligence and law-enforcement officials," to
"disrupt ideologies underlying extremism" ( see Chris Hedges' recent essay
for details ). The Google Corporation is systematically disappearing
,
deranking , and maliciously
misrepresenting non-corporate news and opinion sources, and the "thought criminals" who
contribute to them. Meanwhile, the corporate media continues to pump out Russia paranoia
propaganda like
this Maddow segment on MSNBC about "the remarkable number of Russian financiers who'll be
rubbing elbows with the Trump team in Davos."
These are just the latest salvos in the corporate establishment's War on Dissent, an
expanded version of the War on Terror, which they've been relentlessly waging for over a year
now. As you may have noticed, the ruling classes have been using virtually every propaganda
organ at their disposal to whip up mass hysteria over a host of extremely dubious threats to
"the future of democracy" and "democratic values," Russia being foremost among them, followed
closely by white supremacy, then a laundry list of other "threats," from Julian Assange to
Bernie Bros to other, lesser "sowers of division."
This propaganda campaign is part and parcel of the roll-out of a new "official
narrative." If it wasn't so completely depressing, I would say it is awe-inspiring to watch.
This full-spectrum type of mass indoctrination, or "reality adjustment," doesn't happen that
often. It used to only happen on the national level, typically during times of war, when the
ruling classes of nation states needed to temporarily unite their populaces and demonize their
enemy. It is happening now on a global level, for the second time in the 21st Century.
The first time it happened on a global level was 2001-2002, when the War on Terror narrative
was launched to supplant the defunct Cold War narrative that had functioned since the end of
World War II. The End of History/New World Order narrative, which had served as a kind of
ideological stop-gap from 1990 to 2001, never really sold that well. It was far too vague, and
there was no clear enemy. The global capitalist ruling classes (which now reigned unopposed
over the entire planet) needed a new official narrative to unite, not just a nation, or region,
but everyone within the new global market. This narrative needed a convincing enemy that would
function on a global level. "Terrorism" is that enemy.
In the official War on Terror narrative, the term "terrorism" does not refer to any type of
actual terrorism (although of course such terrorism does occur) as much as to "terrorism" as a
general concept, an essentially meaningless pejorative concept, one which can be expanded to
include almost anything and anyone the ruling classes need it to which is what is taking place
at the moment. It is being expanded, rather dramatically, to include virtually any type of
dissent from global capitalist ideology. In order to understand what's happening, we need to
understand how terms like "terrorism" and "extremism" function ideologically, not just as terms
to dehumanize "bad guys" but to designate a type of ur-antagonist , one that conforms to
the official narrative. So let's take a few minutes and try to do that.
The key to understanding both the original War on Terror official narrative and the
expanded variation we are being sold currently is the fact that terrorism is an insurgent
tactic employed by weaker militant forces against a ruling government or occupation force. This
makes it the perfect bogeyman (in essence, the only bogeyman) for our brave new global
capitalist world, where global capitalism takes the place of that "ruling government or
occupation force."
I've written a
number of essays about this , so I won't reiterate all that here. The short version is,
we we no longer live in a world where nation-against-nation conflict is driving the course
of political events. We live in a world where global capitalism is driving the course of
political events. The economies of virtually every nation on the planet are hopelessly
interdependent. Capitalist ideology pervades all cultures, despite their superficial
differences. It is a globally hegemonic system, so it has no external enemies. None. The only
threats it faces are internal. Its "enemies" are, by definition, insurgent in other words,
"extremist" or "terrorist."
This even holds true for the Russia paranoia the ruling classes are pumping out
currently it's all just part of the "reality adjustment," and the launch of a new official
narrative, not a prelude to war with Russia. The USA is not going to war with Russia. The
notion is beyond ridiculous. Have you noticed, despite all their warlike verbiage, that no one
has put forth a single scenario in which war between Russia and the West makes sense? That's
because it doesn't make sense. Not for Russia, the USA, or anyone else. This is why "the
Russian threat" is being marketed as an "attack on democratic values" and "an attempt to sow
division," and so on. Because the war the corporatocracy is waging is not a war against Russia,
the nation. The war they are fighting is a counter-insurgency, an ideological
counter-insurgency. "Russia" has just been added to the list of "terrorists" and "extremists"
who "hate us for our freedom."
Thus, our new official narrative is actually just a minor variation on the original War on
Terror narrative we've been indoctrinated with since 2001. A minor yet essential variation.
From 2001 to 2016, the constant "terrorist threat" we were facing was strictly limited to
Islamic terrorism, which made sense as long as the corporatocracy was focused on restructuring
the Middle East. White supremacist terrorism was not part of the narrative, nor was any other
form of terrorism, as that would have just confused the audience.
That changed, dramatically, in 2016.
The Brexit referendum and the election of Trump alerted the global capitalist ruling classes
to the existence of another dangerous insurgency that had nothing to do with the Greater Middle
East. While they were off merrily destabilizing, restructuring, privatizing, and
debt-enslaving, resentment of global capitalism had grown into a widespread neo-nationalist
backlash against globalization, the loss of sovereignty, fiscal austerity, and the soulless,
smiley-face, corporate culture being implemented throughout the West and beyond. That this
backlash is reactionary in nature does not change the fact that it is an insurgency just as
Islamic fundamentalism is. Both insurgencies are doomed attempts to revert to despotic social
systems (nationalist in one case, religious in the other) and so reverse the forward march of
global capitalism. The global capitalist ruling classes are not about to let that happen.
The corporatocracy wasted no time in dealing with this new insurgency. They demonized and
hamstrung Trump, as they'll continue to do until he's well out of office. But Trump was never
the significant threat. The significant threat is the people who elected him, and who voted for
Brexit, and the AfD, and Sanders, and Mélenchon, and Corbyn, and who just stayed home on
election day and refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. The threat is the attitude of these
people. The insubordinate attitude of these people. The childish attitude of these people (who
naively thought they could challenge the most powerful empire in the annals of human history
one that controls, not just the most fearsome military force that has ever existed, but the
means to control "reality" itself).
The corporatocracy is going to change that attitude, or it is going to make it disappear. It
is in the process of doing this now, using every ideological weapon in its arsenal. The news
media. Publishing. Hollywood. The Internet. Intelligence agencies. Congressional inquiries.
Protests. Marches. Twitter's "advisory emails." Google's manipulation of its search results.
Facebook's "counterspeech" initiative. Russiagate. Shitholegate. Pornstargate. The ruling class
is sending us a message. The message is, "you're either with us or against us." The message
is, "we will tolerate no dissent, except for officially sanctioned dissent." The message is,
"try to fuck with us, and we will marginalize you, and demonize you, and demonetize you, and
disappear you."
I wish I had some rallying cry to end this depressing assessment with, but I have no
interest in being one of these Twitter-based guerrilla leaders who tell you we can beat the
corporatocracy by tweeting and donating to them on Patreon, and then going about our lives as
"normal." It's probably going to take a little more than that, and the obvious truth is, the
odds are against us. That said, I plan to make as much noise about The War on Dissent as
humanly possible, until they marginalize me out of existence or the corporate-mediated
simulation that so many of us take for existence these days. What do you say, want to join
me?
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Until now, I have considered C. J. Hopkins to be only a playwright or whatever and not a
serious political scientist or political critic. But now, I see that he has grown out to be a
serious political voice.
I consider Hopkins' manifesto to be not unlike the old Communist Manifesto of 1848. Just
as more than 170 years ago the Communist Manifesto could note that "a specter is haunting
Europe," so today we could say that "a specter is haunting the world." But whereas back then
the hunted people had a name -- "communists" -- today those who are wanted for 'terrorism'
have no name or flag under which to come together. Perhaps the most appropriate name for
these people is "Dissidents."
Several individuals come to mind as perhaps having leadership potential for the
Dissidents. First, there is Ai Weiwei, who is known as a dissident artist and also as an
enemy of the state -- so the word for these dissident artists may be "anarchists." But since
anarchists would seem to have to eschew all political organization, they can't be anything
like the old Communist Party. Nonetheless, they can certainly be a specter to haunt the
globalized world, the world that pretends to be based on humanist globalism.
Two other examples, along with Ai Weiwei, are: Jello Biafra in the USA and Varg Vikernes
in Europe (at least in Northern and Central Europe). Both have arisen from the world of music
but have not been particularly shy about getting involveed in politics. So far Jello has
managed to avoid prosecution/persecution, while Varg is actually a convicted murderer and
also convicted of "hate crime" under the infamous "hate crime" statutes of France. Jello is a
Green, however, and it's note-worthy that the current leader (POTUS candidate) of the Green
Party USA (Dr. Jill Stein) has recently been singled out by congressional "intel" committees
as a person of interest in the so-called "Russiagate" affair.
As Hopkins says,
The ruling class is sending us a message. The message is, "you're either with us or
against us."
Maybe that's what has happened with the USA Greens: the global PTB have sent the message,
and it appears that the Greens' leader has responded by chosing to cooperate with the witch
hunt -- "discretion is the better part of valor" (as the old expression goes).
It seems to me a lot like the real California 'hippies' back in the the mid-60s -- not the
war protesters but the real hippies who were too stoned to know that there was a war going
on. They just knew that they did not want any part of the world as we know it. Oh, they
wanted the natural world all right, they just didn't want the so-called "civilized" world.
Rightists tended to place them somewhere on the Left side of the spectrum of the
Right-Left-Right-ya-Left-ya Right-ya-left-right-left (as drill sergeants might express it). I
was there in the 60s, although I was already too old to be trusted according to the political
pseudo-hippies (I was already over 30 years of age) but what I would call the real hippies,
they trusted me just fine. Anyway, Rightists and all the journalists and commentators never
came close to realizing what it was all about. You almost had to have some experience
first-hand of LSD, you know.
Maybe that's where this is all heading -- right back to LSD, psilocybin and good old
Cannabis. I note in this respect that the Trump administration has recently come down strong
to suppress the "Movement" in Colorado and elsewhere. One of Trump's numerous sell-outs or
cop-outs (to use the old 60s terminology). Contrary to his campaign statements, of
course.
Yes, I think that Hopkins way off there in the capital of rationalism, Berlin, probably
has no idea of how this is likely to play out back in the US of A it's going to be all about
illicit drugs and I don't mean factory-produced opioids or amphetamine. This battle will
definitely divide the goats from the sheep -- the real "libertarian" anarchists from the
pretend libertarians. I could be wrong but I think it's going to be a BFD. Yeah, I admit to
it: I hope it's going to be a BFD. Anything else and it's too boring for tears.
No one wanted the First World War, but given the build up of propaganda, tensions, mistrust,
and the alliances, a mere act of terrorism by Gavrilo Princip was enough to ignite a
conflagration that no one could stop.
This is an excellent and exceptional piece. Correct on all points, as we have come to expect
of C. J. Hopkins, one of the most clear-sighted contributors to this site. Fewer comic
flourishes than in his earlier essays, probably reflecting how desperate things are becoming
for independent and fair-minded people trying to make their voices heard. Surprising to see
so few comments, though perhaps that's not a bad thing, given how intemperate some commenters
can be.
"No one wanted the First World War, but given the build up of propaganda, tensions,
mistrust, and the alliances, a mere act of terrorism by Gavrilo Princip was enough to
ignite a conflagration that no one could stop." -- Steve Hayes
I guess that Hayes' comment here at C.J. Hopkins' article is all about demonstrating the
effectiveness of terrorism so then the War on Terror makes sense? but whatever to respond to
Hayes' contention that no one wanted the First World War, I would ask Hayes: "No one? Not
even greedy internationalist central bankers with international connections?"
"... The memo, however, is expected to detail how the surveillance warrant was initially obtained inappropriately using the Trump dossier -- a political document funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. ..."
"... It is expected to show that FBI and DOJ officials did not explain to the secret court granting spy warrants that the dossier was politically fueled opposition research. To obtain the warrant, the officials needed to show "probable cause" that Page was acting as an agent of Russia. ..."
"... The Trump dossier claimed he met with two high-level Russian officials on that trip, despite no evidence of it and Page's testimony under oath that he never met with them. Page has sued BuzzFeed for publishing the dossier. ..."
"... Rosenstein, after he was confirmed as the deputy attorney general in late April 2017, approved renewing the surveillance warrant, according to the Times ..."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein approved an application to extend surveillance of
former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page shortly after taking office last spring, according to
the New York Times .
That is one of the revelations in a memo compiled by House Intelligence Committee staffers
that is set to be released within weeks, according to "three people familiar with it" who
spoke to the Times .
The memo is expected to detail abuses by senior FBI officials in their investigation of the
Trump campaign, which began the summer of 2016.
The House Intelligence Committee could vote to release the memo as early as Monday. It would
give President Trump five days to object; otherwise, the memo will be released.
Democrats, as well as the Justice Department, have warned that releasing the memo to the
public would be "extraordinarily reckless," although the leaks of the memo to the
Times makes those claims dubious.
Democrats have also claimed that the memo, which summarizes classified information held by
the Justice Department, is misleading and paints a "distorted" picture, and they have prepared
their own counter memo they want to release.
The people who spoke to the Times argued that Rosenstein's renewal of a spy warrant
on Carter Page, Trump's former campaign foreign policy adviser, "shows that the Justice
Department under President Trump saw reason to believe that the associate, Carter Page, was
acting as a Russian agent."
The memo, however, is expected to detail how the surveillance warrant was initially obtained
inappropriately using the Trump dossier -- a political document funded by the Clinton campaign
and the Democratic National Committee.
It is expected to show that FBI and DOJ officials did not explain to the secret court
granting spy warrants that the dossier was politically fueled opposition research. To obtain
the warrant, the officials needed to show "probable cause" that Page was acting as an agent of
Russia.
Page joined the campaign in March 2016, around the time the team was under pressure to
release names of foreign policy advisers.
The former investment banker and Navy officer took a personal trip to Moscow to deliver a
speech at a graduation ceremony in July 2016, which fueled nascent allegations that Trump was
somehow colluding with Russia. Page left the campaign in September.
The Trump dossier claimed he met with two high-level Russian officials on that trip, despite
no evidence of it and Page's testimony under oath that he never met with them. Page has sued
BuzzFeed for publishing the dossier.
The FBI had been tracking Page, who was previously based in Moscow, since 2013, but was
never charged with any wrongdoing. The FBI reportedly received the surveillance warrant on him
in fall of 2016, but Page had left the campaign by then.
Rosenstein, after he was confirmed as the deputy attorney general in late April 2017,
approved renewing the surveillance warrant, according to the Times . When Trump fired
then-FBI Director James Comey in May, Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to lead a special
counsel.
Rosenstein has been in charge of the Russia investigation since Attorney General Jeff
Session recused himself.
GOP Congressional investigators have written six letters to individuals or entities involved or
thought to be involved in the funding, creation or distribution of the salacious and unverified
"Trump-Russia dossier" believed to have been inappropriately used by the FBI, DOJ and Obama
Administration in an effort to undermine Donald Trump as both a candidate and President of the United
States.
Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SCS) wrote six Judiciary Committee
letters requesting information from:
John Podesta, Donna Brazille, Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
Robbie Mook, the DNC, and Hillary For America Chief Strategist Joel Benenson.
A brief refresher of facts and allegations:
The DNC and Hillary Clinton's PAC was revealed by
The
Washington Post
to have paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS for the creation of a
dossier that would be harmful to then-candidate Donald Trump.
Fusion commissioned former UK spy Christopher Steele to assemble the dossier - which is
comprised of a series of memos
relying largely on Russian government sources
to
make allegations against Donald Trump and his associates.
According to court filings, Fusion also worked with disgraced DOJ official Bruce Ohr, and
hired
his CIA-linked wife, Nellie Ohr
, to assist in the smear campaign against Trump
. Bruce
Ohr was demoted from his senior DOJ position after it was revealed that he met with Fusion GPS
co-founder Glenn Simpson as well as Christopher Steele - then tried to cover it up.
Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta,
denied under oath to the Senate
Intelligence Committee
that he knew about the dossier's funding, while Clinton's former
spokesman, Brian Fallon,
told CNN
that Hillary likely had no idea who paid for it either.
Current and past leaders of the DNC, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) also denied
knowledge of the document's funding.
The Senate Judiciary Committee letters read in part:
In October 2017, the Washington Post reported that
Hillary for America and the
Democratic National Committee had funded, via Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele's creation of a series
of memos
relying largely on Russian government sources to make allegations against
Donald Trump and his associates
. A letter from the law firm Perkins Coie acknowledged
that, " [t]o assist in its representation of the DNC and Hillary for America, Perkins Coie engaged
Fusion GPS in April of2016" and that "the engagement concluded prior to the November 2016
Presidential election
the Committee has been investigating the FBI' s relationship with Christopher Steele during this
time his work was funded by Hillary for America and the DNC.
The scope of our review
includes the extent to which the FBI may have relied on information relayed by Mr. Steele in
seeking judicial authorization for surveillance of individuals associated with Mr. Trump.
It also includes whether any applications that may have been made for permission for such
surveillance fully and accurately disclosed:
(1) the source of Fusion GPS's and Mr. Steele's funding;
(2) the degree to which his claims were or were not verified;
(3) the motivations of Mr. Steele, his clients, and his sources; and
( 4) representations about their contacts with the press.
The letter then goes on to list
twelve questions
- the last being a request for
all
communications between a list of
40 individuals or entities
- including Christopher Steele,
Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Glenn Simpson and former CIA Director John Brennan.
The six recipients of letters have
two weeks to comply with the following requests
(note;
"Hillary for America" is replaced by "the DNC" depending on who the letter is addressed to):
1. Prior to the Washington Post 's article in October of 2017, were you anyone else at Hillary
for America aware of Mr. Steele's efforts on behalf of the Clinton campaign to compile and
distribute allegations about Mr. Trump and the Russian government? If so, when and how did you
first learn of his activities on the campaign's behalf? Please provide all related documents.
2.
Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America receive copies of any of the memoranda
comprising Mr. Steele's dossier prior to its publication by Buzzfeed in January of 2017?
If so, how and when? Please provide all related documents.
3. Regardless of whether you or your associates received copies of the actual memoranda, did you
or anyone else at Hillary for America otherwise receive information contained in the dossier prior
to Buzzfeed publishing the dossier in January of 2017? If so, how and when? Please provide all
related documents.
4. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America receive other memoranda written or forwarded by
Mr. Steele regarding Mr. Trump and his associates that were not published as part of the Buzzfeed
dossier? If so, how and when? Please provide all related documents.
5.
Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America distribute outside of the organization
any o f the dossier memoranda, information contained therein, or other information obtained by Mr.
Steele?
If so, please list who distributed the information, what was distributed, and to
whom it was distributed. Please provide all related documents.
6.
Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America communicate with any government
officials - whether in the executive, legislative or judicial branches - regarding the dossier
memoranda, information contained therein, or other information obtained by Mr. Steele?
If
so, please list the parties involved in the communication, the content of the communication, and
the date and means of the communication. Please provide all related documents. References such as
"anyone at Hillary for America" include all of Hillary for America's officers, employees,
contractors, subcontractors, advisors, volunteers, and, of course, Secretary Clinton herself. Mr.
Podesta January 25, 2018
7. Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America
instruct, request, suggest, or imply
that any individuals should pass along information to Mr. Steele or his intermediaries?
Please provide all related documents.
8.
Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America communicate with members of the press
regarding the dossier memoranda
, information contained therein, or other information
obtained by Mr. Steele? If so, please list the parties involved in the communication, the content
of the communication, and the date and means of the communication. Please provide all related
documents.
9.
Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America inform Secretary Clinton of Mr.
Steele's efforts
, whether by name or not, or of the allegations he was spreading? If so,
who and when? Please provide all related documents.
10.
Were you or anyone else at Hillary for America aware of Mr. Steele's contacts with
the FBI
or other government agencies prior to the 2016 election? If so, who? When and how
did you or they become aware? Please provide all related documents.
11.
Did you or anyone else at Hillary for America encourage, whether directly or through
intermediaries, Mr. Steele to initiate or continue contacts with the FBI or other government
agencies?
If so, who and when? Please provide all related documents.
12. For the period from March 2016 through January 2017,
please provide all
communications to, from, copying, or relating to:
Fusion GPS
; Bean LLC;
Glenn Simpson
; Mary Jacoby;
Peter Fritsch
; Tom Catan; Jason Felch;
Neil King; David Michaels; Taylor Sears; Patrick Corcoran; Laura Sego; Jay Bagwell; Erica Castro;
Nellie Ohr
; Rinat Akhmetshin; Ed Lieberman; Edward Baumgartner; Orbis Business
Intelligence Limited; Orbis Business International Limited; Walsingham Training Limited; Walsingham
Partners Limited;
Christopher Steele
; Christopher Burrows; Sir Andrew Wood, Paul
Hauser; 4 Oleg Deripaska; Cody Shearer;
Sidney Blumenthal
; Jon Winer; 5 Kathleen
Kavalec; Victoria Nuland; Daniel Jones; 6
Bruce Ohr; Peter Strzok; Andrew McCabe; James
Baker; 7 Sally Yates; Loretta Lynch; John Brennan.
There is more than enough information now for the
FBI to pounce -- if they wanted to -- which they
don't.
Two weeks is a long time for Clinton & Co.
to hold crisis conferences and come up with stories
that they will all agree upon.
Rest assured they are rehearsing every day for
the biggest, Oscar award winning performances that
America has ever seen.
The MSM will be the movie reviewers and will be
biased in favor of their most very favorite actors
and actresses.
It will be the best performance the DC Swamp
ever produced.
It will be interesting to watch our slave
masters keeping a straight face whilst spinning
tales under oath, and obfuscating, filibustering,
and changing the subject at will.
Expect a lot of "what is is," a lot of Russian
spy stories, a lot of dementia-level memory loss,
all while they are picking up fabulous .gov
paychecks and bennies.
Do not expect any of them to spend a day in jail
-- maybe a few fines but they can easily pay those
since they will be somehow someway billed back to
the taxpayer anyway.
In a really perverse way, we are paying for a
movie.
Oh, the fabulousness of it all.
We have the obnoxious, sleazy, over paid lead
performers(Clinton & Co., and the DNC); we have the
supporting actors ( FBI ); we have the theatre
(Congress); we have the admission fee (taxes); and
we have the silver screen -- the TV and internet.
At last we now know why Hillary
put so much efforts and other
people's money in her failed book
after she's been deposed. That's
going to be the official
narrative of this fiasco.
So
all these guys have to learn how
to read and then report the page
numbers that apply within 2
weeks.
Another name to add to the
list should be Comeys
brother, who happens to be
the accountant for the
Clinton foundation. And
yes, Muellers summer home
in the Hamptons happens to
be guaranteed by the
Clinton foundation
"....There is more than enough information now
for the FBI to pounce -- if they wanted to --
which they don't...."
No hurry... let the guilty ones sweat
awhile. Meantime, they do these sorts of
information gathering forays, knowing all of
their wrongdoing beforehand, looking for the
fool who decides to lie or stonewall. Then the
fibby will bring those in, squeeze them, show
them the evidence, refresh them of the law, the
penalty and watch them crumble, perhaps offer
them leniency in return for information. THEN..
watch them cough up NAMES/PLACES of all the rest
they know are complicit, in an effort to save
their own skins.
Brilliant. You're right. THis is nothing more
than a dog and pony show for the taxpayers.
Along with this whole 'Q' distraction, it is
quite entertaining.
The 'strongly worded
letter' is just that. A STRONGLY WORDED LETTER
we've seen this WHOLE plot before.
It has no teeth.
The bad actors are probably laughing their
asses off. The only thing the congressional
committee can do is 'invite' the bad actors to
make testimony under oath. Which they'll
promptly refuse. Done and DONE.
I'm guessing this whole show will continue up
until re-election time so Trumpy can get
re-elected. But then again(both sides), steal
elections anyways(on those
easily-hackable-and-proven-so, electronic voting
machines that are outdated) I don't know why
they even need 'us' anymore.
The CIA was used by the Ohrs to
manufacture the dossier, Fusion GPS was a
subcontractor, and allowed to do a query
search of classified information, to
GENERATE and CREATE the dossier! Filtering
it back to the UK so it looks like it
came from a legitimate source.
That's the big story and weaponizing the
CIA against a political opponent and
continuing as the opponent transitions to
President elect?? That there is sedition
AND High Treason.
After hearing the liberal on the street interviews, where "the end
justifies the means" is the prevailing meme, the other half of the public
doesn't really care about justice if it interferes with their agenda. It
would seem that generations of our youth have been taught communist
propaganda in our schools.
At least having the Deep Globe players on
their heels gives Trump and the truth seekers time to repair some of the
damage that forty years of corruption has wrought. Be sure to repair the
education system that has taken their orders from the communist United
Nations agenda 21 doctrine.
A secret FISA warrant should have been issued on all of them before the
letters were delivered. Then during the two weeks they have to "get their
stories straight" get it all recorded and then let the fireworks (shock & awe)
begin. Then they WOULD go to jail. But CONgress is not that smart.
Oh they are that smart, they just pretend not to be. Most of them are
compromised and are scared shitless. The Republican F-for Brains are
the most scared, because they are in power and "SHOULD" be working to get
the truth out. It implicates them though, is the problem.
Most people
watching snippets on TV have no clue and believe what CNN and MSNBC etc.
are puking out day after day.
The Senate Committee already has all that
information. Additionally, they will give them the chance to lie, or
contradict one another, as they sit back and see who they select to be thrown
under the bus.
I suspect it will be Brazil, I think she knows it too. It's not been a good
year for crooked black politicians.
I am very suspicious of a known, outspoken Republican Trump hater, Senator
Lindsay Graham, inserting himself into an investigation where valuable
information about potential Democratic corruption against Trump will be
reviewed by him.
Seems he is setting himself up to be a middle man for
the Dems rather than investigating any crimes that may land his friends in
jail
This is Criminal Treason & Seditious acts as well as Political
Espionage involving the highest Compartmentalized Levels of the NSA, GCHQ,
CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS and perhaps other Agencies it's Agents & Officials
including the Office of the CEO "President"at the time Barrack H. Obama.
This entire Criminal Deep State Intelligence Operation was data mining
formuling the first of its kind Parallel Construction Case consisting of a
Criminal Deep State CIA, FBI, DOJ Scripted False Narrative / PsyOp With the
objective ousting a sitting President via a soft coup.
The Criminal, illegal domestic surveillance of US citizens without a
warrant or probable cause is only one symptom of many of how corrupt our
government is at all levels. Voters don't matter. The deep state is not
elected. Money talks in Washington and the revolving door spins like a
top. Criminality & Corruption is so rampant, it is neither illegal or
"hidden in plain sight" anymore.
Criminal Congressmen can profit on insider information (no thanks to the
Stock Act and Harry Reid who put a stop to it). Special interests not only
put their puppets in power and select their candidates before the election
but write their own laws verbatim and hand them over to their puppets WHO
DON'T EVEN READ THE TEXT THEY ARE PASSING!
This is not conspiracy folks. This is the country you live in. The
only reason Trump is pissed about it is because it AFFECTED HIM! If you
think he cares about you, then you haven't been paying attention.
Everyone except those who are supportive of a police state, and
neo-feudalism are in for a rough time. That is, of course, if this once
great nation doesn't get turned into a pile of ash for starting WWIII -
likely in 2018.
Realize this didn't happen overnight and it didn't happen without the
people's consent. Folks didn't have a problem with special interests
taking over our government despite repeat warnings from Eisenhower,
Kennedy, Reagan and others. Folks believed what the MSM spoon fed them.
People didn't bother to question or hold their leaders accountable. They
allowed their rights to be systematically stripped away with new
legislation that made the constitution effectively obsolete. This goes
back to at least Wilson, the formation of the FED, the Counsel On Foreign
Relations, Rockefeller, the Rothchild's, JP Morgan, .etc. What wwe are
experiencing now is the maturity of a Criminal corrupt government who no
longer exists for the people it claims to represent and instead sees them
as an obstacle (as Rex Tillerson so eloquently put it).
All evil needs is for good people to remain silent. The American people
have remained collectively silent (divided, and distracted) for
generations. I do not see them uniting any time soon.
For the 100th time...these people don't care about subpoenas from the
frauds in congress. Honest Hill'rey's IT guy Bryan Pagliano got two of
them, last year. He ignored them both.
I'm not making this up; here's
the letter Chaffetz sent to Irrelevant General Stiff Sessions requesting
enforcement.
That fucking weasel Sessions did cock about it. Chaffetz announced
he's not running again. At this point I'm kinda rootin' for Mueller and
I hope he's throws Stiff Sessions in prison. I really do.
I agree JSB. I am so tired of the "In The Crosshairs" headlines too. I
don't give a fuck about crosshairs. Until someone has the balls to
apply steady pressure to the trigger to send the projectile to the
target, crosshairs have never killed anyone. Press the trigger FFS if
you have them in the crosshairs...
And if it is Grassley, Gowdy, Nunes
and all the other bluster queen shitstains in Congress behind the
scope, The Witch and her crew have little to fear.
Rule of law is dead, this is Full Retard Banana Republic stuff right
here...
Yep, the Senate is just trying to look important and needed. All they
are doing is stirring this shit pot up for no reason other than to say '
American Citizens look at us' we care.
The complete Senate is DIRTY just like the bastards they will be
talking to. Every fucking one of these people will lie, take the 5th,
pull a Lois 'dicksuker' Lerner,and some will even refuse to show up.
Everything the Senate is going to do will be a detriment to getting the
'4 page Memo' release.
Truth is the first victim of war. This is also true about the Cold War II with Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks, is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?" ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet, there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and its allies ..."
"... This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate is about China. ..."
"... In an essay titled "Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader ..."
"... So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" ..."
"... The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please." A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives better. ..."
"... So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that they are helping to resist Trump. ..."
MSNBC's Chris Hayes recently asked a question
of his Twitter following that was so heavily loaded it wouldn't be permitted on most interstate highways: "Aside from genuine cranks,
is there anyone left denying it was the Russians that committed criminal sabotage in the American election?"
Hayes asked this fake question because he works for MSNBC and it is therefore his job, and he asked it in response to a report
first made viral by deranged espionage LARPer
Eric Garland that a Dutch intelligence agency had been observing Russian hackers attacking US political parties in advance of
the 2016 election. Like all "bombshell" Russiagate reports, this one roared through social media like wildfire carried on the wings
of liberal hysteria about the current administration, only to be exposed as being riddled with gaping plot holes as
documented here
by independent journalist Suzie Dawson. The report revolves around an allegedly Russian cyber threat now known in the west as "Cozy
Bear," which as Real News ' Max Blumenthal
notes is not a network of hackers but "a Russian-sounding name the for-profit firm Crowdstrike assigned to an APT to market its
findings to gullible reporters desperate for Russiagate scoops."
This "bombshell" overlapped with another as it was reported by the New York
Times that at one point many months ago Trump had wanted to fire Robert Mueller, but then didn't.
*Cough.*
Why does this keep happening? Why does the public keep getting sold a mountain of suspicion with zero substance? Over and over
and over again these "bombshell" stories come out about Trump and Russia, Russia and Trump, only to be
debunked ,
retracted , or
erased from the spotlight after people start actually reading the allegations and thinking critically about them and see they're
not the shocking bombshells they purport to be? These allegations are all premised upon claims made the US intelligence community,
which has an extensive and well-documented history of lying to advance its agendas, as well as
porous claims made by an
extremely shady and insanely profitable
private cyber security company, and yet all we're ever shown is smoke and mirrors with no actual fire.
Why is that?
You can begin finding your way toward the answer to that question by envisioning the following hypothetical scenario. Imagine
what would happen if, instead of promoting the Russiagate narrative, the faces of the
consent-manufacturing machine known as the mass media began
telling mainstream America that in order to ensure that the US will remain capable of dominating the other countries on this planet,
there's going to have to be an aggressive campaign to re-inflame the Cold War with the goal of disrupting and undermining China and
its allies.
That would be a very different narrative with a very different effect, wouldn't it? But that's exactly what's going on here, and
if the US power establishment and its propaganda machine were in the business of telling people the truth, that's precisely what
they'd say.
It's not a secret that China has been working to surpass the United States as the world's leading superpower as quickly as possible.
Hell, Xi Jinping
flat-out said so during a three and a half hour address last October, and
many experts think it might happen a lot
sooner than Xi's 30-year deadline. An editorial from China's state press agency about the Davos World Economic Forum
asserts that the time has come for the world to choose between the "Xi-style collaborative approach" and Trump's "self-centred
America First policy (which) has led his country away from multiple multilateral pacts and infused anxiety into both allies and the
broader world." China has been collaborating with Russia to
end the hegemony of the US dollar , to
shore up control
of the Arctic as new resources become available, and just generally build up its own power and influence instead of working to
remain in Washington's good graces as most western nations have chosen to do.
Preventing this is the single most important goal of the US power establishment, not just its elected government but the unelected
plutocrats, defense and intelligence agencies which control the nation's affairs behind the scenes. This agenda is so important that
in a letter to his successor the outgoing President Barack Obama made the "indispensable"
nature of American planetary leadership his sole concrete piece of advice, and pro-establishment influence firms like Project for
a New American Century have made preventing the rise of a rival superpower their
stated primary goal
.
This is what Russiagate is ultimately about. Democrats think it's about impeaching Trump and protecting the world from a nigh-omnipotent
supervillain in Vladimir Putin, Trump's supporters think it's a "deep state coup" to try and oust their president, but in reality
this has nothing to do with Trump, and ultimately not a whole lot to do with Russia either. When all is said and done, Russiagate
is about China.
In an essay titled
"Russia-China Tandem Changes the World", US-Russia relations analyst
Gilbert Doctorow explains how the surging economic
power China depends upon Russia's willingness to go head-to-head with America and its extensive experience with US attempts to undermine
the USSR during the Cold War. Alone both nations are very vulnerable, but together their strengths are complimentary in a way that
poses a direct threat to America's self-appointed role as world leader .
"Russia is essential to China because of Moscow's long experience managing global relations going back to the period of the Cold
War and because of its willingness and ability today to stand up directly to the American hegemon," writes Doctorow, "whereas China,
with its heavy dependence on its vast exports to the U.S., cannot do so without endangering vital interests. Moreover, since the
Western establishment sees China as the long-term challenge to its supremacy, it is best for Beijing to exercise its influence through
another power, which today is Russia."
So the strategic value of taking Russia out of the equation is clear, and that's exactly what the US power establishment is
attempting to do. California Representative Eric Swalwell, one of the lead congressional promoters of both anti-Russia sentiment
and the Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative, admitted last year that
he'd like to see tougher sanctions stacked up until they "isolate Russia from the rest of the world" after much badgering from
Fox's Tucker Carlson about his incendiary claims that the alleged cyberattacks constituted an "act of war." It is worth noting here
that despite Swalwell's repeated hysterical claims about Trump and Russia, he
recently voted to renew the treasonous Kremlin-colluding president's godlike surveillance powers anyway.
Establishment muppets like Swalwell and the unelected elites who own them don't care about Trump, they care about crippling China's
right arm Russia so that they can set about sabotaging the agendas of a potential rival superpower unimpeded by the skilful opposition
of a nuclear superpower. But, getting back to the hypothetical situation I asked you to envision earlier, they can't just come right
out and say that.
They can't. The US oligarchs, the oligarch-owned media outlets, and the oligarch-aligned intelligence/defense agencies can't
just come right out and say "Hey America, we need to ensure our power structures remain unrivalled for the foreseeable future, so
we're going to have to try and shut down Russia's influence using ever-tightening economic sanctions, NATO expansionism, proxy wars
and troops along Russia's border to squeeze them until they lose the capacity to interfere with our ability to crush China. We'll
also need a vastly inflated military budget to help facilitate our geopolitical agendas and prepare for a possible world war, please."
A few Americans might consent to it, but by and large the US public would rather see those resources spent on making their lives
better.
Just as importantly, the rest of the world would recoil in revulsion.
So they lie. They use America's deliberately constructed partisan enmity and culture wars to fan the flames of mass hysteria
about a new president so that enough Americans will permit continuous escalations with Russia under the mistaken impression that
they are helping to resist Trump. They think they're lying to you for your own good, because you can't understand how important
it is that they do what they're trying to do. That's why there are so many gaping plot holes and none of this ever quite adds up;
they're lying to you like a parent telling a child he needs to eat his broccoli if he doesn't want a lump of coal for Christmas.
Except instead of eating broccoli it's consenting to dangerous escalations and military expansionism, and instead of a parent it's
a class of elitist sociopaths, and you're always going to get coal.
And sure, an argument can be made that the world is better off under the watchful domination of the US power establishment than
it would be with multipolar power arrangements, and I encounter many establishment loyalists who make precisely that argument. Personally
I would argue that the
death, destruction
and mayhem caused by the intrinsically evil things the US establishment must do in order to maintain dominance completely invalidate
that argument, but it's a debate that people deserve to have, and they can't have it when they're being lied to about what's really
going on.
Insist on the truth. Keep pushing back against this pernicious psyop. Spread the word.
Support Caitlyn Johnstone's work on Patreon or
Paypal . Reprinted with author's permission from her
website .
The financialization of the American economy and continued slide of the lower 80% of
population standard of living might provide the impetus to scale back the MIC. And scaling back
MIC is long overdue
Notable quotes:
"... A thread here not long back with a bit about the Aussie diplomat giving some 'intel' to US IC for the Russia/Trump collusion meme. Now the Dutch are in on it too, hacking into a university beside red square in 2014 and watching Russia hack DNC/Hillary emails or whatever. (apparently no university beside red square) ..."
A thread here not long back with a bit about the Aussie diplomat giving some 'intel' to
US IC for the Russia/Trump collusion meme. Now the Dutch are in on it too, hacking into a
university beside red square in 2014 and watching Russia hack DNC/Hillary emails or whatever.
(apparently no university beside red square)
Ukraine for the Dossier, Australia and Netherlands chipping in with their bits of
'evidence'. The old MH17 crew back in action.
Tillerson/US holding Russia responsible for Syrian chemical weapons attacks, lots of new
sanctions on Russia etc etc.
Saker has an interesting article written for UNZ Review. Ukraine have official changed the
status of Donbass from being terrorist occupied to Russian occupied to dump the Minsk
agreement. US supplying javelin missiles etc.
US about to kick off the war in Ukraine again as revenge for Russia stuffing up their plans
for Syria?
Neoliberal MSM are hired presstitutes on a mission. Ideological soldiers of the neoliberal
Party, if you want to use the Bolsheviks term. To expect from them objectivity is like to expect
snow in hell.
But what is interesting is how Trump managed to undermine this neoliberal fake news industry,
especially WaPo, NYT, and CNN. Now even some neoliberal view those presstitutes with disdain:
they went way too far ion the war trial. Russiagate debacle is one such story.
Notable quotes:
"... This is, at bottom, a battle over the truth. Who owns it, who controls it, who can sell their version to a polarized public that increasingly cannot agree on basic facts. ..."
"... As paradoxical as it sounds, negative coverage helps Trump because it bonds him to people who also feel disrespected by the denizens of the mainstream press. The media take everything literally, and Trump pitches his arguments at a gut level. It is asymmetrical warfare. ..."
"... Every president gets pounded by the press. But no president has ever been subjected to the kind of relentless ridicule, caustic commentary and insulting invective that has been heaped on Trump. I have a name for this half-crazed compulsion to furiously attack one man. It's called Trump Trauma. ..."
"... by Howard Kurtz (Regnery Publishing, Jan. 29), copyright Regnery Publishing. ..."
"... This story appears in the Jan. 25 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe . ..."
This is, at bottom, a battle over the truth. Who owns it, who controls it, who can sell
their version to a polarized public that increasingly cannot agree on basic facts.
Everything you read, hear and see about Trump's veracity is filtered through a mainstream media
prism that reflects a lying president -- and virtually never considers the press' own baggage
and biases. Everything you read, hear and see from the Trump team is premised on the view that
media news is fake news, that journalists are too prejudiced, angry and ideological to fairly
report on the president. Trump and his acolytes use these attacks on the Fourth Estate to
neutralize their own untruths, evasions and exaggerations.
What many journalists fail to grasp is that Trump's supporters love his street talk and view
the media critiques as nonsense driven by negativity. They don't care if he makes mistakes.
As paradoxical as it sounds, negative coverage helps Trump because it bonds him to people
who also feel disrespected by the denizens of the mainstream press. The media take everything
literally, and Trump pitches his arguments at a gut level. It is asymmetrical warfare.
Every president gets pounded by the press. But no president has ever been subjected to
the kind of relentless ridicule, caustic commentary and insulting invective that has been
heaped on Trump. I have a name for this half-crazed compulsion to furiously attack one man.
It's called Trump Trauma.
"... Maybe they get their training from the CIA. ..."
"... Maybe they ARE CIA. ..."
"... Always keep in mind, when a source leaks an "exclusive" to one reporter, there is ALWAYS an ulterior motive, even if the leaked information is true. ..."
We've had people here arguing with each other on another thread about it. They( MSM ) know
how to spin a good story and spread propaganda/disinformation. Maybe they get their training
from the CIA.
It's not like Sundance hasn't been warning us
Sara Carter and Sean Hannity Are Being Played By James Comey Posted on June 13, 2017 by
sundance
Sundance
August 4, 2017: As we pointed out yesterday, the entire Sara Carter presentation of a
letter from current NSA McMaster to former NSA Susan Rice appears to be a propaganda
narrative. –DETAILS HERE– Toward that end, Carter appears with Sean Hannity and
misleads the audience about McMasters letter to Susan Rice.
Sundance 1/13/18 Sara Carter, plays the role of controlled opposition. Carter shiftily helps
Hillary Clinton deal with her "Dossier Problem". Unfortunately, but not unpredictably, Sara
Carter begins deploying deep state
Sundance 1/18/18 There are voices like Sara Carter and Dan Bongino who are rushing to the
motive behind the story and playing directly into the hands of the Swamp Dwellers who use
professional obfuscation (the Potomac two-step) to avoid accountability.
Always keep in mind, when a source leaks an "exclusive" to one reporter, there is ALWAYS an
ulterior motive, even if the leaked information is true.
Every leak has multiple consequences, and it is not clear what the primary motive was. For
example: TheHill leak to Soloman and Carter has:
-S&P leaking various things to various reporters. The one that caught my eye was the
reference to "throwing him under the bus" regarding the CF article (Clinton Foundation?). ie.
they are leaking to get back at superiors who do things re clinton that S&P don't like.
But there are many others, including the actual or likely identities of the reporters being
leaked to.
"... The first was that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be naming former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and that the White House would be "blind-sided." The second would be a MSM news report on "MF" (Michael Flynn) to which they planned to "put MF back in the news" by drawing up "a memo on Turkey," stating that "with Erdogan thugs beating protesters on the streets, it fits the news cycle." ..."
"... During the beginning of the conversation it was stated that "I'm hearing Mueller, maybe by the end of the week." By the end of the conversation, someone with a little more knowledge said "RM is happening tonight," to which the original person that mentioned Mueller by name, says "Tonight. F*ck. Quicker than I thought." ..."
On May 17, 2017, a person that calls himself "FreshCamel," posted messages on multiple
forums across the Dark Web
(part of the Internet not included in search engines and requires special encrypted programs to
access it), asking for help to decipher a discussion he had witnessed between five people
communicating using the secure messaging platform
called Gliph .
The same day, the user also uploaded four screen shot links to a pastebin account which allegedly showed the conversation
"FreshCamel" witnessed on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, during a 45 minute period, from 2:31 pm to
3:15 pm.
That time range is incredibly important because the conversation detailed knowledge
and planning of events that had not occurred nor been reported at the time the conversation
took place, meaning those participating in the conversation had first hand knowledge of events
that wouldn't occur until hours later.
The first was that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be naming former FBI
Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and that the White House would be "blind-sided." The
second would be a MSM news report on "MF" (Michael Flynn) to which they planned to "put MF back
in the news" by drawing up "a memo on Turkey," stating that "with Erdogan thugs beating
protesters on the streets, it fits the news cycle."
During the beginning of the conversation it was stated that "I'm hearing Mueller, maybe
by the end of the week." By the end of the conversation, someone with a little more knowledge
said "RM is happening tonight," to which the original person that mentioned Mueller by name,
says "Tonight. F*ck. Quicker than I thought."
Screen shots below, but first a couple points as to the timeline. The news of Mueller did
not hit the news until 6 pm ET on May 17, 2017 ( CBS
News ) and 7:32 pm (
ABC News ), both of which time stamp their articles, which was 3 1/2 hours after the first
mention in the chat log, and 3 hours after the second person said "RM is happening
tonight."
The second point is that the New York Times article on Michael Flynn and Turkey, and follow
ups by other organizations like
McClatchy , weren't published until 7:27 pm on Wednesday.
Parciat test recovered fromt he image (see the original article for the fuill text)
Dooku joined the group.
Dooku: RR isn't taking shit., and he knows our friends have stuff on him
Dooku: I'm hearing Mueller, maybe by the end of the week
SevernS: May 17 at 2: 37 pm
Hearing that too.. WH will be blind-sided. Let's put MF back in the news? Can have S
draw up
memo on Turkey With Erdogan thugs beating protesters in streets, it fits news cycle, and
I'm
sure we'll need a few more 'memos'' down the road. Good practice :-)
Huck
I'm in. S. you in here? Our friends in NY still have secure connection set up
waiting
Roger
MF was mentioned in company group too... Evidently their work on the limey is paying
off.
Roger
MF was mentioned in company group too... Evidently their work on the limey is paying
off.
Dooku
Paying off how?
Dooku
Getting to him?
Timelines aside, there are a number of other references that line up with the constant leaks
by the Deep State to the MSM.
For example, the reference in the log above, to how their work on "MF" was paying off,
saying he is "scared sh*tless," then the one that calls himself "Roger" stating "didn't AEWP
mention it when we gave him that tape."
Coincidentally, the original report on Michael Flynn, in February 2017, detailing his
conversation with the Russian ambassador to the United States, before Trump took office, was
published by the Washington Post, with one of the writers listed as "Adam Entous." Is that the
"AE" that is one of the Deep States "carrier pigeons?"
Another highly interesting reference is to the "Limey," where the person listed as "Huck,
states "our carrier pigeon said in debrief that they said something along the lines of "No
wonder no one in our business has called the Limey out, what's the point when you all keep
bringing us great stuff? It actually helps our pageviews when she gets all of her minions first
up with dumb sh*t first'."
According to The Third Estate New Group, who broke this story, the Limey reference could be
to "Louise Mensch," who just happens to be the one of the two people that put out the bogus
report that there had been a sealed indictment issued against President Trump, just last week,
and who also has been given space at the New York Times for op-eds.
Another thing that caught my eye was the reference to a "Camp Eagle," to which the user
Roger called an "asset." In the intelligence community an "asset" someone "within organizations
or countries being spied upon who provide information for an outside spy. They are sometimes
referred to as agents, and in law enforcement parlance, as confidential informants, or "CIs"
for short." (Source)
Third Estate also claims they have contacted the person that released these screen shots,
who said that while five people participated int he conversations, there were 13 present in the
message group.
ANP has also reached out to the dark web .onion email address "FreshCamel" posted on the
pastebin account, but have not heard back from him by the time of publishing, but we will
update if we do receive a response.
BOTTOM LINE
While anybody in the intelligence community could be leaking to the press, the specific
knowledge of Rod Rosenstein tapping Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, would have been known to
only a short list of people within the DOJ, and Mueller himself of course.
Since the information aligned so well with actual events that happened after the
conversation took place, this lends considerable credence to the veracity of the Third Estate
claim that they "independently reviewed and verified these screenshots and other information
provided by "FreshCamel."
This is a well planned coup attempt against not just president Trump, but against every
single voter and supporter that fought to get him elected.
Last, but not least, at the top of the first screen shot, it says "Palpatine's Revenge" as
the name of the chat..... which appears to be a reference to a Star Wars character, which has
"has become a widely recognized popular culture symbol of evil, sinister deception,
dictatorship, tyranny, and the subversion of democracy," according to Wikipedia.
President Trump broke with the Department of Justice last week by calling for the release of
a four-page "FISA memo" purportedly summarizing widespread surveillance absues by the FBI, DOJ
and Obama Administration, reports the Washington Post.
The President's desire was relayed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions by White House
Chief-of-Staff John Kelly last Wednesday - putting the Trump White House at odds with the DOJ -
which said that releasing the classified memo written by congressional republicans
"extraordinarily reckless" without allowing the Department of Justice to first review the memo
detailing its own criminal malfeasance during and after the 2016 presidential election.
The decision to release the memo ultimately lies with congress.
The FBI and DOJ exist to put people in jail period. They are all lawyers. They should not be
allowed to communicate on any personal device of any technology about any case. When they
take a case for prosecution all communications they have should be turned over to defense
period. The government should not be allowed to keep any communications or techniques used to
collect evidence a secret.
If caught breaking any of those rules they should be jailed for a mandatory 10 years. No
early release. And upon completion of there sentence they would never be allowed to work in
any form of government or hold any public office. Also would forfeit any professional license
they may hold.
All members of the FBI and DOJ should have to prove every year how they have paid for
any
Personal collateral. This would help Identify cops on the take.
Every 6 months undergo a polygraph test.
They imprison people for a living, so they should be the most open in their jobs. No
hiding.
If it comes down to a government employee's word against a defendants word, the defendants
word should prevail. Remember to convict should be without any doubt based on evidence.
Sorry I got a little carried away. Please feel free to add or critique my comments
I actually agree! This communicating on personal emails or phones, making up fake names to
use, getting really tired of hearing about this all through the Government. These people work
for us, they know what they signed up for .there has to be consequences!
The democrats are angling with Mueller not for obstruction, but conspiracy to obstruct.
This case extract fits nicely with the narrative of the day. (Notice it's from Chicago,
and not too old – Aug 2014). This case might have been the inspiration for the WaPo /
NYT fake news stories.
"... at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack ..."
"... Return to Moscow ..."
"... The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the infamous Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge." ..."
The claim of Russian meddling in the US election has brought US-Russia relations to what may
be an all-time low, substantially contributing to the near-universal demonization of Russian
president Vladimir Putin and of Russia itself in virtually all major media, with little or no
discussion of the supposed evidence for the claim. A stellar exception is the London Review
of Books, which published a critically important essay by Rutgers University professor
Jackson Lears in the January 4, 2018 issue. Titled "What We Don't Talk about When We Talk about
Russian Hacking," the article is an excellent overview and analysis of many of the issues the
title suggests.
The claim of Russian meddling in the election remains to this day
evidence-free, although you would never know that from the treatment of the topic in the
mainstream media. As Professor Lears observes:
Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on
evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and
their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment'
produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper,
the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the
NSA. The claims of the last were made with only 'moderate' confidence. The label Intelligence
Community Assessment creates a misleading impression of unanimity, given that only three of
the 16 US intelligence agencies contributed to the report. And indeed the assessment itself
contained this crucial admission: 'Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof
that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is
often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.' Yet the
assessment has passed into the media imagination as if it were unassailable fact, allowing
journalists to assume what has yet to be proved. In doing so they serve as mouthpieces for
the intelligence agencies, or at least for those 'hand-picked' analysts.
But although Professor Lears refers to the reports of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity in his discussion of "Russian hacking," it seems clear there must have been a leak, not
a hack, because "the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds
an Internet capability for a remote hack ." ("Was the 'Russian Hack' An Inside Job?", July
25, 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/
.)
In any case, definitive claims about who was responsible (assuming, purely arguendo
, it was a hack) face the fact that, according to Ray McGovern and William S. Binney, two
members of VIPS,
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, was the
agency's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting, and
created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.
In other words, as Russian president Vladimir Putin has explained,
today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an
extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it
is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they
are the exact source of that attack. (Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4,
2017), by NBC News' Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of
Russia, June 5, 2017.)
[9]
Demonization of Putin and Russia
The demonization of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russia itself is just part, albeit
the most dangerous part, of a disinformation campaign flowing from the mainstream media. I
don't propose to present a full treatment of the subject here. But in broad outline, it's my
understanding that when the Cold War ended in 1991, Russian president Boris Yeltsin accepted
the advice of Western neoliberal planners and dismantled much of the Russian "safety net," with
the result that the Russian economy tanked and millions of people faced terrific hardship.
Vladimir Putin has been attempting to repair that situation, and his initial success is part of
the reason for his popularity in Russia. That understanding comes from a number of articles
I've read over the years, but primarily from Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow ,
mentioned above. I'm hardly an expert on internal Russian politics. But I've read many of the
extensive public statements Mr. Putin has made since 2007, and with my primary concern being
his role in international relations and with respect to the control of Russia's nuclear
arsenal, he strikes me as a statesman.
[10] . Yet as investigative journalist Robert Parry observes,
The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is where the neocons and
the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The U.S. media's approach to
Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. For instance, the full story of the
infamous
Magnitsky case cannot be told in the West, nor can the objective reality of the Ukrane
coup in 2014 . The American people and the West in general are carefully shielded from
hearing the "other side of the story." Indeed to even suggest that there is another side to
the story makes you a "Putin apologist" or "Kremlin stooge."
Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide key facts that
otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia. Ironically, many "liberals" who
cut their teeth on skepticism about the Cold War and the bogus justifications for the Vietnam
War now insist that we must all accept whatever the U.S. intelligence community feeds us,
even if we're told to accept the assertions on faith.
[11] .
One result is a needless heightening of the dangers and risks outlined in this article.
"... "Inevitably there were questions about the strange names his company had given the Russian hackers. As it happened, "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" were part of a coding system Alperovitch had created. Animals signified the hackers' country of origin: Russians were bears, Chinese were pandas, Iranians were kittens, and North Koreans were named for the chollima, a mythical winged horse. By company tradition, the analyst who discovers a new hacker gets to choose the first part of the nickname. Cozy Bear got its nickname because the letters coz appeared in its malware code. Fancy Bear, meanwhile, used malware that included the word Sofacy, which reminded the analyst who found it of the Iggy Azalea song "Fancy." " ..."
My goodness, what a farce this muh Russia hoax is! I'm sure you're all familiar with Adam
Carter's Guccifer 2.0: Game Over exposing
Crowdstrike.
Besides the wonderful research linked above, here's a very quick retort one can use to
knock out the Dutch intel story (see bold):
In this 10-24-16 puff piece by
Esquire on Crowdstrike, we find a nugget – "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" are
names created by Crowdstrike . The purported Russian hackers do not call themselves
that. It's Crowdstrike's name for them!!! It's become so used by know-nothing "experts" in
the media that people believe that's what the hackers call themselves.
So, how did Dutch intel know anything about those names – the Russians aren't as
stupid as CNN* to put those names in their coding!
Excerpt from Esquire article:
"Inevitably there were questions about the strange names his company had given the Russian
hackers. As it happened, "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" were part of a coding system
Alperovitch had created. Animals signified the hackers' country of origin: Russians were
bears, Chinese were pandas, Iranians were kittens, and North Koreans were named for the
chollima, a mythical winged horse. By company tradition, the analyst who discovers a new
hacker gets to choose the first part of the nickname. Cozy Bear got its nickname because the
letters coz appeared in its malware code. Fancy Bear, meanwhile, used malware that included
the word Sofacy, which reminded the analyst who found it of the Iggy Azalea song "Fancy."
" __________
* CNN The Russian
Connection June 2017 video – at 19:00 – 19:11 shows fake computer screen with
the words "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" and commentary by Hultquist, former senior US Intel
Analyst. CNN didn't have Crowdstrike people presenting that screen; they'd know better.
The whole video is one piece of amateur propaganda laughable puerile piece of .
"Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" are names created by Crowdstrike.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm formerly a VP level IT security expert. The mickey mouse audit Crowdstrike did on the DNC server reads like a port-scan-log for any old box on the internet. So, this "Dutch surprise" is garbage, as is the report from Crowdstrike. That server was a victim of a LEAK, not a hack. ..."
"... IP's from all over the world scan for open and vulnerable ports 24/7/365. The best hackers don't use an IP you'll ever see unless they WANT you to see it – or it is a quick hit-and-run. They allege the activity was going for "years". ..."
"... The Dutch are throwing a pathetic lifeline of slippery dental floss to Obama and Hillary. Won't work. ..."
This is the next desperate grasp at straws. They put a pic of Trump next to Putin –
with no reference regarding Trump at all. Also, funny how this alleged activity is going on
while Obama is in charge of the FBI and Debbie Wasserman Shultz has a gang of Pakistani "IT
Admins" savaging congressional computers / servers.
I'm formerly a VP level IT security expert. The mickey mouse audit Crowdstrike did on the
DNC server reads like a port-scan-log for any old box on the internet. So, this "Dutch
surprise" is garbage, as is the report from Crowdstrike. That server was a victim of a LEAK,
not a hack.
IP's from all over the world scan for open and vulnerable ports 24/7/365. The best hackers
don't use an IP you'll ever see unless they WANT you to see it – or it is a quick
hit-and-run. They allege the activity was going for "years".
The Dutch are throwing a pathetic lifeline of slippery dental floss to Obama and Hillary.
Won't work.
Dutch media is trying to help the Russiagate plotters. nice...
Notable quotes:
"... Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on the Dutch spies who were spying on them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ': they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description. ..."
It's the summer of 2014. A hacker from the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD has penetrated the computer network of a university
building next to the Red Square in Moscow, oblivious to the implications. One year later, from the AIVD headquarters in Zoetermeer,
he and his colleagues witness Russian hackers launching an attack on the Democratic Party in the United States. The AIVD hackers
had not infiltrated just any building; they were in the computer network of the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. And unbeknownst
to the Russians, they could see everything.
That's how the AIVD becomes witness to the Russian hackers harassing and penetrating the leaders of the Democratic Party, transferring
thousands of emails and documents. It won't be the last time they alert their American counterparts. And yet, it will be months before
the United States realize what this warning means: that with these hacks the Russians have interfered with the American elections.
And the AIVD hackers have seen it happening before their very eyes.
The Dutch access provides crucial evidence of the Russian involvement in the hacking of the Democratic Party, according to six
American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous. It's also grounds for the FBI to start
an investigation into the influence of the Russian interference on the election race between the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton
and the Republican candidate Donald Trump. 'High confidence'
After Trump's election in May 2017, this investigation was taken over by special prosecutor Robert Mueller. While it also aims
to uncover contacts between Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, the prime objective is bringing to light the
Russian interference with the elections. An attempt to undermine the democratic process, and an act that caused tensions between
the two superpowers to rise to new heights, bringing about a string of diplomatic acts of revenge.
Three American intelligence services state with 'high confidence' that the Kremlin was behind the attack on the Democratic Party.
That certainty, sources say, is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow
for years. This is so exceptional that the directors of the foremost American intelligence services are all too happy to receive
the Dutchmen. They provide technical evidence for the attack on the Democratic Party, and it becomes apparent that they know a lot
more.
(This is not a joke)
(Why is this being announced now)
(This is going to run and run)
(Is this even real, sounds quite fishy)
(Navy CSI levels of Drama!!)
According to de Volkskrant, AIVD in 2014 had established surveillance on Cozy Bear, the Russian state hacking group, and
observed its efforts to attack the US Democratic Party's email systems and American government servers.
AIVD was, we're told, able to compromise security cameras surrounding the building used by the Cozy Bear crew, to look out
for known Russian spies entering the joint. The Euro snoops duly tipped off the FBI that something was afoot.
"Hackers from the Dutch intelligence service AIVD have provided the FBI with crucial information about Russian interference
with the American elections," reports the Dutch daily newspaper.
"For years, AIVD had access to the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear AIVD [became] witness to the Russian hackers
harassing and penetrating the leaders of the Democratic Party, transferring thousands of emails and documents.
"It won't be the last time they alert their American counterparts. And yet, it will be months before the United States realize
what this warning means: that with these hacks the Russians have interfered with the American elections. And the AIVD hackers
have seen it happening before their very eyes."
today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian interference in the USA elections
Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on the Dutch spies who were spying on
them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ': they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to us how is ' interference ' or ' meddling ' different from having
an opinion about an election. And we all know that Americans (or Dutch) have never, ever, expressed any opinions about other countries'
elections. Right. My democracy promotion is your meddling.
It is bad when you kill my cow. It is very good when I kill your cow. Monkey reasoning level?
The author has made several errors. He assumes that discussing the possibility of a
psychiatric disorder making Trump unfit means proving insanity. In reality, the most likely
disorder does not meet the legal definition of insanity, but does make a person incapable of
competently or faithfully performing the duties of office.
The suggestion that this is some type of superficial soviet style political maneuver
ignores the fact that good diagnosis is done nowadays based to a large extent on observed
behavior, history, and the reports of third parties. This is especially important when the
individual shows signs of being a pathological liar. In these cases, information gained in a
face-to-face interview may be virtually useless.
The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder
with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and
symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
Dishonesty and fraudulence
Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
Lack of concern for one's limitations
Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
Disregard for -- and failure to honor–financial and other obligations or
commitments
No one imagined that someone with this possible disorder would ever make it to the White
House, however, the 25th Amendment provides an avenue for him to temporarily be removed from
power while he can undergo proper evaluation by military psychiatrists and neurologists. This
is all mental health professionals are requesting. These individuals can do tremendous damage
when give power over others.
"The condition that Mr. Trump should be assessed for is Antisocial Personality Disorder
with Psychopathic Features. (Alternative PDOs in DSM-5, pg. 761-765 Some of the signs and
symptoms which make such a person unfit for office include-
Dishonesty and fraudulence
Embellishment or fabrication when relating events
Anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults
Mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior
Boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom
Lack of concern for one's limitations
Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli
Acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes
Disregard for -- and failure to honor–financial and other obligations or
commitments "
An Orwellian comment like the above just proves the point of the article, and then some.
As if there isn't anyone in the world who couldn't be shoehorned to fit such a diagnoses,
with a crafty narrative reconfiguring of their actions.
If there are indeed any witch doctors (excuse me, "psychiatrists") pathologizing people on
the basis of a laughable list like the above, then I consider them to be far more undeserving
of the power they have, and far more toxic to society, than Trump in any of the actions or
utterances that he has made.
Susan Dawkins, who claims my article has mistakes, didn't read it. Her amateur diagnosis that
Trump has "Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathic Features" does not make him
UNABLE to be president, which is what the 25th Amendment is for.
She claims he is UNFIT. Fitness is judged primarily by the people, who elected him. If a
president somehow becomes unfit while in office it must be because of "high crimes and
misdemeanors." That's the only reason the Constitution provides for. And impeachment is the
only answer.
Sorry kiddies, the 25th is a not-over for an election Rachael Maddow doesn't like.
This is all mental health professionals are requesting."
"All"? That's rich.
Indeed, is that all that they're requesting? My goodness -- what a modest
request! -- a request merely to have complete veto power over America's entire citizenry, in
terms of who is allowed to be President; a request merely to be able to remove any President
who is not to their liking.
In short, a mere request to be able to legally perform a coup d'etat at will, to overturn
any election that does not yield their desired result.
How gratified we all should be that their request for power is such a small one. Imagine
if they asked for something just a bit more ambitious. "Omnipotence" comes to mind.
Trump is the one who messes with the very fundamentals of our democracy. Remember his voting
commission and the crap they wanted? Force states to provide all the 2016 voter information
to his CosaNostra buddies. And remember when they wanted all Americans to fill out a
registration form similar to the one used when purchasing a gun? They said they wanted to
make sure only those qualified were on the voter registration lists.
These terms must be immediately banned from US political discourse:
These are totally irresponsible statements. There must be absolute responsibility of
press. There must be also absolute transparency of press. Today press in US is a tabloid rug.
New York times and Washington post should be fired and replaced with people from this
website.
Fantastic article. A very plausible hypothesis. "The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement
was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold
Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial
system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the
liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let
the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia
live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders."
Notable quotes:
"... And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury. Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow. ..."
"... Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders. ..."
"... Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained some of its international independence. ..."
"... The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the colonial administration'. ..."
"... They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. ..."
"... Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal. ..."
"... Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script. Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars' worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago. ..."
"... This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work. A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until 2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism. ..."
"... Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously claimed about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out "Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the totalitarian Russian regime! ..."
"... Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund. ..."
"... This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration. ..."
"... Echo Moskwy ..."
"... But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece. ..."
"... That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting, if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'. ..."
"... I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing he is going to be company of Russia history greatest. ..."
"... There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back. ..."
"... Putin sure as hell has all necessary resources to make this offer. ..."
While you have probably already forgotten the feast, Russia is only now slowly coming back to life after its overlong Christmas
break completed on January 14 by the quaintly named Old New Year, or even perhaps by the Epiphany on January 19. Everybody went somewhere,
even candidates for the presidential race coming in on March 18: the Communist one went to ski in Austria, while the right-winger
went to Bali. On the eve of Epiphany, they dipped in the ice-cold waters: the ultimate trial of Russian fitness. Not only he-man
Putin, but even she-woman Sobchak did it!
And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure
of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without
a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced
Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian
hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury.
Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow.
The Russian assets in the west could be divided into New Money, assets of Putin's people, and the Old Money, assets of Yeltsin's
people. The sanctions are supposed to deal with Putin's people, but Russian experts think the Old Money is more vulnerable, for a
good reason. The New Money is under Putin's protection. If the US or any other western authority grabs it, the Russian government
may seize Western shares in Russian companies and properties.
But what about the Old Money? Its owners, elder oligarchs, are extremely worried about Putin's nonchalance. Putin takes it easy,
they say. Ma'alish , the Arab in Putin says. Que sera sera , says his inner Frenchman. And this nonchalant attitude
drives the oligarchs crazy. They want him to fight and save their money. They insisted on his meeting with President Trump in Vietnam;
some say the meeting took place in the depth of the night, far from prying eyes, and didn't bring results. Now Putin says to the
Old Money: if you want to save your money, repatriate it to Russia. We aren't that mad, they reply. You have to defend us anyway!
That was the Deal!
Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached
between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's
interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system.
Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal
economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West
write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live
in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders.
Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment
came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained
some of its international independence.
Putin was elected, or you may say, he was appointed to stick to the Deal and to serve as the Supreme Arbiter among the oligarchs,
with very little of a power base of his own. Slowly, he created his own oligarchs (they are described as "siloviki", though not all
of them have some security forces background), and he had built up a limited power base; though many important positions, in particular
in the economic sphere, remained in the hands of the Old Guard, Yeltsin's men. This, too, was a part of the Deal.
The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were
and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the
colonial administration'.
They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was
revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated
a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. The worst Putin can do about
them is to give them a fat chunk of the Russian economy to chew on, while limiting their access to the rest. So he gave Mr Chubais
the Rusnano company that made no profit but
embezzled
billions . This was the Deal.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare
to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism.
This is the Deal.
The topmost schools of Russia, the most endowed, the most privileged schools for the children of the new nobility are the HSE,
(the Higher School of Economics, a clone of the LSE and the economic think-tank of the government), and MGIMO, (Moscow State Institute
of International Relations, the school for perspective diplomats). Their graduates were been trained to despise Russia and admire
the neo-liberal West (just like the Indian students trained by the Brits, had admired England and despised their country in the days
of the British Raj). Professor Medvedev of the HSE called upon Russian government to transfer the Russian Far North to the international
community, though this is the place of the greatest gas reserves (he kept his position). Professor Zubov of the MGIMO had compared
Putin to Hitler, and denounced Russian diplomats as liars (his contract hasn't been prolonged). All that is a part of the Deal.
Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script.
Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars'
worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local
manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount
of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago.
Meanwhile, the Deal has been undone from the West, as a result of the epic struggle between Bankers and Producers, otherwise described
as Liberals vs. Conservatives, or Globalists vs. Regionalists, personalised as Clinton vs. Trump. Yeltsin's people are historically
aligned with the Clinton camp. Now, their assets in the West, previously protected by the Deal, have lost their protection and come
up for grabs.
The Old Money people are putting their effort into persuading the West, namely the US, to let them live in peace and instead confiscate
the pro-Putin New Money.
This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work.
A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an émigré, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until
2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel
Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism.
Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously
claimed
about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich
decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists
and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out
"Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the
totalitarian Russian regime!
(Émigrés are frequently like that, and the US, a country of immigrants, had been vulnerable to the attack by Illarionov Syndrome,
by listening to Masha Gessen, or to Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi émigré who claimed Iraq has had WMD, to Alexander Solzhenitsyn with
his horror stories about GULAG, etc. I made it a rule to moderate my critique of Israel while abroad, in fear of failing the Illarionov
Sanity Test.)
Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his
words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the
Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow
émigré Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund.
Direct and generous beneficiaries of their lobbying are the Three Alpha Jews, Peter Aven, Michael Friedman and Herman Khan. They
are owners of the Alpha Bank, a very big Russian bank , and they are Old Money oligarchs from Yeltsin's days when their kin ruled
the land.
Michael Friedman, the fat guy with a jolly piglet face, rose to his eminence from being a ticket tout selling illegally obtained
opera tickets to Western tourists near Bolshoi Theatre; afterwards he became The Mind behind all ticket mafias in Moscow, and then
proceeded to banking and so many other things.
Like many Old Money guys, Friedman earns money in Russia, but siphons it off for Jewish causes. He is a co-founder of a "Jewish
Nobel Prize", also called Genesis Prize, a cool million dollars being given annually to a deserving Jew, the most recent one being
the notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg who
called Donald
Trump, "the faker". This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds
in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration.
Alternatively, it could mean they are just smart and able to play the both houses. The Three Alpha Jews had been mentioned in
the Steele Dossier as the conduit of Putin influence for Trump and against Clinton in the recent US Presidential elections. (They
are
suing Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed for spreading the accusation).
According to an even better conspiracy theory spread on the social networks, both Mr Illarionov and the smart Alpha Jews are a
sleeper cell organised by cunning Mr Putin to ensure his survival in the most adverse conditions. All of them were very friendly
with Putin; perhaps they just pretended to become his enemies, the conspiratorially minded journalist from the anti-Putin Echo
Moskwy has implied.
Leaving the conspiracy theories aside for a while, we can reach a conclusion. The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on
Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs, and not only them. This confiscation will spell the
death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate
Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services
background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece.
The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs,
and not only them. This confiscation will spell the death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point–the crawling re-nationalization
of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting,
if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'.
"Que sera sera". One of my favorite songs. Sung by Doris Day and was a hit in the 1950′s. Italian in origin and translates
to "whatever will be, will be".
Agree. I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing
he is going to be company of Russia history greatest.
There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and
capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back.
"... This letter has the effect of a significant number of people having to look over their shoulder, and no matter how protected they may be in their circle of "friends," everyone who knows them is going to be thinking about this. ..."
"... Edited by Admin ..."
"... I see Edward Baumgartner's name on that list. I suspect he is the one who is largely responsible for the dossier. Simpson states in his testimony to Congress the other week that he had hired Baumgartner's firm as a subcontractor to do work for him ..."
"... I love how this is starting to set up nicely to what Sundance alluded to.. Nunes is on top of the Hillary cover-up of the email scandal and Grassley is getting to the facts on the dossier and how they used it against Trump. The IG (Horowitz) has to have lots of info on both. Actual unredacted stuff making it's way to the Congressional committees. ..."
WASHINGTON – As part of their ongoing oversight efforts to ensure that the FBI's law enforcement activities are free of improper
political influence, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) yesterday sent six letters seeking information and documents regarding Christopher Steele's work
on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary for America. The letters seek information and documents relating to
those political organizations' knowledge of and involvement in Mr. Steele's work and his reported interactions with the FBI while
he was working on behalf of these political organizations.
♦ For the period from March 2016 through January 2017, please provide all communications to, from, copying, or relating to:
Fusion GPS; Bean LLC; Glenn Simpson; Mary Jacoby; Peter Fritsch; Tom Catan; Jason Felch; Neil King; David Michaels; Taylor Sears;
Patrick Corcoran; Laura Sego; Jay Bagwell; Erica Castro; Nellie Ohr; Rinat Akhmetshin; Ed Lieberman; Edward Baumgartner; Orbis
Business Intelligence Limited; Orbis Business International Limited; Walsingham Training Limited; Walsingham Partners Limited;
Christopher Steele; Christopher Burrows; Sir Andrew Wood, Paul Hauser;4 Oleg Deripaska; Cody Shearer; Sidney Blumenthal; Jon Winer;5
Kathleen Kavalec; Victoria Nuland; Daniel Jones;6 Bruce Ohr; Peter Strzok; Andrew McCabe; James Baker; 7 Sally Yates; Loretta
Lynch; John Brennan.
... ... ...
It would appear that Senate Judiciary Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley is sending out advanced notice of who he is looking into
as part of the Steele Dossier construct and how it was used by the DOJ/FBI.
fabrabbit, do you really think all of these will report back? No way! They are running away like rabbits or working overtime to
hide as much as they can. Truth and karma is taking over and there is no escape for them as eventually they are caught and we
want them hanged for treason of the worst kind.
The addressee of this letter is not actually John Podesta. The addressees are the named targets in the body of the letter. The
question being presented is, "Who wants to get in line to show us what you've got for us as a witness for the 'prosecution?'"
Another way to put it is, "Who wants to be the John Dean of this scandal?"
I'll bet that IF Sen. Grassley receives ANY response(s) they will be in the form of " thanks BUT no thanks". Unless he is willing
to issue subpoenas to these ind's to testify under oath IN PUBLIC he's going to get jack sh*t!
Liberty, he is willing. Each day has brought him moving another piece on his chess board. Have seen no letting up.
This
letter has the effect of a significant number of people having to look over their shoulder, and no matter how protected they may
be in their circle of "friends," everyone who knows them is going to be thinking about this.
Their children may or may not hear anything from schoolmates, considering the private schools they attend, but somewhere
someone will send them a social media message.
People will talk, something that even these libs might be concerned about.
Subpoenas, without a prosecutor and empanelled grand jury, leads to a loop going nowhere. NONE of these people will respond with
any constructive information, unless they are looking at an indictment. IF they respond under oath, and/or under subpoena, it'll
be to plead the 5th. After that, if evidence exists to indict and they are under criminal liability, the dam will burst, someone
will sing, and then a choir will develop, as rats try to escape their fate.
There aren't many G. Gordon Liddy's on the Democrat side who will willingly go to prison for Obama or Clinton.
"There aren't many G. Gordon Liddy's on the Democrat side who will willingly go to prison for Obama or Clinton."
________________
If there is even a single one who would go to prison for these heinous criminals and traitors, who would it be? There is no
honor among thieves. Even less among traitors. Who is going to throw their life away, so Hussein or Sick Hillary can laugh at
what suckers they are?
Besides that, it would only consign such a person to a longer prison term. Even if there was someone foolish enough to fall
on their sword to protect Hussein or Clinton, it wouldn't protect them at all, because NSA already has enough evidence to convict
everyone involved a hundred times over.
That is the beauty of their arrogance and brazen disregard of the rule of law; they did these crimes over a period of EIGHT
YEARS, so the evidence is EVERYWHERE. It's all over the Internet, all over their personal servers, all over foreign intelligence
agency files (who 'hacked' them), and the NSA has every last byte, of everything these criminals did, for the entirety of the
Hussein treasonocracy.
If anyone cooperates, MAYBE there will be some form of leniency for a few lower level traitors. But that cooperation is not
necessary, and even if they ALL tried to protect Hussein and Clinton, it wouldn't change a thing.
They're all going down anyway. Cooperation or no cooperation.
There are plenty of Jim and Susan mcDougal's on the Democrat side. They are fellow travellers for the cause and going to jail
is a badge of honor for them. They know they will be taken care of when they get out.
Grassley already knows the answers and has the documents. He is giving them the rope to hang themselves by lying about the contacts
and denying the existence of documents in the custody of the OIG. "Never ask a suspect a question to which you don't know the
answer."
If a crime is committed in secret and held in secret. Does not knowing, make it any less a crime? To which they say, "Prove
It." Ok To which, "We all cheer!!"
If Grassley is asking for it, he does not need it. That is how daming the evidence behind
the memo is. #ReleaseTheMemo
Wow! I'm sure I never saw that. Five people commented, but the carrier said 13 people were logged into the conversation. Would
like to think that the OIG or House Intelligence Agency has been made aware in the intervening 8 months.
Michael Flynn really ought to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing, he was definitely targeted.
Would seem to align with the FBI "failing to preserve" texts in the period leading up to Mueller's appointment. No telling what
Strzok and Page were saying to each other.
And if WE have questions about why certain names were left off, I bet THEY are freaked about names not listed, wondering if anyone
has been spilling their guts
I thought the same thing. They have to wonder how Grassley is getting all this information when they went to such great lengths
to cover all the dirty tracks. It also proves, that Grassley, Nunes et al.. are much further into uncovering the facts than what
we are hearing in the news. The MSM is still caught up on Trump firing Mueller, and FNC is talking memo and the lovebirds.
The powers that be are into Chapter 4 while we are still reading the introduction.
Finally the men are running things according to law and maturity. The last child president did everything the New York Times said
to do and wore short pants.
None of the 6 record request letters designated an expected date for producing the requested documents, information, etc. IMO
this might not be voluntarily produced. They basically would be producing what's comparable to discovery in a lawsuit. They will
be pondering their defense. Not sure if they will force a suit or cough it up. The DNC never did cough up their server to the
FBI after their "Russian hacking". Course, maybe Szrok never asked for it*cough*.
It will be produced – one way or the other -- ut not anytime soon, imo. At this point it's adversarial.
Poor Donna. She's going to have to play nice in her old stomping ground – or maybe not.
I was gonna ask "What's magic about the March 2016 start date?" so I took a look at the timeline spreadsheet someone here provided.
There was a lot going on and I'm not knowledgeable enough to zero in on any one thing. January 2017 ending date includes PresTrump's
inauguration, of course.
Let's see if this posts:
2016-02-25 Peter-Strzok-Lisa Page texting event DOJ
2016-03-01 FGPS approaches Perkins Coie DOJ
2016-03-03 Sabina Menschel donates to Hillary for America PAC.
2016-03-04 Carson drops out of race
2016-03-04 Peter Strzok texts Lisa Page, calling Trump idiot, whose nomination would be good for Hillary DC
2016-03-06 George Papadopoulos joins Trump campaign DOJ
2016-03-15 Rubio drops out of race
2016-03-15 Between this date and 9/15/16, Papadopoulos tries 6 times to arrange meetings between Trump campaign and Russians,
all are rejected
2016-03-15 Mike Rogers orders an audit of 702 About Queries
2016-03-18 Peter Strzok-Lisa Page texting event
2016-03-19 John Podesta receives a phishing email asking him to change his password
2016-03-21 Carter Page hired as adviser?
2016-04-05 Peter Strzok interviews Huma Abedin DC
2016-04-07 Obama gives Fox interview declaring Hillary's handling of e-mails as carelessness.
This letter sounds like what Mueller and his team should have sent out in the form of a subpoena if they were doing a real investigation
as per their appointment
well yeah.. the key word is IF they WANTED to do a real investigation. RR set the path for his charge although no one ever asked
why it was always only against Trump collusion and never Hillary. That as far as I am aware has never been looked at by Mueller
and his team. Which seems a little strange what all we know now, why that has never answered by those in the DOJ.
Victoria Nuland is a lifelong swamp rat neo-con and married to Robert Kagan. Talk about a duo of the lets destroy everything Nuland
started with B Clinton Admin under Strobe Talbot (highly involved in Yugoslavia takedown) and rolled over to be a 'chief advisor
to VP Dick Cheney (couldn't wait to bomb Iraq). Then onto Hillary's state dept and was the real 'point person' in the color revolution
in the Ukraine and dis-info on Russia And, this is a biggie – Nuland was originator of "The Video" talking points on Benghazi.
She'll shed her skin for any administration, as long as she can reek havoc and her and her husband, along with military industrial
investors profit greatly You take this b*tch this down all problems (wars and covet ops) in Europe and North Africa are exposed.
Holy sh*t, Oleg Deripaska is a close Putin associate and Russian oligarch. If they have reason to believe the Clinton camp / democrats
were in touch with him, the "Russia collusion" story pivots on a dime.
Deripaska is BFFs with Andy McCabe. There is quite the history there. According to field investigators (FBI), every time Deripaska's
name came up in an investigation, McCabe intruded upon the investigation–a very unusual action by a higher-up. You put two and
two together and see what comes up.
12-17-17 Article reports that Andrew McCabe is friends with and had unauthorized mtgs w Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska – same
one connected to Manafort. CIA and FBI good guys say McCabe's MO is like convicted Russian spy in the FBI, Hanssen.
McCabe Bruce Ohr connection also shown in the article.
Let's follow your logic through to its final completion. If you believe that law and order no longer exists in the US, that means
the US no longer exists and that we have become a dictatorship.
So now that you realize exactly what you mean by your statement, what are you going to do about that?
Daniel J. Jones former staffer for Diane Feinstein.
"The Penn Quarter Group (The PQG) is led by Daniel J. Jones. Daniel has extensive experience advising senior business executives
and U.S. government officials. He has spent more than a decade leading, managing, and participating in complex investigations
for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, including leading deployments and fact-finding missions to more
than a dozen foreign countries. As a staff member of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Daniel led, managed, and
served as the chief author of several prominent investigations, including the largest investigative review in U.S. Senate history,
"The Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program" (aka, the "Senate Torture Report").
The investigation, which was based on more than 6.3 million pages of classified documents, was described by the Los Angeles Times
as the "most extensive review of U.S. intelligence-gathering tactics in generations "
Daniel has a Master in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, a Master of Arts
in Teaching from Johns Hopkins University, and a Bachelor of Science from Elizabethtown College. He is a former Teach For America
Corps Member. Daniel currently serves on the Board of Advocates for Human Rights First and as a fellow at Harvard's Carr Center
for Human Rights Policy."
The Penn Quarter Group .. Daniel Jones is President
"The Penn Quarter Group (The PQG) provides confidential research and investigative advice to businesses, law firms, not-for
profits, political entities, and individuals. We specialize in assessing investigative needs, evaluating investigative reports,
and responding to investigative findings. The PQG also conducts targeted research and composes confidential reports for clients
in a variety of industries."
The recipients are going to be going nuts trying to figure out what evidence Grassley already has (relating to which of many
crimes, but which also relates to "improper political influence") wherein contact with the persons named has already been shown.
Anything found during discovery on Steele investigation that gives evidence to some other unrelated-to-Steele crime investigation
would, (Would it not?) be given to Sessions/Wray and also to the Congressional committees that would pertain to that information?
Imagine, for example, the entire breadth of each and every communication document between DNC and Yates? Brennan? Lynch?
Or Podesta's Hillary for America and the same three? including Hillary.
Not to mention every communication with each of the others listed.
I imagine thousands of documents are actually involved.
Given that Hillary is mentioned in that, perhaps some of the Arkancidal/Clintoncidal evidence is contained therein.
I see Edward Baumgartner's name on that list. I suspect he is the one who is largely responsible for the dossier. Simpson
states in his testimony to Congress the other week that he had hired Baumgartner's firm as a subcontractor to do work for him
Page 138 in the transcript: Simpson – We have a long-standing relationship with a subcontractor named Ed Baumgartner who has
a degree in Russian from Vassar, I think. And I don't know if you would call him a linguist, he is not a translator, but he works
for us on Russian things involving the Russian language.
And I specifically remember assigning him to do work in the summer or fall of 2016 on Michael Cohen's business connections
to Russia and Ukraine and his father-in-law's background in Russia. And so he worked on both. A
And I specifically remember assigning him to do work in the summer or fall of 2016 on Michael Cohen's business connections
to Russia and Ukraine and nd I think Edward might have also worked on some Manafort stuff, although I am less clear on that. Schiff
– Did he travel to Russia on your or Fusion's behalf in connection with the Trump research? Simpson – Did he travel -- no. Not
that I know of.
BTW Baumgartner and Steele both have offices in central London and they are about 200 yards apart. If I were Baumgartner I
would consider purchasing myself a first class ticket to a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.
Thing is and would like some feedback and opinions on this. These investigations or interrogatories from the respected committees
and possible full onslaught prosecutions cannot stem from 'fabricating evidence' from the FBI or DOJ personnel. IMO, this plays
into every criminal that these idiots have prosecuted in the past. Every inmate and their defense attorneys would start filing
for new trials and some inmates would hit the Prison Law Library and file their own – just to gum up the works.
Therefore, (IMO) the committees will have to expose them on money laundering, bribery, seditions acts, pay-to-play type schemes,
malfeasance and others. But, stay away from the 'fabricating evidence' in the making of the "Clinton Dossier" to enact or gain
FISA court rulings / warrants. That's why I think the Sessions DOJ has started or built the Leaking Investigations of classified
material.
It would appear from the Strzok/Page texts that the upper echelon was at some pains to divorce the matters in question from investigation
by the usual field agents. That marked departure from standard procedure may isolate their actions and ultimately preclude any
domino-effect law suits or appeals by convicted felons. My guess: the Supremes would decide in a test case.
I love how this is starting to set up nicely to what Sundance alluded to.. Nunes is on top of the Hillary cover-up of the
email scandal and Grassley is getting to the facts on the dossier and how they used it against Trump. The IG (Horowitz) has to
have lots of info on both. Actual unredacted stuff making it's way to the Congressional committees.
He forgot John McCain. Feinstein. Schiff for Brains. Not to mention Damned Foreign Imposter and Usurper Puppet Zero and John Podesta
and Killary and Eric Holder and, and, and damn it all! Just send them all to Guantanamo right now!
does anyone wonder why it took 20 yrs to investigate (obfuscate) twa flight 800 ? you say, 'what'? In DC, there is a pattern
( and using tax payer funds, the government actually pays folk$ for the 'investigations' (obfu$cations) )
Add 15 to 20 yrs.
to your age, and others involved in this doj / fbi / State / WH etc. corruption what / whom do you think is 'left' to observe
in 2030 .2035 ?
Between now, and then, what other new 'hot' stories will develop, to place this one on the back burner ?
I do not know
p.s.
the govm't. bureaucracy was ssslow, not nimble, in the 1930's too.
Take a look at how long that tyranny was building up in Germany, and Japan (1930's) 'before' significant counter efforts began,
in 40's. [proof is within the DC Holocaust museum] Thankfully, there were people on site, with fortitude, that took risky steps
to begin to thwart the growing tragedies (Schindler etc.) while awaiting countries to get their corrective acts together.
If we don't learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. [the education system does not properly teach history]
Is all it takes for evils (black hats, not wearing a hat) to prevail, is for the good, to do nothing (while being complacent
or duped by wooden-nickels, false advertising, double talk, double standards, -- isms, pol (in)correctness etc.)
"Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." St. Paul to Corinthians.
Yes, it is good to investigate the corruption(s) with due diligence and coy awareness that the opposition has a strong tendency
to work towards self-preservation (by a lot of various, often unbounded, means).
"... Sara Carter's 'explosive' 'this will be the thing that brings them down' schtick. where have i heard that before? oh yeah - on every single rachel maddow show for the last 12 months. ..."
"... If any of these Russian allegations were true the evidence would have been forthcoming a long time ago. ..."
"... I suggest you broaden your reading as you seem as much a victim of myth as those that that swallow the lies of the repulsive NeoCons. ..."
Republicans in the U.S. House have made available to all members of the House
an allegedly scandalous "memo" that allegedly summarizes the FBI's cooperation with the Democratic Party during the 2016 Presidential
election; but, supposedly, no House member is being allowed to make this evidence available to the public, because, supposedly, as
Republican House Intelligence Committee member Mike Conaway from Texas said,
"That'd be
real dangerous," and yet he provided no evidence to back up that police-state assertion of the Government's supposed 'right'
to hide, from the voters, information that's crucial to voters' being empowered to vote intelligently.
The veteran opinion-columnist and Reagan Administration Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, Paul Craig Roberts,
has headlined about this, "The NSA Is
a Blackmail Agency" and alleges:
The blackmail mechanism was put into gear the minute the news reported that the House Intelligence Committee had assembled
proof that the FBI, DOJ, and DNC created Russiagate as a conspiracy to unseat President Trump. Members of Congress with nothing to
hide demanded the evidence be released to the public. Of course, it was to be expected that release of the facts would be denounced
by Democrats, but Republicans, such as Rep. Mike Conaway (R, Texas), himself a member of the committee, joined in the effort to protect
the Democrats and the corrupt FBI and DOJ from exposure. Hiding behind national security concerns, Conaway opposes revealing the
classified information. "That'd be real dangerous," he said.
Rep. Conaway might consider the alleged "memo" to "be real dangerous" to release to the public; but, as the skilled lawyer and
journalist
Glenn Greenwald has made clear and documented :
Trump can declassify anything he wants.
The House (and Senate) intelligence committees can declassify any material they possess.
The Constitution protects members of Congress from prosecution for "any speech or debate in either House."
Republicans can leak everything to the news media.
If for some reason Trump and the congressional leadership refuse to use any of the above options to vindicate themselves, a
brave member of Congress could turn whistleblower and transmit the classified proof of the GOP's claims about the memo to the news
media.
The above leave me with three possible explanations for why this information hasn't yet been made public:
1. Paul Craig Roberts is correct that coercive means from the Deep State are being applied in order to hide from the public the
Government's thoroughgoing corruption -- that we live in a police state; or, as he phrases this, "The main function of the National
Security Administration is to collect the dirt on members of the house and senate, the staffs, principal contributors, and federal
judges. The dirt is used to enforce silence about the crimes of the security agencies."
or:
2. The Republicans in Congress are just as eager as the Democrats in Congress are to hide this "memo," and there isn't anyone
in Congress, from either Party, who is willing to reveal the complete "memo" to the public. However, it that's true, then don't we
already live in a police-state, just like PCR is alleging?
or:
3. Our Senators and Representatives in Congress are unanimously in support of keeping the evidence away from the public, because
all of them want to protect the public from having essential information to be able to make valid voting-decisions.
Or: Can you think of any other options here? And do all of the possible options come down to one? -- That
the U.S. is a dictatorship .
Sara Carter's 'explosive' 'this will be the thing that brings them down' schtick. where have i heard that before? oh yeah -
on every single rachel maddow show for the last 12 months.
Option 4. the content being presented to us by fox/msnbc/wapo/nyt/etc. is purposely designed to distract our attention AWAY
from power.
There's 2-300 u.s. military officers out there who have the authority to launch nuclear weapons, whether or not trump gives
them the go-ahead. Apparently, some of them believe we can win a nuclear war. How many of them are on the same anti-depressants
the germanwings pilot was prescribed? I'm much more worried about the damage they could inflict than anything the unstable orange
moron might accidentally set off.
Trump is such a puny, insignificant figure in the true scheme of things. alt-media should spend a lot less time talking about
him.
Mr. Edelman it is the left that is obsessed with Trump as the sum of all evil when Obama was at least as corrupt. If any of
these Russian allegations were true the evidence would have been forthcoming a long time ago. Much of your concerns are myths
i.e. global warming is itself a corrupt plot by the Plutocracy who are the real enemy. I suggest you broaden your reading as you
seem as much a victim of myth as those that that swallow the lies of the repulsive NeoCons. The threat to the people are Marxism,
Fascism and any "ism" that concentrates power in the hands of the few ostensibly for the greater good.
President Trump has called for the release of the FISA abuse memo which reportedly lists
abuses by the DoJ/FBI,
The Washington Post reported Saturday. The DoJ warned against its release until they have
had a chance to look it over. This is the same DoJ/FBI that is stonewalling and withholding
information from Congress.
Trump reportedly told Attorney General Jeff Sessions through Chief of Staff John Kelly that
he wants to see the memo released, believing that it will shed light on the special counsel
investigation.
The decision rests with the House Intelligence Committee overseen by Chair Devin Nunes who
has said he wants to release them as early as Monday.
The question here is why they send so many text to each other while both were trained
intelligence professionals. In a sense, their activity is opposite of what is expected.
Why they exposed so many people if this was a conspiracy?
Notable quotes:
"... Strzok & Page are trained, veteran intelligence agency employees, and we are the fools if we accept their little imitation of lovelorn high-schoolers. They're spooks, for God's sake. The "romance" is just another shiny, slightly salacious object. ..."
"... if Strzok and Page concocted a phony romance story to hide their "work" to clear HRC and get DJT, it would show -- intent to deceive, which would show that they knew they were doing something illegal. ..."
"... That would strengthen the conspiracy charge as well ..."
Actually, why does it matter if there are, or are not, amorous texts? The fact that they
might exist doesn't make them believable. If they intended to fake an affair as a cover for
their activities, you would expect they would fake appropriate message traffic as well.
Strzok & Page are trained, veteran intelligence agency employees, and we are the fools if we
accept their little imitation of lovelorn high-schoolers. They're spooks, for God's sake. The "romance" is just another shiny, slightly salacious object.
The only value I can see is, -- if Strzok and Page concocted a phony romance story to hide
their "work" to clear HRC and get DJT, it would show -- intent to deceive, which would
show that they knew they were doing something illegal.
That would strengthen the conspiracy
charge as well.
"... Where are her values and priorities? She probably had a nice secure lifetime job within the bowels of the swamp. But power, ambition, ego, lure of excitement, rabid partisanship and delusions of grandeur pretty much ruin any chance for that family to ever be 'normal.' ..."
Lisa Page is a thirty eight year old mother of a toddler!
Where are her values and priorities? She probably had a nice secure lifetime job within
the bowels of the swamp. But power, ambition, ego, lure of excitement, rabid partisanship and
delusions of grandeur pretty much ruin any chance for that family to ever be 'normal.'
And what on earth kind of family life did she share with her husband and son? I read that
he works in a non profit educational organization. There was a kind of sad picture of him and
their kid leaving their house under a barrage of reporters.
I think it was from the Daily
Mail. Is he a 'fellow traveler' or just another dupe? Either way, their kid will never know a
normal life.
I guess this is what 'family values' mean within the swamp.
"... David Habakkuk post #67 below in the Afrin Update is also a must read. This is getting serious. To paraphrase. There are two contradictory stories; Donald Trump won because of Russian meddling or the meritocracy is so frightened of the Trump accession that he was bugged using the doggy dossier to try to get incriminating evidence plus General Michael Flynn was caught in a FBI perjury trap in order to place one of their own as National Security Advisor. ..."
"... If there was a shred of evidence that the Russians did it, the Washington Post would have published it long ago. Evidence is leaking that the FBI tried to negate the 2016 election and high level officials are part of the ongoing media moguls' counter coup to make VP Mike Pence President. ..."
"... I agree with Paul Craig Roberts that the Republicans financed by the security state and the VP's supporters dare not let the truth come out. The last thing the Establishment needs is the restoration the Constitution and rule by law. That would end the forever wars and the looting of the Deplorables by corporate monopolies. ..."
"... The dissemination of fake news seems to be endemic lately, which is one reason why this site is so highly prized. Many thanks for all of your public thoughts and opinions. ..."
"... Devin Nunes has the unredacted FISC ruling. This is a crucial element in the evidence trail. Admiral Rogers reported the FISA violations to FISC after he had a compliance review done at the NSA, spurred by discovery of these violations. The DOJ when they got wind of the compliance review at the NSA, also went to FISC to report these violations. There are two elements to the violations. One, is that there were no national security purposes to the queries and second, raw data acquired from these queries were shared with unauthorized subcontractors. Nunes since he has the unredacted ruling knows who made those queries and who these subcontractors were. ..."
"... His memo is the first step in laying charges of the conspiracy and corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement and the IC. I suspect he does not want to share this memo with the DOJ & FBI until it's release because he does not want them to use their leverage with other Deep State actors in Congress and the media to prevent these charges from being seen by the public. ..."
"... The memo, IMO, serves an important purpose. To lay out publicly for the first time, a set of charges of criminal activity at the highest levels of law enforcement. ..."
"... This will be countered by the Democrats, the media and the apologists for the Deep State with claims that Nunes' analysis of the evidence is wrong and it is just a partisan attack on our law enforcement agencies who work so hard to keep Americans "Safe". This is exactly the response that Nunes wants, because it leads to two thrusts. One, declassify the evidence and two, appoint an independent counsel to probe & prosecute any criminal activity. My gut sense is that if his memo gets released to the public, it will likely name names and Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Carlin, Priestap, Baker will be accused of criminal activity. ..."
"... The dissemination of fake news seems to be endemic lately, which is one reason why this site is so highly prized. Many thanks for all of your public thoughts and opinions. ..."
"... If Nunes and Ryan can get the first Nunes memo made public and then the IG report comes along and highlights partisan and/or potential illegal activity, then Sessions can act to appoint a special counsel and start an internal review of procedures & personnel at the FBI & DOJ. ..."
"... At this point we have to just sit back and watch the cat & mouse game between Nunes, Goodlatte, Grassley and the Deep State actors in Congress, the media and in law enforcement & the IC. ..."
"... I appreciate your point in re the recusal but I'm nor sure the recusal should be controlling given developments since the recusal. I would argue that there are two distinct issues, the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign/transition and the issue of the DOJ/FBI and possibly the CIA putting their fingers on the scals of the election. There is more than reason to suspect that at minimum Strzok and Page were, and reason to suspect that both Comey and McCabe either knew or should have known. ..."
"... If Mueller's investigation of Trump should result in some kind of actionable finding against Trump, we can be sure that the Trump administration will argue, correctly I believe, that Mueller's inquiry itself may well have been grounded corruptly. A real mess. Sessions needs to get out front on this. ..."
"... Congressman Matt Gaetz is calling it a "criminal conspiracy" and using words like "cabal", "worse than Watergate". He says Nunes' memo will be released in 2 weeks. This follows words like "heads will roll", "jail" by the other Republican members of the House who have read the memo. ..."
"... These are strong words. If and when the Nunes memo comes out it would seem it will contain some extremely serious allegations of criminal conduct by the very top officials at the FBI and DOJ. It will be fascinating to see how the media and the establishment who have invested so much in the Trump Russia collusion narrative will respond. Further doubling down after having doubled down after losing the election?? ..."
On April 26, 2017, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) Judge Rosemary Collyer
issued a 99-page ruling, spelling out the conditions under which American citizens could be
placed under electronic surveillance and the records retained by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and
the NCTC (National Counter-Terrorism Center).
According to former NSA official William Binney, the document goes well-beyond former
provisions for tracking of American citizens whose email or phone records were obtained in
authorized surveillance of foreign national targets of American counterintelligence
operations.
While the FISC ruling was originally classified TOP SECRET/SI/ORCON/NOFORN, it was
declassified some time after its original release. The ruling has taken on special significance
as it appears to be part of the file of classified material reviewed by Representative Devon
Nunes, which led him to write his own classified summary of the evidence that the Obama
Administration, the FBI, the CIA and other agencies of government conspired against Donald
Trump, from before he won the Republican nomination for President, through his campaign, the
post-election transition and into his first year as President.
Indeed, the ruling by Judge Collyer was the culmination of the prolonged court proceeding
dating back to November 6, 2015, when the initial application was filed with the FISA Court for
authorization to capture and retain records on specific American citizens. The publicly
released copy of the 99-page ruling was redacted to remove all references to specific
individuals, but was based on affidavits filed with the Court by NSA Director Admiral Mike
Rogers, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director William Brennan and NCTC Director Nicholas
Rasmussen.
In the coming days, a critical fight will play out in Congress, where House Select Committee
on Intelligence Chairman Nunes is attempting to win Congressional approval to declassify his
four-page summary memo, reportedly detailing the collusion among law enforcement and
intelligence officials to stop Donald Trump from assuming the presidency -- what star-crossed
FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page called "the insurance policy" in one of their now
infamous text messages.
The FISC ruling has been blown out of proportion by some of the more extremis alt-right
allies of President Trump, who claimed it had been leaked (the redacted text is posted on the
website of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) exclusively to Alex Jones. But
the content, as analyzed by William Binney, speaks for itself and clearly forms part of the
backdrop to the unfolding war of narratives between Rep. Nunes and the ranking Democrat on the
HSCI, Adam Schiff. It stands on its own and is worthwhile reading for anyone who is closely
following this political battle royal.
Paul Craig Roberts' word for Americans:
"Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe
the Russiagate BS in the first place. They miss the point. They need the report, because
those responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and prosecuted for
their act of high treason.
This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We
all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by
democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police
state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt
against President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state." https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/25/russiagate-stakes-extreme/
From what I have read every member of the House has access to the memo. The Democrats have
chosen not to see it. Most Republicans have seen it. Of course the DOJ & FBI don't want
it released as it will show massive corruption and they are using the classic technique of
hiding malfeasance by claiming disclosure of national security secrets.
In an interview Rep. Gaetz said that Nunes is looking into what corroborating evidence can
be disclosed along with the memo. He also said the committee would vote to declassify the
memo and then the White House has 5 days to give a thumbs up or down. If they agree then it
would be released to the public.
I think the strategy here is simple. The Democrats and the media and of course the
agencies will scream that the memo is partisan and does not reflect the evidence. This will
then set the stage for the declassification of the evidence of the conspiracy. My suspicion
is that the Republicans are driving towards the appointment of another special counsel to
investigate the conspiracy.
It seems to me rather interesting that Mueller has not invited Admiral Rogers to an
interview. And if he is going to interview Trump then it would imply he is wrapping up his
investigation.
David Habakkuk post #67 below in the Afrin Update is also a must read. This is getting
serious. To paraphrase. There are two contradictory stories; Donald Trump won because of
Russian meddling or the meritocracy is so frightened of the Trump accession that he was
bugged using the doggy dossier to try to get incriminating evidence plus General Michael
Flynn was caught in a FBI perjury trap in order to place one of their own as National
Security Advisor.
If there was a shred of evidence that the Russians did it, the Washington
Post would have published it long ago. Evidence is leaking that the FBI tried to negate the
2016 election and high level officials are part of the ongoing media moguls' counter coup to
make VP Mike Pence President.
I agree with Paul Craig Roberts that the Republicans financed by the security state and
the VP's supporters dare not let the truth come out. The last thing the Establishment needs
is the restoration the Constitution and rule by law. That would end the forever wars and the
looting of the Deplorables by corporate monopolies.
The DNI only recently made the doc public on the ODNI website. No idea why it took so
long.
The dissemination of fake news seems to be endemic lately, which is one reason why this
site is so highly prized. Many thanks for all of your public thoughts and opinions.
Devin Nunes has the unredacted FISC ruling. This is a crucial element in the evidence
trail. Admiral Rogers reported the FISA violations to FISC after he had a compliance review
done at the NSA, spurred by discovery of these violations. The DOJ when they got wind of the
compliance review at the NSA, also went to FISC to report these violations. There are two
elements to the violations. One, is that there were no national security purposes to the
queries and second, raw data acquired from these queries were shared with unauthorized
subcontractors. Nunes since he has the unredacted ruling knows who made those queries and who
these subcontractors were.
Nunes also has the FISA applications, and so he knows the DOJ justification and if the
Steele dossier was used in part.
Nunes has also seen the PDBs. So, he knows what Obama saw. He has stated that there was
information about US persons but no Russia related information.
Nunes also knows about the unmasking of the US persons.
His memo is the first step in laying charges of the conspiracy and corruption at the
highest levels of law enforcement and the IC. I suspect he does not want to share this memo
with the DOJ & FBI until it's release because he does not want them to use their leverage
with other Deep State actors in Congress and the media to prevent these charges from being
seen by the public.
The memo, IMO, serves an important purpose. To lay out publicly for the first time, a set
of charges of criminal activity at the highest levels of law enforcement.
This will be
countered by the Democrats, the media and the apologists for the Deep State with claims that Nunes' analysis of the evidence is wrong and it is just a partisan attack on our law
enforcement agencies who work so hard to keep Americans "Safe". This is exactly the response
that Nunes wants, because it leads to two thrusts. One, declassify the evidence and two,
appoint an independent counsel to probe & prosecute any criminal activity. My gut sense
is that if his memo gets released to the public, it will likely name names and Comey, McCabe,
Rosenstein, Carlin, Priestap, Baker will be accused of criminal activity.
Regarding the statement in the FISC document (Section I.A, page 4) that
On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant noncompliance
with the NSA's minimization procedures involving queries of data acquired under Section 702
using U.S. person identifiers.
The full scope on non-compliant querying procedures had not been previously disclosed to
the court.
some may wonder just who "orally apprised the Court", and what backstory there
was behind that.
I cannot answer those questions with certainty,
but it seems very possible that the answers to those questions are contained in
the post by "sundance" on 2018-01-04:
It seems to me that the collection of links listed under "RESOURCES" in the post linked to
above,
and the more current links found at
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/category/the-big-ugly/
are doing a great job of providing a comprehensive view of "Russiagate".
The DNI only recently made the doc public on the ODNI website. No idea why it took so
long.
The dissemination of fake news seems to be endemic lately, which is one reason why this
site is so highly prized. Many thanks for all of your public thoughts and opinions.
Regards.
Devin Nunes has the unredacted FISC ruling. This is a crucial element in the evidence
trail. Admiral Rogers reported the FISA violations to FISC after he had a compliance review
done at the NSA, spurred by discovery of these violations. The DOJ when they got wind of the
compliance review at the NSA, also went to FISC to report these violations. There are two
elements to the violations. One, is that there were no national security purposes to the
queries and second, raw data acquired from these queries were shared with unauthorized
subcontractors. Nunes since he has the unredacted ruling knows who made those queries and who
these subcontractors were.
Nunes also has the FISA applications, and so he knows the DOJ justification and if the
Steele dossier was used in part.
Nunes has also seen the PDBs. So, he knows what Obama saw. He has stated that there was
information about US persons but no Russia related information.
Nunes also knows about the unmasking of the US persons.
His memo is the first step in laying charges of the conspiracy and corruption at the
highest levels of law enforcement and the IC. I suspect he does not want to share this memo
with the DOJ & FBI until it's release because he does not want them to use their leverage
with other Deep State actors in Congress and the media to prevent these charges from being
seen by the public.
The memo, IMO, serves an important purpose. To lay out publicly for the first time, a set
of charges of criminal activity at the highest levels of law enforcement. This will be
countered by the Democrats, the media and the apologists for the Deep State with claims that
Nunes' analysis of the evidence is wrong and it is just a partisan attack on our law
enforcement agencies who work so hard to keep Americans "Safe". This is exactly the response
that Nunes wants, because it leads to two thrusts. One, declassify the evidence and two,
appoint an independent counsel to probe & prosecute any criminal activity. My gut sense
is that if his memo gets released to the public, it will likely name names and Comey, McCabe,
Rosenstein, Carlin, Priestap, Baker will be accused of criminal activity.
I am responding to your post #67 in the Afrin Update thread here as it is a more relevant
thread.
First, thanks for what you posted. I have to admit my knowledge of the whole Russia angle
among the cast of characters in the Steele dossier is rather limited. Would you have
suggestions for some background material so that I can get a sense of who these people
are?
IMO, the main people focused on unraveling the conspiracy at the highest levels of law
enforcement are Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. I believe they are coordinating as each seem
to be focused on certain aspects of the conspiracy. I think they are primarily focused on two
things. One, to unravel the conspiracy to spy and frame Donald Trump as both a presidential
candidate and as president. Two, to prove that the Clinton probe was a farce, as it did not
meet the basic requirements of how a national security investigation is routinely handled by
the FBI, and the outcome of the probe was a political decision to exonerate.
My feeling is that they are not going to get into the details of the Russian connections
in the Steele dossier and what was disinformation by Russian intelligence. I think they would
like to show the DOJ/FBI, Fusion GPS, Clinton campaign connections and how most of the
allegations in the dossier were never verified by the IC. They would also like to know what
role if any the dossier played in the FISA applications. What is interesting to note is that
Sen. Grassley's criminal referral of Christoper Steele to the DOJ is really calling the FBI's
bluff. In that referral he has asked the DOJ to reconcile the discrepancies between the FBI's
characterization of their interactions with Steele and Steele's version. Sen. Grassley is
essentially saying either Steele lied or the FBI did and wants to know who did.
Former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova talks in this 30-minute interview about this issue and
refers to the opinion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and the conduct,
or the lack of it, by the Justice Department, FBI, and others--
Earlier this week, I heard U.S. Representative Ted Poe (Repub. Texas) say in a radio
interview that there is a procedure that the Congress can do that can declassify material
unilaterally without the approval of the president or executive branch. He said it takes
about 19 days. He did not go into any detail about what the procedure is or its legal basis.
I have not had time to try to research that point.
Even though an executive order is not supposed to create any new rule, regulation, or law,
the executive order 12333, signed by president Reagan in 1981 and changed at least three
times since then, is apparently used to "justify" the collection, acquisition, interception,
storage, retrieval, and dissemination of all types of communications and data--
I did not put the link in correctly to executive order 12333 that is on the American Bar
Association website. I hope this one works; if not, I will try again--
Where is Jeff Sessions, "the whole world wonders?" It ain't goin' away, Jeff, and that
swirling sound you're hearing is the reputation of the Department for which you're
responsible going down the drain.
Latest report is that most of the missing emails that the FBI "lost" have been recovered
using forensic methods and the effort is ongoing.
Apparently the FBI doesn't know to permanently delete its own documents. Maybe they should
have asked their Cyber Division how to do that properly. :-)
Jeff Sessions has recused himself from Russiagate. So he has to stand aside as the Deep
State obstructs the Congressional investigations. He has to let the process play out without
any interference from a purely political perspective and wait until the Republicans in the
House make their allegations public and the IG report is made public.
If Nunes and Ryan can get the first Nunes memo made public and then the IG report comes
along and highlights partisan and/or potential illegal activity, then Sessions can act to
appoint a special counsel and start an internal review of procedures & personnel at the
FBI & DOJ.
At this point we have to just sit back and watch the cat & mouse game between Nunes,
Goodlatte, Grassley and the Deep State actors in Congress, the media and in law enforcement
& the IC.
I'm not sure what the origins for the "legal" basis for the mass surveillance and data
collection of all domestic communications are but in my research on this topic, I have noted
stories around Admiral Poindexter's Total Information Awareness project.
I believe the post-9/11 legal basis is the Patriot Act and FISA. What I find disconcerting
is the role the courts have played in this. It seems mass surveillance and collection of
every American's electronic communication is a straightforward violation of the Fourth
Amendment. FISC, which is a secret court, also seems to be a direct violation of the Fifth
& Fourteenth Amendments. It seems to me anyway that the courts interpret the Constitution
always to the benefit of increasing governmental power and away from the original intent of
the framers of the Constitution that the inalienable rights of the people flow from their
Creator and are not privileges enacted by law.
I appreciate your point in re the recusal but I'm nor sure the recusal should be controlling
given developments since the recusal.
I would argue that there are two distinct issues, the alleged collusion between the Trump
campaign/transition and the issue of the DOJ/FBI and possibly the CIA putting their fingers
on the scals of the election. There is more than reason to suspect that at minimum Strzok and
Page were, and reason to suspect that both Comey and McCabe either knew or should have known.
Recusals are not cast in stone. I would argue that Sessions should be addressing in public
what the Department intends to do to deal with the mounting evidence that officials in both
the Department and FBI were complicit in undermining the integrity of both as well as the
election itself. This latter investigation, in my opinion, should preempt Mueller's because
latter developments have undermined the integrity of Mueller's.
If Mueller's investigation of Trump should result in some kind of actionable finding
against Trump, we can be sure that the Trump administration will argue, correctly I believe,
that Mueller's inquiry itself may well have been grounded corruptly. A real mess.
Sessions needs to get out front on this.
Congressman Matt Gaetz is calling it a "criminal conspiracy" and using words like "cabal",
"worse than Watergate". He says Nunes' memo will be released in 2 weeks. This follows words
like "heads will roll", "jail" by the other Republican members of the House who have read the
memo.
These are strong words. If and when the Nunes memo comes out it would seem it will contain
some extremely serious allegations of criminal conduct by the very top officials at the FBI
and DOJ. It will be fascinating to see how the media and the establishment who have invested
so much in the Trump Russia collusion narrative will respond. Further doubling down after
having doubled down after losing the election??
Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would
not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets. The
first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17 witnesses,
and Hillary, were even interviewed. Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross
negligence," the requirement for indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent
drafts to read, "extreme carelessness."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an
exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.
Also edited out of Comey's statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with
then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama
told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the
public did.
A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, "What did you
know, sir, and when did you know it?"
"... For what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests, a "witch hunt." It is a Trump hunt. ..."
"... Mueller's problem: He has no perjury charge to go with it. And the heart of his obstruction case, Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump should have done sooner. ..."
"... More information has also been unearthed about FBI collusion with British spy Christopher Steele, who worked up -- for Fusion GPS, the dirt-divers of the Clinton campaign -- the Steele dossier detailing Trump's ties to Russia and alleged frolics with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. ..."
"... Not only did the Steele dossier apparently trigger a wider FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, it served as the basis of FBI requests for FISA court warrants to put on Trump the kind of full-court press J. Edgar Hoover put on Dr. King for the Kennedys and LBJ. ..."
"... Amazing. Oppo-research dirt, unsourced and unsubstantiated, dredged up by a foreign spy with Kremlin contacts, is utilized by our FBI to potentially propel an investigation to destroy a major U.S. presidential candidate. And the Beltway media regard it as a distraction. ..."
"... This cabal appears to have set goals of protecting Obama, clearing Hillary, defeating Trump, and bringing down the new president the people had elected, before he had even taken his oath. Not exactly normal business for our legendary FBI. What have these people done to the reputation of their agency when congressmen not given to intemperate speech are using words like "criminal," "conspiracy," "corruption" and "coup" to describe what they are discovering went on in the FBI executive chambers? ..."
"... As for Trump, he should not sit for any extended interview by FBI agents whose questions will be crafted by prosecutors to steer our disputatious president into challenging or contradicting the sworn testimony of other witnesses. This a perjury trap. Let the special counsel submit his questions in writing, and let Trump submit his answers in writing. ..."
"... What is going on in the US is a travesty of justice. For an outside observer of American politics, I'm flappergasted about the corruption and criminal energy the top brass of the FBI, the DOJ, together with the Obama and Clinton mafia, to discredit not only candidate Trump but President-elect Trump and finally the sitting President. Mr. Buchanan is right, arguing that Trump should not sit in with Mueller's agents, who want to trap him. ..."
"... After this witch- or Trump hunt is over, the Trump administration has to be clean up the mess in the FBI, DOJ and the other US institutions. Simultaneously, Clinton, Lynch, Chomey, McCabe and all the political criminals, including former President Obama, have to be brought to justice. What this political gang initiated is unprecedented in US history. Even Watergate fades in the face of this conspiracy of American institutions against a sitting president. ..."
Asked if he would agree to be interviewed by Robert Mueller's team, President Donald Trump
told the White House press corps, "I would love to do it as soon as possible. under oath,
absolutely."
On hearing this, the special counsel's office must have looked like the Eagles' locker room
after the 38-7 rout of the Vikings put them in the Super Bowl. If the president's legal team lets Trump sit for hours answering Mueller's agents, they
should be disbarred for malpractice. For what Mueller is running here is not, as Trump suggests, a "witch hunt." It is a Trump
hunt.
After 18 months investigating Trumpian "collusion" with Putin's Russia in hacking the DNC's
and John Podesta's emails, the FBI has hit a stone wall. Failing to get Trump for collusion,
the fallback position is to charge him with obstruction of justice. As a good prosecutor can
get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, the tactic is understandable.
Mueller's problem: He has no perjury charge to go with it. And the heart of his obstruction
case, Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey, is starting to look like something Trump
should have done sooner.
Consider what is now known of how Comey and the FBI set about ensuring Hillary Clinton would
not be indicted for using a private email server to transmit national security secrets. The first draft of Comey's statement calling for no indictment was prepared before 17
witnesses, and Hillary, were even interviewed. Comey's initial draft charged Clinton with "gross negligence," the requirement for
indictment. But his team softened that charge in subsequent drafts to read, "extreme
carelessness."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others, appears to have known in advance an
exoneration of Clinton was baked in the cake. Yet Comey testified otherwise.
Also edited out of Comey's statement was that Hillary, while abroad, communicated with
then-President Obama, who had to see that her message came through a private server. Yet Obama
told the nation he only learned Hillary had been using a private server at the same time the
public did.
A trial of Hillary would have meant Obama in the witness chair being asked, "What did you
know, sir, and when did you know it?"
More information has also been unearthed about FBI collusion with British spy Christopher
Steele, who worked up -- for Fusion GPS, the dirt-divers of the Clinton campaign -- the Steele
dossier detailing Trump's ties to Russia and alleged frolics with prostitutes in a Moscow
hotel. While the Steele dossier was shopped around town to the media, which, unable to substantiate
its lurid and sensational charges, declined to publish them, Comey's FBI went all in.
Not only did the Steele dossier apparently trigger a wider FBI investigation of the Trump
campaign, it served as the basis of FBI requests for FISA court warrants to put on Trump the
kind of full-court press J. Edgar Hoover put on Dr. King for the Kennedys and LBJ.
Amazing. Oppo-research dirt, unsourced and unsubstantiated, dredged up by a foreign spy with
Kremlin contacts, is utilized by our FBI to potentially propel an investigation to destroy a
major U.S. presidential candidate. And the Beltway media regard it as a distraction.
An aggressive Republican Party on the Hill, however, has forced the FBI to cough up
documents that are casting the work of Comey's cohorts in an ever more partisan and sinister
light.
This cabal appears to have set goals of protecting Obama, clearing Hillary, defeating Trump,
and bringing down the new president the people had elected, before he had even taken his
oath. Not exactly normal business for our legendary FBI. What have these people done to the reputation of their agency when congressmen not given to
intemperate speech are using words like "criminal," "conspiracy," "corruption" and "coup" to
describe what they are discovering went on in the FBI executive chambers?
Bob Mueller, who inherited this investigation, is sitting on an IED because of what went on
before he got there. Mueller needs to file his charges before his own investigation becomes the
subject of a Justice Department investigation by a special counsel.
As for Trump, he should not sit for any extended interview by FBI agents whose questions
will be crafted by prosecutors to steer our disputatious president into challenging or
contradicting the sworn testimony of other witnesses. This a perjury trap. Let the special counsel submit his questions in writing, and let Trump submit his answers in
writing.
At bottom, this is a political issue, an issue of power, an issue of whether the Trump
revolution will be dethroned by the deep state it was sent to this capital to corral and
contain.
If Trump is guilty of attempted obstruction, it appears to be not of justice, but
obstruction of an injustice being perpetrated against him.
Trump should be in no hurry to respond to Mueller, for time no longer appears to be on
Mueller's side.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
What is going on in the US is a travesty of justice. For an outside observer of American
politics, I'm flappergasted about the corruption and criminal energy the top brass of the
FBI, the DOJ, together with the Obama and Clinton mafia, to discredit not only candidate
Trump but President-elect Trump and finally the sitting President. Mr. Buchanan is right,
arguing that Trump should not sit in with Mueller's agents, who want to trap him.
After this witch- or Trump hunt is over, the Trump administration has to be clean up the
mess in the FBI, DOJ and the other US institutions. Simultaneously, Clinton, Lynch, Chomey,
McCabe and all the political criminals, including former President Obama, have to be brought
to justice. What this political gang initiated is unprecedented in US history. Even Watergate
fades in the face of this conspiracy of American institutions against a sitting
president.
To restore the credibility of the FBI, DOJ and all other government institutions,
especially the Intel community, the US administration have to clean out the Augean
stables.
I think some of the accusations being levelled against Mueller are blown out of proportion
and show a misunderstanding of Mueller's task. His job is to investigate what happened,
including the possibility that people working for Trump did illegal things that are not
Trump's own fault. That doesn't imply Mueller is "out to get Trump".
Let me give an example. Michael Flynn conducted some informal contacts with the Russians
during the transition under Trump's instruction and told by Trump not to disclose it. This is
perfectly legal and legitimate. Flynn then mislead Pence, and later lied to the FBI about the
contacts. This was a tactical mistake by Flynn, because he could have told both that he's
under instruction from Trump not to disclose it and refuse to answer. Now Flynn says in his
own defense to Mueller that he was acting under Trump's instruction. So Mueller wants to ask
Trump if Flynn was acting under Trump's instruction. That doesn't mean it's illegal if Flynn
was acting under Trump's instruction. But if Flynn was acting on his own – there may be
a case against Flynn.
You could argue that Trump doesn't care about this – even if Flynn was acting on his
own – which goes back to Trump having constitutional authority to shut down this
fishing expedition because Trump has no interest in it.
The bottom line is that Trump has a problem with Republicans in Congress. Mueller can't do
anything against Trump – only Congress can. Trump doesn't trust Republicans in Congress
to protect him for doing what any President Elect and certainly President is entitled to do.
If Trump could trust Republicans in Congress – he could fire Mueller, Rosenstein and
Sessions and end the investigation.
"... Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan. ..."
"... Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified and released and explained by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova (see: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/22/here-are-all-the-facts-about-russiagate/ ) contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperty spied and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to the FISA court. ..."
"... Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state. ..."
The Republicans'
delay in releasing the summary of the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation
is giving weight to the presstitutes' claim that the report is not being released, because it
is a hack attempt at a Trump coverup that is not believable. Only Republicans are stupid enough
to put themselves in such a situation.
Readers ask me why the summary memo is not released if it is real. There must be some
reasons besides the stupidity of Republicans. Yes, that is so. Among the many reasons that
might be blocking release are:
Republicans are very national security conscious. They don't want to provide precedents
for the release of classified information.
Many Republican congressional districts host installations of the military/security complex.
Upsetting a large employer and directing campaign financing to a challenger is a big
consideration.
The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime was a neoconservative regime. One consequence is that
Republicans are influenced by neoconservatives who stress the alleged "Russian threat."
The Israel Lobby can unseat any member of the House and Senate. The Israel Lobby is allied
with the neoconservatives and this alliance intends to keep the US militarily active against
perceived threats to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East and against Russia, which supports
Syria and Iran, countries perceived as threats by Israel.
Many Republicans are themselves invested in false Russiagate allegations against Trump and
would like to replace him with Pence. Other Republicans believe that Trump is undermining
Washington's expensively-purchased foreign alliances and, thereby, undermining US power.
Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with
is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the
Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and
remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money
that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants
from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be
used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets
and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. Once the
investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough
Americans that Trump must have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that
justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but not against Ronald Reagan, and
Trump is no Reagan.
If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or
successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of
democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as
powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by
police state agencies.
Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe
the Russiagate BS in the first place. They miss the point. They need the report, because those
responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and prosecuted for their
act of high treason.
This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist.
We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by
democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police
state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against
President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state.
Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA
court document that has been declassified and released and explained by myself, William Binney,
and former US Attorney Joe di Genova (see: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/01/22/here-are-all-the-facts-about-russiagate/
) contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperty spied and obtained warrants from
the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court
itself that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of
Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing,"
he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to the FISA
court.
When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and
DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was
going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and
confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the
future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals.
In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that
Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of
the United States.
A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an
end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for
all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments,
would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian
ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to
bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government
of the United States had devolved into a police state.
"... This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really difficult concept for these people. ..."
"... The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the fall guy in the e-mail investigation. ..."
"... Peter Strozk is President of AFGRO, a CIA front National Security non profit Agency To Facilitate The Growth Of Rural Organizations, Afgro 410 Sugar Pine Drive, Pinehurst, NC 28374 NC 1986-06 $0 http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/VA/Agency-To-Facilitate-The-Growth-Of-Rural-Organizations.html#similarList_a ..."
"... How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there. ..."
"... I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter! ..."
"... "The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given as well as who was present during the interview." ..."
What FBI Agent Peter Strzok is admitting in the September 10th text message, is that there are details within the interview of
Hillary Clinton that he (and others) intentionally withheld from the September 2nd, 2016, release.
Specifically, evidence withheld in the 302's would be some of the FBI questions and some of the Hillary Clinton answers to those
questions. In essence, the FBI held back actually releasing the full account of the interview.
According to the Strzok text message, the reason for withholding some of the details of the Hillary Clinton interview is because
there are "very INFLAMMATORY things" within it; and once congress finds out what was withheld the details will "absolutely
inflame" them.
Peter Strzok then goes on to say when/if the full FOIA is released, presumably post-election, Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike are going
to have to figure out how to deal with the discrepancy:
"I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that will play out as they talk among themselves."
"Jim" is likely James Baker , the Chief Legal Counsel for FBI Director James Comey .
"Trish" is likely Trisha Beth Anderson , Office of Legal Counsel for the FBI. [Anderson was hired for the DOJ, by AG Eric Holder,
from Eric Holder's law firm.]
"Dave" and "Mike" currently remain unknown.
So it would appear, James Baker and Trisha Anderson, the legal advisers at the top of the FBI leadership apparatus, were both
aware the September 2nd, 2016, FOIA release was manipulated to conceal part of Hillary Clinton's questions and answers.
Perhaps now we can better understand the importance of this specific text message as it
was released by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.
This message by Strzok shows a team of FBI officials intentionally conspiring to withhold "inflammatory" Clinton investigation
evidence, from congress. And the decision-making goes directly to the very top leadership within the FBI.
... ... ...
Peter Strzok justifies his knowledge of the intentionally withheld 302 interview material by claiming: "because they weren't relevant
to understanding the focus of the investigation". However, to evaluate the filter this investigative team are applying we only need
to look at the wording of
their public release which accompanied the material:
Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning
allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure.
(
link )
They felt obligated only to release information about "classified" or "improperly stored or transmitted" information. That's a
rather disingenuous investigation.
There's no mention of any FBI intent to investigate action or conduct undertaken by Hillary Clinton or her team to hide the use
of classified or improperly stored information; or any intent to look at a cover-up, scrubbing, or conduct that happened AFTER it
was discovered that she unlawfully used a personal e-mail server during her tenure.
We can see from the wording of the FBI public release, and the overlay of the text message from interviewer Peter Strzok, a deliberate
effort to inquire into only the surface issues of classified information transmission and storage. There was no investigative intent
to go beyond that, and no information released, intentionally, that might disclose any larger issues.
If the FBI was legitimately conducting an investigation, and providing the subsequent evidence from within that investigation,
the FOIA would include all material relevant to the investigation, which would include all 302 (essentially Q&A) pages. However,
the set of questions and answers the FBI released on Sept. 2nd 2016 was not the full set of Questions and Answers. They withheld
something, likely "inflammatory", per FBI Agent Strzok. FBI Agent Peter Strzok is outlining in this text message a deliberate intent
to shape the Clinton interview, and then a deliberative process of filtering out only those aspects of the interview that would support
their pre-determined outcome, delivered only days later.
Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson, Lisa
Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview- from
congress and the American people.
Being briefed on how to handle classified material
How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
How to select a target for a drone strike
How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
Why she didn't get a secure Blackberry
Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
Getting guidance from state on email policy
Who had access to her Blackberry account
The process for deleting her emails
Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
Using an iPad mini
An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
Jacob Sullivan using personal email
State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
Being read out of her clearance
Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRC office.com account.
Secretary Clinton could not recall when she received her security clearance or whether it was carried over from her time in the
Senate. She also could not recall any briefing or training by the State Department "related to the retention of federal records or
the handling of classified information."
Secretary Clinton said she was briefed on Special Access Programs -- the top-level classification of U.S. intelligence -- but
could not recall the specific training or briefings on how to handle that information. Additional discoveries from September 2016:
DISCOVERY ONE : Clinton Deleted Her Private Email Archive "A Few Weeks After The New York Times Disclosed" The
Private Server. Viser Tweet: "A few weeks after the NYT disclosed that Hillary Clinton had a private email account, her archive inbox
was deleted." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY TWO : Clinton Did Not Know The (C) Mark Meant Classified And Did Not "Pay Attention To Diff Classification Levels."
Seitz-Wald Tweet: "Clinton said she didn't know what (c) mark meant, didn't pay attn to diff classification levels, treated all srsly."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY THREE : "There Were 17,448 Work-Related Emails That Clinton Didn't Turn Over To The State Inspector General."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY FOUR : As Secretary Of State Clinton "Had 13 Mobile Devices And 5 iPads" With Her Private Email. Viser Tweet:
"Hillary Clinton, who said she had her private email for convenience, had 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads, according to FBI." (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY FIVE : Clinton's Lawyers Could Not Locate The Mobile Devices With Her Email Address.. Viser Tweet: 'FBI found
13 total mobile devices associated with Clinton's 2 phone numbers. Her lawyers couldn't locate the devices" (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY SIX : "The FBI Determined That Clinton Brought Her Blackberry Into A Secure Area At State, Which Is Prohibited."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY SEVEN : Clinton's Email Archive Was Transferred Onto A Personal Gmail Address To Help Archive The Records. Zapotosky
Tweet: "In 2014, in an effort to transfer an archive of Clinton emails from a laptop onto a server, someone used a personal Gmail
address to help" ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY EIGHT : Clinton Deleted Her Emails Because She Thought "She Didn't Need Them Anymore." Cilizza Tweet: 'Clinton
told the FBI she deleted her emails because she didn't need them anymore not to avoid FOIA"(
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY NINE : Someone Tried To Hack Into Clinton's iCloud Account. Viser Tweet: "The FBI found that someone was trying
to hack into Hillary Clinton's iCloud account. They were unsuccessful." (
Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
DISCOVERY TEN : "Hillary Clinton Sent Out An Email To All State Employees Warning Them Against Using Personal Email Addresses."
( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
BONUS DISCOVERY : "The Phrase 'Could Not Recall' Or 'Did Not Recall' Appears 27 Times In Hillary Clinton FBI Interview
Transcript." ( Twitter.com , 9/2/16)
Sundance broke the case. This is it. They FORMED the response to hide ALL THAT WAS NEEDED TO BE HIDDEN. And they didn't just wheedle
around the edge of responsiveness (which is utterly repellent but "legal") – they actually over-specified their response (a form
of weaponized bullsh*tting) to NOT RETURN RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS.
This is HUGE. And it shows that the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted to return documents. They cannot be trusted to redact
properly. In fact, I hate to say this, but they simply cannot be trusted. The top ends – anybody involved with this stuff – needs
to be replaced with people who actually follow rules. And that doesn't even get to "spirit of the law", which has to be a really
difficult concept for these people.
The Clinton email investigation in my mind is far more important than even the Foundation because it ties it right back to BHO
and the 20 emails he has held onto because he claimed Executive Privilege. The fact that his POS Library will not have any paper
archives tells me they cannot ever have them seen by the public. The problem for both POS is that the case has been reopened with
a review occurring by the current head of the DOJ and FBI and if any charges are brought forward, Barry's Executive Privilege
goes out the window. Love the fact Don Jr. is pushing it!
"Wow. This is all so evil and corrupt. I am afraid that normal people who have not been following this closely as we all have
will just not believe it because it is so so bad."
__________________
They won't have a choice, it will be a paradigm-shifting event (like DJT winning the election was).
They will not be able to 'avoid' the 'reality' because that reality will impact and influence everything going forward. The
only way to remain in denial will be to hide on an island, like a Japanese soldier from WWII apparently did for quite a while
after the war ended.
Very, very few people will be able to take that route
For those who desperately don't want to believe the plain truth about these horrifically evil people they have looked up to
for so long, it may seem like the therapy treatment in A Clockwork Orange (sans Ludwig Von Bethoven's Ninth symphony),
but believe it they will!
This is exactly right. And this is just the FBI. We also know the State Department was corrupt and intertwined in protecting Clinton
and the assets of the Clinton Foundation. These employees are repugnant, and so are the media who covered for all of this mess.
Maybe, though, this is now breaking through -- between the online diligence of Sundance, WikiLeaks, the never-give-up heroes
at Judicial Watch, President Trump and his Cabinet, and every patriotic commenter/blogger/reporter, certain folks in Congress
now seem to be getting this message.
HRC is clearly not as ignorant as her I-don't-remember responses indicate. She knew nearly everything that needed to be destroyed,
and she was clearly able to remember a comprehensive attorney provided list of items not to remember during her interview.
I just realized something today. We see the bizarre hypocrisy in the CIC Forum meltdown that Hillary had, where Matt Lauer
says "So judgment is key." and Hillary responds "Temperament and judgment." – POINTEDLY – but THEN she goes into a jaw-dropping
rant about Lauer behind the scenes, even calling Donna Brazile a "buffalo". The absolute opposite of a "good" temperament.
However, that hypocrisy is FULLY intended. She is FIXING stuff with lies. It's what she does. Do what she wants, toward a hidden
goal, and fix it with lies.
She is NOT ignorant – EVEN of her own faults, flaws, and dangers. She KNOWS she is everything she accuses Trump of falsely.
Think how evil that is. It is EYES WIDE OPEN evil. Not delusional. She knows exactly what she's doing.
Cookstoves again, but this revelation is interesting. Cookstoves initiative wasn't even launched yet! So, what was she up to in
Jakarta? "One former Diplomatic Security agent, for example, told FBI investigators that Clinton "blatantly" disregarded State
Department security protocols while she was secretary of state. The former agent alleged that Clinton would ride to foreign diplomatic
functions with top aide Huma Abedin, instead of the local ambassador, which the agent said violated normal procedure and embarrassed
and insulted the ambassadors.
The former agent also said that on an early 2009 trip to Jakarta, Indonesia, Clinton insisted on visiting a troubled area to
promote a clean-cookstoves initiative, despite a request from Diplomatic Security that the visit be scrapped for safety concerns.
The agent said Diplomatic Security officials thought the trip placed staff, security and even reporters in danger, all for a photo
opportunity "for her election campaign." https://www.pressherald.com/2016/10/17/fbi-pressured-to-change-classification-of-about-email/
But a case case can even be made for intent- strong enough it should have been brought before a grand jury. Hillary was told she
shouldn't have a classified blackberry like Obama, emails about just remove the headers, destroying emails, not following state
dept policy and procedures, having the maid go in the scif all sorts of evidence of intent.
The FBI narrowed the investigation such that the handling classified material was never investigated. That's a favorite trick
of investigators – narrow what is being investigated to particular issues.
Katica's stuff was the beginning of sunlight on what the FBI was intentionally missing, with "Stonetear". This showed that the
Clinton people were engaged in altering evidence, which is SUPPOSED to be a big deal. Then add ALL the likely culprits getting
immunity, but NOTHING that would be worth immunity coming out. The whole thing is a beautiful logic exercise in letting her off.
It's designed opaqueness. If they basically make it impossible for any straight line to make it through all their small wickets
of "allowed" evidence, in the end NOTHING GETS THROUGH.
The rules about "no public charges near an election" is clearly a weaponized fallacy. THAT must end. It's very, very obvious
how the subverting forces used that one. Again – they fight the sunlight. Darkness is their primary weapon.
Latest over on Yo Who is that state dept (and perhaps other) employees are in "career purgatory" in positions they aren't suited
for. I commented that is definitely an interesting way of putting it. Like Bruce, Nellie, Peter (how's that HR working for you?).
I think you raised the idea in an earlier post that maybe these two were not having an affair. Maybe, maybe not. But, thinking
about these I suspect some of these on Strozk. He knew this was an FBI phone and these would be archived. These messages were part
of his insurance policy. I suspect he planted information in various spots implicating higher ups. Why else would he send a text
like this. If he was having an affair, why wouldn't he just tell Lisa Page this when they get together. Digging in to this text alone
develops a trail to very specific information and actions. He is saying they intentionally withheld information, establishing intent
for the parties involved.
The more i see these texts, the more I think the "insurance policy" is a cya program designed to protect Strozk from being the
fall guy in the e-mail investigation. If trump wins, he knows that all the info about how they manipulated the e-mail investigation
is going to come out. I dont know if this insurance policy was just a set of passive crumbs, or involved the active use of the dossier.
The dossier could just be the leverage used against trump to get him to overlook all the illegal surveillance and drop everything.
Interesting. Even if he just did it subconsciously, I think you're right. If Hillary wins, the "inflammatory" text doesn't matter.
If Trump wins, it shows "redeeming consciousness of guilt", where he is essentially proving it wasn't his idea.
That's why I keep going back to this being the possible reason they are still on the payroll. The government white hats
have much more leverage over current employees than they do over former employees.
Niagra Frontier: But Page and Strzok (why couldn't his name be Smith so I don't have to keep looking it up) .would know
that it is easier to control them if they stay employed and would want out unless they were given something, immunity,
perhaps. Right? As far as covering your a.. in the emails, absolutely. Most white collar career people know how to cover
themselves in emails and especially lawyers-those in the public arena and in politics. It's a given.
Last Night if I read you right you were picking up on something I think you described it as the Texts almost having a Psy-Ops
feel to it (please correct me if i misinterpret). Perhaps No Ones premise is what you were picking up on the bread crumb feel
of it.
One other possibility that plays in to that theory is Strzok reassuring Page that no one can get the text messages, thereby
giving the breadcrumbs more value.
Another possibility since I believe we have only seen her listed as outbox is that he took defensive measures and she did
not or screwed it up
I hope for once the Clinton "patsies" 1. remain alive and 2. roll over on the Queen.
Seth Richards deserved better, but should have also known better than to work for the Clinton Cartel.
Thank you. I'm glad I saw your comment. I thought the style and wording of Strozk's text is unnatural, as if he's deliberately
leaving clues/evidence or, as you said, cya.
I' m wondering why only the texts between Deep Strozk and Page are being released. What triggered that investigation into them
in the first place? You don't blindly look at FBI agents phones.
"FISA" is a JOKE employed to pacify the sheeples. All that is needed is access to a NSA "inquiry" terminal. Contractors, like
Snowden, and Feral Gov. employees can then retrieve any digital data ever transmitted by whatever mean on anyone, no warrant,
no Fisa, no nothing. Over 100,000 people have this access. Welcome to the USSA, Comrades. ( No disrespect to Russia intended)
Here's a snippet from the text messages that I haven't seen addressed anywhere. Strzok was instructed by Bill to send 2 of his best
agents to work on the Hillary/email investigation. Strozk is worried that the DOJ will have more power and that no one will be there
to guide the investigation in a desired direction. He doesn't like the idea of Laufman (DOJ) "inserting himself" into the investigation.
He tells Page that "..he [BillPreistap?] didn't mean "best" in terms of agents "but what the best outcome" will be.
To me, Strozk
is saying here that Bill Priestap wanted Strzok to work toward the exoneration of HRC. To do this, Strzok thinks he needs to be there,
too, either as one of the two agents or alongside the 2 agents representing the FBI. But that would mean 3 agents, instead of the
usual 2. Page says that they shouldn't go full bore and tells Strzok to insist on having only 2 agents.
She then reminds him that
a future President HRC won't remember or care which side was more heavily stacked. In other words, all that mattered to any of these
people-including HRC -- was bringing a desired outcome.
From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure that HRC skated.
I think someone offered him some kind of future reward -- probably a career promotion on top of the promotion/position his wife received
at SEC.
He expressed a desire to Page to receive credit and recognition for various things. While discussing the option of joining
Mueller's team, he expressed dismay that he wouldn't be receiving any promotions from "Dad" -- whoever that is/was.
In other words, there
was nothing in it for HIM and besides, there was "no there, there." In 2016, he knew his superiors (Priestap, McCabe, and probably
Comey) also wanted to exonerate Clinton.
He was frustrated because they weren't letting him in on their decisions and yet they expected
him to do the dirty work behind the scenes. He knew as early as February 2016 that he was the one who stood to lose the most if their
shenanigans didn't work out-if HRC wasn't exonerated. But it didn't stop with her exoneration because in order to claim his (or their)
promised reward and keep their corruption hidden, they then had to make sure she won the election.
They had to destroy Donald Trump.
When that didn't work, they used their insurance policy (the dossier). The Russia investigation and Sessions' recusal has provided
cover and bought them time to destroy evidence, etc. I am encouraged by the fact that neither of them were enthusiastic about working
for Mueller. It implies that Mueller might not be a black hat. So far, nothing in the texts tells me that Strzok and Page considered
Mueller to be a member of "their team."
The fate and direction of our whole country was subjected to the selfish goals of a few unelected, ambitious bureaucrats. That's
just scary. It was God's hand that brought the election of POTUS Trump in spite of all of their tricks.
I hope Peter Strzok is indicted and that he squeals to high heaven. He can be depended on to serve his own best interests -- in all
situations. That's why they chose him. They saw he was willing to do anything for power and prestige. And he would have gotten it,
too, if it hadn't been for those damn Trump supporters.
He's more like a key anchor point to a very large evil web. He was a precisely placed anchor long ago!!
He has always manipulated every situation or events, to what he wanted. He became a true narcissist that thought he was untouchable.
Texting openly for years with no issues.
Truthfilter said. "From reading these texts several times, it is obvious to me that Peter Strzok had been tasked with making sure
that HRC skated. "
IMO, the plan from the beginning was to keep this firewalled within the FBI, giving distance from DOJ (Lynch), and thus Obama.
Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the Hillary
exonerators.
From the start, I've opined that Strzok was Hillary's embed who had great intimidating influence over Priestap and Comey, both
of which seem to be regular career climbers rather than hot-to-trot pusshats or lackeys of the Clintons. I think that some posters
are reading the texts, but misreading Strzok's actual mentality.
I'm not convinced that Strzok is a driver, but it's an interesting angle, and I'll take that under consideration. I see him
more from my old role – a tool to be used. A tool with a will of its own, and a bit too much awareness, and thus a bit of a
danger.
I agree that they're trying to make it LOOK like DOJ isn't fixing it, but they are – we know.
I've seen how this works in my own end of the swamp – FAKE INDEPENDENCE. Basically create a group tasked with a choice where
the outcome is pre-determined, then pass off the result as even-handed, fair, open-minded, independent, etc. In those scenarios
the pattern of individuals and layers is the same – signal cooperation up and in to the core, but signal fairness, party line,
and fake independence downward and outward. Then rig the process in every way you can, using individuals who have LEARNED and
been TRAINED to play the game.
I agree that Strzok is probably a Canklebot, but the place is so highly politicized, that real and fake political leanings
are hard to tell apart. He will also signal differently to different people – maze of mirrors.
I think the bottom line is that they all have their agendas, they all "feel" their independence, but it is the masterful
rigging of social processes which insures the outcome. They are FISH IN A NET. They see bits and pieces of the net and other
disturbances of their world, and act in predictable manners to insure an outcome.
One HAS to look BIG to see the operation. Small details matter to SPOT the bigger unseen things.
DOJ will look innocent outward, but there will be games to insure the outcome. SOME people will sense those games, some
will not, and the latter are fairly useless, to they tend to be task-fulfillers and not deciders. Some will signal the games
openly, but they're risky and better those who will "read between the lines" upward and take part in the games without the
need to speak of them, or who can speak in deflections which are mutually intelligible. CODE. There will be lots of autonomously
arranged code, just like AI creates (since there is no AI, basically – just "I").
This is why they have Trisha B. in the mix. She will be a sharpie who plays the games without a word and without even breaking
her smile, and will not get caught. You can bet that she is keeping DOJ in the loop on how this is going, and they are making
sure that the net leads to the desired catch.
Somebody has to be keeping Hillary aware, however – I think you're absolutely right about that. And I am betting on a woman.
At the bottom of Obama scandals is always racial loyalty and trust. At the bottom of Hillary scandals is sex loyalty and trust.
Just the way it is. Hillary pays men with money, women with power.
These two are my absolutely, positively "MUST HAVES" in terms of perp walks/prison sentences. #1 and #2, respectively,
on my list of people I want to see publicly humiliated and wearing orange jumpsuits.
You KNOW they're controlling this. Holder was very, very artful in having TWO "can we talk?" minions running this show.
And the media KNEW how critical it was to get Crooked Loretta in power. The bigs at Chicago Tribune were the ones sitting
on the Loretta story and broke it to scoop Taitz (under surveillance, surely) when she found it. Then later they hid
the Chicago connections by saying it was USA Today that broke it. ALL those little lies point right back to the truth.
Rigging the AG has been the most masterful yet ESSENTIAL things the other side has done – the greatest flaw in our governmental
system, and the one the bads go for EVERY TIME. But they also know how to weaponize it against the goods, as they did
with Nixon. Br'er Sessions was BRILLIANT to recuse. He spotted the GREATER outside game they were playing. Not recusing
would lead to a Watergate. Now THEY'RE holding the Watergate.
"Strzok's angst about DOJ interlopers is probably due to his fears about them being straight shooters, and not part of the
Hillary exonerators. "
This article on hildabeast in Sept /16 indicates the opposite, the DOJ set the tone of the investigation. The FBI followed
them off the cliff .. Zero is the maestro.
What I meant was that the top dogs in the DOJ were corrupt, but that Strzok was not confident about the cooperation of the
layers below them.
Read my post again. My assumption is that the Lynch was evil, but that the FBI had to guarantee that Lynch was walled
off from any further investigation. Thus, Comey's explanation about having the buck stop in his shop.
Strzok changed the language that Comey originally had, however. That reflects on the relative mindsets and influence
they had in this mind-blowing scandal.
FOX is beginning to sound like they doing some protection work and yeah that text didn't really mean that kinda stuff. We are watching
the Gowdy principle beginning at the only media that has covered any of this. Then again Lachlan Murdoch takes over ..
The implications here are staggering. It means these people completely misled Congress, quite possibly for YEARS. There was
no oversight. And it got so bad, they actually neutered the OIG. So THAT means all the documents – all the redactions – all
the stuff Congress got – it can't be trusted. Anything turned over by either the Clinton or Obama administrations is potentially
BOGUS and/or INCOMPLETE.
It is ONLY because we have gotten the "Stupid Party" FULLY in control of both the White House (with competent anti-Establishment
leadership) and Congress, that we can now see how much bamboozling went on.
Now you know why the smirking Sally Yates spewed out 58 PAGES on why her division had NO oversight from anyone. An entity
unto themselves -- I want to see her and Farkas in dirty orange jumpsuits and shower sandals -- -
All of the criminals are still in positions to remove evidence. I would like to think Wray and Sessions have a handle on everything
but i will believe it when i see it. Strzok would have been fired on the spot at any job. Surely government employees can be fired
for less than making a non politically correct comment.
Even with Sessions and Wray in charge Congress is still having a hard time getting documents from the them. Why is that? Im frustrated
about it and im watching cable news. Makes it worse.
Wray and Sessions (swamp dwellers for most of their careers) are in complete denial about the rampant corruption in their organizations.
This denial is paralyzing them. Sessions yesterday said he'd do everything possible to eliminate the bias in DOJ. Bias Jeff,
seriously? How about the criminality? He just doesn't get it.
Yes. I read this morning that the FBI still has Obama's guy in charge of handling FOIA's. No wonder the FBI is still stonewalling.
I've been on the fence about Wray, but that news pops the black hat on him for me. Maybe future events will have me swapping
it out for a white hat, but I can only judge the evidence I can see.
Do you know where you found that? We were researching a PDF folder the other night that was found in an FBI site. It was
a search for Trump. They were mostly compiled within the time frame that Rogers had announced the shenanigans to the FISC
and when Nellie Ohr got her HAM radio.
I still wonder if these played cover for legal FOIA's but illegal searches?
I believe you are wrong. All critical evidence was already obtained by the OIG investigations. That's why the "missing" texts
were "found" so quickly. They live in a padded room now.
He is also a lawyer who once had his own law firm working with defendants.
"Just prior to re-joining the Justice Department, Laufman operated his own white collar defense law firm and was a
partner at the New York City-based law firm, Kelley Drye."
Why would Strzok outline his and others criminal activity in texts to Lisa Page? Why would he write into a permanent record such
self-incriminating evidence? Is he stupid? This makes no sense to me.
You need to read Sundance more. This is a staged roll out of information leading up to the IG report. With each leak, bad guys
respond and move revealing even more. We need to be patient which is hard to say as I am one of CTH's resident pessimists.
We will get there.
Plus we don't want to step all over PT's big speech.
I am not trying to keep up anymore. The U.S.Gov't is corrupt from top to bottom. Line the 100,000 or so Obama appointees and shoot
them all yesterday. This proves that elections do not matter. If any one here thinks that Sundance will change the way the criminals
do business then you are sadly mistaken. There will never be a trial for anyone above PFC or Cpl.
Peter Strzok is probably being paid at least $164,200.00 + while assigned to HR. What is he doing to earn this? Reporting to the
office daily? Sweeping the floor? What could he be trusted to do? The list must be really short.
Classified documents apparently can be declassified by Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden .. Or subcontractors
with names like Rainbow Sparkles, Sunshine Crackers.
DNC emails can be hacked by ???? and published by Julian Assange. The public reads them only if they are stolen by unknown(s)
and released on the Internet. All murky and elusive without details again. But hey, at least we got to read them!
The classified documents by Obama on his PDB that were sent to 30 people and then shared with the press. We can't see them
..Because, muh CLASSIFIED, unless they are stolen by ?????(someone or something) and distributed by whatever means happen to
be available
Yet, WE, the American people have to beg to see a memorandum written by a Congressman ..because of the sensitivity of the
matter ..classified ..mumble, mumble, mumble.
The American people (the ones that pick up the tab) must go thru several processes (because CLASSIFIED) and years of waiting,
just to be allowed to see the sh*t these morons have pulled.
Due to "the sensitivity of the matter" appears to be subjective, eh?
The memo will eventually come out. It served a purpose to say we have this memo that reveals all. You know how bad the info
is because only a handful of dems actually went to read it. They need deniability.
How do the bad guys react to that? Panic, increase texts, comms with each other. Do you think they are being surveilled
at this point? The memo serves the purpose of beating the bushes to move the prey into the open. We will get there.
Nixon resigned because of an attempt to cover up something he didn't command or know about.
Hillary has been corrupt since '70. She's been doing and covering up since '70. The term "arkancide" was coined to describe
what happens to people who cross the Clintons.
In a fair world, Nixon would have not resigned and Hillary would have fried in an electric chair for the death of Vince
Foster.
Strzok: "I'm sure Jim and Trisha and Dave and Mike are all considering how things like that play out as they talk amongst themselves."
________________
I'm sure Jim, Trisha, Dave and Mike all appreciate you mentioning them in this text, and how they are conspiring to hide
themselves and their evil deeds from the light. Thanks, Peter!
Is Peter purposefully fingering all around him that have involvement, leading up to Barry? This is a strange example of an
office relationship. More like business passion, planned.
"The 302's are the specific FBI forms used to document interviews/interrogations. They detail questions asked and answers given
as well as who was present during the interview."
___________________
We have had tape recorders for what, nearly a hundred years now?
And we have had commercial videotape recorders for nearly 60 years (since 1959).
So what is the point of a "302", except for the FIB to misrepresent, to their own benefit, what transpired in an interview
with a suspect?
Important
to forward Sundance's work product within your own circle of influence, along with all other forums in which you're tuned in.
Grow new branches and spread the fruit of CTH labors.
DETESTATION: Obama, Jarrett, Brennan -- pure evil and the masterminds of spying on their opponents. From the outside, Hillary
had a parallel operation going in concert. All of them satanic without a shred of morals whatsoever.
HATRED: Lynch for being a willing tool and knowledgable about most of it. McCabe, a lowlife bribe taker. Strzok, one that
didn't need bribes to fix every Hillary problem that arose; was quite willing to let a private outfit call the shots on the
hacks, and had his finger in everything else. Page was his eager co-conspirator and also a pusshat cultist who couldn't wait
for the glass-ceiling to break. Fie on all of them.
DISGUST: Comey and Priestap. Ultimate civil service careerists, wormy or weaselly enough to drift with whichever the political
winds blew. Deferred to the blacker of the black hats, even though their instincts about Hillary's criminality had a solid
legal basis. In the end, they caved and groveled for the benefit of their own bureaucratic futures. Not that bright, either.
"Additionally, FBI Agent Strzok is admitting that a group of FBI officials including himself, James Baker, Trisha Anderson,
Lisa Page, and likely others (McCabe, Comey) conspired together to intentionally withhold information -derived from this interview-
from congress and the American people."
_____________________
I'm beginning to suspect that maybe these people aren't exactly on the up-and-up
"Since Thursday night we've been combing the FBI files to figure out exactly what FBI Agent Peter Strzok was referencing in
one of the most recently released text messages."
IMO the inflammatory thing that they weren't releasing on September 2, 2016 I think comes down to what was released in the
9/23/2016 release (the Huma Abedin interview the Obama pseudonym) where Abedin was shown the June 28, 2012 email from the pseudonymous
sender. Hilary Clinton arrived in St. Petersburg on June 28, 2012.
How secure was that email chain? Were the blackberries left on the plane? That kind of thing. Even though it seems Abedin
couldn't figure out the pseudonymous sender was based on the content, I'm sure those with intelligence backgrounds could based
on content of the "Re: Congratulations" if the devices weren't secure.
Special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional investigators have interviewed roughly 50
people who work at the White House or were involved in Donald Trump's campaign.
Based on
a compilation of CBS of known interviews, that number includes at least 20 White House
employees and one Cabinet official: Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Facebook Accuses Russia of Creating Events, But Unsure if They Took Place
A written statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee from Google, Twitter, and Facebook
revealed that they have found absolutely no evidence of any attempt by Russia to influence any
US votes within the past year (2017) and were unaware of any state-sponsored attempts to
interfere at all.
With Congress increasingly desperate to turn up something that they can pin on Russia
interference-wise, there is growing pressure on major technology companies to dig through their
logs and try to find something conceivably Russia-related.
Facebook has appeared to be the most eager to come up with something, having claimed that
129 "events" were created by people they suspect of being in league with the Russians, though
later conceding that they had no information if any of those events ever actually took
place.
Facebook did, however, claim an "insignificant" overlap between the putative Russian and the
Trump campaign. That's somewhat surprising, as oftentimes attempts to label someone a secret
Russian hinge heavily on them being perceived as pro-Trump in such after the fact
investigations.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
"... The risk has been with us since the 1950s, but has become scarier beginning with the US-backed coup in Ukraine, and increased with US involvement in the war on Syria. It's been heightened by plans for "modernization" of US warheads and delivery systems -- plans initiated by President Obama and continuing or expanded by President Trump. ..."
"... The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. ..."
"... Return to Moscow ..."
"... The whole Bush II thing, the elections, Iraq, 9-11 were kind of "through the looking glass" events in which political corruption became mainstream acceptable in a surreal kind of way. I take events like the "Russian Hack" as a kind of ready-reckoner of political consciousness: if you accept or support such muck the only question remains – are you a gull or a knave? An idiot or a cynical bastard? ..."
"... "Sleepwalking into nuclear war" is a haunting and apt metaphor for what is happening to us as a society. Reading Robert Roth's provocative musings on the collective insanity currently enveloping us, I was reminded of William Shirer's accounts of the period he was stationed in Nazi Germany as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune before the outbreak of WWII. ..."
"... Even with all the propaganda the Germans were subjected to, said Shirer, Germans realized that Hitler was taking them into an unwinnable war against the rest of the world that they really didn't want. They knew they were headed into the abyss, yet the political climate was so paranoid that resistance seemed unpatriotic, if not treasonous. They went along in the hope that the national nightmare would dissipate of its own accord, that things weren't as bad as they seemed. ..."
"... Mr. Roth's observations about the blights of willful public ignorance and mass media disinformation are important. Commenter "animalogic" (#7) aptly describes those party to the widespread deceit as either "a gull or a knave." The Establishment needs and therefore nurtures both. ..."
"... Roth has gone straight to the relevant point, nuclear war , for it is already clear that the prospective outcome of any permutation of a 'conventional' war will see the Empire hegemony, USA/Israel and vassal states, lose against Russia, who will be supported, by mutually recognized need, with China. No matter how it is considered, a Russia-China alliance will defeat the empire hegemony if nuclear weapons are not used. ..."
"... One positive thing in US policy is a stability and progress – dummy president replaced by stupid one, that replaced by insane; after him goes imbecile. I can't imagine who's going to be next :-). But there are many of old crazy women and men ready to help if current imbecile went down. ..."
"... There will be no nuclear war as Russia and the U.S. can wipe each other off the map, however the Zionists will continue to keep America at war for the Zionist NWO as that is the game plan and we goyim Americans will continue to be sent to the slaughter house for greater Israel. ..."
"... One honest, generally morally competent man holding the ever-more-powerful office of president of the U.S., could fix many things. Unfortunately, Donald John Trump is not that man. ..."
"... Let's consider one example: Many people believe that a real investigation into 9/11 would destroy the "deep state". Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey et al. have recently completed a study of the "collapse" of WTC7, whereby they've proven that "fire" was not the cause of the "collapse" of that building. This finding directly contradicts the NIST report. For the first time in 16 years there is now incontrovertible scientific evidence in the public domain that 9/11 was an "inside job". Why won't Donald John Trump take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity and order an investigation? ..."
"... The world is not about to end, but the Western public space has become very stupid. Most politicians, media and academics have managed to redefine basic terms into idiotic caricatures. Concepts like meddling, trolls, collusion, etc don't mean what we are told they mean. They are all an eternal part of human society, exchange of ideas, disagreements. Expressing one's opinions is not 'propaganda', or 'meddling' in elections – it is freedom of speech. The idea that there is only one correct view – the Western liberal one – is medieval. ..."
"... Nobody will deliberately start nuclear war, but the probability that it might start as the result of series of mistakes has increased. ..."
"... The US and its vassals (including other NATO countries) moved NATO troops close to Russian borders, destabilized Ukraine, Syria, cooked up "Russiagate" (which is really an FBI-gate, but sore losers would not admit it) to justify further increases in Pentagon budget (a trough where very fat pigs feed). ..."
"... The main danger is that in its death throes the Empire will start a war, although we can only hope that even degenerate US elites understand that dead people cannot benefit by their wealth. Hope springs eternal. ..."
"... Agree with much of the sentiment and some of the proposals here regarding the need to ratchet down rhetoric, pledge no first strike, and generally try much harder to reduce the risk of even a "small" nuke exchange. ..."
"... Well, hope is always nice. But we might not understand the dynamic nature of the global-liberal overreach that we have been experiencing. People don't behave the way Western elites have been acting without some measure of disconnect from reality. And hubris. When a substantial part of elite climbs on an irrational high horse of invincibility they become paralysed by the framework they have created. They don't want to hear other views because it makes them uncomfortable. They have given up on both principles and institutions – it is anything goes world now. ..."
"... The Trotskyites who became in America first anti-Stalinist Democrat Hawks and then anti-Russian/Israel-first Republican Hawks have worked things so that they control foreign affairs for both political parties. And they have an insatiable bloodlust. Like the godfather of their movement, they are amoral with genocidal desires when it comes to peoples they despise. They are the type of self-righteous bullies who aspire to rule the globe to overreach and push and shove and threaten and sucker punch until the worst for the world happens. ..."
"... Good to see you posting. I hear they are muling Ophrah. Really good choice for next president. Woman, black, fat and wealthy. Not gay or transvestite though but that's coming next. ..."
"... Makes me wonder what after Putin. I do it like him that much but he still intelligent, cool and calculating man that is not doing stupid things but neither genius. ..."
"... Regarding Americans, unfortunately they never felt real pain. Like a kid who does not know that fire is dangerous. I think financial collapse gonna be trouble sooner or later with them. The best thing Russia and China can do is to undermine us dollar status and the whole financial system which was built by uncle Sam for uncle Sam benefit. ..."
My goal in writing about these things is to alert you to the problems and encourage you to
share your concerns with people you know and with federal policy-makers. Right now, the entire
gamut of political discussion all but excludes the topic nuclear war, so if some Senators,
Members of Congress, and the President were to begin hearing from people that we're concerned
about the threat, and how easily it could happen, and that we want that threat removed, it
would be some progress.
Why the focus on nuclear war? Because of all the pending potential disasters we may have to
face, it's the most sudden, inescapable, irrevocable. At some level, people know that, though
they don't like to think about it. Author Carl Boggs describes the reaction of the people of
Hawaii when they received a false alarm about an incoming ICBM attack:
People scattered frenetically, mostly without logic or purpose or hope. Where to go? If
this turned out to be one of Kim Jong Un's powerful ICBMs, it could be over in 20 minutes.
Repair to a shelter? None exist. Go to the basement? Sure suicide. Find a car or taxi and
head for the hills? No time. [T]he response was utter psychological numbness, paralysis -- a
dysfunctional yet comprehensible state of mind in the face of nuclear oblivion. [T]he end
seemed inescapable.
And because, as Mr. Boggs says upon hearing a talk by former nuclear war planner Daniel
Ellsberg, it's a lot less unlikely than most of us have been led to believe.
The American people have been lulled to sleep, distracted by endless media and political
spectacles, while busy warmakers keep refining their insane nuclear blueprints . More than 70
years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Pentagon elites still theorize and fantasize about the
unthinkable, their demented plans far removed from the realm of political debate or even
public awareness.
[1]
The risk has been with us since the 1950s, but has become scarier beginning with the
US-backed coup in Ukraine, and increased with US involvement in the war on Syria. It's been
heightened by plans for "modernization" of US warheads and delivery systems -- plans initiated
by President Obama and continuing or expanded by President Trump. And it's heightened
further by a Pentagon plan to develop a "low-yield" warhead for the submarine-based Trident
missile, and a new nuclear-tipped sea-launched cruise missile.
[2] I believe that expanding the range of options in this way would
increase the likelihood that the weapons will actually be used.
In case you think I'm overstating the problem, you should know that almost everything in
"Dr. Strangelove" -- the Stanley Kubrick film in which nuclear war is started by a rogue
military officer -- was true.
[3] . "Doomsday" is an "Actual War
Plan," as Daniel Ellsberg says in a December 13, 2017 interview discussing his new book,
The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.
[4].
Dan Ellsberg proposes a Six-Step Program for dismantling the Doomsday Machine:
A U.S.
no-first-use policy;
Probing investigative hearings on our war plans in the light of nuclear
winter;
Eliminating our ICBMs;
Foregoing the delusion of preemptive damage-limiting by our
first-strike forces;
Giving up the profits, jobs, and alliance hegemony based on maintaining
that pretense;
Otherwise dismantling the American Doomsday Machine.
Of course none of that will happen under present circumstances. It's Ellsberg's goal to
contribute to developing an informed electorate that, recognizing the risk, will demand such
actions.
... ... ...
Regarding the two nuclear-armed superpowers, who between them possess some 15,000 nuclear
warheads, the Cold War that ended in 1991 has lately been replaced by a New Cold War. U.S. and
NATO provocations to Russia have reached a largely unheard crescendo in Ukraine, where a
U.S.-backed coup installed a regime, essentially in the Russian belly, that's riddled with
neo-Nazis and hostile to Russia; in eastern Europe generally, where NATO war games have been
held repeatedly just across the Russian border; and in Syria, where the U.S. continues to
maintain an unlawful presence in proximity to Russian forces legitimately there at the
invitation of the internationally recognized and constitutionally elected Syrian government.
And in both Syria and Ukraine, there are signs the situation is becoming even more dangerous
than it's been for some time.
[7]
These situations raise the risk of unintended nuclear war, as confrontation may lead at any
time to escalation spiraling out of control. Dr. William Polk, a member of the White House team
that handled the Cuban Missile Crisis, describes how in a confrontational situation, the logic
of events could force the Russians and us to the next step and that step also to the next and
so on, to the ultimate disastrous result without anyone having initially intended it.
[8] . Mr. Shatz concludes that what we once mistook for safety was more like sleepwalking.
Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin sums up the situation in similar terms:
"Under the false and demonizing imagery of 'Putin's Russia' which has now taken hold in the
United States and NATO world, the West is truly 'sleepwalking', as Kissinger, Gorbachev,
[University of Kent professor Richard] Sakwa, [Princeton emeritus professor Stephen F.] Cohen
and others have urgently warned, into a potential nuclear war with Russia. It is the Cuban
missile crisis all over again, but actually worse now [in part] because American policy under
recent U.S. presidents has been so lacking in statesmanship, consistency or historical
perspective where Russia is concerned." ( Return to Moscow , University of Western
Australia, 2017, p. 255).
Think you're pretty spot with all you say. The whole Bush II thing, the elections, Iraq,
9-11 were kind of "through the looking glass" events in which political corruption became
mainstream acceptable in a surreal kind of way.
I take events like the "Russian Hack" as a kind of ready-reckoner of political consciousness:
if you accept or support such muck the only question remains – are you a gull or a
knave? An idiot or a cynical bastard?
"Sleepwalking into nuclear war" is a haunting and apt metaphor for what is happening to us as
a society. Reading Robert Roth's provocative musings on the collective insanity currently
enveloping us, I was reminded of William Shirer's accounts of the period he was stationed in
Nazi Germany as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune before the outbreak of WWII.
His account of attending a Nazi rally where he appeared to be the only member of the
audience not mesmerized by Hitler's delusional rants reminds me of my own reaction to the
Russiagate hysteria being orchestrated by neocons and Clinton dead-enders. Who are these
people and what is the matter with them? The current state of our Union is a testament to the
power of propaganda, which Hitler and Goebbels understood so well.
Even with all the propaganda the Germans were subjected to, said Shirer, Germans realized
that Hitler was taking them into an unwinnable war against the rest of the world that they
really didn't want. They knew they were headed into the abyss, yet the political climate was
so paranoid that resistance seemed unpatriotic, if not treasonous. They went along in the
hope that the national nightmare would dissipate of its own accord, that things weren't as
bad as they seemed.
But as it turned out, things were even worse than they seemed. The nightmare was real and
there was no waking from it.
The USA/Russia/China/Israel/France/UK/India/Pakistan have collectively been playing Russian
Roulette for 65 years.
Probability dictates sooner or later, one of the chambers will contain a live round.
What an excellent essay. It appears to have been submitted initially to The Unz Review, which
should enhance the reputation of both the author and publisher.
Mr. Roth's observations about the blights of willful public ignorance and mass media
disinformation are important. Commenter "animalogic" (#7) aptly describes those party to the
widespread deceit as either "a gull or a knave." The Establishment needs and therefore
nurtures both.
Great article and great comments so far (11 of them).
We have a scenario much like those scenarios prior to the Great War (WWI) and the second
world war, and the same shadowy 'hidden hand' orchestrating the entire pending disaster so
they can yet further augment their control and expand their illegal land theft.
The consolidation of the mass media agencies, now almost pure propaganda/perception
management agencies controlled by the competing factions of the 0.1%, and the advent of the
internet and 'big data' have enabled this psychopathic cabal to attain previously undreamt of
control over the common 99%, including control over their perception.
Roth has gone straight to the relevant point, nuclear war , for it is already clear
that the prospective outcome of any permutation of a 'conventional' war will see the Empire
hegemony, USA/Israel and vassal states, lose against Russia, who will be supported, by
mutually recognized need, with China. No matter how it is considered, a Russia-China alliance
will defeat the empire hegemony if nuclear weapons are not used.
It is because of this point that the entirety of humanity must rally and do 'what ever it
takes' to stop the terrorist empire from sustaining the current tyranny. The psychopaths of
the empire, not exposed to public scrutiny, hidden in the shadows, can and will nudge the
world into unwinnable (for anyone) nuclear war; their egos are the definition of human
depravity.
Exposing the grand charade to a critical mass of the general population is the first
objective, then exposing the 'hidden hands' in the shadows is the next.
The parasite must be stopped, and we, the people who have seen glimpses of the enemy, are
incumbent to spread the word.
I left this comment on a different article ( http://thesaker.is/listening-to-mattis/ ), but
seems it could be in place here also. Cause we're talking approximately same and nothing gonna
change
-- -- -
Well, it's getting boring a little. I mean the descriptions of the insanity of US's
rulers.
One positive thing in US policy is a stability and progress – dummy president
replaced by stupid one, that replaced by insane; after him goes imbecile. I can't imagine
who's going to be next :-).
But there are many of old crazy women and men ready to help if current imbecile went
down.
Thanks God, we, Russians, not that happy. After imbecile alcoholic Yeltsin we've got not
bad alternative (your media and stupid people in power call him a killer). Who (with his sanity) the only chance for this world to survive.
But, actually we're very tired from all this stuff and the possibility of US generals to
test our conventional and even nuke arms constantly increasing. They can also test if our
soldiers who've seen Napoleon, Hitler and many others got worse or still the same. I'm asking US citizens – Is it really interesting to you to get know it for
sure?
There will be no nuclear war as Russia and the U.S. can wipe each other off the map, however
the Zionists will continue to keep America at war for the Zionist NWO as that is the game
plan and we goyim Americans will continue to be sent to the slaughter house for greater
Israel.
"But as Mr. Shatz observes, the problems run much deeper than President Trump."
This statement is misleading. One honest, generally morally competent man holding the
ever-more-powerful office of president of the U.S., could fix many things. Unfortunately, Donald John Trump is not that man.
Let's consider one example: Many people believe that a real investigation into 9/11 would
destroy the "deep state". Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey et al. have recently completed a study of the
"collapse" of WTC7, whereby they've proven that "fire" was not the cause of the "collapse" of
that building. This finding directly contradicts the NIST report. For the first time in 16
years there is now incontrovertible scientific evidence in the public domain that 9/11 was an
"inside job". Why won't Donald John Trump take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity
and order an investigation?
There is only one plausible explanation: I believe that Donald John Trump was the "deep
state" candidate of choice in the 2016 election. I believe that's why they ran wild-eyed
madwoman Hillary Clinton against him rather than the more electable Sanders. I believe that's
why, in the early fall of 2016, as the election was coming into the home stretch, Obama
started ramping up tensions with Russia; i.e., so as to nudge the disgruntled anti-war
Democrats (Sanders supporters) into Trump's camp, swinging the election to him.
I believe that Donald John Trump is a "deep cover" or "sleeper" agent that's been groomed
and waiting in the wings for his masters' call. I believe that Donald John Trump was called
to power in a desperate now or never moment to save the "deep state" (Zionist) agenda.
Donald John Trump is a liar. Donald John Trump is a fraud. Donald John Trump is a con man.
Donald John Trump is a mass-murderer.
I don't think anyone in the West is sleepwalking into anything, esp the USA. I think the
American people see the writing on the wall and that if the American Empire loses status the
economy of the USA will revert to being a labor intensive existence of working the ground
just to have enough food to eat and water to drink. So entitled and lazy Americans are and
horrified to be relegated back to a 1920/30′s quality of life (loss of Bread &
Circuses), that if the Military Industril Complex has to threaten the entire planet with nuclear
annihilation if they don't tithe 10% of their GDP (Roman Empire) so fat ass Yankees can
continue to be fat asses – then just burn the place to the ground.
If the BRIC countries attempt to dethrone the petro dollar lazy entitled Americans will
BEG Washington to do whatever it takes to bring back $3.00 t-shirts at Wal-Mart.
The world is not about to end, but the Western public space has become very stupid. Most
politicians, media and academics have managed to redefine basic terms into idiotic
caricatures. Concepts like meddling, trolls, collusion, etc don't mean what we are told they
mean. They are all an eternal part of human society, exchange of ideas, disagreements.
Expressing one's opinions is not 'propaganda', or 'meddling' in elections – it is
freedom of speech. The idea that there is only one correct view – the Western liberal
one – is medieval.
We are at a point when views other than BBC, CNN, NY Times , are routinely dismissed as
'meddling', 'trolling, or sometimes 'hatred'. The objective is to suppress and dismiss them.
That is very dangerous for any civilisation, but for a system that was built on celebrating
free speech, it is fatal.
I often hear that it is a 'natural' pendulum swing, that most people in the West don't
agree with it, that it is an angry reaction to an unexpected loss ('Clinton dead-enders'),
that it will self-correct over time. In my view that is missing the point and overlooks the
permanent damage this hysteria has caused. If the more rational members of the elite are
unable to defend rationality and freedom today – when it is still easy – they are
co-responsible for the madness.
"After the Maidan the leaders of two right wing neo-Nazi organisations were rewarded with
control of four ministries
Andriy Parubiy, co-founder of the fascist Social National Party (SNPU) , which later
changed its name to Svoboda, became the new top commander of the National Defense and
Security Council (covering the military, police, courts and intelligence apparatus). The CIA
renamed the organisation to "Svoboda," meaning "Freedom," to make it more acceptable to
Americans.
Dmytro Yarosh, Right Sector commander, was second-in-command of the National Defense and
Security Council. This is the man who organized and ran Ukraine's February 22nd Coup in Kiev,
and the May 2nd Massacre of Its Opponents in Odessa, for Barack Obama. Yarosh's teams
carry out the most violent operations for the CIA in Ukraine. They are responsible for the
atrocities committed in the Donbass, for the crimes against humanity .
Oleh Tyahnybok, co founder of the SNPU and currently the party leader of Svoboda, a self
confessed neo-Nazi. He opposed the introduction of the Russian language as the second
official state language; called for the lustration of former communist officials. He also
proposed recognition of the fighting role of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and
Ukrainian Insurgent Army during World War II."
-- Where are the Lobby, the Anti-Defamation League, the Friends of Israel in UK, and the
whole Holocaust business? Where are the fighters with BDS?
Nobody will deliberately start nuclear war, but the probability that it might start as the
result of series of mistakes has increased.
The US and its vassals (including other NATO
countries) moved NATO troops close to Russian borders, destabilized Ukraine, Syria, cooked up
"Russiagate" (which is really an FBI-gate, but sore losers would not admit it) to justify
further increases in Pentagon budget (a trough where very fat pigs feed).
The Empire is
afraid of losing its position, but shortsighted elites do everything to accelerate its
demise. The main danger is that in its death throes the Empire will start a war, although we
can only hope that even degenerate US elites understand that dead people cannot benefit by
their wealth. Hope springs eternal.
Agree with much of the sentiment and some of the proposals here regarding the need to ratchet
down rhetoric, pledge no first strike, and generally try much harder to reduce the risk of
even a "small" nuke exchange.
But giving up our inter-continental ballistic missiles would be foolhardy, even more so if
it's done unilaterally. With rivals / potential enemies like China and eventually India, who
in time will be able to muster conventional forces and troop contingents far larger than
ours, we cannot give up the nuke deterrent.
And the reference "the TWO nuclear-armed superpowers" is out of date. That would be at
least THREE nuke-armed superpowers: China, the USA, and Russia.
"But giving up our inter-continental ballistic missiles would be foolhardy, even more so
if it's done unilaterally. With rivals / potential enemies like China and eventually India,
who in time will be able to muster conventional forces and troop contingents far larger than
ours, we cannot give up the nuke deterrent."
because it will keep the victims of ZIO/U$A imperial policy at bay for the victims request
for REPARATIONS, when that time comes
understand that dead people cannot benefit by their wealth. Hope springs eternal
Well, hope is always nice. But we might not understand the dynamic nature of the
global-liberal overreach that we have been experiencing. People don't behave the way Western
elites have been acting without some measure of disconnect from reality. And hubris. When a substantial part of elite climbs on an irrational high horse of invincibility they
become paralysed by the framework they have created. They don't want to hear other views
because it makes them uncomfortable. They have given up on both principles and institutions
– it is anything goes world now.
So where is the assurance that rationality would prevail in a crisis? It didn't in 1914.
Who would step in and tell the morons that they have been living a lie of their own creation?
That constraints are still there, that their verbal acuity has not changed how the world is,
that 'soft power' is called soft for a reason – it doesn't add up to a hill of beans
when it matters. The risk for any dissenter of consequence is very high (see Trump for a
related, imperfect example).
Let's hope. Most bad scenarios don't actually end life on the planet, they just make life
more miserable. That's what happened in the past. We might see a 'nuclear' version of that.
One thing I know for sure: none of the liberal fire-eaters in Washington, Brussels or London
will ever own up to this. They are born 'victims', so they will go on whining
The Dutch government tries to get a law accepted now that greatly increases the legal
possibilities of our secret service to spy on anyone.
March 21 there is a referendum on the law, I expect that we will reject it, but the
politicians already stated that they will reject a negative referendum.
By accident, of course, today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian
interference in the USA elections, without being specific of course, 'classified', as a lot
in the USA.
The Trotskyites who became in America first anti-Stalinist Democrat Hawks and then
anti-Russian/Israel-first Republican Hawks have worked things so that they control foreign
affairs for both political parties. And they have an insatiable bloodlust. Like the godfather
of their movement, they are amoral with genocidal desires when it comes to peoples they
despise. They are the type of self-righteous bullies who aspire to rule the globe to
overreach and push and shove and threaten and sucker punch until the worst for the world
happens.
Most regular readers of Unz Review can agree with the above. What they also need to accept
is that those problems did not enter the US, or more generally the Anglosphere, with the
flight of mostly Jewish Trotskyites from the USSR and Europe. The same attitudes of
insufferable hubris that was basically amoral in regard to national and ethnic groups it most
despised marked the British Empire.
The British WASP Elite form certainly was more refined
and pleasant-seeming than the Jewish Neocon form, and other groups of people within that
world usually proved able to bring the most crazed WASP Elite monsters back from the edge of
the cliff. But they existed, and they caused needless trouble around the globe.
It is the mix of the two that makes the American hawkish anti-Russian, Israel-first
foreign policy insane enough to try to start a nuclear exchange.
Anon from TN
You may be right, but we can't do anything about it now: much hyped democracy is a pure ruse
(look at presumably two party system in the US: Republicrats always win). I just hope that
the sense of self-preservation in those degenerate elites is stronger than their lies that
they apparently believe themselves (even mice are smart enough for that). If not, then those
morons along with innocent bystanders (99.9% of world population) would be dead. Look on the
bright side: rodents and insects would be happy to inherit the Earth.
Unpopular jerk-boy opinion incoming. I honestly think the Hawaii response is pretty typical
but shameful. I like the response of the guy who just tweets, 'OK, if I die goodbye, I'm
golfing anyway' and turns his stupid phone off.
Good to see you posting. I hear they are muling Ophrah. Really good choice for next
president. Woman, black, fat and wealthy. Not gay or transvestite though but that's coming
next. What makes me wonder how this sort of imbeciles gets elected without collapsing the
state. I think it is moving slowly in this direction but there was enough to have just 2 morons in top positions and
look -- no
more USSR. Talk about "Checks and balances."
Makes me wonder what after Putin. I do it like him that much
but he still intelligent, cool and calculating man that is not doing stupid things but
neither genius.
Regarding Americans, unfortunately they never felt real pain. Like a kid who does not know that fire is dangerous. I
think financial collapse gonna be trouble
sooner or later with them. The best thing Russia and China can do is to undermine us dollar
status and the whole financial system which was built by uncle Sam for uncle Sam benefit.
Anon from TN
You are right: Dutch government has already thrown away negative results of the referendum on
EU association with Ukraine. What's more, it betrayed its own citizens by still pretending to
investigate the crash of MH-17, even though everyone with a brain knows that Ukrainian puppet
government is to blame (international airlines made this conclusion long time ago: they fly
over Russia, but avoid Ukraine, flying around it, just like they fly around North Korea).
I
am tempted to say that you guys elected this scum, but then you'd say that I elected Trump,
which I didn't (anyway, what choice did we have: corrupt to the core mad witch would have
been even worse).
today our secret service made public that they spied on Russian interference in the USA
elections
Spying is like a recursive algorithm. Next Russia will announce that they ' spied on
the Dutch spies who were spying on them '. Maybe we can skip the ' motivations ':
they are all spying on each other, all the time, it is their job description.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to us how is ' interference ' or '
meddling ' different from having an opinion about an election. And we all know that
Americans (or Dutch) have never, ever, expressed any opinions about other countries'
elections. Right. My democracy promotion is your meddling.
It is bad when you kill my cow. It is very good when I kill your cow. Monkey reasoning
level?
"... Under Mueller's leadership, the FBI tried to discredit the story, publicly countering that agents found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 2001 terrorist plot. The reality is that the FBI's own files contained several reports that said the opposite, according to the Ft. Lauderdale-based news group's ongoing investigation . Files obtained by reporters in the course of their lengthy probe reveal that federal agents found "many connections" between the family and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001." The FBI was forced to release the once-secret reports because the news group sued in federal court when the information wasn't provided under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). ..."
"... "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," ..."
"... Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on May 20 - just four days after Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of Information trial in an attempt to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11 attacks. During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110 BILLION weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be considered when looking at why Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29. ..."
"... Now, Americans are told we must believe the outcome of these "investigations" into Russian interference as the man behind them has been exposed as complicit in covering for the people responsible for the deadliest terror attack ever carried out on American soil ..."
Further deteriorating the propaganda surrounding the government's probe into alleged
interference by Russia in the 2016 election, recently discovered court documents have just
revealed that the person leading the investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, was
complicit in covering up Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11. Not only did Mueller cover for the
Florida Saudi family but, according to the documents, he released intentionally deceptive
statements to muddy the official investigation.
The new report, released by
Florida Bulldog is nothing short of bombshell.
According to the CIA's database, 15
of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and when they first arrived in the United
States, nine of them arrived in Florida.
As TFTP previously reported, Florida Bulldog, a team of investigative journalists that has
spent years probing the connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi Arabia, sued the
FBI in 2012 for details on the ties between the hijackers and a rich Saudi family that
mysteriously left all of their belongings and abandoned their luxury home in Sarasota, Florida,
just two weeks before the attacks. The lawsuit led to the release of materials from a 2002 FBI
report, which found "many connections" between the Saudi family and "individuals associated
with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001."
The idea that a federal judge would go from supporting a group of investigative journalists
and pushing for transparency, to supporting the FBI and insisting that protecting the location
of a security camera was worth covering up the funding of the 9/11 attacks, may seem bizarre -
but it is a common practice under all administrations.
Under Mueller's leadership, the FBI tried to discredit the story, publicly countering
that agents found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 2001 terrorist
plot. The reality is that the FBI's own files contained several reports that said the
opposite, according to the Ft. Lauderdale-based news group's ongoing investigation . Files
obtained by reporters in the course of their lengthy probe reveal that federal agents found
"many connections" between the family and "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks
on 9/11/2001." The FBI was forced to release the once-secret reports because the news group
sued in federal court when the information wasn't provided under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA).
The disingenuous statements were issued by FBI officials in Miami and Tampa in a desperate
effort to disparage a 2011 story exposing the agency's covert investigation of the Sarasota
Saudis as well as reporting that it had been concealed from Congress. Mueller is referenced
in a document index that was ordered by a federal judge to be created in late November 2017.
The south Florida judge, William J. Zloch, a Ronald Reagan appointee, asked the FBI to
explain where it had discovered dozens of pages of documents in the public-records case filed
six years ago. The index reference to then-FBI Director Mueller appears in an item involving
an agency white paper written a week after the publication of a news story about the abrupt
departure of Saudis Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hijji from their Sarasota area home about two
weeks before 9/11. The couple left behind their cars, clothes, furniture, jewelry and other
personal items. "It was created to brief the FBI Director concerning the FBI's investigation
of 4224 Escondito Circle," the al-Hijjis' address, the index says.
Though the recently filed court documents reveal Mueller received a briefing about the
Sarasota Saudi investigation, the FBI continued to publicly deny it existed and it appears
that the lies were approved by Mueller. Not surprisingly, he didn't respond to questions
about this new discovery emailed to his office by the news organization that uncovered it.
Though the mainstream media has neglected to report this relevant development, it's difficult
to ignore that it chips away at Mueller's credibility as special counsel to investigate if
Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election. Even before the Saudi coverup documents
were exposed by nonprofit journalists, Mueller's credentials were questionable to head any
probe. Back in May Judicial Watch reminded of Mueller's
misguided handiwork and collaboration with radical Islamist organizations as FBI
director.
What's more, under Mueller's leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism
material deemed "offensive" to Muslims in an attempt to grovel and give in to multiple radical
Islamist groups.
As The Free Thought Project has
reported , Trump is also complicit in covering for the Saudis, as he went from calling for
holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its involvement in 9/11, to ignoring the idea that the
country could have had any involvement at all.
After months on the campaign trail, in which he pledged that if he was elected, Americans
would "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," Trump made Saudi
Arabia the first foreign nation he visited as president of the U.S.
Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on
May 20 - just four days after Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of
Information trial in an attempt to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11
attacks. During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110
BILLION weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be
considered when looking at why Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29.
Now, Americans are told we must believe the outcome of these "investigations" into
Russian interference as the man behind them has been exposed as complicit in covering for the
people responsible for the deadliest terror attack ever carried out on American soil .
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence
operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the
world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent
journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world.
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project.
"... Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate. ..."
"... If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies. ..."
"... This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state. ..."
"... When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future. It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals. ..."
"... In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States ..."
"... A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state. ..."
The Republicans' delay in releasing the summary of the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation is giving weight
to the presstitutes' claim that the report is not being released, because it is a hack attempt at a Trump cover-up that is not believable.
Only Republicans are stupid enough to put themselves in such a situation.
Readers ask me why the summary memo is not released if it is real. There must be some reasons besides the stupidity of Republicans.
Yes, that is so. Among the many reasons that might be blocking release are:
1) Republicans are very national security conscious. They don't want to provide precedents for the release of classified information.
2) Many Republican congressional districts host installations of the military/security complex. Upsetting a large employer
and directing campaign financing to a challenger is a big consideration.
3) The George W. Bush/Dick Cheney regime was a neoconservative regime. One consequence is that Republicans are influenced by
neoconservatives who stress the alleged "Russian threat."
4) The Israel Lobby can unseat any member of the House and Senate. The Israel Lobby is allied with the neoconservatives and
this alliance intends to keep the US militarily active against perceived threats to Israel's hegemony in the Middle East and against
Russia, which supports Syria and Iran, countries perceived as threats by Israel.
5) Many Republicans are themselves invested in false Russiagate allegations against Trump and would like to replace him with
Pence. Other Republicans believe that Trump is undermining Washington's expensively-purchased foreign alliances and, thereby,
undermining US power.
Many Americans do not seem to understand what is at stake. What America is confronted with is a coup conspiracy organized by top
officials of the Obama Justice Department, FBI, CIA, the Hillary DNC, and the presstitute media to overturn the result of a democratic
election and remove the president from office. The basis of the coup is a fake dossier purchased for money that consists of unsupported
allegations against Trump and that was used to obtain warrants from the FISA count to spy on Trump and various associates hoping
to find something that can be used against Trump. Regardless, the false allegations could be fed to the CIA's media assets and used
to create a scandal requiring a special prosecutor to investigate Russiagate.
Once the investigation was under way, the presstitutes kept the scandal alive hoping to convince enough Americans that Trump must
have done something -- "where there is smoke, there is fire" -- that justifies his removal. It worked against Richard Nixon, but
not against Ronald Reagan, and Trump is no Reagan. If the highest reaches of the police state agencies can get away with an attempted
or successful coup against the president of the United States, then that is the complete end of democracy and all accountability
in government. The House, Senate, and judiciary will become as powerless as the Roman senate under the caesars. We will live under
a dictatorship ruled by police state agencies.
Many Americans say they don't need the House Intelligence Report, because they don't believe the Russiagate BS in the first place.
They miss the point. They need the report, because those responsible for this attempt at a coup must be identified, charged, and
prosecuted for their act of high treason.
This is not minor stuff. This goes to the heart of whether any form of liberty will exist. We all know that the ability of the
people to hold government accountable is not assured by democracy. However, there is no prospect of holding government accountable
if it is a police state, a road that the US has been going down for some time. The audacious coup attempt against President Trump
is our opportunity to stop the momentum to a police state.
Despite my recent postings, many people do not understand that the somewhat redacted FISA court document that has been declassified
and released and explained
by myself, William Binney, and former US Attorney Joe di Genova contains admissions by the FBI and DOJ that they improperly spied
and obtained warrants from the court under false pretenses. In other words, we have it on the authority of the FISA court itself
that the FBI and DOJ have admitted to the court their transgressions. When Department of Justice (sic) congressional liaison Stephen
Boyd says the DOJ is "unaware of any wrongdoing," he is lying through his teeth. The DOJ has already confessed its wrongdoing to
the FISA court.
(See
Lendman
on Boyd's claim that releasing the memo would harm national security and ongoing investigations. This is always the claim made when
government has to cover up its crimes. )
When Admiral Rodgers, director of the National Security Agency, discovered that the FBI and DOJ were misusing the spy system for
partisan political reasons, he let it be known that he was going to inform the FISA court. This caused the FBI and DOJ to rush to
the court in advance and confess to "mistakes" and to promise to tighten up procedures so as not to make mistakes in the future.
It is these "mistakes" and corrections that the FISA court document reveals.
In other words, the information already exists in the pubic domain that proves that Russiagate was a conspiracy organized for
the purpose of bringing down the elected president of the United States.
A case can be made that it would be just as well if the coup succeeds as it would bring an end to Washington's cover as the government
of a great democracy with liberty and justice for all. Most other governments, and one would hope certainly the Russian and Chinese
governments, would see the coup as America's final transition into a police state and give up their utopian ideas of reaching accommodation
with Washington. The constraints on Washington's ability to bully the world would be greatly strengthened by the universal perception
that the government of the United States had devolved into a police state.
"... I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government. Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial gain. ..."
"... Mueller's investigation has, according to this article, accidentally turned up something that should put Mueller in prison: https://www.sott.net/article/375184-Muellers-investigation-accidentally-exposes-FBI-cover-up-of-Saudi-role-in-9-11 ..."
I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there
was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government.
Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on
something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial
gain. Also outreach by Kushner to Russian money men and bankers for his 1 billion in
debt.
Mueller has a better chance of getting Trump on obstruction of justice and maybe lying to
the FBI because Trump, in the coming trump- Mueller interview, doesn't know what Mueller may
already know from his interviews with others so if he spins and lies he's toast.
I don't care about Trump being impeached as much as I care about removing Kushner. Kushner
is dirtier than pig shit and using his position to trade influence for money for the Kushners
in every foreign contact he makes.
Trumps relationship with Kushner is beyond weird, really, really weird .something ties
them together and I would bet money that's its being party to money laundering thru their
real estate deals and loans. Trump cant be the genius he claims to be, and claims Jared is.
and they not know all the money flowing to them from Russian oligarchs and other known money
movers isn't dirty as hell.
If Trump was the stable genius he says he is, he would have seen to it that Kushner would
never have married his daughter. If he is even a little smart, he would give Kushner the boot
now, though it's probably too late to avoid the consequences of his appointment of
Kushner.
Dimwit that I am, my conclusion is that Trump isn't a genius after all.
As The Free Thought Project has reported, Trump is also complicit in covering for the
Saudis, as he went from calling for holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its involvement in
9/11, to ignoring the idea that the country could have had any involvement at all.
After months on the campaign trail, in which he pledged that if he was elected,
Americans would "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," Trump made Saudi
Arabia the first foreign nation he visited as president of the U.S.
Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on May 20 – just four days after
Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of Information trial in an attempt
to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11 attacks.
During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110 BILLION weapons deal with Saudi
Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be considered when looking at why
Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29.
"... It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an abomination to our constitution and the rule of law . ..."
The Fox News anchor also notes that former FBI Director James Comey may be in hot water over
leaking a memo he says he wrote containing his concerns over President Trump pressuring him to
go easy on former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn.
Also brand new tonight we have new revelations about one of the lawyers that is now
representing disgraced former FBI director, soon to be probably investigated, national
embarrassment James Comey. According to Buzzfeed, one of Comey's attorneys turns out as his
Columbia law professor buddy - the guy he leaked the memo to to the New York Times because he
wanted a special counsel appointed, which turned out to be "oh, Comey's other BFF Robert
Mueller" You can't make this up in a spy novel!
It's one giant incestuous circle of corruption. And we have even more proof; James Comey
testified that he gave his classified memos To Robert Mueller. And according to the reports,
special counsel interviewed Comey about his memos last year. By the way, they also
collaborated before he testified. Those memos contain classified information. They were
created on government computers, so Comey broke the law by removing them from the FBI, but
it's clear that Mueller didn't care about any of that.
Mueller's main focus is, has been, and continues to be carrying out a witch-hunt to unseat
a duly elected President of the Untied States - President Trump. It's ridiculous and it's an
abomination to our constitution and the rule of law .
To recap: right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an "
insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.
"Someone must have been telling tales about Josef K., for one morning, without having
done anything wrong, he was arrested."
Thus begins The Trial , Franz Kafka's 1925 work, in which Joseph K., ordinary bank employee,
is arrested at his home by mysterious agents and notified of legal proceedings against him.
He is not informed of the offense or crime of which he would allegedly be guilty – he
is only given to understand that he must have broken some unknown law – and is notified
of a summons to court a certain day, without knowing the exact time or place.
The protagonist is dragged into a completely absurd circle, wavering between inspectors,
bailiffs, lawyers and judges, and not knowing at any time for what or against whom he must
defend himself.
He is finally executed by three distinguished executioners who, with "odious politeness",
plant a butcher's knife in his heart.
Missing message might point to the gambit to appoint the Special Prosecutor Mueller
Notable quotes:
"... 18. 13 December 2016 , Christopher Steele prepares, on his own, the 17th report in the dossier and sends it to Senator McCain via David Kramer. ..."
"... This information subsequently was used by FBI Director Comey, with the full knowledge of Strzok and Page, to obtain permission from a FISA court to "eavesdrop"/wiretap Donald Trump. The missing texts are likely to tell a story of FBI corruption and meddling that, if made public, will end the careers of several FBI agents and DOJ personnel. Stay tuned. ..."
"... These text messages are also critical evidence around the appointment of Mueller as special counsel which happened in May 2017. There is a back story there that these "missing" text messages would shed light on. Note that both Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were senior members of Mueller's staff until some of their text messages were released by DOJ IG Horowitz. Strzok was the person that interviewed Flynn in the White House and set him up for the perjury charge. ..."
"... The current batch of released text messages show that Bill Priestap, head of CI at the FBI removed the reference that Hillary emailed Obama from her unsecure server. Obama had previously denied that. ..."
"... There is much more evidence piling up as the Congressional committees continue their investigation. Nunes already knows a lot and his summary memo will likely be released soon to the public. Additionally, many of these people at the FBI & DOJ including Strzok, Page, Priestap, Baker, etc will be testifying under oath to Congress soon as Rosenstein has already agreed to that. Admiral Rogers will also likely provide testimony after he retires from the NSA in couple months. ..."
"... IMO, the critical piece of evidence is the now declassified FISC ruling. Nunes has seen the unredacted version ..."
"... The problem is that russiagate is an article of faith for its adherents. This can be seen by the frequency with which the argument from ignorance is invoked: "Mueller hasn't found anything but that just means he needs more time! In the meantime, we will assume that the most lurid allegations are true!" ..."
"... This also can be seen by the amount of fake news published over russiagate. If the "evidence" were so "overwhelming", why has the MSM walked back so many "bombshell revelations"? Why use lies if the truth is sufficient? ..."
"... Even Peter Strzok didn't believe there was any collusion between Trump and Russia, after all he and others in the "secret society" at the FBI, DOJ and the IC did to build the narrative of collusion. ..."
"... So the FBI had mis-configuration issues with their smart phones - must be the Russians \s. Would another three letter agency not be able to provide a copy of the texts from their records? ..."
"... In my opinion, we are in a very dangerous space here. I would put Strozk and Page in protective custody right now. To me, the lovers texts indicate that the Intelligence community succumbed to "Trump derangement phenomenon" like most of the Liberal population and the mainstream media. They did not see a Trump win coming and were caught flat footed. ..."
"... Lets be clear, what started as a "light hearted" bit of electoral character assassination - the Russian collusion meme, golden showers and all, took on a life of its own after Trump won. Hilary Clinton grabbed it like a life preserver as an excuse for her electoral failure. The FBI and their DOJ colleagues suddenly found that their lighthearted jape was being investigated and that Trump and the saner members of Congress were not amused and now it appears to me that wholesale restructure of DOJ, the FBI and goodness knows what else is likely. To put that another way, if Trump had lost the election, would the Russian dossier etc. still be an issue? No. ..."
"... My guess is that the IC wishes it had never seen that dossier, let alone awarded it a shred of credibility, let alone used it as a pretext for FISA based action. Trump is now going to after the IC community that did this and very probably going to start a restructure as a result. The FBI/DOJ "secret society" is at best petrified that they have been found out and will lose their careers. At worst the IC may believe its existence in its current form is threatened and is taking action to protect its power. ..."
"... When you are part of the establishment, you don't necessarily have to be very good. Mistakes are overlooked, errors in judgment forgiven. n.b. HRC and her email fiasco. If she were a normie, she'd be in a SuperMax ..."
"... The picture says it better than the long explanation. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUPK2BPU8AANkCW.jpg ..."
"... "Mueller is inviting Trump for a little chat." Trump has had and still has the legal and constitutional power to remove Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, Flynn, Mueller, the present FBI chief, Strzok, etc. In the case of the civil servants he might have to put them, each and every one, in an empty room with a desk and a telephone but he could get rid of all of them. Obstruction of justice as a charge in some forum? The lawyers will tell you that such a charge can only be proven if intent to obstruct in the context of his legal power can by proven to exist. How do you think that would be established? Do you think that he has written something that would establish it? Do you think that one of his associates, Flynn maybe, would rat him out on this? Or do you think that Mueller will trick or provoke him into incriminating himself? Collusion with Russia? Really? are your friends still pushing that? pl ..."
"... As I reviewed the writings of others who were following the story closely and developed the time line for my benefit, it became evident to me that the declassified FISC ruling is a crucial piece of evidence. This is the first document in the public domain that shows that there were systematic violations of FISA 702 in the period leading up to March 2016. A FISA 702 violation can only happen if there were no national security requirements to the queries. This FISC ruling would not have happened if Admiral Rogers didn't first order a compliance review and then go to FISC to report these violations. ..."
"... Nunes and the other Gangof8 have read the unredacted FISC ruling, which means they know who ran the queries and which subcontractors were provided unauthorized access to the data so obtained. They also now have read the FISA application that was granted in October 2016 and know what part the Steele dossier played in that application. Nunes has also read the PDBs leading up to the election, and as he has stated publicly there was no Russia related information but there was information from the incidental collection on American citizens. ..."
"... "When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World is a classic work of social psychology by [Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter] which studied a small UFO [cult] in Chicago ... and its coping mechanisms after the [destruction of the world] did not occur. Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance can account for the psychological consequences of disconfirmed expectations. One of the first published cases of dissonance was reported in this book." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails ..."
"... Apparently, the doggy dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to bug the President-Elect and Peter Strzok purposefully setup a FBI perjury trap to remove the President's National Security Advisor. If this is documented, it is proof that there is an ongoing intelligence community/media counter coup against Donald Trump. This can't be hidden. There can only be one response; restoration of the rule of law and jail time for high-level criminals. If not, the Constitution is dead. The problem is that Trump Derangement Syndrome blinds believers. They can't see that the coup attempt is one of the knives stabbed in the back of democracy. ..."
"... Sid - Indeed we can "cognitive dissonance" in many fields Russiagate, so called "Russian Threat" to Western Democracy's, with Brexit (on both sides of the argument) and of course Syria. ..."
"... I believe is was Adam Schiff who said the memo should not be released publicly as, "the American people just wouldn't understand it". I guess he's just a lot smarter than most of us, ha ha ha. ..."
"... The nation is as divided as I've ever seen it, concerning this question. I continue to believe that truth exists, and truth is not an existential question; but for many of our fellows this concern seems lost. ..."
"... More support for this view involves the FBI's use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party -- likely without telling the court of the dossier's political link. ..."
"... "intelligence professionals hostile to the USA". The Swamp. Got that. ..."
"... The devious villains who have been running this attempt to remove Trump and to neutralize the complaints of the "deplorables" are using the existing legal and media structure to try to do it. In fact, one of the elements of 18 U.S. Code 2384 is that the conspiracy to do one of the five alternative elements has to be done "contrary to the authority thereof [of the U.S. government]". When the backstabbing Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, wrote the directive establishing the "special counsel" Robert Mueller, he created a sub-office that has the authority of the U.S. government. ..."
"... Two points: my nose tells me that there is at least a 50/50 chance that that there were communications between Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey relating to Mueller's appointment before Comey leaked the triggering material to the NYT by washing it through his friend, the law professor at Columbia; point 2 - there is almost no chance whatever, given the alleged overseas sourcing cited in the Steele materials, that there isn't heavy CIA involvement, inclusive of the very political Brennan, in assessing those materials for use. The FBI has no investigative capabilities in Russia and it would have been irresponsible for the FBI to move with that information without at least consulting with the Agency for corroborative support. ..."
"... We are past the point where Christopher Wray should be requesting an independent investigation into this mess, whether it comes from the USAtty's Office in DC or another Special Counsel that would have the authority to pre empt Mueller - the FBI is hemorrhaging Integrity. The only thing that will stem the flow is to get to the bottom of the mess and a post Watergate Style root and branch reform. ..."
"... "Comey leaked the triggering material to the NYT by washing it through his friend, the law professor at Columbia..." The "friend" is now claiming to be Comey's personal attorney. Thus he can claim attorney-client privilege and Comey can explain why he used the word "friend" rather than "my personal attorney" in his testimony before Congress. I can't image the members of the House are all too pleased with Slick Willy 2 Jimmy or the good professor. ..."
"... I recall Admiral Rogers' visit to Trump Tower during the transition period really chapped quite a few asses. If I remember correctly, Rogers was pilloried in the press afterwards--to include recommendations/claims by Brennan and Clapper he be fired. ..."
"... Admiral Rogers discovered FISA violations and unauthorized access to raw data. He ordered a compliance review at the NSA. The result of this review showed many violations. He went personally to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and reported these violations. This happened October 2016. A week after the election, he went to Trump Tower without informing DNI Clapper and informed Trump about the surveillance and probably the violations that were uncovered by the compliance review at the NSA. The next day Trump moved his whole transition team to Bedminster. ..."
The latest news about the FBI--e.g., they apparently lost 5 months of text messages between
star FBI au lovers, Strzok-Page texts, perhaps 50,000--points to incompetence or malfeasance
and coverup. I go with the latter.
The dates of the missing texts are the key tell--14 December 2016 thru 17 May 2017. Pay
particular attention to the 14 December date in light of what we now know about the Dossier
prepared/written by British spy Christopher Steele. Please reference my previous piece on the
Dossier timeline :
18.
13 December 2016 , Christopher Steele prepares, on his own, the 17th report in the dossier
and sends it to Senator McCain via David Kramer.
Here are the key highlights of that report:
2016/166--13 December 2016 -- US/RUSSIA: FURTHER DETAILS OF SECRET DIALOGUE BETWEEN TRUMP
CAMPAIGN TEAM, KREMLIN AND ASSOCIATED HACKERS IN PRAGUE
SOURCES: Blacked out/ Not Identified
TRUMP's representative COHEN accompanied to Prague in August/September 2016 by 3 colleagues
for secret discussions with Kremlin representat ives and associated operators/hackers
Agenda included how to process deniable cash payments to operatives; contingency plans for
covering up operations; and action in event of a CLINTON election victory
Some further details of Russian representatives/ operatives involved; Romanian hackers
employed; and use of Bulgaria as bolt hole to "lie low"
Anti-CLINTON hackers and other operatives paid by both TRUMP team and Kremlin, but with
ultimate loyalty to Head of PA, IVANOV and his successor/s
This information subsequently was used by FBI Director Comey, with the full knowledge of
Strzok and Page, to obtain permission from a FISA court to "eavesdrop"/wiretap Donald Trump.
The missing texts are likely to tell a story of FBI corruption and meddling that, if made
public, will end the careers of several FBI agents and DOJ personnel. Stay tuned.
These text messages are also critical evidence around the appointment of Mueller as
special counsel which happened in May 2017. There is a back story there that these "missing"
text messages would shed light on. Note that both Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were senior
members of Mueller's staff until some of their text messages were released by DOJ IG
Horowitz. Strzok was the person that interviewed Flynn in the White House and set him up for
the perjury charge.
The current batch of released text messages show that Bill Priestap, head of CI at the FBI
removed the reference that Hillary emailed Obama from her unsecure server. Obama had
previously denied that.
There is much more evidence piling up as the Congressional committees continue their
investigation. Nunes already knows a lot and his summary memo will likely be released soon to
the public. Additionally, many of these people at the FBI & DOJ including Strzok, Page,
Priestap, Baker, etc will be testifying under oath to Congress soon as Rosenstein has already
agreed to that. Admiral Rogers will also likely provide testimony after he retires from the
NSA in couple months.
IMO, the critical piece of evidence is the now declassified FISC ruling. Nunes has seen
the unredacted version.
The problem is that russiagate is an article of faith for its adherents. This can be seen by the frequency with which the argument from ignorance is invoked:
"Mueller hasn't found anything but that just means he needs more time! In the meantime, we
will assume that the most lurid allegations are true!"
This also can be seen by the amount of fake news published over russiagate. If the
"evidence" were so "overwhelming", why has the MSM walked back so many "bombshell
revelations"? Why use lies if the truth is sufficient?
But the real point is that when people are confronted with incontrovertible proof that
their core beliefs, the beliefs that make up their self-image and tribal membership are
wrong, rather than change beliefs or change tribes to fit the facts, most people, most of the
time, will deny the facts in order to avoid changing. Rather than express gratefulness for
bringing the truth to light, people will attack the messenger, using words like "heretic",
"blasphemer" or even "Putin puppet".
This phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance", and it is most sharply seen in cult
members. However, there are entire religions and political movements based on this
principle.
For its partisans, russiagate and other conspiracy theories provide a prime example of
cognitive dissonance. Except that this is as a conspiracy theory for establishment types. MSM
birthergate.
I guess I always expect there to be Machiavellian palace intrigues and plots. So that doesn't
surprise me. It's bad, very bad, but not surprising to this cynical mind.
What really strikes me is the sheer sophomoric idiocy of these people all the way up and
down the chain. First, you have the democrats and the McCain cucks trying to undo the
democratic process and, basically, arranging a circular firing squad to do it. Could they not
imagine that the stupid collusion investigation might ultimately reveal their own unsavory
machinations and bring about their own demise?
Then you have these oh so respectable FBI/DOJ types - some of whom deal in counter
intelligence - cheating on their spouses and sending emails back and forth like hormone
addled teenagers. Moreover, their emails contain incriminating language re; the palace coup.
Haven't these intel "experts" ever heard of opsec?
What a shabby bunch of "experts" and "professionals" we have in DC. Very
disconcerting.
Even Peter Strzok didn't believe there was any collusion between Trump and Russia, after
all he and others in the "secret society" at the FBI, DOJ and the IC did to build the
narrative of collusion.
So the FBI had mis-configuration issues with their smart phones - must be the Russians \s.
Would another three letter agency not be able to provide a copy of the texts from their
records?
In my opinion, we are in a very dangerous space here. I would put Strozk and Page in
protective custody right now. To me, the lovers texts indicate that the Intelligence
community succumbed to "Trump derangement phenomenon" like most of the Liberal population and
the mainstream media. They did not see a Trump win coming and were caught flat footed.
Lets be clear, what started as a "light hearted" bit of electoral character assassination
- the Russian collusion meme, golden showers and all, took on a life of its own after Trump
won. Hilary Clinton grabbed it like a life preserver as an excuse for her electoral failure.
The FBI and their DOJ colleagues suddenly found that their lighthearted jape was being
investigated and that Trump and the saner members of Congress were not amused and now it
appears to me that wholesale restructure of DOJ, the FBI and goodness knows what else is
likely. To put that another way, if Trump had lost the election, would the Russian dossier
etc. still be an issue? No.
My guess is that the IC wishes it had never seen that dossier, let alone awarded it a
shred of credibility, let alone used it as a pretext for FISA based action. Trump is now
going to after the IC community that did this and very probably going to start a restructure
as a result. The FBI/DOJ "secret society" is at best petrified that they have been found out
and will lose their careers. At worst the IC may believe its existence in its current form is
threatened and is taking action to protect its power.
The alleged "loss" of five months of texts is to convenient to me to be explained by mere
incompetence. My sense is that IC interests are now galvanised in a rear guard action to
protect their power and that is why Strozk and Page need to be in custody, and on suicide
watch, under the protection of Congress, assuming trusted law enforcement or military forces
can be found.
Yup. I still have days where it is hard to get my head around the fact that I live on a
planet where the majority are either mentally dysfunctional or mentally ill. Logic and Reason
tempered by compassion is rare. There must be a few fine people holding things together out
there. Kudos to them.
"Even after the evidence "for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make
appropriate revisions in those beliefs," the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was
"particularly impressive," since two data points would never have been enough information to
generalize from."
This article is a good writeup on the science but What is sad and humerous in this article
is the last paragraph blaming Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon. The author is clueless to
her own participation in cognitive bias.
When you are part of the establishment, you don't necessarily have to be very good. Mistakes
are overlooked, errors in judgment forgiven.
n.b. HRC and her email fiasco. If she were a normie, she'd be in a SuperMax.
That alleged secret society may extend to the State Department. During Comey's investigation
into Hillary's private email server use, there were officials at the State Department who
allegedly tried in vain to release Hillary's emails all at once so that they could better
coordinate among themselves (i.e., get their stories straight). And the deputy secretary,
Patrick Kennedy, allegedly offered the investigating agents a quid pro quo bribe.
One revelation in the documents came from an interview with an unidentified person who
suggested that Freedom of Information Act requests related to Clinton went through a group
sometimes called "the Shadow Government."
"There was a powerful group of very high-ranking STATE officials that some referred
to as 'The 7th Floor Group' or 'The Shadow Government.' This group met every Wednesday
afternoon to discuss the FOIA process, Congressional records, and everything
CLINTON-related to FOIA/Congressional inquiries," the FBI's interview summary said.
That group, according to the summary, argued for a Clinton document release to be
conducted all at once "for coordination purposes" instead of on a rolling basis as would
normally be the case. But the "Shadow Government" did not get its way, and the agency in
charge decided for a rolling release, the FBI summary said.
Another claim from the documents is that one unidentified interviewee said
Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured the FBI to unclassify certain emails from
Clinton's private server that were previously deemed classified.
The interviewee said Kennedy contacted the FBI to ask for the change in classification
in "exchange for a 'quid pro quo.'"
A representative for the State Department categorically denied that claim.
To paraphrase the "Queen of Mean", Leona Helmsley, opsec is for the little people.
But hey, thank God that these inexpert and non-professional types were so incompetent in
their practice (or even understanding of) opsec; .
No quarter should be offered unless it is to obtain actionable information to be used
against other participants in this series of interlinked crimes. Some of these people gave an
oath to defend the Constitution, after all, and they blatantly went against their oaths to
advance their careers and the political fortunes of their own political party.
50,000 texts in 151 days? That's more than 300 a day. When the hell was the Chief of the
Counterespionage Section of the FBI doing his actual job rather than acting like a teenager
overwhelmed by hormones? Why the hell is he now in "human resources" when it quite apparent
that his professional judgement is compromised?
Alt-right activist Jack Posobiec claims that all FBI Galaxy S5 smart phones come preloaded
with the Samsung Knox Security Suite which automatically archives text messages, and that
this can't be disabled without FBI IT admin express action.
It's also suggested that if any of these people used syncing to their PCs or home PCs that
the messages could be found, as well anyone who synced with iMessage, an Apple platform.
The Strzok email explicitly claiming there is no "there there" on Trump collusion is
itself a real find. If one of the main architects of Russiagate doesn't think they can prove
it, then Mueller doesn't have much hope of doing so.
Trump and his family are the ones who need additional protection from an assasination
attempt. Is Air Force maintenance any better than the US Navy's? You might have read of a few
of their snafus. Maybe Melania staying home while the President goes to Davos is about
something other than disaffection with her husband from yet another recycled allegation of an
extramarital sexual tryst.
Thank you Publius Tacitus and blue peacock for keeping us abreast on this momentous
conspiracy at the highest levels of our government. It is clear that we don't have a republic
anymore. The question is how much sunshine will we get and if anyone is held to account and
most importantly will there be a top to bottom clean-up.
Incompetent plotting.
These self-important dolts have seen too many movies.
If Strzok is a "star" at the FBI, no wonder it took them and the CIA (another collection of
"rocket surgeons") 10 years to uncover that Chinese spy.
These people - through sheer ineptitude - are more dangerous to themselves than anyone
else.
You know how these "Inspector Clouseau's" will finally defeat the Chinese and Russian spy
services?
The Russians and Chinese will die laughing.
JJ,
I agree with the "no quarter" suggestion. These people are traitors, as you basically say, to
the Constitution they swore to uphold. The time is now to make examples of such people. The
public needs to understand that something very wrong did happen and they will understand that
if the punishment meets the crime. Otherwise, it's just more partisan political mudslinging
to their minds.
I think that sever punishment is what will happen. Jeff Sessions (and Trump) is now
approaching the point where he is unbound from the chains of potential - and likely -
allegations of obstruction of justice. He can now deal with Mueller and the rest of them. The
swamp will experience a major draining of unprecedented proportions. Some will be jailed.
Some will leave office for "personal reasons/more time with family/pursue other
opportunities". I can foresee Clinton being brought up on charges stemming from the
server/classified emails and god knows what else. Lynch will get wrapped up. Obama himself is
probably facing some risk here. McCain will use his brain cancer as an out, but he should go
down too. I think they will protect him somewhat though because of his war hero status and
because he's on the way out anyhow.
Trump now looks pretty smart and correct for canning Comey (who is facing a world of hurt
for lying to Congress and conspiracy in fixing the Clinton email investigation). The entire
democrat/leftist meme set is falling apart in a very ugly way across the entire spectrum;
from this un-democratic plot to preferring illegal aliens over actual citizens. I predict the
left will merely double down on stupid insanity. Nov 2018 is the Republicans' to lose.
It isn't just that people underestimate Trump. It's that those who oppose him are proving
to be utterly feeble minded, undisciplined fools. And they're in the wrong. A very bad
combination when people like Trey Gowdy are gunning for you.
In my feline experience, cognitive dissonance is as much a problem of the intelligent and
well educated as it is of the doltish and poorly educated.
Keep in mind that much of "knowledge work" these days consists not at getting at the
truth, but of using facts and inferences to support whatever it is that you or the person who
is paying you wants them to support.
A particularly egregious example is how the Tobacco Institute for decades engaged highly
credentialed scientists, specialists in their respective fields, to argue that first, that
there was no link between smoking and cancer, and then, to argue that such a link couldn't be
proven, and finally, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that such link was weaker than the
evidence made it seem.
IMO Trey Gowdy R-SC should be named Special Counsel for investigation of this massive
conspiracy involving DoJ,FBI,The Clinton Campaign/CIA, etc. He has been a state prosecutor
and a federal prosecutor. His district in upland South Carolina is so red that he would
certainly be replaced by another conservative Republican. I urge you all to press for his
appointment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trey_Gowdy
pl
Comey to teach course on ethical leadership for College of William & Mary
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/comey-to-teach-course-on-ethical-leadership-for-college-of-william-and-mary/2018/01/18/4ea7b2ca-fc8d-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html
"I am thrilled to have the chance to engage with William & Mary students about a vital
topic -- ethical leadership," Comey said in a statement. "Ethical leaders lead by seeing
above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting
values, most importantly the truth. Building and maintaining that kind of leadership, in both
the private sector and government, is the challenge of our time. There is no better place to
teach and learn about it than the W&M Washington Program."
---------------
From what I have read, it seems it is Nunes' doggedness that has uncovered the evidence
that we see now. His summary memo will be released soon despite the Democrats opposition.
That and the testimony of the key conspirators and the IG report as well as the obstruction
by the FBI & DOJ will increase the calls for a special counsel.
Let's see how all this plays out in the next few months. Trump is going to come out of
this much stronger as many voters see how he was screwed over by the Obama
administration.
What is it that you think happened at Benghazi? What I see is an Obama Administration
failure to harden US facilities at Benghazi followed up by an Obama Administration denial of
their failure. Far too many people seek perfection of outcome in an imperfect world. pl
The dog ate my homework much? There're no missing text messages. The NSA has a copy of
everything that crosses the towers and servers of U.S. telecommunications companies.
The Trump team can retrieve the text messages between the FBI love birds either via
appointing a special counsel or administrative subpoenas.
Exactly. It's certainly ironic that Strzok, a lead FBI investigator of Hillary's stupid use
of official email over a private server, would continue to send stupid personal texts over an
official line, having learned nothing. Although Hillary's problem was arguably worse for
endangering national security.
Is he so cheap that he couldn't afford to use a personal phone to text his mistress (to
say nothing of stupid)? All of the cheating dogs I know use more than one phone for such
purposes.
I expect the FBI will be able to easily recover the text messages, NSA won't be necessary.
From what we've seen so far, imo, all it will amount to are more strangled cries of lawyers
in love.
However, for anyone who's already tooth-deep in believing the conspiracy narrative against
Trump, this is read meat. Big in the news cycle, on the same day we hear that Mueller is
inviting Trump for a little chat. The FBI's bureaucrats don't seem too smart but the
Republican congress is playing this thing pretty well. It's a good song, play it on
repeat.
agree yes
+ an over exuberant USA ambassador who thought his personal charisma was a defense against
armed attack
+ a secret CIA operation nearby that was gathering Kadafi arms for shipment to overthrow
Syrian government
"Mueller is inviting Trump for a little chat." Trump has had and still has the legal and
constitutional power to remove Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, Flynn, Mueller, the present FBI
chief, Strzok, etc. In the case of the civil servants he might have to put them, each and
every one, in an empty room with a desk and a telephone but he could get rid of all of them.
Obstruction of justice as a charge in some forum? The lawyers will tell you that such a
charge can only be proven if intent to obstruct in the context of his legal power can by
proven to exist. How do you think that would be established? Do you think that he has written
something that would establish it? Do you think that one of his associates, Flynn maybe,
would rat him out on this? Or do you think that Mueller will trick or provoke him into
incriminating himself? Collusion with Russia? Really? are your friends still pushing that?
pl
More - Maybe Mueller can accuse Trump of being an undetected sex criminal? Perhaps a
failure to register under FARA (if the statute hasn't run), How about a money launderer?
Adulterer with some whore? What? pl
I dunno, honestly, how they intend to prove it. So far, they've got some stuff that we know
about and don't know about, and I don't want to pretend I know the truth. I think prudence
requires that I don't judge Trump as innocent before there's enough substance -- not simply
innuendo or implication -- for me to believe he's not guilty. This is rather important
crucible we're in right now; hot heads and trigger fingers are not what what we should be
promoting.
Sundance has two interesting posts on how the Russiagate "co-conspirators" are handling these
weekly revelations on the Obama administration conspiracy.
One is about the WaPo, writing a story based on "information from a senior official". You
know one of those, wherein allegedly McCabe was asked by Trump in the White House if he voted
for him. This same McCabe, Comey's deputy, whose wife received a slug of cash from Terry
McAuliffe, Clinton consigliere. McCabe is the guy in whose office the FBI lovers who couldn't
text each other enough, discussed the "insurance policy". McCabe is being allowed to hang on
at the FBI on the taxpayer dime until March so that he can collect his pension.
This story got me thinking what will the WaPo, NY Times, CNN, NBC, and the rest of the
corporate media, who have invested so much selling the Russiagate narrative do, when it gets
blown out of the water with the unraveling of the conspiracy at the highest levels of the
Obama administration? What are they gonna do to keep their NeverTrumper vendetta going? They
lost big time the first round, when despite their massive efforts, Trump won the election.
Then they doubled down with Russiagate, which could actually strengthen Trump not weaken him
when the truth comes out as is happening right now.
The next one is about the Democrat leadership. This one is actually hilarious. Dianne
Feinstein and Adam Schiff, the ranking members on the Senate & House Intelligence
committees, writing Jack Dorsey & Mark Zuckerberg to investigate the Russian collusion in
the trending of #ReleaseTheMemo.
Fred, you feel it's still possible?
Even if I let him work 7 days a week, and 10 hours it feels beyond the power of hormones,
I included Dec 14 & May 17 which makes 155 days:
50,000 : 155 = 322.58064...: 10 = 32.2580 Alternatively I assume he does work neither on Saturday, Sunday or on Holidays. Then we
get 107 days. We still let him work 10 hours: 50,000 : 467.2897 : 10 = 46,72 In the first scenario he has at least 2 second to mail or respond 30 times per
hour.
All the credit goes to Publius Tacitus! He spurred my interest on this story.
As I reviewed the writings of others who were following the story closely and developed
the time line for my benefit, it became evident to me that the declassified FISC ruling is a
crucial piece of evidence. This is the first document in the public domain that shows that
there were systematic violations of FISA 702 in the period leading up to March 2016. A FISA
702 violation can only happen if there were no national security requirements to the queries.
This FISC ruling would not have happened if Admiral Rogers didn't first order a compliance
review and then go to FISC to report these violations.
Nunes and the other Gangof8 have read the unredacted FISC ruling, which means they know
who ran the queries and which subcontractors were provided unauthorized access to the data so
obtained. They also now have read the FISA application that was granted in October 2016 and
know what part the Steele dossier played in that application. Nunes has also read the PDBs
leading up to the election, and as he has stated publicly there was no Russia related
information but there was information from the incidental collection on American
citizens.
Nunes and Congressional investigators I believe have a pretty good understanding of the
conspiracy and who the key players were. They are in the process of collecting additional
evidence and putting the puzzle together, while at the same time preparing what they have
uncovered in a form that does not compromise "sources & methods" for release to the
public. The first step in this will be the declassification and release of the summary memo
prepared by Nunes.
The Democrat strategy it seems is fourfold. a)Claim that the Congressional investigation
and release of information to the public undermines Mueller. b) Compromises national security
c) Is partisan and does not reflect the reality of the underlying evidence d) Keep focusing
on Russians behind every corner.
Jack, you noted in the earlier thread about evidence flow. That is an important
observation. The evidence flow right now is clearly on the side of proving the conspiracy.
Russiagate proponents better start gaining some serious evidence flow soon, or they will be
swept by the avalanche of evidence around the conspiracy, that is going to be coming out over
the next few months.
"When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted
the Destruction of the World is a classic work of social psychology by [Festinger, Riecken,
and Schachter] which studied a small UFO [cult] in Chicago ... and its coping mechanisms
after the [destruction of the world] did not occur. Festinger's theory of cognitive
dissonance can account for the psychological consequences of disconfirmed expectations. One
of the first published cases of dissonance was reported in this book."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
The most interesting part of the book (to me) is that the more evidence mounts that their
cult is built on a lie - the more the adherents come to believe in it!
What a fine American you are! You don't believe that Trump is innocent unless it is proven
to you? No presumption of innocence for you! Oh no! What's the matter? Would your limousine
liberal friends in Old Town scorn you if you were not "on board?" Your objection to the
behavior of these scoundrels in the Deep State is that they are inept and their pretentious
little plot is coming apart. pl
Please keep us up to date. Apparently, the doggy dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to bug the President-Elect
and Peter Strzok purposefully setup a FBI perjury trap to remove the President's National
Security Advisor. If this is documented, it is proof that there is an ongoing intelligence
community/media counter coup against Donald Trump. This can't be hidden. There can only be
one response; restoration of the rule of law and jail time for high-level criminals. If not,
the Constitution is dead. The problem is that Trump Derangement Syndrome blinds believers.
They can't see that the coup attempt is one of the knives stabbed in the back of
democracy.
Sid - Indeed we can "cognitive dissonance" in many fields Russiagate, so called "Russian
Threat" to Western Democracy's, with Brexit (on both sides of the argument) and of course
Syria.
Yes, LE, some times my mind blocks more other times less. Can you help me out or initiate me?
Tell me how and were the number surfaced for instance? Or otherwise assist one of the feeble
minded in the SST community?
Another offer:
Ok, they were lovers and the mail went backward and forward potentially 24 hours a day for
155 days, as first calculation above including Saturday, Sunday and Holidays. We give both
equal chances as sender and recipient and both have 24 hours a day to do the job:
50.000 : 155 = 322.58064 : 2 = 161,29
Both the gallant and the lady still have to send each other 161 mails every single day.
Well yes, spread over 24 hours it's strictly only 6-7 mails per hour. It's getting
better.
I believe is was Adam Schiff who said the memo should not be released publicly as, "the
American people just wouldn't understand it". I guess he's just a lot smarter than most of
us, ha ha ha.
I will humbly suggest that it is possible for two truths in this case to co-exist: (1) the
deep state was so concerned about trump that it conspired to violate due process; and (2)
there actually was, and is, cause for concern.
I'm sure your cognitive abilites are not impacted by the disruption of reading,
considering and responding to this volume of text messages. "I assume he does work neither on
Saturday, Sunday or on Holidays." What's the working schedule for intellegence professionals
hostile to the USA? Do they only work 9-5 or do they have the French 36 hour work week with
extended holidays?
Bottom line -- is anybody going to jail? The FBI thinks they are above the law, at least
that's the way they behave, and have behaved in the past on far too many occasions. Will
Sessions and Trump make the FBI crooks do a frog-march straight to lock-up?
This is just one more reason IMO why the FBI needs to be dismantled, as our nation doesn't
need a national 'political' policia.
If criminal investigations spanning state lines are required, then let there be
departmental cooperation between the various state law enforcement agencies. State law
enforcement working togeather accomplish more than most federal agencies sticking their
fingers in the pie.
Let's do away with the FBI, it serves no useful purpose.
Honorable Colonel, the cause(s) for concern is/are writ large in the media, for well over a
year. Problem is, which media do you trust. The nation is as divided as I've ever seen it,
concerning this question. I continue to believe that truth exists, and truth is not an
existential question; but for many of our fellows this concern seems lost. With respect to
what Mueller is doing, I imagine a short list of issues include money laundering, financial
fraud, tax evasion, international and domestic deals with "the mob," campaign finance
violations, and of course "collusion" with a foreign power to undermine the election, and
obstruction of justice vis a vis the Comey firing. It will be interesting to read "the facts"
with respect to the criminal charges, if or when Mueller is able to put the relevant facts on
the table.
DC: let's say that were true. So is your position that due process is de facto optional, as
as law enforcement itself decides that the matter is important?
More importantly, once you give the unelected and unaccountable (even Congress doesn't
know what their real budgets are) Deep State a veto over election results they don't like,
you are no longer living in a Republic, but in something else.
But why worry? Surely history shows that the Praetorian Guard ever always only acted
selflessly and in the best and highest interests of Rome and its citizens, right?
"...each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the
top ranks of America's premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among
agents of a "secret society" and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both
of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton
skate free in the classified email probe.
If either one is true -- and I believe both probably are -- it would mean FBI leaders
betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.
More support for this view involves the FBI's use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was
paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain
that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning
it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on
the candidate of the other party -- likely without telling the court of the dossier's
political link.
Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama's
administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign."
Personally, I question the last paragraph. I suspect that it was either other members of
Team R And/or the Clinton campaign that provided the dossier to the FBI.
IIRC, the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide, but only after the beaming up did not proceed
as originally scheduled. The Jim Jones mass suicide provides another instructive example.
Because the point of Benghazi appears to have been the CIA gathering arms to ship off to the
Moderate Jihadi Headchopper Unicorn Army v.20 or somesuch, I don't think Gowdy or other
Congressional Republicans would be allowed to get to the bottom of things, even if they
tries.
What will happen if Mueller finds that President Trump colluded with the Russians and/or
obstructed justice, and the HPSCI finds the FBI, DOJ, etc. guilty of crimes?
You already know without evidence that the Page - Sztrok missing text messages are a
nothingburger, just "lawyers in love" (yuck!) but you also know without evidence that Trump
must be guilty.
This is like legal procedure as invented by the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.
Sentence, then verdict, then trial.
" ... money laundering, financial fraud, tax evasion, international and domestic deals
with "the mob," campaign finance violations, and of course "collusion" with a foreign power
to undermine the election, and obstruction of justice vis a vis the Comey firing. It will be
interesting to read "the facts" with respect to the criminal charges" How much of that menu
of the MSM and Democratic party meme portfolio constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors"
and/or could be used in an impeachment and trial? pl
Mark,
Are you being serious? There is no such CRIME as COLLUSION. What the hell does that even
mean? Did Trump take money from the Russian Government to fund his campaign? NO. Did Trump
seek out Russian input to his campaign? NO. The entire meme painting Trump as a stooge of
Putin was nothing more than a sophisticated information operation that had the help of the
FBI and the CIA in trying to smear Trump.
Indeed, Sir, "what could be used?" On this point, I suspect we're going to have to read up on
the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (assuming that Mueller is not removed, which would
have its own problems):
Pay particular attention to "exception no. 2." In order to prove that any evidence is
"poison," then somehow NSA methods may have to be disclosed. In private, hermetically sealed,
court session? Can we expect the public to be comfortable with that? What a mess.
Mark produces a classic argument from ignorance, a favorite pastime of russiagate partisans.
"Just because no evidence has been found that Mark is in fact Mickey Mouse doesn't mean
that evidence won't be someday found - in fact, this just means that we need to look harder!
Until conclusive proof is found, we can safely assume that Mark has big round ears and a
tail...."
Yes, Fred, "intelligence professionals hostile to the USA". The Swamp. Got that. Completely
non-MAGA. I give you that.
I'll move towards you one step. Both of course texted and sent emails inside their wider
swamp-networks, potentially "perhaps 50,000" times, all in all. In the important highly
heated eventful post election day early Trump days. No less.
Some of those mails may prove that Russiagate is really Hillarygate AND also deeply linked
to Obamagate: HillaryObamaGate. Meaning: they didn't need to spent all their energy on their
love-affair 'cum' Trump-hate, but had to keep the wider network informed too? Save evidence:
There were traces to this effect.
Sorry, but this is a déjà vu dive back into a close-up US partisan popular
culture clash experience, I prefer to not be reminded of. Meaning: I do feel the need to keep
it at arms-length. And maybe that's why I gladly took your offer to look at cold numbers. At
the time, I surely prayed for some type of cold type of helpful, clarifying, technical
SIGINT, admittedly. ... Felt like the only way out.
But thanks for offering the helping hand. ;)
*********
Somehow I seem to prefer to look into Cyber-rules and debates as mirrored here. What rules
was the "conspiracy parties" guided by at the time? Feeling the need to put matters into
context.
RE: 50000 text messages.
Can anyone shed some light on how this number has been reached? I ask as text messages are
160 characters in length and messages longer than this, while shown as a single message on
the handset, will still be broken down into these 160 character messages.
Title 18 U.S. Code, section 2384, is a nice, vague criminal law from the standpoint of the
government or a prosecutor, and includes that broadest doctrine of all -- conspiracy -- but
the problem with trying to use it against those who have been seeking to push down Gen.
Michael Flynn, Trump, et. al., is that each of the five alternative elements requires either
"by force" or "to levy war"--
The devious villains who have been running this attempt to remove Trump and to neutralize
the complaints of the "deplorables" are using the existing legal and media structure to try
to do it. In fact, one of the elements of 18 U.S. Code 2384 is that the conspiracy to do one
of the five alternative elements has to be done "contrary to the authority thereof [of the
U.S. government]". When the backstabbing Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, wrote the
directive establishing the "special counsel" Robert Mueller, he created a sub-office that has
the authority of the U.S. government.
Two points: my nose tells me that there is at least a 50/50 chance that that there were
communications between Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey relating to Mueller's appointment before
Comey leaked the triggering material to the NYT by washing it through his friend, the law
professor at Columbia; point 2 - there is almost no chance whatever, given the alleged
overseas sourcing cited in the Steele materials, that there isn't heavy CIA involvement,
inclusive of the very political Brennan, in assessing those materials for use. The FBI has no
investigative capabilities in Russia and it would have been irresponsible for the FBI to move
with that information without at least consulting with the Agency for corroborative
support.
We are past the point where Christopher Wray should be requesting an independent
investigation into this mess, whether it comes from the USAtty's Office in DC or another
Special Counsel that would have the authority to pre empt Mueller - the FBI is hemorrhaging
Integrity. The only thing that will stem the flow is to get to the bottom of the mess and a
post Watergate Style root and branch reform.
I hate to throw a technical wrench in the way of such a massive conspiracy, however the FBI
does not run its own cell phone service, and thus does not have ultimate control over this
data. This is a piggyback collection system that failed, not the real database. Whatever
major carrier they were contracted with has the full records going back a year, probably
more. Fox is reporting that the glitch affected 10% of all cell phones at the FBI, but given
how this stuff works, I don't imagine that they can't get a backup of the records reasonably
quickly. Fox mentions that as well.
First off Sid, I am definitely not a Russiagate partisan. Second, I asked a question. I got
an answer from PT. I did not produce an argument, let alone a classic one, either from
ignorance or not.
Doesn't backstabbing count as force? Just kidding.
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force
the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force
the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of
the United States , or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United
States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
I had looked this up at Cornell earlier and it seemed to me there might be opportunities
for strong prosecution in the areas I have bolded, above.
From reading the FISC memos, it appears to me they may have also broken a number of
serious laws with regard to use of 702, unmasking, etc. 5 years here, 10 years there and
we're talking serious time...
That said, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. This is way beyond my paygrade, as
the saying goes.
I guess mostly I am just so completely outraged by this that I WANT these people to roast
over a slow prosecutorial fire with serious consequences. Smokin' that hopium. Sadly, the rot
may be too deep for what seem to me to be appropriate consequences.
Thank you for your reply. I always read and respect your comments.
Oh goodness, I just re-read what I bolded in my reply and I finally see what you mean --
force, force, force. Thank you for gently pushing me. I appreciate that.
I guess our founding fathers and lawmakers of earlier times must never have thought to
include a provision for those guilty of a "soft coup." Yes. Pretty dang slick.
"Comey leaked the triggering material to the NYT by washing it through his friend, the law
professor at Columbia..." The "friend" is now claiming to be Comey's personal attorney. Thus he can claim
attorney-client privilege and Comey can explain why he used the word "friend" rather than
"my personal attorney" in his testimony before Congress. I can't image the members of the
House are all too pleased with Slick Willy 2 Jimmy or the good professor.
North Korea, The Peoples Republic of China, The Russian Federation and many other nations
are not denziens of "the Swamp". Nice try though.
"but this is a déjà vu dive back into a close-up US partisan popular culture
clash experience, I prefer to not be reminded of."
Yeah, the great '60s cultural liberation movements that would inaugurate the Age of Aquarius
are finally experiencing some cultural blow-back as exemplified by Trump's election. How's
that working out in Germany? Has Angela formed a new government? I can't imagine why that
hasn't happened yet.
President Trump has agreed to be interviewed by special counsel Mueller under oath while
reiterating that there was no collusion. Is this the set-up for the wind-up of the Mueller
probe?
I am speculating on such an outcome for two reasons. One, if there was a shred of evidence
on the alleged collusion it would have been leaked a long time ago. Second, it is getting too
hot in the kitchen as more of the conspiracy gets uncovered and Mueller does not have clean
hands due to his role in several investigations including UraniumOne and his close
associations with a number of people including Comey who was his deputy at the FBI.
I recall Admiral Rogers' visit to Trump Tower during the transition period really chapped
quite a few asses. If I remember correctly, Rogers was pilloried in the press afterwards--to
include recommendations/claims by Brennan and Clapper he be fired.
It always struck me as odd. But the swiftness in which the hammer came down on him his
"secret trip" definitely raised a few question marks. Logically, It seems that if there were
any shenanigans going on that would have likely been the time T-money was apprised of the
goings on. I actually went back and looked, and the very next day the whole Trump transition
was moved from NYC to NJ. It seems more likely than not?
But I'm sure there are plenty of reasons DIRNSA would meet with the President-elect and
there is also the issue of chain of command, but the anger directed at Rogers seemed
disproportionate to his actions.
"McCabe is being allowed to hang on at the FBI on the taxpayer dime until March so that he
can collect his pension."
Was not he involved in the conspiracy? Also, seems that dignity is sompletely outside McCabe'
realm
To paraphrase what blue peacock has written here and I strongly recommend you read his posts
and the time line he put together.
Admiral Rogers discovered FISA violations and unauthorized access to raw data. He ordered
a compliance review at the NSA. The result of this review showed many violations. He went
personally to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and reported these violations. This
happened October 2016. A week after the election, he went to Trump Tower without informing
DNI Clapper and informed Trump about the surveillance and probably the violations that were
uncovered by the compliance review at the NSA. The next day Trump moved his whole transition
team to Bedminster.
Clapper and Brennan must have been furious because Admiral Rogers let the cat out of the
bag and Trump knew what had happened and what was going on. That's why they wanted his head
but Obama probably was too scared to pull the trigger and then have Admiral Rogers testify to
Congress. Recall Trump's tweet that Obama had wiretapped him and how he was derided for that
by the media and the establishment. Trump knew because of Admiral Rogers.
Missing message might point to the gambit to appoint the Special Prosecutor Mueller
Notable quotes:
"... 18. 13 December 2016 , Christopher Steele prepares, on his own, the 17th report in the dossier and sends it to Senator McCain via David Kramer. ..."
"... This information subsequently was used by FBI Director Comey, with the full knowledge of Strzok and Page, to obtain permission from a FISA court to "eavesdrop"/wiretap Donald Trump. The missing texts are likely to tell a story of FBI corruption and meddling that, if made public, will end the careers of several FBI agents and DOJ personnel. Stay tuned. ..."
"... These text messages are also critical evidence around the appointment of Mueller as special counsel which happened in May 2017. There is a back story there that these "missing" text messages would shed light on. Note that both Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were senior members of Mueller's staff until some of their text messages were released by DOJ IG Horowitz. Strzok was the person that interviewed Flynn in the White House and set him up for the perjury charge. ..."
"... The current batch of released text messages show that Bill Priestap, head of CI at the FBI removed the reference that Hillary emailed Obama from her unsecure server. Obama had previously denied that. ..."
"... There is much more evidence piling up as the Congressional committees continue their investigation. Nunes already knows a lot and his summary memo will likely be released soon to the public. Additionally, many of these people at the FBI & DOJ including Strzok, Page, Priestap, Baker, etc will be testifying under oath to Congress soon as Rosenstein has already agreed to that. Admiral Rogers will also likely provide testimony after he retires from the NSA in couple months. ..."
"... IMO, the critical piece of evidence is the now declassified FISC ruling. Nunes has seen the unredacted version ..."
"... The problem is that russiagate is an article of faith for its adherents. This can be seen by the frequency with which the argument from ignorance is invoked: "Mueller hasn't found anything but that just means he needs more time! In the meantime, we will assume that the most lurid allegations are true!" ..."
"... This also can be seen by the amount of fake news published over russiagate. If the "evidence" were so "overwhelming", why has the MSM walked back so many "bombshell revelations"? Why use lies if the truth is sufficient? ..."
The latest news about the FBI--e.g., they apparently lost 5 months of text messages between
star FBI au lovers, Strzok-Page texts, perhaps 50,000--points to incompetence or malfeasance
and coverup. I go with the latter.
The dates of the missing texts are the key tell--14 December 2016 thru 17 May 2017. Pay
particular attention to the 14 December date in light of what we now know about the Dossier
prepared/written by British spy Christopher Steele. Please reference my previous piece on the
Dossier timeline :
18.
13 December 2016 , Christopher Steele prepares, on his own, the 17th report in the dossier
and sends it to Senator McCain via David Kramer.
Here are the key highlights of that report:
2016/166--13 December 2016 -- US/RUSSIA: FURTHER DETAILS OF SECRET DIALOGUE BETWEEN TRUMP
CAMPAIGN TEAM, KREMLIN AND ASSOCIATED HACKERS IN PRAGUE
SOURCES: Blacked out/ Not Identified
TRUMP's representative COHEN accompanied to Prague in August/September 2016 by 3 colleagues
for secret discussions with Kremlin representat ives and associated operators/hackers
Agenda included how to process deniable cash payments to operatives; contingency plans for
covering up operations; and action in event of a CLINTON election victory
Some further details of Russian representatives/ operatives involved; Romanian hackers
employed; and use of Bulgaria as bolt hole to "lie low"
Anti-CLINTON hackers and other operatives paid by both TRUMP team and Kremlin, but with
ultimate loyalty to Head of PA, IVANOV and his successor/s
This information subsequently was used by FBI Director Comey, with the full knowledge of
Strzok and Page, to obtain permission from a FISA court to "eavesdrop"/wiretap Donald Trump.
The missing texts are likely to tell a story of FBI corruption and meddling that, if made
public, will end the careers of several FBI agents and DOJ personnel. Stay tuned.
These text messages are also critical evidence around the appointment of Mueller as
special counsel which happened in May 2017. There is a back story there that these "missing"
text messages would shed light on. Note that both Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were senior
members of Mueller's staff until some of their text messages were released by DOJ IG
Horowitz. Strzok was the person that interviewed Flynn in the White House and set him up for
the perjury charge.
The current batch of released text messages show that Bill Priestap, head of CI at the FBI
removed the reference that Hillary emailed Obama from her unsecure server. Obama had
previously denied that.
There is much more evidence piling up as the Congressional committees continue their
investigation. Nunes already knows a lot and his summary memo will likely be released soon to
the public. Additionally, many of these people at the FBI & DOJ including Strzok, Page,
Priestap, Baker, etc will be testifying under oath to Congress soon as Rosenstein has already
agreed to that. Admiral Rogers will also likely provide testimony after he retires from the
NSA in couple months.
IMO, the critical piece of evidence is the now declassified FISC ruling. Nunes has seen
the unredacted version.
The problem is that russiagate is an article of faith for its adherents. This can be seen by the frequency with which the argument from ignorance is invoked:
"Mueller hasn't found anything but that just means he needs more time! In the meantime, we
will assume that the most lurid allegations are true!"
This also can be seen by the amount of fake news published over russiagate. If the
"evidence" were so "overwhelming", why has the MSM walked back so many "bombshell
revelations"? Why use lies if the truth is sufficient?
But the real point is that when people are confronted with incontrovertible proof that
their core beliefs, the beliefs that make up their self-image and tribal membership are
wrong, rather than change beliefs or change tribes to fit the facts, most people, most of the
time, will deny the facts in order to avoid changing. Rather than express gratefulness for
bringing the truth to light, people will attack the messenger, using words like "heretic",
"blasphemer" or even "Putin puppet".
This phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance", and it is most sharply seen in cult
members. However, there are entire religions and political movements based on this
principle.
For its partisans, russiagate and other conspiracy theories provide a prime example of
cognitive dissonance. Except that this is as a conspiracy theory for establishment types. MSM
birthergate.
I guess I always expect there to be Machiavellian palace intrigues and plots. So that doesn't
surprise me. It's bad, very bad, but not surprising to this cynical mind.
What really strikes me is the sheer sophomoric idiocy of these people all the way up and
down the chain. First, you have the democrats and the McCain cucks trying to undo the
democratic process and, basically, arranging a circular firing squad to do it. Could they not
imagine that the stupid collusion investigation might ultimately reveal their own unsavory
machinations and bring about their own demise?
Then you have these oh so respectable FBI/DOJ types - some of whom deal in counter
intelligence - cheating on their spouses and sending emails back and forth like hormone
addled teenagers. Moreover, their emails contain incriminating language re; the palace coup.
Haven't these intel "experts" ever heard of opsec?
What a shabby bunch of "experts" and "professionals" we have in DC. Very
disconcerting.
Even Peter Strzok didn't believe there was any collusion between Trump and Russia, after
all he and others in the "secret society" at the FBI, DOJ and the IC did to build the
narrative of collusion.
So the FBI had mis-configuration issues with their smart phones - must be the Russians \s.
Would another three letter agency not be able to provide a copy of the texts from their
records?
In my opinion, we are in a very dangerous space here. I would put Strozk and Page in
protective custody right now. To me, the lovers texts indicate that the Intelligence
community succumbed to "Trump derangement phenomenon" like most of the Liberal population and
the mainstream media. They did not see a Trump win coming and were caught flat footed.
Lets be clear, what started as a "light hearted" bit of electoral character assassination
- the russian collusion meme, golden showers and all, took on a life of its own after Trump
won. Hilary Clinton grabbed it like a life preserver as an excuse for her electoral failure.
The FBI and their DOJ colleagues suddenly found that their lighthearted jape was being
investigated and that Trump and the saner members of Congress were not amused and now it
appears to me that wholesale restructure of DOJ, the FBI and goodness knows what else is
likely. To put that another way, if Trump had lost the election, would the Russian dossier
etc. still be an issue? No.
My guess is that the IC wishes it had never seen that dossier, let alone awarded it a
shred of credibility, let alone used it as a pretext for FISA based action. Trump is now
going to after the IC community that did this and very probably going to start a restrucutre
as a result. The FBI/DOJ "secret society" is at best petrified that they have been found out
and will lose their careers. At worst the IC may believe its existence in its current form is
threatened and is taking action to protect its power.
The alleged "loss" of five months of texts is to convenient to me to be explained by mere
incompetence. My sense is that IC interests are now galvanised in a rear guard action to
protect their power and that is why Strozk and Page need to be in custody, and on suicide
watch, under the protection of Congress, assuming trusted law enforcement or military forces
can be found.
Yup. I still have days where it is hard to get my head around the fact that I live on a
planet where the majority are either mentally dysfunctional or mentally ill. Logic and Reason
tempered by compassion is rare. There must be a few fine people holding things together out
there. Kudos to them.
"Even after the evidence "for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make
appropriate revisions in those beliefs," the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was
"particularly impressive," since two data points would never have been enough information to
generalize from."
This article is a good writeup on the science but What is sad and humerous in this article
is the last paragraph blaming Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon. The author is clueless to
her own participation in cognitive bias.
That alleged secret society may extend to the State Department. During Comey's investigation
into Hillary's private email server use, there were officials at the State Department who
allegedly tried in vain to release Hillary's emails all at once so that they could better
coordinate among themselves (i.e., get their stories straight). And the deputy secretary,
Patrick Kennedy, allegedly offered the investigating agents a quid pro quo bribe.
One revelation in the documents came from an interview with an unidentified person who
suggested that Freedom of Information Act requests related to Clinton went through a group
sometimes called "the Shadow Government."
"There was a powerful group of very high-ranking STATE officials that some referred
to as 'The 7th Floor Group' or 'The Shadow Government.' This group met every Wednesday
afternoon to discuss the FOIA process, Congressional records, and everything
CLINTON-related to FOIA/Congressional inquiries," the FBI's interview summary said.
That group, according to the summary, argued for a Clinton document release to be
conducted all at once "for coordination purposes" instead of on a rolling basis as would
normally be the case. But the "Shadow Government" did not get its way, and the agency in
charge decided for a rolling release, the FBI summary said.
Another claim from the documents is that one unidentified interviewee said
Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured the FBI to unclassify certain emails from
Clinton's private server that were previously deemed classified.
The interviewee said Kennedy contacted the FBI to ask for the change in classification
in "exchange for a 'quid pro quo.'"
A representative for the State Department categorically denied that claim.
To paraphrase the "Queen of Mean", Leona Helmsley, opsec is for the little people.
But hey, thank God that these inexpert and non-professional types were so incompetent in
their practice (or even understanding of) opsec; .
No quarter should be offered unless it is to obtain actionable information to be used
against other participants in this series of interlinked crimes. Some of these people gave an
oath to defend the Constitution, after all, and they blatantly went against their oaths to
advance their careers and the political fortunes of their own political party.
50,000 texts in 151 days? That's more than 300 a day. When the hell was the Chief of the
Counterespionage Section of the FBI doing his actual job rather than acting like a teenager
overwhelmed by hormones? Why the hell is he now in "human resources" when it quite apparent
that his professional judgement is compromised?
Alt-right activist Jack Posobiec claims that all FBI Galaxy S5 smart phones come preloaded
with the Samsung Knox Security Suite which automatically archives text messages, and that
this can't be disabled without FBI IT admin express action.
It's also suggested that if any of these people used syncing to their PCs or home PCs that
the messages could be found, as well anyone who synced with iMessage, an Apple platform.
The Strzok email explicitly claiming there is no "there there" on Trump collusion is
itself a real find. If one of the main architects of Russiagate doesn't think they can prove
it, then Mueller doesn't have much hope of doing so.
Trump and his family are the ones who need additional protection from an assasination
attempt. Is Air Force maintenance any better than the US Navy's? You might have read of a few
of their snafus. Maybe Melania staying home while the President goes to Davos is about
something other than disaffection with her husband from yet another recycled allegation of an
extramarital sexual tryst.
Thank you Publius Tacitus and blue peacock for keeping us abreast on this momentous
conspiracy at the highest levels of our government. It is clear that we don't have a republic
anymore. The question is how much sunshine will we get and if anyone is held to account and
most importantly will there be a top to bottom clean-up.
Incompetent plotting.
These self-important dolts have seen too many movies.
If Strzok is a "star" at the FBI, no wonder it took them and the CIA (another collection of
"rocket surgeons") 10 years to uncover that Chinese spy.
These people - through sheer ineptitude - are more dangerous to themselves than anyone
else.
You know how these "Inspector Clouseau's" will finally defeat the Chinese and Russian spy
services?
The Russians and Chinese will die laughing.
JJ,
I agree with the "no quarter" suggestion. These people are traitors, as you basically say, to
the Constitution they swore to uphold. The time is now to make examples of such people. The
public needs to understand that something very wrong did happen and they will understand that
if the punishment meets the crime. Otherwise, it's just more partisan political mudslinging
to their minds.
I think that sever punishment is what will happen. Jeff Sessions (and Trump) is now
approaching the point where he is unbound from the chains of potential - and likely -
allegations of obstruction of justice. He can now deal with Mueller and the rest of them. The
swamp will experience a major draining of unprecedented proportions. Some will be jailed.
Some will leave office for "personal reasons/more time with family/pursue other
opportunities". I can foresee Clinton being brought up on charges stemming from the
server/classified emails and god knows what else. Lynch will get wrapped up. Obama himself is
probably facing some risk here. McCain will use his brain cancer as an out, but he should go
down too. I think they will protect him somewhat though because of his war hero status and
because he's on the way out anyhow.
Trump now looks pretty smart and correct for canning Comey (who is facing a world of hurt
for lying to Congress and conspiracy in fixing the Clinton email investigation). The entire
democrat/leftist meme set is falling apart in a very ugly way across the entire spectrum;
from this un-democratic plot to preferring illegal aliens over actual citizens. I predict the
left will merely double down on stupid insanity. Nov 2018 is the Republicans' to lose.
It isn't just that people underestimate Trump. It's that those who oppose him are proving
to be utterly feeble minded, undisciplined fools. And they're in the wrong. A very bad
combination when people like Trey Gowdy are gunning for you.
In my feline experience, cognitive dissonance is as much a problem of the intelligent and
well educated as it is of the doltish and poorly educated.
Keep in mind that much of "knowledge work" these days consists not at getting at the
truth, but of using facts and inferences to support whatever it is that you or the person who
is paying you wants them to support.
A particularly egregious example is how the Tobacco Institute for decades engaged highly
credentialed scientists, specialists in their respective fields, to argue that first, that
there was no link between smoking and cancer, and then, to argue that such a link couldn't be
proven, and finally, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that such link was weaker than the
evidence made it seem.
IMO Trey Gowdy R-SC should be named Special Counsel for investigation of this massive
conspiracy involving DoJ,FBI,The Clinton Campaign/CIA, etc. He has been a state prosecutor
and a federal prosecutor. His district in upland South Carolina is so red that he would
certainly be replaced by another conservative Republican. I urge you all to press for his
appointment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trey_Gowdy
pl
Comey to teach course on ethical leadership for College of William & Mary
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/comey-to-teach-course-on-ethical-leadership-for-college-of-william-and-mary/2018/01/18/4ea7b2ca-fc8d-11e7-8f66-2df0b94bb98a_story.html
"I am thrilled to have the chance to engage with William & Mary students about a vital
topic -- ethical leadership," Comey said in a statement. "Ethical leaders lead by seeing
above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting
values, most importantly the truth. Building and maintaining that kind of leadership, in both
the private sector and government, is the challenge of our time. There is no better place to
teach and learn about it than the W&M Washington Program."
---------------
From what I have read, it seems it is Nunes' doggedness that has uncovered the evidence
that we see now. His summary memo will be released soon despite the Democrats opposition.
That and the testimony of the key conspirators and the IG report as well as the obstruction
by the FBI & DOJ will increase the calls for a special counsel.
Let's see how all this plays out in the next few months. Trump is going to come out of
this much stronger as many voters see how he was screwed over by the Obama
administration.
What is it that you think happened at Benghazi? What I see is an Obama Administration
failure to harden US facilities at Benghazi followed up by an Obama Administration denial of
their failure. Far too many people seek perfection of outcome in an imperfect world. pl
The dog ate my homework much? There're no missing text messages. The NSA has a copy of
everything that crosses the towers and servers of U.S. telecommunications companies.
The Trump team can retrieve the text messages between the FBI love birds either via
appointing a special counsel or administrative subpoenas.
Exactly. It's certainly ironic that Strzok, a lead FBI investigator of Hillary's stupid use
of official email over a private server, would continue to send stupid personal texts over an
official line, having learned nothing. Although Hillary's problem was arguably worse for
endangering national security.
Is he so cheap that he couldn't afford to use a personal phone to text his mistress (to
say nothing of stupid)? All of the cheating dogs I know use more than one phone for such
purposes.
I expect the FBI will be able to easily recover the text messages, NSA won't be necessary.
From what we've seen so far, imo, all it will amount to are more strangled cries of lawyers
in love.
However, for anyone who's already tooth-deep in believing the conspiracy narrative against
Trump, this is read meat. Big in the news cycle, on the same day we hear that Mueller is
inviting Trump for a little chat. The FBI's bureaucrats don't seem too smart but the
Republican congress is playing this thing pretty well. It's a good song, play it on
repeat.
agree yes
+ an over exuberant USA ambassador who thought his personal charisma was a defense against
armed attack
+ a secret CIA operation nearby that was gathering Kadafi arms for shipment to overthrow
Syrian government
"Mueller is inviting Trump for a little chat." Trump has had and still has the legal and
constitutional power to remove Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, Flynn, Mueller, the present FBI
chief, Strzok, etc. In the case of the civil servants he might have to put them, each and
every one, in an empty room with a desk and a telephone but he could get rid of all of them.
Obstruction of justice as a charge in some forum? The lawyers will tell you that such a
charge can only be proven if intent to obstruct in the context of his legal power can by
proven to exist. How do you think that would be established? Do you think that he has written
something that would establish it? Do you think that one of his associates, Flynn maybe,
would rat him out on this? Or do you think that Mueller will trick or provoke him into
incriminating himself? Collusion with Russia? Really? are your friends still pushing that?
pl
More - Maybe Mueller can accuse Trump of being an undetected sex criminal? Perhaps a
failure to register under FARA (if the statute hasn't run), How about a money launderer?
Adulterer with some whore? What? pl
I dunno, honestly, how they intend to prove it. So far, they've got some stuff that we know
about and don't know about, and I don't want to pretend I know the truth. I think prudence
requires that I don't judge Trump as innocent before there's enough substance -- not simply
innuendo or implication -- for me to believe he's not guilty. This is rather important
crucible we're in right now; hot heads and trigger fingers are not what what we should be
promoting.
Sundance has two interesting posts on how the Russiagate "co-conspirators" are handling these
weekly revelations on the Obama administration conspiracy.
One is about the WaPo, writing a story based on "information from a senior official". You
know one of those, wherein allegedly McCabe was asked by Trump in the White House if he voted
for him. This same McCabe, Comey's deputy, whose wife received a slug of cash from Terry
McAuliffe, Clinton consigliere. McCabe is the guy in whose office the FBI lovers who couldn't
text each other enough, discussed the "insurance policy". McCabe is being allowed to hang on
at the FBI on the taxpayer dime until March so that he can collect his pension.
This story got me thinking what will the WaPo, NY Times, CNN, NBC, and the rest of the
corporate media, who have invested so much selling the Russiagate narrative do, when it gets
blown out of the water with the unraveling of the conspiracy at the highest levels of the
Obama administration? What are they gonna do to keep their NeverTrumper vendetta going? They
lost big time the first round, when despite their massive efforts, Trump won the election.
Then they doubled down with Russiagate, which could actually strengthen Trump not weaken him
when the truth comes out as is happening right now.
The next one is about the Democrat leadership. This one is actually hilarious. Dianne
Feinstein and Adam Schiff, the ranking members on the Senate & House Intelligence
committees, writing Jack Dorsey & Mark Zuckerberg to investigate the Russian collusion in
the trending of #ReleaseTheMemo.
Even if I let him work 7 days a week, and 10 hours it feels beyond the power of hormones,
I included Dec 14 & May 17 which makes 155 days:
50,000 : 155 = 322.58064...: 10 = 32.2580
Alternatively I assume he does work neither on Saturday, Sunday or on Holidays. Then we
get 107 days. We still let him work 10 hours:
50,000 : 467.2897 : 10 = 46,72
In the first scenario he has at least 2 second to mail or respond 30 times per
hour.
All the credit goes to Publius Tacitus! He spurred my interest on this story.
As I reviewed the writings of others who were following the story closely and developed
the time line for my benefit, it became evident to me that the declassified FISC ruling is a
crucial piece of evidence. This is the first document in the public domain that shows that
there were systematic violations of FISA 702 in the period leading up to March 2016. A FISA
702 violation can only happen if there were no national security requirements to the queries.
This FISC ruling would not have happened if Admiral Rogers didn't first order a compliance
review and then go to FISC to report these violations.
Nunes and the other Gangof8 have read the unredacted FISC ruling, which means they know
who ran the queries and which subcontractors were provided unauthorized access to the data so
obtained. They also now have read the FISA application that was granted in October 2016 and
know what part the Steele dossier played in that application. Nunes has also read the PDBs
leading up to the election, and as he has stated publicly there was no Russia related
information but there was information from the incidental collection on American
citizens.
Nunes and Congressional investigators I believe have a pretty good understanding of the
conspiracy and who the key players were. They are in the process of collecting additional
evidence and putting the puzzle together, while at the same time preparing what they have
uncovered in a form that does not compromise "sources & methods" for release to the
public. The first step in this will be the declassification and release of the summary memo
prepared by Nunes.
The Democrat strategy it seems is fourfold. a)Claim that the Congressional investigation
and release of information to the public undermines Mueller. b) Compromises national security
c) Is partisan and does not reflect the reality of the underlying evidence d) Keep focusing
on Russians behind every corner.
Jack, you noted in the earlier thread about evidence flow. That is an important
observation. The evidence flow right now is clearly on the side of proving the conspiracy.
Russiagate proponents better start gaining some serious evidence flow soon, or they will be
swept by the avalanche of evidence around the conspiracy, that is going to be coming out over
the next few months.
"When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted
the Destruction of the World is a classic work of social psychology by [Festinger, Riecken,
and Schachter] which studied a small UFO [cult] in Chicago ... and its coping mechanisms
after the [destruction of the world] did not occur. Festinger's theory of cognitive
dissonance can account for the psychological consequences of disconfirmed expectations. One
of the first published cases of dissonance was reported in this book." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
The most interesting part of the book (to me) is that the more evidence mounts that their
cult is built on a lie - the more the adherents come to believe in it!
What a fine American you are! You don't believe that Trump is innocent unless it is proven
to you? No presumption of innocence for you! Oh no! What's the matter? Would your limousine
liberal friends in Old Town scorn you if you were not "on board?" Your objection to the
behavior of these scoundrels in the Deep State is that they are inept and their pretentious
little plot is coming apart. pl
Apparently, the doggy dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to bug the President-Elect
and Peter Strzok purposefully setup a FBI perjury trap to remove the President's National
Security Advisor. If this is documented, it is proof that there is an ongoing intelligence
community/media counter coup against Donald Trump. This can't be hidden. There can only be
one response; restoration of the rule of law and jail time for high-level criminals. If not,
the Constitution is dead. The problem is that Trump Derangement Syndrome blinds believers.
They can't see that the coup attempt is one of the knives stabbed in the back of
democracy.
Sid - Indeed we can "cognitive dissonance" in many fields Russiagate, so called "Russian
Threat" to Western Democracy's, with Brexit (on both sides of the argument) and of course
Syria.
Yes, LE, some times my mind blocks more other times less. Can you help me out or initiate me?
Tell me how and were the number surfaced for instance? Or otherwise assist one of the feeble
minded in the SST community?
Another offer:
Ok, they were lovers and the mail went backward and forward potentially 24 hours a day for
155 days, as first calculation above including Saturday, Sunday and Holidays. We give both
equal chances as sender and recipient and both have 24 hours a day to do the job:
50.000 : 155 = 322.58064 : 2 = 161,29
Both the gallant and the lady still have to send each other 161 mails every single day.
Well yes, spread over 24 hours it's strictly only 6-7 mails per hour. It's getting
better.
I believe is was Adam Schiff who said the memo should not be released publicly as, "the
American people just wouldn't understand it". I guess he's just a lot smarter than most of
us, ha ha ha.
I will humbly suggest that it is possible for two truths in this case to co-exist: (1) the
deep state was so concerned about trump that it conspired to violate due process; and (2)
there actually was, and is, cause for concern.
I'm sure your cognitive abilites are not impacted by the disruption of reading,
considering and responding to this volume of text messages. "I assume he does work neither on
Saturday, Sunday or on Holidays." What's the working schedule for intellegence professionals
hostile to the USA? Do they only work 9-5 or do they have the French 36 hour work week with
extended holidays?
Bottom line -- is anybody going to jail? The FBI thinks they are above the law, at least
that's the way they behave, and have behaved in the past on far too many occasions. Will
Sessions and Trump make the FBI crooks do a frog-march straight to lock-up?
This is just one more reason IMO why the FBI needs to be dismantled, as our nation doesn't
need a national 'political' policia.
If criminal investigations spanning state lines are required, then let there be
departmental cooperation between the various state law enforcement agencies. State law
enforcement working togeather accomplish more than most federal agencies sticking their
fingers in the pie.
Let's do away with the FBI, it serves no useful purpose.
Honorable Colonel, the cause(s) for concern is/are writ large in the media, for well over a
year. Problem is, which media do you trust. The nation is as divided as I've ever seen it,
concerning this question. I continue to believe that truth exists, and truth is not an
existential question; but for many of our fellows this concern seems lost. With respect to
what Mueller is doing, I imagine a short list of issues include money laundering, financial
fraud, tax evasion, international and domestic deals with "the mob," campaign finance
violations, and of course "collusion" with a foreign power to undermine the election, and
obstruction of justice vis a vis the Comey firing. It will be interesting to read "the facts"
with respect to the criminal charges, if or when Mueller is able to put the relevant facts on
the table.
DC: let's say that were true. So is your position that due process is de facto optional, as
as law enforcement itself decides that the matter is important?
More importantly, once you give the unelected and unaccountable (even Congress doesn't
know what their real budgets are) Deep State a veto over election results they don't like,
you are no longer living in a Republic, but in something else.
But why worry? Surely history shows that the Praetorian Guard ever always only acted
selflessly and in the best and highest interests of Rome and its citizens, right?
"...each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the
top ranks of America's premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among
agents of a "secret society" and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both
of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton
skate free in the classified email probe.
If either one is true -- and I believe both probably are -- it would mean FBI leaders
betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.
More support for this view involves the FBI's use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was
paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain
that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning
it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on
the candidate of the other party -- likely without telling the court of the dossier's
political link.
Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama's
administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign."
Personally, I question the last paragraph. I suspect that it was either other members of
Team R And/or the Clinton campaign that provided the dossier to the FBI.
Because the point of Benghazi appears to have been the CIA gathering arms to ship off to the
Moderate Jihadi Headchopper Unicorn Army v.20 or somesuch, I don't think Gowdy or other
Congressional Republicans would be allowed to get to the bottom of things, even if they
tries.
What will happen if Mueller finds that President Trump colluded with the Russians and/or
obstructed justice, and the HPSCI finds the FBI, DOJ, etc. guilty of crimes?
You already know without evidence that the Page - Sztrok missing text messages are a
nothingburger, just "lawyers in love" (yuck!) but you also know without evidence that Trump
must be guilty.
This is like legal procedure as invented by the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.
Sentence, then verdict, then trial.
" ... money laundering, financial fraud, tax evasion, international and domestic deals
with "the mob," campaign finance violations, and of course "collusion" with a foreign power
to undermine the election, and obstruction of justice vis a vis the Comey firing. It will be
interesting to read "the facts" with respect to the criminal charges" How much of that menu
of the MSM and Democratic party meme portfolio constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors"
and/or could be used in an impeachment and trial? pl
Mark,
Are you being serious? There is no such CRIME as COLLUSION. What the hell does that even
mean? Did Trump take money from the Russian Government to fund his campaign? NO. Did Trump
seek out Russian input to his campaign? NO. The entire meme painting Trump as a stooge of
Putin was nothing more than a sophisticated information operation that had the help of the
FBI and the CIA in trying to smear Trump.
Indeed, Sir, "what could be used?" On this point, I suspect we're going to have to read up on
the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (assuming that Mueller is not removed, which would
have its own problems):
Pay particular attention to "exception no. 2." In order to prove that any evidence is
"poison," then somehow NSA methods may have to be disclosed. In private, hermetically sealed,
court session? Can we expect the public to be comfortable with that? What a mess.
Mark produces a classic argument from ignorance, a favorite pastime of russiagate partisans.
"Just because no evidence has been found that Mark is in fact Mickey Mouse doesn't mean
that evidence won't be someday found - in fact, this just means that we need to look harder!
Until conclusive proof is found, we can safely assume that Mark has big round ears and a
tail...."
Yes, Fred, "intelligence professionals hostile to the USA". The Swamp. Got that. Completely
non-MAGA. I give you that.
I'll move towards you one step. Both of course texted and sent emails inside their wider
swamp-networks, potentially "perhaps 50,000" times, all in all. In the important highly
heated eventful post election day early Trump days. No less.
Some of those mails may prove that Russiagate is really Hillarygate AND also deeply linked
to Obamagate: HillaryObamaGate. Meaning: they didn't need to spent all their energy on their
love-affair 'cum' Trump-hate, but had to keep the wider network informed too? Save evidence:
There were traces to this effect.
Sorry, but this is a déjà vu dive back into a close-up US partisan popular
culture clash experience, I prefer to not be reminded of. Meaning: I do feel the need to keep
it at arms-length. And maybe that's why I gladly took your offer to look at cold numbers. At
the time, I surely prayed for some type of cold type of helpful, clarifying, technical
SIGINT, admittedly. ... Felt like the only way out.
But thanks for offering the helping hand. ;)
*********
Somehow I seem to prefer to look into Cyber-rules and debates as mirrored here. What rules
was the "conspiracy parties" guided by at the time? Feeling the need to put matters into
context.
RE: 50000 text messages.
Can anyone shed some light on how this number has been reached? I ask as text messages are
160 characters in length and messages longer than this, while shown as a single message on
the handset, will still be broken down into these 160 character messages.
Title 18 U.S. Code, section 2384, is a nice, vague criminal law from the standpoint of the
government or a prosecutor, and includes that broadest doctrine of all -- conspiracy -- but
the problem with trying to use it against those who have been seeking to push down Gen.
Michael Flynn, Trump, et. al., is that each of the five alternative elements requires either
"by force" or "to levy war"--
The devious villains who have been running this attempt to remove Trump and to neutralize
the complaints of the "deplorables" are using the existing legal and media structure to try
to do it. In fact, one of the elements of 18 U.S. Code 2384 is that the conspiracy to do one
of the five alternative elements has to be done "contrary to the authority thereof [of the
U.S. government]". When the backstabbing Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, wrote the
directive establishing the "special counsel" Robert Mueller, he created a sub-office that has
the authority of the U.S. government.
Two points: my nose tells me that there is at least a 50/50 chance that that there were
communications between Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey relating to Mueller's appointment before
Comey leaked the triggering material to the NYT by washing it through his friend, the law
professor at Columbia; point 2 - there is almost no chance whatever, given the alleged
overseas sourcing cited in the Steele materials, that there isn't heavy CIA involvement,
inclusive of the very political Brennan, in assessing those materials for use. The FBI has no
investigative capabilities in Russia and it would have been irresponsible for the FBI to move
with that information without at least consulting with the Agency for corroborative
support.
We are past the point where Christopher Wray should be requesting an independent
investigation into this mess, whether it comes from the USAtty's Office in DC or another
Special Counsel that would have the authority to pre empt Mueller - the FBI is hemorrhaging
Integrity. The only thing that will stem the flow is to get to the bottom of the mess and a
post Watergate Style root and branch reform.
I hate to throw a technical wrench in the way of such a massive conspiracy, however the FBI
does not run its own cell phone service, and thus does not have ultimate control over this
data. This is a piggyback collection system that failed, not the real database. Whatever
major carrier they were contracted with has the full records going back a year, probably
more. Fox is reporting that the glitch affected 10% of all cell phones at the FBI, but given
how this stuff works, I don't imagine that they can't get a backup of the records reasonably
quickly. Fox mentions that as well.
First off Sid, I am definitely not a Russiagate partisan. Second, I asked a question. I got
an answer from PT. I did not produce an argument, let alone a classic one, either from
ignorance or not.
Doesn't backstabbing count as force? Just kidding.
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force
the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force
the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of
the United States , or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United
States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
I had looked this up at Cornell earlier and it seemed to me there might be opportunities
for strong prosecution in the areas I have bolded, above.
From reading the FISC memos, it appears to me they may have also broken a number of
serious laws with regard to use of 702, unmasking, etc. 5 years here, 10 years there and
we're talking serious time...
That said, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. This is way beyond my paygrade, as
the saying goes.
I guess mostly I am just so completely outraged by this that I WANT these people to roast
over a slow prosecutorial fire with serious consequences. Smokin' that hopium. Sadly, the rot
may be too deep for what seem to me to be appropriate consequences.
Thank you for your reply. I always read and respect your comments.
Oh goodness, I just re-read what I bolded in my reply and I finally see what you mean --
force, force, force. Thank you for gently pushing me. I appreciate that.
I guess our founding fathers and lawmakers of earlier times must never have thought to
include a provision for those guilty of a "soft coup."
"Comey leaked the triggering material to the NYT by washing it through his friend, the law
professor at Columbia..."
The "friend" is now claiming to be Comey's personal attorney. Thus he can claim
attorney-client priveledge and Comey can explain why he used the word "friend" rather than
"my personal attorney" in his testimony before Congress. I can't image the members of the
House are all too pleased with Slick Willy 2 Jimmy or the good professor.
North Korea, The Peoples Republic of China, The Russian Federation and many other nations
are not denziens of "the Swamp". Nice try though.
"but this is a déjà vu dive back into a close-up US partisan popular culture
clash experience, I prefer to not be reminded of."
Yeah, the great '60s cultural liberation movements that would inaugurate the Age of Aquarius
are finally experiencing some cultural blow-back as exemplified by Trump's election. How's
that working out in Germany? Has Angela formed a new government? I can't imagine why that
hasn't happened yet.
President Trump has agreed to be interviewed by special counsel Mueller under oath while
reiterating that there was no collusion. Is this the set-up for the wind-up of the Mueller
probe?
I am speculating on such an outcome for two reasons. One, if there was a shred of evidence
on the alleged collusion it would have been leaked a long time ago. Second, it is getting too
hot in the kitchen as more of the conspiracy gets uncovered and Mueller does not have clean
hands due to his role in several investigations including UraniumOne and his close
associations with a number of people including Comey who was his deputy at the FBI.
I recall Admiral Rogers' visit to Trump Tower during the transition period really chapped
quite a few asses. If I remember correctly, Rogers was pilloried in the press afterwards--to
include recommendations/claims by Brennan and Clapper he be fired.
It always struck me as odd. But the swiftness in which the hammer came down on him his
"secret trip" definitely raised a few question marks. Logically, It seems that if there were
any shenanigans going on that would have likely been the time T-money was apprised of the
goings on. I actually went back and looked, and the very next day the whole Trump transition
was moved from NYC to NJ. It seems more likely than not?
But I'm sure there are plenty of reasons DIRNSA would meet with the President-elect and
there is also the issue of chain of command, but the anger directed at Rogers seemed
disproportionate to his actions.
"McCabe is being allowed to hang on at the FBI on the taxpayer dime until March so that he
can collect his pension."
Was not he involved in the conspiracy? Also, seems that dignity is sompletely outside McCabe'
realm
To paraphrase what blue peacock has written here and I strongly recommend you read his posts
and the time line he put together.
Admiral Rogers discovered FISA violations and unauthorized access to raw data. He ordered
a compliance review at the NSA. The result of this review showed many violations. He went
personally to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and reported these violations. This
happened October 2016. A week after the election, he went to Trump Tower without informing
DNI Clapper and informed Trump about the surveillance and probably the violations that were
uncovered by the compliance review at the NSA. The next day Trump moved his whole transition
team to Bedminster.
Clapper and Brennan must have been furious because Admiral Rogers let the cat out of the
bag and Trump knew what had happened and what was going on. That's why they wanted his head
but Obama probably was too scared to pull the trigger and then have Admiral Rogers testify to
Congress. Recall Trump's tweet that Obama had wiretapped him and how he was derided for that
by the media and the establishment. Trump knew because of Admiral Rogers.
"... The FBI-issued cell phone of Peter Strzok, whose previous texts to his mistress (also an FBI employee) showed fierce hostility to Trump, suddenly had problems due to "software upgrades" and other issues -- and voila -- all the messages between the two from Dec. 14, 2016, to May 17, 2017 vanished. ..."
"... Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, notified a Senate committee that "data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term storage and retrieval was not collected." The missing texts could have obliterated the remnants of credibility of the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Conservatives are caterwauling about the vanished evidence but this type of tactic has long been standard procedure for the FBI. Acting FBI chief Patrick Gray was forced to resign in 1973 after it was revealed that he had burned incriminating evidence from the White House in his fireplace shortly after the Watergate break-in by Nixon White House "plumbers." Gray claimed he was resigning to preserve the "reputation and integrity" of the FBI -- but that hasn't worked out so well. ..."
"... The FBI has a long history of "losing" evidence that would tarnish its halo. And for most of the agency's history, judges and Congress have let the FBI sweep its dirt under the rug. ..."
"... Evidence disposal is no problem for politically-favored targets of FBI investigation. A month before the 2016 election, Americans learned that the FBI agreed to destroy the laptops of top Hillary Clinton aides after a limited examination of their contents (including a promise not to examine any emails or content after January 31, 2015) in its investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server. Four Republican congressional committee chairmen complained to Attorney General Lynch that the FBI agreement was " simply astonishing given the likelihood that evidence on the laptops would be of interest to congressional investigators." The FBI shrugged off the Clinton team's subsequent use of bleachbit software to erase thousands of her emails. ..."
"... Jeff Sessions, who was then a U.S. senator and is now Attorney General, condemned the FBI's behavior as "breathtaking ..."
"... Will the FBI face any consequences for its latest lost evidence debacle? In our high-tech era, it is no longer necessary to toss damning evidence into a fireplace. "Software upgrades" sounds so innocuous that only conspiracy theorists could wonder about missing smoking guns. But the FBI is no closer to being compelled to operate openly than when Patrick Gray ignited those White House files. ..."
Congressional investigators were rocked this weekend when the FBI notified them that five
months of text messages from a top FBI investigator into the Trump campaign's Russian
connections had mysteriously vanished.
The FBI-issued cell phone of Peter Strzok, whose previous texts to his mistress (also an
FBI employee) showed fierce hostility to Trump, suddenly had problems due to "software
upgrades" and other issues -- and voila -- all the messages between the two from Dec. 14, 2016,
to May 17, 2017 vanished. Strzok, who oversaw the Trump investigation from its start in
July 2016, was removed from Mueller's Special Counsel investigation last summer after the
Justice Department Inspector General discovered his anti-Trump texts.
Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, notified a Senate
committee that "data that should have been automatically collected and retained for long-term
storage and retrieval was not collected." The missing texts could have obliterated the remnants
of credibility of the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign.
Conservatives are caterwauling about the vanished evidence but this type of tactic has
long been standard procedure for the FBI. Acting FBI chief Patrick Gray was forced to resign in
1973 after it was revealed that he had burned incriminating evidence from the White House in
his fireplace shortly after the Watergate break-in by Nixon White House "plumbers." Gray
claimed he was resigning to preserve the "reputation and integrity" of the FBI -- but that
hasn't worked out so well.
The FBI has a long history of "losing" evidence that would tarnish its halo. And for
most of the agency's history, judges and Congress have let the FBI sweep its dirt under the
rug.
In the Ruby Ridge case, when an FBI sniper gunned down an Idaho mother holding her baby in
1992, the chief of the FBI's Violence Crimes division was sent to prison for destroying
evidence. When a Senate committee held hearings three years later, four FBI agents took the
Fifth Amendment rather than tell the incriminating truth about their activities on the Ruby
Ridge case. A subsequent Senate report concluded that the five successive FBI reports of
internal investigations of the episode "are variously contradictory, inaccurate, and biased.
They demonstrate a reluctance on the part of the FBI initially to take the incidents at Ruby
Ridge seriously." Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.) complained, "I would be asked by the FBI to
believe (Ruby Ridge) was almost a model of (good) conduct. The conclusion, is drawn, from ...
all the people we've heard, that no one did anything wrong of significance or consequence."
The FBI suppressed mounds of evidence regarding its final assault on the Branch Davidians in
Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993. The FBI had always vehemently denied that it had any blame for
a fire that killed nearly 80 people; six years after the attack, investigators found
pyrotechnic rounds the FBI fired into the building before the conflagration erupted. Attorney
General Janet Reno lashed out at the FBI for destroying her credibility.
Newsweek reported that, according to a senior FBI official, "as many as 100 FBI agents and
officials may have known about" the military-style explosive devices used by the FBI at Waco,
despite Reno's and the FBI's repeated denials that such devices were used. The FBI deceived
Congress and a federal judge by withholding information that it had six closed-circuit
television cameras monitoring the Davidians' home throughout the siege. The resulting films
could have the key information that could resolve the major issues of Waco but the FBI withheld
the tapes for years, until they were impounded by U.S. marshals.
FBI evidence shenanigans destroyed the prosecution of Cliven Bundy, the Nevadan rancher who
was involved in a high-profile standoff with federal agents in 2014. The feds charged the Bundy
family with conspiracy in large part because the ranchers summoned militia to defend them after
they claimed that FBI snipers had surrounded their ranch. Justice Department lawyers scoffed at
this claim in prior trials involving the standoff but newly-released documents confirm that
snipers were in place prior to the Bundy's call for help. Federal judge Gloria Navarro slammed
the FBI last month for withholding key evidence in the case.
Evidence disposal is no problem for politically-favored targets of FBI investigation. A
month before the 2016 election, Americans learned that the FBI agreed to destroy the laptops of
top Hillary Clinton aides after a limited examination of their contents (including a promise
not to examine any emails or content after January 31, 2015) in its investigation of Hillary
Clinton's private email server. Four Republican congressional committee chairmen complained to
Attorney General Lynch that the FBI agreement was " simply astonishing given the likelihood
that evidence on the laptops would be of interest to congressional investigators." The FBI
shrugged off the Clinton team's subsequent use of bleachbit software to erase thousands of her
emails.
Jeff Sessions, who was then a U.S. senator and is now Attorney General, condemned the
FBI's behavior as "breathtaking " :
"I really don't see how Congress can issue a subpoena for records and they then destroy
those records. I am telling you that every business knows that if they get a subpoena for
business records, and they destroy those records, they are subject to criminal prosecution
and will be prosecuted."
Will the FBI face any consequences for its latest lost evidence debacle? In our
high-tech era, it is no longer necessary to toss damning evidence into a fireplace. "Software
upgrades" sounds so innocuous that only conspiracy theorists could wonder about missing smoking
guns. But the FBI is no closer to being compelled to operate openly than when Patrick Gray
ignited those White House files.
This is really a "soft coup", a color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding texts merely exposed, revealing the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the rest of us. However, for the never-Trump plotters in the FBI, the official release of just a fraction (375) of almost 10,000 messages does incalculably more damage than that. ..."
"... We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the U.S. democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community, shadowy characters sometimes called the Deep State. ..."
"... More of the Strzok-Page texting dialogue is expected to be released. And the Department of Justice Inspector General reportedly has additional damaging texts from others on the team that Special Counsel Robert Mueller selected to help him investigate Russia-gate. ..."
"... But the main casualty is the FBI's 18-month campaign to sabotage candidate-and-now-President Donald Trump by using the Obama administration's Russia-gate intelligence "assessment," electronic surveillance of dubious legality, and a salacious dossier that could never pass the smell test, while at the same time using equally dubious techniques to immunize Hillary Clinton and her closest advisers from crimes that include lying to the FBI and endangering secrets ..."
"... Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has been sorely lacking: first-hand evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of breathless searching for "evidence" of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time gumshoes used to call "means, motive and opportunity ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Besides this wildly improbable storyline, there were flat denials from WikiLeaks, which distributed the supposedly "hacked" Democratic emails, that the information came from Russia – and there was the curious inability of the National Security Agency to use its immense powers to supply any technical evidence to support the Russia-hack scenario. ..."
"... on Jan. 6, 2017, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released an evidence-free report that he said was compiled by "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, offering an "assessment" that Russia and President Putin were behind the release of the Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency. ..."
"... Despite the extraordinary gravity of the charge, even New York Times correspondent Scott Shane noted that proof was lacking. He wrote at the time: "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.'" ..."
"... Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that falsehood was belatedly acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved narrative of Russia-gate. ..."
"... Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing was a "soft coup" were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from the White House. ..."
"... Justified or not, Trump's feeling of vindication could hardly be more dangerous -- particularly at a time when the most urgent need is to drain some testosterone from the self-styled Stable-Genius-in-Chief and his martinet generals. ..."
"... On the home front, Trump, his wealthy friends, and like-thinkers in Congress may now feel they have an even wider carte blanche to visit untold misery on the poor, the widow, the stranger and other vulnerable humans. That was always an underlying danger of the Resistance's strategy to seize on whatever weapons were available – no matter how reckless or unfair – to "get Trump." ..."
"... Beyond that, Russia-gate has become so central to the Washington establishment's storyline that there appears to be no room for second-thoughts or turning back. The momentum is such that some Democrats and the media never-Trumpers can't stop stoking the smoke of Russia-gate and holding out hope against hope that it will somehow justify Trump's impeachment. ..."
"... Yet, the sordid process of using legal/investigative means to settle political scores further compromises the principle of the "rule of law" and integrity of journalism in the eyes of many Americans. After a year of Russia-gate, the "rule of law" and "pursuit of truth" appear to have been reduced to high-falutin' phrases for political score-setttling, a process besmirched by Republicans in earlier pursuits of Democrats and now appearing to be a bipartisan method for punishing political rivals regardless of the lack of evidence. ..."
"... In June and July 2017 Strzok was the top FBI official working on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia, but was taken off that job when the Justice Department IG learned of the Strzok-Page text-message exchange and told Mueller ..."
"... At this point, the $64 question is whether the various congressional oversight committees will remain ensconced in their customarily cozy role as "overlook" committees, or whether they will have the courage to attempt to carry out their Constitutional duty. The latter course would mean confronting a powerful Deep State and its large toolbox of well-practiced retaliatory techniques, including J. Edgar Hoover-style blackmail on steroids, enabled by electronic surveillance of just about everything and everyone. Yes, today's technology permits blanket collection, and "Collect Everything" has become the motto. ..."
"... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have "six ways from Sunday to get back at you" if you are "dumb" enough to take them on. ..."
"... If congressional investigators have been paying attention, they already know what former weapons inspector Scott Ritter shared with Veteran intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues this week; namely, that Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson, who commissioned the Russia dossier using Democratic Party money, said he reached out to Steele after June 17, just three days before Steele's first report was published , drawing on seven sources. ..."
"... How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with no expectation of any "death benefit" ever coming into play -- save for Trump's electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered -- there would be little interest in a serious investigation by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... As you know Mr. McGovern the police state seldom loses. ..."
"... Compared to the criminal and corrupt US political system, the mafia is an honor society oriented on values. More and more evidence appears that the whole Russian Gate was precooked by the Obama and Clinton mafia together with crooks like Clapper, Brennan, Comey. Lynch and many of the top brass in the FBI and the DoJ. The installment of Bob Mueller who is hugely biased and a Comey body hired only Clinton supporters as his lawyers. But such a team shows how corrupt the US justice system has already become. ..."
"... Considering all the experience gleaned from 7+ decades of subverting and overthrowing governments around the world, the Deep State thugs must of thought securing the WH for their Killer Queen was a 'slam dunk.' ..."
"... The FBI answers to the CIA. This essay is absurd. ..."
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the third presidential debate in 2016, during which Clinton called Trump Vladimir Putin's
"puppet.
Special Report: In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies manipulating U.S. politics, but now
Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.
Russia-gate is becoming FBI-gate, thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages between loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence
official Peter Strzok and his garrulous girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. (Ten illustrative texts from their exchange appear at the
end of this article.)
Despite his former job as chief of the FBI's counterintelligence section, Strzok had the naive notion that texting on FBI phones
could not be traced. Strzok must have slept through "Surity 101." Or perhaps he was busy texting during that class. Girlfriend Page
cannot be happy at being misled by his assurance that using office phones would be a secure way to conduct their affair(s).
It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding texts merely exposed, revealing
the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the rest
of us. However, for the never-Trump plotters in the FBI, the official release of just a fraction (375) of almost 10,000 messages
does incalculably more damage than that.
We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the U.S.
democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not
the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community, shadowy characters
sometimes called the Deep State.
More of the Strzok-Page texting dialogue is expected to be released. And the Department of Justice Inspector General reportedly
has additional damaging texts from others on the team that Special Counsel Robert Mueller selected to help him investigate Russia-gate.
Besides forcing the removal of Strzok and Page, the text exposures also sounded the death knell for the career of FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe, in whose office some of the plotting took place and who has already announced his plans to retire soon.
But the main casualty is the FBI's 18-month campaign to sabotage candidate-and-now-President Donald Trump by using the Obama
administration's Russia-gate intelligence "assessment," electronic surveillance of dubious legality, and a salacious dossier that
could never pass the smell test, while at the same time using equally dubious techniques to immunize Hillary Clinton and her closest
advisers from crimes that include lying to the FBI and endangering secrets.
Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has been sorely lacking: first-hand
evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of breathless searching for "evidence" of Russian-Trump collusion designed
to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to
keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time gumshoes used to call "means, motive and opportunity."
Even more unfortunately for Russia-gate enthusiasts, the FBI lovers' correspondence provides factual evidence exposing much of
the made-up "Resistance" narrative – the contrived storyline that The New York Times and much of the rest of the U.S. mainstream
media deemed fit to print with little skepticism and few if any caveats, a scenario about brilliantly devious Russians that not only
lacks actual evidence – relying on unverified hearsay and rumor – but doesn't make sense on its face.
The Russia-gate narrative always hinged on the preposterous notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw years ago what
no American political analyst considered even possible, the political ascendancy of Donald Trump. According to the narrative, the
fortune-telling Putin then risked creating even worse tensions with a nuclear-armed America that would – by all odds – have been
led by a vengeful President Hillary Clinton.
Besides this wildly improbable storyline, there were flat denials from WikiLeaks, which distributed the supposedly "hacked"
Democratic emails, that the information came from Russia – and there was the curious inability of the National Security Agency to
use its immense powers to supply any technical evidence to support the Russia-hack scenario.
The Trump Shock
But the shock of Trump's election and the decision of many never-Trumpers to cast their lot with the Resistance led to a situation
in which any prudent skepticism or demand for evidence was swept aside.
So, on Jan. 6, 2017, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released an evidence-free report that
he said was compiled by "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, offering an "assessment" that Russia and President Putin
were behind the release of the Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency.
Despite the extraordinary gravity of the charge, even New York Times correspondent Scott Shane noted that proof was lacking.
He wrote
at the time: "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence
to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies
essentially amounts to 'trust us.'"
But the "assessment" served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing
Trump's election and even raised the long-shot hope that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise
candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow
removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record
repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that
falsehood was belatedly
acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the
Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved
narrative of Russia-gate.
Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were
witnessing was a "soft coup" were
scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about
the weaknesses of the Russia-gate
narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit
of the goal of removing Trump from the White House.
It didn't even seem to matter when new
Russia-gate disclosures conflicted
with the original narrative
that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the
Russia-gate advocates started with the conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted
the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a "Trump enabler" or a "Moscow stooge."
The Text Evidence
But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evidence that key FBI officials involved in the Russia-gate investigation
were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump, adding hard proof to Trump's longstanding lament that he was the subject of a "witch
hunt ."
Peter Strzok, who served as a Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, second in command of counterintelligence.
Justified or not, Trump's feeling of vindication could hardly be more dangerous -- particularly at a time when the most urgent
need is to drain some testosterone from the self-styled Stable-Genius-in-Chief and his martinet generals.
On the home front, Trump, his wealthy friends, and like-thinkers in Congress may now feel they have an even wider carte blanche
to visit untold misery on the poor, the widow, the stranger and other vulnerable humans. That was always an underlying danger of
the Resistance's strategy to seize on whatever weapons were available – no matter how reckless or unfair – to "get Trump."
Beyond that, Russia-gate has become so central to the Washington establishment's storyline that there appears to be no room
for second-thoughts or turning back. The momentum is such that some Democrats and the media never-Trumpers can't stop stoking the
smoke of Russia-gate and holding out hope against hope that it will somehow justify Trump's impeachment.
Yet, the sordid process of using legal/investigative means to settle political scores further compromises the principle of
the "rule of law" and integrity of journalism in the eyes of many Americans. After a year of Russia-gate, the "rule of law" and "pursuit
of truth" appear to have been reduced to high-falutin' phrases for political score-setttling, a process besmirched by Republicans
in earlier pursuits of Democrats and now appearing to be a bipartisan method for punishing political rivals regardless of the lack
of evidence.
Strzok and Page
Peter Strzok (pronounced "struck") has an interesting pedigree with multiple tasks regarding both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump.
As the FBI's chief of counterespionage during the investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's unauthorized use of
a personal email server for classified information, Strzok reportedly changed the words "grossly negligent" (which could have triggered
legal prosecution) to the far less serious "extremely careless" in FBI Director James Comey's depiction of Clinton's actions. This
semantic shift cleared the way for Comey to conclude just 20 days before the Democratic National Convention began in July 2016, that
"no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges against Mrs. Clinton.
Then, as Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, Strzok led the FBI's investigation into alleged Russian
interference in the U.S. election of 2016. It is a safe bet that he took a strong hand in hand-picking the FBI contingent of analysts
that joined "hand-picked" counterparts from CIA and NSA in preparing the evidence-free, Jan. 6, 2017 assessment accusing Russian
President Vladimir Putin of interfering in the election of 2016. (Although accepted in Establishment groupthink as revealed truth,
that poor excuse for analysis reflected the apogee of intelligence politicization -- rivaled only by the fraudulent intelligence
on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq 15 years ago.)
In June and July 2017 Strzok was the top FBI official working on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible
links between the Trump campaign and Russia, but was taken off that job when the Justice Department IG learned of the Strzok-Page
text-message exchange and told Mueller.
There is no little irony in the fact that what did in the FBI sweathearts was their visceral disdain for Mr. Trump, their cheerleading-cum-kid-gloves
treatment of Mrs. Clinton and her associates, their 1950-ish, James Clapperesque attitude toward Russians as "almost genetically
driven" to evil, and their (Strzok/Page) elitist conviction that they know far better what is good for the country than regular American
citizens, including those "deplorables" whom Clinton said made up half of Trump's supporters.
But Strzok/Page had no idea that their hubris, elitism and scheming would be revealed in so tangible a way. Worst of all for them,
the very thing that Strzok, in particular, worked so hard to achieve -- the sabotaging of Trump and immunization of Mrs. Clinton
and her closest advisers is now coming apart at the seams.
Congress: Oversee? or Overlook?
At this point, the $64 question is whether the various congressional oversight committees will remain ensconced in their customarily
cozy role as "overlook" committees, or whether they will have the courage to attempt to carry out their Constitutional duty. The
latter course would mean confronting a powerful Deep State and its large toolbox of well-practiced retaliatory techniques, including
J. Edgar Hoover-style blackmail on steroids, enabled by electronic surveillance of just about everything and everyone. Yes, today's
technology permits blanket collection, and "Collect Everything" has become the motto.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President
Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have "six ways from
Sunday to get back at you" if you are "dumb" enough to take them on.
Thanks to the almost 10,000 text messages between Strzok and Page, only a small fraction of which were given to Congress four
weeks ago, there is now real evidentiary meat on the bones of the suspicions that there indeed was a "deep-state coup" to "correct"
the outcome of the 2016 election. We now know that the supposedly apolitical FBI officials had huge political axes to grind. The
Strzok-Page exchanges drip with disdain for Trump and those deemed his smelly deplorable supporters. In one text message, Strzok
expressed visceral contempt for those working-class Trump voters, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart.
I could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here."
The texts even show Strzok warning of the need for an "insurance policy" to thwart Trump on the off-chance that his poll numbers
closed in on those of Mrs. Clinton.
An Aug. 6, 2016 text message, for example, shows Page giving her knight in shining armor strong affirmation: "Maybe you're meant
to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace [Trump]." That text to Strzok includes a link
to a David Brooks
column
in The New York Times, in which Brooks concludes with the clarion call: "There comes a time when neutrality and laying low become
dishonorable. If you're not in revolt, you're in cahoots. When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids
will look away in shame."
Another text message shows that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined
the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on
Aug. 15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he [Trump] gets
elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." Strzok added, "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die
before you're 40."
Insurance Policy?
Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says he will ask Strzok to explain the "insurance policy" when he calls
him to testify. What seems already clear is that the celebrated "Steele Dossier" was part of the "insurance," as was the evidence-less
legend that Russia hacked
the DNC's and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails and
gave them to WikiLeaks .
If congressional investigators have been paying attention, they already know what former weapons inspector Scott Ritter shared
with Veteran intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues this week; namely, that Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson, who commissioned
the Russia dossier using Democratic Party money, said he reached out to Steele after June 17, just three days before Steele's
first report was published
, drawing on seven sources.
"There is a snowball's chance in hell that this is raw intelligence gathered by Steele; rather he seems to have drawn on a single
'trusted intermediary' to gather unsubstantiated rumor already in existence."
Another VIPS colleague, Phil Giraldi, writing out of his own experience in private sector consulting, added: "The fact that you
do not control your sources frequently means that they will feed you what they think you want to hear. Since they are only doing
it for money, the more lurid the details the better, as it increases the apparent value of the information. The private security
firm in turn, which is also doing it for the money, will pass on the stories and even embroider them to keep the client happy and
to encourage him to come back for more. When I read the Steele dossier it looked awfully familiar to me, like the scores of similar
reports I had seen which combined bullshit with enough credible information to make the whole product look respectable."
It is now widely known that the Democrats ponied up the "insurance premiums," so to speak, for former British intelligence officer
Christopher Steele's "dossier" of lurid -- but largely unproven -- "intelligence" on Trump and the Russians. If, as many have concluded,
the dossier was used to help justify a FISA warrant to snoop on the Trump campaign, those involved will be in deep kimchi, if congressional
overseers do their job.
How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible
consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with
no expectation of any "death benefit" ever coming into play -- save for Trump's electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed
to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered -- there would be little interest in a serious investigation
by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President
Hillary Clinton.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee of Judiciary on Crime and Terrorism, joined Sen.
Grassley in signing the letter referring Christopher Steele to the Justice Department to investigate what appear to be false statements
about the dossier. In signing, Graham noted the "many stop signs the Department of Justice ignored in its use of the dossier." The
signature of committee ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, however, was missing -- an early sign that a highly partisan
battle royale is in the offing. On Tuesday, Feinstein unilaterally released a voluminous transcript of Glenn Simpson's earlier testimony
and, as though on cue, Establishment pundits portrayed Steele as a good source and Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson as a victim.
The Donnybrook is now underway; the outcome uncertain.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.
He was an Army and CIA intelligence analyst for 30 years; prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan;
and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Thanks for the article, Mr. McGovern. I sure wish this could be published where some liberal eyeballs could get a look at it.
I would also be interested in your opinion on the strange stuff found in some of the John Podesta emails. Although I can understand
why you may not want to swim in those murky waters.
The world is controlled by Corporate Fascist Military Industrial Intelligence Police States. They will pick the leaders of the
world and no one will tell the differently. This FBI scandal goes through all the intelligence agencies and begins with Obama
who basically runs the government in his "third term." This entire election was rigged by Dems starting with the exclusion of
Sanders. Unfortunately, for the Dems their plan failed because Hillary was such a terrible candidate. If this is not brought out
in the open we will never have a chance of getting a legitimate candidate again.
As you know Mr. McGovern the police state seldom loses.
An excellent, factual summary. (And, in light of the last two weeks, prescient.) This is true journalism, long gone from the rotten
husks of what used to be known as the Press.
But the passages about Mr. Strzok helping to alter Mr. Comey's letter picked a scab: Why is there such widespread acceptance
of the notion that Mrs. Clinton can not now be charged? I don't believe that Mr. McGovern shares that notion, other than seeing
how immunizing people, etc., makes her prosecution more difficult. But many Americans on each "side" seem to see Mr. Comey's exercise
of what was Mrs. Lynch's discretion to begin with as the equivalent of a Presidential pardon. In the meantime, applicable statutes
of limitation run
The more sunlight, the better. But before getting your hopes up about any of this hullabaloo, or expecting any change in how
the USG functions, go back and look for those pictures of Mr. Trump golfing with Mr. Clinton, the Clintons at his wedding(s),
etc.
Compared to the criminal and corrupt US political system, the mafia is an honor society oriented on values. More and more
evidence appears that the whole Russian Gate was precooked by the Obama and Clinton mafia together with crooks like Clapper, Brennan,
Comey. Lynch and many of the top brass in the FBI and the DoJ. The installment of Bob Mueller who is hugely biased and a Comey
body hired only Clinton supporters as his lawyers. But such a team shows how corrupt the US justice system has already become.
The mainstream media are involved in this witch hunt against Trump from the very beginning. Perhaps some of its bog shots were
even paid for fabricated political reporting. The NYT, the Post, CNN, MSNBC and all the other so-called opinion leaders spread
fake news and kept the legend of "Russian collusion" going over a year, despite presenting not a single piece of evidence. Their
task was to manipulate and brainwash the American public.
Just listen to this interview. One understands what was and still is going on in this crooked US political system.
" thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages between loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence official Peter
Strzok and his garrulous girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page."
Despite the efforts to destroy a significant part of the data trail. You know, in the good old days, evidence of the affair
would be enough for their clearances to be revoked, and use of Government telecomms for such purposes would be grounds for firing.
Don't know what Sessions is waiting for, but this bubba would like some red meat already. For that matter, he should have told
Mueller where to put his subpeona. Sessions really is an empty suit.
Well in reality it began with Bush the Stupid and his remark that the Constitution was only a GD piece of paper and promptly
tore it up,and as long as we continue to have the best government "money can buy" nothing will change,anymore than it will change
under Trump, as he switches from the war on terror to the war on competitors (Russia and China)and world domination and its resources..
We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the
U.S. democratic process.
Considering all the experience gleaned from 7+ decades of subverting and overthrowing governments around the world, the
Deep State thugs must of thought securing the WH for their Killer Queen was a 'slam dunk.' My believe is that Trump actually
got around 70% of the vote, a number that overwhelmed their computerized vote fixing.
All the grief, misery and destruction we've visited upon nations around the world is now coming back to haunt Americans. Only
part missing is the violent overthrow or assassination of a leader and don't put the Deep State thugs beyond that.
On the home front, Trump, his wealthy friends, and like-thinkers in Congress may now feel they have an even wider carte
blanche to visit untold misery on the poor, the widow, the stranger and other vulnerable humans.
This looks like a disingenuous conflation of Trump (and his handful of presumably more or less dependable allies/minions) with
the Ryan-Koch- US Chamber of Commerce GOP establishment. Despite what Jeff Flake says, he's not a dictator, so he has to make
concessions to the donor class-controlled wing of the party. This stuff is so obvious I'm embarrassed as I type it out.
Keep right on sucking up that kool-aid,the economy has an up-tick because of government spending, which of course will add
another $1.7 trillion (per David Stockman Reagan's budget directer) to the debt that you just wished onto your children,g children
and their children (ain't you proud/) and lol if you believe those government figures on the unemployment stats than you must
believe in the tooth fairy,and of course along with those bonuses comes the lay-offs, a thousand here a thousand there (on the
Lay-off list) as the work is out sourced to other countries,meanwhile a few more billion goes to the military/industrial group.Ah
yes utopia at last,well while it last that is .
"It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding texts merely exposed, revealing
the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the
rest of us."
True One of the first thoughts I had was that these were, at most, highschool level communications. To think this is 'high
level' government in action is, at once, amusing and disturbing.
Now, many companies are cutting corners by using "contract workers" on a temporary basis.
Concur all, but this especially. In the DC area starting with the internet boom and dot.com busts of the late 90s, Indians
started coming in and all of a sudden, everyone in IT and computer technologies was being replaced with a contract. After spending
years getting certs and continuously upgrading skills and certs, people were ruined with imported contractors. It started at FannyMae
and Freddie Mac, the entire board and hierarchy there read like the New Delhi phone book for twenty years now. Between the Chins
and Indians, there's been an enormous overclass installed and it's not going anywhere. Someone here recently wrote an article
about it but it isn't recent. With the handwriting on the wall so long ago, I gave up chasing Microsoft certs and contracts and
went back to analog phone systems and infrastructure and electrical, but I saw a lot of people that tried to follow the professional
IT path ruined. Throw in the racial and sexual politics in the offices and the environment is pretty miserable anyway..
Pretty bad as is, but with AI coming about, whole classes of Democrat folks unconcerned with immigration will be replaced by
Bots of all sorts, making the immigration hardships look like Disney World.
"Strzok reportedly changed the words "grossly negligent" (which could have triggered legal prosecution) to the far less
serious "extremely careless" in FBI Director James Comey's depiction of Clinton's actions. This semantic shift cleared the
way for Comey to conclude just 20 days before the Democratic National Convention began in July 2016, that "no reasonable prosecutor"
would bring charges against Mrs. Clinton."
It's a thin line between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness." While "gross negligence" usually involves unintentional
acts, they can border on intentional conduct by the very recklessness of the activity. A senior government moving vast amounts
of classified data on unsecured networks can't begin to assert she didn't know the risks she was taking. Semantics here are irrelevant:
The substance of the law is that HRC was grossly negligent.
As a seasoned lawyer, Comey would know that a prosecutor could very reasonably equate the two and charge on a violation of
18 USC 793 (Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information) There are a couple paragraphs that could be applied, but (f)
looks most likely. The mere act of storing classified data on a personal server could also be a violation of 18 USC 798 (Disclosure
of classified information). Destroying the same data might also be charged as violations of the 2009 Federal Records Act, and
there is plenty of reason to pursue the limb of Obstruction of Justice in light of the other serious charges that could reasonably
be made.
In order to be credible, justice must be seen to be done. The longer Sessions and Trump let this charade go uninvestigated
for fear that investigating it looks overtly political, the more political it actually becomes, and the less credible the rule
of law in America becomes ("Laws and regulations are for the little people!)
The deep state coup was the appointment of Trump or it could have been Clinton. You have no choice when you vote. The work of
retired spooks like McGovern is to convince you that you live in a Democracy where voting matters. There's no evidence that voting
serves anyone other than appearances for the ruling elite.
The FBI is an inherently political organization. I would expect the FBI to tweet things like " that motherfucker is goin' down"
or "fuck her" or "Orange son of a bitch, let's make some noise" or more racist "those nigger motherfuckers in the city" or "think
you're anonymous on the internet lil'boy?" Those would be the tweets of the FBI that we all know and love.
This interference into a presidential election by an agency such as the FBI raises the question of whether there's been manipulation
of other previous elections. Were some of our previous presidents installed through machinations of an intelligence agency?
Sure they are these companies and corporations are saving millions upon millions due to Trump and the republicans, while throwing
a few crumbs to the workers who are suppose to lick their hands, many who only make $10-$11 dollars per hour, and seeing they
are bonuses the government will take more than their share, and down the road these same workers will be paying it back in spades
,after all someone has to fund the military/industrial racket
Trump needs to be impeached. The entire Government is a bad bit of fiction, why not use the symbolic figure head of empire to
generate excitement in the mass of American sheep? To that end, throw up any accusation that will stick, make it sound like a
Constitutional crisis but simple enough for the average begrudged redneck to understand. The FBI has an agenda, what part of the
Government doesn't? The whole point of elections is to have different groups employ every tactic under the sun to manipulate said
sheep. Let's get the impeachment show started.
This whole affair also totally destroys the G-Man mythos. From the outside Strzok looks the part. Yet both he and Page write texts
like they're particularly dim 20 year old girls.
Strzok – God Hillary should win. 100,000,000-0.
Page– I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Page – He's not ever going to become president, right? Right?!
Strzok – OMG did you hear what Trump just said?
Page – Yep. Out to lunch with (redacted) We both hate everyone and everything.
Page – Just riffing on the hot mess that is our country.
Strzok– Donald just said "bad hombres"
This is the level of discourse (Of course this could just be a biased sample to humiliate Strzok but leave the really bad conspiring
out of frame) he has with his mistress on an FBI phone as he plans dirty tricks on his own country?
The sad part will be to see how they will all, one after the other, get away with everything they've done.
If any of them will even go to trial for anything other than some procedural point, they'll all make a deal with DC-Democratic
prosecutors, Hollywood will make a film casting them as heroes and they'll all get a slap on the wrist, a la Petraeus.
The politicians will claim that they have to hide the truth so that the public will not loose their 'trust' in these institutions,
they'll name some RINO as the 'compromise' candidate to lead these institutions and it'll be back to business as usual in the
heart of the empire, as in all previous times, see James Bovard's article:
Page– I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.
Such vacuous shallowness, imagining themselves to be the heroes of some cheap Hollywood movie, not even suspecting how 2 dimensional,
delusional, and sophomoric it all sounds (of course, it only sound moronic because we found out about it before the plan reach
its planned conclusion).
After 14 years of non-stop wars and mass murder, we find out the empire is run by the cheerleading squad, motivating each other
with high fives while trying to take 'democracy' down. Still, I suspect there were adults at table also who mad sure to say one
step out of the spotlight.
"It's a thin line between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness." "
Not in the context of legal language. In fact, it's a great divide. "Extremely careless" is not a federal criminal charge,
while "gross negligence" actually is. Never mind about the difference in degree when speaking of the two terms, one is a crime,
and the other is merely grounds for an investigation.
"... On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels of the American intelligence community . ..."
"... I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and his appointment was a set up from the beginning. ..."
"... Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and runs biggest detective agency in DC. ..."
"... Mueller's gravy train ends if he can't find anything. So he's setting perjury traps like IEDs in the Sunni Triangle. ..."
"... Mueller trying to put the onus back on Trump instead of FBI corruption covering up Obama's treason ..."
"... The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on his own uncontrollable personality. ..."
"... Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it. ..."
"... Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices. You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks. ..."
"... I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building? Did some areas get clean? ..."
"... Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security? Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government is a secret society. ..."
"... I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. ..."
"... You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid, but they can be that arrogant - as they were! ..."
"... The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free. ..."
"... You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them. ..."
A whistleblower has revealed to Congress that clandestine, offsite meetings between high ranking FBI and DOJ took place in which
officials discussed ways to undermine President Trump after the 2016 election, Rep. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Fox News on Tuesday.
The bombshell revelation all but confirms a "
secret society " alluded to in text messages released last Friday between two anti-Trump FBI employees tasked with investigating
both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
" The secret society -- we have an informant talking about a group holding secret meetings off-site ," Johnson said.
"We have to continue to dig into it," he added. " This is not a distraction. This is biased, potentially corruption at the
highest levels of the FB I." - The Hill
On Monday night, Reps. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told Fox News of the "secret society" texts between FBI
investigators Peter Strzok and Lisa Page - contained within a 384-page batch of text messages delivered to Congress from the DOJ
last Friday. Of note Ratcliffe says that Strzok and Page were included in the clandestine anti-Trump cabal at the highest levels
of the American intelligence community .
What we learned today in the thousands of text messages that we've reviewed that perhaps they may not have done that (checked
their bias at the door). There's certainly a factual basis to question whether or not they acted on that bias. We know about this
insurance policy that was referenced in trying to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president.
We learned today from information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a secret society
of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok to be working against him .
As part of the 384 page document delivery, the Department of Justice notified Congressional investigators that five months of
text messages from December 14, 2016 to May 17, 2017 have gone missing (ironically there is a text message about "not keeping texts"
from last Friday's release).
And while Strzok and Page's communications for five months after the election apparently won't see the light of day, what we do
know is that right before the election, Strzok and Page texted about an "
insurance policy " against Donald Trump becoming President.
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office - that there's no way he [Trump] gets elected -
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." writes FBI counterintelligence officer Peter Strzok to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he
was having an extramarital affair while spearheading both the Clinton email inquiry and the early Trump-Russia probe, adding " It's
like a life insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 ."
To recap: we now have text messages between Strzok and Page referencing an "insurance policy" and a "secret society" of people
within the DOJ and FBI who came together in the "immediate aftermath" of the 2016 election to undermine President Trump... and a
whistleblower who has now told Congress that's exactly what happened in the form of secret, offsite meetings between officials at
the two agencies.
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing
or destroying the government of the
United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political
subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the
United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of
persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes
or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of
persons , knowing the purposes thereof --
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more
persons conspire to commit any
offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and
shall be ineligible for employment by the
United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of
persons , include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs,
classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of
persons .
I'm waiting to see when Mueller is implicated in the secret society. Mueller HAD to know. He's best friends with Comey and
his appointment was a set up from the beginning.
Also need to keep eye out on Bill Priestap, Strzok's immediate boss, and Baker, BFF and legal counsel to Comey and also the
guy who was Chief of Staff to Comey. And don't forget all the WAGS of all of them. Wife of Priestap is Goldman Sachs heiress and
runs biggest detective agency in DC.
the CIA clean'd-up the evidence while Mueller was in California to introduce himself to the nations top FBI personnel. thus,
unable to fly back to NYC.
coincidence? why the fuck wasn't the meeting held in NYC!?!
Imagine if the text messages between these "Secret Society" members talks about killing Trump if the Russia-Russia-Russian
Collusion Farce fails. And further imagine if McCabe, Rosenstein, J. Edgar Comey or even some Obama people like Susan Rice and
Valerie Jarrett are included in those very text messages. Imagine further if Obama and/or Huma or Hillary are included in any
of them...........these people are arrogant enough and so full of themselves and their ability to "fix" the world around them
that it is all entirely possible.........
How about this scenario: Hillary and the rest of the Deep State expected her to win via fractional voting. She had a mortal
lock, so they thought except Trump snagged 20 to 30 million more votes than Hillary did, overriding the fractional voting scheme
they had in place.
The Dossier scam was supposed to be a flimsy reason they could point to as one of the reasons Trump lost. With Hillary in the
WH, the dossier would never be examined...just alluded to in passing. They'd have said Trump had a good start but got hoist on
his own uncontrollable personality.
With Hillary at the top of all the levers of the government, Trump would have gotten bitch slapped repeatedly with little recourse.
This isn't just a couple of rogue individuals, this is an organized conspiracy at the very top, using all the power of the
FBI and DOJ to destroy a sitting president up to and including harming him.
"Mueller probe accidentally exposes FBI COVER-UP of Saudi role in 911"
1/24/18 ***oops?!? This is what happens when the Saudi's let China offer the 'Public Offering' of Saudi Aramco' on the Shanghai
INE Exchange beginning mid-Feb/2018 if all is finalized. Perhaps this why the opening was delayed?
Why did Trump sign 702 without hesitation? The same 702 that enabled them to illegally spy on Trump? Moreover, the 702 Trump
signed is said to have been modified to make the process of spying easier and with no added safe guards to prevent what happened
with the Trump dossier from ever happening again. Does anyone not find it suspicious that no one in the press has questioned Trump
directly for an explanation. Someone needs to ask Trump point blank why he signed the re authorization of 702. We need to hear
his answer, especially since we are led to believe he has been victimized by it.
Simple game thinking, I thought. You can't give up the tools they have until you have won.
The good guys have to assume that the bad guys can go on using covert means, likely they have back-doored their own agencies'
info systems. If not, they have their people scattered through the organization. Or both.
Andrew McCabe and James Comey had a long time to work on the personnel of the FBI, who rose, who fell, who went to what offices.
You can't trust any of the FBI until they prove themselves by tracking down the bad guys in their own ranks.
Great, now we have a 'he said, she said' situation, complete with files that can prove anything, how hard is that to arrange?
For all sides?
I think that untangling the webs of corruption and compromise is decades, not years. Look at Italy, they still haven't gotten
rid of the various mafias. I don't follow Italian politics, but did the issue of Mafia corruption ever die? Or just keep building?
Did some areas get clean?
Problem with all this social stuff is that there isn't a clean in/out test for any group. We are going to find that many of
our leading people throughout society have ties in shades from bright white social innocence to partners in crime black, into
the blackest of the crimes. everyone has lots of connections. The more prominent you are, the wider the variety of people you
have mingled with.
There are political careers in the investigations. Trump and his successors can ride this for 2 decades.
Of course, they will become the issue when in some far distant future the last possible bad guy has died and fortune has dispersed
beyond recall, but the surveillance capabilities are greater than ever and the successors of the current good guys refuse to end
the situation.
The compromise will be immediately ending all surveillance, everyone owns their data in return for amnesty for confessions,
files and loss of 90% of fortunes. Ae open all files to everyone and run a public investigation to understand it all.
Does anyone find it strange that Americans are not allowed to know if their government is corrupt because of national security?
Government crimes and violations of the constitution are classified and top secret. That is what you have folks. All of government
is a secret society.
If one loves words and their meanings take note that freedom is the antithesis of government. If you don't understand the
concepts of the words you use, don't complain when you get what you ask for.
I know this site is all in on Trump, but did it occur to you that generally people who work in intelligence or have any intelligence
would not discuss their illegal ,treasonous, secret society in writing using AGENCY-ISSUED PHONES. Also someone once said that
any anonymous informant should be considered made-up. I'm not denying the agency is anti-Trump. There are all kinds of legitimate
reasons to be anti-Trump. I just wish you and Mr. Johnson would bother getting some slightly less flimsy conspiracy theories before
you go blaring them on the banners. It makes you look pathetic and desperate.
You're assumptions are wrong. Arrogance breeds contempt, and they were arrogant, just like Hillary arrogantly put her emails
on an unprotected server in contradiction to well established and seriously enforced federal law. No one could be that stupid,
but they can be that arrogant - as they were!
The disappearance of the txts leaves a presumption of guilt - not innocence . Otherwise culpable parties would wipe the slate
clean all day long, as has obviously happened here, and walk away scot free.
You say Johnson looks pathetic while you spew out terms like "flimsy conspiracy theories" as your 'evidence.' Juggalo, you
look like a dumb f***ing clown with your head so far up your a$$ you think it's nighttime.
You overlook the hubris of outsized egos. These people saw themselves as untouchables like Eliot Ness. They thought they could
walk people to the edge and push them over and nobody could touch them.
No kidding, right? Watched Tucker Carlson last night interviewing Richard Goodstein (former Hillary Campaign Advisor, obviously
unemployed) Great segment asking Goodstein to answer a "Revulsion Test"!
It was unreal! The damn ignorant libtard just would not, could not bring himself to say that anything bothered him about the
corruption going on in the FBI.
Tucker: Does it bother you that the FBI decided not to bring criminal charges against Hillary BEFORE conducting an investigation
of her, or interviewing her.
Goodstein: No
Tucker: Does it bother you that Strozk said he couldn't take the chance that Trump got elected and had an insurance policy
in mind to prevent it, while he was on the committee investigating Trump?
Goodstein: No
Listen to the rest here...its hilarious and shows how Diseased Liberals are mentally!!
Democrats are the spit and image of the Bolsheviks in 1917 Russia. Democrats in America today despise everything and everyone
that is not Democrat in policy, propaganda, attitude, opinion & belief. If the Democrat Party is allowed to continue as it is
there will be blood and lots of it.
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians.
Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse. It cannot be overstated.
Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about
this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators."
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Ok congress critters. If all this is true and a lot of it probably is, can someone enlighten me as to why the delay. I really
see no advantage in holding back on this. It gives every advantage to the Blue team to organize a response and create more smoke
screens. The longer this goes on the more likely this will never see the light of day. Especially when one considers the Red teams
past performance. Release it or shut the fuck up.
Remember these are the same "group thinkers/actors" who voted something like 415-5 to impose harsh sanctions on Russia to punish
Russia for "meddling" in our Democratic processes.
I wonder if any of these critters would take back this vote now?
Maybe they should now vote on imposing "sanctions" on the DOJ and HRC's campaign staffers (Hillary included), as well as the
DNC and the MSM organizations/ "journalists" who spread a bogus story-line for nefarious/unpatriotic reasons.
P.S. I also wonder how many stories/posts on Facebook and Twitter advanced this faux story. Probably about 1 billion more than
Russian bots managed to sneak into the national dialogue. I understand the owner of Facebook has deep pockets. Give him the "Saudi
treatment" - pay up or go to jail, buddy.
Both parties are part of the cabal, including Trump. Arming the neonazis in the Ukraine that wants war on Russia, as well as
US and NATO troops on RUSSIA'S borders. Signing off on the FISA spy ring upon Americans, expanding US WARS, in Syria and Afghanistan
and Africa. Wanting war on N. Korea.
If people would just get that the cabal are addicted to WAR and the enrichment that comes from it as well as it's all ZIONIST
wars, for which Trump is now owned by Netanyahu, as is our Congressional dual Israeli citizens, we might be able to organize under
one banner that never changes witj both parties utterly submissive to the military and security complex. No more WAR .
If this is as reported, and if there was a convening of a meeting in secret outside of the professional roles of law enforcement,
for the purposes of a focused prosecution of a duly elected president, then that is at a minimum an offense that would disbar
employment in the federal government. It would also be grounds for disbarring any attorney.
But what I'm finding equally as troubling is the very casual manner in which somebody from say nation A, can hire person in
Nation B, to provide paid hearsay evidence from Nation C to initiate an investigation that circumvents Nation A's laws of privacy
upon a targeted individual.
That makes the NSA the tool of anyone with money to initiate this type of investigation as described above to harass and intimidate
an individual using tax dollar funded services.
I'm not Ok with Republicans or Democrats doing this.
So someone with means initiates NSL's against a person soliciting banking, building, employment, relationships, all designed
to use the institutional credibility of the NSA or even the FBI to tarnish the standing of a targeted individual.
The bank isn't going to disclose, but they might not offer a loan!
The zoning bard will not disclose, but will withhold permits.
And the zeal and the bias that there groups exercise in their zeal to assist their government in an investigation cumulatively
is damaging. Loan delayed is loan denied. Permit delayed is permit denied.
You want to support legitimate law enforcement activities and investigations, but not this fucking circus.
It is as if you are witnessing the prosecutor receiving cash from a private party, then the prosecutor hand the bailiff cash,
who then passes it onto a paid witness prior to testifying and not swearing in, or being available for cross examination. And
that folks is bullshit. Meanwhile the judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense all met in private during recess and agreed that facts
weren't relevant and to not allow facts to stand in the way of their "convictions!"
John Perkins said that to get in the CIA, you have to pass a personality test that shows you are less than morally sound. Just
imagine the test tube of explosive back-stabbing sociopaths that place must be today.
Maybe. I just think these people "self select" their career paths. A certain type of personality type is driven to government
bureaucracies and/or political office and/or capitalist positions that reward "cronies" to government. A certain ambitious type
learns how to "play the game" and rises up the ranks. The culture in these places rewards corruption (or turning a blind eye to
same). These people like the power, prestige and money-making opportunities. They "scratch backs" so their own back can be scratched.
Whatever the psychology or personality type, these people work to preserve and protect the Status Quo.
i don't agree with you on your general premise of immorality. But if things are as reported and as I describe above, then the
NSA is nothing more than the errand chasers of those with cash and connection, and that that service is paid for by the US taxpayer
to be abused by those whom would misuse it as I described. And if that is the way the system is being misused then there is a
problem.
I don't do the hate America first bullshit but I do call em like I see em..
A line pushed repeatedly by Hillary. That was a lie of course. Only a few (hand-picked) "analysts" from three or four of these
agencies signed off on that important "conclusion."
I also think of all the "intelligence experts" who immediately knew that Assad bombed his own people with banned chemicals.
Whatever they say, you know the opposite must be the truth.
How can General Flynn be charged with lying to the FBI when the FBI agent he lied to is plotting to over throw the president?
Who were the coup leaders? It was McCabe's office that set up the meeting with Flynn. Flynn didn't know the meeting was about
Flynn talking with the Russian Ambassador. Which is normal for an incoming National Security Advisor. There were no witnesses
to the meeting except two FBI agents, one of which is the disgraced FBI agent. Flynn thought like a former Intel General, he was
protecting national security information on a need to know basis.(standard military SOP).
It looks like Flynn was set up to frame Trump. Flynn's charges need to be dropped.
Oh, my! It looks like things are beginning to clarify! Dear American public has it ever occured to you that this whole Trump
colluding with Russia as well as the Russia meddling in the election narrative is just a one big lie. Too big to swallow?
If "Russia" wanted to swing or rig an election, they couldn't. The whole premise is preposterous. "Russia" convinced millions
of voters in a dozen swing states to change their votes? With a few Facebook entries? Good God.
I think it was clear to most of us. It was those who couldn't accept Hillary's defeat who wanted the narrative to keep them
sane. They were the same as Strock, et. al. - too stupid to see the train coming straight down the tracks. When they realized
they would lose their lifetime of job safety and corruption, they panicked.
Who in the US didn't know Hillary was the most corrupt politician and ruthless sub-human animal ever to run for office? They
were the ones profiting either directly or indirectly from all the criminality.
You know who has/had Hillary and Bill pegged better than anyone else? Linda Tripp. I wish I had the link to a recent feature
on her. Her main take-away: The rules of society and laws do not apply to her. She (and her husband) can and had gotten away with
everything. But the scary part is how seemingly everyone in D.C. and the Establishment is allied with them and has/had no issue
with their MO. The Swamp is full of the same type of people and their defenders. These are the type people who are attracted to
"government service" and move up the ranks once embedded. Not just in government, but the press corps and the worlds of finance
as well.
I'll say again. If Trump had been sincere in draining the swamp - and had did it - he would have gone down as the greatest
president in U.S. history.
That he is not committed to this mission - or quickly abandoned it - is a tragic disappointment.
(For those who say he is still trying to drain the swamp, explain why he never made an effort to investigate and expose "Crooked
Hillary," has no interest at all in auditing the Fed, signed legislation imposing severe sanctions on Russia for "meddling" and
filled his administration with Goldman Sachs alums, among other swamp-protecting activities).
There are very senior members of the Intelligence Community who risk exposure, ignominy, and possibly even death if their treason
is exposed to the light of day.
These people are the artists who create false flag events and change foreign Governments at the drop of a hat.
If the Intelligence Community needs to start a war to escape the consequences of their treason; that is what they will do;
without the slightest hesitation.
The rest of the world needs to be extremely sceptical regarding "Intelligence" from the U.S., and wide awake to the risk.
Get everything out in the open before it's too late for the human race.
"This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence
and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation
systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base
structure. They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under
the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years
ahead. " [L. Fletcher Prouty, Alexandria, VA 1997]
The timeline of the 'missing' text messages spans a 5 month period which begins on December 14, 2016 and goes through to May 17,
2017, which happens to be the same day Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel for the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
"Jawdropping" text messages recently discovered have
FBI agent Peter
Strzok claiming that as far as Trump-Russia collusion is concerned "there's no big there there" and even more frightening messages
have been discovered exposing a
'secret society' of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok, to be working against him
[Donald Trump]."
One cannot fault US President Trump for taking to Twitter Tuesday morning to blast the text message scandal unfolding within the
FBI and DOJ.
Trump tweeted
Where are the 50,000 important text messages between FBI lovers Lisa Page and Peter Strzok? Blaming Samsung!
Zerohedge summarizes how a now terrified Democrat-Deep State cabal is working overtime to blame the entire #ReleaseTheMemo movement
on, you guessed it, Russian trolls
Last week, a four page memo detailing FBI abuse of FISA warrants against the Trump campaign was circulated within the US House
of Representatives
Amid calls from several Congressional Republicans, the hashtag #ReleaseTheMemo immediately went viral
In an effort to downplay genuine public concern, a "
Russian
propaganda" tracking website used primarily by Democrats and Neoconservatives has suggested that #ReleaseTheMemo went viral
thanks to Russian bots
California Reps. Dianne Feinstein and Adam Schiff
sent a letter
to Facebook and Twitter CEO's on Tuesday, asking that they take action against the Russian scourge
Meanwhile, Twitter's internal analysis of the hashtag has thus far found that authentic American accounts, not Russians, are
driving #ReleaseTheMemo, according to The Daily Beast
"... Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court. ..."
"... I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge, unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this, the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is. ..."
"... RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly after [Trump] won the election. ..."
"... And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that? ..."
"... GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama. ..."
"... RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner with a president of the United States?" ..."
"... RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from Strzok. ..."
"... That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate " He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there," meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it. ..."
Hillary Clinton losing threw the biggest wrench in these people's plans, and they had the fear. They were aware she could lose.
But now we've got a secret society -- DOJ, FBI, intelligence community -- some of it directly in touch with the Obama White House.
No doubt in my mind. "Missing" texts that are not really missing. They are somewhere, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails are somewhere.
They're backed up on servers. They're backed up on devices. They are somewhere. The FBI claims they don't have them, but they are
somewhere.
Just like Hillary's missing 30,000 emails are somewhere. The mystery of the missing text messages between Strzok and the paramour,
Lisa Page, continues to widen and deepen at the same time. It's all too pat. It's too easily understandable. This is easy to understand
as the House Bank Scandal was back in 1988 and '89. An FBI agent even texted about deleting the texts, warning everybody, "You know
what? We might want to get rid of these."
I had a suggestion. Ali on our staff -- not my cat, but Ali on our staff -- suggested, "You know what'd be fun one day?" I'm not
gonna do it today. But I'm thinking about it. "It might be fun one day to take calls from people 30 and under -- you know, Millennials."
The problem with that is that anybody can call and claim they're under 30. So we would have to be really discriminatory and aware
of voices. You know, it's not fair to start judging people by their voices, their gender, their sexual orientation, their race, their
anything.
I mean, even though you can do it, you make a mistake in doing it. You're not supposed to do it. But we would have to raise our
vigilance if we're gonna do that. (interruption) "Profiling!" Yeah, that's exactly right. We would have to profile. If we're gonna
have calls from 30 (maybe even 28, I don't know) and under, then the whole thing's blown if a bunch of 80-year-olds start calling
or 75-year-olds trying to pass themselves off as young whippersnappers.
Anyway, the FBI agent texting about deleting texts? These people had "a secret society." They call it that. But it was a group
of people that was hell-bent on denying Donald Trump the presidency, and I Look, just to put it on the record here again for I don't
know how many umpteenth time: I don't have any doubt in my mind that that phony dossier was used to secure a FISA warrant. I have
In fact, let me say it exactly as it is. I have no doubt that they perpetrated a fraud on a judge at the FISA court.
I mean, that's really what it is. If they used the dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy on Trump, that means they lied to a judge,
unless the judge was in on it -- and when you're talking about the establishment, I mean, who the heck knows? The FISA court is super-secret
anyway. But regardless, it's a giant stink bomb. It is dirty as it can be. Trump is tweeting on it, and the more we learn about this,
the more easily understandable it is and the more easily believable it is.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The wheels are coming off the deep state's efforts to deny Trump the presidency, and -- once he won the presidency -- to
get him kicked out and removed. Now we've got stories of the missing texts between Peter Strzok and his paramour, Lisa Page. "House
Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Monday raised concerns that the two FBI agents mentioned a 'secret society' shortly
after [Trump] won the election.
"'The day after the election there is a text exchange between these two FBI agents [Strzok and Page], these supposed to be fact-centric
FBI agents saying, 'Perhaps this is the first meeting of the secret society,' Gowdy said 'So I'm going to want to know what secret
society you are talking about, because you're supposed to be investigating objectively the person who just won the Electoral College.'"
Trump "resistance,""secret society." These people probably gave themselves that name. I can see I really can. I can see where these
two Strzok In the first place, you got hormones raging 'cause they're having an affair.
And he's probably trying to impress her like nothing. He's married. I don't know if she's married or not, but he's just
full-fledged headlong into this affair, and she's probably got her interested in it as well. But it sounds like Strzok was the
guy. You know, in a relationship, there's always somebody who loves somebody more than the other. Would you agree with that?
Can I say that without getting beat up by people? (interruption) I can't? Okay, then forget it. I didn't say that. This guy And I
think probably their connections and their contacts as FBI agents
I think they probably really went to their head. They thought they were really doing something important and cool, but they knew
it's on the edge of legality, probably not legal. But they felt protected. They knew that the Obama DOJ was behind 'em, they knew
Obama was behind 'em. Comey, everybody in the deep state knew that they were probably on the edge here, but all aligned -- and I'm
sure it got very heady. This is a very august group, a very small group of people, a very important project: Getting rid of Trump,
defending the Washington establishment.
And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if these people got totally lost and caught up in how important they were and how cool they
were and how exciting what they were doing was and how important it was. And it was clear from the texts of theirs that we've seen
that they knew that they were on the edge and that they had to keep this under wraps and they had to keep it secret. So they probably
name themselves this "secret society," and who knows, folks! I wouldn't doubt if this whole group decided to name themselves that.
I think we're dealing with a degree, a level of arrogance and superiority. I'm talking about psychological superiority. "We are
better than everybody else! We're the defenders. We're the protectors." You combine that with their opinion of Trump, which is nothing
more than he's human debris. "This guy is sewer-level scum." You couple that with the fact that he's won, he's an outsider, he's
outsmarted them, and now the lid's blowing. Now we know that Hillary hired the people that wrote the fake Trump dossier.
And now we're getting closer and closer to confirming that Obama and the DOJ lied to a FISA judge to get a warrant to surveil.
So they're panicking, and that's why a bunch of texts from the five-month period of real activity on this are now missing. But, my
friends, they aren't missing. The FBI claims they can't find 'em, that there's a glitch and something's happened, but they are somewhere.
They are on the original device. I read that the FBI was using Samsung 5s, Samsung Galaxy 5s. Is that right? (interruption) Well,
those are old devices.
Those are very, very old devices. But we're talking about the FBI here! There are servers, there are backups, there is redundancy.
We're being told that this stuff's gone just like Lois Lerner's stuff just miraculously disappeared, just like Hillary's 30,000 emails
just disappeared. They didn't. They're somewhere. Somebody can get them. Somebody has them. Like you. If you use IDrive here, if
you pick up on the idea of backing up your phones and your computer to IDrive, okay. So you may have a glitch on your phone or your
computer and you lose 'em.
But they're there.
They're on that server, they're on the IDrive server, and they may be elsewhere. So Strzok and Page, their two devices are being
used and their computers. Whatever server side backups are happening, whatever the FBI's backups are. These text messages are somewhere.
And somebody could find them if they wanted to. Now, let's go to the audio sound bites. Let's listen. This is, first off, last night
on Fox News, Representative John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican, along with Trey Gowdy, talking about this "secret society" at the
FBI. This is interesting because they have learned that these two people are talking about an investigation.
Obama was briefed on an investigation, but they don't know which investigation, Trump or Clinton. Let's get started
RATCLIFFE: We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a "secret
society" of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok that would be working against him.
RUSH: "We learn today about " This is above and beyond what is in the four-page memo about the FISA warrant. This is additional.
"We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of his election that there may have been a 'secret society' of
folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI to include Page and Strzok," meaning others, "that would be working against" Trump.
Here's Trey Gowdy weighing in.
GOWDY: What Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts. We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the
way through the election into the transition. And I saw an interesting text that Director Comey was going to update the president
of the United States about an investigation. I don't know if it was the Hillary Clinton investigation -- because, remember, that
had been reopened in the fall 2016 -- or whether it was the Trump administration. I just find it interesting that the head of the
FBI was gonna update the president of the United States who, at that point, would have been President Obama.
RUSH: So that means Obama's in the loop. The "secret society," Strzok, whatever they're doing, Comey knows. He's FBI director,
Strzok and Page are FBI. She's a lawyer; he's an agent. There are other people involved here. They've got this "secret society" going,
and the texts they saw referred to an investigation that Director Comey was gonna update Obama on. But they don't know which, 'cause
he's right: Hillary was being investigated. They reopened this like a weekend before the election, the email server thing -- which
Hillary never forgot.
Or the Trump dossier investigation. Let's go to June 8th, 2017. "If these texts are accurately, it may not look good for Jim Comey.
On June 8th of 2017, Comey testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the presidential election.
And during the Q&A, Mark Warner, Democrat, Virginia, said, 'In all your experience, Director Comey, President Trump was the only
president you felt like in every meeting you needed to document because at some point -- using your words -- "he might put out a
non-truthful representation of the meeting"'?"
COMEY: As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it.
RUSH: Okay. So this is -- hang on, now -- June 8th, 2017. "As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice
in three years and didn't document it." It's unstated: "Because I didn't think Obama needed to be documented! He's the impeccable
example of integrity, honesty," which is a crock. But here's the next bite. June 8th. Question: This is from Senator Martin Heinrich,
Democrat, New Mexico. "Prior to January 27th of this year," meaning 2017, "have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner
with a president of the United States?"
COMEY: No! I met Dinner, no. I had two one on ones with President Obama that I laid out in my testimony, once to talk about law
enforcement issues -- law enforcement ERASE -- which was an important topic throughout for me and for the president. And then once,
very briefly, to him to say good-bye.
RUSH: Okay. So he tells Mark Warner that as FBI director he interacted with Obama, spoke only twice in three years, didn't document
it. And then he tells Martin Heinrich, Democrat, New Mexico (summarized), "No! Dinner? No. I had two one on ones with Obama that
I laid out in my testimony, one to talk about law enforcement issues, law enforcement ERASE, which was," blah, blah, blah. This was
all about the fact that Comey had to document everything he heard Trump say 'cause Trump's such a liar. Now, if these texts are accurate,
the texts say that Comey was "updating [Obama] on an investigation."
They don't know which, and these are texts that Trey Gowdy and John Ratcliffe read, and the texts detailed Comey updating Obama
on an investigation. Comey under oath doesn't say a word here about updating Obama on anything. All he did was talking about law
enforcement issues and ERASE. So people are thinking Comey may have not have been forthcoming under oath while testifying before
the committees. Based on what we've learned with the texts saying he was actively updating Obama on an investigation. Now, the odds
are he's updating Obama on the Trump investigation, because the only thing about the Hillary investigation is how to cover it up
and make it amount to nothing.
There wouldn't be really be a need for an update of that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: In jaw dropping (unintelligible) Peter Strzok Strzok expressed concern about joining the Mueller team. My friends, look.
If it looks like a witch hunt and it sounds like a witch hunt and it reads like witch hunt, then it is a witch hunt. You know, stop
and think. The Republicans wasted most of the first year of the Trump the presidency because they thought that the media narrative
on Trump-Putin collusion was true, or they thought it was close enough that they couldn't take any chances about going all in with
Trump in case it turned out to be true and he was eventually to be impeached. They believed it.
Look, they're creatures of the swamp themselves. And there was so much of it. And remember, Washington is Washington. And if the
deep state, if the intelligence agencies are saying this over and over and over and over again, if they're flooding the zone, if
every newspaper, every cable network is reporting these leaks, you can almost see how they would have no choice but than to believe
it. And so they kept their distance from Trump. And that whole year, you know, we're talking here.
We're each saying to ourselves, if they would just get on board for three months, if they'd just get on board the Trump agenda,
there'd be no stopping them. And we thought they weren't getting on board because they didn't like Trump or because they rented Trump,
either one of those things. It wasn't that. It was they fell for the narrative. Enough of them thought there might be something to
it that they couldn't risk not buying into it. Speaking of the intelligence agencies, I'm sure some of you have already thought of
this, but it just hit me a few seconds.
For some reason. I was thinking about the war in Iraq. You remember what the intelligence agencies were telling us about the war
in Iraq? You remember what they were telling us? There was detail, there were photos, there was conclusive evidence Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction. And it wasn't just U.S. intel. It was MI5, MI6. It was intelligence agencies all over the world.
George W. Bush kept quoting them. George W. Bush kept citing them.
George W. Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with the so-called evidence, and Colin Powell had to present it to the Security Council.
There were photos and all of these bits of proof that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell now says that's the most
embarrassing period in his life, because it turns out none of it was true. And remember the immediate aftermath, everybody said,
"Wow, man. How could they have gotten it so wrong, man?" And the story we got that Saddam himself was to blame because he was leading
everybody on.
He wanted the world to think that he was the biggest Arab in the Middle East. He was the giant that was gonna slay the United
States. So he furthered the belief. He helped it along. Sorry. That doesn't wash with me. Okay, so the guy says he's got 'em. That's
your basis for believing it? What if ? Just what if ? Remember, they all thought Gore had won that election, until the Supreme Court
came along and stole it for Bush. This is what they thought.
The Democrat Party is the Washington establishment, and the Washington establishment believes that Gore won the presidency and
the Florida recount math was bogus and rigged, that James Baker did a better job than the Democrat people did in finding votes, the
hanging chads. What if the intel on the war in Iraq was another disinformation campaign to damage another Republican president? And,
boy, did that work. Ever since there were no weapons of mass destruction, look at what we did?
Bush spent 2-1/2 years traveling the country building support for the war in Iraq. We had the massive opening day of Shock and
Awe, and we had the pictures of Saddam's statue coming down, Saddam eventually being captured, hiding out in a hole in the ground
somewhere. But there were no weapons of mass destruction. After that "No, yes, there were, Rush, yes, there were, they've been moved
to Syria, we have pictures of the trucks, they got 'em out of there, they got 'em out. We know he had this."
Well, we know he used nerve gas on the Kurds at one time, which is weapons of mass destruction. But just what if? The, quote,
unquote, intelligence community misrepresented on purpose the degree to which Hussein had WMDs, cause, I'll tell you, it was a very,
very embarrassing moment for the Bush administration. I mean, two years of ontological certitude. This guy posed a bigger threat
than Al-Qaeda. This guy -- they even showed us photos where Al-Qaeda may have trained outside Baghdad.
Now, we know the Republicans are not the favored party in Washington amongst swamp dwellers. Even though many of the CIA apparatus
were, of course, aligned with Bush. But I was just thinking about this the other day. And that was a glaring example where, if it
was legitimate, look how wrong they were, I mean, they couldn't have been more wrong, and it was not just one intelligence agency.
It was the entire intel community in this country and in the U.K. and all of our allies.
There was supposedly unanimous agreement on Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. Now, what if -- this is hindsight, which
is always 20/20 -- what if, based on what we know now -- we know how the deep state has been trying to undermine Donald Trump from
the days he was a candidate to during his transition to even it's ongoing now as president. We're learning of Strzok and the FBI
and the Hillary opposition research dossier that the ends up becoming fodder for a warrant at the FISA court to spy on Trump.
So we know the deep state can mobilize if they want to, and they can create false narratives that everybody in the media believes.
Even had the Republican Party for a year believing that Trump had conspired with Russia maybe to steal the election. What if Saddam
weapons of mass destruction was also a false narrative designed to ? Did it ultimately embarrass Bush? Did it weaken the U.S. military?
Whatever it did, I mean, it opened the doors for the Democrats to literally destroy his presidency in the second term. Which is what
they did.
They launched every salvo they had. They did everything they could to get John Kerry elected in 2014, as the Democrat nominee.
So I just wonder. And then I remember Chuck Schumer telling Donald Trump after he had criticized the intelligence community one day,
Chuck You said, "You better be careful, 'cause those guys can make your life hell, Mr. President." So I don't know. It's all deep
state. It's all stuff happening way beyond wherever our eyes can see and our ears can hear. PMSNBC is reporting that the
It is the New York Times says that Comey shared memos about Trump's meeting. I'm getting this word by word as it's hunt and pecked
on the New York Times: "Comey Shared Memos About Trump's Meeting with the Special Counsel Team." I don't know what that is. I don't
know. This is dangerous to get headlines off TV. So, anyway, we'll track that down and get to it in due course. I just This whole
deep state intelligence community, all of these errors That weapons of mass destruction, that was just huge, and Bush bought it,
totally trusted it.
We all did. Mind-boggling. Now this? What we're learning about Strzok and Comey and there's no question here that there was a
mighty collusion effort between the Democrats, the Hillary campaign, the FBI, the Department of Justice -- that's the Obama administration
-- to spy on the Trump campaign and then the Trump transition team. And slowly but surely we're getting to the bottom of it, despite
a whole lot of efforts to cover it up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. Here's what MSNBC reported, that Mueller interviewed Comey and that Comey gave Mueller his memos on meetings with
Trump. You know, Comey said he had to keep notes 'cause Trump lies. He didn't have to record what Obama said 'cause Obama was the
impeccable example of honesty and integrity (and all that rot). But with Trump? What a lying sack of you know what! So, anyway, the
New York Times says that Comey gave Mueller his memos on his meetings with Trump, and the "jaw-dropping" nature of the text from
Strzok.
I was remiss here in not finishing/closing the loop on this. Here's what Strzok Strzok wrote to his paramour, Lisa Page: "You
and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut
sense and concern there's no big 'there' there." What this means is Strzok was writing to Page about his lack of desire to be on
the Mueller team 'cause he didn't think there was any collusion!
That's why Trey Gowdy is describing this as "jaw-dropping" with Ratcliffe, 'cause Strzok is writing to Lisa Page, "You and I both
know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there no question," meaning on the investigating team. "I hesitate
" He eventually did join it, obviously. He said, "I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big 'there' there,"
meaning any collusion. But that didn't stop them from trying to create the illusion that there was, and they spent over a year doing
so. But that's why the Strzok text is considering "jaw-dropping," not because of its audacity but because he's talking to somebody
close. He doesn't think anybody's ever gonna see it.
"... The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us. what this story is about - a brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to the way she handled classified information with her classified server. Absolutely a crime, absolutely a felony . It's about finding out why - as the Inspector General is doing at the department of justice - why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton . Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That's not an investigation, that's a Potemkin village. It's a farce. ..."
"... DiGenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited Steele dossier about President Donald Trump . Without a justifiable law enforcement or national security reason, he says, the FBI "created false facts so that they could get surveillance warrants. Those are all crimes. " He adds, using official FISA-702 "queries" and surveillance was done "to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president. " - Daily Caller ..."
"... This feels like the most significant American political scandal that has taken place in my lifetime, and I was born in the 60's. ..."
"... The entire collection program needs to be shut down, the data deleted and the program replaced by the one William Binney originally created that collected and analyzed only metadata unless a warrant is obtained first. The current program is clearly a violation of our 4th Amendment rights even without NDAA section 702. ..."
"... He forgot to mention Weissman: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-15/fbi-probe-russian-uranium-bri ..."
"... " unauthorized disclosures of raw intelligence on Americans]. This is stunning stuff. " "Stunning" only for the willfully deluded among us. ..."
"... Pretty soon, the MSM is gonna have to do a false flag ..."
"... Is he gonna sit there and let these bastards have another shot at him? ..."
In this highly recommended 30 minute interview with Joe diGenova, the former Special Counsel
who went after both the Teamsters and former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer, paints a very clear
picture of collusion is painted between the Obama administration, the FBI, the Clinton campaign
and opposition research firm Fusion GPS.
The FBI used to spy on Russians. This time they spied on us. what this story is about - a
brazen plot to exonerate Hillary Clinton from a clear violation of the law with regard to the
way she handled classified information with her classified server. Absolutely a crime,
absolutely a felony . It's about finding out why - as the Inspector General is doing at the
department of justice - why Comey and the senior DOJ officials conducted a fake criminal
investigation of Hillary Clinton . Followed none of the regular rules, gave her every break
in the book, immunized all kinds of people, allowed the destruction of evidence, no grand
jury, no subpoenas, no search warrant. That's not an investigation, that's a Potemkin
village. It's a farce.
And everybody knew it was a farce. The problem was, she didn't win. And because she didn't
wain, the farce became a very serious opera. It wasn't a comic opera anymore, it was a tragic
opera. And she was going to be the focus.
What this is about, this is about a lavabo, a cleansing of FBI and the upper echelons of
the Department of Justice.
We're going to discover that the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, her deputy Sally Yates,
the head of the national security division John Carlin, Bruce Ohr and other senior DOJ
officials, and regrettably, lying attorneys . People who were senior career civil servants
violated the law, perhaps committed crimes, and covered up crimes by a presidential candidate
- but more than that, they tried to frame an incoming president with a false Russian
conspiracy that never existed, and they knew it, and they plotted to ruin him as a candidate
and then destroy him as a president. That's why this is important. That's why connecting the
dots is important.
DiGenova condemned the FBI for working so closely with the controversial Fusion GPS, a
political hit squad paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to create and spread the discredited
Steele dossier about President Donald Trump . Without a justifiable law enforcement or national
security reason, he says, the FBI "created false facts so that they could get surveillance
warrants. Those are all crimes. " He adds, using official FISA-702 "queries" and surveillance
was done "to create a false case against a candidate, and then a president. " - Daily
Caller
During the interview, DiGenova holds up and references a previously unreported and
heavily redacted 99-page FISA court opinion from April, 2017, which " describes systematic and
on-going violations of the law [by the FBI and their contractors using unauthorized disclosures
of raw intelligence on Americans]. This is stunning stuff."
NSA Admiral Mike Rodgers: An American Hero
diGenova also discusses the immense risks taken by retiring NSA director, Mike Rogers - who
briefed Trump on Nov. 7, 2016 about the Obama administration's surveillance of the Trump team.
The next day, the Presidental transition team was moved out of Trump tower and into the
president-elect's Bedminster, NJ golf course until they could sweep for bugs.
Paul Craig Roberts says he's been too hard on the NSA. I don't think so. The FISA warrant
only allowed the FBI to unmask people in surveillance the NSA is already doing on everybody.
If the dirt is being collected and stored, eventually somebody will find a way to use it.
The
entire collection program needs to be shut down, the data deleted and the program replaced by
the one William Binney originally created that collected and analyzed only metadata unless a
warrant is obtained first. The current program is clearly a violation of our 4th Amendment
rights even without NDAA section 702.
Trump has known all of this all along. The only pre-emptive move that he could make would
be to declare martial law , and have the military move on the traitors. For Chrissake, look
what's at stake here. Is he gonna sit there and let these bastards have another shot at
him?
(Shakes head in puzzlement).
FBI Comey testifies again as a result of the recent document releases from the FBI. He
appears much more defensive than I have ever seen him before. Ratcliffe is brutal. Issa catches
Comey in a lie about the immunity agreements.
Jordan, Chaffetz, and Gowdy once again just can't
believe how an indictment wasn't warranted.
A spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee took a shot at
Democrats for pushing the false narrative.
"When Democrats demand investigations of a hashtag but find no cause for concern after the
FBI loses five months' of critical evidence concerning the Strzok text messages, then someone's
priorities are out of whack," Jack Langer told The Daily Caller.
"... Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility ..."
"... This compartmented structure is what led to the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. The 911 commission recommended the office to serve as a hub able to ensure intelligence sharing; that is – to ensure intelligence was not intentionally withheld from other compartments when needed. In 2016 the ODNI for President Obama was James Clapper. ..."
"... It is doubtful the 911 commission ever gave thought to what might happen when intelligence is weaponized as a political tool. The DNI is a political appointment, a cabinet member, of the President. If the executive branch, the President, wanted to weaponize intelligence as a political tool, he/she would have control over such weaponization as an outcome of their political appointees within the: FBI (Comey, McCabe), DOJ (Lynch/Yates), CIA (Brennan), DNI (Clapper), or DoD (Ash Carter), etc. ..."
"... The civilian (representative) oversight into the compartmented intelligence falls to a very select group known as the Intelligence Gang of Eight . Four Democrats and Four Republicans (four minority party and four majority party political leaders) for a total of eight. Four from the House and Four from the Senate. – Understand the Gang of Eight Here – The Gang-of-Eight can, if they choose, interact with the intelligence product with the same level of security clearance as the compartment being reviewed. ..."
"... Only these eight members can interact with the intelligence product in this way. This ensures their ability to conduct oversight. It is critical to understand the difference between the House Intelligence Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Gang of Eight. Only two members from the House Intelligence Committee (chair and minority), and two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (chair and vice-chair) are participants. The other four are Speaker of the House, minority leader of House, Leader of Senate and Minority leader of Senate. The latter four are not part of any other intel committee. ..."
"... On March 20th 2017 congressional testimony, James Comey was asked why the FBI Director did not inform congressional oversight about the counterintelligence operation that began in July 2016. FBI Director Comey said he did not tell congressional oversight he was investigating presidential candidate Donald Trump because the Director of Counterintelligence suggested he not do so. *Very important detail.* I cannot emphasize this enough. *VERY* important detail . Again, notice how Comey doesn't use FBI Counterintelligence Director WH "Bill" Priestap's actual name, but refers to his position and title. Again, watch the first three minutes: ..."
"... FBI Director James Comey was caught entirely off guard by that first three minutes of that questioning. He simply didn't anticipate it. ..."
"... Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an "insurance policy". ..."
"... FBI Director James Comey told congress on March 20th, 2017, the reason he didn't inform the statutory oversight "Gang of Eight" was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn't do it. The originating intelligence agency agency, in these examples the DOJ National Security Division and/or FBI Counterintelligence Division, holds the proprietary intelligence they create in their SCIF. They may also receive intelligence products created for them, which they will also host in their unique SCIF. Thus, intelligence is compartmentalized. ..."
"... In 2015 Sally Yates blocked any inspector general oversight of the DOJ National Security Division ( SEE Pdf HERE ). The Office of Inspector General. Michael Horowitz, requested oversight over the DOJ National Security Division and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ' nope – not allowed ..."
"... Putting the "Oversight" structure together with the "Compartmented" intelligence security you will note that only a few people 'could' traditionally access the full PDB. However, under President Obama the President's Daily Brief went to almost everyone at top levels in his administration. Regarding the Obama PDB : ..."
"... "Deputy Secretaries of national security departments" ..."
"... During an MSNBC interview about her unmasking U.S. citizens within intelligence reports, in April 2017 , President Obama's National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, defined the Obama national security departments to include: "State" – "Defense" (Pentagon includes NSA) and "CIA" . ..."
"... Deputy Asst. Secretaries of Defense ..."
"... It is not coincidental that immediately following DNI Dan Coat's ability to provide that information Chairman Devin Nunes first reported his concerns. After Devin Nunes review the information March 22nd 2017, Nunes stated the intelligence product he reviewed was " not related to Russia, or the FBI Russian counter-intelligence investigation ". ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Devin Nunes, then held a brief press conference and stated he has been provided intelligence reports brought to him by unnamed sources that include 'significant information' about President-Elect Trump and his transition team. ..."
"... When Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes explained his concern in March 2017 about what he saw from a review of 2016 intelligence gathering, reporting and subsequent unmasking, the issue behind his concern was clouded in mystery. Indeed the larger headlines at the time were about demanding a special prosecutor and driving the Russia conspiracy narrative. ..."
"... In hindsight, and with information from our assembled timelines of 2016 though today, we can now revisit that concern expressed by Chairman Nunes with a great deal more perspective and information. Understanding the latest information will help us all understand the totality of Nunes original frame of reference . ..."
"... Later, during the December 2016 and Jan, Feb, March, April 2017 Russian Conspiracy frenzy, when the entire intelligence community seemed to be collectively leaking against Trump's interests, those suspicions gained even greater likelihood. However, what we learned in 2017 about the activity in 2016 almost guarantees that was exactly what happened. That back-story also ties into both the FISA issue and the Devin Nunes concern. ..."
"... Sometime in early 2016 Admiral Rogers became aware of "ongoing" and "intentional" violations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Section 702 surveillance. Specifically item #17 which includes the unauthorized upstream data collection of U.S. individuals within NSA surveillance. Section 702 – Item #17 "About Queries" is specifically the collection of emails, and phone call surveillance of U.S. persons. ..."
"... As a result of Rogers suspecting [FISA 702 (#17 – email and phone calls)] surveillance activity was being used for reasons he deemed unlawful, in mid 2016 Rogers ordered the NSA compliance officer to run a full audit on 702 NSA compliance. ..."
"... The NSA compliance officer identified several strange 702 "About Queries" that were being conducted. These were violations of the fourth amendment (search and seizure), ie. unlawful surveillance and gathering. Admiral Rogers was briefed by the compliance officer on October 20th, 2016 . ..."
"... On October 26th, 2016 , full FISC assembly, NSA Director Rogers personally informed the court of the 702(17) violations. Additionally, Rogers also stopped " About Query " permanently. ..."
"... The DOJ National Security Division set Admiral Mike Rogers up to take the fall for their unlawful conduct. They preempted Rogers by filing a notification with the FISA Court on 26th September 2016 ( look at the pdf ). DOJ-NSD head John P Carlin was setting up Rogers as the scapegoat while knowing the NSA FISA compliance officer was still reviewing their conduct. Carlin wouldn't notify the court unless he was trying to cover something. Carlin then announced his resignation. The NSA compliance officer did not brief Admiral Rogers until 20th Oct 2016 . Admiral Rogers notified the FISC on 26th Oct 2016 . ..."
"... Also in October 2016 the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for the Trump FISA application; the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job . It would have specifically been John Carlin's responsibility to ensure a valid legal basis for the FISA application submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). ..."
"... The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed. ..."
"... The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr ., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter. ..."
"... In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower . That caused consternation at senior levels of the administration, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters. ( link ) ..."
"... Important reminder. Remember, in 2015 Sally Yates blocked any inspector general oversight of the DOJ National Security Division ( SEE Pdf HERE ). The OIG, Michael Horowitz, requested oversight and it was Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ' nope – not allowed ..."
"... Obama's political operatives within the DOJ-NSD were using FISA 702(17) surveillance "about inquiries" that would deliver email and phone communication for U.S. people (Trump campaign). The NSD unit was working in coordination with the FBI Counterintelligence Unit (Peter Strzok etc.). In an effort to stop the activity NSA Director Mike Rogers initiated a full 702 compliance review. However, before the review was complete the DOJ-NSD had enough information for their unlawful FISA warrant which worked retroactively to make the prior FBI surveillance (began in July '16 per James Comey) lawful. Rogers stopped the process on October 26th 2016. As a result of his not going along, Rogers became a risk; Clapper demanded he be fired. ..."
"... On November 18th, 2016 , the Trump Transition Team announced they were moving all transition activity to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. – SEE HERE – Where they interviewed and discussed the most sensitive positions to fill. Defense, State, CIA, ODNI. ..."
"... It would appear Obama's Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, is up to his eyeballs in this; though he denies participating . The FBI counterintelligence unit was monitoring Trump through FISA 702(17) upstream surveillance collected by a DOJ National Security Division that had no oversight. ..."
"... I forget the name of the individual that gave this information to Nunes about the surveilling of Trump and his team. He was, however, a very trusted attorney and was fired shortly after this (annoying) press conference. Nunes himself was trounced for this and put on suspension from head of this committee for a period of time so that an investigation into his (patriotic) actions could take place. Adam (the Snake) Schiff was the loudest outraged voice. Glad he is back to work on this. ..."
"... Quite shocking really. I knew most of this but never put it all together. I thought I would never hear old Evelyn Farkus mentioned again after her first gaffe. She was the Obama dummy that actually believed he was omnipotent. I hope they drag her in for some serious questioning. ..."
"... Compelling that the evidence is forming a consistent timeline with documentation and events lining up. Conversely the 'Russia' narrative is ever changing and collapsing. Said narrative nearly always reliant upon hearsay and innuendo often coming from convoluted extraneous sources outside the US. ..."
"... The level of intellect, patriotism, selfless heroism leaves one speechless; One falls to knees and Thanks God in Heaven for such people, for such person as Admiral Roger ..."
"... Amazing patriotism and courage! Media would have us believe it has died! So glad i have prayed for those who are still willing to take a stand, at their own peril. Thanking God every day for men and women who are still Serving this country. Not serving themselves. A book should be written on this. These were the most perilous times for the republic to survive. Our young need to see some true heroes. So a movie shoul also come out of this. ..."
This outline is the story of how the FBI Counterintelligence Division and DOJ National Security Division were weaponized. This outline
is the full story of what House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes is currently working to expose. This outline exposes the biggest
political scandal in U.S. history. This outline is also the story of how one man's action likely saved our constitutional republic.
Former US Attorney Joe di Genova explains the Russiagate story. Scroll down and you will
find his 30 minute video interview. It will give you the complete unadultrated story.
It made me realize that I have been too harsh on the NSA. It was the NSA Director Adm.
Rodgers who informed the FISA court of the misuse of survelliance by the FBI and DOJ in their
plot against Trump, and it was Adm. Rogers who informed President-elect Trump that the Obama
regime was spying on him. Because of Adm. Rogers, the House Intelligence Committee now has on
record the admissions by the FBI and DOJ of their violations of law.
Note that you have not heard one word about this extraordinary development from the
presstitutes. There is stone silence at the NYT, Washington Post, NPR, CNN, and the rest of
them.
"... As Weber summarized , "Sen Ron Johnson tells me he's discovered a text from Peter Strzok 2 days after the Mueller investigation in which he questions whether he wants to be part of it because he believes 'there's nothing there'. No collusion ." ..."
"... Your criminal gov't at work: Former NSA tech Binney leaks 2016 FISC memo showing the surveillance of Trump and others. Top FBI, DOJ Officials are now using Burner Phones to stay under the radar of federal investigators and lawmakers ..."
Just hours after
we reported that according to the latest batch of text messages between anti-Trump FBI
investigators, a "secret society of folks" within the DOJ and the FBI may have come together in
the "immediate aftermath" of the 2016 election to undermine President Trump, another
blockbuster text message appears to have emerged.
Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee, said in a radio interview that the FBI's top agent on the Trump-Russia
investigation, Peter Strzok, sent what Johnson called a " jaw-dropping" text message last year
that suggests he saw no evidence of Trump campaign collusion.
As Weber
summarized , "Sen Ron Johnson tells me he's discovered a text from Peter Strzok 2 days
after the Mueller investigation in which he questions whether he wants to be part of it because
he believes 'there's nothing there'. No collusion ."
Your criminal gov't at work: Former NSA tech Binney leaks 2016 FISC memo
showing the surveillance of Trump and others. Top FBI, DOJ Officials are now using
Burner Phones to stay under the radar of federal investigators and
lawmakers
Agree. This is highly organized conspiracy against the people of US and highly organized
treachery and treason. Execute them all as the good old common sense has proven in the
history that it is the only way to deal with enemies of the country.
"... If the FBI keeps losing stuff they need to hire a security guard to keep it safe. Come on! Start charging these people with treason and this will stop!! ..."
"... I wonder what their plan is when they really have to arrest someone? lol It ain't gonna happen. Theatric, scripted politics. It's like a bad reality show. Compare criminal politics to the sitcom Gilligan's Island. They never get rescued, and criminal politicians never see jail time. ..."
If the FBI keeps losing stuff they need to hire a security guard to keep it safe. Come on!
Start charging these people with treason and this will stop!!
THERE ARE NO TEXTS MISSING!
DETECTIVES GET SEARCH WARRANTS FOR TEXT MESSAGES ALL THE TIME! WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE ANY
DIFFERENT!
I wonder what their plan is when they really have to arrest someone? lol It ain't gonna
happen. Theatric, scripted politics. It's like a bad reality show. Compare criminal politics
to the sitcom Gilligan's Island. They never get rescued, and criminal politicians never see
jail time.
OVER 50,000 EMAILS!!! FBI DESTROYING EVIDENCE OF ANTI-TRUMP BIAS CategoryNews &
PoliticsLicense Standard YouTube License Comments • 82 Add a public
comment...
asking them to be truthful is like cornering a five year old for the truth. NOT GONNA
HAPPEN. don't ASK them for the truth, CORNER them with it, no squirm room, PERIOD. oh and
btw, get rid of their burner phones.
Give me the job of investigating them. I'll give you the result now...before I start...see
how those scum like it.
Arturo Favez
Boss man here it is, the new FBI director must not come out and tell the media, what's
going they must go straight to you first and if you order that information to be release then
he, could the deep state is using all that information to keep playing their games, to
deceive and create confusion, also a good source, is saying, get rid of the media at white
house, and make your own TV, talk to the people in America, that way everyone will finally
come to you, to Explain their case, instead of going by the one poll, that's what's confusing
the message and people are with drawing on what to trust...
Wray needs to be fired and investigated. Stzrok needs to be fired and investigated. Page
needs to be fired and investigated. Rosenstein needs to be fired and investigated.... "PLUS
MANY HUNDREDS MORE OF CORRUPT FBI, DOJ, STATE DEPT. AND MINIONS".......
The Text messages are not gone, just moved, Renamed, hidden. Bring in William Binney,
he'll find them. There are LOG FILES and other Traceables to find them and who is
responsible. As usual the parties responsible for preservation were too lazy to copy the
texts or put them in a location accessible to only 1 (one) person. All these delays just give
the guilty party time to destroy evidence. Ie HITLERY'S convenient house fire. BUT, BUT The
FBI NEVER RAIDED HITLERY'S home like the did william Binney, Thomas Drake or even those in
the Trump Admin. We're being lied to ny BOTH SIDES. COVERUP!!!!!!!!!!!
We have a RAT here, since the DOJ/IG said he'd gotten them back in August, That RAT
happens to be the FBI. Strozk and Page need to be charged with TREASON, along with
Rosinstein, McCabe the entire upper echelon of the FBI.
Hell how many texts in one day, 50000. Divided by 1 year that is 137 text messages in one
day. Do these two amoral love bird Criminals drive? Oh yeah the FBI have chauffeur's I forgot
how special they are. So they get paid by taxpayers to text message all day long? SCUM SCUM
SCUM SCUM
Why in the world, someone tell me, please....did Trump appoint Wray as FBI Director. He is
, it seems to me, cut out of the same cloth as the ones in there under Obama! That he is
allowing this nonsense to continue shows he is helping them to be biased and it is not, not
right. I do not understand, out of all the people that would have been better, Trump picked
this guy.
The same people who covered up for Hillary's many felonies over the years are doing the
same for her peps! Our justice dept, FBI, CIA and all the other dept's are clearly
compramized. They all must be found, removed, prosicuted ,then sent to GITMO! Send all the
crooks there an throw away the key! God only knows how many horrible crimes have been covered
up for the Clintons alone aside form all the other crooks. Drain the swamp! Release the memo
now! Freeze all of the democrats assist's for as long as they have the goverment shut down.
That would stop that polictical gaming real quick! They have made themselves a laughing stock
of democratic party and are an embarrasment for this country an should be completly
dismanteled an rebuilt with honest hard working people that are actualy for the people, the
tax payers not them selves, Clintons and the illegals! FBI did obstruction of justice already
an it's just getting started! Lawd have mercy on us all! Own it! Deal with it! Learn from it
an move on! Release the memo now! Real and equal justice can begin anytime now! We're
waiting! Sorry for the rant. I'm mad! The dems should be the ones not getting paid not the
innocent people! Han't right I tell ya! Han't right at all! On limited income, most of them
live week to week. They have one pay check be late an somebody gonna go hungry or do without
med's etc, Han't right! I will never vote for a democrat again as long as I live as God is my
wittness. I'm sick of them an find them to be quiet good examples of just how disgusting one
becomes when they get too much money an power an fear no God. Scary!! Release memo now!
Hillary set a precedent when she destroyed 60,000 emails and got away with it. It's
amazing the FBI and the Secretary of State are so technologically immature that they can't
secure and preserve "state" documents. Says a lot about the roles of these agencies charged
with national defense doesn't it? I know six graders that know more about backing up their
computers than these people seem to.
I hope Mrs. Strzok files for divorce and takes him to the cleaners! Same goes for Mr.
Page. These two cheaters, their spouses, have hurt people all the way around: Their families,
colleagues, our country. AND themselves. An office affair used to be a big deal, but it pales
in comparison to the damage done by merrily texting & emailing what must be a maudlin
combination of lust and treason. Nobody seems to be saying much about the affair. What a
story to have to tell the kids!
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ - Hold him in contempt of congress. ..."
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ
- Hold him in contempt of congress. Have him arrested. During questioning, press him to the
wall, get him to tell him who in the FBI told him 'they couldn't find them.' Then go arrest
that guy too. Rinse and repeat. Look what these bastards did to Mike Flynn. Go get 'em.
NOW!!!
One of the silver linings in this mess is the clear view that the FBI is ridiculously
compromised & has chucked its standard of non-political leanings right out the window.
Shutting it down may have once seemed a long shot, now maybe not so much. If you haven't
noticed, another Trump boomerang has happened to the Left with their favorite word starting
with the letter S. This time I'm thinking Storm is what's about to follow instead of hole or
house.
If the republican leadership hiccup here on the release of the memo then it's things as
usual and forget a full on war from them. I don't trust those bastards as far as I can throw
them. Trump then needs to fire Sessions and Mueller and go full on attack mode with a press
conference doing what he does and light the left's hair on fire like never before. This is
war and it needs kicked off in grand fashion. The left's ability to guilt shame has been
neutered and they know it and are scared to death.
The Genius has lost control. Washington is oozing and dripping its corrupt, manipulating,
narcissistic and deceiving bile. Just one thin mint is all it will take. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZPzQESq_0
At one point, Peter Strzok made reference to a phone that "could not be traced". He
probably had a 2nd phone for a period. I'd be willing to bet it was a BlackBerry. While he
had (if he had) that 2nd phone, he could have used that more secure phone for his
communications with Lisa Page.
The IG may have all of Strzok's text messages with Lisa Page from his official phone, but
none from the 2nd phone.
The article says that it was Lisa Page who suggested using the 2nd phone. That message
from her was in March 2016.
"Also in March, Page seems to be concerned about whether the things they say about Mr.
Trump can be found out. "So look, you say we can text on that phone when we talk about
Hillary because it cant be traced," she wrote."
Haven't read through the entire thread here, but the end date of the interval for the
missing data is also the date that Mueller was appointed.
All of this shit is at the NSA Blufdale, Utah, facility. Why are the taxpayers spending
umpteen billion dollars collecting and storing this stuff if the government is going to
pretend it doesn't exist? You can bet this internet post, and anyone who replies to it, is
archived there. We are supposed to be afraid of being surveiled by assholes like Clapper and
Brennan. Guess what? We're not.
If Horowitz now claims he really didn't receive all the text messages he requested, then
he too is part of a massive cover-up and any report that is issued by the DOJ's Inspector
General's office can't be believed by definition.
It's possible Horowitz lied then to placate the Congressional inquiry. I believe that the
Deep State believes that they can get Trump impeached before the shit hits the fan with the
Sedition by the FBI. There is always Plan B for the Deep State but 50 years after they rid
the world of 2 Kennedys the general population isn't buying it.
If I understand how US communication systems work, every network has a splitter which
copies all transmissions to NSA, or related agencies, storage devices. I would be shocked if
they didn't collect everything from FBI or DOJ employees, and I mean everything, from FBI
devices or their private devices. If the files are sitting safe and secure on NSA storage
devices, only the NSA could really "lose" them. And this would also be true for every one of
Clinton's messages. Why don't we ever see Congress ask NSA for anything? Is that
verboten?
FBI and DOJ and the Weasel Liar Rosenstein are LIARS. They don't want the world and the
American people know what Liars, corrupt, in the tank for Hilray to know what they did are
still trying to due. Trump needs to clean house of the FBI and DOJ of all Clinton and Obama
people.
"... House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a "credibility" problem. ..."
"... But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence" is presented. ..."
"... He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr. ..."
"... But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no chance the meeting hadn't occurred. ..."
"... "This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution." ..."
House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door
testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a
"credibility" problem.
Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former White House adviser Steve Bannon spent
several hours testifying before Gowdy's committee Tuesday.
Gowdy said Lewandowski wanted to answer every question posed to him, but that his lawyers
advised him against answering those regarding his work after he left the campaign. "That [onus is] on the lawyer, not the witness. Corey is going to come back and answer every
question anyone has," Gowdy said.
But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege
that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a
privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence"
is presented.
He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the
Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr.
But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no
chance the meeting hadn't occurred.
"This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed
acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire
case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution."
"... In criminal trials the rule for prosecuting and defending lawyers is the same. Never ask a witness a question unless you already know the answer. The corollary rule for defending lawyers is – if the answer to your question will incriminate your client, don't ask it, and hope the prosecutor fails to do his job. ..."
"... Glenn Simpson, a former employee of the Wall Street Journal in New York, is currently on trial in the US for having fabricated a dossier of allegations of Russian misconduct (bribes, sex, blackmail, hacking) involving President Donald Trump and circulating them to the press; the objective was to damage Trump's candidacy before the election of November 8, 2016. ..."
"... Simpson's collaborator in the dossier and his business partner, Christopher Steele, is facing trial in the London High Court, charged with libels he and Simpson published in their dossier. Together, they are material witnesses in two federal US court trials for defamation, one in Miami and one in New York. If they perjure themselves giving evidence in those cases, they are likely to face criminal indictments. If they tell the truth, they are likely to face fresh defamation proceedings; perhaps a civil racketeering suit for fraud; maybe a false statement prosecution under the US criminal code. ..."
"... Simpson's lawyers did all the talking; Simpson said nothing, pleading the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. ..."
"... Although his lawyers repeatedly claimed during the earlier Senate Committee hearing that Simpson was testifying voluntarily, the House Committee recorded that Simpson was compelled to testify. "Our record today," the November 8 transcript begins, "will reflect that you have been compelled to appear today pursuant to a subpoena issued on October 4th, 2017." Simpson then told the Committee through his lawyers that he would plead the Fifth Amendment and not answer any questions. The first transcript is a record of debate between Republican and Democratic members of the Committee. ..."
"... Steele, according to the November 8 transcript, was also summoned to testify. A British citizen with home in Berkshire and office in London, he refused and the Committee recorded his "noncooperation and nontestimony." ..."
"... The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any information in the dossier?" ..."
"... Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand the question at first, then he stumbled. ..."
"... But Simpson left open that Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up – and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly. ..."
"... So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British agent, Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the Wall Street Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire. ..."
"... One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis Business Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for, before the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job? ..."
"... According to British press reports , Orbis and Steele were paid Ł200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about Ł114,000). Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the Orbis balance-sheet. ..."
By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent
in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has
also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the
first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at
Dances with Bears
In criminal trials the rule for prosecuting and defending lawyers is the same. Never ask a witness a question unless you already
know the answer. The corollary rule for defending lawyers is – if the answer to your question will incriminate your client, don't
ask it, and hope the prosecutor fails to do his job.
Glenn Simpson, a former employee of the Wall Street Journal in New York, is currently on trial in the US for having fabricated
a dossier of allegations of Russian misconduct (bribes, sex, blackmail, hacking) involving President Donald Trump and circulating
them to the press; the objective was to damage Trump's candidacy before the election of November 8, 2016. Simpson was called
to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 22, 2017; then the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on
November 8 and again on November 14, 2017. So far, Simpson's veracity and business conduct face nothing more than the court of public
opinion. He has not yet been charged with criminal or civil offences. That will happen if the evidence materializes that Simpson
has been lying.
Simpson's collaborator in the dossier and his business partner, Christopher Steele, is facing trial in the London High Court,
charged with libels he and Simpson published in their dossier. Together, they are material witnesses in two federal US court trials
for defamation, one in Miami and one in New York. If they perjure themselves giving evidence in those cases, they are likely to face
criminal indictments. If they tell the truth, they are likely to face fresh defamation proceedings; perhaps a civil racketeering
suit for fraud; maybe a false statement prosecution under the US criminal code.
One question for them is as obvious as its answer. Who do an American ex-journalist on US national security and an ex-British
intelligence agent go to for sources on Russian undercover operations outside Russia in general, the US in particular? Answer --
first, their friends and contacts from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); second, their friends and contacts from the Secret
Intelligence Service or MI6, as the UK counterpart is known.
Why then did the twenty-two congressmen, the members of the House Intelligence Committee who subpoenaed Simpson for interview,
fail to pursue what information he and Steele received either directly from the CIA or indirectly through British intelligence?
The answer none in the US wants to say aloud is the possibility that it was the CIA which provided Simpson and Steele with names
and source materials for their dossier, creating the evidence of a Russian plot against the US election, and generating evidence
of Russian operations. If that is what happened, then Simpson and Steele were participants in a false-flag CIA operation in US politics.
This isn't idle speculation. It has been under investigation at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since Simpson and Steele
decided in mid-2016 to go to the FBI to request an investigation, and then told American press to get the FBI to confirm it was investigating.
At the fresh request this month from the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI is still
investigating .
Simpson's appearance at the House Intelligence Committee was the sequel to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee;
for that story, read this
.
Simpson's three lawyers from the Washington, DC, firm of Cunningham Levy Muse, who appeared with him at the Senate and House
committee hearings. From left to right, Robert Muse; Joshua Levy, and Rachel Clattenburg. The firm's other name partner, Bryan
Cunningham, was a CIA officer specializing in cyber operations.
The transcripts of the House Intelligence Committee were released last Thursday. Simpson's first appearance was on November 8,
and can be read in full
here .
Simpson's lawyers did all the talking; Simpson said nothing, pleading the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate
himself.
Although his lawyers repeatedly claimed during the earlier Senate Committee hearing that Simpson was testifying voluntarily,
the House Committee recorded that Simpson was compelled to testify. "Our record today," the November 8 transcript begins, "will reflect
that you have been compelled to appear today pursuant to a subpoena issued on October 4th, 2017." Simpson then told the Committee
through his lawyers that he would plead the Fifth Amendment and not answer any questions. The first transcript is a record of debate
between Republican and Democratic members of the Committee.
This resulted in an agreement for Simpson to testify under the subpoena but on terms his lawyers said would limit the scope of
the questions which he would agree to answer.
Steele, according to the November 8 transcript, was also summoned to testify. A British citizen with home in Berkshire and
office in London, he refused and the Committee recorded his "noncooperation and nontestimony."
Republicans outnumber Democrats on the House Committee, 13 to 9. Just 5 Republican members were at Simpson's November 14 appearance;
7 Democrats. The Republican committee chairman, Devin Nunes, was absent. Release of Simpson's transcript was an initiative of the
Democrats. In a statement by their leader on the committee, Adam Schiff, the Democrats
claimed last week
"thus far, Committee Republicans have refused to look into this key area and we hope the release of this transcript will reinforce
the importance of these critical questions to our investigation."
Search the 165 pages of the transcript for the CIA, and you will find many references to the letters. There were 44 mentions of
the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI); 4 mentions of "British Intelligence" – the spy agency to which Steele belonged ten years
ago – one mention each of the Israeli Mossad, the Chinese and Indian intelligence services.
According to Simpson, "foreign intelligence services hacking American political operations is not that unusual, actually, and
there's a lot of foreign intelligence services that play in American elections." He mentioned the Chinese and the Indians, not the
Israelis. The Mossad, Simpson did tell the Committee, was his source for his belief that Russian intelligence has been operating
through the Jewish Orthodox Chabad movement, and the Russian Orthodox Church. "The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian
State now the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and
that it was intelligence operations."
There are just two references in the Committee transcript to the CIA. One was a passing remark to imply the Russians cannot "break[ing]
into the CIA, [so instead] you are breaking into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open."
The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative
from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any
information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been verified. You know, I don't have access to the
intelligence or law enforcement information that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government
has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the original memos came in saying that the Kremlin
was mounting a specific operation to get Donald Trump elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying.
The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our political process, and that this is sort
of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know, trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically
designed to elect Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's
sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding
the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what
he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't
understand the question at first, then he stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens, Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying
that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open
that Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson
recovered his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up – and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was notorious at the Wall Street Journal
for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the evidence was missing or unreliable. He told the Committee that disbelief on
the part of his editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the
Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats
and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
Left: Glenn Simpson reporter for the Wall Street Journal in 1996, promoting his book, Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence
of Corruption in American Politics. Right: Simpson in Washington in August 2017.
When Simpson was asked "do you – did you find anything to -- that you verified as false in the dossier, since or during?" Simpson
replied: "I have not seen anything – ". Note the hypthen, the stenographer's signal that Simpson was pausing.
"[Question]. So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, is true or could be true?"
"MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the time it came in. We were able to corroborate various things
that supported its credibility."
Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from – CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been clear
for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as "Russian"
were not. For details of the
sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates
their lack of
direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin,
or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source.
So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British
agent, Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the
Wall Street Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire.
One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis
Business Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for,
before the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job?
The House Committee has subpoenaed business records from Fusion, but Simpson's lawyers say they will refuse to hand them over.
The financial records of Steele's firm are openly accessible through the UK government company registry, Companies House. Click to
read here .
Because the Trump dossier work ran from the second half of 2015 to November 2016, the financial reports of Orbis for the financial
years ending March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, are the primary sources. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, open this
link to read.
The papers reveal that Orbis was a small firm with no more than 7 employees. Steele's business partner and co-shareholder, Christopher
Burrows, is another former MI6 spy. They had been hoping for MI6 support of their private business, but it failed to materialize,
says an London intelligence source. "Chris Burrows is another from the same background. They all hope to be Hakluyt [a leading commercial
intelligence operation in London] but didn't get the nod on departure."
They do not report the Orbis income. Instead, for 2016 the company filings indicate Ł155,171 in cash at the bank, and income of
Ł245,017 owed by clients and contractors. Offsetting that figure, Orbis owed Ł317,848 – to whom and for what purposes is not reported.
The unaudited accounts show Orbis's profit jumped from Ł121,046 in 2015 to Ł199,223 in 2016, and Ł441,089 in 2017.
The financial data are complicated by the operation by Steele and Burrows of a second company, Orbis Business Intelligence International,
a subsidiary they created in 2010, a year after the parent company was formed. Follow its affairs
here .
According to British press
reports , Orbis and Steele
were paid Ł200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about Ł114,000).
Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British
sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the
Orbis balance-sheet.
British sources also report that a US Government agency paid for Orbis to work on evidence and allegations of corruption
at the world soccer federation, Fédération Internationale de Football (FIFA). Indictments in this case were issued by the US Department
of Justice in
May 2015 , and the following
December . What role the two-partner British consultancy played in the complex investigations by teams from the Justice Department,
the FBI and also the Internal Revenue Service is unclear. That Steele, Burrows and Orbis depended on US government sources for their
financial well-being appears to be certain.
Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association
to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's
objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia
and Qatar. Click to
read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up,
or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to
the media?
US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations.
Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
announced that they
have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The
provision of the US code making lying a federal crime
requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy.
Now then, Part I and this
sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the meaning be?
In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for president, then the Democratic National
Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in favour of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are
still trying.
In the long run, the case is a measurement of the life, or the half-life, of truth. Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote once that nowhere
has truth so short a life as in Sicily. On his clock, that was five minutes. He didn't know the United States, or shall we say the
stretch from Washington through New York to the North End of Boston. There, truth has an even shorter life. Scarcely a second.
Maybe one should include this sentence preceding the selected bit, for context? "So far, Simpson's veracity and business conduct
face nothing more than the court of public opinion." Less than careful, maybe artful, drafting, but the takeaway is that these
guys are on trial "in the court of public opinion." Where the jury is made up of uninformed and incurious but lascivious mopes.
And the Players know that the Game is outside the ken or interest of most, and immunity and impunity and opacity are the principal
axes of play
Beware of a strategist who watch how tigers fight in the valley from a safe top of the mountain ~ Shota Rustaveli (c. 1160-after
c. 1220
"Early in the administration, Kurtz describes White House aides waking up one Saturday morning in March, confused and "blindsided,"
to find that Trump had -- without any evidence -- accused former president Barack Obama on Twitter of wiretapping him during the campaign."
-- What a blatant lie, there are tons of evidence that this was the fact. the author desrctied himslef as an
establishment stooge.
Notable quotes:
"... Early in the administration, Kurtz describes White House aides waking up one Saturday morning in March, confused and "blindsided," to find that Trump had -- without any evidence -- accused former president Barack Obama on Twitter of wiretapping him during the campaign. ..."
"... "Nobody in the White House quite knew what to do," Kurtz writes. ..."
"... Priebus watched as his phone exploded with email and text messages, according to the excerpts. "Priebus knew the staff would have to fall into line to prove the tweet correct, the opposite of the usual process of vetting proposed pronouncements," Kurtz writes. "Once the president had committed to 140 characters, he was not going to back off." ..."
In late July, the White House had just finished an official policy review on transgender individuals serving in the military and
President Trump and his then-chief of staff, Reince Priebus, had agreed to meet in the Oval Office to discuss the four options awaiting
the president in a decision memo.
But then Trump unexpectedly preempted the conversation and sent his entire administration scrambling, by tweeting out
his own decision -- that the government would not allow transgender individuals to serve -- just moments later.
" 'Oh my God, he just tweeted this,' " Priebus said, according to a new book by Howard Kurtz, who hosts Fox News's "Media Buzz."
There was, Kurtz writes, "no longer a need for the meeting."
The White House -- and the politerati diaspora -- has just barely stopped reeling from author Michael Wolff's account of life
in Trump's West Wing, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," and now another life-in-the-White-House book is about to drop,
this one from Kurtz.
Like the books that came before it, and almost certainly like the ones still to come, Kurtz's book, "Media Madness: Donald Trump,
The Press, And The War Over The Truth," offers a portrait of a White House riven by chaos, with aides scrambling to respond to the
president's impulses and writing policy to fit his tweets, according to excerpts obtained by The Washington Post.
Kurtz, who worked at The Post from 1981 to 2010, writes that Trump's aides even privately coined a term for Trump's behavior --
"Defiance Disorder." The phrase refers to Trump's seeming compulsion to do whatever it is his advisers are most strongly urging against,
leaving his team to handle the fallout.
The book officially hits stores Jan. 29.
Early in the administration, Kurtz describes White House aides waking up one Saturday morning in March, confused and "blindsided,"
to find that Trump had -- without any evidence -- accused former president Barack Obama on Twitter of wiretapping him during the
campaign.
"Nobody in the White House quite knew what to do," Kurtz writes.
Priebus watched as his phone exploded with email and text messages, according to the excerpts. "Priebus knew the staff would have
to fall into line to prove the tweet correct, the opposite of the usual process of vetting proposed pronouncements," Kurtz writes.
"Once the president had committed to 140 characters, he was not going to back off."
Brilliant summary of the situation. You should listen this interview. False Russiagate was from the beginning a plot to derail and then depose Trump. They created false facts.
Brazen port to exonerate Hillary Clinton and then derail Trump
Notable quotes:
"... It is rare to see a man of integrity and a lawyer who speaks in plain English and speaks about facts and conclusions of law. The problem we face today is far too many lawyers with no integrity in positions of government that protect blatant criminals holding public office who are also lawyers. Lawyers always protect other lawyers, except this wonderful man! ..."
It is rare to see a man of integrity and a lawyer who speaks in plain English and speaks
about facts and conclusions of law. The problem we face today is far too many lawyers with no
integrity in positions of government that protect blatant criminals holding public office who
are also lawyers. Lawyers always protect other lawyers, except this wonderful
man!
Love Joe to bad he can't become the new AG and why isn't this interview on the news at
least Fox, Hannity, Tucker, Laura. And we know CNN, MSNBC, and the rest are all in the bag
for Obummer and Killary. 😎
NY Times Buzzfeed Washington Post CNN ABC CBS NBC are all complicit in perpetrating these
lies Just watch Colbert Jimmy Farrel or Jimmy Kimmel These bad actors pretending to be
entertainers need to hang
Mueller carried the sample of Uranium to the Russians. Mueller was paid off, as was Comey.
So glad President Trump can confiscate all their money. Now to catch Daddy Bush and Jr for
having all those people in New York killed on 9/11! Go Trump!!
There needs to be an arrest of ALL the top MSM owners and chairpeople of all the
affiliates including those who stand in front of the camera pushing false information. Their
license needs to be rescinded and taken away. Bankrupt the news affiliates and sell off their
assets.
This is a truly excellent and clear explanation of how our government was corrupted by
Team Hillary. I reckon she needs to pay the Ultimate price: a thorough investigation into her
crimes: A fair trial... and maybe execution, followed by her being reviled down the centuries
as one of the most evil women in History. Every little girl should be told: Do not be like
this woman!
Bill, don't forget to mention that those same entities also include those working for CNN
and MSNBC who were funded by Clinton donations to push the false media on the country. Can
you say lawsuits?
"... Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the 'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT. ..."
"... I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to get political advantage ..."
"... "I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents." ..."
"... "The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe they did, and he believes that." ..."
"... "I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained. ..."
"... Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it ..."
"... "has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia. From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially." ..."
"... "I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like," he said. ..."
Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the
'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the
FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT.
A top-secret intelligence memo, believed to reveal political bias at the highest levels of
the FBI and the DOJ towards President Trump, may well be as significant as the Republicans say,
Ron Paul told RT. But, he added, "there's still to many unknowns, especially, from my view
point."
"Trump connection to the Russians, I think, has been way overblown, and I'd like to just
get to the bottom of this the new information that's coming out, maybe this will reveal
things and help us out," he said.
"Right now it's just a political fight," the former US Congressman said. "I think they're
dealing with things a lot less important than the issue they ought to be talking about Right
now, I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to
get political advantage."
Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by US intelligence agencies on the orders of the Obama
administration may well turn out to be true, Paul said.
"I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they
have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents."
However, he criticized Trump for doing nothing to prevent the Senate from voting in the
expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) earlier this week.
"The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the
president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe
they did, and he believes that."
"I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have
their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work
on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the
worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained.
The fact that Democrats on the relevant committees have all voted against releasing the memo
"might mean that Trump is probably right; there's probably a lot of stuff there that would
exonerate him from any accusation they've been making," he said.
Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it
"has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia.
From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially."
"I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way
overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and
they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like,"
he said.
Donald Trump Jr. called for the release of a memo that allegedly contains information about
Obama administration surveillance abuses and suggested that Democrats are complicit with the
media in misleading the public.
"It's the double standard that the people are fed by the Democrats in complicity with the
media, that's why neither have any trust from the American people anymore," Trump said on Fox
News Friday.
Rumor that is definitely in favor of continuation of Mueller probe. Actually in the current circumstances the top echelon of
FBI and Justice Department are completely tainted. And that included Christopher Wray and Rob Rosenstein, despite both being Trump
appointees.
FBI Director Christopher Wray threatened to resign after Attorney General Jeff Sessions
pressured him to remove Deputy Director Andrew McCabe,
Axios reported Monday .
You should listen this interview. As one commenter said "Three heroes will go down in history: Journalist Julian Asange, Adm.
Mike Rogers, Rep. Devin Nunes"
False Russiagate was from the beginning a plot to derail and then depose Trump. They created false facts.
It is rare to see a man of integrity and a lawyer who speaks in plain English and speaks
about facts and conclusions of law. The problem we face today is far too many lawyers with no
integrity in positions of government that protect blatant criminals holding public office who
are also lawyers. Lawyers always protect other lawyers, except this wonderful
man!
Love Joe to bad he can't become the new AG and why isn't this interview on the news at
least Fox, Hannity, Tucker, Laura. And we know CNN, MSNBC, and the rest are all in the bag
for Obummer and Killary. 😎
NY Times Buzzfeed Washington Post CNN ABC CBS NBC are all complicit in perpetrating these
lies Just watch Colbert Jimmy Farrel or Jimmy Kimmel These bad actors pretending to be
entertainers need to hang
Mueller carried the sample of Uranium to the Russians. Mueller was paid off, as was Comey.
So glad President Trump can confiscate all their money. Now to catch Daddy Bush and Jr for
having all those people in New York killed on 9/11! Go Trump!!
There needs to be an arrest of ALL the top MSM owners and chairpeople of all the
affiliates including those who stand in front of the camera pushing false information. Their
license needs to be rescinded and taken away. Bankrupt the news affiliates and sell off their
assets.
This is a truly excellent and clear explanation of how our government was corrupted by
Team Hillary. I reckon she needs to pay the Ultimate price: a thorough investigation into her
crimes: A fair trial... and maybe execution, followed by her being reviled down the centuries
as one of the most evil women in History. Every little girl should be told: Do not be like
this woman!
Bill, don't forget to mention that those same entities also include those working for CNN
and MSNBC who were funded by Clinton donations to push the false media on the country. Can
you say lawsuits?
"... Former Federal Prosecutor Joe diGenova gives the most even-handed, most clearly-articulated description of the relentless juggernaut that is the ongoing American palace coup , the marshaling of the Deep State -run dinosaur media and the corruption of the FBI and Department of Justice , with the bogus "Pee-Pee Dossier" as the legal instrument of it all. ..."
Congressional investigators learned from a new batch of text messages between anti-Trump FBI
investigators that a "secret society of folks" within the Department of Justice and the FBI may
have come together in the "immediate aftermath" of the 2016 election to undermine President
Trump, according to Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) who has reviewed the texts.
... ... ...
Rep. Gowdy deflected a question over a second special counsel, but mentioned "a text about
not keeping texts," and "more manifest bias against President Trump all the way through the
election into the transition," and finally Gowdy said he saw a text that "Director Comey was
going to update the President of the United States about an investigation" which would have
been Obama - and may, Gowdy speculates, have been about the Trump team.
Former Federal Prosecutor Joe diGenova gives the most even-handed, most
clearly-articulated description of the relentless juggernaut that is the ongoing American
palace coup , the
marshaling of the Deep State -run dinosaur media and the
corruption of the FBI and Department of Justice ,
with the bogus "Pee-Pee Dossier" as the legal instrument of it all.
The staggering corruption at the highest level of US law enforcement should be enough to
leave anyone aghast, notwithstanding their opinion of the President.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew well in advance of FBI Director James Comey's
2016 press conference that he would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton, according to
information turned over to the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Friday.
The revelation was included in 384 pages of text messages exchanged between FBI officials
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and it significantly diminishes the credibility of Lynch's earlier
commitment to accept Comey's recommendation -- a commitment she made under the pretense that
the two were not coordinating with each other.
And it gets worse. Comey and Lynch reportedly knew that Clinton would never face charges
even before the FBI conducted its three-hour interview with Clinton, which was supposedly meant
to gather more information into her mishandling of classified information.
Everyone in the world can see that the United States has become a bitterly divided country, but still has a really amazing level
of continuity in foreign policy between various administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... The long-awaited National Defense Strategy is a vision of US imperialism besieged on all sides and in mortal danger of losing global dominance. ..."
"... "Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national security," Mattis said in his speech, which accompanied the release of an 11-page declassified document outlining the National Defense Strategy in broad terms. A lengthier classified version was submitted to the US Congress, which includes the Pentagon's detailed proposals for a massive increase in military spending. ..."
"... Russia, it charges, is attempting to achieve "veto authority over nations on its periphery in terms of their governmental, economic, and diplomatic decisions, to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic structures to its favor." ..."
"... "China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea," it states. "Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors." ..."
"... Both Moscow and Beijing issued statements condemning the US defense strategy. A Chinese spokesman denounced the document as a return to a "Cold War mentality." Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, told a United Nations press conference: "It is regrettable that instead of having a normal dialog, instead of using the basis of international law, the US is indeed striving to prove their leadership through such confrontational strategies and concepts." A government spokesman in Moscow characterized the document as "imperialistic." ..."
The long-awaited National Defense Strategy is a vision of US imperialism besieged on all sides and in mortal danger of losing
global dominance.
The Trump administration's defense secretary, former Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, rolled out a new National Defense Strategy
Friday that signals open preparations by US imperialism for direct military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia and China.
Speaking at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, Mattis made clear that the strategy, the first such document to be issued by
the Pentagon in roughly a decade, represented an historic shift from the ostensible justification for US global militarism for nearly
two decades: the so-called war on terrorism.
"Great power competition -- not terrorism -- is now the primary focus of US national security," Mattis said in his speech, which
accompanied the release of an 11-page declassified document outlining the National Defense Strategy in broad terms. A lengthier classified
version was submitted to the US Congress, which includes the Pentagon's detailed proposals for a massive increase in military spending.
Much of the document's language echoed terms used in the National Security Strategy document unveiled last month in a fascistic
speech delivered by President Donald Trump. Mattis insisted that the US was facing "growing threat from revisionist powers as different
as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models."
Russia, it charges, is attempting to achieve "veto authority over nations on its periphery in terms of their governmental, economic,
and diplomatic decisions, to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic
structures to its favor."
"China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South
China Sea," it states. "Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and
security decisions of its neighbors."
In what appeared to be a threat directed against both Russia and China, Mattis warned, "If you challenge us, it will be your longest
and worst day."
Both Moscow and Beijing issued statements condemning the US defense strategy. A Chinese spokesman denounced the document as a
return to a "Cold War mentality." Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, told a United Nations press conference: "It
is regrettable that instead of having a normal dialog, instead of using the basis of international law, the US is indeed striving
to prove their leadership through such confrontational strategies and concepts." A government spokesman in Moscow characterized the
document as "imperialistic."
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon once told Ivanka Trump: "You're just
another staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," according to a new book.
Related: Ivanka Trump's "special place in hell" for child predators comment trolls Roy Moore
rally
Bannon, who has long critiqued and clashed with Ivanka's and her husband Jared Kushner's
roles in the White House, tried to put the president's daughter in her place in one instance
detailed in the book.
"My daughter loves me as a dad...You love your dad. I get that. But you're just another
staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," Bannon said, The Washington Post reported when it
published excerpts on Monday.
The revelation is part of the latest book about life inside the White House. Howard Kurtz, host
of the Fox News show Media Buzz, wrote the book Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press, And The
War Over The Truth, set to be released on January 29.
The new book, though perhaps not as sensational as the explosive tell-all Fire and Fury:
Inside the Trump White House, contains several new alleged revelations about the
administration. Along with reports of the turbulent relationship between Ivanka Trump and
Bannon, are claims that the president himself leaked information to journalists, that his aides
referred to his behavior as "defiance disorder" and that his staff was "blindsided" when he
accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping his phones.
Last week,
Twitter sent out a creepy email to over 677,775 users letting them know that the platform
was actively working to understand "Russian-linked activities" that took place during the 2016
presidential election.
Twitter claimed that they had identified and suspended a "number of accounts that were
potentially connected to propaganda efforts by a Russian government-linked organization known
as the Internet Research Agency [IRA]".
One of the 677,775 users to receive the message was "Liquid IQ", the only problem is that the Liquid IQ twitter
account was created in July 2017. That is a full eight months after the US elections.
The 2017 Liquid IQ account was definitely not spreading Russian propaganda during the 2016
US presidential election on twitter, unless Liquid IQ magically found a way to follow "Russian
trolls" on twitter without having an actual twitter profile.
WASHINGTON -- When President Trump mused last year about protecting immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children,
calling them "these incredible kids," aides implored him privately to stop talking about them so sympathetically.
When he batted around the idea of granting them citizenship over a Chinese dinner at the White House last year with Democratic
leaders, Mr. Trump's advisers quickly drew up a list of hard-line demands to send to Capitol Hill that they said must be included
in any such plan.
And twice over the past two weeks, Mr. Trump has privately told lawmakers he is eager to strike a deal to extend legal status
to the so-called Dreamers, only to have his chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, make clear
afterward that such a compromise was not really in the offing -- unless it also included a host of stiffer immigration restrictions.
But, his favorite NYT reporter also can't help herself from insulting Trump.
... ... ...
Great strategy, NYT. The surest way to get Donald Trump to side with what you demand for the good of the Democratic Party electing
a new electorate is to insult his intelligence.
Your strategy is foolproof! There's nothing Trump like more than being played for a fool. What could possibly go wrong?
There's a lot of media focus on Miller atm, the thrust being that Miller is Bannon* 2.0, riding on the coat tails of The Great
Deal-Maker (formerly the New Hitler, but that didn't work) to push his own agenda.
They're hoping that Trump won't like a staffer getting more attention than he does and will say "you're fired". The same thing
will happen to any Trump appointment who looks like they want to implement the platform Trump ran on.
* AFAIK Bannon wasn't actually doing that, but it's the Narrative.
PS – BBC only ever quote Flake or Ryan when they want a "Republican" view.
OT: while y'all rightly shake with apprehension at what the next skullduggery from the FBI, CIA, or NSA might be, cheer yourselves
up by contemplating the incompetence of the people involved. They're such mugs that a 15-year old can dance rings around their
security procedures.
Still, it doesn't seem to inhibit the FBI from murdering US citizens, staging a slow-motion coup against a President, or manfully
saving the USA from a terrorist attack on 9/11. Hang on; the latter would have called for competence
"... In criminal trials the rule for prosecuting and defending lawyers is the same. Never ask a witness a question unless you already know the answer. The corollary rule for defending lawyers is – if the answer to your question will incriminate your client, don't ask it, and hope the prosecutor fails to do his job. ..."
"... Glenn Simpson, a former employee of the Wall Street Journal in New York, is currently on trial in the US for having fabricated a dossier of allegations of Russian misconduct (bribes, sex, blackmail, hacking) involving President Donald Trump and circulating them to the press; the objective was to damage Trump's candidacy before the election of November 8, 2016. ..."
"... Simpson's collaborator in the dossier and his business partner, Christopher Steele, is facing trial in the London High Court, charged with libels he and Simpson published in their dossier. Together, they are material witnesses in two federal US court trials for defamation, one in Miami and one in New York. If they perjure themselves giving evidence in those cases, they are likely to face criminal indictments. If they tell the truth, they are likely to face fresh defamation proceedings; perhaps a civil racketeering suit for fraud; maybe a false statement prosecution under the US criminal code. ..."
"... Simpson's lawyers did all the talking; Simpson said nothing, pleading the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. ..."
"... Although his lawyers repeatedly claimed during the earlier Senate Committee hearing that Simpson was testifying voluntarily, the House Committee recorded that Simpson was compelled to testify. "Our record today," the November 8 transcript begins, "will reflect that you have been compelled to appear today pursuant to a subpoena issued on October 4th, 2017." Simpson then told the Committee through his lawyers that he would plead the Fifth Amendment and not answer any questions. The first transcript is a record of debate between Republican and Democratic members of the Committee. ..."
"... Steele, according to the November 8 transcript, was also summoned to testify. A British citizen with home in Berkshire and office in London, he refused and the Committee recorded his "noncooperation and nontestimony." ..."
"... The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any information in the dossier?" ..."
"... Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand the question at first, then he stumbled. ..."
"... But Simpson left open that Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson recovered his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up – and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly. ..."
"... So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British agent, Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the Wall Street Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire. ..."
"... One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis Business Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for, before the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job? ..."
"... According to British press reports , Orbis and Steele were paid Ł200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about Ł114,000). Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the Orbis balance-sheet. ..."
By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent
in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has
also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the
first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at
Dances with Bears
In criminal trials the rule for prosecuting and defending lawyers is the same. Never ask a witness a question unless you already
know the answer. The corollary rule for defending lawyers is – if the answer to your question will incriminate your client, don't
ask it, and hope the prosecutor fails to do his job.
Glenn Simpson, a former employee of the Wall Street Journal in New York, is currently on trial in the US for having fabricated
a dossier of allegations of Russian misconduct (bribes, sex, blackmail, hacking) involving President Donald Trump and circulating
them to the press; the objective was to damage Trump's candidacy before the election of November 8, 2016. Simpson was called
to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 22, 2017; then the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on
November 8 and again on November 14, 2017. So far, Simpson's veracity and business conduct face nothing more than the court of public
opinion. He has not yet been charged with criminal or civil offences. That will happen if the evidence materializes that Simpson
has been lying.
Simpson's collaborator in the dossier and his business partner, Christopher Steele, is facing trial in the London High Court,
charged with libels he and Simpson published in their dossier. Together, they are material witnesses in two federal US court trials
for defamation, one in Miami and one in New York. If they perjure themselves giving evidence in those cases, they are likely to face
criminal indictments. If they tell the truth, they are likely to face fresh defamation proceedings; perhaps a civil racketeering
suit for fraud; maybe a false statement prosecution under the US criminal code.
One question for them is as obvious as its answer. Who do an American ex-journalist on US national security and an ex-British
intelligence agent go to for sources on Russian undercover operations outside Russia in general, the US in particular? Answer --
first, their friends and contacts from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); second, their friends and contacts from the Secret
Intelligence Service or MI6, as the UK counterpart is known.
Why then did the twenty-two congressmen, the members of the House Intelligence Committee who subpoenaed Simpson for interview,
fail to pursue what information he and Steele received either directly from the CIA or indirectly through British intelligence?
The answer none in the US wants to say aloud is the possibility that it was the CIA which provided Simpson and Steele with names
and source materials for their dossier, creating the evidence of a Russian plot against the US election, and generating evidence
of Russian operations. If that is what happened, then Simpson and Steele were participants in a false-flag CIA operation in US politics.
This isn't idle speculation. It has been under investigation at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) since Simpson and Steele
decided in mid-2016 to go to the FBI to request an investigation, and then told American press to get the FBI to confirm it was investigating.
At the fresh request this month from the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI is still
investigating .
Simpson's appearance at the House Intelligence Committee was the sequel to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee;
for that story, read this
.
Simpson's three lawyers from the Washington, DC, firm of Cunningham Levy Muse, who appeared with him at the Senate and House
committee hearings. From left to right, Robert Muse; Joshua Levy, and Rachel Clattenburg. The firm's other name partner, Bryan
Cunningham, was a CIA officer specializing in cyber operations.
The transcripts of the House Intelligence Committee were released last Thursday. Simpson's first appearance was on November 8,
and can be read in full
here .
Simpson's lawyers did all the talking; Simpson said nothing, pleading the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate
himself.
Although his lawyers repeatedly claimed during the earlier Senate Committee hearing that Simpson was testifying voluntarily,
the House Committee recorded that Simpson was compelled to testify. "Our record today," the November 8 transcript begins, "will reflect
that you have been compelled to appear today pursuant to a subpoena issued on October 4th, 2017." Simpson then told the Committee
through his lawyers that he would plead the Fifth Amendment and not answer any questions. The first transcript is a record of debate
between Republican and Democratic members of the Committee.
This resulted in an agreement for Simpson to testify under the subpoena but on terms his lawyers said would limit the scope of
the questions which he would agree to answer.
Steele, according to the November 8 transcript, was also summoned to testify. A British citizen with home in Berkshire and
office in London, he refused and the Committee recorded his "noncooperation and nontestimony."
Republicans outnumber Democrats on the House Committee, 13 to 9. Just 5 Republican members were at Simpson's November 14 appearance;
7 Democrats. The Republican committee chairman, Devin Nunes, was absent. Release of Simpson's transcript was an initiative of the
Democrats. In a statement by their leader on the committee, Adam Schiff, the Democrats
claimed last week
"thus far, Committee Republicans have refused to look into this key area and we hope the release of this transcript will reinforce
the importance of these critical questions to our investigation."
Search the 165 pages of the transcript for the CIA, and you will find many references to the letters. There were 44 mentions of
the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI); 4 mentions of "British Intelligence" – the spy agency to which Steele belonged ten years
ago – one mention each of the Israeli Mossad, the Chinese and Indian intelligence services.
According to Simpson, "foreign intelligence services hacking American political operations is not that unusual, actually, and
there's a lot of foreign intelligence services that play in American elections." He mentioned the Chinese and the Indians, not the
Israelis. The Mossad, Simpson did tell the Committee, was his source for his belief that Russian intelligence has been operating
through the Jewish Orthodox Chabad movement, and the Russian Orthodox Church. "The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian
State now the Mossad guys used to tell me about how the Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and
that it was intelligence operations."
There are just two references in the Committee transcript to the CIA. One was a passing remark to imply the Russians cannot "break[ing]
into the CIA, [so instead] you are breaking into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open."
The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney (right), a 3-term Republican representative
from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or anyone else independently verify or corroborate any
information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been verified. You know, I don't have access to the
intelligence or law enforcement information that I see made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government
has been investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the original memos came in saying that the Kremlin
was mounting a specific operation to get Donald Trump elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying.
The Intelligence Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our political process, and that this is sort
of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know, trouble-making operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically
designed to elect Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying", and who were Simpson's and Steele's
sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding
the approach Simpson and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson repeated what
he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence officials". Simpson claimed he didn't
understand the question at first, then he stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens, Rooney did not realize. Simpson was implying
that none from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open
that Steele had been in contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so imprecise, Simpson
recovered his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up – and the House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was notorious at the Wall Street Journal
for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the evidence was missing or unreliable. He told the Committee that disbelief on
the part of his editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the reasons why I left the
Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats
and the Republicans eventually the Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
Left: Glenn Simpson reporter for the Wall Street Journal in 1996, promoting his book, Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence
of Corruption in American Politics. Right: Simpson in Washington in August 2017.
When Simpson was asked "do you – did you find anything to -- that you verified as false in the dossier, since or during?" Simpson
replied: "I have not seen anything – ". Note the hypthen, the stenographer's signal that Simpson was pausing.
"[Question]. So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, is true or could be true?"
"MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the time it came in. We were able to corroborate various things
that supported its credibility."
Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from – CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been clear
for the year in which the dossier's contents have been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as "Russian"
were not. For details of the
sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates
their lack of
direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin,
or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating hearsay three or four times removed from source.
So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed back to the US through the British
agent, Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the
Wall Street Journal? The House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire.
One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis
Business Intelligence, have had with US Government agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for,
before the Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job?
The House Committee has subpoenaed business records from Fusion, but Simpson's lawyers say they will refuse to hand them over.
The financial records of Steele's firm are openly accessible through the UK government company registry, Companies House. Click to
read here .
Because the Trump dossier work ran from the second half of 2015 to November 2016, the financial reports of Orbis for the financial
years ending March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017, are the primary sources. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, open this
link to read.
The papers reveal that Orbis was a small firm with no more than 7 employees. Steele's business partner and co-shareholder, Christopher
Burrows, is another former MI6 spy. They had been hoping for MI6 support of their private business, but it failed to materialize,
says an London intelligence source. "Chris Burrows is another from the same background. They all hope to be Hakluyt [a leading commercial
intelligence operation in London] but didn't get the nod on departure."
They do not report the Orbis income. Instead, for 2016 the company filings indicate Ł155,171 in cash at the bank, and income of
Ł245,017 owed by clients and contractors. Offsetting that figure, Orbis owed Ł317,848 – to whom and for what purposes is not reported.
The unaudited accounts show Orbis's profit jumped from Ł121,046 in 2015 to Ł199,223 in 2016, and Ł441,089 in 2017.
The financial data are complicated by the operation by Steele and Burrows of a second company, Orbis Business Intelligence International,
a subsidiary they created in 2010, a year after the parent company was formed. Follow its affairs
here .
According to British press
reports , Orbis and Steele
were paid Ł200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about Ł114,000).
Simpson's firm, he also testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000. If the British
sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the dossier represented roughly half the profit on the
Orbis balance-sheet.
British sources also report that a US Government agency paid for Orbis to work on evidence and allegations of corruption
at the world soccer federation, Fédération Internationale de Football (FIFA). Indictments in this case were issued by the US Department
of Justice in
May 2015 , and the following
December . What role the two-partner British consultancy played in the complex investigations by teams from the Justice Department,
the FBI and also the Internal Revenue Service is unclear. That Steele, Burrows and Orbis depended on US government sources for their
financial well-being appears to be certain.
Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired by the British Football Association
to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's
objective was reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the rival bids from Russia
and Qatar. Click to
read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US investigators were unable to turn up,
or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to
the media?
US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the FIFA and the Trump dossier operations.
Early this month two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
announced that they
have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing false information to the FBI. The
provision of the US code making lying a federal crime
requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the
United States." Simpson has testified that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy.
Now then, Part I and this
sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the meaning be?
In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for president, then the Democratic National
Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in favour of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are
still trying.
In the long run, the case is a measurement of the life, or the half-life, of truth. Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote once that nowhere
has truth so short a life as in Sicily. On his clock, that was five minutes. He didn't know the United States, or shall we say the
stretch from Washington through New York to the North End of Boston. There, truth has an even shorter life. Scarcely a second.
Maybe one should include this sentence preceding the selected bit, for context? "So far, Simpson's veracity and business conduct
face nothing more than the court of public opinion." Less than careful, maybe artful, drafting, but the takeaway is that these
guys are on trial "in the court of public opinion." Where the jury is made up of uninformed and incurious but lascivious mopes.
And the Players know that the Game is outside the ken or interest of most, and immunity and impunity and opacity are the principal
axes of play
That's a really fishy development. Like a mafia running inside FBI ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via: ..."
"... Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money order ..."
"... Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous texting ..."
"... Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of federal subpoenas ..."
"... Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of federal laws, insiders said. ..."
"... With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders confirm. ..."
"... "The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public scandals. ..."
"... "It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the FBI source said. "They have switched to burners." ..."
"... The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations. ..."
Members of the FBI and Justice Department's top brass at their Washington D.C.headquarters
and other field offices are now using burner phones to stay under the radar of federal
investigators and lawmakers, according to FBI insiders.
The shocking revelations come on the heels of news that the FBI deleted thousands of text
messages between anti-Trump FBI agents before investigators could review their content.
While that is disturbing on one level, FBI and DOJ hierarchy employing the telecom habits of
drug cartel bosses reaches a new low for the once-heralded federal law enforcement agency and
the DOJ. And breaks federal laws as well.
Intel points to top FBI and DOJ officials communicating via:
Burner or disposable smart phones purchased with cash and charged with cash or money
order
Encrypted phone and web apps, including SIGNAL employed for anonymous
texting
Phones issued in the name of a spouse or family member, conceivably out of reach of
federal subpoenas
Use of such telecom devices as part of official government business violates a host of
federal laws, insiders said.
But that hasn't slowed their use by top law enforcement personnel in the United States.
With many key personnel in the FBI currently under the microscope of the Inspector
General -- for potential criminal violations -- top FBI and DOJ officials are communicating on
disposable phones via text, voice and internet access to encrypted texting apps, FBI insiders
confirm.
"The IG is aware of this," one FBI insider said. "They have been up on these guys for a long
time." The FBI source's comments reflect the fact that the Inspector General has had court-approved
wiretaps running on key members in the FBI and DOJ linked to an assortment of public
scandals.
One of the main reasons why the Inspector General's report of its investigation of the FBI
has been delayed is because investigators keep getting wiretap intelligence on the key players,
the FBI official said.
"It is OK to publicize this now, because they have dug themselves a very big hole," the
FBI source said. "They have switched to burners."
Multiple FBI and federal law enforcement sources disclosed earlier that the IG was running
wiretaps on FBI and DOJ officials to True Pundit but requested an embargo on publishing the
information which would interfere with the investigation. True Pundit agreed to withhold until
given the green light to publish.
The FBI "failed to preserve" five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while
working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.
The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).
"The Department wants to bring to your attention that the FBI's technical system for
retaining text messages sent and received on FBI mobile devices failed to preserve text
messages for Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page," Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for
legislative affairs at the Justice Department, wrote to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the
chairman of HSGAC.
He said that texts are missing for the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017.
Boyd attributed the failure to "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning,
and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities."
"The result was that data that should have been automatically collected and retained for
long-term storage and retrieval was not collected," Boyd wrote.
Former FBI Director James
Comey has landed a teaching gig at his alma mater, the College of William & Mary, and
will join the ranks of the school's teaching faculty this fall with a course on ethical
leadership.
The Washington Post reports that Comey has accepted a nontenured position as an executive
professor in education with the school, and will teach the course on ethical leadership in fall
2018, spring 2019 and summer 2019 semesters.
I read about this, it was quickly brushed under the rug. Didn't know it was as extensive
because media coverage on this angle hasn't been clear. Good report.
And if this is covered closely, then we may get some traction about how it was done and
who pulled the strings. This maybe why former NSC Clapper is running scared, he set up his
own personal intelligence network (there were reports early on, Clapper had his own
intelligence network besides the 17 official intel agencies) to spy for the Obama WH, both he
and former CIA Brennan were running intel ops for the Obama WH. Brennan ran political intel
for the Obama election campaign. Indicating the Deep State intelligence apparatus is deeply
involved in presidential elections. Brennan political campaign intel network using Deep State
assets, next Obama;s NSC, next Obama's CIA director and was said to be the most political CIA
director in history by CIA employees.
Clapper may have been the one behind using British intelligence to spy on Trump. It would
explain Clappers irrational statements about Trump, sabotage and incitement of government
employees not to follow Trump's orders. We got that from Clapper, Brennan and former CIA
director Hayden. All three have joined forces in LA, using celebrities to continue the coup
against Trump. They formed, essentially a convert political action group using celebrities,
to make their case in the media. It's illogical for Clapper to continue with the coup, there
is no reward in it unless, he is guilty of treason and must continue the coup to protect
himself. In other words, this isn't for Hillary Clinton.
So FBI worked all the time against Senator Sanders... nice...
Notable quotes:
"... Strzok and Page are under pressure to clear Clinton after Cruz drops out of the race. ..."
"... The loss of records from this period is concerning because it is apparent from other records that Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page communicated frequently about the investigation. In February 2016, Ms. Page texted Mr. Strzok that then-candidate Trump "simply can not [Sic] be president." On May 4, 2016–after then-Director Comey began drafting his July 5 statement clearing Secretary Clinton -- Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok communicated about "pressure" building to finish the investigation following candidate Trump's likely nomination: ..."
"... Mr. Strzok: Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE. ..."
"... The reference to the MYE by Mr. Strzok refers to the "midyear exam," the case name for the Clinton investigation. ..."
"... This is sort of a strange statement if one doesn't assume there was a "stop Trump" movement of some type, formal or informal, within the FBI. The implication of the statement is that they would have taken their good old time finishing the investigation if Ted Cruz had stayed in the race, that is a decision that would have hurt Clinton. That they felt pressure to wind up the Clinton investigation deserves some serious exploration. ..."
"... The same afternoon, after FBI officials edited the draft to replace "the President" with "another senior government official," Mr. Strzok sent a text message to Ms. Page notifying her of the change. ..."
"... Director Comey's statement as ultimately delivered on July 5 omitted a reference to either President Obama or "another senior government official." ..."
"... The fact that Comey had made a decision to clear Clinton months in advance was known. The fact that DOJ knew and seemingly inserted "not coordinated" into the statement. Though the fact that DOJ knew of the results and provided input into Comey's memo seems a helluva lot like coordination. ..."
"... The FBI was energized to clear Hillary by Cruz dropping out of the race, while they seemed sort of nonchalant about Cruz staying in the race. Comey concealed the significance of the likely compromise of Hillary Clinton's email from the public. DOJ and the FBI worked together on Comey's statement clearing Clinton. ..."
I posted a bit earlier on the FBI using the
"dog ate my homework" excuse for five critical months of text messages from Peter Strzok,
the number two guy in the FBI's counterintelligence operation, and his colleague and bedmate,
Lisa Page.
But a recently released letter from Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, there are other questions that need answered.
Strzok and Page are under pressure to clear Clinton after Cruz drops out of the race. To fully appreciate what follows, this is the key timeline.
August 2015: FBI gets control of Hillary's server and personal devices. Mostly.
November 2015. FBI investigation expands from storage of email to examining if Clinton
jeopardized national security.
May 2016. James Comey begins circulating a draft of conclusions.
May 3, 2016. Ted Cruz drops out of GOP primary.
June 2016. Loretta Lynch meets with Bill Clinton.
July 1, 2016. Loretta Lynch says she will abide by any FBI recommendation.
The loss of records from this period is concerning because it is apparent from other
records that Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page communicated frequently about the investigation. In
February 2016, Ms. Page texted Mr. Strzok that then-candidate Trump "simply can not [Sic] be
president." On May 4, 2016–after then-Director Comey began drafting his July 5
statement
clearing Secretary Clinton -- Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok communicated about "pressure"
building to finish the investigation following candidate Trump's likely nomination:
Ms. Page: And holy shit Cruz just dropped out of the race. It's going to be a Clinton
Trump race. Unbelievable.
Mr. Strzok: What?!?!??
Ms. Page: You heard it right my friend.
Mr. Strzok: I saw trump [sic] won, fgured it would be a bit
Mr. Strzok: Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE.
Ms. Page: It sure does. We need to talk about follow up call tomorrow. We still never
have.
The reference to the MYE by Mr. Strzok refers to the "midyear exam," the case name for the
Clinton investigation.
This is sort of a strange statement if one doesn't assume there was a "stop Trump" movement
of some type, formal or informal, within the FBI. The implication of the statement is that they
would have taken their good old time finishing the investigation if Ted Cruz had stayed in the
race, that is a decision that would have hurt Clinton. That they felt pressure to wind up the
Clinton investigation deserves some serious exploration.
James Comey concealed the extent of Hillary's Stupidity from the public.
In addition, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page discussed the drafting of Director Comey's July 5
statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. On June 30, 2016, FBI personnel circulated a draft
of Director Comey's statement that noted that Secretary Clinton had emailed with President
Obama from the private server while abroad in the "territory of sophisticated adversaries."
The passage read:
We also assess that Secretary Clinton?s use of a personal email domain was both known by
a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively
while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the
territory of such an adversary. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible
that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton?s personal email account.
The same afternoon, after FBI officials edited the draft to replace "the President" with
"another senior government official," Mr. Strzok sent a text message to Ms. Page notifying
her of the
change. The exchange read:
Mr. Strzok: K. Rybicki just sent another version.
Ms. Page: Bill just popped his head in, hopefully to talk to him. [Note: I believe
Bill is Bill Priestap, FBI director for counterintelligence and Strzok's boss.]
Mr. Strzok: Hope so. Just left Bill. Talked about the speech, the [redacted] stuff
relating to the case, and what I told you about earlier.
Mr. Strzok: He changed President to "another senior government official"
Director Comey's statement as ultimately delivered on July 5 omitted a reference to either
President Obama or "another senior government official."
This would have had a significant impact on the Clinton campaign. The central theme of her
spinmeisters was that none of the emails she sent was particularly important. It is kind of
hard to argue this when the recipient is the president. The fact that Comey obscured this fact
is nothing more than a lie by omission.
Loretta Lynch knew a week before Comey's announcement and a day before Hillary Clinton was
interviewed that Hillary Clinton would be cleared.
On July 1, 2016–the same day as Attorney General Lynch's announcement, but before
the FBI had interviewed Secretary Clinton and before Director Comey had announced his
recommendation–Ms. Page and Mr. Strzok exchanged the following messages:
Mr. Strzok: Holy cow. . . .nyt breaking Apuzzo, [sic] will accept whatever rec D and
career prosecutors make. No political appointee input.
Mr. Strzok: Timing not great, but whatever. Wonder if that's why the no coordination
language added.
Ms. Page: No way. This is a purposeful leak following the airplane snafu.
Mr. Strzok: Timing looks like hell. Will appear to be choreographed. All major news
networks literally leading with "AG to accept FBI D's recommendation."
Ms. Page: Yeah, that is awful timing. Nothing we can do about it.
Mr. Strzok: What I meant was, did DOJ tell us yesterday they were doing this, so added
that language.
Mr. Strzok: Yep. I told Bill the same thing. Delaying just makes it worse.
Ms. Page: And yes. I think we had some warning of it. I know they sent some statement to rybicki, be he called andy.
[Note: rybicki is FBI chief of staff Jim Rybicki and andy is,
of course, deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe.]
Ms. Page: And yeah, it's a real profile in couragw [sic], since she knows no charges will
be brought.
The fact that Comey had made a decision to clear Clinton months in advance was known. The
fact that DOJ knew and seemingly inserted "not coordinated" into the statement. Though the fact
that DOJ knew of the results and provided input into Comey's memo seems a helluva lot like
coordination.
We cam argue motives and motivations on this until the cows come home but, to me, there are
three salient points:
The FBI was energized to clear Hillary by Cruz dropping out of the race, while they
seemed sort of nonchalant about Cruz staying in the race. Comey concealed the significance of
the likely compromise of Hillary Clinton's email from the public. DOJ and the FBI worked
together on Comey's statement clearing Clinton.
None of this looks good and all of it needs investigation.
"... But, according to the letter, the FBI told the department that its system for retaining text messages sent and received on bureau phones had failed to preserve communications between Strzok and Page over a five-month period between Dec. 14, 2016, and May 7, 2017. The explanation for the gap was "misconfiguration issues related to rollouts, provisioning, and software upgrades that conflicted with the FBI's collection capabilities." ..."
"... Technical glitches obviously do happen but I can't help getting a bit of a Lois Lerner flashback upon hearing that five months of messages are missing from the time right after Trump was elected until 10 days before Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel. So if you were hoping for any follow up on that comment about an insurance policy, it looks like you can forget it. That's a well-timed glitch. ..."
"... But it seems the DOJ did turn over some additional texts that are worth considering. One involves an early draft of the Comey memo clearing Hillary Clinton. Originally the draft pointed out that Clinton had exchanged emails with President Obama while she was "on the territory" of a hostile power. Eventually, Obama's name was scrubbed from the document and finally all reference to the incident was removed. So that's one more example of the statement being watered down over time. And finally there is this : ..."
"... In another exchange, the two express displeasure about the timing of Lynch's announcement that she would defer to the FBI's judgment on the Clinton investigation. That announcement came days after it was revealed that the attorney general and former President Bill Clinton had an impromptu meeting aboard her plane in Phoenix, though both sides said the email investigation was never discussed ..."
"... Strzok said in a July 1 text message that the timing of Lynch's announcement "looks like hell." And Page appears to mockingly refer to Lynch's decision to accept the FBI's conclusion in the case as a "real profile in courag(e) since she knows no charges will be brought ..."
"... Comey himself had suggested Lynch appeared biased in the email probe and that he felt the need to act independently from her. ..."
"... "And she said, 'Yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter,'" Mr. Comey continued. "And I said, 'Why would I do that?' And she said, 'Just call it a matter.'" ..."
"... Mr. Comey said the "conclusive" episode that persuaded him to make his own announcement in the Clinton investigation rather than leave it to Ms. Lynch came last June, when former President Bill Clinton spontaneously boarded her plane on a tarmac and sat down to talk with her. ..."
"... So the story was that Lynch was biased (she was) but that Comey acted to protect the independence of the investigation. In fact, Lynch knew what Comey was going to say days before he said it. ..."
The Associated Press is reporting that the Department of Justice has given congressional
investigators additional text messages between FBI investigator Peter Strzok and his girlfriend
Lisa Page. The FBI also told investigators that five months worth of text messages, between
December 2016 and May 2017, are unavailable because of
a technical glitch .
Looks like another false flag operation , now with the participation of Italian intelligence services.
Notable quotes:
"... Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence Agency. See more information from the Link Campus based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ... ..."
"... "We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," ..."
"... "We have respected the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on vital contemporary issues." ..."
"... "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." ..."
"... "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world." ..."
"... Prince Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said Prince Turki , who also served as his country's envoy to Britain and the US. ..."
"... ... Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador to the United States. ..."
Appears Prof. Mifsud of Maltese descent has close links to former Italian Minister of the Interior
Vincenzo Scotti and the Italian Intelligence
Agency. See more information from the
Link Campus
based in Rome. With links to a corrupt Saudi Prince, getting some sense now of a covert operation or a piggy-back Mossad act with
knowledge of Intelligence gained from Five Eyes raw data ...
The EDOF Centre will work closely with the various interdisciplinary academic departments at the Link Campus University as
well as with international governments and organizations in order to support experts, academics, researchers, diplomats, governments,
and civil society activists in their attempts to help countries in conflict, crisis and transition around the world. The Partnership
Agreement was signed in Rome on May 8, 2017.
"We are very excited to be partnering with the Link Campus Foundation to fund and enable important scholarship that looks
to build bridges of mediation in conflict regions around the world," said
EDOF's CEO, Dr. Nawaf Obaid . "We have respected
the work of Link Campus for some time. The Centre hopes to play an important role in contributing to its efforts toward creating
peace and good governance by strengthening the ability of researchers, media, and civil society to speak out and be informed on
vital contemporary issues."
Professor Joseph Mefsud will be appointed the Founding Director of the Centre for a period of three years. Scholarships
and bursaries will be allocated in the field of War and Peace studies. The Centre will also hold international seminars and conferences,
produce research publications, and appoint Senior Fellows in the field of War and Peace studies.
According to
Tarek Obaid (
1 ), Founder of EDOF, "The Centre will take a very pragmatic approach to helping bring
smarter and more relevant thinking to the area of conflict mediation." It will achieve this by having three areas of concentration:
training, mentoring, and providing platforms for professional and expert seminars; building up the capacity of institutions and
civic groups; and working with independent and official partners to remove barriers to free expression, robust public debate and
open citizen engagement. "Offering this research platform for experts is EDOF's way of trying to support those who are doing
the heavy thinking as to how we can bring resolution to some of the more intractable conflicts in our world."
Nawaf Obaid is the Visiting Fellow for Intelligence & Defense Projects at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
He is also a weekly columnist for the pan-Arab daily, Al Hayat Newspaper.
He is currently the CEO of the Essam and Dalal Obaid Foundation (EDOF).
From 2004 to 2007, he was Special Advisor for Strategic Communications to
Prince Turki Al Faisal , while Prince Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom & Ireland, and then the United
States. And from 2007 to 2011, he worked with the Saudi Royal Court, where he was seconded as a Special Advisor to the Saudi Information
Minister. Most recently, he served as the Special Counselor to the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 2011 to 2015.
Il 20 marzo alle ore 10:30 presso l'Universitŕ degli Studi Link Campus University, si č tenuto il convegno "Brexit: stepping
off a cliff or indipendence day?"
Il convegno determina il primo atto di una collaborazione italo-britannica post Brexit, ed č stato organizzato in occasione
della firma del Protocollo d'intesa tra l'Universitŕ degli Studi Link Campus University e la London School of Economics and Political
Science, tenutasi lo stesso giorno nella sede dell'universitŕ romana.
Sono intervenuti: Franco Frattini - Presidente del Corso in Studi Strategici e Scienze Diplomatiche e Presidente della SIOI,
Vincenzo Scotti - Presidente dell'Universitŕ
degli Studi Link Campus University, Michael Cox - Direttore della LSE IDEAS e Professore di Relazioni Internazionali presso la
LSE.
Prince
Turki Al Faisal said the evidence, disclosed by the United States late, was "overwhelming" and "clearly shows official Iranian
responsibility". "Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price," said
Prince Turki , who also served as his country's
envoy to Britain and the US.
... Prince Turki al-Faisal , the chairman of
the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador
to the United States.
Looks like Mueller has strong connections to CIA and according to Brennan is his personal friend. This glowing introduction by none
other then Brenner rises several questions. One is did CIA controlled Mueller during his tenure of FBI director.
The fact the Muller was in charge after 9/11 attacks rases additional questions.
Listening to this, I feel very confident that Mr. Mueller will be able to get to the very bottom of the Russian investigation.
I think he is probably three or more steps ahead of any tricks our "President" might try. This man is a head chess player.
Ash Pro
No wonder Trump and co are scared of this man. He is gonna take the whole thing down.
On Friday at the Aspen Security Forum former CIA director John Brennan said senior officials in the executive branch should refuse
the order if President Trump fires special counsel Robert Mueller
(VERO BEACH, FL) Speaking on a panel to CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer with former DNI chief James Clapper, John Brennan effectively
called for a coup against the president if he should give the order to fire the DOJ appointed investigator.
"I think it's the obligation of some executive branch officials to refuse to carry that out," Mr. Brennan
said . "I would just hope that this is not going to be
a partisan issue. That Republicans, Democrats are going to see that the future of this government is at stake and something needs
to be done for the good of the future.
"If he's fired by Mr. Trump, or is attempted to be fired by Mr. Trump, I hope, I really hope that our members of congress, our
elected representatives, will stand up and say enough is enough, and stop making apologies and excuses for things that are happening
that really flaunt, I think, our system of laws and government here," Mr. Brennan said.
The editorial staff of ZeroHedge, an influential global blog which covers politics, economics, and war from a libertarian perspective,
also concluded
that Mr. Brennan's statement was "effectively calling for a coup" should President Trump give the order to fire Mr. Mueller.
From May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017, Robert Mueller's Russia probe spent nearly $7 Million of taxpayers' dollars. In seven
months, no solid evidence has been produced to prove that Pres. Trump colluded with the Russians to impact the elections. The
budget for Mueller's investigation was approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. -- 12.5.17 –"Mueller's Russia probe
spent nearly $7M in four months – May 17, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017" – Fox News --
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/muellers-russia-probe-spent-nearly-7m-in-first-few-months.html
Now there's a face to go with the name of the biased FBI operative at the center of multiple probes and controversies dogging
the Trump administration.
Fox News has obtained a photo of Peter Strzok, the longtime FBI deputy fired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over his bias against
President Trump. Strzok (pronounced "Struck"), was sacked by Mueller after electronic messages he reportedly sent to a colleague
emerged, but not before he played key roles in the probes swirling around Trump.
Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, oversaw the bureau's interviews with ousted
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, changed former FBI Director James Comey's early draft language about Hillary Clinton's actions
regarding her private email server from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" and reportedly helped push the largely unverified
dossier on Trump that was initially prepared by Fusion GPS for the Clinton campaign's opposition research.
Strzok's messages were reportedly not only anti-Trump, but also pro-Hillary. That has raised the ire of critics because, prior
to joining Mueller's probe, he made edits to Comey's speech exonerating Hillary Clinton.
The language being edited was important because classified material that's been mishandled for "gross negligence" calls for criminal
consequences, analysts point out.
The wording change
came to light last month after newly reported memos to Congress showed that a May 2016 draft of Comey's statement closing out
the email investigation accused the former secretary of state of being "grossly negligent." A June 2016 draft stated Clinton had
been "extremely careless."
The modified language was final when Comey announced in July 2016 that Clinton wouldn't face any charges in the email investigation.
A source close to the matter told Fox News that the probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically
sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."
EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General
is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Strzok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence
at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that
Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.
The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with
Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution
of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.
As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community,
including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.
Key figure
House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016,
received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election
that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.
The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him
that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed
that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has sought documents and witnesses from the Department of Justice
and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee
investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing
the House probe into the dossier.
In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since
the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.
While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the
anti-Trump texts to the House investigators
When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for various witnesses and documents – formally recommended
to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held in contempt of Congress.
Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein as recently as last Wednesday
Contempt citations?
Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress
citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all of his outstanding requests
for documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a resolution on the contempt citations
before year's end.
"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why
they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in
a statement.
Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have handled Christopher Steele, the British
spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared
already before the Senate panel.
In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13.
Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised important questions about his work on
the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the dossier matter.
A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?"
Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence
investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season.
The Justice Department confirmed this week that employees in Mueller's office are exempt
from the shutdown and can continue their work. His office is not funded through the regular
congressional appropriations process.
A more interesting question is how those testimonies might affect Bannon -- he is in a very hot water now. If he thought that the
meeting was so incriminating why he did not contact FBI and just decided to feed juicy gossip to Wolff?
Also he was not present at the meeting and was not a member of Trump team until two months later. From who he got all this information
? Was is just a slander by disgruntled employee?
Notable quotes:
"... To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ..."
"... Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election ..."
"... Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." ..."
"... Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me." ..."
"The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the
conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon is quoted as saying in Fire and Fury.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should
have called the F.B.I. immediately." Bannon reportedly speculated that the chance the eldest Trump son did not involve his father
in the meeting "is zero."
When Bannon's comments became public, Trump excoriated his former strategist, whom
he accused of having "lost his mind."
But while Bannon has since apologized for the remarks and sought to walk back a number of the quotes, he's stopped short of denying
that he viewed the Trump Tower meeting as treasonous. Instead, he's merely shifted the blame away from Trump Jr. and onto Manafort.
"My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate.
He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning, and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr.
," Bannon said in
a statement to Axios. ( Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election
.)
... ... ...
Though the Trump Tower meeting took place before Bannon joined the Trump campaign, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House
panel, told
CNN last week that he plans to question Bannon about "why this meeting at Trump Tower represented his treason and certainly unpatriotic
at a minimum."
Jared Kushner's "greasy shit"
Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose
[senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul
Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." (Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort have all
denied wrongdoing.) Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner
shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me
or trade me."
He and Trump's son-in-law have never seen eye to eye; their White House feuds were a poorly kept secret, and following his ouster,
Bannon has given numerous interviews knocking Kushner, including one to my colleague Gabriel Sherman in which he
questioned Kushner's
maturity level. If Bannon has dirt on Kushner, he will likely get his chance to reveal it; Schiff also
declared
his intent to question Bannon on "the basis of his concern over money laundering."
"... the recent influx of attack dog journalism has resulted in less investigative reporting and a misguided definition of news, both of which have serious, negative implications. ..."
"... All the President's Men ..."
"... The non-news news norm also includes what Larry Sabato referred to as attack dog journalism. That is, "the press coverage attending any political event or circumstance where a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably" (Sabato, 1991, p. 6). For instance, Obama's "you didn't build that" remark was immediately removed from context and spread by the mass media (so much so that the GOP then referenced it in their "We Built It" slogan at the Republican National Convention). His minor gaffe matters much less than his policy regarding taxes and social services. Even so, the media coverage did not focus on what his point was in the speech in which his misspoke. Rather, the attention was placed on the comment itself. The news should be what the President said he plans to do if he remains in office, not the poor wording choice. ..."
Journalists' role in the political process should be to serve as intermediaries between
politicians and the public. The average American does not have the means by which to get the
news directly from the White House and other bureaucrats. Therefore, there are reporters, who
exist to provide such information to the people. However, the recent influx of attack dog
journalism has resulted in less investigative reporting and a misguided definition of news,
both of which have serious, negative implications.
Woodward and Bernstein, as portrayed in All the President's Men , should be the
heroes of every news reporter in the country. By tirelessly digging up the dirt on the
Watergate, they discovered a government scandal. The pair adhered to their journalistic duty of
reporting the details to the public, despite hesitation from others and a warning from Deep
Throat that their lives may be in danger. They did not cease their searching once they had
enough to publish a story; rather, they kept probing until they got to the bottom of things.
According to lecture, their investigative journalism is indicative of a shift from lap dog
journalism to watch dog journalism.
Around the 1990s, American journalism lost its watch dog affiliation. Today's reporters are
rarely incited by the whispers of a government cover-up. For example, it took at least eight
years for the public to learn that Iraqi detector Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi lied about
weapons of mass destruction in an effort to influence Western war efforts (
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41609536/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/curveball-i-lied-about-wmd-hasten-iraq-war/#.UFzwiVGQTE0
). Reporters should not be expected to question every government decision. Nevertheless, when
the issue at hand is a war, they should be counted upon to look into why exactly one country
proposes going to war with another – reporting not only why the government is saying it
is time for war, but providing what evidence they are using to authorize their decision. This
is an enormous responsibility that is vital to our very democracy.
That is not to say that investigative journalism or watch dog reporting has died out (e.g.,
http://watchdog.org/about/ ). Rather,
their admirable tactics have been subsumed by the new news norm of non-news. In an effort to
attract an audience, countless news outlets have transitioned to offering non-news items as
news. For instance, the top story's headline on one of Tucson's local news station's websites
reads, "Donate hair this weekend to win tickets to "Disney on Ice." Another is, "Man jumps off
Bronx Zoo train, mauled by tiger." While a contest and a novel story might be interesting
enough for people to tune in, they are undoubtedly not the top stories of the day. One might
find the protesters' overtake of an Islamist group's headquarters in Benghazi more pressing,
especially considering the potential link to the recent attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya
(or perhaps Mitt Romney's tax release).
The non-news news norm also includes what Larry Sabato referred to as attack dog
journalism. That is, "the press coverage attending any political event or circumstance where a
critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and
pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably" (Sabato, 1991, p. 6). For
instance, Obama's "you didn't build that" remark was immediately removed from context and
spread by the mass media (so much so that the GOP then referenced it in their "We Built It"
slogan at the Republican National Convention). His minor gaffe matters much less than his
policy regarding taxes and social services. Even so, the media coverage did not focus on what
his point was in the speech in which his misspoke. Rather, the attention was placed on the
comment itself. The news should be what the President said he plans to do if he remains in
office, not the poor wording choice.
The trend away from watch dog journalism toward attack dog journalism, as well as the warped
definition of what is considered news, have serious implications for the country as a whole.
The current nature of political news coverage can serve to place importance on non-issues,
inspire and perpetuate misinformation, and leaves out what is not easily accessible. By giving
so much attention to minor gaffes, rumors, and unimportant issues, the media make such items
salient to the public and communicate that they are important. This can lead to skewed
priorities, as people might find insignificant items to be much more relevant than they
actually should be. Additionally, attack dog journalists' mongering about Obama's birth
certificate led approximately 25% of the country to believe Obama was not born in the United
States – according to 2011 polls, administered two to three years after the rumor's
origin. Finally, acting like attack dogs rather than watch dogs prevents journalists from
investigating stories. Reporters might not act as politicians' lap dogs but by attacking rather
than digging, they fail as watch dogs.
Such a sociological shift in news norms and journalistic tendencies is difficult to reverse,
but not impossible. In All the President's Men , Woodward and Bernstein did not act
alone. While met with hesitation from most, a few people offered invaluable support, such as
their executive editor and Deep Throat. The four of them (Woodward, Bernstein, Ben Bradlee, and
Deep Throat) prove that it does not take an army to reveal a scandal. Both the moral of the
film and the return to watch dog journalism is the belief that all it takes are a few people
impassioned by a desire to get the story and to get it right.
(Sabato's book is titled "Feeding Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has Transformed American
Politics")
I am afraid, if one is to believe Mathis words, that the Syrian, Ukrainian and Korean potential confrontations will lead to
exchanges that will force us into wars on several theaters in the very near future.
As of today, Gen. Mathis exposing the sew Us Defense Strategy warned that: The US will counter any "threat to America's democracy
experiment" in the world, if necessary with military force, the Pentagon chief threatened.
He singled out Russia and China as "adversaries", a far cry form the "partners" designation used by Russia in designing the
USA. He vowed: the US will respond with lethal force.
So the stage is set for escalation of escalation in several theaters. How long will the bear be poked and the dragon provoked
before retaliation ensues?
I am afraid that war looks more and more certain in 2018.
@40 b... thanks for that... the place was getting out of hand.. you are becoming too popular..
@56 carl... it is an outrageous statement from mattis, any way you read it!
"The US will counter any threat to America's democracy experiment in the world..."
usa as country that gets to dictate its agenda anywhere in the world.. it would explain why they want to circumvent any international
body that they don't already control too, like the un.. america's democracy experiment is imposing the us$ as world currency under
the threat of their military.. it is already starting to fall apart on all accounts which explains mattis's anxiousness in representing
these same undemocratic structures and institutions he refers to as 'america's ''democracy'' experiment'... he needs to get a
gig in hollywood at comedy central.. he never found his true calling..
"We will modernize key capabilities," Mattis said. "Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense,
advanced autonomous systems and resilient and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win." [Sputnik
News]
Just two quotes from 'Mad dog' Mattis which prove he needs to be put in an asylum.
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you
all".
"Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they're so sick of
the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."
He singled out Russia and China as "adversaries", a far cry form the "partners"
designation used by Russia in designing the USA. He vowed: the US will
respond with lethal force.
Actions speak louder than words. The US is scared of two things: 1) a military conflict where its troops get slaughtered wholesale,
and 2) going up against any army or regular military force it can't destroy from the air. Whatever happens in the near future
we can rest assured Uncle Scam won't be engaging in direct hostilities with China or Russia.
@63 "Investments in space and cyberspace, nuclear deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems and resilient
and agile logistics will provide our high-quality troops what they need to win."
Nice for the high-quality troops. Sounds like they should be totally risk-free. But I don't share Mad Dog's faith in technology.
Looks like an accident waiting to happen.
Mattis opens his mouth and reveals his level of ignorance when it comes to understanding the Outlaw US Empire's history--it's
certainly not a "democracy experiment," nor has it ever tried to install a democracy anywhere on the planet. I'd bet he's
just as ignorant when it comes to military history, too. He reminds me of the ignorant brute Sgt. Snorkel from the Beatle Bailey
comic strip. The so-called "new" "defense posture" is no more than a tidied-up version of the two that preceded it: What we say
goes; either you're with us or against us.
By way of rebuttal, I highly recommend reading
this interview of Hassan Nasrallah from 3 Jan 2018, particularly his remarks about differences in the quality of soldiers
from The Resistance versus those of the enemy--IDF, NATO, USA, Daesh--and why they exist.
Contrary to all the hype about the Empire being a new energy exporting colossus,
it needed to import LNG
to keep its East Coast dwellings warm, but the cargo seems to have found a better price elsewhere. Just how will it displace Russian
gas from the market when it can't provide enough domestic supply?
Meanwhile, Tillerson pulls an Albright
: "Signs of starvation and death in North Korea indicate that US diplomatic strategy works fine, says the secretary of state."
Is he being two-faced? You bet! From last year
: "We're not your enemy, we're not your threat..."
Ignorant, lying, immoral are just a few of the important behavioral traits of those leading faces of the Outlaw US Empire.
And my historical investigations prove such traits have been in the forefront since its inception. Guess we can thank its tutor,
the British Empire.
The US administration either is very smart in bluffing to temporarily reassure its panicking regional allies, Israel and Saudi
Arabia or it is living in the la-la land of an incompetence close to stupidity.
Do they really believe that the Russians will allow the USA to rob their victory in Syria over ISIS? Or that the Turks will
stay idle while the USA is building a Kurdish military entity on their border? Or that Iran and Syria will allow the partitioning
of Syria and the US illegal long term presence in the region?
The USA administration is posed for dramatic blowbacks and reshuffling of alliances in the region.Maybe that is why it is running
like a headless hen!
This will damage Trump with his base. Reducing the involvement of the United States military abroad was one of the more important
commitments he made to his base and now he has broken that commitment and quite a few of his base are disappointed. Even if it's
just a couple of hundred thousand of them, there goes the next presidential election for Trump and the Republicans. By forgetting
about Russia-gate, focusing on his foreign military involvements, and provided the Democratic candidate is not a Clinton, the
presidency is for there for taking by the Democrats. Having Tulsi Gabbard on the ticket would help.
The only reservation I have is if Trump is stiffing the generals in the White House and sometime in the future pulls the plug
on all those interventions then he'll remain in the White House for another four years.
Tillerson could have been speaking for Trump, or Obama, or Bush - under whose regime the Likudnik/neocons/Zionists were able to
foment a policy coup while using the OSP to concoct lies for Israel's long-desired war.
While there are generally multiple motives for entry into wars, only one is whitewashed. As Phil Giraldi put it:
""Why doesn't anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this
conference and we all know it's American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for
Netanyahu? Shouldn't we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?"
Here's where we are, as the same cabal cheerlead for war on Iran (Lebanon must be first) a you are either committed to stopping
the drive to war by all cognizable social and pitical forces, or you are not.
The time for letting cries of 'anti-Semite' preclude FAIR dis ussuon of the role of Jews and the Israel Lobby is over.
Those who censor this necessary component of analysis should be deemed confederates of the bankers, MIC, transnationals, and
Zionist Jews who have been driving wars for decades.
With millions dead, playtime is over. Those censoring the truth side with the warmongers.
"... Glenn R. Simpson, the co-founder of the controversial opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which is behind the largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier, explained in testimony released publicly last week that his firm works to "customize a research solution" based on the "problem" of each client. ..."
"... The statements may raise more questions about the veracity of the dossier accusing Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign of ties with Russia. The questionable document reportedly served as part of the basis for the FBI's investigation into Trump's presidential campaign. ..."
Glenn R. Simpson, the co-founder of the controversial opposition research firm Fusion
GPS, which is behind the largely discredited 35-page anti-Trump dossier, explained in testimony
released publicly last week that his firm works to "customize a research solution" based on the
"problem" of each client.
The statements may raise more questions about the veracity of the dossier accusing
Donald Trump and his 2016 presidential campaign of ties with Russia. The questionable document
reportedly served as part of the basis for the FBI's investigation into Trump's presidential
campaign.
Simpson's statements are significant in light of the disclosure last April that Fusion GPS's
anti-Trump work was financed by Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic
National Committee (DNC).
In August 22
testimony released last week and reviewed in full by Breitbart News, Steele stated,
"Another thing we say about our work is it's custom information, it's a customized product. You
tell us what your problem is and we customize a research solution."
Simpson was responding to a question about "concerns that the work being done was driven in
a direction designed to reach a particular conclusion for a client or because of the client's
identity."
Simpson claimed that the client doesn't dictate a specific "result" for the firm to conclude
in its work. "In general when people come to us and they tell us what their challenge is, we
stipulate that they retain us for 30 days, they agree to pay our fee, they don't tell us what
to do, they don't tell us, you know, what result to get. I like to call it a holistic
methodology."
As Breitbart News
reported yesterday, Simpson conceded in his testimony that he opposed Trump's presidential
candidacy and that his negative opinions of the politician may have "entered" into his
"thinking."
In October, the Washington Post
reported that in April 2016, attorney Marc E. Elias and his law firm Perkins Coie retained
Fusion GPS to conduct the firm's anti-Trump work on behalf of both Hillary Clinton's 2016
presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Through Perkins Coie, Clinton's campaign and the DNC continued to fund Fusion GPS until
October 2016, days before Election Day, the Post reported.
While it is not clear how much the Clinton campaign or the DNC paid Fusion GPS, the UK
Independent , citing campaign finance records, reported that the Clinton campaign doled
out $5.6 million to Perkins Coie from June 2015 to December 2016. Records
show that since November 2015, the DNC paid the law firm $3.6 million in "legal and
compliance consulting."
The BBC
reported that the information in the dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele, served as a "roadmap" for the FBI's investigation into claims of coordination between
Moscow and members of Trump's presidential campaign.
Last April, CNN
reported that the dossier served as part of the FBI's justification for seeking the FISA
court's reported approval to clandestinely monitor the communications of Carter Page, the
American oil industry investor who was tangentially and briefly associated with Trump's
presidential campaign.
What a bombshell! Finally some truth about the "Justice system" in the US.
Following on from this should be the whole subsequent story of the DNC-Fusion-Steele dossier in detail, exposing the MSM too
for what it has been worth.
Perhaps then Trump dares to go against the deep state swamp and stop wars instead of following the dictates of CIA, Israel and
Military Industrialists. That would be a real POTUS PLUS result.
""It's troubling. It is shocking," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "Part of me wishes that I didn't read it because
I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.""
***
Come on, child! Enough with that spectacle. Get real. Have the basic courage to know and to admit what everybody has known
about your country for ages!... The entire world already knows.
More proof, if any were needed, that the only threat to the people of the USA comes from their own government. The 'external
threat' is a fiction calculated to enslave the US population and enrich the Oligarchy.
Somebody's going to leak this in short order. Let's take a real look at what both Dems and Repubs just expanded, let's look
at the monster they are feeding in broad daylight.
It is exactly as I told you. Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the DOJ, and the
Hillary campaign to overturn Donald Trump's election. We have treason committed at the highest
levels of the FBI and Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee.
If you believed one word of Russiagate, you now must laugh or cry at your incredible
gullibility.
This scandal should also bring down the presstitute media who have done the dirty work for
the conspiracy against Trump.
GOP Rep. Gaetz Calls on House to Release 'Important Intelligence Document' -- Goes to 'Very Foundations of Our
Democracy,' Involves FBI, DoJ and Trump
.
@mattgaetz
: "The
allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy and
they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion."
pic.twitter.com/kqjxp21GcA
18 Jan, 2018
18 Jan, 2018
Thursday on the Fox Business Network, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) teased an intelligence memo that he claimed went "to
the very foundations of democracy" and called on his colleagues in the House of Representatives to make the memo
public.
Gaetz told host Liz Claman the memo involved the FBI, the Department of Justice and President Donald Trump.
"The allegations contained in this important intelligence document go to the very foundations of our democracy,
and they require an immediate release to the public in my opinion," Gaetz said. "Unfortunately, I can not talk
about the specific facts contained within this memo. I can only share my observation -- that if the American people
knew what was happening if they saw the contents of this memo, a lot would become clear about the information that
I've been talking about the last several months. And so, I am calling on our leadership to hold a vote on the
floor of the House to make public the key contents of this intelligence memo regarding the FBI, the Department of
Justice and President Trump."
According to Gaetz, a vote could be held simultaneously with a continuing resolution vote that would make the
"critical allegations" in the document on the floor of the House of Representatives.
All hell is breaking loose in Washington D.C. tonight after a four-page memo detailing
extensive
FISA court abuse
was made available to the entire House of Representatives Thursday. The
contents of the memo are so explosive, says Journalist Sara Carter, that it could
lead to the
removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice and the end of Robert Mueller's
special counsel investigation.
These sources say the report is "explosive," stating
they would not be surprised if it
leads to the end of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation
into President Trump
and his associates. -
Sara
Carter
A source close to the matter tells
Fox
News
that "the memo details the Intelligence Committee's oversight work for
the FBI and Justice,
including the controversy over unmasking and FISA surveillance."
An
educated guess by anyone who's been paying attention for the last year leads to the obvious conclusion
that the report reveals
extensive abuse of power and highly illegal collusion between the
Obama administration, the FBI, the DOJ and the Clinton Campaign against Donald Trump and his team
during and after the 2016 presidential election.
Lawmakers who have seen the memo are calling for its immediate release, while the phrases
"explosive," "shocking," "troubling," and "alarming" have all been used in all sincerity. One
congressman even likened the report's details to KGB activity in Russia. "
It is so alarming
the American people have to see this,
" Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told
Fox News
. "
It's
troubling. It is shocking
," North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. "
Part of me wishes
that I didn't read it because I don't want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in
this country that I call home and love so much.
"
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., offered the motion on Thursday to make the Republican majority-authored
report available to the members.
"
The document shows a troubling course of conduct and we need to make the document
available, so the public can see it,
" said a senior government official, who spoke on
condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the document. "
Once the public sees it, we
can hold the people involved accountable in a number of ways
."
The government official said that after reading the document "
some of these people
should no longer be in the government.
" -
Sara Carter
Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R) echoed Sara Carter's sentiment
that people might lose their job
if the memo is released:
"
I believe the consequence of its release will
be major changes in people currently working at the FBI and the Department of Justice
," he
said, referencing DOJ officials
Rod Rosenstein and Bruce Ohr
.
Meanwhile, Rep. Matt Gatetz (R-FL) said
not only will the release of this memo result in
DOJ firing, but "people will go to jail."
Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino says "
Take it to the bank, the FBI/FISA docs are
devastating for the Dems
."
The dossier was used in part as evidence for a warrant to surveil members of the Trump
campaign,
according to a
story
published this month
. Former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier in 2016,
was hired by embattled research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's founder is Glenn Simpson, a former Wall
Street Journal reporter who has already testified before Congress in relation to the dossier. In
October, The Washington Post revealed for the first time that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign
and the DNC that financed Fusion GPS.
Congressional members are hopeful that the classified information will be declassified and
released to the public.
"
We probably will get this stuff released by the end of the month
," stated a
congressional member, who asked not to be named. -
Sara Carter
Releasing the memo to the public would require a committee vote, a source told
Fox
, adding
that if approved,
it could be released as long as there are no objections from the White House
within five days
.
Reactions from the citizenry have been on point:
... ... ....
Even WikiLeaks has joined the fray, offering a reward in Bitcoin to anyone who will share the memo:
Oddly, the Twitter account for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - @HPSCI - has
been mysteriously suspended.
Of all the recent developments in the ongoing investigation(s), this one is on the cusp of turning
into a genuine happening.
Emails
released Tuesday by Trump Jr. reveal that his friend Rob Goldstone pitched the meeting
based on the promise of damning information on Hillary Clinton that supposedly was being
offered by senior Russian government officials. On Monday, Mark
Corallo , a spokesman for President Trump's outside counsel, alleged that the meeting had
been set up under false pretenses and implied that Veselnitskaya's association with Fusion GPS
was relevant to the alleged deception.
"... "Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than stand before the grand jury." ..."
"... Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump, Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous." ..."
"... The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele. ..."
"... "The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained. ..."
"... "The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government, as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research [has] never been established as a crime." ..."
Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed to testify before a
grand jury, supposedly on alleged ties between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and
Russian actors. Brian Becker on Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear was joined by Joe Lauria,
a veteran journalist who has also worked for major newspapers in four countries, perhaps most
notably as the Wall Street Journal's correspondent to the United Nations.
"Mr. Bannon has fallen and I think he was the ideological force behind Trump,
particularly in relations with Russia," said Lauria. "It's interesting to know why did Trump
call for detente, and still seems to be pursuing detente, with Russia. Many people who believe
in Russiagate believe it's because he's somehow beholden to them or has been blackmailed or
whatever. But professor Jeffrey Summers with the University of Wisconsin wrote an interesting
piece where he said Bannon was the one who had impressed upon Trump that he should improve
relations with Russia so they can team up against Islamic extremism."
"Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being
mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the
intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the
story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than
stand before the grand jury."
Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the
first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump,
Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous."
"If you read the key quote in that book, the House Intelligence Committee wants to question
him about an allegation against Paul Manafort and Donald Trump, Jr. for treason. I find this
very curious. If Bannon wanted Trump to have better relations with Russia, it's curious that he
would roll out an accusation of treason. He's far from the only one to bring the charge against
Trump in this entire Russiagate fiasco, but if you look at treason, it's the only crime defined
in the US Constitution. It says clearly treason against the US consists only of assisting an
enemy of the US in a state of open hostility with us."
"Russia is not in open hostilities with the United States, no one would argue that. The idea
that Trump, Jr. has committed treason is ridiculous. I don't know why Bannon used [the term].
Clearly he was angry at Trump for being fired, I don't know if he was begging for his job back
as Trump tweeted," Lauria said.
The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting
between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection
with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele.
"If I could talk a second about that Don Jr meeting, there's a core issue in it over the
difference in opposition research and intelligence," Lauria said. "While Christopher Steele was
an MI-6 intelligence agent for Britain, he was working for a private company at the time. He
was hired by the Clinton campaign and the [Democratic National Committee] through Fusion GPS.
Glenn Simpson, of Fusion, who hired Steele directly, wrote in a New York Times editorial that
Steele produced intelligence memos. He was either lying or misleading the readers -- he has to
know the difference between them."
"The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then
by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's
also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always
what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting
dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained.
"The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government,
as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian
government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no
dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research
from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British
former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research
[has] never been established as a crime."
Such military thinkers like Sun Tzu, the moderns military strategists like Mao Zedong,
General Võ Nguyên Giáp and even the military conceptions of Fidel
Castro Ruz, should be investigated, developed more thoroughly and applied in the unexpected
form of warfare that comes out of the fog of war across a battlefield on any given day.
There is great promise of creative output in the Russian military art of war for it
animates from one the most progressive nation-states, and the Russian military theorists
must embrace their historical past, welding it to the here and now.
"... The public relation campaign designed to increase the acceptance of new nuclear weapons and "limited" nuclear warfare is a symptom of this ignorance and willful blindness. ..."
"... An article published by the Federation of American Scientists provides a summary of the nuclear winter studies (those done during the period 2007-2008) and the rejection of their findings by the US Nuclear Weapons Council, see Turning a Blind Eye Toward Armageddon ..."
"... In a world of hyper sonic missiles and megaton nuclear warheads, sending off an alarm for your populace to seek bomb shelters, in a period of extremely heightened tensions, as exists currently between North Korea and the US, could be construed by your enemy as a nuclear-age form of mobilization. ..."
"... One must also consider that Russia and China have also been threatened repeatedly by the US over the last year, and both have sent extra troops to their respective North Korean borders. ..."
US political and military leaders either are unaware of -- or have chosen to reject -- the
peer-reviewed studies that predict a US-Russian nuclear war would likely wipe out most of the
human race. The public relation campaign designed to increase the acceptance of new nuclear
weapons and "limited" nuclear warfare is a symptom of this ignorance and willful
blindness.
An article published by the Federation of American Scientists provides a summary of the
nuclear winter studies (those done during the period 2007-2008) and the rejection of their
findings by the US Nuclear Weapons Council, see
Turning a Blind Eye Toward Armageddon
Thank you once again for providing us a glance behind the curtain. Most historians accept that the Tsar and Russia deserve a certain degree of blame for WWI
for being the first empire to mobilize in 1914.
In a world of hyper sonic missiles and megaton nuclear warheads, sending off an alarm for
your populace to seek bomb shelters, in a period of extremely heightened tensions, as exists
currently between North Korea and the US, could be construed by your enemy as a nuclear-age
form of mobilization.
One must also consider that Russia and China have also been threatened repeatedly by the
US over the last year, and both have sent extra troops to their respective North Korean
borders.
For the TSA/PACCOM/? to decide to fake a Nuclear missile attack would not only be
exceedingly reckless, it could also be suicidal. Unless:
The enemy had been informed before hand and there was no risk.
The risk of a nuclear exchange had already been baked into the cake, and the possibility
of this kicking off a war was not a bug, but a feature.
Fusion GPS, which was behind the discredited Trump-Russia dossier authored by ex-British spy Christopher Steele, also set up and
participated in the now infamous meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, reports say.
The roles
played by the Democrat-funded opposition firm and the Obama administration itself should be the focus of investigations of Russia's
role in the 2016 elections, conservative critics such as Mark Levin say.
Donald Trump Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson abruptly canceled his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled
for July 19, after the firm was linked to the Trump Jr.-Veselnitskaya meeting.
Fusion GPS associate Rob Goldstone arranged the June 2016 meeting which included Trump Jr., former Trump campaign manager Paul
Manafort, Jared Kushner, Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS associate Rinat Akhmetshin.
Manafort's phone was tapped by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the meeting, according to a tweet by former Massachusetts
Trump campaign official James Brower and first reported by independent journalist and author Jack Posobiec.
Reports also noted that Veselnitskaya was let into the United States under "extraordinary circumstances" by President Barack Obama's
Justice Department, headed by Lynch.
"If Brower's tweet is proven correct and Paul Manafort's phone was being tapped during the meeting – it means Loretta Lynch's
surveillance of Manafort, an American, was done without a FISA warrant," Zero Hedge noted in a July 14 report.
Zero Hedge added: "This also calls into question the June 27, 2016 'tarmac' meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton, which would
have come after the meeting at Trump Tower."
Drawing on sources including the New York Times and Washington Post, radio host Mark Levin (via Breitbart) described the case
against the Obama administration based on what is already publicly known:
June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA)
to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
July: Russia joke. WikiLeaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie
Sanders from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton's own missing
emails, joking: 'Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.' That remark becomes
the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.
October: Podesta emails. In October, WikiLeaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches
every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.
October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer
server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found – but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national
security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes.
The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the
federal intelligence services.
"... Take Nadia Schadlow, for instance. Never heard of her? Unless you've been navigating the rice paddies of Washington's post-9/11 national security enterprise for the last several years, there's no reason you would have. But she has been at the National Security Council since last winter, and is set to replace Dina Powell as deputy national security advisor , at the right hand of NSC chief H.R. McMaster. She was also the lead on the White House National Security Strategy , released last month. ..."
"... This was Schadlow's first position in government. Her résumé includes doctoral degrees from Johns Hopkins Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) under the tutelage of vocal Never Trumper and Iraq war promoter Eliot Cohen, who runs the largely neoconservative Strategic Studies program there, and whose last book, The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power, argued that the U.S., backed by a more robust military, must be the "guardian of a stable world order." ..."
"... What is significant about Schadlow's role in the White House -- she's reportedly a "trusted confidant" of General McMaster, who was lionized in the New Yorker for his T.E. Lawrence approach to counterinsurgency in Tal Afar in 2006 -- is not her bibliography, but her vast connections to Washington's foreign policy and national security clique, especially its neoconservative elite. If one were using the metaphor of chain migration, she would have plenty of friends on either side of the Potomac to tap for high-level placement, consulting, and advice. ..."
"... The foundation has a rich history cleaved to neoconservative pioneers such as Irving Kristol, father of Bill, who in his own memoirs credits the philanthropic institution and its then-director Randall Richardson (heir to the Vicks fortune) with helping him jumpstart the Public Interest, known as the premier neoconservative organ, a label Irving fully embraced . The foundation also served as a key backer of Commentary magazine after Norman Podhoretz took the helm in 1960. ..."
"... Meanwhile, since 1998, the foundation has given over $10 million to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI was built, literally, on Smith Richardson money), which fielded many of the Iraq war architects and promoters, including Frederick Kagan, John Bolton, former vice president Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Frum, and Danielle Pletka. ..."
"... No surprise, then, that the worldview of people like Nadia Schadlow is no different from the wider Washington policy orbit that has enjoyed a pipeline of patronage from her former employer. She is not only affiliated with the Foreign Policy Institute, but is a full member of the Council on Foreign Relations. When she was named to the NSC staff in March 2017, along with "Kremlinologist" and former Eurasian Foundation strategist Fiona Hill, national security establishment courtier Thomas Ricks called them both "well-educated, skeptical, and informed. In other words, the opposite of the president they serve." ..."
"... That is why there seemed to be such relief upon the recent release of the Trump administration's National Security Strategy, with Washington scribblers lauding it as " well within the bipartisan mainstream of American foreign policy " and "a well crafted document that should reassure allies and partners." ..."
"... What it actually does is to reinforce Trump's turn towards a harder line against Iran, as evidenced in McMaster's recent speeches . Nikki Haley, ambassador to the UN, is threatening fellow members on the Security Council , and the Trump administration is seen as taking sides with Israel in the fragile Middle East peace process (or what's left if it). Meanwhile, the White House has just given a green light to arming Ukraine against Russia. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is executive editor of ..."
"... Follow her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC. ..."
"... It turns to new parties, this endless Democrat/Republican cycle is a joke. Surely there are no more people out there that can rationally argue for the two party state as being a good setup for America. ..."
"... There is a term soldiers sometimes use to characterize those who have never fought, will never fight, but are nevertheless positive that fighting is the answer to their dissatisfactions. Chickenhawks. ..."
"... The Neocons are a cancer upon the American Body Politik. When Trump was elected I and many others were hopeful that this cancer could be effectively treated, but it could not for the cancer has spread to all vital organs and is terminal and our nation will die because of it. ..."
"... "Neocons?" Actually what they are is Neocoms or Neocommunists. World domination is the name of their game. ..."
"... The folks who thought President Trump would have a less belligerent foreign policy than Sec. Clinton would have deserve as much intellectual sympathy as those who thought that he would lower premiums and increase coverage of ACA. ..."
Over the last year critics have warned of the returning neoconservative influence on the
executive branch's national security apparatus, each day a little less confident that President
Donald Trump will keep to the seeming anti-interventionist impulses he demonstrated during the
2016 campaign.
News flash: We're already there.
Of course the most garish of the pro-war set -- Sebastian Gorka, K.T. McFarland, John Bolton
-- are easy to identify in or on the periphery of Trump's orbit (in Gorka's case, he was cast
out of the White House, only to
flak away in any media outlet that will pay attention). Meanwhile, elite neoconservative
voices like
Bill Kristol and
Max Boot have become darlings of the "Never Trump" cadre, finding new life as conservative
tokens on "Resistance" media like MSNBC.
What has been less obvious, but has become much clearer in these last few months, is that
other neoconservatives are quietly filling the vacuum left by Obama's cadre of liberal
interventionists. Many of them had taken a pass on "Never Trumping" publicly, and are now
popping up at the elbows of top cabinet officials.
Take Nadia Schadlow, for instance. Never heard of her? Unless you've been navigating the
rice paddies of Washington's post-9/11 national security enterprise for the last several years,
there's no reason you would have. But she has been at the National Security Council since last
winter, and is set to replace Dina
Powell as deputy national security advisor , at the right hand of NSC chief H.R. McMaster.
She was also the lead on the White House National Security
Strategy , released last month.
This was Schadlow's first position in government. Her résumé includes
doctoral degrees from Johns Hopkins Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) under
the tutelage of vocal Never Trumper and Iraq war promoter Eliot Cohen, who runs the largely
neoconservative Strategic Studies program
there, and whose last book, The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power, argued that the U.S., backed by a more
robust military, must be the "guardian of a stable world order." In that vein, Schadlow
published a book last year, War and the Art of
Governance , that extols the virtues of long-term military intervention for "achieving
sustainable political outcomes," requiring "the consolidation of combat gains through the
establishment of stable environments." Schadlow has repeated this for
years as a mantra for reordering military strategy in the wake of the disastrous wars she
and her contemporaries helped sustain, in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. Call it nation-building
by another name.
In a 2012 Weekly Standardcommentary , she
criticized the Obama administration for saying "the tide of war is receding," and exclaimed
"the line of thinking that now pervades the Pentagon avoids recognizing that combat and the
restoration of political order go hand and hand." While she gives a nod to "civil-military
operational planning and execution," she never utters the words "State Department." No surprise
there, either, since her neocon friends were responsible for the long slide of Foggy Bottom's
resources and influence in favor of military leadership, beginning with the "political
reconciliation" and reconstruction of Iraq, and then Afghanistan.
What is significant about Schadlow's role in the White House -- she's reportedly a
"trusted confidant" of General McMaster, who was lionized in the
New Yorker for his T.E. Lawrence approach to counterinsurgency in Tal Afar in 2006 -- is
not her bibliography, but her vast connections to Washington's foreign policy and national
security clique, especially its neoconservative elite. If one were using the metaphor of chain
migration, she would have plenty of friends on either side of the Potomac to tap for high-level
placement, consulting, and advice.
Why? As recent senior program director for the expansive, multi-million dollar International
Security and Foreign Policy Program under the Smith Richardson
Foundation , she has helped to fund and facilitate countless authors, conferences, think
tanks, and university programs since 9/11, most of which hew to the doctrine of sustained
military intervention towards the goal of U.S. global power and influence. That includes
preemptive war strategy, counterinsurgency, democracy promotion, and the continued push for
bigger military budgets and solutions to regional conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. If
there was a prominent player in the U.S. security community over the last 20 years, you can bet
Schadlow and Smith Richardson were more often than not connected to him.
But it goes back so much further than that. The foundation has a rich history cleaved to
neoconservative pioneers such as Irving Kristol, father of Bill, who in his own memoirs credits
the philanthropic institution and its then-director Randall Richardson (heir to the Vicks fortune) with helping him
jumpstart the Public Interest, known as the premier neoconservative organ,
a label Irving fully embraced . The foundation also served as a key backer of
Commentary magazine after Norman Podhoretz took the helm in 1960.
It is in international affairs that Smith Richardson has made some of its biggest impacts,
during the
anti-communist Reagan era and into the Middle East conflicts under Presidents Clinton,
Bushes, Obama, and Trump. To say the foundation was involved at every level in the lobbying for
and crafting of the so-called global war on terror after 9/11 would be an understatement.
Example: Former Smith Richardson research director Devon Gaffney Cross became a director of the
Project for a New American Century, the intellectual vehicle that drove the removal of Saddam
Hussein and shaped George W. Bush's foreign policy. In 2000, Cross was listed as one of the
participants in PNAC's seminal treatise,
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." The rest
of the contributors are a who's who of Washington's war theocracy, most of whom have benefitted
from Smith Richardson support.
Meanwhile, since 1998, the foundation has given over $10 million to the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI was built,
literally, on Smith Richardson money), which fielded many of the Iraq war architects and
promoters, including Frederick Kagan, John Bolton, former vice president Dick Cheney, Richard
Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, David Frum, and Danielle
Pletka.
Just as telling is Smith Richardson's continued backing of the Institute for the Study of War , headed by Kimberly
Kagan, wife of Frederick, with whom she was a "de facto advisor"
to General Petraeus for a year as he set about his then-vaunted COIN strategy in
Afghanistan. ISW, chaired by retired General Jack Keane, known as the " godfather
of the surge ," was founded in part by the generosity of Smith Richardson in 2007. It not
only promoted more troops, but an extended occupation in Afghanistan, regime change in
Syria , and ongoing hostilities with Iran. No surprise, then, that ISW has numerous
intertwining relationships with the military and the defense industry. It received $895,000 for
program work from Smith Richardson between 2014 and 2016 alone.
According to Philip Rojc of Inside Philanthropy, other recipients of Smith Richardson grants since 1998
include the the Hudson Institute ($6,032,230), the Jamestown Institute ($5,779,475), the Hoover
Institution ($3,645,314), and the Center for a New American Security ($1,595,000). Totals have
been adjusted to include 2016 numbers.
The last one -- CNAS -- is more indicative of Smith Richardson's broader strategy, in that
it doesn't only give to hardline neoconservative outfits like, say, the Foundation
for the Defense of Democracies (which has received no less than $500,000 since 2014 and
says it helped write Trump's new Iran policy ). On the contrary, Smith Richardson has been
a major patron of the conventional establishment, too, even largely Democratic think tanks like
CNAS, Brookings Institute, and the Carnegie Endowment -- all of which invariably host scholars
and programs that promote America's military-driven global influence, counterinsurgency
doctrine (CNAS was a
virtual hothouse for COIN early in Obama's presidency), and democracy
promotion in places like Russia and Ukraine, a major yet failed project of humanitarian
interventionists in the Obama administration.
No surprise, then, that the worldview of people like Nadia Schadlow is no different from the
wider Washington policy orbit that has enjoyed a pipeline of patronage from her former
employer. She is not only affiliated with the Foreign Policy Institute, but is a full member of
the Council on Foreign Relations. When she was named to the NSC staff in March 2017, along with
"Kremlinologist" and former Eurasian Foundation strategist
Fiona Hill, national security establishment courtier Thomas Ricks called them
both "well-educated, skeptical, and informed. In other words, the opposite of the president
they serve."
You know the "right" kind of operator has arrived in the White House when establishment
commentariat like Ricks and
Josh Rogin get all gushy about their calming, "soft power" influence over Trump, which
sounds like a lot of bunk when you consider their well-documented points of view.
Simply put, after years of cross-pollination brought on by a slush fund of wealthy private
donors like Smith Richardson and an even more eager defense industry, neoconservative views are
no longer distinguishable from the sanctioned goals of the Washington policy establishment.
They are all working, really, as proper stewards of the military-industrial complex, which is
essential for advancing their (sometimes competing) visions of world power politics and
American exceptionalism. There is little room for realism and restraint, as voiced by this
magazine and other critics.
Call it the new "adults in the room," if you want, or peg it as the neoconservative
influence that it is. Strikingly, Dan Drezner writes that the NSS is
"Straussian" in that its "subtext matters at least as much as the text." The preeminent
scholar Leo Strauss is considered one of the key founders of the neoconservative movement, a
fact the Washington Post columnist should be well aware of. Like most of the elites
here in Washington, however, Drezner is trying to have it both ways -- calling it neocon
without have the guts to say it outright.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is executive editor of The American Conservative. Follow
her on Twitter @Vlahos_at_TAC.
It is a sad state of affairs when the American people are literally dependent on sane people
in Beijing, Moscow, Ankara, Tehran, and other capitals to keep a completely out of control
neo-con foreign and defense policy establishment from plunging our people on the world into
yet more pointless warfare.
Mainstream media seems "All Neocon." A star studded group of rationalizers. We are being
gently taught to hate what the neocons hate. South Pacific had the recipe. Not for the
reasons intended. Au contraire.
So. Well-heeled foreign interests and interventionists are buying nosebagger politicians and
shaping our foreign policy under Trump, just like they did under Obama, Bush II, and Clinton.
Why do we bother having elections if neocon crap is the only item on the menu?
It's incredible. No matter how often they lie and fail, no matter how many colossally
expensive disasters they cause, someone keeps letting the filth back in. They're as hardy and
resilient as cockroaches, and we need to start dealing with them as such.
Trump 'needs a war' to be re-elected. He knows this and who else to better start one than the
neo-cons?
What is terrifying is that these same people and their ancestors actually attempted to
convince Reagan that the US could win a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Reagan wisely
chose 'Trust but Verify' over their strongest objections. Trump is a far cry from a
Reagan.
The generations long war to destroy the State Department appears to have completely
obscured the greatest US victory of last century. The defeat of the Soviet Union with little
more than skirmishes.
The gloved fist approach, while frustrating to the military, was a massive success.
Military solutions fail badly. One look at the history of military governments confirms their
abysmal record. Yet, we have an administration preparing for war. Not at all certain, the
people will follow.
Good article. Trump is easily distracted from his (often right) gut feelings on policy
(China, NATO, etc.) by titles: military rank, highbrow think tanks, Wall St. moguls, and
power elites from the Council on Foreign Relations. With no moral compass or basic
understanding of the Constitution or the ways Washington works, he is hapless and his agenda
is hamstrung.
I wondered how far down I'd have to go down in the article before Ukraine and Putin popped
up! It's the usual "let Putin win in Ukraine" propaganda. What astonishes me as a European is
why people who call themselves "conservatives", whom you would naturally expect to be
patriotic, often indeed excessively so, are frantically trying to persuade their fellow
citizens to submit to a foreign power inflicting a humiliating defeat on their country,
possibly the most humiliating that it has ever suffered in its history. I couldn't imagine
Europeans behaving like that.
Interesting article with good info. I believe "the Trump White House" is just continuing the
policies of the past occupants of "The House of Blood."
[More info at link below]
August 9, 2016
The House of Blood
Its color is white but it is red with blood
The residents' name should really be mud
Instead they get fancy honors and titles
Wars for them is a musical recital
The hum of their drones flying through the air
Are killing children without due care
This is hellishly called "collateral damage"
These are the words of the resident savage
Immaculately dressed in a business suit
An eloquent speaker is this callous brute
Surrounded by sycophants and flunkeys too
Evil is what these people plan and do
War and more war is their hellish aim
Are they all devils and bloody insane?
Countries are reduced to smoking rubble
These well-dressed maniacs are big trouble
People are fleeing and dying too
From the hell produced by this satanic crew
Refugees are drowning in deadly waters
Trying to escape the endless slaughters
These helpless victims once had homes
Now they have nothing, and just roam
Helpless, homeless people on the move
With nothing really left to improve
The perpetrators call their crimes "bringing democracy"
Surely creating hell on earth is really hypocrisy
But when criminals rule there is no justice
And law and order is totally corrupted
The war criminals slogan is "responsibility to protect"
They tell that to the people whose countries they wrecked
Those still alive can hear the bombs explode and thud
A hellish "courtesy" from the House of Blood
It turns to new parties, this endless Democrat/Republican cycle is a joke. Surely
there are no more people out there that can rationally argue for the two party state as being
a good setup for America.
There is a term soldiers sometimes use to characterize those who have never fought, will
never fight, but are nevertheless positive that fighting is the answer to their
dissatisfactions. Chickenhawks.
The Neocons are a cancer upon the American Body Politik. When Trump was elected I and
many others were hopeful that this cancer could be effectively treated, but it could not for
the cancer has spread to all vital organs and is terminal and our nation will die because of
it.
Trump won with a coalition of conservative and populist support. The two partners agree on
judges, but not too much else. For those of the latter persuasion, you at least have a seat
at the table in the current administration (thank you, Lord, for Stephen Miller!) Populists
need to run candidates at all levels and start to groom future leaders. Somebody with Rand
Paul's FP views and Tom Cotton's immigration views would be perfect.
@Michael Kenny,
Why should America care what Putin wins in Ukraine? Why doesn't the EU fight its own battles?
Go on, oppose Putin. You have more to lose than America does.
The folks who thought President Trump would have a less belligerent foreign policy than
Sec. Clinton would have deserve as much intellectual sympathy as those who thought that he
would lower premiums and increase coverage of ACA.
"Mr. President," Acosta shouted three times, finally getting Trump's attention, "Did you say
that you want more people to come in from Norway? Did you say that you wanted more people from
Norway? Is that true Mr. President?" Acosta barked at Trump.
" I want them to come in from everywhere everywhere. Thank you very much everybody ," Trump
replied while Acosta continued to interject.
" Just Caucasian or white countries, sir? Or do you want people to come in from other parts
of the world people of color ," Acosta asked - effectively calling Trump racist, to which Trump
looked Acosta directly in the eye and simply said:
Acosta spoke about the incident with Wolf Blitzer afterwards and said it was clear the
president was ordering him out of the room. Acosta said he tried to ask his questions again
when Trump and Nazarbayev gave a joint statement later on, but Deputy Press Secretary Hogan
Gidley "got right up in my face" and started shouting at him to block out any questions.
"It was that kind of a display," Acosta recalled. "It reminded me of something you might see
in less democratic countries when people at the White House or officials of a foreign
government attempt to get in the way of the press in doing their jobs."
Acosta and CNN were infamously humiliated after Trump called them "fake news" during a
January, 2017 press conference in which Acosta attempted to shoehorn a question in front of
another reporter:
Meanwhile, Acosta was shut down in December by White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
after he tried to grandstand during a press briefing over being called "Fake News," telling her
that sometimes reporters make "honest mistakes."
Sanders shot back; "When journalists make honest mistakes, they should own up to them.
Sometimes, and a lot of times, you don't," only to be temporarily cut off by Acosta.
"I'm sorry, I'm not finished," Sanders fired back, adding "There is a very big difference
between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people... you cannot
say it's an honest mistake when you're purposely putting out information you know is
false."
Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said it was "wild" that Trump's son was being
blamed for speaking with a Russian attorney. Lavrov – who met Trump last week at the G20
summit in Hamburg, together with Vladimir Putin – said he knew nothing of the meeting
with the lawyer. Serious people were trying to "make a mountain out of a molehill", Lavrov
said.
In the emails, Goldstone said he made contact with Trump Jr at the behest of the
Russian-Azeri businessman Aras Agalarov and Aglaravov's pop-star son, Emin. The Agalarovs
hosted Trump when he visited Moscow in 2013 for the Miss Universe beauty pageant.
On Wednesday, Aras Agalarov claimed the story was invented. "I think this is some sort of
fiction. I don't know who is making it up," he told Russia's Business FM radio station, adding:
"What has Hillary Clinton got to do with anything? I don't know."
It would be interesting if they get Wolff to testify too ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday. ..."
"... the NYT reports that Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia. ..."
"... After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr. Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right website Breitbart News. ..."
"... The experts also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators. ..."
"... Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer every question. ..."
"... Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen. ..."
"... Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been. ..."
"... Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. ..."
"... So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Grand Inquisitor Mueller, drowning in a sea of DEMOCRAT Russian collusion, subpoenas...Bannon...lol. ..."
"... How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? ..."
"... First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started. ..."
"... In his emails to Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." ..."
"... If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the meeting. ..."
Update:Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel
Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday.
The bad news for Steve Bannon just keeps on coming.
Not long after Bannon was bounced from Breitbart following his feud with Trump
over his comments in Michael Wolff's book, moments ago the
NYT reports
that
Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller
to testify before a grand
jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia.
And the reason why stocks dipped modestly and the VIX bounced on the news, is that the subpoena marks the first time Mueller is
known to have used a grand jury subpoena to seek information from a member of Mr. Trump's inner circle.
After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr.
Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right
website Breitbart News.
Mueller reportedly issued the subpoena after Mr. Bannon was quoted in a new book criticizing Mr. Trump, saying that Donald
Trump Jr.'s 2016 meeting with Russians was "treasonous" and predicting that the special counsel investigation would ultimately center
on money laundering.
According to the NYT, the subpoena could be a negotiating tactic:
Mr. Mueller is likely to allow Mr. Bannon to forgo the grand jury appearance if he agrees to instead be questioned
by investigators in the less formal setting of the special counsel's offices in Washington, according to the person, who would
not be named discussing the case.
But it was not clear why Mr. Mueller treated Mr. Bannon differently than the dozen
administration officials who were interviewed in the final months of last year and were never served with a subpoena.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday Bannon was testifying behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee, which is also investigating
Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The NYT quotes legal experts who said
the subpoena could be a sign that the investigation was intensifying, while others
said it may simply have been a negotiating tactic to persuade Mr. Bannon to cooperate with the investigation.
The experts
also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite
Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators.
Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses
do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning
or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer
every question.
The news will hardly come as a surprise to Trump: "the president appeared to ease his anger toward Mr. Bannon at the end of last
week. When asked in an interview with The Wall Street Journal whether his break with Mr. Bannon was "permanent," the president replied,
"I don't know what the word 'permanent' means.""
As a result, "people close to Mr. Bannon took the president's comments as a signal that Mr. Trump was aware that his fired
strategist would soon be contacted by investigators."
Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen.
Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own
corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the
Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been.
Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with
this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. Meanwhile mountains of evidence
being ignored on Comey, Clinton, Lynch
How does a probe "intensify"? Does it mean they discuss things in louder voices?
Wear more colorful clothing? Increase the office lighting brightness?
What I wish would "intensify" is the brainpower of journalists.
Oh . . . and "Hillary" has two l's. Like "hell" has two l's.
They think Bannon is at odds with Trump and will roll over on him.
Must.Get.Moar.Popcorn.
This episode is about to start...
Mike Masr • Jan 16, 2018 1:49 PM Permalink
So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We
look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world.
How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? Washington
Gov is a total waste.....beyond repair I would say. From that Idiot Black
Chick who wears the Cowboy hats like a Clown from the Circus, to the 84
fucking year old senile Bitch Feinstein......to waste of time and money.
This Country is lost.
First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well
publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book
sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this
whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started.
Second, is Bannon that petty or does he
see the bigger picture?
In his
emails
to
Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had
damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
"If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," Trump Jr. replied to
Goldstone in one email.
Bannon doesn't have to say a word. Trump Jr. stated he loved the idea of Russian Government
support. Bannon is right. Jr.'s intent was treasonous-not to be confused with actually
committing treason.
If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a
child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the
meeting.
"... Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia's attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition , complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory, and even -- though it shocks our 21st-century sensibilities -- the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives. ..."
"... Administration officials said Mr. Putin had miscalculated and would pay a cost regardless of what the United States did, pointing to the impact on Russia's currency and markets. "What we see here are distinctly 19th- and 20th-century decisions made by President Putin to address problems," one of the officials said. "What he needs to understand is that in terms of his economy, he lives in the 21st-century world, an interdependent world." ..."
"... The dossier's claim that Putin talked about the "ideals-based international order" also rings false. Putin only ever refers to Western ideals when saying that Western countries' leaders are hypocrites for not adhering to them. ..."
"... The more straightforward explanation is that, knowing that this is opposition research, Steele and his sources provided information that rang true with what the client already believed and would want to hear. This is the first report in the series–in effect, a teaser trailer–and no consultant working on a monthly retainer is going to tell you in the first memo that his services aren't needed. If Steele had indicated that there was no dirt to investigate, the $15,000/mo. (as estimated by Vanity Fair ) contract wouldn't have lasted longer than a month or two. ..."
"... The dossier's use of the phraseology "Trump and his team" and "Trump team" and the like is confusing in reference to the pre-2016 campaign period. Other than his lawyer Michael Cohen, there's nothing I've seen to indicate that the other Trump campaign people mentioned by name in the dossier (Paul Manafort and Carter Page) knew Trump before 2016. By all appearances, the key members of Trump's team before 2016 were his children, and maybe his talent agent. ..."
"... It also seems out of character for Trump to have the foresight and planning that it would take to seek out intelligence on Hillary Clinton several years back. Several years ago, Trump and the Clintons were friends , and the Clintons attended Trump's wedding and Bill and Donald played golf together. ..."
"... Russians are very cautious about what they talk about, even amongst each other. Therefore, with the story about [sexual acts] in the Moscow Ritz Carlton, the idea you have managed to triple source it via an employee at the hotel, a serving FSB [Russian security service] officer, and the security officer at the hotel, who inevitably will be at least a former FSB or GRU [Russian intelligence agency] officer It just doesn't make sense. If such a thing had taken place, it would be a Russian state secret. ..."
"... Seems more likely that it's just a piece of "scuttlebutt" that Steele's sources, pressed to find anything juicy on Trump, saw in the newspaper or in a news search on Google or on Russian search engine Yandex . ..."
"... Whatever the truth of the matter, Page is clearly someone who was very keen to network with powerful Russians in 2016 and was not shy about leveraging his affiliation with the Trump campaign to do it. ..."
"... But at the same time, this would also mean Page was a loose cannon and a huge potential liability to the Trump campaign. Igor Sechin is, and was in July 2016, on the Specially Designated Nationals list of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. This means that it's a crime for any US citizen to do any business with Sechin personally (though not with Rosneft as a corporate entity). ..."
"... Page, by all appearances, is reckless and kind of an idiot . He had to have known that his activities (even if they were limited to just non-treasonous networking with Russians) carried a huge risk of blowback for Trump. He didn't care. Carter Page's willingness to toe the Russian line on foreign policy, publicly and on the record, goes beyond even what the most Russophile Western expats in Moscow say in private conversations. I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask why and how Carter Page came to be affiliated with the Trump campaign, why he visited Russia alone at least twice in 2016, and what contacts he's had with Russian officials (he definitely met with some of them, at least at the New Economic School graduation reception on Jul. 8, at which there were several senior Russian officials present and Carter Page was commencement speaker and an honored foreign guest). ..."
"... And why send him to give a public university commencement speech in which he rails against US foreign policy, ensuring wide media coverage? ..."
"... A meeting with a Trump adviser on the sidelines of such a noisy, high-profile trip–with both the Russian and foreign press speculating in real-time what the hell Page was doing in Moscow–seems like an extremely incautious setting for a meeting to discuss the most scandalous quid pro quo since the secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. ..."
"... To sum up, I have serious doubts that a meeting took place as described. But I also think that Carter Page was–at the very least–trying to leverage his connection to Trump in Russia for personal gain at the very earliest opportunity he got. ..."
"... *This report doesn't have a date. However, the July 19 report is numbered "2016/94" and the July 26 report is numbered "2016/097" so it seems like this is where the report should go. ..."
"... This is the central allegation against the Trump campaign – that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to take actions aimed at defeating Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. The one thing that I'd add (or, rather, remind) is that by late July, the story of allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election was in full swing . Manafort's history in the former Soviet Union was being widely reported . Carter Page, as mentioned above, had traveled to Moscow for unknown purposes a few weeks before, a trip that was covered in the Russian and US media. ..."
"... What I'd like to point out here -- in terms of the timing of the information in this report -- is that the DNC hacked e-mail dumps on WikiLeaks that led to Debbie Wassermann Schultz resigning as head of the DNC happened on July 22, 2016 , and even before the WikiLeaks dumps the DNC had been attributing the hack to Russia. ..."
"... Since this report refers to the WikiLeaks dump of DNC e-mails that happened on July 22, even though it's undated we know that the report must have been made after that, as well as after the Republican National Convention that happened on July 18, as well as after reports had emerged that the Trump team had been behind a change in the Republican Party platform to remove a reference to providing lethal arms to Ukraine. The allegation made here closely tracks what was being reported in the media at the time. ..."
"... FBI director James Comey made a point of saying that US intelligence services were struck by how unusually noisy the Russians had been in their election interference, as if they wanted to be discovered. ..."
"... *The actual date on the report is "26 July 201 5 " (in the British style), but since it refers to events that happened as recently as June 2016, and based on the news reports that said that Steele was hired in June 2016, I assume this is just a typo. ..."
"... This strains credulity. So there's a single Russian emigre who not only knows the internal mood of the Trump team, but also knows what the Russian leadership is thinking (about a matter that, remember, according to the dossier is top-top secret)? And I know what you're thinking – well, if they were in collusion, of course there's such a person. But who is it? You'd think that there couldn't be too many people who fit this description – being a Russian emigre, close to the Trump campaign, and also with top-level Kremlin access. ..."
"... This is described as someone's opinion so it's hard to argue against or fact-check. I will note that the e-mails from John Podesta's Gmail account started being published by WikiLeaks in October 2016, and since the e-mails run only through March 2016, and given that WikiLeaks usually takes time to prepare for a dump, whoever broke into Podesta's Gmail account was likely very active at the time when this report was dated. If you believe that it was the Russians who broke into Podesta's Gmail account, then this intelligence report is precisely wrong. Eleven days after this report, on August 10, Guccifer 2.0 published the personal contact info of 200 prominent Democrats, so if you believe that Guccifer 2.0 was the alter ego of the Russian government, this intelligence report was precisely wrong. ..."
"... This report is dated precisely one week before Sergei Ivanov was dismissed from his post and moved to a less political role as Putin's special envoy for the environment. If you want to be charitable to the dossier, you could say that this report foreshadows Ivanov's dismissal (later reports say that the dismissal was unexpected). But on the other hand, clearly Ivanov's move to his new position was already in the works on Aug. 5 – it was reported that rumors of the move had been circulating since spring. Why hadn't Steele's "well-placed and established" sources heard those rumors? ..."
"... Peskov is widely considered not to be an independent political player in the Kremlin. He is seen as being a sort of assistant to Putin in addition to his role as spokesman, but someone who likes the spotlight, celebrity and glamour a bit too much. ..."
"... About Turkey: Peskov started his career in the Russian diplomatic corps as a Turkey specialist and worked as the third secretary of the Russian embassy in Ankara in the early '90s. He speaks Turkish. So hearing him mentioned in connection with Turkey makes some sense. ..."
"... Russia was reported to have given advance warning to Erdogan, based on intelligence intercepts, that a coup was being planned. Peskov denied these reports. Just a few weeks earlier, Turkish president Erdogan had apologized to Putin for shooting down a Russian fighter jet on the Turkey-Syria border and Medvedev had announced that Russia would begin lifting the sanctions it had imposed on Turkey in connection with the incident. ..."
"... So in early August 2016 it seemed like Russia-Turkey relations had turned a corner and were being handled quite well – as a matter of fact, over the course of 2016, Turkey went from being the US's partner on Syria to being in a de facto alliance with Russia . The turnaround is stunning – in January 2016 , the US and Turkey were conducting joint operations in Syria, and in January 2017 , Turkey and Russia were conducting joint operations in Syria. Whoever was handling Russia's relationship with Turkey, they did a good job by any objective measure – hard to see how this can be considered "botched." ..."
"... Around this time , there was a lot of speculation in the media about whether Trump would drop out of the race. It's remarkable how the "intelligence" in the dossier follows what was being reported in the news at the time. ..."
"... Ivanov was leading the operation to "hack the US election" literally days before he was fired? That doesn't make sense. ..."
"... This ethnic Russian associate of Trump – who is it? Is it Sergei Millian ? He's supposed to be Source D , a "close associate" of Trump, but he might also be the ethnic Russian (even though Millian is technically from Belarus) associate referred to here and elsewhere. ..."
"... Here we have Carter Page telling the maybe-Millian about his collusion with Russian intelligence on the DNC leaks. Do people really go around confessing crimes willy-nilly? According to this dossier, they do. ..."
"... The big Trump campaign news of August 2016, of course, was that on Aug. 17, Steve Bannon replaced Paul Manafort as head of Trump's campaign. This news was absolutely huge. If Steele's source would have said on Aug. 9 that Bannon would be replacing Manafort, or even that a change of campaign management was being discussed, then in retrospect, you would have to admit that this source was well-informed. But if on Aug. 9, this source was talking about "a rethink and a likely change of tactics," s/he either was not very close to the campaign or was holding back on Steele. ..."
"... So this associate was so close to the campaign that he was privy to all of the team's discussions about collusion with the Russians, but he didn't know that Steve Bannon was about to be named as the new campaign head? ..."
"... But my main beef with this paragraph involves the phrase "kick-back payments to MANAFORT as alleged." Manafort wasn't accused of receiving kickbacks (as I'll explain in a moment, that doesn't make any sense) – he was accused of being paid cash by Yanukovich's political party in an off-the-books scheme, and this was widely covered in the press after the story broke in The New York Times on Aug. 14. ..."
"... That's not a kickback. A kickback is when a government or other organization is offering a contract to an outside contractor, typically in a competitive bid situation, and then when the winner is selected the winner kicks back some of the contract proceeds to the person who manipulated the contract selection process. ..."
"... So if there were kickbacks involved in Manafort's work for Yanukovich, it would've been Manafort kicking back money to Yanukovich, not the other way around. ..."
"... However, what Manafort was actually accused of in the press -- receiving money not properly accounted for under Ukrainian law -- is a crime under American law only if he received income that he didn't report to the IRS, or engaged in money laundering, even if an indisputable "documentary trail" emerges. ..."
"... It is difficult to imagine Putin and his inner circle being fearful of political vulnerability and embarrassment in connection with Manafort. As even Julia Ioffe–a journalist opposed to both Trump and Putin–conceded i n a recent article i n The Atlantic , the political consulting work that Manafort did for Yanukovich and others in the former Soviet Union was hardly unusual. ..."
"... Just to point out – there's a certain implication in the dossier's description of Manafort's work for Yanukovich that this work was "exposed" during the 2016 US election campaign. That's not the case. Manafort just wasn't a household name before 2016, so no one cared. He was just another American political consultant who was more than happy to offer his services to unsavory foreign politicians, like Sandra Bullock's character in "Our Brand is Crisis." ..."
"... Manafort's work for Yanukovich was public knowledge in Ukraine as early as 2005, and was reported actively in the Ukrainian press. By 2016 it was part of Manafort's resume. ..."
"... The report on the Alfa Group (yes, Steele spelled it wrong) is actually the only place in the whole dossier where the dossier was ahead of the mainstream news cycle. The report doesn't give any context for why a special report on the relationship between Putin and Alfa was requested. But on Halloween 2016, the story broke that in Spring and Summer 2016, white-hat hackers had been tracking electronic communications between Trump's e-mail server and an Alfa-Bank (part of Alfa Group) computer in Russia, posting their findings on Reddit – so it was in the public domain but you really had to be paying attention (as apparently a few New York Times journalists and probably the FBI were). I doubt that Steele or his sources were following hacker forums on Reddit. ..."
"... So here's what I think happened: by September, Steele's ultimate client was the Democrats. Someone tipped off the Hillary Clinton campaign (and/or the Clinton-aligned group that was paying Fusion GPS / Orbis) about the electronic link to Alfa, and then Orbis (Steele) got a call asking for an intelligence report on Alfa Group's connections to Putin, without saying why. However, since it was on the phone, the Orbis person heard it as "Alpha Group," and their Russian sources didn't correct the error. ..."
"... Vladimir Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg from 1992 to 1996 . In August 1996 Putin moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow to be Deputy Chief of the Presidential Property Management Directorate (Yeltsin was president at the time, of course). He needed a new job because his boss, St. Petersburg mayor Anatoly Sobchak , lost his re-election bid. ..."
"... Alfa-Bank was a direct competitor to Khodorkovsky's Bank Menatep (a subsidiary of Rosprom) at the time. So there's no way Fridman and Aven used Govorun to deliver cash to Putin when Putin was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. The dates don't line up. There was an 8-month gap after Putin left St. Petersburg and before Govorun started working at Alfa. ..."
"... How could Steele's sources have made this mistake? Because Govorun's Wikipedia page omits his time at Rosprom, and makes it look like Govorun worked at Alfa-Bank from 1993 to 2000. This is why you don't prepare your report based on Wikipedia, kids! ..."
"... Or if Steele was feeling particularly lazy, he could've gone to Trump's Twitter feed, where Trump proudly told his millions of followers that he'd just spent the weekend with Aras Agalarov and that he wanted to do more business with him. Maybe in Steele's world, being "well-placed" to hear intel about Trump's connections with Russian businesspeople means reading Donald Trump's tweets? ..."
"... There's no other word but "fraud" to describe an "intelligence report" that tries to make it look like the connection between Trump and the Agalarov family is some kind of inside information that you'd need "well-placed sources" to obtain. It took some serious balls for Steele to present it that way, since all anyone would have to do is Google the names mentioned in the report and it would be instantly clear that the intelligence was worthless. ..."
"... Hmm. This is the intelligence that Hillary's people were getting less than one month from Election Day. Intelligence that they paid for. Makes you feel sorry for her; I strongly suspect she was being conned with these reports. ..."
"... In December 2016, Rosneft did indeed sell 19.5% of its shares to two investors using a complicated financing structure. Some have pointed to this as an example where the dossier correctly predicted something would happen. However, the sale of 19.5% of Rosneft to an investor was part of Russia's privatization plan for 2016, which the Russian government announced in December 2015 , and the timeline for the privatization (referring to the 19.5% figure) was updated throughout the year . Anyone who was following Russian business news in 2016 knew that Rosneft was planning to sell 19.5% to an investor that year. ..."
"... Sucks to be Michael Cohen! Unless the dossier is true, he should sue for libel. ..."
"... Sechin is a very big deal in Russia, and a total badass that you don't want to mess with. He is an intimidating guy who is as serious as a heart attack. Carter Page is a dumbass. But the account of this conversation makes it sound like Page was running the meeting like a seasoned pro, leaving Sechin hanging, keeping things vague and noncommittal. I, on the other hand, think that Sechin would never bother meeting with a nobody like Carter Page to discuss something as consequential as billion-dollar oil deals and international relations unless Page had made his bona fides abundantly clear. ..."
"... "Unexpectedly." This looks suspiciously like ass-covering as to why Steele's earlier reports dated mere days before Ivanov's dismissal, containing statements attributed directly to Ivanov, made no mention that these were his last days on the job. ..."
"... Most political observers believed at the time that it was Bernie Sanders, not Russia, who pushed Hillary Clinton away from supporting TPP. This is because Bernie Sanders said openly that he was pressuring Hillary to drop support for TPP. Strangely, the only place where the "veterans' pensions ruse" was ever reported was in the Steele dossier, and the media haven't been tipped off to it to this day. Dodged a bullet! Remember, this is after Putin had supposedly directly ordered all Kremlin insiders, all of whom are tried-and-true Putin loyalists, not to talk about these matters even in private. ..."
"... Steele's team has made the bold decision to misspell Paul Manafort's name as MANNAFORT (Mannafort from heaven?) throughout this report. ..."
"... Gubarev sued BuzzFeed and its editor-in-chief for libel and slander and, lacking any basis other than the dossier itself for these allegations, BuzzFeed blacked out the identifying information. ..."
"... This is quite a cinematic portrayal of hacking. The implication seems to be that there were teams of hackers in a room somewhere and they were ordered to "stand down." Is that how hacking works? Especially in this case, where the hacking that resulted in the 2016 DNC and Podesta leaks had taken place several months before this alleged meeting? This also seems to contradict the declassified US intelligence community findings that said that the hacks were done by Russian government hacker teams called "Cozy Bear" and "Fancy Bear" that were working for the GRU, a Russian intelligence agency that isn't mentioned once in the dossier. The Romanian angle apparently refers t o Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be Romanian but was also believed to be a Russian intelligence agency alter ego only pretending to be Romanian. If these were Russian government hackers, why would they be ordered to cross international borders and "lay low" in Bulgaria, a member of NATO? ..."
"... Also, given that Russia allegedly had huge wins in their 2016 election meddling, why would they be so stingy as to demand that Trump pay his share for the hacking? Especially if they were so concerned about covering their tracks? This only would implicate the Trump campaign and create a paper trail leading directly to Trump transition team members in the United States, plus they would be involving themselves in a criminal conspiracy to violate US money laundering laws, RICO and the like. ..."
"... What do you think? Perhaps almost 60,000 Americans dying in Vietnam was a darker time. Or maybe when Hitler's armies rolled across Europe, Japan surprise attacked Pearl Harbor, and 400,000 American soldiers died World War II. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks Trump's Presidency is the darkest time in American history is a poor student of American history. And I must assume their lives are pretty amazing if this is the worst they have ever felt. ..."
I saw someone refer to the Trump Presidency as "possibly the darkest time in American
history." I've heard some iteration of that many times from people still in a frenzy over the
Trump Administration.
I'm not a big Trump fan. I wasn't a big Obama fan either. But their presence in office did
not and does not hang over my life like a dark cloud. They really aren't that important.
Yes, they have the ability to make life more difficult for many. It is unfortunate that any
politicians have that much control over our day to day lives.
But the darkest time in American history ?
What do you think? Perhaps almost 60,000 Americans dying in Vietnam was a darker time. Or
maybe when Hitler's armies rolled across Europe, Japan surprise attacked Pearl Harbor, and
400,000 American soldiers died World War II.
For Japanese Americans, FDR's
presidency was likely a darker time, as they sat in detainment facilities. Their crime was
having Japanese ancestors.
In 1918 the Spanish Flu swept across the globe killing at least 20 million people worldwide,
675,000 Americans. At the same time, soldiers were coming home from WWI blinded by chemicals
and mutilated by bombs.
And that is just going back one century. American history also includes the Civil War,
slavery, and
the Whiskey Rebellion .
Anyone who thinks Trump's Presidency is the darkest time in American history is a poor
student of American history. And I must assume their lives are pretty amazing if this is the
worst they have ever felt.
... ... ...
Look at where it left the global
warming alarmists . They wanted to reduce pollution, which is a noble cause. But they lied
about the goals, they lied about the causes, and they exaggerated the timetable. It's the
classic boy who cried wolf.
... ... ...
I used to be paranoid about the government. Obviously, some of that paranoia is well
founded. They do monitor communications and
disrupt online discourse . They do violate
rights . They are oppressive
in many ways.
While Trump was emasculated after just three months of his presidency, the reality is that Trump does not matter. It is
the deep state that controls the Us foreign policy...
Over the weekend, the people of
Hawaii were temporarily terrorized by a notification sent to their mobile phones that a ballistic
missile was headed straight for them
and they needed to seek shelter immediately. They were
not notified that it was a false alarm
for
38 minutes
, despite its reportedly being a simple human error triggered by an employee who "pushed
the wrong button".
Many who are less trusting of official CNN narratives when it comes to the US power establishment
have been
voicing skepticism
of this explanation,
finding the timing highly suspect given that the Trump administration
just caused international controversy by
giving the okay
for a $133 million sale of an anti-ballistic missile system to Japan
. A
sale which,
according to Russia,
violates international ballistic missile treaties and will put a strain on
Moscow's relationship with Tokyo.
The general idea is that this deal has a lot less to do with the threat posed by North
Korea, its ostensible object, and a lot more to do with the
Russia-China
tandem
that the US power establishment is continually working to undermine.
Placing an
anti-ballistic missile system in the hands of a US ally right on the east edge of Asia weakens the
effectiveness of
mutually assured
destruction (MAD)
, the understanding that if any nation launches a nuclear attack on another
nuclear-armed country there will be full-scale retaliation and both countries will be destroyed. If
some American officials get it into their heads that their country's rivals can be taken out via
nuclear strikes and any retaliatory strikes nullified via missile defense systems, MAD is no longer a
deterrent to this and we're looking at potentially billions of deaths and possible planetary
extinction.
Regardless of whether the false alarm was a psyop designed to manufacture support for the
anti-ballistic missile sale or a genuine human error, the fact remains that the deal itself is
undeniably a move taken by the Trump administration against the will and interests of the Kremlin.
This is just the latest in a string of maneuvers against Russia that have been made by this
administration, despite Trump's continued outward assurances that he wants to improve relations with
Moscow. As is so often the case, a US president is saying one thing and doing something very
different.
And it completely kills the Russiagate narrative.
Just a few days ago Russiagaters were having yet another "BOOM! We got him!" social media
parade
about
an article
from the
Clinton-directed
Daily
Beast, claiming that a senior national security aide within the Trump administration had suggested
scaling down the US troop presence along Russia's border, a dangerous escalation which all peace
advocates support eliminating. In the first sentence of the article's second paragraph, the author
Spencer Ackerman acknowledges that "the proposal was ultimately not adopted."
Huh?
So President Trump, alleged to have been groomed early and at great expense by the
Kremlin in anticipation of a presidential victory nobody else imagined possible at that time, was
pitched a recommendation to scale down new cold war escalations with Russia... and he refused?
That's how you're starting your article about the "return on Russia's election-time investment in
President Trump"?
Russiagate is so weird.
You need to plug yourself into Louise Mensch and
Rachel Maddow ramblings so extensively that you can contort your sense of reason to the point where it
looks perfectly rational to believe that Putin was omniscient enough to know that Trump could defeat
all primary opponents and take the fight to the heir apparent Hillary Clinton back when virtually no
one else imagined such a thing was possible, recruited his team reportedly at the
cost of billions of dollars
, poured all kinds of intel and resources into ensuring Trump's
election using hackers and bots to influence American opinion, only to get a US president who is, when
it comes to facts in evidence, already just a year into his administration demonstrably more hawkish
towards Russia than his predecessor was.
Again: huh?
Nobody wants to think about this because it doesn't fit in with America's stale partisan models;
Democrats would have to admit that their best shot at getting a rival president impeached
is pure gibberish, and Trump supporters would have to acknowledge that their swamp-draining populist
hero is actually just one more corrupt globalist neocon like his predecessors.
But when
it comes to actual facts in evidence, that's exactly what we're looking at.
Over and over and over again this alleged Russian asset has been choosing to undermine
Moscow instead of advancing its interests.
He approved the sale of arms to Ukraine, a
move loudly
encouraged by DC
neocons
which
Obama refused to do
because of the dangerous tensions it would inflame with Russia. His
administration forced
first RT
and
now Sputnik
to register as foreign agents,
expanded NATO
with the addition of
Montenegro, assigning
established Russia hawk
Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine,
shutting
down a Russian consulate
in San Francisco and throwing out Russian diplomats as part of continued
back-and-forth hostile diplomatic exchanges, and
signing the Russian
sanctions bill
despite loud protests from Moscow. If he is indeed an expensive Russian asset, then
Russia got ripped off.
The one area Russiagaters can claim Trump hasn't gone against Russian interests is in Syria, where
the administration has cooperated with Putin in fighting terrorist forces. Or at least, they would
have been able to make that argument
had Obama not been in favor of it as well
. If Syria proves Trump is a Putin puppet, then the White
House must have been offering a two-for-one deal, because they bought Obama as well.
Russiagaters can claim "Well, Trump colluded with Russia, but because we're putting
political pressure on him not to align with Putin he isn't able to do anything to advance Moscow's
interests."
Okay, but what's the charge, then? That Russia bought Trump, and accomplished
absolutely nothing other than bringing new sanctions and cold war escalations down upon itself? Again,
the Steele dossier upon which the collusion narrative is based alleges that Trump was recruited at
great expense long before anyone in the US thought of him as a serious presidential contender. We're
expected to believe that Putin was psychic enough to know Trump could win with enough confidence to
invest accordingly, but not psychic enough to know that collusion and election meddling could be
detected by America's sprawling surveillance networks and cause backlash, sanctions and escalations?
No part of any of this makes any sense at all. If you can see past the stupid corporate
media-fed filters of Trump_vs_deep_state and anti-Trump_vs_deep_state enough to look at what's actually happening, the
collusion narrative is nonsense on its face.
Maybe the false missile alarm wasn't a psyop, but Russiagate definitely is. America's unelected
power establishment had a plan to manufacture support for new escalations to hobble the Russia-China
tandem regardless of who won the 2016 presidential election, and since their prefered candidate didn't
win they've been employing what is surely the most extensive single psychological operation ever
performed in human history.
And it's working so far. Sure will cause a lot of problems for them if people start waking up to
it, though.
"No part of this makes any sense"...author is a fucking retard. It makes perfect sense when
you realize that the Democrats are traitorous greedy deranged lunatics who have disconnected
from reality.
Sanctions must be placed on the US immediately. Put all US Nationals on Foreign Soil under
House/Base-Arrest, in particular, the Real Psychotic Banker/MIC/Neocon Types. Then Close their
Internment/Training Camps, cutting off their WMD Supply Routes and hence, their ability to form
Militias for Regime Change purposes.
article is bullshit.... If Trump even thinks about cooperating with RUSSIA he is "completely a
russian agent" if he tries to sabotage Russia then he is "totally being played and is a deep
state play-along"
he can't win. like in 90% of all the press............. Trump is hated
because he is against the Deep STate.
I always go with the exact opposite of what the mainstream says. That is , more often than
not, the closest thing to the truth.
"... When the entire episode about the creation of the Trump dossier (by former Brit spy, Christopher Steele) and its dissemination (by Steele and the Democrat hired contractor, FUSION GPS,) to the FBI and the press, is fully exposed, the American people will be confronted with the stark dilemma of how to deal with the fact that there was a failed domestic coup attempted by members of the U.S. intel and law enforcement community. The facts will show that the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA and the FBI conspired and meddled in the 2016 Presidential election. They lied to a Federal judge about the origins of the dossier and used those lies to get permission to spy on Trump and members of his campaign staff. ..."
"... But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian's leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News. ..."
"... The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was "shock and horror." After a few weeks, the bureau asked him for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue to send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products; they were updates on what he was learning from his various sources. ..."
"... "I have recently become concerned that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election is more extensive than widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results. The evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount. . ." ..."
"... Michael Isikoff referenced those briefings : "The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and "high ranking sanctioned individuals" in Moscow over the summer as evidence of "significant and disturbing ties" between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau." ..."
"... September 2016. FBI used the Steele memos as part of the basis for requesting a FISA warrant according to reports by the NY Times and the Washington Post : ..."
"... We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September 2016 (see here , here , and here ). ..."
"... After Mr. Page, 45 -- a Navy veteran and businessman who had lived in Moscow for three years -- stepped down (26 September 2016) from the Trump campaign in September, the F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing the authorities to monitor his communications on the suspicion that he was a Russian agent. ..."
"... The Justice Department obtained a secret court-approved wiretap last summer on Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to Donald J. Trump 's presidential campaign, based on evidence that he was operating as a Russian agent, a government official said Wednesday. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court issued the warrant, the official said, after investigators determined that Mr. Page was no longer part of the Trump campaign, which began distancing itself from him in early August. ..."
"... The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page's communications after convincing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials. ..."
"... Loretta Lynch, Attorney General under President Obama, approved the FISA application. (Note--federal law requires that the attorney general approve every application to the FISA court.) ..."
"... End of September--Steele revealed in a London court filing earlier this year that he was directed by Fusion GPS to brief reporters at outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Yahoo! News and Mother Jones about his Trump findings. ..."
"... End of September--Steele informs Simpson (i.e. Fusion GPS) that the FBI wants to meet him in Rome. ( Senate Judiciary Committee 0n 22 August 2017, p. 171 ) ..."
"... 6 January 2017--FBI Director Comey briefs Trump on the Steele dossier, which Comey describes as "salacious and UNVERIFIED." : ..."
"... The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such effort with a defensive briefing. (Comey's statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 8 June 2017) ..."
"... Describing his reports in the Mother Jones interview, Steele asserted, "This was something of huge significance, way above party politics." Things changed, though, when Steele was sued for libel after the dossier was published in early 2017. Suddenly, when he was in a forum where it was clear to him that making exaggerated or false claims could cost him dearly, he decided his allegations were not of such "huge significance" after all . . . .According to Steele's courtroom version, the dossier is merely a compilation of bits of "raw intelligence" that were "unverified" and that he passed along because they "warranted further investigation" -- i.e., not because he could vouch for their truthfulness. (kudos to Rowan Scarborough who initially broke the story). ..."
"... I think one has to start with the assumption that everyone at the highest levels of the federal government, especially the national security apparatus, is a swamp creature. They just don't get there unless they are one. Weasels like Clapper, Brennan, Hayden. Of course that does not mean a person with honor & integrity doesn't get up there. Just far and few between. ..."
"... It is extremely difficult to uncover malfeasance in government in the best of circumstances and it is practically impossible within the national security apparatus as they have the ever present shield of "state secrets". In this context we have to be thankful for small gifts of transparency coming from inside like these disclosures by IG Horowitz as well as by whistleblowers like Snowden. ..."
"... Are you sure the"insurance policy" referred to a way to destroy Trump if he were to be elected? What if FBI counterintelligence agents were involved in illegal surveillance activities that could possibly come to light if Trump were president? The dossier in fact was the insurance policy that they retroactively used to launder previous illegal searches that would have been covered up if Hillary had won. ..."
"... The primary purpose of the "insurance policy" was to protect FBI agents against accusations of malfeasance, which at present, appears to be an accurate description of their behavior. ..."
"... The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance on the officials therein. ..."
"... So, the snooping began much before Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Sundance for example believes that the FBI provided this "unauthorized" access to its subcontractor Fusion GPS. This is how Fusion GPS was paid by the FBI. ..."
"... When the time line and interactions are put together it seems that it all begins at the FBI during March 2016, pretty early in the primary season, possibly with Fusion GPS as the subcontractor. Steele only comes on the scene, after the meeting of Mary Jacoby, Glen Simpson's wife at the White House and Fusion is hired by the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... This post and PT's previous ones on the same topic, concern what many here suspect to be an orchestrated attempt to remove the Constitutionally-elected head of state via extra Constitutional means. In other words a soft coup. Rather than "Trump_vs_deep_state", I think the motivations for exploring this possibility here, by and large, come from feelings of patriotism. Particularly from those who swore to defend the Constitution (not the President) from enemies, both foreign and domestic. ..."
"... The question of whether the Rule of Law, or the observance of contitutional propriety, is being upheld is what is being examined here. That second issue is independent of the first. That is as it should be. If it were so that the FBI had played politics against Mrs Clinton that would be as disturbing as if they had played politics against Mr Trump. ..."
"... It will be most interesting to see Trump's most devoted congressional supporters and 'swamp beast fighters' utilize the timeline and verified facts and (unknown-to-indy investigators) details in the 'private' source, to bring justice to bear on this extremely serious matter. Why hasn't the DOJ appointed a special prosecutor; considering what PT and many others here and elsewhere are "piecing together?" ..."
"... I didn't vote Trump but I was shocked by the obvious coup d'etat to overthrow Trump after the election. You see some of us support the rule of law, our constitution, and established process for political change. Just because someone is elected that is unpopular with the losing side doesn't mean you throw away everything and become a willing banana Republic. While this was going on I predicted that if they had succeeded they would have over a million angry people in Washington and I would have been one of them ..."
"... To amplify your point, Terry: once you give the unelected and unaccountable "intelligence community" (or any other part of the Deep State) a de facto veto over election results, you will never get that power back. ..."
"... You as a country have crossed the Rubicon, and when you get to the other side, you are no longer in a constitutional republic, but in something else. ..."
"... In my view, the deep state......... CIA, FBI, NSA....... had the opportunity to prove their commitment to the welfare of the nation...... given they had the means and opportunity to sway the election. ..."
"... Given that the FBI made no serious effort to analyze the DNC servers after the alleged "hack" and, according to Seymour Hersh, are sitting on an FBI report that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the supplier of the DNC emails to Wikileaks, these two facts also support the conclusion that the FBI at the highest levels are in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow Trump ..."
"... The FBI IS a criminal enterprise ..."
"... The FBI never investigated the DNC servers because they decided to accept CrowdStrike's analysis despite CrowdStrike being run by a Russian ex-pat who hates Russia and sees Russians under every bed. Now they want to try to accuse Trump associates of "hacking"? Seriously? ..."
"... Second, according to Seymour Hersh, the FBI is sitting on a report that explicitly fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source for the DNC emails received by Wikileaks. ..."
The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus
When the entire episode about the creation of
the Trump dossier (by former Brit spy, Christopher Steele) and its dissemination (by Steele and the Democrat hired contractor, FUSION
GPS,) to the FBI and the press, is fully exposed, the American people will be confronted with the stark dilemma of how to deal with
the fact that there was a failed domestic coup attempted by members of the U.S. intel and law enforcement community. The facts will
show that the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the CIA and the FBI conspired and meddled in the 2016 Presidential
election. They lied to a Federal judge about the origins of the dossier and used those lies to get permission to spy on Trump and
members of his campaign staff.
Here are the facts as we know them now. (Please note, these facts are sourced and are not my opinion).
Fusion
GPS approached Perkins Coie (a Seattle based law firm) and sought an engagement to continue research it had started on Donald
Trump. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4116755-PerkinsCoie-Fusion-PrivelegeLetter-102417.html)
The
Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded the research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing
allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4116755-PerkinsCoie-Fusion-PrivelegeLetter-102417.html,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.14d16b270afd).
Russian regime had been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years.
TRUMP declined various business deals offered him in Russia but accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin,
including on his Democratic and other political rivals.
Russian intelligence officer claims FSB has material to blackmail TRUMP.
The Russians had a dossier on Clinton but "nothing embarrassing."
July 2016, Christopher Steele meets with FBI (name of contact unknown) and passes on content from the 20 June memo.
Third report, dated 19 July 2016 , claims that TRUMP advisor Carter PAGE held secret meetings in Moscow with SECHIN and senior
Kremlin Internal Affairs official, DIVYEKIN. (
See dossier ).
But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin,
a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian's
leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News.
15 August 2016 FBI Agent Strzok's text about the meeting in McCabe's office is dated August 15, 2016. . . According to Agent
Strzok, with Election Day less than three months away, Page, the bureau lawyer, weighed in on Trump's bid: "There's no way he
gets elected."
The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was "shock and horror." After a few weeks, the bureau asked
him for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue
to send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products;
they were updates on what he was learning from his various sources.
"I have recently become concerned that the threat of the Russian government tampering in our presidential election
is more extensive than widely known and may include the intent to falsify official election results. The evidence of a direct
connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign continues to mount. . ."
Michael Isikoff referenced those briefings : "The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests
in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to
influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote
FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and "high ranking sanctioned
individuals" in Moscow over the summer as evidence of "significant and disturbing ties" between the Trump campaign and the
Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau."
We do not know exactly when the FISA warrant was granted, but the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported,
citing U.S. government sources, that this occurred in September 2016 (see
here ,
here
, and
here ).
After Mr. Page, 45 -- a Navy veteran and businessman who had lived in Moscow for three years -- stepped down (26
September 2016) from the Trump campaign in September,
the
F.B.I. obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing the authorities to monitor his communications
on the suspicion that he was a Russian agent.
The Justice Department obtained a secret court-approved wiretap last summer on Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser
to Donald J. Trump 's presidential
campaign, based on evidence that he was operating as a Russian agent, a government official said Wednesday. The Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court issued the warrant, the official said, after investigators determined that Mr. Page was
no longer part of the Trump campaign, which began distancing itself from him in early August.
The FBI and the Justice Department obtained the warrant targeting Carter Page's communications after convincing
a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge that there was probable cause to believe Page was acting as an agent of
a foreign power, in this case Russia, according to the officials.
End of September--Steele revealed in a London court filing earlier this year that he was directed by Fusion GPS to brief
reporters at outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Yahoo! News and Mother Jones about his Trump findings.
8 November 2016 , Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator McCain's Institute for International
Leadership), met in London with an Associate of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting
with Christopher Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier.
Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator
McCain hard copies of the memoranda.
13 December 2016 , Christopher Steele prepares, on his own, the 17th report in the dossier and sends it to Senator McCain
via David Kramer.
6 January 2017--FBI Director Comey briefs Trump on the Steele dossier, which Comey describes as
"salacious and UNVERIFIED." :
The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence
of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to
publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of the material and its imminent release from
the President-Elect; and (2) to the extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt any such
effort with a defensive briefing. (Comey's statement before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 8 June 2017)
One of the more interesting developments in the dossier case came as a result of depositions and testimony in the defamation case
that Aleksej Gubarev filed against Christoper Steele in the United Kingdom last year. When pressed to defend the authenticity and
accuracy of the dossier and the allegations against President Trump, Christopher Steele became a British version of Michael Jackson
and moon-walked backwards.
Andy McCarthy describes the situation beautifully :
Describing his reports in the Mother Jones interview, Steele asserted, "This was something of huge significance, way above
party politics." Things changed, though, when Steele was sued for libel after the dossier was published in early 2017. Suddenly,
when he was in a forum where it was clear to him that making exaggerated or false claims could cost him dearly, he decided his allegations
were not of such "huge significance" after all . . . .According to Steele's courtroom version, the dossier is merely a compilation
of bits of "raw intelligence" that were "unverified" and that he passed along because they "warranted further investigation" -- i.e.,
not because he could vouch for their truthfulness. (kudos to
Rowan
Scarborough who initially broke the story).
There are some very interesting unanswered questions. Here are some that I believe are most relevant:
Why does a former MI-6 officer reach out on his own to the FBI when the normal point of contact would be the CIA?
Who did Steele contact at the FBI?
Who at the FBI asked Steele to travel to Rome in October 2016? [Note--this request is quite odd given the fact that the FBI
has a very large presence in London and, if the purpose was simply to inform the FBI about possible nefarious Russian activity,
could have easily walked over to the US Embassy at Grosvenor Square rather than travel to Rome.]
The failure of the FBI and the CIA to disclose to members of Congress and the President that the information they briefed from
the dossier had been paid for by the Clinton campaign is much more than gross negligence and incompetence. It is prima facie evidence
of collusion and meddling in a U.S. domestic election. Only the culprits weren't the Russians.
As Pogo once said , "we have
met the enemy and he is us."
Thanks for spurring my interest on this monumental deceit with your many posts.
I knew nothing about FISA & mass surveillance other than our government was collecting all communications of every American,
before you began posting on this topic. I've learned more since and it is revolting if one is a staunch believer in the Bill of
Rights as what makes America different.
IG Mike Horowitz was barred from investigating the DOJ National Security Division by the Obama administration. It required
an act of Congress and Obama signed it after the election, to allow the IG the ability to investigate all of DOJ. The DOJ NSD
and FBI CounterIntelligence had a big role to play in all this as all the FISA applications originated there. What we know about
Peter Strzok & Lisa Page, Bruce & Nellie Ohr and the Clinton exoneration all came from the IG. In testimony to Congress, Rosenstein
used the IG investigation to stall the production of documents and witness interviews. It seems the IG report will become available
in a few weeks. That will hopefully shed more light.
Considering that in our country the rule of law does not apply to high officials in government, I am not holding my breath
that any of these miscreants will be held accountable or there will be any changes to the surveillance laws.
So, is IG Michael Horowitz one of the honorable guys in this whole thing? You'd never guess judging by his bio. And his ties to
the Democrats and Comey. I've lost all respect for the FBI. And the IC.
I think one has to start with the assumption that everyone at the highest levels of the federal government, especially
the national security apparatus, is a swamp creature. They just don't get there unless they are one. Weasels like Clapper, Brennan,
Hayden. Of course that does not mean a person with honor & integrity doesn't get up there. Just far and few between.
I don't have any basis to judge Michael Horowitz since I didn't even know about him until a few weeks ago. What we know in
this case is he has allowed us to learn about some of the activities of Peter Strozk & Lisa Page as well as Bruce & Nellie Ohr
which has helped further understand Russiagate.
It is extremely difficult to uncover malfeasance in government in the best of circumstances and it is practically impossible
within the national security apparatus as they have the ever present shield of "state secrets". In this context we have to be
thankful for small gifts of transparency coming from inside like these disclosures by IG Horowitz as well as by whistleblowers
like Snowden.
Both Christopher Wray and Rosenstein in separate testimony were unable to confirm that any of the contents in the Steele dossier
was verified, with the exception of Carter Page's visit to Russia.
It's becoming quite clear that Trump, as President, appeared to be such an appalling concept amongst some highly placed functionaries
that "insurance" was needed to deal with the possibility. And these people had contacts with the media, which, by and large, were
as appalled. Thus the current situation.
Quite unfortunately, Trump's unbounded hubris has played into this mess. Trump is very fortunate that his party is in control
of the legislative branches. One thinks of Hercules and the Aegean stables.
Great compilation and analysis of the available facts. No need to publish the following, but I would suggest that your work
is important enough to correct a couple of typos and provide a clarification which I will identify by paragraph number.
1. Perkins Coie (a Seattle Law Firm)--you get the name right in #2.
9. Put "Lisa" in front of "Page" in order to let the reader know you are referring to Lisa Page.
19. Rowan Farrow, I think, not Rowan Scarborough.
Keep posting and keep up the good work. Bob Randolph
Are you sure the"insurance policy" referred to a way to destroy Trump if he were to be elected? What if FBI counterintelligence
agents were involved in illegal surveillance activities that could possibly come to light if Trump were president? The dossier
in fact was the insurance policy that they retroactively used to launder previous illegal searches that would have been covered
up if Hillary had won.
The primary purpose of the "insurance policy" was to protect FBI agents against accusations
of malfeasance, which at present, appears to be an accurate description of their behavior.
The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and
FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion
GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance
on the officials therein.
Here's something that's puzzling. The FBI directly or indirectly through Fusion GPS or another a subcontractor, began querying
the NSA database around March 2016 as per the FISC ruling. That's pretty early in the primary. I don't think anyone at that point
was thinking Trump was going to clinch the GOP nomination.
Do you think they were doing this on other candidates too? Bernie? Were they already an arm of the Clinton campaign? Or just
snooping on all or some of the candidates communications?
Here's a stab at your relevant unanswered questions.
"Why does a former MI-6 officer reach out on his own to the FBI when the normal point of contact would be the CIA?"
"Who did Steele contact at the FBI?"
"Who at the FBI asked Steele to travel to Rome in October 2016?"
Steele's CIA contacts were probably more of the bureaucratic liaison variety. Hardly memorable. However, he worked closely
with the FBI Eurasian Joint Organized Crime Squad on several operations. He formed strong friendships doing these "heady things"
as Steele describes . When he decided to bring his concerns to the FBI, he found one of these old FBI friends stationed in Rome.
This FBI friend is who he reached out to. This FBI Special Agent seems to be identified in Steele's Judicial Committee testimony,
but the name and position is redacted. Someone in Comey's Russian investigation team probably decided to continue this established
relationship and venue for the October 2016 meeting. Perhaps it was Comey himself.
DC you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Both the FBI and Steele in his court case
have stated that there is no confirmation of anything in the reports. They are purely hearsay at absolute best and more likely
a deliberate fabrication for political purposes in the opinion of far more knowledgeable people than you.
To put that another way, the chances of your opinion being valid are judged as zero.
Keep your eyes tightly closed. Your hatred of Trump blinds you to what is really going on. Deal with these two indisputable facts:
1) Comey, under oath, almost one year after the info became available, still said it was UNVERIFIABLE; 2) Steele, himself, also
under oath, now disavows the importance of what he originally claimed was so essential. You should write a novel. You're very
good at spinning a tale without having a shred of evidence to go on.
If you look at the FISC ruling that has been declassified but heavily redacted, you will notice the FBI provided a sub-contractor
"unauthorized" access to the NSA database in March 2016. This access to the raw FISA data was discontinued on April 18, 2016.
So, the snooping began much before Steele was hired by Fusion GPS. Sundance for example believes that the FBI provided
this "unauthorized" access to its subcontractor Fusion GPS. This is how Fusion GPS was paid by the FBI.
When the time line and interactions are put together it seems that it all begins at the FBI during March 2016, pretty early
in the primary season, possibly with Fusion GPS as the subcontractor. Steele only comes on the scene, after the meeting of Mary
Jacoby, Glen Simpson's wife at the White House and Fusion is hired by the Clinton campaign.
Not being an academic, mathematician, nor pollster, I simply run an image search on both Clinton and Trump election rallies. These
showed that Trump would win. Early in the campaign, there were several pics of large crowds at Clinton rallies, but from about
six months out, the images all showed her speaking to fifty to hundred people, whereas Trump images always showed packed stadiums.
The Dossier. A person as portrayed in the Steele would be corrupt/dishonest in most everyday business dealings. With the attacks
against Trump, by intelligence and investigative agencies, any dishonesty, breaking the law in business dealings, would have been
brought up. This tells me he has always operated within the letter of the law. Perhaps sharp and ruthless, but within the letter
of the law.
Trump's ideology/culture is USA through and through. Russia has no ideology, and its own culture.
There is no ideology nor religion involved, so why would a man like Trump that has always operated within the letter of the
law be nefariously colluding with a foreign state?
Needs to be a lot more digging like you are doing PT, as the saying goes "Without fear or favor".
Here's a timeline based on Sundance's work to supplement PT's timeline. I did this for my benefit so likely contain errors. Others
here at SST can correct.
- Before March 2016: a)Fusion GPS hired by Washington Free Beacon to do oppo research on Trump. I have read elsewhere that
it was billionaire fund manager Paul Singer who paid for this, presume to provide GOP candidate he supported in the primary
oppo research. b) FBI provides unauthorized FISA 702 access to a subcontractor who conducts numerous FISA 702(16)(17) searches
on NSA database, which lead to FISA 702 violations. Speculation subcontractor is Fusion GPS. The subcontractor's name is redacted
in declassified FISC ruling.
- March 9, 2016: DOJ oversight personnel learn that FBI has disclosed raw FISA information to a subcontractor that went
well beyond what was necessary to respond to FBI's request.
- Early April 2016: Admiral Rogers learns of FISA 702 violations and orders compliance review at NSA.
- April 18, 2016: Access to raw FISA information by subcontractor ended presume after FBI learns that Admiral Rogers is
on to the FISA violations.
- April 19, 2016: White House log shows Mary Jacoby, wife of Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS visits White House.
- Later in April 2016: Clinton campaign hires Fusion GPS to do oppo research on Trump. See PT's timeline.
- March/April 2016: Fusion GPS hires Nellie Ohr, who also works with CIA and is the the wife of DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr.
- May 2016: Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele. See PT's timeline. Presume that Steele receives whatever prior oppo research
the Fusion GPS did which may include info obtained from FISA 702 searches (if Fusion GPS is the FBI subcontractor) and whatever
stuff Nellie Ohr has written up until then.
- May 23, 2016: Mary Jacoby applies for ham radio license. Presume to communicate with Steele without getting "collected"
in NSA hoover.
- June 2016 on: Steele dossier dissemination. See PT's timeline for more detail.
- August 2016: Peter Strzok's "insurance policy" text message. See PT's timeline.
- October 2016: a) NSA compliance review completed and Admiral Rogers goes to FISC to report FISA 702 violations and ends
FISA 702(17) searches. b) DOJ NSD prepares FISA application that in part includes content from Steele dossier. c) FISC grants
warrant.
- A week after election: a) Admiral Rogers goes to Trump Tower and spills the beans b) Next day Trump transition moves
out of Trump Tower to Trump Golf Club in Bedminster.
Publius Tacitus: "When James Comey testified in June of 2017 that the dossier was "SALACIOUS AND UNVERIFIED," he made it very
clear that Steele's so-called "raw intelligence" had no value nor corroboration. If Comey had said, "WE HAVE VERIFIED KEY ELEMENTS
OF THE DOSSIER BUT WILL HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT IN CLOSED SESSION," then Trump would have been a dead man walking."
Then Trump is in big trouble. In the June 2017 transcript, Senator Burr questions first. After about a dozen questions:
"BURR: In the public domain is this question of the "Steele dossier," a document that has been around out in for over a year.
I'm not sure when the FBI first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. At the time of your
departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?
COMEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's a question I can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the
investigation."
This post and PT's previous ones on the same topic, concern what many here suspect to be an orchestrated attempt to remove
the Constitutionally-elected head of state via extra Constitutional means. In other words a soft coup. Rather than "Trump_vs_deep_state",
I think the motivations for exploring this possibility here, by and large, come from feelings of patriotism. Particularly from
those who swore to defend the Constitution (not the President) from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
This said, if Trump actually does go to war with Iran (rather than just threaten it) I will agree with your comparison re Bush
and the neocons of his era.
Nice try Lee, but he still does not contradict his sworn testimony, i.e. UNVERIFIED. Not being able to discuss "details of the
investigation" could have opened up questions about when the FBI first learned of the reports in the dossier. That would have
raised even more uncomfortable questions about the FBIs conduct.
"I check in with this site from time to time because I find coverage of the Middle East that I will not find elsewhere. It has
always been informative. But it is curious to find this remarkable devotion to Trump_vs_deep_state."
Right on the first point. Wrong on the second. To my occasional regret the dream of 2016 had and has few all-in adherents here.
The merits of what you term "Trump_vs_deep_state" are examined from time to time on the Colonel's site. The question of whether the
Rule of Law, or the observance of contitutional propriety, is being upheld is what is being examined here. That second issue is
independent of the first. That is as it should be. If it were so that the FBI had played politics against Mrs Clinton that would
be as disturbing as if they had played politics against Mr Trump.
From my point of view - I'm English, as you might notice - the question of whether the UK Security Services helped
play politics in a US presidential election is relevant whoever the target was. I like to think that our Security Services work
as part of our defence forces, not as political hit men.
The Kremlin targeted "educated youth"? Which ones, the Bernie supporters who were going to be screwed by the rigged democratic
primary? How did they do the targeting, by that $100K ad spend with Zuckerberg? Isn't he then also guilty by association or is
he still the good billionaire? Which other US citizens maintain ties to rich businessmen from Axerbaijan? Which law does that
violate?
When the MSM was all a-flutter with coverage of Simpson's testimony in the Capitol, I heard none of the TV hosts mention that
it was the Clinton folks who hired Fusion. If that is not the case, please let me know.
In his testimony, Simpson supposedly said that Russia was just one country that research into Trump's business contacts were
conducted, the others being the likes of South East Asia and Latin America. We have heard nothing about the outcome of that research.
It will be most interesting to see Trump's most devoted congressional supporters and 'swamp beast fighters' utilize the timeline
and verified facts and (unknown-to-indy investigators) details in the 'private' source, to bring justice to bear on this extremely
serious matter. Why hasn't the DOJ appointed a special prosecutor; considering what PT and many others here and elsewhere
are "piecing together?"
If Trump wanted to do so, he could have all this factual stuff published on the WH web site; yes?
If he did so the counter-narrative would be instantly annihilated, right?
I didn't vote Trump but I was shocked by the obvious coup d'etat to overthrow Trump after the election. You see some of us
support the rule of law, our constitution, and established process for political change. Just because someone is elected that
is unpopular with the losing side doesn't mean you throw away everything and become a willing banana Republic. While this was
going on I predicted that if they had succeeded they would have over a million angry people in Washington and I would have been
one of them
What I find remarkable isn't Trump_vs_deep_state - but rather the blind emotional partisanship that drives far too many people and how
willing so many people are to commit treason and tear apart constitutional law just to "win".
- November 2016: Clapper recommended that Rogers be fired. This was soon after Rogers' meeting with Trump.
- March 2017: Trump tweeted that Trump Tower had it's "wires tapped."
Sundance's theory is very interesting. Given the circumstances and the timeline of events, it seems plausible to say the least
that Rogers tipped off Trump.
I have believed that the FISA courts and procedures are a flat violation of the Sixth Amendment (which guarantees public trials,
the right to confront witnesses and the right of the accused to be made aware of the charges against them) ever since the day
I became aware of them.
To amplify your point, Terry: once you give the unelected and unaccountable "intelligence community" (or any other part of
the Deep State) a de facto veto over election results, you will never get that power back.
You as a country have crossed the Rubicon, and when you get to the other side, you are no longer in a constitutional republic,
but in something else.
Americans should be able to put their personal beliefs about Trump aside and realize that our country has a serious problem when
one-sided opposition research containing little more than rumors is used as the basis for starting a FBI investigation on a presidential
candidate during an election. This is especially true when, as we all know, the "news" of such an investigation would soon be
leaked to the press.
Personally, I have a very low opinion of Trump and his policies. However, this whole "Russiagate" thing, from what evidence
I've seen, is complete bullshit. To see that such obvious bullshit was used to start an FBI spying operation and witch hunts by
both the press and a special prosecutor against Trump is outrageous. It is also a crime under our laws. If it can happen to Trump,
it can happen to anyone.
One would think the great harm caused by allowing our government intelligence agencies to spy on political candidates and then
leak both true and false information about those candidates to the press would be obvious. I hope the people who caused this outrage
are prosecuted for the many crimes they committed.
Very, very well done. Andy McCarthy's and Publius Tacitus's combined work in clearing the political and MSM smoke from around
this Beltway debacle alone is more than is needed to predicate a full criminal investigation.
In my opinion, another Special
Counsel is neither needed nor desirable: a competent apolitical United States Attorney with a special Grand Jury and a couple
of squads of FBI Agents brought in from some place like Chicago should be adequate to the job; or the American taxpayer has not
been getting its money's worth. A not inconsiderable side benefit would be that our system of justice and the FBI might start
to reclaim some of their reputation that is lying in tatters.
The only thing I would add is that I would integrate into the design of the case the multiple unmaskings and unfettered leaks.
This case points directly towards the Obama White House and it is reasonable to suspect that it may include Obama himself.
In my view, the deep state......... CIA, FBI, NSA....... had the opportunity to prove their commitment to the welfare of
the nation...... given they had the means and opportunity to sway the election.
I'm speaking of Sanders... There was enough dirt on HRC to blackmail her into giving the nomination to Sanders. There
was enough dirt on DT to show him as the plaything of the Zionists/ Russians. They had both the Post and Times in their pockets,
not to mention Fox and CNN. Only Sanders had a domestic program which could put money into households and thus grow demand and
the economy, and Sanders was/is a hawk. They didn't. Their loyalty to HRC trumped the nation.... The question left un asked.........
WHY??? What did they have to gain from HRC that no one else offered?
Given that the FBI made no serious effort to analyze the DNC servers after the alleged "hack" and, according to Seymour Hersh,
are sitting on an FBI report that fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the supplier of the DNC emails to Wikileaks, these
two facts also support the conclusion that the FBI at the highest levels are in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow Trump.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the FBI's history of conducting illegal, criminal activities
against various dissident groups in the US and covering up evidence of criminal activity by their own informants - including murder
- and also covering up evidence of criminal activity by other law enforcement agencies such as the Bureau of Prisons.
If any of Trump's associates knew about and encouraged the hacking of Democrats' emails and computer servers, they could
be charged under the statute.
In November, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller's team was letting the original DOJ prosecutors retain the investigation
of the actual cyber intrusions into the DNC and other targets.
This is beyond ridiculous.
The FBI never investigated the DNC servers because they decided to accept CrowdStrike's analysis despite CrowdStrike being
run by a Russian ex-pat who hates Russia and sees Russians under every bed. Now they want to try to accuse Trump associates of
"hacking"? Seriously?
Second, according to Seymour Hersh, the FBI is sitting on a report that explicitly fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich
as the source for the DNC emails received by Wikileaks.
These two facts - along with the compromised FBI personnel involved in the Fusion GPS scandal - demonstrate that the FBI at
the highest levels were involved in a criminal conspiracy to prevent Trump from winning the election.
This establishes that the entire "Russiagate" investigation is nothing but more of the same. The real scandal is that the FBI,
the CIA, and other intelligence agencies are involved in a "soft coup" against an elected President.
I can keep smacking you around all day. Here's what Corn reported in January 2017 about his first conversations with Steele: The
former spy said he soon decided the information he was receiving was "sufficiently serious" for him to forward it to contacts
he had at the FBI. He did this, he said, without permission from the American firm that had hired him. "This was an extraordinary
situation," he remarked.
The response to the information from the FBI, he recalled, was "shock and horror." After a few weeks, the bureau asked him
for information on his sources and their reliability and on how he had obtained his reports. He was also asked to continue to
send copies of his subsequent reports to the bureau. These reports were not written, he noted, as finished work products; they
were updates on what he was learning from his various sources. But he said, "My track record as a professional is second to no
one."
When I spoke with the former spy, he appeared confident about his material -- acknowledging these memos were works in progress
-- and genuinely concerned about the implications of the allegations. He came across as a serious and somber professional who
was not eager to talk to a journalist or cause a public splash. He realized he was taking a risk, but he seemed duty bound to
share information he deemed crucial. He noted that these allegations deserved a "substantial inquiry" within the FBI.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/spy-who-wrote-trump-russia-memos-it-was-hair-raising-stuff/
Of course, if you had actually read carefully what I wrote you would have known this.
The Russia-gate narrative always hinged on crazy idea that Putin somehow foresaw ago what Donald Trump is a viable
Presidential candidate and bet of him This makes him a political genius who is able to see the future. In reality Putin
understands much more simper and more sinister fact: in foreign policy the POTUS is a ceremonial figure and it is deep state that
determine the US policy, not the President. so it does not really matter who is elected from Russian point of view.
In any case as of Jan 12, 2018 it is clear that Russiagate became FBI-gate -- an attempt of FBI brass to subvert
the US Presidential elections in favor of Hillary Clinton. And Ray McGovern played an important role in this making this
fact public, first of all discrediting the idea of DNC hack (which was actually an internal leak) which logically led to the
analyses of Crowdstrike role and the hypothesis that Crowdstrike injected malware from CIA collection in DNC server(s) and later
discovered it implicate Russians. Performing a classic false flag operation.
Notable quotes:
"... In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies manipulating U.S. politics, but now Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes. ..."
"... Russia-gate is becoming FBI-gate, thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages between loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and his garrulous girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. (Ten illustrative texts from their exchange appear at the end of this article.) ..."
"... We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were trying to short-circuit the U.S. democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community, shadowy characters sometimes called the Deep State. ..."
"... Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has been sorely lacking: first-hand evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of breathless searching for "evidence" of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time gumshoes used to call "means, motive and opportunity." ..."
"... Even more unfortunately for Russia-gate enthusiasts, the FBI lovers' correspondence provides factual evidence exposing much of the made-up "Resistance" narrative – the contrived storyline that The New York Times and much of the rest of the U.S. mainstream media deemed fit to print with little skepticism and few if any caveats, a scenario about brilliantly devious Russians that not only lacks actual evidence – relying on unverified hearsay and rumor – but doesn't make sense on its face. ..."
"... The Russia-gate narrative always hinged on the preposterous notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin foresaw years ago what no American political analyst considered even possible, the political ascendancy of Donald Trump. According to the narrative, the fortune-telling Putin then risked creating even worse tensions with a nuclear-armed America that would – by all odds – have been led by a vengeful President Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... So, on Jan. 6, 2017, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released an evidence-free report that he said was compiled by "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, offering an "assessment" that Russia and President Putin were behind the release of the Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency. ..."
"... Despite the extraordinary gravity of the charge, even New York Times correspondent Scott Shane noted that proof was lacking. He wrote at the time: "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.'" ..."
"... But the "assessment" served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump's election and even raised the long-shot hope that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate. ..."
"... Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that falsehood was belatedly acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved narrative of Russia-gate. ..."
"... Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing was a "soft coup" were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from the White House. ..."
"... It didn't even seem to matter when new Russia-gate disclosures conflicted with the original narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a "Trump enabler" or a "Moscow stooge." ..."
"... But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evidence that key FBI officials involved in the Russia-gate investigation were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump, adding hard proof to Trump's longstanding lament that he was the subject of a "witch hunt ." ..."
"... Justified or not, Trump's feeling of vindication could hardly be more dangerous -- particularly at a time when the most urgent need is to drain some testosterone from the self-styled Stable-Genius-in-Chief and his martinet generals ..."
"... Yet, the sordid process of using legal/investigative means to settle political scores further compromises the principle of the "rule of law" and integrity of journalism in the eyes of many Americans. After a year of Russia-gate, the "rule of law" and "pursuit of truth" appear to have been reduced to high-falutin' phrases for political score-setttling, a process besmirched by Republicans in earlier pursuits of Democrats and now appearing to be a bipartisan method for punishing political rivals regardless of the lack of evidence. ..."
"... Then, as Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, Strzok led the FBI's investigation into alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election of 2016. It is a safe bet that he took a strong hand in hand-picking the FBI contingent of analysts that joined "hand-picked" counterparts from CIA and NSA in preparing the evidence-free, Jan. 6, 2017 assessment accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of interfering in the election of 2016. (Although accepted in Establishment groupthink as revealed truth, that poor excuse for analysis reflected the apogee of intelligence politicization -- rivaled only by the fraudulent intelligence on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq 15 years ago.) ..."
"... There is no little irony in the fact that what did in the FBI sweathearts was their visceral disdain for Mr. Trump, their cheerleading-cum-kid-gloves treatment of Mrs. Clinton and her associates, their 1950-ish, James Clapperesque attitude toward Russians as "almost genetically driven" to evil, and their (Strzok/Page) elitist conviction that they know far better what is good for the country than regular American citizens, including those "deplorables" whom Clinton said made up half of Trump's supporters. ..."
Special Report:In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies
manipulating U.S. politics, but now Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger
becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.
Russia-gate is
becoming FBI-gate, thanks to the official release of unguarded text messages between
loose-lipped FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and his garrulous girlfriend, FBI
lawyer Lisa Page. (Ten illustrative texts from their exchange appear at the end of this
article.)
Despite his former job as chief of the FBI's counterintelligence section, Strzok had the
naive notion that texting on FBI phones could not be traced. Strzok must have slept through
"Security 101." Or perhaps he was busy texting during that class. Girlfriend Page cannot be
happy at being misled by his assurance that using office phones would be a secure way to
conduct their affair(s).
It would have been unfortunate enough for Strzok and Page to have their adolescent-sounding
texts merely exposed, revealing the reckless abandon of star-crossed lovers hiding (they
thought) secrets from cuckolded spouses, office colleagues, and the rest of us. However, for
the never-Trump plotters in the FBI, the official release of just a fraction (375) of almost
10,000 messages does incalculably more damage than that.
We suddenly have documentary proof that key elements of the U.S. intelligence community were
trying to short-circuit the U.S. democratic process. And that puts in a new and dark context
the year-long promotion of Russia-gate. It now appears that it was not the Russians trying to
rig the outcome of the U.S. election, but leading officials of the U.S. intelligence community,
shadowy characters sometimes called the Deep State.
More of the Strzok-Page texting dialogue is expected to be released. And the Department of
Justice Inspector General reportedly has additional damaging texts from others on the team that
Special Counsel Robert Mueller selected to help him investigate Russia-gate.
Besides forcing the removal of Strzok and Page, the text exposures also sounded the death
knell for the career of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, in whose office some of the plotting
took place and who has already announced his plans to retire soon.
But the main casualty is the FBI's 18-month campaign to sabotage candidate-and-now-President
Donald Trump by using the Obama administration's Russia-gate intelligence "assessment,"
electronic surveillance of dubious legality, and a salacious dossier that could never pass the
smell test, while at the same time using equally dubious techniques to immunize Hillary Clinton
and her closest advisers from crimes that include lying to the FBI and endangering secrets.
Ironically, the Strzok-Page texts provide something that the Russia-gate investigation has
been sorely lacking: first-hand evidence of both corrupt intent and action. After months of
breathless searching for "evidence" of Russian-Trump collusion designed to put Trump in the
White House, what now exists is actual evidence that senior officials of the Obama
administration colluded to keep Trump out of the White House – proof of what old-time
gumshoes used to call "means, motive and opportunity."
Even more unfortunately for Russia-gate enthusiasts, the FBI lovers' correspondence provides
factual evidence exposing much of the made-up "Resistance" narrative – the contrived
storyline that The New York Times and much of the rest of the U.S. mainstream media deemed fit
to print with little skepticism and few if any caveats, a scenario about brilliantly devious
Russians that not only lacks actual evidence – relying on unverified hearsay and rumor
– but doesn't make sense on its face.
The Russia-gate narrative always hinged on the preposterous notion that Russian President
Vladimir Putin foresaw years ago what no American political analyst considered even possible,
the political ascendancy of Donald Trump. According to the narrative, the fortune-telling Putin
then risked creating even worse tensions with a nuclear-armed America that would – by all
odds – have been led by a vengeful President Hillary Clinton.
Besides this wildly improbable storyline, there were flat denials from WikiLeaks, which
distributed the supposedly "hacked" Democratic emails, that the information came from Russia
– and there was the curious inability of the National Security Agency to use its immense
powers to supply any technical evidence to support the Russia-hack scenario.
The Trump Shock
But the shock of Trump's election and the decision of many never-Trumpers to cast their lot
with the Resistance led to a situation in which any prudent skepticism or demand for evidence
was swept aside.
So, on Jan. 6, 2017, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
released an evidence-free report that he said was compiled by "hand-picked" analysts from the
CIA, FBI and NSA, offering an "assessment" that Russia and President Putin were behind the
release of the Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency.
Despite the extraordinary gravity of the charge, even New York Times correspondent Scott
Shane noted that proof was lacking. He
wrote at the time: "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many
Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the
Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies
essentially amounts to 'trust us.'"
But the "assessment" served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official
imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump's election and even raised the long-shot hope
that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise
candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the
Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled
by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free "assessment" was banned. For months, the
Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies
had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian "hack." Even when that falsehood
was belatedly acknowledged , the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to
say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian "hack" conclusion. Shane's blunt
initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media's approved
narrative of Russia-gate.
Doubts about the Russian "hack" or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing
was a "soft coup" were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from
veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of
the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a
constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from
the White House.
It didn't even seem to matter when new Russia-gate
disclosures conflicted with the original
narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal
journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the
conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted
the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a "Trump enabler" or a
"Moscow stooge."
The Text Evidence
But then came the FBI text messages, providing documentary evidence that key FBI officials
involved in the Russia-gate investigation were indeed deeply biased and out to get Trump,
adding hard proof to Trump's longstanding lament that he was the subject of a "witch hunt
."
Justified or not, Trump's feeling of vindication could hardly be more dangerous --
particularly at a time when the most urgent need is to drain some testosterone from the
self-styled Stable-Genius-in-Chief and his martinet generals.
On the home front, Trump, his wealthy friends, and like-thinkers in Congress may now feel
they have an even wider carte blanche to visit untold misery on the poor, the widow, the
stranger and other vulnerable humans. That was always an underlying danger of the Resistance's
strategy to seize on whatever weapons were available – no matter how reckless or unfair
– to "get Trump."
Beyond that, Russia-gate has become so central to the Washington establishment's storyline
that there appears to be no room for second-thoughts or turning back. The momentum is such that
some Democrats and the media never-Trumpers can't stop stoking the smoke of Russia-gate and
holding out hope against hope that it will somehow justify Trump's impeachment.
Yet, the sordid process of using legal/investigative means to settle political scores
further compromises the principle of the "rule of law" and integrity of journalism in the eyes
of many Americans. After a year of Russia-gate, the "rule of law" and "pursuit of truth" appear
to have been reduced to high-falutin' phrases for political score-setttling, a process
besmirched by Republicans in earlier pursuits of Democrats and now appearing to be a bipartisan
method for punishing political rivals regardless of the lack of evidence.
Strzok and Page
Peter Strzok (pronounced "struck") has an interesting pedigree with multiple tasks regarding
both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump. As the FBI's chief of counterespionage during the
investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's unauthorized use of a personal
email server for classified information, Strzok reportedly changed the words "grossly
negligent" (which could have triggered legal prosecution) to the far less serious "extremely
careless" in FBI Director James Comey's depiction of Clinton's actions. This semantic shift
cleared the way for Comey to conclude just 20 days before the Democratic National Convention
began in July 2016, that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges against Mrs.
Clinton.
Then, as Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, Strzok led the FBI's
investigation into alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election of 2016. It is a safe bet
that he took a strong hand in hand-picking the FBI contingent of analysts that joined
"hand-picked" counterparts from CIA and NSA in preparing the evidence-free, Jan. 6, 2017
assessment accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of interfering in the election of 2016.
(Although accepted in Establishment groupthink as revealed truth, that poor excuse for analysis
reflected the apogee of intelligence politicization -- rivaled only by the fraudulent
intelligence on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq 15 years ago.)
In June and July 2017 Strzok was the top FBI official working on Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia, but was
taken off that job when the Justice Department IG learned of the Strzok-Page text-message
exchange and told Mueller.
There is no little irony in the fact that what did in the FBI sweathearts was their visceral
disdain for Mr. Trump, their cheerleading-cum-kid-gloves treatment of Mrs. Clinton and her
associates, their 1950-ish, James Clapperesque attitude toward Russians as "almost genetically
driven" to evil, and their (Strzok/Page) elitist conviction that they know far better what is
good for the country than regular American citizens, including those "deplorables" whom Clinton
said made up half of Trump's supporters.
But Strzok/Page had no idea that their hubris, elitism and scheming would be revealed in so
tangible a way. Worst of all for them, the very thing that Strzok, in particular, worked so
hard to achieve -- the sabotaging of Trump and immunization of Mrs. Clinton and her closest
advisers is now coming apart at the seams.
Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon
foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars
of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to
Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control
foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his
electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat,
betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports
in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone.
What's left?
Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
Notable quotes:
"... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
"... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
"... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
"... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
"... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
"... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
"... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
"... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
"... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
"... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
"... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
"... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
"... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
"... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
"... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
"... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy,
WIN in Dec!
In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and
alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide
The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to
recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92%
of the votes counted...
... ... ...
However, as Politco
reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast,
telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting
he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.
Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political
power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according
to three people who were there.
And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.
While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing
Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.
Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides,
White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda,
and knew little about Moore, officials said.
... ... ...
Déjŕ view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !
On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying
the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect
for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment
of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."
Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel
from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's
right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."
While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish
community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and
his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.
moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those
who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living
in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following
the tradition of men.
They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.
I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM
Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates
to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared
can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder
the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two
holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.
Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM
Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.
These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory.
It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.
The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM
Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump
thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have
stayed the course and not give in.
~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~
Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on
how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]
Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM
Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has
to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.
overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM
Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.
Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM
Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes
the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner,
Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.
The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))
NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM
I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to
kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's
face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.
Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM
I think it was a setup.
Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.
Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even
for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was
able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was
deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.
But what do I know?
Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM
Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.
general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM
People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole
in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.
None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full
that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp
when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would
prefer to keep voting in the swamp.
Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM
Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding
himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.
Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends
to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.
Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM
He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this
all along.'
To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy,
or strategic skills.
NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM
Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those
that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our
flag, our country, and the unborn!
I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he
was way too good to be true.
We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault",
it actually is.
His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it
to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.
Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should
do.
Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists
want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...
Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM
Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government.
I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid
shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare,
even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.
The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well
imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.
You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..
This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye,
there was none.
Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
Dear Trump:
Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly
had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.
MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.
DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!
ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!
You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!
ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM
Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.
Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system.
At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.
samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.
I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same
I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the
same.
I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.
I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.
We didn't leave Him, He left us.
BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM
Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World.
Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the
job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.
napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM
A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just
turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment
puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.
America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).
Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM
When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment
rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies,
but not for the US population.
Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence
that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.
In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson.
It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators
are worthless.
nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM
I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the
media reports...
LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM
Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"-
(great leaders) do not do that.
nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM
What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis,
killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...
But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty,
and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions
of illegals, dressed up as "security".
Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something
Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.
It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing
display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.
Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist
Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...
YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.
Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become
as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".
"... As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff, abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump indicated in a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile. ..."
"... But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all. ..."
"... The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement. ..."
"... The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money. ..."
"... Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative ..."
"... A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism. ..."
"... Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse ..."
"... Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably, both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes ..."
"... The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades. They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible. They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their "masters." ..."
"... These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will not be put back in the cage ..."
Bannon is an imperfect ideologue. He has a gargantuan ego that often leads him astray, perhaps lately towards the delusion that
he himself would be a better populist messenger than the man he helped elect. But he's also hit on a paradox at the core of today's
American conservatism. Conservatives, in theory at least, look with skepticism upon grand projects and giant leaps, which too often
end up rupturing with the societal traditions they hold dear. Yet much of what conservatives support today is actually quite radical:
banning all or most abortions, rolling back the regulatory state, rejecting decades of orthodoxy on the issue of climate change,
a massive downshift of power from the federal government to states and localities, a moral ethic rooted in Christianity rather than
identity politics -- and lately questioning the "liberal international order" in favor of something more nationalist and protectionist.
The enactment of such an agenda would cause a good deal of upheaval and uncertainty, exactly the sort of void conservatives' forebears
feared most.
Some have wrangled with this contradiction by scaling back their proposals, claiming great problems can be addressed with light-touch
solutions, like child tax credits to arrest sagging birth rates. Others, much of Conservative Inc. it seems, are fine pretending
this tension doesn't exist at all. Bannon's approach has been to gleefully embrace conservatism's radical side. Disagree with him
all you like (and I do), but his is a perfectly logical position. His ascent -- some would say his transformation -- is a predictable
consequence of conservatives yearning for something increasingly distant from the modern world, just as did young people in the quietly
simmering 1950s. Indeed, there are many stylistic similarities between the radicals of today and those half a century ago: the "for
the lulz" performance art of a Milo Yiannopoulos contains an echo of the prankster Yippies, for example. Those who lack cultural
power can sell out, they can evolve, they can retreat to the catacombs -- or they can take Bannon's approach, they can transgress
and pump their fists and try to burn it all down.
Bannon's digestible binaries -- establishment versus the people, globalists versus Americans -- are easily superimposed on an
electorate that's itself divided both economically and culturally. Red states and the Rust Belt have for decades been the victims
of bad federal policy; Bannonism gives them an abstract enemy to blame, a valve for their fury. The algorithmic and library-voiced
Mitt Romney and the earnest Paul Ryan seem woefully inadequate by comparison: have those praying they run for higher office again
learned nothing? In The Constitution of Liberty , F.A. Hayek critiques conservatism by defining it as "a brake on the vehicle
of progress" and observing that a mere decrease in speed "cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." Likewise,
while conventional taxes-and-terrorism Republican rhetoric doesn't feel like much of a heave on the ship's wheel, Bannonism furnishes
a clear vision, a real change, swords to wield, dragons to slay. Guess which one has greater appeal right now?
The modern right has always had a whiff of radicalism about it, with origins in pushback against the 60s counterculture, a second
wind in Newt Gingrich's legislative reformation, and late-life vitality in the Saul Alinsky-invoking tea party. But it's with Bannon
that the odor has become most pungent. He is an unlikely revolutionary. An
early profile from Bloomberg Businessweek
in 2015 portrays him as more of an operative than anything, determined to professionalize a conservative movement that had made too
many unforced errors. Other pre-Trump appearances found Bannon worrying about the national debt and extolling his Catholic faith.
It's a windy road from there to storming the barricades under Donald Trump's sigil, but it's one many conservatives have traveled
in recent years. The challenge for more traditional Republicans will be fashioning a new politics that quenches voters' burning thirst
for change -- a position they've arrived at themselves, not been brainwashed into by Fox News -- while circumventing Bannonism's
conflagrations and The Camp of the Saints ugliness.
As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff,
abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump
indicated in
a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into
a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile.
But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either
because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars
who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young
men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon
all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all.
Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative
There is always a level of Bannonism /Paleoconservatism in the US politics but who knows how impactful it will be.
Probably the biggest issue for Bannon was Trump was elected in 2016 and our nation did not want or need a Leninist. (It
wasn't 2008 anymore) Frankly most conservatives were satisfied that HRC and Obama were not President and did not want massive changes.
The whole the people and globalist division is too simplistic and there are a lot 'People' that support free trade or relatively
open borders. (For instance I don't see the economic benefit of steel tariffs at all.)
The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
We still don't know how much a pushback on Trump/Bannonism will be. Trump is not popular and the House is endangered.
5) The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing
exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was
unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money.
It is a cardinal error to confuse conservatism with The Right, as much as it is to conflate liberalism with The Left.
Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they
may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative. (Thanks loads, Frank Meyer.)
A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't
matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much
like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism.
Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean
conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse.
Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but
not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to
see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably,
both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes.
The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people
have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades.
They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched
themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible.
They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their
"masters."
These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep
of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom
to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will
not be put back in the cage.
The writer's allusion to the French Revolution is somewhat telling. The history of the West is replete with moments of savagery
and destruction directed inwardly. It will be so again. When these Deplorables turn on their keepers, it will not be pretty. The
Progressive elites who believe that they can control and shape "narratives" to harness that power are fools. The cloistered intellectuals
who believe that they can "opt" out of the coming clash are dreaming.
The traditional core of the American people are no different than their ancestors. They just don't live as close to the edge
as those folks did. But when they are backed up to that edge, when betrayal has been made clear and the institutions are revealed
for the Oz that they have become, they will recall that old hatred that still courses in the Western man's veins and will react
in ways that will chill the blood. The imaginary "crimes" with which "privileged whites" are damned by the rioting Cultural Marxists
will escape imagination and leap into reality. God help us.
Re: The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
Perot, for whom I voted in 1992 but not 1996, was not a paleoconservative, but rather a pragmatic centrist. Compare his position
on social issues with Pat Buchanan's (Buchanan being Mr. Paleoconservative -- and who ran in 1992 too)
Gorka was actually great in very difficult situation when this smug neoliberal shill Cooper try to bully his way in best tradition
of Bill Oreilly. But Cooper is so well trained in bullshit that it is impossible to 'convert" him on anything. He will try to
promote his fake new lines.
Notable quotes:
"... "Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news." ..."
"Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's
literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation
looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news."
"... It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play a game of blame and twisting the facts. ..."
"... Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper! ..."
"... Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible ..."
"... CNN is fake news. Don't talk to CNN ..."
"... They conveniently over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why??? ..."
The Clintons and Trump were friends not too long ago. I think they're all elitists. New boss, same owners. Trump is crass but
I think he's doing a surprisingly good job. I am hoping things will continue to look up, economically...because, money changes
everything.
It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play
a game of blame and twisting the facts. It is amazing what the Liberals are emphasizing especially with the terrible things that
occurred with Obama Administration, spending, loss of millions of dollars, and illegal activity.
Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the
greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper!
Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't
just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible
Cooper sounded more like one of the nut job conspiracy theorists, just like all the rest on CNN and MSNBC. They conveniently
over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why???
"... Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, with almost four decades of membership in the House and Senate, openly warned incoming President Trump in January 2017 against criticizing the U.S. intelligence community because U.S. intelligence officials have "six ways from Sunday to get back at you" if you are "dumb" enough to take them on. ..."
"... Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says he will ask Strzok to explain the "insurance policy" when he calls him to testify. What seems already clear is that the celebrated "Steele Dossier" was part of the "insurance," as was the evidence-less legend that Russia hacked the DNC's and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails and gave them to WikiLeaks . <img src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg" alt="" width="291" height="300" srcset="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal-291x300.jpg 291w, https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fbiseal.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 291px) 100vw, 291px" /> ..."
"... There is a snowball's chance in hell that this is raw intelligence gathered by Steele; rather he seems to have drawn on a single 'trusted intermediary' to gather unsubstantiated rumor already in existence. ..."
"... "The fact that you do not control your sources frequently means that they will feed you what they think you want to hear. Since they are only doing it for money, the more lurid the details the better, as it increases the apparent value of the information. The private security firm in turn, which is also doing it for the money, will pass on the stories and even embroider them to keep the client happy and to encourage him to come back for more. When I read the Steele dossier it looked awfully familiar to me, like the scores of similar reports I had seen which combined bullshit with enough credible information to make the whole product look respectable." ..."
"... How, you might ask, could Strzok and associates undertake these extra-legal steps with such blithe disregard for the possible consequences should they be caught? The answer is easy; Mrs. Clinton was a shoo-in, remember? This was just extra insurance with no expectation of any "death benefit" ever coming into play -- save for Trump's electoral demise in November 2016. The attitude seemed to be that, if abuse of the FISA law should eventually be discovered -- there would be little interest in a serious investigation by the editors of The New York Times and other anti-Trump publications and whatever troubles remained could be handled by President Hillary Clinton. ..."
Special Report: In the Watergate era, liberals warned about U.S. intelligence agencies
manipulating U.S. politics, but now Trump-hatred has blinded many of them to this danger
becoming real, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.
"... It is true that Mr. Miller can come off as serious. After all he is a very serious guy. He does not play mental footsie with fools. The guy has studied U.S. immigration more deeply than just about the entire Washington press corps combined. He knows more about immigration than any of them. Mr. Miller is not going to get into intellectual soft-pillow fights with reporters and lawmakers wearing their silly, soft and fuzzy pajamas. ..."
CNN's Stephen Miller incident proves how fake news ignorantly smears conservatives
White House adviser does not play mental footsie with fools
White House adviser Stephen Miller appears on CNN anchor Jake Tapper Sunday
show. After an exchange, Mr. Tapper cut off Mr. Miller's mic, saying, "I think I've wasted enough of my
viewers' time." (CNN.com)
Behold, the anatomy of a "fake news" smear.
The latest drive-by character assassination of
White House
adviser
Stephen Miller
began, as it so
often does, in a fact-free live TV orgy of public posturing by a journalist eager to display his
virgin-snow virtue when it comes to unalloyed hatred of President
Donald Trump
.
This time it was CNN anchor Jake (
Mr.
Trump
calls him "Fake") Tapper, who invited
Mr. Miller
on his Sunday show to
respond to Mr. Tapper's complex conspiracy theory about how the president is somehow unfit or too
mentally unstable to occupy the
White
House
.
Obviously, Fake Tapper missed the report on Twitter that actually
Mr. Trump
is a "very stable
genius."
Anyhoo,
Mr. Miller
had no
intention of playing any of Fake Tapper's reindeer games. Instead, he wanted to talk about the
unrelenting unfairness of CNN and its coverage of
Mr. Trump
.
When
Mr. Miller
refused to
engage in Mr. Tapper's conspiracy fantasy, the anchor changed his mind and decided he no longer wanted
Mr. Miller
on his show.
"I think I've wasted enough of my viewer's time," he petulantly whined before cutting off
Mr. Miller
's mic.
It was a small, sad, silly moment in the death gurgles of American journalism. But enough to whip
up a little buzz on Twitter or some Internet echo chamber. Which is all Fake Tapper was going for in
the first place.
In all the frenzy, doddering old House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi clamored over to the bright
lights to declare through her unglued dentures that
Mr. Miller
-- a Jew -- is somehow a
"white supremacist."
And then she declared that the Jew be fired from the
White House
. How that does not make
Nancy Pelosi -- a Christian, despite her infatuation with abortion -- an anti-Semite?
Details. Minor details. Then, along comes a Washington reporter who announces that
Mr. Miller
is "standing in the
way of an immigration deal." Not clear if this "deal" is a good one or a bad one.
Mr. Miller
is just standing in
the way of it, which further proves he is a white supremacist. Her entire story was entirely based on unnamed "sources," according to the reporter. Another death
gurgle of American journalism. The story includes a link to a "very tense and loud exchange"
Mr. Miller
had last year with
another CNN reporter in which
Mr.
Miller
utterly eviscerated the reporter over his near total ignorance of immigration policy in
America.
All that matters to doltish reporters around here, though, is that the exchange was "very tense and
loud."
Mr. Miller
is not only a
(Jewish) white supremacist, he is an angry (Jewish) white supremacist. So, like Hitler, basically.
Only Jewish.
It is true that
Mr. Miller
can
come off as serious. After all he is a very serious guy. He does not play mental footsie with fools.
The guy has studied U.S. immigration more deeply than just about the entire Washington press corps
combined. He knows more about immigration than any of them.
Mr. Miller
is not going to get
into intellectual soft-pillow fights with reporters and lawmakers wearing their silly, soft and fuzzy
pajamas.
Rather,
Mr. Miller
-- and his
boss -- wants desperately to fix a horribly broken immigration system that created this whole
unfortunate class of illegal Dreamers in the first place and prevent a future generation of
"Dreamers."
If you have any doubt about the challenge
Mr. Miller
and
Mr. Trump
face in honestly
addressing illegal immigration in this country, consider this: During this week's bipartisan meeting
in the
White House
to begin
negotiations, the word "DACA" was uttered 61 times. The universal sentiment among lawmakers from both
parties was to pass some kind of "DACA" legislation that would legalize the illegal-immigrant
Dreamers.
Sixty-one times.
The word "American" was used just 20 times. "Worker" only twice. "Citizen" not once.
"Citizenship" was used three times -- as in the DACA bill should give Dreamers "citizenship." The words "miner," "unemployed," and "lawful" were never uttered during the 55-minute confab. Perhaps
Mr. Miller
is
"standing in the way of an immigration deal" with these people. But is that a bad thing?
It's about time for rats to start jumping from the ship...
Notable quotes:
"... A new liberal narrative has arisen since Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, launched a probe to find out who funded the salacious, unverified dossier and how the FBI used it against Trump people. ..."
Washington's liberal establishment suddenly is running from the Democratic Party's
Russia dossier, which for months was fodder for Democrats
to hurl charges against President Trump and his
campaign.
A new liberal narrative has arisen since Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, launched
a probe to find out who funded the salacious, unverified dossier and how the FBI used it against
Trump people.
Mr. Nunes, California Republican, flushed out in federal court that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee
funded the dossier, moving money to a law firm and then to the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. Fusion then paid British ex-spy
Christopher Steele , who in turn paid his
Kremlin sources.
Next, the committee learned
that the FBI has been unable to confirm any of the dossier's core
Trump -
Russia collusion charges 17 months after it began receiving
Mr. Steele 's memos.
Since then, liberals have been demoting the dossier.
Last week, The New York Times published a report asserting the dossier never triggered the collusion probe now being conducted
by three congressional committees and special counsel Robert Mueller.
... ... ...
CNN has been one of the dossier's biggest journalistic boosters, writing that some of its charges have been verified but not providing
exact details of who, when and where.
The problem for Simpson that as soon as it was established that Fusion GPS was FBI contractor and did illegal searched
in NSA database he is cooked.
Notable quotes:
"... Intelligence experts say he failed to adhere to basic intelligence analysis standards of verification ..."
"... A released Senate transcript shows dossier paymaster Glenn Simpson had pure praise for the work of dossier writer Christopher Steele -- an assessment disputed by intelligence professionals who have studied the product. ..."
Intelligence experts say he failed to adhere to basic intelligence analysis standards of
verification
A released Senate transcript shows dossier paymaster
Glenn
Simpson had pure praise for the work of dossier writer Christopher Steele -- an
assessment disputed by intelligence professionals who have studied the product.
"Chris was, you know, a person who delivered quality work in very appropriate ways,"
Mr. Simpson
, co-founder of the investigative firm Fusion GPS, told SenateJudiciary Committee lawyers
in August.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, took the unusual step Tuesday of unilaterally
releasing a partially redacted 312-page transcript of his testimony.
President Trump said in an interview Thursday
that an FBI agent in the
special counsel's Russia probe committed "treason" by
texting his lover an anti- Trump message, and he called for
Republican investigators in Congress to conclude their probes swiftly.
Mr. Trump
told the Wall Street Journal that Peter Strzok , an FBI agent
who was a top investigator on the special counsel Robert Mueller 's team
investigating whether Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to
influence the 2016 presidential election, committed treason with his text suggesting an
"insurance policy" against a Trump victory.
"A man is tweeting to his lover that if [Democrat Hillary Clinton ] loses, we'll essentially
do the insurance policy. We'll go to phase two and we'll get this guy out of office," said
Mr. Trump .
"This is the FBI we're talking
about -- that is treason. That is a treasonous act. What he tweeted to his lover is a
treasonous act."
Aitan Goelman, an attorney for Mr. Strzok , told the Journal: "It
is beyond reckless for the president of the United States to accuse Pete Strzok, a man who has
devoted his entire adult life to defending this country, of treason. It should surprise no one
that the president has both the facts and the law wrong."
In an August 2016 text, Mr. Strzok wrote to a woman with
whom he was having an affair: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
Looks like Bannon is really weak in political economy. He does not even use the term neoliberalism. Go
here to read the full transcript of his speech.
One very interesting quote is ""I believe we've come partly off-track in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're
starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the
West, a crisis of capitalism."
Notable quotes:
"... That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age. ..."
"... I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism. ..."
"... I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism." ..."
"... One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century. ..."
"... The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States. However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom." ..."
Buzzfeed has the remarks of Stephen Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News ,
and currently appointed by President Elect Trump to be his chief advisor, at a conference at
the Vatican in the summer of 2014:
Steve Bannon:
Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in
this. We're speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in
Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can
achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and
particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it's really the organizing principle
of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people
throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we're expanding internationally to let
people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really
of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.
It's ironic, I think, that we're talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at
the exact moment we're talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century
in mankind's history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100
years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was
globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic
Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians.
Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were
over a million casualties.
That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history --
virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you
know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of
that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.
But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not
just the heroism of our people -- whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the
Polish resistance fighters, or it's the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed
the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought
this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying
principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal.
It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it's the Soviet Union,
England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a
barbaric empire in the Far East.
That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really
distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really
working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many
years and decades of peace. And I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the
fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly,
is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of
capitalism.
And we're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if
the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I
feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs,
but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting, that will completely
eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.
Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you're seeing three kinds of
converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying
spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.
I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at
Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get.
I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough
environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound
namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism."
But there's a strand of capitalism today -- two strands of it, that are very
disturbing.
One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and
Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places
like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with
these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that
is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it
doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were
seen really in the 20th century.
The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the
Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in
a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative
movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the
populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.
However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I
call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really
looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of
the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation
[that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's
going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal
freedom."
The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we've talked
about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials
under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising
iteration.
"... "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed over." ..."
"... "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements." ..."
"... "It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan." ..."
"... "With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
"... Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against them. ..."
Steve Bannon, the chief strategist and right-hand man to President-elect Donald Trump,
denied in an interview that he was an advocate of white nationalism -- and gave hints instead
about how his brand of "economic" nationalism will shake up Washington.
In The Hollywood Reporter, Bannon, the controversial former head of Breitbart News who went
on to chair Mr. Trump's presidential campaign, discussed why he believed his candidate won the
election.
"I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told
the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and
created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed
over."
Bannon's appointment to the White House has drawn criticism from Democrats and several civil
liberties groups, in part because of his (and Breitbart's) strong association with
the alt-right , a political movement with strains of white supremacy.
In the past, the former Breitbart CEO has admitted the alt-right's connections to racist and
anti-Semitic agendas.
"Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the
philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe,"
Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are
attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes,
right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard
left that attract certain elements."
In the Reporter interview, Bannon challenged the notion that racialized overtones dominated
the Trump campaign on the trail. He predicted that if the administration delivered on its
election promises, "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and
Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years."
"It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going
to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan."
"With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild
everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to
throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater
than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist
movement."
Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political
foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against
them.
"Darkness is good," Bannon said. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only
helps us when they...get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."
"... Also, her license allowed her to transmit, while all of her co-conspirators were able to listen without any licensing required. It was one-way communication, but it suited their needs perfectly . ..."
"... True, communications via amateur radio don't automatically leave a paper trail but they must be, as per FCC regulation, conducted in plain text, whether oral or written. Codes and ciphers are expressly prohibited. And I would not care to bet that the NSA doesn't already extensively point its Big Ears at those bands ..."
"... Nellie Ohr is the holder of a Technician class amateur radio license, which means she was required to pass a written exam on technical theory, practice and regulations, and sign her application attesting to her acceptance of applicable federal regulations. If she executed that application with the intent to conduct communications in using obscuring language and meaning, including previously-arranged code words, it would appear to constitute a fraudulent application. ..."
"... Why would a crook that uses HAM for nefarious activity bother with a license in the first place? So the NSA can find you? I would also bet anything that every single frequency of the radio spectrum is monitored and recorded 24/7. It would be simple with today's technology. ..."
A very good article that lays out the timeline. However, you don't give any more information about the odd fact of Nellie Ohr
getting a HAM radio license. Do any of the other people involved, or their relatives and friends, use HAM radio? Is HAM radio
communication less likely to be surveilled/captured by the NSA or partner countries?
Yes David. HAM radio can only be captured at the moment it is transmitted by a person actively listening for it and writing things
down. Email and other electronic communication is automatically captured by NSA and kept in storage to be searched (queried) whenever
someone has the mind to do it.
Also, her license allowed her to transmit, while all of her co-conspirators were able to listen without any licensing required.
It was one-way communication, but it suited their needs perfectly .
True, communications via amateur radio don't automatically leave a paper trail but they must be, as per FCC regulation, conducted
in plain text, whether oral or written. Codes and ciphers are expressly prohibited. And I would not care to bet that the NSA doesn't
already extensively point its Big Ears at those bands .
Nellie Ohr is the holder of a Technician class amateur radio license, which means she was required to pass a written exam
on technical theory, practice and regulations, and sign her application attesting to her acceptance of applicable federal regulations.
If she executed that application with the intent to conduct communications in using obscuring language and meaning, including
previously-arranged code words, it would appear to constitute a fraudulent application.
Well, it all may be a coincidence. But dots do have a way of getting connected.
Why would a crook that uses HAM for nefarious activity bother with a license in the first place? So the NSA can find you?
I would also bet anything that every single frequency of the radio spectrum is monitored and recorded 24/7. It would be simple
with today's technology.
"... Sally Yates essentially said 'all DOJ is subject to oversight, except the National Security Division'. ..."
"... In short, FISA "queries" from any national security department within government are allowed without seeking court approval. ..."
"... We know NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers became aware of an issue with unauthorized FISA-702(17) " About Queries " early in 2016. As a result of a FISA court ruling declassified in May of 2017 we were able to piece a specific timeline together. ..."
"... At the same time Christopher Steele was assembling his dossier information (May-October 2016), the NSA compliance officer was conducting an internal FISA-702 review as initiated by NSA Director Mike Rogers. The NSA compliance officer briefed Admiral Mike Rogers on October 20th 2016. On October 26th 2016, Admiral Rogers informed the FISA Court of numerous unauthorized FISA-702(17) "About Query" violations. Subsequent to that FISC notification Mike Rogers stopped all FISA-702(17) "About Queries" permanently . They are no longer permitted. ..."
"... Mike Rogers discovery becomes the impetus for him to request the 2016 full NSA compliance audit of FISA-702 use. It appears Fusion-GPS was the FBI contracted user identified in the final FISA court opinion/ruling on page 83. ..."
"... What plan came from that April 19th,2016 White House meeting? What plan did Mary Jacoby and Glenn Simpson present to use the information they had assembled? How and who would they feed their information to; and how do they best use that 'valuable' information? This appears to be where Fusion-GPS contracting with Christopher Steele comes in. ..."
"... Contacted by Fox News, investigators for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) confirmed that Nellie H. Ohr, wife of the demoted official, Bruce G. Ohr, worked for the opposition research firm last year. ..."
"... The precise nature of Mrs. Ohr's duties – including whether she worked on the dossier – remains unclear but a review of her published works available online reveals Mrs. Ohr has written extensively on Russia-related subjects. HPSCI staff confirmed to Fox News that she was paid by Fusion GPS through the summer and fall of 2016. ( link ) ..."
"... DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr and his wife Nellie Ohr had a prior working relationship with Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Together they worked on a collaborative CIA Open Source group project surrounding International Organized Crime. ( pdf here ) Page #30 Screen Shot Below . ..."
"... Nellie Ohr is a subject matter expert on Russia, speaks Russian, and also is well versed on CIA operations. Nellie Ohr's skills would include how to build or create counterintelligence frameworks to give the appearance of events that may be entirely fabricated. ..."
"... Knowing the NSA was reviewing FISA "Queries"; and intellectually accepting the resulting information from those queries was likely part of the framework put together by Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby; we discover that GPS employee Nellie Ohr applied for a HAM radio license [ May 23rd 2016 ] (screen grab below). ..."
"... Accepting the FBI was utilizing Fusion-GPS as a contractor, there is now an inherent clarity in the relationship between: FBI agent Peter Strzok, Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson, and 'Russian Dossier' author Christopher Steele. They are all on the same team. ..."
"... The information that Fusion-GPS Glenn Simpson put together from his advanced work on the 'Trump Project', was, in essence, built upon the foundation of the close relationship he already had with the FBI. ..."
"... Simpson, Jacoby and Ohr then passed on their information to Christopher Steele who adds his own ingredients to the mix, turns around, and gives the end product back to the FBI. That end product is laundered intelligence now called "The Trump/Russia Dossier". ..."
"... The FBI turn around and use the "dossier" as the underlying documents and investigative evidence for continued operations against the target of the entire enterprise, candidate Donald Trump. As Peter Strzok would say in August 2016: this is their "insurance policy" per se'. ..."
"... In October 2016, immediately after the DOJ lawyers formatted the FBI information (Steele Dossier etc.) for a valid FISA application, the head of the NSD, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin, left his job . His exit came as the NSD and Admiral Rogers informed the FISC that frequent unauthorized FISA-702 searches had been conducted. Read Here . ..."
"... Yes, the FBI was working with Christopher Steele through their contractor Fusion-GPS. Yes, the FBI and Clinton Team were, in essence, both paying Christopher Steele for his efforts. The FBI paid Steele via their sub-contractor Fusion-GPS. ..."
"... Lastly, when the DOJ/FBI used the Steele Dossier to make their 2016 surveillance activity legal (the October FISA application), they are essentially using the outcome of a process they created themselves in collaboration with both Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... All research indicates the intelligence information the DOJ and FBI collected via their FISA-702 queries, combined with the intelligence Fusion GPS created in their earlier use of contractor access to FISA-702(17) "about queries", was the intelligence data delivered to Christopher Steele for use in creating "The Russian Dossier". ..."
"... Christopher Steele was just laundering intelligence. The Steele "dossier" was then used by the DOJ to gain FISA-702 approvals – which provided retroactive legal cover for the prior campaign surveillance, and also used post-election to create the "Russian Narrative". ..."
"... The ENTIRE SYSTEM of FISA-702 surveillance and data collection was weaponized against a political campaign. The DOJ and FBI used the FISA Court to gain access to Trump data, and simultaneously justify earlier FISA "queries" by their contractor, Fusion GPS. FISA-702 queries were used to gather information on the Trump campaign which later became FBI counterintelligence surveillance on the officials therein. ..."
Following the released transcript of Fusion-GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee
by Senator Dianne Feinstein , several media outlets have begun questioning the relationship between the FBI investigators, Glenn
Simpson and dossier author Christopher Steele.
What we have discovered highlights the answer to those relationship questions; and also answers a host of other questions, including:
Did the FBI pay Christopher Steele? Yes, but now how media has stated. Was the FBI connected to the creation of the Steele Dossier?
Yes, but again, not the way the media is currently outlining.
"... The only real investigations going on in Washington right now are against Trump. Posting evidence of DNC/DoJ/FBI criminality on a website doesn't count as anything, no matter how damning it is. ..."
"... Trump brought all this on himself with this refusals to fire Obama holdovers, his tolerating of Session's inactivity, and even bring in people like Wray and Rosenstein who are his enemies. ..."
"... Nice theory. But exactly WHO would do it? Justice below the Sessions level is still being run by the Dem team. Justice and FBI remained dominated by them. Reps in Congress and Senate are mostly in love with giving speeches for YouTube and Fox News face time. ..."
"... Given that 85% of the queries are inappropriate, likely this is not the first time this play has been used against political enemies of the left. It seems to have been ramped up during the Obama administration ..."
"... "Notice how it was FBI "private contractors" that were conducting the unauthorized FISA-702 Queries via access to information on FBI storage systems. We have been tipped off that one of the FBI contractors in question was, unbelievably, Fusion-GPS." ..."
"... FBI Director Comey testified under oath before Congressional & Senate committees and divulged none of this! Add perjury to his list of crimes committed against us! That lying sack of excrement KNEW what was going on! He's the SOB who made it happen! ..."
"... I cannot believe the FBI gave FISA 702 data access to Fusion GPS! Our own government engaged in political opposition research utilizing top secret counterintelligence tools & assets -- against candidate, turned GOP-nominee, turned President-elect, turned President, Donald J. Trump ..."
At this point, I don't see anything being done. Sessions is on a crusade against pot, and
has recused himself from the rest of his job, and that leaves Trump enemies, like Rod
Rosenstein and basically everyone at the FBI, in power.
Those people aren't going to do anything to hurt themselves, so nothing will get done.
The only real investigations going on in Washington right now are against Trump.
Posting evidence of DNC/DoJ/FBI criminality on a website doesn't count as anything, no matter
how damning it is.
Trump brought all this on himself with this refusals to fire Obama holdovers, his
tolerating of Session's inactivity, and even bring in people like Wray and Rosenstein who are
his enemies.
Nice theory. But exactly WHO would do it? Justice below the Sessions level is still being
run by the Dem team. Justice and FBI remained dominated by them. Reps in Congress and Senate
are mostly in love with giving speeches for YouTube and Fox News face time.
the "summarized" paragraph (last one in above narrative) encapsulates all guilty Federal
parties in their desire to destroy Trump Campaign and Presidency. Treason!
Noticed the President called out Adam Schiff for leaking committee communications. DOJ must
have the goods on Schiff from their year long leak investigation. That information on Schiff
probably came from that effort. This was a shot across Schiffs bow. "I have the goods on
you".
Next the OIG report might be revealed next week or at least some of the results. It will
get the "shit hole" comment controversy to the end of the line
I agree with all your points except "I am not interested in sending anyone to jail". Without
SEVERE consequences, this will happen again if we let the progressives anywhere NEAR power.
Remember, IF Hildabeast had won we would NEVER heard any of this. I think everyone in SD's
picture should go to prison for at least 10 years, and lose ALL government pay and pensions,
and Secret Service protections! And they should be stripped of their ill gotten gains from
their Foundations.
I assume you are responding to me. My actual statement was " I have no vested interest in
sending anyone to jail." I do not deny it might prove useful to discourage future abuse, but
if the Orwellian 'swamp' or 'big state' becomes firmly entrenched they will set the rules.
They thought they had this power already or they wouldn't have done all this. I firmly
believe we have one last chance this year to take our government back. For this I'm grateful
to President Trump, and Sundance deserves our thanks as well.
Given that 85% of the queries are inappropriate, likely this is not the first time this
play has been used against political enemies of the left. It seems to have been ramped up
during the Obama administration . Could this be what happened to Congress during the
Obama years? Bad enough if they find real dirt, but even if they don't, they just make
something up. Could Trump knowing about it and fixing it be the reason for the Congress
sudden cooperation? Maybe the UniParty is not so pervasive as it seems. Maybe I'm hoping to
much.
"Notice how it was FBI "private contractors" that were conducting the unauthorized
FISA-702 Queries via access to information on FBI storage systems. We have been tipped off
that one of the FBI contractors in question was, unbelievably, Fusion-GPS."
FBI Director Comey testified under oath before Congressional & Senate committees
and divulged none of this! Add perjury to his list of crimes committed against us! That lying
sack of excrement KNEW what was going on! He's the SOB who made it happen!
I cannot believe the FBI gave FISA 702 data access to Fusion GPS! Our own government
engaged in political opposition research utilizing top secret counterintelligence tools &
assets -- against candidate, turned GOP-nominee, turned President-elect, turned President,
Donald J. Trump .
They're still at it, too! I am stunned, astounded, flabbergasted, OUTRAGED, appalled &
sickened to learn this. This is shameful & criminal!
I'm in awe of President Trump. In spite of all of this, he still won! Wow! That man is
amazing!
Why isn't John Carlin, DOJ assistant AG for National Security Division front-and-center in
this investigation??? In his job, he would know everything about FISA requests and usage at
the FBI.
Caroline Krass was Chief General Counsel w the power to halt any covert operations at any
time. She left the agency early 2017. She clerked under Patricia M Weld whose a member of the
Privacy Civil Liberties Advisory Board (Obama pretty much eliminated the decades old
Presidents Intel Advisory Board).
Weld is a globalist (and friend Soros) who'd have no use for FISA regulations Weld is
Chair of Soros' Open Society Institute, a member of the Soros funded Criminal Court Tribunal
on Yugoslavia and more. Krass' husband and parents are interesting.
This is an eye-opening talk given by Krass and Carlin at the Aspen Institute where Carlin
now has a top job
Came here to post this: I just checked the /pol board at 4Chan and this article is on page 1
!!! Actually, this is a continuation thread from the original thread, "Fusion Collusion"
Way to go Sundance & Treepers -- great research on a VERY important topic. Keep up the
good work!
I am going to link the 4Chan thread to this comment -- but I feel that I need to issue the
following:
WARNING: People with sensitive sensibilities or those who are all out of eye bleach --
please click on the link at your own risk. The /pol board is one of the last free bastions on
the internet so the comments on /pol threads can be foul, offensive and shocking but if you
keep an open mind, you can usually find some interesting perspectives -- especially when the
hive mentality is triggered and they all sync up and work together in a swift manner to solve
a problem/question. If I were writing a dissertation for a sociology PhD -- I would write it
on /pol.
This appears to be the Obama administrations use of surveillance of American citizens on
American soil by foreign intelligence agencies to get around FISC restrictions. Susan Rice
signed this on behalf of the President of the United States, so there is no denying that
Obama knew about the foreign surveillance begun on candidate Donald Trump.
In the old days it was the main stream media's investigations that led to criminal
prosecutions. With today's corrupt media, it's gonna take criminal prosecutions to finally
launch their investigations.
There are many reasons all this is not coming out from the Justice Dept. yet. We have
addressed some of them finding the "fixers," getting the Administration's appointments in
place, etc.
One that has been mentioned but we seem to forget about is the need to slowly inform
Americans. Q mentions often the need to talk to others, even those who don't like Trump (and
whether or not you think Q is authentic or not, the message is spot on).
Someone mentioned on the Presidential thread I believe that they are not finding support
for POTUS mentioned on other blogs, that the focus is on pieces of the puzzle instead.
Sundance is doing a superb job of walking and chewing gum at the same time over at his
twitter account. His number of followers is increasing as are the tweets from folks who have
just found him.
I am digressing was up most of the night and not thinking clearly. Bottom line we need to
first of all surround POTUS and his administration with prayer, with good wishes, with good
thoughts. Let me remind you that the Deep State is indeed DEEP it covers the globe! POTUS is
subjected daily if not hourly to negative reporting from the MSM. Unfortunately, too many
still listen to their garbage. At least the people under the Soviet Union knew that every
word that came from their TV was propaganda. Even the brightest of the bright seem to forget
that here and go chasing their shiny objects hour after hour.
This weekend, remind your pastors to pray for our POTUS, our nation. Ask prayer groups to
pray. Speak up for POTUS every opportunity you get. If nothing else, pray for guidance
through these dark days.
Deep State is throwing everything it can at POTUS its very existence is threatened by
POTUS and what he stands for; they will say and do anything to destroy him.
God bless President Trump. God bless all of us here. God bless Sundance and his light that
never ceases to find a piece of the puzzle.
What is missing in this entire discussion is the Democrat/Progressive response to all this.
When the facts become undeniable what will they do? They will blame the victim! They will
embrace the Strzok line. Trump (not President Trump) brought it all on himself by being
Trump.
This will go over well with the third of the country who are willfull 'proles'. One third
of us, including the #nevertrumpers will be outraged, or pretend to be outraged. The
remaining third stand to be swayed one way or another.
I don't trust even those who comment, or refrain from commenting, on this website. I have
no vested interest in sending anyone to jail. I do have a vested interest in preserving my
G-d-given freedoms in this country. Over the years we have been careful to maintain a valid
passport. You never know what can happen. Now it turns out there is no place to go.
The 2018 elections will decide whether we live free or not. I'm sure that President Trump
is working overtime to 'weaponize' all the astounding revelations that Sundance has uncovered
for us. I'm troubled that Conservatives, Tea-party Americans and the whole gamut of citizens
abhorred by the doings of the Obama years do not appreciate the gift that G-d has given us in
the person of Donald j. Trump. The proof is I find no other website that expresses
appreciation for his talents. Ego-driven commentators are always regretting his tweets,
questioning his motives and giving advice as to what he must do to preserve his shaky
Presidency. It is common to hear that Trump is his own worst enemy.
My point is 'Remember the 2018 Election' before you have cause to regret it! We MUST have
a Republican majority in the House and the Senate, and a majority of those Republicans MUST
be pro-Trump.
"When the facts become undeniable what will they do?"
That's one of the main purposes of having libcult hegemony over 99% of Big Media. No
matter how egregious the crimes or how easily those crimes may be for anyone to understand,
Big Media will do their utmost to obfuscate and muddy the waters as much as possible,
attempting to creating doubt where none should exist and proffer ofttimes nonsensical excuses
for inexcusable criminality. ("Its about sex, ad nauseum)
Big Media uses a mixture of selective, hyperintensive focus on things they believe will
help their fellow travelers (whose criminality has been uncovered) and another selective,
hyperintensive focus on things they believe reflect badly on their political enemies.
The Truth has no place in any of this. Nor do ethics or logic. This is propaganda pure and
simple, and the simpler the better.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- --
"The remaining third stand to be swayed one way or another."
That third of the electorate are what I like to call the smartest idiots in the world.
They believe that they have the ability to divine the actual truth from the scripted and
coordinated lies of Big Media by "reading between the lines".
But they can't do it. No one can. You cannot make yourself aware of things that have been
hidden from you by somehow "diving" those things from carefully manicured lies. That's why it
is so critically important to have real media (Like CTH). The only down side to all of this
is that it requires you to invest the time it takes to make yourself fully informed, and a
full third of the electorate will NEVER invest a single second in becoming properly informed.
They believe they are smart enough to glean truth from thoroughly scrubbed and sanitized
lies.
On the other hand, the Big Media Machinery of Deception and Control has become almost
ubiquitous in daily life in every western country, so the difficulty comes in NOT imbibing
their deceptive swill, because it surrounds us all like a poisonous cloud.
"... Much of Steele's dossier information appears to have come from his/their Russian contacts: rumors and made-up stories. If the illegal wiretaps had actually found anything of substance we can guarantee that would have been used against Trump by now. ..."
You need to realize that Brennan is claiming to be doing an investigation on a Russia Collusion being created by the FBI and DOJ
and reporting on its progress to Obama. Note: He says!, He is working with the FBI. NSA in a video. But, he also working with
Fusion GPS since they are CIA!
To be frank, I'm po'd about this not being the top story for any news outlet, except Hannity basically.
I just cannot imagine that this news isn't being spread far and wide. I agree with several mentions above, that it won't lead
the news cycle until someone is arrested and charged, but I fear that what they have done will end up being an outrage, but no
charges due to some legal loopholes. Even so, I think most Americans believe there is a possibility that government is storing
all communications, but until it all comes out about how 702 queries are being run by 3rd parties accessing already stored US
citizen's information – will Americans really KNOW their communications are ALL being captured and stored, just awaiting any government
employee, or 3rd party yahoo to access it legally or illegally and then maybe they'll be as po'd as we already are about this
sham.
CIA has farmed out much of its work to hand full of companies. Care to guess who's on a list of U.S. intel contractors? Fusion
GPS. Anyone think that the Former CIA director John Brennan did not know what his contractors at Fusion GPS were doing?
I have suspected Fusion GPS is CIA for sometime now (CIA acting domestically? Illegal for starters, right? But as CIA is Deep
State and is attempting to destroy borders, make US part of their big plantation all the rules are out the window, right?)
today's video covers Fusion GPS' holding co. Bean LLC, (a fella called Terry Bean) and Nellie Ohr, Russian analyst etc Operation
Cassandra. Caudex (another holding co. is covered in today's video ) [there's lots more on GPS in other videos)
Geo Webb has said over and over that Hillary has been using McCabe for 20 years to do
illegal wiretapping Webb maintains in 2nd link above that McCabe did 'white van thing' on Trump Tower etc.
So now, we have a CIA contractor called Fusion GPS working for the FBI in order to construct and distribute a fake Dossier to
the MSM and to get a FISA approved for spying on Trump and his people.
This of course means that the Former CIA director Brennan knew what his contractors (Fusion GPS) were doing since according
to a video. He was keeping former President Obama early on.
I wonder if Fusion GPS people were getting paid twice from the FBI and CIA?
You guys are doing a really outstanding job in your reporting of this story. However the suggestion that information from FISA
about requests became the contents of the Steele dossier gives undue credence to the garbages document.
Much of Steele's
dossier information appears to have come from his/their Russian contacts: rumors and made-up stories. If the illegal wiretaps
had actually found anything of substance we can guarantee that would have been used against Trump by now.
Sundance, as usual, has done an outstanding job of defining who, and describing what this traitorous Crime Family has done. Make
no mistake, however; every Crime Family has a leader. That leader is none other than Obama bin Lyin'. This criminal subversion
of the Constitution was approved, overseen, and led by The Community-Organizer-in-Chief.
Bingo makes one want to take a nice look at his employment history pre becoming state senator .after college, works for a known
CIA front company after law school, though -- who was he informing on as a 'community organizer'? who was he recruiting as a professor?
was he snitching on Rev Wright? there's 20 years of shadiness to review
On Video: Former CIA director John Brennan admitting that he instigated the entire intelligence operation re: Russia Trump.
He proceeds to tell the committee that in July 2016 he instigated a multi agency operation and that he keep then President Obama
well informed.
So why should we believe Brennan (above) "Comey surely assumed that Brennan has put Reid up to writing the letter -- and even
worse, he knew that his counterpart at Langley was talking about it with *their boss*. Last August, the White House began convening
high-level meetings to discuss Russian interference in the 2016 elections. It began, according to a June 23, 2017, Washington
Post article, when "an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the
CIA, it carried "eyes only" instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior
aides.""
CIA has apparently farmed out much of its work to a hand full of companies. Care to guess who's on this list of U.S. intel
contractors? Fusion GPS. Anyone think that the Former CIA director John Brennan did not know what his contractors at Fusion GPS
were doing?
As we know the FBI was working with CIA Contractor Fusion GPS to construct the FISA application and with unsupervised access
to the FISA Database.
So, I am reading all of this to mean that Obama was not only aware of this Dossier but was apparently getting reports. The
only kind reports that make since are those on its progress.
"... The FBI never investigated the DNC servers because they decided to accept CrowdStrike's analysis despite CrowdStrike being run by a Russian ex-pat who hates Russia and sees Russians under every bed. Now they want to try to accuse Trump associates of "hacking"? Seriously? ..."
"... Second, according to Seymour Hersh, the FBI is sitting on a report that explicitly fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source for the DNC emails received by Wikileaks. ..."
If any of Trump's associates knew about and encouraged the hacking of Democrats' emails and computer servers, they could
be charged under the statute.
In November, The Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller's team was letting the original DOJ prosecutors retain the investigation
of the actual cyber intrusions into the DNC and other targets.
End Quote
This is beyond ridiculous.
The FBI never investigated the DNC servers because they decided to accept CrowdStrike's analysis despite CrowdStrike being
run by a Russian ex-pat who hates Russia and sees Russians under every bed. Now they want to try to accuse Trump associates of
"hacking"? Seriously?
Second, according to Seymour Hersh, the FBI is sitting on a report that explicitly fingers murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich
as the source for the DNC emails received by Wikileaks.
These two facts - along with the compromised FBI personnel involved in the Fusion GPS scandal - demonstrate that the FBI at
the highest levels were involved in a criminal conspiracy to prevent Trump from winning the election.
This establishes that the entire "Russiagate" investigation is nothing but more of the same. The real scandal is that the FBI,
the CIA, and other intelligence agencies are involved in a "soft coup" against an elected President.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit received good news from the 11th
Circuit Court of Federal Appeals earlier today. The Becks stated via social media that "After
posing two separate jurisdictional questions, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has found
jurisdiction sufficient for the case to proceed on appeal.
The DNC Fraud lawsuit was initially filed on behalf of donors to the Democratic party in the
wake of the revelations stemming from the publication of DNC emails that clearly demonstrated
the party's partisan efforts to support Hillary Clinton and to undermine Bernie Sander's
campaign. After the suit was dismissed late last year, Disobedient
Media reported that the Becks filed an appeal to that ruling.
The suit has proven extremely significant in terms of calling the Democratic Party
establishment to account, with DNC defense counsel forced to argue in open court that the Party
should legally be able to support one candidate over another, in an apparently overt
contradiction of the DNC's charter.
Disobedient Media reported on the numerous issues stemming from the suit, including safety
concerns of the plaintiff's Attorneys and their co-counsel. Among other disturbing events
surrounding the case, including the death of
Shawn Lucas ,
Disobedient Media reported that the Becks had received unusual phone calls from a caller-ID
which matched the Aventura office of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a defendant in the case.
"I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any
real basis for it," John Podesta said not long before the young DNC staffer, Seth Rich, was
mysteriously killed. Some unsubstantiated claims indicate Rich may have been Julian Assange's
source for the leaked DNC emails
But talk he did. He was alive and talking when the police arrived. And what do the police
ask gunshot victims when that are talking? They ask "Who shot you?". And where is that
testimony? Where are the police reports about when the police found him alive and talking?
And why did the emergency room personnel leave the room and allow .GOV officials enter the
room where Rich was? And then he was dead. His wounds were NOT life threatening.
I wonder who ordered the murder of Seth Rich. Was it John Podesta?
Was it Hillary Clinton?
Was it Debra Wasserman-Scholtz?
As I side note, I wonder who double crossed and informed on Seth Rich?
Was it Julian Assange or was Seth Rich careless and confided his intentions to someone
that he thought he could trust?
I'd bet my balls to a barn dance the whoever those two gunmen were that were on the
surveillance tape were also in the bar that night.
Bet that bar has video too.
You know the kid said something to paramedics and the ER Docs, too.
Seth Rich was talkative when police arrived. Was not even aware he'd been shot. In fact,
the cops were surprised to learn that he didn't make it. So what did Rich have to say before
he passed? And why did Rich wander so long that early morning, far longer than the walk home
should have taken - was he trying to shake someone?
What did he tell his GF?
The frat bro he also spoke with that morning?
The machinations surrounding the Election 2016 and its aftermath could hardy have been
scripted more intriguingly. So many vile characters.
It would seem that if the facts don't get reported by all news agencies then I guess the
truth is not the truth after all.
Bill Binney proved that this was a leak not a hack, because metadata proves that the
transfer rate was much too fast to have been a hacker and was a drive that was plugged
directly into the computer.
The Lucas murder right after serving DNC papers on the law suit, then Seth Rich murder,
nothing stolen but according to police it was a robbery. Then the Haitian minister is
suicided the day before he was to testify on the Clinton Foundation.
Too many dead bodies showing up around democrats, considering Wasserman Shultz looks
inbred, sounds and acts inbred, is extremely racist against those who are not Jews, then
maybe Wasserman Shultz must be investigated, we can't because she is a Jew, just like Harvey
Wienstein can't be indicted and convicted, because he is a Jew.
Then we have Wasserman Shultz running a Pakistani espionage ring connected to Hezbollah
and we don't know if this is the same Hezbollah cocaine ring Obama covered for.
I've been saying for over 2 years now, the collective "we" probably deserves what's coming
for sticking their fingers in the ears, closing their eyes and adamantly refusing to to
consider any evidence except that which supported their previously held beliefs.
It does remove all doubt about the FBIs true role in our society, hopefully opening a few
eyes and minds.
The secret police guarding the one party, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopath and its
minions.
Its policing work is merely practice and cover for that true purpose.
Don't nominate a new head, send it to the trash can of history NOW..
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC
staffer Seth Rich's computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made
contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative
reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the
time.
This explosive information was being suppressed by James Comey...FUCK the FBI!
And Andrew the Weiner and Huma have called off the divorce......Hmmmm cannot testifies
against your husband!!! or wife.....
You just know they are all dirty of what we suspect, and I'm sure much more. They would
not do these things if they were not guilty...
Private meetings on air port runways, smashing hard drives and blackberry's, bleach
bit...erasing emails after subpoena... and the list goes on and on.....
Actually there will be a lot of super delegates. At least it's no more than 15% of the
total delegates. It's partly how the Democrats choose their candidate, and ensures the
"establishment" has a say. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey obtained the Democrat nomination for
president, without entering a single primary by sewing up the super delegate vote, which led
to some reform.
Washer-woman making thinly disguised "anonymous" calls (and forgetting about caller-ID) is
a sign of serious desperation. Discovery on this one could be life changing for many people.
"OK, I'll talk: I did X, Y and Z so I wouldn't end up blackmailed to disgrace or dead."
The best part of this whole shitstorm is that if nothing happens to the guilty parties
here, then it is very clear that the Rule of Law is dead in America and revolution a
necessity.
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya has become a central figure in the Russia investigation
because of her involvement in the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
And one of the stranger wrinkles in that saga is Veselnitskaya's interactions with Simpson
just hours before that controversial conclave.
Simpson's interview transcript confirms past reporting that he was with Veselnitskaya the
day of that meeting as well as the day before and day after.
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya speaks during an interview in Moscow, Russia
November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Kommersant Photo/Yury Martyanov
But in her own testimony to the Judiciary committee, Veselnitskaya denied encountering
Simpson on those days.
"Did you have contact with Glenn Simpson on June 8, 9, or 10, 2016?" reads one of the 94
questions posed to Veselnitskaya by the Senate panel.
Undercutting that testimony, Simpson said that Veselnitskaya attended dinners
where he was also present on June 8 and June 10. They were also together in a Manhattan court
room on the morning of the Trump Tower meeting.
Simpson's work with Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who also
visited Trump Tower, has stoked speculation that the Russians provided information that ended
up in the dossier.
But Simpson denied in his testimony that either Russian contact told him about the Trump
Tower meeting. He also said he doubted that either provided information to Steele.
"... An extensive review of Simpson's 312-page Aug. 22 interview transcript shows that his strongest evidence for believing the dossier's accuracy is that he trusts Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the 35-page document. ..."
"... when pressed for independent evidence to support the dossier's allegations, Simpson demurred. He also refused to discuss dossier sources or to say whether he had vetted any of them. ..."
"... The revelation raises questions about why the FBI would have shared seemingly sensitive information about its sources with Steele, a former MI6 officer who now operates a private intelligence firm ..."
"... Simpson was cagey when asked whether Steele had received that information directly from the FBI, but he did not deny it. "And did Mr. Steele tell you that the FBI had relayed this information to him?" Simpson was asked. "He didn't specifically say that," said Simpson, adding that Steele "would say very generic things like I saw them, they asked me a lot of questions, sounds like they have another source or they have another source." ..."
"... Simpson's remarks generated gleeful speculation from some media outlets that a mole within Trump's orbit was a confidential source for the FBI. But sources close to Fusion told reporters on Tuesday that Simpson conflated information he had been told by Steele. NBC News reported that the Trump campaign source Simpson was referring to was George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser who recently pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about Russian contacts. ..."
"... A month earlier, Papadopoulos had met in April 2016 with a London-based professor named Joseph Mifsud who claimed to have learned that Russian operatives had stolen "thousands" of Clinton-related emails. ..."
"... Bruce and Nellie Ohr have become two of the more intriguing figures in the dossier saga. Bruce Ohr was a deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department when he met with Steele before the 2016 election. He also met with Simpson just after Trump's election win. Nellie Ohr, a former CIA employee with expertise in Russia, worked for Fusion GPS on its Trump research. Neither Ohr appears by name in the Simpson transcript. ..."
"... Simpson acknowledged in a Nov. 14 interview with the House Intelligence Committee that he had met with Bruce Ohr. Ohr was demoted from his DOJ position weeks later. Fox News reported that DOJ officials were not aware of his contacts with Steele and Simpson ..."
"... Simpson was also asked whether his firm employed anyone who speaks Russian. And though Nellie Ohr seemingly speaks Russian , Simpson told Senate investigators that he did not employ anyone with that particular skill. ..."
"... Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya speaks during an interview in Moscow, Russia November 8, 2016. ..."
"... Simpson suggested that the FBI expressed frustration with Steele during meetings in Sept. 2016 that some of the information that he had shared with the bureau was appearing in the media. ..."
"... Steele first shared his findings with an FBI acquaintance in July 2016. He met with agents again in Sept. 2016. ..."
"... "Did Mr. Steele ever indicate to you whether the FBI had asked him not to speak with the media?" one investigator asked Simpson. "I remember Chris saying at some point that they were upset with media coverage of some of the issues that he had discussed with him," replied Simpson, adding that "he never said they told him he couldn't talk to them." ..."
"... Kramer is the only person known to have handled the dossier who has not denied being BuzzFeed's source. He was recently interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee and by lawyers who represent a Russian businessman suing BuzzFeed for publishing the dossier. (RELATED: BuzzFeed's Dossier Gets Closer To Being Identified) ..."
One of the biggest takeaways from Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson's Senate Judiciary Committee testimony is that he has no independent
proof that the allegations made in the infamous Trump dossier are accurate. An extensive review of Simpson's 312-page Aug. 22 interview transcript shows that his strongest evidence for believing the dossier's
accuracy is that he trusts Christopher Steele, the former British spy who compiled the 35-page document.
"Chris, as I say, has a sterling reputation as a person who doesn't exaggerate, doesn't make things up, doesn't sell baloney,"Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal, told Senate investigators in the interview. But when pressed for independent evidence to support the dossier's allegations, Simpson demurred. He also refused to discuss dossier
sources or to say whether he had vetted any of them. But that's not the only conclusion to be drawn from Simpson's testimony, a transcript of which was released on Tuesday by California
Sen. Dianne Feinstein against the wishes of her Republican colleagues.
Here are other major revelations from Simpson's testimony.
FBI may have disclosed Russia investigation sources to Steele
Simpson suggested in his interview that Steele learned from the FBI in Sept. 2016 that the bureau had received information from
inside the Trump campaign that corroborated some of the dossier's allegations.
The revelation raises questions about why the FBI would have shared seemingly sensitive information about its sources with Steele,
a former MI6 officer who now operates a private intelligence firm.
In his testimony, Simpson says Steele told him during a Sept. 2016 meeting with FBI agents that the FBI "had other intelligence
about this matter from an internal Trump campaign source" and that they thought Steele "might be credible" because they had other
intelligence from "a human source from inside the Trump organization."
Simpson was cagey when asked whether Steele had received that information directly from the FBI, but he did not deny it. "And
did Mr. Steele tell you that the FBI had relayed this information to him?" Simpson was asked. "He didn't specifically say that,"
said Simpson, adding that Steele "would say very generic things like I saw them, they asked me a lot of questions, sounds like they
have another source or they have another source."
Simpson's remarks generated gleeful speculation from some media outlets that a mole within Trump's orbit was a confidential source
for the FBI. But sources close to Fusion told reporters on Tuesday that Simpson conflated information he had been told by Steele.
NBC News
reported that the Trump campaign source Simpson was referring to was George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser who
recently pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about Russian contacts.
The New York Times reported late last month that Papadopoulos was put on the FBI's radar after he told Australian diplomat Alexander
Downer in May 2016 that he had received information that Russian operatives had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton.
Papadopoulos, an energy consultant, shared that information during a booze-filled conversation with Downer at a London bar.
A month earlier, Papadopoulos had met in April 2016 with a London-based professor named Joseph Mifsud who claimed to have learned
that Russian operatives had stolen "thousands" of Clinton-related emails.
Former Trump campaign foreign policy aide George Papadopoulos admitted that he misled FBI agents about his contact with Russians
in order to protect Trump. (Youtube screen grab via LinkedIn)The timing of that encounter is significant because it was before it was publicly known that Russians had hacked Clinton campaign
chairman John Podesta's Gmail account.
It remains unclear whether Papadopoulos told anyone in the Trump campaign about Mifsud's claims. The White House has downplayed
Papadopoulos' work on the campaign.
Downer, the Australian diplomat, told his colleagues about his conversation with Papadopoulos two months after it occurred. He
initially brushed off the young campaign adviser's claims but passed them along after reports surfaced of Russian cyberattacks. The
Australian government then contacted the FBI, which reportedly opened its counterintelligence investigation into possible collusion
between the Trump campaign and Kremlin.
But why Steele and then Simpson were made privy to the FBI's knowledge of Papadopoulos and Downer remains unclear.
Simpson omits the Ohrs
Bruce and Nellie Ohr have become two of the more intriguing figures in the dossier saga. Bruce Ohr was a deputy assistant
attorney general at the Justice Department when he met with Steele before the 2016 election. He also met with Simpson just after
Trump's election win. Nellie Ohr, a former CIA employee with expertise in Russia, worked for Fusion GPS on its Trump research. Neither
Ohr appears by name in the Simpson transcript.
Simpson insisted to investigators that he did not talk with anyone from the FBI during the Trump project. But he for some reason
did not acknowledge his contact with a high-ranking DOJ official.
Simpson acknowledged in a Nov. 14 interview with the House Intelligence Committee that he had met with Bruce Ohr. Ohr was demoted
from his DOJ position weeks later. Fox News reported that DOJ officials were not aware of his contacts with Steele and Simpson.
Simpson was also asked whether his firm employed anyone who speaks Russian. And though Nellie Ohr
seemingly speaks Russian , Simpson told Senate
investigators that he did not employ anyone with that particular skill.
"Do any Fusion employees or associates speak Russian?" Simpson was asked. "No," he said. And asked if he had any support from Russia-speaking employees, Simpson said "not in my company, at least not that I can recall."
Fusion lawyer claimed that a dossier source has been murdered
Josh Levy, who accompanied Simpson in the testimony, claimed that a dossier source has been murdered.
Levy made the statement during a line of questioning to Simpson about sources for the dossier. The lawyer interjected to say that
it would be unsafe to discuss dossier sources because at least one source had been killed.
"It's a voluntary interview, and in addition to that he wants to be very careful to protect his sources. Somebody's already been
killed as a result of the publication of this dossier and no harm should come to anybody related to this honest work," said Levy.
(RELATED: 'Somebody's Already Been Killed' Over The Dossier, Fusion GPS Lawyer Claimed) It is unclear who Levy was referring
to, though there has been speculation that a former KGB official who was found dead in the back of his car in Russia was a source
for the dossier. But that Kremlin insider, Oleg Erovkinin, was found dead on Dec. 26, 2016, two weeks before the dossier was published
by BuzzFeed.
Russian lawyer's inconsistent statements about Simpson encounters
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya has become a central figure in the Russia investigation because of her involvement in the
June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
And one of the stranger wrinkles in that saga is Veselnitskaya's interactions with Simpson just hours before that controversial
conclave.
Simpson's interview transcript confirms past reporting that he was with Veselnitskaya the day of that meeting as well as the day
before and day after.
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya speaks during an interview in Moscow, Russia November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Kommersant
Photo/Yury Martyanov
But in her own testimony to the Judiciary committee, Veselnitskaya denied encountering Simpson on those days.
"Did you have contact with Glenn Simpson on June 8, 9, or 10, 2016?" reads one of the 94 questions posed to Veselnitskaya by the
Senate panel.
Undercutting that testimony, Simpson said that Veselnitskaya attended dinners where he was also present on June 8 and June 10. They
were also together in a Manhattan court room on the morning of the Trump Tower meeting.
Simpson's work with Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who also visited Trump Tower, has stoked speculation
that the Russians provided information that ended up in the dossier.
But Simpson denied in his testimony that either Russian contact told him about the Trump Tower meeting. He also said he doubted
that either provided information to Steele.
FBI was upset that Steele's findings were ending up in media reports
Simpson suggested that the FBI expressed frustration with Steele during meetings in Sept. 2016 that some of the information
that he had shared with the bureau was appearing in the media.
Steele first shared his findings with an FBI acquaintance in July 2016. He met with agents again in Sept. 2016.
"Did Mr. Steele ever indicate to you whether the FBI had asked him not to speak with the media?" one investigator asked Simpson.
"I remember Chris saying at some point that they were upset with media coverage of some of the issues that he had discussed with
him," replied Simpson, adding that "he never said they told him he couldn't talk to them."
The only reporting that appeared to be based on Steele's findings up to that point was from Yahoo! News. The website published
a Sept. 23, 2016 article based on Steele's allegations about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Page is suing Yahoo!'s parent company over the article.
Longstanding relationship with John McCain associate
Simpson told investigators that he has known an associate of Arizona Sen. John McCain's "for a long time."
David Kramer, a former State Department official, was with McCain in Nov. 2016 when the Republican lawmaker was first told of
the dossier by an associate of Steele's.
Kramer, McCain and Steele soon developed plans for Kramer to contact Simpson to access the dossier.
Kramer is the only person known to have handled the dossier who has not denied being BuzzFeed's source. He was recently interviewed
by the House Intelligence Committee and by lawyers who represent a Russian businessman suing BuzzFeed for publishing the dossier.
(RELATED:
BuzzFeed's Dossier Gets Closer To Being Identified)
In his testimony, Simpson said that he has known Kramer since his days at The Wall Street Journal.
"So Chris asked me do you know David Kramer, and I said yes, I've known David Kramer for a long time," said Simpson.
"David Kramer is part of a small group of people that I'm sort of loosely affiliated with. We've all worked on Russia and are
very concerned about kleptocracy and human rights and the police state that Russia has become, in particular the efforts of the Russians
to corrupt and mess with our political system," Simpson added.
Simpson was "opposed to Donald Trump" before Russia investigation
Simpson insisted that his research of Trump was apolitical, but at the end of his interview he acknowledged being deeply opposed
to the Republican.
"I think it's safe to say that, you know, at some point probably early in 2016 I had reached a conclusion about Donald Trump as
a businessman and his character and I was opposed to Donald Trump," he said.
He defended his opposition, saying that it did not cloud his investigation of Trump's business activities or those of his campaign.
It is an interesting question to what extent Fusion GPS was CIA front end or not?
And yes, of course, Sterle was real US patriot who decided to " take his concerns about Donald Trump's campaign and its
alleged ties to the Kremlin to senior US law enforcement officials, mostly out of a sense of duty and worry about the Republican
candidate for the White House." He just could not pursue dirty plan to eliminate Trump from the Presidential race...
Notable quotes:
"... Steele began to cooperate with the FBI again many months later after Robert Mueller, the US special counsel, took over the investigation. It is unclear why Republicans are seeking an investigation into the former spy or how the FBI will respond. ..."
It was nine days before the 2016 US election and Christopher Steele suddenly had a bad
feeling about what was going on inside the FBI.
Two months earlier, the British former spy turned private investigator had decided to take
his concerns about Donald Trump's campaign and its alleged ties to the Kremlin to senior US law
enforcement officials, mostly out of a sense of duty and worry about the Republican candidate
for the White House.
Steele began to cooperate with the FBI again many months later after Robert Mueller, the US
special counsel, took over the investigation. It is unclear why Republicans are seeking an
investigation into the former spy or how the FBI will respond.
"... Senator Johnson is particular interested in the emails that show that some senior FBI officials were determined to prevent Trump from becoming US President. ..."
"... Hillary's misuse of classified documents on her personal server and subsequent effort to destroy the evidence is far more serious than anything done by Paul Manafort and General Flynn, both under threat of prosecution by Special Prosecutor former FBI Director Mueller. The FBI's effort to protect Hillary and to dismiss her felony as "careless" is now confronted with Attorney General Jef Sessions reopening of the case. Notice how the FBI first riggs the case and then puts itself in charge of investigating it. An agency this corrupt should be abolished. ..."
The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and NPR will never tell you, but the criminal is Hillary, not Trump.
It has come to light that the FBI edited down FBI Director Comey's investigation of Hillary in order to make it look like
nothing was amiss. Comey's conclusion that Hillary was "grossly negligent," a conclusion justifying felony indictment for
mishandling of classified information, was replaced with "extremely careless." You can read about the rewire here:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/367528-comeys-original-clinton-memo-released-cites-possible-violations
The Chairman of the US Senate Homeland and Government Affairs Committee, Ron Johnson (R, Wis) has asked the current FBI
director, Chris Wray, if the document was rewritten in order to protect Hillary. Senator Johnson is particular interested in
the emails that show that some senior FBI officials were determined to prevent Trump from becoming US President.
Hillary's misuse of classified documents on her personal server and subsequent effort to destroy the evidence is far more
serious than anything done by Paul Manafort and General Flynn, both under threat of prosecution by Special Prosecutor former FBI
Director Mueller. The FBI's effort to protect Hillary and to dismiss her felony as "careless" is now confronted with Attorney
General Jef Sessions reopening of the case. Notice how the FBI first riggs the case and then puts itself in charge of
investigating it. An agency this corrupt should be abolished.
It seems that Trump and his Attorney General finally realized that they are in a fight for their lives and have decided to
counterbalance Mueller's investigation of fake crimes with an investigation of Hillary's and the FBI's real crimes.
One can only wonder why they waited so long. Intelligence does not seem to be the hallmark of the Trump administration.
Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) may have tried to discredit
Republican scrutiny of Fusion GPS and its dossier's role in the FBI investigation into the
Trump campaign, but could have ended up justifying it instead.
Feinstein -- against the wishes of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
-- on Tuesday morning released the full transcript of an interview in August with Glenn
Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, the firm hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee to dig up dirt on Trump's ties with Russia.
Trump critics immediately latched onto Simpson's testimony that the FBI believed the dossier
was credible because they had "other intelligence about this matter from an internal Trump
campaign source."
"They believed Chris's information might be credible because they had other intelligence
that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from
inside the Trump organization," Simpson told the investigators.
Simpson said it was a "voluntary source" -- someone who was concerned about the same
concerns we had. "It was someone like us who decided to pick up the phone and report
something."
Notably, Simpson did not identify any other of the "pieces of intelligence" that the FBI
might have had to back up the dossier.
However, shortly after the transcript was released, "a source close to Fusion GPS" told NBC
News that Simpson was referring to an Australian diplomat, who had contacted the U.S.
government after a night of "heavy drinking" with former low-level Trump foreign policy
campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
A source close to Fusion GPS tells me there was no walk-in source -- that was a
mischaracterization by Simpson of the Australian diplomat tip about Papadopoulis.
A second source confirms: Steele was not told about a walk-in source. That was a mistake.
He was referring to Papadopoulos, via the Australian diplomat.
The New York Times last month
published a story that revealed the role of the Australian diplomat and appeared aimed at
downplaying the salacious and unverified dossier's role in the FBI's decision to launch the
investigation.
However, the Times ' story also acknowledges that although a professor in London
had told Papadopoulos, 28, that Russians had emails that would be embarrassing to Clinton, he
did not appear to have shared that information with anyone on the Trump campaign.
The fact that the FBI believed the dossier was credible because of Papadopoulos -- shows how
little the FBI had to verify the dossier and its claims.
In addition, Simpson was asked whether he made any attempt to assess the credibility of
Steele's sources, which led to an odd exchange during the testimony where his lawyer
jumped in and said Simpson could not comment out of concern that someone was killed because
of the dossier.
Congressional investigators have zeroed in on dossier in recent months, to find out whether
the FBI used it as part of the justification to launch their investigation, as well to obtain a
surveillance warrant on another Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.
If the FBI indeed used the dossier as part of the justification to do either -- it would
raise questions over why an unverified political campaign document was used to investigate a
presidential candidate and cast a cloud of suspicion that has continued to loom over his
presidency.
Justice Department officials testified
to the House intelligence committee in November, months after Simpson's interview, that they
could still not verify any of the dossier's claims about collusion, according to the
Washington Examiner .
Investigators have also uncovered evidence of deep animosity against Trump by some of the
FBI officials assigned to the initial FBI probe into the Trump campaign and on the subsequent
special counsel.
On Monday, there were new revelations that FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had
texted messages to each other that suggested they were sources
for news reports on the Russia investigation before the election.
Last week, Grassley and fellow committee member Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
recommended a criminal investigation against Steele for lying to the FBI.
Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to distract from the issue of collusion and
discredit the special counsel investigation.
The founders of the controversial opposition research firm Fusion GPS
admitted that they helped the researcher hired to compile the infamous, largely discredited
35-page dossier on President Donald Trump to share the document with Sen. John McCain.
The goal of providing the dossier to McCain, the Fusion GPS founders explained, was to pass
the information contained in the questionable document to the U.S. intelligence community under
the Obama administration.
The disclosure raises questions about whether McCain knew that the information he delivered
to the intelligence community was actually an opposition document reportedly funded by the
Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
McCain's office did not reply yesterday to a Breitbart News request for comment on the
matter.
Last December, it was revealed that it was McCain who notoriously passed the controversial
dossier documents produced by the Washington opposition research firm Fusion GPS to then FBI
Director James Comey, whose agency reportedly utilized the dossier as a basis for its probe
into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Writing in a New York Times oped last Tuesday, Fusion GPS founders Glenn R. Simpson and
Peter Fritch relate that they helped McCain share their anti-Trump dossier with the
intelligence community via an "emissary."
"After the election, Mr. Steele decided to share his intelligence with Senator John McCain
via an emissary," the Fusion GPS founders related. "We helped him do that. The goal was to
alert the United States national security community to an attack on our country by a hostile
foreign power."
It was not clear from their statement whether McCain knew Fusion GPS was behind the dossier.
Fusion GPS paid former intelligence agent Christopher Steele to do the purported research for
the document. Steele later conceded in court documents that part of his work still needed to be
verified.
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched
the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation
over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows:
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely
their prior financial dealings, and which makes no reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior
volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with
members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off – falsely and unsuccessfully – as more
important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his
perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential
election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations, and which looks as if it was
brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led
some to make the point that Mueller is investigating a crime which does not exist.
Last month, Fox News published a portion of the approximately 10,000 texts messages sent
between FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page. Among the messages is an exchange
revealing Strzok and Page discussed an 'insurance policy,' against a Trump presidency.
Least we forget Page sent a text to Strzok stating, 'Trump should go f*ck himself'.
The dots are connecting. Top FBI brass were working with Hillary Clinton to make sure she
was exonerated from her criminal investigation while simultaneously building a case against
Donald Trump.
Comey, Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe made sure Hillary Clinton's FBI investigation went
smoothly as it was given 'special status. McCabe also didn't recuse himself from Hillary's
investigation until one week before the presidential election despite massive conflicts of
interest.
"... The real problem, in fact, was not the evil flowing into the American homeland from abroad -- whether imports, illegals or terrorists. Rather, it was the outward flow of Washington's monetary and military imperialism that was gutting capitalist prosperity domestically and generating terrorist blowback abroad. ..."
"... Reprinted excerpt with permission from David Stockman's ContraCorner . ..."
Good riddance to Steve Bannon. The last thing America needed was a
conservative/populist/statist alternative to the Welfare State/Warfare State/Bailout State
status quo. Yet what Bannonism boiled down to was essentially acquiescence to the latter --
even as it drove politicization deeper into the sphere of culture, communications and
commerce.
... ... ...
The real problem, in fact, was not the evil flowing into the American homeland from
abroad -- whether imports, illegals or terrorists. Rather, it was the outward flow of
Washington's monetary and military imperialism that was gutting capitalist prosperity
domestically and generating terrorist blowback abroad.
... ... ...
Nor did it grasp that the real cause of Flyover America's distress is the Fed's multi-decade
regime of financial repression and Wall Street price-keeping policies which: (1) deplete the
real pay of workers via the FOMC's absurd 2 percent inflation target; (2) savage the bank
balances of savers and retirees via ZIRP; (3) gut jobs, investment and real pay in the business
sector via the C-suites' strip-mining of corporate balance sheets and cash flows to fund Wall
Street-pleasing stock buybacks, fatter dividends and M&A empire building; and 4) impale the
bottom 80 percent of households on a un-repayable treadmill of (temporarily) cheap debt in
order to sustain a simulacrum of middle class living standards.
At the same time, these pernicious monetary central planning policies did fuel the greatest
(unsustainable) financial asset inflation in recorded history, thereby showering the top one
percent and 10 percent with upwards of $35 trillion of windfall wealth (on paper). At bottom,
Fed policy amounted to "trickle-up" with malice aforethought, and it was sponsored and endorsed
by the beltway bipartisan consensus.
President Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen is suing BuzzFeed News and Fusion GPS over a
dossier that includes unverified allegations linking Trump to Russia, Bloomberg News reported
Tuesday.
BuzzFeed News had published the controversial document a year ago, while Fusion GPS was the
political research firm behind the dossier.
"It will be proven that I had no involvement in this Russian collusion conspiracy," Cohen
told Bloomberg. "My name was included only because of my proximity to the president."
Cohen's lawsuit against BuzzFeed names editor in chief Ben Smith, editors Miriam Elder and
Mark Schoofs and reporter Ken Bensinger. All four were the bylines on the site's story
publishing the dossier.
Looks like Steele dossier became too hot topic for some Democrats and they need to leak information that might soften the blows ...
Notable quotes:
"... Christopher Steele, decided to approach the FBI in July 2016 to brief the bureau on his findings about Trump. ..."
"... The marathon conversation between Simpson and lawmakers touched on delicate territory while leaving tantalizing details hanging, including the identity of a person inside the Trump circle who Simpson says provided information to U.S. investigators. ..."
"... But as Bloomberg notes, in the August interview, Simpson and his lawyer, asked repeatedly who commissioned research into the presidential candidate, declined to name them. Simpson also demurred when asked to provide specifics about people who provided information to Steele. ..."
The full transcript details Glenn Simpson's August 22 interview. It shows that Simpson told
the Senate Judiciary Committee that the author of the dossier, former British spy Christopher
Steele, decided to approach the FBI in July 2016 to brief the bureau on his findings about
Trump.
"He thought from his perspective there was an issue -- a security issue about whether a
presidential candidate was being blackmailed," Simpson said. He added that when Steele met with
an FBI official in September, the official told Steele the bureau "had other intelligence about
this matter from an internal Trump campaign source."
The marathon conversation between Simpson and lawmakers touched on delicate territory while
leaving tantalizing details hanging, including the identity of a person inside the Trump circle
who Simpson says provided information to U.S. investigators.
... ... ...
But as Bloomberg notes, in the August interview, Simpson and his lawyer, asked repeatedly
who commissioned research into the presidential candidate, declined to name them. Simpson also demurred when asked to provide specifics about people who provided information
to Steele.
... ... ...
The 35-page report drew on information from Russian contacts and concluded that Russia had
been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" Trump for at least five years and fed his campaign
"valuable intelligence" about Clinton.
Trump has derided the findings, as recently as Dec. 26 when he wrote on Twitter: "'Dossier
is bogus. Clinton Campaign, DNC funded Dossier. FBI CANNOT (after all of this time) VERIFY
CLAIMS IN DOSSIER OF RUSSIA/TRUMP COLLUSION. FBI TAINTED.'
... ... ...
The_Juggernaut -> forexskin • Jan 9, 2018 2:41 PM Permalink
Looking forward to someone wading through 312 pages of bullshit blathering to identify
what's worth seeing here. My guess is it's all three levels of hearsay.
Deep State front, paid to do whatever, by any side, in order to do the bidding of the Deep
State and provide plausible deniability. If democrats have to be sacrificed to quiet things
down, that's what they'll do. They'll also analyze the errors they've made over the past
2-3 years and try not to repeat them again.
Just emailed and called Feinstein's office, had to call LA as the DC line was all backed
up. Said that by helping those who compiled the Steele dossier which was sourced from the
Kremlin she committed obstruction of justice and treason. I asked if she knows the penalty
for treason.
Seems obvious Feinstein wanted to telegraph the Fusion GPS testimony to corrupt the
testimony of future witnesses, to obstruct justice and to protect Hillary.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) ripped ranking member of the House Intel Committee and suspected
leaker Adam Schiff (D-CA) Sunday in a Fox News appearance.
Gowdy told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that Adam Schiff makes unsubstantiated claims about the
Trump-Russia hoax to further his bid for a U.S. Senate seat.
Maria Bartiromo said to Trey Gowdy, "How long is this going to go on? Because we still
haven't had any evidence of any collusion. When is it appropriate for Bob Mueller to come out
and say, yes, definitively there's no collusion here, but what I have uncovered is collusion at
the top of the FBI between FBI leadership and Hillary Clinton."
Gowdy responded by blasting Adam Schiff.
"Well Maria some of my Democratic colleagues, namely Adam Schiff, said he had evidence, more
than circumstantial evidence of collusion, before the investigation even began so keep that in
mind," Gowdy said.
Dee Plorable • 2 days ago
Schiff is as despicable as they come. He knew from day one this was a non fact based witch
hunt to divert from his floundering DEMONcratic Party. Yet in Oscar worthy performances he
feigns outrage at the President. He tried Forcing Nunes off the investigation but it only
slowed Devin down for a few weeks whereupon he returned more determined ... Fact is Nunes is
back and exposing the real collusion ... involving hugh ranking members of the Clinton
Foundatin & Obama administration ... including the two at the top, Clinton &
Obama
FDNYpatriot • 2 days ago
Blah blah blah, Gowdy had his chance, I had high hopes then. He's all bark and no bite, I
want to see some of these people go to jail, not get the Lerner treatment.
PDXPapaG > FDNYpatriot • 2 days ago
Gowdy is a member of the House and can't indict anyone, let alone prosecute them. Somebody
wake up Jeff Sessions and tell him there is no collusion so he can un-recuse himself now and
do his damn job instead of harassing a person growing a few extra marijuana plants in their
garden.
Lunagirl > PDXPapaG • a day ago
Read Conservative Treehouse today and the below link. I am pretty cynical but I think this
whole thing is going to blow wide open when the IG report comes out, which is why Trump is
not sounding off on Sessions. They are waiting until the damning evidence is released by
Obama appointee Michael Horowitz. No one will be able to deny the horrifying truth of how the
DOJ/FBI and all of the executive branch agencies were weaponized under Obama. Now we know why
he wouldn't appoint an Inspector General the entire time Hillary was head of State. (See
second link).
Thank God Horowitz can do what should have been done then. Horowitz and Mike Rogers will
do down in history as American heroes.
Gowdy is like my neighbors little dog. Always barking and nipping at my ankles but never
biting.
totaldisgust > Up the Coast • 2 days ago
Gowdy cannot charge or prosecute, what he can do is get them to commit under oath on
record to their version of the truth, that is what is coming back to haunt them once the DOJ
gets back on track.
totaldisgust > Campaign Promises • a day ago
I don't equate DOJ with Sessions...and don't consider Pro Trump to equate to pro
establishment. Sessions is deep in the snake pit but that may not make him a snake. The DOJ
and FBI will not be allowed to continue as they have in the past. The swamp has way more
sludge than even Trump expected. I have no doubt it will get done. Trump tried relying on
Ryan and McConnell and he is done with that. Nunes, Jordan and others have picked up the ball
and ran with it. No lie just takes time.
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was
responding to the mounting
Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating.
The commentary is so dumbed down and
painfully
reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a
few exceptions -- above all Ann Coulter 's famous June 19, 2015
prediction of a Trump victory on
Bill Maher -- these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away,
first after he made this or that gaffe, then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people
actually started voting in the primaries.
The most interesting cases to me: the "
Republican strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion
that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson,
Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris.
Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the
next president -- [
Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22,
2016]
With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting
them, it was easy to assume they must know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of
these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues, and just as
horrified by "
racism " and " sexism
" as their
Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the "
strategic " advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these
positions. Their prominence was a mirage created by the fact that the MSM
handed this token opposition the Megaphone
because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the
bipartisan Ruling Class.
And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the
climax.
Joshua Green begins his book Devil's
Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a
view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that
point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual
biography of Steve Bannon,
with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.
Bannon
joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in
electoral politics. But like the candidate himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he
understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base
better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic
advice," and "analysis" was in reality built on a house of cards. (In fact, the
Bannon-Trump view of the electorate is closer to the consensus
among political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies,
Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [ Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two
Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).
Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you
always have a chance at winning when public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your
side.
Green traces Bannon's journey from his Irish-Catholic
working-class roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard
Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com and the pinnacle of American
politics. The picture
that emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that
is part of the human condition, with enough confidence to realize that life is too short to not
make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him to accomplish his
goals.
For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the
Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he
realized that the rigid bureaucracy
that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was
middle-aged. Decades later, after taking over his website upon the unexpected death of Andrew Breitbart in
2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk -- sticking to Establishment scripts, making life
comfortable for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left.
Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has
been remaking center-right politics across the globe.
When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as
a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up
twenty years."
From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he
was raised as a Roman Catholic and maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly
practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences that make
appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher Julius
Evola and
René Guénon, a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although
not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests reflect a curious mind that
refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.
It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention
of Bannon's personal life -- wives, children. I had to Google to find out that he has three
daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have influenced his
beliefs and political development.
Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his
relationships with consequential figures such as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and
Donald Trump.
As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the
movement he's helped to create accomplish enough in the future to inspire more complete
biographies.
But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them:
despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and
the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this
Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have
been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of
effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that
undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump
presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing
a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final
days.
Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading
him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and
won, is over." [
Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]
But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact
that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it
has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP
strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.
In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat Buchanan writes about how, despite
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our
movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping
Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our
movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping
Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were veterans
of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We
lacked titles, resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could
seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared to that of the liberal Democrats
who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.
History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist
platform but find few qualified individuals who could reliably implement his agenda.
If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively
implement the policies they run on, they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious
project of working their way up through powerful institutions.
Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But
nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman
Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent and
free to pursue his political goals.
If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future
nationalist political victories will be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in
international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal .
@Clyde
Wilson Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the
offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly in this process in the spring, my impression is that
there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably one for
each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have
little doubt that the "Trump Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple
of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left little or no time replacing
The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely
filled with lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the
government than lawyers -- ? -- ?
At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years
experience in and around federal government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want
to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key motivator for my
application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In
retrospect, this "admission" was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww -- -- --
(I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was disqualified by my
support for Trump )
Many got the joke, however, many did not and it gained traction because it was "so plausible." This is what "confirmation bias"
is about.
Notable quotes:
"... The parody paragraphs, below, describe Trump's (fictitious) frustration at not having "the gorilla channel" available on his White House bedroom television, and his staffers' subsequent amusing attempt to appease him ..."
"... Some people online at first incorrectly thought that the passages were actually featured in Wolff's book, in which Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon makes claims about the probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election ..."
The parody paragraphs, below, describe Trump's (fictitious) frustration at not having "the gorilla channel" available on
his White House bedroom television, and his staffers' subsequent amusing attempt to appease him
Some people online at first incorrectly thought
that the passages were actually featured in Wolff's book, in which Trump's former chief strategist
Steve Bannon makes claims about the probe into Russian
meddling in the 2016 election.
On his first night in the White House, President Trump complained that the TV in his bedroom was broken, because it didn't
have "the gorilla channel". Trump seemed to be under the impression that a TV channel existed that screened nothing but gorilla-based
content, 24 hours a day.
To appease Trump, White House staff compiled a number of gorilla documentaries into a makeshift gorilla channel, broadcast
into Trump's bedroom from a hastily-constructed transmission tower on the South Lawn. However, Trump w as unhappy with the channel
they had created, moaning that it was "boring" because "the gorillas aren't fighting".
Staff edited out all the parts of the documentaries where gorillas weren't hitting each other, and at last the president was
satisfied. "On some days he'll watch the gorilla channel for 17 hours straight," an insider told me. "He kneels in front of the
ТV with his face about four inches from the screen, and says encouraging things to the gorillas, like 'the way you hit that other
gorilla was good'. I think he thinks the gorillas can hear him."
Many got the joke, however, but said it gained traction because it was "so plausible."
"... the premise underpinning its sourcing (that the Russian intelligence service provided access to what would be one of its most sensitive operations to a Maltese academic and a minor American advisor) is patently absurd ..."
"... On its surface, the wild claims made by Papadopoulos, as reported by Downer, are of a similarly poor quality as the information that underpinned the pitch made by the British publicist, Robert Goldstone , that put the Fusion GPS-affiliated Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, in contact with Donald Trump, Jr., on June 9. ..."
"... The Goldstone information is eerily like the information provided by Christopher Steele himself in his report of June 20: "A dossier of compromising material on Hillary Clinton has been collated (sic) by the Russian Intelligence Services over many years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various trips to Russia and intercepted phone calls." Mr. Steele was contracted by Fusion GPS sometime after June 17; less than three days later, he was able to produce a report that made use of no fewer than seven named senior sources, as well as making use of a "company ethnic Russian operative" to conduct an investigation inside Russia. This time frame is unrealistically short, suggesting that Steele himself was spoon fed a pre-packaged storyline -- in short, "Kremlin disinformation." Seen in this light, the Papadopoulos story is more about a Russian campaign to neutralize a future American president as part of its ongoing effort to undermine American power and prestige than it is about collusion between this candidate and Russia to get him elected. That the FBI, and others, would rely on such information to actively undermine the legitimacy of a duly elected American president remains a topic which Republicans in Congress would do well to continue to investigate. ..."
The latest narrative about GPS Fusion and the Steele dossier doesn't pass the smell test.
•
January 8, 2018
Credit:
Andrea Izzatti/Shutterstock
The
New York Times
has delivered a one-two punch to critics of the role played by the so-called "Steele Dossier" in influencing the FBI's
decision to launch a criminal investigation into the possibility of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia to
influence the 2016 election.
The narrative that emerges from these two sources is that Republican supporters of
Donald Trump are overstating the role the dossier played in shaping the FBI's investigation. This is being echoed,
without question, in mainstream media as fact. Yet his narrative, however nicely packaged and rational it may seem, does
not hold up to even the most basic scrutiny.
The heart of the
New York Times'
story rests on the role played by an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who since 2014 has served as Australia's
High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, in triggering the FBI's decision to investigate possible collusion. The genesis
of this saga took place on April 26, 2016, when George Papadopoulos, a member of Trump's foreign advisory team, met with
Joseph Mifsud, an obscure former Maltese diplomat who taught international relations at the University of Sterling, in
Scotland. Mifsud was a frequent attendee of the
Valdai
Discussion Club
, an annual conference held in Sochi, Russia, where Russian
President Vladimir Putin often spoke. In an email to Papadopoulos dated April 11, Mifsud claimed that he was travelling
to Russia on April 18 to attend a
Valdai
meeting
, and to meet with members of the Russian Parliament.
Papadopoulos and Mifsud had met several times since their introduction in March of
2016, where the focus of their efforts revolved around arranging a meeting between Trump and Russian officials to
discuss the possibility of improving U.S.-Russian relations should Trump be elected. Despite push-back from senior Trump
advisors, including
current
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
(who in effect told Papadopoulos to stand
down on any attempt to arrange a meeting between Trump and the Russians), Papadopoulos continued to pursue the subject
with Mifsud. At the April 26 meeting, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that he had just returned from Moscow where, among other
things, he had been told by high-level Russian government officials that Russia had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, including
"thousands of emails" (this description was provided
by
Papadopoulos to the FBI
during an interview conducted on January 27, 2017 -- nine
months after the fact). The next day, April 27, Papadopoulos emailed the Trump campaign about the meeting -- no reference
was made about the Mifsud's explosive claims; indeed, there is no record of Papadopoulos ever communicating Mifsud's
information about "dirt" to anyone in the Trump campaign at any time.
Fast forward three weeks. Papadopoulos had sent a series of emails to the Trump
campaign, pressing the issue of a meeting between Trump and the Russians; all had been ignored. Papadopoulos met with
Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat, over drinks, during which time Papadopoulos allegedly passed on Mifsud's
claims that Russia had "dirt," in form of "thousands of emails," on Clinton. Downer was clearly not impressed with
Papadopoulos's information; it took two months before the Aussie diplomat put pen to paper, and dispatched a cable to
Canberra where he reportedly recounted the conversation. The
New York Times
,
citing four unnamed sources, claims that the Downer cable was forwarded by the Australian government to the FBI, where
it, rather than the Steele dossier, served as one of the driving factors behind the FBI's decision to investigate the
Trump campaign. What gave the Downer cable its import, the
New York Times
claimed, was that it arrived in the FBI's hands right around the same time -- July 22, 2016 -- when Wikileaks began releasing
thousands of emails sourced to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). "It's around this same time," Mark Mazzetti, one
of the journalists who broke the Downer story,
told
Rachel Maddow
, "that the DNC emails are leaking out over the internet, so it
is possible, although we haven't confirmed this yet, that this becomes public, and the Australian government realizes
what it is sitting on, and it notifies the US government."
On the surface, the logic of the
New York
Times'
story appears unassailable -- the cause-effect relationship alone would
seem to justify alarms being sounded in the FBI. The problem with this narrative, however, is that this cause-effect
relationship
does not exist
. Of the
27,500 emails sourced from the DNC that were eventually released by Wikileaks,
21,800
were written
after
April 29
-- three
days
after
Mifsud allegedly informed
Papadopoulos about the existence of Russian "dirt". Indeed,
nine
of the ten "most damaging" emails
released by Wikileaks were written
after
April 29. Whatever the source of the
"dirt" Mifsud allegedly referenced during his April 26 meeting with Papadopoulos was, it was not referring to the hacked
DNC emails, if for no other reason, that these emails had not even been accessed by parties outside the DNC at that
time. There simply is no connection between the information contained in the Downer cable and the Wikileaks documents,
no matter how hard the
New York Times
tries to make such a link stick.
That the FBI would have used the Downer cable as the catalyst around which it would
launch a criminal investigation into Trump's campaign is facially absurd -- a single uncorroborated source, based upon an
alcohol-fueled conversation that had transpired two months before the cable was drafted, is not the basis upon which
such a politically sensitive initiative would be undertaken. One of the principle tenets of assessing raw intelligence
information, such as that contained in the Downer cable, is whether the actors involved could plausibly have had access
to that which is claimed. Russia, like the United States, treats intelligence derived from communications
intercepts -- including cyber operations -- as among the most sensitive, and therefore highly classified, sources. The notion
that the existence of information that would amount to the crown jewels of the Russian intelligence service would be
handed over to an obscure non-Russian professor to share with a low-level American campaign advisor represents the kind
of red flag that any intelligence analyst worthy of the title would raise when evaluating the Downer cable.
Despite this glaring reality, the
New York
Times
reported that "once the information Mr. Papadopoulos had disclosed to
the Australian diplomat reached the FBI, the bureau opened an investigation that became one of its most closely guarded
secrets." The impetus behind this investigation, the
Times
reported, "was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled
by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America's closest
intelligence allies."
The conclusion reached by the paper was parroted three days later when it published an
op-ed written by the co-founders of Fusion GPS, the firm that contracted the Steele dossier. "We don't believe the
Steele dossier was the trigger for the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling," Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch
wrote. "As we told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August, our sources said the dossier was taken so seriously because
it corroborated reports the bureau had received from other sources, including one inside the Trump camp." It is presumed
that the Fusion GPS founders were referring to the Downer cable.
"The intelligence committees," Simpson and Fritsch stated, "have known for months that
credible allegations of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia were pouring in from independent sources during the
campaign. Yet lawmakers in the thrall of the president continue to wage a cynical campaign to portray us as the
unwitting victims of Kremlin disinformation."
"Kremlin disinformation" is the best way to describe the information contained in the
Downer cable; it is clearly not linked to the DNC hacks (despite the
New York
Times'
efforts to establish such), and the premise underpinning its sourcing
(that the Russian intelligence service provided access to what would be one of its most sensitive operations to a
Maltese academic and a minor American advisor) is patently absurd.
On its surface, the wild claims made by Papadopoulos,
as reported by Downer, are of a similarly poor quality as the information that underpinned
the
pitch made by the British publicist, Robert Goldstone
, that put the Fusion
GPS-affiliated Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, in contact with Donald Trump, Jr., on June 9.
The Goldstone information is eerily like the information provided by Christopher
Steele himself in his report of June 20: "A dossier of compromising material on Hillary Clinton has been collated (sic)
by the Russian Intelligence Services over many years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various trips
to Russia and intercepted phone calls." Mr. Steele was contracted by Fusion GPS sometime after June 17; less than three
days later, he was able to produce a report that made use of no fewer than seven named senior sources, as well as making
use of a "company ethnic Russian operative" to conduct an investigation inside Russia. This time frame is
unrealistically short, suggesting that Steele himself was spoon fed a pre-packaged storyline -- in short, "Kremlin
disinformation." Seen in this light, the Papadopoulos story is more about a Russian campaign to neutralize a future
American president as part of its ongoing effort to undermine American power and prestige than it is about collusion
between this candidate and Russia to get him elected. That the FBI, and others, would rely on such information to
actively undermine the legitimacy of a duly elected American president remains a topic which Republicans in Congress
would do well to continue to investigate.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing
arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
He is the author of
Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War
(Clarity Press, 2017).
A Justice Department official demoted late last year for concealing his meetings with the
men behind the anti-Trump "dossier" has been stripped of yet another title, Fox News has
learned.
Bruce Ohr is no longer head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.
Separately, sources familiar with the discussions tell Fox News that the Justice Department
is expected to comply with demands from the House Intelligence Committee to provide Ohr for an
interview. He is scheduled to visit the committee on Jan. 17, sources said.
"... So he might be provided not only with the money, but also with the draft with the key "talking points." Which, taking into account that Fusion GPS already did some work before Steele emerged in this story, is not surprising. So Steele key role was to increase credibility of the "dossier" and may be embellish pre-existing "talking points", not to find any information. That also helps to explain why Glenn Simpson looks like a cornered rat and why FBI did not responded to Nunes' subpoenas ..."
"... Please also note how adamantly Brenner denied his role in "leaking" of the dossier. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/john-brennan-cia-trump-dossier-leak-233674 ..."
"... This "three days" finding makes the hypothesis that the creation of the dossier was directly connected with the efforts to put Trump team under surveillance more plausible. ..."
"... The idea that the former MI6 agent did, in fact, have his own network of highly-placed Russian officials looks like fiction. That's James Bond level staff. Gossip with drunken Russian emigrants in London pubs is probably the highest level of government officials he could get. ..."
"... Shouldn't the Clintons and their foundation also be investigated, given the voluminous amounts of cash they received from various Russian interests over the years? ..."
"... The US and particularly the democrats have spied on and/or interfered in the elections of a great many ally nations and enemy nations. Obama has a very intimate interest in Justin Trudeau (Canada) and Angela Merkel (Germany) both of whom are pro-muslim and have let in huge amounts of African, arab and central asian muslims. ..."
"... There has never been any question about the US spying on and/or interfering with the elections of other nations before Trump. Obama didn't get that scrutiny. GBushII and Bill/Hillary Clinton didn't get that scrutiny and neither did Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and GBushI. ..."
"... If we are doing it for national security and its fact finding then sure but if its just a fox hunt to stall a presidency and fodder for a new cycle ..."
"... I fear that partisanship is becoming increasingly divisive in our nation. Since the end of WW II, the parties have practically alternated the White House every eight years. We are possibly headed toward a situation where the losing side will be subjected to investigation after investigation in an effort by the ruling party to totally discredit the other guys. ..."
"... Sooner or later, a cop and a prosecutor will be found that are willing to use the resources of government to please the head of government. Sooner or later, a head of government will use the enormous investigative powers of government to advance his party. I fear the dawn of an American version of show trials. ..."
"... The whole "Russia ate our homework" fiasco demonstrates once again that, save a military invasion, the greatest threat to our democracy is always the our own government. The Democrats may think it was patriotic for the Obama admin to spy on the Trump campaign, using government intelligence assets, but they are beyond stupid. What makes them think Trump or some future president won't do the same to them? It time to reign in our surveillance state. It is the greatest threat to our democracy ..."
"Mr. Steele was contracted by Fusion GPS sometime after June 17; less than three days later,
he was able to produce a report that made use of no fewer than seven named senior sources, as
well as making use of a "company ethnic Russian operative" to conduct an investigation inside
Russia. "
This "less then three days" finding is important.
In view of this finding it is logical to assume that Steele was just a patsy of more
powerful forces. And this also provides an alternative explanation why he went into hiding
after his name was revealed (it still does not explain why he emerged from hiding in just
three months and what was the trigger.)
So he might be provided not only with the money, but also with the draft with the key
"talking points." Which, taking into account that Fusion GPS already did some work before
Steele emerged in this story, is not surprising. So Steele key role was to increase
credibility of the "dossier" and may be embellish pre-existing "talking points", not to find
any information. That also helps to explain why Glenn Simpson looks like a cornered rat and
why FBI did not responded to Nunes' subpoenas :
"Nunes' subpoenas, to which the DOJ and FBI apparently did not respond by the September
1 deadline, also covered documents "memorializing FBI's relationship with Mr. Steele, any
payments made to Mr. Steele, and efforts to corroborate information provided by Mr. Steele
and his sub-sources -- whether directly or via Fusion GPS."
http://www.businessinsider.com/devin-nunes-jeff-sessions-fbi-chris-wray-trump-russia-dossier-2017-9
This "three days" finding makes the hypothesis that the creation of the dossier was
directly connected with the efforts to put Trump team under surveillance more
plausible.
The idea that the former MI6 agent did, in fact, have his own network of highly-placed
Russian officials looks like fiction. That's James Bond level staff. Gossip with drunken
Russian emigrants in London pubs is probably the highest level of government officials he
could get.
All of these questions surrounding Trump and Russia are compelling, but they do beg certain
other questions:
Who gave the Russian government more tangible help: The Trump administration in 2017, or
the Obama administration, including Secretary Clinton, from 2009 to around 2013?
Shouldn't the Clintons and their foundation also be investigated, given the voluminous
amounts of cash they received from various Russian interests over the years?
And if any federal crimes were committed, directly or indirectly related to Russia, what
statutes are involved here?
Trump and Russia is such cow manure. The US and particularly the democrats have spied on
and/or interfered in the elections of a great many ally nations and enemy nations. Obama has
a very intimate interest in Justin Trudeau (Canada) and Angela Merkel (Germany) both of whom
are pro-muslim and have let in huge amounts of African, arab and central asian muslims.
There has never been any question about the US spying on and/or interfering with the
elections of other nations before Trump. Obama didn't get that scrutiny. GBushII and
Bill/Hillary Clinton didn't get that scrutiny and neither did Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan
and GBushI.
If we are doing it for national security and its fact finding then sure but if its
just a fox hunt to stall a presidency and fodder for a new cycle (which is what it seems
to be) then I think Sessions and Rosenstein need to go and big howitzers like Guiliani need
to be brought in, line up the ducks and clean house.
I fear that partisanship is becoming increasingly divisive in our nation. Since the end
of WW II, the parties have practically alternated the White House every eight years. We are
possibly headed toward a situation where the losing side will be subjected to investigation
after investigation in an effort by the ruling party to totally discredit the other
guys.
Sooner or later, a cop and a prosecutor will be found that are willing to use the
resources of government to please the head of government. Sooner or later, a head of
government will use the enormous investigative powers of government to advance his party. I
fear the dawn of an American version of show trials.
I wish that Ken Starr had ended his investigation after finding no indictable actions in
Whitewater. We are not angels. Pursuing everything will discredit everything.
The whole "Russia ate our homework" fiasco demonstrates once again that, save a military
invasion, the greatest threat to our democracy is always the our own government. The
Democrats may think it was patriotic for the Obama admin to spy on the Trump campaign, using
government intelligence assets, but they are beyond stupid. What makes them think Trump or
some future president won't do the same to them? It time to reign in our surveillance state.
It is the greatest threat to our democracy
Too little, too late. Also Bannon by demonizing Russians has shown that his is a dangerous warmonger. And a weak
politician.
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends. ..."
"... Bannon released the statement after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon "Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller, the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to Wolff as "grotesque." ..."
The former White House aide said Donald Trump Jr. is a "patriot and a good man."
Steve Bannon backpedaled on comments to journalist Michael Wolff, whose explosive new book
sparked
a backlash against the former top Donald Trump aide over his remarks about a meeting at
Trump Tower in June 2016. According to the book, released a week early due to high demand, the
former White House strategist called the infamous meeting in New York between Donald Trump Jr.
and Russian operatives at Trump Tower "treasonous."
In a
statement to Axios on Sunday, Bannon heaped praise on Trump and his agenda, and called Don
Jr. a "patriot and a good man." "My comments about the meeting with Russian nationals came from
my life experiences as a Naval officer stationed aboard a destroyer whose main mission was to
hunt Soviet submarines to my time at the Pentagon during the Reagan years when our focus was
the defeat of 'the evil empire' and to making films about Reagan's war against the Soviets and
Hillary Clinton's involvement in selling uranium to them, " Bannon said in the statement.
Bannon
added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign
manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the
Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower
meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have
known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends.
To reiterate, those comments (about
the meeting with the Russians) were not aimed at Don Jr." In the statement, Bannon again denied
that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. And though he did not deny any of the remarks
that were attributed to him in the book, Bannon said he regretted "that my delay in responding
to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has diverted attention from the president's
historical accomplishments in the first year of his presidency."
Bannon released the statement
after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon
"Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller,
the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to
Wolff as "grotesque."
Earlier Sunday, Trump railed about what he called Wolff's "Fake Book" on
Twitter:
Looks like classic, textbook case of entrapment...
Notable quotes:
"... Strzok also played a key role in analyzing and validating the Dodgy Dossier that was given to the FBI by operatives of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which has been used to get FISA search warrants to spy on Trump confidants during and after the presidential campaign. ..."
"... Strzok is the same agent ..."
"... When Flynn was interviewed at the White House by the FBI on January 24th , he had no idea he was entering an interrogation. He was initially contacted by Deputy FBI Director Andrew Macabe, by phone, to tell him that there were some FBI agents on their way over and that they had clearance to get through the gate. Flynn thought that the agents were coming over to do some additional training of security protocols around the White House that had been going on through the previous week so he was completely unprepared for the interrogation. He did not realize he was even being interviewed until a few minutes into a conversation with the FBI agents at his office. He did not have an attorney present, or was given the opportunity to have one. Instead, FBI agent Peter Strzok was successful in confusing and rattling General Flynn until he got the lie he was looking for. ..."
"... A former U.S. intelligence official told Hannity.com , "with the recent revelation that Strzok was removed from the Special Counsel investigation for making anti-Trump text messages it seems likely that the accuracy and veracity of the Flynn's interview as a whole should be reviewed and called into question. The most logical thing to happen would be to call the other FBI Special Agent present during Flynn's interview before the Grand Jury to recount his version. How logical is it that Flynn is being charged for lying to an agent whose character and neutrality was called into question by the Special Counsel." ..."
"... The FBI surveillance of General Flynn began out of an illegal unmasking of Trump associates and presidential campaign staff by Obama's National Security Advisor Susan Rice during the 2016 election, and due to the now discredited DNC funded Dodgy Dossier. So the Obama administration illegally surveil the incoming NSA Advisor and then use it to set up a perjury trap for Flynn who is engaged in perfectly legal and patriotic activity. #entrapment#BSIndictment#set- up. ..."
The FBI has gone light on Democrats such as Hillary Clinton in the past but they have been
going after Trump associates with a vengeance. A clear example of partisan prosecution is
evidenced by the man who was sent by Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller to interview General Flynn.
Strzok also played a key role in analyzing and validating the Dodgy Dossier that was
given to the FBI by operatives of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign,
which has been used to get FISA search warrants to spy on Trump confidants during and after the
presidential campaign.
Strzok is the same agent who altered former FBI Director James Comey's analysts of
the Clinton email server scandal that changed Comey's assessment of Hillary Clinton from
"grossly negligent" to "extremely careless,"
Why would Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller send a known Trump hater to interview Flynn? It is
another unethical and suspicious move by the special prosecutors office that makes us all
question their motives and integrity.
When Flynn was interviewed at the White House by the FBI on January 24th , he had no
idea he was entering an interrogation. He was initially contacted by Deputy FBI Director Andrew
Macabe, by phone, to tell him that there were some FBI agents on their way over and that they
had clearance to get through the gate. Flynn thought that the agents were coming over to do
some additional training of security protocols around the White House that had been going on
through the previous week so he was completely unprepared for the interrogation. He did not
realize he was even being interviewed until a few minutes into a conversation with the FBI
agents at his office. He did not have an attorney present, or was given the opportunity to have
one. Instead, FBI agent Peter Strzok was successful in confusing and rattling General Flynn
until he got the lie he was looking for.
A former U.S. intelligence official told Hannity.com , "with the recent revelation that Strzok was removed
from the Special Counsel investigation for making anti-Trump text messages it seems likely that
the accuracy and veracity of the Flynn's interview as a whole should be reviewed and called
into question. The most logical thing to happen would be to call the other FBI Special Agent
present during Flynn's interview before the Grand Jury to recount his version. How logical is
it that Flynn is being charged for lying to an
agent whose character and neutrality was called into question by the Special
Counsel."
The FBI surveillance of General Flynn began out of an illegal unmasking of Trump associates
and presidential campaign staff by Obama's National Security Advisor Susan Rice during the 2016
election, and due to the now discredited DNC funded Dodgy Dossier. So the Obama administration
illegally surveil the incoming NSA Advisor and then use it to set up a perjury trap for Flynn
who is engaged in perfectly legal and patriotic activity. #entrapment#BSIndictment#set-
up.
After an election has been decided, a president-elect, and his staff, have the absolute
right to communicate with dignitaries, future co-workers or exiting employees, in their
transition into office, especially for someone like Flynn who was a leading member of Trumps
transition team. Any member of the presidential transition team is a federal government
employee, paid by the federal government, and they possess a federal email address.
It is common practice for candidates and president-elects to use emissaries with foreign
leaders during a campaign and during the transition, and it is perfectly legal to have
diplomatic back channel communications while president elect, especially if the prior
administration is passing laws during their last month in office that they know are contrary to
the next administrations policies.
Candidates often meet with world leaders throughout an election campaign to show the public
that they are capable of international negotiations. It's hardly a case of treason. If so,
Obama should be in jail for the rest of his life for the grand diplomatic tour he took during
his presidential campaign. To threaten Flynn with a 5-year prison sentence for making a phone
call to a diplomat during the presidential transition term seems extreme – and
politically motivated.
During Obama's 2008 presidential election, CNN reported, " Obama is expected to meet
Israel's top leaders : President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister
Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu; and
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salaam Fayad. Obama can expect
a friendly reception in Europe, where he will meet Thursday with German Chancellor Angela
Merkel. In addition to Merkel, Obama is slated to meet with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
and Conservative Party Leader David Cameron as well as French President Nicolas Sarkozy."
Flynn and the Trump administration had good reason for reaching out to Russia. They were
requesting that Russia does not retaliate for the recent sanctions Obama placed on their
country on the last days of his presidency. Just a few days after Trump won the presidential
election, his team cautioned the Obama administration to not pursue any new damaging foreign
policy initiatives that did not align with President Trumps priorities, but within his last
month in office, during the transition, Obama enacted new sanctions against Russia, for
apparent meddling in the U.S election.
What a wonderfully clear and uncompromising analysis of the current political situation in
the US. And done by two of the sharpest and most charismatic truth-telling figures of the
news landscape! Thank you both, it's such a pleasure to listen to you. I pray to our God that
2018 will be the year that sees the beginning of the swamp draining! God bless you both and
God bless America!
Take all of the clintons money, and don't let them leave the country. And never hold any
government position. And life probation and monitoring on their bank funds from their minimum
wage job. That would probably be the worst thing they could be made to experience. Reduced to
commoners.
I'm concerned, irrationally, about how much Stone is shining right now, as a person. Like
fire burning brightest before the light goes out. Christopher Lee was the same way; embraced
the youth culture, wore a funny hat, and did awesome things then died. I'm selfishly
desperate for Stone to stay alive and remain a champion in this fight.
Roger Stone continually blames Bannon as the one who brought globalist McMaster into the
Trump admin. Yet McMaster was the reason Bannon was booted out, because the two of them did
not agree on the agenda & did not get along. Doesn't make sense.
Sessions is a scum! He's a traitor, who needs to be brought up on charges. An act that
would kill two birds with one stone! Prove the Russian Wikileaks allocations fraudulent, and
get Sessions fired. Inturn getting us, an honest new AG!... Preferably one willing to do his
job!
This article is one year old but still looks like it was written yesterday...
Notable quotes:
"... Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. ..."
"... "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump." ..."
"... Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line. ..."
"... For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books. ..."
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile
strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve
agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan
Sheikhoun.
Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it
had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.
The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site
on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives.
Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been
provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose
mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's
determination to ignore the evidence.
"None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision
to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we
have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton
or Trump."
Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world's media was saturated with photographs and videos
from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms
of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White
Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.
........................
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html
Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in
the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake
the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays
Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria,
as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line.
For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker
refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home
at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books.
................
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/hershs-new-syria-revelations-buried-from-view/
White House Says It Will Fake "Chemical Weapon Attack" In Syria
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This
is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly
be to its disadvantage.
Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media
have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news.
Hirsh has been a thorn in the side of the national security state ever since his expose of
the My Lai massacre in 1969...and they're doing their best to shut him up.
"... Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves. ..."
"... He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons, no indictments were filed. ..."
"... Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair. ..."
"... Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes for President Donald J. Trump? ..."
There is a longtime and incestuous relationship between the fixers who have been tasked with taking down President Trump, under
the fake narrative of enforcing the law. James Comey worked in the DOJ directly under Mueller until 2005. Rod Rosenstein and Mueller
go even further back.
James Comey wasn't just some associate of Mueller back then, but rather his protégé. Under the George W. Bush presidency, when
Comey was serving as Deputy Attorney General under John Ashcroft, Robert Mueller was Comey's go-to guy when he needed help. The two
men, as it came to light years later, conspired to disobey potential White House orders to leave Ashcroft alone when he was incapacitated
in March of 2004. These two men, when together, will not obey orders if they think they know better. Being filled with hubris and
almost two decades of doing just about anything they want, they always think they know better.
Rod Rosenstein, current Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is also a member of the Mueller Gang, having
worked directly under Robert Mueller at the Department of Justice as far back as 1990. When Comey was still working as the Deputy
Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, Mueller and Rosenstein were becoming thick as thieves.
We look back at Rod's loyal work for Hillary Clinton, when he became a clean-up man for the Clinton Administration as an Associate
Independent Counsel from 1995 until 1997. He supervised the investigation that found no basis for criminal prosecution of White House
officials who had obtained classified FBI background reports. He did a great job covering for the Team Bill Clinton, including covering
for Hillary, as she was one of the people who had access to the reports, and may have even requested them. Convenient for the Clintons,
no indictments were filed.
Having proven his loyalty to the powers that be, Rosenstein was appointed to work in the US Office of the Independent Counsel
under Ken Starr on the Whitewater Investigation into then President Bill Clinton. By some miracle, or clever work by insiders, the
Clintons escaped culpability once again. Rod wasn't alone, he had help from his co-worker James Comey, who was also making sure the
Clintons were exonerated during the Whitewater affair.
Here is Robert Mueller, sitting in the middle of his two wunderkinds, making sure the path before them is smooth and obstacle
free, and practically shepherding their careers along the way. Is it any wonder that once Jeff Sessions shamelessly recused himself
from the Russia Collusion Conspiracy investigation and turned it over to his deputy Rod Rosenstein, that Rosenstein would reach out
to his old mentor for help? Who is surprised when three of the top lawman fixers for the Clinton/Bush cabal have axes in their eyes
for President Donald J. Trump?
Enter Lisa Barsoomian, wife of Rod Rosenstein. Lisa is a high-powered attorney in Washington, DC, who specializes in opposing
Freedom of Information Act requests on behalf of the Deep State, err, I mean, the Intelligence Communities.
Same question I have asked before, why are all these Clinton supporters and Obama clones still part of the Trump White House?
Why have they not been removed. It almost seems as if Trump is handing these people the rope they plan to hang him with. You can
bet the farm if Obama was still in office there would be no supporters of a previous Republican administration in his White House.
They would all have been shoved out the back door long ago. Is there no way either Trump or Sessions can get rid of these people?
And if not, why not?
The Trump administration is more than overloaded with Obama holdovers and you can bet none of them is there to help him enact
his America First agenda. Those people have been working to make sure it's "America Last" for decades now.
One wonders how long they will be able to keep pushing that famous non-event, the Trump/Russian collusion theory before they realize
that people are just not buying it anymore.
Years ago, and some of you all may remember it, there was a hamburger commercial on where a little old lady stepped up to the
counter and asked "Where's the beef?" Today the public could just as easily step up and ask the Establishment "Where's the evidence?"
when it comes to Trump and the Russians because all we have heard from the Trump detractors is lots of political bloviation all dressed
up in legalese--but no real evidence to back it up.
Might I suggest that Mr. Trump and/or Mr. Sessions see about removing these people that are willfully preventing the Trump administration
from doing what we elected it to do?
Send your letter modified to be a formal complaint. I have just sent the following letter to Rosenstein by Certified Mail so
that "Someone" needs to sign for it. U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Attention: Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ron Rosenstein, Esq.
August 10, 2017
Subject: Mr. Robert Mueller, Esq. serving as Special Council, and calling for a Grand Jury
Dear Mr. Deputy Attorney General:
I am writing to you primarily as a way to establish a historical record of your endeavor to investigate any collusion between
President Donald J. Trump and the Russians, during the 2016 Federal Election process. Your temporary responsibilities as acting
Attorney General caused you to be attuned to the entire Department of Justice case load. And so, you would be fully aware of all
facets of the Trump-Russia 2016 Election collision, if any. No collusion was discovered. And so, it would behoove the present
Attorney General Mr. Jeffrey Sessions, Esq., to un-recuse himself now that there is no evidence of a Trump felony. You, however,
Mr. Deputy Attorney General, are complicit with Attorney Robert Mueller, Esq. in establishing a Special Council and appointed
Mr. Mueller to that position.
It is known in public circles that Mr. Mueller is a close friend of former Dir. FBI, James B. Comey. When the President of
the United States, Donald Trump fired Comey, Attorney. Robert Mueller can be seen as an extremely biased prosecutor. Mueller's
assignment, at the suggestion of Comey and its actual enactment, is, in my opinion illegal.
The Special Council began his investigation in May 2016, it has been noted in the Main Stream Media. We are now almost midway
into August and there has been no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
I am aware that a Special Council is triggered by ongoing or previous criminal activity and is based upon hard evidence that
can be used to prosecute a felon. Yet Atty. Robert Mueller was made Special Council without any criminal activity performed by
a felon and without any evidence. And then, to establish a Grand Jury for the prosecution, that is totally out of line with ethical
justice and the Rule of Law. The final partisan development is that Special Council Mueller has moved the Grand Jury from Virginia
to Washington D. C., wherein he is likely to load the Grand Jury with Democrats who, politically are biased against President
Trump.
How is that possible at such a high level in the DOJ to allow such misdeeds of justice? The complicit activity described in
the body of this letter is the criminal activity, in my opinion. No, the Mueller investigation and Grand Jury is not a witch hunt.
Rather it is a stronger term, a Vendetta.
Alan Dale Rhoads, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, Oreland, PA, 19075-1401
Lisa Barsoomian, Rod Rosenstein's wife was FBI FOiA Shot Blocker and
covert communication masking official. Did Rosenstein mention her FBI
oversight duties yesterday?
you don't think that maybe this is a honeypot? I think these over zealous criminals are creaming their pants and hanging themselves,
remember Rogers and the NSA be listening to err thing in the house
Deeply disturbing but not surprising. Rosenstein struck me immediately as another one just like Andrew McCabe, who supposedly
was investigating Hilary's infamous server -- he's married to a Virginia Democrat candidate
though this MSM once-over, like all the others, won't go anywhere near the curious fact that the FBI never actually examined
the server, it took the word of Google-funded puppet Crowdstrike, which just happens to be run by a famously anti-Russian activist
and Terry McAuliffe does seem to lead the charmed life doesn't he? His career seems to be a laundry list of grossly unethical
but just-not-quite-illegal behavior...I guess it helps to have friends in high places.
Roger stone overplays Uranium one deal for his own partisan purposes. But he is write in his assessment of the
"Appointment of the Special Prosecutor gambit".
Notable quotes:
"... This incredible scheme perpetrated by the criminal Clintons and their coterie of minions and fellow travelers, implicates top officials of our federal government including and especially the U.S Department of Justice, including and especially Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Mueller's decades as an establishment federal careerist, which only ended with his ceding of the FBI's top job to his good pal, criminal leaker and manipulator Big Jim Comey, offer more than enough grounds for Mueller's disqualification for merely the appearances of impropriety and professional conflicts of interest they raise, just at the outset. ..."
"... That Mueller took the Special Counsel appointment without even blinking, despite his own close professional and personal connections to key figures implicated in the DOJ, NSA and FBI corruption in service to ulterior partisan ends, via the Clinton crime family, was a major red flag, right from the beginning. ..."
"... Reinforcing this red flag was the fact that Mueller's entire (supposed) vetting for this sensitive, consequential special counsel position amounted a single-sentence approval letter signed by some faceless Deputy AG barely a day after the appointment was promulgated ..."
Conspiracy to overthrow elected president by criminal mafia confirmed
As I noted in an editorial last week, President Donald Trump has only one viable option to repel the partisan lynch mob now nipping
at his heels in the form of a taxpayer-funded pack of legal hyenas, masquerading as objective prosecutors under the droopy eyes of
old reliable deep state hatchet man Robert Swan Mueller III, the special counsel appointed to "investigate" the Clinton-Podesta-Schiff-Democrat
Party-Corporate Media fabricated Russia collusion delusion.
As the GOP Congress finally begins to stir, as rapid-fire events make it increasingly impossible to deny the true nature of Mueller's
handpicked partisan hit squad of Trump-hating, Hillary-supporting D.C. swamp lawyers and arrogant federal careerists, as firings
and other departures quickly erode the carefully-contrived, totally-counterfeit veneer of credibility ascribed to Mueller and his
henchpeople, my advice to the president has only become more apropos and more imperative.
President Trump can, and must, kill two birds with one stone.
First, the president must completely disempower and dismantle Robert S. Mueller's fraudulent rogue prosecution gang, which is
merely an extension of a larger corruption of power that is unparalleled in our history.
Second, the president must use every resource at his disposal to prosecute the almost-seditious abuses of power by lawless Clinton-Obama
FBI and NSA apparatchiks who:
Politically weaponized the federal government's electronic intelligence capabilities to spy on a presidential candidate and
his campaign,
Colluded with foreign and non-state intelligence agents to manufacture evidence used as false pretexts for securing FISA warrants(s)
that employed the national security laws of the United States to give illicit, illegal cover to this political espionage,
Used the fruits of this political espionage activity to damage or otherwise hinder this candidate once they had become president-elect
and eventually President of the United States through surreptitious releases of the criminally-procured information,
Fabricated and instigated false allegations about foreign state collusion implicating the president's election campaign and
family members, and
Perpetuated this massive criminal fraud on the American people for nearly a full year by manipulating and abusing the investigatory
and prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice.
To this end, President Trump must begin at the intersection of these seditious current and former federal officials who had previously
facilitated and covered up a similarly-breathtaking and brazen criminal fraud on the country during the previous presidential administration,
to include the previous president.
The president must order his Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to investigate the Obama-Clinton-Mueller-Rosenstein
criminal collusion that enriched the Clinton-Democrat crime syndicate by 100s of millions of dollars and further embedded the power
of the deep state operators who facilitated what may be the most brazen of self-serving criminal treasons in American history: the
multi-billion-dollar Uranium One pay-to-play scam.
This incredible scheme perpetrated by the criminal Clintons and their coterie of minions and fellow travelers, implicates top
officials of our federal government including and especially the U.S Department of Justice, including and especially Robert Mueller
and Rod Rosenstein.
This course of action is manifestly in the best interests of this country and of justice. It is not some political maneuver against
the president's cynical partisan persecutors or some clever machination to spare his presidency from the illegitimate cabal that
is single-minded in its intent to fraudulently remove the president from office, by any means possible.
This action by the president is both legally and constitutionally necessary to preserve any remaining credibility in our institutions
of government, which now hinges on whether or not justice will, once and for all, be visited upon the Clintons and their well-placed
partisan accomplices, finally vindicating our system of law and justice after decades of brazen, yet-unpunished corruption that the
Clintons and their ilk have insinuated into these institutions, bringing unparalleled and a now-accelerating degradation to American
civic life itself.
Pro-active Republican lawmakers have already demanded the resignation of Robert Mueller, as a start, and are calling for a thorough
probe of his entire ad hoc operation, which is now coming apart at the seams with almost daily revelations of its rotten fraudulent
core.
Mueller's decades as an establishment federal careerist, which only ended with his ceding of the FBI's top job to his good pal,
criminal leaker and manipulator Big Jim Comey, offer more than enough grounds for Mueller's disqualification for merely the appearances
of impropriety and professional conflicts of interest they raise, just at the outset. They are of such incestuous nature as it concerns
key figures of the conspiracy to remove the president that Mueller should never even have been considered for appointment.
That Mueller took the Special Counsel appointment without even blinking, despite his own close professional and personal connections
to key figures implicated in the DOJ, NSA and FBI corruption in service to ulterior partisan ends, via the Clinton crime family,
was a major red flag, right from the beginning.
Reinforcing this red flag was the fact that Mueller's entire (supposed) vetting for this sensitive, consequential special counsel
position amounted a single-sentence approval letter signed by some faceless Deputy AG barely a day after the appointment was promulgated.
Ohr's wife, Nellie, got a Ham radio license to work for Fusion GPS. Ham radio
communications are not monitored by the NSA. Let that sink in.
And let's not forget Strock's immediate superior, the forgotten man in all this, Mr. Bill
Preistap , director of counterintelligence who reports to Comey. It's impossible for Strzock
to spike the Clinton investigation without Preistap's approval. Reminder: Bill Preistap's
wife, Sabina Mencshel , is a Goldman Sach s' heiress, massive Hillary supporter, and she also
owns/runs the largest Private Detective agency in Washington, DC, which is saying
something.
Crooked was really supposed to win. Even a casual observer of news noticed the Russia
collusion was way over the top in the complete saturation for a year. Much to hide. At
minimum the top three positions at FBI and DOJ are corrupted by this. Crooked is well
Crooked, but the real reason is the reporters and actual media companies in this and that's
the reason for the over the top wailing and coverage...Good stuff and the Very Stable Genius
has known this since his March "wiretapped" tweet
"[A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who,
without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers
whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no
means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper."
--Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
"Controlling the narrative" is politically correct term for censorship.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or they feel personally wounded or threatened. ..."
"... "controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was). ..."
"... In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods. ..."
Maybe this is the same kind of clinical detachment doctors have to cultivate, a way of distancing oneself from the subject,
protecting yourself against a crippling empathy. I won't say that writers or artists are more sensitive than other people, but
it may be that they're less able to handle their own emotions.
It may be that art, like drugs, is a way of dulling or controlling pain. Eloquently articulating a feeling is one way to avoid
actually experiencing it.
Words are only symbols, noises or marks on paper, and turning the messy, ugly stuff of life into language renders it inert
and manageable for the author, even as it intensifies it for the reader.
It's a nerdy, sensitive kid's way of turning suffering into something safely abstract, an object of contemplation.
I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate
commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or
they feel personally wounded or threatened.
"controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the
USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was).
In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology
is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods.
They want to invoke your emotions in the necessary direction and those emotions serve as a powerful filter, a firewall which
will prevents you from seeing any alternative facts which taken as whole form an "alternative narrative".
It also creates certain taboo, such as "don't publish anything from RT", or you automatically become "Putin's stooge." But
some incoherent blabbing of a crazy neocon in Boston Globe is OK.
This is an old and a very dirty game, a variation of method used for centuries by high demand cults:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best
that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same way in any country."
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)
You need to be able to decipher this "suggested" set of emotions and detach it from the set of facts provided by neoliberal
MSM. It might help to view things "Sine ira et studio" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_ira_et_studio
)
That helps to destroy the official neoliberal narrative.
Here skepticism (whether natural or acquired) can be of great help in fighting groupthink pushed by neoliberal MSM.
We are all guilty of this one sidedness, but I think that we need to put some efforts to move in direction of higher level
of skepticism toward our own views and probably provide at least links to alternative views.
Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against
those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump
scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice,
which he regards as singularly unjust.
Now he is fraternizing with former enemy
Meantime the Trump machine, continues to function with indignant disdain toward the old Obama
establishment. As long as that lasts, he will thrive.
It was always about the money laundering.
From today's Guardian:
Trump predicted in an interview with the New York Times last week that the special counsel
was "going to be fair", though he also said the investigation "makes the country look very
bad". The president and his allies deny any collusion with Russia and the Kremlin has denied
interfering.
Bannon has criticised Trump's decision to fire Comey. In Wolff's book, obtained by the
Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes
for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.
"You realise where this is going," he is quoted as saying. "This is all about money
laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a
money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr
and Jared Kushner It's as plain as a hair on your face."
Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche
Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the
Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: "It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner
shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to
roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."
"... Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S. journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC. ..."
Reporters representing U.S. media outlets will be banned from Russian Parliament, in a
response for Russia's Kremlin-funded international TV news channel RT having its Congressional
press accreditation
stripped earlier this week.
A ban on attending sessions of the State Duma, the lower chamber of Russian Parliament, will
be introduced "for all U.S. media," Olga Savastyanova, head of the Duma's committee on
regulations and control, was quoted as saying by RBC news.
According to Savostyanova, the measure is Russia's "reciprocal response to the U.S.
Congress' decision" regarding RT. The restriction is expected to begin Dec. 6, after being
formally adopted by the Duma council and a plenary meeting.
Similarly, the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russian Parliament, will ban U.S.
journalists, but, due to procedural issues, the ban will be enacted later, on December 12, Igor
Morozov, a member of the Federation Council's international affairs committee, told RBC.
Many expected the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president in November 2016 to lead to
improved ties between Russia and the United States. That didn't happen.
Relations between Washington and Moscow are now at a nadir, not helped by Trump's recent
speech lumping in Russia with China as "rival powers" to the U.S. and the primary threats to
America's economic dominance in the world.
For Hollywood, which has relied on Russia as a significant market for its films and TV
series, 2018 is likely to bring more bad news and more challenges to doing business.
Kremlin watchers will be focused on March 18, the date of Russia's presidential election.
While the result is not in doubt -- Vladimir Putin is certain to secure another six-year term
-- it is anyone's guess how far President Putin will go in his "Russia First" policies of
economic nationalism.
After the 2012 election, for example, Putin took a sharply anti-Western stance, imposing new
restrictions on foreign companies working in Russia and cracking down on his country's mostly
pro-Western liberal opposition. Most observers expect this trend to continue in 2018.
The question is: How far will Putin go? Here is THR's look at three key challenges
for Hollywood in Russia that will be in focus next year.
New Taxes
Moscow's Russia First policy -- which Russia's government calls "import substitution" -- has
looked to the tax code as a way to protect the local film industry at the expense of Hollywood
and other foreign imports.
Russia backed down from a radical idea to hike the exhibition license fee for theatrical
releases in the country -- the fee, which is mandatory for a theatrical release in Russia, was
set to jump from 3,500 rubles ($60) to 5 million rubles ($85,000) -- but the ministry is still
adamant about taxing foreign releases in one way or another.
Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky, an ardent Russia First advocate keen to protect
homegrown films against the Hollywood invasion, is expected to lose his position in the new
cabinet, but his replacement will likely be drawn from the same conservative and anti-Western
contingent.
A proposal, introduced mid-December, would implement a 3 percent tax hike on all foreign
theatrical releases. Expect that to pass easily and go into law in early 2018.
"... Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies. ..."
"... Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production. ..."
"... Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario. ..."
"... Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists. ..."
"... I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s. ..."
"... Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist. ..."
"... If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector ..."
"... Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism? ..."
"... At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath ..."
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.
Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor
and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods
and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade.
It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies.
Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency
controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs
and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production.
Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury
holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario.
At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let the side taking by nations begin.
I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global power shifting and the US loses its empire status.
Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element.
I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection
of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.
Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by biases on others - him wanting total
economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the
regime. I mean, even Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.
Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to pick someone who's more realist
than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for him.
I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so,
then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China
and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment
by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan
in the 80s nd 90s.
@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through Breitbart. Suggested you read his world
view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute, Vatican Conference 2014
Progressives and Steve Bannon have something surprising in common: hating Wall Street
Pop quiz! Which major American political figure said the following:
"The 2008 crisis is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks."
"I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong."
"[N]ot one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis."
"The Republican Party "is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules"
and are "the reason that the United States' financial situation is so dire."
In the Vatican talk, Bannon described in length and detail how he views the biggest issues of the day:
He wants to tear down "crony capitalism": "a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and
creating value for a very small subset of people.[.]
He is against Ayn Rand's version of libertarianism: "The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing,
is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism.[.]
He believes the West needs to wage "a global war against Islamic fascism": "They have a Twitter account up today,
ISIS does, about turning the United States into a "river of blood" if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad.
And trust me, that is going to come to Europe.[.]
He believes the capitalism of the "Judeo Christian West" is in crisis: "If you look at the leaders of capitalism
at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost
all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West.[.]
He believes the racists that are attracted to Trump will become increasingly irrelevant: [.]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
this recent Bannon interview with The American Prospect will now go viral. Drudgereport headlines the WAPO spin.
Except for the selective Zion-flavored warmongering, Bannon appears to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Also crafty. Is
he not "Trump's Brain" in the way that Rove was Bush's Brain?
Agree. I think Bannon's quite bright and very very clever and crafty.
However, if anyone believes the lies he spewed yesterday about white supremacists, let me enlighten you that that's what's
called "good PR" or something. Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White Supremacy
in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess
some are willing to buy what he was selling yesterday. Not me.
The first group to call themselves Progressives were the 19th century Populists. Their mantle was adopted by T. Roosevelt and
other like-minded Republicans. Lafollette and Wallace are perhaps the best remembered Progressives--yes, FDR is portrayed as one,
but when examined really isn't: Eleanor was far more Progressive and since she was people also thought he was too. Once Wallace
was ousted from government, Democrats reverted to their old ways, although Truman did order the military to desegregate--perhaps
his only Progressive act. JFK was in the process of becoming a Progressive in the months prior to his murder. LBJ very reluctantly
made some Progressive noises in his War on Poverty that he was essentially forced into thanks to massive ethnic strife and related
riots during the 60s. But essentially since the beginning of WW2, Progressives and their goals vanished from the political landscape.
Nader brought it back to the fringe from the wilderness, but the so-called Progressive Caucus really isn't Progressive thanks
to its war promotion.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Steve Bannon; he certainly isn't a Progressive, but he doesn't seem to be a Regressive
either. The points he made at the Vatican Talk supplied by likklemore @28 are rather encouraging in an anti-Deep State manner.
So, his interaction with The American Prospect I don't see as surprising--he's seeking allies: "'It's a great honor to
finally track you [Robert Kuttner] down. I've followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when
it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it.'... Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration
while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me." I think Kuttner
will discover Bannon will "still [be] there" after Labor Day, so he might as well make his travel plans.
I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great display.
Read and understand as Bannon is proven right on events.
The $28 - trillion (US dollar) global bailouts in 2008 is proven to have failed. A handful on Wall Street became trillionaires
instead of being suited in special stripes.
Negative interest rates steal the retirement savings of seniors. Pensions and Insurance companies cannot meet promised payouts.
And all is fine. Corruption flourishes. Judeo-Christian moral values are not in crisis.
@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers...
but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used
the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him
a Nationalist.
@ 8 as you say... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values
of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist.
@ 9 If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector (see @28).
@28 Bannon would never call himself a Socialist, but the most logical expression of his individualist views when applied to
the business world are expressed by none other than Ayn Rand. The financial world simply got legal cover to act on the views that
he rails against. Bannon does not like what he sees when the rules he claims for himself are given to the rest of the world. Which
makes him an "Exceptionalist"??
Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism?
At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath.
I wish Robert Parry quick and full recovery after his minor stoke. He is a magnificent journalist !
Notable quotes:
"... In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called "Establishment McCarthyism, " traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives. ..."
"... This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about "Russian propaganda" and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks" by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact. ..."
"... For instance, PolitiFact still rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA. ..."
"... And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community. ..."
"... And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the Times has run favorable articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and other mainstream outlets deem false. ..."
"... Congress has authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts" to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy. ..."
"... And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press? ..."
"... So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism," a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged. ..."
In the past, America has witnessed "McCarthyism" from the Right and even complaints from the Right about "McCarthyism of the
Left." But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called
"Establishment McCarthyism,
" traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.
This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in
fright-filled stories about "Russian
propaganda" and wildly
exaggerated tales of the Kremlin's "hordes of Twitter bots," but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington's "groupthinks"
by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how
reasonable and well-researched – as "disputed" or "rated false" by mainstream "fact-checking" organizations like PolitiFact.
It doesn't seem to matter that the paragons of this new structure – such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and,
indeed, PolitiFact – have a checkered record of getting facts straight.
For instance, PolitiFact still
rates as "true" Hillary Clinton's false claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" agreed that Russia was behind the release
of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly
ran corrections after
President Obama's intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
called "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA.
And, the larger truth was that these "hand-picked" analysts were
sequestered away
from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced "stove-piped intelligence," i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth
that should occur inside the intelligence community.
Yet, the Times and other leading newspaper routinely treat these findings as flat fact or the unassailable "consensus" of the
"intelligence community." Contrary information, including WikiLeaks' denials of a Russian role in supplying the emails, and
contrary judgments from former
senior U.S. intelligence officials are ignored.
The Jan. 6 report also tacked on a seven-page addendum smearing the Russian television network, RT, for such offenses as sponsoring
a 2012 debate among U.S. third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates. RT also
was slammed for reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and the environmental dangers from "fracking."
How the idea of giving Americans access to divergent political opinions and information about valid issues such as income inequality
and environmental dangers constitutes threats to American "democracy" is hard to comprehend.
However, rather than address the Jan. 6 report's admitted uncertainties about Russian "hacking" and the troubling implications
of its attacks on RT, the Times and other U.S. mainstream publications treat the report as some kind of holy scripture that can't
be questioned or challenged.
Silencing RT
For instance, on Tuesday, the Times published a front-page story entitled "
YouTube Gave Russians Outlet
Portal Into U.S ." that essentially cried out for the purging of RT from YouTube. The article began by holding YouTube's vice
president Robert Kynci up to ridicule and opprobrium for his praising "RT for bonding with viewers by providing 'authentic' content
instead of 'agendas or propaganda.'"
The article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Nicholas Confessore swallowed whole the Jan. 6 report's conclusion that RT is "the Kremlin's
'principal international propaganda outlet' and a key player in Russia's information warfare operations around the world." In other
words, the Times portrayed Kynci as essentially a "useful idiot."
Yet, the article doesn't actually dissect any RT article that could be labeled false or propagandistic. It simply alludes generally
to news items that contained information critical of Hillary Clinton as if any negative reporting on the Democratic presidential
contender – no matter how accurate or how similar to stories appearing in the U.S. press – was somehow proof of "information warfare."
As Daniel Lazare wrote at Consortiumnews.com
on Wednesday, "The web version [of the Times article] links to an RT interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that ran shortly
before the 2016 election. The topic is a September 2014
email obtained by Wikileaks in which Clinton acknowledges that 'the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing clandestine
financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.'"
In other words, the Times cited a documented and newsworthy RT story as its evidence that RT was a propaganda shop threatening
American democracy and deserving ostracism if not removal from YouTube.
A Dangerous Pattern
Not to say that I share every news judgment of RT – or for that matter The New York Times – but there is a grave issue of press
freedom when the Times essentially calls for the shutting down of access to a news organization that may highlight or report on stories
that the Times and other mainstream outlets downplay or ignore.
And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the
Times has run favorable
articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and
other mainstream outlets deem false.
Nor is it just the Times. Last Thanksgiving, The Washington Post ran
a fawning front-page article
about an anonymous group PropOrNot that had created a blacklist of 200 Internet sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other
independent news sources, that were deemed guilty of dispensing "Russian propaganda," which basically amounted to our showing any
skepticism toward the State Department's narratives on the crises in Syria or Ukraine.
So, if any media outlet dares to question the U.S. government's version of events – once that storyline has been embraced by the
big media – the dissidents risk being awarded the media equivalent of a yellow star and having their readership dramatically reduced
by getting downgraded on search engines and punished on social media.
Meanwhile, Congress has
authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian "propaganda and disinformation," a gilded invitation for "scholars" and "experts"
to gear up "studies" that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – "Russia bad" – with credulous mainstream reporters
eagerly gobbling up the latest "evidence" of Russian perfidy.
There is also a more coercive element to what's going on. RT is facing demands from the Justice Department that it register as
a "foreign agent" or face prosecution. Clearly, the point is to chill the journalism done by RT's American reporters, hosts and staff
who now fear being stigmatized as something akin to traitors.
You might wonder: where are the defenders of press freedom and civil liberties? Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media or national
politics recognize the danger to a democracy coming from enforced groupthinks? Is American democracy so fragile that letting Americans
hear "another side of the story" must be prevented?
A Dangerous 'Cure'
I agree that there is a limited problem with jerks who knowingly make up fake stories or who disseminate crazy conspiracy theories
– and no one finds such behavior more offensive than I do. But does no one recall the lies about Iraq's WMD and other U.S. government
falsehoods and deceptions over the years?
Often, it is the few dissenters who alert the American people to the truth, even as the Times, Post, CNN and other big outlets
are serving as the real propaganda agents, accepting what the "important people" say and showing little or no professional skepticism.
And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren't liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical
examination of what's coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press?
The answer seems to be that many liberals and progressives are so blinded by their fury over Donald Trump's election that they
don't care what lines are crossed to destroy or neutralize him. Plus, for some liberal entities, there's lots of money to be made.
For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union has made its "resistance" to the Trump administration an important part of its
fundraising. So, the ACLU is doing nothing to defend the rights of news organizations and journalists under attack. When I asked
ACLU about the Justice Department's move against RT and other encroachments on press freedom, I was told by ACLU spokesman Thomas
Dresslar: "Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, I've been informed that we do not have anyone able to speak to you about
this."
Meanwhile, the Times and other traditional "defenders of a free press" are now part of the attack machine against a free press.
While much of this attitude comes from the big media's high-profile leadership of the anti-Trump Resistance and anger at any resistors
to the Resistance, mainstream news outlets have chafed for years over the Internet undermining their privileged role as the gatekeepers
of what Americans get to see and hear.
For a long time, the big media has wanted an excuse to rein in the Internet and break the small news outlets that have challenged
the power – and the profitability – of the Times, Post, CNN, etc. Russia-gate and Trump have become the cover for that restoration
of mainstream authority.
So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called "Establishment McCarthyism,"
a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don't get challenged.
George Papadopoulos ... in 03/06//16, he joined the Trump campaign as a low-level foreign
policy adviser.
Between 03/15/16 and 09/15/16 he tried six times to to arrange meetings between the
Trump campaign and Russians, all of them rejected.
On 04/26/16 he met with a Russian contact in London and was "reportedly" offered "dirt" on
Hillary.
05/21/16. According to Mueller's investigation, a Trump campaign official refused
Papadopoulos's offer to broker meetings with Russian officials.
09/15/16. Papadopoulos emailed a Russian contact, Boris Epshteyn, trying to connect him
with Sergei Milliam, author of much of the Fusion GPS "dossier".
01/27/17. Papadopoulos was interviewed by the FBI, which resulted in his eventual
indictment for lying to the Bureau.
As Pat Buchanan discusses above, on 12/30/17, the NYT's Maggie Haberman (known to be
linked with the DNC), marketed a narrative that the FBI opened its Trump investigation due to
Papadopoulos, and not because of the "dossier".
These dated facts are taken, mostly verbatim, from a timeline compiled by Doug Ross
I recommend his: A TIMELINE OF TREASON: How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a
Presidential Election [Updated Saturday, December 30, 2017].
It's an excellent account of the key events, from 05/31/13 to the present, with dates and
links to key documents.
You can find it at his dougross timelineoftreason website.
Many details surrounding the now-infamous "Trump Dossier," from who funded it to how exactly
it made it's way into the hands of the FBI and whether or not it was relied upon to secure FISA
warrants to spy on members of Trump's campaign, are critical to determining whether partisan
politics, or fact-based investigative work, drove the DOJ's initial efforts in its Russia
probe.
Now, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Judiciary Subcommittee
on Crime and Terrorism Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) say they've uncovered what they believe
is sufficient evidence to refer the author of the dossier, ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele, to
the Justice Department for an investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001
for false statements about the distribution of claims contained in the dossier.
"I don't take lightly making a referral for criminal investigation. But, as I would with any
credible evidence of a crime unearthed in the course of our investigations, I feel obliged to
pass that information along to the Justice Department for appropriate review," Grassley
said.
"Everyone needs to follow the law and be truthful in their interactions with the FBI. If the
same actions have different outcomes, and those differences seem to correspond to partisan
political interests, then the public will naturally suspect that law enforcement decisions are
not on the up-and-up. Maybe there is some innocent explanation for the inconsistencies we have
seen, but it seems unlikely. In any event, it's up to the Justice Department to figure that
out."
"After reviewing how Mr. Steele conducted himself in distributing information contained in
the dossier and how many stop signs the DOJ ignored in its use of the dossier, I believe that a
special counsel needs to review this matter. The rule of Law depends on the government and all
who work on its behalf playing by the rules themselves. I hope the Department of Justice will
carefully review our letter and take appropriate action," Graham said.
Steele
According to the letter, yesterday evening Grassley and Graham delivered to Senate Security
a letter and classified memorandum for delivery to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and
FBI Director Christopher Wray containing information that forms the basis of their referral,
which they describe as follows:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, individuals are prohibited from making false statements to the
federal authorities of the United States. Grassley and Graham are referring Steele for making
potentially false statements about the distribution of claims from the dossier.
This referral does not pertain to the veracity of claims contained in the dossier. The
referral is for further investigation only, and is not intended to be an allegation of a
crime.
It is the practice of the committee to notify the Justice Department whenever it comes
across what appears to be credible evidence of a criminal violation that warrants further
investigation by appropriate authorities based on information from any source, public or
non-public.
In the interest of transparency, the senators and committee staff are working to redact all
sensitive information in the classified memorandum sent to Rosenstein and Wray. If and when
that process can be lawfully and appropriately completed in consultation with the Justice
Department, an unclassified version of the memorandum will be released.
Of course, the only question is whether the alleged false statements made by Steele will
result in the same punishment as that bestowed upon Michael Flynn or whether there is an
exemption for false statements provided they were intended to harm the current
administration.
Here is the full statement by Grassley and Graham:
If a man is guilty of a crime, then he should be charged, tried, and if found guilty, jailed. That goes not only for Christopher
Steele but EVERY man regardless of party affiliation, office or net worth.
Look, if 99% of what is in the "Trump Dossier" is false
and he lied, fabricated or whatever, he needs to be held accountable.
If 1% of it is true and it implicates and provides evidence
that OTHERS, including our President also committed crimes then they too should be charged, tried, and if found guilty, jailed.
Blah Blah Blafff 9 hr ago
First of all, Steele isn't even a Us citizen so it's hard to say how much jurisdiction they have over him, although we are
technically on good terms with the UK. Based on what evidence are the Republicans making the case that Steele lied to the FBI?
Even if he dossier kickstarted the investigation, there are certainly a lot of links within trump's campaign and cabinet to
Russian officials. Trump even secretly invited that ambassador Sergei to his office with a Russian photographer. That was the
same guy the US was wiretapping on and trump's camp (Flynn) got caught up in it.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper discusses with CNN's Anderson Cooper
the factors that influenced the FBI to initiate the Russia investigation.
Today's
report on the filing of a suit against the "Deep State" DOJ, Rosenstein and Mueller by Paul
Manafort is a HUGE story. Manafort's suit is likely to shut down Mueller investigation!
No wonder the MSM came out with the Bannon – Trump story today. Whenever a huge story
comes out about Criminal and Corrupt Mueller and Rosenstein and the Deep State led DOJ, another
story is released by the MSM to change the subject in the media. Today the MSM talked about
Breitbart's Steve Bannon's remarks about members of President Trump's family. These remarks
have not yet been substantiated. However, the much bigger story in the news is that former
Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort sued the DOJ, Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein and is
demanding the Mueller investigation be shut down!
We have reported for months on the many criminal and corrupt actions taken by numerous
parties related to the Mueller investigation.
Mueller never should have taken on the job in the first place due to numerous conflicts. He
is best friends with fired leaker and former FBI Director James Comey. He
met with Comey shortly before Comey testified with Congress and for this alone he should
have recused himself. The team Mueller built to attack President Trump and have him removed is
all Deep State attorneys and crooks. Mueller's record in the past is scattered with actions
that let the Clintons off Scott free on numerous occasions when they should have been put in
jail.
But
the perhaps one of the most damning aspects of
the Mueller investigation is that it was not legal . The corrupt Mueller investigation is
tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility.
Mueller is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
FOX News Legal Analyst Gregg Jarrett stated
in an article a couple of months ago the fact that the entire Mueller investigation is
lawless. Jarrett argued that –
Shortly after the indictments[against Papadopoulos and Manafort] were unsealed, the
media's spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser
to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during
his time on the Trump campaign. Surely this was evidence of illegal "collusion," right?
Wrong. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to
the FBI. He was not charged with so-called "collusion" because no such crime exists in
American statutory law , except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and
political campaigns.
It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that.
They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes "colluding" with a foreign
government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal
codes.
Jarrett then turned his attention to Corrupt Hillary –
It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to
funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the
infamous and discredited Trump "dossier." The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101)
prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.
It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose
of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.
Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this
one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could
be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking
campaign finance laws with impunity.
But that's not all. Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as
Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in
donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings, intercepted emails,
financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials
enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which
unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America's uranium supply to Russia.
If this proves to be a corrupt "pay-to-play" scheme, it would constitute a myriad of
crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC
1343). It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation
is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise.
The US statutory law is clear and Jarrett points it out. He concluded with the following
–
Until now, no one had legal "standing" to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller
was illegal. The criminal charges [against Manafort and Papadopoulos] change all that. The
two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller's appointment by Acting
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law.
As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to
appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction.
Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein
directed him to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." It fails to identify any
specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.
To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It
is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
Today as reported by Cristina Laila at TGP,
Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported
by US Law. This is the biggest story of the day! Manafort is suing to have the Mueller
investigation shut down!
Manafort's case argues in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked
Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller powers that are not permitted by law –
But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further
authority to investigate and prosecute " any matters that arose or may
arise directly from the investigation." That grant of authority is not authorized by
DOJ's special counsel regulations. It is not a "specific factual statement of the matter to
be investigated." Nor is it an ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct
investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
If Manafort wins this case – which it appears according to the law he will
– the entire investigation would be deemed illegal – which it is – and
therefore legally would have to be shut down – which it should be.
Blast from the past. Now we know why Coney behaved this way and who was instrumental in exonerating Hillary. They wanted to
derail both sanders and Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the statute requires. ..."
"... The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server. ..."
"... That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not consciously choosing to be less secure. ..."
"... So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as written. ..."
"... Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency, lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her. ..."
"... More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information, including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said. ..."
"... For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject to. ..."
"... She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and we are recommending to not prosecute! ..."
"... "the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m... [theantimedia.org] ..."
"... What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000 fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political. ..."
"... She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute. ..."
"... But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law. ..."
"... She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked- classified when I sent them." ..."
"... I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like she knew it was illegal. ..."
"... That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different, though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even just having it stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com] ..."
"... Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws actually applied to me. ..."
"... In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000. The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested. ..."
"... You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that she lied to the American people.) ..."
"... She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce. ..."
"... Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her. ..."
"... I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent. ..."
"... Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent, and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible fool are you? ..."
This statute explicitly states that whoever, "entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document through
gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody or having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody.shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
Comey called her "extremely careless." That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent
with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that's not what the
statute requires.
18 USC 1924.
This statute states that any employee of the United States who "knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without
authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.
18 USC 798.
This statute states that anyone who "uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United Statesany classified
informationshall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." Hillary transmitted classified
information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.
18 USC 2071.
This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,
obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years." Clearly,
Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28PM (
#52467767 )
The FBI said in their statement that they found documents classified as Secret and Top Secret on her personal server.
A clear-case of hate-reading. Which always gets more complicated when you add in legal English. Especially since we're talking
about a defendant in a criminal case, and there's this "Reasonable Doubt" thing that means you can get off even if the Jury
is pretty sure you did it. To counter your specific points:
18 USC 793:
"Gross negligence" is an extremely specific legal term. The
definition [wikipedia.org] starts with extreme
carelessness, but specifies that the carelessness must "shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable
care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm." Note all that shit about what's going on in the defendants head
("conscious and voluntary")?
That means she gets off if the Defense lawyer can convince the Jury it's reasonable to believe a sixty-something policy
wonk had no fucking clue that a server in her basement was less secure then a government email account because she was not
consciously choosing to be less secure.
18 USC 1924:
Good luck proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. She swore up and down she had no classified info on the server. Which
means to prove that interesting "knowingly" word you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying when she said
that.
Moreover there's an equally interesting "without authority" clause. She's an OCA, and if her President gets called
to the stand and asked "do you think she did something wrong?" he will say no. Moreover the fact that previous Secretaries
did it without being charged, and that John Kerry felt he had to explicitly ban the practice of keeping info on your own server,
strongly implies that it was authorized at the time.
18 USC 798:
Don't be ridiculous. You're seriously arguing that the Secretary of State, who serves at the pleasure of the person
who defines the national interest of the United States, emailing some foreign leader or another is "using classified info to
harm the United States?" Don't get me wrong I'm sure that in literal terms many cabinet officers have been fuck-ups who were
hurting the country (looking at you Rummy), but that's not illegal.
18 USC 2071:
You see that pronoun "same?" The antecedent is "any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed
or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or
public officer of the United States." The whole problem is that she failed to keep her emails in a governmental system, not
that she went into some US Clerk's office, ransacked the files for her emails, and then ran away laughing evilly.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @09:28AM (
#52462567 )
Comey didn't say that she leaked anything. He said that she didn't properly safeguard classified information.
However, there was no intent to leak information, nor is there evidence that anything was leaked. Comey searched high and low
for a precedent which would allow him to bring charges, and he concluded that if he indicted Clinton, he would probably have to
indict a significant portion of the federal bureaucracy.
Hard to bring criminal charges for utilizing a bad process. "Should have known better" isn't a criminal offense.
Actually, you are wrong, it is a criminal offense. Anyone given classified information is briefed on the proper use and handling
of said classified information. The law, under 18 USC 793 subsection (f) actually states that any form of information that through
gross negligence is removed from it's proper place of custody is subject to criminal fines or up to 10 years in prison.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Information that the Secretary of State has that she transmits to her subordinates on an unsecured email server does meet the
requirement of "gross negligence".
So in this case the FBI chose not to charge her for something we all know she did and is a clear violation of the law as
written.
He asks the convention to vote that it is unwilling to select a person who has been shown to be 'careless about protecting
government secrets' etc etc.
The delegates would be free to pass such a motion, despite being bound to vote for Hilary when the actual roll call occurs.
If a large number of her delegates support the critical motion, her legitimacy is gone.
Lack of legitimacy hasn't hampered her at all. The same goes for lack of morality, lack of patriotism, lack of decency,
lack of conscience. Really at this point we need 7 dwarfs and a prince to rid us of her.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:36AM (
#52461905 )
Page 21: Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet's introduction. He has publicly written:
"To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal
email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to
individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign -minister colleagues...."
Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private
gwb43.com [wikipedia.org] server.
This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of
eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted
all emails after a period of time.
While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he
has admitted
[politico.com] that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss
classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible
to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless
nonetheless [cnn.com] he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared
Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not
have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @07:05AM (
#52461955 )
"At a minimum, Secretary Powell should have surrendered all emails sent from or received in his personal account that related
to Department business. Because he did not do so at the time that he departed government service or at any time thereafter, Secretary
Powell did not comply with Department policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act. In an attempt
to address this deficiency, NARA requested that the Department inquire with Secretary Powell's "internet service or email provider"
to determine whether it is still possible to retrieve the email records that might remain on its servers.
The Under Secretary for Management subsequently informed NARA that the Department sent a letter to Secretary Powell's representative
conveying this request. As of May 2016, the Department had not received a response from Secretary Powell or his representative."
Anonymous Coward writes: on Thursday July 07, 2016 @02:10PM (
#52464787 )
A lot of people did the same thing and Colin Powell was one of them.
No. There's a difference here. From FBI director Comey and the State Department:
More than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information,
including 110 emails in 52 email chains that contained classified information at the time they were sent or received , Comey said.
The State Department inquiry identified 10 messages sent to Rice's immediate staff that were classified and two sent to Powell,
according to Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Benghazi committees.
The emails, Cummings said, appear to have no classification markings, and it is still unclear if the content of the emails
was or should have been considered classified when the emails were originally written and sent.
It appears that Clinton sent / received over 100 Emails clearly marked "secret" in some form or another; Powell had 2 Emails
retroactively classified. Seems like a very narrow distinction, but it's not. Clinton handled 110 messages (those that were found)
that were unambiguously marked as classified, Powell did not.
The external mail server is not the real problem. Her holding on to the email long after she was supposed to have turned it
over is a minor problem. The 110 Classified emails (those containing information that was classified at the time that she sent
the email) is the problem. Each of those emails is a felony. You don't put classified information on an unclassified network.
Regardless of where the server is hosted from.
A review of Colin Powell's email which was turned over as required upon his departure from the office, (rather than two years
later) found two emails that contained information the State Dept classified after he sent the information. That is not a crime.
It was unclassified when he sent the information. He reviewed the two emails and disagrees that it should have been classified.
And as the top Original Classifying Authority (an individual authorized to determine if information needs to be classified and
at what level) for all of the Dept. of State during his tenure it is his call.
For Sec Rice they found about a dozen emails classified after the fact on her email that was also turned over when required.
Again classified after the fact, so not a crime.
For Hillary the 110 emails have all been verified by the owning agency that the information was classified at the time
Hillary included it in her emails. Thus felonies, except that she is a Clinton and is thus exempt from the laws we peons are subject
to.
Are you seriously trying to make this about a FOIA compliance issue? This has nothing to do with FOIA.
She moved, or caused to be moved, classified material off of a secure system onto an un-secure system. It would still be a felony
if she had simply moved one of the 110 found documents to a thumb drive! The FBI basically said she broke the law 110 times and
we are recommending to not prosecute!
Powell did not have a private server, and while he did have a personal address there is no evidence that any material that
was classified at the time was ever sent to/from it. Politifact rates Clinton's statement that her predecessors did it as "Mostly
false"
"the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charged one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized
removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary
did" http://theantimedia.org/this-m...
[theantimedia.org]
The Government Has Prosecuted Nearly Every Violator of Secrecy Rules Before Hillary Clinton. The Obama administration has filed
more charges against those who leak classified information than all previous presidential administrations combined, according
to a statement made by CNN's Jake Tapper that was marked "True" by Politifact.
http://usuncut.com/politics/cl...
[usuncut.com]
What she did was illegal, and what she did should disqualify her from having a clearance. Far less connected people have
done much the same and gotten 2 years probation and $7500 fine. Petraeus did much the same and got 2 years probation and $100,000
fine. There is plenty of evidence of her breaking the law. The problem is that no one will prosecute it because Hillary is rich
enough to afford lawyers that could get her off, and it would just make it look political.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating
to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered
to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same
has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen,
abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior
officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
She flatly violated a statute that only requires gross negligence (aka, "extreme carelessness"), but Comey dodged and said
he wouldn't recommend prosecution because he could not prove intent - even though intent is not required by the statute.
Now, you can argue 18 U.S. Code 793 (a), which requires intent, could not be prosecuted, but 18 U.S. Code 793 (f) clearly was
violated.
Hillary is a criminal who the FBI declined to recommend prosecution for.
Handling classified information requires diligence. You don't get to be careless with it. Intent is not required because you
promise to not be careless with it.
If I allowed through omission, inattention, disregard for process or simple stupidity broke my employer's sensitive data policies
ten times a month I'd have made it around three days before being sacked.
through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody
Comey proved that. She was extremely careless (gross negligence), and she removed classified data from its proper place of
custody (secure networks) and placed it on her private server.
This is beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you assert that Hillary actually ordered the building of a private server, then she's actually guilty of more - that proves
intent :)
The words "extremely careless" were chosen carefully to avoid saying "negligent". To be careless is to be ignorant of the required
security procedures, while to be ignorant is to know what's proper and required, and choosing to not attempt to follow it. If
you're going to go down that road, you'll need to establish that the sysadmins responsible for that server were aware of the that
the system could hold classified information, and they knew the security requirements necessary to protect a system holding classified
information, and chose willingly to leave it unsecured.
What proof is there that the sysadmins were competent, beyond the faint hope that they should be?
What proof do you have that she personally put classified information on her server?
What proof is there that, at the time the server was built, it was intended to hold classified information?
There are an awful lot of bad things here... certainly enough to say the handling was careless. Unfortunately, without an absolutely
solid case for a particular and completely-provable allegation, a successful prosecution is extremely unlikely, and would not
serve the cause of justice in any meaningful way.
This is not about what the sys-admins knew. The server was not on a classified network. It should never have had any classified
on it.
You don't get to be careless with classified information.
The information was on her account that she held the password for. That means she put it on there, or is responsible for giving
an aid her password to put the information on the account. She is only responsible for information she sends, something someone
else sends to her would not be of interest but would result in charges against the other person. Where are those individuals?
This is about classified information put into emails sent from her personal account on her private server. That means she is
responsible, and carelessness is not a valid excuse.
The Server was not intended to hold classified information, it was on the internet, not one of the physically separate classified
networks.
But the key point is that under the Espionage act (18 USC 793) you don't get to be careless with national secrets. You
request a clearance you promise to not be careless under punishment of Law.
That email about the fax proves only that a particular message was requested to be transmitted in an insecure manner. That
does not mean the contents of the fax were sensitive or that removing the markings was improper. As I understand, the subject
of the fax was a set of talking points for a speech, which were sensitive only in that they were not yet publicly released. If
there was indeed a classified piece of information in the fax, it could have been sanitized prior to the insecure transmission.
Without seeing the classified version, it is impossible to tell.
It's not "moving the goal post" to point out that your kick fell far short. Again, consider that a prosecution would be arguing
before a court of law. Nothing is obvious, and nothing is beyond question. If you want to prove something, you have to show your
entire case.
You don't just remove markings. The only exception to this is if the markings were all (U) Unclassified. Then
and only then can they be removed without going through a formal declassification process.
Actually, yes, you can usually just remove markings from (or more precisely, rewrite without markings) unclassified material
that's on a secure system. The unclassified material doesn't need to be "declassified" because it was never classified to begin
with. That includes unclassified parts of a larger document that's marked as containing classified information, and by the same
extension it applies to unclassified data on computer systems that are marked as containing classified data.
What's important is that no classified information actually gets out of the secure environment. Nobody cares about other information,
with a few exceptions.
They are equal as that is the description found in the relevant statute. You don't get to be careless with classified information.
Being careless with classified information is Gross Negligence. This is because mishandled national secrets can cost lives.
Proving Gross negligence is easy. Did classified information get manually transcribed onto the unclassified system? (there
is no software link between the various classified networks and machines and an unclassified network or machine) Yes it did. Was
the intent to transfer to unauthorized persons to cause harm to the US? No, therefore we have Gross negligence.
She instructed her staff to "remove markings and send non-secure." Her defense was "they weren't -marked-
classified when I sent them."
I would say that her instruction "send non-secure" makes it pretty clear she knew it isn't secure, and was actively thinking
of that fact when she told them to do it. At the same time, she was also setting her up defense, having them (illegally?) remove
the classification markings so that she could later testify "they weren't marked classified when I forwarded them." Sounds like
she knew it was illegal.
She consciously refused a state.gov email account.
She voluntarily setup a private email server.
Even a technologically illiterate grandma, when told by her sysadmins at the state department that what she was doing was wrong,
makes is clear that it was likely to cause foreseeable harm.
tl;dr - a technophobic grandma doesn't know enough to ask for a private server, she just takes the state department blackberry
and lives with whatever email it's configured with.
I'm sure this is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to prosecute, even when the letter of the law has
been definitively broken. Obviously, this is how it should work, but in many cases laws regarding handling of protected information
are prosecuted with extreme discretion. In other words, charges are often not brought unless there is intent and/or aggravating
factors, even when the law has clearly been broken as written.
Really we need someone with substantial legal experience in this specific area to comment (I won't hold my breath for that).
Despite the fact that the above code is fairly straight forward, I don't feel qualified to assess the FBI's conclusion: "Although
there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable
prosecutor would bring such a case," (James Comey).
I'm not addressing whether or not it makes sense to use discretion in these cases. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate
and sets a double standard; it's not like someone selling drugs will not get prosecuted because there was no intent to cause addiction.
That said, I don't make the rules, and I really don't think most people in this forum are qualified to judge whether she is
getting preferential treatment by applying the letter of the law, combined with the way that other laws are prosecuted (and the
way laws should be prosecuted). The reality is that, right or wrong, this is not how laws regarding handling of sensitive information
are applied. For the record, I despise Hillary & the Clintons and will not vote for her, even though the alternative is at least
as terrible.
I understand discretion - but if anything, we should hold our government leaders to a higher level of accountability.
Letting Johnny get off with a warning after his first shoplifting attempt, or sending Judy on her way after she's caught speeding
with a warning, is discretion.
But if Johnny is a Congressman, or Judy is the president's daughter, you simply cannot afford to let them off the hook without
damaging the perception of fairness. When the rich and powerful get away with something that we regularly impose upon the poor
and weak, even if occasionally we let the poor and weak get by with just a warning, we destroy the sense of justice in the community.
No the crime is to mishandle or fail to protect classified information. To do so is to be grossly negligent. It does not require
intent, it does not require the act to be willful. Carelessness with classified information is Gross Negligence and is a felony.
Carelessness or willful, both are Gross negligence. Putting classified information into a vulnerable position is Gross Negligence.
When you are granted a Clearance and access, you sign what is basically a Non-disclosure agreement where you acknowledge that
if you have any role in the release or mishandling of classified information you are punishable under the law. She put 110 emails
containing classified information onto an unclassified network. Considering the handling and marking processes of working with
classified information, to describe her actions as careless is false, but that opinion aside, you don't get to be careless with
classified information. Being careless with classified information gets people killed and is illegal.
Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:33PM (
#52459649 )
He said Clinton and her staff sent 110 emails in 52 chains containing information that was classified at the time. Eight
of those emails carried top secret information , eight contained classified information and 36 had secret info.
I don't think that's what the FBI statement is saying at all, and I think you're looking at something that's not the statement...
It's very clear that the FBI found that classified information was exposed, but not "in such a way as to support an inference
of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice." The FBI characterization
of what was done is "extremely careless." This is interesting wording because that is not a legal term associated with disclosure
of classified material; "grossly negligent" is the legal term associated with the threshold for felony mishandling of classified
information.
The FBI statement is also very clear on the security classification of what they found, which is why I think you're reading
something else.
110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they
were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains
contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
That's pretty darn specific. If it was just the confidential stuff, I think your implication that the government classifies
everything and this isn't a big deal would be very strong. Multiple accidental Top Secret information leaks is a bit different,
though. In the last 15 years, we have sent many government workers to jail for leaking information like this, or even
just having it
stored at their house. [washingtonpost.com]
It was on an unclassified server on the internet. It was exposed. It doesn't matter if anyone found it or not.
It was exposed.
As to classified information there is Classified information marked Confidential, Secret and Top Secret (with additional caveats
and Special access designations). That is classified information. That is what was found on her emails. It is all marked very
clearly as to it's classification level. How is it marked? At the top and bottom of every page, the highest level of information
on the page is marked. At the beginning of every paragraph it is marked. And on the first and last page of the document the overall
(highest) level of classification is marked as well as who classified it and instructions as to when it is to be declassified.
There is also sensitive but unclassified information that, unless on a classified system will most likely not be well marked.
That is not what was found 110 emails containing classified information were found 8 instances had TOP SECRET info.
The Classification system for truly Classified information is not vague, it is clear, it is concise. There are specific and
strict rules for marking it as such, and for handling it. That such information ended up on her private unclassified server exposes
the information. Just being put onto an unclassified storage medium is a criminal act. It does not require intent, it does not
require someone without authorization to access it. That the information was in her emails on the unclassified server on the internet
is sufficient to meet the grounds for the Gross Negligence standard of 18, 793(f).
Anonymous Coward writes: on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @07:36PM (
#52459661 )
Posting as AC for obvious reasons. If I had done anything remotely like what Hillary did when I was in the intelligence
community, I would have gone to jail and never ever seen daylight again. But then again, I wasn't one of the "elite" and laws
actually applied to me.
I support the NSA and I also support Snowden. Snowden did a brave and terrifying thing that needed
to happen, that needed to be done, knowing the consequences he faced. The NSA is a good organization with many good people doing
what they need to do with love for their countrymen in their hearts and honor in their actions. Some people in the NSA made bad,
perhaps even evil decisions. Sometimes bad people get put in positions they shouldn't be, and sometimes people with power, even
good people, make decisions that are bad.
Supporting the NSA doesn't mean I support all the decisions or people that are a part of it. I believe the NSA did some bad
things, but that doesn't mean I think the organization is bad or comprised of bad people.
What Snowden did may have been illegal, but it was a choice to do what he believed was right. For what it's worth I believe
it was right too. I think it is a terrible thing to have to choose between following the law and doing what is right when the
two are mutually exclusive.
The US justice system was designed intentionally to have people determine not only whether the law was followed, but also whether
the law should apply. Snowden should be able to face a court of his peers and plead his case and that jury should be able to make
a judgement not based on the law, but on whether what he did was wrong or right. It disturbs and saddens me to realize I don't
trust that he could receive such a fair trial.
The Star Chamber was established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so
powerful that ordinary courts would likely hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
The constitution would need to be modified, however.
The only times I've ever heard of an actual prosecution for mishandling has been when the person was suspected of actual spying,
or in Manning's case, whistleblowing
I'm surprised that you've not heard of the David Petraeus case.
In January 2015, officials reported the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors had recommended bringing felony charges
against Petraeus for allegedly providing classified information to his biographer, Paula Broadwell (with whom he was having an
affair), while serving as the director of the CIA Eventually, Petraeus pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mishandling
classified information... On April 23, 2015, a federal judge sentenced Petraeus to two years' probation plus a fine of $100,000.
The fine was more than double the amount the Justice Department had requested.
Petraeus's mistress was an Army Reserve intelligence officer with Top Secret clearance and had served in the
war zone. She used the information (much of which was Petraeus's notes/notbooks IIRC) to write his biography. I don't recall there
being any allegation of the information going further than that. (It was still wrong.)
As to intent - Hillary Clintons servers were created and operated by her order. Messages were bulk erased by her order. Her
intent of avoiding scrutiny is clear.
Where do you think Sid got the classified information? Why would he have it as an employee of the Clinton Foundation? Did he
have a clearance, and what was his need to know? Who sent it to him? There is little doubt it was all on purpose.
Petreaus doesn't come anywhere near comparing to Snowden. Petreaus gave 8 binders of his notes (some classified some not) to
his Mistress/biographer. She has a clearance, and referred to the notes in preparing the biography but no classified information
was included in her product.
Snowden stole thousands of classified documents and released them without regard to who got them.
The scale and scope are not comparable. Snowden's crime was far worse and far more damaging.
You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI. (He also confirmed that
she lied to the American people.)
She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath, and her interviews were neither recorded
nor transcripts prepared, which really makes the whole investigation a farce.
Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.
She said that because nothing marked classified had been sent to her.
She has said that. She has also made the same statement without the word "marked".
I know this may be tough to believe, but a person can be wrong without actually lying.
The fact that she phrased her statement so carefully actually shows the opposite: even if literally true, that statement is
intended to deceive.
Even if the person is question is someone you disagree with politically.
I don't disagree much with Clinton politically as far as I know (it's hard to know what she really believes); I actually used
to be a registered Democrat until a few years ago.
I think Clinton is unsuitable for the job of president because she is dishonest, corrupt, and, above all, incompetent.
Are you living under a rock? Her private E-mail server, the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to the Clinton
Foundation while she was in office, her nepotism, her speaking fees, her corporate cronyism, her lies about her stance on gay
marriage, and her revisionist AIDS history alone ought to be enough to consider her profoundly dishonest, corrupt, and incompetent,
and we haven't even gotten to the real political stuff that the Republicans always harp on about. Really, what kind of gullible
fool are you?
Michael Wolff (born August 27, 1953)[1] is an American author, essayist, and journalist, and a regular columnist and contributor
to USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and the UK edition of GQ.[2] He has received two National Magazine Awards, a Mirror Award, and
has authored seven books, including Burn Rate (1998) about his own dot-com company, and The Man Who Owns the News (2008), a
biography of Rupert Murdoch. He co-founded the news aggregation website Newser and is a former editor of Adweek.
Michael Wolff was born in Paterson, New Jersey, the son of Lewis Allen Wolff (October 10, 1920 - February 18, 1984)[5], an
advertising professional, and Marguerite "Van" (Vanderwerf) Wolff (November 7, 1925 – September 17, 2012)[6] a reporter for Paterson
Evening News.[7][8] He attended Columbia University in New York City, and graduated from Vassar College in 1975.[9] While a student
at Columbia, he worked for The New York Times as a copy boy
How Michael Wolf managed to tape people in WH?
Notable quotes:
"... "Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh." ..."
"... Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced a ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff." ..."
"... Wolff wrote in The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall" over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration. ..."
Mike Allen writes at Axios that Michael Wolff,
author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, has "dozens of hours" of
recordings to corroborate the controversial quotes attributed to senior White House personnel
in the new book -- including former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart executive
chairman Stephen K. Bannon.
"Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of
them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White
House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh."
Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah
Huckabee Sanders announced a
ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff."
Wolff wrote in
The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall"
over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the
building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration.
While Richman told CNN "No memo was given to me that was marked 'classified,' and James
Comey told Congressional investigators he tried to "write it in such a way that I don't include
anything that would trigger a classification," it appears the FBI's chief FOIA officer
disagrees .
While we
previously reported that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said four of the 7 Comey memos he
reviewed were "marked classified" at the "Secret" or "Confidential" level - tonight we find out
that every single Comey memo was classified at the time, per Judicial Watch director of
investigations Chris Farrell - who has a signed declaration from the FBI's chief FOIA officer
to that effect:
We have a sworn declaration from David Hardy who is the chief FOIA officer of the FBI that
we obtained just in the last few days, and in that sworn declaration, Mr. Hardy says that all
of Comey's memos - all of them, were classified at the time they were written, and they
remain classified. - Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch
Therefore, Farrell points out, Comey mishandled national defense information when he
"knowingly and willfully" leaked them to his friend at Columbia University.
It's also mishandling of national defense information, which is a crime. So it's clear
that Mr. Comey not only authored those documents, but then knowingly and willfully leaked
them to persons unauthorized, which is in and of itself a national security crime. Mr. Comey
should have been read his rights back on June 8th when he testified before the Senate.
In closing, Farrell tells Dobbs "Recently retired and active duty FBI agents have told me -
and it's several of them, they consider Comey to be a dirty cop ."
"... In a wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine at his Florida studio, Stone offered insight into Trump -- and into his enemies [the deep state] and their tactics. " It's easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties, " he explained. "I say that as someone who is a sentimental Republican, but a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater who wanted government out of the bedroom, out of the boardroom, that believed in peace through strength, not, you know, neocons cruising the globe looking for expensive wars to profiteer in and stick our nose in." – New American ..."
Longtime Trump advisor and confidante Roger Stone is warning America that the Deep State is getting desperate to find a way to
remove Trump from office and since Plan "A" and "B" are not working out, a horrific Plan "C" may have to be put into play.
In a wide-ranging interview with
The New American magazine
at his Florida studio, Stone offered insight into Trump -- and into his enemies [the deep state]
and their tactics. "
It's easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten
or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties,
" he explained. "I say that
as someone who is a sentimental Republican, but a Republican in the mold of Barry Goldwater who wanted government out of the
bedroom, out of the boardroom, that believed in peace through strength, not, you know, neocons cruising the globe looking for
expensive wars to profiteer in and stick our nose in." –
New
American
"He's a shock to the system," said Stone, a legendary political operative who, in addition to his longtime relationship
with Trump, has served as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Senator Bob Dole, and others. According to
Stone, Donald Trump's election represented the "hostile takeover of the old Republican Party, which we now hope to remake in
his image as a party that stands for economic nationalism, that stands for putting American interests ahead of globalist interests,
and re-affirms our sovereign rights as Americans."
"Now, I think the establishment, at this time, when the president has just passed his tax cut, has cut these regulations
-- so you see a record stock market, you see unemployment at all time lows, you see a booming housing market --
it's
easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the Insiders have for this president, and to underestimate
their resolve to remove him
."
Stone believes the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president when Plan A and B fail, which seems the likely
scenario. "Having written books on the Kennedy assassination, having highlighted the attempted assassination of President Ronald
Reagan by people deeply associated with the Bush family, I think the establishment has Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C," he said.
"
Plan
A is very clearly a take-down by the illegitimate Special Counsel Robert Mueller,
who was appointed not by Jeff Sessions,
not at the direction of the president, but by this fellow Rosenstein, who is a close associate of Mueller and [disgraced former
FBI boss James] Comey, and who is a globalist Bush insider, a liberal Republican, who somehow got the number two position in
the Trump Justice Department," Stone warned, saying the establishment was now hoping Trump would fire Mueller to regain the
upper hand.
The other thing that is becoming more and more apparent, Stone said, is that "neither Mr. Mueller nor the House nor the
Senate Intelligence committees nor the Judiciary committees in those bodies have been able to find any evidence of Russian
collusion."
"Sorry, but Don Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer that provided nothing is perfectly legal and proper," Stone said. "There's
nothing wrong with it. She produced no evidence, but what we did learn is that she was in the country thanks to the Obama FBI,
without a visa, and she was popping up and being photographed at Hillary rallies and in John McCain's office. She's a Quisling!
It's a setup! She's a spy. She delivered nothing. It's an attempt to entrap Donny Jr. in a meeting that's perfectly innocuous
and perfectly legal."
But the deep state's Plan B is to invoke the 25th Amendment.
"So we'll see an uptick in all of this 'Trump is mentally imbalanced, Trump is insane, Trump must be removed,'" Stone warned.
"Now you have to examine the extent to which they can whip up that hysteria as a backdrop because, without that hysteria, such
a political move on the president will fail." And once Plan B fails, the globalists will move on to Plan C, which is simply
an assassination.
"We know Plan C. We saw it in the case of
President John F. Kennedy,
who had crossed the Central Intelligence Agency and the Deep State over both the Cuban Missile
Crisis and the Bay of Pigs, both, I think, central,"
he said.
President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, sued the special counsel on Wednesday and asked a federal court to
narrow his authority...
... ... ...
Mr. Manafort's lawsuit gives voice to one of the common grievances Mr. Trump's supporters
have with Mr. Mueller: None of the charges he has brought answer the central question of his
inquiry. Mr. Mueller is investigating the Russian government's meddling in the 2016
presidential election and whether anyone close to Mr. Trump was involved.
Mr. Manafort argued in the lawsuit that Mr. Mueller had gone too far. He sued both Mr.
Mueller and Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mr. Mueller. The
lawsuit said Mr. Rosenstein had improperly given Mr. Mueller the authority to investigate
"anything he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote."
Mr. Manafort asked a federal judge to reject Mr. Mueller's appointment as overly broad and
to dismiss the indictment against him. He also asked for a court order prohibiting Mr. Mueller
from investigating anything beyond Russian meddling in the election.
"... Using the government, the "deep state" for political purposes is unprecedented at this level, but shows absolutely how desperate the political establishment is ..."
Did all of you miss the the actual reason an investigation was opened? Go look in
paragraph 7! Keep reading.....there it is. This investigation has FBI Agent Peter Strvok's
fingerprints all over it. Do you remember him. At the FBI he headed Counterintelligence. He
was on Mueller's team, right before he got fired and then got sent back to the FBI to the HR
department. Ouch! He's the one with the text messages with Page discussing the insurance he
was going to use. Well guess what, it was Strvok who started the investigation and that is
what the FBI and DOJ are now hiding from the American public.
Your comment is a falsehood. This is a false inquiry with no evidence, a political
witch-hunt to take down a legitimately elected president.
Democrats attempt this with every Repubican, but usually not quite to this level.
Using the government, the "deep state" for political purposes is unprecedented at this level, but shows absolutely how
desperate the
political establishment is.
This "report" is going to get blasted and taken apart as more "fake news" from the NYT.
There is a massive amount of public information already available that contradicts the entire
premise of this article. That they would even print it is distasteful. But the authors just
put their reputations on the chopping block. OldEngineer SE Michigan
December 31, 2017
Yet the FBI seems to have been complicit in the creation and "authentication" of the
dossier created out of whole cloth under the direction and financing of the DNC and the
Hillaty campaign. That seems to have been the justification for surveiling the communications
of an administration-elect on the part of operatives of the outgoing regime yet in power.
The ongoing feud between Steve Bannon and various members of Trump's inner circle, including
family members Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr., is hardly a secret (we wrote about it here:
Steve Bannon In "Self-Imposed Exile" After Disputes With Trump's Inner Circle ). But, if
The Guardian 's reporting on excerpts from an explosive new book penned by Michael Wolff
are even directionally accurate, then Bannon has just taken his White House feud to a whole new
level.
According to The Guardian, which apparently got its hands on a copy of "Fire and Fury" ahead
of its expected release next week, Bannon unloads on Don Jr. and Kushner saying that their
meeting with
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York was "treasonous" and/or
"unpatriotic" and the FBI should have been called immediately.
Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting
between the president's son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as
"treasonous" and "unpatriotic", according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.
The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to
say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked
mockingly: "The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a
foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with
no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I
happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."
Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should
have been set up "in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet
with these people". Any information, he said, could then be "dump[ed] down to Breitbart or
something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication".
... ... ...
Trump is not spared in the new book either. According to The Guardian, Wolff writes that
Thomas Barrack Jr, the billionaire founder of Colony Capital who counts himself as one of
Trump's earliest supporters, allegedly told a friend: "He's not only crazy, he's stupid."
All of which should make for some very entertaining Trump tweets once the book drops next
week.
Meanwhile, even Drudge couldn't avoid getting dragged into the fray and on Wednesday morning
tweeted: "No wonder schizophrenic Steve Bannon has been walking around with a small army of
bodyguards..."
Bannon is being quoted in the Guardian from his forthcoming book, paraphrasing: "they had
(sic) top officials from the new administration meeting with Russians in Trump Tower and
nobody thought to have a lawyer present? The minimum they could've done was call the
FBI."
This statement doesn't pass the smell test or Bannon is smoking some Colorado grass. One
minute he's against deep state and the next minute he wants to call the FBI? I don't think
so.
She called the controversy a "very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular
manipulator," whom she identified repeatedly as American businessman Bill Browder.
Browder was once the biggest foreign investor in Russia, but he has since become a vocal
critic of the country's leadership and has clashed with Putin's inner circle.
Browder was a driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law passed in 2012 that imposes
economic sanctions and travel restrictions on Russians named as human rights abusers. Browder
believes it is Putin's No. 1 priority to get the U.S. to lift the sanctions imposed under the
act, which currently affect 44 Russians.
In her interview with Russian government-funded RT, Veselnitskaya called Browder "one of the
greatest experts in the field of manipulating the mass media," and said she had "no doubt that
this whole information campaign is being spun, encouraged and organized by that very man as
revenge" for a legal settlement earlier this year which effectively saw his efforts to expose
alleged Russian money-laundering in the U.S. hit a brick wall.
During Browder's appearance on "CBS This Morning" Tuesday, co-host Charlie Rose called
attention to Browder's description of Veselnitskaya as "probably the most aggressive person I
have ever encountered in all of my contacts with Russians" -- to which Browder replied, "Yes,
she's a remarkable person. I should caveat that: she's not aggressive in a physical
way."
"... Manafort and Gates face a total of 12 criminal charges related to money laundering and failure to file federal disclosures. Both Manafort and Gates have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to appear again before the judge in the criminal case on January 16. ..."
"... More like "the special counsel doesn't have authority to investigate literally anything" since the charges against Manafort have absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump-Russia. You can't charge someone with a crime when the evidence was obtained illegally... ..."
Paul Manafort, who served as the campaign chair for then-candidate Donald Trump's presidential campaign from March to August 2016,
on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein.
The suit brought Wednesday in US District Court in Washington where Manafort and another former Trump campaign aide, Robert Gates,
were charged, contends that the order Rosenstein signed to appoint Mueller "exceeds the scope of Mr. Rosenstein's authority to appoint
special counsel as well as specific restrictions on the scope of such appointments" and challenges Mueller's decision to charge Manafort
with alleged crimes that they say have nothing to do with the 2016 campaign, but rather relate to lucrative lobbying work Manafort
and his deputy did for a former Russia-friendly government in Ukraine . That work ended in 2014, the suit says. Manafort and his
deputy Rick Gates deny the allegations in the charges.
The focus is on a part of the Rosenstein order that says that Mueller may investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly
from the investigation." The Manafort lawyers say that goes beyond what the law allows Rosenstein to empower Mueller to do.
Further, the Rosenstein order gives Mueller " carte blanche to investigate and pursue criminal charges in connection with anything
he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote from the specific matter identified as the subject of the appointment
order ," the lawsuit says.
Manafort and Gates was arrested in October and charged with money laundering and acting as an unregistered foreign agent during his
work as a lobbyist for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych and his party of regions. None of the charges brought against
Manafort pertain to his work with the Trump campaign.
The legal action represents the latest tack in a broader effort by supporters of the President to push back on the special counsel.
Some Republicans have begun publicly calling for Mueller's probe to be shut down. Manafort's attorneys have echoed the President's
criticism that Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election is pursuing crimes that never happened.
Manafort and Gates face a total of 12 criminal charges related to money laundering and failure to file federal disclosures.
Both Manafort and Gates have pleaded not guilty and are scheduled to appear again before the judge in the criminal case on January
16.
Hillary's defense is "What difference, at this point, does it make?" My comment is directed to the fact that we each need 22
sets eyeballs to be able to keep up with all news. Reading headlines is not keeping up with news and to your point of his defense
it is more along the lines of "the special council does not have the ability to charge him because it shouldn't have been in existence
in the first place" based on my first cursory read of it .
More like "the special counsel doesn't have authority to investigate literally anything" since the charges against Manafort
have absolutely NOTHING to do with Trump-Russia. You can't charge someone with a crime when the evidence was obtained illegally...
The need to challenge the legality of the special prosecutor "Since the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999,
there has been no federal law governing the appointment of a special prosecutor. Upon the law's expiration in 1999, the Justice
Department, under Attorney General Janet Reno, promulgated procedural regulations governing the appointment of special counsels."
And there has be evidence on wrong doing before appointment!
"... The Steele dossier compiled by Clinton campaign proxies in collaboration with Russian intelligence sources and Obama administration partisans is the likely catalyst in obtaining the FISA warrants allowing surveillance, unmasking, unsubstantiated leaks to the press, and harassment of the Trump campaign and transitioning administration. ..."
"... It continues to amaze me how badly the liberal media and liberal commentators want a worse relationship between America and Russia. Why, they ask, does Donald Trump want improved relations? It must be, they argue, that he owes a debt of gratitude to Vladimir Putin for swinging the election to him and away from Hillary Clinton. Why else would he say nice things to this dictator? Why else would he say that having a better relationship with Russia would be a good thing? ..."
"... I'm not so sure this is the whole story. Notice that the dossier mention has few specifics. This smells like cover to prop up the illegal wire-taps that Obama did on Mr. Trump. Time will tell. ..."
The Guardian told the story of the beginning of the Russian investigation differently.
Their article from April 2017 states "GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious
"interactions" between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents, a
source close to UK intelligence said. This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a
routine exchange of information, they added."
The NYTimes headline is misleading if the Guardian story is authors. Can editors or story
authors at least discuss the differences in their narratives?
Papadopolous had his meeting April 27th. There are 48 e-mails from the Wikileaks dump from
one or before April 27th 2016. Hardly thousands. The thousands of e-mails in the Wikileaks
dump are almost all dated May and June 2016.
The inconvenient fact in this narrative is that there is zero actual evidence that the
Russians actually had Hillary's emails, plus zero actual evidence that the Russians hacked
the DNC and Podesta. Therefore the most that can be supported is that the Russians made an
empty claim to Papadopoulos to stir up the election, which he bragged to the Australians.
This article also dismisses the role of the "dossier" in initiating the FBI investigation,
ignoring that the dossier is the one irrefutable piece of evidence in this whole narrative's
scenario. Everything else is revisionist conjecture.
I see all the partisan outrage this article has caused, but sorry to say this smacks of
planted narrative. The timing is simply too convenient, and suspicious.
A couple weeks ago, McCabe gets grilled by Congress about whether or not the dossier had
been used to open the Russia investigation. A few days ago, Senator Graham says he's found
out some "disturbing" details about the dossier, and says we need a special counsel to
investigate. Now the heat's really on. Then boom! Out of nowhere we get this tale of the
drunken boastings of a lower-level Trump staffer and how THAT was actually what started the
whole Russiagate probe. Not that dumb ol' dossier!
So buy if you wish, I'm afraid it's no sale for me.
Guccifer was publishing Hillary's emails in 2013 and was labeled a Russian source. When
Trump chided that the Russians should turn over the ran a if thousands missing emails to the
investigation into her national security violations, many of us thought fo reign services had
hacked her...Russian hacking wasn't a cool subject then for the Democratic party and their
MSM allies.
The DNC was hacked in 2015 and the NSA informed the FBI - who inform ed the DNC numerous
times before, 7 months or more later, they took action.
Papadopoulos was rebuked by the Trump campaign as a lone wolf opportunist as indicated in
your article. It is unlikely that his behavior was enough to justify FISA warrants.
The
Steele dossier compiled by Clinton campaign proxies in collaboration with Russian
intelligence sources and Obama administration partisans is the likely catalyst in obtaining
the FISA warrants allowing surveillance, unmasking, unsubstantiated leaks to the press, and
harassment of the Trump campaign and transitioning administration.
From the article..."It is also not clear why, after getting the information in May, the
Australian government waited two months to pass it to the F.B.I."
Likely because, as the 3rd paragraph of the article states, it was two months later that
the "leaked Democratic emails began appearing online."
So it was at that point that the talk about Russian dirt on Clinton that Papadopoulos
divulged to Downer was not just the drunken ramblings of a Trump campaign worker, but was in
fact demonstrably actionable information provided to the diplomat of a close U.S. ally,
regarding a plot by an adversarial foreign power to compromise a presidential candidate.
It would appear that the Australians decided to hold off on notifying the F.B.I. until the
leaked Democratic emails confirmed the credibility of the otherwise questionable info a
drunken Papadopoulos had divulged to Downer.
It continues to amaze me how badly the liberal media and liberal commentators want a worse
relationship between America and Russia. Why, they ask, does Donald Trump want improved
relations? It must be, they argue, that he owes a debt of gratitude to Vladimir Putin for
swinging the election to him and away from Hillary Clinton. Why else would he say nice things
to this dictator? Why else would he say that having a better relationship with Russia would
be a good thing?
Maybe Trump just subscribes to the Machiavellian admonishment to "keep your friends close
and your enemies closer". Russia, after all, still has thousands of nuclear warheads at their
disposal. Maybe trying to improve relations with Russia falls under the category of "protect
and defend" in the presidential oath of office and has nothing at all to do with meddling in
the election or "colluding".
I'm not so sure this is the whole story. Notice that the dossier mention has few
specifics. This smells like cover to prop up the illegal wire-taps that Obama did on Mr.
Trump. Time will tell.
Ok -- I'll try once more -- if the FBI initiated their probe into possible Trump-Russia
collusion on July-15-2016, how is it possible that the Aussies informing us about
Papadopoulosis claims to Downer provided the impetus for launching the investigation?
Wikileaks didn't make the DNC e-mails public until July-21 and the article says quite clearly
the Aussies did not inform their American counterparts about what Papadopoulos allegedly
claimed until after the DNC e-mails went public.
And it doesn't say how long the info from
the Aussies took to get to the FBI. But if the FBI launched their probe on July15 and wikileaks made the DNC e-mails public on July 21 and the Aussies didn't tell the Americans
about what they knew until after July-21 --- how is it possible the Papadopoulos claims were
the impetus?
Can someone explain? The authors perhaps? I thought time flowed in only one
direction...
If there was an investigation every time a low level part time "adviser" bragged about
"knowing" something to make himself look more important in front of someone else, there would
be no end of FBI investigations. Clearly, the deep state and FBI anti Trump bias, combined
with Hillary's first given excuse for losing being Russian collusion, was the reason for this
witch hunt.
Democrats forced a week AG to recuse and left their ally Deputy AG in charge, who
then appointed Mueller to investigate without a speck of evidence - a requirement of the
appointment of a special counsel.
And never mind, evidently, the prior collusion of Comey,
Mueller, and Rosenstein in the Uranium One deal. It all stinks to high heaven!
Curious timing. Just when the FBI is under severe scrutiny does this story appear. Do you
know what credibility is attached to a drunk who utters this or that? None. Would you file a
FISA application based on the information from a drunk? I don't think so.
We need a timeline. We need to see the narrative of the FISA application. Was it this info
or was it a dossier by a former British intel officer on behalf of the DNC who paid for any
dirt they could obtain on Trump?
The real story here is the FBI rendering preferential treatment to the Hillary
campaign.
This didn't spark investigations. British govt. accidentally scooped up meetings between
Russian govt. figures (who they were monitoring) & those close to Trump as early as
2015.Turned over the info to their US counterparts.
British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia | UK news | The
Guardian.html
The establishment media will never give up. They would attack Trump even if he achieved
World Peace.
"The Russians stole the election, with the duplicity of Trump. Trump is insane. He is not
qualified..."
They show the World time and again that it is THEY who have lost their bearings; that they
have, literally, lost their minds.
There may be more than one problem with this 'bombshell' but it is either sloppiness or
deliberately omitting the fact that the FBI submitted FISA court requests for surveillance of
the Trump campaign over a month prior to their supposed knowledge of anything about George
Papadapolous. This story is nothing but another leak to generate a red herring
So this is what the failing New York Times wants us to believe that a drunken bar-room
discussion between Papadoulos and an a Australian diplomat started the Trump/Russia
investigation? While this drunken bar-room discussion may have happened, don't you think that
Mr. Wray & Mr. Rosenstein would have mentioned this when they were recently grilled by
Mr. Jordan, Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Gowdy about the discredited Trump Dossier starting this
investigation? I am sorry failing New York Times, but I think that I will wait for Mr.
Mueller, Mr. Wray or Mr. Rosenstein to verify this information before I believe that this is
what started the Trump/Russia investigation!
While it does mention Mr. Clovis and Mr. Page, please note that this article does not
directly implicate Mr. Trump in any collusion tied to Mr. Papadolous' actions listed in this
article.
"Russia attacked our democracy" is code for "Donald Trump is not really President". This
story is wrong about the origin of the Trump/Russia investigation because of two facts: 1.
The FBI knew of attempts by the Russians to get into the DNC server in 2015 and informed the
DNC of such. At that point there is no evidence that anyone in Trump's sphere had any
discussions with Russia. 2. The Podesta email dump occured after this drunk meetings and 3.
The FBI did not interview Papadapoulus until 2017, a full year after this drunk meeting took
place. Sorry NYT, this purpose of this article is to cover Strzok and his friends' behinds,
and pretty transparently.
Where in this story does the Clinton campaign fit? Clinton was being investigated by the
FBI when all of this started, right in the heat of a neck-and-neck campaign. It was almost as
if Clinton had direct control over what Comey was saying at the time. Clinton's email server
likely led to the DNC being hacked, what about all of that?
Why would I trust the NYTs findings when the FBI has failed to find any connection? Where
is the FBI investigation leading? Why would the FBI leak all of these details to the NYT
right as the investigation appears to be winding down?
Everyone affiliated with Trump has had a scope shoved way up inside them and we've seen
practically every mistake any of them have ever made, reported alongside these Russian
collusion theories. Are we finished here?
Am interesting piece of fictional theory. So Trump is guilty of collusion and Hillary gets
a pass because she paid a company to hire a spy to talk to Russian government contacts to get
dirt on Trump. I'm dumbfounded that the NYT, other media outlets and Democrats don't realize
their hypocrisy. Both side sought dirt from Russia. Both sides are not being treated equally.
Shame on the NYT.
This "report" is going to get blasted and taken apart as more "fake news" from the NYT.
There is a massive amount of public information already available that contradicts the entire
premise of this article. That they would even print it is distasteful. But the authors just
put their reputations on the chopping block.
Reconstructed from tweets published by Zero Hedge. Twits also contain interesting and
informative images which support that point made and which were omitted.
Um Maggie, [@maggieNYT ] hate to undercut your 'explosive story* on origin of Russia
Probe. But George Papadopoulos talking in May 2016, is likely about this 'open and public
information* from April 2016. foxnews.com/politics/2016/...
Additionally, worth noting @maggieNYT is nowhere in the Joint Analysis Report [Comey,
Brennan and Clapper construct] is anything about George Papadopoulos even hinted or alluded
to.
[@maggieNYT ] ABC in Australia is reporting it was Alexander Downer (Australian High
Commissioner to UK) who then let counterparts in US know that George Papadopolous was talking
about the Sidney Blumental hack via Clinton Emails.
The @maggieNYT is also nonsense based on common sense. Papadopoulos was so important
that: July 15th 2016 Comey opens counterintel investigation into Russian collusion. January
15th 2017 FBI visits Papadopoulos for first time. FBI waited for six months to talk to
him?
@maggieNYT If George Papadopoulos was so important to the FBI "investigation" why did all
"intelligence" agencies released their final JAR report without ever speaking to him? Not
even once?7
No @maggieNYT what you have in your article is a well constructed and brutally familiar
pattern of what journalism looks like when the 1C use reporters to cover their tracks and
create a justification based on a false premise.
The Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby, Nellie Ohr etc. and subsequent Christopher
Steele origin of the FISA application source material is a risk to the former leadership
within the DOJ National Security Division and FBI Counterintelligence Division.
That's why both FBI and DOJ sides of this intelligence operation need to create a false
origin. The actual FISA application content is a much more explosive risk. Use your common
sense logic hat and see when you are being played.
USE COMMON SENSE: If a Papadopolous conversation in May 2016 was the origin, the source
material, of the FBI counterintelligence operation, then why were they denied a FISA
application in June/July 2016 ?
The wife of Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS), Mary B. Jacoby, with years of Russia-angled
reporting -including Donald Trump -- visits the White House on April 19th 2016.
white-house-logs.insidegov.com
Mary В Jacoby is a deep part of Clinton's political camp going all the way back to
the Rose Law Firm. You know that because you know her. After the April 19, 2016, WH visit,
the DNC and Clinton campaign hire Mary and Glenn (Fusion GPS) for the "trump project".
Immediately after Fusion was paid, Glenn Simpson and Mary Jacoby (Fusion GPS Patriarchs),
hire Nellie Ohr.
As you know, Nellie Ohr is the wife of DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr. The same Bruce Ohr who was
demoted for meeting with Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele, along with FBI agent Peter
Strzok, w/out telling DOJ leadership.
Again, you know this stuff. Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr and Glenn Simpson have known each other
for years; and have worked on CIA *open source* projects together for a long time.
As you know all of these people are SME's on everything Russia and everything Russia
intelligence. It is all of this activity in April and May, not innocuous George Papadopolous
reading newspapers, that assembled data and eventually led to the "Russia Probe".
On June 24th 2017 Mary Jacoby even publicly stated on her facebook that her work with
Glenn is what specifically led to the FBI beginning the "Russia Probe".
tabletmag.com/jewish-news-an...
After the initial July 2016 FISA Court denial, the FBI and DOJ team leaned heavily on the
external team of Jacoby, Simpson, Ohr, Steele etc. who created the "dossier" that enhanced
the application that gained the FISA warrant in Oct.
as you know, because of the legal framework around them, FISA warrants can be applied
retroactively. Wiretaping and monitoring can technically begin while evidence
is gathered to justify a DOJ-NSD warrant application later.
So @maggieNYT the question I have for you is: Did you write that nonsense about George
Papadopolous because the 1C (FBI/DOJ) tricked you into it? OR were you a willing participant
in helping transmit political disinformation in an effort to help them cover their
tracks?
Pat asks interesting question: "If Trump's alleged "collusion" with Putin to damage Clinton
was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to
Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI
investigation?"
That suggest that Rosenstein is an accomplice of the FBI "gang of three"
NYT lost any respectability and is just a CIA controlled outlet. As one commenter aptly put
it: "The article provides further proof that anything the NY Times has published in the last 10
years or so, particularly since the organ became the property of Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim,
is deep state bullshit."
Unlike honest investigation witch hunt has its own rules and dynamics. Mueller is completely
compromised by connections to the FBI "gang of three"
Notable quotes:
"... What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to surveil and wiretap Trump's team? ..."
"... Yet, if Steele's dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier's contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a problem. ..."
"... But if Papadopoulos's drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January 2017? ..."
"... If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him -- as compared to Steele? ..."
"... If Trump's alleged "collusion" with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation ..."
"... Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign's ties to Russian agents, than to Trumpian "collusion" that is yet unproven? Consider what the British spy Steele and his former KGB/FSB comrades accomplished: They have kept alive a special counsel's investigation that has divided our country, imperiled the FBI's reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and partially paralyzed the U.S. government. Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won the Cold War. ..."
What caused the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in
July 2016, which evolved into the criminal investigation that is said today to imperil the
Trump presidency?
As James Comey's FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller have, for 18 months, failed to prove
Donald Trump's "collusion" with the Kremlin, what was it, in mid-2016, that justified starting
this investigation?
What was the basis for the belief Trump was colluding, that he was the Manchurian
candidate of Vladimir Putin? What evidence did the FBI cite to get FISA court warrants to
surveil and wiretap Trump's team?
Republican congressmen have for months been demanding answers to these questions. And, as
Mueller's men have stonewalled, suspicions have arisen that this investigation was, from the
outset, a politicized operation to take down Trump.
Feeding those suspicions has been the proven anti-Trump bias of investigators. Also, wiretap
warrants of Trump's team are said to have been issued on the basis of a "dirty dossier" that
was floating around town in 2016 -- but which mainstream media refused to publish as they could
not validate its lurid allegations.
Who produced the dossier?
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele, whose dirt was delivered by ex-Kremlin agents. And Steele
was himself a hireling of Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit enlisted and paid by the Clinton
campaign and DNC. Writes the Washington Times, Steele "paid Kremlin sources with Democratic
cash."
Yet, if Steele's dossier is a farrago of falsehoods and fake news, and the dossier's
contents were used to justify warrants for wiretaps on Trump associates, Mueller has a
problem.
Prosecutions his team brings could be contaminated by what the FBI did, leaving his
investigation discredited.
Fortunately, all this was cleared up for us New Year's Eve by a major revelation in The New
York Times. Top headline on page one:
"Unlikely Source Propelled Russia Meddling Inquiry" The story that followed correctly framed
the crucial question: "What so alarmed American officials to provoke the FBI to open a
counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign months before the presidential
election?"
The Times then gave us the answer we have been looking for: "It was not, as Trump and other
politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign.
Instead it was firsthand information from one of America's closest intelligence allies."
The ally: Australia, whose ambassador to Britain was in an "upscale London Bar" in the West
End in May 2016, drinking with a sloshed George Papadopoulos, who had ties to the Trump
campaign and who informed the diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos
had reportedly been told in April that Russia had access to Clinton's emails.
Thus, when the DNC and John Podesta emails were splashed all over the U.S. press in June,
Amb. Alexander Downer, recalling his conversation with Papadopoulos, informed his government,
which has excellent ties to U.S. intelligence, and the FBI took it from there.
The Times' story pounds home this version of events: "The hacking and the revelation that a
member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that
led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russian attempts to disrupt the election
and whether any of Trump's associates conspired."
This, the Times assures us, "answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year."
Well, perhaps.
But if Papadopoulos's drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the
investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January
2017?
According to the Times, an FBI agent in Rome had been told by Steele in June 2016 what he
had learned from the Russians. And Steele was interviewed by the FBI in October 2016.
If Papadopoulos triggered the investigation, why the seeming FBI disinterest in him --
as compared to Steele?
Yet another major question remains unanswered.
If, as the Times writes, the FBI was looking "into Russian attempts to disrupt the
elections," why did the FBI not open an investigation into the KGB roots of the Steele dossier
that was written to destroy the Republican candidate, Donald Trump?
If Trump's alleged "collusion" with Putin to damage Clinton was worthy of an all-out FBI
investigation, why did the Clinton-DNC scheme to tie Trump to Russian prostitutes, using
British spies and former KGB agents, not merit an FBI investigation ?
Why was there less concern about the Clinton campaign's ties to Russian agents, than to
Trumpian "collusion" that is yet unproven? Consider what the British spy Steele and his former
KGB/FSB comrades accomplished: They have kept alive a special counsel's investigation that has
divided our country, imperiled the FBI's reputation, preoccupied and damaged a president, and
partially paralyzed the U.S. government. Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of
his old comrades from KGB days, who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so
cripple the superpower that won the Cold War.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Mr. Buchanan bangs this into his every column on the subject, thus securing his place on
the right edge of the Establishment's 3×5 card of condoned discourse.
To paraphrase Mr. Orwell, "We always have to be at war with Eastasia."
But if Papadopoulos's drunken babbling to the Aussie ambassador triggered the
investigation in July 2016, why was George not interviewed by the FBI until January
2017?
Exactly. Something's fishy. The Steele dossier that formed the original basis for the
Trump-Russia collusion investigation is falling apart since it's chock full of salacious and
unverified claims. So a new narrative is being constructed to keep this alive and
kicking.
This investigation is nothing more than a political hit and attempted coup d'etat and we
can thank none other than (((Rod Rosenstein))) for this.
The whole Mueller investigation will fall apart. What lessons will the Trump administration
and the American public learn from it? Mr. Buchanan errs that the Russian spin was triggered
by Putin's old KGB comrades. It was homemade.
The whole affair tells the world more about the rottenness of the American political
system and its elites. All the leftover crooks from the Obama and the Clinton political mafia
have to be indicted, starting with Obama, Hillary Clinton, Comey, Lynch, Rosenstein, and
Mueller with his appointed Clinton supporters. But also the former directors such as Clapper,
Brennon and their ilk should be brought to justice.
I mentioned already several times that the FBI, CIA et cetera are criminal organizations,
which are run by a political mafia. I would even terminate the CIA the most significant, best
paid and well-trained terror organization in the world, followed by the Mossad.
To drain the swamp to have to turn the D.C. institutions upside down. But is Trump capable
or still willing doing it? Doubts are appropriate. The Deep State has already gotten hold of
Trump because he gave in by not publishing all the documents of the assassination of JFK.
Wouldn't they have demonstrated that the CIA committed the crime?
Trump should put first his own house in order before starting another war against Iran for
the benefit of Israel.
Putin must be marveling at the astonishing success of his old comrades from KGB days,
who could pull off an intelligence coup like this and so cripple the superpower that won
the Cold War.
No Pat, the US did not win the Cold War. It all ended fairly amicably. The Russians pulled
their forces out of Eastern Europe and let those countries reassert their independence.
Russia should have pressed for a formal treaty, certainly. But that's another matter.
It is true that since the Bill Clinton presidency the US Government has acted as if it did
win the Cold War. This has been one of the root causes of America's disastrous military and
diplomatic policies. But Russia has revived as a great power, and has been joined by
China.
Some victory, then
No Pat, the US did not win the Cold War. It all ended fairly amicably. The Russians
pulled their forces out of Eastern Europe and let those countries reassert their
independence.
Thus, the most salient reason for the Cold War was no more, and the main US Cold War
objective was fulfilled.
After the lies that the NYT spread about the Iraq nuclear capabilities that destroyed the
life of millions of Arabs, Moslem and Christians, I still wonder how anyone could believe
what its pro-Israel journalists keep writing.
With its obvious bias, in my view the NYT has a very low credibility and is deep in the
swamp.
The problem with white men is white privilege. For us to be honest about our history, we'd
have to come clean about our ancestors, our so-called education, the entire system that
allows us to be "color-blind," basically all the lies we've been fed since day one about the
Calvinist work ethic that suggests we made it on humble Christianity and hard work alone.
the family tree is rotten to the root, and our legacy is the inheritance of the
psychopathology that has defined this country since day one. that we choose denial and
avoidance is a testament to our lack of character and the truth of our soul.
The article provides further proof that anything the NY Times has published in the last 10
years or so, particularly since the organ became the property of Mexican Billionaire Carlos
Slim, is deep state bullshit. Actually it has largely been that for twenty years or longer.
The new book by former NY Times ace reporter Risen documents the decline to servile
propaganda status of the onetime newspaper of record.
"... Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society. ..."
It's great that The Deep State's attempted coup against Trump has (thus far) failed...
BUT, given all the serious crimes that The Left has been caught red-handed
involved in, and the complete lack of legal repercussions that have resulted, I'm losing
faith in our ability to mend the American justice OR political systems :/
All these witch hunts have done, is continue to exonerate Trump, and expose crimes, and
corruption from the deep stare, MSM, DNC, Clintons, and Obama. As well as further discredit
our intelligence agencies, and destroy what little faith the people had in them.
All this debacle, constantly demonizing Trump is the Dems way of hiding there own
corruption. Smoke & mirrors. The Dems remind me of an Ouroboros like creature eating its
own tail but destroying itself
Mr.Molyneux, You've really become the best journalist alive today, thank you for your
commitment to courageous integrity in reporting the insane conditions of our society.
Papadopoulos rumor is that he told some Aussie diplomat that the Russians have dirt on Clinton. He claims to have learned that
from some mysterious Professor Mifsud who was trying to set up a Trump-Putin meeting with the hope to profit from the effort. The
professor was some kind of imposter. He arranged a meeting for Papadopoulos with "Putin's niece". Both of Putin's siblings died at
child's age during the World War II siege of Leningrad - he has no niece. Whatever Mifsud claimed was probably not true.
The Australian diplomat heard from a drunk Papadopoulos that some weird professor claimed to have heard from Russian sources
that the Kremlin had dirt on Clinton. Two month later the Aussies tell their U.S. colleagues of that claim. It is fourth degree
hearsay when it it reaches the FBI
The bio of Joseph Mifsud, the professor at the center of the Trump-Russia probe, has been
removed from the website of the university in Rome where he has worked for years, BuzzFeed
reports.
In late October Mifsud was identified by the Washington Post as one of George Papadopoulos'
key links to Russian officials. Papadopolous, President Donald Trump's former foreign policy
adviser during the presidential campaign, pleaded guilty Oct. 5 to lying to federal agents
about his contacts with people with connections to the Russian government.
Mifsud worked as a professor at Link Campus University (LCU) in Rome, where he led a
three-year degree course in political science and international relations. An FBI affidavit
unsealed in late October stated Papadopoulos acknowledged the professor "had told him about the
Russians possessing dirt on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of
emails."
But his name no longer appears on the faculty pages, and his bio now goes to a 404 error
page. Mifsud, according to a fellow professor who spoke to BuzzFeed anonymously, hasn't been
seen on the Rome campus in weeks.
There is no doubt that US will escalate existing wars as well as start new ones in 2018,
Trump is a nothingburger for the MIC (to make a caricature of the cliche). But I have said
the following before and just repeating it now – the race is on between the collapse of
the US-driven financial system and a big kahuna of the global nuclear war. Either US finances
will collapse or the US will do the big damage to this planet. Whether the financial collapse
will be initiated by the replacement of US petro dollar with petro Yuan or some other
synthetic currency, or by an attack on NK or even worse Iran, it is hard to say. Rigging All
of the Markets will eventually come to an end and hopefully the cowards commanded to launch
the missiles will instead rush home to take care of their families.
If you do not know already how rotten the US system is, read that the Federal employee who
mowes the grass of the White House lawn earns almost $142,000 per year:
"We have a triumvirate of the Democratic Party, New York Times, and FBI, that perfectly parallels their predecessors: the
Communist Party, Pravda, and KGB."
January 4, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
"Why was it felt necessary for a DNC-linked "journalist", in a politically-biased "newspaper", to obfuscate the rather obvious
fact that the Fusion GPS "dossier"was the pretext for the FBI investigation? "
Notable quotes:
"... This information has clearly been published in order to counter the increasingly widely circulating claim that it was the Trump Dossier which triggered the Russiagate investigation. ..."
Of much more interest is the new information which has been published about George
Papadopoulos. The information appears in an
article in the New York Times which reads in part as follows
During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George
Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling
revelation to Australia's top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary
Clinton.
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of
emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her
campaign.
Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the
Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later,
when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online , Australian officials passed the
information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current
and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians' role.
This information has clearly been published in order to counter the increasingly widely
circulating claim that it was the Trump Dossier which triggered the Russiagate
investigation.
"... As early as 2009 "secret recordings and intercept emails showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act . ..."
"... The investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein , who is now President Trump's Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe , who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump. Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015." -- Looks like a nest of traitors and incompetent opportunists fattening on the US taxpayers' money ..."
As early as 2009 "secret recordings and intercept emails showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with
bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act .
The investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein , who is now President Trump's Deputy Attorney General,
and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe , who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump. Robert Mueller was head of the
FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam
being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015."
-- Looks like a nest of traitors and incompetent opportunists fattening on the US taxpayers' money
"... The central groupthink around Russia-gate is the still unproven claim that Russia hacked Democratic emails in 2016 and publicized them via WikiLeaks, a crucial issue that NSA experts say should be easy to prove if true, reports Dennis J. Bernstein. ..."
"... Binney: We at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) published an article on this in July. First of all, if any of the data went anywhere across the fiber optic world, the NSA would know. Just inside the United States, the NSA has over a hundred tap points on the fiber lines, taking in everything. ..."
"... The other data that came out from Guccifer 2.0, a download from the DNC, has been a charade. It was a download and not a transfer across the Web. The Web won't manage such a high speed. It could not have gotten across the Atlantic at that high speed. You would have to have high capacity lines dedicated to that in order to do it. They have been playing games with us. There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here. ..."
"... Bernstein: Let me come at this from the other side. Has the United States ever tried to hack into and undermine Russian operations in this way? ..."
"... Binney: Oh, sure. We do it as much as anybody else. In the Ukraine, for example, we sponsored regime change. When someone who was pro-Soviet was elected president, we orchestrated a coup to put our man in power. ..."
"... Did the US meddle in the Russian elections that brought Yeltsin to power? ..."
"... I believe they did. We try to leverage our power and influence elections around the world. ..."
"... Binney: Yes, to defend privacy but also to defend the Constitution. Right now, our government is violating the first, fourth and fifth amendments in various ways. Mueller did it, Comey did it, they were all involved in violating the Constitution. ..."
"... Bernstein: There seems to be a new McCarthyite operation around the Russia-gate investigation. It appears that it is an attempt to justify the idea that Clinton lost because the Russians undermined the election. ..."
"... Bernstein: It was initially put out that seventeen intelligence agencies found compelling evidence that the Russians hacked into our election. You're saying it was actually selected individuals from just three agencies. Is there anything to the revelations that FBI agents talked about taking action to prevent Trump from becoming president? ..."
"... Binney: It certainly does seem that it is leaning that way, that is was all a frame-up. It is a sad time in our history, to see the government working against itself internally ..."
"... Bernstein: What concerns do you have regarding the Russia-gate investigation and the McCarthyite tactics that are being employed? ..."
"... Binney: Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with Russia. We should definitely not be going down that path. We need to get out of all these wars. I am also concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We are trampling the fundamental principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to start indicting people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly unconstitutional. ..."
The central groupthink around Russia-gate is the still unproven claim that Russia hacked
Democratic emails in 2016 and publicized them via WikiLeaks, a crucial issue that NSA experts
say should be easy to prove if true, reports Dennis J. Bernstein.
A changing-places moment brought about by Russia-gate is that liberals who are usually more
skeptical of U.S. intelligence agencies, especially their evidence-free claims, now question
the patriotism of Americans who insist that the intelligence community supply proof to support
the dangerous claims about Russian 'hacking" of Democratic emails especially when some veteran
U.S. government experts say the data would be easily available if the Russians indeed were
guilty.
One of those experts is William Binney, a former high-level National Security Agency
intelligence official who, after his 2001 retirement, blew the whistle on the extraordinary
breadth of NSA surveillance programs. His outspoken criticism of the NSA during the George W.
Bush administration made him the subject of FBI investigations that included a raid on his home
in 2007.
Even before Edward Snowden's NSA whistleblowing, Binney publicly revealed that NSA had
access to telecommunications companies' domestic and international billing records, and that
since 9/11 the agency has intercepted some 15 trillion to 20 trillion communications. Snowden
has said: "I have tremendous respect for Binney, who did everything he could according to the
rules."
I spoke to Binney on Dec. 28 about Russia-gate and a host of topics having to do with
spying and America's expanding
national security state.
Dennis Bernstein: I would like you to begin by telling us a little about your background at
the NSA and how you got there.
William Binney: I was in the United States Army from 1965 to 1969. They put me in the
Army Security Agency, an affiliate of the NSA. They liked the work I was doing and they put me
on a priority hire in 1970. I was in the NSA for 32 years, mostly working against the Soviet
Union and the Warsaw Pact. I was solving what were called "wizard puzzles," and the NSA was
sometimes referred to as the "Puzzle Palace." I had to solve code systems and work on cyber
systems and data systems to be able to predict in advance the "intentions and capabilities of
adversaries or potential adversaries."
Bernstein: At a certain point you ran amiss of your supervisors. What did you come to
understand and try to tell people that got you in dutch with your higher-ups?
Binney: By 1998-1999, the "digital issue" was basically solved. This created a
problem for the upper ranks because at the time they were lobbying Congress for $3.8 billion to
continue working on what we had already accomplished. That lobby was started in 1989 for a
separate program called Trailblazer, which failed miserably in 2005-2006. We had to brief
Congress on how we were progressing and my information ran contrary to the efforts downtown to
secure more funding. And so this caused a problem internally.
We learned from some of our staff members in Congress that several of the corporations that
were getting contracts from the NSA were downtown lobbying against our program in Congress.
This is the military industrial complex in action. That lobby was supported by the NSA
management because they just wanted more money to build a bigger empire.
But Dick Cheney, who was behind all of this, wanted it because he grew up under Nixon, who
always wanted to know what his political enemies were thinking and doing. This kind of approach
of bulk acquisition of everything was possible after you removed certain segments of our
software and they used it against the entire digital world. Cheney wanted to know who his
political enemies were and get updates about them at any time.
Bernstein: Your expertise was in the Soviet Union and so you must know a lot about
bugging. Do you believe that Russia hacked and undermined our last election? Can Trump thank
Russia for the result?
Binney: We at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) published an
article on this in July. First of all, if any of the data went anywhere across the fiber optic
world, the NSA would know. Just inside the United States, the NSA has over a hundred tap points
on the fiber lines, taking in everything. Mark Klein exposed some of this at the AT&T
facility in San Francisco.
This is not for foreigners, by the way, this is for targeting US citizens. If they wanted
only foreigners, all they would have to do was look at the transatlantic cables where they
surface on the coast of the United States. But they are not there, they are distributed among
the US population.
Bernstein: So if, in fact, the Russians were tapping into DNC headquarters, the NSA
would absolutely know about it.
Binney: Yes, and they would also have trace routes on where they went specifically,
in Russia or anywhere else. If you remember, about three or four years ago, the Chinese hacked
into somewhere in the United States and our government came out and confirmed that it was the
Chinese who did it, and it came from a specific military facility in Shanghai. The NSA had
these trace route programs embedded by the hundreds across the US and all around the world.
The other data that came out from Guccifer 2.0, a download from the DNC, has been a
charade. It was a download and not a transfer across the Web. The Web won't manage such a high
speed. It could not have gotten across the Atlantic at that high speed. You would have to have
high capacity lines dedicated to that in order to do it. They have been playing games with us.
There is no factual evidence to back up any charge of hacking here.
Bernstein: So was this a leak by somebody at Democratic headquarters?
Binney: We don't know that for sure, either. All we know was that it was a local
download. We can likely attribute it to a USB device that was physically passed along.
Bernstein: Let me come at this from the other side. Has the United States ever tried
to hack into and undermine Russian operations in this way?
Binney: Oh, sure. We do it as much as anybody else. In the Ukraine, for example, we
sponsored regime change. When someone who was pro-Soviet was elected president, we orchestrated
a coup to put our man in power.
Then we invited the Ukraine into NATO. One of the agreements we made with the Russians when
the Soviet Union fell apart was that the Ukraine would give them their nuclear weapons to
manage and that we would not move NATO further east toward Russia. I think they made a big
mistake when they asked Ukraine to join NATO. They should have asked Russia to join as well,
making it all-inclusive. If you treat people as adversaries, they are going to act that
way.
Bernstein:Did the US meddle in the Russian elections that brought Yeltsin to
power?
Binney:I believe they did. We try to leverage our power and influence elections
around the world.
Bernstein: What has your group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, been
up to, and what has been the US government's response?
Binney: We have been discussing privacy and security with the European Union and with a
number of European parliaments. Recently the Austrian supreme court ruled that the entire bulk
acquisition system was unconstitutional. Everyone but the conservatives in the Austrian
parliament voted that bill down, making Austria the first country there to do the right
thing.
A slide from material leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden to the Washington Post,
showing what happens when an NSA analyst "tasks" the PRISM system for information about a new
surveillance target.
Bernstein: Is it your goal to defend people's privacy and their right to communicate
privately?
Binney: Yes, to defend privacy but also to defend the Constitution. Right now,
our government is violating the first, fourth and fifth amendments in various ways. Mueller did
it, Comey did it, they were all involved in violating the Constitution.
Back in the 1990's, the idea was to make our analysts effective so that they could see
threats coming before they happened and alert people to take action so that lives would be
saved. What happens now is that people go out and kill someone and then the NSA and the FBI go
on a forensics mission. Intelligence is supposed to tell you in advance when a crime is coming
so that you can do something to avert it. They have lost that perspective.
Bernstein: They now have access to every single one of our electronic conversations,
is that right? The human mind has a hard time imagining how you could contain, move and study
all that information.
Binney: Basically, it is achievable because most of the processing is done by machine
so it doesn't cost human energy.
Bernstein: There seems to be a new McCarthyite operation around the Russia-gate
investigation. It appears that it is an attempt to justify the idea that Clinton lost because
the Russians undermined the election.
Binney: I have seen no evidence at all from anybody, including the intelligence
community. If you look at the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) report, they state on the
first page that "We have high confidence that the Russians did this." But when you get toward
the end of the report, they basically confess that "our judgment does not imply that we have
evidence to back it up."
Bernstein: It was initially put out that seventeen intelligence agencies found
compelling evidence that the Russians hacked into our election. You're saying it was actually
selected individuals from just three agencies. Is there anything to the revelations that FBI
agents talked about taking action to prevent Trump from becoming president?
Binney: It certainly does seem that it is leaning that way, that is was all a
frame-up. It is a sad time in our history, to see the government working against itself
internally.
Bernstein: I take it you are not a big supporter of Trump.
Binney: Well, I voted for him. I couldn't vote for a warmonger like Clinton. She
wanted to see our planes shooting down Russian planes in Syria. She advocated for destabilizing
Libya, for getting rid of Assad in Syria, she was a strong backer of the war in Iraq.
Bernstein: What concerns do you have regarding the Russia-gate investigation and
the McCarthyite tactics that are being employed?
Binney: Ultimately, my main concern is that it could lead to actual war with
Russia. We should definitely not be going down that path. We need to get out of all these wars.
I am also concerned about what we are doing to our own democracy. We are trampling the
fundamental principles contained in the Constitution. The only way to reverse all this is to
start indicting people who are participating in and managing these activities that are clearly
unconstitutional.
"If one argues the document is unverified and never will be, it is critical to learn the
identity of the sources to support that conclusion. If one argues the document is the whole
truth, or largely true, knowing sources is equally critical."
Notable quotes:
"... there is another reason to know Steele's sources, and that is to learn not just the origin of the dossier but its place in the larger Trump-Russia affai ..."
"... Really incredible that it is assumed that everyone will believe any loopy paid-by-Soros "sources" the CIA trots out. ..."
"... I'll not bother with the CIA's repugnant history of overthrowing governments all over the planet. But I do have to ask: when are the Russia-did-it enthusiasts going to stop making fools of themselves? ..."
"... Steele's contacts might just be a bunch of washed-up spies like himself, feeding him garbage ... because he was paying for it. ..."
According to Zerohedge,there is another reason to know Steele's sources, and that is to learn not just the origin of
the dossier but its place in the larger Trump-Russia affair.
As the WashEx adds, there is a belief among some congressional investigators that the
Russians who provided information to Steele were using Steele to disrupt the American
election as much as the Russians who distributed hacked Democratic Party emails. In some
investigators' views, they are the two sides of the Trump-Russia project, both aimed at
sowing chaos and discord in the American political system.
Still, investigators who favor this theory ask a sensible question: " It is likely that
all the Russians involved in the attempt to influence the 2016 election were lying, scheming,
Kremlin-linked, Putin-backed enemies of America – except the Russians who talked to
Christopher Steele? "
On the other hand, the theory is still just a theory, for now and as the Examiner's Byron
York correctly points out, to validate -or refute – it House investigators will seek
Steele's sources – and is why they will try to compel Kramer to talk.
Are we supposed to believe that the CIA doesn't have any Russian spooks on its payroll?
Any Russian "sources" are going to be taken as gold? Really incredible that it is assumed
that everyone will believe any loopy paid-by-Soros "sources" the CIA trots out.
I'll not bother with the CIA's repugnant history of overthrowing governments all over the
planet. But I do have to ask: when are the Russia-did-it enthusiasts going to stop making
fools of themselves?
There is another theory: the 'Kremlin' did not direct any of this. Steele's contacts might
just be a bunch of washed-up spies like himself, feeding him garbage ... because he was
paying for it.
It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is
an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism
campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing
jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the
United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US
neoliberal elite.
It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are
troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.
Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as
usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.
Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means
of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered
their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a
widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more
capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
"... The Russia Investigation shifts to Clinton's Political Rivals ..."
"... Let me get this straight: The Democrats think Stein siphoned votes away from Hillary, so Stein must be a "Russian agent". Is that it? ..."
"... The persecution of Jill Stein strips away the facade once and for all exposing Russia-gate as a complete fraud that is being used to exact revenge on the adversaries of Hillary Clinton and her reprobate friends. The New York Times even admits as much. ..."
"... That's what's really really going on, the fatcat honchos behind the scenes are just settling scores for Hillary's lost election. It's payback time for the Clinton Mafia. Here's more baloney from the Times: ..."
"... Give me a break. Does anyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee honestly believe that Jill Stein is a Russian agent? ..."
"... Of course not. They're just harassing her to send a message to anyone who might be thinking about running for president in the future. They're saying, "You'd better watch your step or we'll trump-up charges against you and make your life a living hell. Isn't that the message?You're damn right it is! ..."
"... "This is a witch hunt. It is neo-McCarthyism, plain and simple. The people who are outright calling Stein a Russian agent are making a complete mockery of themselves and of the American political process ..."
"... Dragging Stein into this mess shows Clinton Democrats up for what they really are. It proves that the 'Resist' crowd's crusade is not just about Trump and "collusion" -- it's also about discrediting all dissenting American voices and establishing their own definition of what political opposition is supposed to look like -- and for the Clinton cult, it's not supposed to look like Jill Stein . ..."
"... Anyone who disagrees with the Democrats is a Putin puppet -- and if you've ever been to Moscow, forget it -- don't even bother trying to defend yourself. Off with your head." ("McCarthy-style targeting of Jill Stein proves Democrats have truly lost the plot", RT) ..."
"... "The Socialist Equality Party condemns the targeting of Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate in the 2016 election, by the neo-McCarthyite witch-hunters on the Senate Intelligence Committee . The attack on Stein, spearheaded by the Democratic Party, is an unconstitutional attempt to delegitimize and suppress political opposition to the monopoly of the capitalist two-party system . ..."
"... This is the Orwellian reality of America in 2017, ruled by two right-wing, oligarchic parties that can and will tolerate no political opposition . ..."
"... If you're a liberal and you hate Donald Trump, then you probably see the Russia-gate investigation as your best chance to achieve the Golden Grail of "impeachment". But are you willing to compromise your principles, join forces with the sinister and unscrupulous Clinton cabal, and throw allies like Jill Stein under the bus to achieve your goal? ..."
"... How high a price are you willing to pay to get rid of Trump? That's the question that every liberal in America should be asking themselves. And they'd better answer it fast before it's too late. ..."
"... Mueller is clearly not the upstanding 'protector of American values' he is painted he is a servile political degenerate. A lifetime of betrayal has rendered him ethically autistic. He is blind to the way his own actions condemn him before reasonable minds. Hopefully he will wake up when condemned hiself in an American Court of Law at some future date. ..."
"... According to Edward Aguilar of Project for Nuclear Awareness, cancelling construction of the new submarines, reducing the current number of such subs, and retiring rather than replacing nuclear warheads and a couple hundred ICBMs would save $270 billion. ..."
"... The weapons oligarchy appears to be a racketeering-influenced and corrupt organization. Luckily, the RICO Act provides for heavy criminal penalties for such death-dealing corruption. ..."
Money quote: "And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War
3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real.
And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage,
to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation."
Notable quotes:
"... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
"... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
"... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
"... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
"... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
"... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
"... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
"... The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing ..."
"... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
"... I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this. I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US? ..."
"... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
"... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
"... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
"... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
"... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
"... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
"... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
"... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the
world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by
enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the
second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World
War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative
than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or
no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating
their cooperation.
Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated
through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed
that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to
its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been
willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.
So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could
first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things.
First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop
into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have
regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't have to like the governance of either country, but their
national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere
that must be respected by Russia and China.
Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses
if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine
but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent
given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.
Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes
from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least
clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels.
Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.
It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter,
but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back
on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued
unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government
in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through
their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence
of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.
Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival
in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the
Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes
including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community of responsible nations in our fight against
common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."
The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It
was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense
of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin
in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated
that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.
Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking
to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the
most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shiite militias being provided by Iran
and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian
engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.
As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent
reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to
escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek
Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn.
Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and
has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council.
But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times
that "wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding
Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David
Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.
Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need
to be confronted by force,
an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal moment that will determine whether
Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria." Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their
horror at a possible Shiite "bridge" or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria
and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery
but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar
sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make
a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not
wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's
number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument
on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.
The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the
source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands
of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon,
supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets
overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in
France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual
terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel,
which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard
on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's
armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi
financing and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative
elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White House has the courage to take such a step and change
direction? Unfortunately, no.
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So,
our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by
WASP Elites.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at YouTube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.
Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its
own sons and daughters.
Israel, the REAL enemy! ,
@K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its best brains to the U.S so its
trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The chief- architect of IBM's Watson is a Hindu Indian and so is the
head of IBM's neuro-morphic computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM
is collaborating with the American defense organization DARPA) instead of helping India achieve technological competence.
And most of other super intelligent Indians also India is losing them to the west.
(i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done the same. It is india's job to keep
its best brains working for it and not for others. And india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)
100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update
@Durruti Nice action approach
to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort
to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.
The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand
the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal,
the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his
republican opponents will not let him.
That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given
so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence
Agencies to the contrary not withstanding.
The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel
will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.
The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main oil supplier at the end of 1944.
The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Saudis would sponsor terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism
?
Sept 11 not, Boston not, Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the biggest.
That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army does what the USA wants them to do.
Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi Arabia. But with such amateur
dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as
Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a
bloody nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue with his rapprochement
towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational, reasonable, academic even.
But unfortunately, it's simply naive.
"Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very
hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which
America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?
The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems
.missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.
Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag.
Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle
east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.)
I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies.
So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,
"The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"
Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for
him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies
never work and ours quit long ago.
I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy',
the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia
population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves.
USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The
operation was by and large very successful btw.
It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world.
Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first
country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so
much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,
Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal
tendencies of Mexicans.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Replies: @Sowhat And what grudge
is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural
resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades
long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that
bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting
her wars of conquest.
You won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their control of the FED and
US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no matter the cost.
The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them
a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.
The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser and his fashion model faux
Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't stand the sight of dead babies
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some
people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if
any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
@eah The WH should focus on
the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization
of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast
and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others
to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely
argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"
-- goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses
Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just
as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and
Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they
acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity)
or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture,
Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try
to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
, @bjondo Jews/Judaism
bring death, destruction, misery.
Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many areas.
Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.
June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us
Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford
and Rockefeller Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s.
You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications
and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.
@anarchyst Israel's current
"agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty
work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue
that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"--goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend
her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism.
In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge
that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can
go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or
blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act
like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and the necessity to protect the USA
from terrorists attacks.
Iran is an hypothetical threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.
In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities like Mashad. there are taxi
companies owned and run by women.
Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute and take care of daily chores.
It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.
Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.
@Wizard of Oz I am beginning
to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening
question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read
The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?
There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming
there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've
spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way
of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems.
They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance
of US goals.
They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource wealth as their own personal kitty,
living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a
close ally of the US affords them protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person
but not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.
Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has
good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.
Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also
because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial
political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration
to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the
real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic.
And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud.
So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled
by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.
@Chad I fully agree that attacking
Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less,
in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.
Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority
Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands
this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large
very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across
the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran
became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became
the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher
so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it
wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.
1,000 Words @RobinG#UNRIG
adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states with biggest problems -- Illinois,
California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions
are unfunded or underfunded.
I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force," ** whose primary activity was
to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that
did business with Iran. I recall very clearly that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in
divesting from such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.
Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What shape would the US economy,
and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded,
Against Our Better Judgment, to entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?
____
** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman
and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting to influence the Iran Deal.
The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off groups such as Foundation for
Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.
Special Counsel appointment now looks like a fishing expedition in search of a crime. Why
Department of justice is not investigating DNC for obvious corruption in the USA 2016
elections.
Now Rosenstein looks like a very important witness. Recent "gang of three" revelation
undermined Rosenstein. If Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice, Rosenstein
should immediately recluse himself.
Rosenstein recommended that Comey be fired. That made him a critical player and potential
witness to the events underlying the obstruction of justice allegations.
If Mueller discussed the Comey's termination with Trump as a candidate for the next FBI
Director, he might also be considered a witness in any obstruction of justice investigation.
Mueller could not be viewed as a neutral choice by anyone on Trump's side due to his history
with Comey. I believe that Rosenstein used poor judgment in his selection.
Like invading Russia in winter, it appears that participating in the Russian investigation is
a prospect fraught with peril for those on the front lines.
Mueller was appointed under 28 CFR 600.7, which states that "[t]he Special Counsel may be
disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The
Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity,
conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies." If
Mueller is a potential witness, recusal or termination would be warranted under that standard as
a conflict.
Notable quotes:
"... "The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence), and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder." ..."
"... the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. ..."
"... "The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule." ..."
"... I think the position should be narrowed in scope to the charge as opposed a wide open net with a limitless mesh knitting. As is -- it's a sword over the head of any target and that makes for bad politics and policy in my view. Unfair leveraging . . . . b y the losing side to get their way outside the scope of the process. ..."
"... Look, if it turns out that this executive undermined democracy by engaging Russian to cheat our electoral process -- fine. I don't think there's any indication that the accusation is accurate. ..."
"... This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recuse themselves and get down to the work of running the country! Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media? Why aren't we "investigating" the DNC? ..."
So Trump a billionare has 3rd rate lawyers.
With all that money, why can't he hire firzt rate lawyers and really world class
investigators? He is never going to receive any kind of a break from the press and what
resemble his allies in Congress Gowdy and Jordan have proved to be windbags only slightly
more effective than Hank Johnson and Maxine Waters. Consequently, he needs to tap independent
investigstive resources or he will not be in office for the November 2018 election. Has he
explored a little help from the Mossad?
"The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers)
in the US government, the corruption of the FBI (which provided the leaks and did not
investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal
negligence), and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with
foreigners in order to derail the governance of the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait
to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the watch
of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder."
As always nothing will come of this. Trump screwed himself.
Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively,
decide to pack it in and go back to running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would
close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And they want Trump OUT --
no matter what the cost.
The criminal activist Mr. Rosenstein has come under bright light:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Office of Deputy Attorney General
Washington D.C. 20530
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide
supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential
election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special
Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these
matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel.
Rod Rosenstein
Acting Attorney General
__________________
"The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that
is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was
'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under
the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein
ignored that rule."
I think the investigation is revealing more about democrats than Republicans or the campaign
of Pres Trump.
I think the position should be narrowed in scope to the charge as opposed a wide open
net with a limitless mesh knitting. As is -- it's a sword over the head of any target and
that makes for bad politics and policy in my view. Unfair leveraging . . . . b y the losing
side to get their way outside the scope of the process.
Look, if it turns out that this executive undermined democracy by engaging Russian to
cheat our electoral process -- fine. I don't think there's any indication that the accusation
is accurate.
Fusion One (the monumental bribery case involving national security), Trailblazer
(fleecing the US taxpayers by Hayden and his coterie of incompetent and greedy contractors,
while persecuting the competent professionals), Awan affair (the greatest breach in national
cybersecurity), the thousands of "declassified" documents on Clinton's server, murder of Seth
Rich (in DC !), delivery of the US weaponry and more to ISIS/Al Qaeda, cooperation of the US
officials with neo-Nazi in Ukraine The list continues. A question: Why the US citizenry
continues paying the exorbitant amounts of money to the incompetent and dysfunctional
national security apparatus?
Debbie Barnhart : June 19, 2017 at 11:00 PM
This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recuse themselves and get down to
the work of running the country! Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC
emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media? Why aren't we
"investigating" the DNC?
Answer: because our "media" has been weaponized by them against it's "enemies." Putin is
an enemy because he didn't take kindly to Clinton's political weaponizing the press in it's
sphere of influence. Can't say I blame him. If the CIA can't hack Putin, and the U.S. is
helpless to prevent further hacking, then we have a much bigger problem. Trump's ham-fisted
attempts to get actual government officials to "go public" to reduce the media heat he feels,
is much ado about nothing. I wish he didn't care about the publicity, but then – if he
didn't – he wouldn't be President now.
Links to his blog below. He's what investigative reporters should be like but most
definitely are NOT like these days. He's sharp as a tack and doesn't miss a thing.
Transparent DOJ and FBI Desperation: New York Times Attempts "Trump Operation"
Justification
December 30, 2017
The article found below is where he discusses his first clue about the HUGE scandal
confirmed at the above DETAILED analyses. If this doesn't result in just a whole bunch of
high level swamp creatures doing a perp walk or AT THE VERY LEAST losing their jobs, you'll
know there's no hope:
THE BIG UGLY – Why U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras Recusal From Mike
Flynn Case is a Big Deal
December 8, 2017
"... The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year. This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or demerits). There had to be some other reason. ..."
"... Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice, which he regards as singularly unjust. ..."
"... Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be involved. ..."
"... Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the organization, Robert Mueller . ..."
"... "Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!" ..."
"... More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other. ..."
"... As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably favourable to Clinton over him. ..."
"... Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected] ..."
The attempt to tease, weave and develop a narrative against President Donald J. Trump
over a Russian connection began almost immediately after his victory in November last year.
This was meant to be institutional oversight and probing, but in another sense, it was also
intended to be an establishment's cry of hope to haul the untenable and inconceivable before
some process. No one could still fathom that Trump had actually won on his merits (or
demerits). There had to be some other reason.
Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against
those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump
scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice,
which he regards as singularly unjust.
The FBI investigation into Trumpland and its reputed nexus with Russia remains both bane and
opportunity for Trump. As long as it continues, it affords Trump ammunition for populist
broadsides and claims that such entities are sworn to destroy him.
To watch this story unfold is to remember how a soap opera can best anything done in
celluloid. The New York Times has given us a New Year's Eve treat, claiming that former
Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos spilt the beans to former Australian foreign minister
Alexander Downer at London's Kensington Wine Rooms in May 2016.
The two men had, apparently, been doing what any decent being does at such a London venue:
drink. Papadopoulos' tongue started to wag as the imbibing continued. There was a Russian
connection. There was dirt to be had, featuring Hillary Clinton.
Downer, however hazed, archived the discussion. He could make a name for himself with this
decent brown nosing opportunity. Australia , Washington's ally with an enthusiastic puppy dog
manner, wanted to help, to tip off US authorities that a great Satan, Russia, might be
involved. So commenced the long road to the fall of Trump's former aide, who conceded, in time,
to have lied to the FBI. Trump's response was to
degrade Papadopoulos as a "low-level volunteer" and "liar", giving him the kiss of
unimportance.
Australian ex-officials were by no means the only ones involved in providing succour to the
anti-Trump effort. A picture was being painted by other sources – British and Dutch, for
instance – pointing to the Kremlin as central to the Democratic email hacks. The FBI
probe, in time, would become the full-fledged investigation led by a former director of the
organization, Robert Mueller .
This provides the broader context for the Trump assault on all manner of instruments in the
Republic. Earlier in December, Twitter was again ablaze with the president's fury. The blasts
centered on the guilty plea by former national security advisor Michael Flynn. He had, in fact,
had conversations with the former Russian ambassador. Trump's approach was two-fold: claim that Flynn's actions had been initially, at least,
lawful, while the conduct of the
FBI and Department of Justice had been uneven and arbitrary.
"So General Flynn lies to the FBI and his life is destroyed, while Crooked Hillary
Clinton, on that now infamous FBI holiday 'interrogation' with no swearing in and no
recording, lies many times and nothing happens to her?"
He then reserved a salvo for the DOJ.
"Many people in our Country are asking what the 'Justice' Department is going to do about
the fact that totally Crooked Hillary, AFTER receiving a subpoena from the United States
Congress, deleted and 'acid washed' 33,000 Emails? No justice!"
The persistent inability to understand Trumpland as a series of bullying an exploitative
transactions blunts the value of the FBI investigation. Whatever it purports to be, it smacks
of desperation, an effort in search of an explanation rather than a resolution. The Trump
Teflon remains in place, immovable.
More to the point, Trump is certainly right in questioning the historic inability of
the FBI to be a credible instrument of justice, even if history is not his strong suit. The
Bureau under J. Edgar Hoover was a monster of surveillance, its reputation, despite being in
deserved tatters, defended by one president after the other.
As for bias, Trump is certainly right on the score that certain FBI officials, foremost
amongst them lawyer Lisa Page and FBI special agent Peter Strzok , were demonstrably
favourable to Clinton over him.
... ... ...
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures
at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
Trump has now publicly acknowledged that McCabe violated several federal laws, not the least
of which is the Hatch Act. Yet he now proposes to allow McCabe to retire next year, keeping his
federal pension and benefits.
Not only that but Congress has that evidence now too -- but note that the House Judiciary
Committee is not issuing a single word about the fact that such actions are violations of
several federal laws.
What Trump should do is have Sessions immediately indict him - after firing McCabe for
cause, which terminates his right to any sort of federal pension or benefit. If McCabe wants to
sue for his pension let him, because that will force into the public record all of the evidence
on exactly what he did as he will have to defend the claim that his firing "for cause" wasn't
actually for cause.
Good luck with that.
But Trump isn't going to do that. Instead he's going to let McCabe walk off with your money
America. Money he will steal from you for the rest of his life after having taken actions that,
the President has good reason to believe, were felony violations of the law and abuses of his
office, effectively using the FBI as a political weapon in a Presidential contest.
"... The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some solid policies that benefit normal Americans! ..."
Fox News host Maria Bartiromo interviews Representative Bud Cummins about the 2016
weaponization of the FBI and DOJ and the same group of people in 2017 working to undermine the
Trump administration.
This Tuesday FBI Asst. Director Andrew McCabe will meet with the House Intelligence
Committee. Around the same time Trump lawyers will be meeting with Robert Mueller. Could be a
big news week.
Lutz • 12 days ago
Only the chosen tribe can shut down an agency like the F.B.Lie. Control through money
distribution. They control everyone, PERIOD.
Tom Turek > Claude Taylor • 13 days ago
FBI? On site the night before 911, On site within minutes after Sen Wellstone's chartered
almost new Twin Turboprop Beachcraft with 2 pro plots smashed into the ground on approach.
Wellstone was about to expose 911. Illegally taking over the TWA800 investigation from NTSB
and many times removing evidence overnight that investigators found suspicious of a missile
strike. Told us that a low voltage wire in a fuel tank overheated and caused the plane to
break into 2. Wreckage still under armed guard!
About what 'IDEALS' is DJT talking??
Doctor72 • 13 days ago
The best part about Trump is that he does not have to run false flags to get the public's
support. ...No inside jobs like 9/11 and no fake shootings like Sandy Hook. He just has some
solid policies that benefit normal Americans!
MikeG the Deplorable > Doctor72 • 13 days ago
What a refreshing change.
Cyrano • 13 days ago
This man is afraid to call it treason...
centurion • 13 days ago
It's a very sad day for Trump supporters when they elected a person to jail the law
breakers in Washington, CIA, FBI, BLM, NSA, the Clintons, the Bush's and Trump does
absolutely nothing about it. Failure to do something IS consent.
Mistaron • 13 days ago
Why is this guy dancing around? It's not 'bad management' mate, it's bloody Treason!
Elim • 13 days ago
I just saw a clip of Trump answering questions at a news conference. He was answering
questions about the Russian collusion crap, and was saying that Putin and his government
denied any interference, just as he denied any collusion. When Trump was asked what he
personally believed, he said that he supported what the intelligence agencies said about it.
In other words, he believes what he was told by our intelligence services...which is what,
exactly? He didn't answer the question.
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, also raised concerns
about that message, penning a letter Thursday to Rosenstein -- who oversees the special counsel
probe since Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself earlier this year.
"Some of these texts appear to go beyond merely expressing a private political opinion, and
appear to cross the line into taking some official action to create an 'insurance policy'
against a Trump presidency," Grassley wrote Thursday. "Presumably, 'Andy' refers to Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe. So whatever was being discussed extended beyond just Page and Strzok at
least to Mr. McCabe, who was involved in supervising both investigations."
Grassley
requested the Justice Department turn over records by Dec. 27 relating to "the conversation"
that allegedly occurred with Strzok and Page in McCabe's office, and all records relating to
McCabe's communications with Strzok and Page between Aug. 7 and Aug. 23, 2016.
"Any improper political influence or motives in the course of any FBI investigation must be
brought to light and fully addressed," Grassley wrote. "Former Director [James] Comey's claims
that the FBI 'doesn't give a rip about politics' certainly are not consistent with the evidence
of discussions occurring in the Deputy Director's office around August 15, 2016."
That text was just one of 10,000 messages the Justice Department was reviewing between
Strzok and Page -- and hundreds turned over to Congress that contained anti-Trump and other
politically charged comments.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz said that the "politically-oriented" messages between
the two were found in his office's initial search, which led to the watchdog requesting all
their messages through the end of last November. The messages were produced by the FBI on July
20 of this year. Muller and Rosenstein were informed about them a week later, on July 27.
Some of the other anti-Trump text messages called then-candidate Trump a "menace" and a
"loathsome human."
"... Heads should roll for this. Probably, but US elite/establishment accountability is about as likely as a unicorn being discovered. This US accountability free zone has resulted in one thing and one thing only: Tyranny. There's simply no other word to describe the current US system. Robert Mugabee could only dream of this kind of system....and he lasted for decades... ..."
"... In this light, the dossier, bogus Russian meetings, and "hacking" seem contrived (by CIA?) to create an issue that would allow Trump to betray his base via a continued aggressive FP. What Trump has essentially done is simply to replace a losing strategy (Jihadists) with a new - but no less aggressive - approach. There is no peace in ME, no rapprochement with Russia. ..."
"... Trump is acting just like the buffoons that preceded him: tax breaks for the wealthy and militarism - all cloaked by bullshit. ..."
"... The murderer did not commit the murder, sources close to the murderer said. ..."
"... Substitute "American officials said" for "sources close to the murderer said" and you have a standard NYT article. ..."
"... If the Russians really had any documents, why would they tout them to an idiot like Papadopoulos? Given the result if it was ever proved that Russia hacked the document, it's far more likely that the Russians would make an anonymous drop to some media outlet, and not necessarily Wikileaks. ..."
"... Also, how did Papadopoulos and Downer end up in the same wine bar? ..."
"... Behind the Wash Post and FBI lurks the CIA which will try to provide cover for the FBI but will make them the patsy if it gets too hot. ..."
"... I like Jackrabbit's theory and suggest..Trump betrayal of his base to cover for no peace in ME and no rapproachment with Russia. Consider White house/MBS/Israel Sanctionary Plan (evict Palestinians into military surrounded settlement Jordian controlled state), protect the corporate owned oil and gas in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and aggression to Russia and Iran at all costs, but see. https://southfront.org/kataib-hezbollah-threatens-to-force-washington-to-withdraw-troops-from-iraq/ ..."
"... The Deep State is planning for war with Russia. They can do it only without Trump. ..."
"... So, during the "lull", a question that has been troubling me -- if, as Snowden disclosed, the NSA has the capacity to record and retain every inter-computer communication, then why hasn't the recording of "the downloading of the DNC emails by an unidentified third party" (allegedly Russian hackers) been disclosed to counter the widely-held belief that the material supplied to Wikileaks came as a result of a "leak" and not a "hack". ..."
"... Major mistake to buy into party politics as being behind this. Trump is Backed by the mafia, which includes the Russian-Israeli mafia and oligarchs, many of whom if not all reside and/or operate in the US. They needed a cover and are using the Russian government/Putin to provide it. ..."
"... As for which side the FBI was on. Lest we forget Comey also announced he was reopening the Hillary investigation right before the election. That had far more effect on the election than the Russian investigation which really did not get all that much play before the election. Also, consider who leaked the Hillary emails since it was not Russia? And why is FBI providing cover for the real leakers?. ..."
"... This has all the signs of a Deep State Operation to get Trump (the man, not the party) ) in office while providing a cover for his Russian-Israeli backers. NYT and the liberal media simply playing their role to divide the population among party lines but their attacks on Trump have no teeth and they protect the deep state , mafia and Israel who are all interlinked ..."
"... Ask yourself why were the Steele documents not played up by even the liberal media before the election. Why were Trumps mafia connections downplayed as was his History of sexual assault including allegations of an underage girl ..."
"... Trump regularly breaks his word to people and those he has contracts with. He doesn't need a reason other than his innate greed. As a New Jerseyan, I met more than one contractor while repairing my house who told me of their friends in the business who had been cheated by Ttump, most ending up in bankruptcy ..."
"... Trump simple does not believe that he should pay an agreed upon amount of money and regularly does not make final payments. Bad man, bad results for those without power. ..."
"... Can't agree dude. Ask yourself if your story is true how is it that Comey stepped into the ring two weeks out from the election to put the final nail in the tired old whore's coffin.? Comey fucked Hillary over on Obama's order...period. ..."
"... Clinton was done far far before anything Comey could do at the last minute. In the summer. By then the emails had been released (however that release occurred) to show how she had twisted Sanders away from the nomination and had questions re The Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... I think Jack Rabbit's question hits the money in that they KNOW what happened. My question is how come the Clintons would have so much clout to control the story away from their shenanigans? It must leak over into significant parts of the Democratic Party itself. PS I may be wrong on this--Crowdstrike is responsible for Guccifer 2.0, at the behest of Hillary. ..."
"... Certainly Downer is an arrogant braggard and seemingly the opposite of dullard Papodoulos. This seems like a prearranged meeting si I guess a 'meeting between Downer and Trump' was on the agenda. ..."
"... Actually, the dossier and "golden showers" nonsense was first "shopped around" in late October. David Corn supposedly received a copy but didn't publish anything because he couldn't verify it. ..."
"... Trump, like every President, wants to keep the Democrat vs. Repub. narrative alive. In many ways, it satisfies the peoples' need for catharsis to vent their frustrations of the wasteland that is American politics with partisan criticism ..."
"... I would love to see heads roll, too, but I am starting to feel gamed here. Was HRC vs. Trumpinator just a battle for ego-supremacy? Was there anything really on the line? ..."
"... Yeah the Pravda on the Hudson like Luke Harding at the Guardian and the WaPo are part of the "resistance". The propaganda arm of the "progressives". Democrat partisans who were diehard Obamanites and Clintonistas were put in place in all the top positions at the FBI, CIA, and NSA. The DNI Clapper and CIA Brennan clearly were heavy lifters among the cabal that included Lynch, Sally Yates and her deputy Bruce Ohr at DOJ and of course Comey, McCabe, Strzok and his squeeze Lisa Page at the FBI. ..."
"... Downer was Aussie Foreign Minister between 1996-2007, under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. He would have been known to every senior US Defense, State Dept and Intelligence official in those administrations as a completely reliable US supporter in the Pacific. He was definitely a Five-Eyes insider at the highest level and was not just some minor diplomat, even at the time of his meeting with Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Downer reported the Papadopoulos allegations on Hillary emails to Australian Intelligence as would be expected of him. The Australians sat on the information for over a month before deciding that they had to inform their Five-Eyes ally. The issue of potential foreign interference in US elections was too serious not to be conveyed to the FBI. But the Australians were hesitant. They have always been loathe to involve themselves in US domestic politics for fear of jeapordizing the defence alliance. And they definitely were not seeking the kind of publicity that has followed the NYT expose of this incident. ..."
"... The FBI would be expected to take seriously this report from a trusted ally and a high level diplomat who had long-standing and credible links to US officials at every level. ..."
None other than Lindsay Graham is now calling for a new prosecutor based on the ineptitude of
the current prosecutor. Alexander Mercouris, today in the Duran, also has a piece on this
newest NYTimes stuff, paralleling b's remarks above, and also pointing to the peculiar delay
in investigating Papadoupolous. Further, again, all his Russian connections are not
government related, so that the investigation continues to scrape and insinuate due to the
void in real evidence re the original charge of Putin tampering.
"Are we really to believe that the FBI opens highly political investigations based on mere
drunken rumors?" apparently, lol.. maybe as well believe everything else the nyt prints while
you are at it too... i can't believe the fbi is this desperate to cover it's tracks this late
in the game! i hope the fbi, or some of those within the fbi that set this dossier in motion
pay a heavy price.. they can include mccain in the group too..
Heads should roll for this. Probably, but US elite/establishment accountability is about as
likely as a unicorn being discovered. This US accountability free zone has resulted in one
thing and one thing only: Tyranny. There's simply no other word to describe the current US
system. Robert Mugabee could only dream of this kind of system....and he lasted for
decades...
The Clintons are not stupid or careless. Self-inflicted "errors" like Hillary's email
problems and coyly playing with the press ("wiped - like with a cloth?"); Bill's meeting with
the AG on the tarmac; obvious DNC collusion; etc. are very strange coming from such seasoned
politicians. In contrast to the Clinton's self-interested bumbling Trump was always the most
pro-military candidate (gonna take care of our veterans!) and said things that hinted that he
was "chosen" such as that he could kill someone in Times Square and get away with it.
In this light, the dossier, bogus Russian meetings, and "hacking" seem contrived (by CIA?)
to create an issue that would allow Trump to betray his base via a continued aggressive FP.
What Trump has essentially done is simply to replace a losing strategy (Jihadists) with a new -
but no less aggressive - approach. There is no peace in ME, no rapprochement with Russia.
Trump is acting just like the buffoons that preceded him: tax breaks for the wealthy and
militarism - all cloaked by bullshit.
quote from marcy - "So there's no reason to believe the NYT story comes entirely -- or even
partially -- from the FBI. It likely came from Papadopoulos and Australians, perhaps
confirmed by former members of Congress."
If the Russians really had any documents, why would they tout them to an idiot like
Papadopoulos? Given the result if it was ever proved that Russia hacked the document, it's
far more likely that the Russians would make an anonymous drop to some media outlet, and not
necessarily Wikileaks.
This also raises the point that if the Russians really were running
Putin, they would already have established secure channels with the Trump campaign to handle
such material. Also, how did Papadopoulos and Downer end up in the same wine bar?
Peter AU 1 @ 2: I would add to your remark that Alexander Downer reached the pinnacle of his
incompetence on the coat-tails of his father's career which included being High Commissioner
to the United Kingdom, the same position Junior currently holds and in which capacity he was
conversing with the drunken George Papadopoulos.
And there's also this gem about John Howard (with Alexander Downer's agreement as Foreign
Minister) ordering AFP officers to abandon a compound of refugees in Dili to the tender
mercies of the Indonesian military in September 1999:
Intriguing yes, but nothing smoking either, but if it helps to bring the Dems down too, fine
with me, let it all burn, all of it, it is rotten anyway, and if an innocent burns along, too
bad, you are collateral, cant avoid when we cleanse, better that than we miss a guilty!
(Stalin said so)
Tyranny.. maybe a description less democratic might fit better?
I like Jackrabbit's theory and suggest..Trump betrayal of his base to cover for no peace
in ME and no rapproachment with Russia. Consider White house/MBS/Israel Sanctionary Plan
(evict Palestinians into military surrounded settlement Jordian controlled state), protect
the corporate owned oil and gas in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and aggression to Russia and Iran at
all costs, but see.
https://southfront.org/kataib-hezbollah-threatens-to-force-washington-to-withdraw-troops-from-iraq/
CLINTON, FBI, everybody's false flag.. At every campaign speech I heard Trump say over and
over he supports Settlements...?
Read Alexander Mercouris on The Duran .
He is reasoning the same way with some extra details.
Why is all this important? The Deep State is planning for war with Russia. They can do it
only without Trump.
So, during the "lull", a question that has been troubling me -- if, as Snowden disclosed, the
NSA has the capacity to record and retain every inter-computer communication, then why hasn't
the recording of "the downloading of the DNC emails by an unidentified third party"
(allegedly Russian hackers) been disclosed to counter the widely-held belief that the
material supplied to Wikileaks came as a result of a "leak" and not a "hack".
Major mistake to buy into party politics as being behind this. Trump is Backed by the mafia,
which includes the Russian-Israeli mafia and oligarchs, many of whom if not all reside and/or
operate in the US. They needed a cover and are using the Russian government/Putin to provide
it.
As for which side the FBI was on. Lest we forget Comey also announced he was reopening the
Hillary investigation right before the election. That had far more effect on the election
than the Russian investigation which really did not get all that much play before the
election. Also, consider who leaked the Hillary emails since it was not Russia? And why is
FBI providing cover for the real leakers?.
This has all the signs of a Deep State Operation to get Trump (the man, not the party) ) in
office while providing a cover for his Russian-Israeli backers. NYT and the liberal media
simply playing their role to divide the population among party lines but their attacks on
Trump have no teeth and they protect the deep state , mafia and Israel who are all
interlinked
Ask yourself why were the Steele documents not played up by even the liberal media before
the election. Why were Trumps mafia connections downplayed as was his History of sexual
assault including allegations of an underage girl. Sure, all of it was mentioned here and
there but not hammered at and emphasized like Hillary's emails. Hillary was a potential
obstacle to Deep State since she knew too much . There was a possibility she could go rogue
like Nixon and JFK both of whom were taken out by the Deep State/mafia. Trump has so much
dirt on him he is easily controllable. Nothing more than a puppet playing his role and like Reagon has acting experience. Comedy and Tragedy in one sitting. Clap Clap
Trump regularly breaks his word to people and those he has contracts with. He doesn't need
a reason other than his innate greed. As a New Jerseyan, I met more than one contractor while
repairing my house who told me of their friends in the business who had been cheated by
Ttump, most ending up in bankruptcy.
Trump simple does not believe that he should pay an
agreed upon amount of money and regularly does not make final payments. Bad man, bad results
for those without power.
Can't agree dude. Ask yourself if your story is true how is it that Comey stepped into the
ring two weeks out from the election to put the final nail in the tired old whore's
coffin.? Comey fucked Hillary over on Obama's order...period.
In other words Obama chose his successor...Trump. Seven years in a row Obama goaded Trump at those dinners into running for President
himself if he thought he could do a better job. Trump was the number one birther because he
had already been chosen to be the next President after Obama. The birther issue was the lured
of intrigue which pulled Trump into presidential power flows. Intoxicating. Weighing oneself
against a sitting President. Critiquing a sitting President.
He was chosen and he was lured into the game b.
You have found out today that US Presidents choose their successors irrespective of party
affiliation. Trump is the watchman appointed by the renegade people to be their king. Trump
is the man selected to fulfil the role of the fierce king of Daniel 8. I don't care if you
don't bbelieve in a God. I care that you understand their are people in power who believe
they are walking the foothills of Armageddon and are convinced their part to play is
righteous. Trump will bring astounding devastation.
"When Fusion GPS lost funding from its Republican client, the contract for the opposition
research project was picked up in April 2016 by Marc Elias, an attorney representing the
Clinton campaign and the D.N.C., the Post reports. Through Elias's law firm, Perkins Coie,
the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. continued to fund Steele's research through the end of
October."
@25 I don't mean to argue but would wonder on your second note in the chain, blaming Comey.
Clinton was done far far before anything Comey could do at the last minute. In the summer. By
then the emails had been released (however that release occurred) to show how she had twisted
Sanders away from the nomination and had questions re The Clinton Foundation.
I think Jack Rabbit's question hits the money in that they KNOW what happened. My question
is how come the Clintons would have so much clout to control the story away from their
shenanigans? It must leak over into significant parts of the Democratic Party itself. PS I
may be wrong on this--Crowdstrike is responsible for Guccifer 2.0, at the behest of
Hillary.
Thanks ghost ship @9. I too find it mighty queer that these two and some female others met at
the same bar. Certainly Downer is an arrogant braggard and seemingly the opposite of dullard
Papodoulos. This seems like a prearranged meeting si I guess a 'meeting between Downer and
Trump' was on the agenda.
...why were the Steele documents not played up by even the liberal media before the
election.
Actually, the dossier and "golden showers" nonsense was first "shopped around"
in late October. David Corn supposedly received a copy but didn't publish anything because he
couldn't verify it.
Trump, like every President, wants to keep the Democrat vs. Repub. narrative alive. In many
ways, it satisfies the peoples' need for catharsis to vent their frustrations of the
wasteland that is American politics with partisan criticism.
And just like how Trump did not
appoint a special prosecutor for HRC, he will let this all slide, or, rather, milk it for
tweets to keep his base sated, but no charges will be brought, with the exception of maybe a
lower-level scapegoat that EVERYONE hates.
I would love to see heads roll, too, but I am
starting to feel gamed here. Was HRC vs. Trumpinator just a battle for ego-supremacy? Was
there anything really on the line?
Yeah the Pravda on the Hudson like Luke Harding at the Guardian and the WaPo are part of the
"resistance". The propaganda arm of the "progressives". Democrat partisans who were diehard
Obamanites and Clintonistas were put in place in all the top positions at the FBI, CIA, and
NSA. The DNI Clapper and CIA Brennan clearly were heavy lifters among the cabal that included
Lynch, Sally Yates and her deputy Bruce Ohr at DOJ and of course Comey, McCabe, Strzok and
his squeeze Lisa Page at the FBI.
The partisan info-op to defeat a presidential campaign and then to oust an elected
president must be obfuscated lest there's momentum among the people for the declassification
and release of all documents in all of this including the FISA warrant application and
communications among all these muckety mucks.
@ NemesisCalling who wrote "...but I am starting to feel gamed here."...
The game is Apprentice Plutocrat and either the Clintons were going to double dip or Trump
would get his shot, and here we are.
If Clinton II were to be prosecuted for war crimes, treason, murder or whatever else has
been reported then perhaps the threads of the curtain in front of the puppets might get a bit
thin. And we couldn't have that now, could we?
With the Intertubes the perfidy of the elite is shown some light but the signal to noise
level is still quite low and now further compromised by the FCC ruling letting money control
access.
A Trump presidency to pull back the curtain might have been a long shot, but a man can
dream can't he?
Awwww...nuts.
The FCC thing has me thinking that it could be entirely $-related and an apolitical
decision, meaning it isn't there to restrict "proporn" sites like b's. Indeed, counter-fake
news outlets like b's was a moot point if Trump was still elected and if he truly is
Neolibcon v2.0. But it is indeed another tool in the war chest that may prove useful down the
road as they continue to align the stars for a perfect blackout of organized dissent.
"Are we really to believe that the FBI opens highly political investigations based on mere
drunken rumors? That sounds implausible to me."
Nonsense.
Downer was Aussie Foreign Minister between 1996-2007, under both the Clinton and Bush
administrations. He would have been known to every senior US Defense, State Dept and
Intelligence official in those administrations as a completely reliable US supporter in the
Pacific. He was definitely a Five-Eyes insider at the highest level and was not just some
minor diplomat, even at the time of his meeting with Papadopoulos.
P knew that Downer was a
conservative who worked well with the Bush team and probably figured he would enjoy a bit of
Hillary-hate. Big mistake. Aussie politicians left and right are immune to the GOP disease
being all about the Alliance. Papadopoulos may as well have taken out a full page ad in the
NYT. Dumb as a bunch of rocks.
Downer reported the Papadopoulos allegations on Hillary emails to Australian Intelligence
as would be expected of him. The Australians sat on the information for over a month before
deciding that they had to inform their Five-Eyes ally. The issue of potential foreign
interference in US elections was too serious not to be conveyed to the FBI. But the
Australians were hesitant. They have always been loathe to involve themselves in US domestic
politics for fear of jeapordizing the defence alliance. And they definitely were not seeking
the kind of publicity that has followed the NYT expose of this incident.
The FBI would be expected to take seriously this report from a trusted ally and a high
level diplomat who had long-standing and credible links to US officials at every level.
But keep rabbiting on about how this is all a grand Democrat conspiracy. God knows, there
will always be fools ready to believe you.
"... I'm very disturbed about what the Department of Justice did with this dossier, and we need a special counsel to look into that, because that's not in Mueller's charter. And what I saw, and what I've gathered in the last couple of days, bothers me a lot, and I'd like somebody outside DOJ to look into how this dossier was handled and what they did with it. ..."
"... And the one thing I can say, every prosecutor has a duty to the court to disclose things that are relevant to the request. So any time a document is used to go to court, for legal reasons, I think the Department of Justice owes it to the court to be up-and-up about exactly what this document is about, who paid for it, who's involved, what their motives might be. And I can just say this: After having looked at the history of the dossier, and how it was used b ..."
"... the Department of Justice, I'm really very concerned, and this cannot be the new normal. ..."
Senator Lindsey Graham, previously one of President Trump's most trenchant critics who back in July 2017
actually proposed a law
to prohibit President Trump from firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has now
made the extent of his disillusionment with the FBI's conduct and with the whole Russiagate investigation
crystal clear.
In an interview with Fox News Lindsey Graham says that after having reviewed confidential information
about the Trump Dossier provided at the insistence of Congressional investigators he is filled with dismay
and believes that a new Special Counsel must be appointed to investigate the FBI's conduct and the Trump
Dossier.
Here is how Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports Lindsey Graham's comments
I've spent some time in the last couple of days, after a lot of fighting with the
Department of Justice, to get the background on the dossier, and here's what I can tell your viewers:
I'm very disturbed about what the Department of Justice did with this dossier, and we need a
special counsel to look into that, because that's not in Mueller's charter. And what I saw, and what I've
gathered in the last couple of days, bothers me a lot, and I'd like somebody outside DOJ to look into how
this dossier was handled and what they did with it.
Host Brian Kilmeade asked Graham, "So, you've found out something you did not know?
"Yes," Graham answered.
Kilmeade asked whether Graham was disturbed by the contents of the dossier or how the Justice
Department used it in the Trump-Russia investigation.
"I've been a lawyer most of my life, a prosecutor, and a defense attorney," Graham began. He
continued:
And the one thing I can say, every prosecutor has a duty to the court
to disclose things that are relevant to the request. So any time a document is used to go to court, for
legal reasons, I think the Department of Justice owes it to the court to be up-and-up about exactly what
this document is about, who paid for it, who's involved, what their motives might be. And I can just say
this: After having looked at the history of the dossier, and how it was used b
y
the Department of Justice, I'm really very concerned, and this cannot be the new normal.
"... Trump's supporters are entitled to ask why - with the FBI's powers to subpoena witnesses and threaten charges of obstructing justice - nothing damning has emerged. ..."
"... The roadmap for the investigation, publicly acknowledged now for the first time, comes from Christopher Steele, once of Britain's secret intelligence service MI6. ..."
"... Steele's "dossier", as the material came to be known, contains a number of highly contested claims. At one point he wrote: "A leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN, had been withdrawn from Washington at short notice because Moscow feared his heavy involvement in the US presidential election operation would be exposed in the media there." ..."
"... One of Trump's allies, Roger Stone, said to me of Steele, scornfully: "If 007 wants to be taken seriously, he ought to learn how to spell." ..."
So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump campaign joined with Russia to steal the US
presidency - nothing.
But the FBI Director, James Comey, told a hushed committee room in Congress last week that this is precisely what his agents are
investigating.
Stop to let that thought reverberate for a moment.
"Investigation is not proof," said the president's spokesman.
Trump's supporters are entitled to ask why - with the FBI's powers to subpoena witnesses and threaten charges of
obstructing justice - nothing damning has emerged.
Perhaps there is nothing to find. But some former senior officials say it is because of failings in the inquiry, of which more
later.
The roadmap for the investigation, publicly acknowledged now for the first time, comes from Christopher Steele, once of
Britain's secret intelligence service MI6.
He wrote a series of reports for political opponents of Donald Trump about Trump and Russia.
Steele's "dossier", as the material came to be known, contains a number of highly contested claims. At one point he wrote: "A
leading Russian diplomat, Mikhail KULAGIN, had been withdrawn from Washington at short notice because Moscow feared his heavy
involvement in the US presidential election operation would be exposed in the media there."
There was no diplomat called Kulagin in the Russian embassy; there was a Kalugin.
One of Trump's allies, Roger Stone, said to me of Steele, scornfully: "If 007 wants to be taken seriously, he ought to learn
how to spell."
The Russian Foreign Ministry said Kalugin was head of the embassy's economics section.
New evidence from court documents and intelligence sources combine to show the unthinkable:
U.S. Senator John McCain colluded with the FBI and possibly the DNC to sandbag President Donald
Trump, before and after the 2016 election.
And McCain is from the same political party as President Trump. Allegedly.
• April 1990 to April 1993. MI6 agent Christopher Steele stationed in Moscow.
• 1998. British Embassy in Paris, serving officially as First Secretary
Financial.
• 1999. Outed online as MI6 agent.
• 2006. MI6 Russia desk in London.
• 2009. Left MI6 to set up Orbis (22 years in MI6).
• 2010. Fusion GPS set up by Glenn Simpson in 2010.
• According to Luke Harding, author of Collusion , Simpson specialized as a
journalist on the intersection between organized crime and the Russian state.
• According to Harding, Steele and Simpson knew the same FBI agents, shared expertise
on Russia, and began a professional partnership.
• Harding, the author of Collusion, was a correspondent for the London
Guardian in Russia from 2007 until 2011, after which he was refused re-entry to
Russia. In 2011 book Mafia State, he describes Russia under Putin as a mafia
state.
Chronology, 2010 to Present2010
• In the summer of 2010, members of a New York-based FBI squad assigned to
investigate "Eurasian Organized Crime" met Steele in London to discuss allegations of
possible corruption in FIFA, the Zurich, Switzerland-based body that also organizes the World
Cup tournament.
• FBI agent Andrew McCabe began work as a supervisory special agent at the Eurasian
Organized Crime Task Force in 2003.
2014
• Steele authored more than 100 reports on Russia and Ukraine between 2014 and 2016,
which were written for an unidentified private client and shared with the U.S. State
Department; sent to Secretary of State John Kerry and Victoria Nuland.
• The FBI obtains a FISA warrant to surveil Paul Manafort in 2014, based on his
political consulting work in Ukraine. Were Steele's reports used to obtain the 2014
authorization to surveil Manafort?
• Ukrainian President Yanukovych was forced to flee Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, following
a coup d'etat by followers of Ukrainian World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.
According to Stephen Dorril, author of MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's
Secret Intelligence Service , Bandera's organization, OUN-B, was re-formed in 1946 under
the sponsorship of MI6. The organization had been receiving some support from MI6 since the
1930s. Bandera was recruited by MI6 to work in London in 1948. Bandera's second in command,
Mykola Lebed, was brought to New York City in the same year by the CIA's Allen Dulles.
• Flynn wrote a letter in 2014 on behalf of Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz on
his official Pentagon stationery. He gave a public interview in 2015 supporting Gritz and
offered to testify on her behalf. His offer put him as a hostile witness in a case against
McCabe, who was accused by Gritz of sexual discrimination. McCabe never recused himself from
Flynn investigation.
2015
• McCabe attends a meeting in March 2015 with Clinton ally Virginia Governor Terry
McAuliffe, for the purpose of gaining support for his wife Jill McCabe to run for state
legislature against State Senator Richard Black, a leading opponent of Obama's regime change
policy and supporter of General Flynn. McCabe is now being investigated for violation of the
Hatch Act.
• Donald Trump announces candidacy for President on June 16, 2015.
• GCHQ surveilled Trump associates beginning late 2015. The alleged intelligence was
passed to the United States over the next several months.
2016
FEBRUARY
• Andrew McCabe in February 2016 becomes Deputy Director of FBI, gains oversight of
Clinton email server investigation, despite the fact that his wife Jill McCabe received
several hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from Clinton supporter McAuliffe.
He only recuses himself on November 1, 2016 after the investigation is over.
APRIL
• The DNC and Clinton campaign in April 2016 hired Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie
law firm and attorney Marc Elias.
• Fusion GPS hired Steele at end of April 2016. His first assignment to investigate
Paul Manafort.
JUNE
• Steele issues his first memo in June 2016; total of 16 memos June to early Nov.
2016.
• Steele flew in June 2016 to Rome to brief his FBI contact in the Eurasian serious
crime division, a unit previously supervised in New York City by Andrew McCabe.
• Robert Hannigan, head of GCHQ flew to U.S. in the Summer of 2016 to brief John
Brennan. Brennan launched interagency investigation; meanwhile the FBI had already been
briefed by Steele through the FBI Eurasian serious crime division contact.
JULY
• July 2. FBI led by Peter Strzok interviews Hillary Clinton.
• July 5. FBI Director James Comey reports there will be no charges against Hillary
Clinton, language changed from earlier drafts from "grossly negligent" to "extremely
recklessly," reportedly at insistence of Strzok.
• July 19. Trump wins the Republican nomination for President.
• July 22. WikiLeaks publishes the first DNC emails, Democrats claim Russia
responsible, FBI never inspects the server.
• July. Investigation opened into collusion between Trump campaign and Russia.
Document signed by Peter Strzok.
SEPTEMBER
• Steele flew back to Rome to meet the "FBI leadership team," possibly including
Peter Strzok.
• According to NY Times , Steele heard back from his FBI contact that the
agency wanted to see the material he collected right away, while offering to pay him
$50,000.
• Later in September, Steele held meetings with the NY Times ,
Washington Post , Yahoo, New Yorker and CNN.
• FISA court authorized surveillance of Carter Page in Sept. 2016.
OCTOBER
• Mid-October. Steele visited New York City and met reporters again.
• Late October. Steele spoke to Mother Jones . Article appeared Oct. 31,
2016.
NOVEMBER
• Nov. 8. Andrew Weismann, now the lead attorney of Robert Mueller's Special Council
team, attends Hillary Clinton's election night party.
2017
JANUARY
• Strzok, on January 24, interviews Michael Flynn. Strzok's mistress Lisa Page, an
FBI lawyer, works for Andrew McCabe. Andrew McCabe called Flynn to tell him FBI agents were
coming to the White House to meet with him, without telling Flynn it was a criminal
investigation interview.
FEBRUARY
• CNN, on February 17, reports "The FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative
and provided truthful answers."
MAY
• Comey is fired May 9.
• Rosenstein appoints Mueller Special Counsel May 17.
AUGUST
• Mueller removes Strzok August 16, stonewalls Congressional requests for information
on Strzok firing for nearly 4 months.
DECEMBER
• Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI on Dec. 1.
• The Washington Post and NY Times receive a leak on Dec. 2 that
Strzok removed from Special Counsel team.
• Bruce G. Ohr, Associate Deputy Attorney General under Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein, ousted on Dec. 7 after House Intelligence discovered he met during the 2016
campaign with Christopher Steele. He also met shortly after the election around Thanksgiving
with Glenn Simpson. It is believed that Ohr and Simpson were put in contact by Steele, whose
contacts with Ohr are said by senior DOJ officials to date back to 2006. According to his
biography, "Mr. Ohr was an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York (1991-99), and was Chief of the Violent Gangs
Unit in that office (1998-99). Mr. Ohr joined the Criminal Division in 1999 and served as
Chief of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section until 2011, when he became Counselor
for Transnational Organized Crime and International Affairs in the Criminal Division, serving
in that position until November 2014." Bruce Ohr's wife Nellie Ohr works for Fusion GPS
throughout the 2016 campaign.
I strongly doubt that there is a break from the principle that the United States of America was the world's only superpower
Notable quotes:
"... During the mandates of George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama, the documents defining their National Security Strategies were based on the principle that the United States of America was the world's only superpower. They could wage the " endless war " advocated by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, in other words they could systematically destroy any political organisation in the already unstable areas of the planet, beginning with the " Greater Middle East ". The Presidents indicated their projects for every region of the world. All that the unified fighting Commands had to do was apply these instructions. ..."
"... He once again uses his slogan " America First! " and makes it his philosophical foundation. Historically, this formula is still associated with support for Nazism, but this is not its original meaning. It was initially a way of breaking with Roosevelt's Atlantist policy - the alliance with the British Empire in order to govern the world. ..."
During the mandates of George Bush Jr. and Barack Obama, the documents defining their National Security Strategies were
based on the principle that the United States of America was the world's only superpower. They could wage the " endless war " advocated
by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, in other words they could systematically destroy any political organisation in the already unstable
areas of the planet, beginning with the " Greater Middle East ". The Presidents indicated their projects for every region of the
world. All that the unified fighting Commands had to do was apply these instructions.
Donald Trump's National Security
Strategy breaks almost entirely with this literature. It conserves certain of the mythological elements of these previous
mandates, but attempts above all to reposition the United States as the Republic it was in 1791 (which is to say at the moment of
compromise with the Bill of Rights ) and no longer as the Empire that it became on 11 September 2001.
The role of the White House, its diplomacy and its armed forces is no longer to rule the world, but to protect " the interests
of the people of the United States ".
In his introduction, Donald Trump marks his difference with his predecessors by denouncing the policies of " régime change " and
" world democratic revolution " adopted by Ronald Reagan and managed under successive administrations by Trotskyite senior civil
servants. He reaffirms the classic realpolitik as declared by Henry Kissinger for example, founded on the idea of " sovereign nations
".
The reader will however keep in mind that certain intergovernmental agencies of the " Five Eyes " group, (Australia, Canada, the
United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom), such as the National Endowment for Democracy, are still directed by Trotskyists.
Donald Trump distinguishes three types of difficulty that his country is going to have to face -
First of all, the rivalry with Russia and China;
Next, the opposition of " rogue states " (North Korea and Iran) in their respective regions;
Finally, the threat to international law embodied by the jihadist movements and transnational criminal organisations.
Although he too considers the United States to be the incarnation of Good, he does not diabolise his rivals, adversaries and enemies,
but attempts to understand them, unlike his predecessors.
He once again uses his slogan " America First! " and makes it his philosophical foundation. Historically, this formula is
still associated with support for Nazism, but this is not its original meaning. It was initially a way of breaking with Roosevelt's
Atlantist policy - the alliance with the British Empire in order to govern the world.
The reader will remember that the first cabinet of the Obama administration gave an excessive place to the members of the Pilgrim
Society (no connection with the Mont-Pelerin Society), in other words a very private club presided by Queen Elizabeth II. This was
the group which piloted the financial aprčs-crise of 2008.
In order to guide this policy of returning to the Republican principles of 1791 and independence from British financial interests,
Donald Trump poses four pillars:
The protection
of the people of the United States, its homeland and its way of life; The prosperity of
the United States; The power of its
armies; The development
of its influence.
Thus, he does not imagine his strategy in opposition to his rivals, his adversaries and his enemies, but as a function of his
Republican and independent ideal.
In order to avoid misinterpretation, he specifies that while he may consider that the United States is an example for the world,
it is neither possible nor desirable to impose its way of life on others - particularly since this way of life could not be considered
as the " inevitable final outcome of progress ". He does not think of international relations as being the rule of the United States
over the world, but as the search for " reciprocal relations " with his partners.
The four pillars of the America First doctrine of National Security
The protection
of the people of the United States implies, above all, the restoration of the frontiers (terrestrial, aerial, maritime, spatial and
cyber-spatial) which have been progressively destroyed by the globalists.
These frontiers are intended to neutralise the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist and criminal groups, and also to
contain pandemics and prevent the entry of drugs or illegal immigrants. Concerning the cyber-spatial frontiers, Donald Trump notes
the necessity of securing the Internet by giving priority, successively, to National Security, Energy, the Banks, Health, Communications
and Transports. But all that remains rather theoretical.
While, since the presidency of Richard Nixon, the war against drugs had been selective, aimed not at drying up the flood of illegal
substances, but at directing it towards certain ethnic minorities, Donald Trump responds to a new need. Aware of the collapse of
life expectancy exclusively affecting white males under Barack Obama, the despair that it caused and the opioďd epidemic that ensued,
Trump considers that the fight against the cartels is a question of national survival.
Speaking of the war against terrorism, it is not clear whether he is referring to the " lone wolves " who continue to fight even
after the fall of the Caliphate, as was the case with certain groups of the Waffen SS after the fall of the Reich, or the maintenance
of the British system of jihadism. If the second hypothesis is correct, it would be a clear retraction of his declarations of intention
during his electoral campaign and the first months of his presidency. He would therefore be obliged to clarify the evolution of relations
between Washington and London, as well the consequences of this change concerning the management of NATO.
In any case, we note a strange passage from the text which states as follows - " The United States will work with their allies
and partners to dissuade and destabilise other groups which threaten the homeland - including the groups sponsored by Iran, like
the Lebanese Hezbollah ".
For all anti-terrorist actions, Donald Trump considers limited alliances with other powers, including Russia and China.
Finally, concerning the resilience of the United States, he validates the programme of " Continuity of Government ", although
it was the direct beneficiary of the coup d'Etat of 9/11. However, he states that citizens who are engaged and informed are the basis
of this system, which would seem to avert the danger of a replay of such an event.
Concerning the
prosperity of the United States , a condition for the development of his Defense programme, Donald Trump is a champion of the " American
dream ", the " minimal State ", and the theory of " trickle-down economics " (from top to bottom). He therefore conceives of an economy
based on free exchange and not financialisation. Taking the opposite point of view from the commonly-believed idea that free exchange
was an instrument of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, he affirms that it is only fair for the primary actors if the new actors accept the
rules. He claims that several states -- including China -- are profiting from this system without ever having entertained the intention
of adopting its values.
He bases himself on this idea -- and not on the analysis of the appearance of a transnational class of the super-rich -- in order
to denounce multilateral commercial agreements.
He continues by announcing the deregulation of all sectors where State intervention is unnecessary. At the same time, he is planning
the opposition to all interventions by foreign States and their nationalised businesses, which could distort fair exchanges with
the United States.
He intends to develop theoretical research and its technical applications, and to support invention and innovation. For that,
he plans for special and advantageous conditions of immigration in order to generate a " brain drain " towards the United States.
Considering the skills thus acquired, not as the means for establishing a toll-booth on the world economy via patents, but as the
motor of the US economy, he intends to create a National Security file of these techniques and to protect them in order to maintain
his advance.
Finally, on the subject of the access to sources of energy, he observes that for the first time, the United States is self-sufficient.
He warns against policies initiated in the name of global warming, which implies limiting the use of energy. Here, Donald Trump is
not talking about the financialisation of ecology, but is clearly lobbing a stone into the garden of France, promoter of the " greening
of finance ". Replacing this question in a more general context, he affirms that the United States will support any States which
are victims of energy blackmail.
Affirming that
while the United States is no longer the sole superpower, it is the dominant power, he states that his central security objective
is the maintenance of this military preeminence , in accordance with the Roman adage Si vis pacem, para bellum [
1 ].
He first observes that " China is attempting to exclude the United States from the Indo-Pacific region, to extend the reach of
its State-run economic model, and to reorganise the region to its own advantage ". According to Trump, Beijing is in the process
of building the world's second military capability (under the authority of General Xi Jinping) leaning for support on the skills
of the United States.
As for Russia, " it is seeking to re-establish its status as a great power and create spheres of influence at its borders ". To
that purpose, it is " attempting to weaken the influence of the United States in the world and separate the USA from its allies and
partners. It perceives NATO and the European Union as threats ".
This is the first analysis of the goals and means of the rivals of the United States. Contrary to the " Wolfowitz doctrine ",
the White House no longer considers the European Union as a competitor, but as the civilian wing of NATO. Breaking with the strategy
of economic sabotage of the European Union by George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, Donald Trump posits the possibility of cooperating
with his rivals (which are now Russia and China), but only from a " position of strength ".
The current period sees the return of military competition, with three players this time. Knowing the tendency of military men
to prepare for the last war, rather than trying to imagine the next, it is a good idea to rethink the organisation and allocation
of the armies while remembering that your rivals will position themselves in whatever sector they choose. We should note that it
is not in this chapter that Donald Trump evokes the Pentagon's Achilles heel, but much earlier in the text. It is in his introduction,
at a moment when the reader is absorbed in philosophical considerations, that he mentions the new breed of Russian weapons, and in
particular their capacity to inhibit the commands and controls of NATO equipment.
The Pentagon must renew its arsenal, both in quantity and in quality. It has to abandon the illusion that its technological superiority
(in reality, now overtaken by Russia) can make up for its inferiority in numbers. There follows a long study of the domains of armament,
including nuclear weapons, which have to be modernised.
Donald Trump intends to inverse the current functioning of the Defense industry. The industry currently tries to sell its products
to the Federal state -- Trump hopes that the Federal state will launch its own offers, and that the industrials will respond to these
new needs. We know that today, the Defense industry no longer has the engineers it needs to realise new projects. The failure of
the F-35 is the most striking example of this. The change for which the President is hoping therefore supposes the prior organisation
of the " brain drain " towards the United States which he has already evoked.
As far as Intelligence is concerned, he has adopted the theories of his ex-National Security advisor General Michael Flynn. He
wants to reposition not only the Defense Intelligence Agency, but the entire " Intelligence community ". The objective is no longer
being able to pinpoint, at any moment, one terrorist chief or another, but being able to anticipate the strategic evolutions of its
rivals, adversaries and enemies. This means abandoning the obsession with GPS and high-tech gadgets in order to rehabilitate analysis.
Finally, he considers the State Department to be a tool enabling the creation of a positive environment for his country, including
with his rivals. It is no longer the means of extending the interests of multinational companies, which it was under George Bush
Sr. and Bill Clinton, nor the organiser of the Empire which it became under Bush Jr. and Barack Obama. US diplomats therefore need
to regain a little political dexterity.
The chapter dedicated
to the influence of the United States clarifies the end of the " globalisation " of the " American way of life ". The United States
will not seek to impose their values on others. They will treat all people equally, and will valorise those who respect the rule
of law.
In order to encourage those countries who might wish to become partners, but whose investments are governed by the State, he plans
to offer them alternatives solutions which would facilitate the reform of their economy.
Concerning intergovernmental organisations, he announces that he will refuse to hand over the slightest part of sovereignty if
it must be shared with countries who question the constitutional principles of the USA - a direct allusion to the International Criminal
Court, for example. On the other hand, he says nothing about the extra-territoriality of US Justice, which violates the constitutional
principles of other countries.
Finally, reviewing the long tradition which came from the compromise of 1791, he affirms that the United States will continue
to support those who fight for human dignity or religious freedom (not to be confused with freedom of conscience).
It is only after this long exposé that Donald Trump addresses the regional application of his doctrine. Nothing new is announced,
apart from an alliance with Australia, India and Japan to contain China and combat North Korea.
At best we learn about two new approaches to the Middle East. Experience with Daesh has shown that the main problem is not the
Israëli question, but that of the jihadist ideology. And what Washington blames Iran for is the perpetuation of the cycle of violence
by its refusal to negotiate.
By default, the reader understands that the Pentagon has to abandon the project by Admiral Arthur Cebrowski that Donald Rumfeld
imposed on 11 September. The " endless war " is over. The tension should not only stop spreading throughout the world, but lessen
in the Greater Middle East.
Donald Trump's National Security doctrine is very solidly constructed, on the historical level (we can see the influence of General
Jim Mattis) and on the philosophical level (following ex-Special advisor Steve Bannon). It is based on a rigorous analysis of the
challenges to US power (in conformity with the work of General H. R. McMaster). It validates the State Department's budget cuts (operated
by Rex Tillerson). Contrary to the received wisdom of US journalists, the Trump administration has managed to develop a coherent
synthesis which clearly distances itself from previous visions.
However, the absence of an explicit regional strategy attests to the extent of the ongoing revolution. Nothing guarantees that
the military leaders will apply this new philosophy in their respective domains - particularly since we were able to note, only a
few days ago, the collusion between US Forces and the jihadists in Syria.
Thierry Meyssan
Why Rosenstein does not investigate the DNC corruption instead or along with targeting Trump? "Who the hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that
proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media?" What was the crime committed by Trump that warrant opening
the investigation ?
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller has a rather large conflict of interest: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/hillary-clinton-told-fbis-mueller-deliver-uranium-russians-2009-secret-plane-side-ta ..."
"... Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. ..."
"... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
"... There's much more about Mueller which makes it clear he's no friend of democracy. http://www.globalresearch.ca/special-prosecutor-robert-mueller-is-a-political-hack/5594943 ..."
"... Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2] ..."
"... Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional special counsel in search of a crime seriously. ..."
"... Rosenstein and Goldilocks??? You know, like from Hamlet. . . ..."
"... When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify ..."
"... Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be accorded? ..."
"... Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him. ..."
"... as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried" to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. ..."
"... From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. ..."
"... Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning of Rosenstein's DOJ career. ..."
"... "Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million." ..."
"... Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop. ..."
"... It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. ..."
"... I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more weight. ..."
"... "If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit minority of the public are campaign contributors ..."
This is getting so ridiculous! Let's have everyone recluse themselves and get down to the work of running the country! Who the
hell cares if it was the Russians who hacked DNC emails that proved their hypocrisy, mendacity and the corruption of the media?
Why aren't we "investigating" the DNC? Answer: because our "media" has been weaponized by them against it's "enemies."
Putin is an enemy because he didn't take kindly to Clinton's political weaponizing the press in it's sphere of influence. Can't
say I blame him. If the CIA can't hack Putin, and the US is helpless to prevent further hacking, then we have a much bigger problem.
Trump's ham-fisted attempts to get actual government officials to "go public" to reduce the media heat he feels, is much ado
about nothing. I wish he didn't care about the publicity, but then – if he didn't – he wouldn't be President now.
G.R. headline: "Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller Is a "Political Hack" -- note what JT said:
snippett: Unsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil Rather than saying "of course not!", Mueller said
that he wasn't sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil. Constitutional expert Jonathan
Turley commented at the time: "One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities,
including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order."
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss
that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."
Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. As we noted in 2013:
FBI special agent Colleen Rowley points out:
Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents
were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect
it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA
whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.
All parties involved swore a supreme loyalty oath to the U.S. Constitution, which includes fidelity to our Bill of Rights. All
ignored the torture, illegal spying and abusing the Espionage Act but they did lock up those that had fidelity to their oath (i.e.:
John Kiriakou).
Why has the Press lost interest in that disloyalty by most, not all, DOJ employees – they swore to protect Americans' constitutional
rights.
Whenever a member or supporter of the !% tells us that Mr. X is highly respected etc., you can be certain that Mr. X will not
act contrary to the beliefs and aspirations of the established order.
You are exactly right! Mueller is an Apparatchik. Which wiki says is:
Apparatchik /ˌɑːpəˈrɑːtʃɪk/ (Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk]) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional
functionary of the Communist Party or government "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political
responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called "Nomenklatura". James Billington describes one
as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It is often considered a derogatory term, with
negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.[2]
Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little
or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually
the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation.[3]
Not all apparatchiks held lifelong positions. Many only entered such positions in middle age.[4]
Today apparatchik is also used in contexts other than that of the Soviet Union or communist countries. According to Collins
English Dictionary the word can mean "an official or bureaucrat in any organization".[5]
According to Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary, the term was also used in the meaning "Communist agent or spy",
originating in the writings of Arthur Koestler, c. 1941.[6]
In Australia, the term is often used to describe people who have made their career as factional operatives and leaders in
political parties, and who are therefore perceived to have little 'real-world' experience outside politics.
Rosenstein and Mueller's Excellent Adventure. Mr. Mueller's Day Off. Sorry, it is hard to take this unconstitutional
special counsel in search of a crime seriously.
When Comey testified that AG Loretta Lynch ordered him to call the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations
of email-protocols on a private server & ignoring security classifications, putting our National Security at risk -- why didn't
the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena Ms. Lynch to testify regarding:
Why did she advise Comey to call the investigation a "matter"? Why was she pressuring him to back-off and not indict
Hillary? To what degree was POTUS Obama involved in Hillary's e-mail gate? What was in the 30,000 emails that Hillary deleted?
What took place between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the airplane during Tarmac-gate in AZ? They didn't talk about
their "grandkids" alone, did they ergo, did Bill Clinton promise that if AG Lynch & Comey refused to recommend an indictment
that Hillary would recommend her to be nominated for the US Supreme Court? What, if any other, quid-pro-quos were offered
by Bill on behalf of Hillary in order to obstruct justice?
Why did AG Loretta Lynch refuse to demand that the FBI put Hillary under oath & also record their questioning of her
during Emailgate? Why was Hillary accorded special privileges in violation of FBI-protocols -- that citizens would never be
accorded? What was Obama-Lynch's role in aiding-and-abetting Hillary to avoid prosecution of crimes that other US citizens
would endure for lesser crimes?
Let's be honest please: It wasn't Trump or the Russians who obstructed justice -- attempted to rig our elections -- who perverted
the course of justice: -- It was Obama, Bill & Hillary Clinton, AG Loretta Lynch and Comey– all of whom thought that Hillary would
be POTUS and were happy to help her out -- and whom were willing to turn a blind-eye -- to her crimes in order to enjoy the perks that
she would provide in return for ignoring her blatant, willful & criminal activities.
Mueller is close to the Clintons -- he is close to Comey. In my opinion, a man of integrity would not have accepted the role of
Special Counsel in this trumped-up coup d'etat. Shame on him.
Yes! But, as long as the moronic brain-washed idiots on Broadway continue to give Hillary standing ovations just because she "tried"
to break the glass ceiling .you know, the participation trophy ..then she will keep on thinking she is actually someone worth
admiring. She is not. She is incompetent. She is corrupt. She is a criminal. She is unethical. She is, and always will be Crooked
Hillary. A failed politician who should be in prison for the rest of her life. The idiots on the left who continue to venerate
her are true 'sycophants' -- emphasis on 'sick.'
From Comey's statements regarding Hillary Clinton, I believe that should be reopened, especially regarding Bill Clinton's meeting
with then Attorney General Lynch. Is Lynch so stupid not to think the public would see that for what it was, a cover-up. The Russia
thing is a cloak to cover the Clinton/Lynch meeting. It's a sham that DOJ has let go. My main complaint is -- how much is this
going to cost the taxpayer? It has no basis in fact from anyone, so why are we here? Well, because the Dems are afraid of Donald
Trump! Sessions should tell his Deputy to end this by terminating the whole thing. Hopefully Dems will,pay for this in 2018. We
will not let Americans forget!
Rosenstein worked under Mueller for 3 years, early in Rosenstein's DOJ career:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein#Department_of_Justice
You can argue appearance of impropriety on both sides. Mueller is friends with Comey, and he was Rosenstein's boss at the beginning
of Rosenstein's DOJ career.
The Dems won't rest until they get Trump's tax returns. Next we'll see "leaks" coming out of the IRS because Trump hasn't cleaned
house over there yet.
And, yes, if Trump is to reveal his tax returns, so should every member of Congress be under scrutiny and/or investigation.
I'm sure we'd find some interesting information. Like this from Mark Warner's:
"Hardcore anti-Trump Democrat Senator from Virginia and Russia conspiracy theorist, Mark Warner, made $6 million from Russian
search engine and tech company Yandex back in 2012. GotNews reports that the $6 million he pocketed represents 10% of his entire
net worth. This is corroborated by the Christian Science Monitor, which reported his net worth to be around $80 million."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
"As far as we know, President Donald J. Trump has made 0% of his net worth from Russian companies. Maybe Warner should investigate
his own ties to Russia.
Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is blocking the
White House from appointing a Treasury Department official to oversee financial crimes committed by terrorists. Warner, worth
over $80 million, is one of the Senate's richest members."
Let's think about Hillary and Bill that were "broke" when they left the White House and then trace their actions while following
the money. The uranium sale to the Russians was just the tip of the iceberg. They enriched themselves on the backs of the American
people and should be in jail. Trump acted within the law as far as we can see and the investigations don't stop.
The left is tribal and now even becoming openly violent.
It's starting to look more like an insurrection than an investigation. Definition of insurrection : an act or instance
of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
What a mess. Mueller has to recuse himself on anything Comey related, right? So, if Mueller opens an investigation into obstruction,
then both he and Rosenstein have to step aside. So Trump is correct when he says he is not under investigation. Hasn't Comey,
(and Coats and Rogers) all testified under oath that there was no obstruction? Hasn't it been determined that there is no 'collusion'
(whatever that means) between Trump and Russia? So what is the special counsel investigating?
How about instead of obstruction, they take a look at sedition?
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire
to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose
by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by
force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Michael Aarethun – he is not going to find Diogenese in Washington, DC. I think Mueller is too close to Comey to investigate
this whole thing. I know that I could not be completely fair if one of my friends was a witness. I would clearly give them more
weight.
Rosenstein has a clear conflict of interest. Mueller probably doesn't have a conflict of interest, but if I were in his shoes,
I would hire an attorney whose sole job is to deal with conflict of interest issues and other ethical issues that are certain
to come up. I would also take steps to see that this "ethics counsel" can't be fired without approval by the (acting) Attorney
General -- whoever is sitting in for Sessions.
"If he 'doesn't have a conflict of interest' it's because lawyers have turned that phrase into a term-of-art which allows
them to go about their scuzzy ways blatant partiality notwithstanding. The man who has no conflict of interest has hired four
lawyers who are part of the modest minority of the public who finance Democratic Party campaigns, of which 3 have given four figure
sums to Democratic campaigns. It's not difficult to find attorneys who do not make political contributions of note. Only a single-digit
minority of the public are campaign contributors. Comment dit-on Establishment stitch-up ?
Looks like this guy is a globalist and neocon in his major views. A defender of the "unipolar moment"
2018 might be a tough year for Putin as Trump administration is not only as aggressive as Obama administration was, but
to certain extent is more reckless then Obama administration.
Oil price rise might help a bit, so the attempt to push Russia into economic chaos via artificial lowering of oil prices (With
Saudi support) did not work all too well , but the US became way too aggressive under Trump and that might provoke retaliation on
the part of Russia. Which can unleash a spiral fo violence leading to a war.
Notable quotes:
"... lethal military aid to Ukraine, preside over a tightening of sanctions on the Kremlin, the buildup of U.S. and NATO forces in eastern Europe and designate Russia as a strategic rival of the United States, the foreign policy commentariat would have had a field day. After all, Donald Trump was the "Siberian candidate" who was going to preside over a twenty-first century version of Yalta with his good friend Vladimir Putin. These were the steps that a Hillary Clinton team was expected to make, not someone who had run on a platform of seeking better relations with Moscow. ..."
"... When it comes to Ukraine, the logic appears to be that Russia has too much to lose to restart the conflict and that U.S. efforts to rebuild the Ukrainian security forces will not provoke Russian steps to ascend the ladder of escalation. Likewise, the administration sees no reason for the U.S. to abandon its operations in Syria and does not feel any need to step back from the reiteration of the Obama-era policy that Bashar al-Assad has no political future in Syria. ..."
"... So the starting point for U.S.-Russia relations in 2018 is the Trump administration's insistence that improved U.S.-Russia ties, while desirable, are not essential -- and that the ball is in Moscow's court to make a series of up-front concessions and policy reversals. ..."
"... This is based on the analysis that Russia will face continued economic problems, will not be able to sanctions-proof its economy and will find it increasingly difficult to sustain its current international position. In some ways, this is a variant of the strategy pursued by the Obama administration: to wait for the moment when Russia can, proverbially, no longer pay the bills. ..."
"... Putin's starting point -- based on his experience in dealing with four previous U.S. presidents, and now having a better sense of how U.S. domestic politics works -- is not to offer any first moves given the lack of confidence he has that any gestures would be reciprocated. ..."
"... Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the Captain Jerome E. Levy chair of economic geography and national security at the Naval War College. He is also a contributing editor to the National Interest. The views expressed here are his own. ..."
lethal
military aid to Ukraine, preside over a tightening of sanctions on the Kremlin, the buildup
of U.S. and NATO forces in eastern Europe and designate Russia as a strategic rival of the
United States, the foreign policy commentariat would have had a field day. After all, Donald
Trump was the "Siberian candidate" who was going to preside over a twenty-first century version
of Yalta with his good friend
Vladimir Putin. These were the steps that a Hillary Clinton team was expected to make, not
someone who had run on a platform of seeking better relations with Moscow.
Yet here we are. The situation has changed over the past year from what was expected of
Trump (when champagne corks popped in the Duma after the results of the November 2016 election
were broadcast) to reports that Russian officials quietly admit that they miss dealing with
their Obama-era counterparts. So what does this portend for the future?
The strategic ethos of the Trump administration appears to be settling in to a variant of
the old "selective cooperation" approach, buttressed by Trump's own personal assessment that
U.S. diplomats were too keen to offer concessions and inducements to other countries to get
their support when that support would have materialized in the end. As I previously noted, the
gamble that the Trump team is taking vis-a-vis North Korea is that Russia and China have too
much at stake to permit an unraveling of the situation on the Korean peninsula, and therefore
there is no need for Washington to offer compromises in other areas to get Beijing and Moscow
on board for tough new measures directed against Kim Jong-un. When it comes to Ukraine, the
logic appears to be that Russia has too much to lose to restart the conflict and that U.S.
efforts to rebuild the Ukrainian security forces will not provoke Russian steps to ascend the
ladder of escalation. Likewise, the administration sees no reason for the U.S. to abandon its
operations in Syria and does not feel any need to step back from the reiteration of the
Obama-era policy that Bashar al-Assad has no political future in Syria.
So the starting point for U.S.-Russia relations in 2018 is the Trump administration's
insistence that improved U.S.-Russia ties, while desirable, are not essential -- and that the
ball is in Moscow's court to make a series of up-front concessions and policy reversals.
This
is based on the analysis that Russia will face continued economic problems, will not be able to
sanctions-proof its economy and will find it increasingly difficult to sustain its current
international position. In some ways, this is a variant of the strategy pursued by the Obama
administration: to wait for the moment when Russia can, proverbially, no longer pay the
bills.
Putin's starting point -- based on his experience in dealing with four previous U.S.
presidents, and now having a better sense of how U.S. domestic politics works -- is not to
offer any first moves given the lack of confidence he has that any gestures would be
reciprocated. There will always be some Russian transgression that Congress will use as the
excuse for not authorizing sanctions relief. The Russians are also aware that the Trump
administration has added additional stress to the fractures in the trans-Atlantic alliance,
with the previously warm and strong relationship between President Obama and German chancellor
Angela Merkel now replaced by a degree of disdain in both Berlin and Washington for the other
country's leader. America's Asian allies are likewise concerned about the reliability and
staying power of the United States. So Putin might feel it a better strategy to concentrate his
efforts on de-linking key U.S. partners from Washington's preferred agenda, a strategy that has
already produced some early returns in the strategic reorientation of Turkey towards a closer
working relationship with Russia.
... ... ..
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the Captain Jerome E. Levy chair of economic geography and national
security at the Naval War College. He is also a contributing editor to the National Interest.
The views expressed here are his own.
There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American
history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary
Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the
suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in
an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.
Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the "deep state," a
popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political
views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.
However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and
potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated
investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and
dangerous.
Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by
personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert
electoral democracy itself in our country.
As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very
strong circumstantial evidence.
And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: "Some
circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a
trout in the milk. It smells fishy.
The Plans
The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and
Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with
no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on
circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa
Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
"Part A" was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she
committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her
private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls
and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If
Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy,
and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But "Part A" of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be
prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a "Part B" just in case the
first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged
crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into
so-called Trump-Russia "collusion." It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no
statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political
campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with
Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime
to force him from office.
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.
The Texts
The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm
a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an "idiot" and "loathsome."
At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her
nomination and stating: "She just has to win now."
One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial
smoking gun.
Page: "And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the
country from that menace." (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).
Strzok: "Thanks. And of course I'll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country
at many levels . "
It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to "protect" the country
from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.
Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that
no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the
incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey's view that she should not be prosecuted made no
sense by any objective standard.
This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email
case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey's description of Clinton's
handling of classified material, substituting "extremely careless" for "gross negligence."
As I explained in
an earlier column , this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it
allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as
president.
Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey
intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton's server supported
the "inference" that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet
this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.
This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the
republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey's
otherwise incriminating findings.
Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July
2016, right after Clinton was absolved? After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed
the documents launching the bureau's Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the
case before jumping to Robert Mueller's special counsel team.
If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process,
consider this cryptic text about their "insurance policy" against the "risk" of a Trump
presidency.
Strzok: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office –
that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like
an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. "
The reference to "Andy" is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also
supervising the investigation of Clinton's emails at the same time his wife was receiving
roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups
aligned with Clinton.
What was the "insurance policy" discussed in Andy's office? Was it the FBI's investigation
of Trump and his associates? Or was it the anti-Trump "dossier" that may have been used by the
FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump
associates? Perhaps it was both.
The Dossier
The "dossier" was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the
opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee. Comey called it "salacious and unverified."
Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump
campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday
during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer,
which sounds like an implicit "yes."
Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from
a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.
The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was
demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.
Ohr's wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr.
Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the
Mueller investigation of Russia's role in the election, but he did not.
Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the
Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the
FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton's campaign to spy on
her opponent or his campaign.
Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers,
which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate
itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.
This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of
Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the
face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.
If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either
Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be
prosecuted.
The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has
lost credibility and the public's trust.
"... The apparent tone deafness from Mueller, who is by all accounts shrewd D.C. tactician, is surprising. He's compounded the doubts some have in the process by assembling a seemingly stacked prosecution team , rife with democratic party donors -- including some who contributed to Clinton's presidential run and actually served as counsel for the Clinton Global Initiative. Not one of his team donated to Trump. ..."
"... Former DOJ lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy (no relation), writing for National Review, opines that the devalued "dossier" might have been the insurance policy that Strzok and Page were referencing. ..."
"... Then it's discovered that a senior DOJ official, Bruce G. Ohr has been demoted due to concealing that he had met with those behind the infamous "dossier." It was later learned that his wife held a position at the firm that compiled it, Fusion GPS. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign famously paid for the lurid details contained in the since widely discredited opposition research. And some -- including Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) -- have publically posited that the "dossier" was used to secure FISA warrants to then spy on the Trump campaign. ..."
McCabe was no stranger to public scrutiny. He had been roundly criticized in right wing
media circles once it was revealed this his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, a one-time candidate for
state office in Virginia, had taken a sizable campaign contribution from a political action
committee affiliated with Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) -- a longtime ally of Bill and
Hillary Clinton. McCabe had failed to recuse himself until late in the Clinton private server
email investigation.
Revelations like this fuel Trump and impulsively prompt him to attack the current special
prosecutor, Robert S. Mueller III, who was Comey's predecessor at the bureau. Mueller's
appointment was once heralded by both sides of the political divide when he assumed the
independent position ten days following Comey's firing.
What infuriated Trump and the right wing most was the fact that Mueller's selection was made
a day following
Mueller's job interview with Trump for the top position at the bureau, and with the
knowledge that Mueller has had a long, personal relationship with Comey.
The apparent tone deafness from Mueller, who is by all accounts shrewd D.C. tactician,
is surprising. He's compounded the doubts some have in the process by assembling a seemingly
stacked prosecution team , rife with democratic party donors -- including some who
contributed to Clinton's presidential run and actually served as counsel for the Clinton Global
Initiative. Not one of his team donated to Trump.
And all this, of course, before the bombshell revelation that two senior FBI executives,
Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and one-time counsel to McCabe, Lisa Page, an FBI
lawyer, had shared private text messages on a government device in which they denigrated
candidate Trump and professed support for Clinton. The most damning of the 375 exchanged texts
released by DOJ, spoke of an "insurance policy" ostensibly to prevent Trump from accessing the
Oval Office, and referenced as having been discussed in "Andy's office" (McCabe?)
Former DOJ lawyer Andrew C. McCarthy (no relation), writing for National Review, opines
that the devalued "dossier" might have been the
insurance policy that Strzok and Page were referencing.
Then it's discovered that a senior DOJ official, Bruce G. Ohr has been
demoted due to concealing that he had met with those behind the infamous "dossier." It was
later learned that his wife held a position at the firm that compiled it, Fusion GPS.
The Clinton campaign famously paid for the lurid details contained in the since widely
discredited opposition research. And some -- including Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) -- have publically posited that
the "dossier" was
used to secure FISA warrants to then spy on the Trump campaign.
In the immortal words of Arsenio Hall, these are things that can fairly make a reasonable
person go "Hmmm "
Looks like Blatter did not understand that was a made a pawn in a bigger game. charges of corruption proved to be a
powerful ram for getting what they want for the US intelligence services, especially in context of color revolutions. And they
are pretty powerful tool taking into account the USA pretence for world-wide jurisdiction on all matter sit wants.
So his question "So why the hell then should the FIFA president bear all the charges, the responsibility and the blame?"
is rhetorical. Do anything that US authorities do not like, and face the wrath of the US intelligence services.
Notable quotes:
"... He is convinced that the US investigations began from then, and he railed at the Swiss authorities for cooperating so fully, at the unfairness of it all. He accepted that the American investigators appeared to have found major corruption, mentioning kickbacks on Copa America TV deals, but he argued that had nothing to do with FIFA itself, it involved the confederations, over which he had no control. ..."
He is convinced that the US investigations began from then, and he railed at the Swiss authorities for cooperating so
fully, at the unfairness of it all. He accepted that the American investigators appeared to have found major corruption,
mentioning kickbacks on Copa America TV deals, but he argued that had nothing to do with FIFA itself, it involved the
confederations, over which he had no control.
"So why the hell then should the FIFA president bear all the charges, the responsibility and the blame?"
He singled out former Confederation of North, Central American And Caribbean Association Football (Concacaf) president Jeff
Webb as the most breathtaking scoundrel of all. Blatter recalled being at the publication of the Concacaf integrity report, which
identified the alleged frauds of the former secretary general and president Chuck Blazer and Jack Warner, and that Webb presented
himself as the president for a new era of decency.
"Jeffrey Webb had tears coming down his face, saying: 'I am humbled, I accept it; I promise I will do that.' Blatter, warming
up, did a little impression of Webb, and mimed the weeping.
Then, on that morning at the Baur au Lac: "The first one arrested was him," Blatter said. "How can you be misled by that or by
yourself to say this man is a correct man? I was already thinking that he could be tomorrow the president of FIFA, a good person,
a strong man."
Last year, Webb pleaded guilty to US charges of corruption, having helped himself to bribes and kickbacks from TV deals as
soon as he was in a position to do so as Concacaf president.
Was the FBI message: "Give the USA FIFA cup or..." masked by pursuing of justice. If so that
gangsterism, plain and simple.
Notable quotes:
"... The guilty plea dramatically unsealed last Monday from the FBI's investigation into the alleged links of Donald Trump's presidential campaign with Russia carried the hallmarks of the methods that unearthed the corrupt FIFA panjandrums. When the seven executives were hauled out of their beds in Zurich's five-star Baur au Lac hotel and accused of the "World Cup of fraud", the US Department of Justice revealed that one baron at the heart of it all, Charles "Chuck" Blazer, had already pleaded guilty. ..."
"... The American's flip from FIFA powerbroker to admitted fraudster and informer echoes that of George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign foreign affairs adviser revealed to have pleaded guilty to lying, who is now believed to have worn a wire since in conversations with associates. ..."
"... Blatter, whose 2015 election for a fifth term as FIFA president was scuppered by the arrests, still seethes about the US's ruthless intervention. He argues, with some justification, that the corruption charged was in the Americas, and had nothing to do with FIFA in Zurich, which should not have been targeted. Blazer helped himself to piles of dollars from his base in the heart of the US, Trump Tower in New York, not at FIFA HQ in Switzerland. ..."
"... Blatter will always believe that the FBI and IRS began their work, with a tap on Blazer's shoulder on 56th Street in Manhattan in November 2011, because the US was resentful that FIFA had spurned its bid to host the 2022 World Cup and voted for Qatar instead. ..."
On Monday in a spartan Brooklyn courtroom, three former South American football chiefs
accused of taking bribes and corruption will finally reach criminal trial, two and a half years
on from the arrests in Zurich of FIFA barons that led to the toppling of Sepp Blatter's regime.
The three denying charges that include racketeering and "multiple acts involving bribery" over
the sale of Copa América and other television rights are José Maria Marin, former
president of the Brazil football association (CBF); Juan Ángel Napout, a Paraguayan who
used to be president of the South America football confederation (Conmebol); and Manuel Burga,
president of the Peru FA for 12 years and a member of FIFA's money-dispensing development
committee.
Substantial figures as they are, much more significant when assessing the impact of the US
investigation into FIFA is to consider the former masters of the football universe who have
already pleaded guilty, and the others charged but opposing extradition.
The latest to-do list for the presiding judge, Pamela Chen, states that 23 former football
administrators and marketing executives have admitted guilt to crimes of financial corruption.
They include Jeffrey Webb, who was president of the Confederation of North, Central American
and Caribbean Football Associations (Concacaf); Costas Takkas, one of Webb's fixers; Alfredo
Hawit, who took a $250,000 bribe when he was the interim Concacaf president; and two sons of
Jack Warner, the long-term Concacaf president, who is also charged with serial corruption.
The guilty plea dramatically unsealed last Monday from the FBI's investigation into the
alleged links of Donald Trump's presidential campaign with Russia carried the hallmarks of the
methods that unearthed the corrupt FIFA panjandrums. When the seven executives were hauled out
of their beds in Zurich's five-star Baur au Lac hotel and accused of the "World Cup of fraud",
the US Department of Justice revealed that one baron at the heart of it all, Charles "Chuck"
Blazer, had already pleaded guilty.
The American's flip from FIFA powerbroker to admitted fraudster and informer echoes that
of George Papadopoulos, the former Trump campaign foreign affairs adviser revealed to have
pleaded guilty to lying, who is now believed to have worn a wire since in conversations with
associates. The exploration by the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of
Justice of endemic corruption in football followed the template now believed to be operating in
the presidential investigation. They pinned Blazer with his undeniable guilt, secured his
agreement to inform on others, then moved on to those whose names he sang. Investigators
followed the evidence, and the money, secured more guilty pleas and informants, and proceeded
to the next targets.
One crucial witness for the ultimate compiling of an indictment against 27 defendants, a
who's who of football potentates in the Americas, was clearly José Hawilla, the former
president of Traffic, a prominent marketing company based in Brazil. Traffic was famed for
having brokered a $160m deal in 1996 for Nike to sponsor the Brazil national team for 10 years.
In his admission of guilt, Hawilla told the authorities he paid a kickback of $20m to Ricardo
Teixeira, the long-term CBF president and a member of FIFA's executive committee.
Hawilla, who awaits sentencing, illuminated in his guilty plea the culture of entitlement
that had enveloped the heights of world football administration. He said he started Traffic as
a legitimate company, buying South American football TV rights and selling them to
broadcasters. But then the Paraguayan Nicolás Leoz, another of FIFA's most powerful
chiefs, president of Conmebol from 1986 to 2013, demanded the first bribe as long ago as 1991:
"Leoz told Hawilla that Hawilla would make a lot of money from the rights he was acquiring,"
the indictment stated. "Leoz did not think it was fair that he did not also make money. Leoz
told Hawilla that he would only sign the contract if Hawilla agreed to pay him a bribe."
Hawilla said that from then on his company was endemically corrupt. Routinely, on almost
every major deal to buy TV rights for the great South American football countries, he had to
pay bribes, to Leoz, Teixeira and other football bosses, including Julio Grondona, president of
the Argentina FA from 1979 and a central power-broker in Blatter's FIFA until his death in
2014.
Blatter, whose 2015 election for a fifth term as FIFA president was scuppered by the
arrests, still seethes about the US's ruthless intervention. He argues, with some
justification, that the corruption charged was in the Americas, and had nothing to do with FIFA
in Zurich, which should not have been targeted. Blazer helped himself to piles of dollars from
his base in the heart of the US, Trump Tower in New York, not at FIFA HQ in
Switzerland.
But these complaints ignored the gross instances of alleged corruption that did relate to
FIFA business. The worst accusation of all at the heart of the initial 164-page indictment was
that Jack Warner of Trinidad & Tobago, for 21 years the head of Concacaf, had taken a $10m
bribe to vote as a FIFA executive committee member for South Africa to host the 2010 World Cup.
Blatter, when I interviewed him last summer for my book, The Fall of the House of FIFA, was
scathing about Blazer, who had gorged on corrupt gains over 21 years as Concacaf general
secretary and a FIFA executive committee member. "Blazer was at the [London 2012] Olympics as a
representative of FIFA, and he was wired by the FBI," Blatter lamented. "So, what is such a
country trying to give us lessons in how to honestly do a job?"
Blatter will always believe that the FBI and IRS began their work, with a tap on
Blazer's shoulder on 56th Street in Manhattan in November 2011, because the US was resentful
that FIFA had spurned its bid to host the 2022 World Cup and voted for Qatar instead. Yet
that overlooks some blatant episodes. Corruption was in effect publicly advertised in Trinidad
in May 2011 by the handing out of $1m in $40,000 payments, literally in brown envelopes, to
delegates of FAs in the Caribbean Football Union (CFU) on the order of Warner. The payments
followed a meeting at which the delegates were addressed by the Qatari Mohamed bin Hammam, who
was standing as a presidential candidate to challenge Blatter in that month's presidential
election.
"... But Steele's dossier was considered credible by the US intelligence services because of his work uncovering the snake pit within FIFA. In the summer of 2010, a New York-based FBI squad met with the former spook at his London office, reports Reuters. Sources close to Steele have confirmed that he was directly hired by the Football Association in England to investigate the governing body. In December 2010, amid rampant rumours of corruption, the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were awarded to Russia and Qatar respectively. And with the help of Russian-speaking spook Steele, the FBI were able to indict a number of high-ranking FIFA officials. ..."
"... Tensions rose last night as Moscow publicly blamed MI6 for the dossier. The Russian embassy in London posted a sinister tweet suggesting Steele was still working for MI6 and "briefing both ways" against Trump and Moscow. The tweet declared: "MI6 officers are never ex." An embassy spokesman said the tweet "reflected the mood in Russia". There have been claims that Steele is in an MI6 safe house. He is said to have fled as the furore broke on Wednesday, telling neighbours: "Look after my cat." He left so quickly that he appeared to have left the lights on at the home. His disappearance came as furious MI6 chiefs distanced themselves from him for dragging them into the scandal. They have told ministers he showed "appalling judgement" over the incident. ..."
Former MI6 spook Christopher Steele's work uncovering Blatter's snake pit led to him
being hired to dig dirt on the President-elect's alleged links to Russia
THE former British spy reportedly behind Trump's 'dirty dossier' helped take down FIFA boss
Sepp Blatter after he was employed by the FA to investigate Russia's controversial 2018 World
Cup bid.
Christopher Steele, 52, was commissioned by the Football Association in 2010 to investigate
corruption within FIFA as part of England's flopped 2018 bid, reports the Times.
Former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who dug up dirt on Donald Trump's alleged ties to
Russia, has made £1million from snooping
His London-based firm Orbis Business Intelligence reportedly raked in over £1million
in two years providing information on the 'systemic' corruption within world football's
governing body to the FBI.
But Steele's dossier was considered credible by the US intelligence services because of
his work uncovering the snake pit within FIFA. In the summer of 2010, a New York-based FBI
squad met with the former spook at his London office, reports Reuters. Sources close to Steele
have confirmed that he was directly hired by the Football Association in England to investigate
the governing body. In December 2010, amid rampant rumours of corruption, the 2018 and 2022
World Cups were awarded to Russia and Qatar respectively. And with the help of Russian-speaking
spook Steele, the FBI were able to indict a number of high-ranking FIFA officials.
President Blatter was forced to resign from his post and later admitted that the World Cup
was always "destined for Russia". Steele's business boomed as a result of his work with the FBI
recording profits of £401,000 in 2015 and £621,000 in 2016. He was then
commissioned by a Washington-based research firm to investigate Trump's ties with Russia,
according to the BBC's Paul Wood writing in the Spectator. Described as a 'confirmed socialist'
while a student, Steele was formerly the president of the esteemed Cambridge Union debating
society before joining the Foreign Office in 1986.
Tensions rose last night as Moscow publicly blamed MI6 for the dossier. The Russian
embassy in London posted a sinister tweet suggesting Steele was still working for MI6 and
"briefing both ways" against Trump and Moscow. The tweet declared: "MI6 officers are never ex."
An embassy spokesman said the tweet "reflected the mood in Russia". There have been claims that
Steele is in an MI6 safe house. He is said to have fled as the furore broke on Wednesday,
telling neighbours: "Look after my cat." He left so quickly that he appeared to have left the
lights on at the home. His disappearance came as furious MI6 chiefs distanced themselves from
him for dragging them into the scandal. They have told ministers he showed "appalling
judgement" over the incident.
Related stories
'he's an idiot' MI6 chief 'livid' at 'appalling judgement' of former spook thought to be
behind Trump sex dossier
URINE TROUBLE PM's new Brexit envoy linked to spy 'behind Trump's dodgy sex dossier' amid
claims he passed on report
TRUMP BACKING Trump claims US intelligence chief called him to 'denounce the false and
fictitious' Brit spy dossier 'terrified for his safety' Family's fears for 'runaway Brit spy'
Chris Steele at centre of Trump 'sex' dossier scandal
IS SHE DOING A FARAGE? France's far-right leader Marine Le Pen spotted at Trump Tower
just like UKIP's Nigel Farage was
'ATTENTION SEEKING HYSTERIA' Buzzfeed's decision to publish Donald Trump 'dirty dossier'
slammed as 'suicidal'
RUMPY TRUMPY Porn mag Penthouse offers £800K for 'rights' to alleged Donald Trump
'hotel romp' video
FIFA corruption scandal was essentially an operation to derail Moscow bid for the World Cup.
In other words it was a highly politicized operation much like later Sochi Olympics doping
scandal.
Notable quotes:
"... According to reports in the media, Christopher Steele, who specialized in spying on Russia for MI6, worked directly with the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force dating back to at least 2010, when members of the task force met him in London to discuss possible corruption of the FIFA, ..."
"... The Washington Post, ..."
"... Given the fact that McCabe was the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force from 2003 to 2006 and undoubtedly maintained his contacts with agents there, Senator Grassley's question to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein needs to be addressed. ..."
"... Did McCabe use his contacts in the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force to facilitate a direct intervention into the U.S. by the British for the purpose of attempting to carry out a coup against U.S. President Trump? ..."
In a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 2, Senator Charles Grassley,
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked if now-acting FBI director Andrew McCabe was
involved in approving or establishing the FBI's reported arrangement with Christopher Steel,
the British MI6 agent who prepared a widely-discredited dossier on now President Trump for the
Clinton campaign, or if McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on this dossier in the course of
the FBI investigation of alleged collusion between President Trump's associates and the
Russians.
This question is highly relevant because of Andrew McCabe's longstanding relationship with
the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force in New York and the fact that British MI6 agent
Christopher Steele's main contacts in the FBI are members of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task
Force.
According to the FBI: "Mr. McCabe began his career as a special agent with the FBI in 1996.
He first reported to the New York Division, where he investigated a variety of organized crime
matters. In 2003, he became the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task
Force, a joint operation with the New York City Police Department."
According to reports in the media, Christopher Steele, who specialized in spying on
Russia for MI6, worked directly with the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force dating back
to at least 2010, when members of the task force met him in London to discuss possible
corruption of the FIFA, the body which organizes the World Cup (soccer) Tournament.
According to media reports, Steele continued to work with the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime
Task force from 2013 to 2016 on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
According to The Washington Post, the FBI considered paying Steele to continue the
work he had done for the Clinton campaign on Trump and his associates.
Given the fact that McCabe was the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized
Crime Task Force from 2003 to 2006 and undoubtedly maintained his contacts with agents there,
Senator Grassley's question to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein needs to be
addressed.
Did McCabe use his contacts in the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force to facilitate a
direct intervention into the U.S. by the British for the purpose of attempting to carry out a
coup against U.S. President Trump?
"... "Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe, and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele," ..."
(EIRNS) -- Pay attention to the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigations into Fusion GPS,
that "sketchy firm" behind the British MI6 agent Christopher Steele's dossier against Trump, is
the general message delivered by New York Post columnist Paul Sperry yesterday.
That
"secretive Washington firm that commissioned the dubious intelligence dossier on Donald
Trump is stonewalling congressional investigators trying to learn more about its connections
to the Democratic Party,"
Sperry alerted.
"The Senate Judiciary Committee is also investigating whether the FBI has wrongly relied
on the anti-Trump dossier and its author, Christopher Steele -- the old spy who was hired by
Fusion GPS to build a Russia file on Trump -- to aid its ongoing espionage investigation into
the Trump campaign and its possible ties to Moscow,"
he wrote, citing committee chair Sen. Chuck Grassley's "substantial questions about the
independence" of the FBI in investigating Trump.
"Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion
GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the
Hillary Clinton email probe, and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is under
investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself
despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat
activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who
negotiated with Steele,"
...Steele was well known by the Bureau and CIA long before that and shared Intel with both
agencies on cases with British links, especially dealing with MI6's interest in Russian
Organized crime, federal law enforcement sources said. It is little wonder the Justice Department and the FBI refuse to release any documents
dealing with Steele. Or the payments from government coffers -- including the FBI -- to Steele
or Fusion GPS.
We are getting definitive Intel from FBI and federal law enforcement sources that
Christopher Steele worked with the FBI when he was a MI6 Agent working Russian Organized Crime.
Before his retirement from the British spy agency. That's the same desk and the exact same time frame FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe worked
before coming the Washington, D.C., heading up the FBI Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force in
Manhattan, along with NYPD Intel sources and resources. And on the Justice Department side, also in New York at the very same time, Bruce Ohr was
working organized crime for the DOJ in the Southern District of New York, beginning in the
1990s through the identical timeline of Steele and McCabe. That's the same Bruce Ohr who was just demoted at DOJ for conducting secret meetings with
Fusion GPS, who hired Steele to write the Trump Dossier. And Fusion GPS also hired Ohr's wife,
a former CIA employee.
"You're finding that they all worked together," one FBI source said. "That's huge." If you
wonder how Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson met Steele, look no further than Ohr. Or Ohr's
wife. Or McCabe. Ohr ran the DOJ's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section from 1999 to 2011,
mostly out of New York City. McCabe ran the FBI Eurasian Task Force up until 2006. Ohr's
Organized Crime and Racketeering Section and the FBI were debriefed by Steele in London in 2010
on the FIFA corruption crime scheme, a major case for the DOJ. According to the Guardian,
Steele trekked to Rome in 2010 to also swap Intel on FIFA with a FBI contact from its Eurasian
Organized Crime Task Force. That was McCabe's old squad.
A portion of the FBI's official bio on McCabe helps tell the story: "Mr. McCabe began his
career as a special agent with the FBI in 1996. He first reported to the New York Division,
where he investigated a variety of organized crime matters. In 2003, he became the supervisory
special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force, a joint operation with the New York
City Police Department."
McCabe was the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force from
2003 to 2006 and based on source Intel, the task force iliasoned with MI6 and Steele. Steele
was on the Russian desk of the British spy agency until 2009 and worked Russian organized crime
in the United States, the identical beat of McCabe and Ohr. So, how did Steele simply waltz
into FBI HQ in Washington, D.C, before the 2016 election?
Was it McCabe then who dialed up his old contact Steele to help plot and wage a coup against
President Donald Trump? And helped pay Steele to write Trumps bogus dossier with tax dollars.
Or was it Ohr? Or both? "This means that basically they are paying a foreign power to take down
the presidential candidate slash sitting president now," one FBI source said. "This is
crazy."
"... In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Horowitz said his office requested text messages from the government-issued phones of several FBI employees involved in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. ..."
"... Those messages were produced by the FBI on July 20 of this year and Mueller and Rosenstein were informed about them a week later, on July 27. ..."
"... Another exchange, from April 2 of that year, appears to show efforts by Strzok and Page to conceal some of their conversations about Clinton during the height of the email investigation. ..."
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Homeland
Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Horowitz said his office requested text
messages from the government-issued phones of several FBI employees involved in the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Strzok played a key role in the email probe, changing former FBI Director James Comey's
early draft language about Clinton's actions from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"
and conducting the FBI interview of Clinton over the July 4 weekend in 2016.
According to Horowitz, "politically-oriented" text messages between Strzok and Page were
found in his office's initial search. That led to the watchdog requesting all messages between
the two through the end of last November. Those messages were produced by the FBI on July 20 of
this year and Mueller and Rosenstein were informed about them a week later, on July 27.
The following day, Horowitz's office requested additional messages between Strzok and Page
between December 2016 and July 28. Those messages were received on Aug. 10.
In all, more than 10,000 messages between Page and Strzok were turned over to the Justice
Department watchdog. They included discussions of how to "protect the country from that
menace," referring to President Trump.
One of the most notable messages, from Aug. 15, 2016, came from Strzok.
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's
no way [Trump] gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk," said Strzok, possibly
referring to then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. "It's like an insurance policy in the
unlikely event you die before you're 40."
The context of the message was unclear.
Another exchange, from April 2 of that year, appears to show efforts by Strzok and Page to
conceal some of their conversations about Clinton during the height of the email
investigation.
"So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can't be
traced," Page wrote. "You were just venting, [because] you feel bad that you're gone so much
but that can't be helped right now."
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top
FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present.
Notable quotes:
"... This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present. ..."
"... If you are among the millions of Americans who have pondered in recent months whether the Obama-era "Deep State" intelligence apparatus and FBI are working for or against Trump, this is the first definitive proof that the country's once-premiere law enforcement agency has gone rogue. ..."
"... Embattled FBI Director James Comey did not attend these private meetings of his interoffice revolutionaries, sources said, though he was aware of the gatherings yet did not discourage them or McCabe's inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Some FBI agents have questioned if the Anti-Trump attitude shared in the secret sit downs with the bureau's top brass is now the official platform of the FBI. The FBI, many agents quietly agree, has proven no friend to the newly minted US president. And they are beginning to understand why. ..."
"... Democratic factions controlled by a Hillary Clinton insider paid the deputy director of the FBI's wife almost $700,000 in campaign funds before McCabe, who was supervising Clinton's investigation, lobbied against charging her criminally, according to records and interviews obtained by True Pundit. ..."
"... According to one FBI insider, the McAuliffe-generated campaign funds may have ultimately bought Clinton some strategic breathing room ..."
"... "McCabe was one of the few people who backed Comey's decision not to refer Hillary Clinton to the Justice Department for indictment," a FBI source said of the July 2016 decision not to refer Clinton for criminal charges for violating email and document safeguards for classified and Top Secret national security intelligence. "McCabe and Comey are both lawyers. They aren't street agents. They're more political. We wanted her (Clinton) indicted. They did not." ..."
"... McAuliffe's contributions to Dr. McCabe's campaign match the exact time frame of the FBI's parallel Clinton investigation. No contributions were made prior to the FBI's probe of Clinton. McCabe was overseeing personnel decisions, including assigning agents to the Clinton investigation team, at the FBI's Washington D.C.'s field office when his wife began her 2015 campaign. His wife lost the election after spending an estimated $1.8 million on the senate run. Three months later, Comey promoted McCabe to FBI Deputy Director in February 2016. The promotion helped fill a very large void created by the retirement of John Giacalone, who was the supervisor of the bureau's National Security Branch and also the FBI brains and genesis behind the Clinton email and private server investigation. Since the inception of the case, Giacalone had spearheaded the Clinton investigation, and helped hand select top agents who were highly skilled but also discreet. Many of those agents were concerned when Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation. ..."
"... FBI insiders said Giacalone used the term "sideways" to describe the direction the Clinton probe had taken in the bureau. Giacalone lamented privately he no longer had confidence in the direction the investigation was headed. ..."
"... in the midst of the Clinton investigation, Giacalone handed the bureau his retirement papers in February 2016. ..."
"... The day after Giacalone's departure, Comey tapped McCabe to help oversee the ongoing Clinton case and personally serve "as the eyes and ears" for Comey, sources confirmed. Since early July 2016, Comey has come under intense fire from critics and the majority of Americans who believe he granted Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card by refusing to refer the case to the Justice Department for a probable slam-dunk indictment on at least one of potential dozens of criminal charges. ..."
"... Now Comey, McCabe and their rogue FBI Sanhedrin face a new dilemma: Colleagues who have blown the whistle on the partisan agency, specifically how personal and political philosophies have crept into the FBI and commandeered the bureau's powerful reach and resources to tamper with law-abiding White House personnel, including the president. That's called public corruption, a crime the FBI is tasked with investigating ..."
Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more than
a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn's aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail President
Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.
McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: "Fuck Flynn
and then we Fuck Trump," according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A scattered
few did not.
This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources
confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as
16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present.
If you are among the millions of Americans who have pondered in recent months whether the Obama-era "Deep State" intelligence
apparatus and FBI are working for or against Trump, this is the first definitive proof that the country's once-premiere law enforcement
agency has gone rogue.
The non-elected hierarchy that steer the FBI have declared war on President Trump and his White House inner circle. Make no mistake.
Days after the McCabe tirade, Flynn was forced to resign. That was no coincidence. This is how secret coups waged by the top law
enforcement personnel in the top law enforcement agency in any country operate. Efficiently. If the FBI wants you silenced or out
of a job, you'll be unemployed. Ask Michael Flynn and countless others.
Part of the plan hatched at that gathering was to make sure Flynn's wiretapped conversations were leaked to the media, FBI and
intelligence sources said. They were. Did the FBI leak this classified intelligence to the news media? Isn't that a question President
Trump and Congress should be posing? If nothing else, McCabe and his FBI secret council are certainly now suspects of who possibly
leaked the intelligence. Seems that a number of polygraphs should be in order.
Embattled FBI Director James Comey did not attend these private meetings of his interoffice revolutionaries, sources said,
though he was aware of the gatherings yet did not discourage them or McCabe's inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric. Some FBI agents
have questioned if the Anti-Trump attitude shared in the secret sit downs with the bureau's top brass is now the official platform
of the FBI. The FBI, many agents quietly agree, has proven no friend to the newly minted US president. And they are beginning to
understand why.
As far as waging political coups go: So far, so good. The FBI's secret plan to ruin Flynn worked. And fast. Flynn is long gone.
Now they can focus on ruining President Trump. After all, Isn't that the role of the FBI? Tampering with the president of the United
States and his inner circle, neither of whom have broken any laws?
It turns out, however, the FBI isn't very good at the spy game. McCabe's dictatorial tone ruffled a number of agents at FBI headquarters
who still believe the mission of the bureau is not to wage clandestine warfare against the sitting president and his administration.
McCabe and Comey did not respond to requests for comment. Flynn could not be reached for comment.
This isn't McCabe's first rodeo in the cross-hairs of controversy at the FBI where he is outranked only by Comey. In fact, McCabe
garnered problematic headlines during the 2016 presidential election.
Democratic factions controlled by a Hillary Clinton insider paid the deputy director of the FBI's wife almost $700,000 in
campaign funds before McCabe, who was supervising Clinton's investigation, lobbied against charging her criminally, according to
records and interviews obtained by True Pundit.
Dr. Jill McCabe was a Virginia state senate candidate in 2015. Longtime Clinton family consigliere and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe,
sent her approximately $675,000 to fund the Democrat hopeful's campaign coffers. Dr. McCabe, a physician, is married to the FBI deputy
director. Mrs. McCabe is a registered Democrat. FBI agents who work with McCabe say he and his wife were both staunch Hillary Clinton
supporters.
According to one FBI insider, the McAuliffe-generated campaign funds may have ultimately bought Clinton some strategic breathing
room.
"McCabe was one of the few people who backed Comey's decision not to refer Hillary Clinton to the Justice Department for indictment,"
a FBI source said of the July 2016 decision not to refer Clinton for criminal charges for violating email and document safeguards
for classified and Top Secret national security intelligence. "McCabe and Comey are both lawyers. They aren't street agents. They're
more political. We wanted her (Clinton) indicted. They did not."
Gov. McAuliffe has been an important Clinton family insider for decades. During Bill Clinton's presidential candidacy and subsequent
reelection, McAuliffe often spearheaded investigations into Clinton critics and helped silence women who alleged Bill Clinton harassed
or sexually assaulted them, sources said.
Ironically, McAuliffe is currently under investigation by the FBI for alleged campaign-related finance infractions.
McAuliffe's contributions to Dr. McCabe's campaign match the exact time frame of the FBI's parallel Clinton investigation.
No contributions were made prior to the FBI's probe of Clinton. McCabe was overseeing personnel decisions, including assigning agents
to the Clinton investigation team, at the FBI's Washington D.C.'s field office when his wife began her 2015 campaign. His wife lost
the election after spending an estimated $1.8 million on the senate run. Three months later, Comey promoted McCabe to FBI Deputy
Director in February 2016. The promotion helped fill a very large void created by the retirement of John Giacalone, who was the supervisor
of the bureau's National Security Branch and also the FBI brains and genesis behind the Clinton email and private server investigation.
Since the inception of the case, Giacalone had spearheaded the Clinton investigation, and helped hand select top agents who were
highly skilled but also discreet. Many of those agents were concerned when Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation.
FBI insiders said Giacalone used the term "sideways" to describe the direction the Clinton probe had taken in the bureau.
Giacalone lamented privately he no longer had confidence in the direction the investigation was headed. He felt it was simpler
to quietly step aside, walk away instead of fight to keep the investigation on its proper track. Giacalone was a true heavyweight
agent at FBI. In fact, he likely should have been running the entire show. His pedigree included running and creating FBI divisions
in New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and even serving as deputy commander in the Iraqi theater of operations. But in the
midst of the Clinton investigation, Giacalone handed the bureau his retirement papers in February 2016.
The day after Giacalone's departure, Comey tapped McCabe to help oversee the ongoing Clinton case and personally serve "as
the eyes and ears" for Comey, sources confirmed. Since early July 2016, Comey has come under intense fire from critics and the majority
of Americans who believe he granted Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card by refusing to refer the case to the Justice Department for
a probable slam-dunk indictment on at least one of potential dozens of criminal charges.
Now Comey, McCabe and their rogue FBI Sanhedrin face a new dilemma: Colleagues who have blown the whistle on the partisan
agency, specifically how personal and political philosophies have crept into the FBI and commandeered the bureau's powerful reach
and resources to tamper with law-abiding White House personnel, including the president. That's called public corruption, a crime
the FBI is tasked with investigating.
Just like it "investigated" $700,000 in donations from the Clinton family to the wife of the FBI's deputy director who, during
the exact time frame was tasked with overseeing the investigation of Hillary Clinton. She ultimately was never charged with any crime
and McCabe received a FBI promotion. Does anyone have the phone number for the FBI's public corruption unit? Or does that line ring
directly to McCabe and Comey?
We would normally demand a federal investigation into such allegations of collusion. But who would conduct it, the FBI?
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then
detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives
to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply
not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:
1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian
presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of
the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The
hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016
was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other
words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks
show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think
it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware.
Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally
made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional
emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware
was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016?
an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike
technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility
for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original
Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced
to 4 ˝ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC
server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine,
The Smoking
Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of
emails, online posts and
interviews
, Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive
200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking,
releasing the very donor lists
the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data"
which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016.
I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter,
was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them
from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered
$20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails
starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over
the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred.Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion
that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative.Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible.
That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from
a Russian source.
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich.
In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found
a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national
cybersecurity:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have
said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully
that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking
you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own
political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich
had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it
in June."
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly
says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow
the truth to come out.
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same
organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council
- are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch
is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought
yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and
pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of
the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves
Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away
with it
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.
You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written
by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both
SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National
Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations,
computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments
in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches.
Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation,
and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of
an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt
to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which
everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that
Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally
anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks
email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was
the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first
place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators
of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's
Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering
terrorism.
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then
detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives
to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply
not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:
1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f).
Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian
presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of
the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The
hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016
was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other
words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks
show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think
it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware.
Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally
made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional
emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware
was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016?
an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike
technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility
for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original
Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced
to 4 ˝ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC
server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine,
The Smoking
Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of
emails, online posts and
interviews
, Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive
200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking,
releasing the very donor lists
the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data"
which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016.
I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter,
was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them
from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered
$20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails
starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over
the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred.Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion
that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative.Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible.
That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from
a Russian source.
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich.
In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found
a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national
cybersecurity:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have
said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully
that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking
you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own
political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich
had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it
in June."
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly
says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow
the truth to come out.
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same
organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council
- are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch
is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought
yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and
pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of
the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves
Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away
with it
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.
You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written
by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both
SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National
Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations,
computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments
in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches.
Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation,
and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of
an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt
to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which
everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that
Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally
anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks
email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was
the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first
place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators
of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's
Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering
terrorism.
"... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
"... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
"... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think
this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for
yourself
"I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"
By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com
..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or
withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."
The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It
is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have
no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!
Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right,
give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!
"... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
"... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
"... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think
this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for
yourself
"I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"
By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com
..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or
withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...
Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."
The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It
is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have
no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!
Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right,
give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!
"... What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think". ..."
"... he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America. ..."
The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power
structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate
their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation
is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still
doesn't produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military
coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant
nation. If that still doesn't work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way
it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.
In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world
and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what
it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says "Nyet."
The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign,
from which it is deterred by Russia's nuclear deterrent. The answer remains "Nyet." One could perhaps
imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: "Based on the
evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn't work; let's try negotiating with Russia
in good faith as equals." And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, "Wow! That's brilliant!
Why didn't we think of that?" But instead that person would be fired that very same day because,
you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans
act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.
The whole Edward Snowden imbroglio was particularly fun to watch. The US demanded his extradition.
The Russians said: "Nyet, our constitution forbids it." And then, hilariously, some voices in the
West demanded in response that Russia change its constitution! The response, requiring no translation,
was "Xa-xa-xa-xa-xa!" Less funny is the impasse over Syria: the Americans have been continuously
demanding that Russia go along with their plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. The unchanging Russian
response has been: "Nyet, the Syrians get to decide on their leadership, not Russia, and not the
US." Each time they hear it, the Americans scratch their heads and try again. John Kerry was just
recently in Moscow, holding a marathon "negotiating session" with Putin and Lavrov. Above is a photo
of Kerry talking to Putin and Lavrov in Moscow a week or so ago and their facial expressions are
hard to misread. There's Kerry, with his back to the camera, babbling away as per usual. Lavrov's
face says: "I can't believe I have to sit here and listen to this nonsense again." Putin's face says:
"Oh the poor idiot, he can't bring himself to understand that we're just going to say 'nyet' again."
Kerry flew home with yet another "nyet."
What's worse, other countries are now getting into the act. The Americans told the Brits exactly
how to vote, and yet the Brits said "nyet" and voted for Brexit. The Americans told the Europeans
to accept the horrendous corporate power grab that is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP), and the French said "nyet, it shall not pass." The US organized yet another military coup
in Turkey to replace Erdoǧan with somebody who won't try to play nice with Russia, and the Turks
said "nyet" to that too. And now, horror of horrors, there is Donald Trump saying "nyet" to all sorts
of things-NATO, offshoring American jobs, letting in a flood of migrants, globalization, weapons
for Ukrainian Nazis, free trade
The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated.
If you are supposed to think and act like a hegemon, but only the thinking part still works, then
the result is cognitive dissonance. If your job is to bully nations around, and the nations can no
longer be bullied, then your job becomes a joke, and you turn into a mental patient. The resulting
madness has recently produced quite an interesting symptom: some number of US State Department staffers
signed a letter, which was promptly leaked, calling for a bombing campaign against Syria in order
to overthrow Bashar Assad. These are diplomats. Diplomacy is the art of avoiding war by talking.
Diplomats who call for war are not being exactly diplomatic. You could say that they are incompetent
diplomats, but that wouldn't go far enough (most of the competent diplomats left the service during
the second Bush administration, many of them in disgust over having to lie about the rationale for
the Iraq war). The truth is, they are sick, deranged non-diplomatic warmongers. Such is the power
of this one simple Russian word that they have quite literally lost their minds.
But it would be unfair to single out the State Department. It is as if the entire American body
politic has been infected by a putrid miasma. It permeates all things and makes life miserable. In
spite of the mounting problems, most other things in the US are still somewhat manageable, but this
one thing-the draining away of the ability to bully the whole world-ruins everything. It's mid-summer,
the nation is at the beach. The beach blanket is moth-eaten and threadbare, the beach umbrella has
holes in it, the soft drinks in the cooler are laced with nasty chemicals and the summer reading
is boring and then there is a dead whale decomposing nearby, whose name is "Nyet." It just ruins
the whole ambiance!
The media chattering heads and the establishment politicos are at this point painfully aware of
this problem, and their predictable reaction is to blame it on what they perceive as its ultimate
source: Russia, conveniently personified by Putin. "If you aren't voting for Clinton, you are voting
for Putin" is one recently minted political trope. Another is that Trump is Putin's agent. Any public
figure that declines to take a pro-establishment stance is automatically labeled "Putin's useful
idiot." Taken at face value, such claims are preposterous. But there is a deeper explanation for
them: what ties them all together is the power of "nyet." A vote for Sanders is a "nyet" vote: the
Democratic establishment produced a candidate and told people to vote for her, and most of the young
people said "nyet." Same thing with Trump: the Republican establishment trotted out its Seven Dwarfs
and told people to vote for any one of them, and yet most of the disenfranchised working-class white
people said "nyet" and voted for Snow White the outsider.
It is a hopeful sign that people throughout the Washington-dominated world are discovering the
power of "nyet." The establishment may still look spiffy on the outside, but under the shiny new
paint there hides a rotten hull, with water coming in though every open seam. A sufficiently resounding
"nyet" will probably be enough to cause it to founder, suddenly making room for some very necessary
changes. When that happens, please remember to thank Russia or, if you insist, Putin.
NowhereMan said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM EDT
Beautiful! I'm going to start using that word in conversation now just to gauge people's
reactions. Nyet!!! I have one particularly stuffy friend who's just baffled by the Trump
phenomenon. He's an old school GOP conservative at heart who's chagrined that he's had to
abandon the grand old party in favor of HRC and can't understand for the life of him why the
"dirt people" are so enamored with Trump and Sanders. I just laugh and tell him that they're
abandoning the Dems for the same reasons that he's embracing them.
The rich and the near rich (which seems to include just about everybody these days, if only in
their imaginations) here in the US all suffer from fundamental attribution bias - the idea
that their own exceptionalism is why they are doing well - rather than realizing that it's all
mostly just the luck of the draw - or even worse - their own willingness to carry corporate
water like the good little Nazi's they are that has allowed them to temporarily advance their
station in life.
Fortunately for us all, the sun is setting on America's empire as we speak, and fevered dreams
of US hegemony for the rest of time will be short lived indeed, although homo sapiens' time
might be limited as well. If history keeps recording in the aftermath, US nuclear enabled
hegemony will be but a brief blip on the historical radar, and like the legend of Atlantis
before us, we'll be remembered chiefly as a society gone mad with our technologies, who
aspired to reach out and touch the face of god, but instead settled for embracing our many
inner devils. We won't be missed.
Happy Unicorn said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:26:00 AM EDT
A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin? Wouldn't THAT be nice!
Dave Stockton said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:36:00 AM EDT
This whole, "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin", is the best thing that could have
happened this election. The US population will now have a debate and get to vote on whether we
truly want to start World War Three. Hopefully the powers that be will be surprised by the
response... NYET!
Unknown said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:23:00 PM EDT
Nice...
Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)
Vyse Legendaire said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:37:00 PM EDT
I hope someone would volunteer to design a 'Nyet!' T-shirt on teepublic for advocates to
show their unity to the cause.
Shawn Sincoski said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:44:00 PM EDT
I really hope that the next time the TBTF banks need a handout, somebody, somewhere reacts
with a 'NFW' that resonates with the other plebes. Such a powerful word. But I am doubtful
that such an event will occur. With all that is going on with Hillary the house should be on
fire by now, but it is not (I am not advocating Trump by disparaging HRC). I suspect that the
coming American experience will be unique and (dis)proportionate to their apathy.
Cortes said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:01:00 PM EDT
Herbert Marcuse: The first word of freedom is "No"
Irene Parousis said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:58:00 AM EDT
BRILLIANT!!!
Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:12:00 AM EDT
d94c074a-53e8-11e6-947a-073bf9f943f9 said...
Excellent.
There is a minor twist: "The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American
hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated". Probably GWB's "misunderestimated" left some local
linguistic traume in your brain popping up in your otherwise perfect comment. I guess you
meant "cannot be overestimated". Nevermind, you message is clear and convincing anyway :-)
Mister Roboto said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:07:00 AM EDT
This sums up why all the usual poppycock and folderol about why I need to vote for Hillary
that always succeeded in getting under my intellectual skin in the past is now just the mere
noise of screeching cats outside the window to me: There just comes a point where, if you have
any integrity at all, you have to say, "Nyet!"
Mark said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM EDT
At some point, voting for a major party candidate is just throwing away your vote.
Roger said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:11:00 AM EDT
I always enjoy Dmitry's blogs and the fact that he pushes the Russian perspective, as a relief
from the Russophobic drivel put out by the mainstream. However, a word of caution to the wise.
Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Trump et al. are, in fact, extremely unfunny. Charlie Chaplin lampooned
the funny little man with the moustache in the Great Dictator, xa! xa! xa! The truth came out
later. Do not be afraid of Neocon America, but please remember these are dangerous people. Be
vigilant always.
Bruno said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:55:00 AM EDT
Loved.
And sad because Brasil didn't say NYET to the coup planted here by USA.
Unknown said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:02:00 PM EDT
"Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)"
Even better, Lavrov was subsequently quoted in the press as saying "don't make me say the four
letter word".
What a tag team!
Marty said...
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM EDT
I really believe that you have hit the crux of the issue, the Neocon psychopaths are besides
themselves over the Nyets, and they find themselves to be a once powerful now toothless lion,
the are being laughed at, even by the American people.
I hope so because the worst of the bunch is Mrs. Clinton, she is just a crazy and stupid enough
to burn it all down, perhaps the only thing that would prevent her from doing so is that this
would interfere with her Diabolical Narcissistic need to be seen as the Kleptocrat she is and
to get away with being the biggest grifter in American history.
Turkey shows that they can't even organize a proper coup any more, even when they have a major
base in the country of the government to be compromised. The NeoCons must be so disappointed.
This failed coup was probably also was a big disappointment to those Fed Banksters who were
counting on looting the Bank if Turkey's 500 or so Tonnes of gold, as they did with Ukraine.
Roger said...
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 12:53:00 PM EDT
Leon Panetta sez "we know how to do this" despite an exuberant flourishing of evidence to the
contrary. But there's a glimmer of hope, even if it comes from a way down the ranks, because
there's a Col Bacevitch who begs to differ and sez "with all due respect, we DON'T know how to
do this."
You ask, know how to do WHAT exactly? Well, the topic at issue in a PBS panel discussion was
destroying the Islamic State. But knowing how to do it or NOT knowing how to do it could refer
equally to a series of monumental American foreign policy muffs. How could it be, that America
with all its military force, screws up so mightily and predictably? Because it's as Mr Orlov
asserts, there's a lot of NYETS out there and the American foreign policy establishment can't
fathom it.
But what they most crucially can't fathom is that those damn furriners have their own
interests at heart just like the Americans have their own interests. Americans from the street
level to the highest echelons view the world through Americentric lens resulting in
ludicrously distorted fun-house views of the world.
For example, why doesn't the Iranian see things the way Americans want him to? Why is it
always "nyet" coming out of Teheran? Why are Iranians so belligerent? Americans seemingly
can't comprehend that Iran is an ancient imperial power whose roots go back millennia, right
to the origins of civilization. But could it possibly be that Iranian concerns have got more
to do with goings-on in their geographic locale and pretty much nothing to do with the United
States? And that the Iranian is highly irritated that Americans stick their noses into matters
that concern Americans only tangentially or not at all? Could it be that the Iranian has his
own life pathways in age-old places that Americans know nothing about? Could it be that an
Iranian is educated in his own traditions in ancient academies that far pre-date anything on
American soil? You can replace the words "Iranian" and "Iran" with "Chinese" and "China" or
"Japanese" and "Japan" or dozens of other places and societies including "Russian" and
"Russia". American incomprehension goes deep.
Maybe some of the world is Washington-dominated. But maybe some this domination is more
apparent than real. Maybe it only seems Washington-dominated because in many of these places
there's a concordance of interests with the United States. But in most of the globe the
interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals. And America has not got the
will nor the reach to make it otherwise.
Happy Unicorn said...
Roger: "But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the
locals."
Most of the globe, including America itself! The interests of the Americans you're talking
about are usually not the same as mine or anyone's that I know ("the locals" in America). I
suspect the people of the USA who aren't brainwashed would have a lot in common with everybody
else in the world, because the first colony of any would-be empire (colony 0, let's say) is
always the country it originated from. More and more of us are saying nyet too, though the
utterance usually takes the less exotic form also enumerated by Dmitry awhile back: "No,
because we hate you."
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:03:00 PM EDT
flops said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:22:00 AM EDT
In good wronglish:
There's America, Americans, USA.
And, in some point of our decolonized memory, there's Pacha Mama, our Mother Earth, the name
given to our land by the older people.
Not by chance, the unique country in Pacha Mama continents that have a pre-colonial language
as its official - Paraguay's Guarani - was the initial focus of this antidemocratic wave
attacking our countries.
We, the united states of...? What?
"Pacha Mama" is our best nyet!
Not anymore south and central americas, south and central "americans". Pacha Mama is our real
continents' name! We are The United States of Pacha Mama!
When mentioning people from brazil, angentine, chile, bolivia, peru paraguay
colombiavenezuelahaiti,surinamepanamacubamexico and so, please call us Pachamamists. That'
what we are.
Roger said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:27:00 AM EDT
HappyUnicorn, of course you're right.
What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an
entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate
studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as
old under the sun as "group-think".
The lines are long established. Just think of it: globalization, off-shoring millions of jobs,
on-shoring millions of dirt-poor immigrants, legal and otherwise. Nothing warms the cockles of
the oligarch's heart like a desperate underclass.
I know Trump is a buffoon. But he served a purpose when he diverged from long established
consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that
hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that
border-less trade ruined heartland America.
You saw the venomous reaction. A lot of people staked a career on the status-quo. Is the
best-before expired as Trump suggested? I'll bet that if it hadn't been a blustering clown
that raised it, many more people on the street would agree.
Some regional interests are historic and easily visible for example, along the Mason-Dixon
line. But even on either side of that old divide I think that the disparity is more an
artifact of opposing elites determined to not get along. Why don't they get along? Well,
there's a country to loot. You need distractions and diversions while pension funds and
treasuries are emptied.
And so we're off chasing our tails on burning problems like gender neutral washrooms.
Brilliant, don't you think? Kudos to the Obama regime for that one. And so it's God fearin',
gun packin' "conservative" versus enlightened, high-minded "progressive". What a joke, what a
con. Yet, predictably, we fell for it. You name it, school prayer, abortion, evolution, and
now washrooms, we fall for it, we always do.
Robert T. said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:52:00 PM EDT
It would be very nice if someone could write a piece on what life in Russia, in all its
levels, is really like nowadays. I suspect that it is not just "nyet" that terrifies the
Empire, but rather what Russia herself is now increasingly coming to represent.
A lot of people, myself included, had been brought up thinking that Russia, while indeed a
superpower, isn't and cannot be on the same page as the US. But now here are reports saying
that a good and strong leader has pulled Russia out of the rut, and made things better. What's
more, this leader did it in a manner that seems antithetical to the Empire. And what's even
better is that this new Russia can't be easily rocked, like how the other countries had been
rocked and thrown into chaos. The Empire therefore is at its wit's end. If people from other
parts of the Earth, especially in those many places where democracy has failed miserably,
begin to see that there is indeed an alternative to the empirical system, won't they then
start to follow Russia's footsteps?
Headsails said... Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:07:00 AM EDT
Just like a spoiled rotten child that needs to learn some manners. It needs to learn the
meaning of no. But in this case, instead of a spankng they would be chain ganged for life.
Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!
I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the
US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided
that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from
any and all levity and mirth.
You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for
them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck
with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.
There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking
of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way,
because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder.
This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor,
I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for
schizophrenia first?
And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of
something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior
is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later
the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.
Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle
ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose
fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch
them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and
to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.
My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US
to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's
face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on
the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority
Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in
an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a
tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and
wish to become part of Russia again.
So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted,
turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents,
it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon,
whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive
of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression
that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians,
kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they
downloaded from their friends on Facebook.
From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the
Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about
"Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence
of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.
This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced,
let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face
value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks
but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks
occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order
to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima
facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain?
Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.
But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although
with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it
onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot
from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You
hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the
servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating
evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary
afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .
The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is
a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean
goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's
presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into
doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes
Sir, Tovarishch Putin!
Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation,
depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic
sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing
presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian
oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain
future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and
on But who can stop them?
And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential
campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here
we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave
your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course
you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody
could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond
lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting
the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.
Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over
half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower
to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in
New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through
quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of
your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow
hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.
The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending
an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched
over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south
of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.
Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational
elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern
agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture
of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is
thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they
are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the
men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays,
and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if
not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.
And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them
all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed,
under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the
audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and
the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops
Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance,
sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub
it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?
Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now?
Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the
"Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just
one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison,
let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite,
and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.
1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique
of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now
the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other
oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.
2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall.
And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements.
For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly
issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.
3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other
than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple
Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential
election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate
ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.
4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this
day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the
east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased
the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest,
possibly escalating into a civil war.
The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of
anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's
left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!
There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking"
or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally
ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their
opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically
influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging
it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward
a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved
hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going
on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals,
because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead
try to coax them into learning to control it.
"... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
"... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
"... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
"... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
"... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
"... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
"... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
"... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
"... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
"... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
"... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
"... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
"... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
"... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
"... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
"... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
"... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
"... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's
involvement in US politics?
The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.
The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.
As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.
Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media
bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion
that is being suggested.
And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set
up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table
modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments
that could fuckup ARM based computers.
Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become
a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside
the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists
fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support
for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped
Putin wiped the terrorists out...
Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists
in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege
Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates'
in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.
I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as
he deserves.
I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
Cheers!
The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign
in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake
stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along."
The Globe and Mail.
No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot
multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.
Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new...
Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing
are getting interesting...
"If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is
based on sheer lies. "
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they
will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
"Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
"This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about
their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."
We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that
the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C.
pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.
And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.
"It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are
both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump
in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the
most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine
Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."
(Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and
gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across
the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)
Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise
and completely unprovoked .
To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics
of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")
This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed
masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right
under their noses.
and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
So it's true because the CIA said so.
That's the gold standard for me.
So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.
Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.
I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
Happy Christmas, Vlad.
Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political
parties with one fell swoop that way.
The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling
in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result
is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
Where's the gap in this logic:
A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time --
unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that
if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really
this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a
right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling
someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank
you Democratic party.
I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would
we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?
I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the
US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored
some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with
respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of
its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.
If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including
CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.
If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd
say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.
First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that
there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence"
officials. In other words, fake news at this point.
Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen.
Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.
This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the
time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts
about our ruling class.
This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That
fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some
so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.
>> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the
election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.
What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary
so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided
press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the
BS and voted for trump. Good for them.
And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking
story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who
hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.
Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote,
then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking
simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely
disinformation used by US agencies.
Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently
on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College
vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."
When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint
statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.
This is very telling:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona
are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."
Alleged:
adjective [attributive]
said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality
Consistent:
adjective
acting or done in the same way over time
Method:
noun
a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something
Motivation:
noun
a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way
So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?
Well what we can tell is:
the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations
(and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.
There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.
Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone
strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to
do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed
into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies
working against humanity for very many years.
This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.
The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping
away from them.
This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.
What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame
the Russians for it.
The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.
American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes
is one small incident from either side.
And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall
St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.
They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.
This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually
make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in
2020.
I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood
and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win
have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!
I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.
Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather
a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove
the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.
Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy
is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved
into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by
former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential
candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones
from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle
in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon.
The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in
the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well
as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large
listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."
Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite
the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups
etc. etc. etc
Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their
billions of funding.
So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA
are going to publish then think again.
During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy
alliance after the election
Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a
muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation
that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to
stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution
caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson
..
"We are Not calling into question the election results"
next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF
What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep.
who almost managed to have his tie done up..
I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)
Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during
and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!
His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --
People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are
in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.
Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed
up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..
blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..
Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just
over month ago.. whoosh!
It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!
And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..
Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
********
Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.
As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!
Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama
continues to resist, or loose face completely..
Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no
legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect
of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!
Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
& Obama is guilty!
The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them
gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or
otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access
etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration,
they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom
Cobbly.
In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the
perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.
The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in
terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as
the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still,
in truth, all is never fair in love or war
.....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated
policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's
position in those upcoming policy battles.
At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward
imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels,
and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence
or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it. http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected
/
Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:
Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.
This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian
"Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.
Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying
people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not
being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong
here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.
Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal
data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.
Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.
IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide
the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about
knowing vulnerabilities.
That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such
an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.
The standard sequence of events is thus:
Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.
If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot
on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP
or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.
The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because
the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.
The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated
privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't
matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints
will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document
what got damaged.
The correct IT manager response is thus:
Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without
exposing the innards of the system.
Lock down misconfigured network systems.
Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions
are controlled via capabilities.
Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential
service.
If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line
of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password
control system to ban bad passwords.
It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled
attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow
such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.
If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections,
perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have
won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign
power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably
more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US
soldiers could never be caught doing!!!
They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US
armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the
the cat out of the bag!!!
Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As
the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if
China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM
EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW:
POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's
reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit
from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo
> Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC
POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent
of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ...
Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is
NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether
Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check
out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons."
http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE
Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which
makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..
Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!
She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.
Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this
time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet
security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have
hacked their security regularly.
In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public
specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity
in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."
Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise.
Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess
not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I
had leading or potentially leading my country.
Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting
flesh.
Don't believe any of this at all.
American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they
really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal
or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results
based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down
in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well
done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
"CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "
You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to
influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say
that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.
So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment,
including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled
the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of
her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost.
But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling
the playing field a bit
The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources'
are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats
guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted
to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias
regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement
is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that
folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...
Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants
this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political
shenanigans.
Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years
ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.
This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.
Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.
Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried
to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.
if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is
a real mess in this case.
Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA
yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?
Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical,
vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too?
Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.
Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes...
and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as
usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that
they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered
past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections,
but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have
beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep
the demonstrators off the streets.
If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's
even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal
hygiene.
The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.
Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral
systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).
The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the
election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.
Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western
nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go
to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced
that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.
I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.
It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama
achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.
The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables,
the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.
It was Hillary Clinton.
Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting,
behave like an adult.
As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for
you.
What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande,
Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha!
- you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old
kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.
I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your
side of politics.
It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist,
bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting
down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean
to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities.
Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.
You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the
other side to your one-sided argument.
Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted
down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.
There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged
by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians
taking over our institutions.
Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become
the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.
Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we
had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.
Trump won the election! Get over it!
Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond
in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when
you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of
people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis
that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
It's just a sad situation
Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful
secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline,
but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist
in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership
and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.
Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type
of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.
Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial
Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.
If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet,
Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists
and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires
get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
Viva China , is far from Latin America
So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions
in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is
no industry.
No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed
foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited
this man child is to public office.
Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words
reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the
equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking
gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations.
Are they wrong too?
I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia
conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists,
particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens
of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing
crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences
of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated
that did not result from Russian hacks
Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed
to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has
been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after
all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame
yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar
and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The
U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i
did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public
who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for
profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the
"public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply
choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry
against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment
roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough
buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another
time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as
fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia
must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama
(7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders.
We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors,
we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes?
But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going
their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
The British and French circa 200 years.
The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting
This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.
This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men
security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart,
Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats
are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK.
Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.
I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western
outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!
If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people
a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback
seems fully justified.
Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.
How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the
Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's
no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese
Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none
whatsoever).
I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked.
You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the
mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons
one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition
disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.
BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under
the new POtuS.
I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction!
Oh wait, that was already used.
Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy
of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve
to come up with the term 'fake news'.
Hypocrisy at its finest
Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops,
warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United
States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the
integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence
to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect
on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question
the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
I do Holiday cards too.
Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer
network, including the voter registration database.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary
of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack
Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....
Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:
The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive
at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of
the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and
will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.
..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would
be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity,
not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite
undisturbed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news
/
Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third
Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe
population!Lol
I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.
The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.
One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.
It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.
"Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."
The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.
Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists
in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.
I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other
countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!
Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!
Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating
that the order came from the Kremlin.
It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering
'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism
in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy
the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand,
I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully
interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best
armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very
powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore
100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential
wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit
of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.
Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy
data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.
None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian,
et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating
enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.
I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating,
resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom.
Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of
misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them
have anything to do with Russia.
I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to
bed, it should be done.
So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?
If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just
better at this? I doubt it.
I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually,
I could'nt care less.
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election
US interference:
COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in
l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
142 more rows
the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
they practically destroyed the country
The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.
This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been
over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they
have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.
The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically
pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.
I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all
this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved
on and nobody cared.
Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people
they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors"
so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here
at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting
so increasingly shrill.
If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them
another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat
this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing
what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his
last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am
making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect
clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption.
after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send
the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the
intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
"Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international
community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear
to President Putin that this is unacceptable."
Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that
is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts
doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't
come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations
of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.
So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some
SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:
9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News
on Tuesday.
Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest
cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,
On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered
a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.
5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers
accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.
June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department
of Defense's network last June.
1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter
accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)
5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data
And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room
is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of
finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted
that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration -
they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did
it" was a convenient distraction.
All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet,
but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by
the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES
it is our duty.
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles
pumped out on today's rag alone.
The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for
war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election"
they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another
illegal war for profit.
There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?
And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing,
" A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."
Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively
makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity
of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow
Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on
the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.
However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for
them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.
Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral
process,
as reported in the NYT :
The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials
that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election
Day."
The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was
borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."
Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing
for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack
against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.
What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream
media against the Russians.
Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians
winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.
I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing
her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the
population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing
compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain
its Empire.
The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.
America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine
and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict
with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market,
money printing by another means.
I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on
Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed
doors while we are clear to do so publically.
The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no
one felt it a big deal at the time.
Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well,
use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as
though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"
The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.
..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological
know-how and research."
Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are
right because it's not what's going on.
It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.
But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it
instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered.
How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle
east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective
needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor
of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously
rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't
be in the realm of possibility.
I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S.
intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more
than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have,
as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is
quite possibly "fake news".
Russia did this, Russia did that
its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
you have cried wolf to many times
stop trying to manipulate us
When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western
failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House
suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied
" Wiki
Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime
" US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.
Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!
Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it.
Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?
If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary
would have lost by a landslide.
1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
etc
Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!
"..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States
of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter
anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.
Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating
if the other team does it.
Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the
worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!
"... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
"... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
"... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
"... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
"... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
"... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
"... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
"... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
"... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
"... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
"... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
"... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
"... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
"... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
"... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
"... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
"... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
"... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's
involvement in US politics?
The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.
The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.
As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.
Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media
bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion
that is being suggested.
And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set
up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table
modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments
that could fuckup ARM based computers.
Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become
a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside
the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists
fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support
for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped
Putin wiped the terrorists out...
Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists
in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege
Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates'
in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.
I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as
he deserves.
I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
Cheers!
The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign
in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake
stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along."
The Globe and Mail.
No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot
multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.
Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new...
Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing
are getting interesting...
"If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is
based on sheer lies. "
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they
will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
"Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
"This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about
their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."
We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that
the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C.
pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.
And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.
"It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are
both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump
in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the
most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine
Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."
(Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and
gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across
the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)
Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise
and completely unprovoked .
To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics
of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")
This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed
masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right
under their noses.
and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
So it's true because the CIA said so.
That's the gold standard for me.
So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.
Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.
I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
Happy Christmas, Vlad.
Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political
parties with one fell swoop that way.
The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling
in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result
is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
Where's the gap in this logic:
A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time --
unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that
if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really
this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a
right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling
someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank
you Democratic party.
I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would
we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?
I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the
US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored
some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with
respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of
its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.
If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including
CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.
If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd
say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.
First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that
there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence"
officials. In other words, fake news at this point.
Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen.
Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.
This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the
time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts
about our ruling class.
This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That
fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some
so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.
>> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the
election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.
What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary
so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided
press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the
BS and voted for trump. Good for them.
And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking
story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who
hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.
Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote,
then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking
simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely
disinformation used by US agencies.
Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently
on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College
vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."
When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint
statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.
This is very telling:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona
are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."
Alleged:
adjective [attributive]
said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality
Consistent:
adjective
acting or done in the same way over time
Method:
noun
a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something
Motivation:
noun
a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way
So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?
Well what we can tell is:
the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations
(and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.
There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.
Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone
strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to
do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed
into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies
working against humanity for very many years.
This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.
The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping
away from them.
This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.
What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame
the Russians for it.
The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.
American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes
is one small incident from either side.
And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall
St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.
They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.
This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually
make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in
2020.
I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood
and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win
have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!
I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.
Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather
a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove
the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.
Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy
is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved
into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by
former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential
candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones
from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle
in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon.
The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in
the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well
as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large
listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."
Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite
the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups
etc. etc. etc
Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their
billions of funding.
So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA
are going to publish then think again.
During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy
alliance after the election
Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a
muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation
that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to
stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution
caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson
..
"We are Not calling into question the election results"
next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF
What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep.
who almost managed to have his tie done up..
I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)
Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during
and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!
His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --
People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are
in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.
Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed
up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..
blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..
Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just
over month ago.. whoosh!
It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!
And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..
Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
********
Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.
As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!
Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama
continues to resist, or loose face completely..
Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no
legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect
of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!
Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
& Obama is guilty!
The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them
gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or
otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access
etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration,
they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom
Cobbly.
In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the
perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.
The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in
terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as
the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still,
in truth, all is never fair in love or war
.....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated
policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's
position in those upcoming policy battles.
At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward
imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels,
and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence
or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it. http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected
/
Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:
Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.
This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian
"Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.
Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying
people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not
being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong
here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.
Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal
data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.
Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.
IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide
the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about
knowing vulnerabilities.
That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such
an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.
The standard sequence of events is thus:
Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.
If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot
on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP
or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.
The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because
the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.
The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated
privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't
matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints
will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document
what got damaged.
The correct IT manager response is thus:
Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without
exposing the innards of the system.
Lock down misconfigured network systems.
Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions
are controlled via capabilities.
Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential
service.
If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line
of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password
control system to ban bad passwords.
It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled
attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow
such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.
If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections,
perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have
won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign
power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably
more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US
soldiers could never be caught doing!!!
They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US
armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the
the cat out of the bag!!!
Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As
the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if
China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM
EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW:
POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's
reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit
from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo
> Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC
POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent
of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ...
Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is
NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether
Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check
out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons."
http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE
Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which
makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..
Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!
She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.
Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this
time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet
security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have
hacked their security regularly.
In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public
specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity
in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."
Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise.
Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess
not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I
had leading or potentially leading my country.
Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting
flesh.
Don't believe any of this at all.
American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they
really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal
or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results
based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down
in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well
done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
"CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "
You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to
influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say
that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.
So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment,
including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled
the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of
her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost.
But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling
the playing field a bit
The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources'
are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats
guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted
to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias
regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement
is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that
folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...
Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants
this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political
shenanigans.
Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years
ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.
This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.
Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.
Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried
to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.
if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is
a real mess in this case.
Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA
yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?
Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical,
vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too?
Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.
Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes...
and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as
usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that
they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered
past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections,
but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have
beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep
the demonstrators off the streets.
If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's
even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal
hygiene.
The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.
Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral
systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).
The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the
election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.
Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western
nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go
to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced
that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.
I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.
It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama
achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.
The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables,
the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.
It was Hillary Clinton.
Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting,
behave like an adult.
As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for
you.
What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande,
Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha!
- you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old
kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.
I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your
side of politics.
It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist,
bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting
down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean
to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities.
Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.
You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the
other side to your one-sided argument.
Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted
down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.
There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged
by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians
taking over our institutions.
Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become
the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.
Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we
had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.
Trump won the election! Get over it!
Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond
in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when
you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of
people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis
that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
It's just a sad situation
Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful
secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline,
but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist
in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership
and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.
Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type
of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.
Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial
Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.
If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet,
Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists
and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires
get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
Viva China , is far from Latin America
So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions
in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is
no industry.
No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed
foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited
this man child is to public office.
Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words
reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the
equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking
gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations.
Are they wrong too?
I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia
conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists,
particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens
of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing
crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences
of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated
that did not result from Russian hacks
Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed
to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has
been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after
all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame
yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar
and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The
U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i
did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public
who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for
profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the
"public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply
choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry
against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment
roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough
buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another
time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as
fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia
must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama
(7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders.
We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors,
we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes?
But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going
their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
The British and French circa 200 years.
The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting
This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.
This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men
security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart,
Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats
are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK.
Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.
I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western
outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!
If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people
a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback
seems fully justified.
Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.
How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the
Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's
no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese
Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none
whatsoever).
I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked.
You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the
mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons
one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition
disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.
BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under
the new POtuS.
I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction!
Oh wait, that was already used.
Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy
of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve
to come up with the term 'fake news'.
Hypocrisy at its finest
Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops,
warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United
States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the
integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence
to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect
on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question
the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
I do Holiday cards too.
Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer
network, including the voter registration database.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary
of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack
Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....
Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:
The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive
at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of
the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and
will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.
..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would
be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity,
not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite
undisturbed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news
/
Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third
Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe
population!Lol
I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.
The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.
One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.
It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.
"Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."
The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.
Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists
in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.
I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other
countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!
Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!
Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating
that the order came from the Kremlin.
It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering
'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism
in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy
the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand,
I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully
interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best
armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very
powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore
100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential
wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit
of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.
Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy
data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.
None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian,
et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating
enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.
I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating,
resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom.
Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of
misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them
have anything to do with Russia.
I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to
bed, it should be done.
So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?
If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just
better at this? I doubt it.
I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually,
I could'nt care less.
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election
US interference:
COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in
l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
142 more rows
the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
they practically destroyed the country
The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.
This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been
over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they
have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.
The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically
pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.
I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all
this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved
on and nobody cared.
Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people
they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors"
so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here
at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting
so increasingly shrill.
If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them
another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat
this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing
what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his
last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am
making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect
clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption.
after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send
the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the
intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
"Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international
community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear
to President Putin that this is unacceptable."
Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that
is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts
doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't
come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations
of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.
So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some
SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:
9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News
on Tuesday.
Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest
cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,
On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered
a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.
5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers
accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.
June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department
of Defense's network last June.
1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter
accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)
5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data
And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room
is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of
finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted
that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration -
they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did
it" was a convenient distraction.
All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet,
but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by
the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES
it is our duty.
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles
pumped out on today's rag alone.
The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for
war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election"
they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another
illegal war for profit.
There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?
And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing,
" A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."
Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively
makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity
of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow
Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on
the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.
However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for
them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.
Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral
process,
as reported in the NYT :
The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials
that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election
Day."
The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was
borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."
Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing
for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack
against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.
What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream
media against the Russians.
Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians
winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.
I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing
her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the
population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing
compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain
its Empire.
The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.
America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine
and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict
with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market,
money printing by another means.
I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on
Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed
doors while we are clear to do so publically.
The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no
one felt it a big deal at the time.
Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well,
use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as
though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"
The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.
..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological
know-how and research."
Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are
right because it's not what's going on.
It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.
But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it
instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered.
How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle
east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective
needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor
of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously
rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't
be in the realm of possibility.
I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S.
intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more
than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have,
as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is
quite possibly "fake news".
Russia did this, Russia did that
its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
you have cried wolf to many times
stop trying to manipulate us
When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western
failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House
suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied
" Wiki
Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime
" US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.
Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!
Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it.
Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?
If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary
would have lost by a landslide.
1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
etc
Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!
"..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States
of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter
anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.
Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating
if the other team does it.
Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the
worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!
"... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
"... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
"... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
"... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
"... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
"... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
"... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
"... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
"... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
"... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
"... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
"... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
"... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
"... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
"... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
"... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
"... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
"... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's
involvement in US politics?
The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.
The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.
As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.
Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media
bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion
that is being suggested.
And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set
up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table
modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments
that could fuckup ARM based computers.
Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become
a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside
the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists
fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support
for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped
Putin wiped the terrorists out...
Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists
in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege
Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates'
in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.
I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as
he deserves.
I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
Cheers!
The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign
in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake
stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along."
The Globe and Mail.
No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot
multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.
Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new...
Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing
are getting interesting...
"If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is
based on sheer lies. "
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they
will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
"Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
"This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about
their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."
We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that
the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C.
pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.
And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.
"It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are
both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump
in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the
most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine
Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."
(Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and
gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across
the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)
Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise
and completely unprovoked .
To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics
of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")
This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed
masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right
under their noses.
and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
So it's true because the CIA said so.
That's the gold standard for me.
So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.
Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.
I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
Happy Christmas, Vlad.
Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political
parties with one fell swoop that way.
The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling
in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result
is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
Where's the gap in this logic:
A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time --
unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that
if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really
this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a
right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling
someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank
you Democratic party.
I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would
we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?
I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the
US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored
some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with
respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of
its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.
If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including
CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.
If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd
say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.
First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that
there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence"
officials. In other words, fake news at this point.
Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen.
Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.
This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the
time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts
about our ruling class.
This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That
fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some
so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.
>> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the
election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.
What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary
so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided
press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the
BS and voted for trump. Good for them.
And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking
story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who
hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.
Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote,
then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking
simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely
disinformation used by US agencies.
Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently
on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College
vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."
When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint
statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.
This is very telling:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona
are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."
Alleged:
adjective [attributive]
said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality
Consistent:
adjective
acting or done in the same way over time
Method:
noun
a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something
Motivation:
noun
a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way
So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?
Well what we can tell is:
the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations
(and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.
There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.
Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone
strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to
do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed
into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies
working against humanity for very many years.
This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.
The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping
away from them.
This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.
What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame
the Russians for it.
The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.
American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes
is one small incident from either side.
And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall
St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.
They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.
This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually
make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in
2020.
I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood
and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win
have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!
I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.
Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather
a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove
the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.
Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy
is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved
into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by
former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential
candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones
from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle
in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon.
The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in
the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well
as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large
listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."
Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite
the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups
etc. etc. etc
Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their
billions of funding.
So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA
are going to publish then think again.
During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy
alliance after the election
Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a
muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation
that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to
stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution
caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson
..
"We are Not calling into question the election results"
next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF
What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep.
who almost managed to have his tie done up..
I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)
Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during
and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!
His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --
People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are
in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.
Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed
up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..
blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..
Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just
over month ago.. whoosh!
It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!
And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..
Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
********
Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.
As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!
Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama
continues to resist, or loose face completely..
Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no
legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect
of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!
Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
& Obama is guilty!
The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them
gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or
otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access
etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration,
they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom
Cobbly.
In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the
perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.
The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in
terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as
the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still,
in truth, all is never fair in love or war
.....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated
policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's
position in those upcoming policy battles.
At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward
imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels,
and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence
or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it. http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected
/
Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:
Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.
This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian
"Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.
Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying
people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not
being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong
here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.
Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal
data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.
Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.
IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide
the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about
knowing vulnerabilities.
That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such
an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.
The standard sequence of events is thus:
Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.
If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot
on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP
or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.
The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because
the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.
The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated
privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't
matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints
will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document
what got damaged.
The correct IT manager response is thus:
Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without
exposing the innards of the system.
Lock down misconfigured network systems.
Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions
are controlled via capabilities.
Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential
service.
If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line
of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password
control system to ban bad passwords.
It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled
attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow
such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.
If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections,
perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have
won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign
power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably
more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US
soldiers could never be caught doing!!!
They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US
armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the
the cat out of the bag!!!
Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As
the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if
China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM
EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW:
POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's
reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit
from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo
> Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC
POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent
of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ...
Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is
NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether
Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check
out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons."
http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE
Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which
makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..
Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!
She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.
Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this
time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet
security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have
hacked their security regularly.
In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public
specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity
in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."
Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise.
Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess
not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I
had leading or potentially leading my country.
Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting
flesh.
Don't believe any of this at all.
American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they
really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal
or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results
based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down
in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well
done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
"CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "
You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to
influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say
that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.
So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment,
including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled
the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of
her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost.
But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling
the playing field a bit
The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources'
are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats
guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted
to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias
regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement
is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that
folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...
Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants
this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political
shenanigans.
Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years
ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.
This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.
Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.
Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried
to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.
if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is
a real mess in this case.
Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA
yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?
Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical,
vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too?
Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.
Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes...
and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as
usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that
they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered
past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections,
but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have
beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep
the demonstrators off the streets.
If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's
even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal
hygiene.
The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.
Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral
systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).
The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the
election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.
Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western
nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go
to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced
that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.
I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.
It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama
achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.
The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables,
the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.
It was Hillary Clinton.
Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting,
behave like an adult.
As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for
you.
What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande,
Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha!
- you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old
kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.
I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your
side of politics.
It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist,
bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting
down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean
to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities.
Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.
You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the
other side to your one-sided argument.
Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted
down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.
There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged
by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians
taking over our institutions.
Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become
the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.
Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we
had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.
Trump won the election! Get over it!
Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond
in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when
you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of
people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis
that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
It's just a sad situation
Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful
secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline,
but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist
in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership
and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.
Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type
of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.
Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial
Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.
If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet,
Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists
and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires
get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
Viva China , is far from Latin America
So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions
in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is
no industry.
No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed
foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited
this man child is to public office.
Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words
reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the
equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking
gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations.
Are they wrong too?
I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia
conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists,
particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens
of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing
crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences
of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated
that did not result from Russian hacks
Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed
to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has
been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after
all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame
yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar
and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The
U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i
did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public
who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for
profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the
"public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply
choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry
against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment
roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough
buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another
time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as
fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia
must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama
(7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders.
We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors,
we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes?
But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going
their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
The British and French circa 200 years.
The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting
This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.
This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men
security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart,
Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats
are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK.
Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.
I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western
outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!
If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people
a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback
seems fully justified.
Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.
How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the
Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's
no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese
Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none
whatsoever).
I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked.
You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the
mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons
one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition
disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.
BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under
the new POtuS.
I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction!
Oh wait, that was already used.
Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy
of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve
to come up with the term 'fake news'.
Hypocrisy at its finest
Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops,
warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United
States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the
integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence
to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect
on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question
the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
I do Holiday cards too.
Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer
network, including the voter registration database.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary
of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack
Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....
Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:
The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive
at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of
the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and
will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.
..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would
be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity,
not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite
undisturbed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news
/
Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third
Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe
population!Lol
I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.
The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.
One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.
It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.
"Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."
The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.
Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists
in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.
I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other
countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!
Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!
Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating
that the order came from the Kremlin.
It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering
'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism
in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy
the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand,
I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully
interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best
armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very
powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore
100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential
wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit
of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.
Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy
data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.
None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian,
et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating
enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.
I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating,
resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom.
Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of
misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them
have anything to do with Russia.
I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to
bed, it should be done.
So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?
If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just
better at this? I doubt it.
I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually,
I could'nt care less.
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election
US interference:
COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in
l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
142 more rows
the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
they practically destroyed the country
The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.
This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been
over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they
have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.
The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically
pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.
I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all
this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved
on and nobody cared.
Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people
they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors"
so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here
at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting
so increasingly shrill.
If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them
another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat
this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing
what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his
last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am
making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect
clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption.
after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send
the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the
intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
"Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international
community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear
to President Putin that this is unacceptable."
Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that
is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts
doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't
come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations
of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.
So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some
SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:
9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News
on Tuesday.
Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest
cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,
On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered
a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.
5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers
accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.
June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department
of Defense's network last June.
1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter
accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)
5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data
And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room
is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of
finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted
that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration -
they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did
it" was a convenient distraction.
All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet,
but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by
the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES
it is our duty.
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles
pumped out on today's rag alone.
The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for
war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election"
they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another
illegal war for profit.
There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?
And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing,
" A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."
Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively
makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity
of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow
Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on
the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.
However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for
them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.
Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral
process,
as reported in the NYT :
The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials
that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election
Day."
The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was
borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."
Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing
for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack
against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.
What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream
media against the Russians.
Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians
winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.
I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing
her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the
population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing
compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain
its Empire.
The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.
America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine
and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict
with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market,
money printing by another means.
I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on
Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed
doors while we are clear to do so publically.
The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no
one felt it a big deal at the time.
Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well,
use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as
though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"
The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.
..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological
know-how and research."
Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are
right because it's not what's going on.
It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.
But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it
instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered.
How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle
east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective
needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor
of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously
rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't
be in the realm of possibility.
I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S.
intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more
than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have,
as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is
quite possibly "fake news".
Russia did this, Russia did that
its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
you have cried wolf to many times
stop trying to manipulate us
When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western
failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House
suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied
" Wiki
Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime
" US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.
Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!
Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it.
Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?
If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary
would have lost by a landslide.
1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
etc
Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!
"..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States
of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter
anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.
Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating
if the other team does it.
Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the
worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!
"... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
"... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
"... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
"... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
"... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
"... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
"... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
"... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
"... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
"... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
"... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
"... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
"... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
"... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
"... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
"... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
"... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
"... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's
involvement in US politics?
The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.
The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.
As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.
Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media
bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion
that is being suggested.
And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set
up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table
modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments
that could fuckup ARM based computers.
Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become
a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside
the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists
fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support
for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped
Putin wiped the terrorists out...
Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists
in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege
Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates'
in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.
I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as
he deserves.
I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
Cheers!
The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign
in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
"Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state."
― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake
stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along."
The Globe and Mail.
No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot
multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.
Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new...
Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing
are getting interesting...
"If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is
based on sheer lies. "
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they
will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
R. D. Laing
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
"Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
"This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about
their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."
We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that
the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C.
pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.
And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.
"It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are
both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump
in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the
most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine
Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."
(Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and
gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across
the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)
Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise
and completely unprovoked .
To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics
of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")
This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed
masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right
under their noses.
and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
So it's true because the CIA said so.
That's the gold standard for me.
So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.
Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.
I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
Happy Christmas, Vlad.
Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political
parties with one fell swoop that way.
The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling
in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result
is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
Where's the gap in this logic:
A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time --
unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that
if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really
this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a
right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling
someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank
you Democratic party.
I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would
we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?
I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the
US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored
some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with
respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of
its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.
If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including
CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.
If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd
say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.
First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that
there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence"
officials. In other words, fake news at this point.
Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen.
Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.
This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the
time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts
about our ruling class.
This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That
fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some
so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.
>> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the
election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.
What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary
so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided
press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the
BS and voted for trump. Good for them.
And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking
story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who
hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.
Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote,
then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking
simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely
disinformation used by US agencies.
Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently
on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College
vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."
When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint
statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.
This is very telling:
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona
are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."
Alleged:
adjective [attributive]
said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality
Consistent:
adjective
acting or done in the same way over time
Method:
noun
a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something
Motivation:
noun
a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way
So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?
Well what we can tell is:
the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations
(and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.
There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.
Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone
strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to
do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed
into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies
working against humanity for very many years.
This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.
The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping
away from them.
This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.
What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame
the Russians for it.
The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.
American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes
is one small incident from either side.
And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall
St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.
They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.
This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually
make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in
2020.
I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood
and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win
have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!
I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.
Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather
a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove
the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.
Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy
is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved
into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by
former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential
candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones
from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle
in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon.
The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in
the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well
as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large
listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."
Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite
the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups
etc. etc. etc
Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their
billions of funding.
So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA
are going to publish then think again.
During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy
alliance after the election
Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a
muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation
that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to
stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution
caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson
..
"We are Not calling into question the election results"
next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF
What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep.
who almost managed to have his tie done up..
I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)
Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during
and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!
His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --
People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are
in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.
Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed
up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..
blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..
Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just
over month ago.. whoosh!
It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!
And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..
Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
********
Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.
As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!
Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama
continues to resist, or loose face completely..
Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no
legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect
of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!
Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
& Obama is guilty!
The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them
gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or
otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access
etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration,
they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom
Cobbly.
In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the
perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.
The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in
terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as
the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still,
in truth, all is never fair in love or war
.....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated
policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's
position in those upcoming policy battles.
At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward
imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels,
and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence
or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it. http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected
/
Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:
Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.
This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian
"Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.
Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying
people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not
being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong
here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.
Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal
data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.
Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.
IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide
the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about
knowing vulnerabilities.
That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such
an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.
The standard sequence of events is thus:
Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.
If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot
on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP
or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.
The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because
the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.
The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated
privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't
matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints
will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document
what got damaged.
The correct IT manager response is thus:
Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without
exposing the innards of the system.
Lock down misconfigured network systems.
Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions
are controlled via capabilities.
Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential
service.
If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line
of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password
control system to ban bad passwords.
It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled
attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow
such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.
If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections,
perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have
won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign
power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably
more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US
soldiers could never be caught doing!!!
They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US
armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the
the cat out of the bag!!!
Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As
the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if
China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM
EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW:
POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's
reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit
from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo
> Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC
POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent
of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ...
Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is
NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether
Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check
out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons."
http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE
Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which
makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..
Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!
She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.
Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this
time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet
security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have
hacked their security regularly.
In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public
specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity
in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."
Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise.
Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess
not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I
had leading or potentially leading my country.
Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting
flesh.
Don't believe any of this at all.
American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they
really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal
or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results
based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down
in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well
done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
"CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "
You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to
influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say
that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.
So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment,
including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled
the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of
her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost.
But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling
the playing field a bit
The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources'
are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats
guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted
to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias
regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement
is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that
folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...
Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants
this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political
shenanigans.
Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years
ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.
This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.
Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.
Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried
to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.
if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is
a real mess in this case.
Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA
yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?
Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical,
vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too?
Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.
Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes...
and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as
usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that
they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered
past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections,
but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have
beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep
the demonstrators off the streets.
If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's
even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal
hygiene.
The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.
Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral
systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).
The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the
election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.
Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western
nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.
Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go
to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced
that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.
I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.
It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama
achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.
The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables,
the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.
It was Hillary Clinton.
Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting,
behave like an adult.
As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for
you.
What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande,
Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha!
- you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old
kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.
I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your
side of politics.
It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist,
bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting
down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean
to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities.
Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.
You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the
other side to your one-sided argument.
Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted
down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.
There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged
by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians
taking over our institutions.
Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become
the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.
Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we
had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.
Trump won the election! Get over it!
Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer
appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be
detectable.
In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any
occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much
emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.
In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the
traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is
preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There
are some nice logs of the NSA using this.
In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S.
even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.
In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same
thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses
who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious,
it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.
In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole
or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines
are in botnets.
In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing
in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled
the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.
So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They
are 100% untraceable.
Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond
in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when
you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of
people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis
that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
It's just a sad situation
Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful
secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline,
but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist
in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership
and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.
Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type
of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.
Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial
Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.
If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet,
Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists
and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires
get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
Viva China , is far from Latin America
So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions
in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is
no industry.
No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed
foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited
this man child is to public office.
Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words
reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the
equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking
gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations.
Are they wrong too?
I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia
conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists,
particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens
of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing
crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences
of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated
that did not result from Russian hacks
Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed
to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has
been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after
all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame
yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar
and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The
U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i
did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public
who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for
profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the
"public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply
choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry
against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment
roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough
buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another
time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.
Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that
alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.
Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta
was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian
front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position
on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.
As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt
to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties
to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars,
including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies
with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked
on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a
high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."
Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as
fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia
must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama
(7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders.
We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors,
we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes?
But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going
their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
The British and French circa 200 years.
The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting
This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.
This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men
security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart,
Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats
are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK.
Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.
I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western
outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!
If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people
a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback
seems fully justified.
Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.
How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the
Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's
no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese
Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none
whatsoever).
I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked.
You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the
mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons
one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition
disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.
BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under
the new POtuS.
I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction!
Oh wait, that was already used.
Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy
of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve
to come up with the term 'fake news'.
Hypocrisy at its finest
Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops,
warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United
States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the
integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence
to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect
on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question
the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
I do Holiday cards too.
Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer
network, including the voter registration database.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary
of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack
Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....
Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:
The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive
at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of
the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet
Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and
will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.
..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would
be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook
cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity,
not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite
undisturbed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news
/
Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third
Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe
population!Lol
I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.
The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.
One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.
It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.
"Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party
about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."
The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.
Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists
in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.
I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other
countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!
Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!
Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating
that the order came from the Kremlin.
It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering
'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism
in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy
the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand,
I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully
interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best
armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very
powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore
100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential
wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit
of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.
Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy
data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.
None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian,
et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating
enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.
I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating,
resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom.
Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of
misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them
have anything to do with Russia.
I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to
bed, it should be done.
So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?
If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just
better at this? I doubt it.
I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually,
I could'nt care less.
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election
US interference:
COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in
l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
142 more rows
the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
they practically destroyed the country
The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.
This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been
over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they
have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.
The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically
pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.
I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all
this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved
on and nobody cared.
Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people
they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors"
so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here
at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting
so increasingly shrill.
If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them
another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat
this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing
what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his
last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am
making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect
clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption.
after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send
the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the
intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
"Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international
community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear
to President Putin that this is unacceptable."
Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that
is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts
doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't
come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations
of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.
So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some
SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:
9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News
on Tuesday.
Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest
cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,
On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered
a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.
5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers
accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.
June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department
of Defense's network last June.
1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter
accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)
5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data
And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room
is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of
finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted
that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration -
they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did
it" was a convenient distraction.
All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet,
but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by
the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES
it is our duty.
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles
pumped out on today's rag alone.
The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for
war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election"
they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another
illegal war for profit.
There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?
And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing,
" A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."
Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively
makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity
of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow
Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on
the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.
However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for
them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.
Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral
process,
as reported in the NYT :
The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials
that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election
Day."
The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was
borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."
Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing
for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack
against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.
What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream
media against the Russians.
Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians
winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.
I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing
her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the
population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing
compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain
its Empire.
The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.
America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine
and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict
with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market,
money printing by another means.
I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on
Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed
doors while we are clear to do so publically.
The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no
one felt it a big deal at the time.
Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well,
use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as
though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"
The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.
..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological
know-how and research."
Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are
right because it's not what's going on.
It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.
But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it
instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered.
How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle
east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective
needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor
of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously
rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't
be in the realm of possibility.
I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S.
intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more
than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have,
as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is
quite possibly "fake news".
Russia did this, Russia did that
its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
you have cried wolf to many times
stop trying to manipulate us
When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western
failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House
suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied
" Wiki
Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime
" US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.
Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!
Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference
Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!
Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it.
Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?
If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary
would have lost by a landslide.
1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
etc
Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!
"..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States
of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter
anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.
Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating
if the other team does it.
Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the
worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!
"... it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. ..."
"... I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up. ..."
"... Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up some establishment sphincters :) ..."
"... Oh OIFVet, do you know where this line of snark is leading? Next, the NC will be "mischaracterized" as Stalin's News Organ! ..."
... Anyway, concerned by number of supposedly educated friends(Clinton supporters) being
taken in by this fake news/Russian ties thing. They've lost their heads and there's no discussing
it with them, they are convinced. Where does it end? Na zdorovie!
it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. somebody
referred to invasion of the body snatchers on nc the other day, that's the only logical explanation.
I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the
sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up.
Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up
some establishment sphincters :)
"... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
"... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
"... "How America Was Lost" ..."
"... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
"... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
"... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
"... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
"... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
"... "historical turning point," ..."
"... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
"... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
"... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
"... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
"... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
"... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
"... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the
"world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.
The former
US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his
blog
that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's
control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."
Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in
Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."
The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant
propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic
alliance."
Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK,
Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of
world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."
"On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country
with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe
finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our
likely future."
Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts
who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were
there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of
Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents
– 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
"Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia
that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out
of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."
The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played
by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate
and alienate Russia.
Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary
of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States
of America for their contribution to the victory.'"
The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we
are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"
While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake
that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
France Probes Any Moscow Role in Yellow-Vest Movement
Matthew Walther The failure and delusions of the adults in the room 
Matthew Walther The 2020 Democratic frontrunner is a Republican
Canova Contests The Results Of Congressional Race Against Wasserman-Schultz, Calls For Revote
Former Trump
campaign adviser targeted by Mueller for his appearances on RT
©
Photo : Screenshot Screenshot
© Photo : Screenshot
Screenshot
© Sputnik / Vitaly
Belousov UK Integrity
Initiative Project Aims to Damage Russia's Public Image - Lavrov
FILE PHOTO: Haley
laughing with her Russian counterpart at the UN Vassily Nebenzia © Reuters/Lucas Jackson
Haley takes part in
Venezuelans' anti-Maduro protest in New York on September 27, 2018 © AFP/Jim Watson
'Treason or
fake news?' Trump urges NYT to reveal its White House 'resistance' insider
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security and the vote for a voluminous
anti-terrorist Code which had been drawn up long beforehand, the USA Patriot
Act. For affairs which the administration itself qualifies as " terrorist ",
this text suspends the Bill of Rights which was the glory of your country. It
unbalances your institutions. Two centuries later, it validates the triumph
of the great landowners who wrote the Constitution, and the defeat of the heroes
of the War of Independence who demanded that the Bill of Rights must be added.
US troops
during nuclear tests in Nevada. April 1952 © Intercontinentale / AFP 3050 12 Plans for a
nuclear war devised by the US Army in the 1960s considered decimating the Soviet Union and
China by destroying their industrial potential and wiping out the bulk of their populations,
newly declassified documents show.
Despite US denial, nuclear posture review revolves around Russia
?
Russia to retaliate
if Washington bans Aeroflot flights to US
No Russian
interference in Brexit referendum - YouTube exec tells parliamentary committee (VIDEO)
'Son of b***h
got fired': Joe Biden forced Ukraine to sack prosecutor general 'in six hours'
© Wiktor
Dabkowski / Global Look Press You'd have to have a real sense of humor failure not to laugh.
The news that US billionaire Soros donated £400k to an anti-Brexit group came on the day
that YouTube said they found no evidence of Russian interference in Brexit. Repeat After Me
(with robotic arm movements): "Unproven Russian involvement in Brexit – terrible!
Impose more sanctions on Moscow! A £400k check from an American billionaire for an
anti-Brexit campaigning group – that's no problem; it's helping our democracy!"
Soros-backed
anti-Brexit group is 'undemocratic' – cofounder Gina Miller
After Magnitsky: Dead
lawyer's boss Browder and his legal hurdles – now in US
Russia slaps
travel ban on 5 US ex-officials over 'legalization of torture'
Key
Magnitsky case witness may have been poisoned – report
The passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has refuted any notion that
Trump's ascension to the White House would mark an end to neoliberalism. Poor whites who
supported Trump expected him to offer America a new version of conservativism that would break
with neoliberalism. Instead, furthering neoliberal policies has become a critical objective
that works in tandem with Trump's xenophobic rhetoric
Michael McFaul and
Hillary Clinton in 2016. / Reuters
If Mueller
investigation sends official request to question suspects, Russia will do that - Putin
Ryan Cooper Trump vs. the West 
Damon Linker How conservative media taught Trump to trash NATO
Russia should be
back in G7 as 'we spend 25% of time' talking about it anyway – Trump
'Marx would be
turning in his grave' – Britain's UN envoy appears to think she's debating Soviets
'Wasting taxpayers'
money': Lawyer Veselnitskaya talks Trump's dossier & Fusion GPS
'Weapon of mass
suppression': Russiagate now used to target any dissent in US – Max Blumenthal
President Trump, second from right, speaks in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Monday. (Susan Walsh/AP)
Entangling
alliances or scoring at home? Why US went out of its way with Russian diplomat expulsions
US geographical combatant commands / Wikipedia
US indicts 13
Russians for 2016 election meddling, but 'no allegations' they influenced outcome
Vladimir Anikeyev /
Photo: anikeevv/vk.com
Not long after Gerasimov's resignation at the end of January, reports emerged from numerous
Kremlin-linked media outlets in what appeared to be a coordinated flood of information and
disinformation about the arrests of senior TsIB officers. One of the cyber unit's operational
directors, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested toward the end of last year along with his deputy,
Dmitri Dokuchaev, and charged with treason. Also arrested around the same time was Ruslan
Stoyanov, the chief investigator for Kaspersky Lab, which is the primary cybersecurity
contractor for the TsIB. There is much conjecture, but Mikhailov was apparently forcibly
removed from a meeting with fellow FSB officers -- escorted out with a bag over his head, so
the story goes -- and arrested. This is thought to have taken place some time around Dec. 5.
His deputy, a well-respected computer hacker recruited by the FSB, was reportedly last seen in
November. Kaspersky Lab's Stoyanov was a career cybersecurity professional, previously working
for the Indrik computer crime investigation firm and the Interior Ministry's computer crime
unit. Novaya Gazeta, a Kremlin-linked media outlet, reported that two other unnamed FSB
computer security officers were also detained. Theories, Accusations and Rumors
70mn cyberattacks,
mostly foreign, targeted Russia's critical infrastructure in 2016 – FSB
